Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="DonnaML, post: 8120677, member: 110350"]#3, continued: <img src="https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/upload_2021-5-16_22-11-9-png.1305116/" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> It is certainly worthy of note that the American Journal of Numismatics review of Evans’s book, by William Metcalf, agrees with her interpretation: <a href="https://archive.org/stream/AJNSecond1993Vols05to06/AJNSecond1993Vols05to06_djvu.txt" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://archive.org/stream/AJNSecond1993Vols05to06/AJNSecond1993Vols05to06_djvu.txt" rel="nofollow">https://archive.org/stream/AJNSecond1993Vols05to06/AJNSecond1993Vols05to06_djvu.txt</a> American Journal of Numismatics 5-6, 1993-1994, Second Series (1995) at p. 251: Book Review, William E. Metcalf, The American Numismatic Society p. 253: “Evans is quite correct to point out that scholars have too frequently conferred genealogies on moneyers without considering that a coin image using figures from the early history of Rome might be more easily understood as a social or political statement. The bulk of Evans’ book consists of a series of chapters that groupvarious images from monuments and coins around such general themesas Aeneas, the she-wolf and twins, Romulus, the Forum Augustum, theSabines and Rome, Numa Pompilius and Ancus Marcius, and Brutus. Ineach chapter, Evans summarizes Republican and Augustan images asso-ciated with the particular figure or legend and suggests possible reasonsfor using the theme. I believe that Evans is correct in identifying thescene on the reverse of a denarius of M. Herennius (Crawford 308/1) as Aeneas carrying Anchises rather than one of the brothers from Catana who carried their parents away from the dangers of Mt. Etna in eruption. Both stories are exempla of Pietas, the deity depicted on the coin’s obverse, but showing only one man carrying a parent is more likely to bring to mind the story of Aeneas than that of the Sicilian brothers. Although the coin type is a little different from the one traditionally associated with Aeneas and Anchises, Evans’ plates demonstrate graphically that it is almost identical with two later types more securely connected with the Aeneas story. Although scholars have traditionally identified the legend represented on Herennius’s coins as that of the Sicilian brothers and rejected any link with Aeneas, I think they have placed too much weight on the possible connection between the moneyer and a M. Herennius Siculus.” (Emphasis added) In a 2014 blog post, Prof. Liv Mariah Yarrow also mentions the M. Herennius denarius and Jane DeRose Evans’s argument that it portrays Aeneas and Anchises rather than the generally-accepted view that it illustrates the Catanaean brothers story. See <a href="https://livyarrow.org/2014/02/07/catanaean-brothers/" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://livyarrow.org/2014/02/07/catanaean-brothers/" rel="nofollow">https://livyarrow.org/2014/02/07/catanaean-brothers/</a>: “I’m trying to make up my mind whether I think RRC 308/1 represents one of the Catanaean Brothers as most scholars think or if I am swayed at all by Evans’ claim that it is really Aeneas. Above is a coin of Catana showing the brothers. Here is the Republican coin: [photos omitted] [Extended quotations follow from the ancient sources for the Catanaean brothers story, including Hyginus’s list of “Those Who Were Exceptionally Dutiful” -- including both Aeneas and the Catanaean brothers -- and the anonymous poem Aetna] . . . Can you represent just one Catanaean brother? There are other coins of Catana that show just one brother and parent per side, but they are still both there . . . . What would the contemporary Roman have seen? Perhaps either narrative? I’m not willing to follow Evans wholeheartedly but some doubt seems warranted.” Although it has been argued (see the Berdowski chapter quoted below, etc.) that the M. Herennius coin cannot have been intended to portray Aeneas because he was never portrayed as nude when carrying Anchises on art produced before the coin, such as on Greek vases, the fact that he was portrayed nude on later Roman coins generally accepted as portraying Aeneas would certainly seem to refute any notion that a nude portrayal of Aeneas was culturally out of place. See these examples (not mine) of Crawford 458 (Julius Caesar denarius) and Crawford 494/3b (Octavian aureus), both with reverses identified by Crawford as showing Aeneas and Anchises: <img src="https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/upload_2021-5-16_22-18-35-png.1305126/" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> <img src="https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/upload_2021-5-16_22-25-25-png.1305138/" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> (Also not mine!) Note the especially strong resemblance between the design of the reverse on the Octavian aureus and the design of the M. Herennius coin, with both showing a father sitting on a nude son’s left shoulder, looking back towards the departed home. By contrast, the Sextus Pompeius coin indisputably portraying the Catanaean brothers (Crawford 511) shows both brothers and both parents, with Pater pointing at Mater rather than at Mt. Etna! <img src="https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/upload_2021-5-16_22-26-17-png.1305140/" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> But see Claire Rowan, From Caesar to Augustus (c. 49 BC - AD 14), Using Coins as Sources (Cambridge 2019) at p. 76, which, if accepted, would completely negate the impact of the resemblance between the Octavian and M. Herennius coins: she argues that the Octavian coin, in fact, also portrays one of the Catanaean brothers rather than Aeneas: <img src="https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/upload_2021-5-16_22-27-0-png.1305141/" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> However, this identification has certainly not been generally accepted. It not only ignores the fact that the Sextus Pompeius coin shows both brothers, but uses an assumption that the M. Herennius coin illustrates the Catanaean brothers story as supposed evidence that the Octavian coin also does so. To then turn around and use the latter identification as evidence of the former would seem somewhat circular. The most extended “post-Evans” attempt to present the case for the Catanaean brothers interpretation that I have found (at least in English) is the chapter by Piotr Berdowski of Rzeszów in Poland, entitled “Pietas erga patriam: ideology and politics in Rome in the early first century BC. The evidence from coins and glandes inscriptae,” published as part of the book Within the Circle of Ancient Ideas and Virtues, Studies in Honour of Professor Maria Dzielska (Krakow 2014), at pp. 143-160, with the discussion of the M. Herennius denarius at pp. 145-150. Here are the most relevant portions, with the numerous footnotes omitted except where indicated: “The belief that the reverse of the denarius of M. Herennius displays one of the Catanian Brothers is commonly accepted by scholars, though there is also an alternative interpretation, whose supporters see on the Herennius’ coin Aeneas with his father Anchises. In my opinion there is no reason to question the traditional interpretation. The arguments doubly weigh in favour of the Catanian Brothers. Firstly, the iconographic analysis of the scene from the coin as well as its comparison to representations of the Catanian Brothers and Aeneas in the art and coinage of the previous periods point to the identification of Amphinomos and Anapias. Secondly, the political context for the use of Pietas on the obverse of Herennius’ coin and image of the young man with his parent on the reverse favours one of the Catanian Brothers instead of Aeneas. Claudia Perassi presented an in‑depth analysis of the iconography of the reverse of M. Herennius’ coin in her article [in Italian] published in 1994. It remains the fullest treatment of the scene with the naked young man on Herennius’ denarius. She compared the coin with Catanian coinage (where the scenes of Amphinomos and Anapias together with their parents were popular) and with Greek and Etruscan vase painting of the same subject. Perassi’s findings unequivocally support the traditional identification.The figural scene from Herennius’ denarius (including the gesture of the raised hand by the carried parent) recalls those known from the coins struck in Catana in the third and second century. The inspiration for the Roman moneyer might have come not only from Catanian mints but also from two Hellenistic statues erected in Catania in the place where allegedly lava streams miraculously parted and saved Amphinomos and Anapias with their parents during the Etna eruption. The place was named Χῶρος Εὐσεβῶν (Campus Piorum). The analysis of the scenes with Aeneas and Anchises on Greek and Etruscan vase paintings and other objects also do not present arguments that favour the candidacy of Aeneas as the naked young man. Depictions of naked Aeneas are rare, and — as Perassi stresses — the hero is equipped with some sort of attribute that underlines his status as a warrior. This could be for example a shield, helmet or sword. If the young man on Herennius’ coin was Aeneas the scene would be unique, even in the context of the later coins. [Fn. 18: “Right away I must forestall any possible reservations by reason of the naked Aeneas bearing his father Anchises displayed in the coin minted by Caesar in 47 (RRC 458/1), since Aeneas carries the palladion, and is not deprived of one of his usual attributes.”] In addition, it is worth referring to the study of Karl Galinsky, which shows that representations of Aeneas with Anchises were rare in the “pre-Vergilian époque” (which contrasts with the common representations of the Catanian Brothers), and those which are preserved do not necessarily emphasize the context of pietas erga parentem. As a result, the iconographic analysis is weighted against the identification of Aeneas. The identification of the young man from Herennius’ coin must take into consideration the moneyer himself as well. It was probably Marcus Herennius (cos. 93), who, according to Elizabeth Deniaux, sympathized with the populares. Friedrich Münzer thought that he was the son of Herennius Siculus. Information preserved in Valerius Maximus (9.12.6), tells us that Herennius Siculus was a haruspex and a friend of Caius Sempronius Gracchus. After the latter’s death the elder Herennius was arrested as a supporter of the populares during the persecution organized by L. Opimius (App., BC, 1.25–26; Plut., CG, 13). While being conducted to prison he smashed his head against the doorpost in a gesture of protest and died immediately. This selfdestructive act was a sign of devotion to his friend but at the same time the most expressive gesture possible against the prosecution of his faction and the anarchy in Rome. If Herennius Siculus was the father of M. Herennius who minted the coin, then the presence of Pietas and Amphinomos (or Anapias) on his denarius underlined the commemoration of the heroic deed of his father by the son. Thus we deal here with the pietas erga parentem of M. Herennius towards his father. To stress this filial piety Herennius appealed to the Catanian Brothers. Because the tradition of the Catanian Brothers was universal, it fit‑ ted perfectly into Herennius’ purpose, regardless of whether the Herenni had any connections to Sicily or not. One can argue that the scene of Aeneas with Anchises might serve the same purpose. Theoretically it could, but the arguments presented above show that it is unlikely. Above all, it is hard to see any reason why M. Herennius might have chosen Aeneas. Even if the link between the gens Herennia and Sicily is — at worst — fragile, one can see no connection with the Trojan tradition of Aeneas at all. . . . One should also mention the idea of Jane DeRose Evans, who supports the presence on Herennius’ coin of Aeneas instead of the Catanian Brothers. She sees a link between Herennius’ coin and the events of bellum sociale: [Quotation from Evans]: ‘By portraying pietas on his coin’s obverse, Herennius may not only have been stress‑ ing Aeneas’ act, but also alluding to the impiety of attempts to break alliances with Rome, as Fregellae did soon after the coins were minted. Aeneas would be a figure of unity to the Italian peoples, because Aeneas founded Alba Longa, the Italian city that eventually combined its peoples with those of Rome.’ The part of this interpretation having to do with the use of the image of Aeneas is not convincing, even if the notion of piety works for either of the figural identification. Evans herself admits that it is hard to make any link between the gens Herennia and Aeneas (she thinks that M. Herennius chose Aeneas because of the universal overtone of pietas associated with this Greco‑Roman hero). Yet, it is hard to see as many con‑ vincingly political and ideological reasons for the use of Aeneas by Herennius as the Catanian Brothers have much richer association with the various kinds of pietas.” People can draw their own conclusions. But a few things occur to me about Berdowski’s argument. First, he dismisses the naked Aeneas on the Julius Caesar coin because Aeneas holds an identifying Palladium, but ignores the naked Aeneas on the Octavian aureus, who holds nothing but his father. Second, I’m not sure I agree with Berdowski’s statement that an “iconographic analysis of the scene from the coin as well as its comparison to representations of the Catanian Brothers and Aeneas in the art and coinage of the previous periods point to the identification of Amphinomos and Anapias.” In terms of the coinage of previous periods, he ignores the fact that there are no Catanian coins portraying only one brother instead of two; it is Herennius’s coin that would be unique in that respect if it were intended to represent the Catanaean brothers. (See Prof. Yarrow’s comment above.) For example, each of these two Catanian coins from Wildwinds (both of which significantly pre-date the Herennius coin), portrays both brothers, albeit one on each side for one of them: <img src="https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/upload_2021-5-16_22-28-42-png.1305142/" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> <img src="https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/upload_2021-5-16_22-29-3-png.1305143/" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> Also, I’m not sure it’s entirely accurate or reasonable to conclude that “representations of Aeneas with Anchises were rare in the ‘pre-Vergilian époque'” (at least for art outside the numismatic context) and that “it is hard to make any link between the gens Herennia and Aeneas” or to think of a reason why the moneyer might have used the Aeneas/Anchises story on his denarius. Berdowski seems to have disregarded the significance of the fact that not only was the family Etruscan, but that Herennius Siculus was apparently a haruspex, i.e., a diviner -- a quintessentially Etruscan occupation. And seems to ignore the specific significance of Aeneas to the Etruscans as a “founder hero,” long before he had that role in Roman mythology. See, e.g., Aeneas before Virgil: Early Greek sources about the Trojan hero, at <a href="https://www.ancientworldmagazine.com/articles/aeneas-before-virgil-early-greek-sources-trojan-hero/" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.ancientworldmagazine.com/articles/aeneas-before-virgil-early-greek-sources-trojan-hero/" rel="nofollow">https://www.ancientworldmagazine.com/articles/aeneas-before-virgil-early-greek-sources-trojan-hero/</a>: “From the second half of the sixth century, there are a considerable amount of Attic black-figure vases that depict Aeneas carrying his father Anchises to safety. Sometimes a child is also present; one assumes it must be Ascanius. A woman is often present, leading the way; perhaps she is to be identified as Creusa, Aeneas’ wife. Creusa was also a daughter of Priam and Hecuba (and therefore destined to die at Troy). It should be noted that most of these black-figure vases were found in Etruria and were perhaps deliberatedly made for the Etruscan market, for example if the Etruscans already considered Aeneas a founder hero.” (Emphasis added.) See also, e.g., <a href="https://www.ascs.org.au/news/ascs32/Mountford.pdf" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.ascs.org.au/news/ascs32/Mountford.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.ascs.org.au/news/ascs32/Mountford.pdf</a> (“This paper establishes that there existed a considerable interest in the story of theescape of Aeneas and Anchises from Troy in southern Etruria in the last two decades of the sixth century B.C. It considers the Attic vases and Etruscan clay figurines which support this view”); <a href="https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3-euw1-ap-pe-ws4-cws-documents.ri-prod/9781138776685/The%20Image%20of%20Aeneas.pdf" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3-euw1-ap-pe-ws4-cws-documents.ri-prod/9781138776685/The%20Image%20of%20Aeneas.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3-euw1-ap-pe-ws4-cws-documents.ri-prod/9781138776685/The Image of Aeneas.pdf</a>. I present one example of such a vase, an Attic black-figure cup showing Aeneas & Anchises, manufactured ca. 520 BCE, displayed at the Louvre, Dept. of Greek, Etruscan & Roman Antiquities, Sully, 1st floor, room 42, case 13: <img src="https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/upload_2021-5-16_22-30-20-png.1305145/" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> Where was it found? In Vulci, “a rich and important Etruscan city.” (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulci" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulci" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulci</a>.) Yes, Aeneas is wearing armor, and yes, his son is partly visible behind him, but see how closely the figure of Anchises resembles the father on the M. Herennius denarius -- including his clothing and, most importantly, in the “gesture of the raised hand by the carried parent” as he gazes back at Troy, which Berdowski presents as signaling the Catanian brothers story. Not necessarily, obviously -- especially with one, not two, parents portrayed. I am sure it will never be certain which story is portrayed on the reverse of the M. Herennius denarius, but from reviewing as much secondary literature as I could find, I tend to doubt that the case weighs as strongly in favor of the Catanaean brothers as many scholars believe. I should have added a poll, but in lieu of that, I'll just ask: if anyone has read all this, what do you think the reverse of my new coin portrays: one of the Catanaean brothers and his father, or Aeneas and Anchises? 4.   Roman Republic, L. Aurelius Cotta*, AR serrate Denarius, 105 BCE, Rome Mint. Obv. Draped bust of Vulcan right, wearing conical cap (pileus) bound with laurel wreath, tongs behind shoulder with * [= XVI; mark of value] above; beneath chin, control mark “D” with single pellet below**; all within myrtle-wreath / Rev. Eagle standing three-quarters right on thunderbolt with wings spread and head left; in exergue, L • COT; laurel-wreath around.*** Crawford 314/1b, RSC I Aurelia 21 (ill.); BMCRR 1296, Sydenham 577, Sear RCV I 191 (ill.). 19 mm., 3.74 g. Purchased from Ken Dorney June 2021; with old coin ticket from 1950s/1960s [with Sydenham number but not Crawford]. [ATTACH=full]1413926[/ATTACH] *”The moneyer is presumably L. Aurelius Cotta, Tr. Pl. 103 and Pr. ?95.” Crawford Vol. I p. 322. **The control marks on [314/]1b are the letters of the Latin alphabet, alone or accompanied by up to two dots.” Id. ***”The obverse type [depicting Vulcan] recalls the standard obverse type of the coinage of Lipara, captured by C. Aurelius Cotta, Cos. 252; the reverse type alludes to the triumph celebrated in consequence.” Id. But see Prof. Yarrow’s blog post dated July 17, 2013 (<a href="https://livyarrow.org/2013/07/17/visual-parallels-debunking-historical-allusions/" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://livyarrow.org/2013/07/17/visual-parallels-debunking-historical-allusions/" rel="nofollow">https://livyarrow.org/2013/07/17/visual-parallels-debunking-historical-allusions/</a>), arguing that an examination of the coins of Lipara “doesn’t instill confidence in this claim” (illustration at link). She points instead to an example of a (2nd Century BCE?) bronze coin of Malaka in Spain also portraying Vulcan on the obverse, with Helios on the reverse (illustration also at link), asserting that “the parallel [of the Vulcan on Aurelius Cotta’s coin] with Malaka in Spain is nearly perfect, right down to the wreath and the placement of the tongs behind the head,” and that “I think we can be sure the Spanish coin is the prototype, and not vi[ce] versa, as the Malakan bronze has Punic lettering.”  However, Prof. Yarrow offers no explanation for the moneyer’s theorized choice of a Spanish prototype: “So far I’m hard pressed to find a Cotta with a Spanish connection.  The poor L. Aurelius Cotta, cos. 144, was denied the opportunity to go to Spain (Val. Max. 6.4.2).” Id.  She suggests instead that the image may perhaps have “provided an attractive model for representing Hephaistos, the smith god, for some other reason,” unspecified in her blog post. (This coin does not appear to be discussed in Prof. Yarrow’s new book) 5.  Roman Republic, C. [Gaius] Marius C.f. Capito, AR Serrate Denarius 81 BCE [Harlan: 81/80 BCE], Rome Mint. Obv. Draped bust of Ceres right, wearing earring, head bound with corn wreath, hair falling down neck; CAPIT• upwards behind, with legend followed by control number CI; control symbol (knife [Crawford, Table XXXIII at p. 395 ] or distaff [BMCRR p. 355]) to right of chin* / Rev. Husbandman/plowman left holding goad in right hand and plow in left, with yoke of two oxen plowing left with heads turned to face forward; horizontal test cut and control-number CI above; C•MARI•C•F / S•C [Senatus consulto] on two lines in exergue. Crawford 378/1c; RSC I Maria 9; Sear RCV I 300 (ill.); Sydenham 744b; BMCRR Vol. I 2855-2890 [Control-number CI is no. 2873]; Harlan, Michael, Roman Republican Moneyers and their Coins, 81 BCE-64 BCE (2012) [“RRM I”], Ch. 2 at pp. 8-13. 19 mm., 3.97 g., 10 hr. Purchased Feb. 21, 2021 from Nomos AG, Obolos Auction 18, Lot 468.** <img src="https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/nomos-obolos-auction-18-marius-capito-denarius-control-number-ci-jpg-version-jpg.1404793/" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> *Crawford’s three sub-types of this issue (378/1a-1c) differ in the existence and placement of the control-symbols found on some of the coins in addition to the control-numerals found on all of them (with the obverse and reverse of a coin always bearing the same numeral except in the case of hybrids, which are almost uniformly fourrees). All three sub-types are numbered continuously: 1a bears the control-numerals from I to XXIII (with no control-symbols); 1b the numerals from XXVI to XXXII (with control-symbols in the exergue on the reverse) [examples of XXIV and XXV are not known]; and 1c the numerals from XXXIII to CLI (with control-symbols on the obverse beneath & to the right of Ceres’s chin). (See Crawford Vol. I p. 392; see also Table XXXIII, listing the known control-symbols at pp. 392-395.) Examples with 125 of the 151 conrol-numerals were known to Crawford, on 125 different obverse and reverse dies. Thus, no pair of control-numerals, or combination of control-numeral and control-symbol, has more than on pair of dies, and the seven other examples of Crawford 378/1c with the control-numeral CI found on acsearch are all double-die matches to my example. Since Crawford was published in 1974, at least one coin with a previously unknown control-numeral (LXXXII) has been found, in the Mesagne hoard, bearing a tripod as its control-symbol. ** Regarding the general symbolism of a husbandman plowing with oxen, as depicted on the reverse of this coin, see Jones, John Melville, A Dictionary of Ancient Roman Coins (Seaby 1990) at pp. 121-122 (entry for “Founder”), explaining that the Romans “inherited a custom from the Etruscans of defining the boundaries of a new city by marking them with a plough,” so that certain coins showing plowing can be interpreted as a reference to the founding of colonies. Regarding this coin-type in particular, Grueber states at p. 353 n. 2 of  BMCRR Vol. I that “[t]he type of the head of Ceres [the goddess of agriculture] and the husbandman refers to the foundation of a colony” by Sulla’s veterans. Crawford disagrees, stating at Vol. I p. 392 that “I do not believe that there is any reference to Sulla’s colonies” on these coins, and that the obverse and reverse images simply complement each other. Harlan (see RRM I Ch. 2 at pp. 10-12) disagrees with Crawford and prefers Grueber’s interpretation, stating at p. 12 that this type “not only depicts the expectations of the veterans who were to receive land, but also expounds the benefits to be found in the return to peace, masking in bucolic tranquility the terrible exactions that procured the soldiers’ rewards. Besides the land given to the veterans in those new colonies established among the Italians, Sulla also had to pay his troops their back wages and maintain them until they were discharged. This special S•C issue may well represent some of that money distributed to the soldiers and the design on the coin also may be heralding the expected grants of land.” See also Sear RCV I at p. 128 regarding the S•C in the exergue on the reverse of Crawford 378/1c: “It would seem that during his term of office this moneyer was authorized by the Senate to effect a substantial increase in the originally-produced volume of his coinage.” (The first series of this type [Crawford 378/1a] does not bear the S•C, the only case in the Roman Republican coinage of the S•C being added to a type in the course of production during a given year.) To be continued[/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches