Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="DonnaML, post: 8120782, member: 110350"]9. Roman Republic, M. Nonius Sufenas*, AR Denarius, 59 BCE (or 57 BCE according to Hersh and Walker & Harlan), Rome Mint. Obv. Bearded head of Saturn right, with long hair; behind head, harpa with conical stone (baetyl)** beneath it* and S•C upwards above it; before, SVFENAS downwards / Rev. Roma seated left on pile of shields, holding scepter in right hand and sword in left hand; behind, Victory left, crowning Roma with wreath and holding palm-branch extending behind her over right shoulder; around to left from 4:00, PR•L• - V• - P•F; in exergue, SEX•NONI [The two parts of the reverse legend, together, stand for Sex. Noni[us] pr[aetor] L[udi] V[ictoriae] p[rimus] f[ecit, meaning Sex. Nonius, praetor, first held the games of Victory.].*** Crawford 421/1, RSC Nonia1(ill.), BMCRR 3820, Sear RCV I 377 (ill.), Sydenham 885, Harlan, RRM II Ch. 13 at pp. 104-111[Harlan, Michael, Roman Republican Moneyers and their Coins 63 BCE - 49 BCE (2d ed. 2015)], RBW Collection 1517. 19 mm., 3.95 g.<img src="https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/sufenas-denarius-jpg-version-saturn-roma-crowned-with-trophy-jpg.1404766/" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> *”The moneyer is doubtless M. Nonius Sufenas, Pr. 55.” Crawford Vol. I p. 445. But see Liv Mariah Yarrow, The Roman Republic to 49 BCE: Using Coins as Sources (2021), Fig. 3.53 at p. 158, suggesting that in the alternative, the moneyer was “perhaps his son.” M. Nonius Sufenas’s “father, Sextus Nonius Sufenas, was Sulla’s nephew, making the moneyer Faustus’ first cousin once removed.” Id. (Faustus was Sulla’s son.) See also Harlan RRM II at pp. 109-110. After his term as moneyer, Nonius Sufenas is mentioned in one of Cicero’s letters to Atticus in July 54 BCE: “Now for the news at Rome. On the fourth of July, Sufenas and Cato were acquitted, Procilius condemned. Clearly our stern judges care not one whit about bribery, the elections, the interregnum, treason, or the whole Republic." Cicero, Ad Atticum, 4.15.4. See Harlan RRM II at pp. 104-106 for a proposed identification of the election which was the subject of the prosecution, namely the consular election of 56 BCE. ** See Harlan RRM II at p. 107: "The head of Saturn clearly identified by the harpa and the conical stone beside his head is on the obverse of the coin. The harpa recalls the castration of his father Uranus that resulted in the birth of Venus and the conical stone recalls that Saturn swallowed a stone thinking it was his infant son Jupiter whom he was trying to keep from growing up to replace him." "Saturn, always identified by the harpa, appeared five times on Republican denarii." Id. Harlan suggests (id. pp. 107-108) that, as on other coins on which Saturn appears, his image on this coin was intended to signal the moneyer’s past or present position holding office as urban quaestor, and, as such, “responsible for the treasury located in Saturn’s temple.” ***This reverse legend, as illustrated by the reverse image, “records the first celebration by an ancestor of the moneyer of the Ludi Victoriae of Sulla.” Crawford Vol. I pp. 445-446. (That ancestor was the aforementioned Sextus Nonius Sufenas, Pr. 81 BCE, the moneyer’s father [or grandfather] and Sulla’s nephew.) 10. Roman Republic, C. Memmius C.f., AR Denarius, 56 BCE [Crawford], 57 BCE [Harlan], Rome Mint. Obv. Laureate head of Quirinus right [deified aspect of Romulus and/or Italian deity worshipped on Quirinal Hill; see footnote], hair long, beard in formal ringlets, C•MEMMI•C•F downwards to right, QVIRINVS downwards to left; banker’s mark or test mark to left of Quirinus’s eye, in shape of bird? inside flower or star/ Rev. Ceres seated right, holding torch in left hand and corn ear in right hand; at her feet, snake rearing with head right; MEMMIVS •AED• CERIALIA•PREIMVS•FECIT [translated as “Memmius as aedile first held the games of Ceres” (Harlan RRM II pp. 99-100)] downwards from upper left; old graffiti resembling an “X” to right of Ceres. Crawford 427/2, RSC I Memmia 9 (ill.), Sear RCV I 388 (ill.), BMCRR 3940; Sydenham 921; Harlan RRM II, Ch. 12 at pp. 95-103; RBW Collection 1532; Jones, J.M., A Dictionary of Ancient Roman Coins (1990) [entry for “Quirinus” at p. 264]. 19.5 mm., 3.71 g. <img src="https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/combined-memmius-denarius-jpg.1404767/" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> * Earlier authorities identified the moneyer as the son of Gaius Memmius, praetor in 58 BCE, and his wife Fausta, Sulla’s daughter. See Grueber, BMCRR p. 495 n. 1. More recent authorities have argued that Fausta was too young to have a son who was moneyer in the 50s, and have concluded instead that the moneyer was the Gaius Memmius who was tribune of the plebs in 54 BCE (see Crawford p. 451: “The moneyer is presumably Tr. Pl. 54”), and was a nephew of Pompey the Great -- namely, the son of Gaius Memmius and Pompeia Strabonia, Pompey’s sister. Harlan RRM II p. 95. (The Gaius Memmius who was married to Fausta’s daughter was a first cousin of the one who was the moneyer’s father [id.], not his father’s brother as Crawford states [p. 451], given that the two had the same praenomen.) Regarding the portrayal of Ceres on the reverse -- a portrayal used as an illustration to the Wikipedia article on Ceres! -- and the reverse legend claiming that an ancestor of the moneyer founded the Ludi Cereales (games of Ceres), see Sear RCV I at p.146: “The initial staging of the games of Ceres by the aedile Memmius, commemorated on the reverse, is an event unrecorded in history but presumably predating 210 B.C.” See also RSC I at p. 66 (“This relates to the institution at Rome of the Ludi Cereales”); Crawford at p. 451 (The “reverse … allude to the first celebration of the Ludi Cereales in or before 211”). As Harlan explains (RRM II p. 100), the founding of the Ludi Creales would have had to be before 210 if the coin’s historical claim is correct, because “the names of both plebeian aediles are known for all the years from 210 to 198” -- with no Memmius among them -- and the Ludi Cereales are known to have been celebrated by 202 BCE. However, as Harlan also points out (id.), “[w]e actually have no idea when the first Cerealia was held, nor do we have any other mention of Memmius, the aedile, who, on the coin’s evidence, becomes the first known Memmius,” given that our earliest written mention of the gens Memmia is of Gaius Memmius, legate in 174 and praetor in 172.” The coin is our only evidence of any earlier political activity by the family. Harlan goes on to discuss the general frustration of ancient authors such as Livy and Cicero over “the tampering of aristocrats with ancient events in order to credit the deeds of others to their own family.” (Id.) Thus, we will never know the truth. “But the willingness of some historians to accept the statement on this coin as historical fact is “indicative of the influence that coinage could exert not only on on the Romans of its own time, but still can exert on us today.” (Id. at p. 101.) As for the snake depicted at the feet of Ceres, see Jones, J.M., A Dictionary of Ancient Roman Coins (Seaby, 1990), entry for “Snake” at p. 291: “Since snakes live in the earth they also frequently form a part of cults which are connected with the earth. So . . . Ceres, the goddess of agriculture, is sometimes represented in a chariot drawn by serpents, or with snakes by her side.” (Note that although a search of Republican coin types for Ceres and snake or serpent yields only this type and the M. Volteius denarius with Ceres in a biga of snakes, the same search in OCRE for Imperial coinage yields results for Vespasian, Hadrian, and Marcus Aurelius.) Ceres’ Greek equivalent, Demeter, was also traditionally portrayed with snakes. See <a href="https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c9/a7/d2/c9a7d29a39c7daaddc721848af2170af.jpg" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c9/a7/d2/c9a7d29a39c7daaddc721848af2170af.jpg" rel="nofollow">https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c9/a7/d2/c9a7d29a39c7daaddc721848af2170af.jpg</a>: <img src="https://www.cointalk.com/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2Fc9%2Fa7%2Fd2%2Fc9a7d29a39c7daaddc721848af2170af.jpg&hash=b65c4ef0cf7555eaab8fedb3d3c54b17" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> Regarding Quirinus, the deity portrayed on the obverse, see Jones, supra, entry for “Quirinus” at p. 264: Quirinus was an “Italian deity believed by the Romans to be of Sabine origin (although this is doubtful), and worshipped on the Quirinal Hill at Rome. According to Roman mythology, Romulus, forty years after he had founded Rome, disappeared from the earth and became identified with Quirinus. The cult of Quirinus resembled that of Mars and was supervised by a Flamen Quirnalis.” Jones specifically mentions this coin type, stating that in 56 BCE, “the mint magistrate C. Memmius issued a denarius with a laureate head on the obverse accompanied by the legend QVIRINVS; it is possible that this is to be explained in some way as alluding to the identification of Romulus and Quirinus, but more likely that the family of Memmius was of Sabine descent.” Contra Grueber, BMCRR Vol. I p. 496, stating that the portrayal of Quirinus referred to “the ancient origin of the Memmia gens, which claimed to be descended through Romulus from the Trojan Mnestheus” (a claim later mentioned by Virgil; see Aeneid 5.117), and, therefore, must have been intended to evoke the Romulus-Quirinus assimilation. See also RSC I at p. 66 (adopting Grueber’s viewpoint). At p. 451, Crawford rejects the viewpoint of Grueber and RSC, and makes an argument (presumably the basis for Jones’s position) that because the head on the obverse is explicitly identified as Quirinus (rather than Romulus), “it therefore seems self-evident that the type is irrelevant to the assimilation of Quirinus and Romulus.” Instead, as Crawford continues on p. 452: “Quirinus was “regarded by the Romans as a Sabine deity (wrongly of course. . .; the fact that the Sabines were mostly in the tribe Quirina may have helped the error along) and the choice of type perhaps reflected the moneyer’s claim to possess a Sabine origo.” Harlan’s position is somewhere in the middle. He argues that “neither of the explanations given by Crawford or Grueber has taken adequate consideration of the real place Quirinus held in the national consciousness of the people” because of his status as the deified Romulus, an importance not dependent on particular claims of descent from Romulus given that all Romans looked to Romulus as an ancestor (Harlan, RRM II at p. 102). He cites as examples Cicero’s Republic (in which the dramatis persona Scipio expresses surprise that men of the time of Romulus, who were no longer primitive, would have believed a tale of a man becoming a god, but notes that there must have been such conspicuous talent and virtue in Romulus that people believed the story) (id.), and the fact that the Roman people “ever after continued to celebrate Romulus’ return to heaven, and acted out the events of his disappearance each year on the fifth of July.” (Id.) In other words, my reading of Harlan’s view -- which appears to me to be reasonable -- is that on the one hand, most people who saw an image identified as Quirinus would be very familiar with the Romulus-Quirinus assimilation myth, and would recognize Quirinus as the deified Romulus even without any express reminder. On the other hand, Harlan also apparently believes that Crawford is correct that Quirinus, who was thought of as a Sabine god, was more likely to be associated with the claimed Sabine origin of the gens Memmia, than with any supposed descent of that family from a Trojan ancestor of Romulus -- a meaning two steps removed from the portrayal of Quirinus. So, according to Harlan, the image would have had not one, but two probable meanings (intended and/or perceived) -- with the third, more indirect, suggested meaning less likely. Finally, at p. 103, Harlan addresses the juxtaposition of Quirinus/Romulus on the obverse with Ceres on the reverse (as well as the juxtaposition, on the moneyer’s other issue of that year [see Crawford 427/1] of Ceres on the obverse and a military trophy on the reverse): “Romulus’ legacy to his people had been a love of military pursuits and his people worshipped their founder as a god of war. Why then on Memmius’ coin is Quirinus, a god of war, coupled with the celebration of the first games of Ceres, the goddess of grain who loves peace? Why, on the scond coin, is the military trophy on the reverse and the head of Ceres on the obverse? . . . The answer lies in the Roman character as Cicero traced its development in his Republic. [Summary follows of Cicero’s discussion of Roman state following death of Romulus (see De Re Publica 2.25-7), including his successor Numa’s division of conquered lands for cultivation, establishment of games and religious celebrations, etc., thereby tempering the warlike spirit instilled by Romulus and allowing abundance to flourish] . . . . Memmius’ coins reflect the duality of the Roman character: a nature suited to the pursuit of war, but tempered by religion and clememcy; and so, our moneyer has balanced Quirinus with the games of Ceres and on the second coin, Ceres is balanced with a military trophy. The fruits of peace are enjoyed because of the arts of war and Memmius has extolled his family’s role in providing both to the Roman people.” 11. [This is the new write-up, so I'm leaving the footnote in a regular font size; it's my 66th Roman Republican coin] Roman Republic, Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio, 47/46 BCE, N. Africa, Utica (provincial capital 30 mi. NW of site of Carthage) or mobile military mint traveling with Scipio’s camp [see Sear Imperatorial (CRI), infra at p. 34]. Obv. Laureate head of Jupiter right, Q. METEL around to right, PIVS in exergue (PI ligate)/ Rev. African elephant walking right, SCIPIO above, IMP in exergue. Crawford 459/1, Sear Imperatorial (CRI) 45 (pp. 33-34) [David Sear, The History and Coinage of the Roman Imperators 49-27 BC (1998)], RSC I Caecilia [Babelon] 47 (ill. p. 21), Sear RCV I 1379 (ill. p. 262), RBW Collection 1601 (ill. p. 337), BMCRR Africa 1, Claire Rowan, From Caesar to Augustus (c. 49 BC - AD 14), Using Coins as Sources (Cambridge 2019) at pp. 44-45 & Fig. 2.22. 19.5 mm., 3.78 g. Purchased from Germania Inferior Numismatics, Netherlands, Dec. 2021.* <img src="https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/metellus-scipio-elephant-crawford-459-jpg.1404797/" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> *Issued by Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio (ca. 95-46 BCE), a great-great-great-grandson of Scipio Africanus [see Wikipedia, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintus_Caecilius_Metellus_Pius_Scipio" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintus_Caecilius_Metellus_Pius_Scipio" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintus_Caecilius_Metellus_Pius_Scipio</a>], and also a member of the Caecilii Metelli family by testamentary adoption [id.]. He issued this coin as the commander-in-chief of the remaining Pompeian forces in North Africa after Pompey’s defeat at Pharsalus and subsequent assassination, leading up to their defeat by Caesar at the Battle of Thapsus (in present-day Tunisia) on 6 Feb. 46 BCE. In CRI at p. 34, Sear states as follows about this coin: “Both stylistically and in volume this coinage stands apart from the rather limited issues in Scipio’s name which can safely be attributed to the provincial capital of Utica (nos. 40-43). The inescapable conclusion is that this type, which is in the sole name of the commander-in-chief, is a product of the military mint operating within the security of Scipio’s camp. It would appear to belong to the latter stages of the campaign as the Pompeian army was moving around the province prior to being enticed into the fatal engagement at Thapsus.” See Metellus Scipio’s biography in Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition, Vol. XVIII, pp. 258-259 (1911): “QUINTUS CAECILIUS METELLUS PIUS SCIPIO, son of P. Scipio Nasia, was adopted by [Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius (d. ca. 64 BCE), issuer of Crawford 374/1 in 81 BCE, through the latter's will.]. He was accused of bribery in 60 B.C., and defended by Cicero, to whom he had rendered valuable assistance during the Catilinarian conspiracy. In August 52, he became consul through the influence of [his son-in-law] Pompey, who had married his daughter Cornelia [as his fifth wife. Pompey was Cornelia's second husband; her first, the son of Crassus, died at Carrhae.].  In 49 [Metellus Scipio] proposed that Caesar should disband his army within a definite time, under pain of being declared an enemy of the state. After the outbreak of the civil war, the province of Syria was assigned to him, and he was about to plunder the temple of Artemis at Ephesus when he was recalled by Pompey. He commanded the centre at Pharsalus, and afterwards went to Africa, where by Cato's influence he received the command. In 46 he was defeated at Thapsus; while endeavoring to escape to Spain he fell into the hands of P. Sittius, and put himself to death. His connexion with two great families gave him importance, but he was selfish and licentious, wanting in personal courage, and his violence drove many from his party.” Clare Rowan discusses Metellus Scipio and his coinage, including this type, at length at pp. 42-46 of her book (see citation above): “After the defeat at Pharsalus and Pompey's death in Egypt in 48 BC, opposition to Caesar continued in Africa under the command of Metellus Scipio, who had previously commanded forces in Syria. Along with other Pompeian commanders, Scipio was subjected to criticism by the Caesarian side -- in The Civil War Caesar attacked their legitimacy, noting that Scipio (and others) did not wait for the ratification of the appointments by the assembly and left Rome without taking the appropriate auspices, amongst other irregularities (Caes. BCiv. 1.6.6-7). Caesar wrote ‘all rights, divine and human, were thrown into confusion.’ Whether Caesar's accusations are true or not, we find a clear response to them on Scipio's coinage, which display an inordinate emphasis on Scipio's offices, and their legitimacy. . .  [Citing, among other things, obverse references to Jupiter as "underlining Scipio's divine support."]. . . .[Discussion of Scipio's other coins omitted.] Th[e] combination of familial history and contemporary politics can also be seen on Fig. 2.22 [illustration of Crawford 459/1, this type], which has a reverse decorated with an elephant accompanied by the legend SCIPIO IMP. Although one might be tempted to see this as a 'reply' to Caesar's elephant (Fig. 2.1, Crawford 443/1), there is little to support this hypothesis. The elephant had been a symbol of the Metelli since the victory of L. Caecilius Metellus over Hasdrubal at Panormus during the First Punic War in 250 BC, and elephants had previously appeared on the coinage of several moneyers from the family. [See Crawford 262/1, Crawford 263/1a-1b, Crawford 269/1, and Crawford 374/1] . . . . Indeed, Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius [Scipio's father by testamentary adoption] . . . released an issue displaying an elephant with the initials of his name in the exergue: Q.C.M.P.I. (the ‘I’ referring to his title as imperator).” See Crawford 374/1. See also, e.g., Crawford Vol. I at p. 287, explaining the significance of depictions of elephants to the Caecilii Metelli family, recalling the victory of L. Caecilius Metellus, Cos. 251, over Hasdrubal at Panormus in 250 BCE, and the capture of Hasdrubal’s elephants. Rowan continues at pp. 45-46: “Scipio may have been using an ancestral type in keeping with Republican tradition. Nonetheless, the elephant was a topical motif, particularly since Casear's own elephant issue [Crawford 443/1] was very large, and so others may have interpreted the image within the competing claims of the civil war (particularly if they didn't have an intimate knowledge of Roman elite family symbols). Since the issue was struck in Africa, the image might also have been interpreted as a reference to the elephants of King Juba I, who supported Scipio against Caesar (Dio 43.3.5-4.1). Juba himself released coins with an elephant on the reverse (Fig. 2.24), and so any users of Scipio's currency in Africa may have seen the elephant as a local symbol rather than (or in addition to) a reference to the Roman general. Metellus Scipio had a strong client base in Africa, assuring him local support. Literary sources mention prophecies that a Scipio could not be defeated in the region (Suetonius, Julius Caesar 59; Plutarch, Life of Julius Caesar 52.2, Dio 42.57.5.)  Pro-Caesarian literature attempted to blacken Scipio by suggesting that the commander and his supporters were deferring to Juba, going so far as to suggest that Scipio had promised the province of Africa to the king [citations omitted]. It is clear that we cannot take this tradition at face value, but Scipio's coinage does reveal that he actively sought and/or commemorated local support.” In CRI, at pp. 24-25, David Sear takes a highly negative view of Metellus Scipio: "The guiding spirit in the anti-Caesarian movement [in Africa after Pharsalus] was Marcus Porcius Cato, later known as Cato Uticensis, the great-grandson of the famous Cato the Censor. . . . The universal respect which Cato commanded amongst his contemporaries enabled him to arbitrate in the rivalries and disputes which arose between the military leaders of the Pompeian party. Probably the general who came closest to matching Caesar's genius as a strategist was Titus Labenius, formerly Caesar's legate in Gaul though subsequently an ardent supporter of Pompey and his cause. But Labenius was a man of relatively low birth, his family having originated from the Picenium region of Italy, and this counted against him in the aristocratic hierarchy of the Pompeian leadership. Merely because of this brilliant tactician's lack of an illustrious ancestry Cato foolishly insisted on passing him over and bestowing the overall command on Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio. Although certainly the possessor of an awe-inspiring name, and formerly the father-in-law of Pompey himself, this did not, unfortunately for his cause, compensate for his total unfitness to confront an opponent of the calibre of Caesar.  [List of other leaders of the Pompeian army in Africa -- as well as its "powerful, though unstable, ally, King Juba of Numidia, who, "if he could be counted on, added greatly to the manpower ranged against Caesar and could even contribute a large contingent of war-elephants" -- is omitted, as is Sear's detailed discussion of the Battle of Thapsus itself.]  [After the defeat,] [o]f the Pompeian leaders only Sextus Pompey, Labienus, and Varus survived to join Gnaeus Pompey in Spain. Scipio fled by ship but was overtaken by enemy forces and took his own life rather than surrender and become Caesar's prisoner." [See pp. 26-27 for discussion of suicides of Juba and Cato.] 12. Roman Republic, T. Carisius, AR Denarius, 46 BCE, Rome mint. Obv. Head of Sibyl (or Sphinx) right, her hair elaborately decorated with jewels and enclosed in a sling, tied with bands / Rev. Human-headed Sphinx seated right with open wings, wearing cap, T•CARISIVS above,; in exergue, III•VIR. Crawford 464/1, RSC I Carisia 11 (ill.), Sear RCV I 446 (ill.), Sear Roman Imperators 69 (ill. p. 46), Sydenham 983a, BMCRR 4061. 19 mm., 3.87 g. <img src="https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/t-carisius-sphinx-jpg-version-jpg.1404768/" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> *The Sibyl on the obverse is described simply as “Sibyl” in Crawford, “Sibyl Herophile” in Sear, and “Aphrodisian Sibyl” (i.e., Sibyl relating to Aphrodite/Venus) in RSC and BMCRR. The Sibyl Herophile was the name of a Sibyl at Erythae in Ionia opposite Chios, also associated with Samos. Crawford notes at p. 476 that the combination of a Sibyl on the obverse and a sphinx on the reverse “recallthose of Gergis in the Troad [citing BMC Troas, pp. xxx and 55], perhaps allud[ing] to Caesar’s Trojan origin,” the moneyer being a supporter of Caesar. See the examples of these coins of Gergis at <a href="https://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/troas/gergis/i.html" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/troas/gergis/i.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/troas/gergis/i.html</a> and <a href="https://www.asiaminorcoins.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=79" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.asiaminorcoins.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=79" rel="nofollow">https://www.asiaminorcoins.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=79</a> . On each such coin, the Sibyl is characterized as “Sibyl Herophile.” Characterizing her as the “Aphrodisian” Sibyl would relate to the gens Julia’s legendary descent from Venus. The “IIIVIR” in the exergue on the reverse refers to the moneyer’s position at the mint. See <a href="https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=IIIVIR" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=IIIVIR" rel="nofollow">https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=IIIVIR</a>, defining the term as a “Latin abbreviation: Triumvir. On coins of the Roman Republic IIIVIR is used as a shortened abbreviation for IIIVIR AAAFF, which abbreviates ‘III viri aere argento auro flando feiundo’ or ‘Three men for the casting and striking of bronze, silver and gold,’ a moneyer or mint magistrate.” I should also note that the Sphinx on my coin is clearly wearing dark sunglasses! Well, that took up even more space than I thought! If anyone's gotten to this point, they should feel free to let me know which, if any, of the 12 are their favorites. And please post any of your own coins that you think are relevant.[/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches