Faustina Friday – The First Æ Issues for the Empress

We speak of the golden age of Hollywood or the golden age of radio. Gold and silver medals are awarded to the top two athletes in the Olympic games. We speak of silver and gold as precious metals. Silver and gold … silver and gold … everyone wishes for silver and gold, don't they?



Few wish for bronze.[1] A bronze coin must feel like a neglected middle child.



But bronze coins were the workhorse of the Roman monetary system. Most transactions in the marketplace were conducted with bronze denominations. For this reason, bronze coins tended to be issued in larger numbers and with a greater variety of reverse types than their precious-metal siblings. The same holds true for the first coins issued for Faustina II, shortly after she was awarded the title of Augusta on 1 December, AD 147, the day after giving birth to her firstborn, her daughter Domitia Faustina. Nine distinct reverse types were used on the bronze coinage issued for the young empress by her father during this period. I will endeavor to illustrate each of them with examples from my own collection, with examples from the British Museum collection or auction sales serving to depict those lacking in my numophylacium.

The first coins issued for Faustina II bear the dative case inscription FAVSTINAE AVG PII AVG FIL, which is translated as "For Faustina Augusta, daughter of Pius Augustus." As I have previously discussed here at CT, the dative case is not infrequently used on Roman coins issued for princes and women by their fathers or husbands in honor of or for them, particularly on their first issues. The Latin dative case conveys this notion of "for so-and-so."

We know from Martin Beckmann's recently published die-linkage study of Faustina's aurei that three reverse types were issued nearly simultaneously in gold. Each of the reverse types refers to the birth of Domitia Faustina in their iconography.[2] These are: Venus Genetrix, Juno Lucina, and Laetitia Publica. designs were also issued in the sestertius and middle bronze denominations.

Venus in her aspect as the divine ancestress of the Roman people was known as Venus Genetrix, Venus the mother. For the first time in Roman numismatics, the goddess is depicted with a swaddled child, befitting the young empress who had just given birth.[3]

Faustina Jr., Augusta AD 147-175.
Roman orichalcum sestertius, 22.96 gm, 30.4 mm, 11 h.
Rome, December AD 147-early 148.
Obv: FAVSTINAE AVG PII AVG FIL, bust of Faustina II, draped and wearing stephane, right.
Rev: VENERI GENETRICI SC, Venus Genetrix standing left, holding apple and child in swaddling clothes.
Refs: RIC 1386b; BMCRE 2145; Cohen 237; Strack 1306; RCV 4718.​

Juno in her aspect as protectress of women in childbirth and of midwives was known as Juno Lucina.

Faustina II, AD 147-175.
Roman Æ as or dupondius, 8.68 g, 25.9 mm.
Rome, December AD 147-early 148.
Obv: FAVSTINAE AVG PII AVG FIL, bust of Faustina II, draped and wearing band of pearls, right.
Rev: IVNONI LVCINAE S C, Juno, veiled, standing left, holding patera and scepter.
Refs: RIC 1400A; BMCRE 2153-54; Cohen --; Strack 1299; RCV 4728.​

Laetitiae Publicae means "in honor of public rejoicing," the occasion for rejoicing being the new Augusta and her baby. The Latin word laetitia carries connotations of fertility.[4]

Sestertius, British Museum collection, RIC 1378c; BMC 2139.​

These three reverse types appear to have been used for only a short period of time. After only four obverse dies had been used in the production of the aurei with these reverse designs, a new reverse die appears: Venus standing, holding an apple and rudder.[5] This type also appears on the sestertius and middle bronze denominations.

Faustina II, AD 147-175.
Roman orichalcum dupondius, 14.77 g, 26.5 mm, 12 h.
Rome, early AD 148-March AD 149.
Obv: FAVSTINAE AVG PII AVG FIL, draped bust right with strand of pearls around head.
Rev: VENVS S C, Venus standing left, holding apple and rudder, around the shaft of which a dolphin is entwined.
Refs: RIC 1409b; BMCRE 2160-63; Cohen 269; RCV 4736.​

In addition to these four types of which the chronology is certain, there are five additional reverse types issued in bronze for which dating is less certain, because they were not issued in gold, and therefore fall outside of the purview of Beckmann's die-linkage study of her aurei. These include a Hilaritas type, three distinct Pudicitia types, and a Venus issue differing in design from that illustrated above. Apart from the Hilaritas type and the Pudicitia type depicting two children, none of these types hint at childbirth and there is no reason to think they were among the very first issues of the period. I therefore date them to early AD 148-March AD 149. They are listed in alphabetical order by reverse inscription.

Faustina II, AD 147-175.
Roman Æ as, 9.72 g, 25.7 mm, 5 h.
Rome, early AD 148-March AD 149.
Obv: FAVSTINAE AVG PII AVG FIL, draped bust wearing band of pearls around the head, right.
Rev: HILARITAS S C, Hilaritas standing right, adjusting veil and holding long palm.
Refs: RIC 1396b; BMCRE 2151-52; Cohen 115; RCV 4725.​

Faustina II, AD 147-175.
Roman Æ as, 9.50 g, 27.1 mm, 12 h.
Rome, early AD 148-March AD 149.
Obv: FAVSTINAE AVG PII AVG FIL, Bust of Faustina II, draped, with band of pearls, right.
Rev: PVDICITIA S C, Pudicitia standing facing, head left, lifting veil from shoulders with both hands.
Refs: RIC 1403b, BMCRE 2157-58; Cohen 179 var. (no stephane); Strack 1301; RCV 4731; UCR 759.
Notes: Pudicitia is typically depicted veiled and with a scepter or sacrificing over an altar. This is a rather unusual depiction of Pudicitia in that she lacks a scepter and is adjusting her clothing with both hands. I am unaware of Pudicitia being portrayed in this way on any other Roman issue.​

Pudicitia, veiled, seated left, holding child on knee; in front, child standing. RIC 1382; BMCRE 2142n; Cohen 188; Strack 1303. Bertolami E-Auction 59, lot 739, 20 May, 2018.
Notes: This coin is very rare. It is known only in the sestertius denomination and from three museum specimens cited by Strack and a single coin sold at auction (this coin). I do not believe the two children illustrated on this coin depict the birth of Faustina's second child, Lucilla. The portrait and obverse inscription clearly belong to the first period of coin production; coins issued for and after the birth of Lucilla feature a completely different hairstyle and obverse inscription and are otherwise well-attested.​

Faustina II, AD 147-175.
Roman orichalcum dupondius, 13.03 g, 25.1 mm, 12 h.
Rome, early AD 148-March AD 149.
Obv: FAVSTINAE AVG PII AVG FIL, bust of Faustina II, draped, with band of pearls, right.
Rev: PVDICITIA S C, Pudicitia seated left, arranging drapery on should with right hand and resting left hand on lap; flower below seat.
Refs: RIC 1404b; BMCRE 2159; Cohen 187; Strack 1302; RCV 4732.​

Faustina II, AD 147-175/6.
Roman Æ as, 9.85 g, 26.0 mm, 6 h.
Rome, early AD 148-March AD 149.
Obv: FAVSTINAE AVG PII AVG FIL, Bust of Faustina II, draped, with band of pearls, left.
Rev: VENVS S C, Venus standing right, drawing veil from shoulder with right hand and holding up apple in left hand.
Refs: RIC 1410b (l.); BMCRE 2165; Cohen --; Sear --.
Notes: This coin and the usual right-facing bust version were struck only in the middle bronze denomination. ​

Let's see any of your first-issue coins for Faustina II or anything relevant!

~~~

Notes

1. Though metallurgically speaking, orichalcum and copper are distinct metals and neither of them are technically bronze in the modern sense of the word, numismatists typically classify all copper or copper-alloy coinage as bronze. Similarly, for the sake of convenience, the term bronze is used in this article to refer to all such copper-based coins.

2. Beckmann, Martin, Faustina the Younger: Coinage, Portraits, and Public Image, A.N.S. Numismatic Studies 43, American Numismatic Society, New York, 2021, pp. 24 ff.

3. Beckmann, op. cit., p. 29.

4. Glare, P.G.W. Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford University Press, 2016; s.v. laetus, 1.

5. Beckmann, op. cit., p. 31.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

As usually, great write-up. And coins.
I only have a bronze provincial of Faustina II but I have an early issue denarius (and you helped in clarifying the symbol on it, if you remember)



Faustina II AD 147-175. Rome
Denarius AR
18 mm, 2,81 g
RIC III Antoninus Pius 517C
BMCRE 1067; Cohen —; Strack 495
Date Range: AD 147-149
Obverse Legend: FAVSTINAE AVG PII AVG FIL
Type: Bust of Faustina the Younger, band of pearls round head, with hair waived and coiled on back of head, draped, right
Portrait: Faustina the Younger
Reverse Legend: VENVS
Type: Venus, draped, standing left, holding apple in right hand and rudder set on dolphin, in left

 

Wow. Impressive even by Faustina Friday's high standards.

As usual, mine are scruffy, but I'll share some of mine from these early issues. I'll have to fine-tune dates on these, based on the OP.

A Pudicitia issue - RIC 1381, I think.

Faustina II Æ Sestertius
(c. 147-150 A.D.)
Rome Mint
FAVSTINAE AVG PII [AVG FIL], draped bust right / [PVDICITIA], Pudicitia seated
left, drawing out veil with right hand, left hand in lap, S C in field.
RIC 1381; BMCRE 2143.
(26.33 grams / 29 x 27 mm)
eBay June 2020

I have two poor specimens of the Venus standing with apple and rudder, both sestertii (RIC 1388B):



Faustina II Æ Sestertius
(145-161 A.D.)
Rome Mint
[FAVSTINAE] AVG [PII AVG FIL], draped bust right / [V]E[NVS] S C, Venus standing left holding an apple & rudder about which a dolphin is coiled.
RIC 1388B.
(22.64 grams / 29 x 26 mm)
(19.51 grams / 31 x 28 mm)
eBay July 2019

This is an early as (FIL), though not in the dative:

Faustina II Æ As
(c. 145-146 A.D.)
Rome Mint
FAVSTINA AVGVSTA, draped bust right / AVGVSTI [PII] FIL S-C, Concordia standing left, holding patera and cornucopiae.
RIC 1390.
(9.94 grams / 23 mm)
eBay April 2019

A denarius with LAETITIAE PVBLICAE - perhaps my favorite portrait of her (in my collection, I mean):


Faustina II Denarius
(147-149 A.D.)
Rome Mint
FAVSTINAE AVG PII AVG FIL, draped bust right with double circlet of pearls /
LAETITIAE PVBLICAE, Laetitia standing left, holding wreath and sceptre.
RIC 506b; RSC 155a.
(2.95 grams / 18 mm)
eBay Apr. 2018

I've shared this before - a late issue but with an inexplicable dative FAVSTINAE:

Faustina II Æ Sestertius
(161-176 A.D.)
Rome Mint
FAVSTINAE [AVGVSTAE], draped bust right. / [DIANA LVCIFERA SC] Diana standing right holding long torch in both hands.
RIC 1630 var. (FAVSTINAE); Cohen 88; BMC 899.
(21.44 grams / 27 mm)
eBay May 2019 (France)

 

@Roman Collector

The PVDICITIA sestertius with the woman holding a naked male baby on her lap, while a draped female child stands before her: surely this must commemorate the birth of Faustina's second child, so a boy, the same event commemorated by the TEMPORVM FELICITAS coins of Antoninus as TR P XII, showing crossed cornucopias bearing the busts of two children, apparently a boy and an older girl? If so that boy will have been born, and Faustina's PVDICITIA sestertius with two children will have been struck, during Antoninus' twelfth tribunician year, c. March 149-March 150 on my reckoning.

What do you think of my discovery, presented earlier on Coin Talk, that Marcus Aurelius refused to advance his tribunician number between sometime in the course of Antoninus' TR P XII and sometime in the course of Antoninus' TR P XIIII, a gap which seems very likely to indicate a period when both of Marcus and Faustina's earliest children had died, since we know that the birth of his first daughter on 30 November 147 was the occasion of Marcus' assumption of the tribunician power? Marcus only began numbering his TR P again in c. March 151, indicating that the childless period was over, clearly because of the birth of Lucilla, whose birthday we know was 7 March. This reconstruction, as you can see, completely revises the traditional account of Faustina's childbirths between the initial birth on 30 November 147 and the apparent birth of Lucilla on 7 March 151.

You received your copy of Beckmann's new Faustina book about two months ago; but I am still waiting for mine, despite the projected release date of 30 June! One minor point I will be interested to check: whether Beckmann makes any mention of my revised chronology for the births of 148-151, a matter I think I discussed with him when he visited Chicago about ten years ago.

 

You know your stuff RC. I'm learning something new every Friday. Just a little criticism if you allow me: I usually appreciate your wide musical choices, but this week the Rudolf song.......I hated it...

 

Happy Friday, and another nice writeup, RC.

Judging from the hairstyle, here are 2 of my Faustina Junior early-issued bronzes.

Rome:

Faustina II Æ Dupondius. Circa AD 145-146.
13.55g, 27mm, 10h.
Obv: FAVSTINAE AVG P II AVG FIL, draped bust to right
Rev: VENVS, Venus standing to left, holding apple and rudder, around which dolphin coiled; S-C across fields.
RIC III 1409a (Pius); BMCRE 2162 (Pius).


Provincial:

Faustina II Ӕ 25mm of Anchialus, Thrace.
AD 147-175. 10.46g, 25mm, 6h.
Obv: ΦΑVϹΤΕΙΝΑ ΝΕΑ ϹΕΒΑϹΤΗ, draped bust to right
Rev: ΑΓΧΙΑΛΕΩΝ, veiled Demeter seated to left, wearing stephane, holding two ears of grain and long torch.
RPC IV.1 Online 4522 (temporary); AMNG 431.
(Rare, with only 8 specimens known to RPC)

 

In 1982 K. Fittschen wrote a book with title Die Bildnisse der Faustina Minor und die Fecunditas Augustae, proposing that whenever Faustina bore Marcus a new child, she changed her coiffure. This seemed unlikely to me, and it was reading Fittschen's book which caused me to begin studying Faustina's coinage and portraiture in detail, in order to test Fittschen's hypothesis and, I expected, to refute it.

A simple refutation of Fittschen's idea, which I suppose I must have thought of before but had forgotten: on Faustina's PVDICITIA sestertius with two kids, Faustina has already had her second child in my interpretation, but she still has her earliest coiffure. So the birth of Faustina's second child apparently did not cause her to adopt a new hairdo.

 

As one would do.

What an extremely odd theory.

 

Lovely portrait on that denarius, @ambr0zie!

You're well on your way to a complete type set of Faustina's early issues! I never get tired of seeing them. That late coin with the dative inscription made for an interesting thread, didn't it?

I hope your copy of Beckmann's book arrives soon. Its methodology is sound -- die linkage studies of all the aureus types -- and it clarifies several issues about the relative chronology of her issues and in some cases establishes an absolute chronology. I think you'll find it thought-provoking and it may encourage you to re-evaluate the chronology you've assigned to certain issues, just as it has forced a reevaluation of Szaivert's dating for certain issues, such as the Hilaritas issue under Marcus. Beckmann devotes an entire chapter to the implications of the various portraits and hairstyles -- further debunking Fitschen's notion that the hairstyles changed with each pregnancy. He also discusses the empress' children. Since he uses both Ameling and Levick as sources, it doesn't break new ground, but the chronology established by his die study supports the notion that Lucilla was Faustina's second child and was born in AD 149. This argues against Birley and Fittschen's notion that twin boys were born in AD 149 and before Lucilla, but supports the Ameling's chronology outlined in Levick, pp. 116-117. Levick's argument against the birth of these twins is convincing, in my opinion, and I believe Faustina had only 11, not 13 children. Beckmann has an appendix on pp. 111-113 dealing specifically with Faustina's children. According to Ameling/Levick, the child born in AD 150/51 would have been Faustina III. I plan to write a series of articles in the future summarizing the ancient sources and the numismatic portrayals of her children.

LOL!!!!

Both lovely coins, with early portraits in fine style!

Yes. The theory has been thoroughly debunked, not only by Szaivert and @curtislclay, but also by Beckmann.

 

The continuation of our discussion as a private conversation, that @Romancollector has agreed might be of interest to other Coin Talk participants too:

I don't know how strong the evidence is for your assertion that the deaths of children are the reason for him doing that. I would like to know more about why you feel that's the most likely reason he didn't advance his tribunician year and it wasn't for some other, perhaps unknown, reason. It's an interesting notion, but neither Ameling nor Levick discuss this and one would imagine they would have taken this into account it had been cited by the primary sources. Birley, who appears to be the only historian to accept the notion that Lucilla was the fourth of her children and not the second, doesn't mention that, either. I really wish we had better ancient sources for the Antonine period so we could answer even simple questions such as how many children she had with more certainty. Not being a professional historian (I am a former professor of biblical Greek who left the field and became a physician), I can only rely on what appears to be the consensus of scholarly opinion as to the chronology surrounding her children.

 

Sestertius mentioned above so shown here:

Laetitiae Publicae

 

@Roman Collector As is usual with your threads this one is once again thought provoking and interesting. The coins are great but the scholarship they inspire is at least as interesting. As for “Silver and gold” , we could all use a little Burl Ives once in a while.

 

@curtislclay: I'm swayed by Ameling's chronology as summarized on p. 161 of his paper. I think we're all in agreement that the TEMPORVM FELICITAS COS IIII issue of Antoninus Pius does not depict twin boys. You'll see I discuss (and accept) your interpretation of the identity of the children in that thread. However, I have subsequently read Ameling and his analysis has forced me to reevaluate this conclusion. As discussed in Ameling (esp. pp. 157-159) the little primary data we have from the Antonine period (the inscriptions in the Hadrian Mausoleum) suggests only two male children before the birth of Commodus and his brother in 161: T. Aurelius Antoninus and T. Aelius Aurelius. We also know from the Fasti Ostienses that a son was born in AD 152 and from a contemporary inscription excavated in Smyrna that a son was born in AD 157/8. That simply leaves no room for a son born between Domitia Faustina and Lucilla. Ameling supports the birth chronology with numismatic and sculptural depictions of the imperial family and I find Ameling's argument convincing. Now, your observation about Marcus not advancing his TR P year is an important one, but no contemporary sources explain why and we have to postulate a reason. You postulate it is because he was childless during that two-year period. That's not the only possible reason. What we know from the primary sources (again, I refer you to Ameling) suggests the alternative possibility that Marcus' resumed advancing his TR P year in AD 151/2 because a male heir was born that year (not Lucilla). I post here for the casual reader Ameling's chronology given on p. 161 of his paper. I find his argument convincing and not incompatible with your discovery of the chronology of Marcus' pause in advancing his TR P years.



Beckmann demonstrates through die-linkage that the IVNO aureus (i.e. BMCRE 1043) dates to AD 149. This is highly likely to depict two historical children. He devotes an entire chapter to this. Both are fully clothed, suggesting they were female (male children may -- not always -- be depicted nude on coins). He concludes -- quite reasonably so -- that they are Domitia Faustina and the infant Lucilla.


From Beckmann, p. 36:



This is absolutely compatible with Ameling's chronology and, pace @curtislclay, I use Ameling in my discussion's of Faustina's children in my Faustina Friday discussions.

 

@Roman Collector

Thanks for your response. It's a difficult problem.

A minor objection: Marcus can hardly have reassumed the tribunician power in March 151 because of the birth of his first male heir as recorded in the Ostian Fasti, because that birth took place in 152 not 151. Moreover according to Strack's restoration of the Fasti the boy born in 152 also immediately died in that same year, hardly a happy event that might justify resuming the tribunician power.

.

 

Yep. There's seemingly no ideal solution that explains everything. Something is off with the chronology of something -- the primary sources, the dating of the coins, or a combination of the two.

 

ADDENDUM AND CORRECTION:

I have been thinking a lot about the solution to the problem posed by the appearance of two children on this coin.

Sestertius. Pudicitia, veiled, seated left, holding child on knee; in front, child standing. RIC 1382; BMCRE 2142n; Cohen 188; Strack 1303. Bertolami E-Auction 59, lot 739, 20 May, 2018.​

I believe I was in error when I said, "I do not believe the two children illustrated on this coin depict the birth of Faustina's second child, Lucilla. The portrait and obverse inscription clearly belong to the first period of coin production; coins issued for and after the birth of Lucilla feature a completely different hairstyle and obverse inscription and are otherwise well-attested."

I now believe the coin commemorates the birth of Lucilla (more this coming Friday). Two observations are of importance here.

1. We do see the persistence of the dative (FAVSTINAE) obverse inscriptions on some dies with Faustina's second hairstyle.

RIC 500a, BMCRE 1041. British Museum specimen.​

So, just because the nominative case inscription appears on the coins issued with her second hairstyle shortly after the birth of Lucilla in March 149, this doesn't mean the dative inscription stopped being used. Rather, there may have been a period of overlap when both obverse inscriptions were in use.

2. We see the persistence of certain reverse types with portrait type 1 as the type 2 portrait was introduced: The Venus standing with apple and rudder type in gold and the Pudicitia type in silver (illustrated below), are examples of this.

My specimen of RIC 507a, which depicts the empress in her first hairstyle. Note the dative case obverse inscription (FAVSTINAE).​

British Museum specimen, BMCRE 1051, which depicts the empress in her second hairstyle. It too has the dative case obverse inscription.​

So, just because the second hairstyle appears simultaneous with the coins issued with reverse types commemorating the birth of Lucilla in March 149, this doesn't mean the reverse types seen on coins with the first hairstyle stopped being used. Rather, there was a period of transition or overlap when reverse types were in use with both hairstyles.

Yes, we see the nominative inscription begin shortly after coins struck to commemorate the birth of Lucilla. Yes, we see the second hairstyle begin with coins struck to commemorate the birth of Lucilla. But that doesn't mean that coins struck to commemorate the birth of Lucilla MUST have the second hairstyle or that they MUST have a nominative inscription. While the nominative inscription and the type 2 hairstyle STARTED with the birth of Lucilla, the numismatic evidence shows that the dative inscription and the first hairstyle did NOT SUDDENLY STOP on 7 March 149 with the birth of her second child.

Therefore, I think the best explanation for what we see on the sestertius illustrated above with the Pudicitia seated with two children reverse is that it commemorates the birth of Lucilla but illustrates the persistence of the first hairstyle and obverse inscription. It was probably issued shortly after (or perhaps contemporaneous with) the dupondius below showing the same reverse design but without the children.

My specimen of RIC 1404b, a dupondius with the empress' first hairstyle and first obverse inscription (dative).​

 

Thanks for your additional writeup, RC. Really surprise to see such coin pairing.