Finally got a coin from my wish list

Very nice example (the Vespasian coin and the situation).
I also see quite a respectable number of coins going in auctions and reappearing a few auctions later. Some even in the next auction - this makes me think the winner didn't pay for the coin.
You might get lucky like in your case or you might see the same coin going for much more. This happened to me with a DAC CAP coin. A good example sold for 95 EUR. I didn't participate in that auction but when I saw the results I was annoyed because I missed a favorite for a decent price.
I was surprised seeing the same coin at a next auction and I would have been more than happy to get it with the same price.
But my 150 EUR bid was not enough.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

So I have yet another comment (don't mean to crowd the thread, but topics I find interesting keep coming up!)...

This is a tough one, and it also comes up with coins of Lucius Verus / Marcus Aurelius (re: Parthia and Armenia) and then much later in the Licinius through Constantinian seated captives types.

As @ominus1 says, whether or not the hands are bound is often a strong clue. Beginning with the original archetype for these, the female was depicted "hands free."

I don't know if I've seen any unambiguously-female captives with bound hands? (I.e., on coins; I believe I've seen hands-bound female captives on pottery and bronze figurines. I believe there may be males unbound on coins, but haven't double-checked yet.)

Below: Julius Caesar denarius, the first of the trophy and two captives types ever.

Previously, RRCs included trophies with a kneeling-bound-male-captive and a seated-bound-male captive (on quinarii mostly), also unbound female personifications and unbound males kneeling in subservience/paying homage to Rome (but I never quite considered those captives).

But Vespasian was the first to use a lone female captive next to the trophy:



The Dacia sitting on the shield certainly appears to have breasts (it's more obvious on some examples than others, but I see none inconsistent with that interpretation). Unambiguous in this Leu WA 17 example: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=8418329 [Later EDIT: Note to self, Dacia on Shield must be modeled on Domitian's Germania on Shield.]

It's also interesting that she is dressed exactly like the bound male captives, with trousers and tunic and pointed "Dacian cap" (AKA "Phrygian cap").

My type of DACCAP which shows the captive "hands free" seated left highlights @ambr0zie's question of whether a female personification is ever depicted with arms.


The Trajan Sestertii of this type are usually identified as Dacia, i.e., female:
Roma: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=8944039
CNG: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=7799605
(Though, notably, Heritage tends to identify them as "Dacian captives": https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=8123125)

On the denarius, at least, most dealers seem to avoid the question by using "Dacian" without gender-specific pronouns.

But this denarius example -- cited by Leu as "Dacia" and using "her" -- does look more female to me: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=8908097

On balance, I think the unbound-left captive (like mine) is probably female. Looking for more examples....

 

Females often where very good warriors/ esp. in Viking/ Germanic armies.

 

In terms of losing out repeatedly, I've bid several times on nice examples of the M. Volteius snake biga, and haven't come close to winning yet. Someday, perhaps!

Regarding the male vs. female Dacian distinction, I'm not entirely sure I agree with @Curtis's conclusion that the mourning "scarecrow" Dacian sitting on a shield above a falx is intended to be seen as female, given the entirely male clothing and the presence of weapons. The breasts aren't exactly Junoesque on my example -- or the well-preserved one posted by @ambr0zie -- although that could just be the effect of the apparently long period of malnutrition. (It's a wonder that the Romans took two Dacian wars to defeat them if they all looked like that!) Besides, there are lots of example on ancient coins of unambiguously male figures with what we would see as unusually prominent chests. Like some of the Apollos on the reverses of Seleucid coins, or this Nilus:



I agree about the Trajan Decius personification of Dacia almost certainly being female given the robe she's wearing. My example:



It's impossible to tell with my example of DAC CAP, given that the captive is unbound but is sitting on a pile of weapons:



Finally, what about the two Parthian captives, both unbound, on this denarius of Septimius Severus? (RIC IV-1 176, RSC III 370, Sear RCV (1988 ed.) 1767 [not in Millennium Edition], BMCRE 356.) If I had to guess, I'd say that the one on the left is female and the one on the right is male. It looks like the design may be loosely based on the Vespasian example posted by @Curtis.

 

These captives questions are really endlessly interesting to me. I would say it's probably my favorite collecting theme in Roman coinage. There is actually a lot of information being transmitted in the coins (and other Roman art) about the details of how Romans treated captives/slaves/prisoners of war (one of the most important aspects of their economy and foreign/military policy). As you can see, I have lots to say (and even more questions!)...

You're definitely right, by the third and fourth centuries (Severan, Constantinian) I think the captives start to become predominantly male, and can often be seen with hands unbound and in the "mouring" pose (same pose that was previously taken by female personifications of Judaea, Gallia, Armenia, Parthia, Dacia (perhaps, I agree there's ambiguity) and others [later edit/note to self: don't forget Domitian's Germania AV]). I do think both are probably male on the Septimius.

I would say the Septimius (and Caracalla) Parthian captives are more closely based on the original Caesar archetype (like the Titus below) than (directly) on the Vespasian "Judaea Capta." Septimius simply gave both captives the "mourning" pose (as Judaea and Gallia) rather than one mourning, one bound. My recent (ex-Orfew) Titus was sticking closely to the original model, unbound female left, bound male right, but after this period the model began to vary in many directions:

I think some of the later ones may also show various other bindings (e.g., around the torso or shoulders or legs). It's not altogether clear on these Septimius & Caracalla (below) examples, but the crossed legs, for example, may represent one of the "stress positions" in which the Romans sometimes bound their captives.

They also sometimes used bindings that end up looking somewhat like a modern straight-jacket... you can see a bit of it in this little Theodosius AE4 I got for the detailed bindings:


But where it's possible to see, you're right that the hands often/usually appear unbound during that period.

I bought this one because the (both male, I believe) captives' poses are a bit clearer than usual. Hands seem free. One of the early appearances of the one-hand-on-the-chin / one-hand-on-the-ground-behind pose for the right captive, which is also very common on Constantinian ones. Also early appearance of the one-leg-crossed pose (it's such a standard pose, could the elbow be bound to the knee?):



I'm really curious about what's going on with the right captive's right arm (from his perspective). [EDIT: actually, I think the next sentence is wrong: On the left captive, I think you may be able to see the binding running down his back (more often visible on late 4th cent. captives), but maybe just clothing.] This is my middle Caracalla below:





I suspect some of those squiggly lines on the lower example represent cordage to which the captives are tied but not sure. (The right one may again have his right arm bound to the trophy in back?)

Some of my Constantines show one of the captives with hands bound in back, but the other with at least one hand free. Is the hand on the ground meant to be free? You can also see the cross-legged pose again:



A couple other stress positions on the legs -- kneeling Eastern/Persian (Sassanid or Parthian), and crouching Germanic captives -- with hands bound behind:


The mid-late 3rd century antoniniani have their own sets of varieties which are also very interesting and worth exploring.

I also have suspicions that the "grounding line" may not only be an artistic element, but in some designs double as one of the poles to which multiple captives were often bound in ancient cultures...

Very grim stuff, but I feel there's a lot left to explore.

 

Fascinating -- you should write an article! On my Septimius Severus, what is the captive on the left holding in his or her arms? It looks almost like an inflated life preserver!

And then there are captives like this guy on my Licinius II follis who appear to have no arms at all, unless his arms are intended to be those two lines meeting in a V at the bottom of his neck.



Or this guy on my Honorius solidus (RIC X 1287 ) with the Emperor's foot pressing into his groin -- as if Honorius ever got within a mile of a captive! -- in one of the apparently endless different captive positions on such solidi. I describe it as "bound barbarian captive seated left on ground with both legs visible and sharply bent at knees (bent right leg is raised upright; bent left leg lies flat on ground with left knee extending below exergue line and left foot resting against right leg." Nobody knows what, if anything, the different positions mean.



As I noted in my description, this captive type "does not seem to be included in the list of captive types (a)-(d) associated with RIC X 1287 (list is under RIC X 1205 at p. 318), or in expanded list of captive types (a)-(g) for RIC X 1287 at Wildwinds; see http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/honorius/solidi_table.html:

“a = captive: one leg crossed over the other [from RIC]

b = captive: two parallel legs [from RIC]

c = captive: one leg visible, more or less straight [from RIC]

d = captive: one leg visible, sharply bent at the knee [from RIC]

e (added) = captive: kneeling

f (added) = captive: sitting

g (added) = captive: one leg straight, one leg sharply bent at the knee”

The captive type on this coin -- with both legs visible and sharply bent at knee, one of them with the knee upright and the other with the knee flat on ground -- simply does not fit in any of these categories. I have made no attempt to review the 400+ examples of RIC X 1287 at ACSearch to determine if there are any with the same captive type as mine."

For all I know, the differences mean nothing at all.

Edited to add: I also have coins with captives like this dwarfish pair on a "centenionalis" of Constans, for which I describe the reverse as depicting "Emperor in military dress, standing left and holding labarum in right hand and shield in left, placing right foot on leg of one of two captives before him with hands bound behind their backs, wearing caps and kneeling facing with their heads turned towards one another." Are the caps "Phrygian"? Not sure.

 

Oh, I'll definitely get in contact for comments when my draft is ready!

Great questions and information! I always wondered if those "V" shapes on the Licnius (& some Constantine) captives could be bindings from the waist to the shoulders/possibly neck, as in my little Theodosius AE4.

I think the best way to figure them out is to compare to larger artworks, like bronze figurines, marble sculptures, and various pottery/ceramics:

(Creative Commons fair use, from Wikipedia, (Roman) Bronze Statuette of a Suebi Captive)


(Not mine, photo credit: Harlan J Berk -- even oil lamps were decorated with bound captives!)


I love your Honorius example, both for the foot to the groin (just unnecessary cruelty for its own sake) -- and for the knee past the exergue line. Starting around Aurelian, I think, you start to see the emperor or deities like Sol "spurning" the captives. Sometimes it even looks like the exergue line goes over, say, an ankle, and Sol or emperor could be "spurning" them by pressing on the line (I forget the technical term, not quite a "pillory" but it could be one of those long poles that multiple prisoners are tied to).

Thanks for sharing that table/list from RIC X too! I hadn't seen that yet. I'm saving all these comments in my captives notes.

Great Constans from Alexandria! I feel quite sure I recognize it and had it on a Watchlist in the last year or two... I'm thinking, possibly Berk but probably the one from Martina Dieterle? If the latter, I think it may also have been illustrated in:

Kellner, Wendelin. 2009. Die Münzstätte Alexandria in Ägypten. Von Kleopatra bis Arcadius. Moneytrend Verlag Wien, 2009.​

 

You must have a spectacular memory to recognize the Constans! I bought it from the Harlan J. Berk, Ltd. 211th Buy or Bid Sale in June 2020, Lot 302.