Thought I'd share one more coin that I bought recently from Ancient Imports (before I receive my wins from Frank Robinson's latest auction): Roman Empire, Judaea, Caesarea Maritima. AE 23 (23.7mm, 10.09g). Domitian, as Augustus (81-96 AD; struck 83 or later). Obverse: Bust of Domitian left, [DOMITIA]NVS CAES AVG GERM[ANICVS]. Reverse: Minerva standing left with shield, erecting trophy of arms, no legend. SNG ANS 492, RPC 2305, Hendin 749. This type is considered by David Hendin and others to be part of the Judaea Capta series,many varieties of which were struck by Domitian's father Vespasian and brother Titus. The arguments against this claim can be fairly summarized thus: 1. There is nothing in the legends or design elements (such as a palm tree) that specifically references Judaea, so this could be just a generalized portrayal of victory. 2. Unlike Vespasian and Titus, Domitian did not personally take part in the First Jewish War. This is hardly surprising, as he had been left back in Rome and was just 19 when Jerusalem fell in 70 AD, but unlike his father and brother Domitian had no direct claim to any glory in the war. 3. This type was issued no earlier than 83 AD (based on Domitian's use of the title Germanicus), over a decade after the war and well after the undoubted Judaea Capta types of Vespasian and Titus. The main arguments in favor of its belonging as a Judaea Capta type are: 1. It was struck in Caesarea Maritima, an important coastal city in Judaea that is known to have struck Judaea Capta coins for both Vespasian and Titus that circulated throughout Judaea. What better place to strike Judaea Capta coins than right in the captive territory? 2. Claiming reflected glory for his relatives' exploits would hardly be out of character for Domitian. (There were no "Stolen Valor" laws back then, and even if there were, who would prosecute the emperor?) 3. Hendin cites a unique fouree denarius of Domitian, dated to 93-4 AD, with unmistakable IVDAEA reverse. If we believe that fouree coins were official mint products, this implies he had an interest in perpetuating the Judaea Capta types. Personally, I consider it likely that this type is intended to refer to Judaea Capta, although the case does not seem like a slam dunk. Regardless, it is a decent provincial bronze from a very historically interesting region. Let me know what you think, and post any relevant coins.
Well, both sides make convincing arguments. I have done some reading on Domitian and find that he was not above stealing the glory of his father and brother. I guess then that I go along Hendin's opinion solely based on Domitian's demented personality. BTW, nice coin. Even worn. The portrait looks like Titus IMHO.
I got one of these in an uncleaned lot @ 5 bucks per coin. Not quite as nice, but the coins I got were of a much better variety of Provincial than I thought I would get. For example, I even got an Antoninus Pius bronze in decent shape. Win! If I had known that they were going to be 1st and 2nd century and not just your typical 3rd and 4th, I'd have gotten a lot more. Dang it.
Nice coin and interesting write-up. You are quite right to list the pros and cons of this being a possible Judaea Capta type. I suppose we shall never truly know what the mint master at Caesarea Maritima had in mind when he chose this stock reverse type for Domitian. However, one must remember that Domitian as Caesar took part in Vespasian and Titus' joint Triumph for the Jewish War despite the fact he was in Rome during the conflict. Judaea Capta propaganda was a Flavian family business after all.
