Juno Moneta- Die, Anvil, Tongs, Hammer

http://www.coinlink.com/News/ancients/unique-items-ancient-coin-die-tiberius-14-37-ad/#more-1741

From the web page

"In Catalogue des Monnaies de l’Empire Romain, Tiberius- Nero(Paris, 1988), Jean-Baptiste Giard listed 12 known dies, 11 of which having been found in the Lugdunum (Lyon) area (an area of 200km).

Four were found in 1863 at Paray-le-Monial (Saone-et-Loire) and are now in museums. Six were unearthed in Auxerre (Yonne) in 1799, four of which are now at he Cabinet des Médailles de la BnF; the other two reside at the Musee monétaire de la Monnaie de Paris. And one was found at Vertault (Côte d’or).

This die come from an old collection in Poule-les-Echarmaux (Rhône), which is in the same area."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Very interesting. I'm a little cynical - for instance the story in the article about the Tiberius denarius sounds absurd to me. I would like to look into this a bit further by checking the BnF and other sources. Not sure it will change my mind even if I accept the conical die shape, however it would make the debate more challenging!

 

Dome/Cap shaped dies exist.

 

Managed to find pics of my example of the OP coin. Surfaces are better than they seem here:

 

I am continually impressed with how you are able to make one of these in your work shop and post the pix here. They almost look real.

 

Nice Op coin! I do not have one to share. Cool thread discussion.

 

WOW !! Super OP example...and so many wonderful posts!! Not to mention a very interesting discussion.

Sadly, I have not been able to grab even a low grade specimen to date.

 

It could be both: conical die design misunderstood by the die cutters, for example.

 

hahaha><

 

Well I got a cap and tongs...
Malaka, Iberia (late 3rd century BC)
AE AS 25 mm x 12.83 grams
Obverse: Capped bust of of Vulcan with Pincers behind all within a wreath 0 MLK in Phoenician behind.
Reverse: Radiant facing bust of Helios.
Ref: SNG Cop 39

 

The more I look at different reverses across a broad range of this type, I am thinking you might have it correct.

Not all the reverses have this same style of cap/die. Looking at Phils example and several others, and then seeing this example (photo below) I believe those dots are symbols of coins. My coin and some others lack the dot(coin?)

I believe the cap/die is in fact a punch die that has been garlanded... but the shape of the die was chosen to serve the dual purpose of representing Vulcans cap also. The coin below has bands above and below the garland. Not typical of any Vulcan cap I have seen on coins, statuary or bronzes. Also not typical of the few dome shaped dies in museums (I looked for a few hrs last night and this morning)

Therefore I propose that the celator took some artistic license in this case. And I propose that was the intent of the other celators, with differing levels of skill and success in conveying the symbolism. What we see here in the below example is neither cap nor die, yet it must represent something along those lines....so why not have it be both simultaneously? And if this celator saw the item as such, when he was instructed to carve the die, isn't it probable that all the other celators were trying to accomplish the same thing, but with differing results?




BTW you will note that the dot here (photo above) is far more representative of a coin than most of the other examples out there.


Anyway, I would like to hear from some scholarly sources on this.

 

A great example with a lovely cap of Vulcan!

Alas, I'm still searching for mine since Phil, once again, owns the one I want!

 

Just ask. He'll make you one. ;-)

 

I think that's because in many cases the dot (compass point) gets obliterated by the cap. It's only in the cases where the cap is higher off the anvil, exposing the center, that the dot remains visible. Your's may very well be a die break or a point where the dot was not fully covered. Again, we see these dots on other RR coins, notably the Antony Legionary denarii, where the dot is sometimes incorporated into the design as a mariner, but other times is left floating in the center of the field if the galley is engraved a bit low.

See cap on below coin from my collection.

See the below-linked blog of a respected scholar and expert on Roman coins. There is a blog entry from March 17, 2017 on this precise topic.

https://brooklynsabbatical.wordpress.com/

 

I had already read that blog post. It is one mans opinion and I did not know that is where you were getting some of your source material from. I am looking for scholars other than this one man. He himself states

"So what do Juno and Vulcan have in common? In Greek myth they are mother and son. Did this hold in the Roman tradition? We don’t have much evidence, just a single word in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, book 4:"

So, I would say his theory is open to scrutiny and debate.

BTW The coin with the lines on the cap. I am not familiar with it. Does that represent Vulcan or are you pointing out that caps come with bands?

 

The blogging scholar is a "she." She also points out that many in the trade (CNG for one, as noted by TIF) are now describing the disputed item as a cap. Another source would be Bahrfeldt, who thought this was a cap 100 years ago. I think there was an article in the Celator many years ago that also concluded it was a cap. I'll try to track that down and share it.

The coin I picture represents the Dioscuri, who are traditionally depicted in caps. Not Vulcan, but similar cap. Not sure why a die would have bands like that.

 

I agree. That's why we're debating! I make no claim of irrefutable correctness.

 

Agreed, but I want someone besides you and I to pine in. I'm not an art historian nor an expert in mythology.

I can see an artist combining several elements into one, giving us a deified, vulcan cap, shaped die on the coin. The relative size of the elements in the field, to me , is not a convincing enough argument, to say it is too big to be a punch die. The snake that the elephant tramples on a JC military mint is not to scale. But it is accepted as representing a snake. Also, Why create a rather generic blacksmith motif on the back, when you have Moneta on the front. My understanding from all the reading is that they were minted in the Temple to Moneta. You do have all the implements of a coin minting process on the back of a coin. Maybe that is all it is, but with a fancy punch die.

The British Museum has their coins described as garlanded punch dies. On this subject they are smarter than me.



http://www.britishmuseum.org/resear...object_details.aspx?objectId=1113968&partId=1

 

I saw this after posting my prior response. As for who said what and when...yes, I see the reversals of opinion back and forth. However, I'm going with the stodgy BM for now.

As for the bands, yes, I know there are bands on caps. I am looking for bands with garland on caps of Vulcan from any period. Even better if it is circa 50 BC. I have not found any yet. Goes to my point of artistic license. If it is definitely a Vulcan cap, then why have bands?..... Unless the artist took license..... and If the artist took license with the helmet design.... then how can one eliminate the possibility that the artist took license, by taking a punch die and designing it to also serve as Vulcans helmet?

btw I am not designed for debate via message board. it is too limiting. excuse any grammatical errors. No glasses at the moment.

 

BM is simply describing their coins in accordance with Crawford, which is the current RR standard catalogue. Don't assume any independent thought by the BM in using that description. Crawford went against longstanding tradition in calling the disputed device a punch die. Before Crawford, the standard RR catalogue was Sydenham. Sydenham called the device "cap of Vulcan, laureate" (See Syd. #982). Before Sydenham, the standard RR catalogue was the British Museum Catalogue by Grueber. Grueber called the device "cap of Vulcan (pileus), laureate" (See BMCRR vol 1, 4056). Barfeldt has been previously mentioned. So, there are plenty of scholars besides the blogger and me who think it's a cap of Vulcan.

Incidentally, that Cordius Rufus denarius with the banded cap was minted circa 46BC, same year as the Carisius that we're discussing.

Edit: I will add one more scholar of the past who appears to be in your corner (if my junior high school French serves me well) - Babelon identifies it as a die, I think.