My coin purchasing has really slowed down so far this year due to not purchasing outside of North America. So many types of coins I normally gravitate to go to someone else since I don't want to wait 3 or more months. But recently I was able to find a snack to curb the grumbles in my stomach & acquired a new Roman Republic denarius. I have always liked this type. M. Aemilius Lepidus (114-113 B.C.) AR Denarius O: ROMA, diademed and laureate head of Roma right, star behind. R: M•AE-MILI•, equestrian statue atop triple arch; L-E-P within arches. 3.8g 19mm Rome Mint Crawford 291/1; Aemilia 7; Sydenham 554
I have one of these and could never figure out if the horse was riding over a bridge or an aqueduct. Any ideas on what it is and why?
Nice Denarius, @Mat ! I have always liked this version, just have not gotten one yet. Wow, you are raking in the RR's!
Well, there is also the Pons Aemilius(AKA Ponte Rotto) — Rome’s oldest stone bridge. A section can still be seen standing today, albeit in ruins. The bridges arches were constructed by Aemilius Lepidus. Picture Circa 1842 There is this text suggesting a potential connection: Cited from: The Dictionary of Roman Coins
A very detailed and more up to date discussion about this denarius and why it shows the Aqua Marcia can be found here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/499623.pdf The Denarius of M. Aemilius Lepidus and the Aqua Marcia: Meriwether Stuart American Journal of Archaeology , Jul. - Sep., 1945, Vol. 49, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1945), pp. 226-251
Thanks for the link. I perused the article in its entirety. It, however, is not a discussion; rather it is the sole opinion of one Meriwether Stuart. Your post above states “the usual interpretation is...” The article itself openly starts with: “A wide divergence of opinion prevails concerning the identity of the structure represented...” The writer starts off spending some time comparing this coin with other coins minted during the later Imperial era and their depictions of bridges. This logic may be somewhat flawed, as artistic styles between the two distinct eras of Roman coinage are vastly different. How the bridges(or arches) on coins of Augustus (or Hadrian) are portrayed has limited (if any) basis to compare with a coin that was minted one hundred(or hundreds of) year(s) beforehand — w/ the Lepidus issue being among the first to potentially portray a bridge(an aqueduct or triumphal arch) on a Roman coin. The author is quick to dismiss the image as portraying a bridge with very limited reasoning to go by. But for the sake of his argument, I could show a later RIC minted under Valerian I in honor of the bridge that he had built over the Pyramus river at Mopsus, Cilicia. The author continues with similar comparisons attempting to dismiss the image as a triumphal arch (also based on later coinage). The remaining bulk of the wording is spent trying to determine which aqueduct is being represented. After reading the article, I’m not convinced his opinion is worthy of any sort of absolute consensus. It is merely the opinion of one writer. I’ll revert back to line #1 in the article. My 1st post ITT was intended to reveal that there are differing opinions from well-learned scholars about the imagery on the coin, and what it may be portraying. For me, the name connection between the moneyer and the bridge-builder has some strong merit, in that RR coinage often was minted with imagery honoring familial ancestry. If it were intended to be the Aqua Marcia, wouldn’t it be minted by a moneyer named Marcius(related to Ancus)? Why would a family(Gens Aemelia) connected to the building of a famous bridge choose to instead depict the image of something not publicly attributed to them(an aqueduct) on their coinage? The author deals in some fairly unsubstantiated speculation and “suggested possibilities” trying to connect the dots in the other direction by using confirmation bias to connect Aemilius with the aqueduct. How about this possibility? Could it simply be that the moneyer Marcius mimicked the imagery of Lepidus for his own guy? Once again. Thank you for the link. It still made for an interesting and informative read concerning civil construction projects and the politics involved during the Roman Republic.
It is named after Quintus Marcius Rex, who was praetor during the end of the construction, but the ancestor of M. Aemilius Lepidus was censor when the building started. Enough reason for a coin. You can compare the two Aqua Marcia coins in the Blog of Mauseus: http://mauseus.blogspot.com/2009/05/aqua-marcia.html
The answer is not set in stone. There is no verifiable proof that any construction of an aqueduct was started at the time that M. Aemilius Lepidus and M. Fulvius Nobilior were censors, only that is was contemplated and contracts were being drafted at the time. The suggestion that construction had started w/ the hope of Crassus’ later approval (to allow for a right of way through his property) is mere speculation by the author at best. The surviving documentation states that the project was blocked. Later on in the article, the author declares it as pertinent evidence that the project had laid partially completed and unfinished for 30+ years(once again, no actual record of) to further bolster his claims. Having not been swayed by the opinions, nor the conclusions expressed by the writer in the article, I’m still gonna lean towards the bridge that also bears the familial name of the moneyer. You do you. No offense intended.
@Mat Nice snack! I am a fan of Roman engineering, and decided to call it an aqueduct because I like aqueducts.
Here is just a small addition. Since I had time on this weekend, and, since I also own this type and am therefore interested in the interpretation, I looked up what Crawford writes, who is IMHO still the highest authority in the field of republican coins. Read yourself: Cited from Michael H. Crawford, "Roman Republican Coinage", p. 305, 306 my example
