MN. AEMILIO LEPIDUS AR Denarius OBV: Laureate, diademed head of Roma right, ROMA before, * behind REV: M N AEMILIO, equestrian statue on triumphal arch, L E P between the arches Struck at Rome, 114-13 BC 3.78g, 19mm Cr291/1, Syd 554/Aemilia 7 Historical Background: The images on this denarius have caused much discussion among scholars. The obverse side reads ROM[A] and represents the head of a female referring to Roma or Venus behind the neck a star with six rays, the value sign for a denarius. On the reverse side an equestrian statue is shown on a plateau supported by three arches isolated from its environment together with the capitals M[MANIVS]. AEMILI. LEP, the name of the moneyer. In 1945 M. Stuart - after elaborate research - came to the conclusion that this image was related to the aqueduct Aqua Marcia, the third aqueduct of Rome. According to Livius the construction of a new aqueduct was started in 179 bc under supervision of the censors M. Aemilius Lepidus and M. Fulvius Nobilior. However, M. Licinius Crassus refused any support and did not allow the aqueduct to cross his property. In the years after this event religious objections were raised against the idea to extend the aqueduct trace to the Capitolinus. In the year 144 bc and with the help of a different M. Aemilius Lepidus (Porcina) urban praetor Q. Marcius Rex received the order of the Senate to restore the Aqua Appia and the Aqua Anio (Vetus) and to (re)build and finish the third aqueduct. In 140 bc new objections were raised for aqueduct water to reach the Capitolinus without success: in the same year this new aqueduct - in later days called Aqua Marcia - was put into use. This interpretation also makes clear the relative short time of construction (seemingly between 144 - 140 bc) of an aqueduct of 92 km in length including 10 km on arcades. Although the aqueduct was named Aqua Marcia, in 114/113 bc the moneyer M. Aemilius Lepidus may have intent to commemorate the name of one of the original builders of the year 179 bc M. Aemilius Lepidus. The equestrian statue on the reverse side will have been - according to Stuart - M. Aemilius Lepidus on an unfinished aqueduct. However, the arguments of this author were rejected by M.G. Morgan who concluded that the aqueduct line of 179 bc was never built. G. Fuchs presents different interpretations of the arches under the statue: triumphal arches, arches of the Pons Aemilia bridge or a standard substruction. In numismatic circles the image is mostly described as "Equestrian statue standing right on triumphal arch".
This aquaduct appears again in 56 BC with an issue by a descendant of the 144-140 BC repair/extention Marcius. There can be no doubt that the item shown is an aquaduct this time since it is labeled Aqua Mar. L. Marcius Philippus 56 BC King Ancus Marcius is shown on the obverse but the reverse figure is not named. The attribution is suggested by Q. Marcius' involvement with the 144-140 BC work.
Another excellent Roman Republic coin! I'd appreciate it if you could let me know about this dealer that does these affordable Republic coins.
This one was even less than the MN. AUILLIUS Denarius. I'm loving that I found a decent source. I don't know how long before he decides to raise his prices.
I think finally tracked-down all of your recent coins? 1 - MN, AEMILIO LEPIDUS 2 - MN FONTEIUS 3 - L CORNELIUS SULLA 4 - MN AUILLIUS 5 - P CLODIUS MF TURRINUS 6 - HEY MACRINUS 7 - L CALPURNIUS PISO FRUGI 8 - TRAJAN AE QUADRAN => all great coins (8 likes were awarded) ... that'll do pig, that'll do
This thread is several months old but it was the force that reminded me that I needed this type and put it on my watch list. I have been posting the others of my 8 new auction lots as separate threads but will just tack this one on here. I find it interesting just how different the coins are. In some ways mine is higher grade but its weaknesses are Bing's coins strengths. He has a legible MAN ligature on the reverse left where mine is so weakly struck. Also, his denomination mark (crossed X) is bold while mine is barely present. Most of the problems with Bing's coin stem from the weight adjustment scoop removed from the flan before striking eliminating the horse's rear and weakening the strike on the obverse head. Comparing the two coins shows that Bing's coin has only a little more wear but lost detail to this striking situation. Ancients often have uneven striking and these two show how difference can vary as you look at different parts of the coin. The left edges of mine hardly grade VG for detail while the rest of the coin is perhaps VF. Bing's coin has VF periphery but a weak center (F/G?). This is why you just can't grade some ancients with a couple letters; you need a paragraph. I am not 100% certain but I believe the two coins are die duplicates (Banti 8/5). When coins are so different, it is hard to be certain.
Its a type I have high on my want list but its either too expensive or I dont have the $ for it. Love the obverse portrait on it.
I can't see where they are die duplicates, but I more than trust your opinions. Depending on the cost of each, if I had to choose between the two coins and all things being equal (i.e., cost, pedigree), yours is a much nicer coin in all the aspects you have mentioned. The reverse on yours has much better detail overall. Congrats on the pickup.
