Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Roman Collector, post: 3128736, member: 75937&quot;]Thank you for your kind words. I&#039;m having a lot of fun with this.</p><p><br /></p><p>I don&#039;t think that the Faustina denarius depicts a &quot;half-zodiac band.&quot; The other half is hidden behind Aeternitas&#039; back.</p><p><br /></p><p>Given that this is a posthumous issue to honor the deified Faustina, Aeternitas is the figure to be identified here. Aeternitas is the female equivalent of Aion (Gradel, <i>Emperor Worship and Roman Religion</i>, pp. 310–311), the god of limitless time. As such, it&#039;s no surprise that one of her attributes (the zodiac circle) mirrors his. It makes complete sense in the context of this issue: Aeternitas is here welcoming the departed and deified empress into eternity in the celestial realm.</p><p><br /></p><p>Hence Urania -- one of nine muses -- doesn&#039;t fit the historical or religious context of the issue at all.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I think those striations are meant to represent the demarcations between the various houses of the zodiac.</p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;m not sure if any vines are depicted in your example of RIC 366 (the coin in the OP); it would certainly make for an interesting tie-in to the Hippo Regius mosaic if it did, though!</p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;m intrigued as well by the imagery on the bottom coin (RIC 350) you have posted as well. The figure is traditionally identified as Providentia -- and she probably is, given the similarity in her attributes to the Hadrian denarius [USER=70512]@Okidoki[/USER] <a href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/not-a-shield-but-the-circle-of-the-zodiac.319539/#post-3127679" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/not-a-shield-but-the-circle-of-the-zodiac.319539/#post-3127679">posted earlier</a> in this thread explicitly identifed as Providentia by &quot;PRO AVG&quot; -- but, as this thread proves, one has to be skeptical about such attributions unless the coin specifically identifies the figure. You&#039;ll recall that there is <a href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/faustina-i-denarius-scarce-aeternitas-type.317976/" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/faustina-i-denarius-scarce-aeternitas-type.317976/">no consensus</a> on the identity of the female figure on the reverse of this issue:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]797777[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>Not only has the figure on your coin been attributed to Providentia, so has the figure on this one (RIC 351):</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]797778[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>One has to wonder now, though, whether the figure thought to be Providentia on this coin isn&#039;t actually Aeternitas. Mattingly and Sydenham aren&#039;t so sure, either, indicating their uncertainty with a question mark in parentheses:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]797784[/ATTACH](RIC III, p. 70)</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]797788[/ATTACH]</p><p>(BMCRE 4, p. 56)</p><p><br /></p><p>And that circular object above the figure in RIC 351/BMC 373? Well, you can see the catalogs call it a veil blown out behind her head. I wonder now if it isn&#039;t supposed to be a zodiac circle as well.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in