Featured Roman Imperial - Coins that ought to exist, but don't

The only coin of Herennius Etruscus that I own. Plowing scene heading left.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Rhescuporus IV? I thought it was VI. I believe my poorly centered coin is his brother and co-ruler Rhadamsades who died first leaving Rhescuporus to rule alone but I believe coins stopped earlier. Mine is year 611 (314-5 AD). How late do these go? How do you tell Constantine from Licinius? I have been calling this one Licinius but I doubt his mother would recognize him from this image.

 

Very intriguing post, thank you.

I would add to this list the curious lack of issues for Hadrian as caesar: an exceptionally rare aureus is known, but nothing further.


Picture taken from here.

The lack of these strikes me as a little curious regardless of how exactly Hadrian came to be emperor. If he genuinely was adopted during the lifetime of Trajan, then we have a strangely limited attempt to publicise him on the coinage, contrasting sharply with how much the later Antonines advertised their successors.

If the adoption was a fiction which needed to be propagandised because it didn't actually exist --and hence, this coin is "backdated" to Trajan's reign-- then a single rare faux-Trajanic issue is a rather low-energy effort. The better-known "ADOPTIO" series was meanwhile a larger issue in all metals. Interesting either way.

 

Do all experts who have examined the aureus 'in hand' accept it as official and ancient?

 

I can't claim any particular knowledge on this point unfortunately. Curtis Clay had it in-hand in the early 1990s: he wrote briefly about it here. The related Harlan J. Berk catalogue is online here: it cites a die match to the now-lost Paris specimen, and states the Trajan side is a die match for a final-period Trajan obverse, if I read it correctly. Mattingly considered the type to be genuine, though only on the basis of the British Museums's "excellent impression" of the Paris coin. (BMCRE Vol. III, xxiii and 124).

 

Interesting, I was not aware of that issue.

From my reading, Trajan rather intensely disliked Hadrian and never appointed him as his heir - the official story goes that the appointment was made on Trajan's deathbed, although many have claimed that Plotina simply forged the wills to allow Hadrian to take the purple. I hadn't included a coin of Hadrian as Caesar because I didn't think one did exist, or that it made historical sense. Such a coin I think must either be a backdated issue as you said, or else it would call into question the entire circumstance of Hadrian's accession.

Another observation about coins from this period...

- Coins of Divus Nerva are nearly nonexistent (excepting those made by Decius). I was able to find a few provincial examples, and one aureus on AC Search

- Even though Trajan was adopted by Nerva months before Nerva's death, no coins were struck as far as I can tell?

- Coins of Divus Trajan likewise are extremely rare, mostly restricted to a couple types of aureii. One would think Hadrian would want to make the show of good faith and give his adoptive dead father a nice and extensive commemorative series.

- Coins of Divus Hadrian are also rare, but not nearly as much as his predecessors (in fact, I got outbid on one just about a month ago at a CNG auction). This makes sense, because Hadrian killed a lot of people who were on his bad side as he neared the end of his life. He wasn't popular.

 

Some very interesting points.

I was searching for coins with Julius Caesar portraits the other day, and it struck me how very few emperors honored him. Only Augustus early in his reign when he needed the DIVI F for legitimacy and Trajan a century later. Please let me know if there were more, but so far Julius seems to have been ignored.

 

Verus was adopted together with Marcus Aurelius on the death of Hadrian, by Antoninus Pius. On July 15th 139 Marcus became caesar, while Verus remained consul. Verus never was caesar, so he never got the honour of seeing his face on any coin.

 

How about coins that exist that shouldn't? Your knowledge is extensive and I'm sure you would have some thoughts.

 

The Berk listing points out the existence of sulfur casts of the coin destroyed in 1831 making the die identification possible and going a long way to support the coin as genuine. Thanks for the link.

 

Valid point, but the provincial cities at this time were quite liberal with many of their issues, and it seems like it would make sense for at least one to have a "Hooray, we have two young and healthy heirs apparent!" Issue.

Which brings me to this one I recently purchased, ostensibly one of the few coins of Annius Verus Caesar with his older Brother Commodus (Annius developed a tumor under his ear and died of an infection after it was removed)


Although Commodus / Annius is the agreed upon attribution (they were both named Caesar in 169) I have heard it suggested that this could be an issue of Aurelius and Verus as Caesares. I personally lean toward the former attribution.

 

Apologies for the delay, I had a response half typed out but then had to abandon it.

For the most part, Roman coins reinforce what Roman history tells us, Historia Augusta not included. There are a few curiosities and coins that "shouldn't" exist. I can't answer for the coins that require esoteric knowledge of Roman history, but there are a few that I am aware of:

- Among the ruins of Pompeii, archaeologists found a lone denarius of Titus that wouldn't have been minted until a couple months *after* the recorded date of the eruption of Vesuvius; this coin seemingly confirms the theory that Vesuvius erupted in October or November, not August as Pliny recounted.

- History tells us that Pertinax, cognizant of his precarious situation with the Praetorian guard, declined to confer imperial titles to his wife Titania or son Pertinax Jr. In theory, this would protect them from "having" to be killed in the event of Pertinax's assassination (I am not sure if this worked). Alexandria, however, didn't get the memo and started making coins of Titania Augusta and Pertinax Caesar as soon as they got the memo. Only a few examples of each survive to the present day, I think most extant examples are in museums. (@dougsmit posted a cast of a cast of one of these: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/roman-egyptian-tetradrachm-dont-mind-if-i-do.344019/#post-3641000)

- Every year, the emperor would renew his Tribunicia Potestas (TR P) in early December. Geta was assassinated on December 26, 211, just a few weeks after taking his TR P IIII. Considering the immense measures taken to erase the fallen brother, it would seem that none of these coins ought to exist, as failing to surrender one for exchange and destruction would have certainly been a capital crime. However, while these coins are quite rare, Geta TR P IIII coins are nowhere near as rare as coins of other individuals subject to a Damnatio Memoriae, e.g. the EID MAR denarius.

- The third century historians didn't pay much attention to the wives of emperors, but there is no historical record whatsoever of Severina (wife of Aurelian) or of Magnia Urbica (wife of Carinus). Coins are in no short supply, however...


It's been postulated that coins with the dative SEVERINAE might have been minted while she ostensibly took the reins of the empire while the Senate deliberated and ultimately elected Tacitus. I believe this theory has been mostly discredited.


Magnia Urbica - There was apparently confusion about whose wife she was, until a coin of Carinus with her on the reverse was found!


- As posted on the previous page, Maxentius declared himself Augustus upon hearing that Constantine had entered the imperial ranks by force rather than waiting around to be nominated. He was enthusiastically ratified by Rome, but Carthage apparently was hesitant to acknowledge him as Emperor, and either to straddle the fence or out of genuine confusion, recognized him briefly only as Caesar, probably under his father Maximian.


- For the entire duration of the Tetrarchy, only Galeria Valeria was honored on coinage. Except for Constantine, not many emperors saw fit to place their wives on coinage until the time of Theodosius. One curiosity are the tiny coins of Theodora, second wife of Constantius Chlorus

The fabric and especially the use of a cross prove that these coins were not minted until well after the Edict of Milan. It is theorized that these were minted by Constantine's heirs shortly after his death, but "why" is not an easy question to answer. Constantius II and Constantine II had just conspired to eradicate her grandchildren except for Nepotian, Gallus, and Julian. It's possible that these coins were made either before the mass-assassination, or shortly after it to placate the upset populace or stress their innocence in the plot. Interesting to note also is that we are uncertain whether these coins are posthumous. It's generally assumed that Theodora died sometime in the early 4th century, but as the older sister of Fausta, it's also possible that she was still alive in the late 330s as she would have been in her sixties or seventies.

- To those familiar with esoteric LRB types, the Festival of Isis coinage is historically fascinating and high on many want lists. Not only are they some of the last pseudo-autonomous / civic coins made, but they also include some of the last imperial coins to include unambiguously pagan iconography:

http://www.lanzauctions.com/showcoin.php?no=987740129
Why a dedicated Christian emperor would allow such coins to be minted in his image is beyond me!

 

Hello, awesome job done! Great observations!

Immediately, I started researching and found some examples of missing coins, at least what it looks like the "missing coins" you mention above.

so far, I found:
1. Lucius Verus as Caesar during the reign of Antoninus Pius, available at:

https://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotv...Lot=2237&Val=1bd8de6934692440817cbe8dec238710


2. Posthumous coins of Gordian I or II, Divus Gordianus, available at:

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/c...?param=99979q00.jpg&vpar=1238&zpg=115111&fld=