Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="Roman Collector, post: 4860600, member: 75937"]Typically, the identity of an unnamed figure on a coin is made by recognizing his or her attributes. Usually, this is straightforward, but there are some occasions where there is uncertainty and scholars disagree as to the figure's identity. We have <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/">previously discussed</a> a similar situation regarding the figure on the reverse of a denarius of Faustina I. This situation arises with this denarius of Septimius Severus obtained from [USER=42773]@John Anthony[/USER]: <img src="https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/severus-pm-trp-xvi-cos-iii-pp-salus-denarius-jpg.1173639/" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> Septimius Severus, AD 193-211.Roman AR denarius, 3.38 g, 19.5 mm, 6 h.Rome, AD 208.Obv: SEVERVS PIVS AVG, head of Septimius Severus, laureate, right.Rev: P M TR P XVI COS III P P, female figure seated left, sacrificing from patera in right hand over lighted and garlanded altar (or serpent arising from altar?) and holding vertical scepter in left hand.Refs: RIC 221; BMCRE 567; Cohen 517; RCV --; Hill 981.Notes: Scarce; 20-30 examples among the 26 hoards listed in Hill, Appendix II. The reason there is some controversy about the identity of the reverse figure is that Septimius Severus issued two very similar coins the same year, RIC 218 and 221, which are identical apart from the presence of an altar before the seated figure on the reverse on RIC 221. [ATTACH=full]1173769[/ATTACH] Here's the example of RIC 218 in the British Museum (<a href="https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_1874-0714-28" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_1874-0714-28" rel="nofollow">BMCRE 562</a>): [ATTACH=full]1173772[/ATTACH]<a href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/concordia-homonoia.328439/" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/concordia-homonoia.328439/">Concordia</a> typically appears on coins as a matron, either seated or standing, holding in one hand a patera (sacrificial dish) and in the other a cornucopiae. Sometimes a star, or a statuette of Spes – emblems of hope – are depicted near her. Occasionally, an olive branch, symbolizing peace, replaces the patera. The hasta (scepter) may substitute for the cornucopiae on some issues. On the basis of her attributes -- the patera and scepter -- Mattingly (RIC p. p.119) identifies the figure on the reverse of RIC 218 as Concordia, but also sites Cohen 514, which identifies the figure as possibly being Clementia. Here's the listing in Cohen: [ATTACH=full]1173786[/ATTACH] I think Cohen's attribution to Clementia in his listing for 514 is because the description of the coin in the Catalogue Rothelin (Cohen 515) is more clearly that of Concordia -- a sitting figure holding a patera and a double cornucopiae -- and he thought the identity of the figure in 514 must be some other deity. However, despite its attestation, the existence of this coin is dubious and it is not listed in RIC or Hill, nor does the British Museum have an example in their collection. Clementia is typically depicted with a branch and a scepter and often leaning on a column. However, she has been depicted as sacrificing with a patera over an altar and holding a scepter, such as on this <a href="https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_1843-1024-329" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_1843-1024-329" rel="nofollow">denarius of Hadrian in the British Museum</a> (RIC 117, BMCRE 252), which is unambiguously identified as Clementia by the presence of CLEM in the exergue. <img src="https://www.cointalk.com/attachments/677336_001_l-jpg.813602/" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> And that may be applicable to the Septimius Severus type with the altar before the figure, RIC 221 -- my coin above -- and this example in the British Museum (<a href="https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_R-15395" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_R-15395" rel="nofollow">BMCRE 567</a>): [ATTACH=full]1173780[/ATTACH] The British Museum describes this reverse type as "Salus (or Concordia?) seated left, sacrificing from patera in right hand over lighted and garlanded altar and holding vertical sceptre in left hand." And, if anything, Cohen would have had a better case to identify his no. 517 as depicting Clementia. But note that Cohen identifies the figure on that reverse as Salus, as does Mattingly in RIC. Hill (no. 981) apparently follows suit, though his catalog lacks any reverse description: [ATTACH=full]1173805[/ATTACH] But does the figure on my coin, simply because of the presence of the altar, mean the figure must be Salus? Now, Salus typically holds a scepter and a patera, and there is often an altar at her feet -- as on the figure on the reverse of my coin -- but almost without exception, <a href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/the-asklepian-snake-on-roman-coins.296687/" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/the-asklepian-snake-on-roman-coins.296687/">Salus is depicted as feeding a serpent</a> arising from the altar or held in her arms, such as on these coins from my collection: [ATTACH=full]1173812[/ATTACH]Lucilla, AD 164-169.Roman orichalcum dupondius, 11.49 g, 24.88 mm, 6:00.Rome, AD 166.Obv: LVCILLAE AVG ANTONINI AVG F, bare-headed and draped bust, right.Rev: SALVS SC, Salus standing left, feeding snake arising from altar.Refs: RIC 1761; BMCRE 1186; Cohen 67; RCV 5521. [ATTACH=full]1173813[/ATTACH]Maximinus I, 235-238.Roman AE Sestertius,18.01 g, 26.7 mm, 5:00.Rome, AD 236-238.Obv: MAXIMINVS PIVS AVG GERM, Laureate, draped, and cuirassed bust, r.Rev: SALVS AVGVSTI SC, Salus enthroned l., feeding snake arising from altar.Refs: RIC-85; BMCRE-175, Sear-8338; Cohen-92. Might Cohen and Mattingly have taken the object coming up from the altar as being a serpent and not a flame? Possibly, but no reference makes mention of the presence of a serpent. And even on the most high grade examples of this coin where the details of the altar are most visible, the altar may simply be garlanded -- as in the description of the British Museum specimen noted above -- and the vertical object coming up from the altar does not resemble a serpent -- unlike coins that unequivocally depict Salus -- though I can't say with certainty that it's a flame, either. See, for example: [ATTACH=full]1173814[/ATTACH]Auctiones GmbH eAuction 65, <a href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=6291123" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=6291123" rel="nofollow">lot 20</a>, 15 September, 2019 If pressed, I'd say the altar is lighted and garlanded and not that it's an altar with a snake coiled around it and rising up to feed from the figure's patera. If pressed, I'd favor identifying the reverse figure as Concordia, who does appear on coins with an altar at her feet ... [ATTACH=full]1173822[/ATTACH]Otacilia Severa, AD 244-249Roman AR antoninianus, 3.02 g, 22.3 mm, 12 h.Rome, AD 246-248.Obv: M OTACIL SEVERA AVG, diademed and draped bust, right, on crescent.Rev: CONCORDIA AVGG, Concordia seated left, holding patera and cornucopiae; altar at feet.Refs: RIC 126; Cohen 17; RCV 9149; CRE 523. ... even if other examples from the same issue depict Concordia without an altar. [ATTACH=full]1173823[/ATTACH]Otacilia Severa, AD 244-249Roman AR antoninianus, 3.96 g, 23.1 mm, 12 h.Rome, AD 246-248.Obv: M OTACIL SEVERA AVG, diademed and draped bust, right, on crescent.Rev: CONCORDIA AVGG, Concordia seated left, holding patera and double cornucopiae.Refs: RIC 125c; Cohen 14; RCV 9147; CRE 522. But I'm not dismissing Clementia as a possibility, either, given her attributes illustrated on the denarius of Hadrian, above. What do you think? Clementia? Concordia? Salus? Argument for Clementia: Clementia may be depicted sacrificing from a patera over an altar and holding a scepter.Argument against Clementia: Clementia is usually depicted standing, often leaning on a column, and holding a branch, not a patera, and typically without an altar at her feet. Argument for Concordia: Concordia is depicted with a patera and sometimes with a scepter, either with or without an altar at her feet.Argument against Concordia: Concordia is not typically depicted with a scepter, but usually with a cornucopiae. Argument for Salus: Salus often holds a patera over an altar and often a scepter and that might be a serpent coming up from the altar on the OP coin and not a flame.Argument against Salus: Salus almost always is depicted with the serpent of Aesculapius and that doesn't look like a serpent coming up from an altar to me. Post your coins depicting Concordia seated, Salus seated, Clementia seated, Septimius Severus, or anything you feel is relevant! ~~~ Cohen, Henry. Description historique des monnaies frappées sous l'Empire Romain, Tome IV: de Septime Sévère à Maxime (AD 193 - 238). Paris, 1860. Hill, Philip V. The Coinage of Septimius Severus and His Family of the Mint of Rome: A.D. 193-217. Spink, 1964. Mattingly, Harold and Sydenham, Edward A. The Roman imperial coinage, vol. 4, Part 1: Pertinax to Geta. London, Spink, 1936[/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches