Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
T-Bone Tuesday -- Temple of Roma edition
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="Claudius_Gothicus, post: 8088198, member: 116315"]Welcome back to what is almost certainly going to be the last issue of T-Bone Tuesday for this year <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />, unless a surprise comes up for sale at the last second. I'm also hopeful that you'll find this one to be amongst the most interesting editions, as I'm going to discuss a coin that is special and very rare for a number of reasons, especially in regards to a very noticeable one, and I will follow it up with my considerations regarding its wider numismatic context and its historical significance. Without further ado, here it is:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1405394[/ATTACH]</p><p>Roman Empire, Trebonianus Gallus (251-253), Antoninianus, Antioch mint.</p><p>Obverse: IMP C C VIB TREB GALLVS P F AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right, seen from behind, VII (?) below;</p><p>Reverse: SAECVLLVM NOVVM, tetrastyle temple with seated figure in centre, IV below;</p><p>RIC IV - (c.f. RIC IV 91);</p><p><br /></p><p>What is so special about this coin, you might ask? Well, first of all, it's worth mentioning that the officina number on the obverse, while partly off flan, seems to be VII, while the one on the reverse is clearly IV - mismatched officinae are quite common in this period at this mint, but I know of no other example combining an obverse of the seventh with a reverse of the fourth, which is pretty cool. You might also notice that the reverse features the word "SAECVLLVM" in place of the normal "SAECVLVM" - an error typical of Antioch. However, you will definitely notice the most unusual aspect of this coin when you compare it with a "normal" coin of the type:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1405402[/ATTACH]</p><p><i>(Image courtesy of Classical Numismatic Group)</i></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p>The temple is supposed to be hexastyle, but on my coin it is tetrastyle, instead (the auction house hadn't noticed, either, which is how I managed to get it for a very good price)! Besides my example, from what I've gathered, there are three other known examples, one for Gallus and two for Volusian, and they all come from the same reverse die, as is evident from the crack and the damaged letters on the reverse:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1405396[/ATTACH]</p><p><i>The other example for Gallus, from the Beale collection</i></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p><i>[ATTACH=full]1405399[/ATTACH] </i></p><p><i>The first Volusian example, later acquired by Beale (Image courtesy of Jean Elsen)</i></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p><i>[ATTACH=full]1405397[/ATTACH] </i></p><p><i>The other Volusian (Image courtesy of Classical Numismatic Group)</i></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p>But does this detail mean anything? To answer this question, I believe we must analyze this type's history, first: the SAECVLVM NOVVM reverse had originally been introduced by Philip I at Rome as part of the special emission celebrating the Eternal City's first millennium and it was also later copied by the Antioch mint. I believe that it is reasonable to assume that the temple shown there is not an invention of the die engraver but rather a representation of a real building - but what temple was it? The building changes according to the denomination: on antoniniani we can see a simple hexastyle temple with Corinthian capitals as well as, on some coins struck from particularly nice dies, what appear to be some small figures on the top; on the sestertii, on the other hand, the temple is octastyle and the objects on the top are clearer - there seem to be two small figures (Victories?) on the extremities of the roof as well as a group of three at the top?</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1405416[/ATTACH]</p><p><i>(Image courtesy of Solidus Numismatik)</i></p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1405417[/ATTACH]</p><p><i>(Image courtesy of H.D. Rauch)</i></p><p><br /></p><p>One element, however, is certain: the figure in the centre is definitely Roma, seated and holding a sceptre and a small Victory, as was customary for her depictions, which can also be seen on an antoninianus of Philip I from shortly before - if anyone still had any doubts, the connection is confirmed by the existance of antoniniani of Probus with the same exact temple and the legend ROMAE AETERNAE:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1405433[/ATTACH] </p><p><i><i>(Image courtesy of Nomos)</i></i></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p>Thus, this proves without doubt that the Rome version of the SAECVLVM NOVVM type portrays the Temple of Roma and Venus: the temple (which was actually decastyle - I guess the engravers weren't able to fit the full building in the die) had been built by Hadrian and was a massive building 30 metres tall, with two cells holding statues of the goddesses to which the building was dedicated - certainly the right building to portray on a coin attempting to symbolize the idea that the city was eternal thanks to the emperor's efforts, which was what Philip was trying to imply with his special emission.</p><p><br /></p><p>But what about the Antiochene version? If we're being completely honest, to me it seems like the figure is actually one of Jupiter, in this case, as the small Victory seems to have disappeared and the overall shape of the figure is more similar to him rather than Roma, and it becomes especially apparent, in my opinion, in the version struck by Gallus a few years later, some examples of which I posted above - there's even a very rare variant with an eagle in the pediment, which seems to further cement the association:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1405422[/ATTACH]</p><p><i>(Image courtesy of Gemini)</i></p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1405426[/ATTACH]</p><p><i>(Image courtesy of cgbfr.com)</i></p><p><br /></p><p>From the albeit limited historical evidence it appears that a temple to Jupiter Capitolinus did indeed exist in Antioch, so it doesn't seem far fatched that the local engravers decided to adopt a building that they knew well as the model for their coins. We are, however, left wondering whether the decision to reuse this type under Gallus after a couple of years of hiatus under Decius had any specific meaning: the reverse is not known for the emperor, his wife or his oldest son, while there are a few examples for Hostilian, both as Caesar and as Augustus - as for Gallus and Volusian, it appears immediately in large quantities in the first issue, contemporary with that of Hostilian, and continues to be used until the end of their reign. It thus appear that the decision to stop using it, as well as the one to reintroduce it, was deliberate: was Gallus trying to imply that he had inaugurated a new age of peace by ending the Gothic war though the payment of a large tribute? If so, why did he only use the temple reverse, and why only at Antioch? Wouldn't some of the other commemorative types of Philip or Decius have been more impressive to use?</p><p><br /></p><p>But, most importantly: where does the tetrastyle variant fit in all of this? It's known from only one die, so was it the result of an error/an engraver's creative liberty or was it a more accurate representation of the temple of Jupiter that existed in the city? Should we even trust the numismatic depiction of the building, seeing how the Rome version wasn't accurate to its original, either? I guess we might never known, but I'd like to hear your opinions on the matter.</p><p><br /></p><p>That's all for now; post your coins with architectural types, your commemorative coins of Philip, your Antioch antoniniani, or anything else you feel like might be relevant <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />!</p><p><br /></p><p>Sources:</p><p>- <a href="https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=antioch%20hoard%20of%20gallienus" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=antioch%20hoard%20of%20gallienus" rel="nofollow">"The Antioch hoard of Gallienus"</a>, Alex G. Malloy, 1992;</p><p>- <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/42662653?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/42662653?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents" rel="nofollow">"A hoard of third-century antoniniani from southern Spain"</a>, H.D. Gallwey, The Numismatic Chronicle and Journal of the Royal Numismatic Society, Volume 2 (1962);</p><p>- <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/43573549?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/43573549?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents" rel="nofollow">"The Antioch hoard of antoniniani and the eastern coinage of Trebonianus Gallus and Volusian"</a>, William E. Metcalf, Museum Notes (American Numismatic Society), Volume 22 (1977);</p><p>- <a href="http://sonic.net/~marius1/mysite/" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://sonic.net/~marius1/mysite/" rel="nofollow">"Four Bad Years"</a> by Richard Beale;</p><p>- <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Venus_and_Roma" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Venus_and_Roma" rel="nofollow">"Temple of Venus and Roma"</a>, Wikipedia;</p><p>- "Antioch: A History", Andrea De Giorgi, Asa Eger;[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="Claudius_Gothicus, post: 8088198, member: 116315"]Welcome back to what is almost certainly going to be the last issue of T-Bone Tuesday for this year :), unless a surprise comes up for sale at the last second. I'm also hopeful that you'll find this one to be amongst the most interesting editions, as I'm going to discuss a coin that is special and very rare for a number of reasons, especially in regards to a very noticeable one, and I will follow it up with my considerations regarding its wider numismatic context and its historical significance. Without further ado, here it is: [ATTACH=full]1405394[/ATTACH] Roman Empire, Trebonianus Gallus (251-253), Antoninianus, Antioch mint. Obverse: IMP C C VIB TREB GALLVS P F AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right, seen from behind, VII (?) below; Reverse: SAECVLLVM NOVVM, tetrastyle temple with seated figure in centre, IV below; RIC IV - (c.f. RIC IV 91); What is so special about this coin, you might ask? Well, first of all, it's worth mentioning that the officina number on the obverse, while partly off flan, seems to be VII, while the one on the reverse is clearly IV - mismatched officinae are quite common in this period at this mint, but I know of no other example combining an obverse of the seventh with a reverse of the fourth, which is pretty cool. You might also notice that the reverse features the word "SAECVLLVM" in place of the normal "SAECVLVM" - an error typical of Antioch. However, you will definitely notice the most unusual aspect of this coin when you compare it with a "normal" coin of the type: [ATTACH=full]1405402[/ATTACH] [I](Image courtesy of Classical Numismatic Group) [/I] The temple is supposed to be hexastyle, but on my coin it is tetrastyle, instead (the auction house hadn't noticed, either, which is how I managed to get it for a very good price)! Besides my example, from what I've gathered, there are three other known examples, one for Gallus and two for Volusian, and they all come from the same reverse die, as is evident from the crack and the damaged letters on the reverse: [ATTACH=full]1405396[/ATTACH] [I]The other example for Gallus, from the Beale collection [ATTACH=full]1405399[/ATTACH] The first Volusian example, later acquired by Beale (Image courtesy of Jean Elsen) [ATTACH=full]1405397[/ATTACH] The other Volusian (Image courtesy of Classical Numismatic Group) [/I] But does this detail mean anything? To answer this question, I believe we must analyze this type's history, first: the SAECVLVM NOVVM reverse had originally been introduced by Philip I at Rome as part of the special emission celebrating the Eternal City's first millennium and it was also later copied by the Antioch mint. I believe that it is reasonable to assume that the temple shown there is not an invention of the die engraver but rather a representation of a real building - but what temple was it? The building changes according to the denomination: on antoniniani we can see a simple hexastyle temple with Corinthian capitals as well as, on some coins struck from particularly nice dies, what appear to be some small figures on the top; on the sestertii, on the other hand, the temple is octastyle and the objects on the top are clearer - there seem to be two small figures (Victories?) on the extremities of the roof as well as a group of three at the top? [ATTACH=full]1405416[/ATTACH] [I](Image courtesy of Solidus Numismatik)[/I] [ATTACH=full]1405417[/ATTACH] [I](Image courtesy of H.D. Rauch)[/I] One element, however, is certain: the figure in the centre is definitely Roma, seated and holding a sceptre and a small Victory, as was customary for her depictions, which can also be seen on an antoninianus of Philip I from shortly before - if anyone still had any doubts, the connection is confirmed by the existance of antoniniani of Probus with the same exact temple and the legend ROMAE AETERNAE: [ATTACH=full]1405433[/ATTACH] [I][I](Image courtesy of Nomos)[/I] [/I] Thus, this proves without doubt that the Rome version of the SAECVLVM NOVVM type portrays the Temple of Roma and Venus: the temple (which was actually decastyle - I guess the engravers weren't able to fit the full building in the die) had been built by Hadrian and was a massive building 30 metres tall, with two cells holding statues of the goddesses to which the building was dedicated - certainly the right building to portray on a coin attempting to symbolize the idea that the city was eternal thanks to the emperor's efforts, which was what Philip was trying to imply with his special emission. But what about the Antiochene version? If we're being completely honest, to me it seems like the figure is actually one of Jupiter, in this case, as the small Victory seems to have disappeared and the overall shape of the figure is more similar to him rather than Roma, and it becomes especially apparent, in my opinion, in the version struck by Gallus a few years later, some examples of which I posted above - there's even a very rare variant with an eagle in the pediment, which seems to further cement the association: [ATTACH=full]1405422[/ATTACH] [I](Image courtesy of Gemini)[/I] [ATTACH=full]1405426[/ATTACH] [I](Image courtesy of cgbfr.com)[/I] From the albeit limited historical evidence it appears that a temple to Jupiter Capitolinus did indeed exist in Antioch, so it doesn't seem far fatched that the local engravers decided to adopt a building that they knew well as the model for their coins. We are, however, left wondering whether the decision to reuse this type under Gallus after a couple of years of hiatus under Decius had any specific meaning: the reverse is not known for the emperor, his wife or his oldest son, while there are a few examples for Hostilian, both as Caesar and as Augustus - as for Gallus and Volusian, it appears immediately in large quantities in the first issue, contemporary with that of Hostilian, and continues to be used until the end of their reign. It thus appear that the decision to stop using it, as well as the one to reintroduce it, was deliberate: was Gallus trying to imply that he had inaugurated a new age of peace by ending the Gothic war though the payment of a large tribute? If so, why did he only use the temple reverse, and why only at Antioch? Wouldn't some of the other commemorative types of Philip or Decius have been more impressive to use? But, most importantly: where does the tetrastyle variant fit in all of this? It's known from only one die, so was it the result of an error/an engraver's creative liberty or was it a more accurate representation of the temple of Jupiter that existed in the city? Should we even trust the numismatic depiction of the building, seeing how the Rome version wasn't accurate to its original, either? I guess we might never known, but I'd like to hear your opinions on the matter. That's all for now; post your coins with architectural types, your commemorative coins of Philip, your Antioch antoniniani, or anything else you feel like might be relevant :)! Sources: - [URL='https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=antioch%20hoard%20of%20gallienus']"The Antioch hoard of Gallienus"[/URL], Alex G. Malloy, 1992; - [URL='https://www.jstor.org/stable/42662653?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents']"A hoard of third-century antoniniani from southern Spain"[/URL], H.D. Gallwey, The Numismatic Chronicle and Journal of the Royal Numismatic Society, Volume 2 (1962); - [URL='https://www.jstor.org/stable/43573549?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents']"The Antioch hoard of antoniniani and the eastern coinage of Trebonianus Gallus and Volusian"[/URL], William E. Metcalf, Museum Notes (American Numismatic Society), Volume 22 (1977); - [URL='http://sonic.net/~marius1/mysite/']"Four Bad Years"[/URL] by Richard Beale; - [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Venus_and_Roma']"Temple of Venus and Roma"[/URL], Wikipedia; - "Antioch: A History", Andrea De Giorgi, Asa Eger;[/QUOTE]
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
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
T-Bone Tuesday -- Temple of Roma edition
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...
