The identities of the rulers portrayed on this little coin from Claudia Leucas (Balanea) in Sryia have been a puzzle to numismatists for a long time. Whoever they are, the coin portrays the emperor and empress as the sun and the moon. Roman Provincial AE 15 Syria: Coele-Syria, Claudia Leucas (Balanea) 3.06 g; 15.2 mm Obv: ΛΕVΚΑΔΙ ωΝ, radiate head of emperor, r. Rev: ΤωΝΚΑI ΚΛΑVΔΙΑΙωΝ, head of empress, r., wearing crescent. Refs: SGI 508; BMC 20, p. 296, no. 1, pl. XXXVII, 1; Lindgren I 2180; RPC I 4465 Sear and the British Museum attribute it to Claudius and Agrippina II. I think Lindgren follows suit, but since I don't have Lindgren I, I'm not sure. (Would somebody with Lindgren I be so kind as to look it up for me? Thanks!) However, as noted by Imhoof-Blumer, and reiterated by RPC, the obverse bust has Trajan's features, with a similarity to other coins of Trajan from Claudia Leucas (Balanea). In addition, the reverse has the facial features and hairstyle of Plotina.
Hmm. My first thought is that the obverse portrait looks like Nero. If Nero, the reverse might be Agrippina Jr (his mom), Claudia Octavia (Nero's first wife), or Poppaea (Nero's second wife). I wonder why the reverse is thought to be an empress rather than simply the Greek goddess Selene?
It's not unusual for coins to depict the emperor as the sun and the empress as the moon. See, for example, this one of Augustus and Livia from Colonia Romula in Spain. The obverse depicts Augustus with a radiate crown and has a star/sun above his head, while the reverse depicts Livia with a crescent on her head. Roman Provincial AE 31 Spain: Hispalis, Colonia Romula AD 14-29 Obv: PERM DIVI AVG COL ROM, radiate head of Augustus, right; thunderbolt before, star/sun above. Rev: IVLIA AVGVSTA GENETRIX ORBIS, head of Livia left; globe beneath, crescent above. Refs: RPC 73, SGI 189; Heiss p. 393, no. 2; Cohen p. 169, no. 3; Alvarez Burgos 1587; Lindgren II 69; SNG Cop. 421.25.70; SNG Tuebingen 118; FAB 1587.
Once something has been published by experts, it's difficult to change people's opinions. The BMC is apparently the earliest published listing of this coin. It attributes it to Claudius/Agrippina II. Sear (and I think Lindgren, but I don't have Lindgren I to verify) follow suit. BMC, vol 20, p. 296, no. 1: Here's pl. XXXVII, but the copy on Google books is of very low quality at reproducing the plate: And here's the listing in Sear: Once it has been attributed in the past, it's "set in stone" and people are reluctant to argue with the traditional attributions.
