I don't understand why this tetradrachm is called Cistophoric. I'm just trying to learn. Any suggestions? Augustus (27 BC - AD 14), Cistophoric Tetradrachm, Aeolis: Pergamum (?), 27-26 BC; AR (g 11,90; mm 26; h 12); IMP CAESAR, bare head of Octavian r., Rv. AVGV - STVS, six bunched corn-ears. RIC 494; C 32; RPC 2212. A fabulous portrait of Augustus probably engraved by the master at the mint. It would be hard to find Augustus rendered more delicately than here. A delicate cabinet tone, struck in high relief on a sound metal, probably the best specimen known: fdc. Estimate: 12000 GBP
In Asia Minor, a regionally-recognized and widely circulated class of rather standardized coins minted in many cities which emerged in the 2nd century BC was the Cistophoric Tetradrachm, apparently somewhat overvalued in the region which prevented export of the coins. "Cistophoric" refers to the "cista mystica" depicted on the coins; sacred containers holding a snake relevant to the cult of Dionysus: The Romans continued the tradition of minting coins of equivalent value for the region, so despite lacking the cista mystica they are still called cistophori.
Thank you for your response. I did know about the cista mystica being the source of the name, but I did not know that it was carried on even after the cista mystica no longer appeared on the coin. BobC
I read Kenneth Harl’s book “Coinage in the Roman economy, 300 B.C. to A.D. 700”, he stated during the times most of them were minted, they were actually tarriffed at 3 Drachmae or 3 Denarii, although called a Tetradrachm. This is an excerpt from another of his writings...
Interesting, thanks for the excerpt, wouldn't mind seeing a pile of a million of these! I had read that hoard evidence suggested that the cistophori circulated in Asia Minor at an accepted value higher than the silver content, but am hazy on the details. Did the Romans officially fix the value of a Cistophorus at 3 Denarii, with it circulating locally (or in Rome proper) at that value? Or was it regarded as worth 4 Drachmae by a more familiar lighter local standard, with enough purchasing power to discourage export of the coins?
My recollections from Harl were that earlier issues of the Cisto to Denarius were 1:3, especially through Republican Rome and early principate. Later, when they devalued the Denarius, it was tarriffed at 1:4. I do not have my book at my fingertips. However, his “Coinage of the Roman Economy...” was a great read to get a nice overview of the whats and whys. I enjoyed it. I am not an expert, not a numismatist, not an historian. I just love ancient history, and enjoy collecting ancient coins as placemarkers in history as one of my hobbies.
The cistophori was an important and historical coinage. I believe some were minted in Rome for circulation in the East.
