Roman Republic - rarely seen coins

Metellus Pius Scipio produced a finely engraved and evocative set of coins in Utica 47-46BC featuring African themes, amongst the most unusual being the portrayal of the lion-headed Egyptian-African goddess Sekhmet holding an Ankh (good luck symbol), pictured in the first coin above. This goddess is also popular in modern non-traditional-religion sects, and also features as an online mystery gaming character or avatar. For this reason the top Google searches on the subject come up with informative sites such as tattooheaven.com or sekhmettemple.com (being, of course, a Nevada desert temple for the study of a woman-based gift economy), rather than classical studies portals. You may find http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sekhmet more informative. By Roman standards this is pretty off the wall stuff. The coin refers to G(enius) T(utelaris) A(fricae), the Genius of Africa, and one wonders to what extent Scipio’s troops took solace from this goddess and from the coins portraying her. Although the name Sekhmet is not used on the coin her attributes as a lion-headed goddess are clear. The reverse portrays a more regular numismatic character, Victory of course.

Fine engraving and rarity are aspects that often go together in a coin, perhaps small scale production volumes justifies more careful production values. Certainly these coins are both very rare and very well made indeed, not only well engraved but struck in high relief on perfectly centred flans. Although the style is different, the production values are reminiscent of a slightly later set of rare Pompeian coinage, that by M.Minatius Sabinus in Spain, 45BC, an example from my collection being illustrated in the second picture, a series well known for artistic composition, careful preparation and refined portraiture.

Other coins in this set issued by Scipio’s legate Crassus feature a turreted goddess, evidently a city representation and thus considered to be Utica, between a corn-ear and caduceus with a prow-stem below (third picture). Its reverse features a trophy as reverse. The fourth coin features Jupiter with an eagle’s head and scepter, with scales, cornucopiae, carnyx and curule chair on reverse. Utica was well known for its fertile soil and exported grain to Rome hence the symbols of plenty such as corn, scales and cornucopiae on these coins. The curule chair and carnyx are probably linked to Scipio’s personal offices. Crassus was a friend of Cicero who fought for Pompey, then served as legate to Scipio with whom he probably perished.

Another legate of Scipio, Eppius, apparently had a special role in mint organization as the legend LEG.F.C. is interpreted as Legatus Flandum Curavit. The obverse head of the fifth pictured coin is considered to represent Africa due to its similarity with coins of Numidia and Mauretania, and is accompanied by the usual symbols of Utica’s fertility. The reverse may represent Baal Melqart, the African equivalent of Hercules.

The sixth pictured coin is less elegantly engraved and features, more prosaically in an African context, an elephant on the reverse. The elephant has however featured repeatedly on coins of the Caeciliae Metelli, in deference to African victories by Quintus Metellus Macedonicus in the third Punic war, and by Lucius Metellus over Hasdrubal in the second Punic war, so this continues a long series. Coin seven features another Metellus elephant, minted by Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Imperator (Q.C.M.P.I) about 81BC, potentially in celebration of a triumph over Sertorius in Spain. It is a plated denarius, obvious from its surface, but also weighing only 3.1 grams. Coin eight, a bronze semis, was minted by another Caecilia about 128BC - it features an elephant’s head on the reverse. Picture nine is a denarius from the same series.

Finally pictures ten and eleven though featuring elephants have a quite uncertain link to Africa. Picture ten represents the common Caesar elephant denarius. In this instance the elephant trampling the snake is considered to represent the conquest of good over evil rather than a direct African link.

The eleventh item is a lead token featuring an elephant on one side and the letters TORQ and is quite intriguing. There is no certainty about what it was used for – potentially a games entry ticket – nor when exactly it was produced, but if it did by chance happen to be 40s BC then two possible candidates, from opposite sides of the political spectrum emerge, one Caesarian one Pompeain.

Lucius Manlius Torquatus was closely connected with Cicero. He opposed Caesar on the breaking out of the civil war in b. c. 49. He was praetor in that year, and was stationed at Alba with six cohorts; but on the fall of Corfinium he abandoned Alba and his soldiers went over to Caesar. He subsequently joined Pompey in Greece, and fought against Caesar at Dyrrhachium. After Pharsalus he went to Africa, and upon the defeat of his party in that country, in b. c. 46, he attempted to escape to Spain along with Scipio and others, but was taken prisoner and then killed at Hippo Regius. So perhaps this token featring an elephant was linked with Scipio’s coins I’ve just discussed

An alternative possibility is that the token was issued by Titus Manlius Torquatus, who was a quaes­tor of Pansa, the consul along with Hirtius in 43BC. Hirtius is known for the issue of coins in Gaul with the type of an elephant which mimic those of Julius Caesar. So this lead token might indicate an indirect link with Pansa, Hirtius and thus with Julius Caesar.

I found this information from a web-search on Torquatus, which goes to show the extent any numismatist can do a bit of personal research on anything in their collection.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

Assembling a numismatic set of the administrative magistrates of the Roman Republic would be a lifetime’s collecting activity. Compared with the coinage of Rome, whose moneyers are predictably early-career noblemen, unknown at the time of their coinage – although often famous later in life – the magistrates who issued the provincial coinages were in many cases big men in their own right, in some cases even consulars. Here’s just a small selection of them, appetizers for a collection that could run to 100s of coins.

1. Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio, as Imperator, cistophoric tetradrachm struck in Mysia Pergamon, 49-48BC. Scipio was the father-in-law of Pompey the Great and when Pompey he left Rome for the East in 49BC Scipio was set the task of governing (extracting money from) Asia Minor and Syria. His base was Pergamon where these coins were struck, no doubt used to pay Pompey’s legions. After Pompey’s defeat at Pharsalus Scipio fled to Africa where he produced a very finely designed and evocative coinage with African themes. He eventually killed himself after losing the naval battle of Hippo Regius.
2. M. Aemilius Lepidus, the Triumvir colleague of Octavian and Antony, was governor of Gaul Narbonensis from 44 to 42BC, and provincial coins were struck in his name. This little coin weighing just 0.47 grams is a remarkable Republican denomination, a silver dupondius, and was issued in Cabellio, today’s Cavaillon.
3. Manius Acilius Balbus was consul in 114 BC and probably issued this bronze As, 6.1 grams, in Panormus, Sicily as Quaestor about 120 BC. The coin clearly describes his name and position. The Aes coinages of Panormus, with or without magistrates names, were considered by Renaissance numismatists to be part of the regular Republican coinage, understandable given their types.
4. Duovirs of Paestum, L. Artue and C. Comin, marked these small semisses – weight 4.2 grams and issued mid 1st century BC – with their names and title L.ARTVE C.COMIN II VIR. Nothing s now known of these minor town councilors however they left for us a fascinating series of coins with many magistrates names extending over a couple of centuries.
5. Gaius Papirius Carbo was appointed Praetor and Governor of Bithynia and Pontus in 62BC with Proconsular imperium. These bronze coins, 6.45 grams, have types similar to earlier Greek coins of Bithynia but with the magistrates full name Gaius Papirius Carbo in Greek lettering.
6. Macedon issued a prolific coinage in the name of Aesillas, Quaestor, in the early first century BC. Although Aesillas was Quaestor in the 90s BC findings from a die study by Robert Bauslaugh in combination with hoard evidence linking the coinage to later Athenian tetradrachms suggests that this coinage was struck unchanged for a number of decades.
7. Cnaeus Domitius Calvinus, Consul two times and Imperator, was appointed governor of Spain by Octavian, and in this role in 39BC issued denarii at Osca. The mint-name is marked on the coins. Although included in Crawford’s catalogues, both the type, whose obverse is strongly influenced by the local Iberian denarius, and mint-name, mark this out as a coinage expected to circulate locally, and hence provincial in nature.
8. Gaius Publilius was Quaestor in Macedonia 148-146BC, though second in command to his provincial boss, the winner of the 4th Macedonian war, the Praetor Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus. The coin has strong Roman allusions, featuring the  head of Roma in winged helmet with griffins head like that of the hero Perseus. After Macedon was converted to a Roman province in 146BC the coinage became less Roman in nature.
9. P. Cornelius P. F. Lentulus Spinther, issued this cistophoric tetradrachm in Laodiceia, 56-54BC. Lentulus was the governor of Cilicia and Cyprus and won the title Imperator for a victory in Cilicia. He had a very famous successor as governor of Cilicia - Cicero in 51BC. The coins of Cicero in Cilicia are very rare indeed, restricted to bronzes which carry his portrait.
10. Cnaeus Statilius Libo, Praefect, issued this bronze semis in Spain about 30BC, and the portrait is likely that of Libo. It is an elegant coin in a style quite unlike those of contemporary Spanish issues, but we know nothing of Libo and are uncertain of where the coin was issued - RPC assigns it to an uncertain mint in farther Spain. It used traditionally be assigned to Carthago Nova - there is an essay with that attribution in From Imperium to Auctoritas.

Visit my books website http://hometown.aol.co.uk/ahala/index.html

photos: 1,2,5,6,710. author; 3,4. Ancient Imports; 8. Jeffrey Michniuk; 9. Harlan J. Berk

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

I perhaps gave the impression in an earlier note that there was only one wolf and twins coin during the Republic (the didrachm, Crawford 20/1, an example of which is on a path somewhere, wending its way towards my collection but arrival time still unknown) whereas I only meant to say that this was the best known example. There are plenty of others both in Republican and Imperial times, here’s a few of interest -

1)       Picture 1: An uncia from the wolf and twins bronze series, dated to about 170 BC, weight 3.9 grams, Crawford 183/6. The symbol is quite clear although the photo doesn’t show it in its best light, and the coin is neatly engraved in a much finer style than the regular aes denominations. All these post-reform unciae are very rare and sought after - a quick glance in CoinArchives shows a small number of denomination examples (none of this exact type) at eye-watering prices:

http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotviewer.php?LotID=140510&AucID=167&Lot=207

http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotviewer.php?LotID=140520&AucID=167&Lot=217

http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotviewer.php?LotID=99770&AucID=106&Lot=1637

http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotviewer.php?LotID=98662&AucID=105&Lot=278

These coins evidently weren’t produced in sufficient volumes to fill a normal circulation role, nevertheless examples from almost all post-reform bronze series have come down to us. So they must have played some defined but limited role in Roman life. I can speculate perhaps that they had a role in central Roman marketplaces (e.g. as change for an item routinely costing 11-unciae) in votive offerings (is anyone aware of finds of these rare coins in such contexts?), in coin distributions to the masses by politicians and/or by the moneyers family, as symbolic family gifts (type sets of coins?) or simply in fulfilment of a government obligation to coin token quantities of small change. I don’t know and would welcome views.

2)   Picture 2: An imitative As of the same series, 24 grams, Crawford 183/1. At first glance it is not particularly evident that it is imitative (or, indeed, that it is a wolf and twins type) until compared with the coin that follows (Picture 3), a regular Cr183 example As weighing 22.7 grams. The style of the prow with the downward sloping – rather than level – keel, the squeezed-in small font lettering, the lack of clear details of the wolf and twins as well as the curious crescent above the wolf which together renders the reverse symbol rather reminiscent of the bull-and-crescent type Iberian semis, and finally the coarse reverse features notably the jutting chin and the thick numeral on Janus’ head; all these mark the coin out as different from the regular type, even though it is of full weight. Indeed it is not at all clear that the copyist recognised the symbol as a wolf-and-twins, and may have cut a bull-and-crescent-and-two-blobs (rather than two twins) type. I’ve seen no other coin that looks like this.

3)   Picture 4: A denarius of “Sextus Pompeius Fostulus”, Crawford 235/1, with as a reverse type the wolf and twins with a shepherd and tree in the background and the legend SEX.POM FOSTVLVS. The inverted commas are deliberate as this coin was the subject of an essay by William Metcalf entitled "Coins as Primary Evidence" in "Roman Coins and Public Life under the Empire" (G.M. Paul, M.Ieradi eds), intended to illustrate how little we can really tell from the coin itself, and how much our knowledge of coins is built up from background historical knowledge, inference and supposition.

In discussing this coin Crawford states QUOTE “The moneyer is probably Sex. Pompeius, Praetor in ?119BC, father of Cn. Pompeius Strabo. The reverse type of the denarius represents the finding by the shepherd Faustulus of Romulus and Remus being suckled by the she-wolf at the foot of the ficus Ruminalis. The significance of the types is considerable. The scene on the denarius is perhaps the most obvious way of symbolising a belief in the imperial claims of Rome and an appeal to such a belief may perhaps have been held to justify the repudiation of the foedus Numantinum of 137 BC. The adoption of the type by the father of Cn. Pompeius Strabo may perhaps show a link between this branch of the Pompeii and the family of Q. Pompeius, Consul 141BC, who urged the repudiation.” UNQUOTE

So how was this conclusion reached? There was a debate some time ago on the Yahoo Moneta-L list, where Curtis Clay commented as follows:

QUOTE “Grueber, BMCRR I (1910), p. 131, note 3, states that the moneyer "MAY have been Sextus Pompeius, who...was the grandfather of the triumvir Cn. Pompeius Magnus." This was the traditional attribution, not a new idea of Grueber's. Babelon II (1886), p. 336, cautions that the only reason SEX POM FOSTVLVS is considered to be a Pompeius rather than a Pomponius is that the praenomenSextus is commoner in the former family. This supposed Pompeius, he says, is otherwise unknown to history, "but one conjectures that he may have been the father of the known Cn. Pompeius, Sexti filius, Cnaeii Nepos, Strabo, who was consul in89 BC" and was father of Pompey the Great. Eckhel V (c. 1795) also lists the moneyer as a Pompeius, but says nothing about any conjectured relationship to Pompey the Great (perhaps it had not yet been proposed), and thinks FOSTVLVS might be either a cognomen of the moneyer (the view that later prevailed, though Crawford calls him merely Sex. Pompeius) or simply the name of the shepherd in the type, the nurturer of Romulus and Remus, from whom the moneyer was apparently claiming descent. I suspect the assignment of this moneyer to the gens Pompeia goes back to the first major work on Republican coins, Fulvius Ursinus' much praised and influential Familiae Romanae of 1577.” UNQUOTE

And indeed Ursinus does assign the coin to Pompeia and explores the possibility that Fostulus might be either a cognomen or the name of the shepherd. So that’s the trail back in time. Here’s what Metcalf has to say about the reliability of the trail:

QUOTE "Now, we have come, by small steps, a very long way from what the coin itself tells us. The whole construct of Crawford depends on several suppositions: that the coin is of a moneyer named Pompeius, not Pomponius; that the moneyer is the father of Pompeius Strabo; that he struck in 137BC; that his cognomen was not Faustulus or something like it (for if the scene merely represents an episode of family history all other significance is secondary). Only if we accept all these propositions can we begin to suppose that the type symbolises "belief in the imperial claims of Rome" which is no more than one possible interpretation of a scene that is familiar from literature and other media." UNQUOTE

Today we don’t really know more facts about the moneyer who issued this coin than Ursini had available in the 16th century but passing of centuries has hardened the suppositions into the line as presented in Crawford. But there is a more general message about how numismatic assumptions can harden into facts with the passing of time.

For completeness I show a couple of further wolf and twins coins – Picture 5: Crawford 39/3, sextans with the type wolf and twins / eagle, this being a rather awful example (not such a rare coin so I should find a better one), but worth discussing late along with the other semilibral types in this and the prow series; and also (Picture 6) the very late anonymous denarius Crawford 287/1 from 115BC or thereabouts which features Roma seated on a pile of shields as well as the wolf and twins – the dating of this and other coins of the late 2nd century deserves an extensive discussion in its own right.

My books: http://hometown.aol.co.uk/ahala/index.html

photos: 1. E Jarman; 2,3,4,5,6 author

Written by ahala Link to this entry | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

I commented a couple of days ago on a nice Aes Rude that seemed to originate from an Aes Signatum bar. To round off the subject I thought I'd illustrate some more Roman currency bars and other bits of metal used as currency. These include

(1) a bronze axe-head - clearly worn beyond repair at the sharp end, and evidently deliberately cut-off for use as currency. Such pieces have been found in hoards together with other currency bronze.

(2) a scallop-shaped sextans-weight (43 grams), which in my view might well have been a home-made cast during the 3rd century BC, made from some spare bronze, and intended to circulate alongside regular Aes Grave sextantes - it seems more than a coincidence that it shares type and weight with regular Aes Grave

(3) a 5 pound weight bar (copper with evident white lead and rusty iron inclusions), which again probably not coincidentally weighs exactly the same as a full weight 5 lb Aes Signatum bar. Weight 1550 grams. It might possibly, as with the scallop, have been locally made from scrap metal and intended to circulate alongside Aes Signatum in the 3rd century BC given its weight, or more likely it may have been cast in earlier times (4th or 5th century BC) - perhaps 5 lbs was a standard weight for bars as-cast at the copper mines. This bar is unmarked unlike many of the Ramo Secco (dried leaf design) bars of the 4th century BC. It's metal quality is clearly worse than either the scallop or the axe-head which may suggest manufacturing bullion rather than currency as its most likely use. I need to further study the patterns of deposit of Aes Grave and associated currency metal and may write on this topic again when I learn more. Comments welcome!

(4) the next piece is a regular Aes Signatum bar, Crawford 5/1, bull/bull. But it is only a very tiny piece, showing a bull's foot on either side! It is relatively thin when compared with either the Aes Rude piece illlustrated a couple of days ago, or the previous item (5lb bar) - these Aes Signatum were cast on relatively large width flans presumably intended to show off the design to its best.

(5) the last item is most unusual - it is a 202 gram weight SILVER currency bar, found with a large hoard of late Republican silver (ending about 50BC) in modern Romania in the late 1990s. No doubt of local Romanian production I wonder whether it was intended as a 50 denarius bar - making it the equivalent of two Aureii. 50 denarii should weigh only 195 grams (at 3.9 grams each) but Romanian produced silver coins are well known for being slightly overweight compared with the Republican norm and this may have been intentional. Unmarked and interesting.

My books: http://hometown.aol.co.uk/ahala/index.html

photos: 1,3,4,5. author; 2. Tom Vossen; 6. Horia Camil-Radu

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

Sicilian coinage of all eras is generally regarded as entirely Greek - the post-Roman conquest coinage still maintains its Greek legends and looks quite unlike Italian style coinage during the Roman Republic, which has an ordered system of As through Uncia complete with value marks (dots) and Latin legends just like Roman coins. So isn't it intriguing how extraordinarily ROMAN these coins from Panormus appear - both have the traditional Roman Janus obverse As type; one coin has a wreath for reverse whilst the other has the wolf and twins, that iconic symbol of the city of Rome. The wolf and twins type is well known from its appearance on just two Roman coins, a didrachm of the early 3rd century BC, and small bronze types of the 3rd century AD, 550 years later, at the time Constantine was moving the capital to Constantinople. That these wonderfully Roman style provincial coins do not appear in RPC (Roman Provincial Coinage) adds weight to my view that RPC Volume Zero - dealing with the period prior to 49 BC - is both needed and inevitable.

My books: http://hometown.aol.co.uk/ahala/index.html

photos: 1. Kevin Barry; 2. Ancient Imports

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

Crawford's quadrigatus arrangement can be very confusing - there is a mainstream series Cr 28/3 that evolves significantly over time so that the later coins look nothing like early pieces, and several significant smaller series, Cr 29/3, 30/1 and 31/1 which have distinct types variations from the mainstream series (but also themselves undergo evolution). Additionally there are three anomalous coins, Cr 32,33,34, which I hesitate to call series but that do not fit neatly into the other four boxes. I illustrate here a range of coins spanning the Cr28-31 series together with pointers that help me identify them as well as references to the closest Crawford plate coin. There are seven coins, four from the evolving Cr 28/3 series ranging from an early fine style piece to a late debased coin, and one each from Cr 29, 30 and 31. I don't have any of the 3 anomalous coins, nor am I chasing them for my collection since they could as easily just be the result of an aberrant die-cutter rather than being separate issues.

My books: http://hometown.aol.co.uk/ahala/index.html

photos: 1. CNG; 3,5. Freeman & Sear; 6. Rauch; 2,4. author; 7. Atlantis

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

Aes Grave with little evident wear are usually referred to by the term as-cast. This can hide a multitude of sins, as-cast coins very often coming from poorly executed or worn moulds, and later pieces are often of execrable style. The later Aes Grave series, particularly the prow-left post-semilibral Crawford 41 series, is the most likely source of an as-cast coin for your collection, evidently because these coins were demonitised after the reformed coinage of 211BC was introduced, but regardless of actual wear or circulation these coins often rate only VF or less even in as-cast condition. The example illustrated above is a rare example of an as-cast early aes grave that, apart from the evident and detracting casting flaw, rates EF for wear, style, execution, flan etc. The three-dimensional tulip-form thunderbolt is rather interesting as it contrasts with all those two-dimensional thunderbolts normally seen on coins. Is this what Romans really thought a thunderbolt looks like, a budding flower with darts of fire? The dolphin is rather more prosaic as we all know what a dolphin looks like; it is in fact truly unworn in this example but rather marred by the casting flaw straight in front of its head. A much nicer Aes Grave than normal, found on VCoins.

My books: http://hometown.aol.co.uk/ahala/index.html

photo: Lodge Antiquities

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

Post 211BC sextantal unciae are rare coins - the only example most collectors will see in their collection is the anonymous Crawford 56/7 type and even these are not so common. The two coins illustrated here are unusual examples of the even smaller semuncia denomination. The CA semuncia, Crawford 100/7, has very clearly readable symbols on both obverse and reverse, in itself unusual for Roman Republican Aes, only coins from Luceria share this feature. It weighs 2.65 grams which makes out at an As-weight of 64 grams, a bit heavy for sextantal coins (and for this series) but I suspect that semunciae and unciae post 211BC were probably only used for donative purposes, struck in limited quantities to scatter to the masses or give in presentation sets to friends. It is believed that CA stands for Canusium - todays Canosa di Puglia. The second semuncia, with corn-ear above the prow, weighs just 2.4 grams amounting to an As-weight of 58 grams, and is classified as Crawford 72/10. Little in its type distinguishes it from earlier corn-ear semunciae (Crawford 42/5) but hold the coin in hand and it is evidently much more petite.

My books: http://hometown.aol.co.uk/ahala/index.html

photos: 1. Ritter 2. Jeffrey Michniuk 

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

Unformed Aes Rude are often offered for sale but I particularly like this one because it so obviously comes from a cast currency bar with a very wide casting sprue running down one entire edge and flat parallel sides. It's also much heavier than most advertised aes rude, at about 200 grams. Due to its formed rather than unformed nature I'm pretty sure this was originally part of an Aes Signatum bar, unfortunately there's no sign of which Aes Signatum type.

My books on http://hometown.aol.co.uk/ahala/index.html

photo: author

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this