Roman Republic - rarely seen coins

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 Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this