Favourite blogs for Coins at Warwick

A “Vota Publica” token of the usurper Nepotian?

Among the numerous Roman tesserae and coin-like objects that have been emerging on the market in recent years is an unusual specimen made of bronze, which can be associated to the “Vota Publica” token series (AD 305/306 – c. late fourth century) (Fig. 1). As is comparatively known, this late Roman emission consists of two clusters displaying the portrait of a Roman emperor or an Egyptian deity (Serapis, Isis, Hermanubis) on the obverse – hence they have been respectively named as “imperial” and “anonymous” series – which share a set of ritual scenes referring to different aspects of Egyptian and Isiac cults on the reverse, mostly accompanied by the legend “Vota Publica’” (= “public vows”).

On the obverse of the focused token is a bare-headed, draped, male bust facing right, with a pointed nose, a short, grape–shaped beard, and a coiffure with straight hair except for a row of curls on his forehead, which is accompanied by the legend DEO SE-RAPIDI in the dative case (“to the god Serapis”). This portrait has none of the typical features of Serapis iconography, such as a mature look, a voluminous beard, and above all a grain measure called a modius or kalathos worn as a headdress (accompanied by a radiate crown in some variants), which regularly typify the Egyptian god on the tokens from the “anonymous” group (Figs. 2-3). It should thus represent a different male figure which is not otherwise identified by the legend. On the reverse is a draped (and veiled?) female figure standing front, head turned l., holding uncertain objects in each hand, accompanied by the peculiar legend VOTA P-VBLICA. These two obverse and reverse types are unrecorded and are therefore worthy of closer examination.

Figure 1: Æ “Vota Publica” token (15mm, 1.59g, 11h). Artemide Aste 19.1E, 20-21 October 2012, lot 381. Reference: L. Bricault & C. Mondello, Isis Moneta. The ‘Vota Publica’ tokens from late antique Carthage and Rome (forthcoming), cat. no. E169.1.

Figure 2: Æ “Vota Publica” token (19mm, 2.93g). Ashmolean Museum (inv. HCR71378, Douce coll.). Reference: L. Bricault & C. Mondello, Isis Moneta. The ‘Vota Publica’ tokens from late antique Carthage and Rome (forthcoming), cat. no. S83.1.

Figure 3: Fig. 3: Æ “Vota Publica” token (18mm, 2.52g). Gorny & Mosch 278, 21.04.2021, lot 3851. L. Bricault & C. Mondello, Isis Moneta. The ‘Vota Publica’ tokens from late antique Carthage and Rome (forthcoming), cat. no. S86.3.

The specimen, with a module of 15mm and a weight of 1.59g, was offered for sale in an online auction about ten years ago but remained unsold. In the relevant auction catalogue, the token was given as a very rare (genuine) piece (“RRR”). As for the imagery, the commentator identified the obverse portrait as the emperor Julian (AD 361-63) and described the female figure on the reverse as Isis, holding a sistrum in her right hand and situla in her left (sic). Nevertheless, this description does not appear to be supported by the evidence provided by the official coinage nor by the obverse and reverse depictions occurring on the surviving “Vota Publica” tokens.

Julian’s portrait as Augustus (AD 361-363) is commonly figured on coins in the guise of a draped and double–pearl diademed bust, with a mostly long and pointed beard, either wearing military clothing or consular garb; with such features it also recurs in some of the “Vota Publica” token issues, where the ruler is clearly identified by the legend D N FL CL IVLI-ANVS P F AVG or FL CL IVLIA-NVS P F AVG. Inspired by the Greek philosopher’s model, the short or long-bearded portrait of the last ruler of the Constantinian dynasty constituted a “revolutionary” innovation with respect to the iconographic tradition of the new clean–shaven portrait of the emperor in late antiquity which was established by Constantine I (AD 306-337). However, the Julian-type portrait of the Julian type failed to prevail over the Constantinian imperial portrait model which, inspired by Augustan and Trajanic imagery, was later followed by most emperors in the West and East across the fourth and fifth centuries.

Although the male portrait in Fig. 1 is also bearded as in the case of Julian, its general features do not match the latter’s coin portraiture. Closer parallels can instead be found in the coin images of another fourth-century bearded ruler, the usurper Nepotian.Son of Virius Nepotianus and of Eutropia (half-sister of Constantine I), seemingly born after the dynastic purge by the sons of Constantine I in the summer of AD 337, Nepotian was hailed emperor by a mob on 3 June 350 after the revolt of Magnentius, and ruled the city of Rome as usurper for twenty-eight days, before being killed by his rival Magnentius’ magister officiorum Marcellinus. As a usurper, he struck coins in his own name (as well as in the name of Constantius II), the production of which was limited to the Roman mint and only consisted of two denominations, that is solidi and large billon AEs. On the two “Urbs Roma” and “Gloria Romanorum” series, the portrait of Nepotian occurs either bare-headed or rosette-diademed, with an oblong face shape, a peculiar hooked nose, a short beard, and curly or straight hair with a mostly wavy fringe.

As can be seen in Figs. 4 and 5, the vultus of Nepotian and general features of his coin portrait seemingly have some affinities with the bearded bust on the obverse of the focused “Vota Publica” token.* If this assumption is correct, such a relation may suggest that the former inspired or served as a model for the latter, although it must be said that there are some slight differences which are probably due to a different engraving style. On the other hand, in this author’s opinion, no remarkable parallels can be found with the few bearded portraits of the emperors or usurpers of the West and East on coins issued since the post-Tetrarchic period (e.g., Martinian, Vetranius, Procopius, Eugenius, Maximus of Hispania, Joannes), nor with those on Roman medallions and “contorniates” from the fourth and fifth centuries AD.

Figure 4: Large Æ2 (c. 24mm, 5.36g), usurper Nepotian (AD 350), “Urbs Roma” series (= RIC VIII, Rome 203).

Figure 5: Large Æ2 (5.05g), usurper Nepotian (AD 350), “Gloria Romanorum” series (= RIC VIII, Rome 200). Numismatik Lanz München, Auction 100, 20.11.2000, lot 581.

As for the reverse, the overall scheme of the type showing a female figure standing front in Fig. 1 is reminiscent of Isis’ common depiction, standing with her body supported on one leg, while brandishing a sistrum (a percussion musical instrument associated with her cult) or a palm branch in her right hand and a situla (a bucket for holy water), sometimes replaced by a patera (a libation bowl), in her left (e.g. Fig. 3). However, the draped figure on the token cannot be identified with the Isis as she lacks a basileion and other attributes which typify the goddess. The objects held by the figure remain difficult to decipher, which could maybe be interpreted as a branch of a not recognizable tree or plant in her right hand and a strip of drapery in her left. Therefore, this precludes to enlighten the precise nature of the reverse motif. Looking at the types belonging to the reverse figurative repertoire of the “Vota Publica” series, the female figure in question appears to be conceptually closer to the depictions of auxiliaries and participants in (Isiac?) religious ceremonies (e.g. torch and candelabra holders, canephores, female attendants, and devotees) (e.g. Fig. 6) than to those of the goddess Isis.

Figure 6: Fig. 6: Æ “Vota Publica” token (14mm, 1.41g, 12h). Naville Numismatics 12, 18.01.2015, lot 249. Reference: L. Bricault & C. Mondello, Isis Moneta. The ‘Vota Publica’ tokens from late antique Carthage and Rome (forthcoming), cat. no. I154.4.

Interestingly, this token mixes some features from the “imperial” series (= the depiction of a bust of an alleged Roman emperor or usurper on the obverse) and the “anonymous” one (= the obverse legend “Deo Serapidi”), which were both part of the “Vota Publica” token emission. As recently shown (Bricault & Mondello, forthcoming), the “imperial” series consists of a small first issue from the mint of Carthage dating back to the Second Tetrarchy (AD 305-306) and the Third Tetrarchy (AD 306-307), and a subsequent, large production from the mint of Rome struck from the reign of Constantine I (AD 313-330/331) through at least the first two generations of the Valentinian dynasty (AD 365-378). In contrast, the “anonymous” series is devoid of any chronological reference from which a reliable date can be inferred. Due to die-linkage with some of the Valentinianic groups from the “imperial” series, the “anonymous” series has commonly been regarded as a product of the Roman mint and dated to the years between AD 379-380 and 395, based on some stylistic and historical assumptions (Alföldi 1937, p. 17). However, it remains debated when the production of this undated series began and ended.

If the male portrait on the obverse of the outlined token was indeed intended to represent the usurper Nepotian or was at least borrowed from his official coinage, it may shed light on some aspects of the “anonymous” series manufacture. Among other options, one might consider the token as a trial piece or as part of a transitional group between the “imperial” and “anonymous” series by virtue of its mixed characteristics; or, it could even lead one to consider pre-dating the starting point of the “anonymous” series to AD 350.

However, in this author’s opinion, some remarks on the iconography of the specimen and its historical background may raise serious questions on its genuineness.

Not only are the types occurring on this token unattested, but even certain of their details look anomalous. Regarding the obverse, the anonymous male bust does not constitute a full copy of Nepotian’s coin portrait, as seen above. Rather, the former seems to arise from a re-working of the latter by the engraver, despite the close affinities between them. Noteworthily, the curls on the forehead of the male portrait on the token have a quite unnatural round shape, the appearance of which seems reminiscent of the rosettes forming the imperial diadem often occurring on fourth century Roman coins, including Nepotian’s Roman issues. One might imagine that the die-cutter misrepresented a rosette diadem as a sort of curly fringe when designing the obverse portrait on the token, maybe in an attempt to imitate one of Nepotian’s portraits occurring on the relevant Roman coin dies. In contrast, it seems unlikely that the curly fringe of the male bust’s hair is in fact to be understood as a rosette diadem, due to its position as jutting out on the forehead instead of being placed on the top of the head, as well as given the absence of any diadem’s ties which normally flowed down behind the ruler’s neck on coin imperial portraiture.

Moreover, the obverse of the token deviates from the epigraphic pattern attested on the extant pieces. In fact, the legend DEO SERAPIDI only accompanies the portrait of Serapis, Hermanubis, or even the jugate busts of Serapis and Isis on the obverses of the “anonymous” series, and is never combined with the portrait of a different figure.

Likewise, inconsistencies can also be found on the token’s reverse design. For instance, the right hand of the female figure and the object she bears were drawn as single whole here. As with the obverse type, this “oddity” could also result from an error or misrepresentation by the engraver, who maybe depended on one or other of the variant of Isis holding a palm branch in her right hand, as found on the reverses of the “Vota Publica” tokens. Moreover, it is worth noting that the style of both types has no parallels with any of the surviving “Vota Publica” tokens, which seem to have come out of a different workshop.

Further to these considerations on iconography and style of the token, some aspects related to its expected distribution context also need to be considered. Nepotian’s accession and death dates do not match the date and context in which the “Vota Publica” tokens were supposedly distributed, namely the imperial “public vows” pronounced annually on the 3rd January against the backdrop of the New Year’s festivals. As reported by some late antique literary sources (Descriptio consulum, Eutropius, Jerome, Socrates), Nepotian seized power on 3rd June AD 350 and held it for twenty-eight days until his death, 30 June or 1 July. Therefore, no token could have been issued in the name or with the portrait of this usurper for the public vows on 3rd January in that year or even the following year(s). After all, if one were to consider the possibility that Nepotian’s coin portrait was only used as a model for “Vota Publica” token issue struck at some point since AD 351, cui bono (“to whom is it a benefit”)?

Ultimately, the above analysis suggests that the token may be the result of a counterfeit, most likely made in modern times. Such a forgery may have resulted from the combination of genuine coin image prototypes, which were respectively taken from the Roman coinage of Nepotian (= obverse type) and the “Vota Publica” token series (= reverse type). These images were reworked by the engraver and paired with legends from the “Vota Publica” token series, in order to create an otherwise unknown specimen in an attempt to increase its market value.

We hope that a metallurgical examination of this specimen, currently held in private hands, could be conducted in the near future in order to solve this dilemma.

* Thanks are due to Dr Vincent Drost (Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des monnaies, médailles et antiques) for suggesting a possible relation between the obverse type of the token discussed here and the coin portraits of the usurper Nepotian.

This blog was written by Cristian Mondello as part of The ‘Vota Publica’ Tokens from Late Antique Rome: Isiac and Egyptian Cults within a Christianizing Roman Empire project, which has received funding from the NRRP, Mission 4, ‘Education and Research’ – Component 2, ‘From Research to Business’ – Investment line 1.2, ‘Funding projects presented by young researchers’ (European Union – NextGenerationEU, proposal no. CFFE1C55, CUP J43C22001030001). The project is hosted at the University of Messina, Italy.

Select Bibliography

• Alföldi A., Isis-szertartások Rómában a negyedik század keresztény császárai alatt = A Festival of Isis in Rome under the Christian Emperors of the IVth Century, Budapest 1937.
• Bricault, L., & Mondello, C., Isis Moneta. The ‘Vota Publica’ Tokens from late antique Carthage and Rome. Volume 1: Catalogue, London (forthcoming).
• Burgess R.W., ‘The Date of Nepotian’s Usurpation’, Historia 72.3, 2023, pp. 370-384.
• RIC VIII = Kent, J.P.C., The Roman Imperial Coinage. The family of Constantine I. A.D. 337–364, Vol. VIII, London 1981.

Clare Rowan : 09 Feb 2024 10:36 |  Tags: Coin Of The Month Late Antiquity Nepotian Token Vota Publica |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

A silver token of Julian in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford

Among the Roman tokens now in the Heberden Coin Room in the Ashmolean Museum is a silver token made of silver issued by Julian (AD 361-363), the last descendant of the Constantinian dynasty (Fig. 1). On the obverse of the token we find a pearl-diademed, draped, and cuirassed bust of the ruler left, holding Victory on a globe in his right hand and a shield decorated with a she-wolf and twins motif over his left shoulder; although the specimen has a segment broken away from both top and top left hand sides, the obverse legend can confidently be restored as D N FL [CL IVLI-ANVS P F AVG] based on comparison with other known similar token pieces, as will be shown below. On the other side is an image of Anubis standing left, wearing a tunic, a mantle over his shoulders and boots, holding a branch in his right hand and a caduceus in his left, which is accompanied by the legend VOTA [PVB]LICA.

Fig. 1: AR, ‘Vota Publica’ token, Rome, AD 361-363 (24mm, 3.45g). Courtesy of the Ashmolean Museum, inv. HCR71367. © Ashmolean Museum.

The imagery and the reverse legend allow us to connect this specimen with a late Roman series, the ‘Vota Publica’ tokens, which were struck by the mint of Rome from the first Tetrarchy (AD 294–305) through at least the first two generations of the Valentinian dynasty (AD 364–378). These tokens display portraits of Roman emperors or Egyptian deities (Serapis, Isis, Hermanubis, or the jugate busts of Serapis and Isis) on the obverse, in conjunction with a variety of depictions referring to different aspects of Egyptian and Isiac cults on the reverse. Although auction catalogues and occasional academic contributions have mostly connected these artefacts to the Navigium Isidis, the renowned festival of Isis which was annually held on the 5th of March, the regular presence of the ‘Vota Publica’ legend as well as the dates of accession and death of imperial rulers that are portrayed on the obverses support instead the idea that these pieces were produced on the occasion of the annual vows (‘vota publica’) collectively pronounced for the health of the Roman emperor on the 3rd of January against the backdrop of New Year celebrations.

The token housed in Oxford, formerly in Prince of Waldeck’s collection (XVIII century), is of great interest not only for the high quality of its designs and workmanship, but also for the metal of which it is made, namely silver. Indeed, the use of silver does deviates from the common patterns seen for the ‘Vota Publica’ tokens, which were normally produced in brass and bronze. This raises questions about manufacturing methods and relevant changes that took place within token production during Julian’s reign.

Fig. 2: a. AE, ‘Vota Publica’ token, Rome, AD 361-363 (24mm, 4.05g). Numismatica Ars Classica 92, 23-24.05.2016, lot 766. b. AE, ‘Vota Publica’ token, Rome, AD 361-363 (25mm, 6.30g). Courtesy of the Museo Arqueológico Nacional (MAN) of Madrid, inv. 2014/66/67. © Museo Arqueológico Nacional (MAN) of Madrid.

A closer look at the imagery of the token and its relationship to other surviving tokens of Julian from the same series allows us to make some remarks on its chronology and production context. Based on a recent classification of the available material (Bricault & Mondello, forthcoming), Julian’s ‘Vota Publica’ tokens can be sorted into five major groups consisting of die-linked specimens, which were struck in either bronze or brass in three modules, AE1-AE2 (c. 21-27mm) (Julian, Group 1) and AE4 (c. 12–15mm) (Julian, Groups 2–5). Interestingly, Julian’s effigy is shown here according to three variants. Of them, the obverse portrait displayed on the Oxford token is shared by some of the clusters from Group 1 showing different Egyptian images on the reverse (Fig. 2a). Moreover, die analysis shows that the Oxford silver token was issued with the same obverse and reverse dies that were used to strike a specimen made of bronze, now in Madrid (Fig. 2b). The imperial portrait found on these specimens is unparalleled within the official coinage, and was probably an original creation by the Roman mint expressly for the ‘Vota Publica’ series. Two other portraits attested on these tokens instead reproduce or imitate the imperial portraiture found on regular Roman coins: a left–facing and helmeted bust of Julian, holding a shield over his left shoulder (Julian, Group 2) (Fig. 3a), as found on the VOT X MVLT XX silver and bronze coin issues issued at most of the major mints in anticipation of Julian’s decennalia (Fig. 3b); and the common type of the imperial bust right, with cuirass and paludamentum, short or long–bearded (Julian, Groups 1–5) (Fig. 4a), as seen on the small VIRT EXERC ROMANOR bronzes by the Roman mint (RIC VIII, Rome, 327) (Fig. 4b) and, more generally, on solidi and large bronzes issued by other mints in AD 362–363.

Fig. 3 a. AE, ‘Vota Publica’ token, Rome, AD 361-363 (15mm, 1.74g). Courtesy of the Museo Civico di Bologna, inv. 47046. © Museo Civico di Bologna. b. AE, VOT X MVLT XX coin, Rome, AD 363 (18.8mm, 3.17g) (RIC VIII, Rome, 329). Courtesy of the Münzkabinett der Universität Göttingen, inv. AS-04485 © Münzkabinett der Universität Göttingen.

Fig. 4 a. AE, ‘Vota Publica’ token, Rome, AD 361-363 (14mm, 1.57g). Courtesy of the Museo Arqueológico Nacional (MAN) of Madrid, inv. 2014/66/203. © Museo Arqueológico Nacional (MAN) of Madrid. b. AE, VIRT EXERC ROMANOR coin, Rome, AD 362-363 (14mm, 1.32g) (RIC VIII, Rome, 327). From a private collection.

The imperial titulature, which reads D N FL CL IVLIANVS P F AVG (Group 1) or FL CL IVLIANVS P F [or P P] AVG (Groups 2–5), along with the comparison with coin imagery allow for a more precise chronology of these token issues. According to Kent, the title D(ominus) N(oster) seems not to have entered general use within Julian’s coinage until after the start of 363 (Kent 1959, p. 114; RIC VIII, pp. 46, 54). Following Kent’s suggestion, the silver token held in Oxford, as well as the large–sized ‘Vota Publica’ tokens from Group 1 bearing a long imperial legend including D N, might date back to the celebrations of the vota publica of the 3rd January 363, as also pointed out by the style of the imperial effigy with a long beard, which clearly refers to Julian’s later coinage. The same dating can be applied to tokens from Group 2, the obverses of which are similar to dies from the VOT X MVLT XX issues apparently struck by the Roman mint in AD 363 (RIC VIII, Rome, 328–330), although the former retained a short imperial titulature not found on the latter. Less clear is instead the chronology of the specimens from Groups 3-5. The portrait and the short imperial legend on the obverse of these pieces, as well as their size - matching the pre–reform VIRT EXERC ROMANOR issues (= AE4) - may date them to the previous year, that is the 3rd January 362, although one cannot completely rule out the idea that they were also part of the AD 363 token issue.

The existence of a ‘Vota Publica’ token made of silver clearly suggests that a small cluster was produced in precious metal within this late Roman series during the reign of Julian, in addition to the more common bronze and brass issues. While the actual purpose of these tokens remains debated (= devices issued as a means of pagan propaganda? Auspicious gifts distributed during New Year celebrations?), it is possible that the choice of manufacturing silver tokens resulted from a more general ‘revival’ of the ‘Vota Publica’ series which took place under Julian. Indeed, the evidence shows that the production of these specimens during the reign of the last Constantinian emperor saw a relative iconographic renewal of the reverse repertoire via the use of a new set of Egyptian types, as well as a reintroduction of the large-module denominations (AE1-AE2), which were earlier only struck for the first ‘Vota Publica’ issues at the time of the first two Tetrarchies (AD 294-305) and then replaced by mostly small-sized denominations (AE4) from Constantine I (AD 313-330/331). Such a ‘revival’ of this token series showing Egyptian religious iconography is not surprising in light of Julian’s religious reform and his (short-lived) attempt to restore Hellenistic polytheism as the state religion. However, this production pattern, based on a trimetallic system (silver, orichalcum, and bronze) for the ‘Vota Publica’ tokens, apparently did not succeed and was not followed by Julian’s successors (Jovian and the Valentinian emperors up to Gratian), who only resumed manufacturing these tokens in brass and bronze – or at least there is no evidence to demonstrate otherwise. Whatever the purpose of these tokens, it may be argued that the use of silver to strike some of Julian’s token issues may have been matched by a higher exchange value compared to that of brass and bronze specimens, which also had the effect of providing a more valuable appearance to the object and the same level of aesthetic quality as found on silver coins and medallions.

This blog was written by Cristian Mondello as part of The ‘Vota Publica’ Tokens from Late Antique Rome: Isiac and Egyptian Cults within a Christianizing Roman Empire project, which has received funding from the NRRP, Mission 4, ‘Education and Research’ – Component 2, ‘From Research to Business’ – Investment line 1.2, ‘Funding projects presented by young researchers’ (European Union – NextGenerationEU, proposal no. CFFE1C55). The project is hosted at the University of Messina, Italy.

Select bibliography

Alföldi A., Isis-szertartások Rómában a negyedik század keresztény császárai alatt = A Festival of Isis in Rome under the Christian Emperors of the IVth Century, Budapest 1937.

Bricault, L., & Mondello, C., Isis Moneta. The ‘Vota Publica’ Tokens from late antique Rome. Volume 1: Catalogue, London (forthcoming).

Kent, J.P.C., ‘An Introduction to the Coinage of Julian the Apostate’ (A.D. 360–3), The Numismatic Chronicle and Journal of the Royal Numismatic Society, 6.19 (1959), pp. 109–117.

RIC VIII = Kent, J.P.C., The Roman Imperial Coinage. The family of Constantine I. A.D. 337–364, Vol. VIII, London 1981.

Clare Rowan : 27 Apr 2023 14:52 |  Tags: Anubis Julian Late Antiquity Token Vota Publica |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Engraving Roman 'tesserae': the 'Vota Publica' tokens from Girolamo Tanini's collection

Since the sixteenth century, a special and enigmatic late Roman token emission, the ‘Vota Publica’ series, has received attention from antiquarians, dealers and collectors. These tokens, produced in either bronze or brass by the Roman mint, depict the effigies of Roman emperors from Diocletian (AD 284-305) to Valentinian II (AD 375-392) on the obverse (called the ‘imperial’ series). Instead of an imperial image they might also carry the busts of Serapis, Isis, or Hermanubis (or the jugate busts of Serapis and Isis) (called the ‘anonymous’ series). A number of ritual scenes and images referring to different aspects of Egyptian and Isiac cults are shown on the reverses, which are mostly accompanied by the legend ‘Vota Publica’ (= ‘public vows’). Due to the distinctive Egyptian religious iconography of these artefacts, a number of drawings or engravings of the ‘Vota Publica’ tokens appeared in several books, catalogues, and other contributions from the sixteenth to the early twenty centuries. These drawings reproduce, sometimes with a good degree of accuracy, some of the types found in the existing material, although the precise identification of the depicted specimens remains debated in most cases.

Two drawings reproducing ‘Vota Publica’ specimens are known to this author as showing an otherwise unattested obverse-reverse type combination. These designs were included by Girolamo (Hieronymus) Tanini in the plates of his ‘Supplementum’ to Banduri’s volume ‘Numismata Imperatorum Romanorum a Trajano Decio ad Palaelogos Augustos’ (Lutetiae, 1718), which was published in Rome in 1791 (Fig. 1)(Numismatum Imperatorum Romanorum a Trajano Decio ad Constantinum Draconem ab Anselmo Bandurio editorum Supplementum, Romae 1791). In this volume, Tanini catalogued hundreds of gold, silver and bronze coins from the reign of Trajan (AD 98-117) up to until that of Constantine XI Palaiologos (1149-1453). Most of the specimens recorded by Tanini existed as part his own collection, but others came from other collections or were taken from different books and catalogues. Girolamo Tanini was a priest and erudite greatly interested in numismatics, who served in Florence for the Rinuccini family as educator of Marquis Folco Rinuccini’s children Giovanni and Alessandro, as well as curator of the library housed in Palazzo Rinuccini. In this role, Tanini was also in charge of the numismatic collection of the Rinuccini family, which was initiated by Folco’s father, Marquis Carlo Rinuccini (1679-1748).

Fig. 1. Frontispiece of the ‘Supplementum’ by G. Tanini (1791).

In his ‘Supplementum’, Tanini described around seventy ‘Vota Publica’ tokens from both the ‘imperial’ and ‘anonymous’ series, most of which were part of his own collection. However, he only illustrated six of these specimens. Two of them, belonging to the ‘anonymous’ issue, came from Cardinal Stefano Borgia’s collection (1731-1804), and were later acquired by the Vatican. The other four were part of Tanini’s collection.

Of these, two display the pearl-diademed bust of the emperor Jovian facing right on the obverse, accompanied by the legend D N IOVIANVS P F AVG COS, while on the reverse is the type of Isis seated facing on high-backed throne, suckling Horus-Harpocrates (Fig. 2), or the type of Serapis-Agathodaemon and Isis-Thermouthis facing one another, carrying a sacred vase between them from which a serpent emerges (Fig. 3). The tokens depicted in these two drawings, labelled as AE2 (‘secundae formae’), might be identified with two rare specimens bearing the same obverse and reverse type and legend and with the same diameter, which are currently housed in the Vatican collection. The other two drawings provided by Tanini depict the draped bust of Isis facing left on the obverse, wearing a basileion and holding a sistrum in her right hand, while on the reverse is the image of Isis standing right on a galley with oars sailing right. Although these images are widely attested in the available material, none of the surviving specimens show a combination of these two types.

Figure 2: Tanini 1791, p. 324, pl. VI.	Figure 3: Tanini 1791, p. 324, pl. VI.

In the ‘Supplementum’, Tanini placed these two tokens under the coinage of Helena, the emperor Julian’s wife (died AD 360). As was common in his time, Tanini considered the busts of Serapis and Isis displayed on these tokens as disguised representations of Julian (AD 361-363) and Helena, following the idea that the production of some of these token issues was connected to Julian’s “pagan renaissance”. Tanini’s description of the two considered specimens is as follows:

1) TANINI 1791, p. 321, pl. VI:

Obverse: ‘VOTA PVBLICA (sic). Protome Isidis, vel Helenae, absque velo, cum flore loti, dextrorsum, d. sistrum, s. ad pectus gemmatum composita’.

Reverse: ‘VOTA PVBLICA. Isis sinistrorsum, stans in triremi, utraque manu velum regit’.

The first of the two specimens (Fig. 4) was labelled as AE3 (‘tertiae formae’) by Tanini. While the combination of the illustrated obverse and reverse types, with the legend VOTA PVBLICA occurring on both sides of the token, is not found in any of the known specimens today, it is worth paying attention to a similar specimen from the Vatican collection - Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (BAV) inv. no. Mt. Rom. Imp. Helena Iuliani 32. Although in a poor condition, this piece bears the same obverse type and legend as Tanini’s token, and the reverse also looks extremely similar with only one small difference: Isis has turned her head and is looking backwards (left), while on Tanini’s drawing Isis faces forward. It is tempting to assume that the specimen once owned by Tanini matches the Vatican piece, presuming that he misread the reverse type due to the poor condition of the token. However, no data on the acquisition of the piece by the Vatican collection is available. Moreover, the presence of a hole on the Vatican piece, which is not shown in Tanini’s drawing, may make this idea unlikely. If genuine, the piece described and figured in Tanini’s ‘Supplementum’ could provide evidence of an unrecorded ‘Vota Publica’ specimen.

Figure 4: Tanini 1791, p. 321, pl. VI.	Figure 5: Tanini 1791, p. 322, pl. VI.

2)TANINI 1791, p. 322, pl. VI:

Obverse: ‘DEA ISIS FARIA. Caput Isidis margaritis diadematum, collo duplici margaritarum monili ornato, humeris stolatis, d. sistrum’.

Reverse: ‘VOTA PVBLICA. Isis in triremi, sinistrorsum stans, velum tenet’.

The other specimen illustrated by Tanini (Fig. 5), labelled as A4 (‘quartae formae’), shows the same type combination of the previous piece, but it bears the obverse legend DEA ISIS FARIA instead of VOTA PVBLICA. As the available token specimens show, this legend was never used in the ‘Vota Publica’ series. Moreover, the obverse legend shown in Tanini’s drawing seems to incorporate two of the obverse legends found on the existing pieces with the bust of Isis, namely DE(ae) ISIDI (in the dative case) (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (BAV) (inv. no. Mt. Rom. Imp. Helena Iuliani 30)) and ISIS FARIA (in the nominative case) (Fig. 6). If the piece drawn by Tanini was genuine, the legend DEA ISIS FARIA would be unique (an unicum). Actually, it is likely that the legend transcribed by Tanini was the result of a wrong interpretation. This is despite the fact that Tanini was aware that the legend ISIS FARIA, as well as the less common legend DE ISIDI, occurred on the obverse of the token specimens from the ‘anonymous’ series, as the specimens catalogued in his ‘Supplementum’ demonstrate.

Figure 6: AE, ‘Vota Publica’ token (19mm, 2.30g, 5h). Rome, IV century AD. Bertolami Fine Arts 24, 23.06.2016, lot 955, once part of the Archaeological Museum of Florence’s collection (MAF).

Sadly, the ‘Supplementum’ by Tanini is the only available source for the discussed specimens which, like much of the material published in his volume, are no longer traceable. Indeed, the Tanini collection is currently dispersed. This numismatic collection was incorporated at some point into the Ranuccini collection, which came in 1850 into the Medagliere Granducale of the Reale Galleria in Florence. In turn, the Medagliere Granducale was moved to the Archaeological Museum of Florence (MAF) since 1895. Regrettably, there is no trace of the ‘Vota Publica’ tokens described by Tanini either in the MAF collection or in their registers. As seen above, some of Tanini’s tokens may have been acquired by the Vatican collection at some point in the twentieth century, but the lack of data does not allow us to br certain on this point. Further archival research may hopefully shed light on the fate of the tokens that were once part of Girolamo Tanini’s collection.

This blog was written by Cristian Mondello as part of The creation of tokens in late antiquity. Religious ‘tolerance’ and ‘intolerance’ in the fourth and fifth centuries AD project, which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 840737.

Select Bibliography

• A. Alföldi, Isis-szertartások Rómában a negyedik század keresztény császárai alatt = A Festival of Isis in Rome under the Christian Emperors of the IVth Century, Budapest 1937.
  
• G. Capecchi et al., Palazzo Peruzzi. Palazzo Rinuccini, Rome 1980.
  
• H. Tanini, Numismatum Imperatorum Romanorum a Trajano Decio ad Constantinum Draconem ab Anselmo Bandurio editorum Supplementum, Romae 1791.
  

Clare Rowan : 07 Dec 2021 16:02 |  Tags: Isis Late Antiquity Tesserae Token Vota Publica |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

A Flavian token in the Hunterian Museum, Glasgow

Writing about web page https://coins.warwick.ac.uk/token-specimens/id/hunterian.RLT24

Lead token, 19mm, 12h, 2.74g. Side a: Laureate head of Vespasian right; IMP AVG VES around. Side b: Laureate heads of Titus (on left) and Domitian (on right) facing each other; IMP above and T DO CAES below.

TURS 40, The Hunterian Museum, RLT 24. Photo by author.

Amongst the Roman lead tokens now in the Hunterian Museum in Glasgow is a piece that presents the Flavian dynasty. On one side of the token we find a portrait of the emperor Vespasian, accompanied by a legend that names him. On the other side we find his sons, Titus and Domitian, facing each other with a globe between them. The token recalls coinage that was struck in Vespasian's name in AD 70 (RIC II.1² Vespasian 15–16, 37). An example of this coinage is shown below.

Silver denarius, 7.5mm, 6h, 3.22g. Obverse: Laureate head of Vespasian right, IMP CAESAR VESPASIANVS AVG around. Reverse: Bare head of Titus on left facing bare head of Domitian on right, CAESAR AVG F COS CAESAR AVG F PR around.

RIC II.1² 16, American Numismatic Society 1944.100.39897.

At first glance, the coin and token are very similar: both show Vespasian on one side and his sons on the other, with accompanying legends naming the individuals shown. But upon closer examination there are also important differences. On the token both Titus and Domitian are shown wearing laurel wreaths ("laureate"); one can see the ties of the wreaths flowing down behind their respective necks. On the coin they are bare-headed. On the token a globe is placed between the busts, absent on the coin issue. This globe, and the representation of Vespasian's sons, recalls an earlier token issue showing the twin sons of Drusus the Younger, Tiberius Gemellus and Tiberius Germanicus, shown below.

Orichalcum token, 21mm, 4.67g, 12h. Obverse: Two young busts facing each other, each with a star above (the twin sons of Drusus the Younger), globe in between them. Reverse: VIIII within dotted border within wreath.

Buttrey B19/VIIII, © The Trustees of the British Museum, R. 4456.

The IMP on the token (an abbreviation of the title imperator) sits above the heads of Titus and Domitian. Who the title refers to is ambiguous; it may refer only to Titus, but since both Titus and Domitian are laureate it perhaps references both of them. Both Titus and Domitian also had the title CAESAR, abbreviated to CAES on the token and placed on the right hand side. In sum, although the token was likely inspired by the coin type, the makers did not merely copy the coin. They adapted the 'official' image and altered it; the resulting tokens were presumably given to an audience who were receptive to the alterations.

The precise occasion that motivated the creation of this token series is not known. It might have been created in connection to Vespasian's triumph (an important moment in which the new Flavian dynasty was presented to Rome), or at some later occasion. Another token issue also shows the laureate heads of Titus and Domitian, this time without the globe (TURS 41-42). On the other side of this token issue we find a horse rider carrying a spear accompanied by the legend IMP AV VES. The reference to Vespasian suggests that it is the emperor shown on horseback here. Whatever the occasion for the tokens showing laureate Titus and Domitian, their existence provides us with an insight into a particular vision of the Flavian dynasty not found on coinage or other media. This particular imagery of the imperial family would have contributed to the emotions, experiences and memories of the events in which the tokens were used.

This month's blog was written by Clare Rowan, as part of the Token Communities in the Ancient Mediterranean Project.

Clare Rowan : 01 May 2021 01:00 |  Tags: Coin Of The Month Domitian Flavian Hunterian Titus Token Vespasian |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Glorification and personification on the Judaea Capta coinage

When Titus captured Jerusalem and destroyed the Second Temple in 70 AD, the triumph awarded to him and his father Vespasian was swathed in luxury and decadence. This was a victory that celebrated the violent result of years of strained relations between Jerusalem and Roman governance. The taking of Jerusalem involved a long and bloody siege resulting in the deaths of a reported 1.1 million people, most of whom where Jewish (Josephus, Jewish Wars 6.9.3). Those who survived were paraded through the streets of Rome, and the spoils of war contributed to the building of the iconic Flavian amphitheatre we know as the Colosseum.

The Roman victory, as so often was the case, was advertised upon the contemporary coinage. As travelling propaganda, these coins reinforced the idea of Roman supremacy and the might of the empire. The Judaea Capta type was minted in various denominations in the name of Vespasian and both of his sons, and in spite of several variations in design the overall message remained the same.

Sesterius of Vespasian, AD 71, RIC II.1² 167, reproduced courtesy of the American Numismatic Society (inv. no.0000.999.18073).

The legend on the reverse states IVDEA CAPTA ,‘Judaea conquered’, and the coin depicts a woman seated beneath a palm tree, with a man, interpreted as the emperor, watching. The woman is Jerusalem, her hand to her cheek in a traditional expression of mourning. She is wearing civilian dress, and reflects the prophecy of Isaiah 3.26: ‘…And her gates shall lament and mourn, and she being desolate shall sit upon the ground’ (Young (1992) 170). By contrast, the male watching is standing, and still wears his armour, his foot placed on a helmet. The palm tree sets the scene of the victory in Judaea.

Personification was often used by Rome to reflect victory, as it expresses an effective message that was simple to comprehend. In this case, the use of opposing characteristics of the figures on the coins is extremely powerful in conveying the intended message. Jerusalem is depicted as female, and therefore as weak and submissive in contrast to the male figure representing Rome. The male figure, often interpreted as Vespasian himself, stands in reference to his elevated position over the woman in his victory. Where the woman is unarmed, the man is still dressed for battle in a reflection of victory

Other versions of this coin replace the armoured man with a winged Victory, or sometimes a bearded man with his hands tied behind his back. The latter is a depiction of a soldier of Jerusalem, bearded to reflect his ‘barbarian’ status in the eyes of the Roman Empire. His weapons and armour are laid down beside him in an image of defeat (RIC II.1² Vespasian 159). The legend also has variations, such as IVDAEA DEVICTA, ‘Judaea defeated’ (RIC II.1² Vespasian 1120), or DE IVDAEIS ‘[the booty] from the Judaeans’ (RIC II.1² 1179) in reference to the wealth stolen from the temple of Jerusalem. The palm tree has been interpreted as a representation of Rome victorious over Judaea.

The coin is one of many examples of media expressing the Flavian victory over the province of Judaea, including the arch of Titus which still stands proudly at the entrance to the Roman forum today. In a passing glance it appears as just another Roman victory arch, but if you take a closer look you can spot iconography relating to the siege, including a parade of people carrying aloft a menorah from the temple.

Close-up of the menorah being carried in the victory parade on the Arch of Titus .Image from WikimediaImages from Pixabay.

The Judaea Capta coinage reflects an important moment in the history of Rome, and likewise the history of Jerusalem. The Great Revolt resulted in a mass of deaths, displacement and enslavement. The minting of Judaea Capta coinage therefore becomes part of the Roman narrative of glorified victory and imperialism in the Flavian period.

This month's entry was written by Rebecca Preedy. Rebecca is an Ancient History and Classical Archaeology with Study Abroad student. She is completing her final year at Warwick after a year abroad at La Sapienza. Since studying in Rome, Rebecca has been fascinated by the ancient city and is hoping to continue her studies with a postgraduate degree in Roman Material Culture.

Select Bibliography

• Josephus, The Jewish War, trans. G. Williamson (London: Penguin)

• The Holy Bible: King James Version (Massachusetts: Hendrickson 2004)

• Carradice, I. (2012) ‘Flavian Coinage’ in The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage ed. W.E. Metcalfe

• Claridge, A. (2010) Rome: An Oxford Archaeological Guide (Oxford: University of Oxford Press)

• Moresino-Zipper, A. (2009) ‘Die Judaea-Capta-Münze und das Motiv der Palme. Römisches Siegessymbol oder Repräsentation Judäas?’ in Jerusalem und die Länder: Ikonographie - Topographie - Theologie eds. A. Moresino-Zipper, G. Theißen, H.U. Steymans, K.M. Schmidt, S. Ostermann

• Stevenson, T.R. (2010) ‘Personifications on the coinage of Vespasian (AD 69-79)’ Acta Classica 53:181-205

• Young, E.J. (1992) The Book of Isaiah (Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company)

Clare Rowan : 01 Jan 2021 01:00 |  Tags: Coin Of The Month Judaea Titus Undergraduate Research Vespasian |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

The lead tokens of Roman Egypt: Thoughts on function

Based upon the work of J. G. Milne, lead tokens in Roman Egypt are thought to be an unofficial coinage. Milne came to this conclusion because, when he analysed the Roman coins from Oxyrhynchus’ rubbish dumps, he noticed that there were fewer bronze coins present for the period AD 180 – 260 (Milne 1908; Milne 1922). He thought that the lead tokens replaced the lower denomination bronze. The Oxyrhynchite tokens depicting Athena are not, however, standardised as would be expected for even a pseudo-coinage. It is also apparent that lead tokens were in use in Roman Egypt before the period AD 180 – 260, as evidenced by an example bearing the image and name of Messalina, and a series of tokens found at Abydos dating to the first century BC. Despite his awareness of these examples, Milne still took a broad-brush approach to his interpretation that tokens were low denomination coins. It is therefore worth exploring other possibilities for the ways in which tokens could have functioned in the province.

Milne’s theory regarding the use of tokens as a low denominational coinage is not totally unfounded, as there are a small quantity of tokens that indicate a denomination. These include those with the legend ‘OBOΛOI B’ (‘two obols’, see figure 2) from Tebtunis and the Serapeum at Saqqara, as well as a specimen in the Ashmolean collection with the legend ‘ΔIOB’ (‘diob[ol]’, see figure 1. It is also possible that the I is instead a Φ that has become worn. If this is the case, then the inscription cannot refer to a diobol). These are, however, in the minority in comparison to hundreds of other specimens that do not bear a denominational mark, which suggests that this was not an extensive issue of tokens. The thin flans of the examples from Tebtunis also suggest that they were impractical for everyday use, and so may not have been intended for quotidian circulation.

Figure 1: Token possibly naming the denomination diobol. Obverse: Wreath, within which ΔIOB(?); solid line border. Reverse: Egyptian style altar(?); solid line border. Metal: Lead. Diameter: 26mm. Weight: 7.12g. Die axis: 12. Ashmolean Museum, Milne 5441. Image: Ashmolean Museum.

The paucity of tokens bearing a denomination, alongside the impracticality of the Tebtunis issues, suggests that another possibility is worth exploring. It is feasible that these tokens were intended to represent the given amount, without actually holding this worth or circulating as a coin. A lead token series from Rome refers to 1000 sestertii, but it seems unlikely it would have been worth that amount (TURS 1460). A modern parallel is the ‘Hell money’ used today in Asia, which while having the appearance of a banknote, exhibit denominations running into the millions. It is offered to the ancestors and not accepted as legal tender (Scott 2007, 26-28). Although these examples have a much higher denominations than on those found on the tokens from Roman Egypt, they demonstrate that a denomination does not necessarily indicate an all-purpose coin. This point is particularly pertinent as a token of the ‘OBOΛOI B’ type was found at the Serapeum of Saqqara at Memphis. When this token, and others bearing the ethnic ‘MEMΦΙC’ (Memphis), were studied by Longperier in the nineteenth century he posited that they could be religious coins used exclusively at Memphis (Longperier 1861, 411). He states that Pausanias references the use of a ‘local coin’ as a votive offering at Memphis (Pausanias Description of Greece 7.22, 3-4; Longperier 1861, 412). Pausanius implies that the coins were copper, which does obviously not fit the description of the lead tokens. The nome coinage of Roman Egypt displays imagery relevant to each of the nome districts and could perhaps fit this description, however, this was struck at Alexandria and so was ‘local’ to a questionable extent. The fact that ‘local coins’ were important for votive offering at Memphis does, however, leave open the possibility that the lead tokens fulfilled this need. A ‘coin’ created specifically as a votive offering can feasibly be encompassed within the term ‘token’.

Figure 2: : Token from Tebtunis. Obverse: Apis bull facing right, with solar disc between horns, to left Isis(?) standing right wearing solar disc and to right janiform figure(?) standing left and holding uraeus serpent. Crescent and garland above in field; border of dots. Reverse: Nilus sitting left, holding cornucopia in left hand and reeds in right, Alexandria-Euthenia standing before him holding ear of corn aloft in right hand; border of dots; OBOΛOI B. Metal: Lead. Diameter: 30mm. Die axis: 12. Image: Milne 1900, pl XXVI, fig 1.

Others have posited that some of the lead tokens were tax receipts (Rostovtzeff and Prou 1900, 151-152; Mitchiner 1984). Some tokens bear the legend ΕΠ ΑΓΑΘW, which has been translated to mean ‘interest payable upon wealth’ (Mitchiner 1984, 113). However, tax receipts are known from papyrological evidence in Roman Egypt, so it seems unlikely they would take the form of tokens as well. There are also many instances in the ancient world where the phrase means ‘good fortune’, such as this inscription on a marble column drum from Lepcis Magna. The phrase is also found on rings in the Roman period (Le Blant 1896, 90; Ogden 1990, 109). Given that tokens in the ancient world are likely to have been used for euergetic distributions, this phrase would not be out of place on such tokens.

A group of tokens that are unprovenanced within Egypt can also offer an alternative function. They depict Athena on one side (unconnected to the Athena tokens from Oxyrhynchus) and have the legend ΑΓΟ (‘AGO…’, see figure 3) on the other face. It is likely that the legend refers to the agoranomoi, who oversaw markets in the Greek world. Tokens with similar legends – ΑΓ (AG…), ΑΓΟΡ (AGOR…) and ΑΓΟΡΟΝΟΜΩΝ (AGORANOMON) - have also been discovered in the Athenian agora. A possibility for their use that they were issued as proof of payment to sacrificial banquets organised by the agoranomoi (Bubelis 2013, 125). This is also plausible for Roman Egypt, as a papyrus from Karanis dating to the early third century AD also provides a link between religious banquets and their organisation by the agoranomoi (P.Mich. 8511).

Figure 3: Token possibly referring to the agoranomoi. Obverse: Athena standing left, wearing Corinthian helmet, left hand resting on shield at feet to right, outstretched left hand holding Nike with wreath and palm; solid line border. Reverse: AΓO; solid line border. Metal: Lead. Diameter: 24mm. Weight: 9.98g. Die axis: 12. Köln, Institut für Altertumskunde accession no. AL_3560. Image: Köln, Institut für Altertumskunde.

The instances highlighted above are only a minority of the tokens found in Roman Egypt, however, they provide alternative suggestions for utilisation other than a low denomination coinage, and emphasise how tokens could have a variety of functions within the province.

This blog is written by Denise Wilding. The content of this blog is adapted from: Wilding, D. 2020. Tokens and Communities in the Roman Provinces: An Exploration of Egypt, Gaul and Britain. Unpublished PhD thesis, The University of Warwick.

With thanks to the Humanities Research Fund, University of Warwick for their support.

Bibliography

Blant, E. Le. 1986. 750 Inscriptions de pierres gravées inédites ou peu connues. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.

Bubelis, W. 2013. “The Agorastikon of Hellenistic Athens: Not a Market-Tax.” Zeitschrift für papyrologie und epigraphik 185: 122–26.

Longperier, A. 1861. “Monnaies du Sérapéum de Memphis. Trouvaille de Myt-Rahinch.” Revue Numismatique VI: 1–24.

Milne, J. G. 1908. “The Leaden Token Coinage of Egypt under the Romans.” The Numismatic Chronicle and Journal of the Royal Numismatic Society 8: 287–310.

Milne, J. G. 1922. “The Coins from Oxyrhynchus.” The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 8: 158–63.

Mitchiner, M. 1984. “Imperial Portrait Tesserae from the City of Rome and Imperial Tax Tokens from the Province of Egypt.” The Numismatic Chronicle 144: 95–114.

Ogden, J. M. 1990. “Gold Jewellery in Ptolemaic, Roman and Byzantine Egypt.” Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Durham. http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/1457/.

Pausanias, Description of Greece, trans. W. H. S. Jones. 1918. London: Heinemann.

Rostovtzeff, M., and M. Prou. 1900. Catalogue Des Plombs de l’antiquité, Du Moyen Age et Des Temps Modernes Conservés Au Département Des Médailles et Antiques de La Bibliothèque Nationale. Paris: Rollin et Feuardent.

Scott, J. L. 2007. For Gods, Ghosts and Ancestors: The Chinese Tradition of Paper Offerings. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Clare Rowan : 01 Sep 2020 14:38 |  Tags: Agoranomoi Coin Of The Month Egypt Memphis Roman Egypt Tebtunis Token |  Comments (2) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Lead Tokens depicting Athena from Roman Oxyrhynchus

The result of our excavations showed that I had been so far right in that the rubbish mounds were nothing but rubbish mounds; and the miscellaneous small anticas which we found are of little interest…

Grenfell 1896-1897, 3.

Oxyrhynchus, the ‘city of the sharp-nosed fish’, is situated in the Fayum of Egypt. Originally an Egyptian city that was colonised by the Greeks, it continued to thrive under the Romans. Today is best known for the reams of Ptolemaic and Roman papyri discovered in its rubbish heaps by Grenfell and Hunt in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. There is, however, more to Oxyrhynchus than its papyri, and after more than a hundred years some of the so-called ‘miscellaneous small anticas’ deserve reassessment.

Amongst the artefacts of which Grenfell was so disparaging, are around three hundred lead tokens, dating to the Roman period (Milne 1922, 159). These small, unassuming objects, often worn and with traces of their designs barely discernible, are largely ignored in modern scholarship. A series of papers published in the early 20th century by J. G. Milne focused on identifying the types, and posited that they functioned as a low-denomination token coinage. How tokens were used in Roman Egypt still remains uncertain, but analysis of their iconography can move beyond identification of types.

Milne rightly noted that different series of tokens were present at Oxyrhynchus (Milne 1908, 297). Some have imagery similar to the Alexandrian coinage, depicting for instance deities such as Serapis or Nilus. Like Alexandrian coins, tokens often have a date in regnal years which is signified by an ‘L’ before the numerals in Greek. Unlike coins, tokens in Roman Egypt don’t bear the portrait of the emperor, and so it is usually unclear to whose reign this date refers. Tokens of this series are found on other sites in Egypt, such as Antinoopolis, Karanis and elsewhere in the Fayum, as well as just outside of Egypt at Qasr Ibrim and in a shipwreck off Israel’s Carmel coast.

In contrast, another series of tokens appears to have local significance to Oxyrhynchus. These all feature the goddess Athena on one face. Most frequently it is her bust that is depicted (Figure 1) but she also appears fighting a serpent (Figure 2), and sometimes her cult statue features within a temple. Most tokens pair her with Nike on the reverse, aside from a small subset on which Zeus is depicted seated (Figure 2).

Figure 1: Token depicting Athena with labrys. Obverse: Bust of Athena-Thoeris right, wearing Corinthian helmet, labrys to front. Solid line border. Reverse: Nike advancing left, holding wreath in right hand and palm in left hand; ΟΞ. Solid line border. Metal: Lead. Diameter: 20mm. Weight: 3.34g. Die axis: 11. Ashmolean Museum, Milne 5302. Image: Ashmolean Museum.

Despite the variation in the manner of her depiction, there is clearly a preference for tokens featuring Athena at Oxyrhynchus; Milne identified the goddess on 184 tokens out of a total of 271. This frequency is further emphasised by the fact that the Oxyrhynchite Athena types are not found anywhere else in Egypt (Milne 1908, 297. This still holds true based on the data available today, which includes discoveries made after Milne’s study.). The presence of the Greek legend ‘ΟΞ’ (OX) on some of the Athena tokens also clearly refers to the first two letters of Oxyrhynchus. This legend works alongside the imagery to emphasise the distinct local character of this type of token.

The uniqueness of these tokens to Oxyrhynchus is further exemplified by the choice of attribute for Athena on the tokens: the labrys, or double-headed axe. It is present on types where she is depicted attacking a serpent and also alongside her bust. The labrys is an unusual attribute for Athena. It does not feature alongside her on many depictions from antiquity, aside from one representation from Mycenae, the nome coinage of Οxyrhynchus, possibly on a terracotta lamp from Οxyrhynchus, and perhaps as part of a statue of Athena found at Οxyrhynchus (LIMC II, Athena no. 2; LIMC II, Athena no. 27; RPC III 6355-6358; British Museum OA.11020;Mathiopoulos 2001, 202-217 for the statue, who posists that the statue’s missing attribute is a cornucopia. However, a labrys is also a possibility, given the association of Athena with this attribute at Oxrhynchus).

Figure 2: Token depicting Athena fighting serpent. Obverse: Athena-Thoeris advancing right, holding labrys in right hand and shield in left, attacking serpent before her. Reverse: Zeus seated left, in right hand holding Nike right with wreath, and in left hand holding sceptre. Metal: Lead. Diameter: 23mm. Weight: 7.88g. Die axis: 11. Ashmolean Museum, Milne 5304. Image: Ashmolean Museum.

In terms of the significance of the labrys to the town, current scholarship does not appear to have reached a definitive conclusion. In her study of the double-headed axe, Kouremenos states in reference to the nome coinage of Οxyrhynchus that it might be associated with workmen in the city that used the double axe as a woodworking tool (Kouremenos 2016, 47). Others have interpreted the presence of the labrys on the nome coinage as an ‘Egyptian’ emblem, due to the fact that in art it was often depicted with the Egyptian god Tutu, in which context it has been interpreted as an apotropaic symbol (Weber and Geissen 2013, 168). Its association with Athena at Οxyrhynchus might be viewed as acknowledging her role as a protective guardian goddess of the town, while also amalgamating Egyptian and Greek elements (Weber and Geissen 2013, 168). The labrys is, however, found frequently in Greek and Roman art (Kouremenos 2016, 43-50 for overview). In this regard, it appears in many places in different contexts, similar to the manner in which the imagery of Athena is common. It is, however, only when Athena and the labrys appear together in the specific context of the material culture of Οxyrhynchus that they are able to transform into a new image which becomes associated with the locality.

Figure 3: Coin of Hadrian (nome coinage). Obverse: laureate bust of Hadrian, right; border of dots; ΑΥΤ ΚΑΙ ΤΡΑΙ ΑΔΡΙΑ CΕΒ. Reverse: Athena standing facing, head left, wearing Corinthian helmet, holding labrys in left hand and Nike in extended right hand; border of dots; ΟΞΥΡ/ LΙΑ. Metal: Bronze. Weight: 4.70g. Mint: Alexandria. Date: AD 117-138. RPC III 6357. Ashmolean Museum Accession no. HCR34309. Image: Ashmolean Museum.

The unusual pairing of Athena with the labrys at Οxyrhynchus was not her sole distinction from the ubiquitous Athena of the classical world. From numerous references in the town’s papyri, it is evident that Athena was equated with, or given the epithet of, the goddess Thoeris. There are references to ‘worshippers of the cult of Athena-Thoeris’, the ‘temple of Athena-Thoeris’ and the ‘place of the temple of Athena-Thoeris’, amongst others (P.Oxy. 3.579; P.Rein. 2.93; P.Oxy. 34.2722; P.Oxy. 50.3567). To some extent perhaps the goddesses were perceived as separate: one document refers to ‘the temple of Athena and Thoeris’ (P.Oxy. 10.1268).

Thoeris is the Greek name for the Egyptian goddess Taweret. She took the form of a hippopotamus, and her worship had become prominent at Οxyrhynchus from the late Ptolemaic period (Whitehorne 1995, 3080-82). The reason for the connection of Athena to Thoeris/Taweret in not clear, but it is perhaps because each goddess was associated with childbirth and fertility (Whitehorne 1995, 3080-82). In ancient Egypt Taweret was associated with the protection of women and children. Inscribed magical knives from the Middle Kingdom period bear apotropaic figures and texts indicating that they were for the protection of women and children, and most frequently feature Taweret as the apotropaic figure (Weingarten 1991, 4: 45 out of the 58 published knives feature Taweret). From the New Kingdom, jugs in the form of Taweret were used for the pouring of libations from a hole in one of the jug’s breasts, indicating an association with childbirth and breastfeeding mothers (Bruyère 1939, 104-107). Athena’s link to women and motherhood is less explicit, but it is perhaps her capacity as a protector that syncretises her with Taweret.

Figure 4: A faience amulet depicting the Egyptian goddess Taweret. 332-30 BC. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, accession no. 26.7.888. Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication.

Despite the outwardly classical style of Athena on these tokens, these syncretisms should be taken into account. The Athena depicted on these tokens’ had associations with Thoeris, and her Egyptian counterpart Taweret, which lent a particular local context to the way in which the imagery may have been viewed and read by the community of Οxyrhynchus. Veronique Dasen has also reached similar conclusions in her analysis of a gem depicting Athena attacking a serpent with a labrys, which bears the inscription ‘Thoeris’ (Dasen 2019). She considers how the imagery of the gem could have been read on both Greek and Egyptian terms due to the iconography evoking all three goddesses.

The choice to depict Athena in classical form underlines the creation of tokens in a Graeco-Roman milieu, especially as Taweret was concurrently worshipped independently at local shrines and certain populations would have recognised her Egyptian guise. This does not, however, discount the possibility that those who used and viewed tokens interpreted the image on their own terms and read different combinations of Athena, Thoeris and Taweret.

Blog written by Denise Wilding, The University of Warwick.

The content of this blog is adapted from: Wilding, D. 2020. Tokens and Communities in the Roman Provinces: An Exploration of Egypt, Gaul and Britain. Unpublished PhD thesis, The University of Warwick. With thanks to the Humanities Research Fund, University of Warwick for their support.

Bibliography

Bruyère, B. 1939. Rapport Sur Les Fouilles de Deir-El-Médineh, 1934-35. Cairo: l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale.

Dasen, V. 2019. “One God May Hide Another. Magical Gems in a Cross-Cultural Context.” In Magical Gems in Their Context, Proceedings of the International Workshop Held at the Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest 16–18 February 2012, edited by K. Endreffy, Á.M. Nagy, and J. Spier, 47–58. Rome: L’Erma Di Bretschneider.

Grenfell, B. P. 1896-1897. “Oxyrhynchus and Its Papyri.” Archaeological Report (Egypt Exploration Fund) 1896-1897: 1–12.

Kouremenos, A. 2016. “The Double Axe (Λάβρυς) in Roman Crete and beyond: The Iconography of a Multi-Faceted Symbol.” In Roman Crete: New Perspectives, edited by J. E. Francis and A. Kouremenos, 43–58. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Mathiopoulos, E. 2001. “On the Transformation of the Athena Velletri Type in Hellenistic Alexandria.” In Athena in the Classical World, edited by S Deacy and A. Villing, 197–218. Leiden: Brill.

Milne, J. G. 1908. “The Leaden Token Coinage of Egypt under the Romans.” The Numismatic Chronicle and Journal of the Royal Numismatic Society 8: 287–310.

Milne, J. G. 1922. “The Coins from Oxyrhynchus.” The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 8: 158–63.

Weber, M., and A. Geissen. 2013. Die Alexandrinischen Gaumünzen Der Römischen Kaiserzeit. Die Ägyptischen Gaue Und Ihre Ortsgötter Im Spiegel Der Numismatischen Quellen. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Weingarten, J. 1991. The Transformation of the Egyptian Taweret into the Minoan Genius: A Study in Cultural Transmission in the Bronze Age. Partille: Aström Forlag.

Whitehorne, J. 1995. “The Pagan Cults of Roman Oxyrhynchus.” Aufsteig Und Neidergang Der Romischen Welt II (18.5): 3050–91.

Clare Rowan : 17 Aug 2020 14:04 |  Tags: Ashmolean Museum Athena Egypt Oxyrhynchus Thoeris Token |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Frederick Parkes Weber and the Bowl of Coins Prize

Frederick Parkes Weber, Unknown author / CC BY	Interesting Cases and Pathological Considerations.

Amongst the papers of the famous dermatologist Frederick Parkes Weber now housed in the department of Coins and Medals in the British Museum is a book rather intriguingly entitled Interesting Cases and Pathological Considerations and a Numismatic Suggestion. While most of the book will not interest the student of coinage, the ‘numismatic suggestion’ appended at the end provides a great insight into Weber’s knowledge of ancient coinage (he was an avid coin collector) and the Royal Numismatic Society’s Parkes Weber Prize, currently awarded to the best essay ‘of not more than 5,000 words on any subject relating to coins, medals, medallions, tokens or paper money’ written by someone under 30.

The numismatic suggestion (photographs of the text available to read here and here) records that originally Parkes Weber proposed to the Royal Numismatic Society (RNS) an annual ‘bowl of coins’ prize. The idea came to him since, as a collector, he had to frequently quickly assess bowls of coins from various dealers across the world. The council found the suggestion impractical, and so instead implemented the prize in its current form. But it appears that Parkes Weber was not happy with the solution, and so published his original letter of 1st October 1953 to the President of the Royal Numismatic Society ‘in the hope that at some future time my suggestion will be carried out by a society of private donor. I believe that a small analogous prize is being offered to postage stamp enthusiasts with considerable success.’

Reading the letter, Parkes Weber originally proposed to the RNS an annual prize of 10 guineas to young collectors for ‘the best written diagnosis (with half an hour) of the contents of a bowl of miscellaneous coins and coin-like objects (twenty pieces in the bowl) under the supervision of a delegate of the Society in question’. He suggests they should all be good or moderately good specimens, as well as one or two imitations. He then goes on to offer detailed advice on what this ‘bowl of coins’ should contain.

Parkes Weber suggested the bowl should contain two or three counters or admission tickets (e.g. the Nürnberg Rechenpfennige, the card counters struck on the accession of Queen Victoria with the Duke of Cumberland on horseback on the reverse). He also suggests the inclusion of Greek and Roman tokens, including the so-called spintriae. These tokens carry sexual imagery on one side and a number on the other: Parkes-Weber includes the now discounted idea they were used as brothel admission tickets. He then notes that a fellow collector gave him two spintriae because the collector ‘did not like having them in his collection, when he was showing it to ladies’. Two bronze Roman tokens from the Parkes Weber collection are now in the British Museum, although only one shows an erotic scene.

'Spintria' in the British Museum once owned by Parkes Weber. The obverse shows a scene of sexual intercourse and the reverse carries the number III within a wreath. © The Trustees of the British Museum, 1906,1103.2927.

Parkes Weber writes that only five of the twenty coins in the bowl should be of very rare or obscure types, and suggests specific coin types for ‘occasional admission to the bowl’. These include a copper coin of the Seljukian Turks with types copied from Byzantine Christian pieces, a coin of Edessa ‘preferably a coin of Count Baldwin II with the slashing horseman reminding one of the Norman knights on the Bayeux tapestry’, a coin weight of Charles I struck by Briot, school tokens of the seventeenth century, the ‘dolphin coins’ of Olbia, medieval and modern badges, and Russian beard tokens and prison tokens. Reading the list, one is struck by the interest and knowledge Parkes Weber had of tokens from all ages.

There is, despite the publication of the letter (admittedly in a venue which may not be frequently read by numismatists) still no ‘bowl of coins’ prize. But it does make one think about what types of coins and money might make up the bowl today!

This blog was written by Clare Rowan as part of the Token Communities in the Ancient Mediterranean project.

Clare Rowan : 01 Jun 2020 14:08 |  Tags: British Museum Coin Of The Month Parkes Weber Royal Numismatic Society Spintriae Token |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Casting Roman tokens: Notes on two unpublished token moulds from Florence collections

Whilst the interest in token moulds has mostly been confined to excavation reports and occasional enquiries to date, recent scholarship is increasingly focusing on the value of these objects to better understand crucial aspects related to the manufacturing techniques, production location and use of tokens in antiquity (cf. Pardini et al. 2016; Rowan 2019). Lately, token moulds are also gaining attention on the market and in auction sales.

Two unpublished token moulds are presented below, which exist as part of two museum collections from Florence, Italy. Both token moulds are discussed in a study currently being undertaken by the author.

The token mould shown on Fig. 1 is held in the Museo Archeologico of Firenze (MAF) (inv. no. 79209). It is one half of a mould made of limestone, rectangular in shape, whose size is 115 x 80 x 27 mm. It would have been used in conjunction with the other half (now lost) in order to create 8 circular tokens of about 16-17mm in diameter.

Figure 1: Roman token mould from Museo Archeologico Nazionale of Firenze (MAF) (inv. no. 79209) (Courtesy of the MAF).

Based on the designs engraved on the surface – but some of them are unfortunately in poor condition – the resulting tokens carried at least three different types of images: on the left side, two of the preserved designs show Mars, helmeted, in military dress, standing right, holding spear in right hand and resting left on shield on ground (the type is also applied to Minerva, who is generally portrayed with a longer robe); on the top, two token cavities depict Mars helmeted, in military dress, standing right, holding spear in right hand and patera in left hand; in the lower right corner, a token design shows Hercules standing right, holding scyphum in left hand and club in right hand. These images are variants of types commonly depicted on Roman lead tokens, as already known through the examples published by M. Rostowzew as well as on individual catalogues of museum collections (for some of the types in question, see e.g. Rostowzew and Prou 1900, 135, fig. 32; Arzone and Marinello 2019, nos. 108-111 and 113). It is noteworthy that the first of the two images of Mars mentioned above appears on the tokens produced at the time of Nero, and was adopted on official coinage just afterwards, occurring on the coins issued during the Civil Wars of AD 68-69 (Fig. 2). However, the designs attested on the MAF mould are closer to the variant of a Mars type largely found on coinage from the time of Trajan (Fig. 3) up to the fourth century, which allows us at least to date the token mould to this broad time frame. To support this, morphological and stylistic features, as well as the material used, are consistent with the token molds from Rome and Ostia, generally assigned to the period between the 1st and 3rd centuries AD.

Figure 2: Silver denarius, RIC 1² Civil Wars 20, AD 68-69. (UBS Gold & Numismatics, Auction 83, lot 183).

Figure 3: Bronze As of Trajan, Rome AD 99-100 (= RIC II, Trajan 410), American Numismatic Society (inv. no. 0000.999.18549)

This token mould is said to have been found in Corneto Tarquinia (Lazio), whose ancient site was one of the most important settlements of the twelve Etruscan cities (the ‘Dodecapolis’), and which was under Roman domination since the third century BC. This place does not appear among the sites documented as find spots of token moulds to date, which have been found in Rome and Ostia, except for two examples from Como and Telesia (Rowan 2019, 98-99). If one accepts as reliable the information on its place of discovery, this mould specimen might suggest that a local production of lead tokens existed in Tarquinia in the imperial period. Moreover, it has recently been assumed that a ‘distributed production’ rather than a centralized single workshop was the common ‘model’ for the manufacture of tokens over the Roman period, which would have been created ‘in multiple places by multiple individuals’ (cf. Rowan 2019, 97).

This piece was sold to the MAF on 10 May 1901 by the collector and member of the Accademia Colombaria Anton Domenico Pierrugues, who donated his collection of Greek and Roman coins to the museum after his death (1915).

Figure 4:Roman token mould from Casa Buonarroti, Florence (Lenzini Moriondo’s inventory (1964), 22/1) (Courtesy of Casa Buonarroti).

Fig. 4 illustrates one half of a token mould housed at Casa Buonarroti, whose collection was formed from the 16th to the 19th century from the bequest of Michelangelo Buonarroti and his descendants. The piece is made of limestone, quadrangular in shape, and is 83 x 76 (min. 73) x 28 mm in size. The other half of the artefact is lost also in this case. The mould would have created seven circular tokens of 14-15 mm in diameter, which were decorated with the image of the Three Graces on one side. This depiction is a popular type on Roman lead tokens. A bronze uniface Roman token (14mm, 2.90g) showing the Three Graces on one side while blank on the other side exists as part of the Casa Buonarroti collection. The iconography and size of this token perfectly match the token cavities of the mould, making it likely that the bronze tessera was cast through the mould in question (Figs. 5-6). Anyway, it is likely that this bronze token was a product of a sample casting from the mould after its discovery. This might be suggested by the absence of remains of casting sprues on the token specimen as well as by its uniface appearance, since it is highly probable that the other half of the mould containing casting branches to the cavities was also decorated (see below). However, no data is available about the place of discovery of the mould, and it is not possible to determine when precisely in modern times the tessera was cast.

Figs. 5-6: AE Roman token (14mm, 2.90g), Casa Buonarroti, Florence.

The mould has a remarkable resemblance to a token mould of palombino marble with the same designs (105 x 75 mm for 7 circular tokens of ca. 17 mm) published by Cesano (1904, 11, fig. 1), which was found in the 19th century in Rome during the Lungotevere works. Such close ties might hint that the Casa Buonarroti mould came from Rome. According to ongoing research by the author, the mould may have been part of the inheritance of the antiquarian and senator Filippo Buonarroti (1661-1733), the great-grandnephew of Michelangelo Buonarroti, who stayed in Rome over the years ca. 1684-1699 serving as secretary, conservator of collections and librarian of the influential family of Cardinal Gasparo di Carpegna. In Rome, Filippo Buonarroti led a number of archaeological explorations which allowed him not only to assemble an impressive collection of Roman and Etruscan antiquities, but also to conduct pioneering studies in ancient iconography, epigraphy, and numismatics.

Figs. 7-8: Top and bottom sides of the mould from Casa Buonarroti, Florence.

Both token moulds show morphological and technical features which are largely documented for this class of objects. The extant half of the MAF mould shows a ‘herringbone’ arrangement, with a central casting channel with branches leading to the individual token moulds. The piece from Casa Buonarroti has instead only a central casting channel and no ‘branches’; one should assume that the now lost other half of the mould contained the channels through which molten lead was poured into the token cavities. In the top right and lower left corners, both molds bear the holes of the nails which were used to fasten both halves of the mould together, but also to ensure that they were correctly aligned (cf. Rowan 2019, 95). Furthermore, all four sides of the token mould from Casa Buonarroti carry small grooves which, as has been argued, would be suggestive of the use of wire which wrapped around the molds during the casting process (cf. Pardini et al. 2016) (Figs. 7-8). Also, as with a token mould from the Harvard Art Museums discussed by Rowan, a deep central hole is found in the center of each token cavity of the Casa Buonarroti mould, being visible in the guise of a protuberance on the body of one of the Graces in the resulting token, as is attested on the extant bronze tessera from Casa Buonarroti. This depression would be a clue of the method employed for engraving the token designs, since it would have been caused by the bit of a tool used for cutting the circular depressions before the designs were engraved. Finally, the back of both mold specimens is unworked, as attested on many moulds of this type.

Further analysis and the potential discovery of new specimens could help develop future discussion on the ancient token moulds, thus providing a more complete picture about the production and use of tokens in the ancient world.

This blog was written by Cristian Mondello as part of The creation of tokens in late antiquity. Religious ‘tolerance’ and ‘intolerance’ in the fourth and fifth centuries AD project, which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 840737.

Select bibliography

A. Arzone and A. Marinello, Museo di Castelvecchio. Lead Tokens. Tessere di piombo (Modena, 2019).

L. Cesano, ‘Matrici e tessere di piombo nel Museo Nazionale Romano’, NSc. (1904), 11-17.

G. Pardini, M. Piacentini, A.C. Felici, M.L. Santarelli, and S. Santucci, ‘Matrici per tessere plumbee dalle pendici nord-orientali del Palatino. Nota Preliminare’, in A.F. Ferrandes and G. Pardini (eds), Le regole del gioco. Tracce, archeologi, racconti. Studi in onore di Clementina Panella (Rome, 2016), 649-667.

U. Procacci, La Casa Buonarroti a Firenze (Firenze, 1965).

M. Rostowzew, Tesserarum urbis Romae et suburbi (St. Peterburg, 1903).

M. Rostowzew and M. Prou, Catalogue des plombs de l’antiquité (Paris, 1900).

C. Rowan, ‘A Roman token mould in Harvard’, Coins at Warwick Blog.

C. Rowan, ‘Lead token moulds from Rome and Ostia’, in N. Crisà, M. Gkikaki, and C. Rowan (eds), Tokens. Culture, Connections, Communities (London, 2019), 95-110.

Clare Rowan : 01 May 2020 02:00 |  Tags: Casa Buonarroti Coin Of The Month Mars Moulds Museo Archeologico Di Firenze Three Graces Token |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Cult Development in Provincial Syria

Introduction

I will use the above coinage to briefly explore the developments of a Syrian cult and thus the relationship between local cults and Roman (military) presence in the eastern provinces.

Pictured in fig.1 is a rare tetradrachm minted in the 3rd century AD under Caracalla. The tetradrachm may have been the principal unit of silver coinage used in Syria during this period, but the iconography on the reverse makes this coin intriguing. It is thought to depict cult statues belonging to the Temple of Ataragtis and Hadad (Syrian gods) at Hierapolis (Syria).

Cultic and Civic Context

The cult of Atargatis and Hadad was Syrian in origin and the sanctuary pre-dated Greek/Macedonian conquest. From Seleucid rule to the late third century AD Hierapolis was a provincial religious hub and mustering point for the Roman military. The Greek legend on a similar bronze coin under Severus Alexander (fig.2): ΘΕΟΙ CYRIAC IEPOΠΟΛΙΤΩΝ ‘the gods of Syria, (coin) of the Hieropolitans’ helps identify the figures represented on the Caracalla coin. Near-contemporary written accounts and artwork from Syria corroborate this.

Fig.2 Bronze coin of Hierapolis, minted under Severus Alexander (222-235 AD). Obverse: Radiate bust of Severus Alexander right, AYT KAI MAP AYΡ CE - ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟC [CEB]. Reverse: Image of the Syrian gods of the Hierapolitans: Hadad left, seated on throne; Atargatis right, seated on throne; ensign between them. Below lion walking right; ΘΕΟΙ CYRIAC IEPOΠΟΛΙΤΩΝ. Photo credit: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Münzkabinett.

It seems that a variety of peoples worshipped at this sanctuary, and thus the deities were attributed a variety of names and associated myths. The Greeks called Atargatis ‘Hera’ (and Aphrodite) and Hadad ‘Zeus’. Lucian, writing in the second century AD, describes the ionic temple with its cult statues of Atargatis and Hadad sitting on their thrones borne by lions and bulls respectively, as Caracalla’s coin depicts. These specific deities are further identified by their tall headdresses and attributed objects. Both deities hold sceptres in their left hands and Atargatis holds a spindle in her right hand, as Lucian describes. It is thought that Hadad may be holding either a thunderbolt or ear of corn in his right hand.

Between the cult statues themselves was an ensign, called a ‘semeion’. Its exact nature has been disputed. Lucian writes: ‘between both of these [statues] stands another golden statue. It does not have its own shape but bears the images of the other gods’. I agree with Darcus that here Lucian is likely referring to the images of Atargatis and Hadad (or some other ‘indigenous’ gods).

Roman Military Symbols and Indigenous Gods

The near identical ensigns on the coins comprise of hollow rings on staffs. Gabled pediments top them with doves at the summits. They bear a clear resemblance to Roman military standards. Another similar standard in the same iconographical context can be seen in a relief from fellow Syrian city, Dura-Europos (fig.3). The relief depicts a specific type of military standard with cloth banners called a ‘vexillum’. Based on other archaeological evidence Dura has yielded, this vexillum type seems to have been the most common there. The same vexillum has been identified by some scholars on the coins of Caracalla and Severus.

Fig.3 Relief from Dura-Europos, second or third century AD. On the left Hadad; the right Atargatis; between them the ‘semeion’. Photo credit: Yale University Art Gallery.

There is evidence that Roman military standards were housed in shrines in provincial Syria. It seems that in the imperial period these standards possessed their own spirit/sacred powers, offering protection and symbolising the strength of the Roman Empire. Ergo, they were an expression of military ideology and collective identity. The ethnic composition of the army in Syria would have been diverse, with local recruitment having been initiated the previous century. Although the extent to which the Roman military interacted with civilians in provincial Syria is uncertain, it is well known that the Roman military acted as a primary vehicle in the process of cult mobility in imperial times. Thus the cult of Atargatis itself disseminated across the empire: throughout Syria, northern Mesopotamia, the Mediterranean and even made it to Britain.

Fergus Millar noted that the absence of the ensign on earlier coins under Trajan supports the suggestion that the ensign was a later addition to the temple. If there had been a permanent Roman military standard in the temple, it was likely not the ensign Lucian saw. Instead Lucian describes a more indigenous religious ensign, very similar to motifs seen on Syrian cylinder seals dating back to the second millennia BC: staffs bearing the heads of deities with birds on top.

At the bottom of the reverse, an eagle with a lion walking below it can be seen. The exact meanings of these symbols in this context are uncertain. It is possible that this is a visual hierarchy reinforcing imperial positions, a common practice in the provinces: Rome on top, symbolised by Jupiter’s eagle and Hierapolis/Syria below, by a lion of Atargatis. However, the presence of the eagle on Syrian coinage has been traced back to before Roman conquest and on other Syrian coinage the eagle is thought to allude to local myth and history.

Commissioner and Audience?

Knowing the commissioner and audience of a coin helps greatly in attempting to identify the potential meanings of such symbols. Based on the metallurgical composition and style of the Caracalla coin, it has been suggested that it was minted in Rome but it could also have been minted in Syria. Regardless, the coinage almost certainly represents deliberate choices made by the elite, meaning that the imagery could reflect social attitudes of the inhabitants of Hierapolis, attempt to modify them, or even ignore them (although the latter is unlikely).

Additionally, without knowing the circulation of this coinage, it is difficult to say the extent to which the messages were intended for the local community and ‘outsiders’, although in most cases it was predominantly for the former. The Caracalla coin likely only circulated locally, but like many Syrian cities, the inhabitants of Hierapolis would have been culturally diverse. Furthermore, people throughout Syria and other provinces visited and sponsored the cult, so if they had seen this coinage it likely would have resonated with them too, evoking a sense of collective Syrian identity. This may have also been the case for people who were familiar with a similar image, for example the Dura relief.

As for the Roman military present in this area, would they have seen this coinage? Such locally issued silver coinage was used for army pay. Would the juxtaposing of a military standard with the Syrian gods have created a sense of collective identity and unity for soldiers and civilians? Or in this context had the traditionally Roman symbol been transformed into a distinctly local one?

Conclusion

The analysis of this coinage has shown the development of the cultic identity of Hierapolis (Syria). When a Roman military symbol was placed in the local temple context, ‘Romanness’ would have become a part, not just of the religion, but also the local myth and history surrounding the cult. Even if a Roman military standard were not housed in the temple, the desire to express it as such existed and was on public display through this coinage. Thus, Hierapolis reconciled their civic identity with the Roman presence in their society, exhibiting their place in the empire.

This month’s coin of the month was written by Nicholas Aherne. Nicholas studied Classical Civilisation at Warwick and graduated in 2019. He is planning to undertake a Masters in 2020. His current research concerns the interactions between Greco-Roman culture and indigenous cultures in the Hellenistic and Imperial Periods, with particular focus on religion.

Bibliography

Lucian, De Dea Syria, (Perseus)

Darcus, R. (1967) A new translation of Lucian’s De Dea Syria with a discussion of the cult at Hierapolis, MA thesis (Vancouver: University of British Columbia)

Strong, H.A. (1913) The Syrian Goddess: Being a translation of Lucian’s ‘De Dea Syria’ with a life of Lucian, ed. with notes and introduction by Garstang, J. (London: Constable and Company)

Pliny the Elder, Natural History, trans. John Bostock (London: Taylor and Francis : 1855) (Perseus)

Strabo, Geography, trans. H.C. Hamilton (London: George Bell & Sons: 1903) (Perseus)

Andrade, N.J. (2013) Syrian Identity in the Greco-Roman World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

Billing, J. The Military Standards of the Roman Legions: Symbolic objects of ideology, veneration and belief https://www.academia.edu/8640103/The_Military_Standards_of_the_Roman_Legions_Symbolic_objects_of_ideology_veneration_and_belief

Butcher, K. (2005) ‘Information, legitimation, or self-legitimation? Popular and elite designs on the coin types of Syria’ in Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces eds. C. Howgego, V. Heuchert, and A. Burnett (Oxford: Oxford University Press) 143-162

Butcher, K. (2004) Coinage in Roman Syria: Northern Syria, 64 BC-AD 253 (London: Royal Numismatic Society)

Butcher, K. (2007) ‘Two Syrian Deities’, Syria 84: 277-285

Butcher, K. and Ponting, M. (1995) ‘Rome and the East: Production of Roman Provincial Silver Coinage for Caesarea in Cappadocia under Vespasian’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 14: 63-78

Erdkamp, P. (2007) A Companion to the Roman Army (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing)

Howgego, C. (2005) ‘Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces’ in Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces eds. C. Howgego, V. Heuchert, and A. Burnett (Oxford: Oxford University Press) 1-18

James, S. (2019) The Roman military base at Dura-Europos, Syria: an archaeological visualization (Oxford: Oxford University Press)

Kaizer, T. (2013) 'Identifying the divine in the Roman Near East' in Panthée: religious transformations in the Graeco-Roman Empire eds. L. Bricualt and C. Bonnet, in Religions in the Graeco-Roman world V. 177 (Boston: Brill) 113-130

Meadows, A.R. (1998) ‘The Mars/eagle and thunderbolt gold and Ptolemaic involvement in the Second Punic War’ in Coins of Macedonia and Rome: Essays in Honour of Charles Hersh eds. A. Burnett and U. Wartenberg (London: Spink)

Price, S. (2012) ‘Religious Mobility in the Roman Empire’, The Journal of Roman Studies 102: 1-19

Weiss, P. (2005) ‘The Cities and their Money’ in Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces eds. C. Howgego, V. Heuchert, and A. Burnett (Oxford: Oxford University Press) 57-71

Williamson, G. (2005) ‘Aspects of Identity’ in Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces eds. C. Howgego, V. Heuchert, and A. Burnett (Oxford: Oxford University Press) 19-28

Wimber, K. Michelle (2007) Four Greco-Roman Era Temples of Near Eastern Fertility Goddesses: An Analysis of Architectural Tradition, MA Thesis (Provo: Brigham Young University)

Clare Rowan : 01 May 2020 01:00 |  Tags: Atargatis Coin Of The Month Hadad Hierapolis Postgraduate Research Provincial Coinage Syria |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

A Bronze Neapolitan Coin and its Relevance to Rome

RRC 1/1, Bronze Coin minted in Neapolis (Naples), now in the Bibliothèque nationale de France, 3.03g, 17.7 mm

Obverse: Laureate head of Apollo

Reverse: A man-headed bull, with the legend ΡΩΜΑΙΩΝ (Romano).

This simple bronze coin is part of a collection of bronze and silver coinage discovered in the Naples area, dating to the late fourth century BC. It has often been described as one of the first true ‘Roman’ coins, and as such it is the first entry in Michael Crawford’s Roman Republican Coinage, the standard typology of Roman coins from this period. This is slightly misleading, given that Neapolis (modern day Naples) was not under direct Roman rule at this point and was a Greek speaking city, indeed, the legend on the coin itself is in Greek, despite making reference the Romans.

Neapolis was a fairly old city by this point, as there is evidence to suggest settlement in the Naples region as early as the first millennium BC, forming part of the great migration of Greeks from their heartlands in the east to southern Italy (Magna Graecia), Sicily and further afield in the western Mediterranean. Amongst other things, it is likely that it was the Greeks who first introduced true ‘coinage’ into Italy, in line with the discovery of coin hoards dating back to the sixth century in southern Italy. Therefore it is not surprising that the first example of coinage relating to Rome should have been discovered in a southern, Greek city. But why does the coin say ΡΩΜΑΙΩΝ ((coin) of the Romans)?

By the late fourth century BC, Rome was expanding its political reach down towards the southern end of the Italian peninsula. It was engaged in a series of wars with another Italic people, the Samnites of the south-central spine of Italy, and in this conflict many of the Greek cities of southern Italy were effectively forced to pick a side. The region of Campania, in which Neapolis was located, fell between the Romans and the Samnites and thus turned into a battleground between them. According to Livy, after a power struggle between the pro and anti-Roman factions within Neapolis, the city opened its doors to the Romans and signed a pact of alliance, the Foedus Aequissimum, with them. This is dated to around 326 BC, as the second Samnite war was getting under way, and this has also been taken as the earliest likely date for the coin being struck. It is thus possible that the use of ΡΩΜΑΙΩΝ on the coin was meant to publicise the Roman alliance to the general population, but that still does not explain the immediate reason for the coin being struck.

At this point it should be noted that the production of coinage in ancient states was generally not regularised to the same degree as in modern states. Whilst coins and notes are the predominant representation of physical wealth (and a key means of exchange) in the modern world, this was not the case in antiquity, where wealth might just as easily be represented by precious metals or even cattle; indeed it is interesting to note the similarity of the Latin term for money, pecunia, with the Indo-European root word for cattle, peku. Similarly, minted coinage was not necessarily needed for the purposes of exchange either. The Romans themselves appear to have gotten by without using minted coinage at all up until the third century BC, with small transactions seemingly conducted via the use of so called aes grave, literally rough bronze, nuggets of metal that were not shaped or minted in any fashion. Whilst in the modern world the intense quantity and velocity of financial transactions make it an imperative for central banks and mints to constantly replenish the physical money supply on a regularised basis in order to ensure liquidity, this was less the case in the ancient world where there were generally far fewer financial transactions and where the maintenance of ‘liquidity’ was not a concern of the issuers of money. Therefore, issues of ‘authorised’ coinage by cities tended to be made with a specific ‘goal’ in mind, such as to pay for public works or military campaigns, rather than to provide an easy means of conducting small scale private commerce.

The latter of these two examples provides a strong rationale for why this coin may have been minted. Given the new alliance with the Romans, Neapolis would have entered the war against the Samnites, which meant that the city would have had to pay to raise both troops and ships (for the treaty with Rome stipulated the provision of ships, naval warfare being a Roman weakness at this point) for the duration of the war. Coins represent an easy way of remunerating soldiers and sailors, as it relieves a state of the obligation to provide directly for them; if a soldier or sailor receives his dues in coins, he can use that new found wealth to pay for his own food, drink and other sundry expenses, as opposed to having that supplied by the state. Wars, in the ancient and modern eras, are often associated with large expansions of the money supply so as to pay for armies - the severe collapse of the value of Roman coinage during the ‘Crisis of the Third Century AD’ has been associated with large scale minting by various aspirants for the imperial throne in order to win and maintain the support of the soldiery. To return to Neapolis, minting this and other coins provided the city with a means to fund its obligation to the Roman alliance, which seems a sensible explanation for the profusion of Neapolitan coinage towards the end of the third century, a period of prolonged warfare in southern Italy.

This idea in turn provides an interesting link to the Roman ‘adoption’ of coinage in the third century. As Rome grew to be major power in the Italian peninsula and beyond, the amount of warfare that it engaged in inevitably increased; conflict with the Samnites in the fourth century would be followed by wars with Pyrrhus of Epirus and Carthage in the third century, wars that necessitated long military campaigns. Given that (even prior to the full professionalization of the military under Marius), the Roman state provided a stipendium to its troops, the amount paid out as part of this would likely have increased immeasurably during the long years of war in the third century, which perhaps explains why the Romans finally adopted coinage wholesale, as a utile means of providing the stipendium.

Returning to the coin itself, aside from the legend on it, the imagery is largely traditional and displays continuity with earlier Neapolitan coin issues. The bull-headed man on the reverse is a staple not just of Neapolitan coinage but of other coins of Magna Graecia, and has often been taken as a reference to the process of synoecism between Greek colonists and local Italic peoples, the bull being a traditionally Italic symbol (one later used on the coinage of Rome’s rebellious Italian allies during the Social War). On the obverse there is a depiction of the god Apollo, whom we are told by later poet Statius was among the patron gods of Neapolis, so again this is not a hugely surprising piece of imagery. It could thus be argued that the coin is representative of a fulcrum point in the history of Magna Graecia; Greek language and traditional Greek and Graeco-Italic symbolism remains on the coin, but the reference to the Romans is a clear sign of the region’s gradual absorption into the Roman sphere of influence and thus foreshadows the profound social changes that would affect both the Greek cities of the south and Rome itself in the coming century.

This month’s entry was written by Ieuan Luke. Ieuan graduated from Warwick in 2017 and is still interested in the ancient world, focusing primarily on ancient economies and the reception of antiquity in Europe and Russia.

Clare Rowan : 01 Jan 2020 01:00 |  Tags: Alumni Coin Of The Month Neapolis Roman Republic Rome |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

The crocodile as a symbol of Egypt on a victory coin of Augustus

Gold Aureus from 27BC (RIC 1², P.86, no. 544) The obverse depicts head of Augustus with ‘CAESAR.DIVI.F.COS.VII’ inscribed. On the reverse is a crocodile facing right, representing Egypt. The reverse legend reads ‘AEGVPT CAPTA.’ Image produced courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum.

After a tense period of civil war, Octavian’s decisive victory at the Battle of Actium in 31BC left Marc Antony with insufficient military support to win the war, and a year later Egypt was conquered and absorbed into the Roman Empire. Marc Antony and Cleopatra committed suicide, leaving Octavian as the unrivalled, sole ruler of the Roman world, a victory he was keen to advertise. The above pictured coin is a gold aureus celebrating the acquisition of Egypt. It is typical of victory coinage, with the obverse depicting a portrait bust of the ruler (who was the victor), in this case Octavian, and the reverse depicting an image symbolic of the conquered nation, in this case a crocodile. The gold aureus is similar to a near identical issue of silver denarii struck in the previous year. Both coins hailed Octavian as son of the divine Julius Caesar, establishing his legitimacy on a political and religious level.

That Octavian chose the image of a crocodile to place on the reverse of his coins is of particular interest. First and foremost, it presents Octavian as the victor over a foreign enemy. Crocodiles were popular in Roman art as images representing foreign and exotic ideals, and their use here was no doubt intended to draw attention to the war in its international context, and thus overshadow the morally dubious truth of it being, in truth, a civil war. Octavian was now the sole ruler of Rome, having violently deposed of his co-consul. It was therefore crucial for him to deter any criticism and suggestions of tyranny. The crocodile was a particularly suitable image because of its associations with danger, and thus it had the added benefit of presenting Marc Antony as a threat to Rome. This helped to authorise Octavian’s war against his fellow Roman, and once-ally, and aligns with much of Octavian’s earlier propagandist campaign against him. The crocodile therefore helps to reinforce the idea that Octavian should be hailed, not as the violent murderer of his co-consul, but as the saviour of the Roman Empire.

Coin of Crassus showing a crocodile. Image produced courtesy of the Classical Numismatic Group.

This is not the first time a crocodile had been used in Roman coinage. Already in 37BC, the crocodile had appeared on the coinage of a figure largely identified as M. Licinius Crassus, son of the triumvir Crassus. It is believed that this coin celebrated Roman territory ceded to Cleopatra VII of Egypt by Marc Antony. It is interesting therefore, that this same symbol of Egypt should be used by Augustus only ten years later to celebrate the exact opposite: the conquering of Egyptian territory by Rome. On the coin of Crassus, it is likely that the crocodile was chosen because of its associations with the Nile, which itself was associated with the agricultural wealth of Egypt. We can therefore infer that this earlier use of the image of the crocodile was intended to celebrate Egypt in a gesture of diplomacy. Octavian, aware of this, may well have deliberately used this same image, already known for its associations with agricultural wealth, in order to boast of his achievement at having acquired such an important nation into the Roman Empire. Rome relied heavily on Egypt for its imports of grain, and hence Octavian’s victory was of crucial importance. It is likely the coin instilled pride in its Roman viewers, for belonging to such a large, powerful empire.

As we have seen therefore, the coin presents Octavian as a successful military leader, who not only saved, but also contributed to the Roman Empire. It also served to justify his recent war against Marc Antony by presenting it as a foreign conquest. We can see that the imagery was carefully chosen in order to secure and validate Octavian’s position as sole ruler of Rome.

This month's entry was written by Richa Snell. Richa is a final year classical civilization student with an interest in material culture and iconography, which she is hoping to pursue further by studying for a master’s degree next year. She is currently writing her undergraduate dissertation on imperial uses of Egyptian imagery.

Bibliography

R.A. Gurval (1995) Actium and Augustus: The Politics and Emotions of Civil War (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press).

C.E. Barrett (2017) ‘Egypt in Roman Visual and Material Culture’ in Oxford Handbooks Online in Classics Studies, ed. G. Williams (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press).

M.Swetnam-Burland (2015) Egypt in Italy: Visions of Egypt in Roman Imperial Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

D. Vagi, Crocodiles on Roman coins familiar as the emblem of Egypt – https://www.coinworld.com/news/precious-metals/crocodiles-on-roman-coins-familiar-as-the-emblem-of-egyptian-province.html (15 Feb 2015). Accessed 31 Oct 2019.

Clare Rowan : 01 Dec 2019 01:00 |  Tags: Augustus Coin Of The Month Crocodile Egypt Undergraduate Research |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Hortensia Sperata, Token Issuer in Rome or Ostia

Lead token from Rome or Ostia, now in the The Bibliothèque nationale de France in Paris (Rostowzew and Prou 422a). 12h, 20mm, 4.13g, TURS 1241.

Side A: HORTE SPER around in a circle.

Side B: Palm branch within a wreath.

Pictured above is a lead token, which, from the style of its design and its fabric, we can assign either to the city of Rome or to Ostia. What is remarkable about this piece is that the token carries the name of a Roman woman: Horte(nsia) Sper(ata). Her name circles around the edge of one side of the token in a way very similar to Roman coinage. The other side carries imagery commonly found on lead tokens in this region: a wreath and palm branch. These communicate to the user a festive, happy atmosphere.

This was not the only token that Hortensia issued. Another token carries her name in full: HORTENSIA SPERATA, with the same design (palm branch within wreath) on the other (TURS 1240). Two further tokens are smaller in diameter (13-15mm) and seem to carry an abbreviation of her name: HOR on one side and SPE or SP on the other (TURS 1242, 1243). Why would Hortensia have so many variant tokens? She might have wished to have two sizes of token (20mm and 13-15mm), with one perhaps worth more than the other, or with each representing different products or levels of access. An engraver could have created a mould for her tokens that cast both sizes at once, a practice known from other surviving examples.

The palombino marble mould pictured here would have been utilised to make tokens during the Roman imperial period. It was found along with several others on the Esquiline Hill in Rome in 1882. Here we can find another individual responsible for tokens, whose name has been abbreviated to LVE (a practice also commonly found in graffiti). Like the tokens of Hortensia, we can see that LVE wanted two sizes of token: a larger and a smaller piece. On the smaller piece his initials have become ligate: i.e. they have been joined together ti fit into the reduced size. In a similar way Hortensia's name was abbreviated on her smaller tokens.

We do not know anything more about Hortensia Sperata, but one presumes she had a certain amount of wealth. From the men and women named on Roman lead tokens, some were magistrates in government or colleges; others appear to be linked to bath houses. Whatever the specific use of these tokens (and it is very hard to be certain), they were likely used in an act of patronage: the provision of necessary small change, for example, the sponsoring of a banquet or other event, or a distribution. The lead tokens of Rome and Ostia reveal a world otherwise unrecorded in our sources, where both men and women utilised these objects to cement personal relationships and consolidate local communities.

This coin of the month blog was written by Clare Rowan as part of the ERC-funded Token Communities in the Ancient Mediterranean Project.

Clare Rowan : 01 Oct 2019 01:00 |  Tags: Bnf Coin Of The Month Hortensia Sperata Moulds Token Women |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Achaean League Coinage and Collective Identity

On the Greek mainland in the Hellenistic Period, some of the city states united into federal leagues, the most successful of these being the Achaean League. In my undergraduate dissertation I wanted to show how the Achaean League developed its collective identity and how this affected the policy and the society of the League. Collective identity is how states and individuals can identify with both their home city and the overarching political body (i.e. a modern example is me saying I am both European and British). The coinage of the Achaean League acted as a means of spreading this message throughout the League. In this blogpost, I’m going to show how the coinage reflected the policy of collective identity. To examine this topic in depth I’m going to examine a coin from Megara and how the Megarians reconciled the ‘Dorian’ and ‘Achaean’ aspects of their identity.

Types of Achaean Coinage

Achaean Hemidrachm, minted at Sparta, with symbol of Dioscuri caps and abbreviation of LA on the reverse, and head of Zeus Homarius on the obverse.

Polybius proudly states that the Achaeans “formed the states into a community of allies and friends, but they have also adopted the same laws, weights and measures and coinage…” (Polybius, Histories, 2.37). This has been interpreted as a way of showing “the social and political solidarity of the second-century Peloponnese.” (Thonemann (2015) 72). These coins were silver hemidrachms, worth half a drachm, and were minted in nineteen different poleis of the Achaean League. Each of these cities produced the coins to a similar blueprint: a head of Zeus Homarius on the obverse, and a monogram of the word Achaean on the reverse. The different mints are indicated with either abbreviations or with symbols, such as the Pegasus of Corinth.

Achaean tetrachalkon, minted at Corinth, Obverse: Zeus with sceptre and holding Nike in his hand. Reverse: Seated figure of the personified Achaea. Both motifs were common throughout the Hellenistic World.

These ethnics and symbols helped to bind the cities to the league by associating them with the federal Achaean body and making them as one and the same, whilst celebrating the individual characters of the cities themselves; it shows dedication to the federal ideal. This is further proved by the bronze coinage of the league, which was struck in over forty-five out of the seventy odd cities in the league. These small poleis were committed to the league and were willing to invest heavily in that relationship. Warren suggests that over 1600 dies were used in the minting of these bronze coins, which is an extremely heavy investment, especially compared to how other poleis minted coins in the Hellenistic Period (Warren (2007); Thonemann (2015) 74).

Maintaining local identity in a federal state

Achaean Hemidrachm, minted at Megara. Obverse: Head of Zeus Homarius. Reverse: Achaean League monogram and abbreviation of word Dorian.

The collective identity of the Achaean League didn’t mean that various local identities were weakened. In fact, the network of poleis meant that they strengthened their local identities, and the environment of competition between the constituent members changed. Coinage was one media that expressed this.

This coin from Megara helps to show the nuance that went into how the ancient Greeks identified themselves. Across the Achaean monogram is the abbreviated ethnic, but rather than denoting the city of Megara, it draws attention to the Greek ethnic group of the Dorians. The Egyptologist Lynn Meskell has said that “identity is what is draped over a person by the groups of which he or she is part” ((1999) 32), indicating that identity is multi-faceted and complex, consisting of many layers. The complicated layers of this coin show that the people of Megara want to advertise their history as Dorians, and the political reality of their position as members of the Achaean League. One did not trump the other, and from the view of inter-polis competition, the historical baggage of the term will have had an effect on how Megara was received within the league.

Conclusion

This examination of Achaean coinage has shown how integrated the society of the Achaeans was, and that whilst Polybius’ assertion that the Peloponnese was a “single state” (2.37) is apt, the situation was a lot more complicated. Each member state had its own agenda and history, but worked under the umbrella of Achaean identity in order to be stronger and more efficient (Close (2018)). The coinage of the various states of the Peloponnese show how these states were able to reconcile the identities that both united them and showcased their uniqueness.

Bibliography


Primary


Polybius, Histories, trans. Waterfield, R. Oxford University Press: Oxford 2010.

Secondary


Close, E. “Megalopolis and the Achaean Koinon: Local Identity and the Federal State.” Teiresias 48.1 2018: 2–8.


Meskell, L. 1999. Archaeologies of Social Life. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.


Thonemann, P. 2015. The Hellenistic World: Using Coins as Sources. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.


Warren, J. 2007. The Bronze Coinage of the Achaion Koinon: the Currency of a Federal Ideal. London: Royal Numismatic Society.

This month’s entry was written by Jameson Minto, who recently graduated from Warwick. His dissertation was titled ‘The Achaean League and Collective Identity’ and dealt with the evolution of both the institutions of the league and the creation of the Achaean identity. Jameson runs his own blog, Musings of Clio, which discusses the ancient world, and he is set to study an MA in Classics and Ancient History at the University of Manchester.

Clare Rowan : 01 Sep 2019 01:00 |  Tags: Achaean Achaean League Coin Of The Month Hellenistic Identity Megara Undergraduate Research |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

From divinity to the Duce: the many meanings of the Julian Star

Augustus, Caesaraugusta (possibly), Spain, denarius, 19-18 BC. RIC 1 37b, pg.44 (British Museum, R.6067). Obverse: CAESAR AVGVSTVS; head of Augustus, wearing oak-wreath, left. Reverse: DIVVS IVLIVS; comet with eight rays and tail upwards.

During Julius Caesar’s memorial games in 44 BC, a great comet allegedly appeared. Pliny the Elder writing in the 1st century AD quoted Augustus describing the comet:

On the very days of my games a comet was visible for seven days in the northern part of the sky. It was rising about an hour before sunset, and was a bright star, visible from all lands.

Pliny the Elder, Natural History 2.94

Today this comet, mainly known as the Julian Star or Caesar’s Comet, is one of the most famous comets in classical antiquity, despite there being little contemporary evidence to support its existence (see Ramsey and Licht, 1997). The image of this comet and other solar imagery featured throughout Augustus’ rule during 27 BC- 14 AD. Indeed, by the time of the Flavians in the late 1st century AD, solar symbolism in general “had become part of the imperial cult”, such was its importance (Weinstock, 1971, 384). The comet was also so influential that the fascist Italian dictator (who ruled from 1919-1943) Benito Mussolini included this image on a stamp to commemorate Augustus. Why did this symbol become so important, and what made it so resonant that someone more than 2,000 years later would choose to use it?

Firstly, we should take into consideration the symbolism of the star in the years before Augustus. Julius Caesar, Augustus’ adoptive father, initially put stars on his coinage in the years before his death in 44 BC (e.g. RRC 480/5a). The symbol of a star or comet had both positive and negative connotations around this time, being able to symbolize amongst other things “the divine or deified ruler”, yet also portend evil (Weinstock 1971, 378, 371). Whilst still alive Caesar may have only wanted to signify his descent from Venus with the star on coinage, but after his death it took on a new meaning. The common people interpreted the comet of 44 BC as a sign that Caesar had been received in heaven, which then helped push the star symbol as confirmation of Caesar’s divinity (Pliny, Natural History 2.94). Augustus further built upon this symbolism when he added a star on top of a bust of Caesar in the forum to mark the comet, and dedicated a temple to the deified Caesar (Suetonius, the deified Julius 88).

By using this symbol in his own coinage, Augustus could also make subtle connections between his own reign, the comet, star imagery and the divinity of Caesar (Williams 2003, 7). The symbol is a prime example of Augustus’ technique of “carefully nuanced suggestiveness” which he so often used in his reign (Galinsky 1996, 312). By associating himself with a symbol that was tied to Caesar’s image, Augustus was asserting his familial connection, while allowing further associations with divinity to also exist.

Augustus, M. Sanquinius, Rome, denarius, 17 BC, RIC 1 340, p.66, (British Museum, 2002,0102.4960). Obverse: AVGVST DIVI F LVDOS SAE, herald, in long robe and feathered helmet, standing left, holding winged caduceus in right hand and round shield with six-pointed star, in left hand. Reverse: M SA[NQVI]NIVS III VIR, head of deified Julius Caesar, laureate, right; above, comet with four rays and a tail.

Further symbolism was associated with the comet during the Saecular Games of 17 BC, which celebrated the start of a new age. To commemorate the games, the moneyer M. Sanquinius issued a coin series again featuring a comet, but within the context of these games, with the name of them inscribed on the coin obverse (LVDOS SAE). This coin may have been intended to highlight the prophecy made by the Haruspex Vulcanius, who proclaimed the 44 BC comet to herald a new age (Weinstock, 1971 195). Thus perhaps as well as power and ancestry, the comet came to resonate as a symbol of Augustus’ “Golden Age” as a whole.

30 cent stamp with the quote from Augustus’ Res Gestae.

By the 20th century, Augustus and his regime seem to have become a figure of world-renown; a 1937 exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art called Augustus “one of the few statesmen who belong not to one country or to one continent but to the whole world” (Richter, 1938 272-273). Mussolini seemed to realise Augustus’ potential as a figurehead for fascism, as during the 1930s Augustus featured frequently in Italian propaganda. The bimillenium of Augustus’ birth was celebrated during 1937-8 and a stamp series commissioned in 1937, one of which featured the comet. Unlike Augustus’ coinage, which circulated within the bounds of an empire, these stamps were a possible means by which Italy as a newly fascist nation could broadcast its symbolism, both nationally and internationally (Reid, 1984 226). On this stamp this comet had come to represent Augustus as a whole with its position beside both a statue of Augustus and excerpt from his Res Gestae. The comet had transformed from a single phenomenon to a symbol synonymous with imperial power.

Primary Sources:

Pliny the Elder, Natural History volume I book II trans. H. Rackham (Harvard University Press: Cambridge, M.A. 1938)

Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars volume I: The deified Julius 88 trans. J. C. Rolfe (Harvard University Press: Cambridge, M.A. 1914).

Richter (1938) “The Exhibition of Augustan Art”, The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin Vol. 33, No. 12, pg. 257,272-279.

This month's coin of the month was written by Daisy Ashton. Daisy recently completed her BA in Ancient History and Classical Archaeology at the University of Warwick. She is interested in the ancient world's impact on modern heritage, and is going on to do an MPhil in Heritage Studies at the University of Cambridge.

Clare Rowan : 01 Aug 2019 01:00 |  Tags: Augustus Coin Of The Month Julius Caesar Mussolini Sidus Iulium Stamps Undergraduate Research |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

The 'man with the shovel' on the 'plomos monetiformes' of Baetica

A lead token from the 'series de las minas'.

Obverse: a naked man walking left, a shovel marked PRVM on his shoulder, holding out a bell. P S to either side; wreath border.

Reverse: Naked man standing right pouring water from an askos onto a beribboned phallus; broom below on exergual line, Q. CO ILLI Q around and LVSO in a tablet in the exergue; wreath border.

Stannard PC 25. American Numismatic Society, New York, Richard B. Witschonke Collection. Ex CNG 31, 9 September 1994, lot 1857 Casariego 1987, p. 26, no. 1, Carbone 2018 pl. 29 no. 3.

In Spain there exist large (45-50mm) struck lead monetiform pieces whose precise function remains elusive. Many of the pieces are decorated with the design shown on the specimen above: a naked man carrying a 'shovel'. Because of this image they were traditionally believed to be monetary pieces associated with mining in the region - the naked man was interpreted as a miner. But the figure looks very different to known representations of Roman miners, and Stannard has demonstrated that this figure (and other images) are actually shared between Baetica (Spain) and central Italy, appearing on monetiform objects in both regions. It is thus not a miner - but who is it? Stannard (1995) suggested the figure might be associated with agriculture (a farmer going off to work with a shovel, shown watering his plants on the other side) or with Italian theatre, since often the figure is shown with an overly large phallus.

Close up of the 'man carrying a shovel' inscribed with PRVM or PRVNA and carrying a bell. (Stannard et al. 2017 fig. 25).

Many other pieces connected to this series show imagery related to the baths or the palaestra, and it perhaps in this context that we should seek clues as to the identity of our individual. As briefly mentioned by Stannard et al. (2017), the figure should likely be understood as a fornacator, the individual responsible for stoking the fires in the bath house to get the water warm. These individuals can be shown as naked and ithyphallic, as seen in the mosaic shown below. Our 'naked man with shovel' also holds a bell in his right hand, a variation only found in Baetica and not in Italy. This is likely a reference to the bell or gong that was rung by bath houses to announce that the water had reached the optimum temperature - so come take your bath now! This practice is referenced by several ancient authors and a bell was found in 1548 in the baths of Diocletian in Rome bearing the inscription FIRMI BALNEATORIS. A gong, uncovered in the Palaestra of the Stabian baths of Pompeii, probably served a similar function; bells might also be rung to indicate that the baths were soon closing and now was the last opportunity for a bath (Nielsen 1990, 111). If the fornacator was responsible for making sure the water was at the right temperature, then it would make sense that he is depicted with the bell that was rung when the temperature for bathing was perfect. Having identified the individual as a stoker of fires, we might return to the legend inscribed on the man's shovel: PRVM. I wonder if the legend might actually be PRVNA, the Latin term for glowing charcoal, with the N and A ligate (joined together). The figure on the other side of this lead piece, puring water from a vessel, may be a slave attending a master in the bath complex or bath attendant.

Mosaic from Thamugadi showing a fornacator (stoker). (Nielson 1990)	Plomo monetiforme showing an ithyphallic man with shovel. Stannard PC no. 29

Are these pieces then bathing tokens? Stannard et al. 2017 argue they are not, since images related to bathing in this series are connected with other imagery that is not connected to the baths at all; some specimens also carry value marks, which suggests they had a monetary function. Lead tokens found in bath complexes in Italy, however, (e.g. in Fregellae and in Ostia), do not necessarily carry 'bathing' imagery; a wide variety of images may have been used in this particular sphere (just as mosaics in Roman bath houses are not all necessarily related to the activity of bathing). Those in Fregellae also appear to carry value marks. The alternative is that an image of a low-ranking bath worker should be chosen as an image for a pseudo-coinage, or a monetary series commemorating an act of euergetism related to the baths (as suggested by Stannard et al. 2017). This possibility is an intriguing one; hopefully future work will offer us further information in this regard!

This blog post was written by Clare Rowan as part of the Token Communities in the Ancient Mediterranean project.

Bibliography:

Carbone, L. (2018). The unpublished Iberian lead tokens in the Richard B. Witschonke collection at the American Numismatic Society. American Journal of Numismatics 30: 131-144.

Casariego, A., G. Cores and F. Pliego (1987). Catálogo de plomos monetiformes de la Hispania Antigua. Madrid.

García-Bellido, M. P. (1986). Nuevos documentos sobre minería y agricultura romanas en Hispania. Archivo español de arqueologia 59: 13-42.

Nielsen, I. (1990). Thermae et Balnea (2 vols). Aarhus, Aarhus University Press.

Spagnoli, E. (2017). Un nucleo di piombi 'monetiformi' da Ostia, Terme dei Cisiarii (II.II.3): problematiche interpretative e quadro di circolazione. Per un contributo di storia economica e di archeologia della produzione tra II e III secolo d.C. Annali dell'Instituto Italiano di Numismatica 63: 179-234.

Stannard, C. (1995). Iconographic parallels between the local coinages of central Italy and Baetica in the first century BC. Acta Numismàtica 25: 47-97.

Stannard, C., A. G. Sinner, N. Moncunill Martí and J. Ferrer i Jané (2017). A plomo monetiforme from the Iberian settlement of Cerro Lucena (Enguera, Valencia) with a north-eastern Iberian legend, and the Italo-baetican series. Journal of Archaeological Numismatics: 59-106.

Clare Rowan : 01 Jul 2019 01:00 |  Tags: Baetica Baths Coin Of The Month Plomos Monetiformes Token |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Countermarks on Athenian Tokens

Athens is the city in the Classical world that minted tokens on a scale previously unparalleled, only to be superseded by Rome. Tokens in Athens had a continuous life of about seven centuries and facilitated numerous aspects of public life: the functioning of the Council, the Courts, the Assembly, participation in the Dionysia, the Panathenaea and the other festivals.

Researchers have commented on the relations between tokens and coins and have asked to what extent coins functioned as an archetype for tokens. The answer is clearly negative. Classical tokens do not resemble coins and functioned in an altogether different manner. They were probably used for the selection procedure of citizens who would fill offices and serve as public functionaries, and consecutively for the allotment of citizens to offices and even ‘workplaces’.

1.) Agora Museum IL1463. Alpha with countermark of winged caduceus, 31 mm.

Tokens with letters signify the allotment, the fact that citizens would be allotted randomly to offices (fig. 1). And here is a seeming similitude to coins: there exist letter tokens which are countermarked. But contrary to coins, where countermarking meant the revalidation of the item, so that issues were put afresh into circulation, the countermarking in this case signifies the particular sector of public life and complements the token design. Flans are particularly wide, probably because the placement of the countermark was conceived from the beginning. The designs of the countermarks – the winged caduceus (fig. 1), the kernos and the amphora in an ivy-wreath – are well attested in categories of official artefacts and they qualify as designs of the state seal (sphragis demosia). The exact offices they represent can only be conjectured but they can be seen as analogous to the stamps on the juror’s allotment plates; here the ‘owl in wreath’ stamp meant that the citizen was eligible for jury allotments and the ‘Gorgoneion’ stamp meant magisterial allotments.

It seems that the solution of the countermark was short-lived because only three out of the approximately three hundred Hellenistic tokens excavated in the Athenian Agora have a countermark placed next to a letter type.

Contrary to the rarity of countermarks on tokens dated to before Sulla’s sack of the city (86 BC), which practically marks the end of the city’s independence, countermarks are far more common in Athens of the Roman Imperial Period (fig. 2). In particular more than 200 specimens demonstrate at least one countermark out of the 620 tokens that can be securely dated to the period between the first century AD and AD 268, when the destruction inflicted on the city by the Herules marked the end of token use in Athens. It is worth noting that most of the tokens in strata and deposits containing Herulian debris carry countermarks. Our attention is particularly attracted by the countermarks of ‘snail and rabbit’ and ‘stork holding lizard by the tail’, which are the most abundantly attested. In the trench containing dumped fill as a result of clean-up operations after the Herulian sack, countermarked tokens co-exist with un-countermarked specimens, albeit they are found on the same types. These mainly celebrate the cults of Asklepios, Hygieia and Telesphoros (fig. 3) or Asklepios alone, Dionysos (fig. 4), Serapis, Zeus and Nike, Athena and Nike and also Themistocles, and the Minotaur, alone or with Theseus. The latter cases may be related to the claims of Athenian elite families for status and prestigious ancestry.

2.) Selection of tokens excavated in and around the Attalos Stoa, Athenian Agora (Archives of the American School of Classical Studies 2012.25.0091).

3.) Agora Museum IL384. Asklepios, Hygieia and Telesphoros, countermark of stork and lizard, 31 mm.	4.) Agora Museum IL1113 Dionysos seated, inscribed IEPAC ΓΕΡΟΥCΙΑC, countermark of stork and lizard, 29 mm.

The same pattern is also encountered on the tokens found in piles on the floors of the Attalos Stoa and also in the immediate vicinity of the Attalos Stoa to the south.

5.) Agora Museum IL1116. Athena bust, two countermarks of stork and lizard, 25 mm.

Specimens are also quite often found to have been countermarked twice by the same stamp, such as the token with an Athena bust and two countermarks of the snail and rabbit type (fig. 5). More puzzling are the Herakles and tripod tokens, which on their reverse side bear three distinct countermarks: stork and lizard, snail and rabbit, and a third design not easily identifiable (fig. 6).

Both the designs of stork and lizard and of snail and rabbit relate to universal symbols and refer to narratives that could be easily adapted as badges and emblems. The stork in particular was very popular in medieval heraldry.

The meaning of the countermarks is not easy to decode. The countermarked tokens capture only a moment in the history of Athens, because they represent the types and specimens that were in circulation at the time of the Herulian Invasion and their preservation may be thought random. Even the hoarding of countermarked pieces together with un-countermarked specimens may have been occasioned by the circumstances that prevailed shortly after the destruction. The interpretation of the countermarks is all the more hindered by the scarcity of tokens in the centuries from the Augustan Period to the mid-third century AD, which could serve as a point of comparison.

Margaret Crosby suggested that the same countermark on varying types might help to identify the same authority behind the issuing of the tokens. The purpose of these tokens would have been admissions to games and festivals, such as those referred to in inscriptions of the third century AD. In fact the legend on two of the types reads ‘of the Gerusia’, the council formed by notable Athenians and instituted by the emperor Commodus in the year AD 178/9, which had the agonothesia of festivals. The Attalos Stoa was thought to provide an advantageous view of spectacles and processions going along the Panathenaic Way and in view of this function, tokens excavated there seem to come as no surprise.

It is well known that the holding of offices in the Hellenistic and increasingly in the Imperial period involved considerable private expense. The iconography of the countermarks and even some of the token types might then be related to wealthy gerusiastai and office-holders in general, who competed for the recognition of the people, an idea already advocated by Margaret Crosby.

6.) Agora Museum IL584, three countermarks, 22 mm.

Along these lines, the countermarking a second or even a third time of tickets is to be considered as a renewal of their otherwise short lifetime. Roman period tokens were literary ‘time stamped’ and given out for a second or a third use since all the festivals were naturally recurring events. The registration of singular events constitutes the very essence of tokens across time, not unlike the modern-day block chain and its digital database or ledger.

This month's entry was written by Mairi Gkikaki. This blog forms part of the Project 'Tokens and their Cultural Biography in Athens from the Classical Age to the End of Antiquity', a Marie Skłodowska-Curie Action, which has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 794080-2.

Bibliography:

W. Bubelis, ‘Tokens and imitation in ancient Athens’, Marburger Beiträge zur Antiken Handels-, Wirtschafts-, und Sozialgeschichte 28 (2010), 171-195.

E. Curtius, Über Wappenstil und Wappengebrauch im klassischen Altertum (Berlin, 1874).

M. Crosby, ‘Lead and Clay Tokens’, in M. Lang and M. Crosby, Weights, Measures and Tokens. The Athenian Agora, vol. 10 (Princeton, 1964), 69-146.

D.J. Gaegan, The Athenian Constitution after Sulla, Hesperia Supplements 12 (Princeton, 1967).

M. Gkikaki, 'Tokens in the Athenian Agora in the Third Century AD: Adverstising Prestige and Civic Identity in Roman Athens', in A. Crisà, M. Gkikaki, and C. Rowan, Tokens: Cultures, Connections, Communities (London: Royal Numismatic Society, forthcoming)

S. Killen, Parasema. Offizielle Symbole griechischer Poleis und Bundesstaaten (Wiesbaden, 2017).

J.H. Kroll, Athenian Bronze Allotment Plates (Cambridge, 1972).

J.H. Kroll, ‘The Athenian imperials: results of recent study’, in J. Nollé, B. Overbeck and P. Weiss (eds), Internationales Kolloquium zur Kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung Kleinasiens. 27-30 April 1994 in der Staatlichen Münzsammlung (München, 1997). 61-9.

M. Lang, ‘Allotment by tokens’, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 8, 1959, 80-9.

B. Maurer, ‘The Politics of Token Economics’, in. A. Crisà, M. Gkikaki, and C. Rowan, Tokens: Cultures, Connections, Communities (London: Royal Numismatic Society, forthcoming).

K.D. Mylonas, ‘Αττικά Μολύβδινα Σύμβολα’, ArchEph 40, 1901, 119-22.

J.H. Oliver, The Sacred Gerusia. The American Excavations in the Athenian Agora. Hesperia Suppl. 6 (Princeton, 1941).

P.J. Rhodes, A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford, 1981).

G.C. Rothery, Concise Encyclopedia of Heraldry (London ,1994, reprint of the book first published in 1914).

H.A. Thompson and R.E. Wycherley, The Agora of Athens: The History, Shape and Uses of an Ancient City Centre, The Agora of Athens, volume 14 (Princeton, 1972).

P. Tselekas, ‘Countermarks on the Hellenistic Coinages of Lesbos’, in P. Tselekas (ed), Coins in the Aegean Islands. Proceedings of the Fifth Scientific Meeting 16-19 September 2010, (Athens, 2010), 127-153

O. Van Nijf and R. Alston (eds), Political Culture in the Greek City after the Classical Age (Leuven, 2011)

Clare Rowan : 01 Jun 2019 01:00 |  Tags: Athens Coin Of The Month Countermark Token |  Comments (1) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Greek by name, Indian by nature: Indo–Greek Coinage

Bactria: Agathocles. 180-165 BCE. Copper alloy. BMC 1844,0909.61 Obverse: Brahmi legend. Female deity. Reverse: Greek legend. Maneless lion.

If I told you this was a Greek coin would you believe it? The writing on the obverse is decisively not Greek; the square shape is certainly not what we are used to in Greek coinage, and the female deity on the obverse doesn’t look like anybody in the Greek Pantheon. The only clue we get to this coin’s ‘Greek’ origin is the Greek legend on the reverse, which reads ‘BAΣIΛEΩΣ AΓAΘOKΛEOYΣ’, translated as ‘King Agathocles’. It is an Indo-Greek coin, minted in this way for a very specific political purpose: to try and assimilate the Greek king with his Indian subjects.

To understand how a coin like this can be produced, we must start by understanding its geo-political context. It was minted in Bactria (the area that comprises modern day Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Northern Pakistan and Uzbekistan) in the 2nd century BCE by the Indo-Greek king Agathocles. Bactria, by the 2nd century, had already established itself as a real mixing pot of Greek, Afghan, and Indian culture. The region was first exposed to Greek culture after Alexander the Great conquered the territory in the 320’s BCE. Then Seleucus I (a Greek successor to Alexander, one of the Diadochi) established himself as ruler in Asia and his dynasty retained power for another century, further reinforcing the Greek influence in the area. Bactria gained independence between 250-240 BCE, and the Greek Diodotus I became the first Greco-Bactrian king. In the 180’s Greco-Bactrian kings, notably Demetrius I and Menander, started to conquer parts of northern India. Consequently, scholars refer to the kings who ruled this new territory, comprising parts of India, as the Indo-Greek kings. It was in this context that Agathocles, the king who minted the coin in discussion, was operating.

Almost every aspect of this “unusual” coin serves Agathocles’ political purpose. “Unusual” is in inverted commas, as, in fact, Agathocles was following an extremely common trend. It just wasn’t a Greek trend. The kings of the Indian Mauryan dynasty who ruled from the 4th to the 2nd centuries BCE minted almost exclusively square coins. The script on the coin is called Brahmi, the script in which the local Indian language, Pakrit, was written. The legend reads ‘King Agathocles’ in Brahmi script (Rajane Agathuklayasa). Not only was Pakrit the language of the locals, it was also the language of Buddhism, and Agathocles put this script on his coinage to show a genuine attempt at assimilation of Greek and Indian culture.

The images on both sides of the coin also evoke Indian culture. The female deity on the obverse is believed to be Subhadra, the sister of Krishna. The animal on the reverse is agreed to be a ‘maneless lion’, and refers to the literal meaning of Agathocles’ brother’s name: Pantaleon. It was Mauryan custom to use symbols or images to refer to oneself, rather than simply put a portrait on the coins as the Greeks usually did, again, part of Agathocles’ agenda to blur the lines between Greek and Indian culture.

Coins such as these cause us to pause and think: what does ‘Greek’ mean? Does it mean the presence of the Greek language? Minted by a Greek? Because this coin certainly has those aspects. However, this coin would stick out like a sore thumb in a collection of ‘traditionally Greek’ coins. It reveals that in this part of the world, the definitions between Greek and Indian are not so clearly cut. Would an Indian local see this as a Greek imitation of something they had been used to, or would they see it and think there is nothing out of the ordinary, apart from a few (Greek) letters they didn’t understand? These are questions that I am unable to answer here, but that are important to consider when drawing the boundaries between ‘Greek’ and ‘non-Greek’.

This month’s entry was written by Tunrayo Olaoshun, a 4th year undergraduate of Ancient History. She developed a further interest in numismatics during her year abroad in Bologna. Her main interests lie in the later Roman Empire.

Select bibliography:

Avari, B. (2016). India: the ancient past: a history of the Indian subcontinent from c. 7000 BCE to CE 1200. (London, New York: Routledge)

Narain, A. (1989). The Greeks of Bactria and India. In A. Astin, F. Walbank, M. Frederiksen, & R. Ogilvie (Eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Tarn, W. W. (2010) The Greeks in Bactria and India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics).

Clare Rowan : 01 May 2019 01:00 |  Tags: Agathokles Bactria Coin Of The Month Indo-Greek Coins Undergraduate Research |  Comments (1) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

The snake–god and the satirist

RPC IV 5364 (temporary)

This bronze coin from Abonuteichos, on the southern coast of the Black Sea, depicts the snake-god Glycon on the reverse. The serpent is depicted curled up, but with its head raised, and with long hair. It is labelled as ‘ΓΛΥΚΩΝ ΙΩΝΟΠΟΛΕΙΤΩΝ’ (Glycon of the Ionopolitans).

It was minted during the dual reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (AD 161-69). The latter is depicted on the obverse wearing a laurel, along with the legend ‘AVT KAC (sic) Λ ΑΥΡΗ οΥΗΡοC’ (Imperator Caesar L. Aurelius Verus).

This coin is especially interesting as a result of a treatise penned by the second century AD satirist Lucian. Alexander the False Prophet details how the titular Alexander (born c. AD 105-115) managed to con locals and outsiders alike into handing over their money in return for prophecies from Glycon, whose cult he founded. The survival of Lucian’s treatise gives us a fantastic opportunity to tie together material and literary evidence on the cult.

The first thing to notice on this coin is the long, thick hair of the snake, which is somewhat anthropomorphic. Lucian explains that even though the snake was living, a new head was crafted out of linen by Alexander and a colleague before the cult began:

they had long ago prepared and fitted up a serpent’s head of linen, which had something of a human look, was all painted up, and appeared very lifelike. It would open and close its mouth by means of horsehairs, and a forked black tongue like a snake’s, also controlled by horsehairs, would dart out.

Lucian, Alexander 12

Lucian explains how once this stage was complete, Alexander buried tablets prophesying that Asclepius would take up residence in Abonuteichos, which provoked people to build a temple (Lucian, Alexander 10). He then ran around in a frenzy, before ‘discovering’ a goose-egg, from which a baby snake emerged (Lucian, Alexander 13-14).

When the cult opened soon after, people apparently assumed that Glycon, the full-size snake-god shown on this coin, had grown out of this tiny snake within a few days (Lucian, Alexander 16). Lucian claims that when Glycon was being displayed at this grand opening, Alexander concealed its real head under his arm, showing only the linen head to the people (Lucian, Alexander 15). This is in contrast to the depiction on the coin, in which the anthropomorphic head is shown as a part of the snake’s body.

The cult then began offering predictions and oracles for anyone able to pay, and there were plenty of visitors, whom Lucian characterises as ‘thick-witted’ (Lucian, Alexander 17). Alexander would ask them to hand in their requests on scrolls, which he would unroll and secretly reseal, and pretend that the answer he gave them came from Glycon (Lucian, Alexander 19-20). He even purported to make Glycon’s (linen) head speak, thanks to an attendant using a horsehair mechanism and a tube (Lucian, Alexander 26).

Lucian’s account also broadly ties up with other evidence suggested by this coin. For example, the satirist writes that once Alexander gained fame, even in Rome, due to the rapid spread of the cult, he requested that a coin be produced with an image of himself on one side, and Glycon on the other (Lucian, Alexander 58). While we have never found any coins which depict Alexander himself (Jones (1986) 146), this coin shows that half of his desire was granted, at any rate.

According to Lucian, Alexander also requested that the Emperor change the name of his city from Abonuteichos to Ionopolis (Lucian, Alexander 58). Petsalis-Diomidis argues that this was a more prestigious name, relating to the mythical ancestor of the Ionians, Ion. This emphasis on Greek identity was perhaps enhanced by the success of the cult (Petsalis-Diomidis (2010) 31). Our coin does indeed display the name of Ionopolis. However, we need not assume that the rise of the cult and the name change came in parallel. This is because an earlier Glycon coin, minted under Antoninus Pius, uses the name Abonuteichos instead of Ionopolis, so the change must have been a gradual one (RPC IV 5359).

Some Epicureans, and even Lucian himself, attempted to expose the cult’s fraudulence. Alexander attempted to whip up the crowd to stone one such detractor (Lucian, Alexander 44-45), and Lucian himself claims to have been almost killed (Lucian, Alexander 56). Despite these efforts, however, the cult seemed to stay strong long after Lucian, because Glycon remained a popular image on Abonuteichos’s coinage from as late as the reign of Trebonianus Gallus in the mid-third century (RPC IX 1218).

Jones rightly suggests that we should take Lucian’s account with a pinch of salt. He argues that it is heavily biased, and contains many common tropes of invective literature, and that the question of fraudulence seems unanswerable or perhaps beside the point (Jones (1986) 134, 136, 146, 148). Nonetheless, literary and material evidence do provide a broadly unified picture for the fame, the influence and the imagery of the cult of Glycon.

This month's entry was writte by Matthew Smith. Matthew is an MA by Research student at the University of Warwick. He is especially interested in Greek authors of the second century AD. His research focuses on the role which divine dreams from Asclepius played in medicine during this period, looking in particular at Galen and Aelius Aristides

Sources:

Petsalis-Diomidis, A. (2010) Truly Beyond Wonders: Aelius Aristides and the cult of Asklepios (Oxford University Press: Oxford)

Jones, C.P. (1986) Culture and Society in Lucian (Harvard University Press: Cambridge, M.A.)

Lucian, ‘Alexander the False Prophet’, in Lucian Volume IV, trans. A.M. Harmon (Harvard University Press: Cambridge, M.A. 1925)

Clare Rowan : 01 Apr 2019 01:00 |  Tags: Abonuteichos Coin Of The Month Glykon Lucian Lucius Verus Postgraduate Research Provincial Coinage |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

What's in a Hoard?

The second Southwarwickshire hoard in a pot

What indeed? Those living in Leamington may well have seen in the local press a report of the Warwickshire Museum’s intention to fundraise an initial sum of £3,000 towards the acquisition of a hoard of Roman denarii found in 2015 at a site atop the Edge Hill escarpment in south Warwickshire. This is in addition to submissions for more substantial funding from national bodies.

This is not the first hoard, though, that has turned up in the area, nor indeed the largest. One summer evening in 2008 a metal detectorist was on the point of giving up his unproductive search for material in an area a mere couple of hundred yards from the latest hoard, when his equipment began to register a significant find. Helped to unearth this by members of a local archaeological group who happened to be in the vicinity, it was eventually surrendered to the Warwickshire Museum and began its passage through the obligatory processes of the Treasure Act , where its status was established, and thence to the British Museum for valuation. At this point delay set in, principally because of the discovery of the Staffordshire Hoard of gold artefacts, but in time the hoard, valued at £52,000 (divided between the finder and landowner), became available for the Warwickshire Museum to acquire, something achieved thanks to grants by a number of national bodies. By this stage I had already had sight of the material and was able to begin cataloguing what turned out to be 1153 coins covering a range of dates from 194 BC to AD 63/4 in the reign of the emperor Nero. That denarii should remain in circulation for so long should come as no surprise since these coins were of high value (a basic soldier at the time earned 225 denarii a year), so were hardly small change. The catalogue was published as a British Archaeological Report (British Series) 585 in 2013 and is in the Warwick University Library (CJ 1101.I7). The hoard itself, and the pot in which it was found (originally sunk into the wall of a round structure) are well displayed in all their splendour within the Warwickshire Museum in the centre of Warwick.

Turning to the latest hoard there are important differences, which become only too clear when comparing the valuation placed upon them. To begin with, only 440 coins are involved, many of them heavily encrusted with soil or adhering together, having been buried beneath what might have been a threshold in an area where massive wall structures attest to a substantial Roman presence. As a result detailed identification of many awaits cleaning. As in the case of the first South Warwickshire hoard, though, there is a similarly significant proportion of coins dating from the Republican period beginning in the 140s BC, but importantly this second hoard extends its end-date into the reign of the emperor Vespasian, which began in AD 69. Significance? Well, it was preceded by a period of civil war following the suicide of Nero on June 9th AD 68 which saw a rapid turn-over of rulers – rapid measured in months: first Galba, then Otho and Vitellius before Vespasian won through. In addition to the coinages specifically issued in the name of these emperors, there are others anonymous in origin, together constituting a high proportion of the whole hoard, in fact. The resulting rarity of these coins with their short period of production, combined with the only slight wear they have suffered, means that the valuation given by the British Museum (even when the Warwickshire Museum has to find only half the total sum) outstrips that needed to purchase the whole of the earlier, much larger, hoard.

Help Warwickshire Museum 'Bring the Hoard Home!' Join Stan at the Warwickshire Museum for a fundraising gala evening on Friday 5th April! Other donations are also welcome!

Stanley Ireland

Emeritus Reader

Classics & Ancient History

Clare Rowan : 26 Mar 2019 09:33 |  Tags: Hoard Roman Britain South Warwickshire Hoard Warwickshire Museum |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem