Coining in Roman Britain Part 2. After AD 43: British Imitations

Local imitations of asses of Claudius. Note the crude style and wild variety. Not to scale.

In the years following the Roman invasion of Britain, a somewhat unique phenomenon appears in the archaeological record. Crude copper coins bearing portraits of the emperor Claudius on their obverses, and the goddess Minerva on their reverses appear as single and site finds across Britain. To date over 600 of these coins have been recorded in the Portable Antiquities Scheme database. These crude copper coins have been interpreted as local imitations of genuine Claudian asses (low value copper denominations) struck in Rome. The local population of Britain, or the Roman army, (nobody’s quite sure yet!) may have struck these coins due to a lack of small-change in the new province of the empire. These copies seem to fade away after the reign of Nero. This is probably due to large numbers of smaller denominations reaching Britain.

This month's coin series on Roman Britain is written by Dom Chorney, a young numismatist from Glastonbury, Somerset. He studied for his undergraduate degree at Cardiff (in archaeology), and achieved a 2:1. Dom is currently studying for an MA in Ancient Visual and Material Culture at the University of Warwick, and intends to undertake a doctorate in 2015. His main areas of interest are coin use in later Roman Britain, counterfeiting in antiquity, coins as site-finds, and the coinage of the Gallic Empire.

Images from the Portable Antiquities Scheme, PAS HAMP-4F9392, BERK-BEF2B0, NARC-146308

Clare Rowan : 07 Nov 2014 01:00 |  Tags: Coining In Roman Britain Imitation London |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Coining in Roman Britain Part 1: Before the Romans

This month the blog will run a series of posts about coinage in Britain, written by Dom Chorney. We kick the month off by looking at the coinage that existed in Britain before the Romans!

Map showing Rome's mints in the fourth century.

The Romans didn’t just strike coins in their capitol, far from it. In fact by the 4th Century AD over a dozen official mints operated in the provinces of the empire, producing massive numbers of coins (see map). These mints tended to stem from provincial cities who struck their own coins in earlier periods of history, such as Alexandria in Egypt. Some however, were entirely new creations, in particular the mint at Londinum, modern day London. This series of posts will provide a very brief history on the subject of coin minting in Roman Britain, from the decades following the invasion in AD 43, to so called ‘decree’ of Honorius in AD 410, the date (though somewhat unreliable) believed by many to pinpoint the end of Britain as a Roman province.

Before the Romans: Celtic Coinage

Silver uninscribed stater struck in the south-west of Britain (50-20 BC).

Despite the controversial use of the term ‘Celtic’, many scholars still refer to the coins minted in the last two centuries of Britain’s Iron Age as Celtic coins. The so called ‘tribes’ of Iron Age Britain struck coins, many deriving from gold staters produced in Greece by Philip II of Macedon, but with highly stylised designs. The iconography varies from region to region, but most Iron Age coins depict horses and stylized heads in a very abstract form. Through time, the coins of many Iron Age ‘tribes’ such as the Atrebates and the Catuvellauni become more Roman in style, indicating increasing contact with Rome. Some tribe’s coins show defiance, such as those minted in the South-West, where, rather than designs becoming more classical in nature, the coins become more abstract (see the coin pictured: coins like these are believed to indicate a strong refusal to adopt Roman style. Note the storngly stylised horse). Iron Age coins were minted in gold, silver and bronze, and are a complicated and highly theoretical topic in their own right. Mints of the Iceni (famously the tribe of the warrior queen, Boudicca) continued to produce coins in the years following the Roman invasion.

This month's coin series on Roman Britain is written by Dom Chorney, a young numismatist from Glastonbury, Somerset. He studied for his undergraduate degree at Cardiff (in archaeology), and achieved a 2:1. Dom is currently studying for an MA in Ancient Visual and Material Culture at the University of Warwick, and intends to undertake a doctorate in 2015. His main areas of interest are coin use in later Roman Britain, counterfeiting in antiquity, coins as site-finds, and the coinage of the Gallic Empire.

Image credits: Map from Late Roman Bronze Coinage, inside cover. Coin image from the Portable Antiquities Scheme, PAS IOW-035588.

Clare Rowan : 01 Nov 2014 01:00 |  Tags: Celtic Coinage Coin Of The Month Coining In Roman Britain London Mint Of London Roman Britain |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Ambiguity, Roma and Soldiers in Sicily

A picture is less like a statement or speech act, then, than like a speaker capable of an infinite number of utterances. An image is not a text to be read but a ventriloquist's dummy into which we project our own voice.

W.J.T. Mitchell, What Do Pictures Want? p. 140

'Zeus / Warrior' Coin from Sicily (Bahrfeldt 2)

This sentence encompasses the problems of ambiguity and meaning that have been the focus of several previous blogs. Since I posted about the ambiguity of images used by the Romans in Macedonia, I have come across several more examples that show a similar tendency. One is shown to the right, part of the 'Zeus / warrior' coin series struck by the Romans in Sicily. These coins are entangled objects: released by the Romans and carrying references to Roman quaestors in Latin (in this case via the Q for quaestor and a monogram spelling MAL on the far right), the design was likely created by a Greek die engraver, and the coins were intended for circulation within the Roman province of Sicily. Bahrfeldt, acknowledging their mixed nature, termed them 'Roman-Sicilian', a phrase also used by Frey-Kupper in her study of coin circulation in Sicily, which concluded these issues dated to the period 190/170-130/120 BC.

Coin of Panormos with head of Zeus and Warrior

Ever since Bahrfeldt's publication, people have wondered 'who' exactly the warrior is. Is it a Roman soldier, a local Greek soldier, or is it the god of war (Mars/Ares)? The Romans might easily have made the picture more 'understandeable' by providing the coin a legend, but here, as with the case of Macedonia, they chose not to. This may have been intentional, allowing, in the words of Mitchell, for each person to 'project their own voice' through seeing their own meaning in the image. In this way, each member of the community that was Roman Republican Sicily might have identified with the image, allowing the image and the coin that bore it to actively generate a shared sense of community. When Panormos began to strike its own coinage bearing its name under Roman dominion from 130/120 BC, they adopt the Zeus / Warrior type. The money created by the conquerors (Rome) has been claimed and adopted by the conquered: 'their' money had become 'our' money. It is in a moment like this that Anderson's 'imagined community' is created. Again, the warrior shown on the coins carrying the ethnic of Panormos may have been Roman, Greek, divine, or as representative of the warriors of Panormos itself. Or it may not even have been seen as a warrior at all.

Coin of Italica with head of Augustus and Roma

While we often think of Roma as a seated goddess, some representations of her show her standing with a spear and shield in a very similar manner to the 'warrior' of Sicilian coinage. One example from Spain is shown on the right, which (although it is not visible on this particular specimen) identifies the figure next to the shield as ROMA on the reverse legend (RPC 61). Given this and other examples, could this be another possible reading of the 'warrior' type seen on Roman-Sicilian coinage, the issues of Panormos, and other towns? Just as the image can evoke various soldiers, and perhaps Ares, it may also have been seen as the personification of Roman power itself. But the ambiguity, which still provokes scholarly debate today, was likely the key behind this and other images.

Coin images reproduced courtesy of ArtCoins Roma (Auction 6 lot 257), Classical Numismatic Group (Electronic Auction 327, lot 521) (www.cngcoins.com) and Jesus Vico S.A. (Auction 132, lot 611)

Clare Rowan : 24 Oct 2014 15:04 |  Tags: Ambiguity Bahrfeldt 2 Coins In Focus Panormos Roman Empire Sicily |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

The Power of Words?

Coin of Augustus with Latin on both sides (RIC 12 358)

It is a truism that we are increasingly becoming a more visual age and one that plays down the impact of the written word. Everything has to have visual impact to engage and interest the passive spectator. Is PowerPoint the problem or the solution?

But, as often with the classical world, we have been there before. Coins are a good example of communicating a message through visual means and this Coin of the Month series has shown what a huge variety there are. Augustus, in particular, has been studied for his use of iconography in forming and disseminating the image that he wanted throughout the empire (see Zanker’s seminal book The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus).

This coin interested me for its lack of visual stimulus. It seeks to get its message through the written word. It is a denarius, about 18 mm in diameter. At this period, a legionary soldier received 10 asses a day, which amounted to 225 denarii a year.

One side of the coin (the obverse) has text within an oak wreath decorative border, reading as follows: I O M S P Q R S PR S IMP CAE QVOD PER EV R P IN AMP AT Q TRAN S E Expanding the standard abbreviations, adding letters in brackets, we see:

I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) S P Q R V(ota) S(uscepta) PR(o) S(alute) IMP(eratoris) CAE(saris) QVOD PER EV(m) R(es) P(ublica) IN AMP(liore) AT Q(ue) TRAN(quilliore) S(tatu) E(st)

To Jupiter Greatest and Best, the Senate and the Roman people (give) their vows made for the health of their leader Caesar (i.e. Augustus) because through him the state is in a greater and more peaceful condition.

On the other side is a cippus, a small, low pillar which usually had an inscription on it. On this representation of a cippus there is inscribed:

IMP CAES AVGV COMM CONS S C.

In full this reads:

IMP(erator) CAES(ar) AVGV(stus) COMM(uni) CONS(ensu), S(enatus) C(onsulto)

Caesar Augustus leader with common consent, and with the agreement of the Senate.

In addition, around the inside edge of the coin is written: L. MESCINIVS RVFVS IIIVIR This is the name of the magistrate (Lucius Mescinius Rufus) and his position as a moneyer (triumviri monetales) which helps to date the coin to 16 B.C.E.

How successful was this design? Well, we can’t tell from this one coin, but we do notice that there are other coins from this period with their emphasis on text rather than image, but after this we see very few. We can deduce from this that the innovation was a failure. Why might this be? Estimates of the level of literacy in the Roman world vary. As well as the graffiti of Pompeii, from the opposite ends of the Roman Empire we have writing from the tablets of Vindolanda and the papyri from Oxyrhynchus which suggests that there was a reasonable level of literacy throughout society, but interpretation of the evidence is disputed (Ancient Literacy by W. V. Harris provides a good starting point).

Could this coin have got its message across? Could enough people have read to make it effective? Were the abbreviations too much of a barrier? Was the size of characters too small (the coin is only around 18mm in diameter)? Did coins get worn too quickly? Do people ignore writing on coins (can you remember the words on a £1 coin?) Was it a brave attempt at a new, more sophisticated form of communication that did not work well enough? Perhaps it is true that a picture is worth a thousand words.

Clive Letchford is a Teaching Fellow in the department, teaching Latin and Greek to those who have not had the opportunity to learn these wonderful languages before arriving at Warwick.

(Image © The Trustees of the British Museum)

Clare Rowan : 01 Oct 2014 09:51 |  Tags: Ancient Literacy Augustus Augustus Bimillenium Coin Of The Month Latin |  Comments (1) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Archimedes' Theorem of the Sphere & Cylinder: Martin Hairer's Fields Medal & Immortality of Science

Numismatics does not only include the study of coins but also a range of coin-like objects, such as medals, tokens and other related items. This month's 'coin of the month' is actually a medal: the Fields medal, displayed on the University's main home page, awarded by the International Mathematical Union to Martin Hairer, professor in mathematics at Warwick University, for his outstanding achievements in stochastic partial differential equations (SPDEs). This recognition is of highest international renown and the University can be proud of such a scholar.

As a classicist I am light-years away from understanding SPDEs and adequately appreciating his dazzling theory of regularity structures. Yet, there is a quote from Hairer which is, I believe, appealing to classicists: 'One advantage of mathematics is the immortality. Theorems that were proven 2,000 years ago are still true...' This is food for thought within our own disciplines of Classics and Ancient History, including numismatics. Would we claim immortality for our field of research as well? My answer is 'yes', and the medal itself provides an excellent example to underpin this affirmation.

The obverse depicts Archimedes (in a post-World War I artistic style) and the Greek legend ΑΡΧΙΜΕΔΟΥΣ (‘of Archimedes’) and the Latin legend TRANSIRE SVVM PECTVS MVNDOQVE POTIRI (‘Exceed above oneself and grasp the world’). The reverse shows a tablet (a tabula ansata) with the Latin inscription CONGREGATI / EX TOTO ORBE / MATHEMATICI / OB SCRIPTA INSIGNIA / TRIBVERE (‘Gathered from the entire world, Mathematicians have awarded (this medal) for outstanding writing’). The tablet is displayed on a laurel branch, and the branch is placed upon a background with Archimedes' theorem of the sphere and cylinder, a line drawing of a sphere inscribed in a cylinder. Archimedes had proven that both the volume and the surface area of the sphere were two-thirds that of the cylinder.

The fields medal awarded to Martin Hairer by the International Mathematical Union on 13 August 2014. The medal is in gold, and bears the monogram RTM, the signature of the artist Robert Tait McKenzie (1867-1938). The date is MCMXXXIII.

The medal has an impressive concentration of references to antiquity. Archimedes (c. 287-212 BC) was active in the Hellenistic period at the court of King Hieron II in Syracuse (275-215 BC) and is considered the greatest ancient mathematician. He died during the sack of Syracuse by the Romans in 212 BC, sadly killed by a Roman soldier according to Plutarch (Marcellus 19.4-5) when he was working out a problem involving circles. Plutarch (Marcellus 17.7) relates also that his tomb was adorned with his theorem of the sphere and cylinder and that, proud of his achievement, it was Archimedes himself who requested the theorem adorn his funerary monument.

With the Fields medal the community of modern-day mathematicians refers to one of their most famous forerunners. They define themselves in the present through the past, and by doing so they build up a foundation for the future. They are, by the way, not the first to go back to Archimedes or his tomb monument. The philosopher and statesman Cicero (106-43 BC) had already gone in search of the tomb and its theorem. He discovered it outside Agrigentum, overgrown by thorn bushes (Tusculum 5.23.64-65).

The laurel branch on the reverse, at the root of the word 'laureate', and the shape of the tablet are further references to antiquity. The laurel was awarded to winners of the Pythic games, and later on laurels in the form of wreaths were awarded to Roman victors in triumph, to poets, and to Christian martyrs.

Referring back to forerunners and their achievements is taking an example from earlier scholarship as a way of legitimatizing present and future research activities. It is also an act of humility by relativizing a single achievement. This is also expressed by the fact that the laureate's name is missing. According to the instructions of John Charles Fields, who established the award, the medal should not bear the name of an individual nor of a nation, and the legend had to be in Latin or ancient Greek. Moreover the medal was not only to be awarded for past achievement, but also to encourage future research. (As a matter of fact, the name of the recipient is engraved on the medal’s edge.)

To inscribe the present into the unlimited time-span between past and future means breaking up limits. This principle is as immortal as Archimedes’ theorem, and it makes ancient history, as well as history more generally, an immortal science. Immortality on the other hand stands in cruel contrast to the reality of human life. Immortality in science therefore responds to the human hope to transgress the limitations of being a human being and maybe to hope for eternal life.

This is expressed by the inscription on the obverse of the medal which is a quote from Marcus Manilius, a poet and astronomer of the first century AD: TRANSIRE SVVM PECTVS MVNDOQVE POTIRI—‘Go beyond oneself and grasp the world’ (Astronomica 4.392). This comes from a longer passage on the signs of the zodiac where the author advocates the arduous study of astronomic science as a way of seeking God: ‘Quod quaeris, deus est’ (Astronomica 4.390).

The desire to create a tomb monument ascribed to Archimedes is likewise connected with mortality and immortality. And the medal itself is a small monument. It is not issued, like coins, in big masses, but struck for the laureates only. It is not spent like money, but carefully kept aside or displayed. It is not overgrown by bushes like a stone monument, but genteelly adorns by the recipient.

This month’s coin was chosen by Suzanne Frey-Kupper, Associate Professor of Numismatics and Classical Archaeology at the Department of Classics and Ancient History at the University of Warwick. She works on Greek, Punic, and Roman coinage from the Western Mediterranean and the North-Western provinces. She has published the coin finds from many major archaeological sites, in Italy and Sicily, Malta, Cossyra, Carthage and North of the Alps. With N.K. Rutter and J. Morcom she is currently preparing the volume Sicily and the Adjacent Islands of Historia Numorum.

This summer she was a visiting scholar of the Summer Seminar at the American Numismatic Society (ANS) in New York where she was awarded a medal (shown below) by the New York Numismatic Club with a similar reverse to the medal described above. On its obverse is Henry Grunthal (1905-2001). Born in Cologne (Germany), son of numismatist and medal publisher Hugo Grunthal, Henry Grunthal emigrated to the United States in 1938, joined the ANS in 1953 and advanced to the position of curator of European and modern coins. His work focused on Carolingian coinage and on the coinage of Peru. He studied archaeology and art history Berlin, Jena and in Paris, and numismatics under Kurt Regling (1876-1935) in Berlin and Behrendt Pick (1861-1940) in Gotha. The latter was a student of Theodor Mommsen (1817-1903) and later worked with Regling on Mommsen’s ‘Griechisches Münzwerk’ (Die antiken Münzen Nord-Griechenlands. Dacien und Moesien, 2 vols, Berlin 1898 and 1910). Both Pick and Mommsen were, for a short period, professors in Zurich, where Suzanne Frey-Kupper studied Classical Archaeology and lectured for a few years before joining Warwick in 2011.

Clare Rowan : 02 Sep 2014 17:10 |  Tags: Archimedes Coin Of The Month Fields Medal Henry Grunthal Martin Hairer Mathematics Medallion University Of Warwick |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Disobedient Objects, Roman Coins and the Battle of Teutoberg Forest

US $1 bill, defaced by an ink stamp. From occupygeorge.com

Included the Disobedient Objects exhibition currently at the V & A are a series of defaced monetary items, including the US dollar bill above. As material representations of a particular ruling authority that permeate our daily lives, currencies are often used to express dissatisfaction with governmental authorities, or even rebellion. A similar practice also occured in the Roman Empire, when the vast majority of circulating coinage carried the portrait of the emperor, an image that had strong power and charisma. In Roman culture it was vitally important to be remembered after one's death through one's actions and monuments; to destroy a monument or a portrait, then, was to attack the person's very being. (This Roman practice of destroying or defacing an image, whether material or literary, is called damnatio memoriae in modern scholarship).

We find numerous instances of coin mutilation and defacement in the Roman world: coins being slashed, stabbed, subject to graffiti, cut and pierced. If there is no archaeological context, it is difficult to know the motivations behind these actions. In some instances, a coin would be mutilated before being given as an offering to a deity (ensuring that the coin could never again be used for 'profane' commercial transactions, it would always belong to the god or goddess). We do not know the motivations behind the mutilation of the coin below, for example, recently found in Hertfordshire in Britain, and registered on the Portable Antiquities Scheme. But a well-known and clear example of politically motivated currency mutilation can be found at the archaeological site of Kalkriese.

Mutilated Roman Coin. (PAS BH-57-3B8).

The site of Kalkriese was the site of a battle between Roman and German forces in the early first century AD. Though not universally accepted, many identify the site as the location of the Battle of Teutoberg Forest, in which the Roman general Varus was horribly defeated by the Germans in AD 9, losing several legions and cohorts. Amongst the finds on this ancient battlefield are numerous coins, with a large number of Augustan small bronze coins (called asses) from the mint at Lugdunum (Lyons). A significant proportion of these asses were defaced by stabbing, cuts or slashes. The original publication of these coins argued that these actions were performed by dissatisfied Roman troops (Berger). More recently, Kemmers and Myberg have suggested that the Germans may have been responsible: after defeating the Romans, the Germans then went on to deface one of the most potent symbols of Roman imperial power. Interpretation remains open, but the finds indicate that the coins must have been carried onto battlefield by the Romans. In this case it is perhaps unlikely that Roman troops were responsible for the mutilation - after the defacement the coins would no longer have been considered valid currency and there would be little reason for a Roman to be carrying them around, particularly into battle. The mutilation might thus have occured as part of the German post-battle victory celebrations.

For more on the defaced currrencies currently on display in London see this post. For the coins at Kalkriese see F. Berger, (1996). Kalkriese 1: Die römische Fundmünzen. Mainz; and F. Kemmers, F. and N. Myberg (2011). "Rethinking numismatics. The archaeology of coins." Archaeological Dialogues 18: 87-108.

Clare Rowan : 13 Aug 2014 17:24 |  Tags: Augustus Augustus Bimillenium Battle Teutoberg Forest Coins In Focus Damnatio Memoriae Disobedient Objects Kalkriese Mutilation Varus |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

The Emperor on a chain: Fashionable coins and questions of personal taste

Coin of Constantine used as a pendant

This coin of Constantine dates from AD 330-331. It is typical of its type. The obverse displays an image of Constantine whilst the reverse praises the might of the Roman army; two soldiers holding spears flank military standards with the legend ‘GLORIA EXERCITVS’. The modern transformation of this particular coin into a piece of jewellery is not without its ancient precedent, and this has prompted me to investigate the afterlife of coinage in the Roman world.

It is widely accepted that coins are not simply important for their monetary value. To historians studying numismatics their imagery and legends provide evidence for things as diverse as architectural styles to hairstyles. Similarly, at the time of minting, coins held a value which extended further than what they could buy. The way that coins were used outside of the context of financial transactions can teach us valuable lessons about Roman society.

In Petronius’ Satyricon, the character Trimalchio is described as playing a board game with gold and silver denarii instead of the standard black and white counters. Trimalchio is more of a caricature than a character, so we should take scenes like this with a pinch of salt, but the author is here making a point about how the attitude of an individual towards coinage projects a social statement about their personal wealth. Trimalchio’s self-display tells his guests that he can, quite frankly, afford to play with his money. This can be extended to help us to understand why incorporating coinage into jewellery was a way of displaying your wealth and social status.

Coin of Augustus used as a pendant © The Trustees of the British Museum

But self-display was not the sole reason why an individual would choose to transform coins into jewellery. Nor can it simply be explained as a fashion, since fashions change and our evidence for coin pendants spans hundreds of years. A study of the iconography of the coins chosen for this purpose suggests that not just any coin would do. Generally our examples are drilled to allow a chain to pass through, or else a loop attached, and the location of this tells us which way the coin was intended to hang. In most cases the coin was orientated to display the obverse, most tellingly, the image of the emperor. For example, the coin pictured here is orientated to display the diademed profile of Augustus. This coin was minted in 2 BC and its use here celebrates the reign of Augustus. Thus one could argue that coin pendants projected a political as well as social message. The modern day transformation of the ‘Gloria Exercitvs’ coin follows this ancient precedent, but this time the choice was motivated by aesthetic value rather than a desire to make a political statement of allegiance to the emperor.

It is debatable whether the Roman jeweller was motivated by the aesthetic, political or social potential of coinage when they set about incorporating coins into jewellery. Clearly, these artefacts pose questions about the nature of Roman society and the nature of its value system; and since coin pendants remain popular today we could trick ourselves into believing that we are not so different from the Romans after all.

This month's coin was chosen by Eve Bayram. Eve graduated from Warwick in 2014 with a degree in Classical Civilisation. While at Warwick Eve focused on the study of Latin literature, and her disseration was entitled 'Self-presentation in the Latin epistolary genre: Cicero, Seneca, Petrarch.' She is currently interning in the dictionaries department at Oxford University Press.

Clare Rowan : 01 Aug 2014 10:42 |  Tags: Augustus Augustus Bimillenium Coin Of The Month Coins As Jewellery Constantine Undergraduate Research |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Augustus and Communicating the Succession

Augustus and Agrippa seated on a platform

As the first emperor or princeps of Rome, Augustus' power was based solely on the positions he held and his proven achievements. There was no established mechanism by which a successor could come to power; the idea of a hereditary monarchy did not exist. Therefore the question of who or what would follow Augustus was a problem indeed, particularly since Augustus himself had no living male heir when he became seriously ill in 23 BC. After the death of her first husband, Augustus married his daughter Julia to his chief general and advisor, Agrippa. The sons of this union, Gaius and Lucius Caesar, were then adopted by Augustus in 17 BC. In order to designate them as successors these brothers were granted a series of honours and positions in spite of their young ages.

Aureus with Augustus and Agrippa

The entire process of appointing a successor a delicate one, and one of our first indications of an official statement of dynastic ideology can be found in a series of coins issued at Rome in 13 BC. This was the year the tribunician power of Augustus and Agrippa was renewed, and Agrippa is shown on the coinage as Augustus' colleague (just as he is later named as a colleague in the Res Gestae Divi Augusti 8.2). Coins show Augustus and Agrippa side-by-side: on the coin above, the portrait of Augustus graces the obverse, while Augustus and Agrippa are seated in togas on the reverse (RIC 1² 407). Other issues of this year display the head of Augustus on one side, and the head of Agrippa on the other. On the silver denarius issue of this type, both Augustus and Agrippa are bare-headed, while on the gold aureus issue shown here Augustus wears an oak-crown (an honour granted him by the Senate) and Agrippa a combined mural and rostral crown, which combined the walls of a city and the prow of a ship (RIC 1² 409). Silver denarii were also struck showing Julia and her two sons: the obverse carries the portrait of Augustus accompanied by a lituus, and the reverse displays the bust of Julia with a wreath above it, flanked by the busts of her sons (RIC 1² 404-5).

Denarius showing Julia between Gaius and Lucius

Alas, the following year Agrippa died, and Gaius and Lucius would both also die before Augustus. It was this series of unfortunate deaths that meant that Tiberius would marry Julia and as Augustus' adopted son, become the successor of his power and offices.

(Images are © The Trustees of the British Museum).

Good images of all of Augustus' coinage can also now be found on the Online Coins of the Roman Empire site.

Clare Rowan : 15 Jul 2014 17:06 |  Tags: Agrippa Augustus Augustus Bimillenium Gaius Caesar Julia Lucius Caesar Succession |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Coin of the Month: Two Coins Depicting Germania

Gold coin of Domitian showing Germania

In 83 AD the Emperor Domitian (81-96 AD) conducted a campaign against the Germanic tribe of the Chatti, the first emperor to campaign in person since Claudius’ expedition to Britain in 43 AD. Literary tradition is divided over the success of campaign; Iulius Frontinus commended Domitian’s strategy and handling of troops, but other sources suggested that the Chatti were not subdued and continued to pose a threat, even if defences of the frontier were improved. In any case, Domitian proclaimed a victory and had this magnificent aureus struck in Rome around 84 AD. The obverse shows a laureate head of Domitian facing left, wearing an aegis. The legend overhead reads IMP(erator) CAES(ar) DIVI VESP(asiani) F(ilii) DOMITIAN(us) AUG(ustus): ‘Emperor Caesar Domitian Augustus, son of the divine Vespasian’. The reverse depicts a humbled and sorrowful semi-naked female figure sitting on a beautifully embossed shield. A broken spear can be seen underneath. The inscription overhead proclaims Domitian’s title of victor of the Germans: GERMANICUS CO(n)S(ul) X.

Gold coin of Trajan showing Germania © The Trustees of the British Museum

The depiction of Germania in the second coin is very different. This coin is an aureus struck in Rome in 98-99 AD. The obverse displays the laureate head of Trajan (98-117 AD) facing right, with the legend IMP(erator) CAES(ar) NERVA TRAIAN(us) AUG(ustus) GERM(anicus): ‘Emperor Caesar Nerva Traianus Augustus Germanicus’. The reverse bears the words PONT(ifex) MAX(imus) TR(ibunus) POT(estas) CO(n)S(ul) II: ‘chief priest, holder of tribunician power, consul for the second time’. It depicts Germania seated on a pile of shields, resting her left arm on a hexagonal shield and holding an olive branch in the right hand. The pile of shields and the olive branch suggest the end of confrontation. At the same time, the semi-naked proud figure of Germania reminds the viewer of Tacitus’ descriptions of hostile, free, ‘barbaric’ Germanic tribes. So instead of depicting a conquered Germania like in Domitian’s coin, Trajan’s aureus presents Germania as a barbarian nation making a pact with Rome under the paternal gaze of the emperor. In this way the second coin also advertised Trajan’s successful tenure as governor of Germania before he succeeded his adoptive father Nerva in 98 AD.

This month’s coin was chosen by Desiree Arbo, a second year PhD student. Desiree’s research focuses on the reception of classical texts in 18^th-19^th century Spanish America. She is currently exploring how Jesuit missionaries used classical themes and texts to depict the Guarani Indians of Paraguay.

(Coin of Domitian above reproduced courtesy of Numismatica Ars Classica NAC AG (Auction 67, lot 139)

Clare Rowan : 01 Jul 2014 01:00 |  Tags: Aureus Chatti Coin Of The Month Domitian Ric Trajan 15 Trajan |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Entangled Objects, British Nationalism and the Elgin Marbles

Sovereign of George III

Over the last week or so I have been doing a lot of thinking about the role that images and material objects play in constructing identities, communities, empires and nations. A more modern example that I think demonstrates the sort of phenomenon we might also look for in the ancient Roman world is the Elgin marbles, the parthenon frieze taken from Athens to London by Lord Elgin at the beginning of the nineteenth century.

Few people realise I think (and I didn't until last week) that when the marbles arrived, the British government believed they were worthless, and refused to buy them (a good cartoon demonstrating the general sentiment can be found here). Lord Elgin and his friends thus had to wage something of a publicity campaign to ensure that his investment would pay off, a campaign that was apparently waged from Elgin's backyard shed, where the marbles were temporarily housed. But what it interesting is that the marbles arrived just as Britain was attempting to articulate its identity as a nation and as an Empire, and the marbles became an object that featured in these discussions. Since the images on the parthenon marbles are a bit ambiguous (there is still discussion over their exact meaning), people could see in the marbles differing ideas of British identity: British masculine superiority, the power of the British war machine, the idea of elite cavalry, the British male body, and the fact that the marbles were monochrome meant that they could even be used to discuss ideas of white superiority. (An excellent discussion of all of this can be found in Rose-Greenland, F. (2013). "The Parthenon marbles as icons of nationalism in nineteenth-century Britain." Nations and Nationalism 19: 654-673.)

What I find interesting is how these particular objects played an active role in forming British identity, and that the formation of this ideas took place not in the government, but among the elite (Elgin and his friends). Moreover, when a new coin design was introduced under George III in 1818 (for the earlier coinage design see here), the marbles served as direct inspiration. The Greek imagery, however, has been adapted to its British context in that the Greek-style figure is now slaying a dragon, a reference to St. George. These objects then, brought from outside Britain, played an active role in forming British identity and, in the end, epitomised a new idea of Britain on a new style of coinage (tellingly called 'a sovereign'). The question is, why did the marbles act in this way, out of ALL the objects that came into London in this period? I wonder if it has something to do with the ambiguity of the imagery of the marbles, meaning that they were susceptible to multiple meanings and interpretations in a way that other objects were not. (I have, of course, blogged on ambiguity before).The Elgin marbles also raises the question as to how other 'entangled objects' may have influenced the formation of Roman identity, and, ultimately, the design of coinage under Roman dominion. And, given the ongoing discussion over British identity in the modern day, it makes me wonder what will be chosen for the new British one pound coin.

(Image above is © The Trustees of the British Museum. See the coin online here.)

Clare Rowan : 11 Jun 2014 17:41 |  Tags: Ambiguity Coins In Focus Elgin Marbles Entangled Objects Parthenon |  Comments (1) |  Close comments |  Report a problem