11 CAAWFo~D'R. JO.'t3Q

Studies inNumismatic Method

presented to

PHILIP GRIERSQN

edited byC. N. L. BROOKE, B. H. 1.H. STEWART,

J. G. POLLARD andT. R. VOLK

D1-.((11~

ACULTAD D!OEOOUf'IA E 1mBI8LtOl"ECI\

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESSCambridge

London New York New RochelleMelbourne Sydney

•4

Roman imperial coin types and the formationof public opinion

•The authority and personality ofthe Roman emperor and his government were mediatedto the subject population in a variety of ways. Perhaps the most important was thecomplex of stories circulating probably even among relativdy humble people, many ofthem about contact with the emperor or his representatives. 1Of course such contact itself,when it occurred, also mediated the authority and personality of the emperor and. hisgovernment; the imperial cult, too, had an important róle to play, as did the erectionof figured monuments and imperial buildings and the distribution of imperial largesse.Within the empire as a whole, the plebs in Rome naturally had privileged access to thebenefits of imperial rule and saw far more of the emperor and his works.

On the nature and importance within this context of the ról~Lthe imperil!! coina~s...widely differing vie~_are expressed; at one extreme there is the view that the emperorhimself paid particu!ar attention to the ~.?i~2f..~s for his coinage in order to d;rawattention to his virtues and his sug;esses and that these types had a major impact onthe population of the Rom~!" Empire, at the other ;xtremethé-ii"~~ that only a mh;ordepartment of government was involved and that the eiE!~E!~}.!~p'c~_.?!._t~.e_i!!,perialcoinage were ~tt1~_noticeda..ndoften .~i~~~ . ..._~--

1begin by looking at the extent to which historians in antiquity made use of buildings,statues, inscriptions, archaeological discoveries and coins as historical evidence and thenconsider the impact which was made by all of these and by coins in particular on th~public as a whole. My conclusions are perhaps valid only for the educated c1asses,whQ.created most of such records as we have which are relevant t~-this investigation - bu~it is_unlikely ~!.~_t~~_~~pa~!.~!-a co~.2.~ ani~~~~.!.a..~.e.easa..!!.!..!'.a..~.~eat~!.:...

Thucydides, as we might expect, uses an antiquarian 's method of research to aidhistorical enquiry.3 He attempts to use the evidence provided by the clearance of thegraves on Delos in order to establish the identity of the primitive inhabitants of theisland.4 He is aware in his discussion of Mycenae of how little can be deduced frOIllarchitectural remains about the size or importance of a city.· The dedicatory inscription

of Pausanias on the tripod at Delphi, erected after the battle of Plataea, is admitted asevidence for the improper ambitions ofthat wayward monarch.8 The altar of Apollo anda stele on the Acropolis are used as evidence for the family of Peisistratus.' Similarly,Aristotle cites an inscribed discus at Olympia in his discussion of Lycurgus." Polybius,whose testimony is unwisely rejected by Livy, records the size and composition ofHannibal's arrny for the invasion of Italy on the basis of the bronze inscription set upby Hannibal in the temple of Hera Lacinia at Croton, an inscription which Polybiushimself sought out and inspected.8 And in his critique of Timaeus, Polybius' mountingindignation reaches its peak with the remar k that Timaeus went to the trouble ofcollecting inscriptions from hidden and inconspicuous parts of the buildings; and stillhe was inaccurate.10 Diodorus justifies his belief in the revival of Sicily after Timoleonby an appeal to the number and grandeur of the buildings erected.ll

When Cicero was trying to reconstruct the composition of the Commission of Tensent to help L. Mummius with the settlement ofGreece after the fall ofCorinth in 146 Be,he accepted Atticus' identification of A. Postumius Albinus as a member of theCommission on the basis of a statue at the Isthmus.12 Suetonius adduces statues ofVespasian's father, dedicated 'to an honest tax-collector', in his account of Vespasian'sfamily}3 And Plutarch occasionally (unlike Suetonius) uses statues as a guide to theappearance ofthe subjects ofhis Lives, in order to be able to argue from their appearanceto their character}4

For the use of coins ashistorical evidence we have only, so far as I know, the exampleof the HisW;¡;;A;;¡~;¡;;;whe-;'; they-;~;~';;;d"';ather-to-l;nd verisimilitude to ...historical~~~.!'?!1:Büt·th;;i;~se·~this way implies thep~ss¡bitity oith~·i;-~;¡~··h¡~t~;y. 'Inth;;~ostexplicit example, the author and his friends are debating whether or not one Firrnus wasever emperor. The opinion is advanced that he wore the purple, struck coins and wascalled Augustus. Severus Archontius even produces coins of Firmus to prove the point.Needless to say, none now survive and there is no reason to suppose that they were evermore than a figment of the imagination of the author of the Historia Augusta.16 Thetechnique is a favourite one of his; Odenathus, Trebellianus, Victoria, all are endowedwith coins and the title of Augustus or Augusta}8 None deserves a place in history. Itis nonetheless interesting to note that the assumption Iying behind the argument is thatt~.eis~lIingofcoinageis amark~fs()Y~~i1ID!y, an assumption to which I return below.It is alsointerest¡~g-th;t'tile~odern discovery of an emperor from his coins, UraniusAntoninus, regarded by Michael Grant as one of the chief services of numismaticsto history, should share its methodology with historica~ fiction.I'

It is apparent, then, that t.heuse of monuments of one sort or another, including coins,as historicalevidence was kno;nto·the1iTstor¡anso(antlquItY·.Ii·ls·alsolippli¡:e~:;t·thlit'iheJ?f()J!liresponsi blefo!.al!·.t.~~~~§~ij~§~ij!S,,º~i@l1g~;~i~.Úl~~,iIl~~iJ.>~!ons.and coins,attachedsomeTm'p;rtañce-to them. One might presume this in any case fro~ thee~pense

..norIllally 'invóívé(nóthe¡¡:-p;od~~tion, but explicit evidence may also be found.For Theopompus, inscriptions were so important to the community responsible for

their erection that a plausible accusation to level against Athens could be that of forgingthe inscription relative to the peace of Callias.IM In the private sphere, three Thebans of

the second rank went to the length of erecting a monument bearing an inscriptionexplaining that it had really been they. not Epaminondas. who had won the Battle ofLeuctra.10 For a later periodoPolybius records a remarkable debate among the Aetoliansbesieging the city of Medion. They were on the point of reaching the annual changeoverof generals and they believed that they were about to capture the city. A full-scale debateensued - who should have the right to have his name inscribed on the trophy, the generalwho had conducted the siege or the general who would within the next few days receiveits submission? The Aetolians reached the equitable decision that both should beinscribed on the trophy. Unfortunately, the ll1yrians appeared on the scene, the Aetolianswere soundly defeated and the siegewas raised. The citizens of Medion gleefully inscribedthe names of both defeated generals on the trophy which they erected.20

For the Roman period, Dio records as a matter of some importance the decision ofTiberius to inscribe the temple of Castor and Pollux with the name of Drusus as wellas with his own.21And Vespasian. established as the ruler ofthe Roman state, took stepsto replace the inscribed records ofthat state destroyed in the fireon the Capitol in AD 69,22Again, in the private sphere, Trimalchio's long discussion of what sort of tomb hewanted ended with the quotation ofthe inscription it was to bear, not the least importantpart of which was the statement that he never listened to a philosopher.23

There is also much evidence for the importance attached to imperial statues. An un-successful attempt at a prosecution for maiestas under Tiberius involved the chargethat the defendant had sold a statue of Augustus along with some gardens. Tiberius' replyis well known, that his father had not been deilied in order that the honour should bethe ruin of his fcllow-citizens.21But later history belied these good intentions and therelevant title in the Digesl states that wanton damage to, melting down or sale ofconsecrated statues of the emperor were all iIlegal. The emperors cared for their statues.26

For the only explicit evid~nce that the einperors cared for thetypes of!.tt.~ir...<:()inagewe have togo-tothe-CourtTl'-ceñi'ury treat¡~~~~!!~;¿;_~~!!]~ij:'The'-aut~~r of thistr'áct,in the cóu~s~"ofh¡s'súgiesiioós fo~~tt<;.L&º-'!:(~rI!!!!!=.!!!.~fthe. Empire, offers some~~!~~~.~!2.!~i.nty~s. As-p~¡ser~ed,his designs are sadly uniffiaginaiive, but no matter.They ~.()lIl~...~~r~IX~~~~..~t?t?,'!._()!~!!~E!~~.!!!~~.u..!.!t~().r..~~e.~.t?~!~.~t.t.~~..~.~~j,~t.~~~..ofinterest to an emperor.28This belief is widely shared by modern scholars who are underOOObITgatióót~ béiie~that the emperor cared for everything; and the fact that muchtrouble seems to have been taken over the imperial coinage is adduced in support oftheirnotion. lt can hardly be denied that great care. was indeed lavished on the imperialcoinage, i~~~_,!-nd ~!!tio~ñdT~hz;úldí1oi'wish to"reje¿i"úle"belIer of theautho-i-óf the de rebus beflicis as wholly unfounded. But explanations other than directimperial interest maybe invoked for the highquality of much ofthe-¡mi>erialcoinageand a consideratioñ- of otl1ei--eVidencesuggests' thát'the~uthoronhede'¡;'ebus b~liíC{I"-was expressing a hope rather than documenting an actuaIity:-···_ .... _-

Some monuments certainly made an impact on those who saw them, even if they were.not historians in search of source material. The author of the speech concerning Neairapreserved in the Demosthenic corpus would hardly have appealed to his listeners'

knowledge of a painting in the Painted Stoa to prove the presence of the Plataeans atthe Battle of Marathon unless he and they had been reasonably familiar with it.27Thepaintings carried in Roman triumphs to portray the course of the war are recorded inan abundance of sources, not only historical and anliquarian.2" They are included, forinstance, in the derisive account given by Cicero 01'the triumph which Piso c1aimedwashis for the asking. Herodian remarks on the impression made on lhe population as awhole and on himself by pictures 01' the emperor. And right at the end of c1assicalantiquity the author of the panegyric to Maximian and Constantine talks of the paintingin the palace at Aquileia depicting in effect the mission of Constantine, a painting aboutwhich the author seems to have heard in ordinary conversation.u

When Demosthenes was attempting to stir the Athenians to action against Philip 11of Macedon, he appealed to his audience's knowledge of the buildings of Athens andthe marvels of the temples and the offerings therein, the achievements of the great daysof the fifth century, as well as to his audience's knowledge of the deeds of Miltiades,Aristides and the rest.ao

Statues also excited attention. The Elder Cato of course rebuked those who regardedthe honour of a statue as important. al Cicero made effective use of the statues in theForum in the Sixth Phi/ippic, inviting his audience to compare those of L. Antonius andof Q. Marcius Tremulus, victor over the Hernici in 306 BC.32 The thirty-first andthirty-seventh orations of Dio Chrysostom are full of references to statues.

As for inscriptions, in his defence of M. Fonteius, Cicero appeals to the antiquity ofhis c1ient's family, an antiquity documented and known from the inscribed· records ofits achievements. The younger Pliny records an inscription which he has himself seen,that of Palias on his tomb along the Via Tiburtina.33

But what of coins? The ancients certainly examined their coins carefully, if only tomakesure that !h~ were not-rilse. They also·ha(rthe-¡:lll.bliofscrll.tcliíngin,S(;r.ip~i<.>~son coiñ;;(fig:"i)~34Ma;:;-y';fthese'appear to be gibberish, meaningless CcilIectlonsofletters,

Blackfriars.36But the~~,~.!~~~':l~~,~~i~~,.~l:_~~.r.l:~':1I~!!,Y.':!~~i~.?,or at any rate noticedand recorded, ~i~~I.YJ.i..Il!~~~_:_

Before looking at lhese records, we musl make two imporlanl dislinclions. Referencesto coin lypeS may be 01'lwo kinds, which I should like lo call direcl und indirccl. 11'uman takes a coin oul 01' his purse, looks at the type and then records il, that is a direclreference, even if it comes to us by way 01' anolher uulhor. BUIa chronicler may alsorecord 01' a ruler lhat he struck a cerlain lype, wilhoUl ever seeing any example 01' lhecoin in queslion, but deriving his informalion from the records 01' government. I regurda reference to a coin type 01'this kind as indirect.

The second distinction which I wish to make is this. The types and legendsof an anci~ntcoin normally had two functions, first to identify the authóf!:iir¡;sponsible I'otÜlecoTñ,secoñ<fto-procíiíi~th;-;;;;-~g~, if any, which that authority wi!.~e,.~_~~J..Q!!tThe firstfunction is"~k;r1Yt'tle-moreimp~rtant. Tiiereisgoode~'¡(i'e;:;;;;;'that in the Greco-Ro"iñiUl;-¿rld'the striking of cÓi;:;s';;~s~~i'~;rsally regarded as a mark of sovereignty.38As I havenoted above, this universal b'eliefílppe~stolTebeh1ñdthei1'se:"orabuse,Qf numismaticevidence by the author of the Historia Augusta.

But wecan go further than that. In the course of the celebrated debate between Agrippaand Maecenas, staged by Dio in 29 BC, Maecenas assumes that Rome can regulate thecoinages of the cities 01' the Empire. And a curious story told by Dio 01' Vitellius, thathe made no attempt to eliminate the coinage 01' Nero, Galba and Otho, carries the sameimplication, that the s!!ikin.&..QLsoin~,~~~_!.~:.E.,:>~~ssi~!l,,~.~':>~~r.~.I!':l._j>,~'N..~L~erelinked.37Thus Vespasian began to strike coinage soon al'ter his proclamation; allegedCOiñSOfPerennis were regarded as evidence 01' a plot to seize the throne; Severus allowedcoins to be struck for Albinus al'ter making him Caesar.38And it is because the striking01' new coinage was linked with the refoundation 01' Abonouteichos as lonopolis thatLucian records the fact; his actual description 01' the coins is phantasmagorical. 3" Inconsidering references to coin types we must therefore distinguish carefully betweenreferences to types which identify. the issuing a~~~!i11 and references to those whichconvey some Tuíther-message:"---"---""'- . -_ " _ .

--Some'ofihe-most striking references to coín types conveying some message which wepossess seem to be indlrect'Tfiiscomes out particufarTyclearlyiñtnecase-ofDío's recor¡r-

o'fihepTilcíñg ofCaesar's head on the coinage; the measure is recorded by Dio alongwith the other measures voted by the senate towards the end ofCaesar's life.4°.Thereisno evidence that Dio or his sources ever saw the coins in question (fig. 2).

Perhaps the most dramatic coin types 01' antiquity are those 01' the celebrated issue01' Brutus, with the head 01' the Liberator on the obverse and the cap of Liberty betweentwo daggers with the legend EID MAR on the reverse (fig. 3). The production 01'thisissue is duly recorded by Dio:u •Brutus dealt with these affairs (before going to Asiato meet Cassius), and on the coins which he struck he placed his portrait and the pileuswith two daggers, proclaiming thus and by the legend that he had freed his country withCassius.' The description is tolerably accurate, but again there is no reason whateverto suppose that Dio or his sources ever saw one 01' these coins. They were not producedin large quantities and are 01' extreme rarity now. Furthermore the description 01' the

•..,~.,1, .'

but those which are intelligible often suggest that the coins were intended as presents,wh~rto gods'or to-other't\u;;an beings. It would besurprisíñgl(nó:'oneevc-rnoticed;hatiypeorlegen3·"was'onll.cOln·ll.ñd'ii"is possíble that conscious selection sometimestookplace ofatype. suitable as.apresent or to accompany-~~~~iaLAn"asorDomitian'wlth Forturíaas reverSe type wasfound in the maststep of the Roman ship from

4AUGUSTUS

••••••••••••••

5NERO

6CONSTANTINE

legend, with the involvement of Cassius, is not such as one would derive from aninspection of the coins, which bear no reference to Cassius. I think we may believe thatDio's record of the coin does not derive from autopsy by anyone, but from a chronicleof the activities of Brutus.

The same is true, I think, of a record in Suetonius of a coin type of Augustus. In 45-44 Be,while the future Augustus was at Apollonia waiting for Caesar, his fortune was told byTheogenes on the basis of his horoscope. In due course, Suetonius continues, he madehis horoscope public and struck a silver coin with as its type the sign of the zodiacCapricorn, under which he was born (fig. 4). Augustus was'c:>fC~!~!1º!.!>.or~ ..':mde!Capricorn, but under Libra, but the reason forthe-érrorofSuetonius (and of Manilius)-neednot.détaifiUs.c'i"l'heíiñking of the remark about.A~gustl.is;coiñtype with the storyof his horoscope and its publication suggests to me that the record of the coin type comesfrom. thememoirs ofAugustusoranassociate, not from- observaii"~¡'¡:·-··· .- -

" . There-is no way oft~úi~gwhether the briefreferencéby'S~eto~i~~to the coin typeof Nero showing him playing the Iyre derives from observation (fig. 5).43 Only with thedescription of the consecration coinage of Constantine in the Vita Constantini ofEusebius am I reasonably sure of the relevance of observation (fig. 6).44

While we cannot conclude from the passages we have been considering that the Greeksand Romans often noticed the programmatic coin types with which they were confronted,one inference is possible. 1fchroniclers thought it worthwhile to record what rulers puton their coins, we may reasonably infer that the rulers themselves and the educated classesas a whole attached at least some importance to the subject. The belief of the authorof the de rebus beflicis, which we have already considered, is thus to a certain extentvindicated.

What did the Greeks and Romans notice about the coins which they handled? The

most straightforward procedure for naming a coin is to adopt the name of thedenomination, to treat it in fact as purely and simply a piece of money. Both drachmaand denarius are names ofthis kind. But both in the Greek and in the Roman worldcoins were often named after their types. The Roman examples which come most relldilyto mind are quadrigati, bigati, victoriati, each mimed after a type, Jupiter in a quadriga,Victory in a biga and Victory crowning a trophy respectively (figs. 7-9).4& (It ispresumably not an accident that in each case the legend ROMA is associated with thereverse type.) Tetrarchic nummi were perhaps called 'doubles' because they bore twofigures on the reverse (fig. 10).46

Greek examples are equally ready to hand. One of the commonest coins of the laterHellenistic world was the cistopllOros, named from the cista mystica which it bore (fi~.11). Similarly, the New Style silver coinage of Athens was distinguished from the 0111Style by the olive-wreath which it bore on the reverse, occasioning the nalllestephanephoros (fig. 12). The late Lycian issues were known as citharephoroi, from theIyre which formed the reverse type (fig. 13).47

Coin types in the Greek world were also noticed without giving their names to thecoins in question. The type of the Persian daric (fig. 14) provided Agesilaus with lheoccasion for a bitter joke at the expense of the Athenians and Thebans bribed by Persiato stir up trouble in Greece, that he was driven from Asia by 3°,000 arehers.48

The basic types of the Republican bronze coinage, a head of a deity on the obverseand a prow on the reverse (figs. 15'·16), similarly found their way into the imagination

in tile types which indicated the issuing authority. This appears most clearly in the caseofihe Rorr,i,nTmper'¡~í~~i~~g~'~~'~h¡C'h-th;-h~adof theemperor is the most significantfeature. filé'beSi:¡cñown example is probably theOñef¡:()~mHie ·Ñew-Tes·t~~e-n·t;~;h;~r;;';;'~~amines the image and title of the emperor on a denarius and pronounces thedictum, 'give to Caesar what is of Caesar'.63 The same concern with the head of theemperor occurs also in Talmudic texts, where it is stated that the coins used for theredemption of the second tithe must have the imperial image intact.64 The colloquialexpression domini for coins, surely deriving from observation of the imperial image, isalso worth noticing in this contex t.66 The phrase Kaisaros nomisma was used by Epictetus,'neither a banker nor a shopkeeper may reject the coinage of the emperor, but if someoneproduces it, whether he wishes or not, he must give over what is being sold for it' .68 Weneed not doubt that the identifying feature of the coinage of the emperor was the imageof the emperor. An imperial law of AO 343 made the point explicitly, •all the solidi, onwhich our images appear and for which there is universal veneration. must be treatedas of the same value ... '67

Of course, the corollary of the fact that the empero!,s head on the Roman imperialcoinage symbolised his authority was the fate which this head sulfered when the emperOrportrayedfeiJ:WTliedeíaéement ofreliefs andinscripti;;ñ~w¡:;iChi~cluded a represeñüi"tioQor a .mentio'ñ of añ--'emperoc wh;-;ufi~red 'd~";'~"d¡i~ m;moriae ¡s·-a w~fí:kñ~wnphe~~~~~~~-~--it-'did-'ñ~t-escape-ñóiice 'iñ-añiiq;ty"-oñ'6~mitiañ;s death th~-sen~t;deCr~d'i¡;athis inscriptions were everywhere to be destroyed and his memory to beobliterated.68 As early as the fourth century BC, Lycurgus told a story (probablyapocryphal) about the melting down of a statue of Hipparchus, son of Charmus,sentenced to death in absentia for treason.80 Coins ofthe Roman Empire, surely becau~eof the presence on them of the imperial po¡;n;ii, didñot-'always-é~- the fate of theman responsible for their production. Dio recordsÜiát- afte¡:ihe'de~t¡:;-of CajtguÍa:Thesenaiedecrée(rtfíarairth~b¡:onze'C'Ofñage which bore his image should be melted down.An analogous political judgment is implied in Statius' derisive reference to an asGaianus.8• Some thrifty souls in the Rhine army camps who seem to have wished to

••••13

citharephorus

of the users of the coinage. The Roman equivalent of the slight1y curious Englishexpression, heads or tails, was capita aut navia.u Two further comments may be made.The erroneous beliefthat these coins were the oldest produced by Rome made their typesthe most discussed of all antiquity and provided the stimulus for increasingly wildantiquarian and etymological speculation.60 But despite this interest, Pliny, true to form,asserted wrongly that while the reverse type of the as was a prow, that of the triens andquadrans, two of the fractions of the as, was a raft.61 He was misled by the poeticexpression quadrans rati,us which he had read in Lucilius and generated a elear exampleof the preference for literary speculation rather than visual investigation.

The Greeks and Romans, then, noticed at least some coin types which had no necessaryconnection with the issuing authority. But all the coin types so noticed were very commonindeed (despite which they were still sometimes mistakenly read or reported) and werealmost devoi~ of any kind ..of P.!:<;>~~Il1rI1a!~~co._~!~~t.The ~nly~yp~t.J:It:~~swhic~.c.()~~_

Justify ..the be1ie( thaf"prógrammatic cointypes were ..noticed. is un~erifiable and. improbable. Ii could be' argllerlihattheir"inter¿stwas' li~i'ted to·I~~'Pii.¡2~,~<itih~ü~appearance, and that they were not récord~dpreClserY--bCCause~~ __"thei~,~P.!t~I.11~!~lsfgnliicance. But, if this is -so, -lt--is'surp-ri-srng---ihatClCerO"sn~merous references toephemerafpolitical concerns of the late Republic do not inelude a reference to coin types.Cicero knew that Pompeius struck coinage at Apollonia in 49 BC, but he does not recordthe types of this or any other issue.62

In any case, by far the most_~.idely noticed feature of ancient coins was that element

••

express their disapproval ofCaligula wíthout going lo the lenglhs demanded by lhe decreeofthe senate contenled lhemselves wilh a chisel blow lo deface the emperor's image. TheirIlandiwork survives to be inspected.62 Caracalla had the coinage of Geta melted down.63

A political judgement is also implied in another slory of Epictelus. Aman was offereda coin of Nero and rejected il in favour of one of Trajan, despite the fact that the coinofNero was of greater intrinsic value.u There is a curious Jewish example of the sameattitude; because of the outrages committed by Hadrian against the Jews in and after••••D 132, some Talmudic texts held that the coins bearing his image should not be usedand even went so far as to reverse their normal rule, saying that they could be used whenso worn that the image could not be recognised.66

The evidence of coinages other than the Roman imperial confirms the view that theonly reaUyimportant element in the typology was that whichserved to identify th.eissuingaüihóniy:'ManyGréekéOíñswéié-ííamed~ ~fter Úie'cíty"whlchlssuéd ihem, KyziÍ<iñoi-and so'on. But one can go further: the norm for Greek coinages was for the type of thecoinage of a city to be the current badge of that city. When Sestos decided to resumebronze coinage in the second century BC, the twin reasons given are that the sema ofthe city (in this case a seated Demeter) may be current and that the city may derive profitfrom the coinage (fig. 19).66 A city's sema was known independently of her coinage; itwas often used in the fourth and third centuries BC to decora te an inscription relatingto the city or to one of its members.67 In the field of coinage, the p%i (colts) of Corinth

20 21

Corinth Aegina

••••23 24

Athens Arab imitation

(fig. 20), lhe ('he/onu; (lortoises) of Acgina (fig. 21) are familiar, and lhe K/uuke,~ (owls)of Athens (fig. 22) are the mosl familiar of all. The imporlance of the semu of Alhensis apparenl not only from the extent to which it was copied (figs. 23-24), but also fromthe comment of Xenophon that the coins of Athens were in demand everywhere and evencarried a premium outside Athens.68 Their preponderance in the Aegean at the turn ofthe fifth and fourth centuries is attested by a story of Plutarch. Gylippus was entrustedwith the money being sent back to Sparta by Lysander. The money was placed in bagsand sealed with a note inside each bag saying how much there was. But in the courseof the journey home Gylippus unpicked the stitching at the bottom of the bags, removedsome of the money and stitched the bags up again. The ephors were at a loss to accountfor the discrepancy until Gylippus' servant informed them that there were many owlsasleep under Gylippus' roof-tiles.66

Further evidence that the only real1yimportant thingabout a coin was whetherit issuedfr~m arespectable authorityorñOtñiaybe dra;;';-fr;;m'th-;;-habitórna~I~g~~i'ns';tte~-j)éopíé.'fhe Lyd'iáJ;-Kr~i;;¡;;¡-(fig:-i5) and Persían Dar;cs (fig. 26) belong to this class,as do the Carian Muusso/eiu (fig. 27) and the Macedonian Phi/ippeioi (fig. 28), the greatgold coinage which found its way into Hellenistic literature as the gold coinage purexce//ence and made its way from there through early Roman comedy into Augustanpoetry; coins were likewise named for Alexander and his successors. The whole of Sulla'scoinage in the east was named Lucu//ion (e.g. fig. 29), largely, I think, because Luculluswas remembered as the collector of the levies of money which went to provide the metalfor the coinage.70 Three oddities are coinages apparently named from women, thePhi/istideion, the Berenikeion and the Demareteion. The Phi/istideion is simply mentionedby Hesychius and is presumably the portrait issue struck by Hieron 11 (fig. 30). TheBerenikeion is mentioned only in passing by Pollux in the middle of a list and presumablyrefers to the coinage of Oerenice 11, consort of Ptolemy 111Euergetes and ruler ofCyrenaica in her own right, a coinage which bears her portrait and inscription (fig. 31).71The Demareteion is a curious and instructive case. By analogy with other coins namedafter people, it should be a common coin. Out it cannot now be identified with certainty.Diodorus, Pollux and Hesychius tell contradictory, etiological stories about its origin,which are patently invented. Again by analogy, it should either be named, like theLucu//ion, because Demarete provided the wherewithal to produce ¡t, or because it borewhat was believed to be her portrait.72 In my view it is the common fifth/fourth-centurytetradrachm of Syracuse, with the head of Arethusa mistaken for that of Demarete(fig. 32).

It seems, then, that there is little evidence for officia.1interest in coin types and evetlless evidence that. in-the-Greco~Romañ-'worTa"coin"-t'ype;- ;hich"m"ity"bt;"caIiedprogr;~~~tTc'it;d'~~~h'¡~p~~t:'~lth~~gh'OÚle'r'á~pects-ofcoi~';'á'~(f-¿ol~"tyPé~~;;;ñOtJCed.73 This'fucti;Probablyeven more significant than the fact that the situation ",ith,~e.spe:tt~ c()inty'pe~~i'!e.r~~~~~~~..'x..E~.?,~.t~~.~i~l.Jllti0':l\Vit~,!~s~tt~~~~~"r!i?~~~~nts.Out the facts require at least some attempt at explanation. Why did the inhabitants of!he Rom.a~-Eire ~!notic,:,the programmatic element in the eve-r-ehang1ngcoiñ'tYPes.~!-~_",~i(:~_,~~l:)'"\V.l:!l:..~QI11~ll!~~~I:-.--.----- ,,-~ -,-.- -....... ...- .

••••••

One. problem remains, to find anexplanation for the diversi%. imaginativeness andofteh grclIibéauty of Roman ~ríar~ªI~JX~j~The rul~the R~~-;n"'Empire wereon"nlé"wlloíe"Tiltelligeñlmeñ"and1 find it hard to believe that with so much else on theirhands they, or indeed their senior advisers, devotea·al1f:t_()-~aYl;\.t!~~"t!pI)J~tthe ..Q~~singand designin~~~~~.gL~~~_h a).'!!2!~_n.?:one"tookany notice.lile 'reaso~,1 think, is a combination ~racéide·ñtandhúman-nature. The accident isthat ~¡;~e:;h~.~~t"~~()l?~"~~.~~~I~~ig[~º¡!lªg~::;ª;g9:Yl;[ii~~""bii~.int~Ils~IX~2fu2itiiiveoligarcny. The Republican oligarchy entrusted the production of its coinage, as it was&;üñd to do, to añ'"anrÍüarryciiiiñgiñgiñagistracy; the rest follow~~ earlier thatthe norm for Greekooín types wasthe'bad~'of"the city and all that the Roman oligarchsdid with the coinageoft"¡:¡eíi'cíiy,"wh~hey'~b~~dóñed the public types with which ilbegan, was to place their own priva te badges oñíi.'Q'uesúoñsabout'tbe'reeeptión of thiscoinage by those who saw it probabíy-dfJ"not arise.

The victor in the civil wars eventually exclul,tedall but his own badges from the coinageand fromthís-poiiir()r'frorrtonevery'~ooñafier li theímperilli' coinllge was: 1iitil)k,largely carried on byan independent artistic tra~ition. The~ma~w~;~t~ch~f¡~íl)capablCoftherr¡ass~proauciIoñOf'c;;i~-di-~~:'bút titey'do not seem to have attemptedthis until very late, no doubt for the same reasons which inhibited technological advanctin other fields. Instead they employed artists, eng~ll.\'~rs,to cut the dies. It would nolbe surprising if this group experimentedan<f'¡nnovated, bringing their skill to bea.r ir"ií1e-creatíoñ"o{llrilsiIcaiíysatiSfyIngtypes;'whichrepréiíCnted their ideas of the momenlaboutthe-silite'a:n,(fiheñJf;r forwhóffi"they worked-:lñotller'words;"UlemOdeTí pr(;pos<'isaiargei:Y'ascendiñg one; ofcourS¡;;'iñ'cmperor may have issued a general directivtto ensure that his coinage represented his"t"j)ersonaifiy'¡añdlhe"mooelmay 'tfiUsTaf15tadesceñd,ñgone;"'í)üfUíe"patterñror"ifíe-most pártlS surelyoneofamintdoin~ it$ ~for its patrono The most conspICüous're;;:;íts 'üf"t'his 'effort a~e~fc~u¡'s~'thé'''greií-iñéifálliOñsof"the later Empire. The officials of the mint doubtless knew how to portra~an emperor without much prompting,just as a governor of Asia, Avidius Quietus, writinlto Aezani, knew very well how to portray Hadrian.7• One can easily understand th.obvious fact that the ct>inªg~"gL~t>meemperors reftectstheirreignsquite acc~rately~ith.'-l~t pos!ulli~~!l:~li.~.li~~i.~:~f!.~r.~!?~t>~!ªPH-\:)Ji~9P'.iº!9n,directed tromaboveamdoomed to failure. One can also easily understand that the coinage of some emperoronly reftects their reigns in a very odd way: thus the coinage OfV~spa-Sillñ~-at"fiis~"síg¡tinoovlit(;iy~;¡th it~'éño'ññOüS'rañge-o{changing types, in fact borrows almost every typfrom the Republic or earlier emperors.75 The mint is presumably following a generadirective to make the coinage as like earlier coinage as possible; the result is as faremoved from anything resembling propaganda as one can imagine.--;¡:r-c-----·-" ..,---- ..---··..''''"·•..···--''., ," -."."..'..- .

l''Iot tne least of an emperorls functlons was that of patron of the arts; conspicuouconsumption in this field was expected of him. But no-one has suggested, 1 think, thaal! emperors personally inspected and passed the designs for al! the buildings and statueerected on their behalf. There is no reason to suppose that they did this for the coina.geither.

••

29

••"

30 31 32

First of all, surely, because those whowere e~ucated enough systeIllll!i~!ly~9.!!!ª.~~sense of the reverse types of ti;'imnerial cóinage "hád muchbetter;ays of finding out

_ , ••.•• _>< •• _, __ ._. "~"".»"'" ••" ."_",,,.,_, ,_,0-"' ", .• ' '0'_ ...• ,r:,.."....."",.,.."....,,,...,',.."',<-,_.,."".',., .....•..,. " ...., ,•.••.•... _,_.••. ,..,." .•..." ." ..·.",.,.,.,.,'_M."·· .." ..~,·,., ..v.," ...,·.•..N.~,," •.•• , ,.~.'"" ..'.",_.,, __ ,.',,.,,>'._"',,~',.,

about thé-emperor and his activities. It is also relevant precisely that the types were-ever:.¿lúúlging:tfíevast mlljorityo(the inhabitants of the Roman EIIlpire:'if they sawcofñ~~aL~)l;}~"."I!~~I~s~~~~i"üi~ip~rtof~.rri.~~i"?n~~~S~~\I:~¡ng'a cc·niury-or"~o¡:e.ft1Snot surprising that it was the head of the emperor which was noticed: lloddoubilessalone symbolised for many people the fact that they belonged to the Roman Empire.Another factor must have been sheer size. A picture carried in a triumph is both morestrikingaño'casier to see than thetypc(')f a coíñañ'-mch-or'jess"across:'-'

Aufslieg und Niedergang der romischen Well: Principal (ed. H. Temporini, etc.),Berlin/New York '972-A. Degrassi, Inscripliones lalinae Iiberae rei publicae, Florence '957-63.H. A. Grueber, Coins of Ihe Roman Republic in Ihe Brilish Museum, London

'9'0.S. W. Grose, Calalogue of Ihe McClean Colleclion of Greek coins [in theFitzwilliam Museum], 3 vols., Cambridge '923-9.W. Dittenberger, Orienlis graeci inscripliones seleclae, Leipzig '903~5·Paulys Real-encyclopiidie der classischen AIIl'rtumswissenschafl (ed. G. Wissowa,etc.), Stuttgart. Munich 1894-The Roman imperial coinage (ed. H. Mattingly, etc.), London 1923-M. H. Crawford, Roman republican coinage, Cambridge '974 (published 1975)·Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum [GB], London 1931-

NOTES

The following additional abbreviations are employed:

ILLRPBMCRR

OGISRE

RICRRCSNG

I See, provisionally, F. G. B. Millar, Theemperor in Ihe Roman world, London '977,3-4·

2 The central expositions of the first view inrecent times have been by H. Mattingly, Theemperor and his clienls, Todd MemorialLeclure I1, Sydney 1948; and C. H. V.Sutherland, Coinage in Roman imperialpolicy, London '95' (compare the attemptto defend Ihe approach by the latter in thePresident's Annual Address, NC' XI '95',Proceedings, 6--20 at 13-19). An incisivecritique of this approach is that ofA. H. M. Jones, 'Numismatics and his-tory', Essays in Roman coinage presenled lOHarold Mallingly (ed. R. A. G. Carson,C. H. V. Sutherland), London 1956, '3-33at '5 (reprinted, with a brief bibliographicalmise-au-point by myself, in A. H. M. Jones.The Roman economy (ed. P. A. Brunt),Oxford 1974,62-81). Sutherland replied in'The inlelligibilily of Roman imperial cointypes', JRS J(.L1X'959, 46--55, whence thebrief exposition in The emperor and Ihecoinage, London 1976, 96--101; the ap-proach is essentially sterile, since it ignoresmuch of the available evidence.

3 See A. D. Momigliano, 'Ancient historyand the antiquarian' ,Journal oflhe Warburgand Courlauld Inslilules XIII1950,285-315at 287-288 (reprinted in A. D. Momigliano,ContribulO alla sloria degli sludi ciassici,

Storia e Letteratura XLVII,Rome 1955,67--106 at 100; SIudü's in hi.\'lOriography,London 1966, 1-39 at 4); see also R. Weiss,'The study of ancient numismatics duringthe Renaissance', Ne' VIII1968, '77-'87.

4 Thucydides i 8, 1; for attempts to relate theevidence of Thucydides to the archaeo-logical evidence see R. M. Cook, 'Thucy-dides as archaeologist', Annual of IheBrilish School al Alhens L '955, 266--270;C. R. Long, 'Greeks, Carians and thepurification of De1os', American JournalofArchaeology LXII1958, 297-306; J. Board·man, 'Sickles and strigils', JHS XCI '97',136--137;compare Plutarch, Solon 10,4-5,for an alleged allusion to burial habits bySolon and his opponents in the argumentover the Athenian c1aim to Salamis.

5 Thucydides i lO, 1-3; Cook, n. 4 above.6 Thucydides i '32, 2; compare [Demos-

thenes) lix 97.7 Thucydides vi 54, 6--55, 2, with A. W.

Gomme, K. J. Dover, A. Andrewes, A his-lorical commenlary on Thucydides IV,

Oxford '970, 317-337 at 330--334·8 Plutarch, Lycurgus I = Aristotle (ed.

V. Rose, Leipzig I886),frag. 533.9 Polybius iii 33, 18; 56,4; Livy xxi 38, 2.

10 Polybius xii 11,2.II Diodorus xvi 83.12 Cicero, ad Allicum xiii 32, 3; on the whole

episode see E. Badian, 'Cicero and the

commission of 146 BC', Hommages iJ M.Renard(ed. J. Bibauw), Collection LatomusCI, Brussels 1969, 54-65; E. Rawson,'Cicero the historian and Cicero theantiquarian', JRS LXII'972, 33-45 at 40.

13 Suetonius, Vespasian 1; compare Vespasian12 for the actual tombs of the Vespasii. Seein general A. Stein, Romische Inschriflen inder anliken Lileralur, Prague '93'; R.Chevallier, Epigraphie el [jlléralure iJ Rome,Faenza '972, ch. 2.

'4 A. E. Wardman, 'Description of personalappearance in Plutarch and Suetonius: theuse of statues as evidence', Cla.vsicalQuarlerly' XVII1967, 4'4-420, with earlierbibliography.

'5 Scriptores Historiae Augustae (hereafterSHA), Firmus 2, 1.

16 SHA. The Joprelenders 26.3; 31, 3; The twoGallieni 12, I for Odenathus; K. Menadierargues that the type alleged is that of thecoinage of the age of Julian (' Die Münzenund das Münzwesen bei den ScriptoresHistoriae Augustae', ZfN XXXI'9'4, 1-144at 55). For other numismatic figments oftheimagination of the author of the HisloriaAugusla see Alexander Severus 25, 9;Antoninus Diadumenianus 2, 6.

'7 M. Grant, Roman hislOryfrom coins, Cam-bridge 1958, 58.

18 F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechi.vchenHisloriker, Berlin 1923- , fr. '53-'54,compare Plutarch, Cimon '3, 4-5. Notealso H. Volkmann, 'Die Inschriften imGeschichtswerk des Herodot', Convivium,Beitriige zur Allertum,vwissenschafl. KonralZiegler dem Lehrer und Freunde... zum 70.Geburtslag, Stuttgart 1954,41-65·

'9 M. N. Tod, A seleclion of Greek historicalinscriplions 11,Oxford 1948,92-94, no. '30.

20 Polybius ii 2,8-1 I and 4, 1-2.21 Dio Iv 27, 4.22 Suetonius, Vespasian 8; compare Demos-

thenes xxii 69-78.23 Petronius, Salyricon 7', 12.24 Tacitus, Annals i 73, 2.25 Digesla lusliniani xlviii 4. 4, 1-6; see also

Suetonius, Tiberius 58; Philostratus, Apol/o-nius of Tyana i '5. It remains true, ofcourse, that people did not always carewhether a statue was really of the person

named on its base, Cicero, ud AI/icum viI. 17; A. E. Wardman (see n. '4 above);H. Blanck, Wiederverwendung alter SIaluenals Ehrendenkmiiler bei Griechen undRomern", Rome 1969,Studia ArchaeologicaXI. See also K. Scott, 'The significance ofstatues in precious metals in emperorworship', Transaclions and Proceedings ofthe American Philological Associalion LXII193', 101-123.

26 Anonymous, de rebus bellicis 3, 4; seeE. A. Thompson, A Roman reformer andinvenlor, Oxford '952, 36--37. Eusebius,Vi/a Conslanlini 4, '5, also assumes that theemperor chose coin types (see n. 44 below).

27 [Demosthenes] lix 94; on this text seeA. M. Snodgrass, Arms and armour of theGreeks, London 1967.94; on the fame oftheStoa Poikile see R. E. Wycherley, 'Thepainted stoa', P!wenix VII 1953, 2035;C. M. Roberlson, Greek arl, Cambridge'975,242.

28 W. Ehlers, 'Triumphus', RE VIlA,493-5"at 503.

29 Cicero, in Pisonem 60; Herodian iv 8, 1-2;V, 5, 7; Panegyrici la/ini 7 (6), 6.

30 Demosthenes iii 25.3' Plutarch, CalO Maior '9.32 Cicero, Philippics vi 12; compare vii 16.33 Cicero, pro Fomeio 4'; Pliny, Lel/ers vii 29;

compare viii 6.34 J. Friedlaender, 'Eingeritzte Inschriften auf

Münzen', ZfN III 1876, 44-46 (expanding'M ünzen mit eingeritzten Aufschriften',Berliner Bliil/er für Münz- Siegel- undWappen-kundev 1868, 146--147);G. F. HiII.A handbook of Greek and Roman coins,London 1899, '97; BMCRR 1, 30; ILLRP1, 88, no. "4 - d'Ailly Collection no. 921(Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris); ILLRP "127, no. '9'; C. w,cl on RRC 1,4'9-436,no. 408 (Staatliche Museen, Berlin);C. M. Kraay, Archaic and classical Greekcoins, London 1976, 16--17; C. T. Seltman,The lemple coins of Olympia, Cambridge1921, 10, no. 218 A (reprinted fromNomisma VIII '9'3, 23-65; IX '9

'4, 1-33;

XI '92', 1-39).35 P. R. V. Marsden, A ship of Ihe Roman

period from Blackfriars, London 1967.36 See Herodotus iv 166.2; 1Maccabees '5,6.

OGIS 1, 370, no. 119 at line 55 (in a treatybetween Smyrna and the ineolae of Mag-nesia, the legal tender of Smyrna is imposedin Magnesia).

37 Dio lii 30, 9, with my remarks in 'Finance,coinage and money from the Severans toConstantine', ANRW 11-1,560-593 at 561;Dio Ixiv 6, 1.

38 Tacitus, Histories ii 81; Herodian i 9,7; ii15,5·

39 Lucian, Alexander 58; in viewof Alexander'shostilily to the city of Amastris, it is ironicalthat dies for the coinage of Abonouteichos-lonopolis were probably always made inAmastris (U. Westermark, 'Amastris-Abo-noteichos', Numismatiea Stockholmiensia l'

1975/1976 (1978), 7-8 at 7).40 Dio xliv 4, 4·41 Dio xlvii 15, 3.41 Suetonius, Augustus 94; Manilius ii 497;

K. Kraft, 'Zum Capricorn aufden Münzendes Augustus', Jahrbuch für Numismatikund Geldgesehichte XVII1967. 17-17 at 17for this error (reprinted in GesammelteAufsiitze zur antiken Geldgesehichte undNumismatik 1 (ed. H. Castritius, D.Kienast), Darmstadt 1978.161-171).

43 Suetonius, Nero 15·44 Eusebius, Vita Constantini iv 73; veiled head

of Constantine on the obverse; Constantinegoing up to heaven in a chariot on thereverse. Compare iii 47 for the mother ofConstantine on gold coins; iv 15 forConstantine looking upwards on gold coins.I suspect that with the advent of theChristian Empire coin types were morenoticed, though l am not sure why.

45 Pliny, Natural History xxxiii 46.46 See the texts collected in Crawford, n. 37

above. 580 n. 80.47 J. R. Melville Jones, 'Greek coin names in

-phoros', Bu/le/in of the Instílute forClassical Studies XXI1974. 55-74.

48 Plutarch, Agesi/aus 15,6; Artaxerxes 10, 4;Moralia 111b.

49 Macrobius, Saturnalia i 7, 11; Festus, deverborum significatu at Navia; Origo gentisromanae iii 5.

50 RRC, 718, n. 1. Roman antiquarian specu-lation actually invented coin types: Plutarch,Quaestiones romanae 174e--f; Poblicola

1I - ox, sheep, and pig as lypeS, on thegrounds lhat these were lhe source of thewealth of early Rome.

51 Pliny, Natural History xxxiii 45·51 Cicero, ad familiares xiii 19, 4. Lucilius

178-181W suggests that the rich did notnormally handle coins but this does not ofcourse mean that Cicero would not havereported changes in coin types, if theirimpact had been politically important.

53 Luke 10, 14; Mark 11, 17; Matthew 11, 11.54 E. Lambert, 'Les changeurs et la monnaie

en Palestine du le' au lIle siecle de I'erevulgaire d'apres les textes talmudiques',Revue des Études Juives LI 1906,117-144 at143 n. 4; LII 1906, 14-41 at 19 n. 1. Theexposition of D. Sperber, Roman Palestine200-400, Ramat-Gan 1974,69, is less lucid.

55 Martial iv 18, 5.56 Arrian, Epictetus iii 3, 3·57 Codex Theodosianus ix 11.58 To show disrespect for the coinage of a

living emperor was of course lese majesté,see the texts cited in nn. 14-15.

59 Suetonius, Domitian 13; Plin~, Panegyricus51.

60 Lycurgus, in Leocratem 117; see H. Blanck,n. 15 above, 109-111, for other examples;Plutarch, Solon 11, 3.

61 Dio Ix 11, 3; Statius. Si/vae iv 9, 11. SeeW. Trillmich. Familienpropaganda derKaiser Caligula und Claudius, AntikeMünzen und Geschnittene Steine VIII,Berlin1978, 46 n. 99.

61 H. Chantraine, Novaesium 111: Die antikenFundmünzen der AUofgrabungenin Neuss,Limesforschungen VIII,Berlin 1968.11. Forthe countermarking and overstriking ofcoins of Elagabalus from Phoenicia andPalestine, see A. Kindler, 'The damna/iomemorial' of Elagabal on city coins of thenear Easl', Gazette Numismatique Sui.ue no.I 17 1980,3-7; on ancient erasures in generalsee M. Bernhart, 'Erasionen', [Festschrift]Heinrich Buchenau, Munich 1911, 1-8 (1owe this reference to T. R. Volk); K.Regling, ZjN 1911, 166 n. 5, at 169;P. Berghaus, Festschriji F. Dorner 1,Leiden1980, 158.

63 Dio Ixxvii 11,6. See K. A. Neugebauer, 'DieFamilie des Septimius Severus', Antike XII

1936, 155--171at 161; lig. 17, a coin wilhfacing portraits of Caracalla and Geta, lhelatter erased.

64 Arrian, Epictetus 5, 17. For conlemporarycancellalion of Nero's portrait, see lig. 18.

65 Lambert, n. 54 above, [L1]141-143.66 OGIS 1, no. 339; see the commentary of

L. Robert, 'Les monétaires et un décrethellénistiquedeSestos', RN'xv 1973,43-53.Note Periplus of the Red Sea 47 for thelegends of the coins of Apollodotus andMenander.

67 L. Lacroix, 'Les ••blasons" des villes grec-ques', Études d' Archéologie Classique 11955/1956(1958)(Annalesdef Est: Mémoireno. 19),91-115; T. Ritti, Sig/e ed emb/emisui decreti onorari greci, Atti della Acca-demia Nazionale dei Lincei: Memorie dellaClasse di Scienze Morali" XIV-V, Rome1969.

68 Xenophon, Poroi 3, 1.69 Plutarch, Lysander 16, 1.70 RRC, 80 n. 1; compare Martial xii 57, 7 for

Neronia massa.71 Pollux ix 85.71 Diodorus xi 16, 3; Pollux ix 86; Hesychius

s.v.l:i1/pa.péf€lOl'; for a dedication by Gelonand his brothers see [SimonidesJ (ed.E. Diehl, Anthologia Lyrica Graeca 11,

Leipzig 1915), no. 106.73 Contra, e.g. H. Gesche, 'Die Reiterstatuen

der Aemilier und Marcier', Jahrbuch fürNumismatik und Ge/dgeschichte XVII1968,25-42; M. Manson, 'La Pietas et le senti-ment de I'enfance il Rome d'apres lesmonnaies', RBNS CXXI 1975, 11-80;R. Fears, Princeps a diis electus: the divine

ele('/ion (!f the emperor as a political ('onL'eptat Rome, Papers and Monographs of lheAmerican Academy in Rome XXVI,Rome1977, 199-105; D. H. Euan-Smilh, 'Ob·verse portrait propaganda' , QuaderniTicinesi [d/lNumismatica e Antichíla Classi-che VI 1977. 157-169; W. Trillmich, n. 61above, 4-5. Contrast the caution, on generalgrounds, of D. Mannsperger, 'ROM ETAVG. Die Selbstdarstellung des Kaisertumsin der romischen Reichspriigung', A N R WII-i, 919-996, doubting whether the cointypes or legends of antiquity resembled anewspaper or a royal diary and pointing lothe likely roles of tradition, climate ofopinion and initiative in the adoption of acoin type. .

74 OGIS 1,no. 501; see R. Fears, n. 73 above,179, for a clear use of rather striking - andappropriate - types being chosen withoUIintervention by the emperor.

75 T. V. Buttrey, 'Vespasian as moneyer', Ne'XII 1971, 89-1°9; the suggestion lhatVespasian had been moneyer under Tiberiusand so acquired a numismatist's love ofdiverse coin lypes is, as Buttrey admils,fanciful. Note that G. G. Belloni, 'Moneteromane e propaganda. Impostazione di unaproblematica complessa', Contributi delIstituto di Storia Antica [della UniversitACattolicadel Sacro Cuore) IV1976, 131-159,and 'Significati storico-politici delle figura-zioni e delle scritte delle monete da Augustoa Traiano " A N R W II-i, 997-1 144,sees cointypes as for record purposes, not forpersuasion.

KEY TO ILLUSTRATIONS

(AII Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge)

Text figuresI Metapontum, obv. didrachm (FM: McClean Collection, no. 914).1 P. Sepullius Macer for Julius Caesar, denarius as RRC, 489, no. 48o/5b (FM: Museum of

Classical Archaeology, Gow Collection).3 L. Plaetorius Cestianus for Brutus, denarius as RRC, 518, no. 508/3 (FM: Hart gift).4 Augustus, denarius as BMCRE 1, 56, no. 305 (FM: general collection).5 Nero, dupondius as BMCRE 1,149, no. 156 (FM: Young gift).

6 Constantine n, etc., for Divus Constantinus, nummus as RIC VJII,539, no. 12 (FM: generalcollection).

7 Roman Republic, didrachm as RRC, 145, no. 30/1 (FM: general collection).8 Roman Republic, denarius as RRC, 251, no. 206/1 (FM: Young gift).9 Roman Republic, vic/oria/us as RRC, 192, no. 102/1 (FM: McClean gift).

10 Third tetrarchy: Galerius Maximian, nummus as RIC VI, 208, no. 676a (FM: Grierson gift).11 Ephesus, cistophoric te/radrachm (FM: SNG lv-vi, pl. Ixxxv, no. 4434).12 Athens, New Style /e/radrachm (FM: SNG Iv-iv, pl. lix, no. 3206).13 Patara (Lycia), drachm (FM: SNG lv-vii, pl ci. no. 5045).14 Persia, 5th-4th centuries BC,gold daric as Kraay, Archaic and c/assica/ Greek coins, pl. iv, no.

82 (FM: Leake Collection).15 Roman Republic. as as RRC, 158, no. 56/2 (FM: general collection).16 Roman Republic, quadrans as RRC, 159, no. 56/5 (FM: general collection).17 Stratonicea (Caria) for Caracalla and Geta, bronze issue (FM: SNG lv-vi, no. 4732); for an

undefaced specimen of this issue, see SNG Copenhagen XXVI,pl. xii, no. 510.18 Nero, dupondius, type of D. W. MacDowell, The wes/ern coinages 01 Nero, Numismatic Notes

and Monographs CLXI,New York 1979, 172, no. 193 (FM: general collection).19 Sestos, bronze issue (FM: McClean Collection, no. 4173).20 Corinth, s/a/er (FM: McClean Collection, no. 5312).2t Aegina, s/a/er (FM: McClean Collection, no. 6042).22 Athens, tetradrachm (FM: SNG Iv-iv, pl. Ivi, no. 3063).23 Athens, triobo/ (FM: SNG Iv-iv, pl. Ivi, no. 3109).24 Gaza (Palestine), drachm (FM: McClean Collection, no. 9547).25 Croesus, gold stater (FM: McClean Collection, no. 8635).26 Persia, 5th-4th centuries BC,gold daric (FM: Tremlett bequest).27 Maussolus, tetradrachm (FM: McClean Collection, no. 8519).28 Philip n, gold stater (FM: SNG Iv-iii, pl. xxxvi, no. 2026).29 Roman provincial administration, New Style tetradrachm of Athenian type (FM: SNG Iv-iv.

pl. lix, no. 3231).30 Syracuse, sixteen /itrae (FM: McClean Collection, no. 2912).31 Cyrene, didrachm (FM: McClean Collection, no. 9966, as of Berenice 1).32 Syracuse, /e/radrachm (FM: SNG Iv-H, pl. xxii, no. 1245).

5Coín hoards and Roman coínage of the thírd

century AD

In his IiUle book Numisma/ics,l in the chapter devoted to coin finds and hoards, PhilipGrierson wrote that •hoards are for the most part less obviously interesting than coinsin collections, since they often consist of hundreds of virtually identical objects ... but,quite apart from being the ultimate so urce of all the coins that one sees in collections,coin finds are the numismatist's most valuable single guide to c1assification and dating'.This statement is of general application to all series of coins, and to all periods withinany given series, but there are some series and periods for which the evidence of coinhoards is more valuable than for others, and for the Roman coinage ofthe third centuryAD the evidence of coin hoards is, for a variety of reasons, particularly valuable, andthe techniques by which this evidence can be exploited merit consideration.

The ultimate object in the study of any series of coins is to create, from a mass ofmaterial, as fully detailed a chronological picture of the coinage as possible, so thatevidence of the coinage can make its contribution to the history of the periodo In sucha re-creation one of the prime sources, that of contemporary historians, is conspicuouslylacking in the third century, in contrast with both the earlier and later centuries of theEmpire. The contemporary sources fail in the early part of the century, Dio Cassius inthe reign of Severus Alexander (222-35), and Herodian only a few years later in 238, andrecourse must be had to the testimony found in the epitomists or in the juridical sources,or else in documents such as papyri and inscriptions. In the third century, also, theamount of coinage which carries a reasonably overt indication of date of issue issignificantly smaller than hitherto, andit becomes much less common for offices suchas the consulship, whose dates are known, or the annual recording of the tribunicianpower, to appear in the imperial titulature on coins in anything like the fashion of coinagein the first and second centuries.

The methods so far advocated for calculating the total output of coinage at any givenperiod are neither convenient nor, seemingly, reliable, for it remains true that the coinsavailable for study are only a sample of those that have been found, while coins thathave been found form only a sample of those that have been lost, and these in turo are