the flavian colosseum sestertii currency or largess?

THE FLAVIAN COLOSSEUM SESTERTII: CURRENCY OR LARGESS? 211

The Flavian Colosseum Sestertii: Currency or Largess?1

NATHAN T. ELKINS

PLATES 31-32

SOME of the best known Roman coin issues are the Flavian Colosseum sestertii, struck under Titus (AD 80-81) and again under Domitian for Divus Titus (c. AD 81/82). Despite their appearance in virtually every textbook dealing with Roman coinage and topics such as amphitheatres, gladiators, and spectacles, these very rare and unusual coins have not hitherto been subjected to a formal die study or full iconographic analysis, both of which are attempted below.2 I shall argue that the Colosseum sestertii, though technically coins, were distributed by Imperial munifi cence at the games held in the Colosseum, and had a commemorative function similar to that of Roman medallions.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT Following the death of Nero in AD 68 and the ensuing chaos, Vespasian emerged as Rome’s

new emperor in AD 69. After leaving his son, Titus, in Judaea to quell the Jewish rebellion, Vespasian came to Rome in late AD 70 and began restoring the city, ravaged by the civil war, and also set about dismantling the Golden House of Nero.3 His most notable restoration

1 The need for a die-study and for closer scrutiny of this series of coins became apparent during my study of these sestertii as evidence for the location of the imperial box: N.T. Elkins, ‘Locating the Imperial Box in the Flavian Amphitheatre: the Numismatic Evidence’, NC 164 (2004), pp. 147-57. At that time Ian Carradice provided me with a short list of Flavian Colosseum sestertii and their die-links, which I have incorporated into the present study. I am grateful to Prof. Ted Buttrey, Prof. Ian Carradice, and Curtis Clay for their correspondence and lengthy discussion of the issues this study presented. Richard Ashton and Ted Buttrey also provided many helpful comments and insights during the editorial process. During my study at the American Numismatic Society in 2004, Dr. Michel Amandry and I discussed this project while it was in its infancy and he provided me with many of the methodological tools which it needed, as well as casts of relevant specimens from the collection of the BNF. Rick Witschonke and Peter van Alfen also provided helpful comments during the latter stages of this project. I have noted the assistance of others throughout this article. I am grateful to the following institutions which provided for no fee photographs of coins in their respective collections for my study: the ANS, the BM, the Hunter Coin Cabinet, the Ashmolean Museum, the Manchester Museum, the staatlichen Kunstsammlung - Dresden, the BNF (casts), the historisches Museum – Bern, the Hungarian National Museum – Budapest, the Smithsonian, the Stiftung Schloss Friedenstein Gotha Schlossmuseum – Gotha, and the Museo Archeologico – Bologna. Finally, but certainly not least, I would like to acknowledge the generosity of the Royal Numismatic Society for assisting me with the cost of photographs from other institutions. In addition to the NC’s standard abbreviations, the following are used: BNC = J.-B. Giard, Monnaies de l’empire romain III, du soulèvement de 68 après J.-C. à Nerva (Paris, 1998); Gnecchi = F. Gnecchi, I medaglioni romani. vol. 2 (Milan, 1912); Grueber = H.A. Grueber, Catalogue of Roman Medallions in the British Museum (London, 1874); HCC = A.S. Robertson, Roman Imperial Coins in the Hunter Coin Cabinet, vol. 1., Augustus to Nerva (London, Glasgow and New York, 1962); Schmidt-Dick = F. Schmidt-Dick, Die römischen Münzen des Medagliere im Castelvecchio zu Verona (Vienna, 1995).

2 R. Rea, ‘Le antiche raffi gurazioni dell’Anfi teatro’, in Anfi teatro fl avio: immagine, testimonianze, spettacoli (Rome, 1988), pp. 23-46, examined the depictions of the Colosseum on Roman coins and medallions in discussing the architecture of the Colosseum.

3 One of the best treatments of the Flavian building programme and the Flavian transformation of the city is R.H. Darwall-Smith, Emperors and Architecture: A Study of Flavian Rome (Latomus Collection, vol. 231; Brussels, 1996).

NATHAN T. ELKINS212

project included that of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus on the Capitoline Hill (Suet., Div. Vesp. 8.5). Some of his new projects included the Temple of Peace (also often referred to as the Forum of Peace) and the unfi nished Temple of the Deifi ed Claudius, but his most celebrated construction was the Amphitheatrum Flavium, known today as the Colosseum.4 The inscription on an architrave block that presumably adorned the entrance facing the Ludus Magnus records that the Colosseum was fi nanced by the spoils and revenue Rome received at the conclusion of the Jewish War in AD 70.5 Vespasian died before the amphitheatre was fi nished, and his son, Titus, who succeeded him as emperor in AD 79, dedicated it in AD 80.6 Many scholars have debated whether or not construction of the Colosseum was complete by the time of Titus’ dedication in AD 80, largely because the Chronographer of AD 354 states that Vespasian dedicated the amphitheatre, Titus added to it, and Domitian fi nished it ad clypea.7 The sestertii struck by Titus and Domitian in AD 80 and AD 81 show the Colosseum completed to its uppermost levels, including the round shields (clypea) adorning the attic level, but this does not prove that the Colosseum was fully complete by this date. Indeed, it was common Roman practice to put images of buildings on coins well before construction was fi nished or even begun; examples include the denarii of 44 BC bearing an image of the Aedes Clementia Caesaris, which was vowed but never built, and the coins of Augustus showing the Temple of Mars Ultor in several different forms many years before it was dedicated in the Forum of Augustus.8 How much of the Colosseum was completed by the time of Titus’ dedication is of little relevance to the present article: enough of it was ready to justify its dedication and to enable it to host the inaugural games. The latter were on a lavish scale. Suetonius reports that Titus provided very expensive gladiatorial shows, a naval fi ght (naumachia), and 5,000 exotic wild animals in a single day (Suet. Div. Tit. 7.3). Cassius Dio asserts that Titus did little of note during his reign except for the spectacles he provided lasting 100 days at the dedication of the Colosseum, in which 9,000 animals were killed, gladiators fought, and mock infantry and naval battles were staged (Dio, 66.25).9

4 The term ‘Colosseum’ seems to have been applied to the structure in medieval times, deriving from the colossal statue of Nero which stood in the atrium of the Golden House. After Vespasian became emperor the features of the statue were changed from those of Nero to Sol and it stood next to the amphitheatre, which was built on the area of Nero’s lake. During the Roman period it would have been known simply as the Amphitheatrum Flavium or more simply Amphitheatrum. For the etymology see S.B. Platner and T. Ashby, A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Oxford, 2002 repr. of 1926 edition), pp. 6, 131f.; L. Richardson, Jr., A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Baltimore and London, 1992), pp. 7, 94. Bill Thayer, however, has suggested on the internet via the Lacus Curtius Project that the name derives not from the colossal statue but from the region in which it was located, the Augustan Regio III, Isis et Serapis. He suggests the amphitheatre could have been referred to as amphitheatrum ad Collem Isaeum, which may have elided in spoken Latin to ‘Colosseum’.

5 CIL 6.40454a; see also G. Alföldy, ‘Eine Bauinschrift aus dem Colosseum’, ZPE 109 (1995), pp. 195-226. The inscription reads I[MP] T CAES VESPASI[ANVS AVG] / AMPHITHEATRV[M NOVVM] / [EX] MANVBIS [FIERI IVSSIT]. The inscription was originally cut during Vespasian’s reign since it is evident from the crowding of holes at the upper left portion of the block that the initial T of Titus’ name was inserted at a later date.

6 Cassius Dio 66.26.1 states that it was in the year preceding Titus’ death in AD 81 that the amphitheatre was dedicated. An inscription from the Acta Fratrum Arvalium (CIL 6.1.2059) discusses seating arrangements for the Colosseum and is dated to AD 80 by the consular year.

7 For example see G. Cozzo, The Colosseum (Rome, 1971), pp. 79-86; A. von Gerkan, ‘Die Obergeschoss des fl avischen Amphitheatres’, Röm. Mitt. 40 (1925), pp. 11-50; Rea, ‘Le antiche raffi gurazioni’, pp. 30ff; Darwall-Smith, Emperors and Architecture, pp. 78f.

8 Crawford, RRC 480; RIC I (Augustus) 28, 39a-b, 68-74, 103-107, 507; for the Augustan coins showing the Temple of Mars Ultor see also J.W. Rich, ‘Augustus’ Parthian Honours, the Temple of Mars Ultor and the Arch in the Forum Romanum’, PBSR 66 (1998), pp. 71-128.

9 It is usually asserted that Titus’ inaugural games were the subject of Martial’s Liber de Spectaculis, but T.V. Buttrey, ‘Domitian, the rhinoceros and the date of Martial’s Liber de Spectaculis’ (JRS 2006, forthcoming), argues cogently that Martial describes games held by Domitian in the period AD 83-85. I am grateful to Prof. Buttrey for sending me a pre-publication draft.


The Colosseum was more than Rome’s fi rst permanent amphitheatre: it was a symbol of Flavian munifi cence. In addition to providing a large entertainment venue, it represented the Flavian policy of restoring to the people the whole area which had been confi scated by Nero after the fi re of AD 64 to build his Golden House. The historical sources mention the Flavian Amphitheatre in conjunction with other Flavian building projects in the Colosseum valley. Both Cassius Dio and Suetonius record that the Flavian Amphitheatre was dedicated in conjunction with the Baths of Titus (Dio 66.25.1; Suet. Div. Tit. 7.3). Martial eloquently writes:

‘Where the starry Colossus sees the constellations at close range and lofty scaffolding rises in the middle of the road, once gleamed the odious halls of a cruelmonarch, and in all of Rome there stood a singlehouse. Where rises before our eyes the august pileof the Amphitheatre, was once Nero’s lake. Wherewe admire the warm baths, a speedy gift, a haughty tract of land had robbed the poor of theirdwellings. Where the Claudian colonnade unfolds its wide-spread shade, was the outermost part of thepalace’s end. Rome has been restored to herself, and under your rule, Caesar, the pleasances that belonged to a master now belong to the people.’ (Liber de Spectaculis 2).10

Here Martial describes not only the Colosseum, but the whole of the Flavian building programme in the area, including the Baths of Titus and the Temple of the Deifi ed Claudius; he also contrasts Nero’s confi scation of this land for his own private use with Flavian benefi cence in returning it to public use.

The Romans thus did not view the Colosseum in isolation, but as part of a wider building programme meant to restore this area of Rome to public use. It is no surprise that the majority of the dies that produced the Colosseum sestertii depict the Meta Sudans and the porticus of the Baths of Titus11 next to the amphitheatre (both Flavian constructions) – these coins do not simply celebrate the dedication of the Colosseum; they celebrate the ideology and policy of the Flavian régime.12

NUMISMATIC CONTEXT: OTHER COIN TYPES FROM AD 80 AND AD 81The silver and gold coins of AD 80 have been described as pulvinaria types since they depict

attributes of the gods on couches or thrones.13 It has in the past been argued that this was an appeal to the mercy of the gods following the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius and the fi re in Rome,14 but it is more likely that, since the Colosseum was dedicated in that year and since negative events were not celebrated on Roman coinage, these coins celebrated the inauguration of the Colosseum by honouring the gods.15 The Circus Maximus had a viewing platform for statues

10 The translation is from the 2002 Loeb edition (Shackleton Bailey).11 Many catalogues and older publications refer to the porticus as a part of Nero’s Domus Aurea, but this must be

incorrect since it was Flavian policy to differentiate themselves from Nero’s rule. M.J. Price and B. Trell, Coins and their Cities (London, 1977), p. 61, fi rst argued that the porticus represented the Baths of Titus, and Rea, ‘Le antiche raffi gurazioni’, p. 34, expanded on the argument.

12 See also Rea, ‘Le antiche raffi gurazioni’, p. 34.13 RIC II (Titus) 23-2714 RIC II, p. 124; BMC, pp. lxxii-lxxiii.15 For this new interpretation see B. Damsky, ‘The Throne and Curule Chair Types of Titus and Domitian’, SNR

74 (1995), pp. 59-70.

NATHAN T. ELKINS214

of the gods, the pulvinar (e.g. Suet. Div. Aug. 45.1), and statues and honorary curule chairs were often set up in Rome’s theatres (Tac. Ann. 2.83; Dio 53.30.6; 57.21.3; Seneca, Marc. 224); it is quite probable that Rome’s greatest venue for hunts and gladiatorial combats, the Colosseum, also had a pulvinar.16 Furthermore, Titus also struck aurei and denarii in AD 80 bearing the image of an elephant,17 which, like the Colosseum sestertii, are probably to be associated with his lavish inaugural games. They and the pulvinaria types can plausibly be viewed as part of a clear and consistent theme for Titus’ coinage of AD 80. It is not surprising that numismatic commemoration of the amphitheatre and its inaugural games would take the form of religious motifs connected with the games, since the Romans did not refer to public spectacles by depicting combatants until much later;18 the Ludi Saeculares were celebrated on the bronze coins of Domitian which show the emperor before a temple.19 Domitian’s Ludi Saeculares types show the emperor participating in religious ceremonies but also distributing largess to the people. In a similar manner, most variants of the Colosseum sestertii depict a D-shaped box in which a single spectator sits; this must represent the imperial box and highlights the direct participation of the emperor and his provision of the games.

The last years of Titus’ reign also produced the extensive issue of restoration types, on which many of Rome’s emperors and leaders were commemorated, though Caligula and Nero, who were subject to damnatio memoriae, are absent.20 I have suggested elsewhere that the divi may have been honoured with a place on the pulvinar in the Colosseum and that the restoration types, like the pulvinaria types, also refer to the inaugural games.21 In addition, the restoration types refl ect Rome’s Julio-Claudian past and associate the Flavian emperors with important fi gures from that régime. AD 80 is also the year in which Vespasian’s deifi cation took place, and it has been argued that the fi rst games held in the Colosseum honoured the deifi ed Vespasian and that his deifi cation may have been delayed so that his consecration could be marked by games in his amphitheatre;22 indeed, this is the year in which the fi rst coins for the deifi ed emperor appear and can be viewed in the light of the restoration types also produced under Titus.

In addition to his characteristic Minerva issues, Domitian’s precious metal currency from AD 81 and his fi rst issue of AD 82 include pulvinaria types like those struck under Titus.23 Contemporary bronze, gold, and silver coins honour the deifi ed Titus, and another series of

16 See Elkins, ‘Locating the Imperial Box’, pp. 155-7, for the suggestion that a pulvinar was physically present in the Colosseum.

17 RIC II (Titus) 22a-b.18 They include the stadium aureus of Septimius Severus (BMCRE, Sept. Sev. and Car. 319), and the Colosseum

coinage of Severus Alexander (BMCRE, Sev. Alex. 165, 157); medallions of Gordian III showing elements of the Circus Maximus (Grueber 5) and one that shows the Colosseum (Gnecchi 22) also depict combats, as does a medallion of Philip I, which shows a race around the barrier of the Circus (H. Dressel, Die römischen Medaillone des Münzkabinetts der Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (Zurich, 1973), no. 135).

19 RIC II, (Domitian) 375-383, 385-38720 RIC II, (Titus), 184-249.21 Elkins, ‘Locating the Imperial Box’, p. 157.22 Damsky, ‘The Throne and Curule Chair Types’, pp. 79-80. For more on the debate regarding Vespasian’s

deifi cation see T.V. Buttrey, ‘Vespasian’s Consecratio and the Numismatic Evidence’, Historia 25 (1976), pp. 449-57, and K. Scott, The Imperial Cult under the Flavians (Stuttgart and Berlin, 1936), pp. 40ff. I am grateful to Prof. Buttrey and Curtis Clay for sharing with me their views on the consecration date of Vespasian. I am inclined to accept that it occurred in AD 80. The primary objection to the delay in consecration which this implies is the speed with which Augustus and Claudius were deifi ed, but these events occurred decades before Vespasian’s death. Indeed, Titus’ deifi cation may also have been delayed for a time (though not as long as Vespasian’s) since another of the Arval Acts from AD 81 (CIL 6.1.2060) includes the imperial titulature for both Titus and Domitian, but Titus, by then dead, is not recorded as a divus. Perhaps Titus’ deifi cation too was delayed for a short time to allow his brother to provide the games in the amphitheatre to celebrate the consecration.

23 RIC II (Domitian) 1-31.


restoration coins dates to AD 82.24 The pattern of Domitian’s coinage of AD 81 and early AD 82 thus follows that of the coinage of Titus in AD 80/81: both include pulvinaria types honouring the gods, coins commemorating the deceased predecessor, restoration types exalting the divi and linking the Flavian emperors to the Julio-Claudians, and Colosseum sestertii, which under Domitian mark not only the construction of the amphitheatre but also Titus’ status as a divus.

The Colosseum sestertii thus appear as part of a wider coinage programme promoting the notion of Flavian liberalitas in restoring Rome to the people by showing the three Flavian monuments that were built on the area of Nero’s Golden House. In addition to these three buildings, there may also be a subtle reference to Flavian construction of the Temple of the Deifi ed Claudius, since it has been demonstrated that the view of the Colosseum on most of the coins can be achieved only from the Caelian Hill, where that temple was located.25 The reverses of the Colosseum sestertii contain an even bolder reference to the Deifi ed Claudius since the prototype for the design occurs on sestertii of Claudius showing him triumphantly seated and surrounded by the spoils of war.26 The reverse of Titus’ sestertii depicts the emperor as a triumphant ruler surrounded by the spoils of war, with which the construction of the Colosseum was funded.

THE DIE STUDYIn the past, there has been confusion over which side of the Colosseum sestertii was

the obverse and which the reverse, since, most unusually for Roman imperial coins, neither side bears a bust of the emperor. Instead, on one side of this coin is the Colosseum (fl anked by the Meta Sudans and the porticus, or in isolation fl anked by SC) and on the other is the emperor Titus, shown in a three-quarter view, seated on a curule chair surrounded by arms, the spoils of war. Preferring to have an image of the emperor as the obverse, the RIC, British Museum, and Bibliothèque Nationale de France catalogues place the seated emperor there. However, on all specimens which I have personally examined (they include examples from every variant) the Colosseum side is always slightly convex, indicating that this was the anvil or obverse die, and that the seated Titus was on the reverse.27 This is confi rmed by the fact that the seated Titus dies signifi cantly outnumber the Colosseum dies (8 as against 5); moreover, the inscription S(enatus) C(onsulto), which normally appears on the reverse rather than the obverse of Roman coins, is found on the seated Titus side of all the Colosseum coins, apart from a variant showing the Colosseum on its own, where the structures on either side are replaced by S – C.

Both obverse and reverse designs of these coins are rather broad and complex and take up considerable space on the fl an, with the result that weaknesses of strike appear on virtually every authentic example, particularly towards the edges.

The following catalogue and die-study embraces 42 authentic specimens divided into four variants.28 Asterisked coins, representing all die-combinations, are illustrated on Plates 31-32.

24 RIC II (Domitian) 216, a, 437-38, 453-464.25 Elkins, ‘Locating the Imperial Box’, p. 153. The coins with this view are those of Type C in the catalogue

below.26 RIC I (Claudius) 93, 109.27 I am grateful to the ANS for allowing me to examine the specimens in their collection; to Steve McBride for

sending to me no. 4 of my catalogue, which he owns; and to Dott.ssa Paola Giovetti of the Museo Archeologico in Bologna for confi rming that the Colosseum side of their specimen is slightly convex.

28 See the Appendix for a list of forgeries of these types.

NATHAN T. ELKINS216

Type AObverse: The Flavian Amphitheatre, S to l., C to r.; interior dotted with spectators, three staircases; no ‘imperial box’.Reverse: Titus, holding branch, seated to l. amid pile of arms. IMP T CAES VESP AVG P M TR P P P COS VIII. Dies Wt (g.) Axis (h.)1. A1/P1 *a. 25.22 7 Bologna, Museo Archeologico 27687 b. Leu/MMAG 2/11/1967 (Niggeler III), 1173 = Santamaria 14/10/1949 (Magnaguti II), 603. Reverse legend tooled to read …VESPAS… instead of ...VESP AVG… c. Ljubljana 392 d. 22.30 6 Numismatica Ars Classica 29 (11/5/2005), 5172. A1/P2 *a. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest

Type BObverse: The Flavian Amphitheatre, Meta Sudans to r., porticus of the Baths of Titus to l.; interior dotted with spectators, ‘imperial box’ fl anked by two staircases.Reverse: Titus, holding branch, seated to l. amid pile of arms. IMP T CAES VESP AVG P M TR P P P COS VIII, SC in fi eld.3. A2/P3 *a. 23.05 7 ANS 1944.100.41800 b. Glendining 2/4/1952, 2392 = Münzhandlung Basel 3 (1935), 2724. A2/P4 *a. 25.44 Lanz Munich 22/11/1999, 354 = Sotheby’s 4/12/1990, 74 = Leu 29/5/1974, 1135. A3/P5 *a. Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vatican City

Type CObverse: As last, but Meta Sudans to l., porticus of the Baths of Titus to r.Reverse: As last.6. A4/P6 *a. 23.36 6 BMCRE (Titus) 190 b. 24.91 6 BMCRE (Titus) 191. Reverse extensively tooled, creating a very crude and fl at-looking fi gure, but there is no doubt that the original die was P6.29 c. 21.82 5 Hunter Coin Cabinet, Glasgow; HCC (Titus) 49 d. 23.37 6 Ashmolean Museum, Oxford (Christ Church) e. 19.44 6 Ashmolean Museum, Oxford (Keble College) f. 23.10 6 Manchester Museum, Raby Coll. g. 20.67 6 Staatlichen Kunstsammlung, Dresden, Münzkabinett 955 h. Santamaria 7/3/1910, 1215 i. 24.20 NFA 1975, 325 j. 22.95 Mazzini Coll.; G. Mazzini, Monete imperiali romane (Milan, 1957-1958) 400 k. 19.89 6 Museo Castelvecchio, Verona; Schmidt-Dick 50987. A5/P6 *a. 27.97 6 BNF, Paris; BNC (Titus) 189 b. 21.15 6 BNF, Paris; BNC (Titus) 190 c. 24.02 6 Ashmolean Museum, Oxford (Keble College) d. Kestner Museum, Hannover

29 I am grateful to Richard Abdy for providing an image and for discussion of the tooling.


e. Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vatican City f. 21.83 Lawrence University, Ottilia Buerger Coll. 93.023 g. MMAG Basel 8-10/12/1949, 913 h. 24.98 MMAG Basel 93 (16/12/2003), 128 = J. Hirsch VIII (27/5/ 1907), 702 = Rollin & Feuardent, Paris, 4/5/1888 (de Quelen), 960 i. 26.84 6 Leu 2/4/1958, 304 j. 25.59 Freeman & Sear FPL 11 (Spring/Summer 2006), 107 k. Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vatican City. Obv. die-link uncertain

Type DObverse: As last. Reverse: Divus Titus, holding branch, seated to l. amid pile of arms. DIVO AVG T DIVI VESP F VESPASIAN SC.8. A5/P7 *a. 24.05 6 Hunter Coin Cabinet, Glasgow; HCC (Div. Tit.) 1 b. Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, MK 7.044 c. Glendining 11/1937, 205 = Naville 6 (1928), 1201 d. R. Ratto 9/10/1934, 4519. A5/P8 a. 23.80 6 BNF, Paris; BNC (Domitien), 543 b. 19.45 6 BNF, Paris; BNC (Faux) 44 (incorrectly condemned) *c. 24.48 6 ANS 1954.203.170 d. 22.50 Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massimo, Rome e. 26.79 6 Nationalmuseet, Copenhagen, GP 3147 f. 27.56 6 Gorny & Mosch 151 (2006), 417

Unattributable due to wear Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vatican City

Figure 1. Die-tree for the Flavian Colosseum Sestertii. A5 is used by Titus and Domitian, P7 and P8 by Domitian for Divus Titus.

Although only fi ve authentic obverse dies have been identifi ed, a very small number for normal issues of bronze coinage, there is a high degree of variation among them. Type A’s

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

NATHAN T. ELKINS218

obverse die depicts only the Colosseum fl anked by the letters SC.30 It is curious that SC here occurs on the obverse since this formula almost always appears on reverses. Type B depicts the Colosseum as before, but the letters SC are replaced by the porticus to the left and the Meta Sudans to the right. Type C presents the alternative arrangement with the Meta Sudans to the left and the porticus to the right. Type D is identical to type C (and indeed they share obverse die A5), but is regarded as a separate type since the reverse dies now indicate Titus as divus. There are no die links between obverse dies except between dies 4 and 5 via reverse die 6. See Figure 1.

Since the Colosseum sestertii of Titus give only a consular date and no date for the tribunician power, they cannot with certainty be dated more precisely than AD 80/81. A date in AD 80 would be attractive, since that was the year in which the Colosseum was dedicated. However, there is reason to suggest that they were struck under Titus in both AD 80 and 81. The striking of Titus’ precious metal coinage, which can be dated more precisely since the tribunician date is provided, ceased sometime before 1 July 80, and it has been suggested that the mint, which was housed on the Capitoline Hill, was disrupted by the fi re in AD 80, which is known to have affected the hill.31 I suggest that Colosseum sestertii were initially produced in the fi rst half of AD 80, and that production of these coins over a two year period would explain the great variety in a series of only fi ve obverse dies: Type A may have been produced fi rst before the fi re; Types B and C, struck under Titus, could have been produced after the fi re when minting activity resumed and new dies were made. Production over two years would also better suit the obverse die link between Titus and Domitian, for it is perhaps less likely that a die would remain unused in the mint for over a year before being brought back into use during Domitian’s principate. It seems more likely that the coins were in production at the time of Titus’ death in AD 81; since the obverse had no reference to the ruler, only the reverse dies needed to be changed to acknowledge Titus as a divus. If, on the other hand, all Titus’ Colosseum sestertii were struck before July AD 80, a possibility which cannot be excluded, one die being reused a year later by Domitian, the great variety which they display may be the result of several die-cutters working simultaneously.

CURRENCY OR LARGESSThe issue of Colosseum sestertii differs from most other Roman bronze issues not only

in its remarkably small size and the absence of an imperial portrait on the obverse (even the imperial depiction on the reverse is unusual in showing a seated fi gure rather than a bust), but they also represent the fi rst occasion when an amphitheatre, or indeed any other entertainment venue, appeared on a Roman coin. Moreover, certain features differentiate it from other architectural coin types. Instead of the typical two-dimensional façade that characterizes Roman imperial architectural coin types of this period (the harbour sestertii of Nero are an exception), the Colosseum is depicted in a three-quarter aerial view, which allows the façade and the interior of the amphitheatre to be shown. Also, monuments on other Roman imperial coins of this period are generally shown in isolation, but on the majority of the Flavian Colosseum sestertii the amphitheatre is fl anked by the Meta Sudans and the porticus of the Baths of Titus. All these unusual points suggest that the Colosseum sestertii may have been produced for a special purpose rather than as normal currency. I suggest that

30 This type is not present in any of the major coin cabinets in Western Europe or North America and has largely been forgotten by numismatists. It was not included in RIC, but I am told it will be included in the revision of RIC II by Ian Carradice and T.V. Buttrey. The type has been known for a long time: the earliest reference I could fi nd is P. Pedrusi, I cesari in metallo grande, da Giulio Cesare sino a L. Elio, Raccolti nel Farnese Museo, e Publicatti colle loro congrue interpretazioni, vol. 6 (Parma, 1714), pp. 175-7 and pl. 16,6.

31 See BMCRE, pp. lxxi-lxxii.


they may have been struck for distribution by the emperor at games in the Colosseum. If all Titus’ sestertii were struck before July 80, they could have been distributed during the inaugural games; if, as I have suggested, they were struck both in AD 80 and 81, they could have been distributed piecemeal throughout the fi rst couple of years of the Colosseum’s use. Domitian’s small issue of Colosseum sestertii would have been distributed at the games held in honour of his deceased and divine brother. The emperor’s distribution of largess, including gifts of money, at games and festivals is well documented by literary sources. Suetonius records that on festivals and holidays Augustus would sometimes give gifts of gold and silver, including foreign money and coins of the (Hellenistic) kings (Suet. Div. Aug. 75). He also writes that during the Ludi Maximi Nero had all kinds of gifts thrown to the crowd, including silver and gold; although coins are not explicitly mentioned, they may well have been used (Suet. Nero 11.2). Titus himself is also remembered as extravagant during the inaugural games; he would personally throw wooden balls to the crowd inscribed with a designation for a valuable prize, which the recipient could turn in to claim (Dio 66.25.5). Again, coins are not explicitly mentioned, but if an emperor can toss tokens for prizes such as food, clothing, silver, gold, slaves, and horses, could not coins and especially sestertii also be dispensed to the crowd? Martial, de Spectaculis 31 (27; 29) states that the emperor (Domitian: see n. 9 above) gave gifts to appease spectators who were beginning to become bored during a prolonged gladiatorial fi ght; they may have included coins.32 The regionary catalogues state that the Colosseum could hold 87,000 spectators, higher than modern estimates; even if this fi gure were correct, this number of sestertii would be a very small sum of money for the imperial treasury and could be distributed quite easily on one or more occasions.

What little evidence there is suggests that an ancient obverse die might strike around 15,000-30,000 silver coins before developing major fl aws.33 Since bronze is much harder than silver and gold, the fi gure for bronze coins per obverse die would be much lower. If the number of obverse dies used for the Colosseum coins was only fi ve (though the single specimen recorded for obverse die A3 invites caution), the total number of coins which they would have produced is unlikely to exceed 100,000, and is probably much lower, even if all the dies were used to their full potential. This small number is readily explained if the Colosseum sestertii were instruments of largess and not simple currency. If Titus struck all his Colosseum sestertii in one batch before July AD 80, he might have given one each to every spectator at the inaugural games; if they were produced piecemeal throughout AD 80 and 81, as I have suggested, they might have been thrown randomly into the throngs of spectators.34 Since Domitian’s sestertii are known from only one obverse die, his distribution would have followed the latter pattern.

The use of Roman coins as medallions is not unprecedented. Roman medallions could be counted as units of Roman currency, though they were not necessarily intended for circulation; for example a six solidi medallion is a medallion, but technically worth the cash value of six solidi, just as most bronze medallions of the second and third centuries AD were

32 The translator of this text (Shackleton Bailey) also notes that gifts of money were customary: see the 1993 and 2002 Loeb editions.

33 See D. Sellwood, ‘Some Experiments in Greek Minting Technique’, NC 1963, pp. 217-31, for practical experiments; P. Marchetti, ‘Autour de la frappe du nouvel amphictionique’, RBN 145 (1999), pp. 99-113, for the latest discusssion of the Amphiktyonic League coinage; and Crawford, RRC, p. 694. For the extreme caution which should be exercised in using these specifi c cases to draw more general conclusions, see T.V. Buttrey, ‘Calculating Ancient Coin Production: Facts and Fantasies’, NC 1993, pp. 335-51; id., ‘Calculating Ancient Coin Production II: Why it cannot be done’, NC 1994, pp. 341-52; F. de Callataÿ, ‘Calculating Ancient Coin Production: Seeking a Balance’, NC 1995, pp. 289-311; S.E. Buttrey and T.V. Buttrey, ‘Review Article: Calculating Ancient Coin Production Again’, AJN 9 (second series) (1997), pp. 113-35

34 Rick Witschonke has pointed out to me the danger inherent in throwing coins to a crowd, but it seems little more dangerous than Titus’ practice of throwing wooden balls to the crowds (see above).

NATHAN T. ELKINS220

technically double sestertii.35 Coins of regular denomination could also be used as medallions; indeed, Toynbee classifi es the bronze coins of Severus Alexander depicting the Colosseum as medallions on the grounds of their great rarity36 - perhaps these too were distributed at games in the amphitheatre. The aurei of Septimius Severus depicting the Stadium of Domitian were, it has been persuasively argued, probably commemorative in nature and reserved for special distribution at a particular event as ‘money medallions’.37 A more contemporary set of coins with a strong medallic character are the Domitianic sestertii of AD 95/96 with architectural reverses. These coins, which depict a triumphal arch, an equestrian statue, a temple, and a three-storeyed building (possibly part of Domitian’s palace), differ from Domitian’s other bronze issues in having bust types of superior style and with a draped portrait; moreover, one of the very rare coins depicting the palace was excavated in a frame, which suggests that it was a presentation piece.38 The parallels with the Colosseum sestertii (denomination, rarity, and unusual iconography) are striking.

APPENDIX: FORGERIESThe following list of forgeries does not claim to be exhaustive, for it includes only those

which I came across while searching for authentic specimens, not those already identifi ed in the ‘black’ cabinets of museums. Asterisked specimens, representing all die-combinations, are illustrated on Plate 32.

Dubious Type A coin F1. FA1/FP1 *a. Stack’s 5/12/2000, 304 Neither obverse nor reverse die of this specimen is known elsewhere, and the coin appears to be very rough and porous; it is perhaps cast. In addition it has two staircases on the obverse whereas all other coins of the type have three.

Cavino Forgeries (based on the Divus Titus Type) 39 F2. FA2/FP2 a. Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, MK 7.048 b. Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, MK 7.043 c. 21.13 6 Brussels, Du Chastel 821 d. 19.57 Ars Classica II, 6/1922, 517 e. Hirsch XIV, 1905, 1017 f. 31.62 6 Museo Castelvecchio, Verona; Schmidt-Dick 5633 g. 22.71 7 Historisches Museum, Bern, RK 622 *h. 19.73 6 Smithsonian Institute, Washington D.C.

These forgeries attributed to Cavino are known from only one pair of dies. Most have very strong strikes, since they were produced by a screw press rather than with a hammer and anvil. The obverse die is the seated portrait of Titus since the Colosseum side is slightly concave;40 this of course is the opposite of the arrangement on authentic specimens.

35 J.M.C. Toynbee, Roman Medallions (ANS NS 5, New York, 1986 reprint of 1944 edition), pp. 22-4, et passim.36 Ibid, pp. 165, 200.37 B. Damsky, ‘The Stadium Aureus of Septimius Severus’, AJN 2 (second series) (1990), pp. 77-105, especially

p. 88.38 I. Carradice, ‘Coins, monuments and literature: some important sestertii of Domitian’, in T. Hackens and R.

Weiller (eds) ProcINC 9 (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1982), pp. 371-83.39 For the attribution to Cavino see R.H. Lawrence, Medals by Giovanni Cavino, the ‘Paduan’ (New York, 1883),

p. 13, no. 35; Z.H. Klawans, Imitations and Inventions of Roman Coins: Renaissance Medals of Julius Caesar and the Roman Empire (Santa Monica, 1977), p. 66, no. 1.

40 This at least is the case with the Smithsonian specimen; I am grateful to Richard Doty for this information.


Other Forgeries (based on the Divus Titus Type) F3. FA3/FP3 *a. Glendining 12/1929, 124F4. FA4/FP4 a. Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, MK 7.045 b. 23.91 12 Stiftung Schloss Friedenstein Gotha Schlossmuseum, Gotha *c. 22.65 6 Museo Archeologico, Bologna, 27724 d. Schulman 5/3/1923, 1077 = J. Hirsch XXX (1911), 940

These pieces can be condemned on the following grounds. The die pairs are unique: the obverse dies are only found in conjunction with a particular reverse die and have no die links to any authentic specimens. Stylistically, F3 resembles a Renaissance forgery; elements of the obverse are much more linear than on authentic examples. The very good strike on this coin also suggests that it was produced mechanically rather than by an anvil and hand-held die. Although I could fi nd no published exposure of die combination F4 as a forgery, the linear characteristics of the dies, their great detail, and the strong strikes betray the pieces as Renaissance forgeries. Reverse die FP4 is recorded in conjunction with a die depicting a bust of Titus, a Renaissance invention.41

41 Klawans, Imitations and Inventions, p. 66, no. 2. There are of course other forgeries bearing a depiction of the Colosseum on the reverse and a bust of Vespasian, Titus, or Domitian on the obverse (Lawrence, Medals by Giovanni Cavino, p. 13, no. 36; Klawans, Imitations and Inventions, p. 64, no. 6). Michel Amandry of the BNF provided me with two sets of casts of forgeries with the Colosseum on the reverse, one with a bust of Vespasian on the obverse, the other with one of Domitian. Many other inventions depicting the Colosseum with other personalities exist. These forgeries fell outside the scope of my study since I was interested only in those that could be mistaken for genuine specimens. Nevertheless, a study of all Renaissance and modern forgeries depicting the Colosseum would be an interesting project, which could shed light on how early modern society conceived of and remembered the Colosseum.

PLATE 31

ELKINS, THE FLAVIAN COLOSSEUM SESTERTII: CURRENCY OR LARGESS? (1)

1a 2a 3a

4a 5a 6a

PLATE 32

F1a F2h F3a

7a 8a 9c

F4c

ELKINS, THE FLAVIAN COLOSSEUM SESTERTII: CURRENCY OR LARGESS? (2)

the flavian colosseum sestertii currency or largess?

Documents