LOCAL COINAGES IN A ROMAN WORLD
SECOND CENTURY BC–
FIRST CENTURY AD
A Catalogue of the Richard B. Witschonke Collection of Coins in the Early Roman Provinces
Volume 1
Text
Lucia F. Carbone
with Oliver D. Hoover, Suzanne Frey-Kupper, Clive Stannard, Sophia Kremydi, Federico Carbone, David Hendin, and Liv M. Yarrow
with special contributions by Douglas Wong and Alice Sharpless
Spain
(Plates 1–12)
The coins included in this section compellingly illustrate the Roman impact on the Iberian monetary system(s).1 The Iberian specimens in the Richard B. Witschonke Collection have been divided into three sections, corresponding to the Augustan division of the Iberian peninsula into Lusitania, Baetica, and Tarraconensis.2 For consistency with the rest of the sections of this catalogue, the organization follows that of RPC, even though most of the specimens in this section were issued in the second and first century bc, when the Iberian peninsula was divided into Hispania Citerior (later incorporated in the Augustan province of Tarraconensis) and Hispania Ulterior (later Baetica).3 The dating and the metrology of the issues generally follows Villaronga and Benages’ Ancient Coinage of the Iberian Peninsula (ACIP), unless otherwise noted.
The introduction of coinage in the Iberian peninsula was slow and very unequal from the territorial point of view.4 The first coins in this region were the silver issues of the Greek colony of Emporion, possibly as early as the end of the sixth century bc, then followed by Rhode.5 However, coin production was fairly low until the Second Punic War, with the partial exceptions of the silver issues of Arse-Saguntum in the second half of the fourth century bc and the PunicPhoenician colonies of Ebusus and Gadir, which issued the first bronze coins in the Iberian region beginning in the fourth century bc.6
The Second Punic War was a crucial turning point in the monetization process of the region.7 The Carthaginians used Iberian bullion to issue their silver currency, which followed the shekel standard.8 They also minted electrum and gold coins.9 These precious-metal issues were then supported by bronzes for everyday transactions.10 A good example of the bronze issues is provided by nos. 181–184 in this section, which represent two different denominations of the male head/standing horse type.11
With respect to the Romans, coins were needed to finance the costs of the war, and hoard evidence suggests that these needs were met only partly by coins minted in Rome.12 The remainder of the demand for currency was met by coinages produced by the Romans in the Iberian peninsula and by local coinage, all of which circulated together.13
The growth in Roman-influenced urban culture after the Second Punic War was a major factor driving the increased monetization of the economy of the Iberian peninsula.14 The presence of the Roman army, which was the sine qua non for the conquest and control of the territory, also played a critical role in the increased use and production of coinage. Furthermore, the presence of colonists and traders favored the increase in the usage of coinage, especially from the middle of the second century bc onward.15
1. “The Roman Impact on the Iberian Monetary System(s)” is the title of Ripollès forthcoming.
2. Dio Cass. 53.12.4.
3. RPC I, nos. 63–66.
4. Ripollès 2012, 356–359.
5. Emporion: ACIP 1–8 (pre-drachma coinage); Ripollès and Chevillon 2013 (with previous bibliography). Rhode: ACIP 119–131; Villaronga 2000 and 2010.
6. Arse-Saguntum: Ripollès and Llorens 2002, 276–282; ACIP 1930–1955. For the importance of Punic coins in the initial stages of the monetization of the Iberian peninsula, see Alfaro 2001; Mora Serrano 2006. Ebusus: ACIP 698–708 (end of the fourth century bc). Gadir: ACIP 638–664 (third century bc).
7. Kurz 2016, 146–172 (with previous bibliography).
8. ACIP 542–551 (prow-type issues); 552–555 (elephant-type issue); 556–557 (Apollo-type issue); 558–559 (horse and uraeus issue); 565–567 (jumping horse and star issue); 575–577 (Tanit and turned head horse issue); 588 (Tanit and horse with palm tree issue); 602–607, 614–627 (male head and standing horse issue).
9. Electrum issues: ACIP 569–574. Gold issues: ACIP 560–564.
10. ACIP 568, 579-587, 589–601, 603-613.
11. Unit: ACIP 609 (nos. 181–182). 1/5 unit: ACIP 610 (nos. 183–184).
12. Livy 23.48.4. Ripollès 1982, 276–285. For circulation patterns in Spain, see Lockyear 2007, 160–167.
13. Roman republican coinage issued in Iberia: Debernardi and Legrand 2015. Mixed hoards of Roman and local currency: García-Bellido 2011, 679–680; Noguera and Tarradell 2009.
14. Cadiou 2008, 116, 134, 158.
15. A. J. N. Wilson 1966; Marín Díaz 1986–87 and 1988; Le Roux 1995.
In the decades after the Second Punic War, Carthaginian coinage produced in the Iberian peninsula was withdrawn from circulation, probably following the same strategy adopted in Sardinia and Sicily after the end of the First Punic War.16 However, the almost total absence of Carthaginian coinage from the circulation pool after the end of the war could also be explained by the fact that the Romans were effectively draining metallic wealth out of the conquered territories in the form of booty.17 Whatever the reason, the scant presence of pre-Second Punic War coinage in the region made Roman influence even more evident in the weight standards and in the types adopted for the civic coinages, to a degree depending on the economic sophistication of the territories.18
It seems certain that local Iberian silver coinage (not included in the Richard B. Witschonke Collection) adopted the weight standard of the Roman denarius.19 These coins were also valued as denarii, because hoard evidence shows that they circulated alongside Roman denarii.20 In a forthcoming contribution, Pere Pau Ripollès convincingly argues that the production of Iberian denarii was in some way controlled by Roman governors.21 On the other hand, bronze coinage followed an eminently local model in terms of metrology and types.22 In Hispania Citerior, there were mints such as Castulo that issued coinage according the Roman uncial or reduced uncial standard.23 A significant sample of reduced uncial standard semisses (nos. 5–13, 18–20) and quadrantes (nos. 14–17) from Castulo is included in this section.24
However, most issues in Hispania Citerior weigh between 9 and 12 g. These coins could be assimilated to the Roman semis, but represented units within local systems.25 In Hispania Ulterior, there was an even wider variation in the weight standards adopted for bronze issues in line with the local use for which they were likely produced.26 In this region, local bronze issues were sometimes accompanied by lead, as in the case of Ilipense or Osset (nos. 177, 180).27 The wide variety of standards prevented the establishment of a single metrological system for the bronze coinage issued in the Iberian peninsula. However, it seems very probable that the structure of the Roman coinage represented an approximate model for local bronze issues.28
Local coinage adopted local types and maintained them for centuries.29 Among several others, the mint of Castulo is a good example of this phenomenon, as the local types of male head/bull were retained for half units/semisses from the end of the third century bc (no. 4) to the first century bc (nos. 5–13, 18–20, 22, 24–28). On the other hand, there are scattered examples of the early adoption of Roman types. For example, Arse-Saguntum had adopted the ship’s prow on the reverse of its coins already in the early second century bc, possibly as early as the third, and it remained a constant for the bronze issues of the city until the late first century bc (nos. 211–214).30 The presence of the prow type may be explained not only by the special relationship of the city with Rome but also by the relevance of this design to a city with an important port.31 The choice of the prow reverse type at Carteia was likely related to its status as a Roman colony, established in 171 bc (nos. 44–61).32 The same explanation should be invoked for the early adoption of the obverse head
16. Ripollès forthcoming.
17. García Riaza 1999.
18. Ripollès 2012, 362–363 (with previous bibliography).
19. Knapp 1977; Otero 2002, 162; Gozalbes 2007, 141–148.
20. One example of a hoard of this type is RRCH 184 (Corduba, before 108 bc), published by Mattingly 1925, Jenkins 1958, and Crawford 1969.
21. Ripollès forthcoming, building on Beltrán Lloris 2006, 112, is here quoted verbatim: “The clear differences between the situations in Citerior and Ulterior, which saw constant military activity and the frequent and sometimes repeated need to subjugate cities, explains their different monetary histories, that grew out of different socio-political realities. Whereas in Citerior silver coinage was needed to pay troops and perhaps cover other needs of the Roman administration, in Ulterior coinage served a more commercial function and local needs, particularly in supplying lowvalue coins to a society that began to progressively monetize from the beginning of the second century B.C.”
22. Gozalbes 2012, esp. 55–66.
23. Castulo: ACIP 2113–2117 (uncial standard); 2118–2155 (reduced uncial standard).
24. Semisses: ACIP 2119, 2125. Quadrantes: ACIP 2124.
25. Gozalbes 2012, esp. 51–54. An example of this is the mint of Kese (ACIP 1138, second century bc).
26. Gozalbes 2012, 54, fig. 2c.
27. For a catalogue of lead tokens issued by cities in Hispania Ulterior, see Casariego, Cores, and Pliego 1987, 1–16. Osset: Casariego, Cores, and Pliego 1987, 14, no. 1 (no. 180). Ilipense: Casariego, Cores, and Pliego 1987, 11, no. 2 (no. 177).
28. Ripollès forthcoming This assumption is at the basis of the metrology adopted in ACIP
29. Ripollès 2005, 84–85 (with bibliography).
30. Second century bc: ACIP 1986 (no. 211). First century bc: ACIP 2014 (no. 212); ACIP 2025–2026 (nos. 213–214).
31. Ripollès and Llorens 2002, nos. 68–70, 79–81.
32. Livy 43.3. Reverse prow type: ACIP 2558 (nos. 48–50), 2561 (nos. 51–59) and 2562 (nos. 60–61).
of Saturn and the denominational mark S for the semis.33 Independently of these exceptions, coin types usually reflected local cults and traditions, especially because Rome had no standardized iconography.34
However, local coinage in Hispania Citerior was characterized by a great uniformity of types, probably related to the ideals of the civic elites.35 Bronze units (and denarii) usually have a male head on the obverse and a horseman on the reverse, while silver quinarii and bronze half units have a horse on the reverse and quarter units have the forepart of Pegasus.36 A very interesting example of the transition between this traditional iconography and the typical Roman provincial imagery, characterized by the head of the emperor on the reverse, is represented by a specimen from Osca (no. 237), where the traditional male head on the obverse is replaced by that of Octavian.37
The wide range of weight standards and the variety of types adopted also finds correspondence in the use of local scripts, such as Iberian and Punic, for the legends of local coinages.38
The arrival of the Romans in the Iberian peninsula thus initially did not lead to a standardization of local monetary production, at least with respect to bronze coinages. On the other hand, silver coinages had to conform to Roman standards in terms of weight and quality, because they were possibly used to pay for Roman and mercenary troops.39
However, from the beginning of the first century bc, the presence of Roman colonies and the promotion of indigenous cities to municipalities changed the nature of the coinage issued in the Iberian peninsula.40 Roman types and denominations were adopted more often. At the same time, the names of individuals, already present on local coinage since the second century bc, began to appear in their entirety—thus revealing Roman citizenship—together with official Roman official titles.41 This went together with the general adoption of Latin and the gradual disappearance of local scripts.42
33. ACIP 2555–2556 (no S, nos. 41–43), 2557–2558 (nos. 44–50), 2561–2562 (nos. 51–61), 2564–2565 (nos. 62–75), 2568–2569 (nos. 76–86), 2573–2574 (nos. 88–99), 2580 var. (no. 100), 2582–2583 (nos. 101–106), 2585–2586 (nos. 107–108).
34. Keay 2001, 129.
35. For the correlation between the horse-related types and the equestrian elites governing the cities see, among others, Almagro-Gorbea 2005.
36. See, among several others, the production of the following mints. Bolskan-Osca: ACIP 1413–1414, 1417–1418, 1422–1423 (denarii); 1415, 1419, 1424–1425 (bronze units); ACIP 1416, 1420 (half units). Turiasu: ACIP 1703, 1712, 1715–1716, 1718, 1720–1724 (denarii), 1700–1702, 1704–1705, 1708–1709, 1713, 1727–1732, 1736 (bronze units); ACIP 1717, 1719 (quinarii); ACIP 1710–1711, 1714 (half units). Kese: ACIP 1156 (quarter unit)
37. ACIP 1428.
38. Most recently, Ripollès and Sinner 2019. Examples in this section: ACIP 2109, 2119, 2124 (Castulo, nos. 1–17); ACIP 1490 (Kelse, no. 219); ACIP 1986 (Arse-Saguntum, no. 211).
39. Knapp 1987, 29–30; Chaves 1994.
40. Abascal and Espinosa Ruiz 1989, 59–67; Ripollès 2010 and discussion in Ripollès 2012, 366 (with further bibliography).
41. See, for example, the evolution of the monetary production of the mint of Carteia in the course of the first century bc: ACIP 2597 (no. 111), 2598–2601 (nos. 112–122), 2603 (no. 123), 2606–2609 (respectively, RPC I, nos. 114–115, 5418, and 116, nos. 124–130). The same is true for Carthago Nova, where the presence of Latin names and Roman magistracies on coins begins around the second half of the first century bc: ACIP 2525–2526 (RPC I, nos. 146–147, nos. 185–189) and continues well into the first century ad.
42. Burnett 2002, 37–38.
Lusitania
Salacia
Æ half unit, second half of the second century bc?
Obv. Cross with circles in angles.
Rev. Two crescents back-to-back; to right, P.
ACIP 992; CNH 1.
1. 30.6 mm, 12.85 g; 12:00. ANS 2015.20.389. The obverse die is shared with ACIP 991/RPC I, no. 51C.
Brutobriga
Æ as, T. Manlius and T. F. Sergia, second half of the second century bc
Obv. Male head right; around, T∙MANLIVS∙T F∙SERGIA
Rev. Galley right; below, fish right; around, BRVTOBRIGA.
ACIP 2482 (erroneously transcribed as T.ESERGIA); CNH 1.
2. 29.4 mm, 14.8 g; 3:00. ANS 2015.20.149.
3. 29.8 mm, 16.77 g; 3:00. ANS 2015.20.150.
Baetica
Castulo
Æ half unit, before 214 bc
Obv. Diademed male head right.
Rev. Bull standing right; above, crescent; below, (KASTILO).
ACIP 2109; CNH 5.
4. 21.2 mm, 6.28 g; 1:00. ANS 2015.20.300.
Æ semis, Cn. Voc and Cn. Ful, second half of the second century bc
Obv. Laureate male head right; to left, CN; to right, VOC∙ST∙F
Rev. Bull standing right; above, crescent; to left, CN; to right, FVL∙CNF; in exergue, (KASTILO).
ACIP 2119; CNH 15.
5. 23.7 mm, 8.73 g; 2:00. ANS 2015.20.301.
6. 26.6 mm, 9.9 g; 4:00. ANS 2015.20.302.
7. 24 mm, 9.95 g; 11:00. ANS 2015.20.303.
8. 23.5 mm, 8.76 g; 3:00. ANS 2015.20.305.
9. 22.9 mm, 9.16 g; 8:00. ANS 2015.20.306.
10. 25.2 mm, 7.28 g; 3:00. ANS 2015.20.307.
11. 25.6 mm, 11.85 g; 3:00. ANS 2015.20.308.
12. 25.5 mm, 12.21 g; 9:00. ANS 2015.20.2758.
13. 23.6 mm, 7.89 g; 9:00. ANS 2015.20.304.
Æ quadrans, Cn. Ful, second half of the second century bc
Obv. Laureate male head right; to left, CN; to right, VOC∙ST∙F
Rev. Boar running right; above, CN FVL; to right, CNF; in exergue, (KASTILO).
ACIP 2124; CNH 21.
14. 19.5 mm, 7.13 g; 10:00. ANS 2015.20.309.
15. 18.4 mm, 5.38 g; 6:00. ANS 2015.20.310.
16. 19.1 mm, 5.12 g; 5:00. ANS 2015.20.311.
17. 20.7 mm, 5.67 g; 9:00. ANS 2015.20.312.
Æ semis, M. Val and C. Cor, second half of the second century bc
Obv. Diademed male head right; before, M∙VAL
Rev. Bull advancing right; above, crescent; to right, C∙COR.
ACIP 2125; CNH 22.
18. 24.3 mm, 8.99 g; 6:00. ANS 2015.20.313.
19. 24.2 mm, 9.23 g; 9:00. ANS 2015.20.314.
20. 24.1 mm, 10.21 g; 8:00. ANS 2015.20.315.
Æ as, C. Ael and M. Isc, early first century bc
Obv. Same as preceding. Before, C∙AEL; behind, M∙ISC. Rev. Sphinx advancing right; to right, M∙FVL
ACIP 2160; CNH 56.
21. 27.1 mm, 15.18 g; 2:00. ANS 2015.20.316.
Æ semis, M. Popillius and P. Coe, early first century bc
Obv. Same as preceding. Before, M∙PO; behind, PILL M F
Rev. P∙COE below; STA to right; RE∙F above; bull advancing right.
ACIP 2161; CNH 57.
22. 21.2 mm, 7.11 g; 12:00. ANS 2015.20.317.
Æ quadrans, Ap. Clodius, C. Aufidius, and A. Pos, early first century bc
Obv. Same as preceding. Before, AP∙CLO Rev. Boar running right; above, C∙AVF; in exergue, A∙POS
ACIP 2162; CNH 58.
23. 19.5 mm, 3.49 g; 12:00. ANS 2015.20.318.
Æ semis, M. Bal, early first century bc
Obv. Male head left; before, M∙BAL∙F
Rev. Bull advancing right; above, M∙Q∙F.
ACIP 2163; CNH 59.
Osca Valentia
Calagurris Uncertain
Italy
(Plates 44–49)
The outcome of the Punic Wars was certainly one of the events leading to the rise of Rome as a political and economic power in the Mediterranean. Already during the years of the wars against Hannibal, the large production of Roman bronze coins underwent a progressive decrease in weight—a practice that was followed by some southern mints active at the time. This phenomenon also corresponded to a steep growth in the number of issues minted during the years of the Punic Wars.1 This practice affected not only the official production of Rome but also local officinae, as those in Apulia where most conflicts took place.2
After Hannibal’s defeat, Roman silver coinage became the only currency in use throughout the Italian peninsula, while the production and circulation of bronze underwent a different process. Even if Roman bronze coinage was produced continuously until 146 bc, other cities in Italy—by now fully Roman—produced autonomous issues.3 These centers had become Latin colonies, and thus they shared some of the rights bestowed upon municipia and civitates foederatae (i.e., the right to their own monetary policy).4 This freedom did not always translate into minting their own autonomous coinage, but in the cases in which it did, these local issues were firmly at home within the Roman denominational system. These are mostly coinages that were produced in small quantities and had limited circulation, but which well reflect the monetary context of the period.
The compatibility with the Roman denominational system allowed local issues to meet the widespread need for bronze coinage and led to the continuation of local production until the Social War.5 After this date, a number of these cities were transformed into municipia, a condition that brought an end to many of these monetary issues (approximately by 89 bc).6 Only very few cities continued to mint bronze coinage, in some cases until the early Augustan period.7 By this time, the last active local mints ceased their production, probably as a consequence of Augustus’ monetary reform, which introduced new denominations into the circulation pool of the Italian peninsula.8
This is the case of some cities in ancient Lucania. Among these, Paestum is emblematic. Not long after its colonial foundation in 273 bc, this city minted a rare issue of silver coins accompanied by a bronze series with the inscription PAISTANO using the weight standard adopted by the nearby Latin colonies of Campania.9 Although the silver coinage was short-lived, the bronze production lasted for a much longer period of time.10 However, later bronze issues show significant differences in terms of denomination, types, and legend.
The coins of Paestum, produced after 218 bc, initially bear the inscription PAIST, which was then reduced to PAIS and again to PAE (nos. 867–955), but all adopted the Roman denominational system of the late third century bc and its progressive reductions in weight standard.11 With the exception of the Augustan and Tiberian issues, the dating of Paestan coinage is still rather uncertain, and this explains their wide chronological range.
As in Rome, denominations are identified by a mark of value, but new types are introduced, increasingly mirroring local events. In the course of the second and first centuries bc, the adoption of new coin types and legends follows the trend already established for Roman denarii, whose types represented various events in the city (i.e., games, dona-
1. A summary on weight systems is in RRC, 590–597.
2. On the production of Roman republican coinage in Apulia, see McCabe 2017; McCabe and Russo forthcoming.
3. At the beginning of the second century bc, Roman bronze coinage was abundant, and this lasted until 146 when the production of higher values ceased—except for a few intervals between 91–84 bc and under Sulla—to mint only small bronze issues. Just after the last Sullan issue, the production of bronze was interrupted, resuming only after several decades; Burnett 1982.
4. Unlike the coloniae iuris Latini that depended directly on Rome and were limited in their administrative organization, Latin colonies enjoyed broad autonomy in matters of organization and governance.
5. Burnett 1982; Cantilena, F. Carbone, and Pardini 2023.
6. Laffi 2007.
7. This is the case of Paestum, but also Velia. Here an abundant emission of small bronzes was minted, still with a legend in the Greek alphabet (HN Italy, nos. 1339–1340).
8. Burnett 1987, 51–55; Amandry 1986a; Burnett 1982.
9. Cantilena and F. Carbone 2015, 60–62. On the coinage of Paestum, see Cantilena and F. Carbone 2015, 67–119 (with previous bibliography). On production between the first century bc and until the closure of the mint in the reign of Tiberius, see F. Carbone 2014.
10. Cantilena and F. Carbone 2015, 62–64.
11. Crawford 1973, 48–55. An example of the reduction in weight standard is the mass overstriking of trientes for their transformation into semisses, probably in the first half of the first century bc, see F. Carbone 2017.
tions, distribution of goods, and new public buildings) connected with the magistrates who supervised the production of these issues.12
The coins issued by Paestum inform us not only of the moneyer’s names but also of their offices, including private citizens and a woman named Mineia.13 Perhaps she (or rather, an allusion to her by comparison with Livia) is depicted on semisses celebrating her role as benefactor following the construction, at her own expense, of the basilica, a two-story public building with a porticus (nos. 933–955). In some cases, the individuals mentioned in the legends are also known from inscriptions found in the course of excavations of the urban area. This is clear evidence of the strong involvement of the individuals supervising coin production in the renovation of civic buildings and in the city’s administrative body.14
Among local Italian coinages, Paestum’s civic issues are unique because they continued until the early imperial period, when small denominations were minted with the portraits of Augustus and Tiberius. As already noted, production probably came to a gradual end after the introduction of small denominations, including quadrantes, produced in Rome after the Augustan reform of 23 bc.15
The coinage of Copia (nos. 957–1050) was also minted following the Roman model. In this case, the inception of the production is placed after the date of the institution of the colony (i.e., 194 bc) with a denominational system ranging from the as to the uncia, and based on the semuncial standard.16 Denominations show local deities always combined with a cornucopia on the reverse, which should be considered the civic badge of Copia. Some of these series feature specific control marks or personal names, probably magistrates in charge of coin production, considering that they have titles such as aedilis (nos. 1019–1039). However, the presence of the Greek letter Π in place of the Latin open P is surprising; this could represent a residual Greek component, at least among the engravers who produced these dies.17
The presence of symbols and initials may be useful to establish a more detailed chronology for this coinage.18 Although there is still much to be learned, at the moment, the production of coins at Copia seems to be characterized by a low volume and stylistic homogeneity. These two factors suggest a limited duration of the workshop’s activity, which was probably closed in the 170s bc.19 Another theory suggests that the most prolific phase of this production can be related to the naval activities of Rome during the conflict against Antiochus III and Perseus.20
A similar phenomenon occurred in other cities of southern Italy, which issued coinage only for short periods of time and in limited quantity in response to local needs. For instance, the rare coins of Barium in Apulia (no. 1056) have been attributed to the presence of a military contingent deployed to protect the coast from pirate attacks in 181 bc.21 This historical context must remain hypothetical pending the discovery of more reliable evidence.
The case of Barium is not isolated, and it has been noted for many mints (particularly, but not only, those of Apulia) that production was limited to periods of occupation by Roman armies.22 Some of these cities, in fact, only began their own monetary production when they entered the sphere of Roman political influence or became Rome’s socii in order to facilitate relationships beyond their territory, probably in the hope that they would benefit from striking their own currency. It has been observed that this phenomenon is not connected to the presence of military mints (which could suggest an imposition on the Roman side) but rather to a desire to partake in the affluence of the Roman monetary system, which was widespread in the Italian peninsula. Proof of this desire can be seen in the adoption not only of Roman
12. Cantilena and F. Carbone 2015, 106–109; more generally, see Cantilena 2021; F. Carbone 2014.
13. Cantilena and F. Carbone 2015, 95–96 (with previous bibliography).
14. Cantilena 2021, 408–409; Cantilena and F. Carbone 2015, 84–86.
15. Cantilena and F. Carbone 2015, 110–111 (with previous bibliography).
16. The Latin colony of Copia was planned as early as 194 bc (Livy, 34.53.1–2) but the foundation took place in 193 bc (Livy, 35.9.7–8; Strab. 6.1.13).
17. See Polosa, Maltese, and Wall forthcoming. The same phenomenon is attested, in an earlier phase, for the first issues of the Latin colony of Paestum: Cantilena and F. Carbone 2015, 60–64.
18. A first reconstruction was proposed by T. Caruso 1984 based on about a hundred specimens; new data have been proposed by A. Polosa 2009 who also considered materials from archaeological excavations and now by the 93 coins from the Richard B. Witschonke Collection, for a total of about 250 pieces.
19. Polosa 2009, 130–133. The date proposed by Polosa is based on the analysis of coin finds in archaeological contexts; earlier, an end of the coinage around 140 bc had been proposed; see also Caruso 1984, 117–150; Cantarelli 1975.
20. Crawford 1985, 71.
21. For an overview, see Siciliano 1988. It has been noted that some Barium specimens bear a number of countermarks that must have prolonged the use of these coins over time by adapting them to new systems.
22. Crawford 1985, 62–66; McCabe 2017; McCabe and Russo forthcoming.
weight standards and denominations but also of types that make clear references to the iconography of Roman issues (nos. 911–925, 1053–1056).
On the other hand, some colonies chose to preserve their traditional types. This was the case in Brundisium, a colony established in 246 bc that struck bronzes with civic types, albeit based on the Roman denominational system (nos. 1057–1058).23 In spite of the permanence of local types, Roman denominational marks were adopted, and the weight standard followed the progressive reductions in place in Rome, switching from the uncial to the semuncial standard with a local production mainly based on semisses. In other mints, the choice of weight standards, as well as of types, referred to Roman issues, so that it is not uncommon to find civic coins with a prow on the reverse (nos. 887–889, 1056).
The production patterns at play in Apulia (nos. 1051–1058) and Lucania (nos. 867–1050) are also found in Bruttium, where important mints were active, including Rhegium (nos. 1060–1062) and Valentia (no. 1059).24 Rhegium had strong ties with Rome already in 280 bc, when it hosted a group of legionaries from Campania in order to prevent the success of Pyrrhus’ military campaign. It later became civitas foederata in 270 bc. The alliance with Rome endured during the Second Punic War, when the city resisted the claims of Hannibal and the Brettii, and lasted at least until 90 bc, when it became a municipium.25 This mint probably ended its production around 215 bc. However, production might have lasted well into the second century bc, with its last issues overstruck on other locally available currency, in particular coins of the Brettii.26
The monetary production of Valentia confirms the widespread adoption of the Roman-inspired system already discussed for Copia.27 As with Copia, the foundation of the Latin colony of Valentia on the site of Hipponium had already been planned in 194 but was established in 192 bc.28 The coins produced by this mint, which covered a very wide range of denominations, adopted the semuncial standard, probably also with the same dating and function of the issues of Copia. A further similarity lies in the presence of control marks on obverse and reverse of the coinage produced by both cities, which has yet to allow an understanding of the chronological organization of the emissions.
After the end of the Second Punic War, local bronze issues were rarely produced and characterized by a limited circulation range that hardly crossed the boundaries of the issuing cities with few exceptions, such as Paestum. These were probably intended for the domestic market as a way to compensate for the lack of Roman official coins and to satisfy the demand for small denominations used in daily transactions carried out by private citizens.
This is also confirmed by archaeological data, as these coins are sometimes associated with halved Roman coins—a common way to create coins of lower value.29 The production of imitations and non-state coinages, addressed in the previous sections of this catalogue, seems to have originated from the same need for small change.30
23. Crawford 1985, 66–67; HN Italy, 85–86.
24. For the coinage of Rhegium, see Silberstein Trevisani Ceccherini 2014, 171–240 (with previous bibliography).
25. For the context of monetary policies in this phase, see Crawford 1985, 52–74. For insight into economic dynamics, see Marchetti 1978, 486–487.
26. Silberstein Trevisani Ceccherini 2014, 171–240; HN Italy, 191–192
27. For the coinage of Vibo Valentia, see Taliercio Mensitieri 1989.
28. Livy, 34.53.1–2.
29. Cantilena 2021, 408–412; Burnett 1982; Buttrey 1972.
30. For a contextualization of the phenomenon, see Stannard 2021; Stannard and F. Carbone 2013; Stannard and Frey-Kupper 2008; Crawford 1982.
Etruria
Æ uncia, third century bc
Obv. Six-spoked wheel; one pellet between spokes.
Rev. Two-headed axe; to left, one pellet.
HN Italy 59; Vecchi 2013, no. 170b.
863. 21.7 mm, 8.45 g; 12:00? ANS 2015.20.777. The expected letter on reverse is illegible and may not be present.
Cast Æ uncia, third century bc
Obv. Archaic wheel.
Rev. Amphora; to right, one pellet.
HN Italy 62e; Vecchi 2013, no. 177.
864. 22.7 mm, 10.41 g; 12:00? ANS 2015.20.776. The obverse is unclear.
Æ uncia, third century bc
Obv. Six-spoked wheel; one pellet between spokes. Rev. Anchor; to left, one pellet.
HN Italy 67; Vecchi 2013, no. 154.
865. 23 mm, 8.97 g; 12:00? ANS 2015.20.775. The expected letter on reverse is illegible and may not be present.
Æ, late third century bc
Obv. African head right.
Rev. Elephant standing right; below, VM
HN Italy 69.
866. 19 mm, 4.00 g; 6:00. ANS 2015.20.774.
Northern Lucania
Paestum
Dating follows Cantilena and F. Carbone 2015, unless otherwise indicated.
Æ sextans, ca. 218–201 bc
Obv. Head of Neptune right; behind, two pellets. Rev. Dolphin right; above, two pellets; below, PAIST.
HN Italy 1187; Crawford 1973, 4.1.
867. 18 mm, 5.13 g; 11:00. ANS 2015.20.671.
Æ triens, ca. 218–201 bc
Obv. Head of Dionysus right; behind, four pellets. Rev. Cornucopia; to right, ΠAIS; to left, four pellets.
HN Italy 1191; Crawford 1973, 5.1. There is some disagreement regarding the identity of the obverse head. HN Italy describes it as female whereas Crawford 1973 identifies it as Dionysus.
868. 17.2 mm, 3.93 g; 11:00. ANS 2015.20.669.
Æ quadrans, ca. 218–201 bc
Obv. Diademed head of Neptune right; behind, three pellets.
Rev. Dolphin right; above, three pellets; below, ΠAIS.
HN Italy 1192; Crawford 1973, 5.2. There is some disagreement regarding the identity of the obverse head. HN Italy describes it as a generic bearded male head whereas Crawford 1973 identifies it as Neptune/Poseidon.
869. 15.2 mm, 2.65 g; 11:00. ANS 2015.20.668.
Æ sextans, ca. 218–201 bc
Obv. Head of Ceres right.
Rev. Forepart of boar right; above, ΠAIS; below, two pellets.
HN Italy 1193; Crawford 1973, 5.3b.
870. 15.7 mm, 3.51 g; 6:00. ANS 2015.20.667.
Æ uncia, ca. 218–201 bc
Obv. Head of Diana right, quiver and bow over shoulder; behind, one pellet.
Rev. Grain ear; to left, spray of leaves and one pellet; to right, ΠAIS
HN Italy 1200; Crawford 1973, 6.5.
871. 17 mm, 2.09 g; 9:00. ANS 2015.20.666. The obverse pellet is not mentioned in Crawford 1973.
Æ triens, ca. 218–201 bc
Obv. Head of Dionysus right; behind, four pellets.
Rev. Cornucopia; to left, caduceus and four pellets; to right, ΠAIS.
HN Italy 1201; Crawford 1973, 7.1. There is some disagreement regarding the identity of the obverse head. HN Italy describes it as a generic female head whereas Crawford 1973 identifies it as Dionysus. Also, the HN Italy reverse description has four pellets on far right even though the concordant Crawford 1973 reference locates them on the far left.
872. 16.5 mm, 4.62 g; 12:00. ANS 2015.20.663.
873. 18.1 mm, 4.73 g; 11:00. ANS 2015.20.670.
Uncertain Group 1, “Pre-Panther” Issues
Group 2, the “Panther”
Crete and Cyrenaica
(Plates 78–82)
The coinage included in this section enables some reflections on the foundational years for the province of Crete and Cyrenaica in the second half of the first century bc. In these years, the cities of these two regions enjoyed the last moments of administrative autonomy before being incorporated into the Roman provincial system. As elsewhere, this event brought a structural change in the production and circulation of coins, with local specificities in the new minting organization.
From about 107 bc, Crete experienced an unusual period of peace, which lasted until the Roman conquest in 67 bc. However, Rome’s involvement in the island went back to 85 bc, when L. Lucullus visited Crete on behalf of Sulla.1 In 71 bc, Rome intervened for the first time in the affairs of Crete with the occupation and campaigns first by Q. Hortensius Hortalus and then by Q. Caecilius Metellus. At last, in 67 bc, the island became a Roman territory.2 Rome’s imperialistic attitude toward Crete was in line with the earlier treatment of Cyrenaica. The latter had become a Roman province in 74 bc, after Ptolemy Apion died without heirs (96 bc) and bequeathed it to the Roman Republic.
After the Battle of Philippi (October, 42 bc), Crete and the other provinces east of the Ionian Sea were assigned to Mark Antony. At first he bestowed several privileges and immunities on the cities of the island. Later, he withdrew most of these when he was forced to impose heavy taxes to pay his legionaries.3 A few years later, probably in 36 bc, Antony assigned part of the territory of Crete and the province of Cyrenaica to Cleopatra and her children, while the rest of the island still enjoyed administrative autonomy and was organized as a koinon under Kydas.4 Antony’s dominion over the island was short-lived, as the freedom he granted to the inhabitants of Crete was soon revoked by Octavian after Actium (September 2, 31 bc). In 27 bc, as part of his reform of the provincial administration, Octavian, under the new title of Augustus, united Crete and Cyrenaica into a single senatorial province, governed by a proconsul of praetorian rank. He chose Gortyna as the capital for the new province, probably because this important city had sided with him from the beginning of the conflict against Antony.
Although it lasted until the reign of Diocletian (ad 284–305), the unification of Crete and Cyrenaica brought together regions with different administrative organizations and each with specific internal problems. Cyrenaica saw the contrast between Greek and Libyan populations, while Crete was characterized by a federal governmental structure developed in the third century bc as a means of pacifying inter-municipal conflicts.
Roman occupation brought an end to the preexisting civic coin production. From this moment on, only contingency issues connected with specific historical events appear to have been produced.
As for Crete, this seems to be the case for the group of tetradrachms characterized by the legend ΡΩMAΣ on the obverse and Artemis Ephesia on the reverse.5 These can be attributed to Q. Caecilius Metellus, and they should thus be dated to the years between the arrival of the general on the island in 69 bc and his return to Rome in 63 bc.6
A few decades later, two issues of cistophori were produced on the island. The first, probably struck between 40 and 38 bc, should be attributed to the proconsul Q. Lepidus, while the second was issued in the name of the magistrate Kydas.7
1. The visit to Cyrene also falls into this context: the city asked Lucullus for a new constitution, since a civil war had broken out following the death of Ptolemy Apion (Plut., Luc. 2.4–5, and App., Mith. 33).
2. Dio Cass., 36.17; Phlegon, FGrHist IIb, 257, F.12.12.
3. Cic., Phil. 5.13. Chevrollier 2016a, 251–253. Here is evidence of the close relationship between Antony and the Cretan Kydas, also attested in Gortyna as Kosmos and Cretarch (IC IV, 281).
4. Dio Cass., 49.32.4–5. It is now accepted that Cleopatra was granted the city of Itanos and its territories, where a Ptolemaic garrison was already established, rather than the entire island (see Spyridakis 1970; Apostolou 2020, 343, with previous bibliography). For the organization of the Cretan koinon under Kydas see, among others, Chevrollier 2016 a and b (with previous bibliography).
5. RPC I, nos. 901–903.
6. Metenidis 1998, 117. The presence of the cult of Artemis is of particular importance; the abandonment of the typical Cretan representation of Artemis Diktynna to adopt one that finds comparisons in the coins of Ephesus (RPC I, 222) does not seem accidental.
7. Q. Lepidus: App., B. Civ. 5.2. A more recent chronological attribution is that of P. Tansey, who brings valid reasons for the evidence that these coins of Q. Lepidus were minted following Antony’s decision to produce cistophori again at Ephesus (Tansey 2008, 188) but probably not in Crete. On this issue, see also Metcalf 2017, 62–63. For a summary, see Metcalf 2017, 63–64; Chevrollier 2016a; Rouanet-Liesenfelt 1984; Chapman 1968, 13. This individual had previously been identified either as Paullus Lepidus or a namesake, Q. Lepidus. See also Tansey 2008, 183–185. Kydas: Metcalf 2017, 63–64.
This Kydas is also attested in inscriptions and provides a probable date for the production of a large bronze coin series in his name that featured Zeus on the obverse and an eagle on the reverse.8
A. E. Chapman has already proposed that the two emissions in the name of Kydas should be traced back to the same person.9 This identification is further supported by iconographic parallels that make the dating of these coins between 40 and 30 bc probable.10 It is precisely in this period that several issues of large-module bronzes bearing the names of magistrates, such as Aristion, Kydas, Mnesitheos, Sauromatas, Tauriadas, and Tharsydikas (no. 1807), were produced at Cnossus. These coins feature an eagle reverse type, probably inspired by the earlier Lagid series.11 The coinages signed by Kydas and his colleagues were thus necessarily produced before the introduction of the bronzes in the name of L. Lollius at Cnossus (nos. 1811–1831). Cnossus’ coinage in the name of Lollius has as its terminus ante quem the institution of the new Roman Colonia Iulia Nobilis Cnosus, founded around 27 bc. After the foundation of the colony, the coinage produced there assumed the expected duoviral character, with the abbreviated name of the city on the obverse (nos. 1808–1809).12
The date of the institution of a Roman colony at Cnossus and of the Augustan reform of provincial organization represents the conventional beginning for the joint coinage of Crete and Cyrenaica, although there were some earlier common issues.13 However, two issues are known to have circulated in both territories before 27 bc, one anonymous and the other in the name of Lepidius (no. 1810), later supplemented by two other issues—in Greek and Latin—produced by Lollius and Crassus. Current evidence suggests that the circulation of the latter two issues was linked with their places of production: Crete for those with Latin legends (nos. 1811–1836) and Cyrenaica for those with Greek (nos. 1838–1851).14
The early anonymous issue presents on the obverse the helmeted head of Roma and the legend KPHT (a probable reference to the previous silver coinage produced under Metellus) and on the reverse a bee with the legend KΥPA, so as to signify its production for both Crete and Cyrenaica.15 Another common issue is that of the proquaestor P. Lepidius with the legends ΛIBΥH and KPHTA representing the two unified provinces, further identified by their respective patron deities: the nymph Libya on the obverse and the goddess Artemis with bow and quiver on the reverse (no. 1810). These may have been minted on Crete in 44–43 bc or during the second triumvirate.16
To L. Lollius we owe one of the largest bronze series produced for the province of Crete and Cyrenaica, characterized by an almost complete denominational system with new types and letters used as control marks.17 The largest denomination features Zeus on the obverse and the sella curulis on the reverse. On the Latin issues the god appears as Diktaios (nos. 1811–1812) and on the Greek issues he is Ammon (nos. 1838–1846). The intermediate denomination features Artemis Diktynna with a stag in the Latin series (nos. 1813–1829) and Apollo with a dromedary in the Greek (no. 1847). The smallest denomination features the club as a symbol of Herakles Idaios on coins with Latin legends (nos. 1830–1831) and the bust of Libya with a caduceus between an ear of grain and a poppy on those with Greek legends (no. 1848).18
The last common issues are those of Crassus, an historical figure who still escapes certain identification, and they are characterized by a new change in types, whose meaning is still not fully explained.19 The coins with the motif of the crocodile—present on coins minted respectively on Crete (nos. 1832–1836), in Cyrene (nos. 1849–1850), and at Ptolemaïs (no. 1880)—have been related to possible links between the province of Crete and Cyrenaica and Egypt, suggesting their production should be dated between 37 and 36, or at least before 34 bc since they represent the last common coinage produced between the two shores of the Libyan Sea.
8. This Kydas held the office of Kosmos and Cretarch. The legend KPHTAIEΩN KPHTAPXAΣ on the obverse of the cistophori most likely refers to him, following the types and organization of the proconsular coins of the province of Asia, while retaining a local specificity in the type such as the presence of Zeus Kretagenes, the supra-regional deity of the island depicted on the reverse. For epigraphic sources, see IC IV, 281.
9. Chapman 1968, 21–22.
10. Chapman 1968, 21–22.
11. Apostolou 2020, 343 (with previous bibliography).
12. Baldwin Bowsky 2002, 40–61; Sanders 1982, 5.
13. Carrier and Chevrollier 2016.
14. RPC I, 218 (with previous bibliography). On this subject, see also the data on Cyrenaican finds reported by Asolati 2011, 49, and 2009, 180–187. A new and convincing attribution to Cyrenaica has been proposed for the Roma/bee series, tracing their origin mainly from these territories with a probable period of production before the issues in the name of Lollius (Asolati 2009, 180–187). In the past, the production of these coins was attributed to a Cretan mint (Buttrey 1983, 29; RPC I, 217).
15. RPC I, nos. 904–906.
16. As suggested by the discovery of two specimens belonging to the Cameron Collection (RPC I, 217).
17. As in the case of the Cnossus coins analyzed by Chapman (1968, 24). See also BMC Cyrenaica, ccxvi–ccxx.
18. RPC I, 218–219 (with previous bibliography).
19. On this subject, see FITA, 56; Winsemann Falghera 1988.
Later issues struck in Cyrenaica, like those of Pupius Rufus (nos. 1852–1865) and of Mark Antony with Cleopatra VII (nos. 1866–1876)—explicitly named in the legends—were produced before the Battle of Actium. These were followed by other small and discontinuous issues, such as those of the proconsules Palikanus (no. 1877) and Scato (nos. 1878–1879), dated to between 23 and 20 bc
One last aspect to examine is the denominational system. Although the matter is still debated, it is now clear that this provincial coinage was based on four denominations (further integrated by the introduction of the dupondius after the monetary reform of Augustus) ranging from the sestertius to the quadrans with the as serving as a unit of account.20
Crete certainly must have produced asses, semisses, and quadrantes, which—in terms of weight standard—were based on the semuncial as, but also rare sestertii in the name of Lollius (nos. 1811–1812).21 It seems that these issues at first were based on a semuncial standard, followed by the adoption of the reduced uncial standard for Lollius’ issues before returning to the semuncial standard with the coinage issued by Crassus.22 This change in weight still awaits a proper historical explanation.
Production in Cyrenaica, on the other hand, seems to have been characterized by a heightened production of sestertii (nos. 1838–1846), probably in support of Cyrenaican commercial practices that differed from those in Crete.
There is no doubt that provincial issues circulated together with earlier local issues and, in this case, the Cretan context provides a good key to understanding. Proof of the compatibility of standards and the integrated circulation of civic issues with those issued by Roman magistrates on the island derives from the overstriking of Kydas’ issues on coins of Crassus.23
The integration of local bronze issues with the Roman monetary system is also evident in the module of the denominations minted for both Crete and Cyrenaica. The larger module of 25–29 mm corresponds with the as, and the smaller one of 21 mm is equivalent to a semis, while lower denominations are characterized by more irregular modules and weights that reach—as in the case of the quadrans—as low as 3 g with flans of 13–14 mm.24
When the joint production for Crete and Cyrenaica began, it is probable that, at least on Crete, there was the need to standardize the systems adopted for the new issues with the already circulating currency. The solution was represented by countermarking. The presence of new monetary types of countermarks, whose types and monograms were already in use for previous coinage, possibly represented a way—already used for a long time on Crete—to extend the life of specimens of earlier series still in use, adapting them to the new denominational system established concurrently with the arrival of the Romans.25
After this intricate first phase of joint production for Crete and Cyrenaica, provincial coinage continued after 27 bc, albeit with a different organization. The two territories abandoned centrally managed monetary production and returned to production directly regulated by individual centers. In Cyrenaica, only Cyrene continued to produce coinage, while on Crete, in addition to the continued activity of the mints of Kydonia and Lappa, subsequent monetary issues were directly managed by the ancient institution of the Koinon of the Cretans.
It is now clear that the production patterns of Crete and Cyrenaica were very diverse and that, in some aspects, local choices were precursors to solutions later adopted elsewhere.26 These distinct production patterns found a definitive systematization in the years following the monetary reform introduced by Augustus, when monetary production followed the model adopted in the other provinces.
Coin production continued in a sporadic way in Cyrenaica at least until the reign of Marcus Aurelius (ad 161–180), and on Crete, apparently using a more articulated system, probably until a little later, namely with the issues of his son Commodus (ad 180–192).27
20. The weight values, however, must have been slightly lower than official Roman issues. For Asolati, it is possible to note an early adoption of Roman monetary uses in Cyrenaica. This would be one of the first examples of extension, at least for bronze and in provinces of Greek tradition, of the Roman monetary organization (Asolati 2009, 185). On this subject see also Buttrey 1983, 33.
21. RPC I, no. 908; Chapman 1968, 15. See also Asolati 2011, 51; Buttrey 1983, 23–42.
22. A summary is provided by Asolati 2009, 186–187.
23. Chapman 1968, 21.
24. RPC I, 223–224.
25. There are several cases of countermarking of silver and bronze in earlier periods. One particular case is the countermarking of pseudoRhodian drachms (no. 1757) with the aim of integrating this issue into a weight reorganization (F. Carbone 2018; Ashton 1987; Price 1966). On countermarking of bronze in Crete, see F. Carbone 2020.
26. One example is the organization of denominations under the magistrate Antonius, who has been seen as anticipating the monetary reform of Augustus (RPC I, 227). For production details deduced from metallographic analysis, see Canovaro et al. 2016.
27. Probably a rare bronze minted in Lappa, see RPC IV.1, no 4888; Svoronos 1890, Lappa no. 36.
Crete: L. Lollius– Cyrenaica: L. Lollius
Crassus
1836 1837
1838
1839
Ptolemy IX Soter II L. Lollius
Egypt
(Plate 176)
The Ptolemaic kingdom of Egypt was founded by Ptolemy I Soter, a former general of Alexander the Great, when he claimed the royal title in 305/4 bc.1 Over the course of the third century bc, it became one of the three great Hellenistic kingdoms of the eastern Mediterranean, alongside the Antigonid kingdom of Macedon and the Near Eastern Seleucid kingdom. However, by the first century bc, the military and economic fortunes of the kingdom were declining, and the stability of the dynasty was increasingly rocked by internal discord.2 Colossal debts amassed by Ptolemy X Alexander I (107–88 bc) and Ptolemy XII Auletes (80–51 bc) with Roman moneylenders invited ever greater Roman interest in Egyptian affairs and resulted in the annexation of Ptolemaic Cyprus as a Roman province in 58 bc.3 Cleopatra VII (51–30 bc) attempted to arrest this precipitous decline through her relationship first with Julius Caesar and then with Mark Antony. However, the defeat of Antony and Cleopatra’s combined forces at Actium (September 2, 31 bc) led to their suicides and the conquest of Egypt by Octavian in 30 bc.4
The Richard B. Witschonke Collection includes only five coins produced in Egypt, all from the mint of Alexandria. Of these, four (nos. 3722–3725) are Ptolemaic royal issues belonging to the reign of Cleopatra VII, and the fifth (no. 3726) is a bronze coin struck by Octavian in the short period between his seizure of Egypt in 30 bc and his assumption of the title Augustus (Sebastos in Greek) in 27 bc.
The earliest Alexandrian issue of Cleopatra in the collection is a silver tetradrachm struck in the second year (51/0 bc) of her reign as Ptolemaic queen in Egypt (no. 3722). It features the diademed head of an idealized king on the obverse— probably intended to represent Ptolemy I Soter, the founder of the dynasty who regularly appeared on most Ptolemaic silver coinage—and on the reverse, the eagle badge that also regularly appeared on Ptolemaic silver. These traditional iconographic aspects, combined with a legend naming “King Ptolemy” and the Isis headdress symbol, originally led Ioannis N. Svoronos to attribute this series to Ptolemy XII, but it is now recognized as belonging to Cleopatra VII.5
The three Alexandrian bronze coins of Cleopatra (nos. 3723–3725) are far less ambiguous with respect to the issuing authority than the silver tetradrachm, since they feature the distinctive portrait of the queen on the obverse and explicitly name her on the reverse. However, they are more difficult to date with precision. Agnes B. Brett thought that the Alexandrian portrait issues provided the model for the image of Cleopatra on the dated tetradrachms of Ascalon beginning in 50/49 bc, but Catharine Lorber has doubted that her image would have appeared on Alexandrian coins before the intervention of Julius Caesar on her behalf and the death of her brother and rival, Ptolemy XIII, in 47 bc.6 Thomas Faucher has also suggested that the very high tin content of the bronze series may reflect Roman material support for Cleopatra after 47 bc.7 The series is notable for its use of value marks—a novelty for Ptolemaic coins—to reflect a bronze currency reform. The larger denomination is marked Π (80), which is believed to indicate a face value of 80 bronze drachmae of account equivalent to one silver diobol in the Ptolemaic system. Similarly, the smaller denomination is marked M (40) to indicate a face value of 40 bronze drachmae of account or one silver obol.8
The bronze coin of Octavian (no. 3726) illustrates the continuation of Cleopatra’s reformed bronze currency system after her death and the conquest of Egypt by the future Roman emperor in 30 bc. It carries the same M value-mark of Cleopatra’s 40-drachm piece and features the same Ptolemaic eagle type on the reverse, but the head of the Egyptian queen has been replaced by that of Octavian on the obverse, and her name has been replaced by that of the triumphant triumvir on the reverse. This continuity in the bronze coinage not only follows the old general Roman policy of allowing the survival of local coinages in the Greek East after annexation but serves to cast Octavian as a successor to the
1. Diod. Sic., 20.53; Plut., Dem. 18.2; App., Syr. 54; Just., Epit. 15.2.
2. Joseph., AJ 13.328; Paus., 1.9.1–3; Just., Epit. 39.5.1; Trog., Prol. 39; App., B. Civ. 102.
3. Plut., Caes. 48.7–8; Plut., Cat. Min. 34.1–7, 36.2–38.4; Cic., Rab. Post. 4–12; App., B. Civ. 23; Dio Cass., 39.29.2–4.
4. RG 27; Dio Cass., 50.15.4–35.6; App., B. Civ. 4.38; Plut., Ant. 76.4–77.7, 81.1–86.4; Trog., Prol. 40.
5. Ptolemy XII: Svoronos 1904, cols. 507‒509. Cleopatra VII: CPE, 2: 199–204; Mørkholm 1975, 17; Regling 1906, 393–394.
6. Brett 1937, 459; CPE, 1: 331.
7. Faucher 2013, 61–62, 85.
8. CPE B825–B826.
Ptolemaic dynasty and a legitimate pharaoh.9 It also supported a desire to retain the Egyptian closed economy of the Ptolemies as a means of most efficiently exploiting the wealth of the new province. Nevertheless, around 19 bc the weights and values of the coinage appear to have been reduced, so that the larger denomination circulated with a probable value of 40 bronze drachmae of account or one silver obol and the smaller denomination with a value of 20 bronze drachmae of account (indicated by the value-mark K) or one silver hemiobol.10
9. For discussion of Octavian as pharaoh, see Dundas 2002.
10. RPC I, 689–691. For the Roman transition away from Cleopatra’s bronze system of diobols and obols to one based on obols, hemiobols, and chalkoi, see O. Picard et al. 2012, 61–62.
Cleopatra VII
AR tetradrachm, Alexandria, regnal year 2 (51/0 bc)
Obv. Diademed head of Ptolemy I right, wearing aegis
Rev. Eagle standing left on thunderbolt, palm branch over shoulder; to left, LB above Isis headdress; to right, ΠΑ; around, ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ
CPE 1694; Svoronos 1904, no. 1817; SNG Copenhagen Ptolemies, no. 398.
3722. 24.9 mm, 13.51 g; 11:00. ANS 2015.20.3618.
Æ 80-drachma/diobol, Alexandria, 47–32 bc
Obv. Diademed bust of Cleopatra VII right.
Rev. Eagle standing left on thunderbolt; to left, double cornucopiae; to right, Π; around, [ΚΛΕΟΠΑΤΡΑΣ]
CPE B825; Svoronos 1904, no. 1871; SNG Copenhagen Ptolemies, nos. 419–421.
3723. 28.3 mm, 19.72 g; 10:00. ANS 2015.20.3619.
Æ 40-drachma/obol, Alexandria, 47–32 bc
Obv. Same as preceding.
Rev. Same as preceding. To left, double cornucopiae; to right, M; around, ΚΛΕΟΠΑΤΡΑΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΙΣΣΗΣ.
CPE B826; Svoronos 1904, no. 1872; SNG Copenhagen Ptolemies, nos. 422–424.
3724. 22.7 mm, 10.17 g; 12:00. ANS 2015.20.3620.
3725. 21.6 mm, 8.39 g; 12:00. ANS 2015.20.3554.
Octavian
Æ 40-drachma/obol, Alexandria, ca. 30–28 bc
Obv. Bare head of Octavian right; across fields, ΘEOΥ–ΥIOΥ.
Rev. Eagle standing left; to left, cornucopiae; to right, M; around, ΚΑΙΣΑΡΟΣ ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑΤΟΡΟΣ.
RPC I, no. 5002.
3726. 20.2 mm, 8.36 g; 12:00. ANS 2015.20.3621.
3722
3723
3724
3725
3726
Cleopatra VII
Octavian
