Curtis JJ

Two all-stars of Roman Barbarians-Captives-Enemies coinage! "Vercingetorix" (Pavor) gets all the attention, but I find Gallia (Pallor) even more interesting to ponder... I think there are two sets of obverse dies for the female (Crawford 448/3): (Idealized) "Type 2," as I call it, is represented very well by jdmKY's example above: The idealized Gallia, or Gallia-as-Pallor, has the artistic qualities typical of Roman deities. She shouldn't look like a real person but invoke a superhuman or divine entity (Pallor). There are several wonderful dies of this type. (Realistic) "Type 1": Portrait of an actual woman, maybe a Gallic captive who was publicly-known at the time, or maybe just a generic but realistic stand-in for female Gauls. There is really only one great die of this type (several lesser dies copy it; a much less artistic example on ACS or another such die). It's clearly based on a living model & captured minute details of her visage and emotion. In the past 20 years, besides mine, only three specimens appeared in major auctions (I believe they also all had the same reverse die): (1) Kunker 341, in 2020 (ex Bertolami 6 in 2012); (2) Gorny & Mosch 269, 2020 (ex CNG 63, 2003, Slg. Dr. G.W.) [shown below]; (3) NAC 98, 2016 (ex Kunker 158, 2009 & Gorny 159, 2007). (All three are included in Richard Schaefer's research binders/ANS; noted below.) I was very lucky to find my coin in 2020 [ACSearch] , since years can pass without one appearing at auction. NOT MINE (currently Shanna Schmidt's): I just love "Gallia's" grimace. You can really feel her contempt for her Roman captors, and imagine her ferocity and what vengeance she might wreak, were she to escape. The 2nd example (Gorny 269 = CNG 63), pictured above, has been with Shanna Schmidt since ~2020 (on VCoins & her website). Personally, I think her price will seem entirely acceptable once everyone recognizes how special and rare this particular die pair is, and how much the obverse stands out! Of >150-200 examples in the Richard Schaefer notebooks (ANS - Roman Republican Die Project), only about 5-7 were struck from this obverse die; three of their (future) ACSearch records are linked above. Mine doesn't appear in Schaefer/ANS-RRDP. (The "processed binder" includes at least 140-145 specimens of this type, but they missed quite a few among the 14 "unprocessed binders.") In my opinion (not impartial, since it's my coin!), it's worth investigating whether the obverse die above is the Type 1 (realistic) archetypal or "master die" (see Beckmann 2008; see also Elkins 2009: pp. 32-33, on the concept). Various characteristics should apply to a "master die," to the extent that the concept is valid: struck more carefully (e.g., centered); engraved more finely by more talented, senior artists (i.e., "master engraver"); there should exist very few die-pairs, maybe only 1 or 2 reverses; should not be die-linked to other obverses, or not many. I'm not certain yet that this one qualifies, but I've been toying with the idea of attempting a partial die study using what's available from the ANS' Roman Republican Die Project. *** Just to quickly round out the discussion, my "Vercingetorix" and Julius Caesar "trophy captives" depicting the same two figures but as full-bodied, seated captives (the first depiction of the two-captives-and-trophy-motif [off-site blog post] and, as @JayAg47 correctly noted above, the first depiction of the mourning female):

I think both things can be true: the artistic standards of one culture cannot be easily applied to those of another; and there are ways to impartially judge works against one another. But it's necessary to do two things: (1) apply a measurable, applicable standard; and, most importantly, (2) incorporate the goals, meanings, and standards of the people we're discussing. We may not be able to say who was "better," Rembrandt or Picasso, but we could, in theory, discuss how much time and care went into each of their works, the quality of the materials they used, that both were considered important by their peers and later generations, and so on. For coins, it's easy to recognize, for example, that the Greeks considered some engravers to be exceptional artists and rewarded them well, copied their works, and institutionalized systems of education and apprenticeship so that students could be mentored by them, and their artistic innovations could be passed on to and elaborated by later generations. Similarly, we can recognize that the "Byzantine" culture de-emphasized material representations, and artistic accomplishment was held in lower prestige. Put simply, by their own standards, they didn't care nearly as much about being artistic. For instance, even though Iconoclasm was a relatively short-lived extreme movement, there was a much more enduring hostility (or at least ambivalence) toward portraiture. (There were similar trends in Islamic and ancient Jewish culture, both of which tended to produce more calligraphic designs.) Where there was portraiture on later Byzantine coins (even on the finest gold ones), it was meant to be functional -- they specifically avoided physical beauty in favor of spiritual. They invested much less in the infrastructure of coin engraving, both physical and social. (Beyond ideological, there were also severe economic obstacles that would've prevented Greek-style artistry; the relationship between the ideological and economic is another issue....) For Celtic artwork, we just have to set aside the "realism" and corporeal beauty with which the Greeks were obsessed. Instead, there are fascinating technical features of Celtic artwork, like "Cheshire cat design" -- in which different foregrounds emerge and backgrounds recede when focusing on different aspects of a single image -- or the use of naturalistic elements to represent different things -- such as making the petals on a flower also represent cheekbones and jawlines and the "stigma" (center hub) represent a cheekbone or eye... The finest Celtic art can be a very active and creative experience for viewer. I believe they actually exploited pareidolia -- the tendency to find patterns (especially faces) where none were intended. (The artist may not have even realized they were creating a second face in that "portrait," but the elements are meant to represent multiple things, so any given viewer can put them together in unique ways that others might not have anticipated.)

Roman Provincial. Egypt, Alexandria. Maximinus Billon Tetradrachm (13.80g, 22mm, 12h), dated RY 3 = 236/7 CE. Obv: ΑΥΤΟ ΜΑΞΙΜΙΝΟϹ ƐΥϹ ϹƐΒ. Laureate, draped bust right, seen from behind. Rev: L - Γ. Trophy of arms, at base, two bound captives seated back to back. Ref: RPC VI 10711; Dattari 4613; Emmett 3301.3 (R3); Coin Project ID = 79000742 (this coin). Prov: Ex Rocky Mountain Collection of Alexandrian; CNG Feature MBS 79 (17 Sep 2008), Lot 742. NEXT: ANY PROVINCIAL FROM MAXIMUS OR ONE OF THE NEXT FIVE SUCCESSORS (who all started in 238, most also finished then)

Interesting! So far I coins from four Phrygian mints, struck under the reign of four Roman emperors. None have Cybele -- but I like the first for its depiction of "Mên holding pine cone"! Here's one from the scarce mint of Phygia, Grimenothyrai (7.36g). Draped bust of Senate / Mên holding pine cone. Struck temp. Trajan. Ref: This coin = Von Aulock, Phrygiens II 340 = Lindgren & Kovacs 955 = AsiaMinorCoins 3158 = RPC III 2482 Ex. 17 (cited). Ex Henry Clay Lindgren, Marcel Burstein, and Garth Drewry Collections. Phrygia, Sebaste (8.07g). Senate on obverse, Zeus on reverse. Struck c. temp. Severus Alexader. (This one's not that unusual.) Ref: RPC VI 5681 for type (not cited). Ex Cornelius Vermeule (1925-2008) (Triton III, for the BMFA), Richard Cyril Lockett (1873-1950) (Glendining's 23 February 1961, Lot 2922, part), and Pierre Strauss (1922-1995) Collections. Two coins below, Phrygia, Aezani (Claudius, 4.84g) and Acmoneia (Nero), both with Zeus on the reverse. RPC Type 3905. Ex- Elvira Clain-Stefanelli Collection (1914-2001). RPC Type 3174. Ex- Elvira Clain-Stefanelli Collection (1914-2001).

If you feel like sharing any -- I'd love to see anyone else's Captives, Barbarians, or Enemies coinage! I've shared some of these recently, but I've just received my package from the previous Leu Web-Auctions. (I've two more I'll show elsewhere.) Most of these are from the Adrian Lang Collection, Part II. (I previously got a Gordian III Sestertius with a captive from Part I, which was Leu Auction 12.) Happily, Adrian Lang's collection was very rich in captives and fallen horsemen coin throughout Imperial period. Previously I didn't have a Philip II captive coin (not that he got to live long enough to take any himself), a Constantine Jr. captives AE3, or an Arles mintmark Fallen Horseman (I had some TCON Ae3s, for Arles-as-Constantia). The SARMATIA DEVICTA is a definite upgrade. (Eventually I'd like to have a captive from every emperor that produced one, but that's a lifelong project. So far I have a couple dozen emperors down.) PHOTOS FROM LEU: The only coin not from the Lang part of the auction is the Titurius Sabinus Denarius below (Crawford 344/1a; 19mm, 3.89g, 6h; ex JMAL Collection, formed 1970-2000). Republican coinage is reportedly the first place Romans developed what art historian Lauren Kinnee calls the "Trophy Tableau Monument" -- a scene depicting one or more captives at the base of a trophy. It appears first on the Marius-era Quinarii of Fundanius (101 BCE) and Cloelius (98 BCE) [examples of both on ACSearch], after which this distinctively Roman image spread rapidly into sculpture and other art. Later versions of the "trophy tableau" appear on a Memmius denarius [ACS exs.] (copied later by Titus), and Julius Caesar's famous Gallic captives denarii [my example - external site]. (Even Brutus had a rare one [ACS ex.] -- at least one member here has a great example.) Captives became a staple of Roman Imperial Coinage almost from the start, with Augustus' varieties. But "trophy captives" (as I call them) weren't the only captives portrayed on Roman Republic coinage. Another remarkable classic is the Titurius Sabinus AR Denarius depicting "The Rape of the Sabine Women" [wiki, or "Abduction of..."]. According to the Roman origin myth, the city was founded by an army of male "bandits," followers of Romulus and Remus. Since this army had no women with which to produce a great civilization, naturally they took someone else's -- namely, the women of the Sabines, an Italic tribe. (They basically set up a trap -- a festival with games -- where they attacked the men and took the women.) People are fond of pointing out that the "rape" in this context means a "kidnapping," from the Latin word Raptio [wiki] (literally, mass abduction of women for purposes of marriage and child-bearing). Strictly speaking, that may be correct. But it's hard to image forced reproduction in captivity happening without forced sex. (In some versions, the women may have been convinced to accept their situation once captured.) I've always found it telling that the Romans would be so proud of such a founding myth (one in which the first mothers of Romans were captured/raped en masse by Rome's founding fathers). As it would be for the next 500+ years, captivity, enslavement, and violence toward outsides were central to how Romans defined their culture. (The last captive coins I know are those of Leo I, c. 457-474 CE; I don't believe they appear on later "Byzantine" coins.) I thought a couple of these coins looked nicer in hand than in the Leu photos, especially the Republican Denarius and the Constantine Jr captives-and-VOT XX standard. Here's the coin-in-hand video (5 coins / 0:57s):

Wow, I love that table of legends!! The transcription of the characters as they appeared with all their imperfections is just a beautiful piece of work. That's what I love about numismatic literature -- every so often you come across something like that and you just have to admire all the work that went into it. Thanks for sharing the images! Haha, yes, an important character in 21st century numismatic history! I often wonder what became of the legendary Clio and their collection. (I assume it's a "he" but I don't know if that's been confirmed?) I'm sure someday their identity will be publicly known (if it isn't already). I wonder if any of their coins have come back to auction? A couple hypotheses I had were Saoud Al-Thani (d. 2014) and Martin Armstrong (who literally went to prison for like 8 years for contempt of court rather than tell the judge where his ancient coin collection was hidden!). But their collections have now been auctioned under their names (or known pseudonyms), so I'd assume people would've recognized coins that had been "Clioed"!

Many thanks, @quant.geek! Don't mean to derail, but Bulgarian coins are entirely new to me, and this has become quite interesting to me! This would be my only know example. Looking at my comment again on my phone, the images didn't come through (I could see them on my computer; fixed now, I think). So, highlighting again the couple bits that had caught my attention... Here's the part of the legend that I recognized as corresponding to mine. On most examples I can clearly see the ДЄС in this same position. But on a few other I see the legend shown below. I don't know if this is a legend variation -- maybe ТН (from СВѦТНСЛАВЪ) or the ТЪ (from ДЄСПОТЪ abbreviated). Maybe I'm just misreading that character as a "T" or maybe Naumann incorrectly IDed theirs (86, Lot 792) as Ivan. The legends remind me a bit of what Rasiel Suarez said about middle Byzantine legends (ERIC II, p. 1278, 1315): "From here on forward the legends become too erratic to catalog. As time goes on the lettering becomes increasingly fragmentary and careless and often completely illegible.... the border lettering has quickly eroded into the nonsense strings of crude letters that only vaguely resemble the old arrangement of names and titles...." I've noticed a lot of old auction listings for Bulgarian Trachy from this period simply attributed to uncertain ruler of the 13th cent. (Naumann 86, 792 left; Mine is on the right.) Or these weird ambiguous ones (CNG 108, 839) -- you showed this one above -- is that your coin? On ones like this I can see the DEC but it's pretty bad handwriting (Naumann 89, 642) I fixed the images in the previous comment, so I'm not sure if this one came through the first time: the Naumann 86, 792 coin, the one most similar to mine (small image but expandable). I'm wondering if they might've misidentified this one? Also, some others like this one have an odd appearance, like they're smoothed (or worse). I know mine isn't tooled at least, since I got it as an uncleaned "crusty."

EDIT: Just noticed, the photos are coming through on my laptop but not on my phone, trying again. And thanks @quant.geek, for the comment below as well, much appreciated! ORIGINAL: Quoting my photo again from above Thank you for this suggestion, @quant.geek! I hadn't considered Bulgaria (or perhaps forgot that I did once, long ago), but now I think it's mostly likely a mid-13th century Bulgarian Trachy. The one that strikes me as most similar might actually be Iakov Svetoslav (1263-1275). I've never tried to learn what Bulgarian Trachy legends say, so maybe it's common to multiple types, but mine appears to have the same or similar legend to some of these... The legend (?) on mine, right of the bust: Maybe T ꓘ - or TE- or DES for "Despot" or similar, or part of SVETOSLAV or similar? [See quant.geek's comment below/excerpted above] Naumann 86, 792: BULGARIA. Second Empire. Iakov Svetoslav (Despotes in Vidin, 1263-1275). Ae Trachy. Ref: D&D 5.1.2. Obv: Half-length facing bust of St. Demetrius, orans / Rev: Half-length facing bust of Iakov, holding sword and resting hand upon shield. https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=6724528 Naumann 89, 642: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=6994553 CNG 94, 1655: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1683921

Oh, may I share one more oddly-shaped (flattened?) Tuesday Trachy? Been saving it for ~20 years as a curiosity. Byzantine-Latin and/or imitation? (AE 26mm, 2.00g.) Don't even know for sure if the obv is oriented correctly.

Interesting topic! Also looks like a fascinating exhibit - thanks for sharing. I've also always wondered about why the artistry and fabric and "quality" changed so much from early to late antiquity (c. 600 BCE - 1453 CE). Accepting that artistic merit is always partly subjective / culturally relative, and there was internal variation within any period, I agree that it's still possible to recognize measurable changes. My own personal theories are mostly about incentives created by structural relationships between states and state actors. (Changing state structures corresponded roughly to different periods of coinage: Classical, Hellenistic, Roman Republican, Roman Imperial, "Byzantine," etc.) (I've also seen interesting theories about changing technologies, art-historical traditions, economic conditions, and other historical factors -- from wars to environmental changes and public health!) I think there are different answers for different periods. For this one: Classical: My view is that creativity was heightened in the Classical period by competition between many different small coin- producing city states. (Everyone wanted to produce the next "Aegina Turtle" or "Owl Tet" or "Pegasus Stater.) Hellenistic: The rise of "empire" (first Hellenistic, then Roman) increasingly centralized coin production (the design & planning, if not the actual mints, which were still dispersed), and correspondingly limited competition for creative new ideas and artistic talent. (Hellenistic Kings felt they "had to" adapt to Alexander's institutionalized model of how money was expected to appear, down to the right-facing portrait and full-bodied left-facing figure on reverse; even small changes would stand out.) Republican: Support for that theory actually comes from the Roman Republican period of Moneyers: Each year a new Roman family introduced its own types of denarii, essentially competing for prestige against past (and future) Moneyers and famous old families. Often these new designs were wildly artistic and original (though the size and shape of flan, and other details, remained similar) So we get a burst of creativity and beauty and interesting variety for a century or so. RIC: Once the coinage was centralized by Empire, it was standardized and the incentives and competitive pressures were reduced. Uniformity became ideology and purpose; inherently conservative, novelty was to be avoided outside narrow parameters. The height of uniformity was reached during the 4th cent. from the Tetrarchy onward. Regardless of ruler, the portrait looked the same; regardless of mint, the same formula was followed: Obv: a very impersonal portrait of ruler's head and/or shoulders, w/ a few choices of headwear and garments, clockwise legend of regnal titles running around the perimeter; Rev: a populist image, usually a patriotic legend clockwise around the perimeter; a mintmark in the exergue at 6h). The same model still applies to much of the world's coinage today, including U.S. coins: RPC: Creativity persisted in the local Provincial coinage types, but there was a different set of structural/economic pressures suppressing the highest artistic quality in the "local coinages." (For one thing, they were local or regional, not competing against "the whole world" for artistic / monetary supremacy.) Et al.: And yet other sets of pressures in the "Byzantine" period, for Islamic, medieval, early Celtic, Judaean & others. (I have specific hypotheses / evidence for and notes on the topic of each.) That's a summary of my own perspective (developed across several forum conversations like this one!) ... I always enjoy when this topic comes up and always seem to learn something new hearing what others have to say.

Very nice additions, congratulations! Your collection must be starting to have excellent coverage of the type by now. I don't have too many Trachy (Trachys? Trachies?) so I have to save some for next Tuesday. Here are a couple misshapen ones for today. Since we're doing coin-in- hand photos (good for 3D coins!), I photographed these for the first time i think. This one I just have as "Latin Byz." I find the patina, "centering," and obverse detail quite pleasing for the type! I have this one as Manuel I, SB 1966, 3.27g clipped. I always liked the precise linear clipping, even if it wasn't fully struck:

Personally, I would highly doubt that it's tooled. Tooling seems to be a lot less common on silver coins in general (presumably because it's much harder to hide since you can't apply fake patina afterward.) Once "Alexanders" start be worn it becomes obvious there are a LOT of deep features and lines, and they stay deep even as the surface is smoothing out. I'd consider that an attractive enough coin for the condition, just "honest wear" is all I see.

Vulcan is always cool! He's the god of holding coins with tongs and hammering them! That's what he's probably doing with that anvil up there. I've got this pair of Valerian captives coins (VICT PART; Parthian captives -- very ironic, since King Shapur came over from Persia and captured him, either to kill or keep around and torment for a couple years). Below those, my Gallienus captives coin from Cologne / Colonia Agrippinensis. By the way, here's Shapur's monument, showing Valerian looking very much like the captives on some Roman coins: Photo by Diego Delso, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons. Triumph of Shapur I over Valerian, the famous bas-relief monument to the Sasanian King at the necropolis Naqsh-I Rustam (in modern-day Iran). [From my blog post last year, "The Irony of Valerian's Captive."]

Some wonderful Seleukid elephants here! I love the Demetrios Horse/Elephant and the Antiochos IV / Laodike IV type (I'd love to have the scarcer Seleukos IV too someday, but haven't been willing to commit yet!). Here's my Horse Head/Elephant Head type struck under Demetrios I (as a nice bonus, it's from the E.E. Clain-Stefanelli Collection, which is a particular area of interest for me): Seleukid Kings of Syria, Demetrios I AE Serrate (3.74g, 16mm, 2h), Antioch on the Orontes, 162-150 BCE. Obv: Horse's head left; border of dots. Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ ΔHMHTPIOY. Elephant head right. Ref: SC 1646. Prov: Ex Clain-Stefanelli Collection; Naville Numismatics. Here's my Antiochos IV / Laodike IV with a galley prow behind the elephant: Seleukid Kings of Syria, Antiochos IV Epiphanes & Laodike IV AE Serrate (4.3g, 17.5mm, 1h), Ptolemaïs-Ake mint, 175-172 BCE. Obv: Veiled and diademed bust of Laodike IV right. Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ ANTIOXOY (ANTI·X·Y) in two lines, above & below. Head of elephant left; galley prow behind. Ref: SC 1477; HGC 9, 686. Prov: Uncertain group lot, c. 2000-2013.

Roman Provincial Corinth, Marcus Aurelius AE Diassarion (23mm, 8.15g, 9h). Obv: I M AVR ANTONINVS AVG. Laureate, cuirassed bust right. Rev: C L I COR. Turreted Concordia/Homonoia (or Fortuna/Tyche?) seated left, holding patera and cornucopia. Ref: BCD Corinth 721 = RPC Online 7589.2 (this coin). Prov: BCD Collection, Lanz 105 (26 November 2001), Lot 721; Naville Numismatics 47 (2 March 2019), Lot 122; Savoca Numismatik, Munich (VCoins Shop, 13 October 2021), SKU G0507. NEXT: Another coin of Corinth (any metal, any time)

Sicilian (and Magna Graecian) bronze coins are really special and beautiful coins. Below are a few of mine: Nice hefty bronze from Syracuse, under Pyrrhos. Pyrrhos lived in the shadow of Alexander III and clearly even borrowed his coin types (and those of Alexander's successor kings) -- Greek (Post-Classical / Hellenistic West). Sicily, Syracuse AE Litra (23mm, 11.80g, 6h), temp. Pyrrhos, c. 278-276 BCE. Obv: ΣΥPAKOΣIΩN. Head of Herakles wearing lionskin left. Rev: Athena Promachos right, holding shield & hurling javelin; wreath to left. Ref: CNS 177 (Volume II, Syracuse); BAR Issue 52; HGC 2, 1450; SNG ANS 845. Prov: Ex El Medina Collection; CNG CNG XXXI (Boston, 9 Sep 1994), Lot 90; Superior Galleries August Rare Coin Sale (8 August 1983), Lot 26. Syracuse, a couple of Hieron II middle bronzes: Greek (Post-Classical / Hellenistic West). Sicily, Syracuse AE Hemilitron (17mm, 3.98 g, 8h), temp. Hieron II, c. 275-215 BCE. Obv: Wreathed head of Kore left. Rev: Bull butting left; club over N above, IE below. Ref: CNS 199; BAR Issue 59; HGC 2, 1497. Prov: Ex Clain-Stefanelli Coll.; Naville 29 (26 Feb 2017), lot 86; CNG EA 485 (10 Feb 2021), Lot 13. Greek (Post-Classical / Hellenistic West). Sicily, Syracuse AE Hemilitron (AE 4.88g, 17.5mm, 3h), temp. Hieron II, c. 275-215 BCE. Obv: Wreathed head of Kore left. Rev: Bull butting left; club over N above, IE below. Ref: CNS 199; BAR Issue 59; HGC 2, 1497. Prov: Ex Richard Baker Coll.; CNG EA 509 (9 Feb 2022), Lot 846 (part of 8). A couple others, quickly, Agrigentum, Syracuse, and -- oh, how'd a silver get in there?

That's an interesting portrait on Sev Alex there! Here's a Severus Alexander of Antioch. Interestingly, a LIBERALITAS type, unusual since the LIBERALITAS redistributions were done in Rome not Antioch, as I understand. Roman Imperial. Severus Alexander AR Denarius (2.69g, 18mm, 6h), struck in Antioch, 223 CE. Obv: IMP C M AVR SEV ALEXAND AVG. Laureate, cuirassed & draped bust right, seen from behind. Rev: LIBERALITAS AVG. Liberalitas draped, standing & holding abacus (?) and cornucopia. Ref: RIC IV 281; BMCRE 1043; RSC 108b. Prov: Ex AK Collection, purchased from Munzen & Medaillen AG, Basel, 1970; CNG Triton XXI (7 January 2019), lot 805 (part of 94 coins, coin no. B083, illustrated in AK Supplement only); encapsulated by NGC, c. 2019-2021 (corr.); CNG EA 485 (10 Feb 2021), Lot 559, (Corr., misdescribed & incorrect NGC label). Notes: Cohen (2011) argues in Dated Coins of Antiquity that whatever Liberalitas is holding, it cannot be an abacus. (Perhaps a coin box? Although I don't know why that would be on a stick.) The first time CNG sold this one (Triton XXI AK Supplement) they called it Antioch. But then the provenance to the previous sale was lost (it was also submitted to NGC, who accidentally switched the tag with a Rome mint Severus Alexander denarius, also from the AK Collection)! So when CNG sold it again 2 years later, and didn't know about their original listing (until I called LH during the auction and gave the details), they cataloged it as Rome for whatever reason. (Also mistakenly downgraded it from AU to XF -- probably much to my benefit.) NEXT: EASTERN MINT DENARIUS, BUST "SEEN FROM BEHIND" One Hour Passed -- Now Accepting Antoniniani Too! Two Hours -- Now Accepting Tetradrachms (any AR/BI)!

Well, I thought I had already posted my Julia Mamaea Sestertius, but searching around, I don't think I have, so I'm considering it fresh enough to share. Mamaea was killed alongside her son Severus Alexander in 235. My understanding of events is that the army felt Alexander had appeased the Germanic tribes with whom they'd been engaged in frontier battles, and ended the war without enough fighting. So they killed them in their tent in the military encampment. (I recall that they were actually physically together when both killed, but feel free to correct me.) Don't remember if Maximinus Thrax was part of the assassination plot, or if the idea to proclaim him emperor may have come up only after the Severans were killed. Incidentally, Julia Mamaea is a rare Roman woman with captives on the reverse of some coins of Alexandria; unfortunately I don't have hers yet, but I have her son's captives Tetradrachm of Alexandria, and their killer's. They all used the same reverse types, depicting the Germanic captives over whom all the killing happened. NEXT: ANOTHER ASSASSINATION ENDING A DYNASTY Edit: Just realized, "assassination" could be narrower than I meant, substitute in "killing"... EDIT: NEXT: A KILLING (WARFARE, MURDER, EXECUTION, BARFIGHT, "MYSTERIOUS"/UNKNOWN) & A DYNASTY CHANGE (or changing/ending the dynasty at least for the moment)

(Where's TIF?) Roman Republic. L. Julius L.f. Caesar (Moneyer, 103 BCE) AR Denarius (3.92g, 17mm, 12h). Rome, 103 BCE. Obv: CAESAR. Helmeted head of Mars, left, to left: ·ꓘ. Rev: B L·IVLI·L·F. Venus riding left in biga driven by winged Cupids, holding sceptre and reins, lyre below, above: ·ꓘ. Ref: Crawford 320/1 [ANS CRRO 320.1]. Pub: ANS RRDP, Schaefer Binder #19 (Processed, 300-399): pp. 119 (ꓘ) & 121 (·ꓘ). Prov: Ex Soler y Llach Subasta 1124 (23 Feb 2022), Lot 458, Scipio Collection, Part III; Lanz Auction 88, 23 Nov 1998, Lot 407, Leo Benz (1906-1996) Collection; Kricheldorf 29 (3 Mar 1975), Lot 249. Coin-in-hand video, description & Schaefer-RRDP clippings: https://imgur.com/gallery/s0Ay3iO NEXT: Republican coin of "the other" to a famous historical figure (or "an other") (e.g., "the other Caesar," the other Brutus, the other Cassius, the other Pompey, the other....)

Seems I don't have a Lugdunum and maybe no Constantius II of this type, but here's my Thessalonica Constans (5.10g):

We have a 12hr rule, right? I'm going to switch the "next" just a bit (my Trajan Sestertii are too embarrassing, so it'd either be favorite Large AE Trajan or this...) My favorite Trajan Decius Sestertius... DACIA reverse type (sorry for the photo!) NEXT: Sestertius with 5 or fewer (including zero) letters on the reverse legend (not counting S-C):

As @kirispupis noted, the lack of control symbols may be why they called it Celtic. It seems to be very unusual, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to say how much so. I found another example here without controls, sold by VAuctions 239 (7 Jan 2010), Lot 5. They commented on the lack of controls and also considered that it might mean this is a Celtic imitation, but they concluded not. (I'd say theirs looks much more Celtic than the OP coin.) Quoting their description: "KINGS of MACEDON. Philip II. 359-336 BC. AR Tetradrachm (23mm - 14.06 g). Laureate head of Zeus right / Youth on horseback right, holding palm; no controls. Le Rider -; SNG ANS -. Nice VF, attractive toning, nice flan. An unusual coin with no control marks. The style is fairly refined and doesn't appear to be a Celtic imitation. The lettering on the reverse is a bit larger than normal."

Edit: Nice coin by the way! 🙂 That is odd. I looked up the listing (this coin has actually been listed before at Naumann 115, I assume you got it at Naumann 119). The reported weight (14.26g) is fine, so it's not a fourree or Celtic standard. Next place to look is the reference: "cf. Lanz 352-356." That reference is Kostial's book on the Hermann Lanz (1910-1998) Collection prepared for an exhibition at the SMB - Munzkabinett Berlin, in association with the International Numismatic Congress 1997 (and the 2nd edition, with a 2003 exhibit in Munich). The INC-SMB exhibit was right before he died, so I imagine it was some way to honor him. In any case, that's now the standard reference for Celtic coins (or at least one of 2-3 standard refs): M. Kostial, Kelten im Osten - Gold und Silber der Kelten in Mittel- und Osteuropa - Sammlung Lanz (Staatlichen Münzsammlung München, 1997[ 2003, 2nd ed.]), N. 422. The collection was sold by Roma Numismatics c. 2019 so you can find the images on ACSearch: You can probably judge for yourself whether yours really belongs with this group. (I'm befuddled by their attribution.) Here's Lanz 352: Lanz 353: 354: 355: 356: By way, incidentally, here's my example from the Hermann Lanz Collection, a 3.35g Baumreiter Drachm ["branch rider" type] ( Lanz 422 = this coin). Clearly yours and mine are from the same series! 😂

I see two immediate reasons not to consider the eye shape on Colchian coins to be evidence of their ethnic/genetic composition. One, archaic Greek art, almost as a whole, was heavily influenced by Egyptian, which should certainly be relevant to the artistic history of Colchis. Second, related to the first, cultural diffusion often doesn't correspond very heavily at all to ethnic/genetic change. (There was lots of cultural exchange going on between Egyptians and Romans for many centuries after this, without any requirement for either population to intermarry or produce children with one another.) Also, that one detail, which isn't necessarily unique to Egyptian art, doesn't even convincingly show much Egyptian influence. It seems to boil down to the eye and Herodotus, right? I'm not entirely sure what you're suggesting. That Colchis was originally settled by Egyptians but that either predated historical records or escaped history except the impressions of Herodotus?

Nice one! Notice also that those are virtually the same sets of weapons shown in two of Trajan's Dacia captive denarii above: two curved sabers, two spears (though my 2nd denarius only has one spear), hexagonal shield (or close, viewed from the side almost diamond shaped), and circular shield (or close, oval shaped from the side). They seem to have been very specific about the details of those captured arms. One wonders if it wasn't more than consistency for communication's sake; perhaps it represents something specific (e.g., the two wars, or two particular victories, or two Dacian armies crushed; I suspect one would find that same imagery in the frieze on Trajan's Column and elsewhere).