Roman Republican # 86, M. Volteius (Cr. 385/1): First Depiction of a Temple on a Roman Coin

[DonnaML]

Because the footnote to my description of this coin is so lengthy, I'll put my question and my request up front.

Question, regarding the reddish encrustation towards the right edge of the reverse of this coin: what does it look like to people, and whatever it is, should I attempt to remove it -- and, if so, how? I think the reverse is otherwise in excellent condition in terms of preservation of detail, and I certainly wouldn't want to damage it any way in trying to improve its appearance.

Request: I have only a very small number of ancient coins depicting temples, but was happy to learn that this was the earliest Roman coin that does so. If anyone would like to post their own Roman (or other ancient coins) depicting temples -- particularly if any such temples can be specifically identified -- I'd love to see them.

Roman Republic, M. [Marcus] Volteius M.f., AR Denarius, 78 BCE (Crawford) or 75 BCE (Harlan). Obv. Laureate head of Jupiter right (anepigraphic) / Rev. Capitoline Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, tetrastyle (four columns flanking three cella [inner chamber] double-doors, one each for Jupiter in center [with lock or handle] & Minerva and Juno on sides), with Jupiter’s thunderbolt in pediment and prominent acroteria [roof decorations usually consisting of sculptures]; in exergue, M•VOLTEI•M•F. 18 mm., 3.84 g. Crawford 385/1; RSC I Volteia 1 (ill. p. 100); BMCRR I 3154 (ill. BMCRR III Pl. XLII No. 1); Sear RCV I 312 (ill. p. 131); Harlan, RRM I Ch. 12 pp. 70-73 [Harlan, Michael, Roman Republican Moneyers and their Coins, 81 BCE-64 BCE (2012)]; Yarrow, pp. 168-169 (ill. p. 169 Fig. 4.6) ) [Yarrow, Liv Mariah, The Roman Republic to 49 BCE: Using Coins as Sources (2021)]; Hollstein pp. 11-13 (ill. Tafel 1) [Hollstein, Wilhelm, Roman Coinage in the years 78-50 BC, etc. [Die stadtrömische Münzprägung der Jahre 78-50 v. Chr., zwischen politischer Aktualität und Familienthematik (Munich 1993)]; Albert 1280 (ill. p. 178) [Albert, Rainer, Die Münzen der Römischen Republik (2011)]; RBW Collection 1414 (ill. p. 291); E.E. Clain-Stefanelli, Life in Republican Rome on its Coinage (Smithsonian 1999), p. 87 (ill. at same page). Purchased from Lucernae Numismatics, Alcalá la Real, Jaén, Spain, Auction XIV, 25 May 2023, Lot 137.*

 [For unknown reasons, seller's photo has reverse to left and obverse to right]

*The depiction of the Capitoline Temple of Jupiter on the reverse of this coin is not only “the earliest representation of a temple on the Roman coin series” (Yarrow p. 169), but, according to Hollstein (p. 11) is actually “der ersten Abbildung eines Gebäudes auf römischen Münzen” (the first depiction of a building [of any kind] on Roman coins).

The original construction of the Capitoline Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, “the most significant temple of ancient Rome,” was traditionally begun under the first King Tarquin, with the aid of Etruscan specialists, in payment of a vow he had made while fighting the Sabines. Also according to tradition, it was completed and dedicated under the newly-born Republic in 509 BCE. (Harlan p. 72). After more than 400 years, “the temple burned to the ground on 6 July 83. Its reconstruction, on the original foundation, was undertaken by Sulla, but he died in 78 before it could be completed.” (Id.) It was not finally completed and rededicated by Lutatius Catulus (Cos. 78) until 69 BCE (id. p. 73; see also Yarrow p. 69). Thus, the reconstruction “was still ongoing and far from completion when Volteius’ representation appeared on the reverse of this coin.”  (Harlan p. 73; see also Crawford p. 400).

 According to Hollstein (pp. 11-12), the thunderbolt of Jupiter depicted in the pediment “certainly served only to identify the temple” on the coin and was not part of the actual Capitoline temple, either originally or as rebuilt. Moreover, all the authorities appear to agree that the Capitoline temple as rebuilt was hexastyle, i.e., it had six columns across the front rather than the four depicted on the Volteius coin. See Hollstein p. 12 and Harlan pp. 73-74, both citing the representation of the rebuilt temple with six columns on Crawford 487/1, issued by Petillius Capitolinus in 43 BCE. Here's an example sold by NAC on 23.06.2021 for $10,345 (not my coin!): 

 Partly because temples in the Etruscan style were usually hexastyle, both Harlan and Hollstein are skeptical of the suggestion [see Hill, Philip V., “Buildings and monuments of ancient Rome on republican coins, c.135-40 B.C.,” Rivista Italiana di Numismatica 82 (1980) at pp. 33–52], that the tetrastyle depiction on the Volteius coin was intended to represent the original temple before it burned down, which would mean that the temple originally had only four columns in front rather than six. See Harlan p. 73:

 “Did Volteius not care about accuracy, or were there originally only four front columns? Probably not. The temple was about [61 ½] meters long and [57] meters wide. [Citing Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 4.61.3.] If there were originally only four columns, the space between each column would have been nineteen meters, an unreasonably long open span for the architrave. . . . Since the reconstructed temple of Jupiter Capitolinus matched the original size, it is most likely that the temple seen on Petillius’ coin reproduced the ancient temple’s [original] design,” as well as the reconstructed temple’s design, by depicting six columns across the front.

 Therefore,

 “Rather than try to precisely depict the new temple, whose columns may not have been set in place when he minted, Volteius seems to have chosen to emphasize the tripartite nature of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. In typical Etruscan style, the temple was divided into three cellas [inner chambers], the larger central one occupied by Jupiter, the one on the left belonged to Minerva, the one on the right to Juno. Volteius depicted this feature of the temple by using four columns to divide the space into three sections and his uneven spacing of the columns makes the central cella the largest. The representation of the doors to the separate cellas can be seen between the columns. Such a representation, true to the nature of the temple but not to the details of the completed reconstruction, would have been best suited to a time when Catulus had not yet erected the columns at the entrance. He did not dedicate the temple until 69 and even then its embellishment was not complete. The incentive for accuracy in column numbers would have been much more compelling further along in the reconstruction process.”

Harlan p. 73. See also Hollstein p. 13, characterizing the depiction of the Capitoline Temple on the Volteius coin as not necessarily a realistic representation of the original temple, but “rather an ideal image, generally understandable through the Jupiter on the [obverse], the lightning bolt in the pediment and the three indicated cellae” [citing G. Fuchs, Architekturdarstellungen auf römischen Münzen der Republik und der frühen Kaiserzeit p. 66 (Berlin 1969)].

 It should be kept in mind, however, that Harlan’s conclusion that the original temple was too large to have been tetrastyle was partly based on an assumption that the estimates concerning the size of the original temple made by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who wrote during the reign of Augustus (and was personally familiar only with the rebuilt temple) were accurate. In fact, the original temple’s “size remains heavily disputed by specialists.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Jupiter_Optimus_Maximus. The article notes: “Five different plans of the temple have been published following recent excavations on the Capitoline Hill that revealed portions of the archaic foundations. According to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, the same plan and foundations were used for later rebuildings of the temple, but there is disagreement over what the dimensions he mentions referred to (the building itself or the podium),” among other things. See also Ronald T. Ridley, “Unbridgeable Gaps: the Capitoline Temple at Rome,” Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma, Vol. 106 (2005), pp. 83-104 (available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/44515842), giving a detailed account of the history of the scholarship and scholarly disputes regarding the design and dimensions of the Capitoline Temple in its different incarnations, and concluding as follows at pp. 103-104: “we must squarely admit that we have no description of the original temple, which lasted traditionally more than four centuries, unless it is Volteius’ coin [depicting a tetrastyle temple], which has to be claimed to be a memory of the recently destroyed Tarquinian building” -- even though “it is generally agreed (following later evidence) that it was hexastyle.” Regardless of the number of columns, though, “It should now be clear on any number of grounds that the standard reconstructions of a temple at Rome c. 500 BC measuring anything approaching 55 x 60 meters is highly improbable.” Id. Among other things, it would have been “four times the area of contemporary temples in Central Italy.” Id.  

In any event, wholly apart from the questions concerning the accuracy of the depiction of the original Capitoline Temple on this particular issue of M. Volteius, it is largely accepted that the type relates, like the other four Volteius coins, to one of the five principal agonistic festivals which were celebrated annually at Rome. See Crawford p. 402. This type relates specifically to the Ludi Romani (originally known as the Ludi Magni and then the Ludi Maximi), held each year from 5 to 19 September.

Harlan cites Dionysius Halicarnassus as tracing the first presentation of the Ludi Romani (Roman games) back to the payment of a vow made on behalf of the state by the dictator Aulus Postumius Albus before the Battle of Lake Regillus against the Latin League (led by Rome’s ousted king Lucius Tarquinius Superbus), which traditionally took place circa 499 BCE. See Harlan p. 71. After describing the ceremonies at length (id.), Harlan states:

 “The design of Volteius’ coin with the head of Jupiter on the obverse and his Capitoline temple on the reverse focuses on the central part of the festival which occurred on [September] 13th, when the Epulum Jovis, the feast of Jupiter, was held. This was one of the most spectacular scenes in Roman religion. It began with a sacrifice, and then the huge public feast was laid out. The Capitoline triad Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva were present in visible form, for the images of the gods were decked out in their best attire and seated on their couches. The priesthood of septemviri epulones created in 196 had special charge of the ceremony. The 13^th was also the birthday of the great temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus on the Capitol, the most significant temple of ancient Rome. Tacitus called it the ‘seat of Jupiter, founded by our ancestors under propitious auspices as a pledge of our imperium.’” (Harlan pp. 71-72, citing Tacitus, Histories, 3.72.)

 The four other Volteius types related to:

The Ludi Plebeii (dedicated to Hercules, see Crawford 385/2); here is my example depicting Hercules on the obverse and the Erymanthian boar on the reverse:

 

The Ludi Ceriales (dedicated to Ceres, see Crawford 385/3); here is my example depicting Liber or Bacchus on the obverse and Ceres in a biga of snakes on the reverse:

The Ludi Megalenses (dedicated to Cybele; see Crawford 385/4); here is my example depicting Attis or Corybas on the obverse and Cybele in a biga of lions on the reverse:

 

Finally, the Ludi Apollinares (dedicated to Apollo, see Crawford 385/5). I do not have this type – by far the scarcest of the five, with only 22 examples listed on acsearch – which has Apollo on the obverse and a tripod with snake on the reverse.

See generally Harlan Ch. 12 pp. 62-79, discussing all five types. See also Yarrow p. 169 (“we might want to think about this series as a miniature fasti [calendar] or symbolic representation of the religious year”); Albert p. 178.

As mentioned at the outset, please post your own Roman or other ancient coins depicting temples, particularly any that can be identified historically. Or post anything else you think is relevant.

Edited June 12, 2023 by DonnaML

[Pellinore]

Thanks, @DonnaML, for your excellent write-up. Now I understand this coin in my collection better, one of my very few Republicans, but one I very much like and that I bought because of its expressivity. 

AR denarius, Rome. M. Volteius M. f. 75 BC. Obv. Head of young Hercules right, wearing lion’s skin headdress. Rev. Erymanthian Boar charging right, VOLTEI·M·F in exergue. 17mm., 3.64g. Crawford 385/2.

[DonnaML]

6 minutes ago, Pellinore said:

Thanks, @DonnaML, for your excellent write-up. Now I understand this coin in my collection better, one of my very few Republicans, but one I very much like and that I bought because of its expressivity. 

AR denarius, Rome. M. Volteius M. f. 75 BC. Obv. Head of young Hercules right, wearing lion’s skin headdress. Rev. Erymanthian Boar charging right, VOLTEI·M·F in exergue. 17mm., 3.64g. Crawford 385/2.

That's a fantastic boar!

[Curtisimo]

Nice coin @DonnaML! Great centering and great detail on the temple, especially the roof. I really like how the engraver details each of the doors. This is one of my favorite temple depictions on any Roman coin. I got mine last year and it easily made my “Top 10”.

ROMAN REPUBLIC
M. Volteius M.F. (Moneyer)
AR Denarius, Rome mint, struck 78 BC
Wt.: 3.65 g
Dia.: 17.1 mm
Obv.: Laureate head of Jupiter right.
Rev.: Façade of the Aedes Iovis Optimi Maximi Capitolini (Temple of Jupiter the Best and Greatest on the Capitoline Hill), with winged thunderbolt in pediment; M. VOLTEI. MF in exergue.
Ref.: Crawford 385/1; Sydenham 774; Volteia 1
Ex Minotaur Coins (private purchase May 2022)

[DonnaML]

1 minute ago, Curtisimo said:

Nice coin @DonnaML! Great centering and great detail on the temple, especially the roof. I really like how the engraver details each of the doors. This is one of my favorite temple depictions on any Roman coin. I got mine last year and it easily made my “Top 10”.

ROMAN REPUBLIC
M. Volteius M.F. (Moneyer)
AR Denarius, Rome mint, struck 78 BC
Wt.: 3.65 g
Dia.: 17.1 mm
Obv.: Laureate head of Jupiter right.
Rev.: Façade of the Aedes Iovis Optimi Maximi Capitolini (Temple of Jupiter the Best and Greatest on the Capitoline Hill), with winged thunderbolt in pediment; M. VOLTEI. MF in exergue.
Ref.: Crawford 385/1; Sydenham 774; Volteia 1
Ex Minotaur Coins (private purchase May 2022)

A wonderful specimen! I haven't seen any definitive statements on what that's supposed to be at the apex of the roof -- which is off the flan on my example. I believe the rebuilt temple had a statue of Jupiter there, but that certainly doesn't look like Jupiter on your roof!

[akeady]

My Cr. 487/1 isn't as nice as the one above, but still...

From the same moneyer, here's Cr. 487/2b with the same temple:

The temple has largely disappeared - I think some of the foundations can be seen under the Capitoline Museums, if you can drag yourself away from the coins, sculptures, views over the Forum:

This coin, Cr. 424/1 has a depiction of the Temple of Venus at Eryx in Sicily.   Nothing much survives of this as it was built over by a Crusader castle.

Gens:	Considia
Moneyer:	C. Considius Nonianus
Coin:	Silver Denarius C•CONSIDI•NONIANI / S•C - Laureate and diademed bust of Venus right ERVC - Temple on summit of rocky mountain surrounded by wall with towers on each side and gate in centre
Mint:	Rome (57 BC)
Wt./Size/Axis:	3.92g / 19mm / 6h
References:	RSC 1a (Considia) Sydenham 887 Crawford 424/1
Provenances:	Ex. Bernard Poindessault (1935-2014) Collection
Acquisition:	Roma Numismatics Online Auction E-Live Auction 1 #508 25-Jul-2018

The same Elymi people built the nearby surviving and unfinished temple at Segesta - from the looks of it in 2015, they're still working on it.

The Temple of Vesta is shown in some RR coins, like this Cr. 428/2:

This temple was rebuilt several times in antiquity, lastly by Septimius Severus, and seems to have survived until the 16th century, when it was plundered for marble.
There's a partial reconstruction in the Forum today:

ATB,
Aidan.

Edited June 13, 2023 by akeady

[Sulla80]

Hi @DonnaML, here's my rather rough version of your coin, following Crawford it is certainly the first RR denarius to show a temple, I am less certain about what we might find if we went into the bronzes.

As for your "reddish spot" it looks like an encrustation that came from another coin that was lying on top of your coin perhaps for many hundreds of years.  Although I have done some chemistry experiments on lesser coins, I would say: leave your coin as is - in my eyes it is quite a nice one.

PS - my favorite temple coin shows the Temple on Mt. Eryx from a politically interesting period in the history of the Roman republic, depicting a temple to the unusual Venus Erycine with Phrygian roots and links to Aeneas and the Punic Wars, with an innovative landscape scene

https://www.sullacoins.com/post/the-temple-on-mt-eryx

Edited June 13, 2023 by Sulla80

[DonnaML]

6 minutes ago, Sulla80 said:

Hi @DonnaML, here's my rather rough version of your coin, following Crawford it is certainly the first RR denarius to show a temple, I am less certain about what we might find if we went into the bronzes.

As for your "reddish spot" it looks like an encrustation that came from another coin that was lying on top of your coin perhaps for many hundreds of years.  Although I have done some chemistry experiments on lesser coins, I would say: leave your coin as is - I think it is quite a nice one to my eyes.

Thank you. I did check the Crawford index and found no references to temples on earlier coins, whether denarii or bronzes.

[DonnaML]

13 minutes ago, akeady said:

My Cr. 487/1 isn't as nice as the one above, but still...

From the same moneyer, here's Cr. 487/2b with the same temple:

The temple has largely disappeared - I think some of the foundations can be seen under the Capitoline Museums, if you can drag yourself away from the coins, sculptures, views over the Forum:

This coin, Cr. 424/1 has a depiction of the Temple of Venus at Eryx in Sicily.   Nothing much survives of this as it was built over by a Crusader castle.

Gens:	Considia
Moneyer:	C. Considius Nonianus
Coin:	Silver Denarius C•CONSIDI•NONIANI / S•C - Laureate and diademed bust of Venus right ERVC - Temple on summit of rocky mountain surrounded by wall with towers on each side and gate in centre
Mint:	Rome (57 BC)
Wt./Size/Axis:	3.92g / 19mm / 6h
References:	RSC 1a (Considia) Sydenham 887 Crawford 424/1
Provenances:	Ex. Bernard Poindessault (1935-2014) Collection
Acquisition:	Roma Numismatics Online Auction E-Live Auction 1 #508 25-Jul-2018

The same Elymi people built the nearby surviving and unfinished temple at Segesta - from the looks of it in 2015, they're still working on it.

The Temple of Vesta is shown in some RR coins, like this Cr. 428/2:

This temple was rebuilt several times in antiquty, lastly by Septimius Severus, and seems to have survived until the 16th century, when it was plundered for marble.
There's a partial reconstruction in the Forum today:

ATB,
Aidan.

Great post. I see Jupiter more clearly at the apex of the roof on your specimen of Crawford 487/1 than on the specimen that sold for more than $10,000!

[DonnaML]

56 minutes ago, Sulla80 said:

Hi @DonnaML, here's my rather rough version of your coin, following Crawford it is certainly the first RR denarius to show a temple, I am less certain about what we might find if we went into the bronzes.

As for your "reddish spot" it looks like an encrustation that came from another coin that was lying on top of your coin perhaps for many hundreds of years.  Although I have done some chemistry experiments on lesser coins, I would say: leave your coin as is - in my eyes it is quite a nice one.

PS - my favorite temple coin shows the Temple on Mt. Eryx from a politically interesting period in the history of the Roman republic, depicting a temple to the unusual Venus Erycine with Phrygian roots and links to Aeneas and the Punic Wars, with an innovative landscape scene

https://www.sullacoins.com/post/the-temple-on-mt-eryx

Also: I love the Mt. Eryx coin. Interesting that it's apparently the earliest ancient coin to show a landscape, at least together with a temple.

And thanks for the advice to leave the encrustation alone. As tempted as I may be to try to scrape it off!

Edited June 13, 2023 by DonnaML

[jdmKY]

Another Temple of Jupiter, Petillius Capitolinus, 43 BC, denarius

Temple of Divus Julius, Octavian, 36 BC, denarius

[Steppenfool]

Nice coin, I'm surprised it took them so long to depict a temple!

As for the reddish encrustation, I quite like it, adds an air of authenticity. However, depending on how it looks in hand, I may be tempted to prod it with a wooden toothpick and see what happens. If it seems very attached I would leave it, if it comes of with a little bit of force or seems crumbly I'd probably attempt to remove it.

[Chrysogonus]

Hi Donna,

 

Thanks for another interesting post. Here’s my example of 487/1.

 

 

[Bartolus]

On 6/13/2023 at 2:33 AM, DonnaML said:

Great post. I see Jupiter more clearly at the apex of the roof on your specimen of Crawford 487/1 than on the specimen that sold for more than $10,000!

yes, but the artistic quality of the NAC specimen's portrait is incomparably superior

[DonnaML]

6 hours ago, Bartolus said:

yes, but the artistic quality of the NAC specimen's portrait is incomparably superior

Nobody claimed it wasn't. I was talking only about one aspect of the reverse of @akeady's coin.

[David Atherton]

On 6/12/2023 at 3:05 PM, DonnaML said:

Because the footnote to my description of this coin is so lengthy, I'll put my question and my request up front.

Question, regarding the reddish encrustation towards the right edge of the reverse of this coin: what does it look like to people, and whatever it is, should I attempt to remove it -- and, if so, how? I think the reverse is otherwise in excellent condition in terms of preservation of detail, and I certainly wouldn't want to damage it any way in trying to improve its appearance.

Request: I have only a very small number of ancient coins depicting temples, but was happy to learn that this was the earliest Roman coin that does so. If anyone would like to post their own Roman (or other ancient coins) depicting temples -- particularly if any such temples can be specifically identified -- I'd love to see them.

Roman Republic, M. [Marcus] Volteius M.f., AR Denarius, 78 BCE (Crawford) or 75 BCE (Harlan). Obv. Laureate head of Jupiter right (anepigraphic) / Rev. Capitoline Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, tetrastyle (four columns flanking three cella [inner chamber] double-doors, one each for Jupiter in center [with lock or handle] & Minerva and Juno on sides), with Jupiter’s thunderbolt in pediment and prominent acroteria [roof decorations usually consisting of sculptures]; in exergue, M•VOLTEI•M•F. 18 mm., 3.84 g. Crawford 385/1; RSC I Volteia 1 (ill. p. 100); BMCRR I 3154 (ill. BMCRR III Pl. XLII No. 1); Sear RCV I 312 (ill. p. 131); Harlan, RRM I Ch. 12 pp. 70-73 [Harlan, Michael, Roman Republican Moneyers and their Coins, 81 BCE-64 BCE (2012)]; Yarrow, pp. 168-169 (ill. p. 169 Fig. 4.6) ) [Yarrow, Liv Mariah, The Roman Republic to 49 BCE: Using Coins as Sources (2021)]; Hollstein pp. 11-13 (ill. Tafel 1) [Hollstein, Wilhelm, Roman Coinage in the years 78-50 BC, etc. [Die stadtrömische Münzprägung der Jahre 78-50 v. Chr., zwischen politischer Aktualität und Familienthematik (Munich 1993)]; Albert 1280 (ill. p. 178) [Albert, Rainer, Die Münzen der Römischen Republik (2011)]; RBW Collection 1414 (ill. p. 291); E.E. Clain-Stefanelli, Life in Republican Rome on its Coinage (Smithsonian 1999), p. 87 (ill. at same page). Purchased from Lucernae Numismatics, Alcalá la Real, Jaén, Spain, Auction XIV, 25 May 2023, Lot 137.*

 [For unknown reasons, seller's photo has reverse to left and obverse to right]

*The depiction of the Capitoline Temple of Jupiter on the reverse of this coin is not only “the earliest representation of a temple on the Roman coin series” (Yarrow p. 169), but, according to Hollstein (p. 11) is actually “der ersten Abbildung eines Gebäudes auf römischen Münzen” (the first depiction of a building [of any kind] on Roman coins).

The original construction of the Capitoline Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, “the most significant temple of ancient Rome,” was traditionally begun under the first King Tarquin, with the aid of Etruscan specialists, in payment of a vow he had made while fighting the Sabines. Also according to tradition, it was completed and dedicated under the newly-born Republic in 509 BCE. (Harlan p. 72). After more than 400 years, “the temple burned to the ground on 6 July 83. Its reconstruction, on the original foundation, was undertaken by Sulla, but he died in 78 before it could be completed.” (Id.) It was not finally completed and rededicated by Lutatius Catulus (Cos. 78) until 69 BCE (id. p. 73; see also Yarrow p. 69). Thus, the reconstruction “was still ongoing and far from completion when Volteius’ representation appeared on the reverse of this coin.”  (Harlan p. 73; see also Crawford p. 400).

 According to Hollstein (pp. 11-12), the thunderbolt of Jupiter depicted in the pediment “certainly served only to identify the temple” on the coin and was not part of the actual Capitoline temple, either originally or as rebuilt. Moreover, all the authorities appear to agree that the Capitoline temple as rebuilt was hexastyle, i.e., it had six columns across the front rather than the four depicted on the Volteius coin. See Hollstein p. 12 and Harlan pp. 73-74, both citing the representation of the rebuilt temple with six columns on Crawford 487/1, issued by Petillius Capitolinus in 43 BCE. Here's an example sold by NAC on 23.06.2021 for $10,345 (not my coin!): 

 Partly because temples in the Etruscan style were usually hexastyle, both Harlan and Hollstein are skeptical of the suggestion [see Hill, Philip V., “Buildings and monuments of ancient Rome on republican coins, c.135-40 B.C.,” Rivista Italiana di Numismatica 82 (1980) at pp. 33–52], that the tetrastyle depiction on the Volteius coin was intended to represent the original temple before it burned down, which would mean that the temple originally had only four columns in front rather than six. See Harlan p. 73:

 “Did Volteius not care about accuracy, or were there originally only four front columns? Probably not. The temple was about [61 ½] meters long and [57] meters wide. [Citing Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 4.61.3.] If there were originally only four columns, the space between each column would have been nineteen meters, an unreasonably long open span for the architrave. . . . Since the reconstructed temple of Jupiter Capitolinus matched the original size, it is most likely that the temple seen on Petillius’ coin reproduced the ancient temple’s [original] design,” as well as the reconstructed temple’s design, by depicting six columns across the front.

 Therefore,

 “Rather than try to precisely depict the new temple, whose columns may not have been set in place when he minted, Volteius seems to have chosen to emphasize the tripartite nature of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. In typical Etruscan style, the temple was divided into three cellas [inner chambers], the larger central one occupied by Jupiter, the one on the left belonged to Minerva, the one on the right to Juno. Volteius depicted this feature of the temple by using four columns to divide the space into three sections and his uneven spacing of the columns makes the central cella the largest. The representation of the doors to the separate cellas can be seen between the columns. Such a representation, true to the nature of the temple but not to the details of the completed reconstruction, would have been best suited to a time when Catulus had not yet erected the columns at the entrance. He did not dedicate the temple until 69 and even then its embellishment was not complete. The incentive for accuracy in column numbers would have been much more compelling further along in the reconstruction process.”

Harlan p. 73. See also Hollstein p. 13, characterizing the depiction of the Capitoline Temple on the Volteius coin as not necessarily a realistic representation of the original temple, but “rather an ideal image, generally understandable through the Jupiter on the [obverse], the lightning bolt in the pediment and the three indicated cellae” [citing G. Fuchs, Architekturdarstellungen auf römischen Münzen der Republik und der frühen Kaiserzeit p. 66 (Berlin 1969)].

 It should be kept in mind, however, that Harlan’s conclusion that the original temple was too large to have been tetrastyle was partly based on an assumption that the estimates concerning the size of the original temple made by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who wrote during the reign of Augustus (and was personally familiar only with the rebuilt temple) were accurate. In fact, the original temple’s “size remains heavily disputed by specialists.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Jupiter_Optimus_Maximus. The article notes: “Five different plans of the temple have been published following recent excavations on the Capitoline Hill that revealed portions of the archaic foundations. According to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, the same plan and foundations were used for later rebuildings of the temple, but there is disagreement over what the dimensions he mentions referred to (the building itself or the podium),” among other things. See also Ronald T. Ridley, “Unbridgeable Gaps: the Capitoline Temple at Rome,” Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma, Vol. 106 (2005), pp. 83-104 (available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/44515842), giving a detailed account of the history of the scholarship and scholarly disputes regarding the design and dimensions of the Capitoline Temple in its different incarnations, and concluding as follows at pp. 103-104: “we must squarely admit that we have no description of the original temple, which lasted traditionally more than four centuries, unless it is Volteius’ coin [depicting a tetrastyle temple], which has to be claimed to be a memory of the recently destroyed Tarquinian building” -- even though “it is generally agreed (following later evidence) that it was hexastyle.” Regardless of the number of columns, though, “It should now be clear on any number of grounds that the standard reconstructions of a temple at Rome c. 500 BC measuring anything approaching 55 x 60 meters is highly improbable.” Id. Among other things, it would have been “four times the area of contemporary temples in Central Italy.” Id.  

In any event, wholly apart from the questions concerning the accuracy of the depiction of the original Capitoline Temple on this particular issue of M. Volteius, it is largely accepted that the type relates, like the other four Volteius coins, to one of the five principal agonistic festivals which were celebrated annually at Rome. See Crawford p. 402. This type relates specifically to the Ludi Romani (originally known as the Ludi Magni and then the Ludi Maximi), held each year from 5 to 19 September.

Harlan cites Dionysius Halicarnassus as tracing the first presentation of the Ludi Romani (Roman games) back to the payment of a vow made on behalf of the state by the dictator Aulus Postumius Albus before the Battle of Lake Regillus against the Latin League (led by Rome’s ousted king Lucius Tarquinius Superbus), which traditionally took place circa 499 BCE. See Harlan p. 71. After describing the ceremonies at length (id.), Harlan states:

 “The design of Volteius’ coin with the head of Jupiter on the obverse and his Capitoline temple on the reverse focuses on the central part of the festival which occurred on [September] 13th, when the Epulum Jovis, the feast of Jupiter, was held. This was one of the most spectacular scenes in Roman religion. It began with a sacrifice, and then the huge public feast was laid out. The Capitoline triad Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva were present in visible form, for the images of the gods were decked out in their best attire and seated on their couches. The priesthood of septemviri epulones created in 196 had special charge of the ceremony. The 13^th was also the birthday of the great temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus on the Capitol, the most significant temple of ancient Rome. Tacitus called it the ‘seat of Jupiter, founded by our ancestors under propitious auspices as a pledge of our imperium.’” (Harlan pp. 71-72, citing Tacitus, Histories, 3.72.)

 The four other Volteius types related to:

The Ludi Plebeii (dedicated to Hercules, see Crawford 385/2); here is my example depicting Hercules on the obverse and the Erymanthian boar on the reverse:

 

The Ludi Ceriales (dedicated to Ceres, see Crawford 385/3); here is my example depicting Liber or Bacchus on the obverse and Ceres in a biga of snakes on the reverse:

The Ludi Megalenses (dedicated to Cybele; see Crawford 385/4); here is my example depicting Attis or Corybas on the obverse and Cybele in a biga of lions on the reverse:

 

Finally, the Ludi Apollinares (dedicated to Apollo, see Crawford 385/5). I do not have this type – by far the scarcest of the five, with only 22 examples listed on acsearch – which has Apollo on the obverse and a tripod with snake on the reverse.

See generally Harlan Ch. 12 pp. 62-79, discussing all five types. See also Yarrow p. 169 (“we might want to think about this series as a miniature fasti [calendar] or symbolic representation of the religious year”); Albert p. 178.

As mentioned at the outset, please post your own Roman or other ancient coins depicting temples, particularly any that can be identified historically. Or post anything else you think is relevant.

Fantastic coin Donna! I don't know how I missed it when posted!

Just wow.

[akeady]

Actually, I got an example of Cr. 487/2a recently- without the S-F on the reverse.

ATB,
Aidan.

[PeteB]

Donna:

Your coin is nicely toned. The red deposits could be removed by wrapping your coin in one layer of aluminum foil and soak it for a day or two in CONCENTRATED lemon juice you can buy at a grocery store. The red deposits will have softened and can probably be removed with a soft tooth brush or a tooth pick. If not completely, soak some more. Repeat as necessary. But then you would have a shiny coin not as charming as it is now. My advice is to leave it as-is.

Pete