Roman Republican Coins #s 94-95

[DonnaML]

These coins represent only the third and fourth Roman Republican coins I've purchased this year.  (I haven't yet posted my second purchase, # 93, made a few months ago, because I've been procrastinating in figuring out how to organize my explanation of the different theories on the coin's interpretation. I'll get around to finishing that write-up eventually, but in the meantime I'm skipping it for the next two.)

I should say up front that the condition of these two coins doesn't quite match the quality of some of the other Roman Republican denarii I've bought in the last few years. Not that I really need to provide an explanation or excuse, but my coin budget is considerably lower these days than it once was -- among other things, my lease was just renewed for $150 more per month than the previous year, while my fixed monthly income has remained the same! And the second of these coins happens to be a very popular type for which stellar examples tend to be extremely expensive. 

Nonetheless, I think both coins are nicely toned (something that shows up better in hand than in the photos), and I'm very pleased with both of them.  

No. 94:

Roman Republic, M. Aburius M.f. Geminus, AR Denarius Rome 132 BC. Obv. Head of Roma right wearing winged helmet, pendant earring with single drop, and pearl necklace; behind head, GEM [for Geminus] downwards; under chin, * [X with bar through it = XVI monogram]  / Rev. Radiate Sol, draped, his mantle floating behind him, in quadriga right with horses galloping, holding reins in left hand and whip in right hand over horses [flan flaw(?) to left of whip]; below horses, M•AB VRI [AB and VR ligate]; in exergue, ROMA. 19 mm., 3.89 g. Crawford 250/1; RSC I Aburia 6 (ill. p. 9); BMCRR I 995-996 (p. 146; ill. BMCRR III Pl. xxvii.13); Sydenham 487 (p. 58); Sear RCV I 127 (ill. p. 97); RBW Collection 1027 (ill. p. 215); Albert 959 (ill. p. 139). Purchased from Harlan J. Berk, Ltd., 227th Buy or Bid Sale, March 22, 2024, Lot 418; ex Leu Numismatik AG, Winterthur, Switzerland, Web Auction 28, 11 Dec. 2023, Lot 2838 [“From the collection of the renowned Swiss architect Max Vogt (1925-2019), formed since the 1980s” (see biography at https://www.archinform.net/arch/97049.htm)]  *

Video available at vimeo:

*Crawford states that the moneyer is “perhaps” descended from M. Aburius, Praetor in 176 BCE. (See Crawford Vol. I p. 280). Grueber is somewhat more definitive, describing the moneyer as “not improbably a son of M. Aburius, who was tribune of the plebs B.C. 187, and praetor B.C. 176.” (See BMCRR I p. 146 n. 1.) Grueber explains in the same footnote that the cognomen Geminus (see the coin’s obverse legend “GEM”) was given to “M. Aburius, and his twin-brother, C. Aburius, who was tribune of the plebs B.C. 185 and ambassador to Masinissa in Africa B.C. 171.”

Nota bene: This happens to be the only Roman Republican coin I've ever purchased that was ex Leu Numismatik; I've never purchased a Republican coin directly from Leu. Given the specific pedigree to a known collection, I don't think I need to be concerned by @Andrew McCabe's revelation that in recent years Leu apparently sold off a Roman Republican hoard with dubious origins, under the standard and very non-specific claimed provenance to a "Swiss collection formed before 2005"!

No. 95:

Roman Republic, T. Didius [also spelled “Deidius”], AR Denarius, Rome Mint 113-112 BCE. Obv. Bust of Roma right wearing single-drop earring and winged helmet with visor in three pieces and peaked; below, star (*) [= monogrammed XVI; mark of value]; behind, monogram  ( = ROMA) downwards / Rev. Battle between gladiator to left armed with whip and gladiator to right armed with stave or sword, both with shields held before them [Crawford, Sear RCV, RBW Collection], OR Roman soldier to left, with sheathed sword at his side, using a whip to attack a rebelling slave to right defending himself with a sword and shield, the scene representing the suppression by the moneyer’s ancestor of a slave revolt in in Sicily [BMCRR, RSC, Yarrow]; in exergue, T• DEIDI. 20 mm., 3.82 g. Noticeable scratch on Roma’s cheek on obverse. Crawford 294/1; RSC I (Babelon) Didia 2 (ill. p. 44); BMCR II Italy 530, p. 236 & nn. 3-4. at pp. 236-237 (ill. BMCRR III Pl. xciii.17); Yarrow pp. 126-127 (ill. Fig. 3.18 p. 127) [Liv Mariah Yarrow, The Roman Republic to 49 BCE: Using Coins as Sources (2021)]; Sear RCV I 171 (ill. p. 105); RBW Collection 1135 p. 234 (ill. p. 235); Sydenham 550 p. 73. Purchased 16 May 2024 from Herakles Numismatics, Charlotte, NC; ex Coin Galleries (Stack’s) Mail Bid Sale, July 22, 1992, Lot 494 (with Coin Galleries ticket).*

 

(I like to think of the scratch on Roma's cheek as an honorable dueling scar!)

The 1992 Coin Galleries ticket, front and back:

[For anyone not familiar with Coin Galleries, it was the name that Stack's (now Stack's Bowers) used for many years for their world coins section on the second floor of their old West 57th Street location, with ancient coins (and, if I remember correctly, U.S. coins) on the first floor. The name was also used for their world coins auctions. I visited the second floor many times, beginning in the 1980s. The current Stack's Bowers storefront, at 470 Park Avenue, uses the single name "Stack's Bowers Galleries."]

*The moneyer has been identified as the Titus Didius who was later Consul in 98 BCE (see Crawford I p. 308), and was also tribune of the plebs in 103 BCE and praetor in 101 BCE. (See BMCRR I p. 276 n. 3; see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus_Didius for his biography.)

The traditional interpretation of the reverse, as set forth in Babelon [see Ernst Babelon, Monnaies de la Republique Romaine (Paris, 1885) (available at hathitrust.org), Vol I p. 455] and Grueber, represents the second theory summarized above: that the type probably refers to the moneyer’s presumed father or earlier ancestor T. Didius, “who was sent to Sicily in BC 138 to put down the revolting slaves.” See RSC I (Babelon) Didia 2 p. 44. Grueber elaborates on this interpretation in BMCRR II Italy 530 n. 4 at pp. 276-277 (1910): “This type of the reverse is supposed to refer to T. Didius, who was tribune B.C. 143, and who about B.C. 138 was sent as praetor to Sicily to put down the revolting slaves. He is represented as attacking a slave with a whip, disdaining to punish him with a more honourable weapon [citing Babelon, op. cit.]” -- such as the sword that remains sheathed at his side while he resorts only to a whip.

For information on the T. Didius who was tribune in 143 BCE, see the Wikipedia article cited above, n. 2 [citing T. Robert S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic (American Philological Association, 1951–1952) Vol. I, pp. 472, 474 (note)]; see also William Smith ed., A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology (1873 ed.), entry on “Didius,” quoted at https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0104:entry=didius-bio-1 [stating, inter alia, with specific reference to this coin type, that “Pighius (Annal. ii. p. 492) conjectures with some probability, that T. Didius, some years after his tribuneship, about B.C. 138, was sent as praetor against the revolted slaves in Sicily”]. Note, however, that every modern source I’ve checked states that the referenced slave revolt, known as the First Servile War, began in 135 BCE, not 138 BCE. See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Servile_War and its bibliography. Perhaps for that reason, Gianfranco Casolari, in his book I denari della Repubblica Romana (Rimini 1998), in describing this coin type, states, as translated, that the reverse refers to "the praetor T. Deidius, father of the monetary magistrate, who, in 135, hits a leader of the slaves with the flagellum" (see translated quotation at https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/showthread.php?tid=23063&page=2 ) (emphasis added).

However, Crawford completely rejects the traditional interpretation in favor of a theory that the scene on the reverse simply depicts two gladiators fighting, essentially constituting a representation that should the moneyer ever be (or had he ever been) elected to the Curule Aedileship in charge of organizing public games and spectacles, he would put on gladiatorial shows. See Crawford I p. 308: “Babelon’s more than usually fantastic explanation explanation of the reverse type as portraying an (unattested) episode in a Sicilian slave war should be rejected; the type doubtless shows what the moneyer would provide for the people if Curule Aedile, see [Vol. II] p. 729.” (The referenced page in Crawford Vol. II discusses types like this one for which, according to the author, “the moneyership was . . . a substitute for an aedileship; self-advertisement was a feature of both offices.” Crawford classifies such coins as “ ‘aedilician’ types referring to games in the circus and to corn-distributions . . . . It is almost as if the moneyers concerned placed on their coins an indication of what they would have provided had they been elected Aediles.”) See also Sear RCV I p. 171 (adopting Crawford’s interpretation); John Melville Jones, A Dictionary of Ancient Roman Coins (Seaby, London 1990), entry for “Gladiator” at p. 127 (“The significance of the scene may be that the mint magistrate intended to hint that if he received support in his future political career, he would be generous in providing public shows of this kind, or he may have had an ancestor who had become known for some such reason”).  

As is sometimes the case, Crawford appears to be somewhat overconfident regarding the correctness of his own interpretation, and the lack of merit in other theories. For one thing, speaking of historically “unattested” events, there does not appear to be any evidence that this moneyer ever actually sought, or was ever actually elected to, the office of Curule Aedile, whether before or after his tenure as a mint magistrate. See the Wikipedia article on T. Didius cited above. Moreover, if the reverse of this type does depict two gladiators fighting, it would apparently be the only such depiction on a Roman coin. (Jones, op. cit., entry for “Gladiator” on p. 127.)

Nor does Crawford’s interpretation explain why a gladiator like the figure on the left of the reverse, clearly equipped with a sheathed sword at his side, would rely only on a whip in attacking another gladiator defending himself with a shield and a stave (see Crawford and Sear RCV); all the more so if the latter’s weapon is actually a sword (as all other authorities state; note the presence of an apparently empty scabbard at the right-hand figure’s side). In that situation of two gladiators fighting, the question of a Roman soldier’s honor, leading him to disdain the use of a sword in attacking a rebellious slave, should not arise.

In Professor Yarrow’s recent book, she mentions the “sheathed sword” issue, among others, and adopts the traditional interpretation rather than Crawford’s, arguing at p. 126 that “[t]he whip symbolizes the re-establishment of ‘correct’ social hierarchies through the Roman refusal to meet the rebel forces as equals” in suppressing a slave revolt. See also Yarrow p. 127, describing the reverse as follows:

“Roman soldier (shod) with sheathed sword whips a barefoot warrior resisting re-enslavement . . . . Crawford described the reverse as gladiatorial combat; the interpretation offered here was widely accepted in earlier scholarship. Gladiators are not known to have fought with whips, but like all enslaved peoples they were subject to whipping; the whip was a common symbol of the enslaver’s control. [Footnote omitted, citing Tert. De spect. 21.4, Sen. Ep. 7.4; Cic. Rab. Perd. 16; Mart. 14.49.] The imagery is likely inspired by an episode in Herodotus, in which the Scythians reconquer their former slaves. ‘As long as they see us armed, they think they are our equals and the sons of our equals; when they see us with whips and not the weapons of war, they will understand that they are truly our slaves, and no longer resist our authority.’ (Herodotus 4.3; Loeb trans. modified, cf. Justin 2.5).”

Indeed, consistent with Professor Yarrow’s statement, I have found no ancient depictions of a gladiator using a whip in fighting another gladiator. It seems that the use of whips in the arena was limited to two situations. First, the bestiarii used whips in fighting animals; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_gladiator_types; https://www.vroma.org/vromans/bmcmanus/arena.html; and this image at https://www.vroma.org/vromans/bmcmanus/images/colchester2.jpg :

Second, the incitatores used whips “to urge the enslaved fighters who may not be engaging in the bloody combat expected of them.” See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladiator_Mosaic , describing the famous Gladiator Mosaic in the Galleria Borghese in Rome, which depicts several incitatores. See the figures named as Astiacus and Iaculator, holding whips in the upper portion of this detail from the mosaic, an illustration to the article:

 

As far as concerns Yarrow’s point about the shod Roman soldier versus the barefoot slave, my example is too worn to see the contrast distinctly, although I believe it’s evident that the left-hand figure is, in fact, wearing some species of boots, perhaps caligae. These two examples, in much better condition than mine (and far more expensive, which makes me less reluctant to invite that comparison by showing these specimens!), show the difference between the two figures’ footwear (or absence thereof) more clearly, as well as the contrast between the sheathed sword on the left and the drawn sword with what appears to be an empty scabbard on the right.

From a Bertolami Fine Arts auction on 14 Dec. 2020, Lot 307 (hammer price $5,330) (see https://www.acsearch.info/image.html?id=7660522):

From a Numismatica Ars Classica auction on 9 May 2018, Lot 387 (hammer price $3,231) (see https://www.acsearch.info/image.html?id=4954495):

Although I have no relevant expertise allowing me to opine on which interpretation of this reverse is correct, I believe that the weight of the evidence favors Professor Yarrow and the traditional  interpretation, rather than Michael Crawford’s gladiatorial/Curule Aedile theory.

Other members' opinions on the issue are welcome, as is anything else you think might be relevant.

Edited May 26 by DonnaML

[AETHER]

They are great and still very high quality.  And the scratch on the cheek only adds to the cool factor in my opinion. Great coins. 

 

[DonnaML]

2 hours ago, AETHER said:

And the scratch on the cheek only adds to the cool factor in my opinion. Great coins. 

 

Thank you. If there had to be a scratch on her face, it's in pretty much the perfect place. 

[Rand]

I like both coins — original with no signs of ‘improvements’, full images and legends on large flans. 

As for the interpretation of the two people on the second coin, I also favour Professor Yarrow’s interpretation. Considering all three presented reverses, the person with the whip looks confident, helmetless against a helmeted warrior, and does not need to draw a sword. If this was a master pushing a slave to fight, why would he need a shield?

[Phil Davis]

Regarding T. Didius, in the pre-Roman Dark Ages of 2008, Marvin Tameanko posted the following on the old Moneta-L discussion group:

"I hunted up my copy of Michael Grant's 'Gladiators' to see if he actually mentioned and explained the coin of T. Didius.  He did not but he said on page 73 that a gladiatorial show began with a bloodless 'warm up' act of mock fighters called 'paegniarii.  He said, "A mosaic found at Nenning in Germany shows one of them carrying a stick and his opponent brandishing a whip, and four such imitation combatants appeared on a monument from Amiternum".  This sounds like the scene on the coin of T. Didius so could it have depicted the warm up exercises paid for by the moneyer?  Also Grant said that a second type of preliminary fighter, the 'lusorii' fought like gladiators but used wooden weapons.  Their shows were called 'prolusiones' or 'lusiones' and sometimes these displays occupied the whole day or days.

Marvin"  https://groups.io/g/Moneta-L/topic/more_on_gladiators_on_coins/56050909

To me, it's pretty much indisputable that this is the correct explanation, regardless of the endless stream of learned over-complication and special pleading surrounding this coin. I've cited this whenever we had one of these at HJB,  here for instance: https://pro.coinarchives.com/a/lotviewer.php?LotID=1618224&AucID=3413&Lot=126, but obviously it hasn't stuck.

Here's the mosaic example cited by Marvin & Grant, pulled quickly from the Internet; maybe there are others:

Mosaic image borrowed from  Leg X Fret, https://x-legio.com/en/wiki/paegniarius. The text from that site:

"Paegniarius (Latin: paegniarius) is an ancient Roman gladiator who entertained the audience during breaks between fights while the main fighters, fighting to the death, rested. The name comes from the Greek word παίγνιον - toy, which in the context of gladiatorial fights meant "comic battle".

Paegniarii were armed with fake weapons - just wooden gladius-rudis and whips. The protective equipment consisted of a wooden shield and wooden guards on the arms and legs instead of manicae and greaves. They wore a balteus, like other gladiators, but besides it, they could wear a tunic and even braccae. Also, this is the only type of gladiators who were allowed to wear caligae. They did not use helmets and at best just wrapped their heads in cloth. Paegniarii conducted comedic duels without fatal outcomes. Unlike real gladiators, they could live a long life: the well-known epitaph of the Paegniarius Secundus informs that he lived 99 years, 8 months, and 18 days." 

Finally, here's my example of the type, ex Haeberlin, ex-Niggler (I'm not as passionately insistent about pedigreed-only coins as are some of my friends, but my collection isn't quite bereft of impeccable provenances.)  This coin even shows the blunted sword of the fighter on the right!

 

Edited May 26 by Phil Davis

[Phil Davis]

My example of Crawford 250/1:

[DonnaML]

1 hour ago, Phil Davis said:

Regarding T. Didius, in the pre-Roman Dark Ages of 2008, Marvin Tameanko posted the following on the old Moneta-L discussion group:

"I hunted up my copy of Michael Grant's 'Gladiators' to see if he actually mentioned and explained the coin of T. Didius.  He did not but he said on page 73 that a gladiatorial show began with a bloodless 'warm up' act of mock fighters called 'paegniarii.  He said, "A mosaic found at Nenning in Germany shows one of them carrying a stick and his opponent brandishing a whip, and four such imitation combatants appeared on a monument from Amiternum".  This sounds like the scene on the coin of T. Didius so could it have depicted the warm up exercises paid for by the moneyer?  Also Grant said that a second type of preliminary fighter, the 'lusorii' fought like gladiators but used wooden weapons.  Their shows were called 'prolusiones' or 'lusiones' and sometimes these displays occupied the whole day or days.

Marvin"  https://groups.io/g/Moneta-L/topic/more_on_gladiators_on_coins/56050909

To me, it's pretty much indisputable that this is the correct explanation, regardless of the endless stream of learned over-complication and special pleading surrounding this coin. I've cited this whenever we had one of these at HJB,  here for instance: https://pro.coinarchives.com/a/lotviewer.php?LotID=1618224&AucID=3413&Lot=126, but obviously it hasn't stuck.

Here's the mosaic example cited by Marvin & Grant, pulled quickly from the Internet; maybe there are others:

Mosaic image borrowed from  Leg X Fret, https://x-legio.com/en/wiki/paegniarius. The text from that site:

"Paegniarius (Latin: paegniarius) is an ancient Roman gladiator who entertained the audience during breaks between fights while the main fighters, fighting to the death, rested. The name comes from the Greek word παίγνιον - toy, which in the context of gladiatorial fights meant "comic battle".

Paegniarii were armed with fake weapons - just wooden gladius-rudis and whips. The protective equipment consisted of a wooden shield and wooden guards on the arms and legs instead of manicae and greaves. They wore a balteus, like other gladiators, but besides it, they could wear a tunic and even braccae. Also, this is the only type of gladiators who were allowed to wear caligae. They did not use helmets and at best just wrapped their heads in cloth. Paegniarii conducted comedic duels without fatal outcomes. Unlike real gladiators, they could live a long life: the well-known epitaph of the Paegniarius Secundus informs that he lived 99 years, 8 months, and 18 days." 

Finally, here's my example of the type, ex Haeberlin, ex-Niggler (I'm not as passionately insistent about pedigreed-only coins as are some of my friends, but my collection isn't quite bereft of impeccable provenances.)  This coin even shows the blunted sword of the fighter on the right!

 

A very interesting theory to add to the mix, @Phil Davis -- and a gorgeous example of the type! -- but I'm not entirely sure I agree with the theory. Neither the mosaic you cite, nor the description of the Paegniarius, resembles the clothing, equipment, or  appearance of the two figures on the coin very much, except for the presence of the whip. Unless one accepts that the figure on the right is carrying a blunted stave rather than a sword. Which isn't at all clear from the more detailed specimens I posted; the second one seems rather clearly to depict a sharp sword. Nor does there seem to be anything comedic, or "mock," about the duel depicted on the reverse of the coin. In fact, the reverse die on your own example appears to show the right-hand figure's face having been turned all the way to his side as a result of being struck by the whip. (Other dies show him wearing a helmet or mask.)

The interpretation you present also invites the question -- and fails to address it -- of why the moneyer would choose to depict a scene on his coin issue such as the mock duel in the mosaic. At least the other two theories purport to address the "why" question, with reference to the moneyer's career or his ancestry. Nor do I think it's at all fair to characterize the two other interpretations, whether or not they're correct, as over-complicated, or as constituting special pleading, any more than the theory you offer -- which could equally be characterized as ignoring evidence against it.

I don't know which of the three interpretations, if any, is the right one. But if there's anything I'm confident of, it's that words like  "indisputable," or Crawford's "doubtless," should rarely be used in discussing interpretations of ambiguous Roman Republican coin designs like this one.

 

 

 

Edited May 27 by DonnaML

[Alegandron]

Great Denarii, @DonnaML

 

RR AR denarius 3.8g 18.0mm T Didius Rome 113-112 BCE Roma star ROMA mono - Two Gladiators whip sword S 171 CR 294-1