Roman Republican coinage, Vol. 2 9780521074926, 9780511096631, 9781108718837

Citation preview

~ ROMAN REPUBLICAN COINAGE I

BLANK PAGE

BY

MICHAEL H. CRAWFORD Professor of Ancient History

| University College London

CAMBRIDGE ei: UNIVERSITY PRESS

PUBLISHED BY THE PRESS SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

, The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2Ru, UK 40 West 20th Street, New York, Ny 10011-4211, USA 10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, vic 3166, Australia Ruiz de Alarcon 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain Dock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa http://www.cambridge.org

© Cambridge University Press 1974

This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 1974 Reprinted 1983 (with corrections), 1987, 1989, I99I, 1995, 1999, 2001

Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge

| Library of Congress catalogue card number: 77-164450 ISBN 0 521 07492 4 the set

UP ,

List of tables page 1x List of figures x1 VOLUME I

Preface Xil1 Introduction 1 INTRODUCTION

The mint of Rome 8 Mints outside Rome | 12

I The first period of the denarius coinage 3

The denarius The date of thecoinage denarius 24 28

II The pre-denarius coinage 35

III The second century - relative chronology 47

C. 206—c. 144 B.C. (nos. 112-221) 47 C. 143-c. 125 B.C. (mos. 222-72) 55 C. 124—c. 92 B.C. (nos. 273-336) 65

IV The second century — absolute chronology 71

V_91-79 TheB.c. first(Table century 75 x11) 75

78-49 B.c. (Table x11) 82 49-45 B.c. (Table xiv) 89 44-31 B.C. (Tables xv—xvi1) 94

Appendix: Relative arrangement of quadrigatus issues 103 CATALOGUE

Note on use of the Catalogue 123

Catalogue 131 Appendix 547 Modern forgeries 548 Mis-read coins 553

Abbreviations used and works cited in headings of the Catalogue 123

Collections cited in the Catalogue 126

Plated coins 560 Unofficial issues of bronze coins 565 Vv

Contents

Metal 569 Struck coins | 576 2 The Weight standards 590 Roman pound | 590 Gold 593 Silver 594 Bronze 595 VOLUME II

1 Technique and technology page 569

Cast coins (280-212 B.c.) 589

Ascertaining weight standards 592

Moneyers 598 Military issues 604

3 Monetary magistrates 598 Monetary magistrates other than moneyers 603

4 Issues Special formulae 605 struck from Argentum publicum 605 Issues struck by Senatus consultum 606

The people 610 The Senate 616 The mint | 618 Magistrates 620 Sestertius 621 Silver and bronze 625 Victoriatus 628 Roman coinage in Livy 630

5s Administration and control 610 6 Roman units of reckoning under the Republic 621

Nummus 632 7 Coinage and finance 633

Inopia 634

Size of issues of coinage 640 Income and expenditure 694 vi

Contents

8 Careers of the moneyers page 708

9 Types and legends — 712 Public types 713

Private types 725 Approach to empire 734

Addenda 751 , PLATES

10 Art and coinage 745

Plates 755 Key to the plates 757 Bibliography 797 Concordances 820 Indices 859 Types 859 Legends 879 Sources 890 Persons 903 General 912

vil

BLANK PAGE

TABLES VOLUME I

I The first period of denarius coinage - 211-207 B.C. page 4

II 211-207 B.C. — victoriati 25

III 211-207 B.C. — denarii, quinarii and sestertii 26

IV 211-207 B.c. — bronze 27

Vv The pre-denarius coinage c. 280-c. 212 B.C. 44

VI Early second-century denarius coinage 49

VII 207-c. 170 B.C. — victoriati 53

VIII 207-144 B.C. — denarii 56 IX 207-146 B.C. — bronze | 58

xXICoinage 143-125 B.C. 60 Coinage 124-92 B.C. 66 XII Coinage 91-79 B.C. 76 XIII Coinage 78-49 B.C. 84 XIV Coinage 49-45 B.C. go

XV The moneyers 44-c. 40 B.C. 96 XVI The Pompeians 44-c. 40 B.C. 97 XVII The Caesarians 43-31 B.C. 98

XVIII Overstrikes 105

XIX Control-marks on didrachms with Roma/Victory ROMANO 138

XX Control-marks on denarii of C. Allius Bala 337 XXI Control-marks on quinarii of L. Piso Frugi 342

XXII Control-marks on asses of Q. Titius 345

XXIII Control-marks on denarii of C. Vibius Pansa (1) 349 XXIV Control-marks on denarii of C. Vibius Pansa (3a-b) 349

XXV Control-symbols on quinarii of M. Cato 350 XXVI Control-symbols on denarii of L. Titurius Sabinus 354 XXVIII Control-marks on second issue of denarii of C. Censorinus 358

XXVIII Control-marks on denarii of Gargonius, etc. 364 ix

Tables | XXIX Control-marks on denarii of L. Censorinus page 378 XXX Control-marks on denarii of C. Valerius Flaccus 380

XXXI Control-marks on denarii of C. Annius 382

XXXII Control-marks on denarii of L. Volumnius Strabo 391 XXXIII Control-marks on denarii of C. Marius Capito 392

XXXIV Control-marks on denarii of M. Volteius 400 XXXV Control-marks on denarii of M. Volteius 401 XXXVI Control-marks on denarii of L. Plaetorius 408 XXXVII Control-marks on denarii of Q. Pomponius Rufus 410 XXXVIII Control-marks on denarii of Q. Crepereius Rocus 411 XXxXIX Control-marks on denarii of M. Plaetorius Cestianus 415

XL Control-marks on denarii of M. Plaetorius Cestianus 415 XLI Control-marks on denarii of M. Plaetorius Cestianus 416

XLII Control-marks on denarii of C. Piso Frugi | 420 XLII Control-marks on denarii of C. Piso Frugi 424 XLIV Control-marks on denarii of M. Plaetorius Cestianus 436 VOLUME II

XLV Analyses of silver coins | 570

XLVI Analyses of plated silver coins 573 xLVv11_— Analyses of bronze coins 574

XLVIII As and sestertius 623

XLIX Growth in volume of production of as 627

L Size of denarius issues 157-31 B.C. 642 LI Size of quinarius issues 101-31 B.C. 674 LII Size of sestertius issues 91—44 B.C. 675 LIII Size of didrachm and drachm issues 676 LIV Size of denarius, quinarius and sestertius issues 211-158 B.C. 677

LV Size of late gold issues | 688 LVI Size of early gold issues 691 LVII Size of bronze issues of denarius coinage 692 LVIII Coinage and expenditure from 157 to 50 B.C. 696

LIX Careers of the moneyers 708

LX Types of aes grave 717 LXI Types of moneyers under Caesar 737 LXII Portraiture in the Republican coinage 746 x

FIGURES 1 Form of trophy on victoriati of Metellus (no. 132/1) page 50

(nos. 173-7) 50

2 Form of superstructure of prow on bronze of C. Saxula, etc.

3 Pattern of control-marks of P. Crepusius (no. 361/1) 376

4 Shapes of blanks used for struck bronze coins 580 5 Relationship between hoard specimens and obverse dies 673

x1

7 To my parents

PREFACE I began to work in 1961 on the finances of the Roman Republic, with a particular interest in the effect on these of the Roman conquest of the Hellenistic World. It

soon became apparent that an adequate account of the coinage of the Roman Republic was a necessary preliminary and I was gradually drawn into writing a handbook on the Roman Republican coinage. Some of the work involved has been congenial, some has not; I have tried to do it all conscientiously. Chapter 7 presents

some of the work with which I started in 1961; but the subject as a whole still cannot be properly studied in the absence of an adequate knowledge of the coinages of Rome’s enemies during the last two centuries of the Republic and of the coinages,

such as the cistophoric, used by Rome, but not struck by the main mint of the Republic or by its magistrates for empire-wide circulation.

This book is in any case quite large enough; I have kept it to this size only by imposing on myself two major restraints. In the first place, I have only dealt with what may be called the mainstream coinage of the Republic; this is not easy to define, but it may be regarded as being coinage struck by officials of the Republic which was theoretically valid throughout the Empire; by way of example, the Social War coinage is excluded (it has no more place here than the Oscan denarii struck by

Sertorius), as are all cistophori (it has never been clear to me why those of M. Antonius are traditionally included in handbooks on the Republican coinage, those of M. Cicero not) and all local bronze of the Triumviral period (in which category I include the ‘fleet’ bronze of M. Antonius, but not the issues of L. Atratinus and

Cn. Piso Frugi). The catalogue closes with three issues whose inclusion is not perhaps entirely justifiable; but it is not likely that any other handbook will ever include them. In the second place, I have considered the coinage of the Republic solely from the

point of view of the issuing authority or authorities; there is much to be written about the behaviour of the Republican coinage in circulation, but not here. I have put down some thoughts on the context in which Roman coinage functioned and on the economic significance which it had in ¥RS 1970, 40-8; it is perhaps worth repeating that coinage is struck at Rome, as in other ancient states, to serve the needs of

the state, not to supply the consumer. ,

A few other words of explanation may be desirable. In preparing the catalogue, I have cited an actual coin as evidence for a given type, preferably from a published source, and within a published source; the first coin listed of the type in question; xiii

Preface

I have attempted to illustrate every significant type, using the best specimen known to me. Given the fullness with which I have been able to illustrate the coinage of the Republic, I have not attempted to describe in the catalogue such minutiae as the various forms of the letter A or the precise punctuation of a legend, unless particularly significant. I am aware that my lists of control-marks are not quite complete and that for reasons of space I have been able to list control-marks only for a selection of issues; but no attempt to list control-marks for more than a few isolated issues has

ever been published and one has to make a start sometime. I have attempted to estimate the size of every issue (the principles followed are set out in connection with Tables L-Lvi1); this seems to me a necessary advance from the traditional practice of estimating degrees of rarity, with its collectors’ emphasis on distinguishing carefully between pieces which are ‘of the greatest rarity’ and pieces which are ‘exceedingly

rare’. In dating an issue, I have tried to distinguish between certainty, probability and conjecture (see p. 123). I have used only two abbreviations apart from those which are in common use in classical studies, ‘1.’ for ‘left’ and ‘r.’ for ‘right’. I have usually provided translations of Latin and Greek. Finally, the book was substantially finished in the autumn of 1971 and in the process of preparing it for the press I have not attempted to take systematic account of work appearing after that date. The writing of this book has taken me into many fields in which my competence is at best dubious and I have profited from the advice of those more knowledgeable than I; apart from those mentioned below and in the course of the book, I have asked advice from Professor T. V. Buttrey, Dr C. H. V. Sutherland, the late Dr S. Weinstock and Mr A. Drummond; the Introduction and Volume 1 were read in typescript by Professor F. W. Walbank, the catalogue in typescript by Professor H. B. Mattingly, in proof by Dr T. P. Wiseman; all were extremely helpful. In addition, others have read different parts of the book in the interests of clarity and accuracy : Professor M. I Finley Chapter 1, Professor P. Grierson Chapter 2, Professor

Cl. Nicolet Chapter 6, Professor P. A. Brunt and Monsieur E. Fallu Chapter 7, Dr

T.P. Wiseman Chapter 8, Dr J.A. North Chapter 9, Professor D. E. Strong Chapter 10. My stubbornness and ignorance account for the errors which remain. But my chief debt is to my teachers Peter Brunt and the late Isobel Henderson and to Moses Finley and Philip Grierson; I have learnt a great deal from them, and much of my education as an ancient historian and an economic historian is due to them. I must also record numerous debts of gratitude: to Tony Hackens for permission to quote from his thesis (Louvain, 1961); to Miinzen und Medaillen A.G., the Royal Numismatic Society, the Jahrbuch fiir Numismatik and the Court of the University of Glasgow for permission to reproduce material in their charge; more generally to

the keepers of all the collections in which I have worked for showing me their material and allowing me to cite and illustrate it - it would be invidious to single out xiv

Preface

particular individuals or museums; above all to Robert Carson, whose readiness to help in mastering the problems involved in producing a book of this kind has gone far beyond the call of duty or friendship; to the British School at Rome and to the Faculty of Classics of the University of Cambridge for financial support; to my College both for generous financial support and for the company with which it has

surrounded me; to the Cambridge University Press for accepting this book for publication and for producing it with consummate skill and imagination; to Erica Mattingly for the beautiful drawings of Pls. txvi-Lx1x; to Geoffrey Bennett, June Ethridge, Génie Gordon, Helen Gebbett, Alison Jones, Lynda Lyne and Simon Williams for an immense amount of help with typing and indexing; finally to my wife, without whose impatient enquiries this book would have taken even longer to

produce than it has. MICHAEL CRAWFORD Christ’s College, Cambridge August 1973

I have taken advantage of the publication of a corrected reprint to put right a number of mistakes in the first edition and to cite a certain amount of material which has since

come to light. It is necessary to emphasize that it has not been possible to make significant adjustments to the estimates of numbers of dies used for different issues or to the Tables which depend on them; I hope after further research in this area to produce an overall revision of this part of the book. Nor has it been possible to introduce more than very minor revisions to the indices.

Further, largely bibliographical, supplements may be found in A catalogue of Roman Republican Coins in the collections of the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh

(Edinburgh: Royal Scottish Museum, 1983); and a history of the coinage of the Roman Republic in The Roman Republic and the Mediterranean. Coinage, Money and the Economy (London: Methuen, 1983). MICHAEL CRAWFORD Christ’s College, Cambridge November 1982

BLANK PAGE

INTRODUCTION

BLANK PAGE _

|

INTRODUCTION The proper use of the Roman Republican coinage as a historical source depends on the fulfilment of three conditions - a full and accurate account must be given of its content, a chronological framework must be provided and the mints at which it was produced must be identified. The catalogue which forms the central part of this book attempts to satisfy the first requirement and the purpose of this introduction is therefore to discuss how far and on what grounds the various issues can be dated? and assigned to their mints. The precious metal coinage falls naturally into two periods, the earlier with a silver coin weighing about six scruples as its unit (for Roman weights see p. 590), the later with a silver coin weighing about four scruples or slightly less as its unit. The earlier unit is the didrachm, or two drachma piece, the later unit is the denarius. It is clear, for reasons to be discussed below, that the earlier unit was suppressed because it had been debased beyond the point of acceptability and that there was no overlap in production between the earlier unit, the didrachm, and the later unit, the denarius.? A discussion of the chronology of the Roman Republican coinage can best begin by attempting to establish the date of the changeover from the didrachm to the denarius.

I THE FIRST PERIOD OF THE DENARIUS COINAGE | The first step is to consider what elements went to make up the earliest denarius coinage. These are set out in Table 1 and fall into three categories - the silver denarius with its related gold and silver pieces, the bronze as with its related bronze pieces and the silver victoriatus with its rare silver double and half pieces. The silver denarius, worth ten asses (Vitruvius iii, 1, 8; Volusius Maecianus, Distr. 46) and therefore bearing the mark of value X, the quinarius, worth five asses and

therefore bearing the mark of value V,° and the sestertius, worth two and a half asses and therefore bearing the mark of value |IS, are plainly linked to each other, 1 For a discussion of method see M. H. Crawford, Roman Republican coin hoards, 1-6; the earliest systematic discussion of method is that of Th. Mommsen, RMuw, 411-73; of his various ‘Alterskriterien’ only nos. 1, 3, 7 and 11~12 are still precise enough to be valuable. 2 For decisive arguments against the view that there was an overlap between the last didrachm, the so-called quadrigatus, and the denarius, see R. Thomsen, ERC ii, 270-7 (the description of the Capitol hoard as a hoard including debased pieces is, however, erroneous); cf. 267 for the priority of the quadrigatus over the denarius; 328-30 for the absence of overlap between the quadrigatus and the victoriatus. 3 For the Etruscan and ultimately Chalcidian origin of these marks of value see J. W. Graham, Phoenix 1969, 350-2. 3

Introduction

TABLE I. The first period of denarius coinage — 211-207 B.C.

1 (Rome) _ 2 (Rome)

Anonymous Victoriati Anonymous Victoriati Mars/Eagle gold pieces Denarii

Denarii Bronze Anchor Mars/Eagle gold pieces Crescent Victoriati Denarii Bronze Denarii Bronze M DenariiDenarii Cornucopiae Victoriati Apex Denarii Quinarii Sestertii Bronze

Bronze

(CentralDenarii Italy) 4C(Sardinia) Apex and3hammer Quinarii

Bronze . Bronze Caduceus Denarii KA Quinarii Bronze Bronze

Victory Bronze Denarii AR Quinarii Bronze

Rostrum tridens —— Denarii Anonymous Quinarii

5 (Sicily) 6 (Sicily)

Anonymous Victoriati Anonymous Victoriati

Corn-earQuinarii DenariiCorn-ear C/M Victoriati Victoriati

, Quinarii

Mars/Eagle gold pieces Corn-earSestertii and Bronze Denarii Bronze

Dolabella Denarii

7 10

Quinarii C:VAR Denarii

Quinarii C-AL Denarii

Branch Denarii Bronze

Staff Denarii Denarii Wheel Denarii Quinarii Dolphin Denarii RR Denarii

Corn-ear and staff Denarii Spearhead (Group 1) Victoriati

8 Bronze CN-CO Asses H Quinarii 9 Bronze

Bronze Quinarii

Sestertii

Ceres/Hercules Semisses

4

The first period of the denartus coinage TABLE I (cont.)

Q Quinarii 10 (cont.)

Bronze

V Bronze

Anchor and Q Bronze

Spearhead (Group 2) Mars/Eagle gold pieces Denarii Bronze

12 13 14 15 , 16 17 (Spain) 18 19 LT Victoriati Denarii

44 Club Victoriati Anonymous Victoriati Double-VictoriatiDenarii Bronze

Torque Victoriati CROT Victoriati

M Victoriati V Victoriati

\8 Victoriati Anonymous with Victoriati Half-victoriati incuse legend

L Victoriati B Denarii Quinarii Pentagram Victoriati

Bronze Mars/Eagle gold pieces Half-victoriati Staff on reverse Victoriati Quinarii Mars/Eagle gold pieces Sestertii Denarii

Bronze Bronze rCABronze C Denarii Bronze

OQ Victoriati Quinarii

M Victoriati K Victoriati

20 21 Quinarii Quinarii

Caduceus Denarii Denarii Wreath Denarii Knife Bronze

A Denarii

the weight of the denarius being twice that of the quinarius and four times that of the sestertius. The gold coinage with the types Head of Mars/Eagle on thunderbolt displays similar marks of value. The smallest piece bears the mark of value XX and was therefore worth twenty asses (see p. 34), the piece twice its weight bears the mark of value X XX X and was therefore worth forty asses, the piece three times its weight bears the mark of value |X and was therefore worth sixty asses.

5.

Introduction

system: a |

The bronze as, its double piece, the dupondius, and all its fractions are similarly

held together by their related weights and by their marks of value. This is the

Il = Dupondius = 2 Asses = 4 Semisses = 8 Quadrantes = 24 Unciae

| = As = 2 Semisses = 4 Quadrantes = 12 Unciae S = Semis = 2 Quadrantes = 6 Unciae 8 = Triens = 2 Sextantes = 4 Unciae 8 = Quadrans = 3 Unciae 8 = Sextans = 2 Unciae o = Uncia < = Semuncia In addition, the denominations of decussis (10 asses), quincussis (5 asses), tressis (3 asses), dextans (10 unciae), dodrans (9 unciae), bes (8 unciae), quincunx (5 unciae)

_ and quartuncia were occasionally produced. Although the bronze coinage thus forms a coherent system, this system, based on

a progressively declining weight standard, was a component part of the Roman Republican coinage from the very beginning. A case must therefore be made for associating bronze of sextantal weight standard (based on an as weighing a sixth of a pound, that is two ounces) with the denarius.' It is certain that the advent of the sextantal standard formed a distinct stage in the reduction of the weight of the bronze coinage. From this point, all denominations

were struck; in the preceding period, the smaller denominations were struck and the larger ones were cast. At this point also there began the extensive use of symbols

or letters added to the types in order to differentiate issues; only one symbol, a corn-ear, and one letter, |, are found on bronze of heavier than sextantal standard. Here lies the link with the denarius and its related pieces. Only one differential symbol, again a corn-ear, appears on the silver coinage which preceded the denarius coinage, whereas symbols and letters occur in profusion on the earliest denarius coinage. Furthermore, the same symbols and letters frequently occur both on the sextantal as and its related pieces and on the denarius and its related pieces. It is only possible to dissociate the denarius from bronze of sextantal standard by

making a mistaken initial assumption. This is that denarii without differential symbols or letters, so-called anonymous denarii, were earlier than denarii with

,,6

symbols or letters.? If this were so, anonymous denarii could in theory be associated 1 The association was first made, as far as I know, by M. Letronne, Considérations, 18; for the discussions of K. Samwer and M. Bahrfeldt and of later scholars see R. Thomsen, ERC ii, 76-9.

2 H. A. Grueber, BMCRR i, xliv, following Th. Mommsen, RMw, 297; for a brief discussion of anonymous denarii see R. Thomsen, ERC ii, 94~5.

The first period of the denarius coinage

with bronze of heavier than sextantal standard, itself of course anonymous. But I shall show below (p. 24) that anonymous denarii and denarii with symbols and letters are contemporary. The place of the victoriatus is less easy to decide. Although some symbols and letters are common to victoriati, denarii and bronze, the correspondence is less complete as far as victoriati are concerned, and it has been held that the victoriatus appeared earlier than did the denarius and bronze of sextantal standard and that iz was the coin which replaced the didrachm.! I regard this view as mistaken and as incompatible with the evidence provided by a detailed consideration of all the

issues which go to make up the earliest denarius coinage (see p. 28). : Two general considerations may first be adduced. It is apparent that the victoriatus

was at least in some way part of the denarius coinage. Not only do victoriatus, denarius and bronze certainly run side by side in the second period of the denarius coinage (see p. 50), but both denarius and victoriatus suffered in the first period a small reduction in weight from their initial level of four and three scruples respectively (see p. 11 for details). It is also apparent that the victoriatus had in some sense a special status, since it bore no mark of value and had a curious later history.” It is clear from the fact that the value of the denarius was expressed in terms of asses, and not vice versa, that the Romans had decided (for possible reasons see p. 626) that their new silver unit

was to be worth ten times their bronze unit. The resulting coin was one which, unlike the didrachm, bore no convenient relationship with the coinage of Magna Graecia. There was thus a good reason for creating in addition a coin based on the drachma. The victoriatus was precisely a drachma. But if it was itself the silver coin

which was introduced to replace the didrachm, no sufficient reason can be discerned for creating the denarius in addition. Logically, the denarius precedes the victoriatus. In considering the issues which make up the first period of the denarius coinage, five criteria of arrangement must be borne in mind: finds, weight standards, over1 H. B. Mattingly, Studies Robinson, 210. 2 The ancient sources on the victoriatus are confused (Pliny, NH xxxiii, 46-antea enim hic nummus ex Illyria advectus mercis loco habebatur ;Volusius Maecianus, Distr. 45-—olim ut peregrinus nummus loco mercis ... habebatur); the close links between the victoriatus, its double piece and its half piece on the one hand and the denarius and its fractions on the other hand make it clear that the victoriatus was

from the beginning a purely Roman coin; about this coin Pliny and Maecianus tell us precisely

nothing. What they are talking about is surely the coinage of Apollonia, Dyrrhachium and Corcyra, ,

produced on the same weight standard as the victoriatus during the period of the middle Republic; it is this coinage which was carried in triumph from Illyria in 167 (Livy xlv, 43, 5; cf. xliv, 27, 9). In Italy it doubtless was treated loco mercis and hence found no place in coin hoards. Mommsen’s theory (RMuw, 389~400, cf. 372 and 490; this discussion has formed the basis of subsequent work, see most recently F. W. Walbank, Commentary on Polybius i, 162) should be rejected in toto; it postulates, briefly, that the advent of the Romans in Illyria in 229 led to the suppression of Corcyra’s silver coinage, which was replaced by no. 101, and to the enforcement of a new standard on Apollonia and Dyrrhachium; from this beginning the victoriatus is held to have developed. Thomsen’s discussion of the victoriatus is entirely vitiated by his acceptance of the theories of St. Bolin, ERC ii, 354-6. For the later history of the victoriatus see p. 628.

7

Introduction

strikes, die-links and style. Among all the hoards containing Roman Republican denarii and victoriati one group stands out because it alone includes a large number of hoards also containing Greek, Punic and Italic coins. The denarii and victoriati in this group of hoards are homogeneous and since the foreign coins with which they are found also turn up in association with the last Roman didrachms it is clear that the denarii and victoriati in question are the first of their kind. I shall first discuss each issue in turn, then attempt to assess how long this period of the denarius coinage lasted.

The mint of Rome

Within the earliest period of the denarius coinage both signed and anonymous pieces occur. About the former there is no problem of description, but the latter demand special attention, particularly as some of them have been thought to be earlier than signed pieces. The earliest anonymous denarii and victoriati occurring

in the hoards both fall into two main groups and a number of smaller groups. The two main groups of victoriati (nos. 44/1 and 53/1, Pl. rx and Pl. x ; see Table 1, 1-2) were first distinguished by H. B. Mattingly;? the first group, unlike the second, has a Jupiter with harsh features and normally only three locks of falling hair and

a crudely executed Victory. Despite Mattingly’s hesitation, the two groups are clearly contemporary, displaying identical patterns of wear in the hoards. The two groups of denarii are even more distinct (nos. 44/5 and 53/2, Pl. mx and Pl. x). The first (with which belong also quinarii and sestertii) has a Roma with splayed or curved visor, the second a Roma with peaked visor, not to mention numerous smaller stylistic differences. Like the two groups of victoriati, the two groups of

denarii are clearly contemporary. Although the first group occurs alone in the Morgantina, Cheste and Locri hoards, the groups occur together in the Tivisa hoard?

and have the same weight standard. The neater victoriati, as Mattingly rightly points out, develop without stylistic break into the issues signed with a crescent and a cornucopiae (nos. 57-8) and the same is true of the denarii displaying a Roma with peaked visor (compare Pl. x, 11-12 and 19-20 with Pl. xu, 13-14). It seems reasonable in the circumstances to link the cruder victoriati and the denarii displaying a Roma with splayed or curved visor with each other. We thus have two roughly contemporary issues, the first consisting of victoriati, denarii, quinarii and sestertii, the second of victoriati and denarii. To the first issue

|8

1 The smaller groups in question are nos. 45~8 and 54—5. They are stylistically distinct from each other

and from other issues of this period; their weight standards suffice to attribute them to it. Since I

cannot at the moment link any of them with signed issues or attribute any of them to a particular mint, they are listed after each of the two anonymous issues of the mint of Rome, according to where the closest resemblance lies. All the groups in question may eventually find a home somewhere and may indeed be parts of other issues; I do not believe that style alone suffices to individuate an issue and regard the listing of the groups I have been discussing as provisional. 2 Studies Robinson, 212 with n. 3. $ Coin hoards, nos. 72, 75, 76 and 94.

The first period of the denartus coinage

belongs the anonymous Mars/Eagle gold coinage,! to each issue belongs part of the prolific production of anonymous bronze.? The second issue may certainly be assigned to the mint of Rome, since it develops into the mainstream Republican coinage, beginning with the issue with crescent. The first anonymous issue should also be assigned to the mint of Rome, which had once already produced two separate groups of bronze coinage at the same time (see p. 43 n. 5). This first anonymous issue is followed by the issues with anchor, apex and M, after the production of which the workshop apparently closed. As for the beginning of the two anonymous issues, it seems to me certain that the

victoriatus begins no earlier than the denarius. Mattingly’s argument to the contrary depends on the assertion that the Morgantina hoard from the American excavations® contains specimens of the developed victoriatus coinage and of only the earliest denarius coinage. It would in any case be rash to place much weight on a hoard consisting of only nine coins, but the assertion is in fact untrue. The denarius in the hoard resembles my Pl. 1x, 16, which is not the earliest of the issue to which

it belongs. It is apparent that the denarii belonging to the two anonymous issues under consideration were produced on the same large scale as the victoriati and went through a considerable stylistic development. To assign them a later beginning is hardly reasonable. The denarii, quinarii and sestertii of the first anonymous issue show a considerable range of styles (Pl. 1x, 10-24). The earliest pieces are presumably those on which the head of Roma shows the greatest affinity with the head of Roma on unciae of the preceding period (compare Pl. 1x, 10 with Pl. vit, 4). From this point the issue develops in two directions: in the hands (presumably) of one artist, the visor becomes more splayed and the hair more abundant, to acquire finally a curious and distinctive lock falling all the way down from behind the ear (Pl. 1x, 16-17 and 19-21); in the hands of another artist the visor becomes more rounded and the whole head more elegant. Two further arguments may be adduced to confirm the correctness of this arrangement. As it stands, the incuse legend, presumably derived from quadrigati

of the preceding period, occurs at the beginning and gradually disappears;* and the quinarius and the sestertius, which were not struck after the issue came to an end, appear in progressively decreasing quantities. The development undergone by the denarii of the second issue is illustrated on 1 Although the anonymous Mars/Eagle gold coinage is stylistically very diverse, such die-links as I have been able to discover make it impossible to divide the coinage into two stylistic groups; I therefore assign it all to one workshop. To some of it Mars/Eagle gold with anchor is astonishingly close (for a near die-link see Pl. 1x, 7 and PI. x, §); I therefore assign all the anonymous Mars/Eagle gold coinage to the workshop which produced gold, denarii and bronze with anchor. 2 For a tentative indication of the two groups see Pls. x1, 4-xul, 3 and xu, 4-12. 8 Coin hoards, no. 72.

4 The group of denarii under discussion was picked out by M. Bahrfeldt, Z/N 1878, 30-5; he also argued (35-7) that the earliest denarii had an incuse legend (the rest of the article is no longer of interest).

9

Introduction

P]. x, 13-20. A curious feature of many examples of this issue and of its immediate successors is the appearance of the further horse’s tail in front of the nearer horse’s hind legs.1 Apart from isolated instances,? the feature also occurs consistently on nine closely related issues from Sicily (nos. 72-80, see below), and on two late issues,

| one anonymous and one with anchor (nos. 164-5, see p. 52). In the anonymous issue | under consideration and its immediate successors the feature seems to be gradually disappearing. It is always present on the early coins with head in high relief and

prancing horses; it remains as the relief diminishes and the horses change to a galloping action; on the last coins of the issue it is sometimes present, but usually not, while on denarii with crescent it is usually present and on denarii with cornucopiae it is usually absent. To resume, we have two parallel anonymous issues from the mint of Rome, the first of which is followed by issues signed with anchor, apex and M, the second of which is followed by issues signed with crescent and cornucopiae. Victoriati of

both anonymous issues occur with didrachms of the preceding period in the Canosa hoard, denarii of both anonymous issues in the Tivisa hoard with coins of Emporiae and Saguntum,? denarii of the first anonymous issue in the Cheste and Valera hoards, notably with Hispano-Punic coins; denarii with crescent and cornucopiae occur in the Drieves hoard, which includes one Hispano-Punic piece, denarii with cornucopiae in the Valera hoard; anonymous bronze occurs with Sardo-Punic issues of the latest period‘ in the Marseille and Perdas de Fogu hoards, with a Punic issue presumbly of the Second Punic War in the Tortoreto hoard.5 1 This is a feature to which H. B. Mattingly, Studies Robinson, 216 n. 5, draws attention. 2 In the issues with C (no. 107, Vatican 376), caduceus (no. 108, Montecarotto hoard) and owl (no. 135, Turin, F533). 3 L. Villaronga Garriga, Arse-Saguntum, Cat. 21 and 25. ‘ L. Forteleoni, Le emissiont monetalt, ser. vi; the date is disputed-—236-231 (Forteleoni, pp. 54-68) or 216 (G..K. Jenkins, NC 1963, 243-4); apart from the evidence provided by the association of SardoPunic coins with Roman coins, whose date is itself under discussion, the only argument is that of Jenkins, who draws attention to the improbability of the revolt of 216 being without coinage. 5 Canosa —- Coin hoards, no. 86; Tivisa-no. 94; Cheste-no. 75; Valera-— no. 109; Drieves~no. 107; Marseille — no. 79; Perdas de Fogu-no. 100; Tortoreto— no, 101. J.-C. M. Richard in Bull. Comm. Arch. Narbonne 1968, 10n. 25 and in JNG 1970, §9-60 nn. 55-9, has expressed doubts about the Valera and Drieves hoards; the first may not be a hoard at all, both may be ‘trésors de récupération’ of the late second century. Both hoards are probably silversmiths’ hoards, but that does not make them any the less hoards. The fact that the Valera hoard was found scattered on the surface does not prevent it from being a hoard either; it could have been in a perishable container and the coins could have been scattered by soil movement or by cultivation. The earliest report emphasises that there was no trace of pottery or buildings on the site; this fact, together with the amount of precious metal involved, excludes the possibility that Valera is a site find. Against the view that Valera and Drieves are ‘trésors de récupération’ may be urged the sheer improbability of Carthaginian issues, drachms of Saguntum and Saetabi and a Rhodian tetradrachm of Ameinias being available in the late second century (the tetradrachm of Ameinias is to be dated before 200—a piece of information I owe to M. J. Price). It is also necessary to point out that the chronology of the Gallic ‘monnaies 4 la croix’ in which Richard is interested should be determined by the dated hoards in which they occur; these hoards should not be explained away in the interests of an a priori belief that ‘monnaies a la croix’ begin with the Roman occupation of Gaul. ‘The ‘monnaies 4 la croix’ in the Valera and Drieves hoards are regarded as belonging ‘near the beginning of the coinage’ by D. F. Allen, NC 1969, 40-1, 63 and 68 (cf. postscript on p. 62 for Allen’s acceptance of a Second Punic War date for the Valera and Drieves hoards). 10

The first period of the denarius coinage

The silver in all seven issues was struck on a high, but declining, weight standard:

Anonymous victoriatus (Rome 1) 3-375 gr.

Anonymous denarius (Rome 1) 4.5 gr.

Denarius with anchor 4.5 gr.

Denarius with M 4.5 gr.

Denarius with apex 4.5 gr.

Anonymous victoriatus (Rome 2) 3.375 gr.

Anonymous denarius (Rome 2) 4.5 pr. Silver with crescent based on a denarius of —_4.4 gr. Silver with cornucopiae based on a denarius of 4.4 gr.

The weight standard of the bronze is more complex. The bronze of the Roman Republic with Prow may be assigned without difficulty to three periods; in the first period all bronze was cast, in the second part was cast and part was struck (see p. 6), in the last, as we have seen, all was struck. Only bronze of this final period concerns us here (no. 56; note some pieces with variant obverse style, Pls. x-x1). The heaviest struck asses weigh about two ounces and the period is thus characterised by a sextantal or lower weight standard.

Traditionally, all the bronze coinage falling between the appearance of the sextantal weight standard and the Lex Papiria of 91 (see p. 611) has been classified as

‘sextantal’ or ‘uncial’, E. A. Sydenham even classified the anonymous bronze coinage as ‘sextantal’, ‘above uncial’ and ‘uncial’.1 But if one considers for a moment only the signed issues, the unsatisfactory nature of the classification ‘sextantal’ and

‘uncial’ is apparent. There is no point at which the weight standard evidently became uncial and there are many issues which can only be classified as sextantal

or uncial quite arbitrarily? And although all but one of the silver issues of the denarius coinage which I regard as early are of high weight standard, there are a great many signed bronze issues, certainly contemporary (see p. 596), which are not

merely of uncial but of semuncial weight standard. Furthermore, if one turns to the anonymous bronze issues, no adequate stylistic distinction is possible between heavy, supposedly early, pieces and light, supposedly late, pieces (see Pls. x1-x11 with Key to Plates); the only exception is provided by a few very late pieces, to be regarded as an independent issue (nos. 197-88). There are a few pieces of anonymous bronze so distinctive that they may be attached to an early signed issue (no. 106); but the vast, amorphous mass of bronze coinage of sextantal or lower weight standard should all in my view be regarded as early and as contemporary with early anonymous victoriati and denarii. Pliny’s report of asses unciales facti (NH xxxiii, 13 - with the wrong date) should be regarded only as a record of 1 CRR, pp. 14, 26 and 33. 2 A point ignored by E. Bernareggi, RIN 1964, 13-19; see p. §2 n. 4. 11

Introduction |

the fact that the weight standard of the as did in due course and by imperceptible stages become uncial.

The only piece of evidence which might be held to contradict this view in fact supports it. This is the evidence provided by the existence of two rare issues of dupondii (nos. 56/1 and 69/1). The first is anonymous, the second, known only in one example, is signed with corn-ear and k\. All pieces are overstruck on asses of

sextantal standard (see Table xvii, 26 and 54) and are therefore technically of uncial standard. Traditionally’ they are regarded as marking the point at which the uncial standard was introduced. But it is certain that the signed issue belongs to the earliest years of the denarius coinage (see below) and the stylistic affinities of the anonymous issue, its prow carefully decorated with a dolphin, are entirely with asses like those on which it is overstruck. Both issues of dupondii should be attributed to the earliest years of the denarius coinage and regarded as an attempt to save metal by striking what was in effect a fiduciary currency. Bronze issues of similarly light standard are to be found elsewhere in the early denarius coinage; Iam certain that this was introduced in the middle of the Second Punic War and it is not surprising that financial stringency led to their production. The rarity of the dupondii shows that this experiment at any rate was rapidly abandoned. If then the mint of Rome produced with the introduction of the denarius coinage two parallel anonymous issues, followed by two sequences of signed issues, it remains to consider that part of the early denarius coinage struck outside Rome and to relate it chronologically to the products of the central mint. Mints outside Rome

One large group of issues may perhaps be attributed to a mint in central Italy (nos. 59-62, Table 1, 3). The coherence of the group (wherever struck) is apparent from a number of factors, not least from the stylistic uniformity of the group. In particular, the earliest two denarii show the same change from a straight visor, copied from unciae of the previous period, to a curved visor (compare Pl. x11, 4-5 with Pl. x11, 7-8), a change analogous to that occurring in the first anonymous issue of the mint of Rome. The style of the whole group is indeed close to the style of this issue, without ever being quite identical; although the general appearance of Roma is similar, the spikes on the helmet which are characteristic of nos. 44/5, 50/2; 51/1 and 52/1 do not occur in the group under discussion. Stylistic arguments for the

coherence of the group are reinforced by other considerations. It does not include the victoriatus; its bronze, unlike most other early bronze, is almost never overstruck (Table xvim1, 46 provides a solitary example); anonymous pieces which may be attached to signed issues are likewise almost entirely lacking (no. 60/1b, known to 1 E. A. Sydenham, CRR, p. 33. 2 IT have discussed this point briefly in 7RS 1969, 291-2. 12

The first period of the denartus coinage

me in two specimens and of the same distinctive style as no. 60/1a, lacks asymbol on

the reverse, presumably in error). The weight standard of the silver is uniformly high: Denarius with apex and hammer 4.5 gr.

Denarius with caduceus 4.5 gr.

Denarius with Victory 4.5 gr. Denarius with rostrum tridens 4.5 gr. The bronze issues have a very curious weight standard, only paralleled once elsewhere in the early denarius coinage (see p. 22 n. 4). Asses with apex and hammer, with caduceus and with Victory are of full or nearly full sextantal standard, but many

of the smaller denominations are struck not only on this standard, but also on a much lighter standard. Heavy and light pieces certainly belong together! and shortage of bronze evidently explains the issue of some fractions of the as on a fiduciary basis.

The next group (nos. 63-5, Table 1, 4) is securely attributed to Sardinia. It consists of three issues, each composed only of quinarii and bronze (denarii with C have nothing to do with quinarii with C, compare PI. x111, 13 with Pl. xx, 17-20). The quinarii (with one of them a rare anonymous issue, no. 66/1, may be associated)

are of uniform style and high weight standard:

Quinarius with C based on a denarius of 4.5 gr. Quinarius with AA based on a denarius of 4.5 gr. Quinarius with Ag based on a denarius of 4.5 gr. They are also very rare. The structure of all the bronze issues is the same; all denominations are of very

light weight and all are rare with the single exception of the sextans; this was produced in profusion, usually overstruck on Sardo-Punic bronze (Table xvi, 47ff.). These remarkable characteristics are unparalleled elsewhere. All three issues are

represented in the Sardinian Perdas de Fogu hoard, otherwise largely composed of Sardo-Punic issues (see p. 10); isolated examples of two of the issues occur in the Citta Ducale and Minturno hoards.? It should not escape notice that the Praetors of Sardinia in 211-209 were a Cornelius, a Manlius and an Aurunculeius (see p. 32). Two, or perhaps three, groups may be located in Sicily (nos. 67-80, Table 1, 5-7).

The starting point for identifying the first two groups must be the two issues of denarii and fractions with corn-ear (a symbole parlant for Sicily). Both issues are rare and both are of high weight standard: Denarius etc. with corn-ear (no. 68/1-3) based on a denarius of 4.5 gr. Denarius etc. with corn-ear (no. 72/3-4) based on a denarius of 4.5 gr. 1 Hannover 175 and 176 are a heavy and a light semis with Victory (no. 61/3), die-linked to each other. * Coin hoards, nos. 97 and 98.

13

Introduction |

But there the resemblance ends. The first issue is crudely executed, the second

beautifully done (compare Pls. x111, 20-3 and xiv, 1-3 and xiv, 13-14); the first issue includes anonymous pieces attached to it on stylistic grounds,! the second does not;

finally the corn-ears on the two issues are of quite different shape. To each silver issue may be assigned one of the two bronze issues with corn-ear; bronze with corn-ear and K* resembles the first silver issue,” bronze with only a corn-ear the second

issue. Both bronze issues have some unusual features. The first is of light weight and includes the dupondius as its highest denomination. The second is struck on two standards, the one fully sextantal, the other somewhat reduced; since the types are slightly different for the lighter coins, we probably have here two successive stages of the issue. But the most remarkable feature of the whole of the first bronze issue and of

the early part of the second is the quadrans. Instead of the usual Hercules/Prow types, it displays the Hercules/Bull types of a quadrans originally struck in Rome as part of a collateral issue to the semilibral Prow bronze (no. 39/2 with p. 43 below),

with the corn-ear symbol added. These types were first revived for the bronze issue with corn-ear produced before the introduction of the denarius coinage. The reasons both for the revival and for its perpetuation are equally obscure; the weight standards of the issues concerned are clear evidence of the attribution proposed : Semis with Prow, corn-ear and K (no. 69/3) — average — 14 gr. Quadrans with Bull, of crude style (no. 69/5) - average — 6.25 gr. Sextans with Prow, and corn-ear (no. 72/8) — average — 7 gr. Quadrans with Bull, of good style (no. 72/7) - average — 11 gr.

For bronze of both types in both issues finds and overstrikes provide more than adequate evidence of Sicilian minting.* A new hoard from Haluntium includes a quadrans with Bull of the first issue; bronze of the second issue, with Prow, was in the Barrafranca and Montagna di Marzo hoards; bronze with Bull belonging to its predecessor in the pre-denarius period was in the Adrano hoard.‘ But the best evidence comes from the American excavations at Morgantina in Sicily: Bronze with Prow, corn-ear and ( 58 specimens

Bronze with Bull, of crude style 5 specimens Bronze with Prow, and corn-ear 3: specimens Bronze with Bull, of good style 1 specimen The evidence of overstrikes is equally dramatic. Both parts of the issue with cornear and K* are frequently overstruck on coins of Syracuse or Rhegium, as is bronze

14 |

1 See Pls. x11, 21-2 and XIV, 2-3; note particularly the denarius with incuse legend (Bastianelli 251

= BM). 2 This resemblance is noted by A. Alféldi, JNG 1965, 42-5.

3 So first J. Friedlander, Z{N 1877, 336; then P. Bonazzi, RIN 1922, § (who confuses the different issues hopelessly).

4 Haluntium—- AIIN 1968, 83; Barrafranca—Coin hoards, no. 96; Montagna di Marzo-no. 99; Adrano—no. 69; note also the Chiapazzi and Aidone hoards of the pre-denarius period—nos. 66

and 68. § Information from T. V. Buttrey.

The first period of the denarius coinage

with Prow and corn-ear (Table xvim, 22-3, 58, 61-6 and 70). Other Roman issues are more rarely thus overstruck (Table xviii, 32, 38, 42, 46 and 80). The question of the date of both issues of bronze is complex. As we have seen, both issues of denarii and fractions may be regarded as early, on the basis of their weight standard. Prima facie, the bronze associated with these two issues of silver should be contemporary with them. As far as the early part of the issue simply with corn-ear is concerned, there is no difficulty ; it follows on from bronze with corn-ear

of the pre-denarius period and thus presumably comes at the beginning of the denarius coinage. The later part of this issue and the issue with corn-ear and are more problematical, since both are of light weight. Consideration of the former issue may be postponed and taken up as part of the general question as to how long a period the earliest issues of the denarius coinage cover (see p. 33). The latter issue

may be shown to belong to the very beginning of that coinage despite its light weight; it occurs with anonymous bronze and with a Roman piece struck in Sardinia in the much misunderstood Minturno hoard. This hoard is dated by its archaeological context to before 191;1 but if the destruction level of this year provides a terminus

ante quem for the hoard it is most unlikely that it also provides an occasion for burial. The owner of the shop where the hoard was found hardly buried it under the floor as the shop was burning; the hoard may in consequence be regarded as buried + 200, It seems unlikely that a shop-keeper’s hoard from a town less than a hundred miles from Rome would not include pieces from the mint of Rome with symbols if

these were already in circulation. The inference therefore is that the anonymous issues in the Minturno hoard, together with the two signed issues (with C and with corn-ear and {*), belong to the very beginning of the denarius coinage. We have already seen reason to believe this in the case of the issue with C and we have already seen that a low weight standard is no barrier to an early date for a bronze issue.

There are also victoriati and gold pieces to be linked with the denarii and bronze from Sicily so far discussed. As far as the gold 20-as piece with corn-ear is concerned, no clear evidence exists; but the corn-ear perhaps resembles that on no. 72/3 more closely than that on no. 68/1. There are altogether four issues of victoriati probably of Sicilian origin, two anonymous,? one with corn-ear and one with C/M (the last including a group of pieces without the identifying letters). Of these, the two anonymous issues (nos. 67 and 70) and the issue with corn-ear (no. 72/1) are certainly Sicilian. All four issues occur in the Serra Orlando hoard,’ to the virtual exclusion of

other types; their representation in later hoards from the mainland is patchy. The first anonymous issue, with its notably heavy obverse style and with its reverse 1 See R. Thomsen, ERC ii, 197-204, for an exposé of the special pleading of believers in a date of 187 for the introduction of the denarius. 2 These are identified by H. B. Mattingly, Studies Robinson, 213, in a slightly confused paragraph. 3 Coin hoards, no. 82.

15

Introduction

invariably displaying the sword below the spear on the right of the trophy, provides

21 specimens (out of 89) in the Serra Orlando hoard. The second anonymous issue provides the single victoriatus in the Mandanici hoard, 3 specimens (out of 4)

in the Morgantina pot-hoard and 45 specimens in the Serra Orlando hoard. The issue with corn-ear occurs in the Serra Orlando hoard; here as on the denarius and bronze the corn-ear is a symbole parlant for Sicily. As for the issue with C/M (no. 71), it occurs not only in the Serra Orlando hoard, but also in the roughly contemporary

hoard from Taranto;? its attribution to Sicily is uncertain, but is supported by the stylistic similarity of its obverse to those of the second anonymous issue and the issue with corn-ear (all show stylistic affinities with Punic issues of Agrigentum of the Second Punic War period).3 That all four issues of victoriati are early is apparent

both from their occurrence in the Serra Orlando hoard without other victoriati except for anonymous pieces from the mint of Rome and from their high weight standard: Anonymous victoriatus (no. 67/1) based on a denarius of 4.5 gr. Anonymous victoriatus (no. 70/1) based on a denarius of 4.5 gr. Victoriatus with C/M (no. 71/1) based on a denarius of 4.5 gr. Victoriatus with corn-ear (no. 72/1) based on a denarius of 4.5 gr. The first anonymous issue shows in the crudity of its execution marked. affinities with the first issue of denarii with corn-ear (no. 68/1) and should be associated with it. Victoriati with corn-ear share the same distinctive cast of Jupiter’s nose with the second issue of denarii with corn-ear (no. 72/3) and should probably be regarded

as belonging to the same issue, despite the different form of the corn-ear. The second anonymous issue of victoriati and victoriati with C/M should be regarded as fairly closely related to victoriati with corn-ear. Guessing what C and M stand for seems to me pointless; they may represent the name of a man (or men) as well as of a place. There are no grounds for supposing that any of the victoriati I have been discussing here are earlier than denarii and bronze with corn-ear.

The main group of Sicilian issues is completed by two issues of denarii and quinarii, with dolabella and C-\, one of denarii, with C-Al, and one of denarii and bronze, with branch (nos. 73-6, Table 1, 6). The issue with C- AV includes a small anonymous group of identical style with the signed pieces. At least two: of the issues are clearly signed with men’s names and it seems probable that the symbols also represent men’s names. The homogeneity of the group appears primarily from the distinctive form of the visor on the obverse of the silver, which also provides the link with the second issue of denarii with corn-ear; a visor composed of three parallel lines occurs on these five issues and nowhere else in the early denarius coinage. All five issues also invariably show the tail of the further horse in front of the

1 Coin hoards, no. 71. 2 Coin hoards, no. 84.

8 As pointed out by E. A. Sydenham, NC 1932, 94-5; see my PI. xiv. 16

The first period of the denarius coinage

hind legs of the nearer horse. Two smaller features, the loop under the visor and the curl on the left shoulder, link the issues with C-A) and branch. The issues with dolabella, C’\VX and C-A, seem to follow on in sequence from the issue with cornear, the first two, like the issue with corn-ear, including the quinarius. One might be tempted to separate the issue with branch, since its bronze is both heavier than some bronze with corn-ear and differs from it in fabric and style; but the close links between the denarii with C- AV and those with branch forbid this; rather the weight standard of the bronze was now restored to a full sextantal level (compare p. 19). The Sicilian origin of the four issues is adequately attested by their close stylistic link with the issue with corn-ear, their early date both by this link and by their heavy weight-standard : Denarius etc. with adze based on a denarius of 4.5 gr. Denarius etc. with C-VX based on a denarius of 4.5 gr.

Denarius with C-A, 4.5 gr.

Denarius with branch 4.5 gr.

The next issues to be considered are some apparent companions of the main Sicilian group. There are first three issues of denarii, with corn-ear and crooked staff, with staff and with wheel, and one issue of denarii and bronze, with dolphin -

(nos. 77-80, Table 1, 7). All have a peaked visor on the obverse of the denarius | (otherwise only occurring in this period on pieces from the second Rome mint, on some denarii with spearhead and on denarii with club, in all of which issues the helmet is very different in form), all invariably show the tail of the further horse in front of the hind legs of the nearer horse. Denarii with corn-ear and crooked staff and with staff are in addition linked to denarii with C-A) and with branch by the loop under the visor and by the curl on the left shoulder. I am less happy about placing the issues with wheel and dolphin here, but their stylistic affinities seem to be here rather than elsewhere.1 E. A. Sydenham’s association of the issue with wheel with the late second-century Narbo issue is not justified on stylistic grounds and may be decisively rejected.? Its weight standard, like that of the three issues with which I wish to associate it, is high:

|a

Denarius with corn-ear and crooked staff 4.5 gr. | Denarius with staff 4.5 pr. Denarius with wheel 4.5 gr. Denarius with dolphin 4.5 gt.

The serration of the denarii with wheel seems to be a piece of decoration without further significance (see p. 581). 1 Note also an anonymous issue to be associated with the issue with dolphin on stylistic grounds (see

2 CORR’ on against, already, G. K. Jenkins, MusN 1958, 58 n. 4.

Introduction

Two isolated issues may perhaps be attributed to Sicily, the as with CN-CO and dolabella and the semis with the types Ceres/Hercules and centaur (nos. 81-2). The first is known only in two specimens; its legend resembles in form the legends C-\R and C: Al and its fine style is comparable to that of some of the bronze with corn-ear; it is tempting to link it with denarii and quinarii with simple dolabella, but the different form of the implement forbids an absolute decision. The semis with Ceres/Hercules and centaur is overstruck on a piece of a pre-denarius issue

with corn-ear (no. 42/2) and may therefore itself also be of Sicilian origin; the head of Ceres is a type appropriate to Sicily. We are left with two large groups of issues, both of which seem to originate in south-eastern Italy, and a number of smaller groups and isolated issues, few of which can be attributed to any particular area. The first large group consists of issues with spearhead, R&, H, Q! and V, which seem contemporary with each other, and of a second issue with spearhead and an issue with club, themselves contemporary with each other, but later than the other five issues (nos. 83-9, Table 1, 10). The weight standard of the silver is high, even if gently declining:

Victoriatus with spearhead? 4.5 gr. -Denarius etc. with spearhead 4.5 gr.

Denarius etc. with R& 4.5 gt.

Quinarius with H 4.5 gr.

Quinarius with Q based ona 14:5 8: Denarius with spearhead denarius of \4°4 8" Victoriatus with club* 4.4 gr. (probably - mean of 14

Denarius with club 4.5 gr.

specimens in San Angelo and Caltrano hoards - 3.15 gr.)

Denarii, quinarii and sestertii of the first four issues are linked mainly by similarity of obverse style; all display a straight, markedly splayed visor and related profiles;

the two later issues, characterised by the adoption of a peaked visor (doubtless copied from no. 53/2), are linked to the first four issues by the first variety of the second issue with spearhead, displaying close similarities with the first issue with 1 With this issue goes the issue with Q and anchor, which consists precisely of the denominations not present in the issue with Q. The assertion (H. A. Grueber, BMCRR ii, 196 n. 2; E. A. Sydenham, CRR, p. 20n.) that a sextans with Q is overstruck on a coin of Cales is untrue; the piece is a sextans with C overstruck on a Sardo-Punic coin (see Table xvitI, 47, a). 2 For anonymous issues associated with these victoriati see H. B. Mattingly, Studies Robinson, 212 8 With this ieewe I place the gold 60-as piece with spearhead; its neat style is exactly that of this issue of denarii, quite unlike that of the earlier issue of denarii with spearhead. 4 See above, n. 2. 18

The first period of the denarius coinage

spearhead in the form of the wing on the helmet and in the shape of the spearhead (see Pl. xvi, 3 and 16). In addition, the bronze coinages provide an overall connecting thread not only by way of a general similarity of style, but also through an odd

engraver’s error, ¢ for S, found on the issues with R&, H and spearhead; the association of bronze with spearhead with the second issue of denarii seems to follow from its relatively low weight standard. Bronze with club is the odd man out, of divergent style? and high weight standard:

Bronze with RQ gr. Bronze with H 40.5 pr.

Bronze with Q based on an =} 36-31.5 gr.

Bronze with V as of 40.5 gr. Bronze with spearhead 36 pr.

Bronze with club 54 gr. But the similarity between silver with spearhead and silver with club is so great (see Pls. xvi-xvit) that it seems best to place the latter here and postulate for bronze with club a deliberate revival of weight standard (compare p. 17).

The second large group centres round the mint of Luceria; it consists of two issues of silver and bronze, three of silver only and two of bronze only (nos. 97-103,

Table 1, 18). The most important issue is that with | and it is helpful to begin with this; it can hardly be doubted that the | on this large and homogeneous issue, occurring also in the same form on the autonomous coinage of Luceria, is the mint-

mark of that city. The earliest bronze with | is post-semilibral, apparently not produced on a very large scale; with the advent of the sextantal standard, the mint begins to turn out a very substantial coinage; and production remains heavy as

the standard declines. Two problems must be faced immediately, whether the history of the weight standard is one of consistent decline and how long the process lasts; for the weight standard eventually reaches a level not reached elsewhere in the Roman coinage till the mid-second century (except on the related issue with 1). The steady deterioration of style which accompanies the decline in weight standard seems to me to provide adequate evidence that the latter is an uninterrupted process; support for this view may be found in an overstrike of a light-weight piece with | on a heavy-weight piece (Table xvi, 84). I also believe that the whole production of the mint took place over a very few years, beginning in 214 (see p. 44); the latest issues of all are sometimes overstruck on autonomous coins of Arpi (incidentally, evidence for the placing of the mint for the issues with | in Apulia), which are most unlikely to have been available for overstriking after about 200 (Table xvm, 87); 1 Bronze with Victory and spearhead, in any case of later style than the bronze issues now under discussion, cannot also be associated with denarii with spearhead, but must be regarded as an independent issue (contra A. Alféldi, Festschrift Schramm, 5 n. 12). 2 The blanks are sometimes made in a single, not a double, mould (see p. 579).

19

Introduction

and bronze hoards of the middle of the second century hardly contain any pieces with |,1 which suggests an issue both restricted in area of original circulation and of relatively short duration; nor can I see any reason for the continuation of the issue after the recovery of control of Italy from Hannibal.? Silver with | consists mainly

of victoriati, with rare quinarii; the issue of victoriati seems to go through three phases; the earliest pieces (occurring alone of this issue in the Udine hoard)? have on the obverse a bead-and-reel border and a head of Jupiter with wild, straggly hair; in the second phase the bead-and-reel border remains, while the hair is disciplined into neat, tight rolls; in the last phase a border of dots appears. To judge by the shape of the neck truncation, quinarii with ) seem to be associated with this last phase; the mint thus provides a rare example of the victoriatus being introduced initially without the denarius or its fractions; but both victoriati and quinarii should be associated with the sextantal phase of the bronze coinage with L; quinarii with | and sextantal unciae with | display an almost identical obverse. All the phases of the victoriatus are represented in the hoards which contain the earliest

signed issues of the mint of Rome, to be dated to about 207; certainly all the phases of the victoriatus have a consistently high weight standard, as does the quinarius:

Victoriatus with | based on a denarius of 4.5 gr. Quinarius with | based on a denarius of 4.5 gr. The reasons for the decline in the weight of the bronze are mysterious, particularly in view of the apparent success of other mints in restoring a declining weight standard to a full sextantal level (see pp. 17 and 19); one can only assume that the effectiveness of central control and the availability of metal varied markedly from area to area, perhaps not surprisingly in the midst of the Hannibalic War. The issue with )/T, consisting of both silver and bronze, should be regarded as a product of a subsidiary workshop at Luceria. The victoriatus, like the victoriatus with |, seems to go through three phases: the first phase displays on the obverse a small, neat head, with | on the obverse and T on the reverse; in the second phase the head on the obverse is larger, the monogram 1 occurs on the reverse; in the last phase, both obverse and reverse types are outspread and rather carelessly executed,

while the mint-marks have returned to their original positions.4 A rare halfvictoriatus, a quinarius and a very rare sestertius are associated with this last phase by reason of their plunging neck truncation. The weight standard is uniformly high:

Victoriatus and half-victoriatus with L/T based on a denarius of 4.5 gr. Quinarius and sestertius with ) on obverse based on a denarius of 4.5 gr. Bronze with )/T is a small, homogeneous issue of very full sextantal standard. 1 Just the three pieces in the Citta Sant’ Angelo hoard, Coin hoards, no. 129. 2 Note also the die-link between a heavy and a light dextans with |, (C. H. V. Sutherland, NC 1938,

129), indicative of nearly contemporary production. > Coin hoards, no. 84.

4 There are also a number of victoriati with incomplete or blundered legends, no. 98/1c-d.

20

The first pertod of the denartus coinage

The issue is purely Roman! and the traditional view that the two mint-marks, | and 1, are evidence of an ‘alliance coinage’ cannot stand. The whole issue was clearly produced at Luceria; T may be a monetary magistrate’s mark or an indication of the purpose to which the coinage was to be put.

Of the remaining issues of this group, it is perhaps more convenient to take the bronze issues first. The issue with [> is linked to the issue with | not only by its style, but also by the fact that these two issues alone use the denominations of dextans and quincunx. Like the issue with |, that with [" goes through a decline in weight standard; there is also an as bearing the letters | and [" and it seems clear that the issue was produced at a subsidiary workshop at Luceria. It may indeed be the successor of the issue with |/T, with a different magistrate’s or paymaster’s mark,

The issue with C/\, on the other hand, though displaying affinities with the issue with |,? also has distinctive features of its own. It is similar in style and shares the odd trick of using the mark of value — instead of |. But its trientes, unlike any

other issue of the denarius coinage, are overstruck on coins of Acarnania and Oeniadae, across the Adriatic (Table xvii, 91 and 95, with p. 32). The issue as a whole is also on a single weight standard. Clearly belonging in Apulia, it should be attributed to a mint at Canusium.3 As for the silver issues of this group, their affinities are clearly here rather than

elsewhere, by reason of the curious combination of victoriatus and quinarius, without denarius, which occurs nowhere else.4 In addition, victoriati with /A/\ share the bead-and-reel border with victoriati with |, found nowhere else in this period of the denarius coinage;> quinarii with Q display a head of Roma with

Phrygian helmet, shared with quinarii of the b/T issue; quinarii with /V\ and Q | have the legend ROMA in an exergue, like quinarii with ) and unlike most other quinarii of this period; it is also remarkable that a hoard in which victoriati with Q were the only signed issue came from Foggia, a few miles from Luceria.® Victoriati

and quinarii with « were produced on Corcyra, presumably from booty in silver available after the operations which followed the Roman-Aetolian treaty of autumn

211,’ and thus share only a denominational structure with the rest of the group; but it is remarkable that this shared structure is paralleled by the Roman use of the bronze coins of Acarnania and Oeniadae, doubtless from booty, to make coins of the issue with C/.8 1 Type copying seems to have been eclectic— the reverse type of the sextans is borrowed from the coinage of the Brettii, the types of the semuncia from the autonomous coinage of Luceria. 2 The blanks for the issues with |, [’ and C/\ are made in a single, not a double, mould (see p. 579). 3 See M. Bahrfeldt, Z/N 1895, 87, for arguments from provenance. 4 The issue with Q includes two varieties of anonymous quinarii. > Victoriati with /\\ also display a certain resemblance to unciae of Capua (E. A. Sydenham, NC 1932, 6 Cain ’ sards, no. 87.

7 F. W. Walbank, Commentary on Polybius ii, 11-13. 8 See above and p. 32. 21

Introduction

Of the three small groups which remain, the first consists of issues with B, pentagram, staff} and C (nos. 104-7, Table 1, 19). The second and third issues are held together by their common striking of gold 60-as pieces, by the similarity of the obverses of their denarii and most of all by the-die-link which exists between their victoriati;? denarii with C (including a small anonymous group) go through a stylistic sequence closely analogous to that undergone by denarii with staff. Denarii with B display an obverse style closer to that of denarii with pentagram than to any other style of this period; the awkwardness of the horses’ legs on the reverse recalls some denarii with C. All four issues show a high weight standard for both silver and, where applicable, bronze:

Denarius with B 4.5 gr.

Denarius with pentagram 4.5 gr.

Denarius with staff 4.5 gr.

Denarius with C 4.5 gr.

Bronze with staff based on an as of 40.5 gr.

The earlier of the two issues of denarii with knife and one of the two issues of denarii with caduceus (nos. 108-9, Table 1, 20) resemble each other and no other issue in the whole of the denarius coinage. Both are of high weight standard: Denarius with caduceus 4.5 gr.

Denarius with knife 4.5 gr. The two issues are held together not only by their remarkably crude obverse style but by the occurrence of a border of dots on the reverse. The two issues with wreath and A, (nos. 110-11, Table 1, 21) share a distinctive obverse style, with a markedly splayed visor and straggling locks.? The weight

standard of their silver is high, as is the basic weight standard of bronze with wreath :4

Denarius with wreath 4.3 gr.

Denarius with A. 4.3 gr. Bronze with wreath based on an as of 49.5 gr. The last issues to be considered are seven isolated issues of victoriati, those with torque, CROT, AV, Vi and \¥, and two anonymous issues, the one including the double-victoriatus, the other with the legend ROMA incuse. The last (no. 96) is 1 This issue includes anonymous bronze pieces, linked by their distinctive style with signed pieces (see Pl, XxX, 16; the semuncia is illustrated by M. Bahrfeldt, Blatter fiir Minzfreunde 1930-33, 682). 2 Vatican 255 and 337.

| 22

8 Anonymous denarii of this style should be associated with denarii with wreath (see PI. 4 As in the case of the issues with caduceus, apex and hammer, and Victory (see p. 13), fractions are struck on a light standard as well as on a full sextantal standard.

The first period of the denarius coinage

certainly of Spanish origin; six of the seven specimens known come from Spain and a die for the issue is preserved in the Instituto de Valencia de Don Juan in Madrid;1 the weight standard is high and the issue should be regarded as having been struck by Cn. or P. Cornelius Scipio before their defeats by the Carthaginians in 211; the loss of the die may easily have occurred in the wake of the disaster. The other anonymous issue, which includes the double-victoriatus (no. 90), is of extreme rarity ; the presence of the double-victoriatus suggests very strongly indeed that the whole issue belongs close to the period of the quadrigatus, thus at the very beginning of the denarius system; weight standard and style support this placing.

The five signed issues are diverse in character. Those with torque and CROT (nos. 91-2) are of considerable rarity and occur in no early hoards;? specimens in museums are almost always worn and it is hard to form a true estimate of their weight standards; but their styles resemble in no way that of late victoriati and they should be regarded as belonging to the early denarius coinage.* As far as can be ascertained, all specimens but one of the issue with J (no. 94) come from the Marcianise hoard (see p. 24); this suggests a Campanian origin, though an attempt at greater precision would be unwise-the letter | may stand equally for a place or a person. At all events, the high weight standard and bizarre style place this issue firmly in the early, diverse phase of the denarius system. Finally, the issues with A/V and 9 (nos. 93 and 95);* both are of high weight standard and occur in large numbers in early hoards; the presence of the halfvictoriatus in the second issue suggests an early, experimental phase of the denarius system.

The coherence within themselves of the groups I have described and their distinctness from each other both seem to me to be beyond question, except in a few isolated cases (see p. 17 and p. 19). There is also decisive evidence (see below) that all the groups were produced at about the same time, not in succession. Since no group has more than seven issues, it follows that the period to which the groups belong need have lasted only for a few years.® I shall show below that the period

begins in 211 and I shall argue that it is over by c. 208; with the battle of the Metaurus in the following year Rome was firmly in control of the Italian peninsula and the need for local production of coinage was over. 1 M. Bahrfeldt, Blatter fiir Minzfreunde 1930-33, 755. 2 Both issues include anonymous pieces, linked by their styles with signed pieces (see Pl. xvI!). 8 It follows that CROT is to be taken as representing a personal name, presumably Croto, not the city of Croton, which remained in Hannibal’s possession till 203. 4 For anonymous pieces to be associated with the issue with /V\, see H. B. Mattingly, Studies Robinson,

212 n. 4; for anonymous pieces to be associated with the issue with \¥, see Pl. xvit. |

5 There is no cause to be worried about the concentration of a large number of issues in a few years (as are, for instance, G. Gorini, Athenaeum 1969, 331; H. B. Mattingly, Studies Robinson, 220; C. A. Hersh, NC 1972, 76, oddly expecting minting practice during the Second Punic War to be normal); many of the issues in question are very small and heavy production of coinage is in any case what one would expect in the middle of the Second Punic War (cf. p. 46 n. 4).

23

Introduction

First the evidence of the hoards. Since, apart from stray pieces, victoriati, denarii and their fractions and bronze do not occur together in hoards, the three types of hoards must be considered separately (see Tables 11-1v). The three early victoriatus hoards of Serra Orlando, Taranto and Udine each reflect the coinage of a single _area; the Serra Orlando hoard contains only Roman and Sicilian issues, the Taranto

hoard contains Roman issues, one probably Sicilian issue and issues plausibly attributed to the area of Tarentum, the Udine hoard contains Roman issues together with issues that were struck at Luceria or nearby and presumably travelled up the

east coast of Italy. But the four later victoriatus hoards, Canosa, Italy, Pisa and Paestum, present a balanced picture of the whole of the first phase of the victoriatus coinage. The rare issues with CROT and torque occur in no hoards of this period.

The issue with 1, of which all known specimens but one (BMCRR Italy 242) seem to come from the Marcianise hoard,! is not represented in any other hoard and doubtless circulated in Campania only ; the anonymous issue with incuse legend was produced in Spain (see pp. 22-3) and did not circulate in Italy. As for the very rare issues with pentagram and staff on the reverse, one example of the former is in the Pisa hoard. Otherwise, every group of the victoriatus coinage which includes issues of heavy weight standard is represented in each of the four hoards. We are presented with a picture of a body of coinage all of the same weight standard and all occurring

in the same hoard context. The picture is also of a body of coinage more or less contemporary; in none of the four hoards under consideration are any victoriati more than slightly worn; clearly from the inception of the victoriatus to the time when the hoards were deposited only a few years can have elapsed. Early denarius hoards and early hoards with sextantal bronze provide a. less complete body of evidence than early victoriatus hoards; but the overall picture is the same. Groups which include issues of denarii or fractions of heavy weight standard are all represented. Once again, none of the coins is more than slightly worn.

If then it is accepted that we are dealing with a body of coinage made up of distinct groups, each consisting of one or more issues of victoriati, denarii or sextantal

bronze, all produced within a relatively restricted period, two problems arise, whether these three elements were introduced at the same time and, if so, when:

The denarius coinage I have already mentioned that anonymous denarii have been held to be earlier than sextantal bronze (p. 6 above). This view cannot be maintained. As R. Thomsen, following E. A. Sydenham, rightly points out, the style of anonymous denarii is

apparently contemporary with that of signed denarii, the latter undoubtedly associated with sextantal bronze;? this argument may be reinforced by specific

: 1 Coin hoards, no. 90. |

2 ERC ii, 94-5; the last argument used by Thomsen is not entirely cogent, since it is not absolutely certain with which group of post-semilibral corn-ear bronze one should associate corn-ear quadrigati.

24

The first period of the denarius coinage TABLE II. 211-207 B.C. — victoriati In Table II the issues from Anonymous (Rome 1 and 2) to /V\ are approximately contemporary

and are followed by the also approximately contemporary issues from | (Group 2) to Staff on reverse. They all precede the issues from Club to Cornucopiae

| Serra Taranto Udine Canosa Italy Pisa Paestum Orlando Anonymous (Rome 1) 12 93 1 28 99 24 58} Anonymous (Rome 2) 4 76 1 37 72 35 130}

Anonymous (SicilyB)A)4521. ,.7. 8. 38 110. Anonymous (Sicily

C/M 5 4 , 2 4 2 6 Corn-ear 2 . . , 1 1 .

Spearhead . 7. ,. 7. .413. 4. Anonymous Torque CROT .. . . . . . .

MM . 41 , 2 4 2 12

\e . , 3 13 1 2 2

Anonymous with incuse . . . . . . .

L (Group 1) . . 5 2 . . 4 L/T (Group 1) . . 3 6 1 , 5 legend

Q | . , 1 2 , 1 5 M . . . 2 , 4 L (Group 2) . . . 3 . 2 4

L/T (Group3)2), .. .. ,45, .1. 22 L (Group L/T (Group 3); ... .. .2 .31. 3. Pentagram Staff on reverse . : . . , . .

Club : : : . . 2 3 Crescent . : . . . . 16 Cornucopiae . . . . : . .

(Totals of Roman coins

in each hoard 89 191 14 119 197 85 291)

For bibliography see Coin hoards, nos. 82—4, 86 and 102-3; NC 1970, §1 (Italy hoard); further inspection

of the Serra Orlando hoard has led me to modify the figures slightly; the Pisa hoard was seen by Bahrfeldt (cf. Consularmitnzen in Italtenischen Sammlungen, 14~15) and Willers (Corolla Numismatica,

317 n. 2, wrongly asserting that the coins are debased).

1 The Paestum hoard contains a further 23 anonymous victoriati of uncertain attribution.

25

TABLE III. 211-207 B.C. — denarii, quinarii and sestertii In Table III the issues from Anonymous (Rome 1 and 2) to Av are approximately contemporary and precede the issues from Club to Cornucopiae

Pisticci Taranto Tivisa Las Orzi- Drieves Tar- Valera

Ansias_ vecchi quinia

Anonymous (Rome 8 .. 13 2, Anonymous (Rome 1) 2).:78 . 22??15

Anchor . 2 . + . . . . Apex . . . : ; : , : Apex and hammer .? . . .. 2, ., ,11 Caduceus , , , Victorytridens . . 1 .+. .2. ..:.. .. Rostrum

Corn-ear (TypeB)A) . . 1. Corn-ear (Type . 1.11?. .?. .oo,

Dolabella . . . + : . . . CVA . , . + , . , ,

C-AL , , , . 4 , , 1 Branch . . : + . . : 1 Corn-ear and staff . . . . : . . : Staff . . : ? . . . . Wheel . . . + . 1 . : Dolphin . . . + 3 . 2 Spearhead (Group 1) . . . ? , . . ..

H 4 12 . , 4 , , Q . 4 , , , , , , Spearhead (Group 2) . . . ? 1 4 . L 1 9 , , . . . . LIT . 8 . : : : : : Q . 36 , , , , , , M\ . 29 . , 4 . . . Pentagram . ., ., .. ?. ,.. .. .. Staff on reverse C , , 4 + 2 ; , 1 Caduceus . . . ? . . 1 . Knife . . . . . . 1 . Wreath . . . . . 1 . 1 Club : : : ? 1 . 1 1 Crescent . . . + 1 1 1 Cornucopiae . . . . . 1 1 2. (Totals of Roman coins

in each hoard 5 204 7 120 38 13 12 10)

For bibliography see Coin hoards, nos. 93-4 (the Tivisa hoard is now in the Museo Arqueologico di Barcelona), 104 and 106-9 (for the Drieves hoard see also K. Raddatz, Schatzfunde ii, pl. 18; for the Valera hoard Numisma 71, 1964, 25 and p. 10 n. §); p. 679 (Taranto hoard).

26

The first period of the denarius coinage TABLE IV, 211-207 B.C. — bronze

In Table IV the issues from Anonymous (Rome 1 and 2) to that with Wreath are approximately contemporary and precede the issues from Club to Cornucopiae

Citta Perdas

Anchor 4 . . . Apex and hammer , . . . Caduceus . . . . Victory , : . . NA | , . 5 : AR | 1 ; 1 , Corn-ear and k* , 2 4 , Corn-ear : . . . Branch Dolphin .: :. . :.

Ducale Minturno de Fogu Tortoreto

C.42.

Anonymous (Rome 1 and 2) 70 24 3 14

H 1 ; . . Q . . , , V e e e @ Spearhead 1 . . . L . . . 1 LIT . . . . mn e e e e C/ . . : 4 Wreath 1 : : .

Anchor and Q . . , .

Club . . : . Crescent . ,. ... .. Cornucopiae Staff on reverse 7 . . .

(Totals of Roman coins in each hoard 124 61 16 196)

For bibliography see Coin hoards, nos. 97-8 and 100-1; the Citta Ducale, Minturno and Perdas de Fogu hoards also contain post-semilibral bronze with corn-ear. The issue of Cn.Co(rnelius), known in two specimens, and the issue with Ceres/Hercules, known in one specimen, are omitted from the Table. |

observations; both no. 44/5-7 (anonymous) and nos. 59/1 and 60/1 (signed) borrow their style from the same post-semilibral unciae; incuse legends occur on no. 44/5 (anonymous) and on no. 68/1b (signed). Since the weight of anonymous denarii

is the same as that of early signed denarii, it may be concluded that there is no reason to date anonymous denarii before signed denarii and sextantal bronze. The 27

Introduction

suggestion was made originally by Mommsen largely in order to produce a silver: bronze ratio the same as that in Sicily.1 It should be abandoned. I have also dealt incidentally (p. 7) with some of the arguments for regarding the victoriatus as earlier than the denarius. Two arguments make this theory untenable. In the first place, there is an enormous body of early denarius issues not associated with early victoriatus issues. It is not disputed that by the time the mint of Rome produced the issues with crescent and cornucopiae, victoriatus and denarius were in production together. By this time, more denarii and sextantal bronze had been produced than victoriati (for the date of the issues with crescent and cornucopiae and their relationship to the rest of the period of coinage under discussion see below, P- 34); it is unreasonable to suppose that it had been in issue for a much shorter time. But the decisive evidence is provided by the Spanish hoards. Three hoards are now known? combining quadrigati with native Spanish or Punic issues. The victoriatus was struck in Spain (no. 96 and pp. 22~3) and was clearly acceptable there; if it had | been struck (even in Rome) for any length of time without the denarius we should expect to find hoards of victoriati with native issues; but we move straight from hoards of quadrigati with native issues to hoards of denarii with native issues, clear evidence that the latter, sometimes with victoriati as associated coins, replaced the quadrigati as Rome’s chief silver coin.’ The date of the denarius‘ (see Addenda) It remains to date the introduction of the denarius system, consisting of victoriatus, denarius and sextantal bronze. The evidence is in my view now conclusive for a 1 RMuw, 77-80 with 302. 2 Granada ~ Coin hoards, no. 33; Andalusia — L. Villaronga Garriga, Arse-Saguntum, 119; Los Villares

-K. Raddatz, Schatzfunde i, 206. ,

8’ The argument that in the Mandanici hoard a victoriatus occurs in a ‘pre-denarius’ context (H. B. Mattingly, Studies Robinson, 214 n. 5) proves nothing; the earliest sextantal bronze in, for instance, the Citta Ducale hoard also occurs in a ‘pre-denarius’ context. 4 Four red herrings may be eliminated at the outset: the numm: nov1 of Plautus, Casina 10; the trinummus

of Plautus, Jrinummus; the term 5SexéArtpos otatip; and the archaeological evidence from the ‘edificio quadrangolare’ at Paestum. The reference of the nummi novi of the new prologue for the Casina may be entirely generic and it is a waste of time trying to link it with any particular coinage, whether the denarius (H. Mattingly and E. S. G. Robinson, PBA 1932, 231; CR 1933, 52; contra, T. Frank, AFP 1933, 368; the theory re-asserted, H. Mattingly and E. S. G. Robinson, A¥P 1935, 230-1; cf. R. Thomsen, ERC ii, 173-80; H. Mattingly, NC 1963, 47, adds nothing) or one of its later stages (H. B. Mattingly, Riv. Cult: Class. Med. 1963, 52-3). The trinummus of Plautus was identified by Mattingly and Robinson with an Attic tetradrachm regarded as the equivalent of three quadrigati of reduced weight (PBA 1932, 214; AFP 1935, 229-30; cf. H. Mattingly, NC 1963, 47). In fact there is no reason to suppose that a trinummus was ever a coin at all (R. Thomsen, ERC ii, 150-1; P. Stein, MusN 1966, 65-9, esp. 67-8 with n. 24) and the passage

of Livy (xxxiv, §2, 6) equating an Attic tetradrachm with three denarii in weight, adduced by Mattingly and Robinson in support of their view, should be otherwise explained. Neither Livy. nor his source could possibly have known the ratio in 194 between Attic tetradrachms and quadrigati of reduced weight (R. Thomsen, ERC ii, 139-42) and Livy’s information should be regarded as merely mistaken (see A. H. McDonald ad loc. in the Oxford Classical Text).

In order to lend plausibility to their view that quadrigati were described by Livy as denarii, Mattingly and Robinson asserted that the quadrigatus was a ten-litra piece (SexddArtpos oratip)

28

| The first period of the denarius coinage date of 211 or conceivably the year before, but I should like to record my belief that the date proposed by H. Mattingly and E. S. G. Robinson in 1932 has always been far more right than the traditional date of 269, belief in which is incompatible with a critical scrutiny of the evidence. Since the arguments adduced by R. Thomsen

may now be strengthened it seems worth setting them out as briefly and comprehensively as possible.

(1) The evidence of the hoards points strongly to the Second Punic War as the period in which the denarius system was introduced. First, the Spanish hoards.

The Granada hoard and a new hoard from Andalusia combine quadrigati with coins of the last issue struck by the Barcids in Spain, to be dated between 218 and 209. Coins of the same issue are then found with a very early denarius in the Cheste hoard and an early half-victoriatus in the Mogente hoard, with

slightly later denarii in the Drieves and Valera hoards. The transition from quadrigatus to denarius system is surely to be sought in or near the period 218 to 209.!

Sicilian hoards provide comparable evidence. The Syracuse hoard links quadrigati with Syracusan silver going down to Hieronymus (216 to 215), a new hoard from Sicily links quadrigati with Syracusan silver going down to the Democracy (215 to 212); in the Aidone 1908 hoard a bronze of the Syracusan Democracy is associated with Roman unciae of the last stage before the sextantal standard. The Barrafranca and Montagna di Marzo hoards likewise go down to the Syracusan and therefore also a denarius or ‘tenner’, But there is no evidence or probability that the word ‘denarius’ existed before the creation of the silver piece with the mark of value X. The ancient sources are clear that the coin was so named because made up of ten asses (see p. 3); the quadrigatus, like many of the silver units of Magna Graecia, was subdivided into ten litrae (cf. p. 626); there is no real resemblance at all (R. Thomsen, ERC ii, 143 n. 39, misses the point of Mattingly’s and Robinson’s argument).

The ‘edificio quadrangolare’ at Paestum, when excavated, produced two victoriati (Atti Soc. Magna Graecia vi-vil, 1965-6, 194-5), although dated by the pottery to the early third century (sb:d., 86); but one of the two victoriati (Inv. no. 120) is (on any chronology) a second-century type (Catalogue no. 166/1 below); either the pottery is later than the excavators thought or the victoriati are intruders (the site was heavily disturbed before excavation).

The date of the denarius is a problem which has generated an enormous secondary literature: P. H. Webb, NC 1934, The President’s Address; W. Giesecke, Deutsche Miinzbldtter 1934-5, 181, 221 and 238; H. Mattingly and E. S. G. Robinson, NC 1938, 1; H. Mattingly, NC 1949, $7; E. Cavaignac, REL 1953, 106; A. Stazio, AIIN 1958-59, 344; R. Thomsen, ERC i, Ch. 7 and ii, passim; L. H. Neatby and F. M. Heichelheim, Acta Antiqua (Budapest) 1960, 51. Most of this literature is of little interest. 1 E. S. G. Robinson, Essays Mattingly, 40, for the dates of the Barcid coinage; for my view of the alleged portraits on Barcid issues of Spain, see on no. 296; for the first two hoards mentioned see above, p. 28 n. 2; for Cheste see Coin hoards, no. 75 (the denarius resembles my Pl. ix, 16); Mogente — no. 91;

Drieves — no. 107; Valera—no. 109. :

The last four hoards also contain drachms of Emporiae of Crysaor type, Group III, of the late third century (M. Almagro Basch and M. Almagro Gorbea, Numisma 71, 1964, 36-9). These drachms are also found in the Los Villares hoard (see p. 28 n. 2) with a quadrigatus and in the Tivisa and Las Ansias hoards (Coin hoards, nos. 94 and 104) with denarii of the same period as those in the Cheste hoard on the one hand and the Drieves and Valera hoards on the other. The near identity of weight standard between early denarii and the drachms of Emporiae in question is in my view fortuitous; the latter drop later from 4.50 gr. to 4.20 gr., denarii from 4.50 gr. to 3.86 gr.

29

Introduction

democracy but include Roman bronze of sextantal standard.1The inference is overwhelming, that the denarius system was introduced in or near the period 218 to 209. The last group of hoards that is relevant is that containing coins of Carthage and her Italian allies. The most important is that from Locri,? which contains one very early quinarius (as no. 47/1a), together with silver of Carthage of the Second Punic

War period and of the Brettii, all in fine condition. In addition, semilibral and probably also sextantal bronze is found with a coin of Capua of the period of revolt,’ post-semilibral bronze with bronze of the Brettii and Carthage,‘ sextantal bronze with a bronze of Carthage,® the coins of the Brettii certainly, the coins of Carthage probably being of the Second Punic War period.

(2) As we have seen, the early denarius coinage is marked by a multiplicity of mints and by an inability to keep the weight standard of the bronze (once even that of the silver, with no. 103) up to scratch. Both features are most readily comprehensible in the context of the Hannibalic War, when Rome lost control of much of Italy and commanders would have to make their own arrangements for coinage (see p. 604), and when there was a desperate shortage of metal.® 1 Syracuse — Coin hoards, no. 62; Sicily- S. Hurter, SNR (forthcoming) ; Aidone ~ Coin hoards, no. 68; Barrafranca — no. 96; Montagna di Marzo — no. 99 (also containing two Carthaginian pieces struck in Sicily during the Second Punic War). Two further hoards may be mentioned, though I place little weight on them, since I am not entirely happy about their freedom from contamination; they are the Aidone 1909 and Grammichele hoards (briefly mentioned in AIIN 1962-64, 223~4). The former includes Roman coins of the last stage before the sextantal standard and a coin of Hieronymus, the latter a Roman coin of the sextantal standard

and coins of the Syracusan Democracy. G. Manganaro (Athenaeum 1965, 319; Archivio Storico Sicilia Ortentale 1969, 286) wishes to attribute the Poseidon/Trident issue of the Syracusan Democracy to the last years of Hieron II; he is probably wrong, but his proposed dating makes little difference to the argument here. ® Coin hoards, no. 76.

> In the Santa Maria di Capua Vetere hoard (Coin hoards, no. §6); I am no longer prepared to regard the light-weight quadrans in this hoard as extraneous. It has the same patination as the rest of the hoard and can be identified as a specimen of no. 56/5 var. (see Pl. x1); de facto of uncial weight standard, it belongs in the sextantal period (there is another specimen in the Citta Ducale hoard). If sextantal bronze is taken as beginning, with the denarius, in 211, the coin in question can be regarded as an isolated example infiltrated into Capua immediately before its capture and the loss of

the hoard associated with that capture. .

‘ In the San Vincenzo la Costa hoard (Coin hoards, no. 67). 5 In the Tortoreto hoard (Coin hoards, no. 101). For the coins of the Brettii see E. S. G. Robinson, NC 1964, 54. 6 Festus’ testimony, s.v. Sextantari asses, that the sextantal standard was introduced propter bellum Puntcum secundum should mean that the measure was adopted during the war, not after it, when the financial pressure was less (cf. R. Thomsen, ERC ii, 171-2); there is no reason to connect the passage with the repayment of tributum after the war. G. Nenci argues (Athenaeum 1968, 14-18) that bello Punico primo in Pliny, NH xxxiii, 44 means

not ‘in or by reason of the First Punic War’, but ‘for the first time, in or by reason of the Punic War’ and that Pliny thus, like Festus, dates the sextantal weight standard to the Second Punic War. I find Nenci’s translation wholly implausible; it is in any case ruled out of court by the fact that Pliny dates the uncial weight standard to 217, thereby allowing (on Nenci’s'view) about a year for the period of sextantal weight standard. The traditional view that Pliny (wrongly) placed the sextantal weight standard in the First Punic War must be retained. Nenci is clearly right to argue that Pliny and Festus both derive their information from Varro; the difference is that Pliny has garbled the information, whereas Festus has not. Nenci’s handling of the numismatic evidence in general leaves a great deal to be desired, since he has missed the one fact agreed on by everyone, the contemporaneity of the denarius and the sextantal weight standard.

30

The first period of the denarius coinage

(3) Capuan and associated overstrikes (Table xvi, 1-7) provide decisive evidence

that in 216/215, the weight standard of the bronze was only just slipping below semilibral. The sextantal weight standard, associated with the denarius, was presumably some years away. The overstrikes in question are primarily coins of Capua, Calatia and Atella, to be dated to their period of revolt from 216 to 211,! overstruck on Roman coins of semilibral or very slightly lower standard. Two arguments have been produced to invalidate their evidence; it has been asserted that the coinage of Capua, Calatia and Atella should be dated to an earlier period and that the coins overstruck would not have been those current immediately before the revolt.? Both arguments are contemptible. All the evidence to be derived from types, hoards and historical background argues for the attribution of the coinage of Capua, Calatia and Atella to their period of revolt. It is in any case inconceivable that a town such as Capua, possessing civitas sine suffragio and thus part of the Roman state, should have been allowed while under Roman rule to strike coinage, let alone silver coinage or coinage with an Oscan legend. As far as the second argument is concerned, it is of course true that coins over-

struck may include coins produced long before the date of overstriking. But to suggest that Capua in 216-211 would have overstruck only coins produced, on the conventional chronology, some 70-80 years earlier is the height of unreason. It is also unreasonable to suggest, as the conventional view demands, that at a time when Rome had adopted the uncial standard Capua would have used the much higher post-semilibral standard. The evidence of the Capuan, Calatian and Atellan overstrikes points unmistakably

towards a date after 216/215 for the introduction of the post-semilibral weight standard and a date somewhat after that for the introduction of the denarius. (4) The evidence of the Capuan, Calatian and Atellan overstrikes is confirmed

by a group of overstrikes by Carthage and Volcei, a community which joined Hannibal in the Second Punic War (Table xvii, 8-11). The Roman undertypes are in both cases semilibral and it follows that this was the Roman weight standard in the early period of the war. (5) Remarkable evidence is provided by one sequence of overstrikes (Table xvii, 61-2, 66 and 48). Bronzes of Hieronymus (216-215) and of the Syracusan Democracy (215-212) are regularly overstruck by the issue with corn-ear and kK’. This issue in turn is overstruck by the issue with /A, which may consequently be dated c. 210 (or, in theory, later). But this issue with its early style and heavy weight standard,

occurring in hoards of the earliest stage of the denarius coinage, cannot be far 1 For decisive arguments on dating see the paper of J.-B. Giard, Congresso 1961, 235 (assuming, however, too early a date for the victoriatus); cf. R. Thomsen, ERC ii, 107-15; 116-19. G. Moroni,

RIN 1968, 97, produces no arguments worth the name. ,

2 See, for instance, S. L. Cesano, Bull. Mus. Imp. 1938, 11. 3 Cf. R. Thomsen, ERC ii, 115-163; 119~22.

31

Introduction

separated in time from the institution of the denarius. It follows that this cannot be placed much before c. 210.

(6) The issue with C/\, produced at Canusium in the earliest period of the denarius coinage (see p. 21), is regularly overstruck on bronze of the Acarnanian League and Oeniadae. The coinage of the latter is to be dated between 219 and 211! and both coinages will have fallen into Roman hands when M. Valerius Laevinus captured the town of Oeniadae in 211; the coinage will have returned with Laevinus in early 210 and been despatched to a mint at Canusium for overstriking.? Since the issue with C /), belongs to the earliest stage of the denarius coinage, the institution of the denarius coinage is again located not much before c. 210. (7) The evidence so far points to a date a few years after 216/215 for the institution of the denarius. The excavations at Morgantina provide a near-certain terminus ante quem; coins of the earliest period of the denarius system appear sealed below a late

third-century destruction level, which should be dated to 214 or 211, years when the town rebelled and was recaptured by the Romans.’ Given the fact that the semi| libral standard was still in force in 216, the terminus ante quem of 211 is preferable

for the institution of the denarius and the sextantal standard (see p. 43 for the duration of the post-semilibral standard). (8) If then the denarius coinage was instituted by 211, but not very long, if at all, before, three Sardinian issues help to indicate a precise date. The issues with C, MA and Ag belong at the very beginning of the denarius coinage; it is almost impossible not to regard them as struck by (L.) C(ornelius), (P.) Ma(nlius Vulso) and (C.) Aur(unculeius), Praetors of Sardinia in 211, 210 and 209.4 (9) I have shown above that the newly instituted denarius coinage did not survive its early years unaffected by financial stress. Despite this fact, it is argued that the record of financial difficulties preserved by Livy is such that the denarius could not have been instituted at any rate in the middle years of the Second Punic War. As I have already argued,® the fiscal measures of the latter part of the war recorded by Livy were necessary precisely because the Roman Republic had determined on

the restoration of a pure silver coinage. This argument may be reinforced by a detailed consideration of Livy’s narrative. In the early years of the war, metal (for coinage) seems to have been available. Apart from tributum and other normal sources of revenue, not to mention reserves,

1 B, V. Head, HN?, 331. | 2 I owe this point to H. B. Mattingly (cf. JRS 1970, 232). 3 T. V. Buttrey, Congresso 1961, 261. The arguments for later destruction (H. B. Mattingly, zb1d., 269; NCirc 1962, 164) are special pleading; nor is it true that the later phases of the quadrigatus and its associated bronze cannot be fitted in between 215 and 212 (see p. 43); for the Mars/Eagle gold coinage see below.

‘ See p. 13; the entry in Coin hoards, Index i, should be for (L.) Cornelius, not for (M.) Cornelius (Cethegus). There is no plausibility in the view of L. Breglia, RAN 1949-50, 19-20, that AA stands for Mammula, Pr. in Sardinia, 217. 5 H. B. Mattingly, Studies Robinson, 221 n. 4. 6 FRS 1964, 29-32.

32

The first period of the denartus coinage

there was a loan from Hieron IT in 216 (Livy xxiii, 21, 5). In 215 a tributum duplex was decided on, presumably in contrast to tributum simplex hitherto (Livy xxiii, 31, 1-2). But at this point sources of revenue dried up. The loan from Hieron could not be repaid (Livy xxiii, 38, 12) and at the end of the year there was no money available with which to supply the Spanish army (Livy xxiii, 48, 4-8). A novel method of financing Roman operations was adopted, the use of credit. The contract for supplies to the Spanish army was let on the condition that payment would be made later (Livy xxiii, 48, 9-49, 4). The following year sailors were paid

directly by wealthy individuals, not by the state (Livy xxiv, 11, 7-9), and credit was again used, to finance the building operations of the censors (Livy xxiv, 18, 10-11, cf. 2 for inopia aerari), The owners of slaves manumitted to fight refused payment for the time being (Livy xxiv, 18, 12). After contributing their possessions,

orphans and widows were to be supported by state purchases on credit on their behalf (Livy xxiv, 18, 13-14). Equites and centurions offered to do without their pay (Livy xxiv, 18, 15).

But from 212 onwards metal again began to become available and the state in addition took active steps to make it available. Booty was coming in in almost every year from 212 (Syracuse) onwards, down to 206 (Spain).? In addition, the state used the Triumviri Mensarii to levy metal from private individuals in Rome in 210 (Livy xxvi, 35-6; Festus, s.v. Tributorum conlationem) — perhaps the first and the last occasion on which an ancient state effectively mobilised the resources of its wealthy members; the gold in the aerarium sanctius was also used in 209 (Livy xxvii, 10, 11-13); and money was raised by renting out the ager Campanus (Livy xxvii, 11, 8). It is significant that 2,400,000 denarii could be provided in 210 for Scipio to take to Spain (Polybius x, 19, 1-2). Credit financing, by contrast, disappears from the record, until Scipio was forced to use it in 205, perhaps partly for political reasons, as well as financial ones (though the state was forced soon after to sell land to raise cash, Livy xxviii, 46, 4). The year

211 stands out as the beginning of a period in which the production of the new denarius coinage was eminently possible. If then the denarius system was instituted in 211 (or perhaps in 212), it remains to decide how long its first phase, characterised by a heavy weight standard and a multiplicity of mints, lasted. This problem involves the problem of the Mars/Eagle

gold. A number of factors place this in a general way in the same period as the 1 T shall argue later (p. 43) that the use of credit included the reduction of the weight standard of the bronze coinage below a semilibral level, the coinage thereby becoming even more fiduciary than it was already.

* See T. Frank, ESAR i, 80-1 and 83; after Syracuse (Livy xxv, 31, 8-11) there was Capua (xxvi, 14, 8), Nova Carthago (xxvi, 47, 7; Polybius x, 19), Tarentum (xxvii, 16, 7; Plutarch, Fab. 22) and the battle of the Metaurus (xxvii, 49, 6; Polybius xi, 3); for booty from Spain in 206 see xxviii, 38, 5. The produce of the Spanish mines will also have become available from 209 onwards. It is not clear how it was intended to finance the building programme of 212 (xxv, 7, 5).

33

Introduction

earliest denarii:! a similar pattern of anonymous and signed issues occurs; the weights

of the different denominations are a scruple or multiples thereof; similar marks of value, in terms of asses, appear.” But whereas all signed issues of Mars/Eagle gold can be linked with signed issues of denarii, it is not immediately obvious how long the anonymous issue from the mint of Rome lasted. It is in my view most likely that it lasted from 211 to 209. The view that it began in 211 may be supported by two arguments: its denominational structure (see above) and its function (see p. 626.1) identify the Mars/Eagle gold

as an integral part of the denarius system and it is reasonable to suppose that it was struck at the same time as the earliest denarii; and a specimen with corn-ear, from a Sicilian mint, has turned up at Morgantina in the same destruction level as early denarii and victoriati.* The terminus ante quem for both the anonymous and the signed issues of Mars/Eagle gold should be placed in or very soon after 209; the use of the aurum vicesimarium from the aerarium sanctius (Livy xxvii, 10, 11) was clearly only agreed on because all other gold available at that moment had been used. And in fact that part of the aurum vicesimarium which was sent away from Rome presumably provided the bullion for the signed issues of Mars/Eagle gold (other than that with corn-ear) from military mints.‘ If the Mars/Eagle gold is regarded as lasting from 211 to 209, certain consequences follow for the rest of the early denarius coinage. The first signed issues from the mint of Rome bore the symbols or letters anchor, apex, M, crescent and cornucopiae (see p. 10); since gold with only one of these marks is found, the adoption of the others is presumably to be placed after 209. But it cannot be placed very much after; the evidence of the hoards seems to show the symbols crescent and cornucopiae appearing just as the phase of the denarius coinage characterised by a multiplicity 1 The Mars/Eagle gold is rightly regarded as contemporary with the sextantal weight standard by H. A. Grueber, BMCRR i, 12; his absolute date of course depends on his date for the latter and is therefore wrong; but his rejection of the testimony of Pliny is a step in the right direction (pace H. J. Scharp, JMP 1918, 1; E. J. Haeberlin, Frankfurter Minzzeitung 1919, 17; W. Giesecke, ibid., 101). The crucial figures in the passage of Pliny in question (NH xxxiii, 47), recording the interval between 269 and the date of the gold issue, and the number of sestertii to the pound of gold, are in any’ case hopelessly corrupt; all correction is arbitrary and time should not be wasted on the passage (as, for instance, by R. Thomsen, ERC ii, 245-55 and 305-6). 2 Not sestertii, as Pliny, NH xxxiii, 47, followed by H. A. Grueber, BMCRR i, lv; J.-B. Giard, BSFN 1961, 91. For decisive arguments in favour of asses see R. Thomsen, ERC ii, 299-300. S. Bolin, Blatter fiir Miinzfreunde, 1927-29, 273, 291 and 353, is wholly unconvincing. ’ T. V. Buttrey, Congresso 1961, 263. ‘ I list the generals who received gold, with tentative suggestions as to what they did with it:

34

L. Veturius Philo in Gaul (500 Ibs) Gold spent as bullion P. Sulpicius Galba in Greece (500 Ibs) Gold spent as bullion

M. Marcellus in Etruria (500 lbs) Part struck as issue with pentagram

Part passed on to C. Calpurnius Piso and struck as issue with staff

Q. Fabius Maximus in S. Italy (500 Ibs) Struck as issue with spearhead

Garrison commander in Tarentum (100 Ibs) Gold spent as bullion Q. Fulvius Flaccus in Campania (500 Ibs) Gold spent as bullion. The issue with spearhead is associated with Tarentum by R. Thomsen, ERC ii, 347.

The first period of the denarius coinage

of mints is drawing to a close; and at the mints at which Mars/Eagle gold was struck, it tended to be struck towards the end of this phase (see pp. 18 and 22); only a short time can therefore intervene between the end of the Mars/Eagle gold in or very soon after 209 and the appearance of the symbols crescent and cornucopiae at the mint of Rome. About 207 seems appropriate for this appearance.

To resume the discussion so far, the first period of the denarius coinage, struck at Rome and at military mints outside Rome, should be regarded as running from 211 toc. 208;! after this, coinage was concentrated at the mint of Rome, a step made possible by the recovery of control over Italy. A few issues in the following years seem to stand outside the main sequence of issues (see pp. 50 and 52) and were perhaps produced outside Rome; but the conclusion is not a necessary one and differences of style and fabric alone should never be used as evidence for a separate mint. In any case, the vast bulk of the coinage of the Roman Republic between 206 and 84 falls into a single sequence which may be attributed without difficulty to the mint of Rome.”

Before moving on to this, however, it is necessary to go back and consider the didrachm coinage which preceded the denarius coinage. The institution of the latter is firmly placed in 211; the earliest Roman coinage may be dated, I believe, to 280 and the didrachm coinage as a whole reasonably assigned to the intervening 70 or SO years.

II THE PRE-DENARIUS COINAGE

The first problem to be faced is that posed by the evidence of Pliny (NH xxxiii, 42-4): Proxumum scelus fuit eius qui primus ex auro denarium signavit, quod et ipsum latet auctore incerto. Populus Romanus ne argento quidem signato ante Pyrrhum regem devictum usus est. Libralis - unde etiam nunc libella dicitur et dupondius — adpendebatur assis. (Various remarks on the linguistic legacies of this practice follow.) Servius rex primus signavit aes. Antea rudi usos Romae Timaeus tradit.

Signatum est nota pecudum, unde et pecunia appellata. Maxumus census cxx assium fuit illo rege et ideo haec prima classis. Argentum signatum anno urbis cecclxxxv Q. Ogulnio, C. Fabio coss., quinque annis ante primum Punicum bellum. Et placuit denarium pro decem libris aeris valere . . . ‘The next most serious crime was to strike a gold coin; the culprit is unknown. The Roman people did not even use silver coin before the defeat of Pyrrhus; a

bronze unit of a pound passed by weight... Servius was the first to strike a bronze coin; Timaeus tells us that before that the Romans used uncoined bronze. 1 For the view of E. A. Sydenham that the denarius cou/d not have been first struck at Rome, one of the more fantastic theories foisted on the world by numismatists, see R. Thomsen, ERC ii, 176-9. 2 The only exception is the Narbo issue (no. 282 and p. 65); for the coinages of Sulla and his enemies see pp. 80-2. 35

Introduction

The coin of Servius bore a cow as its type, whence it was called pecunia. The highest census qualification was 120,000 asses and those who possessed this composed the prima classis. Silver was coined in the 485th year of the city, in the consulship of Q. Ogulnius and C. Fabius, five years before the First Punic War. And it was agreed that a denarius should be worth ten pounds of

bronze...’ There are grounds for supposing that most of this (populus Romanus . . . bellum) depends in essentials on Timaeus;} but still it can hardly be taken at its face value. Coin hoards show Roman silver coinage in a Pyrrhic War context (see p. 38) and any possible chronology involves the corollary that the earliest Roman silver coinage

was struck outside Rome and that the date which impressed itself on the literary tradition was the date at which silver coinage was first struck in Rome. The problem is to decide which issue was involved and for this the literary tradition offers little help. It seems reasonable, however, to argue that if the whole of the pre-denarius coinage was struck outside Rome and Roman silver coinage had thus existed for

(say) 50 years before it was struck in Rome, this event would hardly have been represented as it is represented in the literary tradition, populus Romanus (up to this point) ne argento quidem signato usus est;? Pliny’s assertion, unsupported by the

rest of the literary tradition, that the first silver coinage struck in Rome was the denarius coinage is clearly an unwarranted conflation of two separate pieces of information, that silver coinage was first struck in Rome in 269 and that the characteristic (but later) silver coinage of the Republic was the denarius coinage. Pliny (Timaeus) is equally unhelpful on the origin of the Roman bronze coinage.

No one now believes that Servius Tullius produced (signavit) coinage and the attempt by A. Alféldi to avoid making Timaeus believe this either is understandable.'

But the selection of passages attributed to Timaeus by Alféldi is arbitrary, (42) populus Romanus ne argento quidem signato ante Pyrrhum regem devictum usus est...

(43) antea rudi usos Romae Timaeus tradit ...(44) argentum signatum anno urbis cecelxxxv Q. Ogulnio, C. Fabio coss., quinque annis ante primum Punicum bellum. All

this can be paralleled in the Roman annalistic and antiquarian tradition just as readily as the material which Alfoldi rejects; and it is difficult to believe that Timaeus

can have referred to (aes) rude without making some reference to bronze in some

different form. _ It is better to take the whole passage, populus Romanus . . . bellum (except for the digressions on the linguistic legacies of the assis ibralis and on the etymology 1 A. D. Momigliano, Miscellanea Rostagni, 180-1.

2 So already H. Mattingly, NC 1924, 186. If the Capitol hoard (Coin hoards, no. 60), in which the Roman pieces belong to the pre-denarius coinage, could be proved to be a consignment of coin intended for melting down and re-coining, production of coinage in Rome before the denarius would be certain. 3 MDAI(R) 1961, 64-79.

36

The pre-denarius coinage

of the word pecunia), as representing approximately what Timaeus wrote and to attempt to interpret it as a whole. It is important at the outset to draw a clear distinction between aes = a pound of bronze (a measure of value) and aes = a bronze coin weighing a pound. 4es in the former sense is necessary to the Roman con-

ception of the ‘Servian’ census and it seems conceivable to me that this was described by Timaeus in terms of aes = a pound of bronze. But it is certain that Pliny is not reporting the actual words of Timaeus! and I see no compelling reason to believe that Timaeus wrote in terms of aes = a bronze coin weighing a pound.?

It seems to me most likely that Timaeus, after recording the introduction of silver coinage at Rome after the Pyrrhic War, remarked that bronze was earlier weighed out as a measure of value; this innovation was supposed to be the work of Servius Tullius and before him the Romans were supposed merely to accumulate bronze in heaps without measuring it (that is, aes rude); the ‘Servian’ census was thus in terms of aes = a pound of bronze (so, as it happens, de vir. ill. 7, 8). Certainly the retrojection of this concept to Servius Tullius will have been much easier than

the retrojection of actual coinage. Pliny will then have converted a notice that Servius Tullius laid down that a pound of bronze was to be a measure of value into a notice that Servius Tullius signavit aes. But if this is what happened, Pliny (Timaeus)

provides no evidence for the date of the introduction of bronze coinage at Rome.’ It is time to turn to the coins. After the work of Rudi Thomsen, there should not now be any dispute over the relative arrangement of the didrachm or pre-denarius coinage, except on a few minor points of no great importance. Table v, annotated where necessary, sets out the relative arrangement and it remains to establish a fixed chronology. It should be emphasised that all the available evidence supports the system proposed here and that the dating of one issue buttresses the dating of related issues.® The first Roman issue of didrachms, Mars/Horse’s head ROMANO, occurs as the only Roman issue in five hoards, Valesio, Mesagne, Torchiarolo, Oppido Lucano

and an unpublished Italian hoard, the contents of which were communicated to 1 So A. D. Momigliano, Miscellanea Rostagni, 181. 2 Contra A. D. Momigliano, 185-7.

3 The date given by Pomponius for the creation of the office of IIIvir a.a.a.f.f. is equally without evidential value, see p. 602. 4 In support of my dismissal of Pliny, it is worth drawing attention to the fact that he is clearly more concerned to plot a decline in moral standards than to provide an accurate history of the Republican coinage (cf. G. Nenci, Athenaeum 1968, 5—6); his equation of the denarius with 10 libral asses, although accepted in antiquity from Varro onwards (LL v, 169 and 174 (pace Th. Mommsen, RMu, 304 n. 47); Festus, s.v. Grave aes; Volusius Maecianus, Distr. 74; Priscian, de fig. num. 9), is clearly wrong, since it involves a bronze: silver ratio of 720:1. 5 There is little that can be said about nos. 1-2; the first was clearly struck at Neapolis some time after 326 (R. Thomsen, ERC iii, 78-81); the second presumably follows, since the legend is in Latin instead of in Greek (cf. R. Thomsen, ERC iii, 81-3). Both issues are presumably isolated forerunners of the Roman Republican coinage proper; it is noticeable that there is nothing Roman whatever about their types.

37

Introduction

me by G. L. Fallani.’ In the first of these hoards, Valesio, the issue is associated with coins of Tarentum of Evans’s period VB, probably covering the early years of the third century. The hoard thus at first sight suggests a pre-Pyrrhic War date for these didrachms. But it would be unwise to press this point very far.? Although brutal cleaning of the hoard does not make it very easy to decide, the Tarentine coins appear more worn than the Roman coins; one Tarentine piece was dispersed unrecorded from the hoard and may have been later than the others;? and the owner of the hoard may have excluded deliberately any light-weight pieces of Tarentum. The Mesagne hoard contains coins of Tarentum of Evans’s period Ve, apparently just the finest pieces in the hoard, and two Mars/Horse’s head ROMANO didrachms;‘ the latter thus appear again in an early third-century context, but the Mesagne hoard is again incomplete.

On the other hand, the Torchiarolo, Oppido Lucano and ‘Fallani’ hoards together show Mars/Horse’s head ROMANO didrachms as the only Roman issues in circulation at the time when the reduced standard was introduced at Tarentum, presumably towards the end of the Pyrrhic War. The Torchiarolo and Oppido Lucano hoards include Tarentine light-weight pieces, together with, in each case, one Mars/Horse’s head ROMANO didrachm.® The evidence of hoards with only one Roman piece is not strong, but it is confirmed by the evidence of the ‘Fallani’ hoard; this contained several Mars/Horse’s head ROMANO didrachms, together with didrachms of Neapolis; these latter went down to a slightly later point in the 1 Oppido Lucano-— information from D. Adamasteanu; Mesagne — Noe’, no. 677 (it is not apparent from Noe? that this hoard contains Roman pieces; I owe an account of its contents to C. M. Kraay); Valesio — Coin hoards, no. 12 (the account there should be corrected according to Ricerche e Studi 1967, 95; the hoard is not complete, but contained originally one further piece of ‘Tarentum and one

further piece of Metapontum); Torchiarolo-Coin hoards, no. 11; Italy-several didrachms with

35 didrachms of Neapolis (Sambon, no. 338, 4 pieces no. 4555 2 pieces

Mars/Horse’s head ROMANO

no. 342, 1 piece (?) no. 456, 1 piece no. 365, 1 piece no. 457, 3 pieces no. 366, 11 pieces no. 458, 1 piece

no. 436, 2 pieces no. 460, 2 pieces no. 437, 1 piece no. 465, 1 piece no. 444, 1 piece no. 466, 1 piece no. 447, 1 piece no. 472, 1 piece no. 448, 1 piece no. 473, 3 pieces no. 450, 1 piece no. 476, 1 piece no. 451, 41 piece no. 477, 4 pieces).

2 As does R. E. Mitchell, NC 1966, 68-9. 8 A late piece will have been in particularly fine condition, such as to attract attention at the moment of finding. « The hoard also contains a collection of earlier material and Neapolitan issues apparently of the same date as the Tarentine. 6 R. E. Mitchell’s dismissal of the Torchiarolo hoard (MusN 1969, 55 n. §7) on the grounds of its

, 38

‘diverse contents’, after he has himself drawn attention to the occurrence in hoards of Roman didrachms with didrachms of Magna Graecia, is simply astonishing. The Roman didrachm in the

Torchiarolo hoard is fresh, that in the Oppido Lucano hoard somewhat worn (and brutally

cleaned). R. E. Mitchell, RIN 1973, 89-109, requires no separate refutation.

The pre-denarius coinage

sequence than the didrachms of Neapolis in the Torchiarolo hoard.! It seems clear, therefore, that at the time when light-weight pieces were introduced at Tarentum, Mars/Horse’s head ROMANO didrachms had not yet been superseded at Rome.? Given this, it is hard to date the introduction of this small issue before the Pyrrhic War.

There is a further strong argument in favour of the view that Rome’s didrachms began no earlier than the Pyrrhic War, first adduced by E. S. G. Robinson.? There

are a large number of South Italian hoards of immediately pre-Pyrrhic War, Pyrrhic War or immediately post-Pyrrhic War date which might in principle contain Roman didrachms, but which in fact do not.‘ This absence is intelligible if Rome struck no coinage before about 280, well-nigh incomprehensible if she had struck didrachms since the fourth century. For the second® and third’ issues of didrachms, there is no firm evidence; but

the fourth can be placed very closely. The system of control-marks used is an adaptation® of that on a Ptolemaic series struck in honour of the deified Arsinoe II.

She and her brother-husband Ptolemy II Philadelphus were designated as the Theoi Adelphoi shortly before 272/1,° but the sole cult of Arsinoe was not instituted 1 The latest didrachm of Neapolis in the ‘ Fallani’ hoard is Sambon, no. 477, the latest in the Torchiarolo hoard is Sambon, no. 448. 2 The Benevento hoard (Coin hoards, no. 22) must be left out of the reckoning; the arguments of

E. S. G. Robinson (NC 1945, 97) against the coherence of the hoard as reported are based on knowledge not available to A. J. Evans when he published it; his confidence in the hoard was clearly mis-placed (pace R. E. Mitchell, NC 1966, 68 n. 2; MusN 1969, 55 n. 60). * NC 1945; 97. 4 The South Italian hoard itself (NC 1945, 97); also Noe’, nos. 147, 701 (with AIIN 1965-67, 40), 772 (with AZIN 1965-67, 56), 1060 (with AIIN 1965-67, 38), 1120 (with AZIN 1965-67, 56), Grimaldi

1933 (AIIN 1960-61, 66), Metaponto 1955 (NSc 1966, 176), Lucania 1957-all with pieces of Tarentum of Evans’s period VI; Noe’, nos. 128 = 897, 185, 1048, 1049, 1056, Taranto 1913 (AJIN 1965-67, 39), Ruvo (AJIN 1965-67, 46) — all with pieces of Tarentum of reduced weight. (I owe most of this list to C. M. Kraay.) 5 Three negative points may be made very rapidly. The weight standard of Rome’s earliest didrachm was borrowed from Neapolis (see p. 590); the weight standards of later issues result from successive downward adjustments and do not depend on those of any other mint. The evidence provided by the overstrike of a Minerva/Horse’s head bronze (no. 17/14) on a Zeus Hellanios/Eagle bronze of Syracuse (Table xvitI, 13) is inconclusive; for the date of the undertype, probably 288/7-279/8, see R. Ross Holloway, RBN 1962, 16-17. R. E. Mitchell argues rightly (MusN 1969, 43~8) that the arguments for dating Rome’s earliest didrachm based on the derivation of the obverse type from the coinage of Metapontum (R. Thomsen, ERC iii, 93~5) and on the supposed Carthaginian nature of the reverse type (R. Thomsen, ERC iii, 83-92) are weak to the point of non-existence (see also p. 713). In general, I place little weight on the evidence of type parallels; even if one is certain that one type is borrowed from another, no more than a terminus post quem emerges. I regard it as probable, however, that the corn-ear symbol on the reverse of Rome’s earliest didrachm indicates that the mint was at Metapontum (see R. Thomsen, ERC iii, 156-7).

® The types of the coinage of Beneventum are copied from this issue, but after a quite uncertain interval } (pace R. Thomsen, ERC iii, 107).

? Arguments based on an interpretation of the types Hercules/Wolf and twins in terms of Fabian propaganda (as R. E. Mitchell, NC 1966, 66-7; MusN 1969, 56) are in my view misconceived (see p. 714 n. 6). 8 E. G. Huzar, CF 1965-66, 337, misses this essential point.

®* P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, 215-16. , 39

Introduction

until after her death in July 270.1 Although the Ptolemaic series could have begun in the earlier year, it is more likely to have begun in or after 270. The Roman series can hardly have begun till a few years later still.? There is in any case compelling evidence for assigning it to an even later date. It is the latest of the silver issues with ROMANO and must therefore be contem-

porary with or later than the bronze issue with Minerva ROMANO/Eagle

y g 8 yy

ROMANO (no. 23). And this is certainly a coin of the First Punic War. Of the pieces known to me (those listed by Bahrfeldt, together with a specimen in Oxford and a specimen in the collection of G. L. Fallani), two carry with them evidence of

provenance, the specimen in Palermo and that of G. L. Fallani, from Tindari. | A. Santamaria informs me in addition that he recollects two pieces passing through his hands, both from Sicily. This strong prima facie case for Sicilian mintage is reinforced by consideration of the internal evidence of the issue itself. It bears the same reverse type as an early group of the coinage of the Mamertini, an eagle on a thunderbolt,? it uses symbols as control-marks in the same way,‘ it has the same weight standard.> The issue was undoubtedly struck at Messana when Rome in 264 carried out the fateful decision to intervene on behalf of the Mamertini. The

large issue of Roma/Victory ROMANO didrachms should be regarded as its contemporary and as the Roman coinage of the First Punic War. It seems probable then that the ROMA didrachms were only introduced after

the First Punic War. Certainly the first three issues are small and stylistically homogeneous, what one would expect in a period of steady, small-scale, peace-time production.* A small hoard from Catanzaro’ confirms the view that the last of the

ROMA didrachms, the quadrigatus, appeared only shortly before the Second 1 P, M. Fraser, Prolemaic Alexandria, 217, cf. 228-30. 2 R. E. Mitchell’s attempt to date it between 272 and 269 carries no conviction (NC 1966, 69-70; the treatment in MusN 1969, $7 is so brief as to be misleading); quite apart from the improbability of the view that Rome improved on the Ptolemaic system of control-marks immediately after the Ptolemaic issue began to be produced, the attribution of the largest issue of ROMANO didrachms to a period of three years during which no major expense was incurred by the Roman state is wholly implausible. 8 M. Sarstrém, Coinage of the Mamertines, Ser. ti-iv, esp. pl. v, 42; the issues are dated by Sarstrém, p. 38, to 288-278, on no good grounds. 4 The Roman issue bears the control-marks plough, helmet, stork and sword, the Mamertine issues the control-marks helmet, bipennis, arrow, spearhead, spear, > (Ser. ii); spearhead (Ser. iii); thunder-

bolt, cornucopiae, torch, bucranium, A, star, < (Ser. iv). ,

5 The Roman issue (with the exclusion of two very worn pieces in Florence and Berlin weighing 13.32 gr. and 12.44 gr.) ranges from 19.00 gr. to 15.00 gr. and has a mean (taking into account the Oxford. and G. L. Fallani specimens weighing 17.12 gr. and 17.45 gr.) of 16.25 gr. The Mamertine issues

| have the following ranges and means:

Ser. ii 21.26-13.76 gr. 16.78 gr. Ser. iii 19.10-15.90 gr. 17.43 gr. Ser. iv 19.10-15.28 gr. 17.0§ gr. 6 The copying of the obverse type of no. 25/1 on a Carthaginian issue (E. S. G. Robinson, Essays | Mattingly, 38) is entirely intelligible on this chronology, as is the appearance of one of the ROMA bronzes (no. 26/4) associated with Stage II of the walls of Alba Fucens (J. Mertens, Alba Fucens i, §2~3).

7 C. M. Kraay, in Noe’, no, 2019.

40

The pre-denartus coinage

Punic War. The hoard contains one Apollo/Horse ROMA didrachm with coins of the Brettii, a Hannibalic piece and assorted earlier issues. The absence of quadrigati from this Second Punic War hoard suggests that they had been introduced only shortly before it.t It appears most likely, then, that the Republican silver coinage began at or about the time of the Pyrrhic war? and that the ROMANO didrachms covered the period down to the end of the First Punic War; that the ROMA didrachms followed the First Punic War and that the last didrachms, the quadrigati, were introduced not long before the Second Punic War. Some confirmation for this chronology may be derived from a consideration of the bronze issues which ran parallel to the silver coinage.

First, the La Bruna hoard. The symbolism of three of the varieties of aes signatum which it contains is naval (see p. 718) and it is hard to imagine all or any of these

being produced before Rome became a naval power during the First Punic War.' The coins associated in the hoard with these varieties of aes signatum were on my view produced during the Pyrrhic War; the gap would be intolerable if they were dated much earlier.5 1 The same conclusion is suggested by the absence of wear on the quadrigati in the Syracuse hoard, buried in or after the reign of Hieronymus (see above, p. 30 n. 1). L. Breglia argues, AIJN 1958-59, 334, that the occurrence of quadrigati at Selinunte dates them before 250, when the site was abandoned; but the site produced a bronze of Hieronymus! It is more than doubtful whether the hoard, discussed by Breglia, consisting of didrachms of Corinth, etc., with one quadrigatus is a coherent group. 2 So Suidas, s.v. Movrta, but the testimony has little value (for the view now taken of the etymology of the word moneta see E. Babelon, Mém. Ac. Inscr. xxxix, 1914, 241; TLL, s.v.; from referring to the temple of Juno Moneta, the word came to describe the mint there situated, then the article produced there). It seems to me worth recording my conjecture that Timaeus’ interest in Mars and the October equus (see p. 713) was aroused by the fact that the types of Rome’s earliest didrachm, introduced during the Pyrrhic War and hence part of Timaeus’ subject-matter, were Mars/Horse’s head. Tenney Frank’s argument (ESAR i, 42-3), endorsed by R. E. Mitchell (MusN 1969, 42, cf. 71), that Rome could not have conquered S. Italy without minting coins in her own name is patently worthless. One might as well argue that the Phoenicians could not have become a great trading nation without minting coins. The extent of Roman intervention in S, Italy in the fourth century ts irrelevant to the dating of the Republican coinage. 3 Coin hoards, no. 16. 4 See Polybius i, 20, 8; 20, 13 with commentary of F. W. Walbank. 5 Although listed earlier as a group in the catalogue, the different varieties of aes signatum were, I am sure, contemporary with the first four issues of aes grave (so rightly A. Alféldi, MDAI(R) 1961, 70-1, who, however, mistakenly regards issues with ‘ramo secco’ and fishbone types as Roman). Not only is the hoard context of aes signatum the same as that of the earliest aes grave (Ariccia and La Bruna, Coin hoards, nos. 13 and 16), but all the issues whose types convey any indication of date must be of the period of or later than the Pyrrhic War (see p. 718). It also seems to me that the notion of creating currency bars (to use a very general term) with types logically follows the notion of creating coins with types. The primitive cast bar found at Bitalemi in a sixth-century context, P, Orlandini, AZIN 1965-67, 3 and 13, has nothing whatever to do with Roman aes signatum. As for function, aes signatum can hardly have been intended for storage in the treasury, for which its types in high relief make it wholly unsuitable; nor can it be moneta privata (so F. Gnecchi, RIN 1900, 147) or Greek (so T. L. Comparette, AF¥N 1918, 1), since some of its types bear the legend ROMANOM (on the homogeneity of the whole group see L. Clerici, Economia, 236); nor can it be regarded as created with distinctive types to be dedicated to particular deities (so A. C. Deliperi, Numismatica 1943-45, 38), since it is usually found in fragments. The almost uniformly martial types

41

Introduction , Second, the Carife hoard.1 This includes five Roman semilibral semunciae,? associated with the later stages of the quadrigatus (see p. 44); but it also contains a semuncia of Brundisium.? Now I believe that both the coinage of Brundisium and

the hoard belong to the period of the Second Punic War; but the hoard cannot in any case be earlier than 244, the date of the foundation of Brundisium; and at this date there is evidently no trace of the denarius coinage. One small piece of evidence may be adduced as militating against the dating of the denarius to 269, the actual coinage of Brundisium. This was begun on a postsemilibral standard and it seems to me in the highest degree improbable that this standard would have been adopted if Rome had already adopted the sextantal standard, certainly associated with the denarius.‘ Finally, the Prow series of aes grave, contemporary with the quadrigatus, seems to portray a type of prow otherwise first found on the coinage of Antigonus Doson in an issue struck after 227;° the quadrigatus and the Prow series of aes grave may reasonably be regarded as belonging to the same period. If then it is accepted that the Republican coinage began at or about the time of the Pyrrhic War and that the later stages took place at approximately the dates assigned to them above, it is possible by making a single, to my mind very plausible,

assumption to bring the successive stages of the didrachm coinage into precise relationship with the years in which Censors held office (for the Censors and coinage see p. 602). The following are the years between the outbreak of the Pyrrhic War and that of the Second Punic War in which Censors who went on to complete their term of office were elected :* 280, 275, 269, 265, 258, 252, 247, 241, 234, 230, 225, 220, twelve in all. If it is assumed that the Roma/Victory didrachms which were being struck at the outbreak of the First Punic War continued to be struck throughout the war, something which is readily intelligible in view of their types (see p. 714), it will be seen that there is one issue with distinct types for every pair of Censors

from 280 down to and including 225, with the exception of those elected during the First Punic War. It remains necessary to explain the failure of the Censors of 220 to adopt new types, but I think that this is possible. The discrepancy in the ancient sources between 269 and 268 as the year when coinage was first struck at suggest the hypothesis that aes signatum was created for the distribution of booty after a victory (see also below, p. 45 n. 10); in any case it is clear that aes signatum, once issued, was treated as bullion —

note the piece reported by E. J. Haeberlin, Aes grave, 143-5, with the Umbrian legend FVKES SESTINES, meaning ‘of the forge at Sestinum’ (I owe this translation to R. G. G. Coleman).

1 Coin hoards, no. 50.

2 Not sextantes, as in Coin hoards; see R. Garrucci, Le monete dell’. Italia antica, pl. Ixxviii, 12, cited in the original publication of the hoard. § BMC Italy, Brundisium, no. 6. 4 See R. Thomsen, ERC ii, 106-7; note that the coinage of Firmum, colonised in 264, was on a libral: standard, R. Thomsen, ERC ii, 104-6. 5 R, Thomsen, ERC iii, 147-9; for the attribution of the coinage see I. Merker, MusN 1960, 39. 6 Of the Censors of 272, 253 and 236 one died in office, the Censors of 231 were vitio creati; the Censors of 272 were perhaps in any case appointed with the sole purpose of building an aqueduct.

42

The pre-denarius coinage

Rome! is best explained by supposing that the decision was taken in 269 and that the Censors only got round to doing something about it in 268; the Censors of 220 may not have concerned themselves with the coinage until 219, by which time the Illyrian War and the impending war with Carthage perhaps sufhiced to postpone a decision to adopt new types. Two problems remain, the dating of the various phases of the quadrigatus and of the point at which the Oath-scene gold is to be placed, and the dating of the different stages of the reduction of the weight standard in the Prow series of bronze coinage. To take the latter first, it is clear that the weight standard first dropped from a notionally libral one to a semilibral one, then declined through a series of post-semilibral standards, triental, quadrantal and approximations to these.’ The semilibral standard belongs, I think, in 217; although it is conceivable that the financial position was felt to be serious enough in 218 to justify a reduction in weight standard,’ I now incline to think it more likely after the defeat at Trasimene in 217;* certainly the reduction had taken place by the time of the Judi Romani in September of that year (see p. 627 n. 1).° The point at which the semilibral standard was abandoned can also, I think, be fixed with reasonable precision. When Capua rebelled in 216-215, she overstruck Roman coins of the very end of the semilibral period (see Table xvii, 1-2), which should accordingly be regarded as ending by early 215 (see also p. 31).° The standard is probably already quadrantal (based on an as of four ounces) in 214; the vast bulk of the bronze struck in Sicily before the creation of the denarius system (no. 42/2-5) is of quadrantal standard and it seems reasonable to associate this upsurge in production with the arrival of Marcellus and the beginning of serious operations against Syracuse in 214.” The quadrantal standard will then have lasted till the introduction of the denarius in 211. No surprise need be felt at the speed

with which the Romans reduced the weight standard of their bronze coinage, from notionally libral in 218 to quadrantal in 214; the Capuan reduction proceeded with equal speed between 215 and 211. 1 For the sources see R. Thomsen, ERC i, 33-4; add D. Hal. xx, 17 (20, 9). 2 For details see p. 596. See R. Thomsen, ERC ii, 27-32, for a succinct demolition of the view that Rome abandoned and then returned to a libral standard; the theory of H. Mattingly, PBA 1963, 319-25, that Rome issued libral and reduced bronze simultaneously is unlikely to commend itself. 5 Cf. Livy xxi, 16, 3-6; I adopted this view in JRS 1964, 29. ‘ Pliny’s dating of the uncial standard Q. Fabio Maximo dictatore (NH xxxiii, 45) is a garbled memory of a monetary measure taken in c. 141 (see p. 614); but the Lex Metilia de fullonibus may be an economy measure of 217. In general, I think the reduction in weight standard more likely after a year of defeats. > For reasons which are unclear, the mint of Rome produced on the semilibral standard not only the regular Prow series of bronze, but also a collateral series with distinctive types, no. 39/1-5 (R. Thomsen, ERC ii, 229-31 with decisive arguments and earlier bibliography). * Cf. Livy xxiii, 48, 9, for a (renewed) appeal to fides in the financing of the war in summer 215. . 7 So already JRS 1964, 30; no arguments can be derived from the standards of the coinages of rebel communities such as Capua, Meles and Volcei (contra R. Thomsen, ERC ii, 122-9); these standards will not have been higher than the Roman, but they may well have been lower.

43

3

ty§ Fo? 7gu. 3 8 : iG § Hs : t yt 3 Be ” eo ot foe E og ae g/2 23 §a3 Bo22a= OSaoeoea si EF @ & Ra) 4 3 a sx oe vO gg + @23 § an R= ne)&

e2 Ss 23=S||§e283 ‘Ey gerg oA © 82 ¢ a || 8333 48 bo 3 al} 8384

aoY~. 00po8gs feeod 6G a

ys) oO Y O ] ne mw gy 2090 g sais CK: ge = WO 1 C8 BO su, Sao 8

J 6 85) o8s mw ntgp Blo Canoe Sista < § || B < Mic) By WIZ 9 EO mir Zips < >) Ea 36

a. Rices Sharg

i< z3 < Pa ww

00 BUdIIg &ZU9I0g tO ot rr’. eN ere

Me OAIOIOIUOd wen TN eNwOOM Neto 2 o

a asarEeW MANA PE Ho wees O

— erpoory et cuted se AQ set ow rr er =

> oporedses,J Fett tt +H —]

jx

- 93102) ep B5aqey pees at eR [3] ne: >

14 ZOQGLK a2 KGO= F bat O74 Air.” (alte Khe u1.2, 202 iaze 0.Re “yn” fH Gj He Tzoee SO) ey $f, Pag

etn ta CtHodze St Rac HO_4etEedos 7nlsofy, 10 Badin Warez Pe aw pon no 2 fa

ggacee Seale Bikey ucais 2ag5 >2 Om Amine, ORO azanh A oma. m SaadimHOHOO Hdnog HaMe= Passz 84

a -AQnn NAP © « woe Oto ea i OK ate MA ot NN ce ven F

ep r0O A Mon es Tv at'gou women woot: et ¢ «6 eee )

br

et «wt wee ow 2 @ 6 wot MO + © © @ we «et = et wet ce wt ie *N ee rs 2 8 PS}

a) ete ON HO 8 te Anicn s man: Asta. 00w db am

- N wt a +“ a

eA ee WONN © « ee Wis cut et ow ow wt eo eA ef a wu — nO PY SOees QD 00 +n NAN w?e Oa oceceere A w

va

“4 o m

i . owt owt ie ee we ew ce oe ee ow eee @ @ = ron oom ep es wif © & 6 wt ot ee ew AN wee 6 eee ee S$ ¢

eM ee eletet & ¢ ow fie owt ie a QR ”S

.- ORD Xf OO (nr et ot ee Wee ee en db » © ee @ HO e« & ee NA «© © « @ g a a+ Ho ns oo

fe) fe]

xf Q “=|,2§

a il

ron xs

~~ oa § || 3 obf||re 3 io]

3

“A &

= || a“ és T a w“ 4 ~“

9 “OO

gi i

«3

°0 res WY bal

“Hg ro]

g || 5

rr)

oO

=|%

aTas 8

el ge ie 2's

ab

2S||ou & Pe ag

Oo ”n 9-2 1 = ” f pe a RS | 23 oy ~ >wm MmHZ ae KG S§ O nw a 3Sa 262s eS 4 | 36

< 9 2 85 < S Q & 8 || Os > & & Q OF Z ye nv O q a3 S< Mf of ol on a ie rn g GE il we On, mW w 14 fe > S ao mi TF 4 Qhy a 0 wr, mM Z ne mM ake Zen, PO Sint ety Zep is >rt,&rSefT6 borg Ee OP 170sf2 WAY LAH WePM Sanpete

Sa0G2 4 Om on46ne$3 n S

SO" =Ser Gye | AB id .09OOH a Ae ry Ae pod

a > POmae AO ne AsSn aA ae 4% LT) An Be

GAG PP onO26 .>Z O one,ROLA SELEE ;O8a2s ; ae

= Bad trHd

ee HO> Brena Bad 90

Q:

PPIs mews B g cn ve) + ‘+ + e e e F — «MO = -

Y

t+tt ct ++ °° 8 8 Fra Gamwet Memwe N . SS eeraw) ©2S SS N «© MT © © «6 one “Mm «+ « a. (@) | : +t

i H +c+tt++ t+++e+ °° tot ; é

e e ea :ORaAEa

viet AMA - Ost - 2 8 \o Ps ke

ee bb beg eee ge f BS

“— «— We -"Sis= &:

Pr or ,Vo) " Ecle¢38 ...gf2 e NA ONA -+ «© «© «& o ee e fe) N o

4.©©

e e e e e eoeeos 6eewe6 COeeyemoa &rs}°

° e t Cd e eee@eeee ee ee°. :

:a)mB 5;

Lk Le .... of @ ria cn8 v

e[a4 e| °e °e"8egs " if=| : we 4

pond a cs O 7A = eo gs , Se oo N ~ ht 5 & of & 3 go =O wl es a ci & ~ n Vet} Cag yig'sodbet atckdme 5° 3 o 42% Bo go

Pgs £36 gi 88 § 5 fae aSbs ERE S 5nwor oar _ & IZ sige ® vO KO = 5 ae a= py Y ; 8 4

Ab 2On i BM He al && gz AGEN DY E, Be ge se ais 2 wa8 oe OF mo On 8 EB o Re SO YP S BO§Q, 42 naa agree nmO OS: ae & i, ge o ~Bight Y) yG39ose o

BEERS 2 c585% gee ya eS | ze3 (x) — Pane ABO Bang

ha “) Z, ny 7 ‘o) oq O° 498355 SO Oazaaes JMm Eva x| |aS. 83 iddgos Az5oUdES (252 6 Be ae OoY¥Gss wae 22 G $250 een?tHe © | gtaaE 91

Introduction

Proquaestor in 49-48, there are no grounds whatever for attributing the issue to him or to Spain, where he served under Pompeius against Sertorius.' Nos. 446-7 were, I think, struck in Greece in preparation for the campaign which ended at Pharsalus.? Nos. 448-51. The joint coinage of C. Vibius Pansa and D. Brutus shows clearly that they belong in the same year as each other; the hoards display them and L. Hostilius Saserna as the moneyers striking next after Mn. Acilius. It emerges below that there is a full college of moneyers for each year from 47 onwards and the choice is thus whether to regard Saserna as the third moneyer of 49 or the third moneyer of 48; I have no strong views on the matter, but 49 seems to me marginally more likely to be a year with only two moneyers than 48. D. Brutus certainly belongs in 48 — he was besieging Massalia in 49 and was appointed to Gallia Transalpina late in 48 (Appian, BC iii, 197); C. Pansa was in Rome in 48 (Cicero, ad Att. xi, 6, 3; Lig. 7)—no magistracy is attested and he may be regarded as moneyer (see also p- 465).

No. 452. The figure LII can hardly be taken as a reference to anything other than Caesar’s age;* since the Romans seem to have regarded a man as 30 when 30 years of his life were completed‘ and since Caesar was born on 13 July 100,5 this — issue belongs after 13 July 48. Its failure to appear in hoards which contain the issues of moneyers striking since the beginning of 48 is no surprise. Nos. 453-5 and 463-5. Of these six issues, all but that of C. Antius Restio occur in the Dragevica hoard; since this is a rare issue, its absence does not prevent its

belonging to the period covered by the hoard. The three issues of Mn. Cordius Rufus, T. Carisius and C. Considius Paetus seem to belong together -all are enormous and their types are explicitly and predominantly Caesarian; in addition, all three moneyers seem to refer to events of 46. Given these facts and given that the six moneyers under discussion are to be arranged into the colleges of two years, it seems best to place L. Plautius Plancus, A. Licinius Nerva and C. Restio, with their absence of emphasis on Caesar, in 47, during much of which he was still away from Rome, and the other three moneyers in 46.° No. 457. The issue belongs in 47, before the invasion of Africa—though A. Allienus was Proconsul of Sicily from 48’ and this issue describes Caesar as Cos. II (see on

no. 467). The issue is of great rarity and occurs in no hoards of this period. 1 As in E. A. Sydenham, CRR, 172, following Th. Mommsen, RMuw, 655; H. A. Grueber, BMCRR ii, 361-2; cf. for the correct view T. R. S. Broughton, MRRP ii, 100 n. 7. 2 The two issues are of a very different style and fabric and were presumably struck in different places; their attribution to Africa on the basis of a plated hybrid by A. Alféldi, SM 1958, 106, does not need 8 So first Fiberling, RBN 1860, 123 (unreasonable in detail); there is some later bibliography in S. L. Cesano, Rend. Pont, Acc. Arch. 1947-49, 109-10. 4 Th. Mommsen, St. i, §70~1. 5 M, Gelzer, Caesar, 1. 6 The affinities of the issue of L. Plautius Plancus are in one respect with the group which precedes,

in that it does not include fractions of the denarius. |

” Appian, BC ii, 197 with T. R. S. Broughton, MRRP il, 285 n. 6.

92

The first century

No. 456. Caesar’s second dictatorship runs from October 48 to October 47 (T. R. S. Broughton, MRRP ii, 284 n. 1), his acquisition of the augurate falls in 47 (MRRP ii, 293); this issue therefore belongs to 47. I suspect it to be struck in the East — its style and fabric is unlike that of the issue of A. Hirtius struck in Rome

in 46 and an almost uncirculated specimen which passed through the London market in 1969 came from Greece. No. 458. This issue appears for the first time in the Dratevica and Surbo hoards and may therefore be dated to 47-46 and assigned to the African campaign. Nos. 459-62. These issues are dated to 47-46. No. 466. To judge from Caesar’s titulature, this issue belongs in early 46, before

his third dictatorship; 46 is the year one would expect Hirtius to hold the praetorship and his striking coinage in Caesar’s absence fits well with the implica-

tion of Cicero, ad Aft. xii, 12, 2, that he was at that point the most important Caesarian.”

No. 467. The form of the titulature (see above in n. 1 on p. 89) suggests that this issue was struck on Caesar’s behalf by an underling without his being present

at the mint himself; but it is odd that not only the name of this underling, but also that of Caesar is omitted. The issue presumably belongs to the same period as no. 466; the description of Caesar as Dict. II was strictly no longer relevant (see on no. 457 and p. 736 n. 1).

No. 468. This issue appears for the first time in the Vernon and (in notable quantity) Sendinho da Senhora hoards; it should be regarded as struck in 46-45 for the Spanish campaign. Nos. 469-71. These issues are dated to 46-45 and belong to Spain;? I am not convinced that no. 470 can be attributed to more than one mint; it is true that the pieces with the legend ending IMP.B are not die-linked to the other pieces com-

prising the issue, but this is also true of the pieces belonging to the variety no. 470/1d, and Buttrey has no wish to assign these latter to a separate mint. The legend IMP..B is best regarded as a blundered version of IMP. F. Nos. 472-4. The evidence of the hoards is sufficient to prove that these are the last moneyers to strike before the college of 44° (on which see below); they must be assigned to 45. No. 475. This issue presumably belongs to early 45, before Caesar’s return from Spain.®

No. 476. The date of this issue is presumably the same as that of no. 475; I do 1 Caesar’s third dictatorship is from April 46 to April 45, M. Gelzer, Caesar, 293 n. 5. 2 For the form of the titulature, see p. 89 n. 1 above. 5 Note the prominence of no. 469, the issue of M. Poblicius, in the Sendinho da Senhora hoard. 4 Contra T. V. Buttrey, MusN 1960, 81; cf. NC 1960, 94. 5 So already G. Gorini, AIV 1968-69, 33-4. ¢ T. R. S. Broughton, MRRP ii, 313; for Caesar’s third dictatorship see above, n. 1.

93

Introduction

not think there is any valid evidence either for the mint of the issue or for the nature of the unspecified prefectship of C. Clovius.1 Nos. 477-9. These issues may be both dated and assigned to mints with tolerable certainty; no. 477 follows on from the coinage of Cn. Pompeius in Spain and may be attributed to late 45 and to the mint of Salpensa;? no. 479, with which no. 478

is closely associated, bridges the period during which Sex. Pompeius is moving from Spain to Sicily; pieces of fine style, presumably early in the issue, are found in Spain,® pieces of degenerate style, presumably the result of production on a massive scale, are found in Sicily.‘ 44-31 B.C. (Tables xv—xvir)®

No. 480. Few will deny that internal evidence proves conclusively that L. Aemilius Buca, M. Mettius, P. Sepullius Macer and C. Cossutius Maridianus form the first college of Caesar’s new IIIIviri a.a.a.f.f. (see p. 599), striking in 44, the year in which the Senate voted to place Caesar’s portrait on the coinage; for the relative and absolute chronology of the issue within 44, see commentary on no. 480.

No. 481. The titulature of this issue, which there is no reason to disbelieve, places it between 1 January and 15 February 44; the mint is presumably Rome. No. 482. The titulature on this extremely rare issue resembles that on no. 480/3-5; there is no evidence for where it was struck. No. 483. The issue of Q. Nasidius for Sex. Pompeius (presumably), missing in hoards down to 44, appears in the Pasquariello hoard of 43 (on which see below,

| n. 6); it seems logical to suppose that since the issue makes no mention of Sex. Pompeius’ tenure of the office of Praefectus Classis, to which he was appointed in April 43, it was struck before that date; much of it was perhaps struck at Massalia. No. 484. For the date of this issue see commentary thereon. Nos. 485-7. The evidence of the hoards places these issues between the college of 44 and that of 42;° it is also reasonable to suppose that gold issues of moneyers are inaugurated with the portrait gold of 42; if this is right, these three moneyers 1 Contra S. L. Cesano, Rend. Pont. Acc. Arch. 1947-49, 130-1 (opting for an urban prefectship; but in that case one would expect the full titulature, cf. no. 475); M. Grant, FITA, 7-11 (opting for a prefectship coloniae deducendae and citing Cicero, fam. xiii, 7; but one would expect a mention of C. Clovius’ colleagues); A. Alféldi, Mélanges Carcopino, 30-1 (opting for a naval prefectship in Cyrenaica; the evidence for an Italian mint cited by Grant is enough to refute this suggestion). The only sort of prefectship which would be explained without more ado by the striking of coins would be a prefectship monetae feriundae.

2 T. V. Buttrey, NC 1960, 97; the letter B on some pieces should be regarded as a casual survival of the letter B on some pieces of the coinage of Cn. Pompeius; the absence of the letters SAL on some other pieces does not prove that they were struck at a different mint. 8 M. Bahrfeldt, Blatter fur Mtnzfreunde 1930-33, 755. 4 In notable quantities in the excavations of Morgantina; cf. also L. Laffranchi, Boll. Circ. Num. Nap. 1917, 21.

5 F, L. Ganter, Z{/N 1895, 183, reduces this period to a shambles. * See Table xv for the Pasquariello, Potenza and San Bartolomeo hoards; note also the Florence and Thrace hoards (Coin hoards, nos. 399 and 402).

94

The first century

must be placed earlier. L. Flaminius Chilo announces on his coins that he is the first of his college of moneyers to strike; since they bear the portrait of Caesar, they can hardly precede the coup d’état of Octavian; the early part of 43 is thus without moneyers’ issues (see p. 640).

Nos. 488-9. M. Antonius appears to strike two parallel issues (for the dates see commentaries on nos. 488-9); the first, which uses his portrait, is continued by his

main sequence of coinage as [IIvir r.p.c.? : |

No. 490. The issue is adequately dated by its developing titulature. No. 491. For the date of this issue see T. R. S. Broughton, MRRP ii, 338 and commentary on no. 491. Nos. 492-3. These issues are clearly celebration issues to mark the formation of the Triumvirate; there is an absolute continuity of style between the portraits of M. Antonius on no. 488 and on no. 492 and between the portraits of Octavian on no. 490 and on no. 493 (see Pl. tv111; note also the size of the dots of the border on

nos. 490/1-2 and 493). The titulature on no. 493 picks up that on no. 490/1-2,

substituting IIIVIR R.P.C. for COS.; IMP. goes back to the beginning of Octavian’s military career (see p. 740 n. 4) and has nothing to do with the battle of Philippi? No. 494. For the association of L. Livineius Regulus, P. Clodius, L. Mussidius Longus and C. Vibius Varus in a college and their dating to 42, see T. V. Buttrey, Portrait gold, 32-44.

No. 495. The style of this issue is unlike anything else in this period; this fact and the fact that the titulature of Lepidus includes PONT.MAX. suggest that the issue was struck by Lepidus himself; for the occasion of the issue see commentary on no. 495.

No. 496. The issues of M. Antonius of 41 are dated on internal grounds; this issue seems to me to precede them and I here tabulate what I believe to be the stylistic developments involved:

No. 492 leads to no. 496/1 (rev., Temple) which leads to no. 516/4-5 No. 494/17 and 32 lead to no. 496/2 (rev., Sol)

New engraver for no. 496/3 (rev., Sol) which leads to no. 516/1-2 and thence to rest of coinage of M. Antonius. The coins illustrated on Pls. Lvi11-Lx11 present the evidence for this picture; three brief

comments are necessary. Within no. 496/3 the head of M. Antonius is becoming steadily larger; no. 516/3 combines the styles of no. 516/1-2 and of no. 516/4-5 1 Not the first IIIvir, as F. L. Ganter, ZfN 1895, 184. 2 The coinage of M. Antonius will for the most part have been struck in a mint moving with him; the article of H. Mattingly, NC 1946, 91, is an entirely forlorn attempt to use the silly remark of Servius (on Vergil, Aen. vii, 684) about coinage struck in the name of Cleopatra (!) at Anagnia in order to attribute most of Antonius’ coinage to a mint at Anagnia. 3’ Contra M. Bahrfeldt, Goldmiinzenprdgung, 74.

95

oOuRITsIUO7) New Qe mA - Am om on ms + i An) syeurgiy ort Swe rte Qe — § 3

| & m2 OAHO ne A < Nie aofe 2eo7 &§ SS 3=|| 8

SEE G Oo my ae ey OF SHS 5none 3 oTae anag BueS nese 2 a 2AnAG> nao % Omar Zn 9 |i 3 ® SSP EAS BE ne Pye> nh, Oph ls on me , a>4]6Z8s iF pam | Dad rt el AH 4Z-AZS Cr) ASE ~PoOor bo 2a : < . A> CHd0 3SSHHOSF REE BSBS § a8? SEBS JoRse B29 3 2 AORA GENER & mM ene |S TAS MeZe Mm aGss ao = 2

5 : g| * “|e re | > t/ é 2 | 7) "5 s 8 3 ) & aw s ef vs

ras) + e e ° ° e +. ° 7 ob ° ° ° ooo e + + . ‘ 3 ON

Oo WY

OSS e © © wt 6 o «© © «© e 2 © © «© e “aA Mm 2 6 CN B

bo oa O

a 8 Q o + Me wit 8 ee wis 6 8 . ot wie 3

Om

S

a e * «4 OO * ° ° ° -h x ° a on e eo 6 ° ° mn ©

O a WO . « . «© * ee e oe ° * oe o “A e a v —Q

:a) o 8 1 A cB) ° —~ be a = o ye) fe) be aS = O : 38 Sb.& :&=3 Se ke Or é1°°ee.e°eeeee°r.eee

a. E Sn} ® o e e e e ° ° ° ° ° e ° . ° e e e ° E

(3) 56° mS a S

< a GC nm ” . 6A 3 Me pe “n be) O ny < 2 y a P ad fH fant “3 ”) m $4 fr) = ne)~ 2)

nN P- jo%gq‘SoFesgis + 3e352 5.% 22 GAG oun , 38 Fo He al

MAY 3 Pa 8A a2 eenSoes >se >eB3e > SOS S oe B FBR Soe ees, eeo Beker ree RRS Eee ser SSSESS TS EEEL SE SST y Qh eua SAPS Eee ya aA suru eae ss 8 CSgrr GC naa OoSee os oc adsee on ry Nngeg pe an

Kxx og AS PS a> >> >ae> aar>>>>>>>ss> Cee § 8 aaaas>>>>>>>>> 8 Se eteerere reer §Sxrrerererte § §t(rererCKrXvreee DIF HHmMMDOGT OC MITT AGO OGG 8000 272 2IGSGSGU

ee BS BB ep ee ee Bp ne ete fo Gee esses esas i sa idee sssaAidaaccGididais eee sd ema secag aad essa adidia = CA's ‘asia & a om ts Bae eaeac diaegad

BEBSSSSESERESEBES SEEERESBSSRSESESBEE SS

Pegs ess ie Gee GG Ge eRe es eG Ger Ge gees

SPEER EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEREEEEEEEEREEEEER FEERRAERERERERRERERBEREERRERREEBREEBERBEESE YVvUvUVVH VYUOYVIVIYVIOVYVYVDBDVYMNEYPYEYPVUVBDGBIUNVYNGBGIGYPYOWVVY YO QO YD NAA NDANANANAA AAAke VHAARURAARAH AARAAARYNRAAADN A YPYAY7 Meee eee Cee ge eon Zea eae ene eo ANA 2a NANA ae haa ZevA HV ge 999 P9095 0999 FOO 9 O09 FO FSCO TSP FPF F099 SF95050 5 6

openers DECOMCDEEG DEC oRecmc cme oenmenwenws cueome>Renmeomeomecwermevneomenneomecwengeewe cme rweeMentar Menten

\O ON 00 Val Oo™~ MN OoO Oo& OO ~ 00 oO Oo roa) NOann ON Oo ~ ~~ 0000 rave moo KR«en 00 rm (ore)

ran) ‘saYmaa) NQ ™m OA |co oTYU fag)go amon J) Oo 8) Nro) 2 ovo Vv Ww VUfaa) ry

& SED EQ Q'S EFEEE ‘0anys § gE &Meyer =Soy~ CESASSASARS NY SSSSMaRRAISAD F958 STHONsyM ret Str MMOMHMyroremni OMst \O CS uy ly GH ereeeyl POOeta gy ow wee © y OO fy Ceddeetede i < See tedd Be eed EOSFOOFOFSE GCOOOsESFBEO SSSST OCOsSO sed BS RESTS ESE SSSF ESS SST ESR ST REGS EST EEE

BORA QMANQRME A OQNQANARORATMAR MANNA SAAS Pr

4.25 =|bom 2” On Y pan org OQ is on,

o

wee6PuwD ode rewm oSO =O 3D N NBs 8 SO mt wm A N O 0 2 QO ZO z LA +m 4St~Segg 2 O OQ a = 6) wt wt OQ, n”| c Bo Re YS g a & pw = o) voyulO Os Oo o > x Y 0G 5D oO, AS) V4 UdO68 ape & aSe388 ose DHA DBGY FB is Sosa B aa yas aq” gig 2S we —BERR 0 = GESErRhOO Oo cm OEGS ° A) —_ ont petCES 3}ZB CEE Ooms ree esSx_5xe8 OOrtMO DWD AHR HNO NW OAMNTPA HF?HTAMO OO ROO te AnO aA KR + wt et N wtNRO NQNAQ wt HAN et Nat aet AN Ht A HNN HANA TOM et

421

Reverse "2 os RRR 00K we i 0 eee : Onna nttettNO a0)TETIS Wy die AMAMAMAMAMAAMAMMAMMAASTSe 53

°

"O

+) a ges ao —


area o £22 ) O > > > zdQ535583 cs

O fo90 5S #8 082085855

SUE

oo>Puy co uv 9eeELoeP FOOD O0 VY YGss SBPo gy 8dH S's a“oS vb Sees BD >OOosS SSS oT gd Gebpyouavavd ° PYVOKDSCPA AVRO LHOVPvVOVUeeSHo Se SgaQrecHog heyy 9 9 Sg ruugge sad eS Pss5 CO 4 FE ESSS oa” EEEat

Wa > LO ga eae oO OL 4 ~ nam GUSGVIVIIIIIVYVYIYI GVIITVIVIG F FN000

PP aeRO ROAAAAA Lanes Reverse |r ere eCe ee eeeetereryrrrrrrrer Coertw dlu bret bier ebuey uber wdeueu © uuu -~ | type an N nin SEPP Od Sf onan aon nm a0 2gim

° . Sc ce a, “4 < Q, Q, A, : 4 g jem |gggeegsdseeied gs dggssezceaas & | mar AaaAaFAARBAAAELSSS PAarasrrauru aaae = Geir eG es ese Ge Geer FG GGG Ge < PEPEEPEEEEEEEEEEEELEEEEEELE m9 BES SCSCOSF SSF SSE SSFS FES GSS SSFSESESSSESS

5 5 a6 BE. § v ra) ma& v Sco | . an & QAOEEn g&Yu 6's) OV omso&w , S aopeomenge One nmecmenmeege bie cmcomecmecmecmenmenmenmecnenmermergesmenmenmermenne nges

mn oO aa) » cn oT na NM TH m E SYSAHASASERARSSRSSSas & SS

MA) =i: % fy ~ Fy

MH SOOO eG eM OST Ty GBBT OTMOM EF Om % ; 68 gods Ao OS YO >> © & o Bie 2S x“ 6s a > > YO o © “3 Q Ae >> La arr ro ou Y >>

gas 685883 8 BBEEF, eReEEBER UI ORS EC Bale a ee ee ee ame BOGIOOOSgGageedis

Reverse | 0G Enns IBS SBSBHHPOHS-_.. 7 type and S 8a Ss secereocre MS SH=>>SNNSSSE 8S control- +s 1h A PPO SOON RORORORONUIUIULOLONEE Er

oN a a a 0 a ng as Ug

mak |G 2eggdeededdds>>s>>>>ss55>> 088 EECEEEELECERCaaadaaaddadaaeee:

8 oe oe ae oe ee ee a ee Oe Oe SO OO Oe SO ee 0 © Oe Se

BREEEREREEEREREEERREEREREREEREREREERREEE ES

4 NARNnN NA NAA A NA HRA BQWAAAAAUAAHAA A AAA A AHDGAAARARAAA VA

m COSOSOS5F5FOOKB FOF SF SF FO55F5 F658 S5OSbSSBSS ° eopcomcomeomsoenmermcomsoReodasRenmerdcomeopergesmeomeogergeeBesBestvepsogersesBeriien

—Q \O 00

8 BB aBES uD er 29S oO OF &e OuVvyed SB 25 e008 eorT7T 868 8 > bp 00 Y D "0 O Hnn dg Pees s25ss5 (88 Pe eke ‘SoS ~ — oe pee eee BeSSS oS 8 Gee 8Sous esses SBaeaw Bow 2 Suu SNUGIIVIDS Sgn gee n oaB >— gy 0000.0 8 n an aQ ODO aniaws bd

a 29 =

Ow ww wwe ad ro) Cae e ew ty .

w3

vy 2 uo rexxXxxKxXCGEBEBEBERCALYBOOBREE &

Or >>> BO a >>> nO SSO AEE ..GaggV oBRE . 00> oOGAEL. OU foot OU Q.sserssere a >> > S§SSG se SererrrreoooooP ss Fisk haar err ar erarart kee Wa arr aor

SHREL SSC HERE E ESS >>>SSrSAG ree R ee adare Eee e>> sg ec Saad a aeeerrrrrr UOGAASEBLSAGAAAAALUUHUUHNULDGOAARARAAALU A,

eee i Pree eee Fess GEG GG GEG GSE Ese PEE EERE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEREEREE SPEER EEEEECELEEEEEELEEEEEEELEELEL

eeegeeeaeeeeeeeeeeeerereeeeeereeeee sg O9F9T00 00 00 000 CDOOOQO0C0CO0 00D CO DOO ODO OOOO OO 000 OO

supe manmeomeomenmenmecmcoge smenmevweomoomeopenmenmengccgecgecmecmecge > mecmenwensenmesmeogecmenmenwe bien

wy N™ wy NW 4\O aad >>S>e egB.S EosrAn ses BEE SEE B S

mark v re: 22 a Seeuaae $9 Gee § G6 G65 G88 ¢ ~3 Seeded Saaaaal ataascs a aa aaa aaa de GF GPP @ FE FPP CFE typeand) Seaxaenh cen SSS £2 ee cere SES & control| “jewiruuw B aw wuvnBeye ow" 8 Nn An An NN A aA vnBW Hn aSSE nan an

S

S| \HRRREGD GE GTR - sogeses 55 G55 5 5 GUE SESGLD ESEHU &

~ eeaeege2e 22 . o£8 ~ 000000 0 Oo 0e222 ©Tare Oo 9° 0 0cag oOo 0Hee 06 © dd Coco oot Tt Oo ramOo rT0om angeomecmmmmes px

ON‘Oo co a]~love) peyZgsee cs 5 Oo VU

amr oo888 o |. ie} O's = 8 UU OO gat vs dB OO nN NN ° " yi — oo nnvdyd o v> o > >> oo n ovo vu YW Oo >Qe BH BE 20988 Sy FBX uwvvw 29238 SEEZ Be bt BR peti F> 8 5u H>oeR> 22RO SoH CAR See

>Re ot Ss ° 6S aa 5 = >> SE ad Se pS S> SS SS a SSeS SSS SSS SSS ee

0 O non eee kt OO aS 8B an C88 663% SC 8 STS OQ Sf Sy “aeI=Hk FaeBowy ss =am oes SF é BE gts SSSt4eee REREE w wd vy Saabs yaaa

Ro} LY Y YY a aa @ Co Ca Cone LO Oe Sa Ra oe

Ce BSS eererrr Ce Ce § eee K CKKKXK YerKrrre § § Lee Sas Oe ©ONesnNiA.©NnOo WL Mhetbheibib tha ir nN AN n +] vn nN ee nN Nn a n nN N & na AN ON LN na Nn NN NRAerrata AW SG aAaaaa 2a: degee déAaa geoARAa deadAARAREASE deed geeeeged’ SSuF$8 aaaadds SS SY s 0.ee 2aee 9 9999 DooSe29“oe 9 9 oe 79 Se 9 9SOe 9 9ee9 Oe 2 9 9ee9 Oe 29 Se Se 0 9ee2 eS

qd dg qgah 49 €94 GH8HR SHIR SHHRRSHIgg PE EGE EGEEE FE EEG EGEG GEGE EER REGE & CL £28 £22222 £22 £2280 2222 22282 222222222 90 000 60000 6060 0660 6666 66659 666665868585

00 & m9 5) VU = § eet 8888 ae Hae BERS ES SSR Ee ouer-—-—r-Bmagne .? ”“ nCEC > * ES Ss mr] Ss go wh22QA AiSec4 a a CVA ae. Ce XBCs mamZ rrmd tt te| AN tTtN OHHANNAN ANNM LTNHNHO ROAR KRRRAd ae eat et ORO HattaKRO et wdAH ANN NANN NANANNANAN wt wa et e tt et xt ef bn no aA « « aA et wet ex “a « « SA we et et at a wt et 433

vd + Reverse ow on v die 8s 8 Ss Ss SS ,seBadah Bo &Cas Se

st + wt 4 ba = we wet ‘9 ber ~ ™ ™~ ~ > > g52. BoM V.= Bem 2&8 «1 Fo, gigs ooego HS

of no aoa Ss ~ & 5° doe ro) nods go ° 3 D gore 85% 8 COND 0 v

iS iz wh OP tr 2 5Oo 6°#uo) iA5 neS) gio oO 2— fh3apoh >> Pog SJ «4 8 rn, sOg >9 «¢ aS, Yc 7BP AN ay eow os 5 & u S Eugsd dof° w OO Oo > > on Bi > >§ i} UC) 9 > 9+8 oPw) & ae5avo HAG

+ Nn nv © » OD

2e3 > Fe weSEES = 2 3 oyeaa & & Peek > rage “33 20 > gee 4B Oo ww oY ® 2gss OO Ys oe|.82) e 2Bk D AG veg “ON Reverse -.eoED) a>OQ Y©34= q#86o Feel SfnnBY aie

yoeand|> heGuee eS eerer gs >Y8 &Si] 2582 age Ce |u-u at > SBow aweiArtKivtee YUVA Oy controlRS ES ow ue rer> &aeae & aa ”Bd

yas| mn & FB wo ee aS sat? Sd 6 mark Ss oo o ¢ @ ¢ & @ a Ogg £ 3 & 3 : foo |] BS hg 9B "a =Aa& 0fsQ &os§&> = PeZ2t O o0rs) >w aa a .& & S saa xc «x 100 a n aia aR aaa & & we wh mss F ace fo ° ° ° iere > > a) se a n eel nn a nN ao ‘Oo :=— Giig eile 353 2os dGGG9 aad] cetbulee & & 9a & 28 & 9289 GSt%®008 ye

: é