The last hundred years have seen great changes in the methods of classifying Roman coins. The comprehensive but uncritical alphabetical accumulation of Cohen has been superseded by Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum and Roman Imperial Coinage, in both of which the material is arranged on the basis of the chronological sequence of issues. Informative as is such a classification compared with its alphabetical predecessor, it still leaves room for the extraction of further evidence from selected issues. Since the mint was a government department and since the content of the coins, controlled by directives emanating from a high level in the imperial service, was regularly used to disseminate ideas in the interests of the government, the most thorough analysis possible of certain issues may sometimes be required.
Before an issue of coins can be fully interpreted, information under the following heads is, if possible, needed: a) the date of issue, b) the place of issue, c) the area of circulation, d) the size of the issue, e) the reverse types in the light of their previous and subsequent history.
a) The date of issue is often given by the legends of the coin itself, particularly when consulships are frequent (as in the Flavian period), or when tribunician dates are commonly included (as in the late second and early third centuries). In the absence of such precise and obvious dating, analogies with dated coins or the position of a coin in a die-linked series may provide an answer. The determination of date relates an issue to a body of known historical circumstances which must form the background of any interpretation.
b) To determine the place of issue is more difficult, for although in the early Empire much of the coinage can be securely attributed to the central mint of Rome, from time to time there appear smaller groups, eccentric in type or style, which suggest the activity of sub- sidiary mints. In the rare event of a number of provenances being known, some general clue to area may be obtained; reverse types too may sometimes give a hint, 1 as well as literary or epigraphic sources. 2 Yet often there is little more than such hints and clues, and the confident placing of mints in this city or that implies a greater degree of certainty than really exists. Therefore the coins themselves must be compelled to yield all possible evidence. What can be done, and what has rarely hitherto been done in the field of Roman coinage, is to delimit the blocks of coinage which are available to be attributed to this or that mint or subdivision of a mint. Such blocks cannot be accurately determined by a judgment of style alone; for while coins of similar style may reasonably be the work of the same establishment, it does not follow that coins of different styles were issued from different mints. Such a view would not allow for the vagaries of short-lived mints with no traditional style, and the erratic work of semi-skilled or imported craftsmen, perhaps working at high speed to meet special demands.
The only sure method of determining the physical interrelations of coins at the time of issue is the study of die-links. It is laborious, for when applied to large issues, it involves the accumulation of much material, though a few specimens may yield an answer to a particular question; 3 yet its evidence is conclusive, for, in the vast majority of cases, it is certain that two coins showing either of the two following die relationships were issued from the same mint.
It is of course no valid objection to say that dies could have been made in one central workshop and thence distributed to provincial mints, for the coins issued by each mint would still exhibit no dies common to the issues of other mints. The only means of confusing the picture derived from die-links is the improbable assumption—for which there is no evidence—that dies could be used for a time in one place and then be dispatched to another to finish their working life.
Once these groups of die-linked coins have been determined, other evidence may serve to place them geographically. In the absence, however, of a system of mint signatures such as existed in the third and fourth centuries a.d., it is unlikely that anything short of such specific literary and epigraphic evidence as exists for Lugdunum will pin-point a mint to this or that city. Yet such precise localization is rarely necessary, and a more general indication of area will usually suffice.
c) The question of the area of circulation is complementary to that of the place of minting. It must be posed separately because, whereas gold and silver moved freely from end to end of the Empire, the movement of base metal coinage was much more restricted, and the possibilities therefore arise that certain types were intended for certain areas, or that subsidiary mints issued types suitable for these areas. 4 Information of this sort can be derived only from coin finds.
d) Some means of determining the relative quantities in which types were produced is necessary in order to assess their relative importance. A general knowledge of a series is sufficient to give some idea of the frequency with which different types are encountered, but does not allow any very accurate grading. Moreover a number of extraneous factors may seriously distort the picture. For example, dealers' "rarities" may cause what was once a common coin to be classed as scarce, because features of its type or legend make it popular with collectors; 5 or an excessively rare coin will appear com- moner than it is because every major collection will contain a specimen, though all may come from a single die. The reasonable practice of collectors of accumulating a representative series of types does succeed in equalizing (to the confusion of the student) the representation of the rare coin and the common, so that it sometimes happens that the student finds an embarassing number of identical specimens of the rare types, but cannot amass sufficient material to give him all the dies of the common types.
There are two methods of overcoming these difficulties. The first, and by far the easiest, is the analysis of hoards. A recent study of 17th and 18th century hoards in Sweden has shown that the distribution of coins within a hoard year by year remains in a constant relation to the total number of coins issued in each year. 6 Disturbing factors, such as the economic position of the person accumulating the hoard, can be eliminated by a comparison of several such hoards: in this way the relative commonness of issues can be determined. During the early empire, however, hoards of the necessary size tend to be confined to the precious metals. For the base metals the more lengthy procedure of counting dies provides an alternative. It is not necessary, for the purpose of determining the size of an issue, to attempt to collect all dies, but only sufficient to show the relative numbers used for each type. The value and practicability of such a method will be demonstrated later; its detailed application naturally provides much information on a number of subsidiary questions, such as the significance of minor alterations of type or legend, and the physical organisation of the mint itself.
e) That the previous and subsequent history of a type is of vital importance in arriving at its interpretation at a particular moment has been clearly demonstrated by Professor Grant for at least one important group, the anniversary issues. 7 Yet it is easy to see that this applies likewise to the whole field of coinage. A coin in a case or tray is thought of as an isolated object, yet the period of its circulation was often long, and the type it carried constituted an element in the numismatic experience of several generations; its repetition might call to mind associations connected with its original issue still in circulation. For example, the types of Clodius Macer followed closely the types of Antony's legionary coins, issued about a hundred years earlier. 8 This is not the place to discuss the motives behind Macer's revival; it is relevant only to point out that coin finds from Pompei show that large numbers of Antony's coins were still circulating in a.d. 79, and that Macer was therefore copying common currency. 9
The following chapters are an attempt to extract information of the sort outlined in the preceding paragraphs from the aes coinage of Galba. For several reasons attention will be concentrated mainly on the issues of sestertii. These are more easily assembled than the smaller denominations; their large dies enable identities to be observed more readily, and the smaller denominations in this period usually follow the larger very closely in both style and content. Lastly, in a period which lacked true medallions, the size of the sestertius fitted it for a comparable function, and it numbers among its reverse types some which in interest and elaboration surpass anything on other denominations. 10
The validity of the results obtained will depend on the assumption that the coins available today are a representative sample of the total originally struck. Experience of Greek coinage might suggest that this would be a misleading assumption, for it is well known that all surviving specimens of certain Greek issues are derived from a single find, whereas other issues, known from the number of dies used to have been originally much larger, are now far more rare. The study of Roman imperial aes, however, is much less subject to such hazards for several reasons. There is far less inducement to melt down and re-strike copper or bronze than gold or silver; the imperial issues of aes were far larger than those of Greek cities and the time for which they have had to survive is appreciably shorter; finally hoards of aes of the early empire are uncommon and the majority of surviving specimens are sporadic site-finds. These reasons justify the claim that different types were originally issued in the approximate relative proportions in which they survive today.
The aes coinage of Galba is well suited for study by the methods already outlined. It comes at a time when the aes coinage, after a period of slow development under the earlier Julio-Claudians, had at last attained maturity under Nero. The mint was capable of striking large and varied issues; the principle, and indeed the necessity, of some decentralization of production to meet the requirements of distribution had been recognized; engravers were able to create vivid portraits and reverse types of great complexity in which the elements of legend and type were skillfully blended. Though the coinage of Galba must necessarily be studied at present in a sort of vacuum, since the coinage of Nero, out of which it grew, has not yet been subjected to detailed analysis, there are compensating advantages. Organization and artistic skill were inherited from the past, but the use to which they were put in the year of the four emperors was inevitably altered, reflecting the reaction against everything Neronian which the accession of Galba represented. Moreover, the shortness of Galba's reign and the variety of his coinage are welcome features, for the one reduces to the minimum the possibility of chronological error, while the other provides the basis of classification. In short, there was available to Galba an organisation which had only recently reached full development, but which the coinage of the reign of Nero had proved to be equal to meeting any demands that might be made upon it.
|1||Cf. below p. 29 for the special applicability of Galba's R XL types to Gaul.|
|2||The presence of a mint for gold and silver at Lugdunum under Tiberius is attested by Strabo IV, 3, 2, and its later existence by inscriptions (CIL XIII, 1499; cf. Tac., Ann. III, 41; Hist. I, 64; CIL XIII pp. 250ff.).|
|3||E.g. the reverse die shared by three sestertii of Tiberius with different obverse types (BMC I, nos. 70, 75, 77) is a factor to be remembered in connexion with the widely spaced dates suggested for these types on other grounds by Grant, RAI, pp. 33, 35 and 65f.|
|4||Cf. the very restricted list of reverse types used at Lugdunum under Vespasian in a.d. 71 with the far greater range of the mint of Rome.|
|5||An outstanding example is provided by the IVDAEA CAPTA types of Vespasian, which the number of dies used shows to have been among his commonest types, but which, owing to their popularity with collectors, have come to be classed as "rare" or "scarce" (cf. RIC II, p. 68).|
|6||Thordeman, "The Lohe Hoard," NC, ser. 6, VIII (1948), pp. 188ff.|
|7||RAI particularly Chapter VIII.|
|8||On this see RAI, p. 86f. and Kraay, "The Coinage of Vindex and Galba, a.d. 68, and the Continuity of the Augustan Principate," NC, ser. 6, IX (1949), pp. 133ff.|
|9||NdS 1901, p. 437 and 1910, p. 412 record typical Pompeian hoards containing a substantial proportion of Antony's legionary denarii.|
|10||Cf. particularly the elaborate sestertius types of group G, below Chapter III.|
The brief reign of Galba, lasting only seven months, witnessed the production of a great and varied aes coinage, culminating in an issue of quite remarkable quality and originality; a glance at the lists of obverse legends and bust varieties preceding the Catalogue of Dies (p. 61f.) will reveal the extent of its variety. Particularly surprising, at first sight, is the use of no less than twenty-six forms of obverse legend in so short a period; of these some may be due to the whim of the engraver (SVLP or SVLPIC) while others may represent successive stages in the development of the title (like the inclusion of pontifex maximus), but there remain a number of basic variations of order and form which run counter to the idea that the imperial titulature was something formal and static, to be altered only upon the receipt of some new office or honour. This multiplication of varieties within so short a period has proved so embarrassing that some of them have been regarded as posthumous honorific issues; these form the subject of Chapter III.
Previous research, in addition to the valuable work of assembling the material, has reached certain tentative conclusions. One section of the coinage, separable on grounds of style, has been thought to be of Gallic origin, 1 a conclusion which will receive partial confirmation. Likewise, the valuable suggestion "that minor varieties were very possibly used to distinguish the work of different officinae" 2 will be found to be substantially true. On the other hand, attempts to arrange obverse legends in a chronological order of succession 3 are doomed to failure because several varieties were in use simultaneously.
This field is a promising one for exploration by die-analysis, a technique familiar and indispensible in Greek coinage, but which has never yet been applied to the systematic analysis of a large body of Roman coins. 4 In such a study the variety of the obverses is an advantage and an aid to classification, for, as will be seen, die groups in the main include coins with common features; moreover, the fact that output was heavy over a short period implies that production was virtually uninterrupted and that disturbing factors, such as the suspension of coining or the re-use, after an interval, of discarded dies, were reduced to a minimum. For the most part analysis has been confined to sestertii; the size of these makes the recognition of die identities easier than in the smaller denominations, and the dies for these latter were evidently produced by the same artists. 5 Groups of dupondii and asses are analysed only when their variety or type-content makes this specially rewarding.
Before the coinage itself can be analyzed, a chronological framework for the reign must be established. Cassius Dio gives its length as 9 months and 13 days, 6 which, working back from Galba's death on 15th January a.d. 69, gives 2nd April a.d. 68 for his accession. This date, well before Nero's death on 9th June, is usually held to be that of Galba's salutation as imperator at Carthago Nova. All our authorities agree that on this occasion he refused the titles Caesar and Augustus, and declared himself the legatus of the Senate and People of Rome. 7 About 18th June the news of the death of Nero and of Galba's own election by the Senate was confirmed, 8 whereupon, according to Suetonius, he abandoned the title legatus in favour of that of Caesar and immediately hastened on to Rome to suppress disaffection. 9
The date of the assumption of the title Caesar is of some importance, because a considerable body of coins omits this title from the obverse legend. The account of Suetonius is highly abbreviated, for he has no hint of the tardum Galbae iter of which Tacitus speaks, 10 nor of the need to urge Galba to hasten to Rome, as in Plutarch. 11 Moreover, he is not in agreement with Dio who asserts that it was not until Galba's meeting with the deputation of the Senate at Narbo—an event also omitted by Suetonius—that he adopted the title Caesar, and adds that he had not hitherto styled himself emperor in any communication. 12 The account of Dio is confirmed by the "horseman" issues of aurei and denarii in Spain and Gaul (obverse (SER) GALBA IMP) 13 and a small issue of denarii at Rome (obverse IMP GALBA) 14 and by half the output of officina D (which omits Caesar). 15 The meeting at Narbo seems to have been crucial in the development of Galba's titulature; its date is not known exactly, but as the delegates are not likely to have set out before news of Galba's intentions and proposed route reached Rome, it can hardly have been earlier than late July. If the Senate waited until they realized that Galba's progress was going to be tardum, it may have been very much later. Those issues, then, which omit the title Caesar must be dated before the meeting at Narbo, and, as will appear below, are the first aes issued from Rome. The titulature of Vitellius developed in a similar way; his earliest issues too omit the title Augustus, while Caesar never appears on his coins, though he is said to have adopted the name in his last days. 16
The date of Galba's arrival in Rome is uncertain, but it is important because it fixes a terminus post quern for the next change in titulature, the inclusion of P(ontifex) M(aximus) which a military diploma proves to have taken place by 22nd December. 17 Comparable instances show that candidates were not elected in absentia; for example, both Vitellius and Vespasian waited until they were present in Rome in person, and even when the candidates were present throughout, the office was usually conferred independently of, and later than, the other imperial titles. 18 October may be suggested as the month of Galba's arrival in Rome, and perhaps early December for his election as pontifex maximus. 19
On the basis of the preceding paragraphs the following chronological scheme for Galba's reign can be constructed.
|2 April||Galba hailed imperator; declares himself legatus SPQR.|
|18 June||News of Nero's death confirmed; start of issues omitting CAES and AVG in Spain and Gaul. (At Rome the starting date will be 9 June, the death of Nero).|
|? July||Galba in Gaul; title Augustus accepted, appearing first on "horseman" issues in Gaul, and soon after at Rome.|
|July (or later).||Meeting at Narbo and acceptance of title Caesar.|
|October Before||Arrival in Rome.|
|22 December a.d. 69||Election as pontifex maximus.|
|15 January||Murder of Galba.|
For the issue of all coinage in Galba's name seven months is the longest period available; into a still shorter time must be fitted the issue of aes, for there is no aes to match the early gold and silver, which omits both the titles Caesar and Augustus. Furthermore, soon after the election of Galba as pontifex maximus — which took place before 22nd December—the main aes issues came to an end, and were superseded by a new shortlived issue of an entirely different character, 20 so that little more than five months (July–December?) can be allowed for the prolific main series.
|4||In more restricted series it has already proved its value, e.g. Sutherland, "Divus Augustus Pater," NC, ser. 6, I (1941), p. 97.|
|5||It is often possible to match exactly portraits of Æ I and Æ 2; cf. A 118 (Plate XXIX) with A xiv (Plate XXX) and A 125 (pl. XXXI) with Aii (Plate XXXIII). The range of reverse types may vary considerably with different denominations, but, when the type is the same, the conventions of representation are usually also the same.|
|7||Suet., Galba, X; Plut., Galba , 5, 2; cf. Cassius Dio, lxiii, 29, 6.|
|8||Plut., Galba, 7.|
|9||Suet., Galba, XI.|
|10||Hist. I, 6.|
|11||Plut., Galba , 11, 1.|
|12||lxiii, 29, 6; cf. Plut., Galba , XI.|
|13||RIC I, p. 207 (emending the date to a.d. 68) and 210 (only no. 112 has AVG).|
|14||Ibid., Galba 20 and 26.|
|15||see p. 23 below.|
|16||Tac., Hist. I, 62; III, 58.|
|18||Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht (1887) II, pt. 2, pp. 1106ff.|
|19||The election could have followed closely upon the entry, or even have been simultaneous with it, except that the comparative rarity of dies including this office in the titulature suggests a date later in the reign (see p. 48). ILS, 238, dedicated 15 Oct. 68, gives the title SER GALBAE IMP AVG (without PM) but this is not an official inscription, and cannot, therefore, be given much weight in matters of titulature, though it may well be correct in omitting PM at this time.|
The main aes issues are analysed in the following pages, and two further groups, previously labelled "posthumous," are reserved for consideration in Chapter III. Since this analysis, based on an examination of over 550 coins, is somewhat detailed, the task of following it may be rendered easier if the main conclusions are stated briefly now. The whole material falls into seven virtually self-contained die-linked sequences which represent the output of as many mints or officinae (labelled A to G). Each sequence is described in turn in the text, with the aid, where possible, of a diagram, in order to bring out clearly the basic facts upon which the reconstruction of mint history, with which the chapter ends, must rest; comment and detail have therefore been reduced to the minimum consistent with this purpose. Fuller details can be extracted from the Catalogue of Dies and the Plates. All figures record merely the number of dies observed, and can carry no presumption about the total originally engraved; the relative proportions of the numbers, one to another, can, however, be regarded as significant, since the whole body of material examined, judged by the consistent results which study of it has produced, is large enough to be a fair sample of the total original output of Galba's mints.
Finally a word of explanation is required upon the structure and validity of the diagrams of die-links. In their first stage these diagrams represent a method of jotting down in graphic form dielinks as they are observed, a process of haphazard accretion which naturally produces a confused and shapeless mass of crossing lines. On what principles are these diagrams to be reduced to order, so that they yield additional information on the working of the mint, or, a still more fundamental question, were the dies themselves used in a logical order?
The most extreme hypothesis, which would preclude the recovery of any order, because no order originally existed, would be that an officina started work equipped with all the dies it was ever to use, and employed these quite haphazardly. This can be ruled out on grounds of sheer improbability; a basic assumption therefore emerges that dies were used successively to replace earlier specimens worn out or broken. In Greek coinage the order of dies can be determined mainly by the ever increasing amount of wear which reveals itself in spreading flaws and the growing obliteration of the finer details. This aid is not available in Roman coinage, either because technical progress had increased the life of dies, or because dies were discarded as soon as they showed signs of wear. In most of Galba's officinae, however, one end of the series can be fixed by means of certain peculiarities of legend, of which the most important is the inclusion of pontifex maximus (the chronological importance of this is discussed on p. 48 below). Certain obverse dies can thus be fixed as late; the next row back will consist of those obverses without pontifex maximus which share a reverse die with the pontifex maximus obverses. Hereafter the arrangement must be in some degree subjective, because the plotting of the diagram can be varied from one to the other of two extremes. A diagram could be telescoped so that all obverse dies omitting pontifex maximus were regarded as contemporary and placed on one horizontal line; this would virtually be the reductio ad absurdum with which this paragraph commenced, and would involve much extremely complicated die-linking on the one level. The other extreme yields the maximum vertical extension, which is limited by the fact that one reverse die is often coupled with several obverses.
In the final plotting of the diagrams a mean has been chosen which gives a reasonable degree of linking both horizontally and vertically. While it is impossible to confirm the layout in all its details, the consistently reasonable results produced make it certain that the general picture is correct. One or two examples will illustrate this, and others will be noted in the following sections devoted to individual officinae. In officina D two obverse legends are employed, one of which, omitting CAES ("I" on Diagram 4), must be earlier than the other which includes CAES ("S" on Diagram 4); the obverse dies readily arrange themselves in three main groups, the top row including only dies which omit CAES, then a mixed row, and last a row consisting only of dies which include CAES. This logical sequence can be upset only by postulating—wholly unnecessarily—an entirely capricious and erratic use of dies. Another example is provided by the interrelation of officinae A and D (Diagrams 1 and 4). A number of reverse dies of D are used also in A; these dies appear late in the D sequence (combined with obverse dies which include CAES) and early in the A sequence (far removed from the pontifex maximus dies). Since A continued working longer than D (which has no pontifex maximus dies), there emerges the reasonable picture of D closing down and making some of its still usable equipment available to the newly opened A. Such results as these go far towards confirming the general correctness of the Diagrams.
|20||See Chapter III.|
Obverse dies: 26
Reverse dies: 44
Die sequence: Nearly all dies link into one main sequence.
(1) SER GALBA IMP CAES AVG TR P (24 dies)
(2) SER GALBA IMP CAES AVG P M TR P (2 dies)
Portraiture (Plates I–III)
Consistency in style is far greater than in any other group. The heads, which always face right, are big and fleshy, with thick necks, and a narrow projecting point to the bust. 21 The laurel wreath is always present; with wreath ties usually in the distinctive form of tongs and a prominent leaf in the knot. 22 A globe at the point of the bust occurs only on A 27, 23 whilst drapery is to be seen on A 29 and 134. Two engravers are probably at work on the obverses of this officina, since nearly all heads can be classed as "large" or "small." "Large" heads include A 15, 16, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 35, and "small" heads A 17, 18, 31, 57, 67, 73, 79, 85. The layout of dies in Diagram I shows that these two sizes cannot be successive stages in the work of one man or the result of successive mint directives, since both run parallel through the output of this officina. 24
Reverse types (Plates III–V)
|Description||No. of dies||Notes|
|1.||(a)||AVGVSTA Livia seated l.||1||Elsewhere only off. B.|
|(b)||AVGVSTA R XL Livia seated l.||1||Only here.|
|2.||EX SC OB CIVES SER in wreath||5||Only here, but see C II for form with SERVATOS.|
|3.||(a)||LIBERT AVG Libertas stg.||6||Only here; elsewhere always LIBERTAS PVBLICA and in full.|
|(b)||LIBERT AVG R XL Libertas stg.||1||Only here.|
|(c)||LIBERTAS AVGVSTA Libertas stg.||3||Only here.|
|(d)||LIBERTAS AVG VST R XL Libertas stg.||1||Only here.|
|4.||PAX AVG (VST) seated l.||2||Only here.|
|5.||(a)||ROMA stg. holding Pax and aquila||1||Only here.|
|(b)||ROMA R XL as in (a)||1||Only here.|
|(c)||ROMA (in ex.) R XL stg. holding Victory and aquila||1||Only here.|
|6.||ROMA (in ex.) seated on elaborate arms||1||Only here.|
|7.||ROMA (in ex.) seated on arms, resting l. arm on shield||6||This type is chiefly found in off. D and occasionally in E. Three dies (P 64, 66, 118) are common to A and D.|
|8.||ROMA stg. holding Victory and spear, with vertical legend||1||An anticipation of the common type of Vespasian of a.d. 71. B, C, and E always have RO/MA with this type.|
|9.||SPQR OB CIV SER in wreath||5||Like No. 7 above, characteristic of off. D. with which there are three dies in common (P 74, 84, 130).|
|10.||Victory carrying wreath r.||2||Also in off. B, C, D, E.|
|11||Victory carrying Palladium l.||6||Also in off. B and D.|
The distinctive character of this officina is shown as much by its portraiture, easily recognizable as quite different from that of any other officina, as by its range of reverse types, few of which are used elsewhere. Among these the presence of the formula R XL is particularly remarkable, 25 for otherwise all reference to the remission of the quadragesima Galliarum is confined to coins of undoubtedly non-Roman origin. This fact must have an important bearing on any final assessment of this group. 26
In direct contrast, however, to the "isolationist" character of A are the links of both die and idiom between A and other officinae. The most important link is with D, for the two types, ROMA seated and SPQR OB CIV SER in wreath, each have three dies common to both officinae. These two types form the main output of D and it is to this officina that they primarily belong. Diagrams 1 and 4 yield some evidence on how this transference of dies took place. The reverse dies common to both are (with one exception A 36-P 74) all linked to obverse dies of D which include CAES in their legends (the later phase of D); in A, on the other hand, their appearance is early, for all are well removed from the two PM dies with which the output of this officina ends. The absence of PM dies from D argues that it closed earlier than did A; therefore, there seems to be little doubt that when D closed, some of its usable equipment was transferred to A, then newly opened.
With officina B the link is not a die but the work of a single engraver common to both. Among the reverse dies of officina B, P 28 (CONCORD AVG—Plate VIII) is outstanding for its breadth and elegance; at the same time it differs from most other dies of this type in B in showing a short sceptre instead of a long one, in the heavily and regularly fluted folds of the chiton behind the left heel of the deity, and in the elaboration of the legs of the throne. These features reappear on two dies of officina A, P 23 and 80 (PAX AVG [VST]—Plate IV): the same spaciousness, the short sceptre, the fluted folds, and, on P 80, the legs of the throne similarly worked; moreover, the strongly marked triangle between thigh and calf is closely similar in P 23 and 28. The conclusion is that a single engraver was at some stage producing dies for both A and B; the diagrams of die links show that all these dies could be early in their respective officinae and this suggests further (a) that A and B started striking in the same place, and (b) that they probably started about the same time.
The Libertas type provides evidence of an exchange of idiom between A and C. The Libertas type of officina A normally differs from that of the other officinae in two respects: (1) in the use of the adjective AVG (VSTA) instead of PVBLICA, and (2) in the draping of the himation which passes under the left armpit and over the right shoulder, thus enclosing the whole body except left breast and shoulder, instead of being loosely draped in a low fold across the stomach with the end hanging free over the left arm; in A both legend and dress follow closely the model of the Claudian asses. There are, however, two hybrid dies; in A, P 70 (Plate IV) has the AVGVSTA legend typical of A, while the drapery of Libertas is that normally found in B, C, and E. Conversely in C, P 45 (Plate XVI) has the dress of A, but preserves the adjective PVBLICA normal in C. In A, P 70 is early; in C, P 45 is late, since it is linked with an obverse die which includes PM in its legend.
The main features of officina A can now be summarized. It began work when D closed, and took over many of the dies which D had been using, for, in addition to the six dies common to A and D, there are other dies of D type which, as yet, have been found combined with A obverses only (see Diagram 1). In this earliest phase two further influences from the other officinae have been observed, the two Pax dies and the drapery in one of the Libertas dies: in fact in Diagram I nearly all the reverses of the first row show external influences. Yet even in this earliest stage many of the peculiarities of A are already present, the distinctive portraiture of the obverses, the legends LIBERT AVG (P 70, 114) and EX SC OB CIVES SER (P 71) and the elaborate ROMA types (P 24, 36). In the later stages come the R XL dies and the decline of external influences, until, in the eight reverse dies combined with the two PM obverses, there is only one die (P 102—AVGVSTA) which could possibly belong to any other officina.
|21||For a portrait of this type in sculpture see Bellido, Sculpturas Romanas de Espana y Portugal, pl. XIX.|
|22||This leaf is found also on the gold and silver of Vitellius and Vespasian attributed to the mint of Lugdunum, see BMC I, pl. 62, 1 and II, pl. 13, 3.|
|23||Not "frequently" as NC, ser. 4, XIV (1914), p. 127 and BMC I, p. ccv.|
|24||For example on Diagram I, in the third row down, A 28 and 26 have "large" heads and A 31, 134 have "small," the four forming a closely linked group.|
|25||R XL seems never to have been added to an existing die, but always incorporated in a new one.|
|26||See below p. 29.|
Obverse dies: 19
Reverse dies: 30
Die sequences: One large sequence comprises the majority of dies; two unlinked dies are included on the ground of the similar form of obverse legend.
(1) IMP SER GALBA CAE AVG TR P (4 dies)
The abbreviation CAE is found only here and on one die of officina G, (A 120).
(2) IMP SER GALBA CAES AVG TR P (6 dies)
(3) IMP SER GALBA CAESAR AVG TR P (4 dies)
(4) IMP SER GALBA CAES(AR) AVG P(ON) M TR P (5 dies)
Portraiture (Plates VI–VII)
There is much variety, though the head nearly always faces right (except A 22 and 62). The wreath is always present, though on three examples (A 2, 22, 76) it is certainly an oak wreath instead of laurel. Draped busts are less frequent than undraped. Varieties of busts and obverse legends are distributed as follows.
|obv. legend. no.||head r.||head l.||head r., bust dr.|
Reverse types (Plates VII–X)
|Description||No. of dies||Notes|
|1. AVGVSTA Livia seated l.||4||Otherwise only one die in off. A.|
|2. CONCORD AVG S/C. Concordia seated l.||10||Only here with S C l. and r. field; the same type but with S C in ex. is confined to off. C II.|
|3. LIBERTAS PVBLICA stg.||6||Also in off. C, D and E.|
|4. RO/MA stg.||3||Also in off. C I and E (1 die only).|
|5. Victory carrying wreath r.||4||Also in off. A, C, D and E.|
|6. Victory carrying Palladium l.||3||Also in off. A and D.|
The reverses of this officina have few individual features, for all types are shared to some degree with other officinae, while the range of types is closely similar to that of officina C; both lay emphasis on Concordia, Libertas, Roma and Victory. Augusta is the nearest this officina has to a type of its own. Most interesting are the variations between the CONCORD dies of B and C. In B the SC is invariably placed in the left and right fields; the branch nearly always splits CONCORD in two (except P4), and Concordia herself is comfortably relaxed upon a chair of which the back is structurally integrated with its legs. In C the execution is inferior, for Concordia sits stiffly upright upon a chair the structure of which is curiously and consistently misunderstood. Its back is shifted inwards towards the centre, and no longer has any relation to its legs; over it the drapery falls diagonally in defiance of the law of gravity. The word CONCORD is never split by the branch, and SC is always here placed in the exergue. This type of variation is important because it reinforces the evidence of the die sequences, and proves that these sequences exist in their own right and are not due merely to fortuitous gaps in the evidence.
This officina is distinguished by an obverse legend starting SER GALBA and using CAESAR in full. Moreover, for reasons which will be stated below, its output can be divided into two groups which are accordingly treated separately as C I and C II.
Obverse dies: C I 19
Reverse dies: C I 26
Die sequences: The main sequence is provided by C II which includes most of the obverse dies of this type. C I is far less closely linked but has one substantial group as a nucleus. Between C I and C II there is one die-link, though not between the main groups: P 27 (SPQR/O–B/CIVSER), a typical die of C I (as opposed to CIVES SERVATOS in C II), is found combined both with A 94, a draped bust typical of C I, and with A 21, a left-facing bust belonging to the main sequence of C II.
Three reverse dies of C I (P 32, 38, 205) are also combined with obverses of officina E. This is of some interest because the draped busts of C I (which are absent from C II) are very similar to some of the busts of E (compare e.g. A 25 and A 51 on Plate X with A 19 on Plate XXV and A 151 on Plate XXVII). This suggests that at the time of the break which seems to exist between C I and C II (see below) an engraver of obverse dies together with a few reverse dies from C I were transferred to officina E.
For convenience the dies attributed to C I and C II are listed here.
C I: A 24, 25, 34, 44, 51, 52, 53, 66, 69, 70, 83, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 133, 148 (Plates X–XI).
C II: A 5, 11, 12, 21, 32, 37, 38, 58, 59, 60, 61, 71, 72, 84, 97, 98, 99, 130, 149 (Plates XIII–XV).
C I: P 3, 27, 32, 33, 38, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 87, 90, 91, 125, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 197, 205, 211, 222, 224, 225 (Plates XI–XIII).
C II: P6, 7, 8, 15, 26, 37, 45, 76, 81, 82, 88, 100, 109, no, 126, 127, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 212, 223 (Plates XV–XVII).
(1) (C I and C II) SER GALBA IMP CAESAR AVG TR P (31)
(2) (C II only) SER GALBA IMP CAESAR AVG P M (or PO MA or PON MA or PONT MAX) TR P (7)
Cl. All busts but one (A 66) face right, while draped and undraped dies are evenly divided. The drapery on most dies is of an unusual form, found only in this officina and occasionally in E; instead of hanging in a single loop across the neck, it is pinched up on either side into two folds, between which the drapery hangs in a loop. The wreath is always of laurel; the wreath ties often have a distinctive form in which the outer tie curls upwards, while the inner curves across the neck.
C II. In contrast to C I there are here no draped busts, and the heads are divided fairly evenly between left and right. The wreath is again always of laurel, and, though the wreath ties are sometimes of the form characteristic of C I, a number of other variations appear. 27
|Description||No. of dies||Notes|
|C I||(1)LIBERTAS PVBLICA||10||Also in off. B, C II, D and E.|
|(2)RO/MA stg. l.||5||Also in off. B and E (1 die). P 33 was used again by Vespasian. 28|
|(3)SALVS AVGVSTA seated l.||2||Also in off. C II. P 61 was used again by Vespasian. 29|
|(4)SPQR/O-B/CIVSER in wreath||6||Also in off. A and D, but C I dies are distinguished by spacing O–B. P 152 was used again by Vespasian. 30 P 27 used also with A 21 (C II). P 205 used also with A 151 (E).|
|(5) Victory carrying wreath l.||1||Elsewhere Victory always carries Palladium l. This die (P32) is used also with A 152 (E).|
|(6) Victory carrying wreath r.||2||Also in off. A, C II, D and E. One die (P38) is used also with A 33 (E).|
|C II||(1) CONCORD AVG SC||8||Only here with S C in exergue. P 110 was used again by Vitellius. 31|
|(2) EXSC/OB/CIVES/SERVATOS||1||Only here. The form EXSC/OB CIVES/SER is found in off. A.|
|(3) LIBERTAS PVBLICA||6||Also in off. B, C I, D and E.|
|(4) SALVS AVGVSTA||2||Also in off. C I.|
|(5) SPQR/O-B/CIVES/SERVATOS in wreath||3||Only here with CIVES SERVATOS in full. Note spacing O–B derived from C I.|
|(6) Victory carrying wreath r.||5||Also in off. A, C I, D and E.|
The output of officina C has been subdivided into C I and C II despite the use of the same obverse legend (apart from the occasional addition of pontifex maximus in C II). This subdivision is supported by the following observed facts:
Officina C is thus seen to have had two stages. C I was mainly devoted to the two themes libertas publica and Roma: C II, however, while retaining libertas, discontinued Roma and substituted CONCORD AVG (with S C distinctively in the exergue) and Victory carrying wreath. This order of types contrasts with that of officina B, where the standing Roma is a late type, for out of the four obverse dies with which it is there combined, three have legends which include pontifex maximus. Officina C has several usages peculiar to itself, which have been noticed already, but only one type, SALVS AVGVSTA.
|27||For a false die of the type of C II, see Plate XXXVI, A.|
|28||E.g. BMC II, Vesp., no. 776.|
|29||Glendining Cat. 3/12/1929 (Nordheim), no. 110.|
|31||BMC I, pl. 62, 14.|
Obverse dies: 34
Reverse dies: 67
Die sequences: The great majority of the dies form one large sequence; a few smaller sequences and unlinked coins are included on grounds of style, legend and reverse type.
Portraiture (Plates XVII–XX)
Varieties of busts and obverse legends are distributed as follows:
|obv. legend no.||head r. laur. bust dr.||head r. laur.||head r. bare||head r. bust dr.||head l. laur. bust dr.||head l. laur.|
Though there is wide variation, individual varieties are thinly represented except "head right, laureate, bust draped," which claims the great majority of dies. Another feature of this group is that the wreath is often clearly differentiated as an oak-wreath; broadly speaking this accompanies legends beginning IMP, whereas the laurel accompanies those beginning SER. In other officinae the laurel is practically invariable, irrespective of legend. 34
Reverse types (Plates XX–XXV)
|Description||No. of dies||Notes|
|(1)||LIBERTAS PVBLICA||2||Both dies used with same obverse (A 50). Also in off. B, C, and E.|
|(2)||LIBERT AVG||1||A die typical of off. A; this is the only example of an A reverse used with D obverse, though there are several instances of D reverses used with A obverses. But see note in Catalogue of Dies p. 98f.|
|(3)||ROMA seated l. on arms, resting l. arm on shield||21||Mainly found here, though occasionally in off. A and E. Three dies (P 64, 66, 118) are common to off. A.|
|(4)||SPQR/OB/CIVSER in wreath||29||Mainly found here, though also in off. A, with which there are three dies in common (P 74, 84, 130), and in CI. P 31 is used with an obverse of Vitellius. 35|
|(5)||Victory carrying Palladium l.||10||Also in off. A and B.|
|(6)||Victory carrying wreath r.||3||Also in off. A, B, C and E.|
|(7)||Victory standing l. holding wreath.||1||Only here (P 16).|
This officina was one of the most productive, and certainly provides the largest continuous die sequence, yet its range of reverse types is extremely limited, two only (out of seven) being found in any quantity. Furthermore it has the peculiarity of being the only officina which uses an obverse legend that omits the title Caesar. This is evidence that it was the first section of the mint to start issuing aes in Galba's name after the death of Nero. On the other hand, it was closed earlier than the other officinae (except E), for, unlike them, it includes no dies with pontifex maximus. When the title Caesar was adopted, the rest of the titulature was remodelled at this officina by the transference of IMP from the beginning to the middle, where it now immediately preceded CAES. The uniform style of portraiture and the occurrence of ten reverse dies linked to both forms of obverse legend 36 is sufficient proof that we have here, not two officinae, each using different forms of titulature, but two stages in the history of one officina. The last peculiarity is that this officina, as has been noticed above, shared at least six of its reverse dies with officina A; and one reverse die of an officina A type has been observed coupled with an obverse of D. 37 This evidence for transference of dies between officinae A and D will find its place in the subsequent discussion.
|32||See above notes 28—30. For reverse dies of officina G used by Vespasian, see below Chapter III pp. 52ff.|
|33||Is it possible that officina C alone was not situated on the Capitol, or that, if it was, it escaped the conflagration of December 69?|
|34||The only instances of the oak-wreath in other officinae are A 2, 22, 76 in B and A 114 in E; these dies may be the work of engravers of D; compare A 2 with A 45 (D) and A 114 with A 63 (D); see also note 40 below.|
|35||Gnecchi, I Medaglioni Romani III, pl. 142, 11.|
|36||P 18, 48, 50, 51, 68, 74, 95, 99, 152, 157.|
|37||See note in Catalogue of Dies p. 98f.|
24 Reverse dies: 32
Die sequences: This officina has, surprisingly, yielded no die sequences; a glance at the die links of A (Diagram I), a group of comparable size, will show how unusual is this paucity of links. Two lines of explanation are available.
(1) The output of this officina was so large that the portion here recorded is not representative and therefore shows very few links. This is unlikely, because obverses of this type do not seem any more common than those of other officinae, nor is there any reason to suppose that time has dealt especially hardly with this group, so that few only survive. Moreover the life of this officina was short, for it not only has no coins which omit CAES from the obverse legend, but it equally has none which include pontifex maximus.
(2) The alternative is that this officina was differently organized, so that there was little opportunity for obverse dies to be used with more than one reverse. The normal practice here seems to be that dies were kept in pairs, and when a flaw was detected in either die, the pair was destroyed.
In the absence of die links, coins must be attributed to this officina by the distinctive obverse legends.
(1) IMP SER SVLP GALBA CAES AVG TR P (18)
(2) IMP SER SVLPIC GALBA CAES AVG TR P (5)
(3) IMP SER SVLPICIVS GALBA CAESAR AVG (1)
Portraiture (Plates XXV–XXVII)
The head is here always to the right, and the bust always draped. One die (A 114) has an oak wreath in place of the usual laurel. 38 Some portraits are related to the draped busts of C I: compare A 19 (Plate XXV) with A 34 (Plate X), A 151 (Plate XXVII) with A 51 (Plate X).
Reverse types (Plates XXVII–XXIX)
|Description||No. of dies||Notes|
|(1)||LIBERTAS PVBLICA||21||Also in off. B, C and D.|
|(2)||ROMA stg. l.||1||Also in off. B and C I.|
|(3)||ROMA seated on arms and resting l. arm on shield||3||Type characteristic of off. D, but also found in A.|
|(4)||Victory carrying wreath r.||6||Also in off. A, B, C and D. Two dies (P 32, 38) are common to off. C I.|
|(5)||SPQR/O-B/CIVSER in wreath||1||This die (P 205) is typical of C I (note the spacing O–B) where it is found combined with two obverse dies. It is here combined with A 151 which has a portrait of C I style, but legend appropriate to E.|
Libertas is the characteristic reverse type of this officina. All the remaining types are more appropriate elsewhere. The connections with C I are especially close, amounting to three dies in common. The standing Roma die was presumably also obtained from C I; for the seated Roma the most probable source is officina D, which provided similar dies to A (see above p. 15).
The gentile name Sulpicius, the distinguishing mark of the obverse legend of this officina, is found otherwise only in officina G where, however, it is always abbreviated SVLPI.
|38||See note 34 above.|
Five groups of coins (A to E) have now been described in detail. Before passing on to consider the temporal interrelations of these groups, it is necessary to be quite certain they really are independent entities and not merely blocks of coinage that appear to be isolated owing to deficiencies of the evidence. The nucleus of each group (except E) is a long and complex die sequence; between these major groups die links are comparatively rare, the most numerous being the six reverse dies common to A and D. In contrast to this, the main sequence of A is made up of 71 internal links, while D has no less than 94. Such disproportion between external and internal links cannot be accidental, especially when differences of style, obverse legend and, sometimes, range of reverse types follow the same lines of division. Nor should the existence of occasional links between groups be thought a serious difficulty; whatever these groups represent—and that has yet to be determined—considerations of physical proximity or administrative convenience readily explain these few links.
These groups, then, are something more than sequences of die-linked coins isolated from one another only by defects in the evidence. They can be interrelated in three different ways.
(1) They may be arranged vertically, that is as successive stages in the output of a single mint. Different forms of title and varying ranges of reverse types would then represent a series of changes in policy; die-links between groups would be caused by reverse dies used with successive forms of obverse legend; the absence of such links in some cases would have to be attributed to the fragmentary nature of the evidence. Such a view does not really account for the disproportion in quantity between the external and internal die-links of each group.
(2) Alternatively the groups may be arranged horizontally, as the simultaneous output of a number of mints or officinae of a single mint, some of which were in sufficiently close physical proximity for the same dies to be used occasionally in neighbouring workshops.
(3) The third possibility is, that both (1) and (2) may be involved—that some groups may be successive while others are contemporary.
Acceptance of the hypothesis of successive stages is rendered extremely difficult by the behaviour of the obverse legends, which do not lend themselves to any logical scheme of development: B and E begin with IMP, A and C with SER, and D employs both forms. The picture of these variations succeeding each other in a period of little more than four and a half months—and perhaps less—would argue a total absence of control or policy in the mint. But there is one piece of evidence which is decisive for at least three of these groups being contemporary throughout part of their activity. A, B, C, all end with a few dies which include PM in the obverse legend; Galba was elected pontifex maximus between his arrival in Rome, probably in October and the 22 of December. Thus three units are found to have ceased working shortly after Galba was elected pontifex maximus. D and E have no dies that include PM, and therefore ceased production earlier; by analogy they must be two further units, partly contemporary with A, B and C. There were, then, certainly three, and possibly five, units coining simultaneously.
A general picture of the activity of the five officinae A to E can now be attempted, based on the facts disclosed in the previous de- tailed examination. Reference to Diagram 6 (opp. p. 54) will assist in following the argument.
Upon the death of Nero on 9 June a.d. 68 the Senate chose Galba to be his successor; from this date too the way was clear for mints at Rome and elsewhere to start coining in his name. The earliest issues, in precious metal only, gave Galba the title of imperator alone, omitting both Augustus and Caesar. At Rome two types only were employed, a standing figure of VIRTVS and SPQR OB C S in oak wreath, a type now traditionally associated with the beginning of a reign. 39 After a short interval—for this early issue is rare—the news reached Rome that Galba was following the precedent set by his predecessors and had adopted the name Augustus. At this point an officina for aes was opened, for D alone has dies which include Augustus but omit Caesar; the titulature employed, IMP SER GALBA AVG TRP, is obviously derived from the IMP SER GALBA of the first silver. The early date of this section of officina D is further confirmed by the use of the reverse type SPQR OB CIV SER in oak wreath. This and the seated ROMA are the main types of officina D, but, among the reverse dies combined with dies using the present form of obverse legend, wreath dies are twice as numerous as Roma dies. As though to emphasize the importance of this reverse type, the portrait of Galba is frequently crowned with an oak wreath on these early obverses; 40 in the second phase of D (obverse dies with legend SER GALBA IMP CAES AVG) and in all other officinae the laurel is practically invariable. 41 It is evident that Galba—or more probably his supporters, since he was not himself in Rome—took particular care to employ, and publicize the employment of, the traditional forms of accession inherited from the Julio-Claudians.
Further evidence of this policy is the use of the title Caesar which Galba was apparently persuaded to adopt by the deputation of Senators which met him at Narbo. When news of this decision reached Rome, the titulature in use at officina D was emended to read SER GALBA IMP CAES AVG—though why the inclusion of CAES should have involved the displacement of IMP from the beginning to the middle of the legend is not clear. Certainly the addition of CAES to the original legend of D would have produced the same titulature as that to be used in B; perhaps, for some administrative reason, the easiest course was to make the change in D.
At this time the mint expanded considerably, for two further officinae, C I and B, started working. 42 The draped busts which are numerous in both seem to be a feature taken over from D; later they became much less popular. After an interval further changes were made. The oldest officina, D, was closed; this certainly happened before Galba became pontifex maximus (since none of its dies include this in the titulature). How long before is suggested by the fact that a number of its reverse dies were transferred to A which then used up 24 obverse dies before PM was inserted into its obverse legend. The peculiarities of officina A will be examined later. Meanwhile officina C was undergoing what can best be described as reorganization, since it does not seem to amount to total interruption. The engraver of the draped busts of C I was transferred, together with some reverse dies, to the newly opened E, and was replaced in C II by one who engraved his heads facing left. Some time later E closed, for it has no PM dies, while A, B and C all continued working for a short time after Galba became pontifex maximus.
Group A, however, in view of its distinct style and types, demands special treatment. The style has been noticed already; it is in no sense incompetent or "provincial," its idiom is simply different from that of the other groups. Yet in default of clearly marked antecedent or subsequent groups in the same style, little more can be gained at present from this approach.
The die-sequence of A (Diagram 1) shows that this officina in its early stages was in close touch with the other officinae of Rome, drawing particularly on D. Yet its later output diverges so markedly from that of the other officinae that the question must arise whether A, although originally an officina of Rome, did not eventually become a second mint, far removed from the immediate influence of the mint of the capital. The difference is not merely in the range of types, but in matters of practice also. This is revealed most clearly in the Libertas type, in which not only the abbreviation LIBERT 43 and the adjective AVG(VSTA), 44 but also the drapery of Libertas differs from the practice of the other officinae. The seated Pax type (P23, 80), in other officinae always labelled CONCORDIA, the elaborate ROMA dies (P 14, 24, 36), the preference for the formula EX SC OB CIVES SER (once the borrowed dies with SPQR OB CIV SER were used up) are all examples of the individuality of officina A. They seem to indicate a progressive weakening of Roman influence and suggest that perhaps this officina was removed from the city of Rome.
This suggestion receives some support from the formula R XL which is added to some reverse types in officina A only. This remission by Galba of the 2½% customs duty was a reward for the support given him by Gaul and Spain, 45 and, apart from officina A, received numismatic mention on issues of non-Roman origin only. 46 The tax in question, the quadragesima Galliarum, was exacted at all points of entry into Gaul, including the Pyranees frontier with Spain; 47 its remission may be regarded as a practical step towards the much publicized concordia Hispaniarum et Galliarum, 48 but, as such, was of little interest to Rome itself. It may fairly be argued that a coinage which publicized it was intended to circulate mainly in Gaul and Spain. When this coinage, despite early links with other officinae, is found to develope traits foreign to the issues of Rome, there is at least a case for claiming a final location in Gaul or Spain. Of the two, Gaul is the most likely, partly because the remission mainly affected that province, and partly because Gaul had been the most active on Galba's behalf. Lugdunum is unlikely, since it is already the home of officina F with which A shows no stylistic relation; Narbo, probably the headquarters of Galba while in Gaul, is a possible centre. 49
Since this is the first time that any demarcation of officinae has been proposed for any date earlier than the mid-3rd century, the implications of this must be examined. In the 3rd century, there is quantitatively little difference between the output of antoniniani of, say, Gordian III, Philip and Trajan Decius; in other words, the mint and its subdivisions were organizations which carried on—and will probably in time be traced—from reign to reign. In the first century things were very different. Not only was the output uneven in quantity, but it was subject to the most violent fluctuations and even total intermissions for substantial periods. Nero, after producing no aes coinage at all for ten years, then concentrated an immense output into the last four years of his reign; under Galba a large output of sestertii took place for a few months, but practically all work seems to have been stopped well before the end of his reign. The issues of sestertii for Vitellius were small, and virtually none were issued for Vespasian until a.d. 71, when the output for one year was greater than for all the remaining eight years of his reign together. In these circumstances the continuous activity of officinae from reign to reign should not be expected. The organization must have involved a very small technical staff, including both administrative and metallurgical experts, which could be rapidly expanded by signing on casual labour. The actual process of preparing the metal and striking the blanks would be within the capacity of any metal worker. The most specialised job would be the actual sinking of the dies, yet this too is work closely akin to that of gem-engravers, from among whom additional artists could be sought in an emergency. 50 Variations in style, especially noticeable in Vespasian's early sestertii of a.d. 71, suggest that engravers may have produced only a few dies each. The case seems to be different in provincial mints where artists may have been scarcer; the distinctive features of Lugdunum, observable under Nero, Galba, and Vespasian, suggest a more permanent form of em- ployment, and the obverse dies of Galba's officina A show such consistency that they might all be the work of one man. It must have been some such system as this which enabled Galba first to open one officina, then to expand to four, and then, after a few months, to close down all to make way for officina G, which will be the main subject of the next chapter.
The principal characteristic of these officinae is their insularity; each was an essentially self-contained unit, and a plausible hypothesis would be that each was under the control of one moneyer. These officials continued to exist certainly until the 3rd century a.d., but about their duties under the Empire there is no information. 51 On their last appearance on the coinage (in the last decade b.c.) they were operating in boards of four, despite the retention of the title III Vir; 52 in conformity with this, Galba has a maximum of four officinae working at one time, A, B, C II, E (Diagram 6). 53
These officinae used varying forms of the imperial title as their signatures—a rather surprising conclusion in view of the official nature of both coinage and title, but one which a juxtaposition of the forms employed fully justifies: 54
|1 D followed by A||SER GALBA IMP CAES AVG.|
|2 B||IMP SER GALBA||CAE||AVG|
|3 C I and II||SER GALBA IMP CAESAR AVG|
|4 E||IMP SER||SVLP||GALBA||AVG|
|5 G||SER SVLPI GALBA IMP||CAE||AVG|
Internal variation never amounts to confusion between the forms, and in 1 and 3, where confusion was easiest, the distinction between the abbreviated and unabbreviated CAESAR was rigidly adhered to. In epigraphy the degree of variation is much less, for there the form beginning SER GALBA is almost invariable, though SVLP is sometimes inserted and the use of CAESAR is erratic. 55
In the 3rd century the mint seems to have been divided into six officinae, each of which was responsible for a single type. 56 Of such an arrangement in Galba's officinae there is little trace, for E is the only one to be devoted almost wholly to a single theme, Libertas. In the other officinae the picture is confused; some themes, such as Victory and Libertas, play a part throughout; others are confined to one or two officinae; C II possibly copied the Concordia type from B. Altogether there is little sign of control or co-ordination, and it looks as though, in the absence of the emperor, the moneyers may have been left largely to their own devices in selecting types which they hoped would meet with approval, or at least avoid offence. Certainly the range of types is not impressively original. SPQR OB CIV SER in wreath was a routine type, the seated ROMA was copied from Nero, Libertas from Claudius, and neither Concordia nor Victory were new or arresting conceptions. Officina A alone, when removed from Rome, showed some originality. Perhaps it is not surprising to find that these uninspired productions were suppressed soon after the arrival of Galba in Rome; the types used in officina G certainly made up for the lack of originality of their predecessors.
|39||RIC I, Galba, nos. 20 and 26. Outside Rome the "horseman" issues also omitted both Caesar and Augustus, ibid., nos. 74ff. and 108ff.|
|40||Of 15 dies 2 are bareheaded, 9 have oak-wreath (A 13, 14, 36, 40, 45, 64, 65, 101, 141) and 4 have laurel (A 49, 50, 100, 153). Of the later dies of D (SER GALBA etc.) only 2 (A 63, 137) out of 19 have the oak wreath.|
|41||See note 34 above.|
|42||B has fewer obverse dies than the other officinae; this, however, provides no evidence for the length of time for which it was open, which depends on the rate at which the dies were used.|
|43||LIBERT is occasionally found at Rome, but only at a very much later date; RIC III, Commodus, nos. 135, 171, 526.|
|44||The form LIBERTAS AVGVS occurs on asses of officina A, e.g. BMC I, p. 333, no. 142, note; with this cf. C CAES AVGVS F on Lugdunum denarii of Augustus (RIC I, Aug., no. 348).|
|45||Tac., Hist. I, 8; it was soon reimposed by Vespasian (Suet., Vesp. 16).|
|46||At officina F (Lugdunum), see below pp. 33ff.; in Spain RIC I, Galba, nos. 101–103.|
|47||See de Laet, Portorium, pp. 144ff., and esp. pp. 170ff.|
|48||RIC I, p, 183, no. 27; Galba, nos. 1 and 5.|
|49||See BMC I, p. ccx.|
|50||Furtwängler, Antike Gemmen I, pi. XLVIII includes a number of gems showing the closest relationship to coin portraits (especially nos. 31 and 34—38).|
|51||Pink, The Triumviri Monetales and the Structure of the Coinage of the Roman Republic (ANS Num. Studies no. 7, 1952), p. 66.|
|52||RIC I, Aug., nos. 198–218.|
|53||If a reversion to boards of three moneyers is considered more likely, this could be met by the assumption that A, outside Rome, was not the responsibility of the Roman moneyers.|
|54||Officina F (Lugdunum) is omitted since it does not fall within the Roman scheme.|
|55||For a titulature starting IMP see CIL II, 2779, but too fragmentary to supply further details. For SVLP, see CIL III, 8702. Diplomata dated 22 Dec. read SER GALBA IMP CAES AVG (ILS, 1988), and an unofficial inscription dated 15 Oct. has SER GALBA IMP AVG (ILS, 238).|
|56||RIC IV, pl. III, pp. 3ff.|
|1||BMC I, p. ccii; cf. Mattingly, "The Coinage of the Civil Wars of 68–69 a.d.," NC, ser. 4, XIV (1914), p. 127f. Coins of this class are marked "Gallic" in the notes of BMC I.|
|2||BMC I, p. ccv.|
|3||As e.g. ibid., p. cciii and NC, ser. 4, XIV (1914), p. 128 – both unsupported by argument.|
Officinae F and G have nothing in common except that both are to be dated late in the reign and that both have been held to be posthumous, that is, struck by Vespasian in honour of Galba, whose name they bear. The main purpose of this chapter is to re-attribute these issues to the reign of Galba and to fix their relationship to his earlier issues. The first group to be dealt with, officina F, is extremely small, but is of interest because, in part at least, it reflects Galba's last major act, the adoption of Piso on 10 January a.d. 69. The second, officina G, is one of the most dramatic ever to be produced by the mint of Rome.
Sestertii: Obv. dies: 2
Rev. dies: 3
Dupondii and Asses: Obv. dies: 8
Rev. dies: 9
Sestertii and Dupondii
SER GALBA IMP CAESAR AVG P M TR P P P
Asses: (1) SER GALBA IMP CAESAR AVG PON M TR POT
(2) SER GALBA IMP CAESAR AVG P(ON) M TR P P P
Portraiture (Plates XXIX–XXX)
The style is different from anything in the officinae already described. The outstanding features are a broad head on a thick neck, a globe at the point of the bust, and an M-shaped truncation to the neck. These are precisely the features characteristic of the issues of Nero and Vespasian from the mint of Lugdunum. The attribution of Galba's coins to this mint is confirmed by several of the reverse types employed.
Reverse types (Plates XXIX–XXXI)
|Description||No. of dies||Notes|
|1.||XXXX REMISSA Arch.||2.|
|2.||VICTORIAE IMP GALBAE AVG Victory inscribing shield||1||This type with legend VICTORIA PR is otherwise found only on a denarius attributed to Gaul. 1|
|Dupondii and Asses|
|1.||FIDES PVBLICA||2||A type not otherwise found on Galba's coinage. A common Lugdunum type under Vespasian, but not at Rome till Domitian.|
|2.||LIBERTAS PVBLICA||3||On two dies the legend reads inwardly from top right.|
|3.||PAX AVG Pax sacrificing over altar and holding branch and caduceus||1||Here only for Galba. A common type under Vespasian, but at Lugdunum only.|
|4.||ROMA (in ex.) seated l.||3||This is the normal Neronian sestertius type at Rome and Lugdunum. The same type was still in use on sestertii and dupondii at Lugdunum under Vespasian. 2|
On the evidence of both style and reverse types officina F must be placed at Lugdunum, as Mattingly pointed out long ago, 3 but he attributed this activity of Lugdunum to the reign of Vespasian, on the grounds that the mint was closed by Galba as a punishment for the city's opposition to Vindex and loyalty to Nero. But the mint of Lugdunum was an imperial establishment, located there after mature consideration of problems of supply, demand and distribution, and not a privilege conferred upon Lugdunum, which might be rescinded if the city misbehaved. There is no reason for doubting that officina F represents the output of Galba's mint of Lugdunum; the problems are why does this mint alone add the title pater patriae to some of its issues, and why is its output so small.
Pater patriae is otherwise found only on a few rare aurei and denarii, also attributed to Lugdunum. 4 It is never found on coins of Roman origin, 5 not even on the so-called "posthumous" issues of officina G, which, it will be argued below, were actually the last aes issues of the reign from Rome. The suggestion has been made that the title was a posthumous honour—and therefore recorded only on posthumous coins 6 —but, in default of decisive evidence, this is a desperate resort, for there is nothing in the coins themselves to show they were not issued by the man whose head and titles they bear.
There was, in fact, an appropriate occasion for the bestowal of this title when Galba adopted Piso as his son and successor on 10 January a.d. 69; 7 this would have followed the precedent of Augustus who was hailed pater patriae when he introduced his grandson and intended successor, Lucius Caesar, into public life in 2 B.C. 8 The title ought to appear on Galba's coinage; it does so at Lugdunum, but is absent at Rome. A reasonable deduction is that the mint of Rome was closed during the early days of 69, perhaps because of the uncertainty of the political future. The mint of Lugdunum was already operating, since some of its asses omit PP; instructions were despatched from Rome that pater patriae was to be added to the titles. By the time this could be done at Lugdunum, Galba was already dead, but the time this news took to reach Lugdunum was sufficient to allow the issue of a few coins with PP in the obverse legend.
The output of Lugdunum was so small because it started working only very late in Galba's reign. All obverse dies include pontifex maximus, only two (P xvii, xviii) do not include pater patriae, which was added in January 69. It seems likely then that this mint reopened on 1 January 69. Previously its place was taken by officina A, which, as was argued above (p. 28f.), was probably sent from Rome to Gaul. This officina, however, had been closed soon after Galba became pontifex maximus, but the experience of the reigns of Claudius and Nero had shown that a mint was required in Gaul to ensure adequate distribution of aes currency. Lugdunum had barely restarted when its work was stopped by news of Galba's murder; this interruption lasted, so far as aes was concerned, until Vespasian again made Lugdunum a major mint in a.d. 71.
|1||BMC I, Galba, nos. 232ff.|
|2||BMC II, pl. 38, 2 and Ryan 2741.|
|3||H. Mattingly "'Victoria Imperii Romani,' and some Posthumous Issues of Galba," NC, ser. 5, II (1922), pp. 186ff.|
|4||BMC I, Galba, nos. 237 and 241–243. It is worth observing that these portraits are very similar to some of those of officina F, e.g. A xiii and xvi (Plate XXX).|
|5||A struck forgery exists with reverse PP OB CIVES SERVATOS S C in wreath and an obverse of officina C type (Plate XXXVI, A, B). It is condemned by the combinations of the reverse die; see Catalogue of Dies p. 119. References in BMC I, pp. ccxv and 320* should therefore be deleted.|
|6||Mattingly in NC ser. 5, II (1922), p. 190.|
|7||Tac., Hist. I, 14ff.|
|8||RGDA (ed. Gagé), 35. It is possible that the title, though given to Claudius in a.d. 42 was not recorded on the aes coinage until a.d. 50, the year when he adopted Nero (Kraay, "Monnaies du Haut-Empire à Vindonissa," Schweizer Münzblätter III  pp. 53f.).|
Sestertii: Obv. dies: 11
Rev. dies: 16
Dupondii and Asses: 9 Obv. dies: 14
Rev. dies: 20
Die sequences: Practically all coins observed fall into two main sequences, of which the sestertius sequence is remarkably compact and complicated. These sequences prove that one mint only can be involved, and that the proposal to share this issue between Rome and Lugdunum must be rejected. 10
(1) SER SVLPI GALBA IMP CAESAR AVG TR P
(2) SER SVLPI GALBA IMP CAE AVG P M TR P
(3) SER SVLPI GALBA IMP CAESAR AVG P M TR P
Nos. 1 and 3 are common to all denominations; no. 2 is the legend of sestertius die A 120 only.
Portraiture (Plates XXXI–XXXIV, XXXVII)
Sestertii. The portraits are unusually fine and large, and mostly face right. The heads are always laureate, and most have some further adjunct such as aegis, globe or drapery. It is sometimes possible to trace a stylistic connexion between these dies and some of the later dies (those including pontifex maximus) of the other officinae, 11 but on the whole the spirit is new and the execution superior.
Dupondii and Asses. The same general characteristics are found. There are here no heads to the left; the wreath is occasionally omitted, and the aegis does not appear. Probably the same engravers were employed as for the sestertii (cf. A ii with A 123, A iv with A 122, A iii and vi with A 124 and 127).
|Description||No. of dies||Notes|
|Sestertii (Plates XXXII–XXXVII)|
|2.||HISPANIA CLVNIA SVL||2|
|3.||HONOS ET VIRTVS||4||P 185, 195 used by Vitellius.|
|10.||SENATVS PIETATI AVGVSTI||1|
|11.||VICTORIA IMPERI ROMANI||1|
|Dupondii and Asses (Plates XXXIV–XXXVI)|
|6.||3 standards on prows||4||P iv used by Vitellius and Vespasian, P xii used by Vespasian.|
|8.||SECVRITAS P ROMANI||2||P viii used again by Vespasian.|
Among these types the great majority are new to the coinage, but between the sestertii and the Æ 2 there is a great difference in elaboration. The Æ 2 types are nearly all fairly simple and thus capable of easy multiplication for a large coinage. The sestertii, on the other hand, have for the most part extremely elaborate types, obviously conveying some special point. In many cases the precise point intended is obscure, but some comment on these types will serve to bring out the character of this issue, and will form the background for the subsequent discussion of the claim of these issues to be posthumous.
ADLOCVTIO (P 188, 192: Plate XXXII). The type, as here worked out, is something new on the imperial coinage; the previous versions of this theme issued under Gaius and Nero were stiff and formal groupings very different from the realistic composition of Galba's dies. 12 Although only four men and a horse are shown below the rostrum, the impression of a larger crowd is effectively conveyed by the same device as was used on the panels of the Arch of Titus—the multiplication of fasces and standards, not all of which are connected with the figures shown. All details of armour, standards and dress are most carefully rendered. 13
For the identification of this scene there are several possibilities. Mattingly has tentatively identified the scene as the opening of hostilities against Nero, thus setting it in Spain; 14 yet such an occasion would more properly call for a cohortatio rather than an adlocutio. Moreover the only two previous examples of the type, those of Gaius and Nero carry specific reference to the Praetorian cohorts (ADLOC [VT] COH), and the next later example, that of Nerva, even though the direct reference is absent (ADLOCVT AVG) can hardly relate to anyone but the Praetorians, since Nerva never left Rome. There is then some reason to suppose that Galba's type refers to some parade of the Praetorians in Rome. One such parade and address figures prominently in the literary tradition, that at which the adoption of Piso was announced; 15 yet this can hardly be in question here, for all sources represent the adoption as an impromptu decision, taken when news of the revolt of the German legions on 1 January 69 reached Rome. It would have been chronologically impossible for such a reference to have appeared on the coinage; moreover, the type occurs combined with an obverse die (A 121) which omits PM from the legend, and must, therefore, go back to a time soon after the arrival of Galba in Rome. The remaining and most probable alternative is that the occasion was an "accession parade" of the Praetorians soon after Galba's arrival in Rome. 16 Since the accession of Gaius, formal acceptance of a new emperor by the Praetorians was a necessary part of the formalities of accession, and this acceptance no doubt followed upon an adlocutio in which the emperor undertook to preserve intact the privileges of the Guard. In this way Galba's type is the natural successor of the "Praetorian" types of Gaius, Claudius and Nero. 17
HISPANIA CLVNIA SVL. (P 183, 189: Plate XXXII). This type is equally remarkable and even more difficult to interpret. In general it must refer to the circumstances in which news of his accession reached Galba in a moment of despair and indecision at Clunia in Spain. Many details of the type, however, defy full explanation.
On the analogy of the sestertius of Vitellius with legend PAX GER ROM, on which these three characters appear in that order from left to right, 18 the legend HISPANIA CLVNIA SVL should also name three characters, even though two only are shown in the type. Mattingly, taking this view, believes Hispania to be "the odd man out" and that SVL (= Sulpicius) is Galba; the type then "shows Clunia, as representative of Spain, offering the Empire" to Galba. 19 Passing over the oddity of the abbreviation SVL, when SVLP, SVLPI or SVLPIC are the only forms otherwise found on Galba's coinage, the conception that the insignificant city of Clunia was in any sense responsible for the transference of power, 20 or indeed had the empire in its gift, is very strange on a coin issued in Rome, and hardly complimentary to the Senate in view of the initiative taken by that body. Others have taken SVL to be an honorary epithet given to Clunia by Galba 21 though there is no confirmation from inscriptions, nor does this serve to elucidate the relationship between legend and type.
The type itself has unusual features. Alföldi has noted the occurrence, extremely rare at such an early date, of a seated emperor in the presence of a standing deity. 22 He also quotes a number of later examples from medallions on which the emperor is seated with deities or personifications standing in attendance; 23 yet all these show the emperor seated in a magisterial capacity on a sella curulis, and not on a marble throne. Such thrones are very rare on the coinage, and then are occupied by deities, Dionysus and Salus. 24 These parallels, however, serve only to emphasize the peculiarity of the type without explaining it. The results of this inconclusive discussion can be summarized as follows:
HONOS ET VIRTVS (P 182, 184, 185, 195: Plate XXXII). The type is found under Galba, Vitellius, and Vespasian (in a.d. 71 only); two of Galba's four dies of this type were used by Vitellius. It has usually been interpreted as a mere appeal to military deities, equally appropriate to all three emperors at a time when military support counted for much. Yet this triple appearance of deities uncommon on the coinage, coupled with the magnificent reconstruction of their joint temple carried out by Vespasian, 26 suggests something more. The clue seems to lie, as Professor Grant has pointed out independently, in the fact that the tercentenary of the temple of Honos, vowed by Q. Fabius Verrucosus fell at about this time. 27 The premature deaths of Galba and Vitellius allowed Vespasian to complete the celebration.
A further word is necessary on a detail of interpretation. The object beneath the foot of Virtus has been thought to represent a boar's head, referring—on the "posthumous theory"—to the suppression of the Gallic revolt by Vespasian. 28 The object is clearest on P 182 (Plate XXXII) and there looks much more like a musculated cuirass (the skirt perhaps omitted through foreshortening). The figure then becomes identical with the Roma Victrix type of Vespasian; 29 a silver cup from Boscoreale includes a very similar figure with "le pied gauche posé sur un casque derrière lequel on distingue un débris de cuirasse" 30 . On other dies the object is sometimes a helmet but is most often quite indeterminate.
LIBERTAS RESTITVTA, ROMA RESTI (P 191, 193: Plate XXXIII). These two types may be grouped together, for the meaning of both is similar and in each case the legends are derived from the slogans of the recent civil wars. 31 The group in the libertas type (P 191, Plate XXXIII) may be derived from sculpture since an inscription survives referring to a signum libertatis restitutae Ser Galbae imperatoris Aug, 32 The arch of Trajan at Beneventum has a similar group of Trajan raising a kneeling woman. Trajan also has the group as a coin type, with legend ROMA REST and the addition of children in reference to his programme of alimenta. 33 The significance of the child in Galba's Roma type is less clear; at this date the reference cannot be to alimenta nor is the offer of a hostage appropriate. Perhaps the reference is rather to the prosperity which Galba is to confer on future generations by his "restoration" of Rome. In both types the submissive attitude of the deities Roma and Libertas before the emperor is something new and marks a stage on the road from principate to autocracy.
MARS VICTOR (P 199: Plate XXXII). A type used by Vespasian in a.d. 71. Here it need be noticed only that the type differs from the commoner type of Mars Victor used by Vitellius and Vespasian, in which the god is bearded and fully armed; here he is a young beardless man, naked except for helmet and sash.
PIETAS AVGVSTI (P 196: Plate XXXII). The only known specimen is in Paris, a worn, pierced and gilded coin, unique in both its dies. Under these circumstances it cannot remain entirely free from suspicion, especially in view of the peculiarity of certain details of the reverse type. Pietas, draped and veiled, stands facing; her left arm is raised with hand open, her right hand perhaps holds a box from which she may be dropping incense on the altar to her right. 34 The rectangular altar is piled with incense, and has on one side a relief of Aeneas carrying Anchises and leading lulus. Behind the altar, and facing left, hovers what has been interpreted as the head and neck of a bull. 35
Some difficulty has been felt in explaining how this type is to be applied to Galba. 36 Pietas was one of the basic qualities of the prin- ceps, and the exercise of it by Galba towards the Senate is referred to on another type of this issue. The Aeneas group here points to another field in which Galba exercised this quality. Dio describes Nero as the last of the descendants of Aeneas and Augustus, 37 but the names Caesar and Augustus were taken over by Galba, and with these names of the Julian gens the Aeneas group was closely connected. As a coin type it had already been seen on the coinage of Julius Caesar and of Octavian; 38 an altar at Carthage probably dedicated to the gens Augusta has the group sculptured in relief on one of its four sides, 39 and among the pedimental sculptures of the temple of Divus Augustus in Rome were figures of Aeneas with Anchises and lulus, and Romulus. 40 This suggests that the Aeneas group on the altar on Galba's coin is there, not as a stock example of pietas (in which sense the group is not used), but to mark the altar as being dedicated to the gens Augusta. 41 Galba had been adopted into—or rather had himself adopted into—the Julian gens, and Dio records a concrete example of the pietas of Galba towards his new ancestors, the burial in the Mausoleum of Augustus of those members of the family who had been murdered, and the re-erection of their statues. 42 The mysterious "bull" remains unexplained, but the remarkable aptness of the type goes far, in the absence of further specimens, to vindicate the authenticity of this single survivor.
SENATVS PIETATI AVGVSTI (P 187: Plate XXXIII). This type is important because there is again a related type of Vespasian reading CONCORDIA SENATVI; both show an identical group of the Senate, represented as an elderly togate man, crowning a cui-rassed emperor, who carries a Victory: both figures carry olive (?) branches. The posthumous theory has given an ingenious explanation to this type of Galba. 43 It claims that there was no obvious reason to celebrate the pietas of Galba, but that, if these coins were issued by Vespasian, they were surely a signal example of the pietas of Vespasian towards his predecessor, Galba, and that it was this that the Senate was honouring. The great objection to this interpretation is that the AVGVSTI of the reverse will refer to Vespasian, while the AVG on the obverse refers to Galba. This would be an unparalleled and confusing usage, hardly less so to contemporaries than to us. Yet on general grounds there was good reason to honour the pietas of Galba; his behaviour towards his adopted Julio-Claudian ancestors has already been noticed and towards the Senate his attitude had been exemplary. For, when hailed imperator by his troops in Spain, he had rejected unconstitutional methods and declared himself merely legatus SPQR, thus putting himself at the disposal of the Senate. It is this respectful attitude towards itself that the Senate is represented as honouring. 44 Galba had shown pietas and the type is therefore appropriate to him. The similarity between this type and that of Vespasian with legend CONCORDIA SENATVI (BMC II pi. 20, 3) need not imply that they were produced side by side.
VICTORIA IMPERI ROMANI (P 194: Plate XXXIII). The "posthumous" theory has made much of this type of Victory advancing left, holding wreath and palm. It survives, so far as is known, only on a single very badly preserved specimen in Paris, which, though the legend has perhaps been retouched, seems authentic. To the posthumous theory, this type is a final declaration by Vespasian that the imperium Romanum had triumphed over the imperium Galliarum of the followers of Civilis; Galba is associated in this triumph because, whereas "the Vitellian faction in Gaul had in fact betrayed the Empire" by surrendering to Civilis' rebels, "South Gaul—the Galban faction—had stood like a rock for Rome." 45 This may be true, but it still does not necessarily follow that this situation is referred to by the coin type; the probability is lessened if the type was not, as was originally supposed, struck at Lugdunum, but at Rome; the external die links (to be listed below) prove that the issue was minted at Rome, and the complex internal pattern of links forbids the segregation of any portion for issue elsewhere. If indeed this type was produced by Vespasian in Galba's name, it is surprising that it does not appear among Vespasian's own types, for the victory was his, and Galba's only by courtesy.
Perhaps VICTORIA IMPERI ROMANI has been overworked. The figure of Victory, without legend, is common on the sestertii of Galba, and even appears on the smaller denominations of officina G. Here for once we are given the name of the usually nameless Victory; it is a name less common than Victoria Augusti, but is not unorthodox or without parallel. 46 Victoria Imperi Romani does not refer to an actual victory in war, but rather to the power of conquering inherent in the Empire, whether being exercised at the time or not. It may well be that the appearance of this legend at this time was prompted by the news of nascent nationalist movements in Gaul. 47
The two remaining sestertius types, ROMA (P190: Plate XXXIII) and Aesculapius (P186: Plate XXXIII) require little comment. ROMA is unusual only in the combination of spear and Palladium which she holds; the Aesculapius gives the impression of an Antonine medallion rather than a 1st century coin type, but the reason for its appearance is unknown. 48 The preceding commentary has shown the remarkable nature of this series of sestertii. Almost every type embodies some innovation in content or idiom, and the series may justly be termed medallic.
The smaller denominations, mostly asses, are far less elaborate, although most of the types are new for Galba (Plate XXXIV to XXXV). Aequitas here makes the first of her many appearances on the imperial coinage, and PAXS AVGVSTI, with its unusual spelling, seems to be a special type. Most interesting, however, is the type of three standards mounted on prows, for this had already appeared on Galba's coinage, where it is a not uncommon type in officina A, and was used also by Vitellius and Vespasian.
The precise significance of these standards is not easy to determine; the prows have not unreasonably suggested naval success, yet Galba and Vitellius had none to their credit, and the best Vespasian could claim was a victory over the Jews on the Lake of Gennesaret. Another possibility is provided by one of the legionary denarii of M. Antony, which shows standards of a similar pattern mounted on prows accompanied by the legend CHORTIS SPECVLATORVM. 49 Although this unit survived under the early empire as a part of the Praetorian Guard, 50 and indeed played a leading role in the murder of Galba and the transference of power to Otho, 51 it is hard to believe that the standards of so small a unit should figure so prominently on the imperial coinage rather than those of the Praetorians whose loyalty was far more important. The detail in which the standards are portrayed does suggest that they are some particular standards and not merely symbolic. Moreover the fact that on some dies (e.g. Pxxviii: Plate XXXIV) the poles of the standards pass right through the prows shows that these are decorations on the standards and not the bases on which the standards were mounted. On well preserved examples of P iii 52 a capricorn can be detected on the side of the right prow and a victory with wreath on the side of the left, again suggesting the standards of a specific unit. The legions I and II Adjutrix, formed respectively by Galba and Vespasian, are obvious possibilities, especially as the prows would then refer to the fact that they were recruited from the fleet. 53 If this be so, the prows must have been removed from their standards after a time since later monuments of these legions do not show this feature. 54
The chronological position of officina G must now be fixed. Prima facie the issue is Galba's, whose portrait the coins carry, but an attractive and forcefully argued theory has, for reasons which will be examined, claimed that the issue is in fact posthumous and is to be attributed to Vespasian's pietas towards his predecessor. 55 This bold view has been widely accepted, but, where the coins themselves carry no indication that they were issued posthumously, exceptionally strong proof that they were not issued by the man whose head they bear is required. In fact the evidence does not demand the posthumous theory and the coins fall naturally into place as the final—unexpectedly curtailed—issue of Galba's reign.
Briefly the arguments for the posthumous theory are (i) that the Flavians indisputably restored Galba's honours, 56 (2) that the "posthumous" coinage shows no connexion with the rest of Galba's coinage, and (3) that the "posthumous" coinage does show close connexions with types issued by Vespasian.
Of these arguments 1 and 2 alone cannot be conclusive; restored honours need not, usually did not, include coinage, nor is there any reason why a specialised medallic coinage, as this appears in part to be, should show connexion with the everyday issues which preceded it. The onus clearly rests on 3. The use by Vespasian of similar types is not sufficient to prove the posthumous theory, for Galba's types were sufficiently remarkable to provoke imitation, whenever they were produced. What is required is clear proof of the closest connexion not only in content but also in the physical processes of production. It will be argued in the following paragraphs that no such close connexion exists; first the evidence of titulature will be examined, then the degree of connexion existing between officina G and Galba's other officinae, and finally the connexion between officina G and Vespasian's coinage under two headings, (a) similarity of types and (b) the evidence of die-links.
The form of titulature used by officina G contains two points of interest; it omits PP, and usually includes PM. The only aes coins which include PP are those of officina F (Lugdunum); these too have been thought to be posthumous, but if both groups are posthumous it is remarkable that their titulatures should not agree in this respect. But though such a variation in widely separated mints, operating posthumously, might be overlooked, a similar variation within such a closely knit group as officina G is most unlikely; yet, though the majority of obverse dies include PM, a few omit this title. If this issue is posthumous such a variation is not readily understandable, for the titulature would no longer be subject to change. Nor can it be fairly argued that to contemporaries the office of pontifex maximus was of small importance on the grounds that it was not a constitutional power. On sestertii of Nero its inclusion is very nearly invariable; 57 Vitellius always included it on his Roman aes, and under Vespasian it is invariably present on all the hundreds of dies produced for sestertii during a.d. 71. From contemporary practice, then, it may be taken as certain that the office of pontifex maximus was highly regarded and normally recorded on sestertii. In view of the insecure position of Galba, who needed every scrap of prestige he could muster, the omission of PM cannot be due to indifference; the obvious explanation is that, when these dies were engraved, Galba had not yet been elected. This evidence enables these issues to be placed fairly accurately; they are complementary to the main issues, in that, while the main issues only rarely include PM, in officina G it is rarely omitted. It was precisely at the time of the inclusion of PM that officinae were being closed, to make way for this new and conspicuous, but, as it turned out, shortlived issue.
The claim of the posthumous theory that officina G has little connexion with Galba's other officinae is substantially true, though it does not go far towards proving the Vespasianic date. A few points will, however, show that the separation is not quite absolute.
1. There exists an Æ 2 reverse die AEQVITAS, P xiii, (Plate XXXIV) which is found combined both with an obverse of the type of officina B (A xii) 58 and with one of officina G (A viii—without PM). P xiii was in all probability engraved originally for officina G and not B; for Aequitas does not otherwise occur as a type in officinae A to E, whereas she does appear again in slightly different form in G, while the unusual profile view of the female figure on P xiii is repeated exactly on the HISPANIA CLVNIA SVL sestertii. This being so, the posthumous theory must say that an obverse die of officina B survived until a.d. 71 when it became inadvertently involved in the production of the posthumous issue. This is undoubtedly possible, since reverse dies certainly survived, 59 but it is far more economical to suppose that B and G overlapped in time as the evidence of PM in the obverse legends shows they did. 60
2. Münzhandlung Basel Cat. 8, no. 594 illustrates a sestertius of which the obverse is A 41 of officina D and the reverse P 188 of G. At Oxford there are three cast specimens of this combination. The Basel coin, which cannot now be traced, is probably also false, despite its convincing appearance in photograph. A similar combination is found with A 55 (also of D) and P 188; specimens noted have always proved false. These forgeries are mentioned because there are four reasons for thinking that they may be derived from genuine examples of these die combinations.
A forger working at random to produce a rare combination of dies is unlikely by chance to have picked a combination which would conform to points 2, 3 and 4.
Among minor points of connexion between G and the other officinae are the two types, standards on prows and Victory holding wreath, although no common dies have been observed. Moreover the new form of titulature employed in G continued the practice of giving each officina a distinctive obverse legend. If officina G represented in any sense a "restoration" of Galba's coinage by Vespasian, a form of titulature already used by Galba might have been expected. Among Titus' restorations of Galba the PAXS AVGVSTI type was included, though with an inappropriate obverse legend. 61 Titus, only ten years after Galba's death, presumably supposed he was restoring a type of Galba rather than restoring a restoration by Vespasian.
Admittedly at best the connexions between officina G and the other officinae are slender. Such as they are, they are more easily explained by a close temporal succession than by a gap of two years. If the general line of explanation followed here is correct, the whole point of officina G is that it was intended to replace and improve upon the other officinae. In such a case only the slenderest relationship with previous issues is to be expected.
The posthumous theory's claim that the types of officina G are closely related to the types of Vespasian can best be illustrated by a table showing the incidence of certain types under Galba, Vitellius and Vespasian.
|Galba (officina G)||Vitellius||Vespasian|
|HONOS ET VIRTVS||X||X|
|SENATVS PIETATI AVGVSTI||–||CONCORDIA SENATVI|
|Dupondii and Asses|
|Standards on prows||X||X|
|SECVRITAS P ROMANI||X||X|
The above table shows that the majority of these types are common to Vitellius as well as to Galba and Vespasian. Therefore the effect of transposing officina G to the reign of Vespasian will be that Vitellius must be credited with the first use of them at this time: though most of the ideas involved were not new, the forms in which they were expressed were, for the most part, either new to the coinage, or at least were being revived after a long intermission. There is no reason why Vitellius or his advisers should not have shown initiative in this matter; what is odd is that Vespasian, who was in no hurry (since his main aes issues do not begin until late a.d. 70) and was therefore not compelled to make use of types already in production, should use many Vitellian types to commemorate Galba, rather than reviving some of Galba's own. A far simpler hypothesis is to suppose that the types were originated by Galba, and then were successively revived by the two emperors who claimed to be his avengers. 62
The posthumous theory has argued that certain types gain immensely in significance if struck under Vespasian: that the pietas types can refer only to the pietas shown by Vespasian in restoring Galba's honors and coinage, that Victoria Imperi Romani can mean only the final extinction of civil war and re-establishment of peace by Vespasian. These interpretations have been contested in the paragraphs already devoted to these types. The remaining similarities of type lend little support to the posthumous theory. The repetition of Honos et Virtus was due to special circumstances in the history of the cult. Of Libertas restituta there was a single die in use under Vespasian; 63 this may well have been originally made for officina G, but never used owing to Galba's premature death. 64 With the SENATVS PIETATI AVGVSTI type the case is similar; under Vespasian, the type is used again (engraved by the same artist), with the legend changed to CONCORDIA SENATVI, but there is no need to suppose that the two versions were contemporary. Finally there are five routine Æ 2 types which are common to all three emperors; in this phenomenon there is nothing that demands that Vespasian's and Galba's issues should have been made simultaneously. Similarity of types does not strengthen the posthumous case; these resemblances and repetitions are evidence of the profound effect the originality of officina G had upon contemporaries.
The last section of evidence to be presented and evaluated is that of the die-links between different reigns. Here it may be recalled that the onus of proving the posthumous theory was said above to fall upon the closeness of the physical connexion that could be found to exist between this group and the issues of Vespasian. It cannot be denied that there are some close resemblances between types in the two issues, but these extend usually to Vitellius as well, and the posthumous theory is not the only, or the most probable explanation of them. What help can the die links be expected to give? In a period of frequent changes of ruler, occasional suitable reverse dies might, as a matter of convenience, be carried over from one reign to another; the continued use of some Galban dies under Vespasian has already been noticed, 65 and similar examples of continuity are found also between Vitellius and Vespasian. If however the coins of officina G were minted side by side with issues of Vespasian, links might be expected wherever possible, in view of the rarity of most of these types and the small number of dies used. If then there are found to be links with coins of Vespasian in a high proportion of the possible cases, this would be decisive evidence in favour of the posthumous theory; if however the links are sporadic, amounting to no more than a convenient "carry-over," then the probability of the posthumous theory will be reduced.
The die-links themselves can now be enumerated and discussed by types.
Galba has four sestertius dies of this type (P 182, 184, 185, 195), of which two (P 185, 195: Plate XXXV) were still being used by Vitellius' moneyers. 66 Vespasian used this type in a.d. 71 only; altogether he had five dies of this type, none of which had been used previously by Galba or Vitellius.
|65||See above p. 20f.|
|66||P 185: a. in trade Seaby 1949 ex Ratto (Lugano), 8 Feb. 1928, no. 2236 (Plate XXXV, B); b. Ryan 2326. P 195 (reading TE for ET): a. Paris 1181 (Plate XXXV, A b. Oxford, ex Hall 1148 (with TE altered to ET in modern times).|
This is a fairly common as type in officina A, for which at least six dies were used. None of these, however, were used in officina G, which has four dies of its own (P iii, iv, xii and xxviii). P iv was used again by Vitellius (apparently the only die of this type which he used) and later still by Vespasian (Pl. XXXVI); 68 the style of the obverse of Vespasian's coin recalls certain sestertius dies that were in use in the middle period of a.d. 71. P xii is likewise used by Vespasian on an as which, exceptionally, reads VESPASIANVS in full and has a draped bust (Plate XXXVI, 3), features which, on the evidence of sestertius dies, belong to the early months of a.d. 71. Two other dies of this type have been noted as used by Vespasian alone. 69
Galba has two dies (P viii and xiv) both used for dupondii; neither is used by Vitellius. 70 P viii, however, was used by Vespasian for an as with obverse dated PM COS II D III (i.e. late a.d. 70) 71 and later for a dupondius dated a.d. 71 (Pl. XXXVI). 72
These die-links do not yield decisive evidence in favour of the posthumous theory; in the cases of Honos et Virtus and Paxs Augusti the links are Galba/Vitellius or Vitellius/Vespasian and not Galba/ Vespasian, which parallel production would be expected to produce. Galba/Vespasian links are, however, provided by two types, three standards on prows and Securitas; yet even these are not wholly favorable to the posthumous theory. In the case of the three standards one link is with a coin dated early a.d. 71, the other with one dated about May or June; Securitas gives one link in November or December a.d. 70, and a second probably again in May or June a.d. 71. These links cover a minimum of five months, which is far too long a period for the issue of the Galban coins; their close pattern of die-links and restricted number of dies imply a period of weeks rather than months. The conclusion must be drawn that not even all the Galba/Vespasian links can be due to the contemporary striking of the two series.
Exactly when, in the early years of Vespasian's reign, are coins in Galba's honour likely to have been issued? Two of the links point to the end of a.d. 70 and the very beginning of a.d. 71, which is politically the most likely time, for it was in a.d. 70—though before Vespasian's return to Rome—that Galba's honours were restored, and it was at this time that Vespasian had the greatest need of winning adherents from other factions. Yet the production of this substantial issue in Galba's name is unlikely at a time when Vespasian had hardly begun an aes issue of his own. 73 Two other links suggest a date towards the middle of a.d. 71, yet politically this is a most unlikely time, for the Flavian dynasty was then secure, and a prolific coinage was celebrating the Flavian achievements, reaching a climax at the time of the Jewish triumph in the middle of the year. In short, the die-links between Galba and Vespasian are best attributed to chance survivals of useful dies: they tell against the posthumous theory, in that they fail to support it at a point where they might be expected to do so. Once again the conclusion emerges that there is no place in a.d. 70 or 71 for a posthumous issue in honor of Galba.
If, then, these issues are really Galba's, their relation to the main body of his coinage must be determined. That they largely follow the main body is proved by the predominance of dies that include pontifex maximus, yet they also show little connexion with previous issues, the production of which was stopped at this time.
Most of Galba's main issue was struck at Rome in his absence, between the date of his acceptance of the title Augustus in Gaul and the date of his arrival in Rome; the rest of his main issue fell between his arrival and a date shortly after his election as pontifex maximus (certainly before 22 December). The volume of the main issue should not be overestimated, for many of the varieties are extremely rare, or even confined to one die. Vespasian in 9 months of a.d. 71 used at least 260 obverse dies for sestertii, about one a day. Galba has about 130 in his main series, from which should be deducted the 26 of officina A as not being an integral part of the mint of Rome. On Vespasian's rate, these 104 dies will represent about 4 months working; the time available for the main issues is almost certainly longer than this. 74 Galba in Gaul can have had little direct control over the production of these coins; the portraits would be second or third hand likenesses; the principal types were uninspired. On his arrival in Rome, Galba seems to have determined to enliven the coinage; new artists were engaged, or at least new portraits were commissioned, and a new officina opened, while the existing ones were closed down by degrees. The resulting sestertii were elaborate and "medallic" in character, laying great stress upon the person and activities of Galba; the smaller denominations, on the contrary, have a much more modest character, and cannot claim to be regarded as anything but a coinage for everyday use. The scarcity of these coins is due to the sudden ending of the reign, which left a number of dies in good enough condition to be worth preserving and using in the future.
|67||Vitellius: a. Paris, Armand-Valton 863; b. Paris 5030a; c. Hall 1151 (much tooled). Vespasian: a. BMC II, no. 590, pl. 23, 4 (note how the die is filling up, the S of PAXS having disappeared and the C of SC making only a faint impression); b. Munich.|
|68||Vitellius: a. BM., not catalogued, ex Vierordt 973 (Plate XXXVI, 1); Vespasian: a. Paris 5140; b. Lawrence (Plate XXXVI, 2).|
|69||BMC II, no. 613 and Naville XVII, 1319. A minor point may be noted here; in officina A the eagle on the centre standard invariably faces left; on two of the "posthumous" dies it faces right, (P xii, xxviii face left) while on the two dies here noted as confined to Vespasian it faces left again. If "posthumous" Galba and Vespasian were contemporary, this variation would be odd.|
|70||BM., not catalogued, ex Naville VIII (Bement), 700 is this type, but a die of very different style.|
|71||Kraay (Oxford), ex Ryan 2743, ex Vierordt 1023.|
|72||Cambridge (Fitzwilliam Museum), see Plate XXXVI, 4.|
|73||Very few aes coins were issued for Vespasian during a.d. 70 and most of these fall late in the year. Issues of sestertii in a.d. 71 begin on a considerable scale early in the year and rise to a peak towards the middle. Issues of smaller denominations seem not to have started on a large scale until perhaps April or May.|
|74||Figures concerning Vespasian are derived from the author's own study of his coinage which he hopes to publish subsequently.|
|9||The same dies were used for both denominations; dupondii are very uncommon.|
|10||BMC I, p. ccxv.|
|11||E.g. A 123 (Plate XXXI) and A 71 (Plate XIV).|
|12||The enlargement (Plate XXXVII) is of the remarkably preserved specimen formerly in the Martinetti and Pierpont Morgan collections.|
|13||On P 192 the shield of the foremost soldier is ornamented with a boss in the form of a human head—or is it a real human head fixed on the boss, perhaps Nymphidius Sabinus?|
|14||BMC I, p. ccxvi; cf. NC, ser. 5, II (1922), p. 195.|
|15||Tac., Hist. I, 17f.; Suet., Galba, XVIIf.|
|16||In this case the second figure on the rostrum would presumably be the praetorian prefect, Cornelius Laco.|
|17||It is interesting to see that, despite the fact that 2nd cent, adlocutio types reverted to the stiff groupings of the early 1st cent., a medallion of Caracalla copied Galba's type with care, except that a third figure was crowded on to the rostrum, since at that time there were two Augusti (Toynbee, Roman Medallions (New York, The American Numismatic Society, 1944), pl. XLIV, 3; Gnecchi, I Medaglioni Romani II, pl. 95, 2.|
|18||BMC I, p. 377.|
|19||Ibid., p. ccxvi.|
|20||Clunia had produced some timely oracles, Suet., Galba IX.|
|21||PW, s.v. Clunia.|
|22||RM XLIX, p. 43.|
|23||Ibid., p. 43f. and notes.|
|24||Gnecchi, I Medaglioni Romani II, pl. 62, 3 and 67, 4; on the latter see Toynbee, Roman Medallions, p. 222. For a similar group in sculpture, see the fourth slab of the Phaidros bema from the theatre of Dionysus at Athens dating from the 2nd half of the 2nd cent. a.d. (Herbig, Das Dionysos-Theater in Athen II, pp. 40ff.).|
|25||This is not the normal contemporary personification of Hispania, who usually carries round shield, spear and corn ears. The unusual profile figure is clearly from the same hand as the Aequitas of P xiii (Plate XXXIV).|
|26||Pliny, NH XXXV, 10, 37f.|
|27||RAI, p. 87 n. 3. Grant also points out that Antoninus Pius seems to use the type of Honos on the 350th anniversary of the foundation (p. 105).|
|28||BMC I, p. ccxvi and p. 357, no. 255.|
|29||BMC II, pl. 22, 2.|
|30||Mon. Piot. V, p. 136 where M. de Villefosse identifies with Roma. This seems preferable to Rostovtzeff's Virtus (The Social and Economic History of Roman Empire [Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1926], p. 76) since the accompanying figure with short robe and patera is much more like a genius (M. de Villefosse) than Honos (Rosto vtzeff).|
|31||RIC I, p. 182, no. 9 and p. 184, no. 4.|
|33||RIC II, Trajan 474.|
|34||For the general attitude of Pietas cf. the common 2nd cent, type, e.g. BMC IV, pl. 76, 9.|
|35||BMC I, p. 358‡.|
|36||BMC I, p. ccxvi; cf. NC, ser. 5, II (1922), p. 196.|
|37||LXIII, 29, 3.|
|38||BMC (Rep) III, pl. LVII, 8 and CX, 20.|
|39||CAH, Plates IV, p. 134.|
|40||Sestertius of Gaius, BMC I, pl. 29, 14; cf. Gagé, MAH 47 (1930), p. 145f.|
|41||CAH, loc. cit.|
|42||LXIII, 3, 4c. The story which made Iulus the first pontifex maximus (cf. L. R. Taylor, Divinity of the Roman Emperor [Middletown, Conn.: The American Philological Association, 1931], p. 59) may be relevant here, since Galba had recently been elected.|
|43||NC, ser. 5, II (1922), p. 196.|
|44||Prof. Grant doubts in a letter to me whether pietas can be used in this way, but it can certainly be exercised towards one's patria, and in these circumstances the Senate is the representative of the whole populus Romanus.|
|45||NC, ser. 5, II (1922), pp. 193ff.|
|46||CIL III, 1061, pro Salute imperii Romani. Just as Securitas (and other personifications) become at this time populi Romani instead of Augusti, so Victoria, a result of the exercise of imperium, becomes Victoria Imperi Romani.|
|47||Cf. Tac., Hist. IV, 54 (ad fin.) dated very shortly after this.|
|48||Cf. Gnecchi, I Medaglioni Romani II, pi. 65, 6. A similar type appears under the Severi (BMC V, pl. 51, 7; 42, 2; 50, 7).|
|49||BMC (Rep) III, pl. CXVI, 3.|
|50||On the duties of speculatores see Suet., Gaius, XLIV, 2 and Claudius, XXV; on their status see Durry, Les Cohortes Prètoriennes, p. 108f. and Passerini, Le Coorti Pretorie, p. 70f.|
|51||Tac., Hist. I, 25, 27, 31, 35; II, 11; Suet., Galba , XVIII.|
|52||Münzhandlung Basel 1, no. 313.|
|53||On these legions see Parker, The Roman Legions, p. 100. The capricorn is actually found on the standards of I Adjutrix (op. cit., p. 102 and 105). Vitellius has no special connexion with these two legions and the only die of this type employed on his coinage is a "carry-over" from Galba.|
|54||E.g. on Trajans Column, see C. Renel, Les Enseignes, p. 265.|
|55||NC, ser. 5, II (1922), pp. 186ff.; cf. BMC I, pp. ccxiiff. and II, p. lviii.|
|56||Tac., Hist. Ill, 7; IV, 20.|
|57||The only exception is a single die upon which Nero's character as imperator is particularly stressed (BMC I, pi. 41, 1).|
|58||See Catalogue no. 403; this confirms Cohen 8 as against BMC I, p. 360, note 1.|
|59||Above p. 20f.|
|60||A further connexion between B and G is the abbreviation CAE found only on 4 dies of B and on A 120 of G.|
|61||RIC II, Titus no. 249.|
|62||For Vitellius as avenger of Galba see Tac., Hist. II, 55; for the Flavians see note 56 above.|
|63||BMC II, pl. 21, 1.|
|64||Vespasian's die has S C left and right, whereas that used in officina G has S C in exergue. These two dies may be a pair like the two adlocutio dies which are distinguished in the same way (cf. Concordia types in officinae B and C).|
Having reviewed the operations of each officina in some detail, something must now be said about the whole body of reverse types used in officinae A–E; those of G have been sufficiently discussed already.
The accompanying table shows how the reverse dies are distributed through the officinae by types. Dies used in more than one officina are counted under the parent officina only; variants of themes have been placed next to each other, in order to give in the last column the total representation of each theme.
|A||B||C I||C II||D||E|
|SPQR ob c s in wreath||2||–||6||3||29||–||40||45|
|Ex SC ob c s in wreath||4||–||–||1||–||–||5|
|Victory with wreath||2||4||3||5||4||4||22||41|
|Victory with Palladium||6||3||–||–||10||–||19|
From these figures it can be calculated that an average batch of a hundred sestertii would be made up as follows:
|Corona civica||20 coins|
|Concordia (Pax)||10 coins|
The prominence of Libertas is not surprising, for the various movements which brought Galba to power all proclaimed as their objects the overthrow of Nero's tyranny and the restoration of liberty. That the Libertas type made its mark and came to be regarded as typical of Galba's issues, is perhaps shown by the fact that it was one of the only two reverse types of Galba to be restored by Titus, and the only one to be restored by Trajan. The corona civica and its inscription, SPQR ob cives servatos, had by now become a regular accession type recording the award of such a corona among the accession honours, but the large numbers in which it was now minted laid special emphasis upon it. Galba came of a family which had no blood-relation-ship with his Julio-Claudian predecessors in power; the use of the corona civica type was an element of that publicity which was designed to minimize the gulf between him and his predecessors and to represent him as the legitimate heir of all their powers. And there was a further meaning, for the lives of citizens were saved not only by accession without bloodshed, but also by the merciful use of the power which accession conferred. In many quarters Galba had met with opposition or with only lukewarm support, and the declaration that dementia remained an imperial virtue, and that gregatim ac publice servare was still the emperor's aim, was certainly politic.
Roma and Victory were types appropriate at almost any time, and were taken over from Nero's coinage with only minor changes. Perhaps the recent trouble in Gaul—and the fear of its recurrence—dictated this re-assertion of the unity and power of the Roman Empire. Concordia-Pax (the type is the same with both legends) contains both a statement of fact, that the empire was, at least outwardly, united behind Galba, and an appeal that this should continue in the future. Salus, also inherited from Nero, no doubt alludes to the sound state of the empire and perhaps also to the absence of conspiracy against the emperor.
The remaining type, Augusta, has some puzzling features. It can portray only Li via who had been an early patroness of Galba. No doubt this is part reason for the appearence of the type, but Livia had now been dead for forty years, and surely the evocation of Divus Augustus would have been more potent. Another curious feature is the omission of the title Diva, which is given to Livia on Galba's gold and silver coinage. This omission may be connected with the torch which on sestertii Livia usually holds. Two torches form the reverse type of aurei and denarii issued by Claudius in honour of Antonia, with the legend sacerdos Divi Augusti, in which office Antonia succeeded Livia. Now, if the torch on Galba's sestertii was intended to identify Livia as sacerdos Divi Augusti, then the omission of Diva would be understandable, for it would have been hardly possible to describe her as Diva Augusta Divi Augusti sacerdos. The occasion of this small issue might have been the fortieth anniversary of her death in a.d. 29, coupled with Galba's personal feeling of gratitude towards her.
In conclusion it is worth asking whether the subdivisions of the mint that exist under Galba can be traced either before or after his reign. In view of the circumstances of his accession, neither he nor his advisers are likely to have had the need, or indeed the opportunity, to re-organize the mint. So far as is known, the mint was producing aes for Nero up to the end of his reign, and the system then existing presumably went back to the beginning of his aes issues in a.d. 64. His coinage is complex and some of its variations are comparable to those of Galba; the portrait may face right or left, the gentile name Claudius—sometimes present, sometimes absent—behaves very much as does Sulpicius, and imperator occupies several positions in the legend as on the coins of Galba. In addition, Germanicus and tribunicia potestate provide further variety in abbreviation. In these respects the aes coinages of Nero and Galba alike stand in clear contrast to that of Claudius, the direction of whose portrait and the form of whose legends are remarkably constant. Pending more detailed study of the coinage of Nero, the available evidence makes it likely that the system of subdividing the mint into self-contained officinae was initiated in a.d. 64, after production had been interrupted for ten years, and that it was taken over by Galba from Nero essentially unchanged.
The minting of aes, again interrupted under Otho, was resumed by Vitellius, but, despite a longer reign than Galba's, the output of aes was very much less; a unit no larger than Galba's officina G would appear to have sufficed. After the death of Vitellius there was a gap of a whole year before the mint again produced a major aes issue. In this there is no trace of subdivision by officinae; the dielinks of the sestertii of Vespasian of a.d. 71 form one unbroken sequence, and the few variations in legend are successive instead of contemporary. During a.d. 70 the aes mint seems to have been reorganized once again.
So far as can at present be seen, the elaborate, but perhaps uneconomical, organization of the mint into independent officinae was of short duration. It cannot be positively asserted that no such organization existed under the predecessors of Nero, but only that, if it did, the means of differentiating the work of each officina have yet to be discovered.
Every die combination is distinguished by a serial number in the left hand column and each die by a number prefixed by A (anvil) for an obverse die, and by P (punch) for a reverse die; Arabic figures are used for the dies of sestertii and small Roman figures for those of the smaller denominations. Within officinae obverse dies are numbered in numerical sequence, though not without intermission (e.g. A 1, 4, 7, 8, 11 etc.); all combinations of every obverse die are listed together. Varieties of obverse legend and bust are denoted by numbers and letters respectively, of which a complete list is printed on p. 61f. and the relevant selection at the beginning of each officina. In order to determine whether a particular obverse die is included in the Catalogue, it is necessary first to identify the officina by means of the list of obverse legends on p. 61f.; then, reference to the plates illustrating the officina will enable the die number, and thus its place in the Catalogue, to be found. The actual specimen illustrated has the plate number against it in the second column.
As reverse dies may be combined with several obverse dies, and may be found in more than one (officina) it is not possible to preserve a sequence of numbers. Once a reverse die has been located on the plates, its occurrences in the Catalogue can be found from the Index of Reverse Dies on pp. 121ff.; similarly the reverse procedure will enable a die in the Catalogue to be located on the plates. Once again the actual specimen illustrated has the plate number quoted against it in the fifth column, devoted to reverse die numbers. Descriptions of reveres dies have been kept to the minimum necessary for identification; beyond this, only those details are noted which are subject to variation. The last column notes the other obverse dies with which a given reverse die is combined; where one of these obverse dies comes from a different officina from that of the reverse die, this subdivision is indicated by a letter in brackets after the die number, for example A 41 (B).
Public collections are referred to by the name of the city, followed by a catalogue number, where known. In the case of the British Museum references are normally to the published catalogues. Certain well-known private collections, now dispersed, are referred to by the name of the owner followed by the number of the coin in the sale catalogue (e.g. Ryan 2726). For further details of such catalogues and collections, see list of abbreviations above on p. ixf. Other sale catalogues are referred to by the name of the dealer, followed by the date or serial number of the sale and the number of the coin. The sign = means "the same coin" and not another specimen from the same dies.
The plates illustrate practically every die, except for a few which have been traced only in Sale Catalogues; these are listed below on p. 120. In illustrating so large a number, some poor specimens have had to be included. Obverse dies are illustrated in numerical order, by officinae, as in the Catalogue; reverse dies are illustrated under officinae by types in alphabetical order. When a reverse die is used in more than one officina, it is illustrated under its parent officina regardless of the origin of the obverse die with which the actual specimen illustrated may happen to be combined.
|i||SER GALBA IMP CAES AVG TR P||A|
|ii||SER GALBA IMP CAES AVG P M TR P||A|
|iii||IMP SER GALBA CAE AVG TR P||B|
|iv||IMP SER GALBA CAES AVG TR P||B|
|v||IMP SER GALBA CAESAR AVG TR P||B|
|vi||IMP SER GALBA CAES AVG P M TRP||B|
|vii||IMP SER GALBA CAES AVG PON M TR P||B|
|viii||SER GALBA IMP CAESAR AVG TR P||C|
|ix||SER GALBA IMP CAESAR AVG P M TR P||C|
|x||SER GALBA IMP CAESAR AVG PON MA TR P||C|
|xi||SER GALBA IMP CAESAR AVG PONT MAX TR P||C|
|xii||IMP SER GALBA AVGVSTVS||D|
|xiii||IMP SER GALBA AVG TR P||D|
|xiv||SER GALBA IMP CAES AVG||D|
|xv||SER GALBA IMP CAES AVG TR P||D|
|xvi||IMP SER SVLP GALBA CAES AVG TR P||E|
|xvii||IMP SER SVLPIC GALBA CAES AVG TR P||E|
|xviii||IMP SER SVLPICIVS GALBA CAESAR AVG||E|
|xix||SER GALBA IMP CAESAR AVG P M TR P P P||F|
|xx||SER SVLPI GALBA IMP CAESAR AVG TR P||G|
|xxi||SER SVLPI GALBA IMP CAE AVG P M TR P||G|
|xxii||SER SVLPI GALBA IMP CAESAR AVG P M TR P||G|
|xxiii||SER GALBA IMP CAESAR AVG PO MA TR P||C|
|xxiv||SER GALBA IMP CAESAR AVG PON M TR POT||F (Æ 2 only|
|xxv||SER GALBA IMP CAESAR AVG PON M TR P P P||F (Æ 2 only|
|xxvi||IMP SER GALBA CAESAR AVG P M TR P||B|
|a.||Head r. laur.||A, B, C, D, G|
|b.||Head r. laur., globe at point of bust||A, F, G|
|c.||Head r. laur., bust dr.||A, B, C, D, E, G|
|d.||Head l. laur.||B, C, D|
|e.||Head l. laur., bust dr.||D, G|
|f.||Head r. bare||D|
|g.||Head r. laur., with aegis||G|
|h.||Head r. bare, globe at point of bust||G|
|i.||Head r. bare, bust dr.||D, G|
|k.||Head l. laur., globe at point of bust||F|
i. SER GALBA IMP CAES AVG TR P
ii. SER GALBA IMP CAES AVG P M TR P
a. Head r. laur.
b. Head r. laur., globe at point of bust.
c. Head r. laur., bust dr.
|1||A 10||i a||ROMA seated l., on r. 2 greaves upright.||P 13||A 35, 79|
|I||a. BMC 87.||V|
|b. Vienna 5912.|
|2||A 10||i a||ROMA seated l.||P 118||A 56 (D), 57|
|a. Helbing 2 June 1929 no. 3757.|
|3||A 10||i a||ROMA stg. l., holding aquila and resting arm on trophy, R XL l. and r.||P 14|
|a. BMC 85.||IV|
|b. Fitzwilliam 394.|
|c. Paris 1142.|
|d. Paris 1143.|
|4||A 10||i a||Victory carrying Palladium l.||P 122|
|a. Münzhandlung Basel 10, no. 558 = Hess (Lucerne) 207, no. 992.|
|5||A 15||i a||SPQR/OB/CIVSER in wreath.||P 21|
|I||a. BM. (not catalogued).||V|
|b. Oxford (Kraay).|
|c. Baranowsky 9 Dec. 1929, no. 494.|
|6||A 15||i a||LIBERTAS AVGVST R XL.||P 39||A 35|
|a. Ryan 2315.|
|7||A 15||i a||ROMA stg. l. holding aquila and figure of Pax, and resting arm on trophy, R XL.||P 22||A 16|
|a. Paris 1144.|
|b. Vienna 5897.|
|c. Hall 1123.|
|8||A 16||i a||ROMA stg. l. holding aquila and figure of Pax, and resting arm on trophy, R XL.||P 22||A 15|
|a. BMC 84.||IV|
|b. in trade, Baldwin, April 1950.|
|c. Capt. Smyth 66 (cast at Oxford).|
|d. Vienna 5898.|
|9||A 16||i a||PAX AVGVST (in ex.) seated l.||P 23||A 17|
|a. BMC 76.|
|10||A 16||i a||Victory carrying wreath r.||P 85|
|a. Paris 1151.|
|I||b. Cambridge (Fitzwilliam Mus.).||V|
|11||A 17||i a||PAX AVGVST (in ex.) seated l.||P 23||A 16|
|I||a. Hall 1122.||IV|
|b. Paris 1124.|
|12||A 17||i a||ROMA stg. l. holding aquila and figure of Pax, and leaning on trophy.||P 24||A 18, 67|
|b. Vienna 5899.|
|13||A 17||i a||LIBERT AVG||P 114|
|a. Oxford (Kraay), ex Lawrence||III|
|14||A 18||i a||ROMA stg. l. holding aquila and figure of Pax, and leaning on trophy.||P 24||A 17, 67|
|I||a. BMC 83.||IV|
|15||A 26||i a||LIBERT AVG R XL||P 34||A 27, 31, 134|
|I||a. Oxford (Kraay), ex Lawrence.|
|16||A 27||i b||LIBERT AVG R XL||P 34||A 26, 31, 134|
|a. BMC 66.|
|b. Hirsch XVIII, no. 628.|
|c. Vienna 5863.|
|17||A 27||i b||LIBERT AVG||P 35||A 28|
|a. BMC 65.||III|
|18||A 27||i b||SPQR/OB/CIVSER in wreath.||P 115|
|19||A 27||i b||LIBERT AVG||P 128||A 85, 138|
|a. in trade, Münz. und Med. Basel, Nov. 1950.|
|b. Naville II, no. 384.|
|20||A 27||i b||Victory carrying Palladium l.||P 116|
|1||a. Hall 1124.||V|
|21||A 27||i b||Victory carrying Palladium l.||P 83||A 31|
|a. Vienna 5952.|
|22||A 28||i a||LIBERT AVG||P 35||A 27|
|23||A 28||i a||ROMA seated l. on arms.||P 36||A 29, 30|
|a. Capt. Smyth (cast at Oxford).|
|b. Vienna 5913.|
|24||A 28||i a||SPQR/OB/CIVSER in wreath.||P 74||A 23 (D), 30, 36(D), 46(D)|
|a. Oxford, ex Lawrence.|
|25||A 29||i c||ROMA seated l. on arms.||P 36||A 28, 30|
|I||a. BMC 97.||IV|
|26||A 30||i a||ROMA seated l. on arms.||P 36||A 28, 29|
|27||A 30||i a||SPQR/OB/CIVSER in wreath.||P 74||A 23(D), 28, 36(D), 46(D)|
|a. Vienna 5921.|
|28||A 30||i a||PAX AVG (in ex.) seated l.||P 80||A 131|
|a. Paris 1122.|
|29||A 31||i a||LIBERT AVG||P 202|
|a. Vienna 5862.||III|
|30||A 31||i a||LIBERT AVG R XL||P 34||A 26, 27, 134|
|b. Rivista Italiana V (1892), pl. I, 2.|
|31||A 31||i a||Victory carrying Palladium l.||P 83||A 27|
|I||a. Paris 1157.||V|
|32||A 31||i a||SPQR/OB/CIVSER in wreath.||P 84||A 47(D), 56(D), 78(D)|
|a. Paris 1169.||XXIII|
|33||A 35||i a||EXSC/OBCIVES/SER in wreath.||P 73||A 73|
|a. BMC 62.||III|
|34||A 35||i a||LIBERTAS AVGVST R XL||P 39||A 15|
|a. Hall 1117.||IV|
|35||A 35||i a||ROMA stg. l. holding Victory and spear.||P 101||A 73, 85, 136|
|a. Ryan 2317.|
|36||A 35||i a||AVGVSTA (in ex.), R XL. Livia seated l.||P 72|
|a. Rivista Italiana IV (1891), pl. XVIa, 2.|
|37||A 35||i a||LIBERT AVG||P 78|
|I||a. Paris 1113.||III|
|38||A 35||i a||Victory carrying palladium l.||P 112||A 79|
|a. Ciani 7 April 1930, no. 105(b).|
|39||A 35||i a||ROMA seated l., to r. 2 greaves.||P 13||A 10, 79|
|a. Vienna 5911.|
|40||A 57||i a||LIBERTAS AVGVSTA.||P 70|
|II||a. Hall 1118.||IV|
|b. Ratto (Milan) 20 April 1914, no. 55.|
|41||A 57||i a||SPQR/OB/CIVSER in wreath.||P 130||A 41(D), 48(D), 78(D)|
|a. Hamburger VII, no. 1101.|
|42||A 57||i a||EXSC/OB/CIVES/SER in wreath.||P 7I|
|a. Hirsch XXXIII, no. 1162.|
|43||A 57||i a||ROMA seated l., small shield.||P 118||A 10, 56(D)|
|a. Oxford (Kraay).||XXI|
|44||A 67||i a||ROMA stg. l., holding aquila and figure of Pax, and leaning arm on trophy.||P 24||A 17, 18|
|II||a. Paris 1135.|
|45||A 73||ii a||ROMA stg. l., holding Victory and spear.||P 101||A 35, 85, 136|
|a. Paris 1139.||IV|
|b. BMC 78.|
|46||A 73||ii a||AVGVSTA (in ex.). Livia seated l.||P 102|
|a. Paris 1094.|
|b. Paris 1095.||III|
|47||A 73||ii a||LIBERTAS AVGVSTA||P 103|
|II||a. Paris 1114.||IV|
|48||A 73||ii a||EXSC/OB/CIVES/SER in wreath.||P 108|
|a. Hess (Lucerne) 18 Dec. 1933, no. 421 = Santamaria 24 Jan. 1938, no. 352.|
|49||A 73||ii a||EXSC/OB/CIVES/SER in wreath.||P 73||A 35|
|a. Helbing 70, no. 35.|
|50||A 73||ii a||EXSC/OB/CIVES/SER in wreath.||P 214||A 142|
|a. Magnaguti II, no. 558.|
|51||A 79||i a||EXSC/OB/CIVES/SER in wreath.||P 198|
|a. Vienna 5848.||III|
|52||A 79||i a||Victory carrying Palladium l.||P 112||A 35|
|II||a. BMC 104.||V|
|53||A 79||i a||Victory carrying wreath r.||P 113|
|a. Oxford, ex Lawrence.||V|
|54||A 79||i a||ROMA seated l., on r. 2 greaves upright.||P 13||A 10, 35|
|a. Oxford (Kraay), ex Lawrence.|
|a. Egger XLIII, no. 510.|
|55||A 79||i a||Victory carrying Palladium l.||P 226||A 85|
|56||A 80||i a||ROMA seated l.||P 66||A 55(D)|
|a. Münzhandlung Basel 10, no. 557 = Hess (Lucerne) 207, no. 991.|
|57||A 80||i a||ROMA seated l.||P 119|
|II||a. Cambridge (Fitzwilliam Mus.).||V|
|b. Naville XVI, no. 1447.|
|58||A 81||i a||ROMA seated l., 2 greaves diagonally on r.||P 64||A 54(D)|
|II||a. Oxford, ex Lawrence.|
|59||A 85||i a||ROMA standing l., holding Victory and spear.||P 101||A 35, 73, 136|
|a. Münz. und Med. Basel VI, no. 795|
|60||A 85||i a||LIBERT AVG||P 128||A 27, 138|
|II||1||a. Cambridge (Fitzwilliam Mus.).||III|
|b. Oxford (Kraay), ex Lawrence.|
|c. Platt 26 June 1922, no. 216.|
|61||A 85||i a||Victory carrying Palladium l.||P 226||A 79|
|62||A 131||i a||PAX AVG (in ex.) seated l.||P 80||A 30|
|II||a. Vienna = Bachofen von Echt no. 877.||IV|
|63||A 134||i c||LIBERT AVG R XL||P 34||A 26, 27, 31|
|II||a. Niggeler (Baden).|
|64||A 135||ii a||LIBERTAS AVGVSTA||P 206|
|65||A 136||i a||ROMA stg. l., holding Victory and spear.||P 101||A 35, 73, 85|
|66||A 138||i a||Victory carrying Palladium l.||P 209|
|67||A 138||i a||LIBERT AVG||P 128||A 27, 85|
|a. Münzhandlung Basel 3, no. 205.|
|68||A 142||i a||EXSC/OB/CIVES/SER in wreath.||P 214||A 73|
|III||a. Ryan 2309 = Santamaria, 16 Jan. 1924, no. 145.||III|
|69||A 143||i a||LIBERT AVG||P 216|
|III||a. Ryan 2314.||IV|
iii. IMP SER GALBA CAE AVG TR P
iv. IMP SER GALBA CAES AVG TR P
v. IMP SER GALBA CAESAR AVG TR P
vi. IMP SER GALBA CAES AVG P M TR P
vii. IMP SER GALBA CAES AVG PON M TR P
xxvi. IMP SER GALBA CAESAR AVG P M TR P
a. Head r., laur.
c. Head r., laur., bust dr.
d. Head l., laur.
NB.The wreath is laurel unless otherwise noted in the Catalogue.
|70||A 1||iv c||CONCORD AVG S/C||P 1||A 3, 62|
|b. Vienna 5846.|
|71||A 1||iv c||Victory carrying Palladium l.||P 2||A 2, 3|
|a. BMC 107.|
|b. Paris 1159.|
|c. Schulman 5 March 1923 (Vierordt), no. 943.|
|72||A 1||iv c||CONCORD AVG S/C||P 11||A 4, 8, 62|
|a. Münzhandlung Basel 1, no. 282.|
|73||A 1||iv c||Victory carrying Palladium l.||P 105||A 74|
|a. Xaville II, no. 394 = Münz. und Med. Basel VI, no. 796.|
|b. Ratto (Lugano) 8 Feb. 1928, no. 2213.|
|74||A 1||iv c||CONCORD AVG S/C||P 89|
|a. Paris 1099.||VIII|
|75||A 1||iv c||Victory carrying wreath r.||P 141|
|a. Paris 1148.||IX|
|76||A 2||iii c (oak)||Victory carrying Palladium l.||P 2||A 1, 3|
|VI||a. BMC 106.||IX|
|77||A 2||iii c (oak)||LIBERTAS PVBLICA||P 98|
|a. Paris 1115.||VIII|
|78||A 2||iii c (oak)||AVGVSTA (in ex.). Livia seated l.||P 107||A 7, 75. 76|
|a. Santamaria 16 Jan. 1924, no. 144.|
|b. Vienna 5836.|
|79||A 3||iv a||CONCORD AVG S/C||P 1||A 1, 62|
|80||A 3||iv a||Victory carrying Palladium l.||P 2||A 1, 2|
|a. BM. (not catalogued).|
|81||A 3||iv a||CONCORD AVG S/C||P 4|
|a. BMC 58.||VIII|
|b. Münzhandlung Basel 1, no. 283.|
|c. Ryan 2307.|
|82||A 3||iv a||CONCORD AVG S/C||P 5||A4|
|a. Naville II, no. 379.|
|b. Paris 1096.|
|83||A 3||iv a||AVGVSTA (in ex.). Livia seated l.||P 79||A 8|
|VI||a. Paris 1095 (a).|
|84||A4||iv a||CONCORD AVG S/C||P 5||A 3|
|VI||a. Hall 1113.||VIII|
|b. Oxford, ex Lawrence.|
|85||A 4||iv a||LIBERTAS PVBLICA||P 96|
|a. Paris (Armand-Valton).||VIII|
|86||A4||iv a||AVGVSTA (in ex.). Livia seated l.||P 30||A 22, 90|
|a. Cambridge (Fitzwilliam Mus.).|
|87||A4||iv a||CONCORD AVG S/C||P 11||A 1, 8, 62|
|a. Vienna 5847.|
|88||A 6||v a||CONCORD AVG S/C||P 9||A 7, 68|
|VI||a BMC 61.|
|89||A 6||v a||CONCORD AVG S/C||P 97|
|a. Paris 1097.||VIII|
|b. Oxford (Kraay).|
|90||A 6||v a||Victory carrying Palladium l.||P 132||A 88|
|a. Santamaria 16 Jan. 1924, no. 154.|
|91||A 7||vii a||CONCORD AVG S/C||P 9||A 6, 68|
|VI||a. Hall 1113.||VIII|
|b. Paris 1100.|
|92||A 7||vii a||ROMA stg. l.||P 10|
|a. BMC 82.||IX|
|b. in trade, Baldwin, April 1950.|
|c. Cahn 65, no. 450.|
|e. Vienna 5902.|
|93||A 7||vii a||LIBERTAS PVBLICA||P 129|
|a. Cambridge (Fitzwilliam Mus.).||VIII|
|94||A 7||vii a||AVGVSTA (in ex.). Livia seated l.||P 107||A 2, 75, 76|
|a. Vienna 5835.|
|95||A 8||iv c||CONCORD AVG S/C||P 11||A 1, 4, 62|
|a. BMC 60.|
|96||A 8||iv c||ROMA stg. l.||P 12||A 9|
|a. Hall 1123.||IX|
|b. Cahn 68, no. 271.|
|c. Vienna 5903.|
|96||A 8||d. Munich.||P 12|
|e. Ryan 2317.|
|97||A 8||iv c||AVGVSTA (in ex.). Livia seated l.||P 79||A 3|
|VI||a. Cambridge (Corpus Christi).||VII|
|b. Cahn 65, no. 449.|
|98||A 9||vi a||ROMA stg. l.||P 12||A 8|
|VI||a. BMC 81.|
|99||A 22||iii d (oak)||CONCORD AVG S/C||P 28|
|VI||a. BMC 57.||VIII|
|b. Paris 1101.|
|100||A 22||iii d (oak)||AVGVSTA (in ex.). Livia seated l.||P 29||A 62|
|a. BMC 54.||VII|
|101||A 22||iii d (oak)||AVGVSTA (in ex.). Livia seated l.||P 30||A 4, 90|
|a. Oxford (Kraay) ex Hall 1112.||VII|
|102||A 62||iii d||CONCORD AVG S/C||P 11||A 1, 4, 8|
|VI||a. Paris 1102.||VIII|
|b. Oxford (Kraay) ex Lawrence.|
|103||A 62||iii d||CONCORD AVG S/C||P 94|
|104||A 62||iii d||CONCORD AVG S/C||P 1||A 1, 3|
|a. Oxford (Kraay) ex Lawrence.|
|105||A 62||iii d||AVGVSTA (in ex.). Livia seated l.||P 29||A 22|
|106||A 62||iii d||CONCORD AVG S/C||P 227|
|107||A 68||v c||CONCORD AVG S/C||P 9||A 6, 7|
|VI||a. Paris 1098.|
|108||A 74||iv a||Victory carrying Palladium l.||P 105||A 1|
|VI||a. Paris 1160.||IX|
|109||A 74||iv a||Victory carrying wreath r.||P 106|
|110||A 75||iv a||AVGVSTA (in ex.). Livia seated l.||P 107||A 2, 7, 76|
|111||A 76||iii a (oak)||AVGVSTA (in ex.). Livia seated l.||P 107||A 2, 7, 75|
|VII||a. Paris 1093.|
|112||A 87||vi a||ROMA stg. l.||P 131|
|VII||a. Oxford (Kraay).||IX|
|113||A 88||vi c||Victory carrying Palladium l.||P 132||A 6|
|VII||a. Paris 1162.||X|
|114||A 89||v a||Victory carrying wreath r.||P 133||A 90|
|a. Vienna 5948.|
|115||A 89||v a||LIBERTAS PVBLICA||P 142|
|VII||a. BMC 75.||IX|
|116||A 90||v a||Victory carrying wreath r.||P 133||A 89|
|VII||a. Paris 1156(a).||IX|
|117||A 90||v a||LIBERTAS PVBLICA||P 134|
|118||A 90||v a||AVGVSTA (in ex.). Livia seated l.||P 30||A 4, 22|
|a. in trade, Münz. und Med. Basel.|
|119||A 90||v a||LIBERTAS PVBLICA||P 200|
|a. Vienna 5870.||IX|
|b. Hirsch XXXIV, no. 984.|
|120||A 139||xxvi a||Victory carrying wreath l.||P 210|
|b. Naville XII, no. 2789.|
viii. SER GALBA IMP CAESAR AVG TR P
ix. SER GALBA IMP CAESAR AVG P M TR P
X. SER GALBA IMP CAESAR AVG PON MA TR P
xi. SER GALBA IMP CAESAR AVG PONT MAX TR P
xxiii. SER GALBA IMP CAESAR AVG PO MA TR P
a. Head r. laur.
c. Head r. laur., bust dr.
d. Head l. laur.
|121||A 5||viii a||CONCORD AVG, SC (in ex.)||P 6|
|122||A 5||viii a||CONCORD AVG, SC (in ex.)||P 7|
|XIII||b. Cambridge (Fitzwilliam Mus.).||XV|
|c. Paris 1103.|
|123||A 5||viii a||Victory carrying wreath r.||P 8|
|124||A 5||viii a||SPQR/O-B/CIVES/SERVATOS in wreath.||P 15||A 11, 12, 58|
|a. Cahn 80, no. 614.|
|125||A 5||viii a||SALVS AVGVSTA||P 88|
|a. Paris 1146.||XVI|
|126||A 5||viii a||CONCORD AVG, SC (in ex)||P 146|
|a. in trade, Seaby, August, 1950.||XVI|
|127||A 11||xi a||SPQR/O-B/CIVES/SERVATOS in wreath.||P 15||A 5, 12, 58|
|128||A 11||xi a||LIBERTAS PVBLICA||P 211|
|129||A 12||viii d||SPQR/O-B/CIVES/SERVATOS in wreath.||P 15||A 5, 11, 58|
|XIV||a. Oxford (Kraay).|
|130||A 21||viii d||Victory carrying wreath r.||P 26||A 60|
|a. BMC 99.|
|XIV||b. Paris 1153.||XVII|
|131||A 21||viii d||SPQR/O-B/CIVSER in wreath.||P 27||A 94|
|b. Paris 1171.|
|132||A 21||viii d||EXSC/OB/CIVES/SERVATOS in wreath.||P 81||A 38, 60, 61|
|a. Paris 1106.|
|b. Vienna 5849.|
|133||A 21||viii d||CONCORD AVG, SC (in ex.)||P 127||A 84|
|a. Vienna 5844.|
|134||A 24||viii a||Victory carrying wreath l.||P 32||A 25, 152(E), 133|
|a. Oxford (Kraay).|
|b. Cambridge (Fitzwilliam Mus.).|
|X||c. Paris 1163.|
|135||A 24||viii a||Victory carrying wreath r.||P 90|
|a. Paris 1152.||XIII|
|136||A 24||viii a||LIBERTAS PVBLICA||P 197|
|a. Naville XIII, no. 1182 = Hess (Frankfurt) Dec. 1913, no. 319.||XII|
|b. Cambridge (Fitzwilliam Mus.).|
|137||A 25||viii c||Victory carrying wreath l.||P 32||A 24, 152(E), 133|
|X||a. BMC 108.||XIII|
|138||A 25||viii c||ROMA stg. l.||P 33||Used Vesp., see Chapt.II, note 28|
|a. BMC 80.||XII|
|139||A 32||viii d||CONCORD AVG, SC (in ex.)||P 109||A 59, 60|
|XIV||b. BMC 55.||XV|
|c. Baranowsky 25 Feb. 1931, no. 1499.|
|140||A 32||viii d||CONCORD AVG, SC (in ex.)||P 110||Used Vitellius (BMC I, no. 48)|
|a. Hall 1114.||XV|
|b. in trade, Baldwin, April, 1950.|
|141||A 32||viii d||CONCORD AVG, SC (in ex.)||P 37||A 59|
|b. Paris 1104.||XV|
|142||A 34||viii c||Victory carrying wreath r.||P 38||A 33(E)|
|a. Hall 1125.|
|X||b. Paris 1150.||XIII|
|143||A 34||viii c||LIBERTAS PVBLICA||P 87|
|a. Paris 1120.||XI|
|144||A 37||viii a||LIBERTAS PVBLICA||P 45||A 38, 130|
|XIV||a. Hall 1118.||XVI|
|145||A 37||viii a||SPQR/OB/CIVES/SERVATOS in wreath.||P 143|
|a. Hall 1131 = Schulman 5 March 1923 (Vierordt), no. 948.||XVI|
|146||A 38||viii d||LIBERTAS PVBLICA||P 45||A 37, 130|
|147||A 38||viii d||LIBERTAS PVBLICA||P 212|
|a. Ryan 2316 = Münzhandlung Basel 3, no. 206.||XVI|
|148||A 38||viii d||EXSC/OB/CIVES/SERVATOS in wreath.||P 81||A 21, 60, 61|
|a. Paris 1105.|
|149||A 44||viii a||SALVS AVGVSTA||P 61||Used Vesp., see Chapt.II, note 29|
|X||a. BMC 119.||XIII|
|150||A 44||viii a||ROMA stg. l.||P 62|
|a. BMC 79.||XII|
|151||A 51||viii c||LIBERTAS PVBLICA||P 59|
|152||A 51||viii c||SPQR/OB/CIVSER in wreath.||P 60||A 52, 53. 69, 70, 96|
|b. Cahn 75, no. 993.|
|c. Oxford (Kraay), ex Fitzwilliam 395.|
|153||A 51||viii c||ROMA stg. l.||P 91|
|a. Paris 1136.||XII|
|b. Santamaria 4 June 1951, no. 1210.|
|154||A 51||viii c||ROMA stg. l.||P 63||A 52, 66, 70|
|a. in trade, Baldwin, April 1950.|
|155||A 52||viii a||SPQR/OB/CIVSER in wreath.||P 60||A 51. 53. 69, 70, 96|
|b. Paris (Armand-Valton 851).|
|156||A 52||viii a||ROMA stg. l.||P 63||A 51, 66, 70|
|X||a. Hall 1123.||XII|
|157||A 53||viii a||SPQR/OB/CIVSER in wreath.||P 60||A 51, 52, 69, 70, 96|
|158||A 58||viii a||SPQR/O-B/CIVES/SERVATOS in wreath.||P 15||A 5, II, 12|
|XIV||a. Paris 1175.||XVI|
|159||A 58||viii a||Victory carrying wreath r.||P 76||A 59, 60, 98|
|a. BMC 98.|
|160||A 59||x a||Victory carrying wreath r.||P 76||A 58, 60, 98|
|a. Paris 1156.|
|161||A 59||x a||CONCORD AVG, SC (in ex.)||P 37||A 32|
|a. Ryan 2307.|
|162||A 59||x a||CONCORD AVG, SC (in ex.)||P 109||A 32, 60|
|XIV||a. BMC 56.|
|b. Vienna 5841.|
|163||A 60||viii a||EXSC/OB/CIVES/SERVATOS in wreath.||P 81||A 21, 38, 61|
|XIV||a. Paris 1107.||XVI|
|164||A 60||viii a||Victory carrying wreath r.||P 26||A 21|
|a. Münzhandlung Basel 3, no. 211 = Santamaria 24 Jan. 1938, no. 356.|
|165||A 60||viii a||Victory carrying wreath r.||P 76||A 58, 59, 98|
|a. Naville XV, no. 1449.|
|166||A 60||viii a||CONCORD AVG, SC (in ex.)||P 109||A 32, 59|
|167||A 61||viii a||EXSC/OB/CIVES/SERVATOS in wreath.||P 81||A 21, 38, 60|
|a. BMC 63.|
|168||A 61||viii a||LIBERTAS PVBLICA||P 82||A 98|
|XIV||a. Paris (Armand-Valton 848).||XVI|
|169||A 61||viii a||LIBERTAS PVBLICA||P 144|
|a. Ciani 2 June 1920, no. 351.|
|170||A 66||viii d||ROMA stg. l.||P 63||A 51, 52, 70|
|X||a. Paris 1138.|
|171||A 69||viii a||SPQR/O-B/CIVSER in wreath.||P 60||A 51, 52, 53. 70, 96|
|X||a. Paris 1170.||XIII|
|172||A 70||viii c||SPQR/O-B/CIVSER in wreath.||P 60||A 51. 52, 53. 69, 96|
|a. Paris 1167.|
|173||A 70||viii c||ROMA stg. l.||P 63||A 51, 52, 66|
|a. Hirsch XXX, no. 918.|
|174||A 70||viii c||SPQR/O-B/CIVSER in wreath.||P 205||A133, A151(E)|
|175||A 71||ix a||CONCORD AVG, SC (in ex.)||P 100||A 72|
|XIV||a. Oxford (Kraay).|
|176||A 72||ix d||CONCORD AVG, SC (in ex.)||P 100||A 71|
|XIV||a. Paris 1123.||XV|
|177||A 83||viii a||ROMA stg. l.||P 3|
|a. Paris 1137.||XII|
|178||A 83||viii a||SPQR/OB/CIVSER in wreath.||P 125 XIII (from a sestertius of Vespasian at Oxford).||Used Vesp., see Chapt.II, note 30|
|a. Schulman 31 May 1927, no. 665.|
|179||A 83||viii a||LIBERTAS PVBLICA||P 139||A 95|
|180||A 83||viii a||LIBERTAS PVBLICA||P 225|
|X||a. in trade, Münz. und Med. Basel, Nov. 1950.||XII|
|181||A 84||viii d||LIBERTAS PVBLICA||P 126|
|XIV||a. Paris 1119.||XI|
|182||A 84||viii d||CONCORD AVG, SC (in ex.)||P 127||A 21|
|a. Cambridge (Fitzwilliam Mus.).||XV|
|b. Ryan 2308 = Naville II, no. 380.|
|183||A 91||viii c||LIBERTAS PVBLICA||P 135|
|XI||a. BMC 70.||XI|
|184||A 92||viii c||LIBERTAS PVBLICA||P 136|
|XI||a. Cambridge (Corpus Christi).||XII|
|185||A 93||viii a||SALVS AVGVSTA||P 137|
|XI||a. Fitzwilliam 394.||XIII|
|186||A 94||viii c||SPQR/O-B/CIVSER in wreath||P 138|
|XI||a. Hall = Santamaria 7 March 1910, no. 1167.||XIII|
|b. Ratto (Milan) 13 May 1912, no. 1415 = Ratto (Milan) 4 June 1913, no. 261.|
|187||A 94||viii c||SPQR/O-B/CIVSER in wreath.||P 27||A 21|
|b. Rosenberg 72, no. 949.|
|188||A 95||viii a||LIBERTAS PVBLICA||P 139||A 83|
|XI||a. Hall 1118.||XII|
|189||A 95||viii a||LIBERTAS PVBLICA||P 140|
|190||A 96||viii c||SPQR/OB/CIVSER in wreath.||P 60||A 51. 52, 53, 69, 70|
|191||A 97||viii d||LIBERTAS PVBLICA||P 145|
|XV||a. Hall 1120||XVI|
|192||A 98||viii a||Victory carrying wreath r.||P 76||A 58, 59, 60|
|XV||a. in trade, Spink, Oct. 1950.||XVII|
|193||A 98||viii a||LIBERTAS PVBLICA||P 82||A 61|
|a. Hirsch XXX, no. 916.|
|194||A 99||ix d||SALVS AVGVSTA||P 147|
|a. Paris 1147||XVI|
|195||A 99||ix d||Victory carrying wreath r.||P 148|
|XV||a. Paris 1154.||XVII|
|196||A 99||ix d||Victory carrying wreath r.||P 149|
|a. Schulman 5 March 1923 (Vierordt), no. 942.|
|197||A 130||xxiii a||LIBERTAS PVBLICA||P 45||A 37, 38|
|198||A 133||viii c||Victory carrying wreath l.||P 32||A 24, 25, 152(E)|
|XI||a. Niggeler (Baden), ex Fitzwilliam 44.|
|199||A 133||viii c||SPQR/O-B/CIVSER in wreath.||P 205||A 151(E), A 70|
|a. Reichmann XX, no. 519.|