Multiple Dies of Sejanus Asses?

Minor Die Variations of an Extremely Rare Spanish Issue

 By Max Paschall

(Used with permission of Mr. Paschall for The Portraiture of Caligula)

Lucius Aelius Sejanus was the Praetorian Prefect under the emperor Tiberius (14-37 A.D.).  Sejanus was probably born around 20-10 B.C. in Volsinii, Etruria.  His adoptive father was Lucius Sejus Strabo, who was the Praetorian Prefect before Sejanus.  Sejanus was the joint Prefect of the Praetorian Guard with his father until 15 A.D., when his father retired to become the prefect of Egypt.

Sejanus was the greatest influence on the emperor, Tiberius; even more so than Tiberius’s own mother, Livia.  Though Tiberius was not particularly fond of Sejanus, he admired the prefect’s loyalty and persuasion.  But Tiberius was deceived.  Evidently, Sejanus was carrying on an affair with Livilla, Tiberius’s niece and daughter-in-law.  With her he had 2 illegitimate children (which most people thought were the sons of Drusus, Tiberius’s son and Livilla’s husband), Tiberius and Germanicus Gemellus.  Sejanus and Livilla also poisoned Livilla’s husband, Drusus.  But Tiberius never knew of anything.

In 31 A.D., Sejanus was named as joint-consul with Tiberius.  He also became the magistrate of the small Spanish town, Bilbilis (the modern town of Calatayud).  In honor of Sejanus’s consulship, the mint at Bilbilis began to strike an As of Tiberius, naming Sejanus the consul on the reverse of the coin.  RPC (Roman Provincial Coinage) states that there are 19 examples known to exist. 
 

The obverse has the crude, youthful portrait of Tiberius and the inscription: TI CAESAR DIVI AVGVSTI F AVGVSTVS.  The reverse has abbreviation, COS (short for ‘consul’) in a wreath surrounded by the inscription: MVN AVGVSTA BILBILIS TI CAESARE V L AELIO SEIANO.

I (the author) have recently purchased an example of this very rare coin from an Spanish auction catalog, called Aureo (www.aureo.com).  When my coin arrived, I discovered that it was a very interesting strike.  The obverse was exceptionally small for the large, 31 mm flan.  But the reverse was the same size as the flan so it could not be a trial strike.  I found 3 examples of this coin (with photos) online, and compared the dies.  I discovered that there are about 3-4 different reverse dies of this coin, though there are probably more.  They all have the same exact obverse die, but the reverse, though it has the same inscription, is a different die, carved by the same celator.  To discern the different dies, I looked at the size and shape of the ‘C’ in ‘COS’, and the placement of the solitary letter ‘V’ before the L AELIO SEIANO (Sejanus’s full name: Lucius Aelius Sejanus).

Due to their extreme rarity, I was only able to find 4 pictures of coins of Sejanus, including my own.  This hinders my research because there may be other dies of this coin which I may not know of.  But this is what I have uncovered thus far:

This is the Sejanus As from CNG.  Notice the size and shape of the ‘C’ in COS as well as the placement of the ‘V’ directly below the wreath on the reverse.  Photo courtesy of CNG.

This is the Sejanus from Numismatik Lanz.  It was used as the plate coin in David L. Vagi’s book: Coinage and History of the Roman Empire.  Notice the different shape of the ‘C’ in COS than the Sejanus As from CNG.  Also notice how the ‘V’ is placed just slightly to the left from directly beneath the wreath as the ‘V’ was in the CNG coin.  Photo courtesy of Numismatik Lanz.

This is Oldromancoin’s Sejanus As.  This coin may be of the same dies of my coin.  The obverse die is the same for all Sejanus asses.  But the reverse is almost always different.  Photo courtesy of Classical Cash.

And finally, my coin.  Notice how one side of the ‘O’ is ‘COS’ is thinner than the other side.  Then compare the “O”’s shape and width to that of the coins above.  Also compare the placement of the ‘V’ with the line above with the coins above.

In conclusion, I have discovered that all of the obverse dies are the same, except there are probably 4 or more reverse dies.  My theory is that the obverse die was the one which was embedded in the anvil which these coins were struck on, and that the reverse dies were the portable ones, which were replaced many times throughout the year 31.  The reverse dies were also probably made of a softer metal, thus breaking and wearing away often.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1. www.lanz.com

2. www.cngcoins.com

3. www.wildwinds.com

4. www.oldromancoins.com

5. www.aureo.com

6. History and Coinage of the Roman Empire, by David Vagi

7. www.forumancientcoins.com

The Portraiture of Caligula in Right Profile- AR Denarii:  The Imagery and Iconography By

Joe Geranio
   

    For some time now I have been fascinated with the portraiture of Caligula in the round! He has typically been portrayed in the round (typology)1 , and his physiognomy.  as follows, but first Most of these portraits are based upon official portraits, we can assume as Caligula (Princeps) wished to be portrayed  some twelve to 30 sculptural likenesses of Caligula have survived,2 but these identifications can be quite subjective due to familial assimilation.  Caligula’s characteristics typical are:  Hair low on the nape of the neck, protruding upper lip, deeply set eyes, hollow temples, of course not apparent on profiles on coins, and a vertical or sloping forehead, unlike his father Germanicus which is vertical.  The silver denarii which we are focusing on are all in right profile.  Von kaenel the author of Munzpragung und Munzbildnis des Claudius, AMuGS9 (Berlin 1986), as well as an article on Caligula’s coinage, “Die Organisation der Caligulas.” RSN66 (1987). pp. 135-56.  I disagree with some art historians as whether a portrait of a particular Princeps was copied from a portrait medallion, I believe it would have been a portrait in the round the die-engraver would have first been copied from.  The right side from one portrait model from an imperial commission for precious metals and the left side for the bronzes.  

The silver denarii of Caligula shows the right profile (only) as

having the hair low on the nape of the neck and begs the question what is the difference between the right and left profile iconographically to portraits in the round, and if we take Caligula’s right profile from the AE asses and Sestertii do they agree with exant portraits of Caligula in the round?   von kaenel:  The author of Munzpragungund Munzbildnis des Claudius, AMuGS9 (Berlin 1986) as well as an article on Caligula's coinage, "Die Organisation der Caligulas." RSN66 (1987), pp. 135-56,  I am leaning heavily as von Kaenel, that there was some model in the round that a die-engraver would copy.  It will take some time and I need to look at coinage of other Princeps, but if for example you look at the NY Glyptotek head of Caligula from Copenhagen in rt. profile it follows the hairstyle very closely.

  Here is another example of the 5 curls and hair low on the nape of neck.  

follows the Copenhagen head very closely.  I am now starting to look at Aes andwill see the left profile and if there is any consistency.  I am looking to see if there may be a mint signature by either looking at the right and left profiles?  I do not agree with von Kaenel that that the identification of Caligula's precious-metal mint has little significance for the analysis of the emperor's portraits on coins.From Kleiners Review of Boschung 3In the case of Caligula's portraits, Boschung was fortunate in having von kaenel as his partner.  The  author of Munzpragungund Munzbildnis des Claudius, AMuGS9 (Berlin 1986) as well as aarticle on Caligula's coinage, "Die Organisation der Caligulas." RSN66 (1987), pp. 135-56, written at the same time as his RomischeHerrscherbild text.  Von Kaenel's chapter in Die Bildnisse de Caligula (pp.13-26) treats the official coinage ("Reichspragung")exclusively.  Other coins bearing the portraits of Caligula (Provinzial-und Lokalpragung") are not examined.  They are, in the opinion of von kaenel (and I concur), more valuable as documents ofthe "Rezeption" of imperial imagery in the provinces than as a means of defining the official portrait types themselves (p.16) Gold,silver, and aes coinage are, however, all studied.  The portraits of Caligula on the aureii and denarii are all in right profile; those on the sestertii, dupondii, and asses are all in left profile.  Von Kaenel concludes that all of the imperial issues reproduce a single official portrait type and that what variations exist are of astylistic and not of a typological nature.  Furthermore, since the two profile views are not mirror images, von Kaenel suggests that they faithfully reproduce the left and right side respectively of a single model in the round and he believes that the comparison with marble replicas of Boschung's "Haupttypus" confirm that the same same master "Vorbild" lies behind both the sculptured and numismatic replicas.  According to von Kaenel, the Roman die engravers wereprovided with either a single head in the round to serve as a model for their miniature profile portraits or with two seperate relief portraits corresponding to the left and right sides of a sculptured head of Caligula's " Haupttypus."  This is an important observation and it would be interesting to know if it is typical of Roman numismatic portraiture for left- and right-facing portraits of the same person to be rendered differently or whether the coinage of Caligula is exceptional in not emplying mirror images.  Whatever the answer to the larger question, Caligula's coins unfortunatley cannot be cited as incontrovertilble evidence that Roman die engravers had models in the round from which some copied the left profile and others the right profile.  Von Kaenel assumes that the coins he has collected and analyzed are almost exclusivley product of the imperial mint at Rome, but there is a growing consensus that while Caligula's aes issues were struck in the capital, the bulk if not all of his gold and silver coinage was produced at Lugdunum (Lyons). (See, sot recently, WE. Metcalf, "Rome and Lugdunum Again," AJN 1 [1989],pp. 51-70.)  The fact that Caligula's left and right profile portraits oncoins are different might mean that both mints worked from portrait models of the same type- the selection of one profile or the other could then be a kind of mint signature-but it could also indicate that one portrait was copied in the capital and another one Gaul.  It herefore cannot agree with von Kaenel when he states (p.17 n.10) that the identification of Caligula's precious-metal mint has little significance for the analysis of the emperor's portraits on coins. In the main section of Die Bildnisse des Caligula, Dietrich Boschung discusses the portrait sculpture of the emperor and the relevant literary and epigraphic evidence (pp. 27-103) and catalouges all known Caligula portraits, both in the round and on gems, including those refashioned as images of Claudius (pp. 105-24).  Much of Boschung's discussion falls outside the realm of a review in ajaournal of numismatics  (From F. Kleiners Review ANA)

Caligula Ny Glyptotek  Frontal View (Photo Courtesy Rene Seindel)

The silver denarii of Caligula agree more with the Copenhagen head then any other head I have seen.  The frontal view which can’t be seen on his coinage show the triangular face, and an impression type fold of the skin in the forehead.  This is of course of little iconographical evidence for the Caligulan denarii unless we look at the all importrant right profile.  Caligula’s hairstyle also has a nearly closed pincer above the right corner of the eye which is typical of his hairstyle.   This to me is one of the finest portraits of Caligula in the round that is extant.  If we start at the center and count the curls you will see the same 5 that exists on the silver denarii of Caligula.  

Caligula Ny Glyptotek  Frontal View (Photo Courtesy Rene Seindel)

The silver denarii of Caligula agree more with the Copenhagen head then any other head I have seen.  The frontal view which can’t be seen on his coinage show the triangular face, and an impression type fold of the skin in the forehead.  This is of course of little iconographical evidence for the Caligulan denarii unless we look at the all importrant right profile.  Caligula’s hairstyle also has a nearly closed pincer above the right corner of the eye which is typical of his hairstyle.   This to me is one of the finest portraits of Caligula in the round that is extant.  If we start at the center and count the curls you will see the same 5 that exists on the silver denarii of Caligula. 

1.  Joe Geranio, Portraits of Caligula:  The Seated Figure?;  Society of Ancient Numismatics, Vol. XX. (1997)

2.  John Pollini- For more on Typology see:  A Pre-Principate Portrait of Gaius (Caligula) JWAG (1982)

3.   D. Boshung- Die Bildnisse des Caligula, Gebruder Mann (Germany 1989)



Portrait of Caligula? Recut to Tiberius? (MFA Head)
Joe Geranio

This Julio-Claudian portrait located at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, Massachusetts is identified as possibly Drusus Germanicus? The provenance of this wonderful piece of Julio-Claudian art was said to have been found at Marmaris [ancient Physkos] on the southern coast of Caria. Purchased by the Museum of Fine Arts from Robert E. Hecht, Jr. in November of 1971. The height of the head is 37.5 cm (14 3/4 in.) and made of marble possibly from the greek island of Paros. The head is in excellent condition, with an irregular but attractive yellow patina. From the Roman Imperial Julio-Claudian period, about A.D. 30, reworked about A.D. 33. To my knowledge this head has never been published as a possible portrait of Caligula; and in D. Boschung's work "Die Bildnisse des Caligula", was not mentioned 1. I want to list how the MFA has listed the Portrait head: Bust of a Julio-Claudian man. The original subject of this bust was probably the imperial prince Drusus Germanicus, brother of the Emperor Caligula. Portraits of Drusus Germanicus show him with a hairstyle that has locks curving out from a central fork with a small 'pincer' lock on the right corner of the hairline and none on the left. Originally, this hairstyle was present here; however, the hair above the forehead has been chiseled away by someone using both a pointed and a toothed chisel. The new face bears some resemblance to the Emperor Claudius in its oval shape and also the Emperor Caligula in terms of its unusual characteristic of having the hair combed back instead of forward and down from the crown of the head. A number of Roman portraits were recarved in antiquity, particularly of individuals who had fallen out of imperial favor. The neck, which has been broken across the front, was worked for insertion in a draped (or draped and cuirassed) statue or bust. The ears are chipped, and the crown of the head has been damaged slightly.2  

Julio-Claudian Portraiture (Sons of Germanicus) 

Nero & Drusus Caesar. Died AD 31 and 33, respectively. Æ Dupondius (16.06 g, 6h). Rome mint. Struck under Gaius (Caligula), AD 37-38. Nero and Drusus on horseback riding right / Legend around large S C. RIC I 34 (Gaius). (CNGCOINS)

Portrait of Nero Iulius Caesar, son of Germanicus.

Julio-Claudian portraiture is not an easy subject to study. All of the Julio-Claudians subscribed to the basic imperial image established by Augustus in order to stress the unity and continuity of their line. Even Caligula, who was obsessed with his own appearance, adhered to this formula. I have collected the coins of Caligula for over 20 years, but the all consuming pincer counting of Drusus Iulius, Caligula and Nero Iulius are quite complex. Many of the Julio-Claudians look alike in their official likenesses, that is, perhaps not in life. Hairstyles really are fundamental to establishing imperial typologies. In some ways, emperors (Princeps) wore hairstyles as these were badges of identification which helped distinguish them from other Princeps and members from the imperial family. The same is true for imperial women and a few private individuals. So "curl counting" as some graduate students call it, is a useful tool because of the model of portrait productions and dissemination. The problem with identifying these 3 Julio-Claudians is the grey area, and I can't think of a more grey area than Drusus Iulius, Nero Iulius and Caligula. Identifying Childhood or youthful portraits can be extremely difficult because of the great similarity of hairstyles and family resemblence of these closely related males. It looks like the MFA head started life as Caligula (notice high hairline of original); then, after his death, it was recut into a youthful looking Tiberius. See: Pollini's article where the profile of the young Tiberius in Pollini's article figs. 5-6 (Copenhagen Tiberius).3 The lower roughened surface of the marble just below the original Caligulan hairline suggests that the original hairlocks were covered over in marble dust stucco, giving the new Tiberius image a lower hairline -- one more in keeping with Tiberius earlier types (see Pollini's Type II, supra n.3.).  The roughening of the surface of the marble below the original Caligulan hairline on the forehead suggests that this was done to make the stucco adhere better. Over the centuries the stucco would have disintegrated revealing the original high-carved hairlocks of Caligula beneath. See the portrait of Gaius recut into a Nero, in which the upper fringe of locks is that of Gaius in his last type.4 In this is case, the sculptor carved Nero's locks further into the forehead with stucco being used only to fill in the space between the locks of Gaius' original hairline. Again, the disappearance of the stucco over time leaves the odd double fringe of locks of the before (Gaius) and after (Nero). The Magdalene Tiberius combines classicizing tendencies and subtle modeling of facial features finds a closer affinity with portraits of Caligula than of Claudius, Caligula's images can be narrowly dated to the period of his principate (A.D. 37-41). as Pollini points out. Caligulan portraiture is very subjective business. Type I is the Herkalion type and type II is the Copenhagen type. The Haupttypus (i.e.type I) of Caligula was undoubted created when he came to power in 37; it first and foremost reflected Tiberius’ hairstyle and indirectly that of his father, who in reality was imitating Tiberius as the next in line to succeed Tiberius. The forking of Tiberius' hairlocks in the middle of his forehead and pincer features are iconographic features of Tiberius' Chiaramonti type. These features are also found in the hairstyles of Germanicus, Nero Iulius, and Caligula. Several of the Chiaramonti replica types have been recut into Caligula's official princeps type.5 

Right Profile of Caligula? recut to Tiberius? MFA

 Caligula & Germanicus Denarius. C CAESAR AVG GERM P M TR POT, laureate head of Caligula right / GERMANICVS CAES P C CAES AVG GERM, bare head of Germanicus right. RSC 4.

Left Profile of Caligula/ recut to Tiberius?  (MFA)


Gaius (Caligula). AD 37-41. Æ As (29mm, 11.03 g). Rome mint. Struck AD 37-38. Bare head left / Vesta seated left, holding patera and sceptre. RIC I 38; Cohen 27.



 

The Photos listed above agree iconographically with the MFA head and it is my  Caligula recut to Tiberiusassumption that the head in the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston was originally.6

1. See, D. Boschung, Die Bildnisse des Caligula. Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, Das romische Herrscherbild 1,4 Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1989.

2. MFA description.

3. See, J. Pollini, A new Marble Head of Tiberius, Antike Kunst, Vol. 48. 2005; Plate 8-figs. 5-6.

4. See, J. Pollini, The Portraiture of Gaius and Lucius Caesars, Plate 22. Fordham Univ Pr (November 1987)

5. Pollini, AK, Vol. 48, pp66-67. Hertel, Caligula-Bildnisse vom Typus Fasanerie in Spanien, Madrider Mitteilungen 23, 1982. pp. 281-82. P. Zanker in: Fittschen, Zanker 15.Cf. See D. Boschung, Die Bildnistypen der iulisch-claudischen Kaiserfamilie: ein kritischer Forschungsbericht, JRA 6, 1993, 39-79.

6. See J. Geranio, Portraits of Caligula: The Seated Figure? for more on typology on Caligula with numismatics. Society of Ancient Numismatics, Vol. XX, no.1.