PDF hosted at the Radboud Repository of the Radboud University Nijmegen
The following full text is a publisher's version.
For additional information about this publication click this link. http://hdl.handle.net/2066/116140
Please be advised that this information was generated on 2021-10-10 and may be subject to change. LIESBETH CLAES
KINSHIP AND COINS Ancestors and Family on Roman Imperial Coinage under the Principate
m m
Nijmegen, 201 3 Kinship and Coins
Ancestors and Family on Roman Imperial Coinage iinder the Principate
Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen op gezag van de rector magnificus prof. mr. S.CJJ. Kortmann, volgens besluit van het college van decanen in het openbaar te verdedigen op maandag 7 oktober 2013 om 16.30 uur precies
door Liesbeth Maria Gabriëlla Frans Edmond Claes geboren op 23 april 1985 te Rumst, België Promotor: Prof. dr. O.J. Hekster Copromotor: dr. J. van Heesch (Koninklijke Bibliotheek van België en Katholieke Universiteit Leuven)
Manuscriptcommissie: Prof. dr. E. Moormann Prof. dr. C.F. Norena (University of Califomia, Berkeley) Prof. dr. F. Kemmers (Goethe-Universitat, Frankfurt am Main)
Liesbeth Claes, 2013.
Printed by Ipskamp Drukkers B.V.
Images on cover: RIC 181b of Julia Domna witli her sons Caracalla and Geta: Numismatica Ars Classica NAC AG, Auction 33, Lot. 526 (06.04.2006) = Auction 52, Lot. 509 (07.10.2009); RIC 152 of tüvus Caesar: Numismatica Ars Classica NAC AG, Auction 59, Lot. 960 (04.04.2011); RIC 418a of diva Sabina: Numismatica Ars Classica NAC AG, Auction 49, Lot 232 (21.10.2008); RIC 462b of Carinus and Numerian: Numismatica Ars Classica NAC AG, Auction 52, Lot. 580 (07.10.2009). Website NAC AG: arsclassicacoins.com.
ISBN: 978-90-9027773-8
2 Contents
Acknowledgements 5 Abbreviations g
Chapter 1: Theoretical and methodological framework 12
1. The Roman emperor and tais fam ily 12
1.1. Roman emperorship 12
1.2. Imperial kinship j 3 2. The creation and communication of imperial messages 17
2.1. Creating imperial messages 17
2.2. Communicaling imperial messages 19 3. Research method 29
3.1. Coin database 29
3.2. Chronological demarcation 33
3.3. Structure of the book 34
PART 1: RETROSPECTIVE KINSHIP MESSAGES Chapter 2: Messages of ancestry 3g
1. Introduction 33 2. The general picture 43
3. Creating and communicating ancestry through coin legends 49
3.1. The kinship tenmfilius, nepos andpronepos 49
3.2. References to gentes and familial titulature 56
3.3. Having nobilitas: propagating your noble ancestry 60 4. Creating and communicating visual messages of ancestry 63
4.1. Images of male ancestors 63
4.1.1. Emperors propagating their biological ancestors 64
1. Julio-Claudian ancestral experiments 65 2. The display of non-imperial fathers on Vitellins’ and Trajan’s coinage 67 3. Patemal advertisement by imperial sons: Titus, Domitian, Commodus, and Caracalla 70 4. The reappearance of the biological father at the end of the third century 74
3 4.1.2. Emperors propagating their imperial adoptive fathers 77 1. The adoptive fathers on the Julio-Claudian coins 80 2. The so-caUed adoptive emperors and their ancestral messages 87 3. Propagating adoptive fathers in the third century 92
4.2. Images of female ancestors 93 4.2.1. Julio-Claudian and Flavian mothers’ advertisement on coins 94
4.2.2. Advertising your adoptive mother: the case of Plotina 102
4.2.3. Severan mothers and grandmothers 103
4.2.4. Matemal absence in the third century 110
4.3. Invented ancestries 113
4.3.1. Livia, the benefactress of Galba 114 4.3.2. D ivus Pertinax P ater and Commodus, two invented ancestors
for Septimius Severus 114 4.3.3. Caracalla, a preferred Severan ancestor 116 4.3.4. Claudius II Gothicus, a preferred late third-century ancestor 117
4.4. Restoring one’s predecessor’s coins 120
4.5. Celebrating the empress’ ancestry 125 5. Condusion ^
PART 2 : PROSPECTTVE KINSHIP MESSAGES Chapter 3: Representing the emperors’ successors 134
1. Introduction 134 2. The general picture 140 3. Representing adopted (grand)sons 144 3.1: Representing the adopted (grand)sons of the Julio-Claudian house 145
3.2. The coin absence of adopted sons after the Julio-Claudians 149
3.3. Representing the adopted sons of the second century 151
3.4. Representing the adopted sons of the third century 154 4. The propagation of biological (grand)sons 158 4.1. Two Julio-Claudian biological sons: Drusus Iunior and Britannicus 159
4.2. The year 69 and the increased representation of biological successors 163
4.3. Representing Commodus, flrst-bom in purple 166
4.4. Representing biological (grand)sons of the third century 170
4.5. A deity in the family: coin types for sons who passed away 178 5. Caesares who were not (adopted) sons of the emperor: three cases 180
6 . Conclusion 1®^
4 Chapter 4: Imperial women on imperial coins 186
1. Introduction 186 2. The general picture 191 3. Representing empresses 194
3.1. The empresses of the Julio-Claudian and Flavian dynasties 194
3.2. The increased representation of empresses in the second century 197
3.3. The limited representation of empresses in the early third century 210
3.4. The frequent representation of empresses in the second half
o f the third century 214 4. Representing other female relatives of the emperor 221
4.1. General introduction 221
4.2. The representation of the Julio-Claudian daughters and sisters on coins 222
4.3. Representing daughters and nieces in the second half of the first century 224
4.4. The Ulpian women Marciana and Matidia Maior 228
4.5. Faustina Minor, Lucilla, Didia, and daughters in the third century 230 5. Conclusion 233
Conclusion 236
1. Representing the emperor’s family 236
2. From innovation to standardisation 242
3. The coins’ authority and targeting audiences 244
Samenvatting in het Nederlands 247 Appendices 257
A.1. Images 257
A.2. List of emperors from Augustus to Carinus 267
A.3. List of types propagating retrospective and prospective messages
with corresponding RIC-numbers 269
A.4. Tables 281
A.5. Stemmata 287 Bibliography 291 Curriculum vitae 312
5 Acknowledgements
My passion for the ancient world brought me back in the land of my matemal ancestors, who during the Second World War had to flee from the Netherlands to Belgium. It is almost ironie that in my family’s former homeland, I became part of the research project “Emperors and Ancestors”. First and foremost, I owe a debt of gratitude to my supervisor Olivier Hekster, who was the best guide imaginable during these four years. His enthusiasm, encouragment, and trust in me have been stimulating beyond words. Next to him, I was blessed by a co-promotor, Johan van Heesch, who is a living numismatic encyclopaedia. During the course of the dissertation, I had the opportunity to spend considerable time abroad at several universities and institutions with excellent hbraries and coin collections, such as Oxford, Berkeley, and Rome. Moreover, during these stays I was privileged to meet and to debate with several scholars, which contributed to my research. During my research stay at Corpus Christi College, University of Oxford (Michaelmas term 2009), I leamed much about ancient numismatics conversating with Christopher Howgego, Cathy King, and Luke Treadwell. Here, I also have meet Simon Day and Leen Van Broeck, who are still my historical partners in crime. At the University of Berkeley, I was welcomed by Carlos Norena, who read and commented some earlier drafts of this dissertation, and who agreed to be a member of my thesis committee. I am also grateful to Susanna Elm, who by vocally opposing the initial chronological demarcation of my dissertation shaped its methodological frame. At Berkeley, I was also warmly welcomed by David DeVore, to whom I am very indebted for checking and correcting my EngHsh in this dissertation, and whose wife Sandi Garcia’s excellent cooking skills introduced me into the world of Italian-American cooking. Finally, I experienced a very nice stay at the Royal Netherlands Institute in Rome during the OIKOS masterclass under the auspices of Christopher Peiling. For the numismatic collections, I had two good places at my disposal: the Royal Library of Belgium in Brussels and the GeldMuseum in Utrecht where I was always welcomed respectively by Johan van Heesch, Franjois de Callatay, and Cécile Amould, and by Paul Belien, Jaco Zuijderduijn, Ans ter Woerds, and Thijs Verspagen. Much time I have spent at the Université catholique de Louvain in Louvain-la-Neuve, where Jan Tavemier and Elynn Gorris shared their office desks with me. I cannot thank them enough for their support and gatherings around coffee and Iranian tea, making working from my Belgian home on
6 Mondays or Fridays a lot easier. I am also obliged to thank Elynn Gorris twice as our ftiendship has only strengthened being both in academics. I am very grateful for having found in her a kindred spirit Next to these, I was fortunate to have several scholarly guides on my joumey, including Richard Abdy, Diederik Burgersdijk, Curtis Clay, Dominique Hollard, Mariette Horster, Fleur Kemmers, and Clare Rowan, to whom I could always send emails with questions and who were so kind as to read earlier drafts of this dissertation. Warm thanks are given to all colleagues of the History departement and of Auxilia at the Radboud University Nijmegen, and special thanks are for my colleagues of Ancient History during these four years: Bemt Kerremans, Daniëlle Slootjes, Erika Manders, Gerda de Kleijn, Kor Bosch, Iien Foubert, Luuk de Blois, Nathalie de Haan, Martijn leks, Pamela Doms, Paul Stephenson, Rafael Hunsucker, Sanne van Poppel, and Ylva Klaassen. Special thanks to Coen van Galen for his inspirational title suggestions. Furthermore, many thanks go to Theo van Engelen and Paul Rotering for the help with my database and my graphs. Moving to the Netherlands was not always that easy, and I am happy that distance did not end many firiendships. Therefore, I want to thank the girls from Cultural Studies; my friends from West-Vloandem; and the Leuven clan for making my Belgian weekends so amusing. I especially want to thank Anneliesje Ceulemans, Annette Hoeijmans, Marijke van Eekert, Soetkin Hoessen, and Yrena Syzdol for their friendship. Although my parents deserve a thanked a thousand thanks for everything they did in my life, they know that this thank you- sentence is worth a thousand thank yous. Furthermore, I could not image a life without my “litde” sister and brother, Veerle and Johan, as they give my life extra splendour. I also especially thank my grandparents and my uncle Viktor De Boeck for being my biggest fans. The last words are for my lovely husband, Jeroen Vanveerdeghem, who always supported me from the day I met him, giving his unconventional love and food. As the Vanveerdeghem familia only counts 69 members today, I surely have to mention them in this book about ancestry, and I hope that a lot of descendants will come forth.
This book is dedicated to my grandfathers Edmond De Boeck and Frans Claes, who taught me to read, write, and count
Liesbeth Claes, 23 April 2013
7 Abbreviations
AAAH Acta ad archaeologiam et artium historiam pertinentia AE L’année épigrapMque AfA Acta fratrum Arvalium AIIN Annali dell’lstituto Italiano di Numismatica AJA American Journal of Archaeology AJAH American Journal of Ancient History AJPh The American Journal of Philology ANRW Temporini, H. - et al. (Eds.) (1972-1998). Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt. Berlin - New York. ANS American Numismatic Society ANSmusN American Numismatic Society, Museum Notes BABesch Bulletin Antieke Beschaving BGU Reiter, F. (Ed.) (1895-2013). Berliner Griechische Urkunden. Vols. 1-20. Berlin. BMCPtol. Poole, R. S. (1883). Coins of the British Museum: The Ptolemies, Kings of Egypt. Vol. 6. London. BMCRR Grueber, H. A. (Ed.) (19702). Coins of the Roman Republican in the British Museum. Vols. 1-3. London. BMC Sel. Gardner, P. (1879). Coins of the British Museum: Seleucid Kings of Syria, Vol. 4. London. BSFN Bulletin de la Société framjaise de Numismatique CAH Edwards, I. E. S., N. G. L Hammond - et al. (Eds.) (1970-2000). Cambridge Ancient History. Vols 1-14. Cambridge. CIL Mommson, Th., E. Bormann - et al. (Eds.) (1853-2003). Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Berlin. CPh Classical Philology CQ The Classical Quarterly DNP Cancik, H. and H. Schneider (Eds.) (1996-2003). Der Neue Pauly. Enzyklopadie der Antike. Vols. 1-21. Stuttgart - Weimar. EL Études de lettres EMC Echos du Monde Classique
8 GNS Schweizer Münzblatter = Gazette numismatique suisse G&R Greece and Rome HA Historia Augusta HHC Robertson, A. (Ed.) (1962-1982). Roman Imperial Coins in the Hunter Coin Cabinet: University of Glasgow. Vols. 1-5. London - Glasgow - New York. HThR Harvard Theological Review IG Kimhhfiff, A. - et al. (Eds.) (1873-2003). Inscriptiones Graecae. Berlin. IGR ragnat, R. (Ed.) (19752). Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanas Pertinentes. Vols. 1-4. Chicago. ILS Dessau, H. (Ed.) (1892-1916). Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae. Vols. 1-3. Berlin. IMEM Blois, de L., Hekster, O. J. - et al. (Eds.) (2001-2012). Proceedings of the Workshops of the International NetWork Impact of Empire (Roman Empire c.200 B.C. - A.D. 476). Vols. 1-16. Boston - Leiden. JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JbRGZM Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz JNG Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte JRA Journal of Roman Archeology JRS Journal of Roman Studies LCL Loeb Classical Library LCM Liverpool Classical Monthly UMC Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (1981-2009). Vols. 1-8. Zürich - Munich - Dusseldorf. LNV Litterae Numismaticae Vindobonenses MAAR Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome MDAI(R) Mitteilunge des Deütschen Archaologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung MEFRA Mélanges de 1’École fran 9 PCPhS Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society P.Cair.lsid. Boak, A. E. R. and H. C. Youtie (Eds.) (1960). The Archive of Aurelius Isidorus in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo, and the University of Michigan. Ann Arbor. P. Dura Welles, C. B., Fink, R. O. and J. F. Gilliam (Eds.) (1959).The Excavations at Dura-Europos conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters, Final Report V, Part I, The Parchments and Papyri. New Haven. PIR Prosopographia Imperii Romani. 2nd Edition (1933-2011). Berlin. P.Oxy The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (1898-2010). Published by the Egypt Exploration Society in Graeco-Roman Memoirs. London. RA Revue archéologique RBN Revue beige de Numismatique et de Sigillographie RE Pauly, A. F., Wissowa, G. and W. Kroll (Eds.) (1894-1980). Paulys Real- Encyclopadie der classischen Altertumwissenschaft. Munich. REA Revue des études anciennes RhM Rheinisches Museum für Philologie RIB Collingwood, R. W. and R. P. Wright (Eds.) (1965-1995). The Roman Inscriptions of Britain. Oxford. RIC Sutherland, C. H. V. - et al. (Eds.) (1924-2007). Roman Imperial Coinage. Vols. 1-10. London. RIN Rivista italiana di numismatica e scienze affini RN Revue Numismatique RRC Crawford, M. H. (Ed.) (1974). Roman Republican Coinage. Vols. 1-2. Cambridge. RPC Bumett, A. - et al. (Eds.) (1992-2006). Roman Provincial Coinage. Vols. 1-10. Oxford. SB F. Preisigke - et al. (Eds.) (1915-2003). Sammelbuch Griechischer Urkunden aus Agypten. Vols. 1-23. Berlin - Leipzig - Strassbourg - Wiesbaden. SCI Scripta Classica Israelica SEG Chamotis, A, T. Corsten - et al. (Eds.) (1923-1995). Supplementum epigraphicum Graecum. Amsterdam - Leiden. SN GANS Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum: New York (1969-1998). The Collection of the American Numismatic Society. 10 SNG Cop Sylloge Nummoram Graecorum: Copenhagen (1942-2002). The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals. Danish National Museum. SNR Schweizerische numismatische Rundschau TAPA Transactions (and the Proceedings) of the American Philological Association TRAC Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference YCIS Yale Classical Studies ZPE Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik Translations are either adapted from the LCL or they are my own, unless stated otherwise. The numbering of Dio’s Roman History follows the LCL edition. The translation of the Theodosian Code is taken from Pharr, C. (1952). The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sinnondian Constitutions: A translation with Commentary, Glossaiy, and Bibliography. Princeton, and of the Latin Panegyric VI is adapted from Nixon, C. E. V. and B. S. Rodgers (1994). In Praise of Later Roman Emperors: The Panegyrici Latini. Introduction, Translation, and Historical Commentary with the Latin Text of R.A.B. Mynors. Berkeley - Los Angeles - Oxford. In addition, the translation from the New Testament is from the New Revised Standard Version Bible (1989) which is published online by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America: http://www.devotions.net/bible/OOnew.htm. 11 Chapter 1: Theoretical and methodological framework 1. The Roman emperor and his family 1.1. Roman emperorship In 27 BC, Octavian was proclaimed Augustus with the consent of the Senate and the People of Rome. This event started a new era for Rome and the Roman Empire and marked an important stage in the emergence of the Principate.1 Although the later lex quae dicitur de imperio Vespasiani aimed to create a legal basis for the emperor, conferring all of Augustus’, Tiberius’, and Claudius’ powers and privileges to Vespasian, no legal procedure existed for the transfer of the imperial powers to a successor.2 Furthermore, as the year of the four emperors made clear, there were no strict boundaries limiting who could become the princeps: he could be a person ex se natus, i.e. a man of undistinguished birth, and he could even be appointed outside Rome. All these conditions paved the way for many usurpations contesting the authority of the ruling emperor.3 In the third century, some usurpers even founded their own empires with successive emperors, such as the so-called Gallic and British Empires.4 Although the consent of the Senate and the People of Rome was not obligatory to become a princeps, a new emperor certainly profited by it. Yet not every emperor succeeded in securing the Senate’s and the People’s confirmation, and furthermore, this confirmation did not always safeguard their claim to imperial power.5 The senatorial acceptance of the emperor Quintillus, for example, did not protect his position against his rival Aurelian, who was 1 Here, we should refer to Norena’s remark made in his recently published book, 2011, 6-7, and n. 27, that although “the multiple, discrete points of decision-making characteristic for the Republic were eventually subordinated to the will of a single ruler” [...] “there was also real institutional continuity before and after Augustus.” For instance, “legislative assemblies are attested as latE as Nerva (Digest 47.21.3.1), and electoral assemblies were still meeting in the early third century (Dio 38.28; 69.20.4).” For more, see Timpe, 1962; Veyne, 1976, 675-730; Eck-Caballos-Femandez, 1996, 158-161; Zanker, 1987; Benoist, 2005; Norena, 2011, 6- 10 with references. 2 CIL 6.930 = ILS 244; Hammond, 1956; Brunt, 1977,95-116; Norefia, 2011, 6-10. 3 Baharal, 1996, 9-19; Ando, 2000, 19-48; 73-276. For more analysis and discussion, see Flaig, 1992; 1997, 15- 34. 4 On the British usurpers, see Casey, 1995; Todd, 2004; Williams, 2004. On the Gallic usurpers, see König, 1981; Drinkwater, 1987; Boume, 2001. 5 Cf. Flaig, 1992, 38-131; 174-207; 1997, 15-34; Wiedemann, 19962, 198-209. Note also that the Senate’s relationship with the emperor was sometimes very problematic, certainly in the first two centuries of the Principate. For more see Millar, 1966, 156-166; Talbert, 1984. 12 proclaimed emperor by his troops in Sirmium.6 The accession of Aurelian, like many other emperors before him, demonstrates that the military had decisive power in the appointment of Roman emperor as well. In the course of the second and thiid centuries, the Roman legions, especially those stationed at the frontiers (limes), played a significant role in the proclamation of an emperor.7 Within the Roman Empire, the Senate, the Roman People, and the Roman legions were thus three great influential collectivities “that were capable of meaningful coUective action in the public sphere”, as Norena concludes. He continues, following Flaig’s Iheory of the Akzeptanzsystem, that “with these influential collectivities the emperor was in constant dialogue, both real and symbolic, interacting with each in a highly prescribed manner r-alf..iatprl to elicit the public displays of consensus, or “acceptance”, upon which impenal legitimacy ultimately rested.”8 In this dialogue of consensus, a dynastie principle often HnminatRH the transmission of the imperial office. 9 The Senate, the Roman People, and the Roman troops favoured dynastie succession, because an imperial house could guarantee more stability and welfare than estranged usurpers.10 1.2. Imperial kinship As any man could become emperor, each candidate for the office sought tools to legitimate his rlaim of impwial power. As the Senate, the Roman People, and the Roman military favoured a succession within the imperial house, the hypothesis is that the emperor s kinship was one way to strengthen his powers and to safeguard his position against potential threats of 6 The ancient sources, however, are very contradictory about QuintUlus’ throne accession, legnal duration and death, see HA deified Claudius 12.5-6; deifted Aurelian 37.5; Euteopius 9.12; Zosimus 1.47.1; Zonaras 1226; Jerome, Chrorticle s.a. 271; John of Antioch, ft. 154 FHG IV, p. 599; Bleckmann, 1992, 294-297; 300-302; Watson, 1999,47-48. . 7 On the military and their power to proclaim an emperor see Flaig, 1992, 132-173; 330-334; Wiedemann, 19962, 198-209; Hekster, 2007, 91-105; Johne-Hartmann, 2008, 583-632; Speidel, 2009, 109-120. Further reading on the power of the army in the central Empire and the provinces: Campbell, 1984; De Blois-Lo Cascio, 2007. 8 Norefla, 2011, 7; Flaig, 1992, esp. 38-173. a . Ando, 2000, 131-245; Seelentag, 2004, 12-42, esp. 17-29; Lobur, 2008, 12-36; 128-207. For more on the Senate and the third-century emperor see Millar, 1966,156-166; Bleckmann, 1992,279-326. . . . . 9 In this study, the terms ‘dynastie’ and ‘dynasty’ are defined as ‘a sequence of rulers considered members ot tne same family’. The author is aware of all pejoratives the term could imply. See also Norena, 2011,6 . 10 Timp- 1962, 88; Wiedemann, 19962, 198-255; Corbier, 1991a, 49-79; Lintott, 1994, 130-132; Baharal, 1996, 9-22; Lendon, 1997,254; Hekster, 2001,36-37; 39-49. 13 usurpation. In this study, the concept of kinship is divided into two categories: retrospective and prospective kinship.11 Retrospective kinship in this study refers to all male and female ancestors of the emperor. Ancestry was a crucial notion in Roman thinking in both the Republic and the Empire, and it seems to have been used frequently by emperors to legitimate their positions.13 Although Roman law did not permit political offices to be hereditaiy14, in practice heirs to the throne were frequently close male relatives of the emperor. Moreover, emperors did not have to be biologically descended from their ancestors. Roman law also considered adoptive ancestors to be legal relatives.15 Although the Romans frequently used adoption as a very common usage to incorporate someone into a familia for financial, political or emotional purposes, or as a strategy to secure the perpetuation of a particular familia16, in anthropology adoption counts as a Tictive’ or ‘constructed’ kinship.17 Therefore, and because this study wants to analyse if a dynastie principle emerged, it will differentiate between kinship links based on adopted and those based on biological grounds. Occasionally, ancestry was also forged to make dynastie claims by emperor-candidates and these ‘forged’ or ‘invented’ kinships will also be analysed separately in this study. Best known is the case of Septimius Severus, who retrospectively adopted himself as the son of Marcus AureUus in order to strengthen his imperial position in the tumultuous years after Commodus’ murder.18 Other emperors also tried to link themselves with a predecessor or a previous dynasty, as Constantine did with Claudius II Gothicus.19 Mythological ancestors were also famously The categorisation is based on Rose, 1997, 52. On the notion of such retrospective ( ‘past’) and prospective ( future’) lineage in Roman culture, see Bettini, 1988, 1-14; 113-133. 12 In anthropology, this concept of retrospective kinship can also be denoted with the terms ‘lineage’ and ‘descent’. 13 L'Orange, 1953; Andreau-Bruhns. 1990; Hower, 1996; Hillner, 2003, 129-145; Meurant, 2004; Smith 2006' Hekster, 2009, 95-110. Mommsen, 1878,770: “Society did not allow appointing a political successor by testament” Cf. Appian, Civil Wars 3.18: “The Roman People never surrendered the govemment to anybody to dispose of in succession, not even when they had kings.” Gaius 1.166-107, 2.136, 138-140; Digest 28.3.8; 18; Institutes 1.11.8; 2.13.4. See also Corbier, 1991a, 63-78- Gardner, 1998, 114-208; 126-145, Frier-McGinn, 2004, 304-310; Lindsay, 2009, 62-63; 68-69; 97-100. For more about the purposes and forms of adoption in Roman society, see in/ra chapter 2 (2 4 1 2' 2 4 2 2) and chapter 3 (3.3)...... ” For more on adoption in anthropological studies, see Waltner, 1996; Howell, 2009, 149-166. Dio 74.4.1-5.5; HA Pertinax 15.1-5; Septimius Severus 7.8-9; Aurelius Victor, Book o f the Caesars 20 30' AE 1951.75 = CIL 8.27374; CIL 8.1333; 5699; 5700; 9317; 23707; ILS 420; 422; 431; RIC Hl Commodus 263a; b- RIC IV.A Septimius Severus 65-66; 72a; 686; 700-702A; 712; 736A; BMCRE V 42- 143- BMC RE V xci' Hekster, 2002,189-191. See also Claes, 2012, 209-226. 19 Latin Panegyrics 6 (7), 2.1-3; 3-5; Aurelius Victor, Book of the Caesars 34.1-2; 4; HA Probus 3.2-4; deifled Claudius 1.3; 12.2-3; HA the two Gallieni 14.2-3; RIC VII Constantine Arles 173; 176; Aquileia 23; 26; Rome 106; 109; 112; 115-116; 119; 122; 125; 128; Siscia43; 45; Thessalonica 26; Treveri 203; 207; Syme, 1971, 205- 206; 1983,69; 152; Lippold, 1981, 357-369; Nixon-Rodgers, 1994, 215-217; Watson, 1999, 41; 216. 14 trumpeted by emperors, but in this study, they are excluded as this is beyond the scope and limits of our research.20 Prospective kinship includes all relatives surrounding the emperor who were likely to shape the continuity of his house. Already from the start of the Principate, the perception developed that the relatives around the emperor formed an entity, later referred to as the domus Augusta, a term first formulated by Ovid in the revisions of his Fasti in AD 8.21 Simultaneously, the notion developed that the imperial family as a collective entity embodied health, security, and the etemity of the state, and subsequenüy it was thought that only the permanent leadership of the imperial house could garantuee the continuation of these conditions.22 In this house, sons were especially important as they could succeed to the imperial throne of their fathers. Consequently, having children was from time to time proclaimed as an advantage for the emperor. Mosüy, emperors designated their direct descendants through the male line as heirs, or, when they lacked male heirs, they personally adopted a successor, preferably one linked through a cognate bloodline or by marriage.23 As we mentioned above, Roman law made no distinction between adopted children and those bom in lawful marriage, but in this study we will make a distinction between them, as these notions might give further clues as to how the dynastie principle emerged during the Roman Empire. Yet, as mentioned above, no legal basis existed for an imperial succession. However, there are no examples of a son who survived his father and did not succeed him, apart from Pertinax Iunior 24 From Augustus to Gaius, a series of adoptions within the Julio-Claudian bloodline settled the imperial succession.25 The adoptions stopped after the murder of the childless Gaius, as no direct descendant of the emperor could claim the throne. Even in this political vacuum a dynastie principle prevailed as the Praetorian Guard acclaimed the older Claudius to be the new emperor, since he was the eldest living member of the Julio-Claudian 20 For more on mythological ancestry, see Hekster, 2006,24-35; 2010,601-615; farthcoming 2014. 21 Ovid, Fasti 1.532; 701; 721; 6.810; Mfflar, 1993, 1-17; 2002, 321-349; Flory, 1996, 291-293; 301-303; Severy, 2003, 214-219. Next to the meaning of a physical house, the term domus could also mean a household. Consequently, the meaning of domus overlapped with that of familia, but was more flexible, and included both agnate and cognate kin. Fes: more on the difference between a domus and a family, and the power of the mater familias, see Saller, 1984, 336-355; 1999, 182-197; Famey, 2007, 107-114. For the dose association between lineage and ‘an (imperial) house’ in anthropological studies, see Gillespie, 2000,467-484. 22 Ovid, Fasti 1.709-722; FuUerton, 1985, 483; Wallace-Hadrill, 1986; Dixon, 1988, 107; 1991, 107; 113; 1997, 151; 165-167; Severy, 2003, 39; 104-112; 131-138; 188-189; Foubert, 2010a, 65-70. 23 See Timpe, 1962; Corbier, 1991a, 49-79, esp. 67; Baharal, 1996, 9-22; Hekster, 2001, 35-49; Kunst, 2005, 131-149; Iindsay, 2009, 197-216. From the reign of Vespasian onwards, it also became clear that the person who was bestowed with the title Caesar was the designated successor, see Hammond, 1957, 27-29; Baharal, 1996,10-11; Rose, 1997; 12-14; Hekster, 2001,35-49. 24 P. Helvius Pertinax Iunior is the son of the emperor Pertinax: PIR rv',74. After the death of his father, he was not killed. Under Septimius, he even became a priest charged with his father’s service. 25 Augustus was succeeded by his adopted son Tiberius, and on his turn, Tiberius was succeeded by bis adopted grandson Gaius. 15 house and possessor of their estate.26 The succession of Claudius demonstrated that the imperial succession became more and more dominated with the question which member of the ruling imperial house was to be the new emperor rather than whether succession was dynastie.27 Furthermore, the dominance of the dynastie principle is also perfectly illustrated by the fact that some reigning emperors killed the relatives and in-laws iadjmes) of their own dynasty or of their predecessor to eliminate all potential pretenders to the imperial position.28 In the imperial family, the female relatives of the emperor, such as his sisters, daughters, nieces and, in particular, his wife, also started to play a significant role and became, in contrast to Republican women, public figures.29 In their roles as wives and mothers, able to give birth to an heir apparent, they signified civil order, health, and security to the Roman Empire. As a consequence, some of these imperial women were also perceived as benefactresses who could enjoy a special connection with several groups, in particular with the military as mater castrorum.30 The imperial women were thus perceived as full members of the imperial family, promising the harmony and the continuity of the Roman state.31 The events after the deaths of Gaius and Lucius Caesar illustrate this perfectly, Severy argues, as the Roman People, anxious about the future, pleaded to Augustus to recall his banished daughter Julia in order to restore the harmony in the state.32 The idea that an imperial house ruled the Roman Empire seems to become well integrated in the minds of the Romans during the Roman Empire; especially the military feit a strong dynastie loyalty. Of course, a succession from within an imperial family pre-empted a political vacuum after the death of the emperor, which provided political and economical stability, and in the best case prevented the rise of imperial opponents who could claim the 26 Wiedemann, 19962, 231-232; Hekster, 2001, 36; 40. 27 Hekster, 2001, 39-41. 28 As Nero, Caracalla, and Licinius did. Among Nero’s victims were Nero’s cousin Rubellius Plautus, his brother-in-law Faustus Comelius Sulla, his sister-wife Octavia, his sister Antonia, and the Julian descendant Lucius Junius Silanus Torquatus: Suetonius, Nero 36; Corbier, 1994, 274-275 with references; Rudich, 1993, xxviii-xxix; 19-20; 30-31; 44-46; 66-74; 82; 137-139; Kragelund, 1998, 167-171; Hekster, 2001, 45-46. The son of the farmer emperor Pertinax, P. Helvius Pertinax, was murdered during Caracalla’s consulate in AD 212: see PIR IV1.74; Herodian 4.3.6; HA Caracalla 4.8; Geta 6 . 6-7; Fluss, 1918, 904. Licinius sentenced to death the sons of Galerius, Severus 11 and Maximinus Daia, respectively Candidianus, Severianus and Maximus, according to Lactantius, On the Death of the Prosecutors 20; 50. 29 Purcell, 1986, 75-105; Severy, 2003, 38-43; 232-251; Hemelrijk, 2005, 309-317; Foubert, 2010a, 37-71; 105- 127; 134-169. 30 Boatwright, 1991, 532; Rose, 1997, 24-25; Severy, 2003, 80-81; Levick, 2007, 54-56; Kampen, 2009, 92-93; 102-103; Foubert, 2010a, 164-168. 31 Dixon, 1988,107; Severy, 2003, 39; 104-112; 131-138; 188-189; Cooper, 2007,109-110. 32 Suetonius, Augustus 65.3; Dio 55.13.1; Severy, 2003, 188-189. Additionally, the Tabula Siarensis, the Tabula Hebarta, and the senatus consultum de Cn. Pisone patre mention quite explicitly the members of the domus Augusta, including the following females: Julia Augusta (Livia), Antonia, Agrippina Maior, and the daughters of Germanicus. See Foubert, 2010a, 65-71. 16 imperial throne.33 Moreover, dynastie succession kept the imperial (administrative) fteedmen and slaves and the family fortune within the imperial family, which strengthened the reign of the successor, and it gave to the military Ihe signal that this successor could continue to pay their wages and could distribute donatives.34 The given arguments likewise rendered a dynastie imperial house attractive to senators and the Roman People. Dynastie succession was thus one of the best lypes of successions for safeguarding an emperor against usurpation. The hypothesis of this study is that many emperors used their retrospective and prospective kinship, whether biological, adoptive, or invented, in order to legitimate their teigns. Iheicfore, they needed media through which the Empire’s inhabitants could become awaxe of the emperor and respond to his claim of power. In order to trace the ways in which the emperor could use his kinship, it is necessary to look first at how imperial messages were created and communicated in the Roman Empire. 2. The creation and communicatioii of imperial messages 2.1. Creating imperial messages For some decades, scholars have discussed the issue of art as means for the creation and the broadcasting of (imperial) messages.36 In the last 25 years, Hölscher (1987 and 2000) and Zanker (1987) have articulated some important characteristics of visual imagery, which still provide the basic concepts for the study of ancient visual communication. Inspired by these concepts, Ando (2000), Weber and Zimmennan (2003), and Norena (2011) have exammed imperial representation in different types of media. Their investigations concluded that the representation of imperial power and Ihus the communication of imperial messages was a crucial factor for the emperor in managing the Empire. To legitimate the emperor’s power, the imperial centre could broadcast imperial messages through various media, such as coinage, proclamations, historical texts, monumental art and artwork. Furthermore, a central authority 33 Timpe, 1962, 88; Wiedemann, 19962, 198-255; Corbier, 1991a, 49-79; Lintott, 1994, 130-132; Baharal, 1996, - S a l t o ^ , M7?: and slaves of the imperial house, seeWeaver, 1972,199- “ S Z n , 19962, 198-255; Corbier, 1991a; 49-79; Lintott, 1994, 130-132; Baharal, 1996, 9-22; Hekster, ^ h e T o r k s of Alföldi, 1934; 1935, L’Orange, 1947; Panofsky, 1952; Brilliant, 1963; Veyne, 1976 and Wittkower, 1977, for example, made already some greal contributions to the debate. 17 could broadcast more than one message simultaneously.37 The emperor Augustus seems to be a good example of this practice. In the public sphere, he disseminated several parallel, and sometimes even conflicting, messages, which simultaneously presented him as a human, a superhuman, and a divinity, as both traditional and innovative.38 These different messages appealed to different audiences in different ways39, serving as a binding agent between the central authority and diverse inhabitants of his Empire.40 On receiving the imperial messages, audiences, usually the (senatorial) elite or the military, could react. It was therefore dangerous for the emperor not to anticipate on their reactions. Some emperors, like Gaius, Nero, Commodus, and Elagabalus, broadcast clear, but univocal and controversial messages, and thus did not, or not sufficiently, care about the expectations from their subjects. Eventually, their inflexible imageiy provoked antagonistic reactions that lead to their violent deads.41 In this view, messages were means of power that started a dialogue between the production centre of the messages and the receivers, creating a continuous process of renegotiations of that very power. In doing so, messages of power became created in a certain historical context, directed to specific audiences and fulfdling specific purposes, constructing the emperor’s reality in the image of how he wanted to be perceived. Nowadays, imperial representation is examined from all possible disciplines and points of view.42 Some recent scholarly works have compared the imperial messages of various types of media to trace the visual ideological framework of individual emperors, as for example of Augustus, Nero, Commodus, Septimius Severus, Elagabalus, and Maximinus Thrax.43 Apart from Norena’s study of the creation and dissemination of imperial ideals in the Roman West from AD 69 to 235, and the studies of Hedlund (2008) and Manders (2012) on the imperial representation on coins in the third century, no attempt has been made so far to analyse diachronically how impenal representation was constructed in one specific medium. Such diachronie research wiH aU°W us to examine a medium at imperial disposal that created the image of the emperor fiom the Empire’s centre and show us the messages that the centre wanted to broadcast. ” Hekster, 2011, 111; Manders, 2012, 5. "**** which ™de * to - 866 Zanker’ 1987: Mayer’ 20]0’ ’ 19-122’ Hekster’ 2011> "1-114. 41 Hekster, 2011, 111; 115-117 18 Moreover, the long stretch of time makes it also possible to detect representational pattems, wherefrom visual experiments can be divided from Standard messages.44 2.2. Communicating imperial messages This study’s hypothesis is that imperial coinage was one medium through which the imperial centre could send messages of power.45 Over the years, scholars have debated intensely whether imperial coinage communicated imperial messages. Initially, scholars declared that Roman imperial coinage spread (persuasive) messages.46 From the 1950s, this point of view changed radically. The debate became dominated by the views of Jones (1956), later followed by Buttrey (1972) and Crawford (1983), who minimized the role of coinage as a means of communication. Rebutting these scholars, the studies of Sutherland (1959), Levick (1982; 1999), Ehrhardt (1984), and Wallace-Hadrill (1986) argued again that Roman imperial coinage displayed images and legends sent from the imperial centre to persuade the Empire’ s inhahitants Nowadays, it is generally accepted that coinage was a vehicle of imperial communication47, although some scholars, such as Wolters (1999), Bumett (20042) and Duncan-Jones (2005) remark that we should not underestimate that many coin designs had conventional messages due to standardisation and economic reasons 48 In order to examine the communication value of imperial coinage, the conceptual and theoretical conditions for an effective communication piocess, formulated by such renowned scholars as Ellul (1965), Marlin (2002), Jowett and O’Donnell (2006), and Norena (2010), have been analysed.49 This analysis demonstrates that a communication process succeeds if 44 Here, we must be aware that while not every coin type conveyed a message distinguishable by its topicaJity, most had only a short-tenn resonance. Such topical types differ &om generic types, which convey Standard messages for long-term diffusion. See Norefia, 2010, 256-268. 45 The term ‘imperial coinage’ classifies all coins produced under the contiol of the Roman central state in order to distinguish them from coinages strack by the numerous local authorities. Sometimes, however, the authorities responsible for these two groups can coindde; see Bumett, 20042, 23-24 and Howgego-Heuchert, 2005. 46 RIC I, 22 argues that Roman coins could be regarded as “newspapers of the day”; Strack, 1931; 1933; 1937; Charleswarth, 1937; Toynbee, 1944 (=19862); Collingwood, 1946; Grant, 1950; Sutherland, 1951; 1959; 1976, 1986. Cf. Klkins, 2009,27-29. 47 Howgego, 1995; Weigel, 1995, esp. 244-245; Paul-IeranJi, 1999; Norefia, 2001; 2010; 2011; Weber- 7 .imm<-rman 2003; Wolters, 2003; Hekster, 2003; Alexandridis, 2004, 8-10; 18-28; Hedlund, 2008; Eckhardt, 2011; Rowan, 2011a; b; 2012; forthcoming 2013; Manders, 2012. Contra Levick, 1982, 104-116 and Cheung, 1998, esp. 56-59; 61, who describes imperial coin types as “monuments in miniature”, invented and instructed by lower imperial administrators, commemorating the emperor’s deeds in order to please him. 4® Wolters, 1999, 255; Bumett, 20042, 67-69; 79; Duncan-Jones, 2005, 461; 470-471; 485. Cf. Lo Cascio, 1996, 273-287; Norena, 2010, 248-249; 2011,15-19. 49 Jacques Ellul, a sociologist, brought the research on the process of propaganda to a higher and modem Standard. He remains one of the main sources for communication analysts who work around propaganda and 19 seven conceptual criteria are fulfilled. Those seven criteria can be summed up as follows: firstly, there must be a particular historical context in which the messages are sent; second the messages must be pursued for a certain purpose; third a particular initiator must send the messages; fourth the messages must be sent through several media; sixth the messages must be heterogeneous with verbal and visual elements; and seventh they must enter a dialogue between the initiator and the intended audiences. Consequently, the reactions of the intended auciences decide on the successes of the messages sent. This description generates the following communication model in the scheme below50: I------historical context------1 Purpose i Initiator —>------> ------> intended audiences —> heterogeneous messages —> through several media t = visual & verbal J, “ ...... <—dialogue—> ------. J Coinage is one of the media through which we suppose that a communication process between ruler and subject could work during the Roman Empire. In order to know whether imperial coinage operated as an effective medium in the sketched communication process, the following sections will examine the communication qualities of imperial coinage on basis of the other six formulated coimnunication criteria. First, the historical context of the imperial coinage starts with Augustus, the fïrst prineeps (27 BC). Previously, Republican mint masters, a college of three annual elected magistrates, were in charge of minting under protection of the Senate, but their authority over minting diminished during Augustus’ reign.51 Although no administrative accounts of any mint officials are passed down to us, it is generally accepted that from Augustus onwards the media (Ellul, 1965). Secondly, I used the work of Randal Marlin (2002), who explored philosophical questions related to propaganda, joumalism, and mass communication. FinaUy, I used the chapter ‘How to analyse propaganda’ of the sociologists Gareth Jowett and Victoria O’Donnell’s book Propaganda and Persuasion (2006a), nowadays a main sourcebook for communication sociologists. Recenüy, Norena, 2010, 250-268 has also demonstrated the communicative value of imperial and provincial coinage in his study ‘Coins and Communication’. He employed rough the communication model of Harold Lasswell (1948), in which he differentiates five criteria: agency, message, medium, audience and impact. Although Norena and I work on very similar lines, my communication scheme has been developed independently from his, exploiting different communication theories. Some overlap is, of course, inevitable, and I have tried to signpost this where relevant by referring to the relevant passages in his 2010 article. 50 Ellul, 1965, 6-60; 90-120; 193-201; Marlin, 2002, 302-305; Jowett-O’Donnell, 2006, 271-286. 51 RRC, 1974, 598-620; Bumett, 1977, 37-63. Career inscriptions (see, for instance, ILS 1181) demonstrate that the office of these mint masters survived at least through the Severan period. 20 m int activities came under authority of the imperial centre.52 Our chronological demarcation stops when Carinus was murdered, because during the reign of his successor, Diocletian, a new imperial system, the Tetrarchy, started, whereupon a fundamental reformatioii of the currency happened.53 AD 285 then marks the end of our historical context, and subsequently our field of research.54 During this chronological demarcation from 27 BC until AD 285, imperial coins were minted uninterruptedly on a nearly industrial scale. Minting pattems show that new coinage was struck immediately after the accession of each emperor, even short- hved emperors. Furthermore, imperial coins circulated throughout the whole Roman Empire.55 In addition, mints were even capable of producing an enormous number of types in only a brief period, as the eight-month reign of Galba illustrates.56 Moreover and inevitably, contemporary circumstances changed throughout the period and many scholars consider coins to be the primary evidence of these contemporary changes. Yet, as Collingwood remarked “no profound knowledge of coin images is needed in order to realize that the historical assertions they make are by no means uniformly trustworthy.” Coinage, therefore, is useful to examine how the impprial centre represented the contemporary context rather than to reconstruct historical reality.57 A second criterion is the identification of the initiator who sends messages. Many authors have debated the possible imperial officer enthused with the selection task of the coin types 58 Among the most suggested candidates are the tresviri monetale^9, the a ra tio n ib u , 52 Wallace-Hadrill, 1986, 69-73; Howgego, 1995, 69; Broun, 1999; Bumett, 20042, 24-28. The authority over m in tin g was symbolised by the portrait of the emperor or one of the members a f his family. The imperial portrait was also essential for the coin’s valuation and circulation. 53 Hendy, 1985, 371-380; Rees, 1993, 181-200; Howgego, 1995, 69-70; RIC VI, 5-11. Moreover, Ihe representation of the tetrarchic emperors seems to be consistently uniform, which makes is difficult to analyse different repiesentational pattems: Rees, 1993,181-200; Howgego, 1995,69-70. 54 After Carinus’ brother, Numerian, died mysteriously in AD 284, Diocletian was proclaimed emperor by the troops of the latter. Yet, the coins of Diocletian issued between 284 and 285 are omitted from consideration here. 55 Howgego, 1992, 1-31; 1995, 88-95; Norefia, 2001, 147; Kemmers, 2009a, 137-156; 2009b, 143-158. See also in/ra nn. 96 and 97. During his short reign, the mint of Rome issued 184 different types: RIC P Galba 142-514; Cheung, 1998,55. For more on ancient coin production, see De CaHatay, 1995, 289-311. 57 Collingwood, 1946, 260; Metcalf, 1999, 1; 15-16. Cf. Zanker, 1987; Sturken-Cartwright, 2001, 21; Bumett, 2004* 66. 58 Strack, 1931,7; Voelkel, 1953,243-247; Sutherland, 1959, 46-55; Levick, 1982, 104-116; Ehrhardt, 1984,41- 54; Sutherland, 1986, 85-94; Peachin, 1986, 95-107; Cheung, 1998, 53-61; Levick, 1999a, 41-60; Wolters, 1999, 86-90; 290-291; Norefia, 2001, 146-186; Duncan-Jones, 2005, 459-487; Kemmers, 2006, 39-49; Kaczynski- Nüsse, 2009, 93-107; Norefia, 2010, 250-251; Woytek, 2010, 45-46. See also Claes, farthcoming 2014. 59 Cf. Norefia, 2010, 250. On Republican coinage, pattems in type selection, such as references to particular ancestors or objects, indicate that it were the monetales who chose the designs on the Republican coins they struck. However, it is unknown what these tresviri monetales actually did in the Empire. To read more about them, see Kraft, 1962,7; Wallace-Hadrill, 1986,79-84; Howgego, 1995,70; Bruun, 1999, 25-26. 60 Statius, Forests 3.3.103-105 and Cassiodorus, Letters 6.7; Voelkel, 1953, 246; Cheung, 1998, 58-60. 21 and the procurator monetae.61 While all these offïcers were involved with imperial finances or imperial coinage, no surviving source has attributed the responsibility for coin type selection direcüy to one of these men. Furthermore, after Rome had been the sole location of its Empire’s mint for almost two hundred years62, other imperial mints appeared scattered over the Empire from the end of the second century onwards, although not all operated permanently.63 The intemal organisation of these mints is obscure, but it is presupposed that all decisions of these mints, and therefore also the selection of coin types, were regulated through central approval.64 Coins produced by an imperial mint bore thus official messages, no matter whether their designs were chosen by a low-level or local bureaucrat under the umbrella of the imperial centre or by the emperor himself.65 Imperial coinage itself also yields clues that their designs were official expressions of the imperial centre. As such, a close connection between the mint authority and the imperial centre took visual form in the legend and portrait of the emperor, or one of his relatives, most of which appeared on the coin’s obverses.66 Moreover, literary sources refer to opponents who challenged imperial authority by striking coins bearing their portraits. An illustrative passage comes from the Greek historian Herodian, who describes how some soldiers revealed Perennis’ conspiracy to overthrow Commodus by showing the emperor the portrait of Perrenis on coins.67 Accounts like these reinforce the assumption that imperial coins were official expressions of imperial authority, or at least generally believed to be so.68 Occasionally, legends, symbols, and portraits were conspicuously altered after a first series, or even after a second one. These alterations suggest that the imperial centre reacted when 61 CIL 6.1607; 1625; Peachin, 1986, 95-107. At the start of the Principate, Lugdunum soon figured as imperial mint besides Rome. Scholars believe that the authority over the mint of Lugdunum was directly under the imperial centre, because the emperor wanted to strike gold and silver coins far from the supervision of the Senate in Rome. Lugdunum was excellently situated in an impenal province and near the northern limes. Hete also the selection of the designs was at imperial disposal. See Clay, 1982, 7-52; Giard, 1983; Van Heesch, 1993, 535-238; Zehnacher, 1998, 213-227; Giard 2000, Butcher-Ponting, 2005,163-197. 63 Bendall-Bland-Bumett, 1987, 65-83, plate 10-13; Carson, 1990, 244-275; Van Heesch, 2002; Katsari, 2003. Later, under Diocletian, a clear connection is seen between the mints and the units of fïscal administration in the East and the West. Presumably, a similar connection existed in the late second and third century, enforcing the official character of these mints in the provinces. See Hendy, 1985, 378-380. 65 Norena, 2001, 147; 2010, 250-251. Before, similar quotations were made by Howgego, 1995, 70; Levick, 1999a and Manders, 2012, 33-37. 66 Wallace-Hadrill, 1986, 69-71; Lendon, 1990,112-119; Horster, 2007, 291-309. Herodian 1.9.7. Dio 72.9 also reports the usurpation of Perennius, but does not mention the coins. Other literary references about usurpers and coins include; Dio 80. 4.7 on Valerianus Paetus; HA Firmus 2.1-4 on Fmnus; HA Tyranm triginta 26.2; 31.2 on Trebellianus and Victoria; HA Diadumenus 2.6 on Macrinus; Ammianus 26.7.3; 11 on Procopius. See also Chastagnol, 1994, cxxv-cxxvi. 68 Wolters, 1999, 311-312; Ando, 2000, 215-227. 22 unwanted images or legends appeared.69 The most telling example comes from Hadrian’s coinage.70 Hadrian, who was in Antioch at the time at which he was proclaimed emperor, did not accept the title pater patriae, as the HA informs us.71 Nor does any inscription mention PP in the nomenclature of Hadrian. Yet, his first coin series from Rome does.72 In the second series, minted after Hadrian’s return to Rome, the PP had disappeared, suggesting that Hadrian or his entourage intervened directly in the coin designs.73 From this intemal monetary evidence, it seems clear that it mattered to the emperor what was on his coins.74 This statement is reinforced by scattered literary evidence from different writers from different periods, such as Martial, Suetonius, Cassius Dio, Anian, Fronto, Herodian, the anonymous author of the HA, Eusebius, Ephrem Syrus, Socrates, Sozomen, and the anonymous author of On matters o f war15, who all suggested that the emperor was involved in selecting coin designs.76 Although the initiator of the imperial coinage cannot be uniformly identified as the emperor, it seems clear that imperial coinage always broadcast what was desirable to the imperial regime. 69 “Usually, the correction of the unwanted coin images or legends follows the same pattem. The unwanted coin issue is discontinued and a new issue replaces it There is no evidence of any unwanted coin issue was melted or overstruck, though one can speculate about that” argues Ehrhardt, 1984,45. As all these changes occurred at the begiiming of an emperor’s reign, it is easy to imagine that the officials of the different minLs were not always fully informed about the required imagety of the newly acclaimed emperor. Mattingly, 1920a, 37; Ehrhardt, 1984,45; 52-53; Wolters, 1999,307-308. Contra Brilliant, 1969,13-17; Barrett, 1989,247-248. 70 There are other clear examples. First, on the first coin series of Gaius in Lugdunum the nameless portrait of the divus Tiberius was depicted. In the second series, the portrait was replaced by the one of the divus Augustus, ïHpntifi pH as DIVVS AVGVSTVS PATER PATRIAE (BMC I Gaius 1; Mattingly, 1920a, 37; Balsdon, 19772, 28-29; Wolters, 1999, 303-304). Second, Trajan’s two first issues, which nearly lasted for three weeks, were both stopped at the mint of Rome, because Trajan preferred a less strong association with Nerva in his official nomenclature. Also the title PP was dropped, because Trajan at first refused the title. PP reappears on his coins some eight or nine months after his accession (RIC II Trajan 28; 30-31; 384; 386; 391; 393; 400; 405; 414-415; Pliny, Panegyric 21.1-2; Wolters, 1992, 281-299; 1999, 306; Stevenson, 2007, 128-129; Woytek, 2010, 93-97; 99; nos. la-17a). 71 HA Hadrian 6.4. Cf. Dio 69.2.5. 72 RIC Hadrian n, 1926,2a-8; 534a-539. 73 Carson, 1990, 42; Wolters, 1999, 305; Stevenson, 2007, 129-130. In addition, the mint officials included Trajan’s titles of honour, such as Germanica and Dacia, in Hadrian’s titulature: RIC Hadrian n, 1926,2-8; 534a- 539. These titles were dropped from Hadrian’s obverses at the same time the PP disappeared from the reverse. 74 Opponents of this view are Jones, 1956; Buttrey, 1972 and Crawfard, 1983, 47-63. Note also that Domitian, wbile he was Caesar, published a book which Pliny cites as one of his sources for book 33 of his Natural History that deals with comage. 75 The anonymous author of On matters of war proposed new coin types to his Roman emperor, and even illustrated them with pictures. Unfortunately, the coin images differ from each other in the four known mediaval transcriptions. For more see Reinach, 1922, 214-220; Thompson, 1952,34-37. 76 Cf. Norefia, 2010, 250; 263. Martial, Epigrams 4.28; 12.65; Suetonius, Augustus, 5; 94.12; Tiberius 58; Nero, 25.2; Dio 80. 4.7; Arrian, Discourses ofEpictetus, 3.3.3-4; 4.5.15-17; Fronto, On rhetoric 12; Herodian, 1.9.2-7; HA Alexander Severus 25.9; the two Gallieni 12.1; Firmus 2.1-4; 31.2; Diadumenus 2.6; Eusebius, Constantine 3.47; 4.15; 73; Ephrem of Syrus, Against Julian 1.16-18; Socrates, 3.17; Sozomen, Church History 5.19.2; Anonymous, On matters of war 3.1-4. The Suda also informs us that Suetonius probably wrote a numismatic book. Cf. Wolters, 1999,262-264. 23 The Identification of the initiator brings us to the question why this initiator wanted to send messages. The answer to this question also reveals the third criterion, the purpose, of the commumcation ‘scheme’. As discussed above, there was no existing legal basis for imperial powers or for imperial succession. Therefore, the messages sent through coinage might be a means of legitimating and strengthening the emperor’s imperial power. Coin messages could inform the Roman People about the emperor’s virtues and deeds; they glorified his imperial family and celebrated important contemporary events.77 In doing so, the emperor succeeded in consolidating his power and unifying the inhabitants of his Empire.78 We have to be aware, however, that art, including its messages, could be viewed and perceived in many ways.79 Messages could thus be interpreted differently by the various groups in Roman society, which consequently must have influenced their production.80 Previously, Lummel (1991), Metcalf (1993), Hekster (2003), and Kemmers (2006) succeeded in demonstrating that particular imperial coin messages targeted different groups.81 Other examples are given by Hobley (1998) and Kemmers (2003), whose studies demonstrated an intended regional distribution of particular coin types.82 In addition, Buttrey’s study (2007) suggested that the production of some bronze quadrantes under Domitian displaying a rhinoceros were likely to target only the lower masses.83 Marzano’s article (2009) suggested a similar example of audience targeting as she demonstrated that Trajanic popular buildings, traditionally related to events of crucial importance for the People of Rome, were only displayed on Trajan’s base-metal denominations, and that more lavish buildings erected by Trajan, deserving additional dissemination outside Rome, appeared on gold and silver coins as well. Not surprisingly, it seems unlikely that the lower echelons of society had frequent access to precious-metal denominations. It was the (senatorial) elite and the army who dealt with gold and pure silver Manders, 2012, 25-28. In this way, the coin messages disseminated different kinds of propaganda: military propaganda, counterpropaganda, agitation propaganda and integration propaganda. For more see Ellul, 1965 70- 78; Evans, 1992, 2-3; Norena, 2011,15-19. 78 Some scholars tend to call this feature ‘propaganda’. Because the phrase is often connected with the mass communication strategies of 20^-century totalitarian regimes (particularly from the 1930s and 1940s), it is too strong value-laden, and therefore, will not be used in this study. 79 Elsner, 1998, 53. See also Elsner, 1995. 80 Hekster, 2002, 9. 81 For another example demonstrating that particular imperial coin images targeted different groups, see Todd, 1966,147-153 and Abdy, 2003 about the Britannia asses struck between AD 153 and 155 found only in Britain. 82 Hobley, 1998 researched the dissemination of particular bronze types in the West. Kemmers, 2003, 17-35, demonstrated that the Domitianic quadrantes were distributed outside Rome, and that these coins are mostly found along the Dutch limes. Moreover, these quandrantes were almost always of the RIC 436 type. Contra Duncan-Jones, 2005, whose article on the regional distribution of Trajan’s types argues against a possible regional targeting. Buttrey, 2007, 101-112 remarks that these quadrantes were probably distributed at the circus games where the animal was performed for the first time. 24 84 coins, althnngh we cannot verify that the lower classes never saw a gold or silver coin. During the third century, the difference between the precious-metal and bronze denominations became less explicit due to the devaluation of the silver antoninianus to billon. Furthermore, scholars must be constantly aware that not every coin image aimed to legitimate or to target speciiïc audiences. A coin’s economie validity partly depended on the consisteney and the reliability of its designs.85 At several points we have already mentioned the variety of messages broadcast on coins. This quality conesponds to a fourth communication criterion: the heterogeneousness of the messages. Each coin always has two sides: an obverse and a reverse, which figure as “head and tail”, composing one story that cannot be interpreted by looking at one side only.86 Usually, the coin obverse displays the legend and the portrait of the emperor or one of his fam ily members. As already mentioned, the legend and portrait of the emperor signifïed authority; it represented the coin’s valuation.87 Many literary references, especially legal texts, illustrate this close connection between the imperial head and the value of the coin. The Theodosian Code, for instance, gives us the following law created under Constantine: “AU solidi on which appear our face and which have the same degree of veneration must be valued and sold at the same price, although the size of the image may vary.”88 Another clear example comes from the New Testament. When the Jews ask the prophet Jesus whether they should pay their taxes to the emperor of Rome, the prophet requests a coin used to pay the tax. Handed a denarius, he asked them "Whose head is this? And whose title?" When they replied, "The emperor’s", Jesus says to them, "Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s."89 Although this passage does not identify (the name of) the emperor, it shows that the inhabitants of the Empire were aware of the emperor’s coin portrait, at least when asked for it.90 Both the passage from the Theodosian Code and the passage from the New Testament demonstrate that the imperial head contributed to the 84 Of couise, there are exceptions. In the first century, the Roman soldiers in Britain seem to have been paid predominantly with aes coinage: Abdy, 2003, 139-140; n. 14. In addition, Lo Cascio, 2006 demonstrated that gold also could have a commercial role in large transactions, and in some cases the emperor could also distribute gold and silver coins as gifts among common people see Millar, 1977,135-139. 85 Wolters, 1999, 255; Bumett, 20042, 67-69; 79; Duncan-Jones, 2005, 461; 470-471; 485; Narena, 2010, 248- 249. 86 WaUace-Hadrill, 1986,71; 76-77; Horster, 2007, 291-296. 87 Wallace-Hadrill, 1986, 68-73; Lendon, 1990,112-119. 88 Theodosian Code 9.22.1: “omnes solidi, in quibus nostril vultus ac veneratio una est, uno pretio aestimandi sunt aique vendendi, quatnqiuun diversa mensura sit.n This reference dates from the early fourth century, and thus cannot be projected on the centuries before. Nevertheless it does not contradict other statements as for example Epictetus (see below). 89 Matthew 22.15-22; Mark, 12.13-17. Cf. Luke 20.20-26; Gospel of Thomas 100. 90 Wolters, 1999, 309; Hekster, 2003, 20. 25 Identification of the coin. For the inhabitants of the Roman Empire, therefore, the emperor’ s coin was the one that bore the emperor’s portrait. Reverses could contain another imperial legend and portrait, usually of one of emperors’ family members or predecessors, to make a dynastie claim. But in most cases, reverses displayed personal themes of the emperor: imperial virtues, military or religious scenes, personal deities, significant events and honours. All these reverse messages concemed the emperor, his reign and his family, and tended to amplify the ability of the coin to broadcast persuasive messages, glorifying the emperor and his family.91 Some of the elements on the coins which would have been imperial signs of extravagance in the early Empire became Standard imperial decoration in later times, especially in the later third century.92 Furthermore, the heterogeneous messages on the imperial coinage are constructed through a combination of legends and designs. In most cases, the coin legends on the reverse explain the coin designs, whereas the obverse legends bear the name of the emperor or any family members portrayed. The combination of legends and designs has the advantage of disseminating less ambiguous messages than media with only texts or visuals, which is essential for a good communication. The fïfth criterion for successful commumcation is an intended audience, to whom the messages are addressed.93 For the Roman state, the first purpose of minting coinage seems to have been state expenditure (paying soldiers, craftsmen, e.a.).94 In particular, the military at the limes received regularly newly minted coins, mainly silver denarii and later antoniniani.95 From there, the majority of coins spread over the Empire. Within urban centres, and in a lesser extent in agncultural regions, goods seem to have been paid with coins on a regular basis.96 Most likely, the monetisation of the Roman Empire was fairly saturated, although it could fluctuate in some periods and places.97 Under these conditions, messages on Roman coinage could reach a large proportion of the Roman population.98 91 For a more detailed overview see Wallace-Hadrill, 1986, 69; 76-77; Norefia, 2010,251-260. Cf. the development of the radiate crown in Roman imperial times; Bastien, 1992, 105-166; Bergmann 1998 99-291. Cheesman, 2001, 375; Norena, 2010, 262. In Toynbee, 19862, 112-121, a discussion about the recipients of medallions is given, which can also shed some light on the recipients of coinage. 94 Cf. Norena, 2010, 248-249; 264-265. Crawford, 1970; Duncan-Jones, 1994, 33-46; Howgego, 1995, 35-38 for the debate surrounding this assumption; Harl, 1996, figs. 9.1-4. 95 Howgego, 1995, 102-103; Bumett, 20042, 90-95. Cf. Crawford, 1985, 226-236. 96 Howgego, 1992, 16-22; 1995, 22-23; Hobley, 1998, Van Heesch, 2009, 125-141; Kemmers, 2009a, 137-156; 2009b, 143-158; Norena, 2010, 262. Some scholars indicate that a lot of transactions were also paid in goods, and that this part may not be underestunated. See for instance, Duncan-Jones, 1990 ch 12- 1994 3- 20-21- 48- 50; 54-55. . . . About the regional density of coins see in particular the following studies of Duncan-Jones, 1996, 139-152; 1999a, 245-254; 1999b, 61-82; 2005, 459-487, Van Heesch, 2011, 311-328. For comparison see the research of 26 Severi kind» of A s o m » give c h » f t* Romans wem a w a m o f t o destgns on t e coinage. Utenny refemnc» m p a r t * * eoins, f « ™ p l= , d ™ — » “ * = * “ “ “ . * * f t* «* images - “* < « * * “ “* ge”eraKd iiteiary mfcrences, of conme, mtnM, r t » t o ! « * * » » “ « “ — „f coin designs is .ISO obsetved i» amhaeological cofflens. Fo. instance,. «om w .4 Fortnna w asfoundinam astafa rfnp, as if Fomrna wodM pn.Bc! the saitas. lakew.se, speen»» „f t e coin W «, depictog t o deeeased Caesar Ronmlns, fonnd i» t o grave f « a Roman ehild seem to have been specifM i, seleced.” ' In addiftm, coin design, « « also po»»™ ! a» artefacts as jewel. wem gntcefully decoraed with c o i n a , or e v e n made from tom . Similarly, t o re.ffioio-eoinage, wbfteve, its ptnpose may have been, shows some awrneness „f coin designs as te y res « e olde, eoi» d esig n .» F,müly, t o e « ^ a legend and portm» could be erased due to . damnatio memoriae, which again suggests subject’s awareness of the 104 coin designs.'SISOS To have a» effective com m unie*» pmcess, a bilaMai diaiogne mns. develop when initiator « to send message. m Ma intend». anditmces. Uns bilatend di*ogne ■» t o DtuKan-Jones, .«0. . » « . ^Rom an coinage was not only ased within the borden. of the Empire, outside in boundaries many imperial coins have been found as well. Ivre-tvoe of Nero (Augustus, 5; 94.12; Nero, » Suetonius describes the Gapriconi-type of S n o t e s the Republican types of Perperna 25.2); Cassius Dio refened to the dagger-type of Bruto ( • ■)> Alexander Severus often depicted and of Trebanius (On rethonc 12); The ~ d coin portraits (Alexander Severus himself as Alexander the lden ^ types with Constantine’sstarred-eyes, 25.9); Eusebius menüons three different types. Hele g yv Christian wnters menüon and the type of Constantine ascendmgto , U l 8; Socrates, 3.17; Sozomen, J ^ S w f J 1983,47-63 who denies that the Romans noticed their cou, nnages. *, a, f r * ; r . ; s s z ^ Rome. The type commemorates the deceased^ “ ^ RNA£ m^MORIAE (RIC VI Maxentius Rome 240). The r s r ” * * Romulus was * * * * m 016 - £ “ “" 2 SSSiwC 1983, 47-63 whoconsider thesecoüections only as the resült óf an increasing numismatic interest “ Alfóldi, 1963, 48, followed by Ehrhardt, 1984, 103 Howgego, 1995, 71-72; Kommck, 2001, 158-178. From this, AiroKii, 48-49«o /o even c„no«tf,ilsuggestód that the Roman mint™ nt had a Whistorical s^ ca l comcoin cocoUecüon. on ___ 55_56. plates 17-18; 104 Dio 50. 22.3; 67.12.6; Statras Forests 4 9 .2 2, ^facDoweU,^ ^ ^ 2006. Although, we do not see also bibliography n. 61-63; Wolters, , > _ age(j. q ^ us were melted down; Dio 60.22.3. On knowhowitworkedinreahty.Dioinfomsthatcramof ^ ^ g3.93. For more on the signs of a the demonetisation of Gaius’ aes m d 10 s 103-119. A very ironie, but innovative, ,«.»■ p»i« - w » '‘ ] ” »' “ “ “ a,u,i' “ ' “ “ HA the two Maximirü 23.6 writes. 27 « i and last cntenon tequired in my communication approach.105 For the Roman peiiod itis alm », unpossible to discover whetter t e m h * lB„,s „f Romm ^ ^ ^ comprehended tho messages sent on t e imperi.1 cotage. However, here and t e „ anecdote «veais h „„ pe<*,e conld react to messag». •„* ecclesiastical M sM an Socratos re „ d e d t e «bellion „f christianised pc^nWon of AnSoch ^ t e issne „f sacre uil -coins by Julian the Apostate, because they perceived those as pagan106 If t e ni trne, it is one of t e best illnstraüve cases of an imperia, commnnicdon going bad Furthennore, coins tod the power to broadcast their message Sepnmius Sevems this average even increased to aboat 500 millio».»” W to ter t e Romans conld dectptor t e broadcast messages depemtoi o„ t e familiari» of t e coin design, To dns end, emfless «petitions „f t e message ttamgb „ te r famitor media, sneh „ scnlptnm o iiciil fatatmns, „„ ^ ^ m essage. ïe b ,n , T T " m Cri“ a “ “ — =»«« stmtegy are more or » . ed. terefom, we ca» snppose that imperial coinage opemted as a medinm, roadcasnng tmpenal messages rnnong imended „ in Eoinaa ^ ^ ^ also elements ttat spetdt ag a.s, t e hypmhesis t e . coins aimed to conmtumcte dimcdv between empemr tmd snbject. Ftrst of all, eotage conld have a long cirenlaöon üme 1, not — 1 t e , « i and conld cimnlam fbr some t t a d e s » m e legiomay types M « t Antony even c ta la e d for „om te n 300 yeam dneto ttei, fairly low silver content “ ver t e years, eoms of overal empemm, and snbseqnentl, te ir meauges, wen, mixed «ntrng each other. In „„» of Us p ^ , M m lü ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ and the „ewly mmted coins tmder Domidam wbich snggest, t e t if te y wanted, Romans wem able to disdngmsh „Ider (ta „ new messnges.'" Yet f„, an eBecöve commnnicaflon 106 Cf' Norefia’ 2010> 251-252. R1C VT1I Julian Antioch 216-218' Socrates 3 17 r r c„ 6.40.2-4; Ephrem of Syrus, Against Julian M fillo ’ Church History 5.19.2- Cassiodorus, Letters (355d), confinns the narrative. Cf. Ando 2000 217 * °n 016 Antiochenes’ Beard-hater 27 196-200.- “ I S S ; S i 1’ ÏS ’ c3S 305’ etty J°wett-0 20^ Donnell, : NOTefla’2010’265- 2006, 271-286. Cf. Norena, 2011, 109 110 See, for instance, Van Heesch, 1998, 107 141-Woltprc iooq vri v 111 BMCRR, 527 n. 3; Kemmers, 2005, 22; B u m e ^ ^ 89 ^ 2°° 5’ M"15; 22"26' Martial, Epigrams 4.28. 28 process, the simultaneous circulation of both old and new coinage always posed an obstacle for the ruling emperor and its contemporary coin communication. Secondly, state expendituie looks to recycle a lot of old minted coins; only 15 to 20% of state expenditures were paid out with newly minted coins.112 Consequently, around 80% of the state payments happened with coins that did not broadcast the latest messages. A fïnal element disadvantageous for effective communication is illiteracy. Scholars estimate that at least 70 to 80% of the Roman population was illiterate, and thus could not read coin legends. Nevertheless, imperial images were all around.113 Some legends, such as SPQR and AVGVSTVS, were highly standardised, and often, legends only denote the represented message one could directly understand from the image. Moreover, in an illiterate society, it was not exceptional that the literate people read many things aloud.114 All these enumerated conditions suggest that it is difficult, maybe even impossible, to say, and subsequently to analyse, how intended audiences may have received, comprehended and responded to the imperial messages.115 Therefore, this study will only focus on the production of the imperial messages on coins. In particular, it will analyse the legends and designs through which these imperial messages were transmitted. 3. Research method 3.1. Coin database Following the hypothesis that the imperial centre broadcast the emperor’s retrospective and prospective kinship through coinage in order to legitunate the latter s reign, my aim is to examine these imperial kinship messages over a long stretch of time through a quantitative analysis. The research method proposed is to tabulate all coin types, instead of numbers of surviving coins, from Augustus (27 BC) until Carinus (AD 285) that refer to each emperor’s retrospective and prospective kinship in order to measure the percentage of these types within the whole number of types of each emperor’s coinage. With these percentages, it is possible to 112 Bumett, 2004?, 90-95; Duncan-Jones, 199Ü, 30-47, esp. 45, 1994, 45-46; 111-112; 167; Howgego, 1990,11- 15; 1995,35; 37-38; Norena, 2010, 264. 113 Cf. Norefia, 2010,263; 2011,180-297. 114 Ehrhardt, 1984, 47^9; 53; Evans, 1992, 6-7. On the different kinds of literacy at play in anüquity see Johnson-Parker, 2009. 115 Cheesman, 2001, 375. 29 compare the varying degrees in which the different retrospective and prospective kinship ties were emphasised on coin types during each reign.116 This method has been employed by relatively few scholars of whom Norefia (2001 and 2011), Rowan (2011a, b and 2012), and Manders (2012) are the three most notable. The relevance of an analysis based on coin types is shown by the repeated issues of new coin types during the reign of each emperor. Of course, one must be conscious of the fact that the relative frequenties of coin issues are generally not known and probably never will be known. Nevertheless, Manders (2012) has recently demonstrated some correlation between coin types and the actual coin numbers during the third century.117 As no major changes seem to have occurred in coin making during the Roman Empire, there are reasons to believe that a similar correlation between types and actual coin numbers will have existed in the fïrst and second century. To analyse this mass of coin types, the catalogue Roman Imperial Coinage (RIC in the following), volumes I2 to VII, serves as my main source. Although the RIC is the singte catalogue that gives contemporary scholars a full overview of the Roman imperial coinage from Augustus to Carinus, there are some disadvantages when using it. The catalogue is mainly based on specimens of coin museum collections. Only the reedited parts I and II include some important coin hoards and individual coin finds. Unfortunately, catalogues based on museum specimens are less statistically reliable since museum curators tend to obtain rare coins rather than common ones.118 A diachronie analysis of published coin hoards and die studies from Augustus to Carinus would be more accurate in measuring the intensity of the imperial kinship messages. Yet, such analysis would require more than a human lifetime.119 Except for the two first reedited volumes, the parts of the RIC are old and occasionally outdated. Whenever possible, this study updates the RIC's database by adding more or less generally accepted modifïcations of coin issue dates or mints places.120 A more important defïciency of the different RIC volumes is that they do not utilise a consistent Naturally, some coin types can be placed into both lineage categones. If so, these types will be included in the percentages of both lineage categones. 17 Manders, 2012, 53-62. Rowan’s studies published in 201 la; b and 2012 are based on coin numbers from coin hoards from the second century. Her quantitative results in these studies are quite similar to my study on the same subjects which are based on the output of types, suggesting again a correlation between actual coin numbers and types. See infra chapter 2 (2.4.2.4) and chapter 4 (4.3.2). 118 Norefia, 2001, 148. Cf. Elkins, 2009, 28 n. 13; 30-35. In his article, Elkins pleads for more studies employing die studies and the examination of hoards as this will result in a better understanding of coin messages. Important works include: Nickols, 1974, 65-86; Giard, 1983; 1995; 1998; 2000; Szaivert, 1986; Estiot 1987- 1995; 2004; Alram, 1989; Wolters, 1990, 7-16; 1992, 281-299; Göbl, 1993; 2000; Amandry-Estiot-et al.’ 2003;’ Woytek, 2010. Publications about newly found coin types which are not included in the RIC are excluded. 30 definition a coin type. As a consequence, this study adopts ito own definition of a coin type, whose features are relevant for the analysis of the representation of the emperor’s kinship. This definition is applied to all RIC volumes used here and will be described in detail in the following paragraphs.121 There are five major criteria that define our coin-type definition. First, there is the imperial mint, the place were types were struck with imperial approval. Each coin with a similar design issued in another imperial mint defmes another type, even if Iheir designs appear quite similar. The mint at Rome was the primary mint through the first three centuries, while other imperial mints in the provinces appeared from the late-second century onwards. Second, the same applies to coins with similar designs that were issued on different dates. Every issue of coins with similar designs defmes another type. A third criterion is Ihe denomination of the type. Coins with similar designs, but with different denominations, are different types. As such, a design issued on an aureus is not the same type as an identical design issued on a demrius. Fourth, the legends on the obverse and the reverse could also define types from each other. Each coin with another legend on obverse or reverse defmes another type, but there are two exceptions. The first exception concerns abbreviations. Different abbreviations of a same legend do not define separate coin types, on condition that the word order of the legend does not change. For instance, Galba’s legends SER GALBA IMP CAES AVG PM IR P and SER GALBA IMP CAESAR AVG PONT MAX TR P are according to this coin-type definition perceived as one and the same legend.122 A second exception includes missing or fragmentary legends. These deficiencies, resulting from wear or (un)intentional damage, are of little consequence, because they were not initially considered to be missing or fragmentary. The same counts for ligatured characters and misspellings in legends. The fifth criterion of our coin-type definition regards the designs on the obverse and reverse. Different designs, such as figures, constructions, and objects, define different types. Furthermore, each different figure depicted in a particular pose, like standing, walking, advancing, riding, galloping, flying, seated, or making a particular gesture or movement, like pointing, inscribing, holding, raising, sacrificing, leaning or extending one’s limbs, defines a separate coin type because these movements and gestures could change, though sometimes 121 See for «imilar coin type definitions: Szaivert, 1986; Göbl, 2000; Duncan-Jones, 2005,65. 122 RIC F Galba, 243-244, legends nos. 17 and 23. 31 only slightly, the message behind the coin picture.123 To illustrate, a coin displaying Roma sacrificing when holding a p a te r a denotes a religious message whereas a coin with Roma advancing whüe pointing to military standards broadcasts a military message. There are four exceptions of design poses that do not define different types.124 A first exception is the right or left position of portraits or figures, because no particular intention appears to be attached to the left or right profile.125 A second exception deals with the various imperial busts, as they exhibit numerous symbolic features emphasising the political, military or religious power of the imperial person, such as a laurel wreath, drapery, a globe, a m a p p a , a sceptre, and a shield. Yet, no clothing, attribute or head dress stresses a particular kinship relation, which made these symbolic varieties of no relevance for this study. The radiate crown even became an iconographic element with an economie purpose. From the first century onwards, the radiate crown symbolised the divinity of the persons who bore the crown, but soon, the crown on bronze du p o n d ii also started to signal that these had double the value of an as. Likewise, the radiate crown distinguished the silver antoninianus from the d en a riu s and accompanied gold multiples in the third century.126 All these symbolic varieties are of no relevance for this study, and therefore, do not define coin types. A third exception concerns the attributes that can be added to a figuie, construction, or object displayed on the coin. H ese attributes could be, for instance, an altar, a c o m u c o p ia , or a globe. As long as these attributes do not change the broadcast message, they do not define different coin types. For example, RIC II H a d ria n 544 and 545 are similar coin types, because they both display a similar image of Fortuna, seated, holding a rudder and a co m u c o p ia . The presence of a globe on number 544 and the absence of it on number 545 makes no actual difference. When attributes do change the coin message, the coins will be perceived as two different coin types. For example, the d en a riu s types RIC m 20 and 21 of Antoninus Kus were minted by the same mint in Rome at the same date, bearing the same legends and all t™La“^ n o t eXfePti°nS C°“Id,,COlOUr her statistics- Yet’ as ^ exceptionrules are applied to 125 Carsón, 1990 276 ? f T lg ^ P messages’ 016 statistics’ distortion will be minimised. werking c o n d iU s of the die-cutters w h o lt a r ö u S u s t ^ c ^ 2 S J ^ S f y S t S suggestion faüs to explarn why portraits facing left are significantly less common than those facine the rieht In ftt°H r emPOrarT SiyUStiC could have played a role in “ o“ fte i S r i g S óf oastien, 1992, 113-114;n maRd Bergmann, ngh‘0" 1998, 277-279; scenes’see King, 1999, 131, 2003' ^ 32 designs. Yet, the types are perceived as two different types because number 20 displays Fides standing with com-ears and a basket of fruits, personifying agricultural prosperity, whereas number 21 shows Fides as Fides Militum, standing with a military Standard in each hand. A last exception again concerns the attributes displayed on Ihe designs. While certam attributes on a coin design can be multiplied, however, these coins will not be perceived as different coin types, because the multiplied attributes still broadcast the same message. For example, the demrii RIC ü Trajan 137; 138; 139; 140; and 141 are one and the same type, though, on the demrii 137; 138; and 139 the emperor holds a sceptre and a laurel branch, whereas on numbers 140 and 141 he holds two laurel branches. The absence of the sceptre and the multiplication of the laurel branches, however, does not change the inherent message of the coins, and thus does not define separate types. All types, then, refemng to the retrospective and prospective kinship of the emperor have been imported into a coin database.127 This tooi allows us to calculate percentages of «hfferent questions conceming the coin representation of the emperor’s kinship durmg the Roman Empire. These percentages will be illustrated by graphs. In addition, all inegular, barbarous, and false coin types, but also uncertain coin types of which the RIC needs confirmation are omitted from the database. For constraints of time and space, but also because of then umque character, cistophori, drachms, and medallions are omitted as well. Provincial com issues struck in Rome for distribution in the East (or the West) are also excluded. 3.2. Chronological demarcation The chronological demarcation of this study starts from 27 BC, as it is generaüy accepted that from Augustus’ sole reign onwards the mint activities came under authonty of the impenal centre The death of Carinus in AD 285 marks the end of my chronological scope, because hrs successor Diocletian instituted a fundamental reform of the currency.128 Because not all imperial candidates received senatorial or miütary support, and many emperors ascended mto office outside Rome, this study has another criterion to choose which emperors to mclude m its field of research: the issue of coins by the Roman mint. From Augustus to Cannus, 47 men ™ The list of the types propagating retrospective and prospective kinship messages of each emperor is included - A s X t ^ n . 55, «he coins of Diocletian issued between AD 284 and 285 are excluded from this study. 33 WCre Pr“C“ " '“ l Cmp“ ° r ° f * » » " * Rom™ mint issued ooim wift to ir ,„ miiK .» NoB to t this crite™ , ,s Mly ^ B ^ wbich m md ^ ^ ^ imply that only their types by the Roman mint will be analysed. Tlus study, then, analyses the retrospective and prospective kinship messages on the eoms of tose 47 ohoten empe»*. M ess saBd „te™ », to ^ jn ^ study w. always display t o peroenage, of the analysrf kinship r a g e s 47 ^ emperors. Someümes t e can c „ some confósta, as „o, ,11 emperors had c b ik ta or were raa™ d Y“ ' * ' p“ !“ sio" °f “ ™ (adoptive) ancestors, children and t o mm „i st.re» of „m e erepe™ is « d , « discuased. t o prefere»,* ls ^ ^ ^ emperors m t o grephs, so as to present a complete soccessk» of emperors. Furthennoro t o gmphs a ta y s tabtüate „levam ^ e s issaed by all mints t o t were at imperial dispost dming ” alï5ed ^ Wh“ ™ * * * » * ■ «» authorised mints are m e .ta e d , because t o presented graphs do not include the mints separately. 3.3. Structure of the book ^ °f ^ repreSentati°n of the « W ' . kinship on the imperial coinage is divided mto two parts. The first part focuses on the representation of refrospective kinship, whereas the second part analyses the representation of the emperor’s prospective kinship. The first part only contains one chapter (chapter two) that is divided into several secüons. After a short introduction and a general overview, a first section focuses on the ancestral representation through coin legends. Often, tenns such as (divi) filius, (divi) nepos ( ) PWneP°S’ °r n°bilitaS emPhasised kinship with a great ancestor or stressed noble (Roman) bmh. A foUowing section examines the display of male ancestors on the Roman ooms, whereupon the third section discusses the representation of female ancestors. A fourth section analyses the emperors who forged their ancesüy, comparing these emperors to those Domitian, Nerva, T r ^ i!L u c to ^ m s A 03’ ° th° ’ ViteIlius’ Vespasian, Titus, Julianus, Septiniius Severus, Geta, Caracalla Macrinus Commodus’ pertinax, Didius Gordian I and II, Balbinus and t r Z T m S f f ’ Alexander Seve™> Maximinus Thrax, Aemilian, Valerian, GalUenus, Claudius D Gothicus ÓuintilhfJ“ a De°IUS’ Trebonianus Gallus, Nuraerian, and Carinus (see also appendix a T C o W 2 / Tu Fkrbum- Probus’ Ca™ - discussed under their fathers. The emperors of the Gallic fnd R ^ f k h ^ “ f f 016 relgning emPeror are issue coins in Rome are excluded from this study Estiot 1996 105 aU.° * er usurPers who did not Silbannacus to the mint 0f Rome- however hic twn nhc ’ •’ as attnbuted the coinage of the usurper A Standard book on the im ^ r id ^ n ^ i's Careon, 1990™ COm 68 316 a^so not discussed iu this study. ^ 34 discussed in sections two and three who emphasised their biological and adoptive ancestors. The next section examines the so-called restoration types that restored the portraits of emperors and other imperial relatives. Frnally, a last section reviews briefly emperors who displayed their parents-in-law on their coins as well. Part two exists of two chapters (chapters three and four) that examine the representation of prospective kinship on the emperor’s coinage. Chapter two, discussing the coinage for any potential successor, first looks to the types for the adopted sons, and second, to the types for the biological sons. Thereafter, a section deals with the types for potential successors, who were not the biological or adopted sons of the ruling emperor. In chapter three, where the representation of the imperial women is investigated, a distinction is made between the coin types of the empress and the types of other female relatives of the emperor, such as his sisters, daughters, and nieces. The two groups of women are analysed in separate sections. The study is closed by a concluding section that enumerates the conclusions drawn from the research. This research aim s to produce a diachronie overview from Augustus (27 BC) to Carinus (AD 285) of how imperial kinship was constructed in one specific medium: imperial coinage. Although the incorporation of comparative material disseminating kinship messages, such as epigraphy, literature, statue groups, and provincial coinage, in this research would be very illuminating, they have been excluded from this study. These topics will be dealt with by my colleagues who are in the Same research programme “Emperors and Ancestors” which this study is part of.131 Furthermore, this research also excludes concepts of imperial kinship from comparable kinship studies in order to develop a method suitable specifically for the study of coins. On the one hand, this research will contribute to debates how media at imperial disposal created the image of the emperor at central level, and subsequently it can address at which stage the emperor was involved and on the other hand, it will contribute to the study of the representation of the construction of Roman emperorship and the imperial house. Furthermore, the diachronie analysis over the long stretch of time allows us to notice several representational pattems in the iconography of coin messages. Subsequently, a 131 In this research programme funded by the Netherlands Qrganisation for Scientific Research, the propagation of kinship messages are analysed in the following three projects: ‘Proclaiming Imperial Ancestry: the Impnrtanrp 0f Imperial Lineage in Official Texts issued by Emperors’, ‘Histories of Ancestry: Roman Historians and the Emperor’s Lineage’, and ‘Looking at the Emperor’s Image: the Reception of Imperial Ancestry in Roman Provincial Coinage’, carried out by respectively Dr. Erika Mandcrs, Dr. Daniëlle Slootjes and Ylva The synthesis of the programme is being written in the forthcoming monograph by Prof. Dr. Olivier Hekster, 2014. 35 distinction could be made between Standard representational pattems and innovative pattems, which would allow us to trace developments in the legitimation of the emperor’s power base as well as the construction of the imperial house. The fact that the analysis has been done diachronically also gives us the opportunity to look at some numismatic debates. For instance, strong variations in the representational pattems could give clues about the authority of the imperial coinage. Finally, due to constraints of time and space, no systematic analysis is made on the appearance of kinship messages on either gold, silver, and bronze. However, whenever a particularly striking type become relevant, the appearance of specific kinship messages on either base-metal denominations or precious-metal denominations will be discussed as well as these might suggest that the imperial centre tried to target specific audiences. 36 PART 1: RETROSPECTIVE KINSHIP MESSAGES 37 Chapter 2: Messages of ancestry 1. Introduction “Galba succeeded Nero, who was not related at any distance to the house o f the Caesars, although unquestionably of noble origin and of an old and powetful family; for h& always added to the inscriptions on his statues that he was the great-grandson of Quintus Catulus Capitolinus, and when he became emperor he even displayed a family tree in his hall in which he traced his ancestry on his father's side back to Iuppiter and on his mother's to Pasiphaë, the wife of Minos. ” (Suetonius, Galba 2) This passage in the description of the life of Galba illustrates how Suetonius, like many other Romans, consideied a noble ancestry to be important.132 He observed that Galba was not in any degree related to his imperial predecessor or to the house of the Caesars, which underlined the perceived importance of kinship between the Roman emperors. Of course, it is not surprising that Suetonius made this remark. The political environment in which the emperors Nerva and Trajan adopted heirs to keep the imperial succession secure may well have influenced the biographer’s political and social way of thinking.133 Needless to say, a noble ancestry, in this study classified as retrospective kinship, could be a powerful tooi to legitimate one’s imperial position. From the Republic on, ancestors or maiores played a major role in guaranteeing noble Romans’ status. The achievements of a man’s ancestors endowed him with respect and glorified his kin. Since Republican political offices were elected, it was an essential issue for the nobilis to recall the political careers and the successes of their offïce-holding ancestors in order to m a in ta in power and prestige. As a result, the memory of the past was controlled by the members of the noble families. For instance, in the atrium, the central court of the domus, aristocratie familie displayed a stemma and stored the prestigious imagines, their ancestors’ death masks. The tablinum, the central office in the house, held the family archive. Likewise, trophies and other 132 L’Orange, 1953; Andreau-Bruhns, 1990; Flower, 1996; Hillner, 2003, 129-145; Meurant, 2004; Smith, 2006; Hekster, 2009, 95-110. 133 About Suetonius’ political and social way of thinking see Wallace-Hadrill, 19842. 38 m ilitary mementos acquired by family members stood around the domus.134 In public, moreover, ancestor memorials emphasised the political, military and social importance of each noble fam ily. Funeral orations and parades, in which the imagines were carried prominently before crowds of viewers, recounted the achievements of one’s ancestors. Furthermore, public statues and inscriptions, public buildings and military memorials, imagines clipeatae, reliefs, and coins were available to call ancestors’ names in mind.135 The hypothesis is that ancestry became an even more prominent tooi of status-building as emperors or imperial candidates manipulated it to legitimate their positions. In the Empire, as discussed in the introduction, Roman emperorship was non-dynastic, as inheriting political offices was contrary to the Roman law.136 Similarly, no legal basis for the transfer of the emperor’s power to a successor existed, nor was the princeps elected. Consequently, an emperor or imperial candidate needed to search for other tools to legitimate his power. The confirmation of the Senate and the Roman People could support new emperors’ legitimation, but not every imperial candidate succeeded to do so. Furthermore, the Roman military had decisive power in the appointment of Roman emperors as well.137 Having their support was not always easy, and was often coupled with donatives. However, not unimportant here is the fact that the military feit a strong dynastie loyalty and supported the idea of a ruling imperial house as a stable imperial dynasty translated into a political and economical stability within the Roman Empire. Likewise, the Senate and the People of Rome also favoured dynastie succession, because an imperial house could promise more stability and welfare than estranged usurpers.138 Consequenüy, hereditary succession became a safe type of succession to safeguard an emperor against usurpation.139 The hypothesis, therefore, is that several Roman emperors fiequently used their real or adoptive ancestry in order to stress their legitimate position or even invented an imperial pedigree for themselves in order to strengthen their impprial claims. Already from the start of the Principate, the preference for an heir related to the domus of the previous emperor became more and more significant, certainly after Gaius’ death. As Hekster points out, the question in choosing the new emperor was not so of whether the chosen candidate was a member of the domus Caesarum, but which one. 134 Pliny, NatureUHistory, 35.7; Propertius 1.16.1; Polybius, 6.39.10.1 owe these references to Severy, 2003,19. Cf. Flower, 1996,60-88; 185-222; Badel, 2005,15-56; 116-142. 135 For further rcading see for instance, Flower, 1996; 2002; WaHace-Hadrill, 2008, ch. 5. 136 Appian, Civil Wars 3.18; Mommsen, 1878, 770; Baharal, 1996,1-19. 137 On the military and their power to proclaim the emperor, see Flaig, 1992, 133-173; Johne-Hartmann, 2008, 583-632; Speidel, 2009,109-120. 138 Timpe, 1962, 88; Wiedemann, 19962, 198-255; Corbier, 1991a, 49-79; Lintott, 1994,130-132; Baharal, 1996, 9-22; Lendon, 1997,254; Hekster, 2001, 36-37; 39-49. 139 Hekster, 2001, 35-49. See also chapter 1. 39 For instance, Claudius’ appointment as emperor was mainly based on his Julio-Claudian bloodline. Ancestry was also important for the so-called adoptive emperors who underlined their connection with their imperial predecessors. Other emperors tried to link themselves with a predecessor or a previous dynasty through invented ancestries. For instance, Septimius Severus linked himself with his predecessor Pertinax and later posthumously adopted himself as the son of Marcus Aureüus and as the brother of Commodus.141 Moreover, sons or brothers were frequently heirs to the throne, as there are no examples of an heir who survived his father or brother and did not succeed him, except for Pertinax Iunior.142 Ukewise, the recently proclaimed emperor Trebonianus Gallus thought it was better to accept Hostihanus, the son of the former emperor Decius, as his Caesar along with his own natural son Volusianus in order to maintain his power.143 In addition, a dynastie principle is also visible in the deification of the emperor’s predecessor, who was usually his biological or adoptive father. The act of consecratio was more than a religious act of pietas towards an imperial predecessor or father; it also became a political ideological tooi. A deified ancestor could always enhance the emperor’s own legitimation or even strengthen the notion of continuity within the imperial house.144 However, literary sources claim that the Senate held the power to deify an imperial ancestor, and it could always refuse to do so, as happened to Tiberius.145 Yet, not every emperor had a noble origin or decided to promote his Uneage. The so- called ‘barracks emperors’ weré self-made soldiers mostly of humble origins. Manders’ study of the répresentational pattems on the central coinage of the Roman emperors between AD 193 and 284 demonstrate that the dynastie messages on these emperor’s coin types were less Hekster, 2001, 36; 40. Only two ancient authors glorified the adoption of non-imperial relatives. At first, Tacitus hails Galba for taking Piso as his adoptive son (Histories 1.15-16). Second, Pliny, in his Panegyric to Trajan, praises Nerva not to confine the search of his successor - Trajan - intra domum (Panegyric 7.5). Dio 74.4.1-5.5; HA Pertinax 15.1-5; Severus Severus 7.8-9; Aurelius Victor, Book of the Caesars 20.30. Septimius Severus’ Antonine kinship claim recurs on a great number of inscriptions, I name a few: AE 1951.75 = CIL 8.27374; CIL 5.4867-4868; 6.1028; 1031; 1037; 1043; 1053; 1055-1056; 1061; 8.1333; 5699-5700; 9317; 23708; 24004; ILS 420; 422; 431. RIC III Commodus 263a; b; RIC IV.A Septimius Severus 65-66; 72a; 686; 700-702A; 712; 736A; BMCRE V, 42; 143; BMCRE V, xci; Hekster, 2002, 189-191; Heil, 2006, 61-62. See also Claes, 2012, 209-226. 142 Hekster, 2001, 36,40. For more on Pertinax Iunior see supra this chapter (1.1.2). 143 Aurelius Victor, Book of the Caesars 30. Potter, 2004, 246-248. 144 Hedlund, 2008, 175-186. Cf. Weinstock, 1971, 385-386; Gradel, 2002, 262-268; 298-304; 321-371; De Jong 2006, 169-172. 145 Josephus, Judean Antiquities 18.6.10; Suetonius, Tiberius 75; Dio 59.3.7-8; 59.4; Tertullian, Apology 13.3. For the Senate’s approval, see Gradel, 2002, 299-304. 40 than 2%.146 Although of course emperors were not forced to emphasise their lineage, we would assume that proper ancestry always supplied status. As noted above, ancestry was one of the most prominent themes in the representation of the Republican families. Around the 130s BC, Republican moneyers also started to display individual ancestral references on their coin types.147 The potential for self-advertisement on Roman coinage, and the Roman idea that descendants could ‘inherit’ the virtus of a celebrated ancestor, motivated these young magistrates to mint increasing issues of ancestral coin motifs at the earlier stages of their political careers148, a fashion that caught hold in the early 120s BC and again between 60 and 40 BC.149 During the political turbulence of the last decades of the Republic, politicians and their families tended to emphasise their ancestry even more. Moreover, obverses, which had long been reserved for Roma and other deities, now bore the moneyers’ ancestral portraits.150 Brutus, for instance, portrayed his ancestors Brutus and Ahala on his coins, placing himself within a family tradition of famous tyrannicides.151 Finally, in the Republic, virtually no one advertised female ancestors publicly.152 However, within the family circle, oral traditions, family tomb, and painted stemmata could keep the memory of the female ancestors alive.153 M. Aemilius Lepidus, who claimed descent from the vestal Aemilia, was the fïrst Roman to portray an ancestress on his coins.154 In 42 BC, the moneyer Livineius Regulus issued a series honouring the descent of members of the 146 Manders, 2012. However, it must be noted that the coinage struck in name of all imperial members other than the emperor, such as ancestors, was not included in her research. 147 Meadows-Williams, 2001, 27-49, explain the display of the historical scenes on the coinage as a rcsult stage of an evolution, whereas “Moneta, whose temple was near the Aerarium on the Forum Romanum, acts as the divine guarantor of weights and measures, but also certified the authenticity of memory and the recorded past. From this, Moneta guaranteed the Standard of the coinage, and therefore she also ensured the authenticity of the scenes that appeared on her coinage.” “The exposition of historical scenes from the Roman past on the Roman coinage alluded to the ancestral achievements of the moneyers’ families, who thereby participated in the Roman practice of monumentum ** See also Morawiecki, 1983; Zanker, 1987, 11; 15; Flower, 1996, 79-90. 8 The tresviri monetales was a board of the vigintisexviri. Membership in the latter college served as a stepping stone in the cursus honorum. See also Bumett, 1977, 37-63. 149 Besides these periods, the numbers of ancestral displays vary from time to time, Flower, 1996, 83-85 gives a more detailed overview. 150 Wallace-Hadrill, 1986,74-75; 2008, 223-224; Flower, 1996, 88-89. 151 BMCRR 3866; RRC 433.2; Flower, 1996, 88-89; Wallace-Hadrill, 2008, 223. This example, and others, also shows that it was possible to combine several ancestral backgrounds from different periods, like the ancestral imagines did at family funerals. Corbier, 1991b, 137; Flower, 1996, 85. 152 A prominent female ancestor was Camelia, the mother of the Gracchi, who exceptionally received a public memorial statue: CIL 6.31610. Cf. Pliny, Natural History 7.13.57; Flower, 2002,169-179. 153 About the position of female ancestors in the Republic, see Flower, 2002,159-184. 154 Before Lepidus, more precisely in 88 BC, the reverses of the moneyer L. Titurius Sabinus referred to the rape of the Sabine women, the ancestral mothers of the Romans, and to the punishment of Tarpeia, who betrayed the Romans; however, whether Sabinus was emphasising his descent from these women is questionable. RRC 344.1- 2. 41 second triumvirate, displaying Aemilia a second time as Lepidus’ ancestress.155 The experimental minting by the Late Republican generals, seeking tools to stress their status generated the first monetary display of a female ancestor.156 In the Empire, ancestry seems to have become an important means for the emperor to legitimate his position. With the ancestral precedents on the Republican coinage, we could hypothese whether the emperors too employed the imperial coinage as a medium to advertise their ancestors. My aim in this first chapter, therefore, is to examine how frequently imperial ancestors, male as well as female, were represented on imperial coinage, and whether pattems become visible throughout the first 300 years of the Roman Principate. This study will also discuss the moment in each emperor’s reign in which ancestral references started to appear on the coins, because emperors could refer to their ancestors in order to legitimate their imperial powers, for example at their accession, but they could also have issued ancestral coinage to glorify their family histories, or simply to honour their ancestors.157 Otherwise, some imperial candidates could create glorious, but invented, ancestries to claim or enforce their positions.158 In addition, the (experimental) development of the iconography of the ancestral messages will be examined. 155 RRC 494.1. 156 Hower, 2002, 159-162; 178-179. Cf. Kleiner, 1992, 357-367 on the wives of Mark Antony on his coins. Manders, 2012, 41. Norena, 2011, 192 states that consecratio-types are short-term messages hroadcast at the imperial accession. 158 Corbier, 1991a, 49-79; Baharal, 1996, 9-22; Lendon, 1997, 254; Hekster, 2001,48-49. 42 2. The general picture . ® 40 , io S 30 ! I 8 S 20 l.i I Ié IIii 1 .1.. . I . I siSE 113 3-3 S 3 § 3S3iSSlil = aSS ¥ j ¥ 11 i I! _ _ = ■n c fB 3 13 B c n j- i= ^ "P 15 0 > C C ’“ ‘S i 3 ! ! ! e s 1 1 3 Ê , | £ S S o = O 5 Kssl5ll !< < i Jlflll — Mlïf = =3 lil s = 141 'E 13 a I.2. •?S = | < ês °i i 1 ? G s Emperors (total coin types) Graph 1: Proportions of coiii types referring to all ancestral messages The percentages of graph 1 represent all kinds of references to the emperor’s ancestry displayed either on the obverse together with the emperor, on the reverse with the emperor on the obverse, on a type struck in the name of an ancestor themselves or on a restitution coin. 159 These ancestral messages not only promoted imperial (related) predecessors, they also included messages about invented ancestors, gentes, non-imperial fathers, female ancestors, impprial (grand)mothers, or they stressed the noble (Roman) birth of the emperor. In general, graph 1 indicates that the representation of the emperor’s ancestry on coins was a matter of interest for a third of the examined emperors.160 Another third of the emperors displayed 159 About this distmction, see Horster, 2007, 297-298; cf. Alexandridis, 2004, 18-28. In her arbcle King, 1999, 132 also discusses different bust types emphasising dynastie considerations. Note also that the emperors’ legends including kinship terms are excluded from this graph. They will be analysed in a separate graph see irfra chapter (2.3.D. 160 The extent of emperors personal intervention in the selection of their coin types is not completely settled, and may well have varied from emperor to emperor. For more about the initiator behind the selection of the coin types, see introduction. Generally, however, it is agreed that the imperial coinage always represented images according to imperial wishes. Of the following emperors, the ancestral messages represented 7.9% or more: Tiberius (29.6%); Gaius (61.4%); Claudius (15.9%); Viteffius (8%); Titus (26.1%); Caracalla (19.8%); Elagabalus (20.1%); Alexander Severus (15.8%); Trajan Decius (11.7%); Numerian (13.6%); Carinus (16.9%). 43 ancestral messages on less than 6.3% of their coins.161 These ancestral messages tended to appear in higher proportion at the beginning of the emperor’s reigns stressing these emperors’ legal succession. Finally, a third of the examined emperors did not emphasise their ancestry on their coinage.162 Most of these emperors were self-made generals with a humble or obscure origin, which would explain the ancestral absence. Graph 1 reveals no visible pattem of increase, decrease, or continuity in the frequency of the ancestral references during the first 300 years of the Roman Empire. On the contrary, the percentages of ancestral references heavy fluctuate between 0% to 61.4%. However, there are periods in which similar ancestral advertising pattems are discemable. We take a closer look at these. Augustus’ successors Tiberius, Gaius, and Claudius all stressed their Julio-Claudian ancestry on their coinage intensively.163 Especially the young and inexperienced Gaius, who could boast no military achievement, emphasised his Julio-Claudian ancestry on more than half of his types and even presented himself as the good emperor who demonstrated his pietas to the divus Augustus.164 On the other hand, Nero’s coinage suggests a relative neglect of his Julio- Claudian roots, as only 2.3% of the coin types referred to divus Augustus, Nero’s adoptive father Claudius, and his mother Agrippina. After the murder of the last Julio-Claudian, emperors seem to have experimented with different ways of representating their ancestors on coins. The coinages of Galba and Vitellius made careful allusions to these emperors’ ancestries, but those of Otho and Vespasian did not.165 However, under Titus, who continued the Flavian house, a message of retrospective kinship appeared on more than 25% of all coin types; whether referring to his parents or members of the Julio-Claudian house.166 In contrast, the ancestral types of Titus’ brother Domitian were only struck in the beginning of the latter’s reign, and were only marginal in Augustus (2.1%); Nero (2.3%); Galba (5.2%); Domitian (1.7%); Nerva (6.3%); Trajan (4.9%); Hadrian (2.9%); Antoninus Pius (2.2%); joint reign of Lucius Verus & Marcus Aurelius (3.2%); Marcus Aurelius’ sole reign (0.9%); Commodus (3.2%); Septimius Severus (0.5%); Phillippus Arabs (1.0%); Galüenus (0.3%); Quintillus & Aurelian (3.8%); Probus (0.4%). 162 These emperors are Otho, Vespasian, Didius Julianus, Geta, Macrinus, Maximinus Thrax, Gordian I, Gordian II, Balbinus, Pupienus, Gordian Hl, Trebonianus Gallus, Aemilian, Valerian, Claudius II Gothicus, Tacitus, Florianus, and Carus. 163 The ancestral advertisement fluctuates from 29.6% by Tiberius, 61.4% by Gaius to 15.9% by Claudius. See also appendix A.3. Other evidence too, like the issue dates of the ancestral coin types and kinship phrases of Tiberius, Gaius and Claudius’ nomenclatures, indicates that these Julio-Claudians heavily relied on their ancestry. We come back to that later in chapter 2.3.1. 164 On the coin types, Gaius sacrifices befare the temple of divus Augustus, while the legend PIETAS explains the scene. R IC P Gaius 36; 44; 51. 165 In chronological order: Galba: 5.2%; Vitellius: 8%. See also appendix A.3. Yet, both Otho and Vespasian did use the title Caesar. Hammond, 1959, 24-27; Buttrey, 1980. 166 Titus: 26.1 %. See also appendix A.3; Komnick, 2001, 28-90; RICII2, 185; 188; 197. 44 number during the period of their appearance.167 From this, we can conjecture that Titus used ancestral messages in a similar way to Tiberius, Gaius, and Claudius, and that the ancestral coin advertisements were equally unimportant to both Nero and Domitian, who were both settled successors of their respective dynasties. Graph 1 implies that in later periods too, the continuators of a dynasty stressed their ancestry more intensively than others. The brothers Carinus and Numerian, for instance, displayed their deified imperial father Carus on one sixth of their types, produced through different successive issues.168 It seems, therefore, that the coinages of the emperors, who continued the dynasties that their biological or adoptive fathers started, all publicised their ancestries forcefiilly. Graph 1 yields other examples of emperors who declined to advertise ancestral bonds. First, the coins of Gordian IE and Gallienus seem not to promote any patemal ancestry, although both emperors could recall the imperial status of their predecessor, to whom they were biological related.169 Second, the emperor Florianus, who inherited the throne of his brolher Tacitus, made no great effort to advertise his imperial blood connection.170 Of course, all these situations demand for a more careful examination, which will be attempted later. The coins of the so-called adoptive emperors did not emphasise their imperial adoptive fathers very often, even though these emperors ówed their imperial position to their adoptions. Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Lucius Verus, and Marcus Aurelius, but also Marcus Aurelius’ natural successor Commodus, all struck types for their predecessors, but only at the beginning of their respective reigns.171 Furthermore, Nerva restored types of divus Augustus, while Trajan issued a restoration series including Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius, Galba, Vespasian, Titus, and Nerva.172 Yet, the coin types of the emperors’ imperial predecessors did not constitute a high proportion of their coin types. On the other hand, Commodus introduced a new ancestral coin type, displaying the personification of nobilitas, 167 Domitian: 1.7%. See also appendix A.3. Domitian’s restoration coin types are struck between AD 81 and 84. Komnick, 2001,91-99; RICW, 242-244. 168 Numerian: 13.6%; Carinus: 16.9%. See also appendix A.3. Gricourt, 2000, 53; 55; 66; Hedlund, 2008, 179- 180. 169 Under Gallienus some types were issued only referring to his matemal descent. For more see chapter 2.3.2 and 2.4.1.1.4. 170 HA Tacitus 13.6-14.1-2; Aurelius Victor, Book qfthe Caesars 36; Eutropius 9.16. 171 In chronological order: Trajan: 1.4%; Hadrian: 2.9%; Antoninus Kus: 0.2%; Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus: 3.2%; Marcus Aurelius after AD 169: 1%; Commodus: 2.3%. See also appendix A.3. At the end of his reign, Trajan also struck same cams in honour of his biological father, Traianus Pater. RIC II Trajan 251-252; 726; 727 (= Woytek, 2010, 392 identifies this specimen as a fargery); 762-764. Woytek, 2010, 138-139; 392- 397. 172 Komnick, 2001,100-106; 110-132 and Woytek, 2010,167-169; 641-644. See also appendix A.3. 45 probably to stress that he was the one that was bom into the purple.173 This suggests that retrospective kinship still played a role in the emperor’s claim to power.174 In the unstable political times after the murder of Pertinax, Septimius Severus adopted this kind of ancestral representation too, striking consecratio-coin types for divus Pertinax Pater and for Commodus. For his part, Septimius’ son Caracalla struck types for his divine father, while in turn, Alexander Severus did it too for Caracalla, deified as divus Antoninus Magnus, but only in a very small number.175 This pattem of ancestral representation, however, was fading out under the Severi. It was under Caracalla, however, that a different line of ancestors, the matemal line, became dominant on coins. So Caracalla honoured his mother lulia Domna with coin types. This kind of representation recurred under his Severan relatives Elagabalus and Alexander Severus; the former struck types for his mother Julia Soaemias and his grandmother Julia Maesa, and the latter issued coins honouring his mother Julia Mamaea, his grandmother Maesa, and Julia Domna.176 This intense matrilineal advertisement, while most of the women represented were still alive, was unprecedented, and would cohere with other evidence showing the prominent representation of these Severan women. After the murder of Alexander Severus, the Roman general Maximinus Thrax was acclaimed emperor by his troops.177 His coinage, like the coinage of almost all his successors throughout the third century, did not refer to any descent or ancestry. However, the ancestral representation did not disappear completely in the third century. As already noted, ancestral references were displayed on the coins of Gallienus, Numerian, and Carinus, but also other third century emperors, like Philippus Arabs, Trajan Decius, Quintillus, Aurelian, and Probus, displayed ancestral types.178 As such, both emperors Philippus Arabs and Probus stressed their alleged noble Roman descent, personalized either by the virtue nobilitas or by the she- wolf with twins accompanied with the legend ORIGINI AVG.179 Under the reign of Trajan Decius a series of restitution coins was issued commemorating some careful elected imperial 173 RIC m Commodus 139; 155; 485; 489; 501; 509; Hill, 1969, 230-250; Hekster, 2002, 15-39; esp. 30-34. Cf. Norena, 2011, 232; 254-255. 174 Later, under Septimius Severus, the term nobilissimus Caesar became a Standard title for the heir apparent to the throne. Gelzer, 1912 [=1969]; Norena, 2011,254 255. 175 Advertisement for Pertinax: 0.5%; for Commodus: 0.1%; for Septimius Severus: 2.2%; for Caracalla: 0.6%. See also appendix A.3. 176 Caracalla for Julia Domna: 17.6%; Elagabalus for Julia Maesa: 10.6%; for Julia Soaemias: 4.9%; Alexander Severus for Julia Maesa 1.1%; for Julia Mamaea: 13.4%; Julia Domna: 0.3%. See also appendix A.3. 177 HA the two Maximini 8.1; Aurelius Victor, Book of the Caesars 25; Eutropius 9.1. 178 In chronological order: Philippus Arabs: 1%; Trajan Decius: 11.8%; Gallienus: 0.3%; Quintillus and Aurelian: 3.8%; Probus: 0.4%; Numerian: 13.6%; Carinus: 16.9%. See also appendix A.3. 179 RIC IV.C. Philippus Arabs 8; 155a; b; RIC IV.B. Probus 701-703. 46 deifïed predecessors, alluding to himself as the one who made the list complete.180 Finally, the emperors Quintillus and Aurelian noted their predecessor Claudius II Gothicus on coins, honouring him with several consecratio types. 181 Could we suggest that the emperors used their ancestors to legitimate their own position? The percentages of graph 1 indicate that ancestral representation was a useful tooi to reinforce the imperial position of the emperor. Moreover, the general overview shows no stable, continuous frequency of ancestral references, which imphes the individual preferences of each emperor determined the types appearing on their respective coins.182 Furthermore, the length of the emperor’s respective reigns seems not to play a role in the content of their coins’ messages, because the coins of the emperors who died shortly after being appointed as princeps have ancestral motifs as well.183 Ukewise, the ancestral advertisement of emperors with long reigns was not always propagated with low percentages, suggesting that their ancestry was only advertised at the beginning of their reigns, but it could appear in high percentages as well, indicating that their ancestral motifs were disseminated throughout their reigns.184 The initiative to display the emperor’s ancestry on his coins seems, therefore, to reflect policy at the highest level.185 From this, we can suggest that messages of ancestry seem to be used to benefit the legitimation of the emperor’s position and even to strengthen the notion of an imperial house. All these assumptions invite us to take a closer look at the different kinds of ancestral messages on coins and which policies they may reflect. This first chapter will tread them in the following two parts: Creating or enforcing a lineage link through coin legends (§ 3) and Creating and disseminating visual messages of ancestry (§ 4). 180 RIC IV.C. Decius 11-9/1. For more see Matüngly, 1949, 75-82; Howgego, 2005, 5; Manders, 2012,263-265. 181 RIC V.B. Claudius Gothicus 257-267; Quintillus’ coinage had coin types honouring his deified brother Claudius II Gothicus, but most types are not distinguishable from Aurelian’s first issue at Rome, Siscia, Milan, and Cyzicus or from the divus Claudius II Gothicus types of the moneyer’s revolt in Rome. Therefore, the ancestral percentages of Quintillus and Aurelian’s types are added together. HA deified Aurelian 38.2-3; Eutropius 9.14; Aurelius Victor, Book qf the Caesars 35.6; Suda, s.v. Monitarioï, Göbl, 1993, 42-43; Giard, 1995,14; 128-130; table 15 and references; Estiot, 1995, 23-24; 43; 57; 85 and references; Hedlund, 2008,177 - 178. 182 See also the quantitative studies of Norefia, 2001; 2011 and Manders, 2012 who demonstrated that different messages could alter in relative frequencies between different reigns. 183 In chronological order these emperors are: Galba, Vitellius, Titus, Philippus Arabs, Trajan Decius, Quintillus, Numerian and Carinus. 184 The frequent ancestral advertisement of the following emperors illustrates this statement: Tiberius, Claudius, Caracalla, and Alexander Severus. 185 For the discussion about the imperial involvement in the selection of coin designs, see the introduction. Sim ila r conclusions about the varying emphasis on several other coin motifs were made by Norefia, 2001, 146- 168; 2011; Hekster, 2003, 20-35; Duncan-Jones, 2005,463-465; Buttrey, 2007,101-112; Manders, 2012,40-52. 47 The first part dissusses the relative frequency of kinship terms, like filius or (pro)nepos, in the coin legends of the emperor or of his (alleged) family members (§ 3.1). Additionally, references to gentes or other family nomina will be exanuned, as well as particular cases in which the gens name was added to the emperor’s nomenclature, or dropped (§ 3.2). While the Romans considered a coin type as a whole, and did not separate legends from coin pictures, it is useful to investigate these kinship legends separately in order to examine the different pattems of ancestral representations.186 Finally, the presence of the virtue of nobilitas, stressing the noble descent of the emperor, will be analysed in the last section of this first part (§ 3.3). The second part will focus on advertisements of male ancestors as well as imperial mothers and grandmothers through coin designs. First (§ 4.1), the relative frequency of the representation of the male ancestors on the emperor’s coins will be analysed. This analysis will distinguish between messages propagating biological ancestors (§ 4.1.1) and those that feature adoptive fathers (§ 4.1.2), observing whether different frequency and designs marked the advertisement of different kinds of successions. Second (§ 4.2), the ancestral women will be explored, because they became more visible than they were in the Republic, and, therefore, form an interesting case study. The relative frequency of imperial mothers and grandmothers on the imperial coins will be analysed by correlating these females with the emperors in order to clarify the prop that these women occupied in the emperor’s program of self-promotion. Subsequent sections discuss the messages that feature alleged ancestral relatives, and whether those emperors used those ancestries in order to strengthen their imperial claims (§ 4.3), and they examine the restitution coins that recaptured the coin portraits of former emperors (§ 4.4). Finally, a last part (§ 4.5) will review briefly the emperors who next to their parents displayed their parents-in-law on their coins as well. Both parts analyse whether coins displayed ancestors together with the emperor on the obverse or on the reverse of an emperor’s coin, or whether the types were struck in the ancestors’ names, because this information sometimes reveals the status of the ancestors, and thus, the function of the messages, showing for instance whether a coin commemorated, legitimated or rehabilitated a predecessor.187 Further, attention will go to the dynastie successions, and finally, to ancestral coin iconography, and in particular how developmental and experimental coin motifs became standardised. The conclusion of the chapter will asses WaUace-Hadrill, 1986,71; 76-77; Horster, 2007, 291-296; Norena, 2010,251-252. 187 For more about this distinction, see Horster, 2007, 297-298, cf. King, 1999, 132; Alexandridis, 2004, 18-28. 48 all different kinds of ancestral messages in order to provide a general overview of the ancestral representation pattems of the emperors from Augustus to Carinus. 3. Creating and communicating ancestry through coin legends 3.1. The kinship terms fitius, nepos and pronepos ------” ■ •' ...... ™ 1 j 90 80 1 u0 60 TB s i ~ 50 1 4Q 8 CD 20 10 - 1 i ...... : 'sfiiiffissiaiififfissiissssisfafiiiiii lllfl|ljll 1 " i ï j ’ïi,iïJ!ïl!ï!*Hïj*|i*ï!ïï|ïiï|ïiii]ï | *|l “f |1 |J ! Emperors (total coin types) Graph 2; Proportions of coin types with the kinship terms jïlius, nepos, and pronepos in the emperor’s nomenclature. Few emperors added a kinship term like jïlius, nepos or pronepos to their nomenclature on coins. From Augustus to Carinus, only eight emperors advertised themselves as a descendant of a particular predecessor by including a specific kinship term in their nomenclature, and the one emperor among these who postdates Hadrian, Septimius Severus, only very rarely used the kinship term filius (Graph 2). More emperors seem to have deployed kinship terms on inscriptions, although we cannot give any comparative conclusion as quantitative studies on kinship terms on inscriptions - for reasonable methodological reasons - do not exist.188 Of 188 For studies on titulatuie, see Hammond, 1959; Buttrey, 1980; Peachin, 1990; Slootjes, forthcoming 2013; and Hekster, forthcoming 2014. 49 course, one could object that a coin surface is too small to accommodate long titulatures; however, that same argument might again imply that the titulatures with kinship terms had a deliberate purpose. The later-called Augustus, then Octavian, was the first emperor who supplemented his name by the kinship term filius, and for obvious reasons. After the murder of his great-uncle and adoptive father in 44 BC, Octavian was left with the inheritance and the nomen of Julius Caesar. Soon afterwards, he started to use the name Gaius Julius Caesar, dropping Octavianus as his customary cognomen.m In a popular assembly at the end of 44 BC, Octavian made no seciet of his intentions as the legal inheritor of Julius Caesar, as he pointed to a statue of Caesar and declared, “may I succeed in attaining the honours and position of my father to which I am entitled.”190 In 42 BC, when the Senate officially elevated Julius Caesar to divine status, his heir obtained the admission of the deifïed Julius Caesar among the state’s cults.191 Soon Octavian emphasised his lineage from Julius Caesar by adding divi filius to his name. The evocation of Julius Caesar’s memory among the People of Rome and the Roman military became one of Octavian’s main poMcal tools in his struggle to sole power. At the same time coin types presented Octavian as CAESAR DIVI F, and some legionary coin issues, struck in military camps, portrayed divus Iulius together with Octavian’s head.192 It is obvious that Octavian, like other Republican officials, relied on his divine ancestry in order to strengthen his power. Octavian disseminated his ancestral message through various media, among which coinage was just one.193 Nevertheless, it is difficult to estimate exactly who would have noticed these coins, because the issues under discussion were minted irregularly in a military 189 In Caesar’ s testament, Octavian was granted the conditio nominis ferendi, by which he acquired the right to bear the testator’s name. Under this arrangement Octavian became a member of Caesar’ sfamilia. Most scholars call this a ‘testamentary adoption’. Velleius Paterculus 2.59; Suetonius, Caesar 88; Augustus 7.2; Dio 44.35.2; 45.3.2; Eutropius 7.1; Syme, 1982 [=1984], 397-398; Kunst, 1996, 87-104. See also Corbier, 1991a, 63-78; Gardner, 1998,126-145, Frier-McGinn, 2004, 304-307; Kunst, 2005, 21; Lindsay, 2009,101-103. 190 Cicero, Letters toAtticus 16.15.3. 191 Plutarch, Caesar 67.4; Suetonius, Caesar 88, Augustus 10.1; Appian, Civil Wars 2.106; 148; Dio 43.14.6; 21.2; 47. 18.3. See Weinstock, 1971, 364-410 and esp. 385- 401; Gradel, 2002, 54-72; 261-266. Whether Julius Caesar was elevated to a divine status before or after his death is still discussed, see particularly Weinstock and Gradel on this debate. Because it is less important for this study whether the Julius Caesar’s divine honours were given posthumous or during his lifetime, I repeat the generally accepted date of 42 BC. 92 Most likely, the military coin types were direct messages to the military in order to promoting Octavian. Crawford, RRC 525.1-2; 526.1;3; 534.1-3; 535.1-2; 537.1-2; 538.1-2; 540.1-2; Sydenham, 1952, nos. 1321; 1324; 1329-1338, BMCRR, nos. 74-75; 410-411; nos. 100-102; 412-413, nos. 105-107. Cf. Gurval, 1997, 50-59; Valverde, 2003, 25-40, esp. 35. To be complete, Octavian’s coin type RRC 535.2; BMCRR, 413, nos. 108-112 displayed the name DIVOSIVLIOS enclosed by a laurel wreath. 193 For example: Octavian fought in name of DIVOM IVLIVM during the siege of Perusia: EpkEpigr. 6.59, no.64 = Degr. 1116. Octavian started to build a temple for divus Iulius in 36 BC: Frontinus, On aqueducts 129; Suetonius, Augustus 100.3; Dio 51.19.2; 54.35.4; 56.34.4. Octavian erected different statues of divus Iulius fitted with a star; Pliny, Letters 2.94; Dio 45.7.1; Suetonius, Caesar 88; Servius, Commentary on Vergil's Eclogues 9.46; Commentary on Vergil’s Aeneid 8.681. 50 context in the chaotic last days of the Republic.194 However, the reproach of Mark Antony that Octavian was “the boy, who owed everything to his name”, indicates that Octavian’s advertisement of his adoptive lineage accrued influence for him quite effectively.195 In 31 BC, as is well known, Octavian attained sole power, and in 28/27 BC, the restorer of the Republic was proclaimed Augustus. The new political hierarchy transformed Rome’s monetary system. Across the Roman Empire, officials established different imperial mints at which point Rome was restored as the main mint and the names of the Republic tresviri aere argento auro flando feriundo retumed on the coin types, although the precise responsibilities of these officials is still a matter of discussion.196 Around 15 BC, the monetary signifïcance of the Roman mint faded as Lugdunum became the main imperial mint for Augustus’ gold and silver coinage, probably either to distance minting from possible senatorial interference or to facilitate payment to legions on the Northern frontiers.197 The phrase divifilius appears on about 23% of Augustus’ coin types, though his policy shows regional differences. The mint of Lugdunum almost always referred to Augustus as divifilius, whereas on types from Rome’s mint, the phrase appears frequently only between 19 BC and 12 BC.198 Noticeably, the phrase divi filius comes up mostly with coin types celebraling the Ludi Saeculares or with Augustus’ family members. At the Secular Games, held from 31 May to 3 June 17 BC, Augustus proclaimed the beginning of a new era by celebrating the renewal of Roman society marked with a revival of Roman family life. Tellingly, Augustus’ divine ancestral claim reappeared in the same period as the centenary festivities, probably to reinforce Augustus’ position as the restorer of the Roman traditions and morals.199 The domination of family coin types around 13 and 12 BC suggests that Augustus’ family members started to assume a public role by that time, as will be discussed below.200 The combination of the divifilius legend with the family member reverses suggests 194 BMCRR, 580-581, nos. 32-37: This is coinage for payment of the legions who were stationed in Africa and who had fought in the battle of Naulochus (Sicily) against Pompey. 195 Cicero, Philippics 13.11.24-25: “et te, puer, qui omnia nomini debes.” Cf. Zanker, 1987, 33-37. 196 In the discussion about the role of these tresviri monetales vinder the emperors various opinions are given: from officials who were responsible for Roman coinage in all metals under the leadership of the Senats (Mommsen, 1860, 744-745; Kraft, 1962, 7) to young trusted followers who enjoyed the protecdon of the emperor (WaUace-HadriU, 1986, 79; Bruun, 1999,19-39). See also introduction. 197 Strabo 4.3.2; Clay, 1982, 7-52; Giard, 1983, 15-53, esp. 27-28; 38-47; Van Heesch, 1993, 535-238; Zehnacher, 1998,213-227; Bruun, 1999,24; Giani, 2000, Butcher-Ponting, 2005, 163-197. 198 N=82. Lugdunum: RIC P Augustus 162-203; 206-225; 228; 231-234; Rome: RIC F Augustus 290-292; 306- 307; 337-340; 390-393; 400; 405; 413; 419; 471. The phrase divifilius was also struck on the coinages issued by the mints of Nemausus, Pergamum, and an uncertain eastem mint, but in very low quantities. Nemausus: RIC I2 Augustus 154-161; Pergamum: RIC P Augustus 518-520; uncertain mint RIC I2 Augustus 544-545. 199 Res Gestae Divi Augusti 22.2; Zanker, 1987,101-166; Severy, 2003, 59-61. 200 Around this period, Augustus’ family members came (in)to the fareground. Agrippa, who was married to Augustus’ daughter Julia, occupied a prominent place as one of Augustus’ colleagues in the special Ludi 51 that Augustus tried to advertise his imperial house, strengthened by its ancestral roots of divus Iulius. Only seven emperors followed the usage of kinship terms modeled by Augustus. Left with Augustus’ inheritance, Tiberius abundantly advertised himself as ‘the son of the divine Augustus’. In fact, all Tiberian coin legends bear the addendum DIVI F (See for instance IMAGES 1.1; IV. 1 and VII.1). Following his adoption by Augustus in AD 4, Tiberius received tribunicia postestas as well as a share of Augustus’ maius imperium.™1 The celebrated general already had some sort of equal imperial power as Augustus, and through his political and military experiences he was well prepared for the imperial throne.202 On the Augustan coin types after AD 4, moreover, Tiberius was featured as Augusti jïlius.203 Nevertheless, the transition of the imperial power was unprecedented and may have been enforced through Tiberius’ adoption by Augustus with the result that Tiberius’ imperial position could not be questioned.204 Tiberius’ intensive advertisement of being Augustus’ son suggests that he was well aware of this. Having become emperor after Tiberius’ death, Gaius Caesar Germanicus’ coins represented him as ‘the great-grandson of divus Augustus’ by adding the kinship term pronepos (IMAGES X.6; Xin.1).205 Being the heir and adoptive grandson of Tiberius, Gaius could also advertise himself as a direct descendant of divus Augustus.206 Yet, Gaius’ coin types show that he did not want to neglect his militarly celebrated father Germanicus, who was presented as ‘the son of Tiberius and the grandson of divus Augustus’.207 Through these coins Gaius created a family tree of emperors, of which he was the fourth generation. Saeculares committee, the XV virorum. He also shared various victories with Augustus and received the imperium in 18 BC and the tribunicia potestas twice in 18 and 13 BC. Furthermore, Agrippa granted his father- in-law three sons, of whom the two eldests, Gaius and Lucius, were adopted by Augustus as his own sons in 17 BC. VeUeius Paterculus 2.8; Tacitus, Armcds 1.3.2; Suetonius, Augustus 27.5; 31.4; 64; Dio 54. 12; 28; Severy, 2003,62-81. 201 Velleius Paterculus 2.103; Tacitus, Annals 1.3; Suetonius, Tiberius 21-24; Dio 55.13. 202 Previously, Tiberius had assumed the toga virilis (27 BC); crowned a new pro-Roman king of Armenia, overseen the return of the legionary standards captured by the Persians (20 BC); was legatus Augusti in Gallia (16-15 BC); campaigned in Pannonia and Dalmatia (12-9 BC); held an Imperium Proconsulare in Germania (8 BC) and was granted a tribunicia potestas and control in the East (6 BC). Severy, 2003, 80-84; 187-193. 203 RIC F Tiberius 221-226; 235-241b; 244-248b; 423-424; 469-470. 204 Gradel, 2002, 336; Severy, 2003, 205-212. 205 On 30.2% of his surviving coin types (N=16), Gaius is presented as the divus Augusti pronepos: RIC P Gaius 39-54. 206 PIR P.217; Suetonius, Tiberius 76; Winterling, 2003, 39-50. Tiberius named Gaius together with his biological grandson Tiberius Gemellus as the heirs to equal shares of his estate, and as each to be sole heir in case of the other’s death. 207 RIC P Gaius 35; 43; 50. 52 Obviously, the young and military inexperienced Gaius tried to legitimate his imperial position through his kinship by blood.208 After Gaius was assassinated, his patemal uncle Claudius was acclaimed imperator by the Praetorian Guard.209 In contrast to his predecessors, Claudius did not continue the propagation of this lineage, despite the Julio-Claudian blood flowing through his veins. Only on inscriptions was his filiation with Tiberius’ brother Drusus mentioned.210 Of course, neither Claudius nor Drusus was a natural son of a Julio-Claudian predecessor, nor was either adopted by one. Claudius’ imperial claim was through his mother Antonia, who was Augustus’ niece. The absence of a direct biological relationship between Claudius and one of his imperial predecessors might explain why kinship terms are absent from Claudius’ coins.211 In AD 50, Claudius adopted Nero, the son of his fourth wife Agrippina Iunior, although he had a son of his own 212 Almost immediately after his death in October AD 54, Claudius was deified by the Senate.213 His adopted son succeeded to the throne. In the two fïrst years of his reign, Nero presented himself as divi Claudijïlius on almost 56% of his coin types (IMAGES IV.2; VI. I).214 Yet, after AD 56, this kinship term disappeared. This explains why on graph 2 the percentage of kinships terms on Nero’s coins is so low, just 1.9% of the total types. Remarkably, too, Nero could have called himself the abnepos of divus Augustus through his matrilineal lineage, but did not do so.215 After Nero, the Flavian emperors Titus and Domitian both presented themselves as ‘the son of divus Vespasianus’. Unlike their predecessors and their successors, who used kinship terms to enforce their claim being imperial relatives, Titus and Domitian actually were the biological sons of Vespasian. Yet, their emphases on being the sons of Vespasian 208 Tnllmich, 1978, 47-48; Barnett, 1989, 1-42; Rose, 1997, 32-38, esp.32. Of course, the advertisement for Germanicus also rehabilitated his memary. For mare an Gennanicus see infra chapter 2 (2.4.1.1.1). 209 Suetonius, Claudius 10; Dio 60.1.1-3. 210 CIL 2.1438; 1518-1519; 4644-4645; 4718; 4929; 4932; 6242; 3.381; 409; 1977; 6060; 6737; 7061; 10175; 5.24-25; 3326; 5804; 6417; 6969; 7150; 8002; 6.915-916; 920; 1231; 1252; 1254; 1256; 4376; 9.5426; 5959; 10.1416; 11.5; 3790-3791; 12.5476; 5493; 5528, 5542; 5546; 5586-5587; 5589-5590; 5595; 5602; 5608; 5611- 5612; 5620; 5631; 5634; 5645-5647; 5655; 5661; 14.85; ILS 107.10; 198; 200-205; 207-209; 213; 215-218; 5747b; 5830; 5971; 7061; 8900. See also Ephemeris Epigraphica 4.777; 813; Orelli 5214; Boissieu, 366; Notitie degü scavi di antichitè, 1885, 36; 475; 1886, 36. 211 Claudius added Caesar to his official nomenclature, see Hammond, 1959,22. 212 Tacitus, Armals 12.25-26.1; Suetonius, Claudius 27.2; 39.2; 43.1; Nero 6.2; 7.1. 213 Tacitus, Annals 12.26; 13.2.2; Suetonius, Claudius 45; Nero 9; Dio 61.1.1-2. 214 RIC P Nero 1-3; 6-7; 10; N=5. These coin types were struck between 13 October 54 and 31 December 56. Even the nomen Claudius was omitted from Nero’s nomenclature on gold and silver types, with the emperor (mostly) refeaTed to as NERO CAESAR AVGVSTVS after AD 56. Sometimes, the title Germanicus was added to his name. Claudius was included in Nero’s name on the bronze types that were struck between AD 62/63 and 68. Before AD 62, no bronze was struck. MacDowall, 1979, 75-109. Stylistic arguments leave some scholars to argue that the productian of bronze coins restarted only in AD 64: Wolters, 1999,79-83 and Giaid, 2000, 28-31. 21 More on Nero’s ancestral advertisement see Hekster-Claes-et al, farthcoming 2013. 53 probably had motivations similar to those of other mentioned emperors: legitimating their succession and strengthening their imperial power. The accession of Titus created a second imperial dynasty, the Flavians, which of course needed all the legitimation tools that it could get. After the deification of Vespasian, which must have taken place between 8 September 79 and 29 May 80, the kinship term filius graced 24% of Titus’ total types (IMAGES 1.3; IV.3; Vn.4).216 By contrast, only 9% of Domitian’s coin types presented the emperor as divi Vespasiani filius.211 The kinship phrase appeared only from 14 September 81 to December 83, which leads to suggests that Domitian only needed this ancestral advertisement at the beginning of his reign. The next emperor to add kinship terms at his titulature was Hadrian. Hadrian, whose adoption by Trajan is shrouded with intrigue - and still doubted by some modem scholars - named himself divi Nervae nepos and divi Traiani (Parthici) filius, identifying himself as a relative of Nerva and Trajan (IMAGE m.3).218 According to the unknown author of the HA, Hadrian received the news of his adoption through Trajan two days before Trajan’s death.219 However, Cassius Dio states that “Hadrian had not been adopted by Trajan” and that “Trajan died without leaving children”, but that his wife Plotina, who was a supporter of Hadrian, “instructed that the death of Trajan had to be hidden for some days, before the news of Hadrian’s adoption was spread among the public.” To corroborate his story, Dio put forward the adoption document to the Senate, which was signed by Plotina, “a thing she never did before.”220 In addition, the HA, Aurelius Victor and Eutropius report that it was Plotina who helped Hadrian gain acceptance as Trajan’s successor.221 It is not surprising, therefore, that coin legends overcompensate for Hadrian’s problematic succession by emphasising the new emperor’s status as ‘the son of divus Traianus and grandson of divus Nerva’.222 In total, the kinship terms grace 5.4% of the total coin types in Hadrian’s twenty years reign, but all these legends are concentrated on the coin types from the first year of his reign, when 45% of all types mention Trajan’s patemity of Hadrian.223 Here, again, the substantial kinship advertisement in Hadrian’s first year of accession suggests that the kinship messages were 216 RIC JP Titus 257-264; 399-444; 498-506; N=33. 217 RIC ü 2 Domitian 11; 17; 39; 44-45; 49-50; 55; 59; 63; 71-72; 75-90; 103-111; 113-114; 126-127; 201-202; 205-211; 831-840; N=44. 218 Nepos'. RIC II Hadrian 22D; nepos and filius: RIC II Hadrian 9-16; 22; 542-546a; b; filius'. RIC II Hadrian 2- 8; 22A; 22B; 25A;534-541a; b; c. 219 HA Hadrian 4.6. 220 Dio 69.1.1-4. 221 HA Hadrian 4.10, Aurelius Victor, Book o f the Caesars 13.13; Eutropius 8.6. 222 RIC n Hadrian 2; 4-16; 22; 534a; b-546b. 223 N=37. 54 chosen on basis of an individual imperial preference. Most likely, Hadrian’s kinship advertisement was one of several tools for safeguarding his accession to the imperial throne.224 A similar policy is traceable to the usurper Septimius Severas, who in the civil war of AD 193-197 sought a basis for legitimating of his reign. After Septimius was proclaimed Augustus by his troops in Pannonia, he added the name of Pertinax as his cognomen.225 By his arrival in Rome, Pertinax was deified and granted a state funeral with Septimius delivering the funerary laudatio?26 In addition, several consecratio coin types were struck for divus Pertinax (Pius), who was presented as pater}21 Most likely, Septimius Severus thought that the link with his predecessor would paint his succession as righteous, because other men, like Pescennius Niger and Clodius Albinus also claimed the imperial throne and enjoyed the support of many senators and Roman soldiers.228 As Baharal suggests, it is highly possible that “Severus was aware that an imperial candidate’s dynastie connection was no less important than the support of the army, even if only because dynastie loyalty ensured the troops’ support.”229 Septimius, however, lacked any true dynastie claim. In the spring of AD 195, he declared that he had been adopted by Marcus Aurelius and presented himself as ‘the son of the divine Marcus Pius’ and as ‘the brother of Commodus’, who was deified under Severus’ auspices around that same time.230 Several coin types of 195 referred to Septimius Severus as the DIVI M PII F, and a consecratio coin type was struck for divus Commodus.231 Yet, no legend referred to Severus and Commodus as brothers.232 Now, 77 years after Hadrian, Romans must have noticed and respected the claim of ‘being the son of an emperor’ on the legends of several types in AD 195, although the coin types engraved with DIVI M Pü F constituted only 0.5% during Septimius’ whole reign. Nevertheless, the posthumous 224 See also infra for the particular ADOPTIO-coinage of Hadrian (chapter 2.4.1.2.2). Cf. Birley, 1997, 28-29; Roman-Rémy-et al., 2009,508-517. 225 Feriale Duranum H.3.13; HA Septimius Severus 1.3; 7.9; Eutropius 8.18. 226 Dio 75.4; Aurelius Victar, Book qfthe Caesars 18.6; HA Pertinax 15; Septimius Severus 7.8-9; 17.5. 227 RIC IV.B Septimius Severus 24A; B; 660B, a, b, c; 660C. 228 Dio 74.13.5; Herodian 2.7.8-9; 3.5.2; 5.7.2. Cf. Nelson, 1982,265-274; Schumacher, 2003, 355-369; Bendall- Bland-Bumett, 1987,65-83. 229 Baharal, 1996, 21, see as well Timpe, 1962, 88; Lendon, 1997, 254; Hekster, 2001, 39; 2007, 91-106. 230 Dio 76.6.1-8; 7.4; 9.4; HA Septimius Severus 10; 12.8. Rreviously, Commodus was condemned by the Senate to a damnatio memoriae. Dio 74.2.1. Hekster, 2002,189-191. 231 The DIVI M Pü F - coin legends on bronze coins appeared by Severus’ fifth imperial acclamation: RIC IVA Septimius Severus 686. By Severus’ seventh imperial acclamation, again some bronze types and two gold types repeated the title: RIC IV.A Septimius Severus 65-66; 700-702A; 712. In total: N=8. About the consecratio type for Commodus, see Claes, 2012,209-226 and infra this chapter (2.4.3.2). 232 In contrast, on several inscriptions, Severus is presented as DIVI COMMODI FRATER, see for instance: AE 1951.75; CIL 6.1025; 1028; 1031; 1037; 1043; 8.1333; 5699-5700; 9317; 23707; 27374. Cf. Dio 76.7.4; 9.4; HA Septimius Severus 10.6; 11.3-4. 55 adoption into the gens Aurelia most likely helped Severus in justifying and legitimating his claim to be the Empire’s sole ruler.233 As graph 2 shows, no kinship terms were added to the emperor’s name after Septimius Severus. Of course, this does not imply that ancestral advertisements disappeared from coinage. 3.2. References to gentes and familial titulature Apart from kinship terms, references in coin legends to the adoption of the gens name or (honourary) elements of the imperial titulature could also create a link with an imperial predecessor or imperial house. In this way, the emperors’ coins could try to claim a rightful accession or to continue the lineage with an earlier dynasty, but the emperors’ coins could also decide to distance the emperor from his predecessor by dropping familial nomina. In this section, the most striking examples of ancestral references to gentes and familial titulature, or their disappearance will be investigated. Most Julio-Claudian emperors included the name Caesar in their own nomenclature because they were, by blood or by adoption, heirs of Julius Caesar.234 After the murder of Nero, Galba proclaimed himself Servius Galba Imperator Caesar Augustus, inserting Caesar into his nomenclature, although he had no family ties with the Julio-Claudians.235 However, a third of Galba’s coin types that were struck in Rome shortly before and at the time of his arrival in Rome, and to a lesser degree after it, omit the name Caesar.236 The sizes of the coins that bear these types indicate that the choice to exclude Caesar did not result from a lack of space, but probably reflect a hesitation by Galba to use this name. Anyway, when present, the name Caesar recalled the Julio-Claudian house and its members, something that Galba’s successor, 233 Around the same time, the name of Severus’ first bom, Lucius Septimius Bassianus, was changed into Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, probably to ensure the succession. Herodian 3.10.5; Aurelius Victor, Book o f the Caesars 20.30; Eutropius 8.19.2; HA Septimius Severus 10; ILS 8805; RIC TV.A Caracalla 1- 113; 115-231A; 397a-404; 415a-490. Baharal, 1996, 21; Hekster, 2002,189. 234 Claudius was not an (adopted) linear descendant of Julius Caesar, but he inherited the name as he was given pater potestas over the domus Augusta after the assassination of Gaius. Hammond, 1957, 22; Levick, 1990, 42; and Osgood, 2011, 29-32 about Caesar as Claudius’ inherited name and title. 235 However, as inheritor of some of Livia’s properties, Galba emphasised his links with her, calling himself ‘Lucius Livius Galba’ (SEG 15.873) and putting her on his coins (RIC P Galba 13-14; 36; 52; 55; 65-67; 142- 143; 150-152; 184-189; 224; 331-338). More on the date of Galba’s assumption of power, see Del Castillo, 2002,449-461. Galba’s ancestral links with Iivia will be discussed later, see infra this chapter (2.4.3.1). 236 Percentage of total Galban types with the name of Caesar. 63.8%; N=185. On the titulature of Galba, see also Kraay, 1956, 9; 23; 31 and Hammond, 1957, 24. 56 Otho, may have known too. That would explain why all his coin types bear the name Caesar?31 After Otho committed suicide, the new emperor Vitellius declined, remarkably, the titles of Caesar and Augustus.236 Instead, he added Imperator as a cognomen and Germanicus as honourary epithet (IMAGE I.2).239 Vitellius thus broke with tradition, probably distancing himself from Nero, Galba, and Otho, who all received a damnatio memoriae.240 Most likely, then, the epithet Germanicus, which was shared by several Julio-Claudians, did not link him with the Julio-Claudian house, nor did it commemorate a victory. More probably it referred to Vitellius’ personal election by the German troops.241 At his proclamation as emperor, Vespasian reinstated the title Augustus in his nomenclature. Subsequenüy, he replaced his gentile nomen, Flavius, with Caesar, so as not to effect a formal adoption but more to claim continuity with the Julio-Claudians.242 Both titles were included at his coin legends. There is litfle doubt that Vespasian tried to strengthen his imperial power by linking himself to the Julio-Claudians, especially Augustus. By winning the support of the troops, rebuilding Rome, reorganising the provinces, reconstructing the finances, and by analogy, by imitating many Augustan coin types, Vespasian seems to have aimed to link himself to Augustus, though he must have wanted also to be a ‘new Augustus’, who could provide Rome with peaceful dynastie continuity.243 As such, Vespasian also bestowed the title Caesar on his sons.244 The title Caesar thus became more and more a Standard title for the heir apparent, and imperial coinage reflected this semantic shift thereafter.245 237 RIC P Otho 1-21. Syme, 1959,172-188; Hammond, 1957, 23; Lyasse, 2008,288-296. 238 Suetonius, Vitellius 8.4. Tacitus, Histories 3.58 states that shortly after his imperial accession, Vitellius did assume the name of Caesar, however no inscriptions or coins testunony that Syme, 1959, 172-188; Hammond, 1957, 25; Lyasse, 2008, 296-300. Note also that Vitellius changed the ritual sacrifices on his dies imperii, through which he strengthened his relation with Mars Ultor, distancing himself from the Julio-Claudian house, see AfA: CIL 6.2051.1.84-89; Arena, 2008, 88. For more on the title Imperator as (cog)nomen see Syme, 1959, 172-188. 239 Tacitus, Histories 1.62.2; Suetonius, Vitellius 8.4. 240 On the damnationes memoriae of Nero, Galba and Otho, see Vamer, 2004, 46-85; 105-108; Flower, 2006, 197-201; 223-228; De Jong, 2006,136-169. 241 Mattingly, 1920a, 39-40; Hammond, 1957, 25; Lyasse, 2008, 297. For more on German troops and the imperial election see Flaig, 1992, 132-173; 320-334; Wiedemann, 19962, 198-209; Hekster, 2007, 91-105; Johne-Hartmann, 2008, 583-632; Speidel, 2009, 109-120. The Julio-Claudian emperors Gaius, Claudius and Nero used the epithet Germanicus in their titulature: Tacitus, Histories 1.56-57; Suetonius, Vitellius 3.2. Vitellius also bestowed the epithet Germanicus on his infant son: Tacitus, Histories 2.59. 242 Hammond, 1957, 25-27; BMCRE II, xix-xx; xxxi-xxxii. See also Hurlet, 1993, 264-280; Perez, 2003, 112- 166; 202-207; Norena, 2003,28-29; 32-33; Lyasse, 2008,311-324. BMCRE II, xxxii-liii, esp. xliii; Buttrey, 1972, 89-109; Levick, 1999b, 70-71. For a comparative iconographical coin study between Augustus and Vespasian, see Pérez, 2003, 167-224. 244 Suetonius, Domitian 1.2; Dio 65.1. 245 Hammond, 1957, 27-29; Levick, 1990,42; Baharal, 1996, 10-11; Rose, 1997,12-14; Hekster, 1999, 717-748; 2001,35-49. 57 As a general rule, adopted emperors assumed the gentile nomen and the cognomen of their adoptive father.246 Yet, emperors without imperial family ties also tried to establish blood relations with former emperors by adopting family nomina retrospectively as the Severan emperors did famously when they tried to link themselves to their Antonine predecessors.247 First, we will discuss Septimius Severus, who, as explained above, took Pertinax as a second cognomen after his own Severus.248 The HA continues that Septimius wished later to remove this cognomen, for fear that it would prove a bad omen.249 This coheres with the evidence of Septimius’ coin legends, where the cognomen Pertinax disappears around Septimius’ eleventh imperial acclamation (around the end AD 197). Around AD 195, Septimius Severus connected himself to the Antonine house through his alleged adoption, whereupon he added the filiation divi Marei Pii Filius to his titulature and probably simultaneously adopted the Antonine epithet Pius.250 However, as already stated, the filiation with Marcus Aurelius on Septimius’ coin legends is very marginal.251 The epithet Pius, on the other hand, is almost omnipresent on the coin legends from AD 201 onwards.252 Although the nomenclature of Septimius Severus did not directly emphasise the invented family tie between Septimius Severus and the Antonini, the immediate change of the name of Septimius’ oldest son, Septimius Bassianus, better known as Caracalla, to Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Caesar did.253 Consequently, all coin types of Septimius’ oldest son were struck in his new name. As emperor, too, Caracalla retained these nomina. When Elagabalus, Caracalla’s second cousin, was proclaimed emperor by the Eastem troops, he adopted or accepted from the soldiers the Antonines nomina: Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. Moreover, some reverse coin legends celebrating Antonine Victory (Victoria Antonini Aug) and Antonine Salvation (Salus Antonini Aug) stressed the restoration of the Antonine house after 246 However, no legal provisions around the renaming of the adopted person existed to require adoptees to assume their putative fathers’ gentile nomina. Moreover, in legal terms, the adoptee also stayed a cognatus to all his former kin relations. Consequently, the kinship ties between the adoptee and his biological ancestors were not severed completely, so that the name of the adopted person could be consisted of a mix of references to his old and new family names. See Tacitus, Annals 15.19; Gellius, Attic Nights, 5.19; Digest 1.7.23; 38.8.1.4; Institutes 1.25ff; Corbier, 1991b, 137; Flower, 1996, 85; Gardner, 1998,129; 133-134; Lindsay, 2009, 219. 247 A rare exception is Trajan, who did not assume his adoptive father’s gentile name Cocceius. He only took the latter’s cognomen Nerva, but retained in addition his own Traianus. See Eek, 2002, 211-226. 248 Feriale Duranum II.3.13; Herodian 2.10.1, 9; 14.3; HA Pertinax 15.3; Septimius Severus 1.3; 7.9; Eutropius 8.18; Ando, 2012, 26-27. 249 HA Septimius Severus 7.9. 250 Dio 76.6.1-8; 7.4; 9.4; HA Septimius Severus 10; 12.8. On some inscriptions, Severus is presented as the DIVI COMMODI FRATER: AE 1951.75; CIL 8.9317; however, this title is never present on Septimius Severus’ coin types. 251 RIC IV.A Septimius Severus 65-66; 700-702A; 712; N=8 (0.5%). See supra this chapter (2.3.1). 152 RIC IV.A. Septimius Severus 174-191; 193-310; 313-337; 526; 759-812; 814-818; 820-830; 832-837A. 253 Herodian 3.10.5; HA Septimius Severus 10.6; Eutropius 8.19; Barahal, 1996, 21-22; Heil, 2006, 64-67; 75-78. 58 the defeat of Macrinus and his son by Elagabalus.254 Macrinus then was presented as the interrapter of the dynastie Antonine line to which Elagabalus claimed to belong.255 Under his reign, Elagabalus adopted his cousin Bassianus Alexianus as his heir and successor, tuming his name into Marcus Aurelius Alexander.256 After Elagabalus’ death in AD 222, the new emperor Marcus Aurelius Alexander added Severus as a cognomen to his titulature. While Alexander’ s coin legends celebrated both Antonine and Severan lineage, after AD 228, the coin legends only read IMP SEV ALEXAND(ER) AVG, and three years later, they even reduced Alexander’s titulature to IMP ALEXANDER (PIVS) AVG. The omission of the Antonine and Severan nomina suggests that Alexander Severus feit less dependent on ancestral claims.257 Another significant family name reference is found on Gallienus’ coinage during his sole reign, celebrating the family of the Faleri. One silver type celebrates the VIRTVS FALERI.258 The obverse depicts a repiesentation of Hercules or the emperor himself in lion’s skin, while the reverse displays some attributes of the demigod.259 In addition, a gold and a silver medallion bear the legend PIETAS FALERI with Gallienus and his wife Salonina on the obverse.260 The Etruscan town of Falerii was the native city of the Egnatii, to which Gallienus’ mother Egnatia Mariniana belongs.261 It is remarkable that Gallienus emphasised his matemal lineage, whereas Valerian is completely absent from his coinage.262 Moreover, Gallienus’ coin legends even drop his gentile name Licinius.263 All this may well be connected to the capture of Valerian by the Persian king Sapor I and Valerian’s death in 254 N Victoria Antonini Aug= 10; N Salus Antonini Aug=l'. Baharal, 1996,52-54. 255 RIC IV.B Elagabalus 136-140; 151-157; 372-373; 375-377. Victoria Antonini Aug was present on 3.8% of Elagabalus’ total coin types and Salus Antonini Aug was present on 2.6% of Elagabalus’ total coin types. 256 Dio 80.17.2-3; Herodian 5.7.1-4; HA Elagabalus 5.1; 10.1; 13.1-2; Alexander Severus 1.2; 8.1; Aurelius Victor, Book of the Caesars 23.4; Eutropius 8.23; Baharal, 1996,54-55; 64-65. 257 In this context, the account of HA Elagabalus 18.1 stating that Elagabalus was the last of the Antonines is interesting. In addition, on Alexander’s coins, no elements referred to Alexander the Great, an ancestor that the HA (Alexander Severus 25.9) linked with Alexander Severus. 238 N=l; RIC V.A. Gallienus Siscia 596; Göbl, 2000, 85-88 classifies this type under the mint of Rome. 259 These attributes are a quiver, a lion’s skin, a club, a vase, and a bow. For more on the propagandistic value of Hercules, see Hekster, 2002, 117-129; 2004, 159-166. On the connection between Hercules and Gallienus see Hekster-Manders, 2006,141-142. 260 RIC V.A. Gallienus and Salonina Rome 1-2. 261 Falerii, now called Civita Castellana, is situated in the province of Lazio, Italy, some 60 kilometers from Rome. Aurelius Victor, Book o f the Caesars 32.4 mentions that Gallienus came from Etruria. 262 See also infra this chapter (2.4.1.1.4). From local inscriptions, CIL 11.3089-3094, it also appeared that Gallienus with his eldest son Valerian endowed to the town of Falerii. 263 Before 260, the half of Gallienus’ coin legends included his gens name Licinius. RIC VI.A. Gallienus Joint Reign 1; 69-80; 82-85; 87; 89; 91-95; 98-100; 109; 113; 115-119; 125; 127-128; 130-135; 137; 141-145; 147- 153; 155; 158-159; 161-162; 164; 166; 168; 170-174; 178; 181-182; 184-185; 188-190; 192-194; 197; 199; 202; 205; 207-211; 213-217; 219-221; 223; 225-226; 230-235; 237-238; 240-244; 247-258; 260-262; 264-266; 270- 272; 274; 276-281; 283; 286-301; 378; 387; 417-419; 421; 431-436; 438-440; 445-450; 455-462. 59 uncertain circumstances, which made the figure of Valerian less than heroic.264 The choice to accentuate other ancestral ties could thus have resulted from Valerian’s disgraceful fate, although this does not entail that Valerian’s fate was the immediate cause. Manders, for example, proposes the possibility that Gallienus emphasised his native ItaUan descent in order to flatter the inhabitants of the ItaUan peninsula265 In addition, De Blois ventures the hypothesis that Gallienus may have advertised his old and illustrious matemal family “to impress his Illyrian and Pannonian officers, who at that time were filled with Romanitas and admired the great Roman past.”266 3.3. Having nobilitas: propagating your noble ancestry Before we end this section, we must examine a novel ancestral type that was introduced during the reign of Commodus and copied in the coins of Geta, Elagabalus, Alexander Severus, and Philippus Arabs. The type propagated the emperor’s noble ancestry, personifïed by the virtue nobilitas, without referring to any physical ancestor. Nobilitas was personified only on coins and was symbolised through a woman holding a long sceptre and a small figure.267 From the start of the institution of the emperorship, and even before that, virtues were regularly represented on imperial coinage, as communicated through legends and images. The virtues expressed qualities inherent to the emperor, like clementia or pietas, but could also imply different benefits the emperor provided, like libertas and pax.26S During the Roman Republic, nobiles were members of a Roman patrician family that achieved the consulship, but also plebians whose ancestors had been consuls were considered nobiles 269 In the imperial period, the meaning of a nobilis evolved due to political circumstances, referring 264 Aurelius Victor, Book o f the Caesars 32; the two Gallieni 1; 17; Eutropius 9.7; Festus, Summary 23; Lactantius, On the Death o f the Prosecutors 5; Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle 155-171. Potter, 1990, 50-51; 328- 347; 2004, 252-256. The HA testifies here that Gallienus should have said that he knew that his father was just mortal. For obvious reasons, king Sapor I mentioned the capture of the emperor Valerian in his Res Gestae Divi Saporis 11. Watson, 1999, 27-29; Göbl, 2000, 59; Hedlund, 2008, 176-177; Johne-Hartmann, 2008, 247-256; esp. 255-256. Manders, 2012, 178; 295. 266 De Blois, 1979, 134. 267 RIC m Commodus 139; 155; 155a; 485; 489; 501; 509. The identity of the small figure is obscure. Some scholars think it is the Palladium; others say Minerva or even Roma: BMCRE IV, clxi-clxii; LIMC VI, 1992, 930-932. 268 For more about the communication of imperial virtues on the imperial coins, see Charlesworth, 1936, 107- 132; 1937, 105-135; 1943, 1-10; Wallace-Hadrill, 1981, 298-323; Perassi, 1991; Metealf, 1993, 337-346; Norefia, 2001, 146-186; Manders, 2012,165-169; 178-182; 199-205. 269 Note, however, that the exact meaning of nobiles is subject of discussion. For more see Hölkeskamp, 1987 (=2011) and Bladel, 2005,15-104. 60 to the noble Roman ancestry of the emperor.270 As said above, the virtue of nobilitas appeared for the first time, on coins under Commodus. The types were introduced at the end of AD 185, and represented 7.1% of Commodus’ type output between the end of AD 185 and 187.271 Commodus was the first emperor to be bom while his father occupied the imperial office and he could trace imperial descent back through five generations of emperors: Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Kus, and Marcus Aurelius. As a result, Commodus could certainly underline his ‘pure’ imperial blood. Herodian informs us that Commodus boasted to the troops about his purple-bom status.272 Why the nobilitas types only appeared between AD 185 and 187 could have been the result of the shocking cases in AD 185 involving the praetorian perfect Perennis and the usurper Matemus. Both cases demonstrated the insecurity 273 of Commodus’ position, which prompted an accentuation of Commodus’ noble ancestry. After Commodus, Septimius’ son Geta also received some nobilitas types.274 In total, 3% of Geta’s coin types displayed the virtue of nobilitas.215 Strangely, nobilitas was neither displayed on Septimius’ types, nor on Caracalla’s types.276 Most of Geta’s nobilitas types were struck between AD 200 and 203, but that does not immediately explain why Geta’s lineage had to be put forward. Did the types have to compensate for the fact that Geta’s older biother had been made Augustus, but Geta had not?277 Similarly, Geta’s inscriptions entitled him as nobilissimus Caesar, and this title became Standard for all designated Caesares from Geta onwards.278 The emperors Elagabalus and Alexander Severus issued one nobilitas type each, which constitued just 0.3% of Elagabalus’ types and 0.2% for Alexander Severus.279 Probably, the nobilitas type stressed the legal succession of Elagabalus and Alexander 270 Gelzer, 1912 [=1969]; Hffl, 1969, 230-250; Brunt, 1982,1-17. 271 The chosen time demarcation is 10 December 185 and 9 December 187. Between this demarcation, N Total types öf Commodus was 99, whereof N=7 displaying the virtue nobilitas. During Commodus’ whole reign, the types displaying the virtue nobilitas represented just 1% of Commodus* total coin types. Cf. Norena, 2011, 232; 254-255. 272 Herodian 1.5.5. There were rumours that Commodus was Faustina’s illegitimate son, bom after an affair with a gladiator, see HA Marcus Aurelius Antoninus 19.7; Commodus 8.1; Aurelius Victor, Book o f the Caesars 16.2. Yet, these rumours are most likdy created to blacken Commodus’ image ar to explain why the ‘controversial’ Commodus could not be a real son of the beloved Marcus Aurelius. 273 Dio 73.9; HA Commodus 5-6; 16.2; Herodian, 1.9-10; Hekster, 2002, 60-74. 274 SIC IV.A. Geta 13a; b; 32; 48a; b; 49; 120. 275 N=8; Total types Geta=267. 276 RIC IV.A. Caracalla 162 shows also a nobilitas-type for Caracalla, though this type is probably an irregular issue or a hybrid. 277 For more about Geta’s position see Kemmers, 2011, 270-289, esp. 279. In the article, she explores the prominence of the nobilitas type together with other consistent messages that recommended Geta as a good candidate to rule. 278 Gelzer, 1912 [=1969]; Norena, 2011, 254. 279 RIC IV.B. Elagabalus 124; Alexander Severus 290. 61 Severus on basis of their Antoninian or Severan lineage. In addition, leks noted that the nobilitas type of Elagabalus could have highlighted Elagabalus’ noble senatorial status. Elagabalus could claim that he descended from two senatorial fathers, his biological father, Sextus Varius Marcellus, and his pretended father, Caracalla, whereas his predecessor Macrinus had been of equestrian rank. Elagabalus’ senatorial status made him an attractive successor for Macrinus, surpassing Macrinus’ son. Icks argues further that “Elagabalus must have been well aware of this, for after his victory over his opponent, Dio records that he is alleged to have sent a dispatch to the People, the soldiers and the Senate of Rome in which he made the following comments with regard to Macrinus: “this man [...] dared [...] to become emperor before he had been senator”.”280 Although Elagabalus’ pretended father Caracalla was not portrayed on his types, there were other types with the legends VICTORIA ANTONINIAVG and SALVS ANTONINIAVG (6.2%) which presented the young emperor as the legal successor of the Antoninian house, after the dynastie interruption of Macrinus and his son.281 Both the nobilitas type and the Antonine types propagated a clear message about Elagabalus’ noble and imperial ancestry. The unique nobilitas type of Alexander Severus probably underscored Alexander’s noble lineage, and therefore his legal succession. Yet, no other references to the emperor’s noble ancestry have tumed up, and even after AD 231 Alexander’s coin nomenclature dropped his Antonine and Severan nomina, which suggests that the emperor relied less on his ancestral legitimation.282 During the reign of Philippus Arabs, the mint of Rome minted three nobilitas types, all in AD 248, the year in which the 1000* birthday of Rome was celebrated.283 The message seems to claim a noble Roman ancestry for Philippus, a distinction that his ancestors can hardly have possessed as he had more Arabian roots than Roman.284 After Philippus Arabs, no nobilitas type reappears; however, during the reign of Probus, some fïve decades after Philippus Arabs, another type surfaced that alluded to the emperor’s noble Roman descent. The type displays the she-wolf feeding the brothers Remus and Romulus, accompanied with the legend ORIGINI AVG.285 In total, the type represents a mere 0.4% of Probus’ total types. Most likely, Probus, who originated from the city Sirmium, invented this glorious Roman ancestry in order to stress his legitimate imperial position or to 280 Dio 80.1.2; Icks, 2011, 64-65. 281 RICTV.B Elagabalus 136-140; 151-157; 372-373; 375-377. Baharal, 1996, 52-54. 282 See supra this chapter (2.3.2). 283 RIC TV.C. Philippus Arabs 8; 155a; b. 284 Lichtenberger, 2011,152; Kömer, 2002, 30-32; 106-108. 285 RfCV.B. Probus 701-703; Lichtenberger, 2011,152. 62 impress his officers as Gallienus probably did with his faleri-types.286 After Probus, no specific types highlighted the noble Roman ancestry of the emperor anymore.287 The subject of these messages as well as the unique issues of the nobilitas and Roman originis types might suggest that they are topical messages, i.e. messages selected at a particular moment in order to highlight the noble descent of the emperor or his son at that particular time.288 4. Creating and communicating visual messages of ancestry 4.1. Images of male ancestors While adding kinship terms to the emperor’s nomenclature, an emperor could also spread images to propagate his ancestry. Many scholars assume that some Roman emperors used their ancestral advertisement in an abundant way, building on the accounts of ancient literature, history, poetry, and diverse inscriptions. Most of these studies neglect coins, despite their status as an official imperial medium, or else hastily add coins without further investigation.289 Graph 1 has already demonstrated that the ancestral advertisement is sometimes marginal, even in cases we would not expect. Therefore, this section will examine the frequency of imperial coins’ display of male ancestors in the first 300 years of the Empire. Additionally, special attention will be given to the iconography that these ancestors received on coins. As elaborated above, a succession within the family could contribute to legitimating the Roman emperor or influence the changes of imperial candidates to claim power290 286 HA Probus 3.1-2; Aurelius Victor, Book of the Caesars 37.4. Cf. Paschoud, 2001, 63. Probus’ coinage also contains a coin type personifying the city of Siscia through a woman, who is accompanied by the two Siscian river gods Savis and Colapis. Most likely this type did not refer to any native descent, but stated that the city of Siscia (now the Croatian city Sisak) was back under control of Probus. Pink, 1949, 24-25; Lichtenberger, 2011, 152. Contra Kreucher, 2003, 91-92. For more on Gallienus, see supra and infra this chapter (2.3.2 and 2.4.1.1.4). 287 On inscriptions, however, the terms nobilis or nobiUssimus were stUl added to the legend of the Caesar designating him as the heir apparent, see Gelzer, 1912 [=1969]; Alföldi, 1981, 337-348; Peachin, 1990; Norena, 2011,254. 288 Norefia, 2010, 256-268. 289 To name a few: Severy, 2003 on Augustus and Tiberius; Levick, 19992 on Tiberius; Barnett, 1989 on Gaius; Levick, 1990 on Claudius; Rose, 1997 on the Julio-Claudian dynasty; Lyasse, 2008 on the Julio-Claudian, Flavian, and Antonine dynasties; Hekster, 2006, esp. 87-136 on Commodus; Baharal, 1996 on the Severan dynasty; Watson, 1999 on Aurelian and the third century; Potter, 2004, on the third century emperors and the Tetrarchy. 290 Timpe, 1962, 88; Wiedemann, 19962, 198-255; Corbier, 1991a, 49-79; Lintott, 1994,130-132; Baharal, 1996, 9-22; Lendon, 1997,254; Hekster, 2001, 36-37; 39-49. 63 Although Roman law perceived adopted sons like biological sons, this study will distinguish between emperors who honoured their biological male ancestors (§ 4.1.1) and those who celebrated their adoptive male ancestors (§ 4.1.2) in order to analyse whether representational differences appeared between these two groups.291 Usually, the ancestors of both groups were the predecessors of the emperors who propagated them. In addition, the biological male ancestors who had neither been emperors nor had any affiliation with the imperial family will also be analysed separately. All these factors might give further clues as to how a dynastie principle emerged during the Roman Empire, when it developed and how important it became for emperors to emphasise it. Furthermore, it can also question whether the biological or adopted status of the emperor played a role in the imperial succession. 4.1.1. Emperors propagating their biological ancestors 291 Gaius 1.166-107, 2.136, 138-140; Digest 28.3.8; 18; Institutes 1.11.8; 2.13.4. See also Corbier, 1991a, 63-78; Gardner, 1998, 114-208; 126-145, Frier-McGinn, 2004, 304-310. 64 Graph 3 gathers the percentages of the advertisement of biological ancestors on the emperor’s coinage. This graph distinguishes between the emperors’ biological ancestors who occupied the imperial throne (percentages in black), biological ancestors who belonged to an imperial family (percentages in white), and biological ancestors who lacked any imperial ancestry (percentages in grey). In summary, only a few emperors advertised their biological ancestors. Of the Julio-Claudians, only Gaius and Claudius propagated their biological fathers, Germanicus and Drusus, who both belonged to the Julio-Claudian house. Furthermore, Gaius issued types for his great-grandfather Augustus as well as his grandfather Agrippa. Later, Vitellius and Trajan displayed their biological fathers Lucius Vitellius and Traianus Pater, who had no imperial descent. Titus, Domitian, Commodus, and Caracalla, who all succeeded to the throne of their fathers, minted types of their fathers Vespasian, Marcus Aurelius, and Septimius Severus. In the third century, the advertisement of biological male ancestors became less and less frequent. Not even Gordian m or Gallienus alluded to their biological ancestors, who had held imperial power. At the end of the third century, Carinus and Numerian legitimated themselves partly by displaying their imperial biological father Carus. 4.1.L1. Julio-Claudian ancestral experiments The Claudian Germanicus, who became a member of the Julian clan when Tiberius adopted him, was portrayed on Gaius’ gold and silver coins from the Lugdunum mint as well as bronze types from the Roman mint.292 In total, the emperor Gaius struck 17.5% of his types for his famous father, calling him pater and presenting him as designated Caesar. Furthermore, Germanicus’ nomenclature explicitly emphasised his Julian descent by representing him as the filius of Tiberius and nepos of divus Augustus, and thus exhibit his legal relationship to his imperial predecessors, especially Augustus, who was separately advertised on Gaius’ coins, too.293 Almost 20% of his types featured divus Augustus, while another 5% show the emperor sacrificing before the temple of divus Augustus and 30.2% 292 RIC P Gaius 11-12; 17-18; 25-26; 35; 43; 50; 57. Tacitus, Armals 1.3; Suetonius, Tiberius 15.2; Dio 55. 13.2. Nowadays, scholars agree that the ‘Genaamcas-dupondius' (RIC P Gaius 57) displaying Germanicus as victorious general is dated to the reign of Gaius. Cf. Kemmers, 2005, 76-77. The numismatist Wolters, however, reattributed this type to the reign of Tiberius, but without any canvincing arguments (Wolters, 1990, 7-16). 293 Rose, 1997, 33-34; Lyasse, 2008, 177-192. Gaius’ coins for Augustus represent 24.6% of Gaius’ total coins; RIC P Gaius 3-4; 6; 9-10; 15-16; 23-24; 31; 36; 44; 51; 56. For the title of Caesar and kinship terms on Germanicus’ coins, see also supra this chapter (2.3.1 and 2.3.2). 65 even represent Gaius’ as divus Augustus’ great-grandson.294 Furthermore, Gaius alluded to Agrippa, his matemal grandfather, on a type commemoratmg Agrippa’s naval victories through the depiction of the god Neptune (1.8%).295 Whereas Germanicus, Augustus, and to a lesser extent Agrippa were advertised on Gaius’ coins, Tiberius, who named his nephew and adopted grandson Gaius as his joint-heir, is totally absent from all Gaius’ coins.296 Claudius, in turn, celebrated his father Drusus Maior and his military achievements in Germania on 8.8% of his coin types.297 Although Drusus was never adopted into the Julio- Claudian family, the procession at his funeral included ancestor masks of the Claudii and the Julii, his body was buried in Augustus’ mausoleum, and his statue was erected in the Forum of Augustus, iUustrating Drusus’ acceptance into the imperial family.298 Against the background of the Julio-Claudian succession, effected through adoption and collateral lineage, the display of Germanicus, Agrippa, and Drusus Maior is remarkable, because they did not assume the imperial throne, and therefore seem to have been less appealing choices as ancestral icon. However, we should not forget that the notion of the dynastie succession was still problematic in the early stages of the imperial office.299 Furthermore, the commemorative status of these ancestors was very prominent as they belonged to the Julio-Claudian house and were extremely popular for their military achievements.300 Most likely, Gaius and Claudius, who were both military inexperienced when they assumed the imperial office, wanted to promulgate their celebrated (grand)fathers 294 Divus Augustus: RIC P Gaius 3-4; 6; 9-10; 15-16; 23-24; 31; 56; Temple of divus Augustus: RIC P Gaius 36; 44; 51; Gaius as divi Augusti pronepos: RIC P Gaius 39-54. For more on the intensive advertisement of divus Augustus under Gaius’ reign, see Rose, 1997, 33-35; 37; Lyasse, 2008,178-192. 295 RIC F Gaius 58. Scholars generally agree that the type was produced under Gaius: see especially Nicols, 1974, 65-86 for the persuasive die study. Cf. Trillmich, 1978,47-48. The coins of this type are abundantly found at the Rhine limes, which might suggest that they were distributed among the soldiers during Gaius’ campaign there in AD 39-40, see Barrett, 1987, 250-251; Rose, 1997, 34; Kemmers, 2005,76-77. 296 However, in the first coin issue from Lugdunum two ancestral coin reverse types, RIC F Gaius 1-2, display a nameless portrait flanked by two stars, whose features resemble Tiberius. For more about these types, see Mattingly, 1920a, 37; Wolters, 1999, 303-304. On Tiberius’ absence from Gaius’ coins see infra this chapter (2.4.1.2.1). 297 RIC F Claudius 69-74; 93; 98; 109; 114. The references to Drusus’ military achievements were displayed by a victory arch capped by an equestrian statue and trophies with DE GERM(ANIS) engraved in the architrave, or the DE GERMANIS-legend was accompanied by a depiction of annour and weapons. Cf. Trillmich, 1978, 71- 77; Martin, 1992,201-202; 206-207; Rose, 1997, 39. 298 Tacitus, Annals 3.5; Suetonius, Claudius 1.3; Dio 55.2.2-3; Degrassi, 1937, no. 9 = AE 1934.151; Flower, 1996, 242-243; Rose, 1997, 32; 39-41; Severy, 2003, 162. Cf. Rose, 1997, 19; 26; Rowe, 2002, 61; 162 for other posthumous honours for Drusus emphasising his Julio-Claudian membership. All these honours hint that Augustus seems to have been very fond of his step-son. 299 Timpe, 1962, 88; Millar, 1993; 1-17; Baharal, 1996, 9-19; Rowe, 2002, 3; Hekster, 2001, 40-41. Cf. Severy, 2003,62-78; Lyasse, 2008, 37-65; 170-283. 300 Suetonius, Caligula 6.1; Wiedemann, 19962, 198-255, Flower, 1996, 247-252; Rose, 1997, 26-35; Severy, 2003, 79-95, esp. 80-82; Lyasse, 2008, 172-177; 220-221. See for the popularity Germanicus enjoyed after his death: Eck-Caballos-Femandez, 1996; Champlin, 1996,117-122; Severy, 2003, 226-227. 66 to enforce their own imperial power.301 Still familiar with the Republican use of ancestral advertisement on coins, and with the notion of the dynastie family still developing, (the experimental types of) Germanicus, Agrippa, and Drusus could easily been struck even though these ancestors did not assume the imperial office. 4.1.L2. The Display of non-imperialfathers on Vitellius’ and Trajan’s coinage Both Vitellius and Trajan displayed their biological fathers on their coins, although these had not been emperor, nor had they been members of an imperial family. Their display, therefore, is remarkable, and we could ask whether their coins had to strengthen their son’s claims to power. Vitellius’ power base as emperor was weak as he was the third proclaimed emperor after Nero in one year’s time and that without any Julio-Claudian affinity. Trajan’s adoption by Nerva is sometimes perceived as a disguised coup d ’état of Trajan, and therefore, we could hypothesise that he needed tools to strenghten this power base.302 In this following section, it is therefore interesting to see in which way the display of Vitellius’ and Trajan’s non-imperial fathers were means to legitimate their reigns. Aulus Vitellius presented his father Lucius Vitellius, a successful diplomatist and general, on 8% of his coins.303 During Vitellius’ twelve month reign, three series of types were issued displaying Lucius Vitellius, which are named in chronological order.304 The first showed the laureate and draped portrait of Lucius Vitellius, holding an eagle-tipped sceptre, on the reverses with the emperor on the obverse.305 A second series repiesented a seated Lucius Vitellius on a platform, clasping hands with the foiemost of three togate figures standing befoie the platform while another togate figure sits in the background.306 A last series displayed the togate Lucius seated on a curule chair, feet on stool, extending his one 301 Wiedemann, 19962, 198-255, Martin, 1992, 201-203; Hekster, 2001,40; 2003, 27-29; Lyasse, 2008,172-177; 220- 221 . 302 The notion of this ‘coup d’état’ is set out in Eek, 2002,221-226. 303 RIC P Vitellius 7; 76-77; 94-99; 114; 134-135. PIR I1 V. 500; Wellesly, 20003, 35. 304 Because Vitellius reigned only briefly, the chronology of his coiiis is very uncertain. However, the RIC P, 1984, 262-267 presents a plausible chronology based on Vitellius’ received titles, their combination with each other, and their length. In doing so, several successive chronological stages for Vitellius’ different issues are given. 05 Minted in Spain between January and June AD 69: RIC P Vitellius 7; Minted in Rome between late April and 20 December AD 69, second stage: RIC P Vitellius 76-77. 306 Minted in Rome between late April and 20 December AD 69, first and second stage: RIC P Vitellius 114; 134-135. 67 hand and carrying an eagle-tipped sceptre in his other (IMAGE I.2).307 This last series seems to imitate a type Tiberius issued for his adoptive father Augustus (IMAGE I.l).308 In doing so, Vitellius may plausibly used this iconography in order to assimilate his father’s memory with that of the great Augustus. All series bore the reverse legend L VITELLIVS COS m CENSOR, noting the offices that Lucius held during his lifetime: three times consul, in 47,43 and 34 BC, and once censor, in 48 BC.309 Because Vitellius’ father was not an emperor, Vitellius could not claim any imperial family ties, so he chose to advertise his celebrated Republican father with his consular and censorial titles, as Republican moneyers had. Additionally, at the end of his reign, he also adopted elements of Julio-Claudian ancestral iconography, such as the type of the seated ancestor on a curule chair.310 The particular iconography, the repetitive series, and the fairly frequent numbers of types for Vitellius’ father suggests that Vitellius relied on his retrospective kinship in order to strengthen his power base.311 Trajan too displayed his biological father on his coinage, even though he had an imperial adoptive father, Nerva. Portraits of the (divine) Traianus Pater appeared from AD 112 to 113 on Trajan’s coinage, that is more than 10 years after Trajan became emperor.312 It is generally accepted that Trajan’s father died before October 97, when Trajan was adopted by Nerva, and that Traianus Pater did not receive deification immediately after his death.313 Traianus Pater's retrospective deification should have happened during Trajan’s reign. Most likely, Traianus Pater’ s deification took place just before his types referrring to his divine status were struck, but there is no other evidence that confirms this.314 In any case, in contrast to Germanicus, Drusus Maior, and Lucius Vitellius, Traianus Pater was the first non-imperial father to receive the honour of deification. Before him, only the deceased emperors Augustus, Claudius, Vespasian, Titus, and Nerva (as well as Livia, Drusilla, Poppaea, Domitilla Maior 307 Minted in Rome between late April and 20 December AD 69, third stage: RIC P Vitellius 94-99. 308 RIC P Tiberius 49. 309 PIK I1 V. 500; Tacitus, Annals 6.28; 32; 36; 41; 11.2-4; 33-35; 12.4; 9; 14; 56; Suetonius, Vitellius 2; Dio 55.24.1; 60.21.2. In AD 35-37, Lucius Vitellius also held a special military command in the East 310 Cf. the return to Republican modes of ancestral display, on which see Hekster, 2006, 26-27. 311 See also chapter 3 and 4 about the advertisement of Vitellius’ children. 312 RIC II Trajan 251-252; 726-727; 762-764. Besombes, 2008, nos. 690-692; 695-696, dates the types to the second half of AD 113, whereas Woytek, 2010, 392-397, nos. 400-402; 405-407 dates them from AD 112 to the beginning of 113. Tbe types of Traianus Pater constituted 0.8% of the total coin types of Trajan. 313 BMCRE m, lxxxi; Alföldi, 1998, 368-369; 392; Roche, 2002, 54; Seelentag, 2004, 351-354; Lyasse, 2008, 345-346; Woytek, 2010, 138-139. Pliny, Panegyric 89.2, which was written around AD 100, informs us that Trajan’s father lived near the stars. Instead, Strack, 1931, 199-200 argued that the posthumous types of AD 112 were struck in response to the death of Traianus Pater. 314 Roche, 2002, 54; Woytek, 2010, 138-139 suggests that the divine elevation of Trajan’s father would fit the Empire’s policies in AD 112 when Trajan was beginning preparations for his Parthian war (Cf. Seelentag, 2004, 353), whereas Alföldi, 1998, 369 argues that Traianus Pater was deified between 14 May 113 and August 114. 68 and Iunior, Flavia Julia, and Domitian’s deceased son) were deified, making the deification of Traianus Pater as non-imperial ancestor unprecedented.315 Five different reverse types were issued in name of Traianus Pater. A first type presented Traianus Pater facing divus Nerva’s bust without referring to Traianus Pater’ s divine status, suggesdng that his deification had not been preformed yet.316 A second and a third type portrayed Traianus Pater, then called divus, in a realistic, non-idealistic, marmer with Trajan’s bust on the obverse.317 The last two types are the most curious coin scenes as they represent divus Traianus Pater sitting on a curule chair, holding a patera and a sceptre, a pose similar to the types of Tiberius for divus Augustus Pater, Vitellius for his father Lucius Vitellius, and Titus for divus Vespasianus (IMAGES 1.1-3; 5).318 Especially this last coin scene expresses the importance of Trajan’s biological father. Deified and portrayed similar as the founder of the Julio-Claudian house and the Flavian house, Traianus Pater acquired a similar status as the stem-father of Trajan’s family. In addition, the coin appearance of Traianus Pater was connected with the coin display of Trajan’s other family members: Nerva, Plotina, Marciana, and Matidia Maior, who all received coin types starting from AD 112-113.319 Trajan’s sister Marciana lived together with her daughter Matidia Maior and her grandchildren in the imperial house of her brother. The presence of all these imperial women clearly suggests that around AD 112-113 Trajan’s coins focused on the celebration of his imperial house, promoting Traianus Pater as one of its divine stem-fathers. Notably, around the same time, novel types appeared displaying the forum of Trajan and the Basilica Ulpia, which reinforces the glorification of Trajan’s house.320 Though the combined coin advertisement of non-imperial biological fathers beside imperial adoptive fathers might strike us as remarkable, for the Romans it was not unusual that the biological father played an important role in the life of his adopted son, because legally the kinship ties between the adopted Roman and his biological parents were not cut 315 On the deification of emperors and imperial members, see Hekster, 2009,99-108; esp. 106-107. 316 RIC II Trajan 726-727; Woytek, 2010, 392, nos. 400 and 405. Most likely, the deification of Traianus Pater quickly followed this coin issue, see Alföldi, 1998,369. 317 SIC n Trajan 762-764; Woytek, 2010,393 and 396, nos. 402; 407-408. Strack, 1931, 199. 318 SIC n Trajan 251-252; Woytek, 2010, 393; 395-396, nos. 401; 406. RIC P Tiberius 49; SIC P Vitellius 94- 99; SIC IP Titus 260-261. [Tiberius’ type was also restored by Titus (SIC IP Titus 399-403)]. Strack, 1931, 199. 319 RIC n Trajan 726-735; 737-738; 740-750; 758-761. Woytek, 2010, 392-397; 495-508, nos. 400-402; 405- 408; 701-730 assumes the following issue dates for Traianus Pater’s and Nerva’s types: ca. AD 112-113; Plotina: 112-summer 114; Marciana’s: January-August 112 and September 112-117; Matidia’s: September 112- 117. In contrast, Besombes, 2008, dates the coins for Plotina (nos. 676-682) and for Marciana (nos. 683 -684) in the first half of 113, before the coin types of Traianus Pater and Nerva (nos. 690-692; 695-696) which he dates in the second half of 113. The types for Matidia, he dates between 20 February 116 and 9 August 117. 320 RIC n Trajan 246-248; 255-257; Temporini, 1978, 110-115; 138-139; 256-259; Seelentag, 2004, 350-362; Woytek, 2010, 138-139; 392-397. For Trajan’s forum and the Basilica Ulpia, see Strack, 1931, 202-206; Packer, 2001. 69 through.321 In legal terms, the adoptee remained a cognatus to his former kin.322 As a consequence, the adoptee reserved the right to inherit from his biological father.323 Among Republican coins, there are some illustrative examples where moneyers combined ancestral references to their biological gens with allusions to their adoptive gens. Q. Caecilius Metellus Publius Scipio, for instance, celebrated his different family lineages on his coin types, recording the political offices of his adoptive father Q. Caecilius Metellus Publius and referring with the Punic elephant to his biological familia, the Metelli Scipiones.324 The combined display of biological and adoptive family members on the imperial coinage, thus, was no innovation, as it had its roots in Republican practice. The inclusion of Trajan’s biological father on his coins seems thus an expertimental stage in the development of imaging the imperial family, and not a tooi used to strengthen Trajan’s accession to the throne.325 4.1.1.3. Propagating the biological fathers of Titus, Domitian, Commodus, and Caracalla Titus, and later Domitian, Commodus, and Caracalla were all imperial sons who succeeded to their imperial father, with Commodus even being ‘bom in the purple’.326 These sons owed their imperial offices to their fathers, and therefore, the hypothesis is that they would stress their imperial ancestry. Below, we analyse the retrospective kinship on the coins of the four emperors chronologically. The brothers Titus and Domitian were the first emperors of Rome who could claim that they were the biological sons of their imperial predecessor Vespasian. Titus waited until the Senate deified his father before striking commemorative coins for Vespasian.327 More than 321 Corbier, 1991b, 137; Flower, 1996, 85; Gardner, 1998, 129; 133-134. An excellent example of this double parenthood is found in HA Marcus Aurelius Antoninus 5.5-8 which states that “according to the law o f adoption, he [Marcus Aurelius] had passed into the Aurelian family, that is, into the family of Antoninus. [..]”, but that “even after his adoption into the imperial house, he still showed the same respect to his own relatives that he had bome them as a commoner, and was as frugal and carefitl o f his means as he had been when he lived in a private home, and was willing to act, speak, and think according to his father's principles.” On the gentile nomen and cognomen of the adopted son see supra this chapter (2.3.2) and for more about the adoption procedure, see infra this chapter (2.4.1.2). Tacitus, Annals 15.19; Gellius, Attic Nights, 5.19; Digest 1.7.23; 38.8.1.4; Institutes 1.25ff. 323 Corbier, 1991a, 74-75, and she refers to the example in Plutarch, Aemilius Paullus 39.5. 324 BMCRR, Africa 1-5; RCC 459; 460; 461. In his sixth Letters to Atticus (1.17) Cicero mentions Metellus Scipio’s eagemess to identify his ancestors and to know their careers. 325 On Trajan’s patemal advertisement on various media see Hekster, forthcoming 2014. 326 Herodian 1.5-6. For more about Commodus and his purple-bom status see Hekster, 2002, 30-32. 327 The exact date for Vespasian’s deification is not known; however, it was executed after 8 September 79, but before 29 May 80. See also Buttrey, 1976,449-457; Kienast, 20043, 109. 70 10% of Titus’ total coins in all metals displayed divus Augustus Vespasianus.328 This percentage, together with Titus’ advertisement of filiation terms on 24% of his type legends, confïrms the suggestions made by modem scholars of the Flavian e.m phask 0n im perial continuity.329 A novel iconography on a sestertius of Titus expresses this aptly. On the reverse, a togated and radiated Vespasian hands over the symbol of world domination, a globe, to his son Titus (IMAGE m.1).330 The legend PROVIDENTIA AVGVST explains the transfer as a consequence of the imperial providentia govering Vespasian’s fortune, which foresaw a successor to his throne. The radder, displayed undemeath the globe, symbolises the good course of the Flavian leadership. The total scene, thus, represents the legal transfer of the imperial power between Titus and his divine father, which legitimates Titus’ imperial position.■ • 331 Other types honouring Vespasian displayed imperial virtues, divinities, and the deceased emperor himself. The types representing the deceased Vespasian warrant further attention because their iconography is so similar to the Tiberian types for divus Augustus. First, the statue of a radiate Vespasian drawn by an elephant quadriga with riders is almost identical to the Tiberian type of the mounted elephant quadriga that pulls the cart with the radiate statue of divus Augustus in the pompa circensis (IMAGES IV. 1 and IV.3).332 Only their attributes differ: whereas Augustus’ statue holds a laurel branch and a long sceptre, Vespasian’s carries a figure symbolising Victory. The legend DIVO AVG VESP identifies the statue unmistakably as Vespasian. Second, the reverse with the seated statue of Vespasian holding a laurel branch and a long sceptre and accompanied with the legend DIW S AVGVSTVS VESP copies almost exactly the divus Augustus’ reverse, where Augustus sits in the same pose and bears the same attributes (IMAGES 1.1 and I.3).333 On the one hand, the types for divus Augustus offered a precedent for a divine iconography that Titus adopted for his deified father; on the other hand, we could even suggest that Vespasian’s types aimed to 328 N=30. RIC TT2 Titus 160-161; 256-261; 356-367; 369-384. 329 Hurlet, 1993, 264-280; Perez, 2003, 112-166; 202-207; Lyasse, 2008, 311-324. Cf. Norefia, 2003, 28-29; 32- 33. 330 RIC II2 Titus 161-162. 331 Martin, 1982, 215ff; Brffliant, 1963, 92; Wallace-Hadrill, 1981, 321-322; Bergmann, 1998, 232-233, table 42.4; Cox, 2005, 264, Manders, 2012, 162-165; Norefia, 2011, 96-97. Alföldi, 1935, 118 cites a similar type from the British Museum on which the figures resemble Titus and his brother Domitian, passing the globe like a symbol of co-regency. However, this type seems unique as the two figures on other specimens are perfectly recognizable as Titus and Vespasian, since the latter weais a radiate crown: Brflliant, 1963, 92; Bastien, 1993 500; Bergmann, 1998, 232-233. RIC IP Titus 257-259; RIC P Tiberius 56; 62; 68. Dio 61.16.4; Arena, 2008, 80. For more on the pompa circensis, see Arena, 2008, 77-93. 333 RIC II2 Titus 260-261; RIC F Tiberius 49. Note also that Titus restored the Tiberian types for divus Augustus- RIC E2 Titus 399-403 (IMAGE 1.4). 71 elevate Titus’ father to the same greatness as divus Augustus in order to underline Titus’ honourable aneestry.334 Titus’ brother Domitian, in contrast, advertised Vespasian only marginally. Domitian dedicated just one gold type to Vespasian.335 The aureus displayed the radiated portrait of Vespasian on the obverse with the portrait of Domitian’s deceased mother, Domitilla Maior, on the reverse. This one type of Vespasian represented only 0.2% of Domitian’s coinage. The references to Titus are mere too, only 1.1% of Domitian’s total types displayed his brother.336 Moieover, Domitian only issued his types for Vespasian, Domitilla Maior ,and Titus between September AD 81 and 83, which shows that Domitian’s familial advertisement was quite limited.337 Did Domitian feel himself so secure in his imperial position, as the second Flavian successor, that he ceased his familial advertisement? It could be an argument; however, it must be noted that at the same time Domitian stopped issuing types mentioning his parents and brother he exiled his a rationibus, the head of his imperial fmancial administration, a man whom most scholars call Etruscus Pater.33* The coincidence between the removal of Etruscus Pater and the change of Domitian’s coin designs might suggest that the a rationibus could have been responsible for the type selection of the Flavian coins.339 If this is the case, we still have to be careful about whether responsibility for type selection was the duty of the a rationibus, because Etruscus Pater' s laditude for selecting coin designs could have been circumscribed because he was Vespasian’s and Titus’ confidant rather than because he was the a rationibus. It could be the case too that the removal of Etruscus Pater resulted from a choice by Domitian to break with the former Flavian policy, which could also explain the disappearance of the Flavian ancestral designs.340 334 Bergmann, 1998, 323-233; table 42.1-2; RIC IP, 188. Because the Capricom was Augustus’ advertised lucky birth symbol, the reverses on which two Capricorns support a shield on another Titus’ type for Vespasian enforces this elevation even more. RIC EP Titus 356-357. 335 N=l. RICYP Domitian 146. 336 RIC IP Domitian 126-131; 147. 337 Cairadice furthermore proved that all but one of the reverse designs on the precious metals as well as on the aes between AD 81 and 82 were abandoned in AD 83 and that new types were introduced, including Domitian’s newly acquired title Germanicus. Carradice, 1979, 102; 1983, 12-21; 79; 104-106; 118-123; 134-135; 142. Cf. Walker, 1976, 87-96; 111-115; 1978. 338 Weaver, 1972, 285; cf. Vollmer’s edition of Statius’ Silvae, 1898 [=1971], 408. From Statius and Martial we are mformed that this a rationibus was the father of Claudius Etruscus. Therefore, most scholars call the man Etruscus Pater. Statius, Forests 1.3; 1.5.65; Martial, Epigrams 6.83; 7.40. 339 On type selection as a task of the a rationibus, see Strack, 1931, 7; Voelkel, 1953, 244-246; Levick, 1982, 107; Cheung, 1998, 60; Claes, forthcoming 2014. In addition, Sutherland, 1986, 87 hinted that Etruscus Pater could have been responsible for the coin designs. Cf. Peachin, 1986, 103-105. Contra Wolters, 1999, 290; Woytek, 2010, 45-46. 340 Weaver, 1972, 286; Newlands, 2002, 221. For more on the discussion about the a rationibus, see Claes, forthcoming 2014. 72 Domitian’s paltry coin advertisement of the Flavian emperors contrasts with the ideology behind his building projects, such as the arcus Titii and the templum gentis Flaviae, of which the former commemorated Titus’ victories, while the latter celebrated the Flavian house, its accomplishments and its divine members.341 Domitian’s building programme was complemented by the creation of new priesthoods, such as the Sodales Flaviales and the Sodales Titiales Flaviales, instituted for the veneration of the gods Vespasian and Titus.342 Through the buildings and the priesthoods, Domitian demonstrated not only his familial piety, but also mobilised a grand scale of worship for his Flavian house, whereby Domitian himself, through his Flavian identity, was glorified by association.343 None of this, however, is very visible on Domitian’s coins.344 Like Domitian, Commodus and Caracalla concentrated coins advertising patemal ties in the beginning of their reigns; yet, compared to Domitian their percentages of ancestral types were higher. Commodus, who, as said before, was ‘bom in the purple’, succeeded his celebrated imperial father Marcus Aurelius, who was deifïed immediately after his death.345 The latter was commemorated on 15% of coin types minted in first year of Commodus’ reign, and this on all metals.346 At a similar percentage of 15.2%, Caracalla minted consecratio types for his imperial father Septimius Severus in the beginning of his reign, again on all metals.347 In total, the percentages for the father’s of Commodus and Caracalla were very low, respectively 2.3% and 2.2%, suggesting that their biological imperial affliation was not a key message on their coinages. Furthermore, the consecratio types for Marcus Aurelius and 341 CIL 6.938; cf. CIL 6.31210; 6.4308 = ILS 255 = AE 1993.117; Martial, Epigmms 9.3.12; Statius, Forests 4.3.19; 5.1.240-241. Jones, 1992, 84; 87; Darwall-Smith, 1996, 153-179; Gazda-Haeckl, 1996, 11-25; Davies, 2000, 5; 11; 19-27; 142-158. Other dynastie commemorative constructions by Domitian were the arcus Titü; tribunal Vespasiani Titi Domitiani (ILS 1992) and the porticus divorum (Eusebius, The divine gate 7.23). 342 Ephemeris Epigraphica Hl, 211-213; CIL 9.1430; Suetonius, Domitian 4.4; Levick, 1999b, 198-199. There is no record of the Flamines (Divorum) FlaviaUs or Tïtalis created in Rome, but they existed in several municipalities; cf. CIL 2.4212; 6095; 3.660; 5.5239; 9.2600; 2855. 343 Darwall-Smith, 1996, 164-165; 178-179. On Domitian’s glorified Flavian ancestry, see also Statius, Forests 1.1.97-98; 3.3.138; 4.3. 58; 5.1.239-241. 344 Contra Paris, 1994, who suggests that the templum gentis Flaviae is shown on two sestertii types of AD 95/96. Cf. Davis, 2000, 11. However, Boatwright, 1987, 150-151 and RIC II2 Domitian 789-799 identify this building as Domitian’s palace. Domitian’s other family members, his wife DomitiUa and his niece Julia Flavia, also received types, but again in limited numbers, see infra chapter 4 (4.3.2 and 4.4.3). 345 With his deification, Marcus Aurelius received the epithet 'Pius', HA Commodus 8.1. Note also the coin legends D IW S M ANTONINVS PIVS: Kaiser-Raiss, 1980,17-18. N=17. RIC III Commodus 264-275. These coin types represented 2.3% of Commodus’ total types. This study demarcates Commodus’ fïist year as 17 March 181-31 December 181. 347 N=9. RIC IV.A. Caracalla 190A; B; C; D; E; F-191. These coin types comprise 2.2% of Caracalla’s coin types. This study demarcates Caracalla’s first year as 4 February 211 - 31 December 212. Several scholars have suggested that many of Caracalla’s portraits, mcluding his portraits on coins, imitated the features of Alexander the Great In her book, Baharal, 1996, 79-80; 82-83 rightly remarks that no such imitations are present on Caracalla’s coins. 73 Septimius Severus continued the iconography of previous consecratio coin scenes displaying a funeral pyre with a statue of the deceased emperor on top348, an eagle carrying the deceased emperor to the heavens349, a cart drawn by elephants with riders pulling the statue of the deceased emperor (IMAGE IV. 8)350, or more Standard images such as an eagle standing and holding an attribute351, or a pulvinar with wreath.352 The common consecratio iconography gives the impiession that the ancestral messages were merely commemorative, a notion corroborated by the types’ having been issued only in the beginning of Commodus’ and Caracalla’s reigns. 4.I.I.4. The absence and reappearance of the biological father on coins in the third century After Caracalla, the patemal message was totally absent from Roman coinage for the next six decades. Neither Gordian II nor Gordian m represented themselves on coins as the natural successors of their imperial predecessors, which they easily could have done.353 Likewise, the patemal message was absent from the coins of the dynastie successor Gallienus.354 Gallienus, who already reigned as co-Augustus of his father Valerian and became sole emperor after the Persians captured Valerian, did not mint a single legend or image referring to his father Valerian. As concluded before, the shameful fate and the uncertain death of Valerian made his status as father and predecessor unattractive for legitimating Gallienus’ own power.355 Furthermore, commemorative consecratio types for Valerian could not exist, because Valerian is unlikely to have been deified.356 348 RIC m Commodus 275; 662; RIC IV.A Caracalla 490B; 191F. 349 RIC m Commodus 659; 660; RIC IV.A Caracalla 490A. 350 RIC III Commodus 661. Note also that Lucius Veras’ posthumous types (RIC III Marcus Aurelius 596a; b; 1507-1512) continued the iconography of these consecratio types. See, for instance, his elephant cart-type with the legend CONSECRATIO (RIC m Marcus Aurelius 1507-1508: IMAGE IV.7). 351 RIC JU Commodus 264-274; 654-661; 663-664; RIC TV.A Caracalla 191A-D. 352 RIC IV.A Caracalla 191E. 353 Eight types were issed for Gordian n, but none referred to his father, who was his imperial colleague. Their successors Balbinus and Pupienus, however, referred frequently to each other as imperial colleagues despite their smalt type output. Gordian IQ issued 347 types, but non one advertised his imperial ancestry. For more on the coins of the Gordiani, see Giard, 1995; Manders, 2012. 354 The known consecratio coins of Valerian are all ancient hybrids: Kienast, 20043, 214-215. In contrast, consecratio types for other family members of Gallienus, as for his eldests sons, are present. 355 For more on Valerian’s absence on Gallienus’ coins see supra this chapter (2.3.2). 356 The accounts on Valerian’s deifïcation in HA the two Gallieni 10.5 and deifiedAureUan 8.1 are invented, and CIL 9.1566 for divus Valerianus is very dubious. Hedlund, 2008, 176-177; Johne-Hartmann, 2008, 255-256. 74 The brothers Carinus and Numerian were the first to break this ‘patemal silence’. On their coins, they displayed their deceased imperial father Carus regularly, on 16.9% and 13.6%, respectively, of their total coin types. With exception of two gold types under Carinus, these types were all of silver.357 These coins featued Carus in two kinds of scenes. The first are reverses on which Carus is offering a globe to one of his sons; the second includes different consecratio-types. On the reverses of both Carinus and Numerian, which were issued around January 284, Carus passes a globe with or without a statue of Victoiy to one of his sons, as if symbolically transferring his imperial power to them.358 The legends VIRTVS AVGG and CLEMENTIA TEMP accompanied the scene, which probably referred to the stability and peace that Carus’ house could offer. In January 284, both Carinus and Numerian celebrated their shared consulship at Siscia. The existence of the Siscian globe types then suggests that the presence of both emperors at Siscia triggered the need to underline their legal power base as sons of the former emperor Carus. Furthermore, the globe scene was not a novelty, as the mints of Carus had already struck a type on which the Caesares Carinus and Numerian received a globe from their father.359 Most likely, the globe-handover representation here expressed Carus’ sons’ involvement in imperial affairs. In December 282, the period when Carus’ globe types were issued, Carus prepared for military action against the Persians. In doing so, he assigned Carinus the task to protect Rome and the Western provinces and invited Numerian, who had just been proclaimed Caesar, to accompany him to the East.360 The globe gesture seems thus to underline the legal transmission of the imperial power within Carus family, as an attempt to create a dynastie imperial house. A second kind of type struck for the decèased Carus includes five consecratio series. A first series, issued at Siscia around January 284, was dedicated to divus Carus Parthicus.361 357 N divus Carus under Carinus=25; N divus Carus under Numerian=12. Types that are of gold: RIC V.B Carinus 4; 317. 358 RIC V.B. Carinus 314a; 323-327; RIC V.B. Numerian 463; 466-470. However, Gricourt, 2000, nos. 4304- 4334 (tables 33-34) identifies the figures on these types as Carinus and Numerian passing a globe between each other. RIC V.B. Carinus 314 identifies the first figure as Carinus, but doubts the identity of the second, which RIC identifies as Iuppiter or Carus; however, Gricourt, 2000, nos. 4370-4373; 4385-4388 declares it to be Iuppiter, which I accept, because the figure is completely naked and wears a radiated crown, as Aurelian, Tacitus, and Probus also represented Iuppiter on their coins. The legend IOVI CONSERVATORI on some of Carinus’ and Numenan’s types makes the identification of Iuppiter more likely. RIC V.B. Carus 317; 323-327; 463; 466-468; 470 and RIC V.B. Carus 118; 123; 128. On these three last types, Gncourt, 2000, nos. 4257-4270; 4272-4274 (tables 32-33), re-identified the figure giving the globe as Carus and not as Iuppiter, as did Webb in RIC V.B. 360 HA Carus et Carinus et Numerianus 7.1; 12.1; 16.2; Eutropius 9.19-20; Zonaras 12.30; Gricourt, 2000 51- Paschoud, 2001,347-348. 361 RIC V.B. Carinus 30; 108-113; RIC V.B. Numerian 30; 108-113. Gricourt, 2000, 53 and tables 33. Besides coins, only inscriptions document the deification of Carus: Peachin, 1990,466-468, nos. 166; 174; 178. 75 In August 284, the Siscian mint issued a similar second series.362 As Carus did not assume the epithet Parthicus during his lifetime, Gricourt suggests that this particular epithet celebrated Numerian’s successful military campaigns in the East, which were once starled by his father.363 If so, the coins constitute a direct link between father and son. After Carinus had victoriously campaigned against the Germans, he retumed to Rome around October 284. A month later, Numerian died unexpectedly, which left Carinus as sole emperor.364 In December 284, the Roman mint issued consecratio types for divus Carus (Persicus365), and repeated such issue once more a month later.366 Most likely, the issues of these types were motivated by the acclamation of Diocles - later called Diocletian - in Nicomedia by the troops of the deceased Numerian. In addition, Sabinus Julianus revolted in the Balkans and usurped the mint of Siscia thereby.367 Both men posed a realistic threat for Carus’ imperial position.368 The consecratio types of December 284 and January 285, therefore, seem to reflect an attempt to reassert Carus’ power, as Hedlund proposes.369 At the beginmng of AD 285, all four officinae of the tenth and last coin issue of Lugdunum under Carinus contained types for the divus 370 Carus (Pius), again emphasising Carus’ legal succession. Obviously, the reverses on which Carus passes a globe to his sons as well as the repetitive consecratio series of divus Carus demonstrate that Carinus, initially with Numerian, tried to strengthen his imperial position by evoling his biological fïliation. In addition, our analysis here showed two moments were there seems a direct intervention in the type selection due to the presence of the emperor at the minting city. First at Siscia in January 284 where both Carinus and Numerian sought a convenient type advertising the legitimacy of their reigns. The search resulted in the familiar globe type of Carus on which Carus gives the globe of world domination to either Carinus or Numerian. Additionally, the special consecratio series at Siscia could also have been struck due to the presence of both emperors at that city. 362 RIC V.B. Carinus 30; 108-113; RIC V.B. Numerian 30; 108-113. Note that these RIC numbers are the same as n. 258, because RIC do not date these types. Gricourt, 2000, 55 and tables 33-34. 363 Gricourt, 2000,53; Hedlund, 2008,179. 364 HA Carus et Carinus et Numeriarms 12-13; Aurelius Victor, Book o f the Caesars 38.1; 6; Eutropius 9.19; Zonaras 12.30. 365 Carus assumed the title Persicus Maximus after his victory over the Sassanids in June or July 283: Kienast, 20043, 258. 366 RIC V.B. Carinus 47-50; 126-127; 129. The RIC V.B. Carinus sums also three as yet undated consecratio types, one of Tripolis (no. 129) and two of Antioch (nos. 126-127), which are excluded in Gricourt’s catalogue. 367 Gricourt, 2000, 42-43. HA Carus et Carinus et Numeriarms 13-14; 18; Aurelius Victor, Book o f the Caesars 38.6; Zosimus 1.73. Cf. Paschoud, 2001, 391-392. 368 Carinus succeeded defeating Sabinus Julianus before he encountered the army of Diocletian m Moesia: Aurelius Victor, Book of the Caesars 38.6. 369 Hedlund, 2008, 179-180. 370 RIC V.B. Carinus 4; 28-29. Pink, 1963, 23; Bastien, 1976, 76-77; 80; Gricourt, 2000, 66. The mint of Lugdunum closes after this consecratio series. It reopend again under Diocletian around the middle of AD 285, see Bastien, 1972,31. 76 Second, these two consecratio series for divus Carus were issued by the Roman mint only in the short time Carinus residented there. Maybe the exceptional consecratio series for divus Carus at Lugdunum was triggered by the closeness of Carus too, heading to the Balkan region to campaign against the usuiper Sabinus Julianus, and later Diocles, and therefore, needing money for his soldiers with a legitimative character.371 Yet, this last suggestion remains very tentative.372 Nevertheless, the link between the presence of the emperor at the minting city and the appearance of the ancestral message suggests that the emperor could have intervened direcüy in the selection of the coin designs. Moreover, it corroborates the suggestion that Carinus, and initially Numerian too, relied heavily on their ancestry in their ideological programme. 4.1.2. Emperors propagating their imperial adoptive fathers When examining the Romans’ constructions of kinship, Saller rightly remarks that one must remember that “Roman society considered the bonds of kinship and family to be biologically based, but not biologically determined.”373 Therefore, adoption, where a Roman changed his family membership from one family to another, was normal. The change of fïliation and the extension of family relations advanced the social position of the adopted Roman, and could support his political career. An adoption could happen by either of two procedures: one was the adoptio per poputum, a private adoption completed when the Citizen being adopted was still under patemal power; the other was the adrogatio (also denoted as arrogatio), a public adoption performed when the Citizen being adopted was already sui iuris?1A Because Ihe familia together with its cult (sacra) of the Citizen being adopted was ended by the adrogatio, the college of pontifïs had to be involved. The college, represented by the pontifex maximus, 371 Gricourt, 2000, 66 suggests that the consecratio series of Ludgunum was a donalivum. After Sabinus Julianus was defeated, the mint of Siscia was closed: Gricourt, 2000, 57-58. Only the mints af Lugdunum and Rome stayed open. See Gricourt, 2000,110 for an overview of the mint activities under Carus, Numerian, Carinus, and Diocletian. 372 In a subsequent study, I want to analyse the distribution of these consecratio types through a hoard study, which maybe could strengthen this suggestion. 373 Saller, 1994,43. 374 Cicero, Conceming his house 29; Gellius, Attic Nights 5.19; Gaius 1.97-100; 134. When a pater familias was adopted came all his childien into potestas of the adoptive father. Cf. Gaius 1.107, 2.136, 138-140; Digest 28.3.8; 18; Institutes 1.11.8; 2.13.4. Scholars also distinguish a third kind of adoption, the so-called ‘testamentary adoption’, which was actually no more than the conditio nominis ferendi, the stipulatian that an heir could adopt his testator’s name. Under this airangement, the heir stayed a member of his familia. The most notable ‘testamentary adoption’ is that of C. Octavianus by Julius Caesar. Syme, 1982 [=1984], 397-398; Kunst, 1996, 87-104; 2005, 21; Undsay, 2009,78-96. 77 gathered in the Comitia Curiata to discuss the requested adrogatio. If the college consented, the adrogatio was performed by passing an enabling law, the lex curiata.315 The private adoption followed the legal procedure of mancipatio. In front of fïve adult Roman Citizen witnesses and the holder of the mancipatio scales, the biological father sold his son or daughter to the adopter. After two sales, the adoptive father manumitted the person being adopted, who reverted back to his father’s potestas. After the third sale, however, the bond of the biological father’s potestas is broken permanently.376 For citizens without sui heredes the primary purpose for adoption appears to be the perpetuation of the familia. An adopted family member was able to inherit the family’s properties and was responsible to maintain the family cult. Adoptions, therefore, were a good solution against a domus deserta or exhausta et plena liberis, because the continuation of the family line remained of utmost relevance for the Romans.377 Second, adoption allowed the political elite to extend their power. Much more can be said about the adoption procedure, age restrictions, gender differences, and the preferred adoption candidates, but this study rather aims to look to the imperial adoptions.378 Under the Roman Empire, while no legal regulations existed for the imperial succession, adoption became an accepted procedure for determining imperial succession. First, the presence of a potential imperial successor within the imperial house guaranteed a peaceful succession for the most part, retaining the stability, security, and peace that the imperial house brought forth. Therefore, most ruling emperors or imperial candidates without sons adopted a successor, presenting him as their legal son.379 The aged Galba, for example, adopted Piso because he needed an heir, with the aim of tightening his grip on the emperorship.380 Second, adoption safeguarded the position of the adopted emperor himself because he could claim that his imperial predecessor chose him to rule. Moreover, the practice of adoption became so prominent that some emperors without imperial roots even effected a 375 Gardner, 1998, 126-145. Cf. Cicero, Concerning his house 34-36; 38; Gaius 1.98-99; 107; 3.83; Corbier, 1991a, 63-78; Frier-McGinn, 2004, 304-307; Kunst, 2005,15-19; Lindsay, 2009, 62-69; 74-77. 376 Gaius 1.119; 132-134; Digest 1.7.12; 37; Kunst, 2005,19-21. 377 Iiterary references to a domus deserta: Seneca, To Marcia 15.2 and a domus exhausta et plena liberis: Apuleius, A discourse on magie 76. Cf. Gardner, 1998, 199-208; Kunst, 2005, 35-66. On the adoption procedure and its restrictions, see Corbier, 1991a, 63-76; Gardner, 1998, 114-208; Frier- McGinn, 2004, 306-310; Kunst, 2005, 69-77; Lindsay, 2009,69-74. 379 Corbier, 1994, 243-291; Hekster, 2001, 35-49; 2002, 19-20; Lindsay, 2009, 197-216. See chapter 3. (3.3.1-4) on the advertisement of the adopted imperial sons on coins. 380 Pliny, Letters 2.20; Silius Italicus, Punica 10.403; Tacitus, Histories 1.14; 15; 18; Suetonius, Galba 17. Cf. Klaassen, forthcoming 2014, chapter 2. 78 retrospective adoption in order to link themselves to a previous emperor, and, thus, tried to legitimate their own imperial power.381 Ancestral advertisement of adoptive imperial ancestors surfaces on imperial coins as well, as the following graph illustrates: ■s g jüL alSgaalfflfïSilSlSff&IIÊ rsi lias ?— #1 — 9j...... j ^| " ■l7l^ï|Ï!iilll^llil — ■ ------~ - E =JS“" i j 1 1 1 IIga 1 i I 11a I s 8 s ""Is *1* i 1^ Emperors (total coin types) Graph 4: Proportions of coin types propagating adoptive ancestors Graph 4 demonstrating the frequency of coin types propagating the adoptive ancestors shows that the ancestral advertisement of the adoptive ancestors is only very frequent on Tiberius’ coins. Other adopted emperors paid less or no attention to their ancestry on their coinage. Four points are striking here. First, the percentages of the adoptive advertisement of the Julio- Claudians differed significantiy, suggesting that these emperors were experimenting with their representations. Augustus’ coins after 28 BC concentrated less on disseminating Augustus’ adoptive status, whereas Tiberius’ ancestral advertisement for his adoptive father Augustus was frequent. In contrast to the latter, Gaius’ advertisement for his adoptive grandfather Tiberius was totally absent382, and also Nero’s adoptive advertisement seems marginal during his reign. Second, the ancestral advertisement of the so-called adoptive emperors, Trajan, 381 The practice of forging a retrospective adoption will be discussed in a later section of chapter 2.4.3. 382 Gaius’ kinship relation to Tiberius is placed under the category of the adoptive ancestors, because Gaius was Tiberius’ named heir and his adopted grandson through Germanicus. For more on Gaius’ relationship to Tiberius see supra this chapter (2.4.1.1.1) and infra (2.4.1.2.1). 79 Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Lucius Verus, and Marcus Aurelius, who could only don the purple because the former emperor adopted them, is not as abundant as one might expect. Third, Gaius and Trajan advertised their non-imperial fathers more than their own adoptive (grand)fathers, even though they owed their imperial position to the latter. Finally, a commemorative coinage for Elagabalus, the adoptive father of the emperor Alexander Severus, is absent. Here, it is very interesting to see whether the emergence of the imperial system changed the common notions of blood and adoptive kinship, hypothesising that kinship by blood had become more prominent, and that adoptive affinity lost impact in the imperial succession. In the following section, therefore, the four given points will be discussed: adoptive fathers on the Julio-Claudian coins (§ 4.1.2.1); the so-called adoptive emperors and their ancestral messages (§ 4.1.2.2); the adoptive advertisement in the third century (§ 4.1.2.3). The advertisement for Gaius’ and Trajan’s non-imperial fathers will be considered when their adoptive advertisement is discussed. In addition to these parts, we discuss the iconographical elements of the coin types bearing adoptive messages. 4.I.2.I. Adoptive fathers on the Julio-Claudian coins Along with the ancestral advertisement of their biological fathers, the Julio-Claudians advertised their adoptive fathers. As graph 4 demonstrates, the percentages of those programs differed from emperor to emperor. In chronological order, we discuss the adoptive advertisement of the emperors Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius, and Nero. To study the whole picture of Augustus’ representation of his ancestor Julius Caesar on coins, we have to include Augustus’ ancestral coin messages from before 27 BC, which are not included in graph 4.383 After his great-uncle and adoptive father’s murder in 44 BC, Octavian inherited his name.384 From then onwards, Octavian was called CAESAR DIVI F on many coin types, and some legionary coin issues, struck in military camps, portrayed divus Iulius together with Octavian’s head.385 Other coin types displayed a comet, the sidus Iulium, 383 Because the number of coin types issued in the last days of the Republic is uncertain and irregular, these coin issues are excluded from the percentages. 384 In Caesar’s testament, Octavian was granted the conditio nominis ferendi by which he acquired the right to bear the testator’s name. For more on Octavian’s ‘testamentary adoption’ see supra this chapter (2.3.1). 385 RRC 525.1-2; 526.1; 3; 534.1-3; 535.1-2; 537.1-2; 538.1-2; 540.1-2; Sydenham 1321; 1324; 1329-1338, BMCRR, nos. 74-75; 410-411; nos. 100-102; 412-413, nos. 105-107. Gurval, 1997, 50-59; Valverde, 2003, 25- 28. 80 as a substitute for the image of divus Iulius.386 According to Pliny and Suetonius, whose sources included authors of the Caesarian age, a comet appeared in the sky for seven days when Octavian in July of 44 BC orchestrated the Ludi Victoriae Caesaris. The comet was interpreted as Caesar’s apotheosis.387 Many ancient poets and writers sang about the sidus lulium or the Caesaris astrum, and other sources testify to this comet as well.388 For instance, the sidus lulium is visible on aurei and denarii of Octavian displaying the temple of the divus Iulius before it was completed in 29 BC.389 Furthermore, it was reported that Octavian put a star on Caesar’s cult statue, which he later consecrated on his forum.390 In 31 BC, Octavian attained sole power, and four years later he was proclaimed Augustus. Graph 4, which starts from 28/27 BC, informs us that the adoptive ancestral messages recede among his coins’ advertisements occupying just 2.1% of all Augustan coin types. In contrast, the phrase divi Jïlius rose in prominence to about 22.9% of his coin types, as we have seen.391 An overview of the particular types will enable us to show how ancestral themes were propagated on Augustus’ coinage. Firstly, the types issued under the auspices of M. Sanquinius, one of the moneyers of 17 BC, refened to the Ludi Saeculares. A herald, holding a shield with a star, was on the obverse, with a portrait of a youthful laureate head with a comet on the reverse.392 The identification of the young man is difficult. Most scholars assume that the figure is the deified Caesar rejuvenated. Other identifications are possible as well, such as the representation of the “genius of the Secular Games” or of the “Julian gens”.m The recapture of Augustus’ divine ancestral claim in the same period of the 386 Cohen, Augustus, 77 no. 95.6; RIC F Augustus 250a, b; 274; 542. Cf. Bergmann, 1998, 101-102. 387 Pliny, Natural History 2.93-94; Suetonius, Caesar 88. 388 Vergil, Aeneid 8.675-681; Seneca, Questions on nature 7.17.2; Pliny, Natural History 2.93-94; Plutarch, Caesar 69; Suetonius, Caesar 88; Dio 45.7.1-2; Julius Obsequens 13; 68; Servius, Commentary on Vergil’s Eclogues 9.46; Commentary on Vergil’s Aeneid 10.272. On the use of stars in the Roman Republic, see Weinstock, 1971,370-384. 389 Cohen, Augustus, no. 89; RRC 540.1-2; Sydenham 1338; BMCRR, 1970, 580-581, nos. 32-37. Weinstock, 1971, 378-379. More about the temple: Dio 51.19.2; Steinby, 1996, 116-119; Richardson, 1992, 213-214. For an overview on the public functions of divus Iulius’ temple in the early Principate, see White, 1988,334-336. 390 Pliny, Natural History 2.93-94; Suetonius, Caesar 88; Dio 45.7.1-2; Servius, Commentary on Vergil's Eclogues 9.46; Commentary on Vergil’s Aeneid. 10.272. Later, Octavian would repeat his gesture by placing stars on other statues of Caesar. Servius, Commentary on Vergil’ Aeneid 8.681 states that a star was engraved on Octavian’s helmeL Gurval, 1997, 39-71, tells us more about Augustus’ ancestral comet policy, and he discusses the absence of the comet story in accounts of Cicero and other ancient scholars. 391 See supra this chapter (2.3.1). In particular, the mint of Lugdunum referred to Augustus as divi fllius, while on the Roman mint types, the phrase was only intensively present between 19 BC and 12 BC. For the new Augustan aureus, which celebrates the re-investiture of the Res Publica and which is not published in the RIC P, see Rich-Williams, 1999,169-213. 392 RIC P Augustus 337-340. The legend referred to Augustus as divi fllius. 393 BMCRE I, civ; Gurval, 1997, 60 and references. The features of the figure itself do not actually resemble Caesar. 81 centenary festivities is noteworthy, and probably aimed to strengthen Augustus’ position as the restorer of Roman traditions and morals. Secondly, around the same period, Rome’s Spanish mints struck coin types with a cornet identified with the legend DIVVS IVLTVS.394 Finally, in 12 BC, the moneyer and flamen Martialis L. Lentulus minted a coin with two figures: the first figure holds a shield inscribed with CV, a reference to Augustus’ clipeus virtutis, and places a star on the head of the second figure; the second figure is naked apart from a waistcloth and holds a small figure identified as Victory or the Palladium.395 The scene recalls the accounts of Augustus placing stars on the statues of the divus Iulius, which favours the identification of the second figure could be identified as divus Iulius.396 Yet, some scholars believe that the figure represents Agrippa, because he died in the same year the coin was struck (March 12 BC) and because he enjoyed special political status under Augustus’ reign. 397 In the period before Augustus attained sole power and in the period from 19 to 17398, and 12 BC, his coin types contained ancestral messages; however, between 27 and 20 BC, and after 12 BC he disseminated no ancestral coin references. The absence of ancestral types in the first period suggests that the public image of Augustus changed after 28 BC, by which point his coins propagated freedom, peace, and prosperity more often.399 The focus on this prosperous future most likely resulted from the final end of the civil wars and the settlement of Augustus as princeps. Remarkable too is the absence of any mythical ancestry. Before 27 BC, some coin types glorified Octavian’s mythical Julian ancestry by displaying the divinities Mars and Venus, the parents of the gens Julia, and Aeneas, Anchises, and Ascanius, the progenitors of the gens Julia.400 After 12 BC, the coin production of the mint in Rome decreased, and the mint of Lugdunum began to be the main production centre for Augustus’ gold and silver coinage. Although the Lugdunum mint mostly specified Augustus’ 394 RIC F Augustus 37a; b; 38a; b; 102. 395 RIC P Augustus 415. 396 On the accounts referring to Augustus putting stars on Caesar’s statues see supra nn. 388 and 390. 397 BMCRE I, cvii assumes that the second figure is Agrippa and states that “the star, although it suggests divinity, is not unsuitable for the illustrious dead, even when not deified.” Agrippa’s body was buried by Augustus in his own family mausoleum, even though Agrippa had built a private tomb for himself on the Campus Martius. On Agrippa’s political and military career, see Velleius Paterculus 2.81; Dio 54.12; 28; Severy, 2003, 70-81. In additian, Dio 54.29.8 also notes that a comet reappeared again when Agrippa died. 398 In 19 BC, the types referring to Augustus as divi filius appeared, and in 17 BC, ancestral images appeared on Augustus’ coins. 399 Zanker, 1987, 85-100; Bruun, 1999,29-31; Assenmaker, 2008, 55-76. 400 RRC 494.3a-b; Sydenham 1337-1338; RIC P Augustus 250-251; 274; Zanker, 1987, 195-210; Assenmaker, 2008, 66-67. Cf. Hekster, 2004,159-166. 82 nomenclature with divi filius, the coin images did not display any ancestor anymore, but started to concentrate on Augustus’ successors.401 To conclude, ancestral representation during Augustus’ sole reign was limited (2.1%) and only concentrated between 19 BC and 12 BC, with exception of the continuation of the divi filius legend on the coins of Lugdunum. Unlike the Late Republican ancestral portraits, divus Iulius was mostly represented by a comet. The unprecedented portrayal of a deified ancestor, who had been a living human before, could explain why the coin imagery relied on divine symbols, rather than presenting divus Iulius himself.402 In other ancestral representations, like fiineral processions featuring the forefathers, ancestral gods were not represented by wax masks (imagines maiores). Likewise, the imago of the divus Iulius was not present at Augustus’ fiineral procession.403 In this perspective, it looks as though the Augustan moneyers initially solved the unprecedented challenge of representing a divine ancestor by choosing a comet. On 26 June 4, Tiberius was adopted by Augustus, and ten years later he succeeded to his adoptive father’s imperial position.404 As the first successor to the imperial position he continued the domus Augusta. His coinage displayed several types honouring his adoptive father, in total almost 26% of Tiberius’ total types in gold, silver and bronze, which appeared at regular frequency throughout Tiberius’ reign.405 Furthermore, divus Augustus was presented most ofïten as pater.406 While this kinship term reference may have celebrated Augustus’ status as the father of all Romans, evoking the pater patriae title he received by the Senate in 2 BC, the term also expressed Tiberius’ own filiation with Augustus.407 Given that Tiberius was the first person in Rome who ‘inherited’ the imperial position, the intense patemal advertisement seems logical.408 Gaius, in contrast, owing his imperial power to Tiberius, naming him as his heir409, displayed almost all the members of his family on his coins, such as his father Germanicus, his mother Agrippina Maior, his grandfather Agrippa, his great-grandfather Augustus, and 401 See infra chapter 3 (3.3.1). 402 Gurval, 1997, 51. Cf. Zanker, 1987, 34-37; Assenmaker, 2008,66-67. 403 Flower, 1996, 87; 244-246. Cf. Dio 47.19.2. 404 Tacitus, Annals 1.3; Suetonius, Augustus 65; Tiberius 15; Dio 56.35.1. 405 N=16; RIC P Tiberius 23-24; 49; 56-57; 62-63; 68-69; 70-83. 406 RIC P Tiberius 49,70-83. 407 Res Gestae Divi Augusti 35; Suetonius, Augustus 58; Dio 55.10.9; BMCREI, cxxxiv. 408 Rose, 1997,22-24; 28; Severy, 2003,187-212; Lyasse, 2008,37-65; 92-96. Tiberius named Gaius together with Tiberius Gemellus as his heirs to equal shares of bis estate, and as each to be sole heir in case of each other’s death, because through Tiberius’ adoption of Germanicus, Gaius was Tiberius’ adoptive grandson: PIR l ‘.217, Suetonius, Tiberius 76; Dio 59.1.1-2; Winterling, 2003,39-50; Lindsay 2009,200. 83 even his brothers and sisters; however, he did not strike coins featuring Tiberius. The two types of the first issue of Lugdunum struck at the time of the accession of Gaius even seem to suggest that the omission of Tiberius’ representation was deliberate. These types, RIC I2 Gaius 1-2, minted by two different dies, display a nameless portrait, flanked by two stars, whose features resemble Tiberius.410 The types seem to follow the precedent of Tiberius’ posthumous types for divus Augustus. However, in the second series, Tiberius’ portrait was replaced by one of divus Augustus, accompanied by the legend DIVVS AVGVSTVS PATER PATRIAE.411 The appearance of this curious coin is fairly easy to explain: since in the provinces Tiberius was beloved for their prosperity during his reign, the moneyers of Lugdunum probably thought it was just a matter of time before Tiberius would be deified 412 Most likely, Tiberius’ name on the types of the first issue was omitted because no definitive consecratio had occured yet. Eventually, the Senate voted against the deification of Tiberius.413 The adaptation of Tiberius’ nameless portrait suggests that Rome directly intervened in the visual programme of the coinage as Gaius’ predecessor and adoptive grandfather will never appear on Gaius’ coins anymore 414 While neither in later issues of the T ngrinnnm mint, nor on the types of the Roman mint, there were images of Tiberius, Gaius’ other family members, especially Augustus, were abundantly present.415 Likewise, Gaius’ coin legends do not refer directly to Tiberius, but reconstruct a patemal lineage tree up to the founder of the Principate, stressing Gaius’ kinship with divus Augustus being his pronepos and representing his father Germanicus as the fllius of Tiberius and the nepos of divus Augustus 416 Through these images and legends Gaius was represented as the predestinated emperor, not through being the heir of his predecessor but by Augustus’ plan that Germanicus 410 These types are not included as percentages in graph 4. 411 BMCRE I Gaius 1. Mattingly thinks that the two stars refer to two divi, divus Augustus and divus Tiberius, accompanied with the rejuvenated portrait of Tiberius: Mattingly, 1920a, 37. For the Tiberian precedent: RIC P Tiberius 23-24. 412 For example, the ancient writer Philo of Alexandria, Embassy to Gaius 21.141, praised Tiberius for bringing peace and benefits. Gaius at first too demanded for Tiberius the honours paid to Augustus: Dio 59.3.7. Josephus, Judean Antiquities 18.6.10; Suetonius, Tiberius 75; Dio 59.3.7-8; 59.4. 414 Mattingly, 1920a, 37; Wolters, 1999, 303-304. Cf. Eutropius 7.12 who states that Gaius deliberately effaced the memory of Tiberius' enormities. Barrett, 1989, 247-248, explains these coins differently, arguing that these are “transition types”, which showed how the mint engravers were changing their habit to cut the features of Tiberius. Brilliant, 1969, 13-17, even denies a possible adaptation of the reverse portrait. He remarks that the differences in the portraits of Tiberius and Augustus are hard to read, because the obverses of Gaius hardly seem to be of one person and the reverse portraits of divus Augustus-Tiberius seem to resemble Gaius’ features too. 415 The percentages of the coin advertisement for Gaius’ family members were: Augustus: 19.3% (N=ll); Germanicus: 17.5% (N=10); Agrippina Maior: 14% (N=8); Gaius’ brothers: 5.3% (N=3); Gaius’ sisters: 3.5% (N=2); Agrippa: 1.8% (N=l). Cf. Gaius sacrificing before divus Augustus’ temple: 5.3% (N=3). 416 On 30.2% of his types, Gaius represents himself as the pronepos of divus Augustus. Germanicus is representEd on 30% of his types as thefilius Tiberii and nepos divi Augusti. See supra this chapter (2.3.1). 84 should succeed Tiberius.417 The absence of Tiberius on Gaius’ coinage is completely consistent with his absence in other public expressions.418 Most likely, the lack of advertisement for Tiberius resulted from Tiberius’ role in the deaths of Gaius’ mother and brothers, which might have tumed Gaius hostile against his adoptive grandfather.419 Furthermore, the emphasis on the succesful general Germanicus was very welcome for the totally inexperienced Gaius, especially as his coin policy did not advertise Tiberius, himself a conqueror 420 To conclude, the lack of advertisement for Tiberius seems to suggest that for the transmission of the imperial power, Gaius’ descent from the founder of the Principate was more important to highlight than his relation with his immediate predecessor.421 Nero owed his imperial position to his adoption by Claudius, who had a biological son of his own, named Britannicus.422 The Roman historians inform us that after his death, Claudius received the honour of deification, which made him the first emperor after Augustus to be deified.423 As graph 4 demonstrates, Nero rarely advertised his ancestors on coins. Striking, however, is the percentage of coins featuring Claudius in Nero’s two first years of reign; almost 45% of Nero’s types were struck displaying the deified Claudius.424 Indeed, 56% of Nero’s types issued between October 54 and December 56 referred to Nero as divi Claudi filius,425 Moreover, the iconography of Claudius’ types even alluded to the types for divus Augustus, which emphasised Claudius’ divine status even more, a message that, of course, benefitted Nero too. As such, the reverse on these denarii and aurei displayed the statues of divus Claudius and divus Augustus on a carriage drawn by four elephants (IMAGE IV.2)426 Divus Claudius holds an eagle-tipped sceptre, while divus Augustus holds a patera in 417 Velleius Paterculus 2.130.4; Tacitus, Armals 1.3; Suetonius, Tiberius 15.2; Caligula 1.1; 4.1; Dio 55.13.2; Severy, 2003, 190-191. A similar policy is reported by Dio who wrote that Gaius in his funeral eulogy for Tiberius paid more attention to his lineage from Germanicus and Augustus than he praised Tiberius: Dio 59.3.8. Cf. Dio 59.4.1-3; Hower, 1996, 254. 418 Cf. Rose, 1997,36-37 and nn. 93-94. 419 Tacitus, Armals 4.59.3; 5.3.2; 4.2; 6.23.2-24.2; 25; Suetonius, Tiberius 53-54; Caligula 10; 15; Dio 57.22.4. Wood, 20012, 204. 420 Trfflmich, 1978,47-48; Barrett, 1989,1-42; Rose, 1997, 32-38; esp. 32. See supra. 421 Cf. Flaig, 1992,220-221. About the abolisement of Tiberius’ testament: Dio. 59.1.1; and about the murder on Tiberius Gemellus: Philo of Alcxandria, Embassy to Gaius 4.8; 23-27; 6.35-40; Tacitus, Armals 6. 50; Suetonius, Tiberius 76; Dio 59.1.1-4. 422 CIL 6.2041; Tacitus, Armals 12.25-26; 13.2.2; Suetonius, Claudius 27; 29.5; Nero 4; 7.2; 9; Dio 61.1.1-2. 423 Tacitus, Annals 12.69; Suetonius, Claudius 45-46; Dio 60.34.1-4. 424 N=4. The total coin types of in the two first years of Nero’s reign comprise only nine types, a useless statistical sample, but for them an ancestral iconography was chosen. This is notable, because after Nero’s second year as emperor, the ancestral message on his coins disappeared totally. See also Hekster-Claes-et al., forthcoming 2013. 425 RIC F Nero 1-3; 6-7; 10. See supra this chapter (2.3.1). 426 RIC P Nero 6-7. 85 his left hand and a long sceptre in his other.427 The reverse looks like an adaptation of Tiberius’ reverse types on which a cart was displayed which carried the statue of divus Augustus drawn by a quadnga of elephants with riders (IMAGE IV. I).428 Two other types were dedicated to divus Claudius which showed an omamental quadriga surmounted by four miniature horses and Victories with the portrait of the deified lauieate Claudius on the obverse.429 The attention to divus Claudius on coins was thus intensive in Nero’s first two years as emperor. Strangely, all references to Claudius disappeared after December AD 56. Even the nomen Claudius was omitted from Nero’s nomenclature on gold and silver types, with the emperor mosüy referred to as Nero Caesar Augustus (Germanicus) after AD 56 430 Why did Nero’s ancestral advertisements cease particularly in 56? The death of Claudius’ natural son Britannicus in February AD 55 did not stop Nero’s ancestral advertising.431 Of course, after Britannicus, other Julio-Claudian relatives were still alive who could claim Nero’s throne 432 Another motivation for the disappearance of Nero’s ancestral types could be the forced removal in AD 55 of Agrippina’s confident Pallas, who was Nero’s a rationibus, an event to which we will return to later 433 Additionally, the account of Suetonius that Nero neglected the religious services for Claudius and finally annulled his cult may find confirmation in Nero’s coins.434 427 Clay, 1982, 26-29; 42-45, however, identified the statue next to divus Claudius as Fides Praetorianorum. Cf. Ginsburg, 2006,73 n. 80. 428 RIC P Tiberius 56; 62; 68. Later, this type was also copied by Titus for divus Vespasianus (RIC IP Titus 260; 261). 429 RIC P Nero 4-5. 430 No bronze coinage was issued between the years 54 and 56. CLAVDIVS was included in Nero’s name on the bronze types that were struck between AD 62/63 and 68, see MacDowall, 1979, 75-109. Stylistic arguments leave some scholars to argue that the production of bronze coins restarted only in AD 64, and not in AD 62/63: Wolters, 1999, 79-83 and Giard, 2000,28-31. 431 Suetonius, Nero 6.4; 33.2-3; Dio 61.1.2. 432 For example, Nero’s cousin Rubellius Plautus, his brother-in-law Faustus Comelius Sulla, and the Julian descendant Lucius Junius Silanus Torquatus. Suetonius, Nero 36; Corbier, 1994, 274-275 with references; Rudich, 1993, xxviii-xxix; 19-20; 30-31; 44-46; 66-74; 82; 137-139; Kragelund, 1998, 167-171; Hekster, 2001, 45-46. 433 Claes, 2012, 209-226. Pallas as head of the imperial fiscus: Tacitus, Annals 13.14.1; Suetonius, Claudius 28; Cheung, 1998, 60; WoltErs, 1999, 86-90; 290-291; Pallas’ political influence: Tacitas, Annals 12.53.1-3; Suetonius, Claudius 28; Oost, 1952, 117-120; Weaver, 1972, 259-260. See infra this chapter (2.4.2.1). Cf. Champlin, 2003, 85 on the removal of Pallas in order to break Agrippina’s power. 434 Suetonius, Claudius 45.1; Nero 33.1. 86 4.I.2.2. The so-caüed adoptive emperors and their ancestral messages The so-called adoptive emperors, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Kus, Lucius Veras, and Marcus Aurelius, did not advertise their ancestors very widely (Graph 4), and like Nero’s and Domitian’s, their ancestral issues appeared almost exclusively in the beginning of their reigns.435 Needless to say, bilateral or marriage links seem to have been a decisive factor in the choice of the adopted successors; however, we will not go further into the discussion about whether kinship by blood prevailed in these imperial adoptions 436 In addition, it seems that these emperors’ iconography for deceased and deifïed imperial family members became standarised, resulting in the well-known consecratio types 437 Therefore, the iconography on the posthumous coin types will be discussed for each of these emperors. As we already mentioned above, Trajan minted some types that displayed his adoptive father, but also his predecessor Nerva received attention on his reverses.438 Two types appeared at the beginning of his reign.439 On the reverse of these types two figures are standing passing a globe. The legend PROVIDENTIA is written undemeath them. The figure in the military dress is commonly identified as Trajan, whereas the figure in toga (with radiated head) is probably Nerva.440 The iconography of the globe types was similar to Titus’ globe type, celebrating the emperor’s providence to foresee a successor to his throne (IMAGE m.2). The types, however, were only issued once at the very start of Trajan’s reign. Later, between AD 112 and 113, a third type was struck on gold, displaying Nerva’s portrait facinga portrait of Traianus Pater (IMAGE II. 1).441 Furthermore, Trajan’s biological father was itWifinri as his pater, and his physiognomy clearly confirms he is Trajan’s biological 435 In chronological order: Trajan: 1.4%; Hadrian: 1.9%; Antoninus Pius: 0.2%; joint reign Lucius Veras and Maicus Aurelius: 3.2%. 436 More on this discussion, see Gibbon, 1776, 1.84; Carcopino, 1949, 262-312; Birley, 1997, 289-300; Reece, 1999,163; Hekster, 2001,42-45; 2002,16-30; Roman-Rémy-et al., 2009,508-517. 437 See also chapter 4.4.3 on the appearance and standardisation of these consecratio types. 438 See supra this chapter (2.4.1.1.2). 439 N=2; 0.3% of Trajan’s total types. Trajan’s total type output N=635. RIC II Trajan 28a; b; BMCREIII, 53- 55; Woytek, 2010,199, no. 10. 440 RIC H Trajan 28a; b; BMCRE m Trajan 53-55; Besombes, 2008, nos.1-3. Contra Woytek, 2010, 94 who reidentifies Nerva as the Genius senatus on ground of a later Trajanic silver medallian with a similar scene and the legend PROVIDENTIA SENATVS (BMCRE Hl, 38; Woytek, 2010, 211, no. 40, cf. Strack, 1931, 46; no.1), im plying that the globe was given by the Senate. However, this type is not a regular coin and could be issued to be distributed among senators. Moreover, the figure handing over a globe on the silver type is not similar to the one on the silver me/tallinn For instance, the ‘Nerva’-figure holds a roll, like the emperors Titus and Vespasian on their globe-type (RIC IP Titus 161-162; IMAGE HI.1) and the ‘Senate’-figure did not 441 N=l; 0.1% of Trajan’s total types. Trajan’s total type output N=635. RIC n Trajan 726-727. The authenticity of the type where Nerva faces the portrait of Hotina (RIC n Trajan 725) is doubted: Woytek, 2010, 647, even describes it as an ancient forgery. 87 father.442 At the end of 113, Nerva’s image was restored twice in Trajan’s restoration series, replacing the memory of Trajan’s predecessors whose original issues were withdrawn.443 Nerva’s image then seems to have played the limited role of a divine predecessor who handed over his powers to Trajan, and he was receded in favour of Trajan’s biological father.444 Likewise, Trajan never incorporated the title divi filius Nerva into his nomenclature on coins. Moreover, Trajan did not take the gentilicium Cocceius from his adoptive father Nerva, but remained an Ulpius.445 The marginal advertisement of Nerva, to whom Trajan owed his imperial succession, could underscore how secure Trajan feit in his imperial position.446 Indeed, from the beginning of the Principate, adopted emperors proved the most efficacious successors, which suggests that adoption by the former emperor catalysed a secure succession for the adopted son, and therefore Trajan might have needed less patemal advertisement for Nerva. The types of the adopted emperor Hadrian employed ancestral messages more often. In Hadrian’s first two years of accession, 10.2% of his types issued in those first two years displayed divus Traianus.447 Of course, because Hadrian’s adoption by a letter of Trajan some days before the latter s death was very obscure and alieady questioned by contemporaries, Hadrian might have wanted to emphasise his legal adoption through several types in order to secure his imperial position.448 In particular, some types represent Trajan and Hadrian clasping hands or exchanging a globe449, emphasising the legitimate succession of Hadrian (IMAGE n.3). The legend ADOPTIO, undemeath some of these coin scenes, further 442 RIC n Trajan 251-252; 762-764; Woytek, 393; 395-396; nos. 401-402; 406-408. In total, all Traianus Pater's types constituted 0.8% of Trajan’s total type output. For more about the types for Traianus Pater, see supra this chapter (2.4.1.1.2). 443 N=2; 0.3% of Trajan’s total types. Trajan’s total type output; N=635. RIC II Trajan 835-836. Dio 68.15.3; Mattingly, 1920b, 177-178, 1926, 266, BMCRE 3, lxxxvii-lxxxix; Komnick, 2001,137-138; Woytek, 2010 509- 531. 444 Cf. Eek, 2002, 211-226; Roche, 2002, 44; 52-54. Eek, 2002, 225; Lindsay, 2009, 209; Woytek, 2010, 9-18; 650-656. He did, however, assume the cognomen Nerva. Yet, the place of this cognomen changed after Trajan’s first two issues, suggesting that Trajan preferred a less strong association with Nerva. RIC II Trajan II, 28; 30-31; 384; 386; 391; 393; 400; 405; 414-415; Pliny, Panegyric 21.1-2; Wolters, 1992, 281-299; 1999, 306; Stevenson, 2007,128-129. Cf. Seelentag, 2004, 357-359, esp. 359. For more on the representation and status of Nerva under Trajan see Hekster, forthcoming 2014. ^ In total, the ancestral advertisement for divus Traianus only represented 1.9% of Hadrian’s total types. w For more on Hadrian’s adoption by Trajan see supra this chaptEr (2.3.1). These types were in style of the former globe-types of Titus, Nerva, and Trajan, see supra this chapter (2.4.1.1.3) and IMAGES m.1-2. 450 RIC n Hadrian 2-3; 22A; B; C; 534a; b. Strack, 1933, 41-45; with 43-45 regarded these globe-types as ‘providentia senatus’ types, following the types of Nerva (RIC II Nerva 90) and Trajan (RIC II Trajan 28a; b), where the Senate seems to hand over the globe to respectively Nerva or Trajan (see also supra n. 440); however,’ as Mattingly (BMCRE m , cxxv) rightly remarks, both figures on the type discussed are clearly emperors, as they both hold rolls, an attribute specifïcally of the emperor. For more on the globe gesture as a symbol of the transmission of imperial power, see Bastien, 1993, 497; 500-502; Bergmann, 1998, 232-233 and also supra. The 88 reinforced this message.451 Furthermore, portrait types of divus Traianus were issued, as well as types with references to his triumph over the Persians and his divine status.452 A similar coin type to the one divus Augustus, Lucius Vitellius, divus Vespasianus, and divus Traianus Pater received from their sons was also issued for D IW S TRAIAN AVG PARTH PATER, displaying a seated Trajan, holding a branch in his right hand and a long sceptre in his other (IMAGES 1.1-3; 5-6).453 Finally, one reverse displayed Hadrian showing his piety to Trajan by sacrificing over an altar, while Trajan’s portrait was on the obverse.454 The majority of these types were struck on gold and silver coins, with only two types issued on sestertii, which suggests that the message may have been intended for the higher Roman elite, senators and soldiers.455 Moreover, 4.3% of Hadrian’s total coin types emphasised Trajan as Hadrian’s pater and 5.4% of Hadrian’s total types presented him as the filius of divus Traianus and the nepos of divus Nerva.456 The ancestral messages on Hadrian’s coins suggest that the emperor indeed clarified his adoption by Trajan in order to safeguard his position 457 After Hadrian started his third consulship in 119, his ancestral types ceased, what suggests that the focus on his legal succession was perceived less important to advertise. Yet, later in his reign, between 134 and 138, a gold type appeared bearing portraits of Trajan and Plotina, facing each other with stars on their heads.458 The legend DIVIS PARENTTBVS presented the couple as the divine adoptive ancestors of Hadrian (IMAGE H.2). The appearance of this type could be connected with the adoption of Lucius Aelius Caesar through Hadrian, which took place in the summer of AD 136.459 The propagation of Hadrian’s divine parents, therefore, might be seen as an attempt by Hadrian to use the new adoption to strengthen the status of his domus divina. In doing so, Hadrian’s devotion to his adoptive parents can be seen as an indicative of the emergence of a dynastie imperial representation, combining retrospective and prospective kinship, that “had to elevate the globe scene was also struck on a Hadrianic medallion: Mittag, 2010: Hadrian Typ 1: 51-53; 142, plate 22. On a later coin type, Hadrian receives a globe from the god Iuppiter (BMCRE m Hadrian 242), suggesting that Hadrian not needed a strong affliation with Trajan anymore to legitimate his power. 451 Strack, 1933,41-43; Alfoldi, 1999,12-13; 45; Birley, 1997,28-29. 452 Portrait types: RIC H Hadrian 23; 24a; b; c; 25-30; TRTVMPVS PARTHICVS: RIC H Hadrian 26; Divinity types: RIC II Hadrian 27-28. Trajan’s triumph over the Persians was posthumously celebrated in the autumn of AD 117. Cf. Strack, 1933,54-55. 453 RIC P Tiberius 56; 62; 68; RIC IP Titus 257-259; RIC II Trajan 251-252; RIC n Hadrian 627a; b. More about this type, see supra this chapter (2.4.1.1.2 and 2.4.1.2.1). 454 RIC II Hadrian 25A. 455 For more about targeting audiences, see Lummel, 1991; Hekster, 2003, 20-35; Buttrey, 2007,101-112. 456 RIC H Hadrian 2-16; 22A-D; 23; 24a; b; c; 25; 25A; 26-30; 232A;B; 534a-546b; 627a; b. For more on these kinship terms on Hadrian’ coinage, see supra this chapter (2.3.1). 457 Cf. Birley, 1997,28-29; Roman-Rémy-et al., 2009, 508-517. 458 RIC E Hadrian 232A; B. 459 Dio 69.17.1; 20.2; HA Hadrian 23.10-11; Aelius 2-3.1. 89 imperial family to a plane above the petty affairs of the rest of humanity”, as Boatwright On 25 February AD 138, after the death of Lucius Aelius Caesar, Hadrian adopted Titus Aelius Caesar, better known to us as Antoninus Pius.461 Some five months later, Hadrian passed away. Although the Senate was not eager to deify Hadrian, Pius insisted that his adoptive father would be deifïed. Consequenüy, Hadrian received several divine honours, such as his own flamines and sodales?62 However, here again, coin advertisement of the adoptive father is marginal: only one gold, one silver, and one bronze types were issued for divus Hadrianus. The gold and silver types for Hadrian copied the iconography of posthumous types for Marciana, Matidia, and Vibia Sabina, the women of the Ulpian gens, which is striking as no preference was given to the iconography of Nerva’s, Trajan’s or Plotina’s or previous emperors’ posthumous types. As such, the gold type displayed Hadrian bome aloft by an eagle to the heavens, and the silver type showed an eagle standing on a globe (IMAGES V.7-8).463 It is notable that the legend CONSECRATIO on these two types was used for the first time for a deified emperor. Before, only the posthumous coins for Marciana, Matidia Maior, and Vibia Sabina bore a consecratio legend.464 This emphasis on Hadrian’s deifïed status could indicate that these types justified Antoninus Pius’ decision to deify his adoptive father. The single bronze type for divus Hadrianus preserved the more Standard scene of the seated deceased emperor holding a branch and a long sceptre, an ancestral coin iconography that Tiberius, Vitellius, Titus, Trajan, and Hadrian used too for their deceased fathers (IMAGES 1.1-3; 5-7).465 Although the types for Hadrian emphasised his divine status and placed him in the lineage of the ‘great’ imperial ancestors, the frequency of his types was very low, constituting only a mere 0.2% of Pius’ total coin types.466 460 Boatwright, 1987, 97. Cf. Hammond, 1957, 206; Temporini, 1978, 109; 173-174. In this period, types also appeared for Lucius Aelius Caesar and for diva Sabina, see infra chapter 3 (3.3.3) and chapter 4 (4.3.2). 1 Dio 69.21.1-2; HA Hadrian 24.1; Antoninus Pius 2.11; 4.1-4; Aurelius Victor, Book of the Caesars 14.4; 15.2. For more about Pius’ adoption as stopgap emperor to clear the way for Marcus Aurelius, see chapter 3 (3.3.3). 462 CIL 5. 6513; 8660; Additamenta ad CIL 5.1227; CIL 9.1160; 2853; 10.416; 7507; 14.353; (390-391); 4642; Dio 69.2.5; 23.3; 70.1.2-3; HA Hadrian 27.1-4; Eutropius 8.7; Grant, 1994, 11-12. 463 Gold type: RIC II Hadrian 389A - RIC II Trajan 743-745; 748; RIC II Hadrian 420-421; 423a-426; 751-756; 1052; Silver type: RIC II Hadrian 389B ~ RIC n Hadrian 418-419; 1051a; b. 464 More about the consecratio-types of these women is examined below and see also IMAGES V.l-6. 465 RIC n Hadrian, 471. RIC P Tiberius 62; RIC P Vitellius 94-99; RIC IP Titus 257; RIC II Trajan 252; RIC Hl Hadrian 627b. Cf. Strack, 1937, 26. 466 RIC H Hadrian 389A; B; RIC n Hadrian, 471. As all these types were struck in the beginning of Pius’ reign, they constituted 1.7% of the total coin types of Antoninus Pius from his fiist two years as emperor, a marginal number. In addition, three types displayed Aeneas with his father and son (RIC III Antoninus Pius 91; 615; 627), most likely referring to Pius’ Italian origine, yet, these types are also marginal (0.2%). 90 Antoninus Pius, in turn, adopted Lucius Veras and Marcus Aurelius.467 After Pius’ death, Verus and Marcus propagated their adoptive father more intensively than the other adopted emperors, at a rate of 4.3% of Veras’ and Marcus’ total coin types.468 These types were all struck in the second and third issue of the year Antoninus Pius died.469 One could argue that the issue of divus Pius-types was rather late, as did not appear in the first issue of the Augusti Veras and Marcus. This fact might shed light on imperial mint organisation, suggesting that transitions between reigns required some time for mint’s adjustment. Of course, deifïcations were decreed by the Senate after emperors’ fimerals, which could explain the lapse of time between Pius’ death and his consecratio-types.470 Some types continued the traditional iconography of the posthumous types of divus Augustus, divus Claudius, Vitellius, divus Vespasianus, divus Traianus Pater, divus Traianus, and divus Hadrianus. These types showed a seated Antoninus Pius, holding a branch and a long sceptre (IMAGES 1.1-3; 5-8) or displayed the statue of Antoninus Pius on a cart drawn by a quadriga of elephants with riders (IMAGES IV.1-3; 6 )471 Furthermore, some eagle types and an altar-type imitated the style of the former consecratio-types issued for the female Ulpii and the deceased members of the Aelii (IMAGES V.l-8).472 Two new types appeared displaying, respectively, a column surmounted by the statue of divus Antoninus Pius and a funeral pyre decorated with hangings and garlands surmounted by quadriga (IMAGES V.9-10).473 Together, all these types developed into a sort of traditional store of images drawn upon for types of later deified emperors of the Antonine house or who claimed to belong to that house.474 As such, the 467 Dio 71.1.1-2; HA Antoninus Pius 4.5; Marcus Aurelius Antoninus 5.1-7; 6.3-6; Lucius Verus 2.1-2; Eutropius 8.9-10. 468 The total number of types is counted from 7 March 161 until the death of Lucius Verus in February 169. In the first two years of Verus and Aurelius’ joint reign, the percentage of Pius’ posthumous coin types substitute 11.3% of the total coin types in those two years, which is a substantial proportion in comparison with his predecessors. Of course, note that the posthumous types for Antoninus Pius were only issued AD 161. Yet, for matters of convenience the percentages of Pius’ posthumous types are counted in the first two years of the joint reign of Verus and Marcus in order to compare the ancestral advertisement with the other adoptive emperors in their first two years of reign. 469 Szaivert, 1986, 96. More precisely, the types were struck in the second and third issue of 161. 470 Gradel, 2002, 288-291; 298-304; Benoist, 2005,103-163. 471 RIC III Marcus Aurelius 442; 1274. 472 RIC m Marcus Aurelius 429-434; 441; 441a, 1262-1265. However, no type showed an eagle carrying Antoninus Pius to heaven. 473 Column: RIC Dl Marcus Aurelius 1269-1273; Pyre: RIC UI Marcus Aurelius 435-438; 1266-1268. Cf. Benoist, 2005, 149-188 who states that the development of a deeper imperial ideology assumed a more dominant divine status for the emperor and his relatives when the so-called adoptive emperors ruled. Benoist claims that the death of Marciana, Trajan’s sister, and the divinisation by which she became a member of the domus divina marked the beginning of this development. 91 consecratio-types for Lucius Verus, Marcus Aurelius, Commodus, Pertinax, Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Alexander Severus followed these iconographical pattems.475 In the beginning of their reigns, each so-called adoptive emperor honoured his adoptive fathers with several coin types. During their reigns, however, ancestral messages became less frequent. Settled as emperors, their coins focused on other kind of messages. A similar feature can be remarked in our analysis of the advertisement of biological ancestors. Can we suggest that lineage was perceived a less strong message to advertise during the later years of an emperor’s reign? Nevertheless, in this second century, a Standard iconography for posthumous types developed which suggests that emperors preferred recognisable ancestral messages, even if they did not abundanüy propagate them. 4.1.2.3. Propagating adoptive fathers in the third century In the third century, only two emperors, Elagabalus and Trebonianus Gallus, adopted a young man, and made them their son-by-law, and at the same time, their imperial successor; however, only Alexander Severus managed to succeed to the throne of his imperial adoptive father Elagabalus 476 After his death, Elagabalus was voted a damnatio memoriae by the Senate, so no posthumous coin types were struck in honour of Alexander’s adoptive father.477 Rumours surfaced that Alexander was Caracalla’s bastard son, and inscriptions confirm that Alexander Severus tried to redefine his descent by modelling himself as the divi Magni Antonini PU Filius and the divi Severi Pii nepos, although, no such filiation was added to Alexander’s coin legends.478 Nonetheless, Alexander’s coins issued some posthumous types for D IW S ANTONINVS MAGNVS using the Standard iconographical consecratio-élements of the 415 Lucius Verus: RIC III Marcus Aurelius 596a; b; 1507-1511; Marcus Aurelius: RIC III Commodus 264-275; 654-664; Commodus: RIC in Commodus 263a;b; Pertinax: RIC IV.A. Septimius Severus 24A; B; 600Ba; b; c; C; Septimius Severus: RIC IV.A. Caracalla; Caracalla: RIC IV.B. Alexander Severus 717-719. See also supra and infra this chapter (2.4.1.1.3; 2.4.3.2; 2.4.3.3). 476 Dio 80.17.2-3; Herodian 5.7; HA Elagabalus 13.1; Aurelius Victor, Book of the Caesars 23.4. 477 Dio 80.20.3; 21.3; UA Elagabalus 17.4; 18.1; Alexander Severus 1; Baharal, 1996, 64; Icks, 2011, 42-43, esp. n. 91 with references to sources of this damnatio memoriae. 478 Elagabalus as bastard son of Caracalla: Dio 79.32; Herodian 5.4.1; HA Elagabalus 2.1; Aurelius Victor, Book of the Caesars 23.1; Alexander as bastard son of Caracalla: Dio 80.19.4; Herodian 5.7.3; Zosimus 1.10.2; AE 1979.645; ILS 479; 480; 483; 2009; 4340; 5854; 9058; CIL 3.D.LXXXVH; D.LXXXIV; D.LXXXVI; 166; 226; 3121; 8.1406. See also Baharal, 1996, 64-65 and Icks, 2011, 37-38 for Alexander’s ancestral advertisement, and this chapter 2.3.1. 92 Antonine and Severan emperors.479 In total, the types only comprise 0.6% of Alexander’s total coin types. Although the advertisement for Caracalla was marginal, his posthumous types show that Alexander Severus preferred this invented lineage above his adoptive father Elagabalus, to whom he owed his imperial position. Of course, a lineage from Caracalla would have been more attractive for the boy’s legitimation than a connection to the hatred Elagabalus 480 Later in his reign, however, Alexander Severus also omitted his Antonine and Severan nomina from his coin legends, suggesting that he feit less dependent on any ancestral claim whatsoever.481 4.2. Images of female ancestors Deceased (grand) m ot hers li Living (g r a n d )m o th e r s I 15 -- a ~ 10 s s ffi S?aSS|S|g8SS! IIÏIS: s a j l ! s Ia ï3 ï3 i i l ïiih ; | 1 S l 1 * Emperors (total coin types) Graph 5: Propartions of coin types propagating female ancestors At the end of the Republic, women became more and more visible in public dedications, festivities and images, a trend that seems to have continued in the Empire as imperial women were increasingly involved in official imperial display, including coins (Graph 5). The 479 See supra this chapter (2.4.1.2.2). RIC IV.B. Alexander Severus 717-720. 480 The consecratio-coins for Caracalla are examined further in detail in this chapter 2.4.3.3. 481 In this context, the account of HA Elagabalus 18.1 stating that Elagabalus was the last of the Antonines, is interesting. 93 political and social structure of the imperial court even created an unprecedented framework through which (some) women could exercise real power.482 Unlike the majority of the imperial fathers or predecessors, the emperor’s (grand)mother was often still alive during the reign of her (grand)son. These women often played important roles in the lives and govemance of their (grand)sons, and so an examination of the relative frequency of their types could suggest whether they too had a prominent status in their (grand)sons’ advertising programs. Furthermore, some emperors commemorated even their deceased mothers on their coins. Such policies have been more than just demonstrations of pietas; the emperor could have aimed to legitimate himself through his matrilineal lineage. Both groups of (grand)mothers will be examined chronologically in the following sections with help of graph 5 that gathers all percentages of the advertisement of female ancestors on coins from Augustus to Carinus. In all these sections, further investigation will illuminate the iconographical elements that depicted these women, and show whether the Standard iconographical image of these imperial (grand)mothers and female ancestors changed over time. 4.2.1. Julio-Claudian and Flavian mothers’ advertisement on coins In the Late Republic, Roman coinage started to display women. These women were mostly the wives of Late Republican generals who issued the coins.483 However, it was not until Tiberius’ reign that a coin referred to a mother. Livia, Tiberius’ mother, was honoured with two coin types during her son’s reign, representing 3.2% of Tiberius’ total types (Graph 5), both displaying a carpentum drawn by two mules, with a legend containing her name. The scene may have alluded to the supplicatio the Senate decreed in AD 22 in honour of Livia’s recoveiy of illness (IMAGE Vn.1.).484 Livia, thus, was not physically portrayed on any of Tiberius’ coins. Many scholars, however, identify the woman on the Tiberian Salus Augusta- 482 See also supra this chapter (2.1) and infra chapter 4 (4.1). Kleiner, 1992, 357-367; Flower, 2002, 159-184; esp. 159-179; Hemelrijk, 2005, 309-317. Fulvia on the coins of Mark Antony: RRC 489.2 (note, however, that the identification of Fluvia is discussed, see Babylon, 1884, 407; BMCRR, 499; Kleiner, 1992, 359 and references); Octavia on the coins of Mark Antony; BMCRR, 499; 510; 511 (together with Octavian); 512-513; 515; nos. 133-137; 144-145; 152-171; RRC 527.1; 533.3a; b; Cleopatra on the coins of Mark Antony: BMCRR, nos. 179-182; RRC 543.1. Cf. Kleiner 1992 357-367. 484 RIC I2 Tiberius 50-51; BMCRE I, cxxxv; Tacitus, Annals 2. 64. 94 type as livia.485 This type belonged to a triple aes series of the virtues pietas, iustitia, and salus, minted between AD 22 and 23.486 Because of her recovery, Livia could personify the health of the empress. However, the coin legend does not mention Livia explicitly, and previously, Tiberius’ coins had represented other virtues, such as clementia and modestia, without reference to human exemplars 487 Of course, it is plausible that the Roman populance linked livia with salus, because real personages are often easier to understand than abstract entities.488 Unlike Tiberius’ frequent coin advertisement for divus Augustus as the founder of the Julio-Claudian house and as his adoptive father, the coins displaying Tiberius’ mother were merely a momentary commemorative gratitude for her recovery without any direct connection to Tiberius and his imperial position. Gaius’ types, in contrast, constituted a close link between the emperor and his mother, Agrippina. Of Gaius’ total types, 14% were dedicated to his mother (Graph 5). All Agrippina’s types identified her as Gaius’ mater 489 Being the daughter of Agrippa and Julia, Agrippina Maior provided her son with a direct lineage to divus Augustus. The Julian link was an important tooi for legitimating Gaius’ imperial power, because when he ascended the throne he was an unknown political figure who could not rely on great military victories. It was not only Agrippina Maior who played an important role on Gaius’ coin messages: as noted before, Gaius linked himself to the founder of the Julio-Claudian house through the intensive display of his patemal ancestors as well. One bronze type, issued by the Roman mint, deserves special mention here. The type, displaying Agrippina’s portrait and featuring a carpentum, commemorated the games that Gaius organised posthumously for his mother.490 The legend SPQR MEMORIAE AGRIPPINAE makes explicit that Agrippina was commemorated by the Senate and People of Rome (IMAGE VII.2). In doing so, Gaius not only bestowed a similar honour on his mother 485 For example: Mikocki, 1995, 25-28; Kleiner-Matheson, 1996,59-60; Stepper, 2000,63; Ginsburg, 2006, 60- 61; Bums, 2007,18. See also references in BMCRE I, cxxxv-cxxxvi. 486 m c p Tiherius 47 and 43. 46 487 RIC F Tiberius 38-40, issued between AD 16 and 22. Grant, 1950, 37-43; Wallace-Hadrill, 1981, 310. See for a critical note Foubert, 2010a, 113. 488 Other scholars identify the seated women, holding a patera and sceptre, on Tiberius’ PONTIF MAXIM-types (RIC I2 Tiberius 25-30; 33-37; 41; 71-73) also as Livia. Mattingly in BMCRE I, cxxxiii; Grant, 1972, 140; and Szaivert, 1986, 25 thought Livia was displayed in her function of Augustus’ priestess. Mikocki, 1995, 24 and Kleiner-Matheson, 1996, 58-59 suggested that Livia’s image was pattemed after Iuno’s. Other scholars reject the identification of Livia and identify the female figure as Pax or Pax-Iustitia (see RIC I2, 87-88; Grant, 1950, 25; Lichocka, 1974, 87-93), or else as “Vesta in palatio” (see Sutherland, 1951, 86; Grant, 1950, 34). 489 N=8. RIC I2 Gaius 7-8; 13-14; 21-22; 30; 55. In particular, the gold and silver types of the mint of Lugdunum enforced this link by representing Agrippina’s portrait on the reverses of Gaius. For more about coin types linking a family member to the emperor by representing them on the reverse of an emperor’s coin, see King, 1999,132; Horster, 2007,297-298. 490 RIC F Gaius 55; Suetonius, CaUgula 15; TriUmich, 1978, 33-35; Rose, 1997, 32; Wood, 20012, 204. 95 Agrippina as the one Livia had received, he also issued a similar coin type for his mother as Livia had received (IMAGE VII.1).491 Gaius wanted to rehabilitate his mother’s memory, whom Tiberius had banished to the island of Pandateria. As soon as Gaius became emperor, he went to retrieve his mother’s ashes.492 He destroyed the Herculanean villa where his mother had been held prisoner before her exile and purified Agrippina’s birthday, formerly declared as a dies nefastus.493 Gaius’ act of pietas clearly aimed to rehabilitate Agrippina’s image. The imitation of Livia’s carpentum coin scene elevated Agrippina’s status, which was, of course, also a strategy for Gaius to institutionalise himself as a legitimate emperor, as Trillmich states.494 By displaying his mother’s portrait on the coins, Gaius created a precedent that was followed by his successor Claudius. Claudius represented his mother Antonia on several gold, silver and bronze coin types: in total 5.3% of Claudius’ total types (Graph 5), which was lesser than the coin representation of his father Drusus (8.8%). Antonia, who died some years before her son became emperor, was a well-respected daughter of Augustus’ sister Octavia. Like the types for her husband, Antonia’s types were innovative. On the obverse of her precious metal types, Antonia, wearing a crown of com-ears, was called Augusta, a tiüe that she had received from Gaius, but which Claudius reconfirmed 495 Some of her reverse types hailed Antonia as the priestess of divus Augustus in the legend, displaying two lighted torches joined with festoon and garlands 496 Other reverses showed the virtue constantia holding a comucopia and a torch, accompanied with the legend CONSTANTIA AVGVSTI, which alluded to the emperor’s constancy 497 The bronze reverses showed Claudius in his priestly gown holding a simpulum with Antonia’s bare headed portrait on the obverse.498 Under Claudius’ reign, Antonia too received a carpentum to bear her image through the circus; however, unlike the precedents of the carpentum types for Julia and Agrippina, no type for Antonia commemorated the occasion 499 Alongside his mother, Claudius featured his patemal grandmother Livia as DIVA AVGVSTA on a single type with divus Augustus on the obverse. 491 Juncker, 1980, 205-217; Wood, 1988,410; Foubert, 2010a, 113-114. 492 Suetonius, Caligula 15; Dio 59.3.5. 493 AfA: CIL 6.2029.a39.1; Seneca, On anger 3.21.5; Foubert, 2010a, 58; 123-124. See also Foubert, 2010a, 37- 71 and Foubert, 2010b, 65-82 on the symbolic values of houses. 494 Trillmich, 1978, 33-35. Cf. Wood, 1988,410; Rose, 1997, 32; Alföldi, 1999, 73-74. 495 Suetonius, Caligula 15.2; Claudius 11.2; Dio 59.3.3-4. 496 RIC P Claudius 67. Cf. Trillmich, 1978, 69-77. 497 RIC P Claudius 65-66. The depiction of Constantia is subject of intensive scholarly debate, which is summarised by Foubert, 2010a, 114-116. Cf. Trillmich, 1978, 69-77; Martin, 1992, 209-211. 498 RIC P Claudius 92; 104. 499 Suetonius, Claudius 11.2; Levick, 1990,45; Foubert, 2010a, 125. 96 This types comprised just 1% of Claudius’ total coin types.500 The type could have been struck on the occasion of Livia’s consecratio, which Claudius executed on 17 January AD 42, but, generally, it could just have emphasised Claudius’ Julio-Claudian lineage.501 To conclude, we could say that Claudius’ lineage, including his female ancestors, held a central place among Claudius’ coins. Moreover, the familial theme showed up not only at the beginning of his reign, but was repeated during his whole reign.502 Nero issued coin types for his mother Agrippina too, making her the second imperial mother to be honoured on Roman imperial coins while she was still alive. Agrippina Iunior appeared on the first gold and silver series of Nero, comprising just 1.5% of all Nero’s types (Graph 5).503 The obverse of this series prints Agrippina’s name in the nominative case: Agrippina, the wife of divus Claudius Augustus and mother of the emperor Nero; above it portraits of Agrippina and Nero faced each other on an equal plane. The reverse bore the name of Nero in the dative, and displayed an oak wreath with EX SC engraved in the middle of it, alluding to the oak wreath that was dedicated to Nero by the Senate (IMAGE VI.1).504 A second gold and silver series bore Nero’s nomenclature in the nominative and displayed the portraits of Nero and Agrippina jugate, with Nero’s portrait holding primacy over Agrippina’s. The reverse shows a pompa circensis scene where the statue of divus Claudius is drawn by an elephant quadriga, while above the elephants EX SC is engraved. The reverse legend refers to Agrippina in the nominative as the wife of divus Claudius Augustus and mother of the emperor Nero (IMAGE IV.2).505 The display of Agrippina on Nero’s coins is unique, but not a surprise, as Agrippina had already received coin types under Gaius as his sister and under Claudius as his empiess.506 Nevertheless, the paired portraits of Agrippina and Nero are extraordinary, and might imitate the paired coin portraits of Hellenistic consanguineous kings, queens, and sons.507 In Roman coinage, the paired depiction appears 500 RIC P Claudius 101; which represented 0.9 % of Claudius’ total types. 501 AfA\ CIL 6.2032.Claudii A.15-18. Unlike Livia’s marginal advertisement on Claudius’ coins, she seems more present on other visual media during Claudius’ reiga For instance, a statue of Livia was placed into Augustus’ temple, an elephant quadriga carried Livia’s statue in the circus games, which were organised for her, and a construction calledpietas Augusta was erected in her honour, see Dio 60.5.2; Levick, 1990,45; Rose, 1997,40. 502 Trfflmich, 1978,70-71, Martm, 1992,201-203. 503 The authar is aware of the debate whether these precious metal coins were issued by the mint of Lugdunum or Rome, see RIC P, 133; and Van Heesch, 1980, 249ff. 504 RIC P Nero 1-2. 505 RIC P Nero 6-7. RIC P Claudius 75; 80-81; 103. For Agrippina Iunior represented as sister and empress on coins see infra chapter 4 (4.3.1 and 4.4.2). 507 Ginsburg, 2006, 57-58; 72-74. Examples include Ptolemy n Philadelphos with his queen Arsinoë together with Ptolemy I and Berenike I (SNG Copenhagen 132-133); Antiochos Vin with Cleopatra (SNG SeL 1; 6-7); Eukratides I of Baktria with Heliokles and Laodike (SNG ANS 526-527); and Qeopatra with her son Caesarion. (BMC Ptol. 122.2 and Walkers-Higgs, 2001,168). 97 only one or two times in displays of the Dioscuri on Republican coins; therefore, the pose could reflect Agrippina’s exceptional status within Nero’s court.508 The unparalleled paired depiction of the reigning princeps with his imperial mother could explain why the types bear the legend EX SC. Under this conjecture, a senatus consultum authorised mints to strike such unprecedented coin images, but this presumption is unlikely, as temporary coin types for divus Claudius also bore the EX SC letters, and these types conformed to Standard Roman coin imagery.509 The meaning of the letters EX SC remains a matter of debate.510 An explanation for EX SC is that the senatus consultum authorised the implantation of the reverse images, such as the bestowal of the laurel wreath on Nero, the pompa circenses for divus Claudius, and the omamental quadriga.511 Yet, it could also be that the letters did not refer specifically to the coin images, but justified the ruler’s right given by the Senate to strike gold and silver.512 A far more likely theory comes from the economical perspective, arguing that the letters might be used as a token signalling the value of the coin, authorised (allegedly) by the Senate.513 Remarkably, after December 55, no types referred to Agrippina anymore, which supports the common scholarly assumption that her influence on Nero was decreasing.514 Ancient writers informs us that around AD 57, Agrippina was driven from the palace by her son.515 Two years later, she was murdered.516 Obviously, the disappearance of Agrippina’s image on coins could reflect her declining power. However, types referring to Nero’s divine descent from Claudius and to divus Claudius himself also ceased in AD 55; therefore, some scholars suggest that Nero had a larger agenda than simply erasing his mother’s image.517 In AD 55, Nero dismissed his a rationibus Pallas, an emancipated slave of Claudius’ mother 508 Tacitus, Annals 13.2 speaks of the "ferocia Agrippinae”, which drove her to possess a share in the imperial power. The precise extent of Agrippina’s power is a topic of debate: see Griffin, 1984, 37-40; Ginsburg, 2006, 36-45. Cf. Sutherland, 1987, 87 and supra this chapter (2.4.1.2.1). 509 RIC I2 Nero 4-5. These temporary types for divus Claudius display an omamental quadriga with horses and victories on the reverse; however, this omamental quadriga could have been decreed by the Senate, explaining the EX SC letters on the reverse. For more about these types, see supra this chapter (2.4.1.2.1). 510 Harl, 1996, 73-79 and Wolters, 1999, 119-169 made a good overview on this debate. For more on the letters SC on Roman imperial coinage, see infra chapter 3 (3.4.1). 511 Kraft, 1962, 7-50; Mattingly, 1963, 225; RIC F, 149; Clay, 1982, 24-29. 512 Mommsen, 1878, 1016; Bumett, 1977, 45-59, esp. 57-59; RIC I2, 135; Szaivert, 1986, 32-33; Sutherland, 1987, 88ff. 513 Bay, 1972, 114; 116; 120-122; Sutherland, 1987, 35-38. Cf. Mattingly in BMCRE1 ,105-106. 514 Levick, 1982, 108-109; Rose, 1997,48. 515 Tacitus, Annals 13.18.3-13.19.1; Suetonius, Nero 34.1; Dio 61.4.5; 7.1. 516 Tacitus, Annals 14.7-8; Suetonius, Nero 34; Dio 62.13-14. 517 The coin type RIC P Nero 10, minted between December 55 and December 56, made the last reference to Nero as divi Claudi fllius. Cf. MacDowall, 1979, 31. Even the nomen Claudius was omitted from Nero’s nomenclature on his precious metal types, with the emperor mostly referred to as Nero Caesar Augustus (Germanicus) after AD 56. See supra this chapter (2.4.1.2.1). 98 Antonia, who after her death became Claudius’ freedman.518 As supporter of Claudius’ marriage with Agrippina in AD 49, Pallas became Agrippina’s ally and one of Claudius’ most influential freedmen, managing the emperor’s finances and being heard in socio-political issues.519 Under Nero, Pallas remained head of the imperial fiscus until his removal in 55. With his power as a rationibus, it has been suggested that Pallas influenced the designs of Claudius’ and Nero’s coins, because around when Pallas became Claudius’ financial manager, new coin designs were introduced, such as types of Agrippina, her ancestors, and Nero, whereas at the time Pallas was removed from his office Claudius and Agrippina disappeared from Nero’s coinage and a whole range of new types appeared.520 Most likely, the forced retirement of Pallas resulted from a change in court policy, where Claudius’ former influential servants lost their influence, as the philosoper Seneca and the praetorian perfect Brutus became powerful advisors.521 At the same time, Pallas’ removal could have represented a warning for Agrippina about the dangers of undue arrogance and pride, which could explain - along with the general assumption that Agrippina’s influence on her son was decreasing - why Agrippina’s appearance on coins stopped already two years before she was driven out the imperial palace.522 The career of Pallas parallels the story of Etruscus Pater that is sketched above (§ 4.1.1.3), who as influential imperial freedman managed to become the a rationibus of the Flavian emperors but was forced to retire by Domitian around AD 82 or 83. Here too, a shift in the coin designs of before and after 83 is noticeable. Both stories support the conclusion that either the a rationibus oversaw the selection of the coin designs, or that these particular freedmen in their capacity as a rationibus were entrusted with the selection of the types.523 518 Tacitus, Annals 13.14.1; Dio 62.14.3. For more about Pallas’ life before Claudius became his patron, see Josephus, Judean Antiquities 18.182; Tacitus, Annals 12.1.4; 2.1-3; 6; Suetonius, Claudius 26; 28; Dio 60.30.6; 65.14.1-2 and Oost, 1952,117-120. 519 Tacitus, Annals 12.1.4; 2.1-3; Suetonius, Claudius 26, 28; Dio 60.33.3. Ginsburg, 2006, 17-19; 21-25; 109- 110. Scholars, such as Levick, 1990, 72, think that Pallas did not play such an important role in Claudius’ choice of marrying Agrippina, but consider that he cannot be excluded from the episode. Pallas as head of the imperial fiscus: Tacitus, Annals 13.14.1; Suetonius, Claudius 28; Pallas’ political influence: Tacitas, Annals 12.53.1-3; Suetonius, Claudius 28. Cf. Oost, 1952,117-120; Weaver, 1972, 259-260. 520 Cheung, 1998, 60. See Sutherland, 1987, 87-106 for an overview of new types after 55 AD. Cf. Sutherland, 1986, 87; 1987, 84 on the intimate contact between the a rationibus and the mint officials of Rome. 521 Also Claudius Felix, Pallas’ brother, who during Claudius’ reign was a secretary of the treasury and later became procurator of Judaea, was not a welcome guest at Nero’s court in Rome: Tacitus, Annals 12.54; Histories 5.9; Suetonius, Claudius 28. 522 Champlin, 2003, 85. 523 Statius, Forests 3.3. esp. lines 142-165; Voelkel, 1953, 243-247; Weaver, 1972, 285-288; Carradice, 1979, 101-103; 1983, 12-21; 79; 104-106; 118-123; 134-135; 142-143; Levick, 1982, 107; Sutherland, 1986, 87; Newlands, 2002, 220-222. More about this parallel between Pallas and Etruscus Pater and the allusion of their capacity to have selected imperial coin designs see Claes, farthcoming 2014. 99 The coin display of Agrippina Iunior, which is often exaggerated by modem scholars, was not entirely unique, as other Julio-Claudian mothers had appeared on coins types already, and indeed on a higher proportion of types than Agrippina. However, Agrippina’ s paired position with the emperor was unprecedented, and probably reflects the brief influential position she played in Nero’s court. After Nero’s earliest years, no imperial mothers were displayed on the coins for almost three decades. It was only when Titus ascended the throne that the imperial mother retumed to coins, when Titus’ mother Domitilla Maior, who died even before Vespasian became emperor, received two bronze types, representing 0.7% of Titus’ total types (Graph 5), displaying both an image of a carpentum drawn by two mules.524 The legends MEMORIAE DOMITTLLAE SPQR and MEMORIAE DOMITILLAE IMP CAES VESP AVG show that the Senate and the People of Rome struck these types in the memory of Domitilla; and furthermore, they inform us that this woman was Vespasian’s wife (IMAGE VII.4).525 As Wood argues, Domitilla’s carpentum probably featured the funeral games for Vespasian that were held after 29 May 80, which matches the issue date of the type: 29 May 80 - 12 September 81.526 The carpentum-iconography clearly aimed to elevate Domitilla to a status equal to the Julio-Claudian women, where both Livia, Agrippina Maior, and Agrippina Iunior received similar bronze carpentum-types with similar legends SPQR IVLIAE AVGVSTAE and SPQR MEMORIAE AGRIPPINAE (IMAGES VII.1-3).527 Like Vespasian, Titus was eager to link the Flavian house to the Julio-Claudian one and, as we saw above, the Flavian emperors’ imitation of Julio-Claudian coin types was a tooi for forging the link.528 As such, the carpentum types of Domitilla Maior unmistakably put Titus’ mother in the tradition of the Julio-Claudian women, which might have benefitted Titus’ legitimation.529 Domitilla Maior also seems to have been honoured on Domitian’s coins, as two types were struck with the portrait and legend of DIVA DOMITILLA AVGVSTA.530 Most likely, this deified woman is again Domitilla Maior, Vespasian’s wife, and thus Titus’ and Domitian’s mother, although for many years, numismatists and historians have debated the 524 N=2. RIC IF Titus 262-264. Suetonius, Vespasian 3. 525 Barrett, 2005, 387-388, remarks that the legend omits Vespasian’s divine status, leaving the impression that the couple was of equal standing, as Domitilla Maior would have been a freebom woman. For more about Domitilla Maior’s biological status and native descent, see Barrett, 2005, 385-394. 526 Wood, 2010,46-47. 527 RIC F Tiberius 50-51; Gaius 55; RIC I2 Claudius 103; RIC n 2, 188. For more on the carpentum-type for Agrippina Iunior, see infra chapter 4 (4.3.1). Perez, 2003, 112-166; 202-207; Cox, 2005, 259-262; Lyasse, 2008, 311-324. Cf. Norena, 2003, 28-29; 32-33; 2011, 96-97. See also Buttrey, 1972,98-108. 529 Barrett, 2005, 392-393; Wood, 2010, 47-48. 530 N=2. RIC IP Domitian 146; 157. 100 identity of this woman, some having identified her as Domitilla Iunior, Vespasian’s daughter.531 The latter’s Identification is based on an allusion in Statius’ Forests which states that “Domitian’s son, brother, father, and sister are assembled as stars around one (Domitian’s) neck”, an account that is severely criticised by Kienast, Hahn, and Wood, who suggest that Julia Flavia is the soror Statius meant.532 Moreover, in his Institutes o f Oratory, which was published after AD 95, Quintilian did not refer to Domitian’s sister as a diva, which is again an argument to exclude her as the woman on the coins.533 Domitilla Maior was probably deified around the time her diva-types appeared, somewhere between AD 82 and 84, although, as Wood remarks, Titus could have alxeady deified his mother before he died.534 In total, Domitilla’s types represent 0.4% of Domitian’s total types (Graph 5), a proportion consistent with Domitian’s marginally patemal and fratemal coin advertisement. Moreover, Carradice’s metrological silver study demonstrated that the diva Domitilla-types had to be issued between AD 82 and at the end of 84 or early 85, so we can conclude that these types might have appeared along with those that honoured divus Vespasianus and divus Titus.535 Domitian’s parental and fratemal advertisement was thus concentrated at the beginning of his reign, which suggests that Domitian mainly relied on his Flavian ancestry at the beginning of his Principate, legitimating himself as the new emperor and establishing himself as a performer of familial pietas to the public mind.536 We can conclude that, apart from Augustus and Vespasian, each Julio-Claudian and Flavian emperor honoured his mother on coins; however, each matemal advertisement differed in form, frequency, and images. The carpentum-types for Livia, Agrippina Maior, 531 Scholars pro Domitilla Maior: BMCRE n, lxxv; Kienast, 1989, 141-174; Hahn, 1994,228-230; Wood, 2010, 45-57; RIC IP, 188; Scholars pro Domitilla Iunior: Daltrop-Hausman-Weger, 1966, chap.2; Barrett, 2005, 393- 396. Pro both women: Carradice, 1983, 20; Alexandridis, 2004,15. 532 Statius, Forests 1.1.74; 97-98; “ibit in amplexus natus fraterque paterque et soror: una locum cervix dabit omnibus astris.” Contra Kienast, 1989, 146-147; Hahn, 1994, 229 and Wood, 2010, 49-51, who all suggest that Statius, publishing his first book on the Forests around AD 93, used soror to indicate Julia Flavia, who was Domitian’s niece who received a deification after her death in AD 91. In Latin, the kinship term soror could be used for a first cousin or even as a euphemism for a mistress (OLD s.v. soror). The latter reminds at the incestuous affair Julia Flavia and Domitian were accused of by the ancient writers: Dio 67.3 and Juvenal, Satires 2.32. 533 Quintilian, Institutes of Oratory, 4.2. However, there are some inscriptions for (diva) Domitilla which can be attributed to the mother as well as to the daughter, see CIL 6.31287 = 6.40452 with PIJP F 417 and Kienast, 1989,142; CIL 5.2829 = ILS 6692; ILS 257; IG 7.572 with Veyne, 1962,177-241. 534 Wood, 2010,48^9. 535 RIC II2 Domitian 126-127; 146. For the silver content fluctuations of Domitian’s, see Carradice 1983, 17-19 andfigs. 17-18; Wood, 2010, 48-49. 536 Cf. Wood, 2010, 56. Only between 14 September 81 to December 84, Domitian added the kinship phrase divi Vespasiani filius (9% of Domitian’s total types), and types for Vespasian (0.2% of Domitian’s total types) and Titus (1.1% of Domitian’s total types) were only issued between 14 September 81 and 83. See infra this chapter on the contrast between Domitian’s building program celebrating the Flavian house and his coin iconography (2.4.1.1.3). 101 and Agrippina Iunior, however, shaped a precedent for later imperial types. As such, Domitilla Maior received a carpentum type from her son Titus, but later also other imperial women, like Julia Flavia, Marciana, and Faustina Maior, were honoured with carpentum- types, placing these women in a Julio-Claudian iconographical tradition, which linked their house with the Julio-Claudians (IMAGES VU. 1-7). 4.2.2. Advertising your adoptive mother: the case of Plotina Of all Roman emperors, Hadrian alone honoured the widowed wife of his adoptive father on his coins.537 These displayed Plotina on gold and silver types during her lifetime as well as after her death; in total, they constitute 0.9% of Hadrian’s total types (Graph 5).538 Remarkably, some of Plotina’s types, displaying her draped portrait wearing a diadem, were linked to obverses displaying Trajan or Hadrian, which placed Plotina in a transitional place between these two men.539 Contemporaries rumored that Plotina helped Hadrian succeed to Trajan’s throne after his death by claiming he was Trajan’s offïcially adopted son.540 Some ancient writers, none of them reliable, even suggested that they were lovers, but that is probably too far-fetched.541 As noted above, Hadrian’s intense patemal advertisement of divus Traianus in his first two years of accession magnified his obscure adoption in order to strengthen his imperial succession. The representation of his adoptive mother Plotina, therefore, certainly reinforced this message too, and moreover it might even allude to the active part that Plotina probably played in Hadrian’s succession.542 Like Trajan’s types, Plotina’s types dissappear after AD 119, and Hadrian’s coins started to focus on other kind of messages. Strack suggested that after Hadrian was setüed as emperor, the prominent role of Plotina decreased.543 Instead, Matidia Maior, mother of Hadrian’s wife, Sabina, was held in high honour by Hadrian. After her death in AD 119, several posthumous types were issued in her name. One type paid piety to the deifïed Matidia, 537 In RIC III, a type of Antoninus Pius displayed his mother-in-law Sabina; however, only one type is known (RIC III Antoninus Pius 1073A; 0.1 %) and the coin legend of Sabina is erased. 538 N=8. RIC n Hadrian 29-32; 32A; 33-34; 232A; B. 539 Trajan: RIC II Hadrian 29-30; Hadrian: RIC n Hadrian 32; 32A; 33. Other types represented Plotina together with Sabina’s mother, Matidia Maior, and Plotina even received a type struck in her own name with Vesta on the reverse. RIC II Hadrian 31; 34. 540 HA Hadrian 5.9. 541 Juvenal, Satires 7.17; Dio 69.1.2; 10.3; HA Hadrian 4.1. 542 Dio 69.1.1-4; HA Hadrian 4.6; 10; Eutropius 8.6. Cf. Strack, 1933, 66-67; Boatwright, 1991, 530-532; Roman-Rémy-et al., 2009, 508-517. 543 Strack, 1933, 66-67. 102 while others promoted her divine status (IMAGES V.2-3).544 In these years, Matidia thus outshone Plotina, who received no posthumous types issued in her own name after her death.545 Only between AD 134 and 138, a novel type pairs Plotina’s portrait with that of Trajan, honouring them as Hadrian’s divine parents.546 As discussed before, the types was most likely connected with the adoption of Lucius Aelius Caesar in AD 136, glorifing the 547 imperial and divine descent of Hadrian s house. Remarkably, none of Plotina’s nor Matidia’s coin types reproduced the iconography of the coins of the Julio-Claudian or Flavian mothers. Instead, as noted above, new types were created, which later Antonine rulers - or emperors claiming Antonine ancestry - would imitate for the coins of their imperial mothers and other deceased family members.548 4.2.3. Severan mothers and grandmothers No imperial mother was displayed on coins for almost hundred years after Plotina. Then, under the Severans, mothers as well as grandmothers again graced the coins of Caracalla, Elagabalus, and Alexander Severus in unprecedented high percentages (Graph 5). Julia Domna is displayed on 17.6% of Caracalla’s total coin types549, Julia Soaemias and Julia Maesa on 4.9% and 10.6% of Elagabalus’ total coin types, and 13.4 % of Alexander Severus’ total coins mention Julia Mamaea.550 Julia Domna’s and Julia Mamaea’s types even propagated their Augustan motherhood with the kinship term mater.551 The frequent coin presence of the Severan mothers and grandmothers on coins could suggest that these females 544 N-7 RIC n Hadrian 423-427 (=RIC II Trajan 751-757). Strack, 1933, 67 attributes the types struck in name of M ^A ^aZ^M arcianae filiae also to the reign of Hadrian (AD 118-119), but K/C ü TrajanIX - 760 and BMCRE IE, lxxxiïi redate these to the reign of Trajan (AD 115-117). See also infra this chapter ( . . ). 545 BMCRE III, cxxviii; Boatwright, 1991, 533. Strack postulates thattheexceptional honour forM aüdiaM a^ ïmplipH honour for Sabina as well. However, this seems unlikely as Sabina herself only received coins around AD 128. For more about Matidia’s deification, see Bickerman, 1974, 362-376. 546 RIC UI Hadrian 232A; B. 547 See supra this chapter (2.4.1.2.2). Dio 69.17.1; 20.2; HA Hadrian 23.10-11; Aelius 2-3.1. 548 See supra this chapter (2.4.1.2.2) and chapter 4 (4.3.2 and 4.4.5) for Ihe analysis of these^caio^aphies. 549 N Julia Domna=71; N Total Caracalla=404; N Julia Soaemias=18; N Julia Maesa-39, N Total M ia Domna were also commemorated sS-SSSSSS a w Johnso^2005. Julia Mamaea: MAT(ER) AVG(VSTI): RIC IV.B. Alexander Severus 689-691. Ju lia Soaemias may have officially received the title Mater Augusti and Julia Maesa that of Avia Augusti; however, these titles were not added to their coin legends. 103 played prominent roles in the lifes of their (grand)sons, which ancient writers insinuated as well.552 Of course, this suggestion remains tentative as coin messages do not automatically reflect real politics, though the Severan succesion happened through the female bloodline, which could explain the regular coin propagation of these (grand)mother(s). In contrast, the propagation of the male members of the Severan house, Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Elagabalus, was margmal or even absent. This feature is particularly noticeable as both Elagabalus and Alexander Severus were claimed to be bastard sons of Caracalla, and Alexander Severus was the legitimate adopted son of Elagabalus.553 Only some posthumous types from the begmmng of Caracalla’s reign were struck for Septimius Severus (2.2% of total coin types), and likewise, Caracalla appears as Alexander’s alleged father on a small number of Alexander’s coins (0.6% of total coin types).554 Unlike most of the former advertised mothers, the Severan mothers were alive during the reigns of their (grand)sons; therefore, their coins could bear no commemorative designs. Instead, their designs seems to be imitations of the Standard legends and designs of the former Antonine empresses, especially of Faustina Iunior.555 Thereby, the coins of the Severan mothers, apart from Julia Soaemias, displayed different designs with traditional Roman matemal deities, like Iuno (Conservatrix, Lucina and Regina), Venus (Felix and Genetrix), and Vesta. Furthermore, these designs could represent virtues of female chastity, fertility, and Pidy, md exPress prosperous wishes, like saeculifelicitas and tempora felicia, all in a sim ilar style as the Antonine women.556 Indeed, the Severans tried to portray themselves fictitiously as the legal successors of the Antonine family to strengthen the legitimacy of their house. The fact that the Severan mothers are styled like Antonine empresses might have been one tactic f J“'ia ° omna * ““ 8 Caracalla’s reign: Dio 78.10.4; 18.2; 79.4; HA Caracalla 8.2; 10 1-4- Herodian 4 3- durrag Elagabalus and AlexanderAl Ï T Severus’ ” ^ reign: Dio 79.17.2;&19'’ * 80.2.2; * * 5; HA ^ Elagabalus S°aemiaS’ 2.1; 4 1-4- Julia 12 Mamaea 3- 15 6- Alexander Severus 3.1; 14.6; 26.9; Herodian 5.3.10-11; 5.1; 7.1- 8.2-3- 9 4-5- 9-10- fi 8 3- oa.<. o’o. a ’ r ’ lo c K °f,he Caei T ^ ' 4; Eutr°Pius 823- Note 3180 that Alexander Severus was ónly 14 whèn hT w ^ jwoclaimed emperor, makmg the substantial influence of Julia Mamaea likely Dio 79 19.4; 80.17.2-3; Herodian 5.7.1-4; HA Elagabalus 5.1; 10.1; 13.1-2; Alexander Severus 12 8 1- d’Sx X T V - D 8'23; ILS 479; 480; 483; 2009; 5854: C1L 3- D-LXXXVH;’ J ’ 06‘ Baharal’ 1996’ 54"55; 64~65’ Duncan-Jones, 2006, 224. chapter £ £ 2 ™ S 2 Their **“ ™ discussed “ * Benario, 1958, 67-70; Ghedini, 1984; Baharal, 1992, 110-118; 1996, 21-23; 28-33- Lusnia 1995 119- m i00; Ko^ “’ 398-414; Gorrie’ 2004’ 556IT \^ \2T Lichtenberger, 2011, 297-350; Rowan, 201 lb, 242- 253-256 1 9 9 r ^ 3 ^ 7 r ^ V CCnXXiii' C.CXXXiV; VI’ 46‘47: Lusnia’ 1995’ U9; l37-138- Baharal, 1992, 110-118; T W , h ? Domna s ImaSe resembles Faustina Iunior’s. However, Baharal’s arguments on 201T i S - S e ” ^ SOlnetimeS 100 eXCeS8ive- See dso Kosmetatou, 2002, 398-414 and Rowan, 104 in this strategy.557 These visual messages indicate that propagating a message of dynastie succession might been more important than the founding of a new imperial house. Furthermore, the coin designs of the Severan mothers and grandmothers depicted them as the ideal matrona, who bestowed etemal fertüity, health, and peace upon the state, a public role narmally reserved for young empresses.558 Coins’ advertisement for Severan empresses, however, was marginal, as we will show later, which might imply that the empress’ role within the Severan house was taken over by the Severan mothers.559 Often the elevation of the Severan mothers is ascribed to so-called Oriental influences, in contrast to the supposedly more manly Roman system.560 However, as we have seen, most coin designs of these Severan women referred to Roman virtues and institutions and were embedded in an Roman iconography, mostly that of the Antonine empresses.561 Only Julia Domna seems to have transgressed her matemal status as she received some designs and titles that previously were only reserved for the emperor.562 One type, for example, connected Domna with the imperial monetary system displaying Moneta holding a comucopia and scales.563 A second unprecedented type displayed Domna attending a sacrifice by the emperor in front of the temple of Vesta.564 On a last type, it is even believed that Julia Domna, 557 Dio 76.7.4; HA Septimius Severus 10.6; 11.4; Aurelius Victor, Book o f the Caesars 20.30; Baharal, 1996, 21; Legutko, 2000,100; 102-103; Hekster, 2002, 189-191 and references; Kampen, 2009, 92-98, esp. 97-98. 558 On the relatian of the empress as Roman matrona and the state, see Dixon, 1988, 107; 1991, 107; 113; 1997, 151; 165-167; Flower, 2002, 160-162; 169; Severy, 2003, 31; 39; 104-112; 131-138; 188-189; Legutko, 2000, 108-109. See also chapter 4 on the empresses. 539 Caracalla’ s wife, Plautilla, was already banished before he became sole emperor. Consequently, Plautilla had no coin types during Caracalla’s reign. Elagabalus’ three wives shared together 10.9% of Elagabalus’ total types; Alexander Severus’ wife Orbiana received 2.3% of Alexander’ s total types. See infra chapter 4 (4.3.3). 360 Von Domaszewski, 1895, 72; 1908, 223-228; 1909,148; Kettenhofen, 1979, 173. For refutations of the once widespread thesis that Domna played a major role in orientalizing the Roman state religion, see Mundle, 1961, 228-237; Kettenhofen, 1979, 143; Ghedini, 1984,136-140. For more on the Syrian descent of the Severans, see Lichtenberg, 2011,368-369. 561 Benario, 1958, 67-70; Ghedini, 1984; Baharal, 1992, 110-118; 1996, 21-23; 28-33; Lusnia, 1995, 119; 123- 126; 137; 139; Legutko, 2000, 100; Kosmetatou, 2002, 398-414; Goirie, 2004, 66; Langford-Johnson, 2005; Levick, 2007, 82,162-163; Lichtenberger, 2011,297-350; Rowan, 2011b, 242; 253-256; 265-270. Noticeably, some types of Julia Domna depicting a female figure holding a child are identified as Isis with Horus, see RIC IV Septimius Severus 577; 645; 858. This eastem deity, however, was venerated over the whole Empire. Her cult, for instance, is well attested in Ostia and Rome. Furthermore, Rowan, 2011b, 252-253 convincingly argued that this female figure is likely to be identified as Fortuna or Isis-Fortuna (UMC V.l, 794- 795), because of the prow and the radder she holds. 362 In other fields, Domna also trangressed borders. As such, Domna’ s name appears on milestones, an honour never before given to an imperial woman. See for example in Lagjna (Asia Minor): CIL 3.482. Domna also had a role in the celebration of the Saecular Games in 204 AD, see Ghedini, 1984, 25-110; Levick, 2007, 53-54. For mare, see Kampen, 2009,92-103. 363 Moneta Aug: RIC IV. A. Caracalla 383B. In addition, a medallion type of AEQVrTAS PVBLICA with the three Monetae was also struck for Julia Domna. For Mattingly, both types marked the establishment of Domna’ s authority in the mint, and thus, as Caracalla’s co-regent BMCRE V, cxcviii-cxcvix; cf. Lusnia, 1995, 133. Although, the mint arganisatian of Caracalla remains undetermined, it is obvious that Julia Domna had her own officina, and maybe even two. 564 RIC IV.A. Caracalla 250. 105 sacrifïcing above an altar, is depicted as one of her sons, thus, as an emperor.565 Additionally, all legends of Domna bore her honorary titles PIA and FELIX, titles normally only reserved for the emperor, but which she received under Septimius.566 During her son’s reign too, her unprecedented title MAT(er) AVGG(ustorum) MAT(er) SEN(atus) M(ater) PATR(iae) celebrated Domna as mother of the emperors, the Senate, and even the fatherland on several types.567 Domna’s types thus make her look like more than an ordinary queen-mother, which corresponds to the reports of Dio, who stated that Julia Domna devoted herself to state affairs, acted as Caracalla’s adviser, and was responsible for the imperial correspondence when the emperor was away.568 Other ancient writers even report that Domna manied her (step)son, but that story may safely be rejected as a malicious invention.569 At any rate, Domna’s types seem sometimes to transgress the traditional status of the Roman imperial woman, both in design as well as in frequency, because, previously, no imperial mother received more than 17.6% of her son’s types.570 While some scholars attributed Domna’s extraordinary status to the supposed orientalisation of the Roman imperial court, no particular Syrian iconographical elements are to be found on the coins.571 More likely, Julia Domna’s prominent coin representation could be liuked to precedents set by former “exemplary” imperial women, such as Livia, Agrippina Iunior, and the Antonine women, and to the more prominent position of the domus Augusta in the second century in which women became more and more visible 572 Within the individual reigns of the Severan emperors Elagabalus and Alexander Severus three other unusual numismatic phenomena require explanation: the Venus Caelestis-types of Julia 565 Vota Publica: RIC IV.A. Caracalla 595; 608. Legutko, 2000, 105-106 quoting Lusnia, 1995, 137-138. The identification, however, is very hypothetical, and generally, the figure is assumed to be Pietas. 566 Cf. Callu, 2000, 194-196; Commodus was the first emperor who used both titles see HA Commodus 8.1; Van’tDack, 1991, 311-335; Kienast, 20043, 149. Cf. Levick, 2007,94-95. 567 RIC IV.A Caracalla 380-381; 585; 601. While it is most likely that Julia Domna already received this title under the reign of her husband, no coin types with this title seem to have been struck under Septimius Severus. For more: Instrinsky, 1942, 200-219; Benario, 1958, 67-70; Kuhoff, 1993a, 259-271; Lusnia, 1995, 134-135; Langford-Johnson, 2005; Levick, 2007, 94-95. 568 Dio 78.10.4; 18.2-3; 79.4.2-3. A response to a petition signed by Domna is found in Ephesus: AE 1966.430 = I Ephesus 2.212 (1.11); see also Levick, 2007, 95-99. The reason Domna did not interfere in her husbands’ reign would have because of the praetorian perfect Plautianus, who hated her and who was afraid that she would set Septimius against him (Dio 76.15.1-7). Cf. Hemelrijk, 1999,124-125; Levick, 2007, 76-80. 569 HA Caracalla 10.1; Eutropius 21. Penella, 1980,382-384; Saavedra-Guerreo, 2007,120-131. 570 Lusnia, 1995, 121; 136-139; Baharal, 1996, 45; Legutko, 2000, 103-106; Levick, 2007, 91-104; Kampen, 2009, 92-98; Rowan, 2011b, 253-256. Lusnia finds the output of Domna’s types under Caracalla’s reign rather small, however, before Caracalla, only Gaius issued a similar amount of types for his mother (14%). 571 Cf. Legutko, 2000, 106-107 (about the Roman types); Rowan, 2011b, 241-242. Contra Von Domaszewski, 1895; 1908; 1909 and Kettenhofen, 1979. 572 For more see Temporini, 1978; Flory, 1996, 287-306; Bartman, 1999; Hemelrijk, 1999; 2005; Severy, 2003; Foubert, 2010a. 106 Soaemias, the paired portrayal of Alexander and his mother, and finally, the commemorative types for Julia Maesa and Julia Domna under Alexander. First, Elagabalus’ advertisement for his mother Julia Soaemias differed both in ftequency and in coin message from the other Severan mothers. Only a mere 5% of Elagabalus’ types was reserved for Soaemias, whereas the other Severan (grand)mothers received more than double as many types from their (grand)sons.573 Furthermore, Venus Caelestis was depicted on almost all types of Soaemias, whereas the goddess did not appear on the types of the other Severan (grand)mothers.574 The appearance of this goddess was also completely unprecedented on coins showing either emperors, empresses, or other imperial members.575 However, Venus’ position, gestures, and attributes were pattemed after the display of Venus (Genetrix) on the coins of the Antonine empresses Faustina Iunior and Lucilla.576 Accordingly, the goddess was displayed either sitting on a throne or standing upright, wearing a chiton and a mantle. She wears a diadem and holds an apple in her hand and a long sceptre in the other, whereas a child, who might be Cupid, could sometimes be displayed in front of her.577 From AD 220 on, a star was added in the field.578 Who is this Venus of the Sky? Scholars identify the goddess as Atargatis, whom Herodian calls Astarte, a female celestial deity venerated in El-Gabal’s temple in Emesa together with the goddess Astroarche, who for her part was identified with Minerva by the Romans.579 As Elagabalus wanted to recreate the triad in El-Gabal’s temple, the Eliogabalium, in Rome, he took the Palladium from Vesta’s temple in Rome, and he ordered to bring Urania’s statue from her Carthaginian temple.580 In Roman Carthage, Urania had become a sky goddess, with the Romans nalling her Dea Caelestis, but originally the Phoenicians venerated her as the moon goddess Astarte, as Herodian remarks.581 On her turn, Phoenician colonists from Cyprus 573 RIC IV.B. Elagabalus 207; 234-248; 400-408. N Julia Soaemias=18. Cf. Benario, 1959, 10 who noticed a discrepancy between Soaemias and Maesa, but he did not give any actual numbers. Cf. Wegner, 1971, 152-155; 161-163; 200-205 who distinguish eight different hair styles for Maesa and four for Mamaea, whereas Soaemias has only three. 574 RIC IV.B. Elagabalus 240-245; 402-408. Cf. Rowan, 201 lb, 261-262. 575 The Venus CaclesLis-type of Julia Aquilia Severa listed in the RIC and the BMCRE is probably a hybnd or an ancient forgery from an obverse of Julia Aquilia Severa and a reverse of Julia Soaemias: RIC IV.B. Elagabalus 230; BMCRE V, 559; cf. Rowan, 201 lb, 264 n. 68. 576 RIC ITT Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus 724-727; 783-785; 1683-1684; 1763-1770; 1778. Cf. Rowan, 2011b, 263. 577 Wegner, 1971,162; UMC VKI.1, 215, no. 241; Rowan, 2011b, 261. 578 BMCRE V, ccxxxiii. 579 The identification is based on a Greek inscription from Cordoba dedicated by Syrian-Roman soldiers to El- Gabal and his two female deities: SEG 4.164. Herzog, 1919, 950; Benario, 1959, 11-13; BMCRE V, cxlix; ccxxxiii; leks, 2011, 32-34; 52-54. Drijvers, 1981, 248 calls Astarte virgo caelestis. On the identification of Astroarche as Minerva, see Drijvers, 1981,248-249 andlcks, 2011, 52-53 with references and Herodian 5.6.3-5. 580 Dio 79.2.1; HA Elagabalus 3.4; 28.2; Herodian 5.6.3-4. 581 Halsberghe, 1984, 2203-2233; Herodian 5.6.4. 107 brought the Phoenician Urania to Carthage, where the goddess was honoured as the love goddess Aphrodite Urania or Kypris.582 Being both a love and sky goddess, the Carthaginian Urania could easily be associated with El-Gabal’s celestial deity Astroarche and be interpreted as Venus Caelestis.583 Other evidence suggests Soaemias’ devotion to Caelestis. Her other coin types included portrayals of Cybele, Iuno, and Iuno Regina, typical female imperial deities who could again refer to Urania.584 A damnatio memoriae erased an inscription on which a Severan emperor and his mother dedicate a new temple to Venus Caelestis, an artifact suggesting again that Soaemias venerated Venus Caelestis.585 To conclude, the contrast between Soaemias and the other Severan women is significant. Soaemias’ types, which only represented 5% of Elagabalus’ total types but focused intensively on Venus Caelestis, suggest that Elagabalus’ mother, described by the ancient authors as an immoral, wanton woman, might have influenced her son’s religious excesses.586 Rowan also remarks that the smaller output of Soaemias’ coins might suggest that they were struck on a particular occasion, perhaps after the wedding of El-Gabal with Urania.587 Additionally, although the absence of a detailed study of Elagabalus’ monetary orgamsation prohibits firm conclusions, the types of Soaemias might give clues about separate officinae devoted to the Severan mothers, and about the officina’s responsibility in the type 582 leks, 2011, 32-34; 52-54 with references. 583 Other scholars identify Urania as Iuno, see the Pyrgi Tablets 1.1 (translated by Smith, 1995, 559-575) and leks, 2011, 34 with references, which do not have to exclude the identification of Venus Caelestis. Both assimilations could have existed next to each other, as Elagabalus’ religious policy was a compilation of assimilation and syncretism, favouring one god above the other with El-Gabal as a totalitarian god. See Turcan, 1985, 150-157; 162-166; Halsberghe, 1972, 80; Pietrzykowsky, 1986, 806-1825; leks, 2011, 25-37; 48-52. See also HA Elagabalus 3.4-5; 6.7 who describes the cult of El-Gabal as “intolerant monotheism.” 584 RIC IV.B. Elagabalus 235-237; 400-401; Pyrgi Tablets 1.1. Some hybrids are also known, displaying Vesta, annona, pietas, pudicitia and the prosperous wish saeculi felicitas, see RIC IV.B. Elagabalus 234; 237A-239; 246-248; BMCRE V, ccxxxiii, 538-539. 585 The emperor is either Caracalla or Elagabalus, whereas the mother could be identifïed by Julia Domna or Julia Soaemias: AE 1959.144; Benario, 1959, 11-13. Contra Gilliam, 1963, 26-29. In addition, Visconti and Brising have even argued that Soaemias’ admiratian for Venus Caelestis went further, representing herself as the goddess, although these Venus-Soaemias statues are highly debatable. The representation discussed by Visconti is a head of a Venus-Anadyomene statue of the Vatican Museum, Museum Chiaramonti 639; the one discussed by Brising is a head of a Venus statue, originally from Hadrian’s Villa in Tripoli, which is now preserved at the Stockholm Nationalsmuseum Antik 16. For more on both see Wegner, 1971,162-163; 165-166. 586 Cf. Rowan, 2011b, 264-265 makes a similar conclusion. Dio 79.6.2; 17.2; Herodian 5.8.8; HA Elagabalus 2.1; 4.4; 18.2. Yet, we may not forget that the negative image of Soaemias created by the ancient writers fitted in their story where Elagabalus’ reign was undermined through women. Rowan, 201 lb, 263. Rowan’s study, however, is based on coins from coin hoards, but her quantitative results are quite similar to my study based on the output of types. 108 selection with or without instructions from the central authorities or even the ladies themselves.588 Second, the position of Alexander Severus and his mother Julia Mamaea on some of Alexander’s obverses requires more explanation, because no other Severan mother was portrayed with her son in that position. On these types Alexander’s and Mamaea’s portraits face each other; the legend IMP SEV ALEXAND AVG IVLIA MAMAEA AVG MAT AVG refers to Julia Mamaea’s matemal status, a title she offïcially received after Alexander’s accession on March 13, 222.589 The reverses hailed Alexander as a victorious general, a priest, and a benefactor, displayed his termae, and personified Mamaea as felicitas (IMAGE VI.2).590 All types, struck on hronze flans, appear in 227, just after Sallustius, Alexander’s father-in- law and praetorian perfect, was executed on charge of planning a coup d ’etat, and afterwards Alexander’ s wife Orbiana was exiled to Libya.591 While both image and legend of these obverses seem to imitate Nero’s coins on which he is paired with his mother Agrippina, it is unlikely that the paired position of Mamaea and her son wanted to link them to Nero’s reign (IMAGE VI. I).592 In the Severan period, others employed the paired position too. Under Septimius, many types appeared representing the emperor facing his wife or one of his sons, or displayed both of Septimius’ sons facing each other.593 Earlier too, the emperors Vitellius and Vespasian positioned their children face-to-face (IMAGES X. 2; 5), and Trajan and Hadrian portrayed their divine parents in the same pose (IMAGES n.1-2).594 However, after Agrippina Iunior, only Julia Mamaea received the honour of being displayed face-to-face with her emperor-son, and therefore, she also shared the political, social, and religious messages that these types broadcast, which hints that the types celebrated Mamaea’s regained position next to her son after Orbiana was expelled from the imperial court.595 588 Cf. BMCRE V, ccxxxii-ccxxxiii: Mattingly argued that initially there were at least six afficinae, five for Elagabalus and one for all his imperial women. However, he suggested that during Elagabalus’ reign the number of officinae probably increased. Also Rowan, 2011b, 243-244; 246; 267 states that the types for the Severan mothers, especially during Elagabalus’ reign, suggest individuality due to female influences. Moreover, her quantitative research hints that a separate workshop or officina would have produced the types of these Severan mothers. Similar notions were made by HUI, 1964b, 169-172; Lusnia, 1995,121; Levick, 2007,139-140. 589 P.Dura 54, Kol.2, Z.23-26. 590 RIC IV.B. Alexander Severus 659-667. 591 Older studies assign these types as medallions, see Dressel-Reglmg, 1973; Toynbee, 19862. 592 RIC P Nero 1-2. 593 RIC IV.A. Septimius Severus 5; 7a; b; 25A; 32; 98; 122; 155a; b; c; 174; 178A; 312; 452; 453a; b; 513; 539- 541. 394 RIC P Vitellius 8; 57; 78-79; 100-103; RIC II2 Vespasian 15-16; 37; 1301-1302; 1321; 1362; 1401-1403; 1410; 1417; 1418; 1429; 1548; RIC n Trajan 726-727; RIC H Hadrian 232A; B. See supra this chapter (2.4.1.2.2) and infra chapter 3 (3.4.2). 595 Cf. Kosmetatou, 2002,411. 109 Third, Alexander’s coins did not only represent his mother, but to a lesser extent they posthumously commemorated his deceased ancestresses as well. Seven consecratio-types, in total 1.1% of Alexander’s total types, were issued for his matemal grandmother Julia Maesa.596 Most likely, the types were issued at the time of her deification around AD 223.597 Likewise, two consecratio-types, totalling 0.3% of Alexander’s total types, depicted Alexander’s matemal great-aunt, Julia Domna.598 Both consecratio-series reproduced the Standard consecratio iconography of the Antonine imperial members, displaying a peacock, or an eagle carrying the diva skywards, or a lavish decorated funeral pyre, or a single peacock with his tail spread. Although Julia Domna was deified some years before Alexander’s reign, her presence on his coins is not very surprising. After the death and damnatio memoriae of Elagabalus, Alexander’s representation distanced the emperor from his adoptive father and alleged that Caracalla was his biological father.599 This reflected Julia Domna’s position as not only his great aunt, but also his patemal grandmother. As we have seen before, and will discuss later, Caracalla also received consecratio-types, which represented 0.6% of Alexander’s total coin types.600 Altogether the coins of Alexander Severus constitute a nice overview of his kinship, displaying his alleged father Caracalla, his mother Julia Mamaea, and his patemal and matemal grandmothers, Julia Domna and Julia Maesa; on the other hand, in frequency, his ancestral messages were not abundant. 4.2.4. Maternal absence in the third century After the Severan emperors, no coins honoured any emperor’s mother throughout the third century. The Faleri-types of Gallienus, on which he showed his pietas towards the Falerian gens and celebrated Falerian virtus, were the only even vaguely matemal refeiences made in 596 RIC IV.B. Alexander Severus 377-380; 712-714. Only type RIC IV.B. Alexander Severus 380 showed Fecunditas seated with two children. The RIC attributed the type to the mint of Antioch, but with that message, I would judge it as probably a hybrid. 597 P.Dura 54. Col. 2.7; RIC IV.B. Alexander Severus 377-380; 712-714. The date is debated, but probably Maesa died in 223 AD, followed almost immediately by her deification. Cf. RIC IV.B, 66; Kosmentatou, 2002, 408-409, and n. 33. Contra the earlier published BMCRE VI, 58-59; 135 who dated Maesa’s consecratio-coins to AD 225. 598 Herodian, 4.13.8; CIL 13.12042 = ILS 9083a; RIC IV.B Alexander Severus 715-716. 599 On Elagabalus’ death and damnatio memoriae: Dio 80.20.3; 21.3; HA Elagabalus 17.4; 18.1; Alexander Severus 1, Baharal, 1996, 64; leks, 2011, 42-43, esp. n. 91 with references to examples of that damnatio memoriae; Alexander as Caracalla’s bastard son: Dio 80.19.4; Herodian 5.7.3; Zosimus 1.10.2; AE 1979.645; CIL 3. D.LXXXVÜ; D.LXXXIV; D.LXXXVI; 166; 226; 3121; 8.1406; ILS 479; 480; 483; 2009; 4340; 5854; 9058. See also Baharal, 1996, 64-65 and leks, 2011,37-38 for Alexander’s ancestral advertisement. 600 RIC IV.B. Alexander Severus 717-720. See also supra (2.4.1.2.3) and infra this chapter (2.4.3.3). 110 the third century.601 The absence of ancestress’ advertisement is remarkable as many imperial candidates sought means to legitimate themselves in the tumultuous third century.602 Maybe the absence of the third-century ancestresses was a reaction to the once prominent representation of the Severan mothers and grandmothers on coins. Many third-century emperors were instead of humble birth, and the lack of noble descent made their ancestries unattractive to propagate. Nevertheless, there seem to have been no limitations to invent a noble ancestry. The third-century emperors Quintillus and Aurelian, for instance, styled themselves as Claudius II Gothicus’ legitimate successors without being related to him.603 Yet, the coins of the third-century emperors do not display any invented female connection. Maybe, here again, the third-century emperors, especially the ones reigning in the first half of the third century, were cautious to connect themselves with the Severan women, whose posthumous reputation was quite malicious.604 After a long matemal absence, Constantine is the first emperor to honour his mother Helena on his coins. Because Helena’s appearance is so remarkable, we will elaborate further upon her types hereunder. After a small series in 324 AD issued by the mint of Thessalonica605, several series for Helena were struck on a regular basis by all Constantine’s mints from Constantine’s victory over Licinius in the autumn of AD 324 until Helena’s death in 329.606 The presence of Helena in the Roman coin corpus seems to have been significant, since the ancient writer Eusebius of Caesarea mentions her gold types explicitly.607 In total, 11.8% of Constantine’s coins issued between AD 324 and 329, whereof some were also 601 See supra this chapter for the detailed discussion on these coins (2.3.2). 602 Cf. Timpe, 1962, 88; Baharal, 1996, 12; 21; Lendon, 1997, 254; Hekster, 2001, 39-41. See also the section on invented ancestries (2.4.3). 603 HA deified Claudius, 12.5-6; deified Aurelian 37.5; Eutropius 9.12; Zonaras 12.26; Jerome, Chronicle s.a. 271; John af Antioch, fr. 154 FHGIV, p. 599; Watson, 1999, 47-48. Qmtillian mints: Rome (Giard, 1995, 128- 129; Estiot, 1995, 23); Sisica (Göbl, 1993, 42; Giard, 1995, 14; 129-130; Estiot, 1995, 57); Milan (Giard, 1995, 14; 129; Estiot, 1995, 43); Aurelian mints: Rome (Estiot, 1995, 23); Milan (Giard, 1995, 14; 129); Cyzicus (Estiot, 1995, 85). See also Kos, 1991, 52-53. For more about the consecratio-types for divus Claudius II Gothicus, see infra this chapter (2.4.3.4). 604 About Julia Domna: Dio 76.15.1-7; 78.10.4; 18.2-3; 79.4.2-3; 23.3; HA Caracalla 10.1. Cf. Levick, 2007,76- 80; Kampen, 2009, 92-98; Julia Soaemias: Dio 79.6.2; 17.2: 80.5.2; Herodian 5.8.8; HA Elagabalus 2.1; 4.4; 18.2; Julia Mamaea: Dio 80. fragment; Herodian 6.1.5; 1.8; 5.8; HA Alexander Severus 26.9; 59.8; 60.1. 605 RIC VU Thessalonica 50; 58; RIC W dates the types between AD 318 en 319, which is followed by Conrad, 1978, 191, but opposed by Maurice, 1908, 91, who suggested AD 313-324. Initially, Alfoldi argued that the type honoured the marriage of Constantine’ s eldest son Crispus with a Helena in January of AD 322, because the hairstyle of this Helena differs from the latter coins of Constantine’s mother: Theodosian Code 9.38.1; Alfoldi, 1959-1960, 82-83. Cf. Barnes, 1980, 72-73. In her later work, however, Alfoldi attributed the type to Constantine’s mother, an opinian that is followed by most scholars: Alfoldi, 1963, 144; RIC VU, 45. Cf. Drijvers, 1992,39-41 and Chausson, 2007, 110, n. 29. 606 The starting date of the issues is discussed. RIC VII gives September 224 as the earliest starting date. Alfoldi, 1963,144 argues that the types were issued after the Constantine’s vicennalia in Nicomedia on July 25, 326. Cf. Hieronymus’ Chronicle, Olympiad 376 XX. e and Paschal Chronicle, Olympiad 376. 607 Eusebius, Constantine 3.47.2. Later, the mid-fourth-century historian Sozomen, Church History 2.2, also mentioned Helena’s coins. 111 bronzes, were dedicated to Helena, called FL(AVIA) HELENA AVGVSTA on the obverses.608 The majority of her reverses bore the legend SECVRITAS REIPVBLIC(A)E, displaying an elderly Helena, holding a branch pointing down and raising her robe (pallium).609 Clearly, Helena’s intensive presence on coins aimed to hail Constantine’s mother as bringing security to the state. In contrast to Constantine’s patemal ancestral advertisement, which clearly served to strengthen the dynastie claim of the tetrarchic prince to Augustan rank, as we discuss later610, Helena’s coins seem to have functioned to formalise Constantine’s imperial house, and subsequently to propagate the security it bestowed on the state after a period of bloody succession wars. Additionally, Helena’s types might reflect the prominent position she held at Constantine’s court.611 Ancient writers, such as Eusebius stated that Helena had the imperial treasury at her disposal, whereas others even reported that she shared in her son’s powers.612 Most likely, these reports are posthumous exaggerations, but their presence hint that Helena was closely involved in the imperial affairs. After her death, Constantine’s mints issued no commemorative types for his mother. Nevertheless, Helena’s memory started to play an important role for the Constantinian dynasty after Constantine’s death. During the interregnum from 22 May until 9 September 339, she appeared in a bullon series commemorating divus Constantine, Helena, and Theodora.613 The coins were struck in Constantinople, Rome, and Treveri by Constantine’s sons, who claimed to be the rightful successors of the Constantinian dynasty instead of their cousins Dalmatius and Hannibalianus.614 Amid this war of imperial succession, her grandsons’ ancestral appeal to Helena demonstrates that in the fourth century, ancestry still proved a useful tooi for dynastie claims.615 608 RIC VII Constantine Alexandria 38; 44; 48; 53, 57; Antioch 61; 67; 75; 80; 82; Arles 278; 299; 307; 317; 324; 340; Constantinople 11; Cyzicus 28; 39; 49; 54; Heraclea 79; 85; 89; 95; 109; 210; Londinium 299; Lugdunum 234; Nicomedia 79-80; 95; 129; 148; 159; 291; Rome 270; 291; Sirmium 54; 60; Siscia 187; 196; 204; 218; Thessalonica 134; 149; 159; Ticinum 183; 190; 202; 209; Treveri 458; 465; 481; 508; 515. N of Constantine’s types between AD 324 and 329=422. During Constantiiie’s whole reign, Helena’s types only represented 2.5%. Only at Aquileia were no types issued for Helena; however, the mint seems to have virtually closed after the civil war between Licinius and Constantine or been merged with the mint of Ticinum. The mint only reopened after Helena’ s death, see RIC VII, 389-390. 609 Cf. RIC VII, 53: “it is typical of the time that ... the figures on the reverses ... should ... be identified with the imperial personages on the obverses.” See also Wallace-Hadrill, 1986, 68-73, who states that that obverse and reverse function like “head and tail.” 610 On the patemal advertisement of Constantine, see infra this chapter (2.4.3.4). 611 Drijvers, 1992, 41-43. 612 Eusebius, Constantine 3.47; Paulinus of Nola, Letters 31.4; Sulpicius Severus, Chronicle 2.33. 613 RIC v m Constantine Constantinople 33; 38; 48; Rome 27; 53; Trier 42; 47; 55; 63; 78; 99. 614 Aurelius Victor, Book o f the Caesars, 41.20; Eutropius 10.9; Gregory Nazianen, Against Julian 1.21; Barnes, 1982, 105; 108. Callu, 1974, 149 suggested that the types were issued in AD 335 in order to reconcile the two branches of Constantinian dynasty. 615 Drijvers, 1992, 44. 112 4.3. Invented ancestries Some Roman emperors, mostiy those without a noble imperial lineage, invented links for themselves to a previous imperial house. In this way, Galba, Septimius Severus, Alexander Severus, Quintülus, Aurelian and Constantine616 connected themselves to a previous emperor or to another member of the former imperial house, and they propagated that invented ancestry by using coin images.617 The advertisement of an invented imperial ancestor suggests that even a completely fictional imperial lineage could strengthen an emperor’ s claim to the throne. As noted before, a dynastie house was almost always preferred over usurpers set in power by either the Senate, military, and the People of Rome, since such house, more than anything, safeguarded peace in Rome.618 The percentages of each emperor’s types featuring invented ancestors, however, are veiy small, varying from 0.5% to 5%, suggesting that the advertisement of invented ancestors was not overwhelmingly important. On the other hand, emperors concentrated types for their invented ancestors in specific periods during their reigns, and moreover, in these periods, the percentages of the invented ancestral types were considerably higher, which may indicate that the alleged ancestral message was a highly topical message designed to strengthen the emperor’s position. In order to analyse the importance of these messages for the imperial legitimation, the coined advertisement of the following invented ancestors will be discussed separately in this secüon: Livia, Pertinax, Commodus, Caracalla, and Claudius II Gothicus.619 4.3.1. Livia, the benefactress of Galba Suetonius reports that Galba inherited a large sum of money of Livia, which is likely because Galba’s adoptive mother, Livia Ocellina, may have been Livia’s distant relative.620 Needless 616 In this section, Constantine’s forged ancestral advertisement is included, because he tried to link himself to the third-century emperor Claudius n Gothicus, an imperial ancestor who was favoured by other third-century emperors as well. 617 In chronological order: Galba: 4.8% (N=14); Septimius Severus: 0.5% (N divus Pertinax Pater=f>\ N (divus) Commodus=l); Alexander Severus: 0.6% (N=4); QuintiUus and Aurelian: 3.8% (N=18); Constantine: 0.5% (N=9). As we have seen before, Elagabalus also tried to link himself to the Antonine house, but he only used coin legends to express this link, see supra this chapter (2.3.2) and Hekster, forthcoming 2014, chapter 5. 618 Timpe, 1962, 88; Wiedemann, 19962, 198-255; Corbier, 1991a, 49-79; Lintott, 1994, 130-132; Baharal, 1996, 9-22; Lendon, 1997, 254; Hekster, 2001, 36-37; 39-49. See also chapter 1. 619 Because there are only six emperors who used invented ancestral visual messages, and because the percentages of these messages are so low, no graph has been prepared to illustrate the percentages. 520 Plutarch, Galba 3.2; 14.3; Suetonius, Galba 4.1; 5.2; PIK1 L. 305; Jucker, 1975, 354-355. 113 to say, kinship with the Julio-Claudians was of utmost relevance for each imperial candidate after Nero’s death. Galba therefore propagated his lineage link with diva Augusta without any ambiguity on almost 5% of his total coin types. In doing so, Livia’s image was displayed on gold, silver, and bronze types issued by the Roman mint and an unknown Spanish mint, which was likely Tarraco.621 Additionally, one inscription styles Galba as a direct descent through its nomenclature of him, calling the emperor Lucius Livius Galba Augustus.622 As noted above, Galba was eager to connect himself to the Julio-Claudian house, and by paying his respect to its members, he assumed the Julio-Claudian title Caesar and continued the cult of Augustus, Livia, and Claudius.623 However, Galba’s coins only celebrated Livia, because she could clearly strengthen Galba’s claim for his imperial position through a shared bloodline. 4.3.2. Divus Pertinax Pater and Commodus, two invented ancestors for Septimius Severus Septimius Severus issued posthumous coins for two former emperors: Pertinax and Commodus. First, several consecratio-types were minted for divus Pertinax Pater in the beginning of Septimius Severus’ reign. In total, these types represented 0.4% of Septimius Severus’ coins, but in the first two years of his reign, the time when the types were actually issued, they represented 2.7% of Septimius’ output.624 The types followed the common consecratio-types of the Antonine house, displaying an eagle or a funeral pyre.625 On the consecratio-types, Pertinax was presented as pater, which hints that Septimius tried to style himself as Pertinax’ son and rightful successor. Septimius furthermore gave Pertinax’ funeral eulogy, even though the latter’s son was still alive, and he adopted Pertinax as his second 621 N=14. RIC P Galba 13-14; 36; 52; 55; 65-67; 142-143; 150-152; 184-189; 224; 331-338; Kragelund, 1998, 160-161. 622 SEG 15.873; Woodhead, 1961, no. 328; Hekster, 2001, 37; 2006, 28. After bis adoption, but before he became emperor, Galba used the name Lucius Livius Ocella. At his accession, Galba changed his name to Servius Sulpicius Galba Augustus. 623 For the title Caesar on Galba’s coins, see supra this chapter (2.3.2). AfA: CIL 6.2051.1.13-15 (cf. Woodhead, 1961, 12): Galba sacrificing to Augustus, Livia, and Claudius on the 3rd of January AD 69. On one obscure type of Galba, Pietas is shown sacrificing above an altar displaying a triad. Some scholars argue that this triad is Aeneas carrying his father on his shoulders while holding the hand of his son. If this identification is correct, this type is easily to connect with Galba’s attempt to link him to the Julio-Claudian house. RIC P, 230; RIC P Galba 483, Kragelund, 1998,164. 624 N divus Pertinax Pater= 6; N Total coin types issued during Septimius Severus’ first two years of reign=221. 625 RIC IV.A. Septimius Severus 24A; B; 660B; C; BMCRE V, cxxv. Additionally, a posthumous bronze medallion for Pertinax Pius Pater was minted showing the traditional pompa circensis-sceae where a statue of divus Pertinax was drawn on a cart, pulled by elephants with riders: Petolescu, 1996, 41-46. 114 cognomen after Severus.626 Obviously, the invented ancestral link with Pertinax could strengthen Septimius’ claim for imperial power, which was welcome, since after the execution of Didius Julianus several other imperial candidates were contesting the imperial throne, including Pescennius Niger and Clodius Albinus.627 Secondly, from ancient literary accounts, honorary inscriptions and coin types, it is known that in the Spring of AD 195, Septimius Severius retrospectively adopted himself as the son of divus Marcus Pius.628 ConsequenÜy, Septimius became the brother of Commodus, whom the Senate deified around the same time.629 On some types, Septimius styled himself as the filius divi Marei Pii, but no types honoured divus Marcus Pius alone.630 For Commodus one posthumous silver consecratio-type survives.631 The obverse portrays Commodus laureate. Curiously, his legend does not denote him a divus, but recaptures his nomenclature during his lifetime: IM COMM ANTON AVG PIVS RBIT [sic]. The reverse, displaying an eagle on a globe with legend CONSECRATIO indicates that the type was issued posthumously for Commodus. After a careful stylistic analysis on several assembled specimens of the type, I suggested in a previous study that the Alexandrian mint issued the 626 piR jy i 74. periale Duranum H.3.13; Dio 75.4; HA Pertinax 15; Septimius Severus 1.3; 7.8-9; 17.5; Aurelius Victor, Book qfthe Caesars 18.6; Eutropius 8.18. 627 Dio 74.13.5; Herodian 2.7.8-9; 3.5.2; 5.7.2. Cf. Van Heesch 1978, 58-71; Nelson 1982, 265-274; Sdmmacher, 2003, 355-369; Heü, 2006,55-85; McAlee, 2007,260-261. 628 Dio 76.7.4; HA Septimius Severus 10.6; 11.4; Aurelius Victor, Book qfthe Caesars 20.30; BMCRE V, xci; Hekster, 2002, 189-191; Kienast, 20043, 156. Septimius Severus’ Antonine kinship claim recurs on a lot of inscriptions. To name a few; CIL 5.4867-4868; 6.1028; 1031; 1037; 1043; 1053; 1055-1056; 1061; 8.1333; 5699-5700; 9317; 23708; 24004; ILS 420; 422; 431. Hill, 1964a dates the adoption types after the summer of AD 195. 629 For more about Septimius Severus’ claim to be the brother of the divine Commodus, see Hekster, 2002,189- 191 and references. There are also a lot of inscriptions that denote Septimius Severus and Commodus as brothers. To cite a few: AE 1951.75 = CU 8.27374; CIL 6.1025; 1028; 1031; 1037; 1043; 8.1333; 5699; 5700; 9317; 23707; 27374; ILS 420; 422; 431. Previously, the Senate had candemned Commodus to a damnatio memoriae: Dio 74.2.1. Cf. Hekster, 2002,189-191. 630 RIC IV.A Septimius Severus 65-66; 686; 700-702A; 712; however, no divi Commodi frater-types are known. 631 N=l. RIC ITT Commodus 263a = RIC IV Septimius Severus 72a = BMCRE V, 42 = HHC Commodus 69. Two other types are recorded by Cohen and in the RIC, BMCRE and HHC. First is a silver type where Commodus’ nomenclature reads: M COMM ANTO AVG PIVS FEL, with the legend CONSECRATIO and an eagle representing consecratio on the reverse. The specimen is listed as being in the Bibliothèque national de la France in Paris. However, an inquiry revealed that only a specimen of type 1 could be found here, which suggests that this type was ‘created’ by misreading the obverse legend of type discussed above, which subsequently found its way to the Standard numismatic catalogues: Cohen, Commodus 61 = RIC m Commodus 263b. Second, a sestertius is recorded, depicting a laureate Commodus with the legend M COMMOD ANT P FELIX AVG BRIT P P. On the reverse, a female figure (Vesta?) stands to the left of a lighted altar, holding a patera and a sceptre, with the legend CONSECRATIO SC. The sestertius was recorded in the lost Collection of Count Wiczay of Hungary. Although samples of this variety can still be found, it is highly unlikely that the type is genuine, because it seems to be an ancient hyhrid of a Roman Commodus’ obverse with a Roman consecratio reverse of Faustina Maior: Cohen, Commodus 2 = RIC IV Septimius Severus 736A = BMCRE V, 143. Pink, 1933,17-54 does not mention the consecration-cóins for Commodus in his analysis on the Severan coins. 115 type around the time of Commodus’ deifïcation in AD 195, reusing the obverse dies from a previous Alexandrian issue during Commodus’ reign.632 Remarkably, the consecratio-type seems only to have been issued by the Alexandrian mint, and not by the Roman mint. Such imperial issues in the Eastem provinces served mainly to pay troops stationed there, and moreover they could advertise the supremacy of the issuing authority.633 Being proclaimed emperor by his troops in Upper-Pannonia on 9 April 193, Septimius took control of Egypt only after Februaiy in AD 194. Up to then, Septimius’ opponent, Pescennius Niger, ruled over Egypt, since he was proclaimed emperor by the eastem troops in April of AD 193.634 Therefore, it is feasible that in Egypt Septimius’ imperial position required more reinforcement than in other parts of the Roman Empire. In doing so, Commodus’ consecratio-type might have been a tooi to emphasise Septimius’ alleged Antonine kinship and one way to contribute to Septimius’ power in the East.635 4.3.3. Caracalla, a preferred Severan ancestor Both emperors Elagabalus and Alexander Severus were alleged to be bastard sons of their cousin, the emperor Caracalla.636 Only during the reign of Alexander Severus were some posthumous consecratio-types struck on silver and bronze for divus Antoninus Magnus. These types suggest that Alexander might have relied more on his invented ancestry than Elagabalus. However, the boy-emperor was adopted by his predecessor, Elagabalus, which made him Elagabalus’ rightful successor.637 Nonetheless, Elagabalus finds no mention on 632 CIL 8.9317; ILS 420; Claes, 2012, 207-224. Cf. Bickford-Smith, 1994/95, 54-57; and plate 1/11. 633 Milne, 1936, 96-98; Crawford, 1975, 562-565; Metcalf, 1982, 322-336; Christiansen, 1988, 296-297; Alston, 1994,113-123, esp. 114-115; VanHeesch, 2002, 36-37; Katsari, 2003, 29-30. 634 Dio 74.8.3; Herodian 3.4.6; HA Pescennius Niger 2.1-2; 5.5; Septimius Severus 9.1; Marcellinus 26.8.15; Birley, 1971, 178; Nelson, 1982, 265 dated Septimius’ ascendency in Egypt on February 3, 194 and Pescennius’ death around April, 194; Bendall-Bland-Bumett, 1987, 70-73. See also Magie, 1950, 1539-1540 and Heil, 2006, 53-62; 83. 635 Nevertheless, we must still be aware that the reuse of obverse dies can indicate that the consecratio-type for Commodus resulted from illegal sideline activities on the part of Alexandria’s mint masters, and therefore no lineage message was propagated from the central imperial level. Cf. Gitler-Ponting, 2003, 29-30 who exposed an eastem assemblage fabricating cast denarii in the name of Septimius Severus by copying official denarii, issued between 197 and 211 636 For more about Elagabalus’ ancestral advertisement through his coin legends, see supra this chapter (2.3.2). Elagabalus as bastard son of Caracalla: Dio 79.32; Herodian 5.4.1; HA Elagabalus 2.1; Aurelius Victor, Book of the Caesars 23.1; Alexander as bastard son of Caracalla: Dio 80.19.4; Herodian 5.7.3; Zosimus 1.10.2; AE 1979.645; ILS 479; 480; 483; 2009; 4340; 5854; 9058; CIL 3.D.LXXXVH; D.LXXXTV; D.LXXXVI; 166; 226; 3121; 8.1406. See also Baharal, 1996, 64-65 and Icks, 2011, 37-38 for Alexander’s ancestral advertisement. 637 Dio 80.17.2-3; Herodian 5.7.1-4; HA Elagabalus 5.1; 10.1; 13.1-2; Alexander Severus 1.2; 8.1; Aurelius Victor, Book of the Caesars 23.4; Eutropius 8.23. Baharal, 1996, 54-55; 64-65. 116 Alexander’s coins, since Elagabalus was voted a damnatio memoriae.63* It seems that Alexander distanced himself from his adoptive father, whereupon Caracalla was alleged to be his real biological father. In total, Caracalla’s posthumous types represent merely 0.6% of Alexander’s total types.639 All types were issued around the accession of Alexander and therefore represent a higher percentage at the beginning of his reign. Unfortunately, no precise percentage can be calculated, because we are inadequately informed about the chronological sequence of Alexander’s types. To conclude, the consecratio-types seem designed to emphasise Alexander’s invented ancestry from Caracalla in order to legitimate the young boy’s accession in 222. 4.3.4. Claudius II Gothicus, a preferred late third-century ancestor Several consecratio-types were minted for Claudius II Gothicus. A first flow of types was minted by three different authorities between AD 270 and 273, whereas a second flow of types was issued by Constantine. Here, Claudius II Gothicus was presented respectively as a brother, a predecessor, a celebrated emperor and an ancestor.640 First, after Claudius II Gothicus died at the plague in Sirmium in January 270, the m ints of Rome, Siscia, Milan, and Cyzicus issued several consecratio-ccans for him.641 However, it is debateable whether these mints were under Quintillus’ or Aurelian’s control, because both men were proclaimed emperor after Claudius’ death.642 Being Claudius’ brother, Quintillus assumed the puiple in Rome by the Senate’s approval, whereas Aurelian was proclaimed emperor by the stationed troops in Sirmium, supported by the rumour that he was 638 Dio 80.20.3; 21.3; HA Elagabalus 17.4; 18.1; Alexander Severus 1.2; 8.1; leks, 2011, 42-43, esp. n. 91 with references 639 N=4. RIC IV.A. Caracalla 490-491F; RIC IV.B. Alexander Severus 717-720. Cf. Baharal, 1996, 65. The HA (Alexander Severus 25.9) states that Alexander Severus’ cuirassed portrait on coins was a way to imitate Alexander the GreaL Yet, many emperors before Alexander were displayed with cuirassed portraits, hinting at no special connection to Alexander the GreaL 640 The status of Claudius as brother of Quintillus implies that the ancestral status of Claudius II Gothicus is not invented. Nevertheless, the debate on his coin types is discussed in this paragraph for convenience. 641 RIC V.B. Claudius Gothicus 257-267. 642 QuitUüan m ints- Rome (Giard, 1995, 128-129; Estiot, 1995, 23; 2004, 60-62); Sisica (Göbl, 1993, 42; Giaid, 1995, 14; 129-130; Estiot, 1995, 57; 2004, 83); Milan (Giard, 1995, 14; 129; Estiot, 1995, 43; 2004, 69-70); Aurelian m in ts- Rome (Estiot, 1995, 23; 2004, 60-62); Milan (Giard, 1995, 14; 129); Cyzicus (Estiot, 1995, 85; 2004, 104-107). See also Kos, 1991, 52-53. On basis of the evidence of mules with obverses of Aurelian and posthumous coins of Claudius from the Normanby hoard, Bland-Bumett, 1988, 144-145, claimed that no posthumous types for Claudius could be struck under Quintillus. However, as Kos, 1991, 52 rightly remarks this argument only illustrates that Claudius’ consecratio-coim had been uninterruptedly produced in the beginning of Aurelian’s reign. 117 appointed (to succeed to the throne) by Claudius on his deathbed.643 In 270, approximately 4% of the total coin types of both Quintillus and Aurelian referred to Claudius II Gothicus.644 The detailed studies of Göbl (1993), Giard (1995), and Estiot (1995 and 2004) argue that Quintillus’ types were issued on a more reduced scale, whereas the great majority is believed to have been struck in Aurelian’s first issue. Both emperors, thus, honoured Claudius at their accession, but unfortunately we cannot give a more precise percentage of the divus Claudius’ types, because of the lack of detailed dated RIC types. Most likely, Quintillus tried to strengthen his imperial position through his bloodline, while for similar purposes, Aurelian styled himself as Claudius’ appointed successor. Moreover, Estiot suggests that the types from Siscia, which were issued in all four officinae of the mint, were used as donativum to celebrate Quintillus’ accession. This again supports the conjecture that the dynastie message was thought to be well received by the military.645 Second, a rebellion by mint-workers led by a certain Felicissimus put the mint of Rome out of imperial control in the beginning of 271. During this so-called bellurn monetariorum, the Roman mint issued poor copies of the divus Claudius E Gothicus types for at least two years.646 Why they chose divus Claudius’ types to be copied is not known. For obvious reasons, the rebels could not use dies in authority of the emperors Quintillus or Aurelian.647 As Hedlund argues, it is just as likely that the divus Claudius’ types remained in use, first “because the dies used for the types happened to be lying around”, and second because in the revolutionary climate, “the divus Claudius’ types could have sent a more suitable message for the inhabitants of Rome” referring back to his stable reign.648 Third, around 317 and 318, a second flow of divus Claudius II Gothicus’ types appeared. The types formed a commemorative programme with types for divus Constantius and divus Maximianus Herculius. In total, these types represented 13.5% of all the types that Constantine’ mints issued in the years 317 and 318.649 The legends of the types, MEMORIAE AETERNAE and REQVIES OPTTMOR MERITORVM, adumbrate the commemorative 643 The ancient sources, however, are very contradictory about the accession, regnal duration, and death of Quintillus. HA deified Claudius, 12.5-6; HA deified Aurelian 37.5; Eutropius 9.12; Zonaras 12.26; Jerome, Chronicle s.a. 271; John of Antioch, fr. 154 FHGIV, p. 599. Paschoud, 1996, 178-180; Watson, 1999, 47-48. N=18. The percentage is a vague estimation because it is unclear which mints were under Quintillus’ and Aurelian’s control. 645 Estiot, 1995, 57; 2004, 60-62; 83; Watson, 1999,133; 136. 646 HA deified Aurelian 38.2-3; Aurelius Victor, Book o f the Caesars 35.4; Eutropius 9.14; Suidas, s.v. Monitarioi. 647 More about the rebellion: Göbl, 1993, 42-43; Estiot, 1995, 23-24 (and references); 2004, 60-62; Paschoud, 1996, 182-183; Watson, 1999, 52-53; 133. 648 Hedlund, 2008, 177-178. 649 N=9. In total, 0.5% of Constantine’s total coin types represented Claudius n Gothicus. 118 character of the series. A panegyric delivered at Trier in 310 styled Claudius II Gothicus as the progenitor of the house of Constantine.650 Potter argues that the death of Constantine’s father-in-law, Maximianus Herculius, forced Constantine to search for a new source of legitimacy. Claudius II Gothicus, who was remembered in Latin tradition as a great hero because of his victory over the Goths in 269, was a suitable choice as an admirable ancestor for Constantine, who was bom at Naissus, the site of that Victory.651 Moreover, literary accounts, often coloured by Constantinian propaganda, reported Claudius II Gothicus as a son of Gordian m and as a relative of Probus, establishing Claudius as a sort of destined stem- emperor.652 This fictitious lineage gave Constantine the legal authority to rule on basis of dynastie inheritance, which seemed to be perceived as a greater imperial authority than (divine) favouritism or the tetrarchic institution. Or as the orator of the Latin Panegyric VI clearly expressed: “No change of agreement of men, nor some unexpected consequence of favour, made you emperor: it is through your birth that you merited the Empire. [...] You entered this sacred palace, not as a candidate for empire, but as Emperor designate, and straightaway the household spirits of your father recognized you as his legitimate successor. ”653 Strangely, the commemoration series for Claudius II Gothicus, Constantius, and Maximian Herculius was not issued in 310, but seven years later. Around the same period, more precisely on 1 March 317, Constantine’s two oldest sons, Crispus and Constantine Iunior, were elevated to Caesar in Serdica.654 The choice to celebrale Constantine’s lineage in AD 317 and 318, thus, might have been to emphasise a message of the predestined imperial continuity within Constantine’s family. It must to be noted too, that at that time Constantine still had to shaie his imperial position with Licinius, whose son was made Caesar as well.655 To conclude: in one way or another, all the emperors discussed here ‘usurped’ the imperial throne, insofar as they did not inherit it from their fathers, or in case of Alexander, he could 650 Latin Panegyrics 6 (7), 2.1-3; 4-5. See also HA the two Gallieni 14.3.1-ippold, 1981, 357-369 argues that in AD 297, Constantius himself already proclaimed him a relative of Claudius n Gothicus. N Total types of Constantine issued between 317 and 318=215. 651 Potter, 2004, 352-353; cf. Lenski, 2006, 66, 358-359; Wienand, 2012, 147; 154-161. Potter asserts that Maximian Herculius disappears from all further Constantinian propaganda, which is contradicted by the coin evidence. 652 HA Probus 3.2-4; Aurelius Victor, Book of the Caesars 34.1-2; Optatian, Poems 8-10; 15. More accounts coloured by Constantinian propaganda include Aurelius Victor, Book o f the Caesars 34.4; HA the two Gallieni 14.2; deifïed Claudus 1.3; 12.2-3. On this topic, see also Syme, 1971, 205-206; 1983, 69; 152; Chastagnol, 1994, 919-923; Watson, 1999,41; 216; Paschoud, 2001,64-66. 653 Latin Panegyrics 6 (7), 3 and 4. Cf. Nixon-Rodgers, 1994,215-217; 221-222. 654 Paschal Chronicle, Olympiad 274. 655 Paschal Chronicle, Olympiad 21A. Cf. Chausson, 2007,40-41; Wienand, 2012, 381-384. 119 not rely on his adoptive father because the latter’s memory was condemned. Therefore, spreading messages about fictitious genealogies constituted a basis of legitimation for the imperial position. Apart from Constantine, all emperors discussed here advertised their invented ancestors in the beginning of their reign in order to strengthen the legitimation of it. As for Constantine, his alleged ancestry with Claudius II Gothicus may have been designed to highlight imperial continuity within his family in the year his eldest sons became Caesar. Unfortunately, in most cases we cannot estimate precisely how widely these invented genealogies were propagated, because no detailed dated coin catalogues exist. 4.4. Restoring one’s predecessor’s coins As we have analysed in the sections above, types could be struck to commemorate earlier emperors, mostly the biological or adoptive father of the ruling emperor, or his predecessor to whom he wanted to link himself. Besides this ancestral advertisement issued on regular coin types, another special kind of coins existed displaying former emperors and imperial family members, the so-called ‘restored’ or ‘restoration’ coins. On most of these coins the legend REST, RESTITV, RESTITVIT is engraved, noting explicitly that the coins were reissues of earlier types struck by emperors, or even by Republican moneyers. It is noticeable that the recaptured types included not all (deified) emperors; only the types of a selected group of predecessors and some of their relatives were reissued. Furthermore, the presence of some Republican types is not self-explanatory. Titus was the first emperor to issue restoration coins.656 Later, the emperors Domitian, Nerva, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, and Trajan Decius followed. The function of these restitution coins has been a hotly debated issue among scholars. Summarised, four different functions have been argued for657: (i) the restored types aimed to commemorate the historical events and figures displayed on the restored coins658; (ii) the restored types placed the emperor, under whose authority the coins were restored, in line with his predecessors in 656 Under Titus’ father, Vespasian, a deliberate revival of earlier imperial coin types is seen, but without a legend that the type is restored. See Buttrey, 1972, 89-109, Cox, 2005, 259-264 and also this chapter (2.3.2) and chapter 3 (3.4.2). 657 This summary is inspired on Komnick, 2001, 158-178 who wrote the seminal on the restitution coinage of Titus, Domitian, Nerva, and Trajan. 658 Wolters, 1999, 277-284; Komnick, 2001, 164-165. In doing so, we could say that the production of past issues was a means for recording history similar like restoring monuments. Likewise, Iuno Moneta was the goddess of the Mint, but also of memory. For more, see Meadows-Williams, 2001, 27-49. 120 order to legitimate and glorify his imperial position659; (iii) the restored coins were struck purely to circulate within a numismatic interested upper-class group, who understood the historical significance of the types660; (iv) the restored coins replaced the Republican and imperial types that once were highly valuable, but had become wom and disappeared from circulation.661 Looking at the different restoration series of Titus, Domitian, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, and Trajan Decius it seems that each emperor had his own - and sometimes multiple - reasons to restore coins. While leaving a detailed study of the exact purpose of each restoration series to others, this paragraph analyses the retrospective kinship on imperial coins, with a particular focus on emperors and imperial family members who were given preference in the restoration series. Except for Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, all cited emperors issued restoration series displaying former emperors and imperial family members. In the subsequent paragraphs, their displays will be analysed chronologically. First, Titus restored types of the following predecessors: divus Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius, and Galba, of whom Augustus’ restored types heavily outnumbered the other predecessors (IMAGE I.4).662 Most likely, Titus’ restoration series had to replace the wom- out coinage of these former emperors; yet, no particular monetary criterion seems to be used in the selection of these predecessors.663 Titus’ series provides thus a list of personally selected pre-Flavian emperors, and some members of their families: Agrippa, Drusus Maior and Iunior, Germanicus, and Agrippina Maior.664 All types are closely copied from the originals. In total, Titus’ restorations series constitutes almost 15% of Titus’ total types, which is a relatively high percentage.665 Notably, almost all types that were restored of these imperial family members are types whose legends give additional information about their ancestry and place in the Julio-Claudian pedigree. As such, Marcus Agrippa is identifïed as ‘the son of Lucius’, Drusus Iunior and Germanicus were identifïed as the ‘son of the emperor 659 Mattingly, 1920b, 185-186; BMCRE m , lxxxvii; Komnick, 2001, 165-178; Walker, 2002, 93-100; Seelentag, 2004, 357-362; 410-484. 660 Komnick, 2001,164. 661 Dio 68.15.3; Mattingly, 1920b, 177-178, BMCRE III, lxxxvii; Komnick, 2001,158-164; Dimcan-Jones, 2005, 462. 662 RIC IP Titus 399-403; 410-413; 420-423; 431^36; 444-452; 455-469; 471^90; 496-497; Komnick, typ. 1- 3.2; 6-7.2; 12-14.1; 19-23; 29-51; 53-62. 663 RIC n2, 192. BMCRE II, lxxvii. 664 RIC n2, 192; RIC II2 Titus 410-419; 431-443; 470-471; Komnick, typ. 8-11; 24-28; 52. Titus also restored Tiberius’ types displaying Pietas and Iustitia, represented by a female figure (Komnick, typ. 4-5; 15-18.2). Some scholars identify this female as Livia, however, no legend refers to Livia and the style of the figure is fairly idealized. For these reasons, I tbinlc that the figure is not Livia. Cf. A similar debate is going on about Tiberius’ Salus-type identifïed as Livia, see supra this chapter (2.4.2.1). 665 N=42. Curiously, not all restoration coins of Titus seem to have been issued by the Roman mint. Most likely, a small proportion is produced by a Thradan mint, see RIC ü 2, 192-193. 121 Tiberius’ and ‘the grandson of the divine emperor Augustus’, and Agrippina Maior was called ‘the daughter of Marcus Agrippa’ and ‘the wife of Germanicus’. The selection of Titus’ restored types clearly suggests that the emperor wanted to recall the memory of the glorious Julio-Claudian dynasty, together with Galba, who was (highly) respected by Titus and his father.666 In doing so, the restoration series associated Titus explicitly with the past dynasty, and moreover, they emphasised the continuity between his Flavian house and the Julio- Claudian house.667 Second, both Domitian and Nerva restored types of divus Augustus. Domitian restored the restored Augustus’ types of his brother, constituting a percentage of 1.5 of Domitian’s total types.668 Like Domitian’ s ancestral advertisement, these restored coins were only issued at the beginning of his reign.669 Nerva restored some new types for the emperor Augustus, and remarkably, also some self-created types for Augustus were presented as restored.670 In total, 6% of Nerva’s coins were restored Augustus’ types. Because the restoration series of Domitian and Nerva did not aim to restore the original Augustan types as a way to replace them, these restoration series rather seem to have a commemorative function. The preservation of Augustus’ memory seems to be their most important aim.671 Maybe, we could even suggest that these types tried to associate Domitian and Nerva with the founder of the Principate.672 This seems particular true for Nerva, chosen by the Senate as the new emperor after the murder of Domitian. He had no dynastie links with the Julio-Claudians or the Flavians. The choice to restore Augustus’ types with the globus, the rudder, the altar of Providentia and the winged caduceus, referring thus to the first Roman emperor and his peaceful and prosperous age, seems to propagate an idea of a new start.673 This new start was 666 Galba received a restitutio memoriae under the reign of Vespasian: Flaig, 1992, 305; Zimmerman, 1995, 56- 82. However, Galba was not included in the emperor’ s list of the lex de imperio Vespasiani and Suetonius, Galba 23 reports that Vespasian annulled the decree to put up a statue for Galba on the place he was murdered. Yet, the dates of these features are discussed, see Brunt, 1977, 104 and Nicolet, 1988, 852-853. 667 Mattingly, 1920b, 180-181; BMCRE II, lxxvii; Komnick, 2001, 164-171, Cox, 2005, 264. 668 N=8. RIC n 2 Domitian 822-830; Komnick, typ 1-3.1. 669 RIC IP assigns Domitian’s restoration series to AD 81-82, before Domitian’s monetary reform. Most likely, Domitian lost interest in preserving the continuity of the imperial succession as he was already the second successful succeeding Flavian emperor. Furthermore, the place of production is debated. Because the style of the types is very similar to bronze issues of the Thracian mint, it is believed that this mint issued Domitian’s restoration series as it likely did for Titus. 670 N=10. RIC 112 Nerva 126; 128-137; Komnick, typ. 1-11.1. RIC II Nerva 127 and 138 are modem forgeries. 671 Mattingly, 1920b, 185-186; Komnick, 2001,164-165. 672 Komnick, 2001, 164-171. 673 Dio 68.1.1; Aurelius Victor, Book of the Caesars 12.3; Komnick, 2001, 172-175. For more on providentia, see Martin, 1982; Manders, 2012, 162-165. In addition, under Nerva, types displaying Kus’ restored temple for divus Augustus and diva Livia, were issued (N=25; RIC III Antoninus Pius 124; 143-144; 272a; b; 289-290; 305a; b; 755; 787; 795a; b; 796; 829; 870; 873; 973; 978; 988; 998; 998a; 1003-1004; 1013; 1017; 1021a; b; 1024-1025; 1040; 1061). 122 personiiïed through Nerva’s accession, and was enforced by Nerva’s providence to adopt a successor: Trajan.674 Thirdly, Trajan’s restoration series included a list of selected imperial predecessors of Trajan; which consisted 3.5% of Trajan’s total types.675 Like Titus, this list inr.lndrai Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius, and Galba.676 Further, also types of Vespasian, Titus, and Nerva were restored.677 In addition, types of Caesar were restored678, but it is not sure whether Caesar was perceived as the founder of the Principate, and thus, belongs int» the line of emperors, or that he was perceived as a great Late Republican hero, because other types of Republican figures were restored as well under Trajan. Suetonius, for example, who was a contemporaiy of Trajan, did include Caesar in his work the Twelve Caesars, and thus he perceived Caesar as the founder of the Principate.679 Whether or not Caesar was seen as the founder of the Principate, Trajan’s list seems to constitute an imperial ‘canon’ in which Trajan was the last chain. Yet, we may not forget that Trajan’s restorations series did not solely include restored types of emperors, also other imperial types and even Republican types were restored. Therefore, it seems more tempting to perceive Trajan’s restoration series as a replacement for the systematic withdrawal of the original issues.680 The selection of Trajan’s imperial ‘canon’ is quite logical as all omitted emperors had received a damnatio memoriae,681 Finally, more than 100 years later, Trajan Decius restored the memory of eleven emperors, and this series constituted a considerable part in his total coin output: 1 1 .8%.682 Augustus was included as first in the ‘list’, so Caesar was omitted, and also the other ‘good’ Julio-Claudian emperors, Tiberius and Claudius, were omitted. Equally, Galba was no longer included in the list. Like Trajan, Trajan Decius recaptured types for Vespasian, Titus and Nerva, and he added Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, Commodus, 674 Dio 68.3.4-4.1; Pliny, Panegyric 8.5; Aurelius Victor, Book o f the Caesars 12.9; Komnick, 2001,173-175. 675 N=22. 676 RIC H Trajan 807; 817-824; Komnick, typ. 51; 56-61; 63. 677 RIC II Trajan 826-836; Komnick, typ. 67-74. 678 RIC 11 Trajan 806; 815-816; Komnick, typ. 53-54. 679 On Caesar or Augustus as founder of the Principate see Hekster, forthcoming 2014, chapter 4. Dio (68.15.3) reported that Trajan melted down all the wom-out coinage, which give reason to believe that Trajan’s restored coins replaced wom types that deliberately were withdrawn from circulation. On basis of metallurgie research, Walker and Duncan-Janes put 107 AD as the date the withdrawal of at least the Republican coins happened, which supports the idea that the restored types, who were issued between 108 and 112 AD, were there to replace them. Mattingly, 1920b, 177-178, 1926, 266, BMCRE m , btxxvii-lxxxbt; Komnick, 2001, 137- 138; Walker, 2002, 93-100; Duncan-Jones, 2005, 481. Woytek, 2010, 509-531 gives a more precise date for the restoration series: AD 112-113, at the beginning of Trajan’s COS VI. “Tradition placed Gaius in the row of the bad emperors, though his memory had never been officially condemned” remarks Flower, 2006,148-159. 682 N=24. The dies study of Elks, 1972, 111-115 reattributed Decius’ restoration series to the mint of Rome instead of Milan as the RIC did. 123 Septimius Severus, and Alexander Severus to his list.683 Scholars denote this restoration series as the divi series, because all the commemorated emperors are represented as divi with Standard consecratio-de&igas, and furthermore, the phrase ‘restituit’ is omitted in their legends. The main motive behind the so-called divi series of Trajan Decius seems to have been economie profit. The series seems to have come forward from the decision to restrike as antoniani all older denarii that were still in circulation in 251 AD. Theoretically, an antoninianus was valued two denarii; yet, the denarius had become out of use in the second half of the third century. Since this restriking would mean that the portraits of many earlier emperors would disappear from the circulating coinage, Decius decided to restore the portraits of earlier emperors. On the restored types, the restored emperors wore a radiate crown to attest that they were antoniniani. Since the radiate crown was also a sign of deification, the restored emperors are also emperors who had been deified, and subsequent, the consecration eagle or an altar was depicted on their reverses.684 Yet, not all deified emperors were restored; Claudius, Lucius Veras, Pertinax, Caracalla, and the Gordiani were excluded from Decius’ series, which hints that a selection was made among more and less attractive emperors. It is notable to see which emperors for Trajan Decius were perceived important, and maybe his choice was even linked to a contemporary general canon of emperors who were perceived as models.685 Scholars also stress the religious function of the divi series which fitted into Decius’ traditionalism as he wanted to revive Roman religion. Through the divi series, Decius could express his piety to eleven emperors who had contributed to the Empire’s greatness.686 Throughout time, the economic argument seems to be the main purpose why Roman types were restored. However, most restored issues display various lists of imperial predecessors and former imperial family members, whereupon we could conclude that the selection of the 683 RIC IV.C. Decius 77-98. 684 Le GentUhomme, 1946, 45; Butcher, 1996, 522. Notably, beside this restoration series, quite a few other antoniniani of late in Decius' reign and early in Gallus' reign are found overstruck on earlier denarii, being part of the same reform, but these had new coin images, no restored ones. 685 Potter, 2004, 244; Manders, 2012, 263-266. In the HA - written between 361-423 - shorter and longer lists of preferred emperors are given, or described emperors are compared with what the author of the HA perceived as ‘good’ emperors. The longest list included the following emperors: Augustus, Vespasian, Titus, Nerva, Trajan, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, Septimius Severus, Alexander Severus, Claudius n Gothicus, and Aurelian (deified Aurelian 42.1), and except for the emperor Pertinax, who is included in the list cited in Tyrarmi triginta 6.6, this list covers all other short lists given in the HA (Pertinax 12.1; Elagabalus 1.1; Tyrarmi triginta 6.6; Tacitus 16.6; Probus 22.4; Carus et Carinus et Numerianus 3.1-4). The ‘good’ emperors that the author of the HA enumerates are the same, except for one, Commodus, that Decius commemorated on his divi series. 686 Mattingly, 1949, 79-82; Rives, 1999, 142-143; De Blois, 2006, 273-274; Ando, 2012, 149-152; Manders, 2012, 263-266 and references in n. 47. Manders also notes that “Trajan Decius tried to connect himself to the emperor Trajan by adopting his name and possibly through his ‘Dacia’ propaganda.” Although Decius’ restoration series differs from Trajan’s, the issue of Decius’ series could also be a tooi to link himself to Trajan. 124 restored designs seems to be a personal choice depending on the ‘agenda’ of each emperor. Significanüy, Augustus as the direct founder of the Principate is always commemorated when a list of emperors is recaptured. He seems to be perceived as the one great imperial predecessor and founder of the Principate. 4.5. Celebratmg the empress’ ancestry In the Roman Empire, like in the Republic, mamages were political tools for strengthing the emperor’s position.687 Especially in the second century, mamages between the emperor’s female relatives and his adopted successor constituted a closer affmity between an appointed successor and the ruling dynasty.688 In these arrangements, spouses played an important role in legitimating their husbands’ imperial office, whereupon they became fixtures in imperial statue groups, dedications, festivities, but also on imperial coin types.689 Moreover, not only did the empress play an important role, but so did her ancestors, as they could be former emperors or prominent members of the ruling imperial family. In our field of study, Claudius and Hadrian represented the ancestors of their wives on coins. We discuss these in chronological order. After Claudius married his fourth wife, Agrippina Iunior, in AD 49, Claudius 690 commemorated Agrippina’s parents, Agrippina Maior and Germanicus, on his coms. Through their coin legends, Claudius’ parents-in-law were linked to their great ancestors: Agrippina Maior was identified as ‘the daughter of Agrippa’, whereas Germanicus appears as ‘the son of Tiberius and the grandson of divus Augustus’. The advertisement of Agrippina’s parents connected Claudius with the founders of the imperial Julio-Claudian house. Although the coin percentages for Agrippina Maior and Germanicus were marginal - respectively 0.9% 687 Gruen, 1974,47-82; Gardner, 1986, 41-44; Corbier, 1991a, 49-52; 60; 1991b, 128; 133-137; Treggiari, 1991; 42-45. On the other hand, a unilateral divorce, that is, divorce not agreed consensually, could turn one’s family- in-law into enemies; see Corbier, 1991b, 137. 688 Geer, 1936, 47-54; Lo Cascio, 2005, 140. Hadrian married Trajan’s great-niece Sabina; Antoninus Pms manied Sabina’s niece Faustina Maior; Marcus Aurelius married Antoninus Pius’ daughter Faustina Iunior, and Lucius Verus married Lucilla, the daughter of Marcus Aurelius and granddaughter of Antoninus Pius. See also infra chapter 4 (4.3.2 and 4.4.3). 689 See the introduction of chapter 4 (4.1). 6,0 RIC F Claudius 102; 105-106. 125 and 1.8% of Claudius’ total types691 - the inclusion of these Julian-Claudian figures was certainly an attempt to strengthen Claudius’ imperial position.692 Hadrian’s types likewise displayed the mother of his wife Sabina, diva Matidia Augusta, the niece of Hadrian’s great-uncle and (alleged) adoptive father Trajan (1%).693 During her lifetime, Matidia Maior, together with her daughters and mother, lived at the court of her uncle Trajan.694 The marriage between Hadrian with Matidia’s daughter Sabina, Consolidated an additional link with Trajan’s family for Hadrian, whom at that timp. Trajan had not yet adopted.695 The majority of types commemorated the deifïcation of Hadrian’s mother-in-law in the Standard consecratio iconography of the Ulpian women and one type even portrayed Matidia with Plotina’s portrait on the obverse, consigning Matidia to a prominent place next to Hadrian’s adoptive mother.696 The representation of diva Matidia on Hadrian’s coins suggests that Hadrian sought an extra tooi to emphasise his link with Trajan. Moreover, this public act of Hadnan’s pietas towards his mother-in-law also shows the emergence of a public image for the imperial family, including its female members, at the beginning of the second century.697 It is significant that all advertised ancestral relatives and parents-in-law were no trivial figures. All were members of the imperial family. Furthermore, all these ancestral relatives and parents-in-law were biological relatives of either the emperor or the empress. At first notice, we can suggest that the display of these persons were expressed a deeper ancestral advertisement with the aim of legitimating the position of the reigning emperor. The advertisement of the ancestral parents-in-law, however, was not frequent and occurred only under two emperors. Most likely, the inclusion of the empress’ ancestors was just an experimental step in the formalisation process of the imperial family, defining its character and boundaries. 6921116 t0tal typeS for A8riPPina Maior is N=1 for Germanicus N=2. Trillmich, 1978, 78-79; Martin, 1992, 202-204. Wood, 1988, 410 argues that the representation of Agrippina Maior on Claudius’ coins justified the honours her daughter received during Claudius’ reign. tota' tyPes f°r Matidia is N=8. All types seem to have been struck shortly after Matidia’s death in AD m Pliny, Panegyric 84. Cf. Roche, 2002, 49-51; Bruun, 2010, 212-215. 695 HA Hadrian 11.3; Aurelius Victor, Book qfthe Caesars 14.8. RIC n Trajan 751-757; Hadrian 423a, b-427. Fasti Ostienses; AfA: CIL 6.2080.al20.5-7; 14.3579. Cf. Strack, 1933, 66-69; Boatwright, 1991, 533-534. 699 In chronological order; Claudius: 2.7%; Hadrian: 1%. 126 5. Conclusion From Augustus (27 BC) to Carinus (285 AD) several emperors displayed retrospective messages on their coinages. These messages not only promoted imperial predecessors, they also included alleged ancestors, gentes, non-imperial fathers, female ancestors, imperial (grand)mothers, as well as messages claiming the noble (Roman) birth of the emperor. Only one third of the examined emperors, mostly third-century emperors of humble or obscure descent, did not emphasise any retrospective message of kinship on their coins. Overall, no general pattem can be easily noticed in the ancestral advertisement of these emperors. On the contrary, the percentages of the retrospective messages fluctuate heavily throughout the first 300 years of the Principale. However, some more limited pattems of ancestral advertising are discemable over time. During the Julio-Claudian dynasty, the percentages of ancestral messages varied heavily between Julio-Claudian emperors, as if these emperors, still leaning on the Republican ancestral traditions, were experimenting how to display their retrospective kinship on their coins. At this stage, the representation of imperial women was certainly innovative, because until the very Late Republic it was not common for ancestresses and unheard for living women to be represented on coins. Augustus’ ancestral advertisement as Caesar’s adoptive son and heir was limited after he became more formally sole ruler over the Roman Empire in AD 28/27, especially in comparison with his previous ancestral advertisement. Although many coin types still denote Augustus as divi filius, Caesar appears on only 2.1% of his coins and, further, the majority of these types did not display Caesar’s portrait, but symbolised him as a star. After Augustus, the imperial succession was effected through adoption and collateral lineage within the Augustan family. Types of Augustus’ successors Tiberius, Gaius, and Claudius referred back to the founder of the Principate, by stressing their descent of him through coin legends, by referring to Augustus himself, or by displaying particular family members with Augustan lineage, either biological or adoptive. Tiberius’ coins, for instance, advertised Augustus intensively as his pater, and all Tiberius’ coin legends denoted him as divi filius Augusti. The types of his successor Gaius also highlighted his descent from Augustus frequently, and moreover, many of his coin legends emphasised his status as pronepos of Augustus. Furthermore, the intensive display of Gaius’ parents, Agrippina Maior 127 and Germanicus, and grandfather Agrippa on his coins could also have served to express Gaius’ descent from Augustus. Being young and military unexperienced, Gaius’ imperial ancestry was a welcome legitimation tooi to advertise on his coins. Especially, the propagation of Germanicus as ‘son of Tiberius and grandson of divus Augustus’, constituting a pedigree back to the founder of the Principate, suggests Gaius’ effort to propagate himself as the rightful successor of Augustus. Finally, Gaius’ lack of advertisement for Tiberius seems to suggest that for the transmission of imperial power, Gaius’ descent from the founder of the Principate was more important to highlight than his relation with his immediate predecessor. Although under Claudius only one type was issued for Augustus with Livia on the reverse, the inclusion of Claudius’ parents in his coin output referred also to his imperial descent from Augustus, certainly through his mother Antonia, who was the niece of her mother’s younger brother, Augustus. In addition, the coin presence of Claudius’ parents-in-law, Agrippina Maior and Germanicus, must have strengthened his affliation with the founder of the Principate, and thus his legitimation to rule as his third successor. For Tiberius, Gaius, and Claudius, the propagation of their descent from Augustus through their coin legends and coin designs seems a important topic that was propagated repetitively with relative high frequenties during their whole reign. Furthermore, the commemorative status of Agrippa, Agrippina Maior, Germanicus, Antonia, and Drusus Maior was very prominent as they belonged to the Julio-Claudian house. Moreover, the men were extremely popular for their military achievements. Most likely, the coins of Gaius and Claudius, who were both military inexperienced when they assumed the imperial office, wanted to promulgate their celebrated ancestors to enforce their own imperial power. Still familiar with the Republican use of ancestral advertisement on coins, and with the notion of the dynastie family still developing, (the experimental types of) Germanicus, Agrippa, and Drusus Maior could easily been struck even though these ancestors did not assume the imperial office. It is clear, then, that under the Augustan successors experimental ancestral messages appeared as a means to strengthen their imperial legitimation. Nero’s coin messages, on the contrary, suggest a relative neglect of his Julio-Claudian roots. Divus Augustus, for instance, is only represented on a dubious coin scene where the deified emperor accompanies divus Claudius on a cart drawn by elephants. Furthermore, Nero’s adoptive father Claudius and his mother Agrippina were advertised very intensive initially, but they disappear from Nero’s coins after the first two years of his reign. The years after his accession to the throne, Nero apparently feit no need anymore to advertise himself as the rightful successor of Claudius, nor to propagate his Julio-Claudian membership, as if his 128 Julio-Claudian blood lineage through his mother and his adoption through Claudius made his emperorship self-evident. After Nero’s death, the memory of the Julio-Claudians, and in particular of Augustus, stayed important in the imperial advertisement on coins. The iconographical designs and legends of these Julio-Claudians were sometimes adapted or even restored. The coins of the emperors Galba and Vitellius displayed ancestral themes to legitimate their reigns. Through livia, Galba tried to link himself to the Julio-Claudian house and to style himself as a legitimate Julio-Claudian successor, whereas Vitellius repetitively displayed his famous Republican father on his coins, adopting Julio-Claudian ancestral iconography, to strengthen his imperial base. Furthermore, the title Caesar was taken over by Galba, who denoted himself Caesar on one third of all his types, and Otho, who displayed the title on all his types. After a short pause under Vitellius, who did not use the title Caesar, Vespasian replaced his gentile nomen, Flavius, with Caesar, most likely to again claim continuity with the Julio-Claudians. After Vespasian, the title became common for each succeding emperor and his heir apparent. As the first emperor of the Flavian house, Vespasian did not rely on any ancestral advertisement on his coins. However, his coinage adopted a lot of Julio-Claudian iconographical elements, in particular of Augustus’ coinage, maybe again to assimilate his new imperial house with the Julio-Claudians. Similar representational pattems as the Julio-Claudian successors are noticed for the Flavian successors, Titus and Domitian. Vespasian’s sons both issued commemorative types for their parents, some in style of the former Julio-Claudian types, and they both called themselves divi filius Vespasiani. Furthermore, they both restored former types of the Julio- Claudians. Titus restored types of the ‘good’ Julio-Claudian emperors and of Julio-Claudian relatives whose membership of the Julio-Claudian house was explicitly expressed through their coin legends. Former types of Galba were also restored, most likely as he easily constituted a link of continuity between the Julio-Claudian and Flavian houses. Domitian only restored Titus’ restored types of Augustus, most likely in order to accociate himself with the founder of the Principate. Titus’ ancestal representation was quite frequent, whereas Domitian’s was only concentrated at the beginning of his reign. One could thus conjecture that Titus used his retrospective kinship messages similarly as Tiberius, Gaius and Claudius, because he was the first successor of the newly founded Flavian house. Being the second Flavian successor, Domitian was a settled emperor, whose ancestral messages seem less important, as they appeared to have been for Nero after he was settled. 129 Being no relative of the Flavian house, nor of the Julio-Claudian house, Nerva had no imperial lineage to broadcast. Yet, he also letumed to divus Augustus, restoring some fictive types of him, on which the iconographical elements clearly aimed to announce the return of the peacefiil and prosperous Augustan age under Nerva. Trajan referred very marginally to Nerva as his predecessor who conferred imperial powers on him, and this only at the beginning of his reign. Later, Trajan’s types focused more on his biological father, Traianus Pater. Subsequently, types for Trajan’s female relatives (Plotina, Marciana, and Matidia) appeared whose coins designs use a mix of former ancestral iconography and innovative elements. Furthermore, a restoration series was issued, honouring all his imperial predecessors who had not received a damnatio memoriae. Rather than a tooi used to legitimate Trajan’s accession to the throne, Trajan’s retrospective messages seem thus to be part of an expertiment in the development of imaging the imperial family, introducing new iconographical elements. Under Hadrian, something similar is noticed. After his obscure adoption, he struck several types emphasising his legitimate adoption through Trajan, and he called himself divi Traiani filius and divi Nervae nepos on his coins. Two years after his accession to the throne his ancestral messages and legends dissappeared. Only at the end of his reign, a commemorative type celebrating Trajan and Plotina as his divine parents was struck. Most likely, the type was connected with the adoption of Lucius Aelius Caesar, glorifing the imperial descent of Hadrian’ s house. In addition, the representation of diva Matidia, niece of Hadrian’s (alleged) adoptive father Trajan and Hadrian’s mother-in-law, on Hadrian’s coins was probably not only an extra tooi to emphasise the emperor’s link with Trajan. The inclusion of her image as well as her similar types as the former Trajanic women shows also the emergence of a public image for the imperial family, including its female members, at the beginning of the second century. During the reigns of the adopted Antonine emperors Antoninus Pius, Lucius Verus, and Marcus Aurelius, the ancestral advertisement focused only on the emperor’s direct predecessor, commemorating their deification. These so-called consecratio-coins, which followed the iconography of the Trajanic and Hadrianic women, were only struck at the beginning of their reigns, most likely as a tooi to strengthen their legitimate succession, but also to commemorate the deification of their predecessors. Later in their reigns, the ancestral messages became less frequent. Moreover, the advertisement for the emperor’s ancestresses was totally abscent, and likewise no kinship terms were further added to the emperors’ legends. Can we suggest that adoption by the former emperor catalysed a secure succession 130 for the adopted son, who therefore perceived his lineage a less strong message to advertise during the later years of an emperor’s reign? However, a similar absence of kinship terms can be found in Commodus’ advertisement for his biological predecessor Maicus Aurelius. The Severan emperors, Septimius Severus699, Caracalla, and Alexander Severus, adapted the male ancestral pattem of the Antonine house, in which Septimius Severus had himself adopted when coming to power. We could therefore suggest that the marginal ancestral advertisement of the early Antonine emperors originated from the adoptive status of the succeeding emperor, but that it became Standard in the later second century, despite the descent of the new emperor. This notion is enforced by the emergence of a Standard iconography for the types of these ancestors in the second half of the second centuiy. These so-called consecratio-coïas portrayed the ancestors’ portrait on the obverse, while the reverse with the legend CONSECRATIO bore typical elements referring the deification, such as an eagle, an altar, or a funeral pyre. In contrast to the absolute absence of female ancestors during the Antonines, the propagation of the Severan mothers and grandmothers - these are Julia Domna, Julia Maesa, Julia Soaemias, and Julia Mamaea - appeared in unprecedented numbers. The designs for these Severan mothers and grandmothers seems to be imitations of the Standard legends and designs of the former Antonine empresses, especially of Faustina Iunior. Indeed, the Severans tried to portray themselves fïctitiously as the legal successors of the Antonine family to strengthen the legitimacy of their house. The fact that the Severan mothers and grandmothers are styled like Antonine empresses might have been one tactic in this legitimation process. Furthermore, the coin designs of the Severan mothers and grandmothers depicted them as the ideal matrona, who bestowed etemal fertility, health, and peace upon the state, a public role normally reserved for young empresses. Coins’ advertisement for Severan empresses, however, was marginal, as we will show later, which might imply that the empress’ role within the Severan house was taken over by the Severan mothers. Finally, often the elevation of the Severan mothers is ascribed to so-called Oriental influences, in contrast to the supposedly more manly Roman system However, most coin designs of these Severan women were embedded in a Roman iconography as they adapted the coin designs of the Antonine empresses. 699 To be complete: Septimius Severus denoted himself as the son of the divine Marcus Aurelius, though this kinship term was faixly marginal on bis coin legends. He is the last emperor to add such kinship term to his coin nomenclature. 131 After Alexander Severus, only eight third-century emperors displayed retrospective messages on their coins. These retrospective messages can be divided into two groups. A first group contains messages stressing the noble (Roman) descent of the emperor. Most likely, these messages had to obscure the humble birth of the emperor in order to gain the loyalty of Roman citizens or the emperors’ officers who were filled with a nostalgie Romanitas. Philippus Arabs, for instance, issued coins with the virtue nobilitas. This virtue initially appeared under Commodus, and was later adapted by the coins of Geta, Elagabalus, and Alexander Severus, where it had to highlight the birth of a consecutive (though partly fictive) series of emperors for the respective persons. Likewise, the virtue must have aimed to present Philippus with a noble Roman ancestry, a distinction that he could hardly have possessed, as he had more Arabian roots than Roman. Similar attempts can be noticed under Gallienus and Probus. Although Gallienus’ biological predecessor Valerian was totally abscent on his coins, resulting most likely from Valerian’s disgraceful fate under the Persian king Sapor I, Gallienus accentuated his noble Italian descent by advertising his matemal family of the Faleri from the similarly called Etruscan town. Probus on his turn stressed his Roman birth by the type ORIGINI AVG, displayed the she-wolf feeding Romulus and Remus, although he actually originated from the Pannonian city Sirmium. A second group contained types emphasising the emperors’ imperial (deified) ancestors which were issued by Decius, Quintillus, and Aurelian, Numerian and Carinus. Through these retrospective types, Decius, Quintillus and Aurelian were linked to some personally selected predecessors. Under Decius, a restoration series was struck containing eleven selected deified predecessors in order to revive ancient Roman religion and to present himself as lastest in the line of great Roman emperors, whereas both Quintillus’ and Aurelian’s coins commemorated their predecessor Claudius II Gothicus in order to legitimate their own imperial proclamations. Claudius II Gothicus is thought to have been an attractive ancestor as Constantine would also fictitiously link himself to him. At the end of the third century, the brothers Numerian and Carinus tried to strengthen their imperial succession by evoking their biological filiation from their imperial father Carus with numereous types, either commemorating Carus’ deification or displaying Carus as the one who handed to them the globe of world domination. Although the retrospective representation in the third century decreased in comparison with the two previous centuries, some strong retrospective attempts under individual emperors are still noticed to legitimate their imperial positions through ancestral advertisement. 132 PART 2: PROSPECTIVE KINSHIP MESSAGES 133 Chapter 3: Representing the emperors’ successors 1. Introduction Figure 1 (RIC F Augustus 405) with courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum In 13 BC, the mint of Rome issued two denarii types celebrating Augustus’ adopted grandsons Gaius and Lucius Caesar together with their mother Julia (Figure 1). This was the first time that sons were represented on Roman coins700, and many scholars interpret this as a step towards the formation of as a system of imperial succession.701 Indeed, neither Augustus’ son-in-law, Marcellus, nor any other family member of Augustus’ had been depicted on coins before. Of course, handing over political offices and duties within a family clashed with Republican morals and political practice, and therefore the emperor was probably cautious about advertising his family openly.702 On the other hand, Augustus - although his authority was not undisputed - was the man who after the civil wars provided Rome with peace, stability and grandeur, and this for already fifteen years. Still, the emperor was already 50 years old, and it seems that he became confronted more and more with the question of who would manage Rome after him. With the adoption of Gaius and Lucius, Augustus tried to secure the continuation of imperial power within his family, and with it the peace it brought.703 Likewise, an experimental display advertised these young men as his designated 700 In the Republic, it was not conventional to represent any offspring cm coins. However, not all scholars have identifïed these boys as Gaius and Lucius Caesar, see infra this chapter (3.3.1). 701 Fullerton, 1985, 476-477; Zanker, 1987, 215-223; esp. 216; Kleiner-Matheson, 1996, 57-58; Hurlet, 1997, 115-121; Wood, 1999, 66-67; Rowe, 2002, 17; Severy, 2003, 70-71; 164-165; 190-191; Fantham, 2006, 67; 92- 105; Ginsburg, 2006, 58-59; 174; Horster, 2011,75-87. In 23 BC, for example, any idea of succession within Augustus’ family seems absent as suggested by the story that the very sick Augustus gave his signet ring to his favoured general Agrippa, and handed over all of his political documents to his co-consul instead of to any relative. Augustus’ supposedly favoured nephew Marcellus was left empty-handed. Cf. Severy, 2003, 68-70. 703 Velleius Paterculus 2.104; Suetonius, Augustus 65; Tiberius 15.2; 23; Dio 54.18.1; Zanker, 1987, 215-223; Millar, 1993; 1-17; Wolters, 2002,298-323; Severy, 2003, 71. 134 successors, for example on the Roman coins.704 The need to find a new successor became urgent after the unexpected deaths of Gaius and Lucius Caesar in AD 4 and 2 respectively, whereupon Augustus quickly decided to adopt his stepson Tiberius together with Agrippa • 705 Postumus, the younger brother of Gaius and Lucius. Although political offices were not hereditary in Rome706, Tiberius’ succession seems to have been inevitable. As the adopted son of Augustus and his only surviving heir, the experienced general Tiberius had been sharing the tribunicia postestas and the imperium with his adoptive father for ten years already, and thus, theoretically had been Augustus’ imperial colleague 707 In contrast, Gaius received no political or military office during Tiberius’ reign. Yet, Gaius’ succession to Tiberius seems to have raised no questions either, as he was the emperor’s adopted grandson and named heir, and thus his direct descendant. It is only when the childless Gaius was murdered that no lineal descendant of the emperor could r-laim the throne. However, in this political vacuum a dynastie principle prevailed when the Praetorian Guard acknowledged the older Claudius as the eldest living member of the Julio-Claudian house and possessor of their estate, proclaiming him the new emperor.709 The succession of Claudius demonstrated that the question surrounding the imperial succession was “not so much whether a member of the [Julio-Claudian] dynasty was to be the new princeps, but which”, as Hekster has suggested.710 Consequently, the idea of dynastie succession seems to become well-integrated into the minds of the Romans by the middle of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. For Romans, such succession could happen tbrough biological and adoptive bonds, as legally there was no difference between biological and adoptive ties.711 In particular later, the Roman military seems to have favoured dynastie succession, as we argued in the previous chapter. Of course, succession within an imperial family excluded (the formation of) a political vacuum after the 704 In 8 BC, Gaius Caesar was depicted as a knight on a golden coin type; and between 5 BC and AD 5 several innovative types displayed Gaius and Lucius Caesar together as the principes iuventutis and designated consuls. Cf. Zanker, 1987, 215-219; Harster, 2011,75-78; 79; Wolters, 2002,298-323. 705 Velleius Pateiculus 2.104; Suetonius, Augustus 65; Tiberius 15.2; 23; Dio 55.13.2. 706 Appian, Civil Wars 3.18; Mommsen, 1878,770; Baharal, 1996,1-19. 707 Levick, 19992, 19-30; 47-81, esp. 75; 80-81; Rowe, 2002, 50-54; 80; 87; 174; Severy, 2003,187-212. 708 After the death of Drusus Iunior and the deaths of Nero and Drusus Caesar, Tiberius named his grandson Tiberius Gemellus and Gennanicus’ youngest son, Gaius, as heirs to equal shares of his estate and as each sole heir in case of the other’s death: Suetonius, Tiberius 54-55; 62.3; 76; PIRI'.217; Winterling, 2003, 39-50; Rowe, 2002,99. 709 Levick, 1990,31-39; Hekster, 2001,39-41; Osgood, 2011, 29-31. 710 Hekster 2001 39-41. 711 Gaius 197; 107; 2.135a-137; Digest 28.3.8; 18; Institutes 1.11.2; 2.13.4; Syme, 1982 [=1984], 397-398; Kunst, 1996, 87-104; 2005, 21; Corbier, 1991a, 63-78; 1991b, 137; 1994, 243-291; Flower, 1996, 85; Gardner, 1998, 114-208; 126-145, Hekster, 2001, 35-49; 2002, 19-20; Frier-McGinn, 2004, 304-310; Kunst, 2005, 15-21; 69-77; Lindsay, 2009, 35-96; 197-216. For more about the adoption procedure in Roman society, see chapter 2 (2.4.1.2.1-3 and 2.4.2.2) and infra this section. 135 death of the emperor, which in the most stable case prevented the rise of imperial opponents who could claim the imperial throne.712 Moreover, dynastie succession kept the imperial (administrative) freedmen and slaves as well as the family fortune w ithin the imperial family, which strengthened the successor’s grip on imperial authority and signalled to the military that this successor could guarantee their stipendia and distribute donatives.713 These considerations often persuaded the senators and People of Rome to prefer the successor of the imperial house over estranged imperial opponents.714 As a dynastie principle seems to have been a desirable form of succession, we may suggest that the presence of a potential successor dunng an emperor’s reign strengthened the position of his house. During the reign of his (adoptive) father, the successor could symbolise a sort of an etemal continuation of the imperial house, and with it, the stability and peace it promised, which on the one hand could be a strong resource for the emperor when claiming power; and on the other hand could constitute an important advantage when others contested his imperial throne.715 The successor, in contrast to the emperor’s ancestors, could thus be a prospective tooi to strengthen the emperor’s reign and house. Before we continue, some terms and aims must be clarified and defined. This study uses the term ‘successor’ for all potential successors of the reigning emperor, including his biological and adopted (grand)sons. This includes also sons who were appointed their father’s co- Augustus, because it will be illuminating to examine how the representation of the co-Augusti developed, and whether or not it differed from that of the other imperial sons, expecting that their representation would be the same as their father’s.71^ Furthermore, the representation of all potential successors on coins will be analysed regardless whether they were designated consul, were proclaimed imperator, or shared the tribunicia postestas with their fathers. In this way, the terms ‘son’ and ‘successor’ are almost synonymous in this study, and will be used interchangeably. Likewise, each person who was appointed Caesar by the reigning emperor, without being his son, is also regarded as the emperor’s intended successor as this title had been regularised into a title given to the designated successor from at the latest Timpe, 1962, 88; Wiedemann, 19962, 198-255; Corbier, 1991a, 49-79; Lintott, 1994, 130-132; Baharal, 1996 9-22; Lendon, 1997, 254; Hekster, 2001, 36-37; 39-49. See supra chapter 1 Weaver, 1972, 199-294; 299-300; Saller, 1984, 347. 714 Timpe, 1962, 88; Bleckmann, 1992, 276-326; Wiedemann, 19962, 198-255; Corbier, 1991a, 49-79- Lintott, 1994, 130-132; Baharal, 1996,9-22; Lendon, 1997, 254; Hekster, 2001, 36-37; 39-49 Hekster, 2001, 39-41; Horster, 2011, 75-81. In this study, a son who was designated Augustus during his father’s reign will be always referred to as his co-Augustus . Until AD 195, no person was ever appointed co-Augustus by a reigning Roman emperor without being the emperor’s (adopted) relative. 136 Vespasian omvards.7'7 This group, however, is rather limited. In addition, this study includes deceased sons of the ruling emperor when represented. While these men were never to succeed their imperial fathers, their presence may have acted as a symbol for the fertility of the ruling house, and subsequently for its ability to bring forüi anolher successor. Finally, not every emperor had biological sons to secure his succession, and therefore, he could decide to adopt one as a tactic to strengthen his reign. As we have argued before, adoption was a very common usage in Roman practice to incorporate someone into a familia or as a stragegy to prevent the extinction of a famUia. Moreover, legally, no difference existed between biological sons bom in lawful marriage and adopted sons.718 Yet, it this study, we want to analyse how the representation of imperial succession developed, and whether kinship by blood prevailed in it. Therefore, this study will differentiate between biological and adopted (grand)sons, and it will examine how both groups were represented. Almost half of the 47 emperors between 27 BC and AD 285 analysed here had biological sons of their own that were bom in lawful marriage.719 Most imperial sons were involved in the imperial govemment. They joined their fathers on military campaigns, shared religious offices, and were present at public donations. In some cases, these sons were still very young. Philippus Iunior, for example, was only ten years old when he became co-Augustus of his father Philippus Arabs, and Diadumenianus, the son of Macrinus, was not even a teenager when he was proclaimed Caesar.™ Every emperor who had more than one biological son raised each son to the rank of Caesar, and usually Üie eldest became his co-Augustus. Of course, the prospect that more than one (biological) son could secure the imperial succession would have been very attractive, for in Roman times high death rates, especially of children, 717 For more on Caesar as inherited name and titie see Syme, 1959, 172-188; Hammond, 1957, 22-27; Buttrey, 718^21™. iqg2 r=19841 397-398; Kunst, 1996, 87-104; 2005, 21; Carbier, 1991a, 63-78; 1994, 243-291, Gardner l998, 114-208;’126-145; Hekster, 2001, 35-49; 2002, 19-20; Frier-McGinn, 2004, 304-310; Kunst 2005, 15-21; 69-77; Lindsay, 2009, 35-96; 197-216. For more about the procedure, purposes, and restnctions of adootion in Roman society, see supra chapter 2 (2.4.1.2 and 2.4.2.2). 719 In total, 17 emperors had biological sons: Tiberius had Drusus Iunior; Claudius had Britannicus; Vitellius had a son who was probably called Vitellius Germanicus; Vespasian had Titus and Domitian; MarcusAurelius had several sons of whom only Commodus survived his father; Pertinax had a son whose name is unknown (m flus study he is denoted as P. Helvius Pertinax Iunior); Septimius Severus had Caracaüa and Geta, ^ n n u s h a d rügHumflrtiflnns: Maximinus Thrax had Maximus; Gordian I had Gordian H; Phüippus Arabs h^P W ippus Iunior; Decius had Heiennius Etruscus and Hostffianus; Trebonianus Gallus had Volusianus, Valenan had Galtienus; Gallienus had Valerianus Iunior, Saloninus, and Manmanus; Girus had Carmus^and Numenan Carinus had Nigerianus. The sons of Tacitus and Florianus, mentioned by the HA Tacitus 6.8, 14.1, 16.4 are most likely fictive. Cf. Paschoud, 1996,300-301; 311. • rw toa-H-1Q90 720 Philippus Arabs: Aurelius Victor, Book of the Caesars 28.3; Eutropms 9.3, Macnnus: 17 19-20, 32; 34; 37-40; Herodian 5.4.12; HA Diadumenusr, Aurelius Victor, Book of the Caesars 22, Eutropius 8.20. 137 were a harsh reality.721 Furthermore, military campaigns or murder conspiracies could be fatal for potential successors. The second son of Gallienus, Saloninus, for instance, was killed at Cologne by the troops of the Gallic usurper Postumus, and Gallienus’ eldest, Valerianus Iunior, died in suspicious circumstances at Sirmium, most likely as a result of a conspiracy by his guardian Ingenuus.722 It is therefore understandable that an emperor who had several (grand)sons involved them all in state affairs. Eleven emperors of the 47 analysed in this study decided to adopt one or more sons.723 Reasons for these adoptions differed. For instance, the cases of Galba and Elagabalus, who both adopted a son, strongly suggest how their reigns relied on the prospect of an available successor who prevented the extinction of the emperor’s house, guaranteeing its continuity and benefits.724 Noticeably, most of adopted sons were related to the (former) ruling imperial family, either by blood or by marital ties, which hint that the adopted sons’ affinities with their new fathers may have swayed the emperor’s respective selections.725 Among the Julio-Claudians, Gaius and Lucius Caesar, Tiberius, Agrippa Postumus, Germanicus, Gaius, and Nero were all related to their adoptive (grand)father, the first seven by lineage, the last by maniage. Domitian adopted the sons of his patemal cousin, Flavius Clemens.726 The so-called adoptive emperors of the late first and second centuries were mostly also related to their adoptive fathers: Hadrian was Trajan’s patemal cousin, Antoninus Pius was Hadrian’s great-nephew by mamage and Marcus Aurelius was Antoninus Pius’ nephew by marriage. Only Lucius Verus was connected to the Antonines through his adoption by Antoninus Pius and the adoption of his father by Hadrian. However, Lucius Verus’ connection with the Antonines was strengthened by his marriage to Lucilla, the daughter of Marcus Aurelius and granddaughter of Antoninus Pius. The practice was also applied by the other Antonine emperors. Hadrian 0 , 0n, ™ ' ^ tyAn, Roman world, see Duncan-Jones, 1990, ch.2; Saller, 1994, 12-42: Frier 1999 85-109- Scheidel, 1999, 254-281; 2001, 1-81; Stathakopoulos, 2004. ^ HA the twoGallieni 19.1; Tyranni Triginta 9.1-9; Aurelius Victor, Book o f the Caesars 32-33. C l a ^ n ^ r 1 Ga,^ S, f d Caesar, Tiberius, and Agrippa Postumus; Tiberius adopted Germanicus; udius adopted Nero, Galba adopted Piso; Domitian adopted his patemal cousins: Flavius Domitianus and 1 — Nen^a adopted Trajan; Trajan probably adopted Hadrian; Hadrian adopted Aelius Verus and Antoninus ftus, Antoninus Pius adopted Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus; F.lagahal,,» adopted Alexander Severus; and Trebomanus Gallus probably adopted Hostüianus. 1 U &X15- 18°C^°: ^ n" Italicus’Punica la403; Plutarch- Galba 23; Tacitus, Histories 5 7 1 2 HA F ^ T h T ’ f-fiA P10 ,6,3-51- Elagabalus «fopUng Alexander Severus: Dio 80.17.2-3; Herodian Booh oflhe Caesars 23A For more on 016 historicai backgrounds i « C^ ? ibb°n^!Z 76; 1'84; Geer’ 1936’ 47‘54: Carcopino, 1949, 262-312; Birley, 1997, 289-300- Reece 1999 163; Hekster, 2001,42-45; 2002,16-30; Roman-Rémy-et al., 2009,508-517. ’ ’ ’ CorbterSei9b9°laS 7 4 ^ ^ ^ °f ^ daUghtCT of Domitian’s sister DomitUla Iunior. Klose, 1984, 193; 138 married Trajan’s great-niece Sabina, Antoninus Pius married Sabina’s niece Faustina Maior, and Marcus Aurelius married Antoninus Pius’ daughter Faustina.727 Later as well, Alexander Severus was adopted by his matemal cousin Elagabalus.728 That the imperial kinship by blood played an important role in the choice for adoption is also seen in the case of Hostilianus. This young man was not related to his adoptive father, Trebonianus Gallus, but was the son of the former emperor Trajan Decius and thus personifïed the transfer of the imperial power from his biological father to his adoptive father.729 That kinship by blood was perceived an important element in the imperial succession is also demonstrated by the elimination of imperial relatives by certain reigning emperors. Nero, for example, killed many who had either Julian or Claudian blood running through their veins.730 Likewise, Caracalla probably executed the natural son of Pertinax, Pertinax Iunior, in fear that he might claim the former throne of his father.731 One way to examine the representation of imperial successors is by analysing their presence and role as envisioned on the imperial coinage. This chapter, as the first chapter in part two focusing on prospective kinship messages, will give an overview of the representation of all potential imperial successors on Roman imperial coins. Here, the representation of the biological and adopted successors will be analysed separately in order to examine whether kinship by blood may have been dominant in the representation of these successors. In this analysis, special attention will be also given to the development of the representation of the successors on coins, and to the representational differences between co-Augusti and Caesares. Furthermore, as a successor could embody the prospective prosperity and hereby strengthen the emperor’s reign, we could hypothesise that these imperial successors are likely to have been associated with hope, fortune, and prosperity for the Roman Empire on their father’s coins.732 In addition, the emperor’s (divine) foresight regarding which successor would secure 727 Geer, 1936, 47-54; Hekster, 2001,41-49; Lo Casrio, 2005,140. 728 Dio 80.17.2-3; Herodian 5.7.1-2; HA Elagabalus 13.1; Aurelius Victar, Book af the Caesars 23.4. 729 Velleius Paterculus 2.123-125; Suetonius, Tiberius 22-24; Aurelius Victor, Book efthe Caesars 30. Potter, 2004,246-248. 730 Julian descent Lucius Junius Silanus Torquatus, a great grandson of Julia Iunior; Claudian descent Nero’s cousin Rubellius Plautus, bis wife and children, his brother-in-law Faustus Comelius Sulla, bis sister-wife Octavia and his sister Antonia. Suetonius, Nero 36; Corbier, 1994, 274-275 with references; Rudich, 1993, xxviii-xxix; 19-20; 30-31; 44-46; 66-74; 82; 137-139; Kragelund, 1998,167-171; Hekster, 2001,45-46. 731 P. Helvius Pertinax Iunior was murdered during his consulate in 212 AD, see Herodian 4.3.6; HA Caracalla 4.8; Geta 6. 6-7. Cf. Fluss, 1918, 904. 732 Perassi, 1991; Rowe, 1997; Legutko, 2000; Rawson, 2001, 21-41; Cox, 2005, 251-270; Horster, 2007; Seelentag, 2009, 83-100. 139 dynastie continuity - often expressed by the virtue providentia during the Roman Principate - is expected to draw frequent attention as well.733 2. The general picture Emperors (total coin types) Graph 6: Proportions of coin types propagating potential imperial successors The graph above (Graph 6) surveys the relative frequency of messages propagating potential successors during the emperor’s reign from Augustus (27 BC) until Carinus (AD 285) which were minted on coins by all imperial mints. In most cases, the emperor’s intended successor was either a biological son bom in lawful marriage or an adopted son. Occasionally, imperial brothers or the holders of other positions of authority could be appointed as Caesares, as Domitian is shown as his brother Titus’ successor, Clodius Albinus as his opponent Septimius’, and Gordian m under Balbinus and Papienus. Raised to the rank of Caesares, they were likely placed into the ruling emperor’s line of succession. 733 Wallace-Hadrffl, 1981, 321-322; Martin, 1982; Norena, 2001, 159; 2011, 92-99, 257; Manders, 2012, 162- 165. 140 In general, successors were displayed on coins by more than half of the emperors examined, and percentages of coins representing a successor often exceed 10%. In particular, the advertisements of the imperial Caesar proliferated in the 40s and 50s of the third century. Nevertheless, not every emperor propagated his son(s). Galba, Nerva, Trajan, Pertinax, and Gallienus did not refer to their (adopted) sons at all, a fact that demands further examination in one of the next sections.734 The representation of potential successors was still experimental on Julio-Claudian coins. Augustus, who had four adopted sons, only dedicated 7.2% of his coin types to them. Ukewise, Tiberius’ coin advertisement for his Caesar Drusus was marginal: 4.8%. Nero alone graced 7.1% of coin types under his adoptive father Claudius, and thus received more attention than all his Julio-Claudian predecessors. As noted above, Galba issued no types for his adopted son Piso, despite Piso’s intended importante, for Galba’s power basis.735 On the contrary, when Vitellius came to power, his coins represented his children on 5.8% of his types, and subsequenüy his imperial opponent Vespasian did too. Almost half of Vespasian’s types referred to his sons Titus and Domitian (41.4%). Later the childless Titus issued almost 25% of his types in name of his brother Domitian, who was denoted Caesar. The Flavian practice of portraying natural sons was followed by Marcus Aurelius and most third-century emperors who had biological sons. Septimius Severus, Macrinus, Maximinus Thrax, Philippus Arabs, Trajan Decius, Trebonianus Gallus, Valerian, and Carus all issued a high number of types for their biological sons and grandsons.736 Only two third- century emperors, Pertinax and Gallienus, did not represent their biological sons on their coins.737 Adopted sons, on the other hand, less often adom second- and third-century coins. Note, however, that one must be careful in interpreting graph 6 as it shows the percentages of the adopted sons’ types in relation to the total number of types of their adoptive fathers during 734 Note, however, that Galba was murdered only five days after he had adopted Piso, and that the adoption of Hadrian by Trajan happened around Trajan’s death and could have been alleged. For more see supra chapter 2 (2.4.1.2.2 and 2.4.2.2) and infra this chapter (3.3.2-3). 735 Fliny, Letters 2.20; Silius Italicus, Punica 10.403; Tacitus, Histories 1.14; 15; 18; Suetonius, Galba 17. Cf. Klaassen, forthcoming 2014, chapter 2. 736 In chronological order: Marcus Aurelius: 13.9%; Septimius Severus: 47.7%; Macrinus: 13.1%; Maximinus Thrax: 16.2%; Philippus Arabs: 23.8%; Trajan Decius: 35.3%; Trebonianus Gallus: 47.1%; Valerian: 61.1%; Carus: 47%. See appendix A.3. Only Hostilianus survived his father Trajan Decius. He was adopted by the latter’ s successor Trebonianus Gallus, but died of the Cyprian plague in the same year. 737 Pertinax had one son, P. Helvius Pertinax Iunior, and under Gallienus’ sole reign, only his third son, Marinianus, was still alive. One posthumous type for divus Saloninus, Gallienus’ second son, seems to have been issued under Gallienus’ sole reign: RIC V.A. Saloninus 15. 141 their whole reign, and thus not in relation to the number of types of their adoptive fathers counted from the moment that they were adopted. Under Nerva and Trajan no type displayed their adopted sons, respectively Trajan and Hadrian. Of course, it should be noted that the adoption of Hadrian by Trajan occurred in obscure circumstances.738 Hadrian and Antoninus Pius displayed their adopted sons on their coin types. Aelius Verus and Antoninus Pius both graced 8.5% of Hadrian’s total types, a significant percentage, as both were appointed Caesar in Hadrian’s last years of reign. 17.5% of Antoninus Kus’ types were dedicated to his adopted son Marcus Aurelius, whereas Pius’ other son Lucius Verus strikingly only appeared on one coin type (0.1%). In addition, Elagabalus’ coins rarely referred to his adopted cousin, as only 2.4% of his total coin types displayed Alexander Severus. Tiebonianus Gallus, however, issued a greater amount for his adopted son Hostilianus: almost 10% of Gallus’ types displayed the surviving son of the former emperor Trajan Decius, a significant number, as Hostilianus already died in Gallus’ first year of accession. Also the Caesares Clodius Albinus and Gordian m received coin types, but not as regularly as most biological imperial sons in the third century. As such, 1.9% of Septimius’ total coins were issued for Clodius Albinus, and almost 5% of Balbinus and Pupienus’ types were issued for Gordian m . Furthermore, between Valerian and Carus, no potential successor is shown on the imperial coins. Of course, it is assumed that none of these emperors had any biological son, but it is unclear why they did not adopt a son or appoint a Caesar™ The percentages of the general graph (Graph 6) representing the propagation of potential imperial successors evoke several issues that require more examination. The following parts (§ 3 - § 5) examine the visual presence and the relative frequency of all potential successors on the emperor’s coins in relation to the emperor’s total types, and whenever required, in relation to the types issued from the imperial son’s birth onwards740, the successor’s adoption, or the Caesar’ s appointment. The first two parts (§ 3 and § 4) examine respectively the adopted and biological sons, because the higher percentages issued for the biological sons contrast sharply with the lower percentages for the adopted sons, which is remarkable as there was no legal difference between these two groups. This method provides the opportunity to 738 For more on Hadrian’s (alleged) adoption see supra chapter 2 (2.3.1 and 2.4.1.2.2). 739 Iiterary sources suggest potential successors for some of these third-century emperors. Firstly, HA Tacitus 16.4 reports that the brothers Tacitus and Florianus had several sons, but this is most likely not true. Cf. Paschoud, 1996, 300-301, 311. Secondly, the ^ ''‘-century author Zonaras 12.26 wrote that on his deathbed, Claudius n Gothicus appointed his general, the later emperor Aurelian, as his preferred successor. 740 However, this is very rare, because no imperial sons were bom during the reign of their father, except Commodus and Nigrinianus. 142 compare the two groups and draw some conclusions about the imperial succession and what role successors related by blood play in it Furthermore, (the development of) the representation of both groups of successors on coins will be examined, and with it special attention will go to the representational differences between co-Augusti and Caesares. In addition, in the part about the biological sons, a section (§ 4.5) will be devoted to the commemoration coins for deceased biological sons, as they also received types, although this was rather limited. The last part (§ 5) discusses three successors designated as Caesar who were not adopted or biological sons of the reigning emperor. In general, these Caesares received few coin types, but form an interesting case in comparison to the group of the adopted sons who also received a restricted number of types. Finally, all parts also examine coin legends referring to kinship terms or special imperial phrases on the types advertising potential successors.741 Kinship terms, such as fllius and liberi, could be added to the types featuring the emperors’ children in order to identify them, emphasising the emperors’ provision of a safe continuation of the Roman Empire through his ruling house. Phrases like destino imperat could refer to the predestined succession of the potential successor. Such legends form an interesting case to investigate to which extent the emperor tried to advertise his future successor. 741 Because kinship terms were rarely added to the nomenclature of the potential successors, their kinship terms are not discussed in a separate section as we did for the ancestral kinship terms in chapter 2 (2.3.1). 143 3. Representing adopted (grand)sons Adopted sons (total coins types) and Emperors who had adopted (grand)sons (total coin types counted from the adoption to the death of the adopted son or the emperor) Graph 7: Proportions of coin types propagating the emperor’s adopted son(s) counted from their adoption to the death of the adopted son or the emperor742 Between 27 BC and AD 285,11 reigning emperors adopted 17 sons, of whom 10 appeared on the emperor’s coin types: Gaius and Lucius Caesar, and Tiberius under Augustus; Nero under Claudius; Aelius Verus and Antoninus Pius under Hadrian; Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus under Antoninus Pius; Alexander Severus under Elagabalus; and Hostilianus under Trebonianus Gallus. The adoption of an imperial successor could be interpreted as a tactic for strengthening the reign of the adopting emperor. Adoption prevented the extinction of the emperor’s house, guaranteeing its continuity and benefits, and the imperial descent of some adopted sons may have been perceived as an extra element to legitimate the adoptive father’s reign. Consequently, one might expect that adopted sons were advertised widely through visual representations, and so also through coins. Graph 7, however, shows that during the first three centuries, adopted sons either received a restricted number of coin types, or were 742 Note that the given percentages for Aelius Verus, Alexander Severus, and Hostilianus are estimations as the RIC do not provide accurate dates of their types, for more see infra this section. No adopted sons appeared on the coins of their future adoptive father before that they were adopted. 144 totally absent from their fathers’ coin types.743 A substantial number of types were only reserved for Tiberius, Nero, and Marcus Aurelius from the date on which they were adopted.744 Most imperial adopted sons analysed here were not adopted before their adoptive fathers became emperor, but sometime during the latter’s reign. Moreover, some adopted sons, such as Gaius and Lucius Caesar, Germanicus, Aelius Verus, and Hostilianus died before their adoptive fathers. Graph 7, displaying the percentages of types featuring adopted sons between their adoption and the day either they or the emperor died, shows therefore, in some cases, a different pattem than graph 6.745 The following sections, examining the advertisement of the adopted sons chronologically, will therefore give special attention to these detailed time demarcations.746 Additionally, the iconography of the coins of these adopted sons will be considered, because it might give more information about the role(s) attributed to them. 3.1. Representing the adopted (grand)sons of the Julio-Claudian house The emperors Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius each adopted one or more sons. Several scholars have speculated about the purpose of these adoptions, stating that it was a tooi to mark these sons as their successors, and eventually to create a line of succession based on the membership of the Julio-Claudian family.747 Indeed, all adopted Julio-Claudian sons were related to the Julio-Claudian house by blood, often reinforced by mamages, and those who survived their imperial adoptive father became the next emperor.748 Only Claudius was not adopted by his predecessor, but he was proclaimed emperor too because of his Julio-Claudian descent, as he was the only surviving adult member of the house and the possessor of their estate.749 Because no legal basis for an imperial succession existed, one could assume that 743 The following adopted sons received no coin types: Agrippa Postumus during Augustus’ reign; Germanicus during Tiberius’ reign; Piso during Galba’s reign; Flavius Vespasianus and Domitianus during Domitian’s reign; Trajan during Nerva’s reign; and, most likely, Hadrian during Trajan’s reign, as the type for Hadrian as Trajan’s Caesar was probably an ancient forgery (RIC n Trajan 724a). The type, however, is included in graph 7. 744 Counted from their adoptions, the percentage of types for Tiberius as Caesar under Augustus is 60%; for Nero as Caesar under Claudius is 17%; and for Marcus Aurelius as Caesar under Antoninus Pius is 17.5%. 745 The same counts for graph 6. 146 However, this aim is not possible for every adoptive emperor, because the chronological progression of the coins of the emperor’s Elagabalus and Trebonianus Gallus has not been analysed in detail yet. 747 Wiedemann, 19962, 198-255; Rose, 1997, 22; 24; 32-34; 42; 46; Severy, 2003, 68-77; Lyasse, 2008, 50-51; 92-94; 96; 140-141; 150-152. 748 These emperors were Tiberius, Gaius, and Nero. Cf. Gibbon, 1776, 1.84; Carcopino, 1949, 262-312; Birley, 1997,289-300; Reece, 1999, 163; Hekster, 2001,42-45; 2002, 16-30; Roman-Rémy-et al., 2009,508-517. 749 See supra this chapter (3.1). 145 these adopted sons were propagated frequenüy as prospective successors.750 Graph 7, however, demonstrates that advertisement of the adopted Julio-Claudian sons on the central coinage was not very frequent. The following is a chronological overview of the representation of the Julio-Claudian adopted sons on coins. The first Julio-Claudian emperor to adopt a successor was Augustus. Around 17 BC, he adopted two sons of his daughter Julia, Gaius and Lucius. As teenagers, these boys assumed the toga virilis, were entitled princeps iuventutis and consul designatus, and became members of priestly collegia.751 The young men were also displayed on coins. In Rome, two silver coin types celebrated the imperial family, depicting Julia with her two eldest boys on a reverse of Augustus (Figure l).752 Coin types from Lugdunum, all made from precious metal, focused more on the boys themselves. One type depicts Gaius on horseback as a knight.753 The type was probably issued on the occasion of Augustus’ visit to Gaul in 8 BC, wheie Gaius accompanied him.754 Another series of types appeared between 5 BC and AD 5, and represented the brothers together as the principes iuventutis and consules designati in full ornament (IMAGE X.4).755 In all their legends, the young men were also unmistakably identified as divifllii Augusti, ‘the sons of Augustus’. Although the presence of imperial sons as well as the way in which they were represented was innovative and will be adapted under later emperors, the proportion of Gaius’ and Lucius’ types calculated in relation to Augustus’ total types from their adoption until their deaths was quite small, respectively 5% and 3.8% (Graph 7).756 Overall, the coin advertisement for Gaius and Lucius seems not to be that common. However, the dates of these issues as well as the huge quantities struck suggest that the gold and silver types from Lugdunum were used as donativa and stipendia for the soldiers 750 Appian, Civil Wars 3.18; Mommsen, 1878,770; Baharal, 1996, 1-19. 751 Hurlet, 1997, 115-121; Wolters, 2002, 297-323; Fantham, 2006, 92-105. 752 RIC I2 Augustus 404-405; Fullerton, 1985, 476; Zanker, 1987, 215-216; Kleiner-Matheson, 1996, 57-58; Wood, 1999, 66-67; Rowe, 2002, 17; Severy, 2003, 70-71; 164-165; 190-191; Fantham, 2006, 67; 92-105; Ginsburg, 2006, 58; 174; Horster, 2011, 75-87. Contra Laffranci, 1918, 188 n.2; Lusnia, 1995, 125; 127; 129; Rose, 1997,14-15 who identified the male figures as Augustus and Agrippa. 753 RIC P Augustus 198-199. 754 Pollini, 1985, 113-117; Zanker, 1987, 218; Rose, 1997, 17; Wolters, 2002, 299; Severy, 2003, 162. Cf. Dio 55.6.7. 755 RIC P Augustus 206-212. Sutherland, 1987, 26; Rose, 1997, 17; Wolters, 2002, 297-323; Horster, 2011, 75- 79. Gaius became pontifex in 5 BC and Lucius became augur in AD 2. The issue date of the principes iuventutis- types is debatable. Several scholars, such as Laffranchi, 1918; Mattingly in BMCRE, 1923, Fantham, 2006, and others, have suggested that the types could also have been issued after the death of Gaius and Lucius as a commemorative issue. However, Wolters decisively demonstrated that the types were issued between 2 BC and AD 5. See for the discussion and references Wolters, 2002, 299-310, esp. 299-302. 756 N Total types of Augustus between 17 BC and 2-4 AD=160; N Gaius=8; N Lucius=6. These types were issued either by the Roman mint (RIC P Augustus 337-468), by the mint of Nemausus (RIC P Augustus 158), or by the mint of Lugdunum (RIC l2 Augustus 162-216; 227-230). 146 at the northem frontiers.757 If so, there is reason to believe that Augustus tried to target the Roman soldiers at specific moments with these precious-metal types in order to introducé Gaius and Lucius to his troops as their prospective emperors. After the deaths of Gaius and Lucius Caesar, Augustus simultaneously adopted their younger brother Agrippa Postumus and Tiberius, his stepson. The former was never represented on Augustus’ coins, whereas the latter received several coin types at the end of Augustus’ reign.758 In total, 60% of Augustus’ types that were issued from Tiberius’ adoption until Augustus’ death were reserved for Tiberius (Graph 7).759 The presence of Tiberius on the imperial coinage during the last 10 years of Augustus’ reign is thus immense. The types display Tiberius as a celebrated general or portrayed Tiberius in the same manner Augustus was displayed on his later coins. In addition, Tiberius’ legends name him IMPERATOR and DIVI FILIVS AVGVSTI. The iconography, the legends, and the frequency of the Tiberius’ types suggest there was no doubt that Tiberius would succeed Augustus, as he clearly was represented as Augustus’ imperial colleague and heir apparent760 As a precondition for his adoption, Tiberius had to adopt Germanicus, the eldest son of his brother Drusus. In this way, Augustus may have desired to secure the succession of the imperial power for two generations.761 Germanicus, however, died before he could succeed Tiberius.762 Neither during his life, nor after his death did Germanicus receive attention on his adoptive father’s coinage.763 With the death of Germanicus, Augustus’ dynastie plan had 757 RIC P Augustus 198-199; 206-212. Pollini, 1985, 113-117; Sutherland, 1987, 26; Zanker, 1987, 218-219; Woltcrs, 2002, 298-299; Kienast, 2010, 73-74; Horster, 2011, 80. Note, however, that our research cannot give actual numbers for the quantities struck of these types as it is based on types and not on coin hoard specimens. 758 RIC P Augustus 221-226; 235-241b; 325-248b; 469-470. 759 N Total types of Augustus issued between AD 4 and 14=25; NTiberius=15. The types, RIC l1 Augustus 162a- 165b, struck at Lugdunum, displaying two soldiers often identified as Drusus Maior and Tiberius (Rose, 1997, 15; Severy, 2003, 89-90), giving branches to Augustus seated on a chair are not included here, because no legend identifïes these soldiers as Drusus and Tiberius, nor do their features resemble them. 760 Rose, 1997,18; 20-21; Severy, 2003,187-212; Pettinger, 2012,135-155. 761 Velleius Paterculus 2.130.4; Tacitus, Armals 1.3; Suetonius, Tiberius 15.2; Dio 55.13.2; Levick, 1966, 227- 244; Sumner, 1967, 413-435; Rose, 1997, 24-25; Levick, 19992, 49-50; Severy, 2003, 190-191; Pettinger, 2012, 49-50; 53; 145-146. 762 After Germanicus’ death, the Senate and the Assembly of the People voted a series of posthumous honours in order to commemorate the celebrated general: Rose, 1997, 22; 25-27; Potter, 1999, 65-88; Severy, 2000, 318- 337; 2003,228-231; Rowe, 2002,117. 763 Nowadays, scholars agree that the ‘Genmancus-dupondius’ (RIC P Gaius 57) displaying Germanicus as victorious general is dated to the reign of Gaius. Cf. Kemmers, 2005, 76-77; 82-85. Contra Trillmich, 1978, 48 and n. 106 and Wolters, 1990, 7-16, who reattributed the type to the reign of Tiberius, but without any convincing arguments. In addition, Andrew StUes (University of Oxford) has suggested to me that the male figure on the types RIC P Tiberius 38-40 accompanied with the legends CLEMENTIAE or MODERAHONI(S) could also refer to Germanicus, as a sart of posthumous cammemaration. However, this identification is not strengthened by any legend on the types. 147 collapsed.764 Therefore, it is possible that the representation of Tiberius’ biological son, Drusus, who was the newly proclaimed Caesar, and thus became the newly designated successor of his father, had to be more prominent than the commemoration of Germanicus to propagate the security of Tiberius’ continued lineage.765 Three years after Germanicus passed away, Drusus died too, whereupon the emperor decided to name his grandson Tiberius Gemellus together with his adopted grandson Gaius, the youngest of Germanicus, as joint- heirs.766 Yet no effort was made to advertise these boys as the next designated imperial successors, although previously the birth of Tiberius Gemellus and his twin brother had been celebrated on Tiberius’ coins with a type depicting the twins in crossed comucopiae around a winged caduceus, symbolising fertility and prosperity.767 In contrast, Nero, the adopted son of Claudius, received several coin types. After his marriage to Agrippina Iunior, Claudius adopted her son Nero, who was not only older than Claudius’ biological son, Britannicus, but who was also a direct descendant of Augustus via his mother.768 On Claudius’ coins, Nero was represented as the princeps iuventutis and as a superior priest admitted to all priestly colleges (referred to as the sacerdos cooptatus in omnia collegia supra numerum).169 From his adoption onwards, Nero adomed around 17% of Claudius’ coin types, whereas Britannicus is surprisingly absent from Claudius’ coin types (Graph 7 )770 Ancient sources as well as modem scholars suggest that the adoption of Nero was intended to safeguard the imperial succession via Julio-Claudian bloodline, which could be an explanation for the types Nero received 771 On the other hand, Nero was mature when he was depicted on the coins, whereas Britannicus had not reached manhood, which again 764 Velleius Paterculus 2.130.4; Tacitus, Annals 1.3; Suetonius, Tiberius 15.2; Dio 55.13.2; Rose, 1997, 20; 22; Severy, 2003,190-193; 223-231. 765 See infra this chapter (3.4.1). 766 Suetonius, Tiberius 76; PIR l\217; Rowe, 2002, 99; Winterling, 2003, 39-50. Before Tiberius Gemellus and Gaius were named Tiberius’ heirs, Nero and Drusus Caesar, the two eldest sons of Germanicus, had been murdered: Suetonius, Tiberius 54-55; 62.3; 76; Caligula 13.3. 767 RIC F Tiberius 42. BMCRE I, cxxxvii; cxli; Rose, 1997, 27-28. However, Germanicus Gemellus died a premature death. More on the birth and death of the twin see Tacitus, Annals 2.84; 4.15. Tacitus, Annals 4.12.2; 4.59.3 also states that after the death of Drusus Iunior, the two eldests sons of Germanicus, Nero and Drusus Caesar, were named as Tiberius’ successors, however, they received no coin attention. Cf. Klaassen, forthcoming 2014. 768 CIL 6.2041; Tacitus, Annals 12.25-26; 13.2.2; Suetonius, Claudius 26; 27; 29.5; Nero 4; 7.2; 9; Dio 61.1.1-2; Levick, 1990, 70. 769 RIC P Claudius 75-77; 79; 82-83; 107-108. For more on the priestly emblems on coins of the Caesares see Büsing, 1997, 37-45. 770 N Total types of Claudius from Nero’s adoption in AD 50 until Claudius’ death in AD 54=47; N Nero=8. It has been suggested by scholars that the SPES-type of Claudius (RIC P Claudius 99; 115) referred to the hopeful birth of Britannicus: Sutherland, 1951, 131-132; Von Kaenel, 1986, 113-118, type 55; 135-137, type 70; 241; Hark 1983, 83-84; 99; Zanker, 1987, 244-245, and Rose, 1997,41 n. 32. See also infra this chapter (3.4.1). 771 Tacitus, Annals 12.2.3. Cf. Meise, 1969, 174-177 and Levick, 1990, 69-70 on the importance of Nero’s ancestry as a motive for Claudius in marrying Agrippina. 148 could explain the lack of coin advertisement for Britannicus. The two explanations are not mutually exclusive. In general, it can be concluded that coin advertisement for the adopted Julio-Claudian sons was limited. Indeed, it seems that the Julio-Claudian house was experimenting with the public image for its imperial sons, both in frequency and in iconography. Some adopted sons even received no coin attention. Of course, political succession within a Roman family was unprecedented and clashed with Republican political attitudes and representational modes, which might have been one reason why the first emperors were cautious in representing their kin. 3.2. The coin absence of adopted sons after the Julio-Claudians After the death of Nero, at least five candidates tried to gain imperial power. Four of them managed to be recognised as emperor by the Senate and the People of Rome. In this time of political unrest, the idea of continuing the Julio-Claudian house or creating a new imperial house may have been very attractive for these contestants. Yet none of the imperial candidates were related to the former Julio-Claudian house. Only Galba tried to emphasise his close relation to Augustus’ wife, Livia, to legitimate his reign, as we examined in the previous chapter.772 On the other hand, two imperial candidates, Vitellius and Vespasian, seem to have focused on their own offspring for strengthening the power base of their reigns.773 The old Galba outlived his children. However, ancient authors report that he too aimed to strengthen his reign by adopting a son and successor.774 Five days before Galba was murdered, Lucius Calpumius Piso Iicinianus was adopted by the emperor. One could have expected numerous coin types to be issued for Piso; however, none are known to us (Graph 7). The absence of Piso from Galba’s coins demands explanation. One cannot use time as an argument as many situations demonstrated how quickly coins could be produced.775 Furthermore, Galba’s decision to adopt Piso must have been known to imperial administrators before Galba’ s PW? L. 305; RIC I2 Galba 13-14; 36; 52; 55; 65-67; 142-143; 150-152; 184-189; 224; 331-338; SEG 15.873; Plutarch, Galba 3.2; 14.3; Suetonius, Galba 4.1; 5.2; Woodhead, 1961, no. 328; Jucker, 1975, 354-355; Kragelund, 1998,160-161; Hekste, 2001, 37; 2006, 28. 773 See in/ra this chapter (3.4.2). 774 AfA: CIL 6.2051.1.24-25; Pliny, Letters 2.20; Silius Italicus, Punica 10.403; Plutach, Galba 23; Tacitus, Histories 1.12-20Suetonius, Galba 17; Dio 63.5.1. 775 See, for instance, Vitellius. He only reigned for eight months, but within this short period, the Roman mint issued 93 different types for him. RIC F Vitellius 66-176; Cheung, 1998, 55. 149 formal announcement, so they could easily have had the time to prepare an issue for Piso.776 The fact that the number of types struck under Galba is larger compared to the Julio-Claudian type output makes Piso’s absence even more noticeable.777 Of course, Galba was the first non- Julio-Claudian emperor, whose govemment struck a balance between the imperial tradition of the Julio-Claudians and the revival of the concepts of the Roman Republic. As a consequence, it is plausible that Galba’s image policy was still experimental and perhaps indecisive.778 Furthermore, as we showed above, the coin advertisement for the emperor’s adopted sons had been never been that common, making Piso’s absence not that different. The adopted sons of Domitian were absent from his coins as well. In the later years of his reign Domitian adopted the two immature sons of his cousin, Titus Flavius Clemens. Suetonius reports that they were called Flavius Vespasianus and Domitianus 779 With this adoption, the childless emperor seems to have followed the example of Augustus, who also secured the succession of his throne by adopting a blood-related duo. No types, however, were issued to celebrate Domitian’s adopted boys (Graph 7). Did the emperor fear their father Clemens, who with his Flavian kinship and his male offspring could be perceived as an imperial opponent to his throne? The ancient writers are silent about such threat in Domitian’s family, but we do know that Clemens is executed at the end of his consulship in AD 95. Officially, the charge was his lack of religious orthodoxy, but that could have been an excuse to eliminate him, because he had become too dangerous for Domitian’s position.780 Of course, this remains a highly tentative suggestion, certainly as not only Domitian’s dynastie policy, but also the content of his coin types scarcely differs from those of his Julio-Claudian predecessors, hinting at no special reason behind the absence of Domitian’s adopted sons on his coins. 116 At the end of his reign, Galba was awarded the title pater patriae; Piso’s adoption seems to be a reasonable occasion for it. Literary or other sources do not record when Galba accepted the title, but there are some coins of Galba that include this title: RIC P Galba 67; 73; 75-76 (Spanish Mint); 140 (Lugdunum); 426 (Rome). The fact that there are types with the pater patriae title, but not of Piso could again strengthen the hypothesis that the absence of Piso from Galba’s coins seems to be deliberate. However, the pater patriae-types are rather obscure as well. For more about the pater patriae title for Galba, see Stevenson, 2007,124-125. 777 Galba’s total coin type output: N=290 in seven months; Augustus’ total type output: N=373 in 41 years; Tiberius’ total type output: N=62 in 23 years; Gaius’ total type output: N=57 in three years; Claudius’ total type output: N=113 in 13 years; Nero’s total type output: N=261 in 14 years. Theoretical total type output per year for Augustus: 9.1; for Tiberius: 2.7; for Gaius: 19; for Claudius: 8.7; for Nero: 18.6 and for Galba 500 types/year. 778 Another element hinting at Galba’s indecisive policy comes from Tacitus, Histories 1.18 and Suetonius, Galba 17 who report that Galba did not grant a largess to the soldiers on occasion of Piso’s adoption, which the authors perceived as a crucial fault since by doing so he failed to bind the army to him. It is a highly tentative suggestion, but the absence of the largess can maybe be linked to the absence of an issue with Piso’s types. 779 Quintilian, Institutes o f Oratory, 4.1.2; Suetonius, Domitian 15.1. These boys were also the sons of the daughter of Domitian’s sister Domitilla Iunior. Klose, 1984,193; Corbier, 1991a, 74. 780 Suetonius, Domitian 15.1; Dio 67.14.2; Eusebius, Church History 3.18.4. Clemens’ wife Flavia Domitilla was charged with the same accusation, and was banished to Pandateria or Pontia. 150 3.3. Representing the adopted sons of the second century Several emperors of the second centuiy gave little or no attention to their adopted sons on their coinage: Trajan was absent from Nerva’s coins; Hadrian - with the exception of one dubious Caesar-type hinting at his adoption through Trajan781 - absent from Trajan’s coins; and Lucius Verus, who was adopted before his adoptive father Pius had become emperor, was depicted only once on Pius’ types during his whole reign (Graph 7).782 It was only during the last years of Hadrian’s reign - that is more than 50 years after Titus’ Caesar Domitian was widely represented on Titus’ coins - that successors received numerous types again. Both Aelius Verus and Antoninus Pius received between 7% and 10% of Hadrian’s types that were struck from their adoption to the day Hadrian died.783 We may suggest that this increased attention to these men suggests that the emperor wanted to announce to his subjects that he had appointed Aelius Veras, and later, Antoninus Pius as his designated successors. The coins for these two adopted sons support this suggestion, as their reverses refer to them as the joyfiil future (8.5%) and hope (11.3%) for the Roman Empire, who would preserve the concord (21.1%) and the secured peace (5.6%) of Hadrian’s reign.784 In addition, both men shared the tribunicia potestas and the consulship with their adoptive father Hadrian, and those powers were also mentioned on their types. At his own accession, Hadrian himself had to secure the support of the Roman army and the Senate. Moreover, he tried to emphasise his adoption by Trajan on several types in order tó legitimate his succession and to excel Lucius Quietus, who also sought the imperial throne.785 Maybe Hadrian wanted to avoid such similar experience for his adopted sons, but the regular advertisement for Hadrian’s adopted sons could also have served a higher cause. 781 RIC n, 338 n. 1; Roman-Rémy-et al., 2009, 508-517. 782 RIC III Antoninus Pius 93. See also infra this section. 783 Number of types of Hadrian between AD 134 AD and 138: N=426, of which Aelius Verus has N=41, 9.6% (RIC II Hadrian-. 428-442; 444; 986-989; 1053-1064; 1064A; 1065-1077) and Antoninus Pius: N=30, thus 7% (RIC ü Hadrian 445-458; 990-991; 1078-1095). Aelius Verus, however, died on New Year’s day of 138. Unfortunately, the year range 134-138 is the most precise temporal demarcation the RIC can give us. No recent work has been done on the chronological order of Hadrian’s coins. Consequently, the presence of Aelius Verus on Hadrian’s coins was probably a little less than 9.6% while that of Antoninus Pius a little bit more than 7%. 784 Total types struck in name erf Aelius Verus and Antoninus Pius: N=71. The following virtues are mentioned: joy = felicitas: RIC II Hadrian 430; 446; 451; 1076; hope = spes: RIC n Hadrian 431; 435a; b; 1053-1056; 1066-1067; concord = concordia: RIC n Hadrian 428; 436-437; 443; 441; 449-450; 453a; b; 458; 1057-1058; 1070; 1078; 1081; 1088a; b; 1089; secured peace = pax and securitas: RIC n Hadrian 1079-1080; 1087; 1092a; b; 1094. Cf. Strack, 1933,168-174; BMCRE m , cli-cliii; Béranger, 1973, 375 and Norena, 2011, 133 who argue that the propagation of the virtues of concord and peace did not always communicate the petition for these conditions, but often the current perception of these conditions, and therefore, advertise the hope for their future maintenance. 785 RIC II Hadrian 2-3; 22A; B; C; 534a; b; See supra chapter 2 (2.4.1.2.2), 151 As stated above, a designated successor could prevent a political vacuum, and thus promise a peaceful transition of the imperial power without civil wars.786 Maybe the old and sick Hadrian wanted to maintain peace in the Roman Empire by avoiding a war over succession after his death. After all, Hadrian’s policy had always been characterised by peace, as military conflicts were avoided - apart from the Second Roman-Jewish War (AD 132 - 136) - and as permanent fortifïcations along the borders of the Empire were erected, improving Communications and local area security 787 Furthermore, the avoidance of a war of succession and the establishment of a peaceful continuation of the imperial power in the long-term seemed to be very desirable, as Aelius Verus, and later, Antoninus Pius, were explicitly adopted as ‘path-holders’ for Marcus Aurelius 788 Marcus, nicknamed Verissimus by Hadrian, seemed to have been Hadrian’s favoured successor, but he was too young to be emperor himself between 136 and 138 789 The choice to adopt Aelius Verus and later Pius would have been due to their affïliation with Marcus; Aelius Verus was his father-in-law to be and Pius was his uncle by marriage 790 Neither of Hadrian’s adopted sons was expected to rule for long: Aelius was of ill-health and Pius was over 50 years old.791 Marcus, thus, was probably supposed to be emperor soon. To secure Marcus Aurelius’ succession even further, Antoninus Pius had to adopt him together with the infant son of Aelius Verus, Lucius Verus.792 Most likely, Hadrian designed this double adoption to forestall Lucius Verus from becoming a potential opponent for Marcus. In line with the advertisement for the adopted sons of Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius also received a lot of coin types: 17.5% of Pius’ total types (Graph 7). This high number of types was unprecedented for an adopted son to receive during the whole reign of his adoptive 786 Aelius Veras and Antoninus Kus were also honoured on several medallions of Hadrian, see Mittag, 2010, nos. Hadr. 101; 130-136; Cf. Gnecchi, Vol.2, 1912, Elio nos. 1-4; Vol.3, 1912, Adriana ed Elio nos 1-2. Two types (nos. Hadr. 101; 130) displaying Aelius and Hadrian clasping hands, accompanied by the deity Concordia, symbolise Hadrian’s designation of Aelius as his future successor. Another type (no. Hadr. 136), displaying Antoninus Pius on the reverse in the same way as Hadrian is depicted on the obverse, symbolises Pius already as the future emperor. 787 Birley, 1997, 84-85; 116-122. 788 Dio 69.20-21; HA Hadrian 5.1; Aelius 2.6; 3.1. Birley, 1966, 41-47; 1997, 77-81; 232-248; 295-296; 2012, 142-144; Hekster, 2001, 43; Lindsay, 2009, 210-214. 789 Verissimus: Dio 69.21.2; HA Marcus Aurelius Antoninus 1.10; 2.1; 4.1-2; Birley, 1966, 36-38. The appellation also survives on inscriptions: Birley, 1966, 270 n. 24, cites, for instance, AE 1940.62. In his childhood, Marcus was already favoured by Hadrian. In AD 127, Hadrian recommended Marcus for the equestrian order, although he was still unusually young. A year later, Marcus joined the priestly college of the Salii. Most likely, Hadrian waived the Standard request of two living parents for Marcus’ enrollment to this college. On the Salii, see: Birley, 1966, 36—37; 2012,140; McLynn, 2009, 18-19. 790 Marcus Aurelius was betrothed to the first-bom daughter of Aelius Verus, Ceionia Fabia, and he was the only surviving patemal nephew of the childless Faustina Maior, the wife of Antoninus Pius. 791 HA Hadrian 23.14-16. Aelius Verus is never deified, but a rare denarius, apparently genuine, with reverse SC and pyre, seems to refer to the funeral rites of the deceased Caesar. Cf. BMCRE in, clii; plate 101 no. 9. 792 Dio 69.21.1-2; HA Hadrian 24.1. 152 father.793 Moreover, this extraordinary attention was not only concentrated at the end of Pius’ reign, but also throughout, because almost every year Marcus received a regular number of types.794 The numerous types suggest that Hadrian predestined Marcus to succeed to the imperial throne, whereas Antoninus Pius was just a ‘stopgap’ emperor.795 Of course, Hadrian could not foresee that the elderly Pius would reign for more than 20 years. There is more: almost every type depicting Marcus identified him as ‘the son of Pius’.796 Not only the son of Pius, Marcus Aurelius was also his son-in-law, as he married Pius’ eldest daughter, Faustina Iunior. Before, Faustina had been betrothed to Verus, but the engagement was annulled in favour of Marcus immediately after Hadrian’s death.797 One type of Pius, issued between AD 140 and 144, announced this future marriage between Marcus and Faustina, clasping hands with each other - the marital pose of dextrarum iunctio798 - and accompanied by Pius and the deceased Faustina clasping hands as well.799 The type seems to symbolise that the marriage of Marcus and Faustina would continue the harmony that Pius’ imperial house bestowed to the Roman Empire. In addition, in the year of their wedding (AD 145) and thereafter, the harmonious couple was honoured on several types (2%), and this even happened on some consecratio-types for Faustina Maior, which was innovative, as no contemporary events were ever displayed on posthumous types.800 Like the adopted sons of Hadrian, Marcus was represented as the joy (6.6%) and hope (5.8%) for the Empire, who would continue concord (2.9%) and security (1.2%); the coins also praise the virtus (11.1%) and honos (5.3%) of the successor.801 Finally, the titles of Caesar and iuventasm were 793 N=243. Marcus Aurelius was adopted before his adoptive father Antoninus Pius became emperor in AD 138. 794 AD 139: N=6; AD 140 - 144: N=26; AD 141 - 144: N=7; AD 144: N=3; AD 145: N=26; AD 145 - 147: N=10; AD 147: N=4; AD 148: N=7; AD 149: N=33; AD 151: N=4; AD 152: N=14; AD 153: N=6; AD 154: N =ll; AD 155: N=9; AD 156: N=14; AD 157: N=14; AD 158: N=7; AD 159: N=13; AD 160: N =ll; AD 161: N=15; AD 141 -161: N=2; AD 145 - 161: N=l. Furthermore, in her forthcoming article (2013), Rowan analysed that the bust of Marcus Aurelius on the reverses of Pius’ aurei also appeared very regularly. 795 Birley, 1966, 41-47; 1997, 77-81; 2012, 142-144. Birley was the first to use the term “stop-gap” to denote Antoninius Pius’ adoption. 796 98.3% of the types depicting Marcus Aurelius referred to him as fllius Pii. 797 HA Marcus Aurelius Antoninus 6.2; Lucius Verus 2.4; Marcus Aurelius, Medilations 1.17.2; 7. 798 Cf. Strack, 1937,108; Norena, 2011,133-134, and see also infra chapter 4 (4.3.2). 799 RIC Hl Antoninus Pius 601. 800 RIC UI Antoninus Pius 402a;b; 435; 441; 1129; 1129A; 1253; 1269; 1366a; b. For more on the posthumous types of Faustina Maior, see chapter 4 (4.3.2). 8 The total types of Marcus Aurelius: N=243. The following virtues are analysed: joy =felicitas and hilaritas'. RIC m Antoninus Pius 425; 428a; b; 432a; b; 470; 471; 475a; b; 1230; 1235-1236; 1242a; b; 1260; 1296; 1336; 1337a; b; 1344-1345; hope = sper. RIC BI Antoninus Pius 431; 437; 476; 479a-d; 480a-d; 485; 1251; 1257; 1320; 1346-1347; 1348A; B; 1350; concord = concordia: RIC m Antoninus Pius 441; 1254-1255; 1259; security = securitas: RIC m Antoninus Pius 472; 1334; virtus: RIC m Antoninus Pius 433; 462; 468; 473; 480c-e; 1252; 1258; 1268; 1282-1283; 1295; 1297; 1299-1300; 1304A; B; 1307; 1323; 1349A; B; 1351; 1355A; B; 1356- 1357; honos: R IC m Antoninus Pius 422; 426; 429a; b; 1231; 1237; 1241; 1271a; b; 1279; 1298A; 1303; 1306. 802 Sometunes it is assumed that Marcus received the title princeps iuventutis, but it does not appear in the imperial coinage and on official inscriptions. Maybe the title of imentas is thought to be more suitable for 153 bestowed on Marcus, and after his marriage to Faustina Iunior, Marcus also shared the annual tribunicia potestas with his adoptive father. All these titles were also mentioned in his coin legends.803 The privileged representation of Marcus on coins stands in great contrast to the almost total coin absence from Lucius Verus, Pius’ other adopted son.804 Verus was depicted on only a single type that, moreover, was not dedicated to him alone. The particular type, issued between AD 140 and 143, displayed Pius in a quadriga together with his two immature adopted sons, so Lucius and Marcus (IMAGE VÜI.1).805 Even when Verus reached manhood, Pius’ coins neglected him.806 Verus’ almost total absence on Pius’ coins is remarkable, and confïrms that only Marcus was represented as the heir apparent of Pius. Verus seems to have been a less prominent member of Pius’ imperial family.807 Pius might have feit it his moral duty to keep the son of Aelius Verus in the imperial family, but without giving him any imperial powers or representing him on his coins.808 After the death of Antoninus Pius, Lucius’ loyal attitude was rewarded. Marcus made Lucius his imperial colleague.809 For the first time in Roman history, two emperors ruled the Roman Empire, and they shared an equal number of coin types.810 3.4. Representing the adopted sons of the third century During the third century, the practice of adopting an imperial son and successor diminished. Only two emperors adopted a son. The childless emperor Elagabalus adopted his matemal cousin, Alexander Severus811, and later, the emperor Trebonianus Gallus seems to have Marcus, who was not a teenager anymore. Iuventas: 4.5% of Marcus’ total types: RIC III Antoninus Pius 423a; b; 1232a; b; 1233a; b; 1238-1239; 1261-1262; 1289; 1292. 803 A lot of Marcus’ types (29.6%) bear military allusions, but they hardly refer to Marcus’ military involvement. Most of these types depict the war deities Mars and Minerva. 8M RIC iri Antoninus Pius 93. In total, 0.1% of Antoninus Kus’ total types. Horster, 2011, 98. 805 In addition, one medallion represented Marcus and Lucius together with the Dioscuri, see more Horster, 2011, 87-88; 98 and Gnecchi, Vol.2,1912, 20, no. 95. 806 Neither did Lucius Verus receive any share in the imperial power, as Marcus did. 807 Strack, 1937, 108-109; Birley, 1966, 41-47; 1997,77-81; Horster, 2011, 98. 808 Birley, 1966, 108. 809 HA Aelius 5.12-13; Marcus Aurelius Antoninus 7.6; Eutropius 8.9.2. Cf. Burgersdijk, 2010,120-123. 810 Total types between AD 161 and 169 for Lucius Verus: N=291; Marcus Aurelius: N=238. See also Szaivert, 1986,79-81; 94-115; 193-202. 811 Dio 80.17.2-3; Herodian 5.7.1-2; 4; HA Elagabalus 5.1; Severus Alexander 1.2; 10.4-5; Aurelius Victor, Book o f the Caesars 23.3. 154 adopted the surviving son of his predecessor, Hostilianus.812 Both adopted sons received coin types under their adoptive fathers. Whether orchestrated by Elagabalus’ grandmother or not, F.lagahalns adopted his young cousin Alexander Severus and raised him to the rank of Caesar.m Graph 7 shows that Elagabalus’ adopted son received a mere 2.4% of Elagabalus’ total types.814 However, his coin percentage within Elagabalus’ type corpus was most likely a little bit higher, because Alexander was adopted in the last year of Elagabalus’ reign. Unfortunately, the percentage of Alexander’s types between the day he was adopted and the day F.lagahalns died cannot be calculated, because no detailed chronological analysis of Elagabalus’ types exists.815 As a consequence, Alexander’s higher coin percentage remains a tentative suggestion. However, a comparison between Alexander’s 2.4% and the percentages that F.lagahalns’ (grand)mother (15.5%) and wives (10.9%) received during his four-years reign demonstrates that Alexander’s profile in Elagabalus’ type output is rather low.816 Furthermore, most of the coin types for Alexander stress that he has been promoted Caesar only ‘by the grace’ or ‘by the piety of the emperor’ (IMAGE Vm.2).817 The legends, thus, record unmistakeably that Alexander was Elagabalus’ subordinate.818 Do the limited types and the humble legends for Alexander suggest that Elagabalus perceived his cousin as a possible rival? Ancient authors report that Elagabalus seems to have regretted the adoption of his cousin, because he was loved by the soldiers and acceptable to the Senate and the Equestrian order, and therefore a potential rival to himself.819 Furthermore, like Elagabalus, Alexander too evoked his Severan lineage, and rumours promoted by his mother even presented the boy as another bastard son of the emperor Caracalla.820 The young Alexander could thus be 812 Zosimus 1.25.1. Cf. Eutropius 9.5; Aurelius Victor, Book o f the Caesars 30. 813 Di° 80.17.2-3; Herodian 5.7.1-2; 4; HA Elagabalus 5.1; Severus Alexander 1.2; 10.4-5; Aurelius Victor, Book o f the Caesars 23.3. These last two authors erroneously assumed that Alexander was already adopted in AD 218. See also Fink-Hoey-Snyder, 1940,1-222; Kienast, 20043, 177. 814 RIC IV.B. Alexander Severus 1-3; 381-386. N Alexander Severus=9 and N Total Elagabalus=368. 815 In graph 7, therefore, the total types of Elagabalus (N=368) are given. Julia Soaemias was Elagabalus’ mother. Her coin types are discussed in the previous chapter. The coin types for Elagabalus’ wives Julia Comelia Paula, Julia Aquilia Severa, and Annia Faustina will be discussed in the next chapter. 817 INDVLGENTIA AVG: RIC IV.B. Elagabalus 97-98; 147-148; PIETAS AVG: RIC IV.B. Elagabalus 99; 149. Additionally, the legend INDVLGENTIA was innovative for a successor, 818 BMCRE V, ccxl-ccxli; ccxlivii; leks, 2011, 37-41, esp. 38-39. 819 Dio 80.19.1; Herodian S.7.5-6; HA Elagabalus 13.3. For more on Alexander’s popularity: Herodian 5.8.5 and 7; HA Elagabalus 10.1; 13.1. Cf. Icks, 2011, 38-41. 820 Dio 80.19.4; Herodian 5.7.3; Zosimus 1.10.2. There is no farmal evidence of this claim during Elagabalus’ reign, but during his own reign, Alexander was openly proclaimed the son of Caracalla on some inscriptions, while Elagabalus was neglected as his adoptive father. See AE 1979.645; ILS 479; 480; 483; 2009; 4340; 5854; 9058; CIL 3.D.LXXXVÜ; D.LXXXIV; D.LXXXVI; 166; 226; 3121; 8.1406. Cf. Baharal, 1996, 64-65; Icks 2011, 37. 155 perceived as an attractive imperial candidate. Alexander’s popularity appears to have frightened Elagabalus, because Alexander seems to have been distanced from imperial affairs, and he never shared the tnbunicia potestas or proconsular imperium with his adoptive father, whereas many previous adopted Caesares had.821 Most likely, Elagabalus could not have escaped the inevitable need to adopt a successor to secure his rule, but the combined facts hint that the emperor was not very keen on Alexander. The limited coin representation as well as the particular subordinating coin legends for Alexander, then, probably reflects Elagabalus’ caution even as he wished to secure his own position. In contrast to the limited advertisement for Elagabalus’ adopted son, Gallus’ designated successor Hostilianus received 8.5% - and probably more - of the total types issued by the mints of Rome and Antioch.822 This high number of types needs more explanation, because Hostilianus was not Gallus’ biological son, but the surviving son of Gallus’ predecessor, the emperor C. Messius Quintus Trajanus Decius. After Decius and his eldest son died in the battle of Abrittus at the hands of the Goths, the Roman troops at the Danube proclaimed Gallus emperor, whereupon either the Senate or Gallus elevated Hostilianus as co- Augustus.823 Moreover, despite the fact that Gallus had a mature son of his own, he also seems to have adopted Hostilianus.824 Of course, such adoption could strengthen the claim to dynastie continuity with the house of Decius, which was again connected with the idea of peace and security, and avoided another succession war. A bronze coin type of Hostilianus with QVINTO FELIX on the reverse displaying a female figure representing pax or spes seems to celebrate this peaceful dynastie continuation through Hostilianus (IMAGE Vm.3).825 Other types of Hostilianus, too, invoke the idea of a secured and hopeful continuity.826 Moreover, in allying himself with Hostilianus, Gallus was virtually adopting 8,1 These Caesares were: Gaius Caesar, Tiberius, Nero, Trajan, Aelius Verus, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius. On inscriptions (see, for instance, CIL 6.2001; 7.585) a unique and unprecedented title is given to Alexander: nobilissimus Caesar imperi et sacerdotis [sic]. Whether the title indicates that Alexander held any special powers is not known, but he was still identified as a Caesar, the subordinate of the emperor. For more, see Dusanic, 1964, 487-498, esp. 490. Cf. Icks, 2011, 38-40. See also supra chapter 2 (2.3.2; 2.4.1.2.3; 2.4.2.3 and esp. 2.4.3.3). 822 Total types of Hostilianus: N=22. Like Gallus, two officinae of the Roman mint seems to be placed to the disposal of Hostilianus. Cf. RIC IV.C, 151; 153. 823 Aurelius Victor, Book of the Caesars 30; Eutropius 9.5; Zosimus 1.23-25. Cf. Préaux, 1952, 157; Bleckmann, 1992,157-158; 174. 824 Zosimus 1.25.1. Peachin, 1990, 33-34; 265. 825 RIC IV.C. Decius 222. Mattingly in RIC IV.C., 157 interpreted the legend QVINTO FELIX with the female figure as ‘may the Peace of the Augusti be prosperous for Quintus’, that is Hostilianus. However, I think that the female figure is not Pax, but Spes, holding a flower in her hand instead of a branch. As such, the legend can be interpreted as 'may the imperial agreement [between Trebonianus Gallus and Quintus] work out well for Quintus', which, of course, is the same message as Mattingly gave. 826 Securitas: RIC IV.C. Decius 191a;b; 192; 225: 18.2%; spes: RIC IV.C. Decius 206: 4.5%; Roma aetema: RIC IV.C. Decius 204a; b; 223a ; b; c: 13.6%. 156 himself into the family of the Quintii. The dynastie alliance is also suggested by the fact that all dated coins of Gallus are dated TR P n n COS II, a formula which best makes sense if Gallus were reckoning his regal years by the years of Decius.827 Hostilianus thus seems to have played a powerful role in Gallus’ succession to Decius, which then could explain why the surviving son of Decius appears on more than 8.5% of Gallus’ coin types.828 Most likely, this percentage was even higher, because Hostilianus already died after two months829, whereas Gallus would reign for another two years. Unfortunately, again, like Alexander Severus, the exact type-percentage for Hostilianus from his adoption until the day he died cannot be calculated, as the chronological progression of Gallus’ coins has not been analysed in detail yet.830 To summarise, in the third century, only two emperors adopted a son. The frequency of advertisement of these adopted sons on their adoptive father’s coinages seems to be correlated with the kin affiliation of the adopted son and the temporary political situation. In the case of Alexander Severus, who called upon his Antonine and Severan lineage and with that became increasingly popular, Elagabalus seems to have kept his adopted cousin off his coinage; Gallus’ adoption of the surviving son of the deceased emperor Decius seems to have been a tooi to create the idea of dynastie succession, and thus, to strengthen Gallus’ own succession to Decius. 827 RIC IV.C. Gallus 1-3; 99-100; 138-141; 244-245; RIC IV.C., 152; Legutko, 2000, 79-80; Bleckmann, 1992, 157-158; Potter, 2004, 247-248. However, Egyptian papyri (SB 6.9235.1-4 and P.Oxy 12.1554.11-16) and one Egyptian ostracon (Egyptian Museum Cairo no. 9709) attest the regal years 1 and 2 of Gallus, see Rathbone, 1986,113-115 andPréaux, 1952,152-157. 828 In comparison, Volusianus, Gallus’ biological son, received only 4% of Gallus’ types (N=l 1) during the timp. he was Caesar (i.e. when Hostilianus was co-Augustus). See also in/ra this chapter (3.4.4). The circumstances of Hostilianus’ death are obscure: either he died in a pandemic (Aurelius Victor, Book af the Caesars 30) or he was killed on the command of Gallus (Zosimus 1.25.1). This last suggestion seems less likely if we icckon the abundant advertisement for him on Gallus’ coins. Also after his death, a star symbol on Gallus’ types probably commemarated the deceased Hostilianus (RIC IV.C. 189 and Gallus 7; 10; 28; 34; 38; 42; 53; 58; 145; 150; 169; 173; 176; 180; 187; 192; 212). Of course, fortune could always have tumed against the young emperor. After Hostilianus died, Volusianus, Gallus’ biological son was elevated as co-Augustus and in some inscriptions his name replaced that of Hostilianus see, for instance, AE 1944.56; 1946.61; CIL 11.3088. Cf. Legutko, 2000,79. 830 In graph 7, therefore, the total types of Gallus (N=259) is given. 157 4. The propagation of biological (grand)sons During the first three centuries of the Roman Empire, the following 17 emperors had biological (grand)sons when they became emperor: Tiberius had Drusus Iunior who had twin boys, Claudius had Britannicus, Vitellius had a son who was probably called Vitellius Germanicus, Vespasian had Titus and Domitian, Marcus Aurelius had several sons of whom only Commodus survived his father831, Pertinax had a son whose name is unknown832, Septimius Severus had Caracalla and Geta, Macrinus had Diadumenianus, Maximinus Thrax had Maximus, Gordian I had Gordian n, Philippus Arabs had Philippus Iunior, Trajan Decius had Herennius Etruscus and Hostilianus, Trebonianus Gallus had Volusianus, Valerian had Gallienus who had three sons Valerianus Iunior, Saloninus, and Marinianus, and Carus had Carinus and Numerian. The graph above, showing the percentages of coin types propagating each emperor’s biological (grand)sons from Augustus until Carinus in relation to the total types of each emperor, demonstrates that almost every emperor with biological (grand)sons 831 When Marcus Aurelius became emperor, he had probably a son called Hadrianus, who died some years later. During his reign, three other sons were bom, whereof only Commodus reached adulthood. Kienast, 20043, 139- 140. 832 In this study, Pertinax’ son is called P. Helvius Pertinax Iunior. 158 advertised them extensively. Tiberius and Valerian even advertised their grandsons on their coinage. Comparing the coin advertisement for the emperors’ biological sons with that for their adopted sons (Graph 7), it seems that the biological sons were more intensively displayed. The reason for this is not known. It could be that these blood-related sons, more than other successors, were believed to be the future successors of their fathers, and so, would guarantee the etemal continuation of their imperial house. Of course, some percentages of our graphs are skewed, as adopted sons could only be depicted on their father’s coins from the moment they were adopted, which was mostly at the end of their father’s reign, whereas most biological sons were already bom when their fathers ascended the throne, and so were usually depicted on the coins at the moment their fathers were proclaimed emperor, no matter how young they were. However, a higher proportion of emperors who had biological sons advertised their biological sons, compared to emperors with adopted sons who displayed their adopted sons. Seven of the 18 imperial adopted sons (39%) were neglected on their father’s coinages, whereas only six of the 26 imperial biological sons (23%) were never displayed on coins (Britannicus, two sons of Marcus Aurelius - Hadrianus and Marcus Annius Verus - Pertinax Iunior, Gordian n, and Marinianus). The dynastie role of the biological sons, thus, seems to have been more prominent, which is remarkable, as legally there was no difference between biological sons bom in lawful marriage and adopted sons.833 In the following sections, a chronological overview of the advertisement for the different biological sons will be given, with further attention for their specifïc iconography and the reoccurrence of particular iconographical coin scenes. 4.1. Two Julio-Claudian biological sons: Drusus Iunior and Britannicus During the Julio-Claudian period, only two emperors had biological sons: Tiberius and Claudius. Like Julio-Claudian adopted sons (Graph 7), these biological sons are rarely represented on coins. Drusus only received three coin types, while Britannicus was not even mentioned on his father’ s coins. Most likely, therefore, the coin display of these biological sons may have been restricted to an experimental project, where modes for representing an emperor’s designated successor were being tested. Of course, these Julio-Claudian emperors 833 Gaius 1.97; 107; 2.135a-137; Digest 28.3.8; 18; Institules 1.11.2; 2.13.4; Corbier, 1991a, 63-78; Gaidner, 1998,126-145; 199-208; Frier-McGiim, 2004, 304-307; Kunst, 2005, 82; Lindsay, 2009,35-96; 197-216. 159 could not adopt the Republican representational precedents of successors, as it was not conventional in the Republic to represent living persons, and thus sons, on coins. As we mentioned above, Augustus, the founder of the Principate, had no natural sons, but his adopted successor Tiberius did. Tiberius, however, at the day of his adoption, was obliged by Augustus to adopt his patemal nephew Germanicus, the son of his deceased brother Drusus Maior.834 Through this construction, Augustus might have planned for the imperial power to go from Tiberius to Germanicus, leaving Tiberius’ own mature son, Drusus Iunior, either at the sideline or as the co-Augustus of his cousin.835 In AD 19, however, Germanicus died, leaving Drusus as the only mature heir apparent of Tiberius.836 In the same year that Germanicus died, Drusus also became a father of twin sons, which could secure the continuation of the emperor’s family for at least two generations. Furthermore, in AD 22, Drusus was granted the tribunicia potestas, a power that had been only reserved for Tiberius and had never been conferred upon Germanicus. All these features strengthened Drusus’ position consideiably.837 The increased importance of Drusus is also visible on coins, as 20% of Tiberius’ types from AD 22 and 23 were reserved for Tiberius’ biological son (Graph 8).838 On the coins, Drusus’ nomenclature refers to his kin relation with his father Tiberius and his grandfather divus Augustus: DRVSVS CAESAR TI[BERÜ] AVG[VSTI] F[ILIVS] DIVI AVG[VGVSTI] N[EPOS]. Drusus’ tribuniciapostestas-title appears as well. The glorious lineage gave Drusus a direct ancestral legitimation as the apparent successor of the Julio-Claudian house. Similarly as with Drusus’ nomenclature, the coin designs celebrated a dynastie succession through Tiberius’ direct bloodline.839 Because of their speciflc iconography, we will describe the types separately. A first type bore Drusus’ name around SC on the reverse (IMAGE IX. 1). The 834 The reason behind Germanicus’ adoption seems to be dynastie, as legally Tiberius could not adopt his nephew anymore when he himself was adopted by Augustus because through this adoption Tiberius lost his patria potestas, and thus his patemal power to adopt. See Institutes 3.83; Suetonius, Tiberius 15; Tacitus, Annals, 1.7.7. 835 Velleius Paterculus 2.130.4; Tacitus, Annals 1.3; Suetonius, Tiberius 15.2; Dio 55.13.2; Levick, 1966, 227- 244; Sumner, 1967, 413-435; Rose, 1997, 24-25; Levick, 19992, 49-50; Severy, 2003, 190-191; Pettinger, 2012, 49-50; 53; 145-146. 836 Josephus, Judean Antiquities 18.207-209; Tacitus, Annals 2.26; 69-73; 75; 82; 3.2.7; 4.57; Suetonius, Tiberius 15; 39; 52; Dio 57. 18.6-10. In AD 19, Germanicus’ sons have not yet reached maturity: Nero was 13, Drusus 11, and Gaius was 7 years old. 837 Levick, 1966,227-244; Rose, 1997, 27-28; Rowe, 2002,41. 838 In total, Drusus’ types represented 4.8% of Tiberius’ total types (N=3). Previously, Drusus had not been represented on Tiberius’ coins. 8 Hurlet, 1997, 209-213; 534-535; Rose, 1997, 27-28. 160 obverse showed a female figure identified by the legend as pietas-840 Although some scholars identify the woman as Drusus’ wife, Livilla, most numismatists agree that this personification does not refer to an actual person.841 Pietas, one of the oldest Roman virtues, could symbolise obedience and devotion towards the gods, the Roman traditions, the authorities, the emperor, the homeland or parents.842 For Drusus, in whose name the coin type was struck, these were all subjects to which a good imperial successor should be devoted; however, Drusus expresses not only pietas himself, he was also its subject.843 The esteemed virtue, in one or in all his aspects, therefore constitutes overt publicity for Drusus, portraying him as Tiberius’ successor. A second type, again, bore the name of Drusus around SC on the reverse, whereas the obverse displayed Drusus’ twin sons (IMAGE IX.2).844 The coin scene, depicting the twin, seated in crossed comucopiae, around a winged messenger caduceus, symbolised fertility and prosperity for Tiberius’ house.845 Of course, the birth of Tiberius’ grandsons created hope for the continuation of the Julio-Claudian family, which also suggests the importance of male children for the emperor.846 A last type, an as, portrayed Drusus himself on the obverse, with SC on the reverse again (IMAGE IX.3).847 The type seems to copy an as type Tiberius received under Augustus’ reign, displaying Tiberius’ portrait on the obverse with SC on the reverse (IMAGE K .4).848 Before, no other imperial successor received such iconography.849 Again, this type, styling Drusus in the way Tiberius was represented as Augustus’ successor, emphasises Drusus’ position as Tiberius’ successor. Drusus never 840 RIC F Tiberius 43. Many theories are given for the SC letters. The letters appear on Augustus’ Roman hronzes, and this continued on frequent basis under Tiberius, Gaius, and Claudius. Scholars argued that the SC would mean that a senatus consultum autharised the minting of the bronze coins: Mommsen, 1878, 1016; Bumett, 1977,45-59, esp. 57-59; RIC P, 135; Szaivert, 1986, 32-33. However, nowadays, this ‘dyaichy’ theary, meaning that the Senate controlled the bronze coins and the emperor the precious-metal coins, is superseded. Most likely, the SC had a more economical function signaüing the introduction of Augustus’ new bimetallic token coinage, authorised (allegedly) by the Senate: Bay, 1972, 114; 116; 120-122; Sutherland, 1978, 35-38. Before Mattingly in BMCRE I, 105-106 already suggested that the SC enforced the loyalty of the coin. For other views see Bay, 1972, 111-122; Harl, 1996, 73-79; Wolters, 1999, 119-169. For more on the letters EX SC on some imperial coins see supra chapter 2 (2.4.2.1). 841 RIC P Tiberius 43; BMCRE I, cxxxv; Grant, 1954, 135. Besides Livilla, some scholars identify Pietas as Livia, for example, Mikocki, 1995, 27-28; Kleiner-Matheson, 1996, 59-60. Along with pietas, moderatio, dementia, salus and iustitia also appeared on Tiberian coin types, which was an abandoned Late Republican coin fashion. In contrast, the display of a woman, and certainly a living one, would be highly innovative for Roman coin iconography in this period. Therefore, scholars assume that pietas is just a personification. 842 Ulrich, 1930; Charlesworth, 1943,1-10; Wallace-Hadrill, 1981, 310; 315; 320; dassen, 1991,17-39; Norena, 2001,158; 2011, 71-74; Manders, 2012,178-182. 843 Strack, 1931, 51; 169-171; 1937, 25; 36; 115-124; Charlesworth, 1943, 7; BMCRE m , xcv; Weinstock, 1971, 248-251; Classen, 1991, 17-39; Norena, 2011, 74-76. 844 RIC I2 Tiberius 42. These twin sons were named Tiberius and Germanicus Gemellus. For more on them see supra this chapter (3.3.1). 845 BMCRE I, cxxxvii; cxli. 846 Germanicus Gemellus, however, died a year later (Tacitus, Annals 2.84; 4.15). 847 RIC P Tiberius 45. 848 RIC P Augustus 471. 849 For the iconography of Gaius and Lucius Caesar, see supra this chapter (3.3.1). 161 succeeded his father, as he died on 14 September AD 23.850 In the coin series after Drusus’ death, no references are made to any heir apparent again, although Tiberius had at least four heirs.851 The second Julio-Claudian emperor who had a biological son was Claudius, whose second wife Messalina gave birth to Tiberius Claudius Caesar Britannicus.852 After the adultery of Messalina and her banishment, Claudius married Agrippina Iunior, who already had a son from a previous marriage, Nero. A year later, Agrippina assumed the title Augusta and her son was adopted by Claudius, even though he had a son of his own who was only four years younger than Nero.853 Several coin types were issued for Nero, but none refer to Claudius’ own biological son Britannicus.854 However, some scholars have argued that Claudius’ spes-type, which was issued after AD 41 AD - and reissued again after AD 50 - initially referred to the birth of his son Britannicus as the hope for the state.855 It is true that later in the Roman Empire, the virtue of spes became one of the typical virtues for the emperor’s successor, but we cannot verify whether Claudius’ spes-type meant this.856 Furthermore, the reissue of the spes-type after AD 50 seems to have no connection with Britannicus.857 Therefore, scholars assume that the spes-type might refer to Claudius alone, who celebrated his birthday on the festival of the deity Spes.858 Of course, both explanations. do not exclude each other as the spes-type could allude to both Britannicus’ birth as well as to Claudius’ birthday. 850 Tacitus, Annals 6.24. 851 These boys were Tiberius Gemellus, Nero, Drusus, and Gaius. Tacitus, Annals 6.46; Suetonius, Tiberius 52- 54; Dio 57.23. None of Tiberius’ later heirs receive any political power, such as a consulship or a tribunicia potestas, which could explain why they were excluded from the coins: Hurlet, 1997, 535-537. 852 Suetonius, Claudius 27; Dio 60.12.5. 853 Suetonius, Claudius 26; Levick, 1990,70-73. 854 Horster, 2011, 92-93. A dubious type for Britannicus is recorded in the British Museum: BMCRE I, clix; Claudius no. 226; II, lxxviii; Titus no. 306. This specimen has been attributed variously to provincial issues or to restoration mints under Titus. It seems most likely that it is from a Thracian mint. See also Akerman, 1834, 160, Von Kaenel, 1984, 127-133; 138-140; RPC I, 311. The types for Nero under Claudius are discussed in the past section (3.3.1). 855 RIC I2 Claudius 99; 115; N=2. Sutherland, 1951, 131-132; Von Kaenel, 1986, 113-118; type 55 and 135-137, type 70; 241; Clark, 1983, 83-84; 99; Zanker, 1987, 244-245; Rose, 1997, 41 a 32. Von Kaenel, dates the first type around AD 41 or 42, and the second type around AD 42 or 43. In this way, both types could refer to Britannicus. Cf. Clark, 1983, 80-105 on the representation of the emperor’s successor as the hope of the state. 856 Clark, 1983, 83-84; 99-100; Perassi, 1991. 857 RIC P Claudius 115. However, Von Kaenel, 1986 dates the second type to AD 42 or 43, which than could refer to Britannicus. 858 KICP, 118-119; BMCRE I, clvi. 162 4.2. The year 69 and the increased representation of biological successors AD 69 was a time of political urnest, where at least five candidates tried to gain imperial power. After the death of the last Julio-Claudian emperor, continuation of the Julio-Claudian house may have been very attractive, but no imperial candidate was really related to the Julio- Claudians.859 In a situation of political flux, succession seems to have been a relevant notion to emphasise on the coinage.860 The aged and childless Galba adopted Piso to give the prospect of a peaceful succession to his subjects. However, no types are known for Piso, as we discussed above.861 In addition, the imperial candidates Vitellius and Vespasian focused on their biolngiral offspring and represented them in innovative ways. The prospect that Ihe imperial candidate would establish a new long-tenn imperial house, which could promise a peaceful succession over generations and avoid the political circumstances of AD 69 must have maHp him a more attractive imperial candidate. Vitellius and Vespasian already had children before they were proclaimed emperors, and, unlike Galba, did not have to adopt, which benefitted these imperial candidates, especially Vespasian with his mature sons. Vitellius seized power in January of AD 69 in Germania Superior. As noted above, types advertised his celebrated father, who had been consul and censor in the Republic862, while his son and daughter were honoured on his coins as the liberi Imperatoris Germaniae (IMAGE X.5). In many ways, this ‘children’s-type’ is unique. The liberi legend, which as such was unprecedented, the prominence of Vitellius’ daughter, and the issues of the types at three different mints - Lugdunum, Rome, and a Spanish mint (Tarraco ?) - hint at how important it seems to have been for Vitellius to advertise his offspring.863 In total, the types represented only 6% of Vitellius’ total types. The type output might be rather limited, but lts message clearly announced the fact that the new emperor, who had inherited the political talents of his consular father, could endow the Roman Empire with an imperial family that had a successor and a daughter, respectively symbolising political continuity and famihal fertility.864 In a way, the liberi types remind us to Augustus’ type advertising his daughter 859 As we in chapter 2, Galba issued some types to emphasise his alleged affiliation with Livia f2 4 3 IV Wellesley, 20003, 18-20; 95-96. 860 Contra Flaig, 1992, 327-328; 341-345; 405-407 who underestimates the role of the imperial successor dunng ^T acitus, Histories 1.12-19; Hutarch, Galba 19-23. Cf. Klaassen, forthcoming 2014, chapter 2- 862 RIC P Vitellius 7; 76-77; 94-99; 114; 134-135; PIRI1 V. 500; Tacitus, Annals 6.28; 32, 36,41,11.2-4, 33-33, 12.4; 9; 14; 56; Suetonius, Vitellius 2; Dio 55.24.1; 60.21.2. 863 N Total Zi'fceri-types=8. Issue at Gaul (Lugdunum): RIC P Vitellius 57; two issues m Rome: RIC P Vitelhus 78-79; 100-103; issue at Spain (Tarraco?): RIC P Vitellius 8. 864 Wellesley, 20003, 95. See infra chapter 4 for the role of women in the imperial house. 163 Julia and her two boys as Augustus’ designated successors (Figure 1). In general, Vitellius’ types suggest that in 69 AD, the idea of an imperial family became an important tooi for an imperial candidate. Likewise, Vitellius’ opponent Vespasian advertised his offspring on his coins, and much more frequently. In total, more than 40% of Vespasian’s types referred to his sons, Titus and Domitian.865 When their father was proclaimed emperor by the troops in the East, Titus was already a celebrated legatus in his thirties and his brother Domitian was almost twenty years old, and he gained some political experience during his short period as regent at Rome.866 Initially, both sons were advertised equally on Vespasian’s coins, but after AD 71 Titus came to be featured alone more often. For further analysis, it is worthwhile to look at the periods before and after this change. In the first period, from AD 69 until 71, Vespasian’s sons were primarily displayed together on the coin reverses of their father.867 In total, more than 4% of all Vespasianic types showed Titus and Domitian together. Half of these types refer to them as thefilii or liberi of Vespasian.868 Furthermore, three coin designs even resembled types of former imperial duos.869 The first depicts Titus and Domitian after Augustus’ types of the principes iuventutis, Gaius and Lucius Caesar. In toga with shields and spears, Titus and Domitian look almost identical to Gaius and Lucius, only their features indicate that they are older than Augustus’ adopted sons (IMAGES X.l; 4).870 Second, a Spanish mint (probably Tarraco), the mint of Ephesus871, and the mint of Rome issued a type that portrayed the busts of Titus and Domitian looking face-to-face. This type almost exactly resembles the coin type for Vitellius’ children.872 Some of the types even featured the legend LIBERI IMP AVG VESPAS styled after the legend of Vitellius’ children (IMAGES X.2; 5).873 The third type shows Titus and Domitian nding horseback, side by side, with flying capes and stretching out their hands. 865 N Total Titus-330; N Total Domitian=155. 866 Perez, 2003,115. 867 • „type ^ f Vespasian 614 from the mint of Antioch, displaying Titus and Domitian together was issued between lJuly 72 and 30 June 73. Cf. Horster, 20 11, 94-95 rogetner, was 869 ™aj0rlly of 01686 t>rP6s (N=31 of N Total types=45)'were of precious metal. em ™ S y August109 " °f VeSpaSian’S d6S^ S 38 * ^rmer ™ M CU 2 Vespasian 1344 saA RIC P Augustus 206-212. Perez, 2003 116 VespatufseeÏS,^ ^ ^ ^ “ ***** >(AD ^ is8U6<1 ***** issu6s ™der : : R*C 112 Vespasian 15; 16; 37; 1301; 1302; 1321; 1401-1403; 1410; 1417-1418- 1429- 1548 and RIC P 873 RIC IP Vespasian 1401-1403; 1410; 1417; 1418; 1429. Perez, 2003, 116-117. 164 Sometimes they hold lances in their hands or a soldier carrying a vexillum stands in back. The horseback scene is familiar from Gaius’ type for his brothers Nero and Drusus Caesar, who were similarly displayed on horses, side by side, with flying capes while stretching their hanHs (IMAGES X.3; 6).875 Beside these parallel scenes were other innovative types displaying Titus and Domitian together. Some show Titus and Domitian both sacrificing with a patera, whereas others display the brothers seated on curule chairs, holding branches, sometimes attended by lictors, or they are standing and facing each other while holding spears, parazonia or rolls.t i 876 In AD 71, as well known, Titus was proclaimed imperator, became praefectus praetorio, and received the tribumcia potestasF1 In AD 73, Titus assumed the office of censor together with his father and he was entrusted with the campaign in Judaea. All these offices made Titus effectively the co-regent of his father, whereas Domitian only shared consular power, and it even seems that he was kept away from military affairs.878 This change in politics is visible on the coins of Vespasian’ s sons, as after AD 71, the brothers were never depicted together anymore. In this second period, the reverses of Vespasian depict just one son, or else the brothers received separate coin types issued in their own name. Almost 27% of Vespasian’ s coin types refer to Titus, whereas Domitian appears on a relatively small 10% of Vespasian’s total types, which suggests that the brother’s advertisement was no longer equal.879 Instead, Titus’ advertisement started to dominate. In addition, the coin designs of the brothers differed. Titus’ coins mostly carry military allusions, whereas Domitian is often represented as the princeps iuventutis or he is proclaimed with spes, felicitas püblica or fides publica880 The numerous coin types for Titus and Domitian indicate the intensity of Vespasian s dynastie advertisement, which was not only concentrated in the beginning of his accession, 874 R IC ÏP Vespasian 5; 54; 64; 1122; 1377; 1378. 875 RIC P Gaius 34; 42; 49. Perez, 2003, 117, stating that this type resembles the decursio types of Nero, which 876 Titus and Domitian sacrificing: RIC IP Vespasian 1364; 1395; 1404-1405; 1 4 1 1 ; 143°i Titus and Domitian seated on curule chairs: RIC IP Vespasian: 6; 13;55'5^ 12^ cf Domitian standing: RIC f f Vespasian: 66; 142-154; 1132-1133; 1185-1186; 1318; 1320; 1376, 1387. Cf. SeelMtog, 2(K»^b lgJ lgg. pere^ 2003, 122-123. Previously, some scholars, such as Perez, 2003 thought that Titus was already proclaimed a designatus Imperator in AD 70, because such titie appears on one of the types for Vespasian’s sons. Seelentag proves that this tide was a mistake of the engraver. For more see Seelentag, 2007 143-146 878 Levick, 1999b, 189-192; Perez, 2003, 122-133; Horster, 2011, 95-96. Horster even suggests that Titus was officially elected “the First of the Youth.” 879 Still, the 10% for Domitian was substantial in comparison to previous represented successors. m See Perez, 2003, 133-149 for a detailed summary about the reverses of Titus and Domitian after 71 AD. Horster, 2007’, 299; 2011,95. 165 but continued throughout his reign.881 The old general emphatically stressed his two mature sons in order to claim and maintain his imperial power.882 The types between AD 69 and 71 emphasised the different roles Vespasian’s sons practised; they were magistrates, soldiers, peacemakers, devoted sons, and designated imperial successors. Indeed, Titus and Domitian personifled the perfect supporters for Vespasian and as his designated successors they could secure the continuation of the Flavian house, and with it, bring security and peace to the Roman Empire.883 Moreover, the coin scenes resembling previous types for imperial duos seem to place Vespasian and his sons in an imperial tradition.884 After AD 71, Vespasian’s dynastie advertisement underwent a dramatical change. Still, Vespasian’s sons were intensively propagated, but were now displayed separately. As such, the post-71 types started to reflect the changed politics, propagating Titus’ co-regency and his prospective succession whereas Domitian’s role is reduced to representing future hope for the Flavian house as a kind of “princeps imentutis perpetuus”, as Horster has suggested.885 4.3. Representing Commodus, fïrst-bom in purple Directly after Vespasian, Domitian had a biological son, but he died before his father became emperor. It lasted almost a century before another imperial son was bom, who would survive his father. Commodus and his twin brother Annius Antoninus were bom when Marcus Aurelius had been emperor for only six months. This made Commodus and his twin brother the first Roman princes bom ‘in the purple’. The birth of the twin was celebrated on Faustina’s coinage with four types displaying Commodus and Fulvus Antoninus on a pulvinar (IMAGE Xïï.4).887 A year later, another son was bom, M. Annius Verus. Both he and Commodus’ twin brother died very young, leaving Commodus as sole son and heir of Marcus In J ltUS Domitian received 41.4% of Vespasian’s types. Before AD 71, Titus and Domitian received 7.4% of Vespasian’s types, and after AD 71 their percentage was 35.2%. Jvieijn,m VeSP. zUU9, "? 311 ° -324. “ j0yed 016 SUppOTt of others t0 ga“ and maintain Ws imperial power see, for instance, De X Perez’ f 03' 112-122; Seelentag, 2009, 88-93; Horster, 2011, 94-95. Cf. Suetonius, Vespasian 25: “he [Vespasian] said to the Senate that either his sons would succeed him or he would not have a successor.’' Perez, 2003, 112-113; Horster, 2011, 95. One could, of course, argue that the Roman inhahitant» did not remember such particular coin scenes. Yet, this might be unlikely, as the coin types for Gaius and Lucius Caesar were struck in huge quantities and were widely distributed over the Roman Empire and beyond and Üie Vitellian corn types were struck only some months before. Still, if one did not remember these types, the message of the Flavian types should have been clear. Ze Horster’ 2011’ 94‘95- Cf- Perez> 2003, 122-149; Seelentag, 2009, 93-100. See infra this chapter (3.4.5). RIC n i Marcus Aurelius 709-712; 1665-1666. See also Herodian 1.5.5-6 on Commodus’ purple-bom status. 166 Aurelius. Graph 8 shows that compaied to the adopted sons of the Antonine house (Graph 7), Commodus was more frequently represented on his father’s total coin types: 13.9%. Moreover, Commodus received more and more types as he became older, which implies an increasing prominence. Because the majority of Marcus Aurelius’ types can be precisely dated, it is worthwhile to discuss Commodus’ types as they appear in three periods.888 First, between 12 October 166 and the 14 October 172, three bronze coin types were issued in name of the young Commodus: COMMODVS CAESAR AVGVSTI FILIVS.889 In total, the types represent just 3% of Marcus’ total type output in those years.890 However, it is remarkable that Commodus was actually represented on his father’s coins at this young age, since in Roman times the death rate of children under six years was very high.891 Before, such young sons were only represented on the coins of the emperors Augustus and Tiberius, and there also at a limited rate.892 Although their representations were restricted, these young boys already personified future hope for the ruling imperial house, which in case of Marcus’ infant could probably be just the same. Furthermoie, the display of the young Commodus alone on bronze types could indicate that the message was intended to target Roman masses who mosüy handled these base-metal denominations. Could we suggest that the presence of a son in the ruling house was thought a good message to broadcast among the Roman people, despite his very young age and thus his relatively limited chances to succeed his father, whereas the propagation of Commodus on precious-metal denominations, mainly used by the higher classes, were only struck when he had reached a more mature age, and therefore, was more likely to succeed his father?893 In a second period, from AD 172 to 176, the number of Commodus’ coin types increased to almost 12.5% of his father’s precious-metal as well as bronze types in those particular years, which is five times more than before.894 The types started to focus on Due to RIC III Marcus Aurelius and Szaivert, 1986. 889 HA Marcus Aurelius Antoninus 16.1; 21.3; Commodus 1.10; 11.13-14; Szaivert, 1986, medallion nos. 1048- 1049. On 12 January, 166, Commodus was made Caesar together with his younger brother M. Annius Verus, who would die three years later. No types are known for the latter, although some scholars wrongly attributed some bronze types to M. Annius Verus. For more on these types see Van Heesch, 1982,193-196. 890 RIC Hl Marcus Aurelius 1513-1515. The total types for Marcus Aurelius between 12 October 166 AD and the 14 October 172 AD is N=133, whereas Commodus had N=3. 891 Commodus was bom in AD 161, and thus was between 5 and 8 yeais old. On mortality in the Roman world, see Duncan-Jones, 1990; Saller, 1994, 12-42; Frier, 1999, 85-109; Scheidel, 1999,254-281; 2001, 14; 26-27. 892 Augustus: RIC P Augustus 404-405 with the seven year old Gaius and the four year old Lucius: 0.5%; Tiberius: RIC P Tiberius 42 displaying the baby twin Tiberius and Germanicus Gemellus: 1.6%. 893 See supra chapter 1 (1.2.2) on targeting groups with coin messages. 894 The total types for Marcus Aurelius between 15 October 172 and mid 177 is N=422, whereas Commodus had N=53. 167 Commodus as representing hope (9.4%) and the biight gladness of the youth (13.2%) of the Antonine house.895 Other coin types represented Marcus Aurelius’ son as princeps iuventutis, holding several military attributes, which alluded to Commodus’ military abilities (28.3%).896 As a teenager, Commodus joined his father at his military headquarters in Camuntum, and he attended the campaigns against German tribes and the Sarmatians.897 Coin designs referring to captives of the wars de Germanis and de Sarmatis wars particularly emphasised Commodus’ presence during the campaigns with his newly received epithets Germanicus and Sarmaticus added to his coin nomenclature.898 Although no sources inform us about Commodus’ military training, it is likely that these coin designs, like Commodus’ attendance at the military camps, aimed to make Marcus’ son popular among the Roman troops.899 Some types also display a liberalitas shown by Commodus seated on a platform, an honour as well as a coin scene unprecedented for an imperial son (IMAGE IX.5).900 The increased coin numbers as well as the specifïc coin designs hint that the image of Commodus was starting to develop: the teenager appears not only as the future hope for the Roman Empire, but also as Marcus’ successor trained to be a future emperor.901 In a third period, from 177 until the death of Marcus Aurelius in 180, the relative frequency of Commodus’ type output on gold, silver, and bronze increases to a percentage almost equal to that of his father, around 45%, a percentage no imperial successor had received before.902 In these years, Commodus had become his father’s co-Augustus, a 895 Hope = spes: RIC UI Marcus Aurelius 620-622; 644; 1530; 1543-1545; Cheerfulness = hilaritas aadfelicitas: RIC III Marcus Aurelius 610-611; 1513; 1523; 1537; 1546-1547; 1550. For the virtues spes, hilaritas and felicitas and the imperial successor, see Grant, 1954, 261; Clark, 1983, 80-105; Perassi, 1991; Rowe, 1997. 896 RIC m Marcus Aurelius 600-603; 6015-619; 1518-1522; 1527-1529; 1534-1536; 1541-1542; 1548-1549. Horster, 2011, 98. 897 There, on 15 October 172, he was given the victory title Germanicus presumably in presence of the army. HA Marcus Aurelius Antoninus 17.3; Avidius Cassius 13.3-4; Commodus 2.5; 11.14; 12.2-6; Von Saldem, 2003,13. 898 RIC m Marcus Aurelius 605-609; 629-630; 632-633; 1532-1533; 1554-1555; 1557. 899 Hekster, 2002, 32-33. Similar cases where imperial children gained popularity by their presence at military campaigns are seen with Gaius Caesar who attended Augustus to the campaigns in the Gaul (Dio 55.6.4) and Gaius who lived with his mother in the camp of his father Germanicus (Tacitus, Annals 1.41; Suetonius, Caligula 8-9; Dio 57.5.6). Cf. Corbier, 1994, 284; Severy, 2003, 80-81; 225. See supra this chapter for more references (3.3.1). 900 Both on the occasion of Commodus’ assumption of the toga virilis (RIC m Marcus Aurelius 597; 612; 1207- 1209; 1211; 1516-1517) and his second tribunicia potestas (RIC Dl Marcus Aurelius 1558-1562; 1593) a money largess was distributed. Cf. Von Saldem, 2003,19. 901 In 175, Commodus reached adulthood, assumed the toga virilis and entered the college of the pontiffs. Later that year, Commodus was present at the campaigns against German tribes and the Sarmatians; received tribunicia potestas and on 23 December 176, he jointly celebrated his father’s triumpbs in Rome. HA Marcus Aurelius Antoninus 16.1-2; 17.3; 27.4-5; Avidius Cassius 13.3-4; Commodus 1.10; 2.4; 12.1; 2-6; 11.13; CIL 6.631; 745; 1024; 7.11982; 10.285; 14.328; AE 1982.778; Hekster, 2002, 32-33. 902 The total types of Marcus Aurelius issued between mid-177 and 14 March 180 was N=148, whereof the types for Commodus was N=68. Szaivert, 1986, 130-141; 208-214, esp. 209. 168 privilege that no other natural or adopted son received before.903 As Hekster has argued, the revolt of the general Avidius Cassius in the spring of AD 175 most likely precipitated the bestowal of imperial powers on Commodus in order to strengthen the imperial power of the Antonines.904 Likewise, coins embody Commodus as his father’s equal colleague, so that father and son share a comparable number of types. Previously, the only imperial relative who had appeared on coins at a comparable rate with his imperial colleague was Lucius Verus.905 In addition, the kinship term filius was dropped from Commodus’ nomenclature and the titles of Imperator and Augustus were added.906 Furthermore, no types represent the young man as the prince of the youth or as hope or joy for the state anymore. Instead, Commodus’ coin types focus mainly on military scenes and the war gods Minerva, Mars, and Roma, such as his father’s coins did.907 As a result, Commodus’ status as co-Augustus, and not his future imperial succession or his imperial lineage, seems to become more prominent in his official representation. Of course, publicity and policy do not have to coincide with each other and, in reality, Marcus Aurelius remained the supreme Augustus.90* In sum, the increasing prominence of Commodus’ image during his father’s reign suggests that it was advertised to all that he would succeed his biological father. Actually, as Hekster has pointed out, it was nearly impossible for Marcus Aurelius to avoid making Commodus his successor; the idea of dynastie succession was too fïrmly rooted in the minds of the Romans. In addition, no ancient sources hint that Marcus had the intention to adopt another son as his appointed successor, an act that would obstruct Commodus’ succession.909 903 As defined in the introduction of this chapter, this study denotes every son of a ruling emperor, who became Augustus, and thus, the colleague of his father, as co-Augustus. 904 Hekster, 2002, 34-39. Cf. Von Saldern, 2003, 21-32. 905 Total types during the joint emperorship of Lucius Verus and Marcus Aurelius (from 161 to 169): Lucius Verus: N=291; Marcus Aurelius: N=238. Szaivert, 1986,79-81; 94-115; 193-202. 906 After 176, Commodus’ nomenclature reads IMP CAES L AVRELIVS COMMODVS ANTONINVS AVG (PP). m RIC m Marcus Aurelius 632-635; 642-643; 650-652; 656; 659-660; 664-666; 1556; 1566-1577; 1585-1587; 1596-1597; 1599-1604; 1606-1611; 1613-1614. Horster, 2011, 88; 99. 908 Hekster, 2002, 34-39; Von Saldem, 2003, 31-32. 909 Hekster, 2002,46^9. 169 4.4. Representing biological (grand)sons of the third century In the third century, almost all emperors, who had biological (grand)sons, even those who reigned only briefly, dedicated numerous types to them (Graph 8).910 Moreover, even deceased biological (grand)sons who could not succeed their fathers anymore, but were still perceived as members of the domus Augusta, were honoured on coins, albeit in rather limited numbers.911 In the same century, only two third-century emperors (Elagabalus and Gallus) adopted a successor, and the bloodline of their chosen adopted boys reveals that again the continuation of the imperial bloodline was intended.912 Along with the numerous types, a change in the way the imperial mints were organised suggests the prominence of imperial biological sons as well. Scholars think that before the reign of Philippus Arabs some sort of divergent mint workshop system was in use, but it is only from the reign of Philippus Arabs that mint marks reveal that a mint workshop was exclusively reserved for an imperial son, here Philippus Iunior.913 Later emperors too dedicated one or more officinae to their imperial sons; even the adopted Hostilianus seems to have received two officinae under the reign of Gallus.914 The official dedication of such officinae to the emperor’s son hints again at the important role the imperial son played for his father.915 Furthermore, it explains the numerous types for the imperial sons in total. Unfortunately, we are less informed about the exact number of officinae attributed to later sons because the coin material is too defïcient to allow a detailed analysis of the chronological sequence of their coins or secure specification of mint attributions.916 910 Septimius Severus: 47.7% (N Caracalla=475; N Geta=267); Macrinus: 13.1% (N Diadumenianus=24); Maximinus Thrax: 16.2% (N Maximus=21); Philippus Arabs: 23.8% (N Philippus Iunior=69); Trajan Decius: 35.3% (N Herennius Etruscus=39; N Hostilianus=33); Trebonianus Gallus: 47.1% (N Volusianus=122); Valerian: 59.4% (N Gallienus=447; N Valerianus Iunior=38; N Saloninus=31 (types for divus Valerianus Iunior are not included here); Carus: 47% (N Carinus=66; N Numerian=24). Two emperors issued no types for their sons. Under Pertinax, no types displayed his son P. Helvius Pertinax Iunior, and under Gallienus, no types advertised his youngest son Marinianus. 911 The deceased (grand)sons of Valerian, Gallienus and Carinus were commemorated with the following percentages of types: divus Gallienus=0.2%; divus Valerianus Iunior=1.6%; divus Saloninus=0.1% and divus Nigrinianus=2.7%. The type for divus Saloninus (RIC V.A. Gallienus 155), however, is much doubted. We will discuss the deceased (grand)sons in the following section (3.4.5). 912 The adopted Alexander Severus was the matemal cousin of Elagabalus, and the adopted Hostilianus was the surviving biological son of the predecessor of Trebonianus Gallus, creating a notion of imperial continuity between these two emperors. See supra this chapter (3.3.4). 913 RIC IV.A, 55: this mint marks started from Philippus’ second regnal year in 245; Kömer, 2002,43-44. 914 RIC IV.A., 153. For more on the adopted Hostilianus, see this chapter (3.3.4). 915 Prof. dr. Christopher Howgego (University of Oxford) was so kind as to point this out to me. 916 The volumes of RIC used, here IV.B; IV.C; V.A and V.B, lack many detailed dates and mint attributions. Likewise, recent detailed coin studies also show many problems in attributing exact dates and mints. About the problem, see Göbl, 2000, 35-36; 82-83. Göbl’s analysis (2000) of the Licinian coinage attributes three officinae 170 As discussed above, a succession within the imperial house seemed one of the most efifective ways of preparing for a safe succession without the outbreak of uprisings. With it, the role of the bloodline seems to have become pivotal, a development that continued in the third century through the frequent advertisement of the emperor’s biological sons. However, there is too litüe evidence to conclude whether advertisement for the biological sons had become a Standard practice, or whether all third-century emperors advertised their biological sons similarly upon their proclamations as emperor. In the third century, almost all biological (grand)sons, no matter how young they were, became their father’s Caesar?11 Moreover, like Commodus, most eldest surviving sons were made their father’s co -Augustus, sometimes when they were still very young.918 The representation of the third-century Caesares and the co-Augusti differed in type frequency as well as in iconography. Both will be examined here. First, any (grand)son who was appointed Caesar received fewer coin types than a son who was his father’s co-Augustus, though the scale of difference between Caesares and co- Augusti varied enormously.919 Co-Augustus Caracalla received 30.6% of his father total coins whereas Caesar Geta received 17.2%920; co-Augustus Herennius received 19.1%, whereas Caesar Hostilianus 16.2%921; and co-Augustus Gallienus received almost 52% whereas the Caesares Valerianus Iunior and Saloninus received respectively 4.3% and 3.6%. The higher percentages for the co-Augusti suggest that the rank of the eldest surviving sons was perceived as more prominent than the rank of their younger brothers. This is a remarkable of the Roman mint to Gallienus and two to Saloninus (Valerianus Iunior’s coins bear no mint warkshop’s symbol) and Gricourt’s study (2000) on Carus’ coinage attributes one fourth of the afficinae to each of his sons. 9 7 Only the son of Pertinax, P. Helvius Pertinax Iunior, and the youngest son of Gallienus, Marinianus, were not made Caesar. 918 The following sons were raised to the rank of co-Augustus at the age of 10 or 11: Caracalla, Diadumenianus, and Phillippus Iunior. Unlike the tetrarchic Augusti, no division was made between senior and iunior Augusti, although we may assume that the third-century sons, certainly the very young, were made their fathers’ Augustan colleagues by the auctoritas imperii of their fathers. 919 In the third century, no sons are known that were displayed on their father’s types without being raised to the rank of Caesar or co-Augustus. 920 In a recent article, Kemmers, 2011, 270-289, examined the relationship between Caracalla and Geta. Comparing the relative proportions of the brothers’ coin output, she discovered that between 200 and 202 more coin numbers were issued for Geta, and between 203 and 204 Geta’s coin output equalled Caracalla’s. The privileged representation of Geta suggests that the boy was preferred above his older brother Caracalla. 21 Almost a year after his father Decius was proclaimed emperor, Herennius was appointed Caesar for a short period (May-June 250 AD: Code of Justinian 5.12.9). Later, he became the co-Augustus of his father (somewhere before 9 June 251: Peachin, 1990, 32). Most likely, his brother, Hostilianus, was appointed Caesar a half year after Herennius (Loriot-Nony, 1971, 128-129). Unfortunately, it is not possible to divide the coin types into these different periods. Here, we compared the total types for Herennius and the total types for Hostilianus. 171 phenomenon, because legally the concept of primogeniture did not exist in Roman society, which should have resulted in an equal representation of the emperors’ sons.922 Second, the coin designs of the Caesares and co-Augusti differed as well. Both categories seem to have been heavily inspired by the types that Commodus received as his father’s Caesar and co-Augustus. Most likely, third-century emperors continued this Antonine coin iconography for their own sons, creating an impression of dynastie continuity in order to legitimate their own reigns. In particular, Septimius Severus, as we discussed in the previous chapter, represented his house as the legitimate successor of that of the Antonines. Imitating Antonine images was an additional tactic for displaying dynastie continuity. After the Severan dynasty, although the explicit connection with the Antonines may have faded away, the tactic of stressing imperial continuity seems to have persisted, as the later third-century emperors still used similar types for their Caesares and co-Augusti. This standardised iconography for the emperor’s sons distinguished between the types for the third-century Caesares and the co- Augusti, as we mentioned above. Therefore, in the next section, the types for the Caesares will be discussed first, and thereafter the ones of the co-Augusti.923 Most third-century Caesares were advertised as principes iuventutis 924 From the reign of Marcus Aurelius onwards, this new coin design used the legend PRINCEPS IWENTVTIS with the image of the Caesar in question.925 The third-century ‘prince of the youth’ was associated almost exclusively with the military, as coins frequently depict him with several 922 Unfartunately, we are badly informed about the age differences between these brothers, and whether the eldest brother had more military experience and had held more political offices than their younger brothers, which might be a reason why these co-Augusti received more types. However, in Roman law, each son was perceived equal. For instance, the inheritance did not go to the eldest surviving son. When a father had more than one son, each son received an equal inheritance. Even daughters, who were still under the patria potestas of their fathers, inherited an equal part as their brothers. As a consequence, it could happen that a father of three children or more was obliged to divide his property in several pieces, too little to maintain the family’s status. Gaius, 2.32; 63; 66; 123; 127-130; 132; 135; 182; Digest 50.16.220.3; Saller, 1994, 163-165. 923 Some months before their father died, Carinus and Numerian were raised to the rank of co-Augustus. However, it is difficult to divide their Augustan types under their father from their Augustan types under their joint reign. Therefore, we only analysed their Caesar types. For more see Gricourt, 2000, esp. 110. 924 Caracalla: 14.7% (RIC IV.A. Caracalla 13a; b; 140; 329; 398a; b); Geta: 9.9% (RIC IV.A. Geta 15-18; 37a-c; 106; 113A; 124-125; 125A; 130a-c; 131); Diadumenianus: 61.9% (RIC IV.B. Macrinus 79; 101-111; 118; 211- 220; 194); Maximus: 47.1% (RIC IV.B. Maximus 3-5; 9-10; 13-14); Philippus Iunior: 50% (RIC IV.C. Philippus Iunior 216-220; 256-258); Herennius: 34.6% (RIC IV.C. Decius 144-148; 169-173); Hostilianus: 39.4% (RIC IV.C. Decius 214-218; 180-185); Volusianus: 36.4% (RIC IV.C. Gallus 129-130; 134; 241-242); Valerianus Iunior: 34.2% (RIC V.A. Valerianus Iunior 5; 11; 23; 29-30; 34; 37-40; 44-45; 49-51); Saloninus: 42% (RIC V.A. Saloninus 3; 5; 10-12; 18-19; 27-28; 30-34); Carinus: 17.2% (RIC V.B. Carinus Caesar 147; 150-151; 158- 161; 174; 176-186; 197-199); Numerian: 29.2% (RIC V.B. Numerian Caesar 352; 356-357; 360-369). 925 Cf. Göbl, 2000, 134; Kömer, 2002, 45; Horster, 2011, 98. Three types refer to Caracalla as iuventa imperii instead of princeps iuventutis'. RIC IV.A. Caracalla 20; 24B. In one case, the images of Herennius and Hostilianus as principes iuventutis are replaced by an image of Apollo: RIC IV.C. Decius 59-60; 70-71; 85-86; 96; 112-113; 123-124. 172 military attributes, such as a baton, hasta, sceptre, spear, Standard and trophy.926 Sometimes an extra layer of imperial authority supplements the position of the princeps iuventutis, when he holds a globe or receives it from his father or a diety (IMAGE IX.6).927 These modifications expanded the common thM-century princeps iuventutis-iconography üom the traditional Augustan Roman equites-sca* with fte famous süver spear and shield that Gaius 928 and Lucius Caesar received by the knights. Furthermore, many coin reverses of third-century Caesares refer to them as the hope and the future happiness for the Roman state.929 Likewise, the virtue pietas frequenüy adoms the Caesares’ types.930 The virtue symbolises a sense of duty and devotion to the gods, the Roman People, the (imperial) family, and the Empire931 Connected to the image of Ihe imperial successor, pietas also communicated the Caesares’ prospective worthiness to rule. Iconographically, the PIETAS-reverses of tiie Caesares mostly showed sacnficial 926 Kömer 2002 46' Haegemans,~2003, 470-471; Hedlund, 2008, 187-190. For a more detaüed analysis of the ™nteP7 Z ln t2 hkding an olive branch, emphasismg another aspect of Ac successor’ s role as peace bnnger f e S ï f f S Ï Ï Ï l ï S i ï a globe from Septimius Severus: RIC IV.A. Caracalla 864; 886; Hedlund, zuub, ibö. v. Carus 124-125; 128; 206-209; Numenan receives a globe from c " £ b . Carus 372; 376-380. On the globe as symbol of imperial ^ ^ ^ 0 ^ 0 9 9 3 4 9 ^ ’sOO- 106,133-134, who calls it the “orb of domination” or the “symbol of world power. Cf. Basüen, 1993, , 502, AlRUdi, 1999, l t 13, c f Rose 1997 17-18; Sevay, 2003,164-165. r ’S X » ScrvT— * 16; Z « M g i 7 * ^ . , . 'x'x 'xol ( M C TV R M a r r in u s 113-117)5 PhilippUS IuUlOf. 12.5% \R 1 C IV A^. 01A* 96- 100); Diadumemanus: 33.3% {KIC lv .ü . M a c n n u s i u i » , ( v j r V A ’ r 991. 9cQV Herennius- 1.7% CRIC IV.C. Decius 149); Valenanus Iunior. 2.6% (RIC V.A. W T T j f Ï T * “ 2 ^ T ^ A ; 109; 118; 126); Volusianus: 9.1% (RIC IV.C. Gallus 135); 156) Salomnus: (RIC V.B. Carinus Caesar 141; 152; 194). See also Rubm, 1976/7 153-173, Clark, 1983, Perassi 1991' Kömer, 2002,44-46; Horster, 2005, 863; Haegemans, 2010,91. 930 Pietas: Caracalla: 8.8% (RIC IV.A. Julia Domna 864; 886; Caracalla 12); Geta: 1.3% ( - - • 14- 99V Maximus- 42.9% (RIC IV.B. Maximus 1-2; 6- 8; 11-12); Philippus Iumor. 12-5% ( • W I 2 S ' H ^nnius: 26.9% (RIC IV.C. Decius 142-143; 167-168); Hosühanus: N X . aeciits 32; Carinus Caesar 155- S te r-^ S m .'2^138°; S m d ! 2008,182. We have to piuS /eö* were included on ^ ,^ ^ ri^ " w 1 C 'M ^ “ rS S .,^;2000 »1= 13M34.6. dm ihc O f the C a .,™ v.suall, aiaü8»i»b Iht „«■» ol > C a,,ar from M, jw rai emperor. 173 implements, such as the lituus, patera, simpulum; pitcher, and sprinkler (IMAGE XI.2).933 All these types together formed a visual code of a promising imperial successor, who could secure the continuity of a prospering dynasty.934 This pattem is seen in aU mints operating for these Caesares. In contrast, the co-Augusti were depicted differenüy from the Caesares, although both groups could be very young. Their images rather shared messages that were broadcast on the types of their imperial colleagues, their fathers.935 In particular, allusions to military leadership, victories, and loyal legions were favourite themes on the types of the third-centuiy co-Augusti, and these themes were quite similarly broadcast by all mints issuing types for them.936 Here again, the militaristic theme on the coins for the co-Augusti foUowed the Antonme-Severan example, most likely to communicate a stable imperial continuity. Besides from this, the military scenes could allude to contemporary circumstances.937 On the one hand, such scenes could have been a tooi for advertising the co-Augusti among the military. In the third century, this target group more than ever played a prominent role in the proclamation and installation of imperial candidates. As mentioned before, the message of a prospective reverses with Mercur’y: ' S c “ T ^ If d w d SOme PIETAS- Mercury, no. 74; Legutko, 2000, 132-134 °“ ** * * * * see UMC VL1 ^ S i « - 127; Haegemans’ 2003> 470-471; H° ^ , 2007, 299; 2011, 103; Hedlund, 2008, 190; P r in c e p s iuventutis: RIC IV.B. Gallus 159; 183; 259. Cf. Legato, 2000, » T l3 5 * ^ ^ 20-21 • T7 “ h Z T Z °I 016 f0'l0Wlng Sons as A u g u s ti; Caracalla: 48.8% (RIC IV A Caracalla 1-16' ïlillïS s filfS S — Iunior 223- 237- 238-93q- W h • „ 5 166-167)> Philippus Iumor: 9.4% (RIC IV.C. PUlippus « h e Ï Ï S o f S ; ^ 8 0118 ^ “a miHtanStlC where “ imperial candidate had compete for 174 continuation of the imperial house was favoured among the military, and therefore, these military coins could help to secure the succession of the emperor’s son.938 On the other hand, the militaristic types might simply have reflected the main responsibility that these co-Augusti were entrusted with, namely military tasks. From Augustus onwards, imperial sons were regularly involved in military affairs, and in the third century this involvement only seems to have increased.939 Of course, through these military tasks the co-Augusti were prepared for their future imperial task, but it also helped their fathers to manage the rather instable Empire.940 The military themes on the coins of the co-Augusti, thus, emphasised a good connection between the future emperor and the Roman military; and so could have aimed to ensure the support of the military in the co-Augustus’ claim to power.941 Additionally, many co-Augusti received types displaying the virtue liberalitas or they portrayed on a public donation-coin scene accompanying their fathers or distributing money alone (IMAGE IX.7).942 This scene again followed a precedent from the reign of Marcus Aurelius, although then the liberalitas-type was reserved for Commodus as Caesar and as Augustus. Obviously, donations were popular among the Roman people and the military, and somehow these cash distributions strengthened the bond with their emperor.943 It may explain why this type for Commodus was continued in the third century. Norena has even demonstrated that there existed a correlation between the frequency of types referring to a money distribution and the actual rate of congiaria in the second century and the first half of the third centuiy. In this way, almost every imperial cash handout, including those from the apparent successors, seems to have been commemorated on coins, indicating the importance of these messages for the emperor’s imperial representation.944 The involvement of imperial 938 Kömer, 2002, 46-47; De Blois, 2006, 270-271; Hedlund, 2008, 187-190, esp. 190; Manders, 2011, 234-244. A coin for Caracalla under the reign of his father Septimius Severus denoted the co-Augustus as the PROPAGO IMPERI: RIC IV.A. Septimius Severus 67. 939 Severy, 2003, 80-84; 88; 162-163; 178; 189; 194. 940 Kömer, 2002, 46-47. 941 Manders, 2012,63-94, esp. 63-64. 942 Liberalitas of the co-Augusti: Caracalla: 3.4% (RIC IV.A. Septimius Severus 263; 297; Caracalla 128; 134- 136; 158-160; 416; 430A); Diadumenianus: 66.6% (RIC IV.B. Macrinus 79; 194); Philippus Iunior: 17% (RIC IV.C. Philippus 179; 182-183; 230; 245; 266-267); Volusianus: 2.8% (RIC IV.C. Gallus 178; 254a; b); Gallienus: 6.7% (RIC V.A. Valerian 45; 102; 105; Valerian and Gallienus 3; 5-7; Gallienus 82-84; 147-151; 220-224; 255; 270-272; 385-386; 420; 431; 443-444). Kömer, 2002,47; Alföldi, 1999,127-128. 943 For more about liberalities see Kloft, 1970, 85-177; Flaig, 1992, 451-461; Alföldi, 1999, 125-128; Norena, 2011,85-92. 944 Norena, 2001, 160-164; 2011, 90-92. Norena clarifies that “liberalitas-types would never ever have been minted in sufficiënt numbers to cover the necessary pay-outs for even a single distribution. Most likely, the types had only a commemorative, not an accounting, function, whose degree of advertising was almost equal to their actual degree of cash distributions.” Manders’ study, 2012, 166-169 demonstrated that public donations were less propagated after Decius; however, the actual distributions of money would not have ceased. Cf. Brilliant, 1963,170-173. 175 successors in public donations spread the message that not only the emperor cared for its subjects, but his heir apparent as well. Likewise, these types expressed the advantageousness for the Roman Empire of a dynastie succession within the ruling domus Augusta, as it would strengthen the power of the imperial house and secure the future succession of the emperor’s son.945 Notably, third-century coin representations of cash handouts only portray co-Augusti, and not Caesares, which indicates again the privileged representation of the eldest surviving sons despite the young age of some of them.946 Not only is there a difference in types between the Caesares and co-Augusti, but a variation of percentages between the third-century Augusti and their co-Augusti can be observed as well. Most third-century co-Augusti did not receive as many as types as their fathers, although we must remark that we know less about the number of types during each stage of these emperors’ reigns.947 Yet there is one clear exception. According to graph 8, Gallienus might have received an equal number of types as his father: almost 52% 948 The most obvious reason for this equal share is the higher age and military experience of the forty-year old Gallienus, whereas most other third-century imperial successors were merely teenagers without much military or political experience.949 The Licinian ao-Augusti divided the govemment of the Roman Empire between each other: Valerian went to the East to stem the Persian threat while Gallienus remained in Italy to repel the Germanic tribes at the Rhine and the Danube.950 In a way, the joint emperorship of Valerian and Gallienus recalls the joint govemment of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus - and that of Marcus and Commodus - who also divided the realm 945 Cf. Brilliant, 1963,170-173; Manders, 2012, 165-169 about the dynastie aspect of these money donations. 946 The only exception is Geta. As Caesar, he is depicted at different liberalities together with the Severan Augusti, his father and Caracalla (RIC IV.A. Septimius Severus 263; 297; Caracalla 128; 159). Previously, Kemmers, 2011, 270-289, has shown that Geta played a more prominent role than Caracalla during the years 200-202 AD, and between 203-204 AD he would have been perceived his brother’s equal. Geta’s attendance at the public donations may have been an example of his privileged representation. Previously, Commodus was also depicted at a liberalitas, when he was just a Caesar. See supra this chapter (3.4.3) and IMAGE IX.5. 947 As mentioned before, the volumes used here of RIC, IV.B; IV.C; V.A and V.B, lack a lot of detailed dates and mint attributions. 948 In addition, Valerianus Iunior (6.1%) and Saloninus (3.6%), as well as the empresses Mariniana (1.3%) and Salonina (7.1%) received coin types under the reign of Valerian, which means that only 30% were issued in name of Valerian himself, suggesting therefore, that Gallienus received more types than his own father. However, the poor dating of Valerian’s types and the vague transition from the reign of Valerian to the sole reign of Gallienus influences the data of our graph. Consequently, the percentages of Valerian’s and Gallienus’ total types would be around 40%, suggesting an equal output of types for both emperors during the reign of Valerian. Contra Göbl, 2000, 83; 129. For the mint of Rome, for example, Göbl attributed four officinae to Valerian, whereas Gallienus only had three. On medallions, Göbl, 2000, 83-84; 129 agrees that they solely emphasised the joint emperorship of father and son. 949 About Gallienus’ career before his father became emperor, see De Blois, 1976,1 and Kuhoff, 1979,9-10. 950 De Blois, 1976, 23-24; Kuhoff, 1979, 11-14; Göbl, 2000, 57-59; Potter, 2004,254-255. 176 of Empire geographically between each other and shared an equal number of types.951 Still, it remains a tentative suggestion, because we are less well informed about Gallienus influence on the joint emperorship with his father. To conclude, Hiiring the thiid century the advertisement of imperial sons reached its peak. Almost each third-century emperor who had biological sons or even grandsons advertised those intensively. The idea that the newly-proclaimed emperor might possess an imperial house with a biological succession line remained one of the relevant issues in the imperial representation of the third century.952 Reality, however, was very far removed from the imppirial representation as no third-century emperor really succeeded in founding a dynastie house. In this imperial representation, the eldest surviving sons were more prominent than the other imperial (grand)sons, a remarkable fact given that the concept of primogeniture was not known in Roman law.953 The differences in the coins’ representation of eldest surviving sons, most of whom were also the co-Augusti of their fathers, varied in both design and frequency from the Caesares' coins. These differences dated back from Commodus’ advertisement as Caesar and co-Augustus under his father Marcus Aurelius. In this way, the images for third- century imperial sons constructed imperial continuity from the Antonine house onwards, and subsequently they developed into a Standard imperial iconography. The types of Caesares primarily symbolise the young men as the princes of the youth who ideologically personified the hope and etemity for the Roman state, whereas co-Augusti on coins perform several imperial tasks, such as giving military commands or donating money. Hereby, co-Augusti were represented as the future successive emperor, sharing their fathers’ powers and tasks, whereas Caesares symbolised the abstract idea that the succession was secured. The frequenties of types portraying Caesares and co-Augusti also differ. The Caesares received fewer types than the co-Augusti, suggesting again that the eldest surviving sons enjoyed privileged representation. As such, they seem to have been represented as the first in line to succeed their imperial fathers. Previously, the eldest son of Vespasian, Titus, had succeeded his father, whereas his younger brother Domitian only became his Caesar. The idea of primogeniture, thus, was not unfamiliar to the Romans, although legally it did not 951 Consequently, it would be interesting to analyse whether the mints between Valerian and Gallienus were geographical divided as well. This topic, however, needs much more detailed study, which caimot be done here. 952 Timpe, 1962, 88; Wiedemann, 19962, 198-255; Corbier, 1991a, 49-79; Lintott, 1994,130-132; Baharal, 1996, 9-22; Lendon, 1997,254; Hekster, 2001, 36-37; 39-49. Cf. King, 1999,127; 132; Haegemans, 2010,180. 953 Digest 50.16.220.3; Saller, 1994,165. See supra this section. 177 exist. In the third century, two pairs of sons survived and succeeded their deceased fathers: Caracalla and Geta succeeded Septimius Severus, and Carinus and Numerian succeeded Carus. Here too, the mechamcs of primogeniture still played a role as the younger brother was appointed co-Augustus by the auctoritas imperii of the eldest.954 Finally, in theory, the co-Augusti were their fathers’ imperial colleagues, but usually they received fewer types than their fathers, suggesting that their fathers remained the supreme Augusti. 4.5. A deity in the family: coin types for sons who passed away During the Roman Empire, several types commemorated the deceased and deified sons of the emperor. Types were issued for divus Caesar955 under Domitian, for divus Valerianus Iunior956 under Valerian, for divus Saloninus957 under Gallienus, and for divus Nigrinianus958 under Carinus (Graph 8). The frequency of the types is not high, corresponding with only a handful of types, (which were) mostly struck at the time the sons died and were deified.959 As we have seen, types were issued for the emperor’ s sons in order to propagate their succession and the peaceful continuation of emperor’s house. Therefore, it is remarkable that deified sons received attention on their father’s coinage, because, for obvious reasons, they could not personify a secured succession anymore. Why, then, were these divi depicted on their father’s coins? Several explanations can be suggested, which need not be mutually exclusive. Birley, 1971, 177; 180; 187-188. 955 N=7, which is 1.3% of Domitian’s total types; RIC II Domitian 132-136; 152-155. Little is known about divus Caesar, only that he was bom in AD 73 (Suetonius, Domitian 3; Martial, Epigrams 4.3). Until today, no sources have revealed the name of Domitian’s son. Only the coins referred to him as divus Caesar. N=14, which is 1.6% of Valerianus’ total types; RIC V.A. Valerianus Iunior 7-10; 24-28; 31; 35; 41-43; Göbl, 2000, 58-59. RIC V.A., 29 attributes two types to another deceased member of the Licinii: D IW S CAESAR Q GALLIENVS: RIC V.A. Q Julius Gallienus 1-2. The Q in the legend could not refer to Quintus as no member of the Iicinian family bare that name. Göbl, 2000, no. 257 stated that Ihe type from Vienna (MO_RO_072292) was genuine and attributed it to the deceased Valerianus Iunior. Kienast, 20043, 221 suggested that the Q could mean quondam and attributed the type to the deceased Saloninus, which is unlikely because Saloninus was raised to the rank of Augustus some weeks before his death, as prof. dr. Lucas de Blois (Radboud University Nijmegen) has suggested to me through personal communication. N=l, which is 0.1% of Gallienus’ total types. RIC V.A. Saloninus 15; Göbl, 2000, 68. However, the |enuineness of the type is doubted. 58 N=4, which is 2.7% of Carinus’ total types. RIC V.B. Carinus 471-474; Gricourt, 2000, nos. 3404-3408; 3774-3780, 3947-3979; 3984-3988. Nigrinianus is only known from his consecratio coins and one inscription that refers to him as the grandson of Carus, see ILS 611. The scarcity of sources, therefore, could not define whether he was a son of Carinus or of his sister Paulina. 959 Cf. Hekster, 2009, 105. An exception is divus Caesar. He seems to have died before his father Domitian became emperor, but his deification happened when Domitian was emperor. For more on the difference between the funeral and the deification of the emperor and other imperial members, see Benoist, 2005,149-163. 178 First of all, one of the oldest Roman virtues was pietas. The emperor’s piety, pietas Augusti, was needed to achieve pax deorum, a divine peace that guaranteed hannony and order in Roman society. We have elaborated on pietas before960, but one expression of imperial pietas was honouring deceased family members. The consecration-types could have aimed to commemorate the deceased sons of the ruling imperial family, like an act of imperial pietas-961 Second, by dying, the sons could have made a transition from members to heavenly protectors of their families. The model would not be new. From the start of the Empire, several emperors tried to propagate their descent from their deified predecessors, regardless of this kinship relation was invented in order to legitimate their imperial powers.962 From the first century onwards, even living emperors and their family members started to be perceived as having some kind of sacred aura. As a result, the imperial power of the domus Augusta became religiously legitimated, and the divine house of sovereigns formed a domus divina. A deified son could re-underline the divinity of the imperial family.964 Their types could have been a tooi for propagating the divine protection the emperor’s house enjoyed.965 Subsequently, this divine blessing would have stressed the legitimation of the emperor’s house to rule. Third, types for deceased sons also prove the fertility of the imperial house. As we have mentioned repeatedly before, the Roman military and citizens believed that a fertile imperial house could secure the continuation of imperial power.966 IndirecÜy, the types for the deceased sons could be a hopeful reference to the fertility of the empress who could bring forth a new successor. The coins of Domitia, the wife of Domitian, advertise fertility very clearly. On half of her coins, she was referred to as ‘the mother of the divus Caesar , imtirating her fertility, and therefore, it was also suggested that she was able to give birth to another son and successor (IMAGE IX.8).967 960 See supra chapter 2 (2.1; 2.4.2.1) and chapter 3 (3.4.1; 3.4.4), and see dsoinfra chapter 4 (4.3.2) 961 Gordon, 1990, 199-231; Hedlund, 2008, 174-176. Cf. Ulnch, 1930; Charleswarth, 1943, 1-10, Wallace- Hadrill 1981,310; 315; 320; Classen, 1991,17-39; Norena, 2001,158; Mandeis, 2012,178-182. 962 See supra chapter 2. See especially, Gxadel, 2000, 54-72; 162-133; 261-371 and ^ e r - M e ie r 2 « R 963 More about the domus divina, see Turcan, 1998,1017; 1051; Pnce, 1984, 244ff; Fishwict 1987,342ff, 1991, 423ff; Lo Cascio, 2005,140; De Jong, 2006,118ff; Lichtenberger, 2011, 297-355. See inscnpttons. BGUII 655, RIB Vindolanda 1700; Wilson, 20Ó7; 306. „ . r 1(r7Q 964 Hedlund, 2008,174-175. In his policy, Domitian was eager to be assmnlated with the gods see Desmer, I5f/y, 58-63; Hekster, 2010,604-609. 965 Desnier, 1979, 58-63; Hedlund, 2008,174-176; Hekster, 2009, 105-106. 966 See supra chapter 1 (1.1.1). . , , 967 RIC n2 Domitian 132-136; Roche, 2002, 41. In addition, Annia Faustina, the third wife of Elagabalus, was also denoted as mater Caesaris: AE 1936.40. Most likely, Elagabalus’ adopted son, Alexander Severus, is the Caesar referred to. The title probably had to emphasise the fertility of Elagabalus’ new wife. 179 5. Caesares who were not (adopted) sons of the emperor: three cases During the Roman Empire, three designated successors were entitled Caesar, but none of them were (adopted) sons of the ruling emperor. These were Domitian, Clodius Albinus, and Gordian m . Domitian and Gordian in owed their title to their imperial lineage, whereas Clodius Albinus was apparently offered the title of Caesar as appeasement, because he was a feared opponent for the emperor Septimius. The extent to which these individuals were visible on coins varied greatly. Domitian received almost one fourth of the coin types under his brother, the emperor Titus, whereas Clodius Albinus and Gordian m appear only on 1.9% and 4.7% of their emperors’ types.968 The following section examines these three mentioned Caesares as test cases in order to see whether their displays on coinage differed from propagation of the previously examined adopted and biological sons of the emperor. First, the representation of Domitian on Titus’ coins was quite frequently compared to previous advertised successors (Graphs 7 and 8). Previously, too, Vespasian had represented his sons quite frequently on his coinage, making Domitian’s regular appearance on Titus’ coms unremarkable. During the reign of his father, Domitian was represented as the princeps iuventutis who personifïed the hope of a secured succession. Under Titus, D om itian retained this image.969 Furthermore, Titus’ Caesar received types referring to Victory, Peace, and Concord of the emperor similarly to those that Titus himself received under Vespasian.970 In addition, every type referred to Domitian’s imperial descent from Vespasian, legitimating his rank of Caesar.971 Domitian’s types thus clearly represented the Caesar as the rightful designated successor to his sonless brother, in a way comparable to how biological sons were propagated by other emperors. Second, Clodius Albinus appeared on Septimius’ coins as his Caesar before he was declared hostis by the Roman Senate in AD 195.972 Several types were issued for him, almost 8% of Septimius’ types issued between April 193 and December 195.973 The percentage is 968 Domitian on Titus’ types: 24.6%; N=70. Z » ^ Z ? r inCepS iuventutis: 8-7% (RIC n 2 Titus 96-99; 292-293; 513) and hope = sper. 11.6% (RIC IF 284_285:298' 30° ; 316' 318: 349' 351:511> D o^tian’s total types as Titus’ CaeZr Victoria Augusti-, 18.8% (RIC f f Titus 87-88; 272-274; 286-287; 303-306; 324-328' 354-355)- Pax Augusti- 3 ^ 0 - S 8'f5n: " W 283i 288-291: 341-342; 5(« ; " TltUS’ CaeSaK ° ther 2180 refared ‘° ***** ^gusti: 2.9% (RIC IP Titus 321-323; 352); Ceres Augusti: 7.2% (RIC IF Titus 278-280; 307-308; 332-334- 512) and Secuntas Augusti: 1.4% (RIC IF Titus 353) of Domitian’s total types as Titus’ Caesar m The coin types refer to Domitian as the divi [augusti] filius Vespasiani. For Albinus being declared hostis, see Herodian 3.5.2; HA Septimius Severus 6.9; 9.1; Birley, 1971, 189-200- Baharal, 1996,20-21. * 5 973 Clodius’ types: N=29; Total types Septimius Severus between April 193 and December 195: N=375. 180 L » r was just • delaying taeüo to masmr t e P°we*< 10 W3’ * * “" “ T p e * » tamediate we»»» ttmat « Septimius, «1» himself had » eonsolida* lus m*en,d L , ™ Since S « « » ’ « t o t « C«mcaHa ™ ^ >*“ °1A “ ““ C -V —I-— — — Was matuxe. However, some scholars, like Birley, suggest that the stopgap opüon coul have been a serious offer.976 This idea is also suggested by Albmus’ coms. The iconogra of Ihese types carries explicit Information about Albinus’ person, although we must n — that we not know whether Septimius ordered the designs of his types or that ^ thought the designs were suitable for hm,*77 Some of Albinus’ types FKVGMRO « o n , the Bditional p « » deity of m, T e oative tow» of X , , ) » B ~ * « - - personalised types suggest that t e selection of Albinus’ types might have happened care y. I„ addition, no types display Albinus aa a princeps ümnmlis, which ta not suipmmg ""“ ."ueneyof— Septeiu, ^ imüted coin propagadon of t e impedtd adoped sons — «>» - H . was not fonnally adopted by Septimius, bm he used te name Septimius on ™ ,s aud mscriptions.980 « t e suc<*ssor ahonld style himself as a relative of t e ruhng emperor seems to have become self-evident, and was reflected by t e C°m* 35 ruling H e t t d potential «ue«a»r depioed as a G « * r « ite u t bemg t e « t of the rul. g emperor was Gotdian Dl. This young man was t e grandson of Gotdian 1 and t e nephew ------, « 1- 368- Heil, 2006,60-62; 68-70. 974 RIC IV.A, 40-42; Baharal, 1996, 20-21; Schumacter, 2003, 356, 975 Dio 76 4.1; Herodian 2.15; HA Clodius Albmus 1. , ■ , ZS™Ei”w?«Ï5m m 169; „w e ll aa to H* >«!■“>' °' "S'““ : °” „£L ii m [ U » » Yet, it !• a« resembled a Punic reüef found in the shnneof B Kienast, 2004?, 160; Lichtenberger, 2011, 100- fhat Albmus originated from Hadrumetum, see Alföldy, 1968, Kiena ^ R I C W '1 % - , „ „ en ILS 4 ]4_4 15; 4133. Schumacher, 2003, 359; 631; H al, 2006, on his Lugdunum issues after 195. Cf. Baharal, 1996,21. 181 a — 0 . » Aüe, fte elder Goniiani had died, the Semde eleced the Balbinus Pupienus as joint etnnemro 982 tt, i . mus and Oord™ m ™ . ' e popnlanty of the surviving descendant of the Gordiani, G o * » m , ïncreased eno™„„,,y » d evMua|ly ^ ^ ^ p c m o p t the hoy as their cw.» I. ** „ Ü 1 , r Whi°h ^ W — fc *. to th T ' ™ ll“r '° ““ ^ z : « r ~ - - ■*— - « « r * ZZ ZZ tefore ia,e *■— *> wev„, die limited w i M of Grndian m nnde, Balbinus and Pnpienus did no, re ec e popnlanty of the descendant the Gordiani which grew increasingly. Immediately «tertemn*„,B,hi,„sa,d^,0«mmwB^ dsoJ i^ r Bly 6. Conclusion « emperors who had a pomnda, snccessn, m * the represemado, „f thm snccess„, t e majo, theroes on thei, eoms. m „ n8hoa, f c t _ centuiy, the prominence of die imperial successor on coins increased. Overall, potential successors were represented as the hope for the Pm ■ symbohsed a sort of etennd continuation of the imperial house, and could therefore Pr 2 s 2 P e * succesMon without civil w ar, InitiaUy, the Julio-Claudians experimented with public century T ^ a n to d 1^ S°n' ^ ^ 6C*UenC^ in icono8raPliy» but later, towards the third my, sprndan, depicnon of snceessom developed, inspfad by Com m ode „ Caesar ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ iaZZ^T'^' °f “■ y0U”8“ ^ " **■*- irs and second centunes, their images referred to the Roman knights who 2 “ °re about tlf Iives of *e Gordiani, see Haegemans 2010 144-1 f,4 emperor ^ who « t o ^ S s s ??’467'2010-'"'81 * Z T ' m, '“ Ut'd f” B ib ÏH n d 2 » AnJogon, t . ' S l f « " W - n,, 182 entitled them, whereas third century younger successors’ military qualities drew more emphasis. Spes, hilaritas and pietas were the most widely disseminated virtues credited to these young men. Sometimes the kinship term fllius appears in the nomenclature of the potential successor to emphasise his filiation with the ruling emperor. Older potential successors, who in the third century mostly became their fathers’ co- Augusti as well, received less abstract images. Their types mostly displayed them as men trained to be the future emperors, carrying out military orders or distributing donatives. When they grew older or were appointed co-Augustus, the successors were not called ‘the son of the emperor’ anymore, except for Marcus Aurelius, whose status as apparent successor was intensely promoted. When an emperor had more than one son, a distinction between the types for the eldest and his younger brothers surfaces. The eldest surviving successor, usually co-opted as co- Augustus of his father, was advertised more prominently than his other brothers, and his iconography singled him out as the designated future emperor. The prominent presence of the eldest surviving sons on the imperial coins is remarkable because the Romans did not articulate or normalise a concept of primogeniture. Their coins, however, suggests another development in which the eldest surviving son became more prominent in the mechanics of imperial govemment. Although it is might be expected that the virtue of providentia (deorum), the emperor’s (divine) ability to foresee (dynastie) continuity, would be depicted frequently on potential successors’ types, as the successors were the result of that foresight, the virtue rarely appeared on the successor’s coins. Providentia only graces emperors’ coins, where it comes up frequently, being even one of the five core virtues in his coin representation.987 We could say that providentia was closely bound to the person of the emperor alone, leaving the successor with other abilities and virtues to display. Almost all potential successors represented on coins were either the biological son or the adopted son of the emperor. The biological sons were advertised the most frequently during the reign of their fathers, whereas adopted sons received more limited attention or were only strongly advertised at the end of their adoptive fathers’ reigns. The difference may suggest a perception that the propagation of kinship by blood was a stronger notion in the imperial 987 Wallace-HadriU, 1981, 321-322; Martin, 1982; Norena, 2001, 159; 2011, 92-99, 257; Cox, 2005, 251-270; Manders, 2012, 162-165. It will be illuminating to analyse whether providentia is more frequent propagated on the coinage of the emperors with sons or without. For reasons of time and space, this analysis could not be done anymore. 183 succession than the propagation of adopted successors. Although legally Roman political offices were not hereditary, the dynastie principle started to be ingrained in Roman minds from the second half of the first century onwards, with the Roman military cherishing it particularly. The large proportion of coin types referring to the emperor’s biological sons from Vespasian’s rule onwards might reflect the prominent role that kinship by blood had started to play in the mechanics of bequeathing power. This prominence even increased under Marcus Aurelius, followed by Septimius Severus, resulting in the uniformly high prominence of the biological sons on the third-century coins. Moreover, some emperors’ types commemorated the ruling emperor’s deceased biological sons. These sons could not succeed their fathers anymore, but indirectly they seem to have symbolised divine support and fertility of the imperial family. Adopted sons, except for Marcus Aurelius and Hostilianus, were marginally represented during the reign of their adoptive fathers with the representation becoming explicit only at the moment when they were adopted, which was typically at the end of the adoptive fathers’ reign. It seems then that these adoptive fathers hesitated to advertise their adopted sons, and with them, the creation of a dynastie house. Several reasons could be given for their marginal representation. First, the unprecedented display of sons and successors, which clashed with the Republican representational modes, could have caused the limited and experimental display of the adopted Julio-Claudian sons on coins, and maybe this was also the case during the years 68-69. For the same reasons, the coin display of the biological Julio-Claudian sons, Drusus Iunior and Britannicus, seems to have been restricted. Second, adopted sons, certainly the ones with imperial descent, may have been perceived potential opponents for their adoptive fathers’ thrones, and therefore, received less attention on their coinage, despite that initially these adoptive fathers could not have escaped the inevitable need to adopt a successor to secure their power. Finally, the types for the adopted sons Aelius Verus and Antoninus Pius announced their adoptions among the Romans as part of Hadrian’s bigger plan, in which they were the path-holders for Marcus Aurelius who was intended to succeed as emperor after them. Being just stopgap successors, it is obvious that their representation was rather limited. Likewise, Lucius Verus’ nearly absence on Pius’ coinage may have been a tactic in order to lay emphasis on his adoptive brother Marcus Aurelius. In contrast, then, Marcus Aurelius appears regularly on Pius’ types throughout his whole reign, and his coin images made it very clear that he was predestined to succeed to Pius’ throne. Marcus was not only the adoptive son of Pius, he was also his nephew by marriage, was married to his daughter, and his children 184 had Pius’ blood running into their veins. Here, again, the element of kinship by blood was perceived important. Likewise, Hostilianus’ biological descent from Gallus’ predecessor may explain Hostilianus’ intensive display under Gallus, being a tooi for legitimating Gallus’ own succession to Hostilianus’ father, Decius. With three exceptions, all successors within a dynasty were the (adopted) sons of the ruling emperors: Domitian was, of course, a son of an emperor, but not the ruling one; Clodius Albinus was the ruling emperor’s potential opponent, and Gordian Hl was formally raised to the rank of Caesar because he was a descendant of the earlier imperial house of the Gordiani. Still, they too, were portrayed in kinship terms on coins, in similar modes as the other adopted or biological sons, as if it was self-evident that the apparent successor of the ruling emperor was perceived to be related to him. 185 Chapter 4: Imperial women on imperial coins 1. Introduction “Caesar tried to avail himself still more of the influence ofPompey. Therefore, he wanted to give his daughter, Julia, who was betrothed to Servilius Caepio, to Pompey, and he told Servilius he should have Pompey’s daughter, although she too was not unengaged, but had been promised to Sulla’s son, Faustus. A little time after, Caesar married Calpumia, a daughter of Piso and got Piso made consul for the coming year. Here too Cato vehemently protested, and cried out that it was intolerable to have the supreme power prostituted by maniage alliances, and to see men helping one another to power and armies and provinces by means of women." (Plutarch, Caesar 14.4-5) In the Roman Republic, maniage alliances were a tooi for extending or consolidating familial networks in order to gain political power. In the Late Republic, marriage strategies developed. Political families contracted endogamous mamages often to tighten family ties and thus monopolise political offices and conserve family patrimonies.988 The cited fragment from Plutarch’s biography of Caesar is illustrative. When Augustus became sole ruler, he adopted this endogamous marriage strategy to create an exclusive imperial house, blocked from the traditional nobiles 989 The creation of such a tight family played a prominent role in the construction of the Roman emperorship, and its continuity.990 Within Augustus’ family, his daughter Julia became a key player. Her marriages with her nephew Marcellus and later her step-brother Tiberius made Augustus’ house more independent from other Roman families and thus politically stronger, and her children from her second husband Agrippa promised an orderly succession of Augustus’ imperial power.991 During the Roman Empire, the relationship between the emperor and his close family members became formalised, known as the domus Augusta and later the domus divina, in 988 Tacitus, Annals 12.6.2-3: Vitellius comments on the endogamy of the imperial rulers, declaring that in earlier times the Romans married strictly outside the family. Also, Plutarch, Mores 289d-e; 265d-e stated that “the Romans tended to marry outside the family, unlike the Greeks.” Wiseman, 1971, 53-59; Gruen, 1974, 47-82; esp. 75-82; Saller-Shaw, 1984,134-136; Treggiari, 1991, 39-43; Corbier, 1991b, 133-142; Corbier, 1994, 259-268. 989 Wiseman, 1971, 53-59; Treggiari, 1991, 39-43; Severy, 2003,63-67. 990 Severy, 2003, 62-67; and Norena, 2007, 308-311. 991 Kleiner-Matheson, 1996, 58; Fantham, 2006, 29-31; 66-67; 79-91. For more about Julia’s children, Gaius and Lucius Caesar, see chapter 3 (3.3.1) and figure 1. 186 which also the female members played a significant role.992 Concord within Ihis house was prominent in the ideological program of the emperor and his entourage. While concord between all imperial family members was emphasised, the marital concord between the emperor and his empress was of the utmost ideological relevance. On the one hand, the , 993 T . . harmonious imperial marriage was represented as an exemplum for Roman society. Livia and Augustus were the first couple who set this precedent. On the other hand, the domestic concord between the empress and the emperor could also have political connotations. As such, the couple formed a public entity that could invoke civil order, health, and security for the Roman Empire, a constellation of values in which concepts of concord (concordia) and loyalty (fides) symbolised the Empire’s stability. In this way, the emperor’s wife was more than his consort: she represented the hope for prosperity in her husband’s govemment.994 An example of this practice are the public celebiations of the marriages of the heirs apparent, Marcus Aurelius and Caracalla, during their fathers’ reigns, which indicate clearly the ideological value that marital concord held for the imperial representation. Besides the empress, other female members, like sisters, daughters, and nieces of the emperor, were perceived as full members of the imperial house as well. These women did not obtain an official political role like the emperor, but transgressed the traditional roles of women m Roman society. For example, together with the empress, these women personified the fertile 995 . character of the imperial family, the fecunditas Augusti, and thus, lts continuity. As we mentioned before, the continuity of the imperial family was an important issue for the public imagp. 0f the ruling emperor. The Roman military, the Senate and citizens favoured the prospect of a successor related to the ruling emperor, who could succeed to his imperial throne and therefore forestall a political vacuum.996 In particular, for instance, the two Faustinae and Julia Domna drew praise for their motherhood, which promised the 992 Kine 1999 127' 132; Legutko, 2000, 98-122; Hemelrijk, 2005, 309-317; Horster, 2007, 296-300; 302-303. The te m ‘domus’ indicates the household with the wife, all agnate and cognate relatives, the slaves, the ancestors as well as the physical house and its patrimony. The most notable difference between farnüia and domus is that domus includes matemal relatives. Cf. Seneca, To Marcia 26.3; Pliny, Letters 4.21.3, Saller, 1984, 9®*Cf^ Menander, Men at Arbitration 2.1.396: “Because o f the emperor, marriage ischaste and fathers have legitimate offspring [...] for the sort of life which people observe in the emperor is the sort o f life which they undertake fo r themselves” , . 994 Cicero On duües 1.54: “And this is the foundation qf civil govemment, the nursery, as it were, qfihe state. Dixon, 1988,107; Severy, 2003,39; 104-112; 131-138; 188-189; Cooper, 2007,109-110; Kampen, 2009, 92-93, Foubert, 2010a, 73-76. 995 Rose 1997 13; Norena, 2007,297-299; Foubert, 2010a, 106-110. 996 Timpen 1962, 88; Wiedemann, 199ö2, 198-255; Corbier, 1991a, 49-79; Lintott, 1994,130-132; Baharal, 1996, 9-22; T RiiHnn 1997, 254; Hekster, 2001,36-37; 39-49. See supra chapter 1. 187 continuation of the imperial line; Faustina Maior bore the latter empress Faustina Iunior, who in her turn bore the emperor Commodus; and Julia Domna bestowed to the state even two heirs, Caracalla and Geta. Imperial women were thus considered as the life-giving force in the Empire, and therefore, they secured dynastie continuance as well.997 In their public image(s) imperial women were mostly connected with the idea of motherhood and the virtue of fertüity, or with deities personifying these aspects, such as Ceres, Diana (Lucifera), Iuno (Lucmae) and Venus (Genetrix).998 Closely related to the idea of fertility, the virtue of chastity, pudicitia, was also attributed to them.999 First, the promotion of the imperial women’s chastity was significant because the virtue communicated the genuine blood relation between the emperor and his heir apparent, which was an important element in the transfer of imperial power. 000 Second, when the heir apparent was adopted, chastity usually underlined the ideal conduct of the imperial women, sustaining concordia in the imperial family due to their unblemished character. Besides their marital and reproductive role, imperial women, and in particular empresses, seem also to have been perceived as protectresses who could guarantee peace and concord and thus well-being and joy for the Roman state. First of all, this idea was closely related to the ‘fertility idea’ of these women, because their bearing of a son secured the emperor’s succession and a peaceful transition of imperial power. But many imperial women also organised or sponsoied philanthropic activities through their own financial means, including charity projects and public building in or outside Rome. Through these, imperial women could also be real benefactresses for their subjects.10011 give three well-known examples of impenal women, who were involved sponsoring and encouraging charities and philanthropic events. Livia, for instance, used her wealth for lavish public expenditures, such as the rebuilding of temples and the construction of edifices, and she was engaged in several charity 1 ^ e,? !ati°n of 1116 emPress as Roman matrona and the state, see Dixon, 1988, 107- 1991 107- 113 1997 2010a, 3 7 -128;^010b,' 65-82.^ ^ ^ 39; l o i n 2 ; ’l31-i38; 188 189; f S * * “ 5? 5 1' Artemis nOS' 720' 724; V.l. Iuno nos. 35-109; 135-147; 816-817; Vm.1. Venus nos 49-55- 192- Ginsburg, K m 71;!)£ 104; Foube^’201 olj0 7 .gUtk°’ ^ 9S' U 2’ “ P' 108' 109; Alexandridis’ 2004’ 23‘26; ™oNorefla’ 2001’ 159; 2007’ 297-2" : Ginsburg, 2006, 71. wereNsn“S 1116 P"™0*™ of imperial chastity may also have aimed to contradict rumours that h£n , adulterous impenal women. Faustma Iunior’ son Commodus, for instance, was said to have ^ 3 g,adlator Marcus Aurelius Antoninus 19.7; Commodus 8.1; Aurelius Victor, Book qfthe Caesars 16.2). 1001 Boatwright, 1991, 518-525. 188 projects.1002 Furthermore, Trajan’s great-niece Matidia Iunior was particularly known for sponsoring charities. An inscription in Sessa Aurunca, for instance, informs us that she paid for the restoration of the city’s library, which was probably damaged by an earthquake during Pius’ reign.1003 Julia Domna, moreover, was highly esteemed for her cultural patronage over a circle of sophists and philosophers.1004 One group enjoyed a special protective connection with imperial women: the Roman military. From the Julio-Claudian dynasty onwards, female members of the imperial family followed their husbands on their military missions, where they lived in military camps together with the soldiers.1005 Ancient writers praised Agrippina Maior because she joined her husband Germanicus to the Western fronts together with some of their children.1006 After her, many empresses and other female relatives accompanied their emperor to the front lines as well.1007 The presence of these women at the military camp seems to have made a special impression on the soldiers. Public representations made this connection explicit by associating these women with female military divinities, such as Minerva, Dea Roma, and Venus Victrix.1008 During the reign of Marcus Aurelius, the special relationship between the empress and the military was emphatically expressed by the title mater castrorum. After Faustina, many empresses and empress-mothers received the title as well, emphasising the connection with the Roman troops.1009 Finally, the idea that imperial women could protect a group or an institution also developed. Julia Domna, for example, also became a mother of the Senate (mater senatus) 1002 Livia sponsored a sum of buildings and constructions: building of the Bona Dea Subsaxana (Ovid, Fasti 5.157-158); temple of Fortuna Muliebris (CIL 6.883); shrine for Concordia (Valerius Maximus 1.8.4; Flory, 1984, 313-319); co-dedication with Tiberius of the temple of divus Augustus (Dio 56.46.3; Pliny, Natural History 12.94); Marcellum Liviae and the Porticus liviae (Flory, 1984, 313-319 and Purcell, 1986, 102); an aqueduct for the vicani Matrini (CIL 11.3322). About Livia’s charity projects: aid to fiie victims in AD 16 (Dio 57.16.2) and payment of dowries (Dio 58.2.3). Dio 57.12.5. (cf. 56.46.5) also reports that Livia was intending to invite the senators, equestrians, and their wives on the occasion of the dedication of the statue to Augustus in her house. This list is based on the research of Boatwright, 1991,519 n. 26. 1003 CIL X 4760: the B[y]bl[i]otheca M[ati]diana. For the (charity) projects Matidia Iunior sponsored, see Boatwright, 1991,522; Hahn, 1994, 270; 272 nn. 15-16; Hemelrijk, 1999,120-121; Bruun, 2010,216-228. 1004 Philostratus, Life ofApollonius 1.3; Letters 73; lifes of the Sophists 622; Dio 78.18.3; Hemelrijk, 1999, 122- 128; Gorrie, 2004,61-72; Magnami, 2007. 1005 IGR 4.22-23; 74-75; 77; 100; 1300; Seneca, On Clemency 1.9; Tacitus, Annals 1.40.3; 1.44.1; 1.69.1-2; 2.54; 2.75;3.34; 12.27.1; Suetonius, Tiberius 7.3; Caligula 8.3; Claudius 2.1; Dio 57.5.6. Cf. Wood, 20012, 204-206. 1006 Tacitus, Annals 1.40.3; 1.44.1; 1.69.1-2; 2.54; 2.75; 12.27.1; Suetonius, Caligula 8.3; Dio 57.5.6. Rose, 1997,24-25; Foubert, 2010a, 166-167; 2013. 1007 Boatwright, 1991, 532; Levick, 2007,54-56. 1008 Foubert, 2010a, 164-168; Foubert, 2011, 349-362. Scholars, such as Mikocki, 1995 and Wood, 20012, object to associating these ‘manlier’ deities to the female members of the imperial family. 1009 The title mater castrorum was also given to Julia Domna, Julia Soaemias, Julia Mamaea, Julia Aquilia Severa, Julia Maesa (?), Sabinia Tranquillina (?), Otacilia, Herennia Etruscilla, Salonina, Severina, and Magma Urbica. 189 and the fatherland (mater patriae)}010 The former title expressed the empress’ protection over the Senate. The latter title suggests that just as the empress was the wife of the emperor, she was the mother of the fatherland as the emperor was the father. Many third-century empresses received these titles as well.1011 The empress and other female relatives of the emperor became prominent public fïgures. This public appearance was remarkable and contrary to republican practice. Imperial women participated in public processions or festivities alongside the emperor and started to appear in public displays in many ways similar to female members of the Hellenistic monarchie houses. In particular, Livia, the wife of Augustus, enjoyed several public honours and was honoured with public images. She was also the first to receive the honourary title of Augusta, an honour that almost every empress after Livia would enjoy. From the Flavian dynasty onwards, the emperor’s sisters, daughters and nieces could also receive the title of Augusta that seems not exclusively reserved for the empress anymore.1012 This chapter questions whether the public appearance of imperial women is also visible on imperial coinage. If so, in which frequenties did they receive types? Furthermore, it would be very interesting to examine whether the prospective roles of wives, mothers and protectiesses attributed to these women are found back on imperial coinage as well, and to analyse in which periods some roles are emphasised more than others. Therefore, we will analyse the representation of imperial women on central imperial coinage, together with their iconographical aspects, chronologically from the Julio-Claudian house until Carinus’ reign. The analysis could contribute to the discussion about the representation of the imperial women, and might create a good comparison for possible subsequent studies examining the imperial women’s representation in other ancient media and representations. 1010 CIL 6.1035 = ILS 426; CIL 6.3401 = CIL 14.2255 = ILS 2398; CIL 8.17 871, AE 1965.338. Instinsky, 1942, 200-219; Benario, 1958, 67-70; Kettenhofen, 1979, 86-96; Lusnia, 1995, 134-135; Langford-Johnson, 2005. 1011 The title mater senatus was also given to Julia Mamaea, Julia Aquilia Severa, Julia Maesa (?), Otacilia, Severina, and Magnia Urbica and the following imperial women received the title of mater patriae: Julia Aquilia Severa, Otacilia, Severina, and Magnia Urbica. 1012 Livia, Augustus’ wife, was the first who was raised to the rank of Augusta. A detailed study about the meaning of the tiüc Augusta and its development, see Flory, 1988 [=1997], 129; cf. Foubert, 2010a, 111-113. 190 2. The general picture I, 1 Ju...... „.JI x ^ 3 £ 3 Emperors (total coin types) Graph 9: Proportions of coin types propagating empresses and other female members of the imperial family Before analysing the representation of imperial women in detail, it is worthwhile to examine the general pattems of their representation. Graph 9 shows the representation of imperial women, i.e. empresses, imperial sisters, emperor’s daughters and nieces, on imperial coinage in relation to the total types of each emperor. The percentages include all types issued in the name of an imperial woman as well as emperor’s types referring to any of these women. Because the representation of the emperor’s ancestresses and (grand)mothers is mainly used as a retrospective tooi to legitimate the emperor’s reign, and thus not alluded to the prospective roles these women could personify, the representation of these women on coins is omitted here.1013 In the first century AD, coin types were struck for the wives, sisters, daughters and nieces of the emperor, but only in small numbers.1014 At this stage, the representation of women was innovative, because in the Republic women were not represented on coins with the exception of Fulvia, Octavia, and Cleopatra on Mark Antony’s coins, although it should 1013 For more on the representation of empress-(grand)mothers on coins see supra chapter 2 (2.4.2.1-4). However, our analysis of the Severan (grand)mothers (chapter 2 (2.4.2.3)) suggested that these imperial women were propagated intensively with prospective roles. 1014 See appendix A.3. 191 be noted that these types were struck by legionary mints far from Rome.1015 Consequently, the representation of women in this first century still seems to have been experimental. In the second century, the type frequency of these women significanüy increased, especially for the empresses.1016 The coin propagation of the second-century empresses was quite frequent with percentages mostly above 10%. Remarkable high peaks are noticeable for the wife of Didius Julianus, Scantilla, and their daughter, Didia Clara, whose coin types exceeded the number of types of all other females. In the early third century, the coined representation of the Severan empresses seems to have decreased.1017 Perhaps the influence of the Severan emperor’s (grand)mothers, who received numerous coin types (Graph 5)1018, could explain why the empresses were less represented on the coins. Furthermore, no other women than the emperor’s wife or (grand)mother are displayed on the imperial coinage anymore, although it is statistically improbable, if not impossible, that none of the third-century emperors had daughters, sisters, or nieces. In the second half of the third century, and more precisely from the reign of Philippus Arabs onwards, the representation of the empresses significantly increased.1019 In this chapter, the coin display of the empresses is discussed separately in the first part of this chapter (§ 3), and the coin propagation of the other female relatives of the emperor is analysed in the second part (§ 4). Although it is expected that the images used on coins are similar for both groups, it will be illuminating to examine whether there are any differences between these two groups of imperial women. The percentages of the coins for the empresses are outlined in graph 10 below.1020 These percentages represent the proportion of types that were issued in name of the empresses and the types struck in the name of the emperors that bore references to their empresses. 1015 Fulvia: RRC 489.2 (although, the identification of Fluvia is discussed, see Babylon, 1884, 407; BMCRR, 499; Kleiner, 1992, 359 and references); Octavia: BMCRR, 499; 510; 511 (together with Octavian); 512-513; 515; nos. 133-137; 144-145; 152-171; RRC 527.1; 533.3a; b; Cleopatra: BMCRR, nos. 179-182; RRC 543.1. Cf. Kleiner, 1992, 357-367. 1016 Duncan-Jones, 2006, 223-228. See also appendix A.3. 1017 For the types see appendix A.3. 1018 For more on the representation of the Severan (grand)mothers on coins see supra chapter 2 (2.4.2.3). 1019 For more on the exact number of types see appendix A.3. 1020 In case of Septimius Severus and Valerian, the types for the wives of their co-Augusti, heie Caracalla and Gallienus, are included as well. 192 ' Emperors (total coin types) Graph 10: Proportions of coin types propagating empresses The Vind of messages these empresses received are analysed as well, in separate graphs that will be included in every section. On the basis of imperial women’s roles as sketched in the introduction, three different kinds of representational categories are discussed: messages refemng to the empress’ mamage, to the empress’ fertility and motherhood, and to the empress as benefactress and protectress. A fourth category, called “other”, includes aU remaining messages, such as consecratio types and other unique messages. The second part of the chapter analyses the representation of the imperial female relatives, other than the empresses and the empress-(grand)mothers, such as emperor s daughters, sisters and nieces. Again the coin ftequency as well as the kind of messages these women received will be examined chronologicaUy. 3. Representing empresses 3.1. The empresses of the Julio-Claudian and Flavian dynasties During the Julio-Claudian and Flavian dynasties, only three empresses received attention on the central coinage: Agrippina Iunior under Claudius, Poppaea under Nero, and Domitia under Domitian. The frequency of their types, however, was not high.1021 For the wives of the emperors of AD 68 and 69 no coin types are known (Graph 10). 100 90 80 -- 70 """" ' i .E 60 s 8 ; ■S€ 50 ■S a 2. 30 20 - ■ Other Benefzctresx and pratectress 10 ■ Fertintv and motherhood □ Marriage o - Agrippina the Younger (4) 1 Poppaea (4) Domitia (16) Empresses (total coin types) Graph 11: Proportions of represenlational categories displayed on the types of the Julio-Claudian and Flavian empresses Although women were displayed on coins of earlier Julio-Claudian emperors, Agrippina Iunior was the first wife of an emperor to be portrayed on coins while alive.1022 In total, Agrippina received a mere 3.5% of Claudius’ types (Graph 10), which corresponded with four types, but her display as the emperor’s wife was a radical innovation in imperial coinage.1023 1022 Agrippina Iunior: 3-5% (N=4); Poppaea: 1.5% (N=4); Domitia: 3% (N=16). Previously, Augustus’ coins had portrayed Julia (RIC P Augustus 403-405), Gaius’ coins commemorated Agnppma Maior (RIC P Gaius 7-8; 13-14; 21-22; 24; 55), Gaius’ sisters received two types under their brother’s reign (RIC P Gaius 33; 41), and Claudius’ mother Antonia was displayed on six coin types (RIC P Claudius 65- 68, 92; 104). For more on the representation of the Julio-Claudian women on coins see supra chapter 2(242 V) and infra this chapter (4.4.2). 1023 Rose, 1997,42; Ginsburg, 2006, 57; 69. 194 All her types include her title Augusta}m Agrippina’s types repiesent her as a central figure in Claudius’ family, through references to Agrippina’s role as a mother (alluding to the future) and to her Julio-Claudian lineage (alluding to the past). Three of Agrippina’s types explicitly refer to the empress’ fertility by portraying Agrippina with a crown of com-eais.1025 One of these three types also displays Agrippina’s son Nero on the reverse, as an implicit reference to the ‘evidence’ of her fertility. This type emphasises Agrippina’s motherhood of Claudius’ adopted son explicitly, whereas, in contrast, Claudius’ biological son Britannicus and his mother Messalina had been absent from Claudius’ coinage.1026 In total, the motherhood- message adoms almost all Agrippina’s types. The fourth type, as stated, refers to Agrippina s lineage, denoting her as FILIA GERMANICI, the daughter of Germanicus, and recapturing the carpentum-reverse her mother Agrippina Maior received under Gaius (IMAGE VH.2). Thus, the legend as well as the iconography refers to Agrippina’s parents and may underline her Julian and Claudian bloodline, which strengthened the legitimacy of Claudius’ reign.1028 Agrippina’s types seem thus to construct the idea that she was an important comerstone figure of the ruling imperial family, being a Julio-Claudian descendant and the mother of the emperor’s appaient successor.1029 To conclude, Agrippina’s types lay emphasis only on her descent and motherhood. No types commemorate or celebrate directly the actual marital status of Agrippina and Claudius. This is remarkable because ancient authors intensively discussed thrir m arital status.1030 Perhaps the former illegal status of Claudius’ marriage with Agrippina - Tacitus defines it as “incestwn” - could suggest why coins do not propagate the imperial m arriage..1031 However, no emperor propagated his marital harmony on coins before, as Nero was the first emperor to advertise marital concord on coins, and only from Trajan onwards did 1024 CIL 6.921; 20384; 11.3600; Tacitus, Annals 12.26.1; Dio 61.33.2a. The scholars Flory, 1988 [=1997] 122- 126 and Ginsburg, 2006, 71 argued that during the Julio-Claudian house the title of Augusta signahsed the mother of the apparent imperial successor. ___ 1025 RIC F Claudius 75; 80-81. The corona spicea was a token of Annona, the yearly harvest, or ot Ceres, goddess of agriculture, grain cultivaüon and marriage. Agrippina Iunior was the only living woman to be displayed with Ihis crown, see Stevenson, 1889, 293; Wood, 2001’, 290-291; Ginsburg, 2006, 71. Before, some commemorative coins for Antonia, Claudius’ mother, displayed her with a crown of cmi-ears. 1026 gjcp claudius 7 5 ; Rose, 1997,42; Wood, 20012, 258-259; 290-291; Ginsburg, 2006,70-71. RIC V Claudius 103; RIC I2 Gaius 55. 1028 Ancient authors stated that Claudius choose Agrippina as his wife because of ^er/ ^ 1n0^ ' a^ ' a“ 1™ ag®’S^ Tacitus, Annals 12.6; Suetonius, Claudius 26; 43; Dio 61.31.6-8; 32.1. Cf. Levick, 1990, 69-72; Wood, 2001 , 258-259; 291; Ginsburg, 2006,70-71. , 1029 When Claudius married Agrippina, Agrippina’s Julio-Claudian descent wasi also explicitly prc^agated by other types portraying Agrippina’s parents, Germanicus and Agrippina Maior; RIC P Claudius 102, 105-106. “ao Tacitus, ^Annals 12.5-6; Suetonius, Claudius 26; Dio 61.31.6; 8; 33.2. Cf. The well-known reüef af Aphrodisias, depicting Claudius and Agrippina shaking hands, also stressed their mantal concord see Smith, 1987,106-110, esp. 107. 1031 Tacitus, Annals 12.5.1. 195 it become a Standard coin message. We can thus also suggest that the emperor’s marital status was not part of the ideological register on coins at that time. Between AD 64 and 66, four types were issued, referring to an Augustus and an Augusta (IMAGE Xü.1).1032 Obviously Nero is the Augustus, but the identity of the Augusta is unclear. Two women in Nero’s life received the title of Augusta, his mother Agrippina, who died ten years before these types were issued, and Poppaea, Nero’s second wife.1033 Most likely Poppaea is the unidentifïed Augusta. After she gave birth to a daughter, rianrKa she received the title of Augusta in AD 63.1034 Unlike Agrippina’s types during Claudius’ reign, the types under Nero display the emperor and his empress in nearly identical poses as a harmonious couple performing a sacrifice. No reference is made to Poppaea as a mother, as graph 11 shows. Of course, around the time the types were struck their daughter Claudia had already died. At that moment, the harmonious marriage of Nero and his empress seem to have been more important to represent than the prospect that his empress could give birth to an imperial successor.1035 Between the reigns of Nero and Domitian, no empresses appeared at the side of their emperors as Vespasian and Titus were not married during their reigns, nor were their former deceased wives commemorated on their coins. When Domitian obtained the throne, his wife Domitia Longina received the title of Augusta.1036 The frequency of Domitia’s types is marginal, only 3% of Domitian’s total types (Graph 10). Domitia’s types were not issued throughout Domitian’s reign, but they were struck in two short periods during which their numbers must have been more frequent. A first group of types displaying Domitia appeared in AD 81 and 82, and a second group of types between AD 88 and 89. The types of the first group focus on two messages: Domitia’s motherhood and her harmonious marriage with the emperor. As mentioned in the previous chapter, Domitia had delivered a son to Domitian who had died young. Unlike Poppaea, Domitia’s types refer to her as the mother of the deceased Caesar, DIVI CAESARIS MATRIS1037, and types display her deceased son on her reverses (IMAGE IX.8).1038 Almost all other types refer to Domitia as 1032 1033 RICPNero 44-45; 57-58. In total, the four types represent 1.5% of Nero’s total types Most hkely Statito Messalma never received the title Augusta, nor did she receive any attention on the ’ ; ; Hory’ 1988 C=1997]>125- Contra Kienast, 20043, 100. C/Z, 11.1331; ILS 8902 - CIL 11.6955; IG 12.1.39; ILS 3873; AE 1959.24 = SEG 16. 1959.748- BMCREI f03?111 C^ X1V’ Tac^tus> Annals 15.23.1; Suetonius, Nero 35.3; Rose, 1997, 49 n 50. Hahn’ 1994, 215; Rose, 1997, 49. Cf. Wood, 20012, 272-274. AfA'. CIL 6.2060.a81.46; Suetonius, Domitian 3.1. 7 RIC IP Domitian 132-136. 1038 RIC IP Domitian 152-153; 155-156. 196 the wife of emperor Domitian, and her reverses stress the concord between them.1039 The aspect of concord between the imperial couple played a prominent role in the ideological program of the emperor, and thus, here, Domitian’s coinage was just following a Standard concept attributed to empresses. Secondly, the recurrence of Domitia on Domitian’s types in AD 88 coincided with a major interruption to the regular pattem of Domitian’s types caused by the Secular Games.1040 All of Domitia’s types celebrate her marriage with the emperor, whereas the message of her motherhood disappears.1041 Concord between the emperor and his empress was, of course, a suitable message during the celebration of the Secular Games, which more than other festivities embodied the promise of an etemal Empire. But, here, the idea of concord, may also have stressed Domitian’s reunion with Domitia after her temporary banishment (AD 83- 88).1042 To conclude, the coin representation of the three empresses discussed here was restricted in numbers, but carried clear messages in general. On the one hand, the empresses were represented as mothers, a role that could guarantee the succession of the imperial house, and on the other hand, the propagation of the empresses’ harmonious marriage with the emperor set an exem plw n that reinforced the health and security of the Roman Empire.1043 3.2. The increased representation of empresses in the second century During the second century, almost every empress received attention on their husband’s coinage: Plotina under Trajan, Vibia Sabina under Hadrian, Faustina Maior under Antoninus Pius, Lucilla under Lucius Verus, Faustina Iunior under Marcus Aurelius, Bruttia Crispina under Commodus, Manlia Scantilla under Didius Julianus, and Julia Domna and Plautilla 1039 RIC H2 Domitian 150-151. Domitia’s legends read DOMITIA AVGVSTA IMPERATORI DOMIT1ANI (AVGVSTIGERMANICI). 1040 Carradice, 1983,107; 123. 1041 RIC E2 Domitian 678-682. Cf. Carradice, 1983, 35-36, who argues that the style of Domitia’s coins of AD 88 differed totally from her types struck in the beginning of Domitian’ s reign. 1042 Suetonius, ritus 10.2; Domitian 3.1; 13.1; Dio 67.3.1-2; Wood, 2010, 52. The dates of her banishment and her recall to Rome are debated. Most scholars accept AD 83 as the date of her banishment. Cf. Castritius, 1969, 497-498; Jones, 1992, 32-38. The same ancient authors report that Domitia’s adulterous and promiscuous behaviour precipitated her banishment, but most likely these accusations were invented to taunt Domitian’s imago. Cf. Vinson, 1989,431-432; 437-449. 1043 Dixon, 1988, 107; 1991, 107; 113; 1997, 151; 165-167; Severy, 2003, 39; 104-112; 131-138; 188-189; Foubert, 2010a, 72-80. 197 under Septimius Severus.1044 Unlike the limited coin representation of first-century empresses, most second-century empresses received numerous types (Graph 10). I I II ■ Other Bervefactress and protectress Fertlllty and motherhood □ Marriage Plotina (10) Sabina (67) Faustina the Faustina the Ludlla (34) Crispina (35) Scantllla (S) Julia Domna Plautllla (35) Elder (221) Younger (202) (141) Empresses (total coin types) Graph 12: Proportions of representational categories displayed on the types of the second-century empresses In line with the frequency of the representation of first-century empresses, types for Plotina were still limited to just 2% of Trajan’s total types (Graph 10).1045 Moreover, coins for Plotina were not issued until 15 years into Trajan’s reign. They then stopped around AD 114. In the same brief period, other family members also appeared on coin types, such as Trajan’s ancestors, Nerva and Traianus Pater, his sister Marciana and his matemal niece Matidia Maior. The sudden and unprecedented coin presence of Trajan’s family members in one specific period suggests that from AD 112 the Ulpian family received a prominent role in the imperial representation.1046 As we already noted, around this time novel types began to 1044 Plotina: 1.9% (N=10); Vibia Sabina: 8.1% (N=67); Faustina Maior: 15.9% (N=221); Faustina Iunior: 15.1% (N=141); Lucilla: 11.7% (N=34); Bruttia Crispina: 4.7% (N=35); Manlia Scantilla: 20% (N=5); Julia Domna: 13% (N=202); Plautilla: 2.3% (N=35). 1045 RIC II Trajan 728-733; 735; 737-738; 740-741. Cf. Strack, 1931, 199; Duncan-Jones, 2006, 223. The authenticity of the following types is doubted: no. 725 with the busts of Nerva and Plotina facing each other (Woytek, 2010, 557; 647, even describes it as an ancient forgery); and no. 734, a consecratio-type for Plotina, without here being called diva (Woytek, 2010,673). 1046 Cf. Bickerman, 1974, 366; Temporini, 1978, 105-106; 138-139; Hahn, 1994, 250; 257; Roche, 2002, 54-55; Seelentag, 350-355; Benoist, 2005, 69; 146; 150-158; 188; Hekster, 2009, 106-107. Woytek, 2010, 392-397; 198 display the forum of Trajan and the Basilica Ulpia, which enforces the suggestion that Trajan’s domus became suddenly one of the major messages on his coins, though only for a In the short period during which Plotina appeared on coins, her legends focused almost exclusively on her status as wife of Trajan: PLOTINA AVGVSTAIMPERATORITRAIANI (CAESARI) AVGVSTI. These types represent the emperor and empress as a harmonious unit embodying the state’s etemal welfare and security.1048 Furthermore, Plotina’s reverses closely associate the empress with the goddess Vesta and the virtue fides, and the Altar of Pudicitia was displayed on her reverses twice.1049 Probably, these reverses aimed to emphasise Plotina’s loyal and chaste nature, virtues that characterised a perfect spouse.1050 In total, more than half of Plotina’s reverses hint at her marriage, as graph 12 marks out.1051 Why Plotina’s appearances on coins and with them the messages of concord, loyalty, and chastity only became prominent in AD 112-114 is difficult to say. Indeed, PUny had stressed concord within the Ulpian family before in his Panegyric to Trajan1052, and Plotina’s coin types do not represent her as a mother, perhaps because of her childless marriage with Trajan. An explicit m • » 1053 role as mother does seem to have been reserved for Matidia Maior, Trajan s mece. After the death of Trajan, Hadrian and his wife Vibia Sabina became the new impenal couple. like Plotina, Sabina only received attention on imperial coinage after her husband’s fust ïWpnnalia However, in contrast to Plotina, Sabina received a higher number of types for an empress: 8.1% of Hadrian’s total types mention Sabina, including her posthumous types (Graph 10). Sabina’s substantial quantity of coinage marks a break with tradition, and it seems to be the moment from where empress’ coinage became a regular feature within 1051 n =7; Plotina’s total types: N=10. 1052 Pliny, Panegyric 83-84. 1053 The main theme on Matidia’s types are chapter (4.4.4) and IMAGE Xlll.4. 199 imperial representation.1054 Like Trajan and Plotina, Hadrian and Sabina had a childless mamage. Being already in her forties when her husband succeeded Trajan, it was unlikely that Sabina would still bear children. Consequently, Sabina’s types omit explicit references to motherhood or fertility.1055 The possibility of ascending the throne by adoption or by force had become reality even more during the reigns of Nerva, Trajan, and Hadrian. Therefore, the reproductive role of the empress in the early second century may have been no less important to propagate on coins.1056 Instead, Sabina’s coins emphasise another role. Like Plotina, Sabma’s coin representation propagates her status as Hadrian’s wife (AVGVSTA , her harmonious mamage with him (concordia), and her chastity (pudicitia).1057 Her coins’ association with the goddesses Iuno Regina and Vesta also emphasise these qualities.1058 More than 70% of Sabina’s types refer to her marital status.1059 Thus, the frequency as well as the content of Sabina’s types indicates that the idea of a harmonious imperial couple was a significant concept for Hadrian’s imperial self- representation.1060 Ancient authors rumoured that Hadrian’s marriage to Sabina was unhappy, and that the emperor would have even divorced her had he been a private man.1061 Obviously, that is not the message that Sabina’s coins tried to propagate, although it is a tentative suggestion that her types were designed specifically to contradict the perception of the unhappy imperial marriage. Sabina predeceased Hadrian, who ordered her deification.1062 A couple of consecratio types - almost 6% of Sabina’s total types1063 - were issued for her, in style of the former beZ displayed ° r Z - JOne\on pubhc ? m reliefs V ? - since 228- theR0Wan’ Julio-Claudian 2011b’ 245 age. and n- 15 3180 notes * * Sabina was the first empress to However, there are three bronze pietas-types (RIC n Hadrian 1030-1031; 1040-1041; 1048) where Pietas reste her hands on the heads of a little boy and a girl. In graph 12, they represent 4% of s X r a ’ sty p e f ^ e ^ene is recaptured from the types for Matidia, who rests her hands on the heads of her daughters ( E S 4T “ 3 f ° ng PhySiCa' resemblance b“ P-tas and Sabina, Pietas could have C f t e e m p r e s s hersetf. We can only guess who the children are. Because the pietas-types are dated between 128 and 136 possible candidates are Marcus Aurelius (bom in 121) and his sister Comificia (bom in 122/3) Of course it is ^ * ° personify actuaIPersons- Cf. Alexandridis, 2004, 22. “ 57 GeneraUy Sabina’s coin legends were SABINA AVGVSTA HADRIANI AVG PP Concordia■ R rr n S S , S S 7i°ï m ± .' ' mA Hadrian 978-985 * Sabina was portrayed on the reverse of her husband: RIC II * * , 3 5 - m « - ' « a s a s j a Boatwnght, 1991, 514-515; 535-536. '062 fiadrian 11'3; AureliL1s Victor, Book o f the Caesars 14.8. Cf. Birley 1997 139 wh tr Hadrian 23 9; Aurelius Victor, Book o f the Caesars 14.8. Eek, 1978, 914. For the scholarly debate on why Hadnan ordered Sabina s deification, see Boatwright, 1987, 97 n. 69; 181 a 65,1991 514-515 N=4; total types for Sabina: N=67. 200 consecratio types for the deceased Ulpian women Marciana and Matidia Maior (IMAGES V.l-6).1064 As mentioned before, the iconography of the posthumous types of these women developed into the well-known Standard consecratio-types of later emperors, empresses and other imperial relatives.1065 Hadrian was succeeded by his adopted son, Antoninus Pius.1066 Pius further increased the prominence of the empress on central coinage.1067 Almost 16% of Pius’ total types referred to his wife, Faustina (Graph 10). The coin messages were in line with the types for the empresses Plotina and Sabina, stressing Faustina’s harmonious wedding with Pius1068 and associating her with the goddesses Iuno Regina, Venus, and Vesta.1069 On one type of Pius, issued between AD 140 and 144, their marriage even presents an example for the engaged couple, Marcus and Faustina Iunior. The type displays Pius and Faustina Maior in the mantal pose of dextrarum iunctio, whereas in front of them Marcus and Faustina as miniature figures clasp hands as well (IMAGE XII.2).1070 Again, the marital message had to be perceived as important to be advertised on the types of the empress. Graph 12 shows that it represented 40% of Faustina’s total types. Faustina died during her husband’s reign, whereupon she was deified. She received many posthumous types (67% of Faustina’s total types), some of which used the Standard consecratio scenes of the former Ulpian house1071; while others were very innovative. With reference to the latter, two different kinds of messages can be distinguished. A first group of types stressed the commemoration of the deceased empress through innovative coin scenes referring to her commemoration (e.g. AETERNTTAS) and her temple (e.g. DEDICATIO AEDIS (FAVSTINAE)).1072 The aspect of aetemitas as well as Ihe construction of Faustina’s temple in the Roman forum, which “gave her a permanent presence in this traditional seat of Roman power” as Rowan remarks, express and depict Ihe continuity 1064 RIC n Hadrian 418^22; 1051-1052. Cf. Temporini, 1978,256-257. 1065 See also supra chapter 2 (2.4.1.2.2) and infra this chapter (4.4.4) 1066 HA Antoninus Pius 4-5 3' Aurelius Victor, Book of the Caesars 15.2; Eutropius ö.ö. - ^ F" ^ 2 2 l f k Total Antoninus Pius=1386. Cf. Mattingly, 1948, 147-51; Rowan, fortocommg K S e S U wer”e“ t o ~ e th ée^ g em en t of Marcus and “ S l t i n a = 1 7 4 ; / y c m ^ n t o ^ 3 8 4 -3 8 7 ; 1133-1136; 1072 R IC JU Antoninus Pius 343-355; 382a-383; 388; 390a; b; 396; 405; 407; 1099-1115,1130-1138,1148, iiaz, 1154 1187- 1195- 1198-1200 In addition, an orphan was founded in Faustina s memary, which w ££££ ££S m » Pius 397-398a; b; 399a; 1149. Cf. Strack, 1937,97-98. 201 of the Antonine house (IMAGE Xü.3). In this way, Faustina’s posthumous types helped to commumcate dynastie continuity under the divine protection of the deceased empress.1073 The second group of posthumous types continued to associate the deceased Faustina with her role as empress while she was alive; this was a radical new concept to what had been goning on before. Types referred to female deities (Ceres1074, Cybele, Iuno, Isis1075, Venus and Vesta), to several virtues generally attributed to imperial women {concordia, fecunditas, and salus), to her title Augusta, and to her marriage with Pius.1076 In addition, types referring to her marriage with Pius, as an example for Marcus and Faustina Iunior in miniature, were re-issued as well, which again alludes to the idea of an etemal imperial house under the divine auspices of Faustina.1077 The posthumous coinage for Faustina was extraordinary as it still connected the deceased empress to the emperor’s ideological programme. Her posthumous types helped to construct the idea of an etemal Antonine house that enjoyed divine blessing, and furthermore it conveyed the message that Faustina, like a divine mother, still guarded the safety and health of the Roman state.1078 Under the joint emperorship of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, the coin representation for the empress stayed high (Graph 10). Marcus’ wife Faustina Iunior received 15.1% of her husband’s total types (AD 161 - 180), and Verus’ wife Lucilla received 11.7% of his total types (AD 161 - 169). Unlike the types of Plotina, Sabina, and Faustina Maior, the messages on Faustina Iunior’s and Lucilla’s types alluded intensively to their fertility and motherhood.1079 The majority of their types, 43% and 44%, mention the virtue of fecunditas 1073 1074 54:55;, Rowan’ 201 Ia’ 996- About aetemitas, see Norena, 2011, 174-176 1075 oard evl* nL'e’ ‘c IS clear Ceres-type was heavüy issued, see Rowan, 201 la 992-993 Virtues: RIC UI Antoninus Pius 191; 348; 349a; b; 355-372-374- 380- 181a- h- icn i. n^óli^iieTns^iisi6^ 2' m!,A'll95; 12“ ; * ugusta: RIC m * ntoninus Pius 359-377 1073a-d; 1 129-1129A; ! W1; 325' 326; 38° ; 381a= b; ^ b; 601 1078 R,C 111 Antoninus Pius 1129-1129A. 1079 Temporilli’ 1978’54_55; Beckmann, 2012; Rowan, 2011a, 991-996 _ F— Ilmi“ : N: 141’ whereof 43% referred to her fertility and motherhood. Other types referred to aetermtas, concordia, fortunae muliebris; Iuno Regina; salus; Venus Victrix and Vesta W „n i S f s T 7 pagatefd intenslve1^ LuciUa: N=34- whereof 44% referred to her fertih^ a n d l E o t T Lucilla s other types refer to concordia, Iuno Regina, pietas-, salus; Venus Victrix; Vesta and vota D u b lica in a similar way as Faustma’s other types: Szaivert, 1986, 28-29. 202 or display the fertility goddesses Ceres, Diana Lucifera, Fortuna Muliebris1080, Iuno (Lucina), Magna Mater and Venus (Felix and Genetrix).1081 Some types of Faustina Iunior also explicitly refer, through legends such as TEMPOR FEUC or SAECVU FELICIT, to the future continuity of the Antonine house guaranteed by her offspring, especially her twin boys, bom in 161. On the reverses, her twins Titus Fulvius and Lucius Commodus were displayed, seated on a pulvinar or held by their mother, who was accompanied by young girls, probably her daughters (IMAGES XH.4-5). Both Faustina and Lucilla gave birth to several boys and girls. Before her husband became emperor, Faustina gave birth to nine childxen, five of whom died before Marcus Aurelius ascended the throne.1082 During Ihe reign of Marcus Aurelius, Faustina bore another three sons and one daughter; Lucilla boie one daughter.1083 The messages propagating fertility and motherhood on Ihe types for the empresses suggest that the biological role of the empresses in the transfer of power was highly important to propagate. The idea of a biological dynastie house, thus, became formalised in the second half of the second century at the latest.1084 This context explains Faustina’s and Lucilla’s types referring to the joyful virtues hilaritas and laetitia (publica) as well. 1™ r w nnimip tvne was issued for tbis goddess (RIC IH Marcus Aurelius 683). Fortuna Muliebris cared for the is a f s n 1645 1647* 1649-1650; Magna Mater: RIC Hl Marcus Aurelius 704 706, Aurelius 687-69;*, 104D u r n , 7 10 7 0 0 . 794.7'*<5. 1673-1679; 1683-1687; Lucilla: Venus (Felix and Genetrix): RIC Hl Marcus Aurelius 718-722, 724 » . .. „ 7 7 0 fioi. 17*0 fecunditas- RIC IH Marcus AureUus 764-768; 1736-1739; pudicitia: R/C III Marcus Auretes 778-881, 17 1759-te e s R/C ffl Marcus Aurelius 1728-1729; Diana Lucifera: RIC m Marcus Aurelius 762-763,1734-1735 ™ * « children who died before their father became emperor are: Gemellus Lucfflae; T i t u s Aeüus ^m nm us; f f i - i r S f S S Ï Ï J ' 2004, 23-26. S . 1 » V 3 D4.M, „ fc Aurelius 699-703; 1653-1658; Lucüla: Hilaritas: R I C m Marc“S A»rehusl69 1740-1743, laetma ipubUc ) R IC m Marcus Aurelius 113. BMCRE TV, cxxxii-cxxxiv; Norena, 2011,172-174. 203 As we mentioned before, empresses could have connections with the military.1086 Under Marcus Aurelius this connection was made explicit by a new title: mater castrorum. The title ‘Mother of Camps’, which no previous empress had held, was given to Faustina, probably when she followed her husband in his expedition against the Quadi in AD 174.1087 The title appeared on her coin types before and after her deification in AD 175.1088 The iconography of the types alluded unmistakeably to the Roman military. During her life, the mater castrorum- types displayed Faustina sacrificing before two or three military standards.1089 On her posthumous types, Faustina site on a throne, holding a globe surmounted by a radiated phoernx. Two or three military standards stand next to her (IMAGES Xn.7-8).1090 It seems reasonable that in 174 Faustina’s role as mother became less relevant within imperial representation, as suggested by Szaivert. Faustina was in her forties, and bore her last child, a daughter, in 169. With a teenage son alive in 174, the succession of Marcus Aurelius seemed secured, and emphasis therefore could be laid on other relationships, such as the emperor’s connection with the military, in this case through his empress.1091 In correlation to these military types, some unique and rare types referring to Venus Victnx appeared as well.1092 Venus Victrix seems to be some sort of female pendant to the emperor’s types referring to Mars, Victoria, and Roma Victrix; her purpose was to thank for divine support in military affairs, which also implied the safe homecoming of the emperor, and sometimes the imperial family who travelled with him 1093 As mentioned above, in AD 175, Faustina died. Unlike her mother, whose posthumous types also associated her with her role as empress while she was alive, Faustina Iunior’s posthumous types had only commemorative contents. The majority of her types resemble to the posthumous types of the Ulpian imperial women and emperors, but there were also some innovative types. In most of the cases, these innovative types reused the legends CONSECRATIO and AETERNITAS, and incorporated Standard commemorative elements 1087 R°Se’ 1997, 24' 25; Foubert, 2010a, 164-168. Dio 72 10.5 states that Faustina received the title after the victorv over the Ouadi in 174- h a j y ° f 174 * * SUmmer °n “ > ^ h“ “ on enforees 1089 RIC n i Marcus Aurelius 1659-1662. m Marcus Aurelius 751-753. t Szaivert, 1986,170; 231. lg93 RIC W Marcus Aurelius 736; 1688. 1094 N“tural History, 15.125; 23.152-158. 1710) UDder FaUStina’S 204 and attributes, such as the peacock, a star, a crescent, and an altar. In addition, one posthumous type legend was unprecedented. Its legend reads SIDERIBVS RECEPTA and seems to announce that the empress was received into the firmament and had become a new star (IMAGE XII.6).1095 Almost 30% of Faustina’s total types were posthumously issued, as graph 12 marks out.1096 Under Commodus the number of types reserved for the empress diminished m contrast to the number of types the Antonine women received. In total, Commodus’ empress Bruttia Crispina received a mere 5% of the emperor’s total types.1097 Crispina’s banishment during her husband’s reign could explain why she received so few types. Still, the messages on Crispina’s types resemble those of the Antonine women, propagating her marriage with Commodus (31%) and her ability to bear children to him (34%).1098 Along with famihar types with concordia, fecunditas, hilaritas, laetitia, pudicitia or with the deities Ceres, Diana Lucifera, Iuno Lucina, and Venus, two innovative types appear, featuring the legends DIS CONIVGALIBVS and DIS GENTTALIBVS, and displaying a garlanded and lighted altar.1 These types expliciüy praised the gods of wedlock and the gods of birth. Types celebrating the harmonious marriage between the emperor and the empress became a Standard theme on the coins of the second-century empresses, but types referring to the empress’ fertihty and motherhood had been only issued when she had actually bome children. The marriage of Commodus and Crispina, however, remained barren. Thus, the types expressmg Crispina s fertüity and motherhood could suggest that she had been pregnant, or even that a child was bom. If so, scholars date the event around the beginning of 183.1100 Altematively, it is also possible that motherly types had become Standard. If so, Crispina’s types refemng to her fertility were probably just Standard wishes to express the hope for a successor. During the second century, the representation of the empresses developed from a marginal coin display focusing on the empresses’ marital and chaste status into a practice where the empress is Standard present on her husband’s coinage. The types of these Antonine empresses 1095 R I C m Marcus Aurelius 1711-1712; 1715-1718. The types either displayed diva Faustina riding a biga to the heavens, or Diana holding a lighting torch. 1096 N diva Fanstma=38; and N Total Faustina Iunior=141;N Total Marcus Aurelius=4»21. 1097 N=35' and N Total Commodus=748. The date of her banishment, however, is debated see Kiraast, 2004», 151. Szaivert, 1986,173; 233-235 has stated that her coinage stops in 182. Contra Duncan-Jones, 2006, 224. 1098 Contra Fittschen, 1982, 82-88. 1099 RIC III Commodus 280a, b and 281. 1100 Heer, 1904,31 followed by Aymard, 1955, 86-91 and Hekster, 2002, 52. 1101 Cf. Fittschen, 1982, 82-87; Von Saldem, 2003, 48-49. 205 on the one hand alluded intensively to their fertility and motherhood by which they were represented as the continuators of the imperial house, and on the other hand their types referred to their marriage with the emperor and to their connection with the military through which they personified the stability and health of the Roman Empire. After Commodus’ murder, this process seems to be continued as the empresses’ under Didius Julianus and Septimius Severus followed the representational pattems of the Antonine empresses (Graph 12). First, Manlia Scantilla, empress of Didius Julianus, received 20% of Julianus’ total types.1102 The substantial representation of Manlia during Julianus’ rather short reign suggests that the representation of Julianus’ empress followed the Standard images of the Antonine house. Furthermore, the types for Manlia almost exclusively referred to Iuno Regina, whilst emphasizing her marital status as empress, again a Standard Antonine message.1103 Julianus famously bought his emperorship by bribing the praetorians, which made the legitimation of his reign problematic.1104 Furthermore, it seems that he could only rely on the support of the praetonans as several provincial armies proclaimed their own imperial candidates.1105 Following the representational pattem of the Antonine house may have been a tooi for strengthemng his reign. In addition, Julianus was also reared at the house of the mother of Marcus Aurelius, so that he had a ready link with the Antonines to advertise.1106 Second, Julia Domna, the wife of Septimius Severus, was displayed on 13% of her emperor’s total coins, and thus received a prominent place in Septimius’ coin advertisement.1107 Domna s display started from the moment Septimius was proclaimed emperor in the East, as her image appears m all his issues. Her first types, issued by diverse eastem mints are all manly types refemng to legions, liberalities, the mint and the etemal Roman Empire, and thus deviate from the overall Roman Standard types for imperial women.1108 Most likely, these types represent no exceptional powers reserved for Julia Domna, but resulted from the 1102 N—5; N Total Didius Julianus=25. 1103 RIC IV.A. Didius Julianus 7a; b; 18a; b; 19a; b. 207 BMCRE V’ lxxi: BMey’ 1971’ 153' 154- Contra Appelbamn, 2007, 201- nos V Julianus had the support of the praetorians without any bribing. pLsh0rt’ C!0dius was VKX^hBod emperor by the British and Iberian legions, Septimius Severus by 2 0 6 -m ° man S’ enmUS NigCT by 016 Eastern k® 008' Birley. 1971, 155-166; Appelbaum, 2007, 1106 1107 Herodian 2.6.10; HA Marcus Aurelius Antoninus 1.3; Didius Julianus 1 3 N Julia Domna=202; N Total Septimius Severus=1554 1108 T h 6°7A; 6° 8a: 608-612A! 613-616; 622-623A; 624-624A; 625-627A; 628; 635 1994^95^3 7^ **** * °f Alexandria' Emesa’ and Laodicea ad Mare. Cf. Bickford-Smith,' 206 ignorance of the eastem mint masters, who were unfamiliar with the Standard types for these Roman ladies.1109 Almost half of the types in Domna’s miscellaneous category ‘other’ in graph 12 includes these types from the east. After AD 195, most types were once again issued by the Roman mint.1110 Only a small part came from the mint of Laodicea ad Mare. Of all types after AD 195, the majority emphasise Domma’s fertility and motheihood (38%), envisioned by the virtue fecunditas, and by motherly deities (Ceres (Frugifer), Diano Lucifera, Iuno (Lucina), Mater Deum, Mater Magna, and Venus Genetrix).1111 Some even explicitly display her together with her two boys P araral1a and Geta, propagating the triad as the ones responsible for the elemity of the Empire (aetemi imperii) and the happiness of the century (felicitas saeculi).1112 On other types, she is even identified as ‘Mother of the Augusti'}113 Domna’s types, Ihus, frequenüy honour her for the fact that she bestowed two heirs apparent on the state, and, therefore that she had secured the imperial succession. Another substantial number of types (24%) refer to the harmonious wedding of Domna with Septimius Severus, which is exprcssed by the legend concordia. Some of them explicitly express the domestic harmony and continuity of the whole imperial family {concordia felix and concordia aetema).nu Likewise, one type, portraying Septimius and rV aralla vis-è-vis on a reverse of Domna, accompanied by the legend AERTERNIIMPERU, portrays Septimius’ domus divina as the guarantors of the etemity of the state.1115 One further type displays Domna, flanked by her husband and Caracalla on either side and glossed by the 1109 During the civil war of 193-195, these eastem mints were founded as imperial mints. Alexandria even issued some imperial coin types during the last year of Commodus’ reign. InitiaUy, these mints had an image policy of their own dictated by the imperial candidates, Pescennius Niger, Clodius Albinus, and Septimius Severus, who were less bound to the image policy of the Roman mint. See RIC IV.A., 19-21; 56-59; BMCRE V 1, cvu-cx; cxiv-cxxiii; cxxv; Mattingly, 1932, 177-198; Nelson, 1982, 265-274; Bendall-Bland-Bumett, 1987, 65-83, plale 10-13; Bickford-Smith, 1994/1995, 53-71; Butcher, 2004; McAlee, 2007; Claes, 2012,209-226. 1110 Hffl, 1964b, 171 proposed that this coinage, minted in Domna’s honorary name IVLIA AVGVSTA, was issued bv an officina under Domna’ s authority. ---« « * 1111 RIC IV A. Septimius Severus 159; 175; 181a-c; 312; 534; 537; 539-550; 554-559; 561-562; 571; 577-578; 580; 619-620; 638-639; 641-642; 645-646; 838-840; 844; 848-852; 855; 857-858; 864; 866; 870-873; 875-878; 886-887. Cf. Lusnia, 1995,121-122; 124-125. 1112 IV.A. Septimius Severus 159; 175; 181a-c; 540-545; 571. Cf. Lusnia, 1995, 125; 127-129 and Alexandndis, 2004,18-19. Lusnia also argues that these types aimed to evoke the Augustan types displaying Julia flanked by her sons Gaius and Lucius Caesar (RIC P Augustus 404-405). , , , 1113 Domna received the title mater Augusti et Caesaris in the autumn of 197 AD, see Kienast, 2004 , 167. On her coins, she is only entitled as MATER AVGG: RIC IV.A. Septimius Severus 562; 858; 879; Hill, 1964a, nos. 1114 RIC IV.A. Septimius Severus 98; 132; 161a-c; 164; 273; 281; 506; 522; 538; 547; 560; 575-576; 582-587; 637; 640; 644; 648; 840; 843; 845; 856; 864; 867-869; 886; 891-894; RIC IV.A. Caracalla 36; 52; 59a=59b=59c; 125a=125b; RIC IV.A. Geta 7a=7b. Cf. Lusnia, 1995,127-129. 547. 1115 RIC IV.A. Septimius Severus 539a; b. Alexandridis, 2004,27. 207 legend PIETATI AVGVSTAE.1116 TMs pietas-type. propagates the piely, inHnHmo all benefits that it produces, that the Severan domus owed to his subjects, who in return owed piety to the Severans. Domna’s coin representation, thus, visualised her as a comerstone figure of the prosperous imperial house of Septimius Severus.1117 Finally, a small number of types celebrate Domna’s title mater castrorum, which she received around April AD 195.1118 One can differentiate between two groups of mater castrorum-types: the first dates to late summer 1971119, which corresponds with the outbreak of the Parthian war, and the second to AD 2081120, when Septimius. travelled to Britain to conquer Caledonia. It is thought that Domna accompanied her husband on both military campaigns.1121 Her coins, then, seem to have referenced directly to these m ilitary affairs in 197 and 208, celebrating the fact that the empress stood behind the Roman army, accompanying her husband.1122 Iconographically, the types recapture the scenes from Faustina’s mater castrorum-types: on the first series of types a veiled Julia sacrifices above an altar, while military standards stand behind her; on a second series of types a seated Domna was displayed holding a globe surmounted by a phoenix with military standards in the back (IMAGES XH.7-8; 9-10).1123 Besides these mater castrorum-types, other military types referring to Venus Victrix were issued. It seems that they too correspond to military campaigns. 1124 To summarise, both frequency and iconography of Domna’s types was conform Standard coin representation for imperial women of the late second century, in particular that 1116 RIC IV.A. Septimius Severus 864; 886. 1117 Under Septimius Severus, Domna also received the titles of pia and felix, expressing again Domna’s prominent role m Septimius’ domus divina. However, these titles are not included on her coins until CaracaUa’s re ip . For more see supra chapter 2 (2.4.2.3). 111 CIL 12.4345; 14.120; CIL Suppl. 8. 26498; ILS 425. Cf. Rowan, 2011b, 253. Rowan has analysed the coins ot the Severan women through a quantitative research based on coins hoards. Her results are quite sim ila r to my type-based research. For Domna’s mater castrorum-üüe, see further Kampen, 2009, 102-103; Lichtenberger, 2011, 344-349. mo 1964a’ n0S- 316_317; 32°; 322; 325-326. Cf. BMCRE V Julia Domna, 164: nos. 56-59 0 Hill, 1964a, nos. 997; 1009; 1022; 1023. 1121 Second Parthian War: HA Septimius Severius 15.2; Birley, 1999, 129; Levick, 2007, 48; fal^rm ian war Dio 77.11.1; 14.2; 16.5; Herodian 3.14; Levick, 2007, 85-86. Cf. Kuhoff, 1993b, 244-256 who suggests a connection between Domna’s mater castrorum-üüe and her personal presence at military missions. Remarkably, however, honourary inscriptions set up by the military for Domna are marginal, for more see Severan Database Project of the University of South Horida and Hekster forthcoming 2014 with references. 1123 Domna sacrificing: RIC IV.A. Septimius Severus 563a; b; 567; 860; 880-881; 884; Domna with phoenix: /i/C IV.A. Septimius Severus 568-569. BMCREV, cxxxiii. Cf. Lichtenberger, 2011, 346-349. RIC IV. A Septimius Severus 535-536; 579; 581; 630-633a; 645A; 647; 842; 846; 888-890; Hill, 1964a nos. 671; 674; 679; 684; 1181; 1199; 1204. For example, the three last types were issued in 201 and seem to have corresponded to the celebrations of the victories in Britain. 208 of Faustina Iunior.1125 Domna was represented as a mother, a wife, and a pratectress, especially of the military.1126 In this way, Domna was represented as a Standard second- century empress, and we could even suggest that her types were a tooi to place the Severan house in line with the Antonine emperors: such imperial continuity formed an important aspect of the legitimation of the Severan house to rule. Finally, it is worth noting that although some scholars attributed Domna a powerful position at the court because of her co-called Syrian descent, no so-called Syrian influences are noticeable in the iconography of Domna’s types.1127 Third, Plautilla, Caracalla’s wife, also received several types under Septimius’ reign. Her wedding with Caracalla was intensively celebrated and commemorated with two special coin issues in AD 202.1128 Types referred to the (happy and etemal) concord of the marriage (concordia felix and concordia aetema) or to the perpetuation of the Empire (propago imperi) through the male descendants which would come from this marriage. Some of these types show Plautilla and Caracalla in the dextrarum iunctio pose, echoing the display of Marcus Aurelius and Faustina Iunior on their engagement and wedding issues.1129 These marital types constitute 66% of Plautilla’s total types (Graph 12).1130 In the years after the wedding, AD 202 - 205, Plautilla received four other types on a regular basis.1131 Two types hint at an expected pregnancy of the wife of the co-Augustus, one depicts Pietas holding a child1132, and another refers to Diana Lucifera (IMAGE XII.11).1133 Iconographically, thus, Plautilla’s types followed the pattem of the Antonine women, although with minimal types. 1125 Benario, 1958, 67-70; Ghedini, 1984; Baharal, 1992,110-118; 1996, 22; 28-31; Lusnia, 1995, 119; 123-126; Legutko, 2000, 100; Alexandridis, 2004, 26-28; Gorrie, 2004, 66; Langfard-Johnson, 2005; Levick, 2007, 82, 162-163; Lichtenberger, 2011,297-350; Rowan, 2011b, 242-253. 1126 The miscellaneous category ‘other’ includes almost half of Domna’s types issued by eastem mints before AD 195. Cf. Legutko, 2000,100; Rowan, 2011b, 249-253. 1127 Cf. T nsnia, 1995, 119; 123-124; 137; 139; Legutko, 2000, 106-107; Rowan, 2011b, 241-242; and references in n. 4. With Julia Domna, also the other Severan Syrian empresses were believed to trigger an “orientalisation” of the Roman court and religion; see for tbis discussion supra chapter 2 (2.4.2.3). 1128 BMCRE V, cliii-cliv; Hill, 1964a, 28; Lusnia, 1995, 129-130; Rowan, 2011b, 256-258. About the wedding, see Dio 76.1.2; 77.1.1-3; Herodian 3.10.5-8. 1129 See supra this paragraph (4.3.2) and in/ra chapter 3 (3.3.3). 1130 N Plautilla=35; N Total Septimius Severus=1554. 1131 Hill, 1964a, 28-32. In addition, an eastem mint (Laodicea ad Mare?) issued three types for Plautilla, two referring to concordia and one celebrating hilaritas, all thus dealing with her marriage: RIC IV.A. Caracalla 370-372. 1132 RIC IV.A. Septimius Severus 578; 581; BMCRE V, cliii-cliv; clxvii. Some scholars argue that the child could refer to a daughter bom to Caracalla: Gagé, 1943, 33-78; Rowan, 2011b, 256. Contra Rubin, 1976/7,158. 1133 RIC IV.A. Septimius Severus 366-367; BMCRE V, cliii-cliv; clxvii. The other types refer to Venus Felix and Venus Victrix. Indirectly, the first type could also refer to Plautilla’s fertility as Venus was the ancestress of the line. of emperors, descending back to Caesar, but generally Venus Felix refers to her status as Caracalla’s wife. Venus Victrix probably corresponded to the military affairs at the African borders in 203 AD. 209 Moreover, in the four years in which Plautilla was Caracalla’s wife - her father’s conspiracy ended their marriage1134 - she received 2.3% of Septimius’ total types, which is a high percentage, giving that Septimius reigned for more than 20 years. In comparison, Julia Domna received 13% of Septimius’ total types throughout his 23-year reign. The coins, thus, depict Plautilla as a full member of the imperial family, again in the Standard style of the second- century empresses, despite the fact that ancient writers describe her as an imperious woman, despised by her husband. Rowan even states that “if she had remained married for longer, her coin images might have become more diverse.”1135 In contrast to the Antonine empresses, and to Manlia Scantilla, Julia Domna, and Plautilla, Flavia Titiana, the empress of Pertinax, who after the murder on Commodus became emperor, was not displayed on coins. Likewise, Pertinax’ daughter and son were totally absent from the imperial representation.1136 The absence of Pertinax’s family in public display is highly remarkable, as the successors of Pertinax, Didius Julianus, and Septimius Severus, continued the second-century practice to represent their empresses and children, and that in substantial scales.1137 It seems thus that Pertinax’ representation followed a different representational pattem than the Antonine emperors. Maybe Pertinax wanted to distance himself from Commodus as his reign ended into his murder. Yet this remains a tentative suggestion, as ancient writers report that Pertinax’ attitude towards the deceased Commodus was rather mild.1138 3.3. The limited representation of empresses in the early third century In the first half of the third century, the display of empresses on coins was limited (Graph 13). In contrast to the frequent coin display of the Antonine empresses and Julia Domna, the empresses of Elagabalus (Julia Comelia Paula; Julia Aquilia Severa, Annia Faustina), Alexander Severus (Sallustia Barbia Orbiana), Maximinus Thrax (Paulina), and Gordian m 1134 Dio 77.2-7.3; 78.1.1; Herodian 3.13; 4.6.3. 1135 Rowan, 2011b, 258. Note also Carson and Hill in BMCRE V, cliii-cliv who stated that “the coinage of Plautilla is scarce, not rare.” 1136 P. Helvius Pertinax Iunior: PIR TV1.74; Helvia Pertinax: PIRIV1.81. See supra chapter 3 (3.4.4). 1137 In addition, the short reign of Pertinax (31 December 192 - 28 March 193) cannot be used as an argument for the absence of types for his empress and children as Didius Julianus’ reign (28 March - 1 June 193) was even shorter, including types for his empress and daughter. 1138 Dio 74.2.1; HA Commodus 17; 20.1. 210 (Furia Sabinia Tranquillina) received on average only a mere three percent of the total types of their emperors (Graph 10).1139 i & e 8 js s ■S s £ ■ Other : . Benefaetrass and protectress Fertility and motherhood □ Marriage Julia Paula (24) Julia Severa (13) Annla Faustina Orblana (14) Paullna (5) Tranqullllna (9) » | Empresses (total coin types) \ Graph 13: Propartians of representational categories displayed on the types of empresses of the early third century A very substantial majority of these types focused on the empresses’ role as imperial wives, as graph 13 above demonstrates. As such, legends and images stressing the concord between the emperor and empress dominated the coin designs of the early third-century empresses, especially the ones where the emperor and empress clasp hands (iunctio dextrarum-, IMAGES XH.12-13).1140 Types liVp- these had become Standard for empresses from the second century onwards, following occasional references in the first century. Occasionally, the early third- century empresses grace the reverses of their husbands’ coins, connecting the imperial pair harmoniously.1141 Furthermore, some unique types allude to other types, such as the chastity 1139 Julia Paula: 6.5% (N=24); Julia Severa: 3.5% (N=13); Annia Faustina: 0.8% (N=3); Orbiana: 2.3% (N-14); Paulina: 3.8% (N=5); Tranquillina: 2.6% (N=9). 1140 Julia Paula: RIC IV.B. Elagabalus 215-216; 380-387; Julia Severa: RIC IV.B. Elagabalus 210-214; 225-228, 389-395- Annia Faustina: RIC IV.B. Elagabalus 323; 399; Orbiana: RIC IV.B. Alexander Severus 319-321; 323; 655-658; Tranquillina: RIC IV.C. Gordian Hl 249-253; 340a-341c. Cf. Rowan, 2011b, 258-261; 270-271. See also Klein, 2000, 89 and Gautier, 2009, 153-162. Augg or Augustorum, the plural for the em p erm : and empress seems to have been established around the early third century. For more on the plural see Horster, 2007 303 1141 Julia Severa: RIC IV.B. Elagabalus 205; Annia Faustina: RIC IV.B. Elagabalus 206; Orbiana: RIC IV.B. Alexander Severus 551. 211 of the empress (pudicitia) and the happiness (laetitia and felicitas temporum) she brought, or they depicted traditional female deities, such as Venus and Iuno Conservatrix, though these types do not allude explicitly to the empresses’ fertility or prospective motherhood.1142 The marginal display of empresses and their rather conservative types suggest that in the early third century the figure of the empress became less prominent in the ideological program of the emperor. During this same period, coin types abundantly referred to the emperor’s mothers and grandmothers with multifaceted types as examined in chapter 2 on the ancestral messages on coins (§ 4.2.3).1143 In the early third century, these empress-mothers and grandmothers seem to have taken over the traditional coin representation of the Roman empresses. Whether the unprecedented scale of these empress-mothers’ and grandmothers’ representation also suggests that they held a prominent position at the court of their (grand)sons, as many ancient writers insinuated and some modem scholars firmly believe, remains a tentative suggestion, as imperial representation need not reflect real politics.1144 The coinage for Tranquilhna during the reign of Gordian UI seems to follow the pattem of the early third-century empresses of Elagabalus and Alexander Severus, refeiring almost exclusively to her marriage with emperor Gordian HL1145 Honourifïc dedications from several Roman legions and cohortes suggest that Tranquilhna, who was the daughter of the praetorian perfect Timesitheus, was popular among the military.114* Yet, she did not receive any military coin type.1147 Tranquillina’s coin representation thus seems to be following the coin display of BMCRE V, ccxxxvi-ccxxxvii; ccxl; VI, 61-63. Julia Paula: aequitas publica: RIC IV.B. Elagabalus 378-379- fehcit tempor RIC W.B. Elagabalus 2Yl;fortunfelic: «ZC IV.B. Elagabalus 218; Iuno Conservatrix: RIC IV.B. Elagabalus 219; lustttia: RIC IV.B. Elagabalus 220; pietas: RIC IV.B. Elagabalus 221; pudicitia (Aug): RIC l\.U. tlagabahis 221A; B; Julia Severa: aequitas publica: RIC IV.B. Elagabalus 388; laetitia: RIC IV B Elagabalus 229; 396-397; Orbiana: Minerva Victrix: RIC IV.B. Alexander Severus 322; pudicitia: RIC IV.B. Alexander Severus 324; saeculi felicitas: RIC IV.B. Alexander Severus 325; Venus Genetrix- RIC IV B Alexander Severus 326; Tranquillina: felicitas temporum: RIC IV.C. Gordian I I I 342 Cf RIC IV B 6 6 IVC 14; Rowan, 2011b, 258-261; 271. ' 1144 These are Julia Domna, Julia Maesa, Julia Soaemias and Julia Mamaea. Julia Domna during Caracalla’s reign: Dio 78.10.4; 18.2; 79.4; Herodian 4.3; HA Caracalla 8 2- 10 1-4- Aurelius Victor Book cfthe Caesars 21.5; Eutropius 8.19. Julia Maesa, Soaemias, Mamaea during Elagabalus’’ and Alexander Severus’ reign: Dio 79.17.2; 80.2.2; 5; Herodian 5.3.10-11; 5.1; 7.1; 8.2-3; 9.4-5; 9-10- 6.8.3- 9.4- 5; 9.8; HA Elagabalus 2.1; 4.1-4; 12.3; 15.6; Alexander Severus 3.1; 14.6; 26.9; Aurelius Victor, Book o f the Caesars 24 4.; Eutropius 8.23. The HA also states that Gordian Iü ’s mother wielded power over hem (the three Gordians 23.7). Turton, 1974; Cleves, 1982; Levick, 2007; Magnami, 2007. ut6 RIC IV.C. Gordian m 249-250; 252-253; 340-341c. 6 AE 1896.116 (by the cohors Gemina Dacorum); 1981.134 (by (he praefectus vigilum Valerius Valentus and the wees agens praefectorum praetorio); CIL 3.132 (by the cohors VII Gordiana) 4.4398 (by the cohortes VII vigilum); 6.130 (by cohors VI, cohortes praetoriae and cohortes urbanae); 6.1092 (by the cohors I vigilum the praefectus vigilum, the tribuni and the centurions) Cf. Klein, 2000, 90-91. Nor did she receive the title mater castrorum. From this fact, Klein, 2000, 91 suggests that the title mater castrorum not only expresses the relationship between the empress and the military, but that it also inHi^toe that the empress had secured the succession of the Empire by a son. 2 1 2 the empresses of Elagabalus and Alexander Severus.1148 Altematively, one could tentatively suggest that Tranquillina received no extra coin propagation linking to the military as a result of a cautious attitude towards her father, who could use his military support to overtrow the young Gordian m .1149 A unique issue for an empress in the early third century is the commemorative issue for Paulina, who had been the wife of Maximinus Thrax (Graph 13).1150 Caecilia Paulina died before her husband was proclaimed emperor by his troops in Mainz around February or March AD 235. The style of Paulina’ s posthumous types suggests that her deiBcation was not performed immediately after Maximinus’ accession to the throne, but probably at beginning of AD 236, or at the latest in the autumn of the same year.1151 The Roman mint engravers portrayed her as an older woman with manly features similar to Maximinus Thrax’, because they probably did not know Paulina’s real features. Following portrait busts of other deified empresses, the engravers depicted her veiled with a Severan hair style with heavy hair waves.1152 The reverses displayed Standard deification scenes, such as Paulina seated on a peacock flying to the heavens and Diana standing in a biga, holding a flaming torch. The posthumous attention to Paulina is remarkable, because she was no longer a living member of Thrax’ family and, more importantly, as a result, she could no longer give birth to an imperial successor. Nor are we infonned that she had a noble descent that could legitimate Thrax’ imperial claim.1153 Ancient writers even rumoured that Paulina’s husband murdered her.1154 Were the posthumous types an act of pietas towards Paulina in order to counter these rumours or does their presence suggest that it had become self-evident that the emperor’s wife was publicly propagated? Moreover, the types place Paulina in a Severan iconographical tradition that stress the continuity of imperial power through Maximinus Thrax’ s family. In this way, the new emperor, who was detested by the Senate because of his humble birth, tried to place himself in the Roman imperial tradition.1155 1148 RIC IV.C, 14. Cf. Legutko, 2000,114-115. 1149 About the debate on Timesitheus’ loyalty to the emperor and his ambitions, see Von Domaszewski, 1903, 230; Stein, 1910,365; Klein, 2000, 89. 1150 RIC IV.C. Paulina 1-4; BMCRE VI, 93-94. 1151 Alram, 1989,29. 1152 Haegemans, 2003,470; 2010, 86-87. 1153 Legutko, 2000,119. During her life, Paulina probably gave birth to Maximus, who became Caesar when his father was proclaimed emperor. 1154 Zonaras 12.16; Synkellos 680; Iiggi, 1998,152-154. 1155 Herodian 6.8.1; 7.1.2-3; 8; 2.5-6; 5.2; 7.2; 10.1-2; HA the twoMaximini 1.5-6; 2.1-2; 8.1; 6; 9-11; Eutropius 9.1. Cf. López Sdnchez, 2004, 251. 213 3.4. The frequent representation of empresses in the second half of the third century Under Philippus Arabs, a break appears in the coin display of the early third-century empresses, as his wife Otacilia received 19.3% of his total types (Graph 10). This increased attention to the empress on coins was followed on coinage of several third-century emperors, even the ones with short reigns: Trajan Decius, Aemilian, Gallienus, and later also Aurelian and Carinus. Their wives received the following percentages of types: Herennia: 11.7%1156, Comelia Supera: 13.1%; Salonina: 7.1% during the joint reign of Valerian and Gallienus’ reign and 13.1% during Gallienus’ sole reign, Severina: 7.5%, and Magnia Urbica: 10.1% (Graph 10). Furthermore, a posthumous issue for Valerian’s wife Mariniana issued by several mints suggests that it had become common to include the empress on imperial coin output even though she had already died.1157 In addition, the third-century emperors whose coinages did not include types for an empress were probably not married, which should explain the absence of empress’ types during their reigns.1158 The increasing prominence of empresses is also seen in the organisation of the mint. Mint marks indicate that from Philippus onwards, mint workshops (officinae) were not only exclusively reserved for the heir apparent. The empress too received one or two mint workshops that were in charge with her types only. The first empress with mint marks on her coin types was Otacilia, the wife of Philippus Arabs. The mint marks show that from AD 245 - the second regnal year of Philippus - one workshop minted coins depicting her exclusively.1159 Unfortunately, we are less informed about the exact number of officinae attributed to later empresses, because the coin material is too deficient to make a detailed analysis of the chronological sequence of their coins, or to specify certain mint attributions.1160 The appearance of exclusive mint workshops hints, in any case, that the 1156 Under Gallus, one offlcina still seems to have issued types for Herennia, the wife of his predecessor Decius: RIC IV.C. 153; Decius 60. 1157 In graph 14, the posthumous types for diva Mariniana all belong to the category ‘other’. The following mints issued these types: Rome, Viminacium, Trier. Göbl, 2000, 57-58; 82; 97; 99. 1158 These emperors were Claudius n Gothicus, Quintillus, Tacitus, Florianus, and Probus. Most likely, the daughter Claudia attributed to Claudius II Gothicus is a Constantinian fïction; the wives and children assigned to Quintillus (HA deified Claudius 13.9), Tacitus (HA Tacitus 6.8; 11.6; 16.4), and Florianus (HA Tacitus 16.4) are most likely also fictive. Cf. Paschoud, 1996, 300-301; 311. 1159 RIC IV.A, 55; Legutko, 2000, 118; Kömer, 2002, 43-44. Likewise, her son, Philippus Iunior, received an offlcina for his coinage. For more see supra chapter 3 (3.4.4) and Kömer, 2002, 30-49. 1160 The volumes of RIC used here, IV.B; IV.C; V.A and V.B, lack detailed dates and mint attributions. However, recent studies give us some further clues about officinae reserved for these imperial women. Göbl, 2000, 82-83 attributes three officinae of the Roman mint to Salonina under the joint reign of Valerian and Gallienus, and at least one offlcina under Gallienus’ sole reign. Estiot, 2004, 65-66; 77-79; 90; 103; 112; 122- 214 position of the empress within the imperial family became fairly Standard, and it also explains the increasing number of types portraying mid-third-century empresses. Empresses (total coin types) Graph 14: Propartions of representational categories displayed on the types of the empresses in the second half of the third century1161 Iconographically, types for mid-third-century empresses mostly refer to their marriage to the emperor (Graph 14), and this pattem is seen in all mints operating for these empresses.1162 As mentioned above, the idea that the well-being of the Roman state depended on a stable 123 attributes one, two or three afficinae to Severina in all western mints under Aurelian’s reign (Rome: two officinae in the lOth issue and one afflcina in the 1 lth issue; Ticinum: two afficinae in the 4th issue). The Balkan and eastem mints paid less attention to Severina (Severina shares officinae with Aurelian in Serdica. and Siscia; in Cyzicus the attribution of officinae is difficult; and Antioch three officinae of the eight are reserved for Severina). Gricourt, 2000, 23-28; 33-34; 65 attributes one officina to Magma Urbica in all mints operating for Carinus (Lugdunum: four officinae; Rome: seven officinae; Ticinum: six officinae). Yet, recent detailed coin studies still have many problems in attributing exact dates and mints, for more see Göbl, 2000,35-36; 82-83. 1161 In this graph, ‘Salonina 1’ represents the types that she received during the joint reign of Valerian and Gallienus (253-260), and ‘Salonina 2’ represents the types that she received during Gallienus’ sole reign (260- 268). 1162 N Otacilia=25 (44.6%) of Otacilia’s total types N=56; N Herennia=12 (50%) of Herennia’s total types N=24; N Comelia= 7 (87.5%) of Camelia's total types N=8; N Salonina 1=19 (30.6%) of Salonina’s total types during the joint reign of Valerian and Gallienus=62; N Salonina 2=33 (34.8%) of Salonina’ s total types during the sole reign of Gallienus=94; N Severina=16 (57.2%) of Severina’s total types=26; N Magnia Urbica=4 (26.7%) of Magma Urbica’s total types=15. The deceased wife of Valerian, Mariniana, did not receive any types referring to their marriage. She only received consecration types, which are classified under the representational categary ‘other’. 215 imperial marriage had become well established. Most likely, in the chaotic third century in which so many Roman generals succeeded each other rapidly, this idea needed even more emphasis, in order to strengthen their power.1163 Most commonly expressing the harmony of the imperial couple were coins scenes with the personification of Concordia standing or seated, or with the empress clasping hands with the emperor, accompanied by the legends CONCORDIA AVGVSTORVM or CONCORDIA AVGG (IMAGE XII. 14).1164 Here, the plural form of Augustus started to be used for the Augustus and Augusta together, instead of only for Augusti,. further suggesting the creation of a tight imperial domus.1165 Besides these frequent concordia-types, there were some types depicting the emperor paired with his empress. These, of course, also clearly expressed the harmony among the imperial couple (IMAGE X n .1 5 ).1166 Furthermore, this category of types emphasising the imperial marriage also includes types referring to the chastity of the empress (pudicitia) or to the goddess Iuno (Conservatrix or Regina) who guards the empress’ marriage.1167 Noticeably, the increased prominence of the empresses in the second half of the third century corresponded with an increased coin display of the emperor’s sons, which suggests that the message of a united imperial family gained importance. Types referring to the personification of concordia on the empresses’ types could thus not only refer to their harmonious wedding, but also to the concord within the whole imperial family. In the second half of the third century, messages referring to the empress’ fertility and motherhood were again present in all mints, but to a far lesser degree than for the Antonine empresses and Severan (grand)mothers (Graph 14). Apparently, they only appear for those 1163 Dixon, 1988, 107; Severy, 2003, 39; 104-112; 131-138; 188-189; Cooper, 2007, 109-110; Kampen, 2009, 92-93; Foubert, 2010a, 73-76. Reality, however, is not the same as what imperial representation wanted to propagate as no third-century emperor succeeded to found a stable imperial house that lasted for several generations. 1164 Otacilia: RIC IV.C. Philippus 203a-e; 204; 119a;b; 125a; b; 126; 129; Herennia: RIC IV.C. Decius 132-133; RIC IV.C. Aemilian 32-33; 64; RIC V.A. Salonina joint reign 63; Gallienus and Saloninus 1-3; 6; Salonina sole reign 34; 61-67; 71-72: Magnia: RICV.B. Carinus 335; 348. Cf. Kömer, 2002, 40-41. 116 Horster, 2007, 298; 302-303. Contra López Sanchez, 2004, 256-257 who thought that these plural forms on Severina’s types were peculiar and innovative, asserting that she had the status of a co-Augustus during the rule of Aurelian. 1166 RIC V.A Philippus 39; 64; 196a; b; RIC V.A. Gallienus and Salonina 1-3; 6; RIC V.A. Aurelian and Severina 1-4; RIC V.A. Severina 75-76; 79-82; 138; 382. 1167 Pudicitia: Otacilia: RIC IV.C. Philippus 123a-c; 128A; 209a-c; 210-211; Herennia: RIC IV.C. Decius 58a; b; 59a; b; 136a; b; d; 137; Salonina: RIC V.A. Salonina joint reign 65-66; Salonina sole reign 38; 43; 46-47; 51; 82; Urbica: RIC V.B. Carinus 339; Iuno (Conservatrix or Regina): Otacilia: RIC IV.C. Philippus 127-128; Herennia: RIC IV.C. Decius 7; Comelia Supera: RIC IV.C. Aemilian 31; 34; Salonina: RIC V.A. Salonina joint reign 10; 28-30; 40; 46; 53; 58; Salonina sole reign 49; 62; 76; 92; Severina: RIC V.A. Severina 7; 14-15; Urbica: RIC V.B. Carinus 341. Cf. Kömer, 2002,40-42; Göbl, 2000, 119; 122; 128; 132; 134. 216 Augustae who bore sons: Otacilia, Herennia Etrusdlla, Salonina and Magnia Urbica.1168 When present, these motherly messages often allude explicitly to the unity of the imperial family. It is worth looking at these specific coin types in detail. Otacilia was often explicitly identified as the mater of the heir apparent Philippus Iunior.1169 Furthermore, she appeared in some family portraits with the emperor and her son signalling the piety which the imperial domus owed to his subjects.1170 Here, Otacilia figured as a mother as well as a wife, and through these roles, she played a key role in the imperial family (IMAGE XH. 17). Herennia’s types display her also together with her sons, but the term mater is absent1171 After the deaths of her husband Trajan Decius and her eldest son Herennius, an officina in Rome still issued an issue for her as mother of Hostilianus, who was adopted by the newly proclaimed emperor Gallus.1172 The exclusive officina for Herennia strongly suggests that the continuity of Decius’ family through the house of Trebonianus was perceived to be important. Salonina received types during both the joint reign of Valerian and Gallienus and the sole reign of her husband. Under the joint emperorship, her types focused more on her motherhood (34%) than under Gallienus’ sole reign (17%). The involvement of her two eldest sons in imperial politics during the joint reign might explain why. A frequent type for Salonina refers to PIETAS and displays the empress (or Pietas) seated, accompanied by several children, most often three, which was the number of children the empress bore (IMAGE Xü.16). In addition, her fecunditas-types also depicted the deity with two or three children.1173 1168 N 0tacilia=10 of Otacilia’s total types N=56; N Herennia=8 of Hereimia’s total types N=24; N Salonina 1=21 of Salonina’s total types during the joint reign of Valerian and Gallienus=62; N Salonina 2=16 of Salonina’s total types during the sole reign of Gallienus=94; N Magnia Urbica=4 of Magnia Urbica’s total types=15. Ceres: RIC V.A. Salonina sole reign 90', fecunditas: Herennia: RIC TV.C. Decius 55a; b; 56; 61; 134a; b; 135a; b; Salonina: RIC V.A. Salonina joint reign: 15; 26; 45; 51; 57; Salonina sole reign: 35; 42; fecunditas temporum: RIC IV.C Philippus 132; Venus (Felix or Genetrix): Salonina: RIC V.A. Salonina joint reign 3; 7; 12; 36; 42; 48; 50; 55-56; 61; Salonina sole reign'. 44; 53; 65; 86; Urbica; RIC V.B. Carinus 336-338; 350-351. Camelia Supera, wife of Aemilian, has one type referring to Iuno holding a child in swaddling clothes (RIC V.A Aemilian 31), which could evoke fertility as well; however, there is no source that refers Camelia as having been pregnant. 1169 mater. RIC IV.C. Philippus 30; 229. 1170 RIC IV.C. Philippus 43a; b; 30; 212a; b. Kömer, 2002, 38-39; 41; Norena, 2011, 73-77. 1171 RIC IV.C. Decius 31; 62a-c. 1172 RIC IV.C. 153; Decius 60. However, Hostilianus’ adoption by Gallus is debated. For more on the relationship between Hostilianus and Gallus, and his representation on coins, see supra chapter 3 (3.3.4). 1173 RIC V.A Salonina joint reign 15; 26; 45; 51; 57; RIC V.A Salonina sole reign 5; 5a; 6; 35; 42. 217 More than 25% of Magnia Urbica’s types refer to Venus Genetrix, goddess of motherhood and progenitrix of the imperial line.1174 Generally, it is assumed that Nigrinianus, who under Carinus’ reign received some consecratio-types, was her son, but no direct source supports that assumption.1175 The presence of these motherly types, promoting what seems not to have been a Standard theme on the coins of the second half third-century empresses unless they were mothers, may suggest that Magnia Urbica had bome a child to Carinus, which most likely must have been Nigrinianus.1176 All these motherly types suggest that these imperial women were honoured for their motherhood, and in particular for the fact that they had given birth to an apparent successor. Furthermore, empresses like Herennia and Salonina started to be closely linked to agricultural fertility as well. Types of both empresses displayed the agricultural deity Uberitas, holding a purse, although various interpretations also refer to this object as a bundle of grapes or an udder.1177 Salonina’s types introduced the protectress of wheat and com, Segetia (also known as Segesta), hinting at a close aftinity between the empress and the welfare of the state.1178 In general, we could conclude that the propagation of the empresses in the second half of the third century was frequent and fairly standardised, emphasising their traditional roles as imperial wives and mothers. The one exception was Severina, who transgressed this Standard pattem with many ‘benefactress’ types celebrating the concord of the military (43%); types that were issued before and after the death of her husband Aurelian.1179 Because Severina is such a remarkable figure, we will elaborate more on her types in the following section. Severina appears on Aurelian’s coins after his monetary reform of AD 274. Scholars therefore argue that the emperor might have married her that year.1180 The first reformed issues of the Roman mint all celebrate the harmonious wedding of the imperial couple.1181 Thereafter, Severina’s types from Antioch, Cyzicus, Lugdunum, Rome, Siscia, and Ticinum 1174 RICV.B. Carinus 336-338; 350-351; Gricourt, 2000,155, nos. 171-188. 1175 The only surviving inscription refeiring to Nigrinianus’ descent is ILS 611, referring to Carus as his grandfather. Nigrinianus’ types bear no references to his descent 176 For more on Magnia Urbica see Gricourt, 1995, 95-112. 1177 RIC V.A. Decius 68a; b; 69a; b; 160; 200; RIC V.A. Salonina joint reign 29; 40. 1178 RIC V.A. Salonina sole reign 29; 40; RIC V.A., 35. For Segetia, see further Pliny, Natural History 18.2.2; Macrobius, Satumalia 1.16. 1179 N=12 of Severina’s total types N=26. m o RICV.A„ 253; Estiot, 1995, 26-31; 2004, 24; López Sanchez, 2004, 256-257. 1181 RIC V.A. Aurelian 3; 16-17; 19; 76; 79-81; 335; 382; Aurelian and Severina 1-4. Estiot, 1995, 36; 2004, 162-163. Another argument comes from Watson, 1999, 114 who has argued that the appearance of Severina’s types in 274 coincided with Severina’s elevation to the rank of Augusta. 218 also honour the concordia mlitum.m l On reverses of all these mints but Lugdunum, a female figure - to be identified as concordia or fides, or maybe the empress herself - holds two military standards. Sometimes the female figure is also accompanied by the radiated Sol, and, if so, the legend reads PROVIDENTIA DEORYM instead of CONCORDIA MHJTVM. On the reverses of Lugdunum, concordia is displayed in a more traditional iconography. The deity is sitdng, holding a comucopia and a patera. As we discussed above, empresses could enjoy a special connection with the Roman military, incamated by the display of military deities (Venus Victrix or Minerva1183) or by the title mater castrorum. Moreover, Severina’s types of concordia holding two standards seem to have been inspired by Salonina’s types referring to FIDES MHJTVM, displaying the deity fides holding a Standard and a sceptre.1184 Severina’s military types in themselves were therefore not exceptional, though some elements in the iconography were innovative. Aurelian feil victim to a military coup in Thrace, probably around mid-September AD 275. The mints of Antioch, Lugdunum , Rome, and Ticinum, however, still issued types in Severina’s name most likely until mid-November or December AD 275 with CONCORDIA MILITVM or PROVIDENTIA DEORVM legends and the same scenes (IMAGES XII.18-19).1187 Only the mint of Antioch exchanged the military concord reverse for two figures, a man and a woman, probably a soldier and Severina, clasping hands, glossed by the legend CONCORDIA AVG. The Antioch mint also added the epithets pia wAfelix to Severina’s nomenclature. These two titles were traditionally reserved for the emperor, although Septimius Severus and Gallienus had already set a precedent by bestowing them on 1182 Types without Aurelian: RIC V.A. Aurelian 1; lvar; 4; 9-10; 13; 13var; 18; 20; 20var; types with Aurelian: RIC V.A. Aurelian 75; 82. Esüot, 1995, 37; 56; 69; 93; 104-105; 2004, 153-154, 165; 186-187; 201-204; 222; 226; 228. 1183 Minerva (Victrix) was displayed on a type of Plotina (RIC n Trajan 738), Orbiana (RIC FV.B. Alexander Severus 322) and Salonina (RIC IV.C Salonina sole reign 93; Göbl, 2000, Cyzicus, issue 2, table 45). 1184 RIC IV.C. Salonina sole reign 7; 36; Göbl, 2000, Rome, issue 9; table 16. 1185 HA deified Aurelian 35.5; Aurelius Victor, Book of the Caesars 35.8; 36.2; Zosimus 1.62.2. For the date of his death: Egyptian tetradrachms from Aurelian’s 7th year, issued after 29 August 275, are not rare and the papyrus P.Oxy 12.1455.20-26 testimonies that the news of his death had still not reached Oxyrhynchus on 19 October 275: Rathbone, 1986, 124-125; Estiot, 1995, 25; Kreucher, 2003, 54-55. For more on Aurelian’s date of death, see Strobel, 1998, 135-144; Watson, 1999,110-111; 110 n. 42; 224-225. 1186 Göbl, 1993, 34 argues that Lugdunum did not issue types for Severina after Aurelian’s death. Cf. Strobel, 1998, 135. Contra Estiot, 1997 who argued that Lugdunum issued types for Severina after Aurelian’s death as appendix to Estiot, 1995. ™ Göbl, 1993, 41; 50; 56; 65; 68; Estiot, 1995, 10; 18; 39; 56; 105; appendix; 2004, 25-29; 103; 154; 169-170, 187-188; 222; 228-229 = RIC V.A. Aurelian 2; 4; 8; 19; López Sanchez, 2004, 256-257. The following mints issued types in name of Severina as sole power: the fifih issue of Lugdunum; the issue of Rome, where all six officinae struck exclusively for the empress; the fifth issue of Ticinum and the seventh issue of Antioch. In her study of 2004, Estiot also argues that Serdica also issued types for Severina after Aurelian’s death with the legend CONCORDIA AVGG. 219 their wives Julia Domna and Salonina.1188 Severina’s coin types, however, go further than these preceding types by showing the empress with manly features, on some coins even with a moustache, though previously diva Paulina’s coin portrait had manly features as well (IMAGES Xn.18-19).1189 The military-types suggest a connection between Severina and the Roman legions. If so, this was probably no apparent attempt to rule over the Roman Empire by herself. Severina’s epithets pia and felix and her manly coin portrait may have contributed to the construction of the image of Severina as leader of the Empire. Indeed, sources claim that there was a short interregnum after the death of Aurelian; however, they are silent on the role of Severina during this transitional period.1190 Instead, they dweil on the alleged senatorial election of the new emperor Tacitus in December AD 274.1191 Shortly after Severina’s issues in Lugdunum, Rome, and Ticinum, a great number of gold and silver types were issued in name of Tacitus; most likely these were donativa to bind the Roman troops to his person. Estiot suggests that Tacitus’ issues were struck when he passed through the Alps after he had fought the Alemanni and the Juthungi in the northem Alps. After this short stop, Tacitus went to Rome, where the Senate recognised him as the new sole leader of the Roman Empire.1192 Although it remains very unlikely that Severina became sole ruler of the Empire, the continuation of her coinage after her husband’s death is at least remarkable. The innovative iconography of her types is even more remarkable, although they seem to combine many elements that had already appeared on types of earlier empresses separately, in particularly of Julia Domna, diva Paulina, and Salonina. By combining these several elements, Severina’s coin representation transgressed the Standard image of the third-century empresses. There are no elements, however, that unambiguously depict Severina as sole ruler.1193 Could we suggest that after Aurelian’s unexpected death, the authorities issued types in Severina’s name to pay 1188 Callu, 2000, 195-200; Göbl, 2000, Mediolanum, issue 8, table 38; Estiot, 2005, 162; 166; Levick, 2007, 94- 95. 1189 For more on diva Paulina, see supra this chapter (4.3.3). 1190 HA Tacitus 13.5; 14.5; Aurelius Victor, Book qfthe Caesars 36.1-2 claims it lasted 200 days; Eutropius 9.16 and Zonaras 12.28 report an interregnum of around six months. P.Cair. lsid. 108.17-19, dated to 9 May AD 276, is the earliest Egyptian dating of Tacitus’ reign, suggesting thus an interregnum after Aurelian. The hoaids from Karanis show that Severina’s Alexandrian tetradrachms of year 7, that is after 29 August AD 275, (N=25) outnumber those of year 7 of Aurelian (N=5), see Price, 1973, 84; Estiot, 2004, 27. For more on the length of the interregnum, see Strobel, 1998, 134-144; Watson, 1999, 110-111; 110 n. 42; 224-225. Contra Johne-Hartmann, 2008, 322-323 who state that the interregnum lasted only some weeks, and they ignore Severina’s types after September 275. HA Tacitus 4-6; 7.5-7; Aurelius Victor, Book qfthe Caesars 35.9-11; 36.1. 1192 Estiot, 2004, 33-34; 2005, 166-168; 179. Contra Watson, 1999,106-107; 109. 1193 Contra Strobel, 1998, 119-153, esp. 145-146. 2 2 0 and appease the legions as long as no imperial candidate had stood up?1194 For Tacitus’ cause, the widow of Aurelian was always a better candidate to fill in the transitional period than any other male regent, although it remains very strange that no posthumous coinage of Aurelian was chosen. 1195 4. Representing other female relatives of the emperor 4.1. The general picture Sisters II Daugthers ■ Nleces i x 3 ►- n | Emperors (total coin types) * Graph 15: Proportions af coin types propagating other female members of the imperial family The first and second centuries saw types issued for sisters, daughters, and nieces, i.e. women who were not empresses or empress-(grand)mothers. Several daughters received types: Augustus displayed Julia, Vitellius Vitellia, Titus Julia Flavia, Antoninus Pius Faustina 1194 Watson, 1999, 115; 171. Contra Göbl, 1993, 29-30 who argues that Severina’s interregnum coinage come forward from the routine to issue coins to pay the legions. 1195 Such precedent was set by the revolting moneyers around 271-272 AD, who ought the posthumous types for Claudius n Gothicus suitable to issue during their revolL For mare see supra chapter 2 (2.4.3.4). 221 Iunior, Marcus Aurelius Lucilla, and Didius Julianus Didia Clara. As daughters of the emperor, they could also be perceived as progenitors of the imperial line, especially when the empress had already died or been banished. Furthermore, sisters, and nieces of the emperor could appear on imperial coins as well. Caligula struck a type for his three sisters, Agrippina, Drusilla and Livilla, Domitian’s niece Julia Flavia received some types, and also Trajan’s sister Marciana and his niece Matidia Maior were displayed on coins. From the Severan house onwards, no other imperial female relatives other than the empresses and the empress- (grand)mothers received attention on the Roman imperial coinage, although, it is statistically improbable, if not impossible, that none of the third-century emperors had daughters, sisters, or nieces. Overall, the coin frequency of the imperial daughters, sisters, and nieces was limited, except for Didia Clara who was displayed on more than 15% of her father’s coin types (Graph 15). The following sections analyse the coin frequencies of these women as well as their particular coin iconographies. 4.2. The representation of the Julio-Claudian daughters and sisters on coins The Julio-Claudians experimented with the display of women with a wide range of female representations, though the number of their coins was limited (Graph 15). The first femalp relative to grace a coin issued by the Roman mint was not an empress or an empress- (grand)mother, but the daughter of Augustus, Julia. Two reverse types portray her as a mother accompanied by her sons Gaius and Lucius (Figure l).1196 Another reverse displaying the bust of a young woman canying the quiver of the goddess Diana has the physical features of the members of the Julian gens.1197 The image, thus, may have represented Augustus’ daughter, though no legend confïrms her identity. All these types date to 13 BC, a year several scholars identify as the moment at which Augustus’ house started to form a public entity.1198 Other coins from 13 and 12 BC also display scenes that were dynastie in intent.1199 More than Livia, 1196 RICV Augustus 404-405. The communis opinio is that the male busts are to be identified as Gaius and onnÓUS,? af ^ ' „ erton’ 1985’ 476; Zanker, 1987, 216; Hurlet, 1997, 115-121; Wood, 1999, 66-67' Rowe 2002, 17; Wolters, 2002, 297-323; Fantham, 2006, 92-105; Ginsburg, 2006, 58; Horster, 2011, 75-87. However' some scholars identify the two young men’s busts as Augustus and Agrippa, see supra n. 751. 119g M C P AuSus‘u s403. Fullerton, 1985,476;480. ContraPollini, 1990, 353-355; Rose 2001 15 n 65 473^4l 3; Sutherland’ 1987’ 2&’ Hory’ 1996, 287-306; Rose, 2001, 14-15; Severy, 2003, 104-112; 214-219. Around the same period, the relief decoration of the Ara Pacis Augustae celebrated not only Augustus for his safe return from Gaul and Spain, but included his family members as well Fullerton, 1985,473-483; Rose, 2001, 14-16. 2 2 2 who would never appear on Augustus’ types, Julia emerged the progenitrix of Augustus’ house while she was married to Agrippa.1200 After Agrippa’s death in 12 BC, the Roman mint ceased to issue these types, which could explain why Julia never re-appeared on coins before her banishment to Pandateria in 2 BC. Gaius twice issued a type displaying his sisters as a close-knit triad, in AD 37 and in 39 (Graph 15).1201 As analysed in chapter 2, Gaius’ great grandfather Augustus, his parents Germanicus and Agrippina, and his brothers Nero and Drusus all received coin types under Gaius, and that in great numbers. It is clear that under Gaius attempts were made to rehabilitate his deceased family members and to reintegrate them into the Julio-Claudian stemma in order to legitimate Gaius’ own imperial position.1202 However, the si ster-type, displaying Gaius’ sisters on his reverse, emphasised Gaius’ present dynastie house. Gaius’ sisters were the first imperial females to receive coins with legends illustrating their portraits while alive.1203 These types display the sisters by their age from left to right. Agrippina was displayed while resting on a column; Drusilla was holding a patera and Livilla a rudder, while all three sisters were also holding comucopiae, refemng to abundance (IMAGE XHI.1). In this way, Gaius’ sisters seem to have been conflated with Securitas (Agrippina), Concordia (Drusilla) and Fortuna (Livilla), and thus, they represented the benefits that Gaius’ reign brought forward.1204 During his reign, Gaius married three times, but none of his empresses were displayed on his coins.1205 Nor did his baby daughter Caesonia receive any attention on coins, although ancient writers report that Gaius was full of joy at her birth.1206 The coin display of Gaius’ sisters, therefore, is remarkable, because they are represented as Gaius’ imperial house, and propagate the benefits that it produced, a role that was not reserved for his empresses. Wood suggested that the motive behind Gaius’ public emphasis on his sisters was probably “to prepare his subjects to accept a child bom to any of the four descendants of Agrippina and 1200 Julia was mairied to Agrippa from 21 untiï 12 BC. 1201 RIC I2 Gaius 33; 41. The types constitute 3.5% of Gaius’ total types. 1202 For more on Gaius’ ancestral advertisement on the coins, see chapter 2 (2.3.1; 2.4.1.1.1; 2.4.1.2.1; 2.4.2.1). 1203 Wood, 1995,458. 1204 Cf. Trillmich, 1978,39, plate 10.10; Wood, 1995,461. Suetonius, CaUgula 24 states that Drusilla was Gaius’ favourite sister, and that he even made her the heir to his property and the throne, Drusilla, however, did not have a privileged position on the sister-coin. After her death, she was deifïed (Dio 59.11.2; CIL 11.1168; 3598; 13.1194; 14.3576), but no imperial commemorative coins weie issued for her. 1205 Suetonius, CaUgula 25.1-3; Dio 59.3.3; 8.7. 1206 Suetonius, CaUgula 25.3-4; Dio 59.28.7. Flory, 1988 [=1997], 124, n. 45 explains the absence of Caesonia by Gaius’ order after the plot of his sisters Agrippina and Livilla to farbid all honours from being given to his family members (Dio 59.22.9). 223 Germanicus as the heir to the Principate.”1207 Although no explicit references to the fertility of Gaius’ sisters is shown on the sister-coin, it is, of course, possible that Gaius wanted to emphasise Germanicus’ house as a fertile entity that would secure the continuity of the imperial power. The emperor and his sisters, whose family had been involved in a vicious power struggle for succession during Tiberius’ reign, would certainly have been aware of the importance of providing an undisputed heir.1208 In the fall of AD 39, the influential role of Gaius’ sisters ceased. Drusilla had died, and Agrippina and Uvilla were banished for their part in a conspiracy against their brother.1209 Yet, Gaius’ empresses did not replace his sisters on his coins, which might indicate that the sisters’ Augustan descent really motivated their inclusion on Gaius’ coins. 4.3. Representing daughters and nieces in the second half of the first century In the second half of the first century, Vitellius and Titus displayed their daughters, Vitellia and Julia Flavia, on their coins and Domitian honoured his niece, Titus’ Julia Flavia, with some commemorative posthumous types.1210 The following section analyses the coinages for the daughters of Vitellius and Titus and for Domitian’s niece chronologically. When in January AD 69, Vitellius’ troops proclaimed him emperor, coins were issued depicting his father, who had been consul and censor in the Republic1211, as well as his children, as we mentioned in previous chapters.1212 Remarkably, the types display both of Vitellius’ children, even though one of them was a girl. Both children were displayed with equal stature in this innovative iconography: their busts look at each other, and the duo was identified as liberi Imperatoris Germaniae (IMAGE X.5). The output of the liberi-types was not substantial (only 6% of Vitellius’ total types), but they were issued by three different 1207 Wood, 1995,459. 1208 Cf. Wood, 1995, 459 and Ginsburg, 2006, 67-68. Whether Drusilla was the privileged sister to provide that heir, I leave open, because the sister-coins do not suggest that Drusilla was privileged. For more on Drusilla, see W ood, 1995, 458-482. 1209 Suetonius, Caligula 24.2; Dio 59.11.1; 22.6-9. Cf. Barrett, 1989, 91-113; Wood, 1995,459-560. 1210 There are scholars (Daltrop-Hausman-Weger, 1966, Vol.1, chap.2; Barrett, 2005, 393-396) who suggested that the woman on the types struck for diva Domitilla under Domitian is to be identified as Domitilla Iunior, the sister of Titus and Domitian. Recently, however, Wood argued convincingly that this diva D om itilla is Dom itilla Maior, see Wood, 2010, 45-57, folio wed by Alexandridis, 2004, 15. Previously, other scholars suggested this identification as well: BMCRE n , lxxv; Kienast, 1989, 141-174; Carradice, 1983, 20; H ahn, 1994, 228-230. 1211 g j C p V iteU iu s 7 . 76_77. 94.99. j 1 4 . 134. 135. Tacitus, Annals 6.28; 32; 36; 41; 11.2-4; 33-35; 12.4; 9; 14; 56; Suetonius, Vitellius 2; Dio 55.24.1; 60.21.2. n n r ic p Viteuius g. 57. 78.79. 100-103. 224 mints, which suggests that the message was intended to spread widely (Graph 15).1213 For Vitellius, in the tumultuous months after the death of Nero, it must have been important to praise a new long-term imperial house, which could guarantee a peaceful succession over generations and avoid the on-going civil wars. The liberi-types probably tried to propagate that Vitellius’ house was blessed on the one hand with a successor, symbolising politica] continuity, and on the other hand with a daughter, symbolising the fertile character of the imperial family.1214 In addition, the liberi-types remind us of Augustus’ type advertising his daughter Julia as progenitrix of Augustus’ family, together with her two boys as Augustus’ prospective successors (figure 1). This extra connection may well have represented Vitellius’ house as a promising new Augustan house. Of course, for those who did not decipher this additional message, it would also have been clear that the types displaying Vitellius’ son and daughter as well as Vitellius’ father hinted at a new dynastie imperial family. Julia Flavia appears on her father’s coins at a rate comparable to Vitellius’ daughter’s: 4.2%. Her coin representation, thus, was not frequent, following the limited representation of the Julio-Claudian women. Like Gaius’ sisters, Julia was associated with different virtues, such as concordia, pax, and salus. In this way, Julia was depicted as the protectress of the harmony, peace, and health in her father’s reign.1215 Likewise, the female goddesses Ceres, Venus and Vesta grace some types of Titus’ daughter, associating Julia with the gram provision of Rome as well as right order in the central state. 1216 The Venus-types, displaying a typically Augustan coin image of Venus, leaning on a column, holding a helmet and a spear, express implicitly the continuation of the Augustan imperial line through the Flavian house, and in particular through Julia, although it is not known whether Julia had bome any children by then (IMAGE XÜI.2).1217 Furthermore, Julia’s coin legends made it very clear that she was the emperor’s daughter, identifying her as IMPERATORIS T m AVGVSTIFILIA. Together with the types for Titus’ brother, Domitian (24.6%), and his parents, Vespasian and Domitilla (11.3%), Titus’ coins emphasised his imperial house exceptionally often. Therefore, we can suggest that the types for Julia were another step for Titus to advertise the new Flavian imperial house that he continued as the second-in-line after his father Vespasian. 1213 N=8. One issue at Spain (possibly at Tairaco): RIC F Vitellius 8; one issue at Gaul, Lugdunum: RIC P Vitellius 57; and two issues in Rome: RIC P Vitellius 78-79; 100-103. 1214 For more on Vitellius’ liberi-type see supra chapter 3 (3.4.2) and see also supra this chapter for the role of women in the imperial house (4.1). 1215 RIC IP Titus 385; 394-396. 1216 RIC IP Titus 386-393; 397-398; 514. 1217 Augustan Venus coin: RIC P Augustus 250a; b. Julia’s Venus-types: RIC IP Titus 386-388. Cf. Alexandridis, 2004,20. On other Flavian imitations of Augustan coin types, see chapter 3 (3.4.2) and Buttrey, 1972, 89-109. 225 That Julia Flavia was perceived as a prominent member of the Flavian house is suggested by her types issued under her uncle, the emperor Domitian. On type, issued while she was alive, referred to her as the daughter of Titus and portrayed her together with her divine father.1218 Furthermore, four types in several issues were issued after her deification (1%), whereof three again refer to her as the daughter of Titus (Graph 15). The posthumous types for Julia are numerically marginal, maybe even negligible, but iconographically remarkable. First, two very traditional types, displaying a carpentum drawn by two mules, place Julia in the posthumous tradition of the Julio-Claudian and Flavian women (IMAGE VII.5).1219 Previously, Livia, Agrippina Maior, Agrippina Iunior, and Domitilla Maior posthumously received similar types (IMAGES VH1-4).1220 The iconographical reference to the Julio- Claudian house evokes continuity between the Flavian and the Julio-Claudian dynasties. But a third type displayed a statue of Julia with a sceptre and com-eams in a funeral cart, drawn by two elephants (IMAGE IV.4).1221 The funeral elephant cart scene, however, had always been reserved exclusively for deified emperors, such as Augustus, Claudius and Vespasian (IMAGES IV.1-3).1222 Here, therefore, Julia’s posthumous commemoration transgressed the traditional boundaries for representing females. Finally, Julia’s fourth posthumous type bore an innovative scene, displaying the divine animal of Iuno, a peacock with its tail spread.1223 Although the number of Julia’s posthumous types is limited, we can state that they are at least exceptional in form. The mix of conservative, transgressive, and innovative scenes on Julia’s posthumous types suggest that the Roman mint was experimenting in order to find a suitable visual scene for a deified female imperial member.1224 During the Julio-Claudian period, only Livia as diva Augusta seems to have received some sort of commemorative type 1218 N=l; RIC IP Domitian 147. 1219 RIC D2 Domitian 717; 760. RIC ü 2, 253-254 argues also that some these reverses of Julia Flavia appear so close to the ones of Domitilla Maior that it seems “that the Domitilla’s coins were at least direcüy copied if not physically adapted for the sticking of Julia’s issue.” Livia: RIC I2 Tiberius 50-51; Agrippina Maior: RIC P Gaius 55; Agrippina Iunior: RIC F Claudius 103; and Domitilla Maior: RIC II2 Titus 262-264. 1221 RIC II2 Domitian 718. 1222 Augustus: RIC I2 Tiberius 56; 62; 68; Claudius: RIC I2 Nero 6-7; Vespasian: RIC n 2 Titus 257-259. Like Julia’s funeral elephant cart scene, all these types show four elephants instead of two. 1223 RIC IP Domitian 683-684. Here, the peacock refers to Iuno, and not to the act of consecratio. Wood, 2010, 52 suggested that this Iuno-type stresses Julia Flavia’s status as a mother who could produce an imperial successor, however, Julia Flavia did not bear any children. For the peacock as symbol for the female deification, see infra this section. 1224 Ancient literature (Juvenal, Satires 2.29-33; Pliny, Letters 4.11.6; Suetonius, Domitian 10.4; 17.3; Dio 67.3.2.) suggested that Julia had an incestuous ielationship with her uncle; and therefore, some scholars think Julia received these exceptional posthumous types due to her relationship with Domitian. See Townend, 1961, 57-58; Castritius, 1969, 492-494. However, the incestuous relationship seems rather to be a literary topos, used to blacken Domitian. Cf. Briessman, 1955, 84-91; 104-105; Waters, 1964,49-52; 65-68; Vinson, 1989, 431-450, esp. 433; Wood, 2010, 51-53. 226 together with divus Augustus1225, but other than that no posthumous types were ever struck for deified imperial women. Therefore, it is not surprising that in search for a Standard female consecratio-scene, the former carpentum-type issued for some notable deceased Julio- Claudian women was used as precedent for Julia’s coins. Whether Julia’s posthumous types were also an attempt to link the Flavian house visually with the Julio-Claudian house is not known, but it is highly possible. The carpentum-type, however, does not evoke any element of divinity. The search for a coin scene that expiessed the divinity of a deceased imperial woman explains the choice for Julia’s two other posthumous types, the funeral elephant cart- type and the peacock-type. Both scenes hint explicitly at the divinity of the deceased Augusta: the funeral elephant cart-type places Julia in line with former divine emperors, while the peacock was consecrated traditionally to the goddess Iuno.1226 Of course, Julia’s deification would have given a sparkle of divinity to the Flavian house. As such, her posthumous types may have bolstered Domitian’s effort to institutionalise the cult of the divine Flavian gens, for which the emperor also built the superb temple, the templum gentis Flaviae,1227 Nevertheless, this attempt did not last, because Julia’s coins were only struck between AD 89 and 9 1.1228 in addition, the rest of Domitian’s coinage bore no references to Julio-Claudians, nor did Domitian’s imperial relatives receive many coin types, in contrast to the coinages of his brother and father. Moreover, from AD 83 onwards, Domitian’s coinage introduced a whole new coin type spectrum which explicitly broke with the Flavian coin imitations of the Julio-Claudian coins and omitted every ancestral reference.1229 To conclude, displaying the emperor’s daughters or nieces on imperial coinage became more and more standardised in the second half of the first century, though their display remained fairly limited. Iconographically, the types for Vitellia and Julia seem to copy the visual expressions of the former Julio-Claudian house. As such, Vitellius, Titus, and Domitian seem to have tried to create and advertise their new imperial houses, although we have to remark that under Domitian’s reign this attempt seems to have been very brief. Under 1225 RIC F Claudius 101. 1226 Later, the peacock taking its flight to the heavens also became the appropriate female symbol reserved for consecrated Augustae. For more see Gradel, 2002, 307-310. 1227 CIL 6.938; cf. CIL 6.31210; 6.4308 = ILS 255 = AE 1993.117; Martial, Epigrams 9.3.12; Statius, Forests 4.3.19; 5.1.240-241. Jones, 1992, 84; 87; Darwall-Smith, 1996, 153-179; Gazda-Haeckl, 1996, 11-25; Davies, 2000,5; 11; 19-27; 142-158. For more Domitianic dynastie constructions see n. 341. 1228 Julia’s posthumous types were issued during Domitian’s fifteenth consulship in 90 and 91. Taken collectively, several souices indicate that Julia died in the final months of 89. The AfA provide the termini post and ante quos respectively for Julia’s death: January 3, 87 and January 3, 90 (CIL 6.2065; 2067). See also Pliny, Letters 97-98; Martial, Epigrams 6.3; 13. 1229 Cf. Carradice, 1979,102; 1983,12-21; 79; 104-106; 118-123; 134-135; 142-143; Claes, forthcoming 2014. 227 Titus, Julia Flavia’s role also included being some sort of protectress of the benefits her father’s imperial house bestowed on the Roman Empire. 4.4. The Ulpian women Marciana and Matidia Maior After Domitian, no female members were displayed on the coins until AD 112. In this year, Trajan’s coin output included types for his female relatives: his empress Plotina as discussed above, his sister Marciana, and his niece Matidia Maior. Marciana received 2% of Trajan’s total coins, Matidia Maior 1.1%. Marciana was a widow who together with her daughter Matidia Maior and her three children, Matidia Iunior, the later empress Vibia Sabina and Rupilia Faustina, lived in the imperial house of her brother.1230 The coin display of an imperial sister and niece was not innovative, as we just saw. Yet, sisters and nieces were not displayed regularly on imperial coins or at least had not been shown for a long time; therefore, we could suggest that the decision to strike coins for Marciana and Matidia Maior must have been noticeable. The emergence of Trajan’s imperial family triggered again the search for a proper visual language for these women, which seems to have generated particular coin types. Perhaps unsurprisingly, these scenes became Standard by the succeeding emperors. At the beginning of AD 112, types were issued for Marciana and Matidia together.1231 Marciana’s bust was on the obverse. Matidia was depicted on the reverse, accompanied by two children.1232 Their kinship was explicitly identified by the legends SOROR IMPERATORIS TRAIANI and FILIA [MARCIANAE] (IMAGE XIH.3). As mentioned a couple of times before, the coin display of these imperial women was not isolated. Around AD 112 or 113, types were also issued for other Trajanic family members, such as Plotina and Traianus Pater, Trajan’s biological father. The sudden coin appearance of Trajan’s family members suggests that around AD 112 or 113, Trajan’s coins started to focus on celebrating his imperial house as an familial entity. A family that included the female relatives of the emperor and where Traianus Pater was promoted as the stem-father. The explicit kinship legends for Marciana and Matidia support this suggestion even more.1233 1230 Pliny, Panegyric 84; Seelentag, 2004, 354-355; Bruun, 2010, 212-215. 1231 RIC n Trajan 742. Cf. Roche, 2002, 55-56. 1232 Mattingly in BMCRE III, lxxxiii suggested that the child-fïgures are Hadrian and Sabina, but that might be too far-fetched. 1233 Cf. Pliny, Panegyric 83-84; Pomeroy, 1975, 182-184; Temporini, 1978, 262. On the dynastie conception of the imperial family in the second century, see Boatwright, 1991, 514-515; 529; 532-533. 228 Late in AD 112, Marciana died and was deifïed. Several commemorative types were issued in her name. We can distinguish two groups of types. The first group includes carpentum-types and funeral elephant cart-types, following the commemorative types of the Julio-Claudian and Flavian Augusti and Augustae (IMAGES IV.5; VII.6; IV.1-4; VII.1-5).1234 Under the Flavian house, both of these types had been used for the deified imperial women (IMAGES IV.4; Vn.4-5). The carpentum-types even emphasise the deification of Marciana with the innovative title CONSECRATIO. Generally, we could state that this first group of commemorative types for Marciana seems to link her brother’s imperial house with previous imperial houses visually, stressing an imperial continuity. The second group of Marciana’ s commemorative types is an innovative series of types that bore the legend CONSECRATIO and depict an eagle spreading his wings (IMAGE V .l).1235 Traditionally, at the deification of emperors or any other imperial relatives, an eagle was set free from among the flames of the funeral pyre. Flying into the air, the bird was supposed to bear the soul of the deified to the heavens.1236 Previously, under Tiberius, one commemorative type for divus Augustus displayed such consecratio-eagle standing on a globe1237, but after that type the bird did not appear anymore on any divus- or diva-coin.1238 It was only after Marciana that the eagle-scene would become Standard for almost all commemorative types for Augusti and Augustae for almost a hundred years.1239 Likewise, the consecratio-\e,gend became a Standard legend for the posthumous types from Marciana onwards.1240 The decision to strike both traditional (first group) and innovative (second group) commemorative types for Marciana might suggest that under Trajan an experimental search to create a Standard coin scene for the deified imperial women remained underway. Moreover, the effort to create such a Standard type for these deified imperial women might also indicate 1234 Cf. Temporini, 1978, 236; 256. Carpentum-types: RIC II Trajan 746; 749; funeral elephant cart-types: RIC II Trajan 747; 750. For a detailed analysis of these types, see the section about Julia Flavia (4.4.2) in this chapter. RIC H Trajan 743-745; 748. 1236 'i'empurini, 1978, 201-202; Gradel, 2002, 291; 305-320. At first, the eagle was common to both sexes, but afterwards he was more reserved for the male relatives alone, whilst the peacock became associated exclusively with the imperial women. 1237 RIC I2 Tiberius 82. 1238 Likewise, neither Tacitus nor Suetonius mentioned an eagle-accession. The absence makes some scholars believe that the act did not corresponded to an objective reality. See Arce, 1988,131-140; 2010,309-324. Contra Gradel, 2002,291; 305-310. 1239 Divus Carus and divus Nigrinianus were the last to receive posthumous coins with the legend CONSECRATIO and an eagle: Carus: RIC V.B. Carinus 4; 28-30; 47-48; 108-109; 112-113; 126; 129; Nigrinianus: RIC V.B Carinus 472-473. The umque display of the consecratio-eagle and the consecrafio-legend on Marciana’s posthumous coins prompted some scholars to suggest that the use of the eagle-ascension developed during the first half of the second century. See the references quoted by Temporini, 1978, 236-246, esp. 237. The coin appearance of the consecratio-eagle is very curious, but without any comparable research from other sources, we have to be careful with such statements as they stay tentative. Cf. Gradel, 2002, 305-320. 229 increasing standardisation in the depiction of an imperial family, including male as well as female members, under Trajan.1241 Meanwhile, Matidia Maior received some types struck in her own name. On the reverses, the legend proclaims the piety of the Augusta, whilst she is displayed either sacrificing above an altar or just standing with her two young children (IMAGE Xm.4).1242 The children might personify Matidia’s two youngest children Sabina and Faustina. Although these girls were already in their twenties1243, Matidia was unmistakeably represented as the mother in Trajan’s family, symbolising its continuity. As we analysed above, this motherly role was not attributed to Plotina, whose types focus only on her role as empress and her harmonious marriage with the emperor. Plotina’s childless marriage with Trajan explains why Maditia was a better figurehead for promoting the imperial fertility.1244 In later reigns, the pietas-typ&s displaying a female figure surrounded by children would be imitated for many empresses.1245 As analysed before, the types for Trajan’s family ceased in AD 113.1246 So too, the types for Marciana and Maditia disappeared. 4.5. Faustina Iunior, Lucilla, Didia, and daughters in the third century The practice of including women other than the empress and empress-(grand)mother on the coins became more and more common. Together with the increasing representation of empresses and successors on the imperial coinage, we could suggest that the concept of a unified imperial family became formalised under the Ulpian House. Hence, this representational pattem continued. At the end of the second century, both Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius also represented their daughters on their coins: Faustina Iunior received 6.4% of the total types of her father and Lucilla 4.5% .1247 Like the Ulpian female relatives, the relationship of both Faustina Iunior and Lucilla with the emperor was explicitly expressed by 1241 Benoist, 2005,154-157. 1242 RIC H Trajan 758-761. 1243 Temporini, 1978, 191-193. Vibia Sabina was bom around AD 85 and Rupilia Faustina in AD 87. Mattingly in RIC II, 243 identified the children as Matidia Iunior and Vibia Sabina, but Matidia Iunior was even older than her two sisters. Therefore, it is more likely that the children are Sabina and Rupilia. Contra Strack, 1933, 67, followed by Mattingly in BMCRE in, lxxxiii who argue that the little figures represented Hadrian and Sabina. However, Trajan’s coinage never refers to Hadrian, whose adoption by him was very obscure. 1244 Temporini, 1978, 193-194; 259. 1245 Cf. Temporini, 1978, 194; Roche, 2002, 56. Especially, Faustina Maior received pietas-types with a standing female surrounded by one, two, three or even four children. 1246 For more see supra chapter 2 (2.4.1.1.2; 2.4.1.2.2) and chapter 4 (4.3.2). 1247 N Faustina Iunior=89; N Lucilla=41. Szaivert, 1986, 81-82; 171-172 states that Lucilla’s coinage stopped around the death of her husband Lucius Verus in AD 169. 230 all their legends: PH AVGVSTI EUJA and ANTONINÜ FUJA AVGVSTI. With the filia kinship legend, the membership of the women in the ruling imperial house was unmistakeably clear. Most likely, contemporary Romans knew who these women were, but the inclusion of the kinship term filia suggests that the imperial centre thought it important that they were identifïed.1248 The kinship terms for Faustina Iunior and Lucilla are no isolated cases. Trajan’s sister and niece, the empresses of Trajan, Hadrian and Pius, and the apparent heirs of Pius (Marcus Aurelius) and Marcus Aurelius (Commodus) were also identifïed by kinship legends on their coins. Visual representations of Faustina Iunior and Lucilla emphasise these women’s motherly role heavily.1249 Matidia Maior’s pietas-type with children was copied (IMAGE Xm.4), but types referring tafecunditas or to motherly goddesses, such as Iuno Lucinae and Venus Genetrix, were also struck.1250 Several concordia-types which traditionally symbolised a prosperous imperial marriage that guaranteed the health of the state also propagated Faustina Iunior’s role as future empress, as she was married to her father’s heir apparent.1251 Like the empresses in this period1252, the daughters of the emperor personified the fertility of the imperial family, and with it, they embodied the continuation of the imperial house. Not even Commodus’ murder changed this process. The short-reigned emperor Didius Julianus clearly placed his family in the same tradition.1253 Scantilla, as stated, was portrayed following Antonine standards1254, but also the prominent representation of Julianus’ daughter Didia (16%) seems to have imitated the visual daughter-model of the former Antonine house. On her reverses, Didia is lauded as the protectress of the “happy times” that her father’s reign 1248 Note, however, that scholars estimate that at least 70 to 80% of the Roman population was illiterate, and thus could not read these coin legends. For more about this condition obstructing the communicative feature of the types, see chapter 1 (1.2.2). m Cf. Strack, 1937,112-124; Szaivert, 1986,171. 1250 Pietas-type: RIC Hl Antoninus Pius 1379; 1402; fecunditas: RIC III Marcus Aurelius 764-768; 1736-1738; Iuno Lucinae: RIC Dl Antoninus Pius SOSa; b; 1377; 1400A; RIC III Marcus Aurelius 770-771; 1747-1749; Venus (Felix and Genetrix): RIC EI Antoninus Pius 510-517; 1386-1388a-c; 1407-1410a; b; RIC Hl Marcus Aurelius 783-785; 1762-1770; 1778; Saeculifelicit: RIC Dl Antoninus Pius 509; Ceres: RIC Dl Marcus Aurelius 1728-1729; Diana Lucifera: RIC III Marcus Aurelius 762-763; 1734-1735; Matri Magnae: RIC Dl Marcus Aurelius 1753-1754. A unique type for Faustina Iunior (RIC Dl Antoninus Pius 509) displayed a throne on which two babies were seated with stars above their heads. Most likely, these babies represented the twin Faustina gave birth to in AD 149. 1251 RIC III Antoninus Pius 601. Strack, 1937,116. 1232 Cf. 4.3.2 of this chapter about Faustina Maior and Faustina Iunior as empresses. 1253 Ancient authars inform us that Julianus was also a relative of Marcus Aurelius through his matemal side. Herodian 2.6.10; HA Marcus Aurelius Antoninus 1.3; Didius Julianus 1.3. 1254 See supra this chapter (4.3.2). 231 brought.1255 No explicit motherly role like the Antonine daughters’ was advertised, but that is not surprising as the childless Didia was already in her forties. What is more surprising is that Didia was the last woman who was not an empress or empress-(grand)mother, to receive attention on imperial coinage. Of course, the tumult of the third century can explain why no such females were included on the imperial coinage. However, it would have been quite impossible, and statistically improbable, that none of the third-century emperors had daughters, sisters, or nieces. We could suggest that these females became less perceived as full members of the imperial house, and therefore received no coin attention anymore. Two pattems are noticeable. First, a marginal representation of the empress appears from the reign of Elagabalus to Gordian UI, which suggests their less prominent role in imperial representation.1256 In a comparable way, the representation of female ancestors on coins ceased. Maybe this line was continued for other female relatives of the emperor, such as his daughters, sisters, and nieces. Second, during the third century the representation of the emperor’s sons, especially his biological sons, was very intensive and explicit.1257 The propagation of a direct line of succession thus seems to have become very important in this third century, and this may have distracted attention from propagating other female relatives. It was only under the sole reign of Constantine that coin attention was paid to a female relative other than the empress or the empress-(grand)mother. Constantine had a sister Constantia and she was honoured on a type issued by the mint at Constantinople around AD 326 or 327.1258 Her coin legend SOROR CONSTANTINIAVG explicitly referred to her imperial status. 1255 These reverses read fflLARITAS TEMPORVM (RIC IV.A. Didius Julianus 20-21) and FORTVNAE FELICI (RIC IV.A. Didius Julianus 10). iN=4. 1256 See supra this chapter on the representation of the empresses in the third century (4.3.3 and 4.3.4). 1257 See supra chapter 3 on the representation of the potential successors in the third century (3.3.4 and 3.4.4). 1258 RIC VII Constantine Constantinople 15. 232 5. Conclusion This chapter has analysed the coin representation of empresses, sisters, daughters, and nieces of the emperors from Augustus to Carinus. The evidence discussed in these three centuries reveals different representational pattems in which the display of these imperial women developed from a stage where they were displayed marginally to a practice were they were included on the coins on a Standard basis with official officinae. During this development, every emperor displaying his empress and other female relatives seems to follow the more or less traditional images for these women with occasional innovative experiments, from which some were adapted into Standard practice. During the Julio-Claudian and Flavian period, the coin presence of empresses, sisters, daughters, and nieces of the emperor was limited, sometimes even marginal. The messages on these types, however, are very interesting as they give more information about the roles these women played in the imperial representation, and they yield insights about the formation of the imperial family. Perhaps not unsurprisingly, the empresses were often honoured for their harmonious wedding with the emperor. This message was not unimportant as Romans pereeived that the health and welfare of the Roman state were guaranteed by a stable imperial wedding. Some types propagate the Augustan descent of these women, which indicates that from the start of the Principate the imperial bloodline was pereeived as important. Furthermore, the Julio-Claudian and Flavian women were propagated as mothers and benefactresses. In particular, the imperial sisters and daughters were presented as benefactresses of concordia, fortuna, pax, salus and securitas. The images used to express these messages were very diverse, as if several experimental efforts were undertaken to create a fitting female image. After a short disappearance, the imperial women return on coinage during the reign of Trajan, more precise in AD 112. The Trajanic and Hadrianic imperial women exemplify newly re-emphasised female roles. For Plotina and Sabina, their harmonious wedding with the emperor remained the main message. Their reproductive role in the transfer of power was not emphasised, probably because they did not bear potential heirs. Instead, Matidia, Trajan’s niece was honoured for her matemal qualities with innovative types, which would be copied for later empresses and female imperial relatives. In addition, Trajan’s sister Marciana received attention on his coinage. As soror of the emperor, she received types in the style of previous imperial women as well as some innovative types. This last group of types was 233 eventually copied by later emperors and would become Standard imperial types. Although these Trajanic and Hadrianic women were displayed in fairly limited numbers, the inclusion of all female relatives as well as the formation of Standard female images suggests that the imperial family as a unit became more formalised in the second century. The practice of issuing types for empresses and other female members of the imperial family continued in the second half of the second century. Their number of types also increased. Again on the empresses’ types, their imperial wedding was celebrated and their matemal roles were increasingly propagated, which is not surprising as imperial weddings were fecund again. In addition, the emperor’s daughters and the wives of the heir apparent were honoured for their matemal qualities, and the heir apparent’s harmonious maniage was celebrated as well. Iconographically, the types followed the designs of the Trajanic and Hadrianic women, from which a Standard imperial iconography seems to have developed. Subsequently, new designs referring to the harmonious imperial marriage and the empress’ matemal role were also introduced. Furthermore, from Faustina Iunior onwards types referring to the role of benefactress gained popularity too: in particular, the empress’ connection with the military was made explicit by an innovative legend mater castrorum and military coin scenes. The idea that the empress could maintain a strong bond with the military, which was actually a male-dominated institution, reinforced the representation of the imperial couple’s unity, which serving one and the same cause, the Roman Empire. In the late second century, it was not only empresses who were substantially propagated. Imperial daughters, heirs apparent, and their wives also received more and more coin attention. The idea of a united imperial family that was fertile and harmonious seems therefore to have been particularly cherished. Not even the death of the last Antonine emperor, Commodus, stopped this process, as the Antonine representation of the imperial family continued under Didius Julianus and Septimius Severus. After Septimius Severus’ reign, another pattem of female representation seems to develop. The empresses under Caracalla, Macrinus, Elagabalus, Alexander Severus, Balbinus and Pupienus, and the Gordiani were displayed only marginally, or were even absent from the Roman coinage. Female relatives other than empresses or empress-(grand)mothers were totally absent from imperial coinage. The only exception during this period is the intensive, but brief, posthumous coinage for diva Paulina, who was the deceased empress of Maximinus Thrax. From Philippus Arabs’ reign onwards, the representation of empresses increased with frequent numbers. She even received one or two officinae that were exclusively responsible 234 for her types alone. A similarly substantial representation emerged for the heirs apparent. In contrast, no types were issued for other female imperial members, like the sisters, daughters, and nieces of the emperor. Statistically, it seems improbable that the third-century emperors had no sisters, daughters, or nieces. Therefore, it is very likely that in the tumultuous second half of the third century other family relatives were left out of imperial representation in favour of a focus on the emperor’s direct succession line. Types for empresses from the second half of the third century display them in the first place as imperial wives. The most common type shows the imperial couple clasping hands. Empresses, who had given birth to sons, were celebrated with matemal types, and again types for the empresses as benefactresses, in particularly for the military, were struck. 235 Conclusion This study has looked at the relative frequency of kinship messages that were displayed on imperial coins from Augustus (27 BC) to Carinus (AD 285). Thereby, particular attention has been paid to the iconography of these kinship messages. Although no general pattems have been revealed, some important notions in the field of the representation of imperial kinship, the creation and standarisation of coin images, and the coins’ authority and communicative value have come clearly to the fore, as will be explained below. 1. Representing the emperor’s family Succession within the imperial family, following a dynastie principle, seems to have been preferred to other kinds of successions by the Senate, Roman military, and the Roman People, as it guaranteed more stability and welfare than estranged usurpers, and often safeguarded a ruling emperor against usurpation. The hypothesis of this study therefore was that emperors used their kinship to claim power or to legitimate their reigns. In doing so, they needed media through which the Empire’s inhabitants could become aware of how the emperor claimed power. A good medium to trace the ways in which emperors disseminated messages about their kinship is Roman imperial coinage. As we demonstrated in the theoretical and methodological chapter of this study, Roman imperial coinage more or less fulfilled all criteria that reveal an effective communication process. Therefore, we could assume that imperial coinage operated as a medium, broadcasting imperial messages among targeted groups in Roman society in order to legitimate the power of the ruling emperor and his house. This study had not incorporated comparative material, such as epigraphy, literature, statue groups, or provincial coinage, that disseminated kinship messages, in order to develop a pure numismatic method suitable specifically for the study of imperial coinage. A quantitative analysis was chosen to examine the messages that disseminated the emperor’s kinship on imperial coinage, tabulating coin types that were issued from Augustus (27 BC) to Carinus (AD 285). The catalogue RIC, volumes I2 to VII, served as main source for the analysis. Furthermore, to overcome the catalogue’s inconsistent definition of coin types, this study adopted its own definition of types with features relevant for analysis of the 236 representation of the emperor’s kinship, and applied this defïnition to all RIC volumes used here. In order to examine the emperor’s messages of kinship, this study has distinguished between retrospective messages of kinship, which refer to all male and female ancestors of the emperor on coins, and prospective kinship messages, which embrace all relatives, including women, who surrounded the emperor and were likely or were expected to shape the continuity of his house. This division was helpful in differentiating whether the emperor was legitimating his own power through retrospective kinship messages or whether he was portraying his imperial house as an entity continuing through a dynastie succession by using mainly prospective kinship messages. Furthermore, as this study wanted to analyse in which form a dynastie principle within the imperial family emerged, it has differentiated between biological, adopted, marital, or invented kinship relations. For Romans, there existed no legal difference between biological and adoptive kin. Nonetheless, this distinction made it possible to examine whether or not in the construction of Roman emperorship and the imperial family blood kinship was perceived have been stronger (or was emphasised more strongly) than adoptive kinship. Overall, the propagation of the kinship messages was influenced heavily by the historical circumstances that individual emperors had to deal with. Historical circumstances triggered the dissemination of persuasive messages on imperial coins in the first place when an emperor or imperial candidate needed tools to legitimate his reign. Furthermore, historical circumstances, such as the emperor’s relationship to his predecessor, the events around his imperial proclamation, and the Empire’s increasing distance from the Republican era with its specific ideals, seems to have influenced the various representational changes during the Empire’s first three centuries. Many emperors in the fitst, second, and third centuries used retrospective kinship messages to legitimate their reigns, and the frcquency of this propagation often paralleled changing historical circumstances. In particular, under the Julio-Claudian emperors, whose successions were effected through adoption and collateral lineage within the Julio-Claudian family, retrospective messages were used intensively in order to emphasise their legitimate succession after Augustus. Types of Augustus’ successors Tiberius, Gaius, and Claudius referred back to the founder of the Principate, either stressing their descent from him through such kinship legends as divi fllius or divi pronepos, referring to Augustus himself, or 237 displaying particular family members with Augustan lineage, either biological or adoptive. Nero’s coin messages, in contrast, suggested a relative neglect of his Julio-Claudian roots. Divus Augustus is only represented on a dubious coin scene, and after an intensive but short advertisement of his adoptive father Claudius and his mother Agrippina Iunior they disappeared from Nero’s coins. The years after his accession to the throne, Nero, who was already the fifth emperor from the Julio-Claudian family, apparently no longer feit the need to advertise himself as the rightful successor of Claudius, nor to propagate his Julio-Claudian membership, as if his Julio-Claudian blood lineage through his mother and his adoption through Claudius made his emperorship self-evident. A similar representational pattem emerges for Vespasian’s sons, who both issued commemorative types for their parents and both called themselves divi filius Vespasiani. However, Titus’ ancestal representation was quite frequent, whereas Domitian’s was only concentrated at the beginning of his reign. One could thus conjecture that Titus used his retrospective kinship messages in a similar way as Tiberius, Gaius, and Claudius, because he was the first successor of the newly founded Flavian house. Being the second Flavian successor, Domitian was a settled emperor, whose ancestral messages seem less important, as they appeared to have been for Nero after he was settled. Historical circumstances not only change representational pattems on coins in the long term, also short-term reactions to historical circumstances could be reflected on the coins’ messages. The revolting general Avidius Cassius precipitated the bestowal of the Augustan title on Commodus during his father’s reign. The event paralleled an increase of Commodus’ relative frequency of types, which became almost equal to that of his father. No imperial successor had received such frequent type output before. Furthermore, Commodus’ status as co-Augustus, and not his future succession, seems to become more prominent in his official representation through coin images and legends that paralleled those of his father. Of course, publicity and policy do not have to coincide with each other, and in reality Marcus Aurelius remained the supreme Augustus. Yet, this example showed how contemporary historical events could influence imperial representation. Another example is seen under Carinus. After both Sabinus Julianus and Diocletian (known then as Diocles) were proclaimed emperor in reaction to Carinus’ reign, the Roman mint produced two issues with consecratio-types commemorating Carinus’ divine and imperial father Carus. Both usurpers posed a realistic threat for Carus’ imperial position - and eventually Diocletian would take over Carinus’ throne - and, therefore, the consecratio-types seem to reflect an attempt to reassert Carus’ power through his father’s imperial descent. 238 Likewise, the last issue of the mint of Lugdunum under Carinus produced types referring solely to divus Carus. Here, again, the contemporary events clearly influenced Carinus’ coin advertisement, emphasising his legal imperial position through his imperial father in order to back off the threat of Sabinus Julianus and Diocletian. Alongside political historical circumstances, changing social situations influenced the imperial representation propagating kinship messages. In our investigation, derived from quantitative analysis of the coin types disseminating kinship messages fïrom Augustus to Carinus, (at least) four social trends manifest themselves on the coins. First, the intensive display of biological sons as the emperor’s successor in the second and third centuries may suggest a changing perception about biological and adoptive ties. Certainly, the propagation of adoptive sons on imperial coinage was more or less marginal. The difference may suggest that the propagation of kinship by blood was pereeived to be a stronger type of imperial succession than adopted successors. Legally, however, no difference existed between biological sons bom in lawful marriage and adopted sons. Adoption was a very common Roman practice for incorporating someone into a familia, often to prevent the extinction of & familia. Through adoption an emperor who had no biological sons could secure his succession. However, coins show that a succession through the bloodline of the ruling emperor started to be ingrained in Roman minds from the reign of the Julio-Claudians onwards, with the Roman military cherishing it particularly. The large proportion of coin types referring to the emperor’s biological sons from Vespasian’s rule onwards might then reflect the prominent role that blood kinship had started to play in the mechanics of transferring power. This prominence even increased under Marcus Aurelius, followed by Septimius Severus, resulting in the uniformly high prominence of the biological sons on thiid- century coins, suggesting that the founding of a strong dynastie imperial house by blood was a desirable ideal in the third century. Subsequently, scholars studying the tetrarchic period should take this changed social perception into account, certainly as this social factor might partly explain why Maxentius and Constantine thought it possible to usurp power as sons of former tetrarchic emperors. From this perspective, it seems also to have become self-evident that apparent successors who were not the biological or adopted sons of the ruling emperor, such as Domitian, Clodius Albinus, and Gordian III, were also portrayed in similar modes as imperial sons on coins as if they were related to the ruling emperor. 239 Furthermore, a sim ilar difference emerges between the propagation of biological and adoptive ancestors, although this difference is less explicit than that between the biological and adopted sons. From the second century onwards, and maybe some similar features under the Julio- riaiirlians might be explained here as well, the so-called adoptive emperors referred marginally to their predecessors and adoptive fathers, although they had conferred imperial powers on them. These adoptive ancestors received types with commemorative scenes which were only struck at the beginning of the reigns of their adopted successors. Most likely, this retrospective advertisement was a tooi to strengthen their legitimate succession, but from the moment the adopted emperor feit settled in his position, his coins started to focus on other messages. The posthumous types of adoptive ancestors always refer to the divine status these ancestors had received, and therefore their types also functioned simply as a tooi for commemoration, rather than for legitimating the emperor’s reign. After the reigns of the so- called adoptive emperors, a similar trend in the propagation of biological ancestors appears: the biological son of the deceased emperor propagates his imperial father only at the beginning of his reign, but the types for these biological ancestors are still more frequent than these for the adoptive ancestors. Under the adoptive emperors, the kinship references on coins disappeared as well, hinting that they feit less need to advertise their adoptive descent. Moreover, Trajan even issued types for his biological father, Traianus Pater, who did not have any imperial office and whom Trajan denoted as pater on coins. The advertisement for both Trajan’s biological and adoptive father suggests that Trajan distinguished between his biological and adoptive descent. Second, while in Roman law no concept of primogeniture was articulated nor ever normalised, in imperial representation on coins, the surviving eldest son of the ruling emperor received more types than his other brother(s), suggesting his predestined succession to his father. The prospective advertisement of Vespasian’s sons illustrates this significantly. Whereas in Vespasian’s first two years, his sons Titus and Domitian were displayed in equal numbers and with similar images, theieafter Titus appeared frequently on Vespasian’s coins as a co-regent, while Domitian is reduced to representing future hope for the Flavian house as a “princeps iuventutisperpetuus.” Likewise, in the third century a distinction was made between the types for the eldest son of the ruling emperor and his younger brothers. The eldest surviving successor, usually co-opted as co-Augustus of his father, was advertised more prominently than his other brothers, and his iconography singled him out as the designated future emperor. 240 Imperial representation thus suggests that from Vespasian onwards, and taking a great leap in the third century, the eldest surviving son of the ruling emperor became increasingly more prominent in the promotion of the imperial regime. Third, throughout the first three centuries, the retrospective and prospective representation of imperial women developed into a Standard feature in the representation of the emperor’s family. The imperial women include the emperor’s female ancestors, his (grand)mother, his empress, and all other female relatives. The propagation of these imperial women yields further insight about the formalisation of the imperial family. During the Julio- Claudian and Flavian period, the representation of women underwent a period of trial and error. The emperors’ retrospective display of women referred mainly to their Augustan or Flavian descent to legitimate the ruling emperor’s position, whereas prospective messages about women foregrounded their status as mothers and benefactresses, but above all celebrated their harmonious wedding with the emperor. After a short disappearance, the retrospective and prospective messages of imperial women retumed on coins under Trajan and Hadrian. The display of the Trajanic and Hadrianic imperial women remained marginal, celebrating their relationship with the emperor. Under the Antonines, the practice of issuing prospective types for imperial women continued in increasing numbers. On the coins, the idea of a united imperial family that was fertile and harmonious seems to have been particularly cherished as the types of the Antonine empresses and daughters referred to their fecundity and their marriages. Moreover, from Faustina Iunior onwards, types referring to the role of benefactress gained popularity too, in particular with the military. The death of the last Antonine emperor, Commodus, did not stop this process as the representation of imperial women continued under the third-century emperors. However, from Caracalla until the Goidiani, prospective messages referring to the emperors’ empresses and other female relatives were issued only marginally, or were even absent. In contrast to the marginal display of the empresses and other female imperial relatives during the beginning of the third century and the absence of retrospective messages during the later second century, the propagation of the Severan mothers and grandmothers appeared with unprecedented frequency. Furthermore, the coins depicted these mothers and grandmothers as the ideal matrona, who bestowed etemal fertility, health, and peace upon the state, a prospective role normally reserved for young empresses or other female imperial relatives. From the reign of Philippus Arabs onwards, the representational pattem of empresses switched again as their representation increased, and this continued throughout the rest of the third century. In contrast, no prospective types appeared for the other female relatives of the emperor, and likewise, no 241 retrospective types were issued for the emperor’s ancestresses. Under Constantine, such types were issued again, referring to his mother Helena and his daughter Constantia, suggesting the reappearance of a formalised imperial house during the tetrarchic system. A fourth social perception which seems to have influenced imperial kinship messages in the later second century and the third century is geographical roots. Our investigation found numerous types referring to the emperor’s noble (Roman) descent. This feature seems to have become more and more important from the late second century onwards as coins had to obscure the humble birth of the emperor in order to gain the loyalty of Roman citizens or the emperors’ officers who admired Rome’s great past. The virtue nobilitas, for instance, which initially appeared under Commodus to emphasise his noble Antonine descent, was later adapted by the coinages of Geta, Elagabalus, Alexander Severus, and Philippus Arabs, where it highlighted an alleged noble Roman descent. Likewise, similar attempts can be noticed under Gallienus and Probus. These tried to accentuate these emperors’ Italian and Roman birth respectively. In general, the types referring to the emperor’s noble Roman or Italian descent were rare, but their presence suggests the emergence of a social perception in the third century in which this noble descent clashed with the emperors’ provincial backgrounds. Subsequently, further research into the emperors’ geographical descent may illuminate the mechanics of imperial power and how the provinces were perceived in this third century. 2. From innovation to standardisation Along with historical circumstances, the development of the images on coins was also another factor that influenced imperial representation. Since in many cases historical circumstances triggered the development of images, these do not have to be mutually exclusive with the development of images. In general, the imagery of the retrospective and prospective kinship messages developed from a stage with an experimental use of images to a practice where Standard images were used to express similar messages. In this process, we can differentiate four stages: (i) an experimental and innovative stage, (ii) a stage of copying and adopting iconographical elements, (iii) a stage were images were restored, and (iv) a stage of standardisation. The best example to illustrate these stages is the development of a suitable posthumous type for (deified) emperors and imperial members. Republican coins often 242 displayed ancestors of the mint masters, but none of these ancestors was deified. Subsequently, no suitable image existed for deified ancestors at the beginning of the Principate. Under Augustus, the mint masters seem to have hesitated to portray Augustus’ divine adoptive father Julius Caesar, and choose for a rayed star instead. Under the Julio- Claudian successors, different experimental representational pattems were created to display their biological and adoptive fathers. Some of these forms of representation persisted and became part of a set of available idioms that were adapted by later emperors in the first century and the first half of the second century, while others never appeared again. Accordingly, the emperors Titus, Domitian, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Lucius Verus, and Marcus Aurelius copied or adapted several representational forms of these Julio-Claudian emperors in order to commemorate their imperial fathers, mothers, and other relatives posthumously. The carpentum was a typical image for female ancestors and mothers, whereas a seated figure on a curule chair, holding attributes such as a sceptre, a branch, or a patera, was typical for male ancestors and fathers. The types with the statue of the deceased figure on a cart drawn by elephants were reserved for men first, but were later also applied to women. Throughout the second century, we could state that all the images mentioned had become Standard to commemorate the emperor’s deceased fathers, mothers, and other relatives. Furthermore, after Vespasian four subsequent emperors - Titus, Domitian, Nerva, and Trajan - decided to restore retrospective kinship types issued by their predecessors. Although the function of these restored coins has been hotly debated among scholars, and although not all restored former types were actual restorations of the original images, the restored types still influenced the emperors’ imperial representation, as the restored types linked him with the emperor(s) of who he restored their retrospective kinship types. In doing so, Titus and Trajan both restored several types linking them with the former imperial dynasties. Domitian and Nerva only restored types referring to divus Augustus to associate their reigns with the founder of the Principate. The existence of Standard scenes for deceased predecessors and other imperial relatives did not exclude the creation of new types. Under Trajan, for instance, such an innovative type was created to commemorate his deceased sister Marciana, displaying the legend CONSECRATIO with an eagle spreading his wings. Under Hadrian and the Antonines, this consecratio-type. was copied for other deceased imperial family members as well, and elements of the type were adapted in new consecratio-types displaying the consecratio legend with an altar, a funeral pyre, or an eagle carrying the deceased person to 243 the heavens. From the end of the second century to the first tetrarchic emperors, these consecratio-types became the Standard image for the posthumous issues of all deceased imperial members, male as well as female. In this process, Decius even restored the posthumous types of eleven predecessors, which included personally selected emperors starting with Augustus and ending with Alexander Severus. Although half of the predecessors lived before the consecratio-type was created, all restored divi received consecraft'o-images, which demonstrates that the consecratio-type had become the idiom for representing deified predecessors. In many other cases, the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian were a focal point in the development of imperial representation, as many types referring to retrospective and prospective kinship were introduced during their reigns that later became Standard in the second half of the second century and the third century. Furthermore, we could suggest that from Trajan onwards the creation of Standard images to display the imperial family paralleled the formalisation of the imperial family as an entity. 3. The coins’ authority and targeting audiences The diachronie examination of the propagation of retrospective and prospective kinship messages yields two other important insights. Fitst, the diachronie and comparative analysis reveals occassional glimpses of the authority over the displayed coin messages. Second, sometimes an explicit difference between messages propagated on precious-metal and on bronze types, or a particular mint disseminating messages among a regional target group, suggests the targeting of particular audiences. Conceming the first notion, this study has demonstrated that coin messages referring to the emperor’s retrospective and prospective kinship could often strongly differ in frequency and in iconography between emperors. The differences suggest that no fixed pattem existed for the displaying retrospective and prospective kinship messages on coins, but instead the imperial centre decided which kinship messages they found desirable, and when and how these had to be displayed on imperial coins. Subsequently, we could conclude that the retrospective and prospective kinship messages were not generic, but highly topical messages. A concrete example of the imperial centre devoting attention to their representation on coins emerges under Elagabalus. The coinage for his mother, Julia Soaemias, differed 244 significantiy from the other Severan women who belonged to Elagabalus’ house. Not only did Soaemias receive a much lower percentage of types than the other Severan women, her types also focused exclusively on Venus Caelestis, a deity who did not grace the coins of the other Severan women. The smaller output of Soaemias’ types as well as the exclusive propagation of Venus Caelestis suggested that her types were struck on a particular occasion, and therefore, might hint that the issue was designed by the central imperial authorities. Another hint about the authority over the imperial coins emerges from the cases of Pallas and Etruscus Pater, whose careers show close parallels. Both men were influential imperial freedmen who became the a rationibus, respectively, of the Julio-Claudian emperors Claudius and Nero and the Flavian emperors Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian. Both men were dismissed as head of the imperial fiscus by their respective emperors, Nero and Domitian, from which moment onwards the type output of these emperors changed dramatically, removing all retrospective messages refemng to imperial descent. Both cases support the suggestion that either the a rationibus oversaw the selection of the coin designs, or that these particular freedmen in their capacity as a rationibus were entrusted with the selection of the types. Since the a rationibus was an officer of the imperial circle, these cases also indicate that the images on the imperial coins were decided by the imperial centre. Second, although this study did not aim to examine systematically whether kinship messages targeted different audiences, some types clearly show how messages could be designed for a particular audience. The display of the fïve-year old Commodus, for instance, on bronze types could indicate that the message was intended to target Roman masses who mostly handled with these base-metal denominations. When Commodus was a teenager, his image also appeared on precious-metal coins that were mainly used by the (senatorial) elite and the army, although we cannot verify that the lower classes never saw a gold or silver coin. From this distinction, we might suggest that the presence of a son in Marcus Aurelius’ ruling house was consideied a good message to broadcast among the Roman lower classes, despite Commodus’ very young age and thus his relatively limited chances to succeed his father, whereas the propagation of Commodus on precious-metal denominations was perceived as a more realistic message to propagate among the senators and Roman soldiers as Commodus had reached a more mature age, and therefore, was more likely to succeed his father. Another example of targeting is noticed in the propagation of Augustus’ adoptive sons, Gaius and Lucius Caesar. All types depicting either Gaius alone or Gaius and Lucius together that were issued by the mint of Lugdunum were struck on precious-metal coins. With clear legends on these coins, the boys were identified as the sons of Augustus. Struck at 245 Lugdunum in precious-metal denominations, the coins were likely used as donativa and stipendia for the soldiers at the northem frontiers. If so, there is reason to believe that Augustus tried to introducé his adopted sons to his troops as his prospective successors. Likewise, we analysed a coin type that was issued during Septimius Severus’ struggle for imperial power which message probably had to target the soldiers in Egypt. The type mentioned depicted Commodus, of whom Septimius Severus claimed to be his brother, as Septimius had himself retrospectively adopted as the son of the divine Marcus Aurelius. Issued by the Alexandrian mint after Septimius Severus had defeated his imperial opponent Pescennius Niger, who controlled Egypt already for a year since Septimius’ imperial proclamation in Upper-Pannonia, it is feasible that in Egypt Septimius’ imperial position required more reinforcement than in other parts of the Roman Empire. The Commodus-type therefore might have been a tooi for emphasising Septimius’ alleged Antonine kinship among the stationed soldiers and for contributing to Septimius’ power in the East. All these examples demonstrate how messages on coins could target audiences. These results also indicate that studies on a more systematic scale are required to investigate the imperial coins’ ability to target audiences. Such studies will reveal interesting results conceming imperial representation on coins. 246 Samenvatting in het Nederlands Deze studie onderzocht de relatieve frequentie van de verwantschapsboodschappen die afgebeeld werden op de keizerlijke muntslag van Augustus (27 voor Chr.) tot Carinus (285 na Chr.). In dit onderzoek werd er speciale aandacht gegeven aan de iconografie van deze verwantschapsboodschappen. Hoewel er geen grote patronen in de representatie van verwantschapsboodschappen naar voren gekomen zijn heeft dit onderzoek wel enkele belangrijke noties in verband met verwantschapsrepresentatie bloot gelegd. Daarnaast zijn enkele processen, waarin de creatie als ook de standaardisatie van muntafbeeldingen zich ontwikkelden, onthuld. Ten slotte gaf dit onderzoek hier en daar aanwijzingen naar de keizerlijke autoriteit over de muntslag en naar de communicatieve waarde van de munten. Het eerste hoofdstuk geeft het theoretische en methodologische kader weer waarop het onderzoek gebaseerd is. Concepten, zoals keizerschap, retrospectieve en prospectieve verwantschap en hun onderlinge samenhang worden eerst behandeld. Opvolging binnenin de keizerlijke familie droeg voor de Senaat, het Romeinse leger, en het Romeinse volk de voorkeur boven vreemde usurpatoren, omdat een dynastieke opvolging stabiliteit en continuïteit kon garanderen. De hypothese van deze studie was dan ook dat de keizers hun verwantschap gingen adverteren om hun regering te legitimeren. Daarna wordt de creatie en de verspreiding van keizerlijke boodschappen op de keizerlijke muntslag uitvoerig besproken, waarbij geconcludeerd kon worden dat in de Romeinse keizertijd het centrale gezag via de keizerlijke muntslag boodschappen kon uitzenden om in dialoog te gaan met zijn onderdanen met doel om de macht van de keizer te legitimeren of te versterken. Ten slotte beschrijven de laatste delen van dit hoofdstuk hoe het onderzoek is uitgevoerd. Omdat de verschillende delen van de Roman Imperial Coinage, de basiscatalogus voor dit onderzoek, niet dezelfde definitie van een munttype gebruikten, stelde dit boek een eigen definitie van een munttype op en paste deze toe op alle gebruikte volumes van de Roman Imperial Coinage catalogus. Aan de hand van een zelfsamengestelde muntdatabank werd de relatieve frequentie van bepaalde familiale boodschappen gemeten, zodat nagegaan kon worden welke retrospectieve of prospectieve verwantschapsboodschappen veelvuldig of gelimiteerd werden geadverteerd. Het chronologische bereik van dit onderzoek werd vastgesteld startend van 27 voor Chr. en eindigend op 285 na Chr. 247 Na dit theoretisch-methodologisch hoofdstuk is dit boek onderverdeeld in twee grote delen. Het eerste deel is gewijd aan de retrospectieve boodschappen op de keizerlijke muntslag, terwijl het tweede deel zicht richt op de prospectieve boodschappen. In het eerste deel worden alle retrospectieve boodschappen die zowel via legendes als via afbeeldingen op de keizerlijke muntslag behandeld. Retrospectieve boodschappen zijn alle voorouderlijke verwijzingen van de keizer en zijn familie. Hierbij is er een onderscheid gemaakt tussen voorouderlijke verwijzingen die via legendes werden gepropageerd en voorouderlijke verwijzingen die via afbeeldingen werden weergegeven. Een eerste hoofdstuk bespreekt de voorouderlijke legendes. Van Augustus tot Carinus waren er slechts acht keizers die voorouderlijke verwijzingen in hun keizerlijke nomenclature verwerkten. De meeste van deze keizers deden dit veelvuldig, maar de keizers Nero, Hadrianus, en Septimius Severus, refereerden slechts gelimiteerd naar hun voorouderlijke afstamming via hun legendes. Ook andere voorouderlijke verwijzingen konden door de muntlegendes geadverteerd worden, zoals verwijzingen naar gentes en andere familiale titels. Vanaf de Julisch-Claudische keizers werd de naam Caesar aan hun nomenclature toegevoegd. Deze gewoonte werd door de niet- Julisch-Claudische keizers, op uitzondering van Otho, na de dood van de laatste Julisch- Claudische keizer Nero overgenomen, waarbij zij hun legitieme opvolging van deze dynastie staafden. Eenzelfde voorbeeld zien we onder de Severische keizers die voor dezelfde doeleinden de nomina Marcus Aurelius Antoninus van de Antonijnse dynastie opnamen in hun nomenclature. Gallienus, ten slotte, verwees met enkele munttypen naar zijn familie aan moederszijde, de Faleri, terwijl zijn familienaam aan vaderskant, Licinius, van zijn nomenclature verdween. Wellicht speelde Gallienus’ vader onheroïsche lot na gevangen te zijn genomen door de Perzische koning Sapor I hierin een grote rol. Muntlegendes konden ook verwijzen naar de nobele afkomst van de keizer met de deugd ‘n o b ilita seen boodschap die door Commodus geïntroduceerd werd, omdat hij de nazaat was van vijf generaties van keizers, startend bij Nerva. Geta, Heliogabalus, Alexander Severus, en Philippus Arabs namen deze boodschap sporadisch op hun munten over om hun afkomst grootser te doen lijken, hoewel zij niet van Rome afkomstig waren, noch beroep konden doen op een lange keizerlijke afstamming. Een gelijkende afkomstboodschap werd onder Probus geslagen. De muntlegende ORIGINI AVG met de afbeelding van de gebroeders Romulus en Remus die door een wolf gezogen worden moest de keizer een glorieuze Romeinse afstamming meegeven, hoewel hij van Sirmium afkomstig was. 248 Het volgende hoofdstuk analyseert de voorouderlijke afbeeldingen op de munten. Dit topic is in verschillende onderdelen verdeeld, zo worden mannelijke, vrouwelijke en fictieve voorouders elk apart geanalyseerd. Bij de mannelijke voorouders is er nog een extra opdeling tussen biologische en adoptie(voor)ouders. De biologische voorouders werden zeer divers gepropageerd. Onder de Julisch-Claudische dynastie sloegen Gaius en Claudius veel munten voor hun biologische (groot)vaders. Vitellius die een bekende republikeinse vader had deed dit in dezelfde mate. Vanaf Vespasianus werden de keizerlijke biologische vaders geadverteerd in verschillende mate: Titus’ munten representeerden Vespasianus met meer dan 10% en de muntslag van de broers Numerianus en Carinus reserveerden zelfs bijna 20% voor hun vader Carus, terwijl de muntslag van Commodus en Caracalla met 2% hun biologische vaders eerden, hoewel dit percentage wel hoger lag als je dit muntaantal berekend met het totale aantal munttypen in de beginfase van hun regering. Slechts zeven keizers adverteerden hun adoptievaders op hun munten. Ten vergelijking met de biologische voorvaderen waren deze adoptievaders nog minder op de keizerlijke muntslag aanwezig. Enkel onder Tiberius waren meer dan 25% van zijn munten gewijd aan zijn adoptievader Augustus, terwijl de andere keizers hun adoptievaders nog op geen 5% van hun muntslag representeerden. Wel valt het op dat de meeste van deze adoptievaders enkel aan het begin van de regering van hun adoptiezonen geëerd werden, waardoor hun advertentiepercentages ook wat hoger zullen gelegen hebben dan 5%. Wellicht vonden deze adoptiezonen het enkel in het begin van hun regering belangrijk dat hun afstamming in de verf werd gezet. Eenmaal als keizer gesetteld blijkt hun adoptielink minder belangrijk om op hun munten te adverteren. Vrouwen traden aan het einde van de Republiek sporadisch in het publieke leven op. Deze trend blijkt zich verder te ontwikkelen in het Romeinse keizerrijk als vrouwen in de officiële keizerlijke representatie voorkwamen. Ook munten volgden deze trend. Tijdens de Julisch-Claudische en de Flavische dynastie werden meerdere vrouwelijke voorouders gepropageerd, zij het echter in kleine percentages. Met uitzondering van Gaius’ moeder Agrippina de Oudere, waarvan haar portret bijna op 15% van Gaius’ munten prijkte, waren de (groot)moeders van deze Julisch-Claudische en Flavische keizers minimaal aanwezig op de muntslag van hun (klein)zonen. In de Severische periode stijgen de munttypen van vrouwelijke voorouders drastisch. De (groot)moeders van Caracalla, Heliogabalus, en Alexander Severus werden met percentages van rond de 15% op de muntslag van de betreffende keizers gepropageerd. Het feit dat deze (groot)moeders nog in leven waren tijdens de regering van hun (klein)zonen zal zeker bijgedragen hebben tot hun sterke aanwezigheid 249 op de keizerlijke muntslag. Na de Severische keizers prijken geen (groot)moeders meer op de muntslag van de Romeinse keizers. Keizer Constantijn zal de eerste zijn die terug zijn moeder Helena op de keizerlijke muntslag afbeeldt. Keizers konden ook fictieve voorouders aanwenden om hun afstamming kracht bij te zetten. Op Galba’s munten prijkte Livia als diva Augusta op verschillende munttypen die in verschillende emissies werden geproduceerd, in totaal 5% van Galba’s totale aantal munttypen. Via zijn adoptiemoeder, Livia Ocellina, was Galba een verre verwant van Livia, en die connectie werd op Galba’s munten uitgespeeld wellicht om deze eerste niet-Julisch- Claudische keizer toch een Julisch-Claudisch afstamming mee te geven. Septimius Severus werd keizer nadat de Antonijnen gedurende drie generaties over het Romeinse rijk hadden geregeerd, en twee kort regerende keizers faalden om een keizerlijke lijn te starten. Hoewel Septimius’ munten eerst Pertinax, de eerste kort regerende keizer na de dood van de laatste Antonijnse keizer, aanhielden als pater en hem herinnerden met consecratio munten, switchten ze al snel met het aanduiden van Septimius als de zoon van Marcus Aurelius en consecratio munten werden geslagen voor diens zoon Commodus. Septimius’ munten verwezen bijgevolg naar Septimius als de rechtmatige opvolger van de Antonijnse keizers. Later zal ook Alexander Severus aan het begin van zijn regering proberen de herinnering met zijn voorganger en adoptievader Heliogabalus uit te vegen door zijn keizerlijke opvolging te legitimeren als bastaardzoon van de Severische keizer Caracalla. Caracalla wordt zo geëerd met een bescheiden aantal consecratio munten. Een gelijkaardige poging om zijn keizerlijke legitimatie te versterken zien we bij de opvolgers van Claudius II Gothicus, Quintillus en Aurelianus. Beide keizerlijke kandidaten vochten om de alleenheerschappij na Claudius’ dood. Aangenomen wordt dat beiden consecratio munten sloegen om hun keizerlijke opvolging te legitimeren. Daarnaast brak in 271 een revolte uit onder het personeel van de Romeinse munt, geleid door een zekere Felicissimus. Om duidelijke redenen konden deze rebellen geen muntenafbeeldingen van de regerende keizer gebruiken, maar het blijft intrigerend waarom ze dan wel voor consecratio munten voor Claudius II Gothicus kozen. Het kan zijn dat de muntstempels van deze consecratio munten nog rondslingerden waardoor ze gemakkelijk herbruikt konden worden. Bovendien herinnerden deze consecratio typen aan de stabiele tijden onder Claudius wat een beloftevolle boodschap was tijdens deze woelige opstand. Een vijftigtal jaar later, tussen 317 en 318, werd Claudius’ herinnering weer gebruikt door Constantijn, die maar al te graag zich verbond met deze keizer om zijn eigen keizerlijke legitimatie te verstevigen. Munten voor divus Claudius II Gothicus werden geslagen in een herinneringsserie voor drie voormalige keizers, waarnaast ook Constantijns vader en 250 schoonvader, divus Constantius en divus Maximianus Herculius, opgenomen waren. Deze keizerlijke serie gaf Constantijn de legale autoriteit om te regeren via zijn dynastieke keizerlijke erfenis in plaats van de tetrarchische politieke institutie. Munttypen konden dus geslagen worden voor de biologische en adoptievoorouders van de keizer, en ook fictieve voorouders konden op de munten gerepresenteerd worden om de regerende keizer een keizerlijke link te bezorgen. Daarnaast waren er ook keizers die munten van vorige keizers of keizerlijke familieleden uitgaven, de zogenaamde restitutiemunten. Op deze munten stonden de legende REST((nV)IT) wat benadrukte dat deze munten heruitgaven waren van oudere munten van enerzijds keizers en anderzijds Republikeinse muntmeesters. De functie van de restitutiemunten is fel bediscussieerd door wetenschappers. Opgesomd zijn er vier grote verklaringsredenen voor het bestaan van de restitutiemunten: i) de restitutiemunten werden geslagen met doel om historische feiten en personen op de munten te herinneren; ii) de restitutiemunten plaatsten de keizer, onder wiens autoriteit deze munten geslagen waren, in lijn van zijn keizerlijke voorgangers met doel om zijn keizerschap te legitimeren en te verheerlijken; iii) de restitutiemunten waren geslagen voor een numismatisch publiek, die de historische relevantie van deze munten begreep; iv) ten slotte zouden de restitutiemunten kunnen geslagen zijn om de republikeinse en keizerlijke typen van weleer te vervangen nadat zij door slijtage uit circulatie verdwenen waren. Titus was de eerste keizer die startte met deze praktijk. Later volgden Domidanus, Nerva, Trajanus, Marcus Aurelius en Lucius Verus, en Trajanus Decius. Titus’ restitutiemunten associeerden hem expliciet met de vorige Julisch-Claudische dynastie, die via Galba, gecontinueerd werd door het Havische huis. De restitutiemunten van Domitianus en Nerva restaureerden enkel typen van divus Augustus, waarmee ze wellicht de eerste princeps wilden herinneren en vereren. Trajanus restaureerde de typen van enkele geselecteerde keizerlijke voorgangers waarbij hij zijn keizerschap waarschijnlijk als laatste in deze lijst plaatste. We mogen hierbij toch niet vergeten dat naast de typen van de keizerlijke voorganger er in Trajanus’ restitutiereeks ook andere keizerlijke typen en zelfs republikeinse typen opgenomen waren. De restitutiemunten zouden zo het voortbestaan van - voor Trajanus belangrijke - munttypen kunnen garanderen na de systematische intrekking van oudere munten onder zijn regering. Een honderdtal jaar later, werd er onder Trajanus Decius een restitutiereeks geslagen van elf vergoddelijkte keizers, startend bij divus Augustus. Naast economische redenen, waarbij deze restitutiemunten winst opleverden voor Decius’ schatkist, weerspiegelde de restitutiereeks ook een keizerlijke canon waarin Decius de keizerlijst vervolledigde. Bovendien was Decius’ 251 regering getekend door traditionalisme waarin zijn reeks vergoddelijkte keizers paste in zijn pogingen om de oude Romeinse religie te laten heropleven. In het laatste hoofdstuk wordt de muntrepresentatie van de voorouders van de keizerinnen besproken. Slechts twee keizers verwezen naar de afkomst van hun keizerin, die gaandeweg de ontwikkeling van het keizerschap een belangrijke functie innam in het keizerlijke huis. Claudius’ muntslag verwees naar de ouders van zijn vierde echtgenote Agrippina de Jongere, Germanicus en Agrippina de Oudere. Beiden hadden een familiale band met Augustus wat voor Claudius’ legitimatie zeker een must was. Op een gelijkende manier representeerde Hadrianus zijn schoonmoeder Matidia, die een achternicht van keizer Trajanus was. Het tweede deel van dit proefschrift behandelt de prospectieve verwantschapsboodschappen op de keizerlijke muntslag. Dit deel is in twee hoofdstukken opgesplitst. Een eerste hoofdstuk analyseert de aanwezigheid van keizerlijke zonen en opvolgers op de muntslag, terwijl het tweede hoofdstuk de representatie van de keizerinnen, zussen, nichten, en dochters van de keizers bestudeert. In de keizertijd ontwikkelde zich het idee van een dynastieke opvolging binnenin het keizerlijke huis, en tegelijkertijd ontwikkelde de representatie van keizerlijke opvolgers op de centrale muntslag. Algemeen kan men zeggen dat keizers met een potentiële opvolger de representatie van die opvolger als één van hun hoofdthema’s op hun muntslag maakten. Doorheen de eerste, tweede, en vooral de derde eeuw steeg de aanwezigheid van de keizerlijke opvolger op de keizerlijke muntslag. De potentiële opvolgers werden meestal gerepresenteerd als de hoop voor het Rijk en zij symboliseerden bovendien een soort van eeuwige continuïteit van het keizerlijke huis, waardoor zij een vredevolle opvolging konden garanderen zonder bloedige burgeroorlogen. Onder de Juhsch-Claudische dynastie blijkt er geëxperimenteerd te worden met het publieke imago van de keizerlijke opvolger, zowel iconografisch als kwantitatief. Pas later, in de derde eeuw ontwikkelde zich een standaardafbeelding voor de keizerlijke opvolger, die geïnspireerd blijkt op Commodus’ munttypen die door zijn vader Marcus Aurelius geslagen waren. Er was wel een iconografisch verschil tussen jongere en oudere opvolgers. Jongere opvolgers werden meestal als principes iuventutis afgebeeld. In de eerste en tweede eeuw verwezen hun afbeeldingen naar de Romeinse ridders die hen betitelden, terwijl in de derde eeuw hun militaire kwaliteiten nog meer benadrukt werden. Verder waren spes, hilaritas, en pietas de meest voorkomende deugden die met deze opvolgers geassocieerd werden, en soms was de 252 verwantschapsterm filius aan hun munflegende toegevoegd om hun verwantschap met de regerende keizer te benadrukken. Oudere opvolgers, die vanaf de derde eeuw ook vaak de co- Augusti van hun vaders werden, kregen meer abstractere afbeeldingen, waarbij naar hun latere keizerlijke functie verwezen werd, zoals militaire orders uitvoeren of donativa uitdelen. Met uitzondering van Marcus Aurelius werden deze opvolgers in hun muntlegendes niet meer als “de zoon van de keizer” aangeduid. Wanneer een keizer meer dan één zoon had werd er op de munttypen een klaarblijkelijk verschil gemaakt tussen de oudste zoon en zijn jongere broers. De oudste zoon, die meestal ook de co-Augustus van zijn vader werd, werd meer geadverteerd dan zijn jongere broers, en zijn munticonografie duidde hem duidelijk aan als de aangewezen toekomstige keizer. De prominente muntrepresentatie van de oudste keizerlijke zoon is opmerkelijk omdat de Romeinse samenleving het begrip van eerstgeboorterecht niet kende. Bijna alle gerepresenteerde potentiële opvolgers waren ofwel biologische ofwel adoptie zonen van de keizer. De biologische zonen werden het meeste geadverteerd tijdens de regering van hun vader, terwijl de adoptiezonen eerder beperkt op hun adoptievaders’ muntslag aanwezig waren of zij werden enkel aan het einde van die zijn regering sterk gepropageerd. Dit verschil suggereert dat de advertentie van bloedverwantschap als een sterkere notie in de keizerlijke opvolging werd aanzien dan de representatie van geadopteerde opvolgers. Hoewel volgens de Romeinse wetten politieke ambten niet erfbaar waren, begon het idee van een dynastieke opvolging meer en meer bijval te krijgen vanaf de tweede helft van de eerste eeuw, vooral onder de Romeinse troepen. Het grote aantal munttypen geslagen voor de keizers’ biologische zonen vanaf Vespasianus’ regering zouden kunnen suggereren dat bloedverwantschap een prominente rol begon te spelen in de machtsoverdracht. Deze rol werd zelfs groter onder Marcus Aurelius, gevolgd door Septimius Severus, waarna de biologische zonen standaard op de derde-eeuwse muntslag voorkwamen. Meer nog, sommige keizerlijke typen herinnerden de overleden biologische zonen van de keizers. Hoewel deze zonen hun vaders niet meer konden opvolgen, bleken zij op indirecte wijze de goddelijke steun en vruchtbaarheid van de keizerlijke familie te symboliseren. Met uitzondering van Marcus Aurelius en Hostilianus werden de geadopteerde zonen marginaal gerepresenteerd tijdens de regering van hun adoptievaders. Hun representatie werd ook enkel expliciet na hun adoptie wat meestal aan het einde van de regering van hun adoptievaders gebeurde. Toch ziet het er naar uit dat deze adoptievaders twijfelden om hun adoptiezonen op hun muntslag te adverteren. Verschillende redenen kunnen hiervoor gegeven worden. Ten eerste, de representatie van zonen en opvolgers botste met de republikeinse 253 representatie gewoontes wat de gelimiteerde en experimentele representatie van de Julisch- Claudische adoptiezonen, en misschien ook de Flavische, zou kunnen verklaren. Voor dezelfde redenen was wellicht de muntrepresentatie van Drusus de Jongere en Britannicus, twee biologische Julisch-Claudische zonen, gelimiteerd. Ten tweede konden adoptiezonen, zeker diegene met keizerlijke verwantschap, potentiële kanshebbers zijn om de troon van hun adoptievaders over te nemen zonder op hun dood te wachten, waardoor ze niet al te veel op de muntslag van hun adoptievaders geadverteerd werden. Toch de adoptievaders konden ook niet naast het feit dat een geadopteerde opvolger hun positie versterkte. Ten slotte verkondigden de typen voor de geadopteerde zonen Aelius Verus en Antoninius Pius hun adopties onder de Romeinen als deel van Hadrianus’ groter opvolgingsplan, waar zij de baanbrekers waren voor Marcus Aurelius die hun als keizer zou moeten opvolgen. Het is daarom logisch dat hun muntrepresentatie gering was. Wellicht was de gelimiteerde muntrepresentatie van Lucius Verus onder Antoninus Pius een gelijkende tactiek om zijn adoptiebroer Marcus Aurelius vrij te kunnen adverteren. Marcus Aurelius werd zeer intensief gerepresenteerd op Pius’ muntslag, waarbij het zeer duidelijk is dat hij voorbestemd was om Pius’ keizerlijke positie op te volgen. Marcus Aurelius was niet alleen Pius’ adoptiezoon, hij was ook zijn neef via Pius’ huwelijk en hij was getrouwd met Pius’ oudste dochter, waardoor zijn kinderen Pius’ bloed deelden. Dit voorbeeld laat zien dat bloedverwantschap alweer een belangrijke rol in het keizerschap innam. Ook Hostilianus’ bloedverwantschap met de vorige keizer Decius verklaart wellicht waarom zijn keizerlijke opvolger Gallus hem zo intensief op zijn muntslag representeerde. Drie Caesares waren geen geadopteerde of biologische zonen van de regerende keizer: Domitianus was een keizerlijke zoon, maar niet van een regerende; Clodius Albinus was een potentiële tegenstander van de regerende keizer; en Gordianus UI kreeg de rang van Caesar omdat hij afstamde van het keizerlijke huis van de Gordiani. Ook zij werden met verwantschapstermen aangeduid op hun munttypen op een gelijkende manier als bij biologische en adoptiezonen alsof het vanzelfsprekend was dat de verwachte opvolger van de regerende keizer met hem verwant moest zijn. Het tweede hoofdstuk bestudeert de muntrepresentatie van de keizerinnen, zussen, nichten, en dochters van de keizer. Gedurende het Romeinse rijk ontwikkelde de representatie van deze keizerlijke vrouwen van een stadium waarin zij zeer gelimiteerd werden afgebeeld tot een stadium waar zij standaard deel uitmaakten van de keizerlijke muntslag. Elke keizer representeerde zijn keizerin en andere keizerlijke vrouwen met meer of mindere traditionele afbeeldingen, waarbij er soms innovatieve experimenten opdoken die zich ontwikkelden tot standaardafbeeldingen. 254 Tijdens de Julisch-Claudische en Flavische periode was de representatie van de keizerinnen, zussen, nichten, en dochters van de keizer gelimiteerd, en soms zelfs bijna afwezig. De boodschappen van deze munttypen zijn interessant omdat zij meer informatie kunnen geven over de rollen die deze vrouwen opnamen in de keizerlijke representatie, en zij geven ook hints over de formatie van de keizerlijke familie. Veelal werden de keizerinnen geëerd voor hun goede huwelijk met de keizer. Deze boodschap werd door de Romeinen als zeer belangrijk beschouwd, want een stabiel keizerlijk huwelijk werd als een garantie gezien voor de gezondheid en welzijn van de Romeinse staat Sommige munttypen adverteerden de Augusteïsche afkomst van de vrouwen wat erop duidt dat de keizerlijke bloedlijn al vanaf het begin van de keizertijd een belangrijke rol speelde. Verder konden de Julisch-Claudische en Flavische vrouwen ook als moeders en weldoensters geadverteerd worden. Vooral de keizerlijke zussen en dochters werden gepresenteerd als weldoensters die instonden voor concordia, fortuna, pax, salus en securitas. De afbeeldingen om deze boodschappen uit te drukken waren zeer divers alsof er geëxperimenteerd werd om een standaardafbeelding te creëren. Na een korte onderbreking werden er terug keizerlijke vrouwen op de muntslag afgebeeld, meer bepaald onder Trajanus’ regering, vanaf 112. Voor Plotina en Sabina was hun goede huwelijk met de keizer de hoofdboodschap. Hun reproductieve rol in de keizerlijke opvolging werd niet benadrukt wellicht omdat zij beide geen kinderen hadden gebaard. Matidia, Trajanus’ nicht, werd wel geloofd om haar moederlijke rol, en dit met innovatieve typen die zelfs gekopieerd werden voor latere keizerinnen en andere vrouwelijke familieleden. Ook Trajanus’ zus, Marciana, kreeg muntaandacht. Als zus van de keizer kreeg ze afbeeldingen in stijl van vorige keizerlijke vrouwen, maar ook nieuwe typen werden voor haar gecreëerd. Die innovatieve typen werden later geïmiteerd en ontwikkelden tot standaardafbeeldingen. Hoewel deze Trajaanse en Hadriaanse vrouwen gelimiteerd gerepresenteerd werden suggereert hun aanwezigheid als ook de standaardisatie van hun afbeeldingen dat de keizerlijke familie meer en meer als een eenheid geformaliseerd werd tijdens de tweede eeuw. In de tweede helft van de tweede eeuw werd het een standaardgewoonte om munten te slaan voor keizerinnen en andere vrouwelijke leden van de keizerlijke familie. Hun aantal munttypen verhoogde ook. De typen van de keizerinnen loofden hun huwelijken en hun vruchtbaarheid. Ook de moederrollen van de keizerlijke dochters en de vrouwen van de potentiële opvolger werden gepropageerd, en bovendien werd het huwelijk van de potentiële opvolger bejubeld. Iconografisch volgden hun typen de afbeeldingen van de Trajaanse en 255 Hadriaanse vrouwen waaruit blijkt dat deze afbeeldingen tot standaarden ontwikkeld waren. Daarnaast werden er ook nieuwe afbeeldingen geïntroduceerd om de harmonieuze keizerlijke huwelijken en de moederlijke rol van de keizerlijke vrouwen uit te beelden. Vanaf Faustina de Jongere groeide het aantal munttypen dat verwees naar de rol van de keizerin als weldoenster. In het bijzonder werd de connectie van de keizerin met de Romeinse troepen benadrukt met de innovatieve legende mater castrorum en militaire munttypen. Het idee dat de keizerin een nauwe band kon hebben met het Romeinse leger, wat toch een mannelijk instituut was, versterkte de representatie van het keizerlijke koppel die één en hetzelfde doel steunde, het Romeinse rijk. Aan het einde van de tweede eeuw werden niet enkel de keizerinnen uitbundig geadverteerd op de munten, ook de keizerlijke dochters en de vrouwen van de potentiële opvolgers kregen meer en meer aandacht op de keizerlijke muntslag. Zelfs de dood van de laatste Antonijnse keizer, Commodus, deed dit proces niet stoppen, want de Antonijnse keizerlijke muntrepresentatie werd overgenomen onder Didius Julianus en Septimius Severus. Na de regering van Septimius Severus ontwikkelde zich er andere representatiepatronen voor de vrouwelijke leden van de keizerlijke familie. De keizerinnen onder Caracalla, Macrinus, Heliogabalus, Alexander Severus, Balbinus en Pupienus, en de Gordiani waren gelimiteerd geadverteerd of waren zelfs afwezig van de keizerlijke muntslag. Andere vrouwelijke keizerlijke familieleden als de keizerinnen en de keizerlijke (groot)moeders waren totaal afwezig op de keizerlijke muntslag. De enige uitzondering tijdens deze periode is de intensieve, maar korte, postume muntslag voor diva Paulina, de overleden echtgenote van Maximinus Thrax. Vanaf de regering van Philippus Arabs werd de aanwezigheid van de keizerinnen weer prominent op de keizerlijke muntslag. De keizerinnen kregen zelfs één of meerdere officinae die exclusief voor hun munttypen verantwoordelijk was. Hun munttypen verheerlijkten hun huwelijk met de keizer waarbij ze meestal de handen schudden met de keizer. Als de keizerin kinderen gebaard had kreeg ze moedertypen, en hier en daar waren er typen die de keizerin loofden als weldoenster. Naast de keizerinnen werden er geen typen voor de andere keizerlijke vrouwen geslagen, hoewel het statistisch onmogelijk is dat de keizer in de tweede helft van de derde eeuw geen zussen, dochters of nichten had. Het is daarom wellicht mogelijk dat deze keizerlijke familieleden uit de keizerlijke representatie weggelaten waren zodat de keizerlijke representatie in de chaotische derde eeuw zich volledig kon focussen op de keizerlijke kemfamilie met de keizer, zijn echtgenote en zijn potentiële opvolger. 256 Appendices A.1. Images Coins are chosen as representative for specifïc types. Unless stated otherwise, courtesy for these images is given by the Trustees of the British Museum (BM), Classical Numismatic Group, Inc.: cngcoins.com (CNG), the Goethe Universitat Frankfurt am Main (Frankfurt), Numismatica Ars Classica: arsclassicacoins.com (NAC AG), and wildwinds.com (WW). Because the iconographical elements on the illustrated specimens have to be discemible for the reader, the images are often magnified, and thus not to scale. I: Seated divi 1. RIC F Tiberius 49: Sestertius for divus Augustus. The 2. RIC F Vitellius 94: Aureus with Vitellius’ father, Lucius obverse displays a seated divus Augustus with an altar in the Vitellius, displayed seated on the reverse with the legend L background. The letters SC are engraved on the reverse. The VITELLIVS COS Hl CENSOR. On the obverse the head o f legends read DIVVS AVGVSTVS PATER and TI CAESAR emperor Vitellius with the legend A VITELLIVS GERM DIVI AVG F AVGVST PM TR POT XXim (NAC AG IMP AVG TR P (BM). 72.581 (16.05.2013)).______ 3. RIC II2 Titus 260: Sestertius for divus Vespasianus. The 4. RIC IP Titus 403: Titus’ restored sestertius of Tiberius for obverse displays a seated divus Vespasianus, accompanied divus Augustus, displaying a seated divus Augustus with the by the legend DIVVS AVGVSTVS VESP. The letters SC legend DIVVS AVGVSTVS PATER. The reverse displays are engraved on the reverse with the legend: IMP T CAES the legend IMP T CAES DIVI VESP F AVG P M TR P P P DIVI VESP G AVG P M TR P P P COS V m (WW). COS VIII around large SC and REST (BM).______ 5. RIC II Trajan 252: Denarius for divus Traianus Pater, 6. RIC II Hadrian 627b: Sestertius for divus Traianus. The seated on the reverse surrounded by the legend DIW S obverse reads IMP CAESAR TRAIANVS HADRIANVS PATER TRAIAN. On the obverse the legend IMP AVG and displays the bust of Hadrian. The reverse portrays TRAIANVS AVG GER DAC P M TR P COS V IP P around a seated divus Traianus with the legend DIVVS TRAIAN the bust of Trajan (WW).______AVG PARTH PATER SC (WW).______ 257 7. RIC II Hadrian, p. 471: Sestertius for divus Hadrianus. 8. RIC Dl Marcus Aurelius 442: Denarius for divus The obverse portrays divus Hadrianus with the legend Antoninus Pius. The obverse legend D IW S ANTONINVS D IW S HADRIAN VS AVG. On the reverse Hadrian is is written around the bust of Pius, while on the reverse Pius seated, holding a sceptre and a laurel branch (BM). is seated, holding a sceptre and branch and identified by the legend DIVOPIO(BM ).______ II: Confronting busts of parents 1. RIC II Trajan 726: Aureus of Trajan with his portrait and 2. RIC II Hadrian 232B: Aureus of Hadrian, displaying his the legend IMP TRAIANO AVG GER DAC P M TR P COS DIVIS PARENTIBVS, Trajan and Plotina, with stars on VI P P. The reverse displays the busts of divus Nerva and their heads. On the obverse, Hadrian is portrayed with the Traianus Pater, facing each other. The reverse legend reads legend HADRIAN VS AVGVSTVS PP (BM). DIVI NERVA ET TRAIANVS PAT (BM).______ III: Types displaying the transfer of power 1. RIC n 2 Titus 162: Sestertius of Titus 2. RIC II Trajan 28b: Denarius of 3. RIC II Hadrian 3a: Aureus of with the legend IMP T CAES VESP Trajan with his portrait and the Hadrian with his portrait and legend: AVG P M TR P P P COS VIH on the legend IMP NERVA CAES IMP CAES TRAIAN HADRIANO obverse. The reverse displays Vespasian TRAIAN AVG GERM P M TR P OPT AVG GER DAC PARTH3C DIVI with radiated crown handing over a globe COS II P P. The reverse, with the TRAIAN AVG F P M TR P COS P P. to Titus, both holding a roll over a rudder. legend PROVID below, displays The reverse displays Trajan and The reverse legend reads PROVIDENT Trajan, in military dress, receiving Hadrian clasping right hands, with the AVGVST SC (BM). globe from Nerva, in toga and with a legend ADOPTIO below (BM). roll (CNG 61.1725 (25.09.2002)). 258 IV: Elephant cart-types F Nero 6: Aureus of Nero and Agrippina. The obverse Augustus. The obverse with legend DIVO AVGVSTO displays the jugate busts of Nero and Agrippina, and the legend SPQR displays the statue of Augustus, holding a laurel NERO CLAVD DIVI F CAES AVG GERM IMP TR P COS branch and a sceptre, on a cart drawn by elephants with surrounding the imperial portraits. The reverse displays an riders. The reverse displays the following legend elephant cart, bearing two chairs in which are seated divus suirounding a large SC: TT CAESAR DIVI AVG F Claudius, holding an eagle-tipped sceptre, and divus Augustus AVGVST P M TR POT XXXVII (CNG, Triton VHI.986). (or Fides Praetorianorum), holding a patera and a sceptre. The reverse legend reads AGRIPP AVG DIVI CLAVD NERONIS /~»AT7C \**frnn ivm iD R ^mvi) .______ 3. RIC W Titus 257: Sestertius of Titus for divus 4. RIC IP Domitian 718: Aureus for diva Iulia Augusta with Vespasianus. The obverse with legend DIVO AVG VESP her portrait and legend DIVA IVLIA AVGVSTA on the displays the statue of Vespasian, holding a statue of Victoria obverse. The reverse displays her statue on a cart drawn by and a sceptre, on an elephant cart with riders. Reverse legend two elephants with riders. (NAC AG 24.55 (05.12.2002)). suirounding large SC: IMP T CAES DIVI VESP F AVG P M TR P P P COS V ni (CNG, Triton Vm.1008).______ 5. RIC II Trajan 750: Sestertius for diva Marciana with her 6. RIC m Marcus Aurelius 1274: Sestertius of Marcus portrait and legend DIVA AVGVSTA MARCIANA on the Aurelius for divus Pius, portraying his bust on the obverse obverse. The reverse depicts the statue of Marciana, holding with the legend DIVVS ANTONINVS. The reverse displays com-ears and a long vertical torch, on a cart drawn by two the statue of Pius seated on an elephant cart with riders and 7. RIC III Marcus Aurelius 1508: Sestertius of Marcus 8. RIC III Commodus 661: Sestertius of Commodus for divus Aurelius for divus Verus. The obverse portrays Verus, bare- Marcus Aurelius. The obverse displays Marcus with the headed, with the legend D IW S VERVS. The reverse legend D IW S M ANTONINVS PIVS. The reverse displays displays the statue of Verus in shrine on an elephant cart the statue of Marcus Aurelius seated in a shrine on an with riders. CONSECRATIO and the letters SC are engraved elephant cart with riders and the legend CONSECRATIO. on the reverse (BM).______The letters SC are engraved below (BM).______ 259 V: CONSECRATIO-types II Hadrian 425a: Denarius for 3. RIC II Hadrian 427: Denarius AVGVSTA MARCIANA, displaying the DIVA AVGVSTA MATIDIA, for DIVA AVGVSTA MATIDIA, bust of Marciana on the obverse, and an displaying the bust of Matidia on the displaying the bust of Matidia on eagle, wings spread, on the reverse. The obverse, and an eagle, wings spread, on the obverse, and Pietas standing, reverse legend reads CONSECRATIO the reverse. The reverse legend reads and dropping incense onto altar (BM). CONSECRATIO (BM). on the reverse. The reverse legend reads PIETAS AVG (BM), 4. RIC II Hadrian 420a: Denarius for 5. RIC ü Hadrian 422c: 6. RIC II Hadrian 418b: Aureus for DIVA DIVA AVG SABINA, displaying the bust Denarius for DIVA AVG AVG SABINA, displaying the bust of Sabina of Sabina on the obverse, and an eagle, SABINA, displaying the on the obverse, and an eagle bearing Sabina wings spread, on the reverse. The reverse bust of Sabina on the skyward on the reverse. The reverse legend legend reads CONSECRATIO (BM). obverse, and an altar on the reads CONSECRATIO (BM). reverse. The reverse legend reads PIETATI AVG (BM). 7. RIC II Hadrian 389A: 8. RIC II Hadrian 389B: 9. RIC III Lucius Verus & 10. RIC III Lucius Verus & Aureus for DIVVS Denarius for DIVVS Marcus Aurelius 1266: Marcus Aurelius 440: HADRIAN VS AVG, HADRIAN VS Sestertius for D IW S Denarius for DIVVS displaying Hadrian on the AVGVSTVS, displaying ANTONINVS, displaying ANTONINVS, displaying obverse, and an eagle Hadrian on the obverse, and Antoninus Pius on the Antoninus Pius on the bearing Hadrian skyward on an eagle standing on a globe obverse, and a funeral pyre obverse, and a column with the reverse. The reverse on the reverse. The reverse of four tiers surmounted by a Antoninus’ statue on the legend reads legend reads quadriga on the reverse. The reverse. Reverse legend: CONSECRATIO (BM). CONSECRATIO (BM). reverse legend reads DIVO PIO (BM). CONSECRATIO and SC (BM).______ 260 VI: Confronting busts of sons and mothers 1. RIC I2 Nero 1: Aureus portraying the confronting busts of 2. RIC IV.B. Alexander Severus 661: As or Dupondius Nero and Agrippina Iunior, surrounded by the legend (medallion?) portraying the confronting busts of Alexander AGRIPP AVG DIVI CLAVD NERONIS CAES MATER. Severus and Julia Mamaea, surrounded by the legend IMP The reverse displays the letters EX SC within an oak-wreath, SEVERVS ALEXANDER AVG IVLIA MAMAEA AVG surrounded by the legend NERONI CLAVD DIVI F CAES MAT AVG. The reverse displays Alexander, togate, holding AVG GERM IMP TR P (BM). globe and scroll, seated on curule chair, crowned by Victory. Before him, Felicitas, holding long caduceus in right hand, and another draped female figure, leaning right hand on sceptre. The reverse legend reads FELICITAS TEMPORVM (BM).______ VII: Carpentum-types 1. RIC l2 Tiberius 52: Sestertius of Tiberius, displaying a 2. RIC P Gaius 55: Sestertius of Gaius for Agrippina Maior carpentum for Julia Augusta (Livia) with the legend SPQR displaying her portrait and the legend AGRIPPINA M F IVLIAE AVGVSTAE above. On the reverse the legend TI MAT C CAESARIS AVGVSTI on the obverse and her CAESAR DIVI AVG F AVGVST P M TR POT XXHII carpentum on the reverse, with the legend SPQR suurounds a large SC (Frankfurt).______MEMORIAE AGRIPPINAE (BM).______ 3. RIC P Claudius 102: Sestertius for Agrippina Iunior 4. RIC IP Titus 262: Sestertius for Domitilla Maior, identified as AGRIPPINA AVG GERMANICI F displaying a carpentum with the legend MEMORIAE CAESARIS AVG. The reverse displays a carpentum drawn DOMITILLAE above. On the reverse the legend IMP T by two mules (BM). CAES DIVI VESP F AVG P M TR P P P COS VIH surrounds a large SC (Frankfurt).______ 261 5. RIC IP Domitian 458: Sestertius for 6. RIC II Trajan 746: Denarius for 7. RIC m Antoninus Pius 389: Aureus Julia Flavia, displaying a carpentum for Marciana, portraying DIVA for Faustina Maior, displaying her DIVAE IVLIAE AVG DIVI TITI F, AVGVSTA MARCIANA on the portrait with the legend DIVA below the legend SPQR. On the reverse obverse, and displaying her carpentum AVGVSTA FAVSTINA on the the legend IMP CAES DOMIT AVG on the reverse. Reverse legend obverse, and displaying her carpentum GERM COS XV CENS PER P P CONSECRATIO (Frankfurt). with the letters EX SC below on the surrounds a large SC (Frankfurt).______reverse, (BM)______ VIII: Adopted (grand)sons 1. RIC ITI Antoninus Pius 2. RIC IV.B. Alexander Severus 2: Denarius 3. RIC IV.C. Trajan Decius 222: Sestertius for 93: Aureus of Antoninus for Alexander Severus with his draped Hostilianus with Hostilianus’ portrait on the Pius with on the reverse portrait and the legend M AVR obverse. The reverse legend reads QVINTO Antoninus Pius in a ALEXANDER CAES on the obverse. The FELIX. The reverse fïgure is a woman (Pax or quadriga accompanied by reverse displays a woman (Spes ?) holding a Spes?) with a branch or a flower in her hand his adopted sons Lucius flower with the legend reading (with courtesy of Richard Beale: Verus and Marcus INDVLGENTIA AVG (CNG 58.1259 http ://sonic .net/~rbeale/mysite/Hostilian). Aurelius (BM). (18.09.2001».______ 1. RIC F Tiberius 43: Sestertius for Drusus Caesar with 2. RIC I2 Tiberius 42: Sestertius for Drusus Caesar with his Pietas on the obverse, veiled and diademed, with the legend twin sons on the obverse, seated in comucopiae. Between PIETAS undemeath her. On the reverse, the letters SC them, a winged messenger caduceus. On the reverse, the surrounded with the legend DRVSVS CAESAR TI letters SC surrounded with the legend DRVSVS CAESAR AVGVSTI F TR POT ITER (BM). ______TI AVG F DIVI AVG N PONT TR POT II (BM).______ 3. RIC I2 Tiberius 45: As for Drusus with his portrait and 4. RIC F Augustus 469: As for Tiberius with his portrait and legend DRVSVS CAESAR TI AVG F DIVI AVG N the legend TI CAESAR AVG F IMPERAT V PONTIFEX PONTIF TRIBVN POTEST ITER. On the reverse, the TRIBVN POTESTATE XII. On the reverse, the letters SC letters SC are engraved in the centre (BM).______are engraved in the centre (CNG, Triton VIII.989).______ 262 5. RIC m Marcus Aurelius 597: Aureus for Commodus with 6. RIC IV.C. Philippus Arabs 218a. Aureus for Philippus his portrait and legend COMMODO CAES AVG FIL Iunior with his portrait and legend M IVL PHILIPPVS GERM. The reverse displays Commodus in toga seated on a CAES. On the reverse stands Philippus Iunior in military platform, extending his right hand. In front of him Liberalitas dress, holding a sceptre and a globe. The reverse legend standing holding a coin-scoop and a cornucopia. A Citizen reads PRINCIPIIV ENT (Frankfurt (black&white image)). stands on the steps to the platform to receive coins. The reverse legend reads LIBERALITAS AVG (BM).______ 1. RIC IV.B. Macrinus 79: Aureus of Macrinus with on the 8. RIC n 2 Domitian 132: Sestertius for Domitia with her obverse his portrait and legend IMP C M OPEL SEV portrait and legend DOMITIA AVG IMP CAES DIVI F MACRINVS AVG. The reverse displays Macrinus and DOMITIAN AVG. The reverse displays Domitia seated, Diadumenianus, both togate, seated on curule chairs on a extending her hand to a child standing left on her left, and platform, extending right hands. In front of them stands holding a sceptre in her left hand, with the legend DÏVI Liberalitas. Below stands a citizen, stretehing hands out his CAESAR MATRI and the letters SC (BM). hand. The reverse legend reads LIBERALITAS AVG (BM). X: Vespasian’s sons’ types in comparison with former duo types i. RIC W Vespasian 1344: Benanus of 2. RIC ü 2 Vespasian 1429: Denarius of 3. RIC II2 Vespasian 1122: Aureus of Vespasian with Titus and Domitian, Vespasian with on the reverse the Vespasian with on the reverse Titus both togate, holding shields and spears confronting busts of Titus and and Domitian, called Caesares called Caesares Vespasiani Augusti Domitian, called the liberi Vespasiani Principes Iuventutis, riding horseback, Fili on the reverse (BM). Augusti (BM). side by side, with flying capes stretehing out their hands (BM). 4. RIC P Augustus 207: Denarius of 5. RIC I2 Vitellius 103: Denarius of 6. RIC I2 Gaius 34: Sestertius of Gaius Augustus with Gaius and Lucius, called Vitellius with on the reverse the with on the reverse his brothers Nero Caesares Augusti Fili Consules confronting busts of Vitellius’ son and and Drusus Caesar, riding horseback Designati Principes Iuventutis on the daughter, called the Liberi Imperatoris side by side, with flying capes reverse, togate, holding shields and Germaniae (BM). stretehing out their hands (BM). spears. Above them a simpulum and a lituus (BM).______ 263 XI: Caesares who were not the (adopted) son of the emperor 2. RIC IV.C. Gordian Hl 1 var. Denarius of Gordian III, Albinus on the obverse and his legend D CL SEPT ALBIN displayed on the obverse with his legend M ANT CAES. The reverse shows the deity Saeculum Frugiferum on GORDIAN VS CAES. On the reverse PIETAS AVGG with a throne, accompanied by two sphinxes with the legend six priestly implements: lituus, knife, patera, pitcher, SAECVLO FRVGIFERO (BM).______simpulum, and sprinkler (NAC AG 40.799 (16.05.2007)). XII: Empresses 1. RIC P Nero 44: Aureus of Nero with his portrait and 2. RIC m Antoninus Pius 601: Sestertius of Antoninus Pius legend NERO CAESAR AVGVSTVS on the obverse. On with his portrait and the legend ANTONINVS AVG PIVS P the reverse, a male and female figure are standing holding a P TR P COS UI on the obverse. On the reverse the figures of patera. The reverse legend reads AVGVSTVS - AVGVSTA Pius and Faustina Maior clasping hands, and the miniature (BM). figures of Marcus Aurelius and Faustina Iunior clasping hands as well. The reverse legend reads CONCORDIAE (Frankfort (black&white image)). ______ 3. RIC m Antoninus Pius 388: Denarius for diva Faustina 4. RIC m Marcus Aurelius 1665: Sestertius for Faustina with her portrait and the legend DIVA FAVSTINA on the Iunior with her portrait and the legend FAVSTINA obverse. On the reverse, a hexastyle temple dedicated to the AVGVSTA on the obverse. On the reverse her twin boys diva is displayed with the legend DEDICATIO AEDIS sitting on a pulvinar with the legend SAECVLI FELICIT • 5. RIC III Marcus Aurelius 1674: Iunior with her portrait and the legend FAVSTINA Iunior with her portrait and the legend DIVA FAVSTINA AVGVSTA on the obverse. The reverse displays the PIA on the obverse. On the reverse Faustina with flying veil empress with six children and the legend TEMPOR FELIC - riding a biga to the heavens. Reverse legend: SIDERIBVS SC (BM).______RECEPTA (BM). ______ 264 7. RIC m Marcus Aurelius 1660: Sestertius of Faustina 8. RIC Hl Marcus Aurelius 1712: Sestertius for diva Faustina Iunior with her portrait and the legend FAVSTINAE Iunior with her portrait and the legend DIVAE FAVSTINAE AVGVSTAE on the obverse. On the reverse, Faustina PIAE on the obverse. On the reverse, the diva is seated on a sacrifices on a decorated and lighted altar; next to her three throne, holding a radiated phoenix; next to her two military military standards. The reverse legend reads MATRI standards. The reverse legend reads MATRI CASTRORVM CASTRORVM - SC (BM).______- SC (BM).______ 9. RIC IV.A Septimius Severus 567: Aureus for Julia Domna 10. RIC IV.A. Septimius Severus 568: Denarius for Julia with her porlrait and the legend IVLIA AVGVSTA on the Domna with her portrait and the legend IVLIA AVGVSTA obverse. On the reverse, Domna is standing, sacrificing on the obverse. On the reverse, Domna is sitting, holding a from a paterti, holding a box in her left hand; next to her phoenix; next to her two military standards. The legend reads two military standards. The legend reads MATRI MATRI CASTRORVM (V-auctions 265.134 (16.06.2011)). CASTRORVM (BM).______ 11. RIC IV.A. Septimius Severus 367: Denarius for Plautilla 214: Denarius of with her portrait and the legend PLAVTILLA AVGVSTA AVG with her portrait on the obverse. Elagabalus clasping on the obverse. On the reverse stands Pietas holding a child hands with Julia Paula on the reverse. The reverse legend and a sceptre with the legend PIETAS AVGG (CNG 91.173 reads CONCORDIA (CNG 61.1999 (25.09.2002)). (19.09.2012)).______ 13. RIC IV.C. Gordian III 250: Antoninianus for Sabinia 14. RIC IV.C Philippus Arabs 203a: Sestertius for Otacilia Tranquillina with her portrait and the legend SABINIA with her portrait and the legend MARCIA OTACIL SEVERA TRANQVILLINA AVG on the obverse. The reverse AVG on the obverse. On the reverse, Concordia seated, displays Gordian Hl, holding a roll in his left hand and holding patera and double comucopiae, glossed by the clasping hands with Sabinia Tranquillina. The reverse legend CONCORD AVGG - SC (BM). legend reads CONCORDIA AVGG (CNG 64.1175 (24.09.2003)).______ 265 15. RIC V.A. Gallienus and Salonina 2 16. RIC V.A. Salonina Joint 17. RIC IV.A Philippus Arabs 43a (Rome): Aureus for Salonina with her Reign 11 (Rome): Aureus for (Rome): Denarius of Philippus Arabs portrait on the obverse. The legend reads Salonina with her portrait and with his portrait and the legend IMP M SALONINA AVG. On the reverse she is legend SALONINA AVG. The IVL PHILIPPVS AVG on the obverse. depicted facing her husband Gallienus, reverse displays Pietas attended The reverse portrays Philippus Iunior glossed by the legend CONCORDIA AVGG by three children, two in front facing his mother Otacilia. The reverse (Frankfurt (black&white image)). and one under the throne. The legend reads PIETAS AVGG (NAC AG scene is glossed by the legend 64.1247 (17.05.2012)). PIETAS AVGG (NAC AG 52.560(07.10.2009)). 18. RIC V.A. Severina 4 (Rome): Antoninianus for Severina 19. RIC V.A. Severina 10 (Ticinum): Antoninianus for with her portrait (with moustache ?) and the legend Severina with her portrait and the legend SEVERINA AVG SEVERINA AVG on the obverse. On the reverse a female on the reverse. The reverse displays a figure holding two figure holding two military standards, glossed by the legend military standards and a radiated Sol holding a globe. The CONCORDIA MILITVM (BM).______legend reads PROVIDENTIA DEORVM (BM).______ XIII: Imperial daughters, sisters, and nieces 1. RIC P Caligula 33: Sestertius of Gaius with his portrait 2. RIC IP Titus 386: Denarius for Julia Havia with her and the legend C CAESAR AVG GERMANICVS PON M portrait and the legend IVLIA AVGVSTA TITI AVGVSTI TR POT on the obverse. His three sisters on the reverse: F on the obverse. The reverse displays Venus leaning on a Agrippina, Drusilla and Livilla, all holding cornucopiae. column, holding a sceptre and a helmet, with the legend Agrippina leans on a column, Drusilla holds a patera, and VENVS AVG (CNG, Triton Vffl.1120). Livilla holds a rudder (BM).______ 3. RIC II Trajan 724: Denarius for Marciana with her 4. RIC II Trajan 759: Aureus for Matidia with her portrait portrait and the legend MARCIANA AVG SOROR IMP and the legend MATIDIA AVG DIVAE MARCIANAE F TRAIANI CAES AVG GERMA DAC COS VI PP. The on the obverse. The reverse displays Matidia with two reverse displays Matidia with two children and the legend children and the legend reads PIETAS AVGVST (BM). MATIDIA AVG F (NAC AG 27.385 (12.05.2004)).______ 266 A.2. List of emperors from Augustus to Carinus 27 BC - AD 14 Imperator Caesar Augustus AD 1 4 - 3 7 Tiberius Caesar Augustus 3 7 -4 1 Gaius Caesar Germanicus (Caligula) 41-54 Tiberius Claudius Caesar Germanicus 54 - 68 Nero Claudius Caesar Germanicus 68 - 69 Servius Sulpidus Galba Caesar 69 Marcus Salvius Otho Caesar 69 Aulius Vitellius Germanicus 69 - 79 Titus Elavius Imperator Caesar Vespasian 7 9 - 8 1 Titus Flavius Vespasian 81 - 96 Titus Flavius Domitian 96 - 98 Marcus Cocceius Nerva 98 - 117 Marcus Ulpius Nerva Trajan 117 - 138 Publius Aelius Trajan Hadrian 138 - 161 Titus Aelius Hadnan Aurelius Fulvus Boionius A nius - Antoninus Pius 161 - 169 Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Verus 169 - 176 Marcus Aurelius Antoninus 176 - 180 Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus 180 - 192 Lucius Aurelius Commodus 193 Publius Helvius Pertinax 193 Marcus Didius Severus Julianus 193 - 198 Lucius Septimius Severus Pertinax 198 - 208 Lucius Septimius Severus and Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (Caracalla) 208 - 211 Lucius Septimius Severus, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (Caracalla), and Publius Septimius Geta 211 - 212 Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (Caracalla) and Publius Septimius Geta 212 - 217 Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (Caracalla) 217-218 Marcus Opellius Macrinus 218 Marcus Opellius Macrinus and Marcus Opellius Antoninus Diadumenianus 218 - 222 Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (Elagabalus) 222 - 235 Marcus Aurelius Severus Alexander 235 - 238 Didius Julius Verus Maximinus (Thrax) 267 2 3 8 Marcus Antoninus Gordianus Sempronianus Romanus Africanus Senior (Gordian I) and Marcus Antoninus Gordianus Sempronianus Romanus Africanus Iunior (Gordian II) 2 38 Didius Caelius Calvinus Balbinus and Marcus Clodius Pupienus 238 - 244 Marcus Antonius Gordianus (Gordian III) 24 4 _ 248 Marcus Julius Philippus (Arabs) 248 _ 249 Marcus Julius Philippus (Arabs) and Marcus Julius Philippus 249 - 251 Caius Messius Quintus Trajanus Decius 2 5 1 _ 253 Caius Vibius Trebonianus Gallus, Caius Valens Hostillianus, and Caius Vibius Afinius Gallus Veldummianus Volusianus 253 Marcus Aemilius Aemilian 253 - 260 Publius Licinius Valerian and Publius Licinius Gallienus 260 - 268 Publius Licinius Gallienus 268 - 270 Marcus Aurelius Claudius (II Gothicus) 270 Marcus Aurelius Quintillus 270 - 275 Lucius Domitius Aurelian 275 - 276 Marcus Claudius Tacitus 276 Marcus Annius Florianus 276 - 282 Marcus Aurelius Probus 282 - 283 Marcus Aurelius Carus 283 - 284 Marcus Aurelius Numerius Numerianus 283 - 285 Marcus Aurelius Carinus 268 A.3. List of types propagating retrospective and prospective messages with corresponding /?/C-numbers Abbreviations: au - aureus; goldQ = golden quinarius; den = denarius', silverQ = silver quinarius; ant = antoninianus', sest = sestertius; dp = dupondius. Augustus (N=373; 27 BC - AD 14): RIC I2 divi filius (N=82): 154; 155=157; 156; 158; 159=160=161; 162a=162b; 163; 164a=164b; 165a=165b 166a=166b=168; 167a=167b=169; 170; 171a=171b; 172; 173a=173b; 174-175; 176a=176b=177; 178a=178b 179-181; 182=183; 184-185; 186a=186b=188a=188b; 187a=178b=189a=189b; 190a=190b; 191; 192a=192b 193a=193b; 194a=194b; 195-196; 197a=197b; 198-200; 201a=202b; 203; 206; 207=208=210' 209- 211=212 213-217; 219-220; 221=223; 222=224; 225; 228; 231a=231b; 232-234; 290-292; 306-307; 337-340’ 390=391 392=393; 400; 405; 413; 419; 471; 518-520; 544-545. Augustus and divus Iulius (Caesar) (N=8): 37a=37b; 38a=38b; 102; 337-340; 415 (?). Augustus and Gaius Caesar (N=2): 198-199. Augustus, Gaius and Lucius Caesar (N=4): 206; 207=208=210; 209; 211=212. Augustus, Julia, Gaius and Lucius Caesar (N=2): 404-405. Augustus, Julia (N=l): 403 Tiberius (N=15): 221=223; 222=224; 225-226; 235=236a,b; 237=238a,b; 239; 240=241a,b' 244-246- 247=248a,b; 423-424; 469=470. Tiberius (N=62; 14 - 39): RIC P divi Augusti fiBus (N=50): 1-6; 8-12; 14-22; 23=24; 25=27=29; 26=28=30; 32; 33=34=35=36- 38- 39=40- 41- 44; 46-49; 50=51; 52-57; 58=59; 60-63; 64=65; 66; 67-69. Tiberius and divus Augustus (N=8): 23=24; 49; 56-57; 62-63; 68-69. Divus Augustus (N=8): 70; 71=72=73; 74=75=76; 77=78; 79; 80=81; 82-83. Tiberius and SPQRIVLIAE AVGVGSTAE (Livia) (N=l): 50=51. Tiberius and Salus Augusta (Livia?) (N=l): 47. Drusus (N=2): 43; 45. Drusus and his twin boys (N=l): 42. Gaius (N=57; 39 - 41): RIC P divi Augusti nepos (N=16): 39-54. Gaius and templum divi Augusti (N=3): 36; 44; 51. Gaius and divus Augustus (N=10): 3-4; 6; 9-10; 15-16; 23-24; 31. Divus Augustus (N=l): 56. Agrippa (N=l): 58. Gaius and divus Tiberius (?) (N=2): 1-2. Gaius and Germanicus (N=9): 11-12; 17-18; 25-26; 35; 43; 50. Germanicus (N=l): 57. Gaius and Agrippina Maior (N=7): 7-8; 13-14; 21-22; 30. Agrippina Maior (N=l): 55. Gaius and Nero and Drusus Caesar (N=3): 34; 42; 49. Gaius and Gaius’s sisters (N=2): 33; 41. Claudius (N=113; 41 - 54): RIC P Divus Augustus and diva Augusta (Livia) (N=l): 101. Drusus Maior (N=6): 69-74; 89. Claudius and Drusus Maior (N=4): 93; 98; 109; 114. Antonia Iunior (N=4): 65-68. Claudius and Antonia Iunior (N=2): 92; 104. 269 Claudius and Germanicus (N=2): 105-106. Claudius and Agrippina Maior (N=l): 102. Agrippina Iunior (N=2): 75; 103. Claudius and Agrippina Iunior (N=2): 80-81. Nero on Agrippina Iunior’s types (N=l): 75. Nero (N=5): 76-77; 79; 107-108. Claudius and Nero (N=2): 82-83. Spes (- Britannicus ?) (N=2): 99; 115. Nero (N=261; 54 - 68): RIC I2 Claudi divifiïius (N=5): 1=3; 2; 6-7; 10. Nero and divus Claudius and divus Augustus (Fides Praetorianorum ?) (N=2): 6-7. Nero and divus Claudius (N=2): 4-5. Nero and Agrippina Iunior (N=4): 1=3; 2; 6-7. Nero and Poppaea (?) (N=4): 44-45; 56-57. Galba (N=290; 68 - 69): RIC F Caesar title (N=185): 52-64; 65=66; 67; 72; 73=74; 75-76; 80; 83; 117-120; 131=132; 133-135; 136=137; 144; 146=147- 148; 180=183; 181=182; 184=188; 185=186=187=189; 190=191=193; 192; 194=198=203; 195=197=199=200=204; 205=209=210=211=214; 206=208=213; 215=216; 217; 218=219=221; 222; 224-235; 240- 241=244=247; 253=257=258; 256; 266; 267=268=269; 270=271=272; 274; 278=279; 280=283=284; 285; 289-290; 294=295; 300; 302; 304-305; 306=307=308; 309=310; 311-312; 313=314=315; 316-319; 320=321=322=323; 324; 327; 329; 331=332=333=334=335=336=338; 337; 339=340=341=342=344=345; 343: 346=347=349; 348; 350=351=352=354=355=356; 353; 357-360; 361=362; 363=364=365; 366-367; 368=369=370; 371; 372=373; 374=375=376=377=379; 378; 380=381; 382=383=384; 385=386; 387=388=389; 390=391; 392=393=394; 395-396; 397=398=399=402=403; 400=401; 404=405=406=407=408; 409=410; 411=412; 413=415; 414; 416=417=419; 418; 420=421A; 421B-423; 425-426; 428=429; 430; 434=435; 436=437=442- 443; 438=439=440=441; 444=445; 446=447; 450-453; 454=455; 456=457=458; 461-462; 463=464=465; 466=467; 468; 469=470; 471=472=473; 474=476=477=478; 475; 479=480; 481-486; 487=488; 489-492; 493=494=495; 496; 497=498; 499; 500: 501=502=503; 504=505=506; 507=508=509; 510; 511=512=513=514. Galba and diva Augusta (Livia) (N=14): 13=14; 36; 52; 55; 65=66; 67; 142-143; 150=151=152, 184—188, 185=186=187=189; 224; 331=332=333=334=335=336=338. Galba and triad Aeneas, Anchises, and Ascanius (N=l): 483 Otho (N=21; 69): RIC I2 Vitellius (N=138; 69): RIC P Vitellius and Lucius Vitellius (N=ll): 7; 76-77; 94-99; 114; 134=135. Vitellius and liberi Imperatoris Germaniae (N=8): 8; 57; 78-79; 100-103. Vespasian (N=1064; 69 - 79): RIC II2 Titus (N=277): 365-371; 411-413; 414=415; 416-417; 418=419; 420-422; 423=424; 425-426; 427=428; 429=430; 431-435; 436=437=438; 439=440; 441-445; 446=447; 448-451; 452=453; 454-459; 460=461; 462; 463=464; 465-467; 468=469; 470-474; 475=476; 478=479; 480-481; 485; 486-487; 495-500; 501=502; 503- 507; 509-511; 517=518; 519; 528-531; 532=534=535; 533; 536; 551=552; 555-556; 557=558; 562-564; 565=566; 567=568; 569-572; 606; 607=608; 609-613; 614=615; 616; 617=618; 619-620; 621=622; 623-625; 627=628=629; 630-632; 634-635; 636=637; 638; 639=640; 641-644; 690; 692-697; 705-708; 737-741; 742=743; 744=745; 747=749; 748=750; 751-755; 780-786; 804; 805=806=807=808=809=810; 827=828; 829- 830; 856; 858; 857=859; 860; 861=862; 863-865; 866=867; 868=869; 870=871; 872=873; 874; 904-910; 911=912=913; 914=915; 916; 947; 948=949; 950; 951=952; 953-954; 955=956; 971-974; 985-987; 1021=1022=1023; 1024; 1025=1027; 1026; 1028; 1030; 1031=1034; 1032-1033; 1035=1037; 1036; 1038-1039; 1072- 1073=1074; 1075-1078; 1096; 1245-1251; 1252=1253; 1254=1255=1256; 1257; 1258=1259=1560; 1561=1262; 1263=1264; 1265=1266=1267; 1268=1269; 1270=1271=1272; 1273; 1274-1275; 1276-1281; 270 1282=1283; 1284; 1285=1286; 1435=1436; 1437; 1438=1440; 1439; 1441=1442; 1443=1444- 1459-1462- 1468=1469; 1470; 1479; 1481-1488; 1534-1537; 1560-1563. Domitian on Titus’ types (N=5): 418=419; 455; 472; 473; 486=487. Vespasian and Titus (N=8): 701; 1528-1531; 1523=1524; 1544; 1549. Domitian (N=107): 488-489; 491-492; 493=494; 537; 538=540; 539=541; 559-561; 645-646; 647=648; 649- 650; 651=652; 653; 654=655=656; 657; 658=659; 660=661; 662; 663=664; 665=666; 667=668; 669=670; 671- 672; 674=675; 676=677=678; 679-680; 787-788; 789-791; 811-812; 831-832; 833=834; 835; 836=837; 875; 917; 918=919; 920; 921=922; 923; 924=925; 926; 927=928; 929; 931-932; 934; 957=958; 959-960; 961=962; 975-976; 1040=1041; 1042-1047; 1049=1050; 1051-1056; 1080-1083; 1084=1085; 1086; 1087=1088; 1089; 1097-1103; 1288-1289; 1290=1291=1292; 1293=1294; 1445-1447; 1448=1449; 1488-1489; 1492-1496; 1538. Vespasian and Domitian (N=3): 372; 490; 888. Vespasian, Titus and Domitian (N=45): 5-6; 13; 15-16; 37; 54-56; 64; 66; 142=143=144=146=147=148=149=150=151=152=153=154; 145; 1122-1126; 1132-1133; 1185=1886; 1301- 1302; 1318; 1320-1321; 1344; 1362-1364; 1376-1378; 1387; 1395; 1401-1405; 1410-1411; 1417=1418' 1419=1420; 1424; 1429-1430; 1548. Titus (N=284; 79 - 81): RIC W divi Vespasiani film s (N=33): 257=258; 259; 260=261; 262=263; 264; 399=400=401=402=403; 405=406; 407=408; 409-410; 411=412=413; 414=415; 416; 417=418; 419-421; 422=423; 424=425; 426=427; 429-430; 431=432=433=434; 435=436; 437; 438=439=440=441=442=443; 444; 498-499; 500=501; 502-504; 505=506. Divus Vespasianus (N=25): 356-367; 369-372; 373=374; 375=376; 377-379; 380=381; 382-384. Titus und divus Vespasianus (N=5): 161=162; 256; 257=258; 259; 260=261. Titus and diva Domitilla M aior (N=2): 262=263; 264. Domitian (N=69): 58-60; 83-88; 96-99; 265-271; 272=273; 274-278; 279=280; 281-287; 288=289=290=291- 292=293; 294=295=296=297; 298=299=300; 301-302; 303=304; 305=306; 307=308; 309=310; 311=312; 313=314=315; 316=317=318; 319=320; 321=322=323; 324=325; 326=327; 328-329; 330=331; 332=333=334; 335=336=337=338=339=340; 341=342; 343=344; 345=346=347=348; 349=350=351; 352-355: 507=508- 509=510; 511-513. Titus and Domitian (N=l): 159=160. Julia (N=10): 385; 386=387; 388-390; 391=392; 393; 394=395; 396; 397=398. Titus and Julia (N=2): 505=506; 514. Restoration series (N=42): 399=400=401=402=403; 405=406; 407=408; 409-410; 411=412=413; 414=415; 416; 417=418; 419-421; 422=423; 424=425; 426=427=428; 429-430; 431=432=433=434; 435=436; 437; 438=439=440=441=442=443; 444; 445=446; 447=448; 449=450=454=455=457; 451=452; 456; 458=460=461=464=465=466=468=469; 459; 562; 563=467; 470-471; 472=473=474=475=476=477; 478=479- 480=482; 481; 483=484=487=488=489; 485=490; 486; 496-497. Domitian (N=536; 81 - 96): RIC II2 divi Vespasiani fittus (N=44): 11; 17; 39; 44-45; 49-50; 55; 59; 63; 71-72; 75; 76=77; 78=78A=79; 80=81; 82=83=84=85; 86; 87=88; 89=90; 103=104; 105=106; 107=108=109; 110=111; 113=114; 126-127- 201-202- 205-207; 208=209=210; 211; 831-840. Divus Vespasianus on diva Domitilla Maior’s type (N=l): 146. Diva Domitilla Maior on divus Vespasian’s type (N=l): 146. Diva Domitilla Maior (N=l): 157. Divus Titus (N=3): 128; 129=130; 131. Domitian and divus Titus (N=2): 126-127. Divus Titus on Julia Flavia’s types (N=l): 147. Julia Flavia on divus Titus’ types (N=l): 147. Domitian and diva Iulia (N=3): 717-718; 760. Diva Julia (N=l): 683=684. Domitia (N=14): 132=133; 134=135; 136; 148-149; 150-153; 155. Domitian and Domitia (N=2): 678-682. Domitian and divus Caesar (N=l): 154. Divus Caesar on Domitia’s types (N=6): 132=133; 134=135; 136; 152-153; 155. Restoration series (N=8): 822-828; 829=830. 271 Nerva (N=160; 96 - 98): RIC II Restoration series (N=10): 126-130; 131=132; 133-134; 135=136-137. Trajan (N=635; 98 -117): RIC II Trajan and divus Nerva (N=2): 28a; 28b. Divus Nerva (N=2): 835-836. Trajan and divus Traianus Pater (N=4): 251-252; 726 (=727 (?)); 762=763; 764. Trajan, divus Nerva and Traianus Pater (N=l): 726 (=727 (?)). Trajan and Hadrian Caesar (?) (N=l): 724a. Plotina (N=10): 728-729; 730 (au)=732 (au); 730 (den)=731=732 (den); 733 (au); 733 (den); 734; 737-738; 740=741. (Diva) M arriana (N=ll): 743 (au); 743 (den); 744; 745 (au); 745 (den); 746 (au); 746 (den); 477-750. (Diva) Marciana and Matidia Maior (N=2): 742 (au); 742 (den). Matidia Maior (N=5): 758; 759 (au); 759 (den); 760; 761. H ^tnrarinn series (N=22): 806-807; 815=816; 817-824; 826-830; 831=832; 833-836. Hadrian (N=832; 117 -138): RIC H divi Traiani (Parthici) JUius and divi Nervae nepos (N=36): 2a (au); 2b (den)= 2c; 3a (au); 3a (den)=3b=3c=3d; 4a; 4b=4c; 5-6; 7a=7b=7c; 8a=8b; 9; 10 (au); 10 (den); 11-14; 15 (au); 15 (den); 16; 22A=22B; 22C; 25; 534a=534b; 535a=535b; 536; 537a=537b; 538a=538b; 539-540; 541a; 541b=541c; 542-543; 544=545; 546. divi Nervae nepos (N=l): 22D. Divus Traianus (N=2): 26; 27=28. Hadrian and divus Traianus (N=12): 2a (au); 2b (den)=2c; 3a (au); 3a (den)=3b=3c=3d; 22A=22B; 22C, 23=24a=24b; 24c; 25; 25A; 534a=534b; 627a=627b. Plotina on divus Traianus’ types (N=2): 29-30. Divus Traianus on Plotina’s types (N=2): 29-30. Plotina (N=l): 31. Hadrian and Plotina (N=3): 32; 32A; 33. Divi Traianus and Plotina (N=l): 232A=232B. Diva Matidia Maior (N=7): 423a; 423b; 424; 425a; 425b; 426-427. Diva Matidia Maior on diva Plotina’s types (N=l): 34. Diva Plotina on diva Matidia Maior’s types (N=l): 34. Aelius Verus (N=39): 428-429; 430 (au); 430 (gold Q); 430 (den); 430 (silverQ); 431-434; 435a=435b; 436 (au) =443; 436 (den)=437; 436 (goldQ); 438=439 (den); 439 (au)=444; 440-442; 1053-1058; 1059=1060; 1061=1062; 1063=1064; 1064A; 1065-1070; 1071=1072=1073; 1074-1077. Hadrian and Aelius Verus (N=2): 986=988=989; 987. Antoninus Pius (N=28): 445-446; 447a=447b; 448; 449=450; 451; 452a=452b; 453a=453b; 454 (au); 454 (den); 455-458; 1078; 1079=1080; 1081; 1082=1083a=1083b=1084; 1085-1087; 1088a=1088b; 1089; 1090=1091; 1092a=1092b; 1093-1095. Hadrian and Antoninus Pius (N=2); 990-991. (Diva) Sabina (N=64): 390 (au); 390 (den); 391-394; 395a=395b; 396; 397a=397b; 400; 401a=401b=401c; 402; 403a=403b; 404-419; 420-421; 422; 1017=1018; 1019-1025; 1026=1027; 1028-1029; 1030=1031; 1032-1039; 1040=1041; 1042=1043; 1044-1048; 1049=1050; 1051a=1051b; 1052. Hadrian and Sabina (N=3): 978=979=980; 981=982; 983=984=985. Antoninus Pius (N=1386; 138 -161): RIC Hl Divus Hadrianus (N=3): RIC II. 471; Hadrian 389A; 389B. Antoninus Pius and temple of divus Augustus and diva Livia (N=25): 124; 143 (au); 143 (den)=144; 272a=272b; 289a=289b=289c=290b (au)=290c (au); 290a (den); 305a; 305b; 755; 787; 795a=795b=796; 829; 870; 873; 973; 978; 988; 998=998a; 1003=1003A=1004; 1013; 1017; 1021a=1021b; 1024=1024a=1025; 1040; 1061. Antoninus Pius and triad Aeneas, Anchises, and Ascanius (N=3): 91; 615; 627. (Antoninus Pius and Sabina (N=l): 1073A ?). (diva) Faustina Maior (N=212): 327 (den); 327 (au)=328a=328b; 329-333; 334a (au); 334a (den)=334b (den); 334c; 335-337; 338 (au); 338 (den); 339a (den)=339b (den)=340; 339c (silverQ); 341-342; 342a; 343; 344 (au); 334 (goldQ); 344 (den)=345; 346a=346b; 347; 348 (den); 348 (au)=349a (au)=349b (au); 349b (au); 350a (den); 272 350a (au)=350b (au); 351 (den); 352-355; 356 (au)=357a=357b=361 (au); 356 (den)=358=359 (den)=360=361 (den)=362; 359 (goldQ); 363-364; 364a=365; 366 (au); 366 (den); 367; 368=369=370; 371-372; 373=374; 375=376=377; 378 (au); 378 (den)=379; 380; 382a=382b; 383; 384 (den)=385 (den); 384 (au)=385 (au)=386 (au); 387 (goldQ); 387 (den); 388; 389 (au); 389 (den); 390a=390b; 391 (goldQ); 391 (den); 391a; 392=393=394a (den)=395c (den); 394a (au)=394b (au)=394c (au)=395a (au)=395b (au); 396; 397=398a=398b; 399a; 400=401; 402a=402b; 403=404A; 404B; 404C; 405; 406A=406B; 407; 407a; 1074-1076; 1077a=1077b=1078; 1079=1080; 1081=1082; 1083-1089; 1090=1091; 1092=1093=1094; 1095-1099; 1099a- 1100-1103; 1103A=1104; 1103B; 1105-1107; 1108=1109; 1110-1111; 1112=1113; 1114-1115; 1116=1117- 1118=1119; 1120; 1121=1122; 1123; 1124=1125; 1126-1128; 1130-1132; 1133=1134; 1135=1136; 1137=1138; 1139=1140; 1141; 1142; 1143=1144; 1145; 1146A; 1146B; 1147; 1148-1155; 1156=1159; 1157-1158; 1160; 1161=1162; 1163a=1163b; 1164 (dp)-1168 (dp); 1164 (as)-1168 (as); 1169 (dp)=1171 (dp)=1172 (dp)=1173 (dp)=1174 (dp); 1169 (as)=1171 (as)=1172 (as)=1173 (as)=1174 (as); 1170 (dp); 1170 (as); 1175 (dp)=1176 (dp); 1175 (as)=1176; 1177 (dp); 1177 (as); 1177a (dp)=1178 (dp)=1179 (dp); 1177a (as)=1178 (as)=1179 (as); 1180 (dp)-1181 (dp); 1180 (as)-1181 (as); 1182 (dp)=1183 (dp); 1182 (as)= 1183 (as); 1184 (dp)-1190 (dp); 1184 (as)-1190 (as); 1191A (dp)=1191B (dp); 1191A (as)=1191B (as); 1192A (dp)=1192B (dp)=1193a (dp)=1193b (dp)=1194 (dp); 1192A (as)=1192B (as)=1193a (as)=1193b (as)=1194 (as); 1195 (dp)-1200 (dp); 1195 (as)-1200 (as); 1200a (dp); 1200a (as); 1200 (dp); 1200 (as). Antoninus Pius on Faustina Maior’s types (N=3): 397=398a=398b; 399a; 1149. Antoninus Pius and Faustina Maior on Faustina Maior’s types (N=2): 381a; 381b. Faustina Iunior on Faustina Maior’s types (N=l): 407a. Antoninus Pius, Faustina Maior, Marcus Aurelius and Faustina Iunior on Faustina Maior’s types (N=l)- H29=1129A. Marcus Aurelius and Faustina Iunior on Faustina Maior’s types (N=l): 402a=402b. Marcus Aurelius (N=215): 422 (au); 422 (den); 423a (goldQ); 423 (den); 423a (au)=423b (au); 424a (au)=424d (au); 424a (den)=424b (den)=424c (den); 425-426; 427a (au)=427b (au); 428a (goldQ); 428a (au)=428b (au); 429a=429b; 430-431; 432a=432b; 433-434; 435a=435b; 436-437; 438a (au); 438 (den); 439; 440a (au)=440b (au)=440c (au); 440a (den); 441; 442=443, 444; 445A=445B; 446-447; 448a (au); 448b (den)=448c (den)=448d (den); 449 (au); 449 (den); 450a=450b; 451; 452a=452b=452c=452d=452e; 453a=453b=453c; 454=455; 456a (den); 456a (au)=456b (au)=456c (au)=456d (au); 457a (goldQ); 457a (au)=457b (au)=457c (au); 458-462; 463a=463b; 464a=464b; 466A=466b; 467a=467b; 467a=467b=467c=467d; 468; 469a=469b=469c; 470=471; 473-472; 474a=474b=474c=474d; 475a=475b; 476; 477a=477b; 478a=478b; 479a=479b=479c=479d; 480a (au)=480b (au)=480c (au)=480d (au); 480c (den)=480d (den)=480e (den); 481a (au)=481b (au)=481c (au); 482- 486; 487a=487b; 488-490 (au); 490 (den); 491a (au)=491b (au); 491c (den); 1230-1231; 1232a=1232b; 1233a=1233b; 1234a=1234b=1234c; 1235-1239; 1240a=1240b=1240c=1240d; 1241; 1242a=1242b- 1243a=1243b=1244; 1245; 1246=1247; 1248=1249; 1250-1265; 1266=1267; 1268-1270; 1271a (dp)=1271b (dp); 1271a (as)=1271b (as); 1272-1273; 1274a=1274b; 1275=1276=1278; 1277; 1279; 1280=1281a; 1281b; 1282-1283; 1284a=1284b=1285; 1286=1287; 1288a=1288b; 1289; 1290a=1291; 1290b; 1292; 1293a=1393b=1294; 1295-1298; 1298A; 1299=1300; 1301; 1302A=1302B; 1303; 1304A; 1304B; 1305a=1305b=1305c; 1306-1307; 1308a=1308b; 1309a=1309b=1310; 1311; 1312=1314; 1313; 1315; 1316=1317; 1318-1321; 1322 (dp)-1324 (dp); 1322 (as)-1324 (as); 1325a=1325b=1326A=1327; 1326B=1326C; 1328=1329a=1329b; 1330-1336; 1337a=1337b; 1338a=1338b; 1339-1340; 1341a=1341b, 1342; 1343a=1343b; 1344-1347; 1348A; 1348B; 1349A=1349B; 1350-1351; 1352A=1352B; 1352C; 1353; 1354A=1354B; 1354D; 1355A=1355B; 1356-1357; 1358a=1358b; 1359a=1359b; 1360a=1360b; 1361a=1361b; 1362-1365- 1266a=1366b. Marcus Aurelius and Faustina Iunior on Marcus Aurelius’ types (N=4): 434; 441; 1253; 1269. Faustina Iunior on Marcus Aurelius’ types (N=l): 1366a=1366b. Faustina Iunior (N=80): 239; 437; 493; 494 (au); 494 (goldQ); 495a=495b; 496-497; 498=499; 500aa (au); 500ab (au); 500ba (den)=500c; 500bb (den)=501; 502aa (den)=502b (den)=502b (den); 502ab (au); 503 (goldQ); 503aa (au)=503ba (au); 503ab (au)=503bb (au); 504, 505a=505b; 505a=505b=505c; 506a (au)=506b (au)=506c (au); 506a (den); 506b (den); 506c (den); 507a=507b=507c; 508a=508b=508c; 509-510; 511a=512a=512b=512c; 511b=512a; 512a; 513a; 513b (au)=515c (au)=515a (au)=515b (au)=516=517a (au)= 517b (au)=517c (au); 513c (goldQ)=514=515a (goldQ); 513d (den)=515a (den)=515b (den)=517a (den)=517b (den)=517c (den)=517d (den); 1367-1369; 1370a=1370b; 1371; 1372a=1372b; 1372a=1372b=1373; 1374a=1374b=1374c; 1375-1377; 1378a=1378b; 1379-1380; 1381=1382; 1383-1385; 1386a=1386b; 1387=1388a=1388b=1388c; 1389a=1389b; 1390-1395; 1396a=1396b=1396c; 1397-1398; 1399=1400; 1400A; 1401a=1401b=1401c; 1402-1403; 1404a=1404b; 1405a=1405b; 1406-1407; 1408=1409a=1409b; 1410a=1410b. Marcus Aurelius and Faustina Iunior on Faustina Iunior’s types (N=l): 402a=402b. Antoninus Pius, Faustina Maior, Marcus Aurelius and Faustina Iunior (N=l): 601. Antoninus Pius and Faustina Maior (N=8): 191; 325-326; 1072; 1273a; 1073b; 1073c; 1073d. Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, and Lucius Verus (N=l): 93. 273 Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius (N=19): 92; 411a (au)=413—414; 411a (den)—411b (den)—411c (den)=412a=412b; 415a (au)=416=417d=417e=418a=418b:419=420=421a (au)=421b (au)=421c (au)=421d (au); 415a (den)=415b (den)=415c (den)=515d (den)=417a (den)=417b (den)=417c (den)=421a (den)=421b (den)- 544A; 599; 628; 1206a=1206b; 1207; 1208a=1208b=1209=1210; 1211=1212=1213=1214=1215; 1216=1217; 1218=1219=1219A; 1220=1220A=1221a=1221b; 1222=1223=1224; 1225-1226; 1227=1228=1229. Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (N=537; 161 -169): RIC III Divus Antoninus Pius (N=17): 429; 430=431=432; 433=434; 435=437; 436=438; 439=440; 441=441a; 442; 1262=1263=1264=1265; 1266-1268; 1269=1271; 1270; 1272-1274. Restoration type (N=l): 443. Lucius Verus (N=291; 161 -169): RIC H l Marcus Aurelius (N=690; 161 -169): RIC III Divus Lucius Verus (N=6): 596a; 596b; 1236; 1507=1508; 1509=1510; 1511=1512. Marcus Aurelius and divus Lucius Verus (N=l): 1236. Marcus Aurelius (N=921; 161 -176): RIC III (Diva) Faustina Iunior (N=140): 667-680; 681=682; 683; 684=685; 1619; 1620=1621=1622; 1622-1625; 1626=1627; 1628=1630=1631; 1634=1635; 1636=1637; 1638=1640; 1639; 1641-1644; 1645=1646; 1647-1652; 1653=1654; 1655=1656=1657=1658; 1659; 1660=1661; 1662-1666; 1667=1668=1668a=1669; 1670=1671=1671a; 1672; 1673=1674; 1675=1676=1677; 1678=1679; 1680-1690; 1691=1692; 1693-1700; 1701 (?); 1702-1703; 1704=1705; 1706-1709; 1710 (?); 1711=1712; 1713-1714; 1715=1716; 1717-1718. Commodus and Fulvus Antoninus on Faustina Iunior’s types (N=4): 709; 710=711=712; 1665-1666. Pm m m hK (N=116): 597; 578=579; 600=602; 601=603; 604-605; 606=607; 608-612; 613=614; 615; 616=617; 618-620; 621=622; 623; 624=625; 626=627; 628-635; 636=637; 638-639; 640=641; 642=643; 644-653; 654=655; 656; 657=658; 659-660; 661=662; 663-665; 665=666; 1513-1517; 1518=1520; 1519=1522; 1521; 1523; 1524=1525; 1526; 1527=1529; 1528; 1530-1533; 1534=1535; 1536-1537; 1538=1539; 1540; 1541=1542; 1543=1544=1545; 1546=1547; 1548=1549; 1550; 1551=1552; 1553; 1554=1555; 1556-1557; 1560=1561; 1562; 1563=1564; 1565; 1566=1567=1568; 1568a=1568b; 1569=1570; 1571=1572=1573; 1574=1575; 1576=1577; 1578=1579=1580; 1581; 1582=1583; 1584-1585; 1586=1587; 1588=1589=1590; 1591=1592; 1593; 1594=1595; 1596=1597; 1598; 1599=1600=1601=1602; 1603-1606; 1607=1608=1609; 1610-1614. Marcus Aurelius, Faustina Iunior and Commodus (N=I): 1226a. Marcus Aurelius and Commodus (N=7): 335=336=336A; 1046; 1153; 1183; 1211; 120ft=1201; 1207=1208=1209. ï ..ïHllg (N=75): 755-756; 757=758; 759-761; 762=763; 764=766; 765; 767-785; 786=787; 788=789; 790; 791=792; 1728-1733; 1734=1735; 1736=1737=1738; 1739-1762; 1763=1767=1769; 1764=1770; 1675; 1766=1768; 1771=1772=1775; 1773=1776; 1774; 1777-1779; 1780=1781. Commodus (N=748; 176 -193): RIC III Divus Marcus Aurelius (N=17): 264=265=266; 267-268; 269=270; 271-272; 273=274; 275; 654=656; 655; 657=658; 659=660; 661-664. Bruttia Crispina (N=35): 276-279; 280a=280b; 281-282; 283=384; 285; 286a; 286b; 287; 288=289; 290; 665- 680; 681=682; 683; 684=685; 686. NobWtas (N=7): 139; 155 (den); 155 (au)=155a; 485; 489; 501; 509. Pertinax (N=40; 193): RIC IV.A Didius Julianus (N=25; 193): RIC IV.A Manlia Scantilla (N=5): 7a (au)=7b; 7a (den); 8; 18a=18b; 19a=19b. Didia Clara (N=4): 10 (au); 10 (den); 20-21. Septimius Severus (N=1554; 193 - 201): RIC IV.A 274 Cognomen Pertinax (N=34): 27A; 32; 44; 46; 65-66; 72; 92a=92b; 98; 99 (au); 99 (den) 103; 112 (au); 112 (den); 350F; 351A; 364; 365=366c; 366a=366b; 367; 413; 437; 444=445=446; 472; 491a=491b- 683- 686^687- 700-702; 702A; 712; 730. D m Marei PüfiUus (N=8): 65-66; 686; 700-702; 702A; 712. Divus Pertinax Pater (N=6): 24A (au); 24A (den); 24B; 660Ba (sest)=660Bb (sest); 660Bc (as); 660C. (Divus) Commodus (N=l): 71A. Clodius Albinus (N=29): RIC IV.A Clodius Albinus 50-51; 52a=52b=52c=52d=52e=52f=52g; 53a=53b=53c; 54a=54b=54c; 55; 56a=56b=56c; 57a=57b; 58-63 and RIC IV.A. Clodius Albinus la (au); la (den)=lb (den)* lc 2-4; 5a=5b; 5c; 6-8; 9a=9b; 10; lla= llb ; 12. Julia Domna (N=184): 159; 161a (den); 161a (au)=161b (au); 175; 181a (den); 181c (au); 181c (den); 181a (au)=181b (au); 273; 312; 522; 534 (au); 534 (den); 535=536; 536-437; 538 (au); 538 (den); 539a (au); 539a (den)=539b (den); 540 (au); 540 (den)=541; 542-547; 548 (au); 548 (den); 549 (au); 549 (den); 550-552; 553=554; 554 (au); 555 (au); 555 (den); 555 (silverQ); 556 (au); 556 (den)=557=558; 559 (au); 559 (den)=559A; 559 (goldQ); 559 (silverQ); 560 (au); 560 (den); 561 (au); 561 (den); 562 (au); 562 (den); 653a; 563b; 564 (au)=564 (den); 566 (au); 566 (den); 567 (au); 567 (den); 568 (den)=569 (den); 569 (au); 570; 571 (au)- 571 (den); 572 (au); 572 (den); 572 (silverQ); 572 (goldQ); 573-574; 575 (den)=576 (den); 575 (silverQ); 576’(au); 577 (au); 577 (den); 578 (au); 578 (den); 579 (au); 580; 581 (au); 581 (den); 582 (au); 582 (den); 583-587; 607A; 608; 608a; 609=610; 611-612; 612A; 613; 614=615; 616; 616A; 617=618; 619=620; 621-623- 623A=624; 625-627; 627A; 628-629; 630=631; 631A; 632=633=633a; 635-644; 645 (au); 645 (den)- 645A- 646-648; 838-871; 872=873; 874; 877-879; 880=881; 882=883; 884-887; 888=889=890; 891-894. Septimius Severus and Julia Domna on Julia Domna’s types (N=l): 547. Septimius Severus, Julia Domna, and Caracalla on Julia Domna’s types (N=2): 864; 886. Septimius Severus and Caracalla on Julia Domna’s types (N=2): 539a (au); 539a (den)=539b (den). Caracalla and Geta on Julia Domna’s types (N=2): 540 (au); 540 (den)=541. Caracalla on Julia Domna’s types (N=4): 542-545. Geta on Julia Domna’s types (N=2): 571 (au); 571 (den). Caracalla (N=354): RIC W .A. Caracalla 1; 2 (au); 2 (den); 3-4; 5 (au); 5 (den); 6-12; 13a (au)=13b (au); 13b (au)=13b (den); 14-19; 20 (au); 20 (den); 21-22; 22A; 23; 24a=24b=24A; 24B; 25A; 25a (den)=25b (den); 25a (au)=25b (au)=25c (au); 26A; 26a; 26b; 27a; 27b; 28; 29 (au); 29 (den); 29A; 29B; 30-33; 34 (au); 34 (den)=35 (den); 36-37; 38 (au); 38 (den); 38A (au); 38A (den); 38B; 39 (au); 39a=39b; 40 (au); 40 (den); 41; 42a=42b=42c; 43; 44a (den)=44b (den); 44b (au); 45 (au); 45 (den); 46a=46b; 47a=47b=48; 49; 49A; 50=51; 52- 53; 54a=54b=55 (den); 55 (au); 55A; 56-58; 59a=59b=59c; 60; 62-63; 64=65; 66-69; 70a=70b; 71=72; 73; 73A; 74a (den); 74a (au)=74b (au); 75-79; 80a (au)=80b (au); 80b (den); 81-82; 82A; 83; 84 (au); 84 (den); 85; 85A;’ 86; 87; 87A; 87b=87c; 88-89; 90-91; 92-93; 94-104; 105 (au); 105 (den); 106 (au); 106 (den); 107=108; 109a=109b; 110-115; 116a; 116b; 117a=117b; 118a=118b; 119-123; 124a=124b; 125a=125b; 126 (au); 126 (den); 127; 128 (au); 129; 130a (den); 130a (au)=130b (au)=131a=131b; 132-133; 134a=134b; 135; 136 (au); 136 (den); 137-142; 143 (au); 143 (den); 143A; 144a; 144b=145; 146; 147=149; 148, 150-151; 151A; 151B; 152-154; 154A; 155 (au); 155 (den); 156 (au); 156 (den); 157 (au); 157 (den); 158-161; 162 (?); 163 (au); 163 (den); 163A; 164-165; 166 (den); 166 (au)=167; 168; 168A; 169; 170 (au); 170 (den); 171-172; 172A=173- 174 (au); 174 (den); 175-177; 177a=177b; 178; 178A; 178Ab; 179-180; 180=180A; 181; 181a (den); 181a (au)=181b (au); 181c (au); 181c (den); 250; 251=252; 255; 263; 293; 297; 305; 309 (au); 309 (den); 311-312; 329-330; 330A; 330B; 332-335; 336 (au); 336 (den); 337; 338a; 338b; 339-341; 342 (au); 342 (den); 343 (au); 343 (den); 348; 348A; 349-355; 355A; 397; 398a; 398b; 399-406; 406A; 406B; 407; 408a (au); 408b (den) 409-413- 415a’ 415b; 415c; 415d, 416-418; 418A; 418B; 419-422; 422A; 423; 424a=424c; 425a; 425b; 426a=426b; 427-’ 428a-’ 428b; 429a=429b; 429c; 430; 430A; 431-436; 437a; 437b=437c; 438=440; 439; 441; 441A- 442-449- 450-452- 453a; 453b; 454-475; 476a; 476b; 477-478. Septimius Severus on Caracalla’s types (N=2): RIC IV.A. Caracalla 129; 418B. Septimius Severus and Julia Domna on Caracalla’s types (N=4): RIC IV.A. Caracalla 36; 52; 59a=59b=59c- 125a=125b. Septimius Severus and Caracalla on Caracalla’s types (N=7): RIC IV.A. Caracalla 32; 73A; 122- 181- 422A- 430A; 462. Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Geta on Caracalla’s types (N=8): RIC TV.A. Caracalla 56; 106 (au)- 106 (den); 128 (au); 159; 177; 469-470. Caracalla and Geta on Caracalla’s types (N=9): RIC IV.A. Caracalla 25A; 62; 75; 152; 444 (with Septimius Severus?); 452; 453a; 453b; 459. Geta on CaracaUa’s types (N=8): RIC IV.A. Caracalla 17; 29B; 38 (au); 38 (den); 53; 62; 137; 345. PlantUla and Caracalla on Caracalla’s types (N=4): RIC TV.A. Caracalla 60; 67; 123; 124a=124b. Plautilla on Caracalla’s types (N=4): RIC TV.A. Caracalla 66; 139; 163A; 349. 275 Geta (N=180): RIC IV.A. Geta 1 (au); 1 (den); 2 (au); 2 (den); 3 (au); 3 (den); 4 (au); 4 (den); 5; 6 (au); 6 (den); 6 (silverQ); 7a=7b; 9a (au); 9a (den)=9b (den); 10-12; 13a (den); 13a (silverQ)=13b (süverQ); 13A; 15a=15b=16b=17=18; 16a; 19; 20a (au)=20b (au); 20a (den)=20b (den); 20a (silverQ)=20b (süverQ); 21; 21A (au); 21A (den); 22-23; 24 (au); 24 (den); 25; 25A; 26-31; 32 (au); 32 (süverQ); 33; 34a=34b; 35-36; 37a (au); 37a (den)=37b (den); 37b (au)=37c (au); 38a (au); 38a (den)=38b (den); 40-43; 44 (au); 44 (den); 45 (au); 45 (den); 46-47; 48a=48b=49 (silverQ); 49 (goldQ); 50-58; 59a=59b; 60a=60b=60c; 61a=61b; 62a=62b; 63 (au); 63 (den); 64a=64b; 65a (den); 65a (au)=65b (au); 66; 66A; 67-68; 69a (au); 69a (den); 69b (den); 70a; 79b; 71-72; 73a=73b- 94; 95 (au); 95 (den); 96-99; 100 (au); 101-102; 102A; 103 (au); 103 (den); 104; 105a=105b; 106-110; HOA; 111-113; 113A; 114-123; 124a; 124b; 125; 125A; 126-127; 128a; 128b; 129; 130a=130b; 130c; 131-155; 155a=155b=155c; 156-159; 160-167; 174 (au); 174 (den); 175; 178A; 178Ab; 181a (den); 181a (au)=181b (au); 181c (au); 181c (den). Septimius Severus on Geta’s types (N=l): RIC IV,A. Geta 53. Septimius Severus and Julia Domna on Geta’s types (N=l): RIC IV.A. Geta 7a=7b. Septimius Severus and Caracalla on Geta’s types (N=l): RIC IV.A. Geta 5. Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Geta on Geta’s types (N=13): RIC IV.A. Geta 37a (au); 37a (den)=37 (den); 37b (au)=37c (au); 42; 65a (den); 65a (au)=65b (au); 124a; 124b; 125A; 126; 130a=130b; 130c; 159. Caracalla and Geta on Geta’s types (N=16): RIC IV.A. Geta 40; 115; 123; 132-134; 137-138; 147; 151; 155- 158; 164-165. Caracalla on Geta’s types (N=l): RIC IV.A. Geta 73a=73b. Nobititas on Geta’s types (N=8): RIC IV.A. Geta 13a (au)=13b (au); 13a (silverQ)=13b (süverQ); 13a (den); 32 (au); 32 (silverQ); 48a (süverQ)=48b (silverQ)= 49 (süverQ); 49 (goldQ); 120. Plautilla (N=27): RIC IV.A. Caracalla 359 (den); 359 (süverQ); 360 (au); 360 (den); 361 (au); 361 (den); 362 (au); 362 (den); 363a=363b; 364; 365a=365b; 366 (au); 366 (den); 367 (au); 367 (den); 386; 369 (au); 369 (den); 370-372; 378; 378A; 379-382. r.ri.ralln and Plautilla on Plautüla’s types (N=6): RIC IV.A. Caracalla 362 (den); 361 (au); 361 (den); 362 (au); 365a=365b; 578A. Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Geta (N=9): 177a=177b; 250; 251=252; 263; 297; 305; 800; 815, 823. Septimius Severus and Caracalla (N=21): 151B; 157 (au); 157 (den); 179; 180=180A; 293; 309 (au), 309 (den); 311(au); 311(den); 521a; 521b; 730; 789; 798; 814; 816a; 816b; 822; 826a; 826b. Septimius Severus and Geta (N=5): 98; 132; 164; 281; 506. Septimius Severus and Julia Domna (N=4): 161a=161b (au); 161a (den); 273; 312; 522. Caracalla and Geta (N=9): 155a=155b=155c; 174 (au); 74 (den); 178A; 178Ab; 255; 312, 330A, 513. Julia Domna, Caracalla, and Geta (N=6): 159; 175; 181a (den); 181a (au)=181b (au); 181c (au); 181 (den). Geta (N= 50; 211): RIC IV.A Geta and Caracalla (N=7): 86-87; 168-169; 184-185; 190. Caracalla (N= 404; 211 - 217): RIC IV.A Divus Septimius Severus (N=9): 191A; 191B; 191C; 191D; 191E; 191F (au); 191F (den); 490A; 490B. Julia Domna (N=69): 373A; 374-378; 379a; 379b (au); 379c (au), 379d; 380 (au); 380 (den); 381 (au); 381 (den); 382=383=383A; 383B; 385 (süverQ); 384; 385 (den); 386-387; 388a (au); 388a (süverQ); 388b (au); 388c (au); 388c (den); 389a (au); 389a (süverAnt); 389b (au); 389b (den); 390-392; 583-592; 592A; 593-595; 596 (dp); 596 (as); 597 (dp); 597 (as); 598 (dp); 598 (as); 599 (dp); 599 (as); 600 (dp); 600 (as); 601 (dp); 601 (as); 602 (as); 602 (as); 603 (dp); 603 (as); 604 (dp); 604 (as); 605 (dp)=605A (dp)=605B (dp); 605 (as)=605A (as)=605B (as); 606 (dp); 606 (as); 607 (dp); 608 (dp); 608 (as). Julia Domna and Caracalla (N=2): 214; 250. Caracalla and Geta (N=6)ï 215 (au); 215 (den); 482; 508-509; 537. Macrinus (N=183; 217 - 218): RIC IV.B Diadumenianus (N=22): 100-101; 102=105; 103-104; 106; 107b=108=109; 107a=112; 110-111; 113; 114=115; 116=117; 118; 211=214; 212=213=214; 215-219; 220 (dp); 220 (as). Macrinus and Diadumenianus (N=2): 79; 194. Elagabalus (N=368; 218 - 222): RIC IV.B Victoria Antonini Aug (N=10): 151-155; 156=157A; 157; 375-377. 276 Salus Antonini Aug (N=7): 136-140; 372-373. Julia Maesa (N=38): 249-252; 253=255; 254; 256; 257=258; 259; 260-264; 265=266; 267-270; 271=272; 273- 275; 276; 409-416; 417=420; 418-419; 421=422; 423-424. Elagabalus and Julia Maesa (N=l): 208. Julia Soaemias (N=17): 235-237; 239-245; 400-402; 403=405; 404; 406-408. Elagabalus and Julia Soaemias (N=l): 207. Julia Corndia Paula (N=24): 210-221; 221A; 221B; 222-224; 378-279; 380=381=382=383; 384-387. Julia Aquüia Severa (N=12): 225=226=227; 228-229; 231; 388; 389=390; 391=392; 393=394; 395-398. Elagabalus and Julia Aquilia Severa (N=l): 205. Annia Faustina (N=2): 232; 399. Elagabalus and Annia Faustina (N=l): 206. Alexander Severus (N=9): RIC IV.B. Alexander Severus Caesar 1-3; 381-386. Nobilitas (N=l): 124. Alexander Severus (N=620; 222 - 235): RIC IV.B Nomen Severus (N=3): 209; 276; 315. Nomen Aurelius and Severus (N=20): 170; 172-174; 275; 290; 292=293; 294=295; 314; 397; 404-406- 414- 416; 557; 596-598. Divus Caracalla (N=4): 717-720. Diva Iulia Domna (N=2): 715-716. Diva Iulia Maesa (N=7): 377-380; 712-714. Julia Mamaea (N=70): 329-354; 355=356; 357-359; 360=362; 361=363; 364-365; 667-670; 671=673; 672=674; 675-684; 685=686; 687-693; 694=699; 695=686=698=700; 697; 701-707; 708=710; 709; 711. Alexander Severus and Julia Mamaea (N=13): 314-315; 659-661; 662 (dp); 662 (as); 663-666; 666A Orbiana (N=13): 319-327; 655-658. Alexander Severus and Orbiana (N=l): 551. NobiUtas (N=l): 290. Maximinus Thrax (N=130; 235 - 238): RIC IV.B Maximus (N=19): 1-2; 3 (silverQ); 3 (den); 4-6; 7 (dp); 7 (as); 8-9; 10 (dp); 10 (as); 11; 12 (dp); 12 (as); 13; 14 (dp); 14 (as). Maximinus Thrax and Maximus (N=2): 34; 89. Diva Paulina (N=5): 1; 2 (au); 2 (den); 3-4. Gordian I (N=16; 238): RIC IV.B Gordian H (N=80; 238): RIC IV.B Balbinus and Pupienus (N=64; 238): RIC IV.B Gordian III (N=3): RIC IV.B. Gordian III Caesar 1-3. Gordian III (N=347; 238 - 244): RIC IV.C Sabinia Tranquillina (N=9): 249; 250; 252-253; 341a; 341b; 341c; 340a=340b; 342. Gordian m and Sabinia on Sabinia’s types (N=6): 250; 252-253; 341a; 341b; 341c. Philippus Arabs (N=290; 244 - 249): RIC IV.C Philippus Arabs and Philippus Iunior (N=10): 10; 56; 68; 179; 197a; 197b; 197c; 182a; 182b; 183. Otarilia (N=50): 115; 116a; 116b; 117-118; 119a; 119b; 120a=122a; 120b=121=122b; 123a (au); 123b (den) 123c; 124a; 124b; 125a; 125b; 125c=126; 127-128; 128A; 129-132; 133=134; 198a; 198b; 199a; 199b; 199c 200-201; 202a; 202b; 202c; 202d; 202a=202b=204; 203c; 203d; 203c (as); 203e (sest); 203g; 205a=208a 205b=206=207=208b; 205c=208c; 209a; 209b; 209c; 210=211; 212a; 212b. Philippus Arabs and Philippus Iunior on O tadlia’s types (N=2): 212a; 212b. 277 Philippus Iunior (N=53): 213=214; 215; 216a=218a=220a; 216b; 216c—217—218d—219—220b; 218b; 218c, 221; 223-230; 231a; 231b; 231c; 232-237; 238=239; 240-245; 255a=256a=257=258a=258c; 255b=256b=258b; 256c=258d; 259-261; 262a; 262b; 263; 264a; 264b; 265a; 265b; 265c; 266; 267a; 267b; 268a; 268b; 268c; 268d; 269a; 269b. Philippus Arabs and Otacilia on Philippus Iunior’s types (N=2): 229; 261. Philippus Arabs and Philippus Iunior on Philippus Iunior’s types (N=l): 260. Philippus Arabs and Otacilia (N=3): 39; 64; 196a=196b. Philippus Arabs, Philippus Iunior and Otacilia (N=3): 30; 43a; 43b. Nobilitas (N=3): 8; 155a; 155b. Trajan Decius (N=204; 249 - 251): RIC IV.C Trajan Decius, Herennius and Hostilianus (N=2): 32; 131. Trajan Decius, Herennia, Herennius, and Hostilianus (N=l): 31. Hprpnnia (N=23): 55a; 55b=56; 57; 58a; 58b; 59a; 59b; 61; 62a=62b=62c; 63a=63b=63c=63d=64; 65a=65b; 66a=66b; 67a=67b=67c; 68a=68b=68c=68d; 69a=69b; 70a=70b=70c; 132=133; 134a=135b; 134b=135b; 136b; 136c; 136d; 137. Decius on Herennia’s types (N=l): 62a=62b=62c. Hprpnning (N=36): 138; 139=140; 141; 142a; 142b; 143; 144a; 144b=145=146; 147a=148a; 147c; 147c=148b; 149; 150A; 151a; 151b; 153A; 153a; 153b; 154; 155a; 155b; 156-161; 167a; 167b; 168a; 168b; 169a; 169b=170; 171a=172=173; 171b. Decius on Herennius’ types (N=l): 156. Hnctilignng (N=30): 174a=174b; 175=176; 177a; 177b; 178a; 178b=178c; 179-180; 181a=181b=183a=183b; 181c=181d=182=183d=183e; 183c; 184-185; 193-196; 197=198; 199-201; 212-213; 214=215a; 215b; 216a; 216b; 217; 218a; 218b. Decius on Hostilianus’ types (N=l): 193. Restored divi series (N=24): 77-80; 81a=81b; 82a=82b; 83-90; 91a; 91b; 92a; 92b; 93-98. Trebonianus Gallus (N=259; 251 - 253): RIC IV.C Trebonianus Gallus and Volusianus (N=3): 68; 98; 158. TTnctilianns (N=22): RIC IV.C Decius 186-187; 190; 191a=192; 191b; 202A; 202a=202b=202c; 203a=203b=203c=203d=203e; 204a=204b; 205a=205b; 206; 207a=207b; 208=209a=209b=209c=209d; 220; OOla- OO 0 0 0 - OO'^a—OO'V* OO'lh- 224-226 Volusianus (N=119): 129-143; 144=145=146; 147-149; 150=151; 152-154; 155=156; 157-167; 168=169=170; 171=172=173=174=175=176; 177-178; 179=180=181; 182-185; 185A; 186=187; 188; 188A; 189-190; 191=192; 193-195; 205-222; 222A; 223-229; 230=231; 232=233; 234; 235=236; 237-240; 241=242; 243-246; 247=248a; 248b; 249a=250a; 249b=250b; 249c; 250a; 250b; 251a; 251b; 252a=253a; 252b=253b; 254a; 254b; 255a; 255b; 256a; 256b; 256c; 257; 258a; 258b; 259; 260a; 260b; 261-262; 263a; 263b; 264. Aemilian (N=61; 253): RIC IV.C Comelia (N=8): 30-36; 64. Comelia and Aemilian on Comelia’s types (N=l): 33 Valerian (N=868; 253 - 260): RIC V.A Diva Mariniana (N=l 1): RIC V.A Mariniana 1-2; 3=4; 5-12. Valerian, Gallienus, and Valerianus Iunior (N=l): 156. Valerian and GaUienus (N=15): 7; 45; 102; 105; 277; 280-281; 284-285; 292-293; RIC V.A. Valerian and Gallienus 3-7. Gallienus (N=431): RIC V.A Gallienus loint Reign 1-8; 10-13; 14=15; 16-26; 27=30; 28=31; 29=33=35, 32, 34; 36-41; 42=45; 43-44; 46-53; 54=55; 56-70; 71=72; 73-75; 76=77; 78=79; 80-92; 93=94; 95; 96=97; 98-105; 114a; 115-119; 119a; 120-124; 125=127; 126=129; 128; 130-136; 136a; 137-139; 140-180; 180A; 181-187; 187a; 188-202; 203=204; 205-214; 215=216; 217-246; 247=248; 248; 250-268; 268a; 269-278; 279=281; 280; 282-314; 315=316=317; 318-331; 332=333; 334=335=336; 337-345; 345a; 346-347; 348=349; 350=351; 352- 376; 377=379; 378; 380-411; 412=412a; 413-422; 423=424; 425-462. Valerian and Gallienus on Gallienus’ types (N=8): RIC V.A Gallienus Joint Reign 84; 150; 431; 435; 446- 447; 455-456. (divus) Valerianus Iunior (N=51): RIC V.A. Valerianus Iunior 1-36; 37=38=40; 39; 41-54. 278 Gallienus on Valerianus Iunior’s types (N=2): RIC V.A. Valerianus Iunior 6; 22. Saloninus (N=31): RIC V.A. Saloninus 1-9; 10=11; 12-32; 33=34; 35-37. Salonina (N=62): RIC V.A Salonina loint Reign 1-15; 26-28; 29=30; 31-37; 38=39; 40-74. Gallienus and Salonina on Salonina’s types (N=l): RIC V.A Salonina Joint Reign 63. Valerianus Iunior on Salonina’s types (N=l): RIC V.A Salonina Joint Reign 66. Divus Gallienus (N=2): RIC V.A. Quintus Iulius Gallienus 1-2. Gallienus (N=718; 260 - 268): RIC V.A Gallienus and virtus Faleri (N=l): 596. Gallienus and Salonina (N=7): RIC V.A. Gallienus and Salonina 2; 4-7. Salonina (N=87): RIC V.A. Salonina 1-4; 5a; 5=6; 7-11; 12=13; 14=16; 15; 17-70; 71=72- 74-79- 80=81- 82- 84-93. Divus Saloninus (N=l): RIC V.A. Saloninus 15. Claudius II Gothicus (N=222; 268 - 270): RIC V.A Quintillus and Aurelian (N=449; 270 - 275): RIC V.A Divus Claudius H Gothicus (N=18): RIC V.A. Claudius II Gothicus 256-265; 266 (Cyzicus); 266 (Gaul); 266 (Rome); 266 (Siscia); 266 (Mediolanum); 267a; 267 (Cyzicus); 267 (Gaul). Quintillus (N=88; 270): RIC V.A Aurelian (N=362; 270 - 275): RIC V.A Aurelian and Severina (N=10): 75-76; 79=80=81; 82; 138; 382; RIC V.A. Aurelian and Severina 1-4 Severina (N=16): RIC V.A. Severina 1-8; 9=10; 11=12; 13; 14=15; 16=17; 18-20. Aurelian on Severina’s types (N=3): RIC V.A. Severina 3; 16=17; 19. Tacitus (N=184; 275 - 276): RIC V.A Florianus (N=100; 276): RIC V.A Probus (N=864; 276 - 282): RIC V.B Origini Aug (N=3): 701-703. Carus (N=185; 282 - 283): RIC V.B Carus and Carinus (N=14): 128; 133-138; 139=140; 141-145. Carinus and Numerian (N=3): 51; 124=125; 128. Carinus (N=49): 147-149; 150-151; 152-154; 155=156; 157; 158=159=161; 160-168; 169=170; 171-176- 177=178=179=181=182=183; 180=184=186; 185; 187-189; 190=191; 192-196; 197=198; 199-205- 206=208- 207; 209-210. Numerian (N=21): 352-358; 360=362=362=364=365; 361=363; 366=367=368; 369-375; 376=378; 377; 379- Numerian (N=88; 283 - 284): RIC V.B Numerian and divus Carus (N=5): 463; 466=469; 467-468; 470. Divus Carus (N=7): 30; 108-113. Numerian and Carinus (N=6): 330; 331=332; 333; 432; 461-462. Carinus (N=148; 283 - 285): RIC V.B Carinus and divus Carus (N=8): 314a; 315-317; 323-324; 325=327; 326. Divus Carus (N=17): 4; 28-30; 47-50; 108-113; 126-127; 129. 279 Magnia Urbica (N=14): 336-341; 342=343; 344-349; 350=351. Carinus and Magnia Urbica (N=l): 355. Carinus and Numerian (N=l): 333. Divus Nigrinianus (N=4): 471-474. Constantine (N=1962; 306 - 337): RIC VI Claudius II Gothicus (N=9): 23=26 (Aquileia); 173=176 (Arles); 106=109; 112=115=116; 119; 122=125—128 (Rome); 43=45 (Siscia); 26 (Thessalonica); 203=207 (Treveri). Hpl<.na (N=50): 38; 44=48; 53=57 (Alexandria); 61; 67; 75; 80; 82 (Antioch); 278; 299; 307; 317; 324; 340 (Arles); 28; 39; 49; 54 (Cyzicus); 79; 85; 89; 95; 109=210 (Heraclea); 299 (Londinium); 234 (Lugdunum); 79=80;95; 129; 148; 159 (Nicomedia); 270; 291 (Rome); 54; 60 (Sirmium); 187; 196; 204; 218 (Siscia); 50=58; 134; 149; 159 (Thessalonica); 183; 190; 202; 209 (Ticinum); 458; 465; 481; 508=515 (Treveri). Constantia (N=l): RIC VII Constantine 15 (Constantinople). 280 A.4. Tables 1. Tables listing the types of the adopted sons of the emperor that refer to the following messages: princeps iuventutis, spes, felicitas, pietas, securitas, pax, concordia, m ilita ry allusions, liberalitas, and other. 1 Princeps Spes Feücitas <5 1 Total Total N N N N N Iuventutis N and N Concordia z MilitaryN allustions N OtherN types Z 3 z Liberalitas Gaius Caesar 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 Lucius Caesar 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Tiberius 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 13 Agrippa Postumus ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Germanicus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nero 8 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Piso 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Flavius 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Domitianus Flavius 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vespasianus Trajan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hadrian 1? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ? Aelius Verus 41 0 8 4 8 0 0 8 4 0 9 Antoninus Pius 30 0 0 2 9 1 3 7 2 0 6 Marcus Aurelius 243 11* 14 16 19 3 0 7 72 1 100 Alexander 9 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 4 Severus Hostilianus 22 0 1 0 1 4 0 0 4 0 12 and Felicitas * Concordia % Princeps % % % % Pietas % % % Securitas luventutis % % Pax % $ hilaritas % Military % Liberalitas % Other % Other types allustions Gaius Caesar 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 25.0 Lucius Caesar 66.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 Tiberius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 86.7 Agrippa Postumus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Germanicus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nero 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 Piso 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Flavius Domitianus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Flavius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Vespasianus Trajan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hadrian 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 9 Aelius Verus 0.0 19.5 9.8 19.5 0.0 0.0 19.5 9.8 0.0 22.0 Antoninus Pius 0.0 0.0 6.7 30.0 3.3 10.0 23.3 6.7 0.0 20.0 * The title princeps iuventutis was not bestowed on Marcus Aurelius, but he did receive the title iuventas. 281 Marcus Aurelius 4.5 5.8 6.6 7.8 1.2 0.0 2.9 29.6 0.4 41.2 Alexander Severus 11.1 0.0 0.0 22.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 0.0 44.4 Hostilianus 0.0 4.5 0.0 4.5 18.2 0.0 0.0 18.2 0.0 54.5 2. Tables listing the types of the biological sons of the emperor that refer to the following messages: princeps iuventutis, spes, feücitas, pietas, securitas, pax, concordia, military allusions, liberalitas, and other. hilaritas 1 * Liberalitas Concordia Spes FeUcitas Princeps 5 <2 1 N Other N types allustions N N MilitaryN N N and and N N N z Total Total N N Iuventutis Z 5 Drusus 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 Britannicus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vitellius 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Germanicus Titus > AD 71 60 16 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 0 35 Domitian > AD 71 47 16 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 28 Titus < AD 72 270 0 11 15 0 2 28 9 94 2 109 Domitian < AD 72 108 10 14 6 0 0 9 0 18 0 48 Commodus 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AD 161-165 Commodus 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 AD 166-Octl72 Commodus 53 15 5 7 3 0 0 0 16 3 4 AD Oct.172-176 Commodus 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 7 14 AD 177 -180 J 1 hilaritas u Princeps n # Liberalitas % % Spes % Pietas % allustions Military% Iuventutis % Feücitas % % % % % a % Concordia and and % % Other types Drusus 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 66.7 Rritnnninis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Vitellius 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Germanicus Titus > AD 71 26.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 58.3 Domitian > AD 71 34.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 2.1 0.0 0.0 59.6 Titus < AD 72 0.0 4.1 5.6 0.0 0.7 10.4 3.3 34.8 0.7 40.4 Domitian < AD 72 9.3 13.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 16.7 0.0 44.4 Commodus 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 AD 161-165 Commodus 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 66.7 AD 166-Octl72 Commodus 28.3 9.4 13.2 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.2 5.7 7.5 AI) Oct.172-176 Commodus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.1 10.3 20.6 AD 177 -180 282 Augustus Etruscus Herennius Hostilianus Caesar Hostilianus Herennius Etruscus Etruscus Herennius Augustus Iunior Philippus Caesar Caesar Maximus Caesar Iunior Philippus Augustus Diadumenianus Diadumenianus Caesar Diadumenianus Geta Augustus Geta Geta Caesar Geta Iunior Pertinax aaal uuts2.5 Augustus Caracalla Caesar Caracalla ueinCea 24 Caesar Numerian aiu asr64 Caesar Carinus Marinianus Saloninus Caesar Saloninus Iunior Valerianus Augustus Caesar Gallienus Angustus Gallienus otlau asr33 Caesar Hostilianus Volusianus Caesar Volusianus Augustus Etruscus Herennius Herennius Etruscus Etruscus Herennius Caesar Augustus Iunior Philippus Philippus Iunior Iunior Philippus Caesar Caesar Maximus Augustus Diadumenianus Diadumenianus Caesar eaAgsu 44 Augustus Geta Geta Caesar Geta aaal uuts441 Augustus Caracalla aaal asr34 Caesar Caracalla Pertmax Iunior Pertmax 4 1 447 111 31 38 223 26 11 0 13 53 21 16 21 3 0 Total N i $ 23.1 39.4 1 1 i i 34.6 50.0 47.6 61.9 14.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.9 14 11 13 13 13 2 7 0 3 4 10 22 13 1 9 3 0 11 2 8 0 0 5 0 N Princeps * 33.3 12.5 17.6 0.0 0.0 5 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 15.2 2.7 2.5 Iuventutis Z 1 0 3 4 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 11 0 0 1 0 7 0 6 4 6 0 £ 1 33.3 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 7.0 0.0 Z 1 1 15 0 0 3 0 2 8 6 0 34 31 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 283 0 26.9 30.8 42.9 18.2 12.5 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 . 0.0 8.8 0.0 1.3 % Pietas 0 0 z 2 £ 7 7 6 8 9 0 ! 4 0 7 4 9 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ji n 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 1.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 8 0 0 N SecurUas $ 1 15.1 . 9.1 0.0 0.0 . 15.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.1 16 10 1 0 z 1 0 7 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 8 0 0 0 3 0 5 0 0 3.8 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 2.7 4.5 0.0 0.0 % 10 0 0 0 2 0 0 9 0 3 20 2 0 0 0 1 0 14 6 0 Concordia 0 N Concordia 15.2 11.5 15.4 45.5 48.8 11.8 9.4 9.5 0.0 0.0 4.8 6.3 0.0 248 16 23 215 5 0 % Military 5 2 20 5 2 3 5 2 0 0 4 0 NMilitaiy allusions allustions 66.6 17.0 0.0 . 18.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 4.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 30 0 0 % 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 24 9 15 0 2 1 0 21 0 9 0 liberalitas 0 N liberalitas 45.3 19.2 15.4 47.7 18.8 54.3 28.3 35.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 109 21 10 45 10 121 125 0 % Other 3 6 2 5 1 12 0 3 0 0 0 N Other types types Volusianus Caesar 36.4 0.0 9.1 0.0 9.1 18.2 0.0 18.2 0.0 9.1 Volusianus Augustus 2.7 0.0 7.2 8.1 0.9 9.0 8.1 20.7 2.7 40.5 Gallienus Augustus 0.2 0.9 3.4 1.8 1.3 3.6 2.2 55.5 6.7 24.4 Valerianus Iunior 34.2 2.6 2.6 18.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.2 2.6 26.3 Caesar Saloninus Caesar 42.0 9.7 6.5 22.6 0.0 3.2 0.0 6.5 0.0 9.7 Marinianus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Carinus Caesar 17.2 6.3 4.7 3.2 0.0 10.9 0.0 25.0 0.0 32.8 Numerian Caesar 29.2 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.8 0.0 41.7 3. Tables listing the types of Caesares who were not (adopted) sons of the emperor that refer to the following messages: princeps iuventutis, spes, felicitas, pietas, securitas, pax, concordia, military allusions, lïberatitas, and other. Concordia Securitas Pietas Spes Felicitas Princeps 1 allustions N OtherN N MilitaryN UberalUas N N N N N N N N N N z N N 'types Total Total N luventutis Domitian 70 6 8 0 i 1 8 3 23 0 20 Clodius Albinus 29 0 0 5 0 0 3 2 1 0 18 Gordian m 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 Other Military # Felicitas 1 % % % % % % types allusions % % Securitas Concordia Liberalitas % Pietas % % % # % Princeps % luventutis «P Domitian 8.6 11.4 0.0 1.4 1.4 11.4 4.3 32.9 0.0 28.6 Clodius Albinus 0.0 0.0 17.2 0.0 0.0 10.3 6.9 3.4 0.0 62.1 Gordian m 0.0 0.0 0.0 66.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 4. Tables listing the types of empresses that fit into the representational categories marriage, fertility and motherhood, benefactress and protectress, and other. and protectress OtherN N BenefactressN N Fertility N and motherhood N MarriageN Total Total N Agrippina Iunior 4 2 3 0 1 Poppaea 4 4 0 0 0 Domitia 16 9 7 0 0 Plotina 10 7 0 2 1 (Diva) Sabina 67 48 9 4 6 (Diva) Faustina Maior 221 89 32 35 65 (Diva) Faustina Iunior 141 11 13 8 2 Lutilla 34 20 55 22 44 Crispina 35 11 12 6 6 Scantilla 5 4 1 0 0 Julia Domna 202 48 77 40 37 Plautilla 27 15 7 1 4 284 Julia Comelia Paula 24 16 1 4 3 Julia Aquilia Severa 13 8 1 3 1 Annia Faustina 3 3 0 0 0 Orbiana 14 12 0 0 2 Diva Paulina 5 0 0 0 5 Sabinia Tranquillina 9 8 0 1 0 Otacilia 56 25 10 8 13 Herennia 24 12 8 0 4 Comelia 8 7 0 0 1 Diva Mariniana 11 0 0 0 11 Saloninal 62 19 21 12 10 Salonina2 94 33 16 25 22 Severina 26 16 0 12 0 Magnia Urbica 15 4 4 1 6 % % Marriage % Fertility % and motherhood % Other Benefactress and protectress Agrippina Iunior 33.5 50.3 0.0 16.8 Poppaea 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Domitia 56.3 43.8 0.0 0.0 Plotina 70.0 0.0 20.0 10.0 (Diva) Sabina 71.6 13.4 6.0 9.0 (Diva) Faustina Maior 40.3 14.5 15.8 29.4 Lucilla 32.4 38.2 23.5 5.9 (Diva) Faustina Iunior 14.2 39.0 15.6 31.2 Crispina 31.4 34.3 17.1 17.1 Scantilla 80.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 Julia Domna 23.8 38.1 19.8 18.3 Plautilla 55.6 25.9 3.7 14.8 Julia Comelia Paula 66.7 4.2 16.7 12.5 Julia Aquilia Severa 61.5 7.7 23.1 7.7 Annia Faustina 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Orbiana 85.7 0.0 0.0 14.3 Diva Paulina 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Sabinia Tranquillina 1 88.9 0.0 11.1 0.0 Otacilia 44.6 17.9 14.3 23.2 Herennia 50.0 33.3 0.0 16.7 Comelia 87.5 0.0 0.0 12.5 Diva Mariniana 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Saloninal 30.6 33.9 19.4 16.1 Salonina2 34.8 16.9 26.3 23.2 Severina 57.2 0.0 42.9 0.0 Maenia Urbica ^ 26.7 26.7 | 6.7 40.0 5. Tables listing the types for the emperor’s daughter, sister, and niece that fit into the representational categories: fertility and motherhood, benefactress and protectress, and other. An extra column presents all types with legends referring to a relationship with the emperor or with the imperial house. 285 Matidia Maior Faustina Iunior Fertility and Benefactress Legends % % Other % % % and protectress referring to relationship withemperor or imperialhouse motherhood b o O © | 66.7 | 33.3 | I Julia O'OOI O o o O | Caligula’s sisters o b O'OOI o o o b o b b 1 Vitellia J O'OOI O'OOI to 1 Julia under Titus | 41.7 33.3 CA K-1 O O b ‘o b o I (Diva) Julia under Domitian ! 60.0 o o o 'o O b o b g 1 § | 15.4 ! O'OOI O'OOI 1 Matidia Maior 28.6 O b o b | Faustina Iunior I 89.9 00 u> i 25.8 L 25.8 1 8 £ 00 a\ 100.0 Ul 0° Ux | Lucilla O'OOI O b | Didia Clara o b o b O'OOI b o O | Constantia b 100.0 | 286 A.5. Stemmata 1. Julio-Claudian house (Kleiner-Matheson, 1996,217): G. Julius Caesar - Marcia i Julius Caesar = Camelia Julia M. Atim B albus IC«0 ~ 4 4 bc a t. rro -ó S b c d . 51 BC I Gri. Pompëius « Julia G. Octavius = Atia (Pompcy the Great} 83-54 b d. 59 8G d. {3 BC .106-48 bC Sctibonia (1) - augustus = (2) Lb^a = (ï) Ti. Ckudius Nero Octavia ~ Marcus Antonius j b . 6j BC 58 b c - 1 A 33 69 ki- | S3-3Ü ec (Marl: Antony) r. 11 BC—Ai) 1 4 At) 39 M. Vtp-anius Agrippa (1) «Julia (2) = (2) tj b e r ï v s - (1) Vipsania Diosus the Elder ~ Antonia the Younger 30 BC-AD T4 b. 42 BC . 33 BC-AD ZO BC •- *4-37 [ Antonia the Llder = L. Donritivs Drusus the Youngér b. 39 b c J Ahenobarbus 13 BC-AD 23 j d. 25 Gaius Caeuar Lucius Cie?ar Agrippa Postumus julia Agrippina the Eldcr = Germanicus 20 BC-AD 4 r? BC-AD 3 1 2. BC—AE 14 t r .. :c-ylS BC-AD 28 CU. 14/13 BC—AD 33 I j BC-AD 19 I I I Julia Drusilla Juli.-i Livilla. Nero Caesar Drusm Caesar GAIUS (CAUGi LA.) i<5-j8 i3-4r. 6-31 7-33 b. ï2 r. 37-41 I Gn. Domitius = Agripnina {4) - claudius = (3) Valeria Me-saffiiu Ahenobarbus J the Younger b. 10 b c d. +0 ï 15-59 r. 41-54 i I Popp&ci Sabina (2) = nejo = (1) Octavia Britannicus ca. 31—vs b. 14,40.^2-63 ca, 41/12-55 " 54-68 Statilia Messallma (3) — 287 T. Ftavius Petro '® Teriuta t&r*wio p o ef T. Flavius pi 39] a, Vespasia Pclla Vespaslus Flavius Liberalis Casslus [I! 14] tl Sabinus praetor OS!.S/ff 30 Fhvfa T; Flavius [II40] I. FIotus Flavia '1] Cassifllonsina tinfafamy Sabinus Arrecwus II] Vespasianus Domitilla paet.Mu Ctomens 6 9 - 7 9 tbefowSS pmef. pr*etorio t, Flavius fll 41] » Arraara Petillius (tl 1] ? * Flavia [2] Arrerirw » (1) T«us [3] (2) * Marcia 3 Ï T Flavius * (2) Sabimis Cenaks Domitilla Tertuila Flavius Fumito Domitianus [1} c o m s.if II n | Vfespasianus r - s s ? 79*1 1 1 ! I ! | I 1 T, Flavius til 16) i0 Flavia Ö ] Petiüius [II 2] Pettllus ill 4] T. Flavius Dl« ] ® lulia Son Clemens Domitilla Firnius Rufus Sabinus t betorc SQ cos. ad, W I0f.tx T. Flavius UI 48] 5 (?) other T. Flavius lil 23) 'Vespasanus' -Domitianus’ j.afkcr adoptiar, c '.foie 353 {aftw adopbóflöe!ö«9S) 3. Antonine house (Kleiner-Matheson, 1996,218): Ulpia = Aelii3 Hadrianus M. Ulpius Traiajiüs = Marcia ! Maiullinus (?) d. "boorc ïoo I C. Saloni is - Mardans t b a j a n = Homia Maiiditn Patnuaus cu. 44 *3-712. b. 33 d, 12? d.7* | r.^-n? ’-~J P. Aelius - Do ïiit.a Paulina Vibius Sabimis (ï) = Madëk - ^2) Rupilius Bonus Hadriinus 65-75-uy Afer d. Sj h a d r i a n = Vibia Sabina Rupilla Fauirim = M. Annius Veras b. Tïï' ca. 8j.'36-*i36/ï37 t. 117-13 8 T. Aiirdius Fulvus, » Arria FadilL antoninus ptï.’s = Faustina tiie E l d w M. Annius Veras = Dormiia Lucilla b- ?*> I ia. ïoq':C5-I4i r, 13 8 -1S 1 j L. AJius Caesar = Avidia Plautk im-138 Faustina th e Y o u n g e r - MARCUS a u r e l i u s 1. 130-176/177 b. 121 lÖi-iSo lucirs verus ( 1) = Lucilla ** \z) Ti. < c o m m o p u s = C ró p im .149-1 Si. Pompesaiais % b. 161 ifj-^8 eo-r. 1Ó1-J69 P**-r. 1 7 6 - 1 So T. l5o~102 289 4. Severan house (Kleiner-Matheson, 1996,219): P. Septimius Geta = FuWia Pia Juliiis Basfrianus — .Julia Soaemia? I p, Scpdmius Geta sbpïïsüus severus - (») Julia Domna Julia Matssa » C. Julim Avittis Alexianus d. ca. ro4 b. *4* & 2*7 d. 225 r. 133-211 G. Fïaviu* Plautianus' - Julia Soaémias Bassiaxïa = Scxtus Varius Martellus Julia Avita. Mammai.a = Gessius Mucüwtt 1 222 <*• 235 CARACALLA = Plautilla GETA fa. ut. 186/188 d. 212 b. rSv to-r. 198-211 M-r. aosj-ait r„ 211—217 elagabalus - (1) Julia Paula 'Sa&fetia Barbia Orbiana. = severus Ai-EXA^tier b -.04 CO Aquilia Severa b; 208 r. 2-8-223 (3) Annia Faustina 290 Bibliography Abdy, R. (2003). "Wom sestertii in Roman Britain and the Longhorsley Hoard." NC 163- 137-146. Ackeren, M. van (Ed.) (2012). A companion to Marcus Aurelius. Malden. Akerman, J.Y. (1834). A descriptive catalogue of rare and unedited Roman coins from the earliest period of the Roman coinage to the extinction of the Empire under Constantinus Paleologos. London. Alexandridis, A. (2004). Die Frauen der Römischen Kaiserhauses. Mainz. Alfoldi, A. (1934). Die Ausgestaltung des monarchischen Zeremoniells am römischen Kaiserhofe. Rome. Alfoldi, A (1935). "Insignien und Tracht der römischen Kaiser." MDAI(R) 50:1-171. Alfoldi, G. (1998). Traianus Pater und die Bauinschrift des nymphaus von Milet REA 100- 367-399. Alfoldi, M. R.- (1959-1960). "Helena Nobilissima Femina: zur Deutung der Trierer Deckengemalde." JNG 10: 79-90. Alfoldi, M. R.- (1963). Die Konstantinische Goldpragung. Mainz. Alfoldi, M. R.- (1981). "Nobilitas Augusti - Nobilissimus Caesar. Ein Beitrag zum Selbstverstandnis römischer Kaiser." Festschrift der wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft an der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universitat Frankfurt am Main. Wiesbaden: 337-348. Alfoldi, M. R.- (1996). Münze in Grab, Münze am Grab: Ein ausgefallenen Beispiel aus Rom. Coin fïnds and coin use in the Roman world: the thirteenth Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetaiy Histoiy, 25.-27.3.1993. C. E. King and D. G. Wigg. Berlin. Alfoldi, M. R.- (1999). Bild und Bildersprache der römischen Kaiser: Beispiele und Analysen. Mainz am Rhein. Alföldy, G. (1968). "Herkunft und Laufbahn des Clodius Albinus in der Historia Augusta." Bonner Historia Augusta Colloquium 1966/1967 (Antiquitas 4.4). J. Straub. Bonn: 19-38. Alston, R. (1994). "Roman military pay from Caesar to Diocletian.'' JRS 84: 113-123. Alram, M. (1989). Zum Aufbau der Münzpragung des Maximinus I. Thrax. Vienna. Amandry, M., S. Estiot, et al. (2003). Le Monnayage de 1'atelier de Lyon (43 av.J.-C.-413 ap.J.-C.) Supplément E. Wetteren. Amela Valverde, L. (2003). "La émission DIVOSIVUOS (RRC 535/1-2)." Iberia 6 : 25-40. Ando, C. (2000). Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire. Berkeley - Los Angeles - London. Ando, C. (2012). Imperial Rome, AD 193 to 284: the critical century. The Edinburgh History of Ancient Rome. Edinburgh. Andreau, J. and H. Bruhns (1990). Parenté et stratégies familiales dans 1'Antiquité romaine: actes de la table ronde des 2-4 octobre 1986. P a r i s Appelbaum, A. (2007). Another Look at the Assassination of Pertinax and the Accession of Julianus. CPh 102:198-207. Arce, J. (1988). Funos Imperatorum. Los funerales de los Emperadores romanos. Madrid. Arce, J. (2010). Roman imperial funeral in effigie. The Emperor and Rome. Space, Representation, and Ritual. C. F. Norena and B. C. Ewald. Cambridge: 309-324. Arena, P. (2008). The pompa circensis and the domus Augusta (lst-2nd c. A.D.). Ritual Dynamics and Religious Change in the Roman Empire. IMEM Vm (Heidelberg, July 5 - 7, 2007). O. J. Hekster, S. Schmidt-Hofner, and C. Witschel. Boston - Leiden: 72-94. Assenmaker, P. (2008). "Monnayage et idéologie dans les années de Nauloque et d'Actium" RBN 154: 55-76. Aymard, J. (1955). "La conjuration de Lucilla." REA 57: 85-91. 291 Baar, M. (1990). Das Bild des Kaisers Tiberius bei Tacitus, Sueton und Cassius Dio. Stuttgart. Badel, C. (2005). La noblesse de 1’Empire Romain: les maques et la vertu. Champ Vallon. Baharal, D. (1992). "The portraits of Julia Domna from the years 193-211 A.D. and the dynastie propaganda of L.Septimius Severus." Latomus 51: 110-118. Baharal, D. (1996). Victory of Propaganda: The dynastie aspect of the imperial propaganda of the Severi: The literary and archaeological evidence AD 193-235. (British Archaeological Reports International Series 657). Oxford. Balsdon, J. P. V. D. (19772). The Emperor Gaius. Oxford. Barnes, T. D. (1980). Constantine and Eusebius. Cambridge (Mass.). Barnes, T. D. (1982). The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine. Cambridge (Mass.) - London. Barrett, A. A. (1989). Caligula. The Corruption of Power. London - New York. Barrett, A. A. (1999). The Invalidation of Currency in the Roman Empire: The Claudian Demonetization of Caligula's Aes. Roman Coins and Public Life under the Empire. E. Togo Salmon Papers n. G. M. Paul and M. Ierardi. Ann Arbor. Barrett, A. A. (2005). "Vespasian's Wife." Latomus 64: 385-396. Bartels, H. (1962). Studiën zum Frauenportrat der augusteischen Zeit: Fulvia, Octavia, Livia, Julia. München. Bartman, E. (1999). Portraits of Livia: Imaging the imperial woman in Augustan Rome. Cambridge. Bastien, P. (1972). Le monnayage de 1'atelier de Lyon. Dioclétien et ses corégents avant la réforme monétaire (285 - 294). Vol. 1. Wetteren. Bastien, P. (1976). Le monnayage de 1'atelier de Lyon. De la réouverture de 1'atelier par Aurélien a la morte de Carin (fin 274 - mi-285). Vol. 2. Wetteren. Bastien, P. (1993). Le buste monétaire des empereurs Romains. Vol. 2. Wetteren. Bay, A. (1972). "The Letters SC on Augustan Aes Coinage." JRS 62: 111-122. Beckmann, M. (2012). Diva Faustina: coinage and cult in Rome and the provinces. Numismatic studies ANS 26. New York. Benario, H. W. (1959). "The Titulature of Julia Soaemias and Julia Mamaea: Two Notes." TAPA 90: 9-19. Bendall, S., R. Bland, and A.M. Bumett (1987). "The mints of Pescennius Niger in the light of some new aurei." NC 147: 65-83, plates 10-13. Bennett, B. S. and S. P. O'Rourke (2006). A Prolegomenon to the Future Study of Rhetoric and Propaganda: Critical Foundations. Readings in Propaganda and Persuasion: New and Classics Essays. G. S. Jowett and V. O’Donnell. London - New Delhi. Bennett, J. (1997). Trajan: Optimus Princeps, A life and Times. Bloomington - Indianapolis. Benoist, S. (2005). Rome, le prince et la Cité. Paris. Béranger, J. (1973). Principatus: études de notions et d’histoire pohtiques dans 1’antiquité gréco-romaine. Geneva. Bergmann, M. (1998). Die Strahlen der Herrscher. Theomorphes Herrscherbild und politischen Symbolik im Hellenismus und in der römischen Kaizerzeit. Mainz. Besombes, P.-A. (2008). Monnaies de 1'Empire romain. IV. Trajan (98-117 après J.-C.). Paris - Strassbourg. Bettini, M. (1988). Anthropology and Roman Culture: Kinship, Time, Images of the Soul. Baltimore - London. Bickerman, E.J. (1974). "Diva Augusta Marciana."AJPh 95: 362-376. Bickford-Smith, R. A. (1994/1995). "The Imperial Mints in the East for Septimius Severus: it is time to begin a thorough reconsideration." RIN 96: 53-71. Birley, A. R. (1966). Marcus Aurelius. London - New York. 292 Birley, A. R. (1971). Septimius Severus. London - New York. Birley, A. R. (1997). Hadrian: the restless emperor. London. Birley, A.R. (2012). Early Life. Family, Youth, and Education: a companion to Marcus Aurelius. M. van Ackeren. Malden. Bland, R. and A. Bumett (1988). The Normanby Hoard and other Roman coin hoards. Coin hoards from Roman Britain 8. London: 114-215. Bleckmann, B. (1992). Die Reichskrise des Dl. Jahrhunderts in der spatantiken und byzantinischen Geschichtsschreibung: Untersuchungen zu den nachdionischen Quellen der Chronik des Johannes Zonaras. München. Blois, L. de (1979). The Poücy of the Emperor Gallienus. Leiden. Blois, L. de (2006). Emperorship in a Period of Crisis. Changes in Emperor Worship: Imperial Ideology and Perceptions of Imperial Authority in the Roman Empire in the Third Century A.D. The Impact of Imperial Rome on Religions, Ritual and religious Life in the Roman Empire. IMEM V (Münster, June 30 - July 4, 2006). L. de Blois, P. Funke, and J. Halm. Boston - Leiden: 268-279. Blois, L. de, Erdkamp, P., Hekster, O. J., Kleijn, K. de, and S. T. A. M. Mols (Eds.) (2003). The Representation and Perception of Roman Imperial Power. IMEM m (Netherlands Institute in Rome, March 20 - 23, 2002). Amsterdam. Blois, L. de, Funke, P., and J. Hahn (Eds.) (2006). The impact of imperial Rome on religions, ritual and religious life in the Roman Empire. IMEM V (Münster, June 30 - July 4, 2004). Boston - Leiden. Blois, L. de and E. Lo Casdo (Eds.) (2007). The Impact of the Roman Army (200 BC - AD 476). IMEM VI (Capri, March 29 - April 2, 2005). Boston - Leiden. Blois, L. de and J. Rich (Eds.) (2002). The Transformation of Economic Life under the Roman Empire. IMEM II (Nottingham, July 4 - 7,2001). Amsterdam. Boatwright, M. T. (1987). Hadrian and the City of Rome. Princeton. Boatwright, M. T. (1991). "The Imperial Women of the Early Second Century." AJPh 112- 513-540. Boatwright, M. T. (1992). "Matidia Iunior." EMC 11: 19-32. Boume, R. J. (2001). Aspects of the Relationship between the Central and Gallic Empires in the Mid to Late Third Century AD with Special Reference to Coinage Studies. Oxford. Briessman, A. (1955). Tacitus und das flavische Geschichtsbild. Wiesbaden. Brilliant, R. (1963). Gesture and Rank in Roman Art: the use of Gestures to Denote Status in Roman Sculpture and Coins. New Haven. Brilliant, R. (1969). "An Early Imperial Portrait of Caligula.” AAAH 4: 13-17. Bruhns, H. and A. Bruhns (Eds.) (1990). Parenté et stratégies familiales dans 1'antiquité romaine: Actes de la table ronde des 2-4 octobre 1986. Paris - New York. Brunt, P. A. (1977). "Lex de Imperio Vespasiani." JRS 67: 95-116. Brunt, P. A. (1982). "Nobilitas andNovitas.” JRS 72: 1-17. Bruun, C; (2010). Matidia die Jüngere - Gesellschaftlicher Einfluss und dynastische Rolle. Augustae: Machtbewusste Fauen am römischen Kaiserhof? A. Kolb. Berlin: 211-233. Bruun, P. (1999). Coins and the Roman Imperial Government. Roman Coins and Public Life under the Empire. E. Togo Salmon Papers n. G. M. Paul and M. Ierardi. Ann Arbor 19- 39. Burgersdijk, D. W. P. (2010). Style and Structure of the Historia Augusta. Amsterdam (diss.). Bumett, A. M. (1977). "The Authority to Coin in the Late Republic and Early Empire." NC 137: 37-63. Bumett, A. M. (20042). Coinage in the Roman World. London. Bumett, A. M. (1999). Building and Monuments on Roman Coins. Roman Coins and Public Life under the Empire. E. Togo Salmon Papers n. G. M. Paul and M. Ierardi. Ann Arbor. 293 Bums, J. (2007). Great Women of Imperial Rome. Mothers and wives of the Caesars. New York. Büsing, H. (1997). Zum pontifikalen Aspekt römischer Münzen. Komos: Festschrift für Thruri Lorenz zum 65. Geburtstag. G. Erath-et.al. Vienna: 37-45. Butcher, K. E. T. (1996). "Imagined emperors: personalities and failure in the third century." JRA 9: 515-527. Butcher, K. E. T. (2004). Coinage in Roman Syria: Northern Syria 64 BC - AD 253. London. Butcher, K. E. T. and M. Ponting (2005). "The Roman Denarius under the Julio-Claudian Emperors: Mints, MetaUurgy and Technology.” OJA 24: 163-197. Buttrey, T. V. (1972). "Vespasian as Moneyer." NC 12: 89-109. Buttrey, T. V. (1976). "Vespasian's Consecratio and the Numismatic Evidence." Historia: 25(4): 449-457. Buttrey, T. V. (1980). Documentary Evidence for the Chronology of the Flavian Titulature. Hain. Buttrey, T. V. (2007). "Domitian, the Rhinoceros, and the Date of Martial's liber de Spectaculis." JRS 97:101-112. Callatay, F. de (1995). "Calculating Ancient Coin Production: Seeking a Balance." NC 155: 289-311. Callu, J.-P. (1974). Pietas Romana. Les monnaies de l’impératrice Theodora. Mélanges de philosophie, de littérature et d’Histoire ancienne offerts Èl P. Boyancé. Collection de 1’École franjaise de Rome. Rome: 141-151. Callu, J.-P. (2000). "PIA FELIX." RN 155:189-207. Carcopino, J. (1949). "L’hérédité dynastique chez les Antonins." REA 51: 262-312. Carradice, I. (1979). "The Banishment of the Father of Claudius Etruscus: Numismatic Evidence.” LCM 4:101-103. Carradice, I. (1983). Coinage and Finances in the Reign of Domitian. Oxford. Carson, R. A. G. (1990). Coins of the Roman Empire. London - New York. Cascio, E. Lo (1996). How did the Romans view their coinage and its function? Coin finds and coin use in the Roman world: the thirteenth Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History, 25.-27.3.1993. C. E. King and D. G. Wigg. Berlin: 273-287. Cascio, E. Lo (2005). The Emperor and his Administration. CAH XII: The Crisis of Empire, AD 193 - 337. A. Bowman, P. Gamsey and A. Cameron. Cambridge: 131-183. Cascio, E. Lo (2006). Osservazione sulla funzione della moneta aurea nell'economia monetaria dell'imperio romano. Dal Denarius al Dinar: 1'oriente e la moneta romana. F. Romanis and S. Sorda. Rome: 19-41. Casey, J. (1995). Carausius and Allectus: the British usurpers. New Haven. Castritius, H. (1969). "Zu den Frauen der Flavier.” Historia 18: 492-494. Castillo, del A. (2002). "The emperor Galba's Assumption of Power: Some Chronological Considerations.” Historia: 51: 449-461. Phamplin^ E. (1980). Fronto and Antonine Rome. Cambridge (Mass.) - London. PhamplinJ E. (1996). "Edition of the Senatus Consultum de Cn. Pisone Patre: A Review." AJPh 120: 117-122. Champlin, E. (2003). Nero. Cambridge. Charlesworth, M. P. (1936). "Providentia and Aetemitas.” HThR 29: 107-132. Charlesworth, M. P. (1937). "The Virtues of the Roman Emperor: Propaganda and the Creation of Belief." PBA 23: 105-135. Charlesworth, M. P. (1943). "Pietas and Victoria: The Emperor and the Citizen." JRS 33: 1- 10. r w tagnn^ A. (1994). Histoire Auguste: Les empereurs romains des E6 et üT siècles. Paris. 294 Chausson, F. (2007). Stemmata Aurea: Constantin, Justine, Théodose. Revendications généalogiques et idéologie impériale au IV S. AP J.C. Rome. Cheesman, C. E. A. (2001). "Review: George, M. Paul and Michiel Ierardi (Eds.). Roman Coins and Public Life under the Empire. E Togo Salmon Papers II (Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1999)." NC 161: 374-376. Cheung, A. (1998). "The Political Signifïcance of Roman Imperial Coin Types." GNS 48: 53- 61. Christiansen, E. (1988). The Roman Coins of Alexandria. Vols. 1-2. Aarhus. Claes, L. (2012). "The Consecratio Coins for Commodus - A Reconsideration." RBN 158- 209-226. Claes, L. (forthcoming 2014). "A note on the coin type selection by the a rationibus." Latomus. Classen, C. J. (1991). "Virtutes imperatoriae." Arctos 25: 17-39. Clark, M. E. (1983). "Spes in the Early Imperial Cult: "The Hope of Augustus." Numen 30- 80-105. Clay, C. L. (1982). "Die Münzpragung des Kaisers Nero in Rom und Lugdunum: die Edelmetallpragung der Jahre 54 bis 64 n. Chr." NZ 96: 7-52. Cleves, R. L. (1982). Severus Alexander and the Severan Women. r.a1ifr»mia Cohen, H. and F. Feuardent (19302). Description historique des monnaies frappées sous 1'empire romain, communément appelées médailles impériales. Vols. 1-8. Leipzig. Conrad, E. (1978). "A True Cross Bronze of Helena Sancta." NCirc 8 6 : 191-192. Cooper, K. (2007). The fall of the Roman household. Cambridge. Corbier, M. (1991a). Divorce and Adoption as Roman Familial Strategies: le Divorce and 1'adoption 'en plus'. Marriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome. B. Rawson. Canberra - Oxford: 47-78. Corbier, M. (1991b). Constructing Kinship in Rome: Marriage and Divorce, Filiation and Adoption. The Family in Italy. From Antiquity to the Present. D. I. Kertzer and R. F. Saller. New Haven - London: 127-144. Corbier, M. (1994). "La maison des Césars." Épouser au plus proche. Inceste, prohibitions et stratégies matrimoniales autour de la Méditerranée. P. Bonte: 243-291. Cox, S. E. (2005). "The Mark of the Successor: Tribunican Power and the Ara Providentia under Tiberius and Vespasian." NAC 34: 251-270. Crawford, M. H. (1970). "Money and Exchange in the Roman World." JRS 60: 40-48. Crawford, M. H. (1975). "Finance, Coinage and Money.” ANRW n.2: 562-565. Crawford, M. H. (1983). Roman Imperial Coin Types and the Formation of Public Opinion. Studies in Numismatic Method presented to Philip Grierson. C. N. L. Brooke, B. H. I. H. Steward, J. G. Pollard and T. R. Volk. Cambridge: 47-64. Daltrop, G., U. Hausman, M. F. E. Weger (1966). Die Flavier: Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, Nerva, Julia Titi, Domitilla, Domitia. Berlin. Darwall-Smith, R. H. (1996). Emperors and Architecture: A Study of Flavian Rome. Brussels. Davies, P. J. E. (2000). Death and the Emperor: Roman Imperial Funerary Monuments from Augustus to Marcus Aurelius. Cambridge - New York. Desnier, J.-L. (1979). "DIWS CAESAR IMP DOMITIANI F." REA 81: 54-65. Dixon, S. (1988). The Roman mother. London. Dixon, S. (Ed.) (2001). Childhood, Class, and Kin in the Roman World. New York - London. Domaszewski, A. von (1895). Die Religion des römischen Heeres. Trier. Domaszewski, A. von (1903). "Untersuchungen zur römischen Kaisergeschichte ni: Die Inschriften des Timesitheus." RhM 58: 218-230. Domaszewski, A. von (1908). "Die politische Bedeutung der Religion von Emesa." ANRW n.11: 223-228. 295 Domaszewski, A. von (1909). Abhandlungen zur Römischen Religion. Leipzig. Dressel, H. and K. Regling (1973). Die römischen Medaillone des Münzkabinetts der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin. Berlin. Drijvers, H. J. W. (1981). Die Dea Syria und Andere Syrische Gottheiten. Die Orientalischen Religionen im Römerreich. (Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’Empire romain 93). M. J. Vermaseren. Leiden: 241-263. Drijvers, J. W. (1992). Helena Augusta: The Mother of Constantine the Great and her Finding of the True Cross. Leiden. Drinkwater, J. F. (1987). The Gallic Empire: separatism and continuity in the north-westem provinces of the Roman Empire, A.D. 260-274. Stuttgart. Duncan-Jones, R. P. (1990). Structure and Scale in the Roman Economy. Cambridge. Duncan-Jones, R. P. (1994). Money and Government in the Roman Empire. Cambridge. Duncan-Jones, R. P. (1996). Empire-wide pattems in Roman coin hoards. Coin finds and coin use in the Roman world: the thirteenth Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History C. E. King and D. G. Wigg. Berlin: 139-152. Duncan-Jones, R. P. (1999a). "Die Productivity and Wastage in Roman Republican Coinage." NC 159: 245-254. Duncan-Jones, R. P. (1999b). The Monetization Of the Roman Empire: Regional Variations in the Supply of Coin Types. Roman Coins and Public Life under the Empire. E. Togo Salmon Papers H G. M. Paul and M. Ierardi. Ann Arbor: 61-82. Duncan-Jones, R. P. (2005). "Implications of Roman Coinage: debates and differences." Klio 87: 459-487. Duncan-Jones, R. P. (2006). "Crispina and the Coinage of the Empresses." NC 166: 223-228. Dusanic, S. (1964). Severus Alexander as Elagabalus’ Associate. Historia 13: 487-498. Eek, W. (1978). "Vibia (?) Sabina.” RE Suppl. XV: 909-914. Eek, W. (2002). Traian - Der Weg zum Kaisertum. Traian. Ein Kaiser der Superlative am Beginn einer Umbruchzeit? A. Nünnerich-Asmus. Mainz: 7-20. Eek, W., A. Caballos and F. Femandez (Eds.) (1996). Das Senatus consultum de Cn.Pisone patre. Munich. Ehrhardt, C. (1984). "Roman Coin Types and the Roman Public." JNG 39. Elkins, N. T. (2009). Coins, Contexts, and an Iconographic Approach for the 21st Century. Coins in Context I: New Perspectives for the Interpretation of Coin Finds. H.-M. von Kaenel and F. Kemmers. Studiën zu Fundmünzen der Antike 23. Mainz am Rhein. Elks, K. J. J. (1972). "Reattribution of the Milan Coins of Trajan Decius to the Rome Mint." NC 7/12: 111-115. Ellul, J. (1965). Propaganda. The Formation of Men's Attitudes. New York. Elsner, J. (1995). Art and the Roman Viewer. Cambridge. Elsner, J. (1998). Imperial Rome and Christian triumph: The art of the Roman Empire AD 100-450. Oxford. Elsner, J. and J. Masters (Eds.) (1994). Reflections of Nero: Culture, History & Representation. London. Elton, H. (1996). Frontiers of the Roman Empire. London. Estiot, S. (1987). Ripostiglio della Venèra. Nuovo catalogo illustrato, 11:2. Tacito e Floriano. Verona. Estiot, S. (1995). Ripostiglio della Venèra. Nuovo catalogo illustrato, 11:1. Aureliano. Rome. Estiot, S. (1996). "L’empereur Silbannacus, un second antoninien." RN 151: 105-117. Estiot, S. (1997). "Aurélien et Séverine: trois raretés et un inédit." BSFN 1: 4-9. Estiot, S. (2004). Catalogue des monnaies de 1'Empire romain. XII.1: 'D Aurélien a Florien (270-276 après J.-C.). Paris. 296 Estiot, S. (2005). L’interrègne de Séverine et 1’aceession de 1’empereur Tacite: faut-il vraiment croire 1’HA? Historiae Augustae Colloquium Barcinonense (IX). Bari: 157-180. Evans, J. D. (1992). The Art of Persuasion. Political propaganda from Aeneas to Brutus. Ann Arbor. Fantham, E. (2006). Julia Augusti. The Emperor’s daughter. London-New York. Fishwick, D. (1987). The imperial cult in the Latin West: studies in the ruler cult of the western provinces of the Roman Empire. Vol. 1.2. Leiden. Fishwick, D. (1991). The imperial cult in the Latin West: studies in the ruler cult of the western provinces of the Roman Empire. Vol. II. 1. Leiden. Fink, R. O., A. S. Hoey and W. F. Snyder (1940). The Feriale Duranum. YC1S 7: 1-222. Fittschen, K. (1982). Die Bildnisse der Faustina Minor und die Fecunditas Augustae. Göttingen. Flaig, E. (1992). Den Kaiser herausfordem: Die Usurpation im Römischen Reich. Frankfurt amMain. Flaig, E. (1997). "Für eine Konzeptualisierung der Usurpation im spatrömischen Reich." Usuipationen in der Spatantike: Akten des Kolloquiums "Staatsstreich und Staathchkeit", 6.-10. Marz 1996, Solothum/Bem (Historia Einzelschriften 111). Paschoud, F. and J. Szidat. Stuttgart: 15-34. Flory, M. B. (1984). "Sic exemplaparantur." Historia 33: 313-319. Flory, M. B. (1988 [=1997]). "The Meaning of Augusta in the Julio-Claudian period." AJAH 13: 113-138. Flory, M. B. (1996). "Dynastie Ideology, the Domus Augusta, and Imperial Women: a lost Statuary Group in the Circus Flaminius.” TAPA 26: 287-306. Flower, H. I. (1996). Ancestor Masks and Aristocratie Power in Roman Culture. Oxford. Flower, H. I. (2002). Were women ever 'Ancestors' in Republican Rome? Images of Ancestors. J. M. H0jte. Aarhus: 159-184. Flower, H. I. (2006). The Art of Forgetting: Disgrace and Oblivion in Roman Political Culture. Chapel Hill. Fluss, M. (1918). P. Helvius Pertinax. RE Suppl.ni: 904. Foubert, L. (2010a). Women Going Public: Ideals and conflicts in the representation of Julio- Claudian women. Nijmegen (diss.). Foubert, L. (2010b). The Palatine dwelling of the mater familias: houses as symbohc space in the Julio-Claudian period. Klio 92: 65-82. Foubert, L. (2011). The impact of women's travels on military imagery in the Julio-Claudian period. Frontiers in the Roman World. IMEM IX (Durham, April 16 - 19, 2009). O. J. Hekster and T. Kaizer. Boston - Leiden: 349-362. Foubert, L. (2013). Female travellers in Roman Britain: Vibia Pacata and Juha T nHlla Gender and the Roman City. E.A. Hemelrijk - G. Woolf. Leiden. Frézouls, E. and H. Jouffroy (Eds.) (1998). Les empereurs illyriens. Actes du colloque de Strassbourg (11-13 octobre 1990). Strassbourg. Frier, B. W. (1999). Roman Demography. Life, Death and Entertainment in the Roman Empire. D. S. Potter and D. J. Mattingly. Ann Arbor: 85-109. Frier, B. W. and T. A. J. McGinn (Eds.) (2004). A casebook on Roman family law. New York - Oxford. Fullerton, M. D. (1985). "The Domus Augusti in Imperial Iconography of 13-12 BC " AJA 89: 473-483. Gagé, J. (1943). Recherches sur les jeux séculaires. Paris. Gardner, J. F. (1986). Woman in Roman Law & Society. London. Gardner, J. F. (1998). Family and Familia in Roman Law and Life. Oxford. 297 Gardner, J. F. and T. Wiedeman (Eds.) (2002). The Roman Household. A Sourcebook. London - New York. Gautier, G. (2009). "Le monnayage en or émis Èl Rome en 219 ap. J.-C. au nom de Julia Paula: une enquête au sein des sources." RN 165: 153-162. Gazda, E. and A. Haeckl (1996). Images of the Empire: Flavian Fragments in Rome and Ann Arbor Rejoined. Ann Arbor. Geer, R.M. (1936). Second Thoughts on the Imperial Succession from Nerva to Commodus. TAPA 67: 47-54. Gelzer, M. (1912 [=transl. R.Seager, 1969]). The Roman Nobility. Oxford. Gentilhomme, le P. (1946). "La trouvaille de Nanterre." RN 5/9: 15-114. Ghedini, F. (1984). Giulia Domna. Tra oriente e occidente. Rome. Giard, J.-B. (1983). Le monnayage de 1'atelier de Lyon, des origines au règne de Caligula (43 avant J.-C. - 41 après J.-C.). Wetteren. Giard, J.-B. (1995). Ripostiglio della Venèra. Nuovo catalogo illustrato, I. Gordiano Hl - Quintillo. Rome. Giard, J.-B. (1998). Catalogue de monnaies de 1'Empire romain Hl: Du soulèvement de 68 après J.-C. a Nerva. Paris - Strassbourg. Giard, J.-B. (2000). Le monnaye de 1’atelier de Lyon de Claude Ier a Vespasien (41 - 78 après J.-C.) et au temps de Clodius Albinus (196 -197 après J.-C.). Wetteren. Gibbon, E. (1776 [1903-1906]). The History of Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. London - New York. Gillespie, S. D. (2000). "Rethinking Ancient Maya Social Organization. Replacing "lineage" with "house"." American Anthropologist, New Series 102: 467-484. Gilliam, J. F. (1963). "Severan titles and an inscription from Puteli." CPh 58: 26-29. Ginsburg, J. (2006). Representing Agrippina: Constructions of Female Power in the Early Roman Empire. Oxford. Gitler, H. and M. Ponting (2003). Rome and the East: A Study of the Chemical Composition of Roman Silver Coinage during the Reign of Septimius Severus AD 193-211. Milan. Gnecchi, F. (1912). I Medaglioni Romani. Descritti ed Illustrati. Vols. 1-3. Milan. Göbl, R. (1993). Die Münzpragung des Kaisers Aurelianus. Vienna. Göbl, R. (2000). Die Münzpragung der Kaiser Valerianus I, Gallienus, Saloninus (253-268), Regalianus und Macrinus, Quietus (260/262). Vienna. Gocht, H. (2003). "Namenstilgungen an Bronzemünzen des Caligula und Claudius." Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Numismatischen Gesellschaft 43:103-119. Gordon, R. (1990). The Veil of Power: emperors, sacrificers and benefactors. Pagan Priests. Religion and Power in the Ancient World. M. Beard and J. North. New York. Gorrie, C. (2004). "Julia Domna's Building Patronage, Imperial Family Roles and the Severan Revival of Moral Legislation." Historia 53: 61-72. Gradel, I. (2002). Emperor worship and Roman religion. Oxford. Grant, M. (1950). Roman Anniversary Issues: An Exploratory Study of the Numismatic and Medallic Commemoration of Anniversary Years. 49 BC - AD 375. Cambridge. Grant, M. (1972). Roman Imperial Money. Amsterdam. Grant, M. (1994). The Antonines. The Roman Empire in transition. London. Gricourt, D. (1995). "L’Adventus de Carin dans Ticinum et son marriage avec Magnia Urbica." RN 150: 95-112. Gricourt, D. (2000). Ripostiglio della Venèra. Nuovo catalogo illustrato, IV. Caro- Diocleziano. Verona. Gruen, E. S. (1974). The Last Generation of the Roman Republic. Berkeley - Los Angeles - London. 298 Gurval, R. A. (1997). "Caesar's Comet. The Politics and Poetics of an Augustan Myth" MAAR 42: 39-71. Haegemans, K. (2003). Representation and Perception of Imperial Power in AD 238: The Numismatic Evidence. The representation and perception of Roman imppHal power. IMEM m (Netherlands Institute in Rome, March 20 - 23, 2002). L. de Blois, P. Erdkamp, O. J. Hekster, G. de Kleijn, and S. T. A. M. Mols. Amsterdam. Haegemans, K. (2010). Imperial Authority and Dissent: The Roman Empire in AD 235-238. Leuven. Hahn, U. (1994). Die Frauen des Römischen Kaiserhauses und ihre Ehrungen im griechisechen Osten anhand epigraphischer und numismatischer Zeugnisse von Livia bis Sabina. Saarbrücken. Halsberghe, G. H. (1972). The Cult of Sol Invictus. Leiden. Halsberghe, G. H. (1984). "Le culte de Dea Caelestis.” ANRW n.17.4: 2203-2233. Hammond, M. (1957). Imperial Elements in the Formula of the Roman Emperors during the First Two and a Half Centuries of the Empire." MAAR 25: 17-64. Harl, K. W. (1996). Coinage in the Roman Economy, 300 BC to AD 700. Baltimore - London. Hedlund, R. (2008). "...achieved nothing worthy of memory." Coinage and Authority in the Roman Empire c.AD 260-295. Uppsala. Heer, J. M. (1904). Die historische Wert der Vita Commodi in der Sammlung der Scriptores historiae augustae. Heidelberg (diss.). Heesch, J. van (1978). "Les ateliers monétaires de Pescennius Niger." RBN 124: 57-72. Heesch, J. van (1982). Une représentation remarquable des Quatres Saisons sur semisses de 1'époque antoninienne. Numismatica antiqua (Studia Paulo Naster oblata, I). S. Scheers. Leuven. Heesch, J. van (1993). "Proposition d'une nouvelle datation des monnaies en bronze è 1'autel de Lyon frappées sous Auguste." BSFN 48: 535-238. Heesch, J. van (1998). De muntcirculatie tijdens de Romeinse tijd in het Noordwesten van Gallia Belgica. Brussel. Heesch, J. van (2002). Mints and the Roman Army from Augustus to Diocletian. Limes XVIII: Proceedings of the XVmth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies held in Amman, Jordan (September 2000) (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1084 (I)). P. Freeman, J. Bennett, Z. T. Fiema and B. Hoffmann. Oxford: 35-42. Heesch, J. van (2009). "Providing Markets with Small Change in the Early Roman Empire' Italy and Gaul.” RBN 155: 125-142. Heesch, J. van (2011). Quantifying Roman Imperial Coinage. Quantifying Monetary Supphes in Greco-Roman times. F. de Callatay. Bari: 311-328. Heil, M. (2006). Clodius Albinus und der Bürgerkrieg von 197. Staatlichkeit und politisches Handeln in der römischen Kaiserzeit (Millenium-Studien 10). H.-U. Wiemer. Berlin - New York: 55-85. Hekster, O. J. (1999). "The dty of Rome in late imperial ideology: the Tetrarchs, Maxentius, and Constantine." Mediterraneo Antico. Economie Socièta Culture 2:717-748. Hekster, O. J. (2001). All in the Family: The Appointment of Emperors designate in the second century A.D. Admimstration, Prosopography and Appointment Policies in the Roman Empire. IMEM H (Nottingham, July 4 - 7, 2001). L. de Blois and J. Rich. Amsterdam: 35-49. Hekster, O. J. (2002). Commodus. An Emperor at the Crossroads. Amsterdam. 299 Hekster, O. J. (2003). Coins and Messages: Audience targeting on coins of different denominations. The Representation and Perception of Roman Imperial Power. IMEM m (Netherlands Institute in Rome, March 20 - 23, 2002). L. de Blois, P. Erdkamp, O. J. Hekster, G. de Kleijn, and S. T. A. M. Mols. Amsterdam: 20-35. Hekster, O. J. (2004). "Hercules, Omphale, and Octavian's "Counter-propaganda." BaBesch 79: 159-166. Hekster, O. J. (2006). Descendants of Gods: Legendary Genealogies in the Roman Empire. The Impact of Tmperial Rome on Religions, Ritual and religious Life in the Roman Empire. IMEM V (Münster, June 30 - July 4, 2004). L. De Blois, P. Funke, and J. Hahn. Boston - Leiden: 24-35. Hekster, O. J. (2007). Fighting for Rome: The emperor as a Military Leader. Impact of Ihe Roman army (200 BC - AD 476), economic, social, political, religious and cultural aspects. IMEM VI (Capri, March 29 - April 2, 2005). L. de Blois and E. Lo Cascio. Boston - Leiden: 91-105. Hekster, O. J. (2009). Honouring Ancestors: The Dynamic of Deification. Ritual Dynamics and Religious Change in the Roman Empire. IMEM Vffi (Heidelberg, July 5 - 7, 2007). O. J. Hekster, S. Schmidt-Hofner, and C. Witschel. Boston - Leiden: 95-110. Hekster, O. J. (2010). "Reversed Epiphanies: Roman Emperors Deserted by Gods." Mnemosyne 63: 601-615. Hekster, O. J. (2011). "Imagining Power: Reality Gaps in the Roman Empire." Babesch 86 : 177-190. Hekster, O. J. (forthcoming 2014). Emperors and Ancestors: Constructions of Roman imperial images. Hekster, O. J., Claes, L„ Haan, N. de, Klaassen, Y„ Manders, E., and D. Slootjes (forthcoming 2013). "Nero and the Importance of Julio-Claudian Ancestry: a Methodological Survey." Chiron. Hekster, O. J. and T. Kaizer (Eds.) (2011). Frontiers in the Roman World. IMEM IX (Durham, April 16 - 19,2009). Boston - Leiden. Hekster, O. J., Kleijn, G. de, and D. Slootjes (Eds.) (2007). Crises and the Roman Empire. IMEM VII (Nijmegen, June 20 - 24,2006). Boston - Leiden. Hekster, O. J. and E. Manders (2006). "Kaiser gegen Kaiser: Bilder der Macht im 3. Jahrhundert." Deleto paene imperio Romano: Transformationsprozesse des Römischen Reiches im 3. Jahrhundert und ihre Rezeption in der Neuzeit. K.-P. Johne, T. Gerhardt and U. Hartmann. Stuttgart 2006:135-144. Hekster, O. J., Schmidt-Hofner, S., and C. Witschel (Eds.) (2009). Ritual Dynamics and Religious Change in the Roman Empire. IMEM VUI (Heidelberg, July 5 - 7, 2007). Boston - Leiden. Hemelrijk, E. A. (1999). Matrona Docta: Educated Women in the Roman élite from Comelia to Julia Domna. London - New York. Hemelrijk, E. A. (2005). "Octavian and the introduction of public statues for women in R om e." Athenaeum 93: 309-317. Hendy, M. F. (1985). Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy c. 300-1450. Cambridge. Herzog, G. (1919). Julia Avita Mamaea. RE X.l: 950. Hill, H. (1969). "Nobilitas in the imperial period." Historia 18: 230-250. Hill, P. V. (1964a). The coinage of Septimius Severus and his family of the mint of Rome, A.D. 193-217. London. Hill, P. V. (1964b). "Notes on the coinage of Septimius Severus and his family, A.D. 193- 217." NC 4:169-188. Hill, H. (1969). "Nobilitas in the imperial period." Historia 18: 230-250. 300 Hillner, J. (2003). "Domus, Family, and Inheritance: the Senatorial Family House in T-atp Antique Rome." JRS 93:129-145. Hobley, A. S. (1998). An examination of Roman bronze coin distribution in the western Empire. Oxford. Hölkeskamp, K.-J. (1987 [=2011]). Die Entstehung der Nobilitat: Studiën zur sozialen und politischen Geschichte der Römischen Republik im 4. Jh. v. Chr. 2. Stuttgart. Hölscher, T. (1987). Römische Bildsprache als semantische System. Heidelberg. Hölscher, T. (2000). Bildwerke: Darstellungen, Funktionen, Botschaften. Klassisphp Archaologie - eine Einführung. A. H. Borhein, T. Hölscher and P. Zanker. Berlin: 147- 165. Horster, M. (2007). The Emperor's Family on Coins (Third Century): Ideology of Stability in Times of Unrest. Crises and the Roman Empire. IMEM VU (Nijmegen, June 20 - 24, 2006). O. J. Hekster, G. de Kleijn, and D. Slootjes. Boston - Leiden: 291-310. Horster, M. (2011). Princeps Iuventutis: Concept, realisation, representation. Figures d'empire, fragments de mémoire. Pouvoirs et identités dans le monde romain impérial He s. av. n. è - VI s. de n. è. S. Benoist-et al. Lille: 73-103. Howell, S. (2009). Adoption of the unrelated child: Some challenges to the anthropological study of kinship. Annual Review of Anthropology 38:149-166. Howgego, C. (1990). "Why did Ancient States strike Coins?” NC 150: 1-25. Howgego, C. (1992). "The Supply and Use of Money in the Roman World: 200 BC - AD 300." JRS 82:1-31. Howgego, C. (1995). Ancient history from coins. London. Howgego, C., V. Heuchert, and A. Bumett (Eds.) (2005). Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces. Oxford. Hurlet, F. (1993). "La Lex de imperio Vespasiani et la légitimité augustéenne." Latomus 52: 261-280. Hurlet, F. (1997). Les collègues du prince sous Auguste et Tibère. Rome. Icks, M. (2011). The Crimes of Elagabalus: The Life and Legacy of Rome’s Decadent Boy Emperor. London. Instinsky, H.U. (1942). "Studiën zur Geschichte des Septimius Severus I: Julia Domna als mater castrorum und als mater senatus, mater patriae." Klio 35: 200-219. Johne, K.-P., and U. Hartmann (Eds.) (2008). Die Zeit der Soldatenkaiser: Krisp und Transformation des Römischen Reiches im 3.Jahihundert n.Chr. (235-284). Berlin. Johnson, W. A. and H. N. Parker (Eds.) (2009). Ancient literacies: the culture of reading in Greece and Rome. New York. Jones, A. H. M. (1956). Numismatic and History. Numismatics and History Essays in Roman Coinage Presented to Harold Mattingly. R. A. G. Carson and C.H.V. Sutherland. London: 13-33. Jones, B. W. (1992). The Emperor Domitian. London - New York. Jong, J. de (2006). Emperors in Egypt: The Representation and Perception of Roman Tmpprial Power in Greek Papyrus Texts from Egypt, AD 193-284. Nijmegen (diss.). Jowett, G. S. and V. ODonnell (2006). Propaganda and Persuasion. London - New Delhi. Jucker, H. (1975). "Der Ring der Kaisers Galba." Chiron 5: 349-364. Kaczynski, B. and M. Nüsse (2009). Reverse type selection in sanctuaries? A study of antoniniani found in various contexts. Coins in Context I: New Perspectives for the interpretation of coin finds. Studiën zu Fundmünzen der Antike 23. H.-M. von Kaenel and F. Kemmers. Mainz am Rhein: 93-107. Kaenel, H.-M. von (1984). Britannicus, Agrippina Minor und Nero im Thrakien. SNR 63' 127-150. Kaenel, H.-M. von (1986). Münzpragung und Münzbildnis des Claudius. Berlin. 301 Kaenel, H.-M. von and F. Kemmers (Eds.) (2009). Coins in context I: New Perspectives for the interpietation of coin finds. Studiën zu Fundmünzen der Antike 23. Mainz am Rhein. Kaiser-Raiss, M. R. (1980). Die stadtrömische Münzpragung wahrend der Alleinherrschaft des Commodus. Untersuchungen zur Selbstdarstellung eines römische Kaisers. Frankfurt amMain. Kampen, N. B. (2009). Family Fictions in Roman Art. Cambridge. Katsari, C. (2003). "The Organisation of Roman Mints during the Third Century C.E.: the view from the Eastem Provinces." Classics Ireland 10: 27-47. Kemmers, F. (2003). "Quadrantes from Nijmegen: Small change in a Frontier Province." SNR 82: 17-35. Kemmers, F. (2005). Coins for a legion: An analysis of the coin fmds of the Augustan legionary fortress and Flavian canabae legionis at Nijmegen. Nijmegen (diss.). Kemmers, F. (2006). Not at random. Evidence for a regionalised coin supply. TRAC 2004. J. Brun, B. Croxford, and D. Grigoropoulos. Oxford: 39-49. Kemmers, F. (2009a). "Sender or receiver? Contexts of coin supply and coin use." Coins in Context 1: New perspectives for the interpretation of coin finds. Studiën zu Fundmünzen der Antike 23. H.-M. von Kaenel and F. Kemmers. Mainz am Rhein: 137-156. Kemmers, F. (2009b). "From bronze to silver. Coin circulation in the early third century AD." RBN 155: 143-158. Kemmers, F. (2011). Out of the Shadow: Geta and Caracalla reconsidered. Reprasentationsformen in severische Zeit. S. Faust and F. Leitmeir. Mainz: 270-289. Kettenhofen, E. (1979). Die syrischen Augustae in der historischen Überlieferung. Bonn. Kienast, D. (1989). "Diva Domitilla." ZPE76:141-174. Kienast, D. (20043). Römische Kaisertabelle: Grundzüge einer römischen Kaiserchronologie. Darmstadt. Kindler, A. (1980). "The "damnatio memoriae" of Elagabalus on City-Coins of the Near East." GNS 30: 3-7. King, C. E. (1999). Roman Portraiture: Images of Power? Roman Coins and Public Life under the Empire. E. Togo Salmon Papers n. G. M. Paul and M. Ierardi. Ann Arbor: 123-136. King, C. E. and D. G. Wigg (Eds.) (1996). Coin fmds and coin use in the Roman world: the thirteenth Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History, 25.-27.3.1993. Berlin. Klaassen, Y. (forthcoming 2014). Contested successions: Kinship and the transfer of imperial power in Tacitus’ Histories and Annals. Kleijn, G. de (2009). "C. Licinius Mucianus: Leader in Time of Crisis." Historia 58: 311-324. Klein, B. (2009). Römische Kaiserinnen im 3. Jh.: Furia Sabina Tranquillina und Marcia Otacilia Severa: ihr Beitrag zur Herrschaftsstabilisierung des Kaisers." Grenzen der Macht: Zur Rolle der römischen Kaiserfrauen. Potsdamer Altertumswissenschaftliche Beitrage 3. C. Kunst and U. Riemer. Stuttgart: 87-96. Kleiner, D. E. E. (1992). "Politics and Gender in the Pictorial Propaganda of Antony and Octavian." EMC 11: 357-367. Kleiner, D. E. E. and S. B. Matheson (Eds.) (1996). I Claudia. Woman in Ancient Rome. New Haven. Kloft, H. (1970). Liberalitas principis. Herkunft und Bedeutung Studiën zur Prinzipatsideologie. Köln - Vienna. Klose, D. (1984). OYEEHAXIANOE NEDTEPOE. Chiron 14:193-195. Komnick, H. (2001). Die Restitutionsmünzen der frühen Kaiserzeit. Berlin - New York. König, I. (1981). Die gallischen Usurpatoren von Postumus bis Tetricus. München. Kömer, C. (2002). Philippus Arabs. Ein Soldatenkaiser in der Tradition des antoninisch- severischen Prinzipats. Berlin - New York. 302 Kos, P. (1991). Najdba Antoninijanov Tretjega Stoletja: A Hoaid of Third Century Antoniniani. Ljubljana. Kosmetatou, E. (2002). "The Public Image of Julia Mamaea: An Epigraphic and Numismatic Inquiry.” Latomus 61: 398-414. Kovacs, P. (2009). Marcus Aurelius’ Rain Miracle and the Marcomannic Wars. (Mnemosyne Supplements 308). Leiden - Boston. Kraay, C. M. (1956). The Aes Coinage of Galba. New York. Kraft, K (1962). "S(enatus) C(onsulto)." JNG 12: 7-50. Kragelund, P. (1998). "Galba's "Pietas", Nero's Victims and the Mausoleum of Augustus." Historia: 47: 152-173. Kreucher, G. (2003). Der Kaiser Marcus Aurelius Probus und seine Zeit. Stuttgart. Kuhoff, A. W. (1979). Herrschertum und Reichskrise. Die Regierungszeit der römischen Kaiser Valerianus und Gallienus (253-268 n.Chr.). Bochum. Kuhoff, A. W. (1993a). "Iulia Aug. mater Aug. n. et castrorum et senatus et patriae." ZPE 97: 259-271. Kuhoff, A. W. (1993b). "Zur Titulatur der römischen Kaiserinnen wahrend der Prinzipatszeit." Klio 75:244-256. Kunst, C. (1996). "Adoption und Testamentadoption in der spaten Republik." Klio 78: 87- 104. Kunst, C. (2005). Römische Adoption. Zur Strategie einer Familienorganisation. Hennef. Kunst, C. and U. Riemer (Eds.) (2000). Grenzen der Macht. Zur Rolle der römischen Kaiserfrauen. Potsdamer Altertumswissenschaffliche Beitrage. Stuttgart. Laffranchi, L. (1918). "La Monetazione di Augusto." RIN 1:167-188. Langford-Johnson, J. (2005). Mater Augustorum, Mater Senatus, Mater Patriae: Succession and Consensus in Severan Ideology. Indiany University (Diss.). Legutko, P. A. (2000). Roman Imperial Ideology in the Mid Third Century A.D. Negotion, Usurpation and Crisis in the Imperial Center. Michigan (Diss.). Lendon, J. E. (1990). "The Face on the Coins and Inflation in Roman Egypt." Klio 72: 106- 134. Lendon, J. E. (1997). Empire of Honour: The Art of Government in the Roman World. Oxford. Lenski, N. E. (Ed.) (2006). The Cambridge companion to the age of Constantine. Cambridge. Levick, B. (1966). "Drusus Caesar and the Adoptions of AD 4." Latomus 25: 227 - 244. Levick, B. (1978). "A Cry from the Heart from Tiberius Caesar?" Historia 27: 95-101. Levick, B. (1982). "Propaganda and the Imperial Image." Antichthon 16: 104-116. Levick, B. (1990). Claudius. New Haven - London. Levick, B. (1999a). Messages on the Roman Coinage: Types and Inscriptions. Roman Coins and public Life under the Empire. E. Togo Salmon Papers E. G. M. Paul and M. Ierardi. Ann Arbor: 41-60. Levick, B. (1999b). Vespasian. London. Levick, B. (19992). Tiberius the Politician. London - New York. Levick, B. (2007). Julia Domna: Syrian Empress. London - New York. Lichocka, B. (1974). Justitia sur les monnaies impériales. Warsaw. Lichtenberger, A. (2011). Severus Pius Augustus: Studiën zur sakralen Reprasentation und Rezeption der Herrschaft des Septimius Severus und seiner Familie (193-211 n. chr.). IMEM XIV. Boston - Leiden. Liggi, I. (1998). "Caecilia Paulina: un destin d'impératrice." EL 1:131-158. Lindsay, H. (2001). Adoption and its Function in Cross-Cultural Contexts. Childhood, Class and Kin in the Roman World. S. Dixon. New York - London. 303 Lippold, A. (1981). "Constantius Caesar - Nachfahre des Claudius Gothicus." Chiron 11: 347- 369. Lobur, J. A. (2008). Consensus, Concordia, and the Formation of Roman Imperial Ideology. New York - London. Loriot X. and D. Nony (1971.) "Sur une monnaie d'Anazarbe (Cilicie) a 1'effigie d'Hostilien." BSFN21: 128-129. López Sanchez, F. (2003). Left and Right in Roman Coins of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries A.D. The Representation and Perception of Roman Imperial Power. IMEM IH (Netherlands Institute in Rome, March 20 - 23, 2002). L. de Blois, P. Erdkamp, O. J. Hekster, G. de Kleijn, and S. T. A. M. Mols. Amsterdam: 36-47. López Sanchez, F. (2004). Du masculin dans de féminin: les pouvoirs réels de Séverine (274- 275 ap.J.-C.) et d'autres femmes a Rome: L'apport de la numismatique. Iconographie impériale, iconographie royale, iconographie des élites dans le monde gréco-romain. Travaux du centre de recherche en histoire de 1'université de Saint-Étieime. Y. Perrin and T. Petit. Saint-Étienne. T nmrnpl, p. (1991). 'Zielgruppen' Römischen Staatskunst: Die münzen der Kaiser Augustus bis Trajan und die trajanischen Staatsreliefs. München. T nsnia, S. S. (1995). "Julia Domna's Coinage and Severan Dynastie Propaganda." Latomus 54: 119-140. Lyasse, E. (2008). Le Principat et son fondateur. L'utilisation de la référence a Auguste de Tibère a Trajan. Brussels. MacDowell, D. W. (1979). The Western Coinage of Nero. ANSMusN 161. New York Magie, D. (1950). Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the third Century a. C. Vols. 1-2. Princeton. Magnami, A. (2007). Guilia Domna. Imperatrice filosofa. Milan. Manders, E. (2011). Boodschappen van de keizer? Monetaire propaganda in de Romeinse keizertijd. Lampas 44: 230-247. Manders, E. (2012). Coining Images of Power. Pattems in the Representation of Roman Emperors on Imperial Coinage A.D. 193-284. IMEM XV. Boston - Leiden. Marlin, R. (2002). Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion. Ontario. Marsden, P. R. V. (1967). A Ship of the Roman Period from Blackfriars. London. Martin, J.-P. (1982). Providentia Deorum: Recherches sur certains aspects religieux du pouvoir imperial romain. Rome. Martin, J.-P. (1992). Le thèmes monétaires claudiens. Claude de Lyon, Empereur romain. Y. Bumand, Y. Le Bohec, and J.-P. Martin. Paris: 201-212. Marzano, A. (2009). "Trajanic building projects on base-metal denominations and audience targeting." PBSR77: 125-158. Mattingly, H. (1920a). "Some Historical Roman Coins of the First Century AD." JRS 10: 37- 41. Mattingly, H. (1920b). "The "restored" coins of Titus, Domitian and Nerva." NC 20: 177-207. Mattingly, H. (1926). "The Restored Coins of Trajan." NC 5/6: 265-278. Mattingly, H. (1932). "The Coinage of Septimius Severus and his times. Mints and Chronology." NC 12:177-198. Mattingly, H. (1948). "The consecration of Faustina Maior and her daughter." HThR 41: 147- 51. Mattingly, H. (1949). "The coins of the "Divi" issued by Trajan Decius." NC 6/9: 75-82. Mattingly, H. (1963). "Review S(enatus) C(onsulto) by Konrad Kraft." NC 123: 225-256. Maurice, J. (1908). Numismatique Constantienne. Vol. 1. Paris. McAlee, R. (2007). The Coins of Roman Antioch. Lancaster. McLynn, F. (2009). Marcus Aurelius: Warrior, Philosopher, Emperor. London. 304 Meadows, A. and J. H C. Williams (2001). "Moneta and the Monuments: Coinage and Politics in Republican Rome." JRS 91: 27-49. Meise, E. (1965). Untersuchen zur Geschichte der Julisch-Claudischen Dynastie. Vestigia 10. MUnchen. Metcalf, W. E. (1982). The Flavians in the East. Proceedings of the Ninth Tntpmatinnal Congress of Numismatics (Beme, September 1979). T. Hackens andR. Weiller. Louvain- la-neuve - Luxemburg: 321-339. Metcalf, W. E. (1993). "Whose Liberalitas? Propaganda and Audience in the Early Roman Empire." RIN 95: 337-346. Metcalf, W. E. (1999). Coins as Primary Evidence. Roman Coins and Public Life under the Empire. E. Togo Salmon Papers II. G. M. Paul and M. Ierardi. Ann Arbor: 1-17. Meurant, A. (2004). Imaginaires mythologiques des sociétés anciennes: les liens familiaux dans la mythologie. Villeneuve dAscq. Mikocki, T. (1995). Sub specie deae: Les impératrices et princesses romaines assimilées a des déesses. Rome. Millar, F. (1966). "The emperor, the senate and the provinces." JRS 56: 156-166. Millar, F. (1977). The Emperor in the Roman World (31 BC - AD 337). London. Millar, F. (1993). "Ovid and the domus Augusta: Rome seen from Tomoi." JRS 83: 1-17. Milne, J. G. (1936). "Review of H. Mattingly & E.A. Sydenham, The Roman Tmppriai Coinage, Vol. IV, part I : Pertinax to Geta. London, Spink & Son.” JRS 28: 96-98. Mittag, P. F. (2010). Römische Medaillons. Caesar bis Hadrian. Stuttgart. Mommsen, Th. (1860). Geschichte des römischen Münzwesens. Berlin. Mommsen, Th. (1878). Römische Staatsrecht. Berlin. Moormann, E. M. (2003). Some Observations on Nero and the City of Rome. The representation and perception of Roman imperial power. IMEM m (Netherknds Institute in Rome, March 20 - 23, 2002). L. de Blois, P. Erdkamp, O. J. Hekster, G. de Kleijn, and S. T. A. M. Mols. Amsterdam. Morawiecki, L. (1983). Political propaganda in the coinage of the late Roman republic. Wroclaw. Mundle, I. (1961). "Dea Caelestis in der Religionspolitik des Septimius Severus und der Julia Domna." Historia 10: 228-237. Nelson, C. A. (1982). "Pescennius Niger: A Third Year." ZPE 49: 265-274. Newlands, C. E. (2002). Statius' Silvae and the poetics of Empire. Cambridge - New York. Nicolet, C. (1988). La Tabula Siarensis, la lex de imperio Vespasiani et les ius relationis de 1’empereur au Sénat." MEFRA 100-102: 827-866. Nicols, J. (1974). "The Chronology and Significance of the M. Agrippa asses." ANSMusN 19: 65-86. Nixon, C. E. V. and B. S. Rodgers (1994). In Praise of Later Roman Emperors: The Panegynci Latini. Introduction, Translation, and Historical Commentary with the Latin Text of R.A.B. Mynors. Berkeley - Los Angeles - Oxford. Norena, C. F. (2001). "The Communication of Ihe Emperor’s Virtues." JRS 91: 146-186. Norena, C. F. (2003). "Medium and Message in Vespasian's Templum Pacis." MAAR 48- 25- 43. Norena, C. F. (2007). "Hadrian’s chastity." Phoenix 61: 296-317. Norena, C. F. (2010). Coins and Communication. The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World. M. Peachin. Oxford: 248-268. Norena, C. F. (2011). Imperial Ideal in the Roman West: Representation, Circulation, Power. Cambridge. Oost, S. I. (1952). "The Career of M. Antonius Pallas." AJPh 79:113-139. Orange, L’ H. P. (1947). Apotheosis in Ancient Portraiture. Oslo. 305 Orange, L’ H. P. (1953). Studies on the iconography of cosmic kingship in the ancient world. Oslo. Osgood, J. (2011). Claudius Caesar. Image and Power in the Early Roman Empire. Cambridge. Packer, J. E. (2001). The Forum of Trajan in Rome: A study of the monuments in brief. Berkeley. Panofsky, E. (1952). Idea: ein Beitrag zur Begriffsgeschichte der alteren Kunsttheorie. Firenze. Paris, R. (1994). Ipotesi per il Templum Gentis Flaviae. Originali ricongiunti e copie tra Ann Arbor e Roma. D. Hartwig. Rome. Paschoud, F. (Trad. et Comm.) (1996). Histoire Auguste: Vies d’Aurélien et de Tacite. Paris. Paschoud, F. (Trad. et Comm.) (2001). Histoire Auguste: Vies de Probus, Firmus, Satumon, Proculus et Bonose, Carus, Numérien et Carin. Paris. Paul, G. M. and M. Ierardi (Eds.) (1999). Roman Coins and Public Life under the Empire. E. Togo Salmon Papers n. Ann Arbor. Peachin, M. (1986). "The Procurator Monetae." NC 146: 95-107. Peachin, M. (1990). Roman Imperial Titulature and Chronology, AD.235-284. Amsterdam. Penella, R. J. (1980). "Caracalla and his mother in the "Historia Augusta". Historia: 29: 382- 384. Pettinger, A. (2012). The Republic in Danger. Drusus Libo and the Succession of Tiberius. Oxford. Perassi, C. (1991). Spes. Milan. Pérez, A. J. (2003). Auctoritas et Maiestas: Historia, programa dinastico e iconografia en la moneda de Vespasiano. Alicante. Petolescu, C. M. (1996). "Un médallion roman dedicat lui Divus Pertinax [A Roman medallion dedicated to Divus Pertinax]." Cercetari numismatice 7: 41-46. Pietrzykowsky, M. (1986). "Die Religionspolitik des Kaisers Elagabal." ANRW n.16.3: 806- 1825. Pink, K. (1933). "Der Aufbau der römischen Münzpraging in der Kaiserzeit (mit einem Anhang: Die Münzen des Macrinus), I: Die Zeit des Septimius Severus." NZ 6 6 : 17-54. Pink, K. (1949). "Der Aufbau der römischen Münzpragung in der Kaiserzeit, VI. 1: Probus." NZ 73: 13-74. Pink, K. (1963). "Der Aufbau der römischen Münzpraging in der Kaiserzeit, VI.2: Carus und Söhne." NZ 80: 5-68. Pollini, J. (1985). "The Meaning and Date of the Reverse Type of Gaius Caesar in Horseback." ANSmusN 30: 113-117. Pollini, J. (1990). Roman portraiture: images of character and virtue. Selections from the J. Paul Getty Museum. Los Angeles. Pomeroy, S. (1975). Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves. New York. Potter, D. S. (1990). Prophecy and History in the Crisis of the Roman Empire: A historical Commentary on the Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle. Oxford. Potter, D. S. (1999). "Political Theory in the "Senatus Consultum Pisonianum".” AJPh 120: 65-88. Potter, D. S. (2004). The Roman Empire at Bay: AD 180-395. London - New York. Préaux, C. (1952). "Trébonien Galle et Hostilianus." Aegyptus 32: 152-157. Price, M. J. (1973). "The Lost Year. Greek Light on a Problem of Roman Chronology." NC 7/13: 75-86. Price, S. R. F. (1984). Rituals and Power: The Roman imperial cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge. Purcell, N. (1986). "Livia and the Womanhood of Rome." PCPhS 32: 75-105. 306 Rathbone, D.W. (1986). "The dates of recognition in Egypt of the Emperors from Caracalla to Dioclatian." ZPE 62:101-131. Rawson, B. (Ed.) (1986). The Family in Ancient Rome. London - Sydney. Rawson, B. (Ed.) (1991). Marriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome. Canberra - Oxford. Rawson, B. (2001). Children as Cultural Symbols. Imperial Ideology in the Second Century. Childhood, Class and Kin in the Roman World. S. Dixon. New York - London: 21-41. Rawson, B. and P. Weaver (Eds.) (1999). The Roman family in Italy: status, sentiment, space. Canberra - Oxford. Reece, R. (1999). The Later Roman Empire: An Archaeology, AD 150-600. Stroud. Rees, R. (1993). "Images and Image: a re-examination of Tetrarchic Iconography." G&R 40- 181-200. Reinach, S. (1922). "Un homme a projets du Bas-Empire." RA 81: 205-255. Rich, J. and J. H. C. Williams (1999). "Leges et Ivra P.R.Restitvit: A New Aureus of Octavian and the Settlement of 28-27 BC." NC 159:169-213. Richardson, L. (1992). A New Topographical Dictionaiy of Ancient Rome. Baltimore - London. Rives, J.B. (1999). “The decree of Decius and the religion of Empire.” JRS 89: 135-154. Roche, P. A. (2002). "The Public Image of Trajan's Family." CPh 97:41-60. Roman, Y., B. Rémy, and Riccardi, L. (2009). "Les intrigues de Plotine et la succession de Trajan a propos d'un aureus au nom d'Hadrien César. ” REA 111: 508-517. Rose, C. B. (1997). Dynastie Commemoration and Imperial Portraiture in the Julian-Claudian Period. Cambridge. Rowan, C. (2011a). Communicating a consecratio: the Deification Coinage of Faustina I. Proceedings of the XTV International Numismatic Congress, Glasgow 2009. N. Holmes. Glasgow: 991-8. Rowan, C. (2011b). "The Public Image of the Severan Women.” PBSR 79: 241-273. Rowan, C. (2012). Under divine auspices. Divine Ideology and the Visualisation of Imperial Power in the Severan Period. Cambridge. Rowan, C. (forthcoming 2013). "Imaging the Golden Age: the coinage of Antoninus Pius " PBSR 81. Rowe, G. (1997). Omnis spes future patemae stationis: Public responses to the Roman imperial succession. Oxford (diss). Rowe, G. (2002). Princes and Political Cultures: The New Tiberian Senatorial Decrees. Ann Arbor. Rubin, Z. (1976/7). "The "felicitas" and the "concordia" of the Severan house." SCI 3- 153- 172. Rudich, V. (1993). Political dissidence under Nero: the price of Hissimnlatinn London. Saavedra-Guerreo, M. D. (2007). "El poder, el miedo y la ficcfon en la relacfon del emperador Caracalla y su madre Julia Domna." Latomus 66:120-131. Saldem, F. von (2003). Studiën zur Politik des Commodus. Würzburg. Saller, R. F. (1984). "Familia, Domus and the Roman Conception of the Family." Phoenix 38- 336-355. Saller, R. F. (1994). Patriarchy, Property and Death in the Roman Family, ramhririge Saller, R. F. (1999). "Pater Familias, Mater Familias, and the Gendered Semantics of the Roman Household." CPh 94: 182-197. Saller, R. F. and B. Shaw (1984). "Tombstones and Family Relations during the Principate: Civilians, Soldiers, and Slaves." JRS 74: 134-136. Scheid, J.-B., H. (1980). "Deux nouveaux fragments des Actes des Frères Arvales de 1’année 38 ap. J.-C." MEFRA 92: 215-248. 307 Scheidel, W. (1999). "Emperors, Aristocrats and the Grim Reaper: towards a Demographic Profile of the Roman Elite." CQ 49: 254-281. Scheidel, W. (2001). Progress and Problems in Roman Demography: Debating Roman Demography. Death on the Nile. Disease and the Demography of Roman Egypt. W. Scheidel. Leiden-Boston-Köln. Schumacher, L. (2003). "Die Politische Stellung Des D. Clodius Albums." JbRGZM 50: 355- 369. Seeltentag, G. (2004). Taten und Tugenden Traians: Herrschaftsdarstellung im Principat. Hermes Einzelschriften, Heft 91. Stuttgart. Seelentag, G. (2007). "Titus and the Supposed Title of Designatus Imperator." NC 167: 143- 146. Seelentag, G. (2009). "Spes Augusta." Latomus 96: 83-100. Severy, B. (2000). "Family and State in the Early Imperial Monarchy: the Senatus Consultum de Pisone Patre, Tabula Siarensis, and Tabula Hebana." CPh 95: 318-337. Severy, B. (2003). Augustus and the Family at the birth of the Roman Empire. New York - London. Siebert, A. V. (2000). Portratabsicht und Portratwirkung. Gedanken zu zwei Kaiserinnenportrats in Haimover. Grenzen der Macht. Zur Rolle der römischen Kaiserfrauen. Potsdamer Altertumswissenschaftliche Beitrage. C. Kunst and U. Riemer. Stuttgart. Slootjes, D. (forthcoming 2013). "Imperial co-rulers and the importance of ancestry in the first three centuries of the Roman Empire." Smith, C. J. (2006). The Roman Clan: The gens from ancient ideology to modem anthropology. Cambridge. Smith, P. C. (1995). "The Phoenician Text from the Etruscan Sanctuary at Pyrgi." JAOS 15: 559-575. Smith, R. R. R. (1987). "The Imperial Reliefs from the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias.” JRS 77: 88-138. Speidel, M. A. (2009). Heer und Herrschaft im Römischen Reich der hohen Kaiserzeit. Mavors Roman Army Researches 16. Stuttgart. Stathakopoulos, D. C. (2004). Famine and pestilence in the late Roman and early Byzantine empire: a systematic survey of subsistence crises and epidemics. Birmingham. Stein, A. (1910). C. Furius Sabinus Aquila Timesitheus. RE VII.1: 365. Steinby, E. M. (1996). Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae. Vol. 3. Oxford. Stepper, R. (2000). Zur Rolle der römischen Kaiserin im Kultleben. Grenzen der Macht: Zur Rolle der römischen Kaiserfrauen. Potsdamer Altertumswissenschaftliche Beitrage. C. Kunst and U. Riemer. Stuttgart. Stevenson, S. W. (1889). Dictionary of Roman Coins, Republican and Imperial. Norwich. Stevenson, T. (2007). "Roman Coins and Refusals of the Title pater patriae." NC 167: 119- 141. Strack P- L. (1931). Untersuchungen zur römischen Reichspragung des zweiten Jahrhunderts. Vol. 1: Die Reichspragung zur Zeit des Traian. Stuttgart. Strack, P. L. (1933). Untersuchungen zur römischen Reichspragung des zweiten Jahrhunderts. Vol. 2: Die Reichspragung zur Zeit des Hadrian. Stuttgart. Strack, P. L. (1937). Untersuchungen zur römischen Reichspragung des zweiten Jahrhunderts. Vol. 3: Die Reichspragung zur Zeit des Antoninus Pius. Stuttgart. Strobel, K (1998). Ulpia Severina Augusta. Les empereurs illyriens. Actes du colloque de Strassbourg (11-13 octobre 1990). Frézouls, E. and H. Jouffroy. Strassbourg: 119-153. Sumner, G. V. (1967). "Germanicus and Drusus Caesar." Latomus 26: 413-435. 308 Sturken, M. and L. Cartwright (2001). Practices of Looking: an Introduction to Visual Culture. Oxford. Sutherland, C. H. V. (1951). Coinage in Roman Imperial Policy. 31 BC - AD 6 8. London. Sutherland, C. H. V. (1959). "The Intelligibility of Roman Imperial Coin Types." JRS 49: 46- Sutherland, C. H. V. (1978). "Some observations on the coinage of Augustus." NAC 7: 163- 178. Sutherland, C. H. V. (1986). "Compliment of Complement? Dr. Levick on imperial coin types." NC 146: 85-94. Sutherland, C. H. V. (1987). Roman history and coinage 44 BC-AD 69: Fifty points of relation from Julius Caesar to Vespasian. Oxford. Syme, R. (1959). "Imperator Caesar: A Study in Nomenclature." Historia 7: 172-188. Syme, R. (1971). Emperors and biography. Studies in the Historia Augusta. Oxford. Syme, R. (1983). Historia Augusta papers. Oxford. Syme, R. (1982 [=1984]). "Clues to Testamentaiy Adoption." Epigraphia e ordine senatorio II. Titula IV. S. Panciera. Rome: 197-310. [= Birley, A. R. (1988). Roman Papers IV Oxford: 159-173. Szaivert, W. (1986). Die Münzpragung der Kaiser Marcus Aurelius, Lucius Verus und Commodus (161/162). Vienna. Talbert, R. J. A. (1984). The Senate of Imperial Rome. New Jersey. Temporim, H. (1978). Die Frauen am Hofe Trajans: Ein Beitrag zur Stellung der Augustae im Principat. Berlin - New York. Thompson, E. A. (1952). A Roman Reformer and Inventor: Being a new text of the treatise De Rebus Bellicis with Translation and Introduction. Oxford. Timpe, D. (1962). Untersuchungen zur Kontinuitat des frühen Principats. Wiesbaden. Todd, M. (1966). "Romano-British mintages of Antoninus Pius." NC 7/6:147-153 Todd, M. (2004). A Companion to Roman Britain. Oxford. Townend, G. (1961). "Some Flavian Connections." JRS 51: 57-58. Toynbee, J. M. C. (19862). Roman Medallions. New York. Treggiari, S. (1991). Divorce Roman Style: Ease and Frequency. Marriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome. B. Rawson. Canberra - Oxford: 31-46. Trillmich, W. (1978). Familienpropaganda der Kaiser Caligula und Claudius. Berlin. Turcan, R. (1985). Héliogabale et le sacre du soleil. Paris. Turcan, R. (1998). Le culte impérial au m siècle. ANRW U.16.2. Turton, G. (1974). The Syrian Princesses: the Women who Ruled Rome: AD 193 - 235. London. Ulrich, T. (1930). Pietas (pius) als politischer Begriff im römischen Staate bis zum Tode des Kaisers Commodus. Wroclaw. Van’t Dack, E. (1991). "Commode et ses épithètes PIUS FEUX sous les Sévères." Historiae Augustae Colloquium Parisinum I, Universitè di Macerata. Macerata: 311-335. Vamer, E. R. (2004). Mutilation and Transformation: Damnatio Memoriae and Roman Imperial Portraiture. Leiden. Veyne, P. (1962). "Les honneurs posthumes de Flavia Domitilla." Latomus 54:177-241. Veyne, P. (1976). Le pain et le critique: sociologie historique d'un pluralisme politique. Paris. Vinson, M. (1989). "Domitia Longina, Julia Titi, and the literary tradition." Historia 38: 431- 450. Voelkel, L. (1953). The Selection of Coin Types during the Reign of the Emperor Domitian. Studies presented to David Moore Robinson on his seventieth birthday. Vol. 2. Washington: 243-247. 309 Vollmer, F. (1898 [=1971]). P. Papinii Statii Silvarum Libri: herausgegeben und erklart. Leipzig. Walker, D. R. (1976). The metrology of the Roman silver coinage. Vol. 1: From Augustus to Domitian. Oxford. Walker, D. R. (1978). The metrology of the Roman silver coinage. Vol. 3: From Pertinax to Uranius Antoninus. Oxford. Walker, B. (2002). "Trajan's restored coinage and the revival of the memory of Caesar the Dictator." Ancient World 33: 93-100. Walkers, S. and P. Higgs (2001). Cleopatra of Egypt: from History to Myth. London. Wallace-Hadrill, A. (1981). "The Emperor and His Virtues." Historia 30: 298-323. Wallace-Hadrill, A. (19842). Suetonius: the scholar and his Caesars. New Haven - London. Wallace-Hadrill, A. (1986). "Image and authority in the coinage of Augustus." JRS 76: 66-87. Wallace-Hadrill, A. (2008). Rome’s cultural revolution. Cambridge. Waltner, A. (1996). Kinship between the lines: The Patriline, the Concubine and the Adopted Son in Late Imperial China. Gender, Kinship and Power. A Comparative and Interdisciplinary History. M. J. Maynes. New York - London. Waters, K H. (1964). "The Character of Domitian." Phoenix 18: 44-77. Watson, A. (1999). Aurelian and the Third Century. New York. Weaver, P. (1972). Familia Caesaris: A study of the Emperor's Freedmen and Slaves. Cambridge. Weber, G. and M. Zimmermann (Eds.) (2003). Propaganda - Selbstdarstellung - Reprasentation im Römischen Kaiserreich des l.Jhs. n. Chr. Historia Einzelschriften 164. Stuttgart. Wegner, M. (1971). Macrinus bis Balbinus. Das römische Herrscherbild. 3. Berlin. Weigel, R. (1995). "Roman Coins: An Iconographical Approach." AIIN 42: 241-253. Weinstock, S. (1971). Divus Julius. Oxford. Wellesley, K. (20003). The Year of the Four Emperors. London - New York. Wiedemann, T. E. J. (19962). Tiberius to Nero. CAH 10: The Augustan Empire: 43 BC - AD 69. A. K. Bowman, E. Champlin and A. Lintott. Cambridge: 198-255. Wienand, J. Der Kaiser als Sieger: Metamorphosen triumphaler Herrschaft under Constantin I. KLIO: Beitrage zur Alten Geschichte 19. Berlin. White, P. (1988). "Julius Caesar in Augustan Rome." Phoenix 41: 334-336. Williams^ H. P. G. (2004). Carausius: a consideration of the historical, archaeological and numismatic aspects of his reign. Oxford. Winterling, A. (2003). Caligula: eine Biographie. München. Wiseman, T. P. (1971). New Men in the Roman Senate: 139 B.C.-A.D. 14. Oxford. Witschel, C. (forthcoming 2013). Propaganda flir den Princeps? Mechanismen der kaiserlichen Reprasentation im Imperium Romanum. München. Wittkower, R. (1977). Allegory and the migration of symbols. London. Wolters, R. (1990). "Der Germanicus-dupondius, die Tabula Siarensis und der römische Verzicht auf die Okkupation Germaniens." NZ 101: 7-16. Wolters, R. (1992). "Der Aufbau der Pragungen in den Ersten Regierungsjahren der Traianus." LNV 4: 281-299. Wolters, R. (1999). Nummi signati: Untersuchungen zur römischen Münzpragung und Geldwirtschaft. München. Wolters, R. (2002). "Gaius und Lucius Caesar als designierte Konsuln und principes iuventutis: Die lex Valeria Comelia und RIC F 205ff." Chiron 32: 298-323. 310 Wolters, R. (2003). Die Geschwindigkeit der Zeit und die Gefahr der Bilder. Münzbilder und Münzpropaganda in der Römischen Kaiserzeit. Propaganda - Selbstdarstellung - Reprasentation im Römischen Kaiserreich des l.Jhs. n. Chr. G. Weber and M. Zimmermann. Stuttgart. Wood, S. E. (1988). "Memoriae Agrippinae: Agrippina Maior in Julio-Claudian art and propaganda." AJA 92:409-426. Wood, S. E. (1995). "Diva Drusilla Panthea and the Sisters of Caligula." AJA 99: 457-482. Wood, S. E. (20012). Imperial Women. A Study in Public Images. 40 B.C. - A.D. 6 8. Leiden - Boston - Köln. Wood, S. E. (2010). "Who was Diva Domitilla? Some Thoughts on the Public Images of the Flavian Women." AJA 114: 45-57. Woodhead, A. G. (1961). Selected Documents of the Principates of the Flavian Emperors. Cambridge. Woytek, B. (2010). Reichspragung des Kaisers Traianus (98-117). Vienna. Zanker, P. (1987). Augustus und die Macht der Bilder. München. Zanker, P. and H. Meier (2004). Die Apotheose der römischen Kaiser: ritual und stadtische Bühne. München. Zehnacher, H. (1998). Le monnayage de Claudius k 1'atelier de Lyon. Claude de Lyon. Actes de colloque Paris-Nancy-Lyon. Y. Bumand, Y. Le Bohec, and J.-P. Martin Pariis- 213- 227. ' Zimmerman, M. (1995). "Die "restitutio honorum" Galbas." Historia 44: 56-82. 311 Curriculum vitae Liesbeth Claes was bom in Rumst, Belgium on 23 April 1985. In 2004, she graduated from the Sint-Ursula High School, after which she started her BA and MA in Ancient History at the Pathnlir. University of Leuven, which she completed cum laude in 2007. In 2008 she obtained a MA in Cultural Studies and in 2009 she finished her teacher training in History, Art and Music. In April of that same year she moved to the Netherlands to start a doctorate in Ancient History at the Radboud University Nijmegen. In the course of her doctoral studies she was a visiting scholar at Corpus Christi College, Oxford (September- December 2009) and at the University of Califomia, Berkeley (March - June 2011). After submitting her doctoral thesis she obtained the grant “van Gelderbeurs” of the GeldMuseum Utrecht to fund her research into messages of authority on the coinage of Roman imperial usurpers of the period AD 193- 310. Since September 2013, she has been a part-time Lecturer in the History Department of the University of Leiden, a job which she combines with a part-time Assistant Lecture post for the Roman Law courses in the Law Department of the Catholic University of Leuven. 312 Stellingen Kinship and Coins, Liesbeth Claes 1. Retrospectieve en prospectieve verwantschapsboodschappen zijn geen generische muntboodschappen. De keizerlijke verwantschapsboodschappen op de keizerlijke muntslag blijken actueel, en vertegenwoordigen een gewenste keizerlijke ideologische lijn. 2. In de eerste eeuw na Chr. blijkt het hoofd van de keizerlijke administratie, de a rationibus, een beslissende rol gespeeld te hebben in de selectie van de keizerlijke munttypen, hoewel hij altijd met de keizerlijke goedkeuring zal gehandeld hebben. 3. Vele keizers gebruikten voorouderlijke muntboodschappen om hun keizerschap te legitimeren, hoewel de frequentie van deze boodschappen enorm verschilde tussen de verschillende keizers. 4. In tegenstelling tot antieke inscripties werden vanaf de tweede eeuw na Chr. verwantschapstermen, zoals divi fllius, nepos, en pronepos, nog zelden in keizerlijke muntlegenden aangewend. 5. Biologische zonen werden vaker meer op de keizerlijke muntslag gerepresenteerd dan adoptiezonen, waardoor men kan suggereren dat een keizer met biologische zonen nadruk wilde leggen op het feit dat hij een dynastieke opvolging via zijn bloedverwante zonen kon garanderen. 6. De munticonografie voor de overleden vrouwelijke keizerlijke familieleden onder Trajanus en Hadrianus betekenen het begin van een standaard postume iconografie voor de m untslag van latere overleden keizers en keizerlijke familieleden. 7. De munticonografie van de vrouwelijke keizerlijke familieleden in de eerst eeuw na Chr. was experimenteel. Pas in de tweede eeuw werden keizerinnen en andere vrouwelijke familieleden van de keizerlijke familie standaard op de keizerlijke muntslag afgebeeld. Deze evolutie resulteerde aan het einde van de tweede eeuw zelfs in de ongeziene grote aanwezigheid van keizerin-moeders op de keizerlijke muntslag. 8. Aan het einde van de tweede eeuw en in de derde eeuw werden de eervolle, maar vermeende Romeinse roots van sommige keizers geaccentueerd om hun echte provinciale achtergrond te verdoezelen en zo hun machtspositie te legitimeren. 9. Sommige verwantschapsboodschappen op keizerlijke gouden en zilveren munten geven aan dat ze expliciet voor een militair doelpubliek ontworpen waren, wellicht met het doel om te zorgen dat de legers de beoogde keizerlijke kandidaat of opvolger zouden steunen. 10. Er zouden vaker diachronische studies gedaan moeten worden, omdat dergelijke studies de onderzoeker de kans geven om bepaalde ontwikkelingen en historische processen over een lange periode te onderzoeken wat tot nieuwe inzichten kan leiden. 11. De standaardcatalogi over de muntslag van de Romeinse keizers uit de tweede en derde eeuw zijn verouderd en zouden gereviseerd moeten worden, zodat andere onderzoekers op deze studies kunnen voortbouwen.