HOW TO USE THE COIN CATALOG

The catalog listings are presented in the same order as the biographies in Volume I. Hundreds of thousands of issues (including varieties) were struck by the Romans, and cataloging all of them is not the aim of this book. The catalog is practical and informative rather than comprehensive. Limited treatment is given to the vast provincial coinages, and separate listings are given for specialized seriesí of coins. The reader often will find it useful to read the Numismatic Notes which follow most biographies for they contain important information about the coins listed in the catalog.

The vast majority of Roman coins have designs which may be termed ëgenericí for the purpose of determining their market value. This does not mean they are uninteresting, just that their value to collectors is determined exclusively by the physical attributes of the coin (style, grade, centering, surface condition, etc.). Thus, one entry is given to represent ëgenericí issues of each denomination. In some cases the ëgenericí listing may apply to hundreds of individual issues. Distinguishing ëgenericí types from ëbetterí types can only be learned through research and participation in the marketplace. The more important and valuable types are listed separately along with their appropriate values.

The presentation differs depending upon the nature of the coinage. Up through the reign of Augustus (ending in A.D. 14) and in many isolated cases thereafter, listings are presented in the manner which is most sensible for that issuer. However, beginning with the reign of Tiberius (A.D. 14ñ37) the coinage usually lends itself to a more structured format, which is used whenever possible.

In this structured format the obverse types generally are not described unless they are so unusual that their market value is affected. Instead, examples of obverse inscriptions and a description of the obverse bust types are given at the beginning of the listings. As such, the catalog entries are usually limited to a description of the reverse. The denominations are presented in descending order of what is presumed to have been their value in ancient times. Within denominations, ëbetterí reverse types (if any) are presented in alphabetical order based on the reverse inscriptions. On the occasions that it is the obverse which affects value, the type is described.

When possible, coins are given one or two reference numbers. For Imperatorial coins Michael Crawfordís Roman Republican Coinage (2 volumes) is usually used, and for Imperial coins, The Roman Imperial Coinage (10 volumes) is most often cited. A variety of sources are used for provincial coins.

Values are provided in three grades (states of preservation) whenever it is possible to do so with reasonable accuracy. Most often the grades Fine (F), Very Fine (VF) and Extremely Fine (EF) are used.. However, Near Mint State (NMS) is used for gold coins of the Divided Empire after a.d. 364 and Choice Very Fine (chVF) is used for all Imperial bronzes struck through the end of the 3rd Century a.d. The latter distinction has been made because bronzes struck through the later 3rd Century rarely are preserved well enough to be considered EF in the same strict and accurate manner as precious metal coins. A coin qualifying as chVF valued at $l,500ñ$2,000 might be valued at $7,000ñ$ 10,000 in true EF, though such large price spreads are not universal among bronzes.

For assistance in grading coins, the reader is directed to the photographic grading guide presented in the chapter on determining the value of ancient coins. A thorough reading of that chapter will reinforce the fact that the values in this book are of limited use on their own. Technical grade is only one of many factors by which the market values of ancient coins are determined.

The values stated in the catalog are estimates for conservatively graded, essentially problem-free coins. Noteworthy defects will decrease the value of a coin (sometimes significantly), whereas merits will have the opposite effect. A dash (ó) has two functions: it indicates either a value which is difficult to determine (and which may not be very high) or it represents a negligible value when it occurs in the lowest-grade column. It should not be assumed that coins given the same value range are necessarily equal in value, for they may represent different ends of their shared spectrum.

Most importantly of all, the values in this book are not offers by the author or publisher to buy or sell such coins, nor are they assurances that such coins can be bought or sold at such prices, or at any price at all. Values are given in United States dollars.

COMMONLY USED ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMS

A.D.	Anno Domini (year of our Lord)
adv.	advancing (moving either to the right (r.) or the left (l.))
Æ	copper or its alloys, such as bronze or orichalcum (brass)
AR	silver
AV	gold
b.	born
B.C.	Before Christ
betw.	between
Billon	a low-grade alloy of silver
c.	circa (approximate, as applies to date)
cf.	conferee (consultÖ)
chVF	Choice Very Fine (a grade)
confr.	confronted
ctr.	center
cuir.	cuirassed (wearing armor)
d.	died or daughter
diad.	diademed (wearing a diadem crown)
dr.	draped
EF	Extremely Fine (a grade)
EL	electrum (an alloy of gold and silver of varying purity)
helm.	helmeted
ex.	exergue (the bottom area of the reverse, often where the mintmark occurs)
ff	following (unspecified numbers subsequent to the one(s) given)
figs.	figures
F	Fine (a grade)
g.	grams
hd.	head
hldg.	holding
inscr.	inscription or inscribing
Jr.	Junior
l.	left
laur.	laureate (wearing a laurel leaf crown)
mm	millimeters (indicating the diameter of a coin)
mod.	modern (usually indicating the modern name of a location)
mon.	moneyer (the official responsible for issuing coins)
NMS	Nearly Mint State (a grade)
obv	obverse (the front [ìheadsî] side of a coin)
Potin	low-grade alloy of silver
prev.	previous
r.	right
rad.	radiate (wearing a spiky ìradiateî crown)
rec.	receiving
recl.	reclining
rev	reverse (the back [ìtailsî] side of a coin)
sim.	similar
Sr.	Senior
std.	seated
stg.	standing
var.	variety (a variant of the coin described in the catalog number which is cited)
VF	Very Fine (a grade)
w.	wife
yr.	year

REFERENCES MOST COMMONLY CITED IN THE CATALOG

Cr.	Roman Republican Coinage, by M. Crawford
RIC	The Roman Imperial Coinage (10 vols., various authors)
D.O.	Catalogue of Late Roman Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection, by R Grierson and M. Mays
RPC	Roman Provincial Coinage, Volume I (with supplement), by A. Burnett, M. Amandry and RR Ripollès
BMC	Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum (29 vols., various authors)
Fr.	The Coinage of the Kingdom of the Bosporus, by N.A. Frolova
Hendin	Guide to Biblical Coins (3rd ed.), by D. Hendin
Milne	Catalogue of Alexandrian Coins, by J.G. Milne

Note: Other references sometimes cited may be found in the bibliography.

REFERENCES MOST COMMONLY CITED IN THE CATALOG

Cr.	Roman Republican Coinage, by M. Crawford
RIC	The Roman Imperial Coinage (10 vols., various authors)
D.O.	Catalogue of Late Roman Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection, by R Grierson and M. Mays
RPC	Roman Provincial Coinage, Volume I (with supplement), by A. Burnett, M. Amandry and RR Ripollès
BMC	Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum (29 vols., various authors)
Fr.	The Coinage of the Kingdom of the Bosporus, by N.A. Frolova
Hendin	Guide to Biblical Coins (3rd ed.), by D. Hendin
Milne	Catalogue of Alexandrian Coins, by J.G. Milne

Note: Other references sometimes cited may be found in the bibliography.

HISTORY OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE: COINAGE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE

PART ONE

NUMISMATIC INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER ONE

A BRIEF INTRODUCTION

Ancient Rome is virtually impossible to define, for like all civilizations, it is rife with contradiction. The level of sophistication it achieved in law, art, religion, literature and politics was as high as humankind has known. Yet other aspects are barbaric by most any standard. The idea that Romeís most prominent citizens gathered to watch hundreds ó sometimes thousands ó of men and animals be butchered for mere sport shatters any illusion that their world was very similar to our own.

Perhaps it is this intermingling of the familiar and the remote that makes ancient Rome such a fascinating study, for we simultaneously realize both how much and how little weíve changed.

Finding a tangible link to the past often makes a faint connection more real. To hold a coin that circulated in Rome in the reign of Tiberius is no ordinary experience. It comes as a shock to many that Roman coins are so common, that they have survived the passage of time in such great quantities. However, it must be remembered that they were struck in extraordinarily large numbers, for they were the backbone of commerce in an Empire that reached from Britain to Mesopotamia and beyond.

Coins were often buried in hoards for safe keeping. A significant percentage of these buried treasures were never recovered by their owners and have remained secret ever since. The nature of coin hoards vary greatly, ranging from clay pots filled with heavily-worn bronze coins, to caches of uncirculated gold coins intended to pay armies. Ancient coins have been discovered by accident and by design since ancient times, and they continue to be found on a regular basis.

For this reason the most common of the copper coins in poor condition are quite common. Indeed, they can be purchased for less than the price of a cup of coffee. The rarer and more impressive coins in the series, however, may command hundreds of thousands of dollars. The marketplace for ancient Roman coins is as active today as it has ever been, and this book is intended to make the collecting experience more meaningful and enjoyable.

The ancient Romans produced a coinage as vast and as beautiful as any in history. The Romans produced a remarkably modern coinage, for its basic characteristics are still evident on most coins in circulation to this day. As such, Roman coins offer a curious mix of the exotic and the familiar.

Romans were sticklers for uniformity and consistency. Though an aureus of Nero (54ñ68) and a solidus of Leo I (457ñ474) are quite different in their appearance, in real terms they are virtually the same. Both have portraits of their issuer on the obverse surrounded by a Latin inscription, usually abbreviated, that identifies both the issuer and his titles. The reverses were host to a variety of designs ó most often human figures, mortal or divine ó surrounded by an inscription.

Though the four centuries that separate these two coins are readily apparent ó in the style of the art, the method of engraving and the ìfabricî of the planchet ó they are fundamentally the same product. The emperor is unrivaled on the obverse and the reverse is a canvas for propaganda. The two coins have the same level of Imperial dignity and served as ambassadors of the might and affluence of Rome.

In certain other respects Roman coins are completely mysterious, evading logical classification regardless of how intensely they are studied. The collector must realize that minor varieties ó even if they are unpublished ó are absolutely commonplace. With great ease and with a modest budget one could form a collection of ìunpublishedî Roman coins that are undocumented in the major references.

This often puzzles the new collector, for rare or unpublished varieties in most other fields of collectibles command substantial premiums over known pieces. But such is not the case with Roman coins, or even with Greek coins. Rarity is a factor in the price and the desirability of Roman coins, but not necessarily a major one, for the element that makes a coin unique must be important in and of itself before it creates strong demand. But all of these subjects are discussed in greater detail in their relevant chapters.

This book covers slightly more than 550 years of Roman history, and documents the lives and coinages of 284 Romans. The biographies are intended not only to provide a review of the events of each personís life, but also to provide insight into his or her personality and to demonstrate that individualís role in history.

A NOTE ABOUT THE BIOGRAPHIES

Separating truth from fiction is a demanding task even in our own times. Seldom is truth readily apparent in any situation, as there is always more than one point of view to be considered. Imagine being a historian two millennia from now and writing about the assassination of John E Kennedy. What conclusion(s) would you draw? Though a truth does exist, it is not universally acknowledged even in our own times. This is the problem historians face as they tackle the complex history of the Romans.

The best effort has been made in this volume to present an accurate and balanced view of Roman history. A great many ancient sources and secondary sources were consulted. However, in the final analysis something has to be written, and the views which seemed to have the greatest merit triumphed. In cases where no conclusion could readily be drawn, the conflicting viewpoints are presented so the reader might be aware of the factors involved, and could freely draw a conclusion.

The ancient historians (upon whom we rely so heavily) were sometimes inaccurate through no fault of their own; at other times they were purposefully misleading to suit their political or personal agenda. Gossip is rife in the writings of Suetonius, inaccuracies abound in the collected works of the Historia Augusta. Devoutly Christian historians such as Lactantius and Eutropius were pro-Christian to such a degree that their works must be read with great caution.

Fortunately, the ancient historians are not our only source of information. Artifacts such as coins, inscriptions and papyri have proven time and time again to be vital in either supporting or contradicting the literary record. The archaeological record can scarcely stand on its own, but when used in concert with other sources of information, it can sometimes offer an invaluable perspective.

There are many different approaches to biographical writing. In this book, when possible, three aspects are presented in each entry:

ïA factual account of the events of the subjectís life.

ïAn assessment of the subjectís personality.

ïAn examination of historical context, so the reader may better understand how the subject fits into the larger scheme of Roman history.

An equally important goal was to provide as much information as possible in each biography. An inevitable consequence of this is that some information will appear in multiple biographies. Though this repetition may be considered unnecessary or even wasteful (certainly it is noticeable when several related biographies are read en bloc), this path has been taken in anticipation that readers will use the biographies primarily for reference, not for general perusal. As such, research should be easy and efficient.

CIRCULATION

It is well documented both by literary and archaeological evidence that ancient coins often circulated for centuries. An excellent example is the countermarking of older, worn coins in the east by the emperor Vespasian in the early A.D. 70s. The majority of these denarii were at least a century old at the time they were countermarked. In A.D. 107 the emperor Trajan made a general recall of worn denarii from circulation, which were melted in massive quantities. Offering proof that most of these coins were from Republican and early Imperial times (by then 100 to 200 years old) is his commemorative series of denarii in which he revives the designs of about 50 types that presumably were the more significant among those being withdrawn.

The issuance of Imperial cistophori by the emperor Hadrian (117ñ138) is similarly convincing. Most (if not all) of the planchets used were older cistophori issued some 100 to 150 years earlier. We have no reason to doubt that these ìhostî coins (the coins that were overstruck) had been in circulation up until the time they were withdrawn for re-coining.

The most interesting of all, however, are the Ostrogoth or Vandal issues of late 5th or early 6th Centuries A.D. which had the value markings XLII or LXXXIII ìcutî into their surfaces. The ìhostî coins ó asses, dupondii, and the occasional sestertius of the 1st Century A.D. ó were ìrecycledî and assigned new denominations. During the 400 to 500 years that had expired since these coins were struck and when they were reintroduced, they could not have been in circulation uninterruptedly.

The ìhost coinsî are often reasonably well preserved. (No coin could endure such long service and still be remotely identifiable.) Had they been true stragglers in circulation, one would expect to see a larger variety of types, and especially later types, such as sestertii of Severus Alexander, nummi of the Tetrarchy, etc. Interestingly, most of them are Flavian middle bronzes ó a phenomenon which seemingly carried over to the 40-nummus coins the Ostrogoths struck in Rome during the reign of Zeno (catalog nos. 3818ñ9). For not only do they have the general appearance of the Flavian middle bronzes, but the Victory-on-prow reverse type is specifically copied.

PUTTING COINS INTO CONTEXT

The question most commonly asked about ancient coins is what they were worth when they were in circulation. It is the simplest of questions, and yet one of the most difficult to answer. This seems especially hard to accept when you consider that the Romans struck coins in specific denominations and that throughout most of Romeís history we have a solid idea of what Imperial coins were worth relative to each other. However, we have only a vague idea of what they were worth in absolute terms.

Another frequent question is how many Roman coins survive? The answer is ìmillions,î but this is a paltry figure in comparison to how many were actually struck, and that is the point at which these two questions are inextricably tied. The idea that the Roman economy was small or primitive must be abandoned, for it was advanced, complex and vast. Coins often circulated for centuries and traveled as far as India, Ceylon and China where they have been found in excavations.

One of the reasons the Romans struck so many coins is that they were constantly being exported beyond the borders of their Empire, never to return. The Romans were an affluent people who purchased luxury goods such as silk, spices and gemstones. Every time these items were purchased from foreigners, the monetary supply in the Empire diminished and new coins had to be struck. Furthermore, old coins that had seen too much circulation were often withdrawn and re-coined.

Occasionally, texts survive that provide specific examples of the quantities of silver and gold involved. By conquering the Kingdom of Macedon in 167 B.C., the Romans seized some 75 million denarii, or about a million pounds of silver. The Romans had always kept ample amounts of gold in their treasury, but this practice peaked in the 5th and 6th Centuries A.D., when they excelled in their capacity as the only major producer of gold coins in the Western world.

The emperor Marcian (450ñ457), for example, was able to amass more than 100,000 pounds of gold, or the equivalent of 7.2 million solidi. But this immense treasury was squandered by Marcianís successor, Leo I, who in 468 launched a naval expedition against the Vandals that is estimated to have cost between 7 million and 10 million solidi to outfit. When the armada of 1,100 ships (and approximately 100,000 men) was destroyed, it bankrupted the Eastern Roman Empire.

The expedition might never have been undertaken had Leo not anticipated the financial gain would exceed the amount he put at risk. Indeed, only a generation later, much larger sums were lining the Imperial coffers. The first ëByzantineí emperor, Anastasius I (491ñ518), amassed at least 300,000 pounds of gold, a sum three times that of Marcian.

To put all of this high finance into terms of the ìaverage man,î we can look to more humble sources. Around the time of its destruction in A.D. 79 the average pay of a laborer in Pompeii was about 8 asses (half a denarius) per day, though actual salaries ranged from 5 to 16 asses per day. Skilled miners in rural Dacia earned wages of 6 to 10 asses, which were supplemented by free room and board valued at 2 to 3 asses per day, bringing their true salaries more in line with the workers at the resort town of Pompeii.

These salaries are quite comparable with those paid to Roman foot soldiers. In the time of Julius Caesar and long thereafter, a soldier earned 225 denarii per year (10 asses per day). This was increased to 300 under Domitian (81ñ96), rose to 600 under Septimius Severus (193ñ211), and was increased sharply again to 900 by his son, Caracalla (198ñ217), and then doubled yet again to 1,800 denarii per year by Maximinus I (235ñ238). Of course, many of a soldierís basic expenses were paid in addition his base salary.

We must also bear in mind that officers were paid considerably more than the common soldier. Praetorian guardsmen received about three times the salary of regular enlistees, or 750 denarii per year. This figure was raised to an even thousand by Domitian, who paid his centurions 15,000 to 20,000 denarii per year (a figure which had risen as high as 34,000 per year by the reign of Septimius Severus). Considering there were typically between 300,000 and 500,000 soldiers in the army at all times (and in some cases, we are told, 750,000 or more), the sums involved were staggering.

Though the salary hike given by Septimius Severus was largely to compensate for his debasement of his silver denarius, other pay hikes, such as that given by Maximinus I, were purely intended to gain allegiance. We must also bear in mind that salaries were just the beginning of the stateís military expenditures. Consider also the costs of rations, armor, weapons, maintenance, supplies, transportation, cavalry horses, ships and vehicles, the cost of retiring (cashiering) soldiers, and the frequent bonuses and donatives that were given.

The range of salaries was also quite broad in government. During the reign of Augustus, provincial officials were paid annual salaries ranging from 500 aurei (12,500 denarii) for an equestrian tribune, to 10,000 aurei (250,000 denarii) for a senior proconsul in Asia or Africa. By the mid-2nd Century A.D., it is estimated that perhaps 2 million aurei (50 million denarii) were required just to pay the governors, procurators and junior officers in provincial government. This translates to roughly 45,000 pounds of gold each and every year just for this portion of the Imperial budget.

In light of the figure of 50 million denarii mentioned above, we can get a better sense of the importance of the action taken by the new emperor Hadrian in 118, when he burned documents representing arrears of some 225 million denarii owed by Roman citizens.

Another good source for a glimpse at what money was worth is Diocletianís edict of 301, which set price ceilings for a variety of goods and services. By this time the denarius was virtually a phantom denomination, for silver denarii had not been struck as part of the regular coinage system for more than 60 years. The denarius was a coin of account often called a denarius communis.

Thus, the denarius of Diocletianís time had no real relation to that of Domitian or even of Septimius Severus. As part of his edict, Diocletian tariffed the denarius in relation to gold: a Roman pound of gold (about 325 grams) could legally sell for no more than 72,000 denarii. In the reign of Septimius Severus, they were striking aurei at 45 to the pound and the denarius was valued at 25 per aureus. Thus, it theoretically required 1,125 denarii to purchase a pound of gold during the reign of Septimius Severus ó a figure l/64th that of Diocletianís denarius communis.

With the reader forewarned of that differential, we can report that a daily salary for a baker was set at a maximum of 50 denarii, that of a farm worker at half that amount, 25 per day. When adjusted for the difference in the currency rates, these salaries compare almost identically with the 1st Century salary ranges for miners in Dacia and laborers in Pompeii. Clearly, the Romans had a fixed idea of what a dayís work was worth.

But what could the Diocletianic laborer buy with his hard-earned salary? A haircut would cost a maximum of two denarii, a pound of pork 12 denarii, and approximately a liter of common wine 16 denarii. Better wine (called Falernian wine) would cost him a maximum of 60 denarii per liter. A pound of purple-dyed silk spun into fine threads was priced in the edict at 125 aurei, indicating it was valued at approximately three times that of gold itself. The cheaper version, undyed white silk, cost only 10 aurei per pound. At the same time, a retail merchant might charge more than 40 aurei for a finely woven ceremonial garment of dyed wool.

Luxury goods, then as today, were expensive. A comparison of the two wines named in Diocletianís edict shows the better wine cost approximately four times as much as the common wine. Pliny the Elder, an author of the 1st Century A.D. who died while observing the eruption of Mount Vesuvius, cites prices ranging from 1 to 16 denarii per pound for imported spices and incense. However, he notes that rarer spices and perfumes commanded 50 to 100 denarii per pound.

Determining how all this compares to modern times is not easy, for inflation can skew statistics considerably from one decade to the next depending on the health of an economy. However, if we assume that the average salary of an unskilled laborer is basically equal then and now, it is difficult not to conclude that the silver denarius was worth somewhere between $100 and $150. Can this possibly be accurate?

If a model such as this is even remotely accurate, the copper as would have been worth as much as $10. In essence, this would mean the Romans did not produce coins that in modern terms we would consider ìsmall change,î and thus would have had to handle lower-price purchases in a different manner than we do today.

Even the lowly quadrans ó which was not issued regularly or in large quantities, and may not even have been a coin per se (see the discussion under quadrans in the denominations section) ó would then be worth more than $2 according to the model given above. The prospect that quadrantes were not intended for ìpricedî consumer goods is supported by the price lists posted by merchants at Pompeii, on which all goods and services were tallied in asses and never in semisses or quadrantes.

Since Imperial quadrantes and semisses were issued for use in metropolitan Rome (where subsidies for grain and other items were offered), they probably had a very specific monetary function. In the provinces, however, a variety of small bronzes were struck, and larger coins were even cut in half to make change.

Many numismatists are of the opinion that despite how the mathematics of this seem to work out, the denarius was not so valuable a coin, and that the copper was a coin of very little worth, for they are relatively common finds as stray items at archaeological digs.

Clearly, there remains a mystery to be solved, for economists suggest that more than half of the coins in circulation are generally low value pieces, such as those which would be worth less than one dollar in the current economy.

To the contrary, in the 4th and 5th Centuries A.D. we have a very different situation ó one comparable to our own. There were tremendous numbers of reduced nummi (Æ4s) circulating, which individually had very little purchasing power. In the mid-5th Century these nummi were tariffed at about 7,000 to the gold solidus, and by the early 6th Century that figure had doubled. As such, the paltry nummus was an ideal coin for daily purchases of food and other household staples.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF ROME AND ITS COINAGE

To gain a full appreciation of Roman coins the historical framework in which they were produced must be understood. With that in mind, historical outlines and biographical entries comprise the greater part of this work. What follows is an abridged version of the history and numismatic developments that are discussed in greater detail elsewhere. The discussion begins long before Imperial coinage was produced so that a sense of perspective may be gained for the role coinage played in the overall history of Rome.

ïThe Republic Though the original (native) inhabitants of central Italy may have used crude ìlumpsî of bronze known as aes rude to facilitate trade from the 2nd Millennium B.C., the first true Roman coins were produced sometime between 320 and 280 B.C. The coinages of the Roman Republic were produced regularly from about 225 B.C. until the accession of Augustus late in the 1st Century B.C. Coinage during the vast majority of this nearly 200-year period either referred solely to Rome (so-called ìanonymousî issues) or to the deeds and actions of famous members of the family of the moneyer, the official responsible for producing the coinage. Sometimes the Republican coin designs made allusions to the actions of the moneyerís patron deity. Portraits of living Romans did not occur on the central coinages of the Republic until January of 44 B.C., when Julius Caesar took that bold step. However, portraits of deceased ancestors of the moneyers make occasional appearances later in the Republic. True Republican-style coins that celebrated the moneyerís family continued to be struck well into the Imperatorial period (c. 82 to 30 B.C.), though by the 40s B.C. they co-mingled with coins struck in the names of the various Imperators and the Dictator Julius Caesar.

ïThe Imperatorial Period The last half century of the Republic has been termed the Imperatorial Period since this was the time when the great generals, those holding Imperatorial power, fought to control the state. It began in 83 B.C. when Sulla landed with his army at Brundisium and marched on to seize power in Rome. The Imperatorial period was fraught with wars waged by men such as Pompey the Great, Julius Caesar, Marc Antony and Octavian, all of whom tried to seize supreme power in opposition to the traditional authority of the senate. Portraits of living Romans first occurred on coins struck at Rome during this period, establishing a trend that for half a millennium would be the hallmark of the coinage of the Empire. Depending on oneís perspective, this period ends sometime between 31 and 27 B.C. (In 31 B.C. Octavian defeated Marc Antony at Actium; in 30 B.C. both Antony and Cleopatra committed suicide, leaving Octavian in sole command; and in 27 B.C. Octavian adopted the name Augustus and was granted supreme authority by the senate.) In this book, 27 B.C. has been chosen.

ïThe Roman Empire Spanning almost exactly 500 years, this period began with the reign of Augustus (the second of Suetoniusí ìTwelve Caesars,î whose ìreignî began in 27 B.C.) and continued until the ìfallî of Italy to German soldiers in 476 (though Julius Nepos, in exile, was recognized as the Western emperor until his murder in 480). Despite three important ìSeparatist Empires,î the Empire was united until a formal division occured in 364 between East and West. Though there are many opinions as to when this occurred, 364 has been chosen for this book. The most outstanding characteristics of Roman Imperial coins are the portrait gallery they form and the historical information they reveal. The rise and fall of Romeís fortune is clearly demonstrated by the gradual changes in the aesthetic and intrinsic value of the coins themselves. When the Western Roman Empire fell in 476, it did not signal the end of Romeís legacy, for the eastern half of the Empire continued to flourish for another thousand years. This successor culture is commonly known as the Byzantine Empire.

ïProvincial Coinages This category overlaps the preceding three, which principally concern the central coinages of the Republic and the Empire. Provincial coins (often called ìGreek Imperialsî) were made for local use in the provinces of Rome, and were successors to the original, independent Greek coinages. Thus, they most often have inscriptions in the local language (usually Greek, though in Latin if a Roman colony, or other languages when necessary). They are denominated to a local standard, though it was compatible with the Imperial denomination system (such as 16 assaria and 16 asses being equal to a silver denarius or drachm). Provincial coins were struck from the early 2nd Century B.C. through the end of the 3rd Century A.D., and thus constitute a 500-year history all their own. The Romans were practical in their approach to coinage in the East (for they had more effectively monopolized it in the Western Mediterranean), and often paid their soldiers with silver struck in Athens, Macedon, Thasos, etc. Throughout the period of provincial coinage cities struck so-called ìquasi-autonomousî issues which did not bear the portrait of an emperor or Imperial personage. Some cities (such as Athens, Chios, etc.) did this regularly, but usually it was an isolated occurence. A sub-category of provincial coinage is found in the regions whose often-hereditary rulers exercised some self-government, and essentially were vassal states (client kingdoms) loosely allied with Rome. These client kings often issued coins with their own names and portraits. Other times, especially in the 1st Centuries B.C. and A.D., Romans conducting their appointed duties (as governors, legates, praetors, propraetors, procurators, etc.) in the provinces would strike coins bearing their names, and sometimes even their portraits. Though provincial coinage was eventually overtaken by the debased double denarius (which was struck in extraordinarily large quantities), it was an important part of the Imperial monetary system. Indeed, they are best viewed not as the dying embers of a once-proud Greek coinage, but as a fascinating branch of Roman coinage that preserves and celebrates many aspects of Greek culture.

A BRIEF ROMAN HISTORY

The origins of Rome were remarkably humble: a series of virtually defenseless villages of thatched huts set upon a cluster of seven hills in central Italy. Though the literary accounts of Romeís origin are entirely based on legend, the archaeological record reveals much. Instead of the traditional ìfoundationî date of 753 B.C. cited by Marcus Terentius Varro (who wrote in the 1st Century B.C.), excavations show that some of Romeís hills had been inhabited since the close of the Bronze Age, about 1000 B.C. Indeed, by the end of the 7th Century B.C., the Romans were literate, had an established aristocracy and had even erected monumental buildings that marked Rome as a city-state of some importance.

Throughout its history, Rome relied both upon its proximity to overland trade routes and upon the river Tiber, which led to the Tyrrhenian sea on Italyís western shores. People of different origins lived in Rome from early in its development, including Greeks, Sabines and Etruscans. Romeís earliest years are said to have been ruled by seven kings, the first of whom was the eponymous Romulus. The last to rule, the Tarquinian king Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, is said to have been overthrown in 510 B.C. by an aristocratic coup. Though the event is probably real, the date is almost certainly incorrect.

After Tarquinius Superbus was expelled, Rome established a strong tradition of representative rulership, headed by two annually elected consuls. This was democratic in a sense, but it was skewed in favor of aristocratic men, who constituted perhaps one in ten people living in Rome and its immediate environs. This led to many conflicts with the plebs, or the common poor. Considering that by c. 300 B.C. Rome seems to have had about 750,000 inhabitants (and three times that amount living in the surrounding land), conflicts between aristocrats and plebs often took on large proportions.

Until several generations after they produced their first coins, Romeís future was not very secure. Beyond domestic concerns, Rome also clashed with foreigners, such as other peoples native to Central Italy, Greeks, Gauls, Carthaginians and Epeirotes. Oftentimes warfare was brought to Rome rather than the other way around. By far the most devastating conflicts in Republican times occurred with its nemesis Carthage.

The Punic inhabitants of Carthage were seafaring merchants who had frequent opportunity to compete with Roman trade and military ships for control of the Western Mediterranean. They fought three immensely destructive wars with Rome known as the Punic Wars. The First lasted from 264 to 241 B.C., the Second from c. 218 to 201 and the Third from 149 to 146. The Third Punic War ended in utter ruin for Carthage, for its surviving inhabitants were sold into slavery, the city was leveled and its land was sewn with salt.

The Romans were slow to embrace the concept of coinage, even though the Greek colonists in Southern Italy and Sicily (with whom they regularly traded) had been using coins for more than two centuries before Rome began to strike. Not surprisingly, Romeís first silver coins (beginning c. 280 B.C.) were struck at Greek mints in Southern Italy (such as Neapolis and Metapontum) and resembled those used by the Greeks.

By about 250 B.C. silver coins were being struck in Rome itself, and were being produced alongside cast bronzes (massive rectangular bars called aes signatum and heavy circular pieces called aes grave). Romeís early silver coins were not an integral part of a planned economy, but rather were struck in response to occasional needs. It is worth noting that the dating of these early silver issues is still hotly debated among scholars.

Despite this numismatic advance and the international contacts the Romans gained through war and trade, they continued to use their crude, cumbersome cast bronzes until the last quarter of the 3rd Century B.C. About the time Rome abandoned its cast bronzes, it had emerged from the Second Punic War as undisputed master of the Western Mediterranean. As a natural consequence, it became a nation in need of consistently issued coinage, and thus Rome underwent a numismatic revolution.

The Romans used a traditional Italic unit (called an ëasí) for their basic copper coin, and struck all of their gold and silver coins as multiples of the as. Romeís first gold coins, for example, were valued at 20, 40 and 60 asses. After experimenting with two silver denominations known to modern numismatists as the ìquadrigatusî and the ìvictoriatus,î the Romans settled upon a silver coin called the ìdenarius.î This familiar coin seems to have been introduced in 212 or 211 B.C., and was tariffed at ten copper asses. About 70 years later its value was inflated to 16 asses, where it remained for nearly the next four centuries.

Subsidiary denominations were struck in copper and silver, including a small silver piece called a ìsestertius,î which would maintain the same value ratio (four per denarius), but would be transformed into a large brass coin. Gold was only struck sporadically during the Republic and did not become a regular part of Romeís economy until the reign of Augustus (27 B.C. to A.D. 14). Although the purity of Roman silver was gradually debased with the passage of time, gold remained of high purity, and only occasionally suffered from fluctuating weight.

The first silver denarii of the Republic show on their obverse the helmeted head of Roma and on their reverse Castor and Pollux (the Dioscuri) riding on horseback, couching lances. Somewhat later, this reverse type was largely supplanted by a chariot scene, in which a chariot is drawn by two horses (a biga), three horses (a triga) or four horses (a quadriga). A host of other animals and creatures (including stags and serpents) sometimes replace the horses, and the identity of the driver is also quite variable.

The designs of these earliest denarii (often called ìanonymousî issues) emphasize the glory of Rome, and only in the later stages is there a shift in focus to the glorification of the moneyer, who was responsible for striking coins. From this human tendency for self-promotion was born a series of silver coins of enormous variety and historical value. Hundreds of designs were created between about 135 and 41 B.C., making this one of the most popular collecting areas.

By the mid-1st Century B.C., the Republic had become paralyzed with bureaucracy and corruption, and the time was ripe for change. But change came in the form of civil war led by men who had no intention of sharing power with the senate or of preserving the age-old Republican form of government. The beginning of the end came in the late 80s B.C. under the warlord Lucius Cornelius Sulla. Later still, men such as Crassus and Pompey the Great behaved in a similarly autocratic manner, only later to be joined by Julius Caesar, with whom they formed the First Triumvirate in 60 B.C.

The rise of Caesar necessitated the fall of Pompey, which was completed at the Battle of Pharsalus in 48 B.C. Caesar then held absolute power until his assassination by Brutus, Cassius and dozens of senatorial conspirators in March of 44 B.C. Caesar had been granted the title ìdictatorî by the senate on several occasions, and on the last, it assumed a new majesty: ìdictator for life.î Several weeks later, in January of 44 B.C., Caesar became the first living Roman to have his portrait appear on a coin struck at Rome.

With the fall of Julius Caesar we move into a new era in which Marc Antony, Lepidus, Brutus, Cassius, Sextus Pompey and Octavian battled for supremacy. Sometimes alone, other times in alliances, they fought to claim authority for themselves, or in the case of Brutus and Cassius, to restore the Republic. The coinage of this period (44 to 31 B.C.) is rich in history and reflects dozens of plot twists that make this era one of the great dramas in the history of the West.

Emerging victorious from these troubled times was Octavian, the great-nephew of the murdered Julius Caesar, who defeated his former ally Marc Antony at the Battle of Actium in 31 B.C. Octavian accepted the name Augustus from the senate in 27 B.C., and it is at this point that most historians agree the Empire began.

Augustus proceeded cautiously, proclaiming his dictatorship as little more than a modified Republic (for the senate and the two consuls still existed). However, during the next four decades he transformed Rome into what may best be described as a hereditary monarchy. It would survive 500 years in all, and in Constantinople Romeís legacy would continue for a thousand years more.

Roman coinage was quite varied during the Imperatorial period and the principate of Augustus, though toward the end of Augustusí reign certain conventions were established that set a more regimented pace for Imperial coinage thereafter. Beginning with Tiberiusí reign in A.D. 14, the coinage was launched onto a steady, though often interesting path.

For the next two centuries, no new denominations were introduced and the general formula of coinage was largely unaltered. The main exception was the Civil War of 68ñ69. During this period ìanonymousî denarii and aurei were struck in addition to the regular portrait coins of the men who fought to become emperor. Other interesting aspects, such as the ìminesî coinage (seemingly struck for use at mines in the Balkans), ìrestorationî issues (such as those struck by Trajan) and the application of countermarks on circulating coinage, offer interesting adjuncts to the standard Imperial issues.

During the 2nd Century A.D., Rome entered its most prosperous era. Under Trajan (98ñ117), the Empire grew to its largest geographical extent and after some paring down in size it enjoyed considerable peace and prosperity under his successors Hadrian and Antoninus Pius. It was during this era that the Pax Romana, a ìgolden ageî of peace and prosperity, was achieved. However, the subsequent reign of the philosopher-emperor Marcus Aurelius (161ñ180) saw a marked increase in frontier warfare on the Rhine and Danube, which proved to be an ill omen for the remainder of the Western Empire.

The good times enjoyed by Rome ended with the reign of Commodus (177ñ192), the son of Marcus Aurelius, who proved to be a disgrace on every level. When Commodus was murdered in a palace coup, Pertinax, a man of integrity was hailed emperor. However, he was soon murdered and the praetorian guard (the army cohorts stationed in Rome) auctioned off the throne early in 193, plunging the Empire into turmoil. A civil war erupted, and just as in 68 to 69, there were several claimants to the throne. The stage had been set for the tumultuous 3rd Century, which would prove to be the most uncertain in the history of the Empire.

After more than four years of warfare throughout the Empire, the general Septimius Severus, a North African by birth, established a hereditary dynasty that ruled Rome almost continuously from 193 to 235. Though usually called the Severan Dynasty, in this book it is referred to as the Severan-Emesan Dynasty, for that name more accurately reflects the composition of its African and Syrian members. As exotic as it all sounds (and some of it, such as the reign of Elagabalus, was remarkably un-Roman), it must be remembered that these were Romanized people who considered themselves superior to the rustic population in their homelands.

The greatest change in store for the Romans, however, was not rulership by Syrians or Africans, but domination by soldier-emperors from the Balkans. This began in 235 with the overthrow of Severus Alexander and continued almost without interruption for the next 150 years. Rome entered a tailspin in which the Rhine and the Danube borders were breached by Germanic and nomadic invaders without respite, causing the throne to be usurped by the frontier commanders with great frequency.

Indeed, the enemies of Rome had changed with the passage of time. No longer were the Macedonians, the Carthaginians or the Pontic kings a threat, for they had all been pacified long ago. Romeís ìcivilizedî enemies in the east (at first the Parthians and later the Sasanians), were a constant menace, but their potency changed with the ebb and flow of their own fortunes. The enemies who lined up on the far side of the Rhine and Danube were more persistent, for they desired to settle in Roman lands, to escape more fierce people invading their own territories, or simply to loot.

The border of the Empire encroached on Italy when the so-called Agri Decumates (the re-entrant zone where the Rhine and the Danube meet) was lost in about 260. Now Italy was within a few days march for the hostile Germans along the rim of Roman territory. In the mid-3rd Century, Italy was invaded on more than one occasion by Germans. The arrival of nomads from the steppes of Central Asia caused Germans to cross the rivers in shocking numbers, for they themselves were being driven from their traditional lands and had nowhere to go but into Roman territory.

With the passage of time, Germanic weapons and tactics became more advanced, especially when they added heavy cavalry and ships to their arsenal. Fortunately for the Romans, they never mastered the skills of conducting a siege. The Romans were almost always outnumbered (or at least that is what we are told by Roman sources), and this is not necessarily difficult to believe. Indeed, one gains great respect for the Romans, for it was only through persistence and discipline that they emerged victorious against the larger and fiercer armies of their enemies.

The low point of the Empire in the 3rd Century A.D. was undoubtedly the reign of Gallienus (253ñ268), though this can hardly be attributed to the emperor himself. The Empire was besieged on all fronts at once: Gaul, the Rhine, the Danube, Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt. As a consequence, the Empire was greatly reduced in size, losing most of its Asiatic and Western provinces (which were not recovered until the 270s).

Reflective of this decline was the coinage itself, which became debased, small, ragged and artistically unappealing. It was reformed several times between 274 and 324, with further fine-tuning thereafter. It underwent a fairly comprehensive reform under the emperor Aurelian in 274, and then two decades later was subjected to a remarkably thorough reform by Diocletian.

During this period the Romans began to strike Imperial coins at a network of mints located throughout the Empire, from London and Carthage in the West to Constantinople and Alexandria in the east. Mint marks came into regular use and types were often standardized Empire-wide. One casualty was the abundant and varied provincial coinage, which began to be phased out in the 260s. It had become virtually extinct by the 270s, and formally ended with the Alexandrian issues of Domitius Domitianus (296ñ297/8).

The chaos of the 250s to the early 280s was remedied by one of Romeís great reformers, the emperor Diocletian (284ñ305). During his reign, the army was significantly increased and the government was renovated with a clear vision of the problems it faced. Diocletian voluntarily shared his authority, at first with one colleague and eventually with three. Thus in 293 the Tetrarchy (ìrule of fourî) was formed. Crises on virtually all fronts could be handled simultaneously, in person, by an Augustus or a Caesar.

Diocletian improved upon his accomplishment by voluntarily abdicating the throne so the next generation of rulers could assume the burdens of state. Indeed, his abdication was even more remarkable than his choice to voluntarily share authority 20 years before. Such an event had not happened in the Roman world since Sulla abdicated in 79 B.C. ó and even he did so grudgingly, dying a year later.

However, Diocletianís noble institution of a shared government did not long survive his abdication, for his main successor, Galerius, was not a man of the same caliber. Within a year chaos erupted, resulting in civil wars that continued to damage the Empire for the next two decades. By 313 only two Augusti remained: Constantine I ëthe Greatí (307ñ337) and Licinius I (308ñ324). Though allied in the earliest stage of their co-reign ó Constantine in the West and Licinius in the East ó they later squabbled and fought two civil wars known as the First and Second Licinian Wars, they ended in 324 with Constantine emerging the victor.

For the first time in more than four decades, the Empire was united under one ruler. Constantine remained in sole power until his death in 337, though in 335 he formally partitioned the Empire among his three sons and two of his nephews. Very soon after Constantineís death, both cousins were murdered and his three sons carved up the Empire among themselves.

Along with his rise to supreme power, Constantine effected two monumental changes in the Empire. The first was the adoption of Christianity as the state religion, for with the exception of a few minor uprisings of paganism, it remained the dominant faith throughout the rest of the Empire. The second watershed event was the foundation of Constantinople as the eastern capital of the Empire.

Though Constantineís conversion to Christianity was his own idea, the establishment of a second capital in the east was nothing new, for Diocletian had made his capital at Nicomedia, a city only 50 miles from the old city of Byzantium, upon which Constantinople was built. Having two capitals not only caused a division between East and West, but also ensured the survival of Roman culture and Christendom, for Constantinople served as a buffer against the invasion of Europe for the next 1,129 years.

The three sons of Constantine inherited a strong Empire, but one that now was divided. If Constantine left one undesirable legacy, it was that he had stirred up the Sasanians right before his death by preparing for a great invasion which his unexpected demise prevented. His sons engaged in a series of destructive civil wars that by 350 left only the middle son, Constantius II, alive. Even this heir suffered a defection by his cousin Julian II (ìthe Apostateî) and died before he was able to settle the matter in battle. The Constantinian Era came to a close one year after Julians death, when his ill-fated successor, Jovian, died in his tent from inhaling the fumes of a brazier.

What came next, in 364, was a new era in Roman history, one in which there was a formal division between East and West. The reins were taken up by the general Valentinian I, who was a commander under Jovian in the Western provinces. No doubt following the model of Diocletian (who had taken great strides to divide East from West), Valentinian I decided to share power with his younger brother, Valens. They divided their responsibilities geographically, with Valens taking up residence in the east (in Constantinople) and Valentinian I taking command in the West. He chose Milan, in the north of Italy, as his headquarters instead of the traditional capital of Rome, for Milan was closer to the theater of action (Indeed, for this reason Milan had been used as a part-time capital of the West since the reign of Claudius II ëGothicus.í)

Hereafter the treatment of the Empire changes in this book. Both the biographies and the coin listings are separated based on the fact that there were two separate Empires. Each had its own capital, its own armies and its own emperor. Since the reigns of Eastern and Western emperors typically overlap, the separate listings allow the reader to visualize the chronological arrangement not only within each Empire but also in terms of how East related to West.

As the two Empires pursued increasingly separate paths, interactions were limited, and often confrontational. Rome was sacked twice in the 5th Century: in 410 by the Visigoths and in 455 by the Vandals; the feeble attempts by the more prosperous East to ìrecoverî the faltering West failed. In August of 476, Rome itself fell to a coup led by the German soldier Odovacar, who ousted the puppet child-emperor Romulus Augustus. The Western Roman Empire continued to be ruled, at least technically, by Julius Nepos, the constitutional emperor who remained in exile in Dalmatia until his own murder in 480.

It is at this point most scholars agree the Byzantine Empire begins, for although Odovacar behaved peacefully toward Constantinople, the traditional relationship between East and West had formally ended. However, the final blow to Rome did not occur until 489, when the Ostrogothic king Theodoric ousted Odovocar and claimed Italy in the name of his own people, though he maintained a thoroughly Roman chancellery. Thereafter the survival of Roman culture was maintained by the Constantinopolitans, who proudly called themselves ìRomansî until their Empire was finally overrun by the Ottoman Turks, who breached the walls of Constantinople on the 29th of May, 1453.

COIN DESIGNS

The Romans had a fairly rigid formula for most of the coins of the Empire, even those struck in the provinces. The obverse generally bore the portrait of a noble individual, be it an Augustus (emperor), a Caesar, an Augusta (empress) or a deified family member. This person is identified by an inscription around the periphery of the coin, itself usually bordered by a circle of pellets which indicate the limits of the design on the die.

These portraits usually take the form of a head or a bust (in which the uppermost part of the torso is shown). Various ornaments and clothing are worn, including wreaths, diadems and veils, and a wide range of clothing and armor is also shown adorning the torso. Although usually there is only one person portrayed (either shown in profile to the right or left, or sometimes shown facing the viewer), on occasion two, three or four people are shown. Their busts are either jugate, back-to-back or confronted.

The reverse usually depicts a deity, a personification or an Imperial personage, either standing, seated or engaged in some activity. Other times multiple figures are depicted, typically greeting one another or participating in a ìscene,î such as an address. The remainder of reverse types depict a wide range of animate and inanimate objects. The variety is impressive, and the reader is referred to chapters three and four for a fuller discussion of the types.

A NOTE ABOUT THE ISSUERS OF COINS

Roman coins are inextricably linked to those who issued them. Indeed, that is the very basis upon which they are classified in the most general terms, and it is the staging point from which the other aspects of the coin can be explored. But it is important to remember that the emperor who issued the coin often is not the one who is portrayed.

In the closing years of the Republic, coins were still struck by moneyers, but increasingly they came to be coined by men associated with the most powerful leaders, such as Julius Caesar, Brutus and Marc Antony. Even when the Republic had been replaced by Augustusí Empire, the old institution of moneyers (and the placement of their name on coinage) was continued. But like so many of the Republican institutions that Augustus initially honored, this too was phased out in his reign, never to recur.

We must also consider coins of the divi series, which the Romans issued in memory of those who had died. Though these pieces are typically classified under the person honored, they were struck by someone else, usually a successor or a family member. The same can be said for coins of living relatives of the emperor, for we must distinguish between who is portrayed and who had the authority to issue the coinage.

Other times the issue is even more convoluted. The rebel Aureolus, for example, struck coins at Milan in the name of his ally Postumus, who was based in Gaul and who himself never controlled Milan. Although neither Aureolusí name nor his image appear on any authentic coin, we may attribute certain coins in the name of Postumus to the mint of Milan based on stylistic factors. Therefore, they must be attributed to Aureolus, who controlled that city. Several other usurpers took the opposite approach and struck coins in the name of their enemies in hopes of gaining their good favor. Inevitably these overtures failed, but they were repeated many times.

PORTRAITURE ON ROMAN COINAGE

Whether we speak in terms of quality or quantity, the portrait gallery on Roman coinage is unequaled by any coinage produced before or since. However, the Romans were not the first to depict living people on coinage. In fact, they resisted the temptation for centuries. To Republican Romans, the idea of portraying a living being on a coin was vain and disgraceful, something better suited to Greek kings and dictators.

Despite their obvious limitations in comparison to truly three-dimensional sculptures, coins are by far the most important and reliable source of Roman portraits. Of the greatest importance are the inscriptions that accompany and thus identify the portraits. The vast majority of busts in-the-round that survive have no inscription, and it is standard practice that they are identified based on a favorable comparison to an inscribed coin portrait.

Coin portraits are also useful to art historians for dating sculptures. This is especially true for portraits of women, whose coiffures generally followed a trend established by the women of the Imperial household. Coins offer the most complete portrait gallery, for many of the men, women and children who appear on coins have no equivalent bust that survives in-the-round. Furthermore, even if they did survive, if there was no inscription and no coin with which to compare it, a positive identification would be impossible.

The first time a living Roman had his portrait placed on a coin was in about 196 B.C. This unprecedented event took place in Greece ó far from the immediate control of Rome. The Roman general T. Quinctius Flamininus was in Macedon (northern Greece) to wage war on the king Philip V. Flamininusí hook-nosed and lightly bearded portrait appears on the obverse of gold staters struck in Greece, perhaps at Chalcis or at Corinth, where in 196 B.C. he proclaimed the ìFreedom of Greece.î

Interestingly, Flamininusí portrait was inspired by the portrait coins of Philip V, the Macedonian king whom he had just defeated. The reverse type ó a standing Nike (Victory) ó was modeled after a gold stater of the type originated by Alexander the Great (336ñ323 B.C.), which was the most prevalent gold coin in Greece at the time.

In Rome, however, no living Roman appeared on coinage for more than 150 years thereafter. The only portraits used by the Romans until 44 B.C. were those of deceased ancestors or foreign kings whom the Romans had conquered. Both of these applications involved propaganda and personal boasting on the part of the moneyers who were in charge of issuing coins.

The dictator Julius Caesar was the first living Roman to place his portrait on coins struck in Rome. This occurred in January, 44 B.C., when Caesar was nearing the apex of his power as Dictator quartum (his fourth dictatorship); soon the senate appointed him to his highest post, Dictator in perpetuo (ìdictator for lifeî). His unprecedented use of the portrait was the perfect compliment to his equally unprecedented title.

The title ìdictatorî traditionally was given only under dire circumstances and was meant to be forfeited upon the resolution of the crisis for which it was granted. In one fell swoop, two of the great traditions of Rome fell by the wayside. Historians and numismatists have not been remiss in pointing out that this was an important development in the history of Rome and that his portrait on coinage may have been a major cause of Caesarís murder only a month later.

Once Caesar had established this practice, there was no turning back. Indeed, only about a month or two later, Caesarís chief henchman, Marc Antony, placed his own portrait on coinage. Antony is shown bearded as an indication of his mourning and wearing a veil to symbolize his priestly position with the augurate. The greatest irony of this confused period is that Brutus, one of the two lead assassins of Caesar, placed his own portrait on coins in 42 B.C., shortly before his own death. The most famous of Brutusí portrait coins is the EID MAR denarius, for not only does it bear his image, but it stands out as perhaps the finest example of propaganda on Roman coinage.

Most numismatists agree that the height of Roman coin portraiture occurred in the 1st Century A.D., when the ìTwelve Caesarsî chronicled by Suetonius ruled Rome. Many would also agree that the absolute peak occurred from 60 to 75, beginning with the last issues of Nero, encompassing the Civil War of 68ñ69 and ending with the early issues of the Flavians.

For the remainder of the 1st and the 2nd Centuries portraiture remained strong and individualistic. However, it began to falter during the 3rd Century, most notably after it hit a temporary high-water mark in the year 238. By the middle of the century portraits begin to lose some of their individuality, assuming a caricature-like quality at the end of the reign of Gallienus (253ñ268).

In the second half of the 3rd Century portraits took on a uniform, militaristic appearance, with closely cropped hair and beards. This style of portrait was adopted by Diocletian and became an integral part of the iconography of the Tetrarchy he formed in 293. In this case, however, individuality was purposely sacrificed by the artists in order to express the selfless unity of the emperors. In solidarity, there must be uniformity.

In the subsequent era of Constantine the Great and his sons the portraits take on a wholly different character. Instead of a militant image, Constantine and his sons presented a clean-shaven, youthfully idealized image that harkened back to the Greek model of so many centuries before. At the height of their glory, the members of the Constantinian family have flowing locks of hair upon the nape of their neck in a manner reminiscent of Caligula and wear a diadem (instead of a wreath) in a clear association with the Hellenistic Greek kings.

The Christian faith that Constantine had embraced had made a profound mark on coinage and art in general. With the exception of a few pagans (such as Julian II or the occasional usurper) most Imperial portraits thereafter were clean-shaven and idealized upon the Constantinian model. Stylization gave way to crudeness with the passage of time, and by the late 5th Century, the ìportraitsî bear virtually no traces of individuality.

This process of ësimplificationí ó from the first portrait coinage of Julius Caesar to the final issues of Julius Nepos ó required more than five centuries, and continued well into the Byzantine period, where realism was lost to Christian piety, which found form in wide-eyes and blank expressions.