Marzano - Trajanic Building Projects On Base-Metal Denominations Denominations and Audience Targeting (2009)

Papers of the British School at Rome 77 (2009), pp.
125–58
Trajanic building projects on base-metal

1
denominations and audience targeting
by Annalisa Marzano
Introduction
Roman coins have been seen as one of the media of imperial propaganda2
and as one of the means by which programmatic messages were diffused to a
wide audience in different parts of the empire, alongside state reliefs, portraiture
and other expressions of ‘official’ art. Coins, among other things, celebrated
the emperor’s military victories, his virtues and the building activity
financed by his generosity, and historians have readily recognized in this the
celebratory messages that the central authority wished to send to its audience,
the coin users.
However, when it comes to the question of whether coins, as objects, effectively
conveyed such programmatic messages, scholars disagree. Some would rather
emphasize that coins served mainly as a means of exchange in everyday life
and that few would have paid close attention to what was depicted on them,
being unable to understand the abbreviations and symbolic representations that
1 This study began some years ago during a course taught by William Metcalf at the
American Numismatic Society; preliminary versions were presented at the 137th APA Annual
Meeting and at the Brasenose–St Anne Classics Symposium, Oxford. I thank Rebecca
Benefiel, Edward Bispham, Alan Bowman, Janet DeLaine, Chris Howgego, and the two
anonymous referees and the Editor of Papers of the British School at Rome for their useful
comments. Imperfections remain my own.
The following abbreviations are used: BMC ¼ Mattingly, 1976; RIC ¼ Mattingly
and Sydenham, 1926; 1936; RRC ¼ Crawford, 1974.
All dates are AD, unless otherwise indicated.
2 The idea of coins as propaganda was questioned by Jones (1956) as much as 50
years ago. Meadows and Williams (2001) argued that ‘propaganda’ is not an accurate term
for Republican coin types, since they were used to remind people of certain events, but not
to persuade them of something. In the context of this paper, propaganda is simply
understood as the messages the central authority placed on coins, regardless of their
recipients (who might have included the emperor himself and the ruling élite; see: Butcher
2005). The fact that these ‘messages’ were chosen in accordance with imperial policy is
very clear in some cases: Noreña, 2003; Wolters, 1999: 255–308. For a general theoretical
discussion on propaganda and self-representation in the early empire: Weber and
Zimmermann, 2003. On using coins as primary evidence: Metcalf, 1999.
126 marzano
are typical of coins.3 Even those who believe that coin types were chosen as an expression of the
emperor’s will4 are uncertain as to the extent to which the message was understood by the common
people (Crawford, 1983; Ehrhardt, 1984). It is true that in many instances coins bear legends iden-
tifying the subject depicted; but the extent of basic literacy among the population is controversial.
The divergent positions of scholars on this matter were summarized by Michael Crawford some
years ago (1983: 47):
At one extreme there is the view that the emperor himself paid particular attention to
the choice of types for his coinage in order to draw attention to his virtues and his
successes and that these types had a major impact on the population of the Roman
Empire; at the other extreme the view that only a minor department of government
was involved and that the pictorial types of the imperial coinage were little noticed
and often misunderstood.
Nevertheless, even if coins are not considered one of the major categories of art, such as painting
and sculpture, the fact that they combine images and text presents a felicitous opportunity to
investigate the relationship between the creator(s) of the composition, the specific message to
be conveyed, and its final viewers.
Recent studies have shown much interest in investigating the relation between image and
viewer, and the various possible levels of semantic reading that the same image offers different
beholders.5 Culture, social class, gender and other distinctions can in fact determine differences
in perception and understanding of visual material. Although coins are a class of material distinct
from other figurative arts, the elements dictating the creation of their iconography and the ‘codes’
that allowed the viewer to understand the scenes depicted on them followed the same principles
(Hölscher, 1980).
The centralized production of coins on a large scale, their daily use and the existence of a variety
of coin types prompt a series of interesting questions about coins and their perceived audience.
Among the ‘peculiarities’ of coins is the existence of various denominations using three different
metals: bronze,6 silver and gold. Were the persons responsible for the creation of the coin types
— be this through the input of the emperor himself, his advisers or mint officials7 — conscious
3 See: Crump, 1985; Wallace-Hadrill, 1986; Howgego, 1995; Levick, 1999; Noreña, 2001; Wolters,
2003. Sutherland (1959) provided a still useful discussion on essential aspects of imperial coin types as ‘organs
of information’ (p. 54) and on methodological approaches to understanding coin types. For discussion of
ambiguous abbreviations intentionally used on coins: Hekster, 2003: 30–2.
4 Levick (1982) suggested that coin motifs and legends were chosen because they pleased the emperor.
5 For example: Elsner, 1995; Zanker, 1997b; Clarke, 2003; and, for discussion of possible different levels
of semantic reading of coins: Butcher, 2005.
6 To be precise orichalcum was used for sestertii and dupondii, and copper for asses and quadrantes.
7 It is not clear how and by whom the design of imperial coins was normally decided; direct intervention
of the emperor is recorded in the literary sources in few instances: Crump, 1985: 426. Howgego (1995: 70)
suggested a probable role in the choice of coin types on the part of the triumviri monetales even during the
Empire. On the organization of the mint: Wolters, 1999: 45–114.
Trajanic building projects on base-metal denominations 127
of the people handling the coins in their daily transactions? Were they aware of differences in their
audience according to the media, that is, of the fact that, while bronze coinage would reach the
whole social spectrum, it was usually confined to a relatively regional circulation,8 whereas
silver and gold coinage would circulate mostly among the upper classes (in an economic sense),
and, we should add, the army (who were paid predominantly in silver denarii), but with a much
wider geographical circulation?
This study focuses on base-metal coins bearing architectural types minted in Rome under
Trajan; it investigates whether a given composition was targeting in particular the audience in
the capital and its environs. I shall then compare the results of the analysis of Trajan’s coins to
similar coins issued under the Flavians and Hadrian. Lummel (1991: 8) identified four different
groups to whom messages on coins were directed: the Senate, the plebs urbana, the army and the
provinces. In the case of architectural types, which almost always refer to Roman monuments,
we should expect that, according to this categorization, the primary groups to consider are the
Senate and the urban plebs. Although it is not straightforward to prove that the common
people would be using mostly bronze coins in their daily transactions, because for the period
under examination we have only scattered reference to prices,9 there are some archaeological
hints. During the excavations carried out in the Vigna Barberini in Rome, the contents of a
purse, possibly lost during terracing works in the area, were recovered. It consisted predominantly
of bronze coins — five asses and three sestertii, dating from the end of Tiberius’s reign, to 64/65
— and one silver denarius of the second century BC (Villedieu, 2001: 57–8).10 Similarly, in one of
the ‘bars’ of Pompeii (the popina at 9.11.2) the ‘cashier’ contained 57 bronze coins and only five
silver coins (Laurence, 2007: 93).
The tailored choice of coin types according to coin denominations was investigated in part by
William Metcalf (1993) in an article dealing with the liberalitas type, a common coin type that,
starting with Nero, was struck by most of the emperors. The liberalitas type is connected with the
congiarium, the distribution, originally of grain, but later of money, to the urban plebs. The
congiarium normally was carried out by the emperor in person. Metcalf observed that two
types of coin commemorate these events: on bronze we find distribution scenes, usually
depicting the emperor; on precious metal, from Hadrian on, the standard type depicts the
personification of Liberalitas accompanied by an identifying legend. The differentiation of the
8 In the case of the mint of Rome in the period under examination aes coinage is considered to have had
a primarily Italian and urban circulation (Metcalf, 1993: 344). However, almost all of the bronze coins of the late
first and second centuries found in the western provinces were minted in Rome; once put into circulation in the
provinces, bronze coinage did not travel far (Harl, 1996: 247 (and figs 9.1–9.3 for models for coin circulation)).
Coin circulation and the mechanisms regulating the supply destined to the various provinces are complex topics:
Howgego, 1992; Howgego, 1994; Hobley, 1998.
9 For a survey of prices in Italy from epigraphic evidence: Duncan-Jones, 1965.
10 The excavators, observing the minimal wear and oxidation on the Neronian coins postulated that the
purse was lost sometime in the years between 65 and, at the latest, 70. It is less useful, I believe, to look at the
contents of purses belonging to people trying to flee from the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 recovered in Pompeii
and Herculaneum, since they do not reflect the normal daily content of purses but what people could grab in
an emergency.
128 marzano
two types according to coin denomination is constant11 and the variation between personification
and distribution scene bears no relation to the presence or absence of the emperor from Rome.
Metcalf, therefore, suggested that the distinction reflects a different audience for coin types, at
least as perceived by mint officials: the precious metal coins focused on the imperial virtue,
Liberalitas, while bronze coins, widely circulating among lower classes, focused on the event
that ‘led to the circulation of the money in the first place’ (1993: 344). The distinction supposes
that educated people would respond more readily to visual abstractions of concepts. This is not to
say that personifications never appear on bronze coinage — far from it —, but rather that, in refer-
ence to a specific event like the congiarium, two different coin types were consistently used.
This study proposes to determine if a similar degree of attentiveness in the selection of images
for coins can be observed in the case of some other coin types.12 Even if one cannot expect to find
always rigid distinctions between types and denominations, it is none the less possible to identify
indicative occurrences in particular cases and historical circumstances. As has been noted, if ‘any
search for overarching differences between coins of different denominations throughout the
entire principate is doomed to fail . . . this need not imply absolute absence of audience targeting
within individual reigns’ (Hekster, 2003: 23–4).
The choice of coinage from the mint of Rome displaying types that refer to imperial building
activity for this study rests on two considerations. First, the large presence of the plebs in the
capital necessarily affected imperial policy, which was directed at pleasing the masses and
avoiding social unrest. Public buildings, restored or built ex novo by emperors, were an important
part of imperial policy in the Urbs.13 At the same time, though, Rome was the physical and
ideological seat of the Roman upper class. In the Republic, building projects in the capital
had been an important part of élite self-representation and had contributed to the political
career of their sponsors. In the Imperial period, despite the fact that from the mid-first century
it was increasingly the emperor who embarked on building projects in Rome, public buildings
still played an important role in shaping the identity of the upper classes.
Two objections to the validity of this sort of investigation could be raised. Firstly, it could be
said that the differences in the types chosen for the various denominations simply reflect the fact
that the coins had different sizes: a sestertius is much larger than an aureus, and the decision
regarding what to represent on them may have depended simply on what would fit on the
11 As Metcalf pointed out (1993: 339–43), there are exceptions to this rule, but the general trend shows
that liberalitas is more common on gold and silver and the distribution scene on aes. See also Wallace-Hadrill’s
paper (1981) on other personifications referring to emperors’ virtues.
12 See also Hekster’s article (2003), an interesting study addressing the question of denominations and
audience. He examined the legends on the coins of the ‘year of the four emperors’, detecting on precious
denominations messages aimed at the provinces or the army, and messages aimed at the urban plebs of Rome
on the base-metal ones.
13 Zanker (1997a) has offered an overview of this vast topic. Architectural coin types have attracted much
interest, but mainly as a means to complement the knowledge of the physical remains of ancient buildings. For
studies on architectural coin types: Fuchs, 1969; Hill, 1989; Tameanko, 1999; Burnett, 1999 (where the author
brought the debate beyond the sterile dichotomy about the reliability of coins as a source of information for
the physical appearance of monuments).
available space.14 This, however, does not seem a conclusive argument if one considers that on
the small precious denominations we can find many examples of types showing complex
representations.15
The second objection to regarding some bronze coin types as being ‘created’ for a more local
audience is the fact that during the reigns of the Flavians coin types of the mint of Rome were
often used also in other western mints, such as Tarraco and Lugdunum; this practice ended in the
late first century, when the Roman mint started to supply bronze coinage to the western
provinces. Although we cannot be very precise about the issue date of the provincial mints’
coins with architectural types, usually the coin types were used in Rome first, and only later
were they employed at the provincial mints. The fact that the coin types were designed in
primis for the mint of Rome still seems very significant. Their subsequent employment in
the provinces does not rule out the possible existence of a relationship between various
denominations and the social background of the different users, though it does indicate that
the hypothetical distinction between a more localized audience for the types on bronze versus
that for the precious denominations posited here was not rigid.
Trajan’s building projects on bronze coins
Trajan was celebrated in antiquity for his public building programme as much as for his military
achievements.16 The intensity of his building activity elicited comments even later, when Trajan
was jokingly called ‘wall-wort’, so numerous were inscriptions bearing his name on buildings.17
The coinage issued under Trajan comprises in total thirteen architectural types18 that relate
14 See Hekster (2003: 23), making this point in relation to Metcalf’s study (1993).
15 For example the aurei issued by Claudius depicting the triumphal arch of his father Nero Drusus (Hill,
1989: 49), the aurei and denarii with a praetorian camp and legend IMPER RECEPIT (BMC I: 178, no. 23; 169,
no. 38), or Vespasian’s aurei with the Temple of Vesta (see below).
16 Pliny, Panegyricus 29.2; 51; Galen, de Methodo Medendi 9.8; Cassius Dio (Epitome) 68.15.7: kÆM
ÆÆ oººÆ K oﬂ oº oı oºº· Æ · K J
~ æ
mæªÆ, kÆM ºƒ Æ kÆM
okoıÆ Ø
o Øóı kÆÆ kı Æ oò ÆuÆ Æ ºø . On Trajan in general:
Paribeni, 1926–7; Bennett, 2001.
17 Pseudo-Aurelius Victor, Epitome 41.13: Constantine is said to have thus called Trajan ‘ob titulos
multis aedibus inscriptos’ (because of his [Trajan’s] titles inscribed on many temples); Ammianus Marcellinus
(27.3.7), while discussing the doings of Lampradius, who had placed his name as founder on a building he
had in fact only restored, adds that even Trajan had the same defect: ‘quo vitio laborasse et Traianus dicitur
princeps, unde eum herbam parietinam iocando cognominaverunt’ (Also the Emperor Trajan is said to have
suffered from this fault, and for this reason he was jokingly called ‘wall-wort’). By contrast Cassius Dio
(Epitome 68.15.7) states that Trajan was so ‘upright and munificent that after he enlarged and beautified the
Circus . . . he simply inscribed on it a statement that he had made it adequate for the Roman people’. For the
inscription commemorating this restoration, see note 23.
18 There is another case of building activity in Rome that can be ascribed to Trajan, the rebuilding of the
aedes Vestae in the Forum, to which one must relate Trajan’s reissuing of the coin minted by Cassius Longinus in
the mid-first century BC depicting the round temple (RRC: 428, nos. 1–2; RIC II: 308, nos. 795–6; Scott, 1999).
Since the issue is a restoration, it is not considered here.
130 marzano
either to imperial constructions ex novo or to the restoration of existing public buildings, like the
Circus Maximus (TABLE 1). One variation of the Column of Trajan type recently has been
revealed to be a modern forgery and, although listed in the tabulation, it is not discussed
here.19 Among the twelve securely genuine types, seven occur only in bronze denominations:
Circus Maximus, Portus, aqueduct (Aqua Traiana), monumental gateway to Jupiter Optimus
Maximus, bridge, temple with porticoes, and triumphal arch (FIG. 1.1–6; the image of the
triumphal arch type is not available).
As the legends inform us, all the coins were struck in the name of the Senate and the
Roman People (SPQR), in celebration of the optimus princeps Trajan.20 This list includes
three building projects that clearly were of relevance to the population of Rome: the restoration
of the Circus Maximus, the construction of the new basin of the Ostia harbour21 and of the Aqua
Traiana.
The importance of the Circus Maximus and its races in the daily life of the Roman people, and
its social and political relevance, do not need any discussion here.22 The restoration of the
building thanks to Trajan’s generosity is recorded also in an inscription that echoes the coin
legend, referring to Trajan as optimus princeps.23
The major works undertaken at Portus (Ostia) to build a new harbour basin, docks and store-
rooms to replace, or complement, as recent studies suggest (Keay et al., 2005), the harbour built
by Claudius also had a direct bearing on the population of Rome, especially on those who were
19 This rare coin (TABLE 1.13) traditionally has been considered a type similar to no. 12. Beckmann
(2006) observed that the coins depicting the Column of Trajan with an owl are forgeries obtained by
reworking genuine sestertii of the more common type no. 12.
20 On the title of Optimus bestowed on Trajan, see Pliny, Panegyricus 2.7, 88.4; Pliny refers to the
emperor by this title in Epistulae 2.13.8, 3.13.1. Trajan must have received the title, unofficially, before
October of 98.
21 Brunori (1990) considered these coins as referring to the new harbour Trajan built at Centumcellae
(Civitavecchia). In support of this theory he discussed the passage in Pliny, Epistulae 6.31.17, where it is said that
the harbour will take the name of its builder (‘habebit hic portus et iam habet nomen auctoris eritque vel maxime
salutaris’ (here there will be a harbour and it already bears the name of its builder, and it is going to be extremely
advantageous)). Numerous brick stamps, indeed found only in the area of Centumcellae, read PORT. TRAI. The
legend found on the coins in exergo (that is in the space below the principal element) has portum Traiani, but the
depiction of the hexagonal basin on the coins, which corresponds to the design of the basin at Portus, seems to me
to rule out the possible interpretation of the coin type as referring to the harbour of Centumcellae.
22 For a classic treatment on euergetism: Veyne, 1976. See also the collection of essays in the volume
edited by Lomas and Cornell (2003), which mostly focuses on Rome; and Humphrey, 1986.
23 ILS 286: Imp. Caesari Div. Nervae f. Nervae Traiano Aug. Germanico Dacico Pontifici Maximo
tribunic. pot. VII imp. IIII cos V p.p. tribus XXXV quod liberalitate Optimi Principis commoda earum etiam
locorum adiectione ampliata sint (To the Emperor Caesar Nerva Traianus Augustus Germanicus Dacicus, son
of the deified Nerva, Pontifex Maximus, holding tribunicia potestas for the seventh time, acclaimed imperator
for the fourth time, elected consul for the fifth time, Father of the Fatherland, the 35 tribes [dedicated this]
because thanks to the generosity of the Optimus Princeps the [number] of their seats has been enlarged with
the addition of new places). In those cases, as this one, when the dedicatory inscription on monuments built
by Trajan survives, we find a dedication by the Senate and the people to the optimus princeps, as for the coins.
The inscription on the arch of Ancona, instead of optimus, uses the adjective providentissimus (ILS 298).
on the list for the frumentationes.24 It was at Portus that the state grain would arrive from Egypt
and be stored before being sent to Rome via the Tiber. Like other emperors before him, Trajan
understood the importance of the formula panem et circenses for winning popularity, and his
contemporaries commented upon this. Fronto, for example, remarks that Trajan excelled in
the arts of peace. He was extremely popular among the people of Rome, because, astutely, he
did not neglect actors, the circus or the amphitheatre. In Fronto’s words, Trajan knew that:
‘Two things above all have control over the Roman people, the annona and the games’.25
Fronto goes on, pointing out that the games are even more important than the distribution of
grain, because the latter concerned only the people on the corn register, whereas the spectacles
affected the whole population.26 To this we should add also that the Trajanic building project at
Portus involved the investment of capital and labour on a considerable scale for many years, as
did the earlier Julio-Claudian project.27 Such commemorative coin types also must have
reminded certain segments of the population of the opportunities for employment that projects
of this kind represented.
The Aqua Traiana supplied the new great baths built by Trajan with water from sources in
the area of Lake Bracciano. The two projects were carried out simultaneously and were
inaugurated almost on the same day in 109: the Thermae Traiani, built over the remains of
Nero’s Domus Aurea, on 22 June, the Aqua Traiana on 24 June. Because of the close relations
between the two constructions, it seems plausible that the coin type celebrating the aqueduct
also alluded to the construction and opening of the new baths. The imperial baths were
complexes for a very broad audience, offering to the people of Rome not simply bathing
facilities, but other recreational activities as well, like concerts, poetry readings and displays of
works of art.28
In the case of the other four coin types on base metal — the gateway, the triumphal arch, the
bridge and the temple — a connection with the urban plebs is not obvious, but possible in some
instances.
The coin-type depicting the gateway with the letters IOM has been argued to refer to the area
on the Capitol Hill sacred to Jupiter (FIG. 1.4; Hill, 1989: 101–2). If this explanation is correct,
then the decision to include this type on bronze coinage among the group of coins minted
from 104 to 107 for the decennalia needs clarification. We have no mention of any building
or restoration project undertaken by Trajan on the Capitol either in literary or epigraphic sources
24 Claudius’s harbour also appeared on sestertii struck by Nero: BMC I: 222, no. 131.
25 Fronto, Epistulae (Principia Historiae) 20.11–12: populum Romanum duabus praecipue rebus, annona
et spectaculeis, teneri (Teub. ed.).
26 Fronto, Epistulae (Principia Historiae) 20.16: minus acribus stimulis congiaria quam spectacula expeti:
congiarieis frumentariam modo plebem singillatim placari ac nominatim, spectaculis universum interdum esse
delecsatetgraal [sic] (Teub. ed.). The text at the end of the sentence is corrupted, although the general
meaning is clear; in the Teubner edition, Hauler suggested ‘delectationem populo’.
27 For the various phases of Portus as revealed by recent fieldwork: Keay et al., 2005; on labour and public
buildings: Brunt, 1980.
28 For a treatment of baths and bathing practices: Nielsen, 1990; Yegül, 1992; Fagan, 1999.
TABLE 1. Coins portraying Trajan’s building projects.
132
Key: Au ¼ aureus; D ¼ denarius; Dp ¼ dupondius; HS ¼ sestertius.
Date Type Legend Gold Silver Bronze

1 100 Triumphal arch TR POT COS III P P SPQR HS: BMC III: 152, no. y
OPTIMO PRINCIPI
2 103–7 Gateway to Jupiter SPQR OPTIMO PRINCIPI HS: BMC III: 177–8, nos. 842–6
Optimus Maximus (FIG. 1.4 ¼ no. 842)
3 103–11 Circus Maximus SPQR OPTIMO PRINCIPI HS: BMC III: 180, nos. 853–6
(FIG. 1.1 ¼ no. 853)
4 103–11 Bridge SPQR OPTIMO PRINCIPI HS: BMC III: 178–9, nos.
847–52 (FIG. 1.5 ¼ 847)
Dp: BMC III: 193, no. 914
5 103–11 Temple COS V PP SPQR OPTIMO Au: BMC III: 79, HS: BMC III: 181, nos. 857–62
PRINC no. 354 (FIG. 2.1) Dp: BMC III: 193, nos. 915–16
As: BMC III: 201, nos. 955–7
6 103–11 Temple with SPQR OPTIMO PRINCIPI HS: BMC III: 182–3, nos. 863–6
porticoes (FIG. 1.6 ¼ 863)
Dp: BMC III: 202, no. 958
7 103–11; Aqueduct SPQR OPTIMO PRINCIPI; HS: BMC III: 184, nos. 873–6
114 in ex. AQUA TRAIANA (FIG. 1.3 ¼ 873); 207, nos. 975–6
As: BMC III: 214, no. 1008
8 112–17 Via Traiana SPQR OPTIMO PRINCIPI; Au: BMC III: 98, D: BMC III: 98–9, nos. HS: BMC III: 208–9, nos. 986–9
in ex: VIA TRAIANA nos. 484–5 486–91 (FIG. 2.5 ¼ 486) Dp: BMC III: 211–12, nos.
998–9
As.: BMC III: 214–15, nos.
1012–13
marzano
9 112–17 Forum of Trajan SPQR OPTIMO PRINCIPI; Au: BMC III: 102, HS: BMC III: 208, no. 984
in ex. FORUM TRAIAN/I no. 509 (FIG. 2.3)
Trajanic building projects on base-metal denominations
10 112–17 Basilica Ulpia On Au: BASILICA ULPIA in Au: BMC III: 99, HS: BMC III: 207, nos. 982–3
ex. no. 492 (FIG. 2.2)
On HS: SPQR OPTIMO
PRINCIPI BASILICA ULPIA
11 114 Trajan’s Column On D: P M TR P COS VI PP Au: BMC III: D: BMC III: 93, nos. HS: BMC III: 206, nos. 971–2;
(on rare SPQR 93–2, nos. 449–50 451–5; 105, nos. 522–4 218, no. 1024
HS in Otherwise: SPQR OPTIMO (FIG. 2.4 ¼ 522); 112, Dp: BMC III: 210, nos. 993–5
107) PRINCIPI nos. 565–8 As: BMC III: 213, nos. 1003–5
12 104–11 Portus PORTUM TRAIANI HS: BMC III: 162, no. 770a
(FIG. 1.2)
13 114–15 Forgery: column SPQR OPTIMO PRINCIPI HS: BMC III: 218, no. 1025
with owl
133
134
marzano
FIG. 1. Sestertii of Trajan. 1 ¼ TABLE 1.3; 2 ¼ TABLE 1.12; 3 ¼ TABLE 1.7; 4 ¼ TABLE 1.2; 5 ¼ TABLE 1.4; 6 ¼ TABLE 1.6.
# The Trustees of the British Museum. (Reproduced courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum.)
(although this does not exclude the possibility that there was such a project); it is possible that this
coin type may instead refer to the celebration of Trajan’s triumph.
The Temple of Jupiter on the Capitol was the final stop of the triumphal procession, and
the point at which the triumphing general — from 19 BC onwards an honour reserved to the
imperial house — dined with the Senate. Since Republican times, the celebration of the
triumph was a ceremony in which the people of Rome were particularly involved.29 Besides
the ludi staged on the occasion of this celebration, a banquet was offered to the people after
the triumphal procession. This practice started at the latest in the first century BC, when the
literary sources report that various generals — Lucullus, Pompey, Caesar — entertained the
population in this way.30 Probably the most famous of these events is Caesar’s triumphal
banquet, when he entertained 198,000 people in his horti trans Tiberim.31 The custom of
offering a triumphal banquet to the people of Rome, or at least a distribution of food, did not
die with the Republic, but continued into Imperial times.32 In the case of Trajan, it is Fronto
again who discusses the banquets/food distributions offered by the emperor to the people on
the occasion of his military triumphs. In a letter addressed to Marcus Aurelius he writes:
‘Tamen eius opera populus Romanus in triumphis mulsum saepe bibit’ (None the less, thanks
to his achievements the Roman people often drank sweet wine during the triumphal
celebrations).33
It is possible that the coins depicting the IOM gateway, by alluding to the Capitoline area,
may refer to the celebration of the triumph in the same way as the coins depicting a
triumphal arch do. If this suggestion is correct, we should see these coins as similar to the rare
issue depicting a triumphal arch (TABLE 1.1), which may refer to the celebration of the
Germanic victories. These two coin types may refer to two different triumphs, hence the
different iconography and date of issue (respectively 100 and the years between 103 and
107),34 or to the same event. Trajan celebrated a triumph in 99 after the campaigns in
Germany, while the triumph for the first Dacian War was celebrated in the winter of 102–3.
The practice of the triumphal banquet for the people of Rome perhaps offers a justification
for the absence of these types on the precious denominations.35 In particular, the choice of
29 On the triumph in general: Künzl, 1988; Beard, 2007 (with previous bibliography).
30 I have put forward elsewhere the hypothesis that Aemilius Paullus was the first to introduce the
triumphal banquet for the people in 167 BC (Marzano, in press).
31 For a discussion of Caesar’s banquet: D’Arms, 1998: 39, 41.
32 For example Tiberius, on the occasion of his minor triumph (ovatio) over the Pannonians and
Dalmatians in 9 BC, feasted the people on the Capitol and ‘in many other places’ (Dio Cassius 55.2.4).
33 Fronto, Epistulae (de feriis Alsiens), 5.15 (Teub. ed.).
34 See Pliny, Epistulae 8.4.2. For reference to an earlier hypothesis connecting the coin with the erection
of a monument on the Capitol: Hill, 1965: 156–7. The ‘gateway’ type was reissued in 105, 106 and 107.
35 Note, however, that Claudius struck coins depicting the arch of his father Drusus in all three
denominations; also the arch type celebrating his own victories appeared in all three denominations. Claudius,
however, was not highly regarded by the senatorial élite and desperately tried to gain some prestige from
military achievements, and this may explain the appearance of the arch on aurei and denarii. Domitian, on
the other hand, struck only bronze issues depicting his triumphal arch.
136 marzano
depicting the gateway to the Capitol area on sestertii only may rest on the link between one of
the features of the imperial triumphal celebrations, the public banquet for the population of
the capital, and the users of bronze coinage, who were by and large the same people.
The meaning of the type representing the bridge (FIG. 1.5), which appears only on bronze, is
difficult to evaluate in this context. Indeed, we do not know with certainty what bridge or event is
depicted here. Various suggestions have been put forward: that the coin depicted the bridge built
over the Danube in 104, in advance of the second Dacian campaign; the Pons Sublicius in
Rome, on the occasion of its restoration; or no specific bridge at all.36
If this coin type is meant to depict the bridge built over the Danube near Drobetae by the
architect Apollodoros, we should see this issue as part of the series of issues celebrating the
successful conclusion of the Dacian Wars. In order for this message to have been comprehensible
to the population of Rome, we need to assume that the construction of the bridge and the role it
played in the military campaigns in Dacia were well-known; it is possible that during the celebra-
tion of the triumphal ceremony tableaux depicting the bridge were displayed, since it was
customary to parade painted depictions of salient moments of the campaign.37 Pursuing this
identification further, one could note also that denarii minted during Trajan’s fifth consulship
presented on the reverse the personification of the river-god Danuvius, conveniently identified
by the writing in exergo (BMC III: 84, no. 395). The male figure is depicted with his right
hand on the prow of a ship, a detail that may allude to the successful crossing of the river,
and one could speculate that the same event is commemorated in different ways on bronze
and silver coinage, leaving the use of a personification type for the coins that would have circu-
lated largely among upper classes. However, as pointed out by Hill (1989: 105), the bridge over
the Danube as depicted on the Column of Trajan is very different from that which is represented
on these coins, and this invites caution.
If, on the other hand, the coin depiction refers to a possible restoration of the Pons
Sublicius,38 the first bridge constructed over the Tiber by the legendary Ancus Marcius,39 it is
easier to believe that everyone in Rome would have understood this reference. Though there
is no mention in literary or epigraphic sources of a restoration of the bridge by Trajan, the
single-span, covered bridge on the coins suggests a wooden structure, and, as observed by Hill
(1989: 106), this would fit with what we know of the Pons Sublicius, built completely in
wood without using any metal elements, and always restored according to this fashion for
36 As reported by Hill (1989: 105), Mattingly initially referred the type to the Pons Sublicius (RIC II:
239), but later proposed as candidate the bridge over the Danube (BMC III: ci). Tameanko (1999: 205)
suggested that the coin is perhaps a symbol of the many military and civil bridges built over the Danube.
37 The practice, well-attested in literary sources for the triumphs of the late Republic, dates back to at least
201 BC, when Scipio Africanus is said to have used tableaux in his triumph (Appian, Punica 66). See: Holliday,
2002.
38 Because of its building technique, the bridge was damaged repeatedly by floods of the Tiber (for
instance in 32 BC, 23 BC, AD 5 and AD 69). See: Coarelli, 1999.
39 Livy 1.33.6; Dionysius Halicarnassensis, Antiquitates Romanae 3.45.2; Plutarch, Numa 9.
religious reasons.40 The boat moored next to the bridge in the coin depiction seems to be a
typical small river boat used to transport goods.41 If the proportions in this depiction are
faithful, then it is too small to be a navis caudicaria, a specific form of large river barge used
to transport goods from the seaport of Ostia up river to Rome.42 These barges had no sails and
were towed by ropes pulled by men (the helciarii) or oxen proceeding slowly along the bank
of the Tiber. A fragmentary inscription informs us of the existence of an association of
codicarii naviculari, who operated precisely infra pontem Sublicium,43 and it is possible that
the choice to depict a river boat on the coin, with the conventions and compromises forced
upon the creator of the die by the limited space available, was meant to make the connection
with the Tiber and the bridge more readily understood, without the use of a legend. Later
monetary issues by other emperors that have been connected to this bridge similarly referred
to the Pons Sublicius without a legend.44 Admittedly, the presence of a river boat might also
support the Danube theory. However, the comparison with the issue by Septimius Severus on
which a bridge is also depicted supports the previous view. This as presents a very similar
composition to the Trajanic type: a single span, highly arched (evidently in order not to
impede navigation) and covered bridge, with some kind of monumental gateway at both ends,
surmounted by statues; under the bridge is a boat, of the same kind as the one depicted on
the coins of Trajan.
It appears, then, more plausible that the Trajanic coin type refers to the Pons Sublicius rather
than to Apollodorus’s structure, but a third possible reading for the coin ought to be mentioned.
One could argue, along the same lines put forward in the case of the Via Traiana type, that this
coin type was not intended to depict any bridge in particular, but referred in general to the
40 The bridge was the seat of various archaic religious ceremonies, including the throwing into the Tiber
of the straw dolls representing the Argei by the Vestal Virgins on 14 May. The name sublicius was in antiquity
connected with the Volscan word sublica, beams; various texts explain the prohibition to use any building
material other than wood as a religious taboo: Pliny, Naturalis Historia 36.100; Dionysius Halicarnassensis,
Antiquitates Romanae 3.45.2, 5.24.1–3; Servius, ad Aeneidem 8.646; Plutarch, Numa 9.6. Dionysius
Halicarnassensis, Antiquitates Romae 9.68.2, adds another reason: the need to be able to disassemble the
bridge for defensive purposes in case of war.
41 For a possible comparison, see the boat depicted in a river towage scene in the bas-relief from
Cabrières d’Aigues (second century, Musée Calvet, Avignon) (reproduced, for example, by Bowman, Cameron
and Garnsey (2005: 404)).
42 Two examples of caudicariae (the Fiumicino 1 and Fumicino 2) were discovered at Ostia and are
currently on display in the Museo delle Navi of Fiumicino. See: Testaguzza, 1970; http://www.culturalazio.it/
culturaweb_2/allegati/antichiPorti/Il_museo_delle_navi.pdf (last consulted 17.08.09).
43 CIL VI 1639: Praef. Prae[torio] / codicari nav[iculari] / infra pontem S[ublicium] / Foti auxil[io eius] /
Patrono pe[c. sua?].
44 Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Pius 8.2 mentions a restoration carried out by Antoninus Pius, to which
a medallion depicting the legendary episode of Horatius Cocles on the bridge has been referred (Cohen, 1882:
283 no. 127: note that in this medallion the iconography of the (cut) bridge is different from the one that appears
on the coin of Trajan, but one can still recognize that a single-span bridge is represented). Other monetary issues
that may reflect restorations of the bridge are a medallion issued in 180 under Marcus Aurelius (Gnecchi, 1912: II,
M. Aur. 24, pl. 61.1) and bronze coins of Septimius Severus (RIC IV.1: 198, no. 786).
138 marzano
various restorations of bridges Trajan undertook in Italy, in the same way as the coins commem-
orating the Via Traiana could be extended to include all the roads built or restored by Trajan
(Rossi, 1972: 135).
By contrast, the bronze coin-type depicting a temple (FIG. 1.6; TABLE 1.6) is not clearly
directed at the lower classes. Temples as the expression of state religion were buildings intended
for the whole spectrum of society, even though people at the lower end of the social hierarchy
might never have been allowed inside a temple building. Although specific cults may have
been more popular among some social groups, religion and its manifestations were the expres-
sion of society as a whole. Indeed, we have another temple type (TABLE 1.5; below, FIG. 2.1)
minted in both bronze and gold. Attempts have been made to identify which temples are
depicted on these coins, but there is no incontrovertible answer. Nevertheless, our inability to
identify the temple does not change the fact that, with the exception of very specific cults, reli-
gious matters concerned Roman society as a whole, including the upper classes, from which
priests were chosen for the most important priesthoods. As we shall see in the next section, in
the case of this class of buildings there is no clear and consistent preference in the denominations
used (except in the case of the Flavian Vesta issues): in some cases we have temples only on
precious denominations (below, TABLE 6.4–9), in others only on bronze (below, TABLE 7.2–3;
FIG. 3.6). If in these cases there was a reason behind the choice of a specific denomination, it
escapes us.
Overall it appears that the choices of architectural types that occur on the bronze coinage
were tailored especially to appeal to the common people of Rome, with the exception of the
coin type depicting a temple. In order to test this result further, it is time to turn to the precious
denominations for a comparison.
Gold and silver coins
The choice of buildings appearing on the precious denominations complements the trend
discussed above of using as images on base-metal coins buildings that were significant primarily
to the plebs Romana. We have three types referring to the complex of the Forum of Trajan
(Basilica Ulpia, Forum gateway and the Column), a temple, and the Via Traiana (TABLE 1.5,
8–11; FIG. 2.1–5).
The Forum of Trajan as a whole, and the Basilica Ulpia in particular, a very important part of
Trajan’s building programme for the Urbs, appear in all three metals, gold, silver and bronze.45
Trajan’s project was magnificent and had considerable impact in reshaping the monumental
45 On Trajan’s Forum: Meneghini, 1994; Packer, 1997. There is also another coin type, minted in
112–14, which could be counted in the Trajan’s Forum group: the sestertii (BMC III: 206, nos. 969–70) with
the equestrian statue of Trajan that was placed in his new forum. However, since the coins do not depict the
building proper and the iconography refers to the idea of military triumph and victory as well, they have not
been taken into account here.
FIG. 2. 1–3: Aurei of Trajan: 1 ¼ TABLE 1.5; 2 ¼ TABLE 1.10; 3 ¼ TABLE 1.9. Denarii of Trajan:
4 ¼ TABLE 1.11; 5 ¼ TABLE 1.8. Aureus of Vespasian: 6 ¼ TABLE 2.6. Denarius of Domitian: 7 ¼ TABLE
6.8. Aureus of Hadrian: 8 ¼ TABLE 7.1. # The Trustees of the British Museum. (Reproduced courtesy
139
of the Trustees of the British Museum.)
140 marzano
centre of Rome. Its relevance was not limited to the capital, but had wider geographical outreach;
it became famous and could still generate great wonder in a visitor more than two centuries
later.46 This architectural complex, as in the case of other imperial fora, such as the Forum of
Augustus or the Forum Pacis, was relevant for both lower and upper classes. The fora, with
their porticoes and sometimes central gardens, were venues where common people and upper
classes alike could find shelter from rain or sun, stroll, meet with others; while in our specific
case, the Basilica Ulpia and the libraries attracted more specific users. Furthermore, references
to this major building project were surely not limited to the population of Rome, but directed to a
large, empire-wide audience. The commemoration of the Forum of Trajan in all three metals is
thus consistent with the idea of mint officials being aware of what subject was suitable for the final
users of the coins.
Trajan’s Column, part of the Forum of Trajan, and a monument celebrating in its frieze the
victory of the emperor and the Roman state over Dacia, is another theme valid for wide dissem-
ination. The Column appears on all denominations. Positioned between the two libraries built at
the end of the Forum of Trajan, the Column was both victory monument and mausoleum, since
its base was constructed to house Trajan’s ashes.47 The novelty of the figurative composition on
the Column, a continuous scroll-like wrapping, was also likely to make this monument a popular
attraction. All these elements would have made the monument a good choice to ‘advertise’ the
Dacian victories beyond Rome as well.
Finally, we have the coins (gold, silver and bronze) commemorating the construction of the
Via Traiana from Beneventum to Brundisium (FIG. 2.5 for the denarius). The construction of
such an essential arterial road, improving the route to this important port on the Adriatic coast
of Italy, cannot be regarded as an achievement of interest exclusively to the upper classes residing
in Rome. Not only did the road improve land-traffic and connections with southeast Italy, but
also with the eastern Mediterranean in general, since Brundisium in the Imperial period retained
its important role for shipments and travels to the East. The construction of the Via Traiana ought
also to have been of relevance for other communities outside Rome, especially those that
benefited particularly from the new road. Furthermore, it has been pointed out (Rossi, 1972:
135) that the coin type, with its legend ‘Via Traiana’, also could have commemorated the
many other roads that Trajan restored or built both within and outside Italy. The emperor’s
programme of building and improving core infrastructure was stressed in the celebration of
Trajan’s qualities, for instance in Pliny’s Panegyric (29.2; 51). With the broader geographical
circulation that silver and gold coins had, somebody living in another area could look at the
coin and refer it to the road, also called the Via Traiana, that was built in his own province.
The decision to commemorate the construction of the Via Traiana in all denominations fits
the idea that the choice of denomination related to the social and spatial circulation of coinage.
46 Ammianus Marcellinus 16.10.15, about the visit of Costantius II in 357.

47 See: Settis, 1988. It is controversial whether this idea was part of Trajan’s original plan or whether it was
the Senate’s decision after his death: Claridge, 1993; 2007 (with previous bibliography).
To recapitulate, five out of seven types appearing exclusively on base-metal denominations

depict building projects relevant in some degree in particular to the plebs of Rome (Portus,
Circus Maximus, Aqua Traiana/baths of Trajan, bridge/Pons Sublicius, and triumphal arch).
All of the five types used also in precious denominations depict monuments that were significant
to all social classes and whose role in the imperial building programme and popularity (as in the
case of the Forum of Trajan) made them a suitable choice for depiction on coins that would
circulate more widely in and outside Italy. The correlation between type and denomination
that emerges is significant. Some considerations of the use of legends identifying the subject
on these coins will support this point. Monuments appearing in bronze alone do not usually
have a legend, with the exception of the Aqua Traiana and of Portus, perhaps in this case in
order not to be confused with the Trajanic construction of the harbour at Centumcellae and
the improvements he made at Tarracina.48 Considering that the former type features the
genius of the aqueduct, whose iconography was similar to that used for depictions of river-
gods, the legend is useful to the viewer in order to identify the subject depicted; it also proves
that the creator of the coin expected some people to read it, regardless of how many actually
could do so. This use of legends seems to me to indicate that the bronze types, which were
more readily used in daily transactions, were addressed to the population of Rome in particular.
The people in Rome were to a certain degree expected to recognize what the coin was referring
to, as in the case of the possible Pons Sublicius type discussed above. The Via Traiana, the Forum
and the Basilica Ulpia types, which appear also in the precious denominations, on the other
hand, are all conveniently identified by legends, so allowing non-residents of Rome to learn,
or be reminded, about the emperor’s building programme in the capital.
The Flavians and Hadrian
A useful comparison to the analysis of Trajan’s architectural coin types comes from the bronze
coins with similar subjects issued by the emperors before and after him (TABLES 2–7).49 The
considerable building activity carried out during the reigns of Vespasian, Titus and Domitian
means that the Flavian age is particularly useful as a comparison. Building projects were a
substantial component of imperial policy in this period. ‘You must let me feed the common
people’, Suetonius records Vespasian wittily remarking in response to an engineer who had
presented him with plans for a machine capable of transporting heavy columns with minimal
48 But also Nero’s issue depicting the harbour of Claudius has a legend.
49 Nerva has been excluded because of the shortness of his reign, which did not allow for the
development of a proper building programme. Other issues that have been excluded, since the buildings are
secondary to the composition, are: Domitian’s dupondius, part of the secular games issues of 88, depicting a
sacrifice in front of a temple; the sestertius depicting the shrine to Minerva with Domitian pouring a libation
(BMC II: 363, no. 296; 370, no. 332; 381, no. 376); and Domitian’s dupondius depicting the sacrifice to the
Ilythiae in front of the theatrum ligneum.
TABLE 2. Coins portraying Vespasian’s building projects.
142

1 71 Tetrastyle temple HS: Mazzini 1957–8: 209; not in
BMC or RIC
2 71 Altar PROVIDENT HS: BMC II: 132, no. 611 (FIG. 3.3)
3 71, 73 Isis temple ad Villam HS: BMC II: 123, no. y; 149, no. z
Publicam
4 71, 74, Jupiter Capitolinus HS: BMC II: 133, no. 614 (FIG. 3.5)
76 temple (hexastyle) As: BMC II: 168, nos. 721–2; 173,
no. 734
Dp: BMC II: 160, no. *
5 73 Aedes Vestae in Foro VESTA HS: BMC II: 151, no. 664 (FIG. 3.4)
6 73 Vesta temple Au: BMC II: 17, no. 90
(on Palatine?) (FIG. 2.6); 21, no. 107
7 79 Rostral column D: BMC 253
TABLE 3. Coins portraying the building projects of Vespasian and Titus.

Key: Au ¼ aureus; HS ¼ sestertius.

1 71, 77–8 Hexastyle temple HS: BMC II: 175, no. z
(I. Capitolinus?)
marzano
2 73, 74 Vesta temple Au.: BMC II: 23, no.
(on Palatine?) 120; 29, no. z
TABLE 4. Coins portraying the building projects of Vespasian and Domitian.

Key: Au ¼ aureus.

1 72 Altar PROVIDENT As: BMC II: 143, no. §
2 72, 73 Aedes Vestae in Foro VESTA As: BMC II: 144, no. 648; 159, no. 691
3 73 Vesta temple (on VESTA Au: BMC II: 23, no.*;
Palatine?) RIC II: 41, no. 230a
TABLE 5. Coins portraying Titus’s building projects.


1 79 Rostral column TR P VIIII IMP Au: BMC II: 225, no. D: private collection,
XIIII COS VII P P. 12; 228, no. 27 Hill, 1989: 60
2 80 Tetrastyle temple TR P IX IMP XV D (plated): BMC: 236,
with closed doors COS VIII P P y; Gnecchi Coll. Rom.
It. 1896: 162
3 80–1 Colosseum HS: BMC II: 262, nos. 190–1
(FIG. 3.1 ¼ 190)
4 80–1 Jupiter Capitolinus HS: BMC II: 261, no. *
temple (hexastyle)
5 80–1 Meta Sudans HS: BMC II: 261, no. 189 (FIG. 3.2)
Dp RIC: 129, no. 115
143
6 80–1 Altar Saluti Augusti SALUTI AUGUSTI HS: BMC II: 261, no. y
TABLE 6. Coins portraying Domitian’s building projects.
144
Key: Au ¼ aureus; D ¼ denarius; HS ¼ sestertius.

1 82, 85, Altar Saluti Augusti SALUTI AUGUSTI HS: BMC II: 367, nos. 315–17;
90–1 400, no.*
As: BMC II: 361, nos. 291–3;
375, no. 358
2 85, 90– Quadrifons HS: BMC II: 364, no. y; BMC II:
1, 95–6 triumphal arch 399, no. *; BMC II: 407, no. y
3 86 Ara Pacis PACIS As: BMC II: 384, no. y

4 94–6 Octastyle temple (to IMP CAES1 obliterated? D: BMC II: 347, no.
Jupiter Victor?) 243
5 94–6 Temple to Minerva IMP CAES D: BMC II: 346, no.

Medica Chalcidica 241
6 94–6 Serapeum/Iseum IMP CAES D: BMC II: 345, no.

238
7 94–6 Cybele temple D: BMC II: 346, no.
239–40
8 94–6 Jupiter Capitolinus IMP CAESAR1 D: BMC II: 246, no.
temple (hexastyle) 242 (FIG. 2.7)
9 95–6 Round temple, Au: BMC II: 343, HS: BMC II: 407, no. *:
Gentis Flaviae for no. 229 doubtful, possibly cast
Hill, 1989: 18
marzano
1
This is not a proper legend: the writing is on the architrave of the temple
TABLE 7. Coins portraying Hadrian’s building projects.
Key: Au ¼ aureus; HS ¼ sestertius.

1 119–38 Standing Hercules PM TR C OS III Au: BMC III:
Gaditanus and 253–4, nos. 98–9
temple (FIG. 2.8 ¼ 98)
2 119–38 Decastyle temple HS: BMC III: 467, nos.
(Venus and Roma?) 1490–1490a
3 119–38 Decastyle temple HS: BMC III: 476, no. 1554
(Venus and Roma in (FIG. 3.6)
different state of
completion?)
4 121 Genius of Circus On Au: ANN DCCCLXXIIII Au: BMC III: 282, HS: BMC III: 422–3, nos.
Maximus, Parilia NAT. URB P CIR CO N no. 333 1242–3 (FIG. 3.7 ¼ 1242)
Otherwise: ANN
DCCCLXXIIII NAT
145
146 marzano
use of labour.50 But besides general social and economic factors, some of the building projects
undertaken in this period were also in response to disastrous events, particularly the fires of 69
and 80.
Under Vespasian coins were minted not only in his name, but also in the name of his sons, and
we find that the same types appear on coins of more than one emperor. Rather than presenting
each of the types used by each Flavian emperor, I will discuss the material as a whole according to
the monument/building represented and highlight the major inferences one can draw from these
coins with regard to the relationship between type and denomination.51
The Colosseum coin type
An active building programme was also important in Flavian policy because it stressed the caesura
with their predecessor, Nero — who, if hated by the élite, was loved by the masses —, and helped
to legitimate their own position in front of the people.52 The building programme launched by
Vespasian included restorations, such as that of the temple to Jupiter Optimus Maximus, and
the construction of the temple to the deified Claudius, which Nero supposedly destroyed, the
Temple of Peace, and the amphitheatre later known as the ‘Colosseum’, dedicated by Titus in
80.53 The last, built on the spot occupied by the gardens of Nero’s Domus Aurea, was a poignant
symbol of Flavian munificence and military victory, since it restored to public use the land confis-
cated by Nero after the fire of 64 and was built ex manubiis after the conquest of Judea.54 This
building, with the adjacent Meta Sudans (which appears on sestertii of Titus in 80/81) and the
portico of the baths of Titus, was celebrated in a series of sestertii issued by Titus in 80 (FIG. 3.1)
and by Domitian in 81 and in the early part of 82.55 Other coins issued in the same period (80) that
refer to the Colosseum, and particularly to its inauguration, are the so-called pulvinaria types.
These types, appearing on gold and silver, depict attributes of the gods on couches or thrones
and have been linked to the celebration of the inauguration of the Colosseum through their
50 Suetonius, Divus Vespasianus 18: ‘mechanico quoque grandis columnas exigua impensa perducturum
in Capitolium pollicenti praemium pro commento non mediocre optulit, operam remisit praefatus sineret se
plebiculam pascere’ (when someone promised to transport large columns onto the Capitol at little expense
thanks to a mechanical device, he offered him a considerable reward for the invention but did not accept the
service, declaring ‘you must let me feed the common people’).
51 The sestertius in BMC II: 264, no. y, depicting a pyramid surmounted by a flower-shaped ornament in
the middle of a round building and reported possibly not to be genuine, has not been considered here.
52 On the Flavian building programme: Darwall-Smith, 1996; Packer, 2003.
53 Suetonius, Divus Vespasianus 8.5, 9. For a study connecting the inauguration of this complex with the
large volume of coins depicting the personification of Pax issued in 75: Noreña, 2003.
54 See Martial, Spectacula 2, esp. 1–4: ‘Hic ubi sidereus propius videt astra colossus / et crescent media
pegmata celsa via / invidiosa feri radiabant atria Regis / unaque iam stabat in urbe domus’ (Here, where the starry
colossus sees the constellations close at hand and a lofty framework rises in the middle of the road, the hated halls
of a cruel king used to gleam and in the whole city there was only one house standing (translation — Coleman,
2006: 14)). Alföldi, 1995; Millar, 2005.
55 The following discussion relies on the study by Elkins (2006); I would like to express my gratitude to
the author for sending me a copy of his article before its publication.
FIG. 3. Sestertii of Titus: 1 ¼ TABLE 5.3; 2 ¼ TABLE 5.5. Sestertii of Vespasian: 3 ¼ TABLE 2.2;
4 ¼ TABLE 2.5; 5 ¼ TABLE 2.4. Sestertii of Hadrian: 6 ¼ TABLE 7.3; 7 ¼ TABLE 7.4. # The Trustees
of the British Museum. (Reproduced courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum.)
depiction of the viewing platform for statues of the gods that was physically present in the
amphitheatre (Elkins, 2004; Elkins, 2006 (with previous bibliography)).56
56 From literary evidence we know that the Circus Maximus had a pulvinar for statues of the gods: for
example, Suetonius, Divus Augustus 45.1.
148 marzano
If this interpretation is correct, we would have a case in which two quite different coin types
have been chosen to refer to the same event. On the sestertii we have the depiction of the actual
building in its entirety,57 similar to Trajan’s issues depicting the Circus Maximus. On gold and
silver we find the pulvinar, the indication of the will to honour the gods, a concept perhaps
more appealing to the upper classes. Recent work has shown the complex semantic nuances
the term pulvinar had in Roman culture and how, in the case of the one in the Circus Maximus,
it was understood ‘not only as a site to worship traditional gods during religious festivals, but also
as a place intended for worship of state consecrated divi, both present and future’ (van den Berg,
2008: 265). Divine honours were granted by the Senate, and therefore the pulvinar in the Circus
could also symbolize the role the Senate had in recognizing in this manner emperors that
‘had behaved’ according to expectations. If we can apply van den Berg’s conclusions also to
the Colosseum’s pulvinar, the choice of precious denominations for this type might be explained
with the possible targeting of a senatorial audience. I would not want to overstate the argument
that in the case of the Colosseum we can observe different choices of the mint according to the
denomination of the coins and, therefore, to different users. None the less, regardless of how we
interpret the meaning of the pulvinaria type, it is significant that the depiction of the Colosseum,
which in Flavian propaganda was connected so closely with the people of Rome and the
restitution to public enjoyment of the area reserved by Nero for his exclusive use, occurs only
on sestertii. The same can be said of the Meta Sudans (FIG. 3.2), the fountain next to the
amphitheatre in the shape of the Circus’s conical turning posts depicted exclusively on base
metal. Its proximity to the amphitheatre and the appearance of this monument on types depicting
the Colosseum indicates that the image of the Meta Sudans alone could evoke the amphitheatre;
additionally, the fact that fountains, providing running water, are important to the population at
large was especially significant in an area that attracted large crowds to the games.58
Other buildings on Flavian coins
The Ara Pacis may have appeared on bronze coins issued during the reigns of the Flavians
(TABLES 2.2 and 4.1). The altar erected in the Campus Martius to celebrate Augustus’s return
from the Spanish campaigns in 13 BC had an important role in the construction of the ideology
of the pax augusta, not only for Augustus, but also for subsequent principes who wanted to
stress a connection with Augustan policy. On the occasion of the anniversary of its dedication,
priests, Vestal Virgins and the rest of the population would participate in the procession and
sacrifice. It was a monument important for imperial ideology and formally ‘addressed’ to the
whole population, so that its appearance on bronze alone is surprising.
57 The Colosseum is depicted on a famous coin, the so-called Stuart sestertius, which turned out to be a
forgery that went undetected for more than a century, passing through various private collections: Sayles, 2001: 93.
58 The fountain was apparently finished by Domitian, and perhaps Titus had not yet started its
construction, but was only ‘advertising it’: Hill, 1989: 98.
Coins of Vespasian and of Domitian, dated to 71 and 72 respectively, display the precinct of an
altar with a panelled door, similar to the Neronian coin type depicting the Ara Pacis, but bearing
the legend PROVIDENT instead (FIG. 3.3). Later in Domitian’s reign we find a rare as showing
a type of altar-shrine with attendant priests and the legend PACIS, which may refer to the Ara
Pacis and allude to the end of the Chattan War (TABLE 6.3).59 Whether it was the Ara Pacis
depicted on these coins or another altar, the choice of bronze alone to transmit a propagandistic
message about the emperor’s Providentia and the peace established after the triumph over the
Chatti is not, to us, obvious. It has to be noted, however, that the use of base metal for this
type is a constant feature; the mint used only bronze for the Ara Pacis issues, including issues
by Nero and Augustus himself. And indeed, among the restored (re-issue of earlier coins) coin
types minted by Titus, we find the asses of Divus Augustus Pater, showing precisely the precinct
of an altar with a panelled door and the legend PROVIDENT (BMC II: 282–3, nos. 268–71).
However, if one wants to link these coins to the end of the Chattan War, it is to my mind some-
what problematic that the Domitianic asses of 86 are a rare type; we would have expected such a
message to have a wider diffusion. I would like to suggest that the coins possibly refer instead to
the adjustments made to the meridian of the Horologium Augusti in the Campus Martius,
ordered by Domitian as Pontifex Maximus, when the paving around the Ara Pacis was also re-
laid.60 We know that the monument remained a very popular symbol, since in the late first/
early second century, due to the raised level of the surrounding Campus Martius, a retaining
wall had to be built around it to allow viewing (Heslin, 2007: 6).
Titus’s and Domitian’s base-metal issues encompass another altar type with the legend
SALUTI AUGUSTI (TABLES 5.6 and 6.1). In the Imperial period, the cult of Salus, or public
welfare, had become exclusively connected with the person of the emperor;61 significantly this
type was minted to mark some of Domitian’s five-year anniversaries.62 Considering the import-
ance that the Salus of the emperor had as symbol of the ‘health’ of the state and its population,
it is not surprising then that bronze should have been used for this type, put into circulation on
the occasion of reign anniversaries. The message was above all meant for the people of Rome.
Another type appearing on bronze only and struck at regular intervals in 85, 90 and 95 features a
quadrifons triumphal arch surmounted by two elephant quadrigae. Beside the possible association
with triumphal celebrations and the people as already discussed for Trajan, the repetition of the issue
every five years indicates that the type was used to mark reign anniversaries. The emphasis given to
monuments related to triumphs by Domitian in the city of Rome, as stressed also by Suetonius,63
59 Thus BMC II: xciv, also suggesting that the coin may allude to the dedication of a statue in the Temple
of Peace.
60 On the controversial relationship between the Horologium Augusti and the Ara Pacis: Heslin, 2007
(with previous bibliography and discussion of Domitian’s intervention in the area).
61 On the evolution of the concept and cult of Salus: Winkler, 1995.
62 On anniversary issues: Grant, 1950.
63 Cf. Suetonius, Domitianus 13.2: ‘ianos arcusque cum quadrigis et insignibus triumphorum per
regiones urbis tantos ac tot exstruxit’ (He erected so many gateways and arches, surmounted by statuary groups
of chariots drawn by four horses and other triumphal symbols in different parts of the city).
150 marzano
seems to indicate that the propagandistic message of the arch was directed to the population of Rome
in particular. It is also possible that the coins were part of largesse distributed to the people on the
occasion of the celebration of the anniversary.
The Temple of Vesta and other religious buildings
It is particularly worth noting the choice of denomination in the case of the Temple of Vesta type.
On the coinage of Vespasian, as well as on the issues minted in association with his sons, various
examples of a round building, identified as the Temple of Vesta by its legend, are depicted (TABLE
2.5–6; TABLE 3.2; TABLE 4.2, 3). The type appears on aurei and on bronze denominations (FIGS
2.6 and 3.4). However, the depiction on gold and bronze is not identical, but differs in various
details (the presence of statues at the sides, the number of steps of the podium, for example), and
most scholars believe that the coins depict two distinct buildings: on the aurei, the shrine to Vesta
next to the imperial palace, first built on the Palatine by Augustus and rebuilt/restored by the
Flavians; on bronze, the revered temple of the Forum, where the sacred fire of Vesta was guarded
by the Vestal Virgins.64 If the interpretation of these coins as relating to two different buildings
sacred to Vesta is correct, the choice of the denomination is compelling, reserving for the
aurei the shrine that was next to the emperor’s residence (so that he could properly perform
his duties as Pontifex Maximus), and for the bronze the old temple in the Forum, a symbol,
with its ever-burning fire, of the Roman state and its population.
Various Flavian issues depict the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus. The coins refer to the
various reconstructions of the building undertaken under the Flavians: destroyed by fire in 69
during the fight between the followers of Vitellius and Vespasian, the temple was rebuilt
under Vespasian but destroyed by fire again in 80.65 Undoubtedly this temple was another
important symbol of the Roman state, and venue of so many important events in the city’s mili-
tary, civic and religious life. There is no apparent reason why Vespasian and Titus used only
bronze (TABLES 2.4 and 3.1, FIG. 3.5), whereas later Domitian preferred silver for his coins
commemorating the restoration of the temple (TABLE 6.8, FIG. 2.7). Surely, considering the
importance of the building, its restoration deserved to be ‘advertised’ widely, and indeed a
coin of the mint of Asia of 82 refers to it.66 In this case the hypothesis of a relationship between
types and denominations does not seem tenable. For the coins depicting the Temple of Isis on
the Campus Martius, a tenuous connection with the triumph over Judea has been proposed.
64 See: Hill, 1989: 23–4, 32; Cappelli, 1999. On Vespasian’s issues and the connection with Augustus,
see: Buttrey, 1972.
65 Fire of 69 and reconstruction: Tacitus, Historiae 3.71–2, 4.53.1–4, 4.54.1–2; Suetonius, Vitellius 15.5,
Divus Vespasianus 8.9; Cassius Dio 64.17.3–4, 66.10.2; fire of 80: Cassius Dio 66.24.1–2; Suetonius, Divus Titus
8.4. The coins (TABLE 5.4) might show that the reconstruction, vowed by Titus (CIL VI 2059.12-3), had already
started; the works were completed under Domitian: Martial 9.3.7; Statius, Silvae 1.6.100; Suetonius, Domitianus
5.1. For a complete list of references to these events: De Angeli, 1996.
66 RIC II: 182, no. 222: it depicts the temple with the legend CAPIT RESTIT.
Hill (1989) noted that the temple was near the Villa Publica, and that it was here that Titus and
Vespasian spent the night before the triumphal celebrations.67 If one accepts the idea, previously
discussed, that references to the triumphal procession and celebration might have been
considered suitable for the urban population, then the choice of bronze for this type could be
explained similarly. This must, however, be considered very speculative.
None the less, if we consider the issues with architectural types minted under the Flavians as a
whole, the preference of bronze denominations for buildings that had a specific importance for
the population of Rome (Colosseum, Temple of Vesta in the Forum), and the choice of precious
denominations for monuments that were, on an ideological level, more relevant, maybe even
more familiar, to the upper classes (shrine of Vesta on the Palatine), it seems that, at least in
some cases, considerations of the coin circulation and primary users were taken into account
when choosing a coin type. The predominance of bronze for architectural coin types of
Vespasian and Titus, even in cases when we would also expect the use of precious metal
(Jupiter temple), is indicative, in my opinion, of the emphasis given during their reigns to
building programmes as a means of promoting social stability and ensuring imperial popularity
in the capital. If considered from this perspective, then the use of base metal alone makes sense,
since the primary audience was the inhabitants of Rome. It might, then, be significant that from
92 to 96 Domitian issued a series of denarii depicting various temples (TABLE 6.4–8). It is possible
that Domitian wanted to emphasize his respect for religion and the programme of construction/
refurbishment of temples on silver coinage in order to reach a wider audience and to try to
consolidate his position with the upper classes.68 However, the comment, reported in Suetonius
(Domitianus 5.1), that, by restoring buildings in his name only without mention of the original
builder, Domitian was being disrespectful, suggests that, at least among certain circles, his
building programme did not succeed in conveying any idea of pietas.
Hadrian
Unlike his predecessor, the celebration of building projects on coins of the mint of Rome does
not appear to have had a high place in the imperial agenda under Hadrian. The emperor spent a
lot of time away from Rome, travelling around the empire, and many of his coin issues focus on
imperial virtues rather than buildings. We find only four architectural coin types issued by the
mint of Rome during Hadrian’s reign (TABLE 7): the Temple of Hercules Gaditanus, a decastyle
temple depicted on two slightly different types, and the Circus Maximus.
The two types with the decastyle temple appear on sestertii alone (FIG. 3.6) minted on various
occasions during the period 119–38. Although showing different details, the coins possibly depict
the Temple of Venus and Roma at various stages of completion (Hill, 1989: 15).69 If the decastyle
67 Josephus, Bellum Judaicum 7.5.4.

68 On Domitian emulating Augustus with regard to morality, public religion and temple restorations:
Heslin, 2007: 17–18 (with previous bibliography).
69 The temple was completed and inaugurated under Antoninus Pius.
152 marzano
temple types refer to this large building, I do not see any clear reason why they were not used for
gold and silver as well.70
In contrast, the type depicting a standing Hercules Gaditanus (cult statue?) and his temple
(TABLE 7.1; FIG. 2.8) appears only on aurei, and this seems an appropriate choice for the type.
The identification with the famous Temple of Hercules in Gades is secure because Hadrian
also issued aurei showing just Hercules with the same attributes that appear on our type accom-
panied by the legend HERC GADIT. The choice of gold for a type referring to a famous sanc-
tuary outside Italy, and the role Hercules and his travels had played in imperial ideology since
Augustus (Hekster, 2005), seem to conform to the distinction between type/denomination
according to circulation and audience that we have been discussing here.
The last Hadrianic issue, appearing on gold and bronze (FIG. 3.7; TABLE 7.4), depicts the
Genius of the Circus Maximus, holding in his hand a wheel and enclosing with one arm
three obelisks (Perassi, 1993). Unlike the coins issued by Trajan to commemorate the restoration
of the Circus, these Hadrianic issues refer to a specific event. In 121 the emperor renamed the
Parilia as the dies natalis urbis; the coins refer to the celebrations, and are unusual also for
another detail: they bear the date ab urbe condita. As a celebration and memento of this
important event, which would matter to inhabitants across the Roman Empire, it is not
surprising to find the type on bronze and on gold, which would circulate geographically more
widely. This case would fit with the hypothesis that types were often chosen with attention to
the denominations. Unfortunately, Hadrianic issues with architectural types are not numerous
enough to allow us to identify any trend regarding type/denomination with confidence.
Conclusions
This case-study has investigated the possible relationship between the choice of coin types and
their denomination in the case of types of the mint of Rome alluding to building projects and
monuments. The examination of Trajanic base-metal issues, and comparison with similar classes
of material minted under the Flavians and Hadrian, indicates that what Metcalf observed for the
Liberalitas type also applies, to a certain extent, to coins with architectural types. In the latter
case, the distinctions are not always as clear-cut as in the case of the use of distribution scene
versus the personification of Liberalitas that Metcalf analyzed. However, it is possible to detect
significant instances when different coin types are chosen for different denominations. These
choices seem to indicate that whoever was in charge of the selection of coin types perceived
the various denominations as being different, not only in their value, but also in their circulation
(intra-regional for bronze versus wider, trans-provincial circulation for silver and gold) and in the
typical character of the users who would be handling the coins (common people versus the
moneyed élite).
70 Possible explanations that come to mind, such as an emphasis on Rome as made by the populus
Romanus or on the employment that the building-yard was creating in Rome, are purely speculative.
The examples discussed in this paper show that in the case of the commemoration of building
programmes, the differences between denominations — and therefore between audiences — is
reflected in the nature of the building chosen for depiction. Popular buildings, traditionally
related to events of crucial importance for the plebs and the social stability of Rome, as in the
case of Portus/frumentationes, the Circus Maximus/ludi, the baths, the Flavian amphitheatre/
munera gladiatoria, appear only on bronze. On the contrary, complexes like the Forum of
Trajan or the Via Traiana, whose place in the imperial building programme deserved dissemin-
ation also outside Rome, were minted in silver and gold as well. The case of the Flavian issues
relating to the temples of Vesta turned out to be extremely interesting in this context. The old
Temple of Vesta in the Forum Romanum, symbol of the Roman state, appears only on
bronze, whereas the shrine built by Augustus on the Palatine and restored by the Flavians,
with its connection with the imperial residence, and, we may add, the upper classes, appears
only on precious denominations. This distinction is clearly intentional and points to the fact
that the coin types were chosen with some awareness that there was a difference in the sort of
audience the different denominations would reach. It is difficult to determine whether Hadrian
continued the trend identified in the coins of his predecessors, since under his reign only four
architectural types from the mint of Rome are known.
Further investigations are possible. Elkins (2006) suggested that the coins depicting the
Flavian amphitheatre may have been produced for a special purpose rather than as a normal
currency. This hypothesis rests on a die study that he carried out on the Colosseum types and
on the observation that these sestertii, rather small in size and with no imperial portrait on the
obverse, differ from most other bronze issues. In his opinion, based also on literary testimonia
that mention the distribution of gifts thrown to the crowd during games,71 the sestertii may
have been struck with that particular type because they were to be distributed to the crowd by
the emperor at the games, perhaps the inaugural games.
Although the coins examined here present the imperial portrait on the obverse and were
regular currency, it is likely that some issues were minted and distributed to the population on
the occasion of the inauguration of the building project or event they depict. I suggest that
the Domitianic sestertii with a triumphal arch minted on the occasion of reign anniversaries
perhaps were part of gifts handed to the people: the emphasis on triumphal imagery and monu-
ments erected in Rome in Domitian’s reign would have made the triumphal arch a suitable
image to accompany anniversary issues.
In the case of Trajan, however, the vague chronological range for most of the issues, 103 to
111, does not allow discussion based on the precise date of these coins. In some cases, as for
the Aqua Traiana type, we have a second issue of the coin in 114, five years after the inauguration
of the monument, which prevents us from making a connection between the minting of the coins
and the inauguration event. If this was the case, however, those who had received the coins as
largesse on the occasion of the inauguration would be reminded, each time they subsequently
71 On Nero throwing all kinds of gifts to the people during the Ludi Maximi: Suetonius, Nero 11.2; on
Titus throwing wooden balls inscribed with the indication of a prize that could be redeemed: Cassius Dio 66.25.5.
154 marzano
handled them, not only of the imperial building scheme, but also of being at the inauguration
and receiving a gift from the emperor.
REFERENCES
Alföldi, A. (1995) Eine Bauinschrift aus dem Colosseum. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 109:
195–226.
Beard, M. (2007) The Roman Triumph. Cambridge (MA)/London, Harvard University Press.
Beckmann, M. (2006) Monumental messages: the meaning of changes in the representation of architecture
on Roman coins in the early Empire. Paper delivered at the 107th AIA Annual Meeting, Montreal 2006.
Bennett, J. (2001) Trajan Optimus Princeps (second edition). London/New York, Routledge.
Bowman, A., Cameron, A. and Garnsey, P. (2005) (eds) The Cambridge Ancient History XII (second
edition). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Brunori, E. (1990) L’acquedottto di Traiano. In A. Maffei and F. Nastasi (1990), Caere e il suo territorio da
Agylla a Centumcellae: 215–19. Rome, Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato.
Brunt, P. (1980) Free labour and public works at Rome. Journal of Roman Studies 70: 81–100.
Burnett, A. (1999) Buildings and monuments on Roman coins. In G.M. Paul and M. Ierardi (eds), Roman
Coins and Public Life under the Empire. E. Togo Salmon Papers II: 137–64. Ann Arbor, University of
Michigan Press.
Butcher, K. (2005) Information, legitimation or self-legitimation? Popular and élite designs on the coin
types of Syria. In C. Howgego, V. Heuchert and A. Burnett (eds), Coinage and Identity in the
Roman Provinces: 143–56. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Buttrey, T.V. (1972) Vespasian as moneyer. Numismatic Chronicle 12: 89–109 plus plates 12–13.
Cappelli, R. (1999) Vesta, Ara, signum, aedes (in Palatio). In M. Steinby (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum
Urbis Romae V (T–Z): 128–9. Rome, Quasar.
Claridge, A. (1993) Hadrian’s Column of Trajan. Journal of Roman Archaeology 6: 5–22.
Claridge, A. (2007) Hadrian’s lost Temple of Trajan. Journal of Roman Archaeology 20 (1): 54–94.
Clarke, J.R. (2003) Art in the Lives of Ordinary Romans. Berkeley, University of California Press.
Coarelli, F. (1999) Pons Sublicius. In M. Steinby (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae IV (P–S):
112–13. Rome, Quasar.
Cohen, H. (1882) Description historique des monnaies frappées sous l’Empire Romain II. Paris, Rollin and
Feuardent.
Coleman, K.M. (2006) (ed.) M. Valerii Martialis Liber Spectaculorum. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Crawford, M.H. (1974) Roman Republican Coinage, 2 vols. London, Cambridge University Press.
Crawford, M. (1983) Roman imperial coin types and the formation of public opinion. In C.N.L. Brooke,
B.H.I. Stewart, J.G. Pollard and T.R. Volk (eds), Studies in Numismatic Method Presented to Philip
Grierson: 47–64. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Crump, G.A. (1985) Coinage and imperial thought. In J.W. Eadie and J. Ober (eds), The Craft of the
Ancient Historian. Essays in Honor of Chester G. Starr: 425–41. Lanham (MD)/New York/London,
University Press of America.
D’Arms, J.H. (1998) Between public and private: the epulum publicum and Caesar’s horti trans Tiberim. In
M. Cima and E. La Rocca (eds), Horti romani. Atti del convegno internazionale, Roma, 4–6 maggio
1995 (Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma, Supplemento 6): 33–43.
Rome, ‘L’Erma’ di Bretschneider.
Darwall-Smith, R.H. (1996) Emperors and Architecture: a Study of Flavian Rome (Collection Latomus
231). Brussels, Latomus.
De Angeli, S. (1996) Iuppiter Optimus Maximus Capitolinus, aedes. In M. Steinby (ed.), Lexicon
Topographicum Urbis Romae III (H–O): 148–53. Rome, Quasar.
Duncan-Jones, R.P. (1965) An epigraphic survey of costs in Roman Italy. Papers of the British School at
Rome 33: 189–306.
Ehrhardt, C.T.H.R. (1984) Roman coin types and the Roman public. Jahrbuch für Numismatik und
Geldgeschichte 34: 41–4.
Elkins, N.T. (2004) Locating the imperial box in the Flavian amphitheatre: the numismatic evidence.
Numismatic Chronicle 164: 147–57.
Elkins, N.T. (2006) The Flavian Colosseum sestertii: currency or largess? Numismatic Chronicle 166:
211–21.
Elsner, J. (1995) Art and the Roman Viewer: the Transformation of Art from the Pagan World to
Christianity. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Fagan, G.G. (1999) Bathing in Public in the Roman World. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press.
Fuchs, G. (1969) Architekturdarstellungen auf Römischen Münzen der Republik und der Früher Kaiserzeit.
Berlin, De Gruyter.
Gnecchi, F. (1912) I medaglioni romani. Milan, U. Hoepli.
Grant, M. (1950) Roman Anniversary Issues. An Exploratory Study of the Numismatic and Medallic
Commemoration of Anniversary Years, 49 BC–AD 375. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Harl, K.W. (1996) Coinage in the Roman Economy, 300 BC to AD 700. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Hekster, O. (2003) Coins and messages: audience targeting on coins of different denominations? In L. De
Blois, P. Erdkamp, O. Hekster, G. de Kleijn and S. Mols (eds), The Representation and Perception of
Roman Imperial Power. Proceedings of the Third Workshop of the International Network Impact of
Empire: 20–35. Amsterdam, J.C. Gieben.
Hekster, O. (2005) Propagating power. Hercules as an example for second-century emperors. In
L. Rawlings and H. Bowden (eds), Herakles and Hercules. Exploring a Graeco-Roman Divinity:
205–21. Swansea, Classical Press of Wales.
Heslin, P. (2007) Augustus, Domitian and the so-called Horologium Augusti. Journal of Roman Studies 97:
1–20.
Hill, P. (1965) Some architectural types of Trajan. Numismatic Chronicle ser. 7 (5): 155–60.
Hill, P. (1989) The Monuments of Ancient Rome as Coin Types. London, Trafalgar Square Publishing.
Hobley, A.S. (1998) An Examination of Roman Bronze Coin Distribution in the Western Empire AD 81–192
(British Archaeological Reports, International Series 688). Oxford, Archaeopress.
Holliday, P.J. (2002) The Origins of Roman Historical Commemoration in the Visual Arts. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
156 marzano
Hölscher, T. (1980) Die Geschichtsauffassung in der Römischen Repräsentionskunst. Jahrbuch des

Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 95: 265–321.
Howgego, C. (1992) The supply and use of money in the Roman world 200 BC to AD 300. Journal of
Roman Studies 82: 1–31.
Howgego, C. (1994) Coin circulation and the integration of the Roman economy. Journal of Roman
Archaeology 7: 5–21.
Howgego, C. (1995) Ancient History from Coins. London/New York, Routledge.
Humphrey, J.H. (1986) Roman Circuses: Arenas for Chariot Racing. London, Batsford.
Jones, A.H.M. (1956) Numismatics and history. In R.A.G. Carson and C.H.V. Sutherland (eds),
Numismatics and History. Essays in Roman Coinage Presented to Harold Mattingly: 13–33. London,
Oxford University Press.
Keay, S., Millett, M., Paroli, L. and Strutt, K. (2005) Portus. An Archaeological Survey of the Port of Imperial
Rome (Archaeological Monographs of the British School at Rome 15). London, British School at Rome.
Künzl, E. (1988) Der Römische Triumph. Siegesfeiern im Antiken Rom. Munich, C.H. Beck.
Laurence, R. (2007) Roman Pompeii: Space and Society (second edition). London/New York, Routledge.
Levick, B.M. (1982) Propaganda and the imperial coinage. Antichthon 16: 104–16.
Levick, B.M. (1999) Messages on the Roman coinage: types and inscriptions. In G.M. Paul and M. Ierardi
(eds), Roman Coins and Public Life under the Empire. E. Togo Salmon Papers II: 41–60. Ann Arbor,
University of Michigan Press.
Lomas, K. and Cornell, T. (2003) (eds) Bread and Circuses: Euergetism and Municipal Patronage in
Roman Italy. London, Routledge.
Lummel, P. (1991) Zielgruppen Römischer Staatskunst. Die Münzer der Kaiser Augustus bis Trajan und
die Trajanischen Staatsreliefs. Munich, Tuduv.
Marzano, A. (in press) Hercules and the triumphal feast for the Roman people. In I.B. Antela-Bernardez
and T. Ñaco del Hoyo (eds), Setting Landscapes into Motion in the Ancient Empires. A First
Approach: Citizenship, Social Conflicts and War (British Archaeological Reports, International
Series). Oxford, Archaeopress.
Mattingly, H. (1976) Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum I–III (revised edition). London,
British Museum Publications.
Mattingly, H. and Sydenham, E.A. (1926) The Roman Imperial Coinage II. London, Spink and Son.
Mattingly, H. and Sydenham, E.A. (1936) The Roman Imperial Coinage IV.1. London, Spink and Son.
Mazzini, G. (1957–8) Monete imperiali romane. Milan, Mario Ratto.
Meadows, A. and Williams, J. (2001) Moneta and the monuments: coinage and politics in Republican
Rome. Journal of Roman Studies 91: 27–49.
Meneghini, R. (1994) Il Foro e i Mercati di Traiano. Rome, Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato.
Metcalf, W.E. (1993) Whose ‘liberalitas’? Propaganda and audience in the early Roman Empire. Rivista
Italiana di Numismatica e Scienze Affini 95: 337–46.
Metcalf, W.E. (1999) Coins as primary evidence. In G.M. Paul and M. Ierardi (eds), Roman Coins and
Public Life under the Empire. E. Togo Salmon Papers II: 1–17. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press.
Millar, F. (2005) Monuments of the Jewish War in Rome. In J. Edmondson, S. Mason and J. Rives (eds),
Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome: 101–28. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Nielsen, I. (1990) Thermae et Balnea. The Architecture and Cultural History of Roman Public Baths.
Aarhus, Aarhus University Press.
Noreña, C.F. (2001) The communication of the emperor’s virtues. Journal of Roman Studies 91: 146–68.
Noreña, C.F. (2003) Medium and message in Vespasian’s Templum Pacis. Memoirs of the American
Academy in Rome 48: 25–43.
Packer, J.E. (1997) The Forum of Trajan in Rome: a Study of the Monuments. Berkeley, University of
California Press.
Packer, J.E. (2003) Plurima et amplissima opera: parsing Flavian Rome. In A.J. Boyle and W.J. Dominik
(eds), Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text: 167–98. Leiden, Brill.
Paribeni, R. (1926–7) Optimus princeps. Saggio sulla storia e sui tempi dell’imperatore Traiano. Messina,
G. Principato.
Perassi, C. (1993) Medaglioni romani dedicati alla celebrazione dei Ludi Circensi. Rivista Italiana di
Numismatica e Scienze Affini 95: 385–412.
Rossi, L. (1972) Il Danubio nella storia, nella numismatica e nella scultura. Quaderni Ticinesi
1 ¼ Numismatica e Antichità Classica: 111–45.
Sayles, W.G. (2001) Classical Deceptions. Counterfeits, Forgeries and Reproductions of Ancient Coins. Iola
(WI), Krause Publications.
Scott, R.T. (1999) Vesta, aedes. In M. Steinby (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae V (T–Z):
125–8. Rome, Quasar.
Settis, S. (1988) (ed.) La Colonna Traiana. Turin, Einaudi.
Sutherland, C.H.V. (1959) The intelligibility of Roman imperial coin types. Journal of Roman Studies 49:
46–55.
Tameanko, M. (1999) Monumental Coins. Buildings and Structures on Ancient Coinage. Iola (WI),
Krause Publications.
Testaguzza, O. (1970) Portus: illustrazione dei porti di Claudio e Traiano e della città di Porto a Fiumicino.
Rome, Julia Editrice.
van den Berg, C. (2008) The pulvinar in Roman culture. Transactions of the American Philological
Association 138 (2): 239–73.
Veyne, P. (1976) Le pain et le cirque: sociologie historique d’un pluralisme politique. Paris, Seuil.
Villedieu, F. (2001) (ed.) Il giardino dei Cesari. Dai palazzi antichi alla Vigna Barberini sul Monte
Palatino. Rome, Quasar.
Wallace-Hadrill, A. (1981) The emperor and his virtues. Historia 30: 298–319.
Wallace-Hadrill, A. (1986) Image and authority in the coinage of Augustus. Journal of Roman Studies 76: 66–87.
Weber, G. and Zimmermann, M. (2003) Propaganda, Selbstdarstellung und Repräsentation. Die Leitbegriffe
des Kolloquiums in der Forschung zur frühern Kaiserzeit. In G. Weber and M. Zimmermann (eds),
Propaganda — Selbstdarstellung — Repräsentation im Römischen Kaiserreich des I. Jhs. n.Chr.
(Historia Einzelschriften 164): 11–40. Wiesbaden, F. Steiner.
Winkler, L. (1995) Salus. Vom Staatskult zur Politischen Idee. Eine Archaeologische Untersuchung
(Archaeologie und Geschichte 4). Heidelberg, Verlag Archäologie und Geschichte.
Wolters, R. (1999) Nummi Signati. Untersuchungen zur Römischen Münzprägung und Geldwirtschaft.
Munich, Beck.
158 marzano
Wolters, R. (2003) Die Geschwindigkeit der Zeit und die Gefahr der Bilder: Münzbilder und
Münzpropaganda in der Römischen Kaiserzeit. In G. Weber and M. Zimmermann (eds),
Propaganda — Selbstdarstellung — Repräsentation im Römischen Kaiserreich des I Jhs. n.Chr.
(Historia Einzelschriften 164): 175–204. Wiesbaden, F. Steiner.
Yegül, F. (1992) Baths and Bathing in Classical Antiquity. London, MIT Press.
Zanker, P. (1997a) Der Kaiser Baut fürs Volk. Opladen, Westdeutscher Verlag.
Zanker, P. (1997b) In search of the Roman viewer. In D. Buitron-Oliver (ed.), The Interpretation of
Architectural Sculpture in Ancient Greece and Rome: 179–91. Washington, National Gallery of Art.

Marzano - Trajanic Building Projects On Base-Metal Denominations Denominations and Audience Targeting (2009)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marzano - Trajanic Building Projects On Base-Metal Denominations Denominations and Audience Targeting (2009)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Papers of the British School at Rome 77 (2009), pp.

Trajanic building projects on base-metal

Trajan’s building projects on bronze coins

Date Type Legend Gold Silver Bronze

Gold and silver coins

46 Ammianus Marcellinus 16.10.15, about the visit of Costantius II in 357.

To recapitulate, five out of seven types appearing exclusively on base-metal denominations

The Flavians and Hadrian

Date Type Legend Gold Silver Bronze

TABLE 3. Coins portraying the building projects of Vespasian and Titus.

Date Type Legend Gold Silver Bronze

Trajanic building projects on base-metal denominations

Date Type Legend Gold Silver Bronze

TABLE 5. Coins portraying Titus’s building projects.

Date Type Legend Gold Silver Bronze

Date Type Legend Gold Silver Bronze

3 86 Ara Pacis PACIS As: BMC II: 384, no. y

5 94–6 Temple to Minerva IMP CAES D: BMC II: 346, no.

6 94–6 Serapeum/Iseum IMP CAES D: BMC II: 345, no.

Date Type Legend Gold Silver Bronze

The Colosseum coin type

Other buildings on Flavian coins

The Temple of Vesta and other religious buildings

67 Josephus, Bellum Judaicum 7.5.4.

Hölscher, T. (1980) Die Geschichtsauffassung in der Römischen Repräsentionskunst. Jahrbuch des

You might also like