As
most of you know or may not know the 3-sisters
Caligula sestertius was
only struck in 37-8 first emission, this was due to
Drusilla 's death and
the conspiracy against
Agrippina when she was banished. In 39,
Agrippina and
Livilla, with their maternal cousin,
Drusilla 's widower
Marcus Aemilius
Lepidus, were involved in a failed plot to murder
Caligula, a plot known as the Plot of the Three Daggers, which was to
make
Lepidus the new emperor.
Lepidus,
Agrippina and
Livilla were
accused of being lovers. Not much is known concerning this plot and the
reasons behind it. At the trial of
Lepidus,
Caligula felt no compunction
about denouncing them as adulteresses, producing handwritten letters
discussing how they were going to kill him.
Lepidus was executed.
Agrippina and
Livilla were exiled by their brother to the Pontine
Islands.
During
Caligula 's principate, the women of the
imperial family received the most public acknowledgment of their power
and dynastic importance to date. The honors granted to his sisters and
mother mark a string of "firsts": the first issue of coins devoted
entirely, both in
obverse and in
reverse type, to a woman (
Agrippina the
Elder, on an issue of undated
sestertii); the first living women to be
both represented and identified by name on an issue of imperial Roman
coins (
Caligula 's three sisters, on a
sestertius of A.D. 37-38, fig. 1);
the first women whose names were included in public oaths with those of
the emperor; the first women to hold the rights of honorary
Vestal
Virgins (his sisters and grandmother
Antonia Minor); the first woman
(
Drusilla) to be named in an emperor 's will as the heir to his imperium,
and the first woman (
Drusilla) to be deified.
Diva Drusilla Panthea and the Sisters of
CaligulaAuthor(s): Susan
Wood Reviewed
work - Source: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 99, No. 3 (Jul., 1995), p. 458
It
is a shame that
Caligula 's imperial coinage regarding this wonderful
sestertius which was the beginning of his imperial rhetoric had to start
with the conspiracy and death of his beloved
Drusilla?. So , there was
no reason to start minting coins into 39-40 (TRP III) or 40-41 (TRP
IIII).
The coin photo below: This is a scan from
Milan Sylloge
of Roman coins. It was sent to me from a friend. This issue of
Caligula
with three sisters
reverse was only struck in the first year of his
reign 37-8 A.D., yet this issue with corrosion is from 39-40 A.D. RIC 41
reports such a coin with
TR P III in
Milan, with footnote "The
Milan
coin is perhaps a little
tooled, but the reading seems plain."
A shame that RIC does not illustrate such an enigmatic novelty!
COIN PHOTO
Gaius
(
Caligula). AD 37-41. Æ
Sestertius (26.83 g, 7h).
Rome mint. Struck AD
37-38. C
CAESAR AVG
GERMANICVS PON M TR POT, laureate
head left /
AGRIPPINA DRVSILLA IVLIA, S C in
exergue, Gaius ' three sisters standing
facing:
Agrippina (as
Securitas) leaning on
column, holding
cornucopia,
and placing hand on
Drusilla (as
Concordia), holding
patera and
cornucopia;
Julia (as
Fortuna) holding rudder and
cornucopia.
RIC I 33;
CNR XII, 56 (this coin);
BMCRE 37; BnF 49;
Cohen 4.
AE sestertius - RIC I, 41 No photo
Gaius (Caligula). AD
37-41. Æ
Sestertius.
Rome mint. Struck AD 39-40. C
CAESAR AVG
GERMANICVS PON M TR P III P P, laureate
head left /
AGRIPPINA DRVSILLA
IVLIA, S C in
exergue, Gaius ' three sisters standing facing:
Agrippina
(as
Securitas) leaning on
column, holding
cornucopia, and placing hand
on
Drusilla (as
Concordia), holding
patera and
cornucopia;
Julia (as
Fortuna) holding rudder and
cornucopia.
Ok, here is Prof.
Butcher at
32 seconds telling us this was only struck in 37-38 Any thoughts? I am
glad this was brought to my attention, because of all the years I have
been sifting through
Caligula 's Coinage, especially RIC, I have never
seen one with TRP III. Dont ya love this stuff!?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uZMF69W8fA
In 3:50 of the video he states it more emphatically, you can hear his reasons.
Curtis Clay a
Numismatist had this to say about RIC 41.
One
has to suspect that the coins are modern, since the Three Sisters
type
was no longer valid after
Drusilla 's death on 10 July 38, dated by the
Ostian
Fasti, and her
consecration on 23 Sept. 38 (so
Kienast, with a
question mark, not naming a source). Since
Drusilla had died and been
deified before the beginning of
Caligula 's
TR P III on 18 March 39, she
should no longer have been displayed in a
type along with her two living
sisters, and without the title
DIVA.
But say we are wrong about
this, and the Three Sisters
type was
still considered valid between 18
March 39, when
Caligula became
TR P III, and the detection of the
conspiracy of
Agrippina and
Julia in October 39 (mentioned in the Arval
Acts on 25 Oct. 39). Why then is the
type so
rare with
TR P III, rather
than merely
scarce like
Caligula 's other
sestertius types with
TR P III?
On
the other hand, the Three Sisters
type has always been
rare and highly
desired by collectors, so has been a favorite target of coin forgers. It
would clearly be much more likely that a modern forger would mix up his
dies, striking the Three Sisters
type with
TR P III, than that such a
mix-up should occur at the ancient mint of
Rome.
Tony de Laat 's
coin is, unfortunately, demonstrably such a case: the dies are
Paduan,
published by
Klawans, Imitations and Inventions, pp. 33-4, with photo of
a coin in the
Paris collection.
Forum 's Fake Reports also include one
example of this
hybrid Paduan, which I re-illustrate below, plus
numerous examples of Paduans or casts of Paduans from the same
reverse
die, but correctly coupled with a
TR POT obverse, one of which I also
re-illustrate below. How a specimen of this
hybrid TR P III
Paduan came
to be buried near the Dutch
border to Belgium is anyone 's guess!
That
leaves the
Milan coin, which is from different dies. I suspect that it
too will turn out to be modern. It would be important to check its
obverse die against other clearly genuine
TR P III
sestertii of
Caligula, and its
reverse die against genuine Three Sisters
sestertii
with
obverse TR POT.
Why
the RIC 41 ref? It would have been more prudent of
Sutherland to
mention that coin in a footnote or appendix only, as suspect and
requiring confirmation!
Home
