Reference for rep. Semis

[Syltorian]

I've acquired this republican semis (hoping the two pits on the obverse are not indications of anything bad...), but I have some trouble putting a reference to it. The seller only mentioned 211 B.C. as a date, but did not give any more details. I've tried to do some research (acsearch, Andrew McCabe's site, etc...), but without much success. Most semis I could find have a mark of value "S" on both the obverse and the reverse, whereas on this example, I cannot find any on the reverse.

The details of the coin are as follows:

Obv. Head of Saturn right, mark of value behind
Rev. Prow facing left, ROM[A] below.
Dimension: 28 mm; Weight: 18,81 grams

Thanks!

[Andrew McCabe]

I've acquired this republican semis (hoping the two pits on the obverse are not indications of anything bad...), but I have some trouble putting a reference to it. The seller only mentioned 211 B.C. as a date, but did not give any more details. I've tried to do some research (acsearch, Andrew McCabe's site, etc...), but without much success. Most semis I could find have a mark of value "S" on both the obverse and the reverse, whereas on this example, I cannot find any on the reverse.

The details of the coin are as follows:

Obv. Head of Saturn right, mark of value behind
Rev. Prow facing left, ROM[A] below.
Dimension: 28 mm; Weight: 18,81 grams

Thanks!

No fault of yours because Crawford wrongly classified this type. This is a variety of Crawford 106 (staff series) although illustrated by Crawford amongst the Cr56 coins on plate XI, 10. There is an S on the reverse of your coin, it is just worn but I can see its shadow where it should be. The top coin below is the same type as yours. I've illustrated a range of other coins of the series below and a much wider range in a set dedicated to these coins here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahala_rome/sets/72157624960064261/detail/

The coins come from Etruria and are early bronzes (probably 210 - 200 BC). They all have absolutely characteristic obverse styles with very large upward staring eyes that I term bug-eyed, and pronounced lined hair. Within the series however there are four clear different designs.

1. As your coin, with two sailors on the left deck of the prow, and with the staff protruding the left of a from a flat-topped deckhouse. These coins generally have cupped flans, convex on obverse and concave on reverse, that seem to suggest a unique manufacturing technique not seen on other RR coins. The second coin illustrated below is the Quadrans of the same series as yours, note the same characteristics.

2. The regular Crawford 106 staff series, illustrated by the third coin below (Semis) with staff above the prow. These coins always have a triangular shaped forward-deckhouse just next to the acrostilium (prow-stem) with a club within it, presumably a weapons store on the actual ships

3. As (2) but with the staff running through the middle of the deckhouse. I illustrate this with an As, fourth coin below. In this case the staff is running through a square-topped deckhouse that is on top of the triangular deckhouse with club that I described in (2)

4. As (2) but with a club also on the obverse, the rarest type of the series of which I've only a broken Sextans. Fifth coin below.

This Etruscan series is almost as varied and interesting as the Luceria bronze (L, P, LP, CA) series but almost totally unknown. What I describe above is unpublished as yet. Crawford 105 (early pentagram) and 107 (C) are clearly linked to these coins too - there is an obverse die match between the Crawford 105 and 106 Victoriati.

[Syltorian]

Thanks Andrew, that's terrific! There's a lot of information there. Do you intend to publish this in print, someday?

By the way of Roman bronzes: are there any theories why Rome, which tended so often to neglect their ships until Augustus finally created the Praetorian fleets, decided to use prows on their coins? I assume that the presence of soldiers does not fit well with (much earlier) the victory monument which gave the Rostra its name...

[Andrew McCabe]

Thanks Andrew, that's terrific! There's a lot of information there. Do you intend to publish this in print, someday?

By the way of Roman bronzes: are there any theories why Rome, which tended so often to neglect their ships until Augustus finally created the Praetorian fleets, decided to use prows on their coins? I assume that the presence of soldiers does not fit well with (much earlier) the victory monument which gave the Rostra its name...

Rome's victory in the first Punic War was down to Rome creating a navy from scratch and defeating Carthage in its own power area - at sea. Immediately after the war in 241 BC they issued, in commemoration, the first prow bronzes (see image below, http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahala_rome/3350654753 , Crawford 35, As through Uncia with the first of the standard designs that lasted for two centuries (As: Janus/Prow, Semis: Saturn/Prow, Triens: Minerva/Prow, Quadrans: Hercules/Prow, Sextans: Mercury/Prow, Uncia: Roma/Prow). These cast bronzes continued in issue for some 25 years until they became the "normal" types, so finally when struck bronze coins were introduced about 215BC they took the exact same designs and this continued unchanged thereafter.

The Rostra has even older origins - it derives its name from the six rostra (plural of rostrum, a warship's ram) which were captured during the victory at Antium in 338 BC and mounted to its side. There is at least one Roman Republican type which illustrates the Rostra, see below: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahala_rome/3409613529/

NB the third image below is the same coin from Medaglie, Inscrittioni et altre Antichita, Antonio Augusto, Rome 1592, a marvellous fully illustrated 16th century book on coins.

[Syltorian]

Thanks again. I was not aware the issues of coins with prows went that far back. I assume it must have made an uplifting reminder during the darker days of the Second Punic War too - to those people who knew about the reference/remembered the first war, or who cared to look closely at the coins, at least.

Edit: the Palikanus is definitely on my wish list! It must have been impressive to look at the rostra with the beaks still in place. I wonder whether they were still original by the time of that denarius, though - weather and above all the frequent fires of the city must have taken their toll, surely, even if large parts were made of bronze. 

[Andrew McCabe]

Thanks again. I was not aware the issues of coins with prows went that far back. I assume it must have made an uplifting reminder during the darker days of the Second Punic War too - to those people who knew about the reference/remembered the first war, or who cared to look closely at the coins, at least.

Edit: the Palikanus is definitely on my wish list! It must have been impressive to look at the rostra with the beaks still in place. I wonder whether they were still original by the time of that denarius, though - weather and above all the frequent fires of the city must have taken their toll, surely, even if large parts were made of bronze. 

I believe the Rostra was renewed and added to over time. I recall a reference somewhere to new prows being added and structural changes, and that was probably a constant process.

[Robert_Brenchley]

It surely has to have been renewed occasionally, since wood rots over time. I don't know what wood Roman-era ships were built from, but it may well not have been as long-lasting as oak.