- The Collaborative Numismatics Project
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. The column on the left includes the "Best of NumisWiki" menu. If you are new to collecting, start with Ancient Coin Collecting 101. All blue text is linked. Keep clicking to endlessly explore. Welcome Guest. Please login or register. The column on the left includes the "Best of NumisWiki" menu. All blue text is linked. Keep clicking to endlessly explore. If you have written a numismatic article, please add it to NumisWiki.

Resources Home
Home
New Articles
Most Popular
Recent Changes
Current Projects
Admin Discussions
Guidelines
How to

Index Of All Titles


BEST OF

AEQVITI
Aes Grave
Aes Rude
The Age of Gallienus
Alexander Tetradrachms
Ancient Coin Collecting 101
Ancient Coin Prices 101
Ancient Coin Dates
Ancient Coin Lesson Plans
Ancient Coins & Modern Fakes
Ancient Counterfeits
Ancient Glass
Ancient Oil Lamps
Ancient Weapons
Ancient Wages and Prices
Ancient Weights and Scales
Anonymous Folles
Anonymous Follis
Anonymous Class A Folles
Antioch Officinae
Aphlaston
Armenian Numismatics Page
Brockage
Byzantine
Byzantine Denominations
A Cabinet of Greek Coins
Caesarean and Actian Eras
Campgates of Constantine
Carausius
A Case of Counterfeits
Byzantine Christian Themes
Clashed Dies
Codewords
Coins of Pontius Pilate
Conditions of Manufacture
Corinth Coins and Cults
Countermarked in Late Antiquity
Danubian Celts
Damnatio Coinage
Damnatio Memoriae
Denomination
Denarii of Otho
Diameter 101
Die Alignment 101
Dictionary of Roman Coins
Doug Smith's Ancient Coins
Edict on Prices
ERIC
ERIC - Rarity Tables
Etruscan Alphabet
The Evolving Ancient Coin Market
EQVITI
Facing Portrait of Augustus
Fel Temp Reparatio
Fertility Pregnancy and Childbirth
Fibula
Flavian
Fourree
Friend or Foe
The Gallic Empire
Gallienus Zoo
Greek Alphabet
Greek Coins
Greek Dates
Greek Coin Denominations
Greek Mythology Link
Greek Numismatic Dictionary
Hellenistic Names & their Meanings
Hasmoneans
Hasmonean Dynasty
Helvetica's ID Help Page
The Hexastyle Temple of Caligula
Historia Numorum
Horse Harnesses
Identifying Ancient Metal Arrowheads
Illustrated Ancient Coin Glossary
Important Collection Auctions
Islamic Rulers and Dynasties
Koson
Kushan Coins
People in the Bible Who Issued Coins
Imperial Mints of Philip the Arab
Later Roman Coinage
Latin Plurals
Latin Pronunciation
Library of Ancient Coinage
Life in Ancient Rome
List of Kings of Judea
Malloy Weapons
Maps of the Ancient World
Military Belts
Mint Marks
Monogram
Museum Collections Available Online
Nabataean Alphabet
Nabataean Numerals
The [Not] Cuirassed Elephant
Not in RIC
Numismatic Bulgarian
Numismatic Excellence Award
Numismatic French
Numismatic German
Numismatic Italian
Numismatic Spanish
Parthian Coins
Patina 101
Paleo-Hebrew Alphabet
Phoenician Alphabet
Pi-Style Athens Tetradrachms
Pricing and Grading Roman Coins
Reading Judean Coins
Representations of Alexander the Great
Roman Coin Attribution 101
Roman Militaria
Roman Mints
Roman Names
romancoin.info
Rome and China
Satyrs and Nymphs
Scarabs
Serdi Celts
Serrated
Siglos
The Sign that Changed the World
Silver Content of Parthian Drachms
Star of Bethlehem Coins
Statuary Coins
Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum
Syracusian Folles
Taras Drachms with Owl Left
The Temple Tax
The Temple Tax Hoard
Test Cut
Travels of Paul
Tribute Penny
Tribute Penny Debate Continued (2015)
Tribute Penny Debate Revisited (2006)
Tyrian Shekels
Uncleaned Ancient Coins 101
Vabalathus
Venus Cloacina
What I Like About Ancient Coins
Who was Trajan Decius
Widow's Mite
XXI

   View Menu
 

Agrippa Aes Struck Under Caligula or Tiberius

By Joe Geranio

A REASSESSMENT OF SHELAGH JAMESON'S "THE DATE OF THE ASSES OF M. AGRIPPA"  IN NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE (1966), VOL. VI, 7TH SERIES

The Moneyers of Scipione and Montanus and Titullus and Montanus 




Local Germanic Imitation-  c/m: TI AV. Cf. RIC 58 (Gaius); cf. BMCRE 167 (Tiberius); BN 156-159; cf. Cohen 3. 
For discussion of this countermark on barbarous asses of Agrippa, see Kraay, "The Behavior of Early Imperial Countermarks" in Essays Mattingly, p. 127., and Giard, "Pouvoir central et Libertés locales" in RN 1970. cngcoins.com

What an interesting and complicated topic!  I have had to ask myself a few questions?  Do we just accept that the Agrippan aes were struck under Gaius Caligula because that is just the way it is, on faith.  Historically; and I think we underplay this in numismatics sometimes, what are the facts as we have them for a relationship with Marcus Agrippa?  Two questions here:  Why would Caligula want M. Agrippa on an obverse of a coin that was struck in bucket fulls according to the percentage extant/found in his short almost 4 year reign?   Why would Tiberius want to have M. Agrippa on these coins for the years 14-37 A.D.  which with percentage of coins extant for the Rome issue alone makes more sense, but I am getting ahead of myself.   I love collecting and all the coinage of Caligula, and I would love to just assume this was struck during his principate.   I do have a problem or lack of understanding on one issue that is used for Kraay's number one reason for assigning the coin to Caligula was the predominance of the countermark TIAV for Claudius, but Jameson brings out an excellent point that M. Grant sheds light on in NC, 1948 page 116. (1)  That this countermark of TIAV is first found on coins of 29-30 A.D. , (2) The fact that the Spanish Moneyers reproduce the Agrippa type in company with types of Gaius.  (3) The reference to Gaius as grandson of Agrippa on coins of an uncertain mint of Asia Minor?  (RN, 1911, pg.432)   The Scipio and Montano moneyer's could  also be useful for dating.    I think we can eliminate the countermarks for helping in securing a Tiberian date and that is fine and the way it is.  It would make no sense for Tiberius to have a counterstamp of his own issue struck during his own principate?   Anne Robertson bring up the hypothesis for the 180 degree die-axis issue and her hypothesis seemingly convinced Macdowall and Girard on "grounds of community both of style and of countermarks".  "For discussion of this countermark on barbarous asses of Agrippa, see Kraay, "The Behavior of Early Imperial Countermarks" in Essays Mattingly, p. 127., and Giard, "Pouvoir central et Libertés locales" in RN 1970.  The largest mass of evidence for the role of official aes's has come down to us from the Julio Claudian period has come, so far, from the Rhine and Danube frontiers.   

However, Sydenham has already urged (NC 17) 1917 that Caligula's reign was too short for so vast an issue, and after the publication of Sutherlands book Carl Kuthmann argued afresh in favor of attributing the whole issue to the reign of Tiberius, other aes issues being, in his view, ample in number and size to fill Caligula's reign. (Schweizer Munsblatter 4 1954 73-7. He suggested that the coins of Caesaraugusta in Spain which Sutherland gave as his example of coins reproducing the design of Agrippa asses were probably struck, not under Caligula, as Sutherland held, but under Tiberius. In A.D. 37, and that the appearance of countermarks from Claudius' reign on some of the Agrippa asses (Kray Vindonissa 48) Is not at all suprising , the reign of Caligula being so short. He also suggested that the reign of Tiberius is the most likely historical context for this advertising of Agrippa , since there was a strong personal tie, through Vipsania, between Agrippa and Tiberius (CE Stevens has quoted Velleius 2. 127) For Agrippa's high standing A.D. 30 (NC 7 . 3 (1963) p.262. But the fact that Caligula was Agrippa's grandson, none between Agrippa and Caligula (Suetonius Gaius 23) Mattingly has said in conversations, " that he still holds these historic considerations as weightier than the numismatic arguments against inception under Tiberius. He believes that the bulk , at least, of this issue was produced between 22- 31 A.D. Note 576. While Sejanus was influential , unfortunatley the political question , cui bono? Who is most likely to have wanted to advertise Agrippa? Above all to the troops on the Rhine and Danube frontiers , and at what period? cannot be given an answer that will convince everyone, as is shown in the diversity of views about personal relationships at this period. See: (Anne Boddington AJP 84 1963 1-16) S. Jameson, however, has argued, on the evidence of the die axis and of hybrids that occur, that one of these 3 groups into which she believes the issue can be divided began began to be produced in about 22-23 A.D.  "Is there a coincidence between the date 22-23 and the wonderful sestertii and dupondii series that came out by Tiberius at the same time?  SEE:  https://www.forumancientcoins.com/NumisWiki/view.asp?key=The%20Domus%20Augusta%20Tiberian%20Dupondii%20and%20Sestertius%20Series-%20Joe%20Geranio

But prof. Robertson draws a different conclusion from the die-axis and John Nicols (ANS Museum notes 19 1974) has shown the flimsiness of the hybrid evidence, the fact that 18 halves of asses of the other great issue, celebrating the providentia of Augustus , were found at Vindonissa , but no halves of these asses is, as he says, "fairly strong evidence against assigning a mid-Tiberian date to the Agrippa as.

Grant States: If one weighs up the historical and numismatic arguments, no one of which is desicive, it seems most likely that the production of these asses began in the later years of Tiberius' reign, already with the intention , with the intention, at least that the issue would be large. However, C.M Kraay while believing that the major part of it, including all the coins struck at Rome, belongs to Tiberius' last years , has pointed to find evidence indicating that in Gaul some production ran much longer. (Vindonissa 10 35)

Sutherland RIC(R):"...they must have formed a solid proportion of the asses in circulation. Two main views have recently been propounded, and on the precise grounds of analysis and argument: first that they began under Tiberius c. CE 22-28, continuing under Gaius and Claudius (Jameson), and secondly that they belong to the years 37-41 under Gaius alone, possibly with some Claudian continuation (Nicols).Cf. Jameson, "The Date of the Asses of M.Agrippa" in Num. Chron, 1966, 95-124; Nicols, "The Chronology and Significance of the M.Agrippa Asses" in ANSMN, 1974, 65-86; Macdowell, "The Organization of the Julio-Claudian Mint at Rome" in SNR, 36-37.

TI AV COUNTERMARK ON AGRIPPA AS- BARBAROUS COIN


VERY INTERESTING AGRIPPA TI AV COUNTERMARK ON GERMANICUS OBVERSE PORTRAIT OF CALIGULA COIN?  TI AV BEING CLAUDIAN C/M- SEE- (countermark Martini Pangerl Collection 51)


Mattingly recognized this issue being assigned to Caligula in BMCRE1 pg. cxxxiii
Michael Grant in NC, 8 (1948) pg 125-26
Sutherland- CRIP 102

Sutherland wrote: "Whose abundant frequency has long made them a puzzle to interpret , were more probably struck under Gaius, to judge from the dates of other coinages which reproduce the designs'/, although he has regarded it as just possible that they came out at the very end of Tiberius' principate, CRIP 102 no.2) After Anne Robertson added a technical argument in favor of the coins being struck under Gaius on The fact that the obverse and reverse types on these coins are regularly at 180 degrees in relation to another, for this did not become the regular die arrangement for aes (Roman Imperial Coins in the Hunter Coin Cabinet 1 (1962) pg. lxv,  coinage prior to Gaius reign. It was usual in the middle years of Tiberius' reign, but not dominant. These arguments have convinced Macdowall NC7 (1967) 47, no.5 that the majority of these aes issues must have been Caligulan, while Giard believes the attribution of the whole issue belongs to Caligula is, at present, the most probable hypothytheis, on grounds of community both of style and of countermarks. (Rev Num. 10 v.6 (1968 ) 80-81.

This information was sent to me by an archaeologist  Fleur Kemmers  working on a small hoard in Noviomagus (current Nijmegen). I specifically asked about any Agrippan aes issues, here is a little more about the project.  http://www.narcis.nl/publication/RecordID/oai%3Arepository.ubn.ru.nl%3A2066%2F60878/coll/person/id/26 and here is a PDF file on her work with the coins found regarding Caligula.  http://www.mcu.es/museos/docs/MC/ActasNumis/Caligula_on_Lower_Rhine.pdf

RE-VISTING 1966.  IMITATION OF THE AGRIPPA TYPE FROM CAESAR AUGUSTA SPAIN.  HYBRIDS OF AGRIPPA/ TIBERIUS AND AGRIPPA/ GAIUS TYPES. SHELAGH JAMESON'S THOUGHTS ON THE MARCUS AGRIPPA AES- THE DATE OF THE ASSES OF MARCUS AGRIPPA -  NC , Vol. VI, 

Initial theories and changes of the following views of L. Lafranchi-

Due to familial assimilation stylistic similarity between Agrippan asses and the Imperial family of Caligula, Lafranchi assigned these issues to the reign of Caligula.   He saw a familial dynastic connection.  See reference below for first theory by Lafranchi. 
See: I Diversi stilli nella monetazione romana: gli assi ed I dupondi commeamortivi d Augusto e di Agrippa, RIN 1910, 21ff.   

Lafranchi changes his mind almost 40 years later on the Agrippan asses and thinks they were struck under Claudius, not Caligula.   
See:   La Monetazione Imperatorial e Senatoria di Claudio I Durante il quadrennio 41-44 RIN 1949, 41 ff.   

Voetters Views and LaFranchi Response

Voetter thought that the Agrippan Gaius issues could be assigned to either principate due to the high volume number of hybrids available.   
See:  Vienna Monatsblatter no. 24, 25 and 26.  1908

C.M Kraay- Views on Caligulan or Tiberian Strike

Kraay first believes that issues were struck under Caligula, but due to Kuthmann’s observations on the Caesaraugusta imitations from Spain, Kraay has changed his mind to a Tiberian strike date.    
Original view by Kraay:  Because there were so many issues of this series of Agrippan asses with the Claudian countermark, TIAV.   Not commonly found on coins before Caligula’s principate.  SEE NOTE FROM 12/13 BELOW FOR MCDOWALLS VIEW ON TI AV MEANING?
See:  SMzB 1952, 53, and 56.  
For Revised Kraay View, see:  Die Munzfunde die Vindonissa 34f. 
M. Grant as Jameson notes, NC 1948, 116.  Grant states the first time an issue was found with the TIAV countermark was in 29-30 A.D.  
There is a reference to the Spanish moneyers reproducing the Agrippa type with other types for Caligula and there is also a mention on an issue of Caligula being the grandson of Agrippa from an unknown mint in Asia Minor.  RN, 1911, 432.   

H.  Kuthmann’s Views on Caligula and Tiberius dates

Due to the large number of bronze coinage that has survived Kuthmann has issues with the Agrippa asses being struck under Caligula for so brief of a principate.  
See:  SMzB 1054, 73ff.
See:  For Spanish imitations, A.Vives, La Moneda Hispanica IV, 84, nos. 66-67.


The M. Agrippa as series from Spain.  Regarding Kuthmann’s observation on imitations of the Agrippa aes type from Caesaraugusta in Spain.  It seems in earlier scholarship S. Jameson, Kraay and others who get into Portrait study on these imitations , this is dubious at best, and I usually always look at portrait types, square chin, or with terms like "square and sloping styles" as Kraay mentions for Vindonissa issues.  Which he puts into two groups, one for the Rome mint and all others for provincial mints.  I do admit that the Rome mint Agrippa aes are superior in style and consistency, but sometimes this portrait study from provincial mints can be a bit far reaching? The Roman Imperial mint would have by far the best portraiture for numismatics and would have been exactly how the living princeps would have wanted that coin represented.    On the obverse and I agree with Jameson that there are actually three portrait groups we should look at,  Group A is of the best quality and consistency are from Rome- 

Group A - Jameson Observations

    A square set of the head, and treatment of the eye, which is always marked HORIZONTALLY" giving a stern and determined appearance (may be too much read into this) to the face.  The hair is finely executed, especially the forelock, the tips of which curl slightly outwards, away from the forehead.

Group A-  On Appearance

    The obverse of the Agrippa aes issue represents a balanced uncluttered appearance, the relief is high; the legend is drawn in large even letters, which are well spaced and give no impression of cramping the portrait.  In comparison to the other 2 groups the "COS" will be seen to be larger and equally spaced.  At this time , I only would like to concentrate on the obverse portrait types of Jameson and not the reverse

Group B-  More on Jameson Observations

      The portraits of Agrippa in group be often look similar to portraits in group A, but; the execution of the features is very different.  The eyes vary, sometime the brow is at an angle as though the eye was gazing upward, the hair is neatly executed but with less detail.  Sometimes the eyebrow is curled, the forelock is either more ruffled or more often cropped of in a short fringe.    

Group B-  On Appearance

         The legend of the letters in "COS" often the "O" is smaller the the other two letters and tends to be spaced closer to the "S", leaving a gap between it and the "C".   Jameson as well as others believe this group belong to the Tiberian, Claudian or Neronian deviation.  

Group C - Portrait observations  Jameson

        The coins of this group are quite distinct in style, the portraits have a great deal of variation.  The main features are similar in that the head slopes back and is more spread, the relief being less high , especially at the base of the neck, the hair is of a courser texture than those of Groups A and B.  The forelock is short and almost always combed into a fringe which clings tightly to the forehead.  The chin is prominent, often the depth of the chin to base of neck appears greater than that of forehead to crown.  

Groups C- Appearance

         The legends in this group are often not consistent, being cramped or has height differences.

Now, I did not include all of Jameson’s pyhscological theories on the Agrippa portrait which seemed to prevail pre- 1970's.  If you want to know more read:           

RIC first edition had this issue struck under Tiberius BMC Tiberius 161.  

WEIGHT ON JAMESON”S CHART- Three Groups of Agrippa Aes

Out of more than 100 coins Group A shows a Maximum weight of 13.50 gm  , this is on the high end , and is extremely heavy, although one-third weigh between 11.50 and 12.50 gm.  And the weight for any issue never drops below 10.25 gm. Average weight is between 10.25 and 11.00.  Group B and Group C are averaging the same but weights decline respectively from groups A, B and C.  

THE DIE AXIS RELATIONSHIP

In the case of the Tiberian issue , it has been shown , on the evidence of the die axis relationship and the types with which the Agrippa portrait is combined to form hybrids , that probably originated in mid range of Tiberian rule.  The Agrippa as groups issued under Tiberius was probably around 22-23 A.D.  I wonder if this anything to do with the wonderful dupondii and sestertii that came out in the same year? Could this be when the die-axis changed? See: for the 22/3 A.D. series.   https://www.forumancientcoins.com/NumisWiki/view.asp?key=The%20Domus%20Augusta%20Tiberian%20Dupondii%20and%20Sestertius%20Series-%20Joe%20Geranio

Jameson goes on, the die axis under Caligula is ÓÔ , BUT; this is also so in the reign of Tiberius, with two exceptions (neither asses).  The Agrippa coins always have the reverse die-axis in a downward position.  Sutherland has demonstrated from an examination of the die-axis of the aes coinage throughout the reign of Tiberius  that while hh is dominant at the beginning and end of the reign , ­¯ predominates during mid reign.  In particular the providential asses.  Of the 29 asses of the Agrippa type,  both countermarked and non-countermarked, the reverse die-axis is a follows:  10 specimens show ¯,  10 l, and 9 m.  Therefore , if these issues are correctly attributed to Tiberius, they are more likely to have been attributed to the middle part of his reign.  22-23 A.D.  

See:  NC, 1941 100 and for Provedentia asses 111.           
         
Marcus Agrippa, a Biography, (Roma 1965) , no. 132. No.39. Dating and methods of explaining        Agrippa issues and hybrids.



Jameson Legends for Hybrids Evidence

IMP CAESAR DIVI  F AVGVS IMP XX

DIVVS AVGVSTUS PATER

TI CAESAR DIVI AVG F AVGVST PM TR POT XXIII?  SC

TI CAESAR DIVI AVG F PM TR POT XXIIII SC

PONTIF MAXIM  TRIBUN POTEST XXXVII SC

PONTIF MAXIM TRIBUN POTEST XXXVIII SC

SC PROVIDENT

CCAESAR AVG GERMANICVS  PON M TR POT

SC (MINERVA)

ROME ET AVG (LOCAL STYLE)


THE REVERSE OF THE AGRIPPA AES - SC

Group A - SC

The SC from group A of  Jameson/Kraay’s (Die Munzefunde von vindonissa 35)  chart shows the extremely large bold SC , the C is very round and almost a full circle.  On better specimens the C varies in thickness according to Jameson.  

If the SC is studied on the Tiberian aes is studied , they do not seem so rotund,  more square than round.     The letters themselves are thicker , the C is not fully fashioned on the Tiberian issue as on Group A asses, but broadens into the serifs.  As is sometimes the case with the “C” of Claudian asses.  Jameson goes into great depth on these issues of legends and serifs and flan distinction, see page 109-10 of NC , Vol. VI, 1966.  


Regarding Countermarks 

I have never been a big lover of countermarks/ counterstamps, but this is double complexity.   Going through the nice site of Richard Baker, "Museum of Countermarks on Roman Coins", here are the Tiberian coins that are on Marcus Agrippa obverse coin portraits.  "CAG" a "Hercules head", other countermarks for tiberius could be , "B", TIB AVC, "TI.CA". CAESAR", and "Cornucopia".  When you check the Caligula section for countermarks we find for Agrippa aes so called Hofheim Type, "TIAV",  "TICA", "CAG" .  Other countermarks for Caligula are:  "IMP", "TIBCLAIMP" "TI.C.A.", "TICA".  Other Caligula countermarks are:  "CA", a"CAC", and "CAG".     Out of more then 100 coins in group "A" of Jameson's article, there are no countermarks, Jameson states this is not suprising due to the fact that they are of the finest style and least worn pointing to minting at Rome and remaining there.  In Group "B" there are only small amounts of countermarked issues.  In group "C" about 40% were countermarked.  Jameson states that almost all the unorthodox issues of the Agrippa type are stamped with "TIAV" and the variant "TIN".    

Here is Jameson's break-out on a chart

TIAV OR TIN-  (CALIGULA)  DIVUS avg CONSENSV DUP, GERMANICUS SIGNIS DUP, VESTA AS, GERMANICUS TRPOT AS, PIETAS TEMPLE SEST, 
                        (CLAUDIUS)  EX SC OB CIVES SEST, SPES SEST, SPES AS, LIBERTAS AS, CONSTANTIA AS, CERES DUP, NERO DRUSUS SEST, 


TICA                 (CALIGULA)  VESTA AS 
T.I.C.A.             (CALIGULA)  VESTA AS 
T.C.A                (CALIGULA)  VESTA AS 


TICNIM            (CALIGULA)  DIVUS aug CONSENSV DUP, GERMANICUS SIGNIS DUP, NERO AND DRUSUS DUP, VESTA, GERMANICUS TRPOT AS, ADLOCUTIO SEST  

TCINP-             (CALIGULA)  VESTA AS


C.A.C                (AUGUSTUS)  AVG NERO SILIANUS
                        ( CALIGULA)   VESTA, GERMANICUS TRPOT AS.    

** Jameson brings up the point that apart from the "DUBIOUS" C.A.C. countermark, all the countermarks are Claudian.  But, there is some controversy on the "TIAV" mark.  If the Agrippa aes were struck under Caligula, then this makes strong evidence, and I believe "TIAV" is Claudius for a few reasons, One; I believe it should be TIB or TI CAES if it was Tiberius, but of course; Tiberius would not countermark his own coins.    After Jameson's chart, its clear it is Claudian and that makes sense even if the Agrippan aes were struck under Tiberius.  A friend and myself were discussing this and he had this thought, " Well, in terms of purely scientific evidence, there's no way that Caligula and Claudius coins would be countermarked (after lots of circulation) with the ligatured signature of a dead emperor. If the TI AV showed up on Nero coins, then it would have to be Titus; but it shows up on Claudius coins issued earlier in that reign, so it makes sense that it's Claudius' countermark. It's true that there were beautiful coins issued in the middle of Tiberius' reign, about the time Sejanus started becoming quite powerful.  If they were found on both Caligula and Claudius coins in a certain area, then it means that a local authority used the ligatured signature of Ti (Claudius Caesar) Au(gustus) to mark coins of both Caligula and Claudius as still "probatus" (approved) for circulation. There is no reason to believe that these countermarks were applied to Caligula's coins during his reign, because he did not rule long enough for the coins issued during his reign to get worn down enough to need stamping with a "PROBAVIT" type of countermark.  My only question here is, why would a coin need a countermark so quickly after so short a reign of 37-41 A.D. for Caligula?  You would think Neronian countermark or later?   I do understand that Claudius' reign was 13 years, so would a coin stuck under Caligula not last 13-17 years in circulation?  ON TI AV-  SEE NOTE FROM 12/13 BELOW FOR MCDOWALLS VIEW ON TI AV MEANING?

THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE- UNDERATED?

How important is the historical evidence?  Many have used the argument that Gaius Tranquillius Suetonius 23 is like reading the National Enquirer?  Well lets look at the exact text in 23.

"   He was unwilling to be thought or called the grandson of Agrippa, because of the obscurity of his birth; and he was offended if any one, either in prose or verse, ranked him amongst the Caesars. He said that his mother was the fruit of an incestuous commerce, maintained by Augustus with his daughter Julia. And not content with this vile reflection upon the memory of Augustus, he forbad his victories atActium, and on the coast of Sicily, to be celebrated, as usual; affirming that they had been most pernicious and fatal to the Roman people".  (Caligula suetonius 23)

Well it says what is says.  No matter how hard we may want to fit numismatics into the history of Caligula and his time, it is hard to ignore such a statement, and Sydenham in NC, (1963) 262 has argued for Tiberius having a much tighter rapport with Agrippa through marriage with Vipsania and the writing of C. Velleius Paterculus in which he wrote:

It is but rarely that men of eminence have failed to employ great men to aid them in directing their fortune, as the two Scipios employed the two Laelii, whom in all things they treated as equal to themselves, or as the deified Augustus employed Marcus Agrippa, and after him Statilius Taurus. In the case of these men their lack of lineage was no obstacle to their elevation to successive consulships, triumphs, and numerous priesthoods. For great tasks require great helpers," (Velleius 2.127)

Mattingly has said in a conversation with C. Rodewald that, (The Money Of Tiberius 1978) " that he still regards these historical considerations has weightier than the numismatic arguments against inception under Tiberius.  "He believes that the bulk, at least, of this issue was produced between 22-31 A.D."   

12/13

According to D.W. Macdowall and Hubrecht on page 266 of , " Countermarks on the Ae's of Claudius from Nijmegan".  " TI AV should stand for TI(berius) AV(gustus) , the Roman emperor 14-37 A.D., who succeeded Augustus.  In this form the countermark only occurs on sestertii of Claudius.  A second form of TI AV occurs extensively at Vindonissa and sites in upper Germany on sestertii of Caligula and Claudius; and a third part of the countermark is found widely on copper asses- at Hofheim on 48 out of 61 (78%) of both orthodox and irregular asses of agrippa.  Kray suggested that TI AV may have served the purpose of restoring the obliterated name of Claudius; but the obvious interpretation of TI AV is an abbreviation standing for Tiberius, not Claudius; and the legend TI CAESAR DIVI F AVGVSTUS was the regular form of titulature employed on the ae's of Tiberius.  We therefore suggest that the coins countermarked TI AV were being given the status of sestertii and dupondii of Tiberius struck at the mint of Rome."             

As simple as it sounds, Gaius Caligula's reign was just too short for such a vast amount of issues for the Agrippa pieces.  If you accept the TI AV as Claudius as princeps this also strengthens the coin as struck under Tiberius.   Update 12/12.  More to come. 

A. Barrett in , Caligula:  The Corruption of Power ( Great book by the way) pg. 251.

The commonest of the issues of Caligula is the common "so called" Agrippa as.  (BMC) Tiberius 161, fig. 24.  It depicts on its obverse a bust of Agrippa, facing left, with a rostral crown and the legend M AGRIPPA L F COS III.  On the reverse is a Neptune holding a dolphin in his right hand and a trident in his left, and the letters SC.  It is found most commonly on the Rhine frontier.    Scholars have generally accepted that this coin was minted under Caligula, but it has been argued by some that it first appeared under Tiberius.  Opinion has differed over whether it has been produced at a number of different mints, in the provinces as well as Rome.  J. Nichols, however has pointed out, that the adjusted die axis of these asses, with 'upside down' , is not compatible with that of Tiberian coins.  In the mid- Tiberian coins  the adjusted die axis with upright reverse is always is always found on at least some of his aes.  By the end of his reign it predominates.  There are no Agrippa asses found with this arrangement, which is also foreign to Caligulan issues.  Nichols argues that Caligula issued this coin in conjunction with other family types, to be continued under Claudius although in reduced numbers.  She suggests that the coins  originate in the issues of the colony of Nimes,  (Nemausus)  bearing the portraits of Agrippa and Augustus, back to back,  which were often neatly halved to keep the heads intact.  The Agrippa as represent the continuity of this tradition.  The Agrippa as was imitated in issues of Caesaraugusta, the richest of the local mints of Spain.  As shown by the names of the moneyers the colony produced three coin issues, dated by Trillmich to the first three years of Caligula's reign.  The Agrippa imitations appear in the second and third issues". 

Here is a photo of the Agrippa / Augustus issue from Nemausus:
GAUL, NemaususAugustus, with Agrippa27 BC-AD 14. Æ Dupondius (25mm, 12.90 g, 9h). Nemausus mint. Struck circa AD 10-14. Heads of Agrippa left and Augustus right, back to back, that of Agrippa wearing combined rostral crown and laurel wreath, that of Augustus laureate / Crocodile right chained to palm-branch; wreath with long ties above. RPC I 525; RIC I 159.


Here are examples of the halved issues which were easy to break down by portrait mentioned by Barrett.






THE MONEYERS SCIPIO AND MONTANUS AND TITTULO AND MONTANUS- Licinianus and Germanus, duoviri.

DATING OF THE CAESARAUGUSTA ISSUES IS CRITICAL
                    

The moneyers spoken about by Barrett are (The Moneyers of Scipione and Montanus and Titullus and Montanus)  These are from the richest mint area's for Spain.  Here are the two issues.  



FIRST IS SCIPIO AND MONTANO DVOVIRI:  


   
SPAIN, Terraconensis. Caesaraugusta. AgrippaDied AD 12. Æ 29mm (13.40 g). Scipio and Montanus, duoviri. Struck under Gaius Caligula, AD 37-41. Head left, wearing rostral crown / Priest plowing with yoked oxen right. RPC I 381.




SECOND IS TITULLUS AND MONTANO DVOVIRI:



CAESARAUGUSTA. Spain. Sestertius. Calígula (37-41 d.C.). Head of  Augustus radiate Left. DIVVS AVGVSTVS PATER. R/ Blts and rays. SCIPIONE ET MONTANO II VIR;  legend - AE 28,05 g. I-382. V- 153.5. RPC- 376.  VERY RARE



CAESARAUGUSTA. Spain. Sestetius. Calígula (37-41 d.C.). Head of  Calígula laureate Left. G CAESAR AVG GERMANICVS IMP PATER PATRIAE. Inscription- C C A. SCIPIONE ET MONTANO II VIR. AE 23,05 g. I-385. V- 154.1. RPC- 373. 

SPAIN, Caesaraugusta. Gaius (Caligula). AD 37-41. Æ As (30mm, 11.52 g, 6h). Licinianus and Germanus, duoviri. Laureate head left / Founder plowing right with yoke of oxen. ACIP 3100a; RPC I 371  (Joe Geranio Collection)



Caligula, as, Caesaraugusta, 37-41
A/G CAESAR AVG GERMANICVS IMP. Tête nue à gauche.
R/CCA/ SCIPIONE ET MONTANO/ II VIR.
Rare Agrippina with moneyers  SCIPIONE ET MONTANO - As. ÉPOCA DE CALÍGULA. CAESARAUGUSTA. Anv.: AGRIPPINA (M. F. MAT. G. CAESARIS) AVGVSTI. Cabeza de Agripina a derecha. Rev.: C. C. A. SCIPIONE ET MONTANO II VIR. 11,80 grs. AB-394. 

COINS FROM SPAIN AREA WITH PORTRAITS OF AGRIPPA/ STRUCK UNDER AUGUSTUS- (this is to show familial assimilation from AVG-Tiberius and Gaius Caligula)



SPAIN, Terraconensis. Carthago Nova. Agrippa. Died AD 12. Æ Semis (21mm, 4.27 g). Bare head of Agrippa right / Trophy. RPC I 164; SNG Copenhagen 491.



Joe Geranio
Julio Claudian Iconographic Association
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/julioclaudian/