Object carried on hut coin

[moonmoth]

This centenionalis of Constans from Arelate, RIC VIII Arles 106 SARL, has an interesting feature.  The object carried by the small figure seems to be made up of a series of bobbles.  Of the 208 hut coins in my collection, this is the only one that looks like this.

This might partly be because hut coins from Arelate are scarce on the market.  (This is my 5th.)

The question is, is this just a decorative excess, or does it represent some real or imagined feature of the object carried?  I have a fallen horseman from Constantinople on which the spear is engraved like this, as a series of dots, so decorative excess on the coin as opposed to on the actual object represented is a possibility.  But it would be interesting if it was supposed to be representative.

Most of this type of carried object are straight or curved lines, in some cases thought to be shields because of the nature of the curve, though if so it is interesting that they are never shown as ovals.  Others are dumbell-shaped, and maybe this represents a small figure-eight shield.  Yet more are clearly meant to be the arm itself, hand held in front of the face.  I wonder if this one is just supposed to be a stick, and in this case, a notched stick?

Also please enjoy the tree and hut types, found only from Arelate.  (Well, I enjoyed them, anyway.)

[Jochen]

Hi Moonmoth!

We know the meaning of this type: The Romans have led Francs over the Rhine to Taxandria where they should defend the Roman Empire as armed farmers against the barbaric Germans. It was a more or less peaceful treaty. So the object in the hand of the barbarian can well be a weapon. I vote for a rod!

What a beautiful tree!

Best regards

[moonmoth]

With all due regard to that theory, there are others .. this type of coin was produced in 13 mints across the empire, from Arelate to Antioch, and the small figure is always much smaller and weaker than the soldier; not an obvious choice to fight for Rome.  Sometimes his hand is empty, sometimes it is held in front of his face as though shielding his eyes.  So, there is the theory that this is a child-like barbarian being led into the light of the empire, not as a fighter, just being introduced to the benefits of civilisation by the irresistible armed might of Rome.  On some coins, he is being led at spearpoint. 

There is also the theory that the restoration of good times on this FEL TEMP REPARATIO coin includes the provision of slaves.

See how puny the small figure is on the Alexandrian coin on the left, and the threat of the spear against the unarmed figure on the coin from Treveri on the right.  That doesn't look very peaceful!

[Robert_Brenchley]

Technique wise, that effect could be achieved quite quickly with a bowdrill, a fine bit, and lots of previous practice. What it oertrays I have no idea.

[slokind]

Yes, we have seen Salus's snake executed the same way; I think the thread got put in Classical Numismatics; I think we were trying to ascertain what a snake, with a forked tongue, could be getting from that patera.  Anyway, the snake's body looked like a string of beads, viz., a row of indentations made with a bore drill.
Pat L.

[Steve Minnoch]

Is it in fact an object being held, or something drooping down from the hut, an attempt at the edge of the door?

Steve

[moonmoth]

That's an excellent thread on Salus - thanks, Pat.

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=22423.25

But it doesn't include the depiction of the snake as a row of dots.  That must be somewhere else. But I am familiar with that type of snake, and I think it might  represent the vivid banded or diamond patterns so common on snakes.  Sometimes it's just dots, sometimes it is more complicated.

Here are the Constantius II fallen horseman I mentioned, from an old photo; a dotted snake held by Valetudo on a denarius of Mn. Acilius Glabrio, and a Salus snake looking decorative on an eastern denarius of Severus Alexander.

[Arminius]

I think the dots are the artist´s means to depict the scaled skin of serpents:

[moonmoth]

Yes, that seems very reasonable.  That would mean that the spear and most likely also the object that I started this thread with are dotted for a different reason.  Certainly, the spear would not be scaly.

[maridvnvm]

I must admit that my first reaction when I saw the coin was that the hands / wrists had been bound. Remeber that the hands are being held by the soldier as the captive is being dragged from the hut and so they could't be holding anything. Id could be something else entirely though.
Neat variation.
Regards,
Martin

[moonmoth]

Well, quite often the other hand is visible, obviously not tied; for example on the Treveri coin above.  But that's an interesting idea for those coins where the second hand is not visible.

[Barabus]

 Could it represent a rope?

[slokind]

Dots ON a snake or shield are one thing; on the snake of Pautalia they show its toad-warty skin.
Dots in a row CONSTITUTING something are different.
Pat L.

[moonmoth]

I know this is a biological digression, but I'm doing it anyway .. Toads are amphibians, and have warty skins.  Snakes are reptiles, and do not.  Of course, that Pautalian snake might be magical or mythical and have unreal qualities; it also has a horn and a beard, not common on actual snakes.  They also sometimes have radiant auras on these coins.

[Jochen]

The object in question could well be hold by the r. hand of the soldier! His r. hand is worn or corroded away, so it is not clear but possible. Then Martins idea with the tight hands of the barbarian would be the explanation: A rope by which the soldier with his r. hand holds the barbarian and drags him out of his hut.

The idea with the snake I think is beside the point. Why should the barbarian hold a snake - an animal which in principle is suggested as sacred?

Best regards

[moonmoth]

When the soldier's right hand is clearly seen, it is always grasping one of the small figure's hands.  Sometimes it seems to be clasping that hand onto the spear haft, but this might just be a overlap. This is about the least variable thing on these coins, so I would be surprised to find it otherwise on this one.  But I willingly accept all suggestions for consideration.

The snake is only in the discussion because it is often formed of a series of dots, like the object under discussion.  It is the meaning behind the use of the technique that is relevant, not the likeness of a snake.  In other words, did the engraver mean to suggest that the object was scaly, bumpy, or strongly decorated, or what?

Bill

[moonmoth]

Here's an interesting coin, received today, which shows up the ambiguity of the object in question.

This is RIC VIII Antioch 126 ANS, and is a well struck, very sharp specimen which unfortunately has a lot of blue-green encrustation on the reverse.

But using a 31mm extension tube (see https://www.forumancientcoins.com/moonmoth/photo_coins02b.html for details of how) I was able to bring out a lot of useful detail.  I have actually reduced it in size considerably for the image below; the useful detail still shows up well.

Here you can see that the soldier is gripping the small figure's right arm, and its left arm is held in front of the body with the hand in front of the face (under a blue-green blob). All three arms are clad in something with horizontal ribs, and all are definitely arms.  The ribbing might be wool on the small figure.

Now, the object on the coin at the top of this thread is held in a different position.  But there are intermediate forms on other coins, and the nature of the arm or object is often not nearly as obvious as it is here.

This is a nice sharp coin.  You can even see the detail of the leather strapwork of the soldier's army boot.

[Rupert]

An interesting coin; the posture of the barbarian deserves some attention, I think.

Note how he sets his right foot back, as to resist the soldier, so we see his body from half-front and his two arms projected over one another in the picture. The soldier holds his left hand, in the right hand he holds this unknown object which, to me, looks like a flute?!?

Rupert

[moonmoth]

These coins vary so much in their small details that you get a better idea of what might be intended by looking at many of them.

One foot of the small figure is always behind the other, in a stepping-forward position.  We can assume he is being pulled or led forward by the soldier who always grasps a hand.  That's a good idea about the position of the left foot sometimes indicating resistance.

It is almost always clear that it is the right hand of the small figure that is being held by the soldier.  Either you can see it coming from the shoulder, or you can see the left arm crossing behind it.  It might be relevant that this would normally be the hand that would wield a weapon.

Where it looks as though something is being carried, that thing is also behind the arm which is being held.  It is partly because such an object is in the non-weapon-hand that it could be a shield.

I only have two coins which clearly show the left hand being held.  On one, the right hand is held out and open; on the other, it is held in front of the face.  These coins suggest that something similar is intended for the left arm when the right hand is being held.  I would very much like to see a coin in which the left arm is held, and there is a clear depiction of some object in the right hand, clearly visible to us!

Here are the examples I show on my hut coin analysis page.

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/moonmoth/hut_analysis.html

Both of the coins where the left arm is being held are in this group:

[Heliodromus]

My immediate reaction is that the curved object shown in 4b is a bow (bow & arrow), and the other examples are probably attempting the same.

Ben

[Rupert]

Hey, look at #3a - isn't that obviously a bow?!?

Rupert

[moonmoth]

Yes, you might think so, and there's a footnote in RIC VIII about a coin in the Sydenham hoard where the figure appears to be carrying a bow.   But although we think that looks bow-like, that's not how bows were usually depicted on Roman coins. They showed recurved shapes.  (RIC does not say what the shape actually is on the specimen they refer to.) It's not so easy to find late Roman examples, but here's one from Coin Archives.

That pure curved shape appears only on a very few coins from Heraclea. 

Some of those other objects are straight, straight with a bend in the middle, and dumbell-shaped.  If 3a is an arm, which looks pretty certain, is 3b not also an arm, with the hand held a little away from the face?  Then, 4a is not all that different, but might also be a dumbell-shaped shield.  It doesn't look much like a bow of either sort.  Actually, I think a shield is more likely even for the "bow" shape.  Below is a traditional dumbell or figure-eight shaped shield on a Republican denarius, also from Coin Archives.

[moonmoth]

Here's a bit more information.  I have 5 examples of that specific coin, RIC VIII Heraclea 64, all from the same mint run.  (I have been watching out for them because of that interesting shape.) Here are the small figures from each, showing what is carried. They are: 1) a smooth curve; 2) a smooth curve; 3) a straight line well away from the body, with a bend in the middle; 4) a straight line, slightly lumpy, getting on towards that dumbell-shape or even an arm in appearance; 5) a straight line held away from the body, bent just slightly the other way in the middle.  The lack of consistency does not make for an easy interpretation!