vercingetorix coin

[bebotany]

Have researched regarding Vercingetorix but unable to find another coin like this.   Larger coin appears to be bronze(?). Please disregard smaller coin for now.  Thanks!

[Arminius]

Hello,

The smaller one is an Arab or eastern coin.
Are you shure the larger coin is genuine? (never saw one like this, the style and the surface look like a modern fatasy product for tourists).

Regards

[vic9128]

I agree that the Vercingetorix is a fake. I know you said to disregard the smaller coin, but we can't do that here!

It is an AE Jital from 'Ala al-Din Muhammed (1200 - 1220 AD)

http://www.grifterrec.com/coins/islam/khwarizmshah.html

[bebotany]

Thanks for the info.  Both of these coins were purchased in Afghanistan about a year ago.  Sorry to hear the Vercingetorix is a fake.  How would I confirm that?  I'm not a coin collector (yet!) and don't know who to submit it to for confirmation.

[Akropolis]

"How would I confirm that?  I'm not a coin collector (yet!) and don't know who to submit it to for confirmation.""

Save your money. It is a modern fantasy...not a fake of a real coin. No such coin was stuck in ancient times.

If you insist, contact David R. Sear. He will do it for you for a price:

http://www.davidrsear.com/

PeteB

[bebotany]

Nah, I'll save my money!  Got a good history lesson from the research though...

[Scipio Helveticus]

Nah, I'll save my money!

Wise.

The coin is attempting to be a denarius of the Roman Republic by L Hostilian Sasserna, and shows the head of a captive Vercingetorix on the obverse and a biga on the Reverse. A very interesting coin if it was real!

[berserkrro]

Even on this coin Vercingetorix is just presumed, not confirmed.

[Scipio Helveticus]

Well, if you look on coin archives theres an awful lot of them, so thats an awful lot of presumptions.

[berserkrro]

The funny thing is that you're right 

[Volodya]

Well, if you look on coin archives theres an awful lot of them, so thats an awful lot of presumptions.

There's a lot of vested interest, both financial and intellectual, behind the habitual description of these coins of L. Hostilius Sasserna as "Vercingetorix". In my opinion,  this description is almost certainly wrong, if we mean by it that the coin is intended as an actual portrait of the Gallic chieftain. The notion of devoting a coin to a defeated enemy, shown unfettered and defiant, seems very "un-Roman". In fact, has any coin-issuing power ever, anywhere, been so magnanimous as to depict the ruler of a vanquished foe like that? The closest the Romans came, barring the present instance, are the figures of Perseus and his sons on denarii of L. Aemilius Lepidus Paullus. They however are shown on the reverse, as tiny figures dwarfed by their captor. Crawford may be needlessly conservative in his description of the "Vercingetorix" type as merely a "male head", but I wouldn't go further than "head of male Gaul".

But...  in an oblique way, I think the coin may picture Vercingetorix after all, without being an intentional portrait. The head on the coins in question (found in two very distinct styles)  gives every indication of being other than a merely idealized Roman notion of a Gaul, of having been modeled from life, of depicting someone. Who better to have sat as a model than Vercingetorix, prominent, "photogenic", and readily to hand, languishing for years in a Roman jail?  I think it's at least a reasonable conjecture that the coin engraver, or perhaps a sculptor, was escorted into the dungeon, suitably guarded, where he made preliminary sketches of the captive. These would have been extrapolated at leisure into the coin "portraits" we see now. In this scenario, the coins would be likenesses of Vercingetorix, but depictions or "portraits" of a generalized "male Gaul".

Phil Davis

ps-- (Possibly a reader will recall a similar discussion in a Leu catalogue a year or two ago, but for sure, I didn't borrow this idea from Alan Walker. If anything, it's the other way around, although I'm willing to consider the possibility of a parallel development....)

[slokind]

I wonder whether you'd entertain as a cultural prototype, for want of a better term, for the heroizing of Gauls by Pergamon.  Surre, they're defeated, but they joined the ranks of Amazons and Scythians and Persians, enemies of nearly mythic stature.  So that romantic head of a Gaul on the denarius would certainly be one of Vercingetorix's kind at least, just as the "Dying Gaul" earlier and the heroic conquered Decebalus later, on the Column of Trajan, defeated but rather glorious, are.  Quite in a different class would be specific and historically better understood real, individual enemies like Hannibal.  Besides, I think it was originally a Greek tropos, not a Roman one, to glory in the heroic qualities of the defeated.  That is not to say that anyone had any idea of the individual, personal features of Vercingetorix.
Pat L.

[berserkrro]

Speaking abot Decebalus, there are Trajan coins with personification of Dacia or even with dacians on the reverse. I suppose Decebalus is not present on those types, for the same reason Vercingetorix is not present on this one, both were just considered enemies and dangerous in a certain moment, not more. I think that is just a head of a barbarian, so maybe not even a celt (as intention). If one looks in other representations of barbarians, they may have a close look. The Trajan's column was not done by eyewitnesses, but is the result of a real story and some witness's descriptions. Romans had the practice of elliminating everything that bothered them at a certain moment, from the memory of someone to enemies settlements.

[Akropolis]

Phil Davis writes:
"The notion of devoting a coin to a defeated enemy, shown unfettered and defiant, seems very "un-Roman". In fact, has any coin-issuing power ever, anywhere, been so magnanimous as to depict the ruler of a vanquished foe like that"

You say "un-Roman." Then what is the depiction? It seems plainly a Gual to me, so the Romans were indeed "un-Roman," right?

Then:
"But...  in an oblique way, I think the coin may picture Vercingetorix after all, without being an intentional portrait. The head on the coins in question (found in two very distinct styles)  gives every indication of being other than a merely idealized Roman notion of a Gaul,"

Seems you have come down squarely on both sides of the fence.   

Cheers,
PeteB

[Scipio Helveticus]

On reflection, I dont think this could be Vercingetorix either. A generalised gallic warrior, maybe. Perhaps if this was Caratacus, an enemy Rome pardoned, it would be be plausible. But from what I read Vercingetorix was detested as a traitor. It doesnt make sense to put a hated enemy upon a coin.....can you imagine a dime with the bust of Saddam Hussein?

[Volodya]

Seems you have come down squarely on both sides of the fence.   
Cheers,
PeteB

No, of course I haven't done that. I have no problem envisioning the Romans wanting to depict a fierce, pathos-laden idealization of their vanquished foe, the better to glorify their own accomplishments. Pat's analogy with the "Dying Gaul" statue is apt. I think though that there's an unbridgeable ideological gulf between that sort of idealization and an actual  portrait of the enemy leader. At the same time, the "Vercingetorix" coin does seem to represent the features of an particular person. I've suggested a possible explanation for that.

Perhaps an analogy will clarify the point. I think there's no doubt that James Earl Frasier's  depiction of a Native American on the US  "buffalo" nickel is an idealization, standing in for all Native Americans. It's not intended as a "portrait" of a particular individual. (I'm making an artistic point only, by the way, not a political judgment equating vanquished Gauls and vanquished Native Americans.) However, I have no doubt that Frasier had a model for his art, whether a live person or a photograph. Presumably, the features of the person on the finished coin reflected, with greater or lesser fidelity, the features of the model, without being anything that can be called a "portrait" of that person.

Phil Davis

[*Alex]

But...  in an oblique way, I think the coin may picture Vercingetorix after all, without being an intentional portrait. The head on the coins in question (found in two very distinct styles)  gives every indication of being other than a merely idealized Roman notion of a Gaul, of having been modeled from life, of depicting someone. Who better to have sat as a model than Vercingetorix, prominent, "photogenic", and readily to hand, languishing for years in a Roman jail?  I think it's at least a reasonable conjecture that the coin engraver, or perhaps a sculptor, was escorted into the dungeon, suitably guarded, where he made preliminary sketches of the captive. These would have been extrapolated at leisure into the coin "portraits" we see now. In this scenario, the coins would be likenesses of Vercingetorix, but depictions or "portraits" of a generalized "male Gaul".

The drawn, wild eyed features of the "Vercingetorix" portrait certainly look like those of someone who has maybe spent a year or two in the Mamertine.

Alex.

[mwilson603]

The drawn, wild eyed features of the "Vercingetorix" portrait certainly look like those of someone who has maybe spent a year or two in the Mamertine.

That's how I look after a few hours scalpeling coins, peering through a jewellers loupe 

[Numerianus]

Could someone provide an information who was the first claiming that the
head is of Vercingetorix or a Gaul? I would expect that the idea did appear
in XIX century in France in an attempt to derive the genealogy of the nation
from the heroic Gauls rather than from the first Francs kingdoms.

For centuries the obverse of coins was reserved for images of gods or
demigods -- heroes and rulers. The image of the ruler of the conquered country
on the obverse is in a striking contradiction with this tradition.   
The image of an Indien on coins has a different semantic, not of vanquished
foe. Already in Renaissance period images of Amerindiens were used as
elements in decorative arts. 

[Volodya]

Could someone provide an information who was the first claiming that the
head is of Vercingetorix or a gaul? I would expect that the idea did appear
in XIX century in France in an attempt to derive the genealogy of the nation
from the heroic Gauls rather than from first Francs kingdoms.

Grueber in the BM catalogue implies that Babelon was the first to see the male head in question as Vercingetorix, although others had already described him as a male Gaul. So your idea of XIX Century France is right on the money.

Phil Davis

[Joe Sermarini]

My guess is, the first to see the male head in question as Vercingetorx was a Roman. 

Phil Davis writes:
"The notion of devoting a coin to a defeated enemy, shown unfettered and defiant, seems very "un-Roman". In fact, has any coin-issuing power ever, anywhere, been so magnanimous as to depict the ruler of a vanquished foe like that"



Maybe not completely vanquished but Philip V was defeated. 

[rick fox]

It would be more "Roman" to show his head dangling from someone's outstretched hand.

On a side note, wasn't Vercingetorix starved to death?

[Jay GT4]

It would be more "Roman" to show his head dangling from someone's outstretched hand.

On a side note, wasn't Vercingetorix starved to death?

I thought he was killed in Caesar's triumph?

[Jochen]

Here is a Republican denarius depicting a Gaul warrior:
C. Poblicius Malleolus, gens Poblicia
AR - denarius serratus, 19.5mm, 3.8g
Narbo 118 BC (Crawford)
obv. C.MA - L - L - E.C.F
Head of Roma, with decorated and winged helmet, r.
X behind
rev. Nude Gallic warrior (Bituitus?), driving biga r., hurling spear and holding shield and carnyx.
below L.LIC.CN.DOM.
Crawford 282/3; Sydenham 524; RCV 158; Poblicia 1
about VF

The reverse commemorates the victory of L. Licinius Crassus and Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus over the Allobroges and their ally Bituitus, king of the Averni. It is one of the very few issues of the Roman Republic struck outside of Rome, this issue was struck in the newly founded city of Narbo in Gaul. These coins, minted by a number of moneyers at this time (and bearing their names) were important in establishing the republican chronology.

BTW I think Vercingetorix was strangled to death after the triumph in the Mamertine carcer.

Best regards

[slokind]

Can I use the word semiotic?  The head on the 'heads' of a coin, whether or not a portrait as distinct from a portrayal, stands for something different from a representation on the 'tails' of a coin.  Suppose that 'Vercingetorix' coin were ancient: it would be either a coin issued in his name OR a coin like the Alexanders issued in Macedon for Sev Alex where Alex Great is semiotic in the same way as Athena (or Armed Aphrodite, as one Swedish scholar thinks) for Corinth (that is why I used the vernacular terms 'heads' and 'tails', since in some places the head was on the punch die), or Ptolemy for Egypt, or Trajan, say, for Rome.  In that respect, if I am right, the representations on the 'tails', whether gods or heroes or enemies or animals or things, mortal or immortal, are semiotically different from the type on the 'heads'.  Just as the syntax and the 'level' of words appearing in text are part of their meaning, their semiosis, so the syntax of ancient coins is part of their meaning.
So the question would be whether the Gaulish head is a Gaul in the same way as a Pan or a Satyr is of that kind at Panticapaeum, or whether it is a portrait of the individual whom we meet in Caesar, who was evidently impressive enough to become, as it were, an Alexander to the Gauls.
I don't know the answer, but that is (I think) the question.
Pat L.

[Numerianus]

[Douglas]

[slokind]