(2009) 'Becoming Jupiter: Severus Alexander, the temple of Jupiter Ultor, and Jovian iconography on Roman imperial coinage', American Journal of Numismatics 21:123-150

© 2009 The American Numismatic Society AJN Second Series 21 (2009) pp. 123–150 Becoming Jupiter: Severus Alexander, The Temple of Jupiter Ultor, and Jovian Iconography on Roman Imperial Coinage Clare Rowan*** This paper explores the evidence for Severus Alexander’s conversion of the Elagabalium into a temple to Jupiter Ultor. Close analysis of the numismatic material calls into question modern ideas about the way in which legend and image interacted on Roman coinage, particularly on Jovian types. A new understanding of how Roman coinage communicated the increasing alignment between the emperor and Jupiter is employed to gain a better understanding of the numismatic evidence for the temple of Jupiter Ultor. In AD 222, the emperor Elagabalus was overthrown and replaced by his cousin, Severus Alexander. Elagabalus’ reign had been characterized by the worship of a cultic stone from Emesa, a move that proved unpopular with the elite of Rome. Severus Alexander came to power as the restorer of Roman mores, Roman culture and religion. The cult stone of Emesa was banished from Rome and the public space dedicated to the cult was intentionally transformed to signal the return to ‘traditional’ Roman cultic practices. Part of this process was the conversion of the Elagabalium on the Palatine, the temple constructed by Elagabalus to the Emesene god Elagabal. * clare.rowan@students.mq.edu.au ** The research for this paper was conducted while a student at the American Numismatic Society Graduate Summer Seminar. I am indebted to all the staff of the ANS for their advice and assistance, and to those scholars who visited the ANS during the 2007 seminar and offered their expertise. Thanks are also due to the anonymous readers of this paper for their helpful suggestions and to the Australian Centre for Ancient Numismatic Studies for its continuing support of this project. 123 124 Clare Rowan Figure 1. Coin of Elagabalus (Sambon, 18 November 1907, lot 2546; RIC IV.2 Elagabalus 339). This paper examines the archaeological and numismatic evidence for the construction of the Elagabalium on the Palatine, as well as the evidence for the temple’s conversion. Given the complications presented by the numismatic evidence, this article will also suggest a new model for understanding the representations of Jupiter on imperial coinage. Rather than seeing Jovian imagery on a coin as a strict expression of the coin’s legend, this paper suggests that image and legend could diverge, a phenomenon created by the alignment between the emperor and Jupiter in this period. The iconography and epithets of Jupiter developed significantly from the reign of Commodus in order to communicate the increasing association between the emperor and Jupiter in the second and third centuries AD. By understanding how Jupiter was presented on Roman coinage, we gain a better understanding of the temple of Jupiter Ultor, as well as the ideology of Severus Alexander’s rule. It is clear that Jupiter acted as a patron deity under Alexander, in stark contrast to his predecessor. Monumentalizing the Foreign: The Temple to Elagabal on the Palatine Literary evidence describes two structures to the god Elagabal in Rome. One temple was located on the Palatine, and the other in the outer suburbs of the city.1 The site of the Palatine temple can be placed with some certainty on the site of the Vigna Barberini. Bigot was the first to propose this identification, observing that the remains of this site closely correlated to a temple shown on a coin of Elagabalus (Figure 1).2 The piece shows a temple with a large area in front, surrounded by porticoes, and containing a monumental staircase with a pentapylum surmounted by statues. The legend reads P M TR P V COS IIII P P S C. It was once part of the Gnecchi collection and is in the Münzkabinett of the Staatliche Museum in Berlin, preserved only in a photograph in I Medaglioni Romani and in the Martinetti catalogue.3 In the latter it is described as a petit médaillon, though it is listed in 1. Hdn. 5.5.8; SHA Heliogab. 1.6, 3.4–5. 2. Bigot (1911), 80–85. 3. Gnecchi III: 41 no. 6, pl. 152 no. 11. The coin was originally part of the Martinetti collection, and was sold in Sambon 11/18/1907. See Sambon, Canessa et al. (1907: pl. XXXII, Becoming Jupiter 125 RIC as an as.4 Without a recorded weight and without the piece to consult, it is difficult to assess whether it was a medallion or not. Nothing on the piece identifies the temple as the Elagabalium, though this is the likeliest interpretation considering the visual emphasis on the cult in Elagabalus’ final years. Chausson believed that he saw the sacred stone of Emesa surmounted by an eagle behind the altar, and Brown suggested that the upright object in the tympanum of the temple may have been the sacred stone, but the poor quality of the surviving photographs prevent any conclusive identifications.5 Four figures are shown sacrificing in front of the temple, probably Elagabalus (the largest figure) and Severus Alexander. The two other figures may represent the imperial women or sacrificial attendants. The piece dates from the final months of Elagabalus’ reign, between December AD 221 and March AD 222. French excavations of the Vigna Barberini have confirmed Bigot’s hypothesis that the site probably housed Elagabalus’ temple. It contains a Domitianic terrace measuring 180m by 120m, built over a Julio-Claudian domus.6 This terrace supported a temple (60m by 40m) surrounded by porticoes, similar to the structure depicted on the piece of Elagabalus. The entrance to the complex comprised three large sections of stairs. Though the archaeological remains contain bricks stamped with the name of Faustina the Younger, the large amount of anepigraphic bricks (used from the reign of Caracalla) and other material found at the site strongly suggest a date in the second half of the Severan period.7 The complex matches Herodian’s description of Elagabal’s temple as both large and beautiful.8 The location of the Vigna Barberini fits with the observation of the Historia Augusta that the Elagabalium was close to the imperial palace.9 The church of Saint Sebastian, which once stood on the site, also provides incidental evidence to connect the area to Elagabalus. The church was erected on what was believed to be the place of the saint’s martyrdom, ‘the steps of Heliogabalus.’10 Despite the rededication by Severus Alexander, it is evident that the area retained its earlier associations: problems surrounding the historical reliability of the Acta of Saint Sebastian do not detract from its topographical evidence. The site later housed a church dedicated to the Virgin Mary, Saint Sebastian, and Saint Zoticus. The incluno. 2546). Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin 1909/61, object number 18205364. 4. RIC IV.2 Elagabalus 339. 5. Chausson (1995), 737; Brown (1941), 161. 6. Broise and Thébert (1999), 730. 7. Broise and Thébert (1999), 740. 8. Hdn. 5.5.8. 9. Lugli’s thesis that the phrase iuxta aedes imperatorias in the Historia Augusta referred to the temple of Augustus has since been convincingly refuted by Castagnoli (1979: 340). 10. Acta S. Sebastiani Martyris 23 (PL 17. Col 1056B). 126 Clare Rowan Figure 2. Sestertius of Severus Alexander (Hamburger, 19 October 1925, lot 1292; RIC IV.2 Severus Alexander 412.) sion of the latter is significant when one recalls Elagabalus’ lover was also named Zoticus.11 It may be that this figure was chosen as a focal point for the conversion of the site from pagan to Christian.12 The confluence of evidence suggests that the Vigna Barberini was the site of Elagabalus’ temple. The ability of an emperor to construct a large and magnificent temple in a four-year reign has been met with scepticism in the modern era. Jerome records that the temple was dedicated in AD 220, just two years into Elagabalus’ rule.13 Consequently, many believe that Elagabalus transformed an earlier structure into his Elagabalium.14 The remaining literary and archaeological evidence belies this hypothesis. The verbs used to describe Elagabalus’ actions (constituere and facere in the Historia Augusta, aedificare in Jerome) suggest that the structure was constructed from scratch.15 The archaeological remains also indicate a single, coherent structure, built in the first half of the third century.16 Situated on an older terrace, the Elagabalium was not a renovation of an existing structure; it was an entirely new building. Avenging Roman Religion: The Temple to Jupiter Ultor As part of the restoration program of Severus Alexander, the Elagabalium was converted. The evidence for this is primarily numismatic, though the archaeo11. Dio 80.16.1ff; SHA Heliogab. 10.2–7. 12. Marchiori (2007), 273. 13. Jerome Ad. Abraham 296 g (Helm). 14. Castagnoli (1979: 332) provides a summary of the various suggestions of what may have stood on the hill before the reign of Elagabalus. These include a temple to Apollo, the temple of Augustus, the Adonea, the tomb of Antinoös (Grenier and Coarelli 1986: 230–253), a temple to Faustina the Younger (Cecamore 1999: 311–349) as well as the temple to Jupiter Victor. 15. Optendrenk (1969), 85. 16. Broise and Thébert (1999), 736–745. Becoming Jupiter 127 logical remains also suggest two phases of building activity within a short time of each other, probably in the reign of Elagabalus followed by Severus Alexander.17 Bigot was the first to suggest that Severus Alexander rededicated the Elagabalium, converting it into a temple to Jupiter Ultor.18 The numismatic evidence here is compelling. Coins of Severus Alexander display a structure remarkably similar to that seen under Elagabalus, accompanied by the legend IOVI VLTORI (Figure 2).19 It is the similarity between the piece of Elagabalus and the structure shown on the coinage of Severus Alexander that forms the basis for the idea that the temple was converted.20 Both the Elagabalian and Alexandrian pieces show a temple with a large area in front, surrounded by porticoes with a colonnade or gateway. Both also show evidence of opus quadratum. The similarities are so striking that one might suggest that the die engravers of the later coins were conscious of Elagabalus’ earlier issue and set out to visually communicate the rededication of the building to a god more in keeping with traditional Roman religion. If this were the case, the temple was consciously portrayed in a similar manner to Elagabalus’ piece to emphasise this conversion of sacred space. The epithet given to Jupiter in this instance is striking—VLTOR, or avenger. The legend reflected the wider rhetoric that accompanied the overthrow of Elagabalus and Alexander’s rise to the throne. Normally an epithet of Mars, it had only ever appeared once before in relation to Jupiter, on an aureus of Commodus.21 The complete rededication of a Roman temple on the Palatine was extraordinary, although the conversion of buildings associated with an emperor who 17. Broise and Thébert (1999), 745. 18. Bigot (1911), 80–85. 19. Medallion: BMC VI Severus Alexander 209*, 210*. As: RIC IV.2 Severus Alexander 413. Sestertii: BMC VI Severus Alexander 208* Pl. 8; Hill 1960: pl. 8 no. 8; Münzhandlung Basel, Auction 3 (4 March 1935), lot 762 and 763 (described as a “petite medallion,” diameter 27.2 mm); Gnecchi II no. 7; Glending (16–21 November 1950), lot 1802; Leu Münzen und Medallion (2–3 November 1967), lot 1422; J. Schulman (8–10 June 1966), lot 2045; Hamburger 96 (25 October 1932), lot 953. 20. The similarities between the structure portrayed on the piece of Elagabalus and that shown on the coinage of Severus Alexander had already been noted by Sambon. See Sambon, Canessa et al. (1907: 204, no. 2546). 21. RIC III Commodus 200, reliant on Cohen 261. I have not been able to find a specimen of the coin. Cohen may have been mistaken in his record (VLTORI and VICTORI look very similar on a worn legend) and thus Severus Alexander may have been the first to give the epithet VLTORI to Jupiter on imperial coinage. Cohen recorded that the specimen was in the British Museum, but the BM catalogue reports that it is not. Though there is no recorded aurei with the legend IOVI VICTORI for Commodus, there are sestertii bearing this legend (RIC III Commodus 291). Ultor as an epithet of Jupiter appears in inscriptions, but only rarely. See Angeli (1971: 151–152), also incidental evidence for the easy confusion between the epithets VICTOR and VLTOR. 128 Clare Rowan Figure 3. Denarius of Severus Alexander (Dr. Busso Peus Nachfolger Auction 369, 31 October 2001, lot 688; RIC IV.2 Severus Alexander 144) suffered damnatio memoriae had precedent.22 The fact that the Romans took the unusual step of removing the Emesene god from Rome and converting the temple underlines just how closely the emperor Elagabalus and his deity were aligned. The damnatio of one necessarily entailed a damnatio of the other. The conversion of the temple was as necessary as the overthrow of the emperor; the vices of Elagabalus’ regime were inherently connected with the structure. The nature of the cult installed in the converted Elagabalium remains the subject of debate. Hill argued that Alexander merely re-installed the cult that had originally occupied the building. This viewpoint demands that Elagabalus had converted an existing structure. The foundations of Hill’s argument were the coin types of Alexander that portrayed a seated Jupiter holding Victory and a scepter, with the legend IOVI VLTORI (Figure 3).23 The image reproduces the iconic statue of Jupiter Victor. The representation of this particular statue type led Hill to suggest that Elagabalus converted the temple of Jupiter Victor, and that it was restored under Alexander. As noted above, however, archaeological remains show that the temple was a new construction. A more sophisticated approach to the representation of Jupiter under Severus Alexander and his predecessors can reconcile the disparity between the numismatic and the archaeological evidence. Severus Alexander’s coinage, and the iconographic divergences within it, is better understood from a larger contextual framework. Between Man and God: Jovian imagery on Roman imperial coinage Traditionally in Roman Imperial numismatics the image on a coin has been seen as an expression of the accompanying legend. One expects IOVI VICTORI to be accompanied by a representation of the cult statue of this god holding a scepter and Victory. That is, the legend describes the image. The numismatic representation of the temple of Jupiter Ultor brings this strict framework of interpretation into question. Often the legend and image could possess subtly different nuances, and the 22. For example Nero’s domus aurea, seen as an embodiment of the emperor’s extravagance. Successive emperors went to considerable efforts to cover areas of the palace with pointedly utilitarian public buildings. See Griffin (1984), 137. 23. Hill (1960), 119–120. Becoming Jupiter 129 legend came to be given greater weight in the expression of a coin’s message. The focus of our discussion illustrates this point: Severus Alexander’s denarii displayed the statue type of Jupiter Victor, but this image was accompanied by the legend IOVI VLTORI, an epithet that communicated the revenge of Elagabalus’ offences. The legend could convey specific concepts and events with more detail than its pictorial counterpart. The Roman mint came to utilize this to great effect. Hill employed a more traditional perspective and identified the statue in the temple of Jupiter Ultor from Alexander’s denarii (Figure 3). He believed the statue in the temple was that of Jupiter Victor since this was what accompanied the IOVI VLTORI legend. This would make sense if Elagabalus had converted the temple to Jupiter Victor and Alexander had rededicated it. Hill believed this was the case, noting that regional catalogues list a temple to Jupiter Victor on the Palatine. He acknowledged the discrepancy between the statue type of Jupiter Victor and the legend naming Jupiter Ultor, and suggested that divine statue types could be given different names. For Hill, the same statue type of Jupiter could be given several different names according to the capacity in which the god acted. Jupiter Capitolinus could act as an avenger, a conserver, or in any other capacity. The statue type of Jupiter Capitolinus could thus be paired with the legend IOVI VLTORI, IOVI CONSERVATORI, or with any other epithet. Consequently (according to Hill) Severus Alexander could rededicate the temple of Jupiter Victor, but label it Jupiter Ultor, since here Jupiter Victor was acting in the capacity of revenge. Hill believed that the decision to place VLTOR on the coinage was to ‘placate the god after the sacrilegious acts of Elagabalus.’24 The inherent messiness (to the modern mind) of Roman religious thought should not be underestimated, but Hill’s interpretation remains unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. The epithet VLTOR on the coinage portraying the temple and the statue type of Jupiter Victor suggests that the temple was dedicated to Jupiter Ultor. If Alexander had restored the temple of Jupiter Victor, one would imagine he would restore the full cult, including the god’s epithet. Tameanko also realized this problem and suggested that Elagabalus did convert the temple of Jupiter Victor, but that Alexander rededicated it to Jupiter Ultor.25 If this were the case one would expect it to be named as such in the later regional catalogues, but only a temple to Jupiter Victor is mentioned.26 A better solution to the problem might be found through a closer examination of the coinage concerned. Such an investigation brings the identification of the cult statue of the temple into question. Denarii have been the main basis for the reconstruction of the cult statue, but an examination of the bronze issues is 24. Hill (1960), 119. 25. Tameanko (1999), 149. 26. Notitia Regio X Palatium 11: aedem Iovis victoris. 130 Clare Rowan illuminating. The statue inside the temple does not hold Victory in his right hand, but another object, most likely a patera (cf. Figure 2).27 Jupiter was commonly portrayed with this attribute in the provinces and is also portrayed seated with a patera on an issue of Caracalla.28 The statue of the god in the temple was portrayed in a different fashion to those coins that only displayed Jupiter himself. This may seem disconcerting, but a broader examination of Roman imperial coinage indicates that the epithets and iconography of Jupiter do not always correlate to modern ideas concerning the representation of cult statues. We would anticipate the legend IOVI VICTORI to be accompanied by the statue type of Jupiter seated, holding Victory and a scepter. In many instances this is the case.29 However the same epithet is also accompanied by the image of Jupiter standing, holding Victory and a scepter (RIC IV.1 Clodius Albinus 25, 26), seated, holding a thunderbolt and Victory (RIC IV.1 Clodius Albinus 27), the head of Jupiter Ammon (RIC IV.1 Septimius Severus 272), and Jupiter in a quadriga hurling thunderbolts against the giants (RIC IV.1 Septimius Severus 204). Conversely, the statue type of Jupiter Victor (seated, holding Victory and a scepter) appears on Roman coinage not only with the legends IOVI VLTORI and IOVI VICTORI, but with the legends IOVI CONSER(vatori), IOVI CAP(itolino) PR(aesidi) VRB(is), IOVI INVICTO, IOVI PRAE(sens) and IOVI PRAE(sens) OR(bis).30 All of the latter epithets occur under Pescennius Niger and Septimius Severus, suggesting that a standard type of Jupiter was employed in a dialogue between the two competitors to the throne in the East. This particular usage occurred in (a) mint(s) outside Rome, as did Albinus’ diverse iconography accompanying the legend IOVI VICTORI. One may be tempted to interpret this as the decision of a provincial die cutter to use a well-known type in the absence of a more sophisticated understanding of the intricacies of Jovian iconography, but the occurrence of the same phenomenon within the Roman mint negates this idea. 27. BMC VI Severus Alexander 207* lists the object as a thunderbolt. This is also a possible alternative, though the shape of the object, particularly on the medallion published in Gnecchi (no. 7) argues in favour of a patera. Whatever the object, it is clear that it is not Victory. Examples of this type can be found in n.19 above. 28. RIC IV.1 Caracalla 287. Jupiter is also shown standing with a patera on a coin of Vespasian with the legend IOVIS CVSTOS (RIC II Vespasian 124). 29. E.g. RIC I Vitellius 68, RIC II Domitian 253, RIC II Hadrian 251, RIC III Commodus 291, RIC III Marcus Aurelius 1612, RIC IV.1 Septimius Severus 441B, RIC IV.1 Caracalla 200. 30. CONSERVATORI: RIC IV.1 Pescennius Niger 42, RIC IV.1 Septimius Severus 111A, 130, 504A. IOVI CAP PR VRB: Bland, Burnett et al. (1987: 68), Group II no. 4. INVICTO: RIC IV.1 Septimius Severus 480. PRAE(sens): Classical Numismatic Group, Mail Bid Sale 61 (25 September 2002) lot 1850. IOVI PRAE OR: Fritz Rudolf Künker Münzenhandlung, Auction 83 (2003) lot 1018. Becoming Jupiter 131 Here we have examined Jupiter Victor, but one may just as easily identify the same occurrence with other epithets and cult statues of Jupiter.31 Hill’s explanation that ‘each aspect of the god could be, and often was, assumed by any one of the others’ does not seem an adequate explanation for this divergence of legend and image on Roman coinage.32 Jupiter could operate in any number of ways, but the giving of an epithet to a deity suggested that he had acted in that capacity.33 IOVI VLTORI suggests that Jupiter had acted in revenge, not that Jupiter Victor had acted in this capacity. The epithet defined a particular aspect of a god. A close examination of the legends referring to Jupiter on imperial coinage shows an increasing tendency towards new, very specific epithets for the god. The use of these specific epithets becomes particularly marked from the time of Commodus, under whom the following types were struck:34 1. IOVI EXSVPER. Jupiter seated l., holding branch and scepter (RIC III Commodus 138, 152–153, 483, 488). Exsuperatoria was an epithet taken by Commodus in AD 112, and was the new name for the month of November.35 2. IOVI IVVENI. Jupiter standing l., holding thunderbolt and scepter; at feet, eagle (RIC III Commodus 499, 525, 532). This type is perhaps best understood as an allusion to the return of the Golden Age (when Jupiter was young) under the youthful rule of Commodus.36 3. I.O.M. SPONSOR SEC AVG. Commodus standing l., holding globe and scepter; Jupiter standing l., placing r. arm on emperor’s shoulder and holding thunderbolt (RIC III Commodus 255). This type was struck in AD 191, after the fall of Cleander.37 4. IOVI DEFENS SALVTIS AVG. Jupiter standing r., holding spear in l. hand and about to hurl thunderbolt in r.; in field, seven stars (RIC III Commodus 256, 597). Struck in AD 191, it can be connected with the type above. 5. IOVI CONSERVATORI. Jupiter standing l., holding thunderbolt and scepter; below thunderbolt, Commodus standing l., holding trophy (RIC Commo31. For example, Jupiter Conservator, who is normally portrayed standing, holding a thunderbolt and scepter. The legend CONSERVATOR is also on coins showing the statue type of Jupiter Victor (RIC IV.1 Pescennius Niger 41) and an eagle on a thunderbolt (RIC II Domitian 40). The type of Jupiter with a thunderbolt and scepter also appears with the legend IOV IVVEN (RIC III Commodus 173). 32. Hill (1960: 113). 33. Rives (2007: 15). 34. Only those coins with a specific legend are listed here; Commodus also struck several types of Jupiter without a specific epithet. This increase in the association of Jupiter with the image of the emperor is also noted by Fears (1981: 101). 35. Dio 73.15.3–4; Fears (1981: 111–112). 36. Hill (1960: 115). 37. Hill (1960: 115). 132 Clare Rowan dus (as Caesar under Marcus Aurelius) 1524). Issued in AD 175/176, when Commodus was on military campaign. (?) 6. IOVI VLTORI. Jupiter seated l., holding Victory and scepter. The existence of this coin is questionable (see n. 21 above). What emerges from these examples is that the legend on the coin comes to have very specific reference to the emperor’s situation. Epithets and attributes of Jupiter are employed to communicate personal imperial circumstances; even those epithets of Jupiter that are more traditional are used only when they allude to the emperor.38 Such a development should not be surprising; the emperor and Jupiter were often closely aligned in Roman thought, both being the supreme rulers of their respective kingdoms. But in this period it appears the alignment between the human and divine ruler became more defined, and was expressed through specific epithets. The analysis of Commodus’ rule by Hekster and Bergmann underlines this idea: Jupiter’s image on coins of Commodus bears a striking resemblance to the emperor himself, particularly the god’s eyes and beard.39 The ‘Commodian’ Jupiter highlights the fact that the close alignment between the emperor and the head of the Roman pantheon also developed within numismatic iconography. Jupiter as the conservator of the emperor had been a motif on coinage since the time of Trajan, with the god shown standing over a smaller figure of the emperor in a protective stance.40 This type is developed under Commodus with his SPONSOR SEC AVG series (no. 3 above). The emperor is now the same height as his divine counterpart. The visual connection between Jupiter and the emperor gains even more specificity under Septimius Severus. Jupiter is shown towering over two children, presumably meant to represent Caracalla and Geta.41 On an aureus of Septimius Jupiter is portrayed seated between the gods Liber Pater and Hercules.42 The latter two gods were the tutelary deities of Lepcis Magna and acted as the emperor’s patron deities during his reign. Their portrayal with Jupiter, 38. The phenomenon did not start with Commodus, merely became more prominent under his reign. An earlier, contextually specific use of the god is RIC I 62 (IVPPITER LIBERATOR, depicting Jupiter seated l., holding thunderbolt and scepter) struck during the civil wars of AD 68–69. Standard epithets of Jupiter (Propagnator, Conservator, and so on) also normally had topical reference. For example, RIC III Marcus Aurelius 1224, a coin with the legend PROPVGNATORI and portraying Jupiter hurling a thunderbolt at an enemy, was probably a reference to the triumph held for victories over the Germans and Sarmatians at the end of AD 176, or perhaps to plans for a military campaign in AD 178. 39. Bergmann (1998: 265); Hekster (2002: 102). 40. RIC II Trajan 249–250. 41. RIC IV.1 Septimius Severus 226, 233, 243. This type is also present on a medal of Marcus Aurelius (Gnecchi 52), though presumably here the two figures represent Aurelius and Lucius Verus. 42. Hill (1982: 159–60). Becoming Jupiter 133 a unique numismatic type, was a result of their strong connection to Severus. Numismatic iconography thus also reflects the increasing articulation of the connection between the emperor and Jupiter. We now return to the cult statue in the temple of Jupiter Ultor. It is likely that the statue in the temple of Jupiter Ultor was seated, holding a patera and scepter. This is what is portrayed on the coinage showing the temple itself. A different image (the statue type of Jupiter Victor) was employed on other issues, but this can be attributed to the methodology of the mint. In portraying the complex association between the emperor and Jupiter, the mint employed what might be described as a more creative approach to iconography and legends than was previously the case. The first stage of this process was the depiction of the emperor in the direct company of Jupiter, who acted as the guarantor and protector of imperial power. This resulted in iconography that did not merely reproduce traditional cult statues (like Jupiter Victor), but employed imagery that captured the contemporary conceptualization of god and ruler. This is not to suggest that statues showing Jupiter protecting the emperor did not exist, merely that the artistic tradition that created both the statues and the numismatic types begins to express the connection between the emperor and the god in a way not seen before, at least on coinage. This iconographic movement is followed by a growth in legends referring to specific and contemporary personal circumstances of the emperor and/or empire. The use of a new epithet to express a specific imperial situation did not necessarily result in the founding of a new temple or the creation of a new cult statue on which die engravers could base their designs. For instance, the connection between Jupiter and Commodus’ new calendar (IOVI EXSVPER) may not have necessarily equated to a new cult statue or temple. Nor perhaps could the types marking Commodus’ escape from the plot of Cleander (IOVI DEFENS SALVTIS AVG) necessarily draw upon a standard cult statue created for the occasion. Rather it seems that the Roman mint employed more standard images of Jupiter in conjunction with these new legends. In their desire to communicate the contemporary relationship between the emperor and Jupiter the mint began to express concepts more specific than could be encapsulated in a cult statue. Yet for the most part the mint was still reliant on an accepted repertoire of Jovian imagery. Jupiter had to remain recognizable. In consequence, the legend of the coin moved beyond the iconography. This explains how the image of Jupiter Victor came to be issued in conjunction with a series of diverse, yet contextually specific legends. The epithet referred to the imperial situation (for instance IOVI PRAE(sens) OR(bis) in the war between Severus and Niger), while the image remained a well known cult statue. This image still had significance and communicated the association of emperor and god, but it was not expected to be a strict representation of the legend. In this sense, there was a refinement of image and legend on Roman coinage. 134 Clare Rowan Figure 4. Antoninianus of Gallienus (Münzen and Medaillen Deutschland Auction 8, 10 May 2001, lot 384; RIC V.1 Gallienus 53) This point is further illustrated by the representation of Jupiter Ultor under Gallienus. Here the god is portrayed standing right, brandishing a thunderbolt (Figure 4).43 Chausson suggested that the coin celebrated work performed on the temple of Jupiter Ultor (the only evidence for which is this coin type). He postulated that this work entailed the repair or replacement of the cult statue; hence the new iconography of the god.44 A better understanding of Jovian iconography shows that this was not necessarily the case; the epithet of Jupiter was selected because it best captured the imperial situation (the coin is undated so a specific context cannot be postulated here) and a standard type of Jupiter was employed in conjunction with the legend.45 The separation of image and legend raises questions about the degree to which a coin type could have been understood by the differing segments of the population. Since the legend and image on a coin did not always equate, the literate segments of society would have gleaned more information from the coin than their non-literate counterparts.46 But the continued use of iconic, standard images would have meant that an allusion to Jupiter was easily recognizable, even if the specific context of this reference was not immediately apparent. Indeed, the decision to use the same image of Jupiter Victor (though with differing legends) by Pescennius Niger and Septimius Severus in the East may have been because the cult statue was easily recognized. There is thus no need to equate the temple of Jupiter Ultor with that of Jupiter Victor, as Hill did.47 No temple to Jupiter Ultor is mentioned in later regional 43. RIC V.1 Gallienus 51, 220, 221. 44. Chausson (1995: 739). 45. The other Jupiter types of Gallienus bear out this hypothesis. The type of Jupiter standing or walking with a thunderbolt and scepter is accompanied by the legends IOVI CONSERVA (RIC V.1 Gallienus 47), IOVI PROPVGNATOR (RIC V.1 Gallienus 48), IOVIS STATOR(I) (RIC V.1 Gallienus 49, 50) and IOVI VLTORI (RIC V.1 Gallienus 51–53). 46. On the ability of various segments of Roman society to read a coin legend see Harris (1989: 213). 47. Hill (1965: 160). Becoming Jupiter 135 catalogues, but Severus Alexander’s temple may be one of the many monuments neglected by the authors.48 The epithet Ultor communicated Jupiter’s revenge of his neglect under Elagabalus, and Severus Alexander’s role as the instigator of this revenge. The young emperor aligned himself with Jupiter from the very beginning of his reign: the dies imperii of Alexander is recorded in the Feriale Duranum as the 13th March, a day holy to Jupiter and in the later Chronography of 354 mentioned as a day sacred to Jupiter Cultor.49 The association between Jupiter and Alexander was not confined to the beginning of the emperor’s principate. Jupiter continued to have a prominent place throughout Severus Alexander’s reign, and the god’s epithets and iconography changed to match contemporary circumstances. What follows is an exploration of the differing forms of Jupiter represented on Severus Alexander’s coinage and their possible connection to the situation of the emperor. This overview illustrates in more detail the close association between emperor and god in this period. Severus Alexander and Jupiter AD (224–235) In the following analysis the chronology of Carson in the British Museum Catalogue is followed. Since much of Alexander’s coinage does not list his tribunician power (the easiest and most secure method for dating Roman imperial coinage), the date of many issues is not particularly clear. Carson’s chronology, based on portraiture, hoard presence and type, remains the best means of dating Alexander’s coinage. This analysis will also add a quantitative dimension to illustrate the prominence of Jupiter in this period. Recent studies have illustrated the usefulness of coin hoards in estimating the relative size of a particular issue.50 A similar methodology is employed here utilizing silver hoards, the details of which are listed at the end of the article. Gold hoards of this period do not provide sufficient quantity for an analysis of this kind, and aes production in the Severan period seems to have declined significantly.51 In total, fifty-seven silver hoards were analyzed, containing 67,425 coins from the Severan period and 14,743 coins struck in Alexander’s reign, which were entered into a database using the numbers assigned to types by RIC. It is not my purpose to attempt to recreate the total number of coins struck by Severus Alexander, or to recreate the precise composition of Roman currency in this period. The hoards are used to gauge the relative frequencies 48. Chausson (1995: 737–739). 49. Chausson (1995: 739) suggests that this may have been a corruption of Ultor. See also Coarelli (1987: 437). 50. Carradice (1983); Carradice (1998: 93–118); Carson (1983: 67); Christiansen (1988); Kemmers (2006: 197); Noreña (2001: 146–168). 51. Buttrey (1972: 33–58). 136 Clare Rowan Figure 5. Denarius of Severus Alexander, AD 222 (Leu Numismatik AG Auction 91, 10 May 2004, lot 620; RIC IV.2 Severus Alexander 14) of particular silver types and to allow Alexander’s silver coinage to be viewed as a coherent whole. From this perspective we might glimpse what the silver coinage of this emperor looked like to his subjects. One might argue that every coin type was significant, regardless of quantity, since the very act of joining the emperor’s personage to an image formed an official statement of the regime. And yet it is also useful to gauge what an emperor’s coinage ‘looked like’ as a whole, since the totality of the imagery on an emperor’s currency would have formed a wider public image presented to the populace. Jupiter Conservatori (AD 222–224) Immediately upon Severus Alexander’s succession the image of Jupiter was placed upon his coinage, initially without any specific epithets, then with the legend IOVI CONSERVATORI (Figure 5).52 The epithet of Jupiter here has particular reference to the circumstances of Severus Alexander’s succession. Both Dio and Herodian describe a plot of Elagabalus against his younger cousin, the failure of which led directly to Alexander’s accession to the throne.53 The conservator type can be seen as part of the rhetoric that surrounded Alexander’s rise to power: his preservation from Elagabalus’ murderous intent is attributed to the protection of Jupiter, who becomes the tutelary god of the young emperor’s entire reign. The epithet CONSERVATOR may also have had a secondary meaning. Elagabalus had bestowed this normally Jovian title on the Emesene god Elagabal.54 The restoration of the epithet to Jupiter may thus also have signified the reinstatement of Jupiter as head of the Roman pantheon in the early years of Severus Alexander’s reign. Some tentative statements may be made from the hoard evidence. The percentage of these types as a total of all Severus Alexander’s denarii (let alone all 52. Without an accompanying legend: RIC IV.2 Severus Alexander 4, 5, 387 (AD 222), 18-20 (AD 223), 34–35 (AD 224). The legend IOVI CONSERVATORI: RIC IV.2 Severus Alexander 140–141(AD 222). 53. Dio 80.19.1ff; Hdn. 5.8.3. 54. RIC IV.2 Elagabalus 61, 62, 64, 65; Numismatica Ars Classica, Auction 29 (11–12 May 2005) lot 596. Becoming Jupiter Table 1. Types of Jupiter on the Silver Coinage of Severus Alexander as represented in Selected Hoards* Date 222 223 224 RIC 5 19 35 146 225 143 144 228–31 203 231 195 Type A B 64 34 63 22 0 7 67 0 2 3 18 11 38 0 0 2 27 57 0 3 C 4 1 1 1 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 34 14 35 14 0 7 29 0 0 3 6 7 20 5 0 1 13 8 0 0 E 3 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 R-D Total Year % Total % 148 74 151 0 0 4 121 0 0 0 54 27 71 0 9 1 161 0 0 0 288 136 272 49 0 25 235 1 2 6 82 50 137 8 9 4 205 65 0 3 19% 9% 16% 11% 0% 2% 21% -** <1% <1% 3% 2% 6% <1% <1% <1% 12% 4% 0% 2% 1% 2% <1% 0% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% 1% <1% <1% <1% 2% <1% 0% <1% 13% Conservator 35 Conservator 21 Conservator 11 Ultor (Temple) Ultor Ultor Ultor Fides Militum 0 0 16 0 0 0 4 5 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 141 Conservator 12 198 Conservator 200 Conservator 202 Stator 235 Propugnator 236 Propugnator 240 Propugnator 241 Propugnator 232 Hybrid Total 238 Propugnator 239 Propugnator 201 Propugnator n/p*** 111 416 15 196 16 821 1577 (16%) (14%) (16%) (12%) (14%) (12%) (13%) A=Britain, B=West Continent, C=Italy, D=Danube, E=Eastern parts of the Empire, R-D=Reka Devnia. Due to the large size of this last hoard it was considered prudent to analyze it in a separate column. * Year % is an expression of the Jupiter type in relation to all silver coins struck in the name of Alexander in that year, according to the dating system of Carson in the BMC. Total % is an expression of the Jupiter type in relation to all the silver coinage struck in the name of Severus Alexander throughout his reign. ** No equivalent for this coin is found in the BMC; consequently it has not been included in the yearly analysis, which is based on the chronology of the BMC. *** n/p = not published in a standard catalogue. 138 Clare Rowan the coinage in circulation at a particular time) is small (1–2%), as are the types discussed below (Table 1). However, when all the types referring to Jupiter are combined then it is apparent that Jupiter had a sizeable presence on the coinage of Severus Alexander (13%, Table 1). Although there are variations in the number of hoards and types between different regions, the imagery of Jupiter constitutes a similar proportion of Severus Alexander’s coinage across the entire empire. The emperor’s Jovian types in Britain (Zone A) constituted 16% of his coinage, in the West Continent (Zone B) 14%, in Italy (Zone C) 16%, along the Danube (Zone D) 12% and in the East (Zone E) 14%. The Reka Devnia hoard, found in modern day Romania, was analyzed separately due to its large size (more than 80,000 coins). It corresponds to the other hoard evidence, with Jupiter types constituting 13% of Alexander’s denarii. Thus while the modern scholar may discuss the significance and meaning of one particular issue, and each type did have significance regardless of what quantities it was struck in, it is likely that only a general impression of the connection between the emperor and Jupiter was given by the coinage itself while in circulation. This distinction, between the iconography and message encapsulated in a particular issue and the impression conveyed by an entire body of coinage, must be kept in mind when considering the reception of ancient numismatic iconography. Jupiter Ultor (AD 224–225) Given the discussion of the Jupiter Ultor type above, this section shall be brief. In AD 224, coin types were released showing the temple of Jupiter Ultor.55 The following year (according to Carson) the IOVI VLTORI type with the statue of Jupiter Victor was struck.56 The temple type (RIC IV.2 Severus Alexander 146) was completely absent from the hoard analysis, suggesting that it was a very small issue (Table 1). It may have been struck to mark the completion of the conversion of the Elagabalium. Perhaps the rededication of a temple in Rome had little visual significance outside the capital. Small as the issue was, the very act of striking the design was an important means of marking the transformation of urban space. By contrast, the more general issue with the image of Jupiter Victor and the legend IOVI VLTORI (RIC IV.2 Severus Alexander 143–144) has a stronger presence in hoards (Table 1). The type amounted to about 23% in the hoards of the emperor’s denarii struck in AD 225. Considering the widespread circulation of denarii in this period (particularly their presence among frontier troops) a more general means of communicating the religious transformation of the empire may have been intentionally employed. The statue type of Jupiter Victor would have been widely 55. RIC IV.2 Severus Alexander 146, 412, 413. 56. RIC IV.2 Severus Alexander 142–145 (= BMC VI Severus Alexander 232–238, Issue 5). Becoming Jupiter 139 Figure 6. Denarius of Severus Alexander (Gorny & Mosch Giessener Münzhandlung Auction 156, 5 March 2007, lot 2245; RIC IV.2 Severus Alexander 200.) recognized throughout the empire and for the literate the legend was a powerful statement of Severus Alexander’s religious intent. Jupiter Conservator (AD 230/1?) In AD 230, news reached Rome of a Persian invasion. The decision to issue coinage with the image of Jupiter at this juncture (AD 230-231), after a gap of six years, is telling. Jupiter evidently formed part of the ideology of Severus Alexander before he left for the Persian War. The god once again appears as Conservator, in the style discussed above and with a new variant, depicting the emperor in the company of the god (Figure 6).57 The epithet of Jupiter here probably has reference to the preservation of the emperor in the upcoming war, though it could also be connected with the Fides Militum series discussed below. Jupiter Conservator and the Fides of the Roman Army (AD 231) In AD 231 a series of coins and medallions were struck with the legend FIDES MILITVM, showing the emperor in the company of Jupiter.58 A bronze medallion was also struck with the legend IOVI CONSERVATORI, showing Severus Alexander, Jupiter and a soldier holding two standards.59 Jupiter Conservator thus seems to have had a particular association with the military. This series and the one immediately above may have been thematically connected. Jupiter Conservator had been associated with military activity under Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Elagabalus.60 The conservator types released at the beginning of Severus Alexander’s reign may also have had this implication: according to literary evidence the young 57. RIC IV.2 Severus Alexander 197–200 (aureii and denarii), 558–559 (sestertii). 58. RIC IV.2 Severus Alexander 195 (denarius), 555–556 (sestertius and as respectively), 662 (dupondius and as); BMC VI Severus Alexander 734–736 (Aes Medallion). 59. BMC VI Severus Alexander 736* (Aes Medallion); Gnecchi II no. 5 (Aes Medallion). 60. RIC IV.1 Septimius Severus 130 has the legend IOVI CONSERVATORI with the image of Jupiter Victor and was struck in the aftermath of Severus’ Parthian Victory in AD 198. RIC IV.1 Caracalla 301, RIC IV.2 Elagabalus 90 and 91 connect this particular aspect of Jupiter with the military in a more direct manner. On these types the legend IOVI CONSERVATORI is accompanied by an image showing Jupiter with two standards. 140 Clare Rowan emperor was saved from Elagabalus by the Roman army.61 The emphasis on the loyalty of the army was particularly poignant in AD 231: Dio mentions that many of the troops in the east had revolted and were joining the invading Persians.62 The denarius of this type (RIC 195) had only two occurrences in the hoard analysis, both in the Niederaschau hoard. Again the mere act of designing and striking the image of Jupiter protecting the emperor and the fides of the Roman may have been where the significance of the issue lay. Jupiter Stator (AD 231) In AD 231, a type was struck for Severus Alexander showing Jupiter Stator on the reverse.63 The epithet Stator had previously appeared on the coinage of Antoninus Pius but the god had a connection with Rome stretching back to its foundations.64 According to tradition, a temple was vowed to Jupiter Stator by Romulus at a critical moment in the battle against the Sabines.65 The Roman army was losing the encounter and had begun to flee, but returned under the auspices of Jupiter Stator (“stayer”). This particular temple was never constructed, but M. Atilius Regulus later made a similar vow that he fulfilled in the war against the Samnites.66 For this reason Jupiter Stator has been interpreted as the god who stays panic in battle, who “remains” on the battlefield. The appearance of Jupiter Stator on the coinage of Antoninus Pius has been connected with his military activities in Britain in AD 142, but the coin is better seen as part of the emperor’s celebration of the significant events in the history of Rome. Many of Pius’ types between AD 140–144 refer to myths and legends from Rome’s early history: Aeneas, Anchises, Rhea Silvia, and the she-wolf and twins, for example.67 The Jupiter Stator type should be viewed within this context, particularly since Romulus’ intended temple and Regulus’ actual building had become conflated in the Roman mind.68 Considering the origins of Jupiter Stator and his appearance under the religiously conservative Antoninus Pius, the god’s presence on the coinage of Severus Alexander at this juncture is significant. The type alludes to the religious restoration and traditionalism of the emperor through a connection with Romulus, while 61. Dio 80.19.2ff; Hdn 5.8.1ff. 62. Dio 80.4.1–2. 63. RIC IV.2 Severus Alexander 773, 927. 64. RIC III Antoninus Pius 72, 607, 773, 927. 65. Livy 1.12.3–6; Ov. Fast. 6.794. 66. Livy 10.36.11, 10.37.15. 67. Toynbee (1925: 170–173). 68. Mattingly and Sydenham (1930: 6). For the conflation between the two temples see Cic. Cat. 1.13.33. Becoming Jupiter 141 at the same time making reference to the upcoming military campaign. Romulus featured on several of Alexander’s coin types, and on one particular issue the association between Rome’s founder and Alexander is made explicit. The image of Romulus carrying the spoila is combined with the legend VIRTVS AVG.69 The viewer is uncertain whether the image is that of Romulus or of the emperor; the ambiguity casts Alexander as a founder of Rome and directly compares his Virtus to that of Romulus.70 The Jupiter Stator type only appears on a single denarius (Figure 7), and had a small presence in the hoard analysis.71 Also struck in this period (AD 228–231) was another IOVI VLTORI issue.72 This may have been a “commemorative” like that postulated by Hill for the earlier Severans.73 It is more likely, however, that Jupiter “the Avenger” was employed within the context of the upcoming war. Like Jupiter Stator, Jupiter Ultor was used to connect the religious conservatism of the emperor with the military campaign: Stator and Ultor conveniently encapsulated Alexander’s religious traditionalism while simultaneously referring to military ideology. This Ultor issue was found in a single hoard in southeast Turkey. Jupiter Propugnator (AD 231–232) The image of Jupiter hurling a thunderbolt with the epithet IOVI PROPVGNATOR(I) appeared on Alexander’s coinage from AD 231–232 (Figure 8).74 This epithet has clear military overtones and is probably connected to Severus’ Persian campaign. A variant of this type (RIC 238 ) shows Jupiter holding an eagle and thunderbolt, again indicating that the images on coins at this period did not always strictly reflect cult statues (Figure 9). The type shows a wide distribution, though there are certain regional variations (Table 1). 69. Romulus: RIC IV.2 Severus Alexander 85–86, 96–97, 103–104. Romulus with the legend VIRTVS AVG: RIC IV.2 Severus Alexander 223–225, 625–626. 70. Indeed, the ambiguity between the two images meant that Cohen, and consequently RIC, lists two different coin types: Romulus, bareheaded, walking r., carrying spear and trophy (RIC IV.2 Severus Alexander 223–224, 625–626) and the emperor in military dress, walking r., carrying spear and trophy (RIC IV.2 Severus Alexander 225). Inspection of the coins concerned suggests that this is the same image, a conclusion also reached by Carson, who described the type (and indeed all the ‘Romulus’ types) as ‘Severus Alexander as Romulus’ (BMC VI Severus Alexander 481, 482). 71. RIC IV.2 Severus Alexander 202. 72. RIC IV.2 Severus Alexander 203. 73. Hill (1964: 173). 74. AD 231: RIC IV.2 Severus Alexander 234–236, 240, 241, 628–630. AD 232: RIC IV.2 Severus Alexander 237–239, 631–634. The division is based on the chronology of Carson, who places the type in Issue 14 (AD 231) and Issue 15 (AD 232) in the BMC catalogue. 142 Clare Rowan Figure 7. Denarius of Severus Alexander (Auktionhaus H.D. Rauch GmbH Mail Bid Sale 10, 2 March 2006, 603; RIC IV.2 Severus Alexander 202) Figure 8. Denarius of Severus Alexander (Auktionhaus H.D. Rauch GmbH Mail Bid Sale 11, 12 September 2006, lot 995; RIC IV.2 Severus Alexander 235 Figure 9. Denarius of Severus Alexander (Numismatica Ars Classica Auction 39, 16 May 2007, lot 145; RIC IV.2 Severus Alexander 238) Conclusions It is clear that Severus Alexander used Jupiter as a patron deity throughout his reign, clearly distancing himself from his predecessor. It is also evident that the Roman mint utilized the different epithets of the god to express divine assistance in different contexts. In this the mint was following an earlier tradition that had developed under Commodus, where the close association between the emperor and Jupiter came to be expressed in a distinct and creative way. The rededication of the Elagabalium into a temple to Jupiter Ultor would have only underlined the connection between emperor and god. Table 2. Jupiter on the Coinage of the Severan Emperors (to nearest whole per cent) Zone B J 98 129 1380 49 416 2895 14% 15 95 16% 1017 8422 12% 2178 2% 2 81 2% 88 5184 2% 3 16 9% 10 66 15% 386 2942 13% 28 1791 5% 14 223 6% 395 8752 5% 23 576 4% T % J T % J T % J T % J Zone C Zone D Zone E Total T 682 15750 5468 67 4% 156 8582 % 4% 12% 2% 116 14% 1575 12193 13% Zone A Emperor J T % Septimius Severus 152 4408 3% Caracalla (sole reign) 83 815 10% 265 11% 636 Becoming Jupiter Elagabalus 14 1072 1% Severus Alexander 111 665 17% J = Total coins displaying the image of Jupiter. T = Total number of coins struck in the emperor’s name. 143 144 Clare Rowan The focus of Severus Alexander on the cult of Jupiter can be quantified through a comparison with the earlier Severan dynasty (Table 2). Using the same hoard evidence to examine the Jupiter types of Alexander’s predecessors reveals startling results that quantifies the large role Jupiter played in the emperor’s rule. Under Septimius types of Jupiter constituted approximately 4% of silver types struck in the emperor’s name. During the sole rule of Caracalla, Jupiter rose to occupy 13% of the emperor’s types, in keeping with the largely divine emphasis of Caracalla’s coinage. A real decline is seen under Elagabalus, with Jupiter types falling to a mere 2%. It is apparent that the types released by the Roman mint, and their respective quantities, reflected the religious emphases of a particular emperor. During the reign of Severus Alexander Jupiter types rise to approximately 13% of the emperor’s total coinage. We can thus identify the religious polarity between Elagabalus and Severus Alexander through numismatics. For the population of the Roman Empire, the differing religious policy of these emperors was reflected in their coinage; the overall impression gained from each emperor’s coinage would have resulted in contrasting public images. The comparison between the two rulers (exaggeratedly) presented by the Historia Augusta is also reflected in the numismatic record. Britain: Hoards Bristol, (AD 208, 1,480 coins) Mattingly, H., and B. W. Pearce. 1938. The Bristol hoard of denarii, 1937. Numismatic Chronicle 18: 85–98. Muswell Hill, London (AD 210, 654 coins) Mattingly, H. 1929. Muswell Hill. Numismatic Chronicle 9: 315–319. Darfield II, South Yorkshire (AD 215, 500 coins) Corder, P. 1948. A second hoard of Roman denarii from Darfield. Numismatic Chronicle 8: 78–80. Edston, Peebles-Shire, Scotland (AD 222, 290 coins) Holmes, N., and F. Hunter. 1997. Edston, Peebles-Shire. Coin Hoards from Roman Britain 10: 149–168. Shapwick Villa, Somerset (AD 224, 9,238 coins) Abdy, R., and S. Minnitt. 2002. Shapwick Villa. Coin Hoards from Roman Britain 11: 169–233. Denbighshire, Wales (AD 226, 507 coins) Mattingly, H. 1923. Find of Roman denarii in Denbighshire. Numismatic Chronicle 3: 152–155. Becoming Jupiter 145 St. Mary Cray, Bromley (AD 228, 376 coins) Robertson, A. S. 1935. The St. Mary Cray hoard. Numismatic Chronicle 15: 62–66. East England (AD 230, 3,169 coins) Evans, J. 1898. A hoard of Roman coins. Numismatic Chronicle 18: 126–184. Falkirk, Scotland (AD 230, 1,925 coins) MacDonald, G. 1934. A hoard of Roman denarii from Scotland. Numismatic Chronicle 14: 1–30. Cambridge (AD 248, 193 coins) Boyd, W. C. 1897. A find of Roman denarii near Cambridge. Numismatic Chronicle 17: 119–126. Darfield, South Yorkshire (AD 250, 481 coins) Walker, J. 1946. The Darfield hoard of Roman denarii. Numismatic Chronicle 6: 147–150. Brickendonbury, Hertfordshire (AD 250, 430 coins) Evans, J. 1896. Roman coins found at Brickendonbury, Hertford. Numismatic Chronicle 16: 191–208. Stevenage, Hertfordshire (AD 263, 387 coins) Bland, R. 1988. Stevenage, Hertfordshire. In The Normanby hoard and other Roman coin hoards, CHRB 8, R. Bland and A. Burnett, eds., 43–71. London. Caistor by Yarmouth, Norfolk (c.AD 270, 847 coins) Jenkins, G. K. 1947. The Caister by Yarmouth Hoard. Numismatic Chronicle 7: 175–179. France: Aïn, Rhône-Alpes (AD 215, 446 coins) Salama, P. 2001/2002. Le trésor de deniers d’Aïn Témouchent et ses “satellites” dans l’Afrique romaine. TM 20: 185–222. Viuz-Faverges (AD 252, 2,306 coins) Pflaum, H. G. 1981. Le Trésor de Viuz-Faverges. Trésors Monétaires 3: 33–76. Nanterre, Paris (AD 254, 1,968 coins) Gentilhomme, P. L. 1947. La Trouvaille de Nanterre. Revue Numismatique 9: 15–114. Eauze, Gers (AD 261, 28,003 coins) Schaad, D., P. Agrinier, et al. 1992. Le Trésor d’Eauze. Toulouse. 146 Belgium: Clare Rowan Elligines-Sainte-Anne (AD 240, 276 coins) Lallemand, J. 1968. Le trésor d’Elliginies-Sainte-Anne: deniers de MarcAuréle à Gordien III. Revue Belge de Numismatique 114: 138–168. Clavier, Liège (AD 255, 1,680 coins) Lallemand, J. 1969. Le trésor de Clavier III: deniers et antoniniens de Commode à Valérien-Gallien. Revue Belge de Numismatique 115: 263–331. Italy: Vicenza, Veneto (AD 235, 110 coins) No. 45/3(1) in Ritrovamenti Monetali de età Romana nel Veneto IV.1. Via Tritone, Rome (AD 244, 828 coins) Cesano, L. 1925. Nuovi Ripostigli di Denari di Argento dell’Impero Romano. Atti e Memorie dell’Istituto Italiano di Numismatica 5: 57–72. Germany: Welzheim, Baden-Württemburg, (AD 225, 652 coins) No. 4,596 in Die Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in Deutschland II.4. Baden-Baden, Baden-Württemburg (AD 228, 611 coins) No. 2,196 in Die Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in Deutschland II.2. Mainz, Rhineland (AD 228, 186 coins) No. 1,153 in Die Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in Deutschland IV.1. Eining, Bayern (AD 235, 73 coins) No. 2,034 in Die Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in Deutschland I.2. Kirchmatting, Bayern (AD 235, 1318 coins) No. 2,116 in Die Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in Deutschland I.2. Kempten Lindenberg III (AD 235, 640 coins) No. 7,186 in Die Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in Deutschland I.7. Pfünz (AD 235, 94 coins) No. 5,042 in Die Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in Deutschland I.5. Wiggensbach, Bavaria (AD 235, 401 coins) No. 7,199 in Die Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in Deutschland I.7. Köln (AD 238, 4,169 coins) No. 1,004 3a-b in Die Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in Deutschland VI.1.1. Becoming Jupiter Niederaschau, Bayern (AD238, 766 coins) No. 1,229 in Die Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in Deutschland I.1. Wiesbach, Rhineland-Palatinate (AD 254, 402 coins) No. 1,082 in Die Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in Deutschland III. 147 Linsberg (AD 238, 286 coins) Dembski, G. 2007. Ein römischer Münzschatzfund aus Linsberg, Gem. Erlach, BH wieder Neustadt. Numismatische Zeitschrift 115: 33–55. Gunzenhausen, Bavaria (AD 244, 510 coins) No. 5,057 in Die Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in Deutschland I.5. Romania: Ghirişa, Beltiug (AD 198, 151 coins) No. 141 in Depeyrot, G., and D. Moisil. 2008. Les Trésors de Deniers de Trajan à Balbin en Roumanie. Wetteren. Frânceşti, Vâlcea (AD 219, 1,365 coins) Depeyrot, G., and D. Moisil. 2004. The Trésor Frânceşti (Roumanie). Wetteren. Munteneşti, Valsui (AD 228, 742 coins) No. 183 in Depeyrot, G., and D. Moisil. 2008. Les Trésors de Deniers de Trajan à Balbin en Roumanie. Wetteren. Barza, (AD 235, 1,337 coins) No. 174 in Depeyrot, G., and D. Moisil. 2008. Les Trésors de Deniers de Trajan à Balbin en Roumanie. Wetteren. Taga (AD 239, 962 coins) Protase, D., and I. H. Crişan. 1968. Tezaurul de Monede Imperiale Romane de la Ţaga. Studii şi Cercetări de Numismatică 4: 139–173. Hungary: Kecel, Bács-Kiskun (AD 215, 255 coins) Katalin, B. S. 1986. A keceli éremlelet. Cumania 9: 27–74. Ercsi, Fejér (AD 228, 386 coins) Soprini, S. 1964. Az ercsi éremlelet. Numizmatikai közlöny 62/63: 9–17. Börgöndi, Székesfehérvár (AD 235, 587 coins) Aladár, R. 1936. A börgöndi éremlelet. Numizmatikai közlöny 34/35: 24– 27. 148 Slovenia: Clare Rowan Leskovec (AD 236, 122 coins) No. 408 in Die Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in Slowenien II. Postojna, Carniola (AD 238, 339 coins) No. 91.2 in Die Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in Slowenien I. Gračič, Zreče (AD 253, 431 coins) No. 176 in Die Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in Slowenien III. Bulgaria: Nicolaévo (AD 249, 936 coins) Seure, G. 1923. Trésors de Monnaies Antiques en Bulgarie III: Le Trésor de Nicolaévo. Revue Numismatique 26: 111–153. Rustschuk (AD 249, 1,602 coins) Muschmow, N. A. 1918. Münzfunde aus Bulgarien. Numismatische Zeitschrift 11: 43–51. Reka-Devnia, Devnya (AD 251, 81,096 coins) Mouchmov, N. A. 1934. Le Trésor Numismatique de Réka-Devnia (Marcianopolis). Sofia. Plevna (AD 259, 3,296 coins) Mattingly, H., and F. S. Salisbury. 1924. A find of Roman coins from Plevna in Bulgaria. Numismatic Chronicle 4: 210–238. Macedonia: Usküb (Skopje) (AD 249, 1,022 coins) Kubitschek, W. 1908. Ein Denarfund aus der Gegend von Usküb. Numismatische Zeitschrift 41: 37–47. Serbia: Singidunum, Belgrade (AD 254, 2,445 coins) Kondic, V. 1969. The Singinudum hoard of denarii and antoniniani (Septimius Severus-Valerian). Belgrade. Turkey: South East Turkey (AD 251, 1,911 coins) Bendall, S. 1966. An eastern hoard of Roman imperial silver. Numismatic Chronicle 6: 165–170. Becoming Jupiter 149 Haydere, Aydin (AD 264, 2,330 coins) Ashton, R. 1991. The Haydere hoard and other hoards of the mid-third century from Turkey. In Recent Turkish coin hoards and numismatic studies, C. S. Lightfoot, ed., 91–180. Oxford. Syria: Syria (AD 212, 261 coins) Cesano, L. 1925. Nuovi Ripostigli di Denari di Argento dell’Impero Romano. Atti e Memorie dell’Istituto Italiano di Numismatica 5: 57–72. Dura Europos III and IV (AD 218, 402 coins) Bellinger, A. R. 1949. The excavations at Dura Europos Volume 6: The coins. New Haven. References Angeli, M. G. B. 1971. A proposito di un’epigrafe da Ciunia di recente riedita. Epigrafica 33: 150–152. Bergmann, M. 1998. Die Strahlen der Herrscher. Theomorphes Herrscherbild und politische Symbolik im Hellenismus und in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Mainz: P. von Zabern. Bigot, P. 1911. Le Temple de Jupiter Ultor et la Vigne Barberini. Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma 39: 80–85. Bland, R. F., Burnett, A. M., et al. 1987. The mints of Pescennius Niger in the light of some new aurei. Numismatic Chronicle 147: 65–83. Broise, H., and Thébert, Y. 1999. Élagabal et le Complexe Religieux de la Vigna Barberini. Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome 3: 729–747. Buttrey, T. V. 1972. A hoard of Sestertii from Bordeaux and the problem of bronze circulation in the third century A.D. American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 18: 33–58. Carradice, I. 1983. Coinage and finances in the reign of Domitian. Oxford: B.A.R. ———. 1998. Towards a new introduction to the Flavian coinage. In Modus Operandi. Essays in honour of Geoffrey Rickman, M. Austin, J. Harries, and C. Smith, eds., 93–118. London: University of London. Carson, R. A. G. 1983. Coin hoards and Roman coinage of the third century AD. In Studies in numismatic method presented to Philip Grierson, C. N. L. Booke, B. H. I. Stewart, J. G. Pollard, and T. R. Volk, eds., 65–74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Castagnoli, F. 1979. Su alcuni problemi topografici del Palatino. Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei 34: 331–347. Cecamore, C. 1999. Faustinae Aedemque Decernerent (SHA, Marcus, 26). Les fragments 69–70 de la Forma Urbis et la Première dédicace du temple de la Vigna Barberini. Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome 111.1: 311–349. 150 Clare Rowan Chausson, F. 1995. Vel Iovi Vel Soli: Quatre études autour de la Vigna Barberini (191–354). Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome 107: 661–765. Christiansen, E. 1988. The Roman coins of Alexandria: quantitative studies: Nero, Trajan, Septimius Severus. Aarhus: Aarhus University of Press. Coarelli, F. 1987. La situazione edilizia di Roma sotto Severo Alessandro. In L’Urbs. Espace urbain et Histoire (1er siècle av. J.-C.- IIIe siècle ap. J.-C.) eds., 429–456. Rome: École Française Rome. Fears, J. R. 1981. The cult of Jupiter and Roman imperial ideology. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt VI.1 (?): 3–141. Grenier, J. C., and Coarelli, F. 1986. (Porticus) Adonaea, Aedes Heliogabli, Aedes Iovis Ultoris. La Tomba di Antinoo? Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome 98.1: 230–253. Griffin, M. T. 1984. Nero. The end of a dynasty. London: Batsford. Harris, W. V. 1989. Ancient literacy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Hekster, O. 2002. Commodus. An emperor at the crossroads. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben. Hill, P. V. 1960. Aspects of Jupiter on coins of the Rome mint, AD 65–318. Numismatic Chronicle 20: 113–128. ———. 1964. Notes on coinage of Septimius Severus and his family AD 193–217. Numismatic Chronicle 4: 169–188. ———. 1965. Some architectural types of Trajan. Numismatic Chronicle 5: 155–160. ———. 1982. A new gold type of Septimius Severus. Numismatic Circular: 159–60. Kemmers, F. 2006. Coins for a legion. An analysis of the coin finds from the Augustan legionary fortress and Flavian canabae legionis at Nijmegen. Mainz: Von Zabern. Marchiori, M. L. 2007. Art and reform in tenth-century Rome—The paintings of S. Maria in Pallara. Ph.D. diss., Queen’s University. Mattingly, H., and E. A. Sydenham. 1930. The Roman imperial coinage III: Antoninus Pius to Commodus. London: Spink. Noreña, C. F. 2001. The communication of the Emperor’s virtues. Journal of Roman Studies 91: 146–168. Optendrenk, T. 1969. Die Religionspolitik des Kaisers Elagabal im Spiegel der Historia Augusta. Bonn: R. Habelt. Rives, J. B. 2007. Religion in the Roman empire. Oxford: Blackwell. Sambon, A., Canessa, C., et al. 1907. Collections Martinetti & Nervegna, médailles grecques et romaines aes grave. (Sambon 18/11/1907). Bologna. Tameanko, M. 1999. Monumental coins: buildings and structures on ancient coinage. Iowa: Krause Publications. Toynbee, J. 1925. Some ‘programme’ coin-types of Antoninus Pius. Classical Review 39: 170–173.