the design and audience of the ludi saeculares coinage of domitian

Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

Visualizing Ceremony: The Design and Audience of the Ludi Saeculares Coinage of Domitian Author(s): Melanie Grunow Sobocinski Source: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 110, No. 4 (Oct., 2006), pp. 581-602Published by: Archaeological Institute of AmericaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40025059Accessed: 29-07-2015 15:30 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 131.211.206.193 on Wed, 29 Jul 2015 15:30:25 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aia

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40025059

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



Visualizing Ceremony: The Design and Audience of

the Ludi Saeculares Coinage of Domitian

MELANIE GRUNOW SOBOCINSKI

Abstract Domitian's Ludi Saeculares coinage (88 C.E.) violates

the usual patterns of Roman mint production: one festival dominates all six denominations of gold, silver, and bronze. Consistency in legends and in reverse types across the issue suggests that unusual care was taken in designing these coins. One composition is even repeated in both silver and bronze. Ten events during the Ludi Saeculares, nine of them religious rituals prescribed by the Sibylline oracle, are depicted on the bronze coinage. Variations among specimens within each type, however, indicate that some details, such as the pedimental iconography of temples, were created by individual die carvers and must not have been specified in the original design. Using the textual evidence for other imperial celebrations of the Ludi Saeculares, previous scholars have focused on matching each coin type with a known event and each architectural background with a specific location in Rome. This article reveals the problems with such an approach and uses instead a variety of historical, iconographic, and numismatic methodologies to explore questions of design, audience, context, and interpretation. I conclude that, for a limited audience, these coins attempted to send a coherent message emphasizing the solemnity and ritual completeness of Domitian's Ludi Saeculares and linking his celebration to Augustus' Ludi Saeculares of 17 B.C.E. But, because Domitian's experiment in using the coinage for detailed communication was not subsequently imitated, this set of coins is unique.*

INTRODUCTION

During Domitian's 14th consulship and eighth year of tribunician power (September 88-September 89 C.E.), an extraordinary issue of coinage encompass- ing every major denomination of gold, silver, and bronze interrupted the regular output of the mint of Rome. The 15 coin types commemorating Domitian's celebration of the Ludi Saeculares (so-called Secular

Games) in 88 C.E. (841 A.U.C.) are the most extensive set of numismatic images concerning a single religious festival to have survived from Roman antiquity. They are also the main surviving evidence for the details of Domitian's Ludi Saeculares. Because most previous discussions treat these coins of Domitian as a relatively straightforward visual account, easily read with the aid of the literary and epigraphic evidence for other celebrations of the Ludi Saeculares, the coins have received quite cursory analyses, even though they have long attracted the attention of scholars.1 A methodological flaw common in many of these studies is the reliance upon very few specimens of each coin

type under analysis, typified by the often reprinted illustrations of Dressel (fig. 1 ) .

These coins provide an interesting test case in the debate concerning the degree to which Roman imperial coinage served as a medium of communication as well as exchange.2 Despite their apparent level of detail, these coins are not quasi-photographic docu- mentation of Domitian's Ludi Saeculares but carefully selected scenes presented in a highly stylized manner and intended for a mass audience. I argue that these coins should be read as a calculated public re-presen- tation of Domitian's Ludi Saeculares. Design features and distribution patterns suggest that the coins carried

specific messages to distinct audiences, occasion-

ally as a set but usually as individual coins. Seen as a

group - the privileged view used by modern scholars, and originally available only to the mint, the emperor, and those sufficiently wealthy or well connected to

acquire the 15 known coin types - these coins of Domitian emphasize religious rituals and neglect the other spectacles recorded in literary and epigraphic

* I thank Elaine Gazda, William Metcalf, David Potter, Elise Friedland, and the Editor-in-Chief and anonymous review- ers of the AJA for their helpful comments on drafts of this work. The staff of many coin collections and museums kindly facilitated study visits, including the Kelsey Museum of Ar- chaeology, Ann Arbor; the Bodesmuseum, Berlin; the Brit- ish Museum, London; the Museo Archaeologico Nazionale, Naples; the American Numismatic Society, New York; the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford; the Bibliotheque Nationale de France, Paris; the Vatican Museums, Rome; and the Kunsthis- torische Museum, Vienna. Laura Miller-Purrenhage assisted

with Russian translation. Funding for this project was provid- ed by grants from the University of Michigan-Dearborn.

^anvinio 1558; Rainssant 1684; Taffin 1698; Dressel 1899; Hild 1909; Welin 1954; Hill 1965; Carlson 1972a, 1972b; BMCRE 2: xcv-xcvi; Di Manzano 1984; Coarelli 1993; 1997, 87-92; Stewart 2003.

2Voelkel 1953; Sutherland 1959; Jones 1974; Levick 1982; 1999; Crawford 1983; Ehrhardt 1984; Wallace-Hadrill 1986; Carradice 1993; Metcalf 1993; Zanker 1997; Cheung 1998; Meadows and Williams 2001; Beckmann 2002.

American Journal of Archaeology 110 (2006) 581-602 581



582 MELANIE GRUNOW SOBOCINSKI [AJA 110

Fig. 1. Ludi Saeculares coin types of Augustus and Domitian known to Dressel (after Dressel 1899, pl. 1): 1, Aureus of L. Mes- cinius Rufus, 16 B.C.E. Obverse: head of Augustus; reverse: distribution of suffimenta (Paris; Giard 1976-1998, 1:92, no. 330, pl. 16); 2, Sestertius of Domitian, 88 C.E. Reverse: distribution of suffimenta at a tetrastyle temple with illegible pedimental decoration (Berlin); 3a, Sestertius of Domitian, 88 C.E. Reverse: acceptance offruges (in baskets) at a tetrastyle temple with a wreath in the pediment (London; BMCRE 2: 393, no. 422, pl. 78.6); 3b, Sestertius of Domitian, 88 C.E. Reverse: acceptance offruges (poured on ground) at a tetrastyle temple with an eagle in the pediment (Berlin); 4, Dupondius of Domitian, 88 C.E. Reverse: sacrifice of goat and sheep at a probable hexastyle temple (only five columns detailed) with an eagle in the pediment (London; BMCRE 2:395, no. 430, pl. 78.11); 5, Dupondius of Domitian, 88 C.E. Reverse: sacrifice of bovine at a hexastyle temple with a wreath in the pediment (Paris; Giard 1976-1998, 2:303, no. 470, pl. 114); 6a, Dupondius of Domitian, 88 C.E. Reverse: victimless sacrifice in front of a tripartite facade with a gable-arch-gable roofline, wreaths, and an AaaA AaaA column pattern (Paris; Giard 1976-1998, 2:302, no. 466, pl. 114); 6b, Dupondius of Domitian, 88 C.E. Reverse: victimless sacrifice in front of a tripartite facade with a gable-arch-gable roofline, wreaths, and an AaAaAaAaA column pattern (London; BMCRE2: 396, no. 432, pl. 79. 1 ) ; 7, As of Domitian, 88 C.E. Reverse: victimless sacrifice at a hexastyle temple with a wreath in the pediment (Berlin) ; 8, Sestertius of Domitian, 88 C.E. Reverse: figures kneeling at a tetrastyle temple with a wreath in the pediment (Paris; Giard 1976-1998, 2:301, no. 460, pl. 113); 9, Sestertius of Domitian, 88 C.E. Reverse: sacrifice of a pig (Berlin); 10, Sestertius of Domitian, 88 C.E. Reverse: procession (Berlin); 11, Denarius of M. Sanquinius, 17 B.C.E. Obverse: herald/ ludio with sidus Iulium on shield (London; BMCRE 1:13, no. 70, pl. 2.20); 12, Denarius of Domitian, 88 C.E. Reverse: ludiowith blank/worn shield (Berlin); 13, Aureus of Augustus, undated, mint unknown. Reverse: priest and herald/ ludio flanking altar (Berlin; Bahrfeldt 1923, 136, pl. 13.6); 14, Denarius of Domitian, 88 C.E. Reverse: cippus, candelabrum, and ludiowith helmeted head on shield (Berlin); 15, Dupondius of Domitian, 88 C.E. Reverse: cippus, candelabrum, and ludio with blank shield (London; BMCRE 2: 395, no. 429, pl. 78.10); 16, Denarius of L. Mescinius Rufus, 16 B.C.E. Reverse: cippus (Berlin); 17, Denarius of Domitian, 88 C.E. Reverse: cippus (Berlin).



2006] THE LUDI SAECULARES COINAGE OF DOMITIAN 583

accounts of the Ludi Saeculares. Seen individually, the

legend and imagery of each coin inform the viewer that Domitian performed the Ludi Saeculares.3

The gold and silver coins largely reuse numismatic

iconography from Augustus' Ludi Saeculares of 17 B.C.E. (737 A.U.C.). Thus, the design choices made for Domitian's Ludi Saeculares coinage reflect not only the reception and adaptation of Augustan iconography but also an awareness of the potential use of coins as a historical record.4 In addition to the types ap- propriated from the Augustan coins, the iconography of Domitian's lower-value bronze coinage emphasizes the emperor's leading role in the festival through five scenes of sacrifice and six scenes of other rituals and events during the Ludi Saeculares. The bronze coins use the same artistic idiom as historical relief sculpture, and as a group they present a coherent narrative more closely akin to the Ara Pacis, the Column of Trajan, and the relief panels of Marcus Aurelius than to the normal output of the mint. Yet, it is not appropriate to postulate a precursor relief monument to explain the extraordinary traits of these coins, as Ryberg did.5 Rather, their antecedents and compositional charac- teristics point toward a coin-oriented design process.

I avoid the vexed question of who designed and authorized these coins. The emperor, Senate, quindecemvirs, bureaucrats in the imperial administration, and mint workers conceivably might have taken part in the design or approval process for the coins of the Ludi Saeculares. The ultimate authority and responsibility for all imperial imagery lay with the emperor, but his direct participation - or his delegation of that role to others - cannot be proven.6 This analysis dem-

onstrates, however, that at least some iconographic details were left to the discretion of die engravers. Inconsistencies in the depiction of architecture from die to die undercut the possibility of topographic identification of the buildings portrayed on seven of the coin types. In a similar vein, Scheid has pointed out that the sacrifices on these coins mix details from different ritual stages.7 Such variations force analysis of this iconography beyond problems of identification (which building? what moment in the ceremony?) to address questions of audience and interpretation.

THE SOURCES OF EVIDENCE FOR THE LUDI SAECULARES

A wide variety of numismatic, epigraphic, and literary sources provide evidence concerning the imperial celebrations of the Ludi Saeculares under Augustus, Claudius (47 C.E./800 A.U.C.), Domitian, Septimius Severus (204 C.E./957 A.U.C.), and Philip (248 C.E./ 1001 A.U.C.) .8 Coins commemorate the Ludi Saeculares of all the emperors except Claudius.9 The inscriptions of the acta, or events, of the Ludi Saeculares of August- us and Septimius Severus, though incompletely preserved, reveal substantial similarities between their two celebrations.10 The image of an inscribed cippus on three of Domitian's coin types (see fig. 1 [14, 15, 17]) suggests that he also had an epigraphic record of this festival made, although no such inscription has been recovered to date. The historian Tacitus was closely involved in the planning and performance of Domitian's Ludi, though his surviving account of them is very limited.11 Zosimus provides a lengthy description of the origins, history, and rituals of the Ludi Saeculares

3 The obverse legends feature Domitian's imperial titulature, abbreviated to fit on the coin flans. The usual honorific titulature found on the bronze coins is: "IMP(erator) CAES (ar) DOMIT(ianus) AVG(ugstus) GERM(anicus) P(ontifex) M(aximus) TR(ibunicia) P(otestate) VIII CENS(or) PER (petuo) P(ater)P(atriae)" (Emperor Caesar Domitian Augus- tus, conqueror of Germany, chief priest, holder of tribunician power for the eighth time, perpetual censor, father of his country). Most types bear the abbreviated reverse legend, "COS XIIII LVD SAEC FEC." This phrase can be expanded as "consul XlVludos saeculares fecit" (consul for the 14th time, he performed the Ludi Saeculares) . Two types use less abbreviated versions of the same phrase: "COS XIIII LVD SAEC FE- CIT" (sacrifice of pig); "COS XIIII LVDOS SAECVL FECIT" (adlocutio) . The legends of two other types differ in order to describe the specific portions of the ritual they depict. The fruges type reads: "CO(n)S(ul) XIIII LVD(is) SAEC(ularibus) A POP(ulo) FRVG(es) AC(cepit)" (as consul for the 14th time, he received fruges from the people during the Ludi Sae- culares). The suffimenta type reads: "CO(n)S(ul) XIIII LVD (is) SAEC(ularibus) SVF(fimenta) P(opulo) D(edit)" (as consul for the 14th time, he gave suffimenta to the people during the Ludi Saeculares) . For the abbreviation "SC" on the bronze

types, see infra n. 52. 4 See Meadows and Williams (2001) for a discussion of how

such historically minded awareness may have inspired the design of Roman coin types in the second and first centuries B.C.E. Cheung (1998, 56-7) argues that imperial coins have a substantial commemorative function and ought to be treated as "monuments in miniature." See also Metcalf (1993, 344): "I believe we must think of imperial coin types as intended for the ages, whatever the immediacy of their content."

5Ryberg 1955, 174-77. 6Voelkel 1953; Burnett 1977; Burnett etal. 1998, 1; Cheung

1998. 7 Scheid 1998, 2000; see also Eisner 2005. 8 For source collections and criticism, see Basiner 1901;

Pighi 1965; Scheid 2000; Stewart 2003. 9 See Von Kaenel (1986) for a thorough study of Claudius'

coinage. 10C/L6 32323 (Augustan inscription); CIL6 32324-25 (frag-

ments variously assigned to either Augustus or Claudius) ; CIL 6 32326-36 (Severan inscription) ; see also Pighi 1965, 107-19, 137-75; Cavallaro 1979; Moretti 1984; Scheid 2000.

nTac. Ann. 11.11.1.




and gives many details that help clarify the readings of the fragmentary Augustan and Severan inscriptions.12 Both Zosimus and Phlegon of Tralles preserve the text of the Sibylline oracle prescribing the essential rituals of the Ludi Saeculares.13 The oracle bears traces of

editing or composition at the time of Augustus' revival of the Ludi Saeculares.14 Suetonius, Censorinus, and Zosimus all agree that the Ludi Saeculares should be

performed only once in a lifetime and remark upon the

inappropriately short intervals between the Ludi of Au-

gustus, Claudius, and Domitian.15 Other literary sources, such as the Carmen SaeculareXhzX. Horace composed for

Augustus' Ludi, are less relevant for the interpretation of the numismatic iconography.

From these historical sources, the basic ritual outline of the imperial Ludi Saeculares is clear. The festival

began with nearly a week of preparatory events. First, the citizens brought gifts of agricultural produce (fruges) to various temples. On the following days, they received materials for the ritual purification of private homes (suffimenta) from the priesthood in charge of

organizing the Ludi Saeculares, the quindecimviri sacris

faciundis (abbreviated XV SF), of which the emperor was a member. Then followed the six sacrifices at the heart of the celebration. They alternated between

nighttime sacrifices to the Moirae (the Fates), the

Ilithyiae (goddesses of childbirth) , and Terra Mater at riverside altars in the Tarentum, located on the point bar of the Campus Martius where the Tiber bends; and

daytime sacrifices to Jupiter, Juno, Apollo, and Diana at temples on the Capitoline and Palatine Hills (table 1). During the same three days, 110 married women with children held sellisternia for Juno and Diana, ritual banquets at which images of the goddesses sat as honored guests. Theatrical performances in both Latin and Greek began the same night as the first sacrifice and continued for several days following the last sacrifice, along with chariot races, animal hunts, and other circus games.

THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF DOMITIAN'S LUDI SAECULARES COINAGE

Throughout Roman history, the Ludi Saeculares commemorated the transition from one saeculum, or

era, to another. Establishing the duration of a saecu-

lum, however, presented problems. It was defined

variously as a century, as a period of 1 10 years, or as the maximum lifespan of a human. In addition, a major turning point in history could be seen as marking the end of one saeculum and the beginning of another.16 To the degree that the term "saeculum" denoted a flexible concept, it naturally lent itself to political manipulation during the Imperial period.

As can be best reconstructed, the Ludi Saeculares were celebrated sporadically in response to extraor-

dinary events during the Republic.17 Augustus revived this festival in 17 B.C.E. to celebrate his reign and the new "golden age" of peace. For all practical purposes, it seems that Augustus thoroughly reinvented the Ludi Saeculares.18 It was carefully cloaked in the guise of tra- dition and restoration of earlier forms and legitimized by the discovery of the Sibylline oracle prescribing the rituals to be performed. The official history of the

previous celebrations was changed to align with Augus- tan ideological needs.19 None of the subsequent Ludi

Saeculares, however, followed the Augustan formula of 1 10-year intervals between celebrations. According to Suetonius, the emperor Claudius rejected Augustus' new system, arguing instead that a saeculum should be equivalent to a century.20 He performed the Ludi Saeculares in 47 C.E., marking the 800th anniversary of Rome's foundation.21 Domitian celebrated his own Ludi Saeculares a mere four decades later, following the precedent set by Augustus and officially ignoring Claudius' Ludi.

It is only in hindsight that the competing celebrations can be separated into "Sibylline" and "centen- nial" series whose different priorities present no serious conflict. In the surviving accounts of Tacitus, Suetonius, and Zosimus, Domitian's disregard of Clau- dius' Ludi is presented as a noteworthy feature of Domitian's celebration.22 Tacitus himself had participated as praetor and quindecemvir in the planning and execution of Domitian's Ludi, and his surviving eyewitness comments on them are found in his discussion of Claudius' reign.23 There Tacitus does not discuss Claudius' Ludi at all but simply refers readers to his now lost account of Domitian's. Suetonius, how-

ever, focuses on the humorous incongruity between the "once in a lifetime" rhetoric of the Claudian Ludi

12 Zos. 2.1-7. 13 Phlegon of Tralles, FGrHist257, F 37; Zos. 2.6. 14Parke 1988, 209-10; Galinsky 1996, 102; Coarelli 1997,

108. 15Suet Claud. 21. 2; Vit.2.5;Dom. 4.3; Censorinus, ZW17.11;

Zos. 2.4. 16Hild 1909; Weinstock 1971, 191-97; Scheid 2000. 17 Censorinus, DN 17.8-11; Beard et al. 1998, 201-6.

18Poe 1984, 64-5; Zanker 1988, 167-72; Galinsky 1996, 102; Beard etal. 1998,205.

19Hild 1909, 989; Parke 1988, 192, 205; Coarelli 1997, 101- 8.

20 Suet Claud. 21.2. 21 Censorinus, DN 17.11. 22Tac. Ann. 11.11.1; Suet. Dom. 4.3; Zos. 2.4. 23Tac. Ann. 11.11.1.




||^

G £ C So

@ §1 I ^ ^ J> g § S| J I I 2 | ^ 33 |

I is 1 N O N _S

| ^ | ,§ S

"S < 'S ^ n

III? i *w <U c cu ^ I X) <U c cu ^ X)

•§!§! <U c cu ^ X)

I ^ 3 £ 2 u

£ ^«^ g

.a ^ .y 43 g J^ •a g> T3 .y 2

g |

^ S c^ g $ w © S © ^ 2 -s

w

fl fl S3 ^^^

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 @ O O O o o ^ o o o c^ c+^ .3

.5 -2 .2 S2 <« S T3 T5 T3 .2 3 O

Illlll




Saeculares and its celebration in living memory during the reign of Augustus. He records a well-known joke said to be Vitellius' pointed compliment to Claudius

("may you do this often"), the crowd's laughter at the announcement of the festival, and the absurdity of ac- tors billed to appear in their second Ludi Saeculares.24 Despite the fact that the performance of Domitian's Ludi after an even shorter interval had similar comic potential, Suetonius refrains from exploiting it, although his account of Domitian is generally hostile. In general, the ancient historians devalue Claudius' Ludi and treat Domitian's with respect.

While Tacitus, Suetonius, and Zosimus indicate that Domitian followed Augustus' precedent in holding the Ludi of 88 C.E., the actual chronology suggests a more

complex situation. If Domitian had waited the full 110

years following the Augustan ceremony, one would

expect his Ludi to have been held in 93 C.E. If Domi- tian set Claudius' celebration aside on chronological grounds, why did he hold the Ludi five years early? Tacitus' Annales alludes to a now lost discussion of the

competing chronological calculations of Claudius and Domitian; as a quindecemvir in 88 C.E., Tacitus cer-

tainly would have been familiar with Domitian's justifi- cation for the timing.25 The lack of any surviving textual evidence to explain this discrepancy vexed the earliest scholars to work on the Ludi.26 Some hypothesize that Augustus' Ludi had been intended for 23 B.C.E., thereby rationalizing Domitian's choice of 88 C.E.27

Despite the fragmentary state of the literary evidence, which prevents a definitive solution to this problem, it seems clear that Domitian's arguments for the timing of his Ludi were sufficiently compelling to convince both Tacitus and Suetonius to present them as a valid celebration in the model set by Augustus.

This chronological excursus implies that Domitian's decision to hold the Ludi Saeculares in 88 C.E. was inherently risky; the legitimacy of its timing might have been contested on chronological grounds by proponents of either the Augustan or the Claudian calculations. Given that the point of the festival was to celebrate the transition from one saeculum to another, errors in timing could potentially invalidate the entire enterprise. In addition, because only 40

years had passed since Claudius' celebration, many

Romans would be participating in their second Ludi Saeculares. Careful preparation and commemoration would have been needed. It is in this context that the

prolific imagery celebrating the Ludi Saeculares of 88 C.E. interrupted the normal pattern of Domitian's

coinage. Images of Minerva that vary only in pose and attributes dominate Domitian's regular gold and silver coins. The dupondii and asses feature Virtus, Fortuna, and Moneta. Domitian's sestertii include a wider vari-

ety of imagery, but the sheer number of types and their

compositional complexity make the Ludi Saeculares issue stand out from the rest.28

The need to emphasize the ritual legitimacy of the Ludi Saeculares may explain why they were so promi- nently illustrated on the coinage, although the many other ludi that Domitian gave did not appear on the

coinage, not even the Ludi Capitolini that he founded. I argue that the visibility of the Ludi Saeculares on the coinage of 88 C.E. and its emphasis on religious ceremony may be seen as part of a strategy to make Domitian's Ludi memorable for their solemnity. In this context, the apparent absence of any Claudian Ludi Saeculares coinage and the reuse of Augustan iconography in Domitian's Ludi coinage take on added significance. Like Augustus, Domitian presented himself as the founder of a renewed Rome.29 Celebrating an

Augustan-style saeculum invoked a set of themes that

supported Domitian's image. As the only surviving evidence of what might be termed Domitian's Ludi Saeculares "propaganda," these extraordinary coins are especially important, and as the last remaining monument to Domitian's festival, they emphasize a

single message: Domitian celebrated the sacrifices and other rituals of the Ludi Saeculares in 88 C.E.30

domitian's emulation of Augustus' ludi saeculares coinage

Parallels in the composition of coin types suggest that the designers of Domitian's Ludi Saeculares coins used Augustan coins or dies as one source of icon-

ography and thus followed a Flavian pattern of adapt- ing earlier numismatic imagery.31 Later, Trajan issued coins replicating both Republican and Early Imperial types.32 Such repeated copying of earlier coin types confirms that Augustan designs were available in 88 C.E.

24 Suet. Claud. 21.2; Vit. 2.5. See also Plin. (HN 7.48.159) concerning a dancer who performed at both Augustus' and Claudius' Ludi.

25Tac. Ann. 11.11.1. 26Panvinio 1558; Taffin 1698. 27Mattingly 1934; Syme 1939, 339; Weinstock 1971, 191-

97. 28 For Domitian's regular coinage, see Morawiecki 1977;

Carradice 1982, 1983, 1993, 1998.

29Darwall-Smith 1996, 248-52; Davies 2000, 149. 30 For the development of coins as monuments, see Mead-

ows and Williams 2001 . 31 For Vespasian's reuse of Republican and Julio-Claudian

types, see Buttrey 1972; for "restoration" types of Titus and Do- mitian, see Komnick 2001, 165-71, 179-80, 181-85.

32 Trajan's Republican types have double legends: one original to the coin type, the other noting Trajan's restitution (Kom- nick 2001, 110-38).




Three Augustan coin types from the mint of Rome have legends that associate them with the Ludi Saecula- res (see fig. 1[1,11,16]). They depict several elements of the so-called once-in-a-lifetime religious festival: the

inscription documenting it, a standing figure variously identified with a herald or with the ritual participant known as a ludio, and the distribution of suffimenta (consisting of torches, brimstone, and bitumen for ritual household purification, according to Zosimus) ,33 In turn, Domitian's coins evoke all these Augustan antecedents (see fig. 1 [2, 12, 17] ). One type minted in

gold and silver depicts an inscribed cippus. Another, also minted in precious metals, depicts a figure that I would argue represents not a herald but a ludio. The third Domitianic design for the gold and silver coinage combines the cippus and ludio with a candelabrum to create a new composition, a design repeated in the bronze coinage (see fig. 1 [14, 15] ) . The distribution of the suffimenta appears on Domitian's bronze coinage. The only known Augustan coin with a Ludi Saeculares legend not reflected in Domitian's coinage is an aureus of uncertain date probably minted in either Spain or Gaul (see fig. 1[13]).34

Domitian's cippus coin type (figs. 1 [17], 2) strongly resembles Augustus' cippus denarii for the Ludi Saecu- lares, minted in 16 B.C.E. by the triumvir L. Mescinius Rufus (see fig. 1 [16] ). While several other Augustan coin types feature cippi (in each case the text within the cippus indicates the occasion), under Domitian, the cippus motif is used only on the Ludi Saeculares

coinage.35 Here, it is given prominence on the aureus and the denarius.36 Both Domitianic type and Au-

gustan prototype feature the inscribed cippus in the center and a legend on either side of it. While conserv-

ing the earlier composition, however, the later coin makes some significant changes in content. A wreath has replaced the legend naming Rufus as moneyer. The shorter legend on Domitian's cippus, "LVD(os) SAEC(ulares) FEC(it)," is a grammatically complete sentence. On each side of the cippus, Domitian's title, CO(n)S(ul) XIIII, indicates the date of the coin and of the Ludi Saeculares. Domitian's "COS XIIII"

Fig. 2. Aureus of Domitian, 88 C.E. Reverse: cippus (© Kunst- historisches Museum, Vienna) .

has replaced the legend "XV SF" (quindecimviri sacris faciundis) on the Augustan coin.

These changes are a reminder that Augustus was more willing than Domitian to appear to share power by giving credit to others.37 The legend XV SF signi- fies both Augustus' authority as quindecemvir and the shared responsibility of the entire priesthood for the Ludi Saeculares. Charged with the organization and performance of the festival, all the quindecemvirs (including Augustus and Agrippa) were named in the Augustan acta.38 Under Domitian, Tacitus reports that the quindecemvirs, including himself, did most of the work of the Ludi.39 While the coins of both Augustus and Domitian announce the emperor as patron of the Ludi Saeculares, the Augustan coin also acknowledges the leadership of the quindecemvirs. Domitian's cippus coin, however, gives all the credit to the emperor. This focus on the emperor appears throughout Domitian's Ludi Saeculares coinage. It is both appropriate and expected that the coinage of the imperial mint should represent the event from an imperial point of view in this way.

Repetition of form accompanied by symbolic modifications also occurs on the coins depicting either a herald or a ludio. The figure on Domitian's aurei, denarii,

33Dupont (1993) considers the ritual role of the ludiones; Tagliafico (1994) discusses the etymology, history, and seman- tics of the term "ludio"

34 Little is known about the mint or its location (Burnett et al. 1998, 26-7). Only three examples of this type are known: from the Boscoreale hoard, now in Copenhagen (Bahrfeldt 1923, 136, pl. 13. 16); in London (BMCRE 1: civ, cx-cxii, 74, no. 431, pl. 10.4); and in Berlin (see fig. 1 [13] ).

35 The standard numismatic representation of an inscribed cippus is several lines of text placed inside a vertical rectangle with heavy upper and lower moldings. The Augustan inscription is 1.12 m wide, and Moretti (1984, 373) notes that it must

have been at least 4 m tall. Hill (1989, 56-61 ) illustrates several other Augustan coins depicting inscribed cippi and points out that such coins were minted for the Ludi Saeculares of Domitian, Septimius Severus, and Philip. Otherwise, the motif is rare.

36 Aureus: Paris; Giard 1976-1998, 3:257, no. 128, pl. 94. 37Jones 1994. 38 CIL6 32323 indicates that, contrary to the literal meaning

of the priesthood's name (The Fifteen Men), there were 21 members at the time of Augustus' Ludi Saeculares.

39Tac. Ann. 11.11.1.




and silver quinarii (figs. 1 [12] , 3) generally resembles that of Augustus' aurei and denarii (figs. 1 [11], 4) in both leftward orientation and overall costume, suggest- ing that the later die cutters referred to examples of the earlier coins. This distinctively dressed figure holding a round shield and wearing a helmet with two protru- sions presents several interpretative difficulties. On one hand, many scholars identify this figure as a herald

announcing the Ludi Saeculares;40 the caduceus held

by the Augustan figure supports this identification.41 On the other hand, it does not make sense for the

coinage of Domitian to emphasize the announcement of the Ludi Saeculares. Not only was the timing of the festival a point of contention but Suetonius' anecdotes indicate that the heralds of Claudius' contested Ludi Saeculares had triggered laughter rather than respect.42 Whether this humorous treatment of the heralds truly characterized Claudius' Ludi or was one of the tactics employed by Domitian and later historians to delegitimize the previous celebration, the result is the same: it would not have been prudent to

highlight the herald on Domitian 's coinage. Perhaps this observation explains why Domitian 's artists chose to substitute a slender stick for the snake-entwined, winged caduceus that the Augustan figure carries, there-

by removing the main evidence for interpreting this

figure as a messenger. Aside from the Augustan precedent, then, there is no reason to support the reading of the Domitianic figure as a herald.

Instead, the dress and armor of both the Augustan and Domitianic figures largely match ancient de-

scriptions of ritual participants known as ludiones. Ac-

cording to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who may have witnessed the Ludi Saeculares of 17 B.C.E., ludiones wore scarlet tunics with bronze belts, helmets decorated with feathers, and swords. They also carried short

spears and round shields. The ludionesled processions, sang hymns, and danced.43 Although sword and spear are absent from the coin iconography, the rest of the costume - tunic, helmet with two feathers, and round shield - is a close match. The etymological derivation of "ludio" from "ludi and the association between the ludiones and the religious aspects of theatrical performance all make this second interpretation attractive, even though the ludiones are not exclusively linked with the Ludi Saeculares.44 Although the Augustan coin

Fig. 3. Denarius of Domitian, 88 C.E. Reverse: ludio with helmeted head on shield (© Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna) .

Fig. 4. Aureus of M. Sanquinius, 17 B.C.E. Reverse: head of young man with siduslulium. Obverse: herald/ ludio with sidus Iulium on shield (© Staatliche Museen zu Berlin-PreuBischer Kulturbesitz. Munzkabinett. Aufnahmen durch Lubke and Wiedemann, Stuttgart) .

should be seen as evoking the iconography of both ludio and herald, Domitian 's coin may be best described as depicting a ludio. Moreover, in its widest sense, the word "ludio" simply expresses involvement in ludi. For

simplicity's sake, I will refer to both as ludiones. The most interesting difference between the Au-

gustan and Domitianic depictions of ludiones is the

presence of symbols relevant to each emperor. On

many specimens, the ludio of Augustus holds a shield decorated with the siduslulium, the comet that marked

Julius Caesar's death and subsequent deification.45

40Dressel 1899; Boyce 1965; Carlson 1972a; BMCRE lxiv; Hill 1989, 58; Scheid 1998, 22-3.

41 For associations with Mercury, see Kellum 1990, 289- 90. The two long feathers on the helmet are quite distinct from the wings on Mercury's helmet; cf. LIMC 6(l):500-54, 6(2):272-306.

42 Suet. Claud.21.2.

43 Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.71, 7.72. This identification is supported by Sutherland 1944; BMCRE 2: lxxxvii; Tagliafico 1994.

44Dupont 1993; Tagliafico 1994. 45 Suet. Iul 88; Weinstock 1971, 370-84; Ramsey and Licht

1997.




Both the coin's legend, "AVGVST(us) DIVI F(ilius)," and its reverse type, a young male with the sidus Iulium, reinforce the connection with the adoptive father of

Augustus (see fig. 4) ,46 The sidus Iuliumwas too closely associated with Augustan dynastic concerns, however, to be relevant to Domitian's Ludi Saeculares iconography. Instead, some of his shields display a helmeted head (see fig. 3) ; others are blank, whether intention-

ally or through wear.47 Plausible interpretations of this head include Minerva, the goddess of wisdom and Domitian's personal patron, and Roma, the personification of the capital city. Minerva has the stronger claim since Domitian's connection with that goddess was a regular part of his public artistic programs, and

contemporary viewers would have been conditioned to

expect images of helmeted Minerva.48 Thus, the ludio's

equipment (or at least the numismatic representation of it) must have been modified to emphasize symbols significant to each emperor: Minerva for Domitian, and Julius Caesar's divinity for Augustus.

The repetition of the cippus and ludio on Domitian's third denarius type further confirms the importance of both to the iconography of Domitian's Ludi Saecula- res (see fig. 1 [14]). In the center of the composition, a tall object variously identified as either a candelabrum or an incense burner separates the cippus from the ludio.49 On the best-preserved specimens of the dupondius version of this same composition, a tall narrow flame indicates that this central object is indeed a candelabrum (fig. 5).50 As a source of light, the candelabrum serves as a marker of nocturnal time.

Many of the sacrifices and theatrical performances of the Ludi Saeculares took place at night. Was the candelabrum also a symbol of the Ludi Saeculares, like the cippus and the ludio? Notably, an Augustan coin depicting a candelabrum surrounded by a wreath decorated with bucrania and paterae has been associated with the Ludi by several scholars, though this is

only conjecture (fig. 6).51 The pose of the ludioin Domitian's composite scene

is more static than when he appears alone. Although

Fig. 5. Dupondius of Domitian, 88 C.E. Obverse: head of Domitian. Reverse: cippus, candelabrum, and ludio (© Staat- liche Museen zu Berlin-PreuBischer Kulturbesitz. Miinzkabi- nett. Aufnahmen durch Liibke and Wiedemann, Stuttgart) .

Fig. 6. Aureus of Augustus, undated, mint unknown. Obverse: head of young man within an oak wreath. Reverse: candelabrum within a wreath decorated by bucrania and paterae (Bahrfeldt 1923, 137).

it might be tempting to interpret his stick as an unlit torch, the ludio holds it parallel to the candelabrum, or even tipped back toward himself. The lack of a connec- tive gesture or forward momentum suggests that perhaps this iconography should be read not as a narrative scene but as a simple juxtaposition of three symbols of the Ludi Saeculares. The dupondius version of the

type has two slight modifications beyond the indication of the candelabrum's flame: the placement of the

46Boyce (1965) questions the identification of this type as Julius Caesar and suggests either lulus or the genius of the Ludi Saeculares as alternative interpretations; see also Mat- tingly 1934; Zanker 1988, 168; Galinsky 1996, 105-6.

47 BMCRE 2: 327, nos. 131-33. 48 Suet. Dom. 15. See Morawiecki (1977) for Minerva on

Domitian's coins. Examples in other media include the Tem- ple of Minerva in the Forum Transitorium and the Cancelle- ria reliefs; see also Darwall-Smith 1996, 127-29; Henderson 2003.

49 Incense burner: Dressel 1899. Candelabrum: Sutherland 1944; Hill 1965; BMCRE 2: lxxxvii. Tagliafico (1994,55) identi- fies it as a tripod to suggest an allusion to the quindecemvirs. 50 1 have examined four specimens of this dupondius type:

one in London (see fig. 1 [15]), one in Berlin (see fig. 5), one in Paris (Giard 1976-1998, 3:301, no. 463, pl. 113), and one in Vienna (unpublished) . In person, the flame can be distinguished on all but the example in Paris. The depiction of an explicit gesture of incense burning (the hand held over the object to deposit incense) , of a block of incense, or of the wide flame characteristic of incense on fire denotes incense burn- ers as distinct from candelabra (DarSag 1:869-75, s.v. "candelabrum" and 5:542-44, s.v. "turibulum"; Wigand 1912; Foster 2001,43-6).

51 The coin bears no date and is from an unknown mint. Bahrfeldt 1923, 136-38; Sutherland 1944; BMCRE hcxxvi- cxxvii, 110-11, nos. 683-85, pls. 17.14-15; Zanker 1988, 88-9, fig. 71.




legend more closely resembles that of the cippus-only type, and like the rest of the Ludi Saeculares bronze coins it bears the additional abbreviation SC, generally thought to refer to the Senate's nominal authority over the bronze coinage.52 The repetition of imagery across the divide between precious metal and bronze coin-

age is unexpected and suggests that a unified design process was used for the Ludi Saeculares coinage of 88 C.E., in contrast to usual mint routines.53

Such integration of precious metal and bronze designs is further suggested by the likely Augustan prototype of the Domitianic sestertius depicting the distribution of the suffimenta (figs. 1[2], 7), the rare

suffimenta aureus of L. Mescinius Rufus (see fig. 1 [1 ] ) .54 As the only narrative scene from Augustus' Ludi Saecu- lares, this type might have inspired the creation of the series of bronze coins representing the rituals of the festival in detail. At a minimum, however, Domitian's

suffimenta coin seems to take as its starting point the theme, composition, and orientation of Mescinius' aureus. Both coins represent individual participation in the Ludi Saeculares as an encounter with the emperor. The emperor, seated on a raised platform on the right half of the composition, hands suffimenta to citizens

approaching from the left. The legends of both coins use similar abbreviations (SVF P) to indicate that the event depicted is the distribution of suffimenta during the Ludi Saeculares.55 The legends help differentiate these images from similar iconography used to represent money and food distribution.56

Two significant changes distinguish Domitian's suffimenta coin type from that of Augustus. First, a child accompanies the togate male instead of the second adult male seen on the Augustan coin. Along with the

type representing a procession of two boys and a girl followed by two adult males (see fig. 1 [10] ) , these coins suggest that families and fertility formed a significant theme in Domitian's Ludi Saeculares. It was certainly a key theme for Augustus' Ludi, as seen, for example, in the imagery of Horace's Carmen Saeculare and in the composition of the chorus that performed it: boys and

Fig. 7. Sestertius of Domitian, 88 C.E. Reverse: distribution of suffimenta at a tetrastyle temple without pedimental decoration (©American Numismatic Society, no. 1001.1.22970).

girls, all with both parents still living. The second and more noticeable difference is the use of architecture in the composition of Domitian's suffimentatype. The four columns, triangular pediment, and long roofline of a Roman temple seen from an angle fill the background. In this facade-and-flank view, the emperor sits framed

by the temple's long side. The addition of architecture to the scene provides a sense of place. Architecture is a

key iconographic theme in Domitian's Ludi Saeculares coin series that was entirely absent from Augustus'. Understanding the symbolism and function of the architecture is crucial to interpreting these coins.57

The repetition of numismatic iconography connects Domitian's Ludi Saeculares with Augustus' celebration of 17 B.C.E. While literary sources establish that

chronological and ideological connections between the Ludi Saeculares of Domitian and Augustus were well known in antiquity, Domitian's coin legends mention only the Ludi, not the link to Augustus. The

repeated iconography is apparent only upon comparison of the two issues. Augustan coinage, in general, was

probably uncommon in Flavian Rome, and the Ludi Saeculares types rarer still.58 It seems doubtful, then,

52Wallace-Hadrill 1986, 80-5; Burnett etal. 1998, 1; Cheung 1998, 58-9.

53 Burnett 1977, 53; Wallace-Hadrill 1986, 80-1. 54 Only two examples of the Augustan coin, one in Paris and

the other in London, both gold, have been published (BMCRE 1:16, no. 85, pl. 3.8; Giard 1976-1998, 1:92, no. 330, pl. 16); see also Bahrfeldt 1923, 146-47.

55 Augustus: on the tribunal, "LVDI (s) S (aecularibus) "; in the exergue, "AVG(ustus) SVF(fimenta) P(opulodedit)" (Augus- tus gave suffimenta to the people during the Ludi Saeculares) . Domitian: around the field, "CO(n)S(ul) XIIII LVD (is) SAEC (ularibus)"; on the tribunal, "SVF (fimenta) P(opulo) D(edit)"; in the exergue, "SC" (i.e., "as consul for the 14th time, he gave

suffimenta to the people during the Ludi Saeculares"). The proper expansion of the abbreviation SC is probably S (enatus) C(onsulto), but that reading has been contested (supra n. 52).

56 Any misreading of this scene as a handout of money or food would certainly have accrued to the emperor's credit, en- hancing his reputation for generosity. 57 This article represents one case study in my long-term investigation into conventions of architectural representation and methodologies for interpreting Roman political art.

58 While it is fairly easy to determine when coins were minted, it is a much harder task to establish when they were no lon- ger available. Fortunately, coin finds from Pompeii provide a




that these coins would have been widely recognized as following Augustan models. One can conclude that while the connection to the Augustan Ludi was

important for legitimatizing this celebration, it is not the main message of the coins. Instead, this link gives insights into the practices and priorities of those se-

lecting the imagery. The repetition of Augustan designs in Domitian's

Ludi Saeculares coinage establishes that whoever

planned the coins examined the numismatic iconography of Augustus' Ludi Saeculares and chose to use it as a source of inspiration, which supports the hypothesis that the mint of Rome kept or had access to a collection of past coin types.59 Furthermore, it corroborates the

literary evidence indicating that Domitian's celebration followed the precedents set by Augustus. The reuse of earlier numismatic iconography also confirms that the

Augustan coins functioned as monuments to his Ludi Saeculares. It seems likely, then, that Domitian's coin-

age was designed with a commemorative function in

mind, as a monument of the Ludi Saeculares for both immediate and long-term audiences. In this connec-

tion, it is tantalizing to recall that among Domitian's

quindecemvirs was Tacitus, whose writings included accounts of the reigns of Augustus, Claudius, and Domitian.

ARCHITECTURE ON DOMITIAN'S LUDI SAECULARES COINS

Despite the wholesale reuse of Augustan Ludi Saecu- lares iconography, Domitian's coinage demonstrates considerable innovation, particularly in the expansion of the imagery to include many narrative scenes and the use of architectural backgrounds in seven of those scenes.60 Close examination reveals that, compared with most other examples of architecture in Flavian

political art, architecture is treated quite differently on these coins. I argue that the temples on the coins cannot be identified with particular locations, unlike

the representation of the Colosseum on a sestertius of Titus or the image of the Temple of Quirinus on the relief fragment attributed to Domitian's Templum Gentis Flaviae.61

All of the architectural backgrounds in this coin series occur in the types depicting the preliminary and sacrificial rituals of the Ludi Saeculares. Generally, the

iconography of the narrative scenes has been seen as the key to decoding the meaning of the architecture.62 Other scholars have focused primarily on architectural form.63 Because the two approaches produce contra-

dictory identifications, it is necessary to evaluate the merits of both.

The identification of the preliminary rituals on the narrative coins is straightforward. Coin legends specifi- cally identify the sufftmenta scene ("SVF P D" on the em-

peror's platform) and two versions of the collection of the fruges ("FRVG AC" on the emperor's platform) (figs. 1 [3a, 3b] , 8) .64 All three types have tetrastyle facade-and- flank temples in the background. The suffimenta and

fruges are mirror image compositions, appropriate to their mirror image actions (distribution vs. collection) .

According to the Augustan acta and Zosimus, the distribution of the suffimenta took place simultaneously at three locations, and the collection of the fruges at four locations.65 As a result, no firm identification of the temples can be reached without further evidence.

The identification of the sacrifice scenes presents a more complex logical problem. The solution presented in table 1 depends on several assumptions, some more likely than others. The first and most critical

supposition is that Domitian followed the Augustan model in performing the sacrifices. The preponder- ance of the evidence - from the similarities between the ceremonies of Augustus and Septimius Severus to Zosimus' statement that Domitian observed traditional forms - supports this hypothesis.66 Some studies of the architectural backgrounds, however, have proposed Domitianic changes to the ceremonies to account

suggestive look at the coins in circulation in 79 C.E. Duncan- Jones (2003) notes that only about 3% of the gold and silver found at Pompeii dates to the reign of Augustus. Moreover, the Ludi Saeculares coins represent only three out of more than 100 known Augustan gold and silver coin types listed in RIC. Hoards also demonstrate a general tendency for coins to drop out of circulation in a matter of decades rather than centuries (see Reece 2003, 295-304) . I thank Metcalf for help on this point.

59Buttrey 1972, 104-5; Ehrhardt 1984, 48. 60 On the general difficulties of interpreting architectural

representations on coins, see Price and Trell 1977, 15-24; Zanker 1997; Burnett 1999.

61 For the sestertius of Titus depicting the Colosseum, see BMCRE 2:262, no. 190, pl. 50.2. The Domitianic types with

the Colosseum are doubtful; see BMCRE 2: 356, pls. 69.8, 70.1; Giard 1976-1998, 3:311, no. 543, pl. 118. For the reliefs attributed to the Templum Gentis Flaviae, see Davies (2000, 148-58, fig. 103 [with earlier bibliography]). For other Domitianic coins with architectural types, see Carradice 1982.

62Welin 1954, 174-78; LaRocca 1984, 43-55; Coarelli 1997, 87-92.

63Brown 1941; Hill 1965, 1989. 64 Supra nn. 3, 55 for these legends. 65 Suffimenta: the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus on

the Capitoline Hill, the Temple of Jupiter Tonans, also on the Capitoline Hill, and the Temple of Apollo on the Palatine Hill. Fruges: the preceding three temples and the Temple of Diana on the Aventine Hill.

66Zos.2.4.




Fig. 8. Sestertius of Domitian, 88 C.E. Reverse: acceptance of fruges (poured on ground) at a tetrastyle temple with an eagle in the pediment (© Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna).

Fig. 9. Sestertius of Domitian, 88 C.E. Reverse: emperor leading kneeling matrons in prayer to Juno at a tetrastyle temple with an eagle in the pediment (drawing by L. Sterner; after Breglia 1964, pl. 39.7).

for certain anomalies (discussed below) . The next as-

sumptions depend upon the first: that each of the six

prescribed sacrifices is represented by only one coin

type, that the known coins represent images of all the sacrifices that took place, and that all the known coin

types are genuine.67 These suppositions generate the final conditions upon which table 1 relies - that each coin is meant to have a single correct interpretation and that the intended audience not only would have detailed knowledge of the ceremonies but also would look at these coins as a group. Dressel and Mattingly pursued the identification of the sacrifice scenes according to this logic, although both refrained from

proposing identifications for the architecture.68 The conclusions based on these assumptions can

be summarized as follows. The prayer to Juno on the Capitoline that took place immediately after the sacrifice of a cow may be recognized by the unusual kneeling pose taken by the supplicants to the goddess (figs. 1[8], 9). Three coin types depicting sacrifices can be distinguished based on the victims - bovine (to Jupiter on the Capitoline), ovines (to the Moirae at the Tarentum) , and a pig (to Terra Mater at the Tar- entum) . Finally, two victimless sacrifices are depicted on the coins. The presence of a reclining personification, usually identified as the river Tiber, allows one type to be interpreted as the sacrifice of cakes to the

Ilithyiae, which took place near the river. The other bloodless sacrifice then must be that of cakes to Diana and Apollo.

Unfortunately, the building identifications derived

through extrapolation from the narrative content of the coins do not satisfy the principle of design econo-

my; events that ought to have taken place at the same location have different architectural backgrounds, and similar architectural backgrounds are used for events at widely separated locations. The three sacrifices that occurred at the Tarentum near the Tiber are depicted at three different settings: a hexastyle temple, a tripartite structure, and no architecture at all.69 The sacrifice to Jupiter and the prayer to Juno are shown at a hexastyle and tetrastyle temple, respectively, although both happened on the Capitoline. Further- more, events represented as occurring at apparently identical hexastyle temples may have taken place at three separate locations: the sacrifice of ovines at the Tarentum (no temple at this location is documented in any other source), the sacrifice of a bovine on the Capitoline (a hexastyle temple), and the victimless sacrifice on the Palatine (a hexastyle temple). There are three possible solutions to these conun- drums: (1) each architectural image must be considered in isolation from all the others, (2) the literary and epigraphic evidence for the location of sacrifices

67Carradice (1982) points out the necessity of distinguishing authentic from false specimens for proper interpretation of Domitian 's architectural types. This study excludes the ob- viously counterfeit specimens imitating genuine Ludi Saecu- lares types. The most frequently counterfeited is the suffimenta sestertius; spurious examples of the sestertius with kneeling women are also known. The most common clues to false specimens include nonsense additions to the legend and temple

images that follow the rules of perspective developed during the Renaissance (Klawans 1977, 70-2, 120).

68Dressel 1899; BMCRE 2:xcvi. 69 A problem brought up by Welin ( 1954, 1 77-78) , who con-

cluded that different settings in the same area, some temporary (the tripartite structure) and some permanent (the hexastyle temple), were depicted.




must be discounted as irrelevant, (3) the architectural images must have an iconographic and compositional purpose entirely disconnected from topographic concerns.

Treating each coin separately has some advan- tages in explaining these problems. Variations in the number of columns and in the angle of view do not necessarily mean that different places are represented, although they do suggest that the number of columns should not be used as a criterion in identifying a building. Abbreviated representations of temple facades are common on both coins and reliefs.70 It is reason- able to interpret both the hexastyle temple with the sacrifice of a bovine and the tetrastyle temple with a group kneeling in supplication as legitimate representations of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus. This approach, however, requires that each coin be considered on its own and presumes that the ancient viewer would follow the same two-stage process of

identifying first the narrative scene and then the topographic location. Scheid has pointed out the absurdity of expecting ancient viewers to conform to modern

scholarly practices in his appraisal of the details of the

religious rituals depicted on these coins.71 Scholars interested primarily in architectural form

have identified some or even all of the other hexa-

style and tetrastyle temple images as representations of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus.72 This

interpretation is plausible for the suffimenta and fruges coin types because the Temple of Jupiter was one of several sites for these two ceremonies. In the case of the sacrifice of ovines and the victimless sacrifice at a

hexastyle temple, however, this argument implies that Domitian changed the locations of the first and last of the sacrifices of the Ludi Saeculares. The evidence - the hexastyle facades and the depiction of eagles in the temple pediments on some specimens - does not stand up to close scrutiny. The artists did not always take care to depict all six columns on these two coin

types; some specimens depict as few as four columns on the temple facade, others seem to be pentastyle,

and in others the heads of the emperor and musicians block columns from view (figs. 1[4, 7], 10, 11). The column count, therefore, cannot have carried iconographic significance.

Although building identities sometimes can be determined through distinctive pedimental iconography,73 this method does not work for the Ludi Saecula- res coins. Only two particular pedimental symbols were used on these coins: the eagle, an attribute of Jupiter, and the wreath, generic symbol of festivity. Every coin type has inconsistent pedimental iconography, and many specimens have empty, illegible, or damaged pediments.74 The number of pedimental symbols does not correspond with the number of venues known for the Ludi Saeculares. Wreaths appear quite frequently on every coin type with architecture. Eagles are rare, by comparison, and occur on only four coin types.75 Although one might expect to find an eagle in the pediment of the hexastyle temple in the background of the sacrifice of a bovine, which took place at the Capitoline Temple of Jupiter, I have not yet located any such specimen. While individual coins with eagles plausibly may represent the Temple of Jupiter, the inconsistencies from one die to another within each of these coin types suggest that the identification of these buildings with the Temple of Jupiter was not essential to the iconography of any of them. The numismatic evidence, therefore, is too weak to support the assertion that Domitian changed the venues of two sacrifices (that of the ovines to the Moirae and that of the cakes to Apollo and Diana) to the Temple of Jupiter on the Capitoline. In fact, the only discernible pattern of pedimental symbols in the Ludi Saeculares coinage is the dominance of the generic wreath as the default decoration.

In addition to the variation in pedimental symbols and number of columns, other discrepancies from die to die within each coin type suggest that the artists had quite a large degree of latitude in interpretation of the overall design. Brown catalogued a wide range of variation in the depiction of temples in these coins.76

70 E.g., on the well-known panel relief sculpture of Marcus Aurelius sacrificing on the Capitoline, the hexastyle Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus is shown with a tetrastyle facade (Kleiner 1992, 294 [with earlier bibliography] ) . On numismatic examples, see Brown 1941; Drew-Bear 1974; Price and Trell 1977, 15-24; Burnett 1999, 146-47; Grunow2002, 19-27.

71 Scheid 1998. 72 Brown 1941, 140-42, 144; Ryberg 1955, 175; Hill 1965;

1989, 25-6. 73 E.g., the representation of the Temple of Magna Mater

on the Valle-Medici reliefs (Kleiner 1992, 141-45, fig. 119), a relief depicting the Temple of Quirinus (Davies 2000, fig. 103), and the representation of the Temple of Fortuna Re-

dux on the adventus panel now on the Arch of Constantine (Kleiner 1992, 291, fig. 258) . Coins with detailed pedimental iconography usually have legends that identify the building as well, e.g., the coin of Caligula depicting the Temple of Di- vus Augustus (BMCRE 1:153, nos. 41-3, pls. 28.6, 28.9, 29.14); see also Hommel 1954; Grunow 2002.

74 Overall, I have identified 80 specimens with wreaths; by comparison, 26 are blank, 22 have eagles, and 32 are damaged or illegible. For the methodological problems involved in counting specimens, see infra nn. 92, 93.

75 Distribution of fruges, sacrifice of ovines, victimless sacrifice at hexastyle, and group kneeling (prayers to Juno).

76Brown 1941, 135, 140-42, 205-6.




Fig. 10. Dupondius of Domitian, 88 C.E. Reverse: sacrifice of goat and sheep at a hexastyle temple with a wreath in the pediment (© Staatliche Museen zu Berlin-PreuBischer Kulturbesitz. Munzkabinett. Aufnahmen durch Liibke and Wiedemann, Stuttgart) .

Fig. 11. As of Domitian, 88 C.E. Reverse: victimless sacrifice at a probable hexastyle temple (only four columns detailed) with an empty pediment (© Staatliche Museen zu Berlin- PreuBischer Kulturbesitz. Munzkabinett. Aufnahmen durch Liibke and Wiedemann, Stuttgart) .

Sometimes both fluting and Corinthian capitals are

depicted; other times the columns are simply thick vertical lines. Often the columns are regularly spaced and well aligned with the gable; other times they are

unevenly spaced and misaligned. Occasionally the

edge of the pediment is outlined with antefixes along the cornices, and sometimes it is simply a thick straight

line. On facade-and-flank views of temples, hatched lines at times indicate the pattern of roof tiles.

An extreme example of such variation is found in the background of the victimless sacrifice attended by a reclining male personification holding a cornucopia, usually identified as the Tiber. Only the participants in the figural scene (emperor making the gesture of sacrifice over an altar, two musicians, reclining personification) are consistent across all known specimens. While the facade in the background is always divided into three parts (vertically) , and usually into two levels

(horizontally), the roofline and the quantity and ar-

rangement of its columns vary. Dressel documented two versions of this type (see fig. 1 [6a, 6b]), and La Rocca published a third (fig. 12). 77 I have identified two additional variants (figs. 13, 14) , for a provisional total of five different views of this structure. Did the two gables touch, sharing the same entablature, or were they separated? Was the middle section arcuated or gabled? Did the large and small columns strictly alternate (AaAaAaAaA) or follow a different pattern (AaaA AaaA) ? How many large Corinthian columns defined this structure - four, five, or six? Were the

gables decorated with wreaths, with garlands, or with

nothing at all? This diversity in representation suggests uncertainty within the mint about the appearance of this structure. It also has led to divergent theories re-

garding its interpretation. Some see several buildings represented in perspective, and others see a single unified facade.78

Coarelli has used one version of this coin type as the linchpin for his argument that fragment 672 of the Severan marble plan of Rome depicts two otherwise unattested temples in the area of the Tarentum.79 Several scholars have expressed skepticism concerning Coarelli's speculations.80 In the most recent iteration of his hypothesis, Coarelli proposes that the second version of this coin type shows a temporary colon- nade serving as a theater facade, through and above which can be seen two small temples and an arch. For Coarelli, the uppermost horizontal line represents the lintel at the top of a very simple theatrical structure that aligns with and hides the entablatures of the two

temples, but the lower horizontal line represents the

ground line of the temples in the deep background. The variations in depiction thus would be due to the difficulties of convincingly representing such a com-

77Dressel 1899; La Rocca 1984, 45-55, pl. 4. 78 Several buildings: Boyance 1925, 145; Hill 1989, 46; Coa-

relli 1997, 91. Ryberg (1955, 176) postulates a two-story col- onnade; Quilici Gigli (1983) suggests a two-storied structure as well.

79 Coarelli 1968, 33-7; 1997, 87-97; LTUR 5:20-2. 80 Quilici Gigli (1983) rejects Coarelli's arguments on topo-

graphic grounds. La Rocca (1984, 47) points out the paucity of evidence and the implausibility of seeing temples in the tripartite structure. Haselberger (2002, 240) is unconvinced.




Fig. 12. Dupondius of Domitian, 88 C.E. Reverse: victimless sacrifice in front of a tripartite facade with a gable-arch-gable roofline, wreaths, and an AaAaAaAaAaA column pattern (Y. Landrain; courtesy Koninklijke Bibliotheek van Belgie. Pen- ningkabinet. Du Chastel no. 469) .

plex topographic situation. Such intricate layering of structures in several different visual planes is not otherwise attested in Roman coinage. If Coarelli's

interpretation is indeed correct, this composition reflects an innovation not subsequently imitated.

Hill and La Rocca explain the architecture as a tem-

porary theater erected in the Tarentum for Domitian's Ludi Saeculares (such a theater is described in the text of the Augustan acta) .81 This interpretation is based on the stable features of the most familiar variants - the

tripartite, bilevel facade and the alternation between two sizes of columns. The tripartite roofline reflects the three main divisions of the stage. The alternation between large and small columns and the division of the facade into two levels reflect the articulation of the

backdrop. The version of this coin with a simplified column arrangement and garlands decorating the

gable-arch-gable roofline (see fig. 14) may support the interpretation of this coin type as representing a theatrical setting.82

While all the known variants fit reasonably well within the familiar parameters of scaenae frons design, the variations in this coin type are frustrating. They stand at odds with the apparent attention to detail in individual specimens that ought to allow a reconstruc- tion of the structure (s) depicted. Either one version must be enshrined as the "real" building (with the rest

Fig. 13. As of Domitian, 88 C.E. Reverse: victimless sacrifice in front of a tripartite facade with a gable-gable-gable roofline, wreaths or paterae, and an AaAaAaAaA column pattern (drawing by L. Sterner; after Breglia 1964, pl. 38.6).

Fig. 14. Dupondius of Domitian, 88 C.E. Reverse: victimless sacrifice in front of a tripartite facade with a gable-arch-gable roofline, garlands, and an AAAA column pattern (drawing by L. Sterner; after Crippa 1972, no. 455).

to be dismissed as erroneous), or the inconsistency should be considered an indication of the low priority given to the particulars of architectural representation in this coin series. The narrow chronological window (September 88-September 89) and single mint location (Rome) for the production of these types may indicate that the variations were produced simultaneously rather than sequentially.83 If Domitian held the

81 Hill (1989, 46) suggests that in addition to a theater, fig. 1 [6b] may show "a dome in the background." La Rocca (1984, 50-3) cites all the parallels in theatrical architecture, reliefs showing theaters, and some wall paintings, and considers the unlikely possibility that this coin type could depict a nymphaeum.

82 As I have not seen this specimen, I cannot rule out the possibility that the simplified architectural background is the result of heavy tooling. 83 By comparison, Kleiner (1985) demonstrated a gradual degradation of image quality on Nero's arch types that could be explained by both chronological and geographic factors.




festival in late May and early June, as both Augustus and Septimius Severus did, there would have been a delay of several months between the performance of the Ludi Saeculares and the minting of the coins.84 In that case, perhaps the temporary theater was dismantled well before the coins were designed. The artists might have been working from a rough sketch, from memory, or from a verbal description; the details apparently were left to individual discretion.

Clearly, the die engravers were not consistent in their representations of architecture in any of the Ludi Saeculares types. If those designing the coin series had included buildings to indicate the precise locations of the events depicted, they surely would have made the architectural imagery more consistent and more rec-

ognizable. Instead, the design of each type must have been specified only within broad outlines, implying a certain amount of artistic freedom within the mint. The artists involved in this project probably had varied interests in depicting the minutiae of temples and theaters, and apparently a wide range of modifications to the coin designs were deemed acceptable. In other words, since the dies were used to strike surviving specimens, this lack of precision was officially sanctioned. Therefore, these representations of architecture are not meant to bear the weight of close iconographic scrutiny.85 Even as modern efforts to reconstruct the

topography of ancient Rome have led to the misread-

ing of these coins as clues to the location of Domitian's rituals, the images themselves undermine attempts to pinpoint their settings. Because the architectural

backgrounds are not meant to add useful topographic information to the iconography of the rituals, focus on the identities of temples leads only to uncertainty and speculative debate. Different tactics are needed to clarify the role of architecture in Domitian's Ludi Saeculares coinage.

Variations in the architectural backgrounds cor- relate more closely to scene type than to any other variable except denomination. The facade-only back-

grounds occur on the asses and dupondii.86 They give balance to otherwise lopsided sacrifice scene compositions that place the emperor on one side of the altar and all the other participants - musicians, victimarii, victims, and personifications - on the other. By contrast, the tetrastyle facade-and-flank temples, found only on the sestertii, effectively divide the field of the

coin into two halves. They separate the emperor from the citizenry, a divide emphasized by the emperor's elevated position (seated on a platform when citizens

approach on foot, or standing while they kneel in

prayer) . Although the flank of the temple frames and thus isolates the emperor, in every case gesture connects him with the citizens. The artists do not set Domitian directly beneath the temple facade, perhaps to avoid the suggestion of divinity that might result. In the case of the prayer of the matrons to Juno, this

compositional strategy clarifies that prayers are be-

ing offered to the deity within the temple, not to the

emperor who strides forward and stretches his arm out toward the kneeling women. For the firuges and

suffimenta scenes, the mirror image arrangements of both the temples and the figural scenes connect the inverted acts of giving and receiving. As a compositional motif linked to scene type, particular views of architecture are strongly associated with different coin denominations. Although sestertii are larger than dupondii and asses, the compositions are equally complex across the different sizes of bronze coinage. Flan size does not sufficiently explain the variation in the complexity of compositions, especially as the most intricate of these types, the bloodless sacrifice at the

tripartite building, occurs on the mid-sized flans of the asses and dupondii.

DESIGN AND AUDIENCE

As noted above, several assumptions concerning the audience for these coins lie behind the strategy of

iconographic identification dominating most previous analyses. The question of the audience of the imperial coinage has a long and vexed bibliography, split between those who argue for limited audience and

intelligibility and those who view it as propaganda.87 But this is a false dichotomy; Domitian's Ludi Saecu- lares coins would have carried extensive significance for a small audience, while the majority of the popu- lation would have grasped a more limited message, if they came in contact with these particular coins at all. If the coins were meant to be a summary of the

key events of the Ludi Saeculares, we must postulate their distribution as a set of images given to the elite

by the emperor, a practice well attested only much later, as in the case of the Arras hoard.88 Relatively few Romans would have had both the extensive knowledge

84 The prescribed dates for the various rituals are found throughout the surviving fragments of the acta of both Augus- tus and Septimius Severus.

85 Scheid (1998) has determined that the coins draw visual elements from several stages of the religious rituals and therefore cannot be used to study the finer points of sacrificial

practice either. 86 With one exception: Hobley (1998, 28) reports a sester-

tius with the victimless/hexastyle sacrifice type. 87 Supra n. 2. 88Bastien and Metzger 1977, 214-16.




of the rituals and the access to all the coin types essential to sustain a complex narrative interpretation of Domitian's Ludi Saeculares coins. The practicalities of coin circulation instead suggest that most Romans would have encountered these coins in isolation, if at all. I argue that efforts to compensate for varying levels of sophistication among viewers and varying degrees of access to this imagery helped shape the design of the coinage.89

Denomination emerges as the first key design variable. The imagery of each denomination seems to have its own overarching theme and architectural type. The gold and silver repeats the Augustan iconography for the Ludi Saeculares: the cippus and the ludio. These symbolic types were aimed at a relatively wealthy and politically sophisticated audience, whether or not they were cognizant of the Augustan source of the imagery.90 All the narrative types, by contrast, are minted in bronze. The sestertii mostly show the emperor interacting with the citizens of Rome, usually in front of a tetrastyle facade-and-flank temple. The smaller bronze coins, the dupondii and asses, show the emperor sacrificing to the gods on behalf of the Roman people in front of facade-only structures, whether hexastyle (most common) or tripartite. These narrative coins emphasize the emperor's role as leader and high priest of the Romans.

Metcalf has observed a similar division of imagery on first- through third-century C.E. coins commemorating imperial distributions of money - the gold and silver coins feature personifications, while bronze coins depict narratives showing the emperor in action.91 While the choice of designs may be partly linked to the difference in flan sizes - the smaller silver and

gold coins in general receive simpler designs than the larger bronzes - size alone does not adequately explain this variation. For example, Domitian's cippus, candelabrum, and ludio design appears on both the dime-sized silver denarius and the mid-sized bronze dupondius. Moreover, during the reign of Augustus, gold and silver coins carried a range of both narrative and symbolic types, some crowded with as many figures and details as appear on Domitian's Ludi Saeculares

bronzes. The division of imagery between the different denominations, with symbolic images appearing preferentially on the precious metals and narrative scenes on the bronzes, seems to have developed during the first century C.E. and may reflect attempts by the mint to target different audiences. While the symbolic imagery on the gold and silver coinage were encountered most frequently by the highly educated elite, bronze sestertii, dupondii, and asses were the common currency of daily economic exchange. Thus, the more concrete narrative scenes, like the large-scale narrative stone reliefs decorating Rome's imperial architecture, would be seen by Romans of various social classes. Additional research is needed to see whether these patterns extend beyond the Ludi Saeculares coins of Domitian and the liberalitas types analyzed by Metcalf.

The distribution of these coins also mattered. The survival rates and find patterns of Domitian's Ludi Saeculares bronze coins have some intriguing impli- cations for the question of audience, even though such evidence must be used with extreme caution, given the methodological problems involved.92 Table 2 summarizes specimen counts found in wide-rang- ing numismatic studies by Brown, Carradice, and Hobley.93 Brown conducted a die study of all Roman coins depicting temples; in the process he collected data on the six Ludi Saeculares types with temple architecture, drawing mainly from museum collections and auction catalogues. Carradice examined coin hoards and other finds to determine mint output during the reign of Domitian. Hobley investigated the distribution of bronze coin types in Italy and the western provinces of the Roman empire, using coin hoards with documented provenance and collections in local museums. For comparative purposes, I also counted the specimens of each coin type found in the American Numismatic Society's (ANS) photograph file of auction catalogues for the period 1900-1969. As table 2 demonstrates, the asses that depict a victimless sacrifice at a hexastyle temple are the most common. By comparison, the other types are quite rare. More- over, Hobley's data indicate that many of the bronze

89 Cheung (1998) suggests that such considerations apply to the entire Roman coinage. 90 Cheung 1998;Jongman 2003.

91 Metcalf 1993. 92 For a succinct overview of the methodological problems,

see Burnett et al. 1998, 56-7. Reece (2003, 313) points out that the surviving coinage reflects, at best, less than 0.01% of ancient mint production, although perhaps as much as 90% of the individual dies made are represented by at least one surviving coin. In addition, very few coins in the major numis-

matic collections have a known provenance. Conversely, coins from published archaeological contexts are poorly indexed and difficult to use.

93Brown 1941, 135, 140-42, 205-6; Carradice 1983, 81, 130, 135, 144-45; Hobley 1998, 1-2, 24, 28. Because Carradice and Hobley present their data in summary tables without giving reference information for individual coins, it is impossible to determine an absolute number of specimens. In any case, ex- act numbers would be no more helpful than these similar accounts of relative frequency obtained by different means.




Table 2. Summary of Studies Counting Specimens of the Bronze Types.

Coin Type Brown 1941 Carradice 1983 Hobley 1998 Hobley 1998 ANS Card File, (all) (finds outside Italy) 1900-1969

Suffimenta (sestertius) 8 2 4 2 8

Fruges (sestertius) 13 - 3 - 6 (on ground) 3 (in baskets)

Sacrifice of goat and sheep 9 - 9 - 4 (dupondius)

Sacrifice of bovine 5 (as) 1 (dup.) 1 (dup.) - 1 (dup.) (dupondius/ as) I (as) 10 (as) 1 (as)

Sacrifice at tripartite n/a 2 (as) 2 (dup.) 4 (as) 7 (dup.) structure (dupondius/ as) 8 (as) 4 (as)

1 (uncertain)

Kneeling in prayer 3-42 5 (sestertius)

Sacrifice of pig (sestertius) n/a - 1 - 2

Sacrifice, no victim, at hexa- 40 (as) 11 (as) 1 (sest.) 24 (as) 36 (as) style temple (sestertius?/ 39 (as) dupondius?/ &s)

Procession (sestertius) n/a - - - 1

Adlocutio (dupondius) n/a - - - -

Cippus, ludio, candelabrum n/a - 1 - -

(dupondius)

types were found exclusively in Italy, although nearly half of the examples of the victimless sacrifice at a

hexastyle temple were from outside Italy.94 These data suggest that most of the narrative types

were minted in fairly small quantities and distributed

only within Italy. The geographic restriction of these

types indicates that the majority of the initial audience for these coins would have been those most likely to have participated in the Ludi Saeculares and also those most familiar with detailed narrative images on the

imperial relief monuments of Rome. For this relatively small audience, the coins may have functioned as com-

memoratives, souvenirs, or propaganda emphasizing the solemnity and traditional setting of Domitian's Ludi Saeculares.

The victimless sacrifice at a hexastyle temple seems to have been minted in somewhat larger quantities and

to have been more widely distributed both within and outside Italy. This coin type was usually minted in the

small-change bronze denomination known as the <25.95 Its audience, therefore, would vary widely in wealth and education. The interpretation of this type should not be restricted to the final sacrifice to Apollo and Di- ana at the Temple of Apollo on the Palatine. Perhaps it also functioned as the main narrative type for the Ludi Saeculares. It is the simplest and most generic of all the sacrifice designs: on it, the emperor performs the

gesture of sacrifice over an altar in front of a temple facade, accompanied by two musicians. This generic composition seen on its own can stand in effectively for any and all of the sacrifices of the Ludi Saeculares. It presents the kernel of Domitian's message: the sacrifices of the Ludi Saeculares were performed in Rome for the benefit of the Roman people.

94 Hobley (1998, 24, 28) found two examples of the as with victimless sacrifice at a hexastyle in Britain, one in Belgica, six in Lower Germany, six in Upper Germany, three in Raetia, none in Pannonia, six in Gaul, and 15 in Italy.

95 Hobley (1998, 28) notes one sestertius of this type but does

not document its location or publication. One very worn dupondius in Paris maybe of this type, though Giard (1976-1998, 3:302, no. 468, pl. 114) catalogues it as the other victimless sacrifice type, "mais sans le Tibre; en arriere-plan, un temple a fronton triangulaire."




It seems, then, that the designers of these coins used several strategies to project to a wide audience a general message that Domitian performed the Ludi Saeculares. Seen individually, the legend on each coin informs the viewer that Domitian, whose portrait always appears on the obverse, performed the Ludi Saeculares. In addition, except for the adlocutio scene (fig. 15) , every coin depicts the religious rituals of this festival.96 Thus, coins seen in isolation underscore the sacred importance of the Ludi Saeculares. Consistency would not have been necessary for a superficial reading of one or two coins. The basic point, that Domi- tian performed the Ludi Saeculares, is made by the legend and elaborated by the imagery on the reverse of each coin.

At the same time, the designers also targeted a much smaller and geographically restricted audience. The multiplicity of types and their limited but careful distinctions, sufficient to identify the major sacrifices and rituals of the Ludi Saeculares, suggest that some people were indeed expected to view and appreciate the entire series of coins, even if this audience were limited to the quindecemvirs, including Tacitus, and others in Domitian 's inner circle. Many scholars have observed that the desire to create an array of compositional and thematic connections influenced both the

public and private art of the Romans.97 The variety of architectural backgrounds and victims depicted on these coins reflects the exploitation of variables distinguishing individual rituals. These factors as well as the range of coin sizes and metals encouraged the

playful pairing and rearrangement of the coins. Seen together, the coins encourage multiple

groupings (by denomination, by scene type, by architectural background, etc.) , only one of which is chron-

ological. In this respect, the coins resemble the Sib-

ylline oracle, which does not take a chronological approach to the rituals either. Like the coins, the Sib-

ylline oracle focuses on the sacrifices, the prayers of the women to Juno, and the preparatory rituals of purification. Neither the coinage nor the oracle refers to the theatricals or the competitions.98 The

Sibylline oracle mentions the deities receiving the sacrifices, but aside from describing the proximity of the Tarentum to the Tiber, it pays little attention to the locations or their architecture. On the coins, the

Fig. 15. Dupondius of Domitian, 88 C.E. Reverse: civic adlocutio (drawing by L. Sterner; after Breglia 1964, pl. 39.6).

architecture is more suggestive than revealing of the locations of ritual. They imply an urban setting but nothing more. Someone who had all the types could recognize that at least six different sacrifices took place during Domitian's Ludi Saeculares, even if they did not take the trouble to deduce which image was which. In many ways, therefore, the bronze coins have much more in common with the Sibylline oracle than with the acta of Augustus. Might the Sibylline oracle have served as the template for creating the series of bronzes illustrating nearly all the rituals of the Ludi Saeculares? Of the rituals mentioned in the Sibylline oracle, only the sellisternia, which does not seem to have been illustrated in any surviving Roman reliefs or coins, is absent from Domitian's known coins.99 Whether or not the Sibylline oracle served as a source of inspiration, the emphasis on the rituals and sacrificial victims demonstrates Domitian's respect for the traditions and solemn ceremony of the Ludi Saeculares. Finally, the uniform legend helps tie all the types together for the audience seeing these coins as a group.

CONCLUSIONS

Domitian probably held the Ludi Saeculares in late May and early June, following the precedent set by Augustus. Several months later, six denominations of the Roman coinage recapitulated the complexity and solemnity of the Ludi Saeculares through more than a dozen types. These coins interrupted the regu-

96 My inspection of the one known specimen in Naples suggests that this type, though anomalous, is indeed legitimate. Its rarity, secular iconography, and absence from the standard handbooks of Roman imperial coinage perhaps explain why this type has not been integrated into previous analyses of the Ludi Saeculares coinage of Domitian, though Fiorelli (1870, 129, no. 7165) described it, and Breglia (1964, pl. 39.6) pub-

lished a photograph. 97E.g., Kellum 1990; Bergmann 1994; Zanker 1997; Newby

2002; Henderson 2003. 98 Suet. (Dom. 4) confirms that such entertainments did

take place. "Ryberg (1955) does not illustrate or discuss sellisternia.




lar pattern of Domitian's numismatic iconography. Domitian's Ludi Saeculares coinage draws upon similar coinage of Augustus for the design of the gold and silver denominations. Despite the repetition of Aug- ustan motifs, however, the coins of Domitian demonstrate distinct responses to the challenge of representing a complex, multiday event. Under Domitian, the bronze coins "re-present" his performance of the Ludi Saeculares in detailed images of the emperor leading nearly every religious ritual it entailed. By contrast, Augustus' coins focus on the symbols of the Ludi {ludio, cippus, and candelabrum) and include only two narrative scenes. The Ludi Saeculares coins of later

emperors drew upon the earlier imagery of Augustus and Domitian, but the diversity of types seen here was never repeated.100

Having emulated the visual record of Augustus, the coin designers surely realized the potential for such

images to influence both memory and history. The

importance of this tactic at the time of the Ludi Saecu- lares cannot be overstated. The visibility of the festival in the coinage of Domitian stands in sharp contrast to the numismatic invisibility of the Ludi of Claudius. The

repetition of Augustan iconography was part of a larger effort to link Domitian's Ludi Saeculares to Augustus' event by all means possible, and at the same time to discount Claudius' inconvenient celebration.

The Ludi Saeculares coins do not show us what a Domitianic inscription might have recorded about this event, nor do they replace the lost eyewitness account of Tacitus. But, like the 4 m tall acta of Augustus, these coins represent the accumulation of detail that few would have taken the time to consider in depth. In this case, the coins themselves are as significant for the expression of imperial ideology as many historical relief sculptures.101 Just as the details of relief sculptures do not always stand up to close scrutiny, however, the details on these coins provide only apparent realism. In its exploration of a narrow set of ritual themes, the numismatic iconography of Domitian's Ludi Saecu- lares is lavish and varied. By modern standards, it is neither accurate nor consistent. Quasi-photographic attention to detail, however, was not necessary. The members of a well-informed and affluent audience in 88 C.E. would have known enough about the rituals and architectural settings for the events to have filled in the missing details. For others, it was sufficient to

manipulate the overall impression of the festival, sug-

gesting that the emperor appeared at several urban locations, sacrificed a variety of animals, and interacted with the men, women, children, and deities of Rome. At the most fundamental level, each coin carried the message that Domitian had celebrated the Ludi Saeculares.

In effect, this coin series was ultimately successful, as discussion of the Ludi Saeculares of Domitian contin- ues to the present day. Yet, perhaps it was considered a failure at the time: the Roman coinage never again witnessed such an elaborate series of types linked to a single event. These coins are truly extraordinary both in the annals of Roman numismatic art and in the surviving corpus of Roman narrative art. The Ludi Saeculares coins of Domitian, more than a dozen

types linked by a common legend and depicting the individual events of a religious festival, stand out as an

experiment in using the mint to disseminate sophisticated messages.

HUMANITIES DEPARTMENT

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN- DEARBORN

DEARBORN, MICHIGAN 48 128

[email protected]

100 For the Ludi Saeculares coinage of Septimius Severus, see Hill 1964, 175-78. For the millennial Ludi Saeculares coinage of Philip, see Whetstone 1987. Both repeat the cippus type. Septimius Severus' coins include three sacrifice types based on Domitian's iconography. Philip's coins include one

sacrifice type and several types showing exotic animals for the spectacles in the arena.

101 No known historical relief can be firmly associated with any imperial Ludi Saeculares.

Works Cited

Bahrfeldt, M.V. 1923. Die Romische Goldmunzenprdgung wdhrend derRepublik und unter Augustus. Halle: A. Riech- mann.

Basiner, O.T. 1901. Ludi Saeculares: Drevnerimskiia seku- liarnyia igry. Istoriko-filologischeskoe izsliedovanie. Warsaw: Varshavskago uchebnago okruga.

Bastien, P., and C. Metzger. 1977. he Tresor de Beaurains (dit d 'Arras). Numismatique Romaine 10. Wetteren: Editions Numismatique Romaine.

Beard, M.J. North, and S. Price. 1998. Religions of Rome. Vol. 1, A History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Beckmann, M. 2002. "Coinage and the Public Image of Augustus." Journal of the Classical and Medieval Numis- matic Society 3:5-21.

Bergmann, B. 1994. "The Roman House as Memory The- ater: The House of the Tragic Poet in Pompeii." ArtB 76: 225-56.

Boyance, P. 1925. "Note sur le Tarentum." MEFR 42:135- 46.

Boyce,A.A. 1965. "ANew Augustan Aureusofl7B.C."MVM 153:1-11.

Breglia, L. 1964. Numismatica antica: Storia e metodologia. Milan: Feltrinelli.

Brown, D.F. 1941. "Architectura Numismatica. Part 1. The




Temples of Rome." Ph.D. diss., New York University. Burnett, A.M. 1977. "The Authority to Coin in the Late Re-

public and Early Empire." NC, ser. 7, 17:37-63. . 1999. "Buildings and Monuments on Roman

Coins." In Roman Coins and Public Life under the Empire: E. Togo Salmon Papers II, edited by G. Paul and M. Ierardi, 137-64. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Burnett, A.M., M. Amandry, and P.P. Ripolles. 1998. Ro- man Provincial Coinage. Vol. 1 , From the Death of Caesar to the Death ofVitellius (44 B. C.-A.D. 69). Part 1, Introduction and Catalogue. London: British Museum Press.

Buttrey, T.V. 1972. "Vespasian as Moneyer." NC, ser. 7, 12: 89-109.

Carlson, C.W.A. 1972a. "Ludi Saeculares Rites on the Roman Imperial Coinage (Part 1)." SAN: Journal of the Society for Ancient Numismatics 3(1) :9-l 1 .

. 1972b. "Ludi Saeculares Rites of the Roman Imperial Coinage (Part 2) ." 'SAN: Journal of the Society for Ancient Numismatics 3(2) :27-9.

Carradice, I. 1982. "Coins, Monuments and Literature: Some Important Sestertii of Domitian." In Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Numismatics, edited by T. Hackens and R. Weiller, 371-83. Louvain-la-Neuve: Association Internationale des Numismates Profes- sionnels.

. 1983. Coinage and Finances in the Reign of Domitian, A.D. 81-96. BAR-IS 178. Oxford: British Archaeologi- cal Reports.

. 1993. "Coin Types and Roman History: The Ex- ample of Domitian." In Essays in Honour of Robert Carson and Kenneth Jenkins, edited by M. Price, A. Burnett, and R. Bland, 161-75. London: Spink.

. 1998. "Towards a New Introduction to the Flavian Coinage." In Modus Operandi: Essays in Honour of Geoffrey Rickman, edited by M. Austin, J. Harries, and C. Smith, 93-117. London: Institute of Classical Studies.

Cavallaro, M.A. 1979. "Economia e religio nei Ludi Seco- lari Augustei: Per una nuova interpretazione di CIL VI 32324; 32323, 59." MM 122:49-87.

Cheung, A. 1998. "The Political Significance of Roman Imperial Coin Types." Sc hwMbll 48:53-61.

Coarelli, F. 1968. "Navalia, Tarentum e la topografia del Campo Marzio meridionale." QITA 5:27-37.

. 1993. "Note sui Ludi Saeculares." In Spectacles sportifs et sceniques dans le monde etrusco-italique, 21 1-45. CEFR 172. Rome: Ecole francaise de Rome.

. 1997. // Campo Marzio: Dalle origini alia fine della Repubblica. Rome: Edizioni Quasar.

Crawford, M.H. 1983. "Roman Imperial Coin Types and the Formation of Public Opinion." In Studies in Numis- matic Method Presented to Philip Grierson, edited by C.N.L. Brooke, B.H.I.H. Stewart, J.G. Pollard, and T.R. Volk, 47-64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crippa, C. 1972. Monete e Medaglie per collezione. Listino Tri- mestrale. Gennaio-Marzo 1972. Milan: Carlo Crippa.

Darwall-Smith, R.H. 1996. Emperors and Architecture: A Study of Flavian Rome. CollLatomus 231 . Brussels: Latomus.

Davies, P.J.E. 2000. Death and the Emperor: Roman Imperial Funerary Monuments from Augustus to Marcus Aurelius. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Di Manzano, P. 1984. "Note sulla monetazione dei Ludi secolari dell'88 d.C." BullCom 89:297-304.

Dressel, H. 1899. "Nummi Augusti et Domitiani ad ludos saeculares pertinentes." EphEp 8:310-15.

Drew-Bear, T. 1974. "Representations of Temples on the

Greek Imperial Coinage." ANSMN 19:27-63. Duncan-Jones, R.P. 2003. "Roman Coin Circulation and

the Cities of Vesuvius." In Credito e Moneta nel Mondo Romano: Atti degli Incontri capresi di storia dell 'economia antica (Capri 12-14 ottobre 2000), edited by E. Lo Cascio, 161-80. Bari: Edipuglia.

Dupont, F. 1993. "Ludions, Lydioi: Les danseurs de la Pompa Circensis. Exegese et discours sur l'origine des jeux a Rome." In Spectacles sportifs et sceniques dans le monde etrusco-italique, 189-210. CEFR 172. Rome: Ecole francaise de Rome.

Ehrhardt, C.T.H.R. 1984. "Roman Coin Types and the Roman Public." JNG 34:41-54.

Eisner, J. 2005. "Sacrifice and Narrative on the Arch of the Argentarii at Rome."/iM 18:83-98.

Fiorelli, G. 1870. Catalogo del Museo Nazionale di Napoli; Medagliere. Vol. 2, Monete Romane. Naples: Tipografia Italiana nel Liceo V. Emanuele.

Foster, K.P. 2001. "Dionysos and Vesuvius in the Villa of the Mysteries." AntK 44:37-53.

Galinsky, K. 1996. Augustan Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Giard,J.-B. 1976-1998. Monnaies deVEmpireromain. 3vols. Paris: Bibliotheque Nationale de France.

Grunow, M.D. 2002. "Architectural Images in Roman State Reliefs, Coins, and Medallions: Imperial Ritual, Ideology, and the Topography of Rome." Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan.

Haselberger, L., ed. 2002. Mapping Augustan Rome. JRA Suppl. Ser. 50. Portsmouth, R.I. : Journal of Roman Archaeology.

Henderson, J. 2003. "Par Operi Sedes: Mrs. Arthur Strong and Flavian Style, the Arch of Titus, and the Cancelleria Reliefs." In Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text, edited by AJ. Boyle and W.J. Dominik, 229-54. Leiden: Brill.

Hild, J.A. 1909. "Saeculares Ludi. Saeculum." DarSag4: 987-97.

Hill, P.V. 1964. "Notes on the Coinage of Septimius Severus and His Family, A.D. 193-217." NQ ser. 7, 4:169-88.

. 1965. "Notes on the Ludi Saeculares of A.D. 88." In Congresso Internazionale di Numismatica. Roma 11-16 Settembre 1961. Vol. 2, Atti, 275-82. Rome: Istituto Ital- iano di Numismatica.

. 1989. The Monuments of Ancient Rome as Coin Types. London: Seaby.

Hobley, A.S. 1998. An Examination of Roman Bronze Coin Distribution in the Western Empire A.D. 81-192. BAR-IS 688. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Hommel, P. 1954. Studien zu den romischen Figurengiebeln der Kaiserzeit. Berlin: Verlae Gebr. Mann.

Jones, A.H.M. 1974. "Numismatics and History." In The Roman Economy: Studies in Ancient Economic and Admin- istrative History, edited by P.A. Brunt, 61-81. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Originally published in R.A.G. Carson and C.H.V. Sutherland, eds., Essays in Roman Coinage Presented to Harold Mattingly (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956).

Jones, B.W. 1994. "Domitian and the Court." Pallas: Revue interuniversitaire d'Etudes Antiques 40:329-335.

Jongman, W. 2003. "A Golden Age: Death, Money Supply and Social Succession in the Roman Empire." In Credito e Moneta nel Mondo Romano: Atti degli Incontri capresi di storia dell 'economia antica (Capri 12-14 ottobre 2000), edited by E. Lo Cascio, 181-96. Bari: Edipuglia.

Kellum, B.A. 1990. "The City Adorned: Programmatic



602 M.G. SOBOCINSKI, THE LUDI SAECULARES COINAGE OF DOMITIAN

Display at the Aedes Concordiae Augustae." In Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and His Principate, edited by K.A. Raaflaub and M. Toher, 276-307. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Klawans, Z.H. 1977. Imitations and Inventions of Roman Coins: Renaissance Medals of Julius Caesar and the Ro- man Empire. Santa Monica: Society for International Numismatics.

Kleiner, D.E.E. 1992. Roman Sculpture. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Kleiner, F. 1985. The Arch of Nero in Rome: A Study of the Ro- man Honorary Arch before and under Nero. Rome: Giorgio Bretschneider Editore.

Komnick, H. 2001. Die Restitutionsmunzen der fruhen Kai- serzeit: Aspekte der Kaiserlegitimation. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

La Rocca, E. 1984. La Riva a Mezzaluna. Rome: L Erma di Bretschneider.

Levick, B.M. 1982. "Propaganda and the Imperial Coin- age." Antichthon: Journal of the Australian Society for Classical Studies 16:104-16.

. 1999. "Messages on the Roman Coinage: Types and Inscriptions." In Roman Coins andPublicLife under the Empire: E. Togo Salmon Papers II, edited by G.M. Paul and M. Ierardi, 41-60. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Mattingly, H. 1934. "Virgil's Golden Age: Sixth Aeneid and Fourth Eclogue." CR 48:161-65.

Meadows, A., and J. Williams. 2001. "Moneta and the Monuments: Coinage and Politics in Republican Rome." JRS 91:27-49.

Metcalf, W.E. 1993. "Whose Liberahtas? Propaganda and Audience in the Early Roman Empire." RTN95: 337-46.

Morawiecki, L. 1977. "The Symbolism of Minerva on the Coins of Domitianus." Klio 59:185-93.

Moretti, L. 1984. "Frammenti vecchi e nuovi del com- mentario dei Ludi Secolari del 17 A.C." RendPontAcc 55/56:361-79.

Newby, Z. 2002. "Reading Programs in Greco-Roman Art: Reflections on the Spada Reliefs." In The Roman Gaze: Vi- sion, Power, and the Body, edited by D. Frederick, 1 10-48. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Panvinio, O. 1558. De Ludis Saecularibus Liber. Venice: Erasmiana, apud Vincentium Valgrisium.

Parke, H.W. 1988. Sibyls and Sibylline Prophecy in Classical Antiquity. London: Routledge.

Pighi, I.B. 1965. De ludis saecularibus populi Romani quiri- tium. Amsterdam: P. Schippers.

Poe, J.P. 1984. The Secular Games, the Aventine, and the Pomerium in the Campus Martius." ClAnt 3:57-81.

Price, M.J., and B.L. Trell. 1977. Coins and Their Cities: Architecture on the Ancient Coins of Greece, Rome, and Pal- estine. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

Quilici Gigli, S. 1983. "Estremo Campo Marzio: Alcune osservazioni sulla topografla." In Cittd e Architettura nella Roma Imperiale, edited by K. de Fine Licht, 47-57. AnalRom Suppl. 10. Copenhagen: Odense University Press.

Rainssant, P. 1684. Dissertation sur douze medailles des jeux seculaires de VEmpereur Domitien. Microfiche 2978, Biblioteca Cicognara. Versailles: De l'imprimerie de Francois Musoiet.

Ramsey, J.T., and A.L. Licht. 1997. The Comet of 44 B.C. and Caesar's Funeral Games. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

Reece, R. 2003. Roman Coins and Archaeology: Collected Papers. Collection Moneta 32. Wetteren: Moneta.

Ryberg, I.S. 1955. Rites of the State Religion in Roman Art. MAAR 22. Rome: American Academy in Rome.

Scheid, J. 1998. "Dechiffrer des monnaies: Reflexions sur la representation figuree des Jeux seculaires." In Images Romaines, edited by C. Auvray-Assayas, 13-35. Etudes de Litterature Ancienne 9. Paris: Presses de l'Ecole normale superieure.

. 2000. "Dell'importanza di scegliere bene le fonti. L'esempio di Ludi Secolari." ScAnt 10:645-57.

Stewart, S. 2003. "The Ludi Saeculares." M.A. thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Sutherland, C.H.V. 1944. "The Date and Significance of the 'Candelabrum' Coins of Augustus." CR 58(2) :46-9.

. 1959. "The Intelligibility of Roman Imperial Coin Types." IRS 49:46-55.

Syme, R. 1939. The Roman Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Taffin, P. 1698. "De veterum romanorum anno seculari, eiusque postissium per ludos Seculares celebritate, eorumque chronologia." In Thesaurus Antiquitatum Rom- anorum, edited byJ.G. Graevius, 8:467-640. Traject ad Rhen: F. Halman and P. Vander Aa.

Tagliafico, M. 1994. "Ludiones, Ludi Saeculares e Ludi Scaenici." Aevum 68:51-7.

Voelkel, L. 1953. "The Selection of Coin Types during the Reign of the Emperor Domitian." In Studies Presented to David Moore Robinson. Vol. 2, edited by G. Mylonas and D. Raymond, 243-47. St. Louis: Washington University.

Von Kaenel, H.-M. 1986. Munzprdgung und Munzbildnis des Claudius. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1986. "Image and Authority in the Coinage of Augustus." /RS 76:66-87.

Weinstock, S. 1971. Divus Julius. Oxford: Oxford Univer- sity Press.

Welin, E. 1954. "Ara Martis in Campo: Zur Frage der Be- deutungund des Umfanges des Campus Martius." OpRom 1:166-90.

Whetstone, W.B. 1987. "The Saeculares Coinage Struck to Commemorate the Completion of Rome's First Millen- nium." SAN: Journal of the Society for Ancient Numismatics 17(2):24-9.

Wigand, K. 1912. "Thymiateria." BJb 122:1-97. Zanker, P. 1988. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus.

Translated by Alan Shapiro. Jerome Lectures 16. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

. 1997. "In Search of the Roman Viewer." In The Interpretation of Architectural Sculpture in Greece and Rome, edited by D. Buitron-Oliver, 179-91. Studies in the History of Art 49. Washington D.C.: National Gallery of Art.



the design and audience of the ludi saeculares coinage of domitian

Documents