Return to: “Barbarians, Captives, and Enemies” (to this coin, incl. some context & discussion of the obverse);
Return to: two captives-and-trophy blog post.
See also: Hostilius Saserna’s related Vercingetorix (?) Denarius & Julius Caesar’s Denarius depicting small figures of both on the reverse.
Video of this coin available here
Roman Republic. L. Hostilius Saserna. AR Denarius (4,03g; 19mm; 8h). Rome, 48 BCE.
Obverse: Head of Gallia (as Pallor), right; Gallic trumpet (carnyx) behind.
Reverse: L•HOSTILIVS (right) / SASERNA (left). Diana / Artemis of Massalia (after the Ephesus original) standing facing, holding spear and stag by its antler.
References: Crawford 448/3; Hostilia 4; Syd 953; Fitzwilliam CM 1459-1963 (ill. on CRRO).
Provenance: Bertolami Fine Arts Web Auction 92, Lot 987 (3 Oct 2020).
Notes: Struck on a larger than usual flan. Peripheral areas of flat strike (see also CNG 63 [2003], 1187, present disposition, Shanna Schmidt), otherwise exceptional. Struck from the finest single obv die in the issue: It is, in my opinion, the “master die” on which others were based, and very likely engraved using an actual living human as a model. (On the concept of “Master Die,” see Beckmann 2008; see also Elkins 2009: pp. 32-33, discussing Beckmann and others; see also G. Harney, 27 Oct 2021, “master or prototype engraving” of P. Satrienus, Cr.388/1a.) There are several other “realistic” dies of this issue of varying quality, but also a clearly distinct series of “idealized” Gallia types; the best of those are also of high artistry.
Coins from this die are rare, even relative to other dies of this scarce issue (one of 60 examples on CRRO and only four of several hundred in the research binders of Richard Schaefer and the Roman Republican Die Project at ANS (Binder 20 [processed, 400-499] and Binder 9 [unprocessed]; proportions in ACSearch results are similar, somewhere around 0.5 – 2.0%). These examples also seem to be struck more carefully than most others, on broader flans, and with fewer reverse dies (all suggesting they were “special,” apart from the others), though a disciplined comparison remains to be done.