Augustus. 27 BC-AD 14. Iron dies for Æ Dupondius or As. Dimensions of obverse die: die face 31 mm in diameter and die shank 37 mm. Weight: 148.40 grams. Bronze face of cast impression of reverse of dupondius (RIC I 381) or as (RIC I 382) for the moneyer Cn. Piso Cn. f. mounted to iron shank. Dimensions of reverse die: die face 30 mm in diameter; die shank 39 mm at the face, tapering to 30 mm in diameter at mid point and widening to 42 mm at the base. Weight: 320.20 grams. Bronze face of cast impression of reverse of dupondius (RIC I 381) or as (RIC I 382) for the moneyer Cn. Piso Cn. f. mounted to iron shank. Cf. N. Lupu, “Aspekte des Münzumlaufs im vorrömischen Dakien,” JNG XVII
A Rare Set of Iron Dies for a Dupondius or As of Augustus (27 B.C.E.-14 C.E.), Excessively Rare with Both Obverse and Reverse Dies Preserved
(1967), pl. 7; cf. C.C. Vermeule, “Some notes on ancient dies and coining methods,” NumCirc LXII.2 (February 1954), pp. 53-4; cf. W. Malkmus, “Addenda to Vermeule’s catalog of ancient coin dies: Part 1,” SAN XVII.4 (September 1989) -. VF for type, die faces well-preserved with green and light olive patina, worn from striking. Extremely rare set with both obverse and reverse die .
Based on the dies themselves, it is impossible to tell whether they were used to strike dupondii or asses, since both issues of this moneyer were of the same type. This remarkable set of dies was undoubtedly employed to strike local coinage in one of the Balkan provinces along the Danube frontier. cng
House Painting Fragment fron Emperor Nero's Domus Transitoria
These fresco’ are from the first palace of Nero or the “Domus Transitoria”, not the “Domus Aurea- Nero’s Golden House”. Rare and wonderful are these paintings.
Domus Transitoria: * a palace erected by Nero qua Palatium et Maecenatis hortos continuaverat (Tac. Ann. XV.39; cf. Suet. Nero 3: domum a Palatio Esquilias usque fecit quam primo transitoriam, mox incendio absumptam restitutamque auream nominavit). Its object was to connect with the Palatine, not merely the Horti Maecenatis (q.v.) but other estates (Horti Lamiani, Lolliani, etc.) which in one way or another had come into the possession of the imperial house. It was destroyed by the fire of 64 A.D. and replaced by the domus Aurea. No remains of it were believed to exist, until the excavations made by Boni under the southern portion of the state apartments of the domus Augustana (Flavia) led to the rediscovery of the remains of a sumptuous and beautifully decorated palace in two stories. By some it is attributed to the Domus Q. Lutatii Catuli (q.v.), but this will not agree with the date of the construction. Others assign it to Claudius, owing to the existence of a quarry mark bearing his name on a piece of cornice found there; but it is a good deal more likely that we have to deal with the remains of a part of the domus Transitoria (the attribution to the original house of Augustus (HJ 90) will not hold, as the remains are obviously of a later date); see Mem. Am. Acad. V.116, 121, 122.
To the lower floor belongs a sunk garden; one wall of it is occupied by a magnificent nymphaeum, once decorated with polychrome marbles, but terribly damaged in the excavations made by the Farnese in 1721 sqq. (Mitt. 1894, 22‑26; LR 163; PBS VII. p48, No. 100, where the references to Breval’s Remarks should read Ser. I (1726) ii.298; Ser. II (1738) i.84 sqq.; Kirkhall’s coloured engravings — copies at Eton, Bn. 13, 51‑54). In the centre were two pavilions with p195small columns, and between them garden beds, with vertical walls of curved slabs of marble, as in the ‘Maison des Jardinières’ at Timgad (Ill. 24). The wall opposite the nymphaeum is decorated with niches. On the south-west is a room with extremely beautiful paintings — small scenes from the Homeric cycle, within a framework in which blue and gold are predominant. What little remains of the polychrome marble pavement and wall facing shows extreme delicacy and beauty (YW 1912, 10‑11; 1913, 22; BA 1914, Cr 73). The irregular curving concrete foundations which cut through the whole of this part of the building belong to the domus Aurea, as they are certainly posterior to the fire of Nero and equally certainly anterior to Domitian.
Two rooms to the north-east, wrongly known as the baths of Livia (HJ 90, n117), have been accessible since 1721; and their ceilings have been frequently drawn (PBS VII. p33, n24 (cf. Egger, Krit. Verzeichn. d. Handzeichn. in Wien, n114); ib. p. 60, n14, is there wrongly identified with the ceiling of the second room, which is, however, represented by Ronczewski, Gewölbeschmuck, p29, fig. 16, and by Parker, photo 2227). Fine coloured drawings of both exist in the breakfast-room of the Soane Museum in Lincoln’s Inn Fields in London.1
Beyond these rooms is a very large latrine, which has been wrongly thought to be the machinery chamber of a hydraulic lift, which would, it is supposed, have worked in a shaft over 120 feet deep found not far off (JRS 1913, 251). The dining-room with a revolving ceiling, which Boni supposed to have been worked by the same machinery, was in the domus Aurea (Suet. Nero, 31).
From each end of the nymphaeum a flight of marble stairs ascended to the upper floor. Under the later triclinium only the bed of the pavement is left; but to the south-west and north-east its white marble slabs can be seen, some three or four feet below the level of Domitian, who reconstructed this part of the palace with only one story, abolishing the lower floor entirely; while under his nymphaeum on the north-west may be seen a remarkably fine pavement of •opus sectile, which when found showed clear and abundant traces of damage by fire. Close to it is a room which once contained a series of fountains, the water from which ran down to the nymphaeum below.
The piscina under the basilica of the Flavian palace is attributed to Nero by Boni (JRS 1913, 246), who wrongly refers Suet. cit. to the Palatine. See Domus Aurea, p166, and Domus Augustiana, p161. Cf. ZA 206‑208.
Other remains belonging to the domus Transitoria have been found near the junction of the Nova via with the clivus Palatinus (AJA 1923, 402); for remains under the platform of the temple of Venus and Rome, see LR 197, 198; Mitt. 1892, 289, 291; Mem. Am. Acad. V.121, 122.
The palace, named Domus Transitoria, was an architectural masterpiece which stretched from the Palatine, where Nero first lived with his grand-uncle and adoptive father Claudius and his mother Agrippina, to the gardens of Maecenas on the Esquiline.
The residence was grandiose, but it did not last long. Built around 60 A.D., it was ruined in the Great Fire four years later and was replaced by the Domus Aurea, one of the most opulent palatial complexes ever constructed.
Unknown
Roman, Asia Minor, about A.D. 40
Marble
16 15/16 in.
72.AA.155
The Roman emperor Gaius, more commonly known by his nickname Caligula, ruled from A.D. 37 to 41 and was extremely unpopular. In fact, after he was murdered, almost all portraits of him were destroyed.
The Romans had a long tradition of portraiture, but portraits of emperors had a specific propaganda function beyond that of ordinary portraits. The actual appearance of the individual was combined with the political message that the portrait was meant to convey. Portraits of Caligula show a young man with a high forehead, small mouth, and thin lips. He is identifiable as an individual, yet his hairstyle copies that of the emperor Augustus, making a deliberate allusion to his dynastic connection and his right to rule.
The depiction of the emperor in these official portraits bears no resemblance to the unpleasant descriptions of Caligula provided by Roman writers such as Suetonius:
Height: tall — Complexion: pallid — Body: hairy and badly built — Neck: thin — Legs: spindling — Eyes: sunken — Temples: hollow — Forehead: broad and forbidding — Scalp: almost hairless, especially on top. Because of his baldness and hairiness he announced that it was a capital offense either for anyone to look down on him as he passed or to mention goats in any context.
If you are interested in Julio Claudian Iconography and portrait study you may enjoy these two links:
This is such a wonderful portrait that the Getty has of Gaius Caligula, it is from Asia Minor and is of very high quality. I feel it best represents Caligula from the coin portraits we have of him. I live in California and the Getty Villa is the only worthwhile Roman museum in the state and it is FREE! Free parking and free entrance, all you have to do is go to their website and sign up. I want to thank the Getty Villa museum for Keeping Ancient Greece and Rome alive.
Joe counting hair curls, pincers, etc………. from profile. The Gettty Caligulan head is fantastic for showing agreement on Caligula’ Vesta aes (bronze coins). See example below. Remember; these portraits are found without inscribed statue bases if that was the case and numismatics are the key for helping ID these wonderful Julio Claudian portraits.
For more on this portrait see: F. Johansen, ” The Sculpted Portraits of Caligula,” Ancient Portraits in the J. Paul Getty Museum, …
Johansen 1987, p. 97. Probably made shortly after Caligula’s accession, this head I have seen personally at the J. Paul Getty Museum. A most impressive head from Asia Minor. See also (JWAG) “A Pre-Principate Portrait of Gaius (Caligula?) by John Pollini 1982, p. 6. See: D. Boschung, “Die Bildnisse des Caligula”, Gebuder-Mann, (1989)
Unknown – Caligula Portrait
Roman, Asia Minor, about A.D. 40
Marble
16 15/16 in.
72.AA.155
The Roman emperor Gaius, more commonly known by his nickname Caligula, ruled from A.D. 37 to 41 and was extremely unpopular. In fact, after he was murdered, almost all portraits of him were destroyed.
The Romans had a long tradition of portraiture, but portraits of emperors had a specific propaganda function beyond that of ordinary portraits. The actual appearance of the individual was combined with the political message that the portrait was meant to convey. Portraits of Caligula show a young man with a high forehead, small mouth, and thin lips. He is identifiable as an individual, yet his hairstyle copies that of the emperor Augustus, making a deliberate allusion to his dynastic connection and his right to rule.
The depiction of the emperor in these official portraits bears no resemblance to the unpleasant descriptions of Caligula provided by Roman writers such as Suetonius:
Height: tall — Complexion: pallid — Body: hairy and badly built — Neck: thin — Legs: spindling — Eyes: sunken — Temples: hollow — Forehead: broad and forbidding — Scalp: almost hairless, especially on top. Because of his baldness and hairiness he announced that it was a capital offense either for anyone to look down on him as he passed or to mention goats in any context.
If you are interested in Julio Claudian Iconography and portrait study you may enjoy these two links:
Caligula on Globe- Brooklyn MuseumCaligula on Globe- Brooklyn Museum
The top portrait states it is from the 2nd century, which I whatever that is worth is incorrect, it has all the attributes of an early 1st century bronze portrait? Here is some more information on the aboce Caligulan portrait:
Thanks to the Brroklyn Museum for the use of this CC for educational use only photos.
Caption: Roman. Portrait Bust of Emperor Caligula, ca. 2nd century C.E. Bronze, 5 5/8 in. (14.3 cm). Brooklyn Museum, Bequest of William H. Herriman, 21.479.12. Creative Commons-BY-NC
Image: front, 21.479.12_front_PS2.jpg. Brooklyn Museum photograph, 2006
Roman. Portrait Bust of Emperor Caligula, ca. 2nd century C.E. Bronze, 5 5/8 in. (14.3 cm). Brooklyn Museum, Bequest of William H. Herriman, 21.479.12. Creative Commons-BY-NC (Photo: Brooklyn Museum, 21.479.12_front_PS2.jpg)
The bottom portrait here is from Colschester of Gaius Caligula and is very beautiful and ornate. The globe on each of these portraits represents , in my opinion Caput Mundi or ruler of the Roman world. Citizens of Rome and the provinces would have these smaller size portraits of the princeps of the time, but so would the soldiers, who at first loved “little boots” and would do anything to protect him. After his murder and I am sure before the military grew tiresome of his insults and the Praetorian guard assasinated him near the Palatine hill. Relative to his short reign, a few portraits similiar in size were thrown into the Tiber river; which was a huge insult for any Roman princeps.
Small Bronze Portrait of Gaius Caligula- Colchester
Broadbridge Head of Caligula- Kind of Hellenistic?
Date 1st century AD
Description A finely carved classical marble head, probably that of Caligula. The work is that of the a 1st century AD Roman sculptor, in a Greek style.
Site Name Bosham
Location Published Report
Material Stone
Context From Broadbridge in Bosham, possibly related to the villa site, although it could have been brought over from Italy in the 18th-19th century.
Reference Macdermott, K.H. 1910 ‘Roman remains at Bosham’, SAC 53, p.272
on Bosham:
Bosham Search for objects found here
A possible large temple complex by the coast, 4.5 km west of Chichester. It consisted of a large masonry structure (23 x 15 m) with a central piscina discovered in 1832, a timber palisade that may have been part of an enclosure and a possible theatre. A mosaic floored building is also recorded, as is another connected to a coin of Honorius. A classically sculpted head (Germanicus/Caligula?) and a large bronze statue arm were both found at Bosham, and if genuine ancient imports, strengthen the religious interpretation.
Small Bronze Portrait of Gaius Caligula from Metropolitan Museum
I was given this photo by a member of our Julio Claudian group. I don’t know how often it is on display, but it is a wonderful small portrait that shows the clear physiognomy of Gaius Caligula. Note the wonderful full hair down the nape of the neck. Here are the dimensions. Bronze portrait head of the emperor Gaius (Caligula)
Bronze
Roman
Early Imperial, Julio-Claudian
ca. A.D. 37–41
H. 2 11/16 in. (6.8 cm)
There was no official Damnatio Memoriae after the death of Caligula, but there surely was an unoffical Damnatio Memoriae. had his statues and portraits removed from public view. Many were reworked as portraits of Augustus or of Claudius. It also seems that smaller, personal images of Caligula were deliberately thrown away after his murder; several have been recovered from the River Tiber in Rome. Here is an example of another small bronze portrait of Caligula that was intentionely mutilated and thrown into the Tiber river in Rome.
Dahmen, K. 2001. Untersuchungen zu Form und Funktion kleinformatiger Porträts der römischen Kaiserzeit. Munster: Scriptorium, p. 159, no. 44, pl. 44.
Varner, Eric R. ed. 2000. From Caligula To Constantine : Tyranny & Transformation in Roman Portraiture. Atlanta : Michael C. Carlos Museum, p. 102-3, no. 8.
+ I should like to thank Mr. John Pollini, Dean of the School of Fine Arts at the University of Southern California, for his help in locating many materials on the portraiture of Caligula. I should also like to thank Brooks Levy at the Princeton Umiversity Library for insightful views on Caligula’s radiate crown. Many thanks to the Classics Department at the University of California at Berkeley for their scholarly seminars on numismatics, especially Prof. R. Stroud and Prof. R. Knapp. I am also thankful to the San Francisco Ancient Numismatic Society, and thanks to Susan Wood for her help in in finding material on the portraiture of Caligula. Lastly I would like to thank Miriam Griffin for her encouragement and the first book she suggested on the Julio Claudians. For Full Bibliography get: SANIndex by Issue, Volumes XI – XXI Index of the Coins Illustrated on the Covers of SAN (1969-1984) – William … Portraits of Caligula: The Seated Figure? – Joe B. Geranio Book Reviews …
1. Suetonius, Cal 8.1: Fasti Vallenses and Fasti Pighiani; also see Dio 59.61. A Barrett, Caligula: The Corruption of Power, Yale University Press, 1989 (Barrett 1989), while not rejecting Suetonius, raises questions, pp.6-7, Also see J.P.V.D. Balsdon, The Emperor Gaius, Oxford, 1934 (Balsdon 1934), p.4.
2. Seneca, De Constantia Sapientis, p.18. See also Suetonius, Calig. p. 50.
3. BMC I 160/88-92: RIC I 56; AE dupondius. Obverse: Augustusradiate head left. Reverse: seated figure on curule chair holding branch and globe. Attribution to the reign of Caligula now seems certain. See H. Chantraine, Die Antiken Fundmuzen Von Neuss, Novaesium VIII, 1982. pp. 20-21.
4. (supra n. 3 ); The seated figure has been accepted by most scholars as Augustus, the description of it as an honorific statue apparently goes back to I. Eckhel, Doctrina Numorum Veterum VI, 1828, p. 126. Also see B.E. Levy, “Caligula’s Radiate Crown,“Schweitzer Munzblatter, 38/152, 1988 (Levy 1988), pp. 101-107, Also see H.M. von Kaenel, “Augustus, Caligula oder Claudius,” Gazette Numismatique Suisse 28, 1978, pp. 39-44.
5. Swift, F.H., “Imagines in Imperial Portraiture,” AJA 28, 1923, pp. 286-301. M. Stewart, “How Were Imperial Portraits Distributed Throughout The Roman Empire?” AJA 43, 1939, pp. 601-617. J. Pollini, The Portraiture of Gaius and Lucius Caesar“, New York, 1987 (Pollini 1987), pp. 2-3 for a photo of a terracotta head in the Louvre, see Kiss, L’iconographie, figs. 312-13, p. 99.
6. Fullerton, M.D., Rev. of Pollini 1987, AJA 92, 1988, pp. 615-17, probably the most difficult of the Julio-Claudians to attribute; an insightful review. Also see R. Brilliant, “An Early Imperial Portrait of Caligula,” AAAH 4, 1969, pp. 13-17. Also see J. Pollini, “A Pre-Principate Portrait of Gaius (Caligula)?” JWAG, Vol. 40, 1982 (Pollini 1982), pp.3-4. I believe this portrait that Pollini speaks of is indeed the only pre-principate likeness, which is similiar to the Dresden and La Spezia Portraits.
7. DioLX22. Also see M. Bergemann and P. Zanker, “Damnatio Memoriae’-Umgearbeitete Nero und Domitians Portrats: Zur Ikonographie der Flavischen Kaiser und des Nerva,” jdI 96, 1981, pp. 317-42. See also J. Pollini, “Damnatio Memoriae in Stone: Two Portraits of Nero Recut to Vespasianin American Museums,” AJA 88, 1984, pp. 547-66. For a photo of a mutilated small bronze of Caligula, see F. Johansen, ” The Sculpted Portraits of Caligula,” Ancient Portraits in the J. Paul Getty Museum, Vol. 1, 1987 (Johansen 1987), figs 19a-19b. For a portrait of Germanicus mutilated in late antiquity, See S. Walker, Roman Art in the British Museum, 1991, fig. 33, p. 31. For the greatest work to date on Caligula in the round. See D. Boschung, Die Bildnisse des Caligula”, Das Romische Herrscherbild, Vol. 4, part 1, Berlin 1989 (Boschung 1989), no 30, pls. 27, 1-4, 45.1.
8. Jonas, E., ” A Damanatio Memoriae alkalmazasa egyik duponiusan Caligula, Numizm Kozlony, 1937-38, pp. 89-91.
9. Barrett 1989, pp. 179-80. D.W. Mcdowall, ” THe Economic Context of the Roman Imperial CountermarkNCAPR,” Acta Numismatica I, 1971, p. 87.
10. Callu, J.P. and F. Rosati, “Les Depot monetaire du Posarello,” MEFR, 1964, pp. 51-90.
11. Carson, R.A.G., “The Bredgar Treasure of Roman Coins”, NC, 1959. pp.17-22.
12. Seminar held at the University of California-Berkeley. April 1995, Berkeley Classics Department.
13. Barrett 1989, p. 180.
14. Stewart, M. (supra n. 5), pp. 601-17.
15. IGR IV, 1022.
16. CIL XII, 1848, 1849.
17. Dio LIX.4 IG VII, 2711.
18. IG, 2nd ed., vols 2-3, 3266-67. Athens together with Drusilla; Graindor, BCH 38, 1914, no. 18, p. 401. Seyrig, RA, 1929, p. 90. See also T. Pekary, Monumentum Chiloniense, Amsterdam, 1975, p. 107. E. Koberlein, Caligula und die agyptische Kulte, Meisenheim am glau, 1962, p. 54.
19. Poulsen, V., “Portraits of Caligula,” A Arch 29, 1958, pp. 175-90. On the Worcester head, Poulsen speaks about “an unmistackable nervous tension,” For a description of the so-called “crazy Caligula portrait,” see D. Kleiner, Roman Sculpture, New haven, 1992, p. 128. See also J. Pollini, Roman Portraiture: Images of Character and Virtue, Los Angeles 1990, pp. 8-12.
20. For more on the Fulda head, see Johansen 1987, p. 95. Poulsen (supra n. 19), pp. 178-79. See also H. Heintze, Die antiken Portrats in SchloB Fasanerie bei Fulda, Mainz, 1968, no. 21.
21. Copenhagen head 637a : Th pupils, eylashes and irises were added in paint; only those on the left of the Copenhagen head are still preserved. See Kleiner (supra n. 19), p. 127. J. Pollini told me in conversation that the Docents at the NY Glyptotek like to scare the children with the so called “Crazy looking Caligula”
22. Pollini 1982, pp. 2-4.
23. Poulsen (supra n. 19), p. 186. Johansen 1987, p. 106. Kleiner (supra n. 19), p. 126. All agree that the Worcester head is as possible postumous issue from Neronian times.
24. A very controversial issue. See Strabo, 4.3.2; CIL Xiii (supra n. 10), pp. 1820, 1799.
26. C.H.V. Sutherland, ” The Mints of Lugdunum and Rome under Caligula: an unsolved problem,”NAC 10, 1981, pp. 297-99.
27. Girard, J.B., “les emmisons d’or et d’ argent de Caligula dans l’atelier de Lyon,” RN, 1976, pp. 69-81. There is a danger that these were forgers’s does. See also H.M. von Kaenel, ” Die Organasation der Munzparagung Caligulas,” SNR 66, 1987, pp. 42-43. H.B. Mattingly, NC 145, 1985, p. 256; Barrett 1989, pp. 244-54.
28. Balsdon 1934, p. 146.
29. On the other imagery of Caligula, see locally produced glass medallions thought to bear Caligula’s image from the Rhine area, see D. Boschung, Romische Glasphalerae mit Portratbusten,” BJ 187, 1987, nos. 2,7, 27. For convincing identification of the seated male figure on a gem in the Vienna Kunsthistoriches Museum, as Caligula and not Augustus, see H. Kyrieleis, “Zu einem Kameo in Wien,” Archaologischer Anzeiger, 1970, figs. 1,3, pp. 492-98. Pollini 1982, p. 3. For pre-accession portrait of Caligula on colonial issues from Carthago Nova in Spain (usually crude portraits), see A. Banti and Simonetti, Corpus Nummorum Romanorum 13, Florence, 1977, pp. 141-50.; M Grant, Aspects of the Principate of Tiberius, New York, 1950, 35, 101, pl. 6.3.
30. RIC, 36.
31. Breglia, L., Roman Imperial Coins: Their Art and Techniques, 1968, pp. 44-50. Also see Kleiner (supra n. 19), pp. 141-63; Boschung 1989, p. 18.
34. This identification was already made in the auction catalouge, Munzen und Medaillen, AG Basel 43 (12-13.11.1970), no. 289.
35. Boschung 1989, pl D, Figs. 1-8.
36. Boschung 1989, pp. 24-25; H.M. von Kaenel (supra n. 4), pp.39-44.
37. Poulsen, V. (supra n. 19), p. 185; Johansen 1989, p. 104.
38. For discussion for the typology in identification of Caligula. See Pollini 1982, pp. 1-12.
39. Johansen 1987, p. 97. Probably made shortly after Caligula’s accession, this head I have seen personally at the J. Paul Getty Museum. A most impressive head from Asia Minor. See Pollini 1982, p. 6.
40. Dio 59.6.1; Suet Calig. 14.1. Also see A Jackobson and H. Cotton, Caligula’s Rescusatio Imperii, Historia 34, 1985, pp. 497-503.
41. Grenade, P., Essai sur les origines du principat, 1961, p. 283.
43. Smallwood, E.M., Documents illustrating the reigns of Gaius, Claudius and Nero, 1967, no. 126. Also see M. Charlesworth, CAH X, 1952, p. 654, nt. 1; G.J.D Aalders,”Helios Gaios,” Mnemosyne 13, 1960, pp. 242-43.
44. BMC 145/ 49-51.
45. After thourough and close examination, I have come across at least three pieces that I see as a spikey attribution?
46. Levy, B.E., ” Portraits of the Heir Apparent: Geta or Caracalla,” AJA, 1992, p. 350; B.E. Levy, Calpurnius Siculus/ I 84-88: The Iconograhy of Imperial Succession,” APA, 1989, p. 15.
This item is not on view
