The Numismatic

Chronicle 175
Offprint

Emperor or God?
The Posthumous Commemoration of Augustus
in Rome and the Provinces
by

DARIO CALOMINO

LONDON
T H E R O YA L N U M I S M AT I C S O C I E T Y
2015
 THE POSTHUMOUS COMMEMORATION OF AUGUSTUS 57

Emperor or God?
The Posthumous Commemoration of Augustus
in Rome and the Provinces
DARIO CALOMINO

[PLATES 4-8]

AUGUSTUS died 2000 years ago, on 19 August AD 14.1 After a month, the Senate
and Tiberius made his consecration as a god official, like Julius Caesar before him.2
Even if he was neither the first, nor the only Roman political leader to be deified,
he was the one most remembered; the unanimous recognition of his godhead across
the Roman world was the basis for the process of consecration of deceased emperors
which legitimised their successors.3
His deification began to be advertised soon afterwards on all forms of media,
coinage being the most common and widespread. On both the state coinage of Rome
and the other imperial mints, and on the coinages of the provincial cities, Augustus
was commemorated posthumously, mainly under the Julio-Claudians, but also during
the 2nd and 3rd centuries (see Map). This paper discusses aspects of this phenomenon
in Italy and in the provinces. In the first part it considers the different ways in which
Augustus was commemorated on coins, trying to identify possible patterns. The
second part analyses how these forms of commemoration were perpetuated and
evolved over time, from the 1st to the 3rd century AD.

Divus Augustus in Rome and the provinces

The coins issued for Divus Augustus in Rome under Tiberius were the first medium
to spread the new image of the departed emperor and became the reference to follow
for all the other issues to come. The radiate head became the most distinctive feature
of Augustus apotheosis and it marked the basic difference between the deified
1
This article is based on the papers that I presented in 2014 at two conferences organized to celebrate
the bi-millenary of Augustus death (Leeds University in August; British Museum in November). A
shorter version will be published in the ARA Bulletin. I am grateful to A. Burnett, R. Abdy and S.
Moorhead for their comments and suggestions. I also wish to thank the authors of RPC volumes, which
were still in progress or in press while I was working at this article, for sharing their data with me: M.
Amandry and A. Burnett (vol. III), V. Heuchert and C. Howgego (vol. IV online; all catalogue numbers
are temporary), M. Amandry (vol. V), M. Spoerri and K. Butcher (vols VII-VIII), A. Hostein and J.
Mairat (vol. IX), W. Metcalf (vol. X).
2
Among the most recent contributions to the topic of the deification of Augustus, see Gradel 2002,
pp. 261-339; Levick 2010, pp. 288-318; Wardle 2012; Koortbojian 2013.
3
See Levick 2010, pp. 293-7. Under the Empire, asserting descent from a deified predecessor replaced the
need for claiming a divine genealogy, which had been fashionable during the Republic; see Hekster 2006.
58 DARIO CALOMINO

emperor and his current successor, who was laureate or bareheaded. The legend was
DIVVS AVGVSTVS PATER (Pl. 4, 1).4 These features were adopted consistently on
the bronze denominations and produced on a large scale; they circulated at all levels
of the population, from the lower classes to the elite.
The only exception is in the gold coinage, where two rare issues of the Lugdunum
mint stand out. They adopted a much rarer typology of coin design, the double-
headed issues, probably in AD 14-16 (RIC 23-4):5 the head of Divus Augustus,
surmounted by a star on the reverse, was associated with that of Tiberius on the
obverse (Pl. 4, 2).6 The closest precedent was the issues of young Octavian showing
the deified Caesar on the reverse in 38 BC, 7 with legend DIVOS IVLIVS (RPC
620), an archaic Latin form.8 In order to make this reference even more explicit, the
gold issues commemorating Augustus also had the unusual legend DIVOS AVGVST
DIVI F.
The picture of the coinage in the provinces is different. The common denominator
of this production is the lack of uniformity.9 Although some patterns can be
identified, there is no evidence for a centralised plan of canonisation of Augustus.10
The cities were essentially free to choose whether or not they followed imperial
guidelines; sometimes they adhered to pre-existing models, sometimes they drew on
and modified them in accordance with their own traditions, and in some cases they
actually introduced new ways of commemorating Augustus.
This diversity also results from the fact that posthumous coins of Augustus were
issued intermittently for over 250 years and across a very wide geographical range.
Issues span unevenly Spain to Greece; they occur in Macedonia and Thrace but not
in the rest of the Balkans; they show up randomly in Asia Minor, but only rarely in
the Levant (see Map). The chronological distribution is also very irregular. When
Augustus died, over 400 cities were producing coins for the local economies in the
provinces. No fewer than 36 cities struck coins commemorating Augustus under
Tiberius, then approximately only 6 under Caligula, 10 under Claudius and 9 under
Nero (see Table on pp. 64-67 below).11 From AD 14 to the end of the 3rd century
around 50 cities were involved, about 10% of the total.
4
A study was dedicated to these bronzes in Sutherland 1941. On the use of the radiate crown, Heuchert
2005, p. 45, n. 78.
5
See also Giard 1983, nos 118-9.
6
All the known imperial bronze specimens with the heads of Tiberius and Divus Augustus are either
fake or very suspicious; RIC 70, 91-3.
7
The double-head design was actually introduced on aurei of 43 BC featuring Octavian and an as yet
undeified Caesar (RRC 490/2); after 38 BC, Augustus and Divus Julius were associated on imperial
denarii in 17 BC (RIC 338). Also, only a few months before he died, Augustus had already revived this
type, with Tiberius as his adoptive son on the reverse of an aureus, RIC 225-6.
8
See Wardle 2002; Koortbojian 2013. The Divos Augustus variant is also attested in legends of
civic coins struck under Tiberius: Lepcis Magna (RPC 848), Cnossus (RPC 986), Koinon of Cyprus
(RPC 3917-8).
9
See Burnett 2011.
10
Cf. Price 1984a, p. 82.
11
Overall, nearly 50 Julio-Claudian coinages commemorated Augustus, whereas Grant counted
around 100 (Grant 1946, pp. 328-34, 463-6). His classification was mainly based on portraiture features,
which are in fact not as reliable as on imperial coins. Also, his assumption that all the coins with a male
 THE POSTHUMOUS COMMEMORATION OF AUGUSTUS

Map: distribution of cities that commemorated Augustus on coins, c. AD 14-275.

1. Romula; 2. Italica; 3. Emerita; 4. Turiaso; 5. Caesaraugusta; 6. Tarraco; 7. Lugdunum; 8. Vienna(?); 9. Treviri(?); 10. Rome; 11. Panormus; 12. Sabratha;
13. Lepcis Magna; 14. Polyrhenium; 15. Cydonia; 16. Lappa; 17. Eleutherna; 18. Cnossus; 19. Hierapytna 20. Gortyn; 21. Corinth; 22. Patras; 23. Dyme;
24. Nicopolis; 25. Demetrias (Magnetes); 26. Larissa (Thessalian Koinon); 27. Edessa; 28. Thessalonica; 29. Amphipolis; 30. Philippi; 31. Abdera; 32. Perinthus(?);
59

33. Byzantium; 34. Sinope; 35. Apamea; 36. Parium; 37. Ilium; 38. Mytilene; 39. Pergamum; 40. Ephesus; 41. Aphrodisias; 42. Balbura; 43. Olbasa; 44. Cremna;
45. Mopsus; 46. Caesarea in Cappadocia; 47. Koinon of Cyprus; 48. Antioch in Syria; 49. Laodicea in Syria; 50. Berytus; 51. Alexandria in Egypt.
60 DARIO CALOMINO

So these coins were not issued simultaneously and evenly by all the mints. Even
in the coinage of the principal provincial mints, which operated under more direct
control by Rome, there is no evidence for overall coordination. Only Alexandria in
Egypt had a regular production in Augustus memory, initially in AD 20, and then
every year between AD 27 and 37 (RPC 5089-105). Caesarea in Cappadocia struck
a limited group of silver drachms for Divus Augustus and Germanicus in AD 33-34
(RPC 3623; Pl. 4, 12). Syrian Antioch only issued a rare tetradrachm series under
Tiberius (RPC 4161; Pl. 5, 13). An issue struck at Alexandria under Nero in AD 66/7
was the last to commemorate Augustus under the Julio-Claudians (RPC 5294; Pl. 5,
14). Only 6 cities in Crete and Asia Minor referred to Augustus on coins, more or
less explicitly, under the Flavians.12 Between the 2nd and the 3rd centuries, it seems
that only 9 mints out of approximately 350 were still commemorating Augustus in
the provinces.
This production was neither controlled, nor really fostered by Rome, but stemmed
from local initiative. Even when influenced by Rome, provincial issues were the
result of local re-interpretation. Over a third of these cities were Roman colonies or
municipia, founded by Caesar and then re-founded by Augustus after the Civil Wars.
In the Greek cities, the celebration of Augustus was attached to the memory of his
personal ties with the communities and evolved within the process of preservation
of civic traditions.
In Rome and in the provinces, Augustus was neither simply remembered as
the first emperor, nor worshipped as a deified figure. The diversification of his
commemoration mirrored his multi-faceted persona, so he was also seen as a model
ruler, even as a sort of local founder hero,13 in memory of his role as founder of
cities and of the Empire itself.14
The lack of uniformity is also visible in the diversity of coin designs and legends.
The following lists are an attempt to offer a taxonomy which can apply to both
imperial and provincial/civic coinages, although the range of possible combinations
does not always allow for rigid categorisation. The coin types can be loosely arranged
in seven main categories.
A) Obv. Head of Augustus
Rev. Imperial/civic design, including foundation scenes or a symbol of Augustus (the
Capricorn) (Pl. 4, 1. Pl. 5, 15. Pl. 6, 24)

head and the legend combined with Livia as referred to Augustus rather than
Tiberius has been contested by the authors of RPC, whose interpretation is followed here (RPC I, pp.
50-1). In spite of Grants overestimation, the attribution of a number of pieces to Augustus, either in his
lifetime or in his memory, is problematic, so the numbers given here could increase. For an overview,
see RPC I, p. 773. Compare also Hekster et alii 2014, p. 16.
12
The largest coinages struck for Divus Augustus under the Flavians are the Latin issues of Thrace,
i.e. restitution issues of the Julio-Claudian types. The mint location is uncertain, perhaps Perinthus; see
RPC II, pp. 87-8. These are not civic issues; they can be regarded more as imperial than provincial; RIC
II2, pp. 4-5, 193-4, 256-7.
13
Augustus was addressed as unconquered hero by an embassy from Alexandria as early as 10-9 BC
(P.Oxy. 3020, ii). See Price 1984b, p. 243.
14
On Augustus as constitutor of colonies and liberator of cities, see Grant 1946, pp. 335-56.
 THE POSTHUMOUS COMMEMORATION OF AUGUSTUS 61

B) Obv. Head of the ruling emperor (sometimes head of Livia, as a reverse? Pl. 5, 17, 21)
Rev. Head of Augustus (Pl. 4, 2, 12. Pl. 5, 13-14)
AB) Obv. Heads of the ruling emperor and of Divus Augustus facing each other
Rev. Civic design (Pl. 6, 26)
C) Obv. Head of the ruling emperor
Rev. Foundation scene (priest ploughing with oxen), sometimes referring explicitly to
Augustus (Pl. 7, 45)
D) Obv. Head of the ruling emperor
Rev. The deified Augustus in full figure, possibly as a statue (sometimes within
temple) (Pl. 6, 23. Pl. 7, 39)
E) Obv. Head of the ruling emperor
Rev. A symbol of Augustus (the Capricorn), sometimes in association with his name
(Pl. 6, 28. Pl. 7, 35, 42)
F) Obv. or Rev. Augustus in full figure as a god or a cult-statue (sometimes within
temple)
Obv. or Rev. Imperial/civic reverse type (S C, temple for a different cult, etc.)
(Pl. 4, 6-7. Pl. 5, 18. Pl. 6, 33)
The first two types are the most frequent. Type A is prevalent both on imperial
and provincial coins, but obverse busts varied from radiate to laureate and bare-
headed in the provinces, whereas the radiate head prevailed in Rome. Type B is
found almost entirely on provincial coinages, as it only occurred intermittently in the
1st century in the imperial coinage. This design, intended to promote the continuity
of power between rulers, was more familiar to the Hellenistic cultural tradition of
the Eastern cities. Augustus is still prevalently radiate, but what seems to matter is
the differentiation between him and the living emperor; so, for example, if Augustus
is laureate, his successor is bare-headed. The coinages of Ilium (RPC I, 2312) and
Pergamum (RPC I, 2368) present a variation of A and B, having both heads of the
ruling emperor and of Divus Augustus facing one another on the obverse (AB).
At Ilium the legend C C EOC W CEBACTOI is also
an unusual way of accommodating Caligula and the deified Augustus (Pl. 6, 26),
generating some ambiguity as to whom actually refers to.
In the 2nd and 3rd centuries, the double-head typology became rare even in the
provinces, and a new pattern seems to have taken over. The memory of Augustus
was now further back in time, so the juxtaposition of his portrait and those of his
successors probably seemed less convincing as a means of establishing a connection;
physical assimilation was introduced in its place. Augustus was celebrated mainly
alone and his features sometimes resembled those of the current emperors. This
was somehow already implicit within the coinages of some of his Julio-Claudian
descendants (mostly Caligula and young Nero), whereas the physical assimilation
of Augustus to later emperors, far-fetched though it could seem, was a subtle way of
expressing an idealised degree of kinship.
The types which represent Augustus in full figure, mainly as a reverse (C, D,
F), were rarer and less explicit references to him; sometimes they occurred in
combination with his portrait on the obverse (for instance at Pergamum under
Trajan, RPC 1701-3). The foundation scene (Augustus as a veiled priest ploughing
62 DARIO CALOMINO

with oxen) was frequently employed as a reverse type in the inaugural coinage of
Roman colonies founded by him and then often perpetuated under his successors.
Tiberian coins of Patras had both Augustus as a radiate head on the obverse and as
a colonist with oxen on the reverse (RPC 1253-4; Pl. 6, 24). But the reference to
Augustus was not always so explicit. This type could be used by Augustan colonies
without mentioning his name in the reverse legends, so that not all these issues can
definitely be considered as commemorative. For example, in Pisidian Antioch, the
name of Augustus is not included in the legends of coins issued after his death, but
it is possible that the foundation type adopted by his successors in the 3rd century
indirectly referred to Augustus because the earliest Augustan coins that show the
foundation scene have the unusual legend PARENS CAESAREA[E?] COL on the
reverse (RPC 3529), which regards him as the father of the colony. However, only
examples employing the foundation type within a larger coinage in memory of Divus
Augustus are considered here (see Table).
Images of statues and/or temples of Divus Augustus were linked to the
establishment and perpetuation of the imperial cult in the provinces. Pergamum had
a long-standing tradition; reverses featuring a temple enclosing a statue of Augustus
were struck while he was still alive (RPC 2362), and afterwards from Tiberius to
Trajan, with legends such as ( )C C A (RPC I, 2369-
70, 2372) serving as labels to identify the cult (Pl. 00, 9). At Philippi in Macedonia
the tradition had its roots in the foundation of the colony by Caesar and then again
by Augustus. The reverse type on Augustan coins featured the statue of Augustus
being crowned by that of Divus Caesar, labelled by the names AVG DIVI F and
DIVO IVLI respectively. Afterwards, the design was handed from one successor
of Augustus to another (Claudius, Nero, Vespasian, Domitian, Trajan, Hadrian,
Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius and Commodus); the reverse legend COL AVG
IVL PHILIP referred to the colony, but the label on the basis of the monument was
now replaced by a new one, DIVVS AVG, to commemorate both deified founders
together (Pl. 7, 39).
Augustus was the only emperor to be almost unequivocally associated with a
symbol, which could be used to commemorate him indirectly on coins (E). The
Capricorn, his zodiac sign, became his badge in Rome as well as in the provinces (see
Suet., Div. Aug. 94,12), often associated with a cornucopia and sometimes also with
a globe. Some later emperors adopted it as a reference to Augustus and his coinage,
mainly Vespasian on imperial gold and silver (RIC 117, 357).15 The best example in
the provinces is Parium in Mysia, where it was used as a reverse type (as well as the
foundation scene) for three centuries. The Capricorn occurred on Augustan coins and
then under his successors in combination with the legend AVGVSTVS, beginning
with Nero (RPC 2265-6; Pl. 6, 28) and even under Galba (RPC 2267). From the
15
See Buttrey 1972, pp. 99-101. Examples can also be found in the provinces. At Amisus (RPC II,
726-8), the Capricorn was used as a reverse type on coins with the portrait of Vespasian, although the
obverse legend , adopted while Vespasian was still alive, sounds ambiguous and
may evoke Augustus. The civic coins of Amisus are dated according to the Actian era (starting in 32/31
BC), because the victory of Augustus at Actium was seen as the liberation of the city from its tyrants:
RPC I, p. 359; RPC II, p. 115.
 THE POSTHUMOUS COMMEMORATION OF AUGUSTUS 63

2nd century, his name on the reverse was replaced by the name of the colony, but
the symbol was maintained under the Antonines, the Severans and afterwards until
Gallienus (Pl. 7, 42). Sometimes the symbol was such an obvious allusion to Augustus
that the imperial image and name did not need to be mentioned.16 For instance, at
Sabratha the Capricorn was used, without any reference to Augustus, on one side
of coins that feature Dionysus and the Punic name of the city on the other (RPC I,
818, 821). But because they belong in a larger group of Tiberian issues that celebrate
Divus Augustus,17 it can be assumed that the coins which did not commemorate
Augustus explicitly, simply adopted the symbol instead.18

The coin legends can be grouped in six main categories.

a) Divus (or Divos) Augustus in Latin (Pl. 4, 2-3. Pl. 5, 20. Pl. 7, 34)
b) Augustus as in Greek (Pl. 5, 14, 21. Pl. 6, 25)
c) Deus Augustus in Latin (Pl. 5, 18. Pl. 7, 41)
d) Augustus as god or emperor of the inhabitants of a particular city (i.e followed by the
ethnic in the genitive) (Pl. 6, 27. Pl. 7, 38)
e) Augustus as emperor (with no reference to his deification, i.e simply Augustus,
Caesar, , ) (Pl. 5, 19. Pl. 7, 36-7)
f) Other epithets of Augustus (such as = founder, or parens = father/ancestor)
(Pl. 7, 43-4)
Legends for Divus Augustus (a) were the most common (Pl. 6, 24). Within Greek-
speaking communities, Divus Augustus was translated as (b), even
though literally meant god, and referred to divinity in general, whereas
divus meant deified, so expressed the new status of the deceased emperor as a
result of his apotheosis (Pl. 6, 25).19 This is probably the reason why, unlike the Latin
legends, the title of was occasionally added between and ,
possibly to signify that Augustus was a deified emperor rather than just a god (Pl. 5,
13). The most direct Latin equivalent to the notion of was arguably deus,
which occurred only very rarely (c). 20
A fairly frequent variant of category b employed followed by the
genitive plural of the name of a local community, i.e. addressing Augustus as the
16
Two further Tiberian issues with Capricorn of uncertain mint refer to Augustus more or less directly.
RPC 5448 and 5423 bear the reverse legend N AYTOKPATOPA. On the obverse, the former
shows the laureate head of Tiberius, the latter the head of Augustus, probably radiate, and the legend
KAI APA N N: Amandry 2015b.
17
In RPC 816-7, 819-20 the civic designs (Baal-Melqart or Sarapis) and legends are catalogued as
obverses, and the head of Divus Augustus with the title of Caesar as reverses, on the basis of their
fabric, but I think that the other way round would not be inplausible.
18
A similar example is Sinope RPC 2138, having Nero on the obverse and Capricorn on globe on the
reverse; Augustus is not mentioned in the legend, but since other Neronian issues commemorated him
explicitly (RPC 2136, 2141), a reference to Augustus seems most probable. Other examples could be
considered too (see RPC I indexes, p. 798), but specific evidence to classify them as commemorative
is lacking.
19
See Price 1984a; Lozano 2007.
20
The terms Deus and Divus were originally interchangeable; the distinction was established for the
introduction of the cult of Divus Julius: Weinstock 1971, pp. 391-2; Wardle 2002; Gradel 2002, pp.
262-6; Koortbojian 2013, pp. 7-8.
64 DARIO CALOMINO

protecting god of the city (d). This appears to be more common in Greece and Thrace
than elsewhere (see Table). The best example is Abdera in Thrace, where coins
from Tiberius to Nero combined the heads of the living emperor and the deified
Augustus with the legends or even only
AI, an actual dedication in the dative to the god by (and of) the people
of Abdera (RPC 1727-9, 1730; Pl. 6, 27).21 Sometimes we also find that was
omitted and Augustus was addressed as Caesar of the inhabitants of a city, like a
patron and benefactor (see the example of Olbasa, p 72 below).
These legends are normally in the nominative. One exception is known employing
the genitive (Laodicea, RPC I, 4382); this shows
that, although extremely rare, the use of the genitive applied not only to living
emperors but also to deceased ones.22 The accusative ( ON) and especially the
dative ( but also DEO) were used as a sort of votive dedication, i.e. explicitly
addressing the emperor as a god.

Table: Cities Commemorating Augustus on Coins, c. AD 14-275.

Capital letters = type categories; small letters = legend categories; x = anepigraphic or no
legend referring to Augustus; Roman colonies in bold 23 2425262728293031
Ti Cal Cla Ner Civ.W/ Nerv/ Ant Sev TrD Gal Aur
Flav Tr/ Had
Imperial Mints Aa Ba Aa Da24 Aa Fa Aa Aa27 Bc28
Rm/Lugd/other Ba Aa (Rest) 25 (Rest)26

Fa Ex Ex
Emerita29 Aa
Ae
Italica Aa
(municipium)30
Romula31 Ba

21
This was perhaps a formula by which provincial cities celebrated living emperors as gods. One of the
earliest cases was in Thessaly, where Augustan coins with the legend O KAI AP A ( )
were probably struck before his death (RPC 1427). For similar examples under his successors, see
Mytilene for Tiberius (RPC 2344-6) and Cyme for Nero (RPC 2434). For Augustus regarded as a god
in the provinces while he was still alive, see Price 1984a, pp. 80-1.
22
Another example of the genitive is attested for Divus Claudius under Nero at Antioch ( OY
K AY IOY; RPC 4174). The genitive and the nominative were, however, hardly ever used to address
living emperors as gods; see the example from Thessaly in n. 21 above.
23
Some issues are not included here because their attribution to Divus Augustus rather than to another
member of the imperial family is very uncertain: see RPC I, 2090 (Heraclea in Bithynia ), and 2247
(Cyzicus).
24
RIC I2, pp. 95-101, 108-13, 127-8, 150, 283, 290 (for all the Julio-Claudians).
25
Nicolas 1979, pp. 1377-87. RIC II2, pp. 224, 229-30, 326-7, 349.
26
RIC II, pp. 232-3, 302-3, 311, 525.
27
RIC IV/1, 77-8; for the attribution to Rome instead of Milan, see Elks 1972.
28
RIC V/1, 9, 28; Gbl 2000, n. 530; Estiot 2011, p. 132, nos. 5-10.
29
RPC I, 20-37, S2-I-37A.
30
RPC I, 66-7.
31
RPC I, 73. S2-I-67A (Ab) could be tooled or fake, so is not included here.
 THE POSTHUMOUS COMMEMORATION OF AUGUSTUS 65

Ti Cal Cla Ner Civ.W/ Nerv/ Ant Sev TrD Gal Aur
Flav Tr/ Had
Tarraco32 Aa
Ba
Fc
Caesaraugusta33 Aa
Turiaso Ba
(municipium)34 Da
Gaul Ba
(uncertain city)35 Aa
Panormus36 Ax
Sabratha37 Ae
Lepcis Magna38 Aa
Cydonia39 Bd
Ae
Eleutherna40 Bd
Gortyn41 Bd Dx Dx
Bx Bb
Db
Hierapytna42 Ad
Bd
Polyrhenium43 Ab
Lappa44 Bb
Ab(?)
Cnossus45 Aa Aa
Crete Bd
(uncertain city)46
Koinon of Crete47 Bx
Dx(?)
Corinth48 Ax
32
RPC I, 218-24, 228-30.
33
RPC I, 376, 383.
34
RPC I, 422-4.
35
Possibly Treviri; RPC I, p. 156, nos 537-8, 5431(?).
36
The obverse legend PAN(H)ORMITANORVM, associated with Augustus radiate head and
thunderbolt, may be simply the ethnic of the city, or it may refer to Augustus as patron of the
community; the reverse features the Capricorn. RPC I, 644.
37
RPC I, 816-7, 819-20.
38
Lepcis became a colony only under Trajan. RPC I, 848, and p. 208.
39
RPC I, 952, 1013-4.
40
RPC I, 953.
41
RPC I, 954, 963-5(?), 966-9(?), 1029.
42
RPC I, 955-6, 961.
43
RPC I, 957.
44
RPC I, 959, 1020(?).
45
RPC I, 986, 1003-4.
46
RPC I, 958.
47
Probably minted in Gortyn: RPC II, 1-3.
48
RPC I, 1151, 1157.
66 DARIO CALOMINO

Ti Cal Cla Ner Civ.W/ Nerv/ Ant Sev TrD Gal Aur
Flav Tr/ Had
Patras49 Aa
Dyme50 Be
Nicopolis in Ae Ae Af Af
Epirus51 Af Af
Magnetes52 Bd Bd
Koinon of Ad
Thessaly53
Edessa54 Bd
Thessalonica55 Bd
Amphipolis56 Ab
Philippi57/ Da Da Da Da Da Aa/
RPCP58 Dx e
Aa
Thrace(?)59 Aa
(uncertain city) Fa
Abdera60 Bd Bd Bb
Byzantium61 Bb Ab(?)
Apamea in Aa
Bithynia62
Sinope63 Aa Aa
Ax Cx
Ex
Amisus64 Ex(?)
Asia-Cistophori65 De Ae
Parium66 Ee Ee Ex Ex Ex Ex Ex

49
RPC I, 1253-4.
50
RPC I, 1289.
51
RPC III 495-500, 557-78; Calomino 2011, nos 44-9, 88-111, 170-4, 192-5, 228-9, 258-61, 592-4.
52
RPC I, 1422-22A, 1424.
53
RPC I, 1430; S-1431A/8.
54
RPC I, 1521-4.
55
RPC I, 1578-80.
56
RPC I, 1635(?)-6.
57
RPC I, 1653-5; RPC II, 343-5; RPC III 659-66; RPC IV, 4259, 9119, 9401.
58
Amandry 2015a, nos. 1-2.
59
Possibly Perinthus; RPC II, p. 87-8, nos 511-4, 534-6.
60
RPC I, 1727-8, 1730.
61
RPC I, 1779. See also the Appendix below, A1.
62
RPC I, 2016 (DVIO (sic) AVG).
63
RPC I, S3-I-2125A, 2126, 2136, 2138, 2140-1.
64
RPC II, 726-7.
65
RPC I, 2221; RPC III, 1441 (= Metcalf 1980, no. 92), 1442, uncertain mint C (possibly Ephesus).
66
RPC I, 2265-7; RPC II, 887-8; RPC III 1533-6, 1536-42; RPC IV, 617, 623, 2371, 3152-3, 3163,
9694; RPC IX, 374-6, 381-2. For the 3rd century: SNG France 1494-5, 1502-4, 1510, 1516-9, 1522,
1527; BMC 111, 116; SNG Cop 296-7, 300, 302, 304.
 THE POSTHUMOUS COMMEMORATION OF AUGUSTUS 67

Ti Cal Cla Ner Civ.W/ Nerv/ Ant Sev TrD Gal Aur 3233343536

Flav Tr/ Had 373839404142

Ilium67 ABb Bb 4344454647

Mytilene68 Db 484950515253
Bb 545556575859
Pergamum69 ABe De Db Db Ae, Ad, 606162636465
Db Db Ae(?) Db, Dx 666768697071
Fb, Fe 727374757677
Aphrodisias70 Ab 7879808182
Balbura71 Bx
Cremna72 Cx Ca Ca Ca Ca Ca
Olbasa73 Bd
Caesarea in Ba
Cappadocia74
Cyprus75 Ba
Mopsus76 Bb
Antioch in Bb
Syria77
Laodicea78 Ab
Berytus79 Cx Cx Cx Aa Cx
Cx
Levant(?) Eb
(uncertain city)80 Ab(?)
Alexandria81 Bb Bb
Uncertain city82 Bb Ae Bb
Aa

67
RPC I, 2312-3.
68
RPC I, 2343-4.
69
RPC I, 2368-70, S3-I-2370A, 2372; RPC II, 918, 922(?); RPC III 1701-3, 1705 (=RPC I, 2355-7),
1710, 1717, 1739.
70
RPC I, 2844.
71
RPC I, 3355.
72
RPC III 2805; RPC IV, 7763, 7796; von Aulock 1979, nos 1051-1, 1091, 1121, 1154-9, 1444-5
(Philip), 1518-20 (Valerian), 1697-709.
73
RPC IV, 7677= von Aulock 1971, no. 1.
74
RPC I, 3623.
75
RPC I, 3917-8.
76
RPC I, 4049.
77
RPC I, 4161.
78
RPC I, 4382.
79
RPC I, 4543, 4545-6; RPC II, 2044-6; RPC III, 3832-4, 3836-8, 3841-3, 3848, 3853; RPC IV, 5311,
6757; Sawaya 2009, nos 337-57, 374-94, 419-69, 489-520, 521-51, 565-653, 663-712, 719-24, 1038,
1165-70.
80
RPC I, 5423, 5448.
81
RPC I, 5089-105, 5294.
82
RPC I, 5432-3 (reverse legend: DEDVCTOR), 5439, 5465.
68 DARIO CALOMINO

Divus Augustus and the Julio-Claudians

At Rome, the earliest bronze issues to commemorate Augustus after his death were
struck in AD 15-16. One issue showed on the reverse a veiled Livia enthroned; wife
of a divinity and mother of the new emperor, she represented the link of continuity
between them (Pl. 4, 1). The most significant issue showed the altar of Providentia
Augusta established by Tiberius in recognition of Augustus divine ability to
foresee and make provisions for the Roman State (RIC 81; Pl. 4, 3).83 The bulk of
commemorative coins are concentrated in two periods, AD 22-30 and AD 34-37
(RIC 70-83).84 Some showed Augustus in full figure on the reverse, as on sestertii
of AD 22-3, where he is radiate and seated on a stool, holding a laurel branch and
a sceptre before an altar (RIC 49; Pl. 4, 6). The latest sestertii (AD 34-7) depicted
the ceremony in which Augustus image was carried in procession in the circus on
a car drawn by elephants (RIC 56, 62, 68; Pl. 4, 7).85 The latest asses employed the
traditional symbols of divinity such as the thunderbolt and the eagle on a globe,
which are also the ominous signs described by Suetonius (Div. Aug. 97,1) to indicate
Augustus imminent death and deification (Pl. 4, 4-5).86 One can almost view them
all as an uninterrupted sequence of pictures that narrated the emperors apotheosis.
Under Caligula, the pattern of posthumous representation changed substantially.
The double-head type of radiate Augustus (surrounded by the legend or two stars)
and his great grandchild became preponderant on gold and silver struck by imperial
(Pl. 4, 8) as well as provincial mints (Pl. 6, 22).87 The bronze also adopted new ways
to celebrate Divus Augustus, who is evoked as a god by the legend DIVO AVG on
the sestertii that represent Caligula sacrificing in front of his cult-temple (RIC 36, 44,
51; Pl. 4, 9).88 The significance attached to Augustus was part of the wider plan of
celebration of the past and current members of Caligulas family. In comparison, the
occurrence of Augustan commemoration in the coinage of Claudius (RIC 101) and
Nero (RIC 6-7), who have been traditionally thought to model themselves on their
ancestor, is minimal (Pl. 4, 10-11).89
In the provinces, the major peak of issues occurred under Tiberius, probably
following the wave of emotion at Augustus death, but largely also as a reflection of
the coins for Divus Augustus struck at Rome. There is a difference between the West
and the East. The cities of Spain and Gaul were more keen to follow imperial models
83
The traditional chronology of this issue, AD 22/23-30, has recently been revised as a result of
metal analysis, which suggests that it was struck at the same time as the issue with Livia, in AD 15-16:
Barrandon, Suspne, Gaffiero 2010.
84
These issues were very abundant and represented a significant proportion of the bronze coinage of
Tiberius in Rome; RIC I2, p. 88.
85
See Suet., Div.Claud. 11,2.
86
See Wardle 2012, pp. 319-20.
87
RIC I2, pp. 108-10, 112-3.
88
See also Augustus seated on a curule chair: RIC 56.
89
For Claudius, see Levick 1990, pp. 89-90. For Nero, see Champlin 2003, pp. 139-44. For echoes of
Augustan policy in the coinage of Nero, see Grau 2009. Recent statistical studies have considered the
proportions of coins for Divus Augustus struck under the Julio-Claudians (Hekster et alii 2014a, pp.
7-8), proving that the occurrence of ancestry themes in Neros imagery was overestimated; Hekster et
alii 2014b.
 THE POSTHUMOUS COMMEMORATION OF AUGUSTUS 69

then those in the East. The local elites aimed to conform to the imperial standards
in order to foster their own integration into the Roman political system. Civic coins
looked like Roman coins, not only because they used the same language (Latin) and
denominations, but sometimes also the same types.90 The Spanish cities employed
imperial types more frequently than elsewhere,91 especially the designs of the
coins of Divus Augustus. The issue of Emerita showing the altar of Providentia is
probably the best example (RPC I, 34; Pl. 5, 15). Caesaraugusta copied the issue
with winged thunderbolt (RPC I, 376; Pl. 5, 16). Within the large coinage of Italica
for Divus Augustus, the type with Livia enthroned on the reverse, although looking
l. rather than r., may well also have been inspired by the similar imperial issue (RPC
I, 66). This type also proved particularly popular outside the western provinces, as
at Cnossus (RPC I, 986) and Sinope (RPC I, 2126). Other examples probably come
from Gaul.92
However, local variants occurred even within a deeply Romanised framework. At
Romula, an unconventional double-headed issue features the head of Divus Augustus
on one side and that of Livia with crescent and on a globe on the other (RPC I, 73;
Pl. 5, 17). In this case she was not simply presented as the wife of Augustus, but as
the living authority instead of Tiberius, 93 and RPC Is assignation of the obverse to
the Augustus rather than to the Augusta seems debatable. Within civic coinages, the
conventional dichotomy between obverse and reverse can prove constraining and the
categories that we use too rigid.
At Tarraco we find the use of Deus in the legend DEO AVGVSTO. On the
obverse, Augustus is seated on a throne in heroic nudity, wearing only a mantle
on his hips, holding a sceptre and Nike on globe (or patera), in a typical posture of
Jupiter (RPC 221-4);94 only the radiate head distinguishes him from the Olympian
divinity (Pl. 5, 18). 95 This god-like representation (recalling the similar imperial
reverse type of AD 22-3: RIC 49) probably explains the use of the dative instead of
the nominative, like a votive dedication, and is probably connected with the erection
of the temple of Divus Augustus in Tarraco.96
Local re-interpretation was more common in the East. An example is the silver
coinage of Crete under the Julio-Claudians. It was produced under provincial
control by several cities of the Cretan League, again probably in connection with the

90
Burnett has suggested that the imitation of Roman coins by the Western cities was part of a process
of self-romanization that ultimately led the local elites to renounce the production of civic coins and
to adopt exclusively the Roman currency. See Burnett 2005, pp. 176-8.
91
See Ripolls 2005, pp. 90-1.
92
RPC 538 shows the bust of Livia as Ceres just like the imperial dupondii with legend PIETAS (RIC
43). RPC I, pp. 156, 718.
93
The legend IVLIA AVGVSTA GENETRIX ORBIS, although implicitly alluding to her being the
mother of the new emperor, address her as the genitor of the whole world. The type (particularly the
crescent) also hints at her possible godhead. Very similar issues were struck at Byzantium (exceptionally,
in silver; Pl. 5, 21) and Mopsus under Tiberius, again combining Augustus radiate on one side and Livia
on the other; on these coins they are both addressed as (RPC 1779, 4049).
94
See Koortbojian 2013, p. 215.
95
Pace Koortbojian 2013, pp. 211-2, Augustus head is radiate.
96
See Fishwick 1999, pp. 102-3.
70 DARIO CALOMINO

imperial cult, for which the Provincial Council was responsible. Under Tiberius the
coins alternated the emperors portrait with Augustus radiate head, the veiled and
bearded head of the personification of the Senate, or the head of Zeus Cretagenes
(RPC 950-61). This put the status of Augustus on a par with that of the supreme civic
institution and of the protecting god of the island; he was addressed either as -
or as KAI API- .97 On the coins of Caligula and Claudius
(RPC 963-9), Divus Augustus was featured on the reverse either as a radiate head
(Pl. 6, 22) or as a seated statue with sceptre and patera, sometimes on a car drawn
by four elephants (Pl. 6, 23). Both types were inspired by imperial models.98 Yet the
archetypes were integrated with elements of local traditions; Augustus is surrounded
by seven stars to represent the Septentriones, a constellation which had mythical
connections with Crete and the birth of Zeus on the island. This linked the cult of the
deified emperor to that of Zeus Cretagenes.99
The end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty was marked by the Civil war that led to the
death of Nero in AD 68. The revolt of Vindex in Gaul was supported by a sizeable coin
production permeated with a strong ideological character. The rebels propaganda
promoted the restoration of constitutional freedom, drawing upon symbols and ideals
of the Republic (such as Libertas); the end of Neros tyranny was seen as the salvation
of humankind (SALVS GENERIS HVMANI, RIC 72). This campaign involved a
revival of the memory of Augustus, who embodied the Julio-Claudian ideals (RIC
81-111).100 These coins were produced by travelling mints101 in the provinces which
indulged in unprecedented experimentation. Augustus was remembered in various
ways, mostly by sober bare-headed portraits, but sometimes also laureate or radiate;
the legends ranged from AVG(VSTVS) DIVI F, in Republican fashion, to CAESAR
AVGVSTVS and DIVVS AVGVSTVS (Pl. 6, 29). The reverses displayed some of
his attributes and symbols, such as the Capricorn, the corona civica and the clipeus
virtutis.102 One issue even featured the head of Augustus in the guise of Genius
Populi Romani with a cornucopia (Pl. 6, 30). Emperor, Divus and god: Augustus
was a symbol, an ideal, his portraits being inaccurate and never resembling his actual
features.
After the accession of Galba in April 68, the imperial coinage struck in Spain
continued the commemoration of Divus Augustus (RIC 112-7); unlike the coinage of
the revolt, his portrait now had more consistent features and sometimes deliberately
resembled that of Galba in order to suggest a lineage between him and a legitimate
descendant (Pl. 6, 31).

97
Sometimes the singular genitive KPHTE was used instead of the plural: RPC 953-4, 956.
98
These two types were adopted also under Tiberius at Mytilene: RPC I, p. 397, nos 2343-4.
99
RPC I, pp. 229-30
100
See Kraay 1949.
101
The mints are traditionally assumed to have been based at Tarraco in Spain and Vienna in Gaul:
RIC I2, pp. 197-200.
102
See Nicolas 1979, pp. 1377-87.
 THE POSTHUMOUS COMMEMORATION OF AUGUSTUS 71

Augustus as a paradigm
The last 30 years of the 1st century saw the restitution issues of the Flavians and
then of Nerva and Trajan, which revived coin designs and ideals of the past after
the end of the civil wars and of the autocratic rule of Domitian, respectively; they
both included many new issues of Divus Augustus coins.103 The Augustan portrait
on coins of Nerva was often modelled on the latters own features, with his hooked
nose and long neck (Pl. 6, 32). 104
After the accession of Trajan, only few provincial cities issued coins in Augustus
memory. The colonies which he founded still had a special connection with him
and his memory. In Berytus, Phoenicia (province of Syria), the foundation scene
depicting Augustus as a colonist was used on the reverses from the foundation of
the colony to the end of the 2nd century AD. Additionally, under Trajan some special
issues featured Augustus bare head on the obverse and the legend DIVVS or DIVOS
AVGVSTVS (RPC 3833, 3836-8, 3848), the archaic version again expressing
attachment to traditions (Pl. 7, 34). These coins were struck alongside others
commemorating Divus Nerva, likewise named DIVOS NERVA AVGVSTVS (RPC
III, 3834, 3839, 3849), Trajans adoptive father and predecessor.105 This seems an
allusion to Trajans lineage and his consequent right to rule; the coins celebrated his
adoptive and his ideal father at the same time, from both of whom he had inherited
the imperial power.
The imitation of the exemplum Augusti was an important aspect of Hadrians
ideology.106 This can also be discerned in indirect allusions on his imperial coins. So
the references to Romulus Conditor (RIC 371, 266), Augustus traditional alter-ego
as the founder of Rome, and to the Capricorn (RIC 189; Pl. 7, 35), were probably
employed on the coinage of AD 124 because that year marked the saeculum (110
years) of Augustus death. 107
A more open re-evocation of Augustus was used on the silver cistophori of AD
129, when Hadrian was in Asia Minor. Hadrian is depicted on the reverses as a
togate figure standing, holding either grain ears and scroll or a patera over a tripod;
the legend is HADRIANVS AVGVSTVS P P REN (RPC 1441-2; Pl. 7, 36). The
abbreviation REN probably stands for renovator, which means restorer, but also
re-founder.108 Hadrian was acclaimed as (founder) and (saviour)
103
The restitution of old types preserved the memory of AD 1st century coins which had been melted
down and reissued. On this category of issues, see Komnick 2001. On the policy of Vespasian (followed
by Titus) as New Augustus, see Levick 1999, p. 73; Hekster 2006, p. 32; Hekster 2009, p. 104.
104
See Levick 2010, p. 296. On Nerva attempting to link himself to the Julio-Claudians, see recently
de Jong, Hekster 2008, p. 89.
105
Sawaya 2009, pp. 37-43.
106
Birley 1997, pp. 108-11, 147-50; Levick 2010, p. 297.
107
I owe this interpretation to R. Abdy, who is currently working on the Hadrianic section of the new
edition of RIC II.2.
108
Renovavit is also possible, as suggested in Metcalf 1980, pp. 88-90, and preferred in RPC III, p.
176, where the traditional interpretation that the legend refers exclusively to the replacement of old
Augustan cistophori being overstruck and re-issued is followed. I believe that the two interpretations
are not mutually incompatible and that, either way, the legend refers to all the benefits received by the
community from Hadrian, including new coinage.
72 DARIO CALOMINO

in an inscription from Ephesus for having supplied grain from Egypt and financial
support to the city and the sanctuary of Artemis during a time of economic hardship.
So renovator was probably intended to be understood as rescuer, someone who had
revived the community.109 Augustus is portrayed bare-headed on the obverse, with
features resembling those of a young and beardless Hadrian, and the legend IMP
CAESAR AVGVSTVS.
In this context Augustus was probably acting as a paradigm, the model ruler that
Hadrian was most keen to emulate. Since the cistophori were issued under provincial
control, with Latin legends and probably on the occasion of Hadrians visit, imperial
influence is possible. His representation with multiple attributes (scroll, grain and
patera) perhaps not only symbolised his benefactions to the community (visiting the
city, supplying food, taking care of the sanctuary), but could also be taken as a more
universal reference to some of the principal virtues of the optimus princeps, such as
providentia, liberalitas, and pietas.110
The exemplum Augusti policy faded under the Antonines. The new dynasty
had more recent virtuous examples to cite.111 In the provinces we even find a rare
commemoration of Divus Hadrian on the coinage of Damascus in Syria (BMC 8-
9). Again there are exceptions when the memory of Augustus was part of the civic
identity. So on the coins of the colony of Olbasa in Pisidia (province of Lycia
and Pamphylia), we find what is probably the last occurrence of the double-head
typology (RPC IV, 7677). 112 They feature the bare head of Augustus on the reverse
and the laureate head of Antoninus Pius on the obverse. The legend AVGVSTVS
OLBASENORVM celebrated Augustus as a patron of the community, with no
reference to either the imperial titles or his divine nature (Pl. 7, 38). The significance
of this unique issue is enhanced by the fact that it was also the inaugural issue of
the mint, so that the beginning of civic coinage was seen as a new foundation under
Antoninus; hence the link between him and Augustus.

The memory of Augustus in the 3rd century

It has been claimed that a large part of Septimius Severus policy in the first ten years
of his reign hinged on the imitation of Augustus, by means of symbolic choices (his
autobiography recalling the Res Gestae), building plans (the triumphal arch in the
Forum), and in particular by his celebration of the Ludi Saeculares along the lines
of the Augustan games of 220 years before (17 BC).113 On the other hand, equally
important official acts by Severus show that he in fact looked to the Antonines as
the ideal predecessors of his family, such as the adoption of their family name and
the rehabilitation of Commodus memory after its damnation by Pertinax and the
Senate.114 There was no explicit reminiscence of the past (and of Augustus) in the
109
IEph 274; see Milasowsky 2011.
110
See the discussion in Wallace-Hadrill 1981, pp. 304-5, 311-14, on the role played by Hadrian in
establishing a gallery of virtues of the perfect ruler to be advertised especially through coins.
111
See Hekster 2009, pp. 108-9.
112
von Aulock 1971, no. 1.
113
Cooley 2007; Barnes 2008.
114
de Jong, Hekster 2008, p. 90.
 THE POSTHUMOUS COMMEMORATION OF AUGUSTUS 73

Severan coinage, which was more focused on the ideology of dynastic concord and
divine patronage of imperial power.115
A notable exception to the general lack of references to Augustus in the 3rd
century are the consecratio series of radiates struck under Trajan Decius (AD 249-
251). They celebrated 11 deified emperors of the past from Divus Augustus to Divus
Severus Alexander, featuring the symbols of apotheosis on the reverse, such as the
flaming altar and the eagle (RIC 77-99; Pl. 7, 40). Although they may have been
intended to compensate for the withdrawal and over-striking of earlier denarii,116
the ideological purpose of this coinage is apparent. However, within this gallery
of glorious predecessors the role of Augustus as first Roman emperor is somehow
diminished and it is possible that Deciuss aim was to emulate the consecratio coins
restored by Trajan, his main source of inspiration.117
A more direct link with Augustus was established by Gallienus.118 The numismatic
evidence is not very extensive, but the imperial coinage probably shows the most
remarkable examples. These are extremely rare gold multiples struck on the occasion
of Gallienus decennalia (AD 262), featuring his bust on the obverse and Augustus
laureate head on the reverse, with legend DEO AVGVSTO, a dedication in the
dative (RIC 9, 28; Pl. 7, 41). The use of Deus instead of Divus here is puzzling
and unprecedented on imperial coinage. Gradel has suggested that it was required
by the fact that in the 3rd century Divus had become not sufficiently honouring
for Augustus, as it no longer suggested a real god, with cults and all..119 If this
interpretation is correct, then the Gallienus gold series could be seen as an indirect
response to the Divi series of Decius (and particularly to the DIVO AVGVSTO
issues, also in the dative), which were less than 10 years older, and as aimed at
emphasising the distinction between Augustus and all the other deified emperors.
Addressing Augustus as a proper god must have had a significant impact, as it surely
did not go unnoticed that Augustus portrait on these coins was clearly modelled on
that of Gallienus.120 This suggests that the commemoration of Augustus played a role
in Gallienus ideology, and possibly also explains why we find further examples in
the provinces under his reign. As in the case of Hadrian, it is possible that echoes
of Gallienus policy also reached the provincial cites and influenced their coinages,
especially if they already had a long-standing tradition of honouring Augustus on
coins.
For example, the coinage of Philippi in Macedonia resumed under Gallienus
after a gap of over fifty years.121 Some of the obverses feature the portrait of three
deified emperors, Augustus, Trajan and Marcus Aurelius, instead of Gallienus. The

115
Manders 2012; Rowan 2013.
116
Butcher 1996, p. 522; Howgego 2005, p. 5.
117
Manders 2012, pp. 263-6.
118
See De Blois 1976, pp. 129-34.
119
Gradel 2002, p. 365.
120
See: Alfldi 1967, pp. 52-4; Estiot 2011, p. 103.
121
These coins are unusually marked R(es) P(ublica) C(oloniae) P(hilippensis/ium) and were struck
alongside ordinary coins of Philippi for Gallienus, as proved by die-links. See Amandry 1998 and
Amandry 2015a.
74 DARIO CALOMINO

coins of Divus Augustus show his radiate head and the legend DIVO AVGVSTO
on the obverse. One reverse shows a local hero (HEROI AVLONITE, worshipped
near Mount Pangaeum)122 riding a horse with a spear, in a posture that recalled the
iconography of the emperor on horseback. Another reverse shows the imperial
adventus and the legend AVG PARENTI (Pl. 7, 43).123 Taken together, these coins
seem to celebrate two aspects of the worship of Divus Augustus: his divine nature, as
compared to a local mythical hero, and his role as founder of the empire. The epithet
parens styles him as the ancestor of Gallienus; it also literally means father, so
Augustus could be seen as an ideal parent of the emperor (and again as father of the
fatherland). As the same reverse type and legend also occur on the coins of Divus
Marcus Aurelius, the intent was probably to commemorate the best emperors of the
past who served as models for Gallienus and for the people of Philippi, and Augustus
in particular as the progenitor of all the Caesars.
Influence from the centre to the periphery can only be assumed and sometimes
we cannot exclude that it worked the other way round.124 A special tie between a city
and its founder was still the main reason for remembering Augustus over time. A
few exceptional cases spanning the 2nd to 3rd centuries can be mentioned. Among
the colonies, Cremna in Pisidia (province of Lycia and Pamphylia) commemorated
Augustus on coins with great regularity. Having started under Hadrian (RPC 2805),
from Marcus Aurelius onward they featured the foundation scene and the legend
DIVO AVG COL CRE. Then they continued in the 3rd century under Septimius
Severus, Philip, Valerian and even Aurelian in AD 275 (Pl. 7, 45).125 These coins
are almost certainly the latest attestations of a legend commemorating Augustus in a
period when nearly all the other mints of the provinces had closed permanently over
20 years earlier.
Among the Greek cities, only Nicopolis in Epirus devised a special form of
celebration for its founder Augustus during the 2nd and 3rd centuries. The city itself
was conceived as a monumental celebration of the victory of Actium in 31 BC; the
Augustan coins were the only ones in the provinces to bear the legend
, the foundation of Augustus (RPC 1363-7). After Augustus death,
commemorative series were issued in parallel with the ordinary coinage in the name
of the living emperors, under Trajan, Hadrian (Pl. 7, 37), Antoninus Pius and Marcus
Aurelius, Commodus, Septimius Severus and Caracalla, and after a gap (as at Philippi)
resumed under Gallienus, just before the city ceased to mint (Pl. 7, 44).126 No other
city of the empire paid such continuous and explicit homage to the founder.
On the obverses Augustus was never celebrated as a Divus but as the city-founder,
mostly bare-headed, with such titles as KTICTHC CEBACTOC and KTICTHC
AY OYCTOC. The word normally referred to mythical founders rather
than human beings and was never used in a coin legend before the Augustan age.127
122
Amandry 1998, p. 25.
123
Amandry 2015a, pp. 429-30, nos. 1-2.
124
See Hekster et alii 2014b, pp. 13-6.
125
von Aulock 1979, pp. 112-45.
126
Calomino 2011, pp. 242-8, 254-5, 282-4.
127
Franke and Leschhorn 2002, pp. 179-81.
 THE POSTHUMOUS COMMEMORATION OF AUGUSTUS 75

In Nicopolis, the epithet , referring to Augustus, could be assimilated to the

Greek , i.e. a local hero whose name was adopted by a city to commemorate
a victory over a monster or an enemy.128 On these coinages Augustus posthumous
portraits change from emperor to emperor: each resembles the features of the living
emperor under whose rule the commemorative coins were struck. Once again, it
seems that the engravers deliberately depicted Augustus in the likeness of each of his
successors in order to emphasise the closeness of the ruling emperors to the founder,
and to suggest that they were his descendants, all members of the same family of the
Augusti.129

Emperor or god?
Caesar, Divus (or Deus), : emperor or god? There is no unequivocal answer,
because the deified Augustus embodied all these different aspects in his persona. The
analysis of the numismatic material presented here shows one way (among many) of
looking at the cultural impact that his leadership had on the Roman world, and at how
its legacy can be assessed. It strengthens the idea that the Augustan phenomenon
was revolutionary also in the response that the death and the deification of Augustus
provoked in Rome and the provinces; this probably explains why none of his
successors was commemorated so widely and diversely as he was. Coins cannot
provide the full picture but they can offer a particular key to interpretation.
On both imperial and provincial coinage Divus Augustus is essentially an
obverse, i.e. an emperor; he has maintained his authority even as a deified ruler. In
this regard, it is remarkable that some Tiberian issues of Italica and Romula included
the formula PERM(ISSV) DIVI AVG(VSTI) (RPC 64-5, 73) in their reverse legends.
On the one hand, this confirms that the habit of advertising imperial authorisation to
mint in the West was a formality rather than a duty; on the other it shows that Divus
Augustus was regarded as a formal authority just like other living members of the
Imperial family.130 The juxtaposition of his portrait with that of one of his successors
on double-headed issues supports this view; the presence of Augustus on the other
side of the coin bolstered the legitimacy of the current emperors rule. The coins
of the Roman colonies and of the Greek cities of the empire show an additional
aspect of this phenomenon. Divus Augustus is not only a symbol of the authority of
Rome, but also a reverse, i.e a design that represents the city. In many ways the
memory of Augustus was intertwined with the rebirth of the provincial cities under
the new order established by his settlement of the Roman world, so his posthumous
commemoration became an act of civic self-celebration. As such, the deified Augustus
was absorbed into the past of the communities, as a part of their cultural traditions.
So at Nicopolis we can find commemorative coins (RPC III, 557; Pl. 7, 37) on which

128
Augustus was also the first living ruler to be given this title. Clazomenae and Teos in Asia Minor
proclaimed Augustus when he was alive to express gratitude for his support of the reconstruction
of civic buildings after an earthquake (RPC 2492-6, 2511-2, 2515). See Leschhorn 2009, pp. 378-9. See
also Grant 1946, pp. 356-67.
129
Calomino 2011, pp. 339-41; Calomino 2012, p. 110.
130
See RPC I, pp. 77-9. See also Barrandon, Suspne, Gaffiero 2010, p. 163.
76 DARIO CALOMINO

Augustus is portrayed both on the obverse, with the legend KTICMA CEBACTOY
that celebrates the city as his own foundation ( being his Greek name), and
on the reverse, riding a horse in military dress, with the legend AY OYCTOC, his
Roman name (the name of every Roman emperor). God, ruler, patron, founder, hero,
even civic monument: the many faces of his commemoration are no mere adulation
of the Empire, but also expressions of local identity.

Appendix: a hitherto unknown issue of Byzantium for Divus Augustus

Obverse: . Radiate head of Augustus, l.
Reverse: . Torch decorated with bands
Private Collection (Germany): 22mm, 6.19g, 12h (Pl. 8, A1)131
The coin was probably struck at Byzantium; the chronology is most uncertain.
The identification is based mainly on the reverse type, which was very common
in the civic coinage of the imperial age, and on the name of the magistrate, Agalles
Heroxenos (the second could be a patronymic genitive). Both names occur frequently
on inscriptions from Byzantium: the former only from the city in the 2nd century BC
(LGPN IV, p. 4 = IByz 100, SEG L,667,I), the latter also from its territory and from
Scythia and Chersonese, between the 1st century BC and the 2nd century AD (LGPN
IV, p. 158 = IByz 277 and 334).
Further evidence comes from coinage, although the name is not attested in the
corpus of Schnert-Geiss. A didrachm of Rhoemetalces I and Augustus in Paris
(P.1354 = RPC 1774) was described by Lenormant as having the reverse legend:
O (sic) (Lenormant 1849, p. 48, followed by
Imhoof-Blumer 1898 1898, p. 17), although the drawing on his plate clearly shows
(Pl. XXIII, no. 15; here Pl. 8 A2).132 The RPC catalogue has not
entirely followed the original reading by Lenormant, because the coin is very worn
and the legend hardly legible, but the initial HP- instead of - was already noted.
After a closer examination, M. Amandry has kindly confirmed to me that the name is
Heroxenos, so there is an onomastic precedent in the imperial coinage for the bronze
posthumous coin presented here.
Byzantium did not strike bronze coins with the imperial portrait under Augustus,
and the rare silver issues in the name of Rhoemetalces I and Augustus with legend
BYZANTIA (RPC 1774-5) are probably to be considered part of the provincial
coinage of the Thracian kings rather than of the civic production. So I am inclined
to discount the notion that this coin was struck while Augustus was still alive and
to regard it as posthumous. The city in fact issued a silver didrachm in memory
of Divus Augustus and Diva Livia under Tiberius or Claudius (Schnert-Geiss
1972, no. 1306 = RPC 1779; Pl. 5, 21). The radiate head l., and the legend

131
The coin was brought to my attention in July 2014 by M. Amandry, M. Fox and A. Reich; they have
all contributed (together with R. Ashton) to the analysis presented here with information, suggestions
and images of the specimen; the interpretation and the chronology of the issue are my responsibility. I
am most grateful to all of them for their help and support, and I also wish to thank the owner of the coin
for authorising this publication.
132
This inconsistency was spotted by M. Fox.
 THE POSTHUMOUS COMMEMORATION OF AUGUSTUS 77

, although in the nominative rather than genitive,133 provide a

significant parallel for our specimen. A tetradrachm with a bare head of Tiberius
l. (Schnert-Geiss 1972, nos 1307-8 = RPC 1778) has the same style and fabric as
the didrachm and was probably contemporary with it. Similarities between these
coins and our specimen include the design of the neck-truncation of the obverse
heads and the employment of a four-bar sigma in the legends of both sides, which
is regarded as peculiar to coinages in general of the Julio-Claudian age. On these
grounds a date shortly after the death of Augustus would seem plausible, but other
factors suggest a different interpretation:
a) The absence of the city name is rather unusual, but there are precedents in the
coinages without imperial portrait, probably because they feature the name and
head of the eponymous hero Byzas on the obverses. They date roughly between
the middle of Hadrians reign and the end of Antoninus Pius (Schnert-Geiss
1972, nos 2032-40 = RPC III, 1088, Demetrios (AD 128-136); nos 2041-5 =
RPC IV, 8718, Ail. Severos (AD 164-169); nos 2059-71 = RPC IV, 8725-31,
Ail. Pontikos (AD 178)).
b) The torch134 reverse type is very common in the civic coinage of the imperial
age, but it never occurs before Trajan (Schnert-Geiss 1972, p. 171). The
closest parallel for our type is Schnert-Geiss 1972, nos 1343-44 = RPC 1071-
2 (Trajan, magistrate Neikos, c.AD 102-116). The coinage of Hadrian also
includes other examples (Schnert-Geiss 1972, nos 1366-67). The radiate head
of Trajan, l., on the obverse of Schnert-Geiss 1972, no 1343 could well have
served as a model for the portrait of Augustus on the commemorative coin.
c) The use of the four-bar sigma on the reverse is hardly attested in this period,
the only examples on coins with the imperial head being Schnert-Geiss 1972,
no. 1345 (= RPC 1073-4), again under Trajan (radiate bust r. or l.; Pl. 8, A3).
Examples of the square-backed sigma, 6, are also attested (Schnert-Geiss
1972, nos 1343-4, 1347-9 (= RPC 1071-2, 1075). However, the lunate sigma
is customary on reverses and by far the usual choice on obverses too, from the
time of Domitian onward; it also occurs on the obverse of the Trajanic issues
with four-bar sigma on the reverse. Nevertheless, the square-backed sigma
is not unusual on the obverses of Trajan (Schnert-Geiss 1972, nos 1322-31,
1334-40, 1362-5 = RPC 1068-1070), and sometimes it and the lunate sigma
occur in the same legend (AYTO NEP TPAIANO6 KAI CEB :
Schnert-Geiss 1972, nos 1332-3 = RPC 1068), which suggests that the system
was flexible.
d) The obverse legends on the 2nd century coins with the helmeted head of Byzas
instead of the imperial portrait all employ the four-bar sigma, even if combined
with reverse legends that use either the four-bar sigma or the lunate variant
133
For the use of the genitive Y Y for both living and deceased emperors, see
comments above.
134
The shape of the torch on our specimen is unusually thin, almost like a sword; this may result from
minor retouching of the edges.
78 DARIO CALOMINO

(Schnert-Geiss 1972: nos 2032-74). This, I think, could be a deliberately

conservative choice; the four-bar version was the only form of sigma known in
the pre-Roman coinage and was still in use in the 1st century AD, so that it could
be seen as a sign of attachment to tradition in association with the celebration
of the mythical founder. Perhaps an old-fashioned pattern was adopted also for
a commemorative issue of Augustus that was struck in the same period as the
coins that commemorated Byzas.
In my opinion, all these elements suggest a chronology in the 2nd century AD,
possibly the first half, but further evidence (ideally about the magistrate) is needed
before the matter can be resolved.

Bibliography
Alfldi, A., 1967, Studien zur geschichte der weltkrisen des 3. Jahrhunderts nach Christus,
Darmstadt.
Amandry, M., 1998, Le monnayage de la Res Publica Coloniae Philippensium, in U. Peter
(ed.), Stephanos nomismatikos. Edith Schnert-Geiss zum 65. Geburtstag, Berlin,
pp. 23-31.
Amandry, M., 2015a, Le monnayage de la Res Publica Coloniae Philippensium. Nouvelles
donnes, in P. van Alfen, G. Bransbourg, M. Amandry (eds), FIDES. Contributions to
Numismatics in Honor of Richard B. Witschonke, New York, pp. 495-507.
Amandry, M., 2015b, Une mystrieuse mission provinciale tibrienne frappe en Asie
Mineure, in R. Bland, D. Calomino (eds), Studies in Ancient Coinage in Honour of
Andrew Burnett, London, pp. 119-23.
Barnes, T.D., 2008, Aspects of the Severan Empire, part 1: Severus as a new Augustus, New
England Classical Journal 35/4, pp. 251-67.
Barrandon, N., Suspne, A., Gaffiero, A., 2010, Les missions das au type Divvs Avgvstvs
Pater frappes sous Tibre : lapport des analyses leur datation et leur interprtation,
RN 166, pp. 149-73.
Birley, A.R., 1997, Hadrian: the Restless Emperor, London.
Burnett, A., 2005, The Roman West and the Roman East, in Coinage and Identity,
pp. 171-80.
Burnett, A., 2011, The Augustan revolution seen from the mints of the provinces, JRS 101,
pp. 1-30
Butcher, K.E.T., 1996, Imagined emperors: personalities and failure in the third century,
JRA 9, pp. 515-27.
Buttrey, T.V., 1972, Vespasian as a moneyer, NC 1972, pp. 89-109.
Calomino, D., 2011, Nicopolis dEpiro. Nuovi studi sulla zecca e sulla produzione monetale,
Oxford.
Calomino, D., 2012, Actia Nicopolis. Coinage, Currency and Civic Identity (27BC - AD
268), in F.L. Sanchez (ed.), The City and the Coin in the Ancient and Early Medieval
Worlds, Oxford, pp. 103-15.
Champlin, E., 2003, Nero, Cambridge.
Coinage and Identity, C. Howgego, V. Heuchert, A. Burnett (eds), Coinage and Identity in
the Roman Provinces, Oxford 2005.
Cooley, A., 2007, Septimius Severus: the Augustan emperor, in S. Swain, S. Harrison, J.
Elsner (eds), Severan Culture, Cambridge.
De Blois, L., 1976, The Policy of the Emperor Gallienus, Leiden.
 THE POSTHUMOUS COMMEMORATION OF AUGUSTUS 79

Elks, J.J.K., 1972, Reattribution of the Milan coins of Trajan Decius to the Rome mint, NC
12, pp. 111-5.
Estiot, S., 2011, Le trsor dor romain de Lava, Corse (terminus 272/273 de n. .), Trsors
Montaires 24, pp. 91-152.
Fishwick, D., 1999, Coinage and cult: the Provincial monuments at Lugdunum, Tarraco
and Emerita, in G.M. Paul, M. Ierardi (eds), Roman Coins and Public Life Under the
Empire: E. Togo Salmon Papers II, Ann Arbor, pp. 95-122.
Franke, P., Leschhorn, W., 2002, Lexikon der Aufschriften auf griechischen Mnzen I: Band
I. Geographische Begriffe, Gtter und Heroen, mythische Gestalten, Persnlichkeiten,
Titel und Beinamen, Agonistik, staatsrechtliche und prgerechtliche Formeln,
bemerkenswerte Wrter, Vienna.
Giard, J-B., 1983, Le monnayage de latelier de Lyon, des origines au rgne de Caligula (43
avant J.-C. - 41 aprs J.-C.), Brussels.
Gbl, R., 2000, Die Mnzprgung der Kaiser Valerianus I. / Gallienus / Saloninus (253/268),
Regalianus (260) und Macrinaus / Quietus /(260/262), Vienna.
Gradel, I., 2002, Emperor Worship and Roman Religion, Oxford.
Grant, M. 1946, From Imperium to Auctoritas. A Historical Study of Aes Coinage in the
Roman Empire, 49 B.C.-A.D. 14, Cambridge.
Grau, D., 2009, Nron, hritier dAuguste : perspectives numismatiques, RN 165,
pp. 129-52.
de Jong, J., Hekster, O., 2008, Damnation, commemoration, deification, in S. Benoist, A.
Daguet-Gagey (eds), Un discourse en Images de la Condamnation de Mmoire. Centre
Rgional Universitaire Lorrain dHistoire, Metz, pp. 79-86.
Hekster, O., 2006, Descendants of gods: legendary genealogies in the Roman Empire,
in L. de Blois, P. Funke, J. Hahn (eds), The Impact of Imperial Rome on Religions,
Ritual and Religious Life in the Roman Empire. Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop of
the International Network Impact of Empire (Roman Empire, 200 B.C. A.D. 476),
Leiden-Boston, pp. 24-35.
Hekster, O., 2009, Honouring ancestors: the dynamic of deification, in O. Hekster, S.
Schmidt-Hofner, C. Witschel (eds), Ritual Dynamics and Religious Change in the
Roman Empire. Proceedings of the Eighth Workshop of the International Network
Impact of Empire, Vol. 9. Impact of Empire, Leiden-Boston, pp. 95-110.
Hekster, O., et alii, 2014, Neros ancestry and the construction of imperial ideology
in the early Empire. A methodological case study, Journal of Ancient History and
Archaeology (online at http://jaha.org.ro/index.php/JAHA/index) 1/4 (2014), pp. 7-27.
Heuchert, V., 2005, The chronological development of Roman Provincial coin iconography,
in Coinage and Identity, pp. 29-56.
Howgego, C., 2005, Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces, in Coinage and Identity,
pp. 1-17.
Imhoof-Blumer, F., 1898, Bithynische Mnzen, JIAN 1, pp. 11-36.
Komnick, H., 2001, Die Restitutionsmnzen der frhen Kaiserzeit, Berlin.
Koortbojian, M., 2013, The Divinization of Caesar and Augustus: Precedents, Consequences,
Implications, Cambridge.
Kraay, C.M., 1949, The coinage of Vindex and Galba, A.D. 68, and the continuity of the
Augustan Principate, NC 1949, pp. 129-49.
Lenormant, M.C., 1849, Trsor de numismatique et de glyptique, ou Recueil gnral de
mdailles, monnaies, pierres graves, bas-reliefs tant anciens que modernes, les plus
intressants sous le rapport de lart e de lhistoire, gravs par les procds de M.
Achille Collas. Vol. 7, Numismatique des rois grecs, Paris.
80 DARIO CALOMINO

Leschhorn, W., 2009, Der Kaiser als Grnder. Der Titel KTI auf griechischen Mnzen
der rmischen Kaiserzeit, in S. Drougou et al. (eds), KE MATIA I IA .
. Studies in Honour of Ioannis Touratsoglou,
Athens, pp. 377-83.
Levick, B., 1990, Claudius, London.
Levick, B., 1999, Vespasian, London.
Levick, B., 2010, Augustus. Image and Substance, Harlow-London-New York.
Manders, E., 2012, Coining Images of Power. Patterns in the Representation of Roman
Emperors on Imperial Coinage, A.D. 193-284, Leiden-Boston.
Metcalf, E.W., 1980, The Cistophori of Hadrian, New York.
Mlasowsky, A., 2011, Eine neue Deutung zum Kistophor mit der Umschrift HADRIANVS
AVG P P REN, JNG 61, pp. 85-107.
Nicolas, E.P., 1979, De Nron Vespasien : tudes et perspectives historiques suivies de
lanalyse, du catalogue et de la reproduction des monnaies oppositionnelles
connues des annes 67 70, Paris.
Pollini, J., 1981, Man or God: divine assimilation and imitation in the Late Republic and
Early Principate, in K.A. Raaflaub, M. Toher (eds), Between Republic and Empire:
Interpretations of Augustus and his Principate, Berkeley, pp. 334-63.
Price, S., 1984a, Gods and Emperors: the Greek language of the Roman Imperial Cult, JHS
104, pp. 79-95.
Price, S., 1984b, Rituals and Power: the Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor, Cambridge.
Ripolls, P.P., 2005, Coinage and identity in the Roman Provinces: Spain, in Coinage and
Identity, 79-93.
Rowan, C., 2012, Under Divine Auspices. Divine Ideology and the Visualisation of Imperial
Power in the Severan Period, Cambridge.
Sawaya, Z., 2009, Histoire de Berytos et dHeliopolis daprs leurs monnaies, Beirut.
Schnert-Geiss, E., 1972, Die Mnzprgung von Byzantion, Berlin.
Sutherland, C.H.V., 1941, Divus Augustus Pater, NC 1941, pp. 97-116.
von Aulock, H., 1971, Kleinasiatische Mnzsttten JNG 21, pp. 15-24.
von Aulock, H., 1979, Mnzen und Stdte Pisidiens II, Tbingen.
Wallace-Hadrill, A., 1981, The Emperor and his virtues, Historia 3, pp. 298-323.
Wardle, D., 2002, Deus or Divus: the genesis of Roman terminology for deified emperors
and a philosophers contribution, in G. Clark, T. Rajak (eds), Philosophy and Power in
the Graeco-Roman World: Essays in Honour of Miriam Griffin, Oxford, pp. 181- 91.
Wardle, D., 2012, Suetonius and Augustus as god and man, CQ 62/1, pp. 307-26.
Weinstock, S., 1971, Divus Julius, Oxford.

Catalogue of images135
1. Rome, as of Tiberius for Divus Augustus, AD 15-6: L.1959,0305.3, AE 10.65g (RIC 72)
2. Lugdunum, Aureus of Tiberius and Divus Augustus, AD 14-16: L.1964,1203.82, AV 7.77g
(RIC 24)
3. Rome, as of Tiberius for Divus Augustus, AD 15-16: L.R.6409, AE 10.71 (RIC 81)

135
Photo credits: new pictures of coins in the British Museum collection (L) have been kindly taken
for this article by E. Poimenidou, to whom I am most grateful. I also thank F. Duyrat and M. Amandry
- Paris, Bibliothque nationale de France (P), and P. Segal - Boston, Museum of Fine Arts (BS), for the
use of images of specimens in their collections. For the use of images available on Coinarchives, I am
grateful to: Classical Numismatic Group (CNG), Numismatica Ars Classica (NAC), ArtCoins Roma,
Roma Numismatics Ltd (www.RomaNumismatics.com), Gemini Numismatics Llc.
 THE POSTHUMOUS COMMEMORATION OF AUGUSTUS 81

4. Rome, as of Tiberius for Divus Augustus, AD 34-37: NAC 46, April 2008, 488, AE 11.02g
(RIC 83)
5. Rome, as of Tiberius for Divus Augustus, AD 34-37: BM.R.6415, AE 10.36 (RIC 82)
6. Rome, sestertius of Tiberius for Divus Augustus, AD 22-23: NAC 72, May 2013, 581, AE
26.87g (RIC 49)
7. Rome, sestertius of Tiberius for Divus Augustus, AD 36-7: ArtCoins Roma 15, April 2015,
515, AE 31.98g (RIC 68)
8. Lugdunum, aureus of Caligula and Divus Augustus, AD 37-38: L.R.6322, AV 7.68g (RIC 1)
9. Rome, sestertius of Caligula, AD 37-38: L.R.6437, AE 26.44g (RIC 36)
10. Rome, dupondius of Claudius for Divus Augustus, AD 50-54: NAC 78, May 2014, 2080,
AE 17.32g (RIC 101)
11. Rome, aureus of Nero for Divi Augustus and Claudius, AD 55: NAC 67, October 2012,
122, AV 7.64g (RIC 6)
12. Caesarea (Cappadocia), drachm of Tiberius in memory of Divus Augustus and Germanicus,
AD 33-34: L.BK.240, AR 3.27 (RPC 3623a)
13. Antioch (Syria), tetradrachm of Tiberius and Divus Augustus, AD 14-20: CNG 99, May
2015, 467, AR 15.15g (RPC 4161)
14. Alexandria (Egypt), tetradrachm of Nero and Divus Augustus, AD 66/67: L.1860,0327.131,
Billon 13.35g (RPC 5294)
15. Emerita (Spain), Divus Augustus, AD 14-37: CNG 76, September 2007, 1017, AE 12.80g
(RPC 34)
16. Caesaraugusta (Spain), Divus Augustus, AD 37-41: NAC 78, May 2014, 2079, AE 25.98g
(RPC 383)
17. Romula (Spain), Divus Augustus and Livia, AD 14-37: CNG 329, June 2014, 233, AE
23.44g (RPC 73)
18. Tarraco (Spain), Divus Augustus, AD 14-37: BM.G.2427, AE 24.05g (RPC 222)
19. Sabratha (Africa), Divus Augustus, AD 14-37: CNG 81, May 2009, 896, AE 7.91g (RPC
817)
20. Lepcis Magna (Africa), Divus Augustus, AD 14-37: CNG 93, May 2013, 1059, AE
25.82g (RPC 848)
21. Byzantium (Thrace), didrachm of Divus Augustus and Livia, c. AD 20-29: L.1872,0709.34,
AR 6.25 (RPC 1779)
22. Gortyna(?) (Crete), drachm of Caligula and Divus Augustus, AD 37-41: L.G.2196, AR
2.71g (RPC 965)
23. Gortyna(?) (Crete), tetradrachm of Claudius, AD 41-54: L.G.2197, AR 10.28g (RPC
966)
24. Patras (Achaea), Divus Augustus, AD 14-37: L.1859,1219.29, AE 9.12g (RPC 1253)
25. Aphrodisias (Asia), Divus Augustus, AD 37-41: L.1840,0217.202, AE 5.97g (RPC
2844)
26. Ilium (Asia), Caligula and Divus Augustus, AD 37-41: P.723, AE 11,33 (RPC 2312)
27. Abdera (Thrace), Nero and Divus Augustus, AD 54-68: Gemini LLC 7, January 2011,
741, AE 5.72g (RPC 1730)
28. Parium (Asia), Nero, AD 54-68: CNG 223, December 2009, 344, AE 6.77g (RPC 2266)
29. Spain, denarius in memory of Divus Augustus, Civil Wars coinage, AD 68: L.1860,0330.53,
AR 3.43g (RIC 116=Nicolas 1979, A27)
30. Gaul(?), denarius, Civil Wars coinage, AD 68: Roma Numismatics 7, March 2014, 1009,
AR 3.62g (RIC 22)
31. Spain(?), aureus in memory of Divus Augustus, Civil Wars coinage, AD 68: NAC&Spink
Taisei, November 1994, 261, AV 7.24g (RIC 112)
82 DARIO CALOMINO

32. Rome, restitution as of Nerva for Divus Augustus, AD 98: CNG 294, January 2013, 629,
AE 12.00g (RIC 129)
33. Pergamum (Asia) in memory of Augustus, c. AD 134: L.1844,0425.231, AE 3.64g (RPC
1739)
34. Berytus (Syria), Divus Augustus, AD 98-117: CNG 91, September 2012, 665, AE 6.40
(RPC 3836=Sawaya 2009, nos. 606-23)
35. Rome, quinarius of Hadrian, AD 125-128: BM.BNK,R.398, AR 1.79g (RIC 189)
36. Ephesus(?) (Asia), cistophorus in memory of Augustus, c. AD 128: Triton XIV, January
2011, 625, AR 10.90 (RPC 1441=Metcalf 1980, no. 92)
37. Nicopolis (Epirus), in memory of Augustus, c. AD 117-138: L.1995,0605.85, AE 6.66g
(RPC 557)
38. Olbasa (Lycia-Pamphylia), Antoninus Pius and Augustus, AD 138-161: L.1905,1005.16,
AE 12.21 (RPC 7677=von Aulock 1971, no. 1)
39. Philippi (Macedonia), Marcus Aurelius in memory of Divi Caesar and Augustus, AD
161-180: L.1958,0304.92, AE 7.83 (RPC 4259=AMNG 18)
40. Rome, radiate of Trajan Decius for Divus Augustus, AD 250-251: NAC 72, May 2013,
1436, AR 4.20 (RIC 78)
41. Rome, double(?) aureus of Gallienus and Divus Augustus, AD 262-263: NAC 5, May
2001, 2072, AV 5.88 (RIC 9)
42. Parium (Asia), Gallienus, c. AD 260-265: L.1920,0805.1598, AE 4.43g (ref. SNG France
1527)
43. Res Publica Coloniae Philippensium (Macedonia), Divus Augustus: CNG 94, September
2013, 872, AE 7.89g (Amandry 2015, no. 2)
44. Nicopolis (Epirus), in memory of Augustus, c. AD 253-260: P.176, AE 6.66g (Calomino
2011, no. 592)
45. Cremna (Lycia-Pamphylia), Aurelian, AD 270-275: BS.63894, AE 15.12g (von Aulock
1979, no. 1704)
A1. Byzantium (Thrace), Divus Augustus, c. AD 98-138/180(?): Private Collection
(Germany), AE 6.19 (unpublished)
A2. Byzantium (Thrace/Bithynia), didrachm of Rhoemetalces I and Augustus, c. 10 BC:
P.1354 (RPC 1774), reproduction of Lenormant 1849, Pl. XXIII, no. 15
A3. Byzantium (Thrace/Bithynia), Trajan, AD 98-117: P.384, AE 10.98g (RPC 1074=
Schnert-Geiss 1972, no. 1345)
PLATE 4

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12

CALOMINO, THE POSTHUMOUS COMMEMORATION OF AUGUSTUS (1)

 PLATE 5

13 14 15 16

17 18 19

21

20

CALOMINO, THE POSTHUMOUS COMMEMORATION OF AUGUSTUS (2)

PLATE 6

22 23 24 25

26 27 28 29

30 31 32 33

CALOMINO, THE POSTHUMOUS COMMEMORATION OF AUGUSTUS (3)

 PLATE 7

34 35 36 37

38 39 40 41

42 43 44 45

CALOMINO, THE POSTHUMOUS COMMEMORATION OF AUGUSTUS (4)

PLATE 8

A1 A2 A3

CALOMINO, THE POSTHUMOUS COMMEMORATION OF AUGUSTUS (5)