1

Journal of Interdisciplinary History, XLV:1 (Summer, 2014), 000-000

Making History with Coins: Nero from a Numismatic Perspective

Olivier Hekster, Erika Manders, and Daniëlle Slootjes

ABSTRACT: Analysis of the coinage issued during Nero’s reign as Roman emperor reveals a much less uniform

image of him than is usually depicted in historical literature. The case of Nero exemplifies the importance of an

interdisciplinary methodological framework. A “pick and mix” numismatic methodology devised in support of a

Neronian ideology gleaned mainly via literary evidence may lead to a superficially convincing image of the

emperor, but it will not do justice to the complexities surrounding his reign.

Scholarship during the last two decades has shown that we are still far from a complete

understanding of Nero’s rule. Since the 1990s, work on Roman emperorship has begun to

incorporate material evidence--especially coins, statuary, and other sculptural remains—in its

investigations. This re-assessment through “visual programmes,” which owes much to the

crucial archaeological works of Zanker and Hölscher, has permitted major advances in our

view of Nero that far exceed what the ancient authors had to say about him. The question is,

how should a thorough numismatic analysis throw new light on Nero as the last Julio-

Claudian emperor?1

Most historians like to create a coherent image of the past, and of the historical figures

that they study, as is particularly evident in the case of the Roman emperors. For a long time,

these rulers were categorized as either good or bad, with little gray area between the poles. As

a result, the list of bad/mad emperors usually includes Caligula (37-41), Domitian (81-96),

Commodus (180-192), and especially Nero (54-68). Recently, almost all of them have been

re-evaluated, mainly by looking at possible methods to their madness--for example, how they

1 Paul Zanker, Augustus und die Macht der Bilder (Munich, 1987); Tonio Hölscher, Römische Bildsprache als

semantisches System (Heidelberg, 1987).

2

might have targeted their seemingly contradictory messages to different audiences. Many

scholars concentrate now on the way in which emperors had to position themselves among

various groups of influence--the military, the senatorial elite, and the urban population,

especially Rome’s. They are also beginning to recognize that the previous dichotomy between

bad and good rulers was unduly influenced by literary sources, which took a clear (but not

openly acknowledged) senatorial viewpoint. This research note aims to illustrate the

advantages and risks of such re-evaluations by demonstrating the importance of a systematic

interdisciplinary approach to the study of complex historical figures. Using Nero as a case in

point, it emphasizes that a proper use of numismatics in historical analysis—not to be

confused with a “pick and mix” method involving only exceptional coins—can both confirm

and oppose the evidence available in the ancient literary record.2

NERO: THE END OF DYNASTY Nero is still generally held to have persecuted Christians,

burned down Rome, and killed his brother and mother. His brutal image is surprisingly

pervasive, considering that ancient historians from the late 1960s onward have taken great

pains to elucidate the problems surrounding it. For centuries, the main evidence about Nero’s

reign came from ancient authors of the Roman upper class, such as Suetonius (69/70-140) and

Tacitus (c. 56-117), who were biased against rulers who did not favor the Roman elite. More

importantly, these historians wrote long after Nero’s reign had ended--all the more important

since Nero was the last of the so-called Julio-Claudians, the first ruling dynasty of Rome. The

making of a Roman emperor was a problematical process, depending in large part on the

2 For recent studies about Caligula, see Anthony Barrett, Caligula: The Coruption of Power (London, 2000);

Aloys Winterling, Caligula, eine Biographie (Munich, 2003); for Domitian, Jens Gering, Domitian, dominus et

deus? Herrschafts- und Machtstrukturen im Römischen Reich zur Zeit des letzten Flaviers (Rahden, 2012); for

Commodus, Hekster, Commodus: An Emperor at the Crossroads (Amsterdam, 2002); for Nero, David Shotter,

Nero (London, 1997); Edward Champlin, Nero (Cambridge, Mass., 2003).

3

charisma of Augustus, the first emperor, whose descendents could claim the right to rule on

the basis of his legacy. Any new dynasty, however, had to demonstrate that the incumbent

line had lost its legitimacy. Hence, only if Nero were to have forfeited his right to succeed

through some breach of conduct, could his removal have been justified. As early as 1984,

Griffin, in Nero: The End of a Dynasty, started to examine the manipulation of anecdotal

evidence in the ancient literary record regarding Nero’s reign. Her work led to a much more

nuanced account of Nero’s actions.3

Nonetheless, according to Elsner and Masters, “Some dissatisfaction must remain: a

suspicion that the whole project is too judicious, that the very nature of the exercise has

compelled Griffin to accept a good proportion of lies and distortions, simply because there are

so many of them.” Because Griffin remained focused on the ancient literary sources, her work

could not fully surpass their limitations. Recent scholarship has attempted to overcome this

problem by including hitherto undervalued sources and theoretical perspectives. For example

recent analyses by Champlin and Overmeier construct vivid portraits of Nero as a populist

leader unsure of his position as heir to Augustus, employing mythological imagery, as well as

“foreign,” Hellenistic precedent, to glorify himself and to legitimate his power often at the

expense of law and morality.4

Surprisingly, however, this new direction in research has not led to a formal appraisal

of the material culture involved, particularly the numismatic evidence.With the right historical

question, coinage can provide information that would otherwise remain hidden. Numismatists

tend to analyze individual coin types--those that were struck within various regions of the

3 For early awareness of problems surrounding stereotypical assertions about Nero, see Brian H. Warmington,

Nero: Reality and Legend (London, 1981); Miriam T. Griffin, Nero: The End of a Dynasty (London, 1984).

4 Jaś Elsner and Jamie Masters (eds.), Reflections of Nero: Culture, History, & Representation (Chapel

Hill, 1994), 2. For recent analyses of Nero’s image, see Champlin, Nero; Sam Overmeire, “According to the

Habit of Foreign Kings: Nero, Ruler Ideology and Hellenistich Monarchs,” Latomus, LXXI (2012), 753-779.

4

empire or were intended to commemorate special events--whereas historians tend to select

(often exceptional) coins to illustrate their “new” Nero without carefully tracing numismatic

patterns that could have affected the coins issued during Nero’s reign. In short, numismatists

and historians often operate at cross-purposes.5

This unfortunate disregard of numismatic changes across a long chronological

trajectory contrasts sharply with the current view of Roman emperorship as a long-lasting

process. Individual reigns cannot be comprehended without attention to what happened before

and after them. The study of Roman portraiture reveals that the claim to inherited rule was

accompanied by the creation of conceptual and physiognomic similarities between the first

emperor and the later Julio-Claudians. Likewise, the proper inspection of coins must occur

within a particular, disciplinary framework that can take into account subtle similarities and

differences. Apparently, historians have a better appreciation for the rigors of classical

archaeology than they have for those of numismatics.6

5 On the role of numismatics in ancient history, already Arnold H. M. Jones, “Numismatics and History,” in

Robert A. G. Carson and Carol H. V. Sutherland (eds.), Essays in Roman Coinage Presented to Harold

Mattingly (Oxford, 1956), 13-33. Numismatic analyses of local Neronian coinage: David W. MacDowall, The

Western Coinages of Nero (New York, 1979); Curtis L. Clay, “Die Münzprägung des Kaisers Nero in Rom und

Lugdunum,” Numismatische Zeitschrift, XCVI (1982), 7-52; Andrew Burnett, “Nero’s Visit to Greece: Two

Numismatic Notes,” Schweizer Münzblätter, XXXIV (1984) 81-85; Francois Rebuffat, “De Britannicus César à

Néron César: la témoignage des impériales grecques,” in Yves Burnand, Yann Le Bohec, and Jean-Pierre Martin

(eds.), Claude de Lyon: Empereur romain (Paris, 1998), 341-349. For the effective use of numismatic and

sculptural sources, see Alexander Mlasowsky, “Nomini ac fortunae caesarum proximi: Die

Sukzessionspropaganda der römischen Kaiser von Augustus bis Nero im Spiegel der Reichsprägung und der

archäologischen Quellen,” Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts, CXI (1996), 249-388, though the

article lacks a proper historical component.

6 Anne-Kathrein Massner, Das Römische Herrscherbild. Abt. IV. Bildnisangleichung: Untersuchungen zur

Entstehungs- und Wirkungsgeschichte der Augustusporträts (43 v.C.-68.n.C.) (Berlin, 1982), 42-141 (53-60 for

5

JULIO-CLAUDIAN ANCESTRY AND IMPERIAL COINS Coins played an essential part in the

formulation of Roman imperial rule. The imagery on coins presented a wide range of

messages to the various peoples within (and even outside) the heterogeneous Roman Empire.

Many of these coins were minted and circulated under the direct control of the imperial center

in response to economic need, but they also had an ideological role: Every emperor issued

coins immediately after his accession to the throne; the minting of coins by anyone other than

the emperor was considered a challenge to his imperial power. Moreover, because decisions

about the text and imagery on coins emanated from the highest authority, the messages on

imperial coins were clear indications of how an emperor wished to be seen, or at least how

people within the imperial entourage thought he wanted to be seen. Given that (imperial)

coins were issued continuously, that they reached a wide cross-section of the Roman

population, and that they broadcast distinct messages through the interplay between legend

and image, they form a clear starting point for the discussion of imperial ideology. Moreover,

exceptionally for the study of the ancient world, specimens of every coin type minted during

the first century almost certainly still survive. This unique source permits us to follow

chronological developments and to locate Nero as a Julio-Claudian emperor within a proper

Gaius and Lucius; 112-120 for Caligula). More recent scholarship still accepts the gist of the old argument about

Nero. See especially Ditrich Boschung, “Die Bildnistypen der iulisch-claudischen Kaiserfamilie,” Journal of

Roman Archaeology, VI (1993), 39-79; Jane Fejfer, Roman Portraits in Context (New York, 2008), 272.

Compare Josiah Osgood, Claudius Caesar: Image and Power in the Early Roman Empire (New York, 2011),

about Nero’s portraits, in which the features “unmistakingly link him to earlier male members of the August

House” (219).

6

(medial) context (see table 1 for the years of rule of the Roman emperors in the following

discussion).7

Coins are not an easy source to use. Uncertainly abounds: Who decided which coin

types to issue? How (and why) did monetization occur? Why did people hide, mostly by

burying, so-called coin hoards (deposited coins that were never retrieved) and how

representative are the coins from such hoards? The coins that are visible in museums are

problematical because they are almost by definition atypical--on display precisely because

they are the most beautiful, the most elaborate, and the best-preserved samples. Nonetheless,

in full awareness of the many numismatic caveats, recent analyses of the Roman world based

on a proper numismatic methodology emphasize the importance of placing each individual

coin in its appropriate context before drawing conclusions from it. Coins from Nero’s reign

can be fully appreciated only when set against imperial precedent.8

7 Christopher Howgego, “The Supply and Use of Money in the Roman World 200 B.C. to A.D. 300,” Journal of

Roman Studies, LXXXII (1992), 1–31; idem, Ancient History from Coins (New York, 1995), 62–69; Barbara M.

Levick, “Messages on the Roman Coinage: Types and Inscriptions,” in George M. Paul (ed.), Roman Coins and

Public Life under the Empire: E. Togo Salmon Papers II (Ann Arbor, 1999), 41-60; Carlos Noreña, “The

Communication of the Emperor’s Virtues,” Journal of Roman Studies, XCI (2001), 147; idem, Imperial Ideals in

the Roman West: Representation, Circulation, Power (Berkeley, 2011), 248-262; Hekster, “Coins and Messages:

Audience Targeting on Coins of Different Denominations?” in Lukas de Blois et al., The Representation and

Perception of Roman Imperial Power (Amsterdam, 2003), 20–35; Manders, Coining Images of Power: Patterns

in the Representation of Roman Emperors on Imperial Coinage, A.D. 193-284 (Leiden, 2012), 33-40. For

definitions of coin types, see Fleur Kemmers, “Sender or Receiver? Contexts of Coin Supply and Coin Use,”

in Hans-Markus von Kaenel and idem (eds.), Coins in Context I: New Perspectives for the Interpretation of Coin

Finds (Mainz, 2009), 137-157.

8 For the decision to issue coins, see Levick, “Messages Roman Coinage”; Liesbeth Claes, “A Note to the Type

Selection by the a Rationibus,” Latomus (forthcoming); for coin hoards, Richard Reece, “Interpreting Roman

Hoards,” World Archaeology, XX (1988), 261-269; Ester Oras, “Importance of Terms: What Is a Wealth

7

In light of this guideline, a numismatic analysis of Nero’s reign would do well to begin

with a look at the central coinage from the reign of Tiberius (14-37), Augustus’ first imperial

successor as well as his adoptive son and son-in-law. In contrast to his adoptive father,

Tiberius could not legitimate his position on the basis of his own accomplishments or

charisma. Indeed, coinage clearly shows the extent to which Tiberius presented himself as the

son of his illustrious predecessor, who was included within the pantheon of Roman gods. All

of the coins minted in gold, silver, and bronze throughout Tiberius’ reign showed the legend

Divi filius (son of the god [the deified Augustus]). Moreover, depictions of Augustus were

visible on seventeen of the thirty-nine bronze coin types (more than 40 percent), which were

the most frequently struck and most widely disseminated denominations. Augustus was less

frequently depicted on coins of higher value; only one of three silver types, and five of twenty

gold types, showed images of the deified Augustus.9

Tiberius’ nephew Caligula, whom Tiberius named as heir and successor in his will,

likewise emphasized Augustus, his grandfather, in his coin legends. Sixteen of the twenty

bronze types (80 percent) refer to the new ruler as Divi nepos (grandson of the god)–an

ancestral affiliation conspicuously absent on silver and gold types , which show numerous

Deposit?” Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, XXII (2012), 61-82; for monetization, Howgego, “The

Monetization of Temperate Europe,” Journal of Roman Studies, XIII (2013), 16-45. For recent analyses, see

Noreña, Imperial Ideals in the Roman West; Manders, Coining Images of Power; Clare Rowan, Under Divine

Auspices: Divine Ideology and the Visualisation of Imperial Power in the Severan Period (New York, 2012);

Marietta Horster, “Coinage and Images of the Imperial Family: Local Identity and Roman Rule,” Journal of

Roman Archaeology, XXVI (2013), 243-261.

9 Beth Severy, Augustus and the Family at the Birth of the Roman Empire (New York, 2003), 194-212; Claes,

“Kinship and Coins: Ancestors and Family on Roman Imperial Coinage under the Principate,” unpub. Ph.d. diss.

(Radboud Univ. Nijmegen, 2013), 83, 269; Carol H.V. Sutherland and Robert A.G. Carson, Royal Imperial

Coinage I (London 19842) (hereinafter RIC) I² Tiberius, nos. 23–24, 47, 49–51, 56–57, 62–63, 68–69.

8

images of Augustus and of Caligula’s parents, Germanicus and Agrippina Maior. Twelve of

the thirty-one gold and silver types (fifteen gold and sixteen silver) show Augustus; six of

them show Caligula’s father, and seven of them his mother. Ten of the twenty-six bronzes

also show these ancestors, but none of the coin types, regardless of metal, seems to reference

Caligula’s predecessor Tiberius.10

That the legend of the central coins issued by Claudius (41-54), Caligula’s successor,

contains no mention of the Julio-Claudians is hardly surprising. Caligula was assassinated

without leaving an heir (his daughter was killed alongside him), and although Claudius was

clearly named emperor because of his Julio-Claudian kinship, he was not legally related to

Augustus. Claudius leaned on Augustus much less than did his two predecessors; only one

bronze type out of thirty-three mentions the first emperor. Like Caligula, Claudius names his

natural parents (Drusus Maior and Antonia Minor) on his coinage--four bronze types and ten

silver and gold types (out of eighty).11

What patterns can be discerned, if any? First, Tiberius and Caligula, the two emperors

who could claim ties to Augustus, strongly advertised their descent through coin legends (as

either son or grandson of the deified first emperor). Second, ancestors who do not appear in

the legends are sometimes represented through imagery. Central coinage under Caligula and

10

Claes, “Kinship and Coins,” 83-85, 269; RIC I² Gaius, nos. 28–29, 34–35, 41–42. For Germanicus, see RIC I²

Gaius nos. 10–11, 16–17, 22–23; for Agrippina Maior, RIC I² Gaius nos. 6–7, 12–13, 18–19, 24; for divus

Augustus, RIC I² Gaius nos. 3–5, 8–9, 14–15, 20–21, 25. The portrait of RIC I² Gaius, nos. 1–2, is unclear.

Reinhard Wolters, Nummi signati: Untersuchungen zur römischen Münzprägung und Geldwirtschaft (Munich,

1999), 303–304.

11 For Claudius’ connection to Augustus, see Osgood, Claudius Caesar, 56, n. 38; for Coins, Claes, “Kinship and

Coins,” 269-270; RIC I² Claudius, nos. 65–74 (Drusus and Antonia), 93, 98, 109,114 (Drusus), 101 (Augustus);

Walter Trillmich, Familienpropaganda der Kaiser Caligula und Claudius: Agrippina Maior und Antonia

Augusta auf Münzen (Munich, 1978), 63–79.

9

Claudius, the two emperors not adopted by their predecessor, show their biological parents,

but the legends on them do not identify Caligula as son of Germanicus or Claudius as son of

Drusus.

There are noticeable differences in how ancestral Julio-Claudians figured on the coins

of different denominations. The imperial center may have attempted to target various

audiences with specific messages. Since Tiberius was an experienced and successful military

commander before he became emperor, soldiers and members of the elite, who will probably

have handled the most valuable gold and silver coins, were likely to have given him strong

support. Hence, Tiberius might have thought that his ancestral connections were less

important to broadcast on coins earmarked for the elite than were his military exploits. The

fact that Caligula, whom Tiberius did not adopt, had no military experience before coming to

power might explain the exalted presence of his father Germanicus, a renowned soldier, on

his coins of high denomination.

This argument, however, should not be pushed too far without looking at competing

imagery on coins. After all, Claudius’ higher-value coinage gave scant notice to his militarily

accomplished father in favor of strong references to the Praetorian Guard (the only soldiers

within the city of Rome), who had been instrumental in accepting him as head of the Julio-

Claudian household and de facto emperor. Witness the legend Praetor(ianus) Recept(us)

(received by the Praetorians) and images of praetorians greeting the emperor on these coins.

Apparently, ancestry could be a useful claim to legitimate power but certainly not the only

one, or a sufficient one. 12

NERONIAN COINS AND IMPERIAL ANCESTRY Nero’s ancestors appear on his coinage with a

frequency that roughly coincides with their individual importance for legitimating his position

12

For Claudius’ coins, the Praetorian Guard, and targeting audiences, see Hekster, “Coins and Messages,” 27-29.

10

as emperor. When the link was legal, the figure of Augustus loomed large. Hence, Nero might

be expected to have strongly emphasized this particular ancestry on his coins. After all, as the

last Julio-Claudian, he was connected to Augustus through maternal and paternal lineage. His

mother, Agrippina Minor, was Augustus’ great-granddaughter, and his father, Gnaeus

Domitius Ahenobarbus, was the grandson of Mark Antony and Augustus’ sister Octavia.

When Claudius married Agrippina and adopted Nero--effectively bypassing his biological son

Britannicus--Nero’s Julio-Claudian pedigree became exceptional. As Augustus’ great-great-

grandson, Nero would seem to have had excellent reason to announce his family tie to his

famous ancestor.

Indeed, modern scholarship suggests that Nero took full advantage of the relationship.

Nearly every recent work about Nero underlines the significance of his direct descent from

Augustus. Although not all of them follow Malitz in his unrelenting description of Nero as

“Augustus’ great-great-grandson,” most of them stress the point that “the blood of the first

princeps ran in his veins.” Nor is it coincidental that Griffin touts “Nero’s paternal clan” or

that Champlin plays up “Nero’s imitatio Augusti.” Modern literature assumes that because

Nero cared about his Augustan ancestry, he must have privileged this ancestry on his coinage.

The main numismatic evidence for this position derives from exceptional coin types that

depict Nero with his mother on the obverse and the deified Augustus and Claudius, who had

been consecrated shortly after his death, on the reverse (see Figure 1).13

13

Griffin, Nero, esp. 20-32; Champlin, Nero, 139-140; Anthony Barrett, Agrippina: Mother of Nero (London,

1996). Jurgen Malitz, Nero (Malden, Mass., 2005) has “Augustus’ Great-Great-Grandson” as the title of

Chapter 1. For further emphasis on the familial link, see Warmington, Nero, 12; Marcel Meulder, “Histoire et

mythe dans la Vita Neronis de Suétone,” Latomus, LXI (2002), 364–365; Osgood, Claudius Caesar, 245–247,

250–251. Compare Bob Cowan, “Starring Nero as Nero: Poetry, Role-Playing and Identity in Juvenal 8.215-21,”

Mnemosyne, LXII (2009), 82–83 (“the disparity between noble ancestors and degenerate descendants who are

11

The coins in question, which were issued only in the first year of Nero’s reign,

certainly help to determine the first legitimating claim of the young emperor. The

(exceptional) presence of his mother on the obverse and of Claudius and Augustus on the

reverse befits a rightful Julio-Claudian ruler. Indeed, Julio-Claudian references are traceable

on all of the coins issued during Nero’s first year of rule, which also included the legend “son

of a god” (the deified Claudius). They made no numismatic references to the emperor’s

biological father, but this absence is not surprising; unlike that of Caligula and Claudius,

Nero’s ancestry included an adoptive imperial father (Claudius), who could hardly be ignored.

Rome had no precedent for minting coins depicting two fathers.14

Notwithstanding that these coins are worthy of attention, they cannot serve as

evidence for a systematic reliance on the Augustan legacy throughout Nero’s rule; a focus on

them in isolation is misleading. After the year 55, Julio-Claudian claims disappeared

altogether from Nero’s coins, except for an extremely rare gold type minted between

December 55 and December 56. Even “Claudius,” the name of his adoptive father—a relation

that previous emperors had retained as part of their own name on coins--was omitted from

Nero’s nomenclature on gold and silver types after 56. “Claudius” was still included in Nero’s

name on the bronze types that were struck between 62/63 and 68 (his first bronzes), though

without the legend “son of a god.” This massive shift in ancestral references is difficult to

explain. When Nero’s half-brother Britannicus died under mysterious circumstances in

February 55, the popular view of Nero as the probable perpetrator may well have made

signified by the same name”). For the coins showing Agrippina (RIC I² Nero, 1-2, 6-7), see Claes, “Kinship and

Coins,” 97-98, 261.

14 For the coinage in Nero’s first years of rule, see Claes, “Kinship and Coins,” 85-86, 98-99, 270. The emperor

Trajan would later refer to both his biological and adoptive father (the emperor Nerva), but in different

circumstances. See Hekster, Emperors and Ancestors: Roman Rulers and the Constraints of Traditions (Oxford,

forthcoming).

12

references to Britannicus’ father Claudius problematical. But that connection would not

explain why references to Augustus by Augustus’ great-great-grandson had vanished. Nor did

the lack of references to Claudius on central coins mean that Nero no longer appealed to his

imperial father’s standing in other source types. In a letter to the people of Thasos, he still

named himself “son of the deified Claudius” in 64/65.15

The ancestral predominance on Nero’s early coinage was not replaced by a similarly

clear message, although Nero’s later coinage placed new emphasis on the city of Rome—

ninety-two coin types celebrating the city (from the 622 types issued throughout his reign)

and an additional forty-nine types showing new buildings in Rome (and Ostia). None of the

central coinage under the earlier Julio-Claudians had celebrated the city in remotely similar

terms. This new theme might have been a reaction to the great fire of Rome in 64, or a

testament to Nero’s building activities, which archaeological work has attested.16

Another theme in Nero’s later coinage was peace, as guaranteed by military success.

The arch of Janus, which could be closed only in times of peace, appeared seventy-two times;

(no previous emperor had ever shown it), and “Victoria” (victory) appeared on sixty-five

types (the term had also been popular among Nero’s predecessors). Neither of these themes

accords well with stereotypical images of Nero from literature. Nero’s number of coin types,

622, is particularly striking compared to Tiberius’ 95, Caligula’s 63, and Claudius’ 126,

especially considering that Nero’s fifteen-year reign was only two years longer than Claudius

and eight years shorter than Tiberius. This high number of types, many of them coming after

15

Claes, “Kinship and Coins,” 85-86, 270; RIC I², 151-156. For the letter to Thasos, see James Oliver, Greek

Constitutions of Early Roman Emperors from Inscriptions and Papyri (Philadelphia, 1989), 111–112.

16 RIC I², 150-187. For Nero’s building activities, see Elsner, “Constructing Decadence: The Representation of

Nero as Imperial Builder,” in idem and Masters Reflections of Nero, 112-127; Claudia Perassi, “Edifici e

monumenti sulla monetazione di Nerone,” in Jean-Michel Croisille and Yves Perrin (eds.), Neronia VI: Rome à

l’époque néronienne (Brussels, 2002), 11-34.

13

59, allowed for a great deal of experimentation, which confounds comparisons with

predecessors’ coinage, on the basis of percentages. It also drives home the point that coinage

cannot be used arbitrarily to support Nero’s literary stereotypes.17

The early emphasis on ancestry and its later disappearance in Nero’s coinage, like the

later attention to Rome and Janus, becomes visible only through placing Neronian coin types

in proper numismatic perspective. The major chronological shift becomes visible only

through placing Neronian coin types in proper numismatic perspective. Ancient historians

should be aware of a fact long recognized by numismatists: The information on individual

coins cannot be analyzed to answer historical questions piecemeal. A “pick and mix”

numismatic methodology devised in support of a Neronian ideology gleaned via literary

evidence may lead to superficially convincing images of the emperor, but it will not do justice

to historical complexities. A systematic examination of Julio-Claudian ancestry on Nero’s

coinage reveals Nero to be much less of an “Augustan” ruler than much of the modern

literature on the subject supposes. After fewer than two years in power, Nero neglected his

Julio-Claudian roots entirely. The case of Nero exemplifies the importance of employing an

interdisciplinary methodological framework.

Systematic analysis of central coinage--or, more precisely, one particular type of message on

this coinage--reveals a much more complicated and less uniform image of Nero than is

usually depicted in historical literature. This image probably becomes even more complicated

(and even less coherent) when other types of sources are brought to bear in their proper

disciplinary perspective. In addition to Rome, various cities within the Roman Empire struck

their own coins (the so-called provincial ones). Local elites designed these coins to highlight

17

RIC I², 93-101 (Tiberius), 108-113 (Caligula), and 121-132 (Claudius). For the technical innovations in Nero’s

coinage, see Nikolaus Schindel and Bernhard E. Woytek, “Nero and the Making of the Roman Medallion,”

Numismatic Chronicle, CLXXI (2011), 107-120.

14

any connection that the emperor had with their particular city. Brief analysis of the ancestral

themes on these coins shows massive differences in orientation between provinces. For

instance, hardly any coins issued by Achaea (modern Greece) under Nero’s reign show any of

the emperor’s ancestors, and none of the types refers to male member of the imperial family.

Instead, the coins frequently recall Nero’s visit to Greece in 66/67. In the province of

Cappadocia (in modern Turkey), however, the number of ancestral messages on local coins is

relatively large, continuing well after 59 A.D. Hence, local circumstances and preferences

appear to have been highly influential in forming Nero’s local images, upsetting any blanket

reliance on literary stereotypes. Future research would also do well to examine how the

provinces viewed Nero’s attention to the city of Rome, if they did at all.18

The image of Nero that follows from an informed numismatic perspective diverges

markedly from that suggested by the long-standing dominant literary stereotypes. A similar

approach should be applied to epigraphical and art-historical material. Inscriptions often

denote Nero as an administrator and magistrate. How does this “epigraphic Nero” compare

with the epigraphic images of his predecessors, or with his own literary image? The massive

changes in coinage and sculpture across the years frustrate any attempt to argue either that a

new Nero suddenly appeared or that the same old Nero persisted throughout his lifetime.19

18

The analysis of local coins is based upon Andrew Burnett, Michel Amandry, and Pere Pau Ripollès (eds.),

Roman Provincial Coinage. I. From the Death of Caesar to the Death of Vitellius (44 BC – AD 69) (London,

1992, with supplements from 1998 and 2006). For the images on the coins, see Volker Heuchert, “The

Chronological Development of Roman Provincial Coin Iconography,” in Howgego, idem, and Burnett (eds.),

Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces (New York, 2005), 29-56; for local Grecian coins under Nero, see

Manders and Slootjes, “Linking Inscriptions to Provincial Coins: A Reappraisal of Nero's Visit to Greece”

(forthcoming).

19 For a systematic method of deploying epigraphic material, see Rudolf Haensch (ed.), Selbstdarstellung und

Kommunikation: Die Veröffentlichung staatlicher Urkunden auf Stein und Bronze in der römischen Welt

15

Fig. 1 Nero with His Mother, 55 AD

NOTE AR Denarius (18mm, 3.41 g, 7h). Rome mint. Obverse: Nero and Agrippina, with

legend NERO CLAVD DIVI F CAES AVG GERM IMP TR P COS; reverse: Divi Augustus

and Claudius driving quadriga of elephants, with legend AGRIPP AVG DIVI CLAVD

NERONIS CAES MATER, EX S C (Classical Numismatic Group,

http://www.cngcoins.com/, no. 921766).

Julio-Claudian emperors and their years of rule (Table 1)

Augustus: 31BC- AD 14

Tiberius: 14-37

Caligula: 37-41

Claudius : 41-54

Nero: 54-68

(Munich, 2009); for Nero’s portraiture, Rolf Schneider, “Gegenbilder im römischen Kaiserporträt: Die neuen

Gesichter Neros und Vespasians,” in Martin Büchsel and Peter Schmidt (eds.), Das Porträt vor der Erfindung

des Porträts (Mainz, 2003) 59-76. For more on this argument, see Hekster et al. “Nero’s Ancestry and the

Construction of Imperial Ideology in the Early Empire: A Methodological Case Study” (forthcoming).