Classical Numismatic Group, LLC
Electronic Auction 377 29 June 2016
View prices realized
► Sale information
Find similar lots
IONIA, Ephesus(?). L. Sempronius Atratinus(?). Quaestor, circa 42-39 BC. AR Tetradrachm (25mm, 12.27 g, 5h). Cistophoric type. Cista mystica with serpent; all within ivy wreath / Bowcase with serpents; monogram above, Q to left, torch to right. W. E. Metcalf, "A Note on the Later Republican Cistophori," SNR 88 (2009), pp. 205–8; Stumpf 2 (M. Antonius, c. 113/2); SNG von Aulock 1867. VF, reverse struck somewhat off center.
From the RBW Collection.
The identification of the magistrate, date of issue, and mint of this issue is still uncertain. Metcalf's analysis of the monogram is the most convincing, but it is uncertain whether Atratinus actually held the position of quaestor; Metcalf merely assumes that "he must have been a quaestor" before being a praetor that struck for Mark Antony after 39 BC. Would that be the case, there is no evidence that his purview as quaestor extended to either possible city for this issue, Pergamum or Ephesus. Moreover, what we know of his history places him at Rome in 40 BC, and he was elected praetor suffectus in that same year. So, if Atratinus was quaestor and struck this coinage, then Metcalf's proposed date of issue for this coinage should be modified to circa 42-40 BC. At the same time, one must also question Metcalf's own hoard evidence. He disputes Stumpf's attribution based on the absence of this issue in any 1st century BC hoards of cistophori. However, he then attributes the coin to the middle of the 1st century. Surely, the absence of the issue in 1st century BC hoards is even more dispositive of Metcalf's dating than Stumpf's. Nonetheless, the resolution of the monogram is most likely ATPA, so perhaps it is a quaestor whose name is not yet known to us. As for the mint, Metcalf's identification of obverse die links between the coins with lit torch and serpent-entwined thyrsus strongly suggests a single mint for their issue. Previous numismatists identified the mint as either Pergamum or Ephesus, based on these symbols, and while Metcalf agrees either candidate is possible, he notes that their style does not match other cistophori from these cities.
From the RBW Collection.
The identification of the magistrate, date of issue, and mint of this issue is still uncertain. Metcalf's analysis of the monogram is the most convincing, but it is uncertain whether Atratinus actually held the position of quaestor; Metcalf merely assumes that "he must have been a quaestor" before being a praetor that struck for Mark Antony after 39 BC. Would that be the case, there is no evidence that his purview as quaestor extended to either possible city for this issue, Pergamum or Ephesus. Moreover, what we know of his history places him at Rome in 40 BC, and he was elected praetor suffectus in that same year. So, if Atratinus was quaestor and struck this coinage, then Metcalf's proposed date of issue for this coinage should be modified to circa 42-40 BC. At the same time, one must also question Metcalf's own hoard evidence. He disputes Stumpf's attribution based on the absence of this issue in any 1st century BC hoards of cistophori. However, he then attributes the coin to the middle of the 1st century. Surely, the absence of the issue in 1st century BC hoards is even more dispositive of Metcalf's dating than Stumpf's. Nonetheless, the resolution of the monogram is most likely ATPA, so perhaps it is a quaestor whose name is not yet known to us. As for the mint, Metcalf's identification of obverse die links between the coins with lit torch and serpent-entwined thyrsus strongly suggests a single mint for their issue. Previous numismatists identified the mint as either Pergamum or Ephesus, based on these symbols, and while Metcalf agrees either candidate is possible, he notes that their style does not match other cistophori from these cities.