I am currently doing a research project on the construction of national identity through coinage.
In the British museum coin section there is a placard which states the Roman Republic printed their coins with images of architecture, nature and cultural activities. After Caesars ascension to Emperor he decided to change the coin prints to the now widely adopted profile portrait image.
The British museum argued that this decision would have been viewed by his contemporaries as an unjustified break with tradition. As such, it would have in part, contributed towards the negative attitude of him and his subsequent assassination (the same year he first commissioned a portrait coin.)
The placard didn't contain any sort of reference and I would really like to use this as an example in my thesis. I was hoping someone might have heard this idea before and be able to direct me to a book or a name.
Otherwise do you think it would be okay to reference this as from the British Museum, without a direct reference to a quote from a piece of historical research?
The British museum has one of the world's great ancient coin collections, and many of the top numismatists have worked or are working there. I doubt they would be sloppy about this stuff. But hey, might as well stick my neck out.
Forumancientcoins.com describes this coin in the following terms
"The coin that killed Caesar." The Romans believed that only kings put their portraits on coins. Caesar ignored this tradition and struck coins with his portrait and an obverse legend declaring his position as "Dictator for Life." According to Plutarch, a seer had warned that harm would come to Caesar no later than the Ides of March. On his way to the Theatre of Pompey, where he would be assassinated, Caesar passed the seer and joked, "The ides of March have come," meaning to say that the prophecy had not been fulfilled, to which the seer replied "Aye, Caesar; but not gone." For Caesar to put his image on coins and in effect declare himself king was too much for Brutus and his senator allies. Only weeks after this coin was issued, on the Ides of March (15 March) 44 B.C. Caesar was stabbed to death by as many as 63 conspirators.
Does that look something like what you saw in the BM? I see the claim often that Caesar was the first Roman to put himself on a coin during his lifetime. I wonder about that. The inscription on the reverse states the moneyer - the guy responsible for the mint - was P. Sepullius Macer. Unless it's the case that Caesar was designing coins himself (and that was usually left to lower officers - quaestors and aediles - it's not really fair to say Caesar put his own portrait on the coin. Even if it's the case that Caesar was designing his coinage, he put his portrait on other issues as well.
Also, Flaminius appeared on a coin (admittedly Greek, not Roman) in his own lifetime 150 years earlier.
Also, Brutus appeared on coins in his own lifetime, which is an odd thing to do if appearing on coins was a reason to assassinate Caesar.
Also, among the catalogs of insults or excesses or whatever you want to call them, coins don't come up in Appian, Suetonius, or Plutarch. The only place I could find coins included in a list of Caesar's excesses was Cassius Dio 44.4.
In addition to these remarkable privileges they named him father of his country, stamped this title on the coinage....
That doesn't refer to the coin above though; the title used there is dictator perpetuo.
So, the only source I know that refers to Caesar's coinage as excessive is very late, Caesar was not the first Roman to appear on a coin in his lifetime, Brutus was fine appearing on coins after he assassinated Caesar, and more than one issue had Caesar's portrait on it.
And now I'm ready to be instructed. Did I overlook a source? Is there scholarship I don't know about? This is as much a learning opportunity for me as it is for the OP.
