I got to this very useful map and discussion of the phenomenon in this very fun 2022 publication. I worried the author has left academia. I hope not, I’d love to compare notes.
My desire is look at all the dimensions of these chests. I think this would be a good indication of the typical amount of ready cash one would have on hand. Of course multiple boxes are present in Pompeian houses and we can imagine even more would be found in the wealthiest houses. Andersson in the article I mention above makes the excellent point that there are some very wealthy houses where there is no physical remaining evidence of a money box at least of the type that were anchored to the ground and thus we must presume other storage approaches.
I have a bit in an upcoming talk about gold not being used much as money in the Roman republic or even being conceived of as such. I had good secondary literature on this and my own sense of things from woring on the material for so long, but I realized I’d never done any serious dive on this.
I have been thinking more about gold this last year as i’ve put serious time into reading this:
Yet, you know me, I wanted to see for myself what I found.
The only certain reference to gold coins in the whole of the corpus seems to come in the Philippics, where Antony gives gold coins (nummos aureos) to a chief centurion saying they are from Cicero’s property (12.20). This is 43 BCE and the period post 49 BCE saw a great deal of striking of gold coins.
I lean towards an incident in multiple letters of 45 BCER NOT being about payment in gold but I’m not 100% certain.
Att. 12.6 (306 SB): 31 May 45
Please see about Caelius and see that there is no gap in the gold. I know nothing about these matters. But surely there’s enough lost on the exchange. If the gold comes on top of that—but why talk? You’ll see to it. There’s a sample of Hegesias’ style, which Varro commends.
De Caelio vide, quaeso, <et>ne quae lacuna si<t> in auro. ego ista non novi, sed certe in collubo est detrimenti satis. huc aurum si accedit—sed quid loquor? tu videbis. habes Hegesiae genus, quod Varro laudat.
SB claims in his commentary that Caelius is a debt of Faberius and that this passage is about a transfer of debts in lieu of payment, bases his claim on
Att. 12.2a (301 SB) 27 May 45
All the same (?), if you see Piso anywhere, speak to him about the gold. If Faberius comes, please see that the claims assigned, if any are assigned, equal in value the amount owed.
Faberius si venerit, videbis ut tantum attribuatur, si modo attribuetur, quantum debetur.
SB proposes to restore an <et> in letter 306 to separate at the gold from the debt. This is plausible. The gold may be for ornamentation of the villa being planned for renovation in these letters. But I’m not sure we can totally rule out payment. It would be a rare morally neutral reference to gold in leiu of money or as money as far as I can tell, but it would fit with the increase in gold in circulation under the dictatorship…
To support the idea that the gold does appear to be a separate matter BUT it may also still be about payment:
Att 12.5a (307 SB) 31 May 45
I have written to Avius, asking him to make clear to Piso the facts about the gold, which are well known to him. I quite agree with you that this matter is dragging on too long and that now is the time to pull in all I have from every quarter.
ad Avium scripsi ut ea quae bene nosset de auro Pisoni demonstraret. tibi enim sane adsentior et istuc nimium diu duci et omnia nunc undique contrahenda.
Besides the above where gold might be treated as money but is highly doubtful there is very little evidence for gold as form of payment in which the circumstances don’t make clear it is shameful or criminal or highly usual. All the other passages make clear that Gold a sign of wealth, even a store of wealth, and a prized confiscation in war, but that the gold is to be weighted to assessed its value not counted like nummi or pecunia. Below are passages sorted by type. It is not complete but I believe the catagories could cover any reference to gold in the Ciceronian corpus. I’m surprised about the suspicion that seems to attach to gold used as payment, even as it is clearly accepted as a common store of wealth and in forms that have nothing to do with display. I’m going to work the weighing versus counting themes into another talk coming up later this month.
Suspicious Payments in Gold
gold the weight of Gaius Gracchus’ head as payment for hunting him down
De Oratore 2.269
as our friend Scaevola observed to the notorious Septumuleius of Anagnia (to whom its weight in gold had been paid for the head of Gaius Gracchus), when he prayed to be taken into Asia as his lieutenant, ‘Madman,’ said Scaevola, ‘what would you have? There is such a host of wicked citizens in Rome that I guarantee you, if you remain there, the attainment, within a few years, of enormous wealth.’
ut noster Scaevola Septumuleio illi Anagnino, cui pro C. Gracchi capite erat aurum repensum, roganti ut se in Asiam praefectum duceret, ‘Quid tibi vis,’ inquit, ‘insane? tanta malorum est multitudo civium ut tibi ego hoc confirmem, si Romae manseris, te paucis annis ad maximas pecunias esse venturum.’
Clodia’s Gold
Jewellry that could be used either to pay for a high level murder OR to fund some games (Pro Caelio 52-53)
Bribery
M’. Curius’ refusal of gold from the Samnites (c. 290 BCE) (48, cf. De Senectute 56 for more elaborate narrative)
those engines with which Philip said any fortress could be stormed provided there was a way up for a donkey with a load of gold on its back.
Att. 1.16 (16 SB) beginning of July 61
Gold tithe to the Temple in Jerusalem
Notice it is weighed and redirected to the roman treasury. That it was stored in the treasury is v interesting from a state budget point of view.
Flac. 66-67: gold sent to temple in Jerusalem by Jews from all provinces, Flaccus banned the export
The Senate strictly forbade the export of gold on a considerable number of previous occasions, notably during my consulship.
Exportari aurum non oportere cum saepe antea senatus tum me consule gravissime iudicavit.
At Apamea a little less than a hundred pounds of gold was seized as it was being exported and weighed in the forum at the feet of the praetor through the efforts of Sextus Caesius, a thoroughly upright and honest Roman knight; at Laodicea a little more than twenty pounds was seized by Lucius Peducaeus who is here in court and a juror in this case; at Adramyttium a hundred pounds by Gnaeus Domitius, one of Flaccus’ subordinate officers; at Pergamum not much. The account of the gold is correct, it is in the treasury (aerario), there is no evidence of theft, the sole intent is to create unpopularity.
68-69
Cf. In Vatinum 12: “were you not sent by me when I was consul to Puteoli, that you might prevent the exportation of gold and silver?”
Confiscation to pay for land
“The gold and silver from plunder, from spoils, from material for making crowns, to whatever people they have passed, and which have never been paid into the public [treasury] nor spent on a monument,” he orders that this be declared before the Decemvirs and be placed at their disposal.
‘ “Avrvm, argentvm ex praeda, ex manvbiis, ex coronario ad qvoscvmqve pervenit neqve relatvm est in pvblicvm neqve in monvmento consvmptvm” ,’ id profiteri apud xviros et ad eos referri iubet.
De Lege Agraria 2.59
To Fund an Exile
Tu comitibus, tu praesidio, tu etiam tanto pondere auri, quantum tempus illud postulabat, discessum illum sustentasti; tu numquam meis me absente liberis, numquam coniugi meae defuisti.
you comforted my departure with your companions, your protection, and such weight of gold as the juncture demanded; during the time of my absence you never failed my children or my wife
Pro Rabirio. 47
Honorific and Rhetorical Gold
De Optimo Genere Oratorum
19 – gold crown as sign of honor for Demosthenes
Gold as metonymy for wealth – Rhetorica ad Herennium (not really Cicero, but actually a little earlier)
“must have a gold mine at home” to condemn unexplained wealth.
And he [sc. Gorgias of Leontini] was held in such honour by Greece that to him alone of all men a statue was erected at Delphi that was not gilt but made of solid gold.
De Oratore III. 130
When they were putting a golden crown at the head of the text, they were really giving you no more gold than they would give a jackdaw.
Vat. 76
Gold as Ornamentation
Gold as Jewelry and body ornamentation (x3) Rhetorica ad Herennium (not really Cicero, but actually a little earlier); cf. De Senectute 59 for association with Eastern luxury, royalty
Verres manufactures enough golden cups to furnish half a dozen sideboards, without caring what may be said of him in the Roman law-courts, let alone in Sicily: Piso will have all Spain know whence comes the half-ounce of gold (auri semuncia) to make the governor’s ring (praetori anulus), acting up, plainly, to his third name, just as Verres acts up to his second. (Verres 2.4.57)
Gold a Store of Wealth but distinct from Money
Nothing base or sordid is told of Tarquin: but in his house gold was weighed and money counted among the women’s wool baskets; in a single dwelling all persons interested trafficked in the entire empire of the Roman people.
Nihil humile de Tarquinio, nihil sordidum accepimus: at vero huius domi inter quasilla pendebatur aurum, numerabatur pecunia; una in domo omnes quorum intererat totum imperium populi Romani nundinabantur.
passage is said to be an allusion to Fulvia’s control of the money, but there might also be something about baskets quasilla, rather than fiscus
I leave aside the gold crown and how you hovered in tormenting indecision whether to take it or no; for your son-in-law’s measure forbade that it should be decreed or accepted, unless a triumph were decreed. But in respect of this, as in the case of the hundred talents of the Achaeans, you could not bring yourself to disgorge money (pecuniarum) that you had already received and engulfed; you merely changed the names and descriptions of the various sums.
In Pisonem 90
Cum esset in aedibus armarium, in quo sciret esse nummorum aliquantum et auri, noctu duos conservos dormientes occidit in piscinamque deiecit:
There was a safe in the house which he knew to contain a quantity of coin and of gold; so one night he killed two of his fellow-slaves as they slept, threw them into the fish-pond
Pro Cluentio 179
lost in lacuna how many sesterces were stolen but 5 pounds of gold. auri quinque pondo
Other Passages Unsorted
De Orat. 4.76
—
Pro Sest. 93
gold associated with Syria, war, greed (innumerabile pondus auri)
—
Cic. Fam. June 54 BCE to Trebatius VII.7=28
in Britannia nihil esse audio neque auri neque argenti
No word for weight in the Latin
Upon my soul, you are such a coxcomb that I believe you would rather be consulted by Caesar than covered in gold!
Cic. Fam. March 53 BCE to Trebatius VII.13=36 SB
Admittedly it is no easy matter to distinguish the genuine article from the sham, unless a situation happens to arise in which the gold of loyal attachment is discerned in the fire of danger
Cic. Fam 9.16 = 190 SB to Papirus Paetius mid July 46
Paradoxa Stoicorum
Ostentatious display of wealth in home decor (13)
Will you call a man good who pays back ten pounds of gold when as itthe money had been entrusted to him without a witness he could easily have pocketed it without punishment, if he fails to do the same in the case of a sum of ten thousand pounds?
An virum bonum dices qui depositum nullo teste cum lucrari impune posset auri pondo decem reddiderit, si idem in decem milibus non fecerit?
(21)
marker of wealth (Pro Flacco 47)
the affair of the gold from Toulouse (allusion to) De Natura Deorum III.74
This started as collection of instances where Cicero refers to written account books in his whole corpus. I wanted to get a sense of the vocabulary, types of references, and any cultural norms around record keeping I can deduce. That’s easy to summarize: good Romans keep exceptionally precise records of their finances, good enough to be considered proof in court; bad Roman (and foreigners, obviously) don’t write stuff down, and, if they, do it is on weird scrappy records not in neat chronological tables. Cicero likes to pun on the various uses of tabula. New tabula can mean both a wiping out of debts and the drawing up a list of items for auction. Tabula are places where you credit yourself a bribe from someone and also where you indicate your position on a legal matter. Lots of rhetorical fun.
But the best part of this reading exercise today was finding the yummy passage below, a quote from Atticus’ letter, repeated back to him by Cicero. I’ve read this letter a dozen times before. It is a pathetic and memorable one. Cicero is so upset that his best friend is upset with his decisions. The civil unrest has come home to roost as Cicero feels his age.
sed abesse hanc aetatem longe a sepulcro negant oportere.
However they say that men of my age should not go far away from their graves.
Onwards, towards the yumminess. This read through, this particular passage hit different:
Reversionis has speciosas causas habes, iustas illas quidem et magnas; sed nulla iustior quam quod tu idem aliis litteris, ‘provide, si cui quid debetur, ut sit unde par pari respondeam. mirifica enim δυσχρηστία est propter metum armorum.’ in freto medio hanc epistulam legi, ut quid possem providere in mentem mihi non veniret nisi ut praesens me ipse defenderem. sed haec hactenus; reliqua coram.
My adjusted translation: I have given you the ostensible reasons for my turning back, and they are good and weighty enough. But as good as the best of them is one which you, once again, mention in another letter: ‘Take care, if you owe anyone anything, so that I may reply with like for like. The war scare has made things exceedingly difficult’ I read that letter halfway through the Straits, so that the only means of ‘making provision’ that I could think of was to be on the spot to defend myself. But enough of all this. What remains to be said can await our meeting.
19 August 44 BCE, Att. 16. 7.6, written at sea near Pompeii
S-B translates differently: ‘If you leave any debts, make provision that I have the wherewithal to square accounts. The war scare has made money amazingly tight.’
Don’t believe the bit in the S-B translation about money. It is always worrisome when a dictionary creates a whole new meaning for one particular instantiation for a word. There is no word for money in the words of Atticus. Yes, money is implied, but the implication is deeper and Cicero knows it. Debetur can apply to both monetary debts but all sort of obligations. Consider the vulgate version of the “Lord’s Prayer. Above, I’ve re-translated the quote to add in this vagueness. Atticus has cut off Cicero from any credit, not just monetarily, but socially. Hence Cicero’s choice of the verb defendo, he’s not coming home to settle accounts he’s coming back to save his credit in the sense of fides or good-word or social capital. He asks earlier in the letter if a defense is really necessary to Atticus of all people whom he felt supported his leaving. He will defend himself and his actions before Atticus, coram.
Money matters, but money is also the language of mutual respect and trust among elite Romans. Cicero probably owes Atticus himself, he usually does, that cui, “anyone”, includes Atticus. Moreover, Cicero knows from elsewhere in the letter that Atticus has lively stopped confiding in him. Pilia his wife had a stroke. Cicero learns this from Brutus NOT Atticus and expresses concern. Of course, this reading depends on the dates of the two letters.
Other quotes from Atticus’ letter that Cicero rebuts in this letter:
‘Fine then! You who is all about of belle mort— Fine, forsake your country!’
‘bene igitur tu qui εὐϑανασίαν, bene! relinque patriam!’
SB: ‘All right then! You talk of an easy end—all right, forsake your country!’ The Greek does not imply easy but rather meaningful or well done. A good death.
‘velim σχόλιον aliquod elimes ad me, oportuisse te istuc facere.’
‘I should like you to polish up a little tract to show that such was your duty, and address it to me.’
It is in response to this that Cicero implies that Atticus has changed his tune and in doing so broking faith with him and asks how he can need to defend himself to Atticus even if he will write on duties Atticus will not be the addressee. Hence the origin story of one of Cicero’s final works: de Officiis. In the end he dedicates this to his son, not Atticus.
Account books in Ciceronian Corpus
not a complete survey, but rather illustrative for my own purposes
de Orat. 1.250
An vero si de re ipsa, si de finibus, cum in rem praesentem non venimus, si de tabulis, et perscriptionibus controversia est, contortas res et saepe difficiles necessario perdiscimus:
acknowledging that legal matters often depend on documents that are not present but need complex explanation or discussion
pro Rosc. Com. 1
He, of course, as a fine gentleman and endowed with singular integrity, is attempting to use his own account books [tabulas] as evidence in his own trial. Those who have cited the payment of money by the account books of a man of proven character generally say: “Could I have bribed a man of such quality to make a false entry in his books for my sake?” I am waiting to see how long it will be before Chaerea uses the following argument: “Could I have induced this hand, full of treachery, and these fingers of mine to make a false entry of a debt?” But if he produces his account books, Roscius, too, will produce his. This entry will be found in the former’s books, but not in my client’s. Why should credence be given to the former rather than the latter?
—
Ibid 2
Aeque enim tabulae condemnantur eius qui verum non rettulit et eius qui falsum perscripsit.
For the account books of one who failed to enter what is true are as blameworthy as those of one who has written down what is false.
—
Ibid 3
Non confecit tabulas? Immo diligentissime. Non refert parva nomina in codices? Immo omnis summas.
Did he not keep books? On the contrary, most carefully. Does he not enter small debts in his ledgers? On the contrary, every sum.
—
Ibid 6
Quod si eandem vim, diligentiam auctoritatemque habent adversaria quam tabulae, quid attinet codicem instituere, conscribere, ordinem conservare, memoriae tradere litterarum vetustatem?
But if daybooks have the same value, the same exactness, and the same authority as account books, what is the use of establishing a ledger, of writing down, keeping an ordered list, and entrusting past events to a written record?
Both before and after this passage is extensive discussion of how tabulae are different and more fulsome that adversaria
—
Ibid 9
How is it that, when all other people who keep account books (tabulas) transfer their accounts nearly every month into their books, you allow this debt to lie neglected in your daybook for more than three years? Have you organized all the other debts in the ledger [codicem] of receipts and disbursements or not? If not, how do you keep your books? If you have, why is it that, when you were entering all the other debts in order, you left this debt, which was extremely large, for more than three years in your daybook? You did not want it to be known that Roscius was indebted to you. Why then did you write it down? You had been asked not to enter it. Why do you have it written in your daybook (adversariis)?
—
Ibid 13
Fannius admits that he did not pay the money, he does not say that he entered it as paid, since he does not quote his account books (tabulas). His only remaining alternative is to say that he made a stipulation (stipulatum). For I cannot think of any other way for him to be able to claim a fixed sum of money. You made a stipulation. When? On what day? At what time? In whose presence? Who says that I made a promise? Nobody.
—
Topica 16
A differentia: Non, si uxori vir legavit argentum omne quod suum esset, idcirco quae in nominibus fuerunt legata sunt. Multum enim differt in arcane positum sit argentum an in tabulis debeatur.
An argument based on difference: If a man has bequeathed to his wife all the money that is his, he has not, therefore, bequeathed what is owed him; for it makes a great difference whether the money is stored in a strong-box or is on his books.
—
Cat. 2.18
All right; but would you think that your estates will be regarded as sacred in the general devastation? Or are you waiting for new books? (tabulas) You need not expect them from Catiline; but my good offices are indeed providing new books—auctioneers’ catalogues (auctionariae).This is the only way in which men who possess estates can be solvent. If they had been willing to do this earlier and had not been so stupid as to try to meet the interest on their debts from the income of their estates, we should find them both richer and better citizens.
—
Cic. Att. 1 Oct 54
haec pactio non verbis sed nominibus et perscriptionibus multorum <per> tabulas cum esse facta diceretur, prolata a Memmio est nominibus inductis auctore Pompeio.
The compact, which, as was stated, was not an oral one but had been entered in the account books of many persons with names and full details, was produced by Memmius on Pompey’s advice with the names cancelled.
Itaque tanti acervi nummorum apud istum construuntur ut iam expendantur, non numerentur pecuniae.
Does it really mean weigh in the literal sense here or could it mean to estimate. Probably literal weighing…
—
Cic. phil.2.40
—
Balb. 11
Pro Caelio 17
Nam quod aes alienum obiectum est, sumptus reprehensi, tabulae flagitatae, videte, quam pauca respondeam. Tabulas, qui in patris potestate est, nullas conficit. Versuram numquam omnino fecit ullam.
As for the reproach that he is in debt, his expenditure blamed, his account-books demanded, see how brief is my reply. One who is still subject to his father’s authority does not keep accounts. He has never rolled over a debt to a new creditor. [trans modified]
—
Flacc. 20
The greeks don’t keep good records like we do! Cf. Pro Saur. 18.
Font. 11
Nemo Gallorum sine cive Romano quicquam negotii gerit, nummus in Gallia nullus sine civium Romanorum tabulis commovetur.
No Gaul ever does business independently of a citizen of Rome; not a penny changes hands in Gaul without the transaction being recorded in the books of Roman citizens.
—
Pro Sest. 72
subito nominibus in tabulas relatis nomen suum de tabula sustulit.
after he had posted up in his account-books the money he had received, removed his name from the posted list
[Cicero plays with the two types of tabula, the personal financial records vs the legal announcement]
—
Verr. 2.1.37
Previous governor turned over records (rationes) along with money, grain, and the army.
Cf. Ibid 98 – Verres uses excuses about not turning over his rationes to the treasury, Cicero holds he should have made copies.
—
Verr. 2.1.100
Hinc illae extraordinariae pecuniae, quas nullo duce tamen aliqua ex particula investigamus, redundarunt; hinc ratio cum Q. et Cn. Postumis Curtiis, multis nominibus, quorum in tabulis iste habet nullum;
He keeps accounts (ratio) with various bankers but doesn’t record them on his own tabulae.
Cf. ibid 102
Homo stultissime et amentissime, tabulas cum conficeres et cum extraordinariae pecuniae crimen subterfugere velles, satis te elapsurum omni suspicione arbitrabare, si quibus pecuniam credebas iis expensum non ferres, neque in tuas tabulas ullum nomen referres, cum tot tibi nominibus acceptum Curtii referrent? Quid proderat tibi te expensum illis non tulisse? An tuis solis tabulis te causam dicturum existimasti?
Oh you consummate fool and madman, when you were making up your books and scheming to escape being charged in connexion with those unrecorded sums of money, did you fancy that you could quite evade all suspicion simply by not recording the payment of money to those who took charge of it for you, or by showing your books with no such entries at all, when the accounts of the Curtii recorded all these sums received from you? How did it help you to make no entry of what you paid to them? Or did you imagine that your case would be tried on the evidence of no one’s accounts but your own?
Verr. 188
Capinatius money lender has secret account on the books for Verres under false name. Slave scribe assumed of writing this name.
Copies made and sealed by reputable men as proof
Verr. 2.3.93 for reading aloud of tabula
—
Flac. 21.
Official records of a magistrate must be held in public custody after being sealed
—
Cluent. 82
Cluentius has kept his accounts most scrupulously—a fact which assuredly has this advantage that no addition or subtraction could have been made to or from the family estate without its appearing. Yet for all these eight years you have been thinking over your case, investigating, discussing, examining every item relevant to it in his or other people’s accounts, and all this time not a trace do you find of such expenditure on the part of Cluentius.
Pis. 61
The treasure official copies out the provincial rationes of Piso and then is imagined exclaiming
No, it is neither ancient, nor Roman. I probably paid more than I need to but I don’t like bidding. I just want to hit the buy button and be done with it.
I wasn’t even going to tell all y’all about it but wanted to write this evening just for me, and this is the first novel thing that came to mind. I’ve been writing a great deal off the blog and it is going well, but today was a “kill your darlings” kind of day with much thinking about structure and presentation. The material I know well and holds no novelty. Sometimes I crave intellectual novelty.
Do you see the design? It is a piece of spade money. Spade money is an an early form of coinage used by ancient Chinese peoples. The specific spade money chosen for these coins is similar to this one:
The BM transcribes the inscription as 貝丘 (on the spade) = Bei Qui. I’m disappointed the BM catalogue cannot tell me more about Bei Qui and Google is equally crappy.
The BM dates the spade above to 481-221BCE the Warring States Period and the Eastern Zhou dynasty. I’ve got no way of validating that. They also say:
But again I cannot seem to confirm this. All the spades with this inscription in the BM were acquired from one single auction house a few early 1980s, a couple more mid 1990s. I decided to see if the auction catalogue writers were better informed. I learned: “Qi Bei is the traditional reading of this name, but Bei Qiu and Qui Bei have also been put forward as potential readings.” I also found question marks after the transliteration and suggestions it might be associated with the State of Han. Nothing that gave me great confidence. I will have to keep looking. I’d also love to know why of all the numerous spade money inscriptions this one ended up commemorated on modern coins.
I purchased my little coin because of how it evokes the ancient to legitimate the new, implying continuity. A theme I generally like to see as it manifests in different cultures. Yet, it also gave me the opportunity to learn about Sun Yat-sen and the politics and divisions in late 19th and 20th century China.
The denomination on mine is 5 Fen. Here’s a 1 Fen also from BM. You’ll see the choice of spade money is stable across denominations. I also am particularly enamored by the ‘Greek’ key design as border.
The manufacturing approaches used for Roman didrachms
Excerpt and screenshot from Star Trek Next Gen S2E16 “Q Who”:
SONYA: Hot chocolate, please. LAFORGE: We don’t ordinarily say please to food dispensers around here. SONYA: Well, since it’s listed as intelligent circuitry, why not? After all, working with so much artificial intelligence can be dehumanising, right? So why not combat that tendency with a little simple courtesy. Thank you. LAFORGE: For someone who just arrived, you certainly aren’t shy with your opinions. SONYA: Have I been talking too much? LAFORGE: No.
I fight the urge to use second person singular pronouns and include ‘simple courtesies’ and other things that might anthropomorphize LLMs. And yet every time I have this compulsion toward courtesy I remember Ensign Gomez schooling Commander LaForge that we don’t do these things for the machine but for our own humanity. In the Star Trek franchise Sonya makes Captain in Lower Decks and is portrayed as one who takes extra care towards compassion towards her own junior officers.
Of course the problem is that we’re told the extra gigabits of humanization is bad for our environment and we’re living in nothing like the post-scarcity future of the Star Trek universe. Still. I think I agree with Sonya. The risk for some is to start deluding themselves the replicator (or any other intelligent circuitry) is their friend. But, for others, the risk is becoming to used to issuing orders and perhaps losing a little of our soul in the process.
I’ve been asked to work in AI to my talk in Beijing next month. I’m excited for the trip and sad that “AI” is so popular that it makes muons less cool. For replicators to become a reality for our distant descendants we’re going to need the mouns perhaps even more than the LLMs.
Yesterday evening before my beloved read us all LOTR (my favorite crochet time!), I gave Claude this prompt
create a table with all these RRC didrachm types that includes the following data: mean box,peak,idle gaps, turnover min, anvils, as well as the ratio of obverse to reverse dies
I woke up to this:
As we think about ancient manufacturing practices there are two possible answers to the unscrambling of the crossed lines in die chain clusters, either one can theorize a die box with a few dies in use at the same time OR multiple workstations OR both. However I leave aside the possibility of both for small relatively simple issues as contrary to Ocham’s Razor, at least in the first instance.
I was suspicious of RRC 15/1. I’d not seen a die link chart to ‘prove’ this conclusion. I find charts far easier to fact check than these tables. I’m a visual person and they lay out data in a familiar way that is easy to cross reference against CRROs die link tables.
Prompt:
Show me a die link graph that illustrates the scenario of RRC 15/1 having only one anvil with no overlapping lines
This is where I started having intrusive thoughts about Ensign Gomez.
The other thing that seems noteworthy and concerning is where Claude tells me the answers it has given me before need correction:
For context, one generates briefings after a work session and then feeds that briefing into the next to ensure continuity of thought without maxing out a single chat thread.
So I put the above text into the box and then asked:
Explain how this error occurred, how it can be prevented, and why I should trust these results over the the prior results.
So now I get a result I think is actually important with my final prompt. And can use my commute into Manhattan to pick up my Chinese Visa to think about how I valid all of this prior to publication.
Prompt:
Same table with tweaks and additional data on RRC 25/1. Wait for RRC 25/1 data before beginning task. Change to minimum peak, minimum idle, and minimum turnover. Shade rows that require only one anvil.
This got good results but then I found I wanted more information so I used this prompt to modify:
Add to the chart a column for longest die cluster, and number of die pairs that connect to no other dies.
From 20/1 onwards we see a strong tendency to an approximate 1:1 obverse reverse die ratio. RRC 25/1 has the tightest manufacturing on this 1:1 model and in this most closely resembles RRC 15/1, but with far more pairings. Perhaps because it is a larger issue. The box is very shallow and not required to explain a one anvil hypothesis. There is little interest in creating chains. Perhaps even an avoidance of the practice. This shows to me concerted efforts to control (improve?) manufacture.
I manually downloaded the data on all examples of the types as cvs files from CRRO before asking Claude to do the following:
Prompt 1:
Extract the weight data from these four csv files. Calculate the median and mean for each coin issue, as well as the relative standard deviation. Create a box and whiskers graph to allow visual comparison of the four issues.
Prompt 2:
Same task. Small tweaks. Remove any outliers over 12g and under 4g. Remove the files names just use the issue names, do not included dates or mints.
This is a task I could very easily do without Claude. The advantage was only time. I wanted to fact check a sentence in a co-authored piece. I didn’t want to take the time to do the manual data cleaning and manipulation. Claude continues to try to be ‘helpful’ but this unwanted ‘help’ is very good for me to identify my own superior expertise and knowledge. I can see how this could gaslight someone into thinking they know more than they really do. It is also a reflection of how much outdated information is encoded in our linked open data, from revised dating to mint locations, etc etc.
I also like the scatter added to the traditional box and whiskers. The messiness is an advantage for seeing the real nature of the data.
Note the quaint accounting of the number of coins in the hoards:
a) one coin,
b) two coins,
c) a few coins,
d) a healthy amount,
e) a very great quantity.
On RRCH 28 the 1862 hoard, Sambon says (Machine translation)
Although I do not know the origin of this find, I became convinced—when it was shown to me—that all the constituent coins belonged to a single, recently discovered hoard. Style, mint, patina, and encrusting soil all pointed to this conclusion. It is therefore probable that the coins, which showed only slight signs of circulation wear, dated from the same period. Judging by the obols of Aesernia, they must have been issued after 262 BC, the year in which the city was occupied by a Roman colony.
The description of the coins suggests a hoard collected throughout the 1st Punic War, probably the pay associated with the naval forces. What it doesn’t contain is any cast coin age which means one of my hand written notes in the margins of my copy of RRC is likely inaccurate and I need to go back to the original publication to see where things got confused.
The screenshot above also have the full entry for RRCH 29 = Basilicata 1860. Paestum 1858 = IGCH 1904 and Sava 1856 = IGCH 1890.
Weirdly the page numbers in IGCH for Sambon are also in the 30s. I wonder if there is a later addition of this same volume and I’ve gotten confused.
Ah yes, they refer to his 1870 publication, which included the same material above verbatim(!)
Noah Kaye posted this ‘new to me’ image on the socials:
My first thought was how similar it felt in form to the Pietrabbondante bilingual roof tile. My all time favorite piece of material evidence from the ancient world. Here are some slides from my Roman Art class followed by some from one of my AIA lectures on Papius and Fabatus control marks. I really like Katherine MacDonald’s blog on this inscription.
Can scholarship on footprint symbolism in the eastern Mediterranean and Anatolia help us understand Italic phenomenon or visa versa?
I ended up at this publication (open access):
Osborne JF. Imag[in]ing Hartapu: Reconsidering the rise of an Iron Age kingdom. Anatolian Studies. 2025;75:1-27. doi:10.1017/S0066154625000043
#GOALS (get cute photos of kids into publications!)
Dunbabbin, K.M.D. 1990: ‘Ipsa deae vestigia … Footprints Divine and Human on Graeco-Roman Monuments’ Journal of Roman Archaeology 3: 85–109
And I would have read and skimmed it quickly but I don’t have institutional access… Grrr. I’ll put in an ILL order and hopefully remember to come back to this post.
Rojas, F., Sergueenkova, V. 2014: ‘Traces of Tarhuntas: Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Interaction with Hittite Monuments’ Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 27.2: 135–60 [available from academia[dot]edu via Google scholar]
This is where I was when I learned a squirrel had attacked my kid unprovoked in our own backyard and since said squirrel attack involved the very smallest about of broken skin the rest of my day was at the ER and pharmacy engaging in overcautious preventative medicine. But in the waiting I snuck in a covid and flu shot, so no bad thing.
Anyway my only final thought. Before I let this post go is that something about the engraved foot prints also reminds me of the pair of open hands we find all over Anatolian tomb reliefs.
Something, something… embodied prayer, permanent enactment of transient religious practice, etc. etc….
Yesterday, I was checking a reference to another occupational relief in this same 1877 German journal. When this figure at the table caught my eye. So I thought I’d let myself track it down this AM.
The drawing is fairly true to life it seems. The object is not on display but is well catalogued on the Liverpool National Museum (no. 59.148.298) with its appearance in modern publications.
Points that interest me.
Lids on Dolia apparently of wood.
The foreman with a book standing on the lid of a dolia to supervise activities
The offering of a taste
The filling of an amphora (from the dolia?)
The window, do the circles help us see the merchant is rich enough to have glass in his windows?
The snake as a stand in for the lararium and the piety of the operation.
The way the scene alludes to both indoor and outdoor work. Notice the roof on the far right as an indication of spatial transition.
I concur that the figures on the left are likely the married property owners rather than the woman being a customer. Notice the joining of right hands.
The website of the museum says that the man at the desk is likely the merchant. I doubt this. Rather I think it shows the employment of bookkeepers and overseers.
In 2018 about this time I was was worried about hammers on coins. In fact that post was commenting on an earlier one from 2013. I was wrestling with symbols on early denarii issues as possible canting puns for moneyers and Russo’s redating of some bronzes.
At the time of writing I didn’t know this publication:
Padilla Peralta, Dan-el. “Hammer time: The Publicii Malleoli between cult and cultural history.” Classical Antiquity 37, no. 2 (2018): 267-320.
we also had not digitized Schaefer’s archive yet with the help of the Arete foundation and ANS and what would become RRDP.
The weird obverse I was discussing I would now call obverse no. 3:
