I”m doing image research for an article. I’m probably going to go with this specimen from Haeberlin’s own collection as illustrated on his plate 44. It is free of copyright being now in the public domain and one could not get a clearer representation, and yet…
The vast majority of RRC 14/2 specimens look nothing at all like this. I don’t care if you’re looking at CRRO or what has appeared recently in trade. This specimen is shocking beautiful. Do I doubt its authenticity? Not particularly. I have however come to realize how much better aes grave looks when photographed from a plaster cast than from the specimen itself. Here’s a specimen that sold last year with no provenance information in Switzerland and a listed weight of 171,86g.
I’m fairly confident that it is the same specimen as Haeberlin 1910, pl. 45, 2 from the Sambon collection listed with a weight of 172.25 g.
It took me a minute to make this conclusion because the color photograph looks so radically different in detail than the bw from the plaster cast with all color data from the surface removed. If I got Berlin to photograph the Haeberlin specimen for me, in all likelihood it would probably appear much uglier and far harder to see the detail. Frankly I”m pretty sure I’ve held this specimen and may even have a study photograph… [not that I could find, darn it]. I would if I could look for tool marks to improve the definition especially in the crest of the helmet. Again not relevant to the article.
Some of you know my love of using photographic overlays and transparencies to compare images. Typically I use it to check die links but it also works in cases like this. When trimming the cast of the Venus side of the coin, the person doing the trimming clearly eliminated the portion which what caused by a misalignment of the two halves of the original mold used to make the coin.
Anyway part of me wonders if using such a ‘good’ image in the publication is misleading to my readership. The Haeberlin plate image doesn’t look anything like the vast majority of known specimens.
Notice the definition in the curls of Venus. Really extra ordinary and unique. So do the backwards S under her neck and the difficulty of the modern plaster cast in dealing with the prominent sprue.
Ok I need to stop looking at specimens and get back to writing the actual article.
I has been an intense three weeks. It always is, but this year the last few days were unbelievably stressful for mostly things it would be inappropriate to share publicly. Let’s just say that the least stressful of the final three crises was rebooking nearly every student’s flight and sorting each one’s needs in light of the airport ground crew strikes. I am proud of how I and the students and the college handled everything. Overall, it was an amazing trip and has re affirmed the teaching I most enjoy is intensive, immersive, and deeply interpersonal.
I’m tricking myself into writing later by starting a post I cannot finish.
I’ve been out to buy a new suitcase for my books. Yes, this is something of a ritual when I travel. I ended up haggling for a Turkish kilim, finding some last minute vintage t-shirts for my family as souvenirs, and then reviewing the alcohol allowances to bring home a few treats. On the whole, I paid too much for the used suitcase, but the man looked like he could use the money. The kilim I feel was a steal at the price I negotiated. The seller might have gone lower but I’ve bought enough to know I could have paid much much more.
Haggling is such a funny tradition. I like how it reflects the socially constructed nature of any measure of value. Two people weigh their wants and desires as well as a measure of the other person’s capacity all bound up in social rituals and also conventions of value local and global. Super interesting.
Perhaps the oddest thing I purchased at the market was a set of four knuckle-bones, well-cleaned from a seller of bones and stones. I decided these were an essential teaching tool and part of my research on ancient symbolism on coins. I almost bought two boar tusks to turn into the handle of a purse, I’ve crocheted. I regret not buying them, but I needed them drilled and didn’t really want to break them in the process trying the drilling myself. Next year I’ll shop early so he can drill them for me and I can pick up the next week.
I’m off to see the new exhibit of the Francois Tomb. A dream come true if I can get in! It went on display last Wednesday after the state paid 15 MILLION euros for it. Frankly, I cannot say it is anything other than priceless.
And, I’m back. I cycled there and back. It was marvelous. But I didn’t realize the work out I was getting until I got home and sweat poured off me. I’m resolved to rent a bike for the whole of my trip next summer. The cost of the Lime bikes is exorbitant but it is definitely the way to travel. (youtube short)
You can imagine my frustration of getting to the museum and seeing this sign. I was not the only visitor to turn around and leave. My beloved told me I could change my flight to stay to see it. This was ridiculous I want to see my children more. My fear is like the Mausoleum of Augustus it will be open only for a hot minute and thereafter closed for years. Fingers crossed, one day I’ll see it.
Thursday, July 9.
I’ve made it back to the states and am transitioning into parenting, research, and minimal bureaucratic oversight of my department during the quiet summer months.
Since landing, I’ve done quite a lot. Perhaps most significantly, I’ve banged out an application for a visiting professorship. That was a good 1200+ words of prose related to my research ambitions and a culling of a version of my CV down to 4 short pages. Basically I made it a 5 year look back for grants and publications and 2 year look back other activities.
This isn’t to say it wasn’t good for my professional development: I collected so many new catalogues! I met with inspiring colleagues with a mutual love and curiosity regarding ancient bronze!
So now what?! Where does my writing and research attention need to be directed? Time is the most precious of my resources and goal setting is how we get there.
Youthful Mars article
Finalizing Papius catalogue, refine Fabatus catalogue, write contextual language to accompany both
Re engage with Alien Ancestors drafting
Line up letter writers for prestigious fellowship applications
Consider most productive pitch for such applications
Send data to colleagues in Rome RE bronzes
Think about drafting a preliminary finding piece on pXRF work on 3rd century Bronzes
Look over what other research has not been written up and/or published, esp. archival research, what is neglected low hanging fruit?
This feels like a moment akin to a day one like in 2013 and again in 2023. And yet, I don’t feel like enumeration. Perhaps it is just a feeling like a re commitment to a future of research rather than a limited period of time to count down.
I agree we cannot be sure the inscription is the consul and not a later descendant
The letter forms do seem suggestive of the third century
Are we certain the plaster was wet when inscribed?
Why does Brennan call it a graffito? There are many rather haphazard inscriptions of the 3rd century in formal contexts.
I’m less confident I see two hands at work in the writing. The closest evidence I can detect is the shape of the Cs the first two are more rounded but the third seems more linear. By contrast the Ns and Vs are very close in their angle size and shape. I’d want a to inspect in person.
I’m less worried than Brennan about the lack of filiation and the inclusion of the cognomen. Early cognomen are attested as are inscriptions lacking filiation, although I cannot come up with precise parallel that has a Roman magistracy also listed.
I do have questions about the function of the structure in the 3rd Century BCE in which this inscription to be found. It is called a ‘hypogeum’, i.e. an underground sacred space, and functioned as one in the imperial period clearly, but the discussion by Colivicchi summarizing the interpretation of others doesn’t really fill me with a sense of certainty or confidence.
Are we sure that the PRAI is complete? Could there we a TOR obscured by damage to the wall/plaster etc…? Again not something really intelligible from a photo.
I’m intrigued by praifectus being the an alternative resolution. I went looking for early parallels.
Meet:
EDCS-14805235 = CIL 9, 4204 = ILLRP 302 = etc…
Q(uintus) Lainio(s) Q(uinti) f(ilius) praifectos pro trebibos fecit
found at Amiternum (Samnium) and thus likely post 293 BCE inscription as that is the date the Romans captured the settlement.
Ok. Back to the task I’m still trying to complete for my students.
This topic is stopping me moving forward with curriculum design. A toss-away comment in an article I was reviewing for appropriateness to assign to students led me down a rabbit-hole.
Images of reproductions in the Wellcome Collection uploaded to Wikimedia and often circulated on line as originalThis and the above image are from Turfa, Jean MacIntosh, and Marshall Joseph Becker. “A very distinctive smile: Etruscan dental appliances.” In Prostheses in Antiquity, pp. 49-70. Routledge, 2018.
The above publication has a very useful list of known examples with notes on provenance.
Specimen in Vienna image from Teschler-Nicola, Maria, Michaela Kneissel, Franz Brandstätter, and Hermann Prossinger. “A recently discovered Etruscan dental bridgework.” In Dental Anthropology: Fundamentals, Limits and Prospects, pp. 57-68. Vienna: Springer Vienna, 1998.
If I come across more images I’m sure I’ll come back and add them to this post, as is my habit.
Most are separated from the remains of the humans who presumably used them, but some do have fairly precise findspots that could help in reconstruction:
From Becker and Tufa 2018: 53.
The following piece suggests that the metal of at least one specimen is not true gold but a man-made electrum:
Becker, Marshall Joseph. “Etruscan gold dental appliances.” Molecular and Structural Archaeology: Cosmetic and Therapeutic Chemicals (2003): 11-27.
What I want to know but need to stop investigating (so I can focus on my actual job) is if we’ve done DNA testing on any of the teeth in any of the surviving bridges (or even radio carbon dating!). The other thing I find exceptionally puzzling is that I can’t see any studies on the DNA of George Washington’s dentures, teeth we know came from enslaved labor.
Such DNA analyses would provide very valuable insights into the intersection of disability, medicine, and enslavement, both ancient and early modern… This cannot be an original question, I’m posing. Hence my deep frustration at not finding an answer.
Van Horn, Jennifer. “George Washington’s Dentures: Disability, Deception, and the Republican Body.” Early American Studies (2016): 2-47.
Fleming, Eleanor, and Patricia Neville. “Critical retelling of dental ethics told through ‘George Washington’s Complete Denture’.” Medical Humanities 51, no. 3 (2025): 376-385.
Ok. I’m going back to my curriculum design. Maybe social media will come through with some satisfaction for my curiosity.
On January 19, 2026 Christopher Smith and I were discussants at a book event for Peter Wiseman hosted by the ICS and the BSR. I wrote a number of blog posts before that event related to my preparation to respond to Wiseman’s recent work. The event was recorded and I’ve just found the that recording while writing up the report of my activities while on this fellowship.
This is a significant modification and elaboration of a type of talk I’ve given before and even previously posted the slides. Nevertheless, I thought it was worth sharing againgiven additions, esp. for the students on the course.
I get to fly home after this! I’m ecstatic. Family! my own kitchen! MY OWN GARDEN!
I did some speaking notes but not actually that many for the final version as I shuffled the deck a lot today. So I won’t be posting those notes, but if you have questions do ask.
Adlocutio scene from Trajan’s column, BM Mm,7.8, dated late 16th century
Today at 4.30 pm I give a lecture at the ICS to complete my Webster Fellowship of this year. I’ve just spent two days reviewing what I think every piece of paper on the Nemi collection from the Museum (at least what curator could pull), AND all of Savile’s papers in the county archive from his time in Italy onwards and few things from before that were intermingled in these folders. I’ve learned a sh!t ton, I have a full deck of slides with speaking notes, I could have just given the talk I gave at WashU slightly tweaked. It was damn good. Wow. I have foul mouth this AM. This is reflective of my dissatisfaction with my talk and my moodiness in general.
At first I thought it was because of the illustrious audience, including potential past mentors, I thought it was self doubt, but it doesn’t taste that way. It tastes like a lack of a red thread. I have so much I want to share that the task is to prune. So I’m hear to try to work out what next in the hours remaining.
I wanted to find the papers relating to Orsini and Savile’s original agreement and a falling out. I wanted mentions of what Savile saw, perhaps even notebooks of his observations. None of that was in the files. I’ve come away from the Archive with a couple of impressions.
Savile was sentimental and curated to some extent his papers. On the outside of folded documents and envelops he wrote notes about the contents that serve as a reminder to himself why he was keeping the papers. He kept a great deal. They are messy and interleaved with other materials. I read a copy of the letter about his birth from his mother to his father who was abroad at the time, that he himself had kept as momento along side letters with violet enclosures addressed to him in Rome from a certain Ida of whom he was very fond.
I read a great deal about his acquisition of a Capuchin property in Genzano including notarized copies of the legal papers. He kept lots of letters from those managing the Lanuvium dig for him. They are not concerned with details of excavation only funding and flattery. He was a man who keep clippings of newspaper reports of his triumphs and other memorabilia. I read many private briefings on everything from housing arrangements at the embassy to negotiations over disease control and the Suez canal. The absence I have come to believe is intentional.
The papers related to Nemi are primarily drafts of published materials. While Savile let others take credit as authors of these pieces, the drafts in his own hand suggest original authorship of all published materials about Nemi should be attributed to him.
The most telling thing I found was some self-censorship in a draft of a piece to appear in NSc after being translated into Italian [DSSR 226/20/11b]. The part cut from the publication is about what Orsini retains in his possession, namely gilt tiles from what we now think of as phase III of the temple. I believe this may refer to a piece in the MFA Boston purchased in 1901. Savile brought to Notthingham fragments of bronze tiles but none that retain visible traces of gilding. When I first saw them in 2023, I was uncertain what they were until I learned more about the phase III and saw the Boston piece.
I take this self censorship as proof of the nature of the relationship between the two men.
Another very telling document to me is the only visual description of the Nemi excavations in progress in the collection. Savile was completely hands off from the day to day operations. And, the must not have kept all the other correspondence he received about the progress and finds.
It is written by William Hawley the excavator famed for his work at Stonehenge. I believe Savile may have saved it as a momento of his connection to Halwey rather than for its excavation details. I believe in his interest in saving such momentos partly because of its proximity in the file with more sentimental material including this charming letter from the artist, Henry Jones Thaddeaus.
I imagine Savile was as charmed by the sketches as I am.
Neither of these are in the file he himself labelled “Letters on Art” [DDSR 226/20] which holds most of the drafts of his publications on Nemi and related materials. He thought of these as ‘different’.
I don’t want to give the impression of Savile of a lack of seriousness with his engagement with art and history. In these files I found evidence of his own self-education project. For example, there are notes with definitions of archaeological terms. He also relied on materials sourced by Lanciani, one of the grandfather’s of Roman archaeology, especially topography and historical image research, to get himself up to speed on the history of Nemi. This materials is exceptionally rich and some of it was new to me.
This is one of the most intriguing documents. I found in it interesting enough to process my photos in to a pdf correcting for distortion. I may transcribe down the road, but least it is here for others.
Thanks to the Nottingham curator I also found that sometime in the past someone associated with the museum/collection (perhaps an intern?) went through the Savile papers in the county archives basically creating a handwritten finding aid to the collection for how it relates to the Nemi artifacts. I’m incredibly grateful to have this check on my own archival work.
My final impression is that Savile was serious things he cared about and that the excavations were about supporting arts and history for others not necessarily his own passion in any particular way. The only find he seems to have loved is one of the horse heads from Lanuvium that he and others thought on par with the quality of the Parthenon marbles. There are detailed reports of measurement for its restoration and gifts of casts. This reminds me of his love of Velázquez and his obsession with his own painting by this artist. Likewise there is much in the letters about the state of the British Academy of Art at Rome the predecessor of the BSR. Savile clearly wanted it to succeed and thrive. This is like concerns that Lanuvium be preserved as an excavated site that carriages could access for the comfort of visitors. Savile is an educated patron one who wants to be seen as such but not very interested in the excavation or science of archaeology. He was happy to send money to Ephesus but doesn’t seem much concerned with what was found or the place itself.
He only kept one object of classical antiquity from his excavations for himself a bronze head from Nemi that was auctioned off in 1938 with the rest of the Rufford Abbey furnishings.
So is the documentation of the excavations he conducted (or rather sponsored and paid for) lost forever? Perhaps. My only thoughts remaining is that he may have gave reports either to Lanciani whose papers are in Rome in Piazza Venezia I believe or he may have given them to the British Art Academy in which case they may be somewhere in the BSR.
I have three weeks in Rome this summer. Will I hunt for them or leave that to others? I don’t know. We’ll see.
Ok. That was a lot of writing. I’m feeling much better for having done this.
I’ve been thinking a great deal about how we connect, or fail to connect with one another across our differences. I’ve found myself in any number of circumstances lately where I disagree with a judgement of others, but can see and even value their views. I want to honor that difference, respect individual autonomy, be open to the idea of being wrong and having made a mistake, but equally I want to be honored and respected the same in return.
And yet, none of us get to decide how another human reacts to us. It is wholly out our control. There then comes the decision: What is too important to let go? What interactions require one to stand firm? When is that standing firm part of remaining engaged and when does it require letting go?
I’ve so valued so many relationships that I’ve often over a lifetime remained engaged past my point of personal comfort. That engagement has often felt like a moral value, to be present to and for the other. This hasn’t been the healthiest choice and I’ve got to say that in some cases has required some therapy to give myself permission to disentangle.
I have another character trait that is less well integrated into my moral world view, avoidance. When I find parts of life too overwhelming, I just shut off my attention from that which I don’t feel capable of dealing with. Often this has nothing to do with difference and everything to do with my bandwidth. X feels like it is calling for attention, but if I engage, then Y and Z will suffer. Partly this is a result of over-commitment. Partly it can be burn out for staying engaged in other aspect of my life past the point of personal comfort.
I think of this avoidance as a moral failing. And, yet on a dispassionate morning, now, as I try make sense of all the ways my life is in turmoil and how my career feels as if it is approaching a turning point with a lack of clarity about what next, I see that both my attempts to connect across difference and my avoidance often derive from an inner need to feel safe. One action feels more moral than the other, but at their root the actions are about some primitive survival urge.
We need each other, but we can also hurt each other.
I don’t think I’ve always been the best judge of my own vulnerabilities. I know what it feels like inside my head, but not necessarily what I’m actually capable of doing. I’ve over and under-estimated both, often believing I can foresee the most likely future outcomes.
Hogwash. I am as human as the rest of you.
The peace I seek comes from the inside and from relationships in which the comfort comes with ease. The rest must be taken moment to moment.
I need to trust I will act as best I can and that past actions do not require second guessing, but rather lessons learned.
Do you think this post is about you?
It probably isn’t.
It is really just my morning musings about any number of recent events and my need to write ahead of a day of meetings where I hope to be genuine and true to myself. I’ve had a number of experiences recently where I’ve been both pleased and displeased with how difference of opinion has resolved. Some have deepened relationships, some have caused me to re-evaluate the wisdom of continued engagement.
This is ok.
I can learn from both. I can remain open to finding the connection. Withdrawing my engagement for a time does not necessitate an irreparable rift. Indeed, the withdrawal may be required to hold space for something better in the future.
Honesty and transparency, yes. Boundaries and self-preservation, also.
For those of you who follow this blog not for the inner workings of my mind but for my research (same, same), please know there is material forthcoming. I’ve been holding back on posting as I craft my talk for next Thursday in London, and for a new book project that I’ve started writing on the side. It has good momentum. In the style of my blogging voice but more of a popular accessible history.
May I have more time to write here and there soon!
—
A friend asked in response to this post, “what is safety? How would you define it?”
My gut reaction: “it is an illusion! Something we strive for but can never attain. “
This answer helped me re affirm the way I look at life. There is only the now. We use our present conception of past and future to give meaning to the present, the now that flies away just as we notice it.
I think this is part of why I love writing. The moment of making the words tangible let’s future me see evidence of a small part of reality as I made sense of it at the time. I can then engage in the future present with the same words by reading and more writing. Flaws and all.
I have a capacity to image innumerable futures and winding paths to them. That tangle of paths is often overwhelming, even as I love the constant dreaming of moving into an imagined future.
And yet, more and more I sit on my porch and look at what my beloved calls “the purple moment”, the garden brimming with irises and alliums and columbines, with the bleeding heart holding on. A contented being rather than a dreaming. This present is the life I’ve made for myself and my family; it is the peaceful present as well as the recent past and near future, I value most.
The purple moment is in my minds eye on the nyc subway. It is in whatever neural pathways it has fired in my brain.
It feels like a memory of safety but that is an illusion. Instead it is peace. A memory of past peace which may also be a goal to drive me forward, and even a present emotion.
It wasn’t hard to find this statue once I looked. It sits in the British Museum, Room 71, Etruscan world, Display Case 30. Weirdly it doesn’t return with a key word search for Nemi or I would have found it sooner. Databases are strange, the entry clearly associates the statue with the sanctuary (not the boats). This does seem much more likely. It was bequeathed to the BM in 1920 by William Waldorf Astor, 1st Viscount Astor, who perhaps had acquired it directly from Spink(?). I wonder if any papers transferred with it. Reinarch seemed pretty sure that Spink had papers to give the buyer proving the place of origin. Would Astor have kept those papers and given them to the BM?
I’m more and more convinced this statue should be brought in dialogue to the San Casciano recent finds. I’m also glad to see that the BM catalogers agree with me that she probably held a spindle. The torque necklace is super interesting. I want to keep and eye out for parallels for Italic women wearing this form of jewellry.
These three much small figures are tagged with the same findspot. They appear to have been from the same Spink sale appearing on the market in 1908. Compare museum images to figures below. I find it deeply suspicious that these figures have attributes apparently intact and all identical. This isn’t standard for the other Nemi figures recovered by archaeologists. And it appears to be true of all the Spink figurines based on photos from Reinarch. This suggests to me that the figures were repaired and augmented after discovery and before public sale.
I’d love to see imaging and testing to confirm, especially on the large statue. The large statue must have had some analyses done as the curatorial notes say it was cast in 9 pieces and then assembled.
What surprises me is that the BM seems to have decided to acquire materials previously offered at the Spink sale over such a long period of time, these four objects came to the museum between 1913 and 1951, all from different sources.
The patina of the bronzes is markedly different between all four objects. I suspect all have been cleaned and some more intentionally re patinated than others. None look particularly close to the patination from bronzes recovered from Nemi in the Nottingham collection but the calcification of the figures on the outside in the below screenshot seem closer than the bright greens.
Luigi Devoti in his 1987 book Campagna Romana. Viva Speculum. Dianae IlLago della Selva Aricina Oggi di Nemi, accepts these artifacts as genuine but attributes the larger statue to the ships. He also seems to imply that more votive figures in the BM are from Nemi than are attributed as such in the online catalogue. He illustrated 4 female figures as if they come from Nemi but only one is listed by the BM as such at least now. One of the three arrived at the museum in 1873 (BM G_1873-0820-64). I’ve not tracked down the other two in the BM catalogue, mostly because of poor internet connectivity on this train.
Here’s my reference image from the Devoti volume. A shame it is blurry, I was working too fast and figured books were lower priority than archival papers.
Before you ask, I have no idea the legal issues around these objects. My goal is simply to share what I know and let others work the rest out.
It looks a great deal like the London votives and not like any votive I’ve seen from Nemi for the quality and level of detail. I hate to say it but I see why some in 1909 thought these might be forgeries.
I’m guessing they didn’t know the photos below or they could have been absolutely confident that this votive is from the Spink 1908 sale.
In 1941 Poulsen suggested that these statues were evidence of looting at the site of Nemi between the last excavation of Orsini (1895) and the first government lead excavations of Morpurgo (1924-1928). The statue group were published as genuine by Reinarch in 1909.
Interestingly Poulsen seems unambiguous about connecting the bronzes to the temple of Diana, NOT the ships sunk in the lake, but Reinarch clearly thinks the ships are the true provenance as Spink reports. I wonder what Poulsen knew or if t was just a guess.
Reinarch ends his article with a plea for legal excavations as a means of stopping the illegal looting.
I have reason to believe that the statue and statuettes in the Spink collection are not the only antiquities salvaged from these waters to have found their way to England. However, given the laws governing archaeological excavations in Italy, it is inevitable that beautiful objects—discovered and transported in secret—reveal their true origins only belatedly, if indeed they do not lose or alter their provenance entirely along the way. Such are the results—deplorable for the advancement of science—of a seemingly draconian body of legislation (albeit one tempered, in practice, by negligence and other factors). It bars foreign learned societies from conducting systematic research—even when they pledge to forgo any claim to their discoveries—thereby leaving the field open to less altruistic researchers who, in unearthing and carrying off the treasures of the Roman past, are, after all, merely doing their job.
The Bronze from Nemi. Following a report in the *Evening Express* stating that the King of England had seen and admired the bronze statue from Nemi—which was featured in a previous issue of the *Revue* (Plates XI–XII)—an anonymous writer in the *Corriere della Sera* (January 7, 1910) saw fit to cast doubt not only upon the provenance but also upon the authenticity of this figure. As for the provenance, Messrs. Spink possess documents that they have not shown to me, and which they will disclose only to a prospective buyer; this is a consequence of Italian laws regarding the export of antiquities. As for the authenticity, it cannot appear doubtful to anyone who has seen the original; such, however, is not the case with the *Corriere* writer, who—knowing nothing else, moreover, about the history of this object—missed a golden opportunity to remain silent.
What I love here is the bald-faced admission that Spink had proof they were flaunting Italian law and the scholar blames the law, not the auction house!
The circular display in the photography is non-sense, but the objects could be genuine. My first thought is the meter-high statues from San Casciano. It would be very interesting be able to compare this statue to those. If only, it was in an Italian collection.
I wonder where the large statue is now. I am resisting the urge to go hunt for it.
Based on the hand and arm position, if I had to guess I’d say the large female statue represents a woman spinning wool, and thus might be one of the fates.
Liv Mariah Yarrow 