A follow up to the reverse analysis. See previous post for earlier bibliography. Again I offer two reference photos to help illustrate engraving variations but it is best to train one’s eye on numerous specimens, not just one or two.
I dealt with prosopography back in 2023, so I’ll leave that alone. Suffice to say the family is well enough connected to the region and site of Nemi to make the association of types with that sanctuary plausible. Orthographically notice the deliberately tall I. Grueber noted this in 1910 as a key feature as the tall I replaced EI as a means of indicating a long-i. Isn’t that fun? Reminds me of our convos about apices. Orthography matters.
Massa-Pairault, Françoise-Hélène. “Diana Nemorensis, déesse latine, déesse hellénisée.” Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de l’École Française de Rome LXXXI (1969): 425-471. Doi: 10.3406/mefr.1969.7581 [open access!]
Massa-Pairault aptly uses this head as a point of comparison.
Beyond the hair the short forehead (eyes to high up the face), the large eyes and line like eyebrows all make excellent parallels.
The bronze head has short hair and suggests to me the depiction of a young man. The coin obverse image has a cloth covering one I might call a sakkos, the bust clearly wears a chiton with no over garment or jewellry visable
The large amount of bust shown on the obverse might itself be considered Italic (one post, another post)
Compare especially numismatic representations of Feronia and what I propose to call Aequitas. I really should publish this material properly I’m realizing.
I’d point to the following other busts on the republican coin series as particularly “Italic” in style.
So I’ve got a number of posts from early in 2023 on this type, but I never really made up my mind about it. And, that has started to bother me as I have some up coming talks where I need to contextualize my particle accelorator investigations of Nemi material and that means giving an overview of the cult site. In sum in 2023 I went back and looked at old pre-Crawford iconographic interpretations and didn’t like any of them. Prosopographically, I was satisfied that the moneyer might want to celebrate the cult at Nemi. Also I am inclined to follow Woytek on making the date of the coin later chronologically.
Crawford follows this interpretation.
Massa-Pairault, Françoise-Hélène. “Diana Nemorensis, déesse latine, déesse hellénisée.” Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de l’École Française de Rome LXXXI (1969): 425-471. Doi: 10.3406/mefr.1969.7581 [open access!]
I’ll do a deep dive but as a matter of principle I better start with reading the iconography on my lonesome.
Reverse first. Examples of two specimens. I also used the Schaefer Archive images to train my eye on the variations with in the depictions to distinguish what was key to the design and what might be a simple engraving variation.
There are three figures facing the viewer. All three have what appear to be plant material coming from their heads but the representation is does not have any precise parallels with any other trees on the Roman coin series. On some interpretations they could be standing in front of trees. We might also consider if something other than plant material might be intended by the artist. Perhaps fire or flames? The central figure has a much larger bush emerging her head than the other two figures. This may mark her as more important or may be dictated by the circular composition. All three figures have tight cloth around their legs with a strong central seam or line. The geometric fabric folds create an arrow like patter pointing upwards and echo the downward lines of the decoration on top of the heads.
There is a strong horizontal line that seems to be behind the necks of the three figures. On some specimens it appears to rest on their shoulders an they hold it up with their hands. Some have interpreted this as a wall from behind which the plants or trees appear. Between the three women emerge two larger tree-like elements from the horizontal line directly above where their hands meet.
The central and right hand figures have the same costume with breasts clearly visible and vertical lines come down from theme to suggest a further layer of drapery. The left hand figure has a different top. No breasts are depict and instad there is a strong sweeping line of cloth from her left shoulder down to below her right hip. In her right hand she holds what is reasonably interpreted as a bow. The right hand figure holds an uncertain object that might be a stylized flower with three petals above the hand and a stem curving away.
Brit.Mus.Cat., Smith, Sculpture III Nr. 1715 Arachne
This clearly suggests a relationship between the sanctuary and trees, as do the more poetic references by Vergil and Ovid (topostext link)
There are numismatic depictions of the three-faced goddess similar to the statues shown above and closely linked with iconography on gems.
Halicarnassus under HadrianTomis under Julia MamaeaCARC 40003336, Edinburgh Tassie, 694, STATUE OF A THREE BODIED HEKATE ON A LOW BASE, HOLDING TORCHES, BOWS, ONE HEAD WEARING A CROWN OF RAYS, ONE A CRESCENT MOON AND STARS, ONE A LOTUS (?), SIX STARS, Unpublished Tassie, TRAY 11.1
It has as a central focal point a depiction of three women side by side. The style is very different but it still suggests to me that three Nemi cult might have emphasized the three distinct aspects of the goddess.
Among votives depicting a goddess from the sanctuary the vast majority show a young woman in a short chiton, Diana in the garb of a huntress.
But there is enough variation in the depiction of presumed goddesses to permit us to speculate that the triple aspects of the goddess was part of the local cult.
In the image below note the triangular relief. The one that has been defaced is clearly diana the huntress. Does this make the one on right another aspect of the same goddess?
Also those apices/spikes coming out of their heads! Is this just for the purposes of the triangular composition? An artistic variation or something specific to the cult at this site? Could it be a stylized version of those trees popping out of the heads on the coins?
Update: Two of these antefixes made it to Copenhagen. Once again proving my rule to always buy the museum catalogue. I feel so glad for past-me acquiring these books.
There is very little that I’ve seen from the Nemi sanctuary that suggests an inclination towards archaizing, but there is one little figure that we’ve presumed to be archaic, but now checking my pXRF readings I see at least on surface it reads nearly identical to all of the figural bronze votives in a more hellenistic style.
This is my own study photo. I cannot grant permission for secondary use.Blue equals average copper in bronze figurative votives, Orange lead, grey tin. Yes, this is suspiciously like the aes grave and yes it is my work hypothesis there is a meaningful connection here, but I need more better scientific readings before I believe and publish this. The little archaic/archaizing votive is Cu 45% Pb 24% Sn 30% .
Also notice the archaizing votive has something stiking out the top of the head. If I was being poetic I might call it a rising full moon.
The other evidence for archaizing is the portrait herm of Fundilia
I’m totally enchanted by her side view and how pointy this hair style is.
I do not know the date of this image and thus am not confident it is in the public domain.
So taken all together I’m more and more comfortable endorsing the identification of the three women as three aspects of Diana as worshipped at Nemi.
Notice the front most statue has something pointy almost like a lotus flower coming from her head while the other two seem to have crescent moons. The acroteria on the column and on the bridge in the background are clearly meant to evoke truly archaic terracotta architectural elements in a similar style.
Comparative iconography from Powers, Roman Landscapes (2023):
I think the catalogue is incorrect that there are only 2 statues in the scene of Diana bathing I think the figure I’ve outline in blue is Diana the huntress with her bow.
The prevalence of triple statues of Hekate/Diana/Selene need not surprise us. Her cult is associated with wild places and thus fits nicely into Roman preferences in landscape painting. They need not all be coded as “Nemi” but they do help us see that the coin would be readily interpreted as associated with this tripartate divinity.
Full entry of inscription in Imagines Italicae below.
I am the well [enclosure] of Cupra Mater; the cistern was built at a cost of 159 nummi under the maronate of V. Varius, son of L., and of T. Fullonius, son of C.
Sacred objects could not be removed from sanctuaries. This created a problem. You want to spiffy up the place and make new exciting BETTER dedications and buildings for your super cool patron god(dess), but where does the old stuff go? A pit. We’ve talked about this on the blog I’m sure, but maybe not specifically.
This inscription was the mouth to such a pit so more old dedications could be hidden a way by dropping them through the opening into the cistern. Safely out of sight but still in in the custody of the divine and on sacred land.
UPDATE: All this above is true in the abstract, but I’m going to defer to Francesco Marcattili’s interpretation of the cult site. Near the end of this post you’ll find quotes in translation from his 2017 article summarizing his interpretation.
Cupra is the name of both a goddess and places dedicated to her; Strabo even tells us that this is the Etruscan named for Juno. (Topostext)
The yellow dot is where the inscription was found. The blue dots are two communities identified with the name Cupra. Cupra Maritima and Cupra Montana.
The page numbers in the citation to the original publication are incorrect but I was still able to easily find it.
In the original publication it is compared to an inscription in Assisi:
This Assisi inscription is dated to 140-101 BCE while Crawford places the Fossato di Vico inscription c. 150 BCE based on letter forms. The letter forms of the two inscriptions are completely different.
The original transcription
I’m curious about what was found in the cistern itself. Crawford mentions architectural elements. I’ve ILLed the 1940 re excavation. There is a publication that tempts me but it is more a fancy not a desire. I’m not sure it is worth having it shipped via ILL, but I’ll try to consult when I’m next at ICS.
Maurizio Matteini Chiari, Antiquarium di Fossato di Vico. Materiali archeologici, iscrizioni, sculture, elementi architettonici, ceramica, monete. Electa Editori Umbri [2007], Perugia, 2007 Con 363 illustrazioni in b/n e a colori n.t. Catalogo regionale dei beni culturali dell’Umbria Numero di tavole: 363 pp.315 altezza 0 larghezza 0 Esemplare in buone condizioni.Copertina con leggero ingiallimento, alcune macchie di polvere e minimi segni di usura ai bordi e agli angoli.Pagine leggermente ingiallite ai bordi.Testo in Lingua Italiana.
The purpose of this post is to think what N(ummi) would mean to someone in this part of Italy in the mid 2nd Century BCE. Is the unit of account some form of AS. Is this suggesting 15.9 denarii? That seems to low doesnt it? Surely it cost more to have the pit dug and lined and bronze plaque attached to the well head even if that is humble terracotta.
So are they thinking in denarii did this enterprise cost 159 denarii? That seems a great deal. How big is this cistern!?
I was expecting more hoards from north central, Umbria, Etruria… Funny. I’m guessing a reporting problem.
I think I want to think more about what the heck nummi might mean in this period in this part of Italy. I find I still have a question mark in my brain. Post hannibalic war there is no more local coinage in Italy it is all Roman.
Puzzling.
Marcattili, Francesco. “Il santuario di Cupra a Fossato di Vico.” Studi Etruschi 80 (2017): 115-129.
A re-examination of the excavations at Aja della Croce reveals that the artifacts consistently point to the presence of a sanctuary at the site, featuring an area dedicated to ritual ablutions—specifically, a small shrine housing a wellhead situated above an underground cistern. These structures played a significant role in the female rituals associated with the cult of the goddess Cupra—rituals similar to those dedicated to Venus and Bona Dea—while the ancillary rooms within the sanctuary complex, though not sacred spaces themselves, reflect the domestic and feminine dimensions of the cult.
Notes:
“The sanctuary developed on a system of artificial terraces built on a hill overlooking the Via Flaminia. In Roman times it was situated within the territory of the statio of Helvillum.”
“…the rituals performed in the sanctuary, rituals that followed liturgical customs comparable to those of Bona Dea and Venus”
“at Fossato di Vico that we can identify clear archaeological confirmation of Varro’s famous expression cyprum Sabine bonum, a phrase rich in historical and religious implications which suggests, on a theological level, the identification of the goddess Cupra—defined by Asinius Pollio as Veneris antistita (“attendant of Venus”)—with the Roman Bona Dea.”
The Vicus Cyprius ‘Good Row,’ from cyprum, because there the Sabines who were taken in as citizens settled, and they named it from the good omen: for cyprum means ‘good’ in Sabine.
Vicus Cyprius a cypro, quod ibi Sabini cives additi consederunt, quia bono omine id appellarunt: nam cyprum Sabine bonum.
Varro LL 5.159
De Melo 2019: 784-785 affirms in his commentary that Varro is correct in his etymology here and draws a connection as well to the Umbrian goddess.
The Asinius Pollio fragment is from a late grammarian Charisius, one whose manuscripts are full of unfortunate lacunae.
From Pierce 1922: 33 who claims on p. 48 that Cupra is archaic and thus reveals Pollio’s fondness for such things. This is his only surviving (half) line of poetry.
“a cistern lined with cocciopesto (fig. 1, A), intended for water storage. At the time the sacred area was abandoned, the cistern was transformed into a deposit for heterogeneous architectural and ceramic materials.”
Wikipedia: “Its main advantage over opus caementicium was that it is waterproof, the reason for its widespread use in Roman baths, aqueducts, cisterns and any buildings involving water. In floors it provided damp-proofing.”
“Stefani suggested that this terracotta fragment originally belonged to the mouth of the cistern itself. Traces of mortar adhering to the external surface of the fragment support the hypothesis that it formed part of a masonry parapet marking the cistern’s opening.”
“Micheletti—the landowner who conducted the 1869 excavation—recorded that additional fragments of the terracotta structure were found. These appeared to belong to a cylindrical, slightly truncated-conical vessel, around 60 cm in diameter and approximately 50 cm tall, notably without a base. This strongly suggests that the object functioned as a terracotta puteal (puteal fittile).”
“The Doric capitals and column drums found inside the cistern at Fossato di Vico—made of travertine and belonging to two Doric columns—likely formed the architectural elements of a structure designed to frame and monumentalize the puteal and underlying cistern. Given their modest height, these columns probably belonged to a tholos or monopteros, undoubtedly roofed, as confirmed by the presence of tiles.”
“Such a structure would have visually and symbolically emphasized the sacred nature of the water contained within the cistern. Similar installations are known from the Roman Forum (marking the mundus), from Pompeii’s Doric Temple in the Forum Triangulare, and from the sanctuary of Fortuna Primigenia at Palestrina, where a tholos marked an underground oracular cavity.”
“The Umbrian term bio, present in the inscription, corresponds semantically to the Latin saeptum. Its etymology connects it to Indo‑European roots meaning “to enclose” or “to confine.” The bio of Cupra Mater, therefore, was likely a deliberately enclosed sacred structure—specifically the puteal and its protective architectural frame.”
“At Fossato di Vico itself, Stefani identified two large contiguous basins lined with cocciopesto near the cistern. Their size, waterproof construction, and associated loom weights emphasize the female, domestic, and ritual character of the cult space.”
Further bibliography to explore
Paci, Gianfranco. “Dall’umbro al latino: i frammenti ceramici a v. n. iscritti dal santuario di Cupra a Colfiorito.” Picus 42 (2022): 109-118.
An analysis of twelve graffiti dating to the 3rd–2nd centuries BC—inscribed in the Latin alphabet but featuring gentilicia bearing the Umbrian genitive singular ending “-ie(s)”—reveals a phase of Romanization that was still in its early stages. While the link to Roman colonization remains valid, black-gloss pottery—both as a consumer good and a trade commodity—could also find its way into the hands of individuals lying outside the scope of that process.
So you will not be executed at the end of the interview, I promise. Right there you’re better off than Louis XVI and family. [Link to image source]. Also you’re probably a better person with more interesting ideas and brighter future than any one depicted on this medal.
Some people like to wing it, some people like a road map. No judgements. This is the type of advice I typically give to those who want concrete suggestions. Definitely not fixed in stone.
Ask those offering the interview if they have any specific advice on how to prepare to make the most out of your time in conversation together. It is often now considered best practice not only to ask all candidates the same questions, in some cases interviewers may even send a sample list of questions ahead of time, but not all programs or interviewers are this formal. Even if questions are provided, interviews remain spontaneous and you may be asked follow-up or individual questions specific to your application.
Ask if it would be appropriate for you to be in contact with any of their present graduate students to discuss the program and to ensure you’re well informed about the student experience. You may also work your network and your mentors’ networks to look for those who may have been through the program or its interviews previously.
Most interviews start with a softball question. “Tell me about your self”, “Tell us more about your research interests”, “tell us more about why you want to study here”. The goal of this answer is to show you can be succinct and direct using concrete examples to illustrate your answer. Keep you answer to about 2-3 minutes max unless they specifically tell you they want longer. End with something like “did that answer get at the question? Would you like me to elaborate on anything?”
Keep a notebook near you during the interview and take notes as you are asked questions. It can help to nod and smile as you take notes. Once the interviewer finishes talking, if you have any doubts about what they want (academics can ramble!), look up and paraphrase the question back to them. “So it would be helpful for me to share something about…”. Pause to get confirmation or redirection and then answer.
Prior to the interview prepare 12 notecards. On one side write a concrete experience (a specific paper, or class, or presentation, or group work, or part of a trip…), on the back of the card list all the ways that experience exemplifies your skills and aptitude. Things that the interviewers may want to know about you (resilience, ability to take feedback, adaptability, ability to work independently, depth of research, overcoming personal challenges, sustaining a research interest over a long period and across projects, connecting ideas and disciplines, asking for help etc…)
Ask a trusted mentor to set up a mock interview with experienced interviewers who can give you feedback on your skills and also things like body language and camera background.
Research your interviewers. If possible ask others who may know them about their conversational style. There may be YouTube clips of them giving talks. You don’t have to watch the whole thing, but you may find it comforting to see their mannerisms and typical tone of voice ahead of the interview itself.
After the interview, send a short thank you note email, saying you are happy to answer any further questions and look forward to hearing from them.
Almost all interviews ask you about a time you overcame a challenge or dealt with a difficult situation or your greatest weakness. Anticipate this.
Almost all interviews end with the interviewers asking you to if you have any questions for them. Prepare two or three. Ask only one or two max.
Medal honoring the visit of the Qing Dynasty imperial viceroy to Hamburg in 1896. Li Hung Chang was an diplomat and politician who rose to prominence during the waning years of the Ching Dynasty. He strove to undertake reforms in China, and was a zealous defender of Chinese interest in an era of tremendous power disparity between China and the Western Powers and Japan. In 1896 he undertook a goodwill tour of Europe, the United States, and Canada. During this visit he attended the coronation of Nicholas II in Russia, spent time in Hamburg, witnessed a Royal Naval review in England, and gave a famous interview with the New York Times. He died in 1901 after nearly 50 years of service to the Qing Dynasty, and only a decade before the end of the Empire of China. {text from auction catalogue}
Eisenberg, Michael, Arleta Kowalewska, and Gregor Staab. 2026. “Learn! – A New Type of Inscription on a Sling Bullet from Hippos of the Decapolis.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly, March, 1–5. doi:10.1080/00310328.2026.2641294.
Regular readers of this blog will know my love of glans, esp. those with inscriptions (earlier posts).
In the press (not the article) another type of sling bullet from the same site is illustrated that with the scorpion. Thunderbolts (fulmen) I know of as a bullet symbol from the Western Mediterranean but scorpions feel new to me in this context but v fitting given their regular appearance on intaglios and as secondary symbols on coinage.
Drawing of a Sling Bullet from Athens, with a proper name: ΚΛΕΟΝΙΚΟΥ (BM image), just to remind us drawings are a useful part of the archaeological archive (and I like them)
In the BM’s modest collection of such bullets (47 from the Classical World), scorpions are well attested (5 from Kamiros, 1 from the Nile Delta, 1 Kalavarda, 1 from Corfu).
Thanks to a comment by John B. Van Sickle I had the opportunity to read this 2022 post. I find myself largely in agreement with your line of thought. Regarding the engraved plates in the early numismatic literature, which may have influenced certain forgers, there are indeed several documented examples of this phenomenon ( https://www.biddr.com/astarte/auction?a=6047&l=7450876 ). As for the structure and material of the moulds: some time ago I came across a cast as that showed a very peculiar mould trace on the reverse: it almost looked as if there had been a supporting strip, or more likely a repair patch in the mould matrix. This is a feature I had never encountered before and one that would be difficult to reconcile with stone moulds ( https://www.numisbids.com/sale/1573/lot/350 ).
Screenshot of Pancotti’s first shared link.Screenshot of Pancotti’s second shared link
His comment is too valuable to be lost in the bowels of this blog. And frankly, I’d forgotten about that 2022 post and how much it captures my thinking before I started my metallurgical analyses. All these questions I was asking are still very much part of why I’ve been writing (and winning!) grants.
A correction. The coin from the Badian collection the one I was sure was a forgery, tested just fine under pXRF analysis. It fits comfortable in with a body of surface readings from specimens presumed to be genuine. Yes, I nearly fell out of my chair when those readings came in and re ran it again and again until I was certain. That doesn’t mean it is genuine. The only way to be sure a coin is real to for it to come out of a documented undisturbed archaeological context. However, what this did teach me is that style and stylistic variation are not reliable means alone of judging authentication. A good forger can emulate style. (Becker to name one of the greatest.) A good forger can melt down old coins to make a better fake. (I worry about this with disputed Brutus Aureii a great deal.).
The reverse proudly proclaims that to honor Joseph Eckhel with this medal in 1880 the society MELTED DOWN ANCIENT BRONZE COINS to create this new piece. This is perhaps one of the only numismatic artifacts I covet. I want one to pull out and hand to students when discussing the ethics of antiquities and how they have evolved over time. (link to specimen)
I’ll want to think more about that above miscast more once we get to experimental archaeology and attempts to replicate the casting process of aes grave once we’re satisfied we know the original recipe. Maybe, hopefully, after this next set of experiments in May at Isis. Right now based on surface analyses and preliminary muonic xray results were pretty sure we know the approximate admixture and are confident it has almost the same if not more lead than tin. So much lead the admixture isn’t a true alloy and that it is very hard until we have more data to model how cooling will have effected readings at different depths. The other major question from experimental archaeology will be replicating the quelching process for the aes grave. In the air? with water? In the mold? Does the mold retain heat? It is even possible that heat was used to slow the cooling process in some way like is common now in modern glassblowing for large heavy pieces.
Why yes! My almost 11-year-old kiddos did just make glass paper weights yesterday and we cannot pick them up until Wednesday as they have to sit in the kiln to cool properly for the colors to form and cracking not to occur. And yes, the whole time I watched all I did was think about ancient manufacturing processes.
If there was a way to search replace my whole blog for spue to sprue, I would. It is one of my worst and most insidious typos. And yet, there ya go. I am a typo-queen.
Now one more pesky thought.
I’ve been worried for a while about an unusual RRC 25/1 sold in the Hirsch 1914 auction and illustrated by both Marchi and Garruccii in drawings. I’ve held what I believe to be this coin, now in a private collection.
Now I’m wondering if the specimen might derived from a bad drawing in a catalogue!?!? Not a happy thought. But again no archaeological context no real way to authenticate anyway. We can just say unusual style.
I still want to know how the Hirsch sale ended up with so many coins that probably should be in the National collection at Rome…. There is 100+ year old mystery of how exactly stuff moved from Museo Kircheriano to new places… One day I’ll dig up answers. Or perhaps someone will save me the time and just clue me in!
A reader of this blog sent me a present. I had no idea how massively heavy these volumes were. And they come with little ribbon bookmarks! In autumn of 1999 Crawford took me and two other grad students around Lucania. It was perhaps where I learned the joy of the local museum and largely unloved and deserted remote archaeological sites. The trip shaped me. Rossano di Vaglio was one of those sites.
I am so grateful and excited for all the things I will learn and share from this second (third?) Crawford masterpiece.
Inde ab eo anno, quo Cn. et P. Lentuli consules fuerunt, cum deficerent vectigalia, tum centum millibus hominum tum pluribus multo frumentarias et nummariás tesseras ex aere et patrimonio meo dedi.
Res Gestae 18
Beginning from the consulship of Gnaeus and Publius Lentulus, when there was a shortfall in revenues, I furnished TESSERAE for grain and coin from my own money and patrimony, sometimes to 100,000 people, sometimes to many more.
Res Gestae 18
I’m on a train and cannot check Clare Rowan’s book, but I very much want to think more of this passage. Why give out tokens in lieu of coins?! Why not just give out coins?!
Update from the library. Guess what? This is a case of a disputed reconstruction of a fragmentary text. Nothing in Rowan because most modern editions of the text use a different restoration. After my puzzlement at not finding it in her book I turned to her colleague Alison Cooley on the Res Gestae. Nothing in her commentary but a clear indication of where the Latin text does not survive and her prefered reconstruction.
…frume[ntarios et n]umma[rio]s t[ributus ex horr]eo et patr[i]monio…
The lacuna in bold another restoration is what got me all needlessly excited. So I needed anapparatus criticus to catch up on how we ended up with the now widely preferred reconstruction. My suspicion was that this was because of the Greek translation that also survives, but I wanted to see how I’d been misled by the internet.
Augustus, Jean Gagé, and Wilhelm Weber. Res gestae divi Avgvsti : ex monvmentis Ancyrano et antiocheno latinis : Ancyrano et Apolloniensi graecis : texte établi et commenté (avec un appendice et 4 planches hors-texte). [2d ed.]. Paris: Société d’éditions : Les Belles lettres, 1950. Print.
Gagé prefers the same reading of Cooley (as has basically everyone for a long while), but he reports (p. 106) a number of previously suggested alternatives
Mommsen 1883 wanted ‘tributus ex agro’
Wölfflin 1986 wanted ‘teseris diuisis ex patr…’
Craget 1919 and Schmidt 1887 both preferred the reading which I originally posted above.
Markowski 1932-1933 suggest ‘tabulas e fisco…’
As you can see the Greek is far better preserved and makes clear no tokens need be involved
Beckmann, Martin. “The Function of the Attribute of Liberalitas and Its Use in the Congiarium.” American Journal of Numismatics (1989-) 27 (2015): 189–98. https://www.jstor.org/stable/90017068
.
This specimen shows clearly the attendant at the ceremony keeping records with a stylus in hand.
The iconography remains incredibly consistent through out the empire. Liberalitas holds her money shovel high. (too often wrongly called a tessera in catalogues). The recipient(s) ascend the steps in a toga, often using the toga to collect their allotment of coin. The emperor is separate but present.
So when was the money shovel invented?! And what made it more convenient for Augustus to give out tesserae and then have a secondary collection point. The logistics of largess need work.
Also if there were a 100,000 plus such tesserae for any given distribution, surely some should survive?!
I was reading the Res Gestae for a totally different reason but got distracted by the above passage. ho. hum.
You can skip this post if my personal reflections aren’t your cup of tea. It is light on academics.
I’m back in London. I was supposed to be here end of March. That got complicated because of stuff back in the states. I promised the ICS a minimum of six weeks residency. They are very chill but I have an incredible compulsion to do what I say I will do. Hitting a full six weeks is extra challenging now that the weeks in May and June I’d marked out to be here have been further complicated by my experimental time slot. So my beloved and I sat down with the calendar Friday evening after the kids went to bed and looked week by week and found that if I flew out yesterday I’d be able to maximize my library time and meet most US based commitments both personal and professional. Secretly I believe he encouraged me to jump on a plane to improve my mood. It was a rough week in Brooklyn and I’ve been despairing of being an agent of positive change or even finding contentment in my work there. Nothing dramatic just a general sense that I lack efficacy within the system.
Love comes in many forms.
And, I think he was correct. I got so much done on the day flight more than I would have in any other location, from catching up on letters of reference for deserving students to banging out edits for a chapter for an edited volume I almost dropped out of. Then I slept 11 solid hours with good REM (I never dream except to process anxiety). I woke up with great joy to be here in a clean walk-able urban center that has touches of green even in February. Right now I’m in a public university cafeteria full of diverse faculty and students eagerly engaging in conversation with no sense of impeding doom or political collapse. The only conversations I expect to have with colleagues are about my research and theirs. Paradise.
Why am I writing. It is the photo above. I snapped it this AM. It brought me joy. Nourishing our fellow humans without question or judgement is one of my deepest ethical beliefs.
As soon as I snapped the photo and turned to continue my walk, I dramatically lost my balance. I do this a few times a year. Partly it is my neurological condition and partly it is the years of injuries to my joints from similar falls going back to early childhood. During one of the countless “special ed” assessments of my childhood, a therapist walked behind me while I was kneeling on a mat and shoved me over. She explained afterwards they had to test if I could catch myself and she was very sorry for having done that. Just one of the reasons I’m suspicious of therapists and avoidant of those who offer help. I was enrolled in gymnastics and dance as ‘fun’ O.T. , needless to say I sucked at these activities. My swim instructors quipped to my mother that they didn’t know someone could be ‘unbalanced’ ‘even in the water’.
Over a lifetime, I’ve accumulated dead bone matter in my ankles and numerous other abnormalities. People say I’m ‘careless’ or ‘clumsy’ or ‘spacy’ and I should ‘move with greater care’ or just be more ‘mindful’. I’ve given up every form of aerobic exercise above a slowish walk and the very occasional swim. I will no longer apologize for asking anyone I’m walking with to match their pace to mine. I wear shoe inserts that help some with balance and often strap on braces hidden by my boots to add an extra layer of protection. All of this has minimized debilitating injury. It has been probably 5 plus years since I’ve been in a boot or needed crutches.
Still I fall. I’m proud of this one. I let the phone go fast enough. In fact I threw it as I fell, many yards away. This let my hands be free and I was wearing a back pack over both shoulders (another safety procedure I practice). I fell so well that I broke no skin on my hands or knees. I spread my weight so completely that beside a minor ache in the wrist opposite the ankle that betrayed me, I’m fine. The crowds were huge (it was everyone eating and gathering to eat the free food), but I took a deep breath and didn’t rush to re assure them as they gathered. Pride has no place in these moments. I did a full body scan while still on the pavement assessing injuries and deciding what joints were weight bearing and slowly testing each one. As I got to my feet I smiled and assured everyone who had gathered I needed no assistance and then continued on my way even slower .
Each fall feels like a premonition of my final fall. The one that will leave me permanently disabled or dead. I’ve seen it in my minds eye for too long. I try to tell myself the research in to exoskeleton robotic tails will continue to develop and that I will be an ideal candidate for the prototypes. I will finally be a cyborg! Or maybe I’ll just get hit by bus and the end will be quick rather than indignantly slow.
Morbid I know. Anyway. All of which is to say I’m writing this because even the best fall leaves me mentally shaken and a little sore. I needed to write.
Humanity is good. And my falls keep me humble. I learn to see the goodness in those who gather to help. I celebrate these moments of generosity from confused strangers uncertain of what to do but ready to act.
In Spring 1999 in my first grad seminar with Fergus Millar and Robert Parker, I gave a presentation inspired by my future (at that time unknown to me scholar).
Clarke, Katherine. “In Search of the Author of Strabo’s Geography.” The Journal of Roman Studies 87 (1997): 92–110. https://doi.org/10.2307/301371.
I read this and thought, “this! exactly exactly this!” what I want to do with my PhD dissertation and I wanted to focus on Polybius. Within in the next 12 months I realized I couldn’t survive a thesis on Polybius, not because of the work, but because I needed to move on from my then-supervisor and his sexualized approach to mentorship (Thanks Fergus!). With the help of Michael Crawford and a conversation on the train platform of Benevento, I decided to throw myself into the Post-Polybian world. A world I have always seen through the lens of my first love of Polybius.
Today, I’m seeing if I can’t bang out a short chapter on Dionysius (another one) for a conference volume. I’m trying to capture something of how I read Dionysius by referring to past scholarship my own forthcoming work. I realized I want to cite this very first seminar presentation. Of course it was never published and it is more didactic, but wow, I’m pleased with my young mind. I’d have liked me as a student. That methods seminar also had Esther Eidinow and Luke Pitcher and Peter Liddel and others I’m sure others I should remember.
Handout
Speaking Notes
Not covering everything on the handout
Basic Bio:
Born circa 205
Megalopolis in Arcadia, part of the Achaean league
Father eminent statesman; raised with the expectation of reach high political office and influence
We’ll come to some of the details of his political and military career later.
In the aftermath of the 3rd Macedonian war, as a result of political rivalry with in Achaea and his family’s cool attitudes towards Rome’s intervention in the East, Polybius along with 1000 of other Achaeans was deported to Rome for ‘questioning’ and detained without resolution for 16 years.
Catalyst for writing career? Even suggested that the part of the history covering the 3rd Macedonian war began as his own detailed notes in preparation for examination in Rome on his own ‘anti-Roman’ actions.
Relationship with Scipios, come to later.
Travel
Return to Greece after the Achaean War and carried out the settlement imposed by the 10 Roman commissioners.
Thought it would be most interesting to skim through the obvious examples of self-expression, touching on just few points, and then focus on one famous example of the ambiguity and sophistication Polybius uses to express own opinions and motivations.
Plan of Histories was originally 30 books with the first 2 books serving as pre-history/extended introduction covering 264 to 220. The history proper covers book 3 through 29 down to 167. The last 10 books, well excluding book 40 which though wholly lost served as an index, followed events down to 145. Walbank has won acceptance for the idea that Polybius further sub-divided the last 10 books into those covering the period of un-contested Roman rule and those following his geographical excursus in 34, 150 following which he alludes to in book 3 as the point of turmoil from which he has to write as if starting over.
As you can see he has two separate introductions—most notable because he abandons the tradition of introducing himself as the author of the text. In fact he never does introduce himself though his self references seem to assume the audience is aware of his name and dual role. The closest he comes in the actual introductions is in III.5 where he points out that one of the reasons for ‘starting a fresh’ for the period of turmoil is his own personal involvement in those events. But to be honest, it is hard to see any drastic change in style in these last 4 books—this could of course be because of their fragmentary nature.
His other unusual feature is his variation between the narrative voice of the 1st person singular and the 1st person plural as well as discussing himself as a participant in events in the 3rd person. Clarke, in her Strabo article, suggests that the 1st person plural could be being used in an analogous way to the modern scientific passive voice in that it lends credibility by appearing unbiased, but it could also be seen as a way of identifying with the audience, which Polybius generally identifies as Greeks, but does express awareness of possible Roman readers. The variation between 1st and 3rd person is less confusing, Polybius tells us he does this for reasons of modesty, XXXVI.12, but any reader would conclude that the shift allows one to keep separate Polybius, the political figure, and Polybius, the historian. He also expresses concern over this duality of roles. This is seen in both XXXVI.1 and XXXVIII.4, cited on your handout under Voice as a Historian. And while it causes him to some personal conflict he also is a firm believer that only some one who participates in a type of activity can write about it (Book 12), as well as the need to limit the range of a history to that which reliable sources can be obtained, i.e. contemporary history. so it would seem that he thought his dual role should neither be uncommon among writers, nor an inconvenience.
It is however his dual nature both in the sense of being a write and a historian as well as being a Greek who associated and advised the Roman elite which causes modern historians so much concern of his own bias. Walbank, to whom most concede, suggests that Polybius shows pro-Achaean opinions from the beginning the end of the histories, but that in the last 10 books he also shows sympathy towards the Romans. It is also assumed that as an Achaean Polybius is anti-Aetolian, the traditional enemies of his league, and he does use seriously derogatory language through out the first part of the histories, but Sacks has shown that from the War with Antiochus onwards he sympathizes with this age old enemies. It almost seems as if upon assuming his identity in exile he changes from being an Achaean to being a ‘Greek.’ This can also be seen in his sympathy towards the Greeks for the Roman conquest of 146, but out rightly blames his own countrymen for bringing it upon them.
But more recently modern historians have set aside the simplistic question of where is his bias to looking for conscious techniques or trends in Polybius’ writing. Notably Eckstein who attempted to show an overall moralizing in the histories vs. a Machiavellian or pragmatic outlook. While, he is largely unconvincing on the moral basis for his observations he does extensively outline those places in the narrative where Polybius as the narrator interjects judgements or comparisons. There is much room for further discussion on these points of where Polybius’ opinions along side the chronological history. Davidson is also concerned with Polybius form of self expression; he used a modified definition of focalization to describe what he termed the ‘Gaze’ in the histories, namely allowing the reader to see events and characters from various vantage points.
Oddly enough in his discussion he does not touch upon possibly the most famous and controversial point at which Polybius uses the views of others within to supplement his record of events. This is XXXVI.9 which you have on your handout.
While you read count the number of opinions which Polybius differentiates
-break to read it-
There are normally thought to be 4 opinions, but a case may be made for a fifth. A variety of scholars have wanted do approach this text differently. One school of though assumes that one of the opinions is Polybius’
This include Walbank who supports the last one, based on its length and emphatic placement, and his inability to believe Polybius would be critical of an act, i.e. the destruction of carthage that he participated in.
Musti and Petzold disagree. And see support for the two middle negative opinions in the rest of the histories, namely Book X.36.2 where Polybius says same acts must be done to maintain and empire as to keep it and Book V.11.5 where Philip V is condemned for wonton distruction of cities he conquers. They also bring in ‘Polybian’ passage from Diodorus, but their origin is doubtful.
Others are less limiting in their view of the possibilities:
Eckstein briefly looks at it to try to find Polybius’ views on Carthage not Rome.
Momigliano suggests that while the majority of the history is intended to explain Rome to the Greeks this passage is part of a latter trend to explain Greeks to Rome. Fanciful?
Harris suggests that if all the opinions can be supported from the histories may be they all reflect part of Polybius’ thinking.
Ferrary does not commit to any one or all being owned by Polybius, but does fall up connections between the various opinions and other passages in the Histories.
Though, Davidson did not discuss this passage his technique of focusing on narration versus bias might lend him to agree with a view that the passage is a way to balance the Carthaginian perspective and the Roman perspective of the conflict and maybe even illustrate that with the development of its empire Rome has brought more participants into the discussion.
Any thoughts on this passage….
or any questions from parts of the handout I did not concentration….
Check:
The 38.4 I was meaning is, I think, 38.6 in Shuckburgh (Hultsch’s text). Along with that see 39.3 (39.14 in S., I think) and 39.5 (39.16 in S.) for Pol. being historically present (i.e. actually there at the time and doing). Other historiographical presences you’ve spotted, but the historical presences are interesting, too. A mix of the two kinds of presence in 3.22.4 and surely in 3.29.1 (n.b. the present tenses: he was there and listening); 31.25.5a (31.24.4 in S.) looks like another example of Pol. there and listening (I think Fergus is fond of that one; may be a ref. to it in his piece in JRS 1984, 1-19.). I’m inclined to believe that Pol. is unique in this way.
Liv Mariah Yarrow 
.jpg){kind=link}
