Both Crawford nor Haeberlin seem to derive their knowledge of this hoard primarily from the odd account by prof. Michele Stefano de Rossi who is obsessed with the possibility of eruption of the Alban hills in the historical period (to my knowledge this is non-sensical).
Machine translation with some human intervention
From Annali 1871, p. 262
In 1848 the late P. Marchi purchased for the Kircherian Museum a hoard of primitive coins and aes rude found near Ariccia, which was then said to have been found under the peperino or inside a boulder of this rock. But since this fact was not published at the time and the news for me depended on verbal traditions nor, as far as I knew, there was any connection between the treasure and the pottery from Lazio, I had not yet hurried to ascertain the true circumstances of the find, without, however, losing sight of the fact that it could become a very important day. …
—
For the discovery of 1848 I found that a dispute arose between the municipality of Àriccia and the prince Chigi, the owner of the land. This led to numerous correspondence and appraisals and studies; which form a copious collection of documents in the provincial archives of the region. From these documents I learned not only the precise place and the method of the discovery — the enlargement of the via della Cupella* below Ariccia — but also the names of the workers and of the others; who intervened at work, from whom I was able to learn very precious details of the discovery. Without going into the difficult and thorny account of the investigations I made, the result of these was as follows.
To widen the said road located at the bottom of the slope of the hill towards the arid valley not far from the modern large bridge,** the rock was cut on the side of the mound and there among the earth below the layer of peperino was piled up the monetary treasure, made up of several currency bars, many semisses, some quadrantes and many aes rude. Fortunately the aes rude, less studied from the point of view of form, has not been too carefully cleared of the earth; and although 26 years have passed, being kept under crystal, it still retains the traces visible to the naked eye, but better with the lens, demonstrating that those metals were excavated among the volcanic ash of the Alban hills, not among the vegetable earth.
* – no road of this name exists today, but if it should read Cupetta, this might represent the approximate find spot. Big if.
** – Ponte Monumentale di Ariccia?
I was then able to persuade myself from the research done on the spot; that at a very small distance from the point where the treasure lay, that is about thirty paces towards the base or from the valley and within the same layer of clayey yellow ash, a few years before the discovery of which reason, a large amount of the usual coarse and blackish Latin pottery was found , the containers were broken and scattered. So I am certain that the pottery and the coins lay in the same layer. However if some scholar here does not want to rely too much on my investigations into the close relationship between the hoard and the crockery; he may suspend his judgment and await the end of the present reasoning. Having said that, here is the description of the treasure kindly communicated to me by ch. P. Tongiorgi successor of P. Marchi in the direction of the Kircherlano museum. I found another report identical to the one I am producing in the aforementioned series of documents in the archives of the province.
- Quincussus (Five Pound Bar) with imprint of an elliptical shield, cut in one face in the greatest length and width by a kind of cross open in the center, enlarged in the four extremities in the form of a cone; cut it on the other side by a boss resembling a spindle which extends to the entire length of the shield. (This quincusse is in the cabinet of ancient medals of the MbL of Paris. [not in GALLICA. – others say it is in Kichner = Rome Coin Cabinet])
- Another similar quicussus released from the casting process less perfectly than the previous one with a metal defect, so that at the top of the shield the air and the light pass from one side to the other
3. Fragment of quincussus with the imprint of the parazonium (short sword) on one side and the respective scabbard on the other. If one keep the grip with part of the parazonium on one face and the end of the scabbard is on the other. It is square, and represents three-fifths of the whole.
4. Another fragment of a rectangular currency bar, with two dolphins on one side and a leafless twig on the other. It is truncated at both extremities of its length, but it lacks little inside.
5. Another small fragment which on one side looks like the tripod of a candelabrum and on the other without imprint. The magnitude is less than the third of the whole. [RRC 6/1 or RRC 10/1?]
6. As with two-faced clean shaven obverse, head of Mercury left on the reverse. It should be noted that at the moment of the discovery the little treasure had at least three similar ones. [RRC 14/1]
7. Semis with an ox’s head to right and ship’s prow, also to the right. [Praeneste type?]
8. Three similar trientes with dolphin and four globes on right, thunderbolt and four globes on right. [RRC 14/3]
9. Two similar quadrantes with open hand and three globes to the right, two shuttles or barley grains with globes [RRC 14/4]
10. Thirty-nine pieces of different proportions and unformed bronze, which it seems should be taken for aes rude as found in the deposit with the currency bars [aes signatum] (There is no doubt that these bronze pieces are true aes rude. The inferred study was compiled at the time of its discovery during the aforementioned question regarding the property.)
I will not talk about the combination in this hoard of the various kinds of money with the aes rude, nor about anything else of archaeological interest found in that coin group. Here it is enough for me to have verified the relationships of the coins with volcanic ash and of the coins with Lazio vases, and given the description of the numismatic series to which they pertain …
NOTICE nowhere in any of this is a mention of this bar which Haeberlin says is also from Ariccia (see previous post).
Haeberlin says he can see no trace of the writing on his shield/shield bar which should be the same as that found at Ariccia with the hoard BUT …
Within a year of the discovery Garrucci was already claiming that it had such an inscription:
“… the whole name, which I have read on a quadrilateral bar recently discovered there, and which I will publish in its place”
A claim he doubles down in for his later treatment:
The type of shield was found in the Guadagni specimen cited by Lanzi, now in the British Museum (Catal. p. 2127): I give here engraved one of the two specimens that came to the Kircheriano from the Aricela hoard, the other passed to the Marquis G. Durazzo. On its faces this one bears the legend ARICI [reversed] traced with a stick by the modeler on the clay (see my History of Isernia Naples, 1848 page 182). We cannot deduce whether this epigraph was made for leisure or to indicate the mint. I remind readers of the name of Macoluia scratched on the inside face of one of the feet of the famous Praenestine cista of the Kircheriano; which was not believed (Ilist. de la monn. t. 1 page 187 ed. Blacas), but which was demonstrated to be true and engraved in the Diss. archeol. (vol. 1 plate XI, 21). The bronze in the British Museum weighs 1623.30 grams, equal to four pounds and ten ounces; ours weighs 1580 grams, equal to 4 pounds, 8 ounces and 8 grams. The shape of the two shields is elliptical; in the first a there is a representation of the umbo which extends to the right and left in the form of a reinforcing rib. Similar to this is the shield used by the Gauls and known from several monuments. The second shield b bears four lightning bolts which start from a globe placed in the centre towards the periphery. Something analogous can be seen on the reverse of a bronze coin from Agyrium in Sicily known to Eckhel and printed by Avellino {Royal Museum of Bourbons tome XII plate XXIX, (1, Naples, 1839); who noted that this symbol had not received a satisfactory explanation, and that Eckhel had not mentioned it; Mionnet {Descript, t. 1, p. 217) called it a cross, and Poole called it a four-spoked wheel (in Catal. Sicilij p. 25), but the circle of the wheel is missing in the copy published by Avellino; and the quadrilateral cannot be said to be a wheel, because it is oval.
Machine translation of above.
Crawford CHRR suggests that Haeberlin’s bar is in Berlin. If true maybe the possible inscription could be revisited with better imaging technology.
Pizzamiglio 1857 says clearly that the discovery was part of the efforts to create the bridge foundation.
Update 9-2-26
Durazzo Bar (Ratto Sale 1896) purchased by Haeberlin. The sales catalogue does not list find spot, whereas it does say the aes rude offered is from Vicarello. Haeberlin photographed casts, whereas this is a photograph of the object itself.
I think I’ve squared the circle on Garrucci vs Haberlin’s testimony.
The Cast definitely doesn’t look like the object had an inscription.
But if you want to squint at this photo I think you can see the surface marks that made Garrucci believe it sai ARICI
Here’s the same photo upside down. I see what looks ICI backwards. I think this is an optical allusion but it still makes Garrucci optimistic rather than a liar and Haeberlin more keen eyed and pragmatic in his interpretations. Humans are TOO good at pattern recognition we can see letters or faces in almost anything.
Liv Mariah Yarrow 
2 thoughts on “Ariccia 1848 discovery”