As I think about orientation of designs both relative and absolute, I’m now thinking of the open hand on RRC 14/4. It is always photographed with fingers pointing up but they could easily be shown pointed to the left and thus a right hand extended in a gesture of offering partnership like the Augustan coinage (RRC 546).
We might lean away from this option because of the open left hand on some of the other aes grave (RRC 21/4 and RRC 27/8), but I find it useful to consider about the assumptions we bring to the designs.
The ‘knuckbone’ is also called an Astragalus (or Talus in Humans).
I need to be able to describe the parts of the bone in order to describe the orientation of design and spues and other features of the individual coin specimens.
“Schematic diagram of the lateral outline of an astragalus rotating as a cam. The bold portion of the astragalar outline line shows the surface of the cam, comprising the lateral outline of the distal trochlea and the calcaneal (sustentacular) facet. The circle indicates the center of rotation at the transverse tarsal joint. Straight dashed lines indicate the distance between the axis of rotation and the calcaneus, which is represented by a simple rectangle. The system is shown in extreme dorsiflexion (A) and then in extreme plantarflexion (B) with resulting posterior displacement of calcaneus.”
Astragalar terminology. (A) Photograph of a Samotherium major (GMM 2002) astragalus in dorsal view, with representative terminology. (B) Samotherium major (GMM 2002) astragalus in ventral view, with representative terminology. The scale bar represents 50 mm. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0151310.g001
“A sheep astragalus (L7 5 1034; crate 4) showing clear signs of acid etching — probably the result of partial digestion in an animal’s (perhaps a dog) stomach. “
From DAvIS, SJM & GOnçAlvES, MJOS & Gabriel, Sónia. (2008). Animal remains from a Moslem period (12th/13th century AD) lixeira (garbage dump) in Silves, Algarve, Portugal. Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia. 11. 183-258.
So where does this leave me in my vocabulary. I think we can say on RRC 14/6 the knucklebone is shown on the plantar side, which we might also call the ventral or posterior view. I will consider the distinctive interarticular groove and related proximal triangular fossa to be indicative of the ‘top’ and use it as my primary reference point.
Interestingly this is by chance the second lowest scoring/most common throw in a game of chance.
Post started earlier this week but never published
I’m waiting for my next Haeberlin tray and thinking about where he sourced his coins and equally where the Nemi coins not in Nottingham… Haeberlin bought a number, but most went to Pasinati and we have no weights. Who was Pasinati? I must say I’m surprised at my lack of luck thus far satisfying my curiosity about his identity and how his portion of the Nemi material was likely dispersed.
I’m looking for traces of what he was known to have…
Garrucci included a piece from his collection in his supplement:
“From the collection of Pasinati, now in that of Mr. Pietro Stettiner. Fragment of a quadrilateral bar with a dolphin of archaic style on both sides, the first quadrilateral known to be found in Rome, it was raised from the waters of the Tiber precisely between Ponte Kotto and Ripa Grande, Pesa gr. 1460 equal to four pounds, four ounces and 12 grams. I take argument from the place given to the dolphin to believe that a similar dolphin must have been figured in the missing part. I say, because it was cut, because you can see a marked line and just above it the mark of the ax to arrange the bronze for the blow of the mallet. The entire quadrilateral must therefore have weighed an eight to nine pounds. It is notable that in this quadrilateral bar the thickness of the burr protruding between the two brackets is the same from top to bottom, and regular. There is so far no bronze of this class so elegant and symmetrical.” (Machine aided translation)
Given that it is in the supplement and not the main text we can perhaps assume it came to light in the early 1880s as Garrucci was finishing his work. And… yes, Haeberlin was able to see (or at least get a cast) of the bar itself and says it came out of the Tiber in 1883 and then was acquired by Gnecchi…
The drawing is much more attractive than the actual piece as is too often the way. I wonder where it is today? I’d love a better photograph. The Rome provenance is very important to associate this type of bar with the city and its monetary history.
Haeberlin records just one purchase from Pasinati in 1895, an RRC 18/1 piece. Notice however under no. 46 that Stettiner (a name familiar from just above!) sold Haeberlin one of his Nemi pieces. I wonder how much of the Nemi material ended up with Stettiner (someone else to track down).
He was already active by 1870 when he is mentioned for his possession a large bronze strigil with the handle in the shape of a woman recently excavated at Praeneste.
He also had a number of note worthy Cista from Praeneste (cf. Étude sur Préneste, ville du Latium, par M. Emmanuel Fernique v.17, p. 168-169).
I’ve now reweighed all of his semisses of RRC 14 and 18 and all the triens of 18 a total of 60 specimens. Three were gross outlier and I’ve excluded them. The first two were early yesterday and thus I suspect might be user error (i.e. me getting used the handwriting and scales etc…). The other was the last coin of today not in Haeberlin’s printed volume but with his handwritten weight on the specimen.
Of the 57 remaining weights the average difference from reweighing is .11%, BUT for a full half of the readings the difference falls between .07% and .1%. We might also note that in 50 of the 57 cases Haeberlin’s weight is slightly lower than the new weight. This trend in the data suggests that there is a simple very slight calibration error either of his scale or mine.
Long and the short of it is that I think we should trust his weights and I’m not sure it is worth my time to keep up my systematic reweighing.
—
Other thoughts. The Semisses of RRC 18 are more consistent in quality and character than those of RRC 14. Case in point, all of Haeberlin’s RRC 18/2 specimens have 12 o’clock design alignment, but while his RRC 14/2 has a a tendency towards 12 it is not stable at all:
The RRC 18/3s appear even more uniform in manufacture and fabric.
Another suggestive data trend is the difference in the number of spues for RRC 14/2 and RRC 18/2.
Of 16 specimens of RRC 14/2, 12 have only one spue, whereas just 4 have two.
Of the 19 specimens of RRC 18/2, 15 have two spues, where as just 5 have one.
I take this to be evidence of experimentation in the manufacture process to refine techniques, but I see no difference in the number of voids at least in quantification terms. I’d want to put the two trays out in front of me together, perhaps impossible, to eye ball if the quality of the casting seems different.
I also notice looking at all the RRC 18 semisses together a two different diameters. Most fall in the 48-50 mm range, but three are much bigger up at 55-58 mm. The wider ones also seem thinner. I want to keep an eye on this.
I’ve been spending time with Haberlin’s own aes grave collection here in Berlin. The really lovely thing about it is that I get to see many specimens of the same type at the same time to really get a feel for the characteristics and deep variation between the various specimens.
Many thoughts, too many for this blog post. But here is one. There is an uncanny similarity in size and shape between the wings of Pegasus on RRC 18/2 and the wing on Mercury’s helmet on RRC 14/1.
Also Haeberlin seems much more devoted to recording provenance for Asses than for smaller denominations. I have a strong suspicion that he acquired more of the Nemi material than his catalogue reports. I’d need to access his papers on some future trip to really know.
Finally thus far with only the occasional outlier (perhaps one specimen in 20) his weights are proving to be accurate against a modern well calibrated scale to a standard deviation of c. 0.4%. That is pretty darn accurate. But given the outliers which have been up to 6% difference, I feel I best keep re weighing as go.
I’m not even getting to his cast collection this trip–he tried to take a cast of every single aes grave he was not able to purchase that he ever help. Each cast has details of the original on the reverse. An amazing tool for provenance research given how few specimens relatively speaking he was able to illustrate on his plates.
I am about to move on to RRC 14 and 18 today, but as I sit down this morning and start closing tabs I wanted to jot down this thought
What follows are three images of the same Ariminium Quinunx specimen sold repeatedly in the early 20th century. As the photos are taken from casts rather than the aes grave itself the edges particularly the spue breaks present slightly differently.
1933 sale (weight reported as 182.20g)1924 sale (weight reported as 182.20g)1911 sale (weight reported as 192g)
The above specimen caught my attention because of how the spue break with a little peak in a center reminded me of this specimen owned by Haeberlin and now in Berlin which I was handling yesterday.
Basically I’m toying with the idea if such patterns in the spue breaks could be reflective of something in the manufacturing process that was consistent or typical…
I also find it interesting that this Ariminum quinunx was unknown to Haeberlin but appeared almost immediately aft his work was published from the collection of von Baldinger – Stuttgart
“One of these two pieces is probably identical to the example from the Bianchi collection in Rimini listed by Mommsen p. 250 with a weight of 157 grams (after Tonini, Storia di Rimini, P. 21 = 5 ounces, 13 den.). Furthermore, No. 2 is unmistakably the original of the illustrations at Marchi CI. IV, Tav. I, No. 3 and at Garrucci Tav. LIX, 3, which Garrucci’s weight statement on page 31 “157 gr.” is also correct. On the other hand, the indication of origin of Garrucci’s “Museo di Pesaro” is based on an error, as this museum neither owns such a Quatrunx nor, according to the available lists, has ever owned it”
(machine aided translation)
I am interested in Haeberlin’s certitude that his specimen–now Berlin 18237653, photographed, but not yet up on IKMK–is the same known to Marchi and also appearing in Garrucci.
The reason for my interest is that I had thought the Marchi/Garrucci drawing of the Kircher/Pesaro specimen looked very much like the one sold as part of Garrucci’s own collection in the Hirsch 1914 sale as lot 641. See earlier post.
Haeberlin is likely right rather than myself. His argument about weight convinces me. Garrucci’s coin is listed in the sale as weighing 132g.
BUT in another way perhaps we are both correct in noticing the similarities to the earlier drawings. I think the two coins could have been made from the same mold.
When thinking about these types of comparisons I often like to make on image transparent and try out overlapping the two images. The lighting of the two specimens in these two old photographs is very different on from another but it still helps to show the similarity of the lines and patterns in the design.
Another possibility is that Ariminum used a stamp to create the coin mold. The similarity doesn’t mean one is copied from the other in modern times but of course we have to consider that possibility too.
I’d also not the ‘similarity’ of the known objects to the earlier drawings may also result from the fact that all the quatrunx I’ve held in this series all have a very similar top sprue break on the head side that aligns with the bottom of the sword and scabbard side. So the drawing is capturing common artifact of manufacture.
And just as an aside as I worked through these coins I reweighed them and was delighted with how very cases was there anything even close to a 1% difference. Only one real outlier and I think here Haeberlin might have made a copy error.
I was flipping though sales catalogues of Bartholomeo Borghesi (for reasons not worth explaining), and I notice the distinctive crack in the plate specimen for the EID MAR coin (no. 711). As you can see from the Schaefer Archive image the crack has grown in the last century, but it is still fun to have found its pedigree going back to 1881!
I’m sitting in Berlin looking at tray after tray of coins and I’ve not been blogging as I want to maximize time with the coins themselves. But at this moment I find myself thinking intensely about the methodological problem of quantifying or just even communicating my experience of the condition of the coins taken as a group.
Right now I’m in the early 2nd cent BCE and holding many bronzes, mostly asses. I’ve been joking that only I love ugly coins more than pretty ones, but this is not strictly true. The coins aren’t that ugly but most are very very heavily worn. Anyone whose handled a decent amount of RR bronze knows this is typical. The head of Janus and prow are very often worn completely smooth by passing hand to hand to hand. Frankly I like the feel of these coins, the sense of human touch across the millennia is so immediate they almost feel warm.
This isn’t true of the smaller denominations I’m holding. I see many more clear fractional coins. When the small coins are ugly it looks like environment, not handling.
All of this is terribly subjective. Duncan Jones tried to quantify wear by metrology and assumptions about time in circulation, but this assumes the coins of interest have a relatively knowable original weight and that we can have enough specimens from hoards where we think we know the date of deposition. Metcalf didn’t like Duncan Jones’ methods and most have thus let it fall by the wayside. It was revisited by Hoyer in 2013 and for Bronze:
Hoyer does more and better statistics with his data, but we just don’t have the same sort of data for these republican coins. And sadly few have engaged with Hoyer’s work.
I’m imagining something else, the ability to actually measure the smoothness of an individual coin and to do so in a way that would allow us to aggregate this data. A wear score as it were for the coin. Ideally not subjective but easy to apply…
This is from Carelli. I took the photo of the plate last week and haven’t been able to get it out of my head.
Currently I know of 4 whole bars in Copenhagen, BM, Vienna, Paris (Bank not BnF). BM and Copenhagen are illustrated in my 2021 article. Vienna and Paris have photos in binder 1 of the Schaefer Archive.
Lanzi in 1789 knew (or thought he knew) of three bars. The Guadagni bar (said by Sambon to be the same as the BM bar), The Florence Royal Bar and another in the Stosch collection that had already travelled to English by 1789. [Haeberlin doesn’t believe the Florence bar is real because of Fontana’s testimony and couldn’t track the Stosch bar]
Carelli‘s illustrations are of exceptionally mixed quality and many copied from earlier publications but I cannot tell where he got his illustration of this bar. He cites Riccio who claims to be illustrating a specimen in Naples, the drawing is hilariously awful. AND Riccio claims to know at total of FIVE such bars. Haeberlin dismisses Riccio’s claims.
Is there any connection between the three bar we now know of but which were unknown to Haeberlin?! Is there any connection to the earlier testimony about such bars. I’ve been here before many times but the Carelli image got me thinking again.
I was playing around with the idea that the Vienna bar might be the inspiration for the Carelli drawing, but then I got worried about something else.
The Vienna bar is far more similar to the BM bar than either are to Copenhagen or Paris specimens…. Almost too close? Could the Vienna bar have been made by casting the BM one? I’ll need better photos and probably to visit the Vienna bar before making any actual suggestions. It is also v curious that the Vienna bar is reported as the exact same weight as the BM bar….
Liv Mariah Yarrow 