I’m trying to decide what precisely is implied by the term numeratum.

Early January 49 BCE (ad Fam. 5.20)

Cicero says he does not have even a 100k ready cash to pay to his former quaestor who is concerned about a book-keeping error, even if he wanted to pay him.

quod si mihi expensa ista HS [100k] tulisses, tamen, quae tua est suavitas quique in me amor, nolles a me hoc tempore aestimationem accipere; nam numeratum si cuperem, non erat.

March 45 BCE (ad Att. 12.25)

Cicero is looking to by buy a suburban estate. He doesn’t want to sell or trade properties and doesn’t want to pay too much interest. He can call in a debt for 600k sestertii and has another 600k at home (domi) and can pay some interest on the remainder of the cost to the seller.

mihi et res et condicio placet, sed ita ut numerato malim quam aestimatione. … unde ergo numerato? HS [600k] exprimes ab Hermogene, cum praesertim necesse erit; et domi video esse HS [600k]. reliquae pecuniae vel usuram Silio pendemus…

600k sestertii in silver of any coin denomination would weigh more than 1250 pounds.

It would fit in 3 standard five-gallon construction buckets if packed solid. With space between coins it would probably need to be distributed across four or five buckets. But don’t try to lift one of those buckets–you would put your back out!

Do we think Cicero really kept this laying around his house somewhere?!

What a hoard! The so-called Mesagne hoard has 5,861 coins reported. That’s just shy of 50 pounds of silver. By volume, if solid silver, that would fill just three quarter jars.

I think it is possible to have this much ready cash in a Roman house but as the numbers get bigger than this at what point is it preposterous to imagine the weight and volume in a private residence?

And, for context when Cicero flees to Epirus to join Pompey in 48 BCE he gets cash. This time explicitly in coins from Atticus’ people.

a tuis et nummorum accepi HS [20k] et vestimentorum quod opus fuit. (ad Att. 11.2)

So Atticus himself must have had a store of coins in Epirus far exceeding this amount. Now we must imagine Cicero and his staff (and enslaved persons) carrying around 42 pounds or more of silver with them. Sounds incredibly awkward for whomever had the burden. This was only slightly less than the Mesagne hoard as reported.

---

I’m dropping this here as it seems to also deal with the physicality of money:

nunc omnia ista iacere puto propter nummorum caritatem. (ad Att. 11.9, 17 March 49 BCE)

Coins themselves are dear, so by extension Cicero thinks if Atticus can pay in coin he can get a better price on the estate he is contemplating purchasing.

Shackleton Bailey calls it a coin shortage, but that cannot be quite right. As the Civil War between Pompey and Caesar looms everyone wants greater liquidity as they don’t know how the credit system or real estate values may be effected. The latter were particularly vulnerable to confiscation or devaluation through destruction. Romans seem to have keep a huge amount of their assets tied up in property investments. So cash becomes king as it is portable.

There is a potential reference to the same situation in:

omnia scilicet nunc minoris. [ad Att. 13.31, 28 May 45 BCE]

---

versuram scribis esse faciendam mensum quinque, id est ad Kal. Nov., HS [200k] in eam diem cadere nummos qui a Quinto debentur. [ad Att. 15.20]

Here again we seem to have a question of large sum liquidity during the uncertain political landscape. A new loan is needed because COINS in particular must be repaid on specific date (1st of November). It is a lack of physical coin that is the concern. The letter goes on to discuss rental income for his son and his desire put together his own viaticus. Shackleton Bailey again oversteps in translation assuming this means a lump sum rather than simply a means of access money while traveling. Cicero is contemplating leaving Italy to escape the Political landscape of summer of 44 BCE.

See reference in first comment!

---

Numeratum in Cicero

Pis. 88

stipendium militibus per omnis annos a civitatibus, mensis palam propositis, esse numeratum?

What of the pay counted out to your troops throughout all those years by the [foreign] states, upon tables set out under the public gaze?

Flac. 80

Verum esto, gloriosus fuisti, voluisti magnum agri modum censeri, et eius agri qui dividi plebi Romanae non potest. Census es praeterea numeratae pecuniae CXXX [line above]. Eam opinor tibi numeratam non esse abs te. Sed haec omitto. Census es mancipia Amyntae neque huic ullam in eo fecisti iniuriam. Possidet enim ea mancipia Amyntas.

But let that pass; you were full of your own importance, you wanted to be assessed for a large area of land, and land at that which cannot be divided among the Roman commons. You also declared 130,000 sesterces in cash, but I think that your ready money was not your own. I let that go too. You declared Amyntas’ slaves but you did not cause him any loss by doing so, for he still owns those slaves.

Caec. 11

M. Fulcinius fuit, recuperatores, e municipio Tarquiniensi, qui et domi suae cum primis honestus existimatus est, et Romae argentariam non ignobilem fecit. Is habuit in matrimonio Caesenniam eodem e municipio, summo loco natam et probatissimam feminam, sicut et vivus ipse multis rebus ostendit et in morte sua testamento declaravit. Huic Caesenniae fundum in agro Tarquiniensi vendidit temporibus illis difficillimis solutionis. Quum uteretur dote uxoris numerata, quo mulieri esset res cautior, curavit ut in eo fundo dos collocaretur. Aliquanto post iam argentaria dissoluta, Fulcinius huic fundo uxoris continentia quaedam praedia atque adiuncta mercatur.

There was one M. Fulcinius, gentlemen, a native of Tarquinii, who in his native place enjoyed an eminently honourable reputation and at Rome had a considerable business as a banker. He was married to Caesennia, a lady from the same township, of honourable family and approved character, as he made known in many ways during her life and after his death declared by his will. To this Caesennia he sold an estate in the districts of Tarquinii during those times of financial stringency, and as he was using the cash which had comprised his wife’s dowry, he took the precaution of charging the dowry on the farm in order to give her, as a woman, better security for it. Some time afterwards Fulcinius gave up his banking business and bought some land in continuation of and next to this estate of his wife’s. …

Font. frag. 7

Si nulla pecunia numerata est, cuius pecuniae quinquagesima est?

If no money was paid, of what sum is that a fiftieth part?

Balbus quaestor magna numerata pecunia, magno pondere auri, maiore argenti coacto de publicis exactionibus, ne stipendio quidem militibus reddito duxit se a Gadibus et triduum tempestate retentus ad Calpen Kal. lun. traiecit sese in regnum Bogudis plane bene peculiatus. his rumoribus utrum Gadis referatur an Romam (ad singulos enim nuntios turpissime consilia mutat) nondum scio.

Leg. Agr. I.2-3

Agros emi vult qui dividantur; quaerit pecuniam. Videlicet excogitabit aliquid atque adferet. Nam superioribus capitibus dignitas populi Romani violabatur, nomen imperi in commune odium orbis terrae vocabatur, urbes pacatae, agri sociorum, regum status decemviris donabantur; nunc praesens pecunia, certa, numerata quaeritur. Exspecto quid tribunus plebis vigilans et acutus excogitet. “Veneat,” inquit, “silva Scantia.”

Att. 13.45.3: 11 August 45, Tusculum.

Lamia quidem a Balbo, ut videbatur, audiverat multos nummos domi esse numeratos, quos oporteret quam primum dividi, magnum pondus argenti praeter praedia; auctionem primo quoque tempore fieri oportere.

arachne.dainst.org/entity/1136018

arachne.dainst.org/entity/1252574

arachne.dainst.org/entity/5036621

arachne.dainst.org/entity/1249450

There are three methods of harvesting grain: the first, employed in Umbria, in which the stalk is cut close to the ground with the hook, and each bundle, as it is cut, is laid on the ground. When a number of bundles are formed, they go over them again, and cut the ears from each close to the stalk. The ears are cast into the basket and carried to the threshing-floor, while the straw is left in the field and afterwards stacked. In the second method, employed in Picenum, they use a curved handle of wood with a small iron saw attached to the end; when this catches a bundle of ears it cuts them off and leaves the straw standing in the field to be cut later. In the third method, employed near Rome and in numerous other places, seizing the top with the left hand they cut the straw in the middle … The part of the stalk below the hand remains attached to the ground, and is cut later; while the part which is attached to the ear is carried to the threshing-floor in baskets. … The grain should be cut when it is ripe; and on easily worked land it is held that the reaping of one iugerum is approximately a day’s work for one man—this should include the carrying of the reaped ears to the threshing-floor in baskets.

Varro, On Agriculture 1.50 (Loeb trans.)

no. 162 Fabatus (RRC 412/1)

trade specimen

Alice Sharpless writes: “Crawford identifies symbol as a sheaf of corn (i.e., wheat) but wheat does not look like this; more likely a young tree with stakes; RRC, pl. LXIX-162” and identifies it as a young sapling with stakes.

Papius (RRC 384/1) no. 20 (cf. earlier post)

The term for a group of sheaves stacked to dry is a stook.

I’d feel a lot more certain about this ID if I ever find an image or even literary description of Roman stooks.

Past me thought this object in front of the anvil might be related but I’m far from sure:

The same object seems also to be on the back of Fabatus no. 156.

Crawford called Papius die pair no. 36: “Ball/Whip and Hoop”

I like this description very much but I cannot get myself to believe it. And I think I might be stuck thinking about Roman toys to identify them and that need not be right. Alice Sharpless rightly was concerned about the two v intentional additions to the ‘hoop’. She called it a “torque”. She also noticed the very intentional flatness of the obverse symbol and decided to call it a discus. Again reasonable. What can I add? Only that I see the problems with Crawford but am not satisfied with Sharpless’ labels as I cannot come up with a reason for the pairing.

I’ve learned some other things I want to document but they really don’t get us closer to an identification.

Hoops are rolled with a stick not a whip, BUT that stick can have a very noticeable hook or bend in it. Some modern hoops have been manufactured with catch rings that do not interfere with rolling but this doesn’t seem standard. Those rings seem to be help one start the rolling.

Hoop rolling was of course a popular amusement in the ancient Mediterranean.

I have no evidence that Roman sticks had hooks or Roman hoops had rings. So I’m still not so happy with the reverse identification.

My other thought was that if it is truly a whip and we are really looking at a gaming theme for this set of control-marks. Then the most common toy whip is for spinning a top:

The Romans certainly also had spinning tops they launched with whips:

As a spinning-top, sometimes, that boys intent on play thrash

in a circle round an empty courtyard, turns under the whirling lash,

– driven with the whip it moves in curving tracks: and the childish crowd

marvel over it in innocence, gazing at the twirling boxwood:

and the blows grant it life:

Vergil, Aeneid 7.367ff. Kline translation.

BUT this doesn’t help us much, unless we decide the obverse symbol is the top of a top, but that seems a silly way to represent it. And then what do we do with the hoop?! This picture suggests a relationship, but perhaps it is just two toys shown together. Tops are some times spun inside circles, bowls or on other playing surfaces made to contain them.

Also see:

https://www.beazley.ox.ac.uk/record/D05E76F2-E59D-45C5-84EE-462E6567D317

—

In private correspondence Dan Diffendale drew my attention to this mirror:

Inscribed: Admite (Admetus) and Alcestei (Alcestis).

The left hand figure holds a most unusual torch and a pair of shoes. The right hand figure anoints Alcestis with perfume.

It’s the torch holder that I wanted to see in action.

It looks like one warps a cloth dipped in flammable liquid around the spike? Or could one possibly wrap STRAW around the hooks and use that as the fuel?

Yes this is a Papius post. The brilliant Alice Sharpless saw a connection between reverse twenty and these debated claw-like objects. I couldn’t quite understand how it works as a pairing and I still can’t, but at least I am now convinced the claws are torch holders and I cannot deny the visual similarity. Diffendale also notices the similarity in the handle as depicted on the mirror and on the control-mark.

I’d been playing around with the idea that these were holders for the original standards of the maniple and there was a pun at play with the wheat sheaves on obverse twenty (if that is indeed the right ID, and I lean towards Crawford with this). I don’t think this is correct, but Diffendale also sent me to Ovid’s Fasti 3.113-1118.

Their ensigns were of hay, but as deep reverence was paid to hay as now you see paid to the eagles. A long pole carried the hanging bundles (maniplos); from them the private (maniplaris) soldier takes his name.

illa quidem e feno; sed erat reverentia feno, quantam nunc aquilas cernis habere tuas. pertica suspensos portabat longa maniplos, unde maniplaris nomina miles habet.

---

Another less common, perhaps related?, torch shape

arachne.dainst.org/entity/6338976

---

Copenhagen specimen from the ETRURIA II catalogue of the Carlsberg Glyptotek

BM 1840,0212.4 with ref to UPenn example.

Useful discussion and image source:

https://nunc.ch/en/in-search-of-the-lost-torch

---

Update 4 August 2026:

Fabatus no. 156 Obverse is probably the same sort of torch holder but represented from a different perspective:

I still don’t know what to think of the thing on the back. (wheat sheaves post)

---

18 Sept 2026

Machine translation: The Thrax (Thracian) was a gladiator equipped with the arms of the Thracian people. He likely first appeared during the time of Sulla, after the Romans captured soldiers of that nation who had been serving in the forces of Mithridates; Cicero is the first to mention him. The gladiator known as the Thrax carries a small shield (parma, parmula); while sometimes round, it is most often square, though on certain monuments it appears triangular. His offensive weapon is the sica—a short sword with a curved blade—though sometimes the blade features an angular bend midway along its length. For protection, the Thrax wears a manica on his right arm, a balteus (belt), and a subligaculum (loincloth); his helmet takes various forms—sometimes a simple metal cap with a wide brim but no visor, and at other times a design where the face is completely concealed by a perforated visor topped with a very high crest. Finally, since the Thrax lacks the long shield used by the hoplomachus and the secutor—possessing only a parma that covers little more than his chest—he is equipped with two greaves (ocreae) rather than one; these two greaves are among the surest signs by which he is recognized. Often, his thighs are also wrapped in braies (breeches) or fasciae (bandages)—presumably made of leather—which serve to cushion blows that slip past the shield. Figure 3583 reproduces the funerary relief of a Thrax from the time of Trajan, M. Antonius Exochus; it displays virtually all the details just described, notably the two greaves, the sica (cf. Fig. 3370), and, opposite him, the… …crested helmet. Figure 3384 shows two Cupids fighting in the manner of Thracians—sword in hand—just as Roman children played at being gladiators, much like our own children play at being soldiers. We have already noted that the Thracian’s usual opponent was the *hoplomachus*, though he could also be pitted against the *murmillo*. Monuments even show instances where two Thracians were matched against each other, as seen with the two Cupids in Figure 3384. Finally, it should be noted that some Thracians are depicted holding a straight sword—similar to that of the Samnite—instead of the *sica*, while others hold a spear; however, these are merely exceptions.

From Daremberg, Charles Victor, and Saglio, Edmond  – F-G (vol. 2.2)

For the the origin of the Thracian Gladiator, D&S cite Plutarch, Crassus 8. While logical, certainly not definite.

The citation to Cicero’s Philippics seems to contain an error. The passage meant is surely Cic. Phil. 6.13:

We see in the forum a statue of Lucius Antonius; just as we see one of Quintus Tremulus, who conquered the Hernici, before the temple of Castor. Oh the incredible impudence of the man! Has he assumed all this credit to himself, because as a mirmillo at Mylasa he slew the Thracian, his friend? How should we be able to endure him, if he had fought in this forum before the eyes of you all? But, however, this is but one statue. He has another erected by the Roman knights who received horses from the state; and they too inscribe on that, “To their patron.” Who was ever before adopted by that order as its patron? If it ever adopted any one as such, it ought to have adopted me. What censor was ever so honored? what imperator? “But he distributed land among them.” Shame on their sordid natures for accepting it! shame on his dishonesty for giving it!

Cf. Cic. Phil. 7.17:

O ye gods! who will he able to support this man’s power? especially when he has brought all his dependents into the lands. Who ever was the patron of all the tribes? and of the Roman knights? and of the military tribunes? Do you think that the power of even the Gracchi was greater than that of this gladiator will be? whom I have called gladiator, not in the sense in which sometimes Marcus. Antonius too is called gladiator, but as men call him who are speaking plain Latin. He has fought in Asia as a mirmillo. After having equipped his own companion and intimate friend in the armor of a Thracian, he slew the miserable man as he was flying; but he himself received a palpable wound, as the scar proves. What will the man who murdered his friend in this way, when he has an opportunity, do to an enemy? and if he did such a thing as this for the fun of the thing, what do you think he will do when tempted by the hope of plunder? Will he not again meet wicked men in the decuries? will he not again tamper with those men who have received lands? will he not again seek those who have been banished?

Thracians themselves had a long tradition of wearing Phyrgian helmets:

Three terms are associated with the swords of the thracians, all are curved.

While I’m not convinced we really know how these ancient terms match on to material culture we observe, this is generally how the terms seems to be used in modern accounts.

Rhomphaia (longer, heavier, whole bladed is bowed)

Falx (medium, curved at tip)

Sica (short, bent)

Livy’s ‘rumpiae’ are clearly very long weapons, but probably not lances as the Loeb translates the term (31.39).

Aulus Gellius gives us no characteristics of the sword only to help us see the association of the vocabulary with the peoples from an early date in Latin (AN 10.25)

Plutarch, Paulus 18

Πρῶτοι δ᾿ οἱ Θρᾷκες ἐχώρουν, ὧν μάλιστά φησιν ἐκπλαγῆναι τὴν ὄψιν, ἄνδρες ὑψηλοὶ τὰ σώματα, λευκῷ καὶ περιλάμποντι θυρεῶν καὶ περικνημίδων ὁπλισμῷ μέλανας ὑπενδεδυμένοι χιτῶνας, ὀρθὰς δὲ ῥομφαίας βαρυσιδήρους ἀπὸ τῶν δεξιῶν ὤμων ἐπισείοντες.

First the Thracians advanced, whose appearance, Nasica says, was most terrible,—men of lofty stature, clad in tunics which showed black beneath the white and gleaming armour of their shields and greaves, and tossing high on their right shoulders battle-axes with heavy iron heads.

carrying on their right shoulders upright rhomaiae heavy with iron

Thus far none of the literary passages seems to describe a curved weapon. Do you know of one?

Anyway.

All of this is for Papius (RRC 384/1) control mark no. 18. And my belief it likely evokes Thracians to the Roman viewer, perhaps also gladiatorial. The curved sword is a type often developed by cultures who fight on horse back.

Let’s start with some kitten joy!

Yes. I’m wearing kittens in a hoodie in late July. Silly but anything to socialize these little demons. Yesterday I got TWO wonderful emails about the next academic year. It is still hush hush but let’s just say I have no reason to be cranky. I’ve been making the most of my minimal ability to really look at a screen. Cooking complicated dinners. Organizing the house. Time with kiddos. Gardening. Today I’ve even booked a volunteer shift. And yet… The best news of all was that my replacement eyeglasses finally came in this afternoon and I can see again!

I wasn’t even going to write a post until I saw this first coin below which so nicely linked my previous obsession to youthful Mars (key words: young, beardless). Right now, I’m interested in the parts of the legionary standard. Yes this is a Papius (RRC 384) related post. Hence I’ve been looking at the column of Trajan and seeing other things as I go. Those are pretty uniform but do have some variation.

Notice on both the coin and there relief the horizontal bar on the standards stacked with other shapes objects. These bars are called antennae and on the column and on the above coin they have ribbons coming down ending in a heart shaped ivy leaf shaped decoration.

Let’s go back a bit.

On the rare specimen of RRC 365/1 where the top is not off the flan and we can see the line border intersect the standard top there is a ribbon tied to the shaft itself. The ribbon has a small end as its defining feature. Also note that on the clearest of specimens the eagle clearly is grasping a snake in its talons with the snake head beneath the eagle head and the tail beneath the tail. The legs of the eagle are given extra prominence in the design.

RRC 441/1 revives the same reverse type but adds a radiate border (unusual!) and the snake is no longer very snaky at all. But for our purposes the ribbons with their narrow endings at the top have stayed the same, and are easier to see.

RRC 413/3 is of no help with the forms of ribbons or antennae, but does help us see that these items are not required elements.

RRC 525/2 and 3 look very similar on the reverse but there don’t seem to be over lapping dies and the standards of the two also seem different. Those of RRC 525/3 have antennae with decorations hanging down, whereas RRC 525/2 has no antennae or two lines at 45 degree angles, like a V shape at the top of the standard. Also notice that there is no emphasis on the legs of the eagle the body just rests on a little cup. The eagle also has a dot just under its chin on all the specimens I’ve seen. Is it intentional?! Who would put a bell or collar on an eagle?! Yet on the best preserved specimens in trade it really does look like a collar with a bell.

So now I have to talk about Marc Anthony’s legionary coinage, something (else) I try to avoid. RRC 544 is the series with so many subtypes because of legion variations. Notice the collar and bell on the eagle again. AND notice the horizontal antennae with circular termini and no ribbons hanging down. This is consistent even when the dies are poorly carved. sometimes the line is just a line but it is always there. As is that little 45 degree branch from the pole for which I have no explanation (it is also visible on the first coin of this post struck by the young Caesar). The bar is even there on the one special issue with special standards and no eagle, RRC 544/12, but as if to be the exception that proves the rule these antennae have little heart (ivy leaf) symbols hanging down BUT not long ribbon for suspension.

based on all of this above I hope most will accept my identifications of controlmarks 16 and 17 legionary standard obverse and different component piece reverse.

---

Images of things called standards but not of the type I’m discussing here.

Is RRC 335/9 really showing standards (vexilla)? if so why is there no pole. These really don’t look like other vexilla.

The best parallel I’ve found is the vexillum on the kneeling Parthian types under Augustus

—

Augustan standards on coins have antennae without ornamentation and the aquilae all have that funny grip similar to on some hunting spears cf. papius reverse control mark no. 19.

---

more images of interest

7-31-26

I’m jonesing to write and research and more. My glasses disappeared at an amusement park Thursday and I’m trying to make do with a pair from 2022 until my new ones arrive. I’ve even order clip on readers to try to work. The focal distance was too short. I have to hold a book or a screen far too close to my face to be comfortable. Now I’ve got my font as big as my computer can make it but the stigmatism means it is still blurry and headache inducing. See I really am an addict for my work. That and I have a brace of kittens in my office I’m trying to socialize so I really should be in this room and that means reading and writing. I’m not really over the loss of my old cat but the family was ready and kittens are adorable and who am I to deny my children the experience.

The images of this post were collected from a physical book I held next to my nose.

Colonna Traiana: Atlante fotografico del fregio istoriato (Trajan’s Column: A Photographic Atlas of the Historiated Frieze) published by the Italian Ministry of Culture (specifically the Istituto Centrale per il Catalogo e la Documentazione – ICCD) in collaboration with Gangemi Editore

This isn’t every woman on the column but it is a fair selection. There are at least a couple more divine manifestations/personifications (including obviously Victory).

The most remarkable scene is the one of women torturing prisoners. While sometimes the prisoners are said to be Roman, this cannot be correct. Clearly the shaggy hair, beards and mustaches are meant to be read as barbarians. The women are often called widows and it is seen as an act of revenge for their dead husbands but that seems over stepping without external evidence to support it.

The other extraordinary figure is in the first image below. See what appears to be a woman in a peplos-like garment with a shield and spear (lost) on the front lines. Of course some my night say this is a male beardless male figure and perhaps but I really wanted at least one female fighter and this is the closest possiblity I spotted in my blind(ish) search.

Another maybe a woman figure is in the Ancona departure scene. Right above the arch and standards two figures wave off the Emperor as he sails away. It seems possible that the one with the larger cloak might be female. What are they holding in their hands, my first thought was torches but I can’t really tell maybe palm branches.

The other female figures (non-divine) seem to fulfill traditional Roman conceptions of gender roles. They are mothers with children or daughters with fathers or they they are girls providing music for religious sacrifice. There are more Dacian women and children but in the Ancona departure scene we do get a few matronae with children at the back of the group coming through the arch.

I was surprised that in the suicide scenes there are no women. We know that that the Romans conceptualized the noble savage as one who would rather kill himself and his kin rather than be taken prisoner and enslaved or executed. And, that includes images of killing ones wife (e.g. Ludovic Gaul in Palazzo Altemps, shown below), but not on the column!

---

Ok. Here are the kittens.

Not recruiters for high level exec jobs, no not that. The kind who like to turn heads into trophies of war.

Y’all know that Sergius’ coin (RRC 286/1) is one of my favorites (There is a good summary in my 2021 book).

So I’m looking for something else on the Column of Trajan Images this morning and all these heads as trophies have been distracting me. If I find similar iconography as I go I’ll now have a place to add it.

---

28 July 2026 Update:

David Meadows (aka the Rogue Classicist) recommended:

Les Romains, chasseurs de têtes – Persée https://www.persee.fr/doc/efr_0000-0000_1984_act_79_1_2537

I also went through the whole column scene by scene in a print book to refresh my memory, More heads presented to the army commanders, more heads and spikes, and a great (horrific) scene of a head being taken with the body nearby.

I’m thinking about basket shapes and their representations in Roman Art today. And, as so often, the things I’m not looking for seem far and away the most interesting.

There are at least two Campana plaque types with an oddly shaped basket full of fertility symbols including an erect phallus. [I love this type of plaque. so there are earlier posts]

This one is in the Louvre:

They have others of the same type.

I wish I knew more exactly what was restoration and what original on these pieces. They certainly don’t all come from the same mould even if they have basically two of the same figures on all three.

My interest in these is because the clearly show the precedence for the scene on the East Wall of the Villa of the Mysteries with the revealing of the basket contents and the winged figure.

The second type shows other uses of the same ritual basket shape and its striking contents.

I’ll come back and add more if I find more.

Next Day.

I spotted the same basket shape in another fresco in Naples Museum but need fuller citation.

I don’t know what the mango shaped fruit like objects are, maybe badly rendered figs?! The eggs don’t inspire confidence in the artist’s skill. there might be a head of garlic above the glass pitcher. There are clearly two torches and a covered garlanded basket with ribbons. These and the ivy vine lets us be confident the artist is invoking not just a domestic still-life scene but also a ritual one.

—

5 August 2026

I was checking notes on Papius’ controlmarks (RRC 384/1). A mindless task of a sort. I’ve looked at them many times; there should be no surprises.

No. 4 obverse [click for more images of the same]

So my first concern was that bump on the top. On some specimens it looks more like a shallow dome. Anvils are known in numismatic art, as well as lots of other art media:

There is even a really convincing Anvil on the Fabatus control mark series (RRC 412/1 Obverse 4). I have post full of images of anvils. And I even went to Arachne to be sure I’d not missed any thing relevant. I found more images confirming the same but no significant variation. An Anvil is typically rectilinear. It often has little feet. The top surface is often slightly larger than the bottom. I see none with a top and bottom edge and central shaft like in the controlmark above. And none with a rounded top.

For a hot minute I contemplated if the thing on top could be a shield because of this relief, but then dismissed the idea.

This is frustrating as anvil was such a clean and tidy ID, but I no longer believe it. Altar or Puteal would seem more likely but why the tongs and why the domed top?

I wonder if it could be the fire for heating the metal prior to striking. These often look like altars with a clam shell backing to keep the heat in.

I’m not at all convinced. So I went looking for objects found with Tongs. Not much. Bah. I will leave it for now.

The altar in the relief below has some little steps on it.

The medical tongs look quite different here.