Category: Uncategorized

So in the last blog post I complained about not having enough context, but sometimes context doesn’t help, but rather confounds.

The following tessera is from Agrigento and we even know the niche in the wall of a house into which it seems to have been intentionally deposited (as a ritual object? perhaps repurposed?!).

Full publication and source of all images:

Francesco Belfiori, « Su alcuni depositi rituali di Agrigento: prassi sacrificale e «riti di costruzione» in ambito domestico nel Quartiere ellenistico-romano (Insula III, Casa M) »,  Mélanges de l’École française de Rome – Antiquité [Online], 131-2 | 2019, URL : http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/8837; DOI : 10.4000/mefra.8837 

It seems to read:

ARTEM ‘. AELIA . S

SPECTAVIT

AD . D . VI . K. MART. CO

I agree with the original publication that the first name is probably abbreviated form of Artemidorus or similar Greek name of an enslaved person. The second name they suggest Aulus but don’t committ. I feel I clearly read AELI and then what is probably an A missing its cross bar. The AE are in ligature. What I don’t understand is the enslaver’s name should be in the genitive of possession. No genitive ends in A or AS. The final CO in the third line is also a mystery. The letter forms are far sloppier than on most other similar tessera and it may be unfinished as the fourth side has no consular date. So…

Maybe it was just a bad piece of work someone shoved into a crack in the wall before starting over? In the image below the tessera was found in niche (hole?) 15a. So basically at floor level.

I’m wondering if the inside of the whole of a bone tessera like this might contain any trace elements of fibers or metal wire or lead or whatever was inserted into it and if we could now with our present technologies swap and test for this…

---

This next tessera is from Pompeii, one of two from the city thus far. It was found in the Basilica (reg. VIII, I, I) during the 1960 excavations, but the exact conditions of deposition are not clearer. I like this as it seems to fit our assumptions that these objects are part of the world of business transactions, particularly for large payments in coin.

Soldovieri, Umberto. “Un’inedita tessera nummularia da Pompei.” Sylloge epigraphica Barcinonensis: SEBarc (2020): 195-198.

Part of what is fun about this object is that the enslaver’s name is Papius and that consular year is 79 BCE. The same year (Crawford estimated) that L. Papius was moneyer in Rome (RRC 384/1).

I want to leap to conclusions about why this might be the case, but one tessera does not a pattern make and so I will withhold speculation. (Rare for me I know!)

I’ve requested via ILL

Pace, Alessandro. “Tesserae nummulariae da Pompei. Un approccio contestuale.” Epigraphica 1, no. 1 (2022): 327-340.

And I hope it offers more details.

The other Pompeii find was from October 1878 and in “bedroom” in reg. 9.6.4-7. This doesn’t really narrow it down v much.

We know that excavations that October were happening in ix.6.4.x so that is a candidate… But they were also happening in ix.6.5.d and g, so that doesn’t really narrow anything down. I’d love to know more about associated finds…

I’m reading this and boy is it at once exciting and frustrating…

Pedroni, Luigi, and Guido Devoto. “TESSERE DA UNA COLLEZIONE PRIVATA.” Archeologia Classica 47 (1995): 161–201. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44367457.

This object has no listed provenience. It is made of bone. Is it even ancient? I know of no close parallels. If it were sitting in the BM I’d put together a proposal to get it carbon dated, but I’ve no way of tracking the object.

The object is noteworthy because of its connection to the moneyer of RRC 344, Titurius Sabinus, and how he signed his name on some of his denarii. (see image below). BUT the TA only appears on a limited number of sub types and by no means the majority of all the moneyer’s coin types. Also the TA is an abbreviation for Tatius, a label for the ‘portrait head’ on the obverse.

It is a very odd object. Most ancient tessera are designed to be read horizontally, not vertically like this one. This object is also larger than most and the carving of the head is most unusual, clearly meant to echo the head on the coin.

With out more data, I feel I must regard it as a fantasy piece, not something from antiquity. Other tesserae are found in large numbers and follow standard types (nummularia: those used to seal bags of money, called gladitorial in the past; lusoria: those used as game pieces or in divination or both).

My interest of course stems from RRC 14/6 and related aes grave types.

I got thinking about the potential prevalence of this design choice from this coin of Calchedon which popped up when I was looking for something else in the BM search.

The combination of the grain ear and knuckle bone brought to mind early uncia types (Cf. 18/6).

The use of the type at Paphos got me thinking of this other article:

Nifosi, A. (2022). The Throw of Isis-Aphrodite: A Rare Decorated Knucklebone from the Metropolitan Museum of New York. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 108(1-2), 177-189. https://doi.org/10.1177/03075133221137365

But that is besides the point.

My main thought is that the v small coins of Himera are likely to have been the point of influence, if there need be one.

I say if there need be one as knucklebones, astragalos, astragalus, astragal, etc… are ubiquitous in the ancient world as small game objects also associated with divination.

I’m so proud of Lucia Carbone and all the other contributors to this massive catalogue of Rick’s donations to the ANS — 3,726 coins!

My text in this volume is v minimal, but includes what I hope is a useful summary of a few of the major re datings and re attributions since Crawford.

PDF of my own contribution.

Buy your own copy! [ANS members–remember to ask for your 30% discount]

I was honored to visit Prof. Sailakshmi Ramgopal’s Roman history class at Columbia to give an introduction to Coins. I was asked to share my materials and when I do so I like to keep an archive here for future reference.

Slide Deck (PDF)

Handout

This particular class centers Commodus as that is where the students were in the semester. I give variations of this class with numerous other tailored set pieces and depending on the audience more on the origins of coinage and more on the global phenomenon of money.

Archiving some thoughts I threw up on FB earlier this week for future reference. All images borrowed from a BCC news story.

Things I love about this new Pompeii fresco showing Paris inviting Helen to Troy:

1) The dog knows this is a terrible idea. Dogs are often symbols of fidelity and this one know marital trust and guest-friendship are both about to be broken. He breaks the fourth wall and gives us the viewer a knowing glance. [On dogs as such symbols]

2) The lady-in-waiting (slave?) knows too. This reminds me that hardworking girl on the skyphos who gives side eye to the Athenian wife getting drunk in her own store room.

3) Helen’s profile, hair, jewelry looks an awful lot like the so called painted portraits of Cleopatra (VII). 

4) Paris’ eastern costume looks less silly than in most cases. The color block squares and the overall get up even how he holds his shepherd’s crook all have a more exotic dignified look… [compare say the costume of Ascanius from Pompeii IX.13.5]

I’m curious about the identification of the woman on the Omphalos as Cassandra. Cassandra has a clear iconography for her rape by Ajax, but seated on an Omphalos? I don’t have a parallel. I associate the Omphalos with Delphi so my first thought was the Pythia. I did waste a little time with the LIMC before posting this. I learned that Cassandra poor thing doesn’t get her own entry but rather appears with all the men who fucked up her life. Seems an injustice…

On FB some agreed with me, others pointed out that Cassandra fits better with theme of room as a whole (as we understand it at present) and suggest the omphalos could just represent her gift of prophecy.

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.

From Barr, W.. (2014). Functional Morphology of the Bovid Astragalus in Relation to Habitat: Controlling Phylogenetic Signal in Ecomorphology. Journal of Morphology. 275. 10.1002/jmor.20279.

From Gustafson, Eric. (2015). An early Pliocene North American deer: Bretzia pseudalces, its osteology, biology, and place in cervid history. University of Oregon Museum of Natural History Bulletin. 25.

From: Solounias, Nikos & Danowitz, Melinda. (2016). Astragalar Morphology of Selected Giraffidae. PloS one. 11. e0151310. 10.1371/journal.pone.0151310.

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.

---

Update 23 Apr 2024:

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).

His 1888 subscription to RIN gives me his first name, Francesco.

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).

There are two Pasinati metal engravers listed in the Rome directory of commercial artisans from 1866.

To be continued…

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.