adventures in my head
“Supposing I had died, would the commonwealth have died with me, would the sovereignty of Rome have shared my fate? No, Jupiter Optimus Maximus would never have allowed a City built for eternity, built under the auspices and sanction of the gods, to be as short-lived as this fragile mortal body of mine. ”
Just a quote on a theme that interests me. Early blog post.
Must look at Livy’s vocab on this more generally…
On this type now see, Oliver Hoover’s blog post.
ANS specimens with images; Yale specimens with images
Cody, Jane M. “New Evidence for the Republican Aedes Vestae.” American Journal of Archaeology 77, no. 1 (1973): 43-50. doi:10.2307/503231.
Cody connect this type to RRC 428.
BUT Zollschan, Linda. (2007). The Temple on the Cistophori of C. Fannius. Klio. 89. 125-136. 10.1524/klio.2007.89.1.125. Say NO, not a temple of Vesta but related to the Bona Dea and thus to the prosecution of Clodius.
I don’t have an opinion YET….
Must check Metcalf, Carbone, and Elkins…
Updates 5/26/21:
“ E. Rawson, Historia 1977, suggests very plausibly that the head of Diana is to be connected with Sulla’s recent victory over Norbanus on mount Tifata outside Capua, which he celebrated by giving generous grants to the famous temple of Diana Tifatina.” – Crawford in his Edinburgh catalogue quoted by McCabe.
I am very struck by this interpretation and also think it plausible.
I never realized I had an opinion on this or that the opinion would be controversial. But the identity of the figures in this scene from the Basilica Aemilia (other than Tarpeia obv.) are disputed. I lean pretty strongly to seeing the far left figure as Mars in a “this is what happens when you F*** with my city” attitude. Maybe at a stretch I could be Romulus but I don’t think so. Figure reads divine.
I wish I’d been able to include in my 2018 article.
Virgil’s Georgics, Book I, lines 145–6: …Labor omnia vincit / improbus
Some how I’ve managed to not read this article until now, but delighted its on line so I can make up for my error quickly.
Müller J. W. 2006, Crepusius and possible shipwrecks, Revue Belge de Numismatique, 152, pp. 15-21.
Because I’m reading Ulrich’s book on Roman Woodworking I’m a little obsessed with representations these day. Bear with me, it might wear off. Or not. I like tools.
Anyway other than general awesomeness this mosaic caught my eye because of the log splitting frame saw at the very bottom. It reminded me of the log splitter in this relief.
Perhaps the bar on top is to allow a single worker to operate the saw or to act as a guide to keep it straight or both?
Sometimes I see things that aren’t there, but even that can be interesting.
So I spotted this face on Nero’s shoulder here:
And What I “saw” was a face with an Pharonic style snake-y crown. This sort of thing.
And I thought wow that’s interesting, so of course I went to see other specimens. BUT first here’s the whole coin in trade:
These other dies make it really clear that an aegis not something Egyptianizing is intended but I still like that little face on the shoulder in profile, a very nice representation of the aegis.
A group of colleagues read a piece of mine coming out in RBN 2020 and asked why I hadn’t given more data on Frequency. A really fair criticism as the Esty model I use relies heavily on assumptions about the shape of coin data. So I’m playing around with how to display that data this afternoon. Here’s our old favorite Crepusius (n = 3366; d = 437):
Here’s how he looked back in 1997 and 2011 when used by Esty:
But wait what’s going on!? Clearly our data sets don’t match. Esty is drawing on counts that I don’t (yet) have access to that were provided privately by Buttrey to Esty and never published! So somewhere out there are unpublished notes of Buttrey on observed specimens that would need to be reconciled with RRDP to get more accurate counts… That’s a pain.
Okay moving on to other issues I”ll be back with more frequencies momentarily.
Shortly there will be better photos of this coin more widely available after the release of the Witschonke collection images for the ANS. The obverse and the type of token is well summarized in a blog post by Clare Rowanwith references to further scholarship by Carbone, Stannard and others.
CNG listed the Reverse as a “Harrow (or miner’s axe?)”; The ANS presently has it as “Plow?” and another senior scholar assured me it was an axe. I’m not convinced.
I’ve been reading Ulrich’s Roman Woodworking and I think this tool is a far better fit with representations of the adze.
The adze is a planing type tool. This is an amazing discussion and collection of images. All the comparative images below are taken form this website. The thing to notice about the adze is how the handle curves towards the blade. Axe handles are typically straighter and longer.
The objection to it being an adze rather than an axe is that the blade on the coin is than angle of the cutting blade to the handle. This is explained by Roman perspective and is seen in other representations of the adze. On the below tomb the wide blade is represented with the two handled grip, the artist has chosen to emphasize width over true profile. The photographer above has achieved the same effect by viewing angle.
The adze in operation is represented on the Telephos Frieze from the interior of the Great Altar of Zeus at Pergamon:
Ulrich was kind enough to write back and confirm in his opinion that it is most certainly an adze. He mentioned the representation under Icarus’ work bench on the Vettius fresco as another perspective drawing of a Roman adze.
Thinking more about the Telephos frieze … I got wondering if the Adze might be symbolic of boat builders generally. Perhaps!
Egyptian boat building scene 7th century BCE (Brooklyn Museum)
Adze and boat building further example (added 8.4.20):
Said to be from Chiusi
Liv Mariah Yarrow 
