I’ve talked about Juno Sospita on this blog and in my 2021 coin book, because she appears regularly on republican coins. The ritual of her cult is interesting to be sure. And her iconography with a goat horn headdress distinctive. Very popular in central Latium and surrounding regions as a antefix (architectural terracotta) motif. (Louvre example left, Berlin example right)
TIL about this fantastic black figure amphora in the BM from c. 530-520 BCE and likely found at Cerveteri or Vulci. At first glance (from another angle) I thought it might be Apollo and Hercules fighting over the tripod for control of Delphi, but then I looked closer. Definitely Juno Sospita. For me, I”m not used to thinking of indigenous Italic gods as having their own legendary adventures or how they might intersect with those of ‘Greek Heroes’. I teach the ancient Mediterranean as one deeply interconnected world with many points of exchange and yet this blending of traditions still arrested my attention.
Equally I find it interesting that in the late republic Sospita always has a figure-eight shield and curved shoes. Neither are represented here. They may be archaizing elements of her iconography to make later representations feel older.
I wonder if I’ve written before about how Sospita’s shield on the coins may recall the shape of the Numa’s ancilia!? One post on these shields and a short follow up. The figure eight shield clear was one the Roman associate with antiquity and religious traditions.
I can’t say I’ve thought much about centaurs. I remember my freshman year art history lectures on how like amazons and giants they represent on the Pantheon the struggle between civilization and wild forces and impulses that threaten it. A form of the ‘Other’ and a thinly veiled allusion to the defeat of the Persians. Chiron gets more of my attention for his relationship as Achilles tutor and its use in motifs of retrained education in ancient art. I’ve wondered about the centaur on RRC 39/1, but only vaguely as one more of Hercules’ many labors and side quests.
Then today I came in to the AC after a bit of entertaining in the garden to sit and cool down. I grabbed a book of Etruscan pots (a purchase from my recent trip), just to give me something to look at besides my phone.
Said to be from Civitavecchia, c. 600 BCE. Now in BM.
So it is super wierd the creature whose foot the centaur is holding and I have no answers but check out that branch and compare it to the coin at the top of the post. Why are the centaurs holding branches?! And why have I not wondered at this before?
This vase below felt like the answer I was looking for. The Centaur is primitive. He bites. He throws stones. He fights with his bare hands. We cannot give him a club because he’s even more primitive that Hercules. So if we want to give him a weapon in an artistic composition he must carry a branch that has not yet been formed into a club. The raw and ready to hand weapon rather than one crafted to be more functional.
So the above vase, the one that got me thinking is a reflection on how the centaur is different than the armed men who have other weapons and even shields. The denarius reflects Heracles victory over the centaurs as primitive adversaries. Typically in art when centaurs are yoked together to draw a car they pull Bacchus and are part of revelry. This is something different, less revelry, more subjugation.
The plate below is in the Villa Guilia. I’ve seen in many times, but have always been so fixated on the fabulously strange wolf-man (with red arm bands!), I’ve never really thought of the other figures. A centaur with a whole tree pursues a woman who makes eye contact with Hercules as Hercules seeks to defend her. The centaur is the type with human front legs (always somehow more disturbing); he looks back to see how close Hercules is to catching him.
The amphora below is from Porano but is now displayed in Orvieto (see note below). Notice that the centaurs are harvesting trees to use as weapons and fighting(?) over them. Another holds a large rock another uses a pitch fork like tool to stab a sleeping man. Notice that two of the rocks on the ground seem to have heads, perhaps oracular, perhaps personificatons of place. Another figure with a double axe seems to look down from the heavens. It is dated to 330-310 BCE.
Part of me wondered if this was primarily Italic but I did find a little Eastern material in my search.
I”m doing image research for an article. I’m probably going to go with this specimen from Haeberlin’s own collection as illustrated on his plate 44. It is free of copyright being now in the public domain and one could not get a clearer representation, and yet…
The vast majority of RRC 14/2 specimens look nothing at all like this. I don’t care if you’re looking at CRRO or what has appeared recently in trade. This specimen is shocking beautiful. Do I doubt its authenticity? Not particularly. I have however come to realize how much better aes grave looks when photographed from a plaster cast than from the specimen itself. Here’s a specimen that sold last year with no provenance information in Switzerland and a listed weight of 171,86g.
I’m fairly confident that it is the same specimen as Haeberlin 1910, pl. 45, 2 from the Sambon collection listed with a weight of 172.25 g.
It took me a minute to make this conclusion because the color photograph looks so radically different in detail than the bw from the plaster cast with all color data from the surface removed. If I got Berlin to photograph the Haeberlin specimen for me, in all likelihood it would probably appear much uglier and far harder to see the detail. Frankly I”m pretty sure I’ve held this specimen and may even have a study photograph… [not that I could find, darn it]. I would if I could look for tool marks to improve the definition especially in the crest of the helmet. Again not relevant to the article.
Some of you know my love of using photographic overlays and transparencies to compare images. Typically I use it to check die links but it also works in cases like this. When trimming the cast of the Venus side of the coin, the person doing the trimming clearly eliminated the portion which what caused by a misalignment of the two halves of the original mold used to make the coin.
Anyway part of me wonders if using such a ‘good’ image in the publication is misleading to my readership. The Haeberlin plate image doesn’t look anything like the vast majority of known specimens.
Notice the definition in the curls of Venus. Really extra ordinary and unique. So do the backwards S under her neck and the difficulty of the modern plaster cast in dealing with the prominent sprue.
Ok I need to stop looking at specimens and get back to writing the actual article.
I has been an intense three weeks. It always is, but this year the last few days were unbelievably stressful for mostly things it would be inappropriate to share publicly. Let’s just say that the least stressful of the final three crises was rebooking nearly every student’s flight and sorting each one’s needs in light of the airport ground crew strikes. I am proud of how I and the students and the college handled everything. Overall, it was an amazing trip and has re affirmed the teaching I most enjoy is intensive, immersive, and deeply interpersonal.
I’m tricking myself into writing later by starting a post I cannot finish.
I’ve been out to buy a new suitcase for my books. Yes, this is something of a ritual when I travel. I ended up haggling for a Turkish kilim, finding some last minute vintage t-shirts for my family as souvenirs, and then reviewing the alcohol allowances to bring home a few treats. On the whole, I paid too much for the used suitcase, but the man looked like he could use the money. The kilim I feel was a steal at the price I negotiated. The seller might have gone lower but I’ve bought enough to know I could have paid much much more.
Haggling is such a funny tradition. I like how it reflects the socially constructed nature of any measure of value. Two people weigh their wants and desires as well as a measure of the other person’s capacity all bound up in social rituals and also conventions of value local and global. Super interesting.
Perhaps the oddest thing I purchased at the market was a set of four knuckle-bones, well-cleaned from a seller of bones and stones. I decided these were an essential teaching tool and part of my research on ancient symbolism on coins. I almost bought two boar tusks to turn into the handle of a purse, I’ve crocheted. I regret not buying them, but I needed them drilled and didn’t really want to break them in the process trying the drilling myself. Next year I’ll shop early so he can drill them for me and I can pick up the next week.
I’m off to see the new exhibit of the Francois Tomb. A dream come true if I can get in! It went on display last Wednesday after the state paid 15 MILLION euros for it. Frankly, I cannot say it is anything other than priceless.
And, I’m back. I cycled there and back. It was marvelous. But I didn’t realize the work out I was getting until I got home and sweat poured off me. I’m resolved to rent a bike for the whole of my trip next summer. The cost of the Lime bikes is exorbitant but it is definitely the way to travel. (youtube short)
You can imagine my frustration of getting to the museum and seeing this sign. I was not the only visitor to turn around and leave. My beloved told me I could change my flight to stay to see it. This was ridiculous I want to see my children more. My fear is like the Mausoleum of Augustus it will be open only for a hot minute and thereafter closed for years. Fingers crossed, one day I’ll see it.
Thursday, July 9.
I’ve made it back to the states and am transitioning into parenting, research, and minimal bureaucratic oversight of my department during the quiet summer months.
Since landing, I’ve done quite a lot. Perhaps most significantly, I’ve banged out an application for a visiting professorship. That was a good 1200+ words of prose related to my research ambitions and a culling of a version of my CV down to 4 short pages. Basically I made it a 5 year look back for grants and publications and 2 year look back other activities.
This isn’t to say it wasn’t good for my professional development: I collected so many new catalogues! I met with inspiring colleagues with a mutual love and curiosity regarding ancient bronze!
So now what?! Where does my writing and research attention need to be directed? Time is the most precious of my resources and goal setting is how we get there.
Youthful Mars article
Finalizing Papius catalogue, refine Fabatus catalogue, write contextual language to accompany both
Re engage with Alien Ancestors drafting
Line up letter writers for prestigious fellowship applications
Consider most productive pitch for such applications
Send data to colleagues in Rome RE bronzes
Think about drafting a preliminary finding piece on pXRF work on 3rd century Bronzes
Look over what other research has not been written up and/or published, esp. archival research, what is neglected low hanging fruit?
This feels like a moment akin to a day one like in 2013 and again in 2023. And yet, I don’t feel like enumeration. Perhaps it is just a feeling like a re commitment to a future of research rather than a limited period of time to count down.
I agree we cannot be sure the inscription is the consul and not a later descendant
The letter forms do seem suggestive of the third century
Are we certain the plaster was wet when inscribed?
Why does Brennan call it a graffito? There are many rather haphazard inscriptions of the 3rd century in formal contexts.
I’m less confident I see two hands at work in the writing. The closest evidence I can detect is the shape of the Cs the first two are more rounded but the third seems more linear. By contrast the Ns and Vs are very close in their angle size and shape. I’d want a to inspect in person.
I’m less worried than Brennan about the lack of filiation and the inclusion of the cognomen. Early cognomen are attested as are inscriptions lacking filiation, although I cannot come up with precise parallel that has a Roman magistracy also listed.
I do have questions about the function of the structure in the 3rd Century BCE in which this inscription to be found. It is called a ‘hypogeum’, i.e. an underground sacred space, and functioned as one in the imperial period clearly, but the discussion by Colivicchi summarizing the interpretation of others doesn’t really fill me with a sense of certainty or confidence.
Are we sure that the PRAI is complete? Could there we a TOR obscured by damage to the wall/plaster etc…? Again not something really intelligible from a photo.
I’m intrigued by praifectus being the an alternative resolution. I went looking for early parallels.
Meet:
EDCS-14805235 = CIL 9, 4204 = ILLRP 302 = etc…
Q(uintus) Lainio(s) Q(uinti) f(ilius) praifectos pro trebibos fecit
found at Amiternum (Samnium) and thus likely post 293 BCE inscription as that is the date the Romans captured the settlement.
Ok. Back to the task I’m still trying to complete for my students.
This topic is stopping me moving forward with curriculum design. A toss-away comment in an article I was reviewing for appropriateness to assign to students led me down a rabbit-hole.
The above publication has a very useful list of known examples with notes on provenance.
Specimen in Vienna image from Teschler-Nicola, Maria, Michaela Kneissel, Franz Brandstätter, and Hermann Prossinger. “A recently discovered Etruscan dental bridgework.” In Dental Anthropology: Fundamentals, Limits and Prospects, pp. 57-68. Vienna: Springer Vienna, 1998.
If I come across more images I’m sure I’ll come back and add them to this post, as is my habit.
Most are separated from the remains of the humans who presumably used them, but some do have fairly precise findspots that could help in reconstruction:
From Becker and Tufa 2018: 53.
The following piece suggests that the metal of at least one specimen is not true gold but a man-made electrum:
Becker, Marshall Joseph. “Etruscan gold dental appliances.” Molecular and Structural Archaeology: Cosmetic and Therapeutic Chemicals (2003): 11-27.
What I want to know but need to stop investigating (so I can focus on my actual job) is if we’ve done DNA testing on any of the teeth in any of the surviving bridges (or even radio carbon dating!). The other thing I find exceptionally puzzling is that I can’t see any studies on the DNA of George Washington’s dentures, teeth we know came from enslaved labor.
Such DNA analyses would provide very valuable insights into the intersection of disability, medicine, and enslavement, both ancient and early modern… This cannot be an original question, I’m posing. Hence my deep frustration at not finding an answer.
Van Horn, Jennifer. “George Washington’s Dentures: Disability, Deception, and the Republican Body.” Early American Studies (2016): 2-47.
Fleming, Eleanor, and Patricia Neville. “Critical retelling of dental ethics told through ‘George Washington’s Complete Denture’.” Medical Humanities 51, no. 3 (2025): 376-385.
Ok. I’m going back to my curriculum design. Maybe social media will come through with some satisfaction for my curiosity.
—
Update 10/2/26
Cic. Leg. 2.60
And whereas the same law forbids the use of gold, note what a considerate exception is made by another: “If a man’s teeth are joined with gold, it shall be no violation of the law to bury or burn his body along with that gold.”
qua in lege cum esset: “Neve aurum addito,” videte quam humane excipiat altera lex: “At cui auro dentes iuncti escunt, ast im cum illo sepeliet uretve, se fraude esto.”
On January 19, 2026 Christopher Smith and I were discussants at a book event for Peter Wiseman hosted by the ICS and the BSR. I wrote a number of blog posts before that event related to my preparation to respond to Wiseman’s recent work. The event was recorded and I’ve just found the that recording while writing up the report of my activities while on this fellowship.
This is a significant modification and elaboration of a type of talk I’ve given before and even previously posted the slides. Nevertheless, I thought it was worth sharing againgiven additions, esp. for the students on the course.
I get to fly home after this! I’m ecstatic. Family! my own kitchen! MY OWN GARDEN!
I did some speaking notes but not actually that many for the final version as I shuffled the deck a lot today. So I won’t be posting those notes, but if you have questions do ask.
Adlocutio scene from Trajan’s column, BM Mm,7.8, dated late 16th century
Today at 4.30 pm I give a lecture at the ICS to complete my Webster Fellowship of this year. I’ve just spent two days reviewing what I think every piece of paper on the Nemi collection from the Museum (at least what curator could pull), AND all of Savile’s papers in the county archive from his time in Italy onwards and few things from before that were intermingled in these folders. I’ve learned a sh!t ton, I have a full deck of slides with speaking notes, I could have just given the talk I gave at WashU slightly tweaked. It was damn good. Wow. I have foul mouth this AM. This is reflective of my dissatisfaction with my talk and my moodiness in general.
At first I thought it was because of the illustrious audience, including potential past mentors, I thought it was self doubt, but it doesn’t taste that way. It tastes like a lack of a red thread. I have so much I want to share that the task is to prune. So I’m hear to try to work out what next in the hours remaining.
I wanted to find the papers relating to Orsini and Savile’s original agreement and a falling out. I wanted mentions of what Savile saw, perhaps even notebooks of his observations. None of that was in the files. I’ve come away from the Archive with a couple of impressions.
Savile was sentimental and curated to some extent his papers. On the outside of folded documents and envelops he wrote notes about the contents that serve as a reminder to himself why he was keeping the papers. He kept a great deal. They are messy and interleaved with other materials. I read a copy of the letter about his birth from his mother to his father who was abroad at the time, that he himself had kept as momento along side letters with violet enclosures addressed to him in Rome from a certain Ida of whom he was very fond.
I read a great deal about his acquisition of a Capuchin property in Genzano including notarized copies of the legal papers. He kept lots of letters from those managing the Lanuvium dig for him. They are not concerned with details of excavation only funding and flattery. He was a man who keep clippings of newspaper reports of his triumphs and other memorabilia. I read many private briefings on everything from housing arrangements at the embassy to negotiations over disease control and the Suez canal. The absence I have come to believe is intentional.
The papers related to Nemi are primarily drafts of published materials. While Savile let others take credit as authors of these pieces, the drafts in his own hand suggest original authorship of all published materials about Nemi should be attributed to him.
The most telling thing I found was some self-censorship in a draft of a piece to appear in NSc after being translated into Italian [DSSR 226/20/11b]. The part cut from the publication is about what Orsini retains in his possession, namely gilt tiles from what we now think of as phase III of the temple. I believe this may refer to a piece in the MFA Boston purchased in 1901. Savile brought to Notthingham fragments of bronze tiles but none that retain visible traces of gilding. When I first saw them in 2023, I was uncertain what they were until I learned more about the phase III and saw the Boston piece.
I take this self censorship as proof of the nature of the relationship between the two men.
Another very telling document to me is the only visual description of the Nemi excavations in progress in the collection. Savile was completely hands off from the day to day operations. And, the must not have kept all the other correspondence he received about the progress and finds.
It is written by William Hawley the excavator famed for his work at Stonehenge. I believe Savile may have saved it as a momento of his connection to Halwey rather than for its excavation details. I believe in his interest in saving such momentos partly because of its proximity in the file with more sentimental material including this charming letter from the artist, Henry Jones Thaddeaus.
I imagine Savile was as charmed by the sketches as I am.
Neither of these are in the file he himself labelled “Letters on Art” [DDSR 226/20] which holds most of the drafts of his publications on Nemi and related materials. He thought of these as ‘different’.
I don’t want to give the impression of Savile of a lack of seriousness with his engagement with art and history. In these files I found evidence of his own self-education project. For example, there are notes with definitions of archaeological terms. He also relied on materials sourced by Lanciani, one of the grandfather’s of Roman archaeology, especially topography and historical image research, to get himself up to speed on the history of Nemi. This materials is exceptionally rich and some of it was new to me.
This is one of the most intriguing documents. I found in it interesting enough to process my photos in to a pdf correcting for distortion. I may transcribe down the road, but least it is here for others.
Thanks to the Nottingham curator I also found that sometime in the past someone associated with the museum/collection (perhaps an intern?) went through the Savile papers in the county archives basically creating a handwritten finding aid to the collection for how it relates to the Nemi artifacts. I’m incredibly grateful to have this check on my own archival work.
My final impression is that Savile was serious things he cared about and that the excavations were about supporting arts and history for others not necessarily his own passion in any particular way. The only find he seems to have loved is one of the horse heads from Lanuvium that he and others thought on par with the quality of the Parthenon marbles. There are detailed reports of measurement for its restoration and gifts of casts. This reminds me of his love of Velázquez and his obsession with his own painting by this artist. Likewise there is much in the letters about the state of the British Academy of Art at Rome the predecessor of the BSR. Savile clearly wanted it to succeed and thrive. This is like concerns that Lanuvium be preserved as an excavated site that carriages could access for the comfort of visitors. Savile is an educated patron one who wants to be seen as such but not very interested in the excavation or science of archaeology. He was happy to send money to Ephesus but doesn’t seem much concerned with what was found or the place itself.
He only kept one object of classical antiquity from his excavations for himself a bronze head from Nemi that was auctioned off in 1938 with the rest of the Rufford Abbey furnishings.
So is the documentation of the excavations he conducted (or rather sponsored and paid for) lost forever? Perhaps. My only thoughts remaining is that he may have gave reports either to Lanciani whose papers are in Rome in Piazza Venezia I believe or he may have given them to the British Art Academy in which case they may be somewhere in the BSR.
I have three weeks in Rome this summer. Will I hunt for them or leave that to others? I don’t know. We’ll see.
Ok. That was a lot of writing. I’m feeling much better for having done this.
