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, Daniel. “Calculating the use-wear rates of Roman coins using regression analysis: a case study of bronze sestertii from Imperial Gaul.” American Journal of Numismatics (1989-) (2013): 259-282.

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…

I’ll keep dreaming. Back to the coins.

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….

Haeberlin (translation and links in earlier post)

Fontana

The obverse figure seems to have a Nodus, the central braid that starts with a poof at the forehead and then makes a ridge at the top of the head to the crown and down to the nap. I agree the figure looks like it has wings. The better identification might be Victory.

While most of the Victories with nodi hairstyles on the Republican series are thought to be portraits in the guise of important women (usually Fulvia; see below), arguably the first with a nodus was struck by P·SEPVLLIVS MACER in 44 BCE (RRC 480/25)

A mid 40s BCE date also fits the fashion for cupid

Now if you’re deep into the little ugly coins of this period you might say hey wait what about the sestertius of Paetus’ RRC 465/8 which is said to have cupid on the obverse. Is this Cupid?! maybe.

I don’t know but there are specimens with a less prominent nodus and more prominent wings

So maybe it is Cupid on that little uncia above, if this is cupid with nodus. Right now I should probably pull open my digitized copies of LIMC and check if Cupid ever gets this hair style in other media… Did that, nothing relevant under Eros and nothing under Cupid.

Here’s the portrait esque types I mentioned above.

Perhaps the most interesting question is if there is any chance that the small uncia is actually part of RRC 480. I’m not ready to claim that but I will entertain the possibility.

Must think more about what the cupids are doing on the reverse. We have lots of cupids doing stuff in mosaics from Pompeii in this general period. Numismatic examples of more than one cupid on the same design are rare. Thus far I’ve found just three tokens:

In provincial coinage we have these lovelies:

I don’t think RRC 320/1 counts in this same way.

Now my brain is bouncing back to the obverse and visual parallels. Let’s think about RRC 391/2

Definitely Cupid, Definitely a nodus. Certainly mid 70s and populist. 

Ok questions: Did the nodus start out as a little boy hair style and then become a fashion trend for elite women?! I need to know more. 

Let’s also remember that the only other scene with cupid as the main subject of the reverse on the republican series was on a quinarius of the Cinnan era (RRC 352/2)

AND of course there was another Macer who was a populist moneyer in the 80s… (RRC 354)

So where does this leave me and my brain dump?

Cupid seems populist. Maybe no surprise there but still fun. Also appropriate to small denominations. He’s small so there is a logic there. I still don’t know where we can fit the uncia into the Italic numismatic landscape. I think 40s more than 80s or 70s. Roman? Official? Maybe… just maybe…

One of my favorite follow ups to giving the AIA/SCS Metcalf lectures was the feedback I got on this slide regarding Papius symbol no. 47, a right sole and a hand holding a stylus

My colleague Wayne Rupp Jr, suggested I think about connections with the “in planta pedis” phenomenon of signing pottery with a name in the shape of a foot.

And we even have some surviving stamps!

BnF

Cases to hold your intaglios ?

Similar objects in BnF

RRC 405/2 (older posts on RRC 405)

The reverse image is taken to be either the personification of Sors (the god of Lots) or a representation of the child tasked with drawing the lots at the oracle (Likely at Praeneste for Fortuna).

TIL we have the type of object surviving that would have been drawn at this type of oracle AND not only that at least one is likely republican in date based on spelling and letter forms.

BnF (wish I could find the Gallica link, but so far no luck)

Loeb

These forger’s dies were created to strike fake Solidi of RIC 104 Constantinus I for Constans Caesar (336/337 CE) and found in Beaumon-sur-Oise.

There should be an image in Gallica, but for the life of me I can’t put in the right key words to get the database to deliver the right record

BUT in someways I’m more interested in this single Gallic Die, because of how the shape of the die reminds me of the Republican die now in Madrid. (old post with photo; another post for context). The Madrid die will be fully published soon…

Or tortoises or terrapins or whatever…

BM object and drawings

Link to EAGLE

Machine translation, loosely cleaned up by a human:

The area where the tomb stele of Publius Alfius Erastus was discovered, c. 1546, appears to be Podere Ellera I on the outskirts of Antella (Fi). The Marquises Niccolini, owners of the territory of the discovery, transferred the stele to their palace in Florence, where it remained for approximately three centuries. The first floor of their palace was then rented to the Municipality of Florence as the home and office of the Royal Commissioner until 1849 and it is probable that the Marquis Ferdinando Panciatichi Ximenes of Aragon saw it there in 1848, when he was commander of the IV battalion of the Civic Guard. We don’t know exactly how, but the fact is that we find the epigraph from Palazzo Niccolini in the Castle of Sammezzano.

“Versinia Tyche, freedwoman and wife, during her lifetime, erected this monument for the timber merchant for Publius Alfius Erastus, a meritorious spouse”

So we are dealing with an entrepreneur who lived in the 1st century. A.D. dedicated to the trade of construction timber and on his epigraph we find all the tools of his work, which leave some doubts for a correct interpretation, because since this stele is a “unique” of its kind, there are no terms of comparison. The tools could be: Measuring rod or staff, Forestry Hammer, Hypsometer and Grapple Scraper or Stylus Case Diptych Compass sheath

Taken from an article by Silvano Guerrini on “Correspondence”:

Il Castello di Sammezzano, monumento unico del suo genere per i caratteristici ambienti moreschi, conserva, nel suo pianterreno, un’altro “unicum”, una epigrafe funeraria di epoca romana. La zona di ritrovamento della stele sepolcrale di Publio Alfio Erasto, avvenuto intorno all’anno 1546, pare sia il Podere Ellera I alla periferia di Antella (Fi). I Marchesi Niccolini, proprietari del territorio del ritrovamento, trasferirono la stele nel loro palazzo di Firenze, dove rimase per circa tre secoli. Il primo piano del loro palazzo fu poi affittato al Comune di Firenze come abitazione e ufficio del Commissario Regio fino al 1849 ed è probabile che il Marchese Ferdinando Panciatichi Ximenes d’Aragona l’abbia vista lì nel 1848, quando era comandante del IV battaglione della Guardia Civica. Non sappiamo esattamente come, fatto sta che l’epigrafe, da Palazzo Niccolini, la ritroviamo nel Castello di Sammezzano.

Si tratta di un’iscrizione completa, che recita:
V.F. VERSINIA .).
L TYCHE
P. ALFIO. ERASTIO
NEGOTIANTI
MATERIARIO
COIUGI ^ BENE
MERITO

che possiamo tradurre con:
Versinia Tyche, moglie libera, in vita fece per Publio Alfio Erasto commerciante di legname da costruzione, coniuge benemerito

Quindi abbiamo a che fare con un imprenditore vissuto nel I sec. d.C. dedito al commercio di legname da costruzione e sulla sua epigrafe ritroviamo tutti gli strumenti del suo lavoro, che lasciano alcuni dubbi per una corretta interpretazione, perchè essendo questa stele un “unicum” nel suo genere, non esistono termini di confronto.

Gli strumenti dovrebbero essere:
Canna per misurare o Stadia
Martello Forestale
Ipsometro e Rampino
Raschietto o Custodia per stili
Dittico
Fodero per compasso

Tratto da un articolo di Silvano Guerrini su “Corrispondenza”