This is a screenshot of some coins from Velia in the Oppido Lucano hoard (most famous for having a specimen of RRC 13/1 in it).
It is from Francesco Panvini Rosati’s “Il ripostiglio monetale rinvenuto a Oppido Lucano” (on file in his collected works PDF)
My eye stuck on those incuse squares behind the head of Athena. They look so much like counter marks, but they are not! Here’s the catalogue entry. This is HN 1318.
This space behind the neck of Athena but inside the curve of the plume of the helmet is just where Velia places secondary symbols. Presumably correlated to the issuer or issuing of the coins.
Here’s an image of a Paris specimen to let you see the incuse better:
Velia did in the early days of its coin issue strike series with incuse punch reverses, but that doesn’t seem to be the inspiration for this unusual secondary symbol.
The shear complexity of the Velia issues and their symbols have kept numismatists happily and busily obsessed over the years. Rutter in Historia Numorum Italy is usually v v terse, but he lets Velia stretch to 6 pages resorting to a chart at one point.
Some where in the basement of Palazzo Massimo lurks this coin seen by Bahrfeldt and illustrated by Garrucci. It comes from Vicarello hence my present interest.
The under type is said to be HN Italy 680, Luceria:
Ercolani Cocchi, Emanuela, Anna Lina Morelli, and Diana Neri. Romanizzazione E Moneta: La Testimonianza Dei Rinvenimenti Dall’Emilia Romagna. Firenze: All’insegna del giglio, 2004.
I’m struck not only by these two coins appearing in the same excavation. Were they found together?! But also by their similarity in size.
Ariminum is a Roman foundation of 268 BCE. According to another publication (below), there is also said to have been found in Rimini an RRC 18/1 and also in their collection RRC 18/4 and 18/5, suggesting they were also found in the area.
I’d be very inclined to invoke this as evidence to down date RRC 18 to after 268 BCE. I’d do that any way but this helps solidify my thinking.
While looking for more near contemporary accounts of the Vicarello findings I learned about Lago degli Idoli located in the shadow of Mount Falterona, east of Florence and west of Rimini. The wikipedia page is fairly decent as things go so I won’t re iterate the content there.
The focus of this testimony is the presence in the votive deposit of aes rude. The 1838 reports says aes rude ranged from 2 ounces to 2 pounds in size and amounted to 300 pounds in total!
The type of other votive bronzes are all described in the report. Many figurines but also many anatomical pieces, esp. limbs. Zero mention of coins.
The 1842 report is more tantilizing with its reference to rectangular monetary pieces described as aes grave among the aes rude.
Still in 2005 aes rude was appearing in excavations as the site:
Fedeli, Luca. “Stia (AR): lago degli Idoli: campagna di scavo 2005.” Stia (AR): lago degli Idoli: campagna di scavo 2005 (2005): 164-167.
But more interesting is the three pieces of what is called aes signatum and the 20 coins:
I can’t find any other details and that frustrates me…
Chiarantini, Laura, Marco Benvenuti, M. Tognelli, F. Lurci, and Pilario Costagliola. “Indagine archeometrica di manufatti metallici provenienti dal Lago degli Idoli (AR).” In Atti della Giornata di studio” Gli scavi e le indagini ambientali nel sito archeologico del Lago degli Idoli”, pp. 97-103. Comunità Montana del Casentino, 2007. [ILL ordered]
While I haven’t read the whole paper the abstract suggests that the figurines were all heavily leaded and the aes rude was either heavily leaded or iron rich.
Benvenuti, Marco, Laura Chiarantini, Pilario Costagliola, A. Dini, I. Giunti, Lorenzo Giuntini, and Mirko Massi. “An investigation of unworked lumps of Cu-based materials (“Aes Rude”?) from two Etruscan sites.” In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference” Archaeometallurgy in Europe”, vol. 2, pp. 0-0. Associazione Italiana di Metallurgia, 2007. [ILL ordered ; abstract]
Why were the workmen dividing? A case of the judgement of Solomon? And how were they dividing that the cut is even on both sides? Some sort of chopper? Or is the story all a fantasy to give the ugly coin a origin story and thus make it more ‘collectable’?
Whelp. I now feel I have something to say about the Vicarello find that probably should be PRed, so we’ll have to have some stuff for the bibliography of that article. Not to mention reading it all to make sure I’m not intending on saying something in print that is too foolish. I’ll add to this post as I find more.
Haberlin’s notes are invaluable as he reports where some vicarello coins ended up, where Garucci and Marchi conflict in their testimony.
Taylor, Rabun. “Wheels, Keels, and Coins: Aquae Apollinares (Vicarello, Lazio) and Patterns of Pilgrimage in 3rd-Century Italy.” Ancient Waterlands, 2019, 225–44. doi:10.4000/BOOKS.PUP.40645. (academia) VERY USEFUL. VERY WELL ILLUSTRATED.
Falkenstein-Wirth Vera von. 2011. Das Quellheiligtum Von Vicarello (Aquae Apollinares) : Ein Kultort Von Der Bronzezeit Bis Zum Ende Des Kaiserreichs. Darmstadt: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. [coin chapter requested via ILL]
Colini, A. M. “La stipe delle acque salutari di Vicarello.” Rendiconti della Pontifica Accademia Romana dr’Arcbeo1ogia 60 (1968): 35-56. [Discussed in past blog post; on file.]
Tocci, L. M. 1967-1968. “Monete della stipe di Vicarello nel Medagliere Vaticano.”Atti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di archeologia40: 75-81.(PDF on file)
Francesco Panvini Rosati (on file in collected works)
Important for details of signed issues! Also of Italic coins, esp. Etruscan. give not only reported count but also number actually in collection. Here’s taste. V interesting that Marchi failed to record Semuncia and Quartuncia of Prow series.
I’m not listing the cup/itinerary bibliography it is just too long and too unrelated.
Hodges, Richard. “The archaeology of the Vicarello Estate, Lake Bracciano.” Papers of the British School at Rome 63 (1995): 245-249. (Jstor). Survey of previous work and holistic approach to the site, but short.
Falkenstein-Wirth 2011 above
The BM has 4 coins from this votive deposit and one vase; the purchases were made through Rollin & Feuardent, Sambon
Historia Nummorum Italy 357 (Yet another is listed in Sambon sale 1870 also from Vicarello. But only one is listed by Marchi as found and the BM specimen was sold to them by Sambon in 1870 — I hope no duplication occurred)
RRC 37/1c (Haeberlin illustrates other RRC 37 specimens found at Vicarello)
Again we must ask the question how many Roma/Bull (RRC 37s) were really found at Vicarello. Here is Sambon selling two more with that attribution in 1870. Even after he sold one with this attribution to the BM in 1867. Marchi says 5: 3 cadeuceus, 2 Ls.
I wonder if this might be Vecchi 350 = HN Italy 677f?
Noe 1925 says that the best of the Vicarello finds were acquired by the Pontificium Collegium Germanicum et Hungaricum de Urbe. I wonder if they still hold them or deposited them with the Vatican? The college has its own library so it is not beyond possibility that they have them still.
Barhfeldt asked the Italian Numismatics community a series of questions in RIN 1888. one of which was WHAT happened to the Vicarello coins?!
Pigorini director of the Kircher Museum answered in the same publication:
In short he says the Jesuits left not a clue about the what they might have done with the coins either what they chose to keep or what the disposed of in some other way. No papers let alone a catalogue or inventory.
This post (in conjunction withearlier posts) shows that there was a demonstrable shift away from aes grave c. 240 in the votive deposits at Vicarello. Prior to 240 BCE aes grave and struck bronzes exist in near equal numbers, but after 240 BCE aes grave drops off and struck material strongly persists.
Signed here means anything with a name a symbol or a monogram. So unsigned mean anonymous issues–these far and away out number the later signed bronzes. The preference for the sextans is interesting, but it is not nearly as pronounced as the denominational preferences we saw for the cast coins from deposit.
From RRC 39 there are only 3 sextans, but 31 semuncia!
Tiano, Suesano and Caleno issues together with Naples coins correlate with the large presence of RRC 16 (earlier post) and RRC 14 (earlier post), all together I’d suggest that the site was most active during the 1st Punic war. RRC 17 has been shown by Molinari and Jaia 2020 to be of a similar time to RRC 25-27. It’s greater presence here shows that in this next period (post 240 but prior to 2nd Punic war), the deposit was still active but the preference was strongly shifting to struck coinage. Dedications pick up in the second Punic war but not quite to levels of 1st Punic wars.
Of course the interwar period dip might reflect dip in coin production rather than a dip in sanctuary activity. Coins made during the First Punic War remain in circulation and available to deposit in the later periods. Many of those in light blue may actually be from 2nd Punic War and many of those in orange are likely to be from the 1st Punic War.
I’ve put RRC 21 in the interwar period again following Molinari and Jaia 2020 who based this finding on the La Bruna and Spoletium finds.
I’m still thinking about Vicarello. I was looking through the lists of struck coins this morning.
This one caught my eye. Obviously from club series, RRC 27/3
But I’d not thought about the struck bronze in this series much. It does have cast bronze in six denominations copying the types of RRC 21 which in turn echo for the triens down types from RRC 14.
Here’s the RRC 27 struck bronze at a glance
Mars/Horse litra borrows the type of the diadrachm of the same series. There were four in the Vicarello find:
So what’s up with the having two so called “litras” one mars, one hercules in the same series?! I have thoughts, but first let’s look at the ‘double litra’ similar to what was found at Vicarello, of course Berlin has gorgeous specimen.
At first glance calling it the double unit of RRC 27/2 and 27/4 seems fine it is about double the weight. But is it really the same denomination a so called ‘double-litra’ as RRC 16/1?
I’m inclined toward no and would at least emphasize that RRC 27/3 is clearly on a different weight standard than RRC 16/1.
All of this is context to what really fascinates me. Is what Crawford calls a “bow” in his RRC catalogue entry for RRC 27/4. There are only 4 in CRRO, 2 Paris, 1 Berlin, 1 Cambridge (Bahrfeldt new 5 specimens, average weight 3.23g!)
I was skeptical of his saying there was an L before the head of Hercules but zooming in suggests he is indeed correct (as so often).
Clearly RRC 27/4 derives its design inspiration from RRC 27/3. Does that mean it was struck at the same time? I don’t know. There is no club visible on it. The series already has a litra and this seems like it might be a semuncia because of the sigma on the reverse.
The average weight of an uncia in the club series (RRC 27/10) is over 22 grams so this cannot be the half unit of that. If RRC 27/4 is a semuncia it would likely correspond to a weight standard where the as was c. 78g. So perhaps it should be situated somewhere near RRC 43 or RRC 98. We know Luceria issued other semuncia and we also know as a mint it was slightly more experimental with its designs on bronze during the Hannibalic war (earlier blog post).
Speaking against such placement is the flatter style of the die engraving at Luceria for the bronzes.
Whenever and wherever RRC 27/4 was made it is a strange and v rare coin. I’d love to see photos of specimens NOT in CRRO if you have any.
Two more specimens from the Schaefer Archives
A full publication coming to much the same conclusion separately is forthcoming 2024 from McCabe Russo in a special edition of BSN (edited by Carbone and Yarrow).
My sense has been that unciae are popular as small votives and out number other denominations among the finds, but I hadn’t actually quantified this until today:
The surprise for me here is the relative popularity of the Triens over the Semis and the Quadrans.
This chart was drawn from the counts reported in Crawford’s 1983 catalogue.
And do you know what?! I thought I still needed to do the same with Vicarello BUT NO I’d already done all that work at least by denomination in a previous blog post! I wasn’t just shooting from my hip I actually had found data to back me up on this previously.
In that previous post I asked:
“Does the lower count of semisses and quadrantes as compared to asses and trientes, suggest there were fewer of these denominations in people’s purses? likewise fewer circulating semunciae than uncia? “
I am leaning towards yes as the answer after seeing the Nemi material.
I guess if I want to do it right I should look for series variation to see if 14/18 behave differently than the later ones.
If anything though my immediate take away is that it is surprising how many more large denomination specimens are actually present at Nemi.
Ok. I did it.
And it is v weird indeed. There was far more Italic (non-Roman) material than I thought and that took the most time to sort by type. Most are all are from unidentified ‘mints’.
What is even weirder is how RRC 24, 25, 26 are completely missing:
AND RRC 14 dominates by a vast margin.
What does it MEAN? I can’t tell you yet, but it sure is interesting.
And then we have this weird line:
“Missing in the cited tables: Quinquessis (5 as piece): Tripod / Amphora”
Is this an otherwise unknown currency bar?! Super strange and tantalizing.
Liv Mariah Yarrow 