You can totally see why the semuncia stopped being made. What a radical difference in metal content. Again the As seems a higher weight standard and better controlled, but here the semis is more in line than with the wheel series. I see why Crawford decided to call this a 265 weight standard, but I don’t think it is out of the question it was thought of as on the same weight standards of these group 2 Aes Grave, slightly reduced from group 1 (RRC 14, 18, and 19).
I wonder if it was issued with RRC 22 even if there is no attempt to ensure they read as unified in the designs.
These certainly share a similar Roma design on the As and the didrachm.
The Roma of RRC 19 is markedly different
The RRC 24 Roma of the wheel series is certainly cut from the same cloth as RRC 21 and 22 helping me understand Crawford’s choice in relative sequencing to keep these issues close together.
I’m getting better at writing LLM prompts to extract data. I’ve not yet let it run my analyses as that feels like part of my own thinking at least until I’m confident at my methods and how I will check results. I want no magic black box to spit out answers. I do like less grunt work in transcription, data cleaning, etc… Copilot (university paid subscription) needs shorter sets of data but can handle multiple multiple pages of Haeberlin all at once and produce very usable PDFs with high accuracy (now that I’ve gotten better at prompt writing).
This is a weird picture. The As is much heavier than its fractions. I’m happy (ish) to ignore the tressis (1) and dupondius (14) but the As has 44 specimens and is clearly much more tightly controlled than the fractions as well as heavier.
Why does this series have no uncia?
My notes on Burnett 1989 say that he places this later in the relative chronology because of the standardized reverse on all denominations (cf. prow series) and CHRR 28. But I’m guessing the lack of the unciae is alway a good reason for bringing it down in the sequence of issues.
What should we use as the standard since it looks like the ass is significantly heavier than other denominations. The practical weight standard is 265 grams or so for the fractions, but 271 or so for the As.
I think the As is probably the best unit by which to judge the intended standard of production…
This work is building on my 2023 piece
“The Strangeness of Heavy Bronze” In S. Bernard, L. Mignone, & D. Padilla Peralta (Eds.), Making the Middle Republic: New Approaches to Rome and Italy, c.400-200 BCE (pp. 103-131). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2023.
I’m confident in Haeberlin’s weights based on my own reweighing in Berlin. See write up.
I’m corresponding with a very smart graduate student working on Bronze to Iron Age differences in the use of aes rude and thus have been talking about archaeological finds and how we date them.
She wrote me of Lucus Feroniae finds:
“… my dataset comes from the temple sectors excavated in 2000-2010. … In Serafin’s corpus there are no Roman denarii: the nine silver coins are all from southern Italy (Neapolis, Velia and Locri), while Roman bronze coins are often found together with aes rude.In Serafin’s corpus there are no Roman denarii: the nine silver coins are all from southern Italy (Neapolis, Velia and Locri), while Roman bronze coins are often found together with aes rude.”
“For Phase I, several primary foundation contexts contain Roman coins dated to 211-208 BCE. For example, US 79 has an uncia dated to 209-208 BCE (RRC 99,8 [= P series]), and US 93 has another uncia dated to 209-208 BCE together with aes rude. Serafin also records 89 coins from primary foundation deposits, with the latest issues reaching 208 BCE.”
This sent me to re read McCabe (and Russo) in RBN 2024:
RBN articles are restricted from online posting for two years so this one should be available shortly. If you need a copy now either McCabe or I can probably share one with you.
I agree with P being closer to Canusium that Luceria but likely a camp mint. McCabe does a great job mapping military action and regional coin finds.
The reason this P series coin at Lucus Feroniae in Phase 1 excites me is that the site was sacked in 211 BCE:
Here’s Livy 26.11 with the old translation wrongly using brass for bronze the Latin phrase is: aeris acerui = “a heap of bronze”
I’ve got to look at Serafin and consult McCabe! But that isn’t on the docket anytime soon, too many other tasks.
I was reading a draft of a collaborative piece and there was a casual reference to weight standards and I found myself wondering if Crawford was indeed correct.
Here’s my summary of the data.
First I think the weight standard is closer to 6.6 than the 6.75g Crawford reports.
RRC 26/1 looks tightly controlled and is slightly heavier in both mean and median that RRC 22/1, 25/1, or 27/1.
If we look at the various medians and means and interquartile ranges in the chart below I kind of want to nudge RRC 26/1 to before RRC 22/1. Is that nuts? Yes, it is. The legend Roma clearly is a breaking point and RRC 26 has more in common with RRC 25 and 27 but it certainly shouldn’t be separating RRC 25 and 27. I’ll have to look at the hoards again and the weights of the bronze not just the silver. I don’t want to do the bronze weights. I might not be able to resist.
RRC 25 and 27 look very similar indeed.
The quadrigati clearly have less concern for the weight standard control, not unexpected in such a large issue or rather issues.
The aes grave of RRC 26 survive in much smaller numbers and as we know now we’re missing the uncia, if one was ever made. By contrast for RRC 25 and 27 we have lots of unciae. So perhaps 26 comse after these two issues as an attempt to ensure higher standards at the mint.
The acorn symbol is curious. Sickle = Saturn = Treasury. Club = Hercules = Commercial Markets
An acorn? What is that a symbol of beyond some thing small and easily recognizable?
Lockyear’s database doesn’t have the early relevant hoards in it. Phooey. I don’t want to tabulate them myself either. We’ll see. Maybe after I read Burnett’s contribution to the RRDP volume I’ll find I don’t need to say any of this. He will have said sensible things and I can just cite that.
Flashback
A year and a day ago I released a speculative reconstruction to that I cut from an early draft of this article:
A senior colleague generously gave me a sneak peak of some weight data for known Oval series specimens pre publication. I wanted to think about it as a dataset so I drew some charts.
The series are whole, half, quadrans, sextans, uncia, semuncia if this is a base-12 series and I think it is based on this data. In the past I’ve wondered if it might be base-10, but I think that is likely wrong.
This box and whiskers graph helps us see the median in each group of data and inter quartile range for each denomination overlaps but not well. In the Roman RRC 14 and 18 series smaller denomination are overvalued compared to large one, but here it looks like the semis and the quadrans may be the heavy outliers. The graph is deceptive because we have far less of the whole, half, quadrans and semunica, and we have more than 4 times as many sextantes than unciae.
A Pareto histogram helps us see the long tail of outliers from the central grouping of the data. The picture doesn’t change if we divide the half units into a heavier and lighter series. The data has an incredibly high relative standard deviation of 22% but the other denominations do not easily separate into heavy and light series in any way. I explored the RSD of RRC 14 and 18 in a recent publication and the Roman series seem much better controlled than the club series with an RSD under 15% and under 10% for the as and semis. Smaller denominations do tend to have higher variation but by most metrics the Roman unciae (a contemporary coin of about the same mass) has an RSD under 20%. And I thought the Roman coinage was highly variable!
IF we focus just on the denominations for which we have robust data sets the picture doesn’t change. The RSD stays at 22%. But we do see the sharp drop off in specimens corresponding to a whole unit of more than 167 grams, we also see the long tails.
I decided to see what would happen if I removed the tails and played around with the number of bin:
Overall I’d say that the whole unit was probably about 155-160 grams but this has got to be a fiat currency with this degree of weight variation within denominations.
There was also some find spot data sent along so of course I did a map. Below are points where sextantes have been reported as found:
I’ve marked the primary area with yellow. Below is a standard map of “Etruria”
I wonder if this very simple design could have been made in more than one place in Etruria and perhaps served as a common currency throughout the League. It’s spread throughout the territory is remarkably even.
The Vulci and Ariccia hoards suggest a date similar to the RRC 14 and the currency bars (aes signatum), so 1st Punic War. Interesting how much lighter this weight standard is than the Roman one at the same time…
I’m very grateful for generous colleagues letting me play with there data.
A scholarly correspondent has sent me more citations and photographs AND another specimen from the Bern collection of a specimen of RRC 14/2 engraved along the edge and perhaps pierced?! This of course made me think of RRC 5/1 in Berlin that has an inscription:
AND looking for that sent me down a rabbit hole trying to make sense of Garrucci and Haeberlin’s conflicting testimony of a possible inscription in the Ariccia hoard, which led to some updates to a previous post. And revisting Ariccia hoard made me realize I really should publish a little note on the aes grave of Praeneste as it lets us date the series.
—
Original post.
The Etruscan Necropolis of Poggio del Sole in Arezzo revealed in the late 19th century in controlled excavations an engrave Roman semis weighing 18.4 grams. The engraving is with an Etruscan name, likely a coin deposited with the deceased. Interestingly great care seems to have been taken not to obscure or deface the iconography of the coin.
The letters on the obverse begin beneath the head of Jupiter, curve around in front of it to a point above the head, and reveal the following name:
The letters on the reverse present greater difficulty; the first begins at the *acrostolion* (the curved prow ornament) of the ship, and they proceed from right to left:
This was read VE CRIVEPE AREVIZIES and pulled into Latin as Velius Crivepius Arevissii [filius]. Then the next year it was re read as Criuepeue Areuizies with the assertion that the first was the name of a lautni or freedman and the second was the name of the patron/master and of Celtic/Gallic origin. I find the proposed comparanda less than convincing in this second piece, but onomastics are not my specialty. I’m satisfied that it is all one name and that it is Etruscan and that the function was likely sepulcheral.
I’d dearly love to share a photo of this coin but know of none thus far. I wonder if it is in the Arezzo museum. I must visit next year. For the most part I agree with the interpretation:
The incising of an Etruscan personal name on a Roman *semis*, while entirely novel, is consistent with the customs of the time. In addition to marking the urn that held the deceased’s body and ashes, such inscriptions were sometimes found on objects that had belonged to the individual or had been deposited by grieving relatives in accordance with ritual practice. This served not only to clearly distinguish—within the same tomb—which items belonged to the deceased, but also to ensure that the objects (especially those of everyday use) would not be employed by the living. To this end, the word *SVTHINA* (“sepulchral”) was inscribed across the polished surface of mirrors from Volsinii; weapons and vessels were frequently broken; and the practice of depositing *aes rude* continued into the third century BC, even when coinage bearing official markings was already in use. I have even observed that, in the first century, *asses* of the uncial standard were snapped in two to prevent them from re-entering circulation. A truly rare example has also come down to us: a *sextantal as* bearing the inscription *FORTUNAI STIPE* (B. d’Ailly, *Recherches sur la monnaie rep.*, pl. LIV, p. 12), indicating that the coin was part of a *stips* (offering) dedicated to Fortuna—perhaps intended for the construction of a temple in her honor. Similarly, by examining the countermarks found on coins of the Roman Republic—most of which remain indecipherable—we may reasonably surmise that some represent marks associated with sacred offerings or with pooled funds collected for a specific purpose.
I particularly like the idea that aes rude was preferred specifically for ritual purposes, cf. Praeneste practices. And I want to know more about this halving of asses in grave goods. The countermarks meant are likely bankers marks and those I’d connect to test cuts probably in conjunction with the legislation of Gratidianus and the Lex Cornelia. I’ve got a co-authored article that touches on that, but still awaiting proofs – so cannot share yet.
More on the Fortunai Stipe coin and parallels in an earlier post.
I wonder if some less that ethical individuals added the inscription to artifacts to raise their value through the application of a ‘unique’ ‘authentic’ feature… I wish I was not so suspicious.
No. I’ve not formatted that bibliography yet… Why do you ask…
Classic Researchastination. Or is it procrasti-posting?
I took a break between trying to do some professional travel planning and some bibliographical formatting–none of these tasks spark joy, but must be done. I decided to read something fun and share:
Counterfeit Roman Bronzes. Unfortunately, the file on forgeries must always remain open. Modern industry is constantly refining itself and devising new ways to deceive collectors. Today, we intend to discuss Roman bronzes in order to warn collectors of this series, as the coin-forging industry in Rome has reached an incredible level of perfection. Everyone knows how difficult it is to forge bronze coins for two reasons—the patina and the edge—features that are nearly impossible to replicate authentically. However, in Rome, they do not manufacture fake coins from scratch; instead, they take genuine coins and restrike them using a counterfeit die, impressing the design of a rare coin onto a common one. The edge remains perfectly preserved and appears genuine—as it truly is—even to the most expert eye. The patina, or at least the coin’s ancient coloring, also remains unaltered. To identify these restruck coins, one must look for an unusual sheen in the background areas and, conversely, a certain roughness on the raised parts of the design, particularly the lettering. The metal undergoes immense pressure during this double striking, creating the glossy background; the roughness of the relief details arises because the metal—sometimes depleted by the original striking—fails to fully fill the new die.
We have seen medium bronzes, large bronzes, and even a medallion produced using this method, and we consider it a service to warn all collectors about this extremely dangerous type of forgery. When rare or extremely rare coins are offered to you, if you wish to avoid being deceived, you should begin by being wary; furthermore, rather than relying on the authenticity of the rim or the patina—which, incidentally, can be quite skillfully faked nowadays—you should carefully examine both the flat field of the coin and its highest relief areas. One can never be too cautious.
Counterfeit Roman gold coins are also in circulation, but these are more easily recognized.
Wouldn’t you love to see one of these re strikes just to get a sense of what they look like?! If you know of one and want to send me pictures I’d love that. I wonder if they mean gold is counterfeited the same way? This type of modern restrike seems something different, closer to what Becker might have been attempting?! [If we believe he did not mean to deceive.]
All of this is a good argument about why archaeometallurgy can help, but cannot prove authenticity.
Sept 1 isn’t a big day for posting in the past. All I have is some random RR bibliography. I’m very frustrated these days with the lack of digital modernization in numismatic literature. Lots of my publications aren’t indexed by google scholar and don’t count towards any citation metrics and fundamentally get cites less because of it. I could manually enter them but a) boring and b) would it help people access them?! Also Donum has great data but doesn’t have it formatted to populate correctly in Zotero or similar software, and the INC bibliographies are now online but as PDFs not as an actual searchable database. All of this means I spend more time hunting and hand formatting when I work with coin than I do for other subfields. I tend not to care too much about metrics of productivity but I do care about being read and I’m hearing from scholars that those metrics matter a great deal at some institutions and that I have colleagues moving away from publishing in the discipline in order to actually achieve promotion and institutional recognition.
[discovery of tombs described] …Many years ago, a hoard of Consular and Samnite coins, weapons, and various objects was found there; from time to time, many decorated vases were also recovered from the tombs—which were attributed to Sant’Agata dei Goti, as the nearest town to that site. It should also be noted, as many writers affirm, that the ancient city of Saticula must have stood not far away. … Among the objects found in the past on the aforementioned property, I possess the following bronze coin (25 mm in diameter): a male head facing right, with two small dots behind it (indicating a *sextans*); on the reverse, an elephant standing to the left with a bird above it. This coin, of uncertain attribution, shares the same crude style as the one described by the distinguished Minervini, to which it bears a strong resemblance. Sambon describes similar pieces. …
I think it likely the type under discussion is this one typically dated to the second punic war and the time of Hannibal.
Meles Historia Numorum Italy 442, cf. BM specimen (w/o photo), specimen above said by Haeberlin to be in Naples (30.5g.). Typically the object on top of the elephant is identified as a rider/driver but I see how it could be seen as a bird. [link to plate with more examples] Likewise the head is identified with Hercules because a club can be made out between the dots over the far shoulder. We assume the Punic silver struck in Iberia was the model:
I wish I could be confident that the mention of “un ripostiglio di monete consolari e saunitiche” meant this was a social war hoard with social war denarii, but it doesn’t even say it was a silver hoard. If it contained a bronze of Meles than perhaps all the coins were bronze. Boo.
A cache of silver family coins discovered in the municipality. As early as November 1888, a clay vase containing a large cache of silver family coins was discovered on a farm called Scirno, owned by Mr. Francesco Martelli, in the Roccamandolfi area. The cache was seized by the judicial authorities for administrative reasons, and only now are we able to provide a description of the find. The coins, according to the catalog compiled by the Royal Inspector of the excavations, Cav. De Marco, are 337 and belong to the following families: Aburia 2. Aelia 2. Aemilia 2. Antestia 4. Antonia 16. Appuleia 1. Aurelia 1. Baebia 2. Caecilia 5. Calidia 2. Calpurnia 21. Cassia 2. Cipia 1. Claudia 2. Coelia 2. Cornelia 14. Cosconia 2. Crepusia 11. Curiatia 1. Curtia 2. Domitia 2. Fabia 3. Fannia 4. Flaminia 4. Fonteia 14. Fulvia 1. Furia 12. Herennia 2. Iulia 9. Iunia 16. Licinia 17. Lutatia 1. Maenia 5. Mamilia 3. Manlia 5. Marcia 12. Memmia 4. Minucia 2. Naevia 3. Opeimia 4. Papiria 4. Pinaria 4. Plautia 1. Poblicia 1. Pompeia 1. Porcia 6. Postumia 4. Procilia 2. Quintia 1. Rubria 10. Saufeia 1. Sempronia 1. Sergia 3. Servilia 8. Silia 3. Sulpicia 1. Thoria 6. Titia 8. Tituria 11. Valeria 6. Vargunteia 2. Vibia 16. There are also four uncertain denarii and a Samnite coin from the time of the Marsica League, on which only the number IIIV is visible. Nine other unmarked or poorly preserved family coins were also part of the same hoard.
I’m at least re assured that it is possible to call social war coins Samnite because of this “una moneta sannitica, del tempo della lega Marsica”.
The control numeral means that the coin is almost certainly HN Italy 415 with head of Italia, l. [no legend or I] and Oath scene with eight figures = Campana 3a/35-37.
The picture seems pretty clear. The odd coin survived in the hoards but most were gone from circulation by 79 BCE. There exclusion from the hoards might have something to do with the Lex Cornelia… [Which I think likely re affirmed ideas put forward by Gratidianus: with Alice Sharpless and Kris Lockyear I’ve got a piece on this for which I’m awaiting proofs.]
Am I missing hoards? If so, please let me know. I chased after a possible one in Romania but decided in the end it was a red herring.
In 2022 I found an amusing vase painting where men in Thracian costume reminded me of Roman apices. I cited a drawing not the vase itself, but it was easy to find. This vase has a man in a similar costume.
In 2018 I was playing around with how to visually depict the usage of control marks and serration on the RR coin series. It was the day I broke 50k on the book manuscript. The timelines ended up combined in the book and then took on new life as I thought about these things as I worked on RRDP. See Carbone and Yarrow RBN 2020: 298-299 for a much more detailed chart on the use of control marks and my discussion of the phenomenon.
In 2016 I have no idea what I was working on, perhaps the book but not with an eye to the final version, perhaps this was when I was trying to decide what to do with my manuscript. I was certainly having a day deep in both secondary literature and the primary sources. I know this was about the time I was finishing the first draft of the Romulus’ Apotheosis article, but that doesn’t seem to connect to these posts:
Harry Judge told me it was ok to be an academic and a Christian while I was kicking around Brasenose College as a grad student. He was one of the few fellows who regularly came to chapel and perhaps the most irreverent. He introduced me to the idea of Markian Christianity. Just embrace Mark, Baptism to the Empty Tomb. Leave Q and Gnosticism to the others and you’ll be fine. I sat on bench in the old Quad this past May dedicated to Harry and said a little pray and ask for forgiveness I never stayed in touch. I confessed to another fellow, from another college, this one ordained, my struggles with faith. She gave me two gems. If I struggled with Paul, I should teach the letters and look for the humanity of the man, the divine inspiration in tension with cultural and social norms. She said not to fetishize the early church, originalism is a theological error, when Jesus taught change and a striving towards a better future where we move towards greater equality.
I still struggle with these questions, but I try and it was good to go to church yesterday and light a candle or two and be moved by the simple act of communion. It helped move the grief a little more. In a different more raw and wordless way than writing. I meditated on Joseph the Worker. So patient and steadfast in the face of complex and unknowable forces. And then today I saw this meme and I thought of Harry, and Charlie telling me to embrace my love of the church.
Sitting in the pew with my grief I remembered a little more. He would make my stuffed animals dance around my bed to Camille Saint-Saëns’ carnival of the animals. I had no ear but he wanted me to be comfortable with classical music. There was also Peter and Wolf, but I loved Saint-Saëns more. In my teen years he ensured I got to go to Evita and Madame Butterfly, getting all dressed up and experiencing ‘real’ theatre with ‘real’ music. There was a cracked window dedicated to St. Cecilia about the candles in the left hand aisle of the nave. The crack does not erase the meaning. Our earthy lives are fragile.
Our pattern of life is changing. I’m working from home more and my beloved is out on job sites with his clients long hours. We got a bimonthly cleaner. It helps. She’s the first time we’ve had a cleaner I don’t mind in my personal space. The rest I tolerated a time or two and then let go. I can’t tell you why this one is different. I wish I could have her every week or even more.
At home I’m doing more primary-carer parenting. The kids say they don’t want cell phones if I’m in charge of tech. I’m too strict. I wonder if I am. The intertubes tell me that being strict leads to sneaking. This I know. I’ve been realizing that my concerns over tech is not in any way phone specific. Phones are really just one more device in a tech ecosystem in which they and we as a family are deeply enmeshed. I’ve got to figure out a balance.
On Saturday I did a little work and thought I might blog. I re-read an old blog post, one of those ‘look back posts’ about where I was a year ago, “… Just Email”. It helped me remember the constant struggle for self discipline. So I went for a walk and then worked on bibliography. I got really excited when I saw Donum (ANS library catalogue) connected to Zotero and I decided to again try Zotero for bibliography. Nope. Donum puts articles in as books and leaves out the details so now I get to relook up all the details to manually enter coin article data. These are the moments I wish I had a research assistant I could pay to do the grunt work. I think I will leave Zotero installed. It does a nice job with most other bibliographical databases. I wonder if the INC bibliographies are uploaded into it or can be downloaded into it with the correct formatting… Now that is a thought!
It is super weird to me that I’ve never written a blog post about this coin, at least not one the search function on my blog will spit out. I’ve been posting for 13 years and this very common coin has not yet crossed my desk in a way that generated a post. I tried to bribe my kids to make an index of my blog based on Crawford numbers over the summer. They are to rich to be interested in the copy and pasting work at the rates I offered. Maybe I’ll find someone else I can pay to do that for me at some point. It would be interesting to see the other gaps.
I didn’t even illustrate it in my 2021 book. That was probably a mistake. Perhaps there will be a second edition in which I can correct it. I’d slip it into chapter 3 on Mutinies to talk about the impact of Spartacus’ revolt and to thus contextualize the Social War.
Here’s what Lockyear 2007: 159 says that inspired this post:
You see those two little lines in the marginalia. That tells you I had this thought when I read the book cover to cover at some point before I started this blog. This is the sort of little nugget that has such a hard time being translated from technical publications into the mainstream of historical research.
I did however annotate my hard copy of RRC with Lockyear’s insights. On p. 164 he connects it to Pompey’s threatened return from Spain for lack of funds, but notes p. 166 that it was not distributed to Spain in any significant numbers.
If we put it in 73 BCE as part of the regularly striking for the year we need not be surprised that more coins were struck this year. There were multiple stressors that year among those not already mentioned Mithridates agitation in Asia.
I will therefore reply first to Postumus, who somehow or other, though only a candidate for the praetorship, seems to me in his assault on a consul like a circus-horse competing in the four-horse-chariot race. In his case, if his rivals did nothing wrong, his retirement from the contest showed a sense of their superiority ; if on the other hand any of them spent money on the contest, Postumus must be a very desirable friend, to be following up an injury to a friend before resenting one received by himself.
Cic. Mur. 57
if one of the counsel for the prosecution, our friend Postumus, went to welcome Murena with quite a large number of supporters, is there anything to cause astonishment in that huge crowd ? I say nothing of his clients, neighbours, and fellow-tribesmen, or of the whole army of Lucullus, which had arrived about that time to attend the triumph : I merely assert this, that the voluntary service of giving a man an imposing reception has never failed to be rendered to any man who deserved it, nor even to any one who desired it.
Ibid. 69
I am more concerned than Crawford about how to resolve the AT/TA ligature. We resolve it elsewhere on the series as Tatius. I’ve got no better answer for its appearance on this coin. One cannot turn the ligature into a version of Albinus as far as I can see.
Finally I’d note the hunting spear has clear dots along the shaft. An unusual feature to my eye.
As a proud union member my workload is strictly monitored and controlled. It’s going to shock you (not really) that I’m too far overwork load in this cycle. This means I’m going to have extra time this year to focus on research and writing. It is not a sabbatical, but it is a reset to get a better balance. I also get to some behind the scenes service projects and future focused work to support the incredibly leadership of my fellow classicist and blogger, Joel Christensen, Provost of the GC. It is a year of transition for me. One in which I get to think about the great ‘what next’ question.
I realized when I created that link to Joel’s blog why I chose the template for mine that I did. I was looking at a refresh to my website yesterday. I was tempted by the author landing page style rather than leading with the blog, but nah. No time for design stuff.
Flash Back!
In 2019 I was thinking about a quaestor who didn’t want to strike coins for Pompey but did anyway, leaving off his name only to be outed by the survival of a key Cicero letter. I last updated this post just two weeks ago.
In 2020 the pandemic was still in the first long grind and we were hopeful things were starting to open up again even without a vaccine. Twitter was my lifeline and I was smart enough to archive some of the conversations here because most have disappeared. On this day I was curious at the stylistic similarities between Parthenon horses and horses on early Roman coins.
Maybe I’ll do more of this retrospective this year. maybe not.
Stuff that Needs Attention
Travel Related
October
Illinois presentation – rent car, slide deck
Warsaw presentation – slide deck, figure out if I fit in Krakow too
Invitation to China – follow up on logistics to assess feasibility and financials
December
MuX experiment – buy plane tickets
January
Warwick gig – figure out if the kids are coming
Publication Related
Review goals and priorities, as well as approaches to writing
Papius, Fabatus catalogue and write up – consider a pomodoro approach to limit research-astination (there has got to be a better neologism for this concept, perhaps in German?!)
Social War Abstract and Bibliography
Edits to Dio on Crassus article
Edits to Mars article
Engage with RRC 25 collaborative article
Decide what to do with the recent draft pieces on Musa and Cicero’s Letters
Get serious about book projects
Say no to other new projects, unless grant related
