Bronze is Tin and Copper, Brass is Zinc and Copper. The latter is far harder to produce than the former. The foundational work on Brass in the ancient world is Craddock 1978. I’m starting here and then working forward in scholarship. The main issues are obtaining zinc and then ensuring it doesn’t burn off when the alloy is made.
Craddock didn’t know exactly where or how the technology enters the ancient world or precisely the techniques used but he makes a good case that the techniques that end up being used by the Roman might have been v similar to those used in India (see diagram below)
The question is how early was brass commonly in use, certainly by the first early century CE. It is known to Plato and other Classical writers but is considered more precious than silver because of its gold color. Even in the Roman world it was valued for this property
Craddock says there are Etruscan figurines of Brass that must be genuine because of style.
But I am more skeptical. I couldn’t find this statue in the BM collection (I didn’t look as hard as I could have.) But I did find another fake brass with the curator’s notes from 1990 saying with certitude that Brass wasn’t used by Etruscans in this period.
Why do I care? Well because of zinc readings from surface analyses of aes grave. Could the material be ancient? I’m leaning very strongly no, but this is just the beginning of my thinking on the matter, don’t base any arguments on this yet.
One more brass object that is suspected of being a modern imitation:
Suffice to say I leave notes in the trays when I find high zinc readings.
I got two pieces of exciting news today, I can’t share yet but both were just what I needed to hear.
Today
further edits/tweaks – then send off
Zoom on back to the 80s
Rutgers follow up
Shift Feb flights
Submit receipts
Update Rome contacts on Feb
April NYC event follow up email on state of logistics
Email Schaefer
START CRUNCHING DATA
Not Today (but maybe tomorrow, or the day after)
collect hoard data for RACOM paper
Teaching requests for Fall 2023
Set time table for any collaborative RRDP work/publication prep that needs to happen this semester: Chicago pub, INC pub, collaboration with RACOM, etc…
Circle back to Capito project
Consider ask for funding from Dean’s office
Begin Med school rec letter
record mini myth
find out what is on that v old harddrive and back up to cloud
In my Satricum post I note that Termeer and Prins 2021 observed there was found:
“one Lion bronze (no. 38) with reverse lion to the left is a variety of RRC 16/1a and 1b, only known from Vicarello and Carsoli”
I made a note in my copy of RRC of the new subtype and moved on, now today while reading Catalli 2014 on the Nemi finds (scan on file), I notice that there too a lion left was listed there among “rinvenimenti soradici” stray finds from the sanctuary area.
How amazingly odd to have a sub-type that keeps turning up well provenanced, but with almost no presence in trade. Of course, Schaefer knows of one such specimen that sold in 1990, but I can find no more with a quick search of the usual databases.
So Crawford’s listing of the contents this hoard in CHRR doesn’t emphasize enough that it was incomplete.
Notice here in Cesano 1942, her point no. 3: large rectangular pieces of bronze were removed by unknown passing workers and could not be retrieved by E. Cocozza. This strongly suggests that Roman Currency Bars (so-called aes signatum) were part of this deposit.
This reminded me that Ardea was on the list of findspots known to Garrucci in 1882 from the same cache?! (early post on this)
The other key point, no. 5: the find was associated with tufa blocks and “among the earth there are fragments of Etruscan Campanian pottery, and of roof tiles, elements that hint at a place inhabited in the republican period” I wonder if any field survey or excavation has been done in this area?!
The recovered materials from this hoard are on deposit in Rome and were published with full illustrations by Catalli 1989 in BN 13 (on file).
One of the most interesting aspects of this hoard is the presence of RRC 16/1 which must share a similar date to the earliest aes grave [RRC 14, RRC 18, RRC 19] also in this hoard. This hoard would have been excellent support as well for my dating of the currency bars in my #NotAllElephants article from 2021 (formatted full text). Drat.
Image from Catalli 1989
I’m also intrigued by role of Opera Nazionale Combattenti in bringing this to light. I can find plenty on their activities but nothing easily about the Romanians or veterans returning form Romania?
In the original 1969 publication of CHRR Crawford says “There is no good reason for regarding this hoard as a votive deposit.”
In 2003 re revised his views, but still did not commit himself to believing it was a votive deposit:
This question is of some interest to me as I’d be curious if it meant all these objects were actually in circulation together or had a long period of sequential deposit. But the main issue is that I failed to include this in my #NotAllElephants article from 2021 (formatted full text). It doesn’t change my argument in the slightest but it makes my maps and tables incomplete and that bugs the heck out of me!
The hoard contained 6 fragments of Roman currency bars (so called aes signatum):
“Another roughly triangular fragment, with an undulating fracture line that runs along two of the three sides of the piece; which presents in relief on the two wide faces a wavy line in relief which could also be or rather hint at one of the stylized floral ornaments of the lightning clasped in the claws of the eagle, of the quadrilateral EAGLE-PEGASUS (3) while, on the other face nothing can be identified. Weight gr. 72; cm. 4 X 2.6o X 1.30 thick.”
“An almost shapeless triangular fragment where it is difficult but certainly possible to recognize traces of the feet of the bull appearing on the two sides of the relative BULL-BULL quadrilateral (2). Weight gr. 58; cm. 3.6o x 2.50 x 1.10 thick.” (Machine translations)
Cesano not only talks about the coins but also gives weight details for the Aes Rude that make up the largest category in the deposit:
One weird thing is the gap in this find between currency bars and the next Roman coinage which starts with the prow series libral standard aes grave. Was there a gap in deposition during this time?
I wanted to think about weights of the aes rude as a counter point for the currency bar fragments so I made some charts:
However, we shouldn’t just think about weight but also size, as Cesano says:
“The pieces are of two types, compact and heavy bronze and lighter spongy slag, whereby the weight is not indicated by the volume of the pieces themselves.” {machine translation}
The images and above quotes are from Cesano 1942 with a lovely colleague just sent me.
Before I get to work on the boring parts of today (persuading two machines to talk to each other via some rather mediocre software), I allowed myself to browse some of my scans from the ANS yesterday. Divo 1977, the coins stolen from Naples, is just one of the goodies (need a pdf? just ask!). [NB! I keep calling this Divo 1970 by accident, no idea why. Must clean up file names etc…]
I may have found a new Fabatus control mark (RRC 412/1). My run through Crawford’s plates LXVIII and LXIX turned up no likely matches. I’ve not spotted it in the Schaefer archive either for all he’s identified dozens of control-marks not known to Crawford (you can access this through CRRO). But I’ll be honest I didn’t give it too much time as other things take priority.
Mural crown, turreted crown a common attribute of the Magna Mater, Cybele, as well as city goddesses Head of a lion a common attribute of the Magna Mater, Cybele, and other goddesses fitting the mistress of the beasts type, other Anatolian Artemis and mother/fertility goddesses.
Today
follow up on scans from yesterday
edits/tweaks – then share
Princeton follow up
Read more on Aes Grave
Rutgers follow up
Prep PC for tomorrow
international UG response
April event logistics
Cancel at least one more digital membership
Not Today (but maybe tomorrow, or the day after)
Teaching requests for Fall 2023
Set time table for any collaborative RRDP work/publication prep that needs to happen this semester: Chicago pub, INC pub, collaboration with RACOM, etc…
Circle back to Capito project
Consider ask for funding from Dean’s office
Begin Med school rec letter
record mini myth
find out what is on that v old harddrive and back up to cloud
It’s an ANS day. I’m spending some time with the SNGs from Italian Collections this from Firenze (vol 3.) Umbria-Bruttium.
I also battled the scanning technology to make a high quality copy of the Divo, Coins Stolen from Naples (1977). I’ve been frustrated with not having it on file. But at long last I’ve a decent pdf (if you need one do ask!).
A screen shot just to give a sense of the publication. V little text almost all just photos.
I’m now scanning most of Bolletino di Numismatica 13 (1989). The images of well provenanced aes grave From the Roman National Museum Collection (Palazzo Massimo) are just delish.
Screenshot of Google Earth project (I enjoy this type of orientation to the landscape as I try to fix in my mind where something is in relation to more familiar landmarks)Wikimedia map of Latium (public domain)
On the Goddess of this sanctuary I’m reading:
Carroll, M. (2019). MATER MATUTA, ‘FERTILITY CULTS’ AND THE INTEGRATION OF WOMEN IN RELIGIOUS LIFE IN ITALY IN THE FOURTH TO FIRST CENTURIES BC. Papers of the British School at Rome, 87, 1-45. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068246218000399
The article is very good at problematizing the whole ‘god of…’ approach to polytheistic religion and also has a succinct statement on syncretism with recent bibliography (for all she avoids using that term). This article will be good to circle back on when I return to either Feronia (last chapter of current book project) and/or Ino-Leukothea (esp. RRC 399/1, n.b. my glass paste article).
On page 5-6 she gives this summary of the temple chronology at Satricum:
She also has thoughts on how the cult might have re-enforced matrilineal ancestry and kinship ties, perhaps mildly relevant when discussing RRC 433/2.
This passage is interesting for HOW we interpret votive deposits, especially in terms of gender:
In this next passage I’m interested in how the transition in types of votives is ALSO generally speaking correlated to the Roman adoption of coin making. Perhaps BOTH indicative of bigger cultural shifts.
Ok. I’ve got a much better understanding of cult and the goddess so now we can get on to the coins!
Termeer, Marleen K. and Prins, Jelle. 2021. “Coins and aes rude as votive gifts : the coins and aes rude from the Hellenistic votive deposit at Satricum and the first coinage in Latium” Ancient Numismatics : an international journal 2: 43-91. DOI: 10.19272/202114401002 (paid content) Deposited unformatted final text, no images (open access)
“We argue that the long tradition of deposition of aes rude in religious contexts in Latium was continued in the period when coins were first introduced, and the coins seem to have been embedded in this tradition. Thus, the use of coins and aes rude had considerable overlap in this period.”
This sentence reminds me of the bits of Festus and Varro on a coin being used instead of rough bronze in ritual exchanges.
Raniero Mengarelli conducted excavations in 1896. I should look up his N. Scavi entries at some point. When the Dutch Institute began excavating in 1985 they found a ‘secondary’ votive dump, and thus original stratigraphy of deposition cannot be reconstructed, it is however possible some portions of the original deposit were untouched…
Votive I – LOTS of Aes Rude, no coins (assoc. archaic sacellum)
Votive II – (5-3rd cent) more aes rude, 5 coins likely deposited after 300 BCE
Votive III – 108 coins (26 from 1896, 82 from 1985, 1989) listed in appendix [but I’m still waiting for my ILL copy with the original table.]
29 total RRC 17/1 – which is now dated after 240 BCE by Molinari and Jaia 2021, ‘ do no seem to occur in Vicarello’
“one Lion bronze (no. 38) with reverse lion to the left is a variety of RRC 16/1a and 1b, only known from Vicarello and Carsoli”
Central Italy uncertain mint HNItaly 362 = Vecchi 281 (better image) (forepart of bull / lyre)
Praeneste (?) HN Italy 249 = Vecchi 281 (worse image) (frontal lion biting spear / horse head) – a fragment
“earliest coins that could have entered the votive deposit are the earliest Neapolitan bronzes from Taliercio’s series i (nos. 1-9), dated 325-300 bc, and the Punic bronzes (nos. 30-33), which are dated in the second half of the 4th century bc”
“Four of these seven Neapolitan coins (nos. 2, 5, 6 and 7) have chop marks.”
I wonder if the chop marks are a version of the same impulse seen on the graffiti-ed coins:
from Ailly reads FORTVNAI STIPE and indicates the coin was ritually deposited to the goddess. Only one parallel that I know of reads DIOVIS STIPE and was found at Collepietro (L’Aquila).From Willers 1909I’m grateful to Charles Parisot for sharing the modern photo and Gallica link with me via Twitter!
The photograph allows one to clearly see the reverse graffiti was created useing the same punch/chisel technique as the SF on the obverse. It is easiest to observe in the S an E of stipe.
I notice in the inventory that no. 97 is a folded coin and 96 is a melted ae/plated AR, perhaps again part of this phenomenon.
“cast aes grave (nos. 73-78), which may be a little earlier. Coins from this period, namely circa 270-240/225 bc, are the most common in the deposit” Narrow down that time frame!
“very few Roman coins from the period of the Second Punic War” – was Satricum loyal?
terminus post quem suggested by worn reduced uncial weight standard triens found in undisturbed portion of deposit : maybe c. 150 BCE or maybe later.
Points out that Vicarello seems unique in aes rude and coins being the preferred votive offering rather than those be tangential to other forms of offering.
“It is clear, however, that bronze was the preferred metal for oπering in Latium; precious metals are very rare”
“Our comparison will focus on the coins found in the votive deposits at Vicarello, Carsoli, Nemi, Via Tiberina and Casalvieri [Sora], and the Ardea hoard, which was probably part of a votive deposit or even a thesaurus.” [links are to earlier places on this blog I’ve talked about these finds]
I’ve ILLed Catalli 2005 (and his 2014 piece on the Nemi coins).
I was at this point panicking that I’d missed a currency bar hoard as I had no record of Via Tiberina, but thank goodness it just has two names! It’s La Bruna (CHRR 16), now mostly in Berlin. This just can’t be right. I’ve ILLed Cesano 1942. It’s very interesting to think of this as Stipe or Thesaurus rather than just a hoard…
“Farther from Rome, Carsoli and Satricum were indeed able to receive similarly high percentages of Romano-Campanian and Greek coins. The difference between these two and Nemi is striking, but we have no good explanation for it.”
Set time table for any collaborative RRDP work/publication prep that needs to happen this semester: Chicago pub, INC pub, collaboration with RACOM, etc…
Circle back to Capito project
Consider ask for funding from Dean’s office
Begin Med school rec letter
record mini myth
find out what is on that v old harddrive and back up to cloud
CRAWFORD, Michael H. Thesauri, hoards and votive deposits In: Sanctuaires et sources: Les sources documentaires et leurs limites dans la description des lieux de culte [online]. Naples: Publications du Centre Jean Bérard, 2003 (generated 19 janvier 2023). Available on the Internet: <http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/878>. ISBN: 9782918887218. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pcjb.878.
It’s so good. I love coming back to read work when one is really ready for the text, even hungry to read it. So different to reading in the abstraction of possibly useful one day. Anyway on to the point.
That passage in Dionysius reminded me immediately of RRC 385/5 and the decoding of the legend to be about the foundation of the ludi Apollinares by subscription.
Liv Mariah Yarrow 