After this he went to the city of Crenides, and having increased its size with a large number of inhabitants, changed its name to Philippi, giving it his own name, and then, turning to the gold mines in its territory, which were very scanty and insignificant, he increased their output so much by his improvements that they could bring him a revenue of more than a thousand talents. And because from these mines he had soon amassed a fortune, with the abundance of money he raised the Macedonian kingdom higher and higher to a greatly superior position, for with the gold coins which he struck, which came to be known from his name as Philippeioi, he organized a large force of mercenaries, and by using these coins for bribes induced many Greeks to become betrayers of their native lands.
I’m on to Duyrat et al. in AVREVS. It’s nice when our data matches our literary testimony. Here we have some further conversation use of die studies for quantification similar to the previous chapter but they quickly move on to metallurgical analyses. These seem to confirm that Philip’s initial striking of gold is very low in Palladium and Platinum consistent with recently mined ore, such as Diodorus point out. The analyses also show far higher and variable levels of Palladium and Platinum for both Darics and Alexanders struck in Asia Minor. The authors quote Herodotus and Strabo to suggest that the higher variable levels of these trace elements is reflective of repeated melting and mixing of the metals.
This was the tribute which came in to Dareios from Asia and from a small part of Libya: but as time went on, other tribute came in also from the islands and from those who dwell in Europe as far as Thessaly. This tribute the king stores up in his treasury in the following manner: — he melts it down and pours it into jars of earthenware, and when he has filled the jars he takes off the earthenware jar from the metal; and when he wants money he cuts off so much as he needs on each occasion.
…also the following, mentioned by Polycritus, is one of their customs. He says that in Susa each one of the kings built for himself on the acropolis a separate habitation, treasure-houses, and storage places for what tributes they each exacted, as memorials of his administration; and that they exacted silver from the people on the seaboard, and from the people in the interior such things as each country produced, so that they also received dyes, drugs, hair, or wool, or something else of the kind, and likewise cattle; and that the king who arranged the separate tributes was Dareius, called the Long-armed, and the most handsome of men, except for the length of his arms, for they reached even to his knees; and that most of the gold and silver is used in articles of equipment, but not much in money; and that they consider those metals as better adapted for presents and for depositing in storehouses; and that so much coined money as suffices their needs is enough; and that they coin only what money is commensurate with their expenditures.
Unsurprisingly most of the Seleucid gold shows the same type of mixing, the exception being the Bactrian mint which not only strikes recycled metal but also seems to access local mines for fresh ore and to coin that as well.
P. 133 in AVREVS
Again as the authors point out this corroborates epigraphic testimony that Bactria supplied the Achaemenids with gold.
I would note that Bactria is not marked out as a particular source of gold in Herodotus’ accounts of tribute paid to Darius, he reserves this role for “India” (cf. 3.92 and 3.94). This fits well with Herodotus’ world view where gold comes from the far east and is associated with ‘gold digging ants’ (3.102-105). He says the Indians there live much like the Bactrians. (cf. the gold guarding griffins at 3.114)
The authors note of the Ptolemies: “Although they developed a closed monetary system and exploited resources in gold in the eastern desert, potentially with different characteristics, no new signature can be detected.” p. 137
In short Ptolemaic gold looks much like Seleucid gold (excepting a bit from Bactria) which looks much like Alexander’s gold and that of the Achaemenids.
When turning to the Western Mediterranean they note that a wide range of alloys were struck. In the east gold coins are nearly pure gold, where as alloys in the west may vary from over 96.5% gold down to 20.4%, most notably at Syracuse and Carthage. But for me the best was saved for last. Look how much the Roman republic coins fit right in with other western gold.
In an article published in 2007, I attempted to explore multiple perspectives to define the coined share of precious metals in the Hellenistic world. Somewhat to my surprise, it repeatedly emerged that this share was a minority, if not small, probably less than 20%. In a paper intended to follow up on this, presented shortly after in 2009, I tried to estimate the importance of this Hellenistic goldwork, a task far more arduous than estimating the amount of coined metal. I certainly did not succeed in a field dominated by art history, where quantification remains, even today, in limbo. But it is clear that goldwork must be integrated into our reflections.
De Callataÿ in AVREVS p. 93
The 2007 article is listed by google scholar as 2006.
The 2009 essay was published in the following volume appearing in 2017:
Liámpī, Katerínī., Dimitris Plantzos, and Κλεοπάτρα Παπαευαγγέλου, eds. 2017. Νόμισμα / Κόσμημα : Χρήσεις, Διαδράσεις, Συμβολισμοί, Από Την Αρχαιότητα Έως Σήμερα : Πρακτικά Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Ίος, 26-28 Ιουνίου 2009. Αθηνα: Εταιρεία Μελέτης Νομισματικής και Οικονομικής Ιστορίας. [Academia.edu link to De Callataÿ chapter]
This table is handy and fascinating!
My first thought is how much of the uncoined then in turn became coined by the Romans themselves?! And then how much of the uncoined metal was previously struck as coins and then recycled to create the very objects being carried in procession? Finally does this preference to display uncoined metal reflect the tastes of the triumphators to create spectacle. Gold and silver objects may be easier and more impressive than coins when carried in parade. How do you even display mountains of coins in such a moving spectacle?!?!
relief from the arch of titus to help us imagined the spectacle of precious metal objects (instead of coins)
The display of coins is particularly presents a challenge. Think of the iconography of liberalitas under the empire where the money shovel becomes the key symbol not piles of coins themselves.
Heaps of coins are impressive yes but they tend to slide all over the place once you get beyond a relatively small amount. Here I cannot help but recall Frank Holt on the coin as meme (in the Dawkins sense and less in the internet phenomenon) — a great book, consider buying if you’ve not yet.
Fresco from Pompeii now in MANN depicting piles of coins illustrating the problem of spreading heaps
I’d also point out that not all the coin acquired by the commander in the war needs to have been carried in the triumph itself. Commanders gave coin largess to troops during the campaigns themselves and could acquire coin and use it for purchases on campaign reserving objects for purposes of the triumphal spectacle, conspicuous dedications in sacred spaces at Rome AND abroad, as well as alliance building through ‘repatriating’ materials to presumed ‘rightful’ owners Cf. Scipio at Carthage calling Sicilian embassies to reclaim lost artifacts c. 146BCE.
None of this is to undermine De Callataÿ’s larger point that at any one time a great deal of precious metal, esp. gold would be in uncoined form. We know all this material was heavily recycled and repurposed throughout antiquity. we might even recall of how the gold hieroglyph derives from a pictogram of a necklace! It seems highly likely to me that gold as primarily a crisis coinage was more often stored as object rather than as coin. Look again at the above fresco the precious metal pile of coins has eight gold pieces in a vast mountain of silver, it visually communicates the relative scarcity of gold coin even amongst the well-moneyed, as well as how bronze coin is segregated from precious metals, but what gold coin there is travels with the silver coin.
Generally speaking I find De Callataÿ’s attempts to treat quantify the volume of surviving gold jewellery a worth-while endeavor and what I’d like to do is think more about this methodology in relationship to inscriptions on silver objects that record their weights, a topic on which Alice Sharpless is the expert (earlier related blog post) and from there the bronze statues with weight inscriptions at San Casciano de Bagni (see my notes from last AIA-SCS here).
Circling back to the AVREVS volume, De Callataÿ relies on average weight standards, observed numbers of coins, and observed numbers of dies to across ALL gold issues (including Roman republican!) distill down an estimate of how much gold was struck in various periods:
We see, therefore, that the gold of the age of Alexander [340-290 BCE] does indeed represent the largest gold minting ever produced in the Greek world, but that this preeminence is perhaps less pronounced than has long been thought. First, because the total number of Alexanders has been revised downwards (1,000 staters instead of 1,200); second, because there are earlier, large-scale mintings such as the Cyzicean issues, the Darics, and the Croeseids, which also amount to hundreds of staters; finally, the examination conducted here further indicates that it would be a mistake to consider only the Alexanders, Philips, and Lysimachus, given the scale of production down to the end of the 1st century.
De Callataÿ in AVREVS p. 109
He goes on to discuss the fragility of our evidence because of differing survival rates and also highly variable reporting of finds. This is a theme he is cognizant throughout the chapters. I think this picture may change how we read Plautus as well…. See last post. Perhaps indeed make De Callataÿ sympathetic to at least some of my arguments about gold and the Romans. …
My take aways from this is how critical die studies are for this type of quantification and also how much periodization matters and how we need to look across geographic boundaries.
I’m still pre-writing and still working my way through AVREVS with an eye to fuzzy boundaries of periodization, culture groups, and by extension disciplinarity in numismatics. For full citations and more on this project see previous post.
De Callataÿ’s chapter (pp. 91-114) begins by summarizing his 2015 work and re committing to its primary thesis. I thought perhaps best then to remind myself of that work before looking at the newer work where he links his textual readings to material data.
It is a rare thing for me to disagree with a scholar I admire so much. It worried me enough that I left the library yesterday in a bit of funk, committed to sleeping on the topic. And thus am revising my original notes before posting. The truth is De Callataÿ is an insightful reader of Roman comedy with a keen eye to the economic implications of the texts. I don’t disagree with the vast majority of his 2015 article and really after page 31 it brilliantly captures the full breadth of economic and monetary history we can extract from the corpus of these Latin plays. So why my funk. I don’t even disagree with the premise that the plays are good evidence for the Hellenistic period, it is only that I believe that Rome is very much at the time of the writing of the plays a Hellenistic state and that the plays reflect a shared reality. I am also very persuade by Amy Richlin’s work on the creation and context of these plays and performance, a world of the enslaved, and thus of individuals involuntarily culturally relocated from one setting to another.
Thus in what follows are my reading notes on why I think De Callataÿ goes too far to try to create a strict dichotomy between the realities of Rome and the realities of the Hellenistic World in the time of Plautus and Terence, post 1st Punic War down to the decade just following the 2nd Macedonian War. Read Rome as economically and monetarily as fully Hellenistic in this period. This means that plays adapted from themes popular in Greek drama in an earlier Hellenistic period are equally relevant to a Roman audience.
—
I wonder if De Callataÿ might temper his views of the (lack of) romanitas in the plays.
Richlin, Amy. Slave theater in the Roman Republic: Plautus and popular comedy. Cambridge University Press, 2017. (BMCR review)
I also wonder if I am allowed a middle ground, a via media, by which I assert that the Romans are part of the Hellenistic world and that in particular the enslaved and/or formerly enslaved who developed and performed these theatrical productions were products of the Hellenistic Mediterranean with its incredible (and disturbing) mass movements of humans through enslavement, fueled by the ambitions of competing empires.
The Romans engaged in overseas trade and investments
Key to De Callataÿ’s argument in 2015 is that at the time of Plautus and Terence the Romans were not regularly engaged in overseas private travel for business/investment and thus the interconnected world of commerce so readily seen in the plays must be wholly Greek, and set in the world of the 4th and early 3rd centuries (cf. p. 22). Plautus is usually said to have died 184 BCE and Terence 159 BCE. Would their audiences recognize overseas investments in land and trade as applicable to the Romans? I think so. The senatorial class is so obsessed with presenting itself as agrarian that our literary sources tend to minimize everything else (e.g. Cato, On Agriculture), but we nevertheless can see plenty of overseas investments. Romans and their allies were keen to acquire land in Sicily following the 1st Punic War and after the 2nd Punic War we see extensive mining operations in Spain. We know of the extensive trade in vernice nera with petites estampilles with Iberia esp. the region of Catalonia, a type of pottery deeply characteristic of 3rd century Italy. In 166 BCE the Romans converted Delos into a free port. The advantage of doing so to Italian traders is well demonstrated by later epigraphic influence but the impetus to do so was likely predicated on prior Italian trade interests in the Eastern Mediterranean. The setting is Greek but the behaviors and inter-connectivity are Hellenistic, one’s the Romans and their Italian neighbors readily engaged in.
I want to think of more examples here but I also want to move forward, so for now one corroborating citation:
ROTH, ROMAN. “TRADING IDENTITIES? REGIONALISM AND COMMERCE IN MID-REPUBLICAN ITALY (THIRD TO EARLY SECOND CENTURY BC).” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies. Supplement, no. 120 (2013): 93–111. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44216740.
Roman warfare enriched soldiers
The social structures of the plays are discussed as non-Roman on p. 23 following. I think Richlin does a thorough enough job on the “pimp” and “courtesan” (enslavers and enslaved) that I can just nod her direction. But I must disagree with this assertion that seems to believe that the Romans were as sober and abstemious as they tell us they were.
My knee-jerk reaction is that we know that the distribution of spoils was an expectation of Roman soldiers from a very earlier period and even if all spoils were ostensibly the property of the general for him to distribute as he saw fit, we also have anecdotal reports of the greed of individual soldiers in battle and the plundering of cities.
Marian Helm, Saskia T. Roselaar, Spoils in the Roman Republic: boon and bane. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2023. Pp. 467. ISBN 9783515133692. [BMCR review]
The volume of spoils of the wars witnessed by Plautus and Terence and their audiences were massive and seemingly ever increasing. As early as 260 BCE (before Plautus’s presumed date of birth) the spoils of war were being distributed not only to the soldiers but even to the whole citizen body.
Text and translation from Livius. I however hold that inscription is based on a 3rd century BCE original and is not an Augustan fantasy, only a restoration. I discuss it building on the views of Eric Kondratieff first in a 2014 blog post and then more extensively in my 2021 PR journal article.
The expectation of broad scale riches for the soldier was well in place by 167 BCE
The military tribunes had received instructions as to what they were to do. All the silver and gold had been collected together in the morning, and at ten o’clock the signal was given to the soldiers to sack the cities. So great was the amount of booty secured that 400 denarii were distributed to each cavalryman and 200 to each foot soldier, and 150,000 human beings were carried off. Then the walls of the plundered cities, some seventy in number, were destroyed, the booty sold and the proceeds furnished the above-mentioned sum for the troops. Paulus went down to the seaport of Oricum, but his soldiers were far from satisfied; they resented being excluded from all share in the plunder of the palace, as though they had not taken any part in the Macedonian war.
Valerius Antias states that all the gold and silver coinage carried in the procession amounted to 120,000,000 sesterces, but from his own account of the number of wagons and the weight carried in each, the amount must undoubtedly have exceeded this. It is also asserted that a second sum equal to this had been either expended in the war or dispersed by the king during his flight to Samothrace, and this was all the more surprising, since all that money had been accumulated during the thirty years from the close of the war with Philip either as profits from the mines or from other sources of revenue, so that while Philip was very short of money, Perseus was able to commence his war with Rome with an overflowing exchequer. Last of all came Paulus himself, majestic alike in the dignity of his personal presence and the added dignity of years. Following his chariot were many distinguished men, amongst them his two sons, Quintus Maximus and Publius Nasica. Then came the cavalry, troop after troop, and the legionaries, cohort after cohort. The legionaries were given 100 denarii each, the centurions twice as much, and the cavalry three times that amount. It is believed that he would have doubled these grants had they not tried to deprive him of the honour, or even if they had been grateful for the actual amount which he did give them.
Did these amounts even one that was considered far too low by the ordinary soldier represent a life changing amount of money? I think yes. Stipendium is typically presumed to be a denarius ever three days for infantry, with grain and other matters deducted. 100 denarii is perhaps approximately what a soldier could earn in a whole year of fighting. 300 denarii (the Epirus donative and the donative after the triumph combined) is likely a generous 3 years livelihood. Any ordinary person handed 3 times they’re typical annual earning power is going to feel and perhaps act as having a very significant windfall. Yet these soldiers felt it was disappointing. Just over 3 decades earlier Scipio had given out only 40 asses per soldier but expectations were shifting fast, esp. in light of the influx of eastern wealth. Besides reports of cash pay outs Roman soldiers had long been rewarded in kind, especially with land or the use of land. If the speculation that Miles Gloriosus might have been first staged in 206 BCE is correct, the stock character of the braggart soldier enriched by War could certainly have been relatable to Roman audiences and may have even engendered hopes of a return to economic prosperity after the end of the Hannibalic War.
Taylor, Michael J. Soldiers and Silver: Mobilizing Resources in the Age of Roman Conquest. University of Texas Press, 2020. [JRS review]
Charlotte Van Regenmortel, Soldiers, wages, and the Hellenistic economies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2024. Pp. 276. ISBN 9781009408981. [BMCR review]
Nummus means “Coin”. Romans are well aware of Greek Denominations.
A tetradrachm is unfamiliar to the Romans? This seems implausible. AND, to his credit, De Callataÿ pretty much retracts this claim later in the same article (p.27-28).
The didrachm was preferred in peninsular Italy for striking and circulation and thus this is the first silver denomination struck by the Romans themselves, but that other denominations were preferred elsewhere was widely known:
There were carried in the procession 230 of the enemy’s standards, 3000 pounds of uncoined silver, 113,000 Attic tetrachmi, 249,000 cistophori, and numerous heavy vases of embossed silver, as well as the silver household furniture and magnificent apparel which had belonged to the king. There were also 45 golden crowns presented by various allied cities, and a mass of spoils of every description; 36 prisoners of high rank, the generals of Antiochus and the Aetolians, were also led in the conqueror’s train.
The key Latin: signati tetrachmum Atticum centum decem, tria milia, cistophori ducenta undequinquaginta
Already in the triumph of Flamininus do we have specifics about the denominations of coins being carried in triumph (194 BCE):
On the second day all the gold and silver, coined and uncoined, were borne in the procession. There were 18,000 pounds of uncoined and unwrought silver and 270 of silver plate, including vessels of every description, most of them embossed and some exquisitely artistic. There were also some made of bronze. In addition to these there were ten silver shields. Of the silver coinage 84,000 were Attic pieces, known as tetrachma, each nearly equal in weight to four denarii. The gold weighed 3714 pounds, including one shield made entirely of gold, and there were 14,514 coins from Philip’s mint. In the third day’s procession were carried 114 golden coronets, the gifts of various cities
Enslavement is a means of transporting knowledge. Every time anyone is forcibly moved from one culture to another they bring cultural knowledge. Richlin argues that Plautine comedy is slave theater and that slave audience would certainly be familiar with tetradrachms. These mass acts of enslavement and their potential for movement of knowledge is well illustrated here:
[Flamininus] asked [the Greeks] to find out any Roman citizens who were living as slaves amongst them and send them within two months’ time to him in Thessaly. They would not, he felt sure, think it right or honourable for their liberators to be in the position of slaves in the land which they had liberated. They all exclaimed that among the other things for which they were grateful they thanked him especially for reminding them of so sacred and imperative a duty. There was an immense number who had been made prisoners in the Punic War, and as they were not ransomed by their countrymen Hannibal sold them as slaves. That they were very numerous is evident from what Polybius says. He asserts that this undertaking cost the Achaeans 100 talents, as they fixed the price to be paid to the owners at 500 denarii a head. On this reckoning Achaia must have held 1200 of them; you can estimate proportionally what was the probable number throughout Greece.
I’d also note that tetradrachms were produced by some mints of Magna Grecia and A TON of tetradrachms were produced on Sicily by Syracuse and the Carthaginians. The latter specifically imitating Alexander’s coinages.
De Callataÿ is correct that nummus could mean tetradrachm in many places in Plautus, but I’m not convinced this is what it must mean. We’re out of luck for earlier literary Latin giving us clues, but we can get some help from epigraphy. I lean towards it meaning simply COIN and to an italic audience it would mean whatever happens to be local unit of account.
Bodel back in 1994 argued it could be as late as the Gracchi; this seems too late for all the -d endings.
Rutter in Historia Numorum Italy records no types for Venusia with N, and does record two bronze types 698 and 703 that do have an N. The former looks much like the Apollo/man-faced bull bronzes found through out southern italy and associated with Naples. It would need no denomination mark and the N is often replaced with a club. Maybe, just maybe, I might be able to be convinced the N on the 703 is an indication of denomination and stands for Nummus, but I kind of doubt it. I cannot think of any parallels where the name of the denomination is recorded on the coin even if sometimes we have marks of value.
Generally speaking, I don’t think we have to worry too much about what nummus means in Plautus beyond, its a coined piece of money and in the plural typically means something like ‘cash’. In Cato (Agr. 14.3.7) and Lucilius (e.g. frag. 1250) it is used with this generic meaning.
To convince his reader that nummus in Plautus most commonly means specifically a tetradrachm, De Callataÿ puts a great deal of weight on what is an “appropriate” price for a slave. I’m not convinced by this logic as prices of slaves vary greatly and I could if chose find parallels for numbers in asses paid for slaves. Compare above the 500 denarii per enslaved Roman attested c. 196 BCE. Or the following testimony from actual sales in Egypt:
From Scheidel, Walter. “Real slave prices and the relative cost of slave labor in the Greco-Roman world.” Ancient Society 35 (2005): 1-17.
Fundamentally to the plot and for the audience the numbers for the cost of freeing a slave are meant to mean A LOT coins. Could they refer to tetradrachms? Absolutely, but it isn’t necessary for the audience to enjoy the play.
I am more convinced by De Callataÿ’ observations that other Greek denominations are given their true names. This seems a plausible argument in favor of his reading of nummus as tetradrachm.
Of course the trinummus is not a sestertius but De Callataÿ has undervalued and misdescribed it. In the time of Plautus and Terence the sestertius was 2.5 asses, 1/4 a denarius, and very much a silver coin. Eventually it is retariffed at 4 asses but remains silver until the imperial period. It would be a very low single-day’s wage but not wholly inconceivable: remember a soldiers stipendium was 10 asses every 3 days. My guess is that most Romans in the audience would have assumed that a nummus was an AS that was the unit of account.
Romans struck their own gold in the age of Plautus and Terence.
The gold of the plays is reflecting a monetized use of gold very in line with the historical realities he describes. But to continue pushing back a little. In a society where gold has never really been used as money and typically money has been heavy bronze, it is significant that these plays are being staged at least for Plautus’ early productions when the Roman state has decided it must strike gold and we get all of a sudden the oath scene gold and then the mars eagle. It may even give us context for the failed experiment of the Flamininus stater which is very much based on the very goldphilips so common in these comedies. (RR gold issues before 189 BCE). The Roman gold will fall out of circulation just like the Hellenistic did, but to the most contemporary audiences it would be a well-known artifact of recent wars. Gold is unusual and this is what makes it a good plot point for motivating characters.
I love this partly because it recalls gold statues sent to Rome in this very period. I can imagine this detail being written in as the audience knows that Hiero’s gold statue is being melted down to pay their own soldiers.
In sum, believe De Callataÿ, but also consider that Rome was very much a part of not separate from the rest of the Hellenistic world.
It is a masterful collection of essays teasing out the historical relevance of the the results of the extensive Orleans project using LA-ICP-MS. The results of all this work is game-changing and has allowed us to interrogate, confirm and debunk many suppositions. So for instance the volume has shown that there is NOT a likely Ptolemaic origin for the mars/eagle gold one – a popular theory deriving from literary sources and iconographic parallels (see earlier post, more below as well). It inspries me to seek out similar opportunities for further metallurgical testing to secure even more answers (Can we confirm Pompey’s PRO COS aureus was made in Spain as Woytek has proposed?! Can we settle once and for all that the XXX oath scene goal is fake?!).
I’ve been dipping in and out of the AVREVS volume getting excited about various answers it provides, but now I want to think about it more holistically. Part of what I admire about the project is that it accepts that such work on metallurgical analyses must cross certain common boundaries. We must look at Greek, Roman, and Celtic coinages together as they share metal sources and relate to overlapping geographical areas. The more we try to separate them by rigged boundaries the harder this gets. So I’m reading mostly for an eye to the overlap. Hence that random post on Egyptian coins that went up last week.
The basic methodology employed is to look for common patterns in the relative amounts of trace elements. This is not about finding the ore source, but rather about looking at what groups of coins have similar or different patterns and considering if those patterns are meaningful and why. In most cases Platinum to Palladium ratios are mapped, but other groups have also proved meaningful–Iron to Antimony, Antimony to Tin, and Zinc to Nickel. So below we quickly see that early Roman gold of the 2nd Punic war is very different than later Roman gold, but more similar to Syracusan gold. We know of many connections between Syracuse and Rome from our literary sources during the War but this is pretty convincing support (cf. Livy 22.37 – Hiero’s golden victory). If one studied Roman coins alone without reference to other mints we’d have a far poorer view of possible extensions.
Blet-Lemarquand p. 53
As Fischer-Bossert (p.75) so aptly points out the Greek tradition of coinage has its origins in Mesopotamian hacksilber economy and that for most of its history was predominantly a silver coinage with gold being the exception, even if the origins of this coinage tradition itself beings in Lydia with ‘white gold’ or electrum. Although electrum (an alloy of silver and gold) does naturally occur, the electrum used for coinage was a controlled alloy even if different ratios are known. If we this line of thought to Italy and the early Romans we find ourselves back at silver becoming the dominant metal of coinage but having at its introduction to contend with indigenous traditions of using hunks of (leaded) bronze as monetary objects. The Italic peninsula is remarkably lacking in precious metal ores, these having to been imported. Thus the Romans and other Italic peoples accept silver, but gold remains much less common. We have 2nd Punic War gold, the Flaminius stater (made in Greece after 2nd Macedonian War), the Pompey stater (made in Spain during war against Sertorius), Sullan staters (mostly eastern, perhaps one made at Rome), and then the post 49 gold of the Civil Wars. It isn’t much and very little of it is produced at Rome after the 2nd Punic War. Fischer-Bossert (p. 84) gives a broad overview about who (before Alexander) minted gold and why (as far as we can surmise), but perhaps the most important point he makes is this ….
What marks out the Roman imperial coinage from the republic is that gold is produced on a very regular basis, something that was exceptional under the republic.
I’m going to have more to say but I think I’ll stop this post here and move on to a new one.
A while back on social media I was wondering about how we know what certain hieroglyphics mean. I still don’t know the answer to that and would like to, but I was reading for another blog post and came across this discussion by Fischer-Bossert:
It was news to me that Tachos (Teos) struck before Nectanebo II and thus that heiroglyphic coin in fact suggests a rejection of designs that emulated outside traditions even as the striking of coinage was itself an innovation for of Pharonic Egypt. What I’ve not managed to find yet is any illustration of Tachos’ coinage.
I finally found some bad photos here:
James W. Curtis. “Coinage of Pharaonic Egypt.” The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 43 (1957): 71–76. https://doi.org/10.2307/3855280.
The coins are supposed to be in the BM so I’m not sure why I can’t get the online catalogue to spit out a better image or just a record with not image as of yet.
Got there, I couldn’t find it in the first instance as the BM has it under the primary name Djedher.
Interesting that the symbol for gold repeats above the horse.
The primary reason I wanted to write up a quick post was is that the Egyptians here in the 30th Dynasty are using the Persian weight standard even as it is the Persian from whom they are trying to maintain autonomy and are in active conflict.
We’re mostly comfortable with the idea that a coin must be spendable within the dominant denomination system even if that system derives from the ‘enemy’ or ‘other’, but it is still nice to have parallel examples. Think of the allies denarii of the social war, or Rome’s early didrachms. I’m sure there are other examples as well.
Ok back to the other blog post I was try to write.
On the domestic side, the family arrived yesterday, auspiciously coinciding with “Founder’s Day” at UCL, meaning the library was shut and I had no excuse but to fluff the duvets, procure groceries, stir the risotto pot, and acquire many volumes of books to entertain and reward my brave small humans. It is good to have them here: I am a bit of a barbarian without the familiar rhythms of our shared life.
On the professional side, I’m distressed by the news out of MontclairState(it’s grim – in short major restructuring and the demise of the humanities), the shifting of the department of Education into the department of Labor (it’s extra grim – the only reason for education is to create workers, not citizens, not thinkers, not full autonomous humans with deep curiosity to push the bounds of knowledge, but cogs in the capitalist economy), and then very locally impending retirements and excuses about why we will have to wait until Fall 2027 at the earliest for any chance of FT staffing and why it is not fiscally responsible to provide even short term FT staffing in the interim. I’ll probably push back on this infernal, irresponsible illogic, but right now I’m on research time in a research library so I’m going to put it all in a box and get back to my other job. It is a radical act of resistance to refuse to despair and to continue to intellectually engage with my esoteric disciplines.
Right so I got you to click on this link because I promised more on monograms. After published that last post I also released it via my socials and got some quality feedback. See below. I’m a little embarrassed I didn’t immediately see the M which seems so obvious now. With the M the final question is where is the O?!
Can the the head of the R double in a monogram as an O? I cannot answer this directly but as monograms are a major feature of Hellenistic coinages especially royal coinages, we have (a) a rich scholarly tradition of studying these types of thing AND (b) this is likely the tradition that is influencing the fashion for monograms on Roman coinages. So can a Rho head be an Omicron in a monogram? Yes. There are 4 clear cases in the HRC database of the 93 monograms that are identified as containing both letters. There are also plenty more examples where an omicron is identified as part of the monogram but not represented by a full closed circle. Below is a random selection. I decided I didn’t feel like tallying up an exact count.
I’m totally confident that R head can stand for an O and that this monogram can be resolved as ROMA. Why did Crawford dismiss this suggestion? Uncertain. But as he’s dismissing someone likely suggested it before Eckel? Sydenham? Babelon? Grueber? Oh I’ll have to check but again not now. If you know, do say and save me the digging.
As mentioned in the last post, RRC 293/1 is struck around the same time as RRC 298/1. RRC 294/1 uses a ROMA monogram and the head of Roma, but RRC 293/1, like RRC 298/1, uses the a ROMA monogram with a totally unrelated obverse head.
Is it a good monogram? No. It wasn’t used again. Generally speaking monograms are not as popular on RR coinage as on other Hellenistic coinages.
Ok. I think I can let this go out of my mind for now and move on to another topics more directly related to my immediate publication goals.
The obverse monogram on RRC 298/1 is typically resolved as AP for Apollo, although Veovis is another proposed identification of the deity, and those prefer this ID sometimes question if this reading of the monogram is correct. (Or so I remember I’m not checking secondary sources on this right now: I just want to capture this idea and move on to other things.). See my 2021 book for a little discussion of the obverse, and my 2015 Redux article for discussion of the reverse.
My concern is that the A has a broken bar on the obverse but not either of the As on the reverse. See below. The Schaefer Archive and CRRO images make very confident that this is a design feature, 100% intentional not some accident. SO WHY?!
The designer of the type clearly likes and labelling figures: ligature LA and RE are both so rendered on the reverse to label the two Lares who sit between these letter groupings. The designer has really stretched to create these ligatures. The L ends up having to share its upright with the angled left line of the A. To connect the E with the R the designer had to reverse the letter order when read left to right and render the E backwards! This is real dedication. More that we might say the design demanded. There is also the AE ligature in the name but this is more common and presents no comprehension challenges.
The broken bar A is well known to epigraphers. I give an example below. BUT when it is present it is used consistently through out the documents.
“The stele can be dated to 1st century BCE based on paleography: the serifs used came into use in the 3rds century BCE, broken-bar alpha was in use between the 3rd and 1st centuries BCE, and the full π started replacing the partial π in the 1st century BCE.” – US epigraphy project
I’m stuck between two theories to explain the broken bar A. (1) Romans associated the broken bar A with Alpha, i.e. Greek letters and we should read this monogram as in Greek and perhaps look to RRC 293/1 with its Phi and even all the way back to RRC 101 (which has a Greek monogram with a broken bar alpha); (2) the broken bar is significant and necessary so the viewer can resolve another as yet unpreceived letter in the monogram perhaps a V.
The control-marks on RRC 22 are letters of the Greek alphabet. The Alpha on the single A die has a broken bar, but the AA die and AB die both have flat bars. (orthography difference not noted by Crawford in relevant catalogue entry). The flat bar is standard across the series with few exceptions, besides the broken bars mentioned already and the open-bar A on RRC 100 which is also familiar from the open bar A in ROMA on incuse legend quadrigati (orthography not noted by Crawford as such in these catalogue entries). If you know of any unusual A’s on the RR coin series esp. broken bar As, please let me know.
IF the monogram is Greek it cannot be a Pi for Apollo, but rather a Rho. If it is Latin it also isn’t possible for it to be P for Apollo. Now that I’m all wrapped up in orthography, I look at it again this combination of symbol and realize that no Ps on the series are closed Ps. They are all open at the bottom, like Pis with a short right leg. If it is latin it must be an R if anything. So Alpha Rho or A, R maybe with V implied by broken bar. Crawford notes that a closed P is unusual but thought Apollo more likely than Roma or Argento Publico. I agree neither of those are correct, but I also reject Apollo as a resolution.
So here’s an outlandish suggestion. I don’t really believe it. Averruncus! Varro, LL 7.102 citing Pacuvius.
Now it gets stranger. The only other mention of this god known is in Aulus Gellus 5.12.14 RIGHT AFTER HIS DISCUSSION OF VEIOVIS! If we prefer this spelling the AVR would fit the monogram perfectly.
A quick search of PackHum Latin tells me Aurunc* is typically connected to the place and the Italic peoples, appearing in early Livy books and Vergil. NOT a god by this name.
Well. I think I’ve hit the end of this idea and exploration. I’m not sure this whole averting of evil god is to be believed (perhaps a title of Veovis?!). The Lares Paestites are pretty obscure too on the reverse. Thoughts?!
Below is a deep dive on Monograms on the series mostly just to establish how rare they are compared to ligature.
RRC 293/1 is struck around the same time as RRC 298/1, perhaps a little earlier. and has the monogram ROMA. It’s A has a straight bar. The M provides a framework for the whole. The very same monogram appears on RRC 294/1.
While ligature is pretty common on the republican series. Typically, only 2-3 letters are combined and letters remain in order, reading left to right in the same relative size on a single register. By contrast, monograms are relatively uncommon. Below I give other earlier monograms:
RRC 134/1 – resolved as L. Pl[autius] H[ypsaeus] – Crawford calls this view ” traditional” but does not strongly endorse. At first glance I tried to resolve it Phillip, but I’d just been looking at PH ligature of RRC 281/1 and I think that and the Phi on RRC 293/1 are just too much on. my brain. Regardless of how we resolve it, it is v much a monogram. RRC 101/1 (Specimen in trade): Corcyra issue with two monograms, the second much disputed but typically read as gamma alpha; the first is a found at the Corcyra mint to represent Corcyra. Ugly example below.
Part of me wonders if there is any connection in logics between the Corcyra issue and early Roma Monogram coinage:
Perhaps Roma monogram represents place of striking and thus augments the ROMA in exergue which gives authority for striking. Like the L on Luceria issues in the name of the ROmans.
We might also consider RRC 146 a monogram rather than ligature. And maybe RRC 155, 162, 176, 177, I good go one with with 2 and three letter name abbreviations among these early signed denarii.
Moreover, typically figures are labeled with a full or truncated name not just a letter or two.
This is a pre writing exercise for something I hope will eventually be published. I’ve been spending time with this catalogue and finding it very inspiring indeed.
The great thing about this regional museum collection is almost all of it comes with find locations and interesting ones.
Besides Roman coins it contained 40 gallic coins of which 37 were of the DT 3159/LT 5795 type with a horse rider design associated with the Rhône Valley, as well as decorative hinged objects in bronze (but either tin or silver plated) theorized to be part of belt, 2 glass paste beads, 3 small bronze rings, and 5 of silver.
The other major assemblage are the stray finds from in and around Alise-Sainte- Reine, ancient Alesia which is most famous for the battle of 52 BCE. It is note worthy that the stray finds associated with this area go no later in the republican series than the coins of Pompeius Rufus, c. 54 BCE.
Here’s what I’ve learned. Beauvoisin has 31% of its RR coinage intentionally marked post striking. Of this 31%, 79% of the interventions are with punch-marks of diverse shapes, and only 27% are scratches/graffiti.
By contrast of the Alise finds, only 9% shows evidence of post striking interventions. Of that 9%, 42% involve punch-marks, where as 67% have scratches/ graffiti.
My first thought is to wonder if this is indicative of punch-marks being applied more intensely after 52 BCE? Or if hoards are more likely to have punch-mark because the individual collecting and saving coins may be more inclined to want to validate what they are saving. This latter is plausible but I there is little to no unity in the shape and and style of the punch-marks within the hoard. More later on the shape of punch marks.
I’ve often been inclined to theorize that punch-marks might connect to the legislation introduced by Gratidianus and that this legislation was likely re codified in a Lex Cornelia. I’ve got a piece coming out I hope later this year that discusses this in collaboration with Sharpless and Lockyear so if you’re reading this with the intention of citing my work, drop me an email, rather than citing the blog.
To really investigate when such punch marks were introduced I’d need more fully photographed hoards from the late republic. I bet Charles or Kris could help me brain storm where to find some of these. I am also curious if I might find any in Crawford’s papers in BM (I am sitting down the block from these archival materials!).
Of the 57 specimens from both find areas with punch-marks 53 (93%!) have the mark on the obverse.
Of the 25 specimens with scratched or cut interventions, 84% of those markings appear on the obverse.
Of the 77 specimens marked in either way, 43% of those markings are in the field avoiding the design and in 45% of cases it is situated on the head or neck in such a way as not to obscure the primary design characteristics or harm the facial features, typically on the cheek or neck or ear. This is not random and it is not vandalism intended to deface.
Ok more to say but I htink this captures the basics and I’ve got a brown bag lunch date!
Yes this is further self indulgence but certainly useful. Scroll down for the asses found in etruscan tombs!
1829, In house of Castor and Pollux at Pompeii 45 gold and silver coins were found in an area described and the women’s quarters in a bronze lined box.
The same report also talks about performing excavations in front of the king and queen of Bavaria. The king got to see imperial bronze coins excavated before the gate of the temple of Augustus. The queen got to see some well preserved bronze coins excavated in a shop. Planted objects? I’m guessing not as they don’t seem that ‘exciting’. Still weird to watch excavation as a form of entertainment…
Naples. In accordance with the sovereign concession to communicate to the Institute the reports received by the Neapolitan government regarding the excavations in the kingdom, the Prince of Sangiorgio received the following information extracted from a report by the Intendant of Naples: namely, that on the 28th of last April [1829] three tombs had been discovered in Mugliano, located in the district of Casoria, in which various ancient objects were found: these include some terracotta vases with black glaze, two broken bronze fibulae, and twenty-five coins of the same metal; of which twelve coins belong to Suessa and thirteen to Naples.
Can we call this a hoard? We can’t really say from this description if all 25 coins were found in the same tomb or if some in one and some in another. My guess is that this if better documented would be a very nice little assemblage of vernice nera with petites estampilles with coins of the First Punic War. But on this testimony it is only a guess. Naples IΣ series bronzes are often found with the short lived Suessa Bronzes. In the same bulletin we have a later report that seems like it might be the same incident as quoted just above. Were there three, two, or just one discovery? I think two perhaps. Giugliano is a long way from Casoria. But Mugnano perhaps shouldn’t be confused with Mugliano?! Interesting though that the coin finds are all discovered in the same way.
1830.
Considerable remains of an ancient bridge can be seen on the river that intercedes between Barile and Ripacandida, which further down takes the name of Divento, and in the vicinity of Barile, consular coins have been found, and still are found, in abundance, and almost all of them are silver.
I presumed based on reading this that I’d be able to spot the likely road or bridge on the new itiner-e. That’s the new roman road online map that has made a splash. To place Barile you’ll need to use the google screen shot to help you eyeball it. I see no particular reason this place should have a reputation for turning up republican silver coins and the road for that bridge is certainly not yet traced.
This feels like a jackpot of a testimony.
Inside the two urns, among the human ashes, two asses were found, one weighing one ounce, 20 denarii and a half, the other one ounce and eight denarii. The type is the same in both, that is, Janus bifrons on one side, and the prow of a ship on the other. Now we know that the as was originally twelve ounces, but was later reduced to two, around the year of Rome 502 as is revealed in the memoirs of Pliny, and again in the year 536 the Roman as suffered another diminution. It is around this latter period that the asses of our Etruscan tomb must have been created; and therefore we argue that the sculptures placed there cannot be much earlier than this latter period, since the asses of heavier weight would have been there; or much later, since they would have been found accompanied by the uncial axes that were in use from then on, unless we wish to admit the unusual case that those asses that were no longer in circulation were reserved for burial with the dead. The heaviest coin was under the urn missing the bas-relief, the other was inside the urn decorated with sculpture.
An uncia in 19th Century Italy was approximately: 26.73g, a denaro was 1/24 of the uncia. The heavier As weighted about 49.6g. This puts it at the tail end of the anonymous struck bronzes and right before we start to get symbols (Crescent, Cornucopia, Apex and Hammer). So we’re probably looking a coins struck during the Second Punic War but the latter portion right at the very end of the third century BCE. The lighter As weighed about 35.64. This would put it in the era where most of the asses have symbols and or initials. Dating is disputed but first quarter or first third of the second century BCE. Weights very a great deal and specimens stay in circulation a long time. Below I give the approximate find spot.
Regarding Modena!
Since April 1828, when the collection of ancient Roman marbles was decreed, not a few ancient marbles have subsequently come to public view, some from underground and some from unknown and distant places; and two more treasures, one of over a thousand denarii from Roman families in the autumn of 1828, and another of one hundred and thirty coins of lesser silver from Gordianus Pius to Claudius Gothicus, in the autumn of 1829.
Social War hoard found in Teramo!
Teramo. In Giulia, in the province of Teramo, 1216 silver coins were found last year [1829], almost all belonging to the Tituria family, of which sixty-two of the best preserved and most valuable were purchased for the royal museum.
Gold Hoard at Capua
I forgot to mention some time ago that, while excavating the underground parts of the Campanian amphitheatre, a few months ago, 40 imperial gold coins were discovered, the oldest of which are from Augustus, and the most recent are six from Alexander Severus. Among these coins are two of great value, namely a Pertinax and a Man. Scautilla: in addition, many rare reverses. It should be noted that these coins, as they date closer to the time of Alexander Severus, are in better condition, so that those of this emperor are not only very well preserved, but still show the preserved stamp that the coins have when they come out of the die; which gives rise to the well-founded argument that the treasure was hidden during the time of this emperor. Many gold coins were also found in various places, during the excavation of all parts of this amphitheater, among which two very large medallions of the same number as those surrounded are worthy of note: one of F.L. Valentinian, the other of Anastasius, which seemed to clearly demonstrate that this amphitheater was in full use up to the beginning of the sixth century of Christ.
(i) The eminent Marquis Arditi, director of the exchanges of the kingdom of Naples, through Mr. Bonucci, has sent us the specified note of the said 40 coins and 4 medallions. They are 4 with the image of Nero, 6 of Vespasian, 2 of Domitian, 2 of Trajan, 7 of Hadrian, 2 of Antoninus Pius, 3 of Marcus Antonius, 1 of Luius Verus, 1 of Pertinax, 1 of Septimius Severus, 2 of Caracalla the son, 6 of Severus Alexander, 1 of Sabina the wife of Hadrian, 1 of Faustina the Elder , and one of Manilia Scantilla, wife of Didius Julian: 1 Medallion in bronze with the image of Trajan Decius, 1 of bronze of Valentinian, 1 coin similar to Antoninus, one small ivory head of Medusa in fine work. Both the gold coins, as well as the other objects described, were found in a corner of the substructures of the area of the said amphitheatre.
None of the numbers agree. Here is it says 2,110 coins. Crawford 1969 says of over twice the number: 2,004 denarii. Lockyear catalogues 2,006. I opened Backendorf as I often do and then put it back down as it does not have clear indices.
I thought I was getting over my cat grief. Nope. My lovely artist neighbor presented me with a painted portrait of my dear, demonic Odysseus as an angel flying over my house. I’ve been sobbing and blubbering ever since. So I’m going to be self indulgent now and just poke around in old books to make myself feel better.My beloved has confiscated the painting and put it somewhere safe until it stops triggering such astrong emotional response.
“The skeleton of each grave of the first type is usually accompanied by a large vessel for containing liquid (an amphora, crater, kelebe) and a smaller one (a saucepan), a vessel for pouring (oenocoe), a cup, and one or more bowls with several small plates and on these flattened eggs as in the aforementioned tombs of Nola, Sanseverino, and elsewhere: everything is made of brown and red earthenware: a few are painted black, very rarely are figured. The skeleton has bronze fibulae on the clavicles, or on the pelvis or on the femurs, and holds aes rude in the right and left hands: sometimes he has an iron ring in the left hand: sometimes there is a lamp stand, also of iron, near the skeleton.”
The second type (p. 20) is also said to hold aes rude in a hand (not specified which). The speaker now refers to photographs not in the publication but shown to the audience of his excavations at Certosa:
Observe, among the first, that little boy who holds the aes rude in his tender right hand, and clutches a bronze armlet in his left; do you see the group of rough earthenware pieces that are to his left?
Look at the other one, a little older: he also has the aes rude in his right hand, a fibula rests on the eye of the left femur, and nearby is a bowl containing crushed eggs. Look at the third small skeleton, also with the aes rude in his right hand, and the four bowls, and the eleven small plates, along with the small pot and the human-faced oenochoe? The other skeleton is somewhat larger: it also holds the aes rude in its left hand, and a fibula is on its chin. This skeleton had its head not facing south, but south. Do you see the cotyle and the oenochoe not on the left but at the foot, as if to say, north?
And here is the beautiful skeleton of the adults with a very beautiful skull of the Etruscan type and the two adjacent ones of the Umbrian type: do you see the aes rude, which the third is still holding tightly in his right hand and the necklace of amber beads, which lies stretched out from the neck to the chest? Observe the other group of three adults too: how all the skulls have the imprint of the Umbrian type, and how they all still hold the aes rude and fibulae, like the clay figures on the left! And in the skeleton, separately, do you see the three bronze bracelets, two on the left arm, the third on the right? But the last pit is very singular. You will soon see two skeletons in a pit: I will say that one pit had the skull and fragments of a woman’s skeleton and burnt bones. In the extracted pit, observe: here are two supine skeletons. One is of a very old woman, the other on the left is of a boy, who is just over two years old: observe that the woman also has an aes rude in her right hand, a pin and a fibula on her chin, the smaller skeleton also has a bronze armlet on his left, almost on his chest some amber pearls and a pendant: to the left of the two skeletons are a cup, a goblet, a lechito and a figured kelebe.
We now jump ahead in the discussion to pages 46-47. Here I’m getting very excited because we see the origins of the belief that aes rude MUST have intrinsic value.
Never, gentlemen, has the aes rude been so clearly exposed as has been done by the excavations of Certosa, although it has been found in tombs on other occasions [cf. Todi]. You saw it discovered in the burnt remains together with the remains of the pyre. You still see it clutched in the hands of skeletons, but the analyses I have deduced are very important.
The aes rude of Certosa, as elsewhere, does not have a single form: rather, there are four distinct forms: here is the aes rude in the form of slag, or colo; in the form of a slab, in the form of rods; in the shape of more or less ovoid and almost oblong disks. And that ribbed fragment, and those two with lines, would they be fragments of aes signatum? And would a true aes signatum be the 0.03 disk crossed by three parallel lines? It was in the face of these differences in shapes that a problem arose in my mind. Are these shapes, gentlemen, accidental, arbitrary, or are they shapes given specifically to the aes rude to establish a monetary value specific to each shape? And could this monetary value of the aes rude depend on the elements that compose it, that is, on its different alloy? It is certain that if the alloy is different, it could not be indifferent, therefore the value of the aes rude would be only one, but rather, I said, its monetary value must be proportional to its alloy. And would the different forms described have ever been used to distinguish this value? Thus reasoning, I turned to the very accurate Professor Casali, and here are the analyses resulting from three of the forms of the aes rude, having only a single specimen of the fourth.
This is fantastic but wow the logical fallacy of thinking all the aes rude of the same basic shape would have the same basic composition. These are percentages. Rame is Copper, Piombo is Lead, and Stagno is Tin. Given the date of publication only wet chemistry was possible. I’d love to know the technique. Did they use the whole object or just part of the object? I’d also love a modern dating of these tombs, perhaps based on pottery serration.
He further observes that the first and second varieties of aes rude appeared as shapeless masses, ashen in color, without luster, and brittle when hammered. The one in a sheet, when coated with azotic acid, initially dissolved easily, later abandoning approximately 1/3 of its quantity of metallic substance, which was refractory to the action of the acid itself, aided also by the heat. Such a fact, which repeated itself several times, induced the writer to test this portion of the alloy separately, which was found to be composed of lead and tin, and a small quantity of copper. And since, when inspected with a magnifying glass, the said substance was found to be compact and not very porous, the writer himself infers that it was a special alloy, formed in the molten mass of bronze during its slow cooling. Gentlemen, therefore, the chemical analysis confirms my deductions: the aes rude therefore has a different alloy according to its different shape; first the scoriform aes rude, then the aes rude in sheets, then the aes rude in rods and these three alloys gradually increase its value perhaps in the following scale: 1st the scoriform aes rude, 2nd the sheet aes rude, 3rd the aes rude in rods? Our aes rude then differs from the aes rude of Marzabotto [also from a necropolis], the one in rods approaches the aes rude of Villanova, the scoriform one for copper approaches the aes rude of Vicarello (1).
I’m trying to wrap my head around this extrapolation from single objects. I’m so proud of Prof. Missiaglia for texting TWO specimens. I also trust his results because of the detail. The Vicarello numbers REALLY surprise me. What is that Zinc number coming from I’ve never seen anything like it and it worries me. (Copper Zinc Alloys). How did Sgarzi get his specimen from Vicarello, were these reports published anywhere? For Marzabotto we have Gozzadini’s publication on the ancient necropolis (maybe? I cannot find it…).
Our author circles back to invoke the aes rude in his conclusions (p. 55)
…And these elements, which hint at remote ages, are they not confirmed by the aes rude gradually developing from scoriform to laminate, to rods, to obeli, and then up to the presumed aes signatum, the aes signatum, marked precisely, according to the illustrious Mommsen, first by Servius Tullius in Rome? It is certainly true that Felsina must have had its own currency in the development of the times.
While we must reject the chronology and correlation between form development and metallurgical content, these observations detailing the position of the finds and the wet chemistry is invaluable.
I wonder where I could find Zannoni’s excavation photos. …
Liv Mariah Yarrow 