This piece in trade has been labeled as possibly a fragment from the oh so famous one of a kind elephant and pig type (I’m agnostic on the authenticity of this specimen).  Nope.  I’m pretty confident that is as a caduceus and trident.  RRC 11/1 not RRC 9/1.

This isn’t an actual argument yet.  It’s an instinct.   I agree  that this is the half value coin (Sambon 146) which goes with the full value coin (Sambon 145) with an elephant on it (see Baglione 1976).

I think that the obverse is more likely to be a Celtic warrior wearing an animal skin (bear probably) and that some how this is supposed to correlate with the dog.  I’ve a hunch based on the appearance of these coins in regional Italic museums that we should date the series to late 218 early 217 while Hannibal is his winter camp having conquered the Taurini and  working on improving his troop moral and recruiting Italic allies before going to meet the Roman arm near Arretium (Polybius 3.60 onwards).

The problem is I can’t find the text references or images to back my thinking up at least not to my own tastes and I need to move on to other things.

Stuff of possible relevance.

E. Wamer’s Von Bären und Männern. Zeitschrift für Archäologie des Mittelalters 37, 2009, 1-46.  (good images)

M. P. Speidel’s Ancient Germanic Warriors 2004.

And then just to taunt me the internetz keep returning this damn image:

BUT (a few hours later…) Let’s not forget

Aita (=Hades) is personified with a wolfskin headdress in Etruria:

Tomba Golini, Orvieto

Tomb of Orcus II

Polybius 3.62:

Mustering the troops, Hannibal brought forward certain young men from among the prisoners he had taken molesting his march in the difficult part of the Alpine pass. 4 He had purposely, with a view to the use he was going to make of them, ill-used them: they wore heavy fetters, they had suffered much from hunger, and their bodies were disfigured by the marks of blows. 5 Placing them in the middle of the meeting he exhibited some Gaulish suits of armour, such as their kings are wont to deck themselves with when about to engage in single combat. In addition to these he placed there some horses and had some rich military cloaks brought in. 6 He then asked the young men which of them were willing to do combat with each other, the prizes exhibited being destined for the victor, while the vanquished would be delivered by death from his present misery. 7 When all shouted out with one voice that they were willing to fight, he ordered them to draw lots, and the two on whom the lot fell to arm themselves and do combat. 8 The young men, the moment they heard this, lifted up their hands  and prayed to the gods, each eager to be himself one of the chosen. 9 When the result was announced, those on whom the lot had fallen were overjoyed and the rest mournful and dejected, 10 and after the combat was over the remaining prisoners congratulated the fallen champion no less than the victor, as having been set free from many and grievous evils which they themselves were left alive to suffer. 11 The sentiment of most of the Carthaginians was identical; for looking on the misery of the other prisoners as they were led away alive, they pitied them on comparing their fate with that of the dead whom they all pronounced to be fortunate.

This episode is bizarre to me.  Is it Polybius’ own creation or an actual event?  Is Polybius trying give a rational moralizing explanation for gladiatorial combat, such as practiced by the Romans.  Does he expect his Greek audience to find this barbaric?

key words: Aes Grave, Priestly Instruments, Sacrificial Instruments, apex, priestly implements, sacrificial implements.

This is a drawing of BM G.2607   which is not photographed in the online database.

I feel I’ve already posted about this but can’t find that post so am throwing this up again.

The object on right is not a crescent it is a patera.

Abdera, May S. 178 Group LXXVIII (A 177 / P 183/1 stgl.). Jameson III 1999 (Var., Vs. stgl.)

In 2013 when I first blogged about this type I couldn’t find an image of this type.  And it irritated me no end.  30 secs of searching in 2018 and it popped right up.

Gosh I love blogging as a searchable linkable record of my thinking.

I very much wish this specimen had been acquired by a public collection.

Key catalogue note:

” The bearded head of a man on the reverse seems not to be a portrait of the local authority responsible for the issue (cf. G.M.A.Richter, The Portraits of the Greeks, p. 79 fig. 305). On the contrary this head is certainly an idealized one and rather a canting device on the name of Pythagoras, the famous philosopher and mathematician.”

Ever since my earlier post, I’ve been rather fascinated with this little remembered myth.  The gem is rich in narrative identifying iconography.  Peacock = Hera, Io = Bull, caduceus = hermes, BUT what’s up with the harpa?!  Seems a borrowing from the Jason myth…

I can’t tell from this image if Argos is janiform or or if his body is shown covered in eyes.  Not sure its ancient any way.  If it is, it seems rather late Roman.

This OLD POST has inaccuracies, but I’m leaving up for archival purposes. PLEASE USE NEW POST ONLY.

I generated this map and list of find spots based on Burnett and Molinari 2014, Burnett 2006, and Burnett 1977.  Below is the list of locations.  I don’t claim this is complete, but it is certainly a useful way of visualizing the data for a historian.  Compare this to the map of the Via Appia and Colonization in the late 4th early 3rd Cent.  Bear in mind the road was not built all at once: to Capua (312BCE), prolonged to Venusia (291), Tarentum (281), finally Brundusium (264).

These are maps made by others (mine above leaves some colonies out):

My first reaction to seeing these three maps is that the coinage is generally found further south and east on the pennisula and does not nicely map onto late 4th century colonization and only slightly better correlated with early 3rd century colonization, but after drawing my own map that combined colonization and the via Appia, I’m happier to see all three as a combined effort.

On the whole the distribution of the coinage seems better correlated with the area surrounding of the via Appia.  I want to map pegasi finds in main land Italy next…

Mattingly 2004: 111

Hmmm…. I’ve thought a lot about horned helmets already so this reference caught me aback.  I think this is type being discussed:

Vlasto 746-747; SNG ANS 1113 = HN Italy 1006

I wish I had Mattingly’s confidence in seeing either horns or laurel wreath or both.  Ho hum.

I’ve not read any of the listserv discussion.  I’ve only seen the fall out on twitter.  Here’s a bit of my own life experience that might be of interest to some. 

Minor addition 5/22/18: Some people seem to be reading and even liking this post.  Thank you.  I am also hearing the well worn argument that any affirmative action will undermine decisions based on merit.  As I said in the first version of this paper, the verdict is already in on ‘color blindness’ (it’s racist) and we can extrapolate lessons regarding ‘blind’ peer review from this work.  Similarly, we can extrapolate lessons from the case for affirmative action.  These are well worn and well understood.   See below for suggested links.

In May 2017 I organized with students, former students, and mentees an international interdisciplinary conference called The Cost of Freedom: Debt and Slavery.

In retrospect the most educational part of organization process for me was the peer review process for the abstracts:

The committee consisted of

• female tenured classicist at Large Public University (me!), European-American
• male Classics PhD candidate about to defend, European-American
• female early stage PhD Candidate in Comp Lit at an Ivy League University, Caribbean-American
• male early stage PhD Candidate in American Studies (trained in Sociology) at a Large Public University, male, Dominican-American
• female undergraduate in Philosophy (aiming at Law School), African-American

We also represented a wide range of different religious heritages and degrees of present practice.   We started with a blind approach to the review of 60+ abstracts.  All abstracts were read by all committee members.  Only the undergraduate coordinator knew the identities.  Separately we each answered a relatively simple pre-determined questionaire in a spreadsheet including a numerical score and open-ended comments.

At our meeting our first conversation was about the experience of reading and reviewing, where we felt our own fatigue, interests, tastes, stress, scholarly backgrounds coming into play.

Then we constructed a whole program based on our blind scoring.  We worked from the assumption that if even one person on the committee gave the highest possible score to a paper, the paper should be included.  We discussed at length those with great discrepancies in their scoring.  We did not average the scores.

Still in that same meeting we then read the biographical statements submitted separately by each applicant.  My junior collaborators were shocked and horrified (I only a little less so) that the panels we’d constructed were heavily favored towards white male speakers and we’d not managed to attract applicants–let alone select–ANY from a Haitian background, something we felt essential given the theme of our conference.  Many asked, “if this is what WE come back with in our hard-fought attempts at inclusivity, how is there any hope for those from non-traditional backgrounds to succeed in the academy with its belief in blind peer review?!”

We then had a really hard conversation about what we wanted our conference to be about, what work we wanted to support, and foreground.  What made something academically worthy?  Then we read all the bios and abstracts together again.

We decided on a longer, more grueling schedule, to ensure the conference included more scholars from more diverse backgrounds.  We in fact doubled our intended number of speakers.  We re-thought our panel themes to make sure we could showcase different approaches and we went out and actively recruit scholars who hadn’t applied to fill in the intellectual gaps, even providing translations services and offering funding to allow such participation.

What was our biggest take-away?  Regardless of our background, we still found ourselves inclined to defer to the voices of white men.  Why?  I suspect because even in blind peer review those voices sound so much like the familiar voice of authority.   They have been trained to speak with authority and we have been trained to recognize that sound as the sound of authority.  These are speculations, based on a single experience, not tested hypotheses.

Does this threaten the position of white men?  Some, but far from all.  In the second round of review and the reformulation of the program, we in fact found ourselves adding in one senior white male scholar who in the end gave an incredibly moving paper at the conference.   Many thoughtful white male scholars consciously adopt an inclusive open style, preferring themselves to use a voice that may sound less self assured and less authoritative, because it leaves space for others.  In doing so, they engage in richer more rewarding conversations.

One of the things that scares me most is my own tendency to coach mentees to sound more authoritative, more rigorous (more like some one who was acculturated to white male privilege).  To walk the walk, to talk the talk, to fake it till you make it.  To pass.  Enacting privilege has certainly been my own chief survival strategy. 

Blind peer review is not the sole means for achieving ‘fair’ allocation of speaking slots at conferences.  It’s problems are closely tied to the well-critiqued problems of ‘color blindness’ (see below for refs).

We need to understand on a very personal level what sounds like ‘good scholarship’ to our own ears and think about why it sounds so.

Can we be more open in our ideas of what has merits?

Can we save space for ideas and voices that we might not yet readily identify as ‘rigorous’ or ‘disciplined’ or ‘focused’ or ‘trained’?

What’s the worst that can happen?

We hear a bad paper or three?

Doesn’t this happen anyway?!

We hear an idea that makes us angry or makes us question our own assumptions?

Great!  You’d get energized to write more and better!  To think harder.  Isn’t that why we got into the business?

We don’t get to give our own paper?

Yes, you might have to give up a place now and again.  I strongly suspect I was not selected from a recent panel so that a graduate student could speak.  Do I think my paper would have been more ‘relevant’ more ‘informed’ more ‘on topic’ more ‘polished’?  Yes.  Do I fault the committee? not one iota!

This self-examination can be exhausting.  But it is worth it, not just for others, but for myself.

Essays on why ‘color-blindness’ is a problem.

A 2013 editorial from the Washington Post

2011 Psychology Today article

2013 Historical Essay on the idea

Essays on why affirmative action isn’t a bad idea added 22 May 2018

2014 Washington Post article

Critique of 7 common criticisms of Affirmative Action

2017 US News and World Report article

Feeling like you don’t know how to talk about race, but you want to?

Checkout anything by Ijeoma Oluo

She’s on twitter too.

(Please don’t ask your students or friends of color to do the extra work of teaching you personally, or of assuring you you’re getting it right! We all make mistakes and need to be gracious when corrected for them.  Myself included.  I wish I could take back so many things I said in my early career.)