Map of mints producing coins with a kucklebone as the primary design type in the 3rd cent BCE or earlier. I made this by download KML files from search results from the ANS database and IRIS and then cleaning the data.
My interest of course stems from RRC 14/6 and related aes grave types.
I got thinking about the potential prevalence of this design choice from this coin of Calchedon which popped up when I was looking for something else in the BM search.
The combination of the grain ear and knuckle bone brought to mind early uncia types (Cf. 18/6).
The use of the type at Paphos got me thinking of this other article:
Nifosi, A. (2022). The Throw of Isis-Aphrodite: A Rare Decorated Knucklebone from the Metropolitan Museum of New York. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 108(1-2), 177-189. https://doi.org/10.1177/03075133221137365
But that is besides the point.
My main thought is that the v small coins of Himera are likely to have been the point of influence, if there need be one.
I say if there need be one as knucklebones, astragalos, astragalus, astragal, etc… are ubiquitous in the ancient world as small game objects also associated with divination.
I was honored to visit Prof. SailakshmiRamgopal’s Roman history class at Columbia to give an introduction to Coins. I was asked to share my materials and when I do so I like to keep an archive here for future reference.
This particular class centers Commodus as that is where the students were in the semester. I give variations of this class with numerous other tailored set pieces and depending on the audience more on the origins of coinage and more on the global phenomenon of money.
Archiving some thoughts I threw up on FB earlier this week for future reference.All images borrowed from a BCC news story.
Things I love about this new Pompeii fresco showing Paris inviting Helen to Troy:
1) The dog knows this is a terrible idea. Dogs are often symbols of fidelity and this one know marital trust and guest-friendship are both about to be broken. He breaks the fourth wall and gives us the viewer a knowing glance. [On dogs as such symbols]
4) Paris’ eastern costume looks less silly than in most cases. The color block squares and the overall get up even how he holds his shepherd’s crook all have a more exotic dignified look… [compare say the costume of Ascanius from Pompeii IX.13.5]
I’m curious about the identification of the woman on the Omphalos as Cassandra. Cassandra has a clear iconography for her rape by Ajax, but seated on an Omphalos? I don’t have a parallel. I associate the Omphalos with Delphi so my first thought was the Pythia. I did waste a little time with the LIMC before posting this. I learned that Cassandra poor thing doesn’t get her own entry but rather appears with all the men who fucked up her life. Seems an injustice…
On FB some agreed with me, others pointed out that Cassandra fits better with theme of room as a whole (as we understand it at present) and suggest the omphalos could just represent her gift of prophecy.
As I think about orientation of designs both relative and absolute, I’m now thinking of the open hand on RRC 14/4. It is always photographed with fingers pointing up but they could easily be shown pointed to the left and thus a right hand extended in a gesture of offering partnership like the Augustan coinage (RRC 546).
We might lean away from this option because of the open left hand on some of the other aes grave (RRC 21/4 and RRC 27/8), but I find it useful to consider about the assumptions we bring to the designs.
The ‘knuckbone’ is also called an Astragalus (or Talus in Humans).
I need to be able to describe the parts of the bone in order to describe the orientation of design and spues and other features of the individual coin specimens.
“Schematic diagram of the lateral outline of an astragalus rotating as a cam. The bold portion of the astragalar outline line shows the surface of the cam, comprising the lateral outline of the distal trochlea and the calcaneal (sustentacular) facet. The circle indicates the center of rotation at the transverse tarsal joint. Straight dashed lines indicate the distance between the axis of rotation and the calcaneus, which is represented by a simple rectangle. The system is shown in extreme dorsiflexion (A) and then in extreme plantarflexion (B) with resulting posterior displacement of calcaneus.”
Astragalar terminology. (A) Photograph of a Samotherium major (GMM 2002) astragalus in dorsal view, with representative terminology. (B) Samotherium major (GMM 2002) astragalus in ventral view, with representative terminology. The scale bar represents 50 mm. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0151310.g001
“A sheep astragalus (L7 5 1034; crate 4) showing clear signs of acid etching — probably the result of partial digestion in an animal’s (perhaps a dog) stomach. “
From DAvIS, SJM & GOnçAlvES, MJOS & Gabriel, Sónia. (2008). Animal remains from a Moslem period (12th/13th century AD) lixeira (garbage dump) in Silves, Algarve, Portugal. Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia. 11. 183-258.
So where does this leave me in my vocabulary. I think we can say on RRC 14/6 the knucklebone is shown on the plantar side, which we might also call the ventral or posterior view. I will consider the distinctive interarticular groove and related proximal triangular fossa to be indicative of the ‘top’ and use it as my primary reference point.
Interestingly this is by chance the second lowest scoring/most common throw in a game of chance.
Post started earlier this week but never published
I’m waiting for my next Haeberlin tray and thinking about where he sourced his coins and equally where the Nemi coins not in Nottingham… Haeberlin bought a number, but most went to Pasinati and we have no weights. Who was Pasinati? I must say I’m surprised at my lack of luck thus far satisfying my curiosity about his identity and how his portion of the Nemi material was likely dispersed.
I’m looking for traces of what he was known to have…
Garrucci included a piece from his collection in his supplement:
“From the collection of Pasinati, now in that of Mr. Pietro Stettiner. Fragment of a quadrilateral bar with a dolphin of archaic style on both sides, the first quadrilateral known to be found in Rome, it was raised from the waters of the Tiber precisely between Ponte Kotto and Ripa Grande, Pesa gr. 1460 equal to four pounds, four ounces and 12 grams. I take argument from the place given to the dolphin to believe that a similar dolphin must have been figured in the missing part. I say, because it was cut, because you can see a marked line and just above it the mark of the ax to arrange the bronze for the blow of the mallet. The entire quadrilateral must therefore have weighed an eight to nine pounds. It is notable that in this quadrilateral bar the thickness of the burr protruding between the two brackets is the same from top to bottom, and regular. There is so far no bronze of this class so elegant and symmetrical.” (Machine aided translation)
Given that it is in the supplement and not the main text we can perhaps assume it came to light in the early 1880s as Garrucci was finishing his work. And… yes, Haeberlin was able to see (or at least get a cast) of the bar itself and says it came out of the Tiber in 1883 and then was acquired by Gnecchi…
The drawing is much more attractive than the actual piece as is too often the way. I wonder where it is today? I’d love a better photograph. The Rome provenance is very important to associate this type of bar with the city and its monetary history.
Haeberlin records just one purchase from Pasinati in 1895, an RRC 18/1 piece. Notice however under no. 46 that Stettiner (a name familiar from just above!) sold Haeberlin one of his Nemi pieces. I wonder how much of the Nemi material ended up with Stettiner (someone else to track down).
He was already active by 1870 when he is mentioned for his possession a large bronze strigil with the handle in the shape of a woman recently excavated at Praeneste.
He also had a number of note worthy Cista from Praeneste (cf. Étude sur Préneste, ville du Latium, par M. Emmanuel Fernique v.17, p. 168-169).
I’ve now reweighed all of his semisses of RRC 14 and 18 and all the triens of 18 a total of 60 specimens. Three were gross outlier and I’ve excluded them. The first two were early yesterday and thus I suspect might be user error (i.e. me getting used the handwriting and scales etc…). The other was the last coin of today not in Haeberlin’s printed volume but with his handwritten weight on the specimen.
Of the 57 remaining weights the average difference from reweighing is .11%, BUT for a full half of the readings the difference falls between .07% and .1%. We might also note that in 50 of the 57 cases Haeberlin’s weight is slightly lower than the new weight. This trend in the data suggests that there is a simple very slight calibration error either of his scale or mine.
Long and the short of it is that I think we should trust his weights and I’m not sure it is worth my time to keep up my systematic reweighing.
—
Other thoughts. The Semisses of RRC 18 are more consistent in quality and character than those of RRC 14. Case in point, all of Haeberlin’s RRC 18/2 specimens have 12 o’clock design alignment, but while his RRC 14/2 has a a tendency towards 12 it is not stable at all:
The RRC 18/3s appear even more uniform in manufacture and fabric.
Another suggestive data trend is the difference in the number of spues for RRC 14/2 and RRC 18/2.
Of 16 specimens of RRC 14/2, 12 have only one spue, whereas just 4 have two.
Of the 19 specimens of RRC 18/2, 15 have two spues, where as just 5 have one.
I take this to be evidence of experimentation in the manufacture process to refine techniques, but I see no difference in the number of voids at least in quantification terms. I’d want to put the two trays out in front of me together, perhaps impossible, to eye ball if the quality of the casting seems different.
I also notice looking at all the RRC 18 semisses together a two different diameters. Most fall in the 48-50 mm range, but three are much bigger up at 55-58 mm. The wider ones also seem thinner. I want to keep an eye on this.
I’ve been spending time with Haberlin’s own aes grave collection here in Berlin. The really lovely thing about it is that I get to see many specimens of the same type at the same time to really get a feel for the characteristics and deep variation between the various specimens.
Many thoughts, too many for this blog post. But here is one. There is an uncanny similarity in size and shape between the wings of Pegasus on RRC 18/2 and the wing on Mercury’s helmet on RRC 14/1.
Also Haeberlin seems much more devoted to recording provenance for Asses than for smaller denominations. I have a strong suspicion that he acquired more of the Nemi material than his catalogue reports. I’d need to access his papers on some future trip to really know.
Finally thus far with only the occasional outlier (perhaps one specimen in 20) his weights are proving to be accurate against a modern well calibrated scale to a standard deviation of c. 0.4%. That is pretty darn accurate. But given the outliers which have been up to 6% difference, I feel I best keep re weighing as go.
I’m not even getting to his cast collection this trip–he tried to take a cast of every single aes grave he was not able to purchase that he ever help. Each cast has details of the original on the reverse. An amazing tool for provenance research given how few specimens relatively speaking he was able to illustrate on his plates.
I am about to move on to RRC 14 and 18 today, but as I sit down this morning and start closing tabs I wanted to jot down this thought
What follows are three images of the same Ariminium Quinunx specimen sold repeatedly in the early 20th century. As the photos are taken from casts rather than the aes grave itself the edges particularly the spue breaks present slightly differently.
1933 sale (weight reported as 182.20g)1924 sale (weight reported as 182.20g)1911 sale (weight reported as 192g)
The above specimen caught my attention because of how the spue break with a little peak in a center reminded me of this specimen owned by Haeberlin and now in Berlin which I was handling yesterday.
Basically I’m toying with the idea if such patterns in the spue breaks could be reflective of something in the manufacturing process that was consistent or typical…
I also find it interesting that this Ariminum quinunx was unknown to Haeberlin but appeared almost immediately aft his work was published from the collection of von Baldinger – Stuttgart
Liv Mariah Yarrow 
