Numbered tesserae/spintriae - overview of types

[Heliodromus]

I recently went down a rabbit hole of looking for examples of numbered tesserae, and thought others might be interested too. There doesn't seem to have been a whole lot written about these that I can find online, other than Ted Buttrey's "The Spintriae as a Historical Source" from Numismatic Chronicle 13, 1973.

When we hear of "spintriae" what tends to come to mind are the ones with sexual scenes, that used to be considered as brothel payment tokens, but those are only one class of designs, and are better seen in context with the other varieties.

These numbered tesserae/tokens seem to have first appeared around the reign of Augustus, and exist in three broad series, differentiated by the designs that appear on the obverse.

1) Imperial portraits
2) General classical themes, some whimsical
3) Sexual scenes

What they have in common is reverses featuring the numerals I-XVI, or the word AVG (Augustus). It's not clear if these series were in use at the same time, but it seems likely.

Within each of the three "series" there are roughly a dozen obverse designs (i.e. a dozen varieties of imperial obverse, a dozen classical designs, and a dozen sexual ones). Buttrey has noted die links between a single obverse (i.e. design) and multiple numbered reverses, and it seems as if these may have been made/sold in sets with a single obverse design and each of the I-XVI (+AVG?) reverses.

Here are some examples from the imperial series.

Top row is Augustus with "FEL" below bust. There are also a number of other Augustus designs/bust varieties including radiate (posthumus) busts. Second row is Tiberius with a lituus in front of the bust, and bottom row is confronted Tiberius Gemellus and Germanicus Julius Caesar. There is also an obverse identified as Caligula's sister Drusilla, but none that I've seen of Caligula himself. The last imperial obverse seems to be of Claudius, although that may be unrelated (see below).

Here are some examples (most, but not all, types) from the classical series.

Some notable ones include the camel rider, with a monkey riding behind a man, appearing to crown him - maybe a parody of an imperial triumph. Bottom right is another whimsical scene of a man in a wicker basket flanked by two others using a pulley system with ropes to pull him up (playing on a construction scene, perhaps). Bottom left is two men playing some board game, with the word "mora" (= "wait") above. Some online sources interpret this as the game Morra being played, but that doesn't seem to be what's depicted.

Finally, here are the obverse types from the sexual series. Out of laziness I'm showing a modern reproduction set, which seems to get it wrong by suggesting that a complete set consisted of all numerals I-XVI with a variety of obverse scenes, when in fact a set seems like it would have consisted of all numerals I-XVI + AVG with the *same* obverse. In fact there only exist 12-13 different sexual designs, so not enough for it to be the other way around!

One aspect of these *mostly* numbered tesserae that doesn't seem to have attracted much attention is the "AVG" reverse, which exists as part of all three imperial/classical/sexual series.

This "AVG" reverse, in addition to the numerals I-XVI, would seem to constrain the possible explanations for what these were used for - why one "privileged" piece? The jugate imperial busts is Augustus+Livia, the radiate one is Augustus.

Finally, in surveying these types, there are some outliers/associated tokens, not all of which may have been used for same purpose (whatever that may be!). Numbered tokens may have had a variety of uses.

Outlier - A-series

These A-series pieces are rare, so may have been in use for a shorter period of time. I haven't been able to find one (don't know if they exist) from the imperial series, but as can be seen above they do exist with both classical and sexual obverses, although the obverse designs differ from those of the non-A series. The I-XVI numbering appears to be the same.

Outlier - Claudius

These are the only imperial obverses to feature Claudius (i.e some of the latest dated pieces), are larger/heavier than usual, and notably the XVIIII reverse is outside of the normal I-XVI range. Note that the camel type, shown above, also appears with an "out of range" XIX reverse, despite otherwise fitting in with the other classical types. Perhaps these suggest a non-gaming use, since otherwise why would a game change to need additional pieces?

Outlier - Alexandrian bone

These pieces are made out of bone, and come from Egypt. It's not clear if they served same purpose as the Italian bronze ones, despite some superficial similarity.

Outlier - modified coins/tokens

Just as some coins are found modified as gaming pieces and weights, some are also occasionally (rarely) found modified with numeric reverses, such as these from LRB date, some 3-400 years after the above spintriae series. As noted before there may have been multiple uses for numbered piece like this, and no reason to assume they are related.

Summary

The "erotic" spintriae only comprise one out of three major series of numbered tesserae that seem to have served the same purpose with reverses numbered I-XVI plus a special AVG reverse. It seems they may have been followed (or accompanied) by a distinct related "A-series", and the numeric range I-XVI have been extended at least up to XIX by end of the usage period, although these are very rare. There is no evidence that these were associated with brothels, anymore than "erotic" oil lamps imply such use! Potential use cases that have been suggested include gaming/gambling of some sort, entrance tickets of some sort, locker-room tokens for the baths ... I haven't been able to find any discussion of how the "AVG" reverse might have fit into any of the suggested use cases.

It's interesting how these seem to have been fairly broadly used, but only over a short period of history, mainly during reigns of Augustus and Tiberius, but extending out to Claudius. What usage suddenly appeared and disappeared within this date range?

 

Edited July 17 by Heliodromus

[Aleph]

All three groups are die linked.  The locker room hypothesis is based on a Pompeii bathhouse with similar numbering and images.  No conclusive evidence on use though.

[rasiel]

One could speculate either way but there's no compelling reason to think that they weren't used in brothels and casinos and at least some circumstantial evidence that they could have been. There's a perfect modern correlation with casinos where tokens (gambling chips) serve to dissociate them to their underlying cash value, thus incentivizing more frequent and higher value use with resulting higher profits. Now this is not to say that the particular number or scene had to correspond to a particular sex act, in the case of brothels, if for no other reason than it would be an inefficient way to run this sort of business. Here they were much more likelier simply used as passes. Think of the modern equivalent of a wrist band in a night club: it tells management "this guy's paid up".

Rasiel

[Heliodromus]

Why would Augustus be authorizing his likeness to be used in a brothel, or Caligula authorizing the likeness of his favorite sister to be used as such?!

The common AVG+I-XVI reverses of all three series indicates a common usage.

 

[Deinomenid]

45 minutes ago, Heliodromus said:

Why would Augustus be authorizing his likeness

If these are about the time of Augustus as per the first post, why could they not be  just slightly later rather than precisely of the time, and therefore they could be seen as a reaction to the morality standards he tried to impose.  Say just after Caligula's death? Plenty of examples over time of ribald reaction to imposed standards.

[Heliodromus]

Apparently the three series are die linked, so seem to have been in use together. The imperial ones also span 3-4 emperors (Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius), so whatever they were used for persisted for quite a while... it's really hard to see imperial obverses being issued without approval and without the reason for usage being known, and hard to see augustus plus his wife, etc, etc wanting to be used in this way.

It seems the whole brothel association (rejected by Curtis Clay, btw) isn't based on a whole lot more than the fact that some of these have sex scenes on, and perhaps that pompeii fresco with numbered scenes (that neither match the tessarae in range of numbers, or scenes depicted, or include the mysterious "AVG", or explain the A-series, or ...). It's really not far from saying "these oil lamps have sex scenes on - therefore they must have been used in brothels". Maybe future archaeologists will assume that modern pinup playing cards were used in brothels too?

[DonnaML]

@Heliodromus, here are some references to spintriae (illustrations omitted) in my e-book copy 

of Prof. Clare Rowan's new book,

Tokens and Social Life in Roman Imperial Italy (Cambridge University Press, 2023):

p. 5

Many of the bronze and brass monetiform pieces referred to as ‘tokens’ in
this volume have traditionally been identified as gaming pieces. The presence
of numbers on tokens of the Julio-Claudian period (some accompanied by an
A) has been central to this argument. Figure 1.2 is one example of this series
(further examples can be seen in Figures 4.12 and 4.14), which is characterised
by numbers within a wreath on the reverse.21 The obverses of this series
carry a variety of designs, most famously Julio-Claudian imperial portraiture
and sexual imagery. The latter series is frequently dubbed spintriae in modern
scholarship, although these objects were not known as such in antiquity; an
example of a spintria is reproduced here as Figure 1.3.22 The discovery of
a spintria (likely a contemporary imitation) covered in gold leaf in a tomb in

21 Some have identified the wreath as the corona triumphalis, see Martini, 1999: 13; Campana,
2009: 55.
22 Campana, 2009: 43–4 on the term and 62–5 on the sexual scene shown in Figure 1.3.

p. 6

Mutina dated to AD 22–57 provides a terminus ante quem for this series.23 In
a seminal work on these pieces in 1973, Buttrey suggested one possible use for
these objects was as counters in gaming: this theory has since been developed
by Campana.24 In spite of the presence of numbers on these pieces and
gaming counters, the current state of material evidence suggests that we
should not interpret the so-called spintriae as gaming pieces. After all, these
artefacts form a small subset of a broader collection of bronze, brass and lead
monetiform pieces, of which only a few carry numbers.

Figure 1.2 AE token, 22 mm, 4.52 g, 4 h, 27 BC–AD 57. Laureate head of Augustus
right, FEL beneath, all within linear border and wreath / XIII within dotted border and
wreath. Buttrey 1973, B5/XIII.

Figure 1.3 AE token (spintria), 22 mm, 4.92 g, 6 h, 27 BC–AD 57. Sexual scene. A man
wearing a cape kneels on a kline and enters his partner from behind, who rests on her
elbows. Drapery above, beneath the kline crouching figure on the left and jug on right / III
within dotted border and wreath. Buttrey 1973, A9/III = Simonetta and Riva 1984 Scene 4.

23 Benassi, Giordani and Poggi 2003.
24 Buttrey, 1973: 54; Campana, 2009: 55. The idea is also discussed by Küter, 2016: 87; Le Guennec,
2017: 425; Martínez Chico, 2019: 109.

 

p. 38

The Julio-Claudians

Augustus and the Julio-Claudians are the best-represented dynasty on
tokens of lead and bronze alloy; the surviving material from Italy carries
more representations of the imperial family from this period than any
other. The possible reasons for this (changing attitudes towards imperial
liberalitas, changing visual culture connected to festivals and tokens) are
discussed at the end of this chapter.

The representation of a wide range of Julio-Claudian imperial family
members on tokens has been repeatedly observed in scholarship.2 The best known
tokens bearing portraits of the Julio-Claudians are the orichalcum
series connected to the so-called spintriae, briefly discussed in the introduction
(see Figure 1.2). As mentioned there, these tokens have die connections
with other token series, including tokens carrying sexual imagery
and a series issued by a magister of the youth, Gaius Mitreius (Figure 1.3
and 1.4). The use of the same reverse dies for multiple series suggests these
tokens were produced by a single workshop, perhaps issuing tokens over
many years for different individuals.

In terms of imperial portraits, the series carries representations of
Augustus (both living and deified), Augustus and Livia, Livia alone, and
another female portrait most recently identified as Livilla, wife of Drusus the
Younger.3 Tiberius is also portrayed (bare headed or laureate with lituus),
and a young male portrait that is likely Drusus (shown cuirassed). Two
young boys wearing tunics and with stars above their heads have been
identified as the twin sons of Drusus the Younger, Tiberius Gemellus and
Germanicus Julius Caesar.4 Drusus the Younger and his deceased twin sons
are also portrayed on a lead token series.5 Another series, of a different style
and produced from different dies, shows the emperor Claudius, while
a further orichalcum token now in the British Museum shows a young,
bare headed Julio-Claudian prince on the obverse and an eagle holding

p. 39

a sceptre standing on a globe on the reverse.6 The different style of these last
tokens further strengthens the model proposed in Chapter 1: these artefacts
seem to have been produced over a period of time.

6 Claudius: Göbl, 1978: pl. 9 no. 94 (V within wreath); BM R.4459 (XVIIII within wreath),
Classical Numismatic Group Mail Bid Sale 57, lot 1051 (II within wreath). The same style of
wreath is found on a series that carries Cupid in different poses on the obverse (see
Münzkabinett Berlin inv. no. 18203166, Campana, 2009: 53 Group II); both series are likely
from the same workshop. Campana suggested the Cupid series may have been a later (postantique)
creation, but seems to have been unaware of the similarity to the Claudius specimens.
Julio-Claudian prince and eagle: BM R.4432.

2 Küter, 2016; Küter, 2019; Rowan, 2020a; Rowan, 2020b. 3 Küter, 2019: 80–2.
4 Küter, 2019: 82–3.
5 Dressel, 1922: Pl VI no. 7 and the Münzkabinett Berlin 18237641, https://ikmk.smb.museum/
object?id=18237641.

p. 145

The action and excitement of gaming (and the gambling that inevitably
accompanied it) is also evident on Figure 4.14, a brass token that is die linked to
the so-called spintria series and associated tokens carrying the portraits of the
Julio-Claudian imperial family (see Chapter 1).We might thus conclude it was
made at the same workshop around the same period: the first half of the first
century AD.94 On this particular token series (which is issued with a variety of
numerals on the reverse, as well as the legend AVG), two men (or boys) are
shown playing a board game that appears to be ludus latrunculorum. The figure
on the right has his right hand raised and is evidently shouting mora (‘wait!’).95
The scene is reminiscent of the painting from the bar of Salvius in Pompeii
where two men are depicted playing dice with their speech written above
them – one declares ‘I’ve won’ while the other replies ‘Its not a three, it’s
a two’. Further paintings in the bar show the quarrel escalating, with the
landlord eventually throwing the two individuals out of the establishment.
Clarke notes that these and other paintings in the bar demonstrate a loss of
control, a world turned upside down, inviting laughter from the viewer.96

94 Rowan, 2020b.
95 Mowat, 1913: 52. The word moraris is found on rectangular bone gaming pieces (tesserae
lusoriae); AE 1888, no. 116g (with XIIII).
96 Clarke, 2003: 161–70.

p. 199

Travel and the Secondary Lives of Tokens

According to current find evidence, the vast majority of tokens remained
close to their place of manufacture. But some did travel, and it is worth
exploring the circumstances that resulted in these objects being carried
from one region to another. In some instances the materiality of tokens,
particularly those made of bronze, which look very much like money, may
have meant they acquired a secondary context as a coin to be used in the
economy. But if this occurred, it did so as a series of isolated instances: the
very small numbers involved suggest tokens were not shipped elsewhere en
masse. The study of the shipment of coin blocks by Frey-Kupper and
Stannard points out that the low value of bronze coinage (and by extension,
tokens) meant that very large numbers of coins would be needed for long
distance transfers of this type of specie to be worthwhile. Smaller numbers
of finds suggest the movement of people and groups, who carried such
pieces on their person.135 Indeed, the findspots of tokens that travelled,
discussed in further detail below, suggest that in many cases they were
recognised as something different from official currency or even pseudocurrency.

The imagery of tokens, particularly spintriae, held evident
appeal, which may have resulted in these objects being curated. Finds of
lead and bronze tokens far from their place of manufacture, like the lead

135 Frey-Kupper and Stannard, 2018: 285; Frey-Kupper and Stannard, 2019: 156.
Travel and the Secondary Lives of Tokens 199
https://doi.

p. 200

Egyptian tokens found in Italy discussed in Chapter 2, may reveal regional
networks and commercial relationships.

Bronze and orichalcum tokens have been found across the Empire (for
a discussion of these types and images, see Chapter 1). For the issues carrying
portraits of Julio-Claudian emperors on the obverse and numbers on the
reverse, recorded findspots are rare. Two specimens are recorded as part of the
Sottosuolo urbano 2 (SSU2) from Rome (‘laureate Augustus / VI’, the second
illegible); a further findspot is recorded in Pergamum (‘radiate Augustus /
X’).136 A tessera reported to be of the Augustan period was found during
a nineteenth century excavation in Nendorp-Wischenborg in Germany, in
what has been interpreted as a grave context; the piece is now lost and we
cannot know the original design.137 A token carrying the portrait of Tiberius
and the number II appeared on the market with a possible find context of
Germany; the piece was reported by Martini alongside a token carrying the
radiate head of Augustus on one side and the number XIII on the other, said to
have been found in the Garigliano in Italy.138 The majority of the tokens with
Julio-Claudian portraits belong to museum and private collections and possess
no find information. Martínez Chico has recently published bronze and
orichalcum tokens carrying the portraits of emperors and sexual imagery in
Spain; he states that the pieces in the collection of Gonzalo Cores Uría and the
archive of Alberto Campana undoubtedly have an Andalucian origin; if the
information is correct we have further find information (however vague) for
many more specimens.139 More recently a token showing Drusus the Younger
and the number XIIII (a previously unknown combination) came to light near
the Giribaile reservoir in Vilches (Jaén, Andalusia), a region that possesses the
remains of an Iberian oppidum. Martínez Chico suggested these pieces moved
to Spain in connection with the movement of troops and elite to Baetica and
the increasing Roman municipalisation of the area.140

What of other bronze and orichalcum tokens produced from this workshop?

Two specimens of tokens released by Gaius Mitreius, both of the basilica
type, have known findspots: one was found on the Saalburg inGermany and
another on the island of Capri; both specimens are now lost.141 The findspots
of the so-called spintriae carrying sexual imagery have seen considerably more
scholarly attention; this may explain why there are more recorded findspots

136 Comune di Roma, Musei Capitolini, Inventario Medagliere Nuovo, Med 17980 (online at
http://capitolini.net/object.xql?urn=urn:collectio:0001:med:17980), 17692 (Molinari, 2015:
128); Berlin Münzkabinett 18203146.
137 FMRD VII.1-3 no. 2013.1. 138 Martini, 1997: 7 n. 15 nos. IV and IX.
139 Martínez Chico, 2019: 112. 140 Martínez Chico, 2021.
141 FMRD V 1.1. p. 577 no. 1655; Federico and Miranda, 1998: 363, E77, also mentioned in CIL X,
p. 681; Rowan, 2020b.

p. 201

for this series than any other. De Callataÿ, who has recently observed that most
spintriae appear to have been known before 1800, noticed that many of these
early finds have a provenance of Capri, but whether this was an invented
findspot to enhance the value of these pieces cannot be known.142 More
securely, tokens with sexual imagery have been found in a potter’s workshop
in Salles, and at Argenton-sur-Cruese, both in France.143 Two spintriae have
been recorded as coming from the Thames in London, although it is uncertain
if this was an ancient context or a more modern loss.144 Two further specimens,
one pierced, were found in Croatia – one in Narona and the other at
Majsan.145 Another pierced specimen was uncovered as a stray find at
Caesarea Maritima.146 Crisà has recently published a piece found in
a Roman villa in Patti Marina near Messina in Sicily.147 There is no pattern
to the distribution of the finds (no one number or scene concentrates in
a particular area); the overall picture is one of individual pieces that travelled to
particular regions from Italy before being lost or deposited. The pierced
specimens at Caesarea Maritima and Majsan suggest that some of the spintriae
may have been cultivated for their imagery. 

It is clear that the fascination with spintriae is not confined to the
modern world. The same interest can be seen in the various imitations of
these artefacts throughout the Roman Empire. Perhaps the most famous
example is the imitative spintria found in a tomb at Mutina in Italy; the
piece was covered in gold leaf and was found alongside four coins.148
A terracotta imitation is also known from Salone: one side shows a couple
engaging in intercourse in a lavishly appointed room complete with
drapes and kline, while on the other side the number V is depicted within
a dotted border and wreath.149 Buljević posited that the imitation was
directly copied from an original spintria, and that the terracotta piece was
produced for the same reason as the original spintriae, whatever this
might have been. This need not have been the case: the imagery might
have simply appealed to the creator of the terracotta token, who may have
used the resulting product in a different way. Martínez Chico’s catalogue
of tesserae from Spain includes what appear to be two imitations in lead,
as well as a possible token converted into a pendant; several of the tokens

142 de Callataÿ, 2021: 183–6. 143 Richard Ralite, 2009.
144 Numismatic Circular 1979 no. 10129 (Chelsea); PAS LON-E98F21.
145 Mirnik, 1985: no. 3 (pierced at 12 h above the number VII); Campana, 2009: 50.
146 Hamburger, 1986: no. 60. This may be the spintria recorded as being found at Caesarea
Maritima by Martini, 1997: 7 n. 15 no. iii.
147 Crisà, 2020. 148 Benassi, Giordani and Poggi, 2003. 149 Buljević, 2008.

pp. 202-203

in museum collections are also pierced, suggesting later use in
jewellery.150 

A piece once in the Martinetti collection and now in the British Museum
also draws inspiration from higher quality bronze and orichalcum tokens:
this piece bears the head of Mercury on one side and the number V within
a wreath on the other (Figure 5.13). Other pieces that may have functioned as
tokens carry sexual imagery that is not so imitative in design. A lead piece
measuring 1.8 cm × 1.5 cm found on the Lavanter Kirchbichl in Austria
shows two lovers under a roof, with a column on either side.151 A similar
design, in bronze, is found on a quadrangular token now in Paris
(Figure 5.14). A further piece in the BnF, shaped like a tabula ansata, carries
an incuse erotic scene on one side and II on the other.152 Sexual imagery was
a popular motif within Roman visual and material culture, and the spintriae
appear to have inspired the creation of further paranumismatic objects in
different locations.

A specimen of the bronze token series carrying the bust of Dionysus on
one side was found north of the baths during the excavation of a large Roman
villa on the south-west shore of Lake Nemi.153 The villa was abandoned in
c. AD 150 because of a natural catastrophe, providing a terminus ante quem
for the type. No die connections between the Dionysus tokens (which appear
to be relatively small issue, even for tokens) and the Julio-Claudian types
have been found by the author. The numbers on the reverse dies are only 

placed within a dotted border, not a wreath, and the series may be a later
issue, or from a different workshop.154

Figure 5.13 AE token, 12 mm, 1.24 g, 3 h. Head of Mercury right wearing petasus,
caduceus over shoulder / V within wreath. BM 1940, 0401.60.

150 Martínez Chico, 2019: nos. 24, 41, 46 (converted into a pendant). Nos. 4, 38, and 42 in his
catalogue are pierced. Three of the tokens in the Hunterian Museum in Glasgow are also
pierced, Bateson, 1991: H6–7 and tessera no. 9.
151 The other side was either worn smooth or blank, Kainrath, 2005.
152 BnF inv. 17116, pierced on the left hand side.
153 Poulsen, 2010: no. 7, the type is Cohen: vol. VIII, 262 no. 2 (with number XVII on the other
side). Cohen identified the bust as possibly that of Drusilla, sister of Caligula, but the figure
wears an ivy-wreath and has tightly curled hair, making Dionysus a more probable
identification (although Apollo is also a possibility). See Küter, 2019: 85, who places the type
within a broader array of Dionysiac imagery on tokens.

154 BM R.4457 (XIIII within dotted border); Gemini, LLC Auction XII (11 January 2015) lot 338
(XIIII within dotted border, this same specimen which has appeared in several previous
auctions); Cohen: vol. VIII, 262 no. 1 (III within dotted border); Fritz Rudolf Künker GmbH &
Co. KG Auction 124 (16 March 2007) lot 8812 (III within dotted border); Triton III
(30 November 1999) lot 995 (II within dotted border); Collection de Feu Monsieur L. Vierordt,
J. Schulman, 5–6 June 1930, nos. 680–1 (II with dots above, within dotted border). The
specimen found at Nemi (XVII) similarly did not have a wreath on the reverse.

 

Edited July 18 by DonnaML

[rasiel]

In case this is not obvious, while the two main series (the imperial portraits and the erotics) were evidently contemporary to each other in manufacture there's nothing to suggest that they were intended for the same use. Secondly, the Roman state made good money off of the sex trade through taxes and licensing. We shouldn't make the mistake of projecting modern sensibilities on the subject on Roman behavior. They were really quite liberal when it came to this.

To me it's all but a foregone conclusion that the erotic ones were used as brothel tokens. What the others were for is much less clear though I suspect casinos to be the most likely venue. I also wouldn't be surprised if the mint of Rome itself was where they were made. They had the talent, the facilities and the profit motive to take on such a project.

Rasiel

[Heliodromus]

On 7/18/2024 at 1:39 AM, rasiel said:

while the two main series (the imperial portraits and the erotics) were evidently contemporary to each other in manufacture there's nothing to suggest that they were intended for the same use

There's the glaring fact that they all have the save reverses: "AVG" plus numerals I-XVI

Any explanation for the use of these pieces needs to explain the use of all three series (not sure why you are ignoring the classical theme ones). You can't just say that the "erotic" ones were "obviously" used for something sex-related, and well, the others just happened to have the exact same numbering scheme, but let's forget about them, or let's assume that the casinos for some reason needed the exact same "AVG" + I-XVI set of tokens as the brothels!

Any explanation really also needs to at least plausibly suggest why the suggested use case suddenly came into being, and apparently just as suddenly disappeared. What about the "A-series" (both classical and "erotic") - how to explain those?

As you say, the Romans appear to have been very liberal as far as using explicit sexual motifs (it seems rather quaint to refer to explicit depictions as "erotic") in everyday settings, with the oil lamps as a great example of this (and some scenes on them better matching what we see in Pompeii), and I would argue this is a great reason why there is no need to jump to conclusions of anything having a sexual motif having to be associated with brothels!

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sexuality_on_Roman_oil_lamps

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_in_ancient_Rome

But of course this doesn't mean the emperor would want to be personally associated with brothels, and Suetonius (Suet. Tib. 58.1) tells us explicitly that the emperor's (Tiberius, and by context Augustus) likeness on coins, or rings, was not to be brought into brothels (or latrines).

https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0061%3Alife%3Dtib.%3Achapter%3D58%3Asection%3D1

 

Edited July 19 by Heliodromus

[Heliodromus]

7 hours ago, DonnaML said:

@Heliodromus, here are some references to spintriae (illustrations omitted) in my e-book copy 

of Prof. Clare Rowan's new book,

Tokens and Social Life in Roman Imperial Italy (Cambridge University Press, 2023)

Thanks, Donna.

I also have her e-book, but I only skimmed it for images and missed some of the passages you highlight about find locations etc which are interesting.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/19CCED5AACE529587F3E921C0D0A82F0/9781316516539AR.pdf/Tokens_and_Social_Life_in_Roman_Imperial_Italy.pdf?event-type=FTLA

 

[Heliodromus]

16 hours ago, Aleph said:

The locker room hypothesis is based on a Pompeii bathhouse with similar numbering and images.  No conclusive evidence on use though.

Yes, and it's quite compelling given that the numbering does indeed go up to XVI, and the presence of associated sex scenes in this bathhouse (Pompeii's "suburban baths") just goes to prove that one shouldn't assume modern sensibilities of requiring a sexual context.

Here is Pompeii's "Terme Suburbane"

I would assume that the baths accommodated more than 16 people at a time, but perhaps this one didn't? Maybe the 16 lockers had a more specialized use at the baths than for general admission, or perhaps one could forgo a locker at your own risk ?

 

[SimonW]

I highly recommend Alexa Küter's article Roman tesserae with numerals: some thoughts on iconography and purpose. She divides them iconographically into three groups:

- The portrait group
- The ‘varia’ group, consisting of several subgroups: a) imperial symbols, b) the Dionysiac group and c) playful and delightful scenes
- Spintriae (erotic scenes)

Based on several similarities to Tiberius' coinage, she dates them to 23 AD.

One very important obverse type that may shed some light and is missing from your original post is the only one that bears a legend. It reads C MITREIVS L F MAG IVVENT ("Caius Mitreivs Lucii Filius Magister Ivventutis" = Gaius Mitreius, son of Lucius, magister of the youth). See attached two examples from my collection.

 

 

One of her theories (my favorite) is as follows:

An alternative scenario is also possible. It was noted above that within the mysterious Mitreius group (figs. 18–20), all tokens bear the inscription magister iuventutis, labelling C. Mitreius as head of a youth organisation (the collegium iuvenum / iuventutis). The collegia iuvenum might be characterised as ‘entertainment clubs, where people of age and mind could do military exercises, hunt or enjoy athletic contests’. Since Mitreius is named on some tokens with numerals, declaring that he is responsible for their issue, it is a small step from here to suggest that Mitreius might have been the sponsor of the whole group of tokens. The tesserae might have been a gift of the magister to the iuvenes. This assumption would fit well with the partly educational (imperial portraits and symbols), partly entertaining character of these objects. In this case, Mitreius would probably have been inspired by contemporary imperial coinage, as well as genre motifs common in Roman daily culture, for the production of his set of tokens.

Edited July 18 by SimonW

[rasiel]

13 hours ago, Heliodromus said:

There's the glaring fact that they all have the save reverses: "AVG" plus numerals I-XVI

Any explanation for the use of these pieces needs to explain the use of all three series (not sure why you are ignoring the classical theme ones). You can't just say that the "erotic" ones were "obviously" used for something sex-related, and well, the others just happened to have the exact same numbering scheme, but let's forget about them, or let's assume that the casinos for some reason needed the exact same "AVG" + I-XVI set of tokens as the brothels!

I'm not ignoring the classical themes as you call them (they're just rarer in output) or that they have matching number sequences. So? At a glance it seems to support my own main argument that they were issued in conjunction, though intended for different venues.

Seems like in your mind you have this big "gotcha!" argument but I'm missing it. It might be helpful to rephrase. FWIW I'm not at all married to my own hunch here so am happy to entertain alternate suggestions.

Rasiel

[Heliodromus]

11 hours ago, SimonW said:

I highly recommend Alexa Küter's article Roman tesserae with numerals: some thoughts on iconography and purpose. She divides them iconographically into three groups:

- The portrait group
- The ‘varia’ group, consisting of several subgroups: a) imperial symbols, b) the Dionysiac group and c) playful and delightful scenes
- Spintriae (erotic scenes)

Based on several similarities to Tiberius' coinage, she dates them to 23 AD.

One very important obverse type that may shed some light and is missing from your original post is the only one that bears a legend. It reads C MITREIVS L F MAG IVVENT ("Caius Mitreivs Lucii Filius Magister Ivventutis" = Gaius Mitreius, son of Lucius, magister of the youth). See attached two examples from my collection.

 

Thanks, Simon!

Great reference, and have also spent last few hours following up on the Mitreius types.

Another paper I found, and found useful, is Clare Rowan's "The Roman Tokens in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford" (available on JSTOR), where she has a fairly lengthy discussion of the Mitreius types, an inventory of all known specimens, as well as noting a die link between your numeral IIII piece and the coin below. ex. NAC 46.493.

[Heliodromus]

12 hours ago, rasiel said:

Seems like in your mind you have this big "gotcha!" argument but I'm missing it. It might be helpful to rephrase.

There's no slam-dunk evidence as to what these were use for, so no definitive "gotcha!", but there are a lot of circumstantial clues, many of which have already been mentioned.

- These tokens, while differing in design, all sport the same I-XVI + AVG designations

- There are die links between the three "series" indicating they were produced & used at the same time, not consecutively

- Sexual motifs are common in the roman world, so should not be considered as much of a clue to function

- While sex scenes can be found paired with numerals I-XVI in pompeii, this is in a bathhouse, not in a brothel

- No spintriae have ever been found in an archaeological brothel context

- No complete/partial set of these** pieces has ever been found together - they are all isolated finds, over a wide geographic area, many in Spain

- The period of issue/use is quite narrow, centered around the reign of Tiberius, so the usage seems not to have been ongoing

- There is the intriguing link to Gaius Mitreius, Magister Iuventis, and the mysterious Iuvenes (Iuventus).

The authors who have written most extensively about these pieces seem to agree that the clue to usage is the numerals, not the designs. One could draw a parallel to modern playing cards where many different designs exist, but the clue to function is the common numeric markings, not the diverse designs (sexual or not).

** I've seen reference to a set of the Alexandrian bone pieces found in a child's grave, but just as with the much later modified LRBs, etc, these may have been used for a different function. In the setting of a child's grave one might guess a game usage, which may also be the case for the Italian metallic pieces, but nonetheless no direct connection.

 

Edited July 19 by Heliodromus

[SimonW]

11 hours ago, Heliodromus said:

Another paper I found, and found useful, is Clare Rowan's "The Roman Tokens in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford" (available on JSTOR), where she has a fairly lengthy discussion of the Mitreius types, an inventory of all known specimens, as well as noting a die link between your numeral IIII piece and the coin below. ex. NAC 46.493.

Thank you, @Heliodromus. I wasn't aware of that paper. She seems to publish quite often on the subject of tokens. Her most recent publication is Tokens and Social Life in Roman Imperial Italy.

This is a very important observation of hers and seems to support Alexa Küter's theory (unless, as Clare Rowan states, these tokens were different series produced by the same workshop and thus shared the numeral reverse dies, which I find rather unlikely).

Interestingly, both of my Mitreius pieces are gilded (the second piece with the numeral IIII has very little gilding left, see for example in front of the forehead). I wonder if all the Mitreius tokens were originally gilded, which would give them even greater exclusivity within the series.

Edited July 19 by SimonW

[Phil Davis]

This is brilliant work, which absolutely deserves submission to the ANS journal or the NC. Thank you!

[Aleph]

The use of numbered pieces in many contexts, e.g., the alexandrian bone piece, seems to be a somewhat common occurrence in the Roman world. The wider group of numbered tokens should be excluded from the discussion here because of the lack of direct ties to this specific series which is highly die linked.  A couple of atypical, perhaps extraordinary, features of this token series is the exceptional style and quality which is suggestive of involvement of the imperial mint, and second the fact that these have been found over a huge area of the Roman world, i.e., these saw a wide distribution not limited to a small local area.

Thanks, Simon, for showing my old Mitrieus friend!

[Heliodromus]

So, I'm going to throw out my own current partial theory for the usage, which at least seems to be compatible with the clues available.

- They were used as keepsake prizes for some type of games (competitions)

- "AVG" was for the winner (maybe in addition to "I"?), with all (or top 16) participants getting prizes

- The individual, and geographically distributed, find spots are explained by these being keepsakes that the winners took home

- The Mitreius types provides a clue via the amphitheater design, being a venue for at least one such set of games/competitions

The "L. Sextili(us) S.P." inscription (S.P. = Sua Pecunia "his money", i.e. "he paid for it") is saying that Sextilius either paid for that games, or more likely for the amphitheater venue itself. We can see that the numerals below the amphitheater design ("VI" on Simon's piece) are incuse and therefore hand cut into the token after stamping. While there are at least two dies for this amphitheatre reverse (note Simon's has "SEXTILIVS", while the Ashmolean one only has "SEXTILI"), it seems that either the use as numbered prizes was an afterthought, or maybe the effort to make 16 dies just for the occasion was too much, so numerals were hand punched instead.

It's only a partial theory since it doesn't explain why these suddenly came into use, and then relatively quickly disappeared. Were the games/competitions all for the Iuventus, or were there other participants? Why did Gaius Mitreius (or perhaps his father, Lucius, also mentioned as part of the legend) commission his own obverse die(s) rather than using a standard design?

Maybe I'm overlooking something that makes this an unlikely theory?

 

[SimonW]

4 hours ago, Aleph said:

Thanks, Simon, for showing my old Mitrieus friend!

Thank you, @Aleph! It's become one of my favorite coins/tokens, if not the favorite. It has a very special place in my collection.

[SimonW]

That's an interesting theory, @Heliodromus.

3 hours ago, Heliodromus said:

"AVG" was for the winner (maybe in addition to "I"?), with all (or top 16) participants getting prizes

If 1 to 16 reflect a ranking and AVG goes to the winner, I would expect AVG to be some sort of title for the winner, which certainly can't be the case. Also, why 1 and AVG if it's some kind of ranking? I think that's the flaw in your theory.

Some kind of game is the most likely explanation, in my opinion, where AVG could have been a high or the highest value (like the king card in today's card games). This would explain the wide range of tokens with numerals. This particular series may have been a "special edition" of the game as a kind of gift, produced by Mitreius, who must have had a special connection to the imperial mint. This explains why there are so few of them, and why they were produced for such a short time.

[Heliodromus]

52 minutes ago, SimonW said:

If 1 to 16 reflect a ranking and AVG goes to the winner, I would expect AVG to be some sort of title for the winner, which certainly can't be the case. Also, why 1 and AVG if it's some kind of ranking? I think that's the flaw in your theory.

Yes. Unless AVG was for the winner and I-XVI were for participation, but the Roman's seem to have been all about winning, not participation!

I did wonder if maybe "I" replaced "AVG" (which seems scarce), but I can find enough examples to draw any conclusion there. The only obverse type where I can find both an AVG and and I are these. Notably they are from different obverse dies, but can't conclude anything from that.

Edited July 19 by Heliodromus

[Heliodromus]

3 hours ago, SimonW said:

This particular series may have been a "special edition" of the game as a kind of gift, produced by Mitreius, who must have had a special connection to the imperial mint.

Yes, obviously a specially commissioned set of tokens, and unusual to have a living person outside of the imperial family on coins/tokens (which in of itself was a fairly recent thing). What we don't know is whether sets of these numbered tessera were generally made by the mint for stock and sale/distribution, or whether they were all in fact custom orders, but using stock AVG+I-XVI reverse dies (as we see per the die link). Perhaps the the camel rider sets, MORA sets, "erotic" sets, etc, were all custom orders for different customers, so Mitreius's I-XVI set was just another order with another custom reverse die? What about the imperial reverses - were they ordered by the emperor? (that would seem the default assumption, but maybe it was not the case - why keep coming back for 7-8 different Augustan bust varieties?!).

Of course what's unusual about Mitreius' mint commission is that he not only got sets of the "normal" numeric pieces made, but also had the custom SEXTILIVS/architectural dies made, and had sets of those made too (using same bust die). I wonder if the mint also added the post-production stamped numbers to the SEXTILIVS pieces and did the gilding, or was that more of an artisnal job that Mitreius had done elsewhere?

Its interesting we have (at least) two different SEXTILI/SEXTILIVS dies, yet these post-production numbers hand added to each piece. Multiple dies suggests quite a few pieces stuck (thousands per die), unless there was an early die breakage, but post-production individual piece numbering suggests a smallish number made. It seems this numbering was the original intent (not a later modification) given that all known pieces have the numbering, so maybe it was just cheaper to hand number the tokens rather than pay for 16 different dies with different numbers on each?

I guess the key unknowns are:

1) Was there any connection between Mitreius's role as Magister Iuventis and the SEXTILIVS "venue" depicted (i'd assume so, but it doesn't have to be so).

2) Why did Mitreius have the SEXTILIVS pieces made in addition to the more normal numbered tesserae sets? It seems they were intended for same purpose, even if hand numbered (maybe just due to cost of using such a custom reverse vs stock numeral ones available at the mint). Was this just a second variety of personal gaming pieces, to give to friends perhaps, or were they made for the event being held at the venue? If the latter, then we can also ask whether they were just gaming sets being given to participants/attendees at the venue activity (seems a bit of a random gift, but why not I suppose), or whether they actually served a purpose related to the event itself?

 

Edited July 19 by Heliodromus

[SimonW]

13 hours ago, Heliodromus said:

Yes, obviously a specially commissioned set of tokens, and unusual to have a living person outside of the imperial family on coins/tokens (which in of itself was a fairly recent thing). What we don't know is whether sets of these numbered tessera were generally made by the mint for stock and sale/distribution, or whether they were all in fact custom orders, but using stock AVG+I-XVI reverse dies (as we see per the die link). Perhaps the the camel rider sets, MORA sets, "erotic" sets, etc, were all custom orders for different customers, so Mitreius's I-XVI set was just another order with another custom reverse die? What about the imperial reverses - were they ordered by the emperor? (that would seem the default assumption, but maybe it was not the case - why keep coming back for 7-8 different Augustan bust varieties?!).

I don't think they were all different custom orders. Quite the contrary. I believe that the entire group of bronze numerals (basically everything from your original post, including the A series, but excluding the other outliers, and also excluding the ship/V type [second image, last row, in the middle], which belongs to a different series of tesserae) belong together, all produced by the same group, organization, or individual (possibly Mitreius, who gave them as gifts to current and/or former members of the collegium iuvenum?). The Claudius outlier may also be related, but is stylistically different and may have been produced later.

By "wide range of tokens with numerals" in my previous post, I was referring to the wider group of PB and bone tesserae/tokens with numerals, and the later bronze coins with incised numerals. These may have served the same purpose (a game?), but are not part of the same series.

13 hours ago, Heliodromus said:

1) Was there any connection between Mitreius's role as Magister Iuventis and the SEXTILIVS "venue" depicted (i'd assume so, but it doesn't have to be so).

IIRC, Rowan mentioned that the building may have been the headquarters of the collegium iuvenum - of which Mitreius was magister - or a place they used frequently, and was sponsored by Sextilius.

13 hours ago, Heliodromus said:

2) Why did Mitreius have the SEXTILIVS pieces made in addition to the more normal numbered tesserae sets? It seems they were intended for same purpose, even if hand numbered (maybe just due to cost of using such a custom reverse vs stock numeral ones available at the mint). Was this just a second variety of personal gaming pieces, to give to friends perhaps, or were they made for the event being held at the venue? If the latter, then we can also ask whether they were just gaming sets being given to participants/attendees at the venue activity (seems a bit of a random gift, but why not I suppose), or whether they actually served a purpose related to the event itself?

I could imagine that, similar to hospital wings that are named after important sponsors, this was a kind of tribute to the sponsor Sextilius.

Edited July 20 by SimonW

[Heliodromus]

3 hours ago, SimonW said:

I don't think they were all different custom orders. Quite the contrary. I believe that the entire group of bronze numerals (basically everything from your original post, including the A series, but excluding the other outliers, and also excluding the ship/V type [second image, last row, in the middle], which belongs to a different series of tesserae) belong together, all produced by the same group, organization, or individual

What makes it worth considering the alternative, that these were possibly custom orders, maybe even from multiple mints, is the sheer diversity of series issued for Augustus. The radiate busts are presumably postumus, issued under Tiberius. Alexa Kuter seems to believe that the entire series, including all Augustus busts, were issued under TIberius.

Regardless of who issued them, or during whose reign they were issued, why do we have at least 8 different series for Augustus?! The tesserae for Tiberius and family have more of a dynastic official feel to them, but these ones for Augustus give the impression of a bunch of unrelated issues, ordered at different times. It's not even clear that they are all from the same mint - look at the odd style of series #5 for example. It's also not clear if the #4 "laureate right" series are all from same mint - these three specimens all look quite different (the last one, with numeral "X", looks more like Nerva than Augustus!).

Unrelated to this question of whether these sets were custom orders or not, I think the theory of these being game pieces, while possibly correct, has a few major problems:

1) The finds are all individual pieces - never a set (or partial set). It's understandable for coins to be lost individually (if not hoarded), but why would a set of game pieces be lost individually?

2) Why would a game, apparently quite popular given the number of series, and Mitreius (per the game theory) having custom sets made as presents, suddenly come into being and just as suddenly dissapear?

3) If we assume a game involving a special "AVG" piece and 16 numbered ones I-XVI, then what to make of the camel rider XIX piece? Perhaps we can interpret the Claudius pieces as not in fact related, as otherwise we need to consider it's XVIIII piece too.

Edited July 20 by Heliodromus