Stranger Games: The life and times of the spintriae [draft, 2016]

Stranger Games: The life and times of the spintriae 1 Eddie Duggan, University Campus Suffolk In 2010 a Roman token was discovered in the mud of the Thames near Putney Bridge in London. When the token was found to have an erotic image on one side and a Roman numeral on the other, and was identified in a Museum of London press release as a rare Roman “brothel token” (Fig. 1), the press reported on the story in the expected manner. For example: “A Roman coin that was probably used by soldiers to pay for sex in brothels has been discovered on the banks of the River Thames” (Fig 2: Daily Telegraph, 4 Jan 2012) and “Bronze discs depicting sex acts, like the one discovered in London, were used to hire prostitutes—and directly led to the birth of pornography during the Renaissance” (Fig 3: The Guardian, 4 Jan 2012). Fig. 1: Museum of London, “Brothel Token” Press Release, January 5 2012. http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/corporate/press-media/archived-press-releases/brothel-token/ Fig. 2: Daily Telegraph, “A Roman coin that was probably used by soldiers to pay for sex in brothels has been discovered on the banks of the River Thames”, January 4 2012. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/8991212/Roman-brothel-token-discovered-in-Thames.html Fig. 3: Johnathan Jones, “Bronze discs depicting sex acts, like the one discovered in London, were used to hire prostitutes— and directly led to the birth of pornography during the Renaissance” blog post, The Guardian, January 4 2012. http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2012/jan/04/porn-roman-brothel-tokens-erotic-art 2 Even before this particular spate of media interest, these curious tokens have generated confusion, speculation and prurience—often simultaneously. However, spintriae may be of interest to games scholars because the conjecture over their use often includes suggestions that these objects may have had a ludic function, and were used as game counters. This paper will look at some of the proposals that have been offered by, inter alia, numismatists, museum curators, art historians and archaeologists, by way of explanation of these peculiar objects. One of the most significant contemporary engagements with the spintriae is an article by Ted Buttrey in The Numismatic Chronicle. While Buttrey describes the spintriae as objects that “defy explanation” (Buttrey 1973, p. 53), he identifies two distinct sets of spintriae: the first, of which more examples are known, are made of brass and measure 20 – 23 mm in diameter (Fig. 4). The second, of copper, are smaller (16 – 19 mm) and the Roman numeral on the reverse is prefixed with the letter “A” (Fig. 5). Both sets are characterized by an erotic scene of a couple engaged in heterosexual copulation or fellation on the obverse while the reverse depicts a Roman numeral, in the range I – XVI, within a circle surrounded by a wreath. st Fig. 4: Spintria. Buttrey “Type 7”. BM R.4481. C1 AD. Copper alloy. Diameter: 21 mm. Image © Trustees of the British Museum. 3 st Fig. 5: Spintria. Buttrey “Type 5”. BM R.4476. C1 AD. Copper alloy. Diameter: 19 mm. Image © Trustees of the British Museum Buttrey notes that only two examples of the latter group are in the British Museum while the former set is represented with twenty-one examples. A Portable Antiquities Scheme blog post by Kathryn Creed of the Museum of London corroborates Buttrey’s enumeration as she notes the British Museum “has a collection of around 25 spintriae” (Creed, 2012). However, a search of the British Museum’s online collection yields only 11 results, which means the intrepid spintriae inspector will have to visit the museum in person, having arranged in advance for the tokens to be brought out of storage. It’s worth pointing out that, while Buttrey draws a distinction between copper and brass, the British Museum does not because “bronze and brass have been used interchangeably in the old documentation” while “copper alloy is the broad term for both” and is the preferred term in records relating to Roman coins.2 Buttrey identified “at least thirteen” different obverse scenes in the first group (Buttrey 1973, p. 52), and found that these scenes are not consistently paired with a reverse numeral—in fact, the same reverse die is used with a number of obverse scenes, allowing Buttrey to suggest the pieces were struck as a “coherent group” in “virtual simultaneous manufacture” between 22 – 37 AD (Buttrey 1973, p. 52). Buttrey’s proposed date of manufacture is based on the radiate crown on the head of Augustus, which suggests the radiate tokens had been struck posthumously (i.e. after 14 AD). Further 4 consideration of the presence or absence of a fulmen or lightning bolt, and design details similar to other coins (Buttrey 1973, p. 55) allows Buttrey to argue for an even more precise date, leading him to conclude the imperial portrait spintriae were produced between 22 – 37 AD. The token found in the Thames at Putney (Fig. 6) bears the same obverse and reverse as a spintria in the British Museum collection (Fig. 5). We will return to these two particular tokens (p. 11, below) to consider perceived differences, despite their obvious similarities as both are examples of Buttrey’s “Type 5”, which is to say, both are examples of the scene numbered “5” in the plate accompanying Buttrey’s article (i.e. Buttrey, 1973 Plate 3, item 5). st Fig. 6: Spintria. Buttrey “Type 5”. LON-E98F21. C1 AD. Copper alloy. Museum of London. Image source: <http://collections.museumoflondon.org.uk/online/object/794653.html> Buttrey recorded six examples of tokens showing “scene 5”, three of which are in the British Museum collection. Each of the six has a different reverse (I, X, XI, XIV, XV and AVG). The example shown in Fig. 5 has the number “XIIII” on the reverse, i.e. the same form of fourteen as used on the token in the Museum of London. The other two BM examples have the numbers “XI” and “XV”. (While Buttrey notes one example of a Type 5 token with an AVG reverse, Simonetta and Riva (1981) also record a single specimen (Type 13) with an AVG reverse. The only other known example of a token with an AVG reverse can be seen in Fig. 7 (Type 1)). 5 st Fig. 7: Spintria. Buttrey “Type 1”. AVG reverse. C1 AD. Image source: Incitatus Coins and Antiquities. <https://www.vcoins.com/en/stores/incitatus_coins/79/product/roman_spintria_erotic_tessera_time_of_tibe rius_heterosexual_scene_with_male_on_top_reverse_scene_with_avg_in_wreath__only_known_from_1_exa mple_unique_lasciva_nomismata/166123/Default.aspx> Most of the thirteen scenes identified by Buttrey are paired with a different number on the reverse. For example, he noted seven different numbers on the reverse of the “scene 7” tokens he examined and five different numbers on the reverse of the “scene 9” tokens. For Buttrey, this is evidence of no direct correlation between the obverse scene and the reverse numeral: “That there is no meaningful connection between the erotic scenes of the obverse and the reverse numeral, whatever the tokens’ use, is proved in that the same obverse scene occurs with differing numbers, and vice versa” (Buttrey 1973, p. 54). To add to the conundrum, Buttrey identifies yet another series of tokens, the obverse of which bear imperial portraits, genre scenes or mythological scenes—he lists a total of twenty six obverse images—all paired with a reverse Roman numeral in a circle and a wreath (see Fig. 8). Moreover, he finds “extensive die-linkage … throughout the group” (Buttrey 1973, p. 54), allowing him to assert these ostensibly different tokens actually form “a coherent group which must be attributed to a single shop and to a relatively brief period of time” (Buttrey 1973, p. 54). While the subjects of the portraits have been disputed, Buttrey argues they show Augustus, Livia and Tiberius.3 6 st Fig. 8: Imperial Portrait: Laureate head of Tiberius. Buttrey “Type 14”. BM R.4450. C1 AD. Copper alloy. Diameter: 22mm. Image © Trustees of the British Museum. As to usage, Buttrey offers a number of suggestions from the literature. For example, they may have been used to tally asses (an “as” is a Roman coin; during the first century sixteen asses were equal to one denarius). Another suggestion is that they may have been admission tokens, such as theatre tickets; Friedlander (1886) proposed “auf die man in Bordelle Einlass erhielt” (“to obtain entry to brothels”), all of which Buttrey rejects as “there is no evidence for any of this” (Buttrey 1973, p. 53). Buttrey suggests instead “the tokens may have served as counters in gaming, the numbers corresponding to moves or positions or to points wagered or gained” (Buttrey 1973, p. 54). That they might be gaming pieces is a suggestion that has been repeated by several authors. Alberto Campana (2009) offers an overview of the literature on the spintriae, identifying Robert Mowat (1898) as the first to suggest spintriae may have been gaming pieces and should be studied like any other ancient coin. Later writers, including Buttrey (1973), Bateson (1999), Fishburn (2007) and Campana (2009 and 2013) have echoed Mowat’s suggestion that the tokens had a ludic function. In a footnote, Campana (2009) attributes to Benassi, Giodani and Poggi (2003) the idea that the erotic and non-erotic pieces may have been used to distinguish each players’ pieces in a game like duodecim scripta:4 7 Questi autori ipotizzano anche che l’impiego dell’oricalco (o del rame rivestito con oro) serviva per dare maggiore preziosità ai gettoni e che l’evidente contrasto tra tessere erotiche e quelle non erotiche potrebbe essere voluto per distinguere le pedine di ognuno dei giocatori in assenza di una diversa colorazione. [These authors also speculate that the use dell'oricalco (or copper coated with gold) was used to give more precious tokens and that the apparent contrast between tiles erotic and non-erotic might be wanted to distinguish the pieces of each of the players in the absence of a different staining] (Campana 2009, p. 56 n. 50) Campana identifies Nadrowski (1906) as the source of the idea that spintriae were specifically brothel tokens,5 while Gnecchi (1907) equated the reverse numeral with a price or value in asses of the service depicted (Campana 2009, p. 46). “Da allora”, Campana continues, “l’ipotesi che le spintriae dovessero servire a pagare le ‘prestazioni’ nei lupanari divenne la prevalente e ancora oggi la più accreditata” [“Since then the hypothesis that spintriae were to be used to pay for the ‘performance’ in brothels became prevalent and even today is the most accepted”] (Campana 2007, p. 46). The brothel token hypothesis seems to be predicated upon an assertion advanced by Suetonius that “people could … be executed for carrying a ring or coin, bearing Augustus’s head, into a privy or a brothel” (Suetonius 1957, pp. 137 – 138). While Buttrey suggests Suetonius’s comments (which were written about 100 years after the death of Augustus) are probably derived from the very existence of the spintriae rather than providing a reliable explanation of them (Buttrey 1973, p. 57 – 58), economist Geoffrey Fishburn considered how a brothel token sub-economy would work; specifically, what systems would exist to facilitate not only the initial purchase of the tokens by brothel patrons, but also for the prostitutes, pimps or brothel keepers to redeem the used tokens for their monetary value before concluding there is little evidence to support the brothel token hypothesis (Fishburn 2007, pp. 228 – 235). Fishburn notes that no later commentator lends any support to Simonetta and Riva (1981), the leading proponents of the “brothel token” hypothesis. It’s also worth noting that 8 there would seem to be an inherent contradiction in producing objects bearing an image of Augustus specifically for use as brothel tokens when such usage is apparently forbidden. Simonetta and Riva suggest the spintriae are from a later period. While the ancient literary evidence relating to the spintriae is scant—apart from the reference in Suetonius, the only other mention appears to be a line from Martial’s Epigrams (8.78.9) about showering “lasciva nomismata” (lascivious coins) on to a crowd. This line is used by Simonetta and Riva to associate the tokens with Domitian (81 – 96 AD), whom the epigram celebrates. However, it is not clear that Martial’s “lasciva nomismata” refers to the spintriae or that “lasciva” can or should be interpreted as “lascivious” in the contemporary, pejorative, sense. Moreover, a tomb in Modena has yielded a spintria along with four coins: one depicting Augustus (RIC 207); one depicting Livia (RPC 1154); a coin minted under Caligula also depicting Augustus (RIC 56) and a coin depicting Claudius (RIC 113). The burial is dated to “no later than the beginning of Nero’s reign” (54 – 68 AD), thereby pre-dating Domitian (See Campana 2007, pp. 48 – 50). Luciana Jacobelli has undertaken an extensive study of the frescoes in the Suburban Baths in Pompeii. She notes that at one point in its history, the wall paintings in the changing room area (the apodyterium) consisted of a series of erotic scenes, each of which was numbered (see Fig. 9). Jacobelli discusses the frescoes in relation to the spintriae as these tokens constitute the only other known example of enumerated erotic art (Jacobelli, 1995 pp. 70ff). 9 Fig. 9: The south wall of the apodyterium; the left side of the upper part of the wall depicts a series of numbered boxes, each adjacent to an erotic scene. Image source: Jacobelli (1995) p. 34. The decorative scheme in the apodyterium was designed in such a way that eight erotic images, each adjacent to a painted box on a painted shelf, appeared on the upper section of the south wall while a further eight images, also aligned with boxes on a shelf, were apparently in the upper section of the adjacent east wall. Due to damage to the east wall, the upper part of the fresco is missing. However, the numbered boxes remain visible and the I – VIII sequence on the south wall continues IX – XVI on the east wall. Jacobelli reasons that the erotic images would also have continued on the east wall, along with the numerical sequence on the boxes. Jacobelli notes that while the scenes depicted on the spintriae appear to be exclusively heterosexual pairings, two of the apodyterium scenes show multiple couplings. One shows an engagement involving two males and one female while the other shows two male and two female participants. The former shows the central male in simultaneous homosexual and heterosexual couplings; the latter depicts a heterosexual scenario at the centre, with each of the two central participants also engaged with a second partner of the same sex. Such complex symplegmata7 are unknown in the spintriae. 10 While Jacobelli comments on the exclusively heterosexual nature of the couplings depicted in the spintriae she refers in a footnote to “an hypothesis” (p. 70) that Buttrey’s Type 5 may depict two men (see Fig. 5 above). Similarly, Bette Talvacchia notes “the tesserae known to me appear to show only heterosexual couples, although some have surfaces that are worn or damaged enough to make the reading less than certain” (Talvacchia 1999, p. 65). Buttrey, however, makes no reference to any “hypothesis” regarding the sexual orientation of the couplings depicted in the spintriae, although his terminology (“an erotic scene of a couple engaged in one position or another of copulation of fellation” (Buttrey 1973, p. 52)) implies a representation of heterosexual activity. Jacobelli doesn’t elaborate on the “assumption” but the “hypothesis” to which she alludes may be derived from some of the British Museum’s online descriptions as the British Museum website identifies five of the spintriae in its collection as depictions of homosexual couplings. As previously noted, the British Museum has “around 25” spintriae in its collection, including both erotic and non-erotic (i.e. imperial portraits) types. Of these, eleven can be found via the website (British Museum > Research > Collection Online). Two of the eleven are imperial portraits. The remaining nine erotic tokens consist of three Type 7 (R.4481; R.4482; R.4483); two Type 5 (R.4473; R.4476) and one each of Type 1 (R.4467); Type 3 (R.4470); Type 6 (R.4478); and Type 9 (R.4485). The online description for both the Type 7 and the Type 5 tokens interprets the obverse image as depicting a homosexual scene: [Type 7] Male lovers on bed. The passive partner is looking back at the active lover and reaches back to hold his upper arm. (R.44812; R.4482). [Type 7] Male lovers on bed. The eromenos (younger 'beloved', passive) is looking back at the erastes (older, active lover) and reaches back to hold his partner’s upper arm. (R4483). [Type 5] Male lovers on bed. The erastes (older, active lover) wears a wreath while the eromenos (younger 'beloved', passive) is bareheaded and is looking back at his partner. (R.4473; R.4476). 11 However, there is no clear visual evidence in the scene itself to support this interpretation. The Type 5 token referred to above (see p. 5) is described as depicting “male lovers on bed” on the British Museum website (see Fig. 5). Meanwhile, the Portable Antiquities Scheme online record for the same token in the Museum of London collection refers to “naked lover lovers in a sexual act” (see Fig. 6). In this instance, however, they are seen as heterosexual: “the female lies on her front beneath the male who straddles her” (Creed, 2011). Bette Talvacchia refers to “the woman in scene 7 of the spintriae” (Talvacchia 1999, p. 64). The “hypothestis” Jacobelli refers to with regard to the Type 5 token and the descriptions on the British Museum website may be related to the etymological derivation of the term spintriae. The term (from the Greek “sphinkter”) was applied originally to male prostitutes and, later, to the participants in Tiberius’s erotic activities on Capri (Suetonius, Tiberius 43). Jacobelli and Talvacchia suggest the source of the erotic iconography of the spintriae may be a lost catalogue, such as the work attributed to Elephantis. Another suggestion offered by several commentators by way of explanation is that the spintriae may have been game pieces. While both explanations are plausible—one would not rule out the other—thus far no examples of multiple spintriae have been recovered in a context that contains dice and game board fragments. Until such a discovery is made, conclusive evidence that the spintriae are pieces from a board game will remain wanting and Fishburn’s suggestion that the spintriae might have been used as form of “locker token” for patrons of the baths seems to be the most plausible explanation to be derived from the archaeological context and current finds of isolated and individual spintriae. 12 Notes 1. The author wishes to acknowledge the kind assistance of Eric Matthews during the course of the research in assisting with the translation of some of the secondary source material from Italian into English, and also for his invaluable assistance in procuring other secondary source material. The title, “Stranger Games”, makes a punning reference to a previous paper by the author entitled “Strange Games”, which was initially presented to the XVII Annual Board Game Studies Colloquium at UCS Ipswich, May 2014 and subsequently published in the Board Game Studies Journal as Duggan, E. (2015) “Strange Games: Some Iron Age examples of a four-player board game?” Board Game Studies Journal 9 pp. 17 – 40. A proposal for a presentation based on the present draft, with the title “Stranger Games”, has been accepted for inclusion in the programme at the XIX Annual Board Games Studies Colloquium, to be hosted at the German Games Archive, Nuremburg, April 2016. 2. A scope note on the British Museum website explains the usage of the term “copper alloy”: copper alloy (Scope note) The term 'copper alloy' should be searched for full retrievals on objects made of bronze or brass. This is because bronze and brass have at times been used interchangeably in the old documentation, and copper alloy is the Broad Term of both. In addition, the public may refer to certain collections by their popular name, such as 'The Benin Bronzes' most of which are actually made of brass. The term 'copper alloy' is used in preference to 'billon' (in both Description and Materials) in records for Roman coins. <http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/search_the_collection_database/term_details.as px?scopeType=Terms&scopeId=18864> 3. Augustus, then known as Octavian, succeeded Julius Caesar and was Emperor from 44 BC – 14 AD. Augustus divorced his first wife to marry Livia. Augustus and Livia had no surviving children, but Livia’s son from her first marriage, Tiberius, succeeded Augustus after various failed manoeuvres to establish an imperial heir. See: Gascoigne, B. (2001) “The Family Life of the Caesars” History World. Available online: http://bit.ly/22FFlBF 4. In a Coins at Warwick blog post, the idea that the erotic and non-erotic tokens were used to distinguish each players’ pieces is erroneously attributed to Buttrey (1973). See Rowan (2015). 5. Friedlander’s 1886 commentary on Martial, as cited by Buttrey, predates Nadrowski by twenty years. See Butttrey 1973 p. 53; cf Campano 2009 p. 46. 6. Jacobelli notes that the apodyterium was partially re-painted some time before the eruption of Vesuvius in 79AD. The over-painting specifically effaced the erotic frescoes as it was restricted to the middle and upper sections of the east wall and the south wall. Two windows were also filled-in and the passageway to the fridgiarium closed off. See Jacobelli 1995, p. 28. 7. Symplegma (plural: symplegmata) from the Greek “entanglement”, is an art historical term used to describe entwined bodies usually, but not exclusively, involved in some form of sexual activity. 8. The search term “spintria” returns eleven items, erotic and non-erotic tokens. The plural, “spintriae”, also returns eleven results. These include the two imperial portraits, two Type 5 token and the three Type 7 tokens, along with three C18th pen-and-ink drawings, each showing six spintriae from the Townley collection (a fourth pen-and-ink drawing is not illustrated). 13 Bibliography Barford, P. (2012) "Brothel Token" from London?” Portable Antiquity Collecting and Heritage Issues [Blog Post] Jan 6 [available online] http://paul-barford.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/brothel-token-from-london.html Beard, M. (2012) “A Roman brothel token?” Times Literary Supplement: A Don’s Life [Blog Post] Jan 5 [available online] http://timesonline.typepad.com/dons_life/2012/01/a-roman-brothel-token.html Buttrey, T. V. (1973) “The Spintriae as a Historical Source” The Numismatic Chronicle 13, pp. 52 – 63. Campana, A. (2009) “Le spintriae: tessere Romane con raffigurazione erotiche”. In La Donna Romana: Immagini E Vita Quotidiana. Atti de Convegno. Astina, 7 Marzo 2009. pp. 43 – 96. [available online] https://www.academia.edu/362600/Le_spintriae_tessere_romane_con_raffigurazioni_erotiche Campana, A. (2013) “Les spintriae et leur possible function ludique” Archéothéma 31 p. 66. Champlin, E. (2011) “Sex on Capri” Transactions of the American Philological Association 141 pp. 315 – 332 Clarke, J. R. (1998) Looking at Lovemaking: Constructions of Sexuality in Roman Art 100 BC – AD 250 University of California Press. London. Creed, K. (2011) “LON-E98F21: A Roman Token. Portable Antiquities Scheme [Web page] [available online] https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/455487 Creed, K. (2012) “Roman spintria from the banks of the Thames”. Portable Antiquities Scheme [Blog post] 6 January. [available online] https://finds.org.uk/news/story/227. Daily Telegraph (2012) “Roman brothel token discovered in Thames” The Daily Telegraph Jan 4 [available online] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/8991212/Roman-brothel-token-discovered-in-Thames.html Fishburn, G. (2007) “Is That A Spintria In Your Pocket or Are You Just Pleased to See Me?” Regarding the Past: Proceedings of the 20th Conference of the History of Economic Thought Society of Australia. University of Queensland pp. 225-236. Gascoigne, B. (2001) “The Family Life of the Caesars” History World. [available online] http://bit.ly/22FFlBF Jacobelli, L. (1995) Le pitture erotiche delle Terme Suburban di Pompeii. L'Erma di Bretschneider. Jones, J. (2012) “Porn yesterday: Roman brothel tokens and the rise of erotic art” The Guardian 4 Jan [available online] http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2012/jan/04/pornroman-brothel-tokens-erotic-art Museum of London (2012) Roman brothel token discovered on Thames foreshore. 5 Jan. [available online] http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/corporate/press-media/archived-press-releases/brothel-token/ Rowan, C. (2015) “Ain’t talkin’ ‘bout love. Roman “Spintriae” in context”. Coins at Warwick. August 1. [Blog post]. [available online] http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/numismatics/entry/aint_talkin_bout Simonetta, B. and Riva, R. (1981) Le Tessere erotiche romane (spintriae): Quando ed a che scopo sono state coniate. Lugano: Gaggini-Bizzozero. Simonetta B. and Riva, R. (1984) “Nuovo contributo alla nostre conoscenze sulla ‘spintriae’”. Schweizer Münzblätter 136 pp. 88 – 92. Suetonius (1958) The Twelve Caesars. Translated by Robert Graves. Harmondsworth. Penguin. Talvacchia, B. (1999) Taking Positions: On the Erotic in Renaissance Culture. Ewing. Princeton University Press. Venning, A. (2012) “After an explicit coin used to pay for pleasure is found in the Thames, the Xrated story of the Roman sex slaves of Britain” Daily Mail 6 Jan [available online] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083295/Explicit-coin-Thames-X-rated-story-Roman-sexslaves-Britain.html 14