The DAA Research Library

Roman coinage and the Augustus denarius

Read a coin through its obverse, reverse, legends and physical record. For DAA-0001, the issuer, silver material and weight remain reported information; a specific mint, date and catalogue number still require verification. Compare complete legends and reverse types before selecting a reference number.

• American Numismatic Society / DAI · Online Coins of the Roman Empire

  An institutional catalogue for comparing legends, portraits, reverse designs, mints and denominations.

• OCRE · RIC I² Augustus 207

  A comparative silver denarius type dated 2 BCE–4 CE, with Augustus on the obverse and Gaius and Lucius on the reverse. This is an example, not an identification of DAA-0001.

Archaic Greek figurines and divine attributes

Small standing figures invite comparison through pose, dress, hairstyle and equipment. The following museum records and institutional background support those comparisons. They do not establish that a visually similar DAA is Greek, Archaic, bronze or a votive object.

• Walters Art Museum · Male Figure (Kouros), 54.778

  Greek bronze, sixth century BCE. Compare the standing pose, body proportions and small-scale treatment of the figure.

• The Met · Greek Gods and Religious Practices

  Context for votive offerings and divine attributes. A helmet or pose alone does not establish the identity of a deity.

Etruscan and central Italian bronzes

Compare the modeling of clothing, helmet forms, gestures and surviving attachments. Differences matter as much as similarities. Named museum objects offer reference points; they are not authenticated matches to our scans.

• The Met · Bronze statuette of a young woman, 17.190.2066

  Etruscan, late sixth century BCE. Compare dress, stance and engraved detail; the museum discusses relationships with Greek korai.

• The Met · Bronze statuette of a striding warrior, 32.17

  Etruscan or Umbrian, sixth–fifth century BCE. A helmeted warrior comparison for pose and equipment, without implying a shared workshop.

• Berlin Antikensammlung · Late Archaic warrior, Fr. 2202a

  A central Italian votive bronze discussed by its holding museum. The account records the helmet and missing spear and shield.

• The Met · Etruscan Art

  Background on Etruscan material culture, Greek connections, painted ceramics, bucchero and funerary contexts.

Statues, drapery and restoration

A draped figure may be studied through stance, folds, proportions, joins and missing parts. Screen color does not establish marble, clay or another material. Museum conservation records also help distinguish ancient work from later intervention.

• The Met · Marble statue of a girl, 03.12.9

  Roman, first or second century CE; described as a copy or adaptation of an earlier Greek work. Compare drapery and stance, not material based on screen color.

• Getty · Research and conservation of a draped Roman statue

  A conservation account showing why joins, restorations and separately identified components matter when assessing a statue.

Roman terracottas and clay-figure production

Roman terracotta subjects include human and animal figures. Use these examples to explore the category, not to relabel DAA-0004 without material evidence. The linked production study offers technical questions about molds, seams, vents and separately attached parts.

• The Met · Terracotta statuette of a gladiator

  Roman, first–second century CE. A reference for the range of subjects represented in Roman terracottas.

• The Met · Terracotta bear holding an oil lamp, 89.2.2088

  Late Roman or Early Byzantine, fourth–seventh century CE. A different terracotta subject and function for broader comparison.

• Getty · Terracotta production techniques

  Research on molds, separately made parts, retouching and manufacturing traces. The catalogue concerns South Italian and Sicilian material; it is not a universal dating guide.

Greek and Etruscan ceramics

Compare rim, mouth, handle, body, base and painted motifs. DAA-0005’s round body, broad mouth and animal ornament make aryballoi a useful research direction. That is a visual comparison, not a confirmed Corinthian attribution or date. Greek and Etruscan production and exchange should be studied together without treating the labels as interchangeable.

• University of Colorado Boulder · Corinthian aryballos, 2006.37.T

  A round oil jar catalogued circa 600–550 BCE, with a short neck, flat mouth, small handle and animal decoration. A shape-and-decoration comparison only.

• Blanton Museum of Art · Late Corinthian round aryballos, 1980.36

  A terracotta oil bottle catalogued circa 550 BCE, with a quatrefoil motif. Compare vessel form while noting that its decoration differs.

• Acropolis Museum · Aryballos, NA 1957 Aa 2133

  Corinthian workshop, 600–550 BCE; the museum records discovery at the Sanctuary of the Nymphe. This provides a documented sanctuary context, not a tomb attribution for our vessel.

• The Met · Etruscan Art

  Background on Etruscan material culture, Greek connections, painted ceramics, bucchero and funerary contexts.

Tomb finds, offerings and archaeological context

Funerary imagery, use in burial rituals, an old collection label and a documented excavation find are different kinds of evidence. None of our undated spatial records has a supplied tomb context. A museum parallel found in a tomb cannot transfer that findspot to a similar-looking object.

• The Met · Death, Burial, and the Afterlife in Ancient Greece

  Context for funerary monuments, grave visits, offerings and remembrance. Burial practices vary by place and period.

• British Museum · White-ground lekythos, 1852,0302.1

  A funerary-image comparison: the museum relates its scene to visits to tombs and offerings. Imagery and documented findspot are different kinds of evidence.

• Acropolis Museum · Aryballos, NA 1957 Aa 2133

  Corinthian workshop, 600–550 BCE; the museum records discovery at the Sanctuary of the Nymphe. This provides a documented sanctuary context, not a tomb attribution for our vessel.

Building a stronger object record

Add measurements, front/back/detail photographs, inscriptions, material analysis, acquisition history, catalogue references and any documented excavation context. Preserve uncertainty and record changes to the identification as research develops.