Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;DonnaML, post: 4579800, member: 110350&quot;]Thanks, [USER=99456]@Sulla80[/USER].&nbsp; I have now read the Müller and Rigsby articles, and went through the Noe/Kleiner book looking at all the references to Tralles.&nbsp; So it seems that even though none of these sources addresses in detail the dating on the cistophoric tetradrachms of Tralles after it became a Roman province, if one applies to Tralles the authors&#039; conclusions about the coins of Ephesos, etc., then the &quot;Year 1&quot; coins of Tralles -- traditionally assigned to 134/133 BCE -- would be pushed forward by about five years. Which would mean that my Year 8 coin should be dated at approximately 122/121 BCE rather than 127/126 or 126/125 BCE.&nbsp; What they say makes sense: it&#039;s hard to believe that these cities had the time (or the inclination) to start issuing coins dated by a new Roman era as soon as Attalus&#039;s will became public, particularly given the immediate rebellion of Aristonicus.&nbsp; (The issue of whether one accepts Müller&#039;s division of the dated coins of Ephesos into two separate groups in order to make sense of the chronology is irrelevant to the coins of Tralles.)</p><p><br /></p><p>The Noe/Kleiner book, despite stating that &quot;[t]he Tralles cistophori of 128-85 B.C. are not within the scope of this volume,&quot; does have one intriguing sentence and footnote specifically addressing the question of when Tralles issued its eight years of dated cistophori, including my coin:</p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;Series 27-31 are the latest Pergamene emissions in the 1928 hoard and must date to the years just prior to 128 B.C. No Pergamene piece with the civic badge of a serpent staff ( Plate X, 10) was included in that hoard or in the Yeşilhisar or Şahnah hoards of 130-128 B.C. There can be no doubt that the introduction of this device must have occurred after 128 and that the universally accepted date for this change in format (134/133 B.C.) must be rejected. It is now clear that the only city to begin to employ an invariable civic symbol in 134 was Ephesus. <b>However attractive, the traditional view, which associates the Dionysus of Tralles, the flutes of Apameia, etc., with the reorganization of the Attalid cities by the Romans upon the formation of the Province of Asia,<font size="2">14</font> is negated by the abundant evidence to the contrary.</b></p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><b><font size="3">14</font></b></p><p><b>For example BMCLydia cxxxvif. The misdating of the Tralles pieces with ΠTOΛ and dates A to H was corrected by Regling, <i>Frankfurter Münzzeitung</i> 1932, pp. 506-7, 509-10.&quot;</b></p><p><b><br /></b></p><p>Do you have any idea what the correction was, or, if you don&#039;t know, whether there&#039;s any easy way to find out?</p><p><br /></p><p>Of course, none of this answers the question of why Tralles stopped issuing dated coins after Year 8, whenever Year 8 may have been. Or affects my separate discussion of whether or not provincial coins issued under the Republic should be categorized as Roman Provincial coins.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in