Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;DonnaML, post: 5244648, member: 110350&quot;][USER=99456]@Sulla80[/USER], I have a question regarding Kleiner&#039;s statement that you quoted, namely that &quot;Ephesus is the only city to place provincial era dates on its cistophori, a decision which possibly reflects a readier acceptance of Roman rule than in the other Attalid cities.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>But if that&#039;s the case, then what is the dating system used on the post-Attalid cistophori of Tralleis? The system in Tralleis was traditionally thought to begin with Year 1 in 133 BCE (see below), but has it since been moved forward five years like that of Ephesus? Is there any literature addressing the dating system in Tralleis?</p><p><br /></p><p>Here&#039;s my example from Tralleis:</p><p><br /></p><p>Lydia, Tralleis/Tralles, AR Cistophoric Tetradrachm, 127/126 BCE[?], Magistrate Ptol-. Obv. Cista mystica with lid ajar and serpent emerging; all within ivy wreath / Rev. Bowcase (gorytos) with two serpents (one to left and one to right, heads at top); H [= date = Year 8 = (traditionally) 127/126 BCE] over ΠTOΛ [PTOL] above, between serpents’ heads, TPAΛ [TRAL] in left field; to right, Dionysos in short chiton standing facing, head left, holding thyrsos in right hand and mask of Silenos in left hand. SNG Copenhagen 662-663 <i>var. </i>[different year]; BMC 22 Lydia 48 (p. 333) <i>var.</i> [different year] [Head, B.V., <i>A Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum, Vol. 22, Lydia</i> (London, 1901); SNG von Aulock 3262-3264 <i>var. </i>[different year]; Pinder 159 [same year -- “H”]; see also id. 157-158 [different years] [Pinder, M., <i>Über die Cistophoren und über die kaiserlichen Silbermedaillons der Römischen Provinz Asien</i> (Berlin, 1856) at pp. 565-566]. 24 mm., 12.64 g. [probably = 3 drachms, not 4], 1 h. <i>Ex: CNG Auction 225 (13 Jan. 2010), Lot 144.&nbsp; </i></p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1218233[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>For the traditional interpretation of the Tralleis dating system, see BMC 22 Lydia at p. cxxxvii. According to the explanation there, the date on my coin should be Year 8 since 133 BCE, when the Pergamene kingdom passed by bequest to the Roman Republic upon the death of Attalus III, and became part of the Province of Asia. No coins minted in Tralleis had been found (as of 1901) bearing dates later than Year 8.&nbsp; The author suggests that after Tralleis participated in the unsuccessful revolt against Roman rule by Aristonicus (a/k/a Eumenes III), who claimed to be the illegitimate son of Attalus III’s father Eumenes II, the Romans may have punished the city by depriving it of various privileges, including the privilege of minting silver coins.</p><p><br /></p><p>But it&#039;s my understanding that the more modern sources state that this rebellion had been suppressed by 129 BCE, making this explanation seem unlikely.</p><p><br /></p><p>In terms of the dating of coins in the Province of Asia, I gather that the more recent scholarship such as Noe/Kleiner [Noe, Sydney P. &amp; Fred S. Kleiner, <i>Early Cistophoric Coinage</i> (ANS, 1977), available at <a href="http://numismatics.org/digitallibrary/ark:/53695/nnan30795" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://numismatics.org/digitallibrary/ark:/53695/nnan30795" rel="nofollow">http://numismatics.org/digitallibrary/ark:/53695/nnan30795</a>], Rigsby [Rigsby, K., <i>The Era of the Province of Asia</i>, <i>Phoenix </i>(1979), at pp. 33(1), 39-47, available at <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1087850?seq=1" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1087850?seq=1" rel="nofollow">https://www.jstor.org/stable/1087850?seq=1</a>], and Müller [Müller, Jörg W., <i>The Chronology of Ephesos Revisited</i>, <i>Schweizerische numismatische Rundschau (Revue suisse de numismatique)</i> (1998) at pp. 73-80, available at <a href="https://www.e-periodica.ch/digbib/view?pid=snr-003:1998:77#86" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.e-periodica.ch/digbib/view?pid=snr-003:1998:77#86" rel="nofollow">https://www.e-periodica.ch/digbib/view?pid=snr-003:1998:77#86</a>], has posited a shift of the era forward by approximately five years.&nbsp; As I understand it, these authorities reject the idea 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. So according to their reasoning, the dating system should actually begin with approximately 128 BCE, after the suppression of the rebellion, so that Year 8 would be approximately 121 BCE.</p><p><br /></p><p>But I didn&#039;t see anything specifically addressing or explaining Tralleis&#039;s dating system in these sources. And Kleiner&#039;s statement that you quoted appears to assert that Ephesus was the only city to use the provincial era (regardless of when Year 1 was) as the basis for its dating system. If so, then what&#039;s the basis for the dating system used in Tralleis?[/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