Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="John Anthony, post: 2725423, member: 42773"]This coin, the first of its type that I've acquired, has led me down a rabbit hole that questions its traditional analysis. In Early Hellenistic Coinage, Markholm and Westermark state... The distribution of the Macedonian bronze coinages between the two kings named Antigonus (Gonatas and Doson) is far from clear. It is generally agreed that a bronze issue with the types head of Athena in Corinthian helmet/Pan erecting trophy must be attributed to Gonatas. This very copious issue circulated in part of Greece that were attached to Macedon and was often incorporated into the local circulation by countermarking, for instance in Euboia. (p. 134) [ATTACH=full]618506[/ATTACH] M&W go on to state that two other bronze types of the period may belong to either of the Antigoni. So why must the bronze Pan type be attributed to Gonatas? Is it by association to the bust of Pan which is found on tetradrachms that can decisively be attributed to him? Of these, M&W state... From about 270, Antigonas Gonatas issued a new type of silver tetradrachm. The obverse is occupied by the head of Pan with a pedum at his shoulder placed as the central emblem on a Macedonian shield, a reference to the help of the god when he caused a panic terror among the Gauls during Antigonas' battle with them near Lysimachia in 277. (p. 134) [ATTACH=full]618516[/ATTACH] M&W do not reference a source for this interpretation. Where does it come from? I can't find any analysis that links the Battle of Lysimachia with the influence of Pan. Not only that, but in Battle of the Phantoms - Lysimachia 277 BC, Brendan MacGonagle throws some very serious logical and archeological doubt on whether this battle ever took place. <a href="https://www.academia.edu/5135100/The_Phantom_Battle_-_Lysimachia_277_BC" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.academia.edu/5135100/The_Phantom_Battle_-_Lysimachia_277_BC" rel="nofollow">You can download his paper here</a> - it's very short, so I don't need to recapitulate his arguments in this post, just read it for yourself. To make matters even more nebulous, there was another battle (also referenced by MacGonagle in his paper), described by the Roman historian Justinus, in which the barbarian Celts turned against each other, slaughtered their own wives and children, who were promptly avenged by the Furies and the spirits of the slain, suddenly resurrected before their eyes. Well that clearly reads more like a fireside ghost story than history, but perhaps that's the account that lead some numismatist to associate Pan with some victory of Gonatas' over the Gauls, be it the Battle of Lysimachia or another, even though Pan is never mentioned by Justinus. If we are forced to associate Pan with with a specific battle in which soldiers felt panicked (yes, our word does derive from the god's name), it may well be a battle recounted by the much more trusted source Plutarch. Wiki does an excellent job paraphrasing the event... When Antigonus heard that Pyrrhus had treacherously attacked the city [Argos], he advanced to the walls and sent a strong force inside to help the Argives. At the same time Areus arrived with a force of 1,000 Cretans and light-armed Spartans. These forces attacked the Gauls in the market place. Pyrrhus, realising that his Gallic troops were hard pressed, now advanced into the city with more troops, but in the narrow streets this soon led to confusion as men got lost and wandered around. The two forces now paused and waited for daylight. When the sun rose, Pyrrhus saw how strong the opposition was and decided the best thing was to retreat. Fearing that the gates would be too narrow for his troops to easily exit the city, he sent a message to his son, Helenus, who was outside with the main body of the army, asking him to break down a section of the walls. The messenger, however, failed to convey his instructions clearly. Misunderstanding what was required, Helenus took the rest of the elephants and some picked troops and advanced into the city to help his father. With some of his troops trying to get out of the city and others trying to get in, Pyrrhus's army was now thrown into confusion. This was made worse by the elephants. The largest one had fallen across the gateway and was blocking the way, while another elephant, called Nicon, was trying to find its rider. This beast surged against the tide of fugitives, crushing friend and foe alike, until it found its dead master, whereupon it picked him up, placed him on its tusks, and went on the rampage. In this chaos Pyrrhus was struck down by a tile thrown by an old woman and killed by Zopyrus, a soldier of Antigonus. Thus ended the career of the most famous soldier of his time. [<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigonus_II_Gonatas" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigonus_II_Gonatas" rel="nofollow">wiki</a>] One can only imagine the mayhem of this Hollywood-worthy scene, and it requires no furies or zombies. Is this the battle referenced by Pan erecting a trophy? Plutarch makes no mention of Pan whatsoever in the Life of Pyrrhus, so where does this interpretation come from? Does anyone have any ideas on the matter?[/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches