Carthage Pile On Thread...

Well, I do not know about that, but I have always thought he has a lot of horse sense.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I don't know the current debate on this type but I like the vagueness of RIC that this coin merely commemorates "a grant of special favor."

 

Is this AE17, 2.31g similar? I have it as MAA 19 over 18. With overstrikes, it can be hard to separate what detail was from one and what from the other. Sometimes it helps to rotate the photo making 'up' at the top.

 

LOL, I phrase I used a LOT when I was interviewing folks, as well as evaluating folks, and lastly when we were making business decisions.

 

The Carthage ae types with male head obverse / galloping horse right reverse overstruck on the Tanit / horse standing in front of palm tree may be the norm. Here's the reverse of mine rotated so that you can clearly see the horse and palm:

 

FIGHTING IN SPAIN


Carthago Nova Scipio 209-206 BCE AE 14 Horse Head



Carthago Nova SCIPIO Africanus Roman Occupation 209-206 BCE Sear Vol2 6575 Left



Carthage Iberia 218-208 BC AE 13 1-4 Calco Barcid Military Mint 2nd Punic War Tanit Helmet

 

I notice that for RIC IV 266, OCRE has both types depicted among their examples, with no distinction between them. @Sulla80, where did you read that the face-forward type is earlier than the face-right type?

 

SICULO-PUNIC


Sicily Akragas Punic occup 213-210 BC AR Half Shekel 19 mm 2.9g Male head r Triptolemos wreath grain -Horse leaping r Punic Ḥ SNG COP 378

 

Here's the reference that initially got me looking, a CNG sale in 2018 eAuction 425 Lot 474. I don't know if there is a paper somewhere that discusses the comparisons between gold and silver coins. There is also an interesting set of posts by Curtis Clay on this type here, which also discusses the 203 (facing), 204 (right) split, some unusual bronzes, a Dea Caelestis with drum denarius, and some discussion of the nature of favors.

 

Thanks. It makes sense that the facing front vs. facing right varieties of the denarius would have been issued in the same order as the dated bronze versions. I still find it puzzling that RIC, RSC, and Sear's RCV all fail to distinguish between these two varieties, given that neither variety is uncommon, and RSC in particular usually assigns different numbers (or sub-numbers) for much tinier differences between coins. I haven't checked BMCRE to see if it recognizes the difference between the two.

 

Yes, I believe we have the same type. I looked up the type in different reference works when I bought the coins (in the library, so I don't have them at hand now), and I remember that according to the SNP, the great majority if not all of these were overstruck on the type with Tanit and a horse standing in front of a palm tree (MAA 18).

Here are some photographs with the coin oriented to show either the overstrike or the undertype:

 

More Punics in Iberia...

Iberia, Punic issues. Circa 237-209 BC. Æ21 (10.25g, 6h). Obv: Wreathed head of Tanit left. Rev: Head of horse right; Punic letter Bet to right. Ref: Muller 266; SNG BM Spain 63-64; SNG Copenhagen 284-285 (Spanish Mints, same Rev die as 284); ACIP 579 (same Rev die); SNG Madrid 60-84. Heavy example.

 

Very nice

 

Thank you. It was from a Cayón Subastas multiple coin lot about a decade ago.

 

This is a great type - an affordable example from Hannibal's time in Spain. I'm surprised it's not advertised as such more often. (There's also an imitative type in poor style from around the same time which is much less desirable.)

 

Here is another SALVIS AVGG ET CAESS FEL KART, this one of Severus II.

I don't have any Tanit and Horse coins but I would love to get one soon.

 

After reading this thread the other day I went looking on ebay Aus for some of these bronzes at a reasonable price. There really weren't many around. Was umming and arring over this lot and ended up bidding and winning just now - $89 AUD / 61 USD incl shipping. Still not sure as to whether I got a good deal, definitely the most I've paid for coins covered in gunk!

Seller photo:



The reverse on the top one sure looks nice. The bottom right bugs me, one minute I see a nice horse galloping then look again and see a 40K BC stick figure drawing of the same.

 

VANDALS
Semi-autonomous coinage of Carthage. A.D. 480-533.
Æ 21 Nummi (21x23mm 7.7g ). OBV: KART HAGO Soldier standing; REV: Horse’s head above mark of value XXI. MEC 45

 

Nice coins of the final emission by Carthage prior to its sacking, destruction and enslavement of the surviving population by the Romans.

Here's my only example:

North Africa, Carthage BI Serrate Dishekel. Circa 160-149 BC. Wreathed head of Tanit left / Horse standing right with foreleg raised; Punic letter ' below. MAA 100g; SNG Copenhagen 406. 12.80g, 25mm, 12h.



Justinian also had a mint located in the new, formerly Roman Carthage, in the 6th century AD.

 

Here is one more, this time one of the smaller modules from Carthage or a Sardinian mint that catalogs as MAA 57. But I can't really tell what the Punic letter in the field is supposed to be. The seller considered it a poorly rendered "dot". But it appears that the Celator engraved two strokes in the shape of an "X" very deliberately. I can't tell if this is supposed to be a "shin" or perhaps it is just an incomplete or poorly executed "aleph", "waw", "mem" or "taw". I have searched a bit and can't find examples that don't include a longer downstroke. As a "shin" it doesn't really look much like the example in SNG Cop as number 153. I see a few of this listed as with "undetermined letter". Perhaps this will have to be one of those.

Carthage. Circa 300-264 BC. Æ Shekel (20mm, 5.17g, 12h). Carthage or Sardinian mint. Obv: Wreathed head of Tanit left. Rev: Horse head right; uncertain letter below chin (uncertain Punic letter). Ref: MAA 57-; HGC 2, 1671.