Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Orielensis, post: 7955954, member: 96898&quot;]Ditto. Damnatio memoriae was an official process set in motion to planfully expunge someone from public memory. Mere damage done to imperial portraits because of discontent, boredom, testing-how-sharp-your-knife-is, and other reasons does not indicate a damnatio. Apart from the Geta example in the original post, the only coins in this thread that I would assume to have been defaced in the process of a damnatio memoriae are the two examples shown by [USER=57495]@zumbly[/USER].</p><p><br /></p><p>This, for example, appears to be purposeful ancient damage but was not done because of a damnatio memoriae. Somebody with a sharp instrument was just angry, had too much time on their hands, or made a really botched attempt at the ancient equivalent of a hobo nickel:</p><p><font size="3">[ATTACH=full]1379189[/ATTACH] </font></p><p><font size="3">Antoninus Pius, Roman Empire, denarius, 145–161 AD, Rome mint. Obv: ANTONINVS AVG PIVS PP, laureate head of Antoninus Pius r. (purposefully damaged in antiquity). Rev: COS IIII, thunderbolt on altar. 16.5mm, 4.02g. RIC III Antoninus Pius 137.</font>[/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