Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Domna denarius minted in Antioch? What happened to the Laodicea theory?
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="dougsmit, post: 3204510, member: 19463"]I see nothing straightforward about any of this. The people that see Mattingly as a dreamer put forth their own dream that (1) Antioch was definitely the mint city before, (2) that it was not moved and (3) that there has to be an answer suitable for writing a thesis since no one publishes works entitled "things I assume with scanty evidence". With no concrete evidence either way, nothing is proven. We have decent evidence for the mints at Alexandria and Caesarea. The others could have been wherever the power placed them including a travelling mint staff that worked out of a tent or used furnaces in a dozen one horse shops along the way. OK, Antioch was the biggest city in the region. Rome was the capital of the Empire in the First Century. Where were the denarii struck then? </p><p><br /></p><p>Do all the 'Emesa' coins show relation in fabric and metal that proves they were one and not several operation(s)? Are the IMP dated coins distinct from the COS dated coins to the point that they must have been produced in different places (one each or several???). I see our use of "Emesa" as rather like "The Artist Formerly Known as Prince". Perhaps bits of data will accumulate over time and allow a better guess than either Mattingly or his more recent detractors. Meanwhile, I would love to have a better feeling about how many mints were included in the ones we now call 'Syrian'. That question itself assumes that the concept of a travelling 'court' mint is ridiculous. I don't know. That is OK with me. The problem comes when those who don't know feel obligated to present their 'best guess' as dogmatic fact. The study material to shed light on this exists but I am unaware of anyone with proper access/credentials making a serious study. Of course, there would be no reason such a person would tell me about it if they were. I'd be happy to give up 'Emesa' for 'Syrian' but some one would have to point out (correctly) that Syrian Antioch (ad Orontes) is now in Turkey. Must we say "The Mint Formerly Known as Emesa"?[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="dougsmit, post: 3204510, member: 19463"]I see nothing straightforward about any of this. The people that see Mattingly as a dreamer put forth their own dream that (1) Antioch was definitely the mint city before, (2) that it was not moved and (3) that there has to be an answer suitable for writing a thesis since no one publishes works entitled "things I assume with scanty evidence". With no concrete evidence either way, nothing is proven. We have decent evidence for the mints at Alexandria and Caesarea. The others could have been wherever the power placed them including a travelling mint staff that worked out of a tent or used furnaces in a dozen one horse shops along the way. OK, Antioch was the biggest city in the region. Rome was the capital of the Empire in the First Century. Where were the denarii struck then? Do all the 'Emesa' coins show relation in fabric and metal that proves they were one and not several operation(s)? Are the IMP dated coins distinct from the COS dated coins to the point that they must have been produced in different places (one each or several???). I see our use of "Emesa" as rather like "The Artist Formerly Known as Prince". Perhaps bits of data will accumulate over time and allow a better guess than either Mattingly or his more recent detractors. Meanwhile, I would love to have a better feeling about how many mints were included in the ones we now call 'Syrian'. That question itself assumes that the concept of a travelling 'court' mint is ridiculous. I don't know. That is OK with me. The problem comes when those who don't know feel obligated to present their 'best guess' as dogmatic fact. The study material to shed light on this exists but I am unaware of anyone with proper access/credentials making a serious study. Of course, there would be no reason such a person would tell me about it if they were. I'd be happy to give up 'Emesa' for 'Syrian' but some one would have to point out (correctly) that Syrian Antioch (ad Orontes) is now in Turkey. Must we say "The Mint Formerly Known as Emesa"?[/QUOTE]
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
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Domna denarius minted in Antioch? What happened to the Laodicea theory?
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...