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: 4624940, member: 19463"]For the record: I still believe that the situation included at least one travelling mint (either with Septimius or his army when they were moving without him) that used a mix of travelling staff and local talent as seemed necessary any given day. This staff quite possibly included people who had once works for a mint of Pescennius Niger but that does not mean that they worked in the same city used by PN or any fixed place. </p><p><br /></p><p>I see no reason to believe that all coins of a certain reading (especially COSI) were struck in the same place in the same short period of time. Some COSI coins are obviously bad readings of other numbers but there are several dies that are pretty well documented as having COSI correctly read. That does not mean that the coins were struck in 193 or that the die engraver had a 'handle' on the Roman system of numbering appellations. </p><p><br /></p><p>Metal was quite likely obtained wherever possible and recycled either by melting or overstriking old coins. This would make it very hard to track trends in trace elements. I have no good confidence in where to draw a line between official branch mints, mints of short term necessity and unofficial mints. There are more variant style coins than there are plated which suggests to me greed was not responsible for all the 'strange' coins but I see no pattern that allows an easy answer. </p><p><br /></p><p>Is there any evidence from any period how a Consulship assumed early would be numbered? If Pescennius assumed COS II in Summer/Fall 193 (his first being years before all this), am I wrong to expect his to use COSIII if he remained Consul after January 194? Since we have no COSIII coins, do we assume he had appointed alternate Consuls from his supporters to serve in 194? Who, if anyone, was his co-consul in his COSII period? The more I study this, the less I 'know'. </p><p><br /></p><p>I stand by this usage as less problematic than the other options for mint naming.</p><p><br /></p><p>To add a coin to these words I have a few coins that strike me as somewhere short of normal but I am unwilling to write off as barbarous. I propose no answer.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1144718[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1144720[/ATTACH][/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="dougsmit, post: 4624940, member: 19463"]For the record: I still believe that the situation included at least one travelling mint (either with Septimius or his army when they were moving without him) that used a mix of travelling staff and local talent as seemed necessary any given day. This staff quite possibly included people who had once works for a mint of Pescennius Niger but that does not mean that they worked in the same city used by PN or any fixed place. I see no reason to believe that all coins of a certain reading (especially COSI) were struck in the same place in the same short period of time. Some COSI coins are obviously bad readings of other numbers but there are several dies that are pretty well documented as having COSI correctly read. That does not mean that the coins were struck in 193 or that the die engraver had a 'handle' on the Roman system of numbering appellations. Metal was quite likely obtained wherever possible and recycled either by melting or overstriking old coins. This would make it very hard to track trends in trace elements. I have no good confidence in where to draw a line between official branch mints, mints of short term necessity and unofficial mints. There are more variant style coins than there are plated which suggests to me greed was not responsible for all the 'strange' coins but I see no pattern that allows an easy answer. Is there any evidence from any period how a Consulship assumed early would be numbered? If Pescennius assumed COS II in Summer/Fall 193 (his first being years before all this), am I wrong to expect his to use COSIII if he remained Consul after January 194? Since we have no COSIII coins, do we assume he had appointed alternate Consuls from his supporters to serve in 194? Who, if anyone, was his co-consul in his COSII period? The more I study this, the less I 'know'. I stand by this usage as less problematic than the other options for mint naming. To add a coin to these words I have a few coins that strike me as somewhere short of normal but I am unwilling to write off as barbarous. I propose no answer. [ATTACH=full]1144718[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1144720[/ATTACH][/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...