Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Valentinian, post: 2597355, member: 44316&quot;]Gavin, I downloaded and enjoyed your thorough article. The review of what others have proposed the &quot;hut&quot; type means clearly lays out the possibilities and alternatives. Your overall conclusion seems sound.</p><p><br /></p><p>Many Roman types have a large figure with a smaller figure. Often the smaller is a defeated foe. Even in this FEL TEMP REPARATIO series the &quot;solder spearing fallen horseman&quot; type has a large soldier and a tiny horseman foe. One of the major types of Valentinian (14 years later, in 364) has a soldier (emperor) dragging a tiny captive:</p><p>[ATTACH=full]566377[/ATTACH]</p><p>Members could show us many types from earlier, say, Aurelian, where a second, smaller figure is foe (Is it ever a friend?). So in the analysis of the &quot;hut&quot; type we might first expect the smaller figure to be a foe. This tends to support the &quot;resettling former defeated foes from across the Rhine&quot; interpretation, which supports using the term &quot;barbarian&quot; with &quot;hut&quot;.</p><p><br /></p><p>But, unlike most Roman coins with a smaller figure, the hut type does not emphasize degradation of the smaller figure. Doug showed us one Trier mint example. Here is another:</p><p>[ATTACH=full]566371[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]566372[/ATTACH]</p><p>21 mm. 3.73 grams. 6:00.</p><p>RIC VIII Trier 221, page 153.</p><p><br /></p><p>The spear is reversed (point downward, which I think is very significant), suggesting the battle is over. This fits well with both the Aeneas allusion as well as he defeat of barbarians. However, the tree and rude dwelling seem unlike an image of Troy, and the soldier looks very Roman. On the other hand, it had been 1100 years since the founding of Roman which was recognized as a very important anniversary, which brings the connection with Troy to mind.</p><p><br /></p><p>I don&#039;t usually expect mid-4th century coin references to be multi-faceted and so subtle. But, as you note, perhaps the type allowed the ambiguity and refereed to both the settlement of barbarians and the allusion to the foundation myth.</p><p><br /></p><p>Gavin, thank you for providing the article for us to download and thank you for reminding us that even very common types are utterly fascinating. Maybe US coins are generally so dull that an explanation of why one is interesting is dominated by its dollar value because of the rarity of that mint and date, but that is clearly not the case with ancient coins, as this common &quot;hut&quot; type proves. The type itself is interesting.[/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