Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;John Anthony, post: 1779026, member: 42773&quot;]<font face="Times New Roman">Bill, I’ve given the problem of determining the TPQ some thought, and I think I’ve at least isolated the right questions. As far as the Ptolemaic overstrikes are concerned, it’s currently assumed that the undertypes could belong to issues of Ptolemy I, II, or III. That would theoretically set the TPQ for the Proto-Nabataean/Ptolemaics somewhere in the mid fourth-century BC. However, I see some problems with such an early date.</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><font face="Times New Roman">First, although the Nabataeans had established extensive trade routes in the fourth and third centuries BC, they maintained a highly nomadic lifestyle – gypsies wandering the Arabian Peninsula, setting up tent villages on the outskirts of cities, trading in various commodities. They used whatever coinage was available to them, and probably many goods were exchanged by barter. They were also very diplomatic by way of adhering to, and adopting local customs. Trade was their first priority, and they consequently avoided any sort of conflict whenever they could, in order to maintain uninterrupted commerce. I find it highly unlikely that they would have experimented with their own coinage during these centuries. They didn’t need it, for one, and they wouldn’t have risked strained relations with the Ptolemaic Empire by usurping the right to coin money.</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><font face="Times New Roman">In CCK, Hoover notes that Ptolemaic coins were gradually demonetized after Antiochus III’s conquest of Coele Syria. That occurred in 199 BC. I like this date as a TPQ for the Ptolemaic overstrikes for several reasons. At this point, the Nabataeans had established <i>bona fide</i> settlements, and they probably needed coins for intranational commerce. Furthermore, restriking demonetized Ptolemaic bronzes wouldn’t have caused any political tension.</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><font face="Times New Roman">There is also the issue of flan adjusting techniques. Current scholarship assumes that all Proto-Nabataean bronzes were struck on Ptolemaic hosts (excluding the Seleucid in my first post) whether or not any of the host coin’s devices are visible on the restrike - the clue being the center dimple created by the axle of a lathe. Sometimes that’s the only feature that distinguishes a Proto-Nabataean coin from the first issues of Aretas II, since both types exhibit the Athena/Nike devices.</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><font face="Times New Roman">But is it necessarily so? Lathe machining of flans was practiced extensively by the Ptolemaic mints, but it was also employed by the Seleucids. Are some of the Nabataean overstrikes that don’t exhibit any trace of an undertype actually hosted by Seleucid coins? It’s entirely possible. Also, the lathe was not always used for flan adjustment. Are some of the coins we attribute to Aretas II (sans dimple) actually overstrikes?</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><font face="Times New Roman">I’d like to be able to say something more definitive but it’s going take nothing short of an extensive survey of Ptolemaic and Seleucid bronze before I dare an opinion.</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