Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Roman Republican No. 56: Lion(ess) or Hound?
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="DonnaML, post: 7603773, member: 110350"][USER=56859]@TIF[/USER] and [USER=85693]@Marsyas Mike[/USER], the tail is also what immediately struck me as belonging to a cat rather than a dog -- not only because of its length compared to the rest of the animal (unusual for a dog) but because of how sinuous it is. Snaky is a good word! I like [USER=85693]@Marsyas Mike[/USER]'s observation about the way the animal is running/leaping, which also seems more feline than canine. Compare it, for example, with the posture and tail on Diana's hound on this denarius of C. Postumius:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1309090[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>All of this kind of exegesis is necessary, along with looking at other factors like the presence of a conical cap on the man's head rather than a soldier's helmet, and the ear of grain on the obverse -- together implying "bread and circuses," as [USER=89211]@eparch[/USER] aptly puts it -- because the animal's head is really quite ambiguous compared to the ones on most of the lion coins I posted above. (Presumably because it's a lioness or, as I mentioned, perhaps even a panther.)</p><p><br /></p><p>I also want to thank [USER=103829]@Jochen1[/USER] for pointing out the reason why Crawford dated the Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus coin at circa 128 BCE, and why it's impossible that the scene could portray the battle of Vindelium in 121 BCE, with its packs of wild dogs supposedly set on the Roman soldiers: the presence of the coin in the Riccia and Maserà hoards, which were buried no later than 125 BCE, four years before the battle. In fact, that explanation can actually be found in Crawford itself, in Vol. I, Table X at p. 61, listing coins found in hoards buried from 143-125 BCE, and showing that there were 42 examples of the Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus denarius in the Riccia hoard and five examples in the Maserà.</p><p><br /></p><p>I apologize for not including this explanation in my original post. But I do think that my failure to find it wasn't entirely attributable to my own laziness: Crawford's entry for the coin (Crawford 261, Vol. I at p. 286) neither explains the reason for the 128 BCE date nor cross-references Table X. Instead, it generally cross-references pp. 62ff. (not with specific regard to the coin's date),</p><p> without further elaboration -- pages which, in turn, cross-reference Table X. I missed it.</p><p><br /></p><p>Since the 1895 article cited by [USER=103829]@Jochen1[/USER] and since Crawford himself, other authorities (except for Grueber between them) appear to have uniformly adopted a 125 BCE closing/burial date for the Riccia and Maserà hoards containing this coin. See, e.g., Review Article, S. E. Buttrey and T. V. Buttrey, "Calculating Ancient Coin Production Again, [etc.]" in<i> American Journal of Numismatics (Second Series), vol. 9 </i>(1997), pp. 113-135 at p. 125 (<a href="https://archive.org/details/AJNSecond1997Vols09to09/page/n130/mode/1up" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://archive.org/details/AJNSecond1997Vols09to09/page/n130/mode/1up" rel="nofollow">https://archive.org/details/AJNSecond1997Vols09to09/page/n130/mode/1up</a>)</p><p>("Consider the hoarder who put together the Riccia hoard in the year 125 B.C.");</p><p>Mark Passehl, "Dating Some Republican Mini-Issues," <i>Journal of Ancient Numismatics</i>, Vol. I, Issue 3 (Jan. 2009), (<a href="http://coinproject.com/jan/volume1/issue3/volume1-3-3.html" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://coinproject.com/jan/volume1/issue3/volume1-3-3.html" rel="nofollow">http://coinproject.com/jan/volume1/issue3/volume1-3-3.html</a>) (discussing the various hoards included in Crawford Tables X and XI, including the Riccia and Maserà hoards); Kris Lockyear,<i> Patterns and Process in Late Roman Republican Coin Hoards, 157-2 BC</i> (British Archaeological Reports 2008) (available at <a href="https://www.academia.edu/630046/Patterns_and_process_in_late_Roman_Republican_coin_hoards_157_2_BC" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.academia.edu/630046/Patterns_and_process_in_late_Roman_Republican_coin_hoards_157_2_BC" rel="nofollow">https://www.academia.edu/630046/Patterns_and_process_in_late_Roman_Republican_coin_hoards_157_2_BC</a>), at p. 66 Table 5.6 (listing the closing date of the Riccia hoard as 126 BCE and the Maserà hoard as 125 BCE).</p><p><br /></p><p>In two of the essays in his book <i>From Coins to History: Selected Numismatic Studies</i> (2004), Harold B. Mattingly pushes back the date of the Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus denarius even further, to 131 BCE, based in part on its presence in a hoard with an earlier closing date, namely the "New Italy Hoard," discovered in 1973. See “Roman Republican Coinage ca. 150-90 B.C.,” pp. 199-226 at p. 208 Table 3, p. 211 & n. 38; "The Management of the Roman Republican Mint," pp. 227-259 at p. 253 Table 2, p. 258 Table 3 (all dating the coin to circa 131 BCE).</p><p><br /></p><p>In addition, by contrast to Crawford, Mattingly specifically identifies the moneyer as the Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus who was Consul in 122 BC (i.e., nine years after his term as moneyer). See the second essay cited above at p. 258 Table 3, as well as the first essay at p. 211 & n. 38. In that essay, Mattingly states that the moneyer "served in Asia under Mn. Aquilius from 129 to 126," citing the publication in 1984-85 of a newly-discovered Thessalian inscription. Id. Obviously, then, Cn. Domiitus Ahenobarbus could not have been moneyer in 128 BCE, when he was serving in Asia.</p><p><br /></p><p>In sum, any of you with examples of this coin should probably change its date to 131 BCE in your records, and abandon any notion you may still have that the secondary reverse scene depicts the use of wild dogs against Roman soldiers in a battle that took place ten years after the coin was issued.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="DonnaML, post: 7603773, member: 110350"][USER=56859]@TIF[/USER] and [USER=85693]@Marsyas Mike[/USER], the tail is also what immediately struck me as belonging to a cat rather than a dog -- not only because of its length compared to the rest of the animal (unusual for a dog) but because of how sinuous it is. Snaky is a good word! I like [USER=85693]@Marsyas Mike[/USER]'s observation about the way the animal is running/leaping, which also seems more feline than canine. Compare it, for example, with the posture and tail on Diana's hound on this denarius of C. Postumius: [ATTACH=full]1309090[/ATTACH] All of this kind of exegesis is necessary, along with looking at other factors like the presence of a conical cap on the man's head rather than a soldier's helmet, and the ear of grain on the obverse -- together implying "bread and circuses," as [USER=89211]@eparch[/USER] aptly puts it -- because the animal's head is really quite ambiguous compared to the ones on most of the lion coins I posted above. (Presumably because it's a lioness or, as I mentioned, perhaps even a panther.) I also want to thank [USER=103829]@Jochen1[/USER] for pointing out the reason why Crawford dated the Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus coin at circa 128 BCE, and why it's impossible that the scene could portray the battle of Vindelium in 121 BCE, with its packs of wild dogs supposedly set on the Roman soldiers: the presence of the coin in the Riccia and Maserà hoards, which were buried no later than 125 BCE, four years before the battle. In fact, that explanation can actually be found in Crawford itself, in Vol. I, Table X at p. 61, listing coins found in hoards buried from 143-125 BCE, and showing that there were 42 examples of the Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus denarius in the Riccia hoard and five examples in the Maserà. I apologize for not including this explanation in my original post. But I do think that my failure to find it wasn't entirely attributable to my own laziness: Crawford's entry for the coin (Crawford 261, Vol. I at p. 286) neither explains the reason for the 128 BCE date nor cross-references Table X. Instead, it generally cross-references pp. 62ff. (not with specific regard to the coin's date), without further elaboration -- pages which, in turn, cross-reference Table X. I missed it. Since the 1895 article cited by [USER=103829]@Jochen1[/USER] and since Crawford himself, other authorities (except for Grueber between them) appear to have uniformly adopted a 125 BCE closing/burial date for the Riccia and Maserà hoards containing this coin. See, e.g., Review Article, S. E. Buttrey and T. V. Buttrey, "Calculating Ancient Coin Production Again, [etc.]" in[I] American Journal of Numismatics (Second Series), vol. 9 [/I](1997), pp. 113-135 at p. 125 ([URL]https://archive.org/details/AJNSecond1997Vols09to09/page/n130/mode/1up[/URL]) ("Consider the hoarder who put together the Riccia hoard in the year 125 B.C."); Mark Passehl, "Dating Some Republican Mini-Issues," [I]Journal of Ancient Numismatics[/I], Vol. I, Issue 3 (Jan. 2009), ([URL]http://coinproject.com/jan/volume1/issue3/volume1-3-3.html[/URL]) (discussing the various hoards included in Crawford Tables X and XI, including the Riccia and Maserà hoards); Kris Lockyear,[I] Patterns and Process in Late Roman Republican Coin Hoards, 157-2 BC[/I] (British Archaeological Reports 2008) (available at [URL]https://www.academia.edu/630046/Patterns_and_process_in_late_Roman_Republican_coin_hoards_157_2_BC[/URL]), at p. 66 Table 5.6 (listing the closing date of the Riccia hoard as 126 BCE and the Maserà hoard as 125 BCE). In two of the essays in his book [I]From Coins to History: Selected Numismatic Studies[/I] (2004), Harold B. Mattingly pushes back the date of the Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus denarius even further, to 131 BCE, based in part on its presence in a hoard with an earlier closing date, namely the "New Italy Hoard," discovered in 1973. See “Roman Republican Coinage ca. 150-90 B.C.,” pp. 199-226 at p. 208 Table 3, p. 211 & n. 38; "The Management of the Roman Republican Mint," pp. 227-259 at p. 253 Table 2, p. 258 Table 3 (all dating the coin to circa 131 BCE). In addition, by contrast to Crawford, Mattingly specifically identifies the moneyer as the Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus who was Consul in 122 BC (i.e., nine years after his term as moneyer). See the second essay cited above at p. 258 Table 3, as well as the first essay at p. 211 & n. 38. In that essay, Mattingly states that the moneyer "served in Asia under Mn. Aquilius from 129 to 126," citing the publication in 1984-85 of a newly-discovered Thessalian inscription. Id. Obviously, then, Cn. Domiitus Ahenobarbus could not have been moneyer in 128 BCE, when he was serving in Asia. In sum, any of you with examples of this coin should probably change its date to 131 BCE in your records, and abandon any notion you may still have that the secondary reverse scene depicts the use of wild dogs against Roman soldiers in a battle that took place ten years after the coin was issued.[/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
>
Roman Republican No. 56: Lion(ess) or Hound?
>
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...