Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Andrew McCabe, post: 3785024, member: 90666&quot;]Ted Buttrey&#039;s commentary on the burnt tile in Morgantina and my 20 as coin:</p><p><br /></p><p>QUOTE In the so-called House of Ganymede here there were found lying exposed on the floor (but under the burnt layer and the fallen roof tiles) a silver didrachm of Hieronymous (215-214BC) and a heavy gold ring set with a garnet. That these were openly abandoned indicates a rapid evacuation of the house; that they were not subsequently recovered indicates that no time elapsed between the abandonment of the house and its destruction. The coin of Hieronymous, which is in almost uncirculated condition, gives us the date; not before 215, and not long after. How this bears on the date of the denarius is made clear with a glance at the sanctuaries of Demeter and Kore. ... In all, in the three rooms were found twenty six non-Roman coins, none of them dated by anybody later than the third century BC. The numismatic evidence then is exactly consistent in itself, consistent with the evidence of the architecture, with the ceramic and terracotta evidence, with the literary evidence and the obviously intended destruction of the site. This sanctuary was purposely destroyed in 214 or 211 BC.</p><p><br /></p><p>There is only one problem. The single Roman coin found on the floor of the rear room of the south sanctuary - sealed under the fallen roof tiles - is a silver sestertius dated according to the chronology of Mattingly and Robinson to 187BC at the earliest. </p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1010700[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>In the sanctuary room proper, two Roman coins were found on the floor; one a post- semilibral uncia with grain symbol, certainly third century, the other a second silver sestertius. And also on the floor, still under the fallen roof tiles, was found a small jar - a medicine bottle - containing a deposit of nine silver coins: four anonymous victoriates, one anonymous denarius, three anonymous quinarii, and one anonymous sesterius. All of this clearly represents the earliest silver of the denarius system. These coins must have deposited before the sanctuary was destroyed. ... </p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1010702[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>Across the agora to the east we find about 400 metres away - that is, in no way contiguous - a private house similarly destroyed by fire, toward the end of the third century, under unusual circumstances. Here were found two coin deposits of some interest. The first was found at the bottom of the cistern, from the fill of which were taken two Greek bronzes, one Siculo-Punic, one Hieron II, both third century BC. The thirty seven coins at the bottom of the cistern are all Roman - one gold, the rest silver - and there were as well several pieces of Hellenistic jewelry in gold and set with garnets, as well as some garnets which had been cut and polished but never set. The gold coin is of the familiar Mars/eagle series, a twenty as piece with the grain ear symbol which is surely a Sicilian mintmark. </p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1010704[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>The silver coins are dated by Mattingly and Robinson, and by the Sydenham catalogue, to 187BC; the gold coin even later to 167BC. Most of these coins were found on the floor of the cistern, but one quinarius was found within a small pitcher which suggests that it had been let down into the cistern deliberately. Certainly no-one throws gold coin and jewelry into his cistern without some hope of recovery; and that he throws them there at all must indicate some anxiety of mind. ... Here again we have evidence for the existence of the earliest denarii and the corresponding gold at least twenty five years earlier than the Mattingly chronology would permit. ... </p><p>[ATTACH=full]1010705[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>If it can be shown that an early denarius was sealed in a Second Punic War stratum, Mattingly&#039;s chronology cannot stand. ... Similarly this evidence does not support the conservative chronology [AM: this refers to Pliny’s reference to 289BC, today taken to refer to the first wolf-and-twins didrachm struck within the city of Rome]. The sealed deposits do suggest that the first denarius cannot have been very old at the time. Again according to the conservative chronology, by the date of destruction, say 214BC, the whole range of sextantal bronze would have been run through and the uncial standard would have been in effect for three years. But in the sealed deposit not only was no uncial bronze found, at all, but not even any sextantal bronzes with moneyers symbols or monograms. In short, the stratigraphic evidence is curiously anachronistic if we follow the conservative school, and seriously parachronistic [AM: I just learnt a new word!] if we follow the British school. The answer must lie between. All this evidence indicates that the denarius and the sextantal bronze system came into being shortly before the burning of the city of Morgantina in 214BC or 211 BC. UNQUOTE.[/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