Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
The Great Transformation:Meadows
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="NewStyleKing, post: 4511726, member: 106483"]Here we must introduce one final piece of the numismatic puzzle: the parallel development that occurred in royal coinage at the same period. In the early years of the second century BC the young king Ptolemy V took the epiklesis Epiphanes,and around 199/8 BC coins were struck according this title, but with a significant departure from the standard Ptolemaic reverse (Pl. XLVIII, 48).</p><p>34</p><p> (As it happens,this type was also taken by one of the wreathed coinages, that of Myndos [Pl. XLVII, 43]). Kings had long been gods, of course, but one of them waspushing the notion a stage further by adopting an epithet that calls to mind precisely the epiphany of gods to mortals that, as we have seen, was starting to appear in the civic epigraphic record.A quarter of a century later, shortly after 175 BC, the first Seleucid king would give himself the same title, Epiphanes. The development of Antiochos IV’s epithets, and the accompanying changes in his coinage at the mint of Antioch make fascinating reading. Between 175 and 173/2 (Series 1) he was known asΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ and his coins had the usual Apollo on omphalos reverse (Pl. XLVIII, 49). Between 173/2 and 169/8 (Series 2) he changed his legend to ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ ΕΠΙΦΑΝΟΥΣ, and the reverse type was personalised to present a god new to Seleucid silver, Zeus, holding a Nike(Pl. XLVIII, 50). Around 168 BC (Series 3) he introduced a new type that replaced his own portrait with a head of Zeus (Pl. XLVIII, 51), and then, probably to mark his great Panhellenic festival at Daphne in 166 BC, he issued a remarkable coinage (Pl. XLVIII, 52), with a head of Apollo on the obverse and a standing figure of the god on the reverse. The latter is generally assumed to represent the cult statue of Apollo at Daphne by Bryaxis.</p><p>35</p><p> In broad conception of design, we are clearly in the same world as the trans-formed civic designs, and we are in exactly the same chronological period as the beginning of that phenomenon. In the development in Antiochos’ coinage from portrait of king to portrait of god we see perhaps where the portrait-like depiction of deities on the civic coins takes its inspiration. In the utilisation of deities to represent dynastic origins, or other religious association, and the framing legends of Antiochos’ coinage, we find a parallel for the development in civic coin. In a sense then we can describe the designers of the new civic coinage as being themselves the audience of royal coinage. But we can see also that they were potentially speaking to a similar audience in similar ways.So to conclude: who were these designers? The answer is that we do not know. But since the famous Sestos stele is discussed elsewhere in this volume</p><p>36</p><p>,and since it forms one of the very few pieces of evidence we have on this subject,it is worth adducing here.</p><p>37</p><p>τοῦ τε δήμου προελομέ|ν</p><p> ̣</p><p>ου νομίσματι χαλκίνῳ χρῆσθαι ἰδίωι χάριν1.</p><p>τοῦ νομειτεύεσθαι μὲν τὸν τῆς π[ό]|[λ]εως χαρακτῆρα,2.</p><p>τὸ δὲ λυσιτελὲς τὸ περιγεινόμενον ἐκ τῆς τοιαύτης προσόδου</p><p> ̣</p><p> | λαμβάνειντὸν δῆμον,καὶ προχειρισαμένου τοὺς τὴν πίστιν1.</p><p>εὐσεβῶς τε καὶ |2.</p><p>δ</p><p> ̣</p><p>ικαίως τηρήσοντας, vvΜηνᾶς αἱρεθεὶς μετὰ τοῦ συναποδειχθέντος τὴν κα|θ</p><p> ̣</p><p>ήκουσαν εἰσηνέγκατοἐπιμέλειαν, ἐξ ὧν ὁ δῆμος διὰ τὴν τῶν ἀνδρῶν1.</p><p>δι|κ</p><p> ̣</p><p>αιοσύνην τε καὶ2.</p><p>φιλοτιμίανχρῆται τῶι ἰδίωι νομίσματι</p><p>38</p><p>Through the description of Menas’ involvement in the coinage there is, very clearly, a tension between pride (φιλοτιμία), religious propriety (εὐσέβεια) and civic self-representation (ἰδιότης) on the one hand and the economic function(λυσιτελεία, πρόσοδος) and reliability (δικαιοσύνη) of coinage on the other. This bipolar opposition is expressed no less than three times. If Menas did not choose the designs himself, he was surely involved. But the reference to the city as communal entity should not mislead us. Menas was a member of its elite. And the choices he made may have been on behalf of the city, and had an audience beyond its boundaries. But he was also a representative of one social and economic part of that city—the wealthy.</p><p>39</p><p> And his audience was no less the people of his city; his choices present the conscious modeling of civic identity by just one part of it.This brings us back one last time to Athens. Just as they were redesigning their coinage, the people of Athens were, as we have seen, augmenting their games. They expanded the tribal hippic contests. Seating was erected either side of the Panathenaic Way, and citizens, and only citizens, would race its length,watched by the crowds who had assembled in the city for the Great Games.</p><p>40</p><p> Among this audience were many foreigners who could only look on at the spectacle of the racing citizens. But also on the seats were many Athenians, who could never hope to have sufficient wealth to compete in these games. The audience of this self-conscious display of civic pride was multifaceted, multi-national and drawn from multiple layers of Athenian society. And so it is for coinage; an audience is never singular.</p><p>41[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="NewStyleKing, post: 4511726, member: 106483"]Here we must introduce one final piece of the numismatic puzzle: the parallel development that occurred in royal coinage at the same period. In the early years of the second century BC the young king Ptolemy V took the epiklesis Epiphanes,and around 199/8 BC coins were struck according this title, but with a significant departure from the standard Ptolemaic reverse (Pl. XLVIII, 48). 34 (As it happens,this type was also taken by one of the wreathed coinages, that of Myndos [Pl. XLVII, 43]). Kings had long been gods, of course, but one of them waspushing the notion a stage further by adopting an epithet that calls to mind precisely the epiphany of gods to mortals that, as we have seen, was starting to appear in the civic epigraphic record.A quarter of a century later, shortly after 175 BC, the first Seleucid king would give himself the same title, Epiphanes. The development of Antiochos IV’s epithets, and the accompanying changes in his coinage at the mint of Antioch make fascinating reading. Between 175 and 173/2 (Series 1) he was known asΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ and his coins had the usual Apollo on omphalos reverse (Pl. XLVIII, 49). Between 173/2 and 169/8 (Series 2) he changed his legend to ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ ΕΠΙΦΑΝΟΥΣ, and the reverse type was personalised to present a god new to Seleucid silver, Zeus, holding a Nike(Pl. XLVIII, 50). Around 168 BC (Series 3) he introduced a new type that replaced his own portrait with a head of Zeus (Pl. XLVIII, 51), and then, probably to mark his great Panhellenic festival at Daphne in 166 BC, he issued a remarkable coinage (Pl. XLVIII, 52), with a head of Apollo on the obverse and a standing figure of the god on the reverse. The latter is generally assumed to represent the cult statue of Apollo at Daphne by Bryaxis. 35 In broad conception of design, we are clearly in the same world as the trans-formed civic designs, and we are in exactly the same chronological period as the beginning of that phenomenon. In the development in Antiochos’ coinage from portrait of king to portrait of god we see perhaps where the portrait-like depiction of deities on the civic coins takes its inspiration. In the utilisation of deities to represent dynastic origins, or other religious association, and the framing legends of Antiochos’ coinage, we find a parallel for the development in civic coin. In a sense then we can describe the designers of the new civic coinage as being themselves the audience of royal coinage. But we can see also that they were potentially speaking to a similar audience in similar ways.So to conclude: who were these designers? The answer is that we do not know. But since the famous Sestos stele is discussed elsewhere in this volume 36 ,and since it forms one of the very few pieces of evidence we have on this subject,it is worth adducing here. 37 τοῦ τε δήμου προελομέ|ν ̣ ου νομίσματι χαλκίνῳ χρῆσθαι ἰδίωι χάριν1. τοῦ νομειτεύεσθαι μὲν τὸν τῆς π[ό]|[λ]εως χαρακτῆρα,2. τὸ δὲ λυσιτελὲς τὸ περιγεινόμενον ἐκ τῆς τοιαύτης προσόδου ̣ | λαμβάνειντὸν δῆμον,καὶ προχειρισαμένου τοὺς τὴν πίστιν1. εὐσεβῶς τε καὶ |2. δ ̣ ικαίως τηρήσοντας, vvΜηνᾶς αἱρεθεὶς μετὰ τοῦ συναποδειχθέντος τὴν κα|θ ̣ ήκουσαν εἰσηνέγκατοἐπιμέλειαν, ἐξ ὧν ὁ δῆμος διὰ τὴν τῶν ἀνδρῶν1. δι|κ ̣ αιοσύνην τε καὶ2. φιλοτιμίανχρῆται τῶι ἰδίωι νομίσματι 38 Through the description of Menas’ involvement in the coinage there is, very clearly, a tension between pride (φιλοτιμία), religious propriety (εὐσέβεια) and civic self-representation (ἰδιότης) on the one hand and the economic function(λυσιτελεία, πρόσοδος) and reliability (δικαιοσύνη) of coinage on the other. This bipolar opposition is expressed no less than three times. If Menas did not choose the designs himself, he was surely involved. But the reference to the city as communal entity should not mislead us. Menas was a member of its elite. And the choices he made may have been on behalf of the city, and had an audience beyond its boundaries. But he was also a representative of one social and economic part of that city—the wealthy. 39 And his audience was no less the people of his city; his choices present the conscious modeling of civic identity by just one part of it.This brings us back one last time to Athens. Just as they were redesigning their coinage, the people of Athens were, as we have seen, augmenting their games. They expanded the tribal hippic contests. Seating was erected either side of the Panathenaic Way, and citizens, and only citizens, would race its length,watched by the crowds who had assembled in the city for the Great Games. 40 Among this audience were many foreigners who could only look on at the spectacle of the racing citizens. But also on the seats were many Athenians, who could never hope to have sufficient wealth to compete in these games. The audience of this self-conscious display of civic pride was multifaceted, multi-national and drawn from multiple layers of Athenian society. And so it is for coinage; an audience is never singular. 41[/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
>
The Great Transformation:Meadows
>
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...