Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;John Anthony, post: 2367119, member: 42773&quot;]I took better images of these coins and some interesting discussion has ensued at <a href="https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=106078.0" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=106078.0" rel="nofollow">FORVM</a> concerning the countermark on the larger coin.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]483631[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>It appears to read NIKA, the same inscription found on the smaller unit bronze, and NIKA is evidently a local epithet for the nymph Terina, who was associated by the Bretti with Nike.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]483632[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>So perhaps the larger bronze was stamped for circulation in the city of Terina. The question as to what authority stamped the coin may never be answered, but if it does indeed read NIKA, we might assume it was meant for local circulation in Terina. It may have been stamped by the Romans or Carthaginians prior to or during the Second Punic War, but it&#039;s unlikely that it was marked after the defeat of Carthage as the Romans then embarked on a systematic subjugation and assimilation of the Bretti. I doubt they would have allowed the coinage of the Bretti to continue circulating, but that&#039;s little more than conjecture, which is often all we have when it comes to countermarks[/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