Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;DonnaML, post: 4653729, member: 110350&quot;]Some of the same issues the OP mentions were raised in this recent thread: <a href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/first-cistophoric-tetradrachm-and-first-keeper.362729/" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/first-cistophoric-tetradrachm-and-first-keeper.362729/">https://www.cointalk.com/threads/first-cistophoric-tetradrachm-and-first-keeper.362729/</a></p><p><br /></p><p>At one point in that thread, I quoted the entry for &quot;Cistophorus&quot; in the John Melville Jones <i>Dictionary of Ancient Roman Coins</i> (London 1990), at pp. 55-56:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1149003[/ATTACH]</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1149004[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>And here&#039;s my one cistophoric tetradrachm:</p><p><br /></p><p>Lydia, Tralleis/Tralles, AR Cistophoric Tetradrachm, 127/126 BCE or 122/121 BCE, Magistrate Ptol-. Obv. Cista mystica with lid ajar and serpent emerging; all within ivy wreath / Rev. Bowcase (gorytos) with two serpents (one to left and one to right, heads at top); H [= date = Year 8 = 127/126 BCE or 122/121 BCE*] over ΠTOΛ [PTOL] above, between serpents’ heads, TPAΛ [TRAL] in left field; to right, Dionysus in short chiton standing facing, head left, holding thyrsos in right hand and mask of Silenos in left hand. SNG Copenhagen 662-663 <i>var. </i>[different year] [<i>Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Copenhagen, The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals, Danish National Museum, Part 28, Lydia Part 2 </i>(Copenhagen 1947)]; BMC 22 Lydia 48 (p. 333) <i>var.</i> [different year] [Head, B.V., <i>A Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum, Vol. 22, Lydia</i> (London, 1901); SNG von Aulock 3262-3264 <i>var. </i>[different year] [<i>Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Deutschland, Sammlung Hans Von Aulock,</i> <i>Vol. 2: Caria, Lydia, Phrygia, Lycia, Pamphylia</i> (Berlin, 1962)]; Pinder 159 [same year -- “H”]; see also id. 157-158 [different years] [Pinder, M., <i>Über die Cistophoren und über die kaiserlichen Silbermedaillons der Römischen Provinz Asien</i> (Berlin, 1856) at pp. 565-566]. 24 mm., 12.64 g. [probably = 3 drachms, not 4], 1 h. <i>Ex: CNG Auction 225 (13 Jan. 2010), Lot 144.&nbsp; </i></p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1149008[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>*&nbsp; According to BMC 22 Lydia at p. cxxxvii, the date is Year 8 since 133 BCE, when the Pergamene kingdom passed by bequest to the Roman Republic upon the death of Attalus III, and became part of the Province of Asia. No coins minted in Tralleis had been found (as of 1901) bearing dates later than Year 8.&nbsp; The author suggests that after Tralleis participated in the unsuccessful revolt against Roman rule by Aristonicus (a/k/a Eumenes III), who claimed to be the illegitimate son of Attalus III’s father Eumenes II, the Romans may have punished the city by depriving it of various privileges, including the privilege of minting silver coins. But all the more modern sources state that this rebellion had been suppressed by 129 BCE, making this explanation seem unlikely.</p><p><br /></p><p>More recent scholarship such as Noe/Kleiner [Noe, Sydney P. &amp; Fred S. Kleiner, <i>Early Cistophoric Coinage</i> (ANS, 1977), available at <a href="http://numismatics.org/digitallibrary/ark:/53695/nnan30795" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://numismatics.org/digitallibrary/ark:/53695/nnan30795" rel="nofollow">http://numismatics.org/digitallibrary/ark:/53695/nnan30795</a>], Rigsby [Rigsby, K., <i>The Era of the Province of Asia</i>, <i>Phoenix </i>(1979), at pp. 33(1), 39-47, available at <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1087850?seq=1" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1087850?seq=1" rel="nofollow">https://www.jstor.org/stable/1087850?seq=1</a>], and Müller [Müller, Jörg W., <i>The Chronology of Ephesos Revisited</i>, <i>Schweizerische numismatische Rundschau (Revue suisse de numismatique)</i> (1998) at pp. 73-80, available at <a href="https://www.e-periodica.ch/digbib/view?pid=snr-003:1998:77#86" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.e-periodica.ch/digbib/view?pid=snr-003:1998:77#86" rel="nofollow">https://www.e-periodica.ch/digbib/view?pid=snr-003:1998:77#86</a>], has posited a shift of the era forward by approximately five years.&nbsp; These authorities reject the idea that these cities had the time (or the inclination) to start issuing coins dated by a new Roman era as soon as Attalus&#039;s will became public, particularly given the immediate rebellion of Aristonicus. So according to their reasoning, the correct date should actually be Year 8 since 134/133 BCE, or approximately 122/121 BCE.[/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