Jump to content

Deinomenid

Supporter
  • Posts

    732
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

494 profile views

Deinomenid's Achievements

Veteran

Veteran (13/14)

  • Posting Machine
  • One Year In
  • Very Popular
  • Collaborator
  • Reacting Well

Recent Badges

4k

Reputation

  1. I checked and apparently it's not live yet. But the plan is to be, it is being worked on, as in it's not one of those half-funded EU research project corpses rotting away on the web!
  2. Fun fact, this is disputed for supernatural reasons***, but as I said earlier Kraay's Coinage of Sybaris can be read interchangeably with Thurium for the early coins of the latter/late coins of the former, so there is a clear continuum at least initially before the falling out. And that Rutter thinks Thurium was very early to strike bronze. So yes, I agree and think possible that they minted bronze soon after they were founded. The likelihood of this coin being super-early is probably not high but if it were I'd be delighted for you. There are some stormy debates on other sites about all this so to take your coin and date it early is bold, so I hope fortune favours you! On the specific coin you mention from NAC, they are ultra-reputable and Russo said he is best who makes fewest mistakes, but for some reason it has been not widely included in analyses. I don't know if it is because it is specifically disputed or just seen as puzzling that there's only one. I own a very rare coin that is extremely similar to the one you show except silver, of the exact same assumed date (NAC's dating is a real assumption btw as it could be said to be a little later). It's the same basic "message" though in Athena head, bull (nod to Sybaris) to right, head to left. Here, with a slightly longer ethnic - ***Sybaris I-IV though not V is really confusing not just because of the difficult archeology notwithstanding Diodorus' site claim but also because of the usual conflicting accounts. It was said though that there were religious reasons the city was not rebuilt exactly where S1 was, which are based on stories of deprecatory rites care of Kroton. This has been somewhat backed by the fact that Perikles sent Lampon as one of his two cofounders of Thurium, with the suggestion being that they needed a soothsayer/oracle interpreter to help against those rites. All a bit odd/unnerving! Just re the French article, he pushes his dates a bit to fit his thesis, pushing Rutter early on Rhegion! Which made me think, why not ask him? Rutter, not the independent researcher 🙂. He's definitely in favour of an early date and I hope that's right. https://www.ed.ac.uk/profile/keith-rutter Good luck!
  3. Annoyingly, they are all mixed in with the other essays, and there's no way to find them short of reading the whole thing, but all the subessays are available online as pdfs at academia.edu and elsewhere so are more easily searchable. Good luck!
  4. You probably know it, but there's a huge study, White Gold, that in a series of essays covers this a few times. The book -or vast tome - has no index though so it might be easier to look through the different subessays online. No-one knows what they were or what they were for, and there are endless debates, even really just squabbles about it. Apparently the occasional early Lydian coins had as many as 18 countermarks, which to me makes most likely that they were owner marks. A.R. Bellinger has a good essay on them in the Robinson festschrift and he was fairly sure they were owners' marks though maybe I'm just suggesting work that matches my prejudice. The key seems to be that why would there be so many marks if they were from money changers to mark them as acceptable currency, but that's disputed... Why it would be disputed is beyond me though as fourrees can have a number of different marks too. Even Kraay vacillates, saying they were likely money changer marks but also saying similar marks on darics etc are possibly owner marks. Short answer is no-one knows and it's up to one's common sense to decide the likeliest reason. Here's a fairly early one of mine with a couple of marks... LYDIA. ALYATTES OR WALWET, ca. 610-546 BC. Electrum trite (1/3 stater), 4.71 g, 12 mm. Uninscribed issue of Sardes. Weidauer Group XVI, 89
  5. Re specific literature there's not much I'm aware of but I would love to be mistaken as it's a bit frustrating. Rutter has some comments on the bronze types of Thurium. I can't remember the exact source by it may have been his essays on Athens in the west, which is a bit of an acquired taste as evidence gets well-flogged for results. But they were, absolutely, early to mint bronze. May also have been his Historia Nummorum, Italy. Sorry, just have it in my notes as Rutter on Thurium bronze. On dating your coin to as early as 443BC though, that's truly early for a struck western Greek coin, even though Rutter says Thurium was early to bronze. There are some experts who'd die on hills about that sort of date 🙂 Kraay's Coinage of Sybaris can be read interchangeably with Thurium for the early coins of the latter/late coins of the former but there's little on bronze. By the way, if you ever want to look these coins up at the BMC, they use the incredibly specific term of "Thurii Copia" to access the coins. About as unhelpful as you can get!
  6. Is the claim in the new Harlan Berk book that Starr Group II to V is a much more compressed one contentious please? He says that there are Group V and Group II hybrids and there is therefore general redating or compression of date range. I didn't know he was particularly expert on those coins, other than through a very long ancients career. It's presented rather as a fait accompli, presumably with no chance of a fake coin (?). Screen shot below - especially coin 11 - and discussion at ~38.00 here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6f-tpeW3d0
  7. The new Harlan Berk book says the marks (he uses the w or shin or sh example and makes clear to his son on the podcast it's not a sigma but a w) are absolutely deliberate. Just in case it's of help! I asked another question about that podcast separately. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6f-tpeW3d0 About 38.45
  8. I'd check with the seller as there are 2 approaches there to the rules. A few stick to some very specific interpretation of the process but others absolutely do not. I've had any order from there delivered very quickly (to the US).
  9. Can't let this one pass without a nod to Syracuse utterly destroying a huge Athenian army and navy (and with Spartan help), the last running battle of which dwarfed the above mainland battles so I'll let the main man speak! - "This was the greatest Hellenic achievement of any in this war, or, in my opinion, in Hellenic history; at once most glorious to the victors, and most calamitous to the conquered. They were beaten at all points and altogether; all that they suffered was great; they were destroyed, as the saying is, with a total destruction, their fleet, their army - everything was destroyed, and few out of many returned home. Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War (I.7.87) The final battle for Syracuse in 414 was staggering for how many Athenians were defeated, killed, and enslaved. Much as there is a lot to despise about Athens (possibly not a popular view!) in that ~ period, and not just if you were from Melos or looking at the mindset behind the first day of the Mytilenean debate, it's hard not to be slightly affected by the vast scale of their slaughter at the hands of Syracuse and their Spartan general Gylippus. In September 414 many hundreds were killed just outside the city , and 6000 troops were surrendered by Demosthenes, and in the same moving battle Nicias lost maybe 20,000 men (plus up to 15,000 assorted auxiliaries, camp followers etc) in a huge slaughter. What makes it moving - aside from the abstract numbers -is you can still visit the quarries where the remaining Athenian troops (possibly 7,000) were kept, abused, had rocks hurled at them etc. The quarries are vast, and some have recent orange groves in them now as a sort of memorial. "The prisoners in the quarries were at first hardly treated by the Syracusans. Crowded without any roof to cover them, the heat of the sun and the stifling closeness of the air tormented them during the day, and then the nights which came on autumnal and chilly, made them ill by the violence of the change; besides, as they had to do everything in the same place for want of room, and the bodies of those who died of their wounds or from the variation in the temperature, or from similar causes, were left heaped together one upon another, intolerable stenches arose; while hunger and thirst never ceased to afflict them, each man during eight months having only half a pint of water and a pint of corn given him daily. In short, no single suffering to be apprehended by men thrust into such a place was spared them. For some seventy days they thus lived all together, after which all, except the Athenians and any Siceliots or Italiots who had joined in the expedition, were sold. The total number of prisoners taken it would be difficult to state exactly, but it could not have been less than seven thousand. This was the greatest Hellenic achievement of any in this war, or, in my opinion, in Hellenic history; at once most glorious to the victors, and most calamitous to the conquered. They were beaten at all points and altogether; all that they suffered was great; they were destroyed, as the saying is, with a total destruction, their fleet, their army—everything was destroyed, and few out of many returned home. Such were the events in Sicily." Not my photos as I think mine might be from technically off limit areas by accident - These numbers for the battle EXCLUDE the huge losses from the destruction of their fleet the same week. There's endless debate about which coins precisely celebrate this victory but this is one is a highly likely candidate, based on the dating and the probable naval significance of the reverse exergue. It's also double signed, though nothing relevant to the above can be read into that, much as I torture the information. Silver Syracuse tetradrachm signed by the engravers Euth... and Phrygillos around 413-410. Head of the nymph Arethusa on the left, hair raised and held by a cord. It is adorned with a necklace adorned with a lion's head, Around it, four dolphins and the legend ΣYPAKOΣIΩN. Below, ΦPYΓIΛΛ/OΣ (artist's signature). R/. Winged Nike leading a quadriga and crowned with victory. On the exergue, Scylla swimming to the right and holding a trident that points to a fish. Behind, a dolphin swimming on the right. EYΘ (signature) below the baseline.
  10. Thank you. And just for the record Leu were excellent about it. I had no idea what to expect, but they were completely helpful. Refund/credit whatever I wanted, their fedex details etc.
  11. Well I'm the least qualified to opine but from the list I was given, if it doesn't match any of those images (there's more than 1 page of them, not just the one on the link) and is off-centre and crystallised you have a better chance! It's absolutely not every coin, apologies if I gave that impression. Here are a number at the British Museum. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/search?keyword=coin&keyword=neapolis&image=true&view=grid&sort=object_name__asc&page=1
  12. @ambr0zie I am probably throwing the baby out with the bathwater now in my newfound fear of these coins, but on that German forum link there is a long series of images of the various fakes to check your coin against. I also posted some of the reasons here literally just now - but in summary they include 1) A strange ratio of obverse to reverse dies, inconsistent with minting at the time, ie reverse v obv survival rates. 2) There are no proven genuine pieces of these and no connections to genuine pieces. 3) Related, the forgeries are always connected to each. 4) Centering and preservation, this may or may not be normal depending on the series (which is putting it kindly!) and in real Neapolis hemidrachms there is often crystallized silver. 5) Apparently a lot of these Neapolis counterfeits were sold by counterfeit sellers who only had counterfeits on offer! Please don't take my suffering as reason to doubt yours - I think the answer should be found on those Numismatikforum images.
  13. As we still don't have a fakes section, I thought it would be helpful to post this here. I recently posted an admittedly risky coin on this thread - https://www.numisforums.com/topic/5996-coinweek-article-not-just-a-pretty-face-10-beautiful-women-on-ancient-coins This type is very well-known for fakes yet I fell for it. As these coins come up for sale very often (and are sometimes extremely attractive) I thought I should highlight the error. There is an excellent discussion of the coins here - https://www.numismatikforum.de/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=53721&start=1185 by an expert (Amentia) whose experience is beyond reproach. After @Nemo suggested I was mistaken in thinking my coin somehow alright, despite these MANY examples, I spoke with Amentia who provided more than enough examples of my error. In short, it really looks like you cannot beat the system here, and to be exceptionally wary of the type, which are hand cut Bulgarian dies with a number of small variations. I now have a very long list now of WHY these are bad, but they include 1) A strange ratio of obverse to reverse dies, inconsistent with minting at the time, ie reverse v obv survival rates. 2) There are no proven genuine pieces of these and no connections to genuine pieces. 3) Related, the forgeries are always connected to each. 4) Centering and preservation, this may or may not be normal depending on the series (which is putting it kindly!) and in real Neapolis hemidrachms there is often crystallized silver. 5) Apparently a lot of these Neapolis counterfeits were sold by counterfeit sellers who only had counterfeits on offer! Since these are not casts or transfer stamp forgeries, the only thing left is forgeries of modern hand-cut stamps. Back to Magna Graecia I go, tail between my legs. This is my (quite lovely) fake -
  14. Thank you @Dwarf I have actually been speaking with Amentia about the coin. I greatly appreciate your comment though. He was kind enough to go through in some detail why it was wrong (I had seen his posts on it, even had saved them to a file on Neapolis fakes, so more fool me!). I follow his posts and opinions carefully, with this idiotic exception where I let my heart (and a slightly poor photo from an old Martin Price pamphlet) persuade me I contacted Leu to find out the process for refund or explanation, and I am well-armed thanks to Amentia. I was going to wait for their reply before posting separately on the coin, but I think I should do it now.
  15. Rand, thank you for advice/encouragement to persist. The thesis (first-rate as expected) is in my inbox now. Re embargo there were a few forms to fill out, promises not to share and a suggestion - which quickly passed - of a need for a credit card. But that was all. And free was a lot cheaper than the one that sold on Saturday!
×
×
  • Create New...