Dating of the Dyrrachium Stater

[Kosmas]

One of the ancient greek coins that have dating issues is surely the Dyrrachium Stater from Illyria !

Most of the auction houses date this coin as a circa 450-350BC . If this coin was minted at the start of the Peloponnesian War it is surely a very historical issue because Dyrrachium/Epidamnos is were Peloponnesian War started as Thucydides said !

In my opinion this coin was minted around 440-400BC and it surely imitated the Corcyra staters . And it's almost impossible that a Greek city state started minting coins at the second half of 4th Century BC . And why they started so late ?

If somebody has any idea about this issue just let us know !

Edited August 31, 2022 by Kosmas

[kirispupis]

AFAIK, there doesn't yet exist a deep study about the dating of these coins, but many seem to be influenced by Gyula Petryani's website, where he argues these types weren't minted until 340 BCE, after the Corinthian type.

You make a number of blanket statements in your post. Petryani makes several logical statements on his site based on historical facts and similar types from neighboring states. What is your basis for disputing his conclusions?

[Kosmas]

13 minutes ago, kirispupis said:

AFAIK, there doesn't yet exist a deep study about the dating of these coins, but many seem to be influenced by Gyula Petryani's website, where he argues these types weren't minted until 340 BCE, after the Corinthian type.

You make a number of blanket statements in your post. Petryani makes several logical statements on his site based on historical facts and similar types from neighboring states. What is your basis for disputing his conclusions?

I never spoke somebody's else research . I don't understand what do you mean ?

[kirispupis]

8 minutes ago, Kosmas said:

I never spoke somebody's else research . I don't understand what do you mean ?

Therein lies the problem.

In a political debate it's fair game to mention opinions since most issues are subjective. In numismatics, as with most academics, if you disagree with someone's conclusion, then you must provide reasons for your thesis. These may be agreed on historic dates/events, the research of others, or your own analysis. Others may then refute or agree with your logic based on similar principles.

[Phil Davis]

DFTT 

[kapphnwn]

Actually there is a book It was published in 2015

 

Albana Meta has the cow/calf coinage starting in 375 BC and ending in 280 BC. Though he does divide the coinage into a number of groups he does not appear to offer much of an internal arrangement. As this is a die study and the club symbol is very common I cannot say with certainty which pair of dies the above coin is. However it does appear to be an early Group 1 coin. 

I have a much later drachm from this mint. 

Ar Drachm of Dyrrhachium 169-120 BC Obv, Cow facing right head reverted suckling calf  In exergue bee Rv Double stellate pattern  Meta Group III Issue 20 3.44 grms 18 mm Photo by W. Hansen

This coin was minted during the period when the city was dominated by the Romans Many years ago I had to identify a coin from this mint and from this time period, that was excavated during an archeological dig in southern Italy, 

Edited August 31, 2022 by kapphnwn

[Kosmas]

3 hours ago, Phil Davis said:

DFTT 

@Restitutor I thought that Numis Forums was a place with no toxic members but this thing is absolutely unacceptable and some members are extremely disrespectful !! 

Edited August 31, 2022 by Kosmas

[kirispupis]

13 minutes ago, Kosmas said:

@Restitutor I thought that Numis Forums was a place with no toxic members but this thing is absolutely unacceptable and some members are extremely disrespectful !! 

Just curious, but why take the time to troll a small forum on ancient coins? I'd think any self-respecting troll would expend his efforts on much larger forums where one post can anger thousands instead of maybe twenty or thirty.

I've noticed the pattern here:

• Post something that's ancients related in a way to provoke a heated debate further down. Most of the time, use a photo of someone else's coin.
• Drive the discussion to debate by posting ever more aggressive comments
• Eventually go "all-out" by evoking nationalist or religious politics, such as the previous tirade on Macedonians and Greeks
• After everyone gets royally pissed at you, post something innocuous such as "show me your best coin" to try to retrieve some street-cred

You remind me a lot of a similar troll on CT who used to go on about slabs. That individual followed the same pattern.

Personally, I've grown tired of it. I suspect I'm not the only one. 

[Kaleun96]

14 minutes ago, Kosmas said:

@Restitutor I thought that Numis Forums was a place with no toxic members but this thing is absolutely unacceptable and some members are extremely disrespectful !! 

The issue is that, in the past, you've made a few claims like this without backing them up with evidence and ignoring other evidence that is to the contrary (for example). When people have asked you for your reasoning, and I've been one of these people, you have ignored us and continued your speculation (hence being called a troll). It's fine if you have a personal opinion on a matter but you should acknowledge when it is entirely speculation and not dismiss out of hand research that says otherwise, unless you have an argument to make as to why that research is wrong.

Quote

In my opinion this coin was minted around 440-400BC and it surely imitated the Corcyra staters . And it's almost impossible that a Greek city state started minting coins at the second half of 4th Century BC . And why they started so late ?

So, going back to your claim, why do you think these were minted between 440-400 BC and not later as has been suggested by some? You say that it's nearly impossible for a Greek city state to have first started minting coins later than this but offer no evidence to back that up. Why is it impossible? Not every city state started minting coins at the same time, they didn't all have the need to do so.

[Kosmas]

I never wanted to make argument-debates with aggressive comments and I have never disrespected you !

[Kosmas]

 

2 minutes ago, Kaleun96 said:

The issue is that, in the past, you've made a few claims like this without backing them up with evidence and ignoring other evidence that is to the contrary (for example). When people have asked you for your reasoning, and I've been one of these people, you have ignored us and continued your speculation (hence being called a troll). It's fine if you have a personal opinion on a matter but you should acknowledge when it is entirely speculation and not dismiss out of hand research that says otherwise, unless you have an argument to make as to why that research is wrong.

So, going back to your claim, why do you think these were minted between 440-400 BC and not later as has been suggested by some? You say that it's nearly impossible for a Greek city state to have first started minting coins later than this but offer no evidence to back that up. Why is it impossible? Not every city state started minting coins at the same time, they didn't all have the need to do so.

Ok we can have a normal debate of ideas but without some members being so toxic .

[Kaleun96]

24 minutes ago, Kosmas said:

 

Ok we can have a normal debate of ideas but without some members being so toxic .

A normal debate sounds good, though Phil wasn't be toxic. Based on your past behaviour, it's easy to see why members aren't convinced that you're not just trolling us since you repeat the same pattern of behaviour.

Moving on from that, I'd like to hear more about why you think these staters date to the early part of their estimated period rather than the later part. I don't know much about them myself so am interested to hear what you and others have to say about them.

[kirispupis]

25 minutes ago, Kosmas said:

 

Ok we can have a normal debate of ideas but without some members being so toxic .

If this is your desire, then do what I and others have been asking this entire time: provide the logic behind your claims. Stop asking for a normal debate and start participating in one.

[Restitutor]

6 hours ago, kirispupis said:

Just curious, but why take the time to troll a small forum on ancient coins? I'd think any self-respecting troll would expend his efforts on much larger forums where one post can anger thousands instead of maybe twenty or thirty.

I've noticed the pattern here:

• Post something that's ancients related in a way to provoke a heated debate further down. Most of the time, use a photo of someone else's coin.
• Drive the discussion to debate by posting ever more aggressive comments
• Eventually go "all-out" by evoking nationalist or religious politics, such as the previous tirade on Macedonians and Greeks
• After everyone gets royally pissed at you, post something innocuous such as "show me your best coin" to try to retrieve some street-cred

You remind me a lot of a similar troll on CT who used to go on about slabs. That individual followed the same pattern.

Personally, I've grown tired of it. I suspect I'm not the only one. 

I also doubt a troll would be a Benefactor of the site! 😁 Not that anyone actually thinks you're a troll, @kirispupis 🙂 

@Kosmas I think the crux here is that while casual conversation and speculation is of course open and welcome, when it comes to questioning something where there has been research, especially if it's relatively generally established, it is good to have a reason why. I think your original post would have been better received if the second portion was removed, and you had just left your question open ended. Or even changing the second portion to something like "I'm surprised that a Greek city state started minting coins in the second half of the 4th century BC. Do we know why they would start so late? Or is my surprise unfounded?" Hope this helps 🙂