FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board
Numismatic and History Discussion Forums => Ancient Coin Forum => Topic started by: areich on April 19, 2009, 07:14:03 am
-
Hi all,
by coincidence I now have two of these coins, an interesting type,
which I've wanted for a while. I have a clear favourite of the two,
I would be interested to find out what others think.
Thanks
Andreas
-
This is really difficult. I prefer the style of the coin on the left although the right hand coin seems a bit better preserved. I've cast my vote for the coin on the left. I suspect that it is your favourite too is it not? ;)
Alex.
-
Difficult, indeed. But because I see more details on the r. coin I must vote for the r. coin.
-
Well...I personally prefer the left version. I am thinking you do as well. ( left coin: first coin pictured and perfectly oriented as opposed to the slighlty skewed photo of the right one...therefore the left is favored, my dear Watson! lol)
Chris
-
I prefer the one on the right (toning, perhaps better metal). I would not, however, pay more for the right over the left. For what it is worth. George Spradling
-
Right one too. More details.
Regards,
Ignasi
-
Interesting. Thanks for the votes so far.
-
These coins are "charming" ... I´d take them both 8)
cheers
taurisker
-
For me,my eye appeal is on the left.
-
This is really difficult. I prefer the style of the coin on the left although the right hand coin seems a bit better preserved. I've cast my vote for the coin on the left. I suspect that it is your favourite too is it not? ;)
Alex.
I think the left one is better also.
Better condition.
Ben
-
Interesting responses, thank you.
The result is 10 for the right, 6 for the left coin.
My favourite is the coin on the right, I just like the style much more and the toning/colour is also nicer but that is secondary.
Andreas
-
I couldn't find words to defend this impression, but it seems to me that, in a run of dies made for this issue, the dies at right are nearer primary and the die pair at left begin to partake of qualities I associate with repetition. So I was one of ten preferring the righthand coin. Pat L.
-
That's what I thought as well, just not formulated as well as you did.
I loved the first coin when I got it, I didn't compare at the time, just saw it at an auction
and bid.
But when I got the new coin I immediately found it much more pleasing to look at and
the condition played almost no part in that, except the colour to a degree.
The left coin has a very slight reddish tint, which is not as attractive as the steel grey in my eyes.
-
I see you are selling the left one now for $75.
-
Yes, I can't afford to keep both.
-
If you ask me, the quality of the designs on the right coin is much better - look at the horse on the left coin, it looks too fat to carry its rider, so he isn't going to get very far and the right coin has a longer spear/pole so he's going to win a jousting competition with the guy on the left. The bust on the right coin is much more realistic too, and of course the dies were sharper for the coin on the right, although I agree with the sentiment that the more stylised quality of the left coin can be preferable too.
-
I don't think anyone has claimed Bolskan is a city. I think the belief is that it is a name.
I don't know if "Gómez-Moreno/Untermann" were antisemitic but if you say that simply because they don't agree that text is Hebrew, you are misusing the word. It is very difficult for me to believe the text is Hebrew and I am not antisemetic.
The types, faces and figures, do not appear to be Hebrew at all. They are nothing like the Jewish coins of the Holy Land, which do not depict human faces.
The alphabet, to my untrained eye, appears to be a mixture of Latin, Greek and/or Phoenician/Aramaic/Hebrew. Based on the types, location, and accepted history, it seems more likely that they would be Phoenician influenced than Hebrew.
What references discuss these Hebrew people from Spain?
-
Without specializing in the early history of Spain, I have garnered the impression from decades of general reading that almost all the languages, and their dialects, of western Semitic languages successively have passed through and often stayed a while in southern Spain. Also, it is sort of funny to regard Hebrew as any more or less Semitic than the others. They are all of them strains of one branch of Semitic. At least, that's what I was taught. Pat L.
-
Dear Antonio, you make a very clear-cut statement here (and in a number of other posts) that the ancient people from Iberia were Hebrews (or that they spoke/wrote Hebraic, does this make a difference?). You also state that these Hebrews were forged into a Celtic people because of anti-semitic Nazi and Nazi-oriented propaganda. This propaganda would go back to at least 70 years ago. I would expect that in the last 70 years some sort of archaeological evidence other than monetary legends would come to light, supporting your statement that the ancient people from Iberia were Hebrews. Can you mention any of this archaeological evidence? How can you combine the existence of a people of Hebraic origin in Iberia in historical times (a PEOPLE, not just local communities that existed everywhere in the Mediterranean) with the lack of any literary source (Hebraic as well as non-Hebraic) mentioning a large-scale MIGRATION of Hebraic people from its historical seat in the Eastern Mediterranean to the Iberian Peninsula (and also other neighbouring region, if I understand correctly your hypothesis about coins from Colonia Nemausus)? Also, as far as I remember Hebraic religion prohibits representation of human images. If these coins were produced by a Jewish people, sharing, I suppose, the same religion with the Hebrews in the Middle East, how do you explain the presence of human portraits on virtually EVERY coin that you consider to be produced by a Hebrew people? Please take into account that most likely the original Iberian alphabet is linked to the Punic one, since Punic presence in Iberia is very well documented long before these coins were reasonably produced. Punic means of Phoenician, i.e Semitic origin, so it is not strange that Iberian and Hebraic alphabets may share some similarity: they could have a close common origin. Apart from this, I am afraid the speculation about Iberian coins being really Hebraic coins is just that, your personal speculation. Could you possibly stop flooding the forum? Thanks.
P. :)
-
That's the beauty of it, its a conspiracy so there's no need for explanations.
I guess it's refreshing that for once the jews are not behind the conspiracy.
-
Pseudo-academia at its best!
-
Antonio, You appear to have uploaded scans of text. What is the publication and what is the date of the publication? I suspect it is 19th century. Many 19th century history texts relied on the Bible as the only completely accurate historical source. Everything else was used merely as evidence for or to refine the history provided by the bible. My suspicion is that it is an old reference that uses Iberian coins to provide evidence that Celts were a lost tribe of Hebrews. This is, I think, a dated and inaccurate view. The people you are calling Hebrews are probably the same people that more modern scholars would call Phoenicians.
The idea may not be, however, not as completely absurd as it sounds. There is evidence that a group of Palestinian people, who may have been Jews, were seafarers and warriors who sailed the Mediterranean and settled in unexpected places. There was a recent History Channel show (an episode of Naked Archeology?) that covered this. I believe the date was maybe 1400 - 800 B.C., but I really don't remember the details.
But, I don't think Celts were Hebrews. I imagine Celtic people as red-haired, blue skinned (painted), naked, large, fierce warriors, who worshipped nature gods and practiced human sacrifice. If my imagination is even remotely close, they surely were not Hebrews.
-
The idea may not be, however, not as completely absurd as it sounds. There is evidence that a group of Palestinian people, who may have been Jews, were seafarers and warriors who sailed the Mediterranean and settled in unexpected places. There was a recent History Channel show (an episode of Naked Archeology?) that covered this. I believe the date was maybe 1400 - 800 B.C., but I really don't remember the details.
Is this related to the "sea people" who appear at times in Egyptian, Cretan and Mycenean history? It would be definitely interesting to know more
naked
or possibly wearing striped trousers? Sorry, I couldn't resist ;D
-
Is this related to the "sea people" who appear at times in Egyptian, Cretan and Mycenean history? It would be definitely interesting to know more
Yes.
-
People have 'found' the supposed lost tribes of Israel all over the place, so it could be someone trying to 'prove' that the Celts were one of these tribes. There used to be people (probably still are but I haven't heard of them in many years) calling themselves 'British Israelites' who were convinced that the English were the dexcendants of such a tribe.
-
Is this related to the "sea people" who appear at times in Egyptian, Cretan and Mycenean history? It would be definitely interesting to know more
The Phoenicians, who settles along the south coast of Spain, were descended from the Canaanites, and were thus another West Semitic people. So that's another possibility. On a quick look, I can't see anything to suggest that the sea people settled in the western Mediterranean. That doesn't necessarily mean they weren't present though. Is there any archaeological evidence to suggest that they were?
-
Is this related to the "sea people" who appear at times in Egyptian, Cretan and Mycenean history? It would be definitely interesting to know more
The Phoenicians, who settles along the south coast of Spain, were descended from the Canaanites, and were thus another West Semitic people. So that's another possibility. On a quick look, I can't see anything to suggest that the sea people settled in the western Mediterranean. That doesn't necessarily mean they weren't present though. Is there any archaeological evidence to suggest that they were?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeastern_Iberian_script (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeastern_Iberian_script)
Suffice it to say, this script is derived from Phoenician, not Hebrew.
-
Suffice it to say, this script is derived from Phoenician, not Hebrew.
hat's what I suspected. It looks more like Runic than Hebrew!