Andrew,
Seems to me possible, but by no means proven.
The fact that the "fulcrum" is depicted as a square structure, then gets a pointed roof, then is depicted with the roof and attached to a platform on the Fonteia denarius, while Benito's second denarius shows two such roofed structures standing by themselves fore and aft, seems to cast doubt on its interpretation as a fulcrum.
I would regard the interpretation of these structures as still unknown, until more solid proof can be adduced!
Curtis,
Sure, it is not proven, but I must say that I am a convert, and I guess as prow bronzes are my
area, that matters at least to me.
Morello's several hundred page book is pretty exhaustively researched, and written by a miltary naval engineer (meaning he discusses at length the practicalities of
military movements in battle, as well as prior versions of the
corvus and of 1st Punic war engagements). Sometimes, after looking at a problem for a very long time, someone sees the neat solution and I think this is it. Being in
Italian, of course it has not disseminated widely, but my new webpage is intended to share
his ideas.
The key convincer for me is that the fulcrum is NOT depicted as a square structure until decades after the prow
type starts. That's the basis of Morello's argument. The fulcrum is depicted as a pin with a round top or with a upside-U top through which a pole could be slotted.
If I can be punny, I would say that is the fulcrum of the argument - we've been looking at the wrong coins (late derivatives of prow designs) rather than coins made coincident with when the
corvus existed. For the early coins,
aes grave, the fulcrum looks exactly what an engineer would draw if asked to design a simple fulcrum, and not like a square box or a peaked box. Morello's book has tons of high
quality photos of such coins.
A reinforcing argument is that the design of long-horizontal-at-left, short-slightly-sloped-at-right, occurs on most except the worst
engraved bronzes. It's exactly what you would expect to draw, if asked to draw a lever. It is an archetypal lever design, in this case a lever that swivelled and tilted. Think lifting barrier, but with a swivel ability, and you have it exactly.
Only long after the prow
aes grave started (I for one don't believe the first prow bronzes could possibly have started as late as 225 BC, given their immense volume) is the design simplified to a square box or a peaked box for the purposes of the struck bronzes. The box starts small and square (with the original fulcrum no doubt
still in mind) and degenerates into the wide box shape that bears little resemblence to the original.
Benito's coin is probably not showing a
corvus at all, and if it is, its 150 years after the last
corvus was used in anger so its design would be a guess. If it is a real ship of 100 BC then there would be no
corvus. If it was an imaginary ship with
corvus, then its an imaginary design.
Morello says that after the last quarter of the 2nd century BC, coins gave up any attempt to show a stylised
corvus, and show instead other deck structures (the fighting platform as the main item) or just a flat deck.
Andrew