Hi All ,, Sorry to the refresh this discussion, but I have a new
type of this jeton lke object :
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-119359Jeton or Token used like a pendant,(
Nikopolis ad Istrum, (1/4
assarion ),
Pseudo-Autonomous Coinage
, HHJ-8.(?)0.48.
, not in this
avers only the
revers) Very
Rare !!!
avers:- Emperor riding right.
revers:-Crescent moon and three stars.
exe: -/-//--,
diameter: 12,5 mm,
weight: 0,79g,
axis: 1h,
mint:(
Nikopolis ad Istrum,
Pseudo-Autonomous Coinage, date: A.D.,
ref: (
Hristova-Hoeft-Jekov) HHJ-8.(?)0.48.
, not in this
avers only the
revers,
)
Regards
Q.
OK I know the Jochen earliar discussion :
"In a recension of
Hristova-Hoeft-Jekov Nicopolis (2012) in "Archaeologia Bulgarica XVII, 2 (2013), pp.97-98" Dr.Nikolay Markov from the National Museum of
History in
Sofia has written about these obscure small tokens:
"Actually the efforts of the autors to achieve absolute completeness in the
catalogue have led them into a serious error. It concerns the tribution of several new and hitherto unknown "
pseudo-autonomous coins of
Nicopolis ad Istrum" (p.18-19), included under # 8.(?)0.48.4-12, notwithstanding the hesitation expressed by the question mark in the
index. They obviously found the grounds for such an
attribution in a few articles by
Rosen Kozhuharov, published between 1997 and 2008; there several undoubted
amulets, probably included in the previous works as elements of crepundia, are represented by the autor as "unknown pseudo emissions of
Nicopolis ad Istrum". My opinion is that these exemplars not only do not belong to the coinage of
Nicopolis ad Istrum but are not even coins, as I expressed immediately after the last publication of
Rosen Kozhuharov (Markov 2008). To the other arguments then adduced in my article, including the most significant fact that not a single of the specimens known to me was found in the region of
Nicopolis ad Istrum, now I would add one more. Even at the dawn of coinage a principle was developed, most clearly expressed, I think, in the early seventh century by St, Isidore of Seville in
his work "Etymologies": "Three things must be kept in coinage - metal, image and {exact}
weight. If any of them is missing, there is no coin" (Isidore of Seville 2005, L.
XVI. C. XVIII, 12). With the discussed examples the first two of the conditions mentioned by St. Isidore are certainly
met. As to the third, however, evidently there is a problem with the new specimens. Their
attribution as coins of 1/4 of the assarium could hardly be accepted since the differences in the
weights of the examples are remarkable large - from 0.55g for the lightest to 0.88g for the heaviest one. Although with the bronze and copper
Roman coins the acceptable deviations from their
standard weight are significant, a deviation of 30% cannot be defined as "normal". I consider it my duty to call for more attention to this error because the unreserved acceptance of the thesis to which the authors unintentionally guide the reader, i.e. that these specimens belong to the coinage of
Nicopolis ad Istrum, could lead to serious misunderstandings in the future."
Mr.Jekov does know this article of Dr.Markov. Therefore I don't know why he has included these specimens in the 2013 edition again.
Best regards
Jochen"
I
hope Jochen are right, but this is the new unknown example.
Q.