What's the undertype on yours? Would it have to have the same undertype to be considered the 'same' as the Hersh/BMC coin? Or is it just the same Roman type, which is clearly visible. Can't really make anything out of the undertype on this one while, for the the BMC/Hersh specimen, there's enough visible of the original coin that the undertype may have been identified down to a die match.
And thanks for the lesson on RR bronze nomenclature. The 'as' at this time would have been four of these 'quadrans' (3 dots = 3 uncia) pieces.
Why do you believe 214-212 BC data is more likely than the 210 given by others?
I'd like to get a scans or copies of Hersh's 1953 NC paper on overstruck RR bronzes and his 'Additional Overstrikes' that appears (or appeared) in RRC. Some study is required here.
PtolemAE
The undertype is probably a Sicilian minted Ptolemy II 285-246BC Zeus Eagle on Thunderbolt. There was a prior discussion on Forum about this coin, and general agreement that that was the undertype.
I don't know who the "others" are who give 210BC, but it doesn't include anyone knowledgeable. Here is the evidence of "about 214 BC" which is the standard dating for this type since the 1950s (cf. Thomsen Early Roman Coinage; Crawford). Nothing has changed in the last half century to indicate any other date than "about 214 BC"
The As was reduced to a typical 40 grams in about 212 BC, with sometimes lighter emergency issues. A quadrans of 210 BC typically weighs 6 to 10 grams. This monster heavy coin, 17 grams, was clearly struck at an earlier time, when a 70 gram As would have been usual, in the period 215-212 BC. Absolute proof is provided by the overstrike sequences. These heavy coins are found overstruck on these Ptolemaic types, and on Hieron II types. Later lighter quadrantes of the same design (Hercules Bull and snake) are also found overstruck on Hieronymous and on Syracuse democracy (214-212BC). As the heavy coins, such as this type, are only found overstruck on coins that pre-date 214 BC, but the Romans weren't active in Sicily much earlier, that limits their issue to probably 215-212BC.
Possibly the "about 210BC" comes from a citation of the later quadrantes of the exact same type but of much lighter weight and overstruck on typically later coins.
Thank you, Andrew -
This is all becoming fascinating because at least some of those undertypes visible in Hersh's plates (
his 1953 paper has become available) and the one in the
BMC that was mentioned earlier are actually Sicilian
Ptolemaic issues, not
Egyptian. The one in the
BMC group is an imitative-Ptolemaic issued by Hieron II (its apparent die match was
part of our 'Sicily' paper three years ago) and Hersh's #9 (1953 paper) is a
Svoronos 610 which was a
Ptolemaic issue minted on
Sicily, not in
Egypt. The 17-gram
weight is important and, until the appearance of the 'Sicily' paper no one would have made the inference that at least some of the 'Ptolemaic' undertypes of these quandrans coins are Sicilian coins for which we have a pretty
good idea of issue date. In the few days I've been starting to look into this I haven't mastered the current wisdom on the dating of successive weight-standards of RR bronzes. Thanks for adding the
fine points on the changes that took place between 214 and 210.
The question arises, concerning your quandrans and the Hersch
BMC coin
quadrans of the same design (which are said to have been issued in
Sicily): when do you believe they were first issued ? I think
Hersh says ca. 269 for the start of the 'Romano-Campanian'
types (which I gather includes these 'Sicilian quadrans'). Is 269 the accepted time for the (first ?) series of RR bronzes - the (~70-gram-as) series that includes this Sicilian Heracles/Bull
quadrans ? Forgive the ignorance of your specialty
field - I'm only beginning to look at the early RRs because of the connection to
Ptolemaic Sicilian coins that
Hersh observed but didn't realize he observed.
I don't see the orientation of the 'Ptolemaic'
undertype on yours and it will be quite helpful to determine if it is also one of the 'Sicilian' issues of
Ptolemy II or possibly one of Hieron's imitations thereof.
Can you suggest a reference book or article that would provide a concise summary of the current/modern wisdom on the sequence of dates of the RR bronze
standard changes?
Also I would presume you might take into account that the
Romans were significantly involved in
Sicily long before 215-212 - namely starting ca. 264 when they pressed Hieron II back into a small dominion near
Syracuse after some confused shifting alliances during a short battle over
Messana that led Hieron II afoul of
Roman interests there, and during the course of the subsequent First Punic War. Could those RR bronzes in question above (of
Sicily) have originated somewhat earlier than 215-212 (namely shortly after we believe the
Ptolemaic Sicilian issues came to an end ca 264)?
PtolemAE
