This series is often called as "
plinthophoric".Runs from c.188 to 84 b.c.
After a quick
search on the archive of
CNG, i have noticed that
plenty of coins showing these "overruns" on
reverse are
coins that placed by
Jenkins on "
plinthophoric group D" on
his work about
plinthophoric coinage,
dating
his group 125-88 b.c.This group is showing many "incomplete"names also.
Jenkins dating
his groups as
Group A=188-170 b.c.
Group B=170-150 b.c.
Group C=150-125 b.c
Group D=125-88 b.c
Group E=88-84 b.cUnfortunately i don't have the book to check if
Jenkins says something about this phenomenon.
Anyone having the book, feel free to correct me if i have made any mistakes but also to give further information.
Here i give some examples i found on CNG's archive from groups B+D showing these "overruns", as well us some coins also from these 2 groups+some group E coins, showing the magistrate names not
complete inside the
incuse square, but also not using the "overrun" method.
GROUP B (COINS USING OVERRUNS)
ΘΡΑΣΥΜΕΝΗΣ
ΑΘΑΝΟΔΩΡΟΣ
GROUP B (COINS WITH THE MAGISTRATE'S NAME INCOMPLETE)
ΘΡΑΣΥΜΕΝ
Group D (COINS USING OVERRUNS)
ΔΙΟΓΝΗΤΟΣ+ΔΙΟΓΝΗΤΟΥ(form of name in genetive)
ΜΕΛΑΝΤΑΣ
ΑΝΤΑΙΟΣ
ΤΙΜΟΚΡΑΤΗΣ
Group D (COINS WITH THE MAGISTRATE'S NAME INCOMPLETE)
ΤΙΜΟΚΡΑΤ(ΗΣ)
ΤΙΜΑΣΙΠ(ΟΣ)
ΜΕΛΑΝΤΑ(Σ)
ΜΕΛΑΝ(ΤΑΣ)
ΓΟΡΓΙΑ(Σ)
ΑΝΤΑΙΣ
GROUP E (COINS WITH THE MAGISTRATE'S NAME INCOMPLETE)
ΚΑΛΛΙΞΕΙΝ(ΟΣ)
ΚΑΛΛΙΞΕΙ(ΝΟΣ)I wasn't able to find even a single specimen showing these anomalies from groups A+C, but as i said before, i have searched only on the
CNG archive.
Seems that these 2 (A+D) groups are the most "problematic" ones, but also the last E is showing some of these anomalies.
On group E, i found many specimens under the name ΜΑΗΣ.None of them
had any "problems", probably because the name ΜΑΗΣ is short enough, and even the most unskilled engraver was able to correctly manage the available space and engrave it inside the square. (exactly the opposite with ΚΑΛΛΙΞΕΙΝΟΣ. A lengthy name, often found incomplete).
This gives strength to the opinion that these overruns was results of the insufficient space inside the square, and not
because of the foreign origin of some of the engravers.
So, why they choose to engrave their coins using an
incuse square? Didn't see that this was a "problematic" method?
And why they didn't design their squares on a bigger
scale to earn some extra free space?