Dear Altamura, Virgil, and Board,
Thank you for your interest and thorough research, Altamura. I tried to review it and gathered some more in preparation of this post.
As it currently stands, the evidence for my misgivings on the current dating of the Poseidon/Hermes "large
denomination" bronzes of Aenus is as follows:
1. The
fabric of the flans and the
style of the designs and lettering resemble
von Fritze's "Gruppe F" possibly more than he realized. He admits to Group E's
Roman influence and tried to explain it within the context of Aenus' turbulent
history during the second century B.C. Neighboring
Maroneia is also mentioned as having undergone the same kind of tug of war between the
Romans and Seleucids/Macedonians, but if we look at its bronze coinage during the same time frame as the Aenus issue under study (2nd–1st
cen. B.C.), we do not find the same level of
Roman influence (if any):
https://www.corpus-nummorum.eu/coins?id=&dieV=&dieR=&fromdate=-200&todate=-1&mints=24&legend_ob=&legendBasis_ob=&obvLegendDir=&desc_ob=&ObverseMonogram=&symbol_ob=&legend_rev=&legendBasis_rev=&revLegendDir=&desc_rev=&ReverseMonogram=&symbol_rev=&weight_min=&weight_max=&diameter_from=&diameter_to=&materials=6&add_desc=&inventorynr=&provenience=&publicCommentary=It all looks fairly Greek to me!
2. Please let me know if I overlooked a coin, but the
border beading on the Group E Poseidon/Hermes bronzes look identical to the beading on the definite
pseudo-autonomous issues and is absent on all the Group D and earlier coins.
3. A few specimens in both Group E & F bear a dimple on the
obverse. A few examples:
https://www.corpus-nummorum.eu/coins/30226https://www.corpus-nummorum.eu/coins/4978https://www.corpus-nummorum.eu/coins/4986https://www.corpus-nummorum.eu/coins/60974. Some Group E Poseidon/Hermes bronzes are struck with a 'W'-shaped
omega in the
ethnic:
https://www.corpus-nummorum.eu/coins/30226https://www.corpus-nummorum.eu/coins/30223This variety looks like the earliest struck in the group, considering how the
ethnic is also arranged in practically vertical, left to right lines. It feels rather first century AD. It also gives evidence that the Poseidon/Hermes bronzes were minted over a long time. That said, and as far as I can tell, none of the earlier Hellenistic groups deviate in this way, or any other, from their use of an
omicron in the
ethnic suffix.
5. Group E feels "orphaned." In my experience (and what I probably read somewhere in
Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces [2005]), a common phenomenon in
Roman provincial coinage is the gradual appearance of the smaller
denominations and the addition of larger ones. To say this is a reaction to inflation is probably both correct and a little over simplistic, but whatever the exact reason(s), the trend toward larger
denominations is observable in many cities. With Aenus, I find it strange that among its
pseudo-autonomous issues, there is not a single coin yet known that corresponds with the lone Group E
denomination, which is arguably also represented in earlier times. In stepping back and looking at the larger monetary picture, Group E frankly looks a
bit silly with just a single large bronze
denomination having been issued between ca. 200 and 1 B.C. But, if one slips it into the
pseudo-autonomous group, the picture starts to make more sense (or at least it does to me).
6. In
Die antiken Münzen Nord-Griechenlands II (1912), we see where the probable source for the period "2.-1. c. BC" (as presented on Corpus Nummorum) was rather carelessly followed by subsequent researchers for the Poseidon/Hermes bronzes:
https://archive.org/details/dieantikenmunzen211unse/page/196/mode/2upI think the subtitle beneath the date range is worth reading!
Now for a few final points in direct response to Altamura's:
7. In light of the point just made above, I suspect the current main goal of Corpus Nummorum is to
catalog all the coins on their to-do list and not challenge the written sources until that first, tedious phase is at least mostly
complete. Here we have another example of what I am referring to, with
AMNG II 375:
https://archive.org/details/dieantikenmunzen211unse/page/190/mode/2upThe
monogram was dutifully reproduced on CN:
https://www.corpus-nummorum.eu/coins/33047But as can be seen on the pictured coin, there is a very obvious
tau at the bottom of the
monogram that the editors of
AMNG apparently did not notice and the CN team did not correct yet on their illustration!
8. Lastly, in reference to the Turkish PhD thesis, Altamura writes "there is no hint in this paper that this traditional dating [of the Poseidon/Hermes coins] should be changed out of archeological reasons."
So far, I just skimmed the paper, so I will need to ask you this question: is there any indication in the paper that the archaeologists used the site to date the coins---assuming they even could? More likely, from the uncritical sounding way they discussed and cataloged the coins, they used them to date the site or
had at least attempted to do so. From the evidence gathered here (thanks in large
part to your own research efforts), it appears the scholarly consensus on the dating of the Aenus bronzes have been at least mostly unbroken since the early 20th century. To the excavators, who have many other things on their minds, there would be little reason, I suspect, to challenge the data, but rather rely on it for frying (dating) larger
fish.
Thus ends my reasoning for doubting the traditional dating of the Poseidon/Hermes bronzes of Aenus. I also did some research on the remarkable
monogram on the coins'
obverse, but sadly, I need to move on to other projects now. I
hope what I did discuss at least makes one take a second look at these interesting Thracians.
Best regards,
Mark Fox
Michigan
