Artemis Tauropolus?

[Enodia]

Just as an amplification of enodia's long/short chiton observation, here is a coin of Bruzus for Gordian III with a reverse always said to be Hekate, holding two torches and wearing a garment that challenges modesty (heaven forfend that she should raise her arms).  I have no idea what the two lappets shown behind her are.   George S.

this was Hekate in her 60's look. 
perhaps this is a two-layered garment, with the longer layer showing as the flaps at her feet?

I am starting to collect Artemis coins and found this conversation very illuminating (if you'll forgive the pun).

far from forgiving, i praise you for it! (lol)

BTW, would anyone object to my moving this thread to Classical Numismatics?

i wouldn't mind, for one.

~ Peter

[wandigeaux (1940 - 2010)]

From a perfectly preserved specimen of the Bruzos Hekate, it is clear that the garment cuts off just at her groin level, which nothing obvious below (i.e., on her legs).  This out-60's the '60's (barely, so to speak;  I was there and very interested in such things!)  Some form of  tights might be depicted like this.  Lost in memory, George S.

[slokind]

In early Medieval Aratus Mss. the basic shapes of anicent representations are often preserved: Luna still has the billowing drapery and a crescent and her torch and her biga, but now the image is a signifier not a pictorial creation of what her activity suggests.
The same was already true for the 9c Ms of which this one at St.-Bertin is a copy.  Behind them is quite certainly an antique Ms, though we don't have it.
For the difference between a picture and a signifier, compare Potator II's denarius: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=61353.0
For Aratus, you can start with Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aratus
The billowing arc of drapery still, though, is to suggest that she is moving through the sky.
As for Artemis being 'illuminating', yes and no.  Yes, we have pictures of the torch races at Brauron.  No, it is Luna who corresponds to Sol and is a Heavenly Body.  In the Empire, Diana got somewhat merged with Luna / Selene.  But Artemis, huntress and Ephesian great goddess, was not, I think, merged with the moon.  Ancient deities, under the cultural pressure to understand each others' deities in terms of one's own, had long since syncretized and hyphenated (Zeus-Ammon, Hades-Serapis, etc.) their gods, yet though they overlapped, sometimes marginally, sometimes almost wholly, they are not the same, and often had quite different roots.  The inevitable blurring sometimes challenges our writing catalogue entries for coins.
The Artemis who is confuted with Hekate is not exactly the same Artemis as the one in stories and cults where there was no such confutation.
Pat L.
Now, yes, I'll move this thread to Classical Num., because it has bearing on lots of stuff.

[Enodia]

i think the Roman Diana's association with the Greek goddess goes more to the Arcadian concept of Artemis, rather than that of the Ephesian goddess of the same name.

Ancient deities, under the cultural pressure to understand each others' deities in terms of one's own, had long since syncretized and hyphenated (Zeus-Ammon, Hades-Serapis, etc.) their gods, yet though they overlapped, sometimes marginally, sometimes almost wholly, they are not the same, and often had quite different roots.  The inevitable blurring sometimes challenges our writing catalogue entries for coins.

quite so, and really this was the point i was trying to make with this thread. this conflation occurs far more during the Hellenistic period than the classical, thanks no doubt in large part to Alexander. but isn't it time to start trying to disambiguate the earlier versions of these dieties wherever possible? not that i see the Serapis, Isis, etc as being irrelevent, just NOT the gods to whom they owe their names (and quite often very little else).
that is why i see the attribution of the goddess on the reverse of the initial coin in question (the Perinthos bronze) as quite shakey and outdated.

~ Peter