I was doing some syllabus work and ended up reading this article (just fascinating and also lots of ethics issues about source of objects!)

I’m posting hear with some pretty coins so I can find it again the next time I teach Bactria or Scythia and use in my lecture.

Antimachos I tetradrachm.

 

 

Antimachos II tetradrachm.

Bronzes because elephants are nice and those with bells on are even nicer.

Not that exciting as it is a well known type of over strike from Crawford (RRC 63/6 over Sardo-Punic Tanit / Bull and Star type), but still it made my boring grading and photo-editing date that much more awesome and fun.

Example of undertype but very different die.

Crawford’s table:

Of all the previously documented overstrikes by FAR my favorite is Berlin, just HILARIOUS.

---

I can’t tell the under type of this one. Can you?

One of the worrying things about RRC [12/2] is that the amphora doesn’t look much like any ancient amphora and the spearhead (esp. the notches on two of the specimens).  So today as I look at images on an old blog post, I realized how damn similar the two sides were in design.

Let me try to show you what I see in a series of photo shopped images of the BM specimen:

There is a weird logic of near visual parallels on these bars:

bull/bull

elephant/pig

shield/scabbard

pegasus/eagle

shield inside/outside

This design is playing the same visual game.  It makes sense within the general design motifs of early Roman coins, e.g. the Apollo l./Apollo r. series.

I also think it probably made carving molds easier.  You impress the basic outline and then just carve in the details to make it look a little sharper.

Related Posts:

On Amphora symbolism

On spearheads

I want to see a really NICE Ariminum struck bronze.  I have questions.

That warrior is he supposed to be a Colonist or a Gaul?  Are there any ethnically identifying details.  Is that a torque I see around the neck on a could of these specimens below?  Does he have shaggy wild hair and a bit of a mullet? Maybe I’m just not convinced yet.

Really I’m just interested in how ‘Gallic’ the shield shape is to a Roman viewer and most of my evidence is much later.

The c. 120 BCE representations are v rectangular :

But the Caesarean era ones are pointy ish:

And all of this is to make up my mind if the quincunx of Ariminum is meant to have as its type specifically a ‘Gallic’ Shield? Or just… a shield?  Is it marked or unmarked?

Molinari suggested to me that it was likely meant to be Gallic and now I’m thinking.  And, as so often, I’m leaning to thinking she’s correct.

Gorini 2010 does not make ethnic claims.  His relevant descriptions

“Scudo ovale”

“Guerriero andante a sinistra con scudo ovale, lancia e spada; all’esergo ARIMN”

Cf.  for obverse of cast bronze:

“Testa maschile con bafi e torques di una divinità locale, forse Arimnus”

All posts discussing Ariminum