Beitrag
von curtislclay » Do 29.09.11 16:45
Der COS IIII Quadriga-Typ ist ins Jahr 145 zu datieren und feiert des Kaisers Amtsantritt zu seinem vierten Konsulat.
Strack III, S. 65: "Die römischen Quadrigadarstellungen dürfen jedoch zur Zeit des Pius nicht auf Kriegsereignisse bezogen werden. Sie fallen nur in die Jahre 140 und 145 und für Marcus 161, also in die Konsulatsjahre des Kaisers und des Caesar, und stellen somit den processus consularis dar."
Vom US-Forvm:
"Thank you, Curtis. If that is your note, I would also like to know what do you mean by 'current research' in 'The date of the coin according to current research is not 145, nor 145-161, but 145-7. After 145, because COS IIII. Before 148, because from then on Pius placed his tribunician number on all of his coins.' Can you point me to a reference work for this close dating of COS IIII series without tribunician number?"
Meine Antwort: "Strack III, pp. 7-8: COS IIII coins of Pius naming him TR P must obviously have been struck before his TR P began to be numbered on the coins in 147. Though Strack wasn't aware of it, I note that this chronology was already adopted by Rollin & Feuardent in their stock catalogue of the 1880s.
"Of Pius' COS IIII coins omitting all mention of his TR P, those with rev. types AED DIVI AVG REST, TEMPLVM DIV AVG REST, FORTVNA OPSEQVENS, VOTA SOL DECENN II, and VOTA SVSCEPTA DEC III were clearly struck in 159, since the same types also occur with obverses dated TR P XXII. (This is an exception that I didn't mention in my reply to Jericho.) The others will have been struck late in 147, since they use types that also occur with obverses dated TR P XI and XII, namely COS IIII Aequitas, Annona, Clementia, and Felicitas.
"Mattingly, though not aware of this chronology in RIC (1930), adopted it without a murmur in BMC (1940), p. xliii: "From A.D. 145 to 147 follow issues of Antoninus dated only by the fourth consulship; only a few types are shown by the reference of their reverses to belong to later dates." Actually Mattingly already had it pretty much right in RIC, published before Strack's A. Pius volume, p. 8: "Apart from a number of types which certainly belong to later dates, the greater part may be assigned to the years A.D. 145 and 146."
"This chronolgy is obviously correct, and has been accepted by everyone since the publication of Strack's work and Mattingly's concurrence in BMC."
Zuletzt geändert von
curtislclay am Do 29.09.11 16:54, insgesamt 1-mal geändert.