traficantii
Moderatori: berserkr, Deus, vlahul
-
PRONUMISMATICA
- Site Admin
- Mesaje: 4936
- Membru din: 07 Ian 2005, 20:04
- Contact:
cautind prin dosarul cu info despre kosoni am gasit un print de pe un site german : http://www.numismatikforum.de/ftopic6900-45.html (dar vad ca acum este inactiv) in care era prezentat rezultatul analizelor efectuate la Institutul de fizica nucleara Horia Hulubei asupra a 21 de kosoni iar concluzia era destul de interesanta, citez: The gold of koson is not a natural one (electrum) from present Romania's territory, but is similar to the gold of pseudo-lysimachan staters. Some possible historial conclusions are discussed". Am dat citatul in englezza ca sa nu fie interpretari de traducere. Este adevarat ca aceste analize nu sustin teoria dlui Preda dar arata ca aurul kosonilor nu este extras din Romania si ar sustine teoria conform careia ar fi fost batuti de Brutus si dati ca plata unor trupe de localnici daci care l-au ajutat in campaniile militare
Cautind am gasit si un articol in limba romana despre aceste analize publicat in Cercetari numismatice IX-XI, 2003-2005, pg 389-404 si intitulat ; "spre o abordare cit mai obiectiva in ercetarea numimatica prin analize compozitionale folosind metoe nucleare" autori Bogdan Constantinescu, Viorel Cojocaru si Roxana Bugoi
-
PRONUMISMATICA
- Site Admin
- Mesaje: 4936
- Membru din: 07 Ian 2005, 20:04
- Contact:
Da, stiu. E o ipoteza, pur si simplu. In prezent cea mai plauzibila argumentatie apartine domnului Octavian Iliescu. Este prezentata concis aici:
http://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=60511
<<<The conventional belief that these coins were struck by a Thracian dynast named Koson striking on behalf of Brutus was first proposed by Theodor Mommsen. Mommsen based his theory on Appian' s statement (B Civ. IV.10.75) that Brutus struck coins from the gold and silver provided to him by the wife of a Thracian dynast. The coins' similarity to known Roman types of the period, in particular the issue Brutus struck as a moneyer in 54 BC (Crawford 433/1), and Mommsen's (and others) misreading of the obverse monogram seemed to support this conclusion. Max Bahrfeldt ("Über die KOSWN-Münzen," Berliner Münzblätter 1912), however, cogently challenged this interpretation, arguing instead a connection to Coson-Cotiso(n), a Getic king with whom Octavian had apparently been arranging an alliance-by-marriage (Suetonius, Aug. 63.2; cf. Horace, Carm. II.18.8; Flor. II.28.18 ). Nonetheless, Mommsen's academic reputation and the appeal of associating these coins with Caesar's assassin favored the earlier interpretation. Thus, this attribution has largely been unchallenged (but see M. Crawford, CMRR, pg. 238: "A remarkable issue of gold staters, imitated from the denarii of M. Brutus.... Showy and useless, it was probably produced in the area of modern Transylvania in the second half of the first century.").
Re-examining the evidence, Octavian Iliescu has argued for support of Bahrfeldt's interpretation based on the following reasons: first, both hoards as well as individual specimens of these coins can be traced for the most part to Transylvania (northern Romania), rather than Thrace (southern Bulgaria); second, the average weight of known specimens conforms not to the aureus-standard of 8.10 gm established by Julius Caesar in 46 BC, and at which Brutus struck coins for his troops, but to that of the staters struck on behalf of Mithradates VI during the First Mithradatic War; third, the coin types do not directly copy the corresponding types of Brutus' denarius, but combines the type's reverse with the reverse of a denarius of Q. Pomponius Rufus struck three decades earlier. The discovery of many coins in a number of local archaeological excavations that combine different Roman types fromvarious periods further undercuts the specific historical meaning to the use of the Brutus-type. Moreover, the monogram that has been read to achieve L BR, BR, or, in the case of Barclay Head, OLB, and thus associate the coinage with Brutus or Olbia, may also be read as a BA monogram for BASILEWS. Such a BA monogram is known to have been used for the Thracian king Rhoemetalces I.
Known as Cotiso(n) in the literary sources, this name can be reconciled with Coson as a transcribal error on the part of the textual copyist, making Coson-Cotiso(n) one and the same: a local Geto-Dacian king for whom these staters are the only known coinage. It is this king Cotiso(n) to whom Octavian had sought to arrange an alliance-by-marriage (Suetonius, op. cit.), with his daughter Julia marrying Koson's son, and himself, Koson's daughter. This act further angered Mark Antony, to whose son Julia had originally been promised, and exacerbated the rift between Octavian and himself. The local usage of Roman coin types in the region during the last century BC demonstates the economic ties between Dacia and Rome, but the struggle between Antony and Octavian revealed the region's strategic and diplomatic influence, by increasing the local kings' power and presitge and affording them the opportunity to strike their own coins.>>>
Personal ipoteza Bahrfeldt confirmata de dl. Iliescu mi se pare mult mai plauzibila si argumentata adecvat (am extras cu articolul original al dansului, l-am avut la vazare si pe okazii).
http://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=60511
<<<The conventional belief that these coins were struck by a Thracian dynast named Koson striking on behalf of Brutus was first proposed by Theodor Mommsen. Mommsen based his theory on Appian' s statement (B Civ. IV.10.75) that Brutus struck coins from the gold and silver provided to him by the wife of a Thracian dynast. The coins' similarity to known Roman types of the period, in particular the issue Brutus struck as a moneyer in 54 BC (Crawford 433/1), and Mommsen's (and others) misreading of the obverse monogram seemed to support this conclusion. Max Bahrfeldt ("Über die KOSWN-Münzen," Berliner Münzblätter 1912), however, cogently challenged this interpretation, arguing instead a connection to Coson-Cotiso(n), a Getic king with whom Octavian had apparently been arranging an alliance-by-marriage (Suetonius, Aug. 63.2; cf. Horace, Carm. II.18.8; Flor. II.28.18 ). Nonetheless, Mommsen's academic reputation and the appeal of associating these coins with Caesar's assassin favored the earlier interpretation. Thus, this attribution has largely been unchallenged (but see M. Crawford, CMRR, pg. 238: "A remarkable issue of gold staters, imitated from the denarii of M. Brutus.... Showy and useless, it was probably produced in the area of modern Transylvania in the second half of the first century.").
Re-examining the evidence, Octavian Iliescu has argued for support of Bahrfeldt's interpretation based on the following reasons: first, both hoards as well as individual specimens of these coins can be traced for the most part to Transylvania (northern Romania), rather than Thrace (southern Bulgaria); second, the average weight of known specimens conforms not to the aureus-standard of 8.10 gm established by Julius Caesar in 46 BC, and at which Brutus struck coins for his troops, but to that of the staters struck on behalf of Mithradates VI during the First Mithradatic War; third, the coin types do not directly copy the corresponding types of Brutus' denarius, but combines the type's reverse with the reverse of a denarius of Q. Pomponius Rufus struck three decades earlier. The discovery of many coins in a number of local archaeological excavations that combine different Roman types fromvarious periods further undercuts the specific historical meaning to the use of the Brutus-type. Moreover, the monogram that has been read to achieve L BR, BR, or, in the case of Barclay Head, OLB, and thus associate the coinage with Brutus or Olbia, may also be read as a BA monogram for BASILEWS. Such a BA monogram is known to have been used for the Thracian king Rhoemetalces I.
Known as Cotiso(n) in the literary sources, this name can be reconciled with Coson as a transcribal error on the part of the textual copyist, making Coson-Cotiso(n) one and the same: a local Geto-Dacian king for whom these staters are the only known coinage. It is this king Cotiso(n) to whom Octavian had sought to arrange an alliance-by-marriage (Suetonius, op. cit.), with his daughter Julia marrying Koson's son, and himself, Koson's daughter. This act further angered Mark Antony, to whose son Julia had originally been promised, and exacerbated the rift between Octavian and himself. The local usage of Roman coin types in the region during the last century BC demonstates the economic ties between Dacia and Rome, but the struggle between Antony and Octavian revealed the region's strategic and diplomatic influence, by increasing the local kings' power and presitge and affording them the opportunity to strike their own coins.>>>
Personal ipoteza Bahrfeldt confirmata de dl. Iliescu mi se pare mult mai plauzibila si argumentata adecvat (am extras cu articolul original al dansului, l-am avut la vazare si pe okazii).
Monedele Moldovei şi Ţării Româneşti http://monederomanesti.cimec.ro
-
PRONUMISMATICA
- Site Admin
- Mesaje: 4936
- Membru din: 07 Ian 2005, 20:04
- Contact:
Asta e miezul:
<<<Re-examining the evidence, Octavian Iliescu has argued for support of Bahrfeldt's interpretation based on the following reasons: first, both hoards as well as individual specimens of these coins can be traced for the most part to Transylvania (northern Romania), rather than Thrace (southern Bulgaria); second, the average weight of known specimens conforms not to the aureus-standard of 8.10 gm established by Julius Caesar in 46 BC, and at which Brutus struck coins for his troops, but to that of the staters struck on behalf of Mithradates VI during the First Mithradatic War; third, the coin types do not directly copy the corresponding types of Brutus' denarius, but combines the type's reverse with the reverse of a denarius of Q. Pomponius Rufus struck three decades earlier. The discovery of many coins in a number of local archaeological excavations that combine different Roman types fromvarious periods further undercuts the specific historical meaning to the use of the Brutus-type. Moreover, the monogram that has been read to achieve L BR, BR, or, in the case of Barclay Head, OLB, and thus associate the coinage with Brutus or Olbia, may also be read as a BA monogram for BASILEWS. Such a BA monogram is known to have been used for the Thracian king Rhoemetalces I. >>>
<<<Re-examining the evidence, Octavian Iliescu has argued for support of Bahrfeldt's interpretation based on the following reasons: first, both hoards as well as individual specimens of these coins can be traced for the most part to Transylvania (northern Romania), rather than Thrace (southern Bulgaria); second, the average weight of known specimens conforms not to the aureus-standard of 8.10 gm established by Julius Caesar in 46 BC, and at which Brutus struck coins for his troops, but to that of the staters struck on behalf of Mithradates VI during the First Mithradatic War; third, the coin types do not directly copy the corresponding types of Brutus' denarius, but combines the type's reverse with the reverse of a denarius of Q. Pomponius Rufus struck three decades earlier. The discovery of many coins in a number of local archaeological excavations that combine different Roman types fromvarious periods further undercuts the specific historical meaning to the use of the Brutus-type. Moreover, the monogram that has been read to achieve L BR, BR, or, in the case of Barclay Head, OLB, and thus associate the coinage with Brutus or Olbia, may also be read as a BA monogram for BASILEWS. Such a BA monogram is known to have been used for the Thracian king Rhoemetalces I. >>>
Monedele Moldovei şi Ţării Româneşti http://monederomanesti.cimec.ro
-
PRONUMISMATICA
- Site Admin
- Mesaje: 4936
- Membru din: 07 Ian 2005, 20:04
- Contact:
Primul care isi pune problema ca kosonii ar fi falsuri medievale e Al Vulpe la o recenzie din Dacia, facuta la cartea lui Preda din 1973. Dar cel care vine cu argumente irefutabilein acest sens e dl Preda, mai intai intr-un studiu din germania Ein neuer Vorschlag zur Chronologie der Koson-Münzen, în U. Peter (ed.), Stephanos nomismatikos. Edith Schönert-Geiss zum 65. Geburtstag, Berlin, 1998, p. 555-558 si apoi in sinteza lui din 1998 Istoria monedei în Dacia preromană, Bucureşti, 1998, p. 226, 229.
Argumentul acestei constructii, pe care eu o consider fantezista, ar fi urmatorul> cam in majoritatea descoperirilor de kosoni, din zona Orastiei, mentionate in documente, aceste piese apar asociate cu monede de tip Lysimach. Dl Preda sustine ca de fapt, aceste piese Lysimach nu sunt monede antice, ci falsuri medievale, lysimachei medievali, asemanatori celor din tezaur Baia Mare (Chrila, 1966). E adevarat ca s-au falsificat multe monede antice in Transilvania, in epoca Renasterii (vezi studiul lui Iliescu din Studii Clasice, 10, 1968, cred), dar piesele cu efigia lui Lysimach din transilvania sunt piese antice. Cine urmareste astfel de descoperiri din Transilvania, consemnate in documente, colectii particulare sau muzee, vede ca de fapt sunt piese pseudo-lysimach, pontice. E mai mult desat evident ca piesele lysimach si kosonii sunt creatii antice.
In privinta originii Kosonilor eu cred ca sunt monede grecesti pontice. Sunt batute dupa acelasi etalon ca monedele pseudo lysimach, au monograme si elemente iconografice care trimit spre zona pontica si apar asociati, in tezaure, mai mereu, cu monedele de aur de tip pseudo-lysimach (Tomis, Callatis etc). Iar analizele metalografice de care ati amintit anterior, sustin perfect acest lucru.