Alexander's Portrait
Jorg Lueke
the July issue featuring Michael and Anka's article on Alexander the Great
and his portrait. Congratulations to the authors on a well done and
interesting piece. It must have been a joy to finally see it in print.
Oddly enough in the September issue there is a lengthy letter to the editor
critiquing the article. You'll never guess who wrote the letter! I believe
the criticism misses it's mark. It focuses on the fact that Alexander's
coinage is varied and similar portraits have existed earlier. However, the
authors did not claim that the portrait was a lifelike representation of
Alexander, rather the thrust of the argument seems to have been that
Alexander was Herakles, therefore the coins depicted Herakles/Alexander as
both were the same.
--
Erich at 12 weeks
http://home.attbi.com/~jlueke/Images/Erich12wk.jpg
Phil DeMayo
>>> I finally got around to re-subscribing to the Celator and as I did I
ordered the July issue featuring Michael and Anka's article on Alexander the
Great and his portrait..... Oddly enough in the September issue there is a
lengthy letter to the editor critiquing the article. You'll never guess who
wrote the letter!....<<<
How many guesses do I get? I'll need five.
ummm....
Jay Berman?
Tim Windsor?
Bill Fordler?
George Smith?
Reid Goldsborough?
Gee....since Reid Goldsborough just posted within the past 24 hours gloating
about the letter I guess it was him. But, then again, aren't all of the above
Reid Goldsborough ;-)
>>>.....I believe the criticism misses it's mark...<<<
Why am I not surprised.
While I have not had an opportunity to read the article I did get a chance to
read the letter earlier this evening. Knowing from past experience that the
letter writer is often confused, all that made me want to do was read the
article.
>>>.....It focuses on the fact that Alexander's coinage is varied and similar
portraits have existed earlier. However, the authors did not claim that the
portrait was a lifelike representation of Alexander, rather the thrust of the
argument seems to have been that Alexander was Herakles, therefore the coins
depicted Herakles/Alexander as both were the same. <<<
Go back and read the letter again. Reid was not so much arguing that the
article was incorrect, but rather that a statement Michael made in this
newsgroup was incorrect. The mutt decided to use the guise of a critique of the
article to spread an RCC argument to print.
It just reinforced my view that he is....to borrow a phrase used here before
(from a thread title)....an imperious a-hole.
++++++++++
Phil DeMayo
When bidding online always sit on your helmet
Just say NO to counterfeits
Reid Goldsborough
wrote:
>I finally got around to re-subscribing to the Celator and as I did I ordered
>the July issue featuring Michael and Anka's article on Alexander the Great
>and his portrait. Congratulations to the authors on a well done and
>interesting piece. It must have been a joy to finally see it in print.
>Oddly enough in the September issue there is a lengthy letter to the editor
>critiquing the article. You'll never guess who wrote the letter! I believe
>the criticism misses it's mark. It focuses on the fact that Alexander's
>coinage is varied and similar portraits have existed earlier. However, the
>authors did not claim that the portrait was a lifelike representation of
>Alexander
No, that's exactly what they did. Read the article again! Michael and
Ann wrote, "The Herakles coins of Alexander are all obviously copies
of the same mode. That model is Alexander."
In my letter, I pointed out that this not only is not obvious it's
wrong, that all the Alexander III numismatic scholars who've studied
and written about this have concluded the opposite of what Ann and
Michael say is obvious, and that if you look at the numismatic and
archeological evidence you can't help but conclude the same.
--
Draped Busts: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/reidgold/draped_busts
The Saint: http://www.netaxs.com/~reidgold/saint
Deks, Fake and Real: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/reidgold/deks
Three Fourees: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/reidgold/fourees
Phil DeMayo
>Your not reading the article didn't stop you from entering the debate.
I read your letter Reid and that's what I commented on.
> What a bozo. That's not what I was arguing. And you are just
> arguing, mindlessly, ignorantly.
Why did you start your letter off by mentioning the RCC statement? Are you
taking credit for being the inspiration for the article...or are you just an
"imperious a-hole"?
Alan & Erin Williams
>
> In my letter, I pointed out that this not only is not obvious it's
> wrong, that all the Alexander III numismatic scholars who've studied
> and written about this have concluded the opposite of what Ann and
> Michael say is obvious, and that if you look at the numismatic and
> archeological evidence you can't help but conclude the same.
>
(chuckle)
In my letter, I pointed out that this not only is not obvious it's
> wrong
(giggle)
In my letter, I pointed out that this not only is not obvious it's
> wrong
(snort)
In my letter, I pointed out that this not only is not obvious it's
> wrong
(ROTFLMAO)
Alan
Ankaaz
Thanks so much for your kind words! I am not in the least surprised that you
"got" the thrust of our article. I believe that most Celator readers did.
Unfortunately, Mr. Goldsborough was not one of them. I will let him rant all
he wants, both in print and on RCC, but I will condescend to debate him on this
topic in either forum. Despite his apparent expertise in the area of
Alexandrine coinage, he has shown us time and time again that he lacks the
mental acumen necessary in understanding the very basic points of our article,
much less engage us in a viable debate.
Michael and I have (both together and separately) received bon mots from people
whom we admire, and this "pat on the back" from you can now be added to that
list. Again, thank you for your comments.
Anka Z
Co-president of the once thriving, but now defunct, Tommy John Fan Club.
Ankaaz
"but I will condescend [sic] to debate him on this topic in either forum..."
Whooops! I meant NOT!
;-)
Jorg Lueke
news:aop2oug3c7ifgdlu4...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 13 Sep 2002 03:25:01 GMT, "Jorg Lueke"
>
> Ann wrote, "The Herakles coins of Alexander are all obviously copies
> of the same mode. That model is Alexander."
>
> In my letter, I pointed out that this not only is not obvious it's
> wrong, that all the Alexander III numismatic scholars who've studied
> and written about this have concluded the opposite of what Ann and
> Michael say is obvious, and that if you look at the numismatic and
> archeological evidence you can't help but conclude the same.
>
looked similar the design of Herakles was adopted by Alexander, rather than
that Alexander inspired it first. However, if you read the conclusion I
think the point the article tries to make is inescapable. Portraits vary,
few representations really look exactly like the real thing. Then the final
deity/man correlation which much of the article builds up to: Phillip
considered himself Zeus, and his coinage looked very much like him.
Herakles was the son of Zeus, Alexander was the son of Phillip. Thus the
choice of a Herakles design that looked similar to Alexander was deliberate
and intended to represent Alexander. Anyway, that is what I feel the
conclusion is, I think your letter addresses the arguments of a lifelike
Alexander, not of a Herakles/Alexander as viewed by his subjects.
Coin Saver
>What a bozo. >
... sigh ...
I miss Bozo ...
8-/
Coin Saver
Reid Goldsborough
wrote:
>Then the final
>deity/man correlation which much of the article builds up to: Phillip
>considered himself Zeus, and his coinage looked very much like him.
>Herakles was the son of Zeus, Alexander was the son of Phillip. Thus the
>choice of a Herakles design that looked similar to Alexander was deliberate
>and intended to represent Alexander.
You're making one of the same mistakes that Michael and Ann made:
assuming that this coinage is uniform. The Zeus portraits on Philip's
coinage varies , though not as much as the Herakles portraits on
Alexander's coinage. Michael and Ann say that all of Alexander's
lifetime coinage "obviously" depicts Alexander himself when there's
great variation in these portraits. That's why everyone who has
actually looked at these coins, rather than just reading the history
books, has concluded that only on a small percentage are some of
Alexander's features evident on the Herakles portrait and even here on
this small percentage of coins it's anything but obvious that these
likenesses were officially sanctioned.
Reid Goldsborough
> I will let him rant all
>he wants, both in print and on RCC, but I will condescend to debate him on this
>topic in either forum.
It's very apparent that you won't debate because you don't have a
logical leg to stand on. You adopted a position reeking of hubris,
stating that your conclusion is obvious when EVERYONE who has actually
studied this by examining the numismatic evidence feels the opposite
is the case, and you made key mistakes of fact and ignored key
evidence in trying to support your position. Your biggest failing was
assuming a preconceived position then trying to support it. Instead,
you should have dug up whatever evidence you could find and then made
your conclusions.
Bottom line: Alexander the Great could not have put his portrait on
coins minted before he was born.
Alan & Erin Williams
>
> >Reid Goldsborough wrote:
>
> >What a bozo. >
>
> ... sigh ...
>
> I miss Bozo ...
>
> 8-/
>
In the DC area I remember Willard Scott as Ronald McDonald. ;-)
Alan
'Happy Meal'
Jorg Lueke
> On Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:03:27 GMT, "Jorg Lueke" <jlu...@attbi.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Then the final
> >deity/man correlation which much of the article builds up to: Phillip
> >considered himself Zeus, and his coinage looked very much like him.
> >Herakles was the son of Zeus, Alexander was the son of Phillip. Thus the
> >choice of a Herakles design that looked similar to Alexander was
deliberate
> >and intended to represent Alexander.
>
> You're making one of the same mistakes that Michael and Ann made:
> assuming that this coinage is uniform. The Zeus portraits on Philip's
> coinage varies , though not as much as the Herakles portraits on
> Alexander's coinage. Michael and Ann say that all of Alexander's
> lifetime coinage "obviously" depicts Alexander himself when there's
> great variation in these portraits. That's why everyone who has
> actually looked at these coins, rather than just reading the history
> books, has concluded that only on a small percentage are some of
> Alexander's features evident on the Herakles portrait and even here on
> this small percentage of coins it's anything but obvious that these
> likenesses were officially sanctioned.
>
If I may quote one line from the article, "The wide range in the Herakles
coins is obvious." The point of the article is not to say that the coins
looked exactly like Alexander. Look at medieval coinage, those portraits
aren't particularly liefelike but they certainly represented the monarch.
Likewise, Herakles dosen't look exactly like Alexander but close enough for
his subjects to identify who ruled over them. The question isn't are the
tets of Alexander lifelike renditions of the ruler? But rather, what did
Alexander's subjects think when they saw this image. Did they think of
Herakles, Alexander, or would that have been one thought?
Reid Goldsborough
wrote:
>I don't think anyone is disregarding the fact that the coinage had variety.
>If I may quote one line from the article, "The wide range in the Herakles
>coins is obvious."
But they attributed this variety to some die gravers being less
skilled than others and creating "cartoonish" portraits! I'm not
talking about the Black Sea issues of the late second century and
early first century. They implied that those lifetime Alexander tets
without Alexander's facial features -- the vast majority of them --
didn't look like him because they were cartoonish efforts by unskilled
die engravers.
>The point of the article is not to say that the coins
>looked exactly like Alexander. Look at medieval coinage, those portraits
>aren't particularly liefelike but they certainly represented the monarch.
>Likewise, Herakles dosen't look exactly like Alexander but close enough for
>his subjects to identify who ruled over them. The question isn't are the
>tets of Alexander lifelike renditions of the ruler? But rather, what did
>Alexander's subjects think when they saw this image. Did they think of
>Herakles, Alexander, or would that have been one thought?
For all the reasons that other numismatists have said who've studied
the history in detail, this could not have been true. Undoubtedly
during the nearly three centuries these coins were minted after
Alexander's death, people regarded Herakles as Alexander. But the vast
majority of coins minted during Alexander's lifetime featured a
Herakles that looking *nothing* like Alexander but instead looked
*exactly* like the Herakles featured on coins before Alexander was
born. This, plus the fact that there was no tradition of putting a
ruler on a coin -- that developed later -- makes all this a
no-brainer.
Ian
seen him in the flesh? 1% perhaps? more/ less? (probably much less)
What percentage of that population had ever seen Herakles in the
flesh... exactly 0%.
The population is likely to look on the coinage and think...`who's that
supposed to be?'. Sure...someone somewhere is likely to tell them. What
would they likely have told them?
`well lookie here now...see that word there... it says Alexander,...the
other one says `kingdom'. Yes I guess that makes him `King'..says so
right there! Is that Alexander sitting on his throne? ...is that an
overgrown pigeon he's holding? No, that's the King of the Gods, Zeus,
and he's holding an eagle. ...why?....What's that you say?....Why is it
Zeus sitting on the throne when it says right there that it's
Alexander's?........Does King Alexander have a pointy beard?.........
I'll have to get back to you on these.
`Now....look on the other side of the pretty silver coin. See that fancy
bit of headgear the guy on that side is wearing? Well maybe you remember
the bedtime stories about Herakles and the tasks that his daddy Zeus
gave him...no ....it's a whole lot different to me giving you some
household chores ok!!... Well, Herakles was once faced by this big brute
of a lion which really pissed him off so much that he said..."if you
don't go away i'm going to be wearing you as a winter overcoat". The
stupid lion didn't listen to him...so there he is...depicted as a winter
overcoat on top of Herakles' head. Cute eh? What do you think of that
then? Eh?....what?...you think it makes him look like a proper
pillock?..... but you think it could have been worse?...it could have
been one of these funny looking ephelant things you get in Africa ???
ssshhhh, don't go giving them monnayers any funny ideas now!...and don't
let these soldiers hear you say that either!
Oh.....what now?.....why has the lion got curly horns on it?.....you are
really asking silly questions now aren't you!....what?...is that really
Herakles wearing the headgear? Well, it's supposed to be Herackles, but
to be honest...I haven't seen him either. He never passed through my
village. He was supposed to have been a while in Thebes, but nobody
seems to have kept much of a visual record there excepting on a couple
of coins showing him squishing some poor little snakes. Seems to have
been right vicious as a toddler....didn't improve much in his youth
either from all accounts. Big bully if you ask me......but that's a god
for you, and let's face it, why would anyone want to put anything but
the face of a god on the front of a coin?......ok ok so you prefer
Athena.....and you like the cute little owl......and you don't like my
story about the ponce wearing the lion fur either.....ok, I guess
there's no accounting for taste. You can use these ones with Athena on
them as long as you can find someone still willing to take them.... No,
they definitely do not have any additional value to a
collector...geeeeeezzuz questions questions questions...!'
Jorg Lueke
> For all the reasons that other numismatists have said who've studied
> the history in detail, this could not have been true. Undoubtedly
> during the nearly three centuries these coins were minted after
> Alexander's death, people regarded Herakles as Alexander. But the vast
> majority of coins minted during Alexander's lifetime featured a
> Herakles that looking *nothing* like Alexander but instead looked
> *exactly* like the Herakles featured on coins before Alexander was
> born. This, plus the fact that there was no tradition of putting a
> ruler on a coin -- that developed later -- makes all this a
> no-brainer.
>
matched exactly earlier depictions. It can hardly be a no-brainer, there
you are being as black and white as the authors are on two occasions when
they deem their opinion obvious fact. This I find odd given that there is
no real way to know what people actually thought at the time. In the end we
do not know what Alexander looked like. We do not know if he or his
subjects considered himself Herakles, or if he at leats wanted to give that
impression. The article certainly opens up a new paradigm, a new way of
looking at the question without demanding that the coins be exact portraits
(what coins truly are?).
Reid Goldsborough
wrote:
>The article certainly opens up a new paradigm, a new way of
>looking at the question without demanding that the coins be exact portraits
>(what coins truly are?).
New paradigm? Please. Michael and Anka, working in a vacuum, think
that they're exploring new territory here. But this is a subject
that's been debated for decades and probably centuries as well. The
more you study the issue, as have others, the more it's clear that the
bulk of Alexander's lifetime silver coinage features a generic
Herakles, the very same Herakles image that had been used on Greek
coins for a century before these coins were struck. Look at the coins
of Philip II, Perdikkas III, Amyntas III, Erythrai, and Herakleia.
> In the end we
>do not know what Alexander looked like.
We don't know with certainty, but the collective numismatic and
archeological evidence give a very clear indication of what he likely
looked like.
Jorg Lueke
400 B.C. with the issues of Archelaos. There is no doubt that the
variations in the mints are noticeable, and if rendered into a portrait
would yield quite different results. This is true of the lifetime and
posthumous issues. The real question is was Alexander Herakles in his
lifetime or not? Why did Alexander choose the design of Herakles as his
most prominent coin? Was it just the continuation of a legacy or were there
other issues involved?
CA Coins
He was also considered a God... or semiGod.
So......
--
Friendly
Christos Apostolidis
CA Coins
http://www.cacoins.com
"Jorg Lueke" <jlu...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:7hNg9.307937$_91.3...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
Reid Goldsborough
wrote:
>Why did Alexander choose the design of Herakles as his
>most prominent coin?
The entire Macedonian royal house claimed Herakles as an ancestor.
From its inception the Macedonian royal family felt, or claimed, they
were descended from Zeus through Herakles. Alexander had no special
claim.
ELurio
face on it during his lifetime. In fact, the first monarchs to do that were
Ptolomy II and one of the early Selucids...In fact there are NO KNOWN PORTRAITS
of Alexander's sons or brother known on any coins.
eric l.
Ian
A smallish correction. The first coin ever made with the portrait of a
living man was the silver tetradrachm of Ptolemy I. (according to Reinfeld)
Ian
Reid Goldsborough
>Okay, as to Alexander. There were no coins with his portrait minted with his
>face on it during his lifetime.
This is the established wisdom, what everybody in numismatics who has
studied this in detail has concluded, and for obvious reasons (obvious
to most).
>In fact, the first monarchs to do that were
>Ptolomy II and one of the early Selucids...In fact there are NO KNOWN PORTRAITS
>of Alexander's sons or brother known on any coins
I don't know if you're quite right above. Ptolemy I was the first of
Alexander's successors to put Alexander's portrait, in an elephant
headdress, on some his silver and bronze coins, before Ptolemy II put
it on some of his bronze coins (you may have meant Ptolemy I). Ptolemy
I, incidentally, was also the first of the "diadochi" to put his own
image on his coins. I've got a Ptolemy I tet and bronze with Alex's
portrait. Later Ptolemies put Alexander's image on their bronzes,
including Ptolemy VIII.
The leopard/panther-skin headdress portrait on the silver coins of
Sekeukos I is less clear. Some feel it is of Alexander, some Seleukos,
some the god Dionysos. These coins are rare and pricey. I found a very
cool fouree, or silver-plated bronze ancient counterfeit, of one at
the ANA show this summer for a very good price. It's ancient,
according to others I showed it to.
Alexander's successor in Thrace, Lysimachos, put the most realistic
portrait of Alexander on his coins, judging from the archeological
evidence, one adorned with the horns of Zeus Ammon. These coins were
also issued in the greatest quantity and for the longest period, for
nearly two centuries, in both gold and silver. Got a posthumous
stater, lifetime tet, and posthumous tet.
Reid Goldsborough
>A smallish correction. The first coin ever made with the portrait of a
>living man was the silver tetradrachm of Ptolemy I. (according to Reinfeld)
Also according to Early Hellenistic Coinage by Otto Morkholm. Which
Reinfeld? Looks like, from the ANA library's listing, he wrote about a
dozen books about coins, though only one about ancient coins, The
Picture Book of Ancient Coins. The "Picture Book..."?
Ian
The one and only `Fred'....everyone's got to start somewhere.
Seriously though, Fred Reinfelds books were among the first I ever read.
The one in particular I reached for because I know it by heart, is
`Treasury of The World's Coins'. I got it for my Christmas in 1959. It
is a good general introduction to coins and the socio history /
geography that generally accompanies collecting `world' coins.
Reid Goldsborough
>The one and only `Fred'....everyone's got to start somewhere.
>
>Seriously though, Fred Reinfelds books were among the first I ever read.
>The one in particular I reached for because I know it by heart, is
>`Treasury of The World's Coins'. I got it for my Christmas in 1959. It
>is a good general introduction to coins and the socio history /
>geography that generally accompanies collecting `world' coins.
I can appreciate that. These intro books serve a very good purpose,
introducing people to a subject. But I don't think they necessarily
make very credible references. With this particular issue, in fact --
whether Alexander's own portrait appears on his coins -- the only
numismatic authors who have said that he did were those who wrote
these intro books, and only two that I've found -- Zander Klawans and
John Anthony. Those who have actually studied the issue and written
about it in detail -- those who have written specialized books on
narrower subjects and delved more deeply into the subject -- all have
said the opposite.
Reidfeld sounds like a good author. I haven't read any of this stuff
but I'll look for it.
Ian
You will indeed look long and hard for a Reidfeld manuscript.
Part of my reason for mentioning Reinfeld *is* his relative
`insignificance'. Credibility is in the eyes of the beholder.
Reinfeld is hardly the most erudite of authors in this specific
`subject'. None the less, he has made a rather nice bold and yet simple
statement when referring to a Ptolemy I tetradrachm: `the first coin
ever made with the portrait of a living man'. That has stuck with me
since the early 60's. His credibility? Well, to this day I haven't seen
anyone prove him wrong on that particular point. Have you? I'm not
concerned as to who *says* to the contrary.
I'm more than happy to see `rocks' shattered / books re written on the
production of sufficient and verifiable `evidence' (as opposed to
postulating, pontificating, and general production of hot air).
Have you seen any? (verifiable evidence that is...or even a semi
convincing `deduction')
I haven't.
Seen plenty postulating, pontificating and hot air though.
Alan & Erin Williams
Ouch. Ian you should have been an archer. Reinfeld 'sounds pretty good'
because its a published statement that suits Reid today.
I think Jerry Lewis and Clifford Irving were published, too.
Alan
'bullseye'
Reid Goldsborough
>Reinfeld is hardly the most erudite of authors in this specific
>`subject'. None the less, he has made a rather nice bold and yet simple
>statement when referring to a Ptolemy I tetradrachm: `the first coin
>ever made with the portrait of a living man'. That has stuck with me
>since the early 60's. His credibility? Well, to this day I haven't seen
>anyone prove him wrong on that particular point. Have you? I'm not
>concerned as to who *says* to the contrary.
I agree with you. I was just ... pontificating. <g>
>I'm more than happy to see `rocks' shattered / books re written on the
>production of sufficient and verifiable `evidence' (as opposed to
>postulating, pontificating, and general production of hot air).
>
>Have you seen any? (verifiable evidence that is...or even a semi
>convincing `deduction')
Ancient numismatics is all deduction based on fragmentary hoard
evidence, few and far between die studies, archeological evidence that
may or may not be relevant, and ancient history texts that are often
secondhand and at least partially politically motivated. On the other
hand, if you hand a time machine... <g>
Reid Goldsborough
<will...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Reinfeld 'sounds pretty good'
>because its a published statement that suits Reid today.
You're not paying attention. ALL the published "statements" -- the
books written by those who have studied this issue in detail -- agree
with my position. Or, more accurately, I agree with theirs. From
looking, in detail, at the evidence, and with an open mind.
Jorg Lueke
> Reinfeld is hardly the most erudite of authors in this specific
> `subject'. None the less, he has made a rather nice bold and yet simple
> statement when referring to a Ptolemy I tetradrachm: `the first coin
> ever made with the portrait of a living man'. That has stuck with me
> since the early 60's. His credibility? Well, to this day I haven't seen
> anyone prove him wrong on that particular point. Have you? I
http://www.ancient-art.com/images/gs608.jpg
http://www.sixbid.com/catalogs/mma4/00234h00.htm
Jorg Lueke
> On Mon, 16 Sep 2002 14:50:30 -0400, Alan & Erin Williams
> <will...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >Reinfeld 'sounds pretty good'
> >because its a published statement that suits Reid today.
>
> You're not paying attention. ALL the published "statements" -- the
> books written by those who have studied this issue in detail -- agree
> with my position. Or, more accurately, I agree with theirs. From
> looking, in detail, at the evidence, and with an open mind.
>
> --
conjecture, guesswork. How an open mind closes without real tangible
evidence is beyond me. It's great to speculate, but realize this is all it
is.
As your quote from Price points out, the opposing view is also conjecture
but that makes neither right nor wrong. Jenkin's opinion is that there is
no certainty; Indeed not! Morkholm and Sear just state an opinion as fact,
I see no supporting arugument in your letter. Finally Mr.Sayles says it's
difficult to tell how much of the Alexandrian features of the portraits were
done on purpose. Hardly an open and shut case, no smoking gun, no gun even.
There's certainly no primary source material on the life of Alexander. I'm
not saying that Herakles is Alexander or that he is not, merely that there's
no way of knowing.
Reid Goldsborough
wrote:
>I'm
>not saying that Herakles is Alexander or that he is not, merely that there's
>no way of knowing.
We're not in disagreement here. What I've disagreed with is the
position that Michael and Ann took in their Celator article. They
wrote that it was "obvious" that the portrait on the obverse of *all*
of Alexander the Great's lifetime silver coinage was Alexander
himself. No one who has actually studied this issue in detail agrees
that this is obvious. In fact everyone writing about this except
Michael and Ann say there's much uncertainty here, as I've said.
Almost all feel, as opposed to Michael and Ann, that it's not
Alexander's face on his coins but a generic Herakles onto which some
of Alexander's features appear in a small number of issues.
If you actually look at the numismatic and archeological evidence, you
can't help but conclude the same. The same generic Herakles that
appeared on most of his lifetime coinage (not all) appeared on coins
before Alexander was born. The Alexander face that appeared on the
statue unearthed at Vergina, which corresponds to other archeological
evidence, appeared on coins of others after Alexander's death, not on
his own coins, except again for some features on some coins, on some
of those for instance attributed to Babylon.
Ian
My apologies for my apparent lack of response to your post Jorge.
My ISP seems to have ommitted to carry quite a few rcc posts for some
reason I cannot even begin to fathom. Bad ISP! (your post does not
appear on the blueyonder news servers at all....hence my google
response)
Firstly, thank you for sharing the `Pericles' coins you highlighted in
the URLS.
If it's the same Pericles (Athenian statesman and General)I know of,
he was around in the flesh from 495? - 429 BC, (as opposed to the date
of circa 380 BC given for the second coin) or am I mistaken?
In other words although he was perhaps a `real person' (as opposed to
Herakles), he was long since `demised' by the time his depiction
appeared on these coins.....(?)
I refer once more to the learned words of good ol' Freddy Reinfeld
when he referred to a portrait tetradrachm of Ptolemy I (and not the
one of Alex in the elephant get up either):- `the first coin ever made
with the portrait of a living man' (as in `alive')
In other words, a likeness of Ptolemy I on a coin made and circulated
during the lifetime of Ptolemy I.
Ian
Fred Reinfeld Rules ya bas!
Ian
> >I'm more than happy to see `rocks' shattered / books re written on the
> >production of sufficient and verifiable `evidence' (as opposed to
> >postulating, pontificating, and general production of hot air).
> >
> >Have you seen any? (verifiable evidence that is...or even a semi
> >convincing `deduction')
>
> Ancient numismatics is all deduction based on fragmentary hoard
> evidence, few and far between die studies, archeological evidence that
> may or may not be relevant, and ancient history texts that are often
> secondhand and at least partially politically motivated. On the other
> hand, if you hand a time machine... <g>
my apologies for my apparent lack of response. Newserver snafu's by
the looks of it. Hopefully by responding via google I might just get
blueyonders server to `populate'....wishful thinking perhaps.
Nothing wrong with a bit of theorising, and exercising the art of
deductive reasoning,..... even some pontification every now and again
is in order. After all, that's one of the ways that the frontiers of
knowledge are expanded.....
IF backed up with some scientific methodolgy then everyone can share
in the results with some degree of `certainty' as to the findings. If
not, then all that usually ends up happening is a further testing of
the already well documented soporific effects of meaningless debate.
See....you're sleepy already aren't you......and it's not because it's
a `heady' subject ..... :-)
Ian
aka `The Great Mesmero'
Jorg Lueke
The Pericles on these coins was a king/prince of Lycia and was indeed alive
when these coins were struck. I'm 99% certain that harlan berk wrote an
article about it, but I am unable to locate at it at this time.
--
Erich at 12 weeks
http://home.attbi.com/~jlueke/Images/Erich12wk.jpg
"Ian" <imb...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:abed970a.02092...@posting.google.com...
Ian
...oh THAT Pericles....ah...(didn't know that) well then, I suppose he
looked Athenian in at least one of those coins....
I stand corrected. Time to let go of that `rock'(ie Ptolemy / first
living...etc)
I wouldn't rather be wrong with Reinfeld than right with Lueke ;-)
Reid Goldsborough
wrote:
>The Pericles on these coins was a king/prince of Lycia and was indeed alive
>when these coins were struck. I'm 99% certain that harlan berk wrote an
>article about it, but I am unable to locate at it at this time.
Yes, and this is largely irrelevant to the debate. The Persian and
Greek worlds were very much different worlds in ancient times (as they
still are today). The Persian and Greek approach to kingship and
divinity were very much different. Persians did put their rulers,
which they considered gods, on their coins before Greeks did. Persians
genuflected before their rulers. To the democracy-minded Greeks, all
this was an anathema.
The argument can be credibly made that the reasons why some of
Alexander's features appeared on some of his coins in Babylon (Persia)
is because of different attitudes in the East. But Michael and Ann's
position is that it's obvious that Alexander's portrait appears on all
his coins, which cannot be supported by the numismatic or historical
record and in fact is directly contradicted by the numismatic record,
which they would have seen if they had looked at coins instead of
trying to interpret in their own idiosyncratic way ancient history
texts.
Fred A. Murphy
On 21-Sep-2002, imb...@blueyonder.co.uk (Ian) wrote:
> My ISP seems to have ommitted to carry quite a few rcc posts for some
> reason I cannot even begin to fathom. Bad ISP! (your post does not
> appear on the blueyonder news servers at all....hence my google
> response)
Scrue blueyonder. Sign up for http://news.cis.dfn.de for free, and plug it
into your news reader.
--
If I were creating the world, I wouldn't mess around with butterflys
and daffodils. I would have started with lasers. Eight o'clock. Day
one. *Zzzzzzzzap*! // Aaaaaggh! // Sorry!
- Time Bandits
Jorg Lueke
>
> ...oh THAT Pericles....ah...(didn't know that) well then, I suppose he
> looked Athenian in at least one of those coins....
>
> I stand corrected. Time to let go of that `rock'(ie Ptolemy / first
> living...etc)
>
> I wouldn't rather be wrong with Reinfeld than right with Lueke ;-)
>
Celator article as well so I really can't take any credit on this point :-)
Jorg Lueke
> On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 04:25:10 GMT, "Jorg Lueke" <jlu...@attbi.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The Pericles on these coins was a king/prince of Lycia and was indeed
alive
> >when these coins were struck. I'm 99% certain that harlan berk wrote an
> >article about it, but I am unable to locate at it at this time.
>
> Yes, and this is largely irrelevant to the debate.
But a little bit relevant
The Persian and
> Greek worlds were very much different worlds in ancient times (as they
> still are today). The Persian and Greek approach to kingship and
> divinity were very much different. Persians did put their rulers,
> which they considered gods, on their coins before Greeks did. Persians
> genuflected before their rulers. To the democracy-minded Greeks, all
> this was an anathema.
Exactly, which is why the Greeks were upset when Alexander walked around in
Persian dress and demanded that people genuflect before him. To make the
genuflecing more palatable he identified himself as more than just a king.
>
> The argument can be credibly made that the reasons why some of
> Alexander's features appeared on some of his coins in Babylon (Persia)
> is because of different attitudes in the East.
Why is this? Because he spent his last days there? Who were the celators
in Babylon anyway, Jews, Persians, or Greeks?
But Michael and Ann's
> position is that it's obvious that Alexander's portrait appears on all
> his coins, which cannot be supported by the numismatic or historical
> record and in fact is directly contradicted by the numismatic record,
> which they would have seen if they had looked at coins instead of
> trying to interpret in their own idiosyncratic way ancient history
> texts.
I do think you are getting a little too hung up on the way the article
expressed it's opinion; namely as if it were obvious. Any debate on this
topic is de facto opinion and I think the article is valuable as an
interesting perspective on why Alexander = Heracles.
Ian
> On 21-Sep-2002, imb...@blueyonder.co.uk (Ian) wrote:
>
>
>>My ISP seems to have ommitted to carry quite a few rcc posts for some
>>reason I cannot even begin to fathom. Bad ISP! (your post does not
>>appear on the blueyonder news servers at all....hence my google
>>response)
>
>
> Scrue blueyonder. Sign up for http://news.cis.dfn.de for free, and plug it
> into your news reader.
>
Ian
Phil DeMayo
>>>....I do think you are getting a little too hung up on the way the article
expressed it's opinion; namely as if it were obvious....<<<
Of course he is....he is hell bent on proving Ann and Michael wrong. However,
let his own arguments be proven wrong on clearer issues and all of a sudden we
must consider "grey areas".
++++++++++
Phil DeMayo
When bidding online always sit on your helmet
Just say NO to counterfeits
Ian
If at some point you recall the publication containing said article by
Mr Berk (a name which BTW has unfortunate connoitations over here) I
would appreciate your pointing my nose in it's direction.
Ian
Ian
I meant of course...`thanks'
from West of the Pecos
From: Reid Goldsborough reid...@netaxs.com
Date: 9/22/2002 8:10 AM Mountain "Currently it involves an article about
Alexander the Great coinage in the Celator and a follow-up letter to the editor
in the Celator, a point and counterpoint, a scholarly dispute. This is a
debate. What's more, others will be joining it, from what I've been told. And
Michael has said that he plans to follow up with a letter himself."
----------------------
I never said that. I said that I would reply in print to your your spite and
invective in the online medium that you do not respect for its permanence and
importance. You think you can say whatever you want to whomever you choose and
it will have neither effect nor affect. You called Ann Zakelj and me halfwits
-- and then you said that you intend to expropriate our hard-won research for
your own ends.
----------------------
From: Reid Goldsborough (reid...@netaxs.com)
Subject: Re: unknown ancient Greek (?) coin (URL, no image)
Date: 2002-04-09 21:45:09 PST
>On 10 Apr 2002 03:24:35 GMT, flip...@aol.compulsion (Phil DeMayo) wrote:
>For the curious....co-writer = Ann M. Zakelj = Ankaaz
"I didn't know this. I guess the thinking behind this is that if you
put too half-wits together and you'll get one wit of good writing.
Actually, I've been planning for a while now and got the go-ahead some
time ago to do a similar article for another publication, and I plan
to steal whatever I can from Michael and Ann's hard work."
from: Reid Goldsborough (reid...@netaxs.com)
Subject: Re: Gray areas of online auctions
Date: 2002-09-10 17:27:35 PST
"Talking about being in over your head, did you get the latest issue of
the Celator, Ann? Got mine today. Now, in addition to everybody here
knowing that you're in over yours when it comes to ancient coins, so
do the readers of the Celator. And this is no gray area. Though it
does have something to do with gray matter. And the graying of
America. Though not Thomas Gray. Or Robert."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
THAT is what I intend to respond to in print at a time and in a place of my own
choosing.
When December rolls into January and no letter from me appears in The Celator,
do not claim that you won a debate that never took place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------
Tradurre e tradire.
---------------------------
Reid Goldsborough
wrote:
>I do think you are getting a little too hung up on the way the article
>expressed it's opinion; namely as if it were obvious. Any debate on this
>topic is de facto opinion and I think the article is valuable as an
>interesting perspective on why Alexander = Heracles.
This is what they said. Number 1: They said Alexander's portrait was
on all of Alexander. Number 2: They said it was obvious. I'm not "hung
up" on this. I just disagree with it, as has every numismatic scholar
who has written in detail about it. Nobody today who has looked at the
historical and numismatic record believes Alexander=Herakles on all of
his lifetime silver coinage. You simply can't get around the fact that
the very same Herakles image appeared on Macedonian coins before
Alexander was born.
--
Reid Goldsborough
of the Pecos) wrote:
>I never said that. I said that I would reply in print to your your spite and
>invective in the online medium that you do not respect for its permanence and
>importance. You think you can say whatever you want to whomever you choose and
>it will have neither effect nor affect. You called Ann Zakelj and me halfwits
>-- and then you said that you intend to expropriate our hard-won research for
>your own ends.
And I'll reply in print to your continuing misstating of facts. It's
all in the record, you know, Google Groups, your false accusations of
what I said. You're again making a false accusation above, and I will
call you on this as well. I never said that I would expropriate your
hard-won research, in seriousness, and you know this. You are being
deceitful in saying this. Upon reading that you were writing an
article on Alexander the Great, this is exactly what I said, on April
9, 2002:
I've been planning for a while now and got the go-ahead some
time ago to do a similar article for another publication, and I plan
to steal whatever I can from Michael and Ann's hard work.
Only some of the above is true. Seriously, I've already uncovered a
ton of material about all this, and I expect that Michael and Ann will
add to the volume of useful information out there.
--
Michael, if you accuse me of seriously saying I would steal your
research, I will reply that I made it very clear I was joking and more
importantly, I've also made it very clear that I feel your research
isn't worth stealing. I've spelled out in detail the mistakes I feel
you've made, that you misinterpreted the historical evidence and
ignored the numismatic evidence. Why in the world would I steal
research I feel is shoddy that has led you to make what I regard as
substantial mistakes in your conclusions?
You can have your research. I can't use it. I've done a ton of
research on my own, as I spelled out in my initial message.
Jorg Lueke
> On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 18:30:21 GMT, "Jorg Lueke" <jlu...@attbi.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I do think you are getting a little too hung up on the way the article
> >expressed it's opinion; namely as if it were obvious. Any debate on this
> >topic is de facto opinion and I think the article is valuable as an
> >interesting perspective on why Alexander = Heracles.
>
> This is what they said. Number 1: They said Alexander's portrait was
> on all of Alexander. Number 2: They said it was obvious. I'm not "hung
> up" on this. I just disagree with it, as has every numismatic scholar
> who has written in detail about it. Nobody today who has looked at the
> historical and numismatic record believes Alexander=Herakles on all of
> his lifetime silver coinage. You simply can't get around the fact that
> the very same Herakles image appeared on Macedonian coins before
> Alexander was born.
>
coins of Alexander are all obviously copies of the same model. That model
was Alexander."
This is different from stating all his coins bore his portrait. The point
is that the Herakles was modeled on Alexander even though this image varied
throughout time and amongst the mints. This does not address earlier
Herakles tetradrachms, I would surmise that the authors feel these older
versions look different and fall outside of the arbitrary latitude. I do
not have enough good images of the earlier types to have a valid opinion on
this myself. The ones I have seen are quite a bit cruder than Alexander's
version.
Reid Goldsborough
wrote:
>What the article states is, "Within in any arbitrary latitude, the Herakles
>coins of Alexander are all obviously copies of the same model. That model
>was Alexander."
>
>This is different from stating all his coins bore his portrait. The point
>is that the Herakles was modeled on Alexander even though this image varied
>throughout time and amongst the mints. This does not address earlier
>Herakles tetradrachms, I would surmise that the authors feel these older
>versions look different and fall outside of the arbitrary latitude. I do
>not have enough good images of the earlier types to have a valid opinion on
>this myself. The ones I have seen are quite a bit cruder than Alexander's
>version.
Look at Sear -- SG 1449, 1453, and 1510 -- as just three examples.
Reid Goldsborough
<reid...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>Look at Sear -- SG 1449, 1453, and 1510 -- as just three examples.
And 1514, fourth example.
Reid Goldsborough
<reid...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>Look at Sear -- SG 1449, 1453, and 1510 -- as just three examples.
And especially 6686, fifth example. Sear doesn't illustrate any of
Alexander's lifetime Macedonian coins. Price does, of course, and so
does Wildwinds:
http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/macedonia/kings/alexander_III/t.html
Price 5 to Price 99, illustrated there, are all lifetime Macedonian
issues. Hey, it's same Herakles as on the coinage of Alexander's
predecessors!
It's only when you go east, to Babylon in particular, that you notice
the features changing a bit. At Wildwinds, the lifetime Babylon tets
are from Price 3581 to 3684.
Now go to Lysimachos' gold and silver coins, which are widely regarded
as featuring the most realistic Alexander portrait on any ancient
coinage:
http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/thrace/kings/lysimachos/t.html
Notice the protruding brow, long and narrow nose, pursing upper lip,
strong jaw, thick neck, and fiery eyes. These same facial features are
on some of Alexander lifetime Babylon coinage. But they're missing
completely on Alexander lifetime Macedonian coinage. Wha'dya know!
Alan & Erin Williams
Burke, right?
Alan
'is not a verb'
Ian
Well, not `quite' what I had in mind...... a little background by way of
an explanation....
`Berk' is the end result of Cockney rhyming slang. It originates from
`The Berkshire Hunt' which is a famous meet for fox hunting. Landed
Gentry n'all that ......proper `Berks' they are too if I may say so.
The true meaning being a word which rhymes with the last word used (in
this case `hunt'). I will leave further explanation out in lieu of your
own very capable deductive abilities.
In days gone by referring to someone as a proper `Berkshire Hunt' would
have been the polite Cockney alternative to the use of a specific
expletive. In today's use, this has been shortened to `Berk!'.
It is (without exception) derogatory, as in `he's just being a real
Berk!'...it can also be used quite effectively as a `put down' when
expressing disappointment or disbelief in someone's antics or
activities, as in.... `you stupid Berk!' (said slowly, deliberately,
and with feeling).
Hopefully you now have a better understanding of the (most)
`unfortunate connoitations' I was alluding to.
:-)
Ian
Ankaaz
"The true meaning being a word which rhymes with the last word used (in this
case `hunt'). I will leave further explanation out in lieu of your own very
capable deductive abilities..."
Sandshoe, Ian!
And to all of you Ravi Shankers who haven't yet been introduced to the fine
liguistic art of Cockney rhyming slang, take a butcher's hook at:
http://www.cockneyrhymingslang.co.uk/default.asp
;-)
Anka Z
Co-president of the once thriving, but now defunct, Tommy John Fan Club.
from West of the Pecos
>Date: 9/22/2002 6:33 PM Mountain Daylight Time
>I never said that I would expropriate your
>hard-won research, in seriousness, and you know this.
That fact was _NOT_ the essence of my post. Once again, you take a runnung
whack at some statement just to make a reply. Some people, who post here
often, have theorized that you do this as a debater's trick, a sophist's ploy
you learned perhaps in high school. This lets you reply to "something" the
opposing speaker said without admitting that you have nothing substantial to
say. Other people who post here suggest that you _REALLY_ do not "get" the
argument and you simply reply (as would an Eliza program) to whatever you can
parse from the original statement.
EIther way, the other people in the discussion often let you move the subject
away from the question at hand. When you cannot do this, you resort to spite,
to name-calling, to baiting. THAT is the subject here. The fact that you
"joked" about taking our research was ironic, since you called us halfwits in
the first place.
You said (1) Michael and Anka are halfwits. (2) I am taking their research.
(3) Not-both 1 .and. 2 are True. So, which is it? We are not half-wits? You
are not taking our research?
Now, before you answer, remember that this is TIME-DEPENDENT. Back in April,
you did not know what we would say. You assumed (I predict this confidently)
that we mined the same old dwelling, plowed the same old field, and just did a
better job of repeating what everyone else you already agreed with already
said. It never occurred to you that we actually would produce work you could
not steal because it was too far from the mainstream of common opinion.
So, you _NOW_ say you cannot use our work. I believe you. (Though it would
not surprise me to see you change you mind on this, as you admittedly have
incrementally, already.) _BACK THEN_ what was in your mind and in your heart?
Were we really halfwits? Or did you really look forward to repackaging our work
under your own name?
In the same vein -- this is the same discussion; do not pretend you cannot see
this -- you also once wrote:
From: Reid Goldsborough (reid...@netaxs.com)
Subject: Re: Native Americans and Indian Images on Money
Date: 2001-03-29 18:33:31 PST
"As far as I can tell, and I haven't seen this written anywhere else so far,
judging from these coins and contemporary images of him created elsewhere, what
most distinguishes his visage is a large, rounded nose, a pursing upper lip,
and eyes that yearn."
Did you _REALLY_ see that _yourself_ back in March of 2001? If so, how is it
that all you can do is repeat what others have said? Specifically _WHICH_
"contemporary images of him created elsewhere" had you seen?
In that discussion of Native Americans, you were the one who did indeed point
out that a credible historian said that the coins of Alexander portray
Alexander but that you do not agree because numismatists you have read said
otherwise. The second part of that, the dependent thesis, is fine. Believe
what you want. What you blew off was your own _MAJOR PREMISE_ that credible
historians have said that the coins of Alexander portray Alexander. And here
is another important fact not to ignore: When I said that all Alexanders
seemed like Alexanders to me you that the claim was '"incredible." You said
that you had not read it anywhere else, so how could it be true? But you _HAD_
read it somewhere else, as you yourself said you had.
So, had you in fact, not already read elsewhere about the melting gaze and the
other features of the Lysimachos coinage known from hellenistic sculpture?
That failure was yet another example of how you did not perceive the essence of
the discussion. In that case, _BOTH_ parts of it were your own claims. You
missed the most important thing you said.
We went to the historians and the art historians because in this context the
numismatic questions are subsets of art history -- rather than, say, economics,
metallurgy, or linguistics, or some other aspect or facet of numismatics.
It is not that you believe that the coins of Alexander portray only an
idealized Greek youth. It is not that you may or may not have hoped back in
April of 2002 to redirect our research to your by-line. It is not even that
you have a history of interpersonal ugliness. It is that you never show remorse
when you hurt someone else's feelings. You acted all friendly and comradely in
_PRINT_ congratulating us, calling us by our first names, and so on, but here,
where you feel a lack of responsibility for the consequences of your actions,
you exhibit boorishness.
Reid Goldsborough
of the Pecos) wrote:
>That fact was _NOT_ the essence of my post.
The "essence" of your post. Who knows what the essence is? I do know
that you accused me of saying that I "intend to expropriate our
hard-won research for your own ends." These were your words. I didn't
make these words up. Was this the "essence" of your post? I don't
know. Maybe not. Probably not. But you said it. And it's not true.
>EIther way, the other people in the discussion often let you move the subject
>away from the question at hand.
I'm the one moving the subject away from the question at hand? Me?
Please then move the subject back. You hadn't yet, until this message,
responded substantively to my disagreement with the conclusions of
your research and your research methodology. THIS is the question at
hand.
>The fact that you >"joked" about taking our research...
Thank you for now admitting that this was a joke.
>You said (1) Michael and Anka are halfwits. (2) I am taking their research.
>(3) Not-both 1 .and. 2 are True. So, which is it? We are not half-wits? You
>are not taking our research?
Again, your number 2 scenario above doesn't apply, as I was obviously
joking, as I made clear when I told the joke as well as afterward.
Are you half wits? Well, I did say that the two of you teaming up
created one wit, and that's not bad, is it?
>Now, before you answer, remember that this is TIME-DEPENDENT. Back in April,
>you did not know what we would say. You assumed (I predict this confidently)
>that we mined the same old dwelling, plowed the same old field, and just did a
>better job of repeating what everyone else you already agreed with already
>said. It never occurred to you that we actually would produce work you could
>not steal because it was too far from the mainstream of common opinion.
>
>So, you _NOW_ say you cannot use our work. I believe you. (Though it would
>not surprise me to see you change you mind on this, as you admittedly have
>incrementally, already.) _BACK THEN_ what was in your mind and in your heart?
>Were we really halfwits? Or did you really look forward to repackaging our work
>under your own name?
Remember, I did conclude my post with these words: "I expect that
Michael and Ann will add to the volume of useful information out
there." People use useful information. Using isn't stealing. Stealing
ideas (plagiarism) is using without crediting your source if the ideas
are original with that source and not common knowledge. If your ideas
had been useful, yes, I might in fact have used them, with credit.
Alas, they're not so I won't.
>In the same vein -- this is the same discussion; do not pretend you cannot see
>this -- you also once wrote:
>From: Reid Goldsborough (reid...@netaxs.com)
>Subject: Re: Native Americans and Indian Images on Money
>Date: 2001-03-29 18:33:31 PST
>
>"As far as I can tell, and I haven't seen this written anywhere else so far,
>judging from these coins and contemporary images of him created elsewhere, what
>most distinguishes his visage is a large, rounded nose, a pursing upper lip,
>and eyes that yearn."
>
>Did you _REALLY_ see that _yourself_ back in March of 2001? If so, how is it
>that all you can do is repeat what others have said?
You're making the same mistake Ann has made. I have done far, far more
than merely repeat what others have said. What I did was carefully
consider their ideas -- I'm talking here about the most prominent and
respected numismatists of the past half century. Then I personally dug
up and analyzed the support for their ideas.
Some of this support I hadn't read elsewhere -- for instance, the
decision of the modern Greek government to use the Alexander's image
on Lysimachos' coins to honor Alexander on its one hundred drachmas
coins of 1990 to 2000 instead of the Herakles image (which you insist
is an Alexander image) on Alexander's own coins. Could somebody else
have written about this? Of course. I just didn't read it elsewhere.
The above is just one element of the support for my position, a
somewhat minor one too. The major support comes from looking at the
coins, as I've said, which I for one have done, not only ALL the
various varieties of Alexander's own lifetime coins but also a great
deal of coins made before and after his time. From looking at the
coins, closely, you can't help but conclude that the same Herakles
image that appears on the majority of Alexander's lifetime coins
appeared on coins before his time, that some of the features of
Alexander's face -- we know from the collective archeological and
numismatic evidence with high probability but not certainty what his
face looked like -- appear on only a few lifetime issues of his, not
on all, as you contended.
Excuse me. You did preface your "all" statement with "Within any
arbitrary latitude." What the heck does this mean? Were you referring
to what you said in the previous paragraph about how some lifetime
Alexander coins are "cartoonish" in styling? What the heck does THAT
mean? The cartoonish (crude styling) issues didn't appear until much
later, particularly in the Black Sea area during the late second and
early first centuries BC. The Thracians or Celts also struck coins
imitating Alexander's coinage that could be considered cartoonish in
styling. What did you mean by cartoonish? Did you really mean that
some of his lifetime issues were cartoonish in styling? Show me one.
>In that discussion of Native Americans, you were the one who did indeed point
>out that a credible historian said that the coins of Alexander portray
>Alexander but that you do not agree because numismatists you have read said
>otherwise.
It was Pierre Briant, a general historian, not a numismatist, not
someone who delved into the issue of Alexander's coinage. Briant made
other mistakes as well, including calling the Athena image on
Alexander's gold coinage a portrait of Alexander and calling the
panther/leopard skin portrait on Seleukos I's silver coinage a
portrait of Seleukos without acknowledging that this is only one of
three possibilities, the other two being that this was another
Alexander image on a diadochi coin or a generic image of Dionysos.
Briant may be a credible historian but he's not a credible
numismatist.
>When I said that all Alexanders
>seemed like Alexanders to me you that the claim was '"incredible." You said
>that you had not read it anywhere else, so how could it be true? But you _HAD_
>read it somewhere else, as you yourself said you had.
No, I had never read, before you and Ann wrote it, that "all" of
Alexander's lifetime silver coinage depicted Alexander. Even those
like Briant, and I'm sure there were others as equally uninformed,
didn't use the word "all."
>It is that you never show remorse
>when you hurt someone else's feelings. You acted all friendly and comradely in
>_PRINT_ congratulating us, calling us by our first names, and so on, but here,
>where you feel a lack of responsibility for the consequences of your actions,
>you exhibit boorishness.
OK, Michael. I'm sorry I hurt your feelings.
In actuality, these kind of debates appear have appeared in print
since there was print. I've mentioned this before. Book reviewers are
sometimes far more aggressive than I've been. Hemingway was notorious
for trashing his literary competition in print. Have I been too rough?
Perhaps I have.
from West of the Pecos
>Date: 9/24/2002 10:02 AM Mountain Daylight Time
>OK, Michael. I'm sorry I hurt your feelings.
Well, yes, gosh, thanks and all that, of course, and the feeling is mutual and
all old man, but, really, I was not thinking of MYSELF.
Phil... Alan... Mark... Ankaaz... Steve... Doris... and the many other people
at whom you have slung outrageous fortune. That is what I have against you,
quoth the raven, only that and nothing more.
We will discuss Alexander's Portraits some other time. For the present, I am
preparing to serve as a docent on a museum tour of the Trinity Test Site. I
can handle the history. It is the quantum mechanics that wears down my
pencils.
Later, dude.
Stujoe
of the Pecos spoke thusly...
> For the present, I am
> preparing to serve as a docent
First time I have had to run off to dictionary.com in a while. :-)
--
Stu Miller
ICQ:159336182 AIM:stujoe Yahoo:stujoe
Take The Coin Grading Challenge at:
http://www.TheStujoeCollection.com/grade/grade.htm
Bill Krummel
Stujoe <stuj...@NONADASPAMthestujoecollection.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.17fab82e1...@news.supernews.com...
> In article <20020924193609...@mb-cu.aol.com>, from West
> of the Pecos spoke thusly...
> > For the present, I am
> > preparing to serve as a docent
>
> First time I have had to run off to dictionary.com in a while. :-)
>
> --
> Stu Miller
Yeah, I docent know the word, either. Well, I didn't - I just got back from
the dictionary. Bill
Alan & Erin Williams
>
> In article <20020924193609...@mb-cu.aol.com>, from West
> of the Pecos spoke thusly...
> > For the present, I am
> > preparing to serve as a docent
>
> First time I have had to run off to dictionary.com in a while. :-)
>
Alan
'History House'
Reid Goldsborough
of the Pecos) wrote:
>Well, yes, gosh, thanks and all that, of course, and the feeling is mutual and
>all old man, but, really, I was not thinking of MYSELF.
>
>Phil... Alan... Mark... Ankaaz... Steve... Doris... and the many other people
>at whom you have slung outrageous fortune. That is what I have against you,
>quoth the raven, only that and nothing more.
I believe you, Michael.
>We will discuss Alexander's Portraits some other time. For the present, I am
>preparing to serve as a docent on a museum tour of the Trinity Test Site. I
>can handle the history. It is the quantum mechanics that wears down my
>pencils.
Have fun.
Jim
>I take it you have never worked in Tourism. ;-)<
Or been in a mewzeeuhm?
Always here for my fellow syngraphist or oenophile.
--=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=--
Stujoe
thusly...
> Alan & Erin Williams will...@mindspring.com adds....
>
> >I take it you have never worked in Tourism. ;-)<
I came this >< close to getting banned from Sea World in San Antonio,
does that count? :-)
> Or been in a mewzeeuhm?
Never been VIP enough to warrant a docent when I go. We always have
to wander around by ourselves. :-)
Alan & Erin Williams
>
> In article <20020925002054...@mb-df.aol.com>, Jim spoke
> thusly...
> > Alan & Erin Williams will...@mindspring.com adds....
> >
> > >I take it you have never worked in Tourism. ;-)<
>
> I came this >< close to getting banned from Sea World in San Antonio,
> does that count? :-)
*****FREE STUIE!!******
>
> > Or been in a mewzeeuhm?
>
> Never been VIP enough to warrant a docent when I go. We always have
> to wander around by ourselves. :-)
>
Docent: the Lincoln at the base of the scale. One whole step below a
Recent. Two steps below a Micent.
Alan
'bar 12'
Coin Saver
>I am preparing to serve as a docent on a museum tour of the Trinity Test Site.
I can handle the history. >
Is this the *same* "Other side" mike?
PS (If you wanna hear from Phil, mention Kit Carson's Pony Express ride from
St. Joseph MO to Sacramento)
Coin Saver
Stujoe
spoke thusly...
> Stujoe wrote:
> >
> > In article <20020925002054...@mb-df.aol.com>, Jim spoke
> > thusly...
> > > Alan & Erin Williams will...@mindspring.com adds....
> > >
> > > >I take it you have never worked in Tourism. ;-)<
> >
> > I came this >< close to getting banned from Sea World in San Antonio,
> > does that count? :-)
>
>
> *****FREE STUIE!!******
LOL! A tip for those going to Sea World: the dolphins in the
'interactive tank' were much more interested in my Timex watch alarm
than in the overpriced, dead, feeder fish that the other park guests
were using to get their attention.
The Shamu Police were interested in my watch too but not in quite as
friendly a way as the dolphins. ;-)
Alan & Erin Williams
>
> In article <3D923AAD...@mindspring.com>, Alan & Erin Williams
> spoke thusly...
> > Stujoe wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <20020925002054...@mb-df.aol.com>, Jim spoke
> > > thusly...
> > > > Alan & Erin Williams will...@mindspring.com adds....
> > > >
> > > > >I take it you have never worked in Tourism. ;-)<
> > >
> > > I came this >< close to getting banned from Sea World in San Antonio,
> > > does that count? :-)
> >
> >
> > *****FREE STUIE!!******
>
> LOL! A tip for those going to Sea World: the dolphins in the
> 'interactive tank' were much more interested in my Timex watch alarm
> than in the overpriced, dead, feeder fish that the other park guests
> were using to get their attention.
>
> The Shamu Police were interested in my watch too but not in quite as
> friendly a way as the dolphins. ;-)
>
Hey! HEY! YOU! waddayathink yadoing to my FISH?
Alan
'Sea Hunt'