Home Page (Introductory Page and to downloads of the Coinex manuscript).






Some problems (and solutions) in dating Ptolemaic bronze coins Dating Ptolemaic Coins

General aspects of dating coin hoards Dating of Hoards

Review of the contents of the Coinex hoard Contents of the Hoard

Time Shifting: Change in date caused by a monetary reform Time Shifting

Introduction to the corrected attribution of the Coinex hoard Corrected Attribution

   Corrected attribution determined from countermarks from Countermarks

   Corrected attribution determined from post-reform coins from Post-reform Coins

Review of a previously published (and incorrect) attribution of the Coinex hoard Previous Attribution

   Previously published attribution as incorrectly obtained from countermarked coins from Countermarked Coins 

   Previously published attribution as incorrectly obtained from pre-reform coins from Pre-reform Coins

Summary and comparison of the two different methods of hoard analysis Summary

Comments on attempted publication of the manuscript Publication Attempts

Acknowledgements and Illustration Credits Acknowledgements

List of interesting web sites Links

email the author Contact

   HOME - Introduction  

   SUMMARY - and conclusions  

   OTHER TOPICS - at this web site  

Corrected Attribution of the Coinex Hoard

 Attempts to Publish the Corrected Method of Attribution

Information and Comments

Summary of the Attempts to Publish a Corrected Attribution

 

Information and comments will appear here when the mouse pointer is placed over in the text to the right.

 

The author (RP) of this web site first became interested in the published attribution of the Coinex hoard because the results reported for coins E (Sv1424) changed them from Ptolemy VI (after 180 BC) to Ptolemy V (c. 200 BC).  Such an assignment conflicts with well established attributions (derived from identity of control marks, cornucopia symbols, and two-eagle reverse types) that place coins D and E to after 180 BC.  (See Part 1.)  The assignments of coins D and E were also contrary to attributions based on evidence from the Corinth and Saqqâra hoards.

  An inquiry to the authors of the published attribution led to an extensive exchange of information and views (with CL) that were initially very helpful.  However, RP became convinced that there were serious errors of method (and therefore results) in the published attribution.

Eventually, RP produced a manuscript giving an alternative method (and results) of attribution and this was submitted (December 2002) for publication in the Numismatic Chronicle.  CL declined to comment further on the manuscript and stated that, if asked, she would not serve as a referee.

The referee report from the NC was negative and contained ideas and conclusions about the different results without mentioning the differences in methods of attribution. See comment left   The report tended to be "hostile", a descriptive word later used by the editor.

The report was specific only in a few sentences and these showed that the referee did not understand how to interprete countermarks.  See comment left

Rebuttals were supplied to the editor (for the referee) and these included a request to compare the differing methods of attribution.  No comments on the rebuttals were received.

In response to a request, the editor agreed to send a revised manuscript to a new referee for the following year.

Click Click to give next page. to go to the next page.