Nathan T. Elkins
Deputy Director at the American Numismatic Society (New York, NY).
Ph.D., 2010, Greek and Roman Art and Archaeology, University of Missouri.
M.A., 2003, with distinction, The City of Rome, University of Reading, UK.
B.A., 2002, magna cum laude, Archaeology and Classical Studies, University of Evansville
Address: Nathan T. Elkins
American Numismatic Society
75 Varick Street, Floor 11
New York, NY 10013
Ph.D., 2010, Greek and Roman Art and Archaeology, University of Missouri.
M.A., 2003, with distinction, The City of Rome, University of Reading, UK.
B.A., 2002, magna cum laude, Archaeology and Classical Studies, University of Evansville
Address: Nathan T. Elkins
American Numismatic Society
75 Varick Street, Floor 11
New York, NY 10013
less
InterestsView All (39)
Uploads
Books by Nathan T. Elkins
The subject of the representation of monuments is one of the most beloved (and belabored) topics in studies of Roman coin iconography. It is also a theme in dire need of re-exploration. Appealing to numismatists, archaeologists, topographers and art or architectural historians, architectural representations on Roman coins have been appreciated and studied primarily for the evidence they yield for the appearance or reconstruction of lost monuments. While numismatic representations may provide some evidence for the reconstruction or historical study of Roman monuments, there are a number of methodological problems. This traditional and often uncritical approach to architectural representations has often treated the images as ‘snapshots’ or ‘blueprints’ of lost monuments, although creating wholly accurate representations of buildings – if the building even existed at the time that the coin was minted – was not the goal of the die engravers or the issuing authorities. And less frequently have architectural representations been understood in the context of a moneyer’s or an emperor’s wider ideological or visual program as deployed on the coinage. As a consequence, the actual phenomenon of architectural representation on Roman coinage has been inadequately studied in favor of more myopic considerations.
Why was Rome the only ancient civilization that habitually depicted built monuments on its coinage? Why did Greek urban centers with marble-clad monuments and politically charged building programs feature their great monuments on coins only after Roman domination? What social and cultural developments prompted Roman moneyers in the late second and first centuries BC to depict buildings on coins for the first time? What circumstances led to the decreasing frequency of architectural coin types in the third and fourth centuries AD until they ultimately disappeared from the Roman coinage in the fifth century? And why were these late Roman depictions more symbolic in their lack of reference to specific constructions? These are questions to be explored. This book departs from the treatment of the images as sources for the appearance of ancient monuments and explores instead the historical, art historical, social, and cultural contexts of the iconography of building on Roman coins as it developed and evolved from its emergence in the late second century BC to its disappearance from the Roman coinage in the fifth century AD.
Articles and Book Chapters by Nathan T. Elkins
or at AJA Online: https://www.ajaonline.org/article/4283
The subject of the representation of monuments is one of the most beloved (and belabored) topics in studies of Roman coin iconography. It is also a theme in dire need of re-exploration. Appealing to numismatists, archaeologists, topographers and art or architectural historians, architectural representations on Roman coins have been appreciated and studied primarily for the evidence they yield for the appearance or reconstruction of lost monuments. While numismatic representations may provide some evidence for the reconstruction or historical study of Roman monuments, there are a number of methodological problems. This traditional and often uncritical approach to architectural representations has often treated the images as ‘snapshots’ or ‘blueprints’ of lost monuments, although creating wholly accurate representations of buildings – if the building even existed at the time that the coin was minted – was not the goal of the die engravers or the issuing authorities. And less frequently have architectural representations been understood in the context of a moneyer’s or an emperor’s wider ideological or visual program as deployed on the coinage. As a consequence, the actual phenomenon of architectural representation on Roman coinage has been inadequately studied in favor of more myopic considerations.
Why was Rome the only ancient civilization that habitually depicted built monuments on its coinage? Why did Greek urban centers with marble-clad monuments and politically charged building programs feature their great monuments on coins only after Roman domination? What social and cultural developments prompted Roman moneyers in the late second and first centuries BC to depict buildings on coins for the first time? What circumstances led to the decreasing frequency of architectural coin types in the third and fourth centuries AD until they ultimately disappeared from the Roman coinage in the fifth century? And why were these late Roman depictions more symbolic in their lack of reference to specific constructions? These are questions to be explored. This book departs from the treatment of the images as sources for the appearance of ancient monuments and explores instead the historical, art historical, social, and cultural contexts of the iconography of building on Roman coins as it developed and evolved from its emergence in the late second century BC to its disappearance from the Roman coinage in the fifth century AD.
or at AJA Online: https://www.ajaonline.org/article/4283