The thing is, that's just one coin. One of the great things about numismatic evidence is that you almost always have other examples to compare against, and in this case I think that would have to be done to check that this isn't just an anomaly. As you've said, the second example they show there, though more effaced, doesn't seem to show any kind of rough texture on the lower leg. Also, look at the horse's left rear leg on the coin under discussion - it seems to have a similar wavy texture, albeit less pronounced. I definitely wouldn't discount the possibility, but I think a bit of numismatic research would be in order before reaching a conclusion.There are a series of marks on the foot and lower leg of the cavalryman that are just too regular to ignore. I can't imagine it would be from die wear or damage of some other form.
To be honest though, there is another coin that lacks that feature, but I suppose it could be something as simple as a missed detail.![]()
Figures 32-34, though only one of the two (Fig. 32-33) has any sort of detail on the boots. They are really neat, though, and that figurine is an amazing and sadly neglected source.It seems to me to match up with two figurines that were printed in Sekunda's book on the Seleukids with sort of laminated/segmented footwear (albeit maybe 100 years apart). I wish I could tell you the pages, but a lot of that stuff was left at home when I moved.
Edit: And here are three more, none of which show any sort of texture on the lower leg:
http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotvie...D=231&Lot=1306
http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotvie...D=125&Lot=1017
http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotvie...D=101&Lot=1488
Bookmarks