An interesting blog post on the 4th-century Roman FEL TEMP REPARATIO coinage and imitations, published today by the good folks of the UK's Portable Antiquities Scheme. https://finds.org.uk/counties/?p=2664
I found interest in the line " (64%) pieces are listed as being contemporary copies" which seems high to me but might reflect the situation in England rather than overall. I have a few unofficial FH coins but nothing approaching that number. Of course there are some that are likely but less certainly unofficial. And there are those that leave no doubt.
The 64% from the PAS finds does indeed seem to be a special UK case. In Colchester Archaeological Report #4, Michael Hammerson claims that 67% of the coins of 330-348 (the period just before the FTR) in UK finds are imitative. This can be seen especially in the many small copies of GLORIA EXERCITVS and VICTORIAE DD AVGG Q NN found in the UK. Unfortunately, the PAS blog article still uses the extremely antiquated dating to be found in RIC. It is now abundantly clear that the FTR FH was not struck until 361, but ceased in 358 and that the SPES REIPVBLICE was not a contemporary type but followed it, being struck 358-361. I outline the entire history of the study of this type, including incorporating much scholarship done since RIC, and provide a new structure and dating in my article on the Falling Horseman coinage, from KOINON II, which is now available for free download on academia.edu: https://www.academia.edu/44549791/B..._the_FEL_TEMP_REPARATIO_Falling_horseman_type SC
Thanks for sharing the article. I see that many of our esteemed members here are on the editorial advisory board.
Where in RIC did you read that the FH and SR were not sequential? The weights given certainly suggest they were not together.
Sorry, you are right. Despite grouping them into that timeframe in the charts, the intro gets the dates fairly right. Which makes it all the odder that that blog post dates the small FTRs to 353-362 and 352-361 and the SPES REIPUVBLICE to 355-361. SC
Writing a book is hard work. Editing is harder. Finding inconsistencies you will regret having missed when the critics find them..........
Yup. I tend to be quite careful checking my real writing but often quite lazy when posting to forums - and then I look back and think - "What was I thinking? What happened to my memory." But even after having proof read something a dozen times before submission there is always stuff you miss or should have thought of. My goal with something like the FTR article is to advance the current state of study, not of course to be the final word. I hope someone takes my work and uses it to go further and find all the places I went wrong and come up with better answers. SC PS It was your website back around 20 years ago that taught me there was so much more to this hobby than simple checklists, and led me to find and read everything I could.
In general, I believe anyone who believes he has the 'final' word on something rarely understood the question. Perhaps a goal would be to be remembered as the one whose mistakes led to a better state of understanding. Thank you for the kind words. I doubt many people read the bottom of my index page: This page is very much a 'fast food' or 'pop culture' approach to the subject of ancient numismatics. I am an amateur collector and offer no guarantee of completeness or accuracy on any material on this site. I recommend that you research your questions rather than accepting blindly anything posted here. I also recommend you apply this same degree of care in using any other source material online or in hard copy. This site was intended to expose new collectors to an enjoyable hobby. No claim is made to serious scholarship. Serious numismatists are also welcomed here while they await publication of more proper and scholarly coverage of this material. Nothing makes me happier than finding people who saw my pages early on in their studies and went on to contribute so much more than I ever could.
