Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;zumbly, post: 4578990, member: 57495&quot;]Nice cistophorus, [USER=110350]@DonnaML[/USER]!&nbsp; I especially like the &#039;feathery&#039; fringe of the gorytos. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I suspect it&#039;s not so much that the authors of RPC are saying that pre-44 BC (Greek style or otherwise) coinage struck in the provinces ought not be considered Roman provincial coinage, but that they simply did not set out to cover that area in their publication.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>From <a href="https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/introduction/whatisrpc" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/introduction/whatisrpc" rel="nofollow">the horse&#039;s mouth</a> (with emphasis mine to highlight their focus on the &#039;imperial&#039; period):</p><p>&quot;‘Provincial coinage’ is defined pragmatically as including all those coins which are <b>not ‘imperial’</b> (i.e. those not listed in the publication <i>Roman Imperial Coinage </i>or found on the Online Coinage of the Roman Empire website). In the past the term “Greek Imperial Coins” was also applied to this material. These are conventional not juridical terms, although some support for a conceptual division between ‘our’ (imperial) and ‘their’ (provincial) coins can be found in ancient texts.&quot;[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in