Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;DonnaML, post: 4579650, member: 110350&quot;]Perhaps that was the reason for excluding such coins from the Roman Provincial category, but I don&#039;t think it would be any more difficult or confusing to classify as &quot;Roman Provincial&quot; the coins issued by Roman provinces under the Republic, than it is to classify as such the coins issued by the same provinces under the Empire.&nbsp; It&#039;s not as if things necessarily changed in some fundamental way in those provinces&#039; coinage&nbsp; between 45 and 43 BCE (if you look at RPC&#039;s cutoff point of 44 BCE) or between 28 and 26 BCE (if you look at Sear&#039;s cutoff point for his <i>Greek Imperial Coinage</i> book).&nbsp; For the cistophori, as I pointed out, the more fundamental change occurred in 133 BCE, when Lydia became a Roman province in the first place, and both the year (calculated with that change in ownership as Year 1), and the name of the current Roman magistrate, were added to the coins.</p><p><br /></p><p>Also, in asserting that in order to decide whether to classify Roman Provincial the coins issued by Roman provinces under the Republic, one would have to make an individualized determination &quot;tak[ing] into account the language, style and thematology used in the coin,&quot; your argument -- as we lawyers, even recently retired ones like me, like to say -- proves too much.&nbsp; Because one could make exactly the same argument about coins issued by Roman provinces under the Empire, particularly the ones without an imperial portrait on the obverse.&nbsp; But no such individualized determination is necessary for provincial coins issued under the Empire, regardless of language, style, or thematology, and it should be no more necessary for provincial coins issued under the Republic.[/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