Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dltsrq, post: 2346972, member: 75482&quot;]It has long been a failure of numismatists that wanting something to be so has clouded interpretation. The best (worst) example of this fatal flaw may be the so-called &quot;barbarous radiates&quot;, paticularly the tiny <i>minimi</i> of Roman-era Britain, which were long thought to constitute a &quot;dark ages&quot; coinage. Even great numismatists like J.P.C. Kent fell into the trap of desperately wanting it to be so. How do we know that these radiate minimi belong to the 5th century, you ask? Because they are found in 5th century hoards! How do we know that they are 5th century hoards? Because they contain radiate minimi! So the argument went around and around and everyone was quite happy with themselves and their Arthurian &quot;dark age&quot; coins. That is, until 1960 when a hoard containing radiate minimi was discovered in a sealed archaeological context below the concrete foundation of the Roman theater at Verulamium, laid circa 300. We now know, having built upon the pediment of the Verulamium find, that the barbarous radiates were in fact contemporary with their prototypes and that there was no coinage of any kind in use during the British &quot;dark age&quot; (c. 450-600). Indeed, there is no evidence of an exchange economy for which coins might have proved useful. Still, these 56 years later one need only look as far as eBay or even major auction houses to see that these long-disproved romantic notions maintain a grip on the imagination of numismatists. Getting back to Doug&#039;s point, one hopes that future students of numismatics will rely more on reasoned scientific method, including economic models, and less on the visceral need to fill voids in their cabinets at the expense of &quot;real&quot; history.[/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