What is the current thought about the significance of "XXI" on the later antoninianus (aurelianianus) coin? Does this explanantion still ring true: Coin from article: An antoninianus of Aurelian, XXI in the exerge http://www.celatorsart.com/denominations.html Thanks to all who read and reply, guy
http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/feac73xxi.html My opinions have not changed since the above. As I understand it, the Romans looked at it as 20 parts copper to one part silver or 1/21 = 4.7% rather than 1/20 = 5%. In addition to XXI we have the Greek equivalent KA. Most interesting to me are a few rare coins which are noticeably better silver (double) marked IA or XI.
I agree. 20-1 was always the intention, and somehow the ratio got set at 1/20th, (5%) to some authors. I have always viewed it as incorrect math. I believe I read 5 years ago metallurgical tests also support a 4.7 inclusion rate, (for a few years at least, until the government started cheating like they always do). Chris
For what it's worth, the main competing theory is that it's a statement of value, saying that this 1 coin is worth 20 sestertii. Last I heard, Kenneth W. Harl at least still supports that. I haven't really looked into the arguments about this in much detail, but what I've seen makes me lean towards the metal ratio theory.
You're right Gao, I had forgotten about that argument. There was a huge long discussion on Moneta-L about 6 years ago about this. That argument was earlier on, then someone was making the case that 20:1 was 5% inclusion, then it was calculated it would be 4.7% if 20:1 metal ratio was meant. It had been so long since I heard that argument I forgot. Thanks for bringing that alternate theory up.
The 20 sestertii theory also has issues with the fact that there are AE1 folles bearing XXI, measuring out at 4.77% and weighing twice as much as any antoninianus. It would require the post reform AE1 follis to have been worth the same as the pre reform radiate AE3.
