Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Are these the 4 main roman coin categories?
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="DonnaML, post: 4962597, member: 110350"]I understand the logic behind all your categories. [USER=51347]@Alegandron[/USER], but -- as [USER=110504]@+VGO.DVCKS[/USER] indicates -- you could also use the same approach to divide up the Imperial period into numerous categories on various historical and numismatic grounds, and you'd end up with 30 different categories overall. Which reduces the utility of the categorization in the first place. I guess it depends on whether one is a "lumper" or a "splitter" at heart!</p><p><br /></p><p>Going back to the four basic categories mentioned in the OP, I'm not a big fan of breaking off the so-called Imperatorial period from the larger Republican period as a truly separate category. Apart from the coins issued by the Imperators themselves and/or their associates (including Caesar, Pompey, Lepidus, Marc Antony, etc.), there are a great many coins issued in the two decades after 49 BCE that are indistinguishable stylistically and substantively from Republican coins in the several decades prior to 49 BCE. In fact, many such coins are attributed to the later period only by extrinsic evidence, such as information known about the moneyers, hoard evidence, etc. So I think it's a fairly arbitrary distinction numismatically. Which, I assume, is why Crawford includes "Imperatorial" coins in his book on Roman Republican Coins, up through Antony's legionary issues in 32-31 BCE. Note that he seems to refer to the final Republican period as the "Triumviral" period, beginning with the formation of the First Triumvirate in 60 BCE, rather than with Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon in 49 BCE. I haven't found any references by Crawford to an "Imperatorial" period.</p><p><br /></p><p>Speaking of arbitrary distinctions, I've previously stated that I strongly agree with [USER=51347]@Alegandron[/USER] that it doesn't make much sense to define Roman Provincial coinage -- as the RPC project does -- as beginning only with the ascension of Octavian/Augustus, and excluding all coins issued by provinces belonging to Rome during the more than a century prior to that dividing line. But that cut-off point seems to have been set in stone, so I've been calling those earlier coins, when I post them, "Republican Provincial" coins.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="DonnaML, post: 4962597, member: 110350"]I understand the logic behind all your categories. [USER=51347]@Alegandron[/USER], but -- as [USER=110504]@+VGO.DVCKS[/USER] indicates -- you could also use the same approach to divide up the Imperial period into numerous categories on various historical and numismatic grounds, and you'd end up with 30 different categories overall. Which reduces the utility of the categorization in the first place. I guess it depends on whether one is a "lumper" or a "splitter" at heart! Going back to the four basic categories mentioned in the OP, I'm not a big fan of breaking off the so-called Imperatorial period from the larger Republican period as a truly separate category. Apart from the coins issued by the Imperators themselves and/or their associates (including Caesar, Pompey, Lepidus, Marc Antony, etc.), there are a great many coins issued in the two decades after 49 BCE that are indistinguishable stylistically and substantively from Republican coins in the several decades prior to 49 BCE. In fact, many such coins are attributed to the later period only by extrinsic evidence, such as information known about the moneyers, hoard evidence, etc. So I think it's a fairly arbitrary distinction numismatically. Which, I assume, is why Crawford includes "Imperatorial" coins in his book on Roman Republican Coins, up through Antony's legionary issues in 32-31 BCE. Note that he seems to refer to the final Republican period as the "Triumviral" period, beginning with the formation of the First Triumvirate in 60 BCE, rather than with Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon in 49 BCE. I haven't found any references by Crawford to an "Imperatorial" period. Speaking of arbitrary distinctions, I've previously stated that I strongly agree with [USER=51347]@Alegandron[/USER] that it doesn't make much sense to define Roman Provincial coinage -- as the RPC project does -- as beginning only with the ascension of Octavian/Augustus, and excluding all coins issued by provinces belonging to Rome during the more than a century prior to that dividing line. But that cut-off point seems to have been set in stone, so I've been calling those earlier coins, when I post them, "Republican Provincial" coins.[/QUOTE]
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
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Are these the 4 main roman coin categories?
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...