Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Valentinian, post: 3094544, member: 44316&quot;][USER=74222]@Herberto[/USER] cited my site and I will cite this page of it:</p><p><br /></p><p><a href="http://augustuscoins.com/ed/Cherson/RomanusIII.html#RIV" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://augustuscoins.com/ed/Cherson/RomanusIII.html#RIV" rel="nofollow">http://augustuscoins.com/ed/Cherson/RomanusIII.html#RIV</a></p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;Sokolova attributes all the <img src="http://augustuscoins.com/ed/Cherson/449o.gif" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> and <img src="http://augustuscoins.com/ed/Cherson/455o.gif" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> monogram pieces as &quot;anonymous XI-XIII century&quot; (p.143 and plates 12-13).</p><p>&quot;Anokhin cites conclusive hoard evidence to prove that these &quot;rho-omega&quot; types must be XIth century or later. The timing and monogram apparently fit Romanus III. He convinces me they can not be of an earlier Romanus (I or II). However, I see no reason to assume that the next, slightly different, monogram should be attributed to Romanus IV, skipping thirty years and several reigns. I prefer the caution of Sokolova.&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