Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;JulianIX, post: 3739295, member: 96184&quot;]That&#039;s very plausible I immediately thought.</p><p>But it suddenly occurred to me that I do have a book that I only got third of a way as it&#039;s a very, very densely-packed read. It&#039;s by Kenneth Harl -&nbsp; the same chap who did the fascinating audio &#039;Great Courses&#039; on &quot;Rome and Barbarians&quot; and &quot;Byzantine Empire&quot; and &quot;Ottoman Empire&quot; and &quot;Nomads of the Steppes&quot; etc. He talks in an interested, circular way (and the notes are well laid out with good structure). But this book is very slow reading for me so I thought I&#039;d come back to it. But skipping ahead:</p><p>Here&#039;s what he says</p><p>[In 293] &quot;the billion nummus replaced the earlier raidate aurelianianus {sic} as the 5-d.c. piece in daily fiscal and commercial transactions. Nummus of Alexandria and Siscia carried the value marks XXI and XX denoting them as coins of 20 sestertii and Antioch marked some nummi with the nurmerals of k and v., the equivalent of 20 sesterces&quot;</p><p>.... &quot;Diocletian deliberately broke with iconographic canon to give his coinage a new look&quot; ... &quot;new coinage had &quot;a better process of fusing silver to core&quot; ... &quot;nummus had advantage over Aurelianianus {sic} possessing three times its weight and two and one-half times its silver enrichment&quot;</p><p>The notes quote Kin in SNREHS (don&#039;t know) &quot;the aurelianianus averages 3.88g (1/84 ound) and at 4.5 percent fine, 175 mg of silver. And L.H. Cope for nummus at 4 percent fine or 430 mg of silver.</p><p>Well, look at that, I was wrong about silver content by look and feel. Interesting. Big is good.[/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