Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Valentinian, post: 3745928, member: 44316&quot;]Ah!&nbsp; The 64-dollar question. I suggest an alloy: 20 parts copper and one part silver. </p><p>In the late 1980&#039;s I began a draft of an article on the meaning of XXI and in my literature search found 21 different suggestions. I really didn&#039;t have anything to add in the way of new evidence (until the articles on alloys), so I abandoned the project. I don&#039; think there is enough ancient evidence to resolve some of questions about the denominations and values from Aurelian onwards. Even the reform of Diocletian of c.293-4 and the Edict of Maximum Prices of 301 have lead to articles supporting different values for the &quot;follis,&quot; post-reform radiate, and those pre-reform radiates still in circulation. </p><p><br /></p><p>Therefore, I am happy to use the modern term &quot;aurelianus&quot; to refer to the post-reform issues of Aurelian and following emperors. I use &quot;antoninianus&quot; or just &quot;radiate&quot; for the earlier common radiate coins. Surely the attractive coins of Philip were worth more than the radiates of Gallienus. But, I don&#039;t think we know what they were called and we don&#039;t know how they were valued relative to one another. </p><p><br /></p><p>There are good books and good articles that argue for one value or another. The casual reader may think that book or article, written by an expert, must have the truth. Don&#039;t be so sure. When Harl&#039;s good book, <i>Coinage in the Roman Economy</i>, was published in 1996 I had an interest in the subject and had already read almost all his sources. If you care about denominations, taxes, pay, etc. you should read that book. However, one criticism I had was his assertions on pages 246 and following about denominations in the late third and early fourth centuries were too assertive of one of several competing possibilities as if they were &quot;the truth&quot;, without mentioning the alternatives.&nbsp; E.g. &quot;In 276 Tacitus doubled the silver content of the aurelianus to 10% fine [close to true] and revalued it to 2.5 denarii [I disagree], but only Antioch and Tripolis ever issued the new issues [true], which were duly marked as coins of ten sestertii [I disagree].&quot; </p><p><br /></p><p>I don&#039;t mind not knowing. We can have lots of fun, and scholars can spend ink on the route to tenure, speculating about such matters. Subscribe to Academia.edu and you can get weekly feeds with links to articles that add to what we know about ancient coins. The field is alive, active, and very interesting.[/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