Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Roman Collector, post: 7784285, member: 75937&quot;]Lovely portrait on that denarius, [USER=80952]@ambr0zie[/USER]!</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>You&#039;re well on your way to a complete type set of Faustina&#039;s early issues! I never get tired of seeing them. That late coin with the dative inscription made for an <a href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/a-late-sestertius-of-faustina-ii-with-a-dative-obverse-inscription-previously-unattested.373298/" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/a-late-sestertius-of-faustina-ii-with-a-dative-obverse-inscription-previously-unattested.373298/">interesting thread</a>, didn&#039;t it?</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I hope your copy of Beckmann&#039;s book arrives soon. Its methodology is sound -- die linkage studies of all the aureus types -- and it clarifies several issues about the relative chronology of her issues and in some cases establishes an absolute chronology. I think you&#039;ll find it thought-provoking and it may encourage you to re-evaluate the chronology you&#039;ve assigned to certain issues, just as it has forced a reevaluation of Szaivert&#039;s dating for certain issues, such as the Hilaritas issue under Marcus. Beckmann devotes an entire chapter to the implications of the various portraits and hairstyles -- further debunking Fitschen&#039;s notion that the hairstyles changed with each pregnancy. He also discusses the empress&#039; children. Since he uses both Ameling and Levick as sources, it doesn&#039;t break new ground, but the chronology established by his die study supports the notion that Lucilla was Faustina&#039;s second child and was born in AD 149. This argues against Birley and Fittschen&#039;s notion that twin boys were born in AD 149 and before Lucilla, but supports the Ameling&#039;s chronology outlined in Levick, pp. 116-117. Levick&#039;s argument against the birth of these twins is convincing, in my opinion, and I believe Faustina had only 11, not 13 children. Beckmann has an appendix on pp. 111-113 dealing specifically with Faustina&#039;s children. According to Ameling/Levick, the child born in AD 150/51 would have been Faustina III. I plan to write a series of articles in the future summarizing the ancient sources and the numismatic portrayals of her children.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>LOL!!!!</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Both lovely coins, with early portraits in fine style!</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Yes. The theory has been thoroughly debunked, not only by Szaivert and [USER=89514]@curtislclay[/USER], but also by Beckmann.[/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