Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 4042057, member: 19463&quot;]I thought I was going to agree with Valentinian when he noted that we have the same name for a Caracalla and a Claudius so why rename a post reform Aurelian but he lost me saying aurelianus might be better.&nbsp; I have absolutely no use for professional experts who decide that something needs to be changed from the previous wrong guess to their equally random update.&nbsp; If we had some evidence that the people of the day called the coins by a certain name, I would change but not just because it makes some thesis look better.</p><p><br /></p><p>What should we name the coins?&nbsp; Antoninianus is a made up name acknowledging the role of Caracalla but accepted here mostly because it is what they were called when I first came on the scene.&nbsp; I might prefer we just call them &#039;doubles&#039; which would anger those who point out the things only weighed a denarius and a half.&nbsp; I would say call them radiates but someone will point out that the coins of empresses had no radiate crown so we could not call them radiates.&nbsp; This would also run afoul of the name postreform radiates for the fractional pieces that accompanied the large folles of Diocletian&#039;s reform.&nbsp; Do me a favor and don&#039;t point out that we could call them &quot;Diocletiani&quot;.&nbsp; returning to fact that the silver of Caracalla was better than that of Claudius we could name the junk series &quot;Galliani&quot; being consistent by making up four names for the four stages named after someone.&nbsp; Has scholarship descended to this?</p><p>I might just call them &quot;coins&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; That is wrong, too, but we don&#039;t have to get carried away complicating the matter.[/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