Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 2774190, member: 19463&quot;]I am a big fan of the AE1-4 system rather than arguing at length about names that may or may not have been used in some or all places for all or part of what we call late Roman.&nbsp; The Theodosian Code dates to fifty years after the coins being discussed here.&nbsp; I can see the names given as meaning nothing more than &#039;the old fashioned coins that had silver in them&#039;.&nbsp; We simply do not know the answers with certainty and assuming that the terms meant the same thing to every time period is an assumption that can not be proven.&nbsp; Will evidence turn up that will confirm one theory or another or will another generation rewrite their interpretations of old data? We can call coins and, for that matter, people anything we decide is pleasing.&nbsp; I came on the scene when we used antoninianus rather than aurelianianus, numbered Julian II without worrying about who was Julian I (Didius or the Pannonian) and took comfort in the lack of Greek bronzes smaller than 5mm so we did not have to wonder what was meant by AE4.&nbsp; I do remember thinking Cohen was old fashioned using MB for both dupondii an asses but that just shows that we tend to accept standards as we first met them.[/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