Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Severus Alexander, post: 3150605, member: 84744&quot;]Thanks!&nbsp; The basic thing is that the similarities between this issue with the tetrarchs&#039; portraits and Domitianus&#039;s coins are so close as to be only explicable by having been issued at the same time.</p><p><br /></p><p>Here are the most relevant bits of RIC:</p><p>[ATTACH=full]807067[/ATTACH]</p><p>[ATTACH=full]807068[/ATTACH]</p><p>A summary: It was standard practice to distinguish issues by particular markings.&nbsp; The first two Alexandrian issues of folles [(i) and (ii) in RIC] were in the tetrarchs&#039; names only, first without a star or crescent, then with.&nbsp; Then Domitianus issues show up [RIC&#039;s (iii)], with the eagle, which – importantly – is not found at any other mint.&nbsp; (It doesn&#039;t show up again anywhere until 15 years later.)&nbsp; Coins in the tetrarchs&#039; names match exactly: eagle, no other marks besides officina, and even the design characteristics of each officina extend across both the Domitianus coins and the coins with the tetrarchs&#039; portraits.&nbsp; Then we get RIC&#039;s (iv), still an eagle but with no examples for Domitianus, and a star added to the reverse: Domitianus&#039;s reverse dies altered for a post-siege non-Domitianus issue, until new dies can be produced.</p><p><br /></p><p>Note that RIC has the wrong dates though... the authors didn&#039;t have access to a number of papyri that have recently been recovered, showing that the date of the revolt was actually 296-7.[/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