Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
The mystery of ACHILLEUS, the Corrector
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="Broucheion, post: 4007052, member: 104887"]Hi [USER=84744]@Severus Alexander[/USER], [USER=19463]@dougsmit[/USER],</p><p><br /></p><p>Thank you for making me review the references to understand what's really going on here. It reminds me that answering 'from the hip' is not the best way to go (for me at least). It also showed up a typographical error in one of the sources that I never noticed before.</p><p><br /></p><p>Doug of course is right to point out that</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Since I remembered the article's argument made sense to me the first time I read it, I went back and looked at it carefully. In VanHorn's article, Table 1 shows Southerland's chronology (RIC VI) and Table 2 shows the author's revised view. In both cases, coins with LIB and LB are placed in 296 or 296/297 CE. My shot from the hip was that "LIB = year 12 of Diocletian = year 2 (LB) of his Caesar."</p><p><br /></p><p>The reason for a dated follis coinage is underpinned by the statement "This revolt [by Domitianus] provides a fixed chronological point from which a sequence for the remaining issues may be constructed." Staffierri makes the case that the revolt started in May-June 297 (in Alexandria) after the introduction of a new tax on 27 March 297 [see <a href="https://www.yumpu.com/it/document/view/15845045/testimonianze-sulla-fine-della-monetazione-autonoma-alessandrina-" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.yumpu.com/it/document/view/15845045/testimonianze-sulla-fine-della-monetazione-autonoma-alessandrina-" rel="nofollow">"Testimonianze sulla fine della monetazione autonoma alessandrina (296-298 d.C.)"] </a>which is a bit after the monetary reform was introduced in late August 296, which puts the revolt in the 13th year of Diocletian.</p><p><br /></p><p>Ahh, but here's where I should have double checked by going back to original RIC VI. On page 646 Southerland wrote</p><blockquote><blockquote><p><p style="text-align: left"><i>"Tetradrachms of the Greek style were struck as usual with Diocletian's</i></p> <p style="text-align: left"><i>regnal date IB, Herculius' IA, and the Caesars' Δ = 29 August 295-</i></p> <p style="text-align: left"><i>28 August 296. <u>Only two have been recorded(2) for a later date, with</u></i></p> <p style="text-align: left"><i><u>Herculius' IB = 29 August 296-28 August 297 - the date of the two</u></i></p> <p style="text-align: left"><i><u>known Latin-style folles(3) which, by a hybrid anachronism, bear Greek</u></i></p> <p style="text-align: left"><i><u>dates (IB for Herculius, off A; E for Constantius, off. B</u>).(4)"</i></p> </p></blockquote></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>Footnote (4) is the key, but here are all of them for completeness:</p><p><br /></p><p>(2) Voetter, N.Z. 1911, pl. i, after p. 180; Dattari, Numi Augg. Alexandrini, no. 5857.</p><p>(3) See below, p. 650.</p><p>(4) Callu is correct (as against Dattari, R.N. 1904, pp. 395 ff.; Voetter, N.Z. 1911, p. 173; and Thirion, R.B.N. 1961, p. 197) in reading</p><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><p>B|</p><p>L|E as 'year 5, officina 2'.</p></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>So, these coins are not dated in Diocletian's year 12 or 13 but (Maximian) Herculius' year 12 with his Ceasar's year 5, officina B.</p><p><br /></p><p>Now I did mention a typographical error in one of the sources. It's in both of vanHorn's tables where</p><p><br /></p><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><p>B| </p><p>L|E </p><p><br /></p><p>is given as </p><p><br /></p><p>B|</p><p>L|A</p></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>Bottom line, the coins with "Greek dates" on the Latin follis belong to Maximian Herculius and his Caesar not Doicletian a year earlier. As noted, only two specimens were recorded. I can only wish I had a third one.</p><p><br /></p><p>Thanks again for the questions that made me examine all this again!</p><p><br /></p><p>- Broucheion[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="Broucheion, post: 4007052, member: 104887"]Hi [USER=84744]@Severus Alexander[/USER], [USER=19463]@dougsmit[/USER], Thank you for making me review the references to understand what's really going on here. It reminds me that answering 'from the hip' is not the best way to go (for me at least). It also showed up a typographical error in one of the sources that I never noticed before. Doug of course is right to point out that Since I remembered the article's argument made sense to me the first time I read it, I went back and looked at it carefully. In VanHorn's article, Table 1 shows Southerland's chronology (RIC VI) and Table 2 shows the author's revised view. In both cases, coins with LIB and LB are placed in 296 or 296/297 CE. My shot from the hip was that "LIB = year 12 of Diocletian = year 2 (LB) of his Caesar." The reason for a dated follis coinage is underpinned by the statement "This revolt [by Domitianus] provides a fixed chronological point from which a sequence for the remaining issues may be constructed." Staffierri makes the case that the revolt started in May-June 297 (in Alexandria) after the introduction of a new tax on 27 March 297 [see [URL='https://www.yumpu.com/it/document/view/15845045/testimonianze-sulla-fine-della-monetazione-autonoma-alessandrina-']"Testimonianze sulla fine della monetazione autonoma alessandrina (296-298 d.C.)"] [/URL]which is a bit after the monetary reform was introduced in late August 296, which puts the revolt in the 13th year of Diocletian. Ahh, but here's where I should have double checked by going back to original RIC VI. On page 646 Southerland wrote [INDENT][INDENT][LEFT][I]"Tetradrachms of the Greek style were struck as usual with Diocletian's regnal date IB, Herculius' IA, and the Caesars' Δ = 29 August 295- 28 August 296. [U]Only two have been recorded(2) for a later date, with Herculius' IB = 29 August 296-28 August 297 - the date of the two known Latin-style folles(3) which, by a hybrid anachronism, bear Greek dates (IB for Herculius, off A; E for Constantius, off. B[/U]).(4)"[/I][/LEFT][/INDENT][/INDENT] Footnote (4) is the key, but here are all of them for completeness: (2) Voetter, N.Z. 1911, pl. i, after p. 180; Dattari, Numi Augg. Alexandrini, no. 5857. (3) See below, p. 650. (4) Callu is correct (as against Dattari, R.N. 1904, pp. 395 ff.; Voetter, N.Z. 1911, p. 173; and Thirion, R.B.N. 1961, p. 197) in reading [INDENT][INDENT][INDENT]B| L|E as 'year 5, officina 2'.[/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT] So, these coins are not dated in Diocletian's year 12 or 13 but (Maximian) Herculius' year 12 with his Ceasar's year 5, officina B. Now I did mention a typographical error in one of the sources. It's in both of vanHorn's tables where [INDENT][INDENT][INDENT]B| L|E is given as B| L|A[/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT] Bottom line, the coins with "Greek dates" on the Latin follis belong to Maximian Herculius and his Caesar not Doicletian a year earlier. As noted, only two specimens were recorded. I can only wish I had a third one. Thanks again for the questions that made me examine all this again! - Broucheion[/QUOTE]
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
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
The mystery of ACHILLEUS, the Corrector
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...
