Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 7933826, member: 19463&quot;]This has been a very interesting thread.&nbsp; I have not considered the coins of client kings or the things of uncertain status (Anonymous Pagan, Festival) to be Provincials.&nbsp; The coins of Aurelian as shown and Tacitus mentioned here meet the criteria I hold: City issues honoring Rome (Emperor or less commonly the Senate).&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>The Bosporos kings are not Roman Provincials but coins of a foreign king serving perhaps as a puppet or ally but not just a magistrate/governor.&nbsp; This is just a matter of opinion.&nbsp; The ones under Constantine and Licinius have a &#039;situation&#039; since we can not be sure who is shown.&nbsp; It must be whichever was then in control of the East.&nbsp; Is this Rhadamsades of 314-5 AD Constantine or Licinius? I&#039;m calling it Licinius for reasons that make more sense to me than they would to others.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1372193[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I would not assume that the hands that made the Domitius coins survived the event but could have been replaced by or survivors augmented from imported workers.&nbsp; Does anyone see a style link between the last pre-reform coins and the first of the new group?[/QUOTE]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