This little coin (RRC 305/2) is so irritating I managed to wipe it from my memory and thus from the first draft of the uncia paper. That cannot be left that way (I know, I know: it is also full of typos– I’ll get to those too… at some point). I have not been able… Continue reading Cerco the quaestor’s uncia?
It’s so rough and so full of typos, but I must let it go as I’ve got students who I can ignore not a minute longer. Feel free to tell me how wrong I am and what I’ve not read but obviously should have.
Have I forgotten the small change? No! I just took two speaking engagements on new topis the first two weeks of the semester on top of other research commitments, accidentally fell in love with my great great grandfather and started a website for that project, had some proofs to deal with (we are now through… Continue reading The final unciae?
So the weird thing about this coin issue is that apparently the moneyer only made unciae and semuncia. What’s up with that? Some guesses. 1) Tubulus also made the anonymous issue 287/1 (no proof, wild speculation, do not quote me as believing this!); 2) The moneyers in the annual college got to mint in order… Continue reading Tubulus’ uncia (315)
If you’ve been following along, you know that RRC 308 was dated later in the RR coin series by Lockyear 2018, but it bears repeating if you’ve ended up on this page accidentally. The unciae are in visual dialogue with the semuncia of this issue. The semuncia has a single cornucopia and the unciae have… Continue reading Herennius’ Unciae (308)
Now you’re thinking to yourself: why, why did she skip Herennius? Cast your mind back, dear reader, to the semunciae post. As detailed there, Herennius likely comes later in the series, so we have to treat Sulpicius first! RRC 312 Are you reminded of the dog (who was a very good boy, of course!)? I… Continue reading Sulpicius’ Uncia (312)
Crawford knew two specimens of RRC 305/2: Copenhagen illustrated above and in Crawford’s own plates and F. Capranesi in D. D. Müller, Memorie, 56. Tracking down the latter is on the to do list. Irritatingly, no weight for either specimen. Schaefer was concerned that this Copenhagen specimen might be an altered RRC 315/1. I don’t… Continue reading Late Unciae (305)
So I like the sense of completion of hitting publish on a blog post, its a trivial little boost to mark a bit of work and the end of a thought unit. So I’m breaking my previous long post and starting a new one. There is no logic to my breaking spot maybe even some… Continue reading More late unciae (293/3)
Next up in our small change investigation is RRC 289/5. To understand this choice you’ll have to accept Lockyear 2018‘s methods for rearranging the relative chronology. Crawford had put this in 115-114 BCE and HBM has even nudged it down towards 112 BCE, but Lockyear tells us that 289 is in the wrong place so… Continue reading Late Unciae