Timeline for Why did Romans use the sesterce in written monetary records when the coin itself was so rarely used?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 12, 2020 at 20:53 | vote | accept | Haydentech | ||
| Jan 11, 2020 at 20:06 | comment | added | sempaiscuba | Also, fwiw, when I search for sestertius on the PAS database it returns 11,464 results. This does include a number where the value of the coin was uncertain (i.e. where it might be an As, or dupondius), and a number where the coin had been cut into pieces but it shows that the coin is by no means rare! (Note the observation about the spelling of Sestertius in the Wikipedia article.) | |
| Jan 11, 2020 at 19:59 | comment | added | sempaiscuba | No it doesn't. The evidence is more-or-less exactly what you would expect for a coin where the value of the metal in the coin eventually exceeded its face value. | |
| Jan 11, 2020 at 18:39 | history | edited | Haydentech | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
strike out assumption about it being rarely-minted
|
| Jan 11, 2020 at 18:36 | comment | added | Haydentech | @sempaiscuba I stand corrected about "rarely-minted", but all the evidence still does point to it being unusually rarely used in comparison to other coins of the era. The site you linked records a find of 1 (!) sesterce which has a hole for stringing onto a necklace, and 9 other coins which might be serterces but are so worn that they are unidentifiable. | |
| Jan 11, 2020 at 18:31 | answer | added | Pieter Geerkens | timeline score: -2 | |
| Jan 11, 2020 at 18:02 | answer | added | C Monsour | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jan 11, 2020 at 17:54 | comment | added | sempaiscuba | Your assumption that the Sestertius was a "... rarely-minted and rarely-used coin" is incorrect. The Wikipedia article on the Sestertius has some details and history of the coin. For examples found in the UK, you might try searching the Portable Antiquities Scheme database. | |
| Jan 11, 2020 at 17:50 | comment | added | Haydentech | The answer I've always assumed is that the sesterce coin was indeed used extensively in very early Roman society, perhaps even as the primary coin, but was replaced in popularity by other denominations over time. To maintain consistency, however, official documents continued to use the old denomination even when the actual coin was practically unused. It would be nice to confirm or deny this theory, though. | |
| Jan 11, 2020 at 17:45 | review | First posts | |||
| Jan 11, 2020 at 18:25 | |||||
| Jan 11, 2020 at 17:41 | history | asked | Haydentech | CC BY-SA 4.0 |