Hi Steven
In many cases a "unit" represents a monetary value that we suspect exists but can't prove because of a lack of value marks or literary references. Many eastern bronzes under
Roman influence are believed to represent
asses or fractions or multiples thereof, but we can't be sure - and we also might be wrong, as perhaps they represent obols / fractions / multiples, or maybe both in cases where a
drachm was valued near to a
denarius, the same bronze coin might represent an
obol or alternately two or three
asses. We can't be sure. Academic writers who plump for one or other terminology generally get criticised by those with an opposite or agnostic view. So there's an increasing tendency to play safe and write "unit". In some cases, the use of "unit" masks a serious uncertainty, for example in early
Roman coinage there are bronze coins that have traditionally been considered token (fiduciary, overvalued relative to their metal value) and described as litrae or fractions or multiples thereof in the Greek
style. Some modern scholars are not so sure and think these may just be intrinsically valued fractions of the
aes grave currency and actually unciae or fractions thereof. One or the other view must be wrong. So, play it safe and call them "units" and no-one argues.
Really excellent question by the way.
Welcome to
Forum, I see these were your first posts.
Andrew
