numismatic.^8 I do not mean to imply that the system of honorific exchange is not
worth the serious attention of any historian, and it is obviously very important that
the construction of time was part of the system of honorific exchange; yet we need
always to remind ourselves that the eras were not dating systems, as they so
inevitably appear to be. Eras could be invented for all kinds of purposes. Even
Cicero could invent an era offthe cuff, with some irony dating with a new era of
“the battle of Bovillae” the brawl in which his archenemy Clodius was killed (18
January 52 b.c.e.): he arrived at Ephesus, he tells Atticus, 559 days after the battle
of Bovillae.^9 “Real” battles were in fact regularly used as the anchor for eras. It has
been argued that the so-called Macedonian era (148/7 b.c.e.) marked the victory
in that year of Metellus over Andriscus.^10 Caesarian eras were used in the Greek
East, counting from the battle of Pharsalus, and the battle of Actium likewise gen-
erated eras all over the region.^11 Pompey is an important figure in the history of
Greek eras in the East, blazing a trail in this regard as in so many others, and we
find numerous cities marking eras from the date when he liberated them from the
Seleucids.^12
If honorific eras of this kind are common in the Greek East, often prompted by
actions of Roman generals or emperors, the Romans themselves showed very lit-
tle interest in the eras of this part of their empire.^13 Correspondingly, it is very diffi-
cult to find eras in use in the Latin West. As Knapp points out in his important dis-
cussion of the era consularisin Cantabria, the Latin West shows only three eras
actually in use, with the eras of Patavium and Mauretania the only other ones apart
from the Cantabrian.^14 In Knapp’s argument, the Cantabrian era emerges as a gen-
uinely interesting case of a local piece of ad hoc identity construction. The Canta-
brians took year one to be Vespasian’s granting of Latinity to the region some-
where around 75 c.e., and they did this centuries after Vespasian, at a time of
increasing chaos in Spain, as a way of grounding their identity in the face of the
collapse of Roman authority and the encroachment of peoples from outside
Spain.^15
What of eras in the city of Rome itself? Unwary students can sometimes get the
impression that the Romans in general used an era “A.U.C.,” ab urbe condita,
“from the foundation of the city.” In fact, this is not the case, not least because
agreement was never reached on a precise foundation date.^16 Only one coin sur-
vives that gives a date A.U.C., a Hadrianic coin from 121 c.e., marked as minted in
the “874th birth year of the city” (ann[o] DCCCLXXIIII nat[ali] urbis).^17 This
appears to be the only imperial coin that bears any date other than a regnal year.^18
Roman historians will sometimes say that something happened so many years after
- Years, Months, Days I: Eras and Anniversaries