FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board
Numismatic and History Discussion Forums => Greek Coins Discussion Forum => Topic started by: FEDERICO D on August 30, 2020, 04:17:37 am
-
Hello everyone. I point out this article of mine that appeared in the latest issue of OMNI published a few days ago. The article focuses on the theme of the monograms on Greek coins which in some cases, in my interpretation, are numbers.
https://www.academia.edu/43928165/F_De_Luca_Numerical_notations_on_Ptolemy_I_Soter_s_gold_staters_Revue_Numismatique_OMNI_no_14_08_2020_pp_31_69
-
A clear example of a number reported in a monogram ...
-
As you will notice, in the previous post all the numbers are expressed on the basis of a single numeral system and have no implied figures. This coin issue is very interesting because, in my interpretation, on each coin there is a monogram that indicates a gradually increasing figure and another monogram that expresses a fixed figure indicating the issue limit, as if we said 1) 90,000 staters in the process of being minted out of a total of 500,000 to be minted; 2) 150,000 staters being minted out of a total of 500,000 to be minted and so on ..
-
Ciao Federico,
First of all, congratulations for this article ! It's really a thorough analysis of a difficult issue.
It is a tough read... you can't flip through the pages in an armchair near a swimming pool with a fresh beer in hand :)
of course i'm not competant enough to judge your work but if i may some questions :
I understand your numeral interpretation of the monograms and your "translation" of each reverse die but what is the logic behind the different values of the ranges ?
e.g. why a range of 120000 staters for the coin 3 (30000-150000) a range of 150000 staters for the coin 14 (150000 - 300000) a range of 50000 staters for the coin 17 (200000 - 250000) a range of 20000 staters for the coin 19 (280000 - 300000) ...
How do you interpret the R12 ? (200000 200000 200000)
How do you explain that five different monograms are used for indicating 1000000 drachms wich, as the issue limit, is the most important number ? i mean it seems odd to me that five different monograms are used not for writing the same figure but for transcribing the same meaning (i don't know if i'm clear :D)
-
Thank you for your question. The differences in the ranges can be explained by thinking of decisions taken from time to time: as the coins were minted, it was decided which monograms should be used to distinguish the next group of coins. The groups of coins, therefore, had different sizes, the important thing was that, added together, they gave the desired total. The different ways in which the issue limit was then indicated were meticulously studied precisely to create elements capable of more diversifying the groups of coins that were part of the same issue and that were distinguishable from the other groups while indicating the same quantity final of coins to be minted. In my humble opinion this happened at many Greek mints: for example in Velia the recurring size of didrachm emissions was 500,000 pieces often indicated with the Greek letter F (= 500) but also in a variety of other ways. And the reconstruction of an issue of Velia's didrachms, with the tracing of all the obverse dies used, confirms this numerical hypothesis (I made this reconstruction in my book "I numeri svelati. Alla scoperta delle notazioni numeriche riportate sulle monete greche")
-
Ciao Federico,
First of all, congratulations for this article ! It's really a thorough analysis of a difficult issue.
It is a tough read... you can't flip through the pages in an armchair near a swimming pool with a fresh beer in hand :)
of course i'm not competant enough to judge your work but if i may some questions :
I understand your numeral interpretation of the monograms and your "translation" of each reverse die but what is the logic behind the different values of the ranges ?
e.g. why a range of 120000 staters for the coin 3 (30000-150000) a range of 150000 staters for the coin 14 (150000 - 300000) a range of 50000 staters for the coin 17 (200000 - 250000) a range of 20000 staters for the coin 19 (280000 - 300000) ...
How do you interpret the R12 ? (200000 200000 200000)
How do you explain that five different monograms are used for indicating 1000000 drachms wich, as the issue limit, is the most important number ? i mean it seems odd to me that five different monograms are used not for writing the same figure but for transcribing the same meaning (i don't know if i'm clear :D)
It's hard to read because it is utterly incomprehensible.
PtolemAE
-
... It's hard to read because it is utterly incomprehensible. ...
More than twenty pages of pure text without any internal structure (chapters, headlines etc.) is really hard stuff :-\.
Sometime I learned in connection with texts: There is one who has to labor, the writer or the reader. In this case it seems to be the reader :(.
Regards
Altamura
-
It's hard to read because it is utterly incomprehensible.
PtolemAE
The article starts from a simple observation. Is there a sampi on the first coin? Is there an apex on the second coin which in Greek denote numbers? The answer would seem to be yes ... and then we moderns have the duty to understand the meaning of this set of monograms.
If you are willing to accept this novelty then perhaps it will be possible to forgive the complexity of the organization of the exhibition and some harshness in the English translation ...
-
... It's hard to read because it is utterly incomprehensible. ...
More than twenty pages of pure text without any internal structure (chapters, headlines etc.) is really hard stuff :-\.
Sometime I learned in connection with texts: There is one who has to labor, the writer or the reader. In this case it seems to be the reader :(.
Regards
Altamura
I am saddened that the text is difficult to read. It is not that I did not want to suffer and turned the suffering on the reader. The truth is that I have not found at the moment a better way to organize a text that still had to have the cut of an article (therefore without chapters, paragraphs and more) to be inserted in a magazine. I repeat, I am saddened by this and I participate in the reader's suffering. I just hope that the basic concept passes and that is that monograms can be read as numbers and not only, uncritically, as initials of names ...
-
It's hard to read because it is utterly incomprehensible.
PtolemAE
The article starts from a simple observation. Is there a sampi on the first coin? ...
None I can see.
If there *is* a sampi (that I cannot see), so what?
NOTE: It is impossible for someone to make their case by asking someone else questions.
PtolemAE
-
It's hard to read because it is utterly incomprehensible.
PtolemAE
The article starts from a simple observation. Is there a sampi on the first coin? ...
None I can see.
If there *is* a sampi (that I cannot see), I would be at a complete loss to tell anyone what it means. If there is a small die nick on another coin then I have no idea what that means, either, any more than I can explain the small dot below the AV monogram on the first coin.
I also cannot explain the tiny dot above the elephant on that coin. The latter might also be another secret code ...
PtolemAE
-
NOTE: It is impossible for someone to make their case by asking someone else questions.
PtolemAE
The question was rhetorical...
-
It's hard to read because it is utterly incomprehensible.
PtolemAE
The article starts from a simple observation. Is there a sampi on the first coin? ...
None I can see.
If there *is* a sampi (that I cannot see), I would be at a complete loss to tell anyone what it means.
PtolemAE
The presence of a sampi may indicate that it is a numerical sequence ... but if you don't like it, don't waste any more time ...
-
For an easy reading of the article, in case you are interested, it is still advisable to print it and look at the photos of the coins in the plates as they are mentioned in the text, instead of reading on the screen by going up and down with the mouse to see the images...
As I say in the text, I want to remind you that the difficulty of distinguishing figures composed by numbers and
monograms composed by Greek letters, do not only characterize we modern people but also
concerned the same ancient Greeks if they were not aware of the standard by which to interpret the
monograms, like this nice epigram from Alcaeus of Mitylene (Anthologia Palatina, VII, 429)
reminds us:
I ask myself why this road-side stone has only two :Greek_Phi: chiselled on it.
Was the name of the woman who is buried here Chilias?
The number chilia [=1,000] which is the sum of two letters [ :Greek_Phi: =500; :Greek_Phi: x 2= 1,000]
points to this.
Or am I astray in this guess
and was the name of her who dwells in this mournful tomb Phidis [= :Greek_Phi: :Greek_Delta::Greek_Iota::GreeK_Sigma: = twice :Greek_Phi:]?
Now am I the Oedipus who has solved the sphinx’s riddle.
He deserves praise, the man who made this puzzle out of two letters,
a light to the intelligent and darkness to the unintelligent.
-
If, on the other hand, we liquidate everything with a generic "we don't know", "it is not possible to know or hypothesize it" let's close these discussions on the forums, let's limit ourselves only to "what is it worth?" and we leave numismatics immobile where the Jesuit Joseph Hilarius Eckhel theorized it.
-
Well i would say that your article is too long or too short...
As you propose a new interpretation of the monograms, i would say that a more important bibliographic review on that subject is missing, at least regarding Hellenistic royal coinage.
The idea that certain monograms represent numbers is attractive, but the demonstration that all the monograms are numbers and the resulting arrangement process is not very convincing.
-
Well i would say that your article is too long or too short...
As you propose a new interpretation of the monograms, i would say that a more important bibliographic review on that subject is missing, at least regarding Hellenistic royal coinage.
The idea that certain monograms represent numbers is attractive, but the demonstration that all the monograms are numbers and the resulting arrangement process is not very convincing.
But I do not propose at all to interpret ALL monograms as numbers, but only those that have, in fact, the characteristic of numbers and that fall within a series of different monograms reported within the same issue which can be interpreted as a numerical sequence.
Monograms that can be interpreted as numbers are found for example in Massalia:
https://www.academia.edu/34086494/Federico_De_Luca_Alphabetical_numbering_and_numerical_progressions_on_drachms_and_Massalia_s_small_bronze_coins_Revue_Numismatique_OMNI_n_11_07_2017_p_74_111
But there are also monograms that CERTAINLY refer to the names of monetary magistrates or, as is well known, full names of magistrates. I don't want to show that ALL monograms are numbers but just that not ALL monograms are names ...
-
If, on the other hand, we liquidate everything with a generic "we don't know", "it is not possible to know or hypothesize it" let's close these discussions on the forums, let's limit ourselves only to "what is it worth?" and we leave numismatics immobile where the Jesuit Joseph Hilarius Eckhel theorized it.
That this 'theory' is incomprehensible should not cause anyone to fear the collapse of the field of numismatics. It takes courage to admit what we don't know. It will be a pleasure to be proven wrong about either of those assertions.
PtolemAE
-
I think you skip a few steps. Maybe if you went back and filled in those steps, it would be more clear, if you can fill in those steps, such as those that would explain how each monogram (with loops and tails, etc) are really letters used in the Milesian system.
-
If, on the other hand, we liquidate everything with a generic "we don't know", "it is not possible to know or hypothesize it" let's close these discussions on the forums, let's limit ourselves only to "what is it worth?" and we leave numismatics immobile where the Jesuit Joseph Hilarius Eckhel theorized it.
That this 'theory' is incomprehensible should not cause anyone to fear the collapse of the field of numismatics. It takes courage to admit what we don't know. It will be a pleasure to be proven wrong about either of those assertions.
PtolemAE
Of course, numismatics, the world and my life go on even if this bizarre "theory" of mine is not accepted. In the end I simply propose to consider the hypothesis that the Greeks, who were able to calculate the circumference of the Earth with extreme precision, kept track of the coins they minted and pinned the numbers on the coins. Nothing transcendental, I think ...
-
I think you skip a few steps. Maybe if you went back and filled in those steps, it would be more clear, if you can fill in those steps, such as those that would explain how each monogram (with loops and tails, etc) are really letters used in the Milesian system.
Thank you for your suggestion. To avoid writing an even longer article I had to skip some steps. In my other articles (available on Academia.edu) I have tried to find evidence in other sources such as the Egyptian papyri, see this article for example:
https://www.academia.edu/36962445/F_De_Luca_Monograms_on_Kibyra_s_coins_names_or_numbers_Revue_Numismatique_OMNI_no_12_6_2018_pp_54_84
and stone inscriptions, see this article about it:
https://www.academia.edu/30598689/F_De_Luca_Numeri_su_monete_ed_epigrafi_greche_Monete_Antiche_n_88_Luglio_Agosto_2016
-
Well of course there is a sampi character on these coins (with one in different form in reply 7), coupled with a P it seems.
But do these symbols represent numbers?
Perhaps, or perhaps not. I've seen this argument before, in the context of Athens new style tets I think it was, and I didn't buy it in that case.
And Brennos's arguments here against Federico's specific interpretations are powerful.
But then, as Federico says, these symbols must mean something, and the question of what is certainly worth asking.
Generally speaking they presumably act as some type of auditing aid, although just how they work is unclear, to say the least.
Ross G.
-
Well of course there is a sampi character on these coins (with one in different form in reply 7), coupled with a P it seems.
But do these symbols represent numbers?
Perhaps, or perhaps not. I've seen this argument before, in the context of Athens new style tets I think it was, and I didn't buy it in that case.
And Brennos's arguments here against Federico's specific interpretations are powerful.
But then, as Federico says, these symbols must mean something, and the question of what is certainly worth asking.
Generally speaking they presumably act as some type of auditing aid, although just how they work is unclear, to say the least.
Ross G.
My contribution, with all its limitations, really wants to be a stimulus to investigate the meaning of these monograms ....
-
Hi Federico,
You report in your article 21 obverse and 32 reverse dies for the Soter gold drachms, and I would agree that this could account for 500,000 coins, with coins per die figures of the order of 20,000 or so, although we might quibble with the assumed figure of 500,000 coins rather than 1,000,000.
You have probably covered the bulk of the original dies, but presumably there are still some unknown dies, so it would be interesting to know how many coins were looked at to produce these die figures, so that we could better estimate the original die numbers.
Ross G.
-
Hi Federico,
You report in your article 21 obverse and 32 reverse dies for the Soter gold drachms, and I would agree that this could account for 500,000 coins, with coins per die figures of the order of 20,000 or so, although we might quibble with the assumed figure of 500,000 coins rather than 1,000,000.
You have probably covered the bulk of the original dies, but presumably there are still some unknown dies, so it would be interesting to know how many coins were looked at to produce these die figures, so that we could better estimate the original die numbers.
Ross G.
There aren't many pictures of gold staters by Ptolemy Soter. I managed to find only 113 of which 69 from auction sales (from the early 1900s to today), 9 kept in public museums, and 35 from the bibliography on the subject. Given the scarcity of coins available, it is preferable to favor the hypothesis of 500,000 pieces instead of one million.
I take this opportunity for a clarification: 3 of the 9 coins coming from Museums were photographed especially for me (one from the Metropolitan Museum of New York and two from the British Museum on whose website only the reverses were presented). Overall between rights and photographic services I spent more than 1,000 euros, which I regret bitterly given the coldness with which my work was received at least on this forum ...
-
I think it is a plausible and interesting theory.
For everyone’s information coins from the BnF collection are now free to use for academic purposes. It wasn’t expensive before, only 2 dollars or so per coin compared to c. $100 from most museums, but even better now :)
-
Hi Federico,
You report in your article 21 obverse and 32 reverse dies for the Soter gold drachms, and I would agree that this could account for 500,000 coins, with coins per die figures of the order of 20,000 or so, although we might quibble with the assumed figure of 500,000 coins rather than 1,000,000.
You have probably covered the bulk of the original dies, but presumably there are still some unknown dies, so it would be interesting to know how many coins were looked at to produce these die figures, so that we could better estimate the original die numbers.
Ross G.
There aren't many pictures of gold staters by Ptolemy Soter. I managed to find only 113 of which 69 from auction sales (from the early 1900s to today), 9 kept in public museums, and 35 from the bibliography on the subject. Given the scarcity of coins available, it is preferable to favor the hypothesis of 500,000 pieces instead of one million.
I take this opportunity for a clarification: 3 of the 9 coins coming from Museums were photographed especially for me (one from the Metropolitan Museum of New York and two from the British Museum on whose website only the reverses were presented). Overall between rights and photographic services I spent more than 1,000 euros, which I regret bitterly given the coldness with which my work was received at least on this forum ...
Has your die study of the ~ 100 specimens been published separately?
There is an excellent very large die study of some other Ptolemaic gold coins published by Olivier and Lorber a few years ago in RBN. Maybe that would be helpful for understanding some monograms.
Thanks,
PtolemAE
-
Has your die study of the ~ 100 specimens been published separately?
PtolemAE
[/quote]
unfortunately not...
-
There is an excellent very large die study of some other Ptolemaic gold coins published by Olivier and Lorber a few years ago in RBN. Maybe that would be helpful for understanding some monograms.
Thanks,
PtolemAE
[/quote]
Thanks for the information. I consulted this study but in the case of the gold staters I tried to understand the logic on the basis of which monograms followed each other in this specific case. However, thinking now serenely, I think it is quite clear that some monograms are punctually followed on many Ptolemaic coins. For example, how many times have you seen the monogram :Greek_Pi: :Greek_Rho:: it occurs very often on all the coins of Ptolemy I and his successors .... Accuse me of being repetitive but to me it seems a number that recurs often rather than a name ...
-
I think it is a plausible and interesting theory.
For everyone’s information coins from the BnF collection are now free to use for academic purposes. It wasn’t expensive before, only 2 dollars or so per coin compared to c. $100 from most museums, but even better now :)
Thanks for this support, Nick!
-
Hi Federico,
You report in your article 21 obverse and 32 reverse dies for the Soter gold drachms, and I would agree that this could account for 500,000 coins, with coins per die figures of the order of 20,000 or so, although we might quibble with the assumed figure of 500,000 coins rather than 1,000,000.
You have probably covered the bulk of the original dies, but presumably there are still some unknown dies, so it would be interesting to know how many coins were looked at to produce these die figures, so that we could better estimate the original die numbers.
Ross G.
There aren't many pictures of gold staters by Ptolemy Soter. I managed to find only 113 of which 69 from auction sales (from the early 1900s to today), 9 kept in public museums, and 35 from the bibliography on the subject. Given the scarcity of coins available, it is preferable to favor the hypothesis of 500,000 pieces instead of one million.
So we have a sample of n = 113 coins, with d = 21 different obverse dies and 30 (or 32?) reverse dies.
Assuming an exponential die life, we can estimate the total number of obverse dies with Esty’s standard formula D = nd/(n-d) giving 26 for the obverse dies and 41 (or 45) for the reverse.
This increases the number of dies somewhat, but probably still not enough to accommodate 1,000,000 coins (rather than 500,000).
Ross G.
-
I downloaded Federico D's paper based on this thread.
Perhaps some of the comments on this board are not coming across well in translation. They read a bit harshly to me. Although the paper would benefit from a clearer outline structure, it uses excellent plate photos and clear graphics. Those features are often lacking from numismatic articles.
As to the argument, I am not well-versed in Ptolemaic coins or Greek monograms to judge the accuracy of the thesis. However, mintage and die usage have perplexed lifelong professionals, and Federico D's theory is interesting. At least in my read, I did not see that it was addressed and rebutted by prior writers. That is the core of research and dialogue. Perhaps the theory will hold up, perhaps not.
I noted that the author cites Roman Republic coins, and an article by Rick Witschonke on die marks and mint management. That article was also the product of independent research and much more readable than purely academic products. I return to it frequently even though I feel it does not satisfy a few questions that I would like to explore.
And Federico has time to work on his thesis. It is a creative way of looking at the evidence provided by the coins.
-
Hi Federico,
You report in your article 21 obverse and 32 reverse dies for the Soter gold drachms, and I would agree that this could account for 500,000 coins, with coins per die figures of the order of 20,000 or so, although we might quibble with the assumed figure of 500,000 coins rather than 1,000,000.
You have probably covered the bulk of the original dies, but presumably there are still some unknown dies, so it would be interesting to know how many coins were looked at to produce these die figures, so that we could better estimate the original die numbers.
Ross G.
There aren't many pictures of gold staters by Ptolemy Soter. I managed to find only 113 of which 69 from auction sales (from the early 1900s to today), 9 kept in public museums, and 35 from the bibliography on the subject. Given the scarcity of coins available, it is preferable to favor the hypothesis of 500,000 pieces instead of one million.
So we have a sample of n = 113 coins, with d = 21 different obverse dies and 30 (or 32?) reverse dies.
Assuming an exponential die life, we can estimate the total number of obverse dies with Esty’s standard formula D = nd/(n-d) giving 26 for the obverse dies and 41 (or 45) for the reverse.
This increases the number of dies somewhat, but probably still not enough to accommodate 1,000,000 coins (rather than 500,000).
Ross G.
Right observation. The figure of 500,000 coins as a limit of the issue seems then insistently suggested by the monograms shown on the coins (if interpreted as numbers): both by the numerical progression (first digit) and by the figure that always remains fixed (the second, sometimes expressed in staters and sometimes in drachms).
-
I downloaded Federico D's paper based on this thread.
Perhaps some of the comments on this board are not coming across well in translation. They read a bit harshly to me. Although the paper would benefit from a clearer outline structure, it uses excellent plate photos and clear graphics. Those features are often lacking from numismatic articles.
As to the argument, I am not well-versed in Ptolemaic coins or Greek monograms to judge the accuracy of the thesis. However, mintage and die usage have perplexed lifelong professionals, and Federico D's theory is interesting. At least in my read, I did not see that it was addressed and rebutted by prior writers. That is the core of research and dialogue. Perhaps the theory will hold up, perhaps not.
I noted that the author cites Roman Republic coins, and an article by Rick Witschonke on die marks and mint management. That article was also the product of independent research and much more readable than purely academic products. I return to it frequently even though I feel it does not satisfy a few questions that I would like to explore.
And Federico has time to work on his thesis. It is a creative way of looking at the evidence provided by the coins.
Thank you for your appreciation. I am perfectly aware that my article presents some interpretative difficulties due to the fact that I had to condense in "a few" pages a topic that had to be conceived as an article anyway. Other difficulties derive from the new concepts introduced (numerical notations, issue portions, numerical bracket, etc etc). Other big difficulties derive from the translation which has however been revised by an American professor of English literature ... Anyway, so much ... I sincerely hope that this work will serve at least to raise the doubt that these blessed monograms can ALSO be looked as numbers ...
-
... me (one from the Metropolitan Museum of New York and two from the British Museum on whose website only the reverses were presented). Overall between rights and photographic services I spent more than 1,000 euros, which I regret bitterly given the coldness with which my work was received at least on this forum ...
The idea is potentially interesting of course because there is no doubt that some monograms on some Greek coins resemble some numbers in some Greek written number systems. That is not news. A few coin types have symbols that look like some of the number monograms. A detailed theory like this, however, can only be believable if it is consistent and systematic. As it read there were many ad hoc twists and turns and 'adjustments'. No one can prove it's wrong, it just isn't persuasive.
Generations of numismatists have had their try at deciphering control letters and monograms Ptolemaic coins and I'll be the first to congratulate anyone who comes up with a consistent and believable scheme showing there a coherent pattern representing numbers. Certainly *SOME* of the symbols on coins resemble some 'monogram' type numbers. The majority, however, don't. And Egyptians were also adept at symbols and rebuses (making symbols out of the pronounced sounds of other symbols) and, in Ptolemaic times, they used three different languages. We simply don't know how many coins were made dies that shared a symbol that sort of looks like a number. 500,000 staters is a lot; (round numbers, hope my calculations are about right) 5,000,000 grams of (5000 kilograms ~250 liters ~ 250 4" cubes) of gold.
In one case we believe the letters on Ptolemaic coins do indicate numbers. Those are the Alexandria bronze coins of Cleopatra VII with her portrait, with M (40) or Pi (80) on the reverse. Their mean weights that are almost exactly in the same ratio as those numerical value symbols. It's possible of course that instead those letters represent some large numbers of coins produced as they are extremely common today. But the simple 'value mark' idea is easily believable and connects to something we can measure - the weight ratios. Of course it's possible the M means that 40,000,000 of that coin were made and the Pi means that 80,000,000 of that type were made. Or maybe M and Pi don't mean 40 and 80 in this context... No one can prove those latter ideas are wrong. They're just not very believable compared to the simple value-mark idea, absent some new evidence that's compelling.
Putting the work out here without expecting justifiably skeptical opinions may be more optimistic than the premise of the paper :)
In my experience, no personal hurt is ever intended here (and the owner of this site won't permit it, anyway). The amount of imagination and work is impressive. And writing is not easy. Dedication to see it through and intent to add to understanding of numismatics is admirable as well. But in the end, it's a cropper - the theory doesn't stand up to critical scrutiny and those who have detailed its weaknesses and incompleteness here are also to be thanked for their thoughtful help.
If the theory can be rescued then we look forward to another presentation of it in some future form.
PtolemAE
-
... me (one from the Metropolitan Museum of New York and two from the British Museum on whose website only the reverses were presented). Overall between rights and photographic services I spent more than 1,000 euros, which I regret bitterly given the coldness with which my work was received at least on this forum ...
The idea is potentially interesting of course because there is no doubt that some monograms on some Greek coins resemble some numbers in some Greek written number systems. That is not news. A few coin types have symbols that look like some of the number monograms. A detailed theory like this, however, can only be believable if it is consistent and systematic. As it read there were many ad hoc twists and turns and 'adjustments'. No one can prove it's wrong, it just isn't persuasive.
Generations of numismatists have had their try at deciphering control letters and monograms Ptolemaic coins and I'll be the first to congratulate anyone who comes up with a consistent and believable scheme showing there a coherent pattern representing numbers. Certainly *SOME* of the symbols on coins resemble some 'monogram' type numbers. The majority, however, don't. And Egyptians were also adept at symbols and rebuses (making symbols out of the pronounced sounds of other symbols) and, in Ptolemaic times, they used three different languages. We simply don't know how many coins were made dies that shared a symbol that sort of looks like a number. 500,000 staters is a lot; (round numbers, hope my calculations are about right) 5,000,000 grams of (5000 kilograms ~250 liters ~ 250 4" cubes) of gold.
In one case we believe the letters on Ptolemaic coins do indicate numbers. Those are the Alexandria bronze coins of Cleopatra VII with her portrait, with M (40) or Pi (80) on the reverse. Their mean weights that are almost exactly in the same ratio as those numerical value symbols. It's possible of course that instead those letters represent some large numbers of coins produced as they are extremely common today. But the simple 'value mark' idea is easily believable and connects to something we can measure - the weight ratios. Of course it's possible the M means that 40,000,000 of that coin were made and the Pi means that 80,000,000 of that type were made. Or maybe M and Pi don't mean 40 and 80 in this context... No one can prove those latter ideas are wrong. They're just not very believable compared to the simple value-mark idea, absent some new evidence that's compelling.
Putting the work out here without expecting justifiably skeptical opinions may be more optimistic than the premise of the paper :)
In my experience, no personal hurt is ever intended here (and the owner of this site won't permit it, anyway). The amount of imagination and work is impressive. And writing is not easy. Dedication to see it through and intent to add to understanding of numismatics is admirable as well. But in the end, it's a cropper - the theory doesn't stand up to critical scrutiny and those who have detailed its weaknesses and incompleteness here are also to be thanked for their thoughtful help.
If the theory can be rescued then we look forward to another presentation of it in some future form.
PtolemAE
It is clear that the theory, being new, raises some perplexities: some of its assumptions are difficult to digest precisely because they are new, others may actually prove to be incorrect over time ...
But it is important that the theory, however imperfect, has been expressed and the criticisms, of course, are part of the game and are welcome, as well as the encouragement of the sympathizers. Maybe it can happen that this idea of mine reaches the ear of someone better and better prepared than me who will in the future be able to provide more decisive evidence than what I found ....
-
... me (one from the Metropolitan Museum of New York and two from the British Museum on whose website only the reverses were presented). Overall between rights and photographic services I spent more than 1,000 euros, which I regret bitterly given the coldness with which my work was received at least on this forum ...
The idea is potentially interesting of course because there is no doubt that some monograms on some Greek coins resemble some numbers in some Greek written number systems. That is not news. A few coin types have symbols that look like some of the number monograms. A detailed theory like this, however, can only be believable if it is consistent and systematic. As it read there were many ad hoc twists and turns and 'adjustments'. No one can prove it's wrong, it just isn't persuasive.
Generations of numismatists have had their try at deciphering control letters and monograms Ptolemaic coins and I'll be the first to congratulate anyone who comes up with a consistent and believable scheme showing there a coherent pattern representing numbers. Certainly *SOME* of the symbols on coins resemble some 'monogram' type numbers. The majority, however, don't. And Egyptians were also adept at symbols and rebuses (making symbols out of the pronounced sounds of other symbols) and, in Ptolemaic times, they used three different languages. We simply don't know how many coins were made dies that shared a symbol that sort of looks like a number. 500,000 staters is a lot; (round numbers, hope my calculations are about right) 5,000,000 grams of (5000 kilograms ~250 liters ~ 250 4" cubes) of gold.
In one case we believe the letters on Ptolemaic coins do indicate numbers. Those are the Alexandria bronze coins of Cleopatra VII with her portrait, with M (40) or Pi (80) on the reverse. Their mean weights that are almost exactly in the same ratio as those numerical value symbols. It's possible of course that instead those letters represent some large numbers of coins produced as they are extremely common today. But the simple 'value mark' idea is easily believable and connects to something we can measure - the weight ratios. Of course it's possible the M means that 40,000,000 of that coin were made and the Pi means that 80,000,000 of that type were made. Or maybe M and Pi don't mean 40 and 80 in this context... No one can prove those latter ideas are wrong. They're just not very believable compared to the simple value-mark idea, absent some new evidence that's compelling.
Putting the work out here without expecting justifiably skeptical opinions may be more optimistic than the premise of the paper :)
In my experience, no personal hurt is ever intended here (and the owner of this site won't permit it, anyway). The amount of imagination and work is impressive. And writing is not easy. Dedication to see it through and intent to add to understanding of numismatics is admirable as well. But in the end, it's a cropper - the theory doesn't stand up to critical scrutiny and those who have detailed its weaknesses and incompleteness here are also to be thanked for their thoughtful help.
If the theory can be rescued then we look forward to another presentation of it in some future form.
PtolemAE
It is clear that the theory, being new, raises some perplexities: some of its assumptions are difficult to digest precisely because they are new, others may actually prove to be incorrect over time ...
But it is important that the theory, however imperfect, has been expressed and the criticisms, of course, are part of the game and are welcome, as well as the encouragement of the sympathizers. Maybe it can happen that this idea of mine reaches the ear of someone better and better prepared than me who will in the future be able to provide more decisive evidence than what I found ....
The coin 7 example at the start of this thread exemplifies the presentation and why it raises a skeptic's eyebrow... It seems to be a previously unknown ancient arithmetic combining novel ionic and attic letter-parts-as-numerals on a single coin that, when arranged 'just so', reveals astronomical amounts of gold were struck into these staters. It seems like a mixed salad of observations and implausible inferences.
I will be happy to be persuaded that my skeptical expectations for the future of this theory are not justified.
One theory *is* likely to be proven out, though - reading hidden messages in Greek coin control symbols will never cease :)
PtolemAE
-
The coin 7 example at the start of this thread exemplifies the presentation and why it raises a skeptic's eyebrow... It seems to be a previously unknown ancient arithmetic combining novel ionic and attic letter-parts-as-numerals on a single coin that, when arranged 'just so', reveals astronomical amounts of gold were struck into these staters. It seems like a mixed salad of observations and implausible inferences.
[/quote]
There is also a trace in the sources of a way different from today's one of expressing numbers. Demosthenes (On the crown, 237), for example, expressed the number of 15,000 foreigners with the
expression “myrioi men kai pentakischilioi xenoi”, “ten thousand and five times a thousand foreigners”. Aeschylus(Persians, 323) denotes the quantity of 250 ships through the expression “ pentēkonta pentakisneōn”, “five times fifty ships”, while the quantity of 300 ships is indicated with “triakades deka neōn”, ten thirties of ships” (Persians, 339).
As I write in the article, the difficulty of distinguishing figures composed by numbers andmonograms composed by Greek letters, do not only characterize we modern people but also concerned the same ancient Greeks if they were not aware of the standard by which to interpret themonograms , like this nice epigram from Alcaeus of Mitylene ( Anthologia Palatina, VII, 429)reminds us:
I ask myself why this road-side stone has only two :Greek_Phi: :Greek_Phi: chiselled on it.
Was the name of the woman who is buried here Chilias?The number chilia [=1,000] which is the sum of two letters [ :Greek_Phi:=500; :Greek_Phi: x 2= 1,000]points to this.
Or am I astray in this guessand was the name of her who dwells in this mournful tomb Phidis [= :Greek_Phi: :Greek_Delta::Greek_Iota: :Greek_Stigma: = twice :Greek_Phi:]?
Now am I the Oedipus who has solved the sphinx’s riddle.
He deserves praise, the man who made this puzzle out of two letters,
a light to the intelligent and darkness to the unintelligent.
-
[quote author=
The coin 7 example at the start of this thread exemplifies the presentation and why it raises a skeptic's eyebrow... It seems to be a previously unknown ancient arithmetic combining novel ionic and attic letter-parts-as-numerals on a single coin that, when arranged 'just so', reveals astronomical amounts of gold were struck into these staters.
[/quote]
The amount of 500,000 pieces for an issue of staters is not at all astronomical, especially if we consider that Ptolemy I Soter had to introduce circulating money in a country that did not have it.
Callatay has collected all the historical sources that give an account of the quantities of money that circulated in antiquity and the result is truly amazing.
Some examples. When the Romans defeated Antiochus III, king of Syria, they imposed the payment of a war indemnity of 15,000 talents; 550 immediately, 2500 to the ratification of peace by the Senate and the Roman people, 1000 talents a year for 10 years.
In the triumph of Lucius Cornelius Scipio, winner of Antiochus, immense riches stolen from the Asian king were paraded, including 224,000 Attic tetradracms(Tius Livius, Ab Urbe condita, Book XXXVII).
-
Some information provided by Callatay on the riches that circulated in antiquity
-
Callatay in the article "The fabulous weaelth of the hellenistic kings: coinage and weltmachpolitick" rattles off in figures the coins issued in the name of Alexander in the last third of the fourth century. He calculates 90 million tetradrams between all the mints from Pella to Babylon between 333/294 ...
-
Callatay in the article "The fabulous weaelth of the hellenistic kings: coinage and weltmachpolitick" rattles off in figures the coins issued in the name of Alexander in the last third of the fourth century. He calculates 90 million tetradrams between all the mints from Pella to Babylon between 333/294 ...
All those figures are for SILVER, not gold staters, and spread over 40 years. About 2 million per year - silver - from many mints of numerous warlords with large active armies.
1/2 million gold staters for one Ptolemaic issue *is* astronomical. And the calculation of that number by inventing a completely new method of arithmetic combining imaginary number symbols of different linguistic representations seems equally fantastic. This arithmetic seems to multiply a shortage of evidence by an excess of speculation.
Afaik the elephant gold Ptolemaic staters are issues of the Cyrene province. If there is any evidence they were used for military pay please let us know. If de Callatay gives evidence that Ptolemy had enough tons of gold to even coin 500,000 of them would be also of interest.
PtolemAE
-
Callatay in the article "The fabulous weaelth of the hellenistic kings: coinage and weltmachpolitick" rattles off in figures the coins issued in the name of Alexander in the last third of the fourth century. He calculates 90 million tetradrams between all the mints from Pella to Babylon between 333/294 ...
All those figures are for SILVER, not gold staters, and spread over 40 years. About 2 million per year - silver - from many mints of numerous warlords with large active armies.
1/2 million gold staters for one Ptolemaic issue *is* astronomical. And the calculation of that number by inventing a completely new method of arithmetic combining imaginary number symbols of different linguistic representations seems equally fantastic. This arithmetic seems to multiply a shortage of evidence by an excess of speculation.
Afaik the elephant gold Ptolemaic staters are issues of the Cyrene province. If there is any evidence they were used for military pay please let us know. If de Callatay gives evidence that Ptolemy had enough tons of gold to even coin 500,000 of them would be also of interest.
PtolemAE
The historian Plutarch narrates that Persepolis' riches were such and so many that Alexander, to transport all the spoils of war, used over five hundred camels and more than one hundred donkeys. Had all these riches vanished by the time of Ptolemy I Soter? Had nothing come up to him? Only silver? And the Egypt that had been the fabulous kingdom of the Pharaohs didn't have any wealth ???? Didn't he even have a gram of gold?
Let's completely disregard my speech on monograms interpreted as numbers that you really don't like and let's do this reasoning. I rightly or wrongly identified 21 obverse dies. According to leading scholars (so not in my opinion) each obverse die was able to generate about 20,000 coins for which:
21 obverse dies x 20,000 coins for each = 420,000 coin x 7.10 grams of gold (weight of each coin) = 2,982,000 grams = 2,982 kg = 2.982 tons of gold.
Even assuming a lower yield for each obverse die, however, we always get a result in tons of gold used or we must believe that they have minted only 100 coins for each obverse die just to induce modern collectors to buy these coins ???????
Needless to say, this reasoning also confirms my hypothesis that it is precisely an issue of 500,000 staters because you HAVE DECIDED THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE SO ...
I understood clearly: you really don't like this job. I'm sorry. I apologize for writing it. But can you please just ignore me and let me lie in my sloth and ignorance? Will you let me get lost in the maze of my fantasy? Despise this article and take care of other things, do not waste time with me and you will see that slowly it will go into oblivion by itself. Thank you.
-
One last thing. Do you see this mark on this coin that looks like a number? Perfect: we put a nice slice of ham over our eyes and the number disappears, we don't see it anymore and the problem is solved. This is a scientific way of proceeding!
-
One last thing. Do you see this mark on this coin that looks like a number? Perfect: we put a nice slice of ham over our eyes and the number disappears, we don't see it anymore and the problem is solved. This is a scientific way of proceeding!
Your's in this posting too :(.
Since about five years you are publishing these interpretations of monograms as some kind of numerical information, but - as far as I see it - the reactions in the numismatical world have mostly been skeptical or non existent. People obviously don't find your arguments convincing (like me as well), and it is their right to do so. This is no reason to feel offended and to blame others.
Regards
Altamura
-
One last thing. Do you see this mark on this coin that looks like a number? Perfect: we put a nice slice of ham over our eyes and the number disappears, we don't see it anymore and the problem is solved. This is a scientific way of proceeding!
Your's in this posting too :(.
Since about five years you are publishing these interpretations of monograms as some kind of numerical information, but - as far as I see it - the reactions in the numismatical world have mostly been skeptical or non existent. People obviously don't find your arguments convincing (like me as well), and it is their right to do so. This is no reason to feel offended and to blame others.
Regards
Altamura
I have not blamed or offended anyone, I only replied to a person who has teased me with insistence and a certain hostile tone since the first posts of this conversation. Obviously everyone is free to criticize and criticism is a moment of growth but repeated objections, stubborn, without conceding anything to the interlocutor in the long run unnerving. Have I been bothering you with this talk of numbers for several years? You must excuse me, I will remove the disturbance soon, I will not open new discussions.
-
Gentlemen, before I definitively disappear from the radar and free you of my presence I wanted to ask you the kindness to read this my last post. You will forgive me for the impetuousness of some of my answers dictated solely by the disinterested love for numismatics. But I wanted to leave you with this reflection.
Have you seen how many times the :Greek_Pi: :Greek_Alpha: or :Greek_Alpha: :Greek_Pi: monogram appears on the Ptolemaic coins of different periods?
Is it so absurd to assume that it could be a number?
-
Look at what happens on these two obols of Soloi (Cylicia): on the first coin we find the same :Greek_Alpha: :Greek_Pi: monogram, on the second we find the word EKATAI (= one hundred).
Could it be a numerical sequence?
But I already know that no one will be willing to believe it....
Good luck to all.
-
... Look at what happens on these two obols of Soloi (Cylicia): ... on the second we find the word EKATAI (= one hundred). ...
On these obols from Soloi you find also
AΠOΛΛON https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8533192n
HPOI https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b85331932
ZHΝO https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_1897-0104-368
KΛEA https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3672495
ΘEOΦI https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=2951669
and even EKATAIO https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=7140575 https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=2414361
being the full legend of your EKATAI.
To me this all simply sounds like names: Apollonios, Eroites, Zenon, Klearchos, Theophilos, and finally Ekataios.
There is no need to speculate about numbers :).
Regards
Altamura
-
... Look at what happens on these two obols of Soloi (Cylicia): ... on the second we find the word EKATAI (= one hundred). ...
On these obols from Soloi you find also
AΠOΛΛON https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8533192n
HPOI https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b85331932
ZHΝO https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_1897-0104-368
KΛEA https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3672495
ΘEOΦI https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=2951669
and even EKATAIO https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=7140575 https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=2414361
being the full legend of your EKATAI.
To me this all simply sounds like names: Apollonios, Eroites, Zenon, Klearchos, Theophilos, and finally Ekataios.
There is no need to speculate about numbers :).
Regards
Altamura
Quite right. I made a mistake in the case of Soloi. The fact remains that it is not possible that in the minting of the Ptolemaic coins someone who was called AΠOΛΛON always intervened over the centuries. And resorting to numbers perhaps explains the reason for so many different monograms on the coins of a single issue such as that of the gold staters
-
The last of the three Ptolemaic coins you showed is from the joint reign of Ptolemaios X Alexander I and Cleopatra III.
The ΠA stands for the mint of Paphos (but was used some times in Alexandria as well), the LIΓ stands for the regnal year 13 of Cleopatra III and the I below stands for the regnal year 10 of Ptolemaios X.
See e.g. in Otto Mørkholm, "Ptolemaic coins and chronology: the dated silver coinage of Alexandria", American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 20 (1975):
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=inu.30000108391032&view=image&seq=19
Again no need for additional numerical speculations :).
Regards
Altamura
-
The last of the three Ptolemaic coins you showed is from the joint reign of Ptolemaios X Alexander I and Cleopatra III.
The ΠA stands for the mint of Paphos (but was used some times in Alexandria as well), the LIΓ stands for the regnal year 13 of Cleopatra III and the I below stands for the regnal year 10 of Ptolemaios X.
See e.g. in Otto Mørkholm, "Ptolemaic coins and chronology: the dated silver coinage of Alexandria", American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 20 (1975):
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=inu.30000108391032&view=image&seq=19
Again no need for additional numerical speculations :).
Regards
Altamura
and when the monogram :Greek_Pi: :Greek_Alpha: is used in Alexandria what does it mean? Anyway, really, without rancor: all my "numerical" speculation (not required by the world of numismatics) starts from the observation of the sampi on this coin. As I said earlier, let's pretend this sampi doesn't exist and the problem is solved. Sorry if I disturbed you.
-
Gentlemen, before I definitively disappear from the radar and free you of my presence I wanted to ask you the kindness to read this my last post. You will forgive me for the impetuousness of some of my answers dictated solely by the disinterested love for numismatics. But I wanted to leave you with this reflection.
Have you seen how many times the :Greek_Pi: :Greek_Alpha: or :Greek_Alpha: :Greek_Pi: monogram appears on the Ptolemaic coins of different periods?
Is it so absurd to assume that it could be a number?
Hmm... Would that mean (in the new arithmetic system) that these coin types (and many more) with PI ALPHA were all produced in equal quantities ?
PtolemAE
-
Gentlemen, before I definitively disappear from the radar and free you of my presence I wanted to ask you the kindness to read this my last post. You will forgive me for the impetuousness of some of my answers dictated solely by the disinterested love for numismatics. But I wanted to leave you with this reflection.
Have you seen how many times the :Greek_Pi: :Greek_Alpha: or :Greek_Alpha: :Greek_Pi: monogram appears on the Ptolemaic coins of different periods?
Is it so absurd to assume that it could be a number?
Hmm... Would that mean (in the new arithmetic system) that these coin types (and many more) with PI ALPHA were all produced in equal quantities ?
PtolemAE
This is not a "new arithmetic system" but the use of both numeral systems (Attic and Acrophonic) in order to create numerical notes, succinct and cryptic because they are not intended for the end users of the coin but for the employees of the mint. Something very similar to modern shorthand notes. This is the fundamental point of my thesis: it is not a question of numbers written in clear color in full compliance with the rules, but cryptic notes in which we tried to create always new monograms with the aim of synthesizing the numbers as much as possible in order to be able to insert them in the confined space of the coin.
Both on coins and in other contexts it was not uncommon to use figures from the Attic or the Acrophonic numeral system next to figures from the Ionic or the Alphabetical numeral system: the latter numerical system, in fact, never completely replaced the Attic one, but overlapped with it, for example, preserving the sign M denoting 10,000 in concomitance with the identical sign M of the Ionic system denoting the number 40. The ancient sources attest in various cases the contextual use of numbers expressed according to various numeral systems. So, for example, in some Boeotian epigraphs of the II-I century BC we can find numbers taken from the Ionic numbering system used within the same figure next to numbers taken from an archaic numbering system (ROESCH P., Inscriptions du Musée de Thèbes, in Revue des Études anciennes, 68, 1966, pp.77-82, no.15) and figures taken from the Acrophonic numbering system used next to figures from the Ionic numbering system (CALVET M., ROESCH P., Les Sarapieia de Tanagra, in Revue archéologique, 1966, 2, pp.297-332). Furthermore, the Attic and the Ionic numeral system are seen side by side in a number of Greek papyrus-rolls found at Herculaneum : these states are on the title page, after the author’s name, the number of books according to the Ionic numeral system, and the number of lines according to the Attic numeral system, just like when we commonly use Roman figures to denote Books and Arabic figures for sections or lines; on this argument see HEATH T., A history of Greek Mathematics, Dover Publications, Vol.I, New York 1981, p.35).
Precisely because they were cryptic notes the numbers on the coins were only alluded to, they imply the decimal order in which they were expressed. For example they wrote 100 but it was not a finite number but a number expressed in thousands for which it goes into tense as 100 (, 000). But in the images here posted by me there are numbers not implied as on coin no. 9 where we find the amount of 3,000,000 epressed in full.
And, again due to the nature of shorthand notes of these numbers, in them extensive use is made of the multiplicative principle to synthesize numbers: instead, for example, writing 1,000,000 in full, XA is written which is much more synthetic in which X = 1,000 of the system Attic that moltiplies A =, A = 1,000 of the Ionian system.
The :Greek_Pi: :Greek_Alpha: monogram, therefore, can be read as a number within a numerical sequence (which can vary from issue to issue). In the case of the tetradracms with portrait of Alexander with elephant skin on the obverse can be interpreted in the following way (see coin no.11).
-
In the previous post (images from my book "I numeri svelati. Alla scoperta delle notazioni numeriche riportate sulle monete greche", - Federico De Luca, 2015), there are both numbers taken from the Attic or Acrophonic system in which the initial of the word indicating the number is the numeric symbol used (such as X, initial letter of chilia = 1,000, H, initial letter of hekaton = 100, :Greek_Delta: , initial letter of deka = 10), that the numeric symbols of the Ionic or Alphabetic system (A = 1, B = 2, etc).
Notice how on coins no.4 and no.10 there is a dot that is a diacritical mark that warns the reader that he is in the presence of numbers and not letters: a clear indication, therefore, that they are really numbers!
Look at how monograms are explained well as numbers within an increasing numbering; look at how in some cases they are concerned to indicate the quantities of coin in progress both in drachms and in tetradracms, exactly as I suppose for the gold staters in which the quantities of coin in progress are expressed in both drachms and in staters.
In the case of the previous post issue, therefore, it would be an issue of 875 tetradrachms which correspond to 3,500,000 drachms. In fact, 875,000 tetradrachms x 4 dracms (value of each tetradrachm) = 3,500,000 drachms.
Fantasy? Fantanumismatics? Maybe, but it could also be a new path to follow ....
Give me a better explanation and I'll gladly throw all my "numerical" ruminations overboard ...
-
What do you think?
-
What do you think?
The imaginative ancient symbol arithmetic (expanded to non-alphabetic die marks) is amusing, but, absent *any* connection to evidence, it seems more like numerology than numismatics. But don't worry - there's no risk this theory can be disproved :)
PtolemAE
-
What do you think?
The imaginative ancient symbol arithmetic (expanded to non-alphabetic die marks) is amusing, but, absent *any* connection to evidence, it seems more like numerology than numismatics. But don't worry - there's no risk this theory can be disproved :)
PtolemAE
Compliments....
I could answer many things but I don't because it would be perfectly useless.
Okay, guys, I'll stop here.
I release you from my ridiculous presence. This is my last post on this forum. I immediately prefer to cancel my account.
Goodbye.
-
What do you think?
The imaginative ancient symbol arithmetic (expanded to non-alphabetic die marks) is amusing, but, absent *any* connection to evidence, it seems more like numerology than numismatics. But don't worry - there's no risk this theory can be disproved :)
PtolemAE
Compliments....
I could answer many things but I don't because it would be perfectly useless.
Okay, guys, I'll stop here.
I release you from my ridiculous presence. This is my last post on this forum. I immediately prefer to cancel my account.
Goodbye.
Pity - I wanted to ask why the :Greek_Alpha: in :Greek_Pi: :Greek_Alpha: (unligatured) on the Ptolemaic tetradrachms should be read as 1000 rather than 1, given there is no diacritical mark or other clue modifying the :Greek_Alpha:.
And if :Greek_Pi: :Greek_Alpha: means 80,000 why does this rather unusual number come up so often on the tetradrachms?
Mind you, I've never really understood why coins supposedly minted in Alexandria should be marked Paphos.
Ross G.
-
What do you think?
The imaginative ancient symbol arithmetic (expanded to non-alphabetic die marks) is amusing, but, absent *any* connection to evidence, it seems more like numerology than numismatics. But don't worry - there's no risk this theory can be disproved :)
PtolemAE
Compliments....
I could answer many things but I don't because it would be perfectly useless.
Okay, guys, I'll stop here.
I release you from my ridiculous presence. This is my last post on this forum. I immediately prefer to cancel my account.
Goodbye.
Pity - I wanted to ask why the :Greek_Alpha: in :Greek_Pi: :Greek_Alpha: (unligatured) on the Ptolemaic tetradrachms should be read as 1000 rather than 1, given there is no diacritical mark or other clue modifying the :Greek_Alpha:.
And if :Greek_Pi: :Greek_Alpha: means 80,000 why does this rather unusual number come up so often on the tetradrachms?
Mind you, I've never really understood why coins supposedly minted in Alexandria should be marked Paphos.
Ross G.
In the :Greek_Pi: :Greek_Alpha: monogram the A must be interpreted as .A = 1.000 because we are inside a numerical sequence with thousands and it would not make sense in this context to mean A = 1. Evidently the diacritical mark that precedes the A is not used to facilitate the work of the engraver. The use of the :Greek_Pi: :Greek_Alpha: monogram in Alexandria shows that it is not a mint sign but a number that can vary depending on the sequence in which it is inserted.
In fact, the :Greek_Pi: is sometimes understood as 80 of the ionic system and other times as 5 of the attic system, as in the following example in which to clarify that it is a digit we have a further number and that is :Greek_Rho: = 100.
I kindly ask the forum administrators to deactivate my account. Thank you
-
What do you think?
The imaginative ancient symbol arithmetic (expanded to non-alphabetic die marks) is amusing, but, absent *any* connection to evidence, it seems more like numerology than numismatics. But don't worry - there's no risk this theory can be disproved :)
PtolemAE
Compliments....
I could answer many things but I don't because it would be perfectly useless.
Okay, guys, I'll stop here.
I release you from my ridiculous presence. This is my last post on this forum. I immediately prefer to cancel my account.
Goodbye.
Pity - I wanted to ask why the :Greek_Alpha: in :Greek_Pi: :Greek_Alpha: (unligatured) on the Ptolemaic tetradrachms should be read as 1000 rather than 1, given there is no diacritical mark or other clue modifying the :Greek_Alpha:.
And if :Greek_Pi: :Greek_Alpha: means 80,000 why does this rather unusual number come up so often on the tetradrachms?
Mind you, I've never really understood why coins supposedly minted in Alexandria should be marked Paphos.
Ross G.
Yes, that (PI-A-RHO) symbol is on many tetradrachms as well. It also appears on a number of Macedonian bronze issues (different sizes and with various other control symbols) of Ptolemy Keraunos, where it used to be interpreted to mean the name of a location: 'PAROREIA'. The 'XA' symbol is also on several bronze coins, alone and combined with other controls. The A-GAMMA (A with the little 'leg' coming off the top) is also on many other coins including bronzes. The bronze coin types are among those that Lorber (in CPE) refers to as 'control-linked to precious metal issues'. Many control symbols, letters and monograms, are shared like that on Ptolemaic coins.
The control-symbol numerology parlor game can be an amusing diversion, but up to now it lacks a connection to evidence. Anyone can say any of those symbols means whatever they want it to mean and no one can prove which of any of those assertions is more sound than any other. When it suits the author, the PI letter means '5' but otherwise it could mean '80' (as it does on Cleopatra VII 80-drachm bronze coins). Who could tell which is correct? There are no limits to the amounts of gold and silver available in the author's treasury. It's easy to be reminded of Lewis Carroll's famous line about meaning.
Of course it all could be 100% correct. If only there were a way to tell if it isn't...
Afaik the meaning of the PI A (successive letters) symbol on many Alexandrian Ptolemaic tetradrachms remains unknown. Maybe Catharine Lorber will be able to clear it up when the 2nd part of CPE is published.
PtolemAE
-
Hi folks,
I am a moderator of the Greek section of Forum.
This has been an interesting (and animated/emotional) topic. Who knows who is right, and who is wrong? It is always good to form opinions and question long-held beliefs.
However, that being stated, I feel that the old, long-held theory among scholars is correct. In other words, I think that those symbols (monograms, ligatures, etc.) are abbreviations of people's names (magistrates, etc.). Of course, that is just my opinion, and I could be wrong. Everyone, including the author of this topic, is always free to express an opinion and discuss their theories. That is the way things work in a free and democratic society, just as it did during Classical times.
More specifically, the "XA" symbol also appears in exergue on the reverse of some Campania, Neapolis AE MFB coins. It may be an abbreviation for "CHARILE", which appears below the head of the nymph on the obverse of some Campania, Neapolis AR MFB coins.
Meepzorp
-
... It's easy to be reminded of Lewis Carroll's famous line about meaning. ...
For those who haven't been socialised with Alice in Wonderland (like me, I had to look it up :-\):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumpty
(in the paragraph about "Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass")
(and to demonstrate that you don't have to quote a whole posting if you only want to react to a single phrase ;))
Regards
Altamura
-
There are no limits to the amounts of gold and silver available in the author's treasury. It's easy to be reminded of Lewis Carroll's famous line about meaning.
PtolemAE
[/quote]
What about this elementary calculation made in proportion to the elephant gold stater? Science fiction too?
21 obverse dies x 20,000 coins for each = 420,000 coin x 7.10 grams of gold (weight of each coin) = 2,982,000 grams = 2,982 kg = 2.982 tons of gold.
-
At the beginning of this Topic I posted an article on Academia.edu. This site provides reports that inform about the number of people who have read the article. Well, what is striking is the fact that the number of people who have read the article through the link posted here is far less than the number of those who criticize me here. To criticize my thesis without having read the article means to trivialize it and this is a cause of regret for me. Criticizing with good reason and providing evidence to the contrary, on the other hand, is fine.
Here are some passages of my article that highlight all doubts about the official interpretation of the monograms (obviously here I omit the notes with references to the texts that everyone can read in the article).
'Different explanations are then offered by Zervos for the small :Greek_Delta: reported on the obverse behind
the elephant's skin headdress ear of some tetradrachms which depict on the obverse Alexander with
the elephant’s skin and on the reverse Athena Promachos: this :Greek_Delta: would be the “signature of the
artist-engraver of the dies”. But Catharine C. Lorber opportunely points out that this presumed
signature that Zervos had assigned to the artist C, the author of several obverses, also appears on the
obverse that Zervos himself had assigned to the artist B, a circumstance which leads to reject the
signature thesis and to consider “that the letter must have had a control function of some sort”.
This point of view has been confirmed by Lorber in her last, monumental work on the Ptolemaic
empire coinage: “it is more plausible that the letter :Greek_Delta: and other similar cryptic marks served some
internal control function. They could, for example, designate die engraving workshops within the
mint, or private contractors who provided dies to the mint, or the approval of an administrator”.
But this explanation references a lot what was said by R.T. Williams about the frequent repeating of
the KE monogram on the dies of the Velia’s mint, in Lucania, which was interpreted as the
engraver’s Kleudoros signature: “The main problem with the theory that Kleudoros was the single
engraver lies in the number of the dies involved, about 23 obverses and 26 reverses; a number
perhaps somewhat large for one engraver, so that there is the possibility that Kleudoros was the
owner of the workshop which had the mint contract, perhaps also had an official position in the
mint, and cut many dies himself, but accepted dies in his style from his pupils” . As seen, both in
the Ptolemaic coins and in those from the small city of Velia, to explain the monograms they
suggest complicated bureaucratic intertwinements, commingling between public and private
subjects.
...............
For Lorber, Ptolemy I in 305 BC abandons the Attic weight system reducing the issued coins
weight: for the scholar on this occasion, even the criteria on which the monograms are reported,
change. In fact, “the metrological reform was accompanied by administrative changes that tend to
obscure the chronology. The old pattern, in which most coins bore only one monogrammatic or
letter control, fit neatly with Zervos’ hypothesis of annual magistracies for the Attic-weight
coinage. The reduced-weight tetradrachms, in contrast, often bear two or even three such controls”.
In this new phase for Lorber the Ptolemy I tetradrachms “Alexander’s head wearing the elephant
skin/Athena Promachos” are “the output of workshops operating apart from the central mint, yet
under its close supervision, and in reasonable propinquity to one another” and the collaboration
between more monetary workshops gives rise to the multiplicity of monograms found on the coins,
a sign of the participation of more monetary magistrates who sign with their own monogram. In this
context for Lorber the monogram :Greek_Delta: :Greek_Iota: “was arguably the same individual” that signs with
:Greek_Delta: :Greek_Iota: Ptolemy I Soter’s tetradrachms “Heracles’ head/ Zeus enthroned and the fulmen symbol” and the
same person who signs with :Greek_Delta: behind the elephant’s ear the tetradrachms “Alexander’s head
wearing the elephant skin/Athena Promachos” (respectively it is the same :Greek_Delta: :Greek_Iota: monogram interpreted
by Zervos as the signature of the monetary magistrate in the year 321 BC and the :Greek_Delta: letter
interpreted by Zervos as the signature of the artist C).
Lorber’s thesis (and before also that of Zervos) is based on the assumption that every coin
containing a given monogram or combination of monograms belongs to a distinct issue from the
others, but this is an affirmation which has to be demonstrated. Then Lorber’s explanation about
the different monograms reported on the same coin (up to three different monograms) which
belongs to monetary magistrates from different mints does not convince. In fact, when the scholar
tries to identify the location of these different mints from Alexandria and not too far away from this
city, she appears to be in an obvious dilemma and proposes as possible locations Naucratis,
Memphis, Pelusium or the Fayum without having any historical confirmation about operating mints
located in any of these cities simultaneously with Alexandria’s mint'.
In short, as you can see, very confused ideas ...
LORBER, C. C. (2018) Coins of the Ptolemaic Empire, Part 1, 2 Vols, The American Numismatic
Society, p.38, so says:
“the Alexandrian control system changed when Ptolemy introduced his gold
staters. The staters and their associated tetradrachms (...) bear diverse combinations of some twenty
monograms and letters in patterns that no longer lend themselves to an annual interpretation.
Intense die linkage among the staters reveals the simultaneous employment of perhaps as many as
ten controls and the use of two anvils for part of the series, pointing to a heightened pace of
production"
You got it right?
"simultaneous employment of perhaps as many as
ten controls and the use of two anvils for part of the serie"
But what do these monograms mean, with what logic they follow each other? Total darkness ..
-
As seen in the previous post, Lorber does not explain the meaning of these monograms. I am ready to abandon my position as Alice in Wonderland So if my critics explain a few things to me, but not in an episodic and disorganized way (perhaps going to fish for a man in Neapolis who was called with the initials of a single monogram among the many analyzed).
but in a systematic way as I tried to do. So I would like an explanation that explains everything and not just some things.
1) Why were there so many monograms on the coins of this issue? If they are names why were there so many people involved? what was the criterion according to which all these people followed one another in signing the coins? What need was there to deface the coin with all these marks if it wasn't really important? Wouldn't the signature of two or three magistrates, always the same for the same issue, be enough, as was the case in Athens in the New Style coinage?
-
2) What does the symbol highlighted here mean? Is it a number for you or is it not? Say it clearly please. If you think it's a number, what's the point?
I would like precise answers, organic and not "we don't know", "they are names", "Lorber will explain it" because so far he has not done so. Criticizing is easy but let's see what you can do ..
-
Why not the usual interpretation of the :Greek_Pi: :Greek_Alpha: as the signature of the Paphos mint that became a fixed type? Why would tetradrachms bear the same number year after year?
Any monogram or letter combination can be interpreted as a number. It remains unproven that it should be.
-
Why not the usual interpretation of the :Greek_Pi: :Greek_Alpha: as the signature of the Paphos mint that became a fixed type? Why would tetradrachms bear the same number year after year?
Any monogram or letter combination can be interpreted as a number. It remains unproven that it should be.
If it is a tetradrachm coined in Alexandria it makes no sense for the :Greek_Pi: :Greek_Alpha: monogram to indicate the Paphos mint and it does not even make sense that it always represents the same number. It is a number inserted in a sequence that must be interpreted as a whole, as if it were a real code sequence.
Haven't I proven well enough that it's a sequence of numbers? Convince me otherwise and tell me what kind of sequence it is (but you have to explain the whole sequence not just the :Greek_Pi: :Greek_Alpha: monogram). A sequence of names? If so why were they placed there with that order? The Greeks were extremely rational and never did anything at random: then explain to me what all those signs mean ...
-
There is a lot of resistance to accepting this speech of mine on numbers because today we know very little about how the Greeks counted. Read this passage on some notes concerning sums of money reported on a Ptolemaic papyrus in which there is a mix of numerical symbols of a different nature.
adapted from https://www.academia.edu/36962445/F_De_Luca_Monograms_on_Kibyra_s_coins_names_or_numbers_Revue_Numismatique_OMNI_no_12_6_2018_pp_54_84
-
The Ptolemaic papyri also provide us with an example of numerical notes that somehow remind us of the numerical notations reported on the coins as I interpret monograms ...
sorce: https://www.academia.edu/36962445/F_De_Luca_Monograms_on_Kibyra_s_coins_names_or_numbers_Revue_Numismatique_OMNI_no_12_6_2018_pp_54_84
-
As you can see, also in the text reported in the penultimate post we return a sampi, the archaic letter with which the number 900 was expressed, which confirms that we are in the presence of numbers, exactly as happens with the elephant gold stater
-
It remains unproven that it should be.
[/quote]
What kind of proof has here been provided that these are numbers? In this case they are just numbers and no one had to complain ... Why are numbers in ancient times allowed everywhere except on coins? Why can't we overcome this cultural limit?
-
I don't believe this is the type of argument that can be proved without something like a written statement from the mint that indicates this was the practice. However, it is an IBE argument: inference to the best explanation, and there is nothing inherently wrong with such arguments. The question is: Is your explanation of the phenomenon the best available? Are there serious problems, perhaps pointed out by others in this thread, that you do not account for?
-
There is a decisive difference between the papyri and the coins
The descriptive text of the papyri shows that the attached "letters" must be read as numbers.
The same "letters" on the coins stand alone. They may be numbers but may be something completely else.
And even should they be numbers you do not prove these numbers to denote the amount of coin production.
This reminds me on the "secret marks" of Byzantine solidi.
To my knowledge the arrangement and numbers of ornaments on the emperor´s garments are not done at random but mark the organisatione of the mint or officina.
The same may apply here: Monograms as signs of mint-organisation.
Just a stupid idea
Klaus
-
... However, it is an IBE argument: inference to the best explanation, and there is nothing inherently wrong with such arguments. The question is: Is your explanation of the phenomenon the best available? ...
The best explanation of all those lying on the table not automatically has to be the correct one. If it is not plausible and convincing, then I prefer to leave a question open than to believe in speculations.
Regards
Altamura
-
As you can see, also in the text reported in the penultimate post we return a sampi, the archaic letter with which the number 900 was expressed, which confirms that we are in the presence of numbers, exactly as happens with the elephant gold stater
Did anyone else notice the T's are rather different ('roof' top and 'umbrella' top) ? Maybe that's related to the papyrus (with the 'umbrella' T) dating from over 600 years later than the coin. Of course, even if they don't look the same they *could* nevertheless mean the same thing. The great strength of this theory is no one can disprove any of it :)
PtolemAE
-
... However, it is an IBE argument: inference to the best explanation, and there is nothing inherently wrong with such arguments. The question is: Is your explanation of the phenomenon the best available? ...
The best explanation of all those lying on the table not automatically has to be the correct one. If it is not plausible and convincing, then I prefer to leave a question open than to believe in speculations.
Regards
Altamura
Plausible and convincing would definitely be helpful. Not to mention, falsifiable.
PtolemAE
-
... However, it is an IBE argument: inference to the best explanation, and there is nothing inherently wrong with such arguments. The question is: Is your explanation of the phenomenon the best available? ...
The best explanation of all those lying on the table not automatically has to be the correct one. If it is not plausible and convincing, then I prefer to leave a question open than to believe in speculations.
Regards
Altamura
it is clear that prudence is never too much but when there are many and many clues that lead us in one direction it would be negligent on our part to go in the opposite direction. A very strong clue in the direction of the numbers can for example be taken from the coinage of Massalia: look at how well these monograms reported on this issue of drachms are explained as a numerical sequence
-
Do you have doubts that the monograms on Massalia's coins are numbers? Then look what's on this other Massalia drachm..
on the right bottom, the sign interpreted like the letter :Greek_Pi_3: by Depeyrot and like :Greek_Tau: :Greek_Lambda:
by Charra. But this sign is none other than a symbol, widely certified in ancient papyri, of the
talent’s monetary unit, corresponding 6,000 drachms. Practically, rather than indicating in figures
the first group of 6,000 drachms to mint in the new issue, it is preferred to introduce the astute
variation to indicate the symbol of the talent, which corresponds to 6,000 drachms.
To be sure that the talent symbol is correctly interpreted on the reverse of the coin no.1,
fig.no.31, the expression :Greek_Tau: :Greek_Alpha: :Greek_Lambda: is shown that, for once, is not a number but the initial part of the
word :Greek_Tau::Greek_Alpha: :Greek_Lambda: :Greek_Alpha: :Greek_Nu: :Greek_Tau: :Greek_Omicron: :Greek_Nu:, “talent”, that is an alternative way to reaffirm the amount 6,000 drachms which
the mint was working on at the moment: more clearly than that…
-
the acronyms on the coins of this other issue, minted in 150-130 BC, are made up of
two overlapped elements, that clearly indicate that these elements are not letters but numbers and
have to be multiplied together, exactly as it was necessary to do with two numbers found in the
compound numbers in the Attic system (look at the excerpt on the Attic numbers below). The overlapped numbers in the numerical notation on the reverse of the coin no.1
no. 11 are 10 in the Attic system ( :Greek_Delta:) which multiplies with 20 in the Ionic system (K)18 to give as
the result 200 hundreds of drachms, that is 20,0(00) drachms. The numbers on the obverse and
reverse of the coin no.2, instead, are 7 in the Ionic system (Z) which multiplies with 5
in the same system (E); the result is 35 thousands of drachms, equal to 35(,000) drachms. On both
sides of the coin no.3 we have the number 5 of the Attic system ( :Greek_Pi:) x 10 of the same numeral
system ( :Greek_Delta:) with a result of 50 thousands of drachms, equal to 50(,000) drachms. The coin no.4
which closes the sequence always has on both sides the number 1,000 of the Attic system (X) that
multiplies with the number 100 (H) of the same numeral system with the result of 100,000 drachms,
the final issuing number.
if you want to read the whole article:
https://www.academia.edu/34086494/Federico_De_Luca_Alphabetical_numbering_and_numerical_progressions_on_drachms_and_Massalia_s_small_bronze_coins_Revue_Numismatique_OMNI_n_11_07_2017_p_74_111
-
This last post illustrates one of the obvious weaknesses of this whole number theory, namely the arbitrary scaling up of numbers by various factors of 10.
Thus coin 1 is read as :Greek_Delta: :Greek_Kappa: = 10 x 20 = 200 = (magically) 20,000. And so on.
Anyway, if the engraver had wanted to say 20,000 why didn't he just put :Greek_Kappa: :Greek_Chi: = 20 x 1000?
The other major problem is the use of large numbers of different monograms to represent the same number.
With the Ptolemy I staters the first monogram used for 1,000,000 is :Greek_Chi: :Greek_Alpha: = 1000 x 1000, which seems reasonable (if you don't mind mixed alphabets), but then a whole bagful of complicated monograms are also supposed to mean the same number (with help from some extra 0's - see e.g. coins 25, 31, 33). Why?
(Curiously, with coin 34 we wind up back with our good old standby :Greek_Chi: :Greek_Alpha: for 1,000,000).
Ross G.
-
This last post illustrates one of the obvious weaknesses of this whole number theory, namely the arbitrary scaling up of numbers by various factors of 10.
Thus coin 1 is read as :Greek_Delta: :Greek_Kappa: = 10 x 20 = 200 = (magically) 20,000. And so on.
Anyway, if the engraver had wanted to say 20,000 why didn't he just put :Greek_Kappa: :Greek_Chi: = 20 x 1000?
The other major problem is the use of large numbers of different monograms to represent the same number.
With the Ptolemy I staters the first monogram used for 1,000,000 is :Greek_Chi: :Greek_Alpha: = 1000 x 1000, which seems reasonable (if you don't mind mixed alphabets), but then a whole bagful of complicated monograms are also supposed to mean the same number (with help from some extra 0's - see e.g. coins 25, 31, 33). Why?
(Curiously, with coin 34 we wind up back with our good old standby :Greek_Chi: :Greek_Alpha: for 1,000,000).
Ross G.
This happens because with the basic numbers that you learn on school books you can compose an infinite number of numerical combinations as you please and like. Each numerical sequence has its own logic that must be understood case by case. The variety of ways in which the Greeks could express the same quantity was something that helped them to differentiate the coins obtained from minting marked with different monograms: the more different the monograms were, the easier it was to distinguish the resulting coins and the easier it was therefore to count them.
Even in the common language the figures were expressed in tens (dekades),
hundreds (hekatontades), thousands (chiliades), tens of thousands (myriades) and hundreds of
thousands (dekakismyriades). For example, Lucian (Scytha 10) to nominate “the ten Attic orators”
says “ē Attikēdekas, which means “the Attic ten”; Plato (Phaedrus257) to indicate the 9,000 year
figure uses the expression “ennea chiliades etōn”, that means “nine thousand years”; Herodotus
(Histories 3,91) speaks about “myrias medìmnōn, “a myriad of medimnoi of wheat” to indicate “ten
thousands medimnoi of wheat”; in the Book of Daniel the Prophet has a vision of God in which
“thousands upon thousands (chiliai chiliades) were attending Him, and myriads upon myriads
(myriai myriades) were standing before Him” (Dn. ι,10); Plutarch (Marius 34) uses the expression
“myriadōn epta ēmisous priasthai”, “buy for seven and a half myriads (of drachms)”.
-
and how to explain the handover between these two "monetary magistrates" which always occurred at the same point but under different sovereigns (Demetrius I king of Bactria and his successor Euthydemus II)? Numbers, more numbers ...
-
Does issues of millions of drachms seem excessive to you? So how do you explain that certain ancient coins are still common today? In ancient times, much more money was minted than we can imagine and the monograms on the coins, interpreted as numbers, can help us understand better ..
-
Please not that I intend the following comments as constructive suggestions for consideration:
Mathematics
I think the key to understanding whether or not the hypothesis presented is plausible lies in a better explanation of the mathematics behind it in terms of what we know of the history of mathematics.
The hypothesis interprets the monograms as numerals to be multiplied in a decimal (base 10) algebraic system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal
Yet the ancient Greeks used a sexagesimal system (base 60) that had its foundation in geometry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal
The paper need needs to address these issues and reconcile the discrepancy in the mathematics.
Ancient accounting and the written sources
Another aspect to consider is that the ancient Greek sources consistently refer to expenditures in terms of talents (weight) of precious metal (silver or gold), an Attic talent being about 26 kg rather than quantities of drachms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attic_talent
Under the circumstances the need for the mint to count drachms rather than to weigh the quantity of struck coinage is problematic in my opinion.
This discrepancy between written records of expenditures (talents) and the hypothesis (number of drachms) needs to be addressed in the paper.
Mint Process and controls
The primary concern of the mint was to strike coinage to the requisite standard (metal purity) and quantity (talents) specified by the king in a process that was so tightly controlled as to prevent malfeasance (precious metal pilferage, debasement etc). With gold at 10 times the value of silver this became a more substantial when striking gold coinage. It was a non-issue for low value bronze which as explained below is why bronze coinage does not exhibit the mint mark complexity of precious metal coinage and why it is frequently encountered that gold coinage has more mint marks than silver coinage.
In this context, the reconciliation of inputs (bulk precious metal) to output (struck coins) was the paramount concern and means of control. This could be achieved by simply weighing the output of coined metal on a daily basis and comparing it to the weight of precious metal allocated to a striking team on a daily basis. No need to count coins - input and output weights is all that counts. Moreover, the volume to be coined at the requisite weights standard was specified by the king in weight (talents) of precious metal (be it gold or silver)
In the case of multiple anvils it would be necessary to identify with absolute certainty which coins were struck by which striking team to ensure valid reconciliation on a team by team basis. Hence the need for an additional mint mark (monogram, or symbol, or numeric dot sequence) designating each team and purpose cut reverse dies for use on each anvil. This explains the multiplicity of obverse die links observed in multi-anvil a striking for the obverse dies formed a shared inventory that can be used by different striking teams on different days, while reverse dies (i.e. bearing secondary and/or tertiary mint controls) are restricted use to a specific striking team each under supervision of an individual official designated by a discrete mint control (monogram, letter, symbol, or even a number sequence of dots). This explains Lorber's observations on the gold Ptolemaic coinage. For a more detailed exposition of this phenomenon in two eastern Alexander mints https://www.academia.edu/37022091/The_Damaskos_Mint_of_Alexander_the_Great
and
https://www.academia.edu/37029265/The_Earliest_Alexander_III_Tetradrachm_Coinage_of_Babylon_Iconographic_Development_and_Chronology
Thus we end up with multiple mint marks - one designating the mint, one designating the most senior mint official and one designating the official over-sighting the striking on a specific anvil in a multi-anvil striking operation.
This is a very simple and fool proof system that identifies who was responsible for the struck coinage and in so doing provides the means for accurate reconciliation of inputs and outputs. Accurate identification of those responsible for the coinage at each stage of the operation acts as a deterrent against malfeasance and pilferage which was the mint's primary concern in acting on the king's instruction for coinage.
Suggestion
For the purpose of improved credibility, I think the paper on the numeric hypothesis of reading mint marks needs to canvas and reconcile to the background of ancient Greek mathematics, the written sources on the matter of expenditures and payments and competing theories of mint operational processes and controls.
-
Do you have doubts that the monograms on Massalia's coins are numbers? Then look what's on this other Massalia drachm..
on the right bottom, the sign interpreted like the letter :Greek_Pi_3: by Depeyrot and like :Greek_Tau: :Greek_Lambda:
by Charra. But this sign is none other than a symbol, widely certified in ancient papyri, of the
talent’s monetary unit, corresponding 6,000 drachms. Practically, rather than indicating in figures
the first group of 6,000 drachms to mint in the new issue, it is preferred to introduce the astute
variation to indicate the symbol of the talent, which corresponds to 6,000 drachms.
To be sure that the talent symbol is correctly interpreted on the reverse of the coin no.1,
fig.no.31, the expression :Greek_Tau: :Greek_Alpha: :Greek_Lambda: is shown that, for once, is not a number but the initial part of the
word :Greek_Tau::Greek_Alpha: :Greek_Lambda: :Greek_Alpha: :Greek_Nu: :Greek_Tau: :Greek_Omicron: :Greek_Nu:, “talent”, that is an alternative way to reaffirm the amount 6,000 drachms which
the mint was working on at the moment: more clearly than that…
Yes but with this TΑ monogram οn the obverse, you have a TAΛ monogram on the reverse but also a ΑΖΑ, a ΕΔΒ, a ΠΗΑ, a ΗΑΤ, a ΚΠΤ, a ΛΑΔ...
How do you interpret them ?
-
It's worth noting (as Federico does in his main article) that not all the Ptolemy I staters have monograms on the reverse.
Coins 37 (below) and 38 have laurel(?) branches in the exergue instead.
Ross G.
-
As Callatay says on the matter of interpreting mint controls context is everything:
https://www.academia.edu/2350185/Control_marks_on_Hellenistic_royal_coinages_use_and_evolution_towards_simplification_Revue_belge_de_Numismatique_158_2012_p_39_62
And context (circumstances) in any mint was continuously evolving.
His concluding remarks in this definitive study are most instructive.
-
Ancient accounting and the written sources
Another aspect to consider is that the ancient Greek sources consistently refer to expenditures in terms of talents (weight) of precious metal (silver or gold), an Attic talent being about 26 kg rather than quantities of drachms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attic_talent
Under the circumstances the need for the mint to count drachms rather than to weigh the quantity of struck coinage is problematic in my opinion.
This discrepancy between written records of expenditures (talents) and the hypothesis (number of drachms) needs to be addressed in the paper.
The identified numerical notations on the coins always indicated amounts of money expressed in drachms, even if they were engraved on coinswith a higher value than a drachm (like tetradrachm) or even lower (like obol). That it dealt with drachms and not other monetary units 8as the talent) is confirmed by the complete reconstruction of issues (thefigures appear to be compatible with the number of dies belonging to the issue and with the numberof coins from those presumably generated) and also by the fact that in common parlance the largedigits used without any specification were implicitly referred to amounts in drachms. Thus in The Knights (829) of Aristophanes, Paphlagon threats to denounce the Sausage-seller because he stole "treis myriades", that means thirty thousand (3 x 10,000) drachms: in fact, the expression treis myriades implies drachmōn that means "of drachms". The same does Plutarch in
Marius (34) using the expression "myriadōn epta ēmisuos priasthai" (buy for 7 myriads and a half) that implies "drachmōn" ("of drachms").
-
Please not that I intend the following comments as constructive suggestions for consideration:
Ancient accounting and the written sources
Another aspect to consider is that the ancient Greek sources consistently refer to expenditures in terms of talents (weight) of precious metal (silver or gold), an Attic talent being about 26 kg rather than quantities of drachms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attic_talent
Under the circumstances the need for the mint to count drachms rather than to weigh the quantity of struck coinage is problematic in my opinion.
This discrepancy between written records of expenditures (talents) and the hypothesis (number of drachms) needs to be addressed in the paper.
The identified numerical notations on the coins always indicated amounts of money expressed in drachms, even if they were engraved on coins with a higher value than a drachm (like tetradrachm) or even lower (like obol). That it dealt with drachms and not other monetary units (as the talent) is confirmed by the complete reconstruction of issues (the figures appear to be compatible with the number of dies belonging to the issue and with the number of coins from those presumably generated) and also by the fact that in common parlance the large digits used without any specification were implicitly referred to amounts in drachms. Thus in The Knights (829) of Aristophanes, Paphlagon threats to denounce the Sausage-seller because he stole "treis myriades", that means thirty thousand (3 x 10,000) drachms: in fact, the expression treis myriades implies drachmōn that means "of drachms". The same does Plutarch in
Marius (34) using the expression "myriadōn epta ēmisuos priasthai" (buy for 7 myriads and a half) that implies "drachmōn" ("of drachms").
-
Please not that I intend the following comments as constructive suggestions for consideration:
Mathematics
I think the key to understanding whether or not the hypothesis presented is plausible lies in a better explanation of the mathematics behind it in terms of what we know of the history of mathematics.
The hypothesis interprets the monograms as numerals to be multiplied in a decimal (base 10) algebraic system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal
Yet the ancient Greeks used a sexagesimal system (base 60) that had its foundation in geometry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal
The paper need needs to address these issues and reconcile the discrepancy in the mathematics.
Sexagesimal calculus was used in geometry but in the case of numerical notations on coins we have simple numerical notes, with methods widely attested in current practice. For example, the fact that two numbers side by side must be multiplied with each other, as widely assumed in my article is attested by a schoolboy on a wax tablet in the VI-VII century AD, transcribed in fig.no.21. On this wax tablet, for example, the simple combination of the number :Greek_Xi: (60) to the number :Greek_Beta: (2) indicates that they are multiplied between each other giving the :Greek_Rho: :Greek_Kappa: (120) result, reported immediately later; the juxtaposition of the number :Greek_Xi: (60) to the number :Greek_Gamma: (3) indicates that they multiply together with the :Greek_Rho: :Greek_Pi_3: (180) result, diligently annotated on the side, and so on.
Source: https://www.academia.edu/36962445/F_De_Luca_Monograms_on_Kibyra_s_coins_names_or_numbers_Revue_Numismatique_OMNI_no_12_6_2018_pp_54_84
The nature of “the notes inside the mint” of the numerical notations explain why they were often not immediately comprehensible: it was not necessary that they had to be understood by the coin’s final users because they were not intended for them but only for the mint staff that was aware of issue’s final edition and, therefore, of the decimal order implied by the numerical notation (for example OP = 1,000[,000] drachms) as well as the numeral system from which the different figures were composed. The inspiring criterion of numerical notations, therefore, was not their intelligibility by most, but their functionality and economy: this is why assembling them some figures could be left out, some others supposed or, with greater ease respect to other contexts, some were expressed using a numeral system and others using another numeral system in order to obtain a brief final figure, suitable for the coin’s limited space. The numerical notations reported on the coins were ultimately services notes like the ones we find today on our shopping lists where, for example, we write:
bread
sugar
3 water
In this shopping list for “3 water” we actually mean “3 water boxes with 6 bottles for each box for a total of 18 bottles”: as it appears evident, rather than writing such a long expression it is much more practical to write “3 water” on a piece of paper where you write in a hurry without paying much attention to the form. Another thing would have been if the numerical notation would have indicated the coin’s facial value, like the figures brought on modern banknotes: in that case it would not have been conceivable simplifications, approximations or understood decimal orders but we know well that the Greek coin value was represented by its weight and was not indicated by the legend on it.
-
It's worth noting (as Federico does in his main article) that not all the Ptolemy I staters have monograms on the reverse.
Coins 37 (below) and 38 have laurel(?) branches in the exergue instead.
Ross G.
Yes, the coins obtained from the last reverse die do not show a number but a symbol, just to emphasize that they are part of the last group of coins. In the article I report cases of this kind that occurred in other Greek mints
-
As Callatay says on the matter of interpreting mint controls context is everything:
https://www.academia.edu/2350185/Control_marks_on_Hellenistic_royal_coinages_use_and_evolution_towards_simplification_Revue_belge_de_Numismatique_158_2012_p_39_62
And context (circumstances) in any mint was continuously evolving.
His concluding remarks in this definitive study are most instructive.
it is clear that the context is very important. Indeed, Callatay's article is very instructive, it is a pity that it liquidates the monograms shown on many mints over a substantial period of time in a few pages. After reading this article we don't know much more about monograms ...
-
Please not that I intend the following comments as constructive suggestions for consideration:
Mint Process and controls
The primary concern of the mint was to strike coinage to the requisite standard (metal purity) and quantity (talents) specified by the king in a process that was so tightly controlled as to prevent malfeasance (precious metal pilferage, debasement etc). With gold at 10 times the value of silver this became a more substantial when striking gold coinage. It was a non-issue for low value bronze which as explained below is why bronze coinage does not exhibit the mint mark complexity of precious metal coinage and why it is frequently encountered that gold coinage has more mint marks than silver coinage.
In this context, the reconciliation of inputs (bulk precious metal) to output (struck coins) was the paramount concern and means of control. This could be achieved by simply weighing the output of coined metal on a daily basis and comparing it to the weight of precious metal allocated to a striking team on a daily basis. No need to count coins - input and output weights is all that counts. Moreover, the volume to be coined at the requisite weights standard was specified by the king in weight (talents) of precious metal (be it gold or silver)
In the case of multiple anvils it would be necessary to identify with absolute certainty which coins were struck by which striking team to ensure valid reconciliation on a team by team basis. Hence the need for an additional mint mark (monogram, or symbol, or numeric dot sequence) designating each team and purpose cut reverse dies for use on each anvil. This explains the multiplicity of obverse die links observed in multi-anvil a striking for the obverse dies formed a shared inventory that can be used by different striking teams on different days, while reverse dies (i.e. bearing secondary and/or tertiary mint controls) are restricted use to a specific striking team each under supervision of an individual official designated by a discrete mint control (monogram, letter, symbol, or even a number sequence of dots). This explains Lorber's observations on the gold Ptolemaic coinage. For a more detailed exposition of this phenomenon in two eastern Alexander mints https://www.academia.edu/37022091/The_Damaskos_Mint_of_Alexander_the_Great
and
https://www.academia.edu/37029265/The_Earliest_Alexander_III_Tetradrachm_Coinage_of_Babylon_Iconographic_Development_and_Chronology
Thus we end up with multiple mint marks - one designating the mint, one designating the most senior mint official and one designating the official over-sighting the striking on a specific anvil in a multi-anvil striking operation.
This is a very simple and fool proof system that identifies who was responsible for the struck coinage and in so doing provides the means for accurate reconciliation of inputs and outputs. Accurate identification of those responsible for the coinage at each stage of the operation acts as a deterrent against malfeasance and pilferage which was the mint's primary concern in acting on the king's instruction for coinage.
Suggestion
For the purpose of improved credibility, I think the paper on the numeric hypothesis of reading mint marks needs to canvas and reconcile to the background of ancient Greek mathematics, the written sources on the matter of expenditures and payments and competing theories of mint operational processes and controls.
We don't have to worry about what it should have been based on inductive reconstructions but what appears to our eyes from the coins. The preconceptions must not lead to not seeing the numbers that in some cases jump out of the coins with all evidence and we must ask ourselves the problem of understanding their function.
Then I am not able to solve all the unsolved problems of numismatics and Greek archeology but I bring your attention back to a very limited aspect which, however, if properly understood, can throw light on many aspects still unknown to us.
-
Do you have doubts that the monograms on Massalia's coins are numbers? Then look what's on this other Massalia drachm..
on the right bottom, the sign interpreted like the letter :Greek_Pi_3: by Depeyrot and like :Greek_Tau: :Greek_Lambda:
by Charra. But this sign is none other than a symbol, widely certified in ancient papyri, of the
talent’s monetary unit, corresponding 6,000 drachms. Practically, rather than indicating in figures
the first group of 6,000 drachms to mint in the new issue, it is preferred to introduce the astute
variation to indicate the symbol of the talent, which corresponds to 6,000 drachms.
To be sure that the talent symbol is correctly interpreted on the reverse of the coin no.1,
fig.no.31, the expression :Greek_Tau: :Greek_Alpha: :Greek_Lambda: is shown that, for once, is not a number but the initial part of the
word :Greek_Tau::Greek_Alpha: :Greek_Lambda: :Greek_Alpha: :Greek_Nu: :Greek_Tau: :Greek_Omicron: :Greek_Nu:, “talent”, that is an alternative way to reaffirm the amount 6,000 drachms which
the mint was working on at the moment: more clearly than that…
Yes but with this TΑ monogram οn the obverse, you have a TAΛ monogram on the reverse but also a ΑΖΑ, a ΕΔΒ, a ΠΗΑ, a ΗΑΤ, a ΚΠΤ, a ΛΑΔ...
How do you interpret them ?
Source: https://www.academia.edu/34086494/Federico_De_Luca_Alphabetical_numbering_and_numerical_progressions_on_drachms_and_Massalia_s_small_bronze_coins_Revue_Numismatique_OMNI_n_11_07_2017_p_74_111
-
Do you have doubts that the monograms on Massalia's coins are numbers? Then look what's on this other Massalia drachm..
on the right bottom, the sign interpreted like the letter :Greek_Pi_3: by Depeyrot and like :Greek_Tau: :Greek_Lambda:
by Charra. But this sign is none other than a symbol, widely certified in ancient papyri, of the
talent’s monetary unit, corresponding 6,000 drachms. Practically, rather than indicating in figures
the first group of 6,000 drachms to mint in the new issue, it is preferred to introduce the astute
variation to indicate the symbol of the talent, which corresponds to 6,000 drachms.
To be sure that the talent symbol is correctly interpreted on the reverse of the coin no.1,
fig.no.31, the expression :Greek_Tau: :Greek_Alpha: :Greek_Lambda: is shown that, for once, is not a number but the initial part of the
word :Greek_Tau::Greek_Alpha: :Greek_Lambda: :Greek_Alpha: :Greek_Nu: :Greek_Tau: :Greek_Omicron: :Greek_Nu:, “talent”, that is an alternative way to reaffirm the amount 6,000 drachms which
the mint was working on at the moment: more clearly than that…
But a tranche of only 6000 coins sounds unlikely - it would hardly be worth the trouble of accounting for it separately. It seems you need to throw in at least one of those ever useful factors of ten.
Where else by the way can I find the "talent' symbol on the obverse?
Ross G.
-
Do you have doubts that the monograms on Massalia's coins are numbers? Then look what's on this other Massalia drachm..
on the right bottom, the sign interpreted like the letter :Greek_Pi_3: by Depeyrot and like :Greek_Tau: :Greek_Lambda:
by Charra. But this sign is none other than a symbol, widely certified in ancient papyri, of the
talent’s monetary unit, corresponding 6,000 drachms. Practically, rather than indicating in figures
the first group of 6,000 drachms to mint in the new issue, it is preferred to introduce the astute
variation to indicate the symbol of the talent, which corresponds to 6,000 drachms.
To be sure that the talent symbol is correctly interpreted on the reverse of the coin no.1,
fig.no.31, the expression :Greek_Tau: :Greek_Alpha: :Greek_Lambda: is shown that, for once, is not a number but the initial part of the
word :Greek_Tau::Greek_Alpha: :Greek_Lambda: :Greek_Alpha: :Greek_Nu: :Greek_Tau: :Greek_Omicron: :Greek_Nu:, “talent”, that is an alternative way to reaffirm the amount 6,000 drachms which
the mint was working on at the moment: more clearly than that…
But a tranche of only 6000 coins sounds unlikely - it would hardly be worth the trouble of accounting for it separately. It seems you need to throw in at least one of those ever useful factors of ten.
Where else by the way can I find the "talent' symbol on the obverse?
Ross G.
What sounds strange to us does not necessarily sound strange to them too.
The numerical notations noted on the coin did not follow rigid rules and varied from mint to mint and, within the same mint, from issue to issue. They were conceived with a situational criterion, dictated by the needs of the moment. In the issue studied in my article posted at the beginning of this topic, for example, we have a tranche ranging from 90,000 to 150,000 states marked by a symbol that certainly appears to be numerical. From an abstract logical point of view it would have been better to write "100,000 to 150,000 staters" but in this way, evidently, the 10,000 staters missing to 90,000 to reach the 100,000 staters of our abstract ideal indication remained unaccounted for.
In the case of Massalia's coin from the previous post, the symbol of talent perhaps distinguished the initial part of the issue.
So far I haven't found any other Talent symbols on any other coins.
-
And look at these "monetary magistrates" who sign these gold staters in the name of Alexander the Great minted in Abydos: strangely they always follow one another at the same point. Instead, these are numbers that indicate the progression of the issue: on the second coin of each issue a second symbol (pentagram) is added to the main symbol to underline that we are in the final part of the same.
-
Do you doubt that on the coins of the previous post the monograms are numbers? Then look at this other stater always coined in Abydos. On the second coin the monogram changes but the indicated figure is always the same. This time to indicate that the monogram shown on the second coin is a number, a point appears, a diacritical mark that warns the reader that it is a number and not a compendium of letters.
-
Do you have doubts that the monograms on Massalia's coins are numbers? Then look what's on this other Massalia drachm..
on the right bottom, the sign interpreted like the letter :Greek_Pi_3: by Depeyrot and like :Greek_Tau: :Greek_Lambda:
by Charra. But this sign is none other than a symbol, widely certified in ancient papyri, of the
talent’s monetary unit, corresponding 6,000 drachms. Practically, rather than indicating in figures
the first group of 6,000 drachms to mint in the new issue, it is preferred to introduce the astute
variation to indicate the symbol of the talent, which corresponds to 6,000 drachms.
To be sure that the talent symbol is correctly interpreted on the reverse of the coin no.1,
fig.no.31, the expression :Greek_Tau: :Greek_Alpha: :Greek_Lambda: is shown that, for once, is not a number but the initial part of the
word :Greek_Tau::Greek_Alpha: :Greek_Lambda: :Greek_Alpha: :Greek_Nu: :Greek_Tau: :Greek_Omicron: :Greek_Nu:, “talent”, that is an alternative way to reaffirm the amount 6,000 drachms which
the mint was working on at the moment: more clearly than that…
But a tranche of only 6000 coins sounds unlikely - it would hardly be worth the trouble of accounting for it separately. It seems you need to throw in at least one of those ever useful factors of ten.
Where else by the way can I find the "talent' symbol on the obverse?
Ross G.
What sounds strange to us does not necessarily sound strange to them too.
The numerical notations noted on the coin did not follow rigid rules and varied from mint to mint and, within the same mint, from issue to issue. They were conceived with a situational criterion, dictated by the needs of the moment. In the issue studied in my article posted at the beginning of this topic, for example, we have a tranche ranging from 90,000 to 150,000 states marked by a symbol that certainly appears to be numerical. From an abstract logical point of view it would have been better to write "100,000 to 150,000 staters" but in this way, evidently, the 10,000 staters missing to 90,000 to reach the 100,000 staters of our abstract ideal indication remained unaccounted for.
In the case of Massalia's coin from the previous post, the symbol of talent perhaps distinguished the initial part of the issue.
So far I haven't found any other Talent symbols on any other coins.
I'm not familiar with this "talent" symbol, so where else (other than on coins) can I find it?
Ross G.
-
The numerical notations noted on the coin did not follow rigid rules and varied from mint to mint and, within the same mint, from issue to issue. They were conceived with a situational criterion, dictated by the needs of the moment. In the issue studied in my article posted at the beginning of this topic, for example, we have a tranche ranging from 90,000 to 150,000 states marked by a symbol that certainly appears to be numerical. From an abstract logical point of view it would have been better to write "100,000 to 150,000 staters" but in this way, evidently, the 10,000 staters missing to 90,000 to reach the 100,000 staters of our abstract ideal indication remained unaccounted for.
In the case of Massalia's coin from the previous post, the symbol of talent perhaps distinguished the initial part of the issue.
So far I haven't found any other Talent symbols on any other coins.
That's a very complex proposition, yet all rather convenient for the the numeric hypothesis for it leads to a ligature of Greek letters being interpreted as a decimal (not sexaguesimal) arithmetic multiplication using differing numeric (Attic and Ionic) identifiers in the one ligature, subject to the whim of the proponent within no guiding framework, beyond the fact that the ligatures must be interpreted as numbers, at times Attic, other times Ionic and other times a mixture of the two all within the same context (mint). As a mint control process, or even an accounting process, this would be an abject failure, subject to all sorts of interpretive manipulation and thus malfeasance.
Sorry to say, but in my opinion the numeric hypothesis dismally fails the test of Occam's razor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
-
Do you have doubts that the monograms on Massalia's coins are numbers? Then look what's on this other Massalia drachm..
on the right bottom, the sign interpreted like the letter :Greek_Pi_3: by Depeyrot and like :Greek_Tau: :Greek_Lambda:
by Charra. But this sign is none other than a symbol, widely certified in ancient papyri, of the
talent’s monetary unit, corresponding 6,000 drachms. Practically, rather than indicating in figures
the first group of 6,000 drachms to mint in the new issue, it is preferred to introduce the astute
variation to indicate the symbol of the talent, which corresponds to 6,000 drachms.
To be sure that the talent symbol is correctly interpreted on the reverse of the coin no.1,
fig.no.31, the expression :Greek_Tau: :Greek_Alpha: :Greek_Lambda: is shown that, for once, is not a number but the initial part of the
word :Greek_Tau::Greek_Alpha: :Greek_Lambda: :Greek_Alpha: :Greek_Nu: :Greek_Tau: :Greek_Omicron: :Greek_Nu:, “talent”, that is an alternative way to reaffirm the amount 6,000 drachms which
the mint was working on at the moment: more clearly than that…
But a tranche of only 6000 coins sounds unlikely - it would hardly be worth the trouble of accounting for it separately. It seems you need to throw in at least one of those ever useful factors of ten.
Where else by the way can I find the "talent' symbol on the obverse?
Ross G.
What sounds strange to us does not necessarily sound strange to them too.
The numerical notations noted on the coin did not follow rigid rules and varied from mint to mint and, within the same mint, from issue to issue. They were conceived with a situational criterion, dictated by the needs of the moment. In the issue studied in my article posted at the beginning of this topic, for example, we have a tranche ranging from 90,000 to 150,000 states marked by a symbol that certainly appears to be numerical. From an abstract logical point of view it would have been better to write "100,000 to 150,000 staters" but in this way, evidently, the 10,000 staters missing to 90,000 to reach the 100,000 staters of our abstract ideal indication remained unaccounted for.
In the case of Massalia's coin from the previous post, the symbol of talent perhaps distinguished the initial part of the issue.
So far I haven't found any other Talent symbols on any other coins.
I'm not familiar with this "talent" symbol, so where else (other than on coins) can I find it?
Ross G.
Source:
https://www.academia.edu/36962445/F_De_Luca_Monograms_on_Kibyra_s_coins_names_or_numbers_Revue_Numismatique_OMNI_no_12_6_2018_pp_54_84
-
The numerical notations noted on the coin did not follow rigid rules and varied from mint to mint and, within the same mint, from issue to issue. They were conceived with a situational criterion, dictated by the needs of the moment. In the issue studied in my article posted at the beginning of this topic, for example, we have a tranche ranging from 90,000 to 150,000 states marked by a symbol that certainly appears to be numerical. From an abstract logical point of view it would have been better to write "100,000 to 150,000 staters" but in this way, evidently, the 10,000 staters missing to 90,000 to reach the 100,000 staters of our abstract ideal indication remained unaccounted for.
In the case of Massalia's coin from the previous post, the symbol of talent perhaps distinguished the initial part of the issue.
So far I haven't found any other Talent symbols on any other coins.
That's a very complex proposition, yet all rather convenient for the the numeric hypothesis for it leads to a ligature of Greek letters being interpreted as a decimal (not sexaguesimal) arithmetic multiplication using differing numeric (Attic and Ionic) identifiers in the one ligature, subject to the whim of the proponent within no guiding framework, beyond the fact that the ligatures must be interpreted as numbers, at times Attic, other times Ionic and other times a mixture of the two all within the same context (mint). As a mint control process, or even an accounting process, this would be an abject failure, subject to all sorts of interpretive manipulation and thus malfeasance.
Sorry to say, but in my opinion the numeric hypothesis dismally fails the test of Occam's razor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
The relativity of your criticism is contained ... in your own criticism. Let me explain. You could have written that my explanation does not convince you because it does not respect the principle of economics and instead you said that it does not convince you because it "fails the test of Occam's razor". In other words: you said the same thing but using a convention, a reference. Well, the Greeks with monograms on the coins did the same thing, they made a sort of conventional sign, vaguely numerical, known only to them that served a purpose known to them. Paradoxically, instead of a number it could also be a sign, a little drawing or sign (like the ones we do today on a bunch of banknotes just counted) because, I repeat it to the point of boredom, the monogram had only the function of making the coins obtained from the minting that bore that symbol recognizable and therefore distinguishable.The groups of coins easily distinguishable from each other were more easily accounted. Separate groups of coins were made, based on the monogram that characterized them and then counted. The monograms distinguished the groups: this was the only purpose they served and it was not necessary that like a good child they did all their homework properly. Instead of properly writing "ONE MILLION DRACHMS" they could also just write "1 ML" or "ONE MILL" or "ONE", etc., etc, etc.
But then what do we want to do, in the name of an abstract principle (the principle of economics or Occam's razor) we decide not to see the dozens of evidence that I am submitting to your attention? It would be like proposing to modern medicine to return to Aristotelian medicine built on abstract principles...
-
My proposal to explain the meaning of monograms presupposes that the coins immediately after their minting were separated into homogeneous groups characterized by the same monogram or set of monograms and counted group by group until the pre-established limit of the issue was reached. Some may argue that there would have been no need because they knew how much precious metal was made available to be transformed into coins. But this objection does not take into account the thefts of precious metal that could have occurred during the minting phase. The numerical notations also served this purpose, that is to make it possible to verify that the entire quantity of precious metal received at the beginning of the minting of the issue was transformed into coins (as well as allowing to keep the count of the coins gradually minted).
-
Thanks for the Talent symbol reference – Bagnall and Bogaert (1975) Papyrus No. 7 (p.84) has a nice (transcript of) an example of the symbol in use.
Ultimately the reference seems to be Bilabel "Siglae" RE 1923 col. 2307. See here:
http://ia800706.us.archive.org/27/items/PWRE51/Pauly-Wissowa_II_A,2,_2307.png
(near the top).
Ross G.
-
I repeat it to the point of boredom, the monogram had only the function of making the coins obtained from the minting that bore that symbol recognizable and therefore distinguishable.The groups of coins easily distinguishable from each other were more easily accounted. Separate groups of coins were made, based on the monogram that characterized them and then counted. The monograms distinguished the groups: this was the only purpose they served and it was not necessary that like a good child they did all their homework properly. Instead of properly writing "ONE MILLION DRACHMS" they could also just write "1 ML" or "ONE MILL" or "ONE", etc., etc, etc.
and from the next post ...
My proposal to explain the meaning of monograms presupposes that the coins immediately after their minting were separated into homogeneous groups characterized by the same monogram or set of monograms and counted group by group until the pre-established limit of the issue was reached. Some may argue that there would have been no need because they knew how much precious metal was made available to be transformed into coins. But this objection does not take into account the thefts of precious metal that could have occurred during the minting phase. The numerical notations also served this purpose, that is to make it possible to verify that the entire quantity of precious metal received at the beginning of the minting of the issue was transformed into coins (as well as allowing to keep the count of the coins gradually minted)
Again I repeat this is overly complex and unnecessary solution to a simple problem, that of the identification of an issue (group in your terminology) of coins.
No interpretation of a numerical and mathematical convolution in a Greek ligature is necessary to identify the separate "groups" of coins.
It is simply done by a, monogram, letter, or symbol (or combination of any of these) that is unique to the "group" in question. The coins with the requisite "group" identifier can then be separated from others and counted in your hypothesis, although weighing the "group" of coins in total is a far simpler solution to counting and this weight can be far more readily and easily compared/reconciled to the weight of bullion specified for the issue i.e. everything is quality controlled by reference to weight (talents) which has to accord to the King's instruction for the volume of the mintage.
Nothing need be read by way of numbers, or complex mathematical gymnastics to the specific "group" identifier to achieve this outcome.
You have come up with a complex and contradictory interpretation/solution looking for a problem that does not exist.
A mint mark, or collection of mint marks (a monogram consisting of a ligature of Greek letters in your examples) simply serves to identify an issue of coinage struck at a specific time (group of coins in your terminology) and that is the conventional numismatic interpretation of the mint marks.
Thank you for the numeric hypothesis, but I'll stick with the test of Occam's Razor on this matter and go for the conventional interpretation of mint marks as being used to identify for control and oversight purposes in the mint the various time specific strikings of coinage (i.e. issues) in the mint for the purpose of reconciling input (weight of bullion) with output (weight of coinage) and in so doing to mitigate the risk of malfeasance through the unequivocal identification of those involved in a specific mintage struck under the instruction of the king.
The whole purpose of a mint control process was to prevent the very pilferage that you say could have occurred.
Counting coins struck imprecisely and imperfectly to a weight standard is not the way of doing this. Just look at the distribution of coin weights in any metrological study to see the problem. Rather, it is the total weight of the issue (or group as you call it) that identifies any losses, be it by pilferage or minor process losses in the striking process, not the number of coins!
An example
To drive this point home I use the example that mint workers (in the absence of tight process control of the sort described) could readily and deliberately strike 6,000 drachms at 5% under the Attic weight standard weight standard of 4.3 gms/drachm. That 6,000 coins so struck would then account for 0.95 talents of bullion leaving the mint workers free to walk away with 1.3 kg of bullion! Yet you would have 6,000 coins! Counting the coins would not reveal this malfeasance. Weighing the total volume of coins would expose it immediately!
No, the number of coins was not important in the process control and could never be used to identify pilferage.
It was weight (talents) of struck coinage that counted and this was immediately reconcilable to the input weight of bullion to the striking process.
P.S. Ever wonder why there were 6,000 Attic weight standard coins in an Attic talent? Hint: a sexaguesimal counting system underpins the wight system. Similarly, you may have wondered why there 6 obols in a drachm?
-
I agree with n.igma – I don’t see how labelling tranches of coins with the number of coins helps much with accounting.
And even if it did you wouldn’t do it in the obscure, varying and inconsistent manner assumed by Federico – you would surely mark the first 10,000 coins (or more likely the first talent weight of coins) as A, the second as B, and so on, plus maybe the symbol for 10,000 or whatever.
Or at least something simple and straightforward like that.
Ross G.
-
... The numerical notations noted on the coin did not follow rigid rules and varied from mint to mint and, within the same mint, from issue to issue. They were conceived with a situational criterion, dictated by the needs of the moment. ...
This assumption gives you the freedom to claim everything you want and to resolve contradictions whatsoever with the explanation that "the needs of the moment" in this case have been different ones.
This makes your theory arbitrary and thus, at least in my eyes, useless :(.
... The whole purpose of a mint control process was to prevent the very pilferage that you say could have occurred. ...
This sounds very reasonable, but: Do we really know what all the objectives of a mint control process in hellenistic times have been? What exactly the requisites of the king concerning a mint have looked like?
As far as I know we don't have any contemporary description of the organisation of a hellenistic mint, all we have are the coins themselves. So everything we are thinking about it comes from our assumptions (as reasonable as they might be) and our deductions and thus is all theory :-\.
Regards
Altamura
-
As far as I know we don't have any contemporary description of the organisation of a hellenistic mint, all we have are the coins themselves. So everything we are thinking about it comes from our assumptions (as reasonable as they might be) and our deductions and thus is all theory :-\.
Regards
Altamura
[/quote]
Very fair observation. We are talking about the observation of coins. I look forward to reading a more convincing proposal than mine in this regard ...
-
This assumption gives you the freedom to claim everything you want and to resolve contradictions whatsoever with the explanation that "the needs of the moment" in this case have been different ones.
This makes your theory arbitrary and thus, at least in my eyes, useless :(.
[
Altamura
[/quote]
You have centered exactly the problem: the great "numerical" freedom on the coins only that, unfortunately, I am not responsible for this but the ancient Greeks themselves and the crime is not the interpretation of these numbers (crime for which I could answer) but their creation, for which only the ancient Greeks are responsible
-
But you're the one proposing that coin counting via mathematical gymnastics to identify "groups" of coins "make it possible to verify that the entire quantity of precious metal received at the beginning of the minting of the issue was transformed into coins."
But as shown by the example, it does no such thing!
It is weight of the total striikng not numbers of coins that affords such an opportunity of verification.
-
A mint mark, or collection of mint marks (a monogram consisting of a ligature of Greek letters in your examples) simply serves to identify an issue of coinage struck at a specific time (group of coins in your terminology) and that is the conventional numismatic interpretation of the mint marks.
[/quote]
The problem lies precisely here that all of us moderns are convinced that mint marks throughout the history of the world worked as they did in the nineteenth century: a letter indicating the city where the mint was located and the year of minting. You can't get out of this mental pattern ...
-
But you're the one proposing that coin counting via mathematical gymnastics to identify "groups" of coins "make it possible to verify that the entire quantity of precious metal received at the beginning of the minting of the issue was transformed into coins."
But as shown by the example, it does no such thing!
It is weight of the total striikng not numbers of coins that affords such an opportunity of verification.
but in fact I have never ruled out checks on the weight of the coins too, which is one of the main functions of the monetary magistrates. Monograms intended as numbers facilitated them in this task because thanks to the division of the issue into groups identified by different monograms they immediately had an eye on the control of the completed issue and in this way they could devote themselves better to weight checks, perhaps with random checks carried out in front of the authority to which they delivered the completed issue
-
... The whole purpose of a mint control process was to prevent the very pilferage that you say could have occurred. ...
This sounds very reasonable, but: Do we really know what all the objectives of a mint control process in hellenistic times have been? What exactly the requisites of the king concerning a mint have looked like?
As far as I know we don't have any contemporary description of the organisation of a hellenistic mint, all we have are the coins themselves. So everything we are thinking about it comes from our assumptions (as reasonable as they might be) and our deductions and thus is all theory :-\.
True, but the basic motivating emotions of of human behavior that have not changed since we walked out of Africa, fear, greed and glory determine that there is a high probability that when surrounded by bullion it would be necessary to counter the propensity for human greed by fear of discovery and its consequences and thus the primary purpose of the mint to deliver the coinage required by the king to the requisite standard in the most economically efficient way (i.e. with minimal loss in the process) would require a mint control process directed to such delivery. i.e. Don't try to screw with the king and his bullion otherwise risk painful and protracted death.
Callatay (2012) 40-41 ... The only clear glimpse we do possess is the famous letter of Demetrios, the presumed master of the Alexandrian Mint, to the dioecetes Apollonios, dated 258 BC about reminting coins (P. Cair. Zen. i 59021). What we are informed of in this letter fits with what we know from pseudo- Aristotle in his Oeconomica , i.e. the decision to strike coinage (when and of what nature) belongs solely to the king. And coinage is, in fact, one of his main responsibilities (Van Groningen 1933, pp. 3 and 31-32).
-
But you're the one proposing that coin counting via mathematical gymnastics to identify "groups" of coins "make it possible to verify that the entire quantity of precious metal received at the beginning of the minting of the issue was transformed into coins."
But as shown by the example, it does no such thing!
It is weight of the total striikng not numbers of coins that affords such an opportunity of verification.
but in fact I have never ruled out checks on the weight of the coins too, which is one of the main functions of the monetary magistrates. Monograms intended as numbers facilitated them in this task because thanks to the division of the issue into groups identified by different monograms they immediately had an eye on the control of the completed issue and in this way they could devote themselves better to weight checks, perhaps with random checks carried out in front of the authority to which they delivered the completed issue
Now seek to move the goal posts as well!
Methinks you are seeking to defend the indefensible hypothesis.
-
Similarly, you may have wondered why there 6 obols in a drachm?
According to Plutarch they were originally spits of copper or bronze traded by weight, while six obols make a drachma or a handful, since that was as many as the hand could grasp ( Plutarch, Parallel Lives, The Life of Lysander, para. 17)
-
Thank you for the numeric hypothesis, but I'll stick with the test of Occam's Razor on this matter and go for the conventional interpretation of mint marks as being used to identify for control and oversight purposes in the mint the various time specific strikings of coinage (i.e. issues) in the mint for the purpose of reconciling input (weight of bullion) with output (weight of coinage) and in so doing to mitigate the risk of malfeasance through the unequivocal identification of those involved in a specific mintage struck under the instruction of the king.
[/quote]
You are free to believe what you want. But I'd like to know how you explain the succession of many monograms within the same issue if not the simple chaos
-
Similarly, you may have wondered why there 6 obols in a drachm?
According to Plutarch they were originally spits of copper or bronze traded by weight, while six obols make a drachma or a handful, since that was as many as the hand could grasp ( Plutarch, Parallel Lives, The Life of Lysander, para. 17)
The typical silver obol is about 8mm in diameter. Pretty small hand that could only hold 6 of these. Plutarch wrote in the first century BC so his observations on this matter may well be inaccurate and hardly reflect on why there are 6 obols to the drachm which reflects the underlying sexaguesimal base system of counting, just as today we have 100 cents in the dollar in a decimal system of counting.
-
... The whole purpose of a mint control process was to prevent the very pilferage that you say could have occurred. ...
This sounds very reasonable, but: Do we really know what all the objectives of a mint control process in hellenistic times have been? What exactly the requisites of the king concerning a mint have looked like?
As far as I know we don't have any contemporary description of the organisation of a hellenistic mint, all we have are the coins themselves. So everything we are thinking about it comes from our assumptions (as reasonable as they might be) and our deductions and thus is all theory :-\.
True, but the basic motivating emotions of of human behavior that have not changed since we walked out of Africa, fear, greed and glory determine that there is a high probability that when surrounded by bullion it would be necessary to counter the propensity for human greed by fear of discovery and its consequences and thus the primary purpose of the mint to deliver the coinage required by the king to the requisite standard in the most economically efficient way (i.e. with minimal loss in the process) would require a mint control process directed to such delivery. i.e. Don't try to screw with the king and his bullion otherwise risk painful and protracted death.
Callatay (2012) 40-41 ... The only clear glimpse we do possess is the famous letter of Demetrios, the presumed master of the Alexandrian Mint, to the dioecetes Apollonios, dated 258 BC about reminting coins (P. Cair. Zen. i 59021). What we are informed of in this letter fits with what we know from pseudo- Aristotle in his Oeconomica , i.e. the decision to strike coinage (when and of what nature) belongs solely to the king. And coinage is, in fact, one of his main responsibilities (Van Groningen 1933, pp. 3 and 31-32).
I understand, but to what extent does this help us understand the meaning of monograms?
-
Similarly, you may have wondered why there 6 obols in a drachm?
According to Plutarch they were originally spits of copper or bronze traded by weight, while six obols make a drachma or a handful, since that was as many as the hand could grasp ( Plutarch, Parallel Lives, The Life of Lysander, para. 17)
The typical silver obol is about 8mm in diameter. Pretty small hand that could only hold 6 of these. Plutarch wrote in the first century BC so his observations on this matter may well be inaccurate and hardly reflect on why there are 6 obols to the drachm which reflects the underlying sexaguesimal base system of counting, just as today we have 100 cents in the dollar in a decimal system of counting.
I repeat myself, but to what extent does this help us understand the meaning of monograms?
-
But you're the one proposing that coin counting via mathematical gymnastics to identify "groups" of coins "make it possible to verify that the entire quantity of precious metal received at the beginning of the minting of the issue was transformed into coins."
But as shown by the example, it does no such thing!
It is weight of the total striikng not numbers of coins that affords such an opportunity of verification.
but in fact I have never ruled out checks on the weight of the coins too, which is one of the main functions of the monetary magistrates. Monograms intended as numbers facilitated them in this task because thanks to the division of the issue into groups identified by different monograms they immediately had an eye on the control of the completed issue and in this way they could devote themselves better to weight checks, perhaps with random checks carried out in front of the authority to which they delivered the completed issue
Now seek to move the goal posts as well!
Methinks you are seeking to defend the indefensible hypothesis.
If you had bothered to read the article posted at the beginning of this torment of discussion you would have noticed that it is not as you say
-
Thank you for the numeric hypothesis, but I'll stick with the test of Occam's Razor on this matter and go for the conventional interpretation of mint marks as being used to identify for control and oversight purposes in the mint the various time specific strikings of coinage (i.e. issues) in the mint for the purpose of reconciling input (weight of bullion) with output (weight of coinage) and in so doing to mitigate the risk of malfeasance through the unequivocal identification of those involved in a specific mintage struck under the instruction of the king.
You are free to believe what you want. But I'd like to know how you explain the succession of many monograms within the same issue if not the simple chaos
[/quote]
Readily done. The succession of monograms defines eaither (a) a succession of time specific issues or (b) a succession of synchronous issues struck on different lines of production (anvils). Which applies is determined by whether the mint was undertaking (a) low volume striking or (b) high volume mintage. The determination of which mode of operation was a direct consequence of the demands of the king for coinage. Typically low volume in routine peaceful periods and high volume in times of war (a very expensive enterprise indeed).
Thus diifferent assemblages of monograms = different issues struck either at (a) separate times or (b) synchronously by different striking teams under different with the output of each striking line defined by a different assemblage of controls so as to identify the specific line of production from which it originated.
This all accords with the conventional numismatic definition of an issue. No mathematical gymnastics or added complexity required.
-
I repeat it to the point of boredom, the monogram had only the function of making the coins obtained from the minting that bore that symbol recognizable and therefore distinguishable.The groups of coins easily distinguishable from each other were more easily accounted. Separate groups of coins were made, based on the monogram that characterized them and then counted. The monograms distinguished the groups: this was the only purpose they served and it was not necessary that like a good child they did all their homework properly. Instead of properly writing "ONE MILLION DRACHMS" they could also just write "1 ML" or "ONE MILL" or "ONE", etc., etc, etc.
and from the next post ...
My proposal to explain the meaning of monograms presupposes that the coins immediately after their minting were separated into homogeneous groups characterized by the same monogram or set of monograms and counted group by group until the pre-established limit of the issue was reached. Some may argue that there would have been no need because they knew how much precious metal was made available to be transformed into coins. But this objection does not take into account the thefts of precious metal that could have occurred during the minting phase. The numerical notations also served this purpose, that is to make it possible to verify that the entire quantity of precious metal received at the beginning of the minting of the issue was transformed into coins (as well as allowing to keep the count of the coins gradually minted)
Again I repeat this is overly complex and unnecessary solution to a simple problem, that of the identification of an issue (group in your terminology) of coins.
No interpretation of a numerical and mathematical convolution in a Greek ligature is necessary to identify the separate "groups" of coins.
It is simply done by a, monogram, letter, or symbol (or combination of any of these) that is unique to the "group" in question. The coins with the requisite "group" identifier can then be separated from others and counted in your hypothesis, although weighing the "group" of coins in total is a far simpler solution to counting and this weight can be far more readily and easily compared/reconciled to the weight of bullion specified for the issue i.e. everything is quality controlled by reference to weight (talents) which has to accord to the King's instruction for the volume of the mintage.
Nothing need be read by way of numbers, or complex mathematical gymnastics to the specific "group" identifier to achieve this outcome.
You have come up with a complex and contradictory interpretation/solution looking for a problem that does not exist.
A mint mark, or collection of mint marks (a monogram consisting of a ligature of Greek letters in your examples) simply serves to identify an issue of coinage struck at a specific time (group of coins in your terminology) and that is the conventional numismatic interpretation of the mint marks.
Thank you for the numeric hypothesis, but I'll stick with the test of Occam's Razor on this matter and go for the conventional interpretation of mint marks as being used to identify for control and oversight purposes in the mint the various time specific strikings of coinage (i.e. issues) in the mint for the purpose of reconciling input (weight of bullion) with output (weight of coinage) and in so doing to mitigate the risk of malfeasance through the unequivocal identification of those involved in a specific mintage struck under the instruction of the king.
The whole purpose of a mint control process was to prevent the very pilferage that you say could have occurred.
Counting coins struck imprecisely and imperfectly to a weight standard is not the way of doing this. Just look at the distribution of coin weights in any metrological study to see the problem. Rather, it is the total weight of the issue (or group as you call it) that identifies any losses, be it by pilferage or minor process losses in the striking process, not the number of coins!
An example
To drive this point home I use the example that mint workers (in the absence of tight process control of the sort described) could readily and deliberately strike 6,000 drachms at 5% under the Attic weight standard weight standard of 4.35 gms/drachm. That 6,000 coins so struck would then account for 0.95 talents of bullion leaving the mint workers free to walk away with 1.05 kg of bullion! Yet you would have 6,000 coins! Counting the coins would not reveal this malfeasance. Weighing the total volume of coins would expose it immediately!
No, the number of coins was not important in the process control and could never be used to identify pilferage.
It was weight (talents) of struck coinage that counted and this was immediately reconcilable to the input weight of bullion to the striking process.
P.S. Ever wonder why there were 6,000 Attic weight standard coins in an Attic talent? Hint: a sexaguesimal counting system underpins the wight system. Similarly, you may have wondered why there 6 obols in a drachm?
Let's do something. I have presented an explanation of the monograms. You do not like? I'm sorry I can't help it. I tried my best to demonstrate what I say as precisely as possible and my absolute good faith in conceiving this theory of mine. I only receive piqued criticisms, not based on any historical data, document or specific currency (in fact, here we are talking about coins).
If my theory does not convince you, I am sorry but I will certainly not make an illness of it because my satisfaction has already consisted in writing it and this topic can be closed here.
You persist in saying that "it would have been better", "it would have been more logical ..."; in short, you want to explain the facts with a mental order longed for in your mind.
I also have the feeling that here I can post the impossible because it is not read so it is perfectly useless for me to continue doing it. You don't agree with my statements?
I'm not asking you to counter point by point, image by image to what I said, but at least post an ancient text, an image, a coin that confirms what you say and I will believe you.
-
I agree with n.igma – I don’t see how labelling tranches of coins with the number of coins helps much with accounting.
And even if it did you wouldn’t do it in the obscure, varying and inconsistent manner assumed by Federico – you would surely mark the first 10,000 coins (or more likely the first talent weight of coins) as A, the second as B, and so on, plus maybe the symbol for 10,000 or whatever.
Or at least something simple and straightforward like that.
Ross G.
But then can you explain to me what was the point of reporting the symbol of talent on that coin? Please write down a hypothesis ..
Let me understand you see the symbol of talent on the papyrus and believe it is the symbol of talent; you see it on the coin and it is no longer the symbol of talent. But what coherence is it?
And if by chance, in a rush of objectivity, you would like to recognize that on the coin there is precisely the symbol of talent, a mathematical symbol therefore, isn't it a logical consequence to ask ourselves about its meaning, which seems to suggest a numerical solution? Tell me why at this point maybe I think I'm really crazy and draw conclusions at random ...
-
I wonder if an examination of earlier Near Eastern craft workshops would be useful for understanding the inner workings of later Greek mint workshops? We know surprisingly very much about how the Mesopotamians operated from extant cuneiform tablets—how raw materials were deposited at a workshop, how they moved within a workshop, and how they exited. The tablet envelopes usually have the seal of the major domo (administrative head) as well as the type of goods all written on the “exit” envelope. Not sure what the inner tablets said (mine is still sealed), but presumably the exact quantity of goods so that whoever was in charge of delivery couldn’t rewrite the inscription in the clay.
-
But then can you explain to me what was the point of reporting the symbol of talent on that coin? Please write down a hypothesis ..
That is what you interpret it to be. Equally as much it may be just another mint mark composed of Greek letters, an abbreviation of a name or some other word.
-
Let's do something. I have presented an explanation of the monograms. You do not like? I'm sorry I can't help it. I tried my best to demonstrate what I say as precisely as possible and my absolute good faith in conceiving this theory of mine. I only receive piqued criticisms, not based on any historical data, document or specific currency (in fact, here we are talking about coins).
If my theory does not convince you, I am sorry but I will certainly not make an illness of it because my satisfaction has already consisted in writing it and this topic can be closed here.
You persist in saying that "it would have been better", "it would have been more logical ..."; in short, you want to explain the facts with a mental order longed for in your mind.
I also have the feeling that here I can post the impossible because it is not read so it is perfectly useless for me to continue doing it. You don't agree with my statements?
I'm not asking you to counter point by point, image by image to what I said, but at least post an ancient text, an image, a coin that confirms what you say and I will believe you.
I am simply responding to each of the questions/challenges you post in reply to my observations.
-
I wonder if an examination of earlier Near Eastern craft workshops would be useful for understanding the inner workings of later Greek mint workshops? We know surprisingly very much about how the Mesopotamians operated from extant cuneiform tablets—how raw materials were deposited at a workshop, how they moved within a workshop, and how they exited. The tablet envelopes usually have the seal of the major domo (administrative head) as well as the type of goods all written on the “exit” envelope. Not sure what the inner tablets said (mine is still sealed), but presumably the exact quantity of goods so that whoever was in charge of delivery couldn’t rewrite the inscription in the clay.
if we could find such information for the Greek world, we would stop arguing here ;D ;D ;D
-
But then can you explain to me what was the point of reporting the symbol of talent on that coin? Please write down a hypothesis ..
That is what you interpret it to be. Equally as much it may be just another mint mark composed of Greek letters, an abbreviation of a name or some other word.
No comment.
-
Let's do something. I have presented an explanation of the monograms. You do not like? I'm sorry I can't help it. I tried my best to demonstrate what I say as precisely as possible and my absolute good faith in conceiving this theory of mine. I only receive piqued criticisms, not based on any historical data, document or specific currency (in fact, here we are talking about coins).
If my theory does not convince you, I am sorry but I will certainly not make an illness of it because my satisfaction has already consisted in writing it and this topic can be closed here.
You persist in saying that "it would have been better", "it would have been more logical ..."; in short, you want to explain the facts with a mental order longed for in your mind.
I also have the feeling that here I can post the impossible because it is not read so it is perfectly useless for me to continue doing it. You don't agree with my statements?
I'm not asking you to counter point by point, image by image to what I said, but at least post an ancient text, an image, a coin that confirms what you say and I will believe you.
I am simply responding to each of the questions/challenges you post in reply to my observations.
No challenge. Since the time of the Greek philosophers if a person disputes a thesis he must provide an alternative, complete, detailed and exhaustive thesis to explain these same phenomena analyzed by the first man. Otherwise we only have a broken down series of no ..
-
OK stop. I give up. I acknowledge that I have not convinced you. Excuse me again if I disturbed you. Forgive me.
Shall we kindly end this topic? Thank you
Good life.
-
I agree with n.igma – I don’t see how labelling tranches of coins with the number of coins helps much with accounting.
And even if it did you wouldn’t do it in the obscure, varying and inconsistent manner assumed by Federico – you would surely mark the first 10,000 coins (or more likely the first talent weight of coins) as A, the second as B, and so on, plus maybe the symbol for 10,000 or whatever.
Or at least something simple and straightforward like that.
Ross G.
But then can you explain to me what was the point of reporting the symbol of talent on that coin? Please write down a hypothesis ..
Let me understand you see the symbol of talent on the papyrus and believe it is the symbol of talent; you see it on the coin and it is no longer the symbol of talent. But what coherence is it?
And if by chance, in a rush of objectivity, you would like to recognize that on the coin there is precisely the symbol of talent, a mathematical symbol therefore, isn't it a logical consequence to ask ourselves about its meaning, which seems to suggest a numerical solution? Tell me why at this point maybe I think I'm really crazy and draw conclusions at random ...
OK, how about this - the talent sign indicates a tranche of 1 talent weight of coins - about 10,000 of these light Massalia drachms, if they used the Attic talent.
This immediately suggests that each tranche was normally struck from only one set of dies, apart from occasional breakages, with perhaps the reverse dies individually marked to distinguish each tranche. It would be interesting to see some die statistics for these types.
At last we have testable hypothesis.
Ross G.
-
But you're the one proposing that coin counting via mathematical gymnastics to identify "groups" of coins "make it possible to verify that the entire quantity of precious metal received at the beginning of the minting of the issue was transformed into coins."
But as shown by the example, it does no such thing!
It is weight of the total striikng not numbers of coins that affords such an opportunity of verification.
but in fact I have never ruled out checks on the weight of the coins too, which is one of the main functions of the monetary magistrates. Monograms intended as numbers facilitated them in this task because thanks to the division of the issue into groups identified by different monograms they immediately had an eye on the control of the completed issue and in this way they could devote themselves better to weight checks, perhaps with random checks carried out in front of the authority to which they delivered the completed issue
Now seek to move the goal posts as well!
Methinks you are seeking to defend the indefensible hypothesis.
It was certain the critical analysis of this theory's astonishing weakness would be joined.
The more that skeptical scrutiny slices away at what little is left of this 'theory', the more strenuous its author's defense. Cognitive dissonance can make it hard to cede even the obvious.
Nevertheless, the author can defend it ad infinitum because it can't be disproved and no amount of cogent argument to the contrary will suffice. These kinds of 'theories' are encountered in other fields as well, and their adherents are almost never dissuaded by critical scrutiny.
As for the weights of gold coins, there is actually some evidence about them we can theorize about. A huge die study of some Ptolemaic gold coin types (in RBN a few years ago by Olivier and Lorber) has weights of hundreds, spanning very narrow ranges (my recollection is many vary by much less than 1%). Just a notion, but you could balance finely divided tiny gold shot (used by goldsmiths to this day), filings or dust with a single fixed weight to create almost exactly equal allotments of metal to melt into beads of almost exactly equal weight for striking. It would be hard to 'lose' much that way. The real gold coin weights are so close that it seems immaterial whether they were counted or weighed to account for the gold input. Simple to just do both :)
PtolemAE
-
Dear Mr. De Luca and Board,
You may or may not know me as the person who reviewed your Ptolemaic stater paper as a KOINON submission. As you rightly described, there has been a torrent of discussion here concerning your theory, but we do not seem to be making much progress in the direction(s) we are going. Personally, I (and maybe Ross to a certain extent) are impressed with your possible talent symbol discovery. It does seem like you are on the trail of something fascinating, but what lies ahead is most likely not the picture you have labored in great detail to illustrate in your writings. I say this based my editorial critique of your work, which raised a couple of points I failed so far to see discussed in this thread, but which I feel are of utmost importance to the validity of your core arguments. Perhaps I simply missed them (quite possible), but I did not see any of the alluded concerns with you research addressed in the later published OMNI version of your paper. With that in mind, I would be grateful if you could now address my points (reproduced below among others you are probably tired of hearing!) and shift this whole discussion in a hopefully more fruitful direction.
"We will begin with the most problematic. In his plates, we have six gold (not golden!) staters of Ptolemy I Soter bearing the obverse die 'O8' (Nos. 12-14 & 20-22), coupled with five reverse dies, each of which represents a new, increasing numerical sequence, according to De Luca's interpretations. The obverse of the first coin (#12) bears a die chip on the forehead of the king, which is obviously not present on #21. Likewise, we have a very noticeable die chip in front of Ptolemy's nose on coin #13 which is nowhere to be found on #20 and probably #21. In terms of overall obverse die wear, nos. 20 & 21 look the most fresh to my eyes. None of this should be the case if the different numerical lettered/monogrammed reverses are supposed to denote increasing values.
"To arrive at the numerical values for the letters and monograms found on the gold staters presented in the article, De Luca has relied on not one, but three different Greek numbering systems. In some cases, all three are purportedly represented on a single coin. In support of this astonishing claim, he cites a few, albeit very intriguing, written examples (on page 8 of his article) where numbers and calculations were indeed apparently expressed sometimes in more than one Greek numbering system. Although I have not investigated the matter to my satisfaction, there nevertheless seems to be logical geographical and cultural relationships underpinning the the use of the numbering systems in those examples. I am not so sure if such (or similar) traditions and practices can be applied so evenly across the whole Greek world as De Luca seems to suggest when his body of research on numerical letters and monograms is taken as a whole. Whether he is talking about the letters and monograms on Massalian drachms (in a different article) or Ptolemaic staters, he interprets them in the same basic way, where the die cutters would regularly utilize more than one numbering system in a seemingly less than standardized manner. When it comes to Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt, there is a considerable surviving corpus of papyrus scrolls, some of which no doubt record ancient mathematical calculations. Has he consulted this vast resource to discern which numbering system(s) were in common use in that part of the Greek world?
"My apologies in advance if I have misunderstood De Luca or missed a relevant passage, but from the article in question, he seems to envision the minting process of the Ptolemaic staters in a very linear fashion, with little room for more than one pair of dies being put into service at a time. I would think one of the number one priorities at any mint, ancient or modern, is to get the job done as quickly as possible, without needlessly dragging the process on. However, if De Luca's reasoning is true, then I would see difficulties in having more than one team of minters at work at the same time. Would they all be striking coins within the same sequence, or would one team skip ahead to the next one? Or perhaps there were two independent lines servicing two separate orders for coins at the same time. But, if this is the case, then the ability for us to determine roughly how many coins were minted of a single issue falls apart, because we suddenly no longer know if, say, 300,000 staters was the end goal or 600,000.
"And, to top everything off, I fail to see the explicit need to publicly mark all the dies of a coin issue so as to keep track of how many were minted. If the mint knew how much raw metal they started out with each time, then they would have a good idea of many coins it would produce. Moreover, if mint workers were really packing the coins in labeled bags, a theory that De Luca could well be correct about, then that further decreases the need to mark every coin with a complex system of numerical symbols---unless there was a more important reason for their existence."
For convenience, here is the link again to De Luca's OMNI paper:
https://www.academia.edu/43928165/F_De_Luca_Numerical_notations_on_Ptolemy_I_Soter_s_gold_staters_Revue_Numismatique_OMNI_no_14_08_2020_pp_31_69 (https://www.academia.edu/43928165/F_De_Luca_Numerical_notations_on_Ptolemy_I_Soter_s_gold_staters_Revue_Numismatique_OMNI_no_14_08_2020_pp_31_69)
Also, since writing this review, I am not as certain about the existence of the obverse die chip on coin no. 12, but my other coin die observations remain to be explained.
Thank you for your time and effort in trying to make sense of this poorly understood field of numismatics. If your motive for doing so is to get to the truth of the matter, then you will never be truly disappointed where the trail of evidence will lead you.
Best regards,
Mark Fox
Michigan
-
Dear Mr. De Luca and Board,
You may or may not know me as the person who reviewed your Ptolemaic stater paper as a KOINON submission. As you rightly described, there has been a torrent of discussion here concerning your theory, but we do not seem to be making much progress in the direction(s) we are going. Personally, I (and maybe Ross to a certain extent) are impressed with your possible talent symbol discovery. It does seem like you are on the trail of something fascinating, but what lies ahead is most likely not the picture you have labored in great detail to illustrate in your writings. I say this based my editorial critique of your work, which raised a couple of points I failed so far to see discussed in this thread, but which I feel are of utmost importance to the validity of your core arguments. Perhaps I simply missed them (quite possible), but I did not see any of the alluded concerns with you research addressed in the later published OMNI version of your paper. With that in mind, I would be grateful if you could now address my points (reproduced below among others you are probably tired of hearing!) and shift this whole discussion in a hopefully more fruitful direction.
"We will begin with the most problematic. In his plates, we have six gold (not golden!) staters of Ptolemy I Soter bearing the obverse die 'O8' (Nos. 12-14 & 20-22), coupled with five reverse dies, each of which represents a new, increasing numerical sequence, according to De Luca's interpretations. The obverse of the first coin (#12) bears a die chip on the forehead of the king, which is obviously not present on #21. Likewise, we have a very noticeable die chip in front of Ptolemy's nose on coin #13 which is nowhere to be found on #20 and probably #21. In terms of overall obverse die wear, nos. 20 & 21 look the most fresh to my eyes. None of this should be the case if the different numerical lettered/monogrammed reverses are supposed to denote increasing values.
"To arrive at the numerical values for the letters and monograms found on the gold staters presented in the article, De Luca has relied on not one, but three different Greek numbering systems. In some cases, all three are purportedly represented on a single coin. In support of this astonishing claim, he cites a few, albeit very intriguing, written examples (on page 8 of his article) where numbers and calculations were indeed apparently expressed sometimes in more than one Greek numbering system. Although I have not investigated the matter to my satisfaction, there nevertheless seems to be logical geographical and cultural relationships underpinning the the use of the numbering systems in those examples. I am not so sure if such (or similar) traditions and practices can be applied so evenly across the whole Greek world as De Luca seems to suggest when his body of research on numerical letters and monograms is taken as a whole. Whether he is talking about the letters and monograms on Massalian drachms (in a different article) or Ptolemaic staters, he interprets them in the same basic way, where the die cutters would regularly utilize more than one numbering system in a seemingly less than standardized manner. When it comes to Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt, there is a considerable surviving corpus of papyrus scrolls, some of which no doubt record ancient mathematical calculations. Has he consulted this vast resource to discern which numbering system(s) were in common use in that part of the Greek world?
"My apologies in advance if I have misunderstood De Luca or missed a relevant passage, but from the article in question, he seems to envision the minting process of the Ptolemaic staters in a very linear fashion, with little room for more than one pair of dies being put into service at a time. I would think one of the number one priorities at any mint, ancient or modern, is to get the job done as quickly as possible, without needlessly dragging the process on. However, if De Luca's reasoning is true, then I would see difficulties in having more than one team of minters at work at the same time. Would they all be striking coins within the same sequence, or would one team skip ahead to the next one? Or perhaps there were two independent lines servicing two separate orders for coins at the same time. But, if this is the case, then the ability for us to determine roughly how many coins were minted of a single issue falls apart, because we suddenly no longer know if, say, 300,000 staters was the end goal or 600,000.
"And, to top everything off, I fail to see the explicit need to publicly mark all the dies of a coin issue so as to keep track of how many were minted. If the mint knew how much raw metal they started out with each time, then they would have a good idea of many coins it would produce. Moreover, if mint workers were really packing the coins in labeled bags, a theory that De Luca could well be correct about, then that further decreases the need to mark every coin with a complex system of numerical symbols---unless there was a more important reason for their existence."
For convenience, here is the link again to De Luca's OMNI paper:
https://www.academia.edu/43928165/F_De_Luca_Numerical_notations_on_Ptolemy_I_Soter_s_gold_staters_Revue_Numismatique_OMNI_no_14_08_2020_pp_31_69 (https://www.academia.edu/43928165/F_De_Luca_Numerical_notations_on_Ptolemy_I_Soter_s_gold_staters_Revue_Numismatique_OMNI_no_14_08_2020_pp_31_69)
Also, since writing this review, I am not as certain about the existence of the obverse die chip on coin no. 12, but my other coin die observations remain to be explained.
Thank you for your time and effort in trying to make sense of this poorly understood field of numismatics. If your motive for doing so is to get to the truth of the matter, then you will never be truly disappointed where the trail of evidence will lead you.
Best regards,
Mark Fox
Michigan
Dear Mr. Fox, thanks for your speech.
Not even I am sure that on my coin no. 12 there is a die chip that is not present on coin no. 21. instead, the clearly visible dot on coin no.13 is not visible on coins no.20 and 21 but is clearly visible on no.22. This can easily be due to my misinterpretation of the monograms. For example, the monogram TI present on coin n.21 and which I have dissolved as 300 (T) x 10 (I) = 300,0(00) staters, perhaps in reality, however, it should have been understood as 30,00(0) staters. In this new interpretation, therefore, the sequence should be reviewed and coins # 20 and 21 placed at the beginning of the sequence. But the general discourse changes little because the sequence could be wrong but not the final limit of the issue, its final edition. My mistake could be a consequence of the difficulty of interpreting monograms and this case makes it very clear how difficult it is to do it. I have often been accused in this discussion of adjusting the numbers to my liking and surely this episode will give my critics fresh breath. To those without prejudice, however, I hope that paradoxically it is a confirmation of my good faith, because the possible error calls into question the order of the numerical sequence but not the numerical sequence itself and its supposed limit, which is not questioned.
In conclusion, this is a (possible) error that does not undermine the whole system of theory or "theory" as some insist on pointing out.
-
But you're the one proposing that coin counting via mathematical gymnastics to identify "groups" of coins "make it possible to verify that the entire quantity of precious metal received at the beginning of the minting of the issue was transformed into coins."
But as shown by the example, it does no such thing!
It is weight of the total striikng not numbers of coins that affords such an opportunity of verification.
but in fact I have never ruled out checks on the weight of the coins too, which is one of the main functions of the monetary magistrates. Monograms intended as numbers facilitated them in this task because thanks to the division of the issue into groups identified by different monograms they immediately had an eye on the control of the completed issue and in this way they could devote themselves better to weight checks, perhaps with random checks carried out in front of the authority to which they delivered the completed issue
Now seek to move the goal posts as well!
Methinks you are seeking to defend the indefensible hypothesis.
The only thing astonishing is your stubbornness in criticizing me without bringing a shred of evidence to back up your claims
-
But you're the one proposing that coin counting via mathematical gymnastics to identify "groups" of coins "make it possible to verify that the entire quantity of precious metal received at the beginning of the minting of the issue was transformed into coins."
But as shown by the example, it does no such thing!
It is weight of the total striikng not numbers of coins that affords such an opportunity of verification.
but in fact I have never ruled out checks on the weight of the coins too, which is one of the main functions of the monetary magistrates. Monograms intended as numbers facilitated them in this task because thanks to the division of the issue into groups identified by different monograms they immediately had an eye on the control of the completed issue and in this way they could devote themselves better to weight checks, perhaps with random checks carried out in front of the authority to which they delivered the completed issue
Now seek to move the goal posts as well!
Methinks you are seeking to defend the indefensible hypothesis.
It was certain the critical analysis of this theory's astonishing weakness would be joined.
The more that skeptical scrutiny slices away at what little is left of this 'theory', the more strenuous its author's defense. Cognitive dissonance can make it hard to cede even the obvious.
Nevertheless, the author can defend it ad infinitum because it can't be disproved and no amount of cogent argument to the contrary will suffice. These kinds of 'theories' are encountered in other fields as well, and their adherents are almost never dissuaded by critical scrutiny.
As for the weights of gold coins, there is actually some evidence about them we can theorize about. A huge die study of some Ptolemaic gold coin types (in RBN a few years ago by Olivier and Lorber) has weights of hundreds, spanning very narrow ranges (my recollection is many vary by much less than 1%). Just a notion, but you could balance finely divided tiny gold shot (used by goldsmiths to this day), filings or dust with a single fixed weight to create almost exactly equal allotments of metal to melt into beads of almost exactly equal weight for striking. It would be hard to 'lose' much that way. The real gold coin weights are so close that it seems immaterial whether they were counted or weighed to account for the gold input. Simple to just do both :)
PtolemAE
The only thing astonishing is your stubbornness in criticizing me without bringing a shred of evidence to back up your claims
-
I agree with n.igma – I don’t see how labelling tranches of coins with the number of coins helps much with accounting.
And even if it did you wouldn’t do it in the obscure, varying and inconsistent manner assumed by Federico – you would surely mark the first 10,000 coins (or more likely the first talent weight of coins) as A, the second as B, and so on, plus maybe the symbol for 10,000 or whatever.
Or at least something simple and straightforward like that.
Ross G.
But then can you explain to me what was the point of reporting the symbol of talent on that coin? Please write down a hypothesis ..
Let me understand you see the symbol of talent on the papyrus and believe it is the symbol of talent; you see it on the coin and it is no longer the symbol of talent. But what coherence is it?
And if by chance, in a rush of objectivity, you would like to recognize that on the coin there is precisely the symbol of talent, a mathematical symbol therefore, isn't it a logical consequence to ask ourselves about its meaning, which seems to suggest a numerical solution? Tell me why at this point maybe I think I'm really crazy and draw conclusions at random ...
OK, how about this - the talent sign indicates a tranche of 1 talent weight of coins - about 10,000 of these light Massalia drachms, if they used the Attic talent.
This immediately suggests that each tranche was normally struck from only one set of dies, apart from occasional breakages, with perhaps the reverse dies individually marked to distinguish each tranche. It would be interesting to see some die statistics for these types.
At last we have testable hypothesis.
Ross G.
And how do they verify the weight of these 10,000 coins? they certainly could not load them on a truck and take it to the weighbridge...
-
I agree with n.igma – I don’t see how labelling tranches of coins with the number of coins helps much with accounting.
At last we have testable hypothesis.
Ross G.
And how do you explain everything else, all the other monograms, coin sequences etc? For years I have exhausted myself looking everywhere, since August 30 I have been struggling with this topic and you with this simple statement have solved all the puzzles? But well ..
-
I agree with n.igma – I don’t see how labelling tranches of coins with the number of coins helps much with accounting.
And even if it did you wouldn’t do it in the obscure, varying and inconsistent manner assumed by Federico – you would surely mark the first 10,000 coins (or more likely the first talent weight of coins) as A, the second as B, and so on, plus maybe the symbol for 10,000 or whatever.
Or at least something simple and straightforward like that.
Ross G.
But then can you explain to me what was the point of reporting the symbol of talent on that coin? Please write down a hypothesis ..
Let me understand you see the symbol of talent on the papyrus and believe it is the symbol of talent; you see it on the coin and it is no longer the symbol of talent. But what coherence is it?
And if by chance, in a rush of objectivity, you would like to recognize that on the coin there is precisely the symbol of talent, a mathematical symbol therefore, isn't it a logical consequence to ask ourselves about its meaning, which seems to suggest a numerical solution? Tell me why at this point maybe I think I'm really crazy and draw conclusions at random ...
OK, how about this - the talent sign indicates a tranche of 1 talent weight of coins - about 10,000 of these light Massalia drachms, if they used the Attic talent.
This immediately suggests that each tranche was normally struck from only one set of dies, apart from occasional breakages, with perhaps the reverse dies individually marked to distinguish each tranche. It would be interesting to see some die statistics for these types.
At last we have testable hypothesis.
Ross G.
And how do you explain everything else, all the other monograms, coin sequences etc? For years I have exhausted myself looking everywhere, since August 30 I have been struggling with this topic and you with this simple statement have solved all the puzzles? But well ..
-
Here is the Garsana workshop. Now reimagine with different metals and each branch (like an officina) within the workshop is charged with a different series or denomination. You'd have room for the major officiant's title (here Adad-tilati) but also the "officina" head, (here Ana-Ili for leather). This would allow for many different names to be included on the varieties via monograms. And yet, it might also allow for numbers to be included as well. My question is: would there be some practical use for having the number of coins issued on the coins themselves? The immediate practical concern for theft is solved by n.igma's explanation. But what about accounting records for an empire? Would it be useful on the marco-level, in other words, to have the coins themselves carry that number?
Just thinking about some common ground among all the different theories I am reading here--which I admit, I am too stupid to fully understand!
-
...
... Since the time of the Greek philosophers if a person disputes a thesis he must provide an alternative, complete, detailed and exhaustive thesis to explain these same phenomena analyzed by the first man. Otherwise we only have a broken down series of no ..
Compounding the nonsense doesn't improve it.
The analysis is astonishingly weak, so the theory is not believable. It's that simple.
PtolemAE
-
...
... Since the time of the Greek philosophers if a person disputes a thesis he must provide an alternative, complete, detailed and exhaustive thesis to explain these same phenomena analyzed by the first man. Otherwise we only have a broken down series of no ..
Compounding the nonsense doesn't improve it.
The analysis is astonishingly weak, so the theory is not believable. It's that simple.
PtolemAE
Then the Greeks had nothing better to do than put letters haphazardly on the coins, that is to say in a space of a few centimeters ...
-
Here is the Garsana workshop. Now reimagine with different metals and each branch (like an officina) within the workshop is charged with a different series or denomination. You'd have room for the major officiant's title (here Adad-tilati) but also the "officina" head, (here Ana-Ili for leather). This would allow for many different names to be included on the varieties via monograms. And yet, it might also allow for numbers to be included as well. My question is: would there be some practical use for having the number of coins issued on the coins themselves? The immediate practical concern for theft is solved by n.igma's explanation. But what about accounting records for an empire? Would it be useful on the marco-level, in other words, to have the coins themselves carry that number?
Just thinking about some common ground among all the different theories I am reading here--which I admit, I am too stupid to fully understand!
In my opinion, to solve the enigma of these monograms one should not ask oneself if it is logical to write numbers on the coins or if it was no longer logical to bear the bill in mind or if it was cumbersome as a system. We must start from the objective reality of the monograms and ask ourselves, even before WHAT THEY WERE FOR, WHAT THEY WERE. I'm killing myself to convince you that they are numbers and appear to be numbers on the basis of various objective elements. After seeing that they can be numbers we have to move on to ask ourselves what they were for and I propose that they were used to:
-they helped to carry the bill of coins gradually minted;
-having the quantitative control of the coins that were included in the issue, by randomly checking only some coins, it was also easy to check the validity of the weight of the coins (and therefore the absence of
theft was checked)
-presenting the issue divided into distinct groups characterized by different monograms, it was easier to allow the final control on the issue entirely minted by the authority in charge.
I've been waiting for a better explanation than this since August 30th.
We have to start from the objective data, from the monograms, not from what they could serve in our opinion.
I'll give you an example. When these small vessels from the Bronze Age were found to understand their function, we did not start from "in my opinion" but from scientific analyzes
A group of researchers verified with chemical investigations that in some containers with this characteristic shape, found in burials of children dating back to the Bronze and Iron Ages, there was milk: very likely, therefore, that they were part of the kit for the feeding those little ones.
and it turned out that they were baby bottles. It was not said "according to me it is impossible that they are baby bottles because it was too much for the Bronze Age", but some analyzes have been made, understand? In the case of monograms, is that sign a sampi? Yes? then they are numbers, not being able to do scientific tests at least let's try to remain objective! Am I asking too much??
-
Dear Mr. De Luca and Board,
You may or may not know me as the person who reviewed your Ptolemaic stater paper as a KOINON submission. As you rightly described, there has been a torrent of discussion here concerning your theory, but we do not seem to be making much progress in the direction(s) we are going. Personally, I (and maybe Ross to a certain extent) are impressed with your possible talent symbol discovery. It does seem like you are on the trail of something fascinating, but what lies ahead is most likely not the picture you have labored in great detail to illustrate in your writings. I say this based my editorial critique of your work, which raised a couple of points I failed so far to see discussed in this thread, but which I feel are of utmost importance to the validity of your core arguments. Perhaps I simply missed them (quite possible), but I did not see any of the alluded concerns with you research addressed in the later published OMNI version of your paper. With that in mind, I would be grateful if you could now address my points (reproduced below among others you are probably tired of hearing!) and shift this whole discussion in a hopefully more fruitful direction.
"We will begin with the most problematic. In his plates, we have six gold (not golden!) staters of Ptolemy I Soter bearing the obverse die 'O8' (Nos. 12-14 & 20-22), coupled with five reverse dies, each of which represents a new, increasing numerical sequence, according to De Luca's interpretations. The obverse of the first coin (#12) bears a die chip on the forehead of the king, which is obviously not present on #21. Likewise, we have a very noticeable die chip in front of Ptolemy's nose on coin #13 which is nowhere to be found on #20 and probably #21. In terms of overall obverse die wear, nos. 20 & 21 look the most fresh to my eyes. None of this should be the case if the different numerical lettered/monogrammed reverses are supposed to denote increasing values.
"To arrive at the numerical values for the letters and monograms found on the gold staters presented in the article, De Luca has relied on not one, but three different Greek numbering systems. In some cases, all three are purportedly represented on a single coin. In support of this astonishing claim, he cites a few, albeit very intriguing, written examples (on page 8 of his article) where numbers and calculations were indeed apparently expressed sometimes in more than one Greek numbering system. Although I have not investigated the matter to my satisfaction, there nevertheless seems to be logical geographical and cultural relationships underpinning the the use of the numbering systems in those examples. I am not so sure if such (or similar) traditions and practices can be applied so evenly across the whole Greek world as De Luca seems to suggest when his body of research on numerical letters and monograms is taken as a whole. Whether he is talking about the letters and monograms on Massalian drachms (in a different article) or Ptolemaic staters, he interprets them in the same basic way, where the die cutters would regularly utilize more than one numbering system in a seemingly less than standardized manner. When it comes to Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt, there is a considerable surviving corpus of papyrus scrolls, some of which no doubt record ancient mathematical calculations. Has he consulted this vast resource to discern which numbering system(s) were in common use in that part of the Greek world?
"My apologies in advance if I have misunderstood De Luca or missed a relevant passage, but from the article in question, he seems to envision the minting process of the Ptolemaic staters in a very linear fashion, with little room for more than one pair of dies being put into service at a time. I would think one of the number one priorities at any mint, ancient or modern, is to get the job done as quickly as possible, without needlessly dragging the process on. However, if De Luca's reasoning is true, then I would see difficulties in having more than one team of minters at work at the same time. Would they all be striking coins within the same sequence, or would one team skip ahead to the next one? Or perhaps there were two independent lines servicing two separate orders for coins at the same time. But, if this is the case, then the ability for us to determine roughly how many coins were minted of a single issue falls apart, because we suddenly no longer know if, say, 300,000 staters was the end goal or 600,000.
"And, to top everything off, I fail to see the explicit need to publicly mark all the dies of a coin issue so as to keep track of how many were minted. If the mint knew how much raw metal they started out with each time, then they would have a good idea of many coins it would produce. Moreover, if mint workers were really packing the coins in labeled bags, a theory that De Luca could well be correct about, then that further decreases the need to mark every coin with a complex system of numerical symbols---unless there was a more important reason for their existence."
For convenience, here is the link again to De Luca's OMNI paper:
https://www.academia.edu/43928165/F_De_Luca_Numerical_notations_on_Ptolemy_I_Soter_s_gold_staters_Revue_Numismatique_OMNI_no_14_08_2020_pp_31_69 (https://www.academia.edu/43928165/F_De_Luca_Numerical_notations_on_Ptolemy_I_Soter_s_gold_staters_Revue_Numismatique_OMNI_no_14_08_2020_pp_31_69)
Also, since writing this review, I am not as certain about the existence of the obverse die chip on coin no. 12, but my other coin die observations remain to be explained.
Thank you for your time and effort in trying to make sense of this poorly understood field of numismatics. If your motive for doing so is to get to the truth of the matter, then you will never be truly disappointed where the trail of evidence will lead you.
Best regards,
Mark Fox
Michigan
If we look at Federico’s die linkage diagram there are a couple of sequences where crossed links seem to mean that at least two obverse dies were in use simultaneously, including the sequence Mark deals with.
These crossed links can mostly be eliminated by a relatively simple rearrangement of the coins (e.g, swapping coins 4 and 5, and moving coin 3, which is not die-linked to any other coin, to some later position. Coin 3 is only placed where it is in order to fit the numeric theory).
However we are still left with one problem, namely the coupling of obverse 7 with reverse 19.
Unfortunately this particular coin does not seem to be illustrated in the main article, so it’s hard to verify this link or otherwise.
Ross G.
-
... Then the Greeks had nothing better to do than put letters haphazardly on the coins, ...
Nobody is telling that this has been haphazardly, only your explanation for it is not accepted.
... I've been waiting for a better explanation than this since August 30th. ...
Again: An explanation of a phenomenon does not automatically become true and valid only because there is no better one on the market. If an explanation is not accepted and there is no better alternative, then the phenomenon just goes back into the status "unexplained", that's all :-\.
Regards
Altamura
-
I agree with n.igma – I don’t see how labelling tranches of coins with the number of coins helps much with accounting.
And even if it did you wouldn’t do it in the obscure, varying and inconsistent manner assumed by Federico – you would surely mark the first 10,000 coins (or more likely the first talent weight of coins) as A, the second as B, and so on, plus maybe the symbol for 10,000 or whatever.
Or at least something simple and straightforward like that.
Ross G.
But then can you explain to me what was the point of reporting the symbol of talent on that coin? Please write down a hypothesis ..
Let me understand you see the symbol of talent on the papyrus and believe it is the symbol of talent; you see it on the coin and it is no longer the symbol of talent. But what coherence is it?
And if by chance, in a rush of objectivity, you would like to recognize that on the coin there is precisely the symbol of talent, a mathematical symbol therefore, isn't it a logical consequence to ask ourselves about its meaning, which seems to suggest a numerical solution? Tell me why at this point maybe I think I'm really crazy and draw conclusions at random ...
OK, how about this - the talent sign indicates a tranche of 1 talent weight of coins - about 10,000 of these light Massalia drachms, if they used the Attic talent.
This immediately suggests that each tranche was normally struck from only one set of dies, apart from occasional breakages, with perhaps the reverse dies individually marked to distinguish each tranche. It would be interesting to see some die statistics for these types.
At last we have testable hypothesis.
Ross G.
And how do you explain everything else, all the other monograms, coin sequences etc? For years I have exhausted myself looking everywhere, since August 30 I have been struggling with this topic and you with this simple statement have solved all the puzzles? But well ..
No, I'm just saying the Talent symbol was used in Egyptian papyri to mean the talent weight and there seems to be no evidence that it was ever used as a number.
In Massilia therefore it could also mean a weight.
Ross G.
-
ok, ok
bye
-
So it really comes down to the sampi. Is it really a sampi and does the sampi necessarily denote a number? (And I ask this of the group)
-
... I've been waiting for a better explanation than this since August 30th. ...
Again: An explanation of a phenomenon does not automatically become true and valid only because there is no better one on the market. If an explanation is not accepted and there is no better alternative, then the phenomenon just goes back into the status "unexplained", that's all :-\.
Regards
Altamura
This, THIS! A thousand times THIS!!
Altamura gets it, and sums it up perfectly. Thank you.
- Walter
-
So it really comes down to the sampi. Is it really a sampi and does the sampi necessarily denote a number? (And I ask this of the group)
Well it's certainly seems to be a sampi, but is it a number here?
I can't say, but I can say the number 900 is very unusual, and as such it typifies the problem with the whole numeric theory - the varying and unsystematic nature of the numbers that the theory throws up.
Ross G.
-
Thanks Ross. I believe I understand the issue better now.
-
And how do they verify the weight of these 10,000 coins? they certainly could not load them on a truck and take it to the weighbridge...
This indicates how intellectually and logically bereft the numeric proponent's arguments have become.
Answer to the question: a set of balance scales and a balance weights, both of which are attested to in the ancient Greek world.
60 Mina to the Talent ( again sexaguesimal base numbering) and you weigh the 10,000 coins in tranches and sum the total.
But the problem is even simpler. Daily reconciliation of input and output would be required to prevent malfeasance in the mint. It would be inadequate identifying pilferage through a mint control process days or weeks after it happened and the king would be pretty pissed with this outcome, no doubt demanding mint overseer's head on a platter!.
Daily striking rates on a single anvil are the paramount consideration in this regard. All the evidence based on very significant die study of the monthly dated issues of Mithradates VI points to a maximum sustainable average rate of 3,000 coins/day per anvil in a high-volume mint operation. Refer : Callataÿ, F. de. L’histoire des guerres mithridatiques vue par les monnaies. Numismatica Lovaniensia 18, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1997.
From extensive die studies at other mints with dated coinage such Sidon and Tyre in the late 4th century BC far lower striking rates, less than 1,000 coins/day per anvil are the norm.
So the problem of weighing the coinage output per striking team (which is identified by a specific mint mark) on a daily basis and reconciling this to the weight of bullion delivered to that team/anvil is far simpler than the confected problem with which the numeric monogram proponent seeks to blow smoke over the counter argument.
It is only necessary to weigh a few hundred to few thousand coins at the end of the day and reconcile this back to the amount of bullion delivered to the anvil for striking. Any shortcoming is thus identified before the culprit even leaves the mint!
3,000 drachms struck at the Attic weight standard is half a talent = 30 Mina = 13 kg at the Attic weight standard. This hardly requires a weigh bridge or advanced technology to achieve such an enormous feat of measurement!
And don't believe for one moment that talents of bullion were delivered to the anvil for striking in one go and that only at the end of days/weeks/months of striking was a reconciliation undertaken as implied in the paper and by the numeric proponent.
Rather, at most a few Mina at a time would have been provided to each anvil at any one time and then immediately after striking into coin it would reconciled to the weight of coined output, so as to expose pilferage in real-time.
To repeat:
(1) The monograms in the case of multiple mint controls on a single coin exist in a hierarchy and serve to identify successively the mint of origin and/or the king's instruction on which the coinage was undertaken, the mint overseer, and the striking team (i.e. anvil specific in the event of a multi-anvil striking operation).
(2) This structure and hierarchy of mint controls served to identify unequivocally those engaged in the production coinage down to the level of a specific coin and served to facilitate the mint's control and reconciliation process.
(3) Unequivocal identification of those engaged in the production of a coinage accompanied by a process of continuous weight reconciliation (input weight versus output weigh) served to act as the primary deterrent against pilferage of the king's bullion.
(4) The reconciliation process (weight for weight) was undertaken in real-time i.e. daily, or potentially more frequently with each batch of bullion delivered to the anvil. This only required the weighing of a few hundred to at most a few thousand coins at a time on balance scales using Mina and fractional Mina balance weights.
(5) The identification by a hierarchy of monograms of those involved also served to deter the risk of debasement of metal in the mint, for even after the coin left the mint if was found to be debased those responsible could be identified via the mint marks (monograms). Retribution in such a circumstance would be swift.
(6) In all of this decimal base mathematical gymnastics with numbers played no useful (dare I say conceivable) role.
So please don't bleat anymore about not understanding what these ligatures of Greek letter mean. They are mint controls that served an identifying purpose in a mint's control process aimed at insuring the king's instructions were fulfilled in the most efficient manner possible. They served to identify those involved and through that very fact to act as a deterrent to trying to screw over the king by mint workers and administrators. This all accords with conventional numismatic understanding and is at the heart of numismatic typology of any coin series, in many instances fully supported by rigorous die analysis.
-
So it really comes down to the sampi. Is it really a sampi and does the sampi necessarily denote a number? (And I ask this of the group)
Yes and No respectively.
This archaic letter sampi persisted in some Greek dialects down to the 1st century BC and is to be found on coinage epigraphy where it is clearly a letter eg. the coinage of Messembria examples below, where it is the result of the assimilation of sigma and tau in the city ethnic spelled out on the reverse. Several Greek dialects used this assimilated form to phonetically define the correct pronunciation of the sound that combined sigma tau.
In 4th century BC Athens the there is a set of 25 metal tokens, each stamped with one of the letters from alpha to sampi that were probably used as identification marks for judges in the courts of the Athenian democracy.
So the association of the usage of the letter sampi exclusively with the number 900 in the Milesian (Ionic) numbering system is misleading. It was also as a letter in the Classical and Hellenistic era in several Greek dialects. Its presence on the coinage of Ptolemy does not prove a need for numeric interpretation for the Greek ligatures. It probably represents the use of one of many Greek dialects among the mint workers. Alexandria was after all a real melting pot in the Hellenistic era and attracted intellectuals, artisans and workers from all over the Greek world.
-
So it really comes down to the sampi. Is it really a sampi and does the sampi necessarily denote a number? (And I ask this of the group)
Yes and No respectively.
This archaic letter sampi persisted in some Greek dialects down to the 1st century BC and is to be found on coinage epigraphy where it is clearly a letter eg. the coinage of Messembria examples below, where it is the result of the assimilation of sigma and tau in the city ethnic spelled out on the reverse. Several Greek dialects used this assimilated form to phonetically define the correct pronunciation of the sound that combined sigma tau.
In 4th century BC Athens the there is a set of 25 metal tokens, each stamped with one of the letters from alpha to sampi that were probably used as identification marks for judges in the courts of the Athenian democracy.
So the association of the usage of the letter sampi exclusively with the number 900 in the Milesian (Ionic) numbering system is misleading. It was also as a letter in the Classical and Hellenistic era in several Greek dialects. Its presence on the coinage of Ptolemy does not prove a need for numeric interpretation for the Greek ligatures. It probably represents the use of one of many Greek dialects among the mint workers. Alexandria was after all a real melting pot in the Hellenistic era and attracted intellectuals, artisans and workers from all over the Greek world.
That's what I was waiting for - someone who actually knows something about sampi's.
I think people can now draw their own conclusions.
Ross G.
-
But the problem is even simpler. Daily reconciliation of input and output would be required to prevent malfeasance in the mint. It would be inadequate identifying pilferage through a mint control process days or weeks after it happened and the king would be pretty pissed with this outcome, no doubt demanding mint overseer's head on a platter!.
MY ANSWER:
Even my wife when she makes meatballs determines how much meat she has to knead to get out the predetermined number of meatballs and, before cooking them, she counts them. Pity she makes a maximum of ten meatballs not hundreds of thousands ... In that case it is much easier to get confused. Furthermore, in a mint, it is not certain that there was a daily input of raw precious metal which corresponded to a punctual output in terms of coins on a daily basis. Surely at the end of the day there remained raw precious metal not yet worked, hence the need to count the minted coins from hand to hand and separate them so as not to be forced to recount everything all over again at the end, which would have been a backbreaking and annoying job. Especially since an ancient mint was not a modern assembly line that allows you to know precisely what goes in and what goes out ...
-
So it really comes down to the sampi. Is it really a sampi and does the sampi necessarily denote a number? (And I ask this of the group)
Yes and No respectively.
This archaic letter sampi persisted in some Greek dialects down to the 1st century BC and is to be found on coinage epigraphy where it is clearly a letter eg. the coinage of Messembria examples below, where it is the result of the assimilation of sigma and tau in the city ethnic spelled out on the reverse. Several Greek dialects used this assimilated form to phonetically define the correct pronunciation of the sound that combined sigma tau.
In 4th century BC Athens the there is a set of 25 metal tokens, each stamped with one of the letters from alpha to sampi that were probably used as identification marks for judges in the courts of the Athenian democracy.
So the association of the usage of the letter sampi exclusively with the number 900 in the Milesian (Ionic) numbering system is misleading. It was also as a letter in the Classical and Hellenistic era in several Greek dialects. Its presence on the coinage of Ptolemy does not prove a need for numeric interpretation for the Greek ligatures. It probably represents the use of one of many Greek dialects among the mint workers. Alexandria was after all a real melting pot in the Hellenistic era and attracted intellectuals, artisans and workers from all over the Greek world.
Of course, why didn't I think about it before? They're all coincidences. In Alexandria's mint worked a person who spoke a dialect that still used sampi, despite being used for at least a century and a half to indicate the number 900.. It is a conicidence that on coin no. 31 of my reconstruction there is a diacritic sign denoted the numbers right near the monogram. It is a coincidence that on the gold staters of Ptolemy I monograms lend themselves to being dissolved as a number sequence (the first) and as a number indicating the limit of 500,000 staters or 100,000 drachms (the second). It is a coincidence that multiplying the number of obverse dies identified by the theoretical yield of each of them (20,000 coins) gives a figure close to what I assumed was the emission limit. It is by chance that on the didrachm of Massalia there is the symbol of Talent (perhaps alluded to the parable of Jesus...). They are all coincidences all the similarities below...
-
On the epigraph is a number, on the coin NO
-
On the epigraph is a number, on the coin NO
-
On this coin of Velia (Lucania) the monogram (an M with an A above) of course is NOT the number 10,000 of the attic system because it is not possible that there are numbers on the coins (on the transcitation of the epigraph above instead YES).
-
On the Egyptian papyri the symbol of talent indicates sums of money BUT NOT ON COINS where perhaps it indicates the weight of not known what but still NOT WHAT DE LUCA THE HERETIC SAYS ...
-
And it is always by chance that the number of coins included in this issue, which appears to be suggested by the monograms that characterize it, is perfectly compatible with the number of presumptive coins obtained by multiplying the obverse dies traced with the presumed yield of 20,000 coins for each of them. The emission of the image is being treated here:
https://www.academia.edu/39997497/F_De_Luca_Monograms_on_staters_minted_in_Aspendos_during_the_IV_III_Century_BC_numerical_notes_linked_to_the_size_of_the_issue_Revue_Numismatique_OMNI_no_13_07_2019_pp_40_71
but the issue applies to so many other issues that I have reconstructed.
-
sorry, typing error..
-
On the Egyptian papyri the symbol of talent indicates sums of money BUT NOT ON COINS where perhaps it indicates the weight of not known what but still NOT WHAT DE LUCA THE HERETIC SAYS ...
The talent was a weight, not a sum of money. The value of a talent depended on what the talent was made of.
On the papyrus shown the talent symbol means a talent weight. The instruction is to pay the agent of Thewnos 4 talent (weights) of copper (xa(lkou)).
Ross G.
-
On the Egyptian papyri the symbol of talent indicates sums of money BUT NOT ON COINS where perhaps it indicates the weight of not known what but still NOT WHAT DE LUCA THE HERETIC SAYS ...
The talent was a weight, not a sum of money. The value of a talent depended on what the talent was made of.
On the papyrus shown the talent symbol means a talent weight. The instruction is to pay the agent of Thewnos 4 talent (weights) of copper (xa(lkou)).
Ross G.
And how could he have paid if not with copper coins? Or could he pay for it with raw copper ingots? A little uncomfortable, isn't it? In chapter 25 of the Gospel of Matthew there is the famous parable of the talents in which a wealthy man gives his servants sums of money expressed in talents. In fact, the terms translated into English as "bags" actually in the original Greek text of the Gospel of Matthew are referred to as "talents" and are clearly sums of money..
Greek text of the Gospel of Matthew: https://www.bibbiaedu.it/GRECO_NT/nt/Mt/25/
-
On the Egyptian papyri the symbol of talent indicates sums of money BUT NOT ON COINS where perhaps it indicates the weight of not known what but still NOT WHAT DE LUCA THE HERETIC SAYS ...
The talent was a weight, not a sum of money. The value of a talent depended on what the talent was made of.
On the papyrus shown the talent symbol means a talent weight. The instruction is to pay the agent of Thewnos 4 talent (weights) of copper (xa(lkou)).
Ross G.
And how could he have paid if not with copper coins? Or could he pay for it with raw copper ingots? A little uncomfortable, isn't it? In chapter 24 of the Gospel of Matthew there is the famous parable of the talents in which a wealthy man gives his servants sums of money expressed in talents. In fact, the terms translated into English as "bags" actually in the original Greek text of the Gospel of Matthew are referred to as "talents" and are clearly sums of money..
Greek text of the Gospel of Matthew: https://www.bibbiaedu.it/GRECO_NT/nt/Mt/25/
These payments were normally specified in terms of copper, but larger amounts could presumably be settled with silver bars or coins.
Although I remember seeing somewhere a payment order that specifies a payment of so much silver, or its equivalent in copper (with agio).
And yes, the Biblican talent is used to mean some value, which obviously assumes the reader understands what sort of talent was meant.
Ross G.
-
On the Egyptian papyri the symbol of talent indicates sums of money BUT NOT ON COINS where perhaps it indicates the weight of not known what but still NOT WHAT DE LUCA THE HERETIC SAYS ...
The talent was a weight, not a sum of money. The value of a talent depended on what the talent was made of.
On the papyrus shown the talent symbol means a talent weight. The instruction is to pay the agent of Thewnos 4 talent (weights) of copper (xa(lkou)).
Ross G.
And how could he have paid if not with copper coins? Or could he pay for it with raw copper ingots? A little uncomfortable, isn't it? In chapter 24 of the Gospel of Matthew there is the famous parable of the talents in which a wealthy man gives his servants sums of money expressed in talents. In fact, the terms translated into English as "bags" actually in the original Greek text of the Gospel of Matthew are referred to as "talents" and are clearly sums of money..
Greek text of the Gospel of Matthew: https://www.bibbiaedu.it/GRECO_NT/nt/Mt/25/
These payments were normally specified in terms of copper, but larger amounts could presumably be settled with silver bars or coins.
Although I remember seeing somewhere a payment order that specifies a payment of so much silver, or its equivalent in copper (with agio).
And yes, the Biblican talent is used to mean some value, which obviously assumes the reader understands what sort of talent was meant.
Ross G.
The problem of Ptolemaic Egypt was the lack of silver for coinage which, therefore, was even less available in crude for trade between individuals. Precisely to make up for this lack of silver, gold and bronze coins were used and this is the reason why in the papyrus reproduced here we speak of 4 talents in bronze, obviously meaning bronze coins.
See: https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935390.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199935390-e-71
-
Excuse me, another typo
-
On the Egyptian papyri the symbol of talent indicates sums of money BUT NOT ON COINS where perhaps it indicates the weight of not known what but still NOT WHAT DE LUCA THE HERETIC SAYS ...
The talent was a weight, not a sum of money. The value of a talent depended on what the talent was made of.
On the papyrus shown the talent symbol means a talent weight. The instruction is to pay the agent of Thewnos 4 talent (weights) of copper (xa(lkou)).
Ross G.
And how could he have paid if not with copper coins? Or could he pay for it with raw copper ingots? A little uncomfortable, isn't it? In chapter 24 of the Gospel of Matthew there is the famous parable of the talents in which a wealthy man gives his servants sums of money expressed in talents. In fact, the terms translated into English as "bags" actually in the original Greek text of the Gospel of Matthew are referred to as "talents" and are clearly sums of money..
Greek text of the Gospel of Matthew: https://www.bibbiaedu.it/GRECO_NT/nt/Mt/25/
These payments were normally specified in terms of copper, but larger amounts could presumably be settled with silver bars or coins.
Although I remember seeing somewhere a payment order that specifies a payment of so much silver, or its equivalent in copper (with agio).
And yes, the Biblican talent is used to mean some value, which obviously assumes the reader understands what sort of talent was meant.
Ross G.
The problem of Ptolemaic Egypt was the lack of silver for coinage which, therefore, was even less available in crude for trade between individuals. Precisely to make up for this lack of silver, gold and bronze coins were used and this is the reason why in the papyrus reproduced here we speak of 4 talents in bronze, obviously meaning bronze coins.
See: https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935390.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199935390-e-71
OK, so pay 4 talents weight of bronze coins.
Ross G.
-
On the Egyptian papyri the symbol of talent indicates sums of money BUT NOT ON COINS where perhaps it indicates the weight of not known what but still NOT WHAT DE LUCA THE HERETIC SAYS ...
The talent was a weight, not a sum of money. The value of a talent depended on what the talent was made of.
On the papyrus shown the talent symbol means a talent weight. The instruction is to pay the agent of Thewnos 4 talent (weights) of copper (xa(lkou)).
Ross G.
And how could he have paid if not with copper coins? Or could he pay for it with raw copper ingots? A little uncomfortable, isn't it? In chapter 24 of the Gospel of Matthew there is the famous parable of the talents in which a wealthy man gives his servants sums of money expressed in talents. In fact, the terms translated into English as "bags" actually in the original Greek text of the Gospel of Matthew are referred to as "talents" and are clearly sums of money..
Greek text of the Gospel of Matthew: https://www.bibbiaedu.it/GRECO_NT/nt/Mt/25/
These payments were normally specified in terms of copper, but larger amounts could presumably be settled with silver bars or coins.
Although I remember seeing somewhere a payment order that specifies a payment of so much silver, or its equivalent in copper (with agio).
And yes, the Biblican talent is used to mean some value, which obviously assumes the reader understands what sort of talent was meant.
Ross G.
The problem of Ptolemaic Egypt was the lack of silver for coinage which, therefore, was even less available in crude for trade between individuals. Precisely to make up for this lack of silver, gold and bronze coins were used and this is the reason why in the papyrus reproduced here we speak of 4 talents in bronze, obviously meaning bronze coins.
See: https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935390.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199935390-e-71
OK, so pay 4 talents weight of bronze coins.
Ross G.
If we talk about coins, their unit of measurement still remained the drachm. It was more convenient to count in drachms rather than by weight, especially as the silver coin was reduced in weight by Ptolemy I. The use of the ideal unit of talent as indicating the amount of 6,000 drachms and not their relative weight occurs in this inscription in which we find a symbol obtained from a :Greek_Delta: (10 Attic) superimposed on a T (symbol of talent and therefore equivalent to 6,000 drahcms). It is an epigraph extensively studied and not invented by me which among other things gives us a good example of the way in which the Greeks expressed synthesized numbers by multiplying them, something on which I have long wanted to bring your attention. Thanks to those who are having the patience to read me.
-
In the previous post :Greek_Delta: is Attic 10 and not Ionic 4: it is a demonstration of the attention that must be paid in interpreting numerical notations
-
...
The only thing astonishing is your stubbornness in criticizing me without bringing a shred of evidence to back up your claims
It's simple - the 'theory' is not believable. And for that, 'res ipsa loquitur'.
The real experts on ancient coin manufacturing here have demolished the 'theory' with facts, alternatives, explanations, etc. No worry - the 'theory' has the added advantage that it can't be disproved. The author seems to believe that non-believers must produce evidence the theory is mistaken, but that's exactly the wrong way 'round. Maybe not since the days of the ancient Greek philosophers, maybe just since the days of Karl Popper.
PtolemAE
-
WORKSHOPS OR MINES
Author(s): Margaret Thompson
Source: Museum Notes (American Numismatic Society), Vol. 5 (1952), pp. 35-48
Published by: American Numismatic Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43574067
Are the letters under or around the amphora known as the second control of the NewStyle silver coinage referring to mines or workshops?
This 1952 paper comes down strongly on mines.
Not one mention of the possibility/implausibility of numerical quantities associated with minting control.
If one links the number of known obverses which have barely altered in the middle and late catalogue since NSSCA 1961, some of the 2nd controls are still in use but is it likely that the number minted is the same whether for 10, 47, 19, 2 or 0 obverses and multiply by the amphora letters makes the low obverses with a few reverses unlikely to reach huge figures.
Mines , I think, not workshops or numbers produced. I think it interesting that quantificationally minded numismatists like de Callatay and Meadows, and Lorber have not noticed your work on the Ptolemaic coins.
Regards,
John
-
Ok. Perfect. I stop here. I know that numismatists like Callatay and Meadows have not noticed my work but on a forum of enthusiasts, that is of people who love numismatics, I thought that it was possible to obtain at least a minimum and that is that in some cases on the coins there are suspicious signs that do not justify themselves as letters but that look like numbers, but I see that it is not possible.
I am amazed, extremely amazed. If I indicate with my hand to my friend who is next to me that there is a seagull on the horizon and my friend notes that that bird actually has the shape of a seagull, he will recognize it as such, I must not make it complicated scientific and philosophical demonstrations that that is a seagull.
How should I demonstrate you if not by showing you comparisons between coins and other sources, as I tried to do, that certain signs cannot be letters but only numbers because their shape is precisely that of numbers?
Once recognized as numbers you can discuss the function, adjust the shot but deny a priori always and in any case because no one has said it before, I seem to consciously decide that I do not want to give the satisfaction of having indicated this new topic. Not that I want such satisfaction but I believe that in this way numismatics is hurt because you decide not to take a new possible path. I thought it was possible at least to intrigue you, to make you recognize that that given sign was at least suspicious but there is no way to obtain this.
And this is simply incredible to me. I understood that this history of numbers has never been told by anyone, no great living numismatist has made it his own but I thought that this did not dull the ability to judge and discern anomalous forms from the usual Greek letters. But obviously I'm asking too much. Excuse me. Take away the trouble.
-
It is interesting to note the development of emphasis in the discussion in this thread.
Its initial emphasis was on the Greek letter sampi as proof of the numeric interpretation of Greek letter ligatures. Sampi is mentioned five times in the paper and in this it is exclusively associated with the number 900, concluding with the statement (page 37) "Since the most conspicuous element of the monogram [a ligature of sampi and rho ] appears to be reasonably a sampi, that means a number and not a letter, it is necessary to think that even the other element of the monogram (P) is also a number (it is known that in Greek the numbers were expressed with the same letters of the alphabet)."
The existence of contemporary usage of the archaic sampi in a strictly epigraphic context (e.g. the ethnic on the coinage of Messambria) dispels the notion that its appearance in a monogram on coinage is proof of the necessity for a numeric interpretation.
After this, the usage of the talent, the primary measure of weight in the ancient world came to be the focus of discussion and proof in this argumentative thread. Yet the paper detailing the numeric theory only mentions the word talent once (page 51) and then in connection with a Delphic inscription that "informs us about the weight of metal used in the issue (between 100 and 157.5 talents)". Note that there is no mention of the number of coins in the Delphic inscription. Furthermore, in the paper nine out of ten mentions of the word "weight" are in direct association with the weight standard of coinage, rather than the volume (weight) of an issue.
Thus, the primary ancient unit of measure of any commodity and also of wealth, the talent, does not figure beyond the most indirect and cursory mention in the paper.
At no stage does the paper consider the need for the direct and precisely accurate reconciliation and verification of the weight (talents) of bullion that the king ordered to be struck into coinage with the weight the of struck coinage. As demonstrated in the discussion thread, the indirect approach of counting coins (rather than the weighing of coins) was insufficient to verify the coincidence of input (talents of bullion) with output (talents of struck coins) in the event of malfeasance in the process of conversion of bullion to struck coin. In so doing it could not accurately verify that the requisite quantity (talents) of coinage had been stuck to the standard and quantity specified by the king.
Yet that is at the heart of what the Delphic inscription informs us. It was the talents (weight) of metal that was to be struck into coinage that was the guiding quantity for a mint and thus was at the heart of its production, control, reconciliation and verification processes.
Weight of struck precious metal coinage (talents), rather than numbers of coins was the "gold standard" in the mint's control and verification processes.
Much as I appreciate the large effort that the author has put into the paper and his numeric notation hypothesis, the later falls short of a cogent explanation of what we know and observe. Can I prove it wrong in an absolute sense? No. But try as I might I cannot use the complex numeric interpretation model to shed any light, or provide further insight into the king's economy and ancient mint practices that isn't already provided by simpler interpretations of these mint marks as identifiers in the mint's production and control processes.
Boring as that may seem as an explanation, I am not alone in this. The eminent numismatist Georges Le Rider proclaimed that "Mint marks are banal."
-
Boring as that may seem as an explanation, I am not alone in this. The eminent numismatist Georges Le Rider proclaimed that "Mint marks are banal."
[/quote]
This discussion is becoming a nightmare for me to the point of being physically ill. When I write "Goodbye", "To never again" I really think so. I have done the option "delete your account" several times but it tells me that I have to wait for a confirmation email that never arrives. Why am I angry? I'm not sure because I want to be right at all costs: luckily I have other satisfactions in my life. I get angry because I am deeply amazed at the obstinacy with which you all do not want to recognize as numbers at least one of the signs I have submitted to you. In my humble opinion you are deeply conditioned by what has been said by eminent numismatists by not being able to see the facts that exist in the world of reality.
In addition to the fragment of Delphi that refers to the talent, we have no other ancient document that informs us of the modalities of the coinage. The reconstructions that circulate are inferences of eminent numismatists but still reconstructions. I do not expect you to listen to me, who am a Mr. Nobody, but I ask you to look without prejudice at the coins, which are the only ancient document we have and which contain much more information than is normally believed. This only I ask of you. Le Rider's sentence is emblematic, it is as if Champollion, a moment before deciphering the hieroglyphs, getting discouraged, said. "Okay, it doesn't matter, the hieroglyphs are so much meaningless doodles ..."
Does Le Rider's statement seem sensible to you? We must understand that the Greek coins were a concentrate of information because they carried the image of the sovereign and the deity of reference of the issuing community, images linked to the main cult of that community or symbols of the power of the issuing sovereign, the ethnic of the community or of the issuing sovereign and then there are the monograms. In your opinion, is it credible that in this context the monograms put them just to put them? is it possible that this is something trivial? Could it be that they didn't have an important function?
Regarding the progress of the discussion analyzed in the previous post it is true that I have placed the emphasis on sampi because I consider it one of the main elements of my reasoning. the ethnic of another coin was enough to dismantle my construction. What about any other evidence? It is convenient not to consider them ... I cannot understand why no one objectively recognizes as "strange" signs those I have noticed ... The discussion then focused on the symbol of talent. a long tug-of-war followed if the talent refers to the number of coins or the weight but this question, whoever is right, has nothing to do with the subject of the new branch of the discussion which is to understand why there is the symbol of the talent on a coin. But all of you do not find better than to simply ignore this fact and move on because "it is not possible", "no one has ever said that" and make me pass as the idiot of the global village. In case you have a surge of objectivity it shows you the reconstruction of an emission of Massalia in whose numerical sequence the numerical symbol of the 10 talents is used with the meaning of 60,000 drachms. I am not asking you to explain to you what this sequence of monograms means if not promptly intervenes Ptolamae bothering Popper but at least, if it is not too luxurious, to recognize that as a numerical sequence it is likely
-
The final 300,000 drachms issue edition is shown in a clear and simply way on the coin no.13,
for effect of the multiplication of the amount of 1,000 drachms (,A = A) with the
number 300 from the Ionic system (T) and then again on the coin no.14, thanks to the use
of an element that without any doubt is a number, it is a 10 talents symbol ( :Greek_Delta: over :Greek_Tau: ) that multiplies with
number 5 (E) from the Ionic system and the result is 300,000 drachms: in fact a talent is equal to
6,000 drachms, 10 talents = 60,000 drachms that multiplied with 5 becomes 300,000 drachms, that
is exactly the limit announced for this issue. As we just said, the symbol :Greek_Delta: over :Greek_Tau: that is on the coin no.14
can be only a number and confirms that the signs on the Massaliote coins are composed
by numbers and not letters. The numerical notation of the end issue edition :Greek_Delta: over :Greek_Tau: and E is used because this
reminds the notation of half issue TE , coin no. 8, even here, as happened on the coin
no.9, adding an element corresponding to a numerical difference that entails doubling of
the first number. Subsequent very similar numerical notations are found even in issues from other
mints and by now it seems evident that this device to resemble some figures to
others in the same numerical progression responds to a precise Greek inclination. The fact that the
numbers were correctly understood only by a careful eye confirms that they were not addressed to
the coin users but to the minting staff, to help them count the volume of the coins minted.
-
Couldn't it just have easily been the initials of mint officials or individual die carvers within a workshop? So authority (or officina) A and striking team T, etc. I just don't understand why it must be numbers, which you seem to claim is an objective fact. That is where I am lost. It could be either, no?
-
Couldn't it just have easily been the initials of mint officials or individual die carvers within a workshop? So authority (or officina) A and striking team T, etc. I just don't understand why it must be numbers, which you seem to claim is an objective fact. That is where I am lost. It could be either, no?
If they had been names there would have been too many people involved in the minting process and then what was the use of all those names?
All these progressive numeral notations were reported because they helped to keep count of the pieces gradually minted since they made recognizable specific groups of coins that otherwise would be merged into an indistinguishable and single mass. Little by little the mint masters minted the coins, they divided them in numerical notations and wrote them on a
proper memo: in case there was a mistake counting the pieces minted it was enough to recount the coins of one specific group and not all the coins minted. It is a method we follow unconsciously even nowadays: for example, when we have to count 10,000 euro we make ten piles of 1,000 euro because, if we make a mistake counting, we do not have to recount all 10,000 but only one single thousand pile of euro in which we have fallen into error; besides after counting a pile we can even stop for awhile without forgetting the whole amount already counted. In the coin’s case, then, it might be confusing not only the counting of different subgroups from the same issue but even different issues minted in close manner.
Thanks to the progressive numerical notations reported on the coins, the authority officials could control the whole amount of precious rare metal received at the beginning before it was transformed in coins. Besides, dividing the same issue in many distinct groups, gave the officials a good advantage to check the work done in the mint, that once finished had to be handed over.
Considered as numbers, here then these monograms reveal to be an interesting numerical progressions that indicate the amounts of coins little by little minted.
-
The monograms or mint marks or whatever on ancient coins show that there has been some sort of organisation and control at the appropriate mint.
And that is it.
To my knowledge no one has up to now explained the correlation between these marks and the organisation. We do not know enough.
Full stop
I appreciate the work of Federico - but I am the firm opinion that he just got lost.
Regards
Klaus
-
Here I report the explanation of the meaning of the monograms I made with regard to the coins of Kibyra
-
The monograms or mint marks or whatever on ancient coins show that there has been some sort of organisation and control at the appropriate mint.
And that is it.
To my knowledge no one has up to now explained the correlation between these marks and the organisation. We do not know enough.
Full stop
I appreciate the work of Federico - but I am the firm opinion that he just got lost.
Regards
Klaus
and isn't it always worth asking yourself which exactly indicate?
-
I conclude with this post about the coins minted in Velia (Lucania) where I live (Southern Italy in the current province of Salerno). (Then I sincerely hope this discussion will be over because I'm exhausted and don't care if I'm wrong). In my opinion all the monograms typed on these coins are numbers that refer to the amount of coins minted. Note the very clear dot under the X of the second coin that denotes the numbers
-
The hypothesis, therefore, is that the issues of Velia of the fourth century BC. they consisted of 500,000 didrachms, equal to 1,000,000 drachms (it is the case of the second coin of the previous post). So I reconstruct an entire issue to verify if these numbers are reliable and I identify 22 obverse dies for the same issue that would have generated 22,727 pieces each.
In fact, 500,000 didrachms : 22 obverse dies = 22,727 coins generated by each obverse dies
Reliable numbers, I think, right?
Therefore the reconstruction of the issue therefore confirms the accuracy of the monogram interpreted as a number
-
Follows
-
follows
-
The procedure had to be this: the coins, as they were beaten, were deposited in special containers (probably baskets or sacks) in small bands of equal number. At any time you could know the exact number of coins minted simply by multiplying the number of containers already filled by the equal number of pieces that each of them contained; the numerical notation indicating the circulation currently pursued by the mint offered an element of comparison and differentiation of the minted pieces, while the numerical notation indicating the final denomination of the issue constantly reminded what was the final objective of the activity of the coin workshop relatively to that issue.
But these techniques for numbering the masses of coin struck appear to be used in ancient times (and in particular in Velia) also in the mass production of other fungible objects such as bricks or in the extraction of stone blocks.
The bricks were stamped to facilitate the counting of the bricks as they were produced. Let's imagine how this count could happen: when the production of a new series of bricks was started, the total number of bricks was marked on each of them (usually 1,000 pieces) while with a second code it was signaled that the first half began to be produced brick. The workers of the furnace deposited the bricks gradually produced on the ground dividing them into groups of equal number (let's assume 50 bricks for each group). Upon completion of the tenth group of 50 bricks each, the workers could easily verify by means of a simple multiplication that they had produced the first 500 bricks and changed the variable stamp with which to mark the second batch of bricks to be always counted in the same way. .
The same thing happened for the stone blocks that after their processing were set aside in separate groups marked by numbers, exactly as it happened with coins. As you can see it all comes back
-
follows
-
bricks (on the second photo note the number HH which is the number 200 expressed with the Attic or Acrophonic numeral system)
-
...The same thing happened for the stone blocks that after their processing were set aside in separate groups marked by numbers, exactly as it happened with coins. ...
What you are showing here in the pictures are mason's marks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mason%27s_mark) which served to show by which worker a stone block had been produced because they have been paid per piece. This had been done in this manner over centuries (until the middle ages) and in different cultures. To my knowledge this is the common understanding of these marks and you are the first one who wants to transform these marks into numbers.
Regards
Altamura
-
... The workers of the furnace deposited the bricks gradually produced on the ground dividing them into groups of equal number (let's assume 50 bricks for each group). Upon completion of the tenth group of 50 bricks each, the workers could easily verify by means of a simple multiplication that they had produced the first 500 bricks ...
But why should they need numbers stamped on the bricks for that??? If each pile contains the same numer of bricks then you don't need any markings on the bricks themselves.
And what's about losses during firing? The signs have to be applicated before firing, and in the furnace you usually have some waste or some are falling and breaking during the operations. So you mostly will not have exactly the number of bricks stamped on them :-\.
Regards
Altamura
-
Couldn't it just have easily been the initials of mint officials or individual die carvers within a workshop? So authority (or officina) A and striking team T, etc. I just don't understand why it must be numbers, which you seem to claim is an objective fact. That is where I am lost. It could be either, no?
If they had been names there would have been too many people involved in the minting process and then what was the use of all those names?
Perhaps. But I don't think it is unreasonable to have a monogram for the officials and/or teams charged with each issue, just as we have the maker's marks on the bricks.
-
Couldn't it just have easily been the initials of mint officials or individual die carvers within a workshop? So authority (or officina) A and striking team T, etc. I just don't understand why it must be numbers, which you seem to claim is an objective fact. That is where I am lost. It could be either, no?
If they had been names there would have been too many people involved in the minting process and then what was the use of all those names?
Perhaps. But I don't think it is unreasonable to have a monogram for the officials and/or teams charged with each issue, just as we have the maker's marks on the bricks.
and what name could be one that started with HH?
-
Okay, guys, I think we really have come to an end. I have had the clear demonstration that I can post everything, evidence, counter evidence, but your position does not change. Perhaps this depends on the fact that you have taken a dislike to my way of arguing, perhaps it depends on the fact that I am actually wrong but on dozens and dozens of posts I don't think I have always said nonsense. This morning I spent half a day off work to prepare these answers but it didn't help either. Not even the photo of the coin of Velia with the X with the dot = 1000 makes you change your mind: just take a book that describes the Greek numbers to instantly understand that it is a number but be careful not to do so. What can I tell you? I'm certainly not here to be the target in pigeon shooting. I leave you to your granite certainties. This time it's really my last post here (and this will please someone), I swear to you on my kids
-
and what name could be one that started with HH?
Perhaps two names? - who knows?
I just checked "Papes Lexikon der Griechischen Eigennamen" - 2nd edtion 1850.
Seven pages of Greek names, starting with HBH = daughter of Zeus; ending with HΩΣ, goddess of dawn.
We can go on with this game forever. I learned a lot from posts of the community - but we will definitely not come to terms.
regards
Klaus
-
Okay, guys, I think we really have come to an end. I have had the clear demonstration that I can post everything, evidence, counter evidence, but your position does not change. Perhaps this depends on the fact that you have taken a dislike to my way of arguing, perhaps it depends on the fact that I am actually wrong but on dozens and dozens of posts I don't think I have always said nonsense. This morning I spent half a day off work to prepare these answers but it didn't help either. Not even the photo of the coin of Velia with the X with the dot = 1000 makes you change your mind: just take a text that describes the Greek numbers to instantly understand that it is a number but be careful not to do so. What can I tell you? I'm certainly not here to be the target in pigeon shooting. I leave you to your granite certainties. This time it's really my last post here (and this will please someone), I swear to you on my kids
I actually think many of us have extended a reasonable level of openness. I'm quite interested in your theory but your theatrics and rhetoric are off-putting, to be honest.
-
and what name could be one that started with HH?
Perhaps two names? - who knows?
I just checked "Papes Lexikon der Griechischen Eigennamen" - 2nd edtion 1850.
Seven pages of Greek names, starting with HBH = daughter of Zeus; ending with HΩΣ, goddess of dawn.
We can go on with this game forever. I learned a lot from posts of the community - but we will definitely not come to terms.
regards
Klaus
That is what I was thinking. One initial for the official in charge, one initial indicating the strike team, etc. Perhaps the engraver, too.
-
There is one way that this theory could be perhaps not definitely proved but at least provided with strong support.
And that is to reconstruct an entire issue (of say, the Ptolemy staters) using only die linkages, and then seeing whether this makes sense in terms of the numbers readable from the monograms.
At present Federico’s reconstruction of the staters obviously relies as much on grouping the monograms together and arranging them in their (supposed) number order as it does on verified die-linkages. For example coin 3 is placed where it is only on the basis of its monogram and supposed number value – it is not die-linked to any of the surrounding coins in the sequence. (And in fact it clearly looks out of place).
However, a die-linked reconstruction of course needs us to find every single die (or near enough) which in many cases may be impossible. In the case of the Ptolemy staters we have about 80% coverage, which would normally be regarded as high, but in this case it’s still not enough, and it’s not clear how many more dies can be located. But it could be worth a try.
And on that question I refer back to my reply 145 and ask where can I find the stater with obverse 7 and reverse 19, which I can’t find in the original article.
Ross G.
-
... One initial for the official in charge, one initial indicating the strike team, etc. Perhaps the engraver, too. ...
Perhaps, perhaps not :-\.
The naked truth is that all the alternatives to Federico's theory presented here are to the same extent lacking support by any contemporary sources from hellenistic times :(. They seem to start with the question "how would I organise a mint?" and then develop their different explanations. But we cannot be sure which requirements the Greeks really had and so this all is just speculation.
Personally I do not believe that there is a single explanation of the monograms being valid for each hellenistic mint, because what we see on the coins is too diverse.
One of the arguments for the monograms has been here to avoid "loss" of precious metal. But we have bronze coinages too with several monograms on one coin. For example on the Mithradatic bronzes of the Ares sword type from Amisos you have sometimes three monograms on a coin (plus the crescent star symbol): https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=7196722
but somestimes not a single one: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=4231841
These coins have been minted within a period of about five years, see François de Callataÿ, "La révision de la chronologie des bronzes de Mithridate Eupator et ses conséquences sur la datation des monnayages et des sites du Bosphore cimmérien": https://tinyurl.com/yxsk4wyj
Did the organisation of the mint change so drastically within these five years? Has so much bronze been stolen to put more and more monograms on the coins? Was there any need to put a symbol for the engraver on the coins of this mass coinage? And if so, why not on the parallel emissions of the smaller mints in e.g. Gaziura, Laodikeia and Pimolisa (where you have mostly no monogram at all)?
Another example are the hellenistic tetradrachms from Maroneia. Edith Schönert-Geiss writes in her book "Die Münzprägung von Maroneia", Berlin 1987 (https://edoc.bbaw.de/files/2999/BBAW_SGKA26_Griechisches_Muenzwerk_Maroneia.pdf), on page 73 about the many slight variations of occuring monograms "... bietet sich eine andere Vermutung an: Die Monogramme repräsentieren gar keine Namen lebender Personen, sondern sind einfache Emissionszeichen, für die man von Zeit zu Zeit einen neuen Grundtyp wählte und diesen dann variierte." (in English more or less :-\ "... a different conjecture is: The monograms are not representing the names of living people but they are just simple emission marks where from time to time a new basis type has been chosen and varied afterwards.").
Here we have, by the way, a study of die links and a resulting sequence of monograms with which Federico's theory could be checked (but I am convinced that he will succeed, because he seems to be always able to interpret a monogram as the number he just needs :)).
With these teradrachms we have also the phenomenon where the monograms have been applied onto the dies with special punches and have not been engraved together with the rest of the picture (page 72).
Then we have monograms as countermarks. In Roman times this is quite common, but sometimes they occur in hellenistic times too:
https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=7196997
https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=7116585
https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=5865900
Sometimes these countermarks clearly stand for a city (e.g. Byzantion (https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=5630884) or Odessos (https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=7196748)), but often their meaning is completely unclear :-\.
The research about letters and countermarks on coins which is perhaps closest to ancient sources (but still cannot be taken for granted) is in my eyes the work by Nikolay Nikolaev about the Borysthenes coins from Olbia: https://independent.academia.edu/NikolayNikolaev
Mainly he is doing prosopographical research (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosopography) about Olbia, i.e. identifying persons and their roles and interrelations in ancient Olbia. As a basis he took some inscriptions, but also things like curse tablets where real persons are mentioned.
As some sort of byproduct he identified most of the letters and monograms on the Borysthenoi (https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?term=borysthen+axe&category=1&en=1&de=1&fr=1&it=1&es=1&ot=1) with magistrates from Olbia.
(The articles are mostly in Ukrainian or Russian, but many of them have some abstracts in English and there are some English articles as well :).)
To sum up: We do not know much at the moment, what seems to be sure is only that the monograms have something to do with the processes around coin minting (and this is a quite shallow insight :-\). There is a lot of speculation and most probably there is a multitude of explanations for the multitude of phenomena we see on the multitude of coin emissions with monograms on them.
Regards
Altamura
-
... One initial for the official in charge, one initial indicating the strike team, etc. Perhaps the engraver, too. ...
Perhaps, perhaps not :-\.
Personally I do not believe that there is a single explanation of the monograms being valid for each hellenistic mint, because what we see on the coins is too diverse.
......
There is a lot of speculation and most probably there is a multitude of explanations for the multitude of phenomena we see on the multitude of coin emissions with monograms on them.
Regards
Altamura
Agreed.
As to whether Federico can always find numbers to match a sequence based on die-links, well, perhaps, but let's find out. He can certainly always add extra 0's as required, which obviously helps, but he doesn't have unlimited options when resolving monograms with only two letters, for example.
One experiment we could perhaps try is to take the known monogram sets from a given issue, arrange them in various random sequences, and then see if we can resolve these sequences into sequential sets of numbers that still fit the number theory interpretation.
If we can then with actual issues a number sequence can probably always be found to match the die-link sequence, and hence the comparison of the two will tell us nothing useful.
If we can't then it means the number sequence resolution is not entirely arbitrary and so the number theory can in principle be tested by checking the number sequence against the die-link sequence, as I proposed.
Ross G.
-
At present Federico’s reconstruction of the staters obviously relies as much on grouping the monograms together and arranging them in their (supposed) number order as it does on verified die-linkages. For example coin 3 is placed where it is only on the basis of its monogram and supposed number value – it is not die-linked to any of the surrounding coins in the sequence. (And in fact it clearly looks out of place).
However, a die-linked reconstruction of course needs us to find every single die (or near enough) which in many cases may be impossible. In the case of the Ptolemy staters we have about 80% coverage, which would normally be regarded as high, but in this case it’s still not enough, and it’s not clear how many more dies can be located. But it could be worth a try.
Ross G.
[/quote]
Here I am again, I take back the oath not to intervene in this discussion anymore ... I appreciate the more relaxed and more possible tone of the last interventions and just what I was hoping for: a climate of collaboration to understand TOGETHER this mystery of monograms. This is not a race, a trust between opposing factions. but a peaceful and effective dialogue in which everyone brings information to reach a fixed point. This is done between lovers of a subject, it is discussed, it is not just objected. it is then clear that I may have made one or more mistakes and you will forgive me for this because I am slowly trying to enter a dark, unknown and crumbling terrain ..
-
And on that question I refer back to my reply 145 and ask where can I find the stater with obverse 7 and reverse 19, which I can’t find in the original article.
Ross G.
[/quote]
Let me understand where I name the existence of an O7-R19 coin because in the point that I am attaching it is not mentioned (tell me the exact point where I mention this coin).
-
... One initial for the official in charge, one initial indicating the strike team, etc. Perhaps the engraver, too. ...
Perhaps, perhaps not :-\.
The naked truth is that all the alternatives to Federico's theory presented here are to the same extent lacking support by any contemporary sources from hellenistic times :(. They seem to start with the question "how would I organise a mint?" and then develop their different explanations. But we cannot be sure which requirements the Greeks really had and so this all is just speculation.
Altamura
Holy words, this is what I have been trying to understand for a long time and that must necessarily push us to see more carefully the coins themselves, which are the product of what happened in the mint.
-
... One initial for the official in charge, one initial indicating the strike team, etc. Perhaps the engraver, too. ...
Perhaps, perhaps not :-\.
One of the arguments for the monograms has been here to avoid "loss" of precious metal. But we have bronze coinages too with several monograms on one coin. For example on the Mithradatic bronzes of the Ares sword type from Amisos you have sometimes three monograms on a coin (plus the crescent star symbol): https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=7196722
but somestimes not a single one: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=4231841
Altamura
Do not accuse me of being paranoid but in my opinion we are always faced with numbers. In fact, even if it was not gold or silver, bronze also had its value and even in the minting of bronze one could get confused in counting the minted pieces. In ancient times metal, all metal was very precious..
Look how I interpreted the monograms on this issue of bronzes from Massalia.
Source: https://www.academia.edu/34086494/Federico_De_Luca_Alphabetical_numbering_and_numerical_progressions_on_drachms_and_Massalia_s_small_bronze_coins_Revue_Numismatique_OMNI_n_11_07_2017_p_74_111
-
Also read what happens on an Aspendos bronze issue.
And pay attention because here we have a sign (F) which can only be a number ...
Source:
https://www.academia.edu/39997497/F_De_Luca_Monograms_on_staters_minted_in_Aspendos_during_the_IV_III_Century_BC_numerical_notes_linked_to_the_size_of_the_issue_Revue_Numismatique_OMNI_no_13_07_2019_pp_40_71
-
Ok, let's do what you suggest, let's analyze some sequences of dies already collected by some of you and apply a numerical interpretation to them to understand if it works. Let's do TOGETHER what needs to be done to understand, for the love of numismatics. In the meantime I will try to convince you by bombarding you with other information. Follow me...
-
We are in Velia (Lucania) in the first half of the 4th century BC. and in the mint of this polis works a gifted engraver named Kleudoros who signs this masterpiece on the helmet of the goddess Athena writing KLEUDOROY
-
it is the generalized belief of all scholars that many other dies are also the work of Kleudoros also others dies, close in style to that of the previous post, so it is believed that the monogram on the reverse of the coin posted here represents his signature
-
but then how to explain the presence of the same monogram also on this coin which does not differ at all from the more archaic style that precedes the advent of Kleudoros? The truth is that that monogram is nothing more than a numerical notation in which the number 20 of the Ionic numeral system (K retrograde) is multiplied by the number 5 of the same numeral system (E) which has the result of 100(0,000) drachms, equal to 500,000 didrachms
-
In fact the quantity of 500,000 didrachms and / or 1,000,000 drachms is constantly indicated on all the issues of Velia
-
Thus it turns out that the :Greek_Phi: :Greek_Iota: monogram is not the signature of the engraver Philistion (who would have signed an abnormal number of dies) but a numerical notation..
-
... Here I am again, I take back the oath not to intervene in this discussion anymore ...
Ok, now we know how to judge an oath given by you.
If you continue the discussion, then please, please, please:
- Cite correctly, the Forvm software has the means to do so. It is often difficult to discern what you are citing and what is your answer to it.
- Do not cite a whole posting in this space-consuming way including answers to answers to answers to answers to a question. Just cite the little part you are answering to.
- Do not answer a single posting from someone else with three new ones. A single one is enough, Forvm software has the means to do so, in my posting here you can see how this looks like.
Otherwise it is very difficult to keep the overview and to follow :-\. Again: There is one who has to labor, the writer or the reader.
... In the meantime I will try to convince you by bombarding you with other information. Follow me...
I don't think that bombardment is an appropriate method to convince :-\. We don't need new topics as long as the old ones are not explained.
Regards
Altamura
-
... And pay attention because here we have a sign (F) which can only be a number ...
Why? I didn't get it :(.
Regards
Altamura
-
... Here I am again, I take back the oath not to intervene in this discussion anymore ...
Ok, now we know how to judge an oath given by you.
Altamura
ahahahhah!
-
... And pay attention because here we have a sign (F) which can only be a number ...
Why? I didn't get it :(.
Regards
Altamura
Because this sign, similar to our F, is an ancient letter vau which has fallen into disuse and remained in use only to indicate the number 6
-
.
Finally, in many other cases the fact that the monograms shown on the coins are actually numbers is clearly indicated on the coin itself.
Read this page in the highlighted part and look at this Aspendos coin.
from: TOD M.N. (1979), Ancient Greek Numerical Systems, Ares Publishers, Chicago 1979. p.136
-
still from: TOD M.N. (1979), Ancient Greek Numerical Systems, Ares Publishers, Chicago 1979. p.136
-
still from: TOD M.N. (1979), Ancient Greek Numerical Systems, Ares Publishers, Chicago 1979. p.136. The dot, even if differently positioned, compared to the examples cataloged by Tod, was an indicator of the presence of numbers and not of letters.
-
... Because this sign, similar to our F, is an ancient letter vau which has fallen into disuse and remained in use only to indicate the number 6 ...
In Pamphylia the letters used for the local languages (Pamphylian, Sidetan, also Pisidian) have partially been used until hellenistic times:
https://epigraphy.packhum.org/text/276072?bookid=635&location=1651
https://epigraphy.packhum.org/text/276082?bookid=635&location=1651
https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=407547
So this is no argument.
Regards
Altamura
-
... Because this sign, similar to our F, is an ancient letter vau which has fallen into disuse and remained in use only to indicate the number 6 ...
In Pamphylia the letters used for the local languages (Pamphylian, Sidetan, also Pisidian) have partially been used until hellenistic times:
https://epigraphy.packhum.org/text/276072?bookid=635&location=1651
https://epigraphy.packhum.org/text/276082?bookid=635&location=1651
https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=407547
So this is no argument.
Regards
Altamura
I expected this objection from you. it is true that this letter was still used in Pamphylia but it ALSO had a numerical value, as indicated by the diacritical dot on the delta which suggests that we are in a numerical range. But now let's not open a new thread of discussion. What about everything else?
-
... Because this sign, similar to our F, is an ancient letter vau which has fallen into disuse and remained in use only to indicate the number 6 ...
In Pamphylia the letters used for the local languages (Pamphylian, Sidetan, also Pisidian) have partially been used until hellenistic times:
https://epigraphy.packhum.org/text/276072?bookid=635&location=1651
https://epigraphy.packhum.org/text/276082?bookid=635&location=1651
https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=407547
So this is no argument.
Regards
Altamura
The letter F is used to indicate the number 6 also on this coin on which the presence of the two points, therefore of two diacritics,
makes it clear that we are certainly in the presence of numbers.
In the present case the sign : is interposed between the numerical notation
BA= 2,000(,000) drachms and FE = 3,0(00,000) drachms. Indeed, the figure BA is composed by
number 2 from the Ionic system, B, that multiplies with the number 1,000 of the Ionic system
(A=,A=1,000) the result is 2,000 thousands of drachms, that means 2,000(,000) drachms, while the
numerical notation FE is composed by number 6 from the Ionic or Alphabetical numeral system (F)
that multiplies with the number 5 from the same system, E, the result is 30 hundreds of thousands of
drachms, that means 3,0(00,000) drachms. The notations affixed on the reverse of this coin A,
therefore, suggest that the coin was minted to reach the edition of BA=2 million drachms, within
the FE final size edition = 3 million drachms.
-
And on that question I refer back to my reply 145 and ask where can I find the stater with obverse 7 and reverse 19, which I can’t find in the original article.
Ross G.
Let me understand where I name the existence of an O7-R19 coin because in the point that I am attaching it is not mentioned (tell me the exact point where I mention this coin).
[/quote]
In the die-link diagram in the original paper there seem to be 4 links leading from O7, which go to R9, R10, R18 and (apparently) R19, although it is hard to be sure of this last link. Coins illustrating the first three links are shown, but I can't find an example of O7-R19.
Ross G.
-
In the die-link diagram in the original paper there seem to be 4 links leading from O7, which go to R9, R10, R18 and (apparently) R19, although it is hard to be sure of this last link. Coins illustrating the first three links are shown, but I can't find an example of O7-R19.
Ross G.
[/quote]
Indeed in the diagram the obverse die 7 and the reverse die 19 are connected but I really think that it is a mistake because in the article an O7-R19 coin is never mentioned. The line ran away ... Excuse me
-
In the die-link diagram in the original paper there seem to be 4 links leading from O7, which go to R9, R10, R18 and (apparently) R19, although it is hard to be sure of this last link. Coins illustrating the first three links are shown, but I can't find an example of O7-R19.
Ross G.
Indeed in the diagram the obverse die 7 and the reverse die 19 are connected but I really think that it is a mistake because in the article an O7-R19 coin is never mentioned. The line ran away ... Excuse me
[/quote]
OK, dropping the supposed O7-R19 link means that we can now re-order the die-link diagram into a strictly linear order, with no crossed links.
There are several crossed links groups in the original die-link diagram. The first, starting with coin 2, can be re-ordered as coins 2, 6, 5 and 4, preceded by coin 1 and followed by coins 7 & 8. Coin 3, with no links, needs to move to somewhere else, although where it might fit (given its supposed numbers) is unclear.
The second crossed links group can be reordered as coins 20, 21, 22 , 23, 10, 11, 12, 13/14 (much as Mark Fox proposed), preceded by coin 19 as before and followed by 24.
Finally the third group can be reordered as coins 16, 17, 25/26, 27, 28 29.
This all seems quite neat in terms of the (known) die-links, but with certain coins (e.g. 3 and 18) the resolved numbers now no longer fit into the proposed overall number sequence scheme, and coins 10 through 14 now follow 19 through 23 when the numbers require the reverse of this. In other words this revised linear die-link sequence doesn’t fully match the number sequence.
So, if the linear die-link sequence is valid then the number theory isn’t, but alternatively it could mean that the actual die sequence wasn’t strictly linear, i.e, that there were periods when more than two obverse (and reverse?) dies were in use at the same time.
Ross G.
-
In the die-link diagram in the original paper there seem to be 4 links leading from O7, which go to R9, R10, R18 and (apparently) R19, although it is hard to be sure of this last link. Coins illustrating the first three links are shown, but I can't find an example of O7-R19.
Ross G.
Indeed in the diagram the obverse die 7 and the reverse die 19 are connected but I really think that it is a mistake because in the article an O7-R19 coin is never mentioned. The line ran away ... Excuse me
OK, dropping the supposed O7-R19 link means that we can now re-order the die-link diagram into a strictly linear order, with no crossed links.
There are several crossed links groups in the original die-link diagram. The first, starting with coin 2, can be re-ordered as coins 2, 6, 5 and 4, preceded by coin 1 and followed by coins 7 & 8. Coin 3, with no links, needs to move to somewhere else, although where it might fit (given its supposed numbers) is unclear.
The second crossed links group can be reordered as coins 20, 21, 22 , 23, 10, 11, 12, 13/14 (much as Mark Fox proposed), preceded by coin 19 as before and followed by 24.
Finally the third group can be reordered as coins 16, 17, 25/26, 27, 28 29.
This all seems quite neat in terms of the (known) die-links, but with certain coins (e.g. 3 and 18) the resolved numbers now no longer fit into the proposed overall number sequence scheme, and coins 10 through 14 now follow 19 through 23 when the numbers require the reverse of this. In other words this revised linear die-link sequence doesn’t fully match the number sequence.
So, if the linear die-link sequence is valid then the number theory isn’t, but alternatively it could mean that the actual die sequence wasn’t strictly linear, i.e, that there were periods when more than two obverse (and reverse?) dies were in use at the same time.
Ross G.
[/quote]
What has come out in this discussion is that coins No. 19 and 20 now must be placed at the beginning of the reconstruction of the issue since the monograms shown on them must be interpreted as equal to 30,00(0) and no longer as 300,0(00). This entails the need for a reordering of the numbering of the dies but their way of succession and the identified die links (and there are some) remain unchanged. In fact, all the other monograms interpreted as numbers remain confirmed in their position and interpretation and so the numerical explanation continues to work. Regarding the contemporary use of more dies, in my opinion it is something widely practiced. In the coinage of new Style in Athens, for example, there is evidence that the different monograms under the amphora (which in my opinion are always numbers) were used simultaneously by several employees.
-
... I expected this objection from you. it is true that this letter was still used in Pamphylia ...
How do I have to understand this ??? :-\.
You knew that the F was still used in Pamphylia in hellenistic times, told us the contrary but expected that I will find out? Strange kind of behavior that >:(.
(Could you please finally quote in a way that the reader can see immediately what is quoted (being in a light blue rectangle) and what is from you? And perhaps you didn't realize it yet: there is a button "Preview" to check before posting how a post will look like :).)
Regards
Altamura
-
(Could you please finally quote in a way that the reader can see immediately what is quoted (being in a light blue rectangle) and what is from you? And perhaps you didn't realize it yet: there is a button "Preview" to check before posting how a post will look like :).)
Regards
Altamura
[/quote]
I still don't understand how to do it ... Forgive me this limit ..By clicking on preview the box does not appear ...
-
... I expected this objection from you. it is true that this letter was still used in Pamphylia ...
How do I have to understand this ??? :-\.
You knew that the F was still used in Pamphylia in hellenistic times, told us the contrary but expected that I will find out? Strange kind of behavior that >:(.
(Could you please finally quote in a way that the reader can see immediately what is quoted (being in a light blue rectangle) and what is from you? And perhaps you didn't realize it yet: there is a button "Preview" to check before posting how a post will look like :).)
Regards
Altamura
I was expecting this because I imagined that he would contest the numerical use of the F in Pamphylia, where this letter was still in use, which everyone knows. I did not hope that my interlocutor did not know that the letter F was still in use, but I imagined that he had used this circumstance to argue that the F was NOT ALSO a number, in a similar way to what he already did with the sampi.
-
Wow!! I managed to bring up the box !!!
-
... Because this sign, similar to our F, is an ancient letter vau which has fallen into disuse and remained in use only to indicate the number 6 ...
Its hard to avert your eyes from a train wreck thread, so periodically I am drawn back to observe the continuing pile up.
In doing so I noticed the comment regarding the presence of archaic Greek letter F on Hellenistic coinage and the claim it must therefore represent a number.
To Altamura's observation on the Pamphylian usage of the letter F, I will also add the example of Elis and Olympia.
Olympia came under Elean control around 580 BC.
Subsequently and to the last of their mintage in the late 1st century BC the the coins of Olympia bore the mint marks, FAΛEIΩN, or FA, or F - A, the latter two being the abbreviation of Faleion, signifying of the Eleans.
The presence of the letter F, like many other archaic Greek letters (e.g. sampi) on Hellenistic coinage does not constitute proof of the need for a numeric interpretation.
Refer: Seltman C. 1921. The Temple Coins of Olympia.
-
And another, from the Classical era, demonstrating the existence of the letter F in the Boeotian Greek dialect ...
FAST money ... I love it! But seriously, it is an abbreviation of the magistrates name of which about 70 are attested to in this series.
Curiously, it prompts me to consider the the first law of holes, "When you find yourself in one, stop digging."
Philological study and arguments in support of a proposition should be all encompassing, rather than cherry picked to support a point a view.
-
... Because this sign, similar to our F, is an ancient letter vau which has fallen into disuse and remained in use only to indicate the number 6 ...
Its hard to avert your eyes from a train wreck thread, so periodically I am drawn back to observe the continuing pile up.
even!!!
-
... Because this sign, similar to our F, is an ancient letter vau which has fallen into disuse and remained in use only to indicate the number 6 ...
Its hard to avert your eyes from a train wreck thread, so periodically I am drawn back to observe the continuing pile up.
In doing so I noticed the comment regarding the presence of archaic Greek letter F on Hellenistic coinage and the claim it must therefore represent a number.
To Altamura's observation on the Pamphylian usage of the letter F, I will also add the example of Elis and Olympia.
Olympia came under Elean control around 580 BC.
Subsequently and to the last of their mintage in the late 1st century BC the the coins of Olympia bore the mint marks, FAΛEIΩN, or FA, or F - A, the latter two being the abbreviation of Faleion, signifying of the Eleans.
The presence of the letter F, like many other archaic Greek letters (e.g. sampi) on Hellenistic coinage does not constitute proof of the need for a numeric interpretation.
Refer: Seltman C. 1921. The Temple Coins of Olympia.
I never denied that the F was still in use as a letter in some places in the Greek world, I only said that in the remaining places it was used ONLY as a number and that it was ALSO used as a number EVEN in the places where it continued to be used as a letter.
-
Curiously, it prompts me to consider the the first law of holes, "When you find yourself in one, stop digging."
In fact, why just look at the holes? we also look at the "full ones", that is to say we objectively analyze the numerous data proposed and we do not wait for the interlocutor to contradict only one point in order to be able to say that EVERYTHING he said is wrong.
-
... I never denied that the F was still in use as a letter in some places in the Greek world, I only said that in the remaining places it was used ONLY as a number and that it was ALSO used as a number EVEN in the places where it continued to be used as a letter. ...
What you wrote here sounded different to me:
... Because this sign, similar to our F, is an ancient letter vau which has fallen into disuse and remained in use only to indicate the number 6 ...
And this is, as we have seen above, is simply not true. Not for Aspendos and not for other places.
Regards
Altamura
-
it is true that in some geographical areas the F has remained in use as a letter but it is equally true that it has been used throughout the Greek world to express the number 6. Then I have already said that the F should be interpreted as a number because in the context in which is reported there are elements that lead to a numerical interpretation, that is, the diacritical dots that indicate numbers
-
but then why not also contest the use of letters as numbers in case it is ascertained that they are actually numbers such as this one?
-
And this is, as we have seen above, is simply not true. Not for Aspendos and not for other places.
Regards
Altamura
[/quote]
Digamma, waw, or wau (uppercase: Ϝ, lowercase: ϝ, numeral: ϛ) is an archaic letter of the Greek alphabet. It originally stood for the sound /w/ but it has remained in use principally as a Greek numeral for 6.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digamma
-
Just to give you some other elements of reflection (or to add another wagon to the train wreck if you like more) I add this passage that clarifies us why in some cases the numbers imply tens, hundreds and thousands. The passage is taken from an article on Aspendos coins but concerns Greek numbers in general.
Source:
https://www.academia.edu/39997497/F_De_Luca_Monograms_on_staters_minted_in_Aspendos_during_the_IV_III_Century_BC_numerical_notes_linked_to_the_size_of_the_issue_Revue_Numismatique_OMNI_no_13_07_2019_pp_40_71
-
The "Compendium of Roman antiquities, or rather laws, customs, habits and Romans ceremonies written for young people's education", book of 1817 written in Italian, quoted in the previous post can be consulted here see pages 199-200):
https://books.google.it/books?id=bdGLDI0M0ukC&printsec=frontcover&hl=it&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
-
... I expected this objection from you. it is true that this letter was still used in Pamphylia ...
How do I have to understand this ??? :-\.
Altamura
Auf gar keinen Fall darf man aber die revolutionären Theorien von Federico de Luca vergessen :wink: , nach denen die Buchstaben auf diesen Stateren (wie eigentlich alle Buchstaben auf griechischen Münzen) als Zahlen zu interpretieren sind, selbst das ΜΕΝΕΤΥΣ ΕΛVΦΑ:
https://www.academia.edu/39997497/F_De_ ... 9_pp_40_71
Ich selbst halte das, zumindest in der vertretenen Rigorosität, für ziemlichen Stuss, es ist aber interessant zu sehen, wie weit man sich verrennen kann :D (und wird gerade im amerikanischen Forum intensiv diskutiert: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board ... c=123077.0 )
FROM the German site Numismatikforum
https://www.numismatikforum.de/viewtopic.php?p=522953
Altamura,
if you have to make some simplifications, do them well: for me not all letters on Greek coins are numbers but only those of some issues or certain coinages.
Wait a little longer to "wie weit man sich verrennen kann"
-
but then why not also contest the use of letters as numbers in case it is ascertained that they are actually numbers such as this one?
Because the 2nd C. - 1st C. Ptolemaic tetradrachm dating scheme (using the symbol for 'L' ~ 'year') is simple, internally consistent, and also consistent with usage on other coin types (including some bronzes) of the time period. Iow, it's not a convoluted previously-unheard-of arithmetic combining letters and complex compound monograms in multiple representational systems. Those scholars who understand the simple dating system sensibly refrain from fanciful numerical interpretations of the Pi-A (at right) and the Theta (below). Sometimes a letter is just a letter (apologies to Freud).
In short, the simple dating system has a big advantage: it is believable.
PtolemAE
-
but then why not also contest the use of letters as numbers in case it is ascertained that they are actually numbers such as this one?
Because the 2nd C. - 1st C. Ptolemaic tetradrachm dating scheme (using the symbol for 'L' ~ 'year') is simple, internally consistent, and also consistent with usage on other coin types (including some bronzes) of the time period. Iow, it's not a convoluted previously-unheard-of arithmetic combining letters and complex compound monograms in multiple representational systems. Those scholars who understand the simple dating system sensibly refrain from fanciful numerical interpretations of the Pi-A (at right) and the Theta (below). Sometimes a letter is just a letter (apologies to Freud).
In short, the simple dating system has a big advantage: it is believable.
PtolemAE
I think that by now those who have looked at this topic are tired of reading these constant diatribes and in fact I do not want to feed them at all. I had the opportunity to expose one of my ideas, to many it was overwhelming but that's okay. Those who want to deepen it can read the previous post and there is no need for me to add more. I do not pretend to convince you, it is enough for me to have had the opportunity to have been able to express my ideas and I thank you for that. I am sincerely disappointed with the extraordinary stubbornness with which ALL THE THINGS I have exposed have been looked at with irony, despite having cited ancient sources, posted coins and given numerous feedbacks. Including, not least, this epigram of Alcaeus of Mitylene (Anthologia Palatina, VII, 429) in which there is a trace of this convoluted arithmetic of which I speak to you but which you insist on not seeing.
-
but then why not also contest the use of letters as numbers in case it is ascertained that they are actually numbers such as this one?
Sometimes a letter is just a letter (apologies to Freud).
PtolemAE
Maybe I will have to apologize to Freud but I will have shown myself free from the force of habit that leads this horse to always feel a prisoner even when it is tied only to a plastic chair that could only fly away with a blow of its paw.
-
Obviously, Federico is convinced of his position and just as obviously he has not convinced many of us that his position is correct. Let us let it rest there! Right now, there is nothing else useful to say. Let Federico reexamine his position and see if he can provide an explanation that seems more convincing to most of us, but as matters stand right now, this conversation is degenerating into non-productive posts and is doing no good. Let it end--as we were promised a while ago.
-
Obviously, Federico is convinced of his position and just as obviously he has not convinced many of us that his position is correct. Let us let it rest there! Right now, there is nothing else useful to say. Let Federico reexamine his position and see if he can provide an explanation that seems more convincing to most of us, but as matters stand right now, this conversation is degenerating into non-productive posts and is doing no good. Let it end--as we were promised a while ago.
+++