Numerical notations on Ptolemy I Soter’s gold staters

[n.igma]

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."

[FEDERICO D]

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

[FEDERICO D]

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 ( over   ) 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   over   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   over   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.

[Molinari]

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?

[FEDERICO D]

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.

[dwarf]

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

[FEDERICO D]

Here I report the explanation of the meaning of the monograms I made with regard to the coins of Kibyra

[FEDERICO D]

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?

[FEDERICO D]

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

[FEDERICO D]

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

[FEDERICO D]

Follows

[FEDERICO D]

follows

[FEDERICO D]

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

[FEDERICO D]

follows

[FEDERICO D]

bricks (on the second photo note the number HH which is the number 200 expressed with the Attic or Acrophonic numeral system)

[Altamura]

...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

[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

 

[Molinari]

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.

[FEDERICO D]

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?

[FEDERICO D]

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

[dwarf]

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

[Molinari]

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.

[Molinari]

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.

[glebe]

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.

[Altamura]

... 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