Please not that I intend the following comments as constructive suggestions for consideration:
MathematicsI 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/DecimalYet the ancient
Greeks used a sexagesimal system (base 60) that
had its foundation in geometry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DecimalThe paper need needs to address these issues and reconcile the discrepancy in the mathematics.
Ancient accounting and the written sourcesAnother 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 controlsThe 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_ChronologyThus 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.
SuggestionFor 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.