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 exampleTo 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?