Numerical notations on Ptolemy I Soter’s gold staters

[glebe]

... 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.

[FEDERICO D]

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 ..

[FEDERICO D]

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).

[FEDERICO D]

... 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.

[FEDERICO D]

... 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

[FEDERICO D]

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

[FEDERICO D]

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...

[FEDERICO D]

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

[FEDERICO D]

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

[FEDERICO D]

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

[FEDERICO D]

In fact the quantity of 500,000 didrachms and / or 1,000,000 drachms is constantly indicated on all the issues of Velia

[FEDERICO D]

Thus it turns out that the  monogram is not the signature of the engraver Philistion (who would have signed an abnormal number of dies) but a numerical notation..

[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.

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

[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

[FEDERICO D]

... 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!

[FEDERICO D]

... 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

[FEDERICO D]

.
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

[FEDERICO D]

still from: TOD M.N. (1979), Ancient Greek Numerical Systems, Ares Publishers, Chicago 1979. p.136

[FEDERICO D]

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.

[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

[FEDERICO D]

... 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?

[FEDERICO D]

... 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.

[glebe]

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.

[FEDERICO D]

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

[glebe]

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.