A new interpretation of the monograms carried on Greek coins

[FEDERICO D]

Where on coinage have the symbols and numbering system in your paper been used?

Picking and choosing individual coins that "fit" your hypothesis, whilst ignoring ALL of the
other coins that do not, does not make for good scholarship.

Answer:
On this forum I gave a very brief presentation of what I support in my book and of course it is very summarizing. But in my book I analyze entire coinages reconstructing for some of them whole emissions identifying all the obverse dies and reverse dies known: the results that come out confirm my thesis because dividing the number of coins that fall into that issue (determined according to 'interpretation of the monograms as numbers) for the obverse dies and reverse dies identified the results are compatible. An example is precisely the reconstruction of the New Style tetradrachms issue of the previous posts in which it turns out that from each obverse die 20,000 coins were obtained and from each reverse coinage 4,000 tetradrams were obtained. It seems to me that these are not absurd numbers but absolutely in line with what de Callatay affirms on the average yield of obverse dies and reverse dies.

[FEDERICO D]

QUESTION: “Was your article peer-reviewed at all? If so, was it reviewed by a qualified and recognised
numismatist, or by someone with little or no idea about that specific subject? “

ANSWEWR: the article on Massalia coins had to pass a hard examination by three French and Spanish university professors whose identity I do not know. My book contains the preface by Professor Maria Caccama Clatabiano of the University of Messina, illustrious numismatic which in September 2015 organized in Messina (Italy) the fifteenth International Conference of Numismatics.

[FEDERICO D]

“There are errors in your own calculations, as well as confusion between "dozens" and "tens", etc.”

Who is it that is not wrong? If you come to me in Italy and you would like to speak Italian maybe you would also make some mistakes. But even among a thousand mistakes one must be open to new things and change perspective: much progress has been made in this way. I could give many examples but I do not do them so as not to be accused of effrontery ...”

[FEDERICO D]

“The monograms have previously been viewed as being related to the names of various
officials. Have you successfully and properly countered those earlier, much argued and
generally accepted, theses? You observe this, but do not seem to counter any of it.”

One thing that has never been affirmed is not said to be a false thing. It is universally known that the dominant opinion is that monograms are the initials of the names of the monetary magistrates: there was really no time to waste time. I believe instead that we cannot remain indifferent to the following images in which there is a page of a text with a sign that can only be a number and nothing else and a Greek coin that contains that number. All coincidences? On the book that sign is a number and on the coin no? Possible? Numismatics is a science and like any other science must take into account the evidence: in this way humanity has progressed otherwise we would still live in the caves and you and I, we are at the opposite poles of the world, we would have had no way to talk.

Text:  TOD M.N. (1979), Ancient Greek Numerical Systems, Ares Publishers, Chicago 1979, p.4

[FEDERICO D]

text: HEATH T. , A history of Greek Mathematics, Dover Publications, Vol.I, New York 1981, p.36

[FEDERICO D]

text: p. 5 of  https://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/encoding/unicode.proposals/final/numerals.pdf

[FEDERICO D]

text: HEATH T. , A history of Greek Mathematics, Dover Publications, Vol.I, New York 1981, p.36

Please read SERAPIEIA and not SERAGIEIA

[FEDERICO D]

Referring back to Reply No. 4, doesn't Pi equal 80 (not 5), as in Reply No. 15?
And where did the extra (00) come from?

Ross G.

The oldest Greek numeral system is called “Attic” or even “Acrophonic” because  used  as numerical symbols the initial letters of the words that indicate the main numbers (from  akron, “the end”, “ the beginning”, and from  phōnē, “entry”). In this numeral siystem  , initial letter of the word "pente" is the number 5.The more recent numeral system is called “Alphabetical” or “Ionic”  which used 27 alphabet letters: nine for the numbers lower than 10, nine for the multiples of 10 lower than 100 and nine for the multiplies of 100 lower than 1.000. In this numeral system  is number 80. The two numeral systems coexist and it is not always easy to understand according to which numeral system a number is expressed. In many cases the numbers expressed are in the Attic and in the Ionic numeral system. So, for example, in the 2nd-1st century BC on two Boeotian epigraphs we can find numbers taken from the Attic numeral system used inside the same figure close to numbers taken from the Ionic numeral system: see ROESCH P. (1966), Inscriptions du Musée de Thèbes, Revue des Études anciennes, 68 (1966), p.77-82, n.15.; CALVET M., ROESCH P. (1966), Les Sarapieia de Tanagra,  Revue archéologique, 1966, 2, p. 297-332. Furthermore, the two systems are seen side by side in a number of papyrus-rolls written in Greek found at Herculaneum: these state 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 (HEATH T. , A history of Greek Mathematics, Dover Publications, Vol.I, New York 1981.p.35). In the previous examples, then once p is expressed according to the attic numeral system and again according to the alphabetical numeral system.

In the numeral notations carried on the coins and in other contexts, a number could be expressed in an understood method, in tens, hundreds, thousands, etc., whereby only a detailed examination of the context can clear if it deals with a finished number or  if it implies other decimal orders. Furthermore on the coins there was an extensive use of the multiplicative principle because often two or more numbers were combined and placed next to each other: in this way the two or more numbers must be multiplied between each other to obtain a figure (their product) that otherwise would be too long to write in the confined space on the coin. From here the extra (00)

[glebe]

Thanks Federico for your detailed reply.
It is clear that my knowledge of Greek numerology (derived mainly from Sear and Google) is extremely limited, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that.

Ross G.

[glebe]

Could someone also enlighten me as to the ratio of reverse to obverse dies for the main series of Attic tetradrachms?

Ross G.

[FEDERICO D]

Thanks Frederico for your detailed reply.
It is clear that my knowledge of Greek numerology (derived mainly from Sear and Google) is extremely limited, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that.

Ross G.

Thank you for your kindness

[cicerokid]

We have all assumed that the New Style monograms were monograms for names, and since numbers were written as letters in Greek it is possible that either idea can produce a  plausible result! If you look at Thompson, she says that such and such a name is possible and often past numismatists either saw things that wasn't there or didn't see enough in them. Hence fitting a name to a monogram is essentially fitting a tail to a donkey!
That some monograms are very complex and miss bits out within issues is explainable because the die cutters were not necessarily literate. Missing a bit off here or adding a bit there might be a subliminal process for them and who cares? How many could read then, and if the monograms are numbers same difference.

The amphora letters similarly I guess can be numbers I guess of 1 to 13. It could accidently or not correspond to a month or an officiana, we really don't know we are following in the footsteps of others. It would seem logical to call them month markers BUT the Palm behind Owl is a real puzzle with two letters sometimes on the amphora and what appears to be the "month indicator" in the field. Margaret Thompson seemed to have decided due to a "aberrant" example in the Agriniion Hoard to be flummoxed by this issue .We must think again...I though thought the aberration just that...there are plenty of examples of "aberrations" in the New Style.
Efforts to date the New Style by the intercalary amphora indicators have proved fruitless. Jorge Muller,  the late radiation scientist and numismatical researcher once promised to arrange the whole New Style according to the Intercalary dates, but his work never appeared and he died years later without producing it.  It seems more likely it was months though cos if the Athenian month did start in early July/August then the Basil Mith coin apparently of 86 BC, only had issues ending in the 6th month Zeta, about the time that Sulla turned up outside. BUT this could be a coincidence. What of the second control? Often two letters( numbers?), sometimes three, and occasionally four have been nominated mas the silver mine source and based on the owners very abbreviated name. We actually don't know. Some last from issue to issue for a long time, some not so, some are rare. Plotting the appearance and run of these caused Habicht to add "Kernos" back into the Rome-Pontic times chronology. ( I have relegated it back to a post-Sullan time) Does it even have to be a mine? Surely official coin changing sources could be a source of silver for minting the New Style. We don't know! With the 29th issue the three magistrate issues start and generally the coins become noticeably more regular but there are "hiccups" .Monograms have truly disappeared by now and essentially two controls exist:0ne on the amphora and one mainly beneath it. And for some time, ( just over a decade), only a small number of 2nd controls are used repeatedly and the obverse die count is mainly modest too. This is the "strong" argument of Frederico D, Luca. As far as anything is truly known he could be right! The tetradrachm count coupled with the known number of obverses and reverses do produce, on his reckonings, plausible production figures . ( I must  have MIS-understood his working method earlar in an earlier post hence I thought the numbers per obverse die would be enormous- but not true!). This does appear to break down but how are we to know why amphora letters and 2nd controls are overstruck and in the case of amphora letters can be several times! maybe laziness or economics is adding to the confusion. We don't know. We all want to understand what went on but there is truly little hard evidence and we all build castles out of our speculations and we don't know how much sand is propping up our foundations! Without building a castle though and testing it where we can then there would be no advance. Look at all the Rome- Pontic work others have built arroung the symbols on coins we believe are just prior to the Sullan sack. Margaret Thompson could not see the Rome- Pontic coins for what they appear to be ( and are we building castles here too?), and put the Basil Mith coin as a speciality production in the 120's BC! This apparently will not do now!  I think and have written and wildly speculated on the Rome- Pontic New Style coinage and times...but I (we) could be wrong! I base my "work!" on the symbols, but like the 1st and 2nd control what do they mean? Are they really say, Roma, Winged Agon, is the magistrate Aristion THE Aristion on the Basil Mith coin. We don't know.

[FEDERICO D]

Thanks for the trust. From home tonight I will post new material that will convince you of the validity of my thesis.

[cicerokid]

You're welcome Federico!

It is a long time since I have written on the New Style on Forum because of complete lack of interest. They are truly fascinating and yet perplexing. I do think the date 164/3 is correct. And Mattingly did date a coin due to a reading of a name with a known name from prosoprographical sources, which became a lynchpin of the reasons for accepting the lower dating of Lewis.

The problems of erased symbols left Margaret Thompson flummoxed, some on the die, and some o the coin except with one case which I highlighted in "Mithradates in Paris and London" which I also connected with the siege of Rhodes where a symbol " Star between Two Crescents was replaced with "Headdress of Isis". But without examining the coin in the BN I cannot tell whether the die was erased or the coin was erased and over stamped..

Interesting...eh?

Cic

[FEDERICO D]

really very interesting

[djmacdo]

Can you site any example from Greek coinage or epigraphy where a Greek number was certainly written as a monogram?  That seems an unusually complex, awkward way to write a Greek number, subject to possible misunderstanding.  In the hundreds of years of dated coinage from the Bosporos, the dates are always written as separate letters.

[FEDERICO D]

Can you site any example from Greek coinage or epigraphy where a Greek number was certainly written as a monogram?  That seems an unusually complex, awkward way to write a Greek number, subject to possible misunderstanding.  In the hundreds of years of dated coinage from the Bosporos, the dates are always written as separate letters.

Many numbers expressed according to the Attic numeral system are in fact monograms ...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attic_numerals

[FEDERICO D]

Let's clarify one thing: I do not say that ALL the monograms are numbers but only those of some coinages or some issues of certain  coinages.
On the coins the monograms that are certainly numbers are inserted because on the coins there was an    extensive use of the multiplicative principle because often two or more numbers were combined and placed next to each other: in this way the two or more numbers must be multiplied between each other to obtain a    figure (their product)    that otherwise would be too long to write in the confined space on the coin.
In my interpretation the monograms could also be not too clear because they were used for minters and not for the end users of the currency. The different monograms on the coins of the same issue, in fact, served to distinguish different groups of coins that otherwise would have been completely equal and indistinguishable.
The apposition of the numerical notations on the dies took place in this way: when both the obverse and reverse dies were made to produce coins, figures were then engraved to characterize all the coins minted from those dies. When the dies were damaged or needed to be substituted, the following dies were engraved by the same numbers, if they needed to complete that quantity of coins or even bigger numbers than the previous ones,  if they passed on minting an further quantity of coins.
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 dollars we make ten piles of 1,000 dollars because, if we make a mistake counting, we do not have to recount all 10,000 but only one single thousand pile of dollars 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.

[FEDERICO D]

We must open up to the possibility that, in some cases, the monograms on coins are actually numbers: it is a new hypothesis but to be taken into account all the more if you think that some statements by Thompson (regarding New Style tetradrachms of Athens), are no longer shared. Thompson, for example, says that the letters on the amphora (reported on the reverse of the Athenian tetradrachms) refer to the month of coinage but this hypothesis does not convince because it would have been more logical to indicate the months of the year with progressive numbers rather than letters in alphabetical order (generally the 12 letters that follow each other from A to M), as happened on the only coins of the ancient world on which the month of coinage is clearly indicated: the tetradrachms of Mithridates VI king of Pontus. And furthermore, if on the tetradrachms of Athens it was reported the month of coinage, why not also indicate the year of coinage, just as it happened on the tetradrachms of Mithridates?

[FEDERICO D]

The monograms below the amphora, then, are not monograms of the magistrates: what was the need to add monograms on coins that already had the full name of three men (the three magistrates monetary)?? They are not even "control marks" that followed one another in a casual and confusing way but numerical progressions that always return the same within each series, that is to say each of the groups of coins in which the issue was split, identified by a separate alphabetical letter  shown on the amphora. It is a really brilliant and functional system !!!

[FEDERICO D]

follows

[cicerokid]

  In times of monetary stress things can change. On my very common coin of Mithradates Vi, there is no month letter because it seems the mint (wherever it was), was too busy to deal with such things. DeCallatay draws attention to this stress as minting ready for war, well the big push against the Roman legions, leading to the descent into Asia Minor and beyond.

Obs: Diademed head of Mithradates Eupator right
 Pontus Mint 16.31 gm 30mm
 Rev: Drinking Pegasos left
 Mint mark RF , above,date ΘΣ  ( 209=89/88 BC)
6 rayed star in crescent LF
 de Callatay: Obs: D55 Rev:Not in plates/NEW
ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΜΙΘΡΑΔΑΤΟΥ ΕΥΠΑΤΟΡΟΣ
All surrounded by a Dionysic wreath of ivy & friut

[FEDERICO D]

The truth is that the Greek numbers are still largely unknown to us modern but they were far more widespread than we can think of today. Read the note highlighted below from T. Heath, A history of Greek Mathematics, Dover Publications, New York 1981, pp.35-36, and then look at the following two posts.

[FEDERICO D]

An alphabetic numbering is found for example on the octodrachms coined by Ptolemy II which report on the obverse letters which follow one another in alphabetical order from  to  . This peculiarity leads one to think that the letters identified groups of well-defined coins, minted in succession: after the coinage of a given group of coins, all marked with a given alphabetic letter, they passed to coin another group of coins, probably of the same dimensions of the previous one, distinguished by the following alphabetical letter. For H.A. Troxell, Arsinoe’s Non-Era, ANSMN 28 (1983), pp.35-70, who has refuted every attempt to see these letters in sequence as dates, the groups of coins to which these letters refer are the different issues minted in succession.

[FEDERICO D]

On the silver decadrachms of Ptolemy II, instead, we find an alphabetic numbering with a whole series of double letters ranging from   to