Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1124Re: Die Linking

Expand Messages
  • robtyenow
    Jan 22, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Lluís

      LM <<I wish again that Mr. Tye was reading messages, to correct me if I am wrong>>

      I think you are wrong if you are suggesting Reid is the most irritating contrarian on coin groups.

      I feel it is Ross.

      But I will grant you that its a close run thing :-)

      I read this group but do not (normally) post here. Reason is that I do not post to groups that have an open access/web searchable archive, as I do not like to see stray disjointed bits of my arguments drifting about the web. I wrote to Art about closing the archive a few years back, but he refused, a bit odd I thought since he seems to have become almost an absentee landlord.

      On the question of the Lydian weight standard, I would be pleased to debate this on the numismet group, if you or Bob want to raise it there. Your suggestion about a 100 grain trite standard is interesting, but differs from my guess. Also, there seems to be a cultural switch at Sardis signalled by the metrology, which might be worth discussing.

      I applaud Mac's recent stand in favour of intellectual broadmindedness – but I do not feel we needed the encumbrance of post-modernism to learn this matter, which ought to be plain good scholarship. I especially hope that he might now re-think his rather dogmatic refusal to listen to fundamental criticisms of Hume.

      BTW am I alone in noticing that the crazed gunman Jared Loughner held the same views on the monetary economy as David Hume and John Locke? I wonder who did the most damage? There is a lot of this sort of thing about. Commodity money people for instance, often coming out of economics departments, are tending to make rather unhelpful suggestions concerning metrology in connection with their apparent aversion to the very idea of seigniorage.





      --- In EarlyElectrumCoinage@yahoogroups.com, Lluís Mendieta <lmendi@...> wrote:
      > Good afternoon, Reid, Mr. MacDonald, List
      > I wish again that Mr. Tye was reading messages, to correct me if I am wrong
      > Coinage was done to facilitate commerce.
      > That we have earlier issues that were only for big business, sure.
      > But you forget one fact: absence of evidence is not equal to evidence of absence.
      > <Judging by the absence of small Lydian denominations, the purpose
      > <coinage served in classical Greece wasn't the same as when coinage was
      > <invented.
      > Sorry, but absence of evidence is not same as evidence of absence, You are making a fallacy here.
      > And for what people take the trouble to stamp weighed pieces of metal?
      > The immediate answer is for comerce.
      > Of course, that depends in the approach you take. I understood that marxist historians tend to beleive that those lumps where not for commerce (maybe biased? :-) )
      > Anyway, even if the 1/96th was too big for a loaf of bread, that is really an improvement for commerce.
      > Why do you tink that Egyptians had coins forbidden? (pre Ptolemaic, I mean)
      > With best wishes
      > Lluís
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Reid Goldsborough
      > To: EarlyElectrumCoinage@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 10:43 PM
      > Subject: Re: [EarlyElectrumCoinage] Die Linking
      > On 1/19/2011 9:12 PM, David Macdonald wrote:
      > >
      > > Of course, it would be equally illogical to assume that it must
      > > have be done in a different manner, in the absence of evidence.
      > >
      > Agreed. But here are two examples of the logical error in historical
      > analysis I spoke of, which I gave the name "fallacy of false
      > antecedents" (not its correct name) and which is related to but not
      > exactly the same as "historian's fallacy" (see Wikipedia's entry on
      > same: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian's_fallacy):
      > * We use coins today only for small transactions. Ergo, since the
      > inception of coinage, people have always used coinage strictly in this way.
      > * Coinage in ancient Greece and Rome facilitated commerce by preventing
      > bullion from having to be weighed with each transaction. Ergo, coinage
      > came into existence to serve this purpose.
      > Both Plato (Republic ii, 371b, 8, 9) and Aristotle (Ethics v, 1133a,
      > 17-20, and Politics i, 1257a, 19-41) were guilty of the second mistake
      > above in speculating on the origins of coinage. It's clear they were
      > basing what they wrote on how coins had evolved to be used in their times.
      > Judging by the absence of small Lydian denominations, the purpose
      > coinage served in classical Greece wasn't the same as when coinage was
      > invented. Even the electrum lion-paw 96th stater, if Lydian, was too
      > large for a loaf of bread. Further, some of those such as Spier who
      > believe these lion-paw denominations were Lydian (I don't) believe they
      > belong to the earlier Weidauer Type 15 series, with relatively few coins
      > minted over a relatively brief period, and not the later Type 16 coins,
      > with many more extant specimens minted over a longer period, with the
      > later coins having no denomination smaller than a trite (which I again
      > believe was the stater or standard). Why would the smaller denominations
      > have ceased? I believe they didn't cease and that this is another piece
      > of evidence that the small lion-paw denominations like the larger c.
      > 14.1 denomination and the other types with designed incuses were
      > Milesian and not Lydian.
      > --
      > Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
      > Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
      > Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 36 messages in this topic