Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;EWC3, post: 3296238, member: 93416&quot;]Thanks for raising this here.&nbsp; I disagree that this is a problem.&nbsp; Adopting anything like a scientific approach demands we do do something just like that.</p><p><br /></p><p>Take an extreme example.&nbsp; I suspect when Homo Sapiens first came across Neanderthals they invented a name for them.&nbsp; Probably a bunch of names.&nbsp; But were any of those names “homo neanderthalensis”?&nbsp; Nope – they surely were not.&nbsp; Is that an argument for modern scientists to stop using that term?&nbsp; No – exactly because they have to have a name to carry on modern discussion.</p><p><br /></p><p>That is at essence the question we face with coins – although admittedly with coins it is a bit more complicated.&nbsp; A good few years back I suggested that the meaning of a medieval coin denomination “jital” be extended&nbsp; to cover a much bigger group of old coins.&nbsp; I explained exactly what I was doing when I did it.&nbsp; The name was being applied for to assist modern collectors, definitely not because it was universally applied in the medieval period. </p><p><br /></p><p>I immediately got criticisms from people who made just the point you do Doug.&nbsp; And also from others who wanted a different spelling.&nbsp; And even others who felt I pronounced it wrong!&nbsp; However, I also got support from people in numismatics, who understood what I was doing and why I was doing it.&nbsp; Perhaps most importantly Steve Album, but also folk at the BM etc.&nbsp; (I note now it even turns on on the denomination site Bob L linked to).</p><p><br /></p><p>Last year I got into a similar correspondence - about the use of denomination word “damma” in this new book</p><p><br /></p><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Silver-Damma-qanhari-diminutive-600-1100/dp/8193829107" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.amazon.com/Silver-Damma-qanhari-diminutive-600-1100/dp/8193829107" rel="nofollow">https://www.amazon.com/Silver-Damma-qanhari-diminutive-600-1100/dp/8193829107</a></p><p><br /></p><p>The authors shared my view about such matters – in wishing to draw attention to a particular group of coins and give them an all embracing simple useful name.&nbsp; John Deyell had doubts about that idea, but I thought it a good plan, and although I have great regard for John’s opinions - I was still pleased when the authors stuck to their guns on that matter.</p><p><br /></p><p>It seems to me that really our difference here comes down to two contrary approaches.&nbsp; A <b>scientific </b>one vs a <b>legalistic</b> one.&nbsp; Now, I am not going go as far as to say “hang all the lawyers”, but I am going to object if they tend to obfuscate legitimate scientific approaches.</p><p><br /></p><p>On a separate matter.&nbsp; I agree with Grierson.&nbsp; An Athenian drachm theoretically weighs c. 4.37g.&nbsp; Now that is certainly open to debate, but I am very clear that it is wrong to say it weighs 4g.&nbsp; We can debate that another day maybe?</p><p><br /></p><p>many thanks for the criticism!</p><p><br /></p><p>Rob T[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in