Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;ErolGarip, post: 2857398, member: 88736&quot;]You are a little bit late about that as it was already learnt in the first pages of this thread that ancient coins without numerals isn&#039;t a news but ancient coins with numerals is news... However, your this post is good to do a review as there was still a remaining unanswered question why there was less and less numerals when travelling back on the timeline of about 2500 years of known coins. </p><p><br /></p><p>I think I have an idea now on why so. Before telling this, lets start with the coins you mentioned here. That coin (c. 380 BC) is 6 mm (small), 0.2 grams (accurate weight measurement of the day), silver (valuable material) and lion/ram heads (power symbols) and it is &quot;tetartemorian&quot; (denomination)... Lets write denominations of the period of this coin:</p><p><br /></p><p>1drachma(silver, 4.3gr) = 6obols = 12hemiobol = 24tetartemorion = 48hemitetartemorion(silver, 0.1gr, the smallest coin) </p><p><br /></p><p>So, what do we understand from these? even from denomination names? </p><p>In this period, there was a major coin first, i.e., &quot;drachma&quot;... And then, in time, it was divided into smaller denominations. Who does this? Who starts with the &quot;major&quot;? Not poors, but, the &quot;major&quot; power of the day, i.e. governmental authority/king of the day. But, this way of denominating/counting which is like counting &quot;100, 99, 98,...&quot; that is&nbsp; backward counting does not fit the natural counting &quot;1, 2, 3,...&quot; and this backward counting contradicts with the common theory of historians that say &quot;we were more primitive in the past that we started counting by starting 1&quot;. No, this 2500 years period of coins does not tell about the &quot;money&quot; and &quot;its real countability&quot;, but, tells more about &quot;metal counting&quot; (by weighing as they are melted, form change that changes natural counting by integers to fractional counting.) So, yes, these coins in this 2500 years period can be considered as exchange mediums, but, they are not real money system which should have &quot;unit&quot; with natural countability. This can also be seen in that these ancient coins of last 2500 years don&#039;t have &quot;unit&quot; (for example, in this coin system, its name of smallest denomination is &quot;hemitetartemorion&quot;, that&#039;s, &quot;half-of-quarter&quot;, doesn&#039;t make any sense about the &quot;unit&quot; which must have a unique name. </p><p><br /></p><p>On the other hand, on a 9,000 years old stone coin (ok, called &quot;counting token&quot;) which I mentioned in one of previous pages, there are &quot;notches/inciseds&quot; on a coin-like stones, such as &quot;I/IIIII/etc&quot; that clearly show the &quot;natural countability&quot; and the &quot;unit.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;Unit&quot; in the money is the most important thing. As it is also its &quot;constant&quot; of the money. It is the basic science of money. </p><p>If the significance of &quot;unit&quot; of money is forgotten like it has been done, also today, forget about all sciences&nbsp; math/physics/psychiatry/philosophy/chemistry/biology/sociology/astronomy/theology/etc etc, which all revolve around the money. (Ok, if the &quot;unit&quot; is not important, then, lets stop all these sciences and with the money, lets do trade only.) </p><p><br /></p><p>Ps: I second that woot. w00t w00t[/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