Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="EWC3, post: 3743755, member: 93416"]Maybe I spent too much time reading foundations of maths and philosophy of science? - but personally - I try to use “proven” only about mathematical results (which in turn I try never to call "true" – merely valid or invalid) Regarding this XXI matter - the "meaning 5% purity" claim is highly plausible. However as I understand it, pretty soon after this, Carausius and then Diocletian both put out what amounts to “real denarii” at the theoretical standard of Nero, and these lesser XXI coins would, according to the 5% silver content, very plausibly go 20:1 against them. Thus there is a degree of plausibility in reading the mark instead as meaning 1/20th of a “real” denarius. Further, and going a bit further out on a limb, this “real” denarius, the argenteus, was apparently figured at 100 “new” denarii, and a denarius was traditionally figured at 4 sestertii. 100/20 x 4 = 20. That is where the 20 sestertius claim comes from I suppose? The argument does contain a few hypotheticals, and people are at liberty to reject it as they choose, but personally, I would not say it was “proven” wrong. Doug makes a strong point concerning the XXI mark on the later big billons. In that context it does look like a claim (or perhaps a lie!) about the metallic purity. But are we really forced to read it that way? Perhaps by that time many people had it in their heads that there was something like old money and new money, where 100 “new (book) denarii” were worth one old (silver) one. In that case XXI might have become more like the name of the new 100:1 money system. I respect the point that Valentinian and Doug seem to make – that it would in a strong sense be rational to read XXI as meaning 5% pure. However, as old age approaches I have come to fear that, when speaking of the opinions of the general population, strict rationality may not be all that important. Rob T[/QUOTE]

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches