Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;zumbly, post: 3097751, member: 57495&quot;]I&#039;m not hot on &quot;celator&quot; and honestly am not sure what&#039;s wrong with &quot;die engraver&quot;... I don&#039;t find it too unwieldy and think it&#039;s appropriately descriptive.</p><p><br /></p><p>On a historical note, the introduction of RIC Vol. 1 mentions inscriptional evidence from 2nd century Rome that tells us die engravers were called <i>signatores.&nbsp; </i>Of course, this wouldn&#039;t have been the term used in 4th century BC Greece, 12th century India, and maybe not even 3rd century Rome.&nbsp; In any case, here&#039;s the paragraph from page 15 of RIC Vol. 1:</p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;(iv) the <i>signatores</i> (engravers), <i>suppostores</i> (those who inserted the blanks between the dies), and <i>malleatores</i> (hammer men), with whom should be associated the <i>conductores flaturae</i> (the metal-melters, the metal-refiners, and possibly those who cast the flans).&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Ok, fine, let&#039;s just go with &quot;scritchetyscratchers&quot;, but what about all those other guys mentioned in the passage above? <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie93" alt=":troll:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />[/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