Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;EWC3, post: 4502290, member: 93416&quot;]Yes – completely agree. My point about Armstrong’s effort being “rudimentary” was really a sort of criticism - but not of him rather of everybody else – as I judge it would be fairly straightforward to produce something more sophisticated based upon Harl. Actually it was (maybe a flat footed) attempt to encourage some younger Roman enthusiast to have a shot at it……</p><p><br /></p><p>I do have a criticism of Harl’s peripheral treatment of the Omayyad dirhem – and it leads to interesting consequences - as I think can be easily shown:</p><p><br /></p><p>Harl just looks at Grierson for Islamic events – if he had looked at the 1960’s work of Skinner in London, or Miles at the ANS he would have got a correct weight for the islamic (‘Abd al-Malik&#039;s) coin dirhem c. 2.93g. Likewise Skinner in London and Hinz at Göttingen independently got the weight dirhem at c. 3.125g. Multiple sources show this to be a simple set up. A bullion dirhem weighed 64 grains, a coin dirhem 6o grains.</p><p><br /></p><p>Once we have that correction we can turn to the parallel islamic gold dinar – Harl has that weight correct – c. 4.25g. But he missed the tradition that that too was sometimes figured at 60 (different) grains. So – lets see what happens if we take 64/60 x 4.25 - it equals c. 4.53g</p><p><br /></p><p>Kind of interestingly close to the (theoretical) solidus is it not?</p><p><br /></p><p>Which gets us back to a problem I mentioned earlier – about “pagan gold”. I now find the phrase has its origins in Eusebius – to do it seems with Licinius striking at 60 to the pound for his aureus, and using it to promote Jupiter. It seems Constantine melted them, and perhaps had a religious pretext to take his 1/6th profit on associated the weight reduction.</p><p><br /></p><p>So the bigger picture is this. There were only two big reforms of this gold weight standard over 500 years - over the period 300 to 800. A c. 17% profit for Constantine when he replaced “pagan” gold with “christian” gold. Then a nominal c. 6% profit when ‘Abd al Malik replaced christian gold with islamic gold.</p><p><br /></p><p>It should be noted that ‘Abd al Malik got less than that since the Arabs apparently struck to full weight standards, the Roman struck slightly low (c. 4.45g rather than c. 4.54g). Further to that, working backwards, the true weight standard of Rome seems to be a pound/libra of c. 327g.</p><p><br /></p><p>Harl gives an unsourced estimate for the libra of 322.5g. But that seems to me an error – its more like what the mint was allowed to get away with, to cover its costs maybe.</p><p><br /></p><p>73 solidi to the pound rather than 72……..</p><p><br /></p><p>Rob T</p><p><br /></p><p>PS some readers may note that Album fixed the dirhem at &#039;2.97g or a little less&#039; – while Heidemann has it at 2.80g to 2.90g. Thus contradictory and both incorrect. Am happy to explain why I say this if anyone cares. Its not unconnected to my general view that intellectual life has often been going backwards since the 1960’s.[/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