They sound strange because they're wrong. How can we have obol, denier and solidus followed by pound? Where's the evidence this purely English term was ever used for these currencies? If we're struggling to find the correct contemporary name, surely the appropriate “placeholder” until we find the right term is the Latin libra?
If livre is to be retained for the French currencies, why are the Carolingian currencies not being treated the same way?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
They sound strange because they're wrong. How can we have obol, denier and solidus followed by pound? Where's the evidence this purely English term was ever used for these currencies?
The first two links are about the weight, not the denomination, and make no claim that this term was used contemporaneously. I can't access the third link in full. Does it claim that a modern English term was used in the Carolingian Empire?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
The first two links are about the weight, not the denomination, and make no claim that this term was used contemporaneously. I can't access the third link in full. Does it claim that a modern English term was used in the Carolingian Empire?
Nowhere in Numista we define currency name as the one used “contemporaneously”.
Nowhere in Numista we define currency name as the one used “contemporaneously”.
Why not? That seems a rather huge omission in the guidelines. I can understand there may be concern about arriving at an agreement in some cases but surely the effort would be worth it and the contribution to our knowledge potentially significant.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Nowhere in Numista we define currency name as the one used “contemporaneously”.
Why not? That seems a rather huge omission in the guidelines. I can understand there may be concern about arriving at an agreement in some cases but surely the effort would be worth it and the contribution to our knowledge potentially significant.
Because we would then have dead language everywhere, and it would be inconsistent with how we name issuers and rulers. And think about all other ancient issuers like Egypt, greece, etc with non latin script. This suggestion sounds really weird to me :-)
Because we would then have dead language everywhere, and it would be inconsistent with how we name issuers and rulers. And think about all other ancient issuers like Egypt, greece, etc with non latin script. This suggestion sounds really weird to me :-)
We are supposed to be cataloguing coins, aren't we? If a coin was issued by a state that used a language that is no-longer spoken, why would it be “weird” to record that? It might be difficult but surely that's a challenge we can at the very least aspire to? As to being inconsistent with “how we name issuers and rulers”, what matters is being consistent with reality. If this site currently gives historical figures “modern”, anachronistic names, that's what needs to change, not extending this policy elsewhere. Otherwise, what is the point of Numista? Is it to become a list of non-sensical descriptions of no use to anyone? Such “catalogues” can be found elsewhere. We can do better and have been trying to for a long time. Please don't prevent this effort from continuing.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
It seems simply obvious to me to use actual language visitors of a website are using. Current British English and french of France, in numista's case. You can think otherwise for sure, feel free to try building a website using Frankish language (which had at least 8 regional variations) to name carolingian coins, and I'll wish the best to it.
Stato cambiato a Respinta(Xavier, 6 Mag 2024, 08:44)
