As presented on the previous page (reproduced above left), F&L Table 2 does not show obverse denominational marking with reduced weights of the same denomination but rather gives denominational results obtained from metrological weight/size data. However, F&L Table 3 (see above right) does contain examples where six of the eight denominations indicate obverse denominational marking with piecemeal reduced weights. Table 2 was used to produce Table 3; how was this transformation made?
Other than by the process of “Data Manipulation” it is impossible to change F&L Table 2 into F&L Table 3 that has the properties described in the following quotation: “Table 3 is a reorganized version of Table 2, using obverse types as the main criterion. This rearrangement implies a system of eight denominations ...[where]... seven were subsequently subject to [weight] reduction. The reduction was not imposed on all denominations simultaneously. Instead, the process was piecemeal. The largest denomination (Zeus-Ammon 1) was reduced twice, first in Series 6c and again in Series 6d ...”.
A faulty form of data manipulation occurs when a belief is strong enough that the data are changed to fit the belief. This type of data manipulation has occurred in the transformation of the metrologically valid F&L Table 2 to F&L Table 3. For example, the Ammon coins at the top of columns 6c, 6d, 6e, 7a, and 7b (all Zeus-Ammon/double-eagle coins except for 6d with one eagle) in Table 2 with weights 30-23g can not legitimately remain metrologically valid when they are “reorganized”.
The conversion of F&L Table 2 to F&L Table 3 involves the data manipulation of 23 of the 33 initial positions of the coins to 23 different positions in F&L Table 3 that they do not metrologically have. A strong belief in obverse denominational marking with piecemeal reduced weights is not sufficient to change the actual data in F&L Table 2 to the hypothetical positions in F&L Table 3: F&L Table 3 does not fit the factual data and is therefore metrologically invalid. Yet, consistent with F&L's above quote, F&L Table 3 is taken to be the “metrological” basis throughout the “classification for Egyptian bronze coinage of the second century BC”. If Table 3 had been called “Hypothetical classification” instead of “Proposed classification”, evidence to support the hypothesis would have been required. In any case, no evidence was given; instead, Table 3 was taken to be evidence in itself.
There is a further problem if F&L Table 3 should be accepted as valid. Since the obverse marking and weight reduction hypothesis is taken to produce F&L Table 3 from F&L Table 2, and since further discussions are then based on the results “as implied by Tables 2 and 3” as illustrative of obverse marking and weight reduction, the argument becomes circular. There is no evidence to support the belief developed in F&L Table 3: It is an invalid table and definitely not a proper graph.
In contrast, the weight/size data available in F&L's “Table of Hoards” can be used to produce a valid graphic illustration of the chronology of second century bronze coinage. Click on RP ANALYSIS below.