Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/common-knowledge/article-pdf/27/3/486/1301570/486demeyer.pdf by DEEPDYVE INC user on 30 March 2022 Stephen Chrisomalis, Reckonings: Numerals, Cognition, and History (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2020), 288 pp. “The Romans were not dupes.” This sentence, found on page 46 of Chrisomalis’s Reckonings, has the form of a constative statement but is actually a kind of perfor- mative utterance. It appears in a chapter dedicated to the Roman number system. In general, when we learn Roman numerals at school, we are also taught about the awkwardness of the system. Instead of the two characters needed to write 28 in the Indian- Arabic- Western ciphers (Chrisomalis notes the difc fi ulty of speak - ing simply of the Arabic or the Indian system, since there is more than one of each), the Romans needed no fewer than six characters to write the same number, XXVIII. The Roman system, moreover, is not practical for the performance of even simple mathematical operations such as addition or multiplication. Why, then, did it last for almost two millennia? Why did it resist a dozen alternative systems known in Europe during that period? Yes, there were that many, as we learn from reading Chrisomalis, a specialist in the anthropology
Common Knowledge – Duke University Press
Published: Aug 1, 2021
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.