First Ancient Coin from the Moneta-L list
This starts off as a straight forward discussion of the the first coins.
Then it becomes a discussion of trade rules regarding coin usage in ancient
cities and eventually moves into a discussion of the role of coins weights.
Gentlemen of this Forum:
I am currently in a debate on who invented coin money. I assumed that
the inventor of coins was Croessus of Lydia ? Am I wrong.
jose vargas
I believe that the first Chinese spade money was about
the same time as the first Ionian electrum pieces.
At least that's the claim in the Numismatic Hall of
the Shanghai Museum (which has a GREAT run
of Chinese money -- from its beginnings to now).
John Wright
Croessus became King of Lydia about 561 BC, and usually assigned the
distinction of issuing the first coins that were in separate gold and
silver issues, but there are many electrum (gold silver alloy) coins
almost certainly pre-date him.
No one is yet sure when the first true coins were issued, or what
types they were, but it could have been as much as 100 years before
Croessus (and was certainly at least 30 to 40 years before him).
No one knows when the first coins of China were made, but they were
certainly in this general period, and may or may not pre-date the
first coins of Asia Minor.
Robert Kokotailo
Calgary Coin
WEB SITE : http://www.calgarycoin.com
hi all
great timing - just reading an article about KROISOS in the 'kroisos
collection' catalogue by stacks
"he was long credited with introducing actual coinage in the form of
electrum staters made of a naturally occuring alloy of gold and
silver. Modern scholarship has shown that kroisos was the first to
perfect the separation of gold from silver and is properly the father
of actual gold coinage,"
jim hauck
Kingdoms in India may have been making coins at about this time too.
It really is difficult to say where the first coins where made.
Howard Cole
It's a interesting topic, but unfortunately one which there will never be a
generally accepted answer. Lydians were certainly not the first (in my
opinion). But to understand the topic more we would first have to get an idea
of what is considered a coin? What are the criteria? Is it simply a medium of
exchange? Too many questions to have aswered, and too many individual opinions.
By the way, in my opinion I think it was the Chinese, many centuries earlier
than the Lydian coinage.
Ken
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Kenneth W. Dorney
http://www.coolcoins.com
The first coins of India were silver bars stamped on only one side
with a geometric pattern.
The first coins of China were cast bronze, in the form of either
Knifes or Spades (I believe the earliest ones were in the form of spades).
The first coins of the Mediterranean basin were electrum round coins,
stamped on both sides (although one side was only an incuse punch).
All developed within the same 100 year period, and it may have been
even closer than that, yet all have completely different styles,
metals and minting technology. I suspect the economic developments
that required coinage spread around the world rapidly, but the
technologies for minting them were closely guarded secrets that did
not spread at all.
Robert Kokotailo
Calgary Coin
hi all,
i believe these are the earliest recorded 'greek/athens' coins at 545
bc
i wish i had a few of these around, since the nice tets are currently
estimated a $25K
jim hauck
There is a good introduction on the subject of WHY the first coins
were struck in Christopher Howgego's book "Ancient History from
Coins." That is a question that every thinks their own intuition can
answer quite handily but that probably isn't the case. Barter
existed alongside coinage up to the present day. As I recall one
good theory is the money that had to be paid by the government to its
citizens in Greece. Juries got three obols per person per day. Some
juryie could be several hundred men strong and so the monetary needs
would be great. Aristophanes bases one of his plays (the Wasps) on
an old man who is a jury junkie. His son puts nets over the chimney
to keep the old guy from sneaking out to sit on yet another jury.
Certainly one of the places to strike money in a great number of
different types early on was Lycia. It's not unusual to see a new
Lycian type a few times a year. I think I remember seeing 625 B.C. or
so as the proposed earliest date but without some corroboration, who
knows exactly. Another good book on ancient economics is M. I.
Finley's book "The Ancient Economy."
Gary Waddingham
There's more that we don't know about the origins of coinage than we
do. But one of the things we know with a fair degree of confidence is
hat the inventor of cons wasn't Croessus. Even the first coins of the
West predated Croessus, having been minted by his father, Alyattes,
who is sometimes erroneously referred to as Alyattes II.
A cataloger at one of the auction firms got his hands on a 220-year
old reference (John Lempriere's 1788 Classical Dictionary) and copied
from it, with a few other dealers then copying this auction house. No
ancient coin attribution references I've found use Alyattes II, no
modern historians or archeologists who specialize in ancient Lydia
I've seen use Alyattes II, no ancient historians I've found use
Alyattes II, and neither the Oxford Classical Dictionary nor
Encyclopaedia Britannica use Alyattes II. The reason for this is that
there's no even slightly firm evidence of the existence of an Alyattes
of Lydia before Croessus' father. So, don't believe everything you
read in auction catalogs. <g>
I digress. As was said here, much about "first coin" depends on how
you define "coin." But if you define it as it's commonly defined in
numismatics, as a piece of metal certified by marks on it to be of a
distinct exchange value and issued by a ruling authority for use as
money, I think the Chinese have better grounds for claiming "first
coin" than the Indians, with the most likely scenario that Lydia and
China initiated coinage at about the same time and totally
independently. But coinage as we know it today, including coinage in
China and India, has followed the Lydian/Greek/Roman model, not the
Chinese (or Indian). So it's not a great stretch to call Lydia the
place of origin of today's coinage.
The most likely first coin is the most commonly seen early electrum
Lydian coin, the Lydian Lion, which exists in denominations from the
trite (which should be called the stater, since no coins of its type
weighing three times as much have ever been found and with a strong
likelihood that none were minted) down to the 96th trite (though some
feel that the electrum lion paw fractions below the twelfth stater
aren't Lydian). At any rate, you could, if you wanted to spend a lot
of time doing so, fashion a fairly compelling argument that the Lydian
Lion trite/stater weighing about 4.7 grams and initiated by Alyattes
c. 610 BC was the world's first coin, a coin that though somewhat
pricey (starting at around $1000 for undamaged specimens) isn't
impossible to acquire. There are several varieties you can choose
from, with the earliest being those with a sunburst on the lion's
forehead shaped like a cross (Weidauer 59-75) and with scarcer and
pricier subvarieties carrying inscriptions, likely contemporaneous.
--
Reid Goldsborough
Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
> There is a good introduction on the subject of WHY the first coins > were struck in Christopher Howgego's book "Ancient History from
> Coins."
You think? I enjoyed Howgego, but I found his treatment of the first
coinage to be the weakest part of his otherwise excellent book. His
statement, "We know nothing about the function of the earliest
coinage," is pure hyperbole. It does point to how the function of the
first coins was in all likelihood different from the function of
later, and today's, coins. And it points to uncertainty about the
purpose of the first coins. But there are compelling theories based on
existing evidence of the purpose or purposes that the first coins served.
Others have written about this far more instructively than Howgego.
I'd put Robert Wallace at the top of my list. Though I don't agree
with all of this conclusions, his four articles on this is the best
material I've seen, including his "The Origin of Electrum Coinage" in
the American Journal of Archeology 91 (1987), which discusses the
purpose that the first coins served.
--
Reid Goldsborough
--
Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Dear List,
The accepted definition of a coin, given by some menbers on this List, contains
the operative words of, metal, marked, exchange value, issued by an authority,
used as money. By this description I propose that coins were first struck by
the Egyptians before the 15th century BC. I am a bit of a romantic but
paintings from tombs in Thebes, circa 15th century BC, show men weighing rings
against weights with the animal shapes of a bull, sheep or a cone form. See 'The
Coinage of Lydia and Persia' by Barclay V. Head, page 1, for an example. These
are supposedly precious metal rings used as money. They would have been stamped
with the cartouche of the reigning pharaoh, as everything was in those days, so
they fully meet the definition above.
My favorite scene in the movie The Ten Commandments is Rameses (Yul Brunner)
giving Dathan (Edward G. Robinson) some gold ring money on the end of a spear
point in advanced payment for information. That's the romantic bit.
Marvin Tameanko
Were any of the earliest coins struck without an incuse on the reverse? Why the incuse?
The vast majority of the Chinese coins were issued uniface. But they were
cast and not struck.
Ken
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Kenneth W. Dorney
These Lydian Lions aren't rare but it's unusual to see two of them
offered for sale at the same time. (On the other hand, some auction
houses have had small groups for sale in the same catalog.)
Heritage has a specimen of the earliest variety for sale here (and
elsewhere):
http://cgi.liveauctions.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=170181717307
ICG dates it far too broadly, and it has some weakness in the top of
the lion's head and is just a tad off center, but the most important
elements in the design are clear. A good crack with a hammer would
remove it from that slab. <g>
CNG has a specimen of the the later of the two main varieties for sale
as well:
http://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=117452
For the most part it appears to be a really attractive piece, but I'm
not sure about that straight line above the lion's head that runs from
the sunburst to the ear. It's not mentioned in the description. It's
not flan crack (too straight) or test cut (too shallow). Looks like a
spade mark maybe, the result of a spade or shovel hitting the coin
when it was unearthed. It's not distracting, though, at a spot on the
coin that's not a central focus area, and it appears shallow, not deep.
--
Reid Goldsborough
--
>i believe these are the earliest recorded 'greek/athens' coins at 545 bc
The problem is that date is highly conjectural, and probably a little
two early. But no one knows for sure.
Robert Kokotailo
>I digress. As was said here, much about "first coin" depends on how you define "coin." But if you define it as it's commonly defined in
>numismatics, as a piece of metal certified by marks on it to be of a distinct exchange value and issued by a ruling authority for use as
>money
I have a problem with this definition in two aspects.
1) I believe that a strict definition of a coin must be more than it
be metal, but that the circulating value must be reflected by the
metal content. Types where the metal content is not reflected in the
circulation value, are more correctly called "tokens" where by they
represent a value, but are not in themselves a value.
This means that the vast majority of ancient bronzes that we commonly
call "coins" are in fact "tokens". I do not expect anyone, including
myself, to stop calling them coins, but for purposes of definitions I
think this is an important distinction. I believe by most ancient
people understood this distinction, as indicated by the fact that
local issue bronze "tokens" (colonial bronzes) did not freely
circulate far from their issuing cities.
Virtually all ancient silver and gold issues would meet this
definition, and probably could circulate nearly anywhere.
2) Where you said "ruling authority" I think that is probably too
strict. I think it is only necessary that they be issued by, and
marked by, a recognized authority who guarantees them. That
authority need not be the ruler, although in most cases it will
be. But it could just as easily by a wealthy merchant that everyone
knew (which may in fact be the case on the very earliest coins).
3) A third part of the definition should be that the value of the
metal in the coin must be a known factor, so that the items does not
need to be weighed at each transaction. Thus a gold lump, marked for
purity by an issuing authority, but with know clearly defined weight
system, represents bullion but not coinage.
So I would personally re-word you definition as follows :
"as a piece of metal certified by marks on it to be of a
distinct exchange value and issued by a ruling authority for use as
money"
becomes :
"A known value of metal, certified by the mark of a recognized
issuing authority, issued for use as money."
>I think the Chinese have better grounds for claiming "first
>coin" than the Indians,
The problem with both the earliest Chinese knife and spade coins, is
that they do not actually have the mark of an issuing authority on
them. The examples that are likely to pre-date 600 BC are large
spades, which in fact could have been used a
actual spades or hoes, marked simply with the Chinese number
10. This 10 probably is a mark of denomination indicating 10 liang,
but it is not the mark of an issuing authority. That they were used
as money is very likely, but without that mark of an issuing
authority one cannot call them true coins. The earliest chinese
items that actually have them mark of the issuing authority are
probably nearly 100 years later.
The same is true in India where the earliest items have geometric
stamps on them, which may or may not have been the mark of an issuing
authority. We simply do not know what the marks actually mean.
I suspect that once the mark of an issuing authority considered as
part of the definition, the earliest issues of Lydia and Asian minor
probably pre-date those of China and India as true coins.
>The most likely first coin is the most commonly seen early electrum Lydian coin, the Lydian Lion,
Here I disagree. I think the evidence of the Artemision deposits
suggest that there are many types contemporary with these Lydian
lion, and in the hoard (actually several distinct hoards, buried in
the same place at about the same time, with many different types
represented) have more wear on them than the lion types, suggesting
they may be earlier (without better evidence to the contrary, I have
to assume they are earlier).
I would agree the Lydian Lion coins were probably the first massive
issue of coins designed to circulate widely, but not that they were
the first coins. I have not yet seen the evidence, but I have been
told that there is new archeological evidence for some electrum types
that may actually pre-date 650 BC, but I really want to see the
evidence before I accept that dating.
Robert Kokotailo
>Were any of the earliest coins struck without an incuse on the
>reverse? Why the incuse?
Some of the earliest types were actually struck with an incuse
reverse, and no obverse type, such as this one sold by CNG in 2006 :
http://imagedb.coinarchives.com/img/cng/072/enlarged/720749.jpg
The striated surfaces on the obverse may simply be the surface
texture of the anvil they were placed on for striking, rough textured
so the items is less likely to slip during the
striking. Technically, these are not true coins because they lack
the mark of the issuing authority, but they were certainly money.
There are a couple of possibly reasons why the incuse punch, but my
guess would be that one of them is that a broken rods of metal (which
is all that appears to have been used on these early coins) have a
unique rough break pattern that cannot be duplicated exactly. This
means that the issuer could easily tell if a particular example was
struck with his broken rod, or someone else's broke rod, making it an
anti-counterfeiting device used on even the very first
issues. Remember that silver and gold ingots had been used for more
than 1000 years at this point, and since those would have almost
certainly been counterfeited as well, the concept of counterfeiting
was not new to the first issues of money.
Robert Kokotailo
>By this description I propose that coins were first struck by the Egyptians
before the 15th century BC. I am a bit of a romantic but paintings from tombs
>in Thebes, circa 15th century BC, show men weighing rings against weights with the animal shapes of a bull, sheep or a cone form. See
>'The Coinage of Lydia and Persia' by Barclay V. Head, page 1, for an example. These are supposedly precious metal rings used as
>money. They would have been stamped with the cartouche of the reigning pharaoh, as everything was in those days, so they fully
>meet the definition above.
The fact they were being weighed, show they used as bullion which
might be money, but is not coinage. At least by my
definition. Assuming they were marked with the cartouche of the
pharaoh, is a pretty big leap in my opinion, unless there is evidence
to that they were. The cone form you describe them as sometimes
being weighted against, was probably salt.
If you want something nearly that early, which has a better shot at
being true coins, with a stamp of an issuing authority, a weight
standard, and an indictation of value, it is the copper ingots made
on Cyprus about 1200 BC such as this specimen :
http://heritagecoinshop.ca/HCS_Reference/Primitive_Moneys/ox_hide_ingot.jpg
the stamp of the issuing authority is clear on it, and I was last at
Bodrum in Turkey I saw many of them in the local museum, which came
from a ship wreck, and all of them had a similar stamp on them.
If memory serves me correctly, these were made to about a 52 pound
standard, are copper, have these marks indicating at least who made
them (and so is responsible for them), and their physical shape of a
ox hide, even textured on one side and smooth on the other (just like
a real finished ox hide) suggest they were valued either as an OX or
at least a finished leather hide (why go to all that trouble if they
were simply a way of shipping copper ingots from point A to point
B). I think they may really have been the first true coins.
Robert Kokotailo
> 1) I believe that a strict definition of a coin must be more than it be metal, but that the circulating value must be reflected by the
> metal content. Types where the metal content is not reflected in the circulation value, are more correctly called "tokens" where by they
> represent a value, but are not in themselves a value.
That's a huge divergence from current usage, and no doubt ancient
usage as well. If the only "coins" are those whose intrinsic value
approximates their monetary value, than most current coins are not
"coins" either (though with the dramatic rise lately in the price of
metals, this is changing).
I think ancient bronze coins are rightly considered coins, just as
modern paper money is rightly considered money. The value is
guaranteed by the ruling authority who issued them. Fiat or fiduciary
coins are still coins, even if not as interesting. <g>
> 2) Where you said "ruling authority" I think that is probably too strict. I think it is only necessary that they be issued by, and
> marked by, a recognized authority who guarantees them. That authority need not be the ruler, although in most cases it will
> be. But it could just as easily by a wealthy merchant that everyone knew (which may in fact be the case on the very earliest coins).
Well, here's where I think the distinction between coins and tokens
should be, not in the intrinsic value of the metal. Pieces of metal
issued by nonruling authorities having monetary value are tokens,
whether issued by modern urban transit systems or ancient merchants.
Thus, much early electrum, not issued by the state, were tokens.
> The problem with both the earliest Chinese knife and spade coins, is that they do not actually have the mark of an issuing authority on
> them.
And thus are not coins. We're in agreement here. <g> Your explanation
of early Chinese and Indian money was great, by the way, as is the
material you have at your Web site about early Chinese coins. Anybody
who wants to read a great primer on Chinese money, and maybe pick up a
specimen or two, check out:
http://www.calgarycoin.com/hub_china.htm
After reading this a while back, I had to have one early spade piece
and one early knife piece.
--
Reid Goldsborough
--
Good points all. Christopher Howgego in his book on Greek Imperial Countermarks asserts that certain bronze coins in restricted
circulation that were very worn and then countermarked technically ceased being coins and were now tokens.
Gary Waddingham
Hi Robert , just a thought , cast iron weights of 56 lbs ( and 28 lbs for
that matter ) were cast in one piece and had a carrying handle incorporated
into the casting so that the weight could be easily gripped and carried in the
hand .Likewise I believe that in ancient times ease of carrying and
transportation would be a factor in the early designs of the shape of the
copper
ingots .The ingots were no doubt cast in sand or stone open topped moulds
which
would create a smooth surface on the bottom where the metal is in contact with
the moulds surface and a rough oxidised top surface where the metal was
exposed to the air as it began to set .. It would make good sense for the
heavy
casting to be made so that is easily handled , having a couple of carrying
handles cast on each end of the heavy rectangular lump of cast copper
would greatly help the guys transporting and stacking the finished ingots ,
that
the carrying lugs might make the ingots look superficially like an ox hide
could well be coincidental . Plus the handles would be extremely useful for
handling the red hot ingot with tongs as the ingot would have to be heated to a
red heat in a fire to make it brittle enough to be easily broken up with
heavy hammers to make useable lumps for placing in their crucibles for re
melting
and casting into objects .It is very very unlikely that the coppersmiths (
who would be the end users of the ingots) would have melting crucibles of
the size that the original refiners had and could just slip the whole ingots
into their own crucibles , Having carrying handles incorporated into the
shape of the ingots makes lots of practical sense for the ancient
manufacturers
and their end users . Best wishes
Anthony.
Hi Robert
<the circulating
value must be reflected by the metal content.
Virtually all ancient silver and gold issues would meet this
definition, and probably could circulate nearly anywhere.>>
Finley comes to the opposite conclusion on the basis of two texts
(see `The Ancient Economy' p. 168). He holds that the area in which
coin could circulate was controlled by state laws - (quite possibly
this was to protect the inflated values at which the coins were
tariffed - tho' this is harder to show) Since you cite no evidence
at all, I guess that makes Finley the more reliable.
I agree with Gary that Howgego is one of the best short modern
summaries that is easily available. His `conservatism' is a useful
antidote to Finley's `socialism' (joke)
best
rob
>Virtually all ancient silver and gold issues would meet this definition, and probably could circulate nearly anywhere.
I would disagree with the last statement for the following reasons:
The Collins English Dictionary defines "token money" as "coins of the
regular issue having greater face value than the value of their metal
content".
Coins that were distributed widely outside the issuing state's borders, such
as the Athenian Tets, were surely defined in value by the fact that they
were weighed and checked for purity at those borders and effectively became
bullion outside those borders. I'm talking about in the economic sense and
not in any physical action. The influence of such issues would have ensured
that the silver and gold issues of smaller city states would have made them
also "worth their own weight in silver/gold" even if they didn't travel
outside a state's borders.
The Roman model was completely different, or became so. The Roman empire was
large enough that cross-border trade was relatively insignificant.
Consequently there was no "tie" which kept the values of coins and bullion
together. In fact coins became overvalued compared with bullion (I use the
word 'bullion' for want of a better word as of course there was no bullion
market with posted prices as there is today). This must be so because of the
continued de-basement of the coinage. So by the dictionary definition, all
Roman coinage from at least the time of Nero, who reduced the weight of the
coinage, was token money. Rather perversely, de-baseing or reducing the size
of a coin while retaining it's face value actually increases it's value with
respect to silver/gold.
Peter D
How can Howego determine that countermarked coins were not used for commerce
the same as ones not countermarked?If the were considered as tokens after being
countermarked ,then what were they used for.It would seem to me that when a worn
coin still had intrinsic metallic value ,it could be used as a coin but as a
lower value.
-------------------
http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Moneta-L/photos/view/80ce?b=1&m=f&o=0
example of incuse reverse?
romanpeddler
>Hi Peter
>
><<The influence of such issues would have ensured that the silver and gold issues of smaller city states would have made them
>also "worth their own weight in silver/gold" even if they didn't travel outside a state's borders.>>
>
>Finley and Burnett both reject this view, on the basis of evidence.Thus I am disappointed to see it repeated again, again without any
>evidential support. If it was effectively illegal to use foreign coin within a state, there would be no problem raising the value of
>state coinage above 'bullion'. In such circumstances, the 'influence' you speak of would not exist.
>
>The ideas put up by yourself and Robert seem to me to derive from the commodity money notions commonly spread by 20th century
>economics departments, by people who have no real knowledge of early economies.
>
Rob,
I wasn't saying that "commodity money notions", as you put it, were the way
we should view ancient coinage circulation, or the reasons for the
"invention" of coinage, merely that we can consider the Athenian issues, for
example, to be "worth their weight in silver" because we know they were used
widespread for trade and were checked for weight and purity. If that wasn't
the case, and no one checked the weight and purity of the coinage anywhere,
then all of the early coinage might have become token money, as (I contend)
did the Roman coinage. As regards the smaller city states that didn't export
much of their own precious metal coins, I didn't say I thought the use of
foreign coin within a state was illegal, quite the opposite. Coins of the
big players coming into a small state must have been seen as legitimate
whether they were circulated within that state or melted down. That would
have made issuing local coins at a higher value (or same value but a lower
weight) difficult.
Peter D
Your claims about what "we know" and what "must have been seen" are
unsubstaniated, and appear to be incorrect. Finley's interpretation
(of inscriptions at Olbia at I recall) made it illegal to spend any
coin other than Olbian issues in Olbia. Thus Olbian coins could be,
and almost certainly were, tarrifed above silver. Burnett seems to
suggest Cistopheri were tariffed 33% over their silver content
Attic tetradrachms seem to weight about 2% short of silver, as far
as I can tell – this just a small making charge - but it does
increase the value of even these coins above silver. Also AIUI at
least part of the time the price of silver likely represented the
monopoly selling price of the Athenian state, rather than a free
market `bullion' price.
The only coinage I know of that seems to have been issued at full
metal value (at least theoretically) is that of early Persia, under
Darius and the Achaemenids, and again under the Sasanids.
best
rob
Hi Rob
Indeed I can't substantiate anything! Although I haven't read the book, I
can accept Finley's interpretation regarding Olbian coins. However Olbia was
only one of many different city-states. What was valid for one was not
neccessarily valid for others.
In any case I was trying to make a general point, comparing the situation in
the pre-Roman world to the Roman world in order to refute Robert K's
statement that "Virtually all ancient silver and gold issues would ...
probably circulate nearly anywhere". Your remarks about Olbia would seem to
back me up!
Peter D
> Finley and Burnett both reject this view
You keep on referring to these authors as if they were gods. Apollo
and Dionysos maybe? Or maybe Felicitas and Aequitas?
It's clear that token coins, including both bronze and debased silver
and gold coins, whose monetary value was far above their bullion
value, were still coins. But it's also clear that ruling authorities
earned seigniorage profits as well from good-metal precious metal
coins, assigning a higher monetary value to them than their bullion
value. This is the reason for the Athenian Coinage Decree, with Athens
trying to prevent other city-states from earning profits on their
coinage, and a key reason as well that Rome and other imperial powers
to a large extent imposed their precious metal coinage over time on
conquered peoples.
On the other hand, because good-metal precious metal coins were close
had significant bullion value, they did circulate outside the area
controlled by the issuing authority. According to all evidence, in
most or at least many cases this wasn't illegal. That's why hoards
contain coins minted far from their findspots. Sometimes foreign coins
were remonetized by being countermarked, which was in part a way for
ruling authorities to profit from coins minted elsewhere but used
within their ruling jurisdictions. Howgego's overstatement that
countermarked coins were tokens is as silly as his overstatement that
we know nothing about the function of the first coins.
--
Reid Goldsborough
>In any case I was trying to make a general point, comparing the situation in the pre-Roman world to the Roman world in order to refute Robert K's
>statement that "Virtually all ancient silver and gold issues would ... probably circulate nearly anywhere". Your remarks about Olbia would seem to
>back me up!
I guess I should have worded things differently.
What I did say "Virtually all ancient silver and gold issues would
... probably circulate nearly anywhere". My mistake was in using the
term "circulate", when I should have said "be accepted", which has a
similar but not exactly the same meaning.
"Virtually all ancient silver and gold issues would ... probably be
accepted nearly anywhere" includes them being accepted for purposes
of exchange by money changers into local currency when dealing with a
closed economic system such as that in Egypt under the early Roman
Empire, where outside coins were not allowed to circulate.
But the idea I was trying to put forward, is that you could not even
do that with the local issued bronzes that circulated at only "token
value" inside their local economies, and to me that is an important
distinction between a "token" and a "coin".
Robert Kokotailo
>Finley comes to the opposite conclusion on the basis of two texts (see `The Ancient Economy' p. 168). He holds that the area in which
>coin could circulate was controlled by state laws - (quite possibly this was to protect the inflated values at which the coins were
>tariffed - tho' this is harder to show) Since you cite no evidence at all, I guess that makes Finley the more reliable.
You say that his statements in his published book are more reliable
than my statements to this list. That is a pretty bold statement,
because it makes two assumptions. First, it assumes I am just
talking off the top of my head with no sources. Second, it assumes
he cites sources for all of his opinions on the subject.
When you publish a book, it is important to be clear where you have
evidence and ot cite it. Where it is not cited, it can be assumed
(possibly incorrectly) you are offering opinions based on you own
learning and experience which cannot necessarily be cited to a single
source. But you have years to write the book and so have time to
look up all the citations on thing you may have read years earlier.
But when you discuss things on a list such as this, you are writing
things in minutes or hours, but not months or years. You simply
cannot cite a source for everything you say, and our apparent
expectation that people should do so when writing to this list is
simply not a reasonable expectation.
Also, if the only thing anyone ever did is put forward ideas for
discussion, that could be cited to a source, nothing new would ever
be discussed, and progress would grind to a halt.
Robert Kokotailo
Here's a post that touches on all of three recent topics: first
coinage, coin photography, and dealer malfeasance. It's also a way for
me to show off again a favorite coin of mine, acquired not long ago,
and what's more fun than showing off great coins. <g>
Here's the world's first coin (!), a Type 15 Lydian Lion trite:
http://rg.cointalk.org/misc/Lydian.html
The first photo, of both obverse and reverse, is from the auction
house. It's a good photo but not great. This is no biggie in that
dealers have to photograph many coins and can't devote lots of time to
each and every one as collectors can. And this is a difficult coin to
photo, very high relief and with highly reflective spots at different
angles. With this pic, on the obverse the highlights are burnt out and
the area to the southwest is muddy, which in both instances obscures
detail.
I could have rephotographed the coin, and will at some point as I do
with all of my coins, but for now I've just Photoshoped it. Photoshop
(and similar image editing programs, including the very reasonably
priced Photoshop Elements) is a powerful too, letting you correct as
well as deceive. One dealer active on eBay is notorious for doctoring
his coin photos by eliminating chatter and other defects in fields as
well as on key focal points of devices such as cheeks, making the coin
on screen appear to be nicer than it is in hand. He's actually not a
bad guy, as least from the two dealings I had with him, and he seems
to have a loyal and large customer base from whom he's able to obtain
very attractive prices (for a dealer <g>). But he takes Photoshop too
far, engaging in BAD behavior.
Let me suggest that what I did with this Lydian Lion is a good use of
Photoshop, not crossing the line. I did what I do every time when
using Photoshop, keeping the coin near my monitor when working and
holding it up periodically to try to match how the coin looks in hand
as closely as possible to how it looks on screen. The obverse pic in
the bottom right position is the finished picture.
With the dark muddy area, what I first did was select it, smooth then
feather the selection, and use the brightness tool. The brightened
area was too saturated, so I used the hue/saturate tool to desaturate
it a bit. Then I used the dodge tool for further lighten the bottom
edge of the coin.
The burnt-out highlights were trickier because the detail is
completely lost. I would have to create it, using other areas of the
coin to again match as closely as possible what the coin actually
looks like. I suspect some purists will object to this, but keep in
mind that I'm trying to present how the coin looks on screen most
accurately not to sell it but to display it.
I could have used the rubber stamp tool to clone other areas, but I
find it difficult to use. What I do instead is simply copy and paste
small areas, again smoothing and feathering the selections so they
blend in better. Those highlight areas now have detail that won't
match the detail on the coin when looked at through high magnification
but does match what the coin looks like in hand.
The difference between the before and after pic is subtle, not
dramatic, but Photoshopping it enhanced the pic's overall appearance
as well as its fidelity at normal viewing distances. It's not a
perfect pic. On the other hand, striving for perfection with a coin
photo can make you nuts. <g>
--
Reid Goldsborough
--
Among other things you misquote Howgego. He hypothesizes all kinds of reasons for ancient coinage but says, I would say rather humbly,
that it isn't possible without written sources to know which ones
were operative to the exclusion of others. That is called good
scholarship and it most certainly isn't silly. On the other hand
some of the hyperbole you engage in . .
Gary Waddingham
here's what Howgego says on page 11:
"It can be argued that stamped blanks became tesserae (tokens) rather than true coins. Tesserae of such a kind have been identified at
Corinth. Similarly, a case could be made that legionary
countermarks, which tend to be found on worn coins, sometimes turned
coins into tokens for use in the camps." He goes on but the point
seems to be a restricted use geographically defines them as tokens.
On Jan 6, 2008, at 6:55 AM, romanpeddler wrote:
> How can Howego determine that countermarked coins were not used for commerce the same as ones not countermarked?If the were considered
> as tokens after being countermarked ,then what were they used for.It would seem to me that when a worn coin still had intrinsic
> metallic value ,it could be used as a coin but as a lower value.
Gary Waddingham
Reid
<<To be picayune, yes, I should have written,. "According to all
available evidence" >>
??? I have cited evidence regarding Ancient Olbia that, in that
case, coin circulation was governed by city laws, and not by
metallic content.
Thus to imply, as you apparently do, that "According to all
available evidence" coin circulation was governed in the ancient
Greek period merely by metallic content is plainly false, indeed
absurdly so.
Hi All
The argument Reid cites, concerning hoards of foreign coin, is
flawed in my opinion. This matter has long interested me – so if
anyone is following this matter and wishes to discuss it (in a more
fair minded and rational manner than Reid has so far achieved),
please do speak up.
best
rob
> I have cited evidence regarding Ancient Olbia that, in that case, coin circulation was governed by city laws, and not by
> metallic content.
As others have said, this is just one city-state at one point in time.
You can't extrapolate that to the entire ancient world. On the other
hand, you can reasonably assume that in some other city states there
were also rules governing what coins were to be accepted as legal
tender, and there's written evidence of this for Athens. It's likely
that some city-states were strict, others less so.
But it's clear from the hoard evidence that the undeniable reality is
that precious metal coins were at least saved in many places far from
their place of mintage, and if they were saved, they were in all
likelihood used as well. If every time an inter-city trade transaction
took place the seller of goods took his foreign coins to a
moneychanger, there wouldn't be nearly as many mixed hoards as there
are. Along with hoards, there's also the evidence of isolated finds of
coins far from their place of origin, in marketplaces and elsewhere.
You can also use modern countries to support this. In many countries
at many times foreign coins were accepted as legal tender. As just one
example, in the U.S. the Spanish milled dollar, also known as the
pillar dollar or piece of eight, was legal tender until 1857, more
than 60 years after the introduction of national coinage, and it still
circulated as money in rural areas in the U.S. into the 1870s. If this
happened and happens in highly monetized modern economies, surely it
happened in ancient times.
--
Reid Goldsborough
>Hi Robert
>
>Thanks for your mail - but the situation remains the same - on the basis of the evidence so far presented - you are mistaken.
>Do you have alternative evidence to offer?
Lets go back to the original statement were I said :
<the circulating value must be reflected by the metal content.Virtually all ancient silver and gold issues would meet this
definition, and probably could circulate nearly anywhere.>>
Your wrote :
<Finley comes to the opposite conclusion on the basis of two texts (see `The
Ancient Economy' p. 168). He holds that the area in which
coin could circulate was controlled by state laws - (quite possibly this was to
protect the inflated values at which the coins were
tariffed - tho' this is harder to show) >
Later you elaborated on this when you wrote :
<Finley's interpretation (of inscriptions at Olbia at I recall) made it illegal
to spend any coin other than Olbian issues in Olbia.>
First, in an e-mail I wrote after you posted these, I did conceded my use of the
word "circulate" should have really be "be
accepted". I was never trying to say you could simply walk into a store and
spend any silver or gold coin from anywhere, but that you could make
use of it anywhere, which includes having a money changer exchange it into local
currency. Given time I can dig out references about ancient money
changers, including several in the Bible, but I don't think specifically citing
them is necessary here (does anyone doubt they exist). Also, note
that I also said "nearly anywhere" not "absolutely anywhere". I was trying to
be that careful.
I don't think the existence of a wide spread system of money changers in the
ancient world is in doubt, and their existence tells us that the
gold and silver coins moving around the ancient world in significant numbers
(why else would they need them).
But lets have a look at Findley's evidence, as you presented it. I do not have
the book to check what he said, and more importantly the
context in which it was said, so I will take what you presented at face value
as Findley citing an inscription from Olbia that indicates Olbia
passed laws saying outside coins were not allowed to circulate inside the city,
and you seem to indicate he extrapolating outward into the
ancient economies in general from this.
The problem is while Olbia had a few very rare issues of gold and silver, if
there is anything to suggest they were issued in any significant
numbers, I would like to see it. Coins of Olbia are not rare, with coinarchives
listing hundreds of bronzes, but only 1 small gold coin and 2
silver coins (1 obol and 1 stater). I see this as reasonably evidence Olbian
gold and silver coins do not exist in large numbers, which I
believe suggests they probably were not minted in large numbers. We cannot even
be certain the few minted were for use in the city, or for trade
outside the city. Thus I would suggest the numismatic record suggests Oblia's
coinage based economic needs were based on a bronze currency
system, at least well into the 3rd and probably the 2nd century BC.
An inscription stating that foreign coins were not allowed to be used in the
city, rather than suggesting anything about the economies of the
ancient world in general, I believes re-enforces my idea Olbia was a localized
bronze based economy, being protected as such. I don't see
how it can be used to make a statement about ancient economies outside of that
one city.
As you see, my interpretation of what this Olbian inscription tells us, is a
little different that what I have been led to believe is Finley's
interpretation of it's meaning (but again, I want to be clear that I have not
actually read what he said, I have only seen what you indicated he said).
So how exactly do we prove which interpretation is correct.
Robert Kokotailo
I have countermarked coins where the face is worn away yet the diameter is
about the same. I see no reason why the countermark would not have legitimatized
them at their original value, at least on the frontiers, where they would go
back and forth to local merchants.
romanpeddler
>At 03:23 AM 1/8/2008, Rob wrote:
>>Hi Robert
>>
>>Firstly I agree with you that Finley stretches his evidence too far. As you
point out, Olbia numismatically seems to be a special
>>case with a lot of copper and little silver relative to many other cities.
If you look at what was said here, it brings up an issue with our modern
perspective on of how things worked in the ancient world. Specifically you said
:
"relative to many other cities"
Discussions of ancient monetary and economic systems are often worded that way
because they try to look at the ancient world in to large of geographic blocks.
Relative to this discussion, look at a map showing where Olbia was located, and
what was around it. Sears Greek Coins and their values, volume 1 page 130 is
just such a map, with Olbia on the small inset showing a few Greek cities off
the edge of the upper right of the main map. I think one can safely say Olbia
was a very remote part of the Greek world, with nearly nothing around it. It is
was sea trading center, probably suppling mostly grain and taking in luxury
goods and necessities it could not grow, but being that remote it would have had
little contact aside from sea traffic (how else could you get there). I see no
reason why, at least
prior to the 1st or 2nd century BC, a city in such a location would have
significant need of a coinage based economy. I don't think it is possible to
really look as the economics of a city in that position, "relative to many other
cities", and by that I mean trying to draw parallels with other cities in more
densely populated regions.
>> So we should be more cautious than Finley in our blanket statements.
According to Finley the ban was on using foreign silver
>>for payment within the city. In practice this might have generally meant
changing your foreign silver for local copper with changers at
>>the gates of the market place. This might well have yielded a substantial
revenue for the city if the copper was fiduciary. This
>>seems to be much like what happened in the Roman period at Pergamum.
To the best of my knowledge, most ancient sea trading was just that, trading
goods for goods. Very little involved the use of silver or gold coins or even
bullion. Since Olbia's remote location meant it contact with the outside world
would have been mostl by sea traders, I doubt money changing a substantial
revenue for that
particular city, and we might want to look at other reasons for these laws.
One possibly reason, might be control of wealth and power (which go hand and
hand). In a city were wealth was gained by trade in agricultural products going
out, and luxury goods coming in, restricting the supply of gold and silver keep
the populous from acquiring wealth (and power), keeping it in the hands of the
land owners. This only works in a place this remote where the citizens cannot
simply walk to the next city and work to acquire gold or silver to bring home.
This is just one possibility, and there may be other reasons a city this remote
might pass such a law, that we cannot even begin to grasp today.
Pergamon on the other hand (see map in Sear Volume 2, page 356) is very close to
the center of the Greek world, slightly inland but near a major river for boat
transport, but also on land routes. Trade would would come to the city by both
land and water, and with many major centers within 60 miles (2 days walk) the
populous had options. It is geographic opposite of Olbia, and looking for
parallels between the economics of the two cities is problematical.
However, my point in all this was not to try to figure out anything about the
real economics of the two cities, but to point out how trying to
analyze ancient economies and too broad a scale, is not necessarily to the best
way to approach it, yet that is how most people do.
Out of the over 2000 members on this list, I wonder how many ever gave the
geographic isolation of Olbia a second as a factor in anything, prior to this.
Mr. Tye also wrote a few other things I would like to discuss, but this is
enough for this posting, and I will respond to those in a second post.
Robert Kokotailo
Hi Robert
My initial mail was intended to contest the idea that the
value of ancient silver coin necessarily represented merely the silver content
of the coin.
There are reasons to suppose that the value of the coins,
when used in retail trade, might have included an additional seignorage element,
over and above the
making costs. I have nothing further to say on this if you
are not now contesting it.
Regarding my reference to Pergamon – I had in mind a specific
ancient text bearing upon money changing at the market there, from the time of
Hadrian.
It would be a good idea to look into that if you are
interested in the matter. The evidence from the text runs contrary to you
speculations, as I understand it.
best
rob
Is the inscription being
referenced the same one that is discussed on this web page :
http://www.romaneconomy.gr/pages/index.php?pageID=114&la=eng
If it is, than you might find this
interesting. It discuss various options for the translation of one key word
around which the
entire meaning of the inscription
revolves. As he points out, things are not absolutely clear cut as to what this
inscription is letting us
about what was going on, including
that it refers not to the changing of outside money into local currency, but
simply to a fee charged for making
change from high value aureii and
denarii, into lower value denominations that include Imperial bronzes as well as
local currency.
If that is not the inscription you
are referring to, please let me know a discussion of the particular inscription
can be found.
Robert Kokotailo
Hi
Robert
I was
surprised how little mention there is of the text in question on the web.
Strange as its much discussed in print.
Its called
the `Rescriptum principis ad Pergamenos de collybo' This link:
http://books.google.com/books?id=QX6lJbTaHg0C&pg=PA401&lpg=PA401&dq=rescriptum+collybo&source=web&ots=Zd4oEcHZof&sig=0WsuaYuknqNFsKNjReasAOZGEgE#PPA403,M1
http://tinyurl.com/357bpg
will take
you into a book by Frank Frost Abbott on Google books. The rescriptum is given
in Greek, with an English summary. It is item 81 –
given over
pages 401-3. At a quick glance, the different text you refer to seems to be
item 80 in the same book
best
rob
I cannot read the original Greek, but the written interpretation says "Pergamum
issued bronze coins, and the right of exchanging
them for the Roman denarius was given to contractors ....".
It goes on to say that the contractors charged a fee for exchanging them, and
arbitrarily raised that fee, so the merchants appealed to Hadrian
who decided in favor the merchants.
Keep in mind that the only way to force people to pay this fee,is if the coins
being exchanged could not be used where you wanted to take them
too. If this interpretation is correct, the texts actually says the fee was to
change local bronzes into denarii (using the word for, not
from) which tells us that those local bronzes were of no use elsewhere.
He does not claim it says a fee was charged to change denarii into local bronzes
(that would require the word "from") and one cannot
automatically imply it means both. If he is correct, this text does not tell us
the city had a law to kept denarii out.
Someone who can read the original Greek needs to check what the Greek text
actually says. The author might still be correct in his
interpretation of the meaning, but only if he is incorrect about what it says.
The exact wording is critical.
But if he is correct about what it actually says, the text supports my position
that local bronzes were only good locally and had to be exchange
before they left the city, but silver and gold could move around between cities.
I will be curious is someone can clear this up. I am having a small problem
with the concept of a City official, right in the heart of the
Roman Empire, passing a law making coins issued by the Emperor (with the
Emperors portrait on them) un-acceptable for use as a medium of
exchange. I would expect that to result in an execution.
Robert Kokotailo
the is the second e-mail I mentioned
>At 03:23 AM 1/8/2008, ewcabcxyz wrote:
>>However I think you need to distinguish retail payments from other
>>transactions. When someone talks about the circulating value of the
>>coin I assume he means for retail transactions. As I understand it there is
no doubt that much silver coin did travel from city to city at some periods, and
it is a plausible assumption that foreign coin could be converted into local
coin at money changers tables on the basis of its weight in (coined) silver.
However, if the value of coin for retail payments derived solely from "its
silver content" this gives rise to two problems
>>
>>1) Why would anyone take a loss at the money changers table, why not just
spend your coins (by weight) in the market?
I suspect money changers existed for many reasons. One of them might have been
the types of laws being discussed, about what coins were and were not acceptable
in a city, but since I believe it was mentioned earlier that there were only two
instances out of probably over 1000 cities and towns currently known to have
such laws, we have to be careful about assuming they were the primary reason.
I think it is important to remember that in the ancient world, a stater from one
city is not the same thing as a stater from another city, and more than a US
dollar is the same thing as a Hong Kong dollar. A merchant in Corinth, handed a
stater from Ichnai, might have no idea what it's value was relative to a
Corinthian stater. He
could weight it, but still not know the purity, and so have no idea how many
goods or services it should buy.
I believe that one of the primary purposes of money changer may have been to
have specific and wide spread knowledge about the coins from many
places, thus being able to change coins of uncertain value (uncertain to the
local merchants) into coins of known value. They would have guarded that
knowledge closely, in order to profit from it. Their world was not like ours
where any one go to any of a number of foreign exchange sites on the Internet
and find a current
value of any other currency instantly.
>>2) Why would any state which did not have silver mines on its territory bother
to make coins why not just use other peoples? The most likely answer to (1) &
(2) seems to me to be that local coins, including silver coins, did often
circulate at above silver value, at least for some retail payments, because
payment in local
>>coins was legally required for some purposes, in large part because seignorage
is a useful source of income for the state.
I agree that seinorage was a factor, and for the those that do not understand
seinorage I will explain that a little.
It cost money to mint coins, and as with nearly everything, the people doing it
want to be paid for their effort. The easiest way to handle it, is for coins to
be issued at a circulating value that is very slightly higher than their bullion
value, with the difference going to person issuing the coins, out of which the
costs of minting are paid, and usually a small profit retained by the issuing
authority. That is what is known as Seinorage. As Mr. Tye pointed out, most
states would have wanted to get in this source of income.
But there is also a political reason. During much of the Greek and Roman times,
the right to issue money at various levels (bronze, silver, gold) was a sign of
your level independence. This is more evidence during Roman times in the east,
where many cities and even small towns issue bronze coins, but only a handful if
very important cities were allowed to issue silver, and only states or cities
given Quasi-independent status issued gold (there were very few of those). I
believe this went far beyond the revenue of seinorage, and the coins you issued
were a statement about you status.
We can see a dramatic example of this when, about 27 BC, Augustus took away the
Senate's authority to issue gold or silver coins, allowing them only bronze. I
am sure the issue of who would make the seinorage on the gold and silver was a
factor, but I believe it was every bit as much a clear political statement about
who was the boss.
>>As I see it, there is a mass of documentation to show this situation was
common, indeed probably the norm, for medieval and modern states. The much
smaller amount of evidence we have for the ancient world points in the same
direction.
>>Of course we cannot "prove" any of this. The shortage of evidence in this
case forces an honest thoughtful scholar to tread cautiously, but offers the
less scrupulous individual ample opportunity for all kinds of chicanery with
language.
I agree that the evidence from the ancient world is much less, but not
non-existent.
Perhaps some one of our Alexander the Great experts can comment on an
observations I made some years ago, which is that when looking at the weights of
his lifetime drachms vrs tetradrachms from Amphipolis (it is important to stay
within a relatively narrow date range for this to have meaning), the average
weight of a tetradrachm is about 17.15 grams (ignoring the few that are
significant underweight examples that are probably not official coins) while the
drachms only average about 4.20 grams. These numbers, if a larger study
supports them, suggests a 2% seinorage of a drachm over a tetradrachm, which
should be enough to cover the higher cost of minting four small coins, rather
than 1 larger coin.