10 ms·

Another eleventh-century medieval Chinese coin found in England

91 points by benbreen 6y ago

ogogmad 6y ago
Is it just me, or are Chinese coins from that period rounder than Western coins? Compare early medieval https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Chinese_coinage#/media/File:Kai_Yuan_Tong_Bao,_early_type,_plain.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Chinese_coinage#/media... with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_English_penny_(1154%E2%80%931485)#/media/File:Medieval_coin_,_penny_of_John_(FindID_626945).jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_English_penny_(... The manufacturing processes must have been quite different.
- ginko 6y ago
  From this[1] it looks like Chinese coins were molded rather than hammered like was common in the West. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Chinese_coinage#/media/File:Han_Coin_Mould.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Chinese_coinage#/media...
  - ogogmad 6y ago
    I imagine that the molding process -- being more exact -- could have helped minimise coin clipping. It makes me wonder why Western societies didn't adopt it.
    - ginko 6y ago
      My guess is that hammered coins allow for more detail and are harder to forge, even if the resulting coins aren't perfectly round. From this[1] it looks like early coins were also cast in the West before changing to hammering. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mint_(facility) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mint_(facility)
    - thaumasiotes 6y ago
      Going by the same wikipedia article, there is a strong suggestion that the coins were fiat, not particularly valued for their materials: > Minting and copper extraction were centrally controlled, and private casting was punishable by death. For the first time we find regulations giving the prescribed coinage alloy: 83% copper, 15% lead, and 2% tin. Previously the percentages used seem to have been on an ad hoc basis. Actual analyses show rather less copper than this. > By 660, deterioration of the coinage due to forgery had become a problem. (Why is this evidence that the value of the coins didn't come from their material? Because in that case, there would be no reason to control their production, nor would "forgery" really be an applicable concept.) This should tend to keep down coin clipping, since you end up clipping off small shavings of a metal that isn't worth much in the first place. Why bother?
      - i_cannot_hack 6y ago
        I'm not an expert, but my understanding is the opposite. One reason for trading with coins rather than raw metals at this time was that minted coins coins could be expected to contain a standardised weight and metal mixture, as long as the mint managed to curtail forgeries. If someone gave you a gold coin, the imprint of the mint gave you a guarantee it actually was pure gold (rather than a cheaper mixture of gold and silver, as an example). The problem with forgeries was that forgers made their money by minting coins that weighted less or contained cheaper metals, and then passing them off as genuine. If this goes on for long enough, the coinage deteriorates, since the large amount of fake coins in circulation means that a coin could no longer be expected to contain its specific value in precious metal. Lindybeige (youtuber) talks specifically about this at around 13 minutes in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2paSGQRwvo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2paSGQRwvo
        thaumasiotes 6y ago
        > One reason for trading with coins rather than raw metals at this time was that minted coins coins could be expected to contain a standardised weight and metal mixture, as long as the mint managed to curtail forgeries. This is sort of half-true. Non-fiat coins trade slightly above the value of their weight for a few reasons, primarily the convenience they offer. And there certainly is a theory that minted coins could be expected to contain a standardised weight and metal mixture. But they couldn't really. Just look at that extract -- the Tang dynasty published laws detailing the metal mixture its coins contained. It did not bother to follow or even approximate those laws. Here's a description of the bronze currency of Seleucid Persia: > coin weights were not controlled to nearly the same extent as for gold and silver. An analysis of the bronze coinage of Seleukos I from Seleukia-Tigris in Newell shows weights ranging from 2.08-4.55 grams for one-unit pieces, 5.17-9.24 grams for two-unit pieces, and 8.94-16.72 grams for four-unit pieces. > The very wide range of weights, on average more than 25 per cent about a mean, cannot be due to wear. Thus, when a bronze coin circulated, its value was probably known by its approximate size and not by its weight. Here's the much more strictly controlled silver: > Under Antiochos IV, a reduction of tetradrachm weight is noted between the first and second Antioch series from mainly in the region of 16.90-17.19 grams to mainly in the region of 16.50-16.79 grams, a reduction of about 2 per cent, which can only have been due to an administrative decision. This came at a time when competing coinages had also experienced weight reductions > There was, of course, not only a question of weight, since, in order to achieve a greater profit, one might also reduce the silver content. Until Antiochos IV, purity of 94-95 per cent silver was still maintained in tetradrachms, but a debasement commenced slowly with Alexander Balas (91 per cent purity) and reached quite low levels of silver by the first century BC (65 per cent purity). Why did the subjects of the Seleucids tolerate this? They weren't given a choice, and we have a record of their complaints: > Now one can perhaps understand a passage in the Astronomical Diary of 274 BC. After reference had been made to the collection of 'silver, cloth, goods, and utensils [?]' by the satrap of Babylon to help the king (Antiochos I) pursue the war against the Ptolemies in northern Syria, the Diary continues: 'That year, purchases in Babylon and the [other] cities were made with copper coins of Ionia.' > The small-silver coinage had apparently been collected by the authorities to help finance the war [because Greek mercenaries required payment in silver], probably in exchange for bronze, and the inhabitants were now compelled to use the distasteful (to them) bronze coinage, distasteful because it was a purely token currency introduced into an area which had possessed a long tradition of exchange based on the value of precious metal (all quotes from The Seleukid Royal Economy: Finances and Financial Administration of the Seleukid Empire, https://www.amazon.com/dp/0521117763/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/0521117763/ ) We may also observe that Chinese coins fill the same economic role as Seleucid bronze coins, being used to transact in small amounts. Large-scale commerce in China was done in unminted silver.
    - namelosw 6y ago
      My guess is China is standardizing and mass-producing coins, and molding is easier for quality control. Hammering is more straightforward for smaller-scale productions. Furthermore, China frequently forbids civilians to have weapons, while in Europe there are many weaponsmiths, and people are more familiar with this craftmanship. And is there is usually no face on coins in China. It's really nothing for some corner of the word to disappear after ages compared to making "kings" losing their nose and ears. The square-shaped hole in the center - people usually use a thread to string together the coins and use them as belts. It's much easier to have holes in the center if it is molded, though I'm not sure if the hole is the motivation of molding or the consequence of it.
      - powerapple 6y ago
        In Chinese culture, 'Round' represents heaven (sky), and 'Square' represents earth (human). The most common way to carry it is either with a pocket or on a string attached to your belt. you will need to unbelt to pay for a bread if it is your belt, it is not that convenient. Another thing is that the face of the King is less important than his alias (a name given to represent a person's virtue). The only one put his face on coin was from 1915, influenced by foreign coins probably.
blackrock 6y ago
I wonder if the locals using it thought: “what is this strange hieroglyphics marking on the coin?”
- nexthash 6y ago
  That relies on the assumption that English locals were clueless about the outside world - on the contrary, intercontinental trade networks were especially established around this time. The nobility would've been importing goods from all around Europe, the Mediterranean, and even China through the Silk Road link. While knowledge about what was "over there" probably varied, I would suppose locals would at least be aware of "lands to the East" and view the coin in that context.
- yorwba 6y ago
  For people in 2021 still wondering about that: ／祥＼寶□符＼元／祥符 xiáng fú (auspicious sign) referring to an era during the reign of Emperor Zhenzong of Song and 元寶 yuán bǎo being a common way to mark coins (寶 bǎo meaning treasure)
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - blackrock 6y ago
    Whoah. Song Dynasty China was the best. At least before the Mongols invaded and turned everything to shit. Song Dynasty might have been ancient China’s best chance to kickstart the industrial revolution in China. After the Mongol wars, the Mongols claimed the throne for ~100 years. Then, the Ming retook power. But, something was lost. And China was never the same again. And the rest is history.
  - namelosw 6y ago
    Also 元(yuán) is exactly 'Chinese Yuan' you hear about today.
    - yorwba 6y ago
rwmj 6y ago
More odd finds: 4th century Roman coins found in a Japanese castle: https://theconversation.com/how-did-4th-century-roman-coins-end-up-in-a-medieval-japanese-castle-66417 https://theconversation.com/how-did-4th-century-roman-coins-... African coins found in Australia(!): https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/history-culture/2014/08/mystery-of-ancient-african-coins-found-in-australia/ https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/history-cultu...
- prezjordan 6y ago
  Is there a name for this phenomenon? Need a good wikipedia rabbit hole to go down.
  - rwmj 6y ago
    Oh yes there is! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-place_artifact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-place_artifact That also took me to yet another strange coin find: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_penny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_penny a 9th century Norse coin found in the US which might indicate that the Vikings were present in Maine.
    - ratsforhorses 6y ago
      But they were... as a child I remember reading about Erik the red who founded the first settlement in Greenland and whose son Luke or Lief made trips to what they called Vinland https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leif_Erikson https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leif_Erikson
      - SAI_Peregrinus 6y ago
        The Vinland landings and artifacts have all been further north than Maine (in Newfoundland). So finding Norse artifacts in Maine means either they also traveled to Maine or some of their things got traded/taken south by someone.
- wil421 6y ago
dis-sys 6y ago
had a quick look online, apparently you can buy yourself an identical coin for $1.2 USD
sandworm101 6y ago
I wouldn't read too much into these "odd" finds. Doing so forgets a basic principal of archology/anthropology: The people of the past weren't all that different than us. Go to any city in the world today and you will find ancient coins from all over the world. An ancient roman coin in Vancouver doesn't mean that ancient Romans visited Canada. Even if that coin is found buried in a landfill, we would assume it traveled to Vancouver recently and is tied to a museum, collector or tourist. Why then do we think any different when we dig up a coin from the past? People and coins moved about then just as they do today. How about the inverse: a modern coin found buried in an ancient location? That would be DoctorWho level "odd".

91 points by benbreen 6y ago

Is it just me, or are Chinese coins from that period rounder than Western coins? Compare early medieval https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Chinese_coinage#/media/File:Kai_Yuan_Tong_Bao,_early_type,_plain.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Chinese_coinage#/media... with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_English_penny_(1154%E2%80%931485)#/media/File:Medieval_coin_,_penny_of_John_(FindID_626945).jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_English_penny_(... The manufacturing processes must have been quite different.

ginko 6y ago
From this[1] it looks like Chinese coins were molded rather than hammered like was common in the West. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Chinese_coinage#/media/File:Han_Coin_Mould.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Chinese_coinage#/media...
- ogogmad 6y ago
  I imagine that the molding process -- being more exact -- could have helped minimise coin clipping. It makes me wonder why Western societies didn't adopt it.
  - ginko 6y ago
    My guess is that hammered coins allow for more detail and are harder to forge, even if the resulting coins aren't perfectly round. From this[1] it looks like early coins were also cast in the West before changing to hammering. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mint_(facility) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mint_(facility)
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    Going by the same wikipedia article, there is a strong suggestion that the coins were fiat, not particularly valued for their materials: > Minting and copper extraction were centrally controlled, and private casting was punishable by death. For the first time we find regulations giving the prescribed coinage alloy: 83% copper, 15% lead, and 2% tin. Previously the percentages used seem to have been on an ad hoc basis. Actual analyses show rather less copper than this. > By 660, deterioration of the coinage due to forgery had become a problem. (Why is this evidence that the value of the coins didn't come from their material? Because in that case, there would be no reason to control their production, nor would "forgery" really be an applicable concept.) This should tend to keep down coin clipping, since you end up clipping off small shavings of a metal that isn't worth much in the first place. Why bother?
    - i_cannot_hack 6y ago
      I'm not an expert, but my understanding is the opposite. One reason for trading with coins rather than raw metals at this time was that minted coins coins could be expected to contain a standardised weight and metal mixture, as long as the mint managed to curtail forgeries. If someone gave you a gold coin, the imprint of the mint gave you a guarantee it actually was pure gold (rather than a cheaper mixture of gold and silver, as an example). The problem with forgeries was that forgers made their money by minting coins that weighted less or contained cheaper metals, and then passing them off as genuine. If this goes on for long enough, the coinage deteriorates, since the large amount of fake coins in circulation means that a coin could no longer be expected to contain its specific value in precious metal. Lindybeige (youtuber) talks specifically about this at around 13 minutes in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2paSGQRwvo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2paSGQRwvo
      - thaumasiotes 6y ago
        > One reason for trading with coins rather than raw metals at this time was that minted coins coins could be expected to contain a standardised weight and metal mixture, as long as the mint managed to curtail forgeries. This is sort of half-true. Non-fiat coins trade slightly above the value of their weight for a few reasons, primarily the convenience they offer. And there certainly is a theory that minted coins could be expected to contain a standardised weight and metal mixture. But they couldn't really. Just look at that extract -- the Tang dynasty published laws detailing the metal mixture its coins contained. It did not bother to follow or even approximate those laws. Here's a description of the bronze currency of Seleucid Persia: > coin weights were not controlled to nearly the same extent as for gold and silver. An analysis of the bronze coinage of Seleukos I from Seleukia-Tigris in Newell shows weights ranging from 2.08-4.55 grams for one-unit pieces, 5.17-9.24 grams for two-unit pieces, and 8.94-16.72 grams for four-unit pieces. > The very wide range of weights, on average more than 25 per cent about a mean, cannot be due to wear. Thus, when a bronze coin circulated, its value was probably known by its approximate size and not by its weight. Here's the much more strictly controlled silver: > Under Antiochos IV, a reduction of tetradrachm weight is noted between the first and second Antioch series from mainly in the region of 16.90-17.19 grams to mainly in the region of 16.50-16.79 grams, a reduction of about 2 per cent, which can only have been due to an administrative decision. This came at a time when competing coinages had also experienced weight reductions > There was, of course, not only a question of weight, since, in order to achieve a greater profit, one might also reduce the silver content. Until Antiochos IV, purity of 94-95 per cent silver was still maintained in tetradrachms, but a debasement commenced slowly with Alexander Balas (91 per cent purity) and reached quite low levels of silver by the first century BC (65 per cent purity). Why did the subjects of the Seleucids tolerate this? They weren't given a choice, and we have a record of their complaints: > Now one can perhaps understand a passage in the Astronomical Diary of 274 BC. After reference had been made to the collection of 'silver, cloth, goods, and utensils [?]' by the satrap of Babylon to help the king (Antiochos I) pursue the war against the Ptolemies in northern Syria, the Diary continues: 'That year, purchases in Babylon and the [other] cities were made with copper coins of Ionia.' > The small-silver coinage had apparently been collected by the authorities to help finance the war [because Greek mercenaries required payment in silver], probably in exchange for bronze, and the inhabitants were now compelled to use the distasteful (to them) bronze coinage, distasteful because it was a purely token currency introduced into an area which had possessed a long tradition of exchange based on the value of precious metal (all quotes from The Seleukid Royal Economy: Finances and Financial Administration of the Seleukid Empire, https://www.amazon.com/dp/0521117763/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/0521117763/ ) We may also observe that Chinese coins fill the same economic role as Seleucid bronze coins, being used to transact in small amounts. Large-scale commerce in China was done in unminted silver.
  - namelosw 6y ago
    My guess is China is standardizing and mass-producing coins, and molding is easier for quality control. Hammering is more straightforward for smaller-scale productions. Furthermore, China frequently forbids civilians to have weapons, while in Europe there are many weaponsmiths, and people are more familiar with this craftmanship. And is there is usually no face on coins in China. It's really nothing for some corner of the word to disappear after ages compared to making "kings" losing their nose and ears. The square-shaped hole in the center - people usually use a thread to string together the coins and use them as belts. It's much easier to have holes in the center if it is molded, though I'm not sure if the hole is the motivation of molding or the consequence of it.
    - powerapple 6y ago
      In Chinese culture, 'Round' represents heaven (sky), and 'Square' represents earth (human). The most common way to carry it is either with a pocket or on a string attached to your belt. you will need to unbelt to pay for a bread if it is your belt, it is not that convenient. Another thing is that the face of the King is less important than his alias (a name given to represent a person's virtue). The only one put his face on coin was from 1915, influenced by foreign coins probably.

blackrock 6y ago

I wonder if the locals using it thought: “what is this strange hieroglyphics marking on the coin?”

nexthash 6y ago
That relies on the assumption that English locals were clueless about the outside world - on the contrary, intercontinental trade networks were especially established around this time. The nobility would've been importing goods from all around Europe, the Mediterranean, and even China through the Silk Road link. While knowledge about what was "over there" probably varied, I would suppose locals would at least be aware of "lands to the East" and view the coin in that context.
yorwba 6y ago
For people in 2021 still wondering about that: ／祥＼寶□符＼元／祥符 xiáng fú (auspicious sign) referring to an era during the reign of Emperor Zhenzong of Song and 元寶 yuán bǎo being a common way to mark coins (寶 bǎo meaning treasure)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- blackrock 6y ago
  Whoah. Song Dynasty China was the best. At least before the Mongols invaded and turned everything to shit. Song Dynasty might have been ancient China’s best chance to kickstart the industrial revolution in China. After the Mongol wars, the Mongols claimed the throne for ~100 years. Then, the Ming retook power. But, something was lost. And China was never the same again. And the rest is history.
- namelosw 6y ago
  Also 元(yuán) is exactly 'Chinese Yuan' you hear about today.
  - yorwba 6y ago

rwmj 6y ago

More odd finds: 4th century Roman coins found in a Japanese castle: https://theconversation.com/how-did-4th-century-roman-coins-end-up-in-a-medieval-japanese-castle-66417 https://theconversation.com/how-did-4th-century-roman-coins-... African coins found in Australia(!): https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/history-culture/2014/08/mystery-of-ancient-african-coins-found-in-australia/ https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/history-cultu...

prezjordan 6y ago
Is there a name for this phenomenon? Need a good wikipedia rabbit hole to go down.
- rwmj 6y ago
  Oh yes there is! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-place_artifact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-place_artifact That also took me to yet another strange coin find: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_penny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_penny a 9th century Norse coin found in the US which might indicate that the Vikings were present in Maine.
  - ratsforhorses 6y ago
    But they were... as a child I remember reading about Erik the red who founded the first settlement in Greenland and whose son Luke or Lief made trips to what they called Vinland https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leif_Erikson https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leif_Erikson
    - SAI_Peregrinus 6y ago
      The Vinland landings and artifacts have all been further north than Maine (in Newfoundland). So finding Norse artifacts in Maine means either they also traveled to Maine or some of their things got traded/taken south by someone.
wil421 6y ago

dis-sys 6y ago

had a quick look online, apparently you can buy yourself an identical coin for $1.2 USD

sandworm101 6y ago

I wouldn't read too much into these "odd" finds. Doing so forgets a basic principal of archology/anthropology: The people of the past weren't all that different than us. Go to any city in the world today and you will find ancient coins from all over the world. An ancient roman coin in Vancouver doesn't mean that ancient Romans visited Canada. Even if that coin is found buried in a landfill, we would assume it traveled to Vancouver recently and is tied to a museum, collector or tourist. Why then do we think any different when we dig up a coin from the past? People and coins moved about then just as they do today. How about the inverse: a modern coin found buried in an ancient location? That would be DoctorWho level "odd".