Imagine a 2300 year old cutlery drawer: (Side-note: This has to be the most satisfying photograph I’ve made all-year ) I got these from a friend of mine (the same guy @TypeCoin971793 got his recent purchases from), who has slowly been selling off his collection. I met him at a regional Oriental Numismatic Society meeting a couple of years ago and we instantly clicked, largely due to us being the only collectors of cast Chinese coins. Afterwards he told me he was slowly dispersing his collection. I was invited over for a look at his collection, and have returned many times since, never once leaving without a bunch of nice coins (and an empty wallet…). Last spring, when @TypeCoin971793 was visiting Europe, I even took him with me and we both plundered what was left of his collection. On my most recent visit, I spotted a little plastic box (originally used for Chinese take-out! ) I had not seen since my first visit a couple of years ago. After I had poured out the contents on the table I was immediately intrigued. It contained something Chinese, but it sure wasn’t takeaway! And after my question of ‘how much’ was answered with ‘I dunno … 80 bucks?’, I now am the proud owner of a part of a Ming Knife hoard. In total around 94 fragments are included (28 handles, 25 blades, 41 large fragments), so with less than a buck per fragment, I don’t think I overpaid too much. No complete knives are included; I think this would have been part of a larger hoard, from which the complete knives would have been removed and sold separately, the broken leftovers sold cheaply as a lot. Due to the fragility of this type, they sadly break quite quickly. A preliminary look revealed three knives that were able to be pieced together, In total I am expecting around 10 max, although that may be a little too optimistic. Some of the larger fragments: Some of the nicer/more intresting reverses I spotted while going through the lot for the first time: Two piles of Handles & Blades. Let the puzzling begin! There is however a minor downside to this lot. One of the previous owners was a bit of an odd figure, and decided that repairing these knives was best done by soldering them together … And if that wasn’t enough, he didn’t even take matching fragments. Oh no, he took random fragments! Just lovely. He even created a sort of Frankenstein knife, taking only a tip and a handle and smashing them together with an excess of glue. Luckily the solder was relatively easy to remove, but some ugly glue/grease patches are still visible. Any recommendations on how to remove these? Disclaimer: If you care about ancient coins in the slightest, the next image may be a little nauseating. Viewer discretion is advised. @TypeCoin971793 (Thomas) recently provided us with a great topic explaining the evolution of Yan state knife coinage (if you haven’t yet seen it, here) and briefly touched on the Ming knife and its evolution as well. But I thought I’d also pick this opportunity to talk a little bit more about the Ming knife itself. Since it is one of the most accessible items of this period for any collector, many people that don’t really collect Chinese coins might be tempted to buy such an item without knowing anything about them. Let’s change that! Thomas explained the evolution: From pointed/curved knives, the early large Ming knives, slightly curved compact-character knives to the Chime-stone shaped late knives. A far more detailed typology, splitting the Ming knives into 7 different subclasses based on the general shape, pointiness of the tip and the thickness of the reverse inscription, has recently been proposed in a Chinese article, but I am still working out whether this classification is based on any archaeological findings. For now, I’ll stick with just discussing the two main varieties. As an archaeology student, I am (somewhat logically) interested in the archaeological aspects behind my Chinese coins. Ming knives are certainly amongst the most frequently excavated coins from the period and show a huge spread throughout northern China, as well as having reached as far as Korea and Japan (although their monetary status may be debated in these cases). A filled circle is a major Ming knife hoard: Most however were unearthed in the territory of their issuing state: Yan 燕. The capital of this state was Ji 蓟, the predecessor of the modern Chinese capital of Beijing. Sadly, little in depth excavations of this warring states era capital have been executed, most of it now being buried deep underneath the ever-growing modern metropole. Yan’s secondary capital however, is all the more interesting. Xiadu 下都 (literally: ‘Lower Capital’), also called Yi 易, is the largest site from the warring states period that has ever been excavated in its entirety and yielded an amazing array of different finds. The city plan of the Xiadu site (After: Shen, C.) Xiadu was originally founded in the sixth century BC as a military fort, but when in the early warring states period, due to the threat of a nomad invasion in their ‘Upper Capital’ of Ji 蓟, a royal court was established, also became a major political centre. At its peak in the 4th century BC, it is estimated the city housed close to 300.000 inhabitants, making it one of the largest cities anywhere in the world at that time! The city was roughly rectangular, measuring 8 kilometres in length and roughly 4 in width, encompassed entirely by a moat and rammed-earth wall that would have measured more than 10 metres in height. The city was divided in roughly three different parts: East and west, divided by an internal barrier wall, with the latter having separated palatial structures, the royal court, on a raised platform in the north. From the archaeological excavations it becomes clear that Xiadu was also a major production centre. Especially in the eastern half of the city, large, mostly state-owned (or at least state regulated) workshops were found, with varying purposes: One foundry specialising in iron production (G5), two pottery kilns (LJ11 & LJ29), one bone-working workshop (W22) and 5 bronze foundries (LJ10, LJ13, W18, W21 and W23), mostly focussing on the production of weapons, but moulds for ritual vessels, mirrors, belt-hooks and other day-to-day items have also been found. I realize that the average coin collector might not care that much about the archaeological excavation of some old city on the opposite site of the world, but bear with me. For there are two workshops that are of special interest to us numismatists. You’ve guessed it: coin production! Site G4 was the workshop responsible for casting Ming knives, while the terracotta moulds used in this production were produced and fired in workshop LJ30 and its accompanying kiln (if these look small on the map, just remember that the entire site is 8 kilometres long!). LJ10, one of the larger bronze foundries also contained several Ming knife moulds, meaning it too would have aided in the production of these knives. One such mould is now displayed in the China numismatic museum in Beijing: One of the most discussed topics in ancient Chinese numismatics is what the character on the obverse is. It has been read as Ming 明 ('bright') for the past couple of centuries, but an intense debate arose a few decades ago challenging this reading. Due to the large amount variety in calligraphy, multiple other theories have been proposed, including Ju 莒, Meng 盟, Zhao 召 and lastly Yi 易. This last theory has been gaining major support since the completion of the Xiadu excavations, since the formal name of this city would still have been Yi at the time of casting. I tend to agree with this reading. In that case an interesting question arises: was the mint in Xiadu the only mint responsible for the entire production of Ming knives? The inscription on the reverse might shed some light on this. These inscriptions are much less ambiguous than the character on the obverse; they are simply control marks, for the foundry or mould. They represent a system of management or internal division that is often encountered archaeologically, especially in state-controlled foundries or pottery production centres. It is somewhat comparable to the officina-system we see on late roman bronzes. A distinction in roughly two different classes can be made: The first group has a single character on the reverse, often a numeral or cyclical character. The second group has one or rarely two additional characters at the start of the inscription: either Zuo 左 (‘left’), You 右 (‘right’), Nei 内 (‘inner’) or Wai Lu 外炉 (‘Outside furnace’), as well as a numeral or cyclical character as the first group. As evidenced by the last one, these denote separate workshops or furnaces within the mint. Some have tried to correlate these to excavated locations, but no definitive conclusion has been reached. The most obvious would be linking the left furnace with the west of the city, right with the eastern half and the inner furnace somewhere with the royal part of the city. Since workshops were found in neither the western city nor near the palatial structures in the north, this is however highly unlikely. Nevertheless, since moulds with all these different marks (save for the extremely rare Wai Lu), it is relatively save to assume that most, if not all, of the Ming knives were produced in Xiadu. A couple of mintmarks from my new lot; Two Zuo 左 on the left, Nei 内 in the middle and two You 右 on the right. Sadly, no Wai Lu 外炉 present in this lot! Side-note: Not only did the Xiadu excavations yield an array of interesting facts concerning the production of Ming knives, it also provided a fascinating insight into the late warring states period Yan economy. Of the thousands of coins excavated, most were indeed Ming knives, the main currency of the Yan state. But in the presumed merchant quarter, an unusually large amount of non-Yan coins were excavated. Mostly spades, but also plenty of early round coins. Just shows how circulation of coinage in this period was far from reserved to just the issuing state! I hope you have enjoyed this write-up (even if it was a bit long and overly archaeological )! Just to leave you with a question: this lot contains knives with several different types of patinas. I am personally a big fan of any patina containing the colour blue, but what do you guys think? Any ones that captured your attention? Kind regards, Mika
Thanks guys! Well, I’ve got the entire archaeological library of the faculty at my disposal, as well as most of their online journal subscriptions. Some obscure Chinese journals, including those aimed solely on Chinese archaeology or coinage from this period, included.
I enjoyed your write-up @AnYangMan, and especially liked the photo/information showing the mint marks. And I am also drawn blue or dark green patinas.
Good job, very informative! I used to buy those knife coins in Taiwan, almost certainly they were all fake and I gave them away long ago. Same with the many brass cast coins. Some may have been genuine and I hope the Chinese kid I gave them all to has learned to appreciate them.
