Just goes to show, having a PhD does not mean one knows what they are saying: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/making-cents-currencys-ancient-rise-180963776/
He claims the 600 year old Chinese coin he pictured is made of silver and copper. I hope someone remembered to inform the ancient Chinese as they seemed to be using the wrong metals. Apparently they didn't get the memo from this "expert".
This is something that I've noticed from time to time, reading papers at Academia.edu - anthropologists and/or archaeologists aren't necessarily the most accurate writers when it comes to the history of coinage and currency. They get the gist of the story right, but inevitably some of the details are wrong enough to make numismatists cringe. In fact, it seems they don't consult numismatists very often at all.
I am trying to understand Roman pre-money - Aes Rude. Finding a source I trust is a bit like sifting wheat from chaff. I have seen lots of ideas on how crude bronze was used. Not all were considered money. Some seem to make more sense than others.
It'll cost ya 2 cows and a pig. "Money is the language everyone understands" And it evolved from "gift exchanges"? Hey @John Anthony I subscribe to Acedemia.edu I do see what you mean though.
There is no support in the article for the "40,000" year subtitle. The article states "coinage – especially in Europe, Asia and North Africa – was recognized as a medium of commodity money at the beginning of the first millennium A.D." That seems odd to say given the article is correct that "cash" as coins began c. 600 BC (long before the first millennium AD). As @akeady noted coins are sometimes found in "hoards," not "hordes".
The lifework of Vladimir and Elvira Clain-Stefanelli built the Smithsonian as a center for interface of serious and popular numismatics. We have descended to this?
Thank you for sharing that beautifully stupid article. It makes me feel superior when I read something like that. It's not just numismatists cringing. Economists universally recognise three functions of money: unit of account, store of value and medium of exchange. This guy fudges that basic definition and adds a fourth that's just repetitive. And historians would question the claim that early exchanges of goods over long distances are evidence that money was in use. We have the Armana Letters showing evidence of complex gift relationships. It really is a bungled mess from start to finish. Much like the Smithsonian in recent years, alas.
