Ancient coins and the Bible

Can someone explain how the caret system used with touchstones allows determination of the gold content by color without knowing what the other metals involved are? The ancients often used electrum, varying in content but perhaps averaging 50% gold and 50% silver. How is this told from 50% gold and 50% copper, nickel, or something else?

I have heard that the 24 caret system dates back to the first issue of the silver siliqua which supposedly weighed 1/24 of the gold solidus. What I fail to grasp is how these two being related by 24 demonstrates that gold purity was referred to in these terms. When do we find references to gold being alloyed in 24ths? Other than the electrum use, the ancients seemed to value keeping gold relatively pure while silver was the one alloyed in stages.

I understand that the very first US gold coins were issued in 22k but that this was reduced in a couple non-caret steps to the long term standard of 90% (not an even caret). Were other countries more true to the idea of gold by the caret?

I certainly see no doubt that ancient 'experts' could judge gold purity just by looking as you can by looking at those needles' color. When was the caret rating more accepted than some other system based on a number other than 24?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Good questions all. My input for Doug would be even though natural electrum was found in local streams, its clear from Sardis that even from the very beginning the percentage of gold to silver in electrum coinage was very csrefully controled. They did not strike electrum nuggets, rather purified it to pure gold snd silver, then added them together to get the exact mixture they intended.

To Jim, of course you are right the touchstone was designed primarily for gold. However, its not too much of a stretch to think there might have been some use for silver. Some of the metals you say silver resembles, like nickel, not being found and used by ancient people. Gold, silver, tin, copper, lead, zinc and iron being the main metals you would encounter in antiquity.

It has turned into a good discussion, and await other responses to these excellent questions.

 

When I read expressions like these one must wonder, what original manuscripts do you reference when commenting on events in ancient history?

 

My concerns on the analysis process with a touch stone and/or karat needles required : 1. very strong mineral acids which do not appear in the western world until the alchemists in medieval times ( although again, I am not sure of discovery and use by other areas of the world before then). and

2. Most of the XRF analysis of ancient artifacts seem to indicate that the gold and/or silver content was almost identical to the alluvial gold available. In other words, no refining was done to increase the purity ,so some 90+ percent , some in low 80%. although the 2nd paper below indicates they believe that some refining in other culture took place, but only to decrease the gold content from alluvial to less than 50%, a "gold gilding" process. XRF non-destructively can only determine surface content.

http://www.acad.ro/sectii2002/proceedings/doc2012-1/03-Constantinescu.pdf

http://hbar.phys.msu.su/gorm/dating/gold.pdf

And I have exhausted my interest in this area. I won't be buying proto lumps

Jim

 

Take care that we do not ignite another flame war! as from post #21. As long as it is not against the rules of no religion, political , or world events discussion, you can use any source. Although in defense of the member quoted, I think you find a very large percentage of ancient history events were not direct from an original author, they were handed down in myths, stories, songs, even dances so that the history could be passed along.

Lets drop that side of the thread.

 

Or, have been copied so many times we are not sure what the original said. I do not know of a single ancient book that survived intact. All we have left of any ancient source, regarding books, are copies of copies of copies. We have to trust these copies were made correctly. This is above and beyond normal human tendencies authors display, as well as if the author was trying to please a certain emperor, etc. Bottom line all ancient sources have many issues, so I agree with Jim its not really worth debating.