Coin without any number/figure?

Many ancient coins, especially the early Greek coins, had no numbers or even letters, being identified as to issuing location by icon only an by denomination by metal, dimensions, and weight. This tetartemorian from Caria Halicarnasus (c. 380 BC) is an example, identified with a lion's head and a ram's head, it is 6 mm and .2 grams silver.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

18 - woot.

 

You are a little bit late about that as it was already learnt in the first pages of this thread that ancient coins without numerals isn't a news but ancient coins with numerals is news... However, your this post is good to do a review as there was still a remaining unanswered question why there was less and less numerals when travelling back on the timeline of about 2500 years of known coins.

I think I have an idea now on why so. Before telling this, lets start with the coins you mentioned here. That coin (c. 380 BC) is 6 mm (small), 0.2 grams (accurate weight measurement of the day), silver (valuable material) and lion/ram heads (power symbols) and it is "tetartemorian" (denomination)... Lets write denominations of the period of this coin:

1drachma(silver, 4.3gr) = 6obols = 12hemiobol = 24tetartemorion = 48hemitetartemorion(silver, 0.1gr, the smallest coin)

So, what do we understand from these? even from denomination names?
In this period, there was a major coin first, i.e., "drachma"... And then, in time, it was divided into smaller denominations. Who does this? Who starts with the "major"? Not poors, but, the "major" power of the day, i.e. governmental authority/king of the day. But, this way of denominating/counting which is like counting "100, 99, 98,..." that is backward counting does not fit the natural counting "1, 2, 3,..." and this backward counting contradicts with the common theory of historians that say "we were more primitive in the past that we started counting by starting 1". No, this 2500 years period of coins does not tell about the "money" and "its real countability", but, tells more about "metal counting" (by weighing as they are melted, form change that changes natural counting by integers to fractional counting.) So, yes, these coins in this 2500 years period can be considered as exchange mediums, but, they are not real money system which should have "unit" with natural countability. This can also be seen in that these ancient coins of last 2500 years don't have "unit" (for example, in this coin system, its name of smallest denomination is "hemitetartemorion", that's, "half-of-quarter", doesn't make any sense about the "unit" which must have a unique name.

On the other hand, on a 9,000 years old stone coin (ok, called "counting token") which I mentioned in one of previous pages, there are "notches/inciseds" on a coin-like stones, such as "I/IIIII/etc" that clearly show the "natural countability" and the "unit."

"Unit" in the money is the most important thing. As it is also its "constant" of the money. It is the basic science of money.
If the significance of "unit" of money is forgotten like it has been done, also today, forget about all sciences math/physics/psychiatry/philosophy/chemistry/biology/sociology/astronomy/theology/etc etc, which all revolve around the money. (Ok, if the "unit" is not important, then, lets stop all these sciences and with the money, lets do trade only.)

Ps: I second that woot. w00t w00t

 

Another confirmation for non-existence of face values on ancient coins (a short talk on another forum last year):
https://www.coincommunity.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=255899

From there, an article on "buying power of ancient coins" (in 2000):
http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/worth.html

"What we can learn from ancient coins?" from an archaeology website, " http://www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk/ancientcoins.html "

Some parts on this page:

"... Coins are found at nearly every archaeology excavation site throughout the world. Naturally in very ancient archaeology sites there are no coins discovered as the introduction of coinage, as a standardised form of value, did not occur until the late 8th century BC ..."

"... Prior to coins, the means of exchange of goods and services in commercial or private transactions was more or less a modification of the barter system..."

***

Those coins too which (is claimed that) occured after 8 BC (even modern coins of today) are not much different than a modification of barter system. It may be less clear in modern coins as they have face values, but, it is more clear in ancient coins with no face values. Whether they are with face value or not, all these coins even today are coins of barter system. They are just like this jewellery gold coin which is a barter tool like any ancient coin of last 2500 years including today.

 

Lets add these (summaries) too to the library here.

The History Of Money: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/roots_of_money.asp

What is Money?: http://www.investopedia.com/insights/what-is-money/

"... The Bottom Line...
Money has changed a lot since the days of shells and skins, but its main function hasn't changed at all. Regardless of what form it takes, money offers us a medium of exchange for goods and services and allows the economy to grow as transactions can be completed at greater speeds...."

Ps: As you know, there are zillions of such documents on and off the net. They all define/describe what the money is like that, more or less same everywhere. That's, all are about the "function" of the money. In this thread too, its function is mentioned from time to time, but, main point of this thread is about the "money itself", its basic science, countability, unit, etc., that's, about the measurement. While you don't know the measurement tool itself, trying to use that measurement tool to measure the things (goods, services, etc) is..., what is the best word to say here?..., absurd (?).

 

Let me add also this link (almost the oldest thread in this CT chat forum) here to the library of this thread:

"The Truth is Out There: Whom do you trust?"
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/the-truth-is-out-there-whom-do-you-trust.130/

And, this part was said there in that thread 15 years ago: (relevant to this topic also)

So, the coins we have had in this last 2500 years are not the money.

Ps: Btw, there will also be a "Coin & Trust" post in this thread soon.

 

Coin & Trust...

Some related words to the word "Trust": Confidence, reliance, faith, belief, liability, responsibility, deposit/luggage, honesty, non-lie, assurance, safety, security, etc etc.

So, it may have many different meanings depending on where the word "trust" is used. For example, to stay in the scope of this thread, lets look at this:

"... Put not your trust in money, but put your money in trust." - Oliver Wendell Holmes, 1809-1894, doctor, writer, educator, etc etc.

Lets replace "money" here by "coin" (so, it can be in the narrowed scope of this topic here)

"... Put not your trust in coin, but, put your coin in trust..."

What changed? It was "money" and "trust", now, it is "coin" and "trust".
The first, i.e. said by mr Holmes, with "money" and "trust, can be read now as an advice more to a wealthy.
On the other hand, the latter, i.e. with "coin" and "trust", smells more of an advice to a poor as "coin" (not banknote) is more related to the poverty. People generally perceive so. However, with the "coin" and "trust" in the same sentence, there is something more beyond conventional understanding. Lets rewrite it again:

"... Put not your trust in coin, but, put your coin in trust..."
The "but" here is not a good link anymore now.

A better form can be this:
"... Put your trust in coin, and, put your coin in trust..."

A more better form is:
"... Put your trust in coin, and, put your coin in pocket..."
(pocket is the place where you can trust the most)

Best form is:
"... Put your trust in one coin, and, put your one coin in pocket..."
(Now, this is more technical and concrete, trust here is based on non-error.)

 

Maybe, this should be cleared. What is "trust based on non-error"?
Actually, you probably know.
"Trust" here doesn't have to do with the lie/honesty/personal character/etc OR doesn't necessarily have to be about such things although it also covers such things. Your personally honest and nonliar good friend too can still be an untrustable one. For example, if he is not an electrican, you don't prefer him to repair your household electrical equipment, that's, you don't trust him because he will probably make an error. So, I guess, it is clear now what I meant by "trust based on non-error". Here, I just go further in qualification. If, say, an electrican friend does not have a one coin in his pocket, even if he is a close friend and even if he is an expert, I do not trust him. However, it does not mean I won't let him do the work. I do. First, I give him a one coin and then, I let him do the work. Risk probability is less then and more trustable. (Similarly, I trust a wealthy boss with a one coin in his pocket more than a wealthy boss without a one coin in his pocket. However, this is another story, it's not necessary to talk more on this now as the business is less urgent than the work.)

 

Chris et al.,

Is this above worthless information? One cent coin is worthless?

 

This question can/should not remain unanswered.
Whether the information above is worthless or not may be debatable (due to the language barrier and due to not clear enough explanations.) However, here, this question "One cent coin is worthless?" is clear enough and there is no language barrier in this question as it is "money language". Lets ask again:

............... One cent coin is worthless? .............

This question is probably the simplest question that may/can/must be answered by anyone from 7 to 777 years old.
However, at the same time, its answer may be the hardest answer for some.

This question must be answered by "scholars" first rather than dealers/traders/workers/etc. Why? Because. Scholars, educated people, are closer to the knowledge and the information lying under this basic question. However, I am already aware of that "majority" of scholars are not much different than traders/dealers, just a little differently, they are trading services. But, the "majority" of scholars lack the integrity in their knowledge and in their mentality, therefore, they lack complete qualification in their services. And this is clear in that they do not have the one cent coin in their pocket. Anyway, they may find my these words as heavy, but, sorry, it is a reality.

Having said these, let me answer this question (on their behalf of all scholars as I was also a scholar once upon a time):

Answer is simple: One cent coin is Priceless...

(I have its equivalent, One kurus coin. If word is not enough, see its picture below. Ok, late here in the night, good evening to the west and good morning to the east.)

 

If you answer and respond to your own posts, could that be considered self gratification?

 

I think that the real problem here is that the time difference is so great that our drunk times don't coincide with each other. My ludicrous ramblings generally come about five hours later.

 

Were you planning to answer? Sorry, couldn't wait for you to answer it for hours days weeks. Ok, here is again:

...... One cent coin is worthless?....

Ps: I'll read your answer later. I'm gonna sleep now.

 

Should have said self abuse?

 

If I could double like your response I would! Cheers!

We should toast with an adult beverage when we hit twenty pages of ramblings.

 

This is a "statement", not a question. Learn english edited

 

Cheers! Drink up ya'll, the world's about to end.

 

I see some self abusers here. Must be dream.

Any answer?
Hmmm

.....? one cent coin is worthlesS...

Zzz...

 

Good morning. Lets learn Money.

How much one cent coin in your pocket? None? One cent coin is worthless?
Kentucky in CA, Grand Jury is waiting for you to answer this simple question.

 

Get off your high horse when it comes to dealing with people whose primary language is not the same as yours. And yes, a phrase that is structured like a statement but has a question mark at the end can very well be a question.

Christian