How far back do we define coins as ancient?

I'll agree with Ides on this. Since the coins were struck without a collar, it is not all that unusual to find coin that was hit harder or softer than most allowing an AE18 and AE20 to be the same issue struck seconds apart. As far as axis goes, I have one favorite that I chose to display 90 degrees off what most people do. As mentioned above, the reverse has no up.

I prefer my Aegina turtle stater swimming left with his head/beak turned normally down to swimming up as we usually see the type. However, my obol lacks face detail so I show it going up as do most people. We are looking down on the coins so which way is up is no big thing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

(continuation of a reply to IOM's question)

Here's an example, a fractional bronze of Roman Egypt.


EGYPT, Alexandria. Vespasian
year 4, CE 71/2
diobol?, 25.4 mm, 5.45 gm
Obv: AVTOKKAIΣΣEBAOVEΣΠAΣIANOV; laureate head right
Rev: bust of Isis left; LΔ in right field
Ref: c.f. Emmett 217.4 (diobol)

Obols are in the ~5 gm/~19 mm range; diobols ~8 gm/~24 mm. This coin is obol-weight and diobol diameter. The reverse is only known in Vespasian's hemidrachms, diobols, and dichalkons, so it's likely a very underweight diobol.

An old auction listing for this coin showed only the weight and called it an obol. I bought it at a coin show and don't recall if the diameter was written on the insert, but obviously I was able to see the coin in hand (with Emmett's book in the other ).

This is unusual enough that I will write Keith Emmett and ask his opinion. It is either a very underweight diobol or an unrecorded obol.

 

Were not some later cash pressed/struck? I was led to believe they started in 1889 with Kuang-hsu.

 

Only in China, and machinery was used. This means that they weren't hammered coins.

However, a lead issue from the Southern Han Dynasty has a fabric like no other Chinese cash coins, which leads me to believe that they were struck. I believe that these issues would fall under the hammered category.

Qian Heng Zhong Bao

 

I was browsing the upcoming auction when I saw this and it reminded me of this post.
http://romanumismatics.com/auction/lot/1157/
Under Constantine XI and possibly the last coin to be struck in the Byzantine empire in the months before the fall of Constantinople to Mehmed. Roma makes this claim "The siege coinage of Constantine XI can thus rightly considered to be the last ‘ancient’ coins."

 

I have always contended something around the 6th-7th century happened around the world to change things forever, and that is my cutoff of what is "ancient". In the West, it was the fall of western Rome. In the Mideast it was the rise of Islam. In China it was the rise of the Tang dynasty. All of these things swept away the past and set the stage for the modern world, so its my rough cutoff.

I still collect things past this arbitrary "ancient" cutoff. Byzantine coins are a good example. However, I simply recognize them as being more medieval in nature, not ancient.

 

That's the crux of the Pirenne thesis, named after medievalist Henri Pirenne and author of the book "Mohammed and Charlemagne"

 

Things might be trickier with Indian coins. Obviously Indo-Greek influence dissipated by the 1st or 2nd century AD, so is everything after that was medieval? Makes no sense to do it that way.

So if we then look to Muslim influence in India, it was very marginal until the mid-800s. Although there was a Muslim kingdom established in Northern India in 711, it was quickly abandoned and most Indians back then were never aware it even existed. So it doesn't seem fair to say medieval period started there when it didn't affect 98%+ of Indians, and the effects were minimal at best. It wasn't until the mid-800s that Muslims really started to make major in rows and become significant in northern India. Would you say the ancient world ended then and medieval India began? Keep in mind Muslims didn't really affect central India and many places in Northern India in any major extent until the 1000's, so that might make it even trickier.

 

I consider the fall of Constantinople to be the end of ancients mainly because their civilization started by the end of the 5th century AD. I good question would be what if Constantinople had been saved by Europe somehow and continued to be a state for another 3 to 4 hundred years. Would their latter coins still be considered ancient?

 

Things might not be that simple looking at asian coinage.

But yes, from a Eurocentric point of view, an argument can be made for Byzantine coinage being "ancient". However, probably the rest of Europe was clearly medieval by the 800s as far as numismatics is concerned.

 

The question I have to ask is whether the ID of this coin to Constantine XI has any basis other than the provenance of the coin to that one hoard that included a few coins from which scholars derived the legends as quoted in the sale listing. The strike and centering does not allow my inexpert eyes to see anything I'd pay 1/100th their estimate for but someone certainly will bid high based on faith.

The last 'reasonable' Byzantine coin is from John VIII 21 July 1425–
31 October 1448, the next to last emperor, whose coins were struck when the situation in the city was a power of ten less desperate. John's name appears on this one at the top of the portrait which is still a bit crude but much more normal than the ones found for his brother Constantine. There is a difference of opinion on which side to call the obverse. I have the John side on the left and Christ on the right because the coin appears to have been made with John on the anvil die. There are those who say Christ must always be called the obverse.

 

Honestly I had to do some research on this as I am not as experienced with such a late date or rarity with my latest being circa 1320. I think I would have to spend a whole day looking up John coins and comparing them to the auction coin. Due to the condition of the die it is hard for me to see the inscription even after reviewing Bendall's work from 3 decades ago. I assume the above coin is yours which btw is gorgeous and causes me envy, and I think your estimate of 1/100th is too low. On the Roma coin John/Constantine looks concave to me, so maybe during this time period they did not care which side was the obverse? Another thing I found reading Bendall is that at least one coin of Constantine (101a) shared a die with John, which confuses things more.

 

Hmm, thanks for that. I had no idea it was a known thesis. I guess its true, nothing in life is very original.

 

Fascinating thread!!