what is ancient

This may addressed somewhere but, if so, I can't find. What is the cut-off for something to be considered ancient. Is 900-1000 AD ancient?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

There are a number of differing ideas about what is considered ancient, all of which have adherents and compelling arguments. Personally, I consider the collapse of the Western Roman Empire the end of antiquity, and I consider all Byzantine coins medieval. We will no doubt witness some argument on the point.

 

Wwe have discussed this here before. Personally, I find it depends on the civilization/area of the world. In Europe, traditionally the cutoff if the fall of the western roman empire in 476. However, Byzantine coins are frequently collected by ancient collectors, since it was a continuation of rome in the east. These ended in 1453. For the middle east and central asia, the typical cutoff is the rise of Islam from 630 to around 700 ad. Preislamic coins are usually considered ancient. For China, I consider it pre-Tang dynasty coins, so up until 620 ad. There are reasons beyond a arbitrary cutoff in such things, since the thing that denotes "non-ancient" in these examples significantly and forever altered the civilizations.

Everyone will have different opinions of course, but these are my "cutoffs". However, I do not cut anything off, collecting Byzantine and dark age coins just as readily as ancients. Except for Byzantines, usually anything past 1000 ad is too new for me for my ancient collection.

 

About that, some might even consider the cutoff at 491 A.D. when Anastasius I came to power and reformed the roman currency to what became the byzantine coinage.

 

For what it's worth, Doug is ancient.
He's been the standard for quite some time.

 

I agree with John, but after all, I'm a 'modern' guy........

 

Charlemagne? Interesting. Is that the cutoff between ancient and medieval, or dark age and medieval? I could maybe understand the latter, (save of course for it being extremely western biased).

 

It is a question with no good answer. Most people consider ancient to be Greek, Roman and the times that they occupied. However, many people interested in ancients include Byzantine which goes until 1453 but few would allow as ancient other civilizations anywhere near that late. Can a coin of France from 600 AD be medieval and a coin of Constantinople of 1453 be ancient? When we go to the East, most of us consider all Sasanians to be ancient but Islamic coins all to be medieval even though the periods overlap greatly. If you must have a date I'll say ancient is before 500 AD while medieval is 500 to 1500 when things start getting modern fast. Don't quote those dates without a giant 'about' attached realizing that the people who lived then had no idea what era people a thousand years later would insist on assigning to their 'today'.

 

I dispense with the terminology altogether, other than to use the word "ancient" in my thread titles so as to warn collectors of moderns, lest they click on a subject that might bore them. My collection consists of coins minted by the Romans, Greeks, Judaeans, Nabataeans, Seleucids, Ptolemies, etc...

 

...Characeans, Sassanids, Parthians, Kushans, Sogdians, White and Red huns, Indo-scythians, Indo-parthians, Elamites.......

This just illustrates OP it depends on what you mean. Do you mean traditional end of antiquity for Europe, (something repeated too often in our Eurocentric culture)? Then the "answer" is 476 and the deposition of Romulus Augustus.

Actually, looking back at my answer, it just occurred to me. Around 600 ad, around the world, it seems major upheavals took place effectively ending the "old guard". in the west it was the Romans being beaten back from their reconquests of western Europe and the revolt of the Heraclii, in central asia/mideast it was the rise of islam, and in asia it was the rise of a new strong unified kingdom of the Tang as well as the disintegration of the Dvaravati in SE Asia. So I think my new answer is a short "600ish" basically worldwide. I am kind of liking my new, shorter answer. I am sure most others will not agree with it, but it works well for me.

 

Eurocentric? If that be so then it's probably because of our public education. You fellows have branched far beyond that.......I dare say you're all 'grad' level working on doctorates........

 

I think we need first to distinguish between the term " antique" in the realm of History as a well recognized science, and this same term " antique" in the course of Numismatics.What does modern means here, and what does it mean there. I mean conventionally as agreed by Historians or Numismatists. Of course there might be different views among Historians themselves, but they remain very close to the historic truth or course of events. For instance,Historians believe Modern Ages or Times began with the invention of Printing by Gutenberg. Other historians relate it to the discovery of America by Columbus . Some relate the same era known as " Renaissance" that preceded Modern Times to the Fall of the Byzantine Empire etc.., But notice that all these three events ( Gutenberg, Columbus, Byzantine Fall ) occurred in the same fifteenth century which paved the way to Renaissance and Modern Times. I hope I marked some idea..
Charles

 

Huh, man you guys have amazing insight ...

errr, I seem to have a whole lotta coins from 500BC to about 400AD ..... and then I don't seem to have too many after that ...

Ummm, so I'm gonna call that the border between ancient and "non-ancient"

=> 4-5-6-7-8-900's ... yup, those are the "murky-years"

Is that scientific enuf for ya?



... coins are fun

 

Havin' difficulty keepin' a lock on ya brother. You keep Changing that avatar. First a 'Brady' and now a Mr. Slate?

 

For coin collectors, it is easier to distinguish the periods than for historians. Ancients are made with some care to transmit the somewhat representational design while medievals were simplified and mass produced to serve as spendables and little more. Moderns were made with machines.

Some late Romans were really pushing the matter when it comes to art quality and there are a few medievals with accurate representations but my general attitude is to expect medievals to be crude or stylized beyond what would seem appropriate for ancients.

 

Interesting theory. Btw I agree it will always be a subject of debate. However, I think you put too much emphasis on Charlemagne. He was the product of Germanic tribes culture and traditions, he was a "bright spot" in the dark ages, (or "early medieval"), but after him it pretty much went right back to where it was before he came. I simply do not see a sea change in Europe after his rule than before it. I only see slow, gradual improvements brought about in improved farming practices enabling the formation, (reformation), of cities.

Go back, though, to the late fifth century. This was where the old guard of Roman supremacy was being overrun by the germanic invasions. The entire way of life of western Europe was being changed. Instead of large Imperial armies being there to keep the peace, and large numbers of small farmers providing food for large, civilized cities, you have germanic armies overruning cities and making them deserted, small farmers being killed so food production declining, and vast new estates being carved out by non-romans. That, to me, is a sea change in Western Europe. Most European cities took centuries to recover, the entire power structure was destroyed, and the entire economy changed. I simply do not see that kind of change before and after Charlemagne. Now, if you wish to point to this as the turning point between dark ages, (early medieval), and medieval, I could buy that.

 

Like I said, it will always be honest differences of opinion. I never said there was chaos, but there was massive change and decentralization after the fall of western Rome and the germanic invasions. Charlemagne never changed that, he was a larger than average kingdom but he was never an emperor. He never achieved the power and influence of a Roman emperor, and his kingdom disintegrated after he left.

The right to coin money was always in the hand of the ruler. I have coins of the Ostrogoths, Vandals, Merovingians, all of which were struck by their rulers, all of which look pretty much identical to Charlemagne's coins. His coinage policies were nothing new.

From 1-1000 ad, in western Europe, I think the only single major event anyone can logically point to as the "major change" in the region was simply the fall of Rome to the germanic tribes. Every single aspect of life changed. Before, they had organized armies, large urban populations, higher literacy rates, lack of crime, and good food supplies. Around 450-500 every single description I just used was gone. Small armies of petty kingdoms, high crime, urban populations devastated, extremely low literacy rates, poor food supply chains. The new petty kingdoms struck coins, had family rivalries, and contested fiercely with each other relentlessly. None of this was stopped before and after Charlemagne. Yes, he improved life briefly, but left no lasting legacy in my eyes. The only reason he was ever crowned "Holy Roman Emperor" was the pope wanting to have more eccliastical power, and he took advantage of Irene preempting the throne in Constantinople. He surely was never in the same league as a true Roman emperor at the height of Roman power, and his kingdom never dreamed of ever having the security, learning, and advancement of the Roman Empire.

Again, just an honest disagreement, and fun to write about.