Ancient/medieval: Weight standards of old coins

Recent posts suggest confusion on why there are so many denominations from so many places and we just don't know how to make sense of them. I say there is no simple answer - at least not one I can understand.

Today, Rob Tye posted free to the world one chapter of his book Early Coins and Early Weight Standards. I have previously told you to buy it but, IMHO, the chapter he posted is my least favorite and probably his most favorite. Mr. Tye is deeply interested in Metrology and weight standards while I come to coins more for art, history and technology. I found the rest of his book enjoyable and informative. I found this one chapter required an almost mystical belief in the power of numbers to separate its truths from randomness. Those of you who have any interest in weights and measures should read this free chapter and then go out and buy the rest of the book (paperback) to get the parts that I considered within my range of comprehension.

https://www.academia.edu/6882687/Coin_Weight_and_Historical_Metrology

http://www.vcoins.com/en/stores/eci...t_standards_by_robert_tye/122540/Default.aspx

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

okay, done ... thanks for the book-recommendation ...

... I really like his illustrations (I am looking forward to thumbing-through and learning a bit/lot more about this subject)

Ummm, hopefully the book mentions something about those wonderful Sicilian cast Trias and Tetras?

 

I can fully support the recommendation of this book by Doug.
I only had this for some weeks. So have to study it a bit more.
This is what it looks like:

It has a catalog part, but is not intended as a comprehensive catalog of Roman and Greek coinage. However, for ancient collectors with a side interest in oriental coins this is a great book. For the oriental catalog part covers most "common" oriental ancient coins which you are most likely to encounter, and which are still affordable.
Concerning the more theoretical metrological part i partly agree with Doug. I think it is a very commendable effort that mr Tye tries to link monetary systems and their interactions and does not view them in isolation. For the design part of the coinage i think he has succeeded. On the other hand, he may go to far in postulating a web of weight based interdependencies which partly might be coïncidence.
However, in the introduction, mr Tye clearly also asks for feedback and an open debate on the subject. I have no direct link with mr Tye, but in recent contact found him to be a very approachable person. I think he would very much welcome any comments and founded critique sent to him directly !

 

My book arrived today (yeeesssss => it is very, very cool)




... thanks for recommendation ...

Man, the dude's sketches are amazing ... it is a neat addition to my humble library!!

 

People often criticize his lack of photos but the line drawings are much better for so many coins that never are found with half of the design on flan (many Eastern coins fit this).

 

The line drawings are a great help in most cases. However, if i could choose, i'd rather have both a line drawing and 1 or 2 photo's. The problem with the line drawings is that it already is an interpretation of what the researcher thinks to see. On several occasions i found that line drawings showed small errors if you looked closely at the original photographs in other books.
I think Mr Tye is not fluent in written Arab (nor am i). In the book i encountered a few transcriptions of Arab legends which raised some doubts when i compared them with my specimen and known interpretations of the texts.

 

Script languages to include Arabic, Nagari and cursive English vary a lot from hand to hand. Add to the mix the fact that some are not just legends but artwork loosely based on some concept of the legends and you may really have a problem. I certainly agree that the best answer is the drawing supported by a dozen examples of real coins selected to show not just the best but what one can expect to find in the market. Especially when dealing with issues that reproduce less than half of the die on any individual coin, there may not be a correct answer unless we are willing to turn a book like Mr. Tye's into a multi volume, multi $K set. I do find that looking at a drawing makes it easier for me to orient (define 'up') some coins with more accuracy than many photos.

 

I don't think we disagree in this. The line drawings are usually far easier to interpret. It is in making the next step, in being able to read the coins themselves. There i found i learned most from the pictures of coins where someone had made an additional overlay line drawing to convey the textual parts. Luckily, on the internet that is quite easy. Like this one: (OK a bit colorfull, but illustrates the basic idea)

In books compromizes will have to be made, and i can live with that.

 

i don't know why the helps so much, but it sure does. without the colored markings my brain just want it make it an abstract pattern, even though i know it isn't.

 

I just now joined cointalk because I came across this old thread by chance on the web, and I felt GDJMSP was making interesting suggestions on important matters that most times get neglected – that is to say – why did old weight standards vary state to state. Ego and greed are both in play I feel, or at least – state identity and state financial interest – and it would be nice to analyse these matters further.

However rather than jump in the deep end, lets try unpick some of the standards GDJMSP lodged:

ie

Cologne = 2 marc = 467.620 grams
French = 2 marc = 489.506
Aachen = 32 loth = 467.040
Amsterdam troy = 2 mark = 492.168
Antwerp = 2 mark = 468.800
Hamburg = 512 pennyweight = 484.690
Lisbon = 2 marcas = 459.100
Lucerne = medical pound = 357.950
Munich = 560.000
Naples = 12 ounces = 320.759
Stockholm = 425.34

Traditionally many of these are claimed to be linked – as follows (modern exact standard of course drift a little from medieval intentions)

Cologne = Aachen = Antwerp = 16 oz London tower/sterling

Also 16 oz London tower/sterling = 15/16 x Troy, where Troy = the Arabic Ratl Kabir

French = 18 Roman ounces, where 16 Roman ounces = Attic mina = 7/8 Troy

Amsterdam = 20/19 Cologne

Lisbon seems to be fixed at 100 x the Muwahhid dinar Early modern sources try make it a low version of Cologne, or alternatively, a high version of 16 oz Florence (454g = British imperial = US customary = 100 Roman solidi (?)). Both possiblities seem a bit odd though

Naples looks a lot like a lowish pitch for Roman commercial 12oz

I am open to suggestions for Stockholm, Munich, and Hamburg.

Lucerne – looks like it might be 12oz to the Venice standard – but that just a guess


Anyhow – all these matters are somewhat controversial – this is just to try get the ball rolling – and suggest that if we go back in time, we seem to find more and more links – as if standards were diverging over time from simpler systems. Note also the dominant role of Binary fractions. Its simple arithmetic for instance to show that (theoretically ) French Troyes = 63/64 English Troy

 

Update: I still really recommend Rob Tye's book as shown earlier in this old 2014 thread but please don't buy one from Amazon books where they are priced like gold when they are still available in the UK for the issue price. Yes, postage will be as much as the book but it is a good book (just not quite as precious as Amazon might believe).
https://www.amazon.com/Early-World-...9238407&sr=8-2&keywords=the+early+world+coins

 

I agree... looked into this book the other day, and was not interested in $130 at this point. SO, I checked the "Other Buying Options" with Amazon:

$661.59
& FREE Shipping + $0.00 estimated tax

Used - Acceptable
Cover appears used and pages may show heavy wear. May have notes,... » Shipping rates and return policy.


Red Rhino
4.5 out of 5 stars 93% positive over the past 12 months. (6,960 total ratings)

Ummm... no Amazon. Will review other sources.

 

Hello Doug (Smith),

No takers so far on the suggestions I put up earlier – and in fact this does not surprise me – so I will try to unpick this matter further. You are clearly one of the most generous spirited guys I ever came across – so nothing personal at all in what follows!

You write:

DS > On the other hand, he may go too far in postulating a web of weight based interdependencies which partly might be coincidence.

Well that raises a whole barrel of philosophical problems. Leibniz for instance seemed to think everything that ever happened was a co-incidence. I was careful to say (and I put it in bold – but even then - few read it) that what I offered were ‘best guesses’. So I am happy to get, in any particular case, either a better guess, or notice of a fatal flaw. But there is no possible reply I can make to the extreme sceptic who says all I put might be just coincidence.

To put it another way – David Hume worried about whether the sun would come up tomorrow. I do not. Life is too short.

There is a deeper problem here though, since the line you take is without doubt becoming very common if not dominant everywhere. Study of historical metrology, old weights and measures, was a big deal back in renaissance France and Italy, took off in England in the early 18th century and was huge by the early 20th century – the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica has a very long section on it – but by around 1970 the topic has disappeared there, and most other places. Study of weights and measures as a general topic died during the 20th century, outside of a small number of enthusiasts. Since so far Cointalk seems to corroborate that conclusion – here are my (best guesses!) as to how this happened.

1) There always has been a big range of opinion on what matters are probably due to direct influence, and what matters are just weird co-incidences. Lets call the range from ‘the optimists’ to ‘the pessimists’. On the scale you are well into the pessimist camp, where as I think I am close to the goldilocks position

2) In 1911 Barclay Vincent Head published Historia Numorum. A magnificent piece of scholarship, and nothing much wrong with his estimation of the actual various Greek coin weight standards. However, he also erected a theoretical interpretation of how these standards were linked which appears to be plucked out of thin air, and that seems to me to be wrong. From the 1920’s on we find people dividing up into Head supporters, and those who rejected all studies of weight standards as rubbish. That goes on to this day I think. I am not in either camp. I just think Head was wrong.

3) Around 1925 Maynard Keynes was in transition from an academic philosopher to an academic economist, and he became on his own account obsessed with weight standards. After a couple of years he abandoned that study, calling his own work his “Babylonian madness”. In 1930 he published his Treatise on Money which suggests to the reader that weight standards are arbitrary decisions of the state or the community. (see page 13)

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.30220

Rather like Head – he plucked this out of then air, there is hardly any consideration of the facts to back it up. This view of weight standards as arbitrary state decisions has dominated the Keynesian side of economics ever since

4) The spread of Keynesian ideas in general had big practical consequence for the general population, especially coin collectors. As I understand it, for a long period ownership of gold coins was strictly controlled by law in the US, and also for a shorter time in the UK. (Way back when I was a schoolboy, one of the local coin dealers I knew went to prison in the UK for selling gold sovereigns). This politicisation inevitably stoked a backlash, which seemed to be based upon a sort of anti-Keynesian belief in the idea that “in the good old days” a silver penny contained a pennyworth of silver etc. Actually, I agree with that idea, but I disagree with a lot of people about when those “good old days” actually were. I could say a lot more on this – but will stick here to just one example. Grierson at Cambridge UK held that Charlemagne had two weight standards, 16 Roman oz approx 436g for bullion, but 15 Roman oz approx 409g for coin . The difference covering seigniorage and brassage. Sargent at the Federal Reserve Bank USA more recently held that Charlemagne's coins contained their full weight in silver. My position is that Grierson backed up his argument and gave us the ‘best guess’ as to what happened. Sargent plucked his answer out of thin air. More generally, to understand the history of weight standards one has to understand the political imposition of seigniorage. Rejecting arguments from seigniorage will result in the rejection of most everything anyone will say about weight standards.

Can you see now where 3 & 4 gets us? Both Keynesian and their Monetarist opponents oppose the objective study of weight standards. If you get it right - you are shot by both sides.

5) In the 1960’s archaeology was still struggling to get a foothold in academic life proper. It was in a kind of turf war with History for recognition, grants, student take up etc. The professional archaeologist Lang in 1964 published her work on the weights from the Athenian agora – it is here

http://www.ascsa.edu.gr/pdf/uploads/oa_ebooks/oa_agora/Agora_X.pdf

In it she was very sarcastic about amateur metrological studies – and her comments have been prominently quoted (eg by Biggs (UK), and thence cited by Holland (Israel)). Personally I think this is a pot and kettle matter. There is plenty of poor amateur work but plenty that is good also – meanwhile Lang did little herself to clarify matters.

More fundamentally it seems to me much adverse comment about work by amateurs is driven not by scholarly objectivity, but rather by professionalisation of scholarship itself by such as Lang which (to my regret) I judge had gone way too far in since the mid 20th century.

Any thoughts Doug? I sense due to some of the several influences cited above you have been put off historical metrology, without ever trying the matter out for yourself? But forgive me if that sounds impertinent – I trust in your generosity of spirit to accept I offer the above in good faith, as to what I fear is the objective truth of where we stand today.

Rob

 

@EWC3, perhaps you will find this overview of ancient Greek and Roman coin metrology interesting or helpful in your esoteric quest:

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=Denomination

 

Hmmm... From MY perspective, and several other Roman Republic collectors, your link is ALL WRONG!!! (Actually, I tried to find the equivalent info on Forum, and they appeared not to have a similar write-up. Bummer)

10 Asses = a Denarius (not this deflated 16 to an As... )


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_currency

And I just HAVE to toss in this incredibly FUNKY RR denomination: Quincunx = 5 Unicae, when there was 12 Uncae to an As... WHAT??? WHY???

I got this just because... I. JUST. HAD. TO. HAVE. ONE.

RR Anon 210 BCE AE23 Quincunx 6.96g Apollo P behind Dioscuri Luceria 5 pellets Craw 99-4 Syd 309 Sear 910 Very Rare

 

OK – my reply to this is that, although I do not claim old coin weights are not sometimes complicated – but in this quote Balog makes it seem far more complicated than it actually is. In the 8th century the Arab Caliphate was about 5,000 miles across, and as far as I have been able to discover, every single mint was striking to the same standard - which was 2.93g in pure silver. There were minor local variations. Baghdad coins were remarkably accurate, those in Spain less so and maybe hit an average of 2.89g – (but why would the guy in the bazaar much bother about that?)

What Balog seems to be talking about here is not coin weight, but mostly, the heavier commercial weights used specifically in Egypt (and sometime Syria) in Bazaars - in grocery shops and the like. And those standards did change quite a lot in the 8th century.

Here is my best guess as to what was going on with those. There were laws in place instructing shop keepers to sell goods using the official weights issued by local government officials. And there were also weights and measures inspectors going round checking up on the matter. The same as today, and the same as the Romans too. The odd thing about Arab Egypt at that time was the weights were made of glass and carried official inscriptions. Shop keepers would presumably have to buy these from the inspectors office, in effect they probably represent a licence to trade lawfully. So, when the weight standard changed it looks like the shop keeper turned up at the market inspector's office, paid the fee, handed in his old weight which was smashed, and then was given his new one.

See what is probably happening here? Local government gets a big cash boost in fees every time they change the weight standard for shops. I should warn that this is only my own best guess – but it makes good sense of the evidence we have. And it exactly fits with your initial suggestions about ‘greed’. The problem with Balog as I see it was – he was too much an academic specialist – knew a great deal about medieval Egyptian coins and weights, but lacked a more practical grip on the general sort of stunts folk tend to get up to……………..

I think that is spot-on! I was working my way towards saying exactly the same thing. What I would add is this. The idea that a whole bunch of disparate languages had one common Indo-European root started out as some sort of crackpot sounding suggestion in previous centuries – but now it is viewed as serious science in every university.

Meanwhile that weight standards had a common root is a sensible suggestion that is also centuries old, but start to talk about it to most university people these days, you are likely to be treated as, well, a kind of crackpot.

Strange.

Rob