Subject: The first coin - addenda
From: Reid Goldsborough
Date: 7/14/2003 6:09 PM Eastern
http://rg.ancients.info/lion/

Allow me to weigh in and enter the ring.

(0) It is one heck of a nice coin.

(1) As Mark Programmer pointed out, this coin a later type and not the earliest
Lydian coin. So, the title "Earliest Coin" does not apply.

(3) Our cultural context prejudices us against recognizing the incuse punches
as "devices" but indeed they are. They had some purpose, albeit not clear to us
now, perhaps.

(4) The oldest known coins come from a set of separate find sites collectively
called The Artemesian Hoard from Ephesus. Some of these are mere "dumps" nugget
shaped proto-coins. Others have punch marks and so are true coins.

(5) The dating of that hoard has been the subject of much debate. See for
instance,
http://ancient-coin-forum.com/ancien..._origin_of_coi
ns_to_croesus.htm

(6) Googling around the web is perhaps less desirable than getting lost in the
library stacks, so knowing your sources and evaluating them is important.

(7) We have a cultural prejudice that gives us a spectrum of development from
coins to banknotes to credit cards, and that is the reason that stepping back
for perspective allows the student of history to understand that perhaps as
early as 4000 BC merchants created promisary notes on clay.

(7a) The origin of metallic money (weighed and hallmarked and traded for other
goods) might begin with bronze "cow hides" known from Mycenaean finds.

(8) http://rg.ancients.info/lion/ is an interesting presentation that oversells
its case and so fails to make it. Many sources are cited at the top, but the
body lacks footnotes attributing specific statements to reliable authorities.
It is very readable, but the content is ultimately questionable.

(9) It is still one heck of a nice coin. It deserves a good presentation
appropriate to its time and place.




----------------
Michael E. Marotta
ANA R-162953