The first coin - addenda

I've been reading through more of the articles I'd gathered but hadn't
yet gotten around to reading about the world's first coins and
tweaking my page about what I consider to be the very first, adding
lots of additional stuff:

http://rg.ancients.info/lion/

This is all written in stone -- it's part of the Ten Commandments,
actually -- so flames, shouts, sarcasm, name calling, curses, and so
on are all appropriate responses, though as usual I won't be seeing
any from the Usual Suspects, and if any leave message using
sockpuppets, I'll ignore.

I find all this interesting as much because of what isn't conclusively
known as what is. The mystery...

--

Coin Collecting: Consumer Guide: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Glomming: Coin Connoisseurship: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Bogos: Counterfeit Coins: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

Reid wrote:

"This is all written in stone -- it's part of the Ten Commandments, actually --
so flames, shouts, sarcasm, name calling, curses...."


Hah. Nothing is written in stone, Reid, or haven't you figured that out yet?
It's just like you to take the easy way out and rely on "experts" like
Carradice and Price.

Repeat after me...

I will think out of the box... I will think out of the box... I will think
out of the box...



Anka Z
Co-president of the once thriving, but now defunct, Tommy John Fan Club.
Go, Lake County Captains!

From: Reid Goldsborough

http://rg.ancients.info/lion/

This is all written in stone -- it's part of the Ten Commandments,
actually

Naturally. And as per your usual, it is full of errors and misconceptions.

For those who care, in his typical penchant for exageration, Reid has
incorrectly implied that the Lydian stater with the Lion
was the world's first coin. He also incorrectly attributes the date of origin
of the electrum coinage to be 600 BC;
this is about 50-60 years too late, as pure gold and silver coinage was in use
by 610 BC, if not earlier. He also gets
the dates of reign of the Lydian kings incorrect.

Date of lion stater given as 650 BC:
http://www.usask.ca/antiquities/coins/asia_minor.html

date of Lydian coinage given as 610 BC, Lion Stater as 650 BC:
http://worldcoincatalog.com/Contents.../invention.htm

Date of the first Lydian mint given as 610 at Sardis, producing electurm lumps,
blank except for a punch mark.
Note also the correct chronology of Kings and dates of reign:
http://www.coin-gallery.com/cgearlycoins.htm

one of the more thorough on the subject.
Note that the type "Lion’s head r., with globule, radiate, on forehead" is
listed second.
Hence, not only is the lion stater not the first coin, the type that Reid would
'personally call "The Coin."' isn't even considered the inital type of the
series:
http://www.snible.org/coins/hn/lydia.html


Another rather exhuastive and scholarly source which also dating the staters
from 650.
It includes a concise, yet detailed explanation of the evolution of Lydian
coinage from plain lump of electrum to the
"coin" with the lion obverse and double-punch reverse. The article is also
balanced, in that it allows that the Ionain staters
of various typs may have been minted as early as 650 BC:
http://ancient-coin-forum.com/ancien..._origin_of_coi
ns_to_croesus.htm

This is an interesting excerpt from a book published in 2000, which puts forth
the idea that electrum coins prior to 648 BC
were melted by Croesus and refined into pure gold and silver. They use a date
of 626 - 648 for the electrum coins:
http://www.icu-cdnx.com/name_logo.htm

Of course, no explanation of ancient coinage would be complete without comment
from
Mr Harlan J Berk. Berk states that the lion staters were minted from about 650
BC, and
that the electrum issued prior are what he considers the world's first coins:
http://www.harlanjberk.com/departmen.../GreekGold.htm

There's a lot more on the subject. Google is your friend, although apparently
not Mr Goldsborough's.
--
mark

From: Reid Goldsborough

[snip the sound of one hand clapping]

It's a fool's game, not worth
any more response than this

Your article has no sources cited (including, most conspicuously, one for the
photo), writing off one of the more knowledgeable collectors and dealers of
ancient coins (Mr Berk) as just another commercial dealer, as well as
dismissing a museum whose job it is to know and present history, and you imply
*I'm* the fool?

Learn how to do research and analysis, and then you and I can talk about
comparitive foolery on equal footing.

--
mark

ustion (mark) wrote in message
Your article has no sources cited (including, most conspicuously, one for the
photo), ...

That is the second time you have mentioned this and I find it
interesting, also. The webpage in question is apparently headed for
print. If so, the editor there will insist on some attribution.
However, for here and now, the unattributed use of this excellent
picture does raise some issues. Mr. Goldsborough sells coins. He
participates in the numismatic markets as a writer. Therefore,
although this webpage might nominally be cited as an example of free
information, the fact is that this use of this illustration is an
example of theft.

"... writing off one of the more knowledgeable collectors and dealers
of ancient coins (Mr Berk) as just another commercial dealer..."

Harlan Berk is himself very knowledgeable, of course. More to the
point, it is well known that he has experts behind him, Curtis Clay
now and Cathy Lorber before him, and others before her, in ancients,
as he does in US (Tom Delorey) and so on in every area. So, writing
off HJB is also to write off those professionals in his business to
whom he looks for authoritative answers.

... dismissing a museum whose job it is to know and present history
....

On the other hand, museums are not necessarily more expert in
numismatics than we are. I have some experience with this, trying to
have a chat with an ancient artifact museum person: she knew pottery,
not coins. That said -- and we can go back and forth -- I agree with
you that in order to trump a museum, you have to show a hand that
beats theirs. In other words, you have to have facts, not claims.
Also, interestingly, it is sometimes, perhaps often, the case,
that a SMALL museum will have a true expert of the highest caliber who
builds a special presentation. Reasons for this include job markets
and funding. So again, to downplay a museum requires more than a
sneer.

On 25 Jul 2003 04:00:39 -0700, (High Plains
Writer) wrote:

the fact is that this use of this illustration is an
example of theft.

Instead of diving into the gutter as some others do here with
statements like this ("the fact is..."), why not take the high road?
I've made a case for why I think the Lydian Lion is the first true
coin. Make a case for another coin, and back it up.

--

Coin Collecting: Consumer Guide: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Glomming: Coin Connoisseurship: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Bogos: Counterfeit Coins: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

Reid wrote:

"I've made a case for why I think the Lydian Lion is the first true coin. Make
a case for another coin, and back it up."


Ah... Yet another instance of you toeing the line and reaffirming the
"established wisdom." You must have swallowed Herodotus hook, line and sinker.
I'll put my money on Strabon.

I can make a case for another coin.

Chew on that for a while.


Anka Z
Co-president of the once thriving, but now defunct, Tommy John Fan Club.
Go, Lake County Captains!

(Ankaaz) wrote:

Reid wrote:

"I've made a case for why I think the Lydian Lion is the first true coin.
Make
a case for another coin, and back it up."


Ah... Yet another instance of you toeing the line and reaffirming the
"established wisdom." You must have swallowed Herodotus hook, line and
sinker.
I'll put my money on Strabon.

I can make a case for another coin.

Chew on that for a while.

He's too busy getting a lesson on Medusa and other Gorgons in Moneta-L to chew.
;-)


++++++++++
Phil DeMayo - always here for my fellow Stooge
When bidding online always sit on your helmet
Just say NO to counterfeits

From: (High Plains Writer)

That is the second time you have mentioned this and I find it
interesting, also.

Given his history of sockpuppetry, given the critisism he has taken for using
others words, for not doing his own research, and for continued lack of siting
sources, you'd think he'd learn.

The webpage in question is apparently headed for
print. If so, the editor there will insist on some attribution.

If published in present form, I doubt the said editor would accept another
submission from him, once a few other things were pointed out.

However, for here and now, the unattributed use of this excellent
picture does raise some issues

He said it is a picture of his coin, which illustrates his cluelessness yet
again. He so doesn't get the necessity of attribution, he so doesn't respect
copyrights that he doesn't understand the very real, practical need to stick a
copyright statement on the picture.

On the other hand, museums are not necessarily more expert in
numismatics than we are.

They don't have to be, and that wasn't the point. Thinking so is playing into
his hands.

--
mark

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