COIN (NEW CONCEPTS)

[Wile E. Coyote]

There is no doubting Hats has an eye for spotting forgeries, but I am no longer worried about taken in. Wiley's role (which he is likely to fail at) is to explain a new way of looking at Coins. It is not up to Wiles to find a rare example of a coin minted during the reign of Legendarus, that proves the battle of so and so took place in Fairyland. Or, a tad more likely to expose the Legendarus as a fake. No, Coyote is not interested in the exceptional or the missing link. In my defence I was first to point out the Tara Brooch, so maybe I am not as gullible as some. Still Hats is inevitably going to catch me out. Hell its going to be painful.

[Boreades]

Was it here in the Coin topic (or somewhere else) that we were wondering why the metal (in metal objects) can't be dated more accurately? Or historians and archaelogists appear reluctant to try?

Some pedant might have said "well you can't carbon-date metal".

But metals can be dated thanks to the isotopes they contain, e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440318303807?via%3Dihub

[Hatty]

[Hatty]

Just came across a PhD thesis on 'The Origins of Anglo-Saxon Kingship' submitted in 2015 by one Peter Burch, School of Arts, Languages and Cultures, University of Manchester. It seems to rely on Bede, Gregory I, Welsh annals, saints' Lives, et al. judging by the chapter headings but starts by saying historical sources are unreliable, as per 19th century historians' strictures, so decides to look at the archaeological evidence.

It takes a while to get through the chat but finally he gets to 'kingship' the evidence for which consists of elite burials, which may or may not be kingly, and the first example is Childeric. He gives two key reasons for believing the burial, discovered by workmen in 1653, was that of Childeric

[Hatty]

I couldn't carry on reading, the unwillingness to engage in straightforward checking of sources is too depressing, but it didn't do Burch 's prospects any harm

[Mick Harper]

I think this should be in the Applied Epistemology section or the Forgery section rather than the Coin section but it is riotous anyway you look at it. Since it is in the Coin section, it was this that caught my eye

[Wile E. Coyote]

[Mick Harper]

This is rather nice and really belongs n the Forgery -- modus operandi thread. When you've got a bunch of things that were common enough in their day but are so rare now they are worth zillions, you need a pretty convoluted backstory viz
why only a few survived out of loads
why this particular one survived out of loads
where are the ones that were with it

Thus you get gospel books being wantonly destroyed by brute beasts but then occasionally ransomed back to the original owners. The brute beasts, being brute beasts, never realise that they can ransom all gospel books back to their owners not just this one. Oh, and this one. And this one. However, your coin partakes of the Book of Kells Exemption -- brute beasts steal the book then inexplicably bury it in the ground, then inexplicably vanish, then the book is inexplicably found a few months later. (Yes, it's the dreaded Irish manuscript hound.)

[Wile E. Coyote]

The Childeric seal ring looks remarkably like the old AE profile of Boro, and I would add that the engraver had clearly had too much cider by the time he reached the Regis bit.

I am not quite at the J'accuse stage just yet, but I have to say that Boro remains suspiciously silent, and hasn't issued a full denial.

[Boreades]

I deny it (whatever it is). Got any more cider?

[Boreades]

Coins? Or buttons?

[Wile E. Coyote]

[Mick Harper]

The Megalithic Empire argues for a sophisticated system of long distance trade based on tolls. It did not seem to be cash-based which was a nuisance since we had to pray-in-aid various devices from offering up a goose (that's why they're such good waddlers) and hazelnuts (high value to weight ratio). Tokens seem a much better bet. Now it's redeeming the tokens that becomes the problem. Look at Green Shield stamps. Where are they now?

[Wile E. Coyote]

Let's take a look at the ortho position. Note how the history interacts with the economics.

Coins were used in Roman Britain, and it is argued they were used by the Celts before that for trade.

When the legions leave early in the 5th Century, and before the arrival of the Anglo Saxons, coin production stops for about 200 years. Presumably with a negative impact on trade, which has reverted to barter.

Then the Saxons arrived and started to produce coins. These are the so called silver 'sceattas'. The word 'sceat' it is thought to have originally meant 'treasure'.

Just before the first of the "Viking" raids on England, the Saxons began to mint a new type of coin the so called English penny, some believe named after the little known king called Penda. Others believe that the penny, is named from the "pans" into which the molten metal for making coins was poured. Either way the word "penny" bears a remarkable resemblance linguistically to the German "pfennig".

The Great King Alfred increased the number of his mints to 8 to increase coin production, this was in part used by the King to pay his soldiers and build a navy to defend the shores against the heathen Vikings. We should note that Alfred's sensible policy was then partly ignored or abandoned by future rulers such as Aethelred II who preferred to pay the Vikings rather than his own soldiers, to keep the peace. These payments were called Danegeld.

The result of this policy of appeasement is that far more Anglo-Saxon coins have been found in Scandanavia than in England. The Vikings then, interestingly, start minting their own coins based on the Anglo-Saxon designs they have plundered.

The side effect of all this coin production, paying of soldiers and enemies not to invade, is that the birthplace of history England has a national system of coinage hundreds of years before anywhere else, it is just most of the finds occur in Scandinavia.

[Mick Harper]