|
This page may contain links that result in small commissions to keep this free site up and running.

Welcome Guest! Registering and/or logging in will remove the anchor (bottom) ads. It's Free!
To participate in the forum you must log in or register. | Author |
Replies: 18 / Views: 3,300 |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Russian Federation
5181 Posts |
About 7th-8th century is probably the border between "ancient" and "medieval" (Merovingian and early Carolingian silver pennies are medieval, Byzantine letter-denominated coins of Justinian etc[1] are ancient, and I don't know enough about how other coins of similar period look like; actually, I generally think dumping Justinian with the Middle Ages makes little sense historically).
As for the boundary between "medieval" and whatever goes after it... probably late 15th century. I think 1486 would work as a specific symbolic date (it's the introduction of the Guldengroschen).
That said, excluding coins of Anastasius and Justin I that I classify as "ancient", I currently only have two coins that I would count as "medieval"; one apparently from the 1390s, one probably from the 1460s or 1470s, and both nowhere near good enough for any definite identification (the dates I listed are attributions from the guy who sold them to me).
On "oldest coin I have": technically, probably the Olbian dolphin. However, I've seen and received greatly different opinions as to when it could be from (ranging from 7th to 1st century BC), and it doesn't look much like a coin anyway (it's one of the anepigraphic types - I've seen one of these with an inscription, but didn't have the money), so I consider my oldest coin to be the Pantikapaion piece I posted recently (it's from 220-210 BC).
Pantikapaion, by the way, is modern-day Kerch, in the Republic of Crimea; I was nowhere near that place the one time I visited Crimea (in 2002), and considering the recent political situation, I doubt I'll be going there anytime soon either.
[1] after a Wildwinds search, this seems to end in the 740s, between Leo III and Leo IV
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
549 Posts |
For decades coin dealers have had to decide what goes in the "ancient" section of their catalogs, and when coins become "medieval" instead. Byzantine coins until the end of the empire in 1453 are on a continuum with Roman coins and are cataloged with ancient coins. For much of Europe there are so few coins in the "Dark Ages" that the gap between ancient, including Ostrogoths, and medieval is wide with few coins in between and resuming with thin silver pieces that just don't resemble most "ancient" coins. In Britain it is tricky. Local coins go back to before the Romans and resume afterwards and turn into "medieval" eventually. If the sale has early British and Anglo Saxon and medieval they simply go in a "British" section. The "Kings of All England" begin in the 900s and they make a convenient place to begin a collection of "medieval" coins.
There is no "right" answer. However, when silver coinage is resumed in very thin pieces like medieval pennies, they are very old but not usually regarded as fully "ancient."
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4778 Posts |
Quote: I generally think dumping Justinian with the Middle Ages makes little sense historically). I disagree. While he was born and raised an adherent to the old, Roman-Latinized societal order, Justinian knew the world that he lived in was very much different than the one of the time of Augustus, Hadrian, or even Constantine. His strong devotion to the pope and religion mirrors that of later medieval rulers. Legislature enacted by him became a basis for later medieval and modern law, and, while his empire was legally the Roman Empire, Justinian sought to restore his empire to the power and glory it once knew, with him becoming as great as the emperors of old. This idea of living up to Rome's name and reputation was an attractive one to many medieval European rulers. In these respects, Justinian was very much a medieval figure, and a very important one at that. As for the OP question, with history I like to go by the book, and this extends to my numismatic pursuits. For me, even if the style screams ancient, any coins coming out of Western Europe and North Africa 476 AD (official start of the Middle Ages) and later I consider medieval, while anything struck in the territory of the Byzantine Empire after 491 AD I would classify as medieval (when Anastasius claims the throne, he is the first true Byzantine ruler numismatically and the first Roman emperor to begin his reign after the fall of Western Rome). All of this only applies to the regions mentioned above; I don't really collect or study much outside of those and so don't have good ideas of when the Middle Ages start in other locations. Although from what I've read, for Arabia it starts in the 7th century, with the rise of Islam? End of Middle Ages I'd say either 1453 (final fall of the Roman Empire at Constantinople), or 1492 (end of Reconquista and the discovery of the New World).
Edited by VisigothKing 04/13/2014 03:31 am
|
| |
Replies: 18 / Views: 3,300 |
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Coin Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2026 Coin Community Family- all rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Coin Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Contact Us | Advertise Here | Privacy Policy / Terms of Use
|
| Coin Community Forum |
© 2005 - 2026 Coin Community Forums |
| It took 0.21 seconds to rattle this change. |
 |
|
| |
| |