newbie question

[swish513]

how old does a coin have to be, to be considered "ancient"?

[renegade3220]

I found a Webster definition that refers to ancient as the time before tha fall of the roman empire. Going from that it could then be said anything from the roman empire and before...

Just something I found.

[Danny S. Jones]

Many would classify Byzantine as ancient coinage also, with medieval being in a separate category. This just to clarify the "fall of the Roman empire" usually referring to that of the western empire, with the eastern Byzantine continuing on for several more centuries... and producing "ancient" coins far later than the fall of the west.

Danny

[renegade3220]

Very true. I meant to include the Byzantine empire in my first post as part of the catagory. Glad you caught it.

[dougsmit]

So, correct me if I'm wrong:  A Byzantine coin from the 1500's is 'ancient' but a coin of Charlemagne from 800AD is 'medieval'?

I once believed in 476 AD as the end of the ancient world but I was younger then.  Now I'm just confused.

I pity poor old Harun al Rashid (of 1001 Nights fame) who beat up on Nikephoros, "the Roman dog" (=Byzantine Emperor) and traded gifts with Charlemagne.   He never knew he was in a time warp. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harun_al-Rashid

Labels work well up to middle school history but soon after start having problems.  To our kids, we are 'ancient'.  My 2nd grade grandson came home from school with a study sheet on Egypt that defined 'ancient' as 'very old'.  I'm good with that.

Recently I read an opinion that 'medieval' hit the world in about the same time across Europe and Asia.  In China, it started after the Wang Mang (1st century AD)  fiasco that brought on 'dark ages'.   In Europe, 'dark ages' held off until after Christianity replaced paganism in the 4th century.  Between the two, most places went through a period of less enlightenment at one time or another where there was a downturn in 'ancient' culture before it was replaced by a different set of 'medieval' cultural norms.  I've always considered the Byzantines as more medieval than ancient but I can see others differing on this.  They built nice buildings and acted like thugs.

Giving a test on who is ancient and who is medieval is something I would not do past elementary school.  Periods were invented to provide kids something to memorize rather than to promote understanding.

[Danny S. Jones]

So, correct me if I'm wrong:  A Byzantine coin from the 1500's is 'ancient' but a coin of Charlemagne from 800AD is 'medieval'?

Yes. At least according to many, however asinine that may be. I did not say I agree with the classification, but nevertheless, it is there... especially among the ranks of coin dealers.

"Byzantine" is a late description of an empire which considered itself Roman in virtually all respects. However there is a marked difference in artistic design, architecture and certainly portraiture on coinage. Personally, I believe that the long standing Empire of the east deserves its own classification, even if it is divided into classical and late empire.

As Doug so eloquently stated, it's not really an issue worth fussing about. Let the elementary schools sort this one out. Classification is more often than not a means of over-simplification to try to understand a complex subject.

Danny

[swish513]

thank you all for answering.

the reason i asked is because i did not want to post a coin that did not fit the catagory. i have a couple of medieval coins but did not want to post them if they weren't considered "ancient."

[Enodia]

you can still post them here.
there is a medieval-specific forum listed below this one and the people there may be able to help, or just list it in the ID section.
good luck.

~ Peter

[Stkp]

Labels work well up to middle school history but soon after start having problems ... Giving a test on who is ancient and who is medieval is something I would not do past elementary school.  Periods were invented to provide kids something to memorize rather than to promote understanding.

These same conceptual problems exist when one tries to define the end of the medieval and beginning of renaissance or early modern, or whatever other label one cares to use.  These terms are all somewhat arbitrary, and a clear line of demarcation that works well for one culture does not necessarily work at all for another. 

[Andrew McCabe]

One case of how culture-stereotyping can get things upside down, is English dark-ages or anglo-saxon coinages as against mediaeval or norman. Traditional English history has 1066 (Norman conquest) as the dividing line. Yet from a numismatic perspective, the anglo-saxon coinage supposedly from the dark ages has some of the most carefully produced, artistic, neatly designed, good silver content, well struck and beautiful coins of all time. Yet the coins of the early modern era from 1066 are some of the scrappiest ugliest coins ever made. Go back one "era" further, and one finds the wonderful manufacturing standards of the earliest Byzantine coins as compared with the depths of late Roman. Labels can be used to conjure up an image, but one has to look at the artistic and numismatic evidence of the age before drawing conclusions. I come from Ireland where indeed our greatest art was produced in the so-called dark ages. Other examples abound. Labels can be convenient short cuts but they can easily lead to unjust stereotyping.

[Robert_Brenchley]

The Saxons and the Normans were closely related peoples, and I've seen nothing to suggest that Billy the Bastard brought anything in the way of 'advances' with him!

[Jochen]

For me the Antiquity ended with the conquest of the North-African parts of the Roman Empire by the Arabs. This was the moment where the ancient cultural and oeconomical system collapsed for ever. The Mediterranean was no more the centre of the world.

Best regards