Aspendos Stater and Its Fourrée Counterpart… the Case for a test Punch

[Lloyd Taylor]

A lot of people express the view, often quite strongly on this discussion board, that there was no need for test cuts or test punches to check for subaerate cores.  Weight they assert would simply give the game away and thus all the ancient coin tester needed was a set of scales.

Well here is an example of a late fifth century BC Aspendos Stater and its fourrée counterpart - refer to the two images below.  

The foreee is identified by the copper core, the poorer quality engraving which includes a misspelt legend - it is clearly a struck ancient counterfeit from unofficial dies and despite the bronze core is of proper weight.  Simply weighing a coin in the ancient market place as many have suggested on this board would be sufficient to determine a counterfeit from an authentic coin would clearly lead to an erroneous conclusion in the case of this Aspendos fourrée. Those who believe weighing as the obvious solution to counterfeit detection in the ancient market place argue that this obviates the requirement for test cuts and/or punches to test for a subaerate core.  Well think again! Density yes, weight no, at least in the case of this counterfeit.

The interesting aspect to the authentic counterpart of the fourrée is that it has been discretely punched on the reverse left field so as to penetrate the core of the coin and disclose its nature.

So here we have an authentic coin test punched and its weight correct fourrée counterpart, which provided the motivation for its testing.

It is interesting to note that relatively few of the Aspendos staters in this series show test cuts or punches. The testing of this coin may reflect a specific and limited episode of counterfeiting which was tackled by the test punching of coins of the specific emission that was being forged.

I am not arguing that all cuts and punches are for metal test purposes, but clearly some are as this example indicates.

Coin descriptions:

Authentic -  https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-91120
Pamphylia, Aspendos, ca. 420-400 BC, AR Stater
Two wrestlers grappling within a dotted border.
Slinger discharging sling right, triskeles in right field, ethnic EΣTFEΔIIVΣ to left, all within incuse square.
Tekin Series B; SNG France 49; SNG von Aulock 4509.
(23 mm, 10.84 g, 5h)
This coin is an early example of a prolific series issued over more than a century by Aspendos, all of the same basic iconography and bearing the ethnic of the city in either abbreviated, or full form (EΣTFEΔIIVΣ), spelled out in the Pamphylian dialect. Sixteen different wrestling grips and stances are recorded in the series, making it a fascinating study of the practice of ancient athletics. On this coin the wrestler on the left seeks to destabilize his opponent, by applying force to his shoulder while sweeping his leading foot from beneath him. His opponent, on the right, counters by grasping his right hand, while at the same time thrusting into his stomach with the other hand. The slinger on the reverse is a nicely detailed study of the action and musculature of a slinger at work.

Fourrée - Pamphylia, Aspendus; 420-400 BC, Stater, 10.42g. SNG Von Aulock-4504; BMC-16, pl. XIX.14 var. Obv: Two wrestlers fully engaged standing knee to knee; Rx: Slinger standing wearing short chiton, discharging sling to r.; in field, triskeles of human legs; the whole in dotted square wihtin incuse square.Surfaces are somewhat worn and porous on the obverse. The reverse, while better struck, shows signs of copper underneath (at 7h and 1h) suggesting that this is a possible ancient fourrée. The weight is still within the normal range of those of pure silver.
 

[Taras]

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing!

[Andrew McCabe]

A lot of people express the view, often quite strongly on this discussion board, that there was no need for test cuts or test punches to check for subaerate cores.  Weight they assert would simply give the game away and thus all the ancient coin tester needed was a set of scales.

I don't think that's what anyone asserted. Not me anyway. The weight overlap between heavy plated coin and light solid coin is well known. I'd never sort solid from plated coins based on weight alone.

What I've asserted is that visual effects are usually sufficient, e.g. surface waviness, the nature of cracks, the appearance of the silver, edge effects, the nature of surface corrosion spots, the nature of patination, the thin line where the foil wrap ends, and that ancient inspectors would be adept at recognising those effects. Weight then just becomes one of a dozen symptoms. I have in my own collection several coins which I think are plated despite being of good weight and intact silver coating. I can tell because of the surface effects. Such effects don't translate well into photographs however; I could illustrate these suspects but no-one reading would be much the wiser and would have to take my word. Which I guess is the point. However regarding the two coins above, a quarter second glance told me the second one looked likely to be plated and the first good silver. I'm sure no numularius would have needed more than a second to tell them apart without mechanical interference.

The numularii were sufficiently expert that their clients relied on them to be able to detect plated coins without having to mutilate them (and thus damage their value). So I still maintain that deep cuts were not needed.

[Lloyd Taylor]

I was not singling out any particular individual when making the statement regarding strongly held opinions about the invalidity of "test" cuts and punches. Many a time the opinion has been expressed by different people. No offence intended and I hope none was taken.

I think it is an error to view these Greek cut and/or punch marked coins through the prism of Roman Imperial understanding and practice. They precede the latter by half a millennium, during which time knowledge, cultural development and monetary cohesion changed dramatically. We see evidence of this development in the relative and absolute reduction in the number of cut and punched coins as we progress from Classical through Hellenistic and into Roman periods.

Archimedes only developed the concept and understanding of density (as opposed to weight) one and a half centuries after these coins were struck. This plays into the more advanced knowledge base of the nummularius  a half a millennium later.  Moreover, the nummularius dealt with standard imperial designs and coinage of standard dimensions arising from industrial scale mintage, quite different to the circumstances that prevailed with respect to the coinage of the Greek Polis and its successor the Hellenistic Kingdom. So what the nummularius did and understood is barely applicable to the consideration of what happened half a millennium before and thus the purpose and intent behind cuts and punches.

A further consideration is that the large denomination Greek coins involved, staters and tetradrachms, were not the everyday coinage and means of exchange in the ancient agora. Rather, such high denomination coinage was associated with high value transactions, typically settlement of large debts and taxes, official interchanges and the payments of mercenaries for extended service periods.  Even in the confines of the monetized small world the Greek cities there was an evident and occassional need for the recipient of a fistful of staters, or tetradrachms, to validate the value of the coinage proffered to him, particularly if these originated from another polis or kingdom. Sometimes this need would have arisen in locations often physically removed from the agora and its associated officials (including the equivalent of the latter day nummularius) with their "knowledge" (whatever that may have been). A simple cut or test sufficed to remove the risk of subaerate cored item entering the transaction settlement. The point is that it is unlikely that all cuts and punches were the result of "official" action.

Similarly with the progress of half a millennium and the spread of Roman imperium and its standards well beyond the ancient Greek frontier the cultural response to coinage changed dramatically. No longer immediately regarded as bullion beyond a certain geographic line in close proximity to the ancient monetized centres the practice of cutting and punching fell into terminal decline. Why? Because the knowledge base and cultural context of coinage had changed.  

Hence the danger in viewing and interpreting the pattern of cuts and punches in ancient Greek coins through a much later static and invariant prism of knowledge. The motivation behind cuts and punch marks on ancient Greek coins  are many any varied and some (but not all) do appear to relate to the the testing for subaerate cores.

All I am simply pointing out here is that there are examples that support the proposition of testing for subaerate cores and that it serves not to be too dogmatic in seeking to argue the case that such never occurred on the basis there was no need because of other more "scientific" methods available to officials and the nummularius five hundred years later. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it wasn't simply the ancient equivalent of a nummularius who handled these cut and punched Greek coins and although deep cuts may not have been needed, deep cuts happen when the circumstance and/or available instruments preclude discrete cuts, punches, or testing involving no cuts at all. That said in many cases we have no basis to determine the motivation behind extensive deep repeated cuts and punch marks... its all speculation as to motivation and purpose in such cases.

[Andrew McCabe]

All understood, especially the point about later developments. Nevertheless there is a lot of modern literature supporting the assertion that the heavy cuts on Greek coins were not in general for the purpose of testing and I'm drawing on that material for a paper that considers heavy cuts on 3rd century BC Roman coins (which are hardly much later than cut Greek coins). I'm trying to reflect the views in papers I've read though I accept some modern views may imply too much sophistication; still, that's what they've been saying, that the cuts were not for testing.

[Lloyd Taylor]

I agree that there appears to be too much sophistication and over interpretation of the phenomenon of the deeply cut coins. To be honest I find one of the proposals that they amount to administrative system cuts within a sophisticated monetary administration incomprehensible and inconsistent with the rationale proposed. Countermarks yes, but cuts ? It stretches credulity to propose that the repeated cuts amount to administrative controls.

If the administrative system is so advanced as to seek to control by marking coinage in circulation then a recognisable official punch mark would be the oucome, not a chisel cut which could be replicated easily by anyone anywhere and thus compromise the control system. To my mind many a proposed rationale for the cuts is both internally contradictory and inconsistent with the proposed motivation. In short, I think a lot of certainly unsbstantiated, and even illogical speculative baloney surrounds the issue.  

For example the relatively common and multiply cut owls of many eastern and Egyptian hoards could just as plausibly be the result of an ancient fashion trend and an associated preference for cut coins. Its just as plausible as the explanation of it being the result of an administrative control system applied to money in circulation. I am not proposing the former, but simply pointing out that there are many plausible reasons and perhaps as many implausible reasons, which may be equally logical in the context of the ancient mind although seemingly implausible to a modern mind.

Better in my view to admit that we don't know and have no documentary evidence or substantiated knowledge of the purpose of the cuts in many, if not most instances. The problem of our lack of understanding is then couched within terms of the unknowns and speculation is seen for what it is rather than becoming academic dogma.  

[Lloyd Taylor]

I am left to wonder on this my latest acquisition... to what purpose this cut on the obverse, if not to test for the metal beneath the surface?  The only cut Sikyon stater I have seen, so not a frequent occurrence and far from normal practice in the Peloponnesos at the time. Perhaps it is as simple an explanation as that someone took offence at the Chimera and Apollo was just collateral damage in the process? The truth is that we'll never know, but a possible test for a metal content is more plausible than many an alternative explanation and cannot be discounted as a non sequitur.

Peloponnesus, Sicyon; c. 360-330/320 BC, Stater, 12.06g. SNG Lockett-2329 (same obv. die), Grose-6252, pl. 219, 14, Traité-pl. CCXXI, 2. Obv: Chimera left; head of Apollo below. Test cut in center. Rx: Dover flying left within wreath.Test cut on obverse.

[Andrew McCabe]

I agree that there appears to be too much sophistication and over interpretation of the phenomenon of the deeply cut coins. To be honest I find one of the proposals that they amount to administrative system cuts within a sophisticated monetary administration incomprehensible and inconsistent with the rationale proposed. Countermarks yes, but cuts ? It stretches credulity to propose that the repeated cuts amount to administrative controls.

If the administrative system is so advanced as to seek to control by marking coinage in circulation then a recognisable official punch mark would be the oucome, not a chisel cut which could be replicated easily by anyone anywhere and thus compromise the control system. To my mind many a proposed rationale for the cuts is both internally contradictory and inconsistent with the proposed motivation. In short, I think a lot of certainly unsbstantiated, and even illogical speculative baloney surrounds the issue.  

For example the relatively common and multiply cut owls of many eastern and Egyptian hoards could just as plausibly be the result of an ancient fashion trend and an associated preference for cut coins. Its just as plausible as the explanation of it being the result of an administrative control system applied to money in circulation. I am not proposing the former, but simply pointing out that there are many plausible reasons and perhaps as many implausible reasons, which may be equally logical in the context of the ancient mind although seemingly implausible to a modern mind.

Better in my view to admit that we don't know and have no documentary evidence or substantiated knowledge of the purpose of the cuts in many, if not most instances. The problem of our lack of understanding is then couched within terms of the unknowns and speculation is seen for what it is rather than becoming academic dogma.  

I sympathise with all the above. The various modern authors which I refer to do of course provide plenty of evidence about the non-random nature of cuts and their association in some cases with counterstamps which have a fixed location in relation to the cuts, as well as about the lack of cut coins in mainland Greece. Still they are probably over-interpreting. There may have been fixed conventions about exactly where a coin should be cut in a given city or province, but those conventions are not a case for saying that the cuts were not intended to test.

A personal view is that the cuts through the head of Athenian owls were deliberately intended to disfigure the coins and thus prevent them being circulated back to Greece, and for this reason the head was chosen as the place to disfigure. By this mean, the export of silver was limited and money was retained in country (eg Syria). This gives an economic function to the cuts, beyond just testing. If I might be impolite for a moment, it's rather like a schoolboy spitting on his own food so that his schoolmates don't want to steal it. This personal view does tend to match the 'modern authors' in suggesting that the cuts had a marking function that limited or guaranteed their circulation area; whether they had a dual purpose of also testing can be debated.

[Nick T]

The conversation above has been an education. Thank you.

Whilst I am reluctant and intimidated to add my opinion on the subject, owing to my comparatively limited knowledge on the subject matter, I will put forward my opinion anyway.

Could the punch marks not have served a practical purpose. An individual may have used the punched holes as a means of threading coins for safe keeping. Test cuts are another matter. I am struggling to find a practical reason for such actions. Maybe someone can think of one.

The point I am trying to put forward is that there maybe a simpler explanation to the the punches and cuts that we are missing. Your thoughts ?   

[Lloyd Taylor]

.... Could the punch marks not have served a practical purpose. An individual may have used the punched holes as a means of threading coins for safe keeping. Test cuts are another matter. I am struggling to find a practical reason for such actions. Maybe someone can think of one.

The point I am trying to put forward is that there maybe a simpler explanation to the the punches and cuts that we are missing. Your thoughts ?  

There appears to be a misunderstanding resultant from nomenclature here.  

What I believe you are talking about are holed coins for which there is ample evidence that the holes were made for suspension. Holed coins are at one end of the spectrum of deliberately battered and beaten coins.  

To illustrate where they sit in the sequence of damage we have the following progression illustrated using coins from my collection:

Cut and/or test cut coins with one or more cuts the result of a chisel blow to the coin. No metal is removed from the coin but, rather the metal is displaced by the chisel blow. In extreme multiply cut cases the coin is effectively butchered.  In my opinion, it is improbable that the single cut and multiply cut coins reflect the same purpose. https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-86178

Punched and/or test punched coins. These are the result of the application of a punch to the coin flan. Although the resultant displacement of metal creates a deep hole it does not penetrate completely through the coin (as opposed to the holed coin). These punch holes (perhaps better described as pits) are usually rectangular (example at the head of the thread https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-91120 ) or circular in form and tend to be positioned towards the centre rather than the edge of the flan.  i.e. making a hole for suspension was not the intended purpose. Rather an examination of the metal deep within the coin seems the most plausible explanation.

Punch marked coins. Like the former these are the the result of punching the coin with a shaped punch, typically a cross, or similar geometric form https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-99549 They penetrate the coin more deeply that the geometric counter mark (described below) and are thus distinguished from the later although many a punch mark is categorised incorrectly as a counter mark reflecting the fact that the distinction between the two is subtle and even arguable. Typically they are applied at or toward the highest point of metal of metal on the coin thus affording a deep penetration without punching through the coin. The purpose of these punchmarks appears to be both investigative (what metal cores the coin?) as well as possiby signifying some administrative purpose signified by the punch design.

Counter stamped or counter marked coins bear a shallow incuse geometric, or pictorial motif, or letters in the Roman era, often a recognisable design such as an owl, crab, horse etc. https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-82937 The purpose of these countermarks appears to be a validation of the coin for circulation at some period of time after it was struck.  This is very evident on the early coins of Olympia where successive countermarks can be attached to various games four years apart and coins were struck for each Olympiad.  Re-validation for circulation within the Olympic preccinct was necessary for earlier struck Olympic coins and I dare say the Zeus and later Hera Temple authorities who issued the coinage charged a percentage for revalidation of coinage struck for earlier games!

Holed coins are fully penetrated usually by a roughly circular hole, typically (but not always) towards the margin of the coin with the purpose of suspension or affixing the coin  https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-89132 . How do we know it was for suspension? Because the suspension mechanism is sometimes fully of partially intact secured by a metal pin through the hole https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-85583 Most of these holes on early Greek coins appear to have been punched through the coin, displacing metal. However, some of the later Roman period ones have clearly been drilled, removing metal in the process. Tool marks I have seen on the inside of some holes punched completely through coins indicate that multiple blows and working of the tool/punch was required i.e. making a hole was the intended outcome, rather than an accidental consequence of the process.

Of course there are gradations between and mixtures of these to be found on coins so that we have a continual spectrum of deliberate damage.  Clearly the  motivation and purposes for such  is many and varied and no single explanation suffices.

Each such damaged coin has to be considered on a case by case basis and within the context of the time and locales where it originated and was found, in order to come to a plausible explanation of why and how the damage was incurred.

[Lloyd Taylor]

This one is an example of why we can infer with confidence that it was holed for suspension ......
 https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-85583

[Lloyd Taylor]

The point I am trying to put forward is that there maybe a simpler explanation to the the punches and cuts that we are missing. Your thoughts ?  

Picking up the theme from the preceeding couple of posts and the concept that there may be a "simpler explanation":

And we have here yet another type of cut, one that removes a significant amount of metal and deliberately defaces the design... the damnation cut.  
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-89133  It was sold with the description that it was "test cut" .... a pure rubbish explanation for the reasons detailed in the gallery posting and below.

We can infer that this is a damnation cut with some confidence from the historical context. In fact it is the polar opposite to the holed example of the type posted  in the thread above ... veneration and damnation evident on two examples of the same coin type... reflecting a polarization of opinion of Seleucus in the local populace (settlers versus indigenous inhabitants) at the time these coins circulated.


The defacement of Seleukos’ image on this coin may be one of the earliest acts of damnation recorded on coinage. A broad deep cut to the coin was deliberately placed to remove the facial features on the obverse. Unlike a test cut, silver has been carved from the coin, rather than simply displaced by a chisel blow. This removal of silver explains the low weight of the coin (0.6 g less than the Attic weight standard).

This coin type appears to have been struck primarily for circulation in Persis. This deliberate defacement of the image of Seleukos is possibly an act of condemnation and hostility. It may have been the result of Persid animosity associated with the revolt against Seleukos commencing ca. 295 BC. This revolt saw the loss of southern Perisa and the establishment of the Kingdom of Persis. As noted by Kritt (ESMS): There is evidence of hostility to the Greeks among the natives of Persis, going back to the time of Alexander, as well as indications of Seleucid intentions of holding Peris. There is also both literary and archaeological support for Seleucid garrisons in Persis, and in particular Persepolis….. the evidence from Pasagarde strongly suggests the possibility of a violent revolt in Persis c. 295 BC.


This example re-inforces my point that these things must be considered on a case by case basis within a total context applicable to the time and locale in order to understand the why and how it was done. The attempted application of sweeping one-off explanations to all damaged (be they cut or punched) coins fails miserably under any reasoned analysis that acknowledges all the facts.

[Lloyd Taylor]

The point I am trying to put forward is that there maybe a simpler explanation to the the punches and cuts that we are missing. Your thoughts ?  

To open up the discussion having dealt to the evident lack of a "simpler explanation" in preceeding posts,  let's invert the problem and ask a couple of questions:

Why with one notable, politically associated exception (https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=52033.0 ) do we virtually never see test cut, or punched gold coins?

Why is bronze coinage not subject to cutting and punching?  Damnation scratches, cuts and abrasions - yes, countermarks - yes, holing for suspension and affixing - yes, but cutting and punching comparable to that seen on silver coinage - no.

The phenomena of "test" cutting and punching is largely limited to silver coinage. Herein is a clue to the varied motivations and reasons (and testing is one of them) behind the practice.

[Nick T]

Thanks for the detailed response and the attached examples.  Truly fascinating and educational.  Studies like the one you have undertaken adds relevance and interest to ancient numismatics far beyond the scope of a new collector like myself. 

[Lloyd Taylor]

Thanks for the detailed response and the attached examples.  Truly fascinating and educational.  Studies like the one you have undertaken adds relevance and interest to ancient numismatics far beyond the scope of a new collector like myself.  

Thanks. I'm glad it proved to be informative.  I suspect there is more to the subject that most give credit for. Unfortunately, there is little scholarly interest in the interpretation of damaged coins, so there is not a lot to go on when embarking on this new field of cognitive numismatics.

To open up the discussion having dealt to the evident lack of a "simpler explanation" in preceeding posts,  let's invert the problem and ask a couple of questions:

Why with one notable, politically associated exception (https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=52033.0 ) do we virtually never see test cut, or punched gold coins?

Why is bronze coinage not subject to cutting and punching?  Damnation scratches, cuts and abrasions - yes, countermarks - yes, holing for suspension and affixing - yes, but cutting and punching comparable to that seen on silver coinage - no.

The phenomena of "test" cutting and punching is largely limited to silver coinage. Herein is a clue to the varied motivations and reasons (and testing is one of them) behind the practice.

Any takers for the questions posed?

[bpmurphy]

Why is bronze coinage not subject to cutting and punching?

Bronze wasn't a valuable metal and you can't make a bronze or copper fourre so there was no need to check the center of the coins (unless one was looking for chocolate).


Why with one notable, politically associated exception (https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=52033.0 ) do we virtually never see test cut, or punched gold coins

Gold is significantly heavier than bronze or silver and fourres of gold coins are obvious from a simple in hand inspection. There's no need to cut them open.


Since in the previous discussion about these test cuts there were only really 3 of us in the discussion that I recall, and you've already told Andrew you weren't trying to single him out, I assume you are referring to something I said. I don't recall the actual topic last time so I'm not going to hunt for the thread, but perhaps I wasn't completely coherent in what I posted since I tend to do these posts before I go to bed at 3 AM. Let's try again (at 2AM).

There's no doubt that the result of these deep, disfiguring test cuts and punch marks was the identification of silver cores versus copper cores. I don't think anyone has argued to the contrary and I believe that the identification of fourre's vs good silver coins was the primary, and perhaps only, reason for these deep disfiguring test cuts.  Whoever did it, wanted to make sure that he had good silver. The real questions are what happened to the coins after they were disfigured and where were the test cuts applied? Did the coins continue to circulate alongside other non-test cut coins or were they removed from circulation. The answer to these questions lie in the study of hoard reports which I have spent the last hour or so doing, looking at perhaps 100 different hoards of Greek coins.

What you find when studying the hoards is:

- test cut coins are found with other test cut coins. Almost all of these hoards are found in Egypt or in the east. This suggest that it wasn't something that was done near the place of mintage.

- you don't find circulation hoards composed of cut and non-cut coins. You do  find coins with banker's marks etc... mixed with non-marked coins This suggests that cut and non-cut coins did not circulate alongside each other.

- looking at excavation reports from Athens, Corinth and  number of other cities, you don't find test cut coins lost in markets or other locations where coins could be lost. So test cut Athens tets did not circulate in Athens. Test cut Macedonian coins did not circulate in Macedon etc.... What you do occasionally find are test cut fourres suggesting that once a coin was identified as a fourre it was cut so that it didn't circulate any longer. It was clearly marked and disposed of.

- looking at the test cut coins themselves, you will see very little wear on the coins after they are cut. The edges of the cuts usually remain sharp and angular.

Taking all this into consideration, what you have with these test cut coins are coins that are separated from their place and perhaps time of mintage. You have coins that are no longer being traded as coins, but as bullion. You no longer have an Athens tetradrachm, you just have 17 grams of silver. These coins are not going back to there place of mintage, they are not circulating in daily transactions as coins. I don't think there were officials in Athens test cutting Athens tets to see if they were good silver. I think there were people who were much more familiar with their own coinage than we give them credit for and could identify good coins from bad without having to resort to test cutting. Much like I can tell when I get a silver quarter in change without looking in my hand because it sounds and feels different than a clad quarter, I suspect there were people in Athens who could so the same with Athenian coinage. If test cutting was the preferred method of determining authenticity and if the fourre problem was a really big issue, I'd expect to see a much greater percentage of coins with test cuts, but you don't, not even in series where you find an above average number of fourres.

This probably wanders a bit since it's now 3AM so lets me see if I can sum up my thoughts on the issue....

1 - These deep test cuts and punch marks that tended to disfigure the coins WERE used to see if a coin was good silver or not
2 - These cuts were not used locally by local officials to determine if circulating coins were good silver
3 - Once a coin was cut in this manner, it was no longer a coin, it was bullion. Perhaps due to it's distance from it's place of origin it already was just bullion, but in any case it was never going to be used as a coin again
4 - People 2000 years ago were not much different than we are today. They took pride in their cities and their coinage was a reflection of their city. The people of Athens didn't want a bunch of coins circulating with the owls head cut in half. Even if the coin still traded at approximately bullion value, the people still wanted it to look acceptable. That's just human nature. The fact that we have coinage at all is testimony to that fact.

Going to bed now.

Barry Murphy

[Lloyd Taylor]

Barry - thanks for the most cogent analysis of the issue that I have read.

As you say the cuts (and punches) were primarily to test the metal in the core of the coin and this is why they are almost exclusively found on silver coinage.

Test cutting and punching was completely unnecessary on gold and bronze for the reasons you state.

And the further the silver coin strayed from the source the more frequently cut for the simple reason it was  exchanged as bullion.  

Test cuts are exactly that as Kraay and others have postulated, despite the modern academic penchant to attribute some sort of administrative function to such cuts. The fact that cuts can display some sort of statistical bias in terms of placement on the coin is meaningless other than reflecting the ease with which a cut can be made deeply into a high point on the coin. The high point is always in the same location of the design and hence the statistical bias we observe.

And by the way, you were the last person I had in mind when I made my deliberately provacative opening statement regarding people with strongly held opinions that test cuts are not for testing. The previous thread was but one of many that touched upon the idea of administrative cutting that I had in mind when broaching the issue in this way, with a view to steering the discussion in what I considered a more logical manner to a conclusion by making a few simple observations and asking a few simple questions.

Thank you for putting the hoary chestnut of administrative function cuts to bed... at least as far as I am concerned!  

The fact that they are isolated to silver coiange says it all and such was the point of my rhetorical questions!

As for my test cut Sicyon stater I am damned sure the cut was not made in the Peloponnesos and that wherever it was made it was was simply done to obtain the assurance that it consisted of 12 grams of silver, rather than silver plated bronze, or similar valueless rubbish (the fiduciary concept having no worth beyond the issuing state).

And the punch on the Aspendos - nothing more than a check on the silver core by an individual concerned that he might be lumbered with one of the bronze cored counterfeits of the same issue in circulation at the time. No official, no market place administration, just a concerned individual who didn't want to be lumbered with a counterfeit! He picked up his hammer and a nail and probed beneath the surface. Hardly rocket science and an everyday occurrence when faced with doubt!

I'll now ask the "administrative test cut" proponents to argue the counterfactual case with equal cogency, if they are so able.



P.S. Thanks for the test cut cut Memphis Alexander which is one of my favorites!

[Andrew McCabe]

 

1 - These deep test cuts and punch marks that tended to disfigure the coins WERE used to see if a coin was good silver or not
2 - These cuts were not used locally by local officials to determine if circulating coins were good silver
3 - Once a coin was cut in this manner, it was no longer a coin, it was bullion. Perhaps due to it's distance from it's place of origin it already was just bullion, but in any case it was never going to be used as a coin again
4 - People 2000 years ago were not much different than we are today. They took pride in their cities and their coinage was a reflection of their city. The people of Athens didn't want a bunch of coins circulating with the owls head cut in half. Even if the coin still traded at approximately bullion value, the people still wanted it to look acceptable. That's just human nature. The fact that we have coinage at all is testimony to that fact.

I appreciate Barry's long post on this matter. I think we have reached different conclusions on the same evidence base. I fully agree with point 4. I've some sympathy with point 1 but with the caveat that there is a lot of evidence that a marking system was used, in different times and places, that suggests the coins were intended to resume circulation; my thinking is that that testing and marking were a double feature, contrary some modern authors who considers these cuts were never intended to test but only to mark. I don't agree at all on point 3, except in some limited circumstances that plainly indicate Hacksilber hoards, and in those cases the cuts were of a different nature. I've read up on quite a few Hacksilber hoards and am handling a Hacksilber hoard of cut coins at the moment. They are different. And I don't agree on point 2 because the nature of the careful placement of the marks, sometimes in combination with counterstamps, suggests official intervention. There are plenty of hoards with mixed cut-coins and uncut coins that suggests they were not bullion but circulating coin after being cut. There are plenty of worn cut coins. That doesn't contradict point 1 because if the purpose of the cuts and their placements was to keep coins in-province (Levant, or parts thereof, or other limited circulation areas) and stop them being exported, then they are fully compatible. On bronze coins, another point is that bronze coins circulated locally. Hence, if cuts on silver were intended as marks they were probably just not needed on bronzes. I've not seen as many hoards as Barry has but I've read deeply on the subject in recent months. I don't doubt that testing was part of the rationale, but the circumstances I've seen and read about don't lead me to agree on Barry's points 1,2,3. I don't think we will ever reach a conclusive landing on this, as different experienced and knowledgeable people (including others not in this thread such as van Alfen) are reaching varying conclusions from the same evidence.