Coin quality, coin quantity, and coin value in early China and the Roman world
Walter Scheidel (Stanford University)
Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics, September (2009)
Abstract
In ancient China, early bronze ‘tool money’ came to be replaced by round bronze coins that were supplemented by uncoined gold and silver bullion, whereas in the Greco-Roman world, precious-metal coins dominated from the beginnings of coinage. Chinese currency is often interpreted in ‘nominalist’ terms, and although a ‘metallist’ perspective used be common among students of Greco-Roman coinage, putatively fiduciary elements of the Roman currency system are now receiving growing attention. I argue that both the intrinsic properties of coins and the volume of the money supply were the principal determinants of coin value and that fiduciary aspects must not be overrated. These principles apply regardless of whether precious-metal or base-metal currencies were dominant.
Coinage in Western and Eastern Eurasia – In which ways did these systems differ? In Western Eurasia coinage arose in the form of oblong and later round coins in the Greco-Lydian Aegean, made of electron and then mostly silver, perhaps as early as the late seventh century BCE. Quickly adopted by Greek poleis, precious-metal coin use gradually spread across the Mediterranean before it greatly expanded in the Middle East in the wake of Alexander’s conquests and Hellenistic state formation. When Rome joined this currency system in the late fourth century BCE, silver was its principal coin metal in terms of value. Under the imperial monarchy, gold gained prominence and became the most important store of value. With the recurrent debasement of silver coin in the third and fourth centuries CE, gold became even more dominant in late antiquity, accompanied by base-metal issues.
Walter Scheidel (Stanford University)
Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics, September (2009)
Abstract
In ancient China, early bronze ‘tool money’ came to be replaced by round bronze coins that were supplemented by uncoined gold and silver bullion, whereas in the Greco-Roman world, precious-metal coins dominated from the beginnings of coinage. Chinese currency is often interpreted in ‘nominalist’ terms, and although a ‘metallist’ perspective used be common among students of Greco-Roman coinage, putatively fiduciary elements of the Roman currency system are now receiving growing attention. I argue that both the intrinsic properties of coins and the volume of the money supply were the principal determinants of coin value and that fiduciary aspects must not be overrated. These principles apply regardless of whether precious-metal or base-metal currencies were dominant.
Coinage in Western and Eastern Eurasia – In which ways did these systems differ? In Western Eurasia coinage arose in the form of oblong and later round coins in the Greco-Lydian Aegean, made of electron and then mostly silver, perhaps as early as the late seventh century BCE. Quickly adopted by Greek poleis, precious-metal coin use gradually spread across the Mediterranean before it greatly expanded in the Middle East in the wake of Alexander’s conquests and Hellenistic state formation. When Rome joined this currency system in the late fourth century BCE, silver was its principal coin metal in terms of value. Under the imperial monarchy, gold gained prominence and became the most important store of value. With the recurrent debasement of silver coin in the third and fourth centuries CE, gold became even more dominant in late antiquity, accompanied by base-metal issues.
Click here to read this article from the Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics
Sponsored Content