brotus maximus Posted March 23, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 so in essence barter was a somewhat effective means of coinage between different cultures/ language barriers. but at the same time there seems to be a bit of a dispute about actual metal coinage, but werent just about anything considered coinage like for example(in slight relation to bartering betwwn the different cultures) beads or stuff in similar fashion (you know stuff that could be held in large quantity but small enough to hold in two hands max-most of the time), the reason I bring this part up is becuase I remember reading an article or two about something like this that other cultures used to do (like the north american indians- or most that I remember at the moment) but i also remember hearing something like that wiht the romans intill a certian periond when ""coinage"" was being invented in a sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted March 23, 2006 Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 Yes there are portraits of Romans on coins but never portraits of living Romans before Caesar. This may seem such a little thing to us now, but it was a terrible affront to the sensibilities of the aristocracy. I'll bet not such a little thing. In the US anyway there is a law against having the likeness of a person put on postage stamps until the person has been dead for 10 years. The reason for this is precisely to stop the public business being used for partisan political gain. If there were similar laws against naming bridges to nowhere after senators.... well, I digress. In any case, what Caesar did wasn't simply an affront to the sensibilites of the aristocracy. Even today we have similar laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted March 23, 2006 Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 Do we know when Caesar produced the first ? The first (and there were relatively few in comparison to other coins he produced) was in 44 BC. I believe it was the "DICT PERPETUA" coin. A fine sample. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantagathus Posted March 23, 2006 Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 (edited) I'll bet not such a little thing. In the US anyway there is a law against having the likeness of a person put on postage stamps until the person has been dead for 10 years. The reason for this is precisely to stop the public business being used for partisan political gain. Pretty much the same with coins. The only exception made that I know of was the commision of the Kennedy half dollar; released in 1964, soon after he was killed. Even so, that apparently still caused controversy. Edited March 23, 2006 by Pantagathus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantagathus Posted March 23, 2006 Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 To bring the thread back around and to offer a quite sufficient answer to the poster's question, I offer this link: Numismatics - Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities (1898) Excellent summary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Dalby Posted March 23, 2006 Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 I agree totally about Caesar: surely the first portrayal of a living Roman on a coin was a big leap towards personality cult. For regions further east, I'm trying to remember when this was first done. Certainly Philip of Macedon had his protrait on coins, and Alexander after him. There were maybe one of two others on the western edge of the Persian Empire. Who set the example? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantagathus Posted March 23, 2006 Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 Who set the example? From what I'm coming up with it would seem to be either Darius or Xerxes. But it looks more like a charicature than a protrait cause the succesors just imitated the motif... Philips looks to be the first real 'portrait' (even though he's depicted as Herakles) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted March 23, 2006 Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 I'll bet not such a little thing. In the US anyway there is a law against having the likeness of a person put on postage stamps until the person has been dead for 10 years. The reason for this is precisely to stop the public business being used for partisan political gain. Pretty much the same with coins. The only exception made that I know of was the commision of the Kennedy half dollar; released in 1964, soon after he was killed. Even so, that apparently still caused controversy. Still controversial in my eyes. I'd like to see old Ben Franklin back on the coin. Replacing a giant like Ben Franklin with that sod Kennedy is a joke. Back to topic, notice also that when Caesar is depicted on the coin, he's got his bald head covered!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted March 23, 2006 Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 (edited) The Code of Hammurabi (?) sets down the rate at which things were exchanged (bartered). Taxes were likewise calculated. That is not to say that 'money', which represents 'things' and 'labor', was not extant. I just checked (naturally I have it at home ...!) Hammurabi's code always seems to set values either in silver (by weight) or in grain. So, yes, acting on this code is not 'barter' in the strict sense. Values are set against a standard. _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ You are assuming that their was enough 'money' circulating to effect all economic transactions. This was not the case. The Code told you how many units of 'this' representing X amount of 'money' could be 'traded' for how many units of 'that' representing X amount of 'money'. This Code was set up to effect 'honest' business and of course to collect taxes in kind. Deoclitian's edicta were a 'price control' mechanism. They didn't work. There was enough coinage, but it had been greatly debased. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Still controversial in my eyes. I'd like to see old Ben Franklin back on the coin. Replacing a giant like Ben Franklin with that sod Kennedy is a joke. _________________________________________________________________________________________ I thought politics were outlawed from this Roman Forum. Edited March 23, 2006 by Gaius Octavius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 I thought politics were outlawed from this Roman Forum. No, we just try to limit it to the 'off topic' forum. In this case it was loosely applied to the subject at hand, but yes we also prefer it to be within the context of the ancients. Point taken though, and our agitating friend Cato should understand that the comment regarding Kennedy was unnecessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 Point taken though, and our agitating friend Cato should understand that the comment regarding Kennedy was unnecessary. Actually, I didn't mean anything political by the jibe at Kennedy (I was weighing whether to include a jibe against Eisenhower just to be non-partisan, but it seemed random). In any case, I'll be more careful next time--my agitation on behalf of the republic keeps me busy enough on this forum! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brotus maximus Posted March 24, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 To bring the thread back around and to offer a quite sufficient answer to the poster's question, I offer this link: Numismatics - Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities (1898) Excellent summary thanx for the info on that stuff that pretty much asnwers my question that I had "bit of a reader though it is" (says yoda) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Dalby Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 The Code of Hammurabi (?) sets down the rate at which things were exchanged (bartered). Taxes were likewise calculated. That is not to say that 'money', which represents 'things' and 'labor', was not extant.I just checked (naturally I have it at home ...!) Hammurabi's code always seems to set values either in silver (by weight) or in grain. So, yes, acting on this code is not 'barter' in the strict sense. Values are set against a standard. You are assuming that their was enough 'money' circulating to effect all economic transactions. This was not the case. The Code told you how many units of 'this' representing X amount of 'money' could be 'traded' for how many units of 'that' representing X amount of 'money'. This Code was set up to effect 'honest' business and of course to collect taxes in kind. No, I'm making no assumption. Nor was Hammurabi. Even if the items concerned (which we can call 'money') aren't in hand, it is possible to calculate the value of other things against them, and to buy and sell, using this 'money' as a standard. That's what we do (nearly always!) when we buy a car or buy a house or pay our taxes. 'Money' (which means coin or banknotes, in our case) does not change hands. I don't call it barter, though. Do you? Deoclitian's edicta were a 'price control' mechanism. They didn't work. There was enough coinage, but it had been greatly debased. Yes, to be precise, they were an attempt to set the maximum prices at which supplies would be bought by the Roman army. And, no, they didn't work. But they provided employment for a lot of stonecutters ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.