Anyone have any strong feelings on when to end the ancient era here?

I have debated this quite a bit and here is my opinion on the subject

I feel that when an era begins and an old one dies, there needs to be some form of REAL DRASTIC change in the world....for me I believe that one of the most drastic changes to the world in ancient times was the rise of Islam. The rise of Christianity was slow, gradual, and although much changed, the empire continued on, it just switched gears.

The rise of islam was a drastic change in world power structure. From around 600 A.D. Muhammad and his followers and kinsmen spread and empires fell and Islamic empires rose in their place and almost anyone who apposed them paid the price.

This is not a statement on the nature of islam but on the quick rise and spred of this religion and how it changed the power structures and changed world dynamics. I think the rise of islam solidified a division between east and west and the true death of the pagan world and a solidification of the monotheistic era.

The rise of islam was like an army on the march, not just Muhammad but his descendants and the right caliphs that would end up starting the great islamic empires, a large portion of the areas taken in the initial spread...Arabs lands, north africa, middle east, and eventually the near east remain islamic today and in some ways the lines are still drawn as they were in the beginning, both sides, with us or against us.

The rise of islam truly injected a brand new factor and no insignificant one as from almost the beginning islam spread, not like Christianity, underground, but as a fierce movement that spread by any means. It truly changed the world and we still see these changes today as the division between islamic east and western lands still survive and are still being contested.

So I voted 800 as by 700 AD islam had spread, it had by then just toppled the sassanian persians and was well on its way to threatening the west and the west was well on its way to recognizing this threat and by 1000 the western and eastern christians would begin putting aside their differences in the face of this threat.



580-620 AD

this is a coin of Khushro II, the sassanian king who was contacted by emissaries of muhammad...this is said to be what transpired at that meeting and the ramifications that I am sure he did not forsee:

Khusro II ruled during the meteoric rise of early Islam and is remembered as one of the powerful kings of the Persian Empire to whom Mohammed sent messengers with the word of Islam. He is said to have torn up the message and insulted the messenger. Ironically it would be these forces that would soon destroy the Persian Empire as a united Islamic army rapidly spread from the Arab Peninsula to engulf much of the east.

Khusro II was Succeeded by his son Kavadh II who would only reign for a few months followed by a quick succession of Kings that would end just 23 years later as Persia is defeated and over run by Islamic Invaders.


http://www.tribalsoup.com/cache/persian01.htm

^^ my page for this coin

So my vote is 600-700 AD as the end of the ancient world and the beginning of the new era.

I would say that the collaspe of the Roman Empire ends the Ancient coin period. The Byzantine Empire would than be the start of the Dark Ages through the medieval period in coin history.

I usually draw the line at Justinian I. Later Byzantine coinage (with some exceptions) tend to be of lesser quality.

I do not collect scyphate pieces and consider them to be medevial. The full sized (40 nummi) folli and smaller units I consider to be an extension of Roman coinage.

Of course this only looks at Western coinage. I do have two Sassinian pieces and consider them to be ancient. Chinese cash coins are in another category altogether, as there are virtually no changes (for the record, I consider all Tang and later cast coinages to be Medevial)

Generally speaking, I agree with Drusus with a line somewhere around the seventh century.

I picked 800 for another reason. Being an Enlish hammered collector, that is when the coinage in the country started to stabilise, although there were still some tribes that did not produce coins, they probably used those of other kingdoms.
These are the coins of the time.

I like 800AD as well. Most of the numismatic transitions from ancient times had been completed by then and the coinages in use by that date can be fairly characterized as something new. The deniers of Charlemagne and pennies of Offa represented the new standard to be imitated over the next four to five centuries. In the Islamic world by 800 almost all the coinage was of Islamic chatacrer with the exception of Tabaristan which clung to the Sasanian designs as did some outlying nomadic cultures. For Byzantium 900AD might be a better date, when the solidus was finally replaced. I don't know about Chna or India. I imagine China was fairly isolated and India was probably under Islamic influence by then.

Chinese cast "cash" coinage from 1 AD to the late 19th century (and into the first two decades of the 20th) have pretty much been the same.

Key dividing points for China in the past two millenia (IMO) are the introduction of the four character "kai yuan" pieces in the early 600s replacing the "wu shu" pieces*, and the introduction of milled coinage in 1887. (Cash coinage continuing until about 1912)

*Referenced in an earlier post re: Tang.

I have studied history in university for short time, but one thing from my gains in this field I can provide: Whatever we decide to be "Checkpoint Charlie" for Ancients and Medieval it wont work in any other area but Europe!
Any other area has it's own dividing of eras. For example China: What is the difference between 1 AD and 1000 AD in China? While there's great difference in Europe.

Some historians (like Brian Tierney) date the end of the classical period to 300 A.D., with Diocletian. I personally like the reign of Constantine,330 A.D., as the start of the medieval period. Constantine passed certain laws which tied people to the land, which was the beginning of the third estate (those who worked), or serfdom. The date of 330 A.D. is also good because Constantine officially founded Constantinople, and that marked a clear break with the old ways. Consequently, the end of the middle ages could also be associated with the year Constantinople fell--1453. In that same year the Hundred Years War also ended.

Henri Pirenne in his classic book Mohammed and Charlemagne argued that the classical world did not end until the expansion of the the Muslim world shattered the Mediterranean unity of the Romans.

No matter what we think now, Gregory of Tours , who lived in the sixth century, certainly felt he was still a Roman. If Gregory thought he was a Roman, can we now say that he wasn't?

Cool thing about that was that ancient coins were dug up centuries later, and spent! So that explains why it can be possible find Tang dynasty coinage, and Northern Sung coins mixed in with Ming dynasty coins in hoards.

Definately!

Hello,

For me, the end of ancient coins is when mechanical strike is introduced. Then it's around the rule of Henri II in France. It coincides more or less with the invention of printing, the fall of Constantiople and Colombus discovery of America, at the end of 16th century.

Qcumbor

I consider the Byzantine coins as ancient because of the "old fashioned" social system. On the other part, I consider the Friesach pfennigs of IX-th century or all other hammered coins as medieval. In my area of interest, medieval coins ends in 1774 - the last year of Sadagura coinage, but for the Ottoman Empire I tend to consider medieval all coins until WWI for the same reason like for Byzantine coins. Not scientific reasons, it is only my personal system of classification.

The Byzantines called themselves Roman and we call the Byzantines

By my estimation the Medieval and Byzantine coinages are a lot cruder than the "classical ancients" of Greece and Rome. Much more time and effort were put into Greeks and Romans than most especially early Medieval coinages. Civilisation must have really taken a dive during that time, so much so that artwork and coinage etc became almost cartoonish in appearance. Thankfully the Renaissance cured that problem.

And the Germans and Austrians were referring to themselves as the Holy Roman Empire until 1806.

I voted the classic fall of Rome in a sense that it fall but for me its not.
For me just an opinion.


Ancient time the other civilisation mint thier coins for the community for trade, while romans also mint their coin and centralized one for the empire and its expansion for soldier to go to war and conquer.

Is Roman Empire fallen for me no, just an opinion it evolve.

And one of its peak is during the reign of king Philip from Philippines to parts of America that they have a representative in the country in small and in big things.

Numismatically, the reform of the coinage under Anastasius which ocurred just after the fall of Rome does make a very good stylistic departure point. But, in my view it is the difference between antiquity and late antiquity. The character of coinage in the high middle ages really traces back better to the Carolingians than the Byzantines.

But it's all opinion, just fun to think about

The fall of Rome is an artificial date -- the capital had already moved and the city had become a shadow of its former self. The Empire continued on in the East -- and flourished. The fall of Rome is a convenient choice only for the Western Europeans.

Some say that Byzantine coinage was inferior to Roman coinage because of the transition to crude "cartoonish" forms. But this was deliberate. The main art form of Byzantium was the two dimensional icon. You can see that form start to express itself when the image of the Emperor rotated from profile to 3/4 profile, to frontal image. The icon is an early form of abstract representational art. Unfortunately, it is really difficult to make the two dimensional icon form "work" well on a piece of metal. With the Renaissance there was a return to more "realistic" three dimensional images, and the coins in the West brought back the realistic "profile" image. Some celebrate the Renaissance, but I find it terribly oppressive to walk through a museum of Renaissance paintings. I prefer abstract art. I would rather go see a gallery of Picasso, Klee and Miro -- or Byzantine icons.

I do not see the transition to abstraction as being all negative. But I do agree that late Byzantine coinage of the last three centuries was pathetic. However, a dropoff in quality does not mark the end of a period. The end of the age came in 1453, which finally and decisively ended the Roman Empire.

hi,

From these suggestions, I'd take 1453 for practical purposes on this forum, because there are only two sections (one ancient and one modern and a general "coins forum")

On the other hand, important attribution sources such as CoinArchives designate Frank Sceatta's as "modern world coins". That's 6th century... Byzantine is in the same section.

In my view, any coins forum should have a medieval section. I'm boards moderator on the Dutch forum, see muntenbodemvondsten.nl for a detailed subdivision:

-Greek
-Celt
-Roman
-Byzantine
-Merovingian/Karolingian
-Medieval
-Modern until 1506
-Modern after 1506

The middle section overlaps, but that's no problem, it is clear to anyone what it is and the coins are clearly different.


Lx

I think you need to balance the logical cut off with interest as well. It doesn't make as much sense to split an ancient section into sub forums on a site visited primarily by generalists. While on a site dedicated to ancient those division may make sense.