Ancient Roman coins found buried under ruins of Japanese castle | Hacker News Reader

Ancient Roman coins found buried under ruins of Japanese castle

independent.co.uk

162 pointsdiodorus32 comments

One of the coins has a classic hole punched through it. I've seen these as punched circular holes, but this one seems to have been done with a blade. You can almost see the outline of a one-sided blade. This screams to me that the coin was once worn as jewellery, an image of the emperor worn around the neck on a strip of cloth. So this may have been brought by a traveller, even a tourist far from home. Coin collectors might dismiss it as damaged, but to me it's far more interesting because of this possible backstory.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/n-old...

edit: after looking at the pic and how small the hole is, could the strip of cloth have been anything other than silk? That means the hole was punched in the east, not in the west where silk would be too expensive for such utility.

AKA cash: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_(Chinese_coin)

Like Wampum, Chinese cash was kept on strings.

I'm guessing coming via trade with China?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Roman_relations#Roman_and...

Right. No need for any direct connection between Rome and Japan. Coins were traded at their bullion value.

I suspect the "baffled" part came from the journalist, not the actual archaeologists.

Even today there are coins that are used that way, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Theresa_thaler

This coin has been minted and circulated continuously since 1741 in parts of the world far removed from its point of origin (indeed, the very government that originally minted it is long, long gone).

Except they were copper coins, not silver coins.

Japan is not famous for its natural resources of metal, especially prior to the 19th century, so maybe that makes sense too.

Katanas did come to my mind when reading your comment, but I find this more contradictory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Japanese_iron-working_te...

Well, that amazing technology was the result of only having iron sands to work with, "Tamahagane". Lots of impurities you have to work out, hence the hammering and folding as well.

Why does the metallic composition of the coins matter? It doesn't effect the point at all, so your use of "except" is confusing to me.

Only point I can see is that copper is not a traditional bullion metal. I'd argue that that's up to the trade partners to decide, not us centuries and an industrial revolution later. For instance, aluminum was considered a precious metal until the late 1800's when new smelting processes drastically increased supply.

Yes, that's true; I had been thinking about it in terms of traditional bullion, which I suppose is a Western-centric viewpoint. Even China only recently ramped up their copper production with industrialization.

Copper is as traditional a bullion metal as either gold, silver or iron, it's just a matter of what historical period we're talking about. Commodity money evolved organically over thousands of years from salt, to iron/copper, to silver+gold and finally to gold alone. Gold was better suited as money because it was rarer, and therefore carried more value per weight unit, and it's fairly useless for metal work because it's relatively soft.

That holds for coins used as currency, but not necessarily for coins used for bullion. Krugerands, the definitive bullion coin, don't have denominations printed. Their value is based only on their metal. With ancient coins there is a very fine line between a valuable piece of currency, and an attractive lump of silver. I suspect that by the time this coin is in Japan, it is worth more than its weight suggests. But does that intrinsic value appear because it is currency or simply novelty? I think the latter. This is a bullion coin worth more purely by circumstance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krugerrand

My personal impression is that coinage is complicated.

I suspect they started out as weights for measuring out a certain value of grain or similar.

Then you stamp the weights with the mark of the sovereign that validates them.

Then at some point it becomes just as easy to just swap weights around as bring out the scales.

There were more primitive systems of currency before authorities started endorsing coins. Hoards of bronze-age axeheads, few of which show signs of use, some that couldn't ever be, point to them as a means of moving wealth via standardized units. A standardized shape of metal used in trade... sounds like coinage to me.

Which would explain why they weren't melted down. (They might have just been there in the mix, to make change for larger transactions among pieces no longer surviving).

This is really cool, but I don't understand why they'd be more popular than local currency if they're not the dominant world currency like the dollar is.

Still, what a fascinating chunk of currency.

I would guess that in every instance where these are popular that the local currency is fiat money issued by an unreliable government.

> This is really cool, but I don't understand why they'd be more popular than local currency if they're not the dominant world currency like the dollar is.

Looks like it's basically a widely used standard denomination for silver bullion.

Silver holds its value much more reliably than third world fiat currencies.

Considering the recent(purported) discovery of Chinese skeletons in Roman settlements in England, I'd say the possibility of a direction connection is substantial.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/chines...

While a stimulating find at first, these were likely brought over when they were already ancient with the 17th century Turkish coins. Katsuren was built around 1300, so that leaves the fact someone buried the coins there. Probably in the 17-18th century for safekeeping.

Yeah, the fact that they were Constantine coins reinforces that theory.

This is an interesting find, but not at all surprising.

At the time the coins were buried, Ryukyu (now called Okinawa) was not a part of Japan. Until the 19th century Ryukyu was a tributary of China, and at one time it was a regional trade hub, so one would expect coins from distant lands to find their way there.

It's more complicated than that: Ryukyu was a tributary of both Japan and China, and de facto a vassal state of Satsuma from 1609 onwards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Ryukyu_Islands#...

Katsuren Castle was known to have been the focal point of trading partnerships with China and other Asian countries

There is loads of evidence for early trade... the Periplus[0] is a well known period navigational text showing knowledge of India and China. Roman coins have been found in Cambodia[1] and Vietnam[2]. Coins from East Africa have even been found in Australia.[3] Essentially we know that seaborne travel was very much going on in prehistory but we have no way to track a lot of it... most of the evidence is gone. In the case of Japan, however, they probably obtained coins by land trade through the Silk Road[4]... much like they did Buddhism.[5]

[0] https://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/texts/periplus/periplu... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funan_(Southeast_Asia) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%93c_Eo [3] http://www.smh.com.au/national/out-of-africa-20130908-2tes7.... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road#Chinese_exploration_... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanto_Rokush%C5%AB

Last week there was also some news report regarding skeletons of chinese origin having been found from Roman cemetary. These were dated to 200-400 AD.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3803648/A-mee...

Relations between the Roman Empire and China are reasonably well documented. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_European_explora...)

Explaining these coins' presence as "trade" leaves a lot of questions open. These had to have arrived after they were minted in the 4th century. The Turkish coins are late 17th century, but Wikipedia puts the last use of Katsuren as early 17th century. That all leaves a lot of intriguing possibilities: Roman trade with China followed by either trade with Okinawa or a "gift" of intriguing artifacts, Portuguese trade directly with Okinawa (which would make sense with the Turkish coins), or something else.

If the two sets of coins are related, who after the late 17th century is toting around 4th century coins? And why bury them in an unused castle? If they aren't related, how do they get in proximity?

Some of these are probably answered by the archaeology, but even so these things are going to be damned weird, "trade" notwithstanding.

A gold coin would be melted down and re-struck again and again as it traveled or as kings died or were usurped.

A copper coin, however, would not be worth the bother. This coin had plenty of time to travel

More frequently, gold and silver coins were melted down and re-struck to add tin and make one coin into two. The most frequent tool found in old buildings are coin molds and strikes - hidden away (because illegal) they got left when the building was abandoned.

Confused: what was the date of the ruins? Can't find any date in the article. Without that info there's no mystery. You can buy Roman coins via Ebay.

Please stop with the autoplaying audio links, or at least post a warning in the headline.

plausible explanation to clickbait title leave HN readers baffled.

> We don't think that there is a direct link between the Roman Empire and Katsuren Castle

Well I'm glad that's cleared up!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com