DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49262#0051
ch. π] THE COIN AS A MEDIUM OF EXCHANGE 31
3 63 g. (the tetradrachm being a Phoenician stater of the
common norm 14-55 g·) J f^e maximum weight as found is
3’57 g- 3-58 g. The Athenian gold drachm is never above
4-32 g. The reason is that the deduction for the cost of
striking was made rigorously in consideration of the precious
character of the metal. ‘ The measure in question,’ as Lehmann
points out, ‘ was a protective one. Metal which has already
gone through the processes of smelting, refining, &c., is
naturally the more valuable for the change. Ornaments made
of such metal could obviously be placed on the market with
more profit than if these laborious processes had to be per-
formed. By keeping the intrinsic worth of a coin a little
below its nominal value, the authorities made it more profitable
to retain it as a coin than to put it into the crucible. The
reduction could also be effected by alloying. In early times,
in well-ordered states, where purity was an object, this method
was avoided. And the occurrence of pieces of full weight,
as in the Solonian coinage, was also due to a wish to win
a reputation for the currency.’
The standard as thus reduced might be regarded as a new
standard. Another state copying the standard in this reduced
form, and making its own reduction, would bring about
a further fall in the standard. This is probably one secret
cause of the degradation to which coin-standards were subject.
The principle on which, for the purposes of coinage, the
units within each norm were arrived at, may be explained
by the following instance. Taking the light mina of the
reduced royal norm at 505 g. we find that it contains sixty
shekels or staters of 8-4 g. This was the unit employed
for gold coinage on this norm. For monetary purposes, again,
the weight-mina of sixty shekels was not used, but a money-
mina of fifty shekels (420 g. in this case) was employed. This
was the system for gold. But for silver another standard
was required, because at this time the relation of gold to silver
was of an inconvenient kind, being 13 j : 1 1- One gold shekel
of 8-4 g. was therefore worth 111-72 g. of silver, or (a) ten
pieces of silver of 11-172 g., or again (&) fifteen pieces of 7-44 g.
1 Herod, iii. 95 ro 5e χρυσίον τρισκαώ^καστάσιον λο^ιζόμ^νον. This is
only approximate, the truer relation being as in the text: Mommsen-
Blacas, Monn. Rom. i. p. 407.
3 63 g. (the tetradrachm being a Phoenician stater of the
common norm 14-55 g·) J f^e maximum weight as found is
3’57 g- 3-58 g. The Athenian gold drachm is never above
4-32 g. The reason is that the deduction for the cost of
striking was made rigorously in consideration of the precious
character of the metal. ‘ The measure in question,’ as Lehmann
points out, ‘ was a protective one. Metal which has already
gone through the processes of smelting, refining, &c., is
naturally the more valuable for the change. Ornaments made
of such metal could obviously be placed on the market with
more profit than if these laborious processes had to be per-
formed. By keeping the intrinsic worth of a coin a little
below its nominal value, the authorities made it more profitable
to retain it as a coin than to put it into the crucible. The
reduction could also be effected by alloying. In early times,
in well-ordered states, where purity was an object, this method
was avoided. And the occurrence of pieces of full weight,
as in the Solonian coinage, was also due to a wish to win
a reputation for the currency.’
The standard as thus reduced might be regarded as a new
standard. Another state copying the standard in this reduced
form, and making its own reduction, would bring about
a further fall in the standard. This is probably one secret
cause of the degradation to which coin-standards were subject.
The principle on which, for the purposes of coinage, the
units within each norm were arrived at, may be explained
by the following instance. Taking the light mina of the
reduced royal norm at 505 g. we find that it contains sixty
shekels or staters of 8-4 g. This was the unit employed
for gold coinage on this norm. For monetary purposes, again,
the weight-mina of sixty shekels was not used, but a money-
mina of fifty shekels (420 g. in this case) was employed. This
was the system for gold. But for silver another standard
was required, because at this time the relation of gold to silver
was of an inconvenient kind, being 13 j : 1 1- One gold shekel
of 8-4 g. was therefore worth 111-72 g. of silver, or (a) ten
pieces of silver of 11-172 g., or again (&) fifteen pieces of 7-44 g.
1 Herod, iii. 95 ro 5e χρυσίον τρισκαώ^καστάσιον λο^ιζόμ^νον. This is
only approximate, the truer relation being as in the text: Mommsen-
Blacas, Monn. Rom. i. p. 407.