Material culture is one of the ways in which archaeologists use in categorizing the historical activities and the lifestyle of the communities. In that case, the primary material used in various occasions would form a critical discourse concerning the way the community was valued as compared to other communities across the globe. For instance, the origin of coins is traced to various class connections including commercial activities in the history of Greece and Lydia. The coin is one of the materials that have been used for long, and it has been linked to the economic activity of different communities. However, since its invention in the 7th century BC, it is still a common tool in commercial activity. In that respect, there is need to create an understanding through coin's course of development to get its contribution which has made it withstand different generations. Additionally, it is important to note its changing value to the society and its contribution to socioeconomic status. While the use of coin has been associated to trade, the basic raw material throughout its history was a defining factor in class and power which affected the essence of capitalism.
Dating information and archaeological data assert that the first coin was invented by the Lydians in the mid-7th century BC (Mundell 2002). Being retail people, Lydian played an essential role in bringing the essence of coin in the business. Their idea, however, was adopted by the Greeks and played a crucial role in the commercial revolution as well as the transformation of Greek civilization (Mundell 2002). However, some scholars assert that medium of exchange had been there before coins since anything that had a privileged unit or value had some currency attributes (Bresson 2006).
The essence that people bartered by making exchange of items that were desirable to the dealing parties rules out that coin were the only means of trade that could lead to their invention. However, considering the basic attributes of currency, there was a need to get an item that could fit well with currency's attributes. Ideally, the basic attribute included an acceptable means of exchange, a standard of value, unit of account, a store of wealth as well as a method of payment. Gold and silver coins, therefore, attributed the said attribute since they could be a measure of value and a store of wealth that was valued by the society (Davies 2002).
The use of coin currency has been associated with increased needs for the transaction in the history of trade. In that respect, means of payment become necessary and metal qualified as sufficient tool for exchange in commercial processes (Conzett n.d.). The use of precious metal was supported by the idea that it would perform the role equivalent to all good and at the same time, the coin could act as a unit of account as well as the store of value (Bresson 2006). However, the usage of Lydian coins was not realized in other parts of the globe until 80 years later when it spread to other parts of the Greek colonies (Melitz 2016). Ideally, the distribution of the ancient coins was restricted to the local administration as in the case of the Lydian coins. However, other states upon acknowledging their independence began to mint their coins describing the theme of sovereignty (Hamann 2016).
The historical course of coins indicates that they were made from the precious metals; the value of the used material, therefore, becomes the point of reference of the value of the currency as well as its use (Bresson 2006). The Lydian coin was made of a material known as electrum which is an alloy of gold silver and other lesser metals. The availability of this material in Lydia and Greek made it a common medium for exchange in retail trade activities (Melitz 2016). The coins made of silver and other precious metals made people possess them due to the guaranteed worth of these coins. For instance, in the 13th
century when Marco Polo wanted to introduce paper money to replace coins, he met intense resistance to this idea since paper could not guarantee the same value as gold and silver coins (Graf 2015). Ideally, people were more attached to coins since they could trust the value of gold and silver more than the paper currency. Critically speaking, at this time the idea on the bulk of the metallic coins could not surpass people’s internalized value or the perceived worth of coins.
In the ancient time especially before 600 BC, the currency was not confined only in the time of coinage but rather several commodities that mattered to the communities (Glyn 2016). For instance, the shallow regions of the Pacific and the Indian Ocean used cowries as a form of money. Interestingly the value of such currencies increased as they became scarcer from their origin (Glyn 2016). This idea indicates that in the ancient times, individual and community class was far more attached to materials that were highly regarded by the community. In that respect, therefore, some coins' attributes were more powerful beyond its appearances.
Ideally, power is not defined with regards to a single entity since some factors that classify different entities in the society cannot be ignored. According to Cowei (2011), class and societal identity, as well as surveillance techniques, develop the essence of power as a multifaceted unit. For instance, the improved abilities to form gold and silver coins as separate entities allowed the development of different classes regarding what they possessed (Davies 2002). However in the capitalist world, class is a common facet in classifying groups of people in the society both in the past and present (Wurst 2011).
According to Mundell (2002), the value of a coin was guaranteed by the level of approval the coin held. As such the esteem of the coin was an essential factor in classifying people into either highly regarded class or low classes in the society. In some cases, the administration involved would guarantee the value coin used through minting which would give people confidence in their use (Graf 2015). The value and power conferred to a coin in this form indicate that power can be experienced due to authority manifestation. Nonetheless, for the Lydians, coins positioned their status in a different dimension increasing their influence among the neighboring areas. Also, the improved retail trade that resulted from the invention of coin made Lydia prosper becoming the most powerful state in their region controlling some Ionian cities (Konuk n.d.).
In the 13th century in areas such as Europe coin had already been accepted in contractual relations between tenants and the landlord, employees, and employer as well as in political authority (Melitz 2016). This brought the reality of two classes in the society defined by the power of ownership. The power conferred to the ancient coins such as Lydian coins had an artificially fixed value that it would pass from one owner to the other (Schaps 2006).
Even though material possessions can be used in defining and separating different classes in the society, the course of class formation indicates that the two classes are reliance on each other. This is further emphasized by the fact that each group in the society has its interest in the relationship (McGuire and Reckner 2002). In archaeological terms, material culture such as the possession of different coin currencies by the Lydians differentiated the communities into different classes. For archaeologists, what people possessed defined their particular culture (McGuire and Reckner 2002). In that case, therefore, the communities or individual who had coins in their possession were recognized as the most influential people in the society.
The main essence in capitalism entities is the ownership of property and the value of these properties which ideally describes the owner. In that respect, the electrum coins which were regarded to be highly valuable meant increased profit to the owner (Melitz 2016). Another aspect of capitalism is that the creation of wealth is efficiently when there is zero regulation and that free market should prevail. The case of Croesus of Lydia contravenes with the said statement since there was the control of the royal coins (Melitz 2016). However, in the real sense, the holding or controlling of coins which ideally means only the portion of the society get access while the other is limited to possession indicates the essence of inequality which the ideal of capitalist society. In that aspect, the creation of wealth would be limited to the royal entities.
Another aspect to this regard is that the supply of the coins to the Greek colonies relied on the goodwill of Lydian king. In some instances, the coin could bear the image of a lion symbolizing the Lydian royal household which meant that its use could only be authorized by the King (Schaps 2006). This means that means of production is limited to certain members of the society. Ideally, there was limited circulation to other markets, implying that the only prevailing supply was the local circulation leading to decreased competition which an essential component of a capitalist market (Melitz 2016).
The regulation of Lydian coin circulation to the surrounding areas made the colonies rely on their form of currency. This idea did not attract competition across both borders (Melitz 2016). The impact this aspect have on power is that it led to withholding of foreign coins since they cannot be utilized locally undermining the government involved. However, the later popularity in coin usage led to the improved role that coin is not just a minor entity but a measure of items of trade (Melitz 2016).
In wealth creation, coin in Greece and China provided a new point of interest. In Greece, there were the transformation trading activities from local small quantity trade to integrated trade with a broader dominion (Schaps 2006). On the same account, China coin replaced utensil money which could not be used in the large-scale exchange of goods. Although this seems to assume the inexistence of trade due to lack of coin, anthropology has indicated that economic arrangement and wealth creation was still possible in the absence of coinage (Schaps 2006).
In later dates, some areas such as China presented a contemporary insight relevant in the development of coin's value. Ideally, in 1500s China depended on imported silver coins from Europe and America which they melted them to form local currencies. Interestingly and relevant to this discussion is that the country created a dual currency system; that is, the lower-valued coins were used in local and rural trades, while the higher-valued silver coins were important in long-distance commercial activities (Hamann 2016). Therefore, the ownership of these coins was significant in describing the individual access in various markets as well as in joining the capitalist classes of the Chinese people. Ideally, capitalism is limited when there are trade restrictions, which indicates that the owner of the lower-valued imperial coins could not engage in trade beyond their localities.
In the contemporary world, coins are not made in the same precious materials that were used in the ancient coinage. About the attachment seen in the case of royal coins, the modern coin may have little attachment to societal values due to the raw material and traditional reflections. For instance, lesser metals such as copper, nickel, and zinc have been found to form the primary raw material and are somewhat cheaper as compared to gold and silver used in the ancient coins. Ideally, the use of coin in the modern world does not reflect too much class difference since all social classes have access to coins.
As noted above, the early coins were minted and controlled by the royal people or kings in the region. Similarly, in the contemporary world, the production of coins are restricted by the government through the centralized minting section such as the central bank. In that case, the minting department such as the U.S mint department is responsible at hiring the workers. Although the people in minting process do not possess a differentiated class or royalty, the pride of stamping the American heritage into a coin makes them unique ( U.S Mint 2018). Considering the process is controlled means the worker’s contribution is only recognized with the means of payment which do not place as controller of the economy as it is in the case of capitalists.
According to Desan (2015), the current money making and institution structures are the essential facets of the financial crisis observed in the societies since the mid-nineteenth century. Also, the increasing reliance and use of advanced technology have placed the coin in a critical point of view in the society. For instance, money is threatened by the increased counterfeit currency in the commercial activities. However, issue of the counterfeit in the ancient times of the coinage seems not have taken a significant role since coins were restricted to kingdoms and were minted in accordance to the locality.
As observed in the case of ancient coins, in the contemporary society coins do not hold a prestigious role since the material used reserves no other value than that of currency. The technological advancement has allowed the use of other portable and effective means of payment reducing the popularity of coin. Nonetheless, the societal acceptance of modernity and improved means of payment have reduced the value of a coin. Also, concerning power and class, coins in the contemporary society cannot showcase the same attributes it did in the ancient times due to a reduced value of the raw material. Ideally, modern society has developed a construct on the value that their currency worth is more appreciated than their raw materials.
The essence of power in the modern world has been redefined by different emerging facets such as social organization as well as urbanization (Cowie 2011). However, in relation to coins, the contemporary social organization is not much influenced by coins since they lack social value which would position a society above another. In another aspect, power depends on the ability to control social, political and economic organization which is not profound in the contemporary use of coins. Also, according to Wurst (2011), class manifest when there are disparities in the distribution of basic resources in a given society. The access of coin in the contemporary society has not been restricted to specific classes thus cannot play an essential social organization.
As noted in the case of the Lydian coins, the lion portrait on the face of the coin signified a royal origin which is also supported by the fact that kings controlled their authorization. Similarly, in the contemporary society coins do carry symbols of great people in country's history including the top leadership. This is a clear indication that power has the ability to position the community of individual into a privileged position in the society.
The transformation of coin currency from being a single state utility and the adoption of money or the coin currency in other parts of the globe shifted the essence of power and property ownership from the centralized authority to the society. In that case, money has been the basis of modes of governing due to its influence as a medium of exchange, unit of account as well as the mode of payment (Desan 2015). This has also created a sense of control to people who are powerful in financial terms regarding capitalism due to its reliance on the competition, individualism and developed relationships between different classes in the society (Shackel 2009).
Capitalism may be described as any system that triumphs in commercial transitions over sentimental attachment (Shackel 2009). In that respect, the most significant consideration of a capitalist society is the value any material would bring in trade. Although, some coins have a historical and cultural attachment to certain society, in capitalist view the efficiency brought by these coins in commercial activities is what matters. Relying on such school of thoughts, the popularity of plastic and paper currencies is well internalized.
The essence and motives behind a capitalist economy are the alignments regarding self-interest as the basic force to create wealth (Desan 2015). In that respect, the production of coin and circulation is of great relevance to the essence of capitalism. This has resulted in different societal crisis which is also associated with structural imbalance.
Conclusion
The historical background of the coin has presented the idea that the value of possession is critical in describing individual worth. From this school of ideas, class and power disparities are as a result of disparity and inequality distribution of resources. Another insight is that coin was able to become popular and largely accepted due to the perceived value of its raw material. However, in the modern world coin has been seen to withstand counterfeit which is more in paper money. Also, coins have been as sufficient in creating divisible and small standardized currency. That being said, although precious metals are no longer common in their production they still enjoy a wide social connection to the society.
References Cited
Bresson, Alain. The origin of Lydian and Greek coinage: coin and quantity.
Historical research, Chicago: University of Chicago, 2006.
Conzett, Jürg. The History of money. Sunflower, money museum, n.d.
Cowie, Sarah E. The popularity of power: an archaeology of industrial capitalism. New York: Springer, 2011.
Davies, Glyn. A history of money: from ancient times to present day. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2002.
Desan, Christine. Making Money: Coin, currency, and the coming of capitalism. Oxford: Oxford university press, 2015.
Glyn, Davies. "From primitive and ancient money to invention of coinage, 300-600 BC." History of money, 2016: 35-67.
Graf, Christine. "Money through the ages." Faces, 2015.
Hamann, Byron Ellsworth. "Counterfeit money, starring Patty Hearst." COLONIAL LATIN AMERICAN REVIEW, 2016: 98-121.
Konuk, Karay. Asia Minor to the Ionian revolt.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, n.d.
McGuire, Randall H, and Paul Reckner. "The unromantic west: Labor, Capital, and Struggle." Historical Archaeology, 2002: 44-58.
Melitz, Jacques. A Model of the Beginnings of Coinage in Antiquity. Paris: ENSAE and CEPII, 2016.
Mundell, Robert A. The Birth of Coinage.
Discussion paper, New York: Columbia University, 2002.
Schaps, David M. "The invention of coinage in Lydia, India and in China." XIV international economic history congress, 2006: 1-47.
Shackel, Paul A. the archaeology of American labor and working-class life. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2009.
Wurst, LouAnn. "A class all its own: Explorations of class formation and conflict." In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory: The New Pragmatism, by Robert W Preucel and Stephen A Mrozowski, 325-337. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
