A Chartalist view of Numismatics (Fundaments and Necessities of the Discipline 30 years after the Work by Peter Spufford: ‘Money and its use in Medieval Europe’) (original) (raw)
Related papers
Review of Naismith et al., Early Medieval Monetary History
Medieval Review, 2015
The essays in this volume are dedicated to Mark Blackburn and seek to celebrate his scholarly legacy. As such, the contributions, while focused on medieval coinage and centered on the British Isles, are as much about the impact numismatics makes on wider issues in history and archaeology as well as the diverse geographies in which Blackburn researched. The editors have divided the collection into four main parts, corresponding to the honoree's primary areas of research. Parts 1-3 offer synthetic studies, integrating monetary history into broader debates about politics, economics, art, culture and daily life. Part 4, by contrast, concentrates on particular coin finds and demonstrates a variety of interpretive methods for this evidence.
The Classical Review, 2021
Numismatics has often been seen as a rather arcane and obscure discipline, which circuits like a satellite around the major planets of Classics, History and Archaeology. K. bookends this work by discussing a paper written by A.H.M. Jones, in 1956, in which he outlined what he thought was needed from numismatic research. This enables a succinct conclusion to the book, where K. is able to report that enormous strides have been made in the last 60 years, raising the profile of numismatics and showing its real importance to other branches of historical and archaeological research. Although the scope of this book is very broad, it is highly condensed, and so there is no room for any depth of discussion in this short review. At the outset, I can only strongly recommend that anyone with an interest in the Roman world should read this work. K. explains how coins can be used as both historical and archaeological sources, showing how more critical and quantitative methodologies have led to important developments in the assistance of both disciplines. She identifies two key themes: first, coins as a tool of political communication; second, the function of coins as monetary instruments. I believe that one should also add the nonmonetary functions of coins, such as in ritual.
XV International Numismatic Congress Taormina 2015 Proceedings, volume II. Edited by Maria Caccamo Caltabiano, Coeditors Benedetto Carroccio, Daniele Castrizio, Mariangela Puglisi, Grazia Salamone, 2017
This paper considers the medieval numismatic data from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, a period of critical importance in the development of the money economy in England and Wales2. By examining the spatial distribution and denominational profile visible in the single find data, the spread of ‘monetisation’ and the changing patterns of coin use will be shown.
Stroobants, Fran, and Christian Lauwers, eds. Detur Dignissimo. Studies in Honour of Johan Van Heesch. Brussels: Cercle d’études numismatiques – European Centre for Numismatic Studies, 2020., 2020
Le trésor de l'Acropole (IGCH 12) et le monnayage athénien Simone SCHEERS La série BN 10282 : considérations sur les hémistatères à la petite tête, imités du statère d'Hespérange Louis-Pol DELESTRÉE La problématique des ateliers monétaires gaulois Arnaud SUSPÈNE & Maryse BLET-LEMARQUAND Les monnaies d'or au nom et au portrait de T. Quinctius Flamininus : nouvelles données archéométriques et bilan des connaissances Clive STANNARD Apollo and the little man with the strigils, and the Italo-Baetican iconography Katherine GRUEL & Mattéo TANGHE Le portrait barbu des Riedones
Márton Gyöngyössy, 2023
The spiritus rector of the 1521 monetary reform was in all probability Imre Szerencsés (Fortunatus), vice-treasurer of King Louis II (1516–1526). Although the leaders of a rival financial group, the Fuggers, soon pushed him out of both the financial administration and the realisation of the profit through the newly rising tresurer, Alexius Thurzó, Szerencsés regained his former office in 1523. The coins minted between 1521 and 1525, referred to as moneta nova in the sources, were much inferior to the previously circulating coins in terms of both quality and elaboration. The debasement of the currency nominally increased the royal revenues, but these, collected in the new money, in fact amounted to somewhere between one third and one half of their previous level. Blame for all this was mostly put on Imre „the Jew” by the scholarly literature. The present paper, however, through a reassessment of the sources, brings into question the responsibility of Szerencsés in the monetary debasement, and draws attention again to his much disputed intelletctual heritage.