this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2025
133 points (99.3% liked)

Historical Artifacts

1320 readers
240 users here now

Just a community for everyone to share artifacts, reconstructions, or replicas for the historically-inclined to admire!

Generally, an artifact should be 100+ years old, but this is a flexible requirement if you find something rare and suitably linked to an era of history, not a strict rule. Anything over 100 is fair game regardless of rarity.

Generally speaking, ruins should go to !historyruins@lemmy.world

Illustrations of the past should go to !historyillustrations@lemmy.world

Photos of the past should go to !HistoryPorn@lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[โ€“] ech@lemmy.ca 5 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Dang China - invented money and now I've gotta work a day job thousands of years later ๐Ÿ˜ค

[โ€“] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 4 points 7 hours ago

China didn't invent money. The Mesopotamians did.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_money

The establishment of the first cities in Mesopotamia (c. 3000 BCE) provided the infrastructure for the next simplest form of money of account โ€“ asset-backed credit or representative money. Farmers would deposit their grain in the temple which recorded the deposit on clay tablets and gave the farmer a receipt in the form of a clay token which they could then use to pay fees or other debts to the temple.[1] Since the bulk of the deposits in the temple were of the main staple, barley, a fixed quantity of barley came to be used as a unit of account.[45]

Trading with foreigners required a form of money which was not tied to the local temple or economy, money that carried its value with it. A third, proxy, commodity that would mediate exchanges which could not be settled with direct barter was the solution. Which commodity would be used was a matter of agreement between the two parties, but as trade links expanded and the number of parties involved increased the number of acceptable proxies would have decreased. Ultimately, one or two commodities were converged on in each trading zone, the most common being gold and silver.

In the introduction section of Handbook of the History of Money and Currency provides a glimpse into the relationship between grains and precious metals during this emergence of currency: "Grain was used as unit of account to calculate values, measure labor time and land yield, and as means of payment in agricultural and handicraft activities. Silver was used as means of payments for taxes and fees and for long-distance trade."[47] Stability of this type of currency was enforced by the ruler and backed by temples at that time. In essence, to reduce complications and nuisance of trading and bartering, grain and silver were utilized by early civilizations because they were portable, had use, and were divisible.

This process was independent of the local monetary system so in some cases societies may have used money of exchange before developing a local money of account. In societies where foreign trade was rare money of exchange may have appeared much later than money of account.

In early Mesopotamia copper was used in trade for a while but was soon superseded by silver. The temple (which financed and controlled most foreign trade) fixed exchange rates between barley and silver, and other important commodities, which enabled payment using any of them. It also enabled the extensive use of accounting in managing the whole economy, which led to the development of writing and thus the beginning of recorded history.[48]

Also

https://worldhistoryedu.com/the-history-of-money-when-were-coins-first-used-and-by-whom/

Egypt, Ur etc...

[โ€“] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 4 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Interesting. I'm used to blanks being struck, not multiple coins being cast at once. That's gotta be so wasteful.

[โ€“] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 9 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

You could just re-melt the sprue and use it to make the next batch, right?

What puzzles me is the lack of vent holes to allow displaced air out of the mold once it's assembled. (Unless they're on the other half, the one that's not pictured here. That seems doubtful.) So whatever this was meant to cast must have been a very runny metal with a low melting point, probably with the mold itself being piping hot as part of the process as well. Probably not much of an alloy, and probably very easy to melt again.

The inscriptions on these appear to be awfully similar to some of those listed here:

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

Wikipedia mentions these specifically as being cast, and in big batches with multiple molds filled in one operation. In light of that I'm surprised that the mold is so small. Check out this sumbitch, for instance, which makes 42 coins in one go. That seems a little more like it, if you're going to go through all that effort.

I'm reading that apparently what with one thing and another, the Chinese were still producing cast rather than struck coinage all the way up to the very early 1900s. Their currencies changed a lot throughout their long and never-ending parade of civil wars, overthrows, usurpations, fractures, and reunifications, and it seemed every time their leadership changed it came along with a reinvention of all the coinage as well.

[โ€“] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 3 points 9 hours ago

I assumed the best holds are on the matching mold for the other side. It's not the metal that's being wasted. As you point out it can be remelted. But heat isn't free. That's wood or coal that's going up in smoke.

[โ€“] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca -3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

That won't make coins. It will make the outlines. Molds are reversed. The raised parts are what won't appear on the final blank, while the cavities hold the finished details. This is the opposite of that.

[โ€“] Azhad@lemmy.world 5 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

What are you talking about? Just do a search for chinese coin and this are the perfect mold for them.

[โ€“] egrets@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago

Indeed, the coins are broken off the resulting "coin tree" and then cleaned up by filing. The edges and details stand proud, and one dice of the coin is blank. Searching for "ban liang mold" will show other similar Chinese molds.

[โ€“] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca -3 points 10 hours ago (3 children)

I do this for a living. This mold won't work. The material won't flow into the raised areas...only the cavities. You will end up with rings, and nothing in the middle.

[โ€“] drhodl@lemmy.world 5 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Thickness will depend how close the other half of the mould sits, when the casting occurs.

[โ€“] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca -3 points 8 hours ago

So...what does that tell you about the rings around the outside of coins faces?

[โ€“] Azhad@lemmy.world 5 points 9 hours ago

This mold obviously won't work: it's missing the other half of it.

[โ€“] scrion@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I get what you mean, but did you consider they might pour enough molten metal into the mold so it overflows each cavity along the coin tree, with the whole patterned area becoming one side of the coin?

[โ€“] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca -1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

That doesn't change the fact that cavities are where the material flows. On this mold, the cavities are all the places around the coin.

[โ€“] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I suspect this side of the mold is flush with the face of the coin and the other side is recessed to the depth of the coin. That would give the depth of the coin for metal to flow and still make this a workable partial mold.

Or you're completely right and this is an unworkable mold.

๐Ÿคทโ€โ™‚๏ธ

[โ€“] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 hours ago

If the other side is recessed to the thickness of the coin, then you would have a coin with a giant ring of material protruding off of this side.