Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kuruharan
Not really. Historically speaking, people were not always nearly as finicky about the…err…”national origin” (an extremely clumsy expression, but I don’t know how else to put it) of currency. This was because the issue at stake was the value of the metal itself (often easily expressed in weight or comparison to other metals), not the relative credit of the coin’s nation of origin. The gold would have been gold and spendable in a money economy that had experience with gold (and I am presuming that the Shire did based on general common sense and the points made by Rumil) whether the coins happened to be stamped with the head of Thror, King Under the Mountain or stamped with the head of Isumbras III, Thain of the Shire.
|
That's true. Archaeological finds of money often contain a variety of coins, from a variety of countries. Just because say a Saxon hoard includes say Italian coins, does not mean those Saxons went there, just that these coins had come to them through trade of other people. Probably bad examples to contrast, but there you go!
It was the actual quality of the money that counted, which is where that image of someone biting a coin to see if it is real comes from.
I was thinking of what might happen if someone came to The Shire with actual bullion. Obviously a lump of gold would be less useable than coins, except maybe if a Hobbit wished to buy a new Smial. Coins, even if they are not all of the same Mint, can be measured for what they are worth, and are obviously easier to use on smaller purchases - try knocking lumps out of a gold bar to pay for your groceries, it's not a very accurate way of paying!
There's also another question to raise. If there was not a Mint in the Shire, how could the flow of cash be controlled? Too much cash in the economy would cause serious inflation, so would Bilbo's return with 'treasure' have raised eyebrows in more ways than one?