Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms not on the map / Inconsistency of Ancient and Early Medieval Polities [solved]

There seems to have been a reorganisation of Anglo-Saxon England, moving pre-unification coins out of ‘England’. This has also had the effect of removing Saxon coins from the map altogether.

There's also inconsistency in how formative states are arranged, which seems to stem from an arbitrary split between ‘ancient and early medieval polities’ (which get separated out) and everything else, which goes under the main modern country list. This has resulted in early-mid Saxon England being separated from England but all the medieval German states being kept together under modern Germany, despite (or because of) Germany not even existing until 1871.

The Crusaders and Carolingians also get listed with the modern countries, but not under ‘France’ for some reason. Carolingian Empire coins begin in the 780s, which makes their inclusion in the modern list puzzling, given Saxon England is listed under ‘ancient polities’ and many of the Saxon issuers started well after the 780s. The Carolingians are definitely ‘early medieval’.

Even more puzzling - Series E (and Series X) sceattas, which were used heavily in Anglo-Saxon England but struck in the low countries, are listed under Frisia. But Frisia is listed under the Netherlands in the modern country list. These are surely ‘Anglo-Saxon Kingdom’ coins. Surely the only point in having a separate ‘Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms’ section (that separates them from England) is so these Frisian coins can be added to it, and the map would show these coins in both England and the Netherlands. ‘Frisia’ and southern England Saxons were in a sort of monetary union at the time, so Series E has to be in the same structure as the rest of Series A-Z.

I just fixed the map hopefully.

For that arbitrary split, I agree, it is arbitrary, and we are open to any alternative solutions. Where do we draw the line?

Thank you. ‘Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms’ still doesn't seem to show on the ‘my coins’ map? I've tried a hard refresh.

I think the issue with the date split is that it creates not one system, but three. This means the structure has none of the benefits of any of them:
1) Defunct polities are separated out e.g. Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, Lombard kingdom, Roman Empire. But this only applies if they are are early medieval or before.
2) Defunct polities are included as subsets of the modern states e.g. German States, England/Scotland/United Kingdom (but not pre-1922 Ireland). But this only applies if they are are late medieval or afterwards.
3) Defunct polities are listed as their own entity e.g. Caroligian Empire, Crusader states. (Ireland would have to be split into Norse Ireland, ‘British’ Ireland and modern Ireland). But this only applies if they are late medieval or afterwards.

There also seems to be a fourth (hidden) system based on ruling authority, where e.g. Hiberno-Norse Ireland is not listed as a polity, but exists if you click on Ireland. It doesn't make any sense that this comes under 'Ireland' when the Saxons are not under England. This seems to be because there isn't a correct issuer for Hiberno-Norse coins. The equivalents for England, e.g. the Viking Kingdom of York, are under ‘Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms’ - which is also incorrect, as the Vikings were famously very much not Anglo-Saxons.

The benefit of (1) would be that all the modern states are together and not muddled with their predecessors. Currently, it is very muddled because the newer defunct entities are included, as in (2) and (3). (And the ‘newness’ of those entities is entirely arbitrary, so that Anglo-Saxons get separated out but Carolingians don't).
 

The benefit of (2) would be that you can find all the coins associated with the country you're looking at. But currently you can't, because if the coins are older than the arbitrary date for that country, they get separated out as in (1) and (3).

The benefit of (3) would be that all the polities are in the same list, and you can see all the coins associated with the old country boundaries or ethnic associations e.g. Kievan Rus, the Celts or the Saxons. But it doesn't, because the full benefit of this structure has not been realised e.g. Series E sceattas are not under ‘Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms’, while ‘Celtic Britain’ is completely separate from Gallic Celts.

Very few coin collectors will have this ‘early medieval’ cut off in their collection (and it's a cut off that varies place to place), so it doesn’t suit anyone. I think it would be better if one of the above was chosen (based on which of the benefits is most important) and the arbitrary date split was removed. I think (2) only works if it is combined with (3) in one system, since some polities don't map onto the current boundaries:

- Defunct polities would be included as a subset of the modern state IF they fit within the modern boundaries e.g. German states, Rus principalities.
- Defunct polities are listed as their own entity IF they would cross the modern boundaries e.g. Crusader states, Roman Empire.
- A choice has to be made with entities like the Celts and the Saxons - should they go under their present-day states e.g. British Celts (and so be a subset of ‘England’) or should they be a cultural group, so that you have ‘Celtic’ with subsets for Celtic Britain, Gallic and East European Celts, and ‘Saxon’ with subsets for ‘Anglo-Saxon’ and ‘Frisian’. Similarly, the ‘Britannic Empire’ and the 'Gallic Empire' could be separate entities, subsets of ‘UK’ and ‘France’, or subsets of the Roman Empire, while ‘Viking England’ and ‘Hiberno-Norse Ireland’ could be separate entities, subsets of 'England' and 'Ireland', or subsets of ‘Viking’.

But whichever way is chosen, it should be consistent.

Thanks for insights! I just want to remind everyone that until the Anglo Saxon creation, all these coins were under “england” and only the “currency” field was used to categorize the actual kingdoms. So, even if not perfect yet, I still think we already improved by a lot ^^

I will only comment on one small point:  I agree that in the new structure, early Frisian coins should be moved to Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. 

This also removes a minor problem in Netherlands States of having “Frisia” for the early medieval issuer, but “Friesland” as the more commonly used English name in later periods.  

In my opinion the sceattas move, and everything from the HRE era forward stays (the few Carolingians and early HRE coins struck there are in those sections).  And we could change the name to Netherlands States - Friesland.

I can submit the modification requests for the coins that would be affected.

tdziemia

I will only comment on one small point:  I agree that in the new structure, early Frisian coins should be moved to Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. 

 

This also removes a minor problem in Netherlands States of having “Frisia” for the early medieval issuer, but “Friesland” as the more commonly used English name in later periods.  

 

In my opinion the sceattas move, and everything from the HRE era forward stays (the few Carolingians and early HRE coins struck there are in those sections).  And we could change the name to Netherlands States - Friesland.

 

I can submit the modification requests for the coins that would be affected.

 

 

 

Totally agree! Let me know anything you'd need in terms of issuers/rulers

I now understand why the structure makes no sense to me if it's based on the Holy Roman Empire. That only affects central Europe, so is nonsensical to anyone else. Is there a reason for treating polities before this indistinct time differently?

As I mentioned, under such a structure something needs to be done with the Vikings. They can't sit under Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms. That is also true of the ‘Hiberno-Norse Kingdom of Dublin’, which can't stay under Ireland if we're to have consistency. We need a ‘Viking Kingdoms’ category.

Come to think of it, having medieval Ireland under Ireland doesn't make sense, given the monarchs were English, while Scotland comes under the UK, when Scotland was a separate country in medieval times with it's own monarchs.

John Conduitt

I now understand why the structure makes no sense to me if it's based on the Holy Roman Empire. That only affects central Europe, so is nonsensical to anyone else. Is there a reason for treating polities before this indistinct time differently?

Sorry I dont understand can you explain to me?

Sorry yes I'm referring to tdziemia's comment: “In my opinion the sceattas move, and everything from the HRE era forward stays (the few Carolingians and early HRE coins struck there are in those sections).  And we could change the name to Netherlands States - Friesland.”

This implies there is a distinction made between pre and post HRE. I don't know why we'd want to treat polities differently based on time, let alone the timing of the HRE.

Hi, John Conduitt.

I think the structure on the continent is following polities rather than time, but it's not always so clear-cut, and maybe my comment didn't help. 

My familiarity is with Low Countries.  I see the decision to collect together Carolingian Empire coins as more-or-less straightforward as a polity that stretched across many current nations, including modern Belgium, and parts of Netherland, with a common monetary policy (as best I can tell … I wish I were more of an expert).   In the mid- 900s we start seeing the Low Countries coins struck in the name of the German King / Holy Roman Emperor.  Same is true  in parts of Italy. etc.  So I think this was the rationale to follow the Carolingians with a Holy Roman Empire section.  

From a little after 1000, we start seeing Low Countries coins struck in the name of the rulers of the various Duchies, Counties etc. which were mostly vassals of the Holy Roman Emperor, but now with the right to coin.  So from this point forward, we collect the coins in Belgian States - Brabant, Netherlands States - Holland, and so on.  

So my comment was not a general one about an end-date for HRE, but a specific one about when the minting authority in Frisia changed from  being part of a broader HRE system to being a local one.  It's a somewhat different date in each of the Low Countries states.

Ok yes makes sense. I don't want to mess with Central Europe. I think perhaps for clarity (and to avoid a great deal of fragmentation), we need:

1) a ‘Viking Kingdoms’ group (for Viking Ireland and Viking England) or for a renamed ‘Anglo-Saxon and Viking Kingdoms’ to include Viking Ireland.

2) the higher-level ‘United Kingdom’ (which is a modern state that doesn't include the sub-categories listed) to be renamed ‘British Isles’ (which comprise Britain, Ireland and the Channel Islands), to include:

England
Scotland
Lordship of Ireland
Kingdom of Ireland
Ireland
United Kingdom
Isle of Man
Jersey

Guernsey
…where everything from Ireland down is a modern state. (It could technically include Celtic Britain, Anglo-Saxons and the Vikings, although these are currently separated for reasons I'm not clear on). You could list modern Ireland separately (as it is now) although it would fit here.

I moved Carolingian to early medieval where it belongs. Tdziemia will transfer Frisian coins mentionned.

Please create a new clean thread fir Viking topic, indicating what to move where (with links if possible)

Thanks!!

Frisia seems to be against no country at the moment? (So, Frisia is not in the list of issuing authorities you can select, unlike ‘Early Anglo Saxon’).

John Conduitt

Frisia seems to be against no country at the moment? (So, Frisia is not in the list of issuing authorities you can select, unlike ‘Early Anglo Saxon’).

Tdziemia must first transfer coins for the new issuer to appear 24 hours after

They are now present under Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms. 

I noticed while doing the moves that we may have some duplicates in the catalog (generally when later submissions with more detailed descriptions and catalog references were accepted, despite our having earlier ones that look quite close).   

For example:

N#59667

N#112084

Apologies that nothing was done about this while I had them, and hopefully someone with suitable knowledge can improve it.