Talk:List of Chinese cash coins by inscription

obverse inscription, or two sides inscription

@Donald Trung:almost all the lists just include the obverse inscriptions, but in the list of the North and South dynasties, 2 sides are included,WHY?--Baomi (talk) 08:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Baomi:, reckon that you're talking/writing about the Xiao Jian Si Zhu (孝建 - 四銖) cash coin, this is very deliberate there is a long answer and a short answer, the short answer is that because otherwise it would omit vital information about that particular cash coin and this would best benefit the readers, also with most pre-Qing Dynasty cash coins (as well as the Hongwu Tongbao and Southern Song Dynasty cash coins) there were no reverse inscriptions so mentioning the reverse inscriptions in the rare cases where they were used. I hope that this satisfies your question. --Donald Trung (talk) 10:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

what's a cash coin

by the photo of File:Northern Southern Dynasties - Ding Xiang 4 Zhu.png, this coin is not round, so it shouldn't be a cash coin.--Baomi (talk) 10:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Baomi: I agree, but most reference works seem to include them with Chinese cash coins (just as they include coins with round holes such as the Fujian Tongbao) and I can't simply remove listings because I disagree with them, however they could be moved to the article "Ancient Chinese coinage" and I wouldn't protest, as there is a section about them but they're not listed. --Donald Trung (talk) 11:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Although I kind of suspect that they list all cast Chinese coinages from before 1912 into the umbrella term "cash coins" regardless of their shape, size, and/or function. --Donald Trung (talk) 11:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

so not only the round coins, but the knife coins, spade coins, bronze wampum and bridge coins also belong to the cash coins, don't they?--Baomi (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

From Imperial China not the Warring States period as Huanqian is usually only included, but again in name of consistency I could move the square coins into the "Ancient Chinese coinage" article. --Donald Trung (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Baomi:  Done I've moved them here. --Donald Trung (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Early round coins of the Warring States Period

@Baomi: I noticed that this list (at w:zh:圜錢) has several different Huanqian than this list, is everything correct here? My main source here was David Hartill's 2005 (first) version of "Cast Chinese Coins" which isn't even the most updated version of the that book. I also found a treasure trove of Creative Commons images of these Huanqian which I will import here shortly. Feel free to apply any corrections. --Donald Trung (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: the list was added by @Zcm11, according his edit, the list is from the book of 战国圜钱概论. I don't konw the data in the list is all right or not.--Baomi (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Coin. Qing Dynasty. Jiaqing Tongbao. Bao Yuan. obv.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Tangut Support

Can we have a notice about tangut letters somewhere? My computer does not support tangut, just shows up as .notdef. -GeniusWorkbench4622 07:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

寬永通寶

Shouldn't 寬永通寶 be added? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I checked, and that is a Japanese coin inscription, Kan'ei Tsūhō. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 09:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Removal of references to ethnic minorities

Why shouldn't the Jurchen Later Jin Dynasty be described as such? When the Mongol Empire's government institutes policies why shouldn't this be named as such? I know that in China the literature is following "patriotic" narratives but I feel to see why Wikipedia shouldn't be neutral? --Donald Trung (talk) 13:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Because that is an overly simplistic way of analysing the complex nuances of Chinese history. While the ruling families of some dynasties were non-Han ethnic minorities, this does not mean that other ethnicities did not participate in governance or had “lesser” roles, or that these dynasties did not consider themselves to be “China”. Additionally, the policies of each dynasty varied according to whoever was on the throne and the political climate of the period, so any references to ethnicities should be made with careful phrasing and not with overly simplistic renditions that would otherwise serve to dilute the multicultural and multiethnic nature of these dynasties. While no one is stopping you from calling the Later Jin “Jurchen Later Jin” (and other similar cases) per se, it should be noted that the ethnicity of the monarchs has already been stated in their relevant articles and readers who are interested in this topic would naturally click on the relevant links to find out more. For an article that describes the coinage of historical China, the attention should be on the coinage itself, not the ethnic composition of the monarchs or their subjects. Whereas mentioning the ethnicity of the ruling families is not incorrect, concise phrasing definitely helps to maintain readability and allow for the preservation of the many nuances present in Chinese history. Morrisonjohn022 (talk) 07:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There was no "Han ethnicity" before the 20th century, "Han" and "Hua" were cultural designations meaning "civilised" and using modern notions of "ethnicity" doesn't work here. The Qing Dynasty defined "Manchu" as both cultural and linguistic and using the claim of historical countries of other national origins being "Chinese dynasties" would also make Vietnam, Korea, and Japan "Chinese dynasties" meaning that the only definition of a "Chinese dynasty" is based on modern geographical and political arrangements rather than any historical realities. Most sources I've consulted refer to the Yuan Dynasty as "Mongol" and mentions the Liao-Xia-Jin as "Tatar states". The British Empire was also a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural realm, should we call it the "European-led British Empire"? I am not opposed to your edits on face value, but Endicott-West, Langlois, and Franke refer to the Yuan Dynasty as a Mongol Empire that rules China rather than a "Chinese dynasty" that is ruled by Mongols, while both can simultaneously be true the Mongols never saw themselves as "Hua" (unlike the contemporary Vietnamese). Modern ideas of "ethnicity" and "culture" should probably not be retrofitted onto historical entities.

The ethnicity of the dynasties is relevant to the coinage as "foreign" rulers often had monetary policies atypical to that of "Chinese" dynasties, for example the Tanguts using Tangut script, the Mongols neglecting market liquidity in order to finance military conquests, the Liao making coins exclusively for their "Han" provinces as Khitan people didn't use money. --Donald Trung (talk) 08:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Actually what we are discussing right now is a very interesting and complex topic that many scholars, both Chinese and non-Chinese, have their own view of. I am not saying your point is incorrect or that mine is entirely correct. But I do beg to differ that the Yuan dynasty did not consider itself “Hua”. Taking a look at the edict “建國號詔” issued by Kublai in 1271, one would realise that the Mongols considered their dynasty to be China and that they established themselves as part of the multicultural and multiethnic realm of China. Moreover, the idea of a “Han” ethnicity emerged during the Eastern Jin and Northern and Southern dynasties periods; it is not a modern invention. Also do note that the authors you cited are Western scholars that tend to subscribe to a Western point of view on Chinese history that may not necessarily be entirely accurate. Given that the topics of ethnicity and dynasty are extremely complex, I feel that it would be better to leave it to the relevant articles where there are much more space to elaborate on the topics. I do agree that some dynasties had different monetary policies for different areas inhabited by different ethnicities. For these cases, it would be useful to identify them explicitly. But my stance remains that it is overly simplistic to label the Yuan dynasty as strictly “Mongol” and the Liao dynasty as strictly “Khitan” (and other similar cases), because as far as historical objectivity is concerned, these dynasties established by non-Han peoples very much identified themselves as China and considered their own ethnicity (and culture) to be part of the multiethnic and multicultural realm of China. While they did not consider themselves to be ethnic Han, they definitely saw themselves as “Chinese” and not “foreigners” per se. It is quite problematic to equate “China” and “Chinese” to “Han” (or its direct ancestors) as what many Western scholars tend to do. Doing so would undoubtedly miss out on the many nuances that are present in Chinese history. Either way, I think both of us have raised interesting points in our discussion and I believe your contributions are valuable to the Wikipedia community. Morrisonjohn022 (talk) 08:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank for your reply, I've come across your edits plenty of times and think of them as valuable. By the way my philosophy is that our contributios aren't for the "Wikipedia community" but for the readers in general. While I agree that the nuances of the ethnic makeup of the relevant dynasties should indeed be listed in the relevant articles, adding "-led" would be superior to completely removing references to them in some places, I noticed that you usually added "-led" in the beginning and then removed references to ethnicities later, I am not opposed to any rephrasing but in many cases it appeared as if you were "removing minorities from history". Regarding the ethnicity angle, Liam Kelley, someone fluent in Classical Chinese, noted that modern ideas of ethnicity (including the word "民族") were coined by Japanese reformers from the Meiji restoration (a period in which Japanese people still called themselves "ethnic Hua"), historical notions of ethnicity differs quite extensively from modern notions of ethnicity. Just because modern writers are from a country called China doesn't mean that they don't have "westernised biases" or can actually understand Classical Chinese well enough to translate its nuances into a modern language. The issue remains that in "your version" a "Chinese dynasty" issued coins with inscriptions like "{{Lang-mnc|ᠠᠪᡴᠠᡳ
ᡶᡠᠯᡳᠩᡤᠠ
ᡥᠠᠨ
ᠵᡳᡴᠠ" and "{{Lang-mnc|ᠰᡠᡵᡝ
ᡥᠠᠨ
ᠨᡳ
ᠵᡳᡴᠠ" without much context as to why they chose to use a language other than Classical Chinese without mentioning that the "target audience" for the cash coinage was a dominant "ethnic group" other than "Han". Which would be like a list of Italian coin designs that lists the Emirate of Sicily as an "Italian" state without referencing why its coins used Classical Arabic inscriptions. I will admit that I may have overrepresented the non-Han nature of the dynasties but full omission isn't better either. --Donald Trung (talk) 09:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I really appreciate the constructive discussion. I agree with your point that mentioning the ethnicity of the monarchs would be a good idea instead of full omission, especially to explain the reasons why a script other than Classical Chinese was used on the coins. Generally, my edits would be to identify a certain dynasty as being established by a certain ethnicity at the start of the article or section. In subsequent sections where the “court” or “government” is referenced, I tend to use the name of the dynasty itself (e.g. “the Liao dynasty …”, “the Yuan dynasty …”) instead of the ethnicity of the rulers (e.g. “the Khitans …”, “the Mongols …”) for the reasons that I have already mentioned in my previous replies. I absolutely do not have the intention of “removing minorities from history”, because the diversity of a civilization like China is a major part of what makes its history so interesting. However, perhaps my way of phrasing certain sentences tend to accord greater emphasis on the dynasty (the “court” or “government”) itself than the ethnicity of the rulers, but for the most part I do generally mention the ethnicity of the rulers (using the format “[ethnicity]-led”) at the start of the article or section. Morrisonjohn022 (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Xiwang Shanggong, should it be considered cash?

I know that Xiwang Shangong was a medal awarded to Zhang Xianzhong’s generals for service, and even though it shares many similarities to circulating coins at the time, it’s a medal, so should it be considered a cash coin? Warriorzfan (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)