What the heck is a COUNTRY?

Howdy,

Some recent and not-so-recent discussions led me to write down these thoughts...

What is a COUNTRY?

Here on Numista, we seem to understand whatever we like on this term. As it is a numismatic site and we need a good enough definiton to operate a numismatic catalog, so most of us tend to agree that a
Country is an issuer of a legal tender
That logically means that the term "issuer" is synonymous with the "country"
Am I right? Yes, I am.

So, if we look at our list of countries we face some incredible inconsistences: Are those countries on the list now issuers of coins?
Take some examples with this logic:
1) France is a country and she issues legal tender. Good.
2) Hutt River is NOT a country, as they do not issue legal tender. Not good (go to tokens!)
3) Order of Malta is not a country, but they do issue legal tender recognized by 104 other countries. So they are an issuer, following the above logic, they are a Numista country. Good.
4) United Kingdom is a country, but they do not issue legal tender   , so if they are NOT legal tender issuers, then they should NOT be a country. Bad [legally speaking HM QE2 issues the coins, if you look at them carefully you'll see: https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces45979.html]. She issues coins under the English, Welsh, Scottish, and NI coat of arms, so either it shall be 4 countries, but no coin under UK or the issuer shall be the country: "Elizabeth II", then another country "Victoria"... etc.  --- So what to do now?

The situation and the dilemmas go deeper if we go back in time.
The last issue raised my interest is here: https://en.numista.com/forum/topic22822.html#p186975
Do we need 4-5 Netherlands, and rename the country from Austrian Netherlands to Spanish Netherlands, just because Ferdinand Habsburg said to his brother: "Kid! Take over the Dutch, I don't have time for them, I have to fight the stupid Hungarians?" - I sincerely doubt!
The Netherlands (in best knowledge) has a legal continuum they have only changes kings and dynasties, but the Netherlands remained where it is now (well, the guys added some sea territories wisely, but that's not an issue here.) So, in my not-so-humble opinion it is one country, or maybe 2 with the provincial like it is wisely grouped here in case of Austrian/Hungarian/German states, Canadian provinces, Indian Princely States etc...

The third inconsistency I see is "backdating" history, which I trust is the ignorant Krause heritage on Numista. Turkey was founded in 1923. Anything before is surely not a "Turkey" coin, as there was NO Turkey in 1799. "Alhamd-ul-Illah" (thanks to God) and Xavier, we have fixed that issue and now - unlike Krause - we list Ottoman coins under their proper name. Romania is also fixed in its proper historic context, so are Czechs with proper creation of a country "Bohemia", so there are some better examples.

But a lot of countries are not fixed yet, some examples contain Belgium: Belgium was "invented" in 1830, so how can we have a Belgian coin from 1337?
Egypt was no country in the 1774, so how can we have a bunch of coins from that year?  Those are legitimate Ottoman coins, "minted in Egypt". So they are in Egypt just because we slavishly follow the Numista ignorance

... and I trust you will find even more inconsistencies in your area of expertise.

So, if country is an issuer of legal tenders, then it also directs us to the logical conclusion, that a coin is a legal tender. So everything for which you can [in principle] buy things is a legal tender, hence notgeld is a legal tender and is a coin, but Hutt River things are not coins, as they are not issued by a country and are not a coin, so is I guess Lundy and Sealand and some other examples...

Hmmm. I am not sure I am suggesting anything, this is just some food for thought and seeking for consistency.

Imre

Another definition of a country, from a numismatic point of view, would be "A geographic area for which coins are minted, and where they are/were treated as legal tender". Usually this area will correspond pretty well with the political definition of a nation, which is what most people think of then they think about a country.
Then that area can expand or shrink over time, but that is irrelevant for this.

United Kingdom, for example, is a nation consisting of two or four countries depending on how you count.
Germany is a nation also consisting of several countries.
So for the sake of making things simple, let's stick with the label put on the geographic area, for example UK, USA, Mexico, Argentina, or Germany (all federations, confederations or unions).

Then we have coins which are legal tender in only a part of a realm. I suppose your example with Egyptian coins made under Ottoman rule falls under that category. Then I would argue, that if the coins were legal tender only in that area, and not in the empire as a whole, that means the Ottomans were not considering them fully integrated/annexed - meaning the nation still existed, just with a different ruler. So they are Egyptian and not Ottoman.
Same applies to coins issued under German occupation during WW2 in Denmark, Norway, Netherlands and so on. The nations were still there, not annexed, as protectorates, so the coins are still Danish, Norwegian, and Dutch - otherwise they would have all used the Reichsmark.

Placing coins used only in Egypt under Ottoman Empire, and Philippine coins under United States simply because the Ottomans or the US happened to administer the area for a while will render the search function unusable and cause confusion - and would cause further inconsistencies.

What I do agree with is to not put the name of a country on a coin issued before the country came into existence. Your examples of Romania, Turkey, and Belgium are very good examples of this.

Then, I should add, we should not forget that our modern understanding of the definition of a state or nations, where borders more or less successfully follow ethnic lines, is a rather modern invention. No more than 200 - 300 years ago, this was a largely unknown phenomena.

Napoleon conquering large parts of Europe were, as I have understood it, never considered a problem because nations disappeared or because people became ruled by a foreigner. It was a problem because rulers saw their power base decrease.
The Estonians loyalty to Sweden or Russia during 16:th century had less to do with nationality and ethnicity, than with who they thought would tax them less or be less cruel.

So in that context, the term "Legal tender" didn't exist. A ruler would authorize the use of his/her signum, and this would guarantee that the value of the coin was the same as the number written on it. But that did not make it legal tender.

This make it more difficult to define country and legal tender for 18:th century and earlier, than it is today.
Maybe country in that time was "An area united under a single ruler".
And legal tender "Coins people would accept as payment".

I would say, the importance of legal tender as a term and concept arose first with paper money, and later with modern coins which have a completely different value than their denomination.

I certainly feel the the back dating history situation is a problem.

Dear Pileborg,

I am very happy that you have answered this blog, or what...  

Cita: pileborgI suppose your example with Egyptian coins made under Ottoman rule falls under that category. Then I would argue, that if the coins were legal tender only in that area, and not in the empire as a whole, that means the Ottomans were not considering them fully integrated/annexed - meaning the nation still existed, just with a different ruler.

I was probably not clear on the explanation. The Ottoman empire had over 170 mints, all falling under the same administration of the "Porte" so they are all clearly Ottomans coins and currency.

Cita: pileborgSame applies to coins issued under German occupation during WW2 in Denmark, Norway, Netherlands and so on. The nations were still there, not annexed, as protectorates, so the coins are still Danish, Norwegian, and Dutch - otherwise they would have all used the Reichsmark.

In these examples I totally agree with you, as these were countries - temporarily occupied by an alien force - and even the alien force did not dare to annexe them properly, so, YES, they are "local" currencies.

Cita: pileborgThen, I should add, we should not forget that our modern understanding of the definition of a state or nations, where borders more or less successfully follow ethnic lines, is a rather modern invention. No more than 200 - 300 years ago, this was a largely unknown phenomena.

and that is where you hit the nail on the head.
If we would ask Ferdinand Habsburg (1526-1564): "what country are you from?" he would answer: "I am a Habsburg ruler! What a stupid question is that?"
Nation states as we understand them today are only fashionable after the Italian and the Germans have discovered that "Mein Gott, we speak the same language, shouldn't we do something together?" - now that did not happen before 1861-1871, so before that the country is the issuer HIMSELF (or herself, rarely).

I struggled with this definition as well, and solved it in a different way. I'm interested in historical continuity and order my coins by modern (2013) country. For any named territory that no longer exists as such, I establish its original geographical boundaries and administrative center to determine under which modern country I should file my coins.

- If a country is roughly continued in another modern state, it's obvious (e.g. Soviet Union is filed under Russia).
- If a country merged with others into another country, I list it under that country (e.g. German States or GDR under Germany).
- If a country got split up, I list it under the country which now possesses the original administrative center of the split up one (e.g. Yugoslavia under Serbia).

This usually works out fine, but sometimes I have to make an arbitrary choice (Straits Settlements under Malaysia, and not Singapore). Sometimes it leads me to disagree with other numismatic sources: it took me some time to find out that the administrative center of the "Gebiet des Oberbefehlshaber Ost" was actually Kaunas, so they reside under Lithuania in my collection. Danzig is under Poland.

This does make my collection dynamic. Last year, I had to regroup Curaçao and the Netherlands Antilles after the demise of the latter as an independent entity.

My approach may not be suitable if you go back in time too far. But it serves my purpose. I like digging into history this way. I love this discussion on a theoretical level and learn a lot from it, but I don't think we should be too dogmatic about it.

Filing Yugoslavia under Serbia is an interesting way to do it. There is a logic to that, and I can buy that argument even though I wouldn't do it myself.

What do you do with euro coins? ECB headquarters is in Brussels, right?  

Cita: pileborgWhat do you do with euro coins? ECB headquarters is in Brussels, right?  

Nein, Frankfurt am Main

Wirklich? Ich gedenkt ECB ist in Köln, oder ist mein ("memory" in german is what...?) schlecht.

What is the word "memory" in german...? and how bad was was that grammatically and spelling wise?

Imreh brings up fantastic points... As an OCD history professor, some of the incongruous coin listings bug me...I don't even think we can change much without mass confusion. I did notice that the NGC site does not use UK but rather Great Britain...

Also the ECB is in Frankfurt a. Main and not cologne though the cities aren't THAT far apart :)

It's a nightmare but there isn't an easy answer. Let me try to explain using the UK/ GB because it's an area I'm familiar with and it also serves as a perfect illustration.

NGC use Great Britain for the pre-67 pound sterling and UK for decimal issues. While this isn't particularly accurate especially for coins minted prior to the 1707 Act of Union it does seem like a workable compromise.

Over analyzing the problem will just cause frustration. GB shillings from 1937 to 1967 were struck in both Scottish and English types but as they circulated freely then there is no logical need to assign them to a separate country. As Scotland had it's own monarch and it's own currency for several centuries then it does need it's own listing, but why create a separate listing for "England" 785 - 1971? I suspect that it's based on a historical fallacy. OK, so the Scottish heathens were doing their own thing during much of this time but that still leaves Wales so it never was truly just England, it should remain Great Britain.

What about Calais and other parts of northern France which were held by the English crown for much of the middle ages? If we are to include "English Pound" for countries such as Australia for the period prior to producing their own currency then why not France? Or how about the 1950/1951 pennies which were minted in very low numbers for use exclusively in the West Indies, should they be listed under Great Britain or Eastern Caribbean States?

Consider Rhodesia, Rhodesia & Nyasaland and Southern Rhodesia. Rhodesia is the same geographically as Zimbabwe so why two countries?  The type of government has changed but the borders remain the same. As Rhodesia was never recognized by either the Foreign Office or the UN as a legitimate country it might seem like a good idea to combine it with Zimbabwe but in purely numismatic terms it wouldn't make sense. Southern Rhodesia also included Zambia (Northern Rhodesia). Rhodesia & Nyasaland was a short lived British construct which included Rhodesia (North and South) and Malawi. Confusing?

See the problem with over analyzing?

Historical accuracy and numismatic practicality are often incompatible. Choose any definition of country you like as long as it can  be applied to most situations and then deal with the exceptions on an individual basis. Use common sense, numismatic savvy and historical knowledge to arrive at the most workable solution and move on.

Interestingly NGC don't include Ottoman Empire, they assign the coins to either Turkey or Egypt. They do however include Purple Shaftieuland:

http://chiefacoins.com/Database/Micro-Nations/Purple-Shaftieuland.htm

Cita: 15turtlesWirklich? Ich gedenkt ECB ist in Köln, oder ist mein ("memory" in german is what...?) schlecht.

What is the word "memory" in german...? and how bad was was that grammatically and spelling wise?

Sorry, you are more right than I am. I was a bit too quick there. Now looked it up, ECB headquartes are located in Frankfurt.

So it is in Frankfurt a.m., I thought it was in Cologne

Oh, don't get me started on this...but started in a slightly different vain.

I live in Scotland. I'm Scottish. Scotland at present is a country that is part of a union of other countries called UK. Scotland has it's own law system, own education system, own parliament...and we are a year away from parting with the dead duck down south.

Hmm. I can say on my profile that I come from Saar, Isle of Man, Seborga, etc...yet the site owner won't let me have Scotland...until it's recognized by the UN he says...which does not make any sense given that I can say I am a native of Saar if I come from Saarland!. I think he was being obstinate to tell the truth..

...the result is, I have had next to nothing to do with this site, since he sent his edict to me...and that will continue. It's a shame, 'cause I think it's the best site on the net...but really...stuff it.

As for the question..probably best to change the word 'country' to coin issuing state or something similar.

Scotty! I wondered what happened to you, sorry to hear it was for such an easily fixed problem. Clearly the site owner hasn't been around many Scotsmen.

Perhaps the definition could be changed to. "Does they have a footie team?"

The problem with this discussion is simply Numistic matters have a MEGA variation over the years, so take it or leave it you are part of your country whatever you agree with or disagree with, and be prepared for changes. Truthfully you will NEVER get what we used to have, so all we can do is our best.

Perhaps we are looking at it the wrong way, leave the discussion about what constitutes a country to those overpaid slackers at the UN.

It would be much easier to determine what constitutes a coin. If it's not intended to be used as currency then it's a token or even worse, a fantasy piece. Legitimate proofs of genuine coins should be regarded as somewhere in-between a coin and a token, spurious proofs, guitar shaped or otherwise, should join the fantasy realm.

Once you have a clear definition of a coin then it's pretty easy to work out what should be a country in numismatic terms.