Fix the Ethiopian currency subunits

4 posts • 49回閲覧

This message aims at: requesting the creation or the modification of a currency or denomination in the catalogue

Status: Opened
Upvotes: 1
Downvotes: 0

Hello!

 

(Coming from here: https://en.numista.com/forum/topic138964.html#p1344151)

 

1 Birr / Thaler = 20 Gersh = 40 Bessa (1893-1903) /  = 16 Gersh = 32 Bessa (1903-1931); Werk ~ 4 Birr / Thalers

 

 

 

 

And santim or santims (for Birr subunit). Terms like “senteems” or “santeem” are merely phonetic adaptations.

 

 

 

----------------------

 

Sources:

 https://nbe.gov.et/about-us/bank-notes/

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/money#table

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/santim

Is there any evidence for the bessa before the introduction of this coin in 1903? Note that this coin, although dated earlier, was issued between 1922 and 1933. An attempt seems to have been made to indicate this but it hasn't got the start date right.

Regarding santeem, this doesn't appear on the coins, so we're using a transliteration. Inevitably, this involves an attempt to match the pronunciation of the original word, ሳንቲም. The third character is a “t” followed by a long “ee” sound, hence the spelling we're using. “Santim” implies a short vowel, which is incorrect.

Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.

Is there any evidence for the bessa before the introduction of this coin in 1903? Note that this coin, although dated earlier, was issued between 1922 and 1933. An attempt seems to have been made to indicate this but it hasn't got the start date right.

 

You are absolutely right about the coins issued. No discussion there at all. But my point was about fixing the periods by taking into account the exact dates and official equivalences for all the (theoretical) units and subunits of the currency. And as far as I have researched, the bessa was a kind of standardized official subunit (prior to 1904) actually and only in use as money of account: it did not exist physically, but was the way to value precisely the always fluctuating primitive “currencies” like cartridges or salt, which still circulated alongside the physical money.

 

Regarding santeem, this doesn't appear on the coins, so we're using a transliteration. Inevitably, this involves an attempt to match the pronunciation of the original word, ሳንቲም. The third character is a “t” followed by a long “ee” sound, hence the spelling we're using. “Santim” implies a short vowel, which is incorrect.

Well, I have to disagree here 😅 I don't see why we have to transliterate it, especially since the official and unofficial Ethiopian (in English) sources call it “santim”. 

Higuera

You are absolutely right about the coins issued. No discussion there at all. But my point was about fixing the periods by taking into account the exact dates and official equivalences for all the (theoretical) units and subunits of the currency. And as far as I have researched, the bessa was a kind of standardized official subunit (prior to 1904) actually and only in use as money of account: it did not exist physically, but was the way to value precisely the always fluctuating primitive “currencies” like cartridges or salt, which still circulated alongside the physical money.

Can you share where you found this information about the bessa? Thinking more about it, it's surprising that a name that presumably comes from the Indian paisa should be worth as much as 1/32 of a Maria Theresa Thaler.

Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.

» Forum policy

使用されているタイムゾーンは UTC+2:00 です。
現在の時刻は {24時間表記の時間}:{分} です。