Explaining these coins' presence as "trade" leaves a lot of questions open. These had to have arrived after they were minted in the 4th century. The Turkish coins are late 17th century, but Wikipedia puts the last use of Katsuren as early 17th century. That all leaves a lot of intriguing possibilities: Roman trade with China followed by either trade with Okinawa or a "gift" of intriguing artifacts, Portuguese trade directly with Okinawa (which would make sense with the Turkish coins), or something else.
If the two sets of coins are related, who after the late 17th century is toting around 4th century coins? And why bury them in an unused castle? If they aren't related, how do they get in proximity?
Some of these are probably answered by the archaeology, but even so these things are going to be damned weird, "trade" notwithstanding.
Explaining these coins' presence as "trade" leaves a lot of questions open. These had to have arrived after they were minted in the 4th century. The Turkish coins are late 17th century, but Wikipedia puts the last use of Katsuren as early 17th century. That all leaves a lot of intriguing possibilities: Roman trade with China followed by either trade with Okinawa or a "gift" of intriguing artifacts, Portuguese trade directly with Okinawa (which would make sense with the Turkish coins), or something else.
If the two sets of coins are related, who after the late 17th century is toting around 4th century coins? And why bury them in an unused castle? If they aren't related, how do they get in proximity?
Some of these are probably answered by the archaeology, but even so these things are going to be damned weird, "trade" notwithstanding.