| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Historic accuracy? | | Date: | Tuesday, April 3, 2007 14:15:12 (+1200) | | From: | William Hugh McGunnigle <wmcgunn @.........nz>
|
The technical advances in historical analysis since 1913 have placed into
the hands of historians tools that can analyse historical data to a degree
unheard of in Innes's day. Furthermore historical analytical technique,
particularly historiography, demands a far greater degree of accuracy in
primary data that was not demanded in that era. My references do not date
from such an early date. I do not agree with Innes's conclusions at all
because research after his work contradicts his findings. Indeed a study of
the purity of metal in coins is actually used today to determine the points
in the life of an ancient empire when its structure began to break down.
Radioactive dating of artifacts is a common and reliable tool commonly used
by historical reserchers to place accurately date lines in the life of
empires. Radio active isotopes exist in precious metals as well as Carbon
compounds, and their ratio to the most common isotope is an established fact
as is the half life of those isotopes. Indeed metal isotope dating is more
accurate and reliable than Carbon dating because of the imperishable nature
of many coinage metals.
A very frequent occurrance in the closing era's of a particularly long-lived
empire was adulteration of the coinage i.e. replacement of basic coinage
metals of gold silver and copper by lead, tin and antimony. These bulked out
the size and wieght of the coin without carrying the official value of the
precious metal it was supposed to represent. I find it difficult believe
that Innes did not consider the case of the Jewish Sheckel used to pay
"Temple Tax" in Jerusalem. This coin was strictly controlled in size and
weight, and used only to pay Temple Tax. It was purchased in the Temple
courtyard for whatever price the money changers could screw out of the
pilgrims using the Roman or Greek coinage the medium of commerce in the
Palestine area. This was known in Innes's day and contradicts his statement
that regulation of the size and weight of coins is a relatively recent
innovation in coinage. It is not and I have never been able to understand
why Innes should have made such a statement in light of that evidence. I
think it was an oversight on his part, but it does undermine many of his
arguments about coin purity.
With respect to the medieval times, the bulk of large scale trade was
carried out using "tally sticks" that represented a particular value of
orthodox "coinage". Tally sticks were the accepted method of paying one's
taxes to the king. It remained the chief method of commercial transaction
until the advent of the monopoly engineered by the "Bank of England" which
was able to claim sole rights to the issue of commercial bank notes for any
bank with its headquarters within 30 miles of London. This effectively gave
that bank control of the issue of bank notes in England. Scottish and Irish
Banks with their HQ's outside London retained their rights to issue
banknotes from their own banks. They still retain that right today although
there is a nominal control of the number they can issue exerted through
treasury. Innes does not really address that side of the coinage debate
either, even though it mirrors the situation that existed during AngloSaxon
times with respect to coin minting. We must however not get carried away by
wholesale condemnation of his efforts. He made a genuine attempt to provide
an answer to a puzzling problem presented by the enigma of medieval coinage.
His conclusions were limited by the availability of sound primary scientific
data about those coins and he also did not have access to more recent
research records discovered since 1913. As far as it goes he made reasonably
valid conclusions on the basis of the data he used. You cannot condemn him
if more recent information that was not available for him contradicts his
findings. He is not the first and certainly won't be the last historian be
found wanting in this respect. Many historians of his era made similar
mistakes. Historical academic strigency was far less strict during those
times. Today he would have been carved into small pieces by his academic
peers. I believe however that given today's data banks he would have reached
a different conclusion.
respectfully submitted
W.H. McGunnigle
----- Original Message -----
From: <william_b_ryan@yahoo.com>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 3:26 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Historic accuracy?
> Then I take it you do not agree with this from Innes'
> 1913 paper
> http://www.geocities.com/new_economics/innes
>
> "...there is overwhelming evidence that there never
> was a monetary unit which depended on the value of
> coin or on a weight of metal; that there never was,
> until quite modern days, any fixed relationship
> between the monetary unit and any metal; that, in
> fact, there never was such a thing as a metallic
> standard of value."
> ------------------
>
> Here's the thing. Douglas' theory makes no sense
> whatsoever from the orthodox money is a medium of
> exchange perspective. His theory makes perfect sense
> from the creditary perspective expressed by Innes.
>
>
> --- William Hugh McGunnigle <wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> With due respect the Innes papers were designed to try
> to demonstrate that there was no control of coinage in
> the dark ages. They ignored to a large extent the fact
> that monarchs used the "tally stick" to keep track of
> finances and these were used for "tax assessment".
> Coin value was related to these. I therefore stand by
> my previous statement that, although it appeared that
> coinage was not really under control there was a rigid
> value system related to weight of Gold, Silver and
> Copper metal in coins. The methods of assessing coin
> purity had been established long before the advent of
> the Roman Empire by Archmeides of Greece. Although it
> appeared crude by modern methods of assey it was still
> adequate for practical purposes. Contrary to popular
> belief the men who did this type of assey work were
> skilled and generally honest because they were
> appointed by Royal decree. The penalty for incorrect
> assey was death. Innes work, while skilled and
> undoubtedly honestly conducted, suffered from an
> obvious bias. He was selective in his choice of
> primary sources and tended to ignore sources that
> contradicted his basic premises. In all fairness he is
> not the only historian to do this, but he is open to
> strong critisism because of it. I personally cannot
> condemn him as a charletan he was too good an
> historian for that, but do regard his work with a
> great deal of reserve. You are however correct in
> quoting his work as a valid source of contradiction to
> my own research.
>
> W.H.McGunnigle
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
> with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
> http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
> You're subscribed to this list with the email wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message