| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Historic accuracy? | | Date: | Wednesday, April 4, 2007 07:22:02 (-0700) | | From: | william_b_ryan <william_b_ryan @.....com>
|
| In reply to: | Message 4640 (written by William Hugh McGunnigle) |
"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."
-------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
There's a simple reason for that, Bill. Innes was
discussing money and credit used in trade and
commerce. The "Jewish Shekel" used to pay the "Temple
Tax" was definitely not utilized in trade and
commerce, but was a specialized token utilized for a
particular religious purpose. So it had no
relationship to money as we commonly think of it, and
is therefore irrelevant to our discussion.
-
"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'."
-------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
If you will read Innes, you will find that he states
that tallies of various descriptions were used from
remote antiquity, and were the predominant mechanism
of trade rather than coins containing precious metals.
Moreover, he states that the coins were themselves
tokens, denominated in the unit of account or monetary
unit, regardless of their specific metalic content,
which varied greatly.
--- William Hugh McGunnigle <wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz>
wrote:
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
____________________________________________________________________________________
Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast
with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message