Gold and slavery

[EWC]

I think you are muddying your own water by introducing terms without defining them.

Perhaps you are not fully familiar with the way the word "serfdom" has had an extended usage in the English language for near a century at least – to cover all sorts of intellectual and economic forms of subservience.  H G Wells used it in connection with feminist issues back in the 1920's.  This probably encouraged Bertrand Russell who extended it to Fascism and Communism in the 1930's and that in turn  may well have inspired Hayek (very famously) to apply it to socialism in the 1940's

I agree when used in particular context a more precise definition may be required, and would be happy to assist if asked in my own case.  I agree also that the term "modern slavery" seems sometimes unsatisfactory.  A "modern form of serfdom" would be more accurate in many cases.

Let's not apply today's mores to yesterday's situations.

Of course – but equally – let us not pretend some things were different in the past when in fact they were the same.

I am a hopeless linguist - translation even from French is hard work for me – and this causes special problems.  The big names with government/Ford Foundation backing – who I am sure have sometimes been heavily involved in distorting the past - of course get their works translated into English – but generally, their French critics will be translated less.  There are exceptions of course.  Finkielkraut's attack on UNESCO did get translated, and there is much on the web about Rockefeller funding etc on Voltaire net in translation too. 

However, a key figure in distorting our understanding of the ancient economy in English has been Moses Finley – and his methodology is closely associated with propaganda and indeed outright lying – or so it seems

The best paper I have read offering an antidote to Finley's ideas is

Nicolet, C. (1971), Les variations des prix et la 'théorie quantitative de la monnaie' à Rome, de Cicéron à Pline l'Ancien,

But in studying the matter for 30+ years, it took me 29 years to find it.............it is rarely cited in English, and remains I think untranslated

I understand how much time these exchanges take up!  Thanks for all your thoughts!  Seems odd to me that so few seem interested in these (so important) matters

Rob

[EWC]

Just noticed the term "neo-serfdom" is getting quite a lot of usage amongst the anti-austerity movement these days

Is this primarily in the USA? – I never heard it in the UK.

Hudson's definition is below.  Hudson is a clever guy, who writes a lot on pre-coinage Mesopotamian economics.   I would definitely put him as straddling the descriptive/prescriptive divide tho'................

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/01/michael-hudson-insiders-economics-dictionary-n-neo-serfdom-o-offshore-banking.html

Neo-serfdom: The removal of choice from peoples' lives as interest and rent charges reduce their discretionary income. This expanding rentier overhead is not part of the mode of production, but rather the mode of finance, wealth and economic power. (See Serfdom.)

[EWC]

I am sorry you keep denying the fact that two thirds of what is now the Netherlands was within the Roman empire.

Well, its not a matter I much studied - and I do not recall denying that before - but - as far as the 4th century goes -  I think it helpful if I deny it now.

WOC has several members in the Netherlands - if this group is to be a reliable source of information - I believe it important that such rather forcefully presented "facts" are tested, when doubts are expressed.  Perhaps Oesho or THCoins can offer a comment?

Regarding English 4th century copper issues, Peter definitely has seriously misunderstood the matter, Roman coppers are common in England right up to the late 4th century. 

Can anyone assist regarding Roman 4th century copper issues from the Netherlands?  Areas of Belgium to the north of (Dutch) Maastricht certain had plenty of late 4th century coppers................................

Maybe you will consider now that not much is known about 4th century coinage?

No.  To be truthful, I am, not for the first time, concerned about the quality of the information offered on the group

Rob

[Figleaf]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romans_in_the_Netherlands

Keep in mind that the Limes was defined by Claudius (not Gaius Julius Caesar, as the lemma claims) as the river Rhine (not the Maas, going through Rotterdam, the old river bed, which runs to Katwijk). Roman troops under Gnaius Domitius Corbulo got farther North, as is indicated on the map of fortresses and settlements, but, on order of Claudius, they pulled back behind the river.

Peter

[EWC]

Keep in mind that the Limes was defined by Claudius (not Gaius Julius Caesar, as the lemma claims) as the river Rhine (not the Maas, going through Rotterdam, the old river bed, which runs to Katwijk).

Keep in mind that I specifically asked about the 4th century, not the first.  Sources I read compare the Dutch first century Limes you refer to with the British Antonine wall (abandoned in 162).

Keep in mind also that this is a distraction from the main point -  concerning 4th century copper circulation.  Your earlier comments on British copper circulation, based upon a misunderstanding of Spink, were very misleading, and should be retracted.  Roman copper circulated widely in Britain down to the end of the 4th century.

Evidence I have seen so far also throws doubt on your claim about 4th century Roman copper circulation in the (Roman) Netherlands.  I await comment from Dutch group members on this.

Rob

[THCoins]

I have no specific knowledge on the subject, so will not take any position.
One critical comment regarding the work of van Gelder is that it is fairly old and may have been dated because of the new finds brought about since the introduction of metal detectors.
The Numis Database has become available to the public again since a while so may provide more factual information.

Anthony

[EWC]

That's useful

For Britain the portable antiquities scheme site

https://finds.org.uk/database/search/results/q/coin

shows about 360,000 coins, of which late 4th century of Arcadius (mostly coppers) are about 2,300

The Dutch Numis Database seems to show 55,000 coins of which about 70 are Arcadius (mostly coppers)

So superficially, there seem to be 5 times as many late Roman AE's in Britain.

However, almost none of the British coins seem to be found in the militarised zone North of York, - so in fact on this evidence, Arcadius coppers are probably commoner near the Limes in the Netherlands than in Britain.

However - a big further caveat is this report

https://iap-cores.be/publications/published_papers_and_posters/Neerharen-Rekem

Which shows two big hoards of late Roman coppers from the Netherlands – Arcadius is 340 coins from Hapert, south of the Limes, and 1,500 (!) coins from Haarlem, North of the Limes!!!

Amusingly the Haarlem coins, (probably stuck in France, Italy etc) were apparently being imported to the Netherlands from England.............

I do hope Peter will now reconsider his position......

Of course none of this is very much relevant to the point I originally made, which was anyhow about the 4th century Roman Empire as a whole

Rob

[THCoins]

Amusingly the Haarlem coins, (probably stuck in France, Italy etc) were apparently being imported to the Netherlands from England

Now of that hoard i do know something, and your statement is not backed by the available evidence i am afraid.

First, these are not "Haarlem" coins, as Haarlem as a city did not exist at the time. The hoard should be referred to as the "Haarlemmermeer hoard". The Haarlemmermeer was a large coastal tidal lake area, just divided from the sea by a strip of dunes. The location where the hoard was found likely was water at the time and not even in the vicinity of any major population center. In the official report of the find the most likely hypothesis is given that this could have been a money transport by ship. This could possibly have been an English ship. But there is no indication where this ship was going to. The most nearby city of Amsterdam is very unlikely as Roman copper coins from this era are conspicuously absent from the Amsterdam region.  It even is considered that the ship sank while it was seeking shelter after being cought in a storm on the North-sea.

Because of this i would think it is prudent to exclude this hoard as proof of circulating Roman copper in the Netherlands.

[EWC]

Because of this i would think it is prudent to exclude this hoard as proof of circulating Roman copper in the Netherlands.

Thanks for the interesting info - its a thought provoking find.

However, the records on your very useful NNC site obviates the need for this, or any other further evidence.  I have not counted them all - but it seems to list somewhere in the region of 2,000 finds of 4th century Roman coppers, from the various different rulers, found in the Netherlands........

And presumably, like PAS, this is just a fraction of what has actually turned up?

Rob