| Conteúdo do artigo |
- From rlbcomuser@yahoo.com Fri Jun 08 10:22:41 2007
Return-Path: <rlbcomuser@yahoo.com>
X-Sender: rlbcomuser@yahoo.com
X-Apparently-To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Received: (qmail 90094 invoked from network); 8 Jun 2007 17:22:40 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.67.36)
by m51.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Jun 2007 17:22:40 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO web50809.mail.re2.yahoo.com) (206.190.38.252)
by mta10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Jun 2007 17:22:40 -0000
Received: (qmail 58668 invoked by uid 60001); 8 Jun 2007 17:15:30 -0000
X-YMail-OSG: fwUuSSQVM1mmXKF4UrgXucEPc9ea_9WFUCnVIhFpVBOUZdCnuJGlWahOhGU83ey_PloYmJ3W4gHZNZagQ_NF6mFY.iJ.bHQx0i1HnYe_4ElezENOirEwPIljbp9SoWz2HfBf3pBeGfDiZZhPfJnCTQZLjA--
Received: from [198.208.251.24] by web50809.mail.re2.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 08 Jun 2007 10:15:30 PDT
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 10:15:30 -0700 (PDT)
To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
In-Reply-To: <001501c7a9e7$137eb900$6602a8c0@JWLouis>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <794692.53264.qm@web50809.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
X-Originating-IP: 206.190.38.252
X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0
From: B B <rlbcomuser@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Colonial Numismatics] Re: What is a Colonial Coin?
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=77668358; y=2U0GxK2VPcDUfv-MOH-DAVOXwxCQj86CZMLSGeQfgNeUheFFCw
X-Yahoo-Profile: rlbcomuser
Now that's the first statement that makes any sense in
this string.:)
BB
--- John Louis <johnwlouis@comcast.net> wrote:
> I thought the Vikings settled in Minnesota!
> jwl
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Oliver D. Hoover
> To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 10:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [Colonial Numismatics] Re: What is a
> Colonial Coin?
>
>
> Dan and David,
>
> I had forgotten about the Vikings. I suppose some
> argument could be
> made for the Vineland settlement as a medieval
> colonial experiment,
> but I don't know what the status of Vineland was
> vis-a-vis the
> Scandinavian kings. There is nothing colonial
> about the Asian
> migrations into North America in the Prehistoric
> period.
>
> David, No mints, but I think that there was
> supposed to have been a
> Viking coin find from Vineland. I could be
> mistaken though.
>
> Oliver
>
> On 7-Jun-07, at 10:48 PM, palmers4@erols.com
> wrote:
>
> > It must be because we have no evidence of a mint
> being set up by
> > either the
> > Asian invasion, or the Vikings. David
> >
> > Original Message:
> > -----------------
> > From: Freidus, Daniel freidus@umich.edu
> > Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 22:35:59 -0400
> > To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: RE: [Colonial Numismatics] Re: What is
> a Colonial Coin?
> >
> >
> > Yes, Oliver, I don't recall ever having seen the
> term 'colonial'
> > used to
> > refer to any activity in North America earlier
> than 1492 (but I
> > haven't
> > read much about the Viking invasion). I was also
> under the
> > impression that
> > crossing the Bering strait was probably a long
> enough and difficult
> > enough
> > journey that those doing it were leaving behind
> their old land, not
> > staying
> > in touch.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com on behalf
> of Oliver D. Hoover
> > Sent: Thu 6/7/2007 9:05 PM
> > To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [Colonial Numismatics] Re: What is
> a Colonial Coin?
> >
> > Jim,
> >
> > I would be interested to know who uses the term
> "Colonial" to refer
> > to the migrants from the Asian continent to
> North America in the
> > Prehistoric period who later became the Native
> peoples of the
> > Americas. This seems like quite a stretch as the
> prehistoric peoples
> > who crossed the Bering Strait are not likely to
> have maintained
> > political and economic ties with their Asian
> homeland. Is not
> > dependence on the Mother Country a colonial
> requirement by definition?
> >
> > Oliver
> >
> > On 7-Jun-07, at 2:17 PM, JCSpilman/iMAC/HOME
> wrote:
> >
> >> Dan --
> >> The categorization of time spans and
> terminology is neatly spelled
> >> out in Dr. Jordan's Notre Dame "Colonial"
> (Early American)
> >> website. I find nothing in his systemization to
> object to. Draw
> >> this categorization as an organization chart
> and you will find that
> >> it is, generally, all inclusive,
> >>
> >> The misnomer "colonial" has long been
> recognized as an "era" prior
> >> to the Paris Treaty of 1783 and even extends
> back in time to man's
> >> first entry into the North American continent
> (from Asia).
> >> Colonial is a very broad categorization
> indicating only a Colony of
> >> some remote Mother Country, it may, or may not,
> extend to several
> >> intervals of time, as well as changes between
> one Mother Country
> >> and some other.
> >>
> >> Remember the political phrase "Keep it simple,
> stupid" <bg>
> >>
> >> Jim/CNLF
> >>
> >> ===========================
> >>
> >> "Freidus, Daniel" wrote:
> >>> I've seen many historians use dates other than
> 1776 to divide
> >>> eras. It's not uncommon to see 1764-1783 or
> 1789 listed as the
> >>> Revolutionary period. Do we put Continental
> currency from 1775 in
> >>> a different category than that from 1776
> (which still said "United
> >>> Colonies") or that from, say, 1778 (by which
> time it said "United
> >>> States")?For most purposes, historians use
> either 1783 or 1789 as
> >>> the beginning of the next phase for our nation
> <Well, most of
> >>> ours, Oliver ;) >. I generally prefer 1789
> because I see the
> >>> ratification as the end of the process of
> declaring independence
> >>> (the Bill of Rights was tweaking, even if they
> are quite
> >>> important). For coinage, I think pre-1764,
> 1764-1789, and
> >>> post-1789 work quite well. For paper money and
> many fiscal issues
> >>> you could argue that the Revolutionary period
> goes on a bit beyond
> >>> 1789 but I don't think that diminishes the
> usefulness of seeing
> >>> early American numismatics as 3 eras:
> Colonial, Revolutionary, and
> >>> Federal.
> >>> Just because Fugios were made for the federal
> government doesn't
> >>> put them in the Federal era. They were an
> experiment by a
> >>> government still being formed. Large cents are
> different (and
> >>> that's why I no longer collect them.).
> >>>
> >>> Dan
> >>>
> >>> From:colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:colonial-
> >>> coins@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John N.
> Lupia
> >>>
> >>> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 12:16 PM
> >>> To:colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
> >>> Subject: [Colonial Numismatics] Re: What is a
> Colonial Coin?
> >>> Hi Ray:
> >>> I think you misread me. I agree the name C4 is
> here to stay. The
> >>> distinction I am making is a more precise
> definition of the scope of
> >>> the subject matter of colonial numismatics
> under the banner of C4.
> >>>
> >>> To continue keeping Early Federal Coinage
> minted 1776-1792 under the
> >>> C4 banner will continue the confusion, lack of
> clarity, and the
> >>> perception of the whole as a jumbled mess.
> >>>
> >>> I realize your affections for Early Federal
> coinages, especially New
> >>> Jersey cents, wants you to keep them as C4
> subject matter. But for
> >>> the
> >>> sake of the subject matter as well as for the
> good
=== message truncated ===
____________________________________________________________________________________
Bored stiff? Loosen up...
Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
http://games.yahoo.com/games/front
|
|---|
