| Contenuto dell'articolo |
- From oliver.hoover@sympatico.ca Fri Jun 08 16:02:40 2007
Return-Path: <oliver.hoover@sympatico.ca>
X-Sender: oliver.hoover@sympatico.ca
X-Apparently-To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
Received: (qmail 26415 invoked from network); 8 Jun 2007 23:02:21 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.72)
by m42.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Jun 2007 23:02:21 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO bay0-omc2-s26.bay0.hotmail.com) (65.54.246.162)
by mta14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Jun 2007 23:02:21 -0000
Received: from BAYC1-PASMTP01.CEZ.ICE ([65.54.191.161]) by bay0-omc2-s26.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2668);
Fri, 8 Jun 2007 16:02:20 -0700
X-Originating-Email: [oliver.hoover@sympatico.ca]
Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([69.157.0.26]) by BAYC1-PASMTP01.CEZ.ICE over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2668);
Fri, 8 Jun 2007 16:02:16 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
In-Reply-To: <4669C9AF.DD4949A@Comcast.net>
References: <380-2200765824818380@M2W040.mail2web.com> <1BD99E93-87A8-4ADE-8F8B-240081710A7B@sympatico.ca> <001501c7a9e7$137eb900$6602a8c0@JWLouis> <46698E0F.CA82DE66@Comcast.net> <741D47E1-69D6-4683-82C5-D237C2AAAC88@sympatico.ca> <4669B616.ED0474E6@Comcast.net> <1EBE58C7-C8BF-441E-BAD7-8857FB87E431@sympatico.ca> <4669C9AF.DD4949A@Comcast.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-2--974412068
Message-Id: <9C48E261-C2AE-4FA1-97A6-FA01B185AD8B@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 19:02:14 -0400
To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2)
Return-Path: oliver.hoover@sympatico.ca
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jun 2007 23:02:17.0407 (UTC) FILETIME=[0F807CF0:01C7AA21]
X-Originating-IP: 65.54.246.162
X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0
From: "Oliver D. Hoover" <oliver.hoover@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: [Colonial Numismatics] Re: What is a Colonial Coin?
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=90773831; y=ylsAIga7J56JzIOzNTKr7U6733vqHcGs8ce2SdC8H-o3G2TK
X-Yahoo-Profile: timarchos
--Apple-Mail-2--974412068
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=US-ASCII;
delsp=yes;
format=flowed
OK. Now I'm really lost.
I should however correct my Greek. "epiriai" is a typo. The correct
spelling is "emporiai", from whence the English "emporium" by way of
Latin.
Oliver
On 8-Jun-07, at 5:27 PM, JCSpilman/iMAC/HOME wrote:
> Shades of Forrest Gump!
> "Oliver D. Hoover" wrote:
>> Jim, The Greek colonies (called "apoikiai" literally "away from
>> home" [also "empiriai" for trading centres]) always retained an
>> association with the mother city (metropolis) that founded them.
>> Likewise Roman military colonies (called "coloniae" from whence
>> "colony" in English) always looked to Rome and Italy as their
>> Mother city/country. A Prehistoric "family unit" hardly compares
>> to a state of the political complexity of a Greek polis, much less
>> a modern nation-state. On your faulty analogy, I must be
>> considered a colonist of Hamilton, Ontario, because my family
>> lives in that city, and yet I live in Burlington, a few km away.
>> When I lived in NYC, was I a Canadian colonist in the USA? I
>> don't think so. Oliver On 8-Jun-07, at 4:03 PM, JCSpilman/iMAC/
>> HOME wrote:
>>> 8 JUNE 2007
>>> Oliver, et al --
>>>
>>> Sorry for the delay. I lost both TV and Internet service for
>>> several hours.
>>>
>>> See:
>>>
>>> The Oxford Universal Dictionary on Historical Principles ed.
>>> C.T. Onions; Oxford Clarendon Press.
>>>
>>> 1580. Colony: Greek. Settlement of "people from home" , as an
>>> independent self governed state. (i.e. Family Unit as it
>>> pertains to "Prehistoric".)
>>>
>>> 1622. Colonize: To plant or establish a colony. (But see more
>>> modern usage, Roman, 1816.
>>>
>>> 1701. Colonist: One who settles in a new country.
>>>
>>> 1796. Colonial: Of belonging to, or relating to, a colony.
>>>
>>> 1816. Colonize: To establish in a colony.
>>>
>>> The roots emanate Greek to Roman, but the Greek is most specific
>>> being of earliest taxonomic origin. Time does not enter into
>>> the equation other that the beginning of usage in writing. In
>>> later Roman usage the derivation continues into Plantation et
>>> al. , British American Crown Colonies (one of three types) became
>>> "Plantations".
>>>
>>> JCSpilman/CNLF
>>>
>>> ======================
>>>
>>> "Oliver D. Hoover" wrote:
>>>> So enlighten me. You still need to provide some evidence for
>>>> the use of "colonial" to refer to the Prehistoric settlers of
>>>> North America. Migration and settlement are not synonymous with
>>>> colonialism. OliverOn 8-Jun-07, at 1:12 PM, JCSpilman/iMAC/HOME
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Oliver obviously does not understand the taxonomy of the word
>>>>> colonial. Jim/CNLF
>>>>> John Louis 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 of the
>>>>>> larger
>>>>>> >>> collecting community, the American community at large,
>>>>>> newcomers to
>>>>>> >>> the field, students, and so on, to put them under the proper
>>>>>> >>> banner is
>>>>>> >>> for a greater good than could ever be accomplished by
>>>>>> keeping the
>>>>>> >>> status quo.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Most of us already are members of more than one numismatic
>>>>>> >>> society or
>>>>>> >>> association, so here is one more for us to join.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> EAC wont take the subject matter back as we all suspect
>>>>>> since they
>>>>>> >>> have specialized so intensely on Early US cents and half
>>>>>> cents
>>>>>> >>> 1793-1857 showing signs of no other interest.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> But, I think my purpose goes way beyond the things
>>>>>> mentioned here.
>>>>>> >>> These Early Federal coinages we all love and have such a
>>>>>> fascination
>>>>>> >>> and interest in are not properly focused as Federal
>>>>>> coinages and
>>>>>> >>> obviously they cannot be Pre-Mint.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> We need to shatter the myth that the US Mint at Philadelphia
>>>>>> >>> completed
>>>>>> >>> by September 7, 1792 is the only real authentic mint of
>>>>>> record as
>>>>>> >>> defined by Frank Stewart in 1924. It appears not even to
>>>>>> have been
>>>>>> >>> the
>>>>>> >>> first built with US government funds and operated by US
>>>>>> government
>>>>>> >>> staff. Robert Morris seems to have been the one under the
>>>>>> >>> direction of
>>>>>> >>> Congress to have done that.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> The early government wasted no time making plates to print
>>>>>> paper
>>>>>> >>> money
>>>>>> >>> and strike coinages even in 1776, also having set up a US
>>>>>> >>> treasury, US
>>>>>> >>> Federal Reserve Depositories (Boston being one of the
>>>>>> first), The
>>>>>> >>> Nnational Bank system, and state charters for banks.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> A decade before the Philadelphia Mint, Robert Morris set
>>>>>> up the
>>>>>> >>> first
>>>>>> >>> bureau of engraving and mint in 1782, that has now since
>>>>>> disappeared
>>>>>> >>> without a trace, also probably located in NJ or in or near
>>>>>> PA.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> But, after Morris' Mint dissolved (for reasons yet unclear
>>>>>> to me)
>>>>>> >>> the
>>>>>> >>> US Mint became itinerant just as the US Congress was
>>>>>> itinerant until
>>>>>> >>> it settled down in a physical building in the District of
>>>>>> >>> Columbia . .
>>>>>> >>> . and the Mint also after July 18, 1792 when the government
>>>>>> >>> purchased
>>>>>> >>> lot 37 and 39 North Seventh Street and 631 Filbert Street,
>>>>>> >>> Philadelphia.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> It seems as though the early nascent government saw a more
>>>>>> practical
>>>>>> >>> application in being itinerant at that time, not only with
>>>>>> Congress
>>>>>> >>> but with the branch of the US Treasury outsourcing US
>>>>>> Mints and
>>>>>> >>> coiners, probably explaining why they dissolved what
>>>>>> Morris had
>>>>>> >>> started for Congress in 1782.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> As you well know the US Mint formed by private contractors
>>>>>> was very
>>>>>> >>> functional in Rahway and Morristown, NJ, 15 years before
>>>>>> David
>>>>>> >>> Rittenhouse ran the new one at Philadelphia. In fact the
>>>>>> old Rahway
>>>>>> >>> coin press was sold to the new plant by the old coiner's
>>>>>> widow.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> The other Early Federal Mints coined in New York, also, an
>>>>>> outside
>>>>>> >>> contractor at Vermont, etc. These were all necessarily US
>>>>>> Federal
>>>>>> >>> Mints, albeit though outsourced under contract coiners who
>>>>>> used
>>>>>> >>> their
>>>>>> >>> own equipment and physical plants. Since the executive
>>>>>> government
>>>>>> >>> had
>>>>>> >>> already empowered Congress with the exclusive right to
>>>>>> coin, ipso
>>>>>> >>> facto, all the post 1776 American minted coins are Early
>>>>>> Federal
>>>>>> >>> issues, just as the paper money was too.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> New Jersey coppers are US coinage struck at the Early Federal
>>>>>> >>> outsourced Mints located in Rahway and Morristown, NJ.
>>>>>> They were
>>>>>> >>> private contractors, coiners hired by the state
>>>>>> legislature acting
>>>>>> >>> under the direction and guidance of the US Congress -- who
>>>>>> alone had
>>>>>> >>> exclusive executive authority to order coinage with
>>>>>> supreme control
>>>>>> >>> over it.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Keeping this under the banner of C4 is not only clouding
>>>>>> the issues
>>>>>> >>> but keeping it out of focus and not doing the subject
>>>>>> matter the
>>>>>> >>> justice it rightly deserves.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> American History textbooks do not even have it straight.
>>>>>> The Red
>>>>>> >>> Book
>>>>>> >>> is so messed up it contributes to the chaos and status quo.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> I would like to either be on the board of editors to
>>>>>> revamp the Red
>>>>>> >>> Book or else find a publisher willing to make a new US
>>>>>> Coin Guide
>>>>>> >>> Book, or else beyond that, find others willing to start-up
>>>>>> a new
>>>>>> >>> company and produce it ourselves.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> C4 is here to stay, Ray. Nobody wants to see C4 do
>>>>>> anything but
>>>>>> >>> flourish -- but focused on its proper subject matter, not
>>>>>> that which
>>>>>> >>> is not part of it at all.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> In order for our understanding and appreciation of Early
>>>>>> Federal
>>>>>> >>> history, financing, banking, and so on to advance in our
>>>>>> minds and
>>>>>> >>> hearts C4 is surely big enough to let it go off on its
>>>>>> own; like a
>>>>>> >>> mature parent who sees its child grown big enough to go
>>>>>> out into the
>>>>>> >>> world and make it independently.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> For the good of US Economic History I propose that a new
>>>>>> Society of
>>>>>> >>> Early American Numismatics (SEAN) focuses on research of
>>>>>> coins,
>>>>>> >>> medals
>>>>>> >>> and paper money issued from 1776 until 1793, as a new and
>>>>>> >>> independent
>>>>>> >>> organization to advance the science of Early American Federal
>>>>>> >>> Numismatics.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Keep smiling,
>>>>>> >>> John
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> --- In colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com, Ray Williams
>>>>>> <njraywms@...>
>>>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> That was well thought out John. I believe the C4 name is
>>>>>> here to
>>>>>> >>> stay, even if it may be technically inaccurate in many
>>>>>> instances. I
>>>>>> >>> think that "Pre-Federal" or "Pre-Mint" more accurately
>>>>>> describes
>>>>>> >>> what
>>>>>> >>> we collect and the areas in which we specialize. There are
>>>>>> some
>>>>>> >>> coins
>>>>>> >>> that we include out of tradition, that don't fit the
>>>>>> parameters of
>>>>>> >>> "Pre-Federal" or "Pre-Mint", but that's okay. Some even
>>>>>> call thos
>>>>>> >>> Canadian things made by Blacksmiths as "Colonial"! <BG>
>>>>>> But they
>>>>>> >>> were colonial for Canada... just not 18th Century
>>>>>> products. This is
>>>>>> >>> always an interesting topic, especially when I can get
>>>>>> David Palmer
>>>>>> >>> involved somehow... <s>
>>>>>> >>>> Ray
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> >>>> From: John Lupia
>>>>>> >>>> To: colonial-coins@yahoogroups.com
>>>>>> >>>> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 8:40
|
|---|
