Clarification requested [Was Re: Imperialism etc.]

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "gknysh" <gknysh@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
>
> > I find the 'speculations' of Crawford and Lockyear pretty solid.
>
> ****GK: Have I missed something? (entirely possible). I read through
> the Lockyear thesis you kindly provided to us for consultation in
> pdf form. As I remember it, he contradicts Crawford on a number of
> crucial points. He (Lockyear) does not believe that there was some
> substantial increase in slave trade on the Danube in the years
> associated with unusually high influx of Roman denarii into Dacia,
> and he castigates Crawford for not noticing how many of these
> denarii (and esp.later since hoarding was a continuous process) were
> "local imitations" (which means they would hardly have been used by
> Romans to buy things from the Dacians).

Against which I'd argue that slave trade was private, not public business, and propose that those who bought the slaves, likely financed by Sulla's taxes on the Asian cities, ran out of Roman money so they minted coins themselves.

> So why the influx in those
> years [73-65]? Lockyear argues that Roman denarii became suddenly
> desirable to Dacian elites as "status symbols" of respected Roman
> power esp. in the aftermath of the crushing defeat Lucullus had
> inflicted on Mithradates, and were used "internally" in Dacia not as
> a medium of exchange but as "prestige objects" for various internal
> Dacian non-economic reasons. Slave trade must have continued on the
> Danube at the usual pace, as before and after and so on. And the
> coins thus bought the usual things from the Dacians which otherwise
> they would have wanted other commodities in exchange for.

But why the surge in coins in 73-65 BCE then? These represented a real and enormous value. What did the Romans get in return? And how is the debt crisis which led to the Caitilinarian conspiracy related?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catiline#Composition_of_the_conspiracy
'Promoting his policy of debt relief, Catiline initially also rallied many of the poor to his banner along with a large portion of Sulla's veterans.[26] Debt had never been greater than in 63 BC since the previous decades of war had led to an era of economic downturn across the Italian countryside.[27] Numerous plebeian farmers lost their farms and were forced to move to the city, where they swelled the numbers of the urban poor.[28] Sulla's veterans had spent and squandered the wealth they acquired from their years of service. Desiring to regain their fortunes, they were prepared to march to war under the banner of the "next" Sulla. Thus, many of the plebs eagerly flocked to Catiline and supported him in the hope of the absolution of their debts.
...

26
Cicero, In Catilinam II.8 IV.6;
Cicero, Pro Murena LXXVIII-LXXIX;
Sallust, Bellum Catilinae XXXVII.1

27 Cicero, De Officiis II.84

28 Sallust, Bellum Catilinae XXXVII'

Also recall that during Spartacus' uprising, slaves would maroon probably as soon as they arrived and farms would be looted, with the owners having no option but to start all over again with loaned money.

> Do you have any passages I missed where Lockyear supports Crawford's
> "slave acquisition boom" interpretation? *****

No, you're right. What I meant (I think) is that I found Crawford and Lockyear's speculations solid but I forgot to mention that I prefer the resulting proposal of Crawford for the interpretation of bought 'articles' (slaves) and Lockyear for the time frame (73-65 BCE). I should have mentioned Taylor instead of Lockyear.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/66820



Torsten