Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;EWC3, post: 3817952, member: 93416&quot;]Further to my last - I tracked down the source of Bransbourg’s graph to this (on line) paper by Carla (see page 29+)</p><p><br /></p><p><a href="https://www.academia.edu/196592/Loro_nella_tarda_antichit%C3%A0_aspetti_economici_e_sociali" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.academia.edu/196592/Loro_nella_tarda_antichit%C3%A0_aspetti_economici_e_sociali" rel="nofollow">https://www.academia.edu/196592/Loro_nella_tarda_antichità_aspetti_economici_e_sociali</a></p><p><br /></p><p>Actually Carla – having complained about the misuse of terms by numismatists, goes on to be rather vague himself as to the terms he is applying.</p><p><br /></p><p>However – if we look at his table on page 27 he gives a starter value of “gold” as “50,000”.</p><p><br /></p><p>That seems broadly in an acceptable general ballpark for a (Roman) pound of gold in notional or “ghost” denarii around the time of Aurelian.</p><p><br /></p><p>Reading subsequent prices from the table, by around 360 AD a pound of gold has apparently risen to just short of one billion “ghost” denarii.</p><p><br /></p><p>So that does make some sort of sense.</p><p><br /></p><p>Exactly why Carla then writes just short of 10 billion for 360 AD when he transposes his figures to his graph however still puzzles me. Again – can anyone assist?&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>Rob T[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in