2005
DOI: 10.1017/s1380203805211625
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Coins, money and exchange in the Roman world. A cultural-economic perspective

Abstract: Until now, the Roman economy has been discussed primarily in economic terms. After the vehement debate between substantivist and formalists in the 1960s and 1970s, most historians and archaeologists have embraced an essentially substantivist perspective. Although this outlook has proven its value, it also seriously hampers a holistic view on the Roman exchange system by its focus on economic factors. Recent theoretical developments in economic anthropology, particularly through the work of Bloch and Parry, pro… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 64 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Marking of land may be accomplished through various forms of capital investment, including the installation of agricultural facilities (e.g., Adler 1996:362–363; Sullivan and Downum 1991) and the construction of burial and nonburial monuments (e.g., Arnold and Murray 2002). The marking of objects can be accomplished with the use of seals or maker's marks (e.g., Windes 1984), the execution of certain decorative styles, and other practices (e.g., Aarts 2005; Wobst 1977). Although property rights do leave tangible traces in the archaeological record, they are not unambiguous, and identifying the economic factors that underlie the origin and development of ancient property rights is a formidable but worthy inferential challenge for archaeologists (Gilman 1998:227–228).…”
Section: Conceptualizing Propertymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Marking of land may be accomplished through various forms of capital investment, including the installation of agricultural facilities (e.g., Adler 1996:362–363; Sullivan and Downum 1991) and the construction of burial and nonburial monuments (e.g., Arnold and Murray 2002). The marking of objects can be accomplished with the use of seals or maker's marks (e.g., Windes 1984), the execution of certain decorative styles, and other practices (e.g., Aarts 2005; Wobst 1977). Although property rights do leave tangible traces in the archaeological record, they are not unambiguous, and identifying the economic factors that underlie the origin and development of ancient property rights is a formidable but worthy inferential challenge for archaeologists (Gilman 1998:227–228).…”
Section: Conceptualizing Propertymentioning
confidence: 99%
“… 5 Aarts 2005; Verboven 2009; Von Reden 2010; Howgego 2013; Rowan 2013; 2016. Burnett and Molinari 2015: 96 suggest, but do not pursue, the approach for early Roman coinage.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“… 10 Parry and Bloch 1989; for their influence on the study of Greece, see Von Reden 1995; Kurke 1999; Seaford 2004; for Rome, see especially Aarts 2005 and the discussion following his article. Parry and Bloch's model remains fundamental for anthropologists, see Maurer 2006: 18; I disagree with the critique of Şaul 2005 that the model offers little more than a reformulation of Polanyi's views on money: while Polanyi described how different modes of exchange characterised societies, Parry and Bloch focus on the interaction between such modes within single societies.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“… 6 Buttrey 1999: 527; Aarts 2005: 6; although Hollander 2007 identifies a ‘rural’ monetary zone that only saw increased demand for coin in the late Republic. …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%