Arcadia Discussion Zone

Would the Crista be similar in style to these jeweled artifacts?

*

It's a THEORY nothing more. And a not very good one at that. There is a perfectly adequate section for you to go into. A place where you don't drive away respected researchers.

I have yet to see ANY tangible link to Rennes le Chateau. Putting it here is nothing but show boating on the top forum.

Roscoe,
You have an extraordinary ability to go from a standing start to screaming invective at the drop of a hat!
Now that you've retired maybe it would be a good time to get some professional help to try and understand where that stems from.
The mental picture I get whilst reading your posts I've tried hard to suppress but the querulous, high-pitched whine breaks through every time.

I seem to recall your exchanges with Seeker in which you tried to drive him from the Forum with apparent rascist abuse yet now you claim you'd rather listen to him...........
Cannot have it both ways ol' chum.

Why not try and restart one of your interpolations about Orval, that might cheer you up and give us all a break! That had nothing to do with RLC either but it never stopped you before.
Failing that try a glass of wine, it never fails to induce a more positive world view. What ever you try please attempt to avoid swearing it shows nothing more than a lack of vocab.

Have a great day!
Kind regards,
TD.

oh yes ....Roscoe has a very short memory and the attention span of a goldfish.

It would seem that the Sanitation Dept. have completed the de-lousing process and have declared the area habitable once more.

Is there a Banking expert available to advise us whether Chapter 15 can be used
with respect to bankruptcy of intellectual property and theories as well as its more
usual activities?

TD

oh for goodness sake!!!

re-opened with posts removed.

un-real.

the powers that be have re-opened this thread.

why was it closed in the first place and why has it been re-opened???

when the thread was locked...conversation went here.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3238

Yup!! And he just happens to be "the usual suspect"



Synchronicity or what!

Wow! What are the chances of that RenMan?
Must be more of that 'Dumb luck' we hear so much about!

However, Given where we are it be appropriate to see some evidence of competency
rather than accepting anything on trust.
TD

After a series of soul searching introspection on the part of the folks I will paste in below, I was encouraged by tese remarks to initiate the crista redux to star out with a clean slate.

I wonder if continuing will be positive when one goes thru what I post below.

Sandy sez...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48rz8udZBmQ

sheila sez...Quote:
This forum is supposed to be an easy breezy light hearted banter 'boot armchair topics, yes?

No it's not...whatever gave you that idea!

Sandy sez...My simple maxim is if you wouldn't say it to a person's face don't say it behind the anonimity of the net

I would tell Jake he was an idiot to his face. I mean, look what he writes!!!!!

davinho sez...
fecking fairplay

I reckon it would be him, then, that might have a slightly different attitude

roger sez...RenaissanceMan wrote:
How about Roger suddenly realised that IBJ had got the wrong end of the stick regarding the interpretation of the symbolism and is now sitting patiently to see what other info surfaces.


Nothing quite like that, I can assure you. I shan't discuss events and third parties, suffice to say that I, for one, do not believe any good would come of enlightening anyone any further.

Sorry if that disappoints anyone, but for those who believe it's "performance art", they will feel vindicated, and for those who feel there is more to it, they already have too many clues, more than enough to elucidate the matter for themselves, if they've got half a mind to do so.

With these entrenched agenda's to confront, when seekin' a reasonable solution to the RLC enigma, one has to endure slings + slights, play un-paid psych counselor, re-fluff up ruffled feathers, remind thru gentle cajoling by way of recaps to stay on topic, remind folks this is only an easy breezy forum and not a minefield.

A more prosaic approach would be for non-belligerents who want a peaceful chat like conversation 'boot what Sauniere was doin' with this crista 'thang' nobody knows what it is, to do so on the redux topic and let the more acerbic wits argue over the crista arcana on this topic.

That should be fair dinkum, Oz style, yes? BTW, the crista redux claims the Cherisey input as central to assessing any way of knowin' what Sauniere knew, thus stayin' within the bounds of all 'thangs' RLC related. That is a consolation reminder to Roscoe, if he cares to re-join this discussion.

Are you suggesting that these rather primitive-looking coins are really the work of a master craftsman? Did you compare them to the Roman coins of earlier vintage? Not even close. Eligius may have been a master craftsman but these are not examples of great work. TCP[/quote]

scroll down....
http://www.fapage.com/saint_eloi_01.htm

Ah, perfect - thank you!

En l'absence de textes officiels, on ne connaît pas la nature exacte du rôle de monétaire (monetarius) et les savants sont partagés. Les noms des monétaires inscrits au revers des monnaies mérovingiennes ne sont-ils qu'une garantie entre confrères, une sorte de "carte de visite" (Dieudonné), ce qui ferait rentrer celles-ci dans la catégorie du monnayage privé, ou au contraire sont-ils ceux d' "officiers du roi" frappant des espèces ayant un certain caractère public ? Les monnaies mérovingiennes en or, contrairement à ce qu'on a pu prétendre, ne sont pas des monnaies destinées au règlement du fisc. Le texte de la Vita nous précise, en effet, que le collecteur des impôts, accompagné de son monétaire, recevait le cens en or, et que cet or devait être fondu et purifié afin que, selon l'usage, il soit présenté au roi. Lafaurie fait remarquer, à juste titre, que la transformation ensuite en monnaie n'est pas mentionnée, ce qui permet aux numismates d'échafauder toutes les hypothèses.

(In the absence of official texts, we do not know the exact nature of the role of the minter (monetarius) and scholars are divided. The names inscribed on the reverse of Merovingian monetary currencies are a guarantee between colleagues, a sort of "calling card" (Dieudonné), which would put them into the category of private currency, or on the contrary, are these "officers of the King" striking species of a certain a public character? Merovingian gold coins, unlike what has been claimed, are not currencies for fiscal payments. In the text of the Vita we pointed ou, in effect, the tax collector, with his minter, received the cens (an annual tax on land) in gold and that gold would be melted and purified so that, usually, it is presented to the King . Lafaurie notes, correctly, that the currency conversion is not mentioned, which allows numismatists to construct many assumptions.)

Les monnaies d'Eloi semblent donner une bonne illustration de la complexité du rôle de monétaire. On ne sait rien sur la période de l'apprentissage d'Eloi chez son maître Abbon. Il semble que "son activité possible de monétaire ne pourrait se situer qu'entre son arrivée à la cour de Clotaire II et sa nomination comme évêque de Noyon, soit avant 629 jusque vers 640/641 avant le sacre du 13 mai 641" (Lafaurie). On ne connaît pas non plus les circonstances dans lesquelles Eloi a fait la connaissance de Bobbon. Cependant, Eloi devait être un personnage bien important pour avoir vécu au Palais sous trois rois successifs: Clotaire II, Dagobert I et Clovis II. Prou voit en lui comme un "surintendant des monnaies", ce qui expliquerait, poursuit-il qu'on trouve son nom sur des pièces émises à Paris, à Arles et à Marseille.

(The currencies of Eloi seem to give a good illustration of the complexity of the role of the minter. Nothing is known about the period of apprenticeship under his master Abbon. It seems that "his possible activity as a minter could be placed between his arrival at the court of Clotaire II and his appointment as bishop of Noyon, before 629 to about 640/641 before the coronation of 13 May 641" (Lafaurie ). We do not know the circumstances under which Eloi became acquainted with Bobbon. However, Eloi must have been an important person to have lived in the Palace under three successive kings: Clotaire II, Dagobert I and Clovis II. Prou sees him as a "superintendent of currencies", which would explain the reason we find his name on coins issued in Paris, Arles and Marseille.)

Les monnaies d'Eloi présentent au revers sa signature, soit sous le nom d'ELIGIVS (au nominatif) suivi ou non de son titre plus ou moins abrégé de MONETARIVS , soit sous celui d'ELIGI (au génitif) accosté d'une croix ancrée ou d'une croix chrismée. Eloi a signé des monnaies aux noms:

de Clotaire II à Marseille
de Dagobert I à Paris, au Palais et à Marseille
de Clovis II à Paris, au Palais et à Arles
de Sigebert III à Marseille
Certaines des monnaies d'Eloi émises à Paris, au Palais ou à la Scola (l'école du Palais) ne portent pas de nom de roi.

(The coins of Eloi show his signature on the reverse, or by the name ELIGIVS (nominative) followed or not by his title more or less abstracted as MONETARIVS or under the influence of ELIG (genitive) flanked by a cross ancrée (anchored) or a cross chrismée (the chrism, or "+P" symbol). Eloi has signed currencies for the following (monarchs):

Clotaire II in Marseille
Dagobert I in Paris, the Palace, and Marseille
Clovis II in Paris, the Palais and Arles
Siegbert III in Marseille
Some of the currencies issued by Eloi in Paris at the Palais or Scola (palace academy) do not name a king.)

Eloi fut l'artisan d'une réforme monétaire, qui affaiblit de près de moitié le titre d'or fin des monnaies, passé de 900 à environ 450/500 millièmes, et qui permit, pour un temps la restauration de la mainmise royale sur la monnaie. Cette réforme annonce celle qui sera un siècle plus tard l'oeuvre des Carolingiens.

(Eloi was the architect of a monetary reform, which weakened by nearly half the value of gold coins, from 900 to about 450 / 500 thousandths, and enabled for a time the restoration of the royal takeover of currency. This reform will be announced a century later as the work of the Carolingians.)


So, now we know what that enigmatic symbol actually is and what it's not.

It is not a graphic representation of a mystical pagan relic symbolizing power - of Druids, Constantine, Merovingian kings, or anyone save for the man who's signature it was.

It is, in effect, a maker's mark of a particular 7th century superintendant of royal mints, Eligius or Eloi - later canonized as St. Éloi, Bishop of Noyon and Tournai, patron saint of goldsmiths and metalworkers - found on the reverse of coins produced in mints under his purview.

The "horns" atop the cross form an abstract initial "M" (for MONETARIVS) or, on its side, an "E" (for ELIGIVS).

Another attempt at myth-making takes a nose dive. So long, Crista - it was good while it lasted...

Thanks Tina, that was an excellent find!

TCP

The "horns" atop the cross form an abstract initial "M" (for MONETARIVS) or, on its side, an "E" (for ELIGIVS).

for a minute i thought you were being serious

Constantine coin with the Chi rho??? on his helmet....

For a moment I thought you had an objective interest and weren't so resolutely tied to a specific outcome!

At least I got your attention!

So, how would you attempt to explain away the fact that this mark seems to be specific to Eligius as superintendent of royal mints, and not to the monarchs under whose reigns he served in this capacity, singularly or collectively?

TCP

its not specific to Eligius, the pattern continued but the point i was trying to make in that earlier post was why would a master goldsmith mint a coin that looked like that when he had the capability to engrave or design anything he desired really. The experts say a cross ancree or anchor cross but IF he wanted the coins to look like an anchor and cross or whatever he could have done so instead of using that design
Anyway, i am probably not explaining myself very well cos i am in a hurry, my carriage awaits and the night is young.
catchya later

*

A Chronology of Early Byzantine History

especially from section 5 down

Sure does...

TCP

Um, it's kinda looking that way, Tina.



I guess you really didn't read any of the article before you posted it, otherwise you would already have an answer to that question (and probably wouldn't have posted the article at all after reading it).

TCP