Arcadia Discussion Zone

*

How about bringing Rennes le Chateau into the conversation first?

If you cannot give ANY tangible evidence that this has anything to do with Rennes le Chateau (which after almost a year of asking you have been unable to do) then it belongs in the THEORIES section

Stop spamming this section.

The king doesn't have a magic suit. The king is in fact naked - Hans Christian Andersen

Of course I would have posted it and I know very well what it says which is why I posted it.
you say Eligius used that design as his signature mark and it was specific to him so how do you explain the other Merovingian coins from the same era that were not minted by him as moneyer but have the same design? If you look at the dates in the following article you will see that the probable dates for the Sutton hoo hoard date between 613 and 625….the Eligius coins you showed were from 629 to 657 from the reign of Dagobert 1 and clovis II respectively. You might indeed argue that Eligius had superiority over some of those mints but that would not explain the variation on the same theme.

Dating Merovingian coins is non-trivial, as coins do not always carry the name of a ruler or of an identifiable mint. Of the 37 Sutton Hoo coins, 32 give the name of a mint on one side and sometimes the name of a moneyer on the other, with no ruler identified. Only five name specific rulers:

• Theudebert II (Frankish King, 595-612) - one coin, no mint named
• Justin II (Byzantine emperor, 565-578) - one coin, minted in Provence
• Maurice Tiberius (Byzantine emperor, 582-602) - three coins, minted at three different mints in Provence

In 1960 the French coin expert Lafaurie identified the latest date of the coin group as AD 625. More recent analysis of the gold content of the coins (which progressively declined over time as Frankish mints recycled the metal), has indicated that the coins could all have been made by AD 613 (Carver 1998). Fortunately, both these dates are reasonably consistent and place the earliest possible date for the burial in the early decades of the seventh century (it could of course be later, as the coins could have been in circulation for a while before being buried).
No two of the coins come from the same mint. At first sight this looks remarkable, and it has been used to suggest that the coins were selected for some deliberate and specific reason, perhaps representing a diplomatic or symbolic payment of some kind. The historian Norman Scarfe suggested that they may have been the 'blood money' offered by Aethelferth of Northumbria in his attempt to bribe Raedwald to murder Eadwine (Edwin) of Northumbria in 617 (Carver 1998) -
However, the coin collection may not be as special as it first appears. Thirteen of the coins either have no mint name or an unidentifiable one, leaving only 24 from the known Merovingian mints. According to Alan Stahl, there were so many different Merovingian mints in operation in the seventh century that the Sutton Hoo coins represent only a small fraction of the known mints. Stahl estimates that a random collection of 37 coins would have about a 50% chance of containing two coins from the same mint. In which case, this suggests that the Sutton Hoo coins need not represent a conscious attempt to select coins from different mints; it is as likely to have arisen as a random collection of 37 coins that happened to be in circulation.
Alan Stahl also points out that most coins in England in the early seventh century came from Merovingian Gaul, and that the main metal for currency north of the Mediterranean was gold. So the fact that the Sutton Hoo coins were Merovingian gold coins does not imply any special relationship between East Anglia and Merovingian Gaul. Most if not all of the coins available in England at the time would have been Merovingian and made of gold.
As ever, many explanations are possible and you can take your choice.

http://www.carlanayland.org/essays/sutton_hoo_coins.htm




The only signature that Eligius used on his coins was ELIGI...as you can see here.

I don't know, Tina...you still seem a bit surprised. I don't know why you would post a source you didn't agree with without an explanation.



If Eligius and other minters used this same mark, wouldn't that indicate specificity to their trade? Do we see this "horned cross" on other articles besides coinage? It doesn't necessarily have to be the unique, personal mark of Eligius and no one else. But if we're seeing it used at several mints on coins minted by several monnayeurs, doesn't that hint broadly that it is a sort of trade mark for monnayeurs (such as Eligius) and not a symbol of Merovingian "mystical" power and authority? Especially since of these 37 coins in the Sutton Hoo collection, only nine have it; and of those nine, only one might actually have the likeness of a Merovingian monarch on the obverse. Where's the evidence of association?



Interestingly enough, only one coin from this 37-coin group bears the likeness of a Merovingian ruler; four bear the likenesses of two different Byzantine emperors. Thus only five can be dated by the date ranges of the rulers themselves.



Presumably because the only Merovingian coin in the lot that can be dated according to the date range of an actual monarch would have to have been minted by AD 613. So are all the coins that don't bear the name of a maker whose death date is known simply put to the side? Strange.



Wow. Three coins from a cache of 37 can be definitively dated and from this they assume that all the undated coins in the cache must pre-date the latest of those three. I guess some experts have a problem stating "date unknown"...



Not according to the article you posted yesterday.

TCP

ok,so you think that symbol was a monnayeurs trade mark and nothing more, even though the sybolism varies? doesnt it make more sense to say it was a merovingian design used by monnayeurs working in the merovingian mints?

Moneyer: Angiulfus.

AV Tremissis. Ca. late 6th-7th century A.D. Moneyer: Angiulfus. Picassoesque bust l. with walnut eye, pelleted cap swept back, with crescent earring, pendalia (?) indicated as rows of pellets before bust, cross below; NLIIVΠIO (the "N" reversed). Rv. Croix ancrée - cross with omega anchor;



http://www.coinarchives.com/a/results.p ... esults=100


http://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotviewer ... d10a46da7c

Read my follow up comment in this yellow brick road reverie...in the crista redux

but surely the fact that this mark was used by several monnayeurs at different mints could just as strongly indicate that it was a special symbol of relevance to Merovingian power.

Alexius, i have a very elegantly simple solution ya can read on the redux

So "special and relevant to Merovingian power" that at least eight, if not all nine examples in the Sutton Hoo cache that bear this mark don't even have a name or other reference to an actual Merovingian monarch on them? That reasoning seems more than a bit weak.

TCP

No, I think it makes more sense not to overuse the word "Merovingian" and identify this mark as a design (sans dynastic qualifier) used by monnayeurs in the Merovingian mints. "Merovingian" refers to something quite specific and I have yet to see anything in this symbol significant to that family, in terms of their "power" or anything other than how the coinage of their realms was produced.

TCP

with reference to TCP's dismissive (typical) statement that what I suggested is "weak." I would contend that is no more weak than what he is suggesting that is of course if I am allowed to say this without provoking a "Tigerish" response.

I notice you can only lash back for the sake of your wounded little feelings, not on my point. Which, for you, is typical.

TCP

For Roscoe,
I know that you don't think that Crista related subjects should be within the RLC subsection. However if you take ALJ's and IBJ's work at face value, connections such as the "Par ce signe tu LE vaincras" with its links to Constantine, and the apparent visual element of the Crista symbol within the church at RLC and also Circuit just to give a couple of examples. Then I think you should agree that the Crista has as much relevance within the RLC section, as 90% of the other topics covered herein. The matter of the Crista theory being correct, is a totally different argument, but yours and everyone else's belief in said artifact, should be able to be discussed freely and in context. Personally I would like to see more evidence of the Crista's origins and some defined reason for its connection to either Sauniere or RLC in general. However as with much of the other details of the RLC story, the parchments, Boudet, Bloodline and so many more, I will reserve my judgement ( sit on the fence ) until some more substantial evidence can be corroborated.
Regards
Nic

*

The second albums always the hardest, as we say in the music industry
Regards
Nic

Unbelieveable.

You just don't get it do you? Did you actually read this

People are leaving this forum because of this once good forum getting overloaded with nothing but this crap.

Understand that if you understand nothing else.

Move it to the effin THEORIES section.

No one is leaving because of this thread, they leave because of you and your constant spamming like this.
Content removed

I don't want to get into an argument over this Roscoe, but IF there is any truth behind the Crista then is it not just as valid as a topic on Broceliande Forest ( viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3141 ) or 1st November 1879 ( viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3148 ) in the RLC section ? And yes I do " get it ", but you don't have to read subjects that don't interest you. I do however find your research interesting, so if the Crista is not your thing, then lets discuss something different. Topics here seem to be a bit like fashion, remember when the top 5 links were all Bloodline related? Also I don't give a monkeys where it is placed, but I'm not the person who is capable of moving topics from one subsection to another. Take it up with Andy or the Moderator. People will read what they want, wherever it is placed.
Regards
Nic

Nic, ye'll find my response to yer quandry on the redux.

You're in an argument now.

The Broceliande Forest thread has 16 responses, this has 1392. More than the entire Orders, Sects, Societies and Religious Traditions section combined. A section that contains the Templars and the Cathars.

That's 1392 responses saying absolutely nothing as to what the subject is about.


Place Broceliande Forest on google. Now place Crista on google. Compare the responses.

The flagwavers ON HERE are more obsessed with this garbage than the Cathars and the Templars. Broceliande Forest is not a theory and is mentioned by Henry Lincoln in his books, the Crista is someone's theory and it has a perfectly good place already there for it. Nobody else on the planet are talking about this, yes the shills have done a real good job on here.

The Broceliande Forest isn't driving people away but this is. That section starts with Seeker1, then an interjection from Sheila who says:



What???????? What the flying F__k is she on about?

Then a response from Ivaldi.

Then we get this classic from Roger:



They're asking legitimate questions. Seeker1 and Ivaldi have now left this forum and it wont be long before they ban me and remove any temptation to return. If nobody left is with me on this then maybe it is time I did go too and it will be no great loss to me. And hey you can this forum ALL to yourself. Wont that be fun?

How many Gigabytes of server space are going to be used up by the compulsive obsessives with : "It looks like this. Oh no it doesn't it looks like this. Well I think it looks like this"

So here's the bottom line I will keep spamming this thread and others associated until it either gets moved or I get banned and frankly I don't care which.

Enjoy your new forum, Seeker1, Ivaldi, John Harper, JB1717, several others and I wont be in it.

'ere get Tingra to show you her coin collection again. How we've come to enjoy that great old chestnut over the years.

[/quote]

Oh jeez, make up your mind !
One minute you're staying to spam next you're threatening the Host unless he removes you?
You said some dreadful things to Seeker and tried to drive him away with your David Irving impression!

Quick VAM, Can you post a link to a YOUTUBE performance of 'Should I stay or Should I GO?'
by the Clash!

TD

Enjoy your new forum, Seeker1, Ivaldi, John Harper, JB1717, several others and I wont be in it.

If i recall correctly, Roscoe was rude to all of these people????

He is also, as you know, rude to the people he doesnt like on this forum.

Maybe they all left because of him?

I dont see how all this kind of stuff is more interesting than talking about Cheriseys motifs in his RLC 'story' ... which includes Childebert and a gold cross of Solomon?

*

With pleasure Thomas!

VAM

...for the public record...

i wish to apologise to those whom i have offended with my less, than popular views regarding said object.

i was commenting more on how the information dissemination was not handled quite professionally on this forum and that was in my opinion...

i have lost 'friendships' because of my statements and this hurts me much. however, it demonstrates much to me as well.