Of course I would have posted it and I know very well what it says which is why I posted it.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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).
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.
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).
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"...
The only signature that Eligius used on his coins was ELIGI...as you can see here.
Not according to the article you posted yesterday.