| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
| Caratacus= Man of Chariot |
It's a lyre bird i.e. he's Nero.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Caratacus= Man of Chariot |
It's a lyre bird i.e. he's Nero. |
The Australians introduced the Limeys to afternoon tea during cricket games so why should we not find a Lyre Bird on a coin uncovered in south east England? It is certainly a trailblazing approach to the semiotic function of coins.
Any ideas on the pellet in annulet, which was the thing that immediately stuck out to Wiley as strange?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Oh. It's Henry VIII.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
Yup! Nero = Henry VIII
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Why am I suddenly hoping to be wrong?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Why am I suddenly hoping to be wrong? |
You are right.
You were wondering why a pellet in annulet features on a Celtic coin, as your understanding was that these were heraldic symbols. Your mind goes back to John Leland, sent by Henry Viii, to find ancient manuscripts amongst those held in the monasteries that were going to prove Henry's lineage, and resolve the thorny question of splitting with Rome. Who knows what scripts were created or destroyed as a result of that mission? Bingo! you then discover Henry issued coins with the pellet in annulet symbol.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
I'm so clever I've got the clogs to prove it. I didn't spot the Leland connection, that's Hatty's department.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Yep. As you say, department H is more rigorous on scripts than department W.
It's a bit of a bugger, the new standards H is setting. If we coin lovers just had to meld our ideas within the laxness of conventional historiography, it would of course be easier to come up with new ideas. You just have to slot your find/fake in with any old bit of story telling, propaganda, folk lore etc and then ease it into the conventional, very loose chronology.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Caratacus= Man of Chariot |
It's a lyre bird i.e. he's Nero. |
I see your thinking
Carat=Chariot
Nero is famous for his participation in, and winning of, a chariot race in the Olympics. To do this, he changed both the year the Olympics was held, and also arrived with 10 horses rather than the traditional four. Nero did not complete the race, being thrown from his chariot, but was still declared the winner.
But why select Nero? We have previously come across this coin of that other tyrant Elagabulus. It appears that the tyrants could be related?
It's a Roman aureus depicting Elagabalus. The reverse reads Sanct Deo Soli Elagabal (To the Holy Sun God Elagabal), and depicts a gold chariot carrying the holy stone of the Emesa temple.
In the central spina of a Roman chariot racing track was placed an obelisk, here the sacred black stone is seen on the chariot.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Wile E. Coyote wrote: | 
According to ortho.....
On the obverse is Heracles wearing a lion skin.
On the Reverse is an eagle with outstretched wings, bottom right is thought to be a serpent.
Top right is a pellet in annulet.
What do you see? |
Wiley didn't see the recorded pellet in annulet, he actually saw an eclipse.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
The First Epistle of Clement (Ancient Greek: Κλήμεντος πρὸς Κορινθίους, romanized: Klēmentos pros Korinthious, lit. 'Clement to Corinthians') is a letter addressed to the Christians in the city of Corinth. Based on internal evidence the letter was composed some time before AD 70.[1][2][3] The common time given for the epistle’s composition is at the end of the reign of Domitian (c. AD 96)[4][5] and AD 140, most likely around 96. It ranks with Didache as one of the earliest, if not the earliest, of extant Christian documents outside the traditional New Testament canon. As the name suggests, a Second Epistle of Clement is known, but this is a later work by a different author. Part of the Apostolic Fathers collection, 1 and 2 Clement are not usually considered to be part of the canonical New Testament.
The letter is a response to events in Corinth, where the congregation had deposed certain elders (presbyters). The author called on the congregation to repent, to restore the elders to their position, and to obey their superiors. He said that the Apostles had appointed the church leadership and directed them on how to perpetuate the ministry.
The work is attributed to Clement I, the Bishop of Rome. In Corinth, the letter was read aloud from time to time. This practice spread to other churches, and Christians translated the Greek work into Latin, Syriac, and other languages. Some early Christians even treated the work like scripture. The work was lost for centuries, but since the 1600s various copies or fragments have been found and studied. It has provided valuable evidence about the structure of the early church.
Although traditionally attributed to Clement of Rome,[6] the letter does not include Clement's name, and is anonymous, though scholars generally consider it to be genuine.[4] While Clement is traditionally identified as a pope, there is no evidence for monarchical bishops in Rome at such an early date.[4] The epistle is addressed as "the Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which sojourneth in Corinth". Its stylistic coherence suggests a single author.[7]
Scholars have proposed a range of dates, but most limit the possibilities to the last three decades of the 1st century,[8][9] and no later than AD 140.[10] 1 Clement is dated by some scholars to some time before AD 70.[1][2][3] The common time given for the epistle’s composition is at the end of the reign of Domitian (c. AD 96).[4][5] The phrase "sudden and repeated misfortunes and hindrances which have befallen us" (1:1) is taken as a reference to persecutions under Domitian. Some scholars believe that 1 Clement was written around the same time as the Book of Revelation (c. AD 95–97).[11] |
I was going to stick this in the fake or forgery thread
| Although traditionally attributed to Clement of Rome,[6] the letter does not include Clement's name, and is anonymous, though scholars generally consider it to be genuine.[4] While Clement is traditionally identified as a pope, there is no evidence for monarchical bishops in Rome at such an early date |
But it was way too easy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
|
The 4th Century AD (Christian chronology) is a great place to look for forgeries and destruction of scripts, as they had to set up a fictional account of early Christianity, whilst destroying all evidence of the Augustan empire cult. Of course the coin evidence remains and shows sly amendment, reinterpretation, whilst the scripts were forged, whilst "originals" were lost in "fires" etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| Wile E. Coyote wrote: | | The 4th Century AD (Christian chronology) is a great place to look for forgeries and destruction of scripts, as they had to set up a fictional account of early Christianity, whilst destroying all evidence of the Augustan empire cult. Of course the coin evidence remains and shows sly amendment, reinterpretation, whilst the scripts were forged, whilst "originals" were lost in "fires" etc. |
'Destruction of scripts' is quite a wholesale operation, reminiscent of Vikings (or equivalent) wiping out all evidence of early monasteries. The re-appearance, i.e. publication, of Classical scripts takes place at the same time as printing takes off in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, later dubbed the Renaissance. Not sure how much the scripts would have had to do with early Christianity if the so-called religious wars hadn't been ongoing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
