MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
COIN (NEW CONCEPTS)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 17, 18, 19 ... 50, 51, 52  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Aha.....
wiki wrote:


Beonna (also known as Beorna[note 1]) was King of East Anglia from 749. He is notable for being the first East Anglian king whose coinage included both the ruler's name and his title. The end-date of Beonna's reign is not known, but may have been around 760. It is thought that he shared the kingdom with another ruler called Alberht and possibly with a third man, named Hun. Not all experts agree with these regnal dates, or the nature of his kingship: it has been suggested that he may have ruled alone (and free of Mercian domination) from around 758.
Little is known of Beonna's life or his reign, as nothing in written form has survived from this period of East Anglian history. The very few primary sources for Beonna consist of bare references to his accession or rule written by late chroniclers, that until quite recently were impossible to verify. Since 1980, a sufficient number of coins have been found to show that he was indeed a historical figure. They have allowed scholars to make deductions about economic and linguistic links that existed between East Anglia and other parts of both England and northern Europe during his reign, as well as aspects of his own identity and rule



Beornred of Mercia[edit]
Charles Oman proposed that Beornred, who in 757 emerged for a short time as ruler of Mercia before being driven out by Offa,[note 5] could be the same person as Beonna.[21] An alternative theory suggests that Beonna and Beornred may perhaps have been kinsmen from the same dynasty with ambitions to rule in both Mercia and East Anglia.[22] No known member of the Wuffingas dynasty had a name commencing with B, but several Mercian rulers, including Beornred, used the letter.[23]

In 1996, Marion Archibald and Valerie Fenwick proposed an alternative hypothesis, based on the evidence of East Anglian coins and post-Conquest documents. Acknowledging that Beonna and Beornred were the same person, they suggested that after Ælfwald's death in 749, Æthelwald of Mercia installed Beornred/Beonna to rule northern East Anglia and Alberht (who probably belonged to the Wuffingas dynasty) to rule in the south. According to Archibald and Fenwick, after Æthelbald was murdered in 757, Beornred/Beonna became king of Mercia, during which his coinage was increased in East Anglia, perhaps to meet “military requirements”. Then, after a reign of only a few months, he was deposed by Offa and forced to flee from him back into East Anglia. Alberht, who had attempted to re-establish East Anglia as an independent kingdom and rule alone, and had succeeded for a short time, was deposed by Beornred/Beonna when he arrived as an exile in about 760. Soon afterwards, Offa asserted his authority over the East Angles in around 760-5 and removed Beonna.[24]


Mysterious eh?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Since 1980, a sufficient number of coins have been found to show that he was indeed a historical figure.

This raises an AE point which you might be able to help us with, Coyote. Up to 1980 Beonna consisted of this

The very few primary sources for Beonna consist of bare references to his accession or rule written by late chroniclers, that until quite recently were impossible to verify.

I can assure you there are no primary sources. What they mean is later copies of documents that historians say are of primary sources. However now, if the coins are to be believed, we do have primary sources, so it follows that the copies were faithful and the original documents really did exist.

Can we believe the coins though? It requires the following to be true
750 - 1980 no coins found with Beonna on them
1980 - 2017 sufficient coins found with Beonna on them
This is entirely possible because metal detecting took off in 1980. It is also entirely possible that forgers would use a 'known' but not checkable king for their coins. However, metal detectors are not normally forgers so if anybody can find out the source of these coins we will be edging a bit further forward.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Since 1980, a sufficient number of coins have been found to show that he was indeed a historical figure.

This raises an AE point which you might be able to help us with, Coyote. Up to 1980 Beonna consisted of this

The very few primary sources for Beonna consist of bare references to his accession or rule written by late chroniclers, that until quite recently were impossible to verify.

I can assure you there are no primary sources. What they mean is later copies of documents that historians say are of primary sources. However now, if the coins are to be believed, we do have primary sources, so it follows that the copies were faithful and the original documents really did exist. If you create a new paradigm a forger will learn it and fill the gaps.

Can we believe the coins though? It requires the following to be true
750 - 1980 no coins found with Beonna on them
1980 - 2017 sufficient coins found with Beonna on them
This is entirely possible because metal detecting took off in 1980. It is also entirely possible that forgers would use a 'known' but not checkable king for their coins. However, metal detectors are not normally forgers so if anybody can find out the source of these coins we will be edging a bit further forward.


I think you are asking the wrong question. Still.......

http://www.britnumsoc.org/publications/Digital%20BNJ/pdfs/1995_BNJ_65_3.pdf


The Burrow Hill Beonna coins are consistent with the previous analyses of the series. The Ethelbert coin is similar to those of Beonna and is consistent with it being a contemporary issue. However, it is not possible, from this limited coin data, to determine the relative chronology of Beonna and Ethelbert from the scientific evidence alone.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The records of the pre-war Sutton Hoo excavation were, according to historians, 'destroyed by the war'. Is it normal for the records of an excavation to be in the line of fire?

Never mind, they confidently state

The inclusion of these coins was a deliberate act by those who constructed the burial and must be seen as some sort of symbolic expression.

without mentioning that parts of the site had been dug up decades before. A botched affair is implied. Presumably the amateurs hadn't find any coins since there are no records, missing or otherwise.

Not everyone had confidence in the numismatists' pronouncements. An article appeared in the March 1952 issue of Antiquity, an archaeological journal published by Cambridge University Press

Dr Gordon Ward's summary of the evidence of the coins and of the views of numismatists regarding the date of Sutton Hoo calls for some comment. Its object is apparently that of demonstrating that, as he himself puts it, ‘the numismatists have been set a task for which they are not equipped’. The archaeologists, he suggests, must be left to settle the date between themselves, and the numismatic ‘evidence’ can simply be ignored. If this ‘evidence’ runs counter to his belief that the burial commemorates King Redwald, so much the worse for the ‘evidence’. It is too uncertain and imprecise to be of much use anyway.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Sigh. Beona lives! Notice though the East Anglian connection. I am always myself noticing that while Anglo-Saxendom was, by the eighth century, supposed to be an England-wide phenomenon, Anglo-Saxon finds are remarkably east-coast-centric. Sort of like traders from Scandinavia rather than English rulers.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The records of the pre-war Sutton Hoo excavation were, according to historians, 'destroyed by the war'. Is it normal for the records of an excavation to be in the line of fire?

This very much needs AE investigating. First off, I have never heard of such a thing. If the records were in London (which is entirely possible) and got bombed (which is entirely possible) it would not only be a cause celebre in itself but would mean the repository, whichever it was, was bombed too and loads of other stuff would have gone walkabout with it. As Private Eye would put it, "I think we should be told." Of course the records may have got lost during the war -- what with everything getting relocated to Welsh slate quarries and all -- but this would ... well, be well worth investigating too. Covering one's back is not normally taken to these extremes. Unless it's a simple case of Chinese Whispers. Any way you look at it, it's a very odd way of dealing with Britain's single most important archaeological discovery. ONO.

Presumably the amateurs hadn't find any coins since there are no records, missing or otherwise.

This is the start of an elaborate sequence of buck-passing a.k.a. careful ignoral

Dr Gordon Ward's summary of the evidence of the coins and of the views of numismatists regarding the date of Sutton Hoo calls for some comment. Its object is apparently that of demonstrating that, as he himself puts it, ‘the numismatists have been set a task for which they are not equipped’.

Well, doc, they may not be academics but they know more about coins than any academic.

The archaeologists, he suggests, must be left to settle the date between themselves

Not only have they not done so but what dates they have settled on were pre-settled for them by historians.

and the numismatic ‘evidence’ can simply be ignored.

see above

If this ‘evidence’ runs counter to his belief that the burial commemorates King Redwald, so much the worse for the ‘evidence’

An interesting use of quote marks. Isn't it the 'evidence' that puts Suttom Hoo as a whole in the seventh century? Nobody claims it definitely is King Redwald. It isn't even important to man or beast that it is King Redwald. The point is that King Redwald is, according to historians, a seventh century local king and therefore a suitable candidate for a grand ship burial. Of the seventh century.

. It is too uncertain and imprecise to be of much use anyway.

Use for what exactly? Identifying the body? Identifying the century? Identifying whether it is Anglo-Saxon?
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Sigh. Beona lives! Notice though the East Anglian connection. I am always myself noticing that while Anglo-Saxendom was, by the eighth century, supposed to be an England-wide phenomenon, Anglo-Saxon finds are remarkably east-coast-centric. Sort of like traders from Scandinavia rather than English rulers.



Let's take a look at the full list of Wuffingas. Along with colour coding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monarchs_of_East_Anglia

Wolfish Growl.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Dr Gordon Ward's summary of the evidence of the coins and of the views of numismatists regarding the date of Sutton Hoo calls for some comment. Its object is apparently that of demonstrating that, as he himself puts it, ‘the numismatists have been set a task for which they are not equipped’. The archaeologists, he suggests, must be left to settle the date between themselves, and the numismatic ‘evidence’ can simply be ignored. If this ‘evidence’ runs counter to his belief that the burial commemorates King Redwald, so much the worse for the ‘evidence’. It is too uncertain and imprecise to be of much use anyway.


Wiley had asked the ancient ones.....But they had not spoken.

Who exactly was the occupant of the royal burial chamber (without a body)

So he flipped a coin.

Heads Tytila.... Tails Redwald........



wiki wrote:


Nothing is known of Tytila's life or his rule, as no written records have survived from this period in East Anglian history.[3] The mediaeval chronicler Roger of Wendover dated Tytila's reign from 578, but his source of information is unknown and the accession date may have been a guess on the part of the chronicler.[9] Tytila's son and successor, Rædwald, the greatest of the Wuffingas monarchs, is the first East Anglian king who is more than a semi-historical figure, although much information about him, including the year of his death, is conjectural.[10] The finds from the excavations of the two separate cemeteries at Sutton Hoo in Suffolk and at other sites in East Anglia point to close connections at this time between south-eastern Britain, the Frankish Rhinelands, the Eastern Mediterranean and of growing royal prestige and authority, reflected by the magnificent grave-goods discovered in the main burial-ship at Sutton Hoo.[11]

The date that Tytlila died is unknown, but he is thought to have been succeeded by his son Rædwald in about 616.


You might not like the non scientific nature of the approach, but this is after all...COIN.....

Anyway you have little hard evidence to disagree.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

POSTSCRIPT....

Somewhere in the British Museum....somebody pulls out a world archaeology magazine.

http://www.archaeology.org/issues/95-1307/features/941-vikings-saaremaa-estonia-salme-vendel-oseberg

For all the information the team has gathered from the excavation, there are some questions the dead men simply can’t answer. It’s clear there was a battle, but who was fighting whom? A saga written in 1225 tells of a Swedish noble named Yngvar who met his end while raiding in Estonia around 600. “The men of Estland came down from the interior with a great army, and there was a battle; but the army of the country was so brave that the Swedes could not withstand them, and King Yngvar fell, and his people fled,” the saga reads. “He was buried close to the seashore under a mound in Estland; and after this defeat the Swedes returned home.” It’s tempting—but ultimately impossible—to tie the Salme boats to Yngvar’s legendary expedition. “We shouldn’t use historical material to put a story behind the archaeological finds,” Konsa warns. “
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

A French expert called Jean Lafaurie dated the Sutton Hoo coins. Who would question his conclusion? Not other numismatists, certainly not historians.

Historians, going by literary descriptions, believe the Merovingians had great wealth and that the evidence is incontrovertible. That is not necessarily so. The example cited is the cross of St Eloi, one of the treasures of Saint-Denis, which is

a miserable fragment but, thanks to the chance of the cross's appearing in a fifteenth century picture, we know it to have been a part of an object far larger than anything else known in gold and garnet
[my underlinings]

An English historian called James Campbell, who edited a collection of essays on Anglo-Saxon England published in 1986, noted

The history of the publication of the Sutton Hoo finds is a little complicated. The war, and other circumstances, delayed the beginning of the definitive publication until 1975

but, starting in the '40s and '50s, an unprecedented enthusiasm for Anglo-Saxon studies took hold

...until quite recently few monographs on Anglo-Saxon history of any kind were published The impact of the discovery is thus largely to be traced through textbooks.


At the time, when historians still believed the Sutton Hoo coins were c. 650, a 'Swedish connection' was proposed or, rather, in Campbell's words

carefully expressed in the evasive prose that has to be part of the Dark Age historian's stock-in-trade

The coins were re-dated in the early sixties and historians became more dogmatic thereafter despite lacking the evidence, as Campbell puts it, 'to establish a full archaeological context'.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I found it quite interesting that the mastermind of the worldwide ransomhack chooses yet again to be paid it bitcoins.

In the short run the fact that the payment of choice for these ransoms always seems to be BITCOIN is creating bad publicity.

In the long run....Well you could ask a Swiss Banker.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Yes, it's perfectly obvious that bitcoin (though not presumably Bitcoin) is going to be the world currency. (Your point, Coyote, is mirrored by Westinghouse persuading the electric chair proponents to use Tesla current.) All currencies are the sum of human confidence in those using them so what better than to use world confidence in a currency that cannot be 'mediated' by national governments.

This is an example of the AE 'bookie argument':
Question: Who will win tomorrow, Rovers or United?
Answer: Whoever the betting odds say since that is the sum of all available knowledge pertaining to the question.
This is a very useful tool whenever your own preferences are in play but only so long as you understand that you personally cannot have superior knowledge to the sum of knowledge.

It is a surprisingly rare skill. In the seventies and eighties British political opinion polls always asked the question: "Irrespective of your own preferences, who do you think will win the next general election?" I can't remember what the significance was now -- there must have been one -- but an AE population would have given a 100% answer to one party or the other.
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

A genuine question; does anyone here actually understand how bitcoin works? ..particularly how new bitcoins are created?

I have no idea. I did try a few years back to try to get to grips with it, but when I reached the point where new bitcoins are created by people "mining for bitcoin online" it just baffled me. I was left with the impression that it was either complete nonsense or that I just didn't have the intelligence or the expertise to understand it.

I'm starting to think that the entire thing is one huge confidence trick aimed at the gullible (particularly my kind of gullible i.e. conspiracy-minded folks that think the dollar or pound is going to collapse at any minute and need a foolproof alternative). This is just a gut feeling though, like I said, I have no idea how any of it actually works.

I might have another crack at trying to understand it over the next few days come to think of it.
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Also does anyone know anyone in real off-line life that actually uses bitcoin? Or does anyone even use bitcoin themselves?

Personally I've never known anyone who's actually used it in real life, though I often see it discussed on-line - again in conspiracy or conspiracy-related circles.
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Finally, it seems a little odd that people trying to ransom people into handing over money would target state institutions and not vulnerable individuals which are the usual target for these sort of scams.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 17, 18, 19 ... 50, 51, 52  Next

Jump to:  
Page 18 of 52

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group