Medieval Monday!

The minting of tournois in Achaea in 1249 theory is discarded by now, there are no such specs in any context prior to the 1270s and a starting point considered at present is around 1267, the Viterbo treaty. Even the overflow of French tournois to Greece seems to be towards the end of the 1250s and at its peak after the interdict of 1262, so very likely Sanudo was confused and made a mistake. The CORINTVm type is conventionally dated according to Metcalf's idea after 1255.

What Sanders proposes with his article quoted is a multidisciplinary view on dating coinage that we are unsure of using other means outside the regular ones in use by numismatists: historical, scriptural and comparative, like for instance archaeological and stratigraphic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Can you cite Sanders? Malloy casts doubt on Schlumberger, and Sanudo --an improbably late, 14th-century primary source-- in the process. However, as of 1994, he is considerably more nuanced about the possibility that Sanudo got it right, despite the fact that "[r]ecently [...] scholars have tended to question [Schlumberger's] date, because a hoards deposited during the 1250's and 1260's reveal not only that French deniers tournois were still in wide circulation at that time, but also that Frankish imitations of deniers tournois were not in criculation with them" (351).
Speaking of "scriptural" evidence (to quote you;
Ha,
...Ha),
Joinville's account confirms the meeting of Louis IX with Guillaume de Villehardouin in 1249 --of course, without benefit of a direct numismatic reference, since, well, Joinville wasn't a numismatist (Marzial's abridged translation, 172).
I've long been a fan of multidisciplinary approaches to history at the academic level. Notably in reference to the Viking Age, as some earlier posts will amply demonstrate. But while archaeological evidence is an invaluable complement to documentary sources, where their direct contradiction is concerned --yes, even when the source is at a considerable chronological remove from the events-- a measure of caution is advised.
In other words, I'm not convinced that "[t]he minting of tournois in Achaea in 1249 theory is discarded by now." Unless Sanders is citing more than the two hoards, "deposited during the 1250's and 1260's" referenced by Malloy (op. cit.). In the obvious absence of documentary

(a much more apt term for, Ahem, "scriptural")

evidence concerning the specific circumstances of their deposit, it's easy to speculate that the hoards in question could have preponderated to coins which were out of circulation.

 

you KNOW what that gets....and since it is a true statement..if ya cant beat'em...join'em!.POOF!...into the gray

 

Tzamalis mentions the old theory of 1249 and discards it, putting forth the proposition of a starting in production a bit earlier than the conclusion of the treaty of Viterbo pp. 62-3; later on (p. 99) he entertains the possibility that a start was between Metcalf's theoretically proposed date of 1262 (after Guillaume's return from Byzantine captivity) but is more favorable to 1267. Baker and Ponting double on that in their The early period of minting deniers tournois in the Principality of Achaia (to 1289) and their relation to the Duchy of Athens (NC, 2001) right from the get-go on p. 209. The article of Guy Sanders you can read for free on academia.

Sanudo is noted for being confusing and having made mistakes apart from the 1249 tournois story -- for instance he confuses Robert with Peter of Courtenay and their direct involvement in the affairs of Greece, particularly on when Achaea was made into a Principality. Chronicles do make mistakes, another quotable source for earlier numismatists, "The Chronicle of the Morea" asserts for instance that Guy I de la Roche was made Duke by Louis IX in 1259 (but it wasn't until 1280 that Athens was nominally a duchy).

I'm sorry my previous comment made you Ha,...Ha and Ahem but we can't always relay on chronicles and be stuck in their presuppositions forever, even when other venues of research tell us otherwise. If we do that then we are, ahem, wrong.

 

Though I have it for a while now, I haven't really shown this coin before, which is interesting for two main reasons.

First, it illustrates that the predecessors to the square bracteate pennies from the southwestern German-speaking regions had a reverse. In contrast to contemporary central German bracteates, they evolved into one-sided coins only over time.

Secondly, this type is datable with relative precision only because an example was found in the "Barbarossa hoard." This large hoard of about 7.700 German silver coins was unearthed probably in Turkey and appeared on the market in 1982/1985. It was buried in the context of the third crusade (1189–1192) and presumably belonged to a wealthy member of Frederick Barbarossa's army.


Prince–Bishopric of Basel, probably under Heinrich I. von Horburg, “vierzipfliger Pfennig”, ca. 1180–1190 AD. Obv: thick cross with annulets in quadrants. Rev: wheel with six spokes (or: star/flower in circle). 17mm, 0.37g. Ref: HMZ - (see 1-203, uniface issue); Wielandt 49; Slg. Wüthrich 5; Lanz 29, no. 240 (Barbarossa-Fund).

 

Two coins of Edward the Elder, king of Wessex 899-924.
Edward gets the sobriquet "the Elder" to distinguish him from the other later Anglo-Saxon kings with the same name. He was about 50 when he died, a mature age for the era but certainly not elderly. He has largely been in the shadow of his family, his famous father Alfred the Great, his son Athelstan the Glorious, and his sister Aethelflaed, a popular dramaticized character in literary works and television shows. Edward probably deserves some better recognition though historical sources of his reign are fairly few. He continued his father's success in uniting England and driving off the Vikings.



Penny of Edward "the Elder", king of Wessex, 899-924
Moneyer: Beahred
Mint: London?
S. 1084
O: +EADVVEARD REX
R: BEAH RED Mo




Penny of Edward "the Elder", king of Wessex, 899-924
(possibly imitative but of good style and weight)
Moneyer: Dudig?
Mint: Unknown
Mercia-South East dies
S. 1087
O: +EɅDVVEɅREX
R: DVD +++ oI Mo

 

An interested contemporary Anatolian imitation of an Ilkhanid AV Dinar from Abu Sa'id circa 1330-50. These where unknown until according to Steve Album, a small "hoard" of 50 coins where unearthed somewhere in Turkey.
All have the same die features/ mine came from Baldwins Islamic auction.

 

A self-quotation from last Wednesday, in this thread:
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/an...-years-my-1st-musa.374965/page-2#post-6334624 :
"Now I'm seriously interested in getting some idea of what is extant in primary literature for Elagabalus. And Roman historiography more generally. If Classical sources were as prone to bias as medieval ones were, it's like, Yikes; swiftly followed by, Condolences. ...Just, Dang, welcome to the club."
Of course, medieval historians have long supplemented, and inexorably revised, chronicles with legal documents. As I'm generous enough to acknowledge that you are aware (--don't thank me!), it's only recently that this has has expanded to numismatic and other archaeological evidence. I've been watching the steady increase of interdisciplinary approaches within the discipline over the last couple of decades, not only with approval, but excitement.
Thanks for noting that Sanders is in academia.edu.

 

Very cool transitional coin, @Orielensis, with hoard provenance to dream of!!!

 

Amazing, @Nap. ...Not one but Two Eadward the Elders! Gasp.

 

Nothing really too special, but a few fairly recent acquisitions:

Series N41b sceatta

Series J, t ype 85

Series E, sub var K

Series C (or late A), probably a contemporary imitation.

Series C (abramson 4-40)

Series A. Superb toning

 

@+VGO.DVCKS: TL;DR aside - have you managed to go through the references on where the present knowledge is on dating the early tournois of Achaea or not?

 

Nope, they're really (shortly) after my main period of interest. I only have one representative example of Guillaume, which strikes me as being late for the issue. Not a priority.

 

Magnificent, @Roerbakmix! No, to my shame, I'm still a functional illiterate about the classes. --Granted, thanks to you and your colleagues in crime, that's very fixable right from this forum! But impressionistically, without even knowing which are Frisian and which are Anglo-Saxon, I love the collective combination of neo-Roman 'standards' and (higher up in your pics) very, very Germanic motifs.

 

So what are you even doing adding condescending (and barely coherent) remarks on topics you clearly know a lot less than you think you know and afterwards asking for references that you won't even go through?

 

Aaaah. The True Troll Comes Out. I was waiting for this to happen.
Just starting from this thread, "Condescending [minus your gratuitous insult] remarks" is pure, clinical Freudian transference.
Mainly, I just had priorities. Other than pursuing an issue which you have already succeeded in rendering highly distasteful. ...I'll look at it when the Seth has worn off.

 

Listen. I gave you all the benefit of the doubt there is and answered your questions in good faith with the specifics you asked despite the Ha,...Has and Ahems and all that pointless and pedantic gibberish that you throw in all your comments gratuitously. I did it not to brag (with gazillion decades of this and that) but because that is how I'd like to be answered when I ask questions - short and to the point - and because the purpose of this forum (to my mind) is to unwind, see some beauty and perhaps learn a bit of something new.

You complain of me "trolling" you (talk about Freudian whatever), but if you can't be bothered to check for the infos you yourself have asked (in a rather convoluted and incoherently condescending way), what are you even doing here?

Anyway, that was the last comment I've wasted on you, as of now your account is on ignore.

 

(For the Public Benefit: ) Troll Redux! Might return the favor.
May the record show that, when I first joined this forum, and found that Seth had posted threads on several subjects with which I had been engaged for a decade or more (estending to academic history), I wrote him, in a 'Conversation,' sincerely and profusely congratulating him on his evident erudition. Now, I'm thinking that in his case, that was a huge strategic mistake. He proceeded to mistake the appreciation of one intelligent, engaged collector for another, as a blank check to assume what he seemed to have found most comforting to himself: my effectively total ignorance.
It takes intelligence to appreciate intelligence. Now I wonder whether the principle consistently holds....
And, Um, I'm an English major (with a former major in Philosophy). Who routinely blew people (including professors) out of the room at graduate level. His repeated accusations of 'gibberish' are highly reminiscent of the comparable response of a recent, duly-esteemed head of state to his first attempt to read the Constitution.
...On a lamentably subjective level, he seemson the level of pathology, to endlessly insist on being 'the expert in the room.' I'd much prefer aspiring to being 'the grownup in the room.'

 

This has been a remarkably civil thread so far. Could we maybe keep it that way and simply agree on disagreeing with each other?

 

I agree. Just take your personal discussions to the personal message section. That's where those are for.