Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;FitzNigel, post: 7301982, member: 74712&quot;]Faintich, Marshall. <i>Astronomical&nbsp; Symbols on Ancient and Medieval Coins</i>. Jefferson, NC: McFarland &amp; Company, 2008.</p><p>ISBN: 978-0786469154</p><p>Cost: $29.95</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1277067[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>Grade: C</p><p><br /></p><p>Since this book covers both Ancient and Medieval coins, I have decided to post this review under both of my book review threads.&nbsp; If you read it in one, don’t bother with the other as they are the same.&nbsp; However, the book focuses mostly on Medieval coins, with what appears to be a previous article or two written on Ancient coins interspersed.&nbsp; The reasoning given for this was because of the ability to calculate astronomical phenomenon to a greater degree of certainty in the Medieval period.</p><p><br /></p><p>I am conflicted on this book (and hence the middling grade).&nbsp; Let me begin with the good qualities, and then end with my criticism.&nbsp; I think Faintich has tackled a subject which absolutely needs to be discussed more, particularly in the realm of Medieval coinage.&nbsp; It is all too easy for us in the modern age to ignore the night sky, or view astronomical phenomenon as merely curiosities, but these were very much viewed as important omens in the world for people in the past.&nbsp; Faintich’s expertise in Astronomy, and use of computer models to ascertain when eclipses occurred in the past (primarily the Medieval past), thus brings in the necessary technical information to help confirm Astronomical symbols present on coins.&nbsp; This is best shown in instances where a coin has a clear astronomical symbol, and was issued after a relevant astronomical event which coincided with an important event.&nbsp; The example of the liberation of Thebes in 379 B.C., and the addition of a crescent moon to Theban coins following a partial eclipse in 380 (hence not a moon, but a partially obscured sun symbol), shows this book at its best. (pgs. 37-8) </p><p><br /></p><p>However, there are many flaws.&nbsp; Primarily, there is a lack of evidence to support much of the assertions made.&nbsp; While eclipses in particular can be determined through modeling, we can’t assume the people in the past always saw the eclipse (perhaps if there was a cloudy or rainy day), and so combining this with recorded sightings in the particular area of issue would make a stronger case.&nbsp; Faintich also seems to see an astronomical symbol is EVERY pellet, annulet, and mullet.&nbsp; While the first chapters attempt to make the connection between these design elements and celestial events, the evidence is lacking and shaky.&nbsp; So, subsequent chapters attempt to show the addition of annulets and pellets to every known celestial event, and any coin containing a pellet or annulet without a corresponding event is dismissed as an immobilized design.&nbsp; Faintich also favors the astronomical theories over older established theories with little other evidence to support his position.&nbsp; At times I felt the common refrain was “This old interpretation is incorrect, because of STARS.”</p><p><br /></p><p>The evidence is often stretched to fit the narrative as well.&nbsp; At times it felt as if portions of the book had been shared with historians or other numismatist who pointed out a flaw in the argument, and so Faintich attempted to change the history to fit the theory.&nbsp; Perhaps the most egregious example of this is the attempt to fit the supernova of 1054 with Edward the Confessor’s ‘martlet’ issue, stating that these birds are the ravens which foretold the end of English kingship (which is laughable because the tower fo London where the ravens are kept did not exist in Edward’s time).&nbsp; (pgs. 95-96)&nbsp; Another, though less offensive example, is explaining the Champagne deniers as actually a comet, rather than a comb on a field (and then turning the coin 90 degrees to make it look more like a comet, despite the usual trend of the cross in the inscription beginning at the top of the coin design).&nbsp; The reasoning for this was simply dismissing the ability of the people of Champagne for understanding the pun for over 300 years, and that the ‘field’ only referred to the field on the coin (whereas I would maintain it was an actual field in relation to farming).&nbsp; (Pg. 65)</p><p><br /></p><p>As such, this book has incredible potential, but I think it needed to be co-authored with an historian to help eliminate some of the shoddy theories.&nbsp; At one point I became so despondent that I decided to research the publisher to see if it was a vanity press (it’s not, but neither is it the most highly esteemed of academic presses).&nbsp; But some examples of clear astronomical design could be linked to coins which haven’t been yet discussed.&nbsp; In my brief search on the web, I did not see anyone make the connection between the Sundog witnessed by Edward IV at the Battle of Mortimer’s Cross, which was interpreted as his right to rule as king.&nbsp; While the event took place in 1461, the first coinage reform Edward performed as king was in 1464.&nbsp; Among his reforms was the introduction of a new denomination (the Angel) whose initial design portrays a large sunburst on the reverse (but is missing in subsequent issues).&nbsp; This is a much clearer astronomical symbol than just an annulet or a pellet.&nbsp; So, the general concept of the work is good, but I think the book suffers from far too much confirmation bias.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1277071[/ATTACH] </p><p><font size="3">A sundog (optical illusion where the sun appears in triplet in the sky), and the reverse of an Edward IV Angel issued in 1464 (SCBC 1967, image taken from the book)</font>[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in