Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="+VGO.DVCKS, post: 6396001, member: 110504"]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.[/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches