Coin found on La Salle's 1686 "La Belle" shipwreck

[lordmarcovan]

What a strange anomaly, eh?

http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/belle/images/artifacts-personal.html

[Optimo Principi]

I don't think that coin is an Otho denarius. The small amounts of lettering visible seem like a renaissance bronze in style.

[lordmarcovan]

Well, one can clearly see OTHO CAESAR in the legends.  Click the closeup.  But yeah, the lettering does seem rather well defined.

In a salt water environment, a bronze piece would've probably corroded green, whereas silver usually goes black like that.  I think surely the Texas archaeologists would know what they were talking about?  Then again, I dunno... were any "Paduan" replicas struck in silver?

One wonders if the inset picture on the left shows the actual coin, post-conservation, or if they just fetched a sample picture to show what it should look like.  I suspect the latter.

[cmcdon0923]

It's not the same coin.  Compare the position of CA (in CAESAR) in relation to the hair on both images......one is close, the other further away.....

[Akropolis]

I read somewhere in the distant past that ancient coins have been found in the ballast of dirt and rocks loaded aboard Spanish ships.
PeteB

[Optimo Principi]

Well, one can clearly see OTHO CAESAR in the legends.  Click the closeup.  But yeah, the lettering does seem rather well defined.

In a salt water environment, a bronze piece would've probably corroded green, whereas silver usually goes black like that.  I think surely the Texas archaeologists would know what they were talking about?  Then again, I dunno... were any "Paduan" replicas struck in silver?

The illustration is clearly there as a general example of an Otho coin, it does not state the coin found was a denarius and in fact the coin seems too big to be one. It's probably something like this -

Renaissance Paduan Medal after Giovanni Cavino (c.1500-1570), Æ "Sestertius", bare head right, IMP OTHO CAESAR AVG TRIPOT

[lordmarcovan]

Interesting.  I suppose that would make a little more sense.  If it was carried as a lucky piece, it sure didn't work for the poor sailor who carried it.  They also found two skeletons aboard.

I guess when I looked at that picture of an Otho denarius, my eye went straight there, since my Otho denarius is one of my favorite Roman coins.

PS- I still wonder about that patina.  Sea-salvaged silver is usually black like that, while bronze would usually be green, I believe?

[nikoledm]

"A Roman coin, one of numerous mysterious finds on La Belle. On the date the ship sank in1686, this coin was 1616 years old."

This "anachronism" ("ancient" artefact in a 17 cent. ship) is another nice example of totally wrong ancient chronology. Radically wrong.

This dating (1616 years old) is based on calculation of the astrologist and numerologist J.J. Scaliger in late 16 century. Translated later in 17 century by D.Petavius into the "modern" A.D. calendar.

Historians do not have any doubt on the Scaliger calculations. For them (historians) the coin MUST be more than (horrible) 16 hundred years old before it landed on the 17 century ship.

But the fact tells something different - the coin was still in circulation before it reached the bord of "La Belle". There is no unbelievable gap of more than 1600 years between the Otho coin and "La Belle".  So the time span between Otho and La Belle must be no more than reasonable (maximum) couple of centuries.

Which proves the estimates of the ancient chronology critics, who date the "ancient events" immediately before or simultaneously with the medieval times. Without scaligerian gap of more than 1000 years.

[Lloyd Taylor]

So Otho was actually emperor in the 15th century on this reasoning? 

[areich]

It is the only reasonable explanation. The other day I saw a supposedly ancient coin on a train(!). This proves that the train and coin are contemporary, the facts are clear.

[Robert_Brenchley]

And as we all know, gladiators fought tyrannosaurs in the arena.

[Maffeo]

Why not the simplest explanation? The on-board owner of this piece was keeping it as a curiosity - or he might have been a coin collector (we've been around for a long, long time) and the challenge now is to find the rest of his collection 

Moreover, I read somewhere that LRBs were still in circulation as small change in the south of France as late as the reign of Napoleon III.

[areich]

Why not the simplest explanation? The on-board owner of this piece was keeping it as a curiosity - or he might have been a coin collector (we've been around for a long, long time) and the challenge now is to find the rest of his collection 

Moreover, I read somewhere that LRBs were still in circulation as small change in the south of France as late as the reign of Napoleon III.

I don't mean to offend you but your explanation is nonsense. Don't ask me why, you clearly couldn't understand.

[nikoledm]

It is the only reasonable explanation. The other day I saw a supposedly ancient coin on a train(!). This proves that the train and coin are contemporary, the facts are clear.

"A Roman coin, one of numerous mysterious finds on La Belle. "

An ancient coin in a morden days train is not a mystery. It is explainable.

However there are NUMEROUS mysterious finds on the board of La Belle. Otho coin is one of them. 

I assume these mysteries are exactly so called "anachronisms". Unexplainable "ancient" artefacts which should not be on board of a 17 century ship.
But mystery of these finds is reasoned by the mysterious astrological calculations of J.J. Scaliger (c) . The historians still do not understand this simple fact.
These facts are unexplainable only within Scaliger - calculated chronology.

So Otho was actually emperor in the 15th century on this reasoning?

We will probably never know EXACTLY when (and where) lived Otho. But most probably he lived not long before the publication of "De vita Caesarum" of Suetonius.
And you can easily find in internet when it first published.

[areich]

Why is the coin 'unexplainable'? Someone who was on the ship had the coin with them just like in my train example. A perfectly reasonable explanation and the most likely. There were coin collectors at that time, there were always coin collectors.

[Maffeo]

Why not the simplest explanation? The on-board owner of this piece was keeping it as a curiosity - or he might have been a coin collector (we've been around for a long, long time) and the challenge now is to find the rest of his collection 

Moreover, I read somewhere that LRBs were still in circulation as small change in the south of France as late as the reign of Napoleon III.

I don't mean to offend you but your explanation is nonsense. Don't ask me why, you clearly couldn't understand.

So, do explain, just what are you adding that I didn't say? I think, that you clearly couldn't understand what I said. Not that I would ever wish to be offensive.

Why is the coin 'unexplainable'? Someone who was on the ship had the coin with them just like in my train example. A perfectly reasonable explanation and the most likely. There were coin collectors at that time, there were always coin collectors.

[nikoledm]

Why is the coin 'unexplainable'? ...

Dear Areich,

"unexplainable" == "mysterious". 

Just a synonym for mysterious used in the article.  If it is quite clear and explainable to you, than why it is a mystery to the historians?

[areich]

Mysterious does not mean unexplainable. There are several possible explanations for why the coin was on the ship:
In the link I did not see any other unusual items.

1. Someone who was on the ship had it.
2. It was by coincidence dropped there by someone traveling over the wreck in a boat.
3. It was put there by the discoverers.
4. It was not really found there. The Wikipedia article does not mention a coin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Belle_%28ship%29
5. All of history that historians believe in is a lie etc.

Out of these possibilities 1. is the most likely and does not require any conspiracy theory to work.



Maffeo: I thought the was not necessary. I was being

[nikoledm]

Dear Areich,

Well, I did not introduce the notion of "mysterious".  It was used in the article.

And still, if here is nothing mysterious for you, than, sorry to iterate this question, what is than mysterious on the board of La Belle?

And by the way, if you mentioned conspiracy theories, can you please answer two very simple questions:

The date of the Otho coin used in the article (1616 years before 1686 = A.D. 70) surely was NOT recorded in any "ancient" documents because the romans did not  use the calendar based on the birthday of Jesus Christ that time. So here are the two questions:

- when and where in the literature the date of ruling of Otho was first referenced (as date!!)? If not ever referenced directly as date, who was the first to calculate it based on other (Otho biography) facts?
- who and in which scientific treatise this date was first translated-recalculated into the modern A.D. calendar?

[4to2CentBCphilia]

The date of the Otho coin used in the article (1616 years before 1686 = A.D. 70) surely was NOT recorded in any "ancient" documents because the romans did not  use the calendar based on the birthday of Jesus Christ that time. So here are the two questions:

- when and where in the literature the date of ruling of Otho was first referenced (as date!!)? If not ever referenced directly as date, who was the first to calculate it based on other (Otho biography) facts?
- who and in which scientific treatise this date was first translated-recalculated into the modern A.D. calendar?

Add me to the list of the confused. I don't get what you are trying to point out.

[WelfIV]

Hi,

that sounds as if nikoledm has read Heribert Illig's "Das erfundene Mittelalter" (The invented Middle Ages).
Illig's phantom time hypothesis is interesting to read but one should also read all the counter arguments to a hypothesis before forming an opinion about sense and nonsense of it.
For me the nonsense predominates, because there is too much evidence against his theory. For example the C14 method, the dendrochronology and the occurrences of celestial phenomena like solar eclipses don't match with Illig's theory at all.
And as a coin enthusiast I can't believe that all the coins from carolingian times were intentionally dropped and burried by medieval "time counterfeiters" only as faked evidence that the (invented) early middle ages existed.
Heribert Illig reminds me of Erich von Däniken, who allways tried to prove that aliens were responsible for the building of ancient monuments.
Although knowing that he was talking utter nonsense I always loved to watch Däniken's films.

Peter

[nikoledm]

Dear WelfIV,

Yes, I must acknowledge, that I read the book of Illig, however I do not agree with his arguments.

Dear 4to2CentBC,

My point with the two questions is, if you say, for instance, that Giorgio Vasari lived in 16 century and published his book "Le Vite ... " in 1568 it can be easily proved, right? Just reference the first publication in Florence.

But if you state that Otho lived in A.D. 70 than where this date first came from? Just point me where this number/date A.D.70 was first mentioned. It is simple, is not it ?

[4to2CentBCphilia]

Dear WelfIV,

Yes, I must acknowledge, that I read the book of Illig, however I do not agree with his arguments.

Dear 4to2CentBC,

My point with the two questions is, if you say, for instance, that Giorgio Vasari lived in 16 century and published his book "Le Vite ... " in 1568 it can be easily proved, right? Just reference the first publication in Florence.

But if you state that Otho lived in A.D. 70 than where this date first came from? Just point me where this number/date A.D.70 was first mentioned. It is simple, is not it ?

Are you suggesting that Otho did not live 1942 years ago (70AD) ?

And if not, when do you propose that he lived?

Answer that and I will understand what you are saying.

[Joe Sermarini]

But if you state that Otho lived in A.D. 70 than where this date first came from? Just point me where this number/date A.D.70 was first mentioned. It is simple, is not it ?

Please do not continue these ridiculous argument here.  We can be fairly certain of our dating for the reigns of Roman emperors for many reasons, not just because J.J. Scaliger calculated them.  I don't think you are going to find anyone that will agree here and anyone who debates you will only be doing so in the hope of getting you to stop posting nonsense. 

[WelfIV]

Hi,

didn't Otho rule in 69 AD, the year of the four emperors?

Peter

[areich]

[curtislclay]

[Salem Alshdaifat]

[WelfIV]

[curtislclay]

[Joe Sermarini]

[areich]

[Robert_Brenchley]

[Dino]

[WelfIV]

[Dino]

[Dino]

[Lloyd Taylor]

[nikoledm]

[WelfIV]

[nikoledm]

[Joe Sermarini]

[areich]

[Jochen]

[areich]

[Robert_Brenchley]

[nikoledm]

[Lloyd Taylor]

[Pekka K]

[benito]

[areich]

[curtislclay]

[curtislclay]

[lehmansterms]