Part 1.
Russia as the centre of the “Mongolian” Empire and its role in mediaeval civilization.
Chapter 2.
Russian history as reflected in coins.
10. Some general considerations in re numismatic history.
10.1. The similarity or dissimilarity of portraits on various coins.
One occasionally comes across the opinion that the portraits of the same king as found on the coins pertaining to different mintage and type are “similar as a rule”, whereas the coin portraits of different monarchs usually “differ”.
However, if this is indeed the case, the consideration is only applicable to modern coins, with high enough quality of representation. Mediaeval coins demonstrate no such traits – there is a multitude of cases when a single king’s portraits on different coins look completely different. On the contrary, coin portraits of different kings often look amazingly similar. The readers can observe this to be the case if they turn to any comprehensive catalogue of ancient coins.
There is nothing odd about it – the primitive nature of mediaeval dies, as well as the crudeness of artwork and embossment, give us no opportunity of identifying monetary portraits or distinguishing between them. It is absurd to refer to the extremely approximate “royal portraits” found on mediaeval coins as “similar” or “dissimilar”.
10.2. The bizarre hoardings of “long-term accumulation”.
Some of the coin hoardings discovered by archaeologists are characterised as “long-term accumulation hoardings”. This term is used for the findings where “the same pot” contains coins dating from epochs considered distant in Scaligerian chronology.
For instance, a single hoarding can contain coins whose datings are centuries apart ([684], page 8). Such cases are usually explained by theories about “ancient collections accumulated by several or even many generations” ([684], page 8).
We are supposed to believe that some ancient numismatist clan had been collecting coins from different historical epochs for centuries on end – “ancient” Roman coins, mediaeval European coins etc, and then buried the collection in the ground for future archaeologists to find. We shall not deny the theoretical possibility of this explanation.
However, we can suggest another point of view, which strikes us as more natural. The overwhelming majority of hoardings should be constituted from coins of more or less the same epoch, whose dating scatter range does not exceed several decades, or the period of real coinage circulation within the lifespan of a single generation.
If we find a strange hoarding where “ancient” coins are mixed with mediaeval ones, it can only mean that the so-called “ancient” coins were misdated, and should really be dated to the same mediaeval epoch. The only reason why they ended up in the same hoarding as the coins believed to be mediaeval nowadays is that all of them had been in circulation around the same time.
It is most likely that the mysterious “long-term accumulation” hoardings that make the “antiquity” intertwine with the Middle Ages in a peculiar manner result from the fallacies of Scaligerian chronology. New Chronology transforms all of them into typically mediaeval hoardings.
10.3. Strange destructions of “ancient” coin hoardings in the Middle Ages.
Here we have another bizarre fact. It turns out that, according to V. M. Potin, “the ‘pagan’ coins of the antiquity were treated with suspicion as a rule; the interpretations of the artwork and the lettering were often preposterous [from the Scaligerian viewpoint? – Auth.], and hoardings of coins were often destroyed” ([684], page 8).
Let us cite a characteristic example. An iron chest with gemstones and “ancient” Roman coins was discovered in the alleged IX century. Abbot Konrad von Halden “gave orders for the immediate meltdown of the coins, believing the finding to be the devil’s work” ([684], pages 8-9). By the way, did this really happen in the IX century? According to our reconstruction, the order for the destruction of the old coins was most likely given in the epoch of the Reformation, or the XVI-XVII century, when the history of the “Mongolian” Empire was being obliterated and distorted.
As it is widely known from recent history, many books were destroyed in the Western Europe during the late Middle Ages for some strange reason – for instance, they were burnt publicly, in plain sight of the crowds gathered to witness the incineration. Nowadays we are told that the books in question were considered heretical and contradicting the established ecclesiastical tradition. This might indeed be the case. However, as we are beginning to understand, the primary reason was the destruction of written documents associated with the Great = “Mongolian” Empire. There was even a special index of forbidden books subject to mandatory destruction.
Apparently, a similar fate befell the imperial coinage of the Horde in the XVI-XVII century. They weren’t burnt, obviously enough, but rather re-melted. Wherefore? Could it be that many authentic coins started to contradict certain nascent pseudo-historical conceptions – the Scaligerian version of history, for instance? The ancient symbols of the Horde that they had borne upon them were the very reason for their destruction. The problem would thus be effectively and promptly “solved”, leaving no space for explanations, disputes et al.
10.4. Petrarch (also known as the “ancient” Plutarch?) as the first numismatist.
When did the collection and classification of antique coins actually begin?
“Most researchers begin the history of modern collecting from the deeds of Francesco Petrarch, the prominent Italian humanist and poet (1304-1374). His letters reveal that winegrowers often brought him found ancient coins, which the poet would buy” ([684], page 9).
Imagine the glee of the numerous winegrowers at finding such a generous buyer! Their fields must have become bountiful excavation fields.
On the other hand, Petrarch’s involvement in the creation of the “authorised Roman history” is marked by numerous oddities, as covered in detail in CHRON1, Chapter 7:4.
10.5. The “ancient” Golden Fleece and its double from the XV century.
From our salad days we all know the romantic “ancient” myth of the Golden Fleece, or the legendary treasure sought by the Argonauts. It was glorified and immortalised by Homer, the famed poet. According to the opinion of the historians, the campaign of the Argonauts dates to deep antiquity, or the epoch of the Trojan War, which is dated to the XIII or the XII century before Christ?
However, it turns out that in 1429, some 2600 years later, Duke Philip of Burgundy founded the Order of the Golden Fleece in Bruges to commemorate his marriage to Isabel of Portugal ([684], page 36).
“The origins of the order’s symbolism is explained in a variety of ways. Some try to associate it with the ancient myth of the Golden Fleece, others – with the Flanders felt, which was made of sheep wool . . . Near the end of the XV century, the crest of the order appears on the silver and golden coinage minted by Philip the Handsome, Count of Franche-Conte (1493-1506) . . . who had minted coins in Brabant, Flanders, Namur and Holland . . .
For about three centuries, the chain of the Golden Fleece with the crest of the order was circumscribing the coats of arms found on most coins minted all across the enormous Habsburg domain by the Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire, Kings of Spain and overseas colonies, rulers of the Netherlands and parts of Italy . . .” ([684], pages 36-37).
We shall omit the lengthy list of countries, cities and rulers whose coins had borne the chain of the Golden Fleece in the XV century and later on.
Therefore, Scaligerian chronology is of the opinion that it had taken Europe some twenty-five hundred years to recollect the “amazing ancient legend” and found the Order of the Golden Fleece to commemorate it. Our explanation of this “revival” is based on altogether different considerations.
The “ancient” myth of the Golden Fleece does indeed date from the epoch of the Trojan War, but the correct dating of this event is the XIII century A. D. and not the XII century B. C. See more on the subject in CHRON1 and CHRON2. The voyage of the Argonauts and the “search of the Golden Fleece” is but a legendary reflection of the mediaeval crusades, whose primary participants were the Franks and the subjects of the Holy Roman Empire. Hence the foundation of the Order of Golden Fleece in the XV century – immediately after the Trojan War and the voyages of the Argonauts, which identify as the crusaders. The foundation of the Order of the Golden Fleece in Europe obviously didn’t postdate the Argonauts by 2500 years.
10.6. Mediaeval geographical names were in a state of constant flux.
“Numismatic science . . . cannot exist without the knowledge of historical geography . . . since the names of towns, cities and whole areas have undergone many changes since then. The mediaeval names of cities on most European coins are in Latin, and they differ from their modern counterparts considerably, for instance:
Aachen ......... - Aquisgranum, or Aquensis urbs,
Milan ......... - Mediolanum,
Liège .......... - Leodium,
Regensburg .... - Ratisbona,
Cologne ......... - (Sancta) Colonia Agrippina etc" ([684], page 59).
The same book lists a large number of other interesting examples. Let us cite a few more (see [684], pages 287-288).
Argentoratum, Argentina or Argentaria – Strasbourg in France,
Augusta Trevirorum ................... Trier in Germany,
Augusta Vindelicorum ................. Augsburg in Germany,
Batavia or Pattavia .................. Passau in Germany,
BORUSSIA ............................. Prussia,
Dorobernia ........................... Canterbury in archaic literature, or Dover in Great Britain.
Eboracum or Eoferic .................. York in Great Britain,
Grantebrycg .......................... Cambridge in Great Britain,
Hybernia ............................. Ireland,
Holsatia ............................. Holstein in Germany,
Ianva ................................ Genoa in Italy,
Lugdunum ............................. Lyon in France,
Mediolanum ........................... Milan in Italy,
Mimigardeforum ....................... Munster in Germany,
Moguntia ............................. Mainz in Germany,
Monacum or Monachum .................. Munich in Germany,
Mons, Montium or Montanus ducatus .... Berg in Germany,
Nicopia .............................. Nucoping in Sweden,
Palatinus ad Rhenum or Palatinus Rheni Rhineland-Westphalia in Germany,
Papia or Ticinum ..................... Pavia in Italy,
Revalia .............................. Tallinn in Estonia,
Ruscia or RUTHENIA ............. Russia,
Sabaudia ............................. Savoy in France,
Scotia ............................... Scotland,
Urbs clavorum ........................ Verden in France, and
Vindobona ............................ Vienna in Austria.
These facts once again confirm our general thought that in many cases the names of mediaeval cities and areas had been in a constant state of flux before they rigidified in the epoch of the printing press, when the multiple copies of printed geographical maps put an end to the process.
Therefore, whenever one comes across the name of a town or a region in an ancient document, one must first of all estimate the actual country in question – otherwise it is very easy to make a mistake and transplant the events that occurred in the city of Paris, France, to the soil of the “ancient” Asian Persia, or P-Russia, known as White Russia.
10.7. Dates as indicated on antique coins.
“Minting dates on ancient coins are rare exceptions. Some of them can only be dated (and to wide time intervals, at that) by secondary indications. However, in the Hellenistic epoch the coins often bore the reign years of the kings who minted them, or the date of minting in local chronology” ([684], page 125). However, this can only provide us with tiny shreds of relative chronological data. The estimation of a coin’s true chronology is a difficult task.
“The first dated Russian coins appear in 1596 transcribed as letters of the Slavonic alphabet. Although the so-called yefimki talers, as well as the coins awarded as decorations under Alexei Mikhailovich, had the dates inscribed upon them as numerals (all of the yefimki are known to date from 1655), virtually every coin up until 1722 bears a dating transcribed in Slavonic numerals” ([684], page 128).
10.8. Is it possible to date sepulchres by the coins found therein?
According to V. I. Ravdonikas, “it is dangerous to base the chronology of sepulchres upon findings of the monetary nature” (quoted by [684], page 183). We are beginning to understand the reason why – apparently, the coins discovered in hoardings and in actual soil often contradict the Scaligerian chronology.
For example, in the course of the Novgorod excavations, a coin minted between 990 and 1040 was discovered in the layer dated to 1197-1212 by the archaeologists.
V. M. Potin makes the following restrained comment: “The time interval between the dates of the mintage and the loss is thus equal to two centuries . . . Occidental denarii of the X-XI century can be found in graves that predate 1200” ([684], page 183). The gap is two or even three centuries long. And so on, and so forth.
