Talk:Liudhard medalet

Bracteate

Is it a bracteate? Jon kare (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing I have calls it that. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What about Gamester or whatever? I tried to open it but it crashed. It seems at least an outlier of the form , worth a see also at least. Do the sources think the loop was original, or added? Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Gaimster doesn't call it a bracteate at all, and although he says it was looped, doesn't say whether he thinks it was originally intended to be looped or was looped later. I can send you the pdf if you'd like, drop me an email. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Got it now thanks. Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think "Marit" is a she, btw! Johnbod (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This one seems happy to discuss it as a bracteate. Also seethis. Having 2 faces clearly counts against the identification. Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I seem to have picked up a naive understanding of bracteate as any "coin" made by barbarians who haven't got the concept right. I stand corrected. What about the inscription? Is it nonsense, or does it mean anything? Jon kare (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Inscription basically says "Liudhard the Bishop" pretty much, which ties it to Liudhard, who's connected with the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The inscription in the photo is written from right to left, and the letters are backward. I suspect the photograph has been inadvertently printed in reverse. When taking this into account, the Latin inscription reads: "LEUDARDUS EPS." The first is the name, Liudhard, and the second is an abbreviation of the Latin word "episcopus," which means "bishop." Olorin3k (talk) 08:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

See below. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• The status as a "coin" is a somewhat technical one, since nobody seems to think it could actually be used to do the shopping (well I suppose it could, but so could any piece of jewellery). "Medalet" is indeed the best term, but not a standard one, and medals hadn't been reinvented, and with 2 sides it can't be a bracteate.... I think this should be expanded a bit in the lead - I assume no one thinks it was actual currency. That this is the general view might be made clearer too - now it is just given to just 2 of the many authorities cited at various points.
• The description of the reverse (which I have never seen an image of) is a bit confusing: "A circle and two half-circles intersect the cross." Where are the half circles? Is one Werhner's "rounded base"? According to him the "two pendants descending from the upper arm of the cross" seem to descend from a bar across the top of the shaft (or "upper arm"). All p. 28. Since the form of the cross is evidently so unusual, & there seem to be no images available, a fuller description would be welcome. The circle should be located around the crossing of the shaft and arm.
• Poor Liudhard arguably got short shrift in the histories, pushed aside by Augustine & his crew. A bit expanding on his status as the first known missionary to the AS, & explaining his dating in relation to Augustine, would be in order.
• I think for FA more on Werhner's rather circular comments should be added. His is by far the most detailed account I have read, and although he does not believe the medalet had much to do with the Celtic cross, the coincidence in shape and his thoughts on it might be added. Perhaps not every agrees there is no relation?

Johnbod (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I will try to get a look at the "Making of Engand" in Further reading tomorrow, but I doubt it will have much to add - the entries are mostly fairly short. Johnbod (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• As I noted above, the inscription in the photo is written from right to left, and the letters are backward. I suspect the photograph has been inadvertently printed in reverse, as are all depictions I have seen of this artifact. I took a photo of a photo of the reverse yesterday and may post that on the page. It would be nice if we could confirm this printing error and obtain an accurate photograph of the medalet, both obverse and reverse. Olorin3k (talk) 08:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Since I took the picture of the replica - I can confirm that the image is not reveresed - it is exactly as I took it. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)