Lab
Library
Journal
Shop
Sign in
to keep
Share image
1
375
The Book of the Damned
·
Charles Fort
182
The
Editor's
reasoning
is
as
phantom-like
as
my
own,
or
St.
Paul's,
or
Darwin's.
The
coin
is
condemned
because
it
came
from
the
same
region
from
which,
a
few
years
before,
had
come
pottery
that
had
been
called
fraudulent.
The
pottery
had
been
condemned
because
it
was
condemnable.
Scientific
American,
June
17,
1882:
That
a
farmer,
in
Cass
Co.,
Ill.,
had
picked
up,
on
his
farm,
a
bronze
coin,
which
was
sent
to
Prof.
F.F.
Hilder,
of
St.
Louis,
who
identified
it
as
a
coin
of
Antiochus
IV.
Inscription
said
to
be
in
ancient
Greek
characters:
translated
as
"King
Antiochus
Epiphanes
(Illustrious)
the
Victorius."
Sounds
quite
definite
and
convincing--but
we
have
some
more
translations
coming.
In
the
American
Pioneer,
2-169,
are
shown
two
faces
of
a
copper
coin,
with
characters
very
much
like
those
upon
the
Grave
Creek
stone--which,
with
translations,
we'll
take
up
soon.
This
coin
is
said
to
have
been
found
in
Connecticut,
in
1843.
Records
of
the
Past,
12-182:
That,
early
in
1913,
a
coin,
said
to
be
a
Roman
coin,
was
reported
as
discovered
in
an
Illinois
mound.
It
was
sent
to
Dr.
Emerson,
of
the
Art
Institute,
of
Chicago.
His
opinion
was
that
the
coin
is
"of
the
rare
mintage
of
Domitius
Domitianus,
Emperor
in
Egypt."
As
to
its
discovery
in
an
Illinois
mound,
Dr.
Emerson
disclaims
responsibility.
But
what
strikes
me
here
is
that
a
joker
should
not
have
been
satisfied
with
an
ordinary
Roman
coin.
Where
did
he
get
a
rare
coin,
and
why
was
it
not
missed
from
some
collection?
I
have
looked
over
numismatic
journals
enough
to
accept
that
the
whereabouts
of
every
rare
coin
in
anyone's
possession
is
known
to
coin-collectors.
Seems
to
me
nothing
left
but
to
call
this
another
"identification."
Marker
Marker
Fine marker
White-out
Fine white-out
Circle
Paint
Unmarker
Hand
Scalpel
Dice
Sieve
Purify
Undo
Redo
Start over
