A large portion of the seabed had been cleared away by ocean currents, and the remains of the merchant ship as well as its cargo were left sitting near the top of the sand.
Subsequent dives led by the IAA over the past few weeks have brought several artifacts up to the surface, including a bronze lamp depicting the sun god Sol, a figurine of the moon goddess Luna, statues of animal figures such as a wild boar with a swan on its head, and two large metallic lumps weighing about 45 pounds each—each one made up of thousands of coins that fused together in the shape of the pot that contained them.
Biblical coins are a popular segment in the ancient coin hobby.
For many this proves to be a gateway into the wider world of ancient numismatics but most find just owning a coin mentioned in the bible, or even one merely contemporary, an end in itself as a way to connect with that distant but meaningful past.
(“august emperor”) without any territorial adjunct. The first title that Charlemagne is known to have used, immediately after his coronation in 800, is “Charles, most serene Augustus, crowned by God, great and pacific emperor, governing the Roman empire.” This clumsy formula, however, was soon discarded., though clearly they are interrelated.
The constituent territories retained their identity; the emperors, in addition to the imperial crown, also wore the crowns of their kingdoms.
The reason this took place is to be sought (1) in certain local events in Rome in the years and months immediately preceding Charlemagne’s coronation in 800, and (2) in certain long-standing tendencies that made this particular solution of a difficult situation thinkable.Among the many, many issues yet unresolved by ancient numismatists it is perhaps a little ironic that an ordinary and easily available coin should prove the most divisive.All the controversy is due to a rather numismatically ambiguous passage in the bible. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? Then saith he unto them, render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.Finally, whereas none of the earlier emperors from , and the practical men, members of the high nobility, on whom the emperors relied for support, all saw the empire in a different light and had their own ideas of its origin, function, and justification.Among these heterogeneous and often incompatible views, three may be said to predominate: (1) the papal theory, according to which the empire was the secular arm of the church, set up by the papacy for its own purposes and therefore answerable to the pope and, in the last resort, to be disposed of by him; (2) the imperial, or Frankish, theory, which placed greater emphasis on conquest and hegemony as the source of the emperor’s power and authority and according to which he was responsible directly to God; and (3) the popular, or Roman, theory (the “people” at this stage being synonymous with the nobility and in this instance with the Roman nobility), according to which the empire, following the tradition of Roman law, was a by the Roman people.Of the three theories the last was the least important; it was evidently directed against the pope, whose constitutive role it implicitly denied, but it was also a specifically Italian reaction against the predominance in practice of Frankish and German elements.