UFOs in Works of Art

Excellent discussion, and yes, I'm well aware of the anthropomorphic sun/moon symbology... (but your discussion of some of these, those not discussed elsewhere, is applause worthy... )

That is why the specific images I posted in that particular thread, were NOT of this variety.... You included images in your post that were NOT posted in that thread that are yes, easily attributed to symbolism.

Such as the John the Baptist painting. Yes, a gold disc is used as a symbol of divinity....but in combination with surrounding a person or object....not free-standing and with beams of light as in this painting. This would be a rather uncommon use of this symbol, as would "flattening" it....(the disk), even using the annunciation reference...

Representing divine entities with radiant disks or halos is common in iconography of many cultures and religions.

Which of course then begs the question....why do so many cultures connect this with gods? The obvious answer is of course the sun, but as we all know, the sun appears perfectly round....so why then the more flattened disc shape...??? Something to think about....

[edit on 31-12-2005 by Gazrok]

Bottom line is, it’s still ART. No matter how authoritative or intelligent or reasonable the discussion on said ART is, it’s still just ART. And as ART it is open to interpretation. No matter how intricately created, no matter how cleverly crafted, it’s still just an ink blot (lump of clay, cracked rock, etc.)

We can jump up and down, get out our slide rules and calipers, do our homework and research, and say in a calm, rational voice, This is what This means. *shrugs* It’s still just a painting of tomato soup can.

Anybody who tells me what I’m supposed to see in an image, what I’m supposed to think about it, how I’m supposed to feel about it, makes me nervous. Be it ufo nut or art historian.

I’m reminded of a not so old quote…

“Some people look at things and say why? I dream of things and say why not?”

Telling me that an image of clouds in the sky with rays of light coming out of them is a ufo is just as crazy as telling me that it is Not a ufo.

Neither side knows the truth. Any side that claims to scares me. The harder they try to convince me of their point of view, the more nervous I get.

Why can’t I just look at the pretty pictures and dream of things?

No, Shaman, you're missing my point again. I'm not denying that these angels could be UFOs, i'm saying that to say so is making a leap! They are not synonomous with accounts of UFOs, but some of both sets share some common properties.

But, Lensphlere's right; Cicada has done an excellent job at researching these, and proving that many of them are hats and moons. Shaman, you and i are only arguing possibility, and not looking at plausibility; Cicada has done that.

And I'm suddenly reminded of a documentary i watched about the Da Vinci Code and Holy grail; a lot of the theories about the holy grail use evidence from stories written in the dark-middle ages and rennaisance, but those were works of fiction, designed to put across symbolism and stories, not facts. These paintings are probably much the same way. They're depicting symbolism, not anything that someone actually saw. Just thought i'd throw that out there.

Edit: Ha, as soon as i posted this, I realized that that last paragraph is very similar to what torbjon said. heh, sorry.

[edit on 31-12-2005 by Solasis]

My point is that there are many other works of Art that do not depict Christian Iconography.

www.ufoartwork.com... has Paintings and Tapestries from many that are not Christian works.

From www.UFOartwork.com...

The above illustration depicts a sighting that occurred at 9.45pm on the evening of 18th August 1783 when four witnesses on the terrace of Windsor Castle observed a luminous object in the skies of the Home Counties of England. The sighting was recorded the following year in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. According to this report, witnesses observed an oblong cloud moving more or less parallel to the horizon. Under this cloud could be seen a luminous object which soon became spherical, brilliantly lit, which came to a halt; This strange sphere seemed at first to be pale blue in colour but then its luminosity increased and soon it set off again towards the east. Then the object changed direction and moved parallel to the horizon before disappearing to the south-east ; the light it gave out was prodigious; it lit us everything on the ground.; The image was captured in this by Thomas Sandby (a founder of the Royal Academy) and his brother Paul, both of whom witnessed the event.

Also , it is not possible to sanitize UFO sightings from History.

While none of these are evidence of ET contact, I would consider them evidence of UFO sightings. When you consider that throughout history UFO sightings have been documented in literature too, you have an argument that UFOs have been witnessed throughout most of Human History.

[edit on 31-12-2005 by lost_shaman]

Originally posted by lost_shaman
My point is that there are many other works of Art that do not depict Christian Iconography.

www.ufoartwork.com... has Paintings and Tapestries from many that are not Christian works.

From www.UFOartwork.com...

The above illustration depicts a sighting that occurred at 9.45pm on the evening of 18th August 1783 when four witnesses on the terrace of Windsor Castle observed a luminous object in the skies of the Home Counties of England. The sighting was recorded the following year in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. According to this report, witnesses observed an oblong cloud moving more or less parallel to the horizon. Under this cloud could be seen a luminous object which soon became spherical, brilliantly lit, which came to a halt; This strange sphere seemed at first to be pale blue in colour but then its luminosity increased and soon it set off again towards the east. Then the object changed direction and moved parallel to the horizon before disappearing to the south-east ; the light it gave out was prodigious; it lit us everything on the ground.; The image was captured in this by Thomas Sandby (a founder of the Royal Academy) and his brother Paul, both of whom witnessed the event.

Also , it is not possible to sanitize UFO sightings from History.

While none of these are evidence of ET contact, I would consider them evidence of UFO sightings. When you consider that throughout history UFO sightings have been documented in literature too, you have an argument that UFOs have been witnessed throughout most of Human History.

[edit on 31-12-2005 by lost_shaman]

First of all, I direct you to the following discussion: www.abovetopsecret.com...
Think about it this way

Second of all, this is a very, very reasonable point you've made. This is a depiction of an actual event; if the description there is correct, anyway. I'll look into it. But thank you for actually making a point.

Originally posted by Solasis

First of all, I direct you to the following discussion: www.abovetopsecret.com...
Think about it this way

Thank you , but I was the second person to post on your thread , so I do not need to be directed to it.

And I have been thinking about these things for quite sometime now , and I do not need to be told how to think about UFOs. I know you meant no offense I'm just saying.

I've also already listed some examples of UFOs in Historical literature in my Earlier posts.

Thank you one and all for making this an interesting and spirited discussion.

lost_shaman,

I think that if you reread my posts you will find that I do not possess the attitude toward these matters that you think that I do. I have said that I believe in UFOs, but not in extraterrestrial contact. I have said that some of the images presented depict legends of phenomena appearing in the sky and that I will speak about those images in due time. This is a major issue that deserves a lot of attention and I plan to address it fully. Instead of making a blanket statement based on generalizations these matters have to be explored image-by-image and account-by-account. I believe it was important to separate the image types into their proper categories in order to better understand them. It may not be apparent, but I am working according to a rough outline. My agenda is not to debunk, but to give these works of art the consideration they deserve.

Originally posted by lost_shaman
That is that while you can show that many works of Art are representing Christian Iconography as opposed to proof of Extraterrestrial Contact, you fail to address the fact that most Artwork you are dealing with is Renaissance and Christian. You fail to deal with the fact that most Christians during the time frames given would assume what we would today consider "UFOs" to be Angels or Demons.

You're assuming that because I have not come to the same conclusions as you that it means I have failed to account for something. That is not the case. I'm not saying my presentation is perfect, but I have given consideration to the idea that the supernatural characters and events from the Bible and other mythological systems are legendary accounts of extraterrestrial contact, the so-called ancient astronaut theory. I'm aware of it, I've considered it and I personally reject it. I will address these points more fully as the thread progresses.

I am well aware that most of the artwork I've discussed so far is from the Renaissance era (the DeGelder is from the very-late Baroque, and the Eastern European murals are Byzantine) and all of it deals with Christian symbolism. There are multiple reasons for this. A large number of the paintings presented as evidence of extraterrestrial contact are from this particular period, not just the Renaissance but the Early Renaissance. This makes a lot of sense. There is a clear movement from the Early to the High Renaissance towards naturalism and away from symbolic iconography. The more naturalistic the painting, the less likely it seems that someone is going to misread the visual language being employed. It is difficult to view an image without the bias of your cultural viewpoint. This effect is even greater when looking at the stylization of a very foreign culture, as is the case with the Byzantine works. The further the culture of origin of an image, the more likely it is that it will be misread.

You may also notice that the paintings with supposed UFOs are never by what most people would consider major figures. Uccello was important, but no one knows his name. From the paintings already discussed the biggest name involved would be Fra Filippo Lippi, and the painting isn't even really by him. This also makes perfect sense. Ignorance breeds misinterpretation. The works of the major figures of these eras are more familiar to us and we are more used to looking at their work. We know more about the artists and their patrons and have fuller accounts of the artists' true intentions. There's a lot less wiggle room.

Gazrok,

Your post and that of another member were the impetus for me to start this thread, but not the sole reason. I will be talking about all of the images from that thread as time allows as well as many others that were not.

originally posted by Gazrok
Such as the John the Baptist painting. Yes, a gold disc is used as a symbol of divinity....but in combination with surrounding a person or object....not free-standing and with beams of light as in this painting. This would be a rather uncommon use of this symbol, as would "flattening" it....(the disk), even using the annunciation reference...

originally posted by Gazrok
Which of course then begs the question....why do so many cultures connect this with gods? The obvious answer is of course the sun, but as we all know, the sun appears perfectly round....so why then the more flattened disc shape...??? Something to think about....

I disagree. Halos frequently symbolize a divine entity no matter what its place in space. Rays of light frequently symbolize divine communication. Sometimes, as in the DeGelder "Baptism" painting, these details are combined because a divine entity (the dove) is communicating or transferring something to Jesus as he is baptized. Often the dove symbolizing the Holy Spirit appears to ride along the beam of heavenly light, as is the case with the Crivelli. When we talk about the depiction of halos, we're talking about an iconographic practice that took place for thousands of years. No two artists depict the same thing in exactly the same way. You will see halos, nimbuses and auras of all shapes, forms and sizes. Some artists depict them as geometric patterns behind the head. Some have a flat, crystal-like disc that seems to rest on the top of the head, in which case they would be receding toward a vanishing point and not appear as a perfect circle. Some drew or painted gold rings floating over a figure's head. We should all be very familiar with that particular interpretation. During certain eras the symbolic details of these matters were actually quite specific. This wouldn't be the case in the late Baroque of the early 18th century.

I'm not sure if we could ever exactly pinpoint what it is that links divinity and radiance in the visual arts. It's such a standard of conception, a universal, that it just seems rather obvious. The sun is a likely source of inspiration for many, maybe even most, mythologies, folklores, religions and many of the symbolic images to visually convey these stories. But I think the reason is even simpler than that. I think divine entities are depicted as radiant in the visual arts largely just to make them stand out and look important. But let's say that it was the sun that originally inspired the practice. If this is the case this would have been a symbolic development that happened in a preliteral era, possibly tens of thousands of years before DeGelder was working. This is more then enough time for a symbol to develop to the point that it takes on an existence in its own right. We should no longer expect to see the sun depicted every time the technique is employed, even if it is the source inspiration. In the case of this particular image the disc-like shape is due to the painting's perspective. The circle of light is above the horizon line. The circle is foreshortened in order to create the illusion that it exists in space. While ignoring perspective in favor of symbolic connotation would be expected in the Renaissance pieces created circa three hundred years earlier, as is the case in the Masolino, it would be rather odd to see it in the Baroque.

The more I look at the painting, the less I think the luminescent circle is even meant to be a halo surrounding the dove/Holy Spirit. As stated, the Holy Spirit is often shown as a ray of light descending from Heaven to a figure on the ground, with a dove riding along the beam. If the dove were producing the light you would expect it to be centered around it, which isn't the case. I think the circle is the beam of light passing through the thick clouds. Of course we don't always experience the sun's light as coming directly from the circular sun in a clear sky. If it is overcast, and a break opens in the clouds, the sun streams through in visible beams that illuminate the ground below it like spotlights. For whatever reason this effect looks significant and religious, my mother calls it "Jesus beams", and it is something that we see in religious artwork all of the time. I believe that this is what we are seeing in the DeGelder. As an artist of the Baroque the depiction is more rooted in observation of natural phenomena, but he's made the break of light a perfect circle (at an angle), like a halo, reinforcing that this event is divine. DeGelder is almost impossible to research but you can see how the concern has shifted from the specific, iconic language of the Middle Ages to the study of light and form of the Baroque.

originally posted by torbjon
Anybody who tells me what I’m supposed to see in an image, what I’m supposed to think about it, how I’m supposed to feel about it, makes me nervous. Be it ufo nut or art historian.

originally posted by torbjon
Neither side knows the truth. Any side that claims to scares me. The harder they try to convince me of their point of view, the more nervous I get.

You must be very fearful if these kinds of things make you afraid. There's nothing to be scared of. You are honestly the first person I've ever heard express fear of art historians. There must be an interesting name for that particular phobia. Let's get serious here. No one is telling you what to think about, what opinion to hold or what to dream about. I'm not sure why you think learning about art takes away from your ability to dream about it, most people's appreciation grows from having a fuller set of information. I'm not trying to convince you of my point of view here, so don't get nervous. You are in no danger.

Visual art isn't just marks, or blobs, or whatever, any more then verbal language is just grunts and sounds. It's a language and it takes time and study to learn to read any language. There are certain truths that we can determine about any given work of art and it is wrong to state otherwise. We can familiarize with the movement, with the styles of the artists, with the historical conditions they were working under, who and what influenced them, etc. Why would anyone interested in a work of art not want to know these things? This isn't abstract art we're discussing, its illustrative. It's meant to convey a specific story. So we can't really just interpret it however we like, not if we hold respect for the piece, the artist and the artist's intentions. Even in the case of more modern, conceptual art like abstract expressionism or the pop art you mentioned, the artists want you to think about, discuss and argue the work, it's part of the process. Really what you're saying is you're not interested in learning, which is your prerogative, and no one is forcing you. And try to do something about those nerves.

Originally posted by Cicada

You're assuming that because I have not come to the same conclusions as you that it means I have failed to account for something. That is not the case. I'm not saying my presentation is perfect, but I have given consideration to the idea that the supernatural characters and events from the Bible and other mythological systems are legendary accounts of extraterrestrial contact, the so-called ancient astronaut theory. I'm aware of it, I've considered it and I personally reject it. I will address these points more fully as the thread progresses.

I don't subscribe to any Ancient Astronaut Theories either. My statement meant to convey the fact that for many centuries in many parts of the World any UFO witnessed would have been considered to be an Angel , a Demon, a God.

lost_shaman,

I get what your saying and it is an interesting thing to consider. Perhaps you could describe more fully exactly what it is you're suggesting. It's possible but it is still a hypothetical. The intent, at least, of this thread is to deal with what we do know. This is not to say that there are not a number of interesting hypotheticals that could come into play, just that there are certain things about these works that we can observe, recognize and draw decisive conclusions about.

Regardless of whether or not ancient UFO sightings influenced the development of early religions, I do not think it has a significant impact on the works discussed so far. The same factors apply to the general theory that apply to the specific example of the halo in my last post. By the early 15th century these stories, no matter what their inception, had developed into a system of symbolism in its own right. We can trace the origins of symbols successively backward, to an extent, and never have the full picture. I think when it comes to incorporating specific works of art into a larger conversation about UFOs, no matter what they might be, we have to address them on a simpler level, and that’s what we know and in the absence of that, what is the most plausible explanation.

I'm going to try to research the examples of historical UFO sightings you cited and I ask you to do the same. As with the art works, they should to be examined case-by-case. One thing that immediately strikes me is how long ago the supposed events took place. I believe this was part of your point, that UFOs have been sighted very far back in history. The problem I suspect we are likely to run into is that the stories are impossible to pin to a single, firsthand witness who recorded and reported what was seen in a verifiable manner. The line between legend and history was a very thin one for the majority of history. This same difficulty is faced in exploring the origins of religious conceptions on a larger scale. We're in a grey area here that is unlikely to become much better defined, but let's take a look and see what we can find out.

Visual art isn't just marks, or blobs, or whatever, any more then verbal language is just grunts and sounds. It's a language and it takes time and study to learn to read any language. There are certain truths that we can determine about any given work of art and it is wrong to state otherwise. We can familiarize with the movement, with the styles of the artists, with the historical conditions they were working under, who and what influenced them, etc. Why would anyone interested in a work of art not want to know these things?

Very eloquently put, and as a visual artist and student of art history myself...I can certainly concur.

Different because it is not a great work of art, or even art at all by most people's definition. When this image is first encountered it really is quite startling, in a way that the painted images just don't seem to be. It's an old, worn, somewhat crude coin with a Latin inscription making it appear to be a piece of ancient Roman currency. It truly does look like a depiction of a giant flying saucer hovering over the countryside, emitting some kind of beam. Having an image like this on a coin makes it seem rather important. The images on currency, and the symbolic connotations they hold, are serious issues even in the modern day. We generally don't expect to find money with trivial or fanciful images.

So what exactly is it that we're looking at here? It's not an ancient Roman coin. It isn't proper money or currency at all. It is an item known as a jeton. This particular jeton is French and was likely minted in the late 17th century. Jetons were cheaply manufactured chips used to play games and educate children. They were mass-produced. They are pretty much ephemera, and studying one for significant proof of anything is the equivalent of investigating the images on a trading card, poker chip or Monopoly money.

Here's a detailed discussion of jeton from the Chicago Coin Club

Not surprisingly the reverse side of the coin is never shown. This seems a curious omission to make when looking at any two-sided object, especially so when said object is a coin. Diego Cuoghi's work researching this object is particularly commendable. He's the previously mentioned author of Art and UFOs? No Thanks, Only Art site that serves as the primary source for the material presented so far.
Mr. Cuoghi could not find the true reverse to this particular jeton. There are other jetons that feature aerial, wheel-like objects, with their reverse depicting the allegorical personification of Justice, identifiable by her sword and scales. This figure is derived from the Greek goddess Themis. Here's an example:



There are other examples of jeton that feature this combination. Many featured allegorical and mythological scenes. This makes it clear that we should be looking to Greco-Roman mythology as the place of origin. The many epics of mythology provide multiple sources for an image such as this. Mr. Cuoghi is quite certain that this particular jeton depicts the Roman legend of the Ancile.

This is a fairly obscure story relating how Jupiter, the king of the gods, sent his sacred shield, or ancile, to the Roman King Numa Pompilius. There is actually an interesting little knot of Greco-Roman comparative mythology at play with this story. More frequently in Roman myth the ancile symbol is associated with the war god Mars.

From the
"Dictionary of Classical Antiquities" by Oskar Seyffert (1894).

Ancile. The small oval sacred shield, curved inwards on either side, which was said to have fallen from heaven in the reign of Numa. There being a prophecy that the stability of Rome was bound up with it, Numa had eleven others made exactly like it by a cunning workman, Mamurius Ve-turius, so that the right one should not be stolen. The care of these arms, which were sacred to Mars was entrusted to the who had to carry them through the city once a year with peculiar cere­monies. At the conclusion of their songs Mamurius himself was invoked, and on March 14th they held a special feast, the Mamuralia, at which they sacrificed to him, beating on a hide with staves, prob­ably to imitate a smith's hammering. It is likely that the name Mamurius conceals that of the god Mars (or Mamers) himself.

The Ancile was considered the Roman Palladium. In Greek myth, arguably the most famous divine shield is the Aegis, with associations with both Zeus and Athena. There are multiple characters in Greek myth known as Pallas, and more than one who has a connection to Athena and the Aegis. You can see the chains of associations at play here. Like the Palladium of Troy the Shield of Heaven is an allegorical symbol of a territory's sovereignty.
Here's another Ancile image on a jeton provided by Mr. Cuoghi. This one clearly demonstrates its function as a protective emblem:



The inscription "Opportunus Adest" translates as "It arrives by the way" or "It is present at the right moment". Somehow the extraterrestrial proponents connect this motto to their argument. I've been doing much research and I still don't see what the phrase has to do with aliens or UFOs. I find, as Mr. Cuoghi argues, that it relates much more strongly to the legend of the Ancile.

Now I know there are some of you out there reading this thinking how the story of the Ancile sounds very much like a naive ancient description of UFOs. I don't find this to be the case for a couple of reasons. The Ancile as described in legends, and the ones crafted for ritualistic purpose, were not described as being gigantically proportioned. It is a regular sized shield. Note that the jeton image being discussed does not feature any element to compare the wheel-object's size against. This is largely due to the crudity of the image. All we can really say is that it is elevated in the air. Its size cannot be determined. The other reason I do not believe the myth is talking about UFOs is because both Jupiter and Mars are sky gods, the former a storm god and the latter a clear sky god. As such they not only lived in the sky, they were the actual sky. If either of these divine entities were to give something to someone on the Earth, the sky is the only place we can expect it to emerge from. Having learned this legend via this project, I now wonder how this and other tales close in form may relate to the flying shields in legends of Alexander and Charlemagne, a point I will return to in future posts.

This manner of shield, described as a buckler, is a small, lightweight item used for quick defense in close combat. A spike, or other projectile emerging from the center is not an unusual feature. This conforms rather nicely to the image on the jeton. What appears to be some ray is more likely an ornamental spike. If it seems to be pointing at a strange angle that is likely due to the poor quality of the rendering on these cheaply made items.

Another popular theory holds that this jeton features an image of
Ezekiel's wheel as described in the Old Testament Book of Ezekiel, Chapter 1:

1:15
Now as I beheld the living creatures, behold one wheel upon the earth by the living creatures, with his four faces.
1:16
The appearance of the wheels and their work was like unto the colour of a beryl: and they four had one likeness: and their appearance and their work was as it were a wheel in the middle of a wheel.

From the King James Bible.

This is perhaps the passage of religious text most frequently cited by alien-enthusiasts as a description of an ancient visitation and a topic I will be returning to, to discuss in detail. Suffice it to say that there is no single element on the jeton beyond the wheel-shape to suggest this possibility, especially when its likely reverse image is considered.

"Now I know there are some of you out there reading this" == Cicada

And probably a few like me who may not have comments due to lack of an education in art, but interested
to learn, particularly the history part. So far you are not making giagantic leaps of faith and "beam me up, Scotty"
fantasy as is usually found in these parts. This one is a gem so far.

Originally posted by Cicada



Not surprisingly the reverse side of the coin is never shown. This seems a curious omission to make when looking at any two-sided object, especially so when said object is a coin. Diego Cuoghi's work researching this object is particularly commendable. He's the previously mentioned author of Art and UFOs? No Thanks, Only Art site that serves as the primary source for the material presented so far.

I have to wonder about Diego Cuoghi's work. It seems that the reverse of this "Coin" Jeton, is available. It just showed up on this thread here on ATS.

Centuries Old UFO Coin Remains Mystery



So why are we to believe that Diego Cuoghi's assessment that no one ever shows the reverse image of this "coin"?

It seems like its being left out because it doesn't support the theory presented by Diego Cuoghi.

Well I must say that I am rather pleased at the reasonable and rational conversation taking place on the thread "Centuries Old UFO Coin Remains Mystery". What I most want to know is where the image of the "UFO" jeton came from to begin with? Who ever took the picture wouldn't have faced any great mystery finding the image on the reverse side, that's for sure. If this is the reverse, and I'm willing to believe that it is, then why hasn't it been included in numerous amateurish posting across the web? I think the answer to that is easy to see. The reverse has absolutely nothing on it that suggests extraterrestrials or UFOs.

lost_shaman,

Thank you for sharing this information. I wish you could have done so in a more polite manner, especially as this new factor is not nearly as damning as you seem to want to make it out to be. There's no mystery as to why Mr. Cuoghi didn't include this image. It's a guess, but I think it's more than fair to assume he simply didn't come across it. Have you visited his actual web page by any chance before casting such negative aspersions on his character? You may note that at the bottom of the home page it states that much of the material from Mr. Cuoghi's site was published in the July 2004 issue of SKEPTIC magazine. The news story on the discovery of the reverse side of the jeton was released in January of last year, 2005. Mr. Cuoghi's work simply predates the news story. I suppose we might ask why all the reporters and commentators on the topic failed to mention any of Mr. Cuoghi's preexistent and rather insightful views? Were they hiding the information because it didn't fit with their own theory?

This news is apparently rather obscure as it is nowhere near as prevalent as the "UFO" side, which is posted on dozens of websites, all of whose agendas I suppose we now must call into question. You may think I too have some nefarious agenda, but I spent several hours researching this subject before composing my post on it and I didn't find this information. I state this only to emphasize that this information is not readily available.

I'd say Mr. Cuoghi's agenda is rather clear. He's an art historian. His agenda is the study of art. I'd much rather you cast suspicion at me for my failure to find this image, seeing how I'm researching the topic a year after the news story rather than a year or more before, than try to paint Mr. Cuoghi as some kind of propagandist. Let me ask you some questions. In what way does the reverse side of the jeton make it more certain that the image is indeed a UFO? Even if it does, how would that invalidate the observations made by Mr. Cuoghi on the other works presented? What I really want to know is why the sighting of a UFO in the 17th century would be considered to be coming at the opportune moment, as the inscription states? I would think the general reaction would be one of fright or maybe awe and wonder. Where lies the fortune in the situation? It seems to me that the inscription better fits the opinion that the jeton shows Ezekiel’s Wheel or the Annunciation, and truly best fits the legend of the ancile. As described it was a vastly important defensive boon from the gods that protected the city in its hour of need. That sounds like opportunity to me.

Of course Mr. Cuoghi did find several examples of jetons with near identical images that had a different reverse, that of the figure of Justice. Keep in mind what trivial items these jetons are, especially when compared to multi-million dollar, one of a kind paintings from the early Renaissance. Were these items' mintings at all regulated? It seems unlikely. Anyone could make them and use them for any purpose they desired, just like the tokens we use in our lives today on subways and arcades. At the time of its manufacture this item likely had the same value and significance as a stamped, elongated souvenir penny from the Statue of Liberty. It is quite possible that different mintings of jetons combined images on front and back in an arbitrary manner, depending on what they were to be used for. It is truly a ridiculous object to spend such time and effort debating.

P.S. I just noticed the date usually given for the "UFO" jeton is c.1680. You'll see the date on the version with Justice on reverse is printed with the date 1656. This means that unless the dating on the jeton is drastically off, it could be, that the reverse of the Greco-Roman Justice predates it by nearly thirty years. We can't derive much of importance from the jetons but we can make a safe guess that the Justice variation is the original or closer to the original version.

[edit on 4-1-2006 by Cicada]



[edit on 4-1-2006 by Cicada]

I was responding to this ...

" Not surprisingly the reverse side of the coin is never shown. This seems a curious omission to make when looking at any two-sided object, especially so when said object is a coin. Diego Cuoghi's work researching this object is particularly commendable."

You say that his work is commendable.

He did not show the reverse side of the coin/Jeton , he showed us the reverse of another "Jeton" to make his point. His research might be wonderful research , but that does not make his conclusions correct , or absolute. IMO.

I would also think that the majority of Art Historians have zero-Tolerance for UFOs in Art.

I didn't character assassinate Diego Cuoghi , just pointed out an obvious "snipe" at the UFO community and another "curious omission".

What part of predate don't you understand?

I understand the word predate. I would concede that the Jetons likely don't depict UFOs.

But if only one side of the story is going to be told or explored its likely that all the Paul and Thomas Sandby's of the world will get overlooked. They are figures in Art History, they witnessed a UFO and commemorated it in an Art Work.

Many Galleries and Museums have Thomas and , or Paul Sandby pieces.

Paul Sandby

Paul Sandby work containing an interesting Aerial Object? -
"Windsor Castle from Datchet Lane on a rejoicing night, 1768"


Thomas Sandby

Strange "Cloud" ? in Thomas Sandby work. "Design for Rockwork, Virginia Water", 18th century






[edit on 5-1-2006 by lost_shaman]

"But if only one side of the story is going to be told or explored its likely that ...." == l_s

It would be fun to fill in the rest of that sentence with the side of the story that exists in this forum area.
Cicada is telling the side that is almost non-existant in here. Its refreshing to have a clean breath of
reality from time to time, no ?

lost_shaman,

Out of respect for the artists and their works I'm endeavoring to tell the truth about these images. In the absence of certainty the next best thing that we can do is to use deductive reasoning to find the most likely explanations. I can't understand how you could think that either Mr. Cuoghi or my own presentation is not making mention of the UFO hypothesis as both of us have used the term "UFOs" in our titles. I must have used the term "UFOs" twenty or more times by this point in the conversation. Obviously this material is a reaction to the much more vocal "There's a UFO in this painting!" contingent. If the people presenting that argument were to address these works and objects in a professional manner than neither this thread nor Mr. Cuoghi's articles would have been necessary to begin with, would they? Matthew Hurley's site UFOartwork.com, the site you recommended in your initial post to this thread and which claims to be updated regularly, does not only not show the reverse of the "UFO" jeton, he doesn't show the reverse of any similar, and earlier items, or even question what the picture on the other side might be. Why are you not questioning his agenda? Is it because it is closer to your own? I'm about done with justifying myself to you, as I believe the material on this thread speaks for itself.

You are a great source of material for this thread and I appreciate your contribution very much. I just wish that despite the fact that you have a different opinion that you could approach this project in a more collaborative manner. As I've stated many times, learning the truth about a work of art has no impact on the larger issues of UFOs. Anyone placing certainty about anything based upon a drawn or painted image is working off of very flimsy evidence to begin with.

I'm not familiar with the work of the Sandby brothers, late-Rococo, British landscape painters active in the mid-eighteenth century, among the founding members of the Royal Society. I can't quickly find either image cited with a version larger than a postage stamp so I'll refrain from discussing them until I can get a better look. I look forward to learning about them.

Originally posted by Cicada

I'm about done with justifying myself to you, as I believe the material on this thread speaks for itself.

I just wish that despite the fact that you have a different opinion that you could approach this project in a more collaborative manner. As I've stated many times, learning the truth about a work of art has no impact on the larger issues of UFOs. Anyone placing certainty about anything based upon a drawn or painted image is working off of very flimsy evidence to begin with.

Didn't you ask me to research the subject also?

I agree with most of what you've said on this thread.

My only points of contention were that UFOs in some Art might have been portrayed as "Angels" and that some art illustrates what most people today would consider UFO sightings. ( I offered an example of an illustrated UFO sighting by two well known Artists, the Sandby Brothers. )

The other painting I pointed out by Paul Sandby "Windsor Castle from Datchet Lane on a rejoicing night, 1768" is a painting of a Bonfire and Fireworks. But if you didn't know that Fireworks were popular at bonfires in the 17th and 18th century in Europe you might think you were looking at a UFO in Art.

The other Thomas Sandby work I pointed out "Design for Rockwork, Virginia Water", I have no idea what that is ? Abstract art?

That is just to show that I am actually researching the topic , not reacting to the topic.

I would not endorse Mathew Hurley's views , but his site is a very good one as far as UFO artwork sites go.





[edit on 5-1-2006 by lost_shaman]