For some weeks now, the examination of the Da Vinci Coin, and how it possibly is communicating something about the Ark of the Covenant, had come to a standstill. I had come across no new Da Vinci Coin look-a-likes. I had come across no new information that might help me unravel the mystery of the Da Vinci Coin.

Then came a small move forward: a colleague helped put me in touch with another expert in Arabic languages. Upon examining pictures of the coin’s reverse inscriptions, he was of the opinion that the inscription was NOT Arabic, but more specifically, Persian Farsi. And if one of my previous experts has intimated such previously, then my apologies to them for missing that point—maybe I brushed it off as insignificant (as in “Arabic, Persian—pretty much the same”).

BUT, it is important to distinguish between Arabic and Persian Farsi, especially as it pertains to the visual styling of the script. If you have been following the blog, you know that I have made much noise about the Arabic inscription “not looking quite right.” On the Da Vinci Coin, the “Arabic” looks crude, more block-letter-ish, not in the usual graceful Arabic style. Well, guess what—Persian Farsi script DOES look that way, which accounts for the inscription not looking Arabic to my eyes. In fact, I encountered a picture of a 13th century silver dirham, struck by the Mongols at the al-Mawsil mint. The Persian script on the face of the silver coin does indeed bear resemblance to the inscription seen on the reverse of my Da Vinci Coin!

But wait a minute… what’s this about a 13th century coin struck by the Mongols at the al-Mawsil mint, the same mint where the Turkish Zengids were striking coins in the 13th century?

Yes, the Mongols—and that’s where the movement in my Da Vinci Coin examination has taken me. The Persian Farsi script was the first part of the movement forward, the Mongols are the major SECOND part. Because if you have been following the blog, you may remember that I gave a nod to the Mongols running around the periphery of the 13th century Muslim/Christian Crusader theatre, but never really gave them much credit as to being major players in the Da Vinci Coin saga. Well, NOW I have to put the Mongols squarely in the historical picture surrounding the creation of the Da Vinci Coin. Which muddies up the waters quite a bit--- but actually, does not, in the end, take away from the basic theory (MINE) that the Da Vinci Coin is yet a special artifact with possible major connections to the Lost Biblical Ark of the Covenant. But first, let’s talk about the Mongols.

Actually, I would not even have explored the Mongol angle, were it not for picture of a 13th century bronze dirham of the al-Mawsil mint that I chanced to find online. This particular bronze dirham certainly had the “vibe” of being a sibling to my Da Vinci Coin, ESPECIALLY, due to its having the same small diameter and thin bronze flannel as my Da Vinci Coin. What’s more, the obverse artwork bears a similarity to my Da Vinci Coin, though is still missing key elements: the left knee is vaguely squarish, but definitely not “crate-ish” like my Da Vinci Coin; there is no “funnel cloud” connecting the square shape of the knee to the crescent; the crevices on the face of this coin are not as emphatic and deep as the face on my Da Vinci Coin (in other words, it does not create the strong “infant in womb” image as seen on my Da Vinci Coin). If flipped upside down, you would have what could be viewed as a haloed head of Mary, but lacking the “neck” (i.e. funnel cloud) connecting her head to the body.

The difference between this coin and my Da Vinci Coin is even more marked on the reverse: most blatantly absent on this piece, is the “hand of God” stretching down into the script. Still, the inscription is probably more an example of Persian Farsi than Arabic kufic, though on my Da Vinci Coin, the letters of the inscription are still cruder (to my eyes).

But overall, a reasonably similar-looking sibling to my Da Vinci Coin—certainly more so than the numerous other pics I have encountered of 1234-58 bronze dirhams of the al-Mawsil mint (save for the piece identified as such in the Alex Malloy catalog of 1998). But here is the key: this piece that I recently discovered online is identified as being struck at the al-Mawsil mint NOT in 1234 to 1258, but in the years 1265 to 1282! This is KEY… because while the Turkish Zengids were in control of al-Mawsil in 1234-58, it was the MONGOLS who were in control at al-Mawsil in 1265-82. And unlike the Zengid Turks who used Arabic script on their coinage, the Mongols were prone to using Persian Farsi!

In short, I am more prone than not to NOW attribute my Da Vinci Coin as a Mongol-struck bronze dirham of the al-Mawsil mint in the years, 1265 to 1282! Or—and I still leave this open as a definite possibility—a Christian Crusader imitation thereof! Which is tricky in itself as the Mongol-struck al-Mawsil dirham is apparently an imitation of the earlier Turkish Zengid bronze dirhams of the early to mid-1200s!

To muddy up the waters a bit more, is this historical background on the Mongol khan who ruled over the territory of which the city of al-Mawsil was a part. He went by the name of Abaqu Khan. And while the Mongol rulers (who typically went by the title of “Khan”—as in Genghis Khan, Kublai Khan, etc.) their religion was more fluid than the Muslims or Christians. They would alternate religions, sometimes depending on the territories they conquered—and they conquered a HUGE swath of the medieval world! While the Mongols typically practiced Shamanism, they also were known to convert to Buddhism and Islam. In the case of Abaqa Khan, however, he was said to have taken on the faith of Nestorian Christianity.

Aha! Mystery solved? Does that mean we can now conclude that the Da Vinci Coin is the creation of a Christian Mongol ruler of 1265 to 1282? Not so fast. Even with that compelling bit of historical background, that still leaves us with the same problem we had when conjecturing as to whether Nestorian Christians were responsible for creating the Da Vinci Coin. If Abaqa Khan was truly a Nestorian Christian, then we should assume he was no more likely than his fellow Nestorian Christians who served under the Zengids, to strike a coin putting forth Mary as the “Mother of God,” (as a Catholic would certainly do). We must remember, in Nestorianism, Mary is revered, but she is merely the mother of a human Christ, not a divine one. Mary is far more revered in Catholic theology—so much so that in Catholic theology, she is held up as the “Second Ark of the Covenant.”

Which means, while our investigation into the background and mystery of the Da Vinci Coin has certainly moved forward, it’s more of a movement forward… and to the side. True, the Da Vinci Coin may now have a new identity (a 1265-82 MONGOL dirham of al-Mowsil mint, as opposed to a 1234-58 ZENGID dirham of al-Mawsil mint), but in the end, if the coin is YET a Crusader imitation, it only means the Crusaders imitated a slightly later Mongol-struck imitation of an Islamic coin, as opposed to a Crusader imitation of a Turkish-struck Islamic coin. In short, the Da Vinci Coin may yet be simply, a Crusader-struck coin.

We should not close out this chapter, without discussing the ramifications of a 1234-58 time frame as opposed to a 1265 to 1282 time frame! Because in past blogs I DID make much of the fact that the year of 1244—the year the CITY of Jerusalem finally fell to into Muslim hands for the final time (at least for all practical purposes)—fell right into that 1234 to 1258 time span. So doesn’t the 1265 to 1282 time span mess up my Fall of Jerusalem theory pretty thoroughly? Yes and no. To accept a 1265 to 1282 time span for the creation of the Da Vinci Coin, DOES rule out that Crusaders struck the coin as a reaction to their panic at seeing the city of Jerusalem being lost (hence, an urgency to track down the Ark, get it out of the city!). However, while the CITY of Jerusalem did indeed fall in 1244, the KINGDOM of Jerusalem – as in the various Christian Crusader strongholds throughout Palestine and the Levant--straggled on through 1291! Only in 1291 did the last Christian Crusader stronghold in the Muslim world, finally collapse.

That means, even with a 1265 to 1282 date, Christian crusaders would still have been under siege in the Holy Land and Levant. That means they may still have been desperate to either….A) track down all the holy Christian relics they could find for preservation purposes or….B) if they already HAD the Ark in their possession, they would most definitely have felt an urgency to move it to safety before they were overrun by Muslim forces. And those factors could certainly have played into the creation of a coin celebrating or communication a covert message ABOUT the Ark of the Covenant (as well as the Second Ark of the Covenant, Mary).

Well, I wish I could say the mystery of the Da Vinci Coin was solved, but it would appear there is much more that needs to be uncovered before we venture to put forth any kind of conclusion. In the meantime, I will keep moving forward. And if this major movement in the Da Vinci Coin investigation tells us anything, it’s that—even if the movement is more lateral that forward—slowly, but surely, one foot in front of the other may well lead us to the answer!

MOVEMENT! ANOTHER DA VINCI COIN FOUND? A NEW TIME FRAME?

May 23: A Clue to the Makers of the Da Vinci Coin?

STOP THE PRESSES: New (Observational) Revelations About the Da Vinci Coin!

The Da Vinci Coin Last and Final Thoughts (For Now)

Special Bulletin: Another "Hand of God" Found on Another Turkoman Coin?

The Da Vinci Coin: Conclusions, Part I

Lessons From A Crusader Period Coin of Aleppo, Syria

The Da Vinci Coin Mystery: What Is Needed Next

Comparing the Da Vinci Coin and the Alex Malloy Coin (Are They Truly the Same?)

The Lost Ark of the Covenant and The Da Vinci Coin: A Summation of My Case (So Far)

Todd Cook