tiquarians have missed this coin. I can find no other
mention of it.

Another coin. Also a little study in the genesis of a prophet.

In the _American Antiquarian_, 16-313, is copied a story by a
correspondent to the _Detroit News_, of a copper coin about the size of
a two-cent piece, said to have been found in a Michigan mound. The
Editor says merely that he does not endorse the find. Upon this slender
basis, he buds out, in the next number of the _Antiquarian_:

"The coin turns out, as we predicted, to be a fraud."

You can imagine the scorn of Elijah, or any of the old more nearly real
prophets.

Or all things are tried by the only kind of jurisprudence we have in
quasi-existence:

Presumed to be innocent until convicted--but they're guilty.

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 anoth