Talk:Audulf

Sources for further expansion
has much more in Dutch (pp. 57 ff. & p. 366), although it should be understood as conjectural and added to the current narrative rather than as authoritative and used to totally replace it.

De Belfort is listed by Grierson although it's simply a description of the coin afaict. Maybe there are notes elsewhere in the work?

Prou is listed as providing "a guide to the very extensive literature which grew up round the coin in the nineteenth century" but does nothing apart from listing a bibliography. An interested editor could hunt down the works, assuming no actual guide has been published better than Grierson's, which is limited to the English sources.

This page isn't a reliable source itself but it lists several other Dutch articles, although their quality would need to be assessed. One proposes the coins commemorated a 10th-century missionary, which would seem rather impossible to square with the extreme closeness of the design to Merovingian models.

Similarly, this isn't a reliable source but it appears to have another style of gold coin (described as a solidus) that bears the inscription FRISIA obverse and ꜸDVLFVᔕ reverse. — Llywelyn II   05:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

"Press"

 * A coin stamp inscribed was discovered at Wijnaldum in early 2006. The area is a candidate for the location of the keningshal of the Frisian kings.

In the same thread, there's this post which seems to state that the press is nothing of the sort but rather a mistake by Faber for a possible later mold (8th-10th century) made from the earlier coins. Pulled, pending further sourcing and clarification from someone other than Faber's (apparently non-) book. — Llywelyn II   23:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

This thesis on Frisia in relation to France and the Vikings, particularly its coinage, makes no mention of anything related to Audulf despite dozens of references to finds at Wijnaldum. It's possible it was a bit too early for the author to be interested, though. — Llywelyn II   04:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Faber
Similarly, this post goes out of its way to mention that Faber isn't a reliable source and should probably be removed from the article and elsewhere on Wikipedia. — Llywelyn II   23:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)