Tejas

I think the Theodahat-Follis is the most desirable an intriguing coin of the entire Ostrogothic series. The original issue was apparently quite substantial, however, the coins are rarely offered today and command fairly high prices. The significance of the type lies in the fact that it departed from Roman imagery. It reflected the break between the East Roman empire and the Gothic kingdom The Theodahat follis was a statement for an independent Germanic-Gothic kingdom that no longer referenced Rome and the Roman emperor. I wished this type would have been continued under Theodahats successors.

Very interesting, also from a military historical perspective. Usually, the emperor holds one spear and a shield, but this coin seem to show a more realistic depiction, where the emperor holds two more spears in the left hand together with the shield, so he hold throw three spears before he draws the gladius.

Very interesting. The first piece of this broader group with a certain findspot. This lends credibility to the information that my coin was found in Serbia (Novi Sad). The group may have been produced somewhere in the Suevic-Langobardic-Herulic cultural horizon.

The rise in gold prices is quite puzzling, especially the latest surge, which coincided with expectations for higher interest rates in the US (normally the gold price is negatively correlated with real interest rates). One reason behind the surge in gold prices is the fact that certain central banks (China, Russia, etc.) buy large amounts of physical gold (in contrast to ETF paper gold, which is seeing outflows). These countries are trying to reduce their dependency from the USD, i.e. they are converting USD reserves into gold reserves. In the long-run these countries may create their own global reserve currency in which they will denominate trade in oil and other commodities. The catalyst for this development is twofold: 1. The sanctions in the wake of the Ukraine war and 2. The rapid rise in US government debt. The federal debt is now 26.2 trillion and 1bln is added every 100 days. The Congressional Budget Office recently warned that the trajectory was unprecedented and the risk of a fiscal crisis was rising. No wonder that large scale reserve holders are looking to reduce USD exposure.

I mainly present a new type of INVICTISSIMVS coin, which is hitherto unrecorded in the literature. Otherwise, I relied a lot on Demo's study. Including the new coin, the series now consists of five specimens in four different variants. This suggests that the series may have been quite substantial, but was probably melted down after 552. The legend INVICTISSIMVS AV(C)TOR basically addresses Theoderic the Great, as "the most invincible founder (of the Gothic kingdom)".

I submitted the article at the end of last year and just got it back from the referee with some suggestions for amendments. I made those changes last week and submitted the final draft. I hope the article will be published this year and once it is out, I will upload it on academia.edu.

Hm, 220mm = 22cm. I guess you meant 22mm and 16.6mm.

I spend Easter weekend in Como, but didn’t find any coins

That is an interesting question. By the time of Theoderic, the Goths certainly did still speak Gothic. The sources reported that one of the Roman senators engraced himself with Theoderic by proclaiming that he is learning the Gothic language. There would have been no need for that if the Goths didn't speak Gothic. By the end of the Gothic kingdom, the Goths would likely have been bilingual at best. Gothic was still the language of the Arian ritus in church, but it was likely no longer used in normal conversations. There is a deed from around 550, which was signed by Arian clerics using a formular in Gothic, which indicated that they didn't really understand the meaning of that formular. The Gothic title "Reiks" corresponds to the Latin "REX". But "Reiks" was pronounced like "Rix or Reeks", so I think it is plausible that the variant "RIX" was introduced to approximate the pronounciation of the Gothic title "Reiks". However, I am not sure if Theoderic would have cherished the title "Reiks", or whether he regarded himself more like a "Thiudans". The latter title is ranked higher and implies something like "leader of the people (thiud)". A Thiudans usually came from an illustrious family like the Amals and inherited his position, while one or more Reiks were appointed in times of war and only for the duration of that war.

Here is a very curious and, as far as I know, unrecorded bronze coin of Athalaric. Both coins below are from my collection. The coin on top is a normal and rather common 2.5 nummus. The coin below, however, shows an unusual and unrecorded variant of the monogram with D (inverted) and N. Also the horizontal bar does not extend to the letter T and R and T don't really form a proper V. This monogram is not recorded in Metlich. It can be resolved as: DN AT(H)ALARIC(V)S with H and V missing. I presume that the coin is a 2.5 nummus, but it was struck on an unusually large flan. My guess is that this was a first attempt at minting small bronzes in his name.

As for Ostrogothic bronze coins and there distribution. Bronze coins usually circulated only locally and the concentration around towns like Ravenna, Verona and Pisa makes perfect sense. Interestingly, a group of Ostrogothic bronze coins was found in Aachen in Germany some decades ago, when a square next to the chapel of Charlemagne was refurbished. How they got there is unknown of course, but there are two theories: 1. Charlemagne too a lot of building material from Theoderic's palace in Ravenna to decorate his own chapel and palace in Aachen and the coins may have been brought to Aachen as curiosities by Charlemagne's men (Charlemagne also took the Gothic bible to Germany where it remained for around 1000 years before being taken to Sweden. 2. Alamannic dukes (Butilin and Leuthari) campaigned in Italy in 554, when they were joined by remaining Gothic warriors. When the campaign failed and they left Italy the Goths may have joined them and accidentially took the bronze coins with them.

Here is an example of a Frankish "imitation" of an Ostrogothic quarter siliqua. Striktly speaking this is not an imitation, because it was struck in the name of theh Frankish king Chlotarius, but it imitates the style and fabric of the Gothic coins.

Thanks for posting the article. The two coins below, from the article, are interesting. The coin on the left is one of the few INVICTISSIMVS coins. I have just submitted an article on these coins to KOINON. The coin on the right I have seen before somewhere. I think it is a contemporary imitation, possibly made by the Franks, who imitated these quarter-siliquae also with the name of a Frankish king.

My coin 🙂 Note the legend: INBICTA ROMA instead of INVICTA ROMA. The die engraver may have been a Greek.

The fact, that the first coins in the name of Athalaric were struck without the title of REX is very interesting and shows that the succession was not as smooth as later sources would have us believe. Athalaric was only 10 years old in 526 and from the Gothic point of view it was unthinkable that a child could be a Rex, which corresponds do the Gothic title of Reiks, meaning military leader/king. Thus, from their perspective, a Gothic Reiks could only be a warrior who had proved himself in battle. Worst still, was the suggestion that real power would be with Theoderic's daughter Amalasuntha, i.e. a woman, which was unheard of in Gothic history. Hence, there was probably a lot of bargaining going on at the time. The candidate, who was regarded as the most capable, by the Gothic nobles was Tuluin/Tulwin. He was given the command over the Gothic army and the title Patricius Praesentalis, probably to apease the Gothic faction. Theoderic's other grandson Amalaric, who would have been old enough to rule in his own right, was probably far away in Spain and could not make a bid for the throne. So for a short while after the 30th of August 526, coins were minted without the REX title, because at the time not everybody who mattered had agreed that the child Athalaric could be a Rex.

I had a look at the article - thanks for the link. Coin no. 6 seems to be related to the coins under discussion. However, there seems to be considerable uncertainty as to the attribution to Malaga and Cartagena.

I think these ideosyncracies like RIX instead of REX and IMVICTA instead of INVICTA, may reflect trends in the pronounciation at the time and may also be evidence for the gradual deterioration of literacy standards even in places like Rome and Ravenna.

Interessting, the variant without the royal title probably dates to 526 AD, i.e. just after the death of Theoderic and before Athalaric had been made king. I have the three name variations only on the silver coins. The type without RIX or REX is by far the rarest (notwithstanding the fact that I have 4 of them):

My coin is this one: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=787342 The other coin, reportedly from Spain is this one: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1516681 As you can see, HD Rauch attributed mine tentatively to the Gepids (probably because of the reported findspot Novi Sad in Serbia), while the other coin was attributed to the Merovingians, which was likely a default attribution. The two coins are clearly closely related, even if they are not from the same dies. If the findspot reported by HD Rauch is correct, I cannot imagine that the type originated in Spain. However, I suppose that the information was given to HD Rauch by the seller and it may not be accurate. Does anybody have more information that supports the attribution to Malaga or Cartagena?

I regard these three tremisses from my collection to originate from the Alamannic region. Regarding the last coin, see MEC 377 for a die-identical coin. According to MEC the coin may have been minted by the Alamanni. As for the dating. The first coin was struck in the name of Anastasius, it may date to the first half of the 6th century. The second coin probably dates to the early 7th century and the third coin may date to the late 6th century. The Alamanni had long lost their independence by that time so the attribution is more of a regional geographic attribution, rather than a political one.

That is a rare type, especially in good condition. The inverted R is curious. I have not seen that before. Here is a Pentanummus of Athalaricus, from my collection: Obv.: IMVICTA ROMA Rev.: + DNATHALARICVS The coin is usually well preserved for the issue.

Here is my coin of this type. I bought it from HD Rauch, who had attributed it to the Gepids. I asked them about more information about the provenance and, to my surprise, they said that the coin was found in Novi Sad, Serbia. I don't know if this information is reliable or not and even if it is, it does not allow for an attribution to the Gepids. After all, some Gepidic (Sirmium) coins were found in Germany and in Belgium. Looking at the two coin above from the Berlin Münzkabinett, I think that these coins could originate from the Alamannic region of the Frankish kingdom, i.e. the area of modern Alsace in France, northern Switzerland and south-western Germany. The degree of barbarization indicates that these coins were struck away from former Roman centers and the style (especially of the left-hand coin above) is similar to coins that have been assigned to that region in the past.

Yes, this is a very confusing series. I think we have to contemplate the possibility that these coins were produced at more than one mint and that at some point the Langobards were also involved. I have a denomination, which is not even published and which has a unique reverse design. Unfortunately, I won't discuss it here. I'm still planning to publish the coin.

I probably said this before, but I think the following is true: 1. Minting in Sirmium began in 504 or shortly thereafter, when the town came under the control of the Ostrogoths. Coin 1 and 2 below probably belong to this early phase of minting. 2. The vast majority of Sirmium silver coins were minted under Ostrogothic rule. The mint simply copied quarter-siliquae from Milan with the Theodric monogram. So even if the Tremissis above was minted at Sirmium, I would in my view be an Ostrogothic copy of an Ostrogothic coin from Milan. 3. The first series that was conceivably minted under Gepidic rule were quarter-siliquae in the name of Justinian. These coin may have been minted after about 535 when the Ostrogoths withdrew from Sirmium and the town reverted to Gepidic control. Speculatively, these coins may have been minted during the reign of Elemund. These coins are much rarer than coins in the name of Anastasius and Justin I. In my view the bulk of the so called Gepidic coins are mistattributed and should better be listed under Ostrogothic coins. Coin 3 below may be among the first coins truely attributable to the Gepids. 4. At some point the monogram included a letter "T". Whether this was deliberate or just an engravers error is unknown. However, the T was continued on different types and if it was deliberate, it may indicate the rule of Gepidic king Turisind. Note that coin 3 and 4 were minted from the same obverse die. Coin 4 shows the T. 5. The last stage of Gepidic coins are those in the name of Justin II. These coin may, at least in part fall, under the reign of Cunimund. Coin 5 belongs to this final group.

I think they circulated only locally. At least I have seen no suggestion that these coins were related to the crusades. Also, I don‘t think that these coins were minted by or for Heinrich II. A ruler normally wants his name and (if possible) portrait on his coins. I think the speculative suggestion is only that these coins date to the time of Heinrich II. Heinrich was the first Salian emperor after the death of the last Saxon emperor Otto III (the son of Otto II and Theophanu) in 1002. The coins of the Saxon emperors have little decoration and variation - only crosses and legends, basically. However, I read an article „Spuren der Theophanu in der ottonischen Schatzkunst“ by Hiltrud Westermann-Ankerhausen, in which the author explains that the Byzantine influence in Germany increased significantly in the second half of the 10th century. This is not just due to Theophanu‘s arrival in 972. Instead, Otto‘s II marriage to Theophanu is more likely due to the increased relations and exchanges at the time. Embassies between the German and the Byzantine Emperors went back and forth. Importantly, the author writes the the Germans were eager to absorb and emulate these eastern influences. This is probably the background to the coin above, the Ottonian Renaissance and its focus on the Byzantine empire. A member of this forum @Ursus, sent me an article about the Byzantine influence on European coins „Der byzantinische Einfluss auf die Münzen Mitteleuropas vom 10. bis 12. Jahrhundert“ by Arthur Suhle, which shows that these imitations appeared in several different countries, including in particular Denmark. I think that the OP coin has to be seen in this context, when it was apparently „en vogue“ to copy Byzantine art. Suhle wonders if the OP coins were minted in conjunction with a particular embassy of 1002. However, he dismisses this because coins of contemporary Byzantine emperors were known as well and it would have been strange to copy a coin that was 200 years old at the time. The author also shows that Byzantine coins were well known in Germany in the 10th and 11th century, with various documents denominating payments in „byzantine gold pieces“.