Tejas

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“.

Yes, that is true. The die sinker seems to have copied the dies directly from an original solidus. My question is why these Byzantine coins were copied in Germany (and indeed in other countries, including Denmark and Russia). Were the originals so widely available that people were familiar with the designs?

Super, thanks a lot for this. I suppose the main reason for attributing these coins (i.e. 1240) to Mainz is the fact that the mint produced pennies in the Byzantine style for Heinrich II (1002-1024). Dannenberg makes no mentioning of Theophanu. Instead, he seems to suggest that these coins were produced after the end of the Ottonian pennies, i.e. after the death of Otto III. Apparently, Mainz was an important hub at the time, where a lot of foreign gold (i.e. Byzantine gold coins) circulated, which may have given rise to the silver imitations. However, at least to me the style of the Byzantine-German pennies from Mainz under Heinrich II looks different to that of the OP coin, which could point to a different mint or a different (earlier) time. I suppose without further evidence from hoards, it will likely be impossible to shed more light on this mysterious series.

That is very helpful, many thanks for the links. Here is the picture from Dannenberg, table 55, no. 1240. My coin weighs 1.45 g. Besides Dannenberg, tab. 55, no. 1240. Another pieces was recorded as Collection Pick I (Auction Dr. Busso Peus Nachf. 405 - 15. ). If anybody happens to have this catalog, I would be very interested in a picture. The only other piece I could find in an auction is this one: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=567287 Here it is also attributed to Heinrich II (or his time) and Mainz or Verdun. Interestingly, Theophanu used the title Emperor instead of Empress and called herself Theophanius in official documents, probably because a woman could not normally be emperor in her own right, or because the title empress was reserved for the emperor’s wife. Hence, she was known as Theophanius gratia divina imperator augustus" . I really like the idea that she may have commissioned this issue during her reign as Roman Emperor.

I have a solidus in the name of Anastasius, which I think is Burgundian, minted 516- 518 under Sigismund. The main reason for my attribution is the style of the Victoria on the reverse. I think it is related to Sigismund's solidi minted in the name of Justin I with the prominent letter S (possibly for Sigismund). The strangly lying S on the obverse may also be intended to indicated Sigismund's name, but that is pure speculation. In any case the the un-barred As and the whole appearance is clearly western and I'm relatively happy with this attribution.

Interesting, do you happen to have a picture of the plate with no. 1240 from the Dannenberg book?

Thanks, yes these pennies are very rare. Given that pennies of the 10th and early 11th century had a well established and recognizable style it is very curious why these coins were struck. As mentioned before there are pennies of Heinrich II in the Byzantine style, but they are quite different to the piece above. The standard reference for German medieval coins: Hermann Dannenberg "Die deutschen Münzen der sächsischen und fränkischen Kaiserzeit" attributed them to an uncertain ruler. The model for these silver pennies was apparently a solidus of Theophilus (829-842) on the obverse and his deceased father Michael II and his deceased son Constantin on the reverse (Sear 1653). I suppose, such coins could have still been in circulation at the time of Theophanou. (the solidus is not mine)

Below is an interesting penny, which copies a Byzantine soldius. These pennies are believed to have been minted at Mainz around AD 1000. Literature: Dannenberg 1240; Slg. Walther -; Slg. Pick I (Auktion Dr. Busso Peus Nachf. 405) - (vgl. 15). This penny was attributed to Emperor Heinrich II (1004- 2024). However, this attribution is speculative. I think it is possible that the coin was minted earlier, by Theophanu, who had been the wife and co-empress of Otto II and regent in her own right from 982 to 995. Theophanu was a member of the Byzantine imperial family and it is recorded that she arrived in Germany with a large entourage of artists and craftsmen who exerted a strong influence on art and architecture in Germany. However, what is certainly true is that Henrich II minted coins in the Byzantine style, which I think is the reason why these coins are attributed to him.

I think your theory is quite plausible. I agree that these coins were minted in a town, which benefited from Roman civilization and which was not far from Italy. Arles is possible, so is Lyon and perhaps less likely Geneva. The campaign of 490, when the Burgundian kings Gundobad and Godegisl attacked and plundered Liguria may have led to an inflow of gold into that region. If the series was produced in conjunction with this campaign, this would rule out Arles and make Lyon (or Geneva) more likely as place of origin of these coins. In 494 the Burgundians kings received large randsoms for 6000 prisoners, which they had taken in Italy, but the coins cannot really be the result of these payments, as Zeno had died in 491. The Burgundian theory has the added advantage that it closes a (possible) gap in the series. There are certain imitative solidi in the name of Valentinian III, which are typically attributed to the Burgundians under Gundowech/Gundioc (see my example below) and then there is a gap until minting resumes with coins in the name of Anastasius and Justin I, which were all minted after 500.

I would like to come back to this group of solidi with this particular style, because I bought the coin below in the recent Roma auction. Especially the Anastasius solidus above seems to be stylistically related. I don't know where to place these coins. In my view, they don't fit the Visigothic series, i.e. were not minted at places like Toulouse. Similarly, I don't think they were produced in Italy. My guess is that these coins were produced in Gaul, either by remnants of Roman rule (Syagrius?) or by the Burgundians, but neither attribution is convincing. Another possibility is that these coins represent the "missing" Vandalic gold series, meaning that they were minted in Carthage or Sardinia.

Wow, this Regalian is fantastic. I had coins stolen from me in a burglary in London some 20 years ago. Some of them came back to me shortly thereafter and another group about 10 years later. This one never came back and I still miss it a lot. The coin resurfaced in an auction Boule Auction 23.06.2021 as lot 28. Despite warnings, the auction house sold the coin to an unknown buyer. At my request, M. Stéphane Boule informed the buyer about the fact that the coin was stolen and forwarded my contact details. The buyer has never contacted me. I have to add though that I don't really believe that Mr. Boule contacted him, because they tried to be as unhelpful as possible.

I like the medal with Napoleon on a donkey being led to Elba. I‘m just reading a book on the Battle of Leibzig (1813), which was the biggest battle in history up until that time. The book includes some eyewitness accounts, such as one by a man how crossed battle field of Möckern on the evening after the battle. His report brings the horrors of war to life, when he talks about the crying and whimpering of numerous wounded and dying men, or when he came home and realised from this boots that he had waded in „blood, brains and intestines“. Napoleon was called a monster at the time, but somehow his image was cleared from his atrocities in later decades and centuries.

The coin is not Celtic in my view. I agree that is it from the Far East, perhaps Cambodia or there about.

@Didier Attaix I also think that Hassam Zurquieh is usually reliable in the sense that he does not sell obvious fakes. I have never bought from him, but I suggested some corrections to his attributions of scarabs to him. He sometimes attributes scarabs to famous kings like Thutankhamun, based on obvious misreadings of the hieroglyphs. He normally thanks me for the correction, but does not change the listing. I think when an object, which he has on offer, turns out to be a fake, he may have believed it to be genuine. In sum, he is probably no worse or better than some of the auction houses. This is just my personal opinion from regularly reviewing his offerings.

That is an interesting and quirky piece. I visited the island of Murano twice already. Murano is an island near Venice, which is famous for its class making. There are hundreds of small glass making workshops on Murano, where you can see how such (or similar) objects are made. Murano is of course not the place where your piece is from, since the Venice lagoon was only settled from the 6th or 7th century. So I cannot be of any help, unfortunately. Do you know what the purpose of your object was?

Islamic scholarship has certainly helped in the revival of western classical learning, but the influence is in my view exaggerated. The Carolingian Renaissance did not rely on the Islamic world. The towering figures, were men like Alkuin the Anglo-Saxon, Paulus Diaconus (Langobard), Theodulf of Orleans (probably a Visigoth), Arn of Salzburg (a Bavarian) and many more. The basis of this revival were mostly classical text, that had been preserved and copied by Benedictine monks. The contribution of the Irish monks is also often underestimated. Clearly, the Islamic scholars also preserved classical knowledge, but the Islamic world did not utilize this knowledge to the extend the Christians did. In AD 1000 Europe was weak not least because of Moslem, Viking and Magyar invasions and raids. However, under the surface 1000s of monasteries had emerged as centers of learning, the multiplication of knowledge and importantly as economic power houses, which tried and implemented new forms of agriculture, which in turn allowed for an explosion in the European population, culture and military might. By the end of that centuries, Europeans had repulsed Vikings and Magyars and crusader armies had taken Jerusalem. I think the influence of Karl the Great on world history can hardly be overestimated. Back to coins: I think the OP coin with its crude design and blundered legends is a nice example of this time in between, when classical culture was disappearing fast and was actually hanging by a thread. In the 580s when the coin was made, things could have gone in any direction. The rapid ascent of European culture was anything but a done deal. In fact, an outside observer would probably have expected, China or the middle East to become the dominant culture, rather than Europe.

I also find this time from late antiquity to the early medieval period particularly fascinating. Most people in advanced countries only know progress in living standards and wealth. This is basically the only experience that most of us have. But how did it feel to see civilization crumbling before your own eyes. Boethius (480-524) was probably the last secular person in the west who knew both Latin and Greek. Realizing that classical knowledge was disappearing, Boethius embarked on a programme to preserve classical works, by translating it from Greek to Latin. Cassiodorus (490-585) was the other figure, who preserved classical knowledge by linking it to monasticism. In 550 to 750 the corpus of knowledge was reduced to 264 books, only 26 of which dealt with non-religious matters. If this decline in knowledge had not been stopped, Europe and European culture would have fallen into obscurity. Of course, the decline was stopped and reversed by Karl the Great, who revived classical knowledge with a deliberate programme of learning and multiplication of books. The monastry of Reichenau (southern Germany), which was one of the most important monastries of the time, had 50 books in its library in the year 800. By 846 it had more than 1000 books. This Carolingian renaissance is basically the reason why the world today is not Asian, African, American or middle Eastern, but European.

I remember this one. I was keen to get this coin, but was massively outbid. A beautiful piece though.

Sorry to hear about your frustration. I would say Laelianus is significantly rarer than Marius. This is probably my nicest Marius. The coin was about 320 euros and I bought it in an auction. I think this price is about right. Below is my only Laelianus. I found this one misattributed on Ebay, i.e. this is one of the rare occasions were I seriously underpaid. In a normal auction this coin would probably go vor anything between 800 and 1200 euros.

Greate coins shown here. These are among my best portraits of Valerian. Clearly, the different mints had no single image of him to work from.

Thanks a lot for this warning. Forgers have really gone down market, which is very dangerous because this is also the segment where most of the people who are new to the numismatics are.

Here is another of these amulets from Ebay. The seller says its dimensions are: 5.8 X 1.7cm, 3.67 gr. The groove on the knee of the left leg could indicate that the two amulets are from the same mould (see last picture below). The seller is Hussam Zurquieh: ZURQIEH -AD11971- ANCIENT EGYPT , NEW KINGDOM SILVER SETH AMULET. 1250 B.C | eBay

Yes, there are many different styles, but these coins were minted by royal mints in various cities of the large Visigothic kingdom, not by tribes or villages. The number of identifiable royal mints in the 7th century is quite astonishing. Also, this coin post-dates the migration period. When this coin was struck, the Visigoths had settled in Spain for some 70 years or so.