Tejas

The next Tremissis was minted in the name of Anastasius (491-518). Obv.: DN ANASTASIVS PF AVG Rev.: VICTORIA AVGVSTORVA T - COMOB Mint: Narbonne or Toledo (?) Measurements: 1.47gr, 14mm, 4h This coin can theoretically have been minted under Alaric II (484-507), Gesalic (507-511), Theoderic the Great as regent (511-526) or Amalaric (511-531). Given the new style and weight standard, I think that these coins were not minted before the battle of Voillé in 507. I think Theoderic the Great is the most likely instigator of the new-style Tremissis for the Visigothic kingdom of Toledo.

The picture is probably closer to the truth than its makers realized. The term Visi or Vesi means the shining or glaring Goths.

Here is another Visigothic Tremissis of the Kingdom of Toulouse. The coin was minted in the name of Zeno (474-491) Obv.: C (inverted) N Zeno PERP AVG Rev.: VICTORI A AVGGG - CONOB Mint: Toulouse (?) Measurements: 1.3gr, 14mm, 6h The coin was minted under Euric (466-484) or Alaric II (484-507). These coins were mentioned in a Burgundian law code, which forbid the circulation of these coins in the Burgundian kingdom, because of their low weight standard. The coins were called Alariciani in the law code.

Some Visigothic Tremisses were shown in another thread. I thought I open a new thread for this particular series, so that it does not get burried under barbaric coins. I have quite a few Visigothic coins. I keep them in a bank vault most of the time and have never really photographed them before. I start off with a Tremissis in the name of Libius Severus (461-465). Obv.: DN SEVERVS PF AVG Rev.: VICTORT AAVGGG - COMOB Mint: Toulouse (?) Weight: 1.45 gr., 14mm, 6h The condition is not great, but coins in the name of Libius Severus are much rarer than those of his successors. Note the reverse was copied from a Solidus and not from a Tremissis. The coin will have been minted during the reign of Theoderic II (453-466) or Euric (466-484).

I'll open a new thread for Visigothic coins

I have 13 early Visigothic Tremissis, dating from the time of Euric to Athanagild. Here is an example in the name of Justin I. The coin looks quite official, but note the reverse legend: Obv.: DN IVSTINVS PP AVG Rev.: VICTOP A VICTOSI This coin was minted under Theoderic the Great, Amalaric or Theudis. Tomasini JI1

Very interesting coin. I doubt that it was minted in Kent, though. The model for this coin was a Visigothic tremissis in the name of Anastasius (without the cross on the breast). Despite the findspot, I think this coin was minted in southern Gaul, either under Visigothic or (more likely) Frankish rule.

I admire your discipline. The Flavian „dynasty“ is basically Vespasian and his two sons. How you managed to focus on such a narrow field for 20 years is incomprehensible to me. My interest is shifting back and forth across the whole 500 years of western Roman imperial history, not to speak of the migration period and certain fields of medieval numismatics and even 18th century Russia and Prussia.

I think the only real draco standard (which was found at Niederbieber in Germany) shows that the Romans had a concept of how a dragon looks like, which was not too dissimilar to our modern ideas - including pointed teeth, scales, a head or neck crest. I found this picture below. The head of this Roman dragon is quite similar to some of the depictions on the Dacia coins (especially on those by Aurelian).

I don't have the complete reading. The legend includes the throne name with the prenom: Ra kheper Ka Ra (great is the manifestation of the soul of Ra) The hieroglyphs on the left read (I think): Nṭr nfr nb t3wy Ra (the perfect god, lord of the two lands Ra) The hieroglyphs on the right, I have yet to decipher. It is of course true that the presence of Thutmosis I name on a scarabaeus does not mean that it was produced in his lifetime. In fact, his name was still used up to 1000 years after his reign. However, I think this scarab is likely to have been produced either during his reign or not too long thereafter. The reasons being: The scarab's features are consistent with the new kingdom, rather than the later or late periods. The hierogphys are exceptionally well executed. The workshop that produced the scarab probably worked for the royal court (or at least produced a quality that was fit for the king). While most hierogpyphs on scarabs were copied by illiterate craftsmen, especially those of the later periods. This, unusually long legend appears to be the work of somebody who knew what he was writing, or at least who worked to a standard that was controlled by professional scribes. My theory is that this scarab was "issued" at the accession to the throne of Thutmosis I in around BC 1504, but that is pure speculation or wishful thinking of course. 🙂

The acsearch results are all from after 2004 and mostly from the last 5 years or so. The idea has certaintly gained traction, but it doesn't appear to be universally accepted yet. I think that it is basically correct, even with the qualification that the die engravers of the third centuries may not have been aware of the true nature of the object which they depicted.

Some rudimentary statistics from acsearch: Dacia Decius = 2994 Dacia Decius ass = 398 Dacia Decius donkey = 296 Dacia Decius draco = 97 Dacia Decius dragon = 36 The big discrepancies are partly due to the presence of the traditional military standard, which precludes both draco and ass, and different languages. For example French Dacia Decius tête d'âne (head of an ass) = 82 German Dacia Decius Eselstandarte (ass standard) = 11. etc. As for the types of animal heads. From glancing over the pictures, I think the vast majority are undetermined and highly stylized. The more elaborate griffin-type is relatively common as well. The wolf-type appears to be very rare.

Thanks for the pictures. I think the many indetermined animals (e.g. the two on the right), which probably make up the majority of the representations on these coins, show quite clearly that the die engravers didn't know that they were supposed to depict a draco-standard. Again, I think it is likely that this staff with animal head was based on a misinterpretation of depictions from coins that were some 100 years old by the time of Trajan Decius. It would be great if we could find a depiction of Dacia with this particular attribute from the mid-3rd century or later. However, such a representation may not exist and ultimately we may never know for sure the intentions of the die engravers regarding this particular implement. I wonder where the idea comes from that the animal is an ass or donkey. This identification is still commonly found, but it appears to be the least convincing. PS: On the gold coin, the animal looks like a goat

I think what happened is this: In the 2nd century (after the Dacian wars) die engravers knew what a draco standard was and how it functioned. Hence, they (probably) produced more or less accurate representations of it on the coins. Some 100 years later, when a personification of Dacia was needed for the coins of Trajan Decius, the die engravers refered back to the coins of the 2nd century, without actually understanding the attribute of Dacia. Hence, they interpreted the draco standard as a staff surmounted by an animal's head, without understanding the function of the windsock. So in a sense, I think Dacia's staff on coins of the 3rd century is a staff with animal head that resulted from a misunderstood draco-standard.* The variation of the animal heads (griffin, wolf, ass) may just reflect artistic freedom, because most of the time, the animal is rather generic or indeterminate. *Btw, this has happened a lot in heraldry. When objects represended on heraldic shields fell out of use and the function and name was lost, people reinterpreted these objects, often adjusting their appearance slightly to better fit the new meaning.

This is a fantastic coin, but why is the depicted implement a "without doubt draco"? Is there a contemporary source saying that the implement depicted on this coin represents a dragon-standard? Is it not possible that the attribute of the personified Dacia was just a staff with an animal's head? Perhaps this head could be adjusted to represent different deities. In a book on "Gods of Roman Dacia" I found the depictions below. The stela shows Apollo and beneath him are a griffin, with a head (note the beak, the ears and the neck crest) just as on many of the coins with DACIA reverse. Thus, the head on the staff of Dacia is at times, neither a dragon nor a wolf, but a griffin. Maybe Dacia's staff symbolizes different deities depending on the head that is surmounted on the staff. Also, the lack of a windsock, which is present in contemporary descriptions and depictions of the dragon-standard seems to be consistently absent from the staff of Dacia.

If the implement on the DACIA - coins really is specifically a "draco", then the die engravers of the mid-3rd century may simply not have known how such a draco looked like. Maybe they worked on the basis of a rough description, like "a staff with animal head", without ever having seen it in person. Yet, I find it remarcable that the "windsock", which is such a characteristic feature of the real draco was simply left out on all coins, whereas it was consistently depicted on various stone sculptures. Appart from the many generic or stylized animal heads, I think three types of animals are relatively clearly distinguishable: a wolf, a griffin and a horse or ass. 1. Dacia with traditional military signum, 2. Dacia with wolf-head signum, 3. Dacia with griffin-head signum, 4. Dacia with ass-head signum

Maybe then the Roman die engravers had no real concept of how such a draco looked like. Clearly they have consistently failed to depict the fabric tube, which is clearly visible on all or most of the other depictions from antiquity. 1. Dacia with traditional military signum, 2. Dacia with wolf-head signum, 3. Dacia with griffin-head signum

Thanks for the link. I'll be happy to read this. Actually, I don't think it is a "draco", i.e. a dragon - at least not in every case. My coins clearly show variants with a wolf's head and a bird of prey's or griffin's head. I think it is a military standard that could take different forms, a dragon may have been one of them, but others include a wolf and a griffin or bird of prey. But again, maybe the die engravers were not so clear about how to depict a draco. I think the implement is definitely a military standard of some type. Below is another coin from my collection, showing Dacia with another form of Roman military standard. Hence, Dacia was not necessarily depicted with a "draco" but with a military standard of different forms. Also, judging by the descriptions on acsearch, it doesn't look like the draco-theory is "communis opinio". Most of the time the implement is called a staff with an ass' head.

On some coins of Trajan Decius (and Aurelian) appears the female personification of the province of Dacia holding some kind of implement. This implement is a staff with an animal's head. Most often this animal is identified as an ass, but I also found the identification as wolf (tête de loup). Another theory states that the implement is a so called "draco", which was a certain type of Roman military standard with a dragon head. Here are two coins from my collection which, in my view show two very different animal heads on top of the staff. The first one looks very much like a wolf's head. There are far more stylized versions around, but I think Roman die sinkers were too skilled to have produced this type of head if they had meant an ass. The second one shows something that looks like the head of a bird of prey or a griffin. This animal clearly has a beak and something that looks like a neck crest. Again, I think there is no way that the die engraver had intended to depict the head of an ass. Most coins of this type show less specific and less clear depictions of the staff, but I think these two coins make it clear that the implement is most definitely not a staff with an ass' head and probably it is also not a draco. Does anybody have a theory as to what this implement really is?

I had this coin on my list, but didn't bid after winning more than expected of preceeding lots. The boar coin is fantastic - congratulations on winning this one.

Very interesting. I think the coin is not distinguishable enough to have served as a different denomination. I think this shows that the weight standard was at times poorly controlled and that silver denari didn‘t really circulate by weight, but could also function as token money.

The Commodus- Hercules Denarius is fantastic. I never succeeded with my bids on such a coin.

Auction exhaustion is a good term to describe what economists call the diminishing marginal utility. Coin collecting is a misnomer in my view. Instead it should be called coin hunting. However, if there is too much game around this takes the fun out of the hunting.

The video is great. The coin looks to be very attractive in hand.

This is a beautiful fibula/brooch - congratulations. I think the piece dates to the 9th or 10th century. These brooches exist with a wide range of legible and illegible legends. For example, one group has the legend BENNO ME FECIT" (often highly blundered), i.e. Benno made me. Another group is based on the legend "CAPVT MVNDI", i.e. head of the world. Yet, another group is based on variants of (IMP)HLVDOVICVS. The latter group started out as real solidi of Ludwig the Pius that were worked into brooches. Later imitation of solidi were produced in gold, silver and base metal for the same purpose. I think the present piece belongs to this group. I.e. the legend is in my view a very blundered and shortened version of HLVDOVICVS. The person producing the mould was probably illiterate and didn't know what the original legend was or what it was suppose to mean, but instead he copied it from a piece that had a legend that had an already blundered legend.