Rand

This is an amazing collection! Congratulations! It would be good to keep it a start of a lasting thread on this topic.

I am afraid this was information that I got. I did not ask questions myself. There was a specific comment on the sudden use of Byzantine silver, which could be due to the changes in economic relationships, now involving smaller agricultural landowners and other increases in trade, which needed silver rather than gold coinage, and it became profitable to melt chunky silver items. There was a comment about a large amount of stored Byzantine silver items when several big silver plates could provide silver for c. 10,000 coins. The sudden trend of melting Byzantine silver may explain why many coins were produced from Byzantine rather than mixed silver. This does not explain what happened with recycled Roman silver. The overall numbers of the produced coins were estimated as very large, but not in millions as was mentioned on our thread (I am no expert in these coins to have a strong personal opinion).

Today, I had a chance to get further insights into this study, which was presented and discussed by the author, Professor Rory Naismith, at the 9th International Symposium in Early Medieval Coinage in Cambridge. The interesting points from the discussion were: - The team did have information about old Roman silver from other analyses and the reported coins matched Byzantine (e.g., Syria) and not old Roman silver. - A small amount of gold in the alloy is explained by melting gold-plated silver. - There is an ongoing study by another group showing that Saxon leaders sent soldiers to Byzantine for training (which is relevant to my interest in whether mercenaries from the British Islands could have participated in Theoderic’s Italian wars). - There were economics-driven reasons why Byzantine silver was not melted for coins earlier, and gold continental and later English coins were used instead. I feel more convinced now that the silver was from Byzantine.

Same, with me. But I feel the top die could have be copied or even both produced by the same hands.

Just come across another one. Not certain, but could be from the same dies as the plated coin above. Attributed to Merovingians (reasons not stated). https://coinweek.com/coinweek-ancient-coin-series-coinage-of-the-merovingians/

This coin is high on my wish list. Several times, I thought it was close, and it slipped away. I would also like other Ostrogothic kings to follow the example. Theodahat was hardly a king to be awarded a distinction. It would be great to own a portrait coin of Theodoric or Baduila. Given the existence of the Senigallia Medallion, other donative Theodoric’s coins may surface.

I suppose coins are not guilty of crimes of their owners. Collect coins, not slabs … not the sinners who owed them.

This fourree tremissis with a similar design was found in Archlebov in Moravia. This further reduces the possibility of its gold version being minted by the Byzantines in Spain and it makes it more likely to be produced in the Allemani territory or even further east in Langobardian territory. Zeman, Tomáš. “Zeman, T. 2022: Zlaté a Stříbrné Mince Doby Stěhování Národů Na Moravě - Nové Objevy i Revize Nálezového Fondu.” Folia numismatica 36/1 (2022): 21–49.

This is an interesting post. For some reason, I picture the process involving heating the flans and potentially a basin or pot to cool them. The coins I collect, which are from a later period, have an irregular rim shape. One side is often flattened, as if it was held by tongues. The location of this flatness varies between each coin, suggesting it was part of the coin minting process, not part of the die. Please see the same die pair, I have more examples if needed (2-3 coins per die pair only). What is interesting, the impression on the rim never affects the rest of the flan inside. This may mean that a very hot and soft flan was placed on the anvil by tongues leaving the tongue impression. This was followed by a strike and after this metal was harder, so that the coin could be removed withough damaging the image. However, this would also mean that the rim would be present before the coin was struck and not part of the die. I cannot workout how this could work or if see this all wrong? 


Italian is fine with all the technologies we have. Finding those publications was not easy, though. I remember 'hunting' them in auctions, like a couple shown below. It was hard to find them, and with auction fees/postage, the cost of an article was like that of a book. Hopefully, more publications are coming online now.

Theodat's follises are indeed very nice and hard to get. @Tejas may well have the largest privately own set of them. I was a bit surprised to find that Arslan & Metlich managed to find 187 of them in their die study 20 years ago. With 20 obverse dies and 64 reverse dies known at the time, it must have been a considerable issue. I wish there was a more recent analysis.

I suppose the "not suitable for US import" statement makes this sale an important provenance. While non-US customers may be able to buy the coins at discounted price, the coins may be forever doomed for a future sale to the US or even bringing personal collections there.

These are certainly interesting contexts. I hope (from a collector's perspective) that a small number of coins was still produced in Britain in 410-660, perhaps after 500, when there was some trade with the continent and some Frankish settlers were moving to Kent. Anglo-Saxons may even have participated in Italian Ostogothic wars and wars in Gaul in the next decades. This would explain some very rare gold coins of the period found in England. Any local produce would follow that of Franks/Visigoths (so gold coins) and thus may be difficult to distinguish. Still, a number of coins found in England are not known from the continent.

This makes sense to me, but would lead to a different conclusion for the study: the coins were minted from old recycled silver rather than Byzantine silver. It would be good to see analyses of Italian silver of the period which would also be recycled and contemporary eastern coin silver from Persia.

The accepted refining processes could have influenced the metal content, potentially leading to contaminants. The analysis heavily relies on isotopes of lead, which is not the primary coin metal—I am unsure if some of it could have been introduced/lost during the alloy preparation. Were there any technological changes in silver refinery/minting practised around the same time the Melle became active, which could have contributed to the alloy composition? While appearance of Melle silver in coins is expected, the uniformity of ealier silver and the lack of obvious transition to new silver still puzzles me.

What happened to Roman silver, and what could have been the context of the silver influx from Byzantine to English? Were at least some coins produced from Roman coin silver? There was a prolonged time gap between Byzantine silver reaching England and minting coins. The silver was likely to undergo several rounds of recycling for jewellery and other items before being used for the coins. Is it not surprising to see such a uniform pattern of findings, with the metal content remaining consistent across a range of coin types?

This is hugely appreciated!

It was a good and very interesting study. I hope I did not put you off sharing your knowledge. Apologies if I did. Historical/archaeological context put the coins in a very different 'life story' perspective. This is not what I thought based on the coins in the hoard, even assuming some very rare Antiochian solidi were part of the hoard. Is there information about the find location (I do not need details)?

I hoped to map Anastasian gold coins found in Italy. I traced 14 hoards/finds but only have photos of coins from one, the 1938 San Lorenzo di Pusteria Hoard, and even for this one from a group photo of one coin side. The monster Mare Nostrum Hoard was also found around Italy, but it could be from the waters of neighbouring countries, and the story does not say where. We only know what its coins say. Gold coins tell a different story, one of trade and international relationships. I wish we had an Italian equivalent of Demo. The above is an interesting study, but the story is not complete without showing non-Ostrogothic coins found in the same area (some are mentioned in the text).

Thank you, @Vel Saties! The treasure has been exceptionally analysed and presented. I applaud the public access to the individual coin catalogue. I can only wish this approach became universal. The coins are breathtaking. Olybrius's solidi are stunning. Le immagini sono di proprietà della Soprintendenza Archeologia Belle Arti e Paesaggio per le Province di Como, Lecco, Monza e Brianza, Pavia, Sondrio e Varese. https://www.numismaticadellostato.it/web/pns/patrimonio/vetrine/ricerca-avanzata?p_p_id=vetrineFormRicercaAvanzata_WAR_FSIA6_Numismatica10_INSTANCE_M6Mg&p_p_lifecycle=1&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-1&p_p_col_count=1&_vetrineFormRicercaAvanzata_WAR_FSIA6_Numismatica10_INSTANCE_M6Mg_actionName=dettaglioMonetaVetrina&_vetrineFormRicercaAvanzata_WAR_FSIA6_Numismatica10_INSTANCE_M6Mg_idMoneta=7028&_vetrineFormRicercaAvanzata_WAR_FSIA6_Numismatica10_INSTANCE_M6Mg_navigator=6421&_vetrineFormRicercaAvanzata_WAR_FSIA6_Numismatica10_INSTANCE_M6Mg_javax.portlet.action=invoke

This is an amazing hoard. I am looking forward to seeing it published with all coins listed and photographed. It should be a great source for numismatic and historical studies. Of interest, do Brera and other numismatic collection in Milan have online collections of late Roman and Ostrogothic period coins? Arlan has published a few interesting coins, but I hope there are many more.

Below is the current ANS photo of coin no. 6. Of note, the article says 'Grierson A as contemporary forgery', and 81% Au, which would be too low for an official Byzantine issue, however remote the mint could be. ANS note states: 'Presumably imitative. Removed from upstairs vault 7/1/95, where it had been stored among coins of the Lombards.' The flan is broad—16.5 mm. While this trend started in different mints of the period (as opposed to very small flans of some Western series under Anastasius), the ANS has a distinctive flan much bigger than the dies, which differs from the two coins above. This could be why the authors considered the coin part of the Spanish series. Sadly, the linked sales do not show the diameter of the two coins above, but I am unsure if the ANS is part of the same series. PS. Last month, a coin I bought from a Spanish auction a few years ago and hoped could be the last issue of the Byzantines in Malaga during Helaclian's time turned out to be a fake after submission to NGC. http://numismatics.org/collection/1956.25.43?lang=en

Very interesting, especially as your coin and coin shown earlier by @Vel Saties are clearly of the same type but have different obverse and reverse dies. This implies that this was likely a reasonably large issue, and so, at this stage, they were more likely to serve as money rather than tokens/jewellery. I am curious what would be earlier coins you feel could be minted in the Allamani region (e.g., during the Anastasius period)? Interestingly, I also felt they could have been made by the Allamani (or in the region), based on speculations that due to their alliance with Theoderic/Ostrogoths and conflicts with Clovis/Franks, they would be more likely to adopt the VGC rather than the VPW style.

Just in case, information about a coming relevant meeting in Cambridge, on Saturday, 20 April 2024. I plan to attend, even though I am not an academic in numismatics. THE NINTH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM IN EARLY MEDIEVAL COINAGE The symposium programme will be as follows: Morning Session, chaired by Martin Allen 9:30 The origins of England’s C7th Gold shillings Andrew Woods 10:00 Sources of Bullion and Economic Change in C7th-C8th Rory Naismith 10:30 Break 11:00 The Harpole Hoard Lyn Blackmore 11:30 Merovingian gold coinage in C7th England Katy Cubitt 12:00 Lunch Afternoon Session, chaired by Rory Naismith 1:30 Muon Analysis Ron Bude 2:00 East Anglia’s first thrymsas; the Trophy types Adrian Marsden 2:30 Break 3:00 The Ilchester Mint Elina Screen 4:00 Close Registration is £20, or £10 for students. Anyone interested in attending should contact Daisy Bonsall (drb70@cam.ac.uk). ISEMC_2024_Programme.pdf

Yep, it is very hard to place this one. Merovingians seem to be a default for such unexplained coins, but it is likely other emerging groups experimented with minting. This one seems to have a broader flan than most Merovingian tremisses, has similarities to Spanish coins under Justinian, and the diadem jewel has a style of late Ostrogothic coins - so, who knows. I agree that the archaeological context would be best for placing them, but their rarity can make this hard, especially as coins of the migration period are often found far from the likely place of minting (English finds are good examples). The next best option could be 'old samples' from local museums, especially in France, Italy, and the Balkans, that could be from old local finds. Coins in the name of Justinian are particularly difficult in my view - that is why I am more focused on Anastasius, for simplicity (still hard enough). A couple of nice examples from Berlin Collection.