Rand

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.

Feel free to throw stones at me. As collectors, we have not only the privilege to handle the coins but also a duty to preserve them for those who have them in 100 years, 1000 years, 1,000,000 (hopefully) years. I am not convinced the market is doing its best, with so many coins damaged by handing and ‘improvements’. Last week, I received a wonderful coin, which I found rather harshly and totally unnecessarily cleaned from one side (probably to remove a tiny scratch). What a shame. I used to collect banknotes (QEII). There was a good, active FB forum about them with similar discussions to NF and a general dislike of PNG/PCGS gradings and holders. Collectors were confident in the safe handling, safe storage, and the ability to grade them. Of course, releasing entombed banknotes to breathe was widely applauded. I have learned about how banknotes needed air to breathe—in my naivety I thought oxidation was harmful. I liked good, beautiful prints and only collected higher grades (PMG67-68). To my disappointment, almost all ungraded banknotes I received from humid countries (Singapore, Ceylon, etc) had environmental problems, like foxing; uncirculated banknotes often had marks from fingers, and other unreported problems were common. I did not like PMG holders, but I felt they provided good protection, at least better than in ‘fresh air’. I do not like NGC slabs, but I forgive their bulk and ugliness if they keep coins from ‘improving hands’. I admit I am glad that 95%+ of my coins are not slabbed.

I am intrigued and look forward to seeing that publication! The 2023 KOINON did not have a publication about your very rare siliqua fraction, but we hope to see it in the 2024 issue.

Thank you @Vel Saties. I fully agree with the reasoning by @Tejas. As it was pointed out, Gepids were hardly friends of Ostrogoths. They were more likely to follow Constantinople prototypes if they were contemplating minting silver or gold coins during the Anastasius period. They were likely aware of Theoderic's monogram and unlikely to want it on their coins. After the defeat by Theoderics, Thrasaric took refuge in Constantinople and was later made comes domesticorum by Anastasius. Minting coins in the Ostrogithic style after this is hardly conceivable. The ex-Gepidic territory became a new province, Pannonia Sirmiensis, which could be the reason for reactivating the old mint for silver (and possibly for gold, even though we have no evidence to support this).

Welcome @Vel Saties. Thank you for the informative write-up. I would appreciate your view on the possibility of Gepids minting gold coins. This topic was touched on a few times on this forum. My understanding @Tejas is sceptical about this possibility, at least partly because the monetary system was not well developed in the tribal groups. There was little need for coins for product exchange, and those that might have been produced were more likely to be made as jewellery. I am tempted to assign multiple 'imitative' VGC tremisses to someone and see a possibility why these people may need the coinage for some, even though restricted, needs and produced some gold coins when the imperial coinage was not sufficient. Below is my recent example, which imitates tremisses from Milan, similar to Gepidic Silver's. Fritz Rudolf Künker GmbH & Co. KG. eLive Auction 80. 05/12/2023 Savoca Numismatik. Live Online Auction 3. 21/06/2015

Thank you, very interesting @Roman Collector It could be relatively simple to statistically estimate the probability of whether a die comes from a one-die issue or a multiple-die issue. Assuming that coins from different dies had the same chance of survival, all dies were used to produce the same number of coins; if 2 dies were used for the issue, the following probabilities should apply: 25% of 2 known coins being from the same die and none from another die 12.5% of 3 known coins being from the same die, and none from another die 6.25% of 4 known coins being from the same die and none from another die 3.125% of 5 known coins are from the same die, and none from another die So if there are 5 coins of the same type, all produced from the same die, there is less than 3% chance that there was a second die and c. 97% probability it was as single-die issue. I use this 5-coin rule for my (non-scientific) considerations whether the type is likely to be a single-die issue. State Hermitage Museum (relatively) recently published much of their ancients online at http://collections.hermitage.ru It could be a use potentially useful source to check references, with limitations of In my area of interest, the published collection does not include the key coins expected to be there. Are they still in the museum? One side of coins shown for many coins The website could not be accessed today. Hopefully, this does not mean it is permanently disabled.

Haha. This a very good point. I certainly not a mechanic and not into cars and feel that I keep buying not the best tires and breaks - whatever service advises. I shall perhaps spend less time reading about coins and more about tires.

I agree with all this. My first post was about assigning high rarity status to coins that are not rare. It reads to me that collecting coins is not for dummies, and one must become an expert collector before buying them. This would be like only mechanics should buy a car, and it is ok for a seller to describe them the way they want - description is subjective anyway. Personally, I respect dealers describing coins accurately and going into a variety of details, if relevant.

Mine does. Even though I have bought coins in the whole range of grades, I prefer well-preserved (ideally mint state) coins and would rather have a worn one than an 'improved' coin. Some problems, such as bent coins, can be difficult to appreciate from photos. I do put a degree of trust in the dealer's description as I hardly ever buy in person (I wish I did). This is what I do, learning from my mistakes. It does not mean misleading rarity attribution should be encouraged. Even though any coin description could be narrowed down to make it very rare, the rarity is typically assumed to refer to the type rather than variety or die pair (unless specified). Rarity assigment can be subjective, but is not uselless - helping collecters to spot uncommon types, especially if there are similar common once.

This topic raises a broader question about how dealers describe coins. Common issues include overgrading and assigning various degrees of rarity to rather common coins. I recently discovered that a few of my best condition coins from top auction houses (e.g., choice extremely fine, almost FDC) were brushed. In all fairness, I did not notice this myself when handling them. It is common for auctions to say something like, ‘Author XYZ only recorded three examples’. This may be true, but if the book was published 50+ years ago, the available numbers could be completely different now. Also, a previous thread discussed what to do when a seller misses a true rarity. I do not think many collectors contact dealers about this.

Were they made for local use or could somehow be related to the first crusade, which would mean being minted later. Even if produced by Emperor Heinrich II this would already be more than a century gap from the original coin.

Nice coins. Burgunsian coins are so hard to get. I remember your exceptional Sigismund's tremissis. Given that these Justinus's solidi were in the Gourdon hoard with no other documented find spots (to my knowledge), their attribution to Sigismund is very likely. I am more careful attributing various Anastasian coins with S in different positions to Sigismund. Otherwise, his short reign during the Anastasius period (516-518) became very busy with heterogeneous coins, which contrasts with few under his father and brother. The solidi below are also often attributed to Burgundians, but I think they were post-511 solidi of Theoderic minted in Arle and had corresponding tremisses (A3 by Tomasini). The reasoning is rather complicated and largely speculative, but they do share 'officina' letters (A, E, I) and must have been produced in large numbers. Fritz Rudolf Künker GmbH & Co. KG. Auction 304. 19/03/2018. Gorny & Mosch Giessener Münzhandlung. Auction 228. 09/03/2015 These may or may not be part of the same series. Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. Triton XXIV. 19/01/2021. Coins from my collections. Please note the similarity of the hand execution on these solidi and your Justinus solidus.

I have tried to gather any literature sources and archaeological facts about the Theoderic's Italian wars. There is very little information, and publications, when cited, lead to the same sources. It is generally accepted that Visigoths joined Theoderic, which could have been in 489 (as in Wiemer's book on Theoderich) or the summer of 490 after Odoacer defeated Theodoric at Faenza. In so doing, the Visigoths helped force Odovacer to retreat to Addar River, where he was defeated in August 490. We do not know how many Visigoths were dispatched or whether Alaric II led them personally. We know Gothic kingship did not stop Ostrogoths from joining Atilla to fight the Visigoths. Visigothic support to Teoderic is thus unlikely to be a charitable demonstration of kinship and more likely a paid-for arrangement, possibly by desperate Theodoric after being defeated by Odovacer. Considerable payments were expected, potentially with territorial gains (of which we know little). My speculations: As Burgundians were advancing to Liguria between 10/489 and summer 490, it would make sense for Visighoths to secure Arle, the reachest city in the region and the capital of the Gallic province under Theoderic after 511. The campaign needed considerable resources and payments before advancing to Italy. This could be the time of minting coins with Zeno's name. The coins in the name of Zeno and Anastasius are from the same series but have some stylistic 'step up' differences. In contrast, Anastasian coins progress through a very close style (with some die links) from ANASTAS-IVS PERP to ANASTAS-IVS PP to ANASTA-SIVS PP. I think there could have been a small gap between them, with minting possibly restarted after payments were received following the 490 defeat of Odovacer. Visigoths's presence in Italy was still needed during the siege of Ravenna till 493. It is possible that after this, Arle was returned to Theoderic, and further minting was relocated to Toulouse and later, in 507, to Narbonne (for the principal mints). There were three and possibly four Western series during 04/491-08/492 (ANASTAS[I]VS PERP) potentially corresponding to the different mints under Visigoths (coins related to your Zeno solidus), Burgundians (e.g., my top two coins above), and rare Italian style solidi (with features of earlier and later solidi from Rome, Milan or Ravenna, which makes them hard to place). Only Burgundians produced PERP tremisses, which started the Victoria Palm Wreath series and later transitioned into the typical Burgundian series. I agree about the gaps with Burgundian coins. Even for the Anastasian series, I cannot trace their continuity throughout. Below is another coin, which might be Burgundian. VAuctions. London Coin Galleries Auction 3. 10/11/2016

Congratulations, this is a great set of beautiful examples!

This is a nice coin @Tejas. I watched the auction, but they did not have Anastasian solidi in the "Migration period" section. I am of the same opinion that these Zeno solidi are of the same series as the Anastasian solidi above and linked to the Theoderics war with Odovacer. The Mare Nostrum Hoard produced a few nice examples, including yours, and was likely compiled soon after the war. I also think they were not minted in Toulouse. Because of their good style, fabric, and abundance in The Mare Nostrum Hoard, they were more likely to be minted closer to Italy in a city with minting traditions. The series must be extensive, given the many used dies and pseudo-officinae letters. I have not tried die analyses for the Zeno solidi, but the current projections for Anastasius are 29 obverse dies (8 known dies) and 110 reverse dies (10 known dies)! I am sure the number will be corrected downwards as more coins emerge, but this was undoubtedly a considerable issue. The issue includes Anastasius solidi, which rules out Syagrius, who was dead before 491 and makes other Roman enclaves unlikely candidates. Where could it be? There are different Anastasian solidi, which later evolved in the lettered Burgunidian issues. Lyon is a likely mint if Gundobad and Godigisel jointly minted solidi and tremisses from their spoils of this war. It is not impossible that Godigisel minted their own coins in Geneva, as there are two different styles of Burgundian solidi and tremisses from the same period. Below are my two PERP early solidi attributable to Burgundians. Roma Numismatics Limited. Auction 27. 22/03/2023 Roma Numismatics Limited. Auction 12. 29/09/2016 Arle could be a candidate mint for the Zeno-Anastasius solidi discussed above. This would explain their good style. My current impression (speculation only) is that coins were minted in Arle for the needs of the war by the Visigoths, and the minting was moved further to Toulouse with coins of inferior style (my example for comparison). Mike Vosper. 2017.

I fully agree, and advances in scholarship are indeed on the minds of many specialist collectors. Still, getting evidence from a hypothesis may take a lot of time. More than one coin is needed, and it could be years before another surfaces. Firing away publications of hypotheses and speculations is one way of knowledge sharing, but some collectors may seek a more conclusive stage. It is for them to decide.