Rand

Another consideration that puzzles me about these events is that Visigoths had to pass Liguria, which Burgundians plundered to get to Italy. Both had bullion for the extensive minting of 491-492. I think the Visigothic army came to Italy earlier, in 490, to relieve the siege of Ticinum and participated in the Battle of Adda. Burgundians came when they knew the Visigoths were busy in Italy. During the period 491-492, there was less action in Italy when Odovacer was locked in Ravenna, and Burgundians probably left before the Visigoths returned. It's just a theory.

Very nice coins.

Yes. Alaric's personal presence in Italy is my speculation, based on the facts that he did lead his army to battles and other compaignes, and was eventually killed in the Battle of Vouillé. It is possible this compaign was an exception, but given that being a warrior was the essense of gothic leadership, Alaric may well have participated in action in Italy.

Thank you. Obviously, MEC was prepared before more material appeared later. I do not think the letters at the end of reverse legends are officinae letters (ie. multiple workshops). Most 'officinae' are known from a single die. It would make little sense to organise multiple workshops to use one die per workshop, with no traces of the workshop production before or after. I think other explanations for the letters should be considered, but all of them are pure speculation so far.

I think they were minted by Alaric II in the context of the Ostrogothic war when Alaric II was in Northern Italy and more likely minted the coins in his domain in Arle, using the gold from Italy, skills that may have been retained in a city with a long history of imperial mints and now adhering to the commonly accepted solidi standard (as very least to be able to pay his army). Are you aware of Alaric II even minting solidi of low gold standard? I thought the story was related to the tremisses only.

I do believe Theoderic minted coins in the Provence (Arle), but attribute different solidi and tremisses there. I struggle to believe Theodoric would revert to the 15-20-year-old PERP solidi. Moreover, wherever the Mare Nostrum Hoard was found, it was completed soon after the Ostrogothic war, perhaps 493-495, which rules out the possibility of the coins being minted in 507. A very nice solidus, but likely from a later part of the Anastasius reign and outside the long-established mints: Visigothic, more likely, but also possibly Frankish.

I hope more coins appear for analysis with more find data. We already have at least 120+ coins from likely Gaul mints (some could be from Spain) in Anastasius' name alone, with projected hundreds of dies used. They must have been produced between the Franks and Visigoths (for reasons mentioned in another thread). This is if we believe the current attributions to Burgundians of coins without monograms of Gundobad and Sigismund - I am doubtful of the trend of blanket attributing coins with S in officina position or in the reverse field to Sigismund. Otherwise, we have dozens more coins to attribute. PS. I am aware of 400+ VPW Anastasian tremisses, with c. 1000 projected dies. Gaul was busy minting coins!

No. I am unaware of any books discussing the attribution of these coins (early Anastasian period) since Tolstoi's 'Monnaies Byzantines' from 1912. Tolstoi's discussion was only in the context of the Chinon hoards as a whole on whether these coins in the hoard should be considered Merovingian.

1. All Anastasian solidi from the series discussed above that have find provenances, were found in France, England and Scandinavia, none in Italy and further east. 2. There is an obvious style transition to later coins, which are clearly made in Gaul and later possibly in Spain, with finds in France, Spain, England and Scandinavia. Some (e.g., Duratón Find) were found in Visigothic settlements. I am unaware of any finds in Italy or further east. 3. Franks did not mint early in the period and were far north then; Burgundians minted different coins. I think the Visigothic attribution of these coins is rather strong. As for the various letters in officinae position, I do not think they are indications of multiple workshops and served different purposes. It is probably incorrect to call them officinae. Their meaning is unclear, and there are many possible theories to speculate about. PS. The find location of the Mare Nostrum Hoard is unknown and unlikely to be known, but I doubt it would help much.

I think this was a short-lived transitional type, with some coins attributed to Syagrius. It could have been an emergency-driven issue reflected by both poor metal and tremisses imitating solidi. They must have been produced in some numbers to attract Gundobad's attention. The series has little to do with later (Anastasius onwards) Visigothic coins, with new tremisses following the Victoria Palm Wreath (VPW) types initiated by Burgundians in 491. There are several Burgundian VPW tremisses with ANASTASIVS PERP legend, but I do not own one. A later example (poor photo, coin much better in hand). I know @Tejas has a nice one. There is nothing to suggest that the short-lived series of tremisses imitating solidi influenced the style of later Visigothic solidi.

Surely, Odovacer and Postumus drank many jars of wine, debating with their retainers whether their coins were official or not. Fortunately, the remote nature of NvmisForvms saves modern enthusiasts and scholars from hangover.

Nice coin. My theory is that the quality of Visigothic coins improved during the Ostrogothic War when they may have had access to a large amount of bullion. Your coin may be from pre-489. Burgundians also benefited from the war, ravaging Liguria. They also likely produced many coins, including in 491-492. I am unsure whether the remaining Burgundian brother kings, Gundobad and Godegisel, acted and minted coins together or separately. I attribute a couple of my coins to Burgundians from this series. Roma Numismatics Limited. Auction 27. 22/03/2023. Roma Numismatics Limited. Auction 12. 29/09/2016. PS. I plan to do a metal analysis of the coins. It would interesting to see what it shows.

I think the coins from the series shown by @Prieure de Sionwere minted in Gaul under Visigoths (Arle or Toulouse), and they are unlikely to be official (ie. Constantinople - I hope @Tejas and @Hrefn agree that coins minted in Italy under Odovacer cannot be called official). 1. These coins have a cross near the helmet - never used in Constantinople. Better seen on this coin: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=10706200 2. Their style is similar to the coins from the early Anastasius period (a couple of my examples). Roma Numismatics Limited. Auction 28. 05/07/2023 Roma Numismatics Limited. Auction 25. 22/09/2022 3. The Anastasius coins continue in a gradually evolving series, widely considered Visigothic (my another example). Numismatik Lanz München. Auction 162. 06/06/2016 Please note these series under Anastasius were produced with at least six officinae letters, including multiple officinae letters for the 491-492 series (six if count V separate from A). Most officinae letters for 491-492 coins are known from a single dies, which may indicate a brief period of intensive production when Visigoths joined Therodorics in Italy and possibly turned the fortune of the war.

I remember this coin in Roma and I was considering bidding. I think others also recognised it as non-Constantinople and eventually I did not bid. I agree with your views on it.

What about these? I think some of these they were part of the same series as my earlier coin. There are a few more coins with H or Θ in officina position with cross on helmet, which are similar to the first and the second coin shown. NOT MY COIN. Bibliothèque Nationale. https://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb449789175 It has similarities to my coin. BN believes it is not from Constantinople, and I agree with them. They consider it Ostrogothic, possibly agree. NOT MY COIN. Elsehoved Hoard, Sweden. Fagerlie JM. Late Roman and Byzantine solidi found in Sweden and Denmark. New York: American Numismatic Society, 1967 THIS ONE IS MINE, but may be a different series (I can link it to Italian Series). Solidus Numismatik. Auction 91. 09/12/2021 Or even this one from The British Museum. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/image/1152184001 © The Trustees of the British Museum

Thank you @Hrefn and @Tejas and @Al Kowsky When asking about the attribution of the above coin, I failed to consider that it may not be obvious that it is not official. It may be better to park further discussion until I get more evidence. I am convinced it is not official. Sadly, not all non-official Celators were illiterate, and some had decent skills. Many coins from Ravenna and Milan would be challenging to prove unofficial if they did not put MD and RV on them. Most coins from those mints probably did not have city marks (similar to Rome) but are rare, and it takes a lot of effort to piece them together. My coin above does not fit the Italian series well either, though. Previously, I tried to test the hypothesis that some official Anastasius gold coins with unusual styles could have been minted in other imperial mints where copper coins were produced. I analysed dies of 1000+ coins and proved my theory wrong. The above coin still sits outside of the official styles.

These are good points @Hrefn. The way I see this ( @Tejas may disagree) is that Theoderics coins were struck under legitimate authority from Constantinople, following the Imperial standard for gold (and silver) coins AND these coins circulated in the territory controlled by Anastasius, as evident from finds in the Middle East (this brings us back to the original discussion of the thread). Still, I feel it is okay and even preferable to mark them as Ostrogothic coins for numismatic purposes and historical flow. To be pedantic, not all Theodoric coins can be considered imperial, as Anastasius did not immediately recognise his authority. So, the coins minted between Zeno's death and Anastasius's recognition of this right to rule in Italy were not imperial when minted. More evidence on the circulation of Theoderic's coin in the territory of modern Greece and Turkey would be welcomed. I express my frustration about the lack of access to the content of collections of the Numismatic Museum of Athens and the Istanbul Archeological Museum.

The style is very off for a Constantinople coin. The spear comes from behind the helmet - always from behind the face/neck on Constantinople coins. The spear's tip breaks the legend, typical of Gallic coins, but never occurs in those from Constantinople. The emperor's portrait is clearly more raised from the surface than usual (hard to see from the photo). Four chest ornamental columns are exceptional (virtually always, there are three). A in ANASTA are Λ instead. Victoria's wing is completely off Constantinople-style. The reverse cross with a dot is also not Constantinople style.

I don't understand either. I suppose counterarguments could be Theoderic's status of Rex and de-facto independence. Still, Ostrogothic Italy was formally a part of the Empire. After 511, any coins minted by Theodorics in the Visigothic area would be outside the remits. The status of the coins of Patricius Gundobad and Consul Clovis would be an interesting consideration.

This sounds very plausible and gives a good context. Among my coins, I struggle to attribute with any degree of reasoning is this (likely) imitative solidus. It could be the immigration of imperial solidi or earlier Theoderics solidi from Mediolanum or Ravenna (these are poorly described to start from). Roma Numismatics Limited. E-SALE 24. 30/01/2016. The only other coin from these dies is from Karsibór Hoard, Świnoujście district, from the National Museum in Szczecin. It is part of a mixed hoard with other imperial and imitative coins, so perhaps less likely a local product. At the time, Szczecin was an important Baltic port on the route to Scandinavia. http://www.mpov.uw.edu.pl/en/thesaurus/artefacts/solidus http://www.mpov.uw.edu.pl/en/thesaurus/archaeological-sites/karsibor I would appreciate your and @Hrefn views. The solidi hoard from Karsibór (Photo: G. Solecki, A. Piątek, National Museum in Szczecin)

@Tejas I feel your coin was very likely part of the Biesenbrow hoard, and it shall be considered for the hoard interpretation. I will add it to my records about the hoard. It would be great to see the ticket if a photo is available. A very nice coin. Two links that I have about the hoard: http://www.worldofcoins.eu/forum/index.php?topic=13131.0 http://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/14420 The hoard is likely too small to be a part of the royal treasury. The presence of Theudebert's coin makes it even less likely. The hoard would be an excellent opportunity to link unusual types to the Thuringians. Still, only Justinian's solidus may be a remote candidate (only because the picture is one-sided and of low resolution). The Anastasius solidus above is from Rome 507-518. There is little doubt the coins are in circulated condition. I agree that there is little evidence that coins were used for payments in the daily life of an average member of the tribal society or that there was a real need for this. Still, the mid-upper class and trade likely needed gold coins for more significant purchases, especially outside individual tribes. We do not have evidence for regular non-imperial coin miting outside Gaul and Italy, except for the silver coins of the Gepids. However, occasional minting activity by the tribal authorities is possible. Their attribution and the minting context would be very interesting. While individual coins are rare, there are lots of them overall, waiting for the attribution.

True. It also means Ostrogoths did not completely abandon PF in the legend in Rome replacing by PP - even before Totila.

Thank you, @Al Kowsky This brings back good memories of studying in hands the Anastasian coins from the Barber Institute collection in their Coin Study Room about 12 years ago. https://barber.org.uk/coin-study-room/ The Curator was very kind and provided me with photos of the coins for personal study. Relevant to this thread, there was an imitation solidus, identified as Constantinople solidus, which I mentioned to the Curator. I can see the coin is now online and has a note: ''Probably non-imperial". https://mimsy.bham.ac.uk/detail.php?t=objects&type=all&f=&s=anastasius&record=135 I feel guilty for not recording the Curator’s name. It was in my email, which is no longer available. The Barber Institute of Fine Arts (University of Birmingham).

Just to confuse PF vs PP discussion further... a presumably pre-Totilla Ostrogothic tremissis in the name of Justinian. https://www.biddr.com/auctions/pliego/browse?a=799&l=840396

This would cause a problem with coins that did not have counterparts in official coins, such as many Victoria Palm Wreath tremisses. Also, does "Western mint imitation" refer to imitations produced in the West or imitations of official coins minted in the West? - For the former, we do not always know whether they were produced, in the West or East. - For the latter, after 476, all Western coins were produced in the name of Easter Emperors. 'Migration period' may refer to the time period and thus include coins minted during the time by groups not yet migrating.