Ursus

Really weird question – seems like typical social media crap. Why is the fact that Rome hasn't been forgotten considered so bizarre? Greek philosophy, Roman law, Judeo-Christian theology, and Enlightenment science gave the fundament of ideas that modern western societies are built on. It thus were surprising if people did not think about these matters frequently. (Also, why should this pertain only to men? And does the Holy Roman Empire count, too? Asking for a friend...)

Kingdom of Jerusalem, Baldwin III, BI Denier, 1142–1163 AD, Jerusalem mint. Obv: BALDVINVS REX; cross pattée. Rev: + DE IERVSALEM; Tower of David. 16mm, 0.97g. Ref: CCS 21. Next: Tower

Does a hippo count as unusual? Otacilia Severa, Roman Empire, AE sestertius, 248 AD, Rome mint. Obv: MARCIA OTACIL SEVERA AVG; bust of Otacilia Severa, diademed, draped, r. Rev: SAECULARES AVGG SC; Hippopotamus walking r. 28mm, 17.39g. Ref: Ref: RIC IV, Philip I 200. Next: more unusual animals

Nice one! My latest ancient, the first ancient coin I have bought in months, also is Celtic. I like its luster: Western Celts: Insubres, Cenomani, or Salluvii, AR drachm (imitation of Massalia), minted in southern Gaul, c. 2nd century BC. Obv: stylized head of nymph r. Rev: scorpion-like lion standing r.; barbarous legend above. 18mm, 2.62g. Ref: de la Tour 2126, CCCBM II 9; KMW 125.

The type should probably be dated a bit earlier since it appears in the Elchenreute hoard, which was deposited in the 1280s. The Bonhoff catalogue attributes it to the reign of Konrad IV in 1250–1254, Berger is a bit more careful and only dates this and a number of similar types to after 1250. Here is the relevant entry from Berger:

That's true – although I also had to think of these guys:

My most recent medieval, a small 13th century bracteate minted for the Benedictine abbey of Kempten, which was considered a principality in the Middle Ages and thus had its own mint. I bought it since it shows a (somewhat comical) portrait of St. Hildegard, who is also known as Hildegard of Vinzgouw, the second wife of Charlemagne and mother of Louis the Pious: Princely Abbey of Kempten, AR bracteate penny, c. 1230 AD. Obv: crowned bust of St. Hildegard with lily sceptre and cross; pseudo-lettering around border. Rev: incuse design (bracteate). 20mm, 0.38g. Berger 2512–3; Slg. Bonhoff 1837–40.

I wouldn't be surprised if all the allegations were true. I bought from Katz only once and my experience implied just that: some coins on which I allegedly had been the underbidder reappeared in the next auction, and the two that I actually won sold at exactly my maximum bid. That was so suspicious that I never bought there again. After a couple of similar experiences I now only bid at auction houses that fulfill the following four criteria: 1.) Bidding starts at what would be a reasonable bargain price for the coin (in most cases not 5€) 2.) Provenances are regularly mentioned at least for higher value coins. They don't need to be prestigious. A short note like "comes with French collector's ticket from the 1990s" is absolutely sufficient. 3.) Not everything in their auctions typically sells, and unsold lots are available at starting price in an aftersale. 4.) The owner and staff of the auction house are openly known. They are actual people with actual addresses and phone numbers, not a stock picture on a shady wordpress website. You can contact them easily and they stand in for what they do.

Nice coin. Mine, which came as bycatch in a large lot, grades about a QB+ (aka "quite bad, but not terribly so"): Diocletian (struck under Domitius Domitianus), Roman Empire, AE1 ("follis"), 295–296 AD, Alexandria mint. Obv: IMP C DIOCLETIANVS P F AVG; head of Diocletian, laureate, r. Rev: GENIO POPVLI ROMANI; Genius, wearing modius, nude, chlamys draped over l. shoulder, standing l., holding patera in r. hand and holding cornucopiae in l. hand; at feet to l., eagle holding wreath in its beak; in field r., B; in exergue, ALE. 26mm, 8.96g. Ref: RIC VI Alexandria 18a.

Also 177 AD, but from the more common "TR P II COS PP" emission: Commodus, Roman Empire, sestertius, 177 AD, Rome mint. Obv: IMP L AVREL COMMODVS AVG [GERM] SARM; laureate and draped bust of Commodus r. Rev: T[R P] II COS [P]P; pile of Germanic arms; in fields, S-C; in exergue, DE GERMANIS. 31mm, 21.84g. Ref: RIC III Marcus Aurelius 1570.

These 14th/15th century French blanc guénars have "secret" additions to the legends that indicate mint and emission. The first one has a dot under the 16th letter of the legend (Tournai, 2nd emission), the second one has a ringlet under the cross in both legends (Paris, 4th emission). Quite a sophisticated system! Kingdom of France, Charles VI "the Well Liked" or "the Mad," AR blanc guénar, 1389 AD, Tournai mint, 2nd emission. Obv: +KAROLVS FRANCORV REX; French coat of arms. Rev: + SIT NOME DNI BENEDICTV, Cantoned cross with two crowns and two fleurs de lis in angles; "secret dot" under 16th letter of legends. 27.5mm, 2.55g. Ref: Duplessy 377A. Ex @Orfew collection. Kingdom of France, Charles VI "the Well Liked" or "the Mad," AR blanc guénar, 1411 AD, Paris mint, 4th emission. Obv: +KAROLVS:FRANCORV:REX; French coat of arms; ringlet under cross in legend. Rev: +SIT:NOME:DNI:BENEDICTV, Cantoned cross with two crowns and two fleurs de lis in angles; ringlet under cross in legend. 25.5mm, 2.98g. Ref: Duplessy 377C.

Yes, I agree. A “citizen archeology” approach similar to the British portable antiquities scheme might be a way forward. For archeologists, reliable information about the items in shipwrecks is more important than the objects themselves. If sports divers could provide that information instead of looting, it would be a win for everyone. A big concern is that shipwrecks often also include human remains. This poses ethical questions that are hard to address.

I take this as an invitation. If you or your heirs ever want to part with the holed barbaric imitation of a Marcus Aurelius aureus you have shown, please shoot me a message. And concerning the question of this thread: No, I don't know the total value of my collection, but I record the price I paid for each coin on my tickets.

Yes, but Roman medallions were still used as jewellery in the Germanic world. The holed Roman gold coins and local imitations found mostly in what today is Ukraine are probably best known, but similar finds are recorded from the northern Germanic regions. The Vindelev hoard, to stay with the example, included these two Roman medallions that were given a loop and a mounting similar to that of the bracteates they were found with together: Here is an example of an A-bracteate, also from the Vindelev hoard. To my eyes, it is quite obvious that it imitates Roman models like the two coins above. One can see how a few steps of abstraction down the road, we end up with C-bracteates: When it comes to the visual style of migration period bracteates, I agree with you. But, for example, the style of Celtic coins is quite different from Roman and Greek coins, too – nonetheless, their iconography in many cases derives from Roman and Greek models. Yes. But the different purpose (jewellery, not money) and method of manufacture (repoussé, not die-struck) we see on bracteates does not mean that they are not influenced by Roman iconography. That is a good example of why it is so hard to identify graffiti on coins as runes. Yes, the top character could be a Runic Eihwaz (ᛇ) or Sowilo (ᛋ) – but also a Latin S or a Greek ϟ that has the numeric value 90. I can't really recognize a rune in the bottom graffiti – maybe it's a ξ or just a scratch to test the metal? We probably won't find out... Good point, and I don't want to argue that there is no continuity at all between Germanic mythology in the 5th century and what was written down in the 13th century. I just want to stress that we do not know how strong this continuity is, and that it is unlikely that no substantial alterations took place. The Grænlendinga saga and Eiríks saga rauða are a valid point of comparison, but I guess they rather support my argument for orally transmitted storys changing over time. Both sagas report surprisingly accurate details about places, people and events that probably were historical facts, but they also differ greatly from each other. Depending on which text you read, for example, either Leif or Bjarni discovers Vinland. We see two traditions of telling more or less the same story that have changed and evolved into different directions over time. In relation to the connection between 5h century bracteates an the Eddic stories, a comparison to the two Vinland sagas allows for two arguments: First, these two sagas tell of events that happened some 200 years before they were written. Between the Vindelev bracteate and the two written Eddas, 700 to 800 years had passed. If one orally transmitted story has obviously undergone a lot of change over the course of 200 years, it seems unlikely that the other remained unchanged over 800 years. If bracteate iconography is related to Eddic mythological stories, it thus relates to much older oral versions that might have differed a lot from the written texts we know. Secondly, the Icelandic sagas are quite local. They tell stories of Icelanders and were composed for a small and largely isolated Icelandic audience that in many cases would have claimed family connections to the people mentioned in the sagas. To some extent, this explains their narrative stability and accuracy. The mythological stories in the two Eddas, on the other hand, lack such a local foundation. Therefore, if you argue that Danish bracteates from the 5th century directly connect to mythological material recorded in 13th century Iceland, you have to assume not only that the underlying and orally transmitted stories remained unchanged over time but also that they didn't much differ from place to place. That might be a hard case to make.

The easy answer: It depends, but in most cases probably no. The complicated answer: There is a distinction between Elder Futhark (2nd–10th century) and Younger Futhark (9th–12th century, transitional period in the 7th/9th centuries). Elder Futhark has 24 characters, Younger Futhark only 16. Therefore, if any of the "vanished" characters appear in an inscription, is must be Elder Futhark or a transitional alphabet. Anglo-Frisian runes (also known as futhorc) derives from Elder Futhark and start to be used in the 5th century. Futhorc has a few additional characters for vowels that resulted from the Ingvaeonic split. A few characters are also shaped differently than in Elder Futhark. If any of these characters appear, the inscription should be from Frisia or the Anglo-Saxon world. Within Younger Futhark, subdivisions can be made according to letter style. Long-branch runes are typically Danish, short-twig runes are Swedish and Norwegian, and staveless runes appear only in Sweden. But since you asked about graffiti on early Byzantine solidi, this is probably not relevant for you. The main problem with short graffiti inscriptions on objects is that it they often don't have enough characters to be certain whether they are Latin, Greek, runes, or just gibberish. But in a hypothetical case where a graffiti on a coin (a) has enough characters to be certain that we are dealing with runes, and (b) these characters happen to include letters that have either vanished, changed or been added over time and in specific places, it might be possible to draw conclusions about the inscription's date and place of origin from this.

This is the "old" interpretation established by Hauck, which had been all but discarded by scholarship. In light of the inscription on the Vindelev bracteate, it now deserves reconsideration. Let me go into some details on why these objects are hard to interpret. Migration period bracteates are usually categorized into seven relatively stabile iconographic groups. The example from the MET that you have shown as well as the Vindelev bracteate are C-bracteates. C-bracteates were made in the 5th/6th centuries and show a male head in profile above a quadruped, usually accompanied by a bird. Most bracteates lack inscriptions or show only a few formulaic characters, which is why the runic legend on the Vindelev specimen is so important. The older and most cited interpretation draws direct connections to Germanic (or better: Norse) mythology. The problem with this reading is that it heavily relies on written sources that are much younger than the bracteates. Before the discovery of the name Wōd[a]nas on the Vindelev bracteate, which dates to c. 450–490 AD, there was noevidence for the worship of this deity from before the second half of the 6th century. An association of Odin with ravens is first attested for in 10th century skaldic kennings (Hákonardrápa: gagls Hanga – "the gosling of Hangi/Odin"; Búadrápa: svanr Hanga – "the swan of Hangi/Odin"; etc.). The names Hugin and Munin as well as the story of the eight-legged horse Sleipnir come from the Old Icelandic Prose Edda and Poetic Edda, both written down in the 13th century. In order to argue that 5th century Danish bracteates must be read through the lens of 13th century Icelandic texts on Norse mythology, you have to assume (1) that the narrative material told in the two Eddas is some 800 years older than its first written appearance, (2) that pre-Christian religion and mythology were relatively uniform throughout the northern Germanic-speaking regions, and (3) that Germanic mythological stories remained mostly unchanged between the 5th and 13th centuries. These three premises come with different degrees of uncertainty or even unlikelihood. Therefore and despite the fact that the Vindelev bracteate now gives good reason to connect bracteate iconography to the worship of Odin, I am still extremely skeptical when it comes to directly identifying the creatures shown on C-bracteates as mythological figures from the Edda. An alternative (and in my eyes sounder) interpretation is based on a connection to Roman coins. It is quite clear that migration period bracteates in general borrow much of their design and iconography from 3rd/4th century Roman gold coins, which circulated widely and were imitated as well as used for jewellery among Germanic peoples. (@Tejas is a specialist on this issue, I believe.) It therefore seems reasonable to assume that C-bracteates simply adapt a diademed head in profile, an eagle, and a horse from Roman aurei and solidi. These motifs thus do not necessarily come from or directly reflect Germanic mythology. Yet, as the Vindelev inscription shows, the people who made and used bracteates in the 5th century likely interpreted this iconography, which probably has Roman roots, against the backdrop of their native religion, which we do not know that much about. From this perspective, bracteates appear as a fascinating case of religious and cultural syncretism rather than as "pure" Germanic art.

Small update: Imer and Vasshus have now published a full transcription and transliteratioan of the bracteate inscription as well as a number of possible interpretations: Lisbeth Imer/Krister Vasshus, Lost in transition: The runic bracteates from the Vindelev hoard. In: Nowele 76.1 (2023), 60-99. They are still not certain about how to best interpret the word hostioz and tentatively read it as a loanword from Latin hostia ("sacrifice"). We'll see whether other linguists will chime in with a more convincing interpretation. The rest of their translations of the inscriptions seem very sensible to me. Here are the possible readings they propose:

Good luck with building the new house ! I've been there last year and vividly remember how much work it has been...

Two small northern German additions. I bought them in May but only now found the time to take pictures and fully attribute them: Rostock, City, AR witten (Slavic standard), 1361–1381 AD. Obv: +MO[NETA:R]OSTOKCE; griffin l. Rev: +[CIVITS:]MAGNOPOL; cross with quatrefoil and pellet in center. 18mm, 0.79. Ref: Grimm 837/840/848. Hamburg, City, AR hohlpfennig, late 14th/early 15th century. Obv: nettle leaf within city gate, trident above. Rev: incuse design (bracteate). 16mm, 0.33g. Ref: Jesse 174/175.

Your coin is the obverse type with the lily sceptre (Slg. Bonhoff 2013), so the reverse should show two ascending birds with a staff/spire in between. As usual with these, the reverse is barely struck. Even on exceptionally good examples of Nuremberg pfennige from that period, the reverse is at best partially there: Nuremberg, imperial mint, under Frederick II, AR pfennig (group 6), c. 1245–1250 AD. Obv: lion walking l. within high ring; roses around. Rev: cross between two standing lions, ring and roses around (weak strike as usual). 20mm, 0.94g. Ref: Slg. Erlanger 32, Fd. Hersbruck 19, Slg. Bonhoff 2015.

Sverre of Norway? Of course I know him! He's all over the yellow press: Just kidding. That's a very attractive and rare coin. As a bracteate collector, I'm somewhat jealous.

Nice coin – a typical example of an Austrian "Vierschlagpfennig" from the late Middle Ages. Since these were struck in great quantities and without much weight control, it is sometimes hard to decide whether a coin is a full pfennig or a halbling. This especially applies to somewhat worn coins. Below is an example of the same general type minted by Frederick III's predecessor Ernest I: Ernest I "the Iron," Duchy of Austria, AR "Vienna pfennig," 1406–1424 AD, Graz mint, Obv: shield between E-R-N, with trefoils. Rev: blank. 15mm, 0.37g. Ref: CNA I, Fb2.

Thanks for the additional links, @DonnaML! The Bavarian ministry of research and culture has issued a press release saying that they hope to find remaining 400 coins from the hoard still intact. I hope their hope is based on evidence they decided not to share in detail. Furthermore, they announced to invest more in museum securit. The press release (in German) can be found here: https://www.stmwk.bayern.de/pressemitteilung/12694/nr-78-vom-20-07-2023.html . Furthermore and especially mentionable in light of some earlier and rather ugly posts in this thread, German police has identified the suspects as four German citizens from Schwerin in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and described them as highly organized, professional criminals who likely also committed a number of other burglaries. Nothing indicates that they have a postmigrant background. The problem behind the series of museum heists in Germany is organized crime, not immigration.

One of the suspects apparently carried 18 lumps of gold with him, which the investigators assume to be the remains of some seventy melted down Celtic gold coins. The metal composition of the lumps is currently tested in order to be certain, but the case unfortunately appears to be quite clear. The German authorities haven't found the rest of the hoard yet but they hope that at least parts of it still remain intact. More information (in German) here: https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/manching-aus-oberbayerischem-museum-gestohlener-goldschatz-wohl-nicht-mehr-vollstaendig-erhalten-a-455bdf0a-cc4c-4443-93d5-c88f0a1a71dd. This isn't the first time in recent years that treasure from German museums is stolen. In 2017, members of the well-known Arab crime family Remmo broke into the numismatic section of the Bode Museum in Berlin and stole a 100-kilogram gold "Big Maple Leaf" worth more than four million USD. The coin was never recovered and probably melted down. Three of the perpetrators were caught and sentenced to four-and-a-half-year prison sentences in 2020. Provided that they behave okay in jail, prisoners in Germany are typically released on probation after half of their sentence, so the two men effectively got a bit more than two years for the museum heist. Full story here: https://news.artnet.com/art-world/berlin-coin-theft-1783515 . The way the German authorities handled this issue apparently encouraged rather than deterred the Remmo family. In 2019, members of this family, including two of the men who were already on trial for the Berlin heist, broke into the Green Vault museum in Dresden and stole large parts of the 18th century royal jewellery of Saxony. The items they took are worth about 113 million euro. Six men were eventually caught and charged with the theft, but they made a deal to hand over part (!) of what they had stolen in exchange for reduced sentences. Five of the perpetrators were given prison sentences of between four years and four months and six years and three months for grand larceny using weapons (they illegally carried semiautomatic guns during the heist), aggravated arson in combination with dangerous bodily injury (they had set fire to the museums power lines to create distraction and later also set fire to a parking garage to cover their tracks), and damage to property. Again, remember that these sentences effectively mean two to three years of jail time due to probable release on probation. Also, the Remmo family refused to give back some of the most valuable Saxon crown jewels, including the famous "Saxon White" diamond. Full story here: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/16/five-men-found-guilty-over-113m-dresden-jewellery-heist . I am not a law-and-order hardliner, but as a German citizen, I find it troubling that our authorities treat the theft and destruction of cultural property from public museums with a lof of leniency. German law allows for much higher sentences than what the burglars got for the museum heists in Berlin and Dresden. It does not surprise me that other criminals apparently understood this as an invitation and paid a visit to the museum at Manching, and I would not be surprised if we heard more such sad news in the future.

Now I read Santa, too – thanks for that... ---- To all those who expect a tasteful contribution to this thread: I apologize a thousand times and advice you to scroll down quickly ---- This piece of early modern change is supposed to have a moneyer's mark showing two crossed arrows: Here is the detail in question: I can't unsee this.