The Gepids. Uncertain Ruler. In the name of ANASTASIUS

[Topcat7]

I just found a quarter siliqua in my Byzantine collection.

Barbaric coinage imitating Imperial issues.

The Gepids. Uncertain ruler. In the name of Anastasius, 491-518 AD.

Quarter Siliqua, c.518-540 AD. AR7mm., 1.05gm.

Obv: D N ANAST-ASIVS P P V Diademed and draped bust.

Rev: VICTORIA AVGGG around SR(A)M in open frame. In ex. CONO(R)

Theoderic King of the Gepides

Ref: MIB 1

Edited August 27, 2023 by Topcat7

[Rand]

There is a an interesting study about those coins by a forum member @Tejas

 

 

[Celator]

On 8/27/2023 at 5:23 PM, Topcat7 said:

I just found a quarter siliqua in my Byzantine collection.

Barbaric coinage imitating Imperial issues.

The Gepids. Uncertain ruler. In the name of Anastasius, 491-518 AD.

Quarter Siliqua, c.518-540 AD. AR7mm., 1.05gm.

Obv: D N ANAST-ASIVS P P V Diademed and draped bust.

Rev: VICTORIA AVGGG around SR(A)M in open frame. In ex. CONO(R)

Theoderic King of the Gepides

Ref: MIB 1

Hopefully you didn't pay alot. https://www.ebay.com/itm/144770137359?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=ARHI-fiZRgC&sssrc=4429486&ssuid=zj9KYxK_SCq&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY

 

[Tejas]

I am afraid that I am partially responsible for these fakes. From what I can see, these Serbian fakes started to appear within about a year after my publication in 2019. Until then the Sirmium half-siliquae were unpublished in the numismatic literature. But of course, they could also have taken their inspiration from auction catalogs.

Interestingly, I think only the reverse is a die-match. I think the avers was struck with different dies. I superimposed the coins below, but the conclusion can really only be seen when moving the two pictures on top of each other.

If more evidence was needed: Topcat7's coin belongs to what I called group H2a, which I think is an early issue, for which the weight is too low (even though the weights were probably poorly controlled). More importantly, for these early (official) emissions, the die-sinker never mistake the mintmark SRM for SAM. They may at times flip a letter around, but they seem to always have intended SRM.

 

I think this coin below was the inspiration for the forgery. The forger seems to have misread the letter "R" in SRM on the revers of the original for an "A" and wrote SAM instead of SRM.

 

Topcat7, you wrote that you "found" the coin in your collection. Could you tell us where you bought the coin?

Edited August 29, 2023 by Tejas

[Rand]

Thank you, @Tejas. I was hoping for your advice on the above coin. I would also be grateful for everyone's thoughts about a coin I bought from the eBay auction in 2019 (Figure 1) - probably my only coin from eBay. It was risky, and I am uncertain whether it is genuine. Furthermore, the seller was from Bulgaria.

I did buy it because it is stylistically close to my other coin, which is most likely genuine (Figure 2). I bought the coin Gorny & Mosch Giessener Münzhandlung, Auction 232. 05/10/2015. It has provenance from Glendining & Co., Ancient, English and Foreign Coins. 06/12/1978 and it may be the coin from Var Hoard (France, before 1946), published by Lafaurie J, Morrisson C. La pénétration des monnaies byzantines en Gaule mérovingienne et visigotique du VIe au VIIIe siècle. Revue numismatique, 6e série - Tome 29; 1987: 38-98 (Figure 3). Or at least it was produced using the same dies.

Any thoughts are very welcome.

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Edited August 29, 2023 by Rand

[Tejas]

Hi Rand, 

these are just my impressions. I know a bit about coins of the so called migration period and dark ages, but I am really not an expert when it comes to identifying forgeries.

Here are my thoughts:

The coin in Fig. 2 is genuine. Not only does it come with a good provenance, its appearance and fabrique is in line with a Frankish-Merovingian imitation (boucle perdue type) of the 6th century. 

The coin in Fig. 1 looks in some sense even more convincing than Fig. 2 (e.g. the brown deposits, also the shape of the letters on the avers look like they come from an Italian mint). However, Bulgaria as country of origin does ring alarm bells. The reverse looks a bit "soft", but that may just be the picture. Also, if it is a Frankish-Merovingian imitation, why did it end up in Bulgaria? So, while I can't be certain, I have doubts about that coin, but I would like to hear others' opinions.

 

[Rand]

Thank you, Tejas, 

Bulgaria has been my main doubt as well. The seller had a few coins outside the region, but it would be an unusual journey for the coin. Unfortunately, I cannot now remember whether it was posted from Bulgaria. Sometimes, eBay sellers are not where the account may say.

There are not many close matches to compare. There is a sample in the Brussels, Cabinet des Médailles. I only have an old poor photo of the coin from Vanhoudt, H. De merovingische munten in het Penningkabinet van de koninklijke Bibliotheek te Brussel. Een katalogus van de hedendaagse verzameling, RBN 128, 1982, p. 95-194, pl. VII-XVI. It supports the existence of this group of coins but does not lend direct evidence for my specimen.

 

Edited August 29, 2023 by Rand

[Simon]

I picked this  Gepids example from Forum Ancient Coins a few years back. Not the same coin but authentic, it gives you an idea.

---

Kingdom of the Gepids, Thrasaric, c. 491 - 504 A.D., In the Name of Anastasius and Theodoric the Great

 Silver quarter siliqua, Demo 77 var. (legend variations), VF+, centered, toned, edge bend, edge chips, Sirmium (Sremska Mitrovica, Serbia) mint, weight 0.820g, maximum diameter 16.2mm, die axis 180^o, c. 491 - 504 A.D.; obverse D N ANASTASIVS P AV (N's inverted, A's appearing as Λ), diademed and cuirassed bust of Anastasius right; reverse * V INVICTA + A ROMANI (first N inverted, A's appearing as Λ),  monogram of Theodoric, cross above, star below; ex Roma Numismatic

[Tejas]

1 hour ago, Simon said:

Kingdom of the Gepids, Thrasaric, c. 491 - 504 A.D., In the Name of Anastasius and Theodoric the Great

Yes, the coin is genuine, but the description is probably wrong.

1. The quarter-siliquae copy Ostrogothic quarter-siliquae of Milan. It is unlikely that Thrasaric, who was an enemy of the Ostrogoths would have produced such imitations. Indeed, it is unlikely that the Gepids minted any coins at that time. 

2. Instead, in 504 AD Sirmium fell into the hands of the Ostrogoths, and the first coins minted at Sirmium are faithful copies of Ostrogothic coins from Milan, produced under Ostrogothic rule.

3. Sirmium was retaken by the Gepids in the 530s, when they continued some (possibly sporadic) minting until the 560s. However, they probably never produced coins in the name of Anastasius, who had been long dead. Instead. the Gepids produced coins in the names of Justinian and Justin II.

In conclusion, in my opinion most of the coins attributed to the Gepids, were actually minted by the Ostrogoths. But my assessment is in direct oposition to Metlich, who attributed all Sirmium coins to the Gepids, and the argument is not closed

 

 

Edited August 29, 2023 by Tejas

[Al Kowsky]

This thread & discussion has been fascinating & enlightening ☺️! Coinage of the Gepids, Ostrogoths, & Vandals is finally getting the attention it deserves, the high volume of fakes on the market is proof of this 😉. I have one coin that might fit into this discussion pictured below.

 

[Vel Saties]

On 8/28/2023 at 1:23 AM, Topcat7 said:

I just found a quarter siliqua in my Byzantine collection.

Barbaric coinage imitating Imperial issues.

The Gepids. Uncertain ruler. In the name of Anastasius, 491-518 AD.

Quarter Siliqua, c.518-540 AD. AR7mm., 1.05gm.

Obv: D N ANAST-ASIVS P P V Diademed and draped bust.

Rev: VICTORIA AVGGG around SR(A)M in open frame. In ex. CONO(R)

Theoderic King of the Gepides

Ref: MIB 1

Good morning everyone.
This is my first post on this forum so let me introduce myself.
I'm from Italy and I have worked as an archaeologist and numismatist for about 20 years and have been studying this coinage for some years, I have a small collection of these coins of approx. 50 specimens, several fragments and some fakes and a database of images and references of approximately 700 specimens.
As already mentioned previously this is not a quarter of a siliqua but a 1/2 siliqua (as indicated by the weight of the coin) of the so-called "Sirmium Group" as it was called by Metlich in the COI (Coinage of Ostroghotic Italy, London 2004).
The type is well known and the existing biography is quite clear.
I take the liberty of citing the following works:
- J. Brunšmid, Die Münzen des Gepidenkönings Kunimund, in Numismatische Zeitchrift 57, pp. 1-5, Wien 1924.
- J. Werner, Silbermünzen Theoderichs d. Gr. Von Mengen (Oberbaden), In Blätter für Münzfreunde vol. 68, pp. 674-679, 723-725, Halle (Saale) 1933.
- Ž. Demo, Ostrogothic coinage from the Collections in Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia & Herzegovina, Ljubljana 1994.
- I. Mirnik, A. Semrov, Byzantine coin in the Zagreb Archeological Museum, Numismatic Collection, Anastasius I (A.D. 497-518) – Anastasius II (A.D. 713-715) in VAMZ Journal of the Zagreb Archaeological Museum, Vol. 30- 31 No.1, July 1998, pp. 129-258, Zagreb 1998.
- N. PAOLUCCI, La monetazione argentea attribuita ai Gepidi: la documentazione dal mercato digitale, Tesi Corso di laurea triennale in Storia, Università degli studi di Padova, 07 dicembre 2016.
- Alain Gennari: The “Sirmium group”: about the so-called Gepids siliquae With a specific catalog – 2nd edition Parma 2017 (available on academia.edu)
- A. GENNARI, The “Sirmium group”: about the so-called Gepids siliquae. With a specific catalogue, 2nd ed., in Acta Numismatica Hungarica, 1, Budapest 2019, pp. 63-251.
- J. HARTNER, Die “Sirmium-Gruppe”. Überlegungen zu einer völkerwanderungszeitlichen Münzgruppe ost- gotischer Imitativprägungen – gepidischen Ursprungs?, in Stabilität und Instabilität von Geldsystemen, Tagungsband zum 7 Österreichischen Numismatikertag, Wien, vom 19. – 20. Mai 2016, Wien 2018, pp. 39-46.
- I. A. VIDA, A. GENNARI, Z. FARKAS, Coin from the Gepidic period cemetery of Berettyóújfalu, Hhungary. The cross series of the Sirmium group, in Collapse – Reorganization – Continuity, Gepids after the fall of the Hun empire, Proceedings of the International Conference at Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, 14th–15th December 2015, Budapest 2019, pp. 589-601.
- Dirk Faltin (I guess the author corresponds to @Tejas The ‘Sirmium Group’ – an overview in KOINON The International Journal of Classical Numismatic Studies Volume II, Oxford 2019.
- Michele Asolati: Tra Ostrogoti e Longobardi: la monetazione argentea dei Gepidi, in Argentum romanorum sive barbarorum, permanences et évolution des usages monétaires de l’argent du IVe au VIe siècle dans l’occident romain, 2èmes Rencontres internationales de numismatique, Caen, 12-13 octobre 2017, Mainz 2020, pp. 249-269.

Regarding the 1/2 siliques Gennai in his 2017 catalog writes:

Type 4, whose main reference is still the Catalogue Vecchi 14, 1999, the William Subak collection, n. 63, could be one of the older types of the entire “Sirmium Group”. We have now to identify the features of this type, present in only 10 specimens with 8 different die combinations. On the obverse there is the bust of Anastasius, with a much bigger torso, perhaps thanks to the greater space available on the coin. The legend on the obverse is always broken, and in some cases completely misunderstood and barbarized. The reverse is really unique, here we find: a legend variously referring to a VICTORIA AVG; an exergue with a CONOB variously reported that it had nothing to do with a silver emission, and in the center of the field, between two horizontal bars, the letters SRM (with M sometimes replaced by a W). The use of CONOB, or similar variants, is rare on silver coins. An example is the Anastasius coin MIBE 1853, or the Metlich 4154. The SRM seems a direct reference to the mint of Sirmium, and being on a coin that brings a VICTORIA AVG legend, seems to establish an immediate connection with type 1 Even if we consider the limited number of specimens, and the high variability of weights, from 1.08 g. to 1.91 g., the average weight of type 4 is 1.54 g., with a median of 1.59 g., then twice the weight of type 1. That is why for type 4 we use the habitual modern term "half siliqua".

I leave it to you to recover Faltin's excellent work.

However, I invite you to look for a preliminary work by Alain Gennari relating to the fakes of the Sirmium Group and created thanks to the study of the coins.

GENNARI A., Falsi e possibili falsi nella serie monetale del “Sirmium Group”: nota preliminare in Monete Antiche anno XXI n. 121, gennaio/febbraio 2022 (in italian)

Unfortunately the work cannot be found on academia.edu: you can only find a preview


I'm sorry but I'm afraid that both the Tomcat7 coin and the Celator coin which have the same pair of dies are fake: the first one is better made, the Celator one is a clear Serbian fake.
(the ebay seller of the Celator coin has many fakes in the catalogue)

Edited April 1 by Vel Saties

[Vel Saties]

On 8/29/2023 at 1:17 PM, Simon said:

I picked this  Gepids example from Forum Ancient Coins a few years back. Not the same coin but authentic, it gives you an idea.

---

Kingdom of the Gepids, Thrasaric, c. 491 - 504 A.D., In the Name of Anastasius and Theodoric the Great

 Silver quarter siliqua, Demo 77 var. (legend variations), VF+, centered, toned, edge bend, edge chips, Sirmium (Sremska Mitrovica, Serbia) mint, weight 0.820g, maximum diameter 16.2mm, die axis 180^o, c. 491 - 504 A.D.; obverse D N ANASTASIVS P AV (N's inverted, A's appearing as Λ), diademed and cuirassed bust of Anastasius right; reverse * V INVICTA + A ROMANI (first N inverted, A's appearing as Λ),  monogram of Theodoric, cross above, star below; ex Roma Numismatic

This is a beautiful origonal specimen of 1/4 siliqua with a portrait that I really like and which I define as "hourglass".
obverse: DNANASTASIVSPAV, Diademed and cuirassed bust right. reverse: VIN VITA ✠ A ROMANI *, Stylized "Theoderich" monogram
It has the same pair of dies as the NAC auc specimen. 93 no. 1230

[Vel Saties]

From GENNARI A., Falsi e possibili falsi nella serie monetale del “Sirmium Group”: nota preliminare in Monete Antiche anno XXI n. 121, gennaio/febbraio 2022

 

[Rand]

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 

[Vel Saties]

16 minutes ago, Rand said:

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 

Hello, Rand.
I am also skeptical like Tejas.
But it must be said that in many ways this coinage is still mysterious:
Who actually minted the silver coins? The Ostrogoths? the Gepids? Both at different times? Scholars disagree.
Scientifically recorded findings are unfortunately scarce. we still need to work on it....
Many questions remain open: why should the Gepids have remembered the Ostrogoths on their coins, with whom they certainly did not have very good relations for political and territorial reasons? And if so, when would the Gepids start to mint their own coin? with the specimens with the reverse anepigraph and simplified monogram of Theodoric, the so-called pseudo-Cunimundo?
Gold and silver coins fully attributable to the Ostrogothic cultural horizon have been found in the Balkan area (see Demo's works). so for gold and bronze they relied on Ostrogothic and or Byzantine emissions? A bit like what happened with the Vandals in North Africa?
Excuse me for the extreme simplification for which I deserve public flogging.
But in my opinion, scientific hypotheses are not religion so we remain available to analyze and possibly accept further opinions if and when new data comes out. Or not?

However, be careful not to base hypotheses on stylistic similarities without further data, even if we are strongly encouraged to do so.
Be careful because there are good and much less good engravers who worked for both official and unofficial mints.
Let us think, for example, of what happened in the Gallic empire with the workers who moved from mint to mint at the level of official workshops (remaining in the Gallic context, Doyen demonstrated the presence of an "official" engraver active in Trier/Cologne during Posthumus in Milan for a realization of a coinage of obverse for a series of issues of Aureolus in the name of Postumus), or the disparity of realizations of the Byzantine coins.
It is also possible that some objects were created for monetary reasons tout cour and others for non-monetary reasons.
Unfortunately, I repeat, there is a lack of scientific data in this sense
Among other things, in Kunker's coin it seems to me that there are two hands: one for the obverse and the other for the reverse. The portrait on the obverse of the coin recalls the tremissi portraits of Theodoric in the name of Emperor Zeno of the Rome mint. But without discovery data, how is it possible to ascribe the coin to the Gepids?

[Tejas]

I probably said this before, but I think the following is true:

1. Minting in Sirmium began in 504 or shortly thereafter, when the town came under the control of the Ostrogoths. Coin 1 and 2 below probably belong to this early phase of minting.

2. The vast majority of Sirmium silver coins were minted under Ostrogothic rule. The mint simply copied quarter-siliquae from Milan with the Theodric monogram. So even if the Tremissis above was minted at Sirmium, I would in my view be an Ostrogothic copy of an Ostrogothic coin from Milan.

3. The first series that was conceivably minted under Gepidic rule were quarter-siliquae in the name of Justinian. These coin may have been minted after about 535 when the Ostrogoths withdrew from Sirmium and the town reverted to Gepidic control. Speculatively, these coins may have been minted during the reign of Elemund. These coins are much rarer than coins in the name of Anastasius and Justin I. In my view the bulk of the so called Gepidic coins are mistattributed and should better be listed under Ostrogothic coins. Coin 3 below may be among the first coins truely attributable to the Gepids.

4. At some point the monogram included a letter "T". Whether this was deliberate or just an engravers error is unknown. However, the T was continued on different types and if it was deliberate, it may indicate the rule of Gepidic king Turisind. Note that coin 3 and 4 were minted from the same obverse die. Coin 4 shows the T.

5. The last stage of Gepidic coins are those in the name of Justin II. These coin may, at least in part fall, under the reign of Cunimund. Coin 5 belongs to this final group.

 

Edited April 1 by Tejas

[Vel Saties]

Ciao! it is certainly a plausible and interesting hypothesis, even if as I wrote it is not supported by excavation data that are of absolute or relative dating among monetary issues.

I agree with the hypothesis that the first mintage of the sirmium group is the VICTORIA AVG series. But is jus an hypothesis.

The question arises spontaneously as to why the minting of the obverse of coins 3 and 4 is also found in association with reverses with the monogram of Theodoric and therefore still linked to the more purely Ostrogothic cultural horizon.

However, the hypothesis of Justin II as the beginning of the Gepidic coinage phase could explain the true typological caesura in this coinage given by the so-called pseudo-cunimundo series

(kunsthistorisches Museum Wien MK_MA_007954)

From Kamenica/Cibalae (Croatia)

Iustinus

Found in excavetion ad Berettyoujfalu in Eastern Hungary in a gepidic cemetery dated after hunnic rule (453-567)

Having said this, since we don't know each other, I don't want to say that one scholar like you is right and another is wrong: all scholars formulate hypotheses based on reasoning and data.
And all hypotheses must be examined, cross-referenced and tested.
Only chronologically tested data, id est with coins from stratigraphic excavations, could help in the study. But unfortunately 85% of the recorded material comes from finds without a place of discovery and without stratigraphic information, therefore from an archaeological point of view they are quite useless in supporting strictly numismatic hypotheses.

 

 

Edited April 1 by Vel Saties

[Rand]

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).

[Tejas]

Yes, this is a very confusing series. I think we have to contemplate the possibility that these coins were produced at more than one mint and that at some point the Langobards were also involved.  I have a denomination, which is not even published and which has a unique reverse design. Unfortunately, I won't discuss it here. I'm still planning to publish the coin. 

 

 

[Rand]

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.

 

[Vel Saties]

42 minutes ago, Tejas said:

Unfortunately, I won't discuss it here. I'm still planning to publish the coin. 

You do very well! I look forward to reading your publication. Compliments!

[Vel Saties]

And, by the way, thank you very much for these wonderful discussions

[Vel Saties]

@Rand: I'm thinking about your question relating to the gold (and I also add the bronze) of the Gepids.
In Italian they say "mi hai messo addosso la scimmia"  (literaly "you put the monkey on me"): I keep thinking about it.

 

[Vel Saties]

On 4/1/2024 at 3:25 PM, Rand said:

Fritz Rudolf Künker GmbH & Co. KG. eLive Auction 80. 05/12/2023

I haven't found it yet but the stylistic taste of this coin is certainly not Ostrogothic.
It reminds me of some official Justinian coins from Spanish mints such as Chartagena or Malaga

 

A. de Belfort, Description générale desmonnaies mérovingiennes, 5 vols., Paris 1892-5. - nello specifico VOL IV

P. Grierson, Una ceca bizantina en España, in Numario Hispanico 4, pp. 305-314, Madrid, 1955.

P. Bartlett, A. Oddy, C. Morrisson, The Byzantine Gold Coinage of Spania (Justin I to Heraclius), in RN 167, Paris 2011, p. 351-401.

[Rand]

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.