Jump to content

The Gepids. Uncertain Ruler. In the name of ANASTASIUS


Topcat7

Recommended Posts

Posted · Supporter

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

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is my coin of this type. I bought it from HD Rauch, who had attributed it to the Gepids. I asked them about more information about the provenance and, to my surprise, they said that the coin was found in Novi Sad, Serbia. I don't know if this information is reliable or not and even if it is, it does not allow for an attribution to the Gepids. After all, some Gepidic (Sirmium) coins were found in Germany and in Belgium. 

Looking at the two coin above from the Berlin Münzkabinett, I think that these coins could originate from the Alamannic region of the Frankish kingdom, i.e. the area of modern Alsace in France, northern Switzerland and south-western Germany. The degree of barbarization indicates that these coins were struck away from former Roman centers and the style (especially of the left-hand coin above) is similar to coins that have been assigned to that region in the past.

 

8.PNG

Edited by Tejas
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Supporter

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.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. very interesting, My compliments.
But we must be careful: the tremisse that I posted previously is an official Byzantine coin but from the Spanish mint.
(As always, our Iberian friends amaze us with their wonderful ability to give a completely personal graphic interpretation to coins.
Something that has its roots already in pre-Roman Iberian and provincial Roman coinage.The tremisse that I posted is an official Byzantine coin from the Spanish mint.)

Given the area of origin they could also be imitative of their Ostrogothic or Byzantine counterparts. @Tejas : What weight and diameter does your wonderful coin have?

I am always extremely delighted by the imaginative ability of the so-called "barbarians". Perhaps my gaze, which was formed in the history of classical art, was transformed with a process similar to that of Picasso.

As always, thank you very much for these wonderful discussions

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I regard these three tremisses from my collection to originate from the Alamannic region. 

Regarding the last coin, see MEC 377 for a die-identical coin. According to MEC the coin may have been minted by the Alamanni. As for the dating. The first coin was struck in the name of Anastasius, it may date to the first half of the 6th century. The second coin probably dates to the early 7th century and the third coin may date to the late 6th century. The Alamanni had long lost their independence by that time so the attribution is more of a regional geographic attribution, rather than a political one.

8.PNG

Edited by Tejas
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My coin is this one:

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=787342

The other coin, reportedly from Spain is this one:

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1516681

As you can see, HD Rauch attributed mine tentatively to the Gepids (probably because of the reported findspot Novi Sad in Serbia), while the other coin was attributed to the Merovingians, which was likely a default attribution.

The two coins are clearly closely related, even if they are not from the same dies. If the findspot reported by HD Rauch is correct, I cannot imagine that the type originated in Spain. However, I suppose that the information was given to HD Rauch by the seller and it may not be accurate. Does anybody have more information that supports the attribution to Malaga or Cartagena?

 

 

5.PNG

Edited by Tejas
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tejas said:

Does anybody have more information that supports the attribution to Malaga or Cartagena?

Hi, I don't know what to tell you: several works are coming out and this is the trend of recent studies.
You could start reading this study co-authored by Morrison: Peter Bartlett*, Andrew Oddy**, Cécile MOrrissOn*** The Byzantine gold coinage of Spania (Justinian I to Heraclius) . https://www.academia.edu/3415944/The_Byzantine_gold_coinage_of_Spania
Furthermore, it would be appropriate to have the exact measurements and weights of the Rauch coins to see if they are part of the same Spanish series or if they can be ascribed, at least from a metric point of view, to unofficial series but of other origins.
As regards the provenance of the discovery from Novi Sad, if this were confirmed, it could be due to multiple factors given that the gold circulation was not limited to a specific area.
If we consider that I had studied a hoard of Vandal coins in Thessaly and Byzantine gold coins in Tunisia at the time when the Eastern Empire and the Vandals were almost at war, I don't see any problems with a coin having traveled from one part of Justinian's empire to the other together with the flows of goods.
In any case it is a complex and interesting topic that evolves with the in-depth analysis of archaeological studies

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a look at the article - thanks for the link. Coin no. 6 seems to be related to the coins under discussion. However, there seems to be considerable uncertainty as to the attribution to Malaga and Cartagena.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Supporter

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

image.png.4e8c9568f6680bf57388e9fb9dece4ec.png

 

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 4/4/2024 at 7:34 AM, Tejas said:

The two coins are clearly closely related, even if they are not from the same dies. If the findspot reported by HD Rauch is correct, I cannot imagine that the type originated in Spain.

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.

image.png.fe2b29ca2eff0fdfd23ab3c3558fe8eb.png

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. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting. The first piece of this broader group with a certain findspot. This lends credibility to the information that my coin was found in Serbia (Novi Sad). The group may have been produced somewhere in the Suevic-Langobardic-Herulic cultural horizon. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...