Eastern tribes...

[galba68]

I know its broken, I know its not eye appealing, but its historically interesting and very rare...

Gepid siliqua, Cunimund, 567 AD, very rare..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunimund

 

[Hrefn]

Cunimund the Gepid lost his battle with the Lombards.  His skull was made into a drinking cup, like that of the Emperor Nicephorus a few centuries later.  The Lombards did not enjoy the fruits of victory for long, being forced westward and south by the Avars.  This led to the Lombard conquest of Italy beginning in about AD 568.   The Lombards came to dominate the bulk of the Italian peninsula, with the Kingdom of Lombardy in the north divided from the Lombard Duchy of Benevento to the south by the Papal State.  

The Lombard Kingdom was crushed by Charlemagne, but he had a less firm grasp on Benevento.  This area remained more or less independent for another 3 centuries.  

The closest I can come the Gepids in my collection is their destroyers, the Lombards.  

Here is Romuald II, Duke of Benevento from about AD 706-31.  The solidus is a copy of an early coin of Justinian II, with the prominent addition of Romuald’s initial in the reverse field.  You can perceive DNIUSTINIAN… as the obverse inscription with some imagination.  Below is an official solidus which is close to the prototype.   

Romuald II is notable for promoting, with Pope Gregory II,  the re-establishment of the Abbey of Montecassino.  The Rule of Saint Benedict, which is the foundational document of Western monasticism, was written for the use of the original monastery, which had been destroyed in the Lombard invasion.  The revived monastery became the most important in Western Europe.  Benedictine monasteries had a lot to do with the preservation of Classical learning through the Middle Ages, thanks to their libraries and scriptoria.  If you enjoy a copy of Tacitus, Suetonius, Livy, or Virgil in your library, it is possible that some small measure of credit belongs to Romuald II.  

Edited September 4, 2023 by Hrefn
Typo

[Tejas]

Thanks for showing this coin. I'm glad that someone is valuing this historically and numismatically signficant coin, despite its broken and battered condition. Do you have any information on the find spot? Can you make anything out on the averse of the coin?

Here are two of these coins from my collection. The fact that I have two of these should not be interpreted in the sense that this is a common coin. There are probably less than 5 exemplars known of this type.

For more information, see my study here:

(99+) The "Sirmium Group" - an overview | Dirk Faltin - Academia.edu

 

These coins are clearly linked to the Sirmium group of late Gepidic coins. However, it is possible that these coins were made after the fall of Sirmium, when Langobards and Gepids started to migrate to Italy. In any case, this is a very enigmatic series about very little is known with certainty.

 

 

Edited September 4, 2023 by Tejas

[Rand]

My avatar coin is probably Gepiden. It is possible to see (unless I imagine) a transition from this small series to similar coins with the name of Justinian and further stylistic transition towards typical Langobardian coins. Reflecting on the paper by Tejas, it is more likely the series represented by my coin was minted by Gepidens in Sirimium with mint later fallen into hands of Langobards, thus explaining the transition.

 

Roma Numismatics Limited. Auction 11. 07/04/2016

[Tejas]

28 minutes ago, Rand said:

Reflecting on the paper by Tejas, it is more likely the series represented by my coin was minted by Gepidens in Sirimium with mint later fallen into hands of Langobards, thus explaining the transition.

 

That is a very beautiful and interesting coin. However, personally I'm not convinced that it is from Sirmium let alone from the Gepidic period (i.e. 535-565). Here is why:

1. The coin was minted in the name of Anastasius, who died in AD 518 and it imitates a tremissis from Constantinople (CONO_). Yet, all the early official silver issues from Sirmium in the name of Anastasius imitate coins from Milan, which is only logical since Sirmium was under Gothic rule from AD 504- c. 535.

2. While sometimes gold (and bronze coins) get attributed to the Sirmium mint and the Gepids, there is no proof that the 6th century Sirmium mint produced anything other than small silver coins. The reason was probably, because the subsidies from Constantinople kept the Gepids well supplied with gold coins. The Goths on the other hand would not have imitated an issue from Constantinople.

3. In particular, I don't think that the coin was minted while Sirmium was under Gepidic rule. The silver issue follows the succession of East Roman emperors. Hence, we have coins in the name of Anastasius, Justin I, Justinian and Justin II. I find it hard to believe that they would have produced gold coins in the name of a long dead emperor, after taking control of Sirmium in around AD 535, while minting silver coins in the name of the current emperors.

But of course, there is a lot that we don't know about the minting activity in Sirmium and possible at auxiliary mints in that region. So it is very difficult to be certain about anything concerning these coins. My hunch is that your coin is from Gaul or Frisia, i.e. from the territories ruled by Merovingian kings.

 

 

Edited September 4, 2023 by Tejas

[Rand]

I admit my uncertainty about these and many other coins in the name of Anastasius. Below are my lines of thinking - just thinking aloud...

 

1. The only documented find spot for these coins is Lypova Dolyna, Sumy Region, Ukraine; http://barbarous-imitations.narod.ru/index/321_400/0-611. It is rather hard to imagine Merovingian coins travelling to Eastern Ukraine. The find spot, the Merovingian preference for VPW tremisses and the lack of similarities to Italian coins make it more likely for them to be minted in the Balkans.

2. These coins are well-minted and belong to a small group with a clearly defined style and a die-link (I know six coins from three obverse dies and four reverse dies). This makes them more likely to be produced in a city with a history of an established mint, which narrows the possibility and makes it harder to rule out Sirmium. 

3. My impression is that most non-imperial coins with the name of Anastasius were minted during the Anastasius reign. Although Gepidic silver coins are known to imitate coins from Milan, their style is variable. If we believe Gepids took Sirmium in 504, producing an issue of gold coins to pay for the campaign could be a possibility.

 

These are speculations only, of course.

 

[Tejas]

10 hours ago, Rand said:

I admit my uncertainty about these and many other coins in the name of Anastasius. Below are my lines of thinking - just thinking aloud...

 

1. The only documented find spot for these coins is Lypova Dolyna, Sumy Region, Ukraine; http://barbarous-imitations.narod.ru/index/321_400/0-611. It is rather hard to imagine Merovingian coins travelling to Eastern Ukraine. The find spot, the Merovingian preference for VPW tremisses and the lack of similarities to Italian coins make it more likely for them to be minted in the Balkans.

 

I can see some similarities betwee your coin and the one from Ukraine, but these are in my view not compelling enough to conclude that they were made by the same hand or mint. This similarity may simply be due to the fact that both copied from the same model. Also, even if your coin and the one from eastern Ukraine were made by the same "mint" this does not mean that this mint was Sirmium, which is I guess some 2000 kilometers away. The people who lived in eastern Ukraine clearly produced imitative gold coins on their own. 

Edited September 5, 2023 by Tejas

[Tejas]

10 hours ago, Rand said:

3. My impression is that most non-imperial coins with the name of Anastasius were minted during the Anastasius reign. Although Gepidic silver coins are known to imitate coins from Milan, their style is variable. If we believe Gepids took Sirmium in 504, producing an issue of gold coins to pay for the campaign could be a possibility.

But the Gepids did not take Sirmium in AD 504. The Goths took Sirmium in 504 from the Gepids. The latter were only able to return to Sirmium in the mid 530s when the East Roman invasion of Italy forced the Goths to withdraw their garison from Sirmium. Most of the so called Gepidic coins from Sirmium, were minted when Sirmium was under Gothic suzerainty. That concerns all coins in the names of Anastasius and Justin I. 

 

 

[Tejas]

10 hours ago, Rand said:

2. These coins are well-minted and belong to a small group with a clearly defined style and a die-link (I know six coins from three obverse dies and four reverse dies). This makes them more likely to be produced in a city with a history of an established mint, which narrows the possibility and makes it harder to rule out Sirmium. 

Could you show pictures of this group please?

[Tejas]

Style can be very deciptive: Below is a Sirmium halfsiliqua and a tremissis from my collection and another Sirmium halfsiliqua from my collection. I bought the tremissis because I thought I see a similarity, which could suggest that the tremissis was from Sirmium. However, a Dutch numismatist (Arent Pol) demonstrated to me that my tremissis is from Frisia and any similarity in the style of the bust is coincidence.

 

 

Edited September 5, 2023 by Tejas

[Rand]

Please see below. ALL NOT MY COINS.

A die-match to the coin found in the Ukraine. Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge.

A coin linked by obverse to the coin found in the Ukraine (later sold by Leu Numismatik. Auction 4. 25/05/2019) and the coin above. Teutoburger Münzauktion GmbH. Auction 117. 07/09/2018

 

A coin from a different die pair. First sale that I know was from Numismatik Lanz München. Auction 123. 30/05/2005.

A poor photo. Seems to be from the same dies as the coin above. Tolstoi J. Monnaies byzantines, 1912. Citing Wroth, BM. This rulse out the series being modern invention.

[Tejas]

There is some discussion if this "group" of tremissis is from Sirmium under Gepidic suzerainty. The lower coin is from my collection. The coins are minted in the name of Justinian, which fits a Gepidic origin. My coin is said to have been found at a place called Novi Sad, which is just north of Sremska Mitrovica (Sirmium).

[Rand]

Thank you, and agree that the style may be deceptive.

Still, I feel the 6 coins are from the same group and mint. They jointly have unique features, such as three band flaps behind the emperor's head and Victoria's head made of dots. I do think they are linked.

Numerous coins from the Balkans have been found in the Ukraine. I do know about Western Anastasian types found there. I know a likely Italian Anastasius solidus found in Turkey, but this is unusual. Sirmium as a mint is a hypothesis; the Balkans are likely.

I do not argue about the events of Gepidic history (I only wish there was more certainty about them). Some events may have required emergency gold coins.

[Tejas]

The group is certaintly very interesting. Here is a theory: The coin from Ukraine, the Fitzwilliam coin, the coin from Teutoburger Münzhandlung and possibly the coin from Tolstoi are all official, despite the slight problems with the reverse lettering. Your coin (and possibly the Lanz coin) are imitations based on these official coins.

[Rand]

What the official mint would be?

[Tejas]

No idea, it could be anything. I think it is wrong to conclude that official mints did not produce odd styles or spelling mistakes. I think the control over the mint output varied over time. For example, there is a whole group of strange Leo I tremisses and siliquae, which cannot really be attributed to any people outside Rome and which may well have been produced by the official mint in Constantinople. Auction houses have an interest in attributing coins with odd styles and spelling mistakes to "unknown Germanic tribes" and so on, which usually doubles or triples their value. I think often this is not warranted.

[Rand]

Thank you, @Tejas

An official mint is an interesting theory. Thinking aloud again …

Two imperial mints are known to produce solidi under Anastasius, Constantinople and Thessaloniki. My previous theories attempting to attribute various solidi to other imperial mints producing copper coins (Antioch, Nikomedia, possibly Heraclea) and Alexandria all came to a dead end.

Imperial Anastasian solidi after 492 were produced under high-level QC with very few errors or notable deviations in style. Thessaloniki mint produced some of the most beautiful solidi after 492. I am unaware of any spelling errors on them. They were minted intermittently and scarce. There are no recognised Thesalonikan tremisses (unlike for Justinian).

QC was not as good for tremisses as for solidi in Constantinople. Spelling errors are more common (I agree with your comment about misattributions in trade). Variability of the end of VICTORIA AVCVSTORVM is notable (…RVM, RVH, RV, etc). However, the overall design was consistent, even though highly variable in quality (e.g., coins 1 and 2). I am aware of only one die with a more notable design deviation - the cross held by Victoria under the wing rather than outside the wing (coin 3, all shown coins are mine). 

- The coins discussed would be an unlikely deviation in style for the Constantinople mint. 
- They appeared to be made of lower-quality gold, which would be most unusual for imperial coins.
- One of the coins is holed and plugged. This is more common for coins circulating in Barbaricum.
- The large number of reverse legend errors contrasts the accuracy of the Thesallonican solidi.

This makes official imperial mints less likely options, although the theory cannot be discarded. 

I agree that my and Lanz's coins look different from the rest and may be imitations.

 

More information from regional museums would be welcome.

- Kunsthistorisches Museum has most kindly agreed to photograph their Anastasian gold coins, which should be available soon.
- Demo had no coins of the type discussed (which makes Sirmium a less likely option).
- Collections of the Numismatic Museum of Athens and Istanbul Archaeological Museums sadly cannot be accessed by me.

Roma Numismatics Limited. Auction 12. 29/09/2016.

Gorny & Mosch Giessener Münzhandlung. Auction 253. 05/03/2018.

Roma Numismatics Limited. The Byzantine Collection. 18.07.2023.

 

 

[Rand]

On 9/5/2023 at 8:50 AM, Tejas said:

Style can be very deciptive: Below is a Sirmium halfsiliqua and a tremissis from my collection and another Sirmium halfsiliqua from my collection. I bought the tremissis because I thought I see a similarity, which could suggest that the tremissis was from Sirmium. However, a Dutch numismatist (Arent Pol) demonstrated to me that my tremissis is from Frisia and any similarity in the style of the bust is coincidence.

'Anastasinan' North Frankish (e.g., Ripurian?) and Frisian tremisses are among most interesting of the period, but very rare and with poorly defined attributions. I am keen to learn more about them. 

Some of my favourites: 

https://nnc.dnb.nl/dnb-nnc-ontsluiting-frontend/#/collectie/object/RO-13063

https://nnc.dnb.nl/dnb-nnc-ontsluiting-frontend/#/collectie/object/2015-0261

Nice coins of yours - I wander whose name is on the obverse of the tremissis.

 

 

 

Edited September 6, 2023 by Rand

[Tejas]

I certaintly agree, that the style of the group of tremisses is odd, especially the reverse. I don't know if this was an official emission or not. It is of course possible that all the coins were made by inofficial mints, perhaps even outside the Roman Empire. What I would argue though, is this:

1. These are not Gepidic coins - because the only coins that can be attributed to the Gepids are those of Sirmium after ca. AD 535. This concerns only very few and rare Sirmium silver issues in the names of Justinian and Justin II + some special issues. (Note that most auction houses wrongly attribute Sirmium coin in the name of Anastasius and Justin I to the Gepids - this is unachronistic).

2. These coins are not the product of Sirmium - because these coins are based on East Roman coins, while the emissions from Sirmium are based on coins from the Gothic mint in Milan.

The only way how this could be Gepidic coins from Sirmium, would be by assuming that the Gepids minted coins at Sirmium in the period prior to 504. However, there is no indication that Sirmium produced any coins prior to 504, i.e. before the town fell to the Ostrogoths.