Alien ?

[mc9]

Begin 1980 i started collecting Roman coins. I could buy a lot imitations from Victorinus, Tetricus I and II and Claudius II found in France. The lot was more then 250 pieces.

The best ones i kept.

This one stand out for me, Constantinian time, with fel temp reparatio ( fallen horseman ) reverse.

At the time I thought the emperor it looked more like an alien, but today i think it looks more like ' a masked singer '.

Does anyone know which tribe or community made this ?

Please show your favorite contemporary imitation coins.

Thanks,  mc9

 

[John Conduitt]

I don't know if it's possible to say who made it unless you know where it was found. These 'barbarous' coins were made by the British and French people living within the Roman Empire, so any tribalism was suppressed. As far as Britain is concerned, I don't think anyone knows if the old tribal groups survived, although it's likely they did in some form as they seem to re-emerge in the Saxon period.

The style doesn't look like anything I've seen found in Britain, but there are so many styles. The British imitations, as far as I can tell, are usually cruder than the French before Constantine I, but after that they seem to be at least as good.

These are some of my Constantinian imitations from Britain. They're very different to the imitations of Claudius, the Gallic Empire, Carausius, Magnentius or Julian, perhaps more than they differ from the French imitations of the same time.

Barbarous Imitation of a Commemorative VRBS ROMA, 335-339

East Anglia imitating Lugdunum. Bronze, 14mm, 1.20g. Helmeted and mantled bust of Roma left; VRBS ROMA. She-wolf standing left, head right, suckling the twins Romulus and Remus; two stars above; •PLG (cf RIC VII, 242). Reportedly from the Nether Compton (Dorset) Hoard 1989.

Barbarous Constans I Nummus, 337-348

Imitating Treveri. Bronze, 14mm, 1.09g. Rosette diademed, draped and cuirassed bust of Constans right; CONSTAN-S P F AVG. Two soldiers standing, each holding a spear and a shield, one standard between them inscribed M, TRP below; GLORIA EXERCITVS (cf RIC VIII, 106). Found in Britain.

Barbarous Theodora/Constantinopolis hybrid, c340
 
Britain imitating Trier. Bronze, 13mm, 0.95g. Theodora left; CIHHO-O AIIG (reading right to left and facing outwards, imitating FL MAX THEO-DORAE AVG). Constantinopolis standing on a prow of a ship, holding sceptre and shield; TPZ in exergue (TRS for Trier, again reading right to left).

Edited September 15, 2023 by John Conduitt

[ambr0zie]

Not sure from which tribe is the OP coin, but I also have a coin depicting an alien on the reverse. 

13,9 mm, 1,38 g.

Barbarous imitation of Tetricus I  271-274 AD. Ӕ antoninianus.

IMP C TETRICVS P F AVG or IMP C TETRICVS P F AV, bust of Tetricus I, radiate, draped, cuirassed, right / SALVS AVG, Salus, draped, standing left, feeding snake rising from altar with right hand and holding sceptre or anchor in left hand.

Cf RIC V Tetricus I 121.

 

Another imitation I find interesting is this VRBS ROMA

Comparison with an official issue 

[kirispupis]

I'm the wrong person to discuss barbarous imitations or even late Roman coins (or even Roman coins), but here's my alien.

Islands off Thrace, Lemnos, Myrina
Circa 386-261 BCE
Æ 2.41g, 11mm, 12h
Head of Athena to right, wearing Corinthian helmet
MYPI, owl standing facing, [bow to right?]
SNG Copenhagen 989; CN Type 19860; HGC 6, 299

[DLTcoins]

"Tribe" isn't the best way to think of these 4th-century imitations. They are better understood as an economic phenomenon. From the late 3rd century onward, the official coinage was reformed over and over again, resulting in localized shortages of small change. There was apparently no shortage of "entrepreneurs", however, willing to step in and fill the void. 'Contemporary counterfeit' is probably the terminology best reflecting current understanding.

The seminal study is Pierre Bastien (1985), 'Imitations of Roman Bronze Coins, A.D. 318-363', ANS Museum Notes 30, New York, pp. 143-177; pls.41-44. The article can be read or downloaded at the link below.

Bastien describes "waves" of "epidemic counterfeiting", two of which are associated with the Fel Temp Reparatio reforms, the first c. 348 and another, several years later, that continued until the coinage was again reformed under Julian c. 361. A substantial number of the 'fallen horseman' imitations found in Britain are overstrikes with false dies on earlier Constantinian issues, which hints at the underlying economic forces.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=inu.30000108391198

Edited September 15, 2023 by DLTcoins

[John Conduitt]

1 hour ago, DLTcoins said:

'Contemporary counterfeit' is probably the terminology best reflecting current understanding.

As I understand it, these weren't counterfeits ("made in exact imitation of something valuable with the intention to deceive or defraud"). If they were, they wouldn't be much smaller than official coins. They certainly can't be overstrikes. Instead, they were probably made by melting down the larger official coins (as evidence suggests happened in the 270s).

The locals were creating coinage where none existed and apparently not against the will of whoever was governing at the time. This may seem at odds with the practice in Rome where counterfeiters were executed, but it has precedent in the imitations from Claudius's time (yet another period with a lack of coins), which were countermarked to make them official. Rome didn't even control Britain and France for most of 260-296 (the Gallic and Britannic Empires) or 350-353 (Magnentius's usurption) when many imitations were produced.

I imagine the shortage in the Constantinian era occured when they shut the mint at Londinium in 325/6 (along with Sirmium, Aquileia and Ticinum). It's probably not a coincidence that there were lots of British imitations up to the time Carausius opened the Londinium mint (286-293) and after 326, but not between, which again points to them not being counterfeits. The first wave of Constantinian 'counterfeiting' certainly wasn't as late as 348, given the first coin I posted above comes from the Nether Compton Hoard, deposited around 339, which was a huge hoard full of imitations alongside official issues. It must have been happening throughout the 330s.

I don't know much about coin production in France at that time, but perhaps they had a better supply of coins from their mints, which would mean barbarous Constantinian imitations (and fallen horsemen from the 350s) are more likely to be British. However, I've seen plenty of fallen horsemen imitations that were found in France and are thought to be Gallic. Having said that, southern Britain had stronger relations with northern France than the rest of Britain in both Celtic and Saxon times, so if that was also true in Roman times, these coins could all have been part of the same makeshift economic 'system'.

Edited September 16, 2023 by John Conduitt

[DLTcoins]

30 minutes ago, John Conduitt said:

As I understand it, these weren't counterfeits ("made in exact imitation of something valuable with the intention to deceive or defraud"). If they were, they wouldn't be much smaller than official coins. They certainly can't be overstrikes. Instead, they were probably made by melting down the larger official coins (as evidence suggests happened in the 270s).

The locals were creating coinage where none existed and apparently not against the will of whoever was governing at the time. This may seem at odds with the practice in Rome where counterfeiters were executed, but it has precedent in the imitations from Claudius's time (yet another period with a lack of coins), which were countermarked to make them official. Rome didn't even control Britain and France for most of 260-296 (the Gallic and Britannic Empires) or 350-353 (Magnentius's usurption) when many imitations were produced.

I imagine the shortage in the Constantinian era occured when they shut the mint at Londinium in 325/6 (along with Sirmium, Aquileia and Ticinum). It's probably not a coincidence that there were lots of British imitations up to the time Carausius opened the Londinium mint (286-293) and after 326, but not between, which again points to them not being counterfeits. The first wave of Constantinian 'counterfeiting' certainly wasn't as late as 348, given the first coin I posted above comes from the Nether Compton Hoard, deposited around 339, which was a huge hoard full of imitations alongside official issues. It must have been happening throughout the 330s.

I don't know much about coin production in France at that time, but perhaps they had a better supply of coins from their mints, which would mean barbarous Constantinian imitations (and fallen horsemen from the 350s) are more likely to be British. However, I've seen plenty of fallen horsemen imitations that were found in France and are thought to be Gallic. Having said that, southern Britain had stronger relations with northern France than the rest of Britain in both Celtic and Saxon times, so if that was also true in Roman times, these coins could all have been part of the same makeshift economic 'system'.

It's largely a semantic issue, I think. As many do, you seem to be projecting a modern narrow interpretation of "counterfeit" onto the Roman economy. If there's a better term, I'm open to it but "counterfeit" is the term used in the literature. Answers to most of the other points can be found in the Bastien article cited. 

[John Conduitt]

18 minutes ago, DLTcoins said:

It's largely a semantic issue, I think. As many do, you seem to be projecting a modern narrow interpretation of "counterfeit" onto the Roman economy. If there's a better term, I'm open to it but "counterfeit" is the term used in the literature. Answers to most of the other points can be found in the Bastien article cited. 

To be fair, I'm very much trying to see the situation outside of the modern narrow interpretation by not calling them counterfeits, which was what all the explanation was about 😁. The word 'counterfeit' literally means a fake made to deceive, which is not what these were, so it isn't semantics. They're called (barbarous) imitations or contemporary copies, not counterfeits, by almost everyone now. At the extreme, they could be considered like Celtic or Saxon coins - not fakes, not counterfeits, but original coins that happen to copy existing Roman coins.

Don't get me onto the difference between coins and tokens 🤣

Edited September 16, 2023 by John Conduitt

[DLTcoins]

Bastien uses both "counterfeit" and "imitation" synonymously, completely appropriate for the narrow period in question (318-361). The important thing, I think, is to get away from the term "barbarous" which reinforces a 19th and early 20th-century misunderstanding, long ago abandoned (Hill, for example, recanted his "dark age" dating of radiate minimi in 1960). The concept of endemic vs epidemic counterfeiting comes originally from George Boon's 1971 article, 'Counterfeit Coins in Roman Britain', in Coins and The Archaeologist, BAR 4 (Oxford). There is a 2nd revised edition of Coins and the Archaeologist published in 1988 by Spink which is more readily available. If you can refer me to articles that refute either Bastien, Boon, or both, I would be happy to consider them.

 

Edited September 16, 2023 by DLTcoins

[John Conduitt]

10 minutes ago, DLTcoins said:

Bastien uses both "counterfeit" and "imitation" synonymously, completely appropriate for the narrow period in question (318-361). The important thing, I think, is to get away from the term "barbarous" which reinforces a 19th and early 20th-century misunderstanding, long ago abandoned (Hill, for example, recanted his "dark age" dating of radiate minimi in 1960). The concept of endemic vs epidemic counterfeiting comes originally from George Boon's 1971 article, 'Counterfeit Coins in Roman Britain', in Coins and The Archaeologist, BAR 4 (Oxford). There is a 2nd revised edition of Coins and the Archaeologist published in 1988 by Spink which is more readily available. If you can refer me to articles that refute either Bastien, Boon, or both, I would be happy to consider them.

Yes, barbarous is wrong but still used, especially for coins from the 270s. I don't think there is an alternative for barbarous radiate yet.

I appreciate Bastien and others use counterfeit and imitation as synonyms. To me, that's like saying 'fake' and 'reproduction' or 'restrike' are the same, but they're not, as the intention is very different. WRL and the Royal Mint make reproductions and restrikes, but are not forgers. Anyway, it only matters if someone doesn't know the context in which they were made, which we've amply covered.

[thenickelguy]

I like "imitation"

[mc9]

I forgotten the dimensions of the coin: 0.86 gr and 12.16 mm.

I found the little collection last week cleaning a little attic room. I had not seen the coins for over 35 years.

@John Conduitt, thanks for showing your nice coins and your input on roman imitations.

@ambr0zie, thank you for your pleasant selection of third and fourth century imitation coins.

@kirispupis, From which planet is the reverse? Is it a smart phone in his right hand to phone home? Thanks for showing.

@DLTcoins, Than you for the link and input, i know what to read next days.

@thenickelguy, me to.