Hrefn Top Ten 2023

[Rand]

3 hours ago, Tejas said:

However, these are my arguments for identifying a Roman issue as opposed to Ticinum: 

1. A Tremissis from Rome should show the mintmark COMOB instead of COMOT or COMOI. 

2. A Tremissis from Rome has to be in the name of Anastasius, since Totila removed Justinian's name from all coins in 547 (in Demo's and my view) or in 549/50 at the latest.

3. A Tremissis from Rome should show a bust style that is similar to that of the very rare Roman half-siliquae, but differ from the known styles from Ticinum (cf my Tremissis below and a Roman half-siliqua from the BM collection).

4. The lettering of Roman coins of the 530s has always been small, neat and usually with un-barred letter "A". I would regard such features as supporting evidence.

I think at least the first 3 features have to be present to consider a Tremissis to be from the mint of Rome rather than Ticinum.

Also, if I may, I would propose an additional feature:

• PF for Rome - which was consistently used in Theodoric's time
• PP for Ticinum - these coins could have been influenced by PP used on tremisses in Milan or a possible relocation of a mint from Ravenna (I am unsure which tremisses were from Ravenna during Theodoricus, though).

 

[JeandAcre]

Amazing array.  ...Gotta say, the epic discussion that more or less orbits the ethos of the Lombards, Byzantines et al. is no less so.  Even for someone like me, who can get very little traction with the profusion of detail involved, it's bracing.   ...And, thank you, no less enlightening, even if at relatively random intervals!

Knowing no better, I'll go with @DonnaML and pick the solidus of Gratian.  (Funly, the reverse was imitated on a penny of AElfred the Great.  --Rats, can't find (someone else's) example online.)

Beyond that, all three of your deniers of Charles the Bald, with the very coolly distinctive, never mind rare mint signatures, have to attract my attention like magnets.  ...Just since I can find the picture, here's my example of the Palace issue.

   

[Tejas]

4 hours ago, Rand said:

After your previous feedback, I accepted another series of VGC tremisses as non-Gepidic. However, I am still curious if Gepids could have minted gold coins (why could they not).

I think the question is not so much "why could they not?" than "why would they?". In my view, the Gepids basically had no need for monetary gold. All or most of the gold which they received as subsidies from Constantinople (or through plunder) was converted into jewellery of one form or another. 

I think we have to understand, that the Gepidic kingdom was a typical non-monetized Germanic society of the time, based on subsistence farming and war. The strategically important town of Sirmium was completely untypical for the Gepidic kingdom. A still Romanized outpost at the south-western most border of the Gepidic kingdom, it had an urbanized economy with small scale trade. This trade was conducted with small silver coins, which had been introduced by the Goths, who ruled Sirmium from 504 to the mid 530s.  Any need for monetary gold, which the citizens of Sirmium may have had was likely covered by imported gold coins from Constantinople. 

This does of course not preclude the possibility that in exceptional circumstances individual gold coin imitations were made to serve as offerings, ceremonial gifts or grave goods. However, as far as I know there is no evidence for it. 

 

 

 

[Tejas]

4 hours ago, Rand said:

Thuringians and Frisians were likelier to mint VPW type if they minted coins during Anastasius' time. Allemani, Heruli, Langobards, Rugi and Gepids could have VCG tremisses (with different degrees of possibility). 

I think these peoples lived essentially in non-monetary societies and viewed gold coins as raw material for jewellery. In particular, I strongly doubt that any coins can convincingly be attribued to Rugians or Heruls. Indeed, it is not even clear if Rugians and Heruls should be viewed as ethnic groups or war bands (a war band can be an ethnic group in the making, according to one historian).

The Gepids produced only coins insofar as one Roman city fell under their control. The Langobards started to issue coins only when they settled on Roman soil, while the Alamannic coins (in as much as coins can be attributed to them) were likely only produced under Merovingian influcence or for non-monetary purposes (grave goods, ceremonial gifts or offerings). The Thuringians may have imitated some solidi for the same reason, but the evidence is very thin on the ground.

[panzerman]

Marvelous coins Hrefn!

I would not be able to pick just three! So I will go for all of them. Some pretty rare types. Congrats on a fine year.

 

John

Here is my AV Tremissis

Struck under Wittigis/ ino Justinian I

[Rand]

Thank you, @Tejas. I appreciate your reply.

The rarity of those unusual series supports their irregular/emergency nature and their crude styles likely indicates production outside established mints.

While it is accepted that Clovis minted coins, they were minted in small series of crude coins, often with a single die pair or few dies. Clovis did not have a capital during his kingdom's expansion, his court was moving with him - many of his coins were likely produced on an as-needed basis in temporal mints following his trail. One possibility could be minting gold coins from spoils of war to allow the troops to get a share. Other tribes/bands might have had similar occasions.

I agree that monetary needs were rudimental but possibly already not completely redundant, especially among the elites. It is easier to dismiss single coins, but more emerge as series. I cannot see how they can be firmly attributed, and I hope more find spots are recorded in the future.

While I in no way attempt to link Goths to Gotland, the phenomenon of many Anastasian (and earlier) solidi found in the Baltic area cannot be ignored. This stopped suddenly during the Justinian reign when the Ostrogothic Kingdom collapsed. Anastasian solidi found there are unusually rich in Ostrogothic, Visigothic and Frankish types, which is unusual if the coins were purely from trade or raids. 

Thank you, again.

Edited January 2 by Rand

[Tejas]

10 hours ago, panzerman said:

Marvelous coins Hrefn!

I would not be able to pick just three! So I will go for all of them. Some pretty rare types. Congrats on a fine year.

 

John

Here is my AV Tremissis

Struck under Wittigis/ ino Justinian I

This is a very beautiful coin. I think the attribution to the reign of Witigis is about right. The unilateral cross, the PF and the small globe would suggest an Ostrogothic issue (according to Hahn and Metlich). A tentative date may be 535-536.

Below is one of my coins, which is similar, however, note the following differences: PP in the obverse, a long cross in Victoria's hand and a much larger globe. My coin was likely issued just after Rome had fallen to the East Romans in December 536. To @Hrefn, please also note the mintmark COMOD.

 

 

Edited January 2 by Tejas

[Limes]

thanks for sharing your list, great coins! Wishing you a great 2024 as well! 

[Di Nomos]

Excellent coins, I like them all. As someone who is follically challenged, I vote for Charles the Bald! Though I do love your Gratian Solidus.

[Hrefn]

The number of Forum members liking my Top Ten 2023 post has now equaled the number who liked my 2022 Top Ten post.  For some reason this makes me very happy.  Thank you all for your time, kind comments, and generosity in sharing your numismatic knowledge.  And thank you all who shared your own acquisitions this year.  I am enjoying perusing your posts, too!

 

[Tejas]

On 1/1/2024 at 10:11 PM, Rand said:

Also, if I may, I would propose an additional feature:

• PF for Rome - which was consistently used in Theodoric's time
• PP for Ticinum - these coins could have been influenced by PP used on tremisses in Milan or a possible relocation of a mint from Ravenna (I am unsure which tremisses were from Ravenna during Theodoricus, though).

 

The imperial titel  P(ius) F(elix) which the mint of Rome used during the reign of Theoderic and his successors had long been obsolete. When Rome fell to the East Romans in late 536, the Roman mint adopted the current title P(er)P(etuus) and hence aligned the titulature accross all mints.

Below is a very rare Solidus, which was minted in Rome from late 537. While the city had fallen in December 536 minting resumed only in late 537 as can be seen by the adoption of the new-style solidus, which was introduced in Constantinople in September 537. My Solidus below is MIB 29. I have already shown the corresponding Tremissis below (MIB 36.1). Both coins show the current title PP. Rome remained under East Roman control for 10 years until December 546 and I think it is not likely that it would have reverted to an antiquated imperial titulature.

 

 

Edited January 3 by Tejas

[Rand]

Hmm. So, in this case, are the tremisses we attributed to Rome under Baduila, not from Rome? They have PF - clearly visible on my coin, less on yours.

If Baduila wanted to send a message linking his rule to that of Theodericus, it would make sense to return PF as well, the way Theoderic always did in Rome when he minted coins with the name of Anastasius. 

Nice coins!

A couple of my coins from the Imperial series (which I no longer collect though).

 

 

[Tejas]

1 hour ago, Rand said:

Hmm. So, in this case, are the tremisses we attributed to Rome under Baduila, not from Rome? They have PF - clearly visible on my coin, less on yours.

If Baduila wanted to send a message linking his rule to that of Theodericus, it would make sense to return PF as well, the way Theoderic always did in Rome when he minted coins with the name of Anastasius. 

I assumed that it is PP on mine, but the second letter is indeed not clear. I suppose what happened on your coin is that a die sinker incerted not just the name of Anastasius, but by mistake copied the whole title including the PF. At least that would be my theory.

I also have an example that was minted in Rome in the period 542-546 (similar to your second coin above).

Edited January 3 by Tejas

[Tejas]

1 hour ago, Rand said:

A couple of my coins from the Imperial series (which I no longer collect though).

I collect the Imperial series only to the extent that it is related to the Gothic War. I think these two solidi are great, as they belong right in the middle of the struggle for Rome.

[Rand]

47 minutes ago, Tejas said:

At least that would be my theory.

I suppose we will have the answer when we find a third die. If you are correct, my whole theory about possible Baduila solidi will collapse. I will blame the Celator.

You have amazing coins in an unbelievable state (not only on this thread). I hope to see your Ostrogothic and Visigothic collections online (or published) one day. 
I am parting with my Byzantine collection (except Anastasius) as I have not been adding for several years, and I am looking for another second collecting topic. A few Teutonic coins were sold for higher prices than I expected last week.

My apologies to @Hrefn for hijacking the thread.

[Hrefn]

51 minutes ago, Rand said:

I suppose we will have the answer when we find a third die. If you are correct, my whole theory about possible Baduila solidi will collapse. I will blame the Celator.

You have amazing coins in an unbelievable state (not only on this thread). I hope to see your Ostrogothic and Visigothic collections online (or published) one day. 
I am parting with my Byzantine collection (except Anastasius) as I have not been adding for several years, and I am looking for another second collecting topic. A few Teutonic coins were sold for higher prices than I expected last week.

My apologies to @Hrefn for hijacking the thread.

No apologies required, @Rand.   I could only wish more threads were hijacked for such a fascinating discussion.  And if you don’t mind my asking, since your collecting interests are somewhat similar to mine, how are you disbursing your Byzantine coins?  Byzantine coins are still my main focus, although the Migration period and early Middle Ages are becoming a strong secondary interest.  One of the first solidi I purchased 34 years ago was sold as a Rome issue of Justinian, but I know now that it is certainly from Constantinople, and my collection continues to lack one from Rome.  

Also, @Tejas, I echo Rand’s comment.  I would love to see your collection published someday, with your commentary on it. 

[Rand]

Thank you, @Hrefn. It will do it through the Heritage, split in a couple of auctions (the coins will not have any collection name unless from before me).

I really liked Byzantine coins and thought about them as another millennium of the Roman empire. I still find their coins attractive, but something is upsetting me about the long history of the Byzantines, mostly towards its end. I cannot explain this rationally.

[Hrefn]

@Randthere is much that is ineffably sad about the long retreat of Byzantine civilization, in which we see heroic effort to preserve the Empire episodically sabotaged by treachery, intrigue, and fratricidal warfare.  Each triumph is less sweeping and less complete, each disaster is more wounding.  So many lost opportunities, so many coups, so many betrayals by allies.  At the end, there is only Constantine XI, removing his imperial regalia and casting himself into the fray during the fall of the city, punctuating the end of the Empire in flash of virtus and romanitas not inferior to any tale from the Golden or Silver Age of Rome.    

 

The history of the Byzantines is sad because History itself is sad.  Empires fall, alliances fail, leaders are corrupted, despots prosper, innocents are trampled.  It has been so, and will always be so until the end of history.  There is a reason the Bible begins with the story of the Fall of man.   With Tolkien, I look to the ultimate victory, which will come from outside ourselves.  But an unromantic view of the sweep of history is a harsh and painful view.  

[Tejas]

One reason why I am interested in late antiquity is that I believe that Western civilization is in a similar situation to Rome in the 4th or 5th century. Traditions, values and culture in general seem to be in sharp decline in many places. Major countries are piling up record debts and squandering their wealth on unattainable goals or pointless military adventures, and leaders seem increasingly bizarre and incompetent. The age-old question “why did Rome fall” seems to be being answered before our very eyes right now. When Constantinople fell to the Ottomans in 1453, western Europe was cut off from much of Mediterranean trade and most of the Silk Road. The Europeans responded by discovering new continents such as America and shifting trade to the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. For the Ottomans this must have looked like de-globalization and decline, for the Europeans it was an impetus to basically conquer the world. Now it is us who are sanctioning all and everybody not realizing that trade is shifting away to Asia and emerging markets. It will not before long that these regions no longer need Western technology, engineering, financial services and goods. As the great French economist Frederic Bastiat said “if goods don’t flow across borders, armies will”.

[Hrefn]

58 minutes ago, Tejas said:

One reason why I am interested in late antiquity is that I believe that Western civilization is in a similar situation to Rome in the 4th or 5th century. Traditions, values and culture in general seem to be in sharp decline…

Exactly.  There are sufficient parallels between the late Roman Empire, and the declining American Empire and its socii (who are also declining, perhaps even more precipitously) to cause deep unease, and the similarity is a significant factor in my interest in Late Antiquity.  In my own youth, I would have guessed civilization would pass in a nuclear apocalypse.  Now, I see a society and people who have lost their vision, and without vision, the people perish.  Best illustrated by this coin (not mine).  In a confident civilization, a mother blessed with four children is lauded, even celebrated.    Today, a mother of four is an oddity, pregnancy is a burden instead of a miracle, and large families earn societal disapproval as somehow wounding Gaia.  No healthy civilization is hostile to motherhood.                                                

The future belongs to those who show up for it.  America, Europe, Korea, Russia, Japan, and even China have all given up on having kids.  I do not anticipate a swing in global leadership to the Far East, because the demographic crisis there is even worse than in the West.  The society which can strike a coin like the one above, with genuine conviction and without disingenuousness, will inherit the future.  

If we are very fortunate, we will go from 31 December 406 to Carolingian Renaissance more quickly this time.  

 

 

 

[Rand]

Exactly. This is how I feel and why I collect what I collect.

A single thing I loved most about historical Britain was the rule of common sense. There are still bits of legislation that have routes from the time of William the Conqueror. Now, I feel Europe is becoming a society of Don Quixotes. 

The enormous technological progress has not changed what kind of species we are – however much we talk about humanity. Learning history tells me we are the same people as our ancestors in the 4th-6th centuries and how they moved through impending doom to resurrection.
 

Edited January 5 by Rand

[DonnaML]

10 hours ago, Hrefn said:

Exactly.  There are sufficient parallels between the late Roman Empire, and the declining American Empire and its socii (who are also declining, perhaps even more precipitously) to cause deep unease, and the similarity is a significant factor in my interest in Late Antiquity.  In my own youth, I would have guessed civilization would pass in a nuclear apocalypse.  Now, I see a society and people who have lost their vision, and without vision, the people perish.  Best illustrated by this coin (not mine).  In a confident civilization, a mother blessed with four children is lauded, even celebrated.    Today, a mother of four is an oddity, pregnancy is a burden instead of a miracle, and large families earn societal disapproval as somehow wounding Gaia.  No healthy civilization is hostile to motherhood.                                                

The future belongs to those who show up for it.  America, Europe, Korea, Russia, Japan, and even China have all given up on having kids.  I do not anticipate a swing in global leadership to the Far East, because the demographic crisis there is even worse than in the West.  The society which can strike a coin like the one above, with genuine conviction and without disingenuousness, will inherit the future.  

If we are very fortunate, we will go from 31 December 406 to Carolingian Renaissance more quickly this time.  

 

 

 

Celebration is fine, until it becomes expectation and then compulsion. A civilization built on the inequality of women, and on groups of men sitting around having earnest discussions about what women should do, is never healthy. Whatever Elon Musk thinks about how every (Western) family should emulate his breeding habits.

And that's all I'll say on the subject. This isn't the place for a veiled debate on current cultural and political issues, under the guise of making  comparisons to the fall of the Roman Empire(s) -- Western or Eastern. 

On a more positive note, my son and I will probably be going to the Metropolitan Museum on Saturday to see the Africa and Byzantium exhibition before he returns to the University of Toronto, where he's a PhD candidate in the Art History department. I'm looking forward to it.

 

 

Edited January 5 by DonnaML

[Tejas]

On 1/3/2024 at 10:35 PM, Rand said:

I suppose we will have the answer when we find a third die. If you are correct, my whole theory about possible Baduila solidi will collapse. I will blame the Celator.

I researched this a bit more and I was proven wrong. Below is a half-siliqua of Totila/Baduila from the mint of Rome (Berliner Münzkabinett) and it shows PF. So it looks like they really reverted back to the old title after the second fall of Rome. Looking at my coin under magnification (below) I think here too PF is more likely than PP. 

So your suggestion that a tremissis of Totila/Baduila from the Rome mint should show PF instead of PP is certainly valid. I didn't succeed in finding any other tremissis from Rome, suggesting that they are very rare indeed.

Edited January 6 by Tejas

[Rand]

Dear @Tejas. Thank you, and hugely appreciated.

 

In this case, what about Rome mint solidi under Totila? Unfortunately, I do not own any of these coins.

 

This is a well-attributed (in my opinion) solidus of Baduila/Totila to Ticinum from the BM. There is a die-match in Musei Civici di Torino, published in Arslan EA. La monetazione Magistra Barbaritas i barbari in Italia, Milan, 1984.

. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_B-7553 © The Trustees of the British Museum.

 

There is this solidus in the BM. It has a different style and has PF and COMOB. It is attributed to Ticinum by BM and Metlich. I am unsure about this for the reason we discussed before. However, this crude-style solidus does not belong to the same series as the well-executed tremisses attributed to Rome under Baduila/Totila.

https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_B-12345. © The Trustees of the British Museum.

 

Now, there are four solidi of this PF-COMOB type, all in private collections. They are from four obverse and two reverse dies. They are very similar to Rome solidi under Theoderic but still clearly deviate in style to suggest a separate issue (later?). They are of good style. Also, their borders resemble the tremisses discussed. I provisionally attributed them to the same mint as the two tremisses, so possibly Rome under Baduila/Totila?

 

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=541513

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1015027

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=8598874

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=5705305

Edited January 6 by Rand

[Rand]

Just to confuse PF vs PP discussion further...

 

a presumably pre-Totilla Ostrogothic tremissis in the name of Justinian. 

https://www.biddr.com/auctions/pliego/browse?a=799&l=840396