Barbarian Gold solidus, and a question

[Al Kowsky]

4 hours ago, lordmarcovan said:

Not a bad idea, though as always, there is so much stuff competing for my very limited budget!  Finishing my Twelve Caesars set is my top numismatic priority for 2024.

I have only owned one solidus, ever.  It was this holed Zeno, pedigreed to the Eliasberg Collection.

It was the centerpiece of my old "Holey Gold Hat" collection:

 

This coin sure looks like a barbarian imitation 🤨, I hope you still have it....

[Hrefn]

52 minutes ago, Al Kowsky said:

This coin sure looks like a barbarian imitation 🤨, I hope you still have it....

The two stars suggest it was minted in the official branch mint of Thessalonica.  As such, very desirable to a collector of the era.  

Two series of Zeno’s solidi are attributed to Thessalonica.  The first are distinguished by a T followed by another letter after AVCCC on the reverse.  These dies came from Constantinople, it is believed.   The second series has two stars in the reverse field.  Grierson speculates that these dies were made locally.  (From Grierson’s Catalogue of Late Roman Coins)

The exergue of @lordmarcovan’s solidus should read CONOB but the middle letter has been wholly obliterated.  

I assumed Zeno had some solidi with TESOB in the exergue, and I just had not encountered one.  Apparently not, from his second reign at least.  

 

Edited January 11 by Hrefn

[Tejas]

5 hours ago, Al Kowsky said:

Maybe it's time to jump on the bandwagon before the prices get out of reach 🤔.

I think you are late to the party. Every solidus or tremissis to which they can stick the label “Germanic”, “Gothic”, “Frankish”, “Burgundian” or similar commands a large premium over comparable Roman coins. There was actually a time when “barbaric” coins traded at a discount, but that was almost 100 years ago. 

[lordmarcovan]

7 hours ago, Al Kowsky said:

This coin sure looks like a barbarian imitation 🤨, I hope you still have it....

Nope, alas, I sold all the holey gold collection off my hat during leaner times.

[ominus1]

On 1/9/2024 at 10:29 AM, panzerman said:

it was struck at the Imperial Mint.

.... of course you can prove that with the pictures you took at time right?....^^  now how do you now that for sure Sir??

[Tejas]

I think instead of classifying certain imitative coins as "uncertain Germanic", it would be better to classify imitative solidi as: 1) eastern mint imitations 2) western mint imitations 3) imitations of Germanic kingdoms 4) official coins of Germanic kingdoms. 

Group 1 would include the relatively large corpus of Theodosius II imitations from eastern and northern Europe and a whole range of imitations from other emperors.

Group 2 would include the socalled solidi gallici, and anything else that cannot be attributed with reasonable certainty. 

Group 3 would include imitations of Visigoths and Burgundians and perhaps the Franks etc.

Group 4 would include coins of the Ostrogoths in Italy, because these coins are in fact neither barbaric nor imitations. The same applies to Vandalic silver and bronze coins from the reign of Guntamund onwards.

In any case, the term "Germanic" is essentially a linguistic term. The Goths, Vandals, Burgundians etc. were all Germanic in the sense that they all spoke Germanic languages. However, for the imitations of group 1, I don't think that we know what language the producers of these coins spoke. They may well have spoken an Iranian (Sarmatic) or Illyrian language. We just don't know.

 

Edited January 12 by Tejas

[Tejas]

9 hours ago, ominus1 said:

.... of course you can prove that with the pictures you took at time right?....^^  now how do you now that for sure Sir??

I agree with @panzerman that the solidus is an official issue. The reason is simple: despite their crude appearance, there are no solidi that are more official in their appearance than these. 

[Rand]

On 1/10/2024 at 5:59 PM, Tejas said:

I think these imitations were made by local craftsmen at the border for Roman officials, who were in charge of making subsidy payments to the Huns. 

I like @Tejas idea that the minging of the @Hrefn coins could be related to payments to Huns. This would mean payments to Attila.

I am thinking aloud about what we know about these coins and possible attribution implications.

These coins
- imitate Eastern Solidi
- of high metal quality and content
- of high manufacturing quality, based on the flans, borders, strikes, centring
- the style of die images is different, looking mildly 'barbaric'
- their legends have mistakes, but the quality of their execution seems good
The high quality of the coins does not match the inferiority of the style.

Gold coins played an important role in the taxation system, and during the period, their minting was concentrated in the capital. Coins from other mints (e.g., later Zeno solidi from Antioch) were mostly emergency issues.
It seems unlikely that the imperial court would take lightly initiatives of unauthorised minting of substantive gold issues. Even if a city were under siege, the payment would likely be agreed upon and delivered centrally.

Die production is much faster than coin production, and using the stock of imperial dies (modified if needed) was likely if the situation was dire. Would it not be easier to produce and deliver coins from the capital? There is data on die manufacturing for other mints in early Byzantinum time, even for much longer distances from the capital (Alexandria, possibly Sicily under Justinian).

Setting up a local, high-quality minting, which would also refine, assay, and QC would be a significant undertaking. This would only make sense if local leaders wanted to make payments that the central government DID NOT authorise. This is possible but seems unlikely.

In support of Tejas hypothesis, striking different gold coins for large external payments is not unique. We have an extensive example of a later lightweight solidi.

It is possible that the Imperial government wanted the payment money to be excluded from the usual tax collection process and the trade within the Empire. The changes in the style would make the coins recognisable and impossible to use within the Empire's borders.

I cannot see how rare these coins are without a die analysis (I am unaware of one). A single hoard can bias conclusions with rare coins unless reasonable die projections are made.

If @Tejas theory is correct, these coins must not be found within the Empire, especially in Asia Minor and should be identified within territories controlled by Huns. This may be difficult as many of those territories are part of modern countries that restrict international trade of local finds (including Ukraine), and coins appearing in Western Markets may not have a reliable provenance.

Edited January 12 by Rand

[Tejas]

Maybe not so useful for keeping the focus of the debate to always throw in new coins. However, below is an interesting example of a western imitation. 

I bought it from a British auction house, and to my surprise it came with a tag in old German handwriting. For those who don't know this, but until the 1940s German was written in a specific handwriting that was very different from Latin letters and which is unintelligible to most Germans let alone non-Germans today. Anyway, I can read old German handwriting and  I decifered that the coin was found "south of Grambzow", which is likely Gramzow north east of Berlin. In that region a large hoard of some 300 Solidi was found in the late 19th century. Unfortunately, the hoard was melted down, but in modern times a second search revealed a few more solidi, including one in the name of the Frankish king Theodebert. The interpretation is that the coins were part of a hoard of Thuringians who fled the Frankish onslaught in 534. The gold may even have been part of the royal treasury of the Thurinigians. Of course, we don't know how many imitations were in that hoard, but I could imagine that a Germanic king like Herminafrid or his brother Berchtarhar had gold minted not to make payments but simply to accumulate them in a royal hoard, which was something to show to high ranking guests to demonstrate power and prestige.

 

Edited January 12 by Tejas

[Tejas]

Interestingly, it is not the case that western European rulers only imitated western imperial coins. Instead, some of the Frankish kings imitated eastern imperial coins. For example, Theodebert I struck his famous solidi in his own name after eastern mint examples. 

The first coin below is such a solidus (obviously not mine!). Note the leaf-shaped spear and the frontal Victory (which was introduced in Constantinople in 522). The letters B-O in the reverse field are sometimes interpreted as Bononia, i.e. Bologna in western France. However, Theodebert (533-547) ruled in the eastern part of the Frankish kingdom and it is more likely that B-O indicates Bonna, i.e. Bonn in Germany, which is close to Cologne. The coins in his own name were minted after 534, when he defeated the Thuringian kingdom.

The second coin below is from my collection. It was minted in the name of Justin I. Note the similar bust style, the leaf-shaped spear and the frontal Victory. I think the coin was minted by Theodebert's predessor Theuderic I at the mint of Bonna, i.e. Bonn in Germany. So here we have an example of an eastern mint imitation, minted in central or western Europe, which is with high probability attributable to a Germanic kingdom.

These coins were likely minted for propaganda perposes. Since issuing gold coins was a sign of imperial power, these kings issued gold coins, even if there economy didn't really rely on monetary payments. I think these coins were handed out to highranking nobles at the court in a display of imperial grandeur.

 

Edited January 12 by Tejas

[Rand]

Breathtaking coins, @Tejas! I have none to match their rarity and historical importance 😒

There had been a few ealier series of Western coins following Eastern style. For 'series' I mean they were produced from multiple dies.

I have none of them - too many gaps in my collection. 

A couple of examples:

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1520465 From 1926 Viviers Hoard, Viviers, Ardèche, France.

https://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb449792749 From 1804 Alise-Saint-Reine (Alesia) Hoard, France.

 

 

[Hrefn]

Outstanding coins, @Tejas.  It makes me wonder what else you have squirreled away in your numophylacium.

I followed the link of @Rand above to the BnF.  I like their classification of the coin which is listed there under the designation of “Migrations.”   Migrations covers all four of Tejas’  categories.  It avoids the inaccuracy of “Germanic” which is not an ethnic but a linguistic term, as he points out.  It avoids the negative connotations of “Barbarian”.  I have defended the use of this term before, on the basis of the antiquity of the word, which apparently goes all the way back to Mycenaean times;  and because it is as useful now to have a word for non-GrecoRoman peoples as it was in the Ancient World.  But I can’t deny it has negative connotations which are misleading.  And the coinage of the Ostrogothic kingdom was not barbarous, nor was it “imitative.”  

So, I am now disposed to label all these coins as “Migrations” coins, as the umbrella term for anything not struck under Imperial authority.  It is a term broad enough to include everything from this

       To this.  

I realize lots of people use Migration Era or Völkerwanderung already.  This is just to say I am a convert to the term.  The fun comes when you try to get more specific as to who issued these coins, and why.  

 

[Tejas]

I find the term migration era not particularly useful to classify certain coins. The migration era begins in AD 378 (Adrianople) and ends in AD 568 when the Langobards take over much of Italy. To start with, I cannot really see how your (wonderful) Julian aureus fits into that. Do you suggest that the coin was produced long after Julian's reign by migrating peoples? Imagine for a moment that the coin was made by Julian's adversaries, the Alamanni (which I doubt is the case). They were not migrating. Is it still a migration era coin?

It is frustrating how little we know about these unofficial mint products. Who made them and why? Until we know more, I would classify the coin as a "western mint imitation". I think this is really all we can say with certainty. 

[Rand]

17 minutes ago, Tejas said:

"western mint imitation"

This would cause a problem with coins that did not have counterparts in official coins, such as many Victoria Palm Wreath tremisses.

Also, does "Western mint imitation" refer to imitations produced in the West or imitations of official coins minted in the West? 
- For the former, we do not always know whether they were produced, in the West or East.
- For the latter, after 476, all Western coins were produced in the name of Easter Emperors.

 

'Migration period' may refer to the time period and thus include coins minted during the time by groups not yet migrating.

Edited January 12 by Rand

[Multatuli]

Very very interesting thread! I love “völkerwanderung” numismatics, I have some barbaric imitations, especially small fractions. Unfortunately, living in a third world country, I don't have a budget that allows me to purchase aureii or solidi like the ones presented here. But I acquired this bargain fourrée a few years ago at CNG. Coin or ancient jewelry artifact, that is the question!

MIGRATION PERIOD, Pannonia. Uncertain Germanic Tribe. Circa late 3rd-early 4th centuries AD. Fourrée AV Solidus (21mm, 4.93 g, 12h). CVCINPISNCIЬVCIS, laureate head left; Vs in legend composed of angled II; Ss retrograde / CICV(retrograde(P)SS ICIOICV(retrograde C)S, Male seated left on sella curulis, holding uncertain object (globus or Victory); Vs in legend composed of angled II; Ss retrograde. Cf. RIC V 308 (Antioch – Diocletian; for type); Depeyrot –; cf. Calicó 4437 (same); cf. Biaggi 1698 (same). Double strike on reverse, plating broken in numerous places, revealing base core underneath. Evidence of having been originally mounted with contemporary suspension loop for use as jewelry.

[Al Kowsky]

Reading all the interesting info posted on this thread triggered a memory of a great show presented by The Barber Institute of Fine Arts & The British Museum in 2006, ENCOUNTERS, Travel and Money in the Byzantine World. I wasn't able to see the show but bought a wonderful booklet with the same title made for the show. Copies are still available from a number of sources for about $10.00 or a little more 😉.

https://gilesltd.com/product/encounters

The booklet (only 72 pages) has wonderful illustrations, including period fakes & Islamic coinage that copied Byzantine coinage. The booklet opens with a passage written by Cosmos Indicopleustes, a 6th century Byzantine monk; "There is another mark of the power of the Romans, which God has given them. I mean that it is with their nomisma that every nation conducts its commerce, and that it is acceptable in every place from one end of the earth to the other. This nomisma is admired by all men and all nations, for in no other nation does such a thing exist." In the Byzantine era the solidus was called a nomisma. I urge all collectors of Byzantine & Migration era coinage to add this booklet to their library if they don't have a copy yet ☺️.

[Rand]

Thank you, @Al Kowsky

This brings back good memories of studying in hands the Anastasian coins from the Barber Institute collection in their Coin Study Room about 12 years ago. https://barber.org.uk/coin-study-room/

The Curator was very kind and provided me with photos of the coins for personal study. 

Relevant to this thread, there was an imitation solidus, identified as Constantinople solidus, which I mentioned to the Curator. I can see the coin is now online and has a note: ''Probably non-imperial". https://mimsy.bham.ac.uk/detail.php?t=objects&type=all&f=&s=anastasius&record=135

I feel guilty for not recording the Curator’s name. It was in my email, which is no longer available.

The Barber Institute of Fine Arts (University of Birmingham).

 

 

Edited January 12 by Rand

[Tejas]

15 hours ago, Multatuli said:

Very very interesting thread! I love “völkerwanderung” numismatics, I have some barbaric imitations, especially small fractions. Unfortunately, living in a third world country, I don't have a budget that allows me to purchase aureii or solidi like the ones presented here. But I acquired this bargain fourrée a few years ago at CNG. Coin or ancient jewelry artifact, that is the question!

MIGRATION PERIOD, Pannonia. Uncertain Germanic Tribe. Circa late 3rd-early 4th centuries AD. Fourrée AV Solidus (21mm, 4.93 g, 12h). CVCINPISNCIЬVCIS, laureate head left; Vs in legend composed of angled II; Ss retrograde / CICV(retrograde(P)SS ICIOICV(retrograde C)S, Male seated left on sella curulis, holding uncertain object (globus or Victory); Vs in legend composed of angled II; Ss retrograde. Cf. RIC V 308 (Antioch – Diocletian; for type); Depeyrot –; cf. Calicó 4437 (same); cf. Biaggi 1698 (same). Double strike on reverse, plating broken in numerous places, revealing base core underneath. Evidence of having been originally mounted with contemporary suspension loop for use as jewelry.

This "coin" does not really belong to the migration period, because it predates AD 378. I also doubt that it is from Pannonia. Instead, it was probably made further to the east in an area of modern western Ukraine. The most likely originators of this "coin" are the Goths, who produced them as pendants perhaps for some kind of gift giving rituals.

Below is an equivalent piece from my collection in gold. The two coins come from the same pair of dies. Mine was found in Khmelniskaya oblast, Dunaevsky raion.

Edited January 13 by Tejas

[Tejas]

18 hours ago, Rand said:

This would cause a problem with coins that did not have counterparts in official coins, such as many Victoria Palm Wreath tremisses.

 

But these imitations can still be traced to western imperial mints. Below is a Suevic tremissis from my collection. The coin has no direct parallel in imperial coinage, but the reverse was clearly copied from a Roman solidus of the Milan mint:

(99+) An Unpublished Tremissis in the Name of Honorius | Dirk Faltin - Academia.edu

[Tejas]

18 hours ago, Rand said:

Also, does "Western mint imitation" refer to imitations produced in the West or imitations of official coins minted in the West? 
- For the former, we do not always know whether they were produced, in the West or East.
- For the latter, after 476, all Western coins were produced in the name of Easter Emperors.

 

'Migration period' may refer to the time period and thus include coins minted during the time by groups not yet migrating.

I understand "western mint imitations" as imitations of coins issued by an official imperial mint in the western part of the Empire, typically Rome, Ravenna or Milan, as opposed to "eastern mint imitations" which fully or partially copy issues from Constantinople or other eastern mints. I don't think there is much scope for confusion. 

The term "migration period" on the other hand is misleading, because it implies that even a solidus minted at Constantinople in AD 480 would technically be a migration period coin. Hence, it would have to be coins of migrating peoples, which is almost worse, because we often don't even know if the ethnonyms that we use today refer to peoples or war bands or armies. 

[Tejas]

On 1/12/2024 at 1:21 PM, Tejas said:

Maybe not so useful for keeping the focus of the debate to always throw in new coins. However, below is an interesting example of a western imitation. 

I bought it from a British auction house, and to my surprise it came with a tag in old German handwriting. For those who don't know this, but until the 1940s German was written in a specific handwriting that was very different from Latin letters and which is unintelligible to most Germans let alone non-Germans today. Anyway, I can read old German handwriting and  I decifered that the coin was found "south of Grambzow", which is likely Gramzow north east of Berlin. In that region a large hoard of some 300 Solidi was found in the late 19th century. Unfortunately, the hoard was melted down, but in modern times a second search revealed a few more solidi, including one in the name of the Frankish king Theodebert. The interpretation is that the coins were part of a hoard of Thuringians who fled the Frankish onslaught in 534. The gold may even have been part of the royal treasury of the Thurinigians. Of course, we don't know how many imitations were in that hoard, but I could imagine that a Germanic king like Herminafrid or his brother Berchtarhar had gold minted not to make payments but simply to accumulate them in a royal hoard, which was something to show to high ranking guests to demonstrate power and prestige.

 

The coin probably belonged to the hoard of Biesenbrow, which is a short distance south of Gramzow in a region called the Uckermark north east of Berlin. In 1885 a local teacher found "around 200" gold coins. Most of the coins were according to some reports melted down (another article states that they simply dissappeared in dark channels) only four of them were handed to the coin cabinet of the Berlin museum (Berliner Münzkabinett). 

In the 2000s archaeologists reconstructed the find circumstances and managed to fine 8 soldi, including one in the name of Theudebert I. Theudebert I had defeated the Thuringians in 531, causing him to claim quasi imperial status and minting gold coins in his own name. Herminafrid the last king of the Thuringians was murdered by him in 534. This signalled to parts of the Thuringian elites that they were no longer safe and that the Franks would take over their land. Hence, the fled north east (possibly to the Varnians, who were part of the old Thuringian kingdom). They took the gold, which may have been part of the royal treasury with them. For unknown reasons they buried the treasure and were unable to retrieve it.

These are the 8 coins found in 2011.

 

[Hrefn]

Thank you, @Tejas, for sharing this picture of the remnant of the Biesenbrow hoard.  Several aspects surprise me.  The first is that the coins range from what looks to be a solidus from late in the reign of Theodosius II up to the coin of Theudebert, so a period of more than 80 years.  The coin of Justinian looks Ostrogothic, and the Anastasius is probably not an imperial product either.  So at least 3 of this random sample of 8 coins from the hoard are not imperial.   That seems a very high proportion.  But the original owners probably had more contact with the Ostrogothic Kingdom than with the East Romans, so perhaps not so surprising.  

The second surprise is that the coins seem to have a fair amount of wear from circulation.  

Edited January 13 by Hrefn
Correction

[Rand]

@Tejas I feel your coin was very likely part of the Biesenbrow hoard, and it shall be considered for the hoard interpretation. I will add it to my records about the hoard. It would be great to see the ticket if a photo is available. A very nice coin.

Two links that I have about the hoard:

http://www.worldofcoins.eu/forum/index.php?topic=13131.0

http://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/14420

The hoard is likely too small to be a part of the royal treasury. The presence of Theudebert's coin makes it even less likely. 

 

The hoard would be an excellent opportunity to link unusual types to the Thuringians. Still, only Justinian's solidus may be a remote candidate (only because the picture is one-sided and of low resolution). The Anastasius solidus above is from Rome 507-518.

 

There is little doubt the coins are in circulated condition. I agree that there is little evidence that coins were used for payments in the daily life of an average member of the tribal society or that there was a real need for this. Still, the mid-upper class and trade likely needed gold coins for more significant purchases, especially outside individual tribes. We do not have evidence for regular non-imperial coin miting outside Gaul and Italy, except for the silver coins of the Gepids. However, occasional minting activity by the tribal authorities is possible. Their attribution and the minting context would be very interesting. 

 

While individual coins are rare, there are lots of them overall, waiting for the attribution.

[Hrefn]

Agree the Anastasius is Ostrogothic, thus not imperial.  I thought I might have a die match for the obverse, but it is only a near match.  It would be nice to see the reverses of the Biesenbrow coins.  Sorry about the color mismatch on the photos.  MEC 1  #112, sold by CNG 5/21

          

[Tejas]

2 hours ago, Rand said:

The hoard is likely too small to be a part of the royal treasury. The presence of Theudebert's coin makes it even less likely. 

That the 200 or so solidi were part of the Thuringian royal treasure is of course pure speculation. However, I think the sum is too large to have been part of a private hoard of a merchant or even a larger landowner, especially in this remote and largely unpopulated region. Also it looks like the hoard was assembled over a long period of time. We also have to consider that the Thuringians had more than one king. If it wasn't part of Herminafrid's hoard, it could have belonged to his brother Berchtarhar or the family of Baderich. 

If the presence of the solidus of Theudebert I (533-547) is a problem (which I think it isn't), there is another hypothesis. Hence, the gold could have been part of the royal hoard of the Warnians (Varini). The Warnians lived somewhere to the north east of the Thuringians, meaning that they were in close proximity to the findspot. The Warnians were part of the Thuringian kingdom, which was called kingdom of the Varnians, Anglians and Thuringians. 

After the fall of the Thuringian kingdom and the house of Herminafrid, the Warnians continued to have a king named Hermegisl (Hermegisclus) who made a strategic alliance with Theudebert I, marrying his sister Theudehild. Procopius tells us that Hermegisl's son Radagis, was engaged to an Anglian princess. However, before Hermegisl's death he changed his mind and compelled his son to marry his stepmother Theudehild. The Anglians would not accept this and send out a fleet and forced Radagis to marry the unnamed Anglian princess.

Anyway, given Hermegisl's alliance with Theudebert, this could explain the Theudebert I soldius in the hoard. Also, we would probably not expect a remote and almost unknown king like Hermegisl to have had a huge treasure to start with.