Barbarian Gold solidus, and a question

[Rand]

I think the coins from the series shown by @Prieure de Sionwere minted in Gaul under Visigoths (Arle or Toulouse), and they are unlikely to be official (ie. Constantinople - I hope @Tejas and @Hrefn agree that coins minted in Italy under Odovacer cannot be called official). 

1. These coins have a cross near the helmet - never used in Constantinople. Better seen on this coin: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=10706200

2. Their style is similar to the coins from the early Anastasius period (a couple of my examples).

Roma Numismatics Limited. Auction 28. 05/07/2023

 

Roma Numismatics Limited. Auction 25. 22/09/2022

3. The Anastasius coins continue in a gradually evolving series, widely considered Visigothic (my another example).

Numismatik Lanz München. Auction 162. 06/06/2016

 

Please note these series under Anastasius were produced with at least six officinae letters, including multiple officinae letters for the 491-492 series (six if count V separate from A). Most officinae letters for 491-492 coins are known from a single dies, which may indicate a brief period of intensive production when Visigoths joined Therodorics in Italy and possibly turned the fortune of the war. 

 

 

 

[Tejas]

Very interesting and super coins. I'm, however, not convinced that these coins are Visigothic. Below is a contemporary Visigothic tremissis in the name of Zeno from my collection, which would have been minted under Euric (466-484) or Alaric II (484-507).

These coins were mentioned in a Burgundian law code, which forbid the circulation of these coins in the Burgundian kingdom, because of their low weight standard. The coins were called Alariciani in the law code.

The reverse was copied from a solidus, indicating that Visigothic coinage had diverted significantly from the imperial models. I don't think that the solidi, with their different officinae fit well with this coinage. 

 

 

Edited January 19 by Tejas

[Tejas]

2 hours ago, Rand said:

I hope @Tejas and @Hrefn agree that coins minted in Italy under Odovacer cannot be called official)

I don't think that it matters a lot, but coins minted under Odovacer are in my view official, because they don't imitate coins of other mints. A solidus minted at Milan in the name of Zeno is not imitating anything and is therefore an official issue of that mint. It is just not an imperial issue, in the sense that it wasn't made by order of the emperor, even if it has been issued in his name.  The coins of usurpers like Odovacer that were produced at official mints are official coins.

Similarly, an Antoninian issued by Postumus in Cologne is not an imitation, but an official issue of that mint.

Edited January 19 by Tejas

[Rand]

Nice coin. My theory is that the quality of Visigothic coins improved during the Ostrogothic War when they may have had access to a large amount of bullion. Your coin may be from pre-489. 

Burgundians also benefited from the war, ravaging Liguria. They also likely produced many coins, including in 491-492. I am unsure whether the remaining Burgundian brother kings, Gundobad and Godegisel, acted and minted coins together or separately. I attribute a couple of my coins to Burgundians from this series.

Roma Numismatics Limited. Auction 27. 22/03/2023.

 

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

 

PS. I plan to do a metal analysis of the coins. It would interesting to see what it shows.

Edited January 19 by Rand

[Rand]

3 hours ago, Tejas said:

Similarly, an Antoninian issued by Postumus in Cologne is not an imitation, but an official issue of that mint.

Surely, Odovacer and Postumus drank many jars of wine, debating with their retainers whether their coins were official or not.

Fortunately, the remote nature of NvmisForvms saves modern enthusiasts and scholars from hangover.

[Tejas]

Do you know of any book or article that acknowledged these solidi as part of the Visigothic series? These coins would fill a gap in the Visigothic series, which, as far as I know, ended with the imitations in the name of Valentinian III (kingdom of Toulouse) and resumed with imitations in the names of Justinian (or Justin I) (kingdom of Toledo). 

The style does not really connect well with any of the two series, but that is perhaps not to be expected, even with the solidi in the name of Valentinian there are two distinctly different styles which are not related, plus all the so called "solidi gallici", from unidentified Gallic mints, which cannot be attributed to a particular kingdom.

Below are two coins attributed to the Visigothic kingdom of Toulouse. Both coins imitate coins from Ravenna, but in very different styles.

Edited January 20 by Tejas

[Rand]

14 hours ago, Tejas said:

The reverse was copied from a solidus, indicating that Visigothic coinage had diverted significantly from the imperial models.

I think this was a short-lived transitional type, with some coins attributed to Syagrius. It could have been an emergency-driven issue reflected by both poor metal and tremisses imitating solidi. They must have been produced in some numbers to attract Gundobad's attention.

The series has little to do with later (Anastasius onwards) Visigothic coins, with new tremisses following the Victoria Palm Wreath (VPW) types initiated by Burgundians in 491. There are several Burgundian VPW tremisses with ANASTASIVS PERP legend, but I do not own one.

A later example (poor photo, coin much better in hand). I know @Tejas has a nice one.

There is nothing to suggest that the short-lived series of tremisses imitating solidi influenced the style of later Visigothic solidi.

 

[Rand]

15 hours ago, Tejas said:

I don't think that the solidi, with their different officinae fit well with this coinage. 

1. All Anastasian solidi from the series discussed above that have find provenances, were found in France, England and Scandinavia, none in Italy and further east.
2. There is an obvious style transition to later coins, which are clearly made in Gaul and later possibly in Spain, with finds in France, Spain, England and Scandinavia. Some (e.g., Duratón Find) were found in Visigothic settlements. I am unaware of any finds in Italy or further east.
3. Franks did not mint early in the period and were far north then; Burgundians minted different coins.

I think the Visigothic attribution of these coins is rather strong.

As for the various letters in officinae position, I do not think they are indications of multiple workshops and served different purposes. It is probably incorrect to call them officinae. Their meaning is unclear, and there are many possible theories to speculate about.

 

PS. The find location of the Mare Nostrum Hoard is unknown and unlikely to be known, but I doubt it would help much.

Edited January 20 by Rand

[Rand]

2 hours ago, Tejas said:

Do you know of any book or article that acknowledged these solidi as part of the Visigothic series?

No. I am unaware of any books discussing the attribution of these coins (early Anastasian period) since Tolstoi's 'Monnaies Byzantines' from 1912. Tolstoi's discussion was only in the context of the Chinon hoards as a whole on whether these coins in the hoard should be considered Merovingian.

Edited January 20 by Rand

[Al Kowsky]

2 hours ago, Tejas said:

Do you know of any book or article that acknowledged these solidi as part of the Visigothic series? These coins would fill a gap in the Visigothic series, which, as far as I know, ended with the imitations in the name of Valentinian III (kingdom of Toulouse) and resumed with imitations in the names of Justinian (or Justin I) (kingdom of Toledo). 

The style does not really connect well with any of the two series, but that is perhaps not to be expected, even with the solidi in the name of Valentinian there are two distinctly different styles which are not related, plus all the so called "solidi gallici", from unidentified Gallic mints, which cannot be attributed to a particular kingdom.

Below are two coins attributed to the Visigothic kingdom of Toledo. Both coins imitate coins from Ravenna, but in very different styles.

You are probably aware of these articles already, never the less, I found them interesting ☺️.

A_Hoard_of_Late_Roman_and_Visigothic_Gol.pdf  Ruth Pilego, 1972

Suevic Coins & Kings, Sanchez.pdf

 

[Tejas]

4 hours ago, Rand said:

think this was a short-lived transitional type, with some coins attributed to Syagrius. It could have been an emergency-driven issue reflected by both poor metal and tremisses imitating solidi. They must have been produced in some numbers to attract Gundobad's attention

Yes, and since they were apparently called "Alariciani", it must have been clear to everybody that these debased coins were issued by Alaric II, king of the Visigoths. The Zeno-Tremissis (I also have one in the name of Libius Severus) is clearly debased and would have been recognizable as such. 

As for the solidi, there are also debased solidi that may be attributable to Alaric II. Grierson and Blackburn mention solidi were the RV of Ravenna has been changed into RA, which could have been read as REX ALARICVS. Below is a solidus from my collection, which shows an A in the reverse field, which may also refer to Alaric II.

Since the Solidi in question would also be issued by Alaric II, I find it difficult to reconcile these two types. But as you said, maybe Alaric II changed the standard and produced the Solidi in the name of Anastasius to a higher standard. In any case Grierson and Blackburn (MEC I) seem to think that no solidi were issued by the kingdom of Toulouse in the name of Anastasius. 

Hence, the authors attribute solidi in the name of Anastasius to the kingdom of Toledo. These coins (MEC I.177) are of a completely different style compared to the series that we are discussing. 

MEC p. 47: "The solidi, bearing the names of successive Byzantine emperors Anastasius (491-518), Justin I (518-27), and Justinianian (527-65), are very distinctive in style (I.177, 190-I), and since they are only found in Spain their attribution has long been recognized."

Again, the style of I.177 is very different from the series we are discussing. Hence, if it is Visigothic, it seems to have been a short-lived and isolated issue with litte connection to preceeding or succeeding Visigothic coinage.

Solidus in the name of Anastasius (possibly a Visigothic issue under Alaric II, with the A in the reverse field indicating the king's name).

Edited January 20 by Tejas

[Rand]

I hope more coins appear for analysis with more find data.

We already have at least 120+ coins from likely Gaul mints (some could be from Spain) in Anastasius' name alone, with projected hundreds of dies used. They must have been produced between the Franks and Visigoths (for reasons mentioned in another thread). This is if we believe the current attributions to Burgundians of coins without monograms of Gundobad and Sigismund - I am doubtful of the trend of blanket attributing coins with S in officina position or in the reverse field to Sigismund. Otherwise, we have dozens more coins to attribute.

 

PS. I am aware of 400+ VPW Anastasian tremisses, with c. 1000 projected dies. Gaul was busy minting coins!

Edited January 20 by Rand

[Tejas]

I think one possibility is that my tremissis in the name of Zeno and the solidus in the name of Anastasius were Visigothic issues under Alaric II before AD 507 (i.e. the "alariciani" of the Burgundian law code). While the solidi under discussion were issued after AD 507 by Theoderic, perhaps at a mint in the Provence.

Edited January 20 by Tejas

[Prieure de Sion]

Is there any good book or publication for this period, with description of the differences and many examples? 

[Rand]

1 hour ago, Tejas said:

While the solidi under discussion were issued after AD 507 by Theoderic, perhaps at a mint in the Provence.

I do believe Theoderic minted coins in the Provence (Arle), but attribute different solidi and tremisses there.

I struggle to believe Theodoric would revert to the 15-20-year-old PERP solidi. Moreover, wherever the Mare Nostrum Hoard was found, it was completed soon after the Ostrogothic war, perhaps 493-495, which rules out the possibility of the coins being minted in 507.

A very nice solidus, but likely from a later part of the Anastasius reign and outside the long-established mints: Visigothic, more likely, but also possibly Frankish.

Edited January 20 by Rand
typos

[Tejas]

Hm, if they should date to around the early 490s, I have real trouble seeing them as Visigothic coins of Alaric II at that time. If they are western as you say is evident from the findspots and despite the different officinae, I don't know where to attribute them. 

[Tejas]

16 minutes ago, Rand said:

A very nice solidus, but likely from a later part of the Anastasius reign and outside the long-established mints: Visigothic, more likely, but also possibly Frankish.

Yes, the cataloger attributed the coin to the Franks. I have another source that placed the type in southern Gaul. I think the mysterious A on the reverse fits well with Alaric, who (according to MEC) may also have used RA on his coins to indicate his name. But this would mean that the coin was struck before 507. We will probably never know for sure.

[Rand]

I think they were minted by Alaric II in the context of the Ostrogothic war when Alaric II was in Northern Italy and more likely minted the coins in his domain in Arle, using the gold from Italy, skills that may have been retained in a city with a long history of imperial mints and now adhering to the commonly accepted solidi standard (as very least to be able to pay his army).

Are you aware of Alaric II even minting solidi of low gold standard? I thought the story was related to the tremisses only.

[Tejas]

31 minutes ago, Rand said:

Are you aware of Alaric II even minting solidi of low gold standard? I thought the story was related to the tremisses only.

I think the Burgundian law code only speaks of "alariciani" and lists them among coins that are not allowed to circulate in the Burgundian kingdom because of their subpar standard. As I said according to the MEC, there are no solidi of Alaric II in the name of Zeno or Anastasius. MEC asks how people would have known that a coin is an "alaricianus" and the authors refer to the known tremissis and the solidi with the letters RA, which may have been understood to mean REX ALARICVS. However, the subpar solidus, with the letter A would also fit the bill, if Alaric II minted any solidi in the name of Anastasius. The solidi under discussion, don't seem to fit well into this because they seem to be of higher standard (weight and purity) (and seem to have been minted by a number of different officinae at a mint that was organized in such a way.

Edited January 20 by Tejas

[Rand]

Thank you. Obviously, MEC was prepared before more material appeared later.

I do not think the letters at the end of reverse legends are officinae letters (ie. multiple workshops). Most 'officinae' are known from a single die. It would make little sense to organise multiple workshops to use one die per workshop, with no traces of the workshop production before or after. I think other explanations for the letters should be considered, but all of them are pure speculation so far.

[Tejas]

58 minutes ago, Rand said:

I think they were minted by Alaric II in the context of the Ostrogothic war when Alaric II was in Northern Italy and more likely minted the coins in his domain in Arle, using the gold from Italy, skills that may have been retained in a city with a long history of imperial mints and now adhering to the commonly accepted solidi standard (as very least to be able to pay his army).

 

That is of course possible. According to Wiemer's book on Theoderich (p. 186) Alaric II sent an unknown number of warriors to northern Italy in 489. I cannot find any mentioning of Alaric II himself leading these troops in Italy, or having access to the gold of Italy. So is your theory that Alaric II was paid for this military assistance and that he used this payment to strike gold coins in Arles to a an Italian rather than Visigothic standard?

Edited January 20 by Tejas

[Rand]

34 minutes ago, Tejas said:

So is your theory that Alaric II was paid for this military assistance and that he used this payment to strike gold coins in Arles to a an Italian rather than Visigothic standard?

Yes. 

Alaric's personal presence in Italy is my speculation, based on the facts that he did lead his army to battles and other compaignes, and was eventually killed in the Battle of Vouillé. It is possible this compaign was an exception, but given that being a warrior was the essense of gothic leadership, Alaric may well have participated in action in Italy.

Edited January 20 by Rand

[Tejas]

34 minutes ago, Rand said:

Yes. 

Alaric's personal presence in Italy is my speculation, based on the facts that he did led his army to bottles and other compaignes, and was eventually killed in the Battle of Vouillé. It is possible this compaign was an exception, but given that being a warrior was the essense of gothic leadership, Alaric may well participated in action in Italy.

Wiemer doesn't give any sources, but since he seems to be very dilligent I think he had probably reasons to write "In any case Alaric sent an unknown number of warriors to upper Italy, who were to support Theoderic in the war against Odovacar" (p. 186). This is in contrast to Gundobad, who led an army into Liguria at the same time to plunder the area. (p. 185) But I suppose it doesn't really matter if Alaric II was present or not. Maybe his warriors returned with gold to Alaric, which he used to mint a new series of coins.

Here are a couple of Visigothic solidi from my collection which post date these events.

Edited January 20 by Tejas

[Rand]

3 minutes ago, Tejas said:

Here are a couple of Visigothic solidi from my collection which post date these events.

Very nice coins.

[Rand]

Another consideration that puzzles me about these events is that Visigoths had to pass Liguria, which Burgundians plundered to get to Italy. Both had bullion for the extensive minting of 491-492.

I think the Visigothic army came to Italy earlier, in 490, to relieve the siege of Ticinum and participated in the Battle of Adda. Burgundians came when they knew the Visigoths were busy in Italy. During the period 491-492, there was less action in Italy when Odovacer was locked in Ravenna, and Burgundians probably left before the Visigoths returned. It's just a theory.