After the fall of Rome in 552

[Tejas]

During the so called Gothic War, Rome changed hands several times. In 549, the Goths conquered Rome for the second time in the 540s. However, after Justinian had tasked Narses with the reconquest, of Italy, Rome was once again besieged by the Romans and the city fell in 552 after the Battle of Busta Gallorum/Taginae and the death of the Gothic king Totila/Baduila. 

As usual, the new rulers changed the coin series to mark the event. Below is a Half-Siliqua of the mint of Rome from my collection. The coin weights 1.43 gr., meaning that it belongs to the early, heavy series, which was probably minted very soon after the city had fallen. Most surviving coins of this series belong to the later, light series, with a target weight of about 1 g. Coins of the heavy series are very rare.

Also note the small plant-like object above CN. About 9 different signs (usually cross, star, wavy line) are known, but I have never seen this plant. It is not known what these signs indicate. Hahn thinks that they may indicate minting years.

 

Measurements: 1.43 g, 15mm, 6h

Edited February 19 by Tejas

[Rand]

This is a nice coin. As for die signs above the CN, it is not easy to get evidence what they meant. However, a die study may be sufficient to disprove the theory for the symbols being year marks if the die links do not show continuity from one mark to another and crosslink. I fear the coins are too rare to find enough die links, though.

Edited February 20 by Rand

[Nerosmyfavorite68]

The 250 nummi is an enviable issue to own.  Well done!

I looked at it again in Sear, who has it listed under Ravenna, but the MIB notation is for Rome.  The control marks are an interesting puzzle.

[sand]

@Tejas Interesting coin. The plant above the "CN" on the reverse, reminds me of depictions of silphium plants on ancient coins. For example, this example from the following Wikipedia article.

This is not my coin.

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

Edited February 19 by sand

[Tejas]

22 hours ago, Nerosmyfavorite68 said:

I looked at it again in Sear, who has it listed under Ravenna, but the MIB notation is for Rome.

This series was issued at Rome and Ravenna. I also have one from Ravenna. As we have established in other thread the destinction is the title PF for Rome and PP for Ravenna (and everywhere else).

The coin below weighs 1.1 g and maybe a heavy example of the light series. The style and condition of this coin is quite exceptional. According to Hahn, the reduction of the coin standard (i.e. the aligning with the Byzantine standard) followed soon after the fall of Rome in 552. So while the first coin above was likely minted in the first weeks or months after the city had fallen, the coin below from Ravenna may date to any time between 552 and 565. Also the bust style indicates the later date. The coin above shows the Ostrogothic style, while the coin below shows a new style that was never seen on Ostrogothic silver.

Note the symbol on the reverse (a star) was apparently used at Rome and Ravenna. 

 

 

Edited February 20 by Tejas

[Tejas]

On 2/19/2024 at 5:35 PM, Rand said:

This is a nice coin. As for die signs above the CN, it is not easy to get evidence what they meant. However, a die study may be sufficient to disprove the theory for the symbols being year marks if the die links do not show continuity from one mark to another and crosslink. I fear the coins are too rare to find enough die links, though.

Hahn stated the idea about the symbols being indications of minting years only speculatively. Hahn mentions 9 different signs, which seems too many for officinae. The maximum period during which these coins were minted is 13 years from 552 to 565. I found examples for 9 signs. Hahn also mentions a coin with an S. In addition, I found examples for coins with two and four pellets, which suggests perhaps that there were also examples with one and three pellets. If correct, this would bring up the number to 12 (including examples without any signs). So it is possible that these signs indicate minting years. 

Interestingly, I found one example which is stylistically identical to the last issue under Totila. This coin already shows a sign (a star), suggesting perhaps that the system with the symbols were introduced right from the start.

Edited February 21 by Tejas

[Rand]

1 hour ago, Tejas said:

So it is possible that these signs indicate minting years. 

Interesting, thank you. It is good to have a theory to build on, even if it later evolves into something else. The most likely alternative theory is that the marks were used for the mint production/quality control, which would be less interesting numismatically and historically.

There are good reasons for Rome to produce coins regularly during the period, and no obvious disasters would require mint closure. So, the annual output from the mint is possible. The style transition linking with the coins of Tejas may help the chronology of the series.

If the marks describe a year of production, there are likely to be multiple dies with the same mark linked to each other, adding credibility to the theory. If a mark is linked to 3 or more other marks through die links, the theory could be rejected.

[Tejas]

Some of the symbols are difficult to interpret. Are these Greek numerals or letter? Are they all meant to show the same symbol or are they different? Does anybody have a clue?

 

Top left could be a Greek numeral lying on its side.

Top right: I have no idea.

Bottom left seems different to the others

Bottom right: could be the same as top right

 

 

This symbol could be the same as Bottom left above, only that it sits on top of CN

 

Edited February 22 by Tejas

[Rand]

I am no expert in Greek numerals or letters, but for me the four top figures seem to show variations of the same symbol. Even on Contantinople solidi variations in officinae lettering are not that uncommon, such as S looking right or left.  On tremisses variations of the end of the reveverse legend are very common. It is often hard to know if a letter meant M, H, or N. 

[Tejas]

Yes, it is possible that the four symbols in the top picture are all variations of the same symbol . Assuming that this is correct, I can now identify 10 clearly different symbols (plus those that have no symbol). Hahn only mentions 9 symbols (and he divided the four symbols above into two series MIB 64 and MIB 65 and he had probabaly not seen the plant-like symbol on my coin above. So using Hahn's classification I can identify 11 symbols (plus no symbol). I do increasingly think that these symbols mark minting years between 552/553 and 565.

The four symbols in the top picture are curious, they look as if some letter or numeral was intended, but I could not identify anything that come close. All other symbols are easy to identify (stars, crosses, X, pellets). Interestingly, Hahn shows an exemplar with the letter S (MIB 63), which he says could indicate the second officina or the indicio year 557/8. 

Another question is about the mint. Hahn (MIB) says that all coins with CN reverse were minted in Rome. Others seem to attribute some (in fact most) to Ravenna. I think those with the title PF could be attributed to Rome and those with PP to Ravenna, unless of course Rome changed the title from PF to PP. An argument in support of such a change in the title is the fact that all heavy (i.e. early) coins have PF, while all light (i.e. later) coins have PP.

Edited February 23 by Tejas

[Rand]

I see ‘sea waves’, which would fit into the naturalistic nature of some other symbols. (This could be due to too much beach walking in the winter season, a sign that it is time to return to hills and mountains).

The attribution of PF coins to Rome and PP coins to Ravenna appears quite strong. 

• There was a plausible reason for the return of PF to coins in Rome under Baduila (as we discussed).
• Ravenna changed to PP early in the Theoderics period, before Theoderics closed the mint.
• Ravenna mint was likely re-established by the Byzantines and followed Constantinople, where PP was used.
• The weight difference could change over time but also fits the possibility of two different mints following different standards.
• Mint in Rome had a long tradition of being controlled/influenced by the Senate, before and long after - well into the Papal period.

Edited February 23 by Rand

[Hrefn]

6 hours ago, Rand said:

Mint in Rome had a long tradition of being controlled/influenced by the Senate, before and long after - well into the Papal period.

True. Although the historical continuity between the Roman Senate at the time of the Gothic Wars, and that of the High Middle Ages, would be a fascinating investigation.  

 

AR grosso of Rome in the name of the Senate and People of Rome, AD 1256-65

Obverse:  +SENATUS . P.Q.R.

Reverse:  +ROMA CAPUT MUNDI

 

[Tejas]

7 hours ago, Rand said:

he attribution of PF coins to Rome and PP coins to Ravenna appears quite strong. 

Actually, I think Wolfgang Hahn is probably right and the whole series with marks of value was issued only in Rome. This would suggest that they changed the title from PF to PP at some point. Thus, the first silver issues after the fall of Rome continued with the heavy standard and the PF title and then they moved to the lighter Byzantine standard and the PP title. 

According to Hahn, the coin below from my collection, would represent the equivalent Ravenna issue:

Note this coin weighs 1.52 gr., which is the highest weight I have ever seen for these coins. Also note the name IVSTINIAN without VS and only P in the title. The coin probably dates to 540, i.e. right after the fall of Ravenna and the restablishment of a new mint.

 

Edited February 23 by Tejas

[Tejas]

Actually, I wonder if the OP coin was really minted post 552, i.e. after the second fall of Rome. Maybe it was minted in the period 540 to 546. This would explain the PF title. Maybe all coins minted after 552 have the PP title and a lighter standard, while the very few coins with PF and heavier standard belong to the period 540 to 546 or 547 to 549. 

[Rand]

These are all good theories, @Tejas. I do not have a strong oppinion without seeing more data.

Coins with value marks may be a transitional issue minted across both Rome or Ravenna or a Rome issue minted for a more prolonged period. I note many varieties of silver coins of the period that do not have the value. They vary considerably in style, number of stars, etc. and have different fraction values (1/8, 1/4, 1/2). Some have a style similar to Ostrogothic coins, which may indicate their earlier issue. Their small size makes the weight measured by dealers more susceptible to relative errors.

The answer would need a registry of these coins, with accurate metrics (weight and diameter) across denominations from Italy and Constantinople (with further odd denominations) and even Carthage. This should help to see if the weight change happens over time or if coins were produced with different weight standards simultaneously. 

Another lovely coin of yours, by the way.

[Tejas]

I'm now reading "Von Anastasius I bis Justinianus I (491-565) Einschliesslich der ostgotischen und vandalischen Prägungen" von Wolfgang Hahn, 1973. On pp 56, the author states that there are two distinct series of silver coins, one with a mark of value on the reverse, the other with variations of the cross/christogram on the reverse. Both series started in about 540 when Belisarius conquered much of Italy from the Goths, including Ravenna und Rome. 

Hahn says that die comparisons leave no doubt (his words) that the series with the cross-variations belong to Ravenna, while the series with the mark of value belongs to Rome. Further, Hahn states that both series were reduced in the weight standard in 552, i.e. after the "final" defeat of the Goths by Narses. 

Further, Hahn states that the coins were issued in "lustrum-"emissions (5-year cycles with an indiction), which are marked by symbols above or below the mark of value on the reverse. Until 552, there were 3 "lustrum-" emissions, the first 540 - 542 (without symbol). The second lustrum covers the period 542 to 547 and the third lustrum 547 - 552 included the occupation of Rome by the Goths. From 552 when the East Romans retook Rome and Narses took up headquarters in the city, the weight standard was reduced in both Rome and Ravenna. 

Following Hahn, I think the OP coin belongs to the second or third lustrum, i.e. 542 to 547 or 547 to 552. My second coin above (with the star) was probably minted just after 552 to the lower standard and with the new title PP instead of PF. 

Below is a quarter-siliqua (120 nummi), which according to Hahn would also belong to the period before 552, when the 125 nummi was introduced.

 

Edited February 23 by Tejas

[Rand]

Thank you and very interesting. I certrainly need to re-learn German!

Has Hahn given details/reference for the die study? As it was done before 1973, there is likely a 3-4-fold number of the coins available for analysis now.

[JeandAcre]

4 hours ago, Hrefn said:

True. Although the historical continuity between the Roman Senate at the time of the Gothic Wars, and that of the High Middle Ages, would be a fascinating investigation.  

 

AR grosso of Rome in the name of the Senate and People of Rome, AD 1256-65

Obverse:  +SENATUS . P.Q.R.

Reverse:  +ROMA CAPUT MUNDI

 

(Instant edit:) The usual bracingly deep discussion from all parties concerned, with coins on an amazing, comparable level.  ...But with apologies for the digression, Hear! Hear!

Here's the better of my Roman Senatorial imitations of a denier of Provins, in Champagne; c. 1200 on stylistic grounds.  (...Thanks to the economic impact of the Champagne Fairs,)  Sorry, I don't have time to get the (online) attribution before work.  But 'SENATVS' on the reverse, from 12 o'clock, is clear enough. 

Edited February 23 by JeandAcre

[Rand]

Prompted to go back to English books…

The 2013 edition of Hahn’s book (in collaboration with Metlich) does not seem to mention the die study or a reference to it. The PF variety is not listed or mentioned. The presentation of Italian silver is made as an argument of Kent’s opinion that both Rome and Ravenna minted silver with value marks.

 Generally, Hahn’s reasoning is interesting. The reduction in weight in 552 is linked to changing to Byzantine standard, which makes sense. Silver with value marks continues under Justin II (Volume 2), which supports the view that minting of coins with value marks continued throughout the Justinian I period. Some lines are arguments are hard to follow with images at the end of the book.

 MEC 1 does not cover these coins. Its photos are of very poor quality.

 

I do not have relevant coins, so show books to add colour to the post.

[Rand]

... found another book, by Egidio Ranieri. The book follows the view of Kent and attributes multiple coins with value marks to Ravenna. The text does not reason the attribution. Only PP coins are listed, so the PF variety was either not known to the author or attributed to Rome.

 

[Tejas]

Thanks for the comment. Hahn does not reference particular die studies. My reading is that he has done these studies himself for his 1973 publication, but I cannot say how reliable this is given that this was 50 years ago. 

I managed to find sales pictures of 26 half-sliquae with CN reverse. Most of the coins belong to the later light series. Only four coins have weights higher than 1.3 g. and two coins have weights close enough to 1.3 g. to be counted to the heavy series. My coin with the plan-like symbol is apparently unrecorded and it is the heaviest of all coins. Hahn shows 13 exemplars in his 1973 publication, but since the coins are selected for the symbols, he probably had access to more coins for his work.

Below is a coin from my collection, which according to Hahn belongs to the Ravenna light series, i.e. after 552. The coin weighs 0.93 g.

 

Edited February 23 by Tejas

[Tejas]

This coin is also from my collection. This is also a Ravenna half-siliqua of a very different and probably late style. In fact a similar style can be seen in coins of Justin II, so my coin may date to around 565 or so. The weight is 0.73 gr.

 

[Rand]

Truly amazing coins - in both rarity and quality!

Coins on this thread can outmatch some books.

[Tejas]

Thanks, I think I understand this series now a lot better than before I started this thread. I never expected it to be so intertwined with the Gothic coins, which are my main focus. I think most collectors are not very interested in these series, which is surprising given that these were the last Roman silver coins in the west. 

Edited February 25 by Tejas

[Rand]

I do agree and it may be for the best that there are not so many collectors focusing on them. There are not many of those coins around.