A Merovingian (?) pseudo-coin brooch

[Roerbakmix]

A few days ago, a friend of mine who recently started his own coinshop, contacted me. He had just bought a pseudo-coin brooch from a metal-detectorist from Zeeland, the Netherlands (south-west, just above Belgium). Knowing my interest in early medieval coinage from the North-sea region, he gave me the opportunity to buy it before putting it online. 

I hesitated a bit, as it was a) not a coin, and b) expensive. But it was just too cool to pass (excellent condition, no damage apart from the broken iron pin, very 'Merovingiany', and the clearly legible characters of a given name(?)): 

Continental(?) pseudo coin fibula. 600-700 AD unknown maker, unknown workshop, rare, pewter (?)| weight 10,53gr. | Ø 34mm.

This shaky video shows the details and deep dark grey patina: 

 

When mirrored, the text appears to read "GVDELOVE" though I'm open for alternative interpretations (GVDETOVE?)

 

 

 

I intend to conduct a specific gravity test to test whether it's silver (SG around 10.3) or pewter (SG around 7.7). 

[shanxi]

Interesting brooch.

Why did you mirror it? Without mirroring it looks like EVOLACVS.

I have no idea if this makes sense, but it sounds good.

Edited July 28, 2022 by shanxi

[Kamnaskires]

12 minutes ago, Roerbakmix said:

pseudo coin fibula

I think the more commonly used term may be “nummular brooch”.

[Severus Alexander]

Wow!  That's an amazing piece.  And it's certainly a lot more coin-ish than the Saxon brooch that I have:

I second @shanxi's question about why the retrograde reading is more likely.  (Is it because the retrograde D isn't likely to be a forwards C?)

[Roerbakmix]

Thanks for the replies. Mirroring the coin was indeed done because of the character I interpreted as a mirrored D - the reading of @Shanxi is convincing as well (EVOLACVS_

Here are both the original and the mirrored again:

[Severus Alexander]

Well, whatever the correct reading, it is an awesome piece!  I think you made the right decision in not passing it up when it was offered. 🙂 

[seth77]

I have watched this thread 3-4 times today and I gotta say, this is museum quality stuff. Extraordinary.

[JeandAcre]

Nope, @seth77 nailed it; this is easily museum quality.

Beyond which, the furthest I managed to get was to look at a genealogical table of Merovingian kings. 

Thank you, @Roerbakmix, I have to know that you did this already. 

And as imaginative as I could be, regarding selectively retrograde and non-retrograde lettering, this produced nothing.

...Unless someone can do better than I did! 

 

[Severus Alexander]

@Roerbakmix, this paper with a list of Merovingian (moneyers') names: https://www.persee.fr/doc/bec_0373-6237_1881_num_42_1_447010 could be useful, if only to see what letter combinations were commonly used.

Could the fourth letter, reading clockwise, be a P?  So EVOPADVS or EVOPACVS?

Edited July 30, 2022 by Severus Alexander

[Nap]

That is an absolutely beautiful example.  Congrats on the acquisition!

The interpretation is somewhat elusive.  The end looks like DVS when reading clockwise.  Could it be some sort of corruption of Toledo, imitating a Visigothic piece?  "TVOLEDVS"?

I have a pseudo-coin brooch in the name of King Eadred of Wessex, which interestingly was found in the region of Maine-et-Loire.  I'll have to find a picture.  These items are not very common and the literature is somewhat scattered.  A new study of the pseudo-coin brooches is definitely needed!

[Nap]

Here is my Anglo-Saxon pseudo-coin brooch in the name of King Eadred, 946-955.

I like to imagine it being worn by someone in King Eadred’s retinue who was on pilgrimage to Rome, but Maine-et-Loire is not on the standard pilgrimage route from England to Italy.  

[AnYangMan]

Behind the scenes, @Roerbakmixand I have been vigorously discussing this piece! We often discuss new purchases and a couple of weeks ago he showed me this piece, asking me for advice on the price. I’m not an expert on these in any way, shape or form, but had some time to dive into it today: some interesting results! Namely, some mould-identical pieces (?), a different mould of virtually the same design and some research already done into this type by Boukje-Jan Van der Veen!

Not the best pictures, but they get the point across. Same basic design and inscription, different mould:

 

 

Same mould (?)

 

Credits to Bouke-Jan van der Veen for largely compiling these!

These other examples shed some light on Roerbakmix’s piece (which has to be said, is of remarkable quality, especially when compared to these):

1. The findspot in Zeeland was not a fluke; most of these were found in Zeeland, meaning a production centre producing these fibulae somewhere in Zeeland is relatively certain!

2. The brooch is definitely not Merovingian, but based on the reverse of the other-mould-examples, is instead derived from a Carolingian Solidus of the MVNVS DIVINVM type, placing the dating to the 9^th or 10^th century. The last piece above, of identical moulds (?) as @Roerbakmix's fibula, was found in Middelburg around 1965; in its publication in the JMP, they argued it was derived from a coin of Chlotar II. Including the inscription, which would be a blundered form of his name. Given the other mould with a later Carolingian reverse, I however am not really convinced of this.

3. The inscription seems to not be meaningless, since it appears in almost similar forms on at least two moulds. If it was an analphabetic craftsman producing these with a nonsensical inscription, a blundered legend would likely not appear twice in the almost exact same form. So at least some sort of thought went into writing it. It’s very appealing to call it the name of the craftsmen casting these, although that is not necessarily so. A local chieftain/high-ranking member should also not be discarded as a possibility, although again, it is unlikely we will ever be certain about the identity behind the name. Still, many of the inscriptions on these Pseudo-Nummular brooches are also what we call ‘Pseudo’ inscriptions. It’s remarkable that these so closely match, yet that the inscription might just be nonsensical after all should also not be discounted just yet.

4. As for the reading itself, the other mould sheds some light: the first three letters are definitely ‘EVO’ and the last three either ‘DVS’ with retrograde ‘D’ or ‘CVS’. It’s the 4^th and 5^th letter that remain enigmatic.

By comparing the two moulds and other examples, it becomes clear that the 5^th letter is not an E (as I personally first thought, given the similar blocky appearance to the first letter), but rather has a distinct crossbar. N seems most likely imho, although H or A are also possible. Based on the (percieved) open top on the other mould, I’d argue for either of the first two.

The 4^th letter is the most difficult. Interpretations of ‘R’,  ‘P’ and ‘L’ become tricky when looking at the other mould. Yet, what is it? Perhaps a C, turned down on the other mould? G? A sort of Lombardic N, which would make reading the 4^th letter as a N difficult? An Omega? Something nonsensical? Any Ideas?

All this is underpinned by the assumption that these inscriptions show the exact same letters, a fact which is not even that certain!

It remains an absolutely fascinating piece of history and happy it has a direct wider context in which it can be put. Maybe Bouke-Jan has some more theories!

It only rests me to say: I think you got an absolute steal on this gorgeous piece....

Edited August 4, 2022 by AnYangMan

[TheTrachyEnjoyer]

On 8/3/2022 at 7:14 AM, Nap said:

Here is my Anglo-Saxon pseudo-coin brooch in the name of King Eadred, 946-955.

I like to imagine it being worn by someone in King Eadred’s retinue who was on pilgrimage to Rome, but Maine-et-Loire is not on the standard pilgrimage route from England to Italy.  

Simply amazing!!!!! I had no idea these broaches even existed, let alone regal connections 

This is my favorite thread in a while! Keep on sharing!

[Al Kowsky]

On 8/4/2022 at 12:29 PM, AnYangMan said:

Behind the scenes, @Roerbakmixand I have been vigorously discussing this piece! We often discuss new purchases and a couple of weeks ago he showed me this piece, asking me for advice on the price. I’m not an expert on these in any way, shape or form, but had some time to dive into it today: some interesting results! Namely, some mould-identical pieces (?), a different mould of virtually the same design and some research already done into this type by Boukje-Jan Van der Veen!

Not the best pictures, but they get the point across. Same basic design and inscription, different mould:

 

 

Same mould (?)

 

Credits to Bouke-Jan van der Veen for largely compiling these!

These other examples shed some light on Roerbakmix’s piece (which has to be said, is of remarkable quality, especially when compared to these):

1. The findspot in Zeeland was not a fluke; most of these were found in Zeeland, meaning a production centre producing these fibulae somewhere in Zeeland is relatively certain!

2. The brooch is definitely not Merovingian, but based on the reverse of the other-mould-examples, is instead derived from a Carolingian Solidus of the MVNVS DIVINVM type, placing the dating to the 9^th or 10^th century. The last piece above, of identical moulds (?) as @Roerbakmix's fibula, was found in Middelburg around 1965; in its publication in the JMP, they argued it was derived from a coin of Chlotar II. Including the inscription, which would be a blundered form of his name. Given the other mould with a later Carolingian reverse, I however am not really convinced of this.

3. The inscription seems to not be meaningless, since it appears in almost similar forms on at least two moulds. If it was an analphabetic craftsman producing these with a nonsensical inscription, a blundered legend would likely not appear twice in the almost exact same form. So at least some sort of thought went into writing it. It’s very appealing to call it the name of the craftsmen casting these, although that is not necessarily so. A local chieftain/high-ranking member should also not be discarded as a possibility, although again, it is unlikely we will ever be certain about the identity behind the name. Still, many of the inscriptions on these Pseudo-Nummular brooches are also what we call ‘Pseudo’ inscriptions. It’s remarkable that these so closely match, yet that the inscription might just be nonsensical after all should also not be discounted just yet.

4. As for the reading itself, the other mould sheds some light: the first three letters are definitely ‘EVO’ and the last three either ‘DVS’ with retrograde ‘D’ or ‘CVS’. It’s the 4^th and 5^th letter that remain enigmatic.

By comparing the two moulds and other examples, it becomes clear that the 5^th letter is not an E (as I personally first thought, given the similar blocky appearance to the first letter), but rather has a distinct crossbar. N seems most likely imho, although H or A are also possible. Based on the (percieved) open top on the other mould, I’d argue for either of the first two.

The 4^th letter is the most difficult. Interpretations of ‘R’,  ‘P’ and ‘L’ become tricky when looking at the other mould. Yet, what is it? Perhaps a C, turned down on the other mould? G? A sort of Lombardic N, which would make reading the 4^th letter as a N difficult? An Omega? Something nonsensical? Any Ideas?

All this is underpinned by the assumption that these inscriptions show the exact same letters, a fact which is not even that certain!

It remains an absolutely fascinating piece of history and happy it has a direct wider context in which it can be put. Maybe Bouke-Jan has some more theories!

It only rests me to say: I think you got an absolute steal on this gorgeous piece....

Impressive research on this brooch 😊!

[Roerbakmix]

I finally found some time to properly photograph the coin. The legend is a bit more legible now. Since this thread, I have not made progress in the attribution, of found a similar legend. So far, consensus is that the legend reads (reading clockwise): EVO * * CVS; or alternatively EVO * * DVS. 

Options on the two uncertain letters are (based on the post by @AnYangMan😞

•  fouth letter: ‘R’,  ‘P’ and ‘L’ become tricky when looking at the other mould. Yet, what is it? Perhaps a C, turned down on the other mould? G? A sort of Lombardic N, which would make reading the 4^th letter as a N difficult? 
• fifth letter: N seems most likely, although H or A are also possible. 

This would result in the following readings:

Fouth letter = C : EVOCNCVS, EVOCHCVS, EVOCACVS

Fouth letter = G : EVOGNCVS, EVOGHCVS, EVOGACVS

Fouth letter = N : EVONNCVS, EVONHCVS, EVONACVS

or, with the CVS >> DVS:

Fouth letter = C : EVOCNDVS, EVOCHDVS, EVOCADVS

Fouth letter = G : EVOGNDVS, EVOGHDVS, EVOGADVS

Fouth letter = N : EVONNDVS, EVONHDVS, EVONADVS

 

I really have no clue. Anyway, here is the new photo, please speculate 🙂 

[Hrefn]

The first letter is a retrograde B.  Fourth is an R.  The fifth is a retrograde N.   Sixth is retrograde D.  

BVORNDVS.    Where did Tolkien get the name BEORN from?  It is an Old English word for man or warrior.  Doubtless there was a cognate in Frisian.  

/ this is all pure speculation on my part.  

 

[JeandAcre]

Yes, @Hrefn, Surely; there Has to be a Frisian cognate.  The Old Norse one, obvious  enough to verge on redundancy, is Bjorn.  An easy parallel to the ON 'Sigurd' and the Old English 'Siward,' notably in the case of the Danish earl of York and Northumbria, as of the reign of Edward the Confessor. 

...Except, Thank you, as a linguist, Tolkien would have run circles around this!  I keep wanting to remember a parallel OE /modern English translation of Beowulf that he did.  The modern English was in verse (unrhymed, as the original), brilliantly sustaining the alliteration of the original.  ...You have me wanting to look for it online.

[Roerbakmix]

Thanks @Hrefn, I like that interpretation. I have posted the brooch on a facebook group of Frisian enthusiasts; perhaps they can confirm your reading. 

 

Edited March 13 by Roerbakmix

[Tejas]

This is a beautiful fibula/brooch - congratulations.

I think the piece dates to the 9th or 10th century. These brooches exist with a wide range of legible and illegible legends. For example, one group has the legend BENNO ME FECIT" (often highly blundered), i.e. Benno made me. Another group is based on the legend "CAPVT MVNDI", i.e. head of the world. Yet, another group is based on variants of (IMP)HLVDOVICVS. 

The latter group started out as real solidi of Ludwig the Pius that were worked into brooches. Later imitation of solidi were produced in gold, silver and base metal for the same purpose. I think the present piece belongs to this group. I.e. the legend is in my view a very blundered and shortened version of HLVDOVICVS. The person producing the mould was probably illiterate and didn't know what the original legend was or what it was suppose to mean, but instead he copied it from a piece that had a legend that had an already blundered legend.

 

 

 

Edited March 14 by Tejas