Do you have any Barbaric Imitations? How do you research them?

[Rand]

5 hours ago, Hrefn said:

The negative connotations the word ‘barbarian’ has acquired are the objectionable thing.

 

 

Thank you for the eloquent reasoning! Now, my statement reads like one from an equality and diversity officer :).

Can it be possible to narrow down the people who produced your coins and the circumstances around their minting? The solidus is of impressive style!

[Hrefn]

Monsieur le Docteur E. Poncet was a numismatist and physician who had a particular interest in the coins of Lyon.  He passed away in 1906, and his collection was sold at auction in 1926.  The Gallica system affords access to the catalog (thanks, France!) and I found the catalog reference.  Unfortunately, there is no information about how this coin came into his collection.  You can see the solidus as #71.  He had quite the collection.  

 

So far as the tremissis of Leo is concerned, the origin(s) of these variant tremisses has been a subject of speculation on a prior thread without any definite conclusion thus far.  I would love to know more.  

[Rand]

22 hours ago, Hrefn said:

Monsieur le Docteur E. Poncet was a numismatist and physician who had a particular interest in the coins of Lyon. 

The coin has impressive credentials. It seems rather unlikely to be a product of Lyon during Julian’s time because of the AVG prototype, so after the Laetti attack on Lyon. The second coin of this type that you mentioned is from Bastien Coll, apparently Pierre Bastien (1912-2010), a French surgeon and numismatist with major expertise in Lyon’s coins (he published eight volumes about them). It looks like physicians took a considerable interest in these coins. 

Thank you for pointing out the auction catalogue. It also lists three important Burgundian coins. I did not come across two of them before and now wonder if the third one below is Huntington’s piece in the ANS Coll (possibly not). I often find it challenging to match coins to casts.

Edited April 3, 2023 by Rand

[Hrefn]

A pleasure to be of service.  The Burgundian coins look to be a match, considering the Poncet coin photo is of the cast.  What is the mint mark in the reverse field, or is it a ruler’s initials?

I have a similar coin without the initials.  @Tejas, whose opinion I respect greatly, speculated it might be Burgundian.  Here it is with a Zeno solidus and an Ostrogothic tremissis.  

 

[Tejas]

On 4/2/2023 at 11:18 AM, Rand said:

Perhaps we should stop calling them ‘barbarians’. They were unique people with their institutions, traditions, and cultures which they had to keep within the Imperial framework.

To produce these coins, they needed planning, funding, artists, metal workers, and likely approval of local leaders - most of all, reasons and needs for these coins.

Many of us on this forum are descendants of these ‘barbarians.’

I think this idea that "barbarian" imitations were physically made by people who the Romans would have called Barbarians is not really correct. The migrating Germanic people should be mostly viewed as armies in my view, which were either allied with Rome (Visigoths, Ostrogoths) or invaders (Suevians, Vandals). Like Roman armies they brought their families and some supporting craftsmen with them, but they lacked experience to run complicated administrations including the monetary system.

What I'm trying to get at is that at least early Visigothic, Ostrogothic or Burgundian coins were in my view not produced by ethnic Germans, but by Roman provincial workmen, who were employed to do the job. Lacking central control these mints would develop diverting styles and inconsistent or incoherent legends, which gave them barbarian appearances. 

Thus, there is nothing inherently Visigothic about an early 5th century Solidus from the Visigothic kingdom. Germanic elements creep in much later, for example when some mints applied monograms (Burgundians, Ostrogoths) or even complete names (Suevians, Vandals) of Germanic rulers to the coins, or when portraits begin to show Germanic features (e.g. the Theodahat folles) or much later when coins display Germanic Runes instead of Latin letters.  

The above is of course debatable, and there are clear exceptions, when coins were made far beyond the Roman borders. Examples are the silver and gold imitations of the Chernyakhov culture. But even here we have an interesting incident where the invading Goths plundered the mint of Alexandria Troas and brought the dies (and possibly the mint workers) back to their homelands to produce coins. 

 

 

Edited April 4, 2023 by Tejas

[Tejas]

On 4/2/2023 at 3:58 AM, Hrefn said:

My most sincere thanks to all who have posted their imitative and barbarian coins.  The collapse of the western empire and its evolution into Germanic kingdoms, all of which continued coin production in increasingly decentralized styles is intensely interesting.   My earliest   Barbarian coins predate coins of the Ostrogoths and the Visigoths.  Since I have only a few imitative/barbarian examples I request your indulgence as I have posted these previously.  

 

These coins are fantastic. I wonder what your theory is regarding these coins?

Julian: There are quite a few imitations of Siliquae of Julian II around. I suppose that the rare gold imitations were produced in the same context and for similar reasons. But what was this context and what circumstances led to the imitation of Julian II coins?

Leo: This is a particularly nice exemplar of a relatively large group of Leo I imitative Tremissis. I have one as well. Sometimes these coins are attributed to Ostrogothic rulers prior to Theoderic, such as Theodemir. However, I think that these attributions are pure speculations, perhaps to increase the commercial value of the coins. I have never found a convincing attribution for these coins.

 

 

 

[Rand]

I may be wrong in my views, forgive me. There is little doubt that some tribes formed armies hunting for fortune. They could be multinational (goths) and preserve links with remote places of origin. Huge amount of Anastasian (other from the period) gold fund in Scandinavia. However, there were other reasons for migration, including food shortages and well-documented pushes by other nations from the east - when essentially whole nations had to move.

Many nations long preserved their identity, including Langobards - the attached coin may be their early piece (the series gradually evolves into their later style).

For some coin series, we can see the continuity of mint styles when Barbaric armies took them. Still, for some, there is a significant and not unattractive deviation from the imperial style - sufficient to suspect that they were not made by people affiliated with imperial mints. Precious and basic metal coins likely served different purposes, but base-metal coins are plentiful enough to suggest large-scale minting - so likely with a blessing from tribe leaders.

 

For early migration period we tend to have one side of the story - for example, Roman.

Roma Numismatics Limited. Auction 11. 07/04/2016

Edited April 4, 2023 by Rand

[Rand]

10 hours ago, Hrefn said:

What is the mint mark in the reverse field, or is it a ruler’s initials?

I have a similar coin without the initials.  @Tejas, whose opinion I respect greatly, speculated it might be Burgundian.  

 

The monogram in the left field of Poncet's solidus is widely believed to be of Gundobad. More intriguing could be the monogram at the end of the reverse legend, which is consistent across the type. It could be indicative of the mint, likely Vienne or Lyon. I am inclined to think of Vienna due to its cruder style - possibly produced after Gudobad captured and killed his treacherous brother Godegisel in Vienne in 501 and had to pay his bill to Visigoths who supported him on this occasion. Gudobad was now the sole ruler of Burgundy.

Your Anastasius solidus (from Dorotheum) keeps confusing me with a slightly odd style compared to the common Rome type and typos in both obverse and reverse legends. It looks like an 'imitation of an imitation. I can be wrong, of course, but I cannot see why Burgudinans would want to do this, and Burgundian styles are quite distinct. I would rather speculate about Theodoric's allies, Allemani or other tribes east to the Alps or Balkans.

[Tejas]

4 hours ago, Rand said:

There is little doubt that some tribes formed armies hunting for fortune. They could be multinational (goths) and preserve links with remote places of origin. Huge amount of Anastasian (other from the period) gold fund in Scandinavia. However, there were other reasons for migration, including food shortages and well-documented pushes by other nations from the east - when essentially whole nations had to move.

That is certainly true. The Goths that crossed the Danube in the 370s, were largely refugees. They included men and women of all ages and trades. However, these groups didn't seem to have lasted very long. They were certainly not the ancestors of those Goths who fought at the Frigidus, who sacked Rome or conquered Italy.

Instead, the Gothic groups, which crossed large distances and founded the Gothic kingdoms in Gaul (later Spain) and Italy, seemed to have been based on multi-ethnic armies led by Gothic elites, or better East Germanic elites, which outsiders identified as Goths. 

A lot of ink has been spilled on the question on the origin of the Goths in the last 60 years or so and we don't need to go through the arguments again. I think what is clear is that the Goths in Italy, Gaul and Spain had no links with Scandinavia and had no knowledge of such links in the past.

The Getica (by Cassiodorus/Jordanes) offers three different origo stories - the Scandza origo is only one of them. A recently published monumental work on the Gothic language  (The Oxford Gothic Grammar, by Gary Miller) shows that the Gothic language was not closely related or derived from North Germanic (proto-Norse). Instead, Miller shows convincingly, that Gothic separated from all other Germanic languages very early on and developed independently. 

 

 

 

[Tejas]

5 hours ago, Rand said:

Many nations long preserved their identity, including Longboards - the attached coin may be their early piece (the series gradually evolves into their later style).

For some coin series, we can see the continuity of mint styles when Barbaric armies took them. Still, for some, there is a significant and not unattractive deviation from the imperial style - sufficient to suspect that they were not made by people affiliated with imperial mints. Precious and basic metal coins likely served different purposes, but base-metal coins are plentiful enough to suggest large-scale minting - so likely with a blessing from tribe leaders.

 

For early migration period we tend to have one side of the story - for example, Roman.

This is a wonderful coin. However, unless there is find spot evidence, which links it to regions settled by the Langobards in the first half of the 5th century, I find it impossible to attribute this and similar coins to a specific ethnic groups or polities outside the boundaries of the Roman Empire. 

If I am allowed to venture a wild guess based on style alone, I would place this coin in the vicinity of Sirmium under Gothic or Gepidic control in the first two decades of the 6th century. While this is pure speculation, I think such an attribution is more plausible than the Langobards. Sirmium was producing coins at the time and the local economy was apparently highly monetized, while the Langobards are not known to have produced any coins in the first half of the 6th century.

 

 

 

Edited April 4, 2023 by Tejas

[Rand]

23 minutes ago, Tejas said:

A lot of ink has been spilled on the question on the origin of the Goths in the last 60 years or so and we don't need to go through the arguments again. I think what is clear is that the Goths in Italy, Gaul and Spain had no links with Scandinavia and had no knowledge of such links in the past.

Thank you! Really insightful, and there are little doubts that Goths were not one tribal group. 

Regarding no link with Scandinavia, what are your thoughts about why Visigothic and Ostrogothic coins of Anastasian reign are so numerous in finds in Scandinavia? Who were those people linking Scandinavia with Gothic Italy, Gaul and Spain? I do not imply reverse migration!

[Rand]

26 minutes ago, Tejas said:

This is a wonderful coin. However, unless there is find spot evidence, which links it to regions settled by the Langobards in the first half of the 5th century, I find it impossible to attribute this and similar coins to a specific ethnic groups or polities outside the boundaries of the Roman Empire. 

Sirmium and Gepids is a more traditional attribution for the coins, and not unlikely but ...
We know of a find in Ukraine (http://barbarous-imitations.narod.ru, later sold by Leu) and none from the Gepiden area, to my knowledge (including the published museum collections, will be glad to learn otherwise).
The style continues into later reigns and appears to evolve gradually in the Lombardic style. It is possible, of course, that Lombards used the style after destroying the Gepiden Kingdom.

 

[Hrefn]

I was happy to add another barbarian tremissis to my collection this month.  

Purchased 9/23 from CGB at auction.

This tremissis was sold as an official Constantinople mint product, but it is from either Rome or Ravenna.  Almost certainly it is Ostrogothic.  The dotted hair above the diadem on the obverse is quite distinctive, and the star on the reverse is six-pointed whereas Constantinople usually shows eight points.  The CONOB or COMOD in the exergue is hesitantly and strangely engraved.  Victoria is quite odd.  

It is a match to MEC 1:123 attributed to Athalaric 526-534 AD and Rome mint by Grierson in Medieval European Coinage I.  Grierson comments that there is insufficient evidence to assign the coin to Ravenna versus Rome, though he seems to lean toward Rome.  

CBG photo used for educational purposes.

[Prieure de Sion]

19 minutes ago, Hrefn said:

Purchased 9/23 from CGB at auction.

Gratulation! I wanted to buy the coin after my holiday - and suddenly it was sold. Then it was you. Great coin, congratulations! 🙂 

 

[Rand]

This is a beautiful coin. 

I think it is from Ravenna based on the prominent 6-point star, the prominent border and the straight chest drapery lines (as opposed to typically curved lines on tremisses from Rome).
The tremissis is likely from the time after the beginning of the Justinian reconquest, based on the later style, and it could well have been produced under imperial authority. This would in no way make it less historically important and probably more valuable.

Edited September 25, 2023 by Rand

[Prieure de Sion]

A bit sad to have missed out on the beautiful gold coin at CGB (but congratulations again to @Hrefn - I'm really happy for you - you got a great coin there!) - the CGB people consoled me a bit with this coin.

 

My latest purchase today. A barbarised imitation of a Roman imperial gold coin of Justininus. It is not certain whether it is an imitation of the Burgundians or Visigoths. 

 

 

COINAGE OF THE BURGUNDIANS OR VISIGOTHS
Type : Triens à la victoire à droite 
Date : VIe siècle 
Date : s.m. 
Metal : gold 
Diameter : 17  mm
Orientation dies : 6  h.
Weight : 1,15  g.
Rarity : R2 
Obverse legend : DN IVSTINI - * - NVS P P AVG 
Obverse description : Buste diadémé, drapé de Justin Ier à droite, une croix sur le buste et une fibule sur l’épaule 
Reverse legend : VICTORI-A AVGVS // CONOB 
Reverse description : Victoire stylisée marchant à droite, sur une ligne d’exergue, tenant une couronne de la main droite ; un épis dans le champ, sous la couronne, et un autre au-dessus de l‘aile 
Commentary : Le traitement de la victoire est très particulier ; exemplaire proche des n°677 à 684 de la collection Kapamadji qui a les légendes dégénérées et décrits comme étant au nom d’Anastase et au nom de Justinien 
Catalogue references : Tomasini.305   -  B.-  
Grade : AU/AU

 

[Rand]

Pretty certainly Visigoths. Most certainly not Burgundian.

12 minutes ago, Prieure de Sion said:

A barbarised imitation of a Roman imperial gold coin of Justininus.

There were no imperial gold coins of Justinian with Victoria Palm & Wreath reverse. The type can be seen as an authentic type of the emerging post-barbaric nations in the Gaul. Burgundians likely introduced the type in 491-2 (in the name of Anastasius) during the Ostrogothic wars in Italy, possibly from spoils of invasion to Liguria. Visigoths, Franks and others followed the trend.

 

One of my rather unattractive examples of the VPW tremisses. I like it, though, as a die match of the BM piece and because it is part of a multi-die series, which can be both Visigothic or Frankish.

http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=3358776&partId=1&searchText=anastasius+tremissis&page=1

 

Auktionshaus H. D. Rauch GmbH. E-Auction 37. 16/07/2021

[Prieure de Sion]

12 minutes ago, Rand said:

Pretty certainly Visigoths. Most certainly not Burgundian.

12 minutes ago, Rand said:

There were no imperial gold coins of Justinian with Victoria Palm & Wreath reverse. The type can be seen as an authentic type of the emerging post-barbaric nations in the Gaul. Burgundians likely introduced the type in 491-2 (in the name of Anastasius) during the Ostrogothic wars in Italy, possibly from spoils of invasion to Liguria. Visigoths, Franks and others followed the trend.

Thank you for your information. For the time being, I have only taken the description from CGB and have not done any research. But thank you for your lines - very informative - then I can include it in my research later.

[Hrefn]

2 hours ago, Prieure de Sion said:

A bit sad to have missed out on the beautiful gold coin at CGB (but congratulations again to @Hrefn - I'm really happy for you - you got a great coin there!) - the CGB people consoled me a bit with this coin.

 

My latest purchase today. A barbarised imitation of a Roman imperial gold coin of Justininus. It is not certain whether it is an imitation of the Burgundians or Visigoths. 

 

 

COINAGE OF THE BURGUNDIANS OR VISIGOTHS

 

Thank you for your good wishes.  If it is any consolation, I was prepared to go a bit higher than my final bid on the Ravenna tremissis.   It hammered for a little under my maximum bid.

I think you did well with your new purchase.  I agree with @Rand that it is highly likely to be Visigothic.  

Because the Visigothic series of tremisses is so extensive, I have not acquired any, in obedience to my principle that one cannot collect everything.  But looking at your coin, I am tempted to add one to the collection, just to serve as a representative sample.  I do have a Visigothic solidus which I believe I have posted previously.
 

 

[Rand]

 

Below is my example of a relatively early, but not the earliest Burgundian VPW tremisses (the coin looks better than the photo shows). Burgundian VPW tremisses come at a premium. There is a nicer example on NM.

 

 

[Rand]

23 hours ago, Hrefn said:

Purchased 9/23 from CGB at auction.

This coin can also be from Milan/Pavia, having features of later coins from Pavia by Baduila, e.g. on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totila. I do not think we have a good study on coins from the period of the reconquest.

I have been trying to attribute my tremissis below. Its style is linked to similar coins in the name of Justinian (but not Justin), it could be from Baduila times. Baduilla produced many coins in the name of Anastasius in Pavia (I have a couple), but of different styles. The coin has features of Ravenna, but I understand Baduila never took Ravenna. I cannot see why the forces of Justinian would make coins in the name of Anastasius. Another possibility is Rome, which Baduila took. Unfortunately, I have not come across other Anastasian coins of this variety.

 

Gorny & Mosch Giessener Münzhandlung. Auction 237. 07/03/2016