Clades Variana - the battle that stopped Rome (new evidence)

[Tejas]

Often battles, or even entire wars, are of no lasting consequence, but some battles in history are of outsized importance. One of these is the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest, also known as the Clades Variana, or Varus Battle. The battle took place in northern Germany in 9 AD and Rome lost three entire legions (No. 17, 18 and 19). The humiliation of this loss was such that these numbers were never used again to denote a Roman legion. The battle once and for all stopped Roman expansion across the Rhine and thus helped to establish linguistic boundaries in central Europe.
The site of the battle was identified about 30 years ago at a place called Kalkriese. The evidence that led to the discovery of the battlefield initially consisted mainly of Roman coins. The coins also helped to date the site. Unfortunately, this evidence was not entirely conclusive, as the Romans returned to the site a few years later to bury their dead, when they also lost coins in the ground that dated the battle. 
It has therefore been debated whether the Kalkriese site was the field of the Clades Variana or whether it was the site of a battle that took place a few years later in 15 AD, when the Romans almost lost 4 legions to the Germanic warriors. This second battle is also known as the Battle of the Long Bridges. 
Scientists have now been able to prove conclusively that the Kalkriese site is the site of the Clades Variana. By analysing hundreds of pieces of metal lost during the battle and comparing the alloys with those of the known sites of the 17th, 18th and 19th legions, they have been able to prove that it was indeed these legions that were annihilated at Kalkriese, and not the legions involved in the Battle of the Long Bridges. 

Below is one of my Asses with the VAR countermark, which was applied by Varus at the legionary camp at Haltern just prior to the battle.

 

[Victrix]

A coin exists, in the municipal museum of Rennes, with "VAR" applied over "TIBAVC". "TIBAVC" (Pangerl Collection CMK 30) is a Tiberian countermark. This makes the Varus hypothesis very unlikely, if not impossible. The coin has been published in R.Martini; CAESAR AUGUSTUS in Glaux special series II, 2001, ENNERE, Milano), pp 193-194 (see image below) 

A second example was recently brought to our attention. "VAR" overstrikes "TIB" square. "TIB" square (Pangerl Collection CMK 50)  is a Tiberian countermark. Published in R. Martini, Collezione Pangerl, Nomismata 6, 2003, pp xlix-li. 
This makes the Varus hypothesis very unlikely, if not impossible. 

Both "TIBAVC" and "TIB" are Tiberian countermarks ("TIBAVC" known on Drusus Junior Coins of 22/23 AD). Thus, if VAR is co-temporal with Tiberius, then VAR cannot stand for Varus, as he died with his legions in Germania prior to Tiberius' assumption of power in 14AD. 

This widespread distribution is suprising for a general who lost so heavily and whose memory was not honored. 

In summary it seems best to remain neutral with regard to the attribution of "VAR" to Varus. There seems to be a lot of wishful thinking and financial interests involved.

[Tejas]

That is very interesting indeed.

I guess you copied your answer from this source:

The Varus Debate (romancoins.info)

I think the pro arguments on the site above carry more weight.

Also, I think the picture above is inconclusive. The VAR appears next to AVG, the TIB is not visible and may never have been there.  The  AVG accountermark preceded VAR and is hence consistent. I have not seen the other example, but my guess is that it is another inconclusive example that may have been misinterpreted.

Importantly, with the new evidence, which has only just been published, we now know for sure that Kalkriese is the battle field of the Varus battle. And we also know that asses with the VAR countermark have come into the ground on these days in summer AD 9, when the battle took place. Hence, we now know with certainty that the VAR countermark was around in AD 9 and we know that it was on coins used by Varus' legions.

According to the link below 96% of the large number of copper coins (nearly 700) found on the battle field carry a countermark, either IMP, AVG, VAR or CVAL. This is the highest concentration of countermarked coins ever found, including the largest number of VAR countermarks.

Varusforschung in Kalkriese: Die Örtlichkeit der Varusschlacht (UNIVERSITÄT OSNABRÜCK) (uni-graz.at)

 

Edited June 27 by Tejas

[John Conduitt]

What would be the purpose of Varus countermarking coins with his name? He wouldn't be creating a new currency, or revaluing the existing one, and didn't need to reaffirm coins of his boss, Augustus. He wasn't trying to usurp Augustus. The same goes for the CVAL countermark, supposedly for his cavalry commander. What would he be doing countermarking coins?

[Dwarf]

As far as I know these early asses were countermarked when worn really bad.
A countermark guaranteed the legal value, the military commander (Varus) here guaranteed the legal value in the absence of the Emperor as the original issuer.

He is not revaluing the coins but re-guaranteeing them

 

Regards
Klaus

[Tejas]

That is a good question. The countermark DD is believed to mean Dono Dedit (gave as present), where it is unknown who the donor was. In the case of VAR and CVAL the donors may have wanted to make sure that the recipients knew who their benefactors were. I think it is possible that Varus was able to acquire worn copper asses below face value that were to be recoined. By countermarking the coins he may have reestablished the face value. So besides saving on his donations, he may have been able to make some profit as well. 

I think it would be quite a coincidence for the two countermarks VAR and CVAL to occur in conjunction and in relation to the Varus battle, where two main protagonists were called VARus and C n VALa if these persons are not related to these countermarks. 

Edited June 27 by Tejas

[Dwarf]

Unfortunately I possess only the plates of the Pangerl Collection
The countermark DD appears only on coins of Nemausus (crocodile). I suppose! that it means decreto decurionum (just an educated guess)
So some other civic body is re-guaranteeing face value.

Please correct!

[Victrix]

7 hours ago, Tejas said:

That is very interesting indeed.

I guess you copied your answer from this source:

The Varus Debate (romancoins.info)

I think the pro arguments on the site above carry more weight.

Also, I think the picture above is inconclusive. The VAR appears next to AVG, the TIB is not visible and may never have been there.  The  AVG accountermark preceded VAR and is hence consistent. I have not seen the other example, but my guess is that it is another inconclusive example that may have been misinterpreted.

Importantly, with the new evidence, which has only just been published, we now know for sure that Kalkriese is the battle field of the Varus battle. And we also know that asses with the VAR countermark have come into the ground on these days in summer AD 9, when the battle took place. Hence, we now know with certainty that the VAR countermark was around in AD 9 and we know that it was on coins used by Varus' legions.

According to the link below 96% of the large number of copper coins (nearly 700) found on the battle field carry a countermark, either IMP, AVG, VAR or CVAL. This is the highest concentration of countermarked coins ever found, including the largest number of VAR countermarks.

Varusforschung in Kalkriese: Die Örtlichkeit der Varusschlacht (UNIVERSITÄT OSNABRÜCK) (uni-graz.at)

 

It honestly can be either but the reason I refrained from buying one is that it's likely in my opinion not conclusive. The TIAVG is clearly overstruck in the picture I've send which is enough for me to want to skip buying the coin. Their conclusion is after research is that it's wishful thinking but who knows maybe i'm wrong 😛 .

Edited June 28 by Victrix

[shanxi]

3 hours ago, Victrix said:

The TIAVG is clearly overstruck in the picture I've send which is enough for me to want to skip buying the coin.

What are the reasons for assuming that this was a TIAVG stamp and not just an AVG stamp?
There is no sign of TI, only AVG.

Is the countermark a die match with known TIAVG countermarks ? This would be an important clue.

 

Also the ligate writing of AV in AVG is typical for the TIAVG countermarks but I don't have an overview of whether ligated AVGs also exist for AVG countermarls. If there is none this would be another important point.

 

Are there other reasons?

 

 

 

Edited June 28 by shanxi

[Tejas]

I was wondering about this too. From the picture no TI or TIB is discernible and VAR next to or above AVG makes perfect sense. 

Again, I think the strongest argument against VAR being applied ontop of the  TIAVG or TIBAVG is the now certain fact that the VAR countermark existed in AD 9, i.e. before the TIB, TIBAVG or TIAVG countermark. In addition, the VAR countermark has never been found on a coin minted after AD 9. Here are two examples of VAR and AVG on asses from acsearch.

[KenDorney]

16 hours ago, Victrix said:

It honestly can be either but the reason I refrained from buying one is that it's likely in my opinion not conclusive. The TIAVG is clearly overstruck in the picture I've send which is enough for me to want to skip buying the coin. Their conclusion is after research is that it's wishful thinking but who knows maybe i'm wrong 😛 .

This is one of the aspects of our hobby which makes it exciting.  Opinions are always changing based on new or re-interpreted information and we all have the potential to be correct!