Vandal Gold

[Hrefn]

A Germanic people, the Vandals under their king Geiseric crossed the strait of Gibraltar into North Africa to escape the Visigoths in AD 429.  Within ten years they controlled North Africa, and subsequently Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, Malta, and the Balearic Islands. Their domination of the seas lead a historian to dub them the sea-kings, but I can’t lay my hands on the quote at the moment.  

The Vandals launched a sea borne invasion and sacked the city of Rome in AD 455.  Although there is evidence that Pope Leo I interceded for the inhabitants of the city, and the Vandals thus refrained from wholesale slaughter and arson, they did stay for two weeks to strip the city of much of its portable wealth.  Some citizens were enslaved. 

Geiseric ruled for nearly 50 years.  His successors struck coins in their own names, in silver and bronze.  It is commonly believed that the Vandals did not coin gold, in North Africa at least.  Medieval European Coinage, Grierson and Blackburn, 1986, makes note of one possible exception,  MEC I 335 seen below, a pseudo-imperial issue in the name of Zeno.  The note is worth quoting.

“The unusual style of the portrait and Victory are found in no other series.  Specimens from the same dies, one in the Lacam collection (Lacam, 1974, pl. 107.B1 ) and another in Mme Kapamadji’s collection (Boutin 1983, no. 994) both acquired in Sardinia, suggest that the final S of the reverse legend may allude to a mint on that island while under occupation by either Odovacar or by the Vandals.”

Weight of the MEC coin is recorded as 4.18 grams, which is rather light for an Italian solidus of Odovacar.  Sadly, the reference to Lacam appears to be an error, (unless I am looking in the wrong place ) as plate 107 B1 is a coin of Anthemius and may pertain to the previous coin in MEC, which is a solidus of Anthemius.  Doubtless Grierson still was aware of two die matches to #335, and that they came from Sardinia.  In any case the weight of the Lacam coin and the Kapamadji coin are not available.  

Weight standard enigma

Grierson in MEC 1 page 107 refers to a deliberate weight reduction for the solidus, from the standard 4.55 grams to around 3.9 grams.  “ These figures are too much below the traditional weights to be accidental, and it is clear that an intentional weight reduction has been made.”  He regards this as the substitution of a Germanic weight standard, and it is explicitly documented in the very rare solidi of Marseille, “and in many Provençal, Burgundian, and other mints….”   The reduction would produce solidi of 20 or 21 siliqua, rather than the imperial standard of 24 siliquae, and some of these coins (though not the possible Vandal-Sardinian ones discussed here) mark the reduction with XX or XXI as part of the inscription.  It is not clear when exactly this weight reduction began, but it would necessarily have been in areas which had no intention of seeing their coins be interchangeable with full weight imperial solidi, which argues against such coins being struck by Odovacar or the Ostrogoths.  

Of the coins that follow, the first is clearly related to the MEC coin which may be of Vandal and Sardinian origin.  

Coin One is 4.14 grams without apparent clipping. 

Coin Two is 4.05 grams, possible maritime recovery.

Coin Three  4.14 grams, also possible maritime recovery. 

Coin One:

 from Kuenker auction 227, lot # 2005.  Not my coin.

 

Odoaker, 476-493. AV-Solidus im Namen des Zeno, Sardinien (?); 4,14 g. D N ZEN - PERP AVG Gepanzerte Büste v. v. mit Helm, Schild und Speer//VICTORI - A AVGGG S Victoria steht l. mit Kreuz, l. Stern. Grierson/Blackburn 335; Lacam (Byzanz), Pl. 107 ­ B I. GOLD. Nur drei Exemplare bekannt. Von größter Seltenheit. Kl. Kratzer, feine Tönung, gutes sehr schön Exemplar der Sammlung Bernard Chwartz, Auktion Crinon, Paris, 14. Juni 2010, Nr. 118. Exemplar der Sammlung Nadia Kapamadji, Auktion Bourgey, Paris, 27. Oktober 1992, Nr. 715. Zwei der drei bekannten Stücke stammen aus sardinischen Funden, das "S" am Ende der Reverslegende könnte also ein Hinweis sein, daß dort auch die Münzstätte zu suchen ist. Dort könnten es die Vandalen oder Odoaker geprägt haben. 

My Translation:  Two of the three known pieces come from Sardinia; the "S" at the end of the back inscription could also indicate that the mint might have been located there. The Vandals or Odoaker could have struck them there.

A very close match to this coin was in the Michel Dürr sale.  It is now in the collection of a Forum member, and I hope he will reply to this thread with photos and most especially the coin’s mass

Coin Two is a recent acquisition:

Description from Athena:

“Migration Period
Pseudo-Imperial, uncertain AV Solidus. In the name of Zeno. Uncertain mint, AD 476-489. D N ZENO PERP AVG, pearl-diademed, helmeted and cuirassed bust facing slightly to right, holding spear and shield decorated with horseman motif / VICTORIA AVGGG S, Victory standing facing, head to left, holding long jewelled cross; star in right field, COMOB in exergue. For prototype, cf. RIC X 910 and 929, Depeyrot 108/1; for similar, cf. 4.05g, 20mm, 6h.
retrograde Z in obv. Extremely Rare.”

My comments:  numerous similarities in style suggest to me that this coin is part of the Vandal-Sardinia group, with both Vandals and Sardinia being conjectural but IMO likely.  This coin shows environmental changes suggestive of sea salvage.  

Coin Three:

2024.24.    Solidus, in the name of Zeno, from a Western mint.  From NBJ, Dubai, e-auction 11 #181. 4/2024.  The pebbled surface of the fields may be consistent with maritime recovery.  Possibly Vandalic, possibly from Sardinia;  alternatively Ostrogothic but seems stylistically too bizarre for that.  

Among the many peculiarities is the star above the cross on the reverse.  A similar eccentrically placed star is on the MEC coin (and Coin One.)   Another trait shared by these coins is notch in the portion of Victory’s garment which is draped over her left hand.  (Is this a peplum, a himation, or what?  Someone reading this knows.)

Perhaps the coins should be considered in reverse order, with Three being most literate and closest to imperial style, Two being somewhat devolved, and Three being the last and latest version.  In any case, the absence of a gold coinage in the Vandal kingdom is difficult to explain.  Possibly North Africa was able to sell sufficient grain for cash gold to satisfy the needs of the seat of government with imperial solidi. But a major province may have felt the need to strike coins for local use.  And if for local use, perhaps they employed a local weight standard.  

Please post any Vandal coins, Western coins of Zeno, early light weight solidi, or whatever you believe relevant.  

[Rand]

Thank you for the interesting write-up. The absence of gold coinage in the Vandal kingdom is difficult to explain, indeed. Justinian started minting solidi in Carthage as soon as it was under his control. 

There are plenty of unattributed types of solidi with the names of Zeno and Anastasius, so the minting by Vandals in North Africa remains a possibility. 

It's worth noting that all documented North African finds of Anastasian solidi are from Constantinople. The absence of recent reported finds of such coins, particularly in the metal-detecting era, is surprising and could be due to these finds not being reported.

[Anaximander]

Is MEC I the standard reference now? I still use Warwick Wroth, Western and Provincial Byzantine Coins of the Vandals, Ostrogoths, Lombards and the Empires of Thessalonica, Nicaea and Trebizond in the British Museum. 344 pages, 42 plates. (Chicago, Argonot reprint, 1966).  The orignal edition must have been published around 1911.  Wroth wrote that Gaiseric issued Valentinian imitative solidi and tremisses with weights of 4.3 gm (67 grains) and 1.49 gm (23 grains), respectively. and Trasamund issued Anastasius I imitatives. Nothing about Zeno. The consistency of weights of this dozen or so gold coins is remarkable. From that, it's hard to make a leap to Zeno imitatives with a possibly different weight standard. 

  

 

[Hrefn]

Warwick Wroth’s 1911 opus is now online.  It is still a valuable reference, but there is much more material available for study today, and some of Wroth’s attributions are no longer widely accepted.   

https://archive.org/details/cu31924029792722/mode/2up

Wroth attributes an imitative solidus (above) of Valentinian III to Geiseric, it would seem on the opinion of de Salis.  De Salis was a renowned collector who had an enormous impact on the Roman coins and medals department of the British Museum.  The Vandal origin of this coin is conjectural.   A quote from an ANA publication on Republican Coinage offered this caveat:  “De Salis, the real authority behind the BMC, often let himself be led too far by his sense of style.”   I am not casting stones at de Salis;  my argument is also based at least partly on style.  

The next solidus (#6 above) illustrated in Wroth as Vandalic is an imitative one of Anastasius.  @Rand’s note above saying all the Anastasian solidi found in North Africa are from the Constantinople mint is difficult to reconcile with North African Vandalic production.  Coin production in a remote province is not precluded.   Still that leaves a substantial time between Valentinian III’s murder in AD 455 and the accession of Anastasius in AD 491, with no solidi attributed by Wroth to the Vandals produced in the name of any of the intervening emperors.  

I suspect the Vandals sold North African grain (and olive oil?) to Constantinople when the two groups were not actively at war.  Before the Vandal conquest, it is said that Africa provided Rome with grain for 8 months, and Egypt for 4 months.  That enormous agricultural surplus was probably exchanged for good imperial gold, and I postulate the Vandals didn’t need a gold coinage because their need for same was provided by the Romans/Byzantines.  

But, I think there is room for thinking there may have been a more local need for coin in the Sardinian economy.  The inferior weight of the Sardinian coins (if they exist as a true subgroup) may have been deliberate.  The principle of Gresham’s Law would suggest light weight coins would not tend to be exported.   It is certainly true that solidi from Marseille from a century later deliberately and explicitly conform to this lighter weight standard.  (Other earlier Merovingian solidi of Anastasius’ time seem to be full weight.) 

If we can tread on the dangerous ground pioneered by de Salis, there is an argument based on style for the coins in my OP being related, but this is reinforced by their weight, and the Sardinian origin of Coin One is suggested by find spot of two examples, in Sardinia.  

 

[Vel Saties]

Much was written and said after the Wroth (who, by the way, put everything that seemed barbaric and/or ugly and that he didn't know how to order in the "box" of the Vandal coinage) and after the MEC.
It is no longer possible to scientifically use these dated works as standards even though they can be retained as bases.
The circulation of gold in Vandal North Africa was studied by Morrison in 1987 (la circulation de la monnaie d'or en Afrique à l'epoque Vandale. Bilan de trouvailles locales pp 325-344) and the results were confirmed by subsequent studies whose bibliography can be found in C. Morrison Caratteristiche ed uso della moneta protovandalica e vandalica in: Le invasioni barbariche nel meridione dell'impero: Visigoti, Vandali Ostrogoti; and even more recently Late Roman, Vandal, and Byzantine Coinage in Africa
Morrisson, Cécile. (2022) - In: A Companion to North Africa in Antiquity p. 410-423.

It has been abundantly demonstrated, with all due respect to the auction houses, that approximately 2/3 of the discoveries of gold coinage consist of official coinages of oriental imperial mints and the essentially coastal distribution of these coins has been noted. Another consideration is that numismatic and archaeological studies confirm that the Vandals totally respected the imperial monopoly and did not mint gold (p. 160). It was noted that in the context of the Vandal nation, gold was made up of the solidus and not of its fractions well attested in other areas where they acted as connecting coins from the current system to that of lower intrinsic value.
Morrison also hypothesizes that silver, which incidentally circulated mainly in the area of the kingdom in Africa, played the role of gold's subsidiary currency for the most minute transactions. In this case it is easier to think of a forger's atelier than of an activity regulated by the state or even just locally.
This is the reason for exclusively monometallic production in Sardinia.

No gold minting can be therefore attributed in science and conscience neither to the Vandal cultural horizon nor to the activity of the Sardinian mint in the Vandal age.

Although archaeological research in Sardinia attests to the presence of minims of the type of the "sardinian victory" and the very rare coins relating to the GODA REX revolt, it does not attest to the presence of coined gold. On the contrary, the Byzantine presence which defeated and took over from the permanent garrison of Mauri - Vandals who garrisoned the region is very well attested. And we know that as soon as Carthage and the area under Vandal influence were reconquered, Justinian's officials had imperial gold begin to be minted in all respects but the workers may have always remained the same with poor artistic and artisanal qualities.

see: Alberto Trivero R., Maurizio Cecchinato, Angelo Ortu, Alain Gennari QUATTRO NOTE SULLA MONETAZIONE VANDALA

It is presumable that monetary activity in Vandal Sardinia began during the reign of Huneric (477-484), when the Vandal presence was now well consolidated and no longer a mere military occupation, also thanks to the arrival of a few hundred Moors with their families. It is not known what the origin of the monetary workers could be, in particular of the mint engravers: it had been almost five centuries since
There was no monetary activity in Sardinia. The approximate style of the drawing suggests that they were workers prepared on site with a certain improvisation. The minting probably took place in concert with Carthage, in fact the local authority to which the right to mint money could be granted could only be the governor appointed by the Vandal king, who ensured the extraction of the raw mineral and the melting into ingots on site using furnaces, as demonstrated by the ancient remains present near the mines. Nor should it be surprising that the Vandal rulers allowed the minting of money, they were probably also indifferent to whether or not such coinage bore the name of the sovereign, in fact during their rule the Vandals were only concerned with collecting the tribute imposed on the governor, leaving the rest the island to its own destiny.



 

[Rand]

I am mainly interested in the Anastasian period. My impression is there is no evidence that any particular types of unusual non-imperial solidi with Anastasius' name were minted in North Africa, but the evidence remains thin. 
Thank you for pointing out the Morrisson, Cécile. (2022) - In: A Companion to North Africa in Antiquity p. 410-423. I just had a look at it, and it is a summary following the previous publications, but it does not update the state of the research, specifically on gold coins.
The key problem is that there are too few documented finds of gold coins in North Africa for generalizable conclusions. I tried conacting North African museums regarding their material, which they almost completely ignored.

The studies of different hoards by Lafaurie J. were great but dated now. 
Sadly, the quality of photographs has worsened significantly in MEC compared to Wroth.

Edited July 22 by Rand

[Vel Saties]

3 hours ago, Rand said:

I am mainly interested in the Anastasian period. My impressions is there is no evidence that any particular types of unusual non-imperial solidi with Anastasius' name were minted in North Africa, but the evidence remains thin. 
Thank you for pointing out the Morrisson, Cécile. (2022) - In: A Companion to North Africa in Antiquity p. 410-423. I just had a look at it, and it is a summary following the previous publications, but it does not update the state of the research, specifically on gold coins.
The key problem is that there are too few documented finds of gold coins in North Africa for generalizable conclusions. I tried conacting North African museums regarding their material, which they almost completely ignored.

The studies of different hoards by Lafaurie J. were great but dated now. 
Sadly, the quality of photographs has worsened significantly in MEC compared to Wroth.

C'è molta letteratura in italiano e francese se cerchi bene

sorryt: There is a lot of literature in Italian and French if you look hard enough

Edited July 22 by Vel Saties

[Vel Saties]

New reference texts could be the Dumbarton Oaks catalogs and Hahn Metlich's MIBE (2013, I think)

In this regard you may also consider:
D'ANDREA A. - GENNARI A. - GINNASI TORNO A. - MORETTI D. L. - Byzantine Coinage in the East. Vol. I - II -III. Bari 2020\2021.

Vol. I. pp. 277, ill. a colori nel testo.

Vol. II pp. 355, ill nel testo a colori.

Vol III. Pp 475, ill nel testo a colori.

these are two specimens with similar obverse features with big, bulging eyes but in the name of Anastasius (MIBE nr 4b and 5) from the mint of Constantinople


Without any polemical intent:
Can anyone explain to me how they can define the "strange" auras of "Possibly Vandalic, possibly from Sardinia; alternatively Ostrogothic but seems stylistically too bizarre for that"?

Edited July 23 by Vel Saties

[Hrefn]

@Vel Saties, I am happy to explain.   I illustrated three coins in my original post.  Coin Two and Coin Three are clearly not from Constantinople.  The inscription in the exergue is COMOB, not CONOB.  I think that is quite conclusive.  The very aberrant style of the coins just strengthens the case for some mint other than Constantinople.  

Coin One does have CONOB in the exergue, but the Imperial portrait and most especially the style of Victory on the reverse make it highly unlikely the coin is from the imperial capital mint.  

The mass of these unclipped coins is inconsistent for an official issue.  Weight control at the imperial mint for solidi was nearly perfect.  A coin of 4.1 grams would never have been acceptable.  All three of these coins are lightweight.  

There are glaring mistakes in the epigraphy, both in spelling and in incorrect letter forms.

 Coin One misspells the emperor’s name.  There are no cross bars on the “A”s on the obverse or the reverse.  PERP AUG looks as if the “E” was recut from an “R”.  The horseman pictured on the shield should have a lance stabbing a fallen enemy;  it is difficult to say exactly what the engraver was trying to depict here but it is not the standard depiction.  The star at the top of the cross on the reverse is never seen on coins from Constantinople.  Lastly, two of the three known specimens were found in Sardinia.  The final “S” in the place usually occupied by the officina letter probably does not indicate the second officina, since this coin was made outside of the Constantinople mint, with its multiple workshops.   The last letter of the reverse inscription is either meaningless, a rote copying of the prototype coin, or had some other significance.  Could it indicate Sardinia?  It is a reasonable question to ask.   

Coin Two has a retrograde “Z” to start the emperor’s name.  One of the “A”s may have a crossbar, but the others appear not to have one.  The condition of this coin makes this hard to determine.  Instead of PERP AUG, the coin reads PRP AUG.  The “S” ending the reverse inscription is extremely similar to that on Coin One.  Again, this is either meaningless, or it has the same meaning as on Coin One.  

Coin Three has a star above the cross on the reverse.  The horseman on the shield is completely non standard.  

It is impossible to argue these coins are products of Constantinople.  

 

[Vel Saties]

3 hours ago, Hrefn said:

I am happy to explain

A thousand thanks 🙂 @Hrefn  you are always very kind and precise
I'm in a hurry now but I'll read your answer carefully tomorrow

Edited July 23 by Vel Saties

[Hrefn]

Some possible arguments which can be raised against these coins being from Sardinia include the fact that although Sardinia is famous for its silver mines, it does not seem to have significant gold deposits.  So the gold would have to come from elsewhere.  The Vandals raided maritime Italy and Greece frequently during the century or so their kingdom was in existence, so that is not an insuperable objection.  

The “S” in the place usually taken by the officina letter, on two of the three coins, could stand for Sicily as easily as for Sardinia; or have some other meaning entirely.  The only reason to postulate Sardinia is the find spot evidence. 

I continue to be intrigued by the production of light weight solidi in Marseille.  Trade between Sardinia and Marseille would be expected on the basis of their proximity.  Why would Marseille adopt a light weight solidus weight standard for their coins in AD 580, unless the coins conformed to a standard already in common use in their area?  There is no intent to deceive, or have these lightweight coins pass as full weight imperial solidi.  The Marseille coins are clearly marked XXI for 21 siliquae.NOT MY COIN, unfortunately.

The Marseille solidi date to a time when Constantinople had some loose political influence over Marseille, and some 50 years after the collapse of the Vandal Kingdom.  But I believe they support an argument for a local weight standard.  That does not prove the coins I posted above are Vandal, or Sardinian.  But it is indisputable that 50 years after the end of the Vandal kingdom there was such a standard in the Northwestern Mediterranean littoral.  

 

 

[Tejas]

Great post!

Below is a coin from my collection, which is die-identical to the OP coin.

Obv.: DN ZEN PERP AVG

Rev.: VICTORI A AVCCCS

In exergue: CONOB

Weight: 4.26g

Lacam "Byzance", pl. CVII-B this coin

According to Grierson the coin was minted by the Vandals on Sardinia

Ex Michel Dürr et Roland Michel, Geneve sale, Geneva, 8.11.1999, lot 378

 

I think the attribution of this type to Sardinia has some merit. The provenances seem to point in this direction. If Sardinia was under Vandalic rule when the coins were made is not entirely clear, but apparently quite likely. It is true of course that the Vandals did not mint gold coins in Carthage, probably because the inflow of gold from grain exports (and plunder?) made it unnecessary to mint gold. I don't believe that they abstained from minting gold out of respect for the emperor's prerogative to put his name on gold coins. 

I don't know enough about it, but the style of these solidi appears to be related to coins that are associated with the Mare Nostrum hoard. If it is true, that this hoard was found somewhere at or in the Mediterranean this would perhaps bolster the association with the Vandals.  

 

 

[Tejas]

Here is another coin from my collection, which has in the past been attributed to the Vandals by the BMC (de Salis). RIC X No. 3783 attributes the coin to the Burgundians or Franks (451 or later) and MEC p. 75. also rejects the BMC attribution to the Vandals and instead favor an attribution to the Burgundians.

I think this coin was minted in Gaul and I believe that an attribution to the Burgundians is most likely. If the attribution to the Burgundians is correct, the coin may have been minted under the authority of King Gundowech/Gundioc (+ 473). Gundowech was king of the Burgundians following the destruction of the Burgundian kingdom at the Rhine by the Huns in 436. In 451 Gundowech joined forces with Aetius against Attila. The coin may have been minted between 451 and 455.

DN PLA VALENTI – NIANVZ PF AVC  // VICTORI – A AVCCC Z   CONOB

4.45 g.

Ex CNG Triton Auction III, November 1999,

 

 

[Tejas]

To also post a coin that was definitely minted in the Kingdom of the Vandals and Alans in Africa, here is a very rare 100-Nummi of Gunthamund.

 

Obv.: DN REX GVNTHAMVNDV

Rev.: DN / C

While 50-Nummi pieces are quite common (in migration age terms, not in Roman terms), the 100-Nummi piece is very rare, especially in this condition.

Edited July 25 by Tejas

[Hrefn]

@Tejas thank you for showing your coin which is a die match to Coin One, above.  I was hoping you would post it.  At 4.26 grams it is still quite light compared with contemporary imperial and Ostrogothic solidi.  I wonder if you know any information regarding the find spot of your coin?   I suppose if it had been found in Sardinia you would have mentioned it. 

As for your second coin,  here is an imperial prototype, though from Ravenna, not Rome.

 

And here is the Visigothic version, from the Subjack collection.  

 

The wreath over the emperor’s head and the very distinctive CCC on the reverse are the most salient markers of Visigothic origin.  @Tejas’s coin does not resemble either of these, so where did it come from?  The Burgundians and the Franks are candidates.  I lean toward the Burgundians.  Valentinian died in AD 455.  The Franks at this time were just getting organized.  It is not clear to me that there is any Frankish gold coinage before Anastasius.  I am willing to be corrected. 

The last coin is just a beaut.   

 

 

 

[Hrefn]

The original post displayed three coins which appeared related, and explored the possibility of a Vandal origin for the coins.  Among the peculiarities these coins exhibit, two of them show a star above the long cross held by the Victory on the reverse.  I argued that this was a highly unusual design element which was absent in Roman and known Visigothic coins.  And thus a weak argument for the coins having an unusual origin.

So far as I know, no solidi of Zeno have similar placement of a star above the cross.  But this coin of Galla Placidia (not my coin, and which I think is an official Roman coin and not a barbaric imitation) clearly suggests this design arrangement was not an arbitrary innovation.  

I am not sure this helps to locate the origin of the coins in the OP, but I was astonished to see this.  Please post any solidi which have an unusual placement of a star on the reverse, or any other relevant coins.  

Also, kudos to whomever purchased this coin.  The die work on both sides is extraordinary.   

[Rand]

A good point @Hrefn. After Rasiel had advertised the NN sale, I also noted the stars. I followed the sale, but the prices were very high as these coins deserve.

I have been long curious of the meaning of the stars on Eastern solidi, virtually universal from the time of Marcian, which has not become such a common feature on Western solidi till much later.

It looks the celator of the above coin felt a star was needed but the flan was busy with R-V, so it was placed at the top. Your Zeno solidus, may have immobilised the star's position, but did not need R-V (or similar) for obvious reasons?

[Tejas]

That is an interesting find. I suppose the Galla Placidia coin underscores the idea that the "Vandalic" solidi are of western origin, i.e. that the design with the star above the cross was copied from a western soldius.

Sometimes the star could indicate a particular mint, like in the case of the two stars on solidi from Thessalonika. Hahn also suggests that the placement of the star could mark a new 15 year tax cycle. I agree, that the placement of the star on top of the cross may have become necessary to make space for the V of R-V on coins of Ravenna. 

Edited August 5 by Tejas

[Rand]

So the need to put a star could have been the reason for using ligatured mint monograms in later western coins, for example under Theoderic (my collection).

 

Rome

 

 

Milan

 

Ravenna. Oops, RV was erased from the die.

[Anaximander]

I have six of the 5th C. solidi, and they all conform to RIC X (1994), with no out-of-place stars. At my price point ($350-$750), I'm not going to get any rarities.

Honorius (393-423), no star.
Theodosius II (402-450), star in left field. 
Valentinian III (450-455), no star.
Marcian (450-457), star in right field.  
Leo I (457-474), star in right field.
Zeno (476-491), star in right field. 

   

[Al Kowsky]

On 7/19/2024 at 4:43 PM, Hrefn said:

A Germanic people, the Vandals under their king Geiseric crossed the strait of Gibraltar into North Africa to escape the Visigoths in AD 429.  Within ten years they controlled North Africa, and subsequently Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, Malta, and the Balearic Islands. Their domination of the seas lead a historian to dub them the sea-kings, but I can’t lay my hands on the quote at the moment.  

The Vandals launched a sea borne invasion and sacked the city of Rome in AD 455.  Although there is evidence that Pope Leo I interceded for the inhabitants of the city, and the Vandals thus refrained from wholesale slaughter and arson, they did stay for two weeks to strip the city of much of its portable wealth.  Some citizens were enslaved. 

Geiseric ruled for nearly 50 years.  His successors struck coins in their own names, in silver and bronze.  It is commonly believed that the Vandals did not coin gold, in North Africa at least.  Medieval European Coinage, Grierson and Blackburn, 1986, makes note of one possible exception,  MEC I 335 seen below, a pseudo-imperial issue in the name of Zeno.  The note is worth quoting.

“The unusual style of the portrait and Victory are found in no other series.  Specimens from the same dies, one in the Lacam collection (Lacam, 1974, pl. 107.B1 ) and another in Mme Kapamadji’s collection (Boutin 1983, no. 994) both acquired in Sardinia, suggest that the final S of the reverse legend may allude to a mint on that island while under occupation by either Odovacar or by the Vandals.”

Weight of the MEC coin is recorded as 4.18 grams, which is rather light for an Italian solidus of Odovacar.  Sadly, the reference to Lacam appears to be an error, (unless I am looking in the wrong place ) as plate 107 B1 is a coin of Anthemius and may pertain to the previous coin in MEC, which is a solidus of Anthemius.  Doubtless Grierson still was aware of two die matches to #335, and that they came from Sardinia.  In any case the weight of the Lacam coin and the Kapamadji coin are not available.  

Weight standard enigma

Grierson in MEC 1 page 107 refers to a deliberate weight reduction for the solidus, from the standard 4.55 grams to around 3.9 grams.  “ These figures are too much below the traditional weights to be accidental, and it is clear that an intentional weight reduction has been made.”  He regards this as the substitution of a Germanic weight standard, and it is explicitly documented in the very rare solidi of Marseille, “and in many Provençal, Burgundian, and other mints….”   The reduction would produce solidi of 20 or 21 siliqua, rather than the imperial standard of 24 siliquae, and some of these coins (though not the possible Vandal-Sardinian ones discussed here) mark the reduction with XX or XXI as part of the inscription.  It is not clear when exactly this weight reduction began, but it would necessarily have been in areas which had no intention of seeing their coins be interchangeable with full weight imperial solidi, which argues against such coins being struck by Odovacar or the Ostrogoths.  

Of the coins that follow, the first is clearly related to the MEC coin which may be of Vandal and Sardinian origin.  

Coin One is 4.14 grams without apparent clipping. 

Coin Two is 4.05 grams, possible maritime recovery.

Coin Three  4.14 grams, also possible maritime recovery. 

Coin One:

 from Kuenker auction 227, lot # 2005.  Not my coin.

 

Odoaker, 476-493. AV-Solidus im Namen des Zeno, Sardinien (?); 4,14 g. D N ZEN - PERP AVG Gepanzerte Büste v. v. mit Helm, Schild und Speer//VICTORI - A AVGGG S Victoria steht l. mit Kreuz, l. Stern. Grierson/Blackburn 335; Lacam (Byzanz), Pl. 107 ­ B I. GOLD. Nur drei Exemplare bekannt. Von größter Seltenheit. Kl. Kratzer, feine Tönung, gutes sehr schön Exemplar der Sammlung Bernard Chwartz, Auktion Crinon, Paris, 14. Juni 2010, Nr. 118. Exemplar der Sammlung Nadia Kapamadji, Auktion Bourgey, Paris, 27. Oktober 1992, Nr. 715. Zwei der drei bekannten Stücke stammen aus sardinischen Funden, das "S" am Ende der Reverslegende könnte also ein Hinweis sein, daß dort auch die Münzstätte zu suchen ist. Dort könnten es die Vandalen oder Odoaker geprägt haben. 

My Translation:  Two of the three known pieces come from Sardinia; the "S" at the end of the back inscription could also indicate that the mint might have been located there. The Vandals or Odoaker could have struck them there.

A very close match to this coin was in the Michel Dürr sale.  It is now in the collection of a Forum member, and I hope he will reply to this thread with photos and most especially the coin’s mass

Coin Two is a recent acquisition:

Description from Athena:

“Migration Period
Pseudo-Imperial, uncertain AV Solidus. In the name of Zeno. Uncertain mint, AD 476-489. D N ZENO PERP AVG, pearl-diademed, helmeted and cuirassed bust facing slightly to right, holding spear and shield decorated with horseman motif / VICTORIA AVGGG S, Victory standing facing, head to left, holding long jewelled cross; star in right field, COMOB in exergue. For prototype, cf. RIC X 910 and 929, Depeyrot 108/1; for similar, cf. 4.05g, 20mm, 6h.
retrograde Z in obv. Extremely Rare.”

My comments:  numerous similarities in style suggest to me that this coin is part of the Vandal-Sardinia group, with both Vandals and Sardinia being conjectural but IMO likely.  This coin shows environmental changes suggestive of sea salvage.  

Coin Three:

2024.24.    Solidus, in the name of Zeno, from a Western mint.  From NBJ, Dubai, e-auction 11 #181. 4/2024.  The pebbled surface of the fields may be consistent with maritime recovery.  Possibly Vandalic, possibly from Sardinia;  alternatively Ostrogothic but seems stylistically too bizarre for that.  

Among the many peculiarities is the star above the cross on the reverse.  A similar eccentrically placed star is on the MEC coin (and Coin One.)   Another trait shared by these coins is notch in the portion of Victory’s garment which is draped over her left hand.  (Is this a peplum, a himation, or what?  Someone reading this knows.)

Perhaps the coins should be considered in reverse order, with Three being most literate and closest to imperial style, Two being somewhat devolved, and Three being the last and latest version.  In any case, the absence of a gold coinage in the Vandal kingdom is difficult to explain.  Possibly North Africa was able to sell sufficient grain for cash gold to satisfy the needs of the seat of government with imperial solidi. But a major province may have felt the need to strike coins for local use.  And if for local use, perhaps they employed a local weight standard.  

Please post any Vandal coins, Western coins of Zeno, early light weight solidi, or whatever you believe relevant.  

Hrefn, I just discovered this impressive, well researched article today, thanks for posting it 🤩!

[Al Kowsky]

6 hours ago, Anaximander said:

I have six of the 5th C. solidi, and they all conform to RIC X (1994), with no out-of-place stars. At my price point ($350-$750), I'm not going to get any rarities.

Honorius (393-423), no star.
Theodosius II (402-450), star in left field. 
Valentinian III (450-455), no star.
Marcian (450-457), star in right field.  
Leo I (457-474), star in right field.
Zeno (476-491), star in right field. 

   

Anaximander, Your Zeno solidus immediately caught my eye 🧐. I also have a Zeno solidus with a 5th officina mark that looks very different from your coin. My coin came from the Guy Lacam collection & was first auctioned by NFA in 1987. It was later auctioned by Spink, Thalec, & CNG twice. It ended up in my collection from CNG 106, lot 862. The coin was originally attributed to Theodoric, however, that attribution was changed the last time CNG auctioned it in 2017, to the Constantinople Mint, & the officina letter was listed as very rare.

 

[Rand]

@Al Kowsky This is a very nice solidus. May I please check if the Thessaloniki solidus no. 634 from NFA auction above is Zeno or Anastasius. Likely Zeno as 635 is Zeno.

 

Does anyone have Lacam G. La fin de l'empire Romain et le monnayage or en Italie (455 - 493). Does it include coins of Anastasius? The book is quite expensive to buy just to check this.

[Anaximander]

Your Zeno is quite the gem and has an amazing pedigree, @Al Kowsky, with a gobsmacking change in attribution. I especially like seeing the NFA Auction catalog.

I've been poking around, and it seems there is both quite the challenge in differentiating the original Zeno solidus from its Ostrogoth imitative and quite some rarity around officina Є.

After consulting anew my RIC X, which does not address rarity by officina, my attention turned to the Roman Coin lookup one of our peers produced, @Original Skin Coins, that speedily pings OCRE & CRRO. Et voilà! 22 such coins, none from the 5th officina.

I was amused to see how the Z was struck as a sideways N on your and other coins. I wonder if that isn't a clue as to whether a Zeno solidus could really be Theodoric, Ostrogoth, in origin. My search led to one such at Shanna Schmidt coins (here), the reference for which is none other than Guy Lacam (1983). Hard to fault the imitative strike.  Other searches revealed possible connections to Odovacar striking solidi in Mediolanum, modern Milan, or Ravenna. 

 

[Anaximander]

44 minutes ago, Rand said:

Does anyone have Lacam G. La fin de l'empire Romain et le monnayage or en Italie (455 - 493). Does it include coins of Anastasius? The book is quite expensive to buy just to check this.

Archive.org has a copy but it is restricted.  I'm disappointed that so much of what S&S and NNP have scanned and made "available" is behind some wall. No cigar!