Last solidus of Odovacer? Legacy of Ravenna siege?

[Rand]

The coin hardly wins grade prizes, but I have been waiting for it for years. It has been very welcomed in the new home, and this is why…

 

Solidus in the name of Anastasius (April 491 - August 492). Mint of Ravenna (Odovacer) or Rome (Theoderic)

• Obverse: DN ΛNΛSTΛSVS PERP AVC. Helmeted and cuirassed bust facing slightly right, holding spear over shoulder and shield decorated with horseman motif.
• Reverse: VICTORIΛ ΛVCCC I. In exergue: CONOR. Victory is standing left, holding a long jewelled cross, star to the right.
• Weight 4.34 g.
• Sale provenance: Glendning/Baldwin, Auction 07 March 1990, lot 22; Baldwin, Auction 5, 11 October 1995, lot 17.
• Collection provenance: Robert N. Bridge Collection, formed since 1960’s (https://archive.org/details/byzantinecoinsfr00glen), photo is not in the catalogue which was prepared by Peter J. Donald who acquired the coin; Peter J. Donald Collection.
• Find provenance: Unknown

 

A brieaf history of contemprary events

In the fall of 488, some 100,000 people followed Theoderic from Novae in northern Bulgaria to Italy, a journey over 1,000 kilometres, to depose Odovacer. Theoderic and his army crossed the Julian Alps into northern Italy in the summer of 489. On 28 August, Theoderic attacked and defeated Odoacer's army in the Isonzo Valley. Odoacer retreated to Verona, where he was defeated again on 27 September 490. Three days later, Odovacer reached safety in Ravenna, a city considered impregnable, being located in a lagoon surrounded by swamps. Theoderic did not follow him and moved from Verona to Milan, which opened its gates. Odoacer's magister militum Tufa defected to Theoderic with his troops soon afterwards. Theoderic ordered Tufa to besiege Odovacer in Ravenna. Tufa proceeded to Faventia (Faenza) accompanied by men from Theoderic's retinue (comites), and put Ravenna under siege.

Theodoric's fortunes changed in 490. Odovacer visited Tufa in Faventia, where he likely camped during the winter. After this Tufa returned his support to Odovacer and surrendered Theoderic's followers to him. Now, Odoacer launched a counterattack, advancing on Milan from Cremona. He won back the city and punished its inhabitants. Theoderic retreated to Ticinum. The Burgundian king Gundobad led a plundering army to Liguria in early 490, carrying rich booty and thousands of captives back to its kingdom. Vandalic warriors attacked Sicily at probably the same time.

Odoacer must have felt frustrated by Zeno's actions but bald following the recent success. He abandoned his policy to Zeno and elevated his own son Thela to Caesar, reinstating the Western Roman imperial monarchy that he had denounced fourteen years earlier. At this time, Odoacer seems to mint half-siliqua coins in Ravenna based on the reverse design. The obverse shows Odoacer with a beard in a cuirass and a general's cloak but no imperial insignia. The legend reads Flavius (Odovacar), the first Germanic king to do so. Flavius was a status indicator for those in the emperor's service.

Meanwhile, Theoderic managed to gain the support of the Visigothic king Alaric. Alaric dispatched an unknown number of warriors to northern Italy to support Theoderic. There are no records of the conflict between the Burgundians in Liguria and the Visigoths. This makes it likely that Visigoths arrived in the summer of 490 after Burgundians left Liguria and headed to Ticinum to relieve the besieged Theoderic. Odoacer lifted the siege of Ticinum, returned to Milan and was defeated in an open battle on the Adda (Addua) River near Milan on 11 August 490. Theoderic pursued Odovacer and established a fortified camp south of Ravenna at a place known as the "pine grove" (Ad Pinetum), cutting off the city from its connections to the interior.

Odovacer remained under siege in Ravenna. On 10 July 491, he attempted to break out attacking Theoderic's camp with his Heruli at night but was beaten, and his magister militum Libila died in the fighting. Odoacer did not leave Ravenna after that. Theoderic obtained ships and blockaded Ravenna by the sea in August 492, till the siege ended in February 493. Sometime in 491-492 Theodoric left the besieged Odovacer to address other problems in Italy, including the pacification Vandals, but he did not visit Rome before 500.

 

Mausoleum of Theodoric in Ravenna

Coins with ANASTASIVS PERP legend

This was the time when the above coin was minted, sometime between 11 April 491, when Anastasius ascended to the throne and before 1 September 492, when Constantinople changed the obverse legend from ANASTASIVS PERP (with variations) to ANASTASIVS PP. This was followed by Western mints. In addition to the scarce 491-492 coins from Constantinople (80 known solidi, 4 semisses and 22 tremisses), there are rare types from Thessaloniki (22 known solidi) and Western mints (18 solidi and 3 tremisses). The Western solidi have three distinct styles, likely belonging to three mints: Mediolanum (Theodoric), Arles (Alaric) and Lugdunum (Gundobad)? Even though rare, there are several coins in private hands from each of the three mints, with at least one solidus from each mint in my collection. ANASTASIVS PERP legend has variations, like ANASTASIO (the very first Byzantine coins) and TERP or RERP instead of PERP.

The dating of the PERP coins to the earliest period of Anastasius (11 April 491 - 31 August 492) is certain.

• I have two solidi that were produced using the same reverse die, one for Zeno and another for Anastasius with PERP legend.
• There are ‘Marriage’ solidi with PERP legend showing Ariadne and Anastansius on reverse. The marriage took place on 20 May 491.
• There is a single known die-link of Anastasius PERP and PP solidi in the National Museum in Berlin. All other PERP solidi are linked to other PERP solidi.
• The Mare Nostrum hoard, likely completed soon after 492, has a few Constantinople and Western PERP solidi, indicating they were contemporary.
• The rarity of Western PERP solidi and their transition into corresponding later PP series.

 

The discussed coin

The discussed solidus is the rarest of all PERP series and the only one in private hands. I first came across this coin from the sale of J. Donald collection, but being of low grade, I was not entirely sure of the legends and style details. Luckily, I found a die match from the British Museum in MIBE, attributed to Constantinople.

The MIBE photo was not the best, and I commissioned a better one from the British Museum.

Copyright British Museum

The BM piece is beautiful, and all the legends can be clearly seen. It has a weight of 4.4 g and was donated to the British Museum by Edward Wigan in 1864, making its authenticity undisputed.

 

Where was it minted?

MIBE and BM attribute it to Constantinople. This is very unlikely:

• Constantinople coins always use A and never Λ.
• The style is different from any Constantinople examples and fits close to Italian solidi, including the 'thumb up' on the obverse and jewel on the cross on the reverse, which is not a feature of coins misted in Constantinople but is present on Western Anastasius solidi.
• The exergue reads CONOR rather than CONOB with a distinct purposefully cut R.
• The weight of both coins (4.34 g and 4.4 g) is lower than the Constantinople standard.

The Baldwins attribute it to Italy, which I agree with. Letter R in exergue indicates that It must be from Ravenna or Rome.  Currently, it is impossible to confidently attribute the coin firmly to Ravenna or Rome, but I think it is more likely to be from Ravenna. While PERP solidi from the 'Rome style' are still to be discovered, the style of solidi minted in Rome is distinct, similar to preceding solidi with the name Zeno and later PF solidi of Anastasius, which are different from this solidus. Solidi from Rome are always of high artistic and metallurgic quality. The slightly lower weight could reflect the emergency nature of the coins minted by Odovacer in the sieged Ravenna to pay for supplies delivered by sea. If so, these are the last solidi minted by Odovacer. Given that they would also be solidi of Thela, the Caesar, it would make the coin one of the contenders for being the last Roman Imperial coin.

While the exact mint of the coin remains a mystery for now, it is undoubtedly an interesting artefact witnessing important historical events. Opinions are welcomed.

 

Afterwards

A treaty was concluded on 25 February 493 that Odoacer had to deliver his son Thela as hostage, Theoderic would guarantee Odoacer's safety and the two kings agreed to rule Italy jointly. Thela was handed over on 25 March 493 and Theoderic entered the city on 5 March 493. Several days later, Theoderic killed Odoacer with his own hands.

 

PS. The coin was graded by ANACS. I don't know why this was needed, as the coin's authenticity is beyond doubt, and the grade would not boost the price. I tried to get it out of the slab, but it is quite strong.

 

 

 

Edited September 13 by Rand
Apologies for the typos from the wrong draft posted

[John Conduitt]

That's great owning something so rare in an already specialist collection. THere's no way I could doubt the attribution to Ravenna.

My little fragment is similar 🤣

Visigoth Cut Quarter Tremissis, 461-484

Gold, 8mm, 0.26g. Profile bust; partial AVG legend. Victory?; partial -A AV- legend (cf. RIC 2719, 3754, 3759). Possibly copied from a solidus from Ravenna in the name of Libius Severus (461-465) and struck during the reign of Theoderic II (453-466) or Euric (466-484). Found on the Isle of Wight in 2021 (Portable Antiquities Scheme IOW-FA583E) near a Visigothic tremissis of Leovigild (519-586), IOW-FA517C.
 

2 hours ago, Rand said:

The coin was graded by ANACS. I don't know why this was needed, as the coin's authenticity is beyond doubt, and the grade would not boost the price.

Stack's encourage consignors to slab coins through them, for no reason except to artificially inflate the value and pass on the responsibility for authenticity to the TPG. They shouldn't need to, given they claim to boast 'unparalleled expertise in all areas of numismatics' and that the auctions are overseen by 'Q. David Bowers, the most renowned numismatist of our time'. I mean, surely the TPG is a lower authority and cheapens the coin.

[Ancient Coin Hunter]

Thanks for the great report detailing the history of the time and a fabulous and rare coin as well. 

[Hrefn]

@Randvery hearty congratulations.  The time you have devoted to the coins of Anastasius has developed a level of erudition from which we all benefit.  But I am particularly happy to see you yourself benefit with the capture of this historically significant solidus.  

May I ask a few questions?  Is there any significance to the officina letter “I”?   I would assume the mints would not be sufficiently organized to have multiple officinae for an emergency coinage.  Or did the mints still have that degree of organization in the West at this time?  

Secondly, does this coin’s legend CONOR shed any light on the multiple coins of Zeno with CONOR vs. CONOB?  We have speculated about this before.

[Rand]

Thank you.

Officina letter "I". 
I do not think this is a random letter, but it is not a workshop number. If Western Mints had multiple discrete workshops, there would be very few during this period. An exception could be the Visigoths in Arles, who must have had lots of gold to convert into coins as payment for their support. Multiple Officina letters from Visigothic (tentative) Arles mint exist for 491-492. This is less likely in Italy, which was devastated by the war.

I also do not think "I" is a mint mark - it does not relate to any mint.

I think "I" means a period designation (a year or indiction period). An indication period is more likely. In addition to the dies of these two coins, there are three other likely Italian dies from 491-492 from (tentatively) Milan (the reasoning is complicated). Of those three, two also have "I". The third has possibly "H", but it could also be an oddly shaped intention for "I". Officina "I" completely disappears from Italian solidi for the whole 492-518 period. This is unlikely a coincidence. I hope die studies will help to date them. Of note, even though we know that in 491-492 the Constantinople mint produced Anastasian solidi from 7 (unconfirmed eight) officinas, about half of these dies had officina "I"!

Letter "R"

I think the "R" on the die from Constantinople that we discussed was a mint error. Such errors were rare but did happen (like my tremisses that we also discussed). "R" is deliberate with' serif' on this particular die. I doubt this was an error and this "R" is more likely to be a mint mark (but who knows).

 

Tremisis with legend ANASTASIAS instead of ANASTASIVS

Below is a better photo from the British Museum. 

Copyright British Museum

Edited September 14 by Rand

[Al Kowsky]

21 hours ago, Rand said:

The coin hardly wins grade prizes, but I have been waiting for it for years. It has been very welcomed in the new home, and this is why…

 

Solidus in the name of Anastasius (April 491 - August 492). Mint of Ravenna (Odovacer) or Rome (Theoderic)

• Obverse: DN ΛNΛSTΛSVS PERP AVC. Helmeted and cuirassed bust facing slightly right, holding spear over shoulder and shield decorated with horseman motif.
• Reverse: VICTORIΛ ΛVCCC I. In exergue: CONOR. Victory is standing left, holding a long jewelled cross, star to the right.
• Weight 4.34 g.
• Sale provenance: Glendning/Baldwin, Auction 07 March 1990, lot 22; Baldwin, Auction 5, 11 October 1995, lot 17.
• Collection provenance: Robert N. Bridge Collection, formed since 1960’s (https://archive.org/details/byzantinecoinsfr00glen), photo is not in the catalogue which was prepared by Peter J. Donald who acquired the coin; Peter J. Donald Collection.
• Find provenance: Unknown

 

A brieaf history of contemprary events

In the fall of 488, some 100,000 people followed Theoderic from Novae in northern Bulgaria to Italy, a journey over 1,000 kilometres, to depose Odovacer. Theoderic and his army crossed the Julian Alps into northern Italy in the summer of 489. On 28 August, Theoderic attacked and defeated Odoacer's army in the Isonzo Valley. Odoacer retreated to Verona, where he was defeated again on 27 September 490. Three days later, Odovacer reached safety in Ravenna, a city considered impregnable, being located in a lagoon surrounded by swamps. Theoderic did not follow him and moved from Verona to Milan, which opened its gates. Odoacer's magister militum Tufa defected to Theoderic with his troops soon afterwards. Theoderic ordered Tufa to besiege Odovacer in Ravenna. Tufa proceeded to Faventia (Faenza) accompanied by men from Theoderic's retinue (comites), and put Ravenna under siege.

Theodoric's fortunes changed in 490. Odovacer visited Tufa in Faventia, where he likely camped during the winter. After this Tufa returned his support to Odovacer and surrendered Theoderic's followers to him. Now, Odoacer launched a counterattack, advancing on Milan from Cremona. He won back the city and punished its inhabitants. Theoderic retreated to Ticinum. The Burgundian king Gundobad led a plundering army to Liguria in early 490, carrying rich booty and thousands of captives back to its kingdom. Vandalic warriors attacked Sicily at probably the same time.

Odoacer must have felt frustrated by Zeno's actions but bald following the recent success. He abandoned his policy to Zeno and elevated his own son Thela to Caesar, reinstating the Western Roman imperial monarchy that he had denounced fourteen years earlier. At this time, Odoacer seems to mint half-siliqua coins in Ravenna based on the reverse design. The obverse shows Odoacer with a beard in a cuirass and a general's cloak but no imperial insignia. The legend reads Flavius (Odovacar), the first Germanic king to do so. Flavius was a status indicator for those in the emperor's service.

Meanwhile, Theoderic managed to gain the support of the Visigothic king Alaric. Alaric dispatched an unknown number of warriors to northern Italy to support Theoderic. There are no records of the conflict between the Burgundians in Liguria and the Visigoths. This makes it likely that Visigoths arrived in the summer of 490 after Burgundians left Liguria and headed to Ticinum to relieve the besieged Theoderic. Odoacer lifted the siege of Ticinum, returned to Milan and was defeated in an open battle on the Adda (Addua) River near Milan on 11 August 490. Theoderic pursued Odovacer and established a fortified camp south of Ravenna at a place known as the "pine grove" (Ad Pinetum), cutting off the city from its connections to the interior.

Odovacer remained under siege in Ravenna. On 10 July 491, he attempted to break out attacking Theoderic's camp with his Heruli at night but was beaten, and his magister militum Libila died in the fighting. Odoacer did not leave Ravenna after that. Theoderic obtained ships and blockaded Ravenna by the sea in August 492, till the siege ended in February 493. Sometime in 491-492 Theodoric left the besieged Odovacer to address other problems in Italy, including the pacification Vandals, but he did not visit Rome before 500.

 

Mausoleum of Theodoric in Ravenna

Coins with ANASTASIVS PERP legend

This was the time when the above coin was minted, sometime between 11 April 491, when Anastasius ascended to the throne and before 1 September 492, when Constantinople changed the obverse legend from ANASTASIVS PERP (with variations) to ANASTASIVS PP. This was followed by Western mints. In addition to the scarce 491-492 coins from Constantinople (80 known solidi, 4 semisses and 22 tremisses), there are rare types from Thessaloniki (22 known solidi) and Western mints (18 solidi and 3 tremisses). The Western solidi have three distinct styles, likely belonging to three mints: Mediolanum (Theodoric), Arles (Alaric) and Lugdunum (Gundobad)? Even though rare, there are several coins in private hands from each of the three mints, with at least one solidus from each mint in my collection. ANASTASIVS PERP legend has variations, like ANASTASIO (the very first Byzantine coins) and TERP or RERP instead of PERP.

The dating of the PERP coins to the earliest period of Anastasius (11 April 491 - 31 August 492) is certain.

• I have two solidi that were produced using the same reverse die, one for Zeno and another for Anastasius with PERP legend.
• There are ‘Marriage’ solidi with PERP legend showing Ariadne and Anastansius on reverse. The marriage took place on 20 May 491.
• There is a single known die-link of Anastasius PERP and PP solidi in the National Museum in Berlin. All other PERP solidi are linked to other PERP solidi.
• The Mare Nostrum hoard, likely completed soon after 492, has a few Constantinople and Western PERP solidi, indicating they were contemporary.
• The rarity of Western PERP solidi and their transition into corresponding later PP series.

 

The discussed coin

The discussed solidus is the rarest of all PERP series and the only one in private hands. I first came across this coin from the sale of J. Donald collection, but being of low grade, I was not entirely sure of the legends and style details. Luckily, I found a die match from the British Museum in MIBE, attributed to Constantinople.

The MIBE photo was not the best, and I commissioned a better one from the British Museum.

Copyright British Museum

The BM piece is beautiful, and all the legends can be clearly seen. It has a weight of 4.4 g and was donated to the British Museum by Edward Wigan in 1864, making its authenticity undisputed.

 

Where was it minted?

MIBE and BM attribute it to Constantinople. This is very unlikely:

• Constantinople coins always use A and never Λ.
• The style is different from any Constantinople examples and fits close to Italian solidi, including the 'thumb up' on the obverse and jewel on the cross on the reverse, which is not a feature of coins misted in Constantinople but is present on Western Anastasius solidi.
• The exergue reads CONOR rather than CONOB with a distinct purposefully cut R.
• The weight of both coins (4.34 g and 4.4 g) is lower than the Constantinople standard.

The Baldwins attribute it to Italy, which I agree with. Letter R in exergue indicates that It must be from Ravenna or Rome.  Currently, it is impossible to confidently attribute the coin firmly to Ravenna or Rome, but I think it is more likely to be from Ravenna. While PERP solidi from the 'Rome style' are still to be discovered, the style of solidi minted in Rome is distinct, similar to preceding solidi with the name Zeno and later PF solidi of Anastasius, which are different from this solidus. Solidi from Rome are always of high artistic and metallurgic quality. The slightly lower weight could reflect the emergency nature of the coins minted by Odovacer in the sieged Ravenna to pay for supplies delivered by sea. If so, these are the last solidi minted by Odovacer. Given that they would also be solidi of Thela, the Caesar, it would make the coin one of the contenders for being the last Roman Imperial coin.

While the exact mint of the coin remains a mystery for now, it is undoubtedly an interesting artefact witnessing important historical events. Opinions are welcomed.

 

Afterwards

A treaty was concluded on 25 February 493 that Odoacer had to deliver his son Thela as hostage, Theoderic would guarantee Odoacer's safety and the two kings agreed to rule Italy jointly. Thela was handed over on 25 March 493 and Theoderic entered the city on 5 March 493. Several days later, Theoderic killed Odoacer with his own hands.

 

PS. The coin was graded by ANACS. I don't know why this was needed, as the coin's authenticity is beyond doubt, and the grade would not boost the price. I tried to get it out of the slab, but it is quite strong.

 

 

 

Rand, Congrats on your solidus score 🤩! Your coin is clearly a double die match to the BM solidus, that is misattributed to the Constantinople mint.

I think the attribution to Theodoric is more likely than Odovacar, or it could possibly be some other Germanic tribe. Compare your coin to the solidus in my collection, especially the reverse. I've never seen an Anastasius solidus that could be solidly attributed to Odovacar. 

[Rand]

Thank you, @Al Kowsky. I agree that the attribution of these coins is difficult. I can argue for your nice solidus to be Burgundian from Lyon (more desirable than Italian solidi). During the long reign of Anastasius, many Germanic tribes minted coins. However, during the very early period of 491-492, the number of candidate tribes able to produce coins of a high manufacturing standard was limited. The OP solidi were almost certainly produced at a place with minting traditions, which narrows the possibility. They also have a few stylistic features typical of Italian mints of the period, but they are not sufficiently clear to link them to later coins from mints with unambiguous mintmarks. We hope more coins will appear to cover the gaps.

With the help of YouTube and a screwdriver, I managed to get it out of the slab. 

The catalogue of Donald Collection where I saw it first.

 

[Nerosmyfavorite68]

That's a great coin, from an under-represented collecting field.  Well done!

[Al Kowsky]

7 hours ago, Rand said:

Thank you, @Al Kowsky. I agree that the attribution of these coins is difficult. I can argue for your nice solidus to be Burgundian from Lyon (more desirable than Italian solidi). During the long reign of Anastasius, many Germanic tribes minted coins. However, during the very early period of 491-492, the number of candidate tribes able to produce coins of a high manufacturing standard was limited. The OP solidi were almost certainly produced at a place with minting traditions, which narrows the possibility. They also have a few stylistic features typical of Italian mints of the period, but they are not sufficiently clear to link them to later coins from mints with unambiguous mintmarks. We hope more coins will appear to cover the gaps.

With the help of YouTube and a screwdriver, I managed to get it out of the slab. 

The catalogue of Donald Collection where I saw it first.

 

Rand, Thanks for your input on the coin I posted, you're not the first person I know who suggested the coin might be Burgundian ☺️. Seeing the photo of your Baldwin Catalog triggered my memory, I downloaded the catalog when I was researching a Zeno solidus that was once in the Guy Lacam collection, & a coin I posted a number of times. The coin was auctioned twice by CNG, the first time they used the same attribution as NFA, & the second time they cast doubts on the NFA attribution, & attributed the coin as an "official" issue from an "uncertain mint". When I had NGC slab the coin they didn't identify the mint either. Do you have any idea who might have issued this coin 🤔?

https://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=342581

 

 

[Severus Alexander]

Brief drive-by from the cancer guy (yes, I am still kickin'!)

What a stunning acquisition, and I love the scholarship behind all this. Thank you!

I am still waiting for my first coin of Odoacer. Very high on the want list. Perhaps a tremissis or nummus. Which "affordable" type do you think is most securely attributed to him?

[Al Kowsky]

2 hours ago, Severus Alexander said:

Brief drive-by from the cancer guy (yes, I am still kickin'!)

What a stunning acquisition, and I love the scholarship behind all this. Thank you!

I am still waiting for my first coin of Odoacer. Very high on the want list. Perhaps a tremissis or nummus. Which "affordable" type do you think is most securely attributed to him?

This coin is coming up for auction in a couple of weeks by NAC, & has a dirt cheap estimate of 100 CHF.

https://www.coinarchives.com/a/lotviewer.php?LotID=2440476&AucID=6055&Lot=1102&Val=7e46cae01270909b736871a8b4191ed4

 

[Rand]

6 hours ago, Al Kowsky said:

Do you have any idea who might have issued this coin 🤔?

Hmm. This nice coin intrigues and puzzles me! I followed the previous discussions about it but never commented. I did start writing my thoughts but I could not complete them without quadruple 'but'. I fear I cannot give a meaningful opinion still. I promise to do so if I find information to shed more light on the coin.

[Rand]

Thank you @Severus Alexander

Coins of Odovacer are a very intresting field. Their chronology and attribution is limited. Coins in Zeno's name (also of Justin I and Justinian I) deserve systematic study to understand early European history better. 

Disclosure: I am only interested in coins Odovacer in the context of their transition to the later period. Others may be better placed to comment, but I will try.

Odovacer deposed Romulus Augustulus on 4 September 476 and never put his own name on gold coins, hoping for Zeno's recognition. So all Odovacer gold coins are in Zeno's name (possible exceptions are in OP and below). As such, coins with Zeno's name from Rome, Ravenna, and Milan would be minted by Odovacer, except for short periods when Italian mints were under the authority of Theodoric (there is always a complication).

• Ravena was never controlled by Theodoric before Zeno's death, so all Ravenna coins in Zeno's name are by Odovacer.
• Milan was controlled by Theodoric twice, from October 489 to Spring 490 and again from August 490 till 11 April 491. There was no violence during the first entry to Milan in 489, and there was no reason the mint would stop producing coins. During the second period, Milan would be more unfortunate after being 'punished' by Odovacer. But it looks like there were coins minted in Milan in 491-492 in the name of Anastasius, so it is possible it functioned throughout. Most of the coins from Milan in Zeno's name would be by Odovacer, but there could be exceptions that have not been recognised so far.
• Rome is interesting. Theodoric did not come to Rome till 500. However, when Theoderic arrived in Italy, he already possessed a title of patricius and legitimate right to rule that Zeno had conferred on him. The Theoderic's victory on the Adda River in 490 must have been seen as decisive as the highest-ranking senator, Festus, and consul of 472, travelled to Constantinople on Theoderic's request to petition Zeno to confer a royal vestment on Theodoric. This means that coins minted in Rome in Zeno's name during the last 6 months of Zeno's reign should be considered coins of Theodoric, while the rest (from 476 to August 490) of Odovacer.

Apologies for the long introduction. Summary:

• All tremisses coins in Zeno's name with 'wreath & cross' reverse could be considered by Odovacer. Theodoric changed the reverse. Al Kowsky has pointed out an affordable one in a coming sale.
• Solidi from Rome in Zeno's are almost certainly by Odovacer. I will pp a couple of useful targets from coming sales.

PS. The story of the last gold coins of Odovacer cannot be completed without mentioning this tremissis published by Metlich MA. The coinage of Ostrogothic Italy. Spink, London, 2004. I could never find more information about it. Its legend does not have either PP or PERP to narrow the timing of its production. The mint is also uncertain, so it could be an exceptional coin of Odovacer or an exceptional coin of Theodoric.

[O-Towner]

Nice coins all! Personally I like the type that actually has his name (or some semblance of it) on it. Did find this one in an uncleaned lot many, many years ago:

Odovacar (or Odovacer) Ae nummus, Ravenna mint (10.4mm, 0.8gms)

Obv: (ODO)VAC; Bareheaded, draped and cuirassed bust right

Rev: Monogram of Odovacar

 

[Severus Alexander]

On 9/15/2024 at 2:09 AM, Rand said:

Thank you @Severus Alexander

Coins of Odovacer are a very intresting field. Their chronology and attribution is limited. Coins in Zeno's name (also of Justin I and Justinian I) deserve systematic study to understand early European history better. 

Disclosure: I am only interested in coins Odovacer in the context of their transition to the later period. Others may be better placed to comment, but I will try.

Odovacer deposed Romulus Augustulus on 4 September 476 and never put his own name on gold coins, hoping for Zeno's recognition. So all Odovacer gold coins are in Zeno's name (possible exceptions are in OP and below). As such, coins with Zeno's name from Rome, Ravenna, and Milan would be minted by Odovacer, except for short periods when Italian mints were under the authority of Theodoric (there is always a complication).

• Ravena was never controlled by Theodoric before Zeno's death, so all Ravenna coins in Zeno's name are by Odovacer.
• Milan was controlled by Theodoric twice, from October 489 to Spring 490 and again from August 490 till 11 April 491. There was no violence during the first entry to Milan in 489, and there was no reason the mint would stop producing coins. During the second period, Milan would be more unfortunate after being 'punished' by Odovacer. But it looks like there were coins minted in Milan in 491-492 in the name of Anastasius, so it is possible it functioned throughout. Most of the coins from Milan in Zeno's name would be by Odovacer, but there could be exceptions that have not been recognised so far.
• Rome is interesting. Theodoric did not come to Rome till 500. However, when Theoderic arrived in Italy, he already possessed a title of patricius and legitimate right to rule that Zeno had conferred on him. The Theoderic's victory on the Adda River in 490 must have been seen as decisive as the highest-ranking senator, Festus, and consul of 472, travelled to Constantinople on Theoderic's request to petition Zeno to confer a royal vestment on Theodoric. This means that coins minted in Rome in Zeno's name during the last 6 months of Zeno's reign should be considered coins of Theodoric, while the rest (from 476 to August 490) of Odovacer.

Apologies for the long introduction. Summary:

• All tremisses coins in Zeno's name with 'wreath & cross' reverse could be considered by Odovacer. Theodoric changed the reverse. Al Kowsky has pointed out an affordable one in a coming sale.
• Solidi from Rome in Zeno's are almost certainly by Odovacer. I will pp a couple of useful targets from coming sales.

PS. The story of the last gold coins of Odovacer cannot be completed without mentioning this tremissis published by Metlich MA. The coinage of Ostrogothic Italy. Spink, London, 2004. I could never find more information about it. Its legend does not have either PP or PERP to narrow the timing of its production. The mint is also uncertain, so it could be an exceptional coin of Odovacer or an exceptional coin of Theodoric.

Thank you so much for this fantastic info, @Rand! (And for the other tip, @Al Kowsky!) I feel a coin of Odoacer may be in my near future... 🤞

[Tejas]

That is a great thread, which I completely missed. Needless to say that the OP coin is a great find. It is MIB 3a2.

I was particularly interested in the discussion about the mintmark CONOR instead of CONOB and I have a couple of questions: 

1. Is this called a mintmark? W. Hahn refers to these abreviations in German literature as "sigle" and "gold signature". Is there another technical term in English numismatics to refer to this abbreviation? My second question demonstrates, why these are not strictly speaking mintmarks.

2. CONOB is believed to resolve as CONSTANTINOPOLI OBRYZUM, which refers to pure gold of Constantinople. The mintmark COMOB, which was primarily used by Rome, but also by Ravenna, can be resolved as COMITATVS OBRYZUM refering to the western comes sacrarum largitionum. But what does CONOR stand for? I don't think the R is a minting error. It is not that rare and it appears on many different types that were apparently minted in the East and the West.

Below are two tremissis, minted during the reign of Odovacer:

1. Milan

2. Rome

2. Ravenna

 

Edited Monday at 05:57 PM by Tejas

[Rand]

Very nice tremisses! I counted three 🙂

I think CONOB for Constantinople and COMOB for Rome (some Ravenna) were deliberate and had a meaning, possibly as proposed above. For some Western coins (presumably Gaul), CONOB and COMOB were used interchangeably in the same series and likely did not have the original meaning.

CONOB, for official solidi from Thessaloniki and Milan and unofficial Western mints, clearly did suggest CONOB referred to a mint. It likely referred to a standard set up by the mint in Constantinople. 
If so, it was meaningful to add more reassurances that the coin was produced by a particular mint (e.g., possibly Ravenna in OP) or Rome (COMOB). Some 'R's were probably errors. The OP coin has a very deliberate 'R'. I think it was put on purpose.

[Tejas]

True, I first had only two in the picture. 🙂

So what are these CONOB and COMOB called? A mintmark? As I said Hahn calls them „sigle“ and“gold signature“ in German, but seems to avoid the term mintmark, for understandable reasons. 

Could CONOR refer to Ravenna? I think CONOR appeared in the 460s and was relatively commonly used during the reign of Zeno in particular. It was apparently so common that it was imitated on Gepidic Half-Siliquae.

[Rand]

'Sigle' sounds right. I think about them as 'hallmarks' rather than 'mintmarks'. 'Hallmarks' is not strictly correct, but could the meaning of CONOB/COMOb.

I am afraid I cannot comment on the pre-490s CONOR use. If common, it is unlikely to be an error every time. There must have been a meaning. It may be intereting to trace the original coins/dies when it appears to understand the context.

Edited 14 hours ago by Rand

[Tejas]

The earliest examples I could find are in the name of Leo I and Basiliscus. CONOR is mostly found on coins of Zeno though and Hahn reckons that 1/10th of Zeno‘s solidi show the CONOR sigle.

One possibility is this: With the exact meaning of CONOB already obscure in antiquity, the mint of Ravenna altered it by replacing B with R. Then this new CONOR mintmark was copied relatively indiscriminately just as the CONOB was copied without knowing the exact meaning. If this is correct, then some coins with CONOR were minted in Ravenna, but others were minted elsewhere, meaning that it does not help very much in determining the origin of these coins. 

[Tejas]

I found this:

"CONOB. Constantinopoli obryzum.  The solidus weighed 1/72 of the Roman pound. "OB" was both an abbreviation for the word obryzum, which means refined or pure gold, and is the Greek numeral 72. Thus the exergue CONOB coin may be read "Constantinople, 1/72 pound pure gold." -- "Byzantine Coinage" by Philip Grierson"

However, O= 700 (zeta is 70), Beta = 2, so OB would be 702 and not 72, or am I wrong?

Anyway, if the abreviation CONOB was understood in antiquity, there was little reason to change the OB, unless these coins were minted to a different standard. However, I think in the late 5th century the OB was no longer understood and could be changed. Under Baduila, gold coins with the abreviation CONOT for Ticinum were minted and I think CONOR, was originally intended to mark coins from Ravenna, as coins from Rome were distinguishable by the mark COMOB.

The picture shows a Tremissis minted in the name of Iustinian by Totila-Baduila in Ticinum, as indicated by the mintmark CONOT. Also at the time Ticinum was the only mint left under Gothic control.

Edited 13 hours ago by Tejas

[Rand]

Thank you, @Tejas. This does make sense. Your coin has a very clear 'T'.