Did Rome Really Fall in AD 476 ?

Many thanks. I found a third piece on acsearch. So I have four pictures below. They are clearly die-identical, from what I can see.

• There is a dot under the V in AVG on the obverse. It was deliberately placed by the die sinker. Do such dots occur on official solidi of that time?
• The spelling THEODOZ(inverted)VS instead of THEODOSIVS shows that if the coin is a modern fake, the forger intended to create the impression of a barbaric imitation. I don't think that such a spelling mistake would have occured at the mint in Constantinopel.

1. Nomos auction of Feb. 2021 (top left)
https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=7816370
Nomos has a very good picture that gives a good impression of the surfaces, which I think look convincing. (4.41g)

2. UBS auction 2008 (top right)
https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=499408
They also attribute the coin to Ostrogoths. (4.46g)

3. My coin, which, according to my information was found in Ukraine (bottom left)
To me, the surfaces look good. I cannot see any signs in the fabric that would lead me to doubt the coin. (4.43g)

4. The coin from Forum Ancient Coins
The picture's quality is too poor to judge. (4.41-4.23g)






Here is an article on Theodosius imitation from the Barbaricum

https://www.academia.edu/30369724/Once_more_on_the_Theodosius_II_solidus_imitation_found_in_Tarnów_In_B_Chudzińska_M_Wojenka_M_Wołoszyn_Eds_Od_Bachórza_do_Światowida_ze_Zbrucza_Tworzenie_się_słowiańskiej_Europy_w_ujęciu_źródłoznawczym_Księga_jubileuszowa_Profesora_Michała_Parczewskiego_Kraków_Rzeszów_2016_pp_79_88

There is no picture of the coin, but the legend was given as follows:

D. N. THEODOVS P. F. AVG. and II XXXXII COP.XVII P. P

So clearly a different coin, but a similar shortening of the emperor's name


Here is another study of an imitative solidus of Theodosius II
https://www.academia.edu/43758222/A_solidus_of_Theodosius_II_from_Opaka_in_the_context_of_other_finds_from_district_Lubaczów_dated_to_AD_5th_century

Again, its a different type, but the find spot is close to the area where my coin was reportedly found.


PS I just found another one. That one was sold in a Spink auction in 2018:

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=5105512




In my view the condemnation of the coin is not justified. I think it was done on the bases of style alone. The person who condemned the coin expected a more official style and was perhaps not familiar with barbaric imitations. Perhaps the condemnation was even based on this grainy catalog picture.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I have another imitative solidus of Theodosius II, which was also found in western Ukraine.

Obv.: DN THEODOVS PF AVG
Rev.: INP (inverted) XXXIIX SXVIIPP
Weight: 4.5g

Note the same abbreviated emperor's name as on the two polish finds above. This coin was said to have been found together with my other solidus of Theodosius II. As indicated in the second article above, I think this cluster of Theodosius imitations from the barbaricum may be linked to Attila's Hunnic empire.

 

Here’s another offered by London Ancient Coins earlier this year. Very worn but the same dies, I believe. Offered earlier this year.

 

So far as dots on Theodosius II solidi, the only instance I am aware of is on the consular solidi above the senior emperor’s head on the reverse. The first has three, the second has two, and the third has no dots. I have never seen any learned comment on these. I did check to see if any comet came by during the relevant period. It would seem not, so that is not the explanation.

So the Constantinople mint placed some unexplained dots on solidi circa 425 AD, but it does not seem to have been a common practice. And they are on the reverse.

So I am not sure what to think. I would be nice to know on what basis the coin was originally condemned, because if it were entirely on style, I would regard that as insufficient. Although the style and epigraphy are not from Constantinople. Perhaps there was evidence of Beirut manufacture which did not make it into the record. That would be definitive. Someone with library access could check the original Bullletin. I only referenced the forgery network quote of same.

They are all the same die pair. That troubles me a bit, but since they are not an official mint product it is quite possible only one die pair was made.

Your find spot data could be definitive, also.

 

That all sounds correct to me... so I dont understand why thats at odds with what I said. maybe theres a miscommunication? Idk.

 

I agree, the coin is from the same dies. The dot below the V on the obverse is helpful in determining die-identity. What you wrote about the dots on the reverses of solidi from 425 is interesting and the same unknown intention may be involved. Hence, the dot may not mark out the letter V, but the whole title AVG.

The coins date to AD 439 (the original model that is). If the coin is a barbaric imitation the dot should also be found on a clearly official issue, from which it was copied.

In any case, I looked at it under magnification and I'm sure that it is part of the engraving and not some kind of flaw.

You are right, I need to get hold of the publication where the type was condemned to see the reasoning. If anybody on the forum has access to it I would be very interested.

Here is the reference again:
Theodosius II, AV Solidus, IBSCC Bulletin on Counterfeits BOCS Vol 1 No.2 Page 35 RO.9
Ratto 153

I found the discussion below. Apparently, the IBSCC bulletin's credibility is not beyond doubt. The discussants point out that it contains many genuine coins that were wrongly condemned:
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=33364.0


I get the impression, that all the information from the IBSCC Bulletin is already given by the entry in Forgery Network and that there is no discussion of the coin to be found in the IBSCC Bulletin.

Apparently, the reasons for the condemnations in the IBSCC bulletin are sometimes just given as "condemned by CFDL". I suspect what happened is that somebody saw a picture of such a coin in an old catalog (hence the poor quality picture) and said I don't like the style of it, it must be fake and submitted it to CFDL and IBSCC took it from there.






PS

The three solidi you showed are presumably from your collection? They are great - congratulations.

 

Yes maybe I misread your post, sorry.

 

Oh okay I think I get it, I said 'Justinian needed a way a justify his invasion'. Perhaps poor choice of words... I mean I dont think you can have too much justification for a war, but I get your points, he didn't need the justification, it just helped.

If I would have said instead " during his lifetime the narrative of the past shifted in a way beneficial to those currently in power... like 'in 476 the west fell to vicious barbarians, we must take italy back!'". Not quite the same ring, but accurate I think.

Is that where the disconnect is? I don't know. I mean I think it should be obvious to anyone that has more than passing interest in ancient history that rome didn't turn off like a light switch. I think it was implied when I said 476 was not a significant year AT THE TIME.

The rise of fall of empires are a spectrum, and I'm surprised my comments had you believing otherwise. Though again it was probably my choice of words, I'm so bad with that.

Maybe I'm missing something, was that the miscommunication/disagreement? Or was there something else that you thought made our comments incompatible??

Anyway.. have a good night sir.

 

No, I probably just misread. I thought that you meant that the usurpation of Odovacer in 476 was used as pre-text for the invasion of Italy in 535. We have no disagreement.
Good night to you (although it is 9:00 AM where I'm

 

Dirk, This thread has evolved into an interesting discussion on barbarian coinage. It is easy to condemn a questionable coin as a forgery because it looks odd & doesn't fit into an expected knitch. I would also question the reasoning on why these coins were posted in the Forgery Network & similar websites. If you have solid information on the find-spot locations of your coins, that weighs heavy that the coins are authentic. I wonder if Guy Lacam's books have anything similar illustrated ? When I get a chance I'll browse through his books.

 

Please do and let me know if you find something. I'm really interested in establishing the truth about these coins, but I'm strongly inclined to think that they are genuine. Indeed, I am a bid shocked to see how doubtful this IBSCC Bulletin is.

I bought the coin through a contact in Ukraine, who I have been working with for more than 10 years. I do trust him and his sources, i.e. the information that he gets on find spots and find circumstances. However, I find that this information counts for little in a discussion about the originality of a coin. It is, after all easy to condemn a coin on some vague ideas about style etc., and the burden of proof is all on the part who believes a coin to be genuine.

 

@Tejas Thanks for the compliment. The Theodosius II consular solidi are all in my collection.

 

Same here, all I gotta do is get one of those Roman coins and I'll be hooked. The one Roman coin I would like to get my hands on is the one with the Roman Coliseum on it. Don't know what denomination and year it was. Did they mint only one series with the Coliseum ?

 

Yes, I have read that. Makes you wonder how much history you could change given the chance.