Early medieval

This section has gotten a bit too quiet lately, so I'm going to try to drum up some chatter. Everyone who can, post some early medieval coinage. Non-Roman (that means no Byzantine) coins from 450 to 1000 AD. Let's see what comes out.


Aethelred II, Monne moneyer
AE styca
York - 841-843/4 AD
cross in center
+EÐIIRED
cross in center
+MONNE
Spink 868

The second E is mistakenly engraved as a Runic ansuz.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Nice coin, I own no medieval coins, yet

 

nice coin! :thumb::thumb:

sadly, i can't add any to the thread because mine are post 1000 a.d.

 

Very nice Bill I realy do need to try and pick up a few new items for my collection

 

Here's one that will qualify within the date range...and please note that I am not trying to intentially confuse anyone by posting an AEthelred II penny following Ardatirion's posting...its just as far back as my collection goes that will qualify.

This AEthelerd II penny was minted between 997 and 1003,
during Anglo Saxon England under AEthelered II, King of all England
Long Cross Issue: by the moneyer Leofwold at the Winchester mint.

 

View attachment 90033
Most of you probably consider 'early medieval' a term for Dark Ages in Western Europe but my interest in this date range is farther east. Very common are the bull and horseman coins of the 'Shahi kings'. They were issued over a wide range of dates with only a few dating devices that read easily. If you want an early one, look for the legend Spalapati Deva and figures rendered in relief. Later coins are done in outline rather than real 3D. I've yet to find a dealer who cares so asking for one has not been productive but I have pulled two out of pots full of mixed jitals. The one above (750-900 AD?) is the nicer of my two and cost me $6. I'd gladly pay $12 for one twice as nice.

View attachment 90036
All you medieval fans would love to have a coin of Charlemagne but I can't afford his little scrappy silver. However Charlemagne maintained diplomatic relation and exchanged gifts with Bagdad Caliph Harun al-Rashid whose silver coins are big and 1/10th the price but lack graven images as forbidden by Islamic law. That left a lot of room for legends including year dates (801 AD) if, of course you read the language. I don't so you can correct me if I got this one wrong. Harun al-Rashid is best known as the ruler in the Scheherazade story but exactly how much of that is factual is debatable. More likely correct is that the gifts to Charlemagne included a clock that struck the hours and albino elephants.

When we think of the Persians and Sasanians we usually think of the earlier guys who fought with the Romans. The last of the Sasanians cross over into medieval times so qualify here. The example above is Yazdgerd III the last Sasanian king who also happened to be the grandson of a Byzantine Emperor. Again being able to read the script is not my strong point but this seems to be year 4 or 636 AD. Yasdgerd used 17 mints over a reign of 19 years so there are plenty of varieties and he isn't prolific compared to his grandfather Khusro II who ruled for twice as long and issued coins from so many places that I can't find a reference that claims to be sure of the number.

 

I have no idea what happened to the missing photos above so here they are.

 

All sweet coins Doug.

I also like the AEthelerd II penny.

 

Gorgeous Aethelred! So far, the only Anglo-Saxon coins I have are stycas of Northumbria.

doug - I knew I could count on you to take it out of Europe.


Harun al-Rashin
Abbasid Dynasty
AR dirhem – 192 AH
808 AD

 

You'll note that so far the only 'European' coins are from that island off the coast.:rollling: Asking for things in this date range from the heart of the Dark Ages, excluding Roman, is tough. Certainly there are some I found looking at Tye but all but a couple were value code H or over 100 pounds which may explain why we have seen nothing.

I'm going to offer two more coins that fit the date range but you may not consider them fair either for reason of location or connection to Rome but they are not Asian.

Just to add to the fun, I'll not ID these and ask those who want to play to see if they can ID them. Both are very small bronzes.

 

If I may... (highlight to read answers)

Ioel, Axumite Kingdom. c. AD 550-570. Munro 134
Vandals, Municipal coinage of Carthage. AE 4 nummi. AD 523-533


Vespasian
AE As, 9.48g
Rome, 77-78 AD
IMP CAESAR VESPASIAN COS VIII
Laureate head left
Spes standing left
RIC II 1011

c/m: XLII carved to left of bust. Retarrifed by Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy as 42 nummi, 6th century AD. Morrisson, Re-use 19; cf. MEC 1, 76 (Vespasian).

Ex CNG 82, lot 1139

 

Yes, of course. I sould have thought of placing the answers in 'hidden color' text. Your no-longer-Roman Vespasian even better illustrates how hard it is to avoid 'Roman' in this period. Royal families intermarried even if they were barbarians or enemies. Many of the powers of the early medieval period considered themselves the new Rome. This continued well past our period in the Holy Roman Empire.

I collected ancient Greek and Roman coins for years before I realized how intricately the histories of these people were linked to their neighbors. I am uncomfortable with the idea that you can study history in neat little packages ignoring people who either lost their war or wrote no histories (at least in a language Westerners study in high school). Greece was the most interesting place once but was pushed aside by Rome. During the time specified here (450-1000), numismatic interest is like a donut with neat stuff in Britain, Africa, Asia more easily found than thngs in the center of Europe. It always bothered me that Roman history classes centered on the 12 Caesars more because Suetonius' book survived than that they were more interesting. You have to dig harder to find details about later days.

One could make a display of coins of authorities known entirely or in substantial part from their coins. Some of the coins shown above would fit this set and provide a good reason for us to study coins along with our more traditional studies of texts.

 

Well here is my Bull & Horseman

 

While I have been extremely interested in non-European coinages of this time period, my true passion still is the Western European ones. I particularly enjoy the Visigothic and Vandal issues, and, more than any, those of the Merovingian kingdom. I don't have any in my collection, but I've worked with them before.

Some more European stuff:


Struck Imitation of the 5th Century
Victory advancing l. type
earl-diademed, draped, cuirassed bust right
Victory advancing left, wreath upward in right hand, palm in left
Wroth 21-31, Pl. III, 10

Attributed to the Vandals in Carthage.


Thrasamund
AE Nummis – 10mm, .40g
Carthage, 496-523
Diademed bust of Thrasamund r., border of dots
no legend
Victory stg. l., holding wreath
no legend
MEC 1, 19-20; BMC Vandals 21

 

So: Is this a fair posting of a non-Roman coin? I mean it does bear the legend of Honorius even if it was issued by Gaiseric or another non-Roman ruler of Rome.


One step further: Is this coin of Emisa too Byzantine for this challenge? It looks Byzantine but it is Arab. Is c.650 AD about right? The line between divisions of ancient history and coinage are never too neat.

 

So I have a question. What would be considered the first European "Dark Age" coin? I have a 40 nummi minted in Rome under the Ostrogoths about 480, the one with Roma head on front and wolf and twins on the reverse. Is that close? I would imagine it would have to be these types of coins from different Gothic tribes in that time frame, along with Byzantines who continued minting of course.

 

No label fits exactly but I'd say anything from the fall of Rome to the resurgance of interest in culture or 5th to 10th centuries more or less. The old date of 476 AD for the fall of Rome is about as meaningless as any other date you pick for the end of real rule by a real emperor (puppets don't count). The end was no more a flipping of a light switch to end the Dark Ages but if I had to pick a meaningless date it might be 1054 with the the Great Schism which hardly seems enlightened but shows that the West was ready to be concerned with matters other than fighting off barbarians at their gates.

The concept and term Dark Ages is politically incorrect now with fans pointing out how much culture existed during the period. History past middle school level gets away from hard labels and dates and moves to understanding of concepts. Augustus did not blow a whistle in 27 BC and announce the death of the Republic and birth of the Empire. It had been mutating for decades.

 

Understood, as I do have a minor in history, and own many hundreds of resources for personal research. I am not a junior high student of the era.

However, as numismatics DOES have to put dates on periods of coinage due to classification of empires, I was simply asking if the accepted date of the end of the classic age and beginning of "Dark Ages" was accepted as still about 476. The accepted start of Byzantine coinage has nothing to due with the empire except for the coinage reform of Anastasius, and it happened to be a somewhat convenient date. By definition the term "Dark Ages" was only ever meant to mean western europe, not worldwide since many civilizations flourished in this time. Even in Europe it there was some enlightenment, but most historians agree that the loss of the resources and security of the Roman empire was a major step backword for progress in most areas of study. The major leaps in learning that was facilitated by European "rediscovery" of ancient texts from the fall of the Moors and Constantinople are major indicators of this.

I didn't know "Dark Ages" was so politically incorrect nowadays. Then again I never care for politic correctness either.

 

Each numismatist has to decide if Leo is an emperor of late Rome or of early Byzantine era. Almost all call him Roman because his coins are pre-reform even though he ruled out east when there was no collegue in the west. Again almost all put the Anastasius pre reform nummi in their Byzantine collections. The great 19th century numismatist saw it differently and did not include Eastern emperors in his Roman Coins book - not even the ones before 476 - making the case that Theodosius I was the last emperor of all Rome. That means he has a chapter for Honorius but not for Arcadius.

What I'm saying is numismatics does not have to put dates on periods; collectors choose to. Hundreds of people collect ancient coins but not medieval which means they will have a Byzantine coin of the Roman John VIII from c. 1450 but not one of the French Charlemagne c. 800 because he is medieval. We each have to draw our lines; I certainly do but I suggest not taking those lines too seriously.

I note that Raisel Suarez is coming out with a new edition of his book Encyclopedia of Roman Imperial Coins but has expanded to include Byzantine. I don't disagree with his decision but I find it interesting. I hope the third edition in a few years will add Republicans (after all the new one is only 1400 pages so we need some more).

 

Fair enough Doug, but the vast majority of collectors do follow the same guidelines as to attribution. I do not see many "late Roman" listed as byzantine by dealers, or vice versa. Maybe "Dark Age" is more arbitrary, but last I heard most collectors lumped gothic coins before about 450 into "Roman imitation" versus "Dark Age", and vice versa. I was just asking if that was still true, but maybe answered my own question. Yes, they are voluntary, but commonly followed as to make research material etc easier to understand. If I have a Leo I am reaching for RIC and not DOC. Most collectors like categorizing, and these arbitrary cutoffs are just, arbitrary. They help collectors but hurt real understanding of transitions. Ask Justinian who he ruled over, he would tell you he was Emperor of the Romans. He had never heard of a country called Byzantium, except for the old Greek city.

Where did you hear that Ras is coming out with a new edition? I was going to buy his previous one, but he quickly talked about a second edition so I held off buying it. Note to any author, if you want to sell a book do not start talking about coming out with a new, improved edition! Lol.