I first asked about this coin on another forum about 10-12 years ago. The responses I got included "barbarous," "rejected pattern," and "military donative from traveling mint." 12 years later I still haven't been able to give it a definite ID. Anyone seen anything like it before? It's about the size of a small module AE4, late 4th - 5th century C.E. AE4 Obv: [VRBS?] - ROMA - Helmeted, cuirassed Roma, facing right. Rev: PIETA-S REIP - Pietas, standing, facing, head right, infant at breast. 11mm, 0.8g
The style is obviously barbarous, so I would assume they were just copying obverse and reverse from two separate types. Very interesting. There are countless varieties of barbarous coins, but I know of no real research or cataloging of them.
Thanks for the suggestion. I was about to message him, when I noticed in his profile that he had already looked at this topic.
I agree that the style appears barbarous. Interesting, though, that "ROMA" and "PIETA-S REIP" are so well rendered. Furthermore, I haven't seen the reverse inscription on any LRBs before, so whoever engraved it must have spoken Latin.
I agree with @Ken Dorney . The obverse is a copy of the common VRBS ROMA legend and type, except with bust right instead of the usual bust left. The reverse has some similarities with those of Theodora which have legend PIETAS ROMANA [the OP coin has PIETAS REIP] and a standing female with a child [the OP coin has a similar pose] The Theodora is attributed to 337-340 (according to RIC, or 335 according to Callu), about the same time as the VRBS ROMA type. I see @Mat made this suggestion since I started typing this post. As you can see from my pages on imitations: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/imit/ and especially the Constantinian imitations there, imitations may vary widely from originals. @gsimonel , you have a particularly nice one.
The PIETAS reverse motif is known for empresses of the time period, albeit with a different legend. On the VRBS ROMA obverse, helmeted Roma is facing left.
Well, the size is certainly right for an imitation of a coin from this era. Most of the 2 soldiers and fallen horseman imitations that I've seen have been about the same size. This has always confused me. Are they Vandalic ear? Why are imitations of early to mid 4th century coins the size of late 4th-5th century coins? If the imitations were made during this later period, why not copy the current circulating coinage?
A couple final thoughts and then I'll give it a rest: 1) There are 4 indistinct letters on the left side of the obverse, which strongly suggests an VRBS ROMA obverse legend, but doesn't confirm it. It could also be SPES ROMA or VIRT ROMA, to cite just two alternate possibilities. 2) The reverse legend, PIETA-S REIP, does not appear on any known official bronze issues of the 4th or 5th centuries. Occam's Razor certainly suggests that Valentinian's interpretation is the correct one. Yet I still have a couple of nagging, unanswered questions. Although the reverse legend is unique, its meaning--Duty to the Republic--makes sense. So whoever wrote it knew Latin and, in my opinion, chose those words deliberately. Perhaps the most interesting proposed explanation for this coin that I've heard is that it was a donative issued to soldiers to inspire them to valor right before an important battle made by a mint traveling with the troops. The reverse legend would fit this purpose, yet I would expect a more military image if this were the case. Why a woman or goddess nursing her infant? Mars or Virtus would seem more appropriate. So here's what I'm wondering right now. Could this be an unofficial issue, that is, not intended for circulation, from an official mint? Might this be a local, tiny commemorative made to celebrate the healthy birth of a male child to an empress, possibly from Constantinople or whichever city the Empress was in when she gave birth? Perhaps it's not really a coin but just a little medal or token? I don't think I can take this on right now, but maybe when I retire I'll have the time to match the piece up stylistically with a specific mint. If I can do that, then maybe I can do a little research on which empress gave birth to her first male child while in office and in which city. Any thoughts?
Well, you are making the assumption that it is an official coin, which is clearly is not. Its barbarous, so by their very nature they often make no sense at all.
This is why I hate the term 'barbarous.' Imitations were most often produced WITHIN the borders of the empire, with a few exceptions.
Well, sure. But I think the term is still pretty accurate. It is a 'barbaric style' for certain, but many use alternative terms like 'unofficial', 'contemporary imitation' etc. Still amounts to the same thing in my way of thinking, though I suppose if someone were to put together a comprehensive study of them they could apply their own terminology which would then become the norm.
Whatever it is it is a fascinating coin. One of the things I like about late Roman coins is their vast scope leaves a lot of room for mysteries and new discoveries.
"Barbaric style" is a misnomer, as the "style" comes from true Romans, not barbarians. There are a few exceptions – Indian imitations of Julio-Claudian silver and later gold, Danubian imitations of 2nd century denarii, etc. But in those cases, it makes more sense to say "Indian style" or "Danubian imitative style." I think "barbarous" is a bit pejorative, and that it implies these coins are less worthy of study or collecting.
When a counterfeiter with limited skills attempts to copy contemporary coinage and styles everyone spots the fraud. If they copy earlier styles less people will be familiar with them and able to spot the fraud. Deficiencies in style would be chalked up to wear. In the united states civil war tokens were outlawed in 1864 but existing pieces were still legal. Therefore they continued to be made throughout the war but were all dated 1863. Perhaps a similar law made old copies harmless and current copies a death penalty in the 4th or 5th century.
