Featured A Gothic Fourée Aureus of Diocletian

Thank you for sharing this!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I thought so as well because of the identical placing of the hole on my OP coin and the very similar piece I posted before. These two specimens here however have the hole at different places, so the bronze flans must have been holed after striking, but before being gold-plated:





The two new specimens show nice detail on the emperor´s dress. Doesn´t it look like he is not draped, but only cuirassed? If so, there would be no corresponding original type from the early Tetrarchy.

Im am beginning to wonder if it is really Diocletian´s portrait that has been copied from a Roman original for this obverse die, because his colleague Maximian also issued an Aureus with a left facing bust. This specimen here even has traces from a removed mounting, so it likely has been in barbarian hands (and could therefore have been used as an inspiration by gothic celators:



They very much resemble each other on the coinage (what individual features do you see?), but I would say the little differences (look at the slightly thinner face and the angry mouth!) still speak for Diocletian as the man on the OP coin:


What do you think?

 

Beautiful!! I would want to feel them all! Wow- thank you for letting us see them-

 

Update:
A double die matching specimen (the one pictured earlier in this thread that is neither plated nor holed nor looped) to my OP coin is now offered as lot 819 in Leu Auction 4 with the description „This probably is a free-hand imitation rather than a copy of an actual prototype, as the obverse is decidedly post-reform in style, whereas the reverse was only struck pre-reform for either Diocletian or Maximian“.
The catalogue´s introduction to the „Aurum Barbarorum Collection“ (which includes 50 such imitations) states:
„As the supply of Roman gold to the Barbaricum diminished when the empire was stabilized under Claudius II and Aurelian, Gothic goldsmiths began to develop local
imitations: this marks the Dawn of Germanic Coinage. (...) Modern archeology has shown that aurei north of the Danube in the late 3rd and early 4th centuries were mostly worn by chieftains and leaders of warrior groups in the form of pendants as badges of honor. There is indication, therefore, that the earliest independent Germanic coinage did not come about through the monetarization of the broader society at the time but was initiated by the demand for the popular Roman or
Romanized status and honor symbols by local elites. Standardization of the weights was superfluous as the coins were usually perforated in order to be worn around the neck – a practice that was later replaced by the application of suspension loops“.

I had not realized that these holed gothic imitations are the earliest coins of Germanic production

 

Nice score!

 

I think so because the barbarian imitations at the Leu Auction three days ago all fetched record prices!

The Aureus from the same dies as my OP coin (not plated or holed, but with a much weaker portrait than mine I would say) went for 3000 SF (starting bid was 350...), so I guess I made a bargain at just 140 Euros .

 

I bought a similar one. And to the previously shown, she was joined by goldplated .

 

Hmmm... my thoughts: Fouree Aureus? the last person who tried to spend this was probably killed on the spot.

Dead Money

 

They were warrior ornaments. They all have holes or pendants or traces of them. They were not used to pay. Since the Battle of Abrittus, this determined the status of a warrior. They were created immediately with holes.
Rather, it is jewelry or a type of military decoration.

 

Just curious, but where did you find the image of the Sep Sev in the lower left. That's my coin I do believe.

 

Sure, yours. You showed her to me.
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/the-first-and-last-goths.291979/page-5

 

Ahhh! I was just curious. You can show any of my coin any time you please.

 

J.G., I've enjoyed following this fascinating thread. Your score for for 140 Euros borders on legal theft . And you are certainly correct that most of these plated & imitation aurie were not meant to circulate, but were jewelry / prestige objects. There are plenty of examples that have been found in Scandinavia, Poland, Ukraine, & North Germany to reinforce this idea. However, later German imitations of gold solidi from the late 5th - early 6th centuries were made to circulate as legitimate currency. The quality of these later German copies improved greatly & circulated among genuine coins minted at Constantinople. The coin pictured below is a German barbarian copy of a Zeno solidus I scored at CNG Triton XXI, for a hefty sum of money . Compare it to a genuine example posted in CoinArchives, that is coming up for auction in a couple of weeks seen below it.


German barbarian imitation solidus, late 5th / early 6th century, 4.48 gm, 20 mm.


Dr. Busso Preus Nachfolger, Auction 425. Zeno, AD 474-491, Constantinople Mint, AV solidus: 4.45 gm, 20 mm. RIC 911.

 

There are 28 known coins in this catalog only for this type of imitation.
http://barbarous-imitations.narod.ru/index/1_87_2/0-430

 

This thread is extremely interesting and useful. I recently acquired this coin from CNG:

MIGRATION PERIOD, Pannonia. Uncertain Germanic Tribe. Circa late 3rd-early 4th centuries AD. Fourrée AV Solidus (21mm, 4.93 g, 12h). CVCINPISNCIЬVCIS, laureate head left; Vs in legend composed of angled II; Ss retrograde / CICV(retrograde(P)SS ICIOICV(retrograde C)S, Male seated left on sella curulis, holding uncertain object (globus or Victory); Vs in legend composed of angled II; Ss retrograde. Cf. RIC V 308 (Antioch – Diocletian; for type); Depeyrot –; cf. Calicó 4437 (same); cf. Biaggi 1698 (same). Double strike on reverse, plating broken in numerous places, revealing base core underneath.
Evidence of having been originally mounted with contemporary suspension loop for use as jewelry.

 

That is an amazing find!
Here are my observations and conclusions:

1st observation:
28 of the 29 coins of this type listed (Nr.7 is my coin) were found in neighboring regions in the western part of modern Ukraine, northeast of the river Dnjestr (except one that was found in the Republic of Moldova, southwest of the Dnjestr).

My conclusion:
The division of the Goths, which is first attested in 291 AD, a decade or so before these coins were struck, resulted in the Greuthungi (which were equated with Theoderich´s Ostrogothi by Jordanes in his Getica) living east of the river Dnjestr, while the Thervingi (Visigothi) settled west of the Dnjestr.
Therefore these artifacts can not only be associated with what we know as the Goths (archeologically identified as the Chernyakhov culture), but more precisely as „East-Gothic“.

2nd observation:
The highest concentration was found in the Ternopil oblast (11 specimens) and the Khmelnitsky oblast (8 specimens) east of it. One was found in the Rivne oblast (north of Khmelnitski), one in the Vinnytsia oblast (east of Khmelnitsky), one in Cherkasy (east of Vinnytsia), two in the Kiev oblast (Northeast of Vinnytsia), one in the Republic of Moldova (south of Vinnytsia).

My conclusion:
If these coins were minted at one place, this mint was probably located in the eastern part of the Ternopil oblast, maybe in some sort of a gothic „capital“. It is known that there were gothic settlements of up to 35 hectares in size and it can be expected that Ermanaric or his predecessors had some sort of administrative center to control their kingdom.
The distribution of the coins shows the extension of the central rule eastward to the Dnjepr river.

3rd observation:
While all 29 specimens obviously share the same obverse and the same reverse die, 27 coins have the reverse aligned upside down (6 h), while two (both holed) have it aligned with the obverse (12 h).

My conclusion:
While the coins were struck using the same pair of dies, they were not struck by the same workers or at the same occasion.

4th observation:
All of the 26 plated coins are holed, while two of the three golden specimens are looped.

My conclusion:
There seem to have been simultanuous emissions for higher ranking soldiers/officials (full gold, usually looped) and as jewelry for the average warrior (gold plated with a hole). The former way of attachment must have been more prestiguous. The theory that the earliest barbarian imitations were holed and later issues were looped, cannot be confirmed (but see next paragraph).

5th observation:
The three golden coins seem to display less detail than the best of the plated coins.

My conclusion:
The golden coins (including their obverses) were used or even made for circulation and only fitted with a loop later on to make them jewelry. This corresponds with the fact that two of he three unplated coins have their loops attached differently, while the third had not (yet) been fitted with a loop at all.
The plated specimens were holed before gilding and therefore made as jewelry right away.

6th observation:
The average gold specimen weights 5,8 gr with a range of 5,0 to 6,6 gr, the average plated coin 2,96 gr with a range of 2.36 to 3,62 gr, not accounting for loops and holes.

My conclusion:
There may indeed have been some sort of „weight standard“, at least one more consistant than that applied to Roman coins of the time.


What do you think?

 

J.G., This sounds like an accurate summary .

 

Very accurate conclusions.
Some of them cannot be proven to the end, but they are likely.
There were several mints and smaller workshops there!
In addition to these gold ornaments, imitations of denarii were minted. And these were used long after they disappeared in the Roman Empire.
This is a really fascinating issue.
Recently, I showed in another thread a hybrid of Commodus where the inscription SIMSIMSIM was made using punc.

 

Hi,

this is a very nice specimen and your research is spot on. This coin was made in the first half of 4th century not as a forgery, but as a pendent, which warriors of the Chernyakhov culture (probably Goths) wore around the neck.
I have a collection of about 25 of these "coins". Mine are, however, all (but one) in full gold.

For more information (and you may find a die identical piece):
http://barbarous-imitations.narod.ru/index/au_1_80/0-607


To your question if you coin is a modern forgery or not: I am absolutely certain that it is genuine.


Best
Dirk

 

Some interesting links
https://www.academia.edu/16687554/E...collection_of_ancient_coins_in_the_Ossolineum
https://www.academia.edu/30126125/G...r_of_Andrew_Burnett_Spink_London_2015_232-258