Featured Migration Period Monday - Siliqua Fractionals - Vandals + Gepids - The History - Fall of Rome

Every "barbaric" small bronze coin is attributed to the Vandals by default (often to increase its value). However, the Vandalic kingdom maintained a sophisticated system of bronze and silver coins, which were minted to specific weights and designs. I think people should move away from calling these coins Vandalic, but instead classify them as late Roman unofficial bronzes or something like that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I don't know to which period or tribe I can attribute this Barbarous coin.

 

The imitations that Wroth called "Vandalic" a century ago all had known African or Sicilian provenance. Even then, some of his conclusions are viewed with a fair degree of skepticism by academics today. As you rightly suggest, use of the term is sometimes more about marketing than scholarship.

 

The term "barbarous" should not immediately imply "barbarian" but rather that the style or fabric is unofficial. The fallen horseman copies are understood as an economic phenomenon resulting from coin shortages following the reform of 348. Based on archaeological evidence, it can be said that the copies were roughly contemporary with their prototypes. They are most commonly found in Britain and Gaul but turn up to a lesser extent in other regions.

 

Yes, marketing is important, but collectors should try to see through it.

Yesterday's NAC auction attributed several coins to the Frankish King Theodebert I, which in reality cannot be attributable to any particular kingdom, let alone king. These marketing attributions helped "unofficial imitations" to triple their estimates.

 

Here's another one from my old folders. No fallen horseman on reverse.

 

I'm glad if it is useful. It was very much an exercise in trying to bring some order to a field that seemed very chaotic an unorganized. I think that I could show that Metlich was wrong to exclude all Sirmiums coins from the Ostrogothic series. In fact, the Ostrogoths were probably the instigators of mint activity in AD 504.

 

Hi Dirk,

Thanks! The coin weighs 0.45 grams and is 12 mm long at its maximum diameter! I actually picked this up from eBay of all places...I was browsing new listings and saw this pop up for $160. I had no idea what is was but I had never seen anything like it so I offered $130 in the chance it was something.

Funny enough that you should say this, I am currently working on a paper which sets out to more concretely prove both mint activity dates and the reasons behind them. It also discusses various influences and the specific development of Ostrogothic influence on the Gepid mint over time

 

Well done. I cannot say anything about its monetary value, but numismatically and historically the coin is very significant. Thanks for the measurements. No rush, but if you have or are going to make a proper picture, I would be interested to have it for my records.

 

I will be very interested to read your paper when it is out.

From findspot evidence and the sigle SRM on the half-siliquae it is clear that these coins originate from Sirmium. However, there is such a variety of types and degrees of barbarisation, that it is difficult to believe that all the coins were made in Sirmium. I think it is well possible that other towns in the region also produced these coins (Bassiniae, Singidunum), or that some of the coins were struck by mobile mints travelling with the king.

 

Sure thing! I have got some on hand from the seller and some I took my self:


Let me know if these are good!

 

Amazing! The pictures are great. The name (An)astasiu(s) is clearly legible. The fragment is in such good condition. I wish the coin was complete or at least provided all letter on top of the reverse. Coin 5b2 in my article suggests a reading of S-O-V. My coin 5b1 and the derivative 5c1 are much cruder. The design is apparently unique to Sirmium: Two figures praying (?) with an altar (?) with cross and wreath on top. The letters on top probably refer to this scene.

 

Gennari’s updated catalogue has three examples of this type as more have come to light. Type 126c looks to be a reverse die match (or at least very similar to mine). I have corresponded with Gennari since then and my fragment shows that what he suspected was dove flying is actually a die crack. The legends put together between these two appear to show VOV.

This series is quite odd indeed and varies so much. I think a distinction based on style is warranted between 126b/my example and 126/126a. Assuming the issues became cruder over time as is generally indicative with the siliquae from the Gepids, the order must be my example/126b -> 126a -> 126. Yet this makes no sense with my example being of Anastasius-> 126b being of Justinian, 126a of Justin, and 126 of Anastasius.

Because 126 and 126a are much more crude than 126b and my example, I suspect both are imitations of an original issue (being 126b and mine). My coin shares the most similarities with 126b (the same reverse die and and obverse of the same style). Yet, 126b is an issue of Justinian and mine is of Anastasius...

Based solely on conjecture, I venture that two series exist. There was an original minting of the higher quality type linked by that reverse die, first in the name of Anastasius and later on in the name of Justin/Justinian. Afterwards, 126 and 126a were minted as contemporary imitations.

 

I do love Academia, what a source. I have made several new friends and personally know some of the folks here in the States, England, Germany and Scotland. What a wonderful hobby we enjoy. Here is my contribution to the thread. I do need to get off my but and post some of my own instead of responding to the threads of others.
I thank all of you for the wonderful discourse. Sorry about the Vandalic photo, I was new at the numis photo game. Still very happy to have the coin.

 

Coins of this era are illustrated in the catalogs of Italo Vecchi in the auction of the ancient coins of the William Subjack collection. This occurred in the late 1990’s in London, over several auctions. Anyone interested in the period would enjoy perusing these. And the number and variety of specimens! I feel fortunate today to see an auction with a dozen Migration era coins today.
The catalogs are available on the second hand book market, such as Abebooks. And Vcoins dealers have them sometimes. The Thrymsas are in #11 and the Merovingian coins are in #13, and other portions of the collection are in the adjacent catalogs.

The first coin is a Gaulic Visigothic Solidus modeled on one of Valentinian III 439-455 AD, of the Ravenna mint. The Visigothic solidi characteristically have a tiny wreath over the emperor’s head on the obverse. Also, the “C’s” at the end of the reverse inscription are distinctive, as is the overall style. MEC 170. This coin is from the sale of the William Subjack collection, Coins of the German Migrations, sold by Italo Vecchi in Nummorum Auctiones 14, lot#8, on 5 February 1999.

The second is a Merovingian Solidus modeled on Anastasius (491-518AD.). His reign approximated that of Clovis. Very similar to MEC I 344, noted by Grierson to be more likely Merovingian than Burgundian. Note the spelling VICTOBI and the backward N in CONOB. This coin is also ex: Subjack collection but I bought it from Gordon Andreas Singer on 11/6/1999 when I recognized it from one of the Subjack sales catalogs, Nummorum Auctiones 14 lot#22.

The last is a solidus of Phocas which is IMO barbaric although an argument for it being a really inept Constantinople mint product has been advanced. Previously posted, and not from the Subjack collection, it was in NFA Auction XVIII part II lot #739, associated with the Guy Lacam collection.

 

These are very nice coins. The Merovingian solidus, in particular, is very desirable. It was probably minted during the reign of Chlodewig I (Clovis in French and English sources) or Theuderic I (Thierry in French and English sources).

The Phocas solidus is an interesting coin for further research. I would really like to know what evidence there is for Avars or Bulgars or early Slavs minting Byzantine imitations.

I have the Italo Vecchi catalogs, because I was present at the actual auctions in London.

 

Thank you for your comments. I submitted the Phocas solidus to ANACS (the first time I have ever patronized any of the third party graders) in the hopes of some scholarly wisdom. They commented that it is probably not Avar, and slabbed it as a product of the Constantinople mint. I agree that it is not similar to other solidi attributed to the Avars, but it doesn’t look like a Constantinople product either. The celator was almost certainly illiterate.

It is a pity that so few coins have findspot information attached to them. It would be of great interest to know if this coin was discovered in Egypt or Hungary, for example.

 

A Theodoric decanummium, one of my favorites. Will post my styca and vandal/Visigoth coinage later

 

I do not believe that anyone can firmly attribute a coin to the Avars, or indeed rule out such an attribution. Only find spot evidence can shed light on the origins of such a coin.
On balance, I would attribute your coin as "imitative, possibly from the Balkan area"

 

Yes. No confirmed coins have been minted by the Avars but imitations do show up in the region from around the period of the Avars. Most like some private "minting" was occurring but nothing sanctioned by the government