Featured Justinian's Monetary Reform of AD 538

Milesofwho, That's a fascinating follis with a lots of character . The gash on the obverse is a real puzzler . It looks ancient & intentional. If only coins could talk .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Thanks. I have never considered myself a particularly serious Byzantine collector - it's one of several "satellite" collections I consider to be nominally "active", in that I will acquire pieces if the chance presents itself, but I'm not aggressively pursuing anything. It's more of a passive phase of acquisition. But I have been moderately successful picking-up items here and there over the course of 60 years or so of collecting. They add up after a while Sort of like the way your sink will eventually fill (and maybe overflow) if a faucet is dripping. Depending on the length of the time-frame involved, even a small drip will eventually fill a bathtub.
Feel free to look around the rest of my gallery site if you wish. There are a couple thousand photos, although some sections are long overdue for a thorough update. LRB's are one area in which I have had very good luck "filling holes" for representative specimens of various types over the last 10 or so years since I originally put the site up, but I am lagging way behind in the recording area.
This is, I believe, the first Byzantine coin I ever acquired, ca. 1975:

http://old.stoa.org/gallery/album130/15_Justinian_I?full=1
It's not all that great of a coincidence that it happens to be Justinian, the "Constantine of the Byzantines", you might say - very prolific coiner.

 

To correct the impression that this was a war where a civilized Roman army fought a host of uncivilized Gothic barbarian warriors. At the time, the Roman army consisted of large and usually decisive elements of tribal warriors who had joint the Roman forces as mercenaries and federate troops who expected to enrich themselves during the campaigns. Consequently, Procopius (History of the Wars) frequently complains that Justinian's Roman army plundered and murdered the Roman civilians in Italy, while at the same time frequently commending the civilized behaviour of the Goths and their commanders.
There are of course exceptions to this rule, but on the whole the East Romans and the Roman army were the true barbarians not the Goths. In fact, Totila/Baduila on several occasions offered peace from a position of strength in order to end the devastation of the Italian countryside and towns, but Justinian and his generals stubbornly refused. Eventually, Justinian won in 552, but various Gothic garisons held out until 560. In 568 Justinian lost Italy to his former allies the Langobards. At the end he had achieved the near complete destruction of Late Roman civilization in Italy and Dalmatia only to lose his spoils at the next best occasion.

 

And to show two of Justinian's coin from my collection:

This piece was minted after Rome had fallen to the East Romans in AD 536:


I show this coin below because of its massive size. Even for this large flan series, this exemplar stands out with a diameter of 46mm.

 

Tejas, You raise a good point . We mustn't confuse the two words barbarian (noun) and barbarous (adjective). The Greeks & Romans labeled anyone who couldn't speak their language a barbarian. On the other hand barbarous implies cruel, brutal, & uncivilized behavior. The Goths, Vandals, & other barbarian civilizations were forced westward from their homeland by the Huns, who were indeed barbarous. The Goths, who were led by Thodemir & Theodoric, were agrarian people who wanted nothing more than a stable homeland & to live in peace with the Romans. Instead they were treated like animals by Romans, & forced to fight for what they wanted. After Theodoric gained control of Italy, he treated the Romans living there with respect, even adopting Christianity as his own religion. He in turn was accepted by the Romans, who had no objection to his rule. His mausoleum in Ravenna still stands as a proud landmark after all these centuries.

 

Tejas, Those are both handsome coins, but the follis struck in Rome is a rare gem ! The portrait is superbly engraved by a gifted celator .

 

Yes, Al, Antioch in Justinian's time was not the place to be! Mike.

 

Yes, that is right. I believe that the coin was made shortly after the fall of Rome, by the same celator who had produced some of the dies for the wonderful Theodahat folles.

 

Yours is holed to let the M be facing up to the viewer. The other orientation would have the emperor facing up to the wearer but down to the viewer. I wonder how to interpret what the owner intended.

 

Tejas, That is an entertaining possibility . I think it is also possible your follis could have been struck during the reign of Theodoric or Athalaric . It's also possible that the same celator could have been cutting dies for Theodoric, Athalaric, & Theodahad.


The Theodahad follis weighs 8,84 gm, & the Athalaric follis weighs 16.40 gm. How much does your follis weigh ?

 

Nice coins @Al Kowsky, especially the Theodoric!

 

Great write-up!

Here is mine, Nicomedia year 13. Again, a coin that was around Justinian's plague... The stories it could tell...

 

Poor Old Man, Your follis has an attractive two-tone patina.Your follis has the same date, mintmark, & officina mark as the coin I posted, they must be brothers !

 

James, I'd like to get my hands on a Theodahad follis like the one posted . CNG sold that coin 13 years ago for $8,050.00 !

 

I don't think there's any problem or question about any of the large-module folles in this thread, but in case someone is not aware of it, there is a dangerously believable modern copy of the Constantinople, Yr. XII, Off. Є.
(SBCV 163) It's been around for a while and evidently there are quite a few of them out there.
It's well enough known to be illustrated as "F17" in the "Forgeries of Byzantine Coins" chapter at the end of David Sear's Byzantine Coins and their Values (pg. 493)
It's so good that it has passed the experts at several major auction houses.

 

Anyone interested in the fakes lehmansterms mentioned can view the links below.

http://www.forgerynetwork.com/asset.aspx?id=OpeCt~x~P/vvs=

http://www.forgerynetwork.com/asset.aspx?id=OfjjOGfif6U=

 

What I find interesting about your coin is the lack of die impression on the large flan. For comparison, poor man's choice of Justinian pre-reform follis with an off-center strike on the obverse and a deep die border impression.

 

Al, that is a really good question. I have always assumed that is simply the first part of the legend that goes with the first of two strikes, with the upper die "rocked" in between. Much the same as you see on the Byzantine Trachy. The "NI" at the beginning looks right. I have never noticed that the next two or three letters don't appear to match. Maybe they were flattened by the second strike or maybe all of those letters are from a different host coin.

 

The weight of my follis is 11 grams. I don't think it is possible that the coin was struck under Theoderic or Athalaric. Theoderic and Athalaric had folles struck to a higher weight standard and they used different imagery (Theoderic = eagle; Athalaric = she-wolf). Theodahat introduced a lower-weight standard in AD 535 and - as a great novum - added his name and portrait with "Spangenhelm" - possibly as a symbol of defiance. When Rome fell to the East Romans, they continued the Theodahat-folles, but of course replaced Theodahat's portrait and name with that of Justinian.

Sometimes I wish all Gothic kings had struck folles with their portrait. Wouldn't that be great?

 

The one that CNG sold for USD 8050,- is of a very special and exceedingly rare portrait style, that is almost unobtainable. Usually these coins sell for much less. I have 4 Theodahat folles in my collection (don't ask why) and never payed more than USD 1500.

The Theodahat-Follis is in my view very significant as the only large-module bronze coin with a life-like portrait of a Gothic king (Baduila's Decanummi are too small for that). And it is arguably the last coin of the Roman mint with a true recognizable portrait in almost first-century style.