Unknown Barbarian Tremissis of Leo

I think the coin I posted was from Wildwinds (need to find it again). But here is a very similar piece from the University of Münster in Germany. They also attribute it - correctly as I think - to the official mint of Rome (you have to scroll down a bit)

https://www.uni-muenster.de/Numismatik/muenzedesmonats/mdm2018.html


Flavius Procopius Anthemius (um 420–472 n. Chr.) | Gold, Solidus, 4,42 g, 22 mm, Münzstätte Rom, 467–472 n. Chr. | Av.: D N ANTHEMI-VS P F AVG, Panzerbüste des Anthemius mit Helm, Schild und Speer | Rv.: SALVS REI P-V-BLICAE / COMOB. Kaiser Anthemius und Kaiser Leo I. in Rüstung und Mantel, einander die Hand reichend; darüber Schild mit PAX; im Feld links R, im Feld rechts M | RIC X Anthemius 2804 | Münzkabinett | Berlin, Objektnummer 18201533




Found it. Yes the coin is on Wildwinds:
http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/anthemius/t.html

just as several other highly "barbaric" solidi of Anthemius, which are attributed to official mints like Rome, Ravenna and Milan.

Again, there were no barbarians, Germanic or otherwise, around at the time to whom these coins could be attributed. Instead, I think what happened is that control over the official mints deteriorated. They probably lacked resources (craftsmen, artists, perhaps tools) to produce high-standard coins and could only produce coins of "barbaric" style.

Indeed, this is also what happened later in the Germanic kingdoms. While the style of Ostrogothic coins remained superior even to that of their pendants from Constantinople, Visigothic and Frankish coins deteriorated. This is not because these people wished to express their native style or their barbarism on coins, but simply because they lacked the resources to produce better coins.

There are very rare exceptions to this. The solidus below was found in Germany north of the Limes. The coin does reflect something that is genuinely Germanic, i.e. linked to Germanic art and style that is clearly not just imitating Roman style (the coin is a dream):

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

My Anthemius, which I believe is an official product of the Rome mint. The “elf eyes” portrait is distinctive, but all the devices are correct, and all the spelling is also. The mintmark is a conjoint RM.
The style of Anthemius’ solidi varied considerably as detailed in Guy Lacam’s book.
From Harlan Berk, 1994.

 

Dirk, Thanks for pointing out Wild Winds, they have an impressive selection of Anthemius coinage. Most of these coins were submitted by European auction houses quite some time ago. I still find it perplexing that these two coins were struck at the Rome Mint, one looking barbaric & the other of the same quality you would see at the Constantinople Mint .


What could account for such differences in style & quality ? I love the last coin you posted with Anthemius sporting an arrow though his head . That coin is a barbaric treasure. The last coin Hrefn posted is a fascinating coin too; it does look like a Rome Mint product .

 

A Dutch expert of Merovingian coins (Arent Pol) told me that the coin may by a product of the Thuringian kingdom, minted perhaps under king Herminafrid (who was married to Theoderic's niece Amalafrida). There are two pieces of the same dies known. One is in the Berlin Münzkabinett (pictured) and the other is in Vienna. For us collectors, the coin is out of reach.

 

I can only speculate, but the PAX-type may have been produced by a different workshop, which simply did not have access to a master die-cutter/engraver.

In any case, there are basically no barbarian groups that I can think of who could have produced these coins and I fear that our famous "unknown Germanic tribesmen" are just an excuse to conceal our ignorance or raise the market appeal of these coins.

 

Here is another recent case of an attribution to "Uncertain Germanic tribes" in Northern Italy:


I think the dating of the coin to the early to mid 5th century is basically correct. However, I think the cataloger should explain which "Germanic tribes" in Northern Italy he is "uncertain" about. In fact only two groups are possible, the multi-ethnic invasion led by the probably Gothic chieftain Radagais in 406 or the Goths led by Alaric in 410. However, neither of these groups engaged in any minting activity and we can safely rule them out as producers of the above coin.

Despite the barbaric reverse, I think the coin was almost certainly produced by Romans, i.e. by Roman citizens, possibly in Gaul or Britain, i.e. two regions over which the empire was losing partial or complete control at the time. I think an increasing shortage of official silver coins let to the clipping of official coins and the recoining of the silver into underweight imitations.

In any case, the ominous "uncertain Germanic tribesmen" once again worked wonders. The selling price was more than 10 times the asking price.

 

Dirk, You're assuming that this barbarous siliqua was minted during the reign of Honorius, & that is not necessarily the case. In fact this coin could have been minted many decades after the death of Honorius, & copied from coins still circulating in northern Italy, Gaul, & Germania, or as you suggest Britain. The obverse of this coin looks as good as a mint product from any number of branch mints from the 5th century, however, the reverse is without question barbaric. This coin compares well with the barbarous solidus I've posted a number of times & is posted again below. The reverse on my solidus is as good as a product from the Constantinople Mint, but the obverse is clearly barbarous. Again, this coin could have been minted long after Zeno died. So the only safe attribution for these coins is "Uncertain Germanic".

 

My computer has been "acting-up" again & just gave my an automatic reboot. Here is the coin I wanted to add on my last post .

 

We may have to consider expanding our attempts at attribution of these coins. Official but inexpert production is clearly a possibility. However, the vast range of design and orthography suggests to me that there may be may be multiple sources. @Tejas has suggested the Vandals, Burgundians, Visigoths, and Franks as potential candidates but (correct me if I am wrong) finds all of these unlikely on stylistic grounds or for other reasons.
Leu in its recent Aurum Barbarorum auction, and papers like this one in Studia Barbarica https://www.academia.edu/36678273/M...m_in_Budapest?email_work_card=reading-history indicate to me that imitations of late Roman gold coins were readily manufactured in the Barbaricum, and probably not always under the aegis of an organized tribe/kingdom. I grant that many of these coins were made to be used as amulets or jewelry. But the expertise to make them was not that rare, and if they could coin gold for jewelry they could manufacture coins for circulation.
All of which leaves the Who? And the Why? Unanswered. More food for thought.

 

Hrefn, Thanks for posting that link on imitations in the Budapest Museum . Most of those coins are well documented & collectively form an important study group. Without question, barbarian groups have been imitating Roman coins for a long time as this collection proves. The authors of this impressive article were careful not to attribute these coins to specific barbarian tribes or groups. The last paragraph of this article sums up the present state of our knowledge of barbarian coinage, & offers hope for accruing more knowledge on the subject.

 

Hi Al,

I disagree. I think the only safe attribution for this coin is "imitation by an uncertain mint". The attribution to Germanic tribesmen is complete speculation and certainly no "safe".

On the dating, I said that I agree with the auction house, which dated the coin to the first half of the 5th century. Hence, it may well have been minted some 2, maybe even 3, decades after the death of Honorius. This still leaves Radagais' and Alaric's Goths the only Germanic groups roaming around in northern Italy. Yet, there is no shred of evidence that they engaged in any other activity than besieging and plundering and it is exceedingly unlikely that they minted Silver coins.

So at least we can probably agree that the comination of 1. uncertain Germanic tribes 2. Northern Italy and 3. first half of the fifth century is pure fantasy and probably intended to raise bidders' interest.

 

True, I think the imitative Siliqua under discussion cannot be attributed to any of the named groups, based on both style and especially historical plausibility.

We had several instances in Roman history, when inofficial or auxilliary mints supplemented the coin supply. This usually happened during periods of crisis, e.g. during the crises of the mid 3rd century, the mid-4th century and again the massive crisis of the early 5th century. It is the latter crisis where the coin under discussion belongs.

The first two decades of the 5th century saw the invasions of Italy by Goths and other peoples led by Radagais and Alaric. The invasion of Gaul by Vandals, Suevians, Alans, and Burgundians, while Britain was under attack by Saxons, Jutes, Angels and Franks.

External unrest sparked ursupations that exacerbated instability, leading to a massive loss of central control. The Roman Empire was at the brink of collapse. In this situation central control over coin production and design disintegrated. Local authorities set up auxiliary mints to supply what central official mints could no longer provide. There imitative silver coins were often the first step towards the complete demonitization of the economy.

Almost everywhere the circulation and production of silver coins deminished if it did not seize competely. It was only later, when Germanic kingdoms manifested themselves that some form of silver coin circulation resumed. Coins like the one under discussion belong to the end of silver coin production under the remnants of Roman administration in the first half of the 5th century. They must not be confused with the resumption of silver coin production in some of the Germanic kingdoms at the end of the 5th century.

I think the tendency to attribute everything that looks "barbarous" to non-Roman (i.e. barbarians) is a somewhat naive topos. Romans, deprived of adequate resources would produce barbarous-looking coins and Barbarians, equipped with adequate resources would produce coins of fine style. The style of Ostrogothic coins often exceeds that of issues from Constantinople or other eastern Roman mints.

 

I helped with cataloging the Aurum Barbarorum collection and I have more than 20 of these imitative aurei and solidi myself. These coins have nothing to do with the imitative Siliqua under discussion. They were not made to circulate as money, but they were intended to be worn as "jewelry" (or awards) in the 3rd and 4th centuries. These "coins" originate from the area of modern Ukraine, Moldova, and south eastern Poland. A couple of them have been found in Germany. They belong to the Chernyakhov culture and may (with all due caution) be attributed to the Goths.

 

I am not very surprised to learn that you helped catalogue the Aurum Barbarorum collection. I coveted that coin showing a bear attacking a warrior.

 

Yes, the bear type has (so far) no Roman model, making it particularly interesting. In any case, it is not unique, though. I have seen three exemplars so far.