Categorizing barbarous coins?

[delafe]

Last week there was an interesting thread on Moneta-L concerning barbarous Late Roman.

This got me thinking... There really is no set cataloguing standard for barbarous.

In my personal collection I catagorize them by region (Balkans, UK, Spain, Other) and by "class". What I call the "quasi-official" barbarous that may have been produced within the borders of the Roman empire and those that were clearly produced by the non-Roman tribes.

Has anyone come up with a cataloguing standard for barbarous?

Best,

Alfred

[BeastCoins]

Alfred,

I believe Alex Fishman just finished writing a book on the topic, using several thousand specimens. Not sure when it is due to be published. Coincidentally, my February Celator column is also on the subject of Roman Imperial imitative 4th century AE3s.

--Beast

[vic9128]

Originally Posted by delafe

Has anyone come up with a cataloguing standard for barbarous?

Arthur Robinson, with the help of Howard Mattingly, came up with up with a chart "showing degrees of degradation." I have attempted to arrange my examples in a similar manner, but at times this method can be arbitrary. I have the chart on this page, it is number 11 of the footnotes.


http://www.constantinethegreatcoins.com/barb2/

[wolfram2112]

HI all,

Now when I saw this I had to put my two cents in, no pun intended, and state that it might be worthwhile considering a few things about 5th and 6th century AE4s that are deemed Barbaric because they were struck using the the Fel Tempo and the Constantinople themes in the coin designs. First of, the purpose of a someone striking a coin, whether it's to help out a coin shortage, unlikely with Roman bronzes, or to make a quick profit by shorting the weight of an existing type and make the margin in profit. With 5th and 6th century bronze coinage, this make no sense what so ever, when you consider that the AE4s produced by the "Legitimate" emperor were nearly identical to what we call barbaric imitations, in size and weight, plus considering the die work surpassed what the "official" mint were striking at the time. There were a few usupers who controlled Gaul, Hispania and Britian and commerce continued to flow back and forth during brief periods of quiet when there were no battles pending. Even if they ruled for only 2-4 years, there was enough time inbetween to strike AE4s that revolved around known and understood themes. Reason being is, proclaiming "I am the rightful ruler and legitimate emperor" to the people they ruled during that brief time. Plus, by issuing the Constaninople and the Fel tempo series he's laying claim to imperial family lines by linking previous issues and proclaiming themselves the savior of Roman ways by announcing that the good times have returned under his rule. Now Constantine III and his son had the gumption and the territory to issue such coinage, mainly to ensure that his currency conformed with that of the rest of the empire and so could be used anywhere in the Roman world. However, since trade was mainly restricted to the forementioned territory, the odds of these AE4s ranging broad and wide was minimal. Now, as we know, with Constantine III, the record is spotty to say the least, since he wasn't acknowledged as a true emperor, his history was wiped out as quickly as possible after he and his son were executed. Meaning that any discovery to date of the AE4s we call imitations and Constantine III's efforts with him mints would be near impossible unless a hoard is found with an admixture of two if not all three metals in the mixture and they were exclusively that of Constantine III. So, I believe since the standards are there and the nature of a usuper to try to gain the confidence of his subjects would make logical sense to issue these types of coins. We know already that Constantine III issued AE4s in his name and are considered rare, but why wouldn't he put to use the most powerrful propoganda means at his disposal to try an reinforce his rule with messages the semi literate and illiterate would be able to understand? Especially since they match imperial standards and for a counterfiter there is little profit and much to lose, like their heads if they got caught. Some point to consider next time you look at these interesting series of AE4s.

[dltcoins]

Originally Posted by delafe

Last week there was an interesting thread on Moneta-L concerning barbarous Late Roman.

This got me thinking... There really is no set cataloguing standard for barbarous.

In my personal collection I catagorize them by region (Balkans, UK, Spain, Other) and by "class". What I call the "quasi-official" barbarous that may have been produced within the borders of the Roman empire and those that were clearly produced by the non-Roman tribes.

Has anyone come up with a cataloguing standard for barbarous?

Best,

Alfred

Since obverse legends are often hopelessly bungled or even absent, cataloguing of Late Roman barbarous imitations has long been done by reverse prototype, see for example the appendix on barbarous radiates in Sutherland's 1937 "Coinage and Currency in Roman Britain".

[dltcoins]

Originally Posted by wolfram2112

HI all,

Now when I saw this I had to put my two cents in, no pun intended, and state that it might be worthwhile considering a few things about 5th and 6th century AE4s that are deemed Barbaric because they were struck using the the Fel Tempo and the Constantinople themes in the coin designs.

I hope I don't seem overly argumentative here but I feel I need to correct some misconceptions. The imitations of these types are now known to have been contemporary with their prototypes. The hypothesis that the Constantinian and FEL TEMP minimi represent a 5th-6th C. 'dark ages' or sub-Romn coinage was abandoned more than 50 years ago. George Boon proved through his seminal work at the Brean Down temple site in the late 1950s that even the smallest and most barbarous of these imitations were contemporary with their prototypes ('The Roman Temple at Brean Down, Somerset, and the dating of 'Minimissimi'', NC7, 1961, pp. 191-197). The onus of proof then shifted to those who postulated a later date. In the nearly 60 years since, no evidence to support such a conclusion has been offered. In fact, the leading proponent of late dating, J.P.C. Kent, recanted his position (JPC Kent, 'From Roman Britain to Saxon England' in RHM Dolly ed., "Anglo Saxon Coins", London, 1961, pp. 1-22) shortly after publication of Boon's work.

First of, the purpose of a someone striking a coin, whether it's to help out a coin shortage, unlikely with Roman bronzes... .

The repeated coinage reforms of the first half of the 4th century, coupled with demonetization of earlier issues, created acute and repeated shortages of small change. This in turn spurred "epidemic counterfeiting" to use Bastien's term. See Pierre Bastien, 'Imitations of Roman Bronze Coins, AD 318-363' ANS MN 30, 1985, pp. 143-178.

I will be happy to supply additional references and details if you wish.

[wolfram2112]

Yes, I could use some details, as i am writing this for the general piblic. I'd like so see ome of these papers, sinc ei hvaen't come across them as yet. Perhaps i should reassess my point of view. I appreciate the help.

[vic9128]

Originally Posted by dltcoins

In fact, the leading proponent of late dating, J.P.C. Kent, recanted his position shortly after publication of Boon's work.

Kent argued that imitation coins were contemporary with their prototypes at least four years before Boon's article.

“Barbarous Copies of Roman Coins: Their Significance for the British Historian and Archaeologist.” Limes-Studien 14 (1957) : 61- 68.

[dltcoins]

Originally Posted by vic9128

Kent argued that imitation coins were contemporary with their prototypes at least four years before Boon's article.

“Barbarous Copies of Roman Coins: Their Significance for the British Historian and Archaeologist.” Limes-Studien 14 (1957) : 61- 68.

Thank you for the correction. I did mis-characterize the interplay between Kent and Boon. The historiography of "barbarous" numismatics is every bit as interesting as the coins themselves. Just now I re-read the Kent 1961 piece and I would recommend it to wolfram2112 and anyone else interested in the topic, as it nicely delineates the development of ideas pertaining to the dating of barbarous coins and the existence (or rather non-existence) of a British 'Dark Ages' coinage, at least to 1961. One must be wary of earlier works, such as Hill's works on Barbarous Radiates (NNM 112, 1949) and 4th-Century Imitations (NC 10, 1950) which are often just plain wrong. Kent's 1961 overview combined with Boon's chapter from "Coins and the Archaeologist" and Bastien's article in ANSMN 30 would be a very good starting point. Vic9128 has a very good bibliography at his website. Also recommended are Warren Esty's pages on barbarous coins here at ancients.info.