Dea Moneta
login

Main

home auctions shops past results Numismatic Conferences Book Store New issues

Not yet registered? Sign up now

Did you forget your username or password?

Banner Artemide LX
Lot # 662
Ostrogothic Italy. Non-Regal Bronze Issue from the time of Theoderic and Athalaric. AE Follis. Early to mid 6th century. 'Countermarked' early Imperial bronze issue. XLII (mark of value = 42 Nummi) cut into obverse of AE As of Claudius. Obv. TI CLAVDIVS CAESAR [...]. Bare head of Claudius left, XLII cut behind. Rev. LIBERTAS AVGVSTA SC. Libertas, draped, standing front, head right, holding pileus in her right hand and extending her left. For undertype, cf. Claudius RIC I (2nd ed.) 113. AE. 9.89 g. 31.00 mm. R. Rare and interesting, brown patina with malachite spots. Undertype Good F; mark of value. Good VF. These countermarked issues have long been considered as made in Vandalic North Africa, but the hoard evidence and the results of the latest studies makes it seem that they were, in fact, made in the Ostrogothic Italy, and were in use there during the first quarter or first half of the 6th century (Cf, NAC, May 1993, 457).
The mark of value XLII refer to a twelfth of a silver unit valued at 500 nummi, which itself amount to the 24th fraction of a gold solidus valued at 12,000 nummi. (Cf. Grierson, MEC, p.28-31).
These are not countermarked coins in the usual sense of word, since the LXII figure was not punched or stamped with a single instrument, but seems to have been cut or incised with several chisel strokes. (C. Morrisson,1983).
J. Friedlander suggested that for the more finely incised series the pieces were certainly softened by fire in order to be able to engrave more easily the deep and crude strokes. (“Die Erwerbungen des Konigl. Munzkabinets vom 1.Jan.1877 bis 31 Marz 1878” ZfN VI, 1879, p.1-26).
Such crude workmanship seem to point to the markings being done by private persons, at least in the case of the most anomalous countermarks. While for the more finely incised countermarks – like our outstanding example – the role of some official authority cannot be excluded. (C. Morrisson).
Tentatively, Morrisson suggests that an official practice of marking and re-issuing older bronzes was followed with varying success by private individuals as and when they came into possession of similar pieces.
The only paper devoted solely to these countermarked coins is : Morrisson, C. “The re-use of obsolete coins : the case of Roman imperial bronzes revived in the late fifth century” in: ed. C.N.L.
(Brooke et al. Studies in Numismatic Method presented to Philip Grierson, Cambridge 1983).XLVI, 487.