Early Roman imperial coins countermarked in late
antiquity
By Gert Boersema
While trying to attribute an as of Domitian
countermarked with the Roman numerals XLII in the left obverse field [figure 1], I realised that there is
very scant online information on this intriguing group of early imperial coins
recycled in late antiquity. In this short article I will try and fill that void
and meanwhile offer the reader suggestions for further study.
Function
At some time in late antiquity obsolete Roman imperial
asses and dupondii of predominantly 1st century
emperors were being countermarked with the mark of value XLII (42), while at
the same time, sestertii were being countermarked with the mark of value
LXXXIII (83) [figures 1, 2 and 3].
The countermark was not applied like it had been done in earlier times, using a
small punch. The numerals were chiselled into the metal – usually in the left
obverse field, carefully avoiding defacing the portrait.
The function of these peculiar marks of value – 83
being almost, but not exactly two times 42 – was first deduced by Philip
Grierson.1 He recognized that the newly created denominations were
not multiples of the nummus as might be expected, but divisions
of a silver unit valued at 500 nummi, which itself amounted to the 24th
fraction of a gold solidus valued at 12,000 nummi. 42 and 83 are
the closest whole numbers one can get to a twelfth (exactly 41⅔) and a sixth (exactly 83⅓) of 500.
1a
1b 
2
3
1a
As of Domitian countermarked XLII, photo courtesy of Gert Boersema; 1b
Detail of the countermark of figure 1a; 2 As of Galba countermarked
XLII, photo courtesy of Tom Vossen; 3 Sestertius of Galba countermarked
LXXXIII, Leu/Numismatica Ars Classica ‘Arcadius to Constantine XI’ 26 May 1993,
lot 457
North Africa or Italy?
There is difference of opinion about the place of
origin of these countermarked coins. The traditional view, proposed in the 19th
century by Friedländer and followed by Wroth in his British Museum catalogue,
and later by Hahn in MIB, is that the Vandals produced them.2
Cécile Morrison, in her important study devoted entirely to these countermarked
early imperials, also favours Africa as their place of origin.3
Philip Grierson in Medieval European Coinage proposes the attribution to
Ostrogothic Italy, but he still maintains that they ‘may have been used in
Vandal Africa’.4
The strongest argument for the attribution to Vandalic
Africa is that the countermarked coins fit seamlessly within the Vandalic
monetary system, which comprised copper coins of 42, 21, 12 and 4 nummi.
Moreover, the epigraphical rendering of the numeral XLII on countermarked coins
is typically very similar to that of the numerals on the Vandalic coin of 42 nummi
– note the prolonged horizontal bar of the L and the two I’s placed on top of
it [figure 4 and 1b].
4
5
4
Vandals. AE 42 nummi (mark of value XLII). Photo courtesy of CNG (67, 1829) 5
Ostrogoths. Theoderic c. AD 493-526, AE 40 nummi (mark of value XL). Photo
courtesy of Gert Boersema.
On the other hand, provenance overwhelmingly points to
Italy. In her 1983 study, Morrison found 72 coins of Italian provenance,
contrary to just 5 coins originating from Africa.5 However, according
to Morrison, this just shows that they circulated in Italy, not that they were
actually produced there.
At first sight, the circulation of coins valued at 42
and 83 nummi in Ostrogothic Italy is hard to imagine. Ostrogothic copper
coinage was based on a denomination worth 40 nummi [figure 5], which is of course very
close to the countermarked coins’ value of 42 nummi. But, as Morrison
observes, the simultaneous circulation of two denominations valued almost
exactly the same is understandable because they serve two separate monetary
purposes. The 40 nummi piece served as a multiple of the nummus
(together with the additional denominations of 5, 10 and 20 nummi), while countermarked coins worth
42 and 83 nummi were useful as divisions of the half siliqua,
providing third and sixth fractions.6 Morrison offers an almost
contemporaneous example of two Ravenna mint silver coins being in parallel
circulation whilst having almost exactly the same value of 120 and 125 nummi [figure 6 and 7]. The former was a
multiple of the follis worth 40 nummi, the latter a fraction of
the silver siliqua.
6
7
6
Justinian I AD 427-565, AR 120 nummi. The letters PK are Greek numerals for
mark of value 120. Photo courtesy of Stack’s (Moneta Imperii Romani Byzantini
2009, lot 3083); 7 Justinian I AD 427-565, AR 125 nummi. The letters PKE
are Greek numerals for mark of value 125. Photo courtesy of Stack’s (same
auction, lot 3082)
Even though Morrison shows that the Ostrogothic
kingdom could have benefited from these countermarked coins and that they are
found primarily in Italy, she eventually credits the Vandals for the actual
countermarking, on the ground that it cannot be discounted that the
denomination of 42 nummi was struck in North Africa, not Italy.7
On the other hand, Grierson, in MEC, proposes that this might point to
exactly the opposite direction: the inability of the Ostrogoths to neatly divide
their silver coins might have prompted them to the countermarking. This,
together with the provenance, lead him to attribute these countermarked coins
to Ostrogothic Italy, where they formed a ‘supplementary fractional coinage’.8
Date
Of course, the dating of these coins heavily depends
on views concerning attribution and function. Hahn maintains the traditional
early date of the second half of the 5th century. According to him,
the countermarked coins were precursors to the proper Vandalic aes coinage
developed at a later stage and contemporary to the imitative siliquae in
the name of Honorius.9
Morrison, however, does not find it reasonable that
‘old coins could have been marked with values for which there was as yet no
contemporary coin’.10 She dates them to the time of the heavier
emission of XLII nummi (with the standing figure of Carthage on the
obverse [figure 4]), minted c.
494-96. She identifies the countermarked coins as supplementary coinage to this
‘rather meagre issue’. After the fall of the Vandalic kingdom and the conquest
of Africa by Justinian (AD 534) the countermarked coins spread to Italy, where
official low-value currency was scarce due to conditions of war.11
Grierson proposes a similar date of the early sixth
century for both the countermarking and the use in Ostrogothic Italy. He
observes that they must postdate the first issue of anonymous Ostrogothic 40 nummi
pieces, featuring Wolf and Twins on the reverse, because these are
substantially heavier than the countermarked coins – it is hard to imagine that
people at this time would accept the value of 42 nummi for the lighter
countermarked coins. Grierson dates the countermarking relatively late to the
520-530’s, contemporary with the second issue of Ostrogothic anonymous folles,
featuring an eagle on the reverse [figure
5], which have a comparable average weight and module. Another
indication for a relatively late date, according to Grierson, is the minting of
Justinian’s silver 120 and 125 nummi pieces. He considers this a similar
means of ‘fine tuning the currency system’ and this would naturally place them
close in time to the countermarked coins.12
Conclusion
As a conclusion, I would like to place three remarks.
Firstly, I agree with Grierson’s observation that it comes down to ‘flying in
the face of the find evidence’ to attribute these coins to North Africa. There
is no compelling need to put definitive weight on the absence of an Ostrogothic
denomination of 42 nummi. Italy and North Africa were in contact and
coins did cross the Mediterranean Sea. The Ostrogoths cannot have been
completely oblivious to the existence of a Vandalic coin worth 42 nummi
and the merits of such a denomination and I think it is reasonable to suppose
that a Vandalic denomination could have inspired countermarking in Italy.
Secondly, these countermarked coins must have a
relatively late date. As Grierson rightly asserts, they cannot have circulated
simultaneously with the first group of Ostrogothic follis that were
substantially heavier but valued less at 40 nummi.
Lastly, only about 150 of these countermarked coins
are known today. Their rarity, and the ad hoc method of the
countermarking, using hammer and chisel, imply that they were created incidentally.
Perhaps the discovery of a large hoard of Flavian era bronze coins,
supplemented by individual finds – 77% of the countermarked coins
are Flavian13 – prompted some local or mint authority in Ostrogothic
Italy to start organizing the countermarking.
1
Grierson, P., ‘The Tablettes Albertini and the value of the solidus in
the fifth and sixth centuries AD’, JRS XLIX (1959) p. 78.
2
Friedländer, J., ‘Die Erwerbungen des Königl. Münzkabinets
vom 1. Jan. 1877 bis 31 März 1878’ ZfN VI (1879) p.1-26; Wroth, W., Catalogue
of the coins of the Vandals, Ostrogoths and Lombards… in the British Museum,
London 1911; Hahn, W., Moneta Imperii Byzantini, vol. I, Vienna 1973.
3
Morrison, 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). This is
the only paper devoted solely to these countermarked coins.
4
Grierson, P. and M. Blackburn, Medieval European Coinage (1986) p.
28-31.
5
Morrison (1983) p. 98-99.
6
Grierson (1986) p. 28.
7
Morrison (1983) p. 99
8
Grierson (1986) p. 28.
9
Hahn (1973) p.94.
10
Morrison (1983) p. 98.
11
Morrison (1983) p. 99-100 citing her own earlier established dating. Grierson
(1983 p. 420) has a much wider margin for this issue: AD 480-523.
12 Grierson (1986) p. 31.
13 Morrison (1983) p. 97.