ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY
THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY
PRINTED IN
AT
TO
HUMANIST • SCHOLAR • POET
An epoch in the history of the coinage of trientes bearing his own name. Rapidly, in the course of the final years of Leovigild's life, there evolve the main traits of an independent, national coinage of quite extraordinary interest, not only because of its character as the first really distinctive mediaeval coinage of the West but also because it continues virtually without interruption, and at a large number of mints widely dispersed over the Iberian peninsula, down through the long line of Leovigild's successors to the extinction of the kingdom by the Muslim invaders early in the 8th century.
Despite the fact that coins of eighteen of these Gothic kings—and of four rebels or pretenders—are preserved, and despite the activity of at least seventy-nine mints, the coinage of the Visigoths of Spain is excessively rare. In the present volume, the second in the Hispanic Numismatic Series published jointly by The Hispanic Society of the number of extant pieces not included in the present work cannot be more than a few hundreds, and it would probably be safe to say that the grand total of genuine coins above ground of the class under consideration does not exceed 4000.
By far the greatest single collection is that of The Hispanic Society of
While the preeminence of the collection of The Hispanic Society of Description générale des monnaies des Rois Wisigoths d'Espagne, the standard work of reference, published just eighty years ago, is out of print, and, needless to say, in many respects out of date. Since 1872 the only comprehensive treatment of the Visigothic coinage, within the covers of one book, has been Felipe Mateu y Llopis' Catálogo de las monedas previsigodas y visigodas del Gabinete Numismático del Museo Arqueológico Nacional (Madrid, 1936). This work, while dealing with every aspect of the coinage, does not comprise a corpus and contains detailed descriptions only of those issues represented at that time in the Spanish national collection. Aside from the material in these two works, the bulk of the Visigothic numismatic bibliography is widely scattered through many books, catalogues and periodicals. And although a catalogue of the coins in the collection of
Thus, during the course of my study of the coins in the Hispanic Society Collection it became evident that although a catalogue of this by all odds the largest collection in existence was a very desirable necessity, a more useful contribution to numismatic literature might be made by attempting a corpus which would incorporate a catalogue of this collection within the comprehensive framework of the entire Visigothic coinage. An examination of the list of sources (pp. 1–20), containing not only the references to books and articles dealing with Visigothic coins that have been consulted, but also the names of unpublished public and private collections whose resources have been laid under contribution, will suggest to the reader such virtues, as well as such shortcomings, the corpus may have in respect of completeness.
With regard to the extent and composition of the great collection of Spanish and related coinages formed by Hispanic Numismatic Series, "The Coinage of the Umayyads of deductions arrived at by what might be called the internal evidence was, at a later stage in the work, provided by two lists most kindly communicated to me by Pio Beltrán Villagrasa of Valencia: one a list
In the compilation of the corpus, pains have been taken to eliminate duplication; that is, wherever possible the frequently repeated publications of the same specimen have been brought together and equated. Modern writers dealing with Visigothic numismatics have often failed to realize that a specimen first published, for example, by Augustin in 1587 is the identical specimen described in several 18th century publications and even in certain 20th century catalogues. This failure to recognize, or to make provision for, these duplications has heretofore resulted in a great swelling of the total number of specimens, and an entirely false impression of the commonness, of many issues. The numerous relationships between various collections and descriptions are made apparent in the corpus and are in some instances remarked on in the bibliography.1 A good example, among countless others, of the repeated publication of the same specimen is No. 211, the unique coin of Suinthila struck at Narbona, now in the former Vidal Quadras y Ramón collection, successively described or mentioned by Lelewel, Piot, Meynaerts, Boudard,
Aside from the combined corpus and catalogue of the Hispanic Society collection, the present work contains a body of historical, geographical and numismatic commentary which, it is hoped, may serve to enhance the usefulness of the volume as a comprehensive
Because of the very large number of forgeries and fabrications of Visigothic coins that exists, and because of the difficulty of recognizing most of these, it was believed that a detailed listing and generous illustration of the known spurious dies would be welcome. Accordingly an appendix (pp. 447–498) and six plates (A—F), devoted to this parasitical scourge of Visigothic numismatics, have been included. I am indebted to Spink and Son, Ltd., for permission to reproduce illustrations from Hill's Becker the Counterfeiter.
A future volume of the Hispanic Numismatic Series will be devoted to the collection of some one hundred and seventy early Visigothic (pre-autonomous), Suevian and Burgundian coins in the collection of The Hispanic Society of
Wherever I have turned for help in gathering the material for the present work I have met with the most heartening response and generosity from individuals and institutions, and it is now my privilege and pleasure to acknowledge some of these courtesies. I am deeply indebted to Pio Beltrán Villagrasa of Valencia for his ready response to my many inquiries and especially for the time-consuming trouble he took to write out for me copies of his inventories of the Cervera collection and of the hoard of La Capilla; Professor Felipe Mateu y Llopis of Barcelona, that indefatigable authority on Spanish numismatics, has met every request for information with unfailing courtesy;
Elsewhere on the Continent, museum curators have most generously supplied me with photographs or plaster-casts of coins in their care, and in this connection I should like especially to mention:
As on many other occasions I take pleasure in expressing my appreciation to the Keeper of the Department of Coins and Medals in the
In this country I have been privileged to study several small public and private Visigothic collections in addition to those of The Hispanic Society of
Finally, may I take this opportunity to express publicly my admiration of the technical competence of the die-cutters, compositors and pressmen of the firm of
The early Visigothic, i.e., pre-autonomous, coins are excluded from these totals.
E.g., sometimes Leyrens = Gabriel = Augustin = Velazquez = Florez = Gússeme = Biblioteca Real or Bibliotoca Nacional = Museo Arqueológico Nacional;
Cf. the entry "Madrid" in the bibliography.
The present work was already in the hands of the printer when Mateu y Llopis' illustrated "Las monedas visigodas del Instituto de Valencia de Don Juan (Madrid), Ampurias, XIII (1951), appeared on this side of the Atlantic. While it has been possible to add references to this inventory during the course of correcting the proofs of the corpus, infra, confident attributions of the varieties of some of the specimens is precluded because of the quality of the half-tone plates and the lack of textual transcriptions of the legends.
The names and short titles used in the corpus and throughout the book are here arranged in strictly alphabetical order. In some instances bibliographical details are followed by comment on the nature of the work or its relation to other publications. Entries referring to unpublished collections contain the pertinent facts with reference to provenance, etc., where such facts are known. For certain general historical works, not included here, see p. 21.
The following books and articles, evidently containing descriptions of Visigothic coins or other material pertinent to the present work, have not been available to me. In some cases references to these publications in other literature have enabled me to include the coins in question in the corpus.
Cf. the circumstantial account in Reinhart, Weitere Fälschungen, p. 389; also I have details in personal communications from Professor Mateu y Llopis himself.
Cf. Beltrán, p. 442; Elias Garcia, Egitânia, p. 15.
In the second year of his reign, between August 2 and mid-November, 568,2 Liuva I, resident in Narbonne, transferred the government of Dux in Toledo.3 This unequally divided rule lasted until Liuva's death (some time between December, 571, and early March, 572),4 after which Leovigild continued as sole ruler. Leovigild's two marriages were politically expedient.
His first appears to have been with Theodosia, daughter of Severian, Byzantine governor of Carthaginensis;1 on her death, he married (569) Godsuinta (Gonsuinthe, Goisvintha, etc.), widow of his own brother Athanagild, the predecessor of Liuva on the throne. Of the first marriage were born Hermenegild and Reccared, to whom, on the death of Liuva, Leovigild allotted portions of the kingdom (Septimania and Toledo) as consortes.
From the outset Leovigild demonstrated remarkable qualities as leader, administrator and general, and he appears to have attacked the political and military problems of his reign with equal vigor. He was the unifier of the nation and without doubt the outstanding personality among the Visigothic kings of
Leovigild transferred the capital definitively from Narbonne to Toledo; then, in 570, he directed his attention southward and recovered Malaga and the region of Bastetania (Baeza) from the Byzantine authorities; in 571 he took Asidonia; in 572 he reduced an insurrection in and around Cordoba; in 573 he was active on the Suevian border in southeastern Gallaecia (Sabaria); in 574 in Cantabria; in 575 in the region south of Asturia; in 576 he was grappling with the Suevians; in 577 he was again in the southeast dealing with a rebellion in Orospeda; from 579 to 584 he was coping with the major internal problem of his reign, the suppression of Catholic revolts, in particular with the crisis which ended in the defeat of his rebellions son Hermenegild in the latter year (see the articles on the mints of Ispali and Cordoba). In 580 Leovigild's strategy included a convocation of Arian bishops in an effort to bring about a compromise between the faiths. In 581 he had to deal with a Basque insurrection; in 584–585 he came to final grips with the Suevians, defeating the usurper Andeca, capturing Portocale and Bracara, and putting an end to the rival kingdom of Suevia. At the very end of his reign his son Reccared
Leovigild's name appears on the coins:2
(a) an mintless issues: LIVVIGILDI REGIS, DN LIVVIGILDVS REX and RE, LIVVIGILDVS. Type H has REX INCLITVS (and variations) on the reverse.
(b) on mint-name issues: with and without DN, LIVVIGILDVS, LEOVIGILDVS, LEVVIGILDVS, with or without REX or RE.
Epithets are PIVS, IVSTVS, VICTOR (VICTORIA, VICTI).
For full historical accounts of Historia de España, III, España Visigoda (Madrid, 1940), especially pp. VII—LV, 3–140 (bibliographies at the end of each chapter); Antonio Ballesteros y Beretta, Historia de España y su influencia en la historia universal, I (Barcelona-Buenos Aires, 1943), pp. 821–885 (bibliographies, pp. 886–896, 968–987); Historia de España desde la invasión de los pueblos germánicos hasta la ruina de la monarquía visigoda (in Antonio Cánovas del Castillo, Historia general de España ) (Madrid, 1891); Die Kirchengeschichte von Spanien (Regensburg, 1874); Ferdinand Lot, Christian Pfister, FranÇois Ganshof, Histoire du moyen âge, I, Les destinées de l'Empire en Occident de 395 à 888 (passim, and especially pp. 166–173, 233–253; Rafael Altamira, "The Cambridge Medieval History, II (
An alleged marriage with the Frankish Rigunta of Rouen is unlikely.
Not all writers are in agreement on Visigothic chronology. In general I have followed Karl Zeumer's Die Chronologie der Westgothenkönige des Reiches von Toledo.
The name Leovigild is thought to signify either "Löwenheld" (lion-hero) or "Liebling des Volkes" (beloved of the people). Leovigild, pp. 132–133.
Fita puts the date in 569 or 570; Fernández-Guerra in 573.
Son of Leovigild by Theodosia, Hermenegild3 received a share of the kingdom4 at the time of Liuva's death. His marriage to Ingundis (Ingonthe, Ingunda) daughter of Sigebert, King of Australia, and Brunhild (Brunehaut), daughter of Athanagild, vitally influenced not only his own life but the internal security of the kingdom, for Ingundis was a Catholic, and under her persuasion5 and that of Bishop Leander of Seville, Hermenegild in 579 renounced Arianism, embraced the Church of Rome and rebelled against his father. As Dux of predominantly Catholic Baetica, Hermenegild was able to hold out, first in Seville and later in Cordoba, against Leovigild until the year 584, when he was taken prisoner, exiled first to Valencia and then to Tarraco, where, on April 13, 585, he was beheaded by Duke Sigisbert
Hermenegild's coins were undoubtedly struck at Seville, where he declared his independence. There are two types,1 one with the reverse legend INCLIT(I) REGI, the other reading REGIADEOVITA.2 The first legend copies Leovigild's common type H; the meaning of the second has been much disputed. The ingenious interpretation given by Morales and repeated by many other writers since the end of the 16th century3 to the effect that the legend refers to the passage in Paul's Epistle to Titus (III, 10), reading Haereticum hominem post unam, et secundum correptionem devita ("A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition, reject") — so apt in the circumstances of Hermenegild's revolt against his Arian father — is based entirely on Morales' own misreading of the coin, "REGEM DEVITA"; no such legend exists, and this explanation cannot therefore be accepted. Likewise founded on an entirely mistaken reading is an interpretation involving an abbreviation of "in nomine domini victor." The only likely reading, in my opinion, is that proposed by
We may reasonably date Hermenegild's first type from ca. 580. The second, assuming some connection between the siege of Ispali and the meaning of the reverse legend, may be dated 583, or possibly 584.
Fernández-Guerra's frequent misuse of the coins ("commemorative medals") in attempting to reconstruct the history of Leovigild's campaigns has been adequately criticized by some later historians (see, for example, Manuel Torres in Menéndez Pidal, pp. 100–101), but many writers, lacking adequate knowledge of the coinage — especially of the sequence of types during Leovigild's reign — continue to repeat these errors.
In these summaries of the regal inscriptions, A and other mediaeval letterforms are normalized, and only the chief varieties of spelling and abbreviation are given. For the literal transcriptions of the legends, see the catalogue.
The coins give ERMENEGILD(I), doubtless the correct spelling; but in deference to long-established tradition I have used the later mediaeval and modern aspirated form.
He and his brother Reccared are said to have been assigned Septimania and Toledo, but it has never been clear which son received which province.
Doubtless an important factor in this episode was the jealousy and rivalry of Ingundis and her grandmother Godsuinta (Leovigild's queen), the latter an ardent Arian. There is reason to believe that Leovigild himself was not fanatically opposed to his son's marriage to a Catholic, but that it was rather Godsuinta's efforts to convert Ingundis to Arianism that fortified the latter's own faith and influenced Hermenegild to be baptized as a Catholic.
Second son of Leovigild by Theodosia, Reccared succeeded to the throne (apparently not by election but by probably unanimous "consent") on the death of his father between April 13 and May 8, 586. He is reported to have been the first Visigothic king to be both anointed and crowned.5 From about 572, as previously related, he had shared in Leovigild's rule, and throughout the latter's lifetime he appears to
It was to be expected that Reccared's conversion would bring Arian dissatisfaction in its wake, and between 587 and 589 Reccared had to cope with at least three uprisings, one in Septimania, one in Lusitania, and a third (suppressed before it had achieved any success) in which Reccared's step-mother, Godsuinta, was involved; and on several occasions the king was engaged in putting down Basque insurrections. In 589 the Frank Guntram was again, and definitively, defeated; and in 590 a palace revolt required attention. But Reccared's decisive defeat of the Franks and his alliance with the Byzantine Maurice Tiberius1 gave the kingdom external security, and the latter years of the reign were relatively peaceful. Reccared died a natural death at Toledo between December 1 and 26, 601.
In the later Middle Ages Reccared was known as "The Catholic," but there is no evidence of his bearing this title during his lifetime, although John Biclarensis calls him "Christianissimus Reccaredus."
Reccared's name appears on the coins as: RECCAREDVS (occasionally as RECCARIDVS and RECCAREDVC) REX or RE. DN precedes the name at Emerita only. Epithets and commemmorative words are: PIVS, IVSTVS, VICTOR (VECTOR, VICTORIA) at Emerita, Totela, Bergancia, Calabacia (Calapa), Pincia, Tornio and Tude, and FELIX (Narbona).
Historians (e.g., Görres, Hermenegild, pp. 27–28) have interpreted the reverse Victory as signifying Hermenegild's expectation of triumphing over his father. This is, of course, nonsense; Hermenegild was simply following Visigothic numismatic tradition.
Misreadings of this legend are discussed in the catalogue, p. 200.
See the catalogue, No. 47, for references to the literature; among more recent scholars, loc. cit.
Regi a Deo Vita "exprimait peut-être la crainte d'un régne trop court pour la foi catholique."
Cf. Rekared, p. 279.
Liuva, eighteen year old ignoble (therefore probably illegitimate) son of Reccared, succeeded to the throne, evidently by election, upon his father's death. In the second year of his reign (some say on December 29, 602) the young king was deposed by a group of nobles headed
Liuva's name appears on the coins as LIUVA (commonly), LEOVA (Barcinona), and LEVVA (Portocale) REX, and is usually preceded by DN. Epithets are PIVS and IVSTVS.
Sympathy for Roman tradition is reflected in Reccared's adoption of the name "Flavias".
Witteric, who had participated in Bishop Sunna's Arian uprising in Lusitania in 588, attempted to restore Arianism to the kingdom,2 waged a minor war against the Byzantines (he drove the garrison out of Sagontia), and unsuccessfully sought alliances with the kings of Burgundy, Metz and Lombardy. His ineffective life ended in violence, probably in March, 609,3 when he was assassinated at a banquet in Toledo by a group of presumably Catholic protagonists.
Witteric's name is spelled on the coins: VVITTERICVS and VVITTI--RICVS (occasionally VVITTIRICOS) REX, RE or
Catholicism was restored as the state religion by Gundemar,4 a noble who probably led the restoration movement that culminated in Witteric's assassination. During his short rule he conducted some minor campaigns against the Byzantines and the Vascons, but little else is known of his reign. He died a natural death between February 19 and March 15, 612.
On the coins Gundemar's name is spelled: GVNDEMARVS (Sagunto, Toleto, Mentesa, Eliberri, Ispali, Elvora, Emerita) and GONDEMARVS (Cesaragusta, Tarracona, Tirasona) REX, RE, RI and
Zeumer says perhaps before December 30, 602.
It is curious that this temporary return to the old religion is in no way reflected in the coinage.
Zeumer dates the event between April 6 and May 1, 610, but Fita argues for 609.
Zeumer states that the first proclamation of Gundemar's election probably took place a month or two before Witteric's death, that is, toward the middle of February, 610, according to his reckoning. In any case it appears to have been after October 24, 609, as October 23, 610, according to the disputed Council of Toledo convened by him, fell within the first year of his rule.
The reign of the learned Sisebut, a fervent Catholic, author of a life of St. Desiderius, is distinguished by his successful resumption of the war with the Byzantines. At the time of his accession there were still two groups of towns in Byzantine hands, a large one in the southeast and a smaller in the southwest, i. e., in Algarve. In 615 Sisebut began a campaign in the south which ended in the recovery of the first area, including Cartagena, leaving only Algarve in Greek hands.1 There are furthermore uncertain reports of a campaign in North Africa. He was also active in the suppression of insurrections in the northern mountains, among them a revolt in Asturia and another by the "Ruccones." Sisebut's notorious persecution of the Jews (of obscure motivation, for his intolerance appears not to have been initiated or supported by the Church)2 is a blot on an otherwise distinguished and successful career. His death, between February 3 and 28, 621, may have occurred naturally, or may have been the result of an overdose of some medicine; at all events it appears to have been sudden.
Sisebut's name appears on the coins as: SISEBVTVS or SISIBVTVS (rarely SISIBOTVS, SESEBVTVS) REX, RE, RI. Epithets are PIVS, IVSTVS and (at Lucu) VICTOR.
Son of Sisebut, Reccared II evidently ruled for only two months or less (only a few days, according to St. Isidore), from some time in February to some time in March, 621. A later source asserts that he was associated with his father in the rule of the kingdom for two years prior to Sisebut's death, but in view of the fact that he appears to have been a minor at that time, such an association seems unlikely.
Despite a natural desire to discover sound evidence for the attribution of some coinage to Reccared II,3 I am unable to accept Reinhart's interesting thesis4 that trientes of RECCAREDVS struck at Ispali with the legend ISP ALI PIVS are to be assigned to Reccared II. His argument is based on the following considerations: (a) Sisebut probably spent his winters in Seville, and therefore as he probably died in the winter, it would have been there that Reccared II was
I therefore conclude that no coin of Reccared II has as yet come to light.
See especially Die Byzantinischen Besitzungen, pp. 530–532.
Cf. Bol. de la R. Acad. de la Hist., XLVII (1905), p. 370.
I am sure that most numismatists share with me a perennial hope of finding the coins of obscure rulers whose issues are unknown.
"Monedas visigodas acuñadas por el Rey Reccaredo II," Ampurias VI (1944), pp. 209–214.
Son-in-law of Sisebut, Duke Suinthila was elected king ("by the grace of God," according to St. Isidore) in March, 621. He had already distinguished himself in the field as one of Sisebut's generals in the campaigns in the north, and after his election he added to his military successes by driving the Byzantines from their last outpost in Algarve (624), and by again mopping up in the Basque region. These accomplishments earned him the reputation of being the first Goth to rule all of
On the coins Suinthila's name is most commonly spelled: SVINTHILA, but there are many variations largely attributable to inferior die-engraving: SVINTILA, SINTILA, SINDILA, etc., etc.;1 REX, RE, RI, and
Many with PIVS ISPALI, which incidentally show wide divergencies in style and relief among themselves; and the following with ISPALI PIVS: HSA 16037, BM 13A, Grierson 1075,
E.g., Toleto, Cordoba and Egitania always have PIVS second; Mentesa has MENTESA PIVS under Reccared, Witteric, Gundemar, Suinthila, Egica, and Wittiza, and PIVS MENTESA under Sisebut, Suinthila and Sisenand; Eliberri has ELIBERRI PIVS under Reccared, Ervig and Egica, and PIVS ELIBERRI under Witteric, Gundemar, Suinthila, Chintila, Iudila, Sisenand and Chindasvinth.
Governor of Septimania at the time of his uprising against Suinthila, Sisenand allied himself with the Frank Dagobert and with the assistance of a Frankish army took possession of Cesaraugusta, where he was proclaimed king, presumably after an election. Two years later, on December 5, 633, at the Fourth Council of Toledo, the principle of election to the throne by the assembly of nobles and bishops was reaffirmed, and doubtless in view of Sisenand's acceptance of this doctrine he was permitted to rule without internal dissension until his death on March 12, 636. It has been customary to signalize provisions of this Council as of prime significance in the history of the growing ascendency of the clergy over the crown; but Sisenand's intention probably was simply to justify his own action in dethroning his predecessor.
Sisenand's name appears on the coins most commonly as: SISENANDVS, quite frequently SISINANDVS, SESENANDVS, and sometimes abbreviated by the omission, with or without indicative marks, of the second N;2 REX, RE, RI, and
In one case (Acci, catalogue No. 218 (g), q.v.) his name, written retrograde, gave rise to the idea of an entirely spurious prince " Jajita." This non-existent name appears as "Tajita" in The Cambridge Medieval History, II, p. 193; as "Jajito" in Murphy, p. 12.
I have counted more than 85 epigraphical or orthographical varieties of the name.
The identity of Iudila, only two of whose coins are known,1 remains uncertain. The most plausible identification proposed so far is that Iudila is the same person as Geila, brother of Suinthila, who, according to the acts of the Fourth Council of Toledo (December 5, 633), was excommunicated and deprived of his property because of his faithlessness to his brother and to Sisenand.2 We may be certain at all events that Iudila was a rebel or pretender and that he was a contemporary of Suinthila or Sisenand, for there is no doubt whatever of the similarity in style and fabric of Iudila's coin of Emerita to those of Suinthila and Sisenand at the same mint. As Pio Beltrán has correctly pointed out, the identification3 of Iudila with Bishop Uldila,4 an Arian conspirator whose name is mentioned in the chronicles in connection with the reign of Reccared I, is not only unacceptable in view of the style of the specimen of Emerita but also highly improbable when one considers the composition of the hoard of La Capilla in its entirety.5
Cervera, who acquired the Emerita coin and from whom it passed to the HSA collection, is said to have known of an historical account identifying Iudila, but this documentation, so far as I know, has never been published.6
On the coin of Emerita the name appears clearly as IVDILA REX; on that of Eliberri the legend is described as reading IV·IILA R I⋮ X, which is, in fact, the same, as • I and I⋮ are simply careless engraving (very characteristic of the period) of ɖ and E. The epithet on both coins is PIVS.
Sisenand's death was followed by the election of Chintila, about whose reign we know nothing other than the fact that the Fifth and Sixth Councils of Toledo (in 636 and 639) were convened during this
The spelling of the name on the coins is: CHINTILA (CINTHILA on some coins of Emerita and Eminio, and CINTILA on a unique piece of Petra), REX, RE, and
Eliberri (La Capilla hoard, present ownership unknown), and Emerita (La Capilla hoard, now HSA).
Ampurias 1941, pp. 100–101.
Proposed by Pujol y Camps, Mínguez, Fernández y López, Chabás, etc.
Further confused with a certain Gudila. Cf. Ballesteros, I, p. 870.
See the account of the hoard, pp. 166–171.
The principal discussions of the Iudila problem are contained in La Capilla, pp. 43–64, Chabás in El Archivo V (Valencia, 1891), p. 260, idem, Deutsche Litteraturzeitung, col. 500, Ampurias 1941, pp. 99–101, op.cit., p. 100, footnote 1.
In spite of all the precautions taken by the nobles against hereditary succession, Chintila's son, Tulga, was "elected" to the throne upon his father's death. Of him we know only that he was too young and too weak to control the restless elements of his court, and on April 17, 642, he was deposed and banished to a monastery.
Tulga's name, except at Narbona and Tarracona, is spelled TVLGAN (Latinized for TVLGANVS?), REX, RE, and (at Cordoba on one coin) RES. At the two excepted mints the spelling is TVLGA. Epithets are PIVS and IVSTVS.
After the insurrection that resulted in the deposition of Tulga, Chindasvinth, an extraordinarily vigorous old man of seventy-nine years, was elected king by the nobles and was anointed on April 30, 642. One of his first acts was to secure his position against any revolt similar to that which had established him on the throne, to which end he is alleged to have executed or deprived of their freedom 200 nobles and 500 others. The Seventh Council of Toledo, October 18, 646, tacitly condoned his acts, while providing further severe penalties for various forms of treason, including clerical connivance. Although ruthless in his political acts, Chindasvinth is remembered in the chronicles as a patron of letters and a generous benefactor of the Church; and it was during his reign that the preliminary work for the unification of the Visigothic judicial structure was accomplished. In the military field a Basque campaign is recorded, and a unique coin of Emerita with the word VICTOR implies that some kind of warlike success in Lusitania was achieved in Chindasvinth's time.
Having consolidated his own position, Chindasvinth took a further extraordinary step toward absolute hereditary monarchy by formally
de facto ruler. It is interesting to note that in the joint coinage Chindasvinth's name appears on the obverse at Toleto, implying that he is the de jure senior member of the partnership; but that in Ispali and Emerita Chindasvinth's name is relegated to the reverse and Reccesvinth takes the preeminent place on the obverse.
Chindasvinth's name is spelled in many different ways on the coins: CHINDASVINTHVS, CHIND(A)SVIND, CHIND(A)SVID, CHINDASVINTS, CINDASVINTVS, CINDASVINTS, CINDASVINTH, CINDASVINT, and many combinations in which use is made of the ligatures theta and T are used, e.g., C
The remarkable numismatic innovation of Chindasvinth's rule is, of course, the use of a mint monogram in the reverse area in place of a bust. The practical reason for this new development, aside, from any other influence that may have been responsible for the use of monograms on the coins,1 was the displacement of the mint-name from the border occasioned by the necessity of placing Reccesvinth's name in that position.
The long independent rule of Reccesvinth, son of Chindasvinth, began upon his father's death on September 30, 653, but as related above he became virtual ruler as early as January 20, 649, when his father shared the throne with him. During Chindasvinth's lifetime (651) Reccesvinth had succeeded in suppressing a serious insurrection led by a noble named Froya (Froja) and participated in by the always rebellious Vascons. Despite this threat to the security of the throne
The greatest achievement of Reccesvinth's reign was the completion of the recodification and unification of Visigothic and Roman law, begun during Chindasvinth's lifetime. The Liber Judiciorum (or Forum
Judicum)1 was concluded about 654. In the compilation of this code Reccesvinth himself took an active part (it is frequently called the Lex Reccesvindiana), and there is other evidence of his close association with the prominent intellectual and religious figures of his time. Two other Councils of Toledo, the Ninth and Tenth (655 and 656), bear testimony to this vigorous ruler's concern with matters of state and Church. With all these constructive activities, however, as Manuel Torres has pointed out, there are signs during this period of the demoralization and disintegration of the army, which little more than a generation later paved the way for the easy conquest of the kingdom by the Moslems.2 Another factor eventually affecting the internal security of the state was the continued relentless persecution of the Jews.
Reccesvinth died September 1, 672, in a villula named Gerticos (locality uncertain) some 120 miles from Toledo and evidently not far from Valladolid.
The commonest spelling of Reccesvinth's name on the coins is RECCESVINΘVS (the theta taking the several forms Θ, ⦶, ⊙ and O); others are RECCESVINΘ, RECCESVINTVS, RECCESVINDVS, and R(E)CCISV(I)NT(V)S (Ispali). The only ligature used is
E.g., a resurgence of the influence of Byzantium, where cruciform monograms (but not for mint-names) had been in use for some time.
Also known as the Leges Visigothorum, Liber Judicis, Liber Judicum, Forum Juridicum; cf. Speculum, 1951, p. 2.
Cf.
Immediately following the death of Reccesvinth, and in the same locality where this event took place, an election was held that resulted in the choice of Wamba, a noble of advanced age. He was anointed by Bishop Quirico at Toledo on September 1, 672. Wamba's reign is filled with warlike events. While engaged in the suppression of the usual rebellion among the Vascons the king received word of another serious uprising in Septimania led by Hilderic, Count of Nîmes. To cope with this new threat the king sent one of his generals, Duke Paul, across the Pyrenees to bring the count and his several allies to heel. Paul welcomed the assignment for he had already planned a revolt on his own account, and while he took possession of Narbonne in the king's name he thereupon declared the election of Wamba null and void, had himself elected king and was recognized as such in all of Septimania and a large part of Tarraconensis. However, Wamba immediately taking vigorous action proceeded to recover Barcelona and Gerona in Tarraconensis, as well as Narbonne and other cities in Septimania which had declared for Paul; and finally, on September 2, 673, he captured the rebel, who had entrenched himself in the amphitheater at
This critical uprising resulted in appendices to the code of Reccesvinth (673), designed to strengthen discipline within the army and to reestablish the old military obligations of the citizenry, nobles and clergy to the crown. Furthermore, as the rebellion was apparently supported by Jewish elements, further strict anti-Semitic measures were promulgated by the king. Laxity and abuses among the clergy led to ecclesiastical reforms enunciated in the Eleventh Council of Toledo in 675.
The internal troubles in the north were not Wamba's only military concern, for there are indications that during his reign the first Arab threat appeared at the southern extremity of the kingdom. We have no reliable details, but there are later reports to the effect that Wamba drove off an attempted Arab landing on the southern shore of the peninsula, sinking 270 enemy ships.
On October 14, 680, Wamba was deposed by a palace clique presumably headed by the courtier Ervig. There seems to be little doubt that Wamba retired to the Monastery of Pampliega, near Burgos, where he lived quietly until his death (before November, 683); but one cannot take too seriously the 9th century story of the circumstances of his deposition. He is alleged to have been given a dose
Wamba's name is spelled VVAMBA, occasionally VVANBA. Except at Tarracona, where the legend is simply VVAMBA REX, the name is preceded by various abbreviations and renderings of the formula — used henceforth to the end of the kingdom — In Dei nomine (I·D·N·M·N· or IND·IN·M·E, etc., etc.), and followed by
On the day following the deposition of Wamba, the chief conspirator, Ervig, reportedly of Byzantine descent and related through his mother to Chindasvinth and Reccesvinth,2 was elected to the throne; on October 21, 680, he was formally anointed. His reign is chiefly memorable for the various steps he took at the Twelfth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Councils of Toledo (681, 683, 684) to secure his position by means of concessions to the nobles, including more lenient modifications of Wamba's military law, by pardoning Duke Paul and other rebels, and by proclaiming the doctrine of the inviolability of the person of the king and his family. These expedients themselves, in conjunction with the state of the realm which necessitated them, are clear indications of the progressive decline of Visigothic unity and control.
There is some uncertainty with regard to the actual circumstances which brought Ervig's rule to a close, but it appears that shortly before his death, on November 15, 687, Ervig named his son-in-law Egica as his successor.
Ervig's name is invariably spelled ERVIGIVS and is followed most commonly by In Dei nomine, in many forms of abbreviation,
For a thorough and critical examination of the sources and an analysis of the circumstances of Wamba's deposition, and especially of Bishop Julian's alleged part in the conspiracy, see Murphy, passim, and in particular, pp. 16, 18. Murphy rejects the tale of the poisoning as well as the story of Wamba's seven-year monastic retirement.
Murphy (p. 20) doubts that Ervig was a conspirator, and is skeptical about his supposed lineage (p. 18).
One of the first acts of Egica, husband of Ervig's daughter Cixilona (Cixila) and a relative of Wamba, was to cast off his wife and marry another woman, an act which, together with other persecutions of Ervig's family, brought about an unsuccessful revolt on the part of Sisbert, Metropolitan of Toledo, who was related to Cixilona.1 An enactment of the Fifteenth Council of Toledo (688) provided Egica with the necessary exemption from the obligation to protect the family of his predecessor. During Egica's reign (Seventeenth Council of Toledo, 694) we learn of further drastic legislation against the Jews, this time of purely political motivation, certain Jews having, it appears, conspired with Arab elements in North Africa to encourage the invasion of the peninsula. Further work was done on the code of the Forum Judicum, including revisions of Wamba's and Ervig's provisions relating to the organization of the army, and once more the perennial and now purely theoretical problem of loyalty to the crown. One gains the impression that there were still further insurrections and that insecurity prevailed amid an atmosphere of national moral deterioration and corruption.
Sometime about the year 698,2 Egica formally associated his son Wittiza with him on the throne, having previously named him heir apparent and Dux of Gallaecia, with residence in Tude. Egica himself died apparently between November 14 and December 31, 702.
On Egica's coins struck during his sole rule his name is invariably spelled EGICA and is usually followed by In Dei nomine formula always precedes the name and is rendered in a great many ways and variously abbreviated,
In Christi nomine, the abbreviation usually being IN+ PINM, etc., where +P stands for Greek Chr. The Greek delta occurs at Ispali. Epithets in addition to VICTOR, mentioned above, are PIVS and IVSTVS.
During the joint rule with Wittiza, the spelling of Egica's name is as before, and the introductory formula is In Dei nomine. The legend terminates either with
Murphy (p. 18) points out the inconsistency implicit in the report that it was Wamba (dead at the time of the Thirteenth Council of Toledo, 683) who instigated Egica's repudiation of Cixilona; and hence casts doubt on the whole episode as an invention.
The exact date is in doubt; some say 700 (cf.
We owe to Pio Beltrán the almost certain identification of Suniefred, pretender and rebel against Egica, who struck the unique triens of Toleto published by Engel in 1898.1 Among the duces who signed the acts of the Thirteenth Council of Toledo in 683 were Egica Comes
Scanciarum and Suniefredus Comes Scanciarum, the former doubtless the later king, the latter in all probability the person in whose name the coin in question was issued. In Canon IX of the Sixteenth Council of Toledo (May, 693) we learn of the excommunication and deposition of Bishop Sisbert (see above, under Egica), who had succeeded St. Julian at Toledo in March, 690. The reason for his disgrace was his support of a rebellion against Egica. To judge by the circumstance that the Sixteenth Council was delayed in convening because of the necessity of appointing a new Metropolitan to displace the disloyal Sisbert, this insurrection must have taken place shortly before the address from the throne (April 25, 693), in other words
The name on the single coin known is spelled SVNIEFREDVS, and is preceded by the abbreviated In Dei nomine formula, D·
The earlier proposals of Engel and Mowat (see the bibliography in the catalogue at No. 454), identifying Suniefred with (a) Cuniefredus (Cunifredus, Cunefridus, etc.) Comes Spatariorum, a palace functionary who was among the signers of the acts of the Eighth Council of Toledo in 653, or (b) an unknown rebel in the early days of Wamba's reign, perhaps associated with Duke Paul, should now be abandoned.
While the date November 14, 700, is given in one source as that of the anointing of Wittiza as king, it would seem likely that the joint rule with his father began as early as 698 (see above, p. 36). At all events his sole rule began with Egica's death late in 702. The course of history during the period from Egica's death until the end of the kingdom is obscure in the extreme and has been rendered the more so by the perpetuation of many legends of later date relating to the last days of the Visigoths and the Arab conquest.1 The loss of the acts of the Eighteenth Council of Toledo (704) deprives us of our chief source of reliable information for these years. It does appear certain that early in his reign Wittiza pardoned all those who had suffered persecution or punishment under his father — an indication perhaps of weakness rather than of Christian clemency; and that like all of his immediate predecessors he was forced to cope with serious insurrection within the kingdom. One conspirator whom he is said to have blinded was Theodofred, Duke of Cordoba; another, a certain Pelagius (Pelayo), son of Duke Fafila, who had revolted against Wittiza because the latter when resident in Tude had with his own hand killed his father Fafila. An alleged defeat of the Arabs (or the
Wittiza's name is invariably spelled VVITTIZA (second T and I, and final A very rarely omitted)2 both on the joint issues with Egica and on his own coins as sole ruler. On the joint issues the name is
In Dei nomine formula (IDN, INMNE, INDINE, IDINME, INDINME, INDENME, etc., etc.) occurs on some, but not all, of the joint coins of Narbona, Mentesa, Cordoba, Egabro, Eliberri, Ispali, Tucci, Egitania, Emerita and Salmantica. On the coins of Wittiza's sole rule, the name is followed by In Dei nomine formula, variously abbreviated INDNNE, INDNN, IDNMNE, IDNNE, IDINME, DNM, etc., etc., sometimes with points indicating omitted letters. Ligatures include
For the critical literature on these legends, see
It is curious that Manuel Torres spells the name Vitiza, when the overwhelming evidence of the coins, which are after all the only reliable contemporary documents, shows that the name was spelled Wittiza.
The career of Roderic is even more obscured by legends than that of his predecessor Wittiza. The familiar and now largely discredited tale of Roderic's violation of Count "Julian's"1 daughter Florinda (or La Cava), the consequent collaboration of the Count with the Arabs, the circumstances of Roderic's death, and the supposed discovery of his grave in Viseu in the 9th century, have been much discussed, and all these matters have been submitted to searching criticism.2 The verified facts are few. Immediately after Wittizak death (probably early in 710) the assembly of nobles and bishops elected Roderic, then Dux of Baetica, to the throne. Thereupon, a revolt of the "Wittiza party" ensued, led presumably by Oppa, Metropolitan of Seville, who is believed to have been Wittizak brother. Civil war followed, with Wittizak son Achila (see below) claiming the throne in the north. According to one school of thought, however, the Wittiza faction was unable to sustain its cause against Roderic's forces, and Oppa (as well as Achila, some say; but see below) fled to
On the coins (limited so far as we know to Toleto and Egitania) Roderic's name, preceded by I
Urban, Urbain, Olban, Ulban, Alyan, Ulyan, etc., a Berber chief of Christian religion, or, more probably, the Byzantine exarch of Septem (Ceuta). For a summary of the many theories, cf. Histoire, I, p. 11.
For the extensive bibliography, cf. Ballesteros, pp. 895–896, Recherches sur l'histoire et la litérature de l'Espagne pendant le moyen áge (3rd ed.), I, pp. 1–72.
The life of Achila, like that of Roderic, is clothed in obscurity. The most important evidence of his existence is numismatic. A few facts are relatively certain : one of three sons of Wittiza,4 he had been named, during his father's lifetime, Dux of Tarraconensis and Septimania, doubtless with the intention that he should succeed to the rule. Roderic's election and Achila's claim to the throne, supported by his
The numismatic evidence, which is of such importance in this connection, suggests that Achila did in fact maintain a certain independence in the north for several years. He struck coins of at least two types at Narbona, and he issued others at Gerunda and Tarracona in Tarraconensis. ca. 711–719; (d) that Achila's coins of Tarracona4 were issued between 711 and 713 or 714. In general I would agree with these conclusions, but would modify them somewhat.5 I see no reason
Achila's name is spelled on the coins ACHILA. On at least three of the specimens, points (⋮and⋮) are introduced between A and C, and on one specimen a single point occurs between I and L. These points can hardly signify omitted letters (as they frequently did in the earlier Visigothic coinage), but what significance, if any, they have is uncertain. Such apparently meaningless points sometimes are met with on coins of Suinthila, Sisenand and Chintila. Achila's name is followed by P+ and is preceded by the In Dei nomine formula, debased to
The remarkable hybrid Arab coppers of Ṭanjah (Tangier) with busts of Visigothic type must have been struck at about this time or a little later (H. Lavoix, Catalogue des monnaies musulmanes de la Bibliothèque Nationale, I, idem, "Monnaie arabe au type visigoth," RNB, 1860, pp. 239–241, Longpérier, op, cit, in bibliography, and Umayyads, p. 21. There is also a specimen in the Royal Cabinet in
Preserved in the Arab chronicles. Cf. Recherches, I (3rd ed.), pp. 65ff.
For a full discussion of the locality, see Histoire, I, pp. 16–16.
See his various articles cited in the bibliography and the catalogue, especially "Le roi Achila" in Bulletin de la Commission archéologique de Narbonne, II (1892–1893), pp. 425–445.
Roderic being one of the few Visigothic kings whose names is familiar to the general reader, I have avoided pedantry by conforming with long-established English usage and have used the form Roderic everywhere except in the transcription of the coin legends.
Actually I have been able to account for only seven specimens, but there may be more; see the comment in the catalogue, p. 444, with regard to the extreme difficulty I have had in eliminating duplication of references.
For the identification of Wittiza with the Acosta, and Achila with the Elie (Elye, Elgie) of al-Rāzi, see España Modema, XI (1889), pp. 83–103.
There is in fact only one specimen. Amardel had no knowledge of the specimen of Gerunda.
Pio Beltrán evidently does not consider that the identity of Achila is in any sense certain. He even questions whether Achila was Wittiza's son, and, as for the coins, he is of the opinion that their style shows that they are of the period of Wittiza, "... igual pudieran ser del tiempo de Egica que del de Wittiza." See Ampurias 1941, p. 104, footnote 1. Certainly the debased "art" of these coins is comparable to that of most of the coinage from Egica onward, but I cannot agree that one can possibly discriminate in point of time among the grotesque caricatures on the coinage during the last twenty-odd years of the Visigothic kingdom. Supporting the attribution of Achila's coins to the very end of the series, Amardel has pointed out, is the extreme corruption of the In Dei nomine formula.
Leovigild: The obverses of Leovigild's autonomous "mintless" trientes bear busts facing right (types 1 a-d, and several variations), with a cross on the breast. These busts developed from those of the earlier anonymous trientes of Leovigild and his predecessors on which appear the names of Justinus I, Justinian and Justinus II, these in turn evolving from the trientes in the name of Anastasius struck toward the end of the Visigothic kingdom of Toulouse and during the first years of the rule in Toledo.2
While these busts face to the right and are therefore in the tradition of the contemporary Byzantine tremisses, it would appear that the breast ornamentation (such as it is) develops rather from the Byzantine solidi with facing busts; at least the bust types 1 a and 1 c suggest this evolution. The circle on the left "shoulder" (right, to the viewer) probably derives from the knot on the left shoulder of the emperor which appears at least as early as Zeno,3 while the corresponding circle on the other shoulder may at first have been suggested by the finger of the hand holding the scepter, later misunderstood and stylized to balance the first.4 The several styles of related busts are doubtless
The reverses of all Leovigild's "mintless" coins bear the grotesque, characteristically Visigothic stylized "Victory" striding right (at this date more resembling an insect than the goddess)
The types listed and illustrated on pp. 54–66 are to a considerable degree generalized and conventionalized. Examination of the plates will reveal that there are many modifications and variations which it would be impracticable to represent as distinctive sub-types; but at least the principal traits of Visigothic iconography are provided for in this scheme, and despite the fact that numerous variations are not represented, the reader will be better able to identify a given type by reference to this classification than by the customary simple "buste de face," "busto de perfil," "busto diademado," etc.
The development of these busts can most conveniently be studied in Reinhart's plates: Deutsches Jahrbuch für Numismatik, 1938, pl. 7; ibid. 1940/41, pls. 7, 9, 10, 11; Archivo Español de Arqueologia, 1945, figs. 1, 2, 4; and cf. for similar degeneration of imperial busts among the Merovingians, Deutsches Jahrbuch für Numismatik, 1939, pls. 3–4.
Cf. Tolstoī, Monnaies Byzantines, pls. 9–10.
For various degrees of similar stylization of these "knots" see such Frankish imitations of Anastasius as those of the "Trésor de Chinon" (Charles Robert in Annuaire de la Société FranÇaise de Numismatique et d'Archéologie, VI (1882), pl. IV.
Bust type 1 c, with the "Victory" reverse, also occurs on the earliest issue of Toleto on which the name of the mint appears (the unique coin published by Florez).4 Thereafter, not only at Toleto, but also at Barcinona, Cesaragusta, Rodas, Tirasona, Reccopolis, Ispali, Italica, Elvora and Emerita, there are issues of Leovigild with the same bust (1 c) on the obverse but with a new reverse, the cross on four steps
With the introduction of this new reverse type we arrive at a point d'appui for the discussion of the chronology of Leovigild's coins. The cross-on-steps reverse cannot date before the very end of 578 or the beginning of 579, for Tiberius' issue of this type occurred between September and November, 578.5 We must, therefore, date Leovigild's Victory reverse types to the ten years between 568 and 578, the most probable approximate break-down of these earlier types being: (a) the
ca. 574;1 (b) Types A-C (Nos. 1–3 in the catalogue), with the names of Justinus II (or the like) and Leovigild, ca. 575–576; (c) Types D-G (Nos. 4–7 in the catalogue), with Leovigild's name on both obverse and reverse, also ca. 575–576; (d) Type H (No. 8 in the catalogue), with REX INCLITVS on the reverse, ca. 576–578. While the comprehensive dates for the "mintless" issues can be accepted as quite secure, the particular chronology for the several groups is presented with great reserve, for one must eonsider the probability that several of these types were being struck simultaneously at different mints, as Reinhart has suggested.
For the rest of Leovigild's issues I propose the following chronology.2 The coins with bust to the right (type 1 c) obverse, and crosson-steps reverse, were struck at the mints named between 579 and 584 at the latest. During this period we have the following more or less certain date indications from non-numismatic sources that enable us to fix the dates of the cross-on-steps reverse:3 Rodas, ca. 581; Emerita, late 582; Italica, 582 or 583; Ispali, 584. For the other mints at which the 1 c/cross-on-steps type was issued (Barcinona, Cesaragusta, Tirasona, Reccopolis, Toleto, Elvora), we have no sure external chronological guide, but the dates cannot be later than 584, because : (a) the new facing busts were introduced at Cordoba in 584 (see the history of the city, p. 106), and (b) all these mints (except Tirasona), as well as Rodas, Ispali and Emerita, issued coins with facing busts after abandoning the 1 c/cross-on-steps type. Two years (584–586) is the minimum we can allow for the types with facing busts; at Ispali there are various combinations of facing busts after 584, the year in which the first Gum Deo obtinuit Spali (etc.) coins of 1 c/cross-onsteps type were struck. There is one other quite certain historical event that supports this chronology: the coin of Portocale with facing busts, which in all probability dates from the year 585.4 Aside
Cf. Reinhart's attempts in D.J.f.N., 1940/41, pp. 81–84, and in A.E.d.A., 1945, pp. 226–230.
Cf. Reinhart's articles referred to above, Madrid, pp. 139 ff., and Stefan, pp. 108–110, for the proposed dating of these earlier types.
Cf. D.J.F.N., 1939, p. 40, and idem, "El Arte monetario Visigodo," Boletin del Seminario de Estudios de Arte y Arqueología (Valladolid), X (1943–1944), p. 54.
I am not in complete agreement with Reinhart's dating or with Cabré's arguments in Zorita de los Canes, although I have of course taken their discussions into consideration, as well as the earlier arguments of Görres and the fanciful Fernandez -Guerra.
For Reinhart's criticism of Mateu y Llopis' emphasis on Byzantine influences in the "art" of the earlier Visigothic coinage ("El Arte monetario Visigodo," A,E.d.A., 1943, pp. 172–193), see the former's article in the Boletín (Valladolid), cited in the footnote immediately above, pp. 53–57, and A.E.d.A., 1945, p. 220.
Cf. the histories of the individual mints and the sketch of Leovigild's career (pp. 21–23) for the documentation.
What became of this specimen? In view of the fact that the coin is unique, that it has never been illustrated except in a drawing, and that its present whereabouts is unknown, it is perhaps proper to question its authenticity.
The description of the coin of Bracara, allegedly with 1 c bust on obverse and reverse is almost certainly wrong (see the catalogue, p. 197). Aside from the fact that the date must be 585, there is no other known example of a coin with profile bust on both obverse and reverse.
B,M.Cat. Imperial Byzantine Coins, I, p. 105, note 2, p. 108, note 1.
It has generally been accepted that in the new types with facing bust on obverse and reverse, the reverse bust represents the heir apparent. Some have been inclined to see in the reverse the portrait of the queen, or of the emperor, but neither proposal is likely.1 Although the concept of representing the son and heir on the reverse almost certainly occasioned the introduction of the two facing busts in Leovigild's time, in the later course of Visigothic history, when opposition to hereditary succession to the throne was repeatedly expressed through legislation and uprisings, it seems scarcely likely that the reverse could have represented the heir apparent; and I imagine that the second bust came simply to be a convention without meaning, or, if the reverse was considered to represent anyone at all, it was thought of as another representation of the ruler.
There appears to be no immediate prototype for the facing busts introduced by Leovigild in the last years of his reign. The ultimate inspiration is certainly from the contemporary Byzantine facing types, but all of Leovigild's facing busts are so original in their appearance that we must essentially credit the Visigoths with the creation of a new numismatic type. It is true that there is one contemporary Merovingian coin with a facing bust quite similar to some of Leovigild's: a tiers certainly correctly attributed to Childebert II (575–596), rather than Childebert I (511–558), first published by par excellence, whereas it was, on the whole, exceptional among the Merovingians.
To return to Leovigild's facing busts, it is to be noted that there are several quite distinctive experimental types at Narbona, Reccopolis and Emerita (3 a-g), while at Cesaragusta the characteristic Tarraconese type (4 a, b, d), which was to persist for a long time to come in this province, is introduced. Elsewhere in Tarraconensis (at Barcinona and Rodas), as well as at Narbona, Reccopolis and mints in Baetica, Lusitania and Gallaecia, there appear several varieties of the simple common Visigothic facing bust with criss-cross breast and rounded or angular neck-line ( 5 a, b, c, h, k, 1, m, aa). At Emerita, in addition to the distinctive types (3 d and e) and the common type (5 1), there is one issue with a reverse somewhat resembling the low bust characteristic of Barcinona under Reccared, Liuva II and Witteric (6 a, d), and finally at the same mint on two issues, the earliest form of the eventual standard Lusitanian (or Emeritan) obverse bust makes its appearance (8 a). At Cordoba we meet with the earliest form of the pleated-toga bust which later in its degenerated skeletonlike guise was to become the conventional Cordoban type (9 a, b).
A distinctive feature of all the facing busts, with the exception of Leovigild's first experimental ones (where in some cases the king appears to be wearing a crown),1 and of some of the childlike busts toward the end of the Visigothic coinage, is the bare head and long flowing locks descending almost to the shoulders in braids or curls on each side of the head. The long hair was the "badge of nobility and perhaps of racial superiority" of the Gothic kings,2 and there is little doubt but that this characteristic of the Visigothic facing bust is a true reflection of the "national" quality of the new coinage; that is, we have here the evidence not only of a divorcement from imperial ties but of the conscious creation of a proud and peculiarly Gothic independence of style.
Cf., for example, RNB 1842, p. 264; Lamecum, pp. 11–13. Contra:
A.E.d.A., XX (1947), pp. 127–128.
Cf. Lot, Pfister & Ganshof, p. 259, Traité, p. 73.
Notice des monnaies franÇaises composant la collection de M. J. Rousseau
,
"Les triens mérovingiens au buste de face," in RN, 1930, pp. 173–190; cf. also idem, "A propos du monnayage mérovingien," in RN, 1939, p. 51.
There are Merovingian facing busts from Chalon-sur-Saone, Compreignac, Diablentas, RN 1930 (pl. VII); cf. also Belfort, nos. 51, 586, 1239, 1331, 1611, 1735, 2117–18, 3372–80, 4249, 4783, 4797; Traité, p. 162, and, for Chalon-sur-Saone, Annuaire de la Société FranÇaise de Numismatique, pp. 37–152, pls. VI-VII. There are some English sceattas with facing busts, almost certainly related to the Merovingian: cf. B.M. Cat. of English Coins, Anglo-Saxon Series, I, nos. 143–150 (pl. III, nos. 14–18).
Beginning with the final issues of Leovigild and extending down through Tulga's coinage, and at some mints even later, there were developed, as indicated above, certain provincial styles. These may be summarized as follows:
A. Tarraconensis: The prevailing type is the quite distinctive Tarraconese bust (type 4), wearing the paludamentum fastened with a fibula, usually on the right shoulder, occasionally on the left (Leovigild and Reccared at Cesaragusta, Reccared at Dertosa and Tirasona). The inspiration is essentially Roman rather than Byzantine. Leovigild's issue of this type at Cesaragusta shows the fibula in the form of a rosette, perhaps indicating a pin encrusted with jewels, resembling some of the fibulae found in Visigothic graves.3 Barcinona did not conform to the type, having under Reccared, Liuva and Witteric a squat bust of its own (6 a, b, c), as noted above in the discussion of Leovigild's types. As no issues of Barcinona are known between Witteric and Egica, one is unable to say whether the mint eventually adopted the Tarraconese type. Gerunda followed the lead of Barcinona under Witteric but conformed to the Tarraconese type under Sisenand and Chintila. Rodas likewise used the type of Barcinona
Outside the province, Narbona makes use of the Tarraconese type in the time of Suinthila and Chindasvinth, but otherwise uses several varieties of the common style of Carthaginensis, Baetica, etc.
B. Carthaginensis: The commonest types are 5 d, e, and f, a simple facing bust, with criss-cross breast, the essential elements being converging oblique lines, the spaces between them filled with a sort of basket-weave or lattice-work of crossing lines. At the capital, Toleto, the usual form is 5 e. Frequently the breast takes the form of two slanting "ladders" meeting at the neck (f). There are several minor varieties: the cross-in-face bust similar to 5 f at Mentesa (5 g), the three-vertical-line bust (5 1) under Tulga at Beatia, and under Liuva at Toleto (5 n), and some other similar crude types resembling Gallaecian issues.
C. Baetica: The general type does not differ essentially from that of Carthaginensis, i. e., the simple facing bust: 5 e or f at Asidona, Barbi, Eliberri, Ispali, Malaca and Tucci. At Ispali under Leovigild there are some distinctive variations: elongated busts (5 h, m), and the angular three-vertical-line bust (51) which is relatively common in other provinces. The mint of Cordoba, in addition to the ordinary 5 e under Suinthila and Sisenand, has a distinctive bust of its own, which first appears under Leovigild (9 a, see above p. 47) and then degenerates into a type (9 b, c) which is characteristic of the mint down to the time of Chindasvinth. The same type is copied at Eliberri under the latter ruler. Chintila introduces a new type at Cordoba, the breast taking the form of a cross (10 a); and this is continued under Tulga and Chindasvinth, and copied under the latter at Eliberri. Also under Chindasvinth and Reccesvinth the breast is sometimes in the form of a wheel, probably in origin a chrismon (10 b), and finally under Reccesvinth only the head remains (10 d, e, f).
D. Lusitania: It has become customary to speak of a "Lusitanian" type, the breast of the obverse bust rounded and suggesting a breastplate (8 a-d), the reverse a peculiarly elongated bust, the lower extremities of which usually project into and interrupt the marginal legend (7). This type appears under various rulers at a number of Lusitanian mints (Egitania, Eminio, Lamego, Valentia, Veseo), but it is so regular and characteristic at Emerita from Reccared down through Chindasvinth that it might more properly be called the
chrismon or cross in the breast (10 c), doubtless inspired by Cordoban types. An extraordinary issue of Sisebut, also at Emerita (No. 194) revives the cross-on-steps of Leovigildan type.
E. Gallaecia: The principal characteristic of the numerous but sparsely represented Gallaecian mints is the crudity of the busts, which are of the common, essentially Carthaginensis facing types, 5 a, d, e, f, i, j, l, n, o, q, t, u, v, w, x, y, z, aa, the most typical perhaps being the somewhat elongated triangular three-vertical-line bust (5 1, n, o, etc.). It is interesting to note, especially in the light of diocesan and administrative circumstances (see the individual mint histories), that at quite a few Gallaecian mints the influence of Lusitania is evident in the occasional appearance of the distinctive "Emeritan" busts, usually on both obverse and reverse, occasionally on one side only: at Bracara under Witteric and Chindasvinth, at Calapa and Fraucello under Chindasvinth, at Celo(?) under Sisebut, at Lucu under Sisebut and Chindasvinth, at Pannonias under Witteric, at Portocale under Sisebut and Suinthila, and at Tude under Reccared, Witteric and Sisebut. At Georres, Suinthila has an issue on which appears a distinctive bust (8 e), doubtless inspired by the Lusitanian obverse. Finally at several Gallaecian mints (Cassavio, Lucu, Mave, Pincia and Toriviana) certain peculiar busts and faces appear, which I have grouped together under type 12 (a, b, c, d, e).
As Reinhart has pointed out,1 there has been a tendency to classify Visigothic coins too rigidly along provincial lines and according to too many type categories. There are, in fact, only four main types: the Tarraconese (with Narbona), the Carthaginensian and Baetican (of which the Gallaecian is a crude variety), the Cordoban, and the Emeritan.2 At all events, it is to be remembered that broadly speaking the "provincial" classification is valid only in the period between Reccared and Reccesvinth.
Taken by some writers to be positive evidence bearing out Isidore's statement to the effect that Leovigild was the first Goth actually to wear a crown. Cf. loc. cit., footnote 1, p. 46, above.
See p. 90, where the mint of Valentia is discussed.
Die Münzen ... von Toledo, pp. 89–90.
Cf. Code," Speculum, 1951, pp. 15–16.
Reinhart prefers three, with the Gallaecian as an "Abart" of the Carthaginensian; but I consider the Cordoban type to be sufficiently distinctive to classify it alone. On the classification of provincial types, see also Suevia, pp. 97–99.
Cf.
Early in the year 649, when Chindasvinth proclaimed his son Reccesvinth as joint ruler, a revolutionary change takes place in the style of Visigothic coinage: the facing bust is abandoned on both obverse and reverse, and in its place the old Leovigildan profile bust (1 c) is revived on the obverse, while on the reverse a mint monogram is introduced. During his independent rule Reccesvinth modifies the type by eliminating the cross on the breast (1 g, h) and restoring to the reverse the cross-on-steps infulas projecting at the back of the head), facing to the right at Ispali (1f) and Emerita (1f, i and j), and also to the left at Ispali (1 e).
These busts in turn give rise to a whole series of busts to the right of quite original types, which I have classified together as type 2, the principal varieties of which number nearly 40. These distinctive profile busts begin with Reccesvinth during Chindasvinth's lifetime at Toleto (2 h) and with independent issues of Reccesvinth at Narbona, Tarracona, Egitania and Bracara; and continue down through Roderic and Achila II. They include both bare-headed and helmeted types (the latter sometimes with a cross surmounting the helmet, and usually with infulas at the rear),2 mostly beardless but some bearded,3 some of quite respectable artisanship but most of extreme crudity. Certain of these perhaps were inspired by contemporary Byzantine models,4 but in general they appear rather to be original Visigothic creations. Wamba is responsible for a further innovation, the bust
Some writers indicate that the reverse is copied from Heraclius' coins, but I see no reason to suppose that the prototype was other than Leovigild's (ultimately Tiberius Constantine's) cross-on-steps. Also, if a contemporary Byzantine model were to be sought, it would be the similar reverse of Constans II (641–668) rather than that of Heraclius.
For a discussion of Gothic helmets and their representation on Visigothic coins, see Los yelmos visigodos.
E.g., types 2 j, gg, ii, possibly influenced so far as the beard is concerned, by some of Constantine IV's coins (
B.M. Cat.Imp. Byz. Coins, n, pl. XXXVI, 3, 9, 10, etc.); cf. Mateu y Llopis, Archivo Esp. de Arqueologia, 1945, pp. 52–53. Reinhart (Germania 1941, p. 191) comments on the emergence of the beard in the later Visigothic period, as contrasted with the clean-shaven appearance of the earlier faces.
Compare, for example, 2 a and d with tremisses of Constantine IV (B.M. Cat. Imp. Byz. Coins, II, pls. XXXVI, 6–7, XXXVIII, 2–5).
Despite Reccesvinth's sweeping changes in iconography, the familiar facing bust is not entirely discarded. Although the profile bust first makes its appearance before Chindasvinth's death, there is one independent issue of Reccesvinth's at Toleto with the facing busts of his predecessors (5 e). We have already noticed some front-view faces under Reccesvinth at Cordoba (10 d, e, f), which probably evolved from earlier facing types there, in which the breast was replaced by a cross or chrismon.2 Also under Wamba, Ervig, Egica, and Wittiza occasional issues appear, especially at Tarracona,3 with facing busts which are reminiscent of the old types (5 e, o, p, q, s, u).
Furthermore, a new series of front-view busts of quite different style evolves, the first appearing at Cordoba under Reccesvinth. These busts I have grouped together under type 11 (a-s), although many of them bear only a slight generic resemblance to each other. Wamba does not employ these types, but varieties appear under Ervig at Cordoba, Eliberri, Ispali, Elvora and Emerita; under Egica at Mentesa, Toleto, Eliberri, Ispali, Emerita and Salmantica; on an exceptional issue under Egica & Wittiza at Gerunda; under Wittiza at Cesaragusta, Gerunda, Toleto and Cordoba; under Roderic at Egitania; and under Achila II at Narbona and Tarracona. One group (roughly 11 a-j) includes grotesque heads, virtually without bodies, some surmounted or backed by a nimbus or cross; and it has been suggested with reason that this type represents the figure of the Saviour.4 It is certainly possible that several of these types, including those in which the arms of the cross look more like the ears of some comic character, were derived from Byzantine models, but in the hands of the Visigothic die-engraver the product is far removed from
B.M.Cat.
Imp.Byz. Coins, II, pl. XXXVIII, 25. Another group, especially 11 n and o, is suggestive of certain Merovingian busts.2
Cf. Mateu y Llopis, loc. cit. in footnote 3, p. 51, above, pp. 47–52.
Is it possible that 10 d and e inspired the heads which appear on some Merovingian coins as far north as Rouen (Civitas Rotomagensium)? Cf. Belfort, no. 3844; an especially good example in Prou & Bougenot, "Cat. des deniers mérovingiens de la trouvaille de Bais," RN 1906–1907, pl. VII, 12.
A few at Barcinona, Cesaragusta and Cordoba.
Cf. Mateu y Llopis, loc.cit. in footnote 3, p. 51, above, pp. 53–54; idem, Inscrpiciones, p. 150, and Ampurias IX-X (1948), p. 438.
Finally, during the joint rule of Egica and Wittiza (ca. 698–702) we meet with an entirely new type — on the obverse confronting busts or figures with scepter or long cross between them, and on the reverse mint monograms (similar to those of the joint rule of Chindasvinth and Reccesvinth). The type, the only one during this period, takes a number of different forms (13 a-n),3 in some of which the busts are quite recognizable as such, while in others the busts are elongated and appear like standing figures having only a remote resemblance to the human form. The commonest is the "three-legged" type (13 f), which appears in several variant forms at a dozen mints in Carthaginensis, Baetica, Lusitania and Gallaecia. Although this Visigothic type is quite distinctive in its barbaric appearance, the concept of representing the two rulers on either side of a cross is again a borrowing from Byzantium; iconographical prototypes may be found among coins of Constantine IV with Constans II's two sons Heraclius and Tiberius on the reverse.4 The resemblance is remote, but the idea is essentially the same. The Visigothic figures are, with one exception, in profile, while the Byzantine are, of course, facing; the exception is an issue of Cordoba (type 13 n), in which the round-headed busts appear fullface, and for which one might seek a special prototype in a copper coin of Constantine IV with Heraclius and Tiberius struck at Rome.5 The coins of Egica & Wittiza doubtless inspired a similar type in the Merovingian kingdom, for example a coin of Vellavorum civitas.6
B.M.Cat.
Imp.Byz.Coins, II, pl. XXXVIII, 15–17, 20–22, 25, etc.
Cf. RN 1930, pl. VII, 24–26, 33–35, RN 1939, p. 51, Traié, I, fig. 260; see also the discussion of possible earlier Merovingian relationships on p. 47, above.
Only the principal sub-types are represented; there are many variations and gradations.
B.M.Cat. Imp.Byz.Coins, II, pl. XXXVI, 1–3, 8–10, pl. XXXVII, 5–11, etc.
Op.cit., pl. XXXVIII, 6.
Belfort, no. 4697 = Robert, pl. VII, 17 = Traité, I, fig. 254. Robert's attribution to the first quarter of the 7th century of course cannot be correct, if the borrowing was from the Visigoths.
1 a
1 b
1 c
1 d
1 e
1 f
1 g
1 h
1 i
1 j
2 a
2 b
2 c
2 d
2 e
2 f
2 g
2 h
2 i
2 j
2 k
2 l
2 m
2 n
2 o
2 p
2 q
2 r
2 s
2 t
2 u
2 v
2 w
2 x
2 y
2 z
2 aa
2 bb
2 cc
2 dd
2 ee
2 ff
2 gg
2 hh
2 ii
2 jj
2 kk
2 ll
3 a
3 b
3 c
3 d
3 e
3 f
3 g
4 a
4 b
4 c
Liuva: Cesaragusta, Tarracona.
Witteric: Cesaragusta, Tarracona, Tirasona.
Gundemar: Cesaragusta, Sagunto, Tarracona, Tirasona.
Sisebut: Cesaragusta, Sagunto, Tarracona, Tirasona.
Suinthila: Narbona, Calagorre, Cesaragusta, Tarracona, Tirasona, Valentia.
Sisenand: Cesaragusta, Gerunda, Tarracona.
Chintila: Cesaragusta, Gerunda.
Tulga: Narbona, Cesaragusta, Tarracona.
Chindasvinth: Narbona.
4 d
Reccared: Cesaragusta, Dertosa, Tirasona.
5 a
Reccared: Reccopolis, Eminio, Asturie.
Sisebut: Georres.
5 b
Reccared: Pincia.
5 c
5 d
Liuva: Portocale.
Witteric: Toleto.
Sisebut : Toleto, Elvora.
5 e
Witteric: Mentesa, Eliberri, Ispali, Caliabria, Elvora, Salmantica, Bergancia, Oliovasio, Tude. Gundemar: Mentesa, Toleto, Eliberri, Ispali.
Sisebut: Acci, Mentesa, Eliberri, Ispali, Coleia, Lucu, Portocale.
Suinthila: Mentesa, Saldania, Toleto, Barbi, Cordoba, Ispali, Tucci, Coleia, Elvora, Salmantica. Sisenand: Castelona, Toleto, Asidona, Barbi, Cordoba, Ispali, Tucci, Bracara, Mave.
Chintila: Acci, Toleto, Ispali, Tucci, Mave.
Tulga: Beatia, Toleto, Ispali.
Chindasvinth: Beatia, Toleto, Ispali, Asturie, Bracara. Reccesvinth: Toleto.
Wamba: Tarracona.
5 f
Witteric: Catora, Georres, Lauruclo.
Suinthila: Acci, Eliberri, Tucci, Lucu, Pincia, Semure. Sisenand: Narbona, Acci, Castelona, Mentesa, Eliberri, Malaca.
Chintila: Acci, Valentia, Eliberri.
Chindasvinth: Aurense.
5 g
Sisenand: Mentesa.
5 h
5 i
5 j
Suinthila: Bracara.
Chintila: Castelona.
5 k
Reccared: Tarracona (variant).
5 l
Reccared: Narbona, Tarracona, Contosolia, Eminio, Monecipio, Salmantica, Arros, Tude, Emerita (variant).
Witteric: Eminio, Laetera, Palentucio, Pannonias.
Sisebut: Lamego, Calapa, Laetera, Pincia, Semure.
Tulga: Beatia.
5 m
Reccared: Eminio.
5 n
Liuva: Toleto.
Witteric: Bracara, Nandolas, Vallearitia.
Sisebut: Bergio.
Chintila: Mave.
Tulga: Laetera.
5 o
Liuva: Nandolas.
Sisebut: Laure, Pesicos, Semure.
Chintila: Valentia.
Ervig: Cordoba.
5 p
Egica: Barcinona, Tarracona. Wittiza: Cesaragusta, Tarracona.
5 q
Suinthila: Asturie, Nandolas, Senabria. Chindasvinth: Saldania, Mave, Petra. Ervig : Tarracona.
5 r
Witteric: Narbona, Saldania.
5 s
Wittiza: Tarracona.
5 t
5 u
Wamba: Tarracona (or 5 e).
5 v
Suinthila: Ventosa.
Chintila: Petra.
Tulga: Barbi.
Chindasvinth: Tude.
(All amorphous, variant types)
5 w
Sisebut: Georres.
5 x
5 y
5 z
5 aa
6 a
Reccared: Barcinona, Rodas.
Witteric: Barcinona, Gerunda, Nandolas.
6 b
6 c
Witteric: Barcinona.
6 d
7
Liuva: Emerita, Eminio.
Witteric: Emerita, Bracara, Pannonias.
Gundemar: Emerita.
Sisebut: Egitania, Emerita, Eminio, Veseo.
Suinthila: Egitania, Emerita, Eminio, Portocale.
Iudila: Emerita.
Sisenand: Egitania, Emerita.
Chintila: Emerita, Eminio, Valentia.
Tulga: Egitania, Emerita.
Chindasvinth: Egitania, Emerita, Lamego, Bracara, Calapa, Fraucello, Lucu.
8 a
Reccared: Tude.
8 b
8 c
Liuva: Emerita, Eminio.
Witteric: Emerita, Eminio, Tude.
Gundemar: Emerita.
Sisebut: Egitania, Emerita, Eminio, Veseo, Lucu, Portocale, Tude.
Suinthila: Egitania, Emerita, Eminio, Portocale.
Iudila: Emerita.
Sisenand: Egitania, Emerita.
Chintila: Emerita, Eminio, Valentia.
Tulga: Egitania, Emerita.
Chindasvinth: Egitania, Emerita, Lamego, Bracara, Calapa, Fraucello.
8 d
8 e
9 a
9 b
Witteric: Cordoba.
Sisebut: Cordoba.
Suinthila: Cordoba.
Chintila: Cordoba.
Tulga: Cordoba.
Chindasvinth: Cordoba, Eliberri.
9 c
10 a
Tulga: Cordoba.
Chindasvinth: Cordoba, Eliberri.
10 b
Reccesvinth: Cordoba.
10 c
10 d
10 e
10 f
11 a
11 b
Egica & Wittiza: Gerunda.
Wittiza: Mentesa (variation), Cordoba.
11 c
11 d
Egica: Mentesa.
11 e
11 f
11 g
11 h
11 i
11 j
11 k
11 l
11 m
11 n
11 o
11 p
11 q
11 r
Ervig: Ispalio.
11 s
12 a
12 b
12 c
12 d
12 e
12 f
13 a
13 b
13 c
13 d
13 e
13 f
13 g
13 h
13 i
13 j
13 k
13 l
13 m
13 n
The legends surrounding the busts on Visigothic coins are straightforward and simple and for the most part present no difficulties of interpretation. The general rule is: on the obverse, the Latinized name of the king, followed by REX (frequently abbreviated RE or R, and, from the time of Chindasvinth to the end, very often Dominus noster): Leovigild (no mint-name, Narbona, Toleto, Elvora, Emerita); Reccared (Emerita); Liuva II (Tarracona, Toleto, Ispali, Elvora, Emerita, Eminio, Portocale); Chindasvinth (Cordoba, Ispali). From the time of Wamba onward the name is frequently preceded by IDNMN(INDINM, INDINME, etc., etc.), signifying In Dei nomine. At Toleto under Egica there are several occurrences of IN+PINM, etc., which would appear to be a combination of Latin and Greek, standing for In Christi nomine. Of the two commonest epithets, PIVS is used by 20 rulers, IVSTVS by 13; the former occurs at 62 mints, the latter at 28. Approximately 20 mints use both PIVŞ and IUSTVS.
There are certain exceptions to this general scheme of conventional inscriptions, especially during the period of Leovigild and toward the end of the kingdom. Leovigild's earliest autonomous issues (without mint-name) still bear vestiges of the name of the Byzantine emperor on the obverse, and other mutilated survivals of Byzantine formulae such as CON, ONO, etc., for CONOB (Constantinople, obryzum, "refined gold"). Leovigild's "mintless" type H bears REX INCLITVS ("illustrious king") on the reverse. The epithet VICTOR appears at several mints with reference to Leovigild, Reccared, Sisebut, Suinthila, Chindasvinth and Egica; and FELIX is applied to Reccared at Narbona. Several of Leovigild's issues carry remarkable legends containing allusions to historical events: see especially Rodas, Reccopolis, Cordoba, Ispali, Italica. Hermenegild has an unusual legend, REGI A DEO VITA. During the joint reigns of father and son (Chindasvinth & Reccesvinth and Egica & Wittiza), the usual reverse bust is replaced by a mint monogram, and the circular legends contain the names of
These, in brief, are the principal characteristics of the Visigothic coin legends. For further details the reader should consult the section of this volume dealing with the individual rulers (where the chief variations in the spelling of the name of each king are listed), the mint histories (where the different spellings of each mint-name and the several remarkable legends are discussed), and the corpus itself.1
The student will also want to consult certain of Mateu y Llopis' articles, such as his monographs on particular mints, his Inscripciones, and his two articles on Nombres de Lugar. See the bibliography.
Seventy-nine mint-names have so far been met with on the coins of the Visigoths of
Reccared and Suinthila are represented at the largest number of mints (each 36), Witteric and Sisebut follow next (32 and 31 mints). Suinthila has the largest number of specimens (660), Sisenand is next (442), Reccared third (441).
It should be recalled in connection with these statistics that the accident of the discovery of the hoard of La Capilla is a distorting factor that should be taken into consideration, with respect to the commonness not only of certain mints but also of particular rulers. The bulk of this hoard belongs to the period between Sisebut and Sisenand. For example, La Capilla accounts for almost two-thirds of Suinthila's and nearly three-quarters of Sisenand's known specimens;1
In general it is interesting to note that there is a gradual diminution in the number of mints after Suinthila. This is especially true during the rules of Chindasvinth (except in Gallaecia, where ten mints were active), Reccesvinth and Wamba: in Reccesvinth's reign only two of ten known mints in Tarraconensis appear to have issued coins, one of seven in Carthaginensis, two of nine in Baetica, two of 13 in Lusitania, and two of 38 in Gallaecia; and in Wamba's time the number is even further reduced. However, many mints resumed activity toward the end of the kingdom: under Egica the total of which we have specimens rises again from five in Wamba's time to 19, and during the joint rule of Egica and Wittiza to 20.
In the following pages a brief history of each mint-city is given, together with a listing of the rulers who struck there and the principal spellings of the name; and the epithets, remarkable inscriptions, monograms and bust types in use at each mint.
Rulers: Leovigild, Reccared, Witteric, Suinthila, Sisenand, Tulga, Chindasvinth, Reccesvinth, Ervig, Egica, Egica & Wittiza, Wittiza, Achila.
Spelling:NARBONA.2 Single doubtful instance of NARVONA under Reccared. Epithets: PIVS — all rulers except Suinthila and Egica & Wittiza. FELIX — Reccared.
Remarkable legend: NARBONA GAL·E·R· or GALER·A — Leovigild.
Monograrms:
Types: Leovigild: the first issues bear distinctive obverse and reverse facing types (3 a, b, c), the later issues more common facing types (5b, c, k).
Reccared and Witteric: facing types (5 d, 1, r).
Suinthila: Tarraconese type (4 c).
Sisenand: facing type (5 f).
Tulga and Chindasvinth: Tarraconese type (4 c).
Reccesvinth: distinctive obverse busts, right (2 e, w); reverse, cross on 3 steps.
Ervig: obverse, bust, right, holding cross (2 ee); reverse, cross on 3 steps.
Egica: obverse, bust, right (2 f, k), also holding cross (2 ff); reverse, cross on 3 steps.
Egica & Wittiza: obverse, confronting busts (13a, b); reverse, mint monogram.
Wittiza: obverse, crude bust, right (2 v); reverse, cross on 3 steps.
Achila: obverse, facing bust, perhaps imitating Wittiza at Toleto (11 g), and crude head, right, in several varieties (2 y and variations); reverse, cross on 3 steps.
Modern Narbonne, Aude, southern Colonia Iulia paterna Claudia Narbo Martius decumanorum, or simply Colonia
Narbo Martius, founded 118 B. C., later the capital of Gallia Narbonenais. The Celtiberian settlement and mint of Nero(?) was located about four kilometers N. by W. of Narbonne on an eminence now known as Montlaurès. In 414 the Visigoth Ataulf celebrated in Narbona his marriage with Galla Placidia, sister of Honorius. After numerous entries and exits, including Theodoric I's siege of 436 and a Visigothic occupation of 462, the city finally passed definitively into Visigothic hands ca. 477. It was a royal residence under Gesalich (507–511) and Liuva I (568–573), and capital during the period of the latter's undivided reign (568–569). Narbona was a diocesan seat perhaps as early as the 4th century, and was the site of the provincial council of November 1, 589, at which the decrees of the Third Council of Toledo were proclaimed to Visigothic Gaul. The Narbonese revolt against Wamba is reflected in the absence of any coinage from this mint during his reign. After several attacks, beginning as early as 712, Narbona (Arbūnah,
Achila II's coins of Narbona, of two distinct types, are of prime importance in enabling us to reconstruct at least hypothetically the history of the final days of the Visigothic kingdom in the north. Whether Achila was defending the city in 719 is not known, but the style of the coins at least suggests that he ruled in Narbona for several years after 710 (the probable date of the death of Wittiza) or 711 (the defeat and disappearance of Roderic).
Narbona figures as a Merovingian mint, with the mint-name in monogram.1 The possibility of the existence of an imperial mint at Narbo has been much discussed; in the most recent examination of the subject, "the conclusion surely is that there was no Roman Imperial mint there."2
The legend NARBONA GALER (GALERA), which is preserved on only two specimens (HSA and Vidal Quadras y Ramon) has not been satisfactorily explained. It has been suggested that the meaning is Narbona Galliamm;
3 that Flavia, qu'on trouve sur les monnaies lombardes de Charlemagne, un siécle plus tard."2 None of these explanations is convincing, the only suggestion at all likely being that of Heiss: the presence of the dots may indicate an abbreviation.
Doubtless because of
Amardel, Roi Achila, pp. 425–440; Carson, pp. 144–145; Catholic Encycl., III, p. 331; García Villada, II1, pp. 75, 94; Anfänge, p. 594; Hill, Narbonensis, pp. 2–3; Histoire, pp. 39–41, 46; passim, p. 294;
Ibid., p. 4.
It is to be noted that throughout these mint histories the epigraphy of the mint names is generally normalized, the primary aim being to represent the spelling, not the epigraphy. Abbreviations, points, etc. are only exceptionally mentioned. For epigraphical details and for minor varieties in spelling, the reader should consult the catalogue.
Ibid.
Rulers: Leovigild, Reccared, Liuva, Witteric, Egica, Egica & Wittiza.
Spelling: BARCINONA. Under Egica, BARCINON·. One instance of VARCI-NONA under Leovigild.
Epithets: IVSTVS — Leovigild to Witteric. PIVS — Egica.
Remarkable legend: REX VARCINONA (Leovigild).
Monograms:
Types: Leovigild: first type, obverse "Early Visigothic" bust, right (1 c); reverse, cross on 4 steps; later type, facing busts resembling 5c.
Reccared, Liuva, Witteric: distinctive facing busts of Barcinona type (6 a, b, c).
Egica: obverse, facing busts (5 p); reverse, cross on 3 steps.
Egica & Wittiza: obverse, confronting busts (13 c); reverse, mint monogram.
Modern Barcelona, in Cataluña; ancient Barcino, of Iberian origin, site of the Augustinian colony Faventia Iulia Augusta Pia. In 414 Ataulf was forced to abandon Narbo, and, crossing the Pyrenees into Varcinona and Barcilona.
Barcelona (Barshilūnah,
The exceptional spelling VARCINONA on the earliest specimen of the mint is interesting in that it suggests a local substitution of V for
There is no ready explanation of the apparent inactivity of the mint between 610 and 687.2
Cambridge I, pp. 278, 403; Catholic Encycl., II, p. 289; E. of I., s. v, Barcelone (French ed.); García Villada, II1, p. 76; Histoire, pp. 22, 39, 123, 125ff.;
Rider: Suinthila.
Spelling: C:Λ:LΛC·OR RE.
Epithet: IVSTVS.
Type: facing busts of Tarraconese type (4 c).
Almost certainly modern Calahorra, province of Logroño, on the Ebro, Roman Calagurris Nasica (sometimes spelled Calagorris), among the oppida civium Romanorum of the district of Caesaraugusta, a municipium under Augustus (Calagurris Iulia Nasica), an episcopal seat in pre-Visigothic (middle 5th century) and Visigothic times.
The name calaqriqš (Calaqoriqoš) appears on Celtiberian coins; the Roman coinage bears Calagurri Iulia Nasica and Municipium Calagurri (Iulia). With only a single specimen of the Visigothic mint preserved, and that inscribed with interspersed points, some of which quite evidently do not indicate omitted letters, it is impossible to determine with any certainty from numismatic evidence what the spelling of the name in the Visigothic period was. This one specimen suggests Calagorre or Calacorre. Various spellings occur in the mediaeval lists: Calacurre, Calagurre, Calagorra, Calagurra, Calahurra, Callahora.
Calahorra (Qalahurrah,
Rulers: Leovigild, Reccared, Liuva, Witteric, Gundomar, Sisebut, Suinthila, Sisenand, Chintila, Tulga, Chindasvinth(?), Ervig, Egica, Egica & Wittiza, Wittiza.
Spelling: With one or two exceptions, the name is always abbreviated by means of double (:), and sometimes single, points. The commonest spelling and abbreviation down through Tulga is CE:ΛR:C·O:TΛ (for CESARACOSTA), but there are numerous minor variations. It may be that the single point after the second C implies that this letter is to be read G, but no true G (
Epithets: IVSTVS — all rulers through Chintila. PIVS — Ervig, Egica, Wittiza. Frequently, doubtless because of the length of the mint-name, there is no epithet.
Remarkable legends: TOL⊏OB
Monograms:
Types: Leovigild: first type, obverse, "Early Visigothic" bust, right (1c); reverse, cross on 4 steps; later type, facing busts of Tarraconese type (4 a, b, d).
Reccared through Tulga: facing busts of Tarraconese type (4 c, d).
Ervig: obverse, facing busts (5 p); reverse, cross on 3 steps.
Egica: first type, obverse, facing bust (5 s); reverse, cross on 3 steps; second type, obverse, bust, right (2 f); reverse as before.
Egica & Wittiza: obverse, confronting busts (13 d); reverse, mint monogram.
Wittiza: first type, obverse, facing bust (5 p); reverse, cross on 3 steps; second type, obverse, distinctive facing bust (11 q); reverse as before.
Modern Zaragoza on the Ebro in the province of the same name, Celtiberian Salduba (Salduvia, Saldubia), and site of the Augustan colony of Caesaraugusta, ca. 19 B. C.1 A mint was located here in Celtiberian times (SALDUIE?) and under Roman rule, also later under the Arabs (Saraqustah,
The region of Caesaraugusta was occupied by the Suevians in 449, and the city was taken by the Visigoth Euric in 473 or 476. It was the seat of an important diocese, the city having a long pre-Visigothic Christian history, reputedly dating back to the Apostle James and in any case figuring as an episcopal see as early as the mid-third century. Cesaraugusta (sometimes Cesaragusta, in the mediaeval lists) was the site of three provincial councils, the first in 380(?), the second and third in 592 and 691 respectively, and was a preeminent center of learning and letters, especially in the 7th century. The city first fell to Mūsa b. Nuṣayr in 714.
The meaning of the legends on the unique coin in the Hispanic Society collection, evidently TOLEOBGILDVS and BICESARCAIV, is uncertain. As stated in the catalogue (No. 17),1 I have accepted Leovigildus iusto (iustus) bis Cesaracosta, but admittedly this solution raises more questions with respect both to the arrangement of the letters and to an implied second capture of the city than it resolves.
As for the legends C·E:T:VI and C·EƧTΛVVI under Reccared, of which the latter gave rise to much speculation and to the supposed existence of a mint "Cestavi," as well as to fabrications of this "mint," I have concluded that these words are the product of die-engravers' errors; the matter is discussed in the catalogue under No. 59.2
One might be tempted to read the mint monograms Cesaragusta; but there are two rather telling arguments against such attribution. In the first place, the important letter R is lacking; and in the second, we already have an unmistakable mint monogram (with the letters C, S, R, G) for Cesaragusta under Egica & Wittiza.
Cf. Barcelona, pp. 3–4.
25 B.C., according to Octavio Gil Farrés, whose article, "La ceca de la Colonia Caesarea Augusta," Ampurias, XIII (1951), pp. 65–111, appeared too late for consideration here.
Barcelona, remarks on but does not attempt to explain the hiatus.
Catholic Encycl., III, p. 148; Hill, pp. 174–180; Histoire, pp. 90, 122; Madrid, p. 282;
Cambridge
I, p. 413;
Ruler: Reccared.
Spelling: DERTOSA.
Epithet: IVSTVS.
Remarkable legend: DERTOSΛIEECΓ:
Types: facing busts of Tarraconese type (4 c,d).
Modern Tortosa on the Ebro in the province of Tarragona, Roman Dertosa Ilercavonia, originally a settlement of the Ilercavones, also
Hibera, which name was preserved under the Romans, the full title being Municipium Hibera Iulia Dertosa Ilercavonia. A mint was located here in imperial tiimes, and possibly earlier. The Visigothic occupation is reported to have taken place in the year 506. Dertosa was an episcopal seat in pre-Visigothic as well as Visigothic times, the diocese having been created, according to official Catholic view, in the 4th century. In the diocesan lists the name varies: Dertosa, Tortosa, Tarrasa.
To judge by the very scant numismatic evidence, the Visigothic mint was established under Reccared, possibly in connection with some special event reflected in the legend DERTOSΛIEECΓ: (Dertosa fecit?), and was immediately abandoned thereafter.
The Arab occupation took place at an early but undetermined date during the conquest, and the city was for several centuries the farthest fixed outpost of Islam in Catalonia. In the 11th century a mint was located at Dertosa (Ṭurṭūshah, dār al-şinā'ah (naval arsenal), of which the foundation inscription dated 333 A. H. (944/5 A. D.) exists, with a dār alsiklcah (mint)?
See the references there to earlier discussions.
See the references there for "Cestavi."
Catholic Encycl., XIV, p. 785; E. ofI., s. v. Tortosa; Monnaies Antiques, pp. 128–131; Hill, pp. 74–75,103; Inscriptions, pp. 83–84; idem, Histoire, p. 128; Madrid, pp. 274–275;
Rulers: Witteric, Sisenand, Chintila, Reccesvinth, Egica, Egica & Wittiza, Wittiza, Achila.
Spelling: GERONDA (Witteric); GERVNDA (Sisenand, Chintila, Achila); GERVNΘA (Reccesvinth, Egica, Wittiza).
Epithet: IVSTVS —Witteric, Sisenand, Chintila. PIVS—Reccesvinth, Egica, Wittiza, Achila.
Monograms:
Types: Witteric: facing busts, reverse of Barcinona type (5 j, 6 a).
Sisenand, Chintila: facing busts of Tarraconese type (4 c).
Reccesvinth: obverse, bust, right, of obscure type; reverse, exceptional cross and pellets.
Egica: obverse, bust, right (2 b); reverse, cross on 3 steps.
Egica & Wittiza: first two types, obverse, confronting busts (13 c, g); reverse, mint monogram; third type, obverse, facing bust (11 b); reverse as before.
Wittiza: obverse, facing bust related to third type of Egica & Wittiza (11 c); reverse, cross on 3 steps.
Achila: unknown.
Modern Gerona, capital of the province of the same name, the Gerunda of the classical geographers, a town of the Ausetani. It has been suggested that Celtiberian coins bearing the legends GRDSA or KRSA are to be attributed to Gerunda. The creation of an episcopal seat at Gerunda is believed to have taken place in 247. Little is known of the history of Visigothic Gerunda except that it was the site of the council of 517, that Reccared paid a visit to the tomb of St. Felix there, and that it figured in the insurrection of Duke Paul against Wamba. In the ecclesiastical lists the name appears both as Gerunda and as Gerona. It was called Jarūndah ca. 714 under 'Abd al-'Azīz b. Nuṣayr. The city returned to the Christians in 785.
Mateu y Llopis has pointed out the Greek influence in the spelling of the mint-name (Δ under Sisenand and Θ under Reccesvinth and successors), and has suggested that the latter phenomenon may be the result of analogy with the Θ in the spelling of the name of Reccesvinth, in both cases the Greek dental fricative being used to indicate a "soft dental." It is quite possible that local pronunciation of the D is reflected in the use of this Θ and also of the DS (?) in the proposed Celtiberian identification. The use of the "uncial" C (G), often misread S, which it resembles, and of ∊, the latter under Reccesvinth, Egica and Wittiza, is not without interest.
The monogram is ingenious, representing G, E (on the vertical arm of the cross), R, VN (in combination), ΘΛ (in combination).
The single specimen of Achila II, not yet illustrated or described in detail, is of first class importance, and it is to be hoped that it will eventually receive full publication.
Monnaies Antiques, p. 130.
Catholic Encycl., VI, p. 530; Hill, p. 61; Histoire, pp. 22,40,91; Gerona, pp. 168–172;
Rulers: Leovigild, Reccared, Egica.
Spelling: RODAS (Leovigild, Reccared, Egica); RODA (Leovigild).
Ephitet: IVSTVS.
Remarkable legend: CVM DI RODA.
Types: Leovigild: first type, obverse, bust, right, of "Early Visigothic" type (1 c); reverse, cross on 3 steps; second type, facing busts (51).
Reccared: facing busts of Barcinona type (6 a).
Egica: obverse, bust, right, holding cross (2gg); reverse, cross on 3 steps.
The modern town of Rosas on the northern side of the gulf of the same name in the province of Gerona, northeastemmost sedes, and the error is doubtless the result of confusion with Roda in the province of Huesca, to which the see formerly located at Lerida was transferred when the latter town fell to the Arabs, and which later, in 1101, under Pedro I of Aragon, was removed to Barbastro. The bishop with authority over the Roda in question must have been seated at Empurias (Ampurias). References to Roda
The unique coin of Leovigild with the legend CVM D I RODA belongs to the same class of special issues as those of Cordoba, Ispali and Italica with analogous legends. It has been suggested that the I stands for intravit, the unabbreviated legend being Cum d(eo) i(ntravit) Roda. This is not an unreasonable assumption, although DI may simply stand for DEO, the verb lacking, as it appears to be in the coin of Italica. The date of the event is unknown, but that of the issue must be between 578 and ca. 583, possibly 581, the year of Leovigild's campaign against the Basques.
The meaning of the letter N, which occurs between the name of the mint and the epithet IVSTVS on the two trientes of Leovigild's of later type (HSA and Stroganoff) cannot be explained except perhaps as a survival of the earlier ON O in the exergue.
After Reccared, no issues of Rodas are known until the rule of Egica, nearly a hundred years later. The recent publication of the specimen in the Iustituto de Valencia do Don Juan confirms the
Catholic Encycl., II, pp. 285–286; Leovigild, p. 142; Monnaies Antiques, p. 84; Hill, pp. 6–7; Madrid, pp. 269–270; P.-W. IA, col. 954; Zorita de los Canes, p. 30.
A tradition to the effect that the colony was first established by Rhodians has little foundation.
E. g., idem, Monnaies Antiques, p. 84.
Rulers: Gundemar, Sisebut.
Spelling: SACVNTO.
Epithet: IVSTVS.
Types: facing busts of Tarraconese type (4 c).
Modern Sagunto in the province of Valencia, 15 miles north-northeast of the capital, the famous classical Saguntum, known as Murviedro, Murvedro, Murvedre, etc. (murus vetus, murum veterum, or perhaps muri veteres) in later mediaeval times,2 and until 1877. Originally an Iberian fortress of the Edetani, the city became allied with Rome and stood heroically against Hannibal in 219 B. C. until its fall. Recaptured under Scipio it became in the period of Augustus a municipium. The ancient coinage, Iberian and later bilingual, beginning with ca. 250 B. C., is plentiful and presents many problems. Following a decline in later Roman and early Gothic times the city was restored to prominence under the Visigoths. It was not, however, an episcopal seat, and in the period of Gundemar and Sisebut the city was under the Metropolitan of Tarraconensis.
The exact date of the Moslem occupation is not known (ca. 714), but as Murbīṭru =
Only two specimens of the Visigothic mint are known, one of Gundemar and one of Sisebut. On both, the name is spelled SAC·VNTO. The point after the C, as in some other instances, may perhaps be intended to indicate that C is to be read as Sagunto is the ablative of Saguntum, and it can be argued that the classical form was still in use in the 7th century, it is more likely that Sagunto had by then become the accepted form the name.
Monnaies Antiques, pp. 217–218 (288–290 for ARSE); Hill, pp. 111–127; Ampurias, 1941, pp. 88–89; P.-W. IA, cols. 1755–56; Yāqūt, IV, p. 486.
Just when this name gained currency is uncertain; it occurs in the so-called Division of Wamba (probably late 11th century).
Also vocalized Murbayṭar; commonly spelled Morbiter by non-orientalist Spanish writers.
Rulers: Leovigild, Reccared, Liuva, Witteric, Gundemar, Sisebut, Suinthila, Sisenand, Tulga, Reccesvinth, Wamba, Ervig, Egica, Egica & Wittiza, Wittiza, Achila.
Spelling: TARRACONA and minor variations (Leovigild, Reccared, Witteric, Gundemar, Sisebut, Suinthila); TARRACO (generally, from Liuva forward). The classical spelling TARRACO does not occur until Liuva, but thenceforth it is the dominant form, although the earlier Visigothic TARRACONA2 is used sporadically as late as Suinthila. Both TARRACONA and TARRACO are very frequently abbreviated with double (:), and sometimes single, points, the letter most commonly omitted being the second A. Exceptionally under Reccared we meet with TERR:CONA and TARRACON E. Unabbreviated TARRACO occurs under Witteric, Reccesvinth, Wamba, Ervig, Egica, Wittiza and Achila. The curious split form of the name, that is, with the first part of the name in the fourth quarter and the last part in the first quarter, is the usual form in the period of Sisebut, Suinthila and Sisenand.
Epithets: IVSTVS3 — Leovigild, Reccared, Witteric, Gundemar, Sisebut, Suinthila, Sisenand, Tulga, Egica. PIVS — Reccared, Liuva, Witteric, Suinthila, Reccesvinth, Wamba, Ervig, Egica, Wittiza, Achila.
Remarkable legend: BTΛRΛCONΛIVTƧ (Reccared).
Monogram:
Types: Leovigild: facing busts of unknown type.
Reccared: facing busts of Tarraconese type (4 c); also two exceptional issues of small diameter, one with facing busts (5 1), the other with obverse facing bust resembling 5 k, and reverse equilateral cross.
Liuva through Tulga: facing busts of Tarraconese type (4 c).
Reccesvinth: first type, obverse, bust, right, of modified "Early Visigothic" type (1 g); reverse, cross on 3 steps; second type, obverse, bust, right, of irregular type ( 2 cc); reverse as before; third type, obverse, bust, right, of distinctive type (2 d); reverse as before.
Wamba: first type, obverse, facing bust (5 e or u); reverse, cross on 3 steps; second type, obverse, bust, right (2 n); reverse as before.
Ervig: obverse, facing bust (5 q); reverse, cross on 3 steps.
Egica: first type, obverse, facing bust, similar to Egica at Barcinona (5 p); reverse, cross on 3 steps; second type, obverse, bust, right, of modified "Early Visigothic" type (1 h); reverse as before; third type, obverse, bust, right, holding cross (2 kk); reverse as before.
Egica & Wittiza: obverse, confronting busts (13 a, c); reverse, mint monogram.
Wittiza: obverse, facing bust of Egica's first type (5 p) and of a type similar to Egica's at Cesaragusta (5 s); reverse, cross on 3 steps.
Achila: obverse, facing bust of distinctive type (11 s); reverse, cross on 3 steps.
Modern Tarragona, capital of the province, 54 miles southwest of Barcelona, the famous ancient Tarraco, founded by Etruscans ca. 550 B. C., or perhaps first settled much earlier (ca. 1100 B. C.) by the Tyrseni; taken by the Romans in 218 B. C., named Colonia Iulia Victrix, and later, under Augustus, as capital of Tarraconensis and all Hispania Citerior, titled Colonia Iulia Victrix Triumphalis Tarraco. The plentiful coins with Celtiberian legend CESE are indisputably attributed to Tarraco, and there is an extensive series of imperial issues. The traditional attribution of numerous bronzes of the Constantinian period, with the mint-mark T, to Tarraco has been much discussed and questioned: more recently opinion has inclined to reject this attribution in favor of Ticinum.
1
Tarraco suffered numerous vicissitudes at the hands of Vandals, Suevians and Goths during the decline of the Empire, and was taken by Euric about 476. While the tradition of St. Paul's visit to Tarraco lacks historical confirmation, there is no doubt that the Christian history of the city begins very early, certainly as early as the 3rd century with Bishop Fructuosus; and by 384 it had become an archdiocese, which it was under the later Visigoths and has continued to be, with some interruptions, down to the present. Tarragona was the site of the provincial council of 516, and was the scene of the "martyrdom" of Hermenegild in 585 after his removal from Valentia. The long series of Visigothic coins of Tarracona (so called at least as early as Leovigild) is testimony to the importance of the city: of the completely sovereign rulers only Chintila and Chindasvinth are unrepresented.2
At the time of the collapse of the kingdom, Achila II's claim to suzerainty in the region is evidenced by the unique specimen of
Catholic Encycl; XIV, pp. 459–461; E. of I., s. v. Tarragone (French ed.); García Villada, II1, pp. 53, 200, 204; Monnaies Antiques, pp. 115–118; Hill, pp. 39–50; Histoire, pp. 22, 128; Tarragona; A, cols. 2398–2403.
Most of the extensive literature can be traced through Otto Voetter, "Zur Streitfrage ob Tarraco oder Ticinum" (NZ, Wien, 1926, pp. 145–154), NC, 1921, pp. 233ff.), Jules Maurice, Numismatique Constantinienne, II (
Mateu y Llopis characterizes this form of the name as "romance o vulgar" (Tarragona, p. 76).
For the most comprehensive treatment of the Visigothic coinage of Tarraco, see Mateu y Llopis, Tarragona. It should be noted that in the corpus accompanying this article there are many duplicate references to the same specimen, giving the impression that there are more specimens of a given issue than actually exist.
Frequently spelled IVSTO.
Rulers: Leovigild, Reccared, Witteric, Gundemar, Sisebut, Suinthila.
Spelling: TIRASONA, occasionally TIRASONE. The name is always abbreviated, usually with two points (:) standing for the S. Occasionally another set of points, or single points, within the name appear to have no significance.
Epithets: IVSTVS — Reccared, Witteric(?), Gundemar, Sisebut, Suinthila. PIVS —Reccared.
Types: Leovigild: obverse, bust, right, of "Early Visigothic" type (1c); reverse, cross on 4 steps.
Reccared through Suinthila: facing busts of Tarraconese type (4c,d).
Modern Tarazona, in the province of Zaragoza, 52 miles west-northwest of the capital, Roman Turiaso, a municipium founded on the site of a settlement of Iberian origin. The ancient city lay on the road between Caesaraugusta and Numantia. Coins with Iberian legends, as well as later Latin coinage under Augustus and Tiberius, exist. Tirasona was the seat of a bishop in Visigothic times, and there are shadowy and conflicting reports of an earlier history of the diocese of Turiasonensis (5th century?). Variant spellings of the name in the mediaeval ecclesiastical lists and documents include Tirassona and Tarrazona, as well as Tirasona. The city (Ṭarasūnah,
The publication of the collection of the Hispanic Society of
Rulers: Suinthila, Chintila, Egica, Egica & Wittiza.
Spelling: VALENTIA.
Epithet: IVSTVS —Suinthila. PIVS —Chintila, Egica.
Monogram:
Types: Suinthila: facing busts of Tarraconese type (4 c).
Chintila: facing busts, differing on obverse and reverse (5 f,o).
Egica: obverse, bust, right, of distinctive type (2 z); reverse, cross on 3 steps.
Egica & Wittiza: obverse, confronting busts of common type (13 f); reverse, mint monogram.
The modern coastal city of Valencia, capital of the province of the same name, Roman Valentia (Valentia of the Edetani), founded in 138 B. C. by Balentia) is included under the Toletum Metropolis, that is, in Carthaginensis, where indeed it did belong in the Diocletian administration, to which the Visigothic ecclesiastic divisions were adapted. However, in the early Empire the region was included in Tarraconensis, and, as Mateu y Llopis has pointed out in his monograph on the Visigothic mints of Sagunto and Valentia, it is evident from the unique coin of Valentia issued by Suinthila, and from those of Sagunto under Gundemar and Sisebut, all of Tarraconese type, that in those rules both towns were considered as belonging to Tarraconensis, as they did in republican and older imperial times. Later, after Suinthila's definitive expulsion of the Byzantine authority from these coastal regions, Valentia was assigned to the Carthaginensian metropolis. The later ecclesiastical history of the diocese, particularly in the 13th century after the reconquest, reflects the borderland nature of its location, the Archbishops
The city fell to the Arabs in 714, about the same time as Sagunto, Jativa and Denia, and became known as Balansīyah
The fabrication of a coin of Leovigild of Valentia (VALENTA), probably invented to supplement the numismatic history of Valence on the Rhone but attributed by many writers to the Valentia under discussion, "Valencia of the Cid," is discussed among the forgeries, pp. 455–6. The only genuine coins that can confidently be attributed to this mint are the unique piece of Suinthila in the Valencia University Library, and the very rare ones of Chintila and Egica. One other issue of Chintila is properly attributed to the Valentia of Lusitania. One coin of Egica & Wittiza, with the mint-name in monogram, is probably correctly assigned to the Valentia under discussion here.
Catholic Encycl., XIV, pp. 452–453; Monnaies Antiques, p. 190; Hill, pp. 162–168; Histoire, p. 41; Dictionary, 8.v, Turiaso;
Numismatic writers frequently list Valentia under Chintila and Egica as a mint of Carthaginensis: e.g.,
Catholic Encycl., XV, pp. 251–253; E. of I., 8. v. Valence (French ed.); García Villada, II1, pp. 52–53; Byzantinischen
Besitzungen, pp. 530–532; Monnaies Antiques, pp. 222–223; Madrid, pp. 307–310; Ampurias 1941, pp. 92–95; idem, Hallazgos V, p. 70; A, cols. 2148–50; Ampurias, XIII (1951), pp. 113–119, which appeared after these pages had gone to the printer.
Rulers: Sisebut, Suinthila, Sisenand, Chintila, Egica.
Spelling: ACCI, sometimes abbreviated ACI, with or without points to indicate the omitted letter.
Epithet: IVSTVS — Sisebut to Chintila. VICTOR — Egica.
Types: Sisebut: facing busts (5 e).
Suinthila, Sisenand: facing busts (5 f).
Chintila: facing busts (5 e, f).
Egica: obverse, bust, right, of distinctive crude type (2 s); reverse, cross on 3 steps.
Modern Guadix el Viejo, near Guadix, in the province of Granada, 26 miles east-northeast of the provincial capital, ancient Acci, a city of the Basetani in classical Tarraconensis, and a colony of Augustus, entitled Colonia Iulia Gemella Acci. A mint was located here under Augustus, Tiberius and Caligula. The history of the diocese of Acci is reported to extend back to St. Torquatus in the 1st century; Felix of Acci presided at the Council of Elvira in 303, and the names of subsequent Acitanian bishops who attended later councils are recorded. The region of Orospeda, which probably included Guadix, was brought directly under Visigothic control during Leovigild's expedition to suppress the rebellion in the southeast in 577.
To the Arabs Acci was known as Wadi 'Āsh
The presence of the epithet VICTOR on Egica's issues of Acci quite possibly relate to his suppression of the revolt of Sisebert, Metropolitan of Toledo, which occurred in the fifth year of Egica's
Eleven of the 39 known specimens of Acci are in the collection of the Hispanic Society of
Cambridge, II, pp. 180–181; Catholic Encycl., XIV, p. 172, XVI, p. 43; E. of I., 8. v. Guadix; Leovigild, p. 143; Monnaies Antiques, p. 256;
Rulers: Tulga, Chindasvinth.
Spelling: BIATIA (Tulga), BEATIA (Chindasvinth).
Epithet: PIVS.
Types: Tulga: facing busts (5 e, 1).
Chindasvinth: facing busts (5 e).
The modern commune of Baeza, in Jaén province, 19 miles northeast of the provincial capital, ancient Beatia, Biatia, Viatia or Vivatia, a city of the Oretani. Little is known of the early Christian history of Beatia; it must have been taken by Leovigild in his southern campaign of 570. As an episcopal seat the first occurrence of the name is in connection with the Eleventh Council of Toledo (675), and thereafter in the diocesan lists it reappears as Biatia, Viatia, Baecia, Biacia, Viacia, etc. The diocese of Castulo was transferred to Beatia between 666 and 675, and the see of Beatia itself was removed to Jaén in 1248 after the restoration of the city to the Christians under Ferdinand III of Castile in 1226. The Arabic name for the town was Baiyāsah
A triens of Reccared issued as Pincia was mistakenly attributed by Velazquez, Florez and later writers to Beatia; and several coins of Egica & Wittiza belonging to Elvora and uncertain mint (catalogue No. 490) have also been wrongly assigned to this mint.3
Rulers: Sisonand, Chintila.
Spelling: CASTELONA, CASTILONA. There are numerous apparent variations under Sisenand, but actually in every case one of these two forms is intended.
The more common spelling is with E. It is impossible to tell whether this vowel is E or I on the single specimen of Chintila, for the name is here abbreviated CΛST·L·NΛ.
Epithet: PIVS (always abbreviated).
Types: Sisenand: facing busts (5 e, f).
Chintila: facing busts (5 j).
The name of ancient Castulo and of the mediaeval town is preserved in modern Las Ventas and El Molino de Cazlona, two miles north of Linares in Jaén province, but no significant remains of the early Christian town have been uncovered, although stones from Castulo have been used in construction in Linares. Possibly the ruins called Castro de la Magdelena, about five kilometers south of Linares, are to be identified as those of Castulo. A city of the Oretani on the Baetis, Castulo was located near important lead and silver mines and lay on the highway from the Pyrenees to Gades and the ocean. The city fell first to the Carthaginians, later temporarily to the Romans, and finally after several vicissitudes it came under permanent Roman control in 206 B. C. A mint here issued plentiful coinage with Iberian, bilingual and Latin legends; the activity of the mines and its strategic commercial location on the Baetis, then navigable at this point, evidently raised the Roman city to a position of great prominence.
Castulo appears to have been a diocese as early as 298, the Episcopi Castulonenses being, with those of Beatia somewhat later, the predecessors of the Bishops of Jaén. In the Visigothic period Castulo was an episcopal see under Toledo at least until 656, but shortly thereafter authority was transferred to Beatia (q. v.). Such of the mediaeval ecclesiastical lists as contain the name of the diocese give it in the form Castilona, Castelona and Castalona, the first two agreeing with the coins.1 The Arabic name Qasṭulūnah u (or o).
Most of the known specimens of Castelona, including the seven in the HSA collection, come from the hoard of La Capilla.
Cf. p. 29, footnote 1, p. 37, footnote 1.
Catholic Encycl., VIII, p. 267; Anfänge, p. 601; MLI, p. 243; Dictionary, I, p. 384;
Cf.
Catholic Encycl., VIII, p. 267; Mommies Antiques, p. 284; Histoire, p. 237; Mata, pp. 18–20;
Rulers: Reccared, Witteric, Gundemar, Sisebut, Suinthila, Sisenand, Egica, Egica & Wittiza, Wittiza.
Spelling: MENTESA. The final A is sometimes indicated by points. Under Suinthila and Sisenand E is frequently rendered I⋮, that is, the horizontal strokes are widely separated from the vertical, giving the impression that the vowel is I; actually E is always present.1
Epithet: PIVS.
Monograms:
Types: Reccared: facing busts (5 f).
Witteric, Gundemar: facing busts (5 e).
Sisebut: facing busts as Witteric and Gundemar (5 e), and with cross on face (5 g).
Suinthila: facing busts (5 e).
Sisenand: facing busts as Reccared (5 f), and with cross on face (5 g).
Egica: first type, obverse, head facing similar to Ervig at Cordoba (11d); reverse, cross on 3 steps; second type, obverse, exceptional cross on mound; reverse as before.
Egica & Wittiza: confronting busts and figures, of several types (13 d, h, k, l).
Wittiza: first type, obverse, bust, right, of indeterminate type, somewhat resembling 2 k; reverse, cross on 3 steps; second type, obverse, facing bust, distinctive variation of 11b; reverse as before; third type, facing bust of uncertain type; reverse as before.
The site of Visigothic Mentesa has been identified by an inscription as modern La Guardia, about five miles southeast of Jaén, the capital of the province of the same name. It was originally a town of the Bastetani (Mentesa Bastia), and was situated on the highway from Carthago Nova to Castulo.2 Mentesa is listed among the bishoprics of Toledo in Visigothic times and is regularly spelled in the mediaeval episcopal lists as on the coins. That Mentesa (Mantīshah,
Gundemar is represented by one specimen in the HSA collection, and one recently acquired by Reinhart; and most of the known specimens of Suinthila and Sisenand are from the hoard of La Capilla and hence in the HSA collection.
The form Castulona, given by Heiss and subsequent writers on the basis of the single specimen then available, was assumed to be the correct one, by analogy with classical Castulo, but actually, as noted above, the second and third vowels are lacking on that specimen, their omission being indicated by points.
The legend on one specimen is transcribed MENTPS:, but this is doubtless a misreading arising from a misunderstanding of an E with separated horizontals, read as P.
Akhbār Majmū'ah, pp. 258–259; Histoire, I, p. 226, II, pp. 38, 55, 100; Histoire, pp. 244, 288;
It is not to be confused with the Mentesa of the Auscetani or Mentesa of the Oretani (Villanueva de la Fuente). The proper identity is indicated by the position of the name in the diocesan lists.
Rulers: Leovigild, Reccared, Wittiza.
Spelling: RECCOPOLIT and RECCOPOLITA (Leovigild); RECCOPOLI (Leovigild, Reccared); RECCOXPOLI (Leovigild); RECCOPOLV (Reccared); RECCOPVLI (Reccared); [REC]COPVL·(Wittiza).
Epithet: PIVS (Wittiza).
Remarkable legends: FECIT, FECI, FEI (Leovigild, Reccared).
Types: Leovigild: first type, obverse, bust, right, of "Early Visigothio" type (1 c); reverse, cross on 4 steps; second type, facing busts (5 a); third type, obverse, facing bust, crowned (3 f); reverse, different facing bust, crowned (3 g). The difference in the obverse and reverse bust of the third type suggests that Reccared is represented on the reverse and that the issue dates after Reccared's association in his father's rule.
Reccared: facing busts (5 a).
Wittiza: obverse, bust, right (2 g); reverse, cross on 3 steps.
There is now almost universal agreement2 that the site of Reccopolis is to be identified with ruins located on the elevated land known as Cerro de La Oliva (formerly called Rochafrida), about one kilometer southwest of the pueblo of Zorita de los Canes, close to the river Tajo, in the southern part of the province of Guadalajara. The earlier identification with the neighboring sanctuary of Nuestra Señora de Recápel, at the confluence of the Tajo and the Guadiela, near Almonacid de la Sierra, can now be abandoned. According to the chronicler, John of Biclaro, Leovigild founded (condidit) and named Reccopolis in A. D. 578 in honor of his son Reccared, built there numerous public works, and extended extraordinary privileges to the inhabitants.3
The tradition relating to Leovigild's founding of the city was preserved in Arab times, as for instance in the 10th century description of Raqawbil and places it near Zorita; al-ḥimyari has Raqābil and repeats the story that Leovigild (Lūbīyān) built the city and named it after his son
The recent excavations on the site, in the course of which a hoard of 90 early Visigothic trientes was found in close connection with the ruins of a Christian basilica, have served to amplify our scant knowledge of Reccopolis. The most important result of these excavations is the discovery that the basilica was several times rebuilt and remodeled, and that the original building does not date from the period of Leovigild but is rather "paleochristian," or perhaps Byzantine, and was constructed as early as the beginning of the 5th century. The final alterations appear to have been undertaken by Leovigild, after his campaign against the region of Orospeda (577), in order to adapt the church to the Arian ritual.
As the latest coins in the hoard of Zorita de los Canes, found in Leovigild's stratum of the basilica, were of the REX INCLITVS, Victory-reverse type, and no specimen of the mint-name, cross-onsteps type was present, the excavator, Juan Cabré Aguiló, argues that the hoard dates from ca. 580–583, and hence that Reccopolis was pillaged, burned and razed at this time by the native, anti-Arian, Spanish Christian population. Reccopolis therefore no longer existed when the types of Leovigild and Reccared with cross-on-steps reverse began to be struck (else there would have been specimens in the hoard); as a corollary, the Reccopolis coins of Leovigild and Reccared must be fabrications of later date, presumably invented by modern scholars to "document" the history of the famous city. Pio Beltrán and Mateu y Llopis have discussed and countered various aspects of Cabré Aguiló's thesis.
We may certainly accept the conclusion, based on apparently sound archaeological findings, that Reccopolis was not founded by Leovigild but that an earlier Christian or Byzantine settlement on the site of what is now known as Cerro de La Oliva was rebuilt, further developed, enlarged or "adorned" by him, and was thereupon named Reccopolis, whether, as traditionally believed, after the name of his son, Reccared, or, as Cabré Aguiló suggests, for Ciudad del Rey (from rec, rix, ric). But with regard to the numismatic aspects of the question, two observations should be made. In the first place, the argument ex silentio with respect to the absence of Reccopolis coins
all of these coins with the name of Reccopolis are forgeries. Surely this cannot be the case, for the corpus of known specimens contains:
Leovigild: 1. HSA; 2. Reccared: 5. Florez; 6. VQR (Heiss); 7. VQR; 8. Academia (Heiss); 9. Mabbott; 10. VQR.
With the possible exception of nos. 9 and 10, every one of these coins is from different obverse and reverse dies; it is most improbable, to say the least, that so many different fabrications of such distinct types could exist. Aside from this consideration, my close examination of two of the coins (nos. 12 and 9) at first hand, and a hurried handling of the VQR specimens, convinces me that the first two at least are not fabrications and that the latter also betray no outward characteristics of spuriousness; furthermore, the entire VQR collection is noted for its almost complete exemption from counterfeits. No. 2, illustrated by an engraving in Heiss and by a photograph in Reinhart's Münzen... von Toledo," appears to be genuine; such atypical features as it presents (its size, the "beaded" lines of the cross, the thin characters) do not argue against its authenticity, considering the fact that the coin belongs to an experimental and transitional period in Visigothic numismatic development. Finally, no. 4 is stated to have come from a find at a place called El Alijar, in the province of Cáceres, and its appearance, as illustrated by Ramón y Fernández, does not arouse suspicion.
All these considerations taken together are sufficient to refute the assertion, or hypothesis, that genuine coins of Reccopolis under Leovigild and Reccared do not exist.
The unique specimen of Wittiza should have an important bearing on the whole question of the history of Reccopolis, particularly with regard to its alleged destruction within Leovigild's lifetime; but
With regard to the form of the name of the mint appearing in the several varieties of legends, Florez argued that RECCOPOLI was probably an indeclinable rendering of RECCOPOLIS, and that the meaning was "Reccopolis made (the coin)." Heiss inclined toward the other likely alternative, a Latinized ablative, i. e., "made in Reccopolis." Görres suggested that RECCOPOLIM was intended, that is, "Leovigild built Reccopolis," but obviously this reading is impossible in the case of the coins of Reccared.1 I myself favor the ablative (or locative) interpretation; it would also apply perhaps to the form RECCOPOLV. At best, the die-engravers appear to have been puzzled about how to render the legend, for the forms not only of the mint-name but of FECIT vary in every instance. As for RECCOPOLIT and RECCOPOLITA on the two earliest specimens, the only ready interpretation that presents itself is that an adjectival form is in tended (RECCOPOLITANA?), in both cases abbreviated. The only likely explanation of RECCOXPOLI (on the coin from Cáceres) is that X is a cross turned on its side.
Cabré y Aguiló (including Beltrán's reply); E. of I., s. v. al-Rāzi (Anfänge, pp. 616–617; idem, Leovigild, pp. 146–147; idem, Rekared, p. 272; Madrid, p. 300; Zorita de los Canes in Ampurias, IX-X (1948), pp. 435–437; ; Zorita de los Canes, especially pp. 7, 33–35, 41–54.
An excellent photograph of the castle in Zorita de los Canes, pl. II.
The most recent comprehensive treatment of the identification of Reccopolis is in Juan Cabré Aguiló's "El Tesorillo Visigodo de trientes de las excavaciones...en Zorita de los Canes" (see bibliography, s. v. Zorita de los Canes).
No. 1 is slightly under weight, but it is a little chipped and worn.
"... Civitatem in Celtiberia ex nomine filii condidit quam Reccopolis nuncupatur, quam miro opere et moenibus et suburbanis adomans, privilegia populo novae Urbis instituit."
Rulers: Leovigild, Reccared, Witteric, Suinthila, Chindasvinth.3
Spelling: SALDANIA.
Epithets:
IVSTVS — Leovigild, Chindasvinth. PIVS — Reccared, Witteric, Suinthila.
Types: Leovigild: facing busts (5 l).
Reccared: facing busts (5 d).
Witteric: facing busts (5 r).
Suinthila: facing busts (5 e).
Chindasvinth: facing busts (5 q).
Modern Saldaña,, on the Carrión river, in the province of Palencia, about 60 kilometers north-northwest of the capital of the province
"contra incursus Vasconum".
Not much is known of Saldania in the Arab period. It was abandoned by the Berbers along with other northern regions after the middle of the 8th century; later it was the seat of the "Beni Gomez," descendants of Gomez Diaz, Count of Saldaña, and figured in a campaign of the great al-Manṣūr in the late 10th century.1
It will be noted that the known coins of Saldania are very scarce, and that two of them (Leovigild and Reccared), each unique, are in the collection of the Hispanic Society of
In Anfänge, pp. 616–617, Görres attempts to explain away the difficulty of Reccopolim (sic) fecit under Reccared on the grounds that while Leovigild actually founded the city, Reccared was closely associated with this founding and carried the building forward. Basing his numismatic observations in this article solely on Rasche, Görres mistakenly renders the legend unequivocally as RECCOPOLIM; in later articles he makes it clear that this is a reconstruction.
Histoire, II, p. 130; Histoire, pp. 439–440; Madrid, pp. 299–300; Hallazgos III, pp. 223–224, 229;
Madrid (p. 299) and Reinhart (p. 100), probably on Mateu's authority, name Chintila among those who struck at Saldania, but I do not know where any specimens are located.
Rulers: All except Hermenegild, Iudila and Achila.
Spelling: TOLETO.
Epithets:
IVSTVS —Leovigild. PIVS —all others.
Remarkable legends: TOLETO REX (Leovigild). TOLETO REGE (Leovigild).3
Monograms:
Types: Leovigild: first type, obverse, bust, right, of "Early Visigothic" type (1 c); reverse, Visigothic "Victory," right; second type, obverse as above; reverse, cross on 4 steps; third type, facing busts (5 a).
Reccared: facing busts (5 d).
Liuva: facing busts (5 n).
Witteric: facing busts (5 d).
Gundemar: facing busts (5 e).
Sisebut: facing busts (5 d).
Suinthila, Sisenand, Chintila, Tulga, Chindasvinth: facing busts (5 e).
Chindasvinth & Reccesvinth: first type, obverse, bust, right (2 h); reverse, mint monogram; second type, obverse, bust, right, of "Early Visigothic" type (1 c); reverse, mint monogram.
Reccesvinth: first type, facing busts (5 e); second type, obverse, bust, right, of modified "Early Visigothic" type (1 h); reverse, cross on 3 or 4 steps.
Wamba: first type, obverse, bust, right (2 h); reverse, cross on 3 steps; second type, obverse, bust, right (2 b); reverse as before; third type, obverse, bust, right, holding cross (2 ff); reverse as before.
Ervig: obverse, bust, right (2 j); reverse, cross on 3 steps.
Egica: first, second and third types, obverse, bust, right (2 j, variation, 2 m, and 2 c); reverse, cross on 3 steps; fourth and fifth types, obverse, bust, right, holding cross (2 gg, hh); reverse as before; sixth type, obverse, facing bust (11k); reverse as before.
Suniefred: obverse, bust, right, holding cross (2 gg), similar to Egica's fourth and fifth types; reverse, cross on 3 steps.
Egica & Wittiza: obverse, confronting busts and figures (13 f, k); reverse, mint monograms.
Wittiza: first type, obverse, bust, right, resembling 2 j; reverse, cross on 3 steps; second and third types, obverse, facing bust (11 m, o); reverse, cross within vine-like border
Roderic: obverse, bust, right (2 x); reverse, cross on 4 steps.
Modern Toledo, capital of the province, 40 miles south-southwest of Madrid. The name is doubtless of Celtic origin. A stronghold of the Carpetani, Toletum was conquered by Rome in 192 B. C. and became a civitas stipendiaria of Carthago Nova, where coins of Iberian type with Latin legends were issued.
Although some of the traditions concerning the earliest Christian history of Toledo have been rejected as lacking historical foundation, there is no doubt that Christianity was introduced into the region in the 1st century, and Toledo (Toleto) became the seat of a diocese at least as early as the 3rd century and the metropolis of Carthaginensis in the 5th century, certainly well before 527 when we have the first authentic proof of its status as such. First under Valia (416–419), and definitively under Euric (466–484), the city came under Visigothic
urbs regia in the acts of the Third National Council convened in 589.
As political capital, diocesan, and later primatial archepiscopal see of
In 714 Toleto (Ṭulayṭulah,
Next to Emerita the Visigothic coins of Toleto are commoner than those of any other mint (513 specimens listed in the corpus). The only great rarities are those of Liuva (3 specimens), Gundemar (3), Tulga (10), Chindasvinth & Reccesvinth (6), Suniefred (1), and Roderic (1).1
The name of Shalṭāniyah (but spelled Celtiana, equivalent to "la territoire des Célticos," in the northwest corner of
Forgeries of the latter are common.
Catholic Encycl., XIV, pp. 755–759; E. of I., s. v. Toledo (1, pp. 41, 61, 64ff., 200, 204; Anfänge, pp. 611–612; Monnaies Antiques, pp. 262–264; passim; P.-W. VIA, col. 1673.
Dubious? See footnote, catalogue No. 28 (d).
Ruler: Sisenand.
Spelling: ASIDONA. The name is sometimes mistakenly spelled ASIDONIA by modern writers. The coins confirm the spelling by the anonymous 7th century geographer of Ravenna. Some of the later episcopal lists give "Asidonia."
Epithet: PIVS.
Type: facing busts (5 e).
Probably2 modern Medina-Sidonia (also historically known as Sidonia), a commune in Cádiz province, 19 miles east-southeast of the capital, classical Asido (Asido Caesarina?), a town of the Turdetani. There are bilingual (Punic and Latin) coins with the legend ASIDO. Little is recorded of the early Christian history of Asidona; we know, however, that it was a suffragan episcopal seat of Seville and was first represented by Bishop Rufinus at the Second Council of Seville (619).3 In 571 Leovigild recovered Asidona from the Byzantines.
Known to the Arabs as Shadhūnah
Only eight specimens of the Visigothic mint are known, seven of them from the hoard of La Capilla. Five of these are in the HSA collection.
E. of I., 8. v. Medina-Sidonia (Byzantinischen Besitzungen, pp. 518ff.; idem, Leovigild, p. 140; Monnaies Antiques, p. 370; La Capilla, pp. 107–108; Histoire, pp. 15, 19; Madrid, pp. 319, 338; Nombres de Lugar, 1940, p. 73;
It has been argued that Asido is rather to be identified with Jerez de la Frontera, or with the abandoned site of Cidueña, but I have adopted Hübner's identification.
Or, according to other authority, at the Fourth National Council in 633. Cf.
Rulers: Sisebut, Suinthila, Sisenand, Tulga.
Spelling: BARBI.
Epithet: PIVS.
Types: Sisebut: unknown.
Suinthila, Sisenand: facing busts (5 e).
Tulga: facing busts (5 v).
Although several authorities, following "Municipio Barbitanus," near Tucci, which latter is the modern Martos, southwest of Jaén, I see no reason not to accept the identification proposed by Fernández y López and Singilis or Singili Barba, a municipium before the time of Vespasian, located according to the itineraries between Ostippo and Anticaria (Antequera), and perhaps in the vicinity of La Pizarra, between Alora and Cártama in Málaga province. The very close proximity of the "Municipio Barbitano" to Tucci, also a mint in the time of Sisebut, Suinthila and Sisenand, makes the former identification less likely; also there is as yet no known representation of a mint in the district of Astigi, to which Singili Barba belonged. The name Barbi occurs in the Lex Visigothorum. Hübner suggests that this form of the name derives by analogy from Singili Barba.
A very large percentage of the known specimens of this mint issued by Suinthila and Sisenand come from the hoard of La Capilla, and many of these are in the collection of the Hispanic Society of
Rulers: Leovigild, Reccared, Witteric, Sisebut, Suinthila, Sisenand, Chintila, Tulga, Chindasvinth, Reccesvinth, Wamba, Ervig, Egica, Egica & Wittiza, Wittiza.
Spelling: CORDOBA.
Epithet: PIVS — Reccared, Witteric, Sisebut, Suinthila, Sisenand, Chintila, Tulga, Chindasvinth, Reccesvinth.
Remarkable legends: CORDOBA BIS OPTINVIT (Leovigild). CORDOBA PATRICIA (Chindasvinth, Reccesvinth, Wamba, Ervig, Egica, Wittiza).
Monograms:
Types: Leovigild: facing busts of distinctive Cordoban type ( 9a, b).
Reccared: facing busts of Cordoban type (9c).
Witteric, Sisebut: facing busts of Cordoban type (9b).
Suinthila: first type, facing busts of Cordoban type (9b); second type, facing busts of general type (5 e).
Sisenand: facing busts of general type (5 e).
Chintila: first type, facing busts of Cordoban type (9 b); second type, obverse, facing bust of Cordoban type (9 b); reverse, facing bust with cross in place of breast (10 a).
Tulga: similar to Chintila's second type.
Chindasvinth: first and second types, facing busts of Cordoban type (9 b); third type, similar to Chintila's second type, but within circle; fourth type, obverse, facing bust of Cordoban Type (9 b), within circle; reverse, facing bust with chrismon in place of breast (10 b), also within circle.
Reccesvinth: first type, obverse, facing head within circle (10 d); reverse, facing bust with chrismon in place of breast (10 b), also within circle; second type, obverse, facing head within circle (10 e); reverse, cross on 3 steps, also within circle; third type, obverse, facing head (10f); reverse, facing bust of late type (11 a); fourth and fifth types, obverse, bust, right, of modified "Early Visigothic" type (1 h); reverse, cross on 3 steps.
Wamba: first, second and third types, obverse, busts, right (2 n, p and t); reverse, cross on 3 steps.
Ervig: first type, obverse, bust, right (2 r); reverse, cross on 3 steps; second type, obverse, facing bust (5 o); reverse as before; third and fourth types, obverse, facing busts of late types (11 b, d); reverse as before.
Egica: first type, obverse, bust, right (2 o, p); reverse, cross on 3 steps; second type, obverse, bust, right, holding cross (2 ii); reverse as before.
Egica & Wittiza: first type, obverse, confronting busts (13 f); reverse, mint monogram; second type, obverse as before but within circle; reverse, cross and circular legend, within circle; third type, obverse, pair of facing busts (13 n); reverse, mint monogram; fourth type, as third, but obverse within circle.
Wittiza: first and second types, obverse, bust, right (2 u, bb); reverse, cross on 3 steps; third type, obverse, facing bust of late type (11 b) similar to one of Ervig's; reverse as before.
Modern Córdoba (Cordova in English), capital of the province of the same name, on the Guadalquivir River, the ancient Corduba of Hispania Ulterior, a Roman colony founded probably during the Pompeian occupation of 46–45 B.C. on the site of an earlier town containing a vicus of Roman citizens from the time of the campaigns of Colonia Patricia
Corduba under Augustus and thereafter. Under Roman rule the city soon became the military and commercial capital of Baetica.
The Christian history of Cordoba may have begun as early as the apostolic period, but the name of the founder of the see is unknown; the earliest recorded bishop was Severus, ca. 279. It was, of course, the seat of an important diocese throughout the Visigothic period, and the name occurs, always as Cordoba, on all the mediaeval lists of sedes of the Metropolis of Ispalis.1 During the reign of Agila, Cordoba was the center of the rebellion in Baetica which took place in 551. Subsequently, ca. 567–572, probably as a result of the struggle between Agila and Athanagild, the city fell into Byzantine hands, but it was recovered by Leovigild in the latter year. In 584 Cordoba was temporarily occupied by Hermenegild after his flight from Seville, but in the same year it surrendered once more to Leovigild, who was, it seems, aided on this occasion by Byzantine treachery, for the
The fame of Cordoba under the Arabs (Qurṭubah, al-Andalus of the coins).2 The later vicissitudes of Cordoba do not concern us here; it returned to Christian hands with Ferdinand III of Castile in 1236.
Of special interest among the Visigothic coins of Cordoba are the historically commemorative ones struck by Leovigild in 584 with the legend CORDOBA BIS OPTINVIT, referring to the two occasions of his capturing the city (see above). These coins are of first-class importance in determining the chronology of Leovigild's issues. Also remarkable is thelegend CORDOBA PATRICIA, harking back to the Augustan Colonia Patricia, first introduced by the Romanizing Chindasvinth and in constant use on the coins thereafter until the end of the kingdom. Great rarities in the long series of Cordoba are the unica of Witteric (Acad, de la Historia),3 and of Sisebut (HSA).
La Capilla, pp. 71–76; Madrid, p. 322; A , cols. 235–236.
In modern times, before 1851, Córdoba was suffragan to Toledo, but since that date it has been, as formerly, within the Archiocese of Sevilla.
Catholic Encycl., IV, pp. 359–360; E. of I., a. v. Córdoba (1, p. 52; Anfänge, p. 602; idem, Leovigild, pp. 140–141; idem, Byzantinischen Besitzungen, pp. 516, 518–526; idem, Hermenegild, pp. 46–49; Grant, pp. 4–5; Monnaies Antiques, pp. 296–297; Córdoba, pp. 50ff.; Umayyads, pp. 33–43, 50–51; P.-W. IV, cols. 1221–24;
For the unique Umayyad coin (in the HSA collection) bearing the mintname Madīnat Qurṭubah, see Umayyads, p. 50–51.
See the discussion of the authenticity of this coin, pp. 243–4.
Rulers: Chintila, Egica & Wittiza.
Spelling: EGABR (Chintila). EGABRO (Egica & Wittiza).
Epithet: PIVS.
Monogram:
Types: Chintila: facing busts, types unknown.
Egica & Wittiza: first type, obverse, confronting busts (13 f), within circle; reverse, sprig and circular legend, within circle; second type, obverse, unknown; reverse, mint monogram.
Modern Cabra, a commune in Córdoba province, 37 miles southeast of the capital city, ancient Igabrum,2 an Iberian city, the name of whose inhabitants is preserved in inscriptions. The name (Egabro) appears in the lists of mediaeval episcopal sedes and also in the Leges Visigothorum, where it is listed as a territorium, interpreted by Manuel Torres as being equivalent to a "provincia-condado" under the administration of a iudex. To the Arabs the town was known as Qabrah
Rulers: Reccared, Witteric, Gundemar, Sisebut, Suinthila, Iudila, Sisenand, Chintila, Chindasvinth, Ervig, Egica, Egica & Wittiza.
Spelling: ELIBERRI, ELIBERI; exceptionally ILIBERRI, LIBERRI and LIBERI under Reccared. The spelling ELIBER under Suinthila, (Iudila), and Sisenand is probably simply an abbreviation, and other anomalies during this period are the result of careless engraving. The spelling ELIVERI occurs on one specimen of Ervig.
Epithets: PIVS — all rulers. IVSTVS — Reccared.
Monograms:
Types: Reccared: facing busts (5 d).
Witteric, Gundemar, Sisebut: facing busts (5 e).
Suinthila: facing busts (5f).
Iudila: unknown.
Sisenand, Chintila: facing busts (5 f).
Chindasvinth: obverse, facing bust with cross in place of breast (10 a) similar to Cordoba; reverse, facing bust of Cordoban type ( 9 b).
Ervig: first type, obverse, bust, right (2 r); reverse, cross on 3 steps; second type, obverse, facing bust of late type (11 h); reverse as before.
Egica: obverse, crude facing bust of late type (11 e); reverse, cross on 3 steps.
Egica & Wittiza: obverse, confronting busts (13 f), with and without scepter.
In the vicinity of mediaeval and modern Granada, ancient Iliberri in Hispania Baetica, one of the celeberrima oppida between the Baetis and the coast (Pliny), a city of the Turduli, belonging under the Romans to the Conventus Cordubensis and known by them, according to inscriptions, as municipium Florentinum Iliberritani. Coins with Iberian legends are known. The exact location of the city is disputed, the most convincing archaeological (epigraphical) evidence pointing to a village named Atarfe, some eight kilometers west of Granada, in the Sierra de Elvira, which latter name derives from Eliberri; other finds suggesting a hill opposite the Alhambra in Granada itself, the site of the later Moorish Alcazaba.
Eliberri (also spelled Iliberri and Illiberri in the mediaeval lists) was the site of the famous and important first council of bishops in ca. 305. The diocese of Eliberri (later of Granada) is reported to date back to 64 A.D., and the names of 62 bishops from St. Cecilius to Agapius (957) are recorded; in 1493 Granada became an archdiocese. The town and district was known to the Arabs as Ilbīrah
The number of known specimens of the Visigothic mint of Eliberri is greatly increased by the publication of the Hispanic Society collection, which includes 22 specimens of Suinthila and 14 of Sisenand, most of these from the hoard of La Capilla. Rare issues are those of Gundemar (4 specimens), Iudila (1), Chintila (2, one of which in the HSA collection), Chindasvinth (1), and Ervig (3).
Madrid, p. 331;
Sometimes rendered Aegabro.
Catholic Encycl., V, pp. 395–396, VI, pp. 723–724; Recherches (3rd ed.), I. PP. 327–340; E. of I., s. v. Elvira (Monnaies Antiques, pp. 325–326;
Rulers: All (including Hermenegild), except Iudila, Suniefred, Roderic and Achila.
Spelling: ISPALI. Leovigild's issues bear abbreviations, SPALI, SPLI, SPL, SPI.
Epithet: PIVS.
Remarkable legends: CVM D[E]O OPTINVIT SPALI, and variations (Leovigild). CVM DEO SPALI ADQVISITA (Leovigild). VRB ISPALI PIVS (Chindasvinth).
Monograms:
Types: Leovigild: first and second types, obverse, bust, right, of "Early Visigothic" type (1 c); reverse, cross on 4 steps; third type, facing busts of various sub-types (5 a, h, k, l, m).
Hermenegild: obverse, bust, right, of "Early Visigothic" type (1 c); reverse, Visigothic "Victory," right.
Reccared: facing busts (5 d).
Liuva, Witteric, Gundemar, Sisebut, Suinthila, Sisenand, Chintila, Tulga, Chindasvinth: facing busts (5 e).
Chindasvinth & Reccesvinth: first type, obverse, bust, left, of modified "Early Visigothic" type (1 e); reverse, mint monogram; second type like the first, except bust faces right (1 f).
Reccesvinth: first type, obverse, bust, right, of modified "Early Visigothic" type (1f); reverse, mint monogram; second type, obverse, bust, left, of "Early Visigothic" type (1 e); reverse, cross on 4 steps; third type, obverse as second type but bust faces right (1 f); reverse, cross on 3 steps; fourth type, obverse, bust, right, of modified "Early Visigothic" type (1 h); reverse, cross on 3 or 4 steps; fifth type, obverse, bust, right, of uncertain type; reverse, cross on 3 steps.
Wamba: obverse, bust right (2 b); reverse, cross on 3 steps.
Ervig: first type as Wamba; second type, obverse, bust, right, holding cross (2 jj); reverse as before; third and fourth types, obverse, facing busts of late types (11 r, n); reverse as before.
Egica: first type, obverse, bust, right (2 b); reverse, cross on 3 steps; second type, obverse, bust, right, holding cross, resembling 2 jj; reverse as before; third type, obverse, facing bust of late type (11 p); reverse as before.
Egica & Wittiza: first type, obverse, confronting busts (13 f); reverse, mint monogram; second type, as first but monogram within circle.
Wittiza: first type, obverse, very crude bust, right (2 aa); reverse, cross on 3 steps; second type, facing (?) bust of indeterminate type; reverse as before.
Modern Sevilla (Seville), capital of the province of the same name, ancient Hispalis, or Hispali (probably more correctly Ispalis), a Turdetan city first mentioned in Julius Caesar's Spanish campaigns, designated, as on coins of Augustus, Colonia Iulia Romula. The modern name derives from the colloquial Latin Spalis, and the forms on the coins of Leovigild are interesting in this connection. In the Roman period the city became one of the most important in Baetica, along with Gades and Corduba, particularly as commercial emporium, located as it was on the left bank of the navigable Baetis.
The diocese (now an archdiocese) dates from the 1st century, and a Bishop Sabinus attended the Council of Elvira. In 467 Pope Simplicius appointed as his vicar Bishop Zenón of Ispali to put the affairs of Baetica in order, which would imply the existence of the archepiscopal see here at this date. Especially famous in the long line of bishops were Leander, who was instrumental in the conversion of Hermenegild and, in 586 or early 587, of Reccared, to Catholicism, and who presided at the Third Council of Toledo in 589; and Isidore, the noted historian. In the mediaeval episcopal lists the name is spelled Ispali, Ispalis, and sometimes Hispali.
Between approximately 411 and 428, with a short interruption, Ispali was occupied by the Vandals, and was taken by the Suevian Rechila about 441. A little more than a century later it came definitively into the unified Visigothic kingdom under Athanagild. In 579 Hermenegild made the city his capital at the time of his conversion and of his rebellion against his father, and it was undoubtedly here that his trientes were struck.1 In 583 Leovigild began the siege of the city which ended the following year with its surrender under attack and the flight of Hermenegild. Leovigild's coins with the legends CVM D[E]O OBTINVIT SPALI (etc.) and (if genuine, see the catalogue) CVM DEO SPALI ADQVISITA, undoubtedly refer to this event.
Ispali was the site of provincial councils in 590 and 619, the latter presided over by St. Isidore. In 712, after a siege of a month or perhaps longer, the city (Ishbīliyah,
The exceptional legend VRB ISPALI PIVS under Chindasvinth
Suevia, p. 88; Catholic Encycl., XIII, pp. 744–746; E. of I., s. v. Seville (1, pp. 51–52, 56, 60, 75, 126, 200; Byzantinischen Besitzungen, pp. 518–526; idem, Hermenegild, pp. 13, 27–28, 38ff., 46; Monnaies Antiques, pp. 392–394; Umayyads, p. 34;
See p. 24 for the legends on Hermenegild's coins.
Ruler: Leovigild.
Spelling: ETALICA.
Epithet: PIVS (on obverse with name of king).
Remarkable legend: CVM DEO ETALICA.
Type: obverse, bust, right, of "Early Visigothic" type (1 c); reverse, cross on 4 steps.
Ruins in the vicinity of modern Santiponce, formerly known as Sevilla la Vieja and Campos de Talca, seven or eight kilometers northwest of Seville on the right bank of the Guadalquivir; ancient Italica, an outpost against the Lusitanians founded ca. 205 B.C. by Scipio Africanus, given municipal status perhaps by Julius Caesar, certainly by Augustus. The coins issued by Augustus, Tiberius et. al. bear MVNIC ITALIC PERM AVG, etc. Italica was the home of Trajan and Hadrian, and from the latter received the title Colonia V(ictrix?) Italicensium. It became a first-class commercial center and exported large quantities of olive oil; its huge amphitheater, the fourth largest in the Roman world, is witness to its civic importance, certainly equal to that of Hispalis.
That Italica was the seat of a diocese of the Ispali Metropolis we know from the mediaeval episcopal lists. We also know that Leovigild occupied Italica and strengthened its walls during the course of his siege of Ispali in 583–584.3 The unique coin in the collection of the Hispanic Society of
To the later Moslems in
Cf. Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos IV, p. 248.
E.of I., s. v. Seville; Hermenegild, pp. 45–46; Monnaies Antiques, pp. 378–380; Oxford, p. 462; P.-W. IX, cols. 2283–84;
Johannes Biclarensis: "Leovigildus muros Italicae antiquae civitatis restauravit."
There is, so far as I have been able to determine, no reason whatever to suspect the authenticity of this remarkable coin.
Ruler: Sisenand.
Spelling: MALACA.
Epithet: PIVS.
Type: facing busts (5 f).
Modern Málaga, capital of the province of the same name, on the coast in southern Malaca, founded by Tyrians soon after Gades (ca. 1100 B.C.), and next to Gades the most important of their colonies in civitas foederata, later, under the Flavian emperors, a municipium.
The earliest known bishop of Malaca is said to have been Patricius, present at the Council of Elvira early in the 4th century; but the name of the diocese does not actually appear until the Sixth Council of Toledo (638). In the interim Malaca, with contiguous localities, was under Byzantine control, except during Leovigild's campaign of the year 570; and it was not until the reign of Sisebut that the city came definitely into Visigothic hands. Although the diocese appears to have been suppressed after the Arab invasion (it fell in 711) and until the reconquest by Ferdinand and Isabella, there is evidence that the church was still active in Malaca in the 12th century. The city was known to the Arabs as Mālaqah
Only three (or perhaps only two) specimens of the Visigothic mint are known.2 With regard to the spelling of the name on the coins, the
Malaca on the mediaeval church lists, but the forms Mallaca, Malace, Malacha and Malaga also occur.
Catholic Encycl., IX, p. 565; E. of I., s. v. Malaga (Byzantinischen Besitzungen, pp. 518ff., 530–532; idem, Anfänge, p. 601; Monnaies Antiques, pp. 311–313; Hallazgos IV, pp. 243–244;
See pp. 314–5.
Rulers: Leovigild(?), Sisebut, Suinthila, Sisenand, Chintila, Ervig, Egica & Wittiza.
Spelling: TVCCI, TVCI. The omission of one of the C's is usually but not always indicated by dots. Under Ervig the name is spelled out in full. Epithets: IVSTVS — Sisebut, Suinthila, Sisenand, Chintila. PIVS — Suinthila, Ervig.
Monogram:
Types: Leovigild: unknown.
Sisebut: facing busts, type unknown.
Suinthila: facing busts (5 e, f).
Sisenand, Chintila: facing busts (5 e).
Ervig: obverse, bust, right (2 q); reverse, cross on 3 steps.
Egica & Wittiza: obverse, confronting busts (13 e, f); reverse, mint monograms.
Modern Martos, a commune of Jaén province, 14 miles southwest of the city of Jaén, ancient Tucci, a town of the Turduli, Roman Colonia Augusta Gemella, mentioned simply as Gemella in the war with Viriatus, 141 B.C. The identification is established by inscriptions found on the site. Other unidentified Tucci's (or I-tucci), named by Appian and Pliny and in the Itinerarium Antonini, were also located in Baetica. In pre-Visigothic and Visigothic times Tucci (sometimes confused in the lists with Tude) was an episcopal seat. It was represented at the famous Council of Eliberri. The early Arabic rendering of the name was Tush
The existence of the single coin of Leovigild is doubtful: see p. 193. Most of the specimens of Suinthila and all but two of those of Sisenand are in the HSA collection and are from the hoard of La Capilla. One of the two known specimens of Ervig, and two of the five specimens of Egica & Wittiza, are also in the HSA collection.
Recherches, I (3rd ed.), pp. 311–313; A, col. 765; Vázquez de Parga, pp. 22–31.
Ruler: Witteric.
Spelling: CALIABRIA.
Epithet: PIVS.
Type: facing busts (5 e).
Ruins now known as Castello deCalabre,2 in north-central Calabria and Caliabrica in the episcopal lists) was the seat of a diocese, said to have been transferred there from Viseu and not regularly represented at the councils of Toledo, the name of the bishop being absent on the records of the Ninth to Fourteenth and the Sixteenth Councils, i.e., during the second half of the 7th century.
The unique specimen of Caliabria was first published by Velazquez.
Rulers: Reccared, Sisebut, Suinthila.
Spelling: COLEIA. The specimen of Reccared has COLEIV, but the last letter is probably Λ inverted.
Epithets: IVSTVS —Reccared. PIVS — Suinthila. Sisebut has PIΛT•, which is unintelligible.
Types: Reccared: unknown.
Sisebut, Suinthila: facing busts (5 e).
Location unknown. A place called Coleia or Goleia appears in the Acts of the Council of Braga, the "Division of Wamba,"and the Liber Itacii, in the diocese of Viseu. Only four specimens of the mint are known to exist.
Suevia, p. 152; Elias Garcia, Lusitânia, p. 69; Madrid, p. 362;
See Elias Garcia, Lusitânia, p. 69, for a bibliography of works dealing with the ruins.
Lusitânia, p. 64; Fernández-Guerra, II, pp. 439–446;
Ruler: Reccared.
Spelling: CONTONSΛ.
Epithet: IVSTVS.
Type: facing busts (5 l).
Location uncertain, possibly modern Magacela, a village a few miles south of Don Benito in Badajoz province, ancient Contosolia, which lay, according to the Itinerarium Antonini, on the road between Emerita and Laminium, probably near Metellinum. The entire identification is dubious, especially in view of the questionable interpretation of the legend CONTONSΛ as Contosolia on the single specimen that has so far come to light.
Rulers: Reccared, Sisebut, Suinthila, Sisenand, Tulga, Chindasvinth, Reccesvinth, Ervig, Egica, Egica & Wittiza, Roderic.
Spelling: EGITANIA; exceptionally, on one issue of Reccesvinth, EGETANIA. Epithet: PIVS.
Monograms:
Types: Reccared: facing busts (5 d variant, 5 d).
Sisebut, Sisenand, Tulga, Chindasvinth: facing busts of Lusitanian type (obverse 8 c, reverse 7).
Reccesvinth: first type, obverse, bust, right, of modified "Early Visigothic" type (1 h); reverse, cross on 3 steps; second type, obverse, bust, right (2 g); reverse as before.
Ervig: obverse, bust, right (2 p); reverse, cross on 3 steps.
Egica: obverse, bust, right (2 p), or holding cross (2 jj); reverse, cross on 3 steps.
Egica & Wittiza: obverse, confronting busts (13 f); reverse, mint monogram.
Roderic: obverse, facing bust of late type (11 i); reverse, cross on 3 steps.
Modern Idanha a Velha, on the Ponsul river, about 25 miles northeast of Castelo Branca, which latter is the capital of Beira Baixa province, in easternmost central Civitas Igaeditanorum (or Aegiditanorum), recorded in inscriptions. Egitania,
Igitania, Agathania and Itunia in the mediaeval lists (Emerita Metropolis), was the seat of a diocese, later (1199) inherited by Guarda Egitaniensis. The see is reputed to have been founded by the Suevian Theudomir and was first represented at the Second Council of Braga, 572, by Bishop Adoricus, or Adorio. During the Suevian period the diocese of Egitania was suffragan to Braga, then one of the two great ecclesiastical divisions of Lusitania, but in 666, or before, it became subject to Emerita. It has been suggested that the locality named by the Arabs Anṭāniyah, which figures in the internal disturbances of the latter half of the 9th century in Andalusia , is to be identified with Idanha a Velha.
Some issues of the mint of Egitania are excessively rare: only one specimen each of Reccared, Sisebut, Tulga and Chindasvinth is known, and of Ervig and Egica only two each. It has been argued that Roderic cannot have struck coins at Egitania, but I have not found sufficient grounds for rejecting the specimens admitted to the corpus.
Catholic Encycl., VII, p. 49; Histoire, p. 211;
Rulers: Leovigild, Reccared, Liuva, Witteric, Gundemar, Sisebut, Suinthila, Ervig, Egica, Egica & Wittiza.
Spelling: ELVORA (through Suinthila). ERBORA (Reccared, unique). EBORA (Suinthila)? ELBORA (Ervig, Egica).
Epithets: IVSTVS — (through Suinthila). VICTOR — Suinthila(?). PIVS —Reccared(unique), Ervig, Egica.
Monograms:
Types: Leovigild: first type, obverse, bust, right, of "Early Visigothic" type (1 c); reverse, cross on 4 steps; second type, facing busts (5 a).
Reccared: facing busts (5 d).
Liuva, Witteric: facing busts (5 e).
Gundemar: facing busts, unknown type.
Sisebut: facing busts (5 d).
Suinthila: facing busts(5e).
Ervig: obverse, facing bust of late type (11 b); reverse, cross on 3 steps.
Egica: obverse, bust, right, holding cross (type unknown); reverse, cross on 3 steps.
Egica & Wittiza: obverse, confronting busts (13 f); reverse, mint monogram.
Modern Évora, capital of Alto Alentejo province, on the plateau between the valley of the Anas and the estuary of Cantobriga in south-central Ebora (also Aebura and Ebura), known as Liberalitas Iulia. In spite of conflicting descriptions from different sources, it would appear that the several places with similar names, including Aebura of the Carpetani and Eburabrittium, all are identical with Ebora. Coins of Augustus were struck here, and also possibly those bearing two fish and the legend AIPORA (and perhaps AIBORA). Elvora (variant spellings in the mediaeval lists Elbora, Ebbora) was an episcopal see, suffragan to Emerita, at least as early as the 4th century; a Bishop Quintianus was present at the Council of Elvira (Eliberri). After the reconquest (1166) the revived bishopric became subject to Braga, later was restored to Emerita (Compostella), then (1394) became suffragan to Lisbon; and finally (1544) was raised to the rank of an archdiocese.
Elvora was taken by the Arabs, probably under 'Abd al-'Aziz b. Mūsa, between 714 and 716, and subsequently became known as Yáburah
The several spellings of the name of the mint on Visigothic coins suggest that the pronunciation was no more stable at that time than it was in other periods of the city's history. This instability can be adduced to support the authenticity of the disputed piece of Reccared with the name spelled ERBORA.
Exceptionally rare are the issues of Gundemar (unique), Suinthila (two, one of which very doubtful), Ervig (unique), and Egica (two).
Catholic Encycl., V, pp. 670–671; Monnaies Antiques, pp. 407–408; Histoire, p. 22; Madrid, p. 355;
Rulers: All except Suniefred, Roderic and Achila.
Spelling: EMERITA; occassionally EMERETA (Reccared, Liuva, Witteric, Gundemar, Sisebut).3
Epithets: VICTOR —Leovigild, Reccared, Chindasvinth. PIVS... VICTOR — Leovigild, Reccared. PIVS — Reccared through Wittiza.
Remarkable legend: EMERITA VICTORIA (Leovigild).
Monograms:
Types: Leovigild: first type, obverse, bust, right, of "Early Visigothic" type (1 c); reverse, cross on 3 or 4 steps; second type, facing busts of distinctive types (3 d, 6 d); third type, obverse, crowned facing bust (3 e); reverse, facing bust of common type (5 l); fourth type, obverse, facing bust of Lusitanian type (8 a); reverse, facing busts of two different types (5 l, 6 a). I have placed the Lusitanian (or Emeritan) type of obverse last, because variations of this type are adopted by Reccared and successors, but there is no sure indication of the order of succession of issues after the early (first) type.
Reccared: first type, obverse, facing bust of Lusitanian type (8 b); reverse, facing bust of general type (5 l, variation); second type, obverse, first as before (8 b), later the quite similar type with two points separated by a vertical line (8 c), which becomes the standard Lusitanian obverse thereafter; reverse, the prototype of the standard Lusitanian reverse facing bust (7), but shorter than the later standard type and with the vertical lines commonly not extending into the marginal legend; third type, obverse, exclusively 8 c (as the later issues of the second type); reverse, the standard long Lusitanian facing reverse bust, with the vertical lines extending into and interrupting the legend. Catalogue No. 94 (a) appears to be a transitional piece.
Liuva, Witteric, Gundemar: standard Lusitanian facing busts (obverse, 8 c; reverse, 7).
Sisebut: first type as predecessors (8 c, 7); second type, variation with short reverse bust; third type, exceptional issue with obverse facing bust of unknown type, and reverse, cross on 3 steps.
Suinthila, Iudila, Sisenand, Chintila: standard Lusitanian facing busts (8 c, 7).
Tulga: first type as before (8 c, 7); second type, obverse, facing bust of distinctive type with chrismon on breast (10 c); reverse as before.
Chindasvinth: standard Lusitanian facing busts (8 c, 7).
Chindasvinth & Reccesvinth: obverse, bust, right, of modified "Early Visigothic" Type (1 f); reverse, mint monogram.
Reccesvinth: first and second types, obverse, bust, right, of distinctive modified "Early Visigothic" type, with and without cap or crown (1 i, j); reverse, cross on 3 or 4 steps; third type, obverse, bust, right, of common modified "Early Visigothic" type (1 h); reverse, cross on 3 steps.
Wamba: two types with obverse, bust right (2 n, p); reverse, cross on 3 steps.
Ervig: obverse, facing bust of late type (11 b); reverse, cross on 3 steps.
Egica: first two types, obverse, bust, right, similar to Wamba's (2 n and p); reverse, cross on 4 or 3 steps; third type, obverse, another
Egica & Wittiza: obverse, confronting figures of several types (13 j, l, m); reverse, mint monogram.
Wittiza: first type, obverse, bust, right (2 l); reverse, cross on 3 steps; second type, obverse, uncertain; reverse as before; third type, obverse, facing bust (11 o); reverse, equilateral cross with stars in quarters; fourth type, obverse, bust, right (2 l); reverse, equilateral cross, or cross on 3 steps.
Modern Mérida, a commune in Badajoz province in southwest Anas); ancient Augusta Emerita, founded by Augustus in approximately 25 B.C. for the benefit of the 5th and 10th legionaries (Emeriti) of the Cantabrian war. There are numerous coins of Augustus, Julia and Tiberius, and extensive ruins attest the importance of the city in Roman times. Its prominence under the Visigoths likewise is reflected in the very plentiful Visigothic coinage; more coins of Emerita are preserved than of any other mint (757 specimens listed in the present corpus).
In the Suevian period the diocese of Emerita formed part of the ecclesiastical province of Lusitania; subsequently, toward 380, as archepiscopal see it became the seat of the Metropolitan of Lusitania, which included some of the dioceses formerly subject to Braga. The see ceased to exist with the Arab invasion, and when revived at the time of the reconquest was placed under Compostella. Today Mérida is included in the diocese of Badajoz. Most famous of the early metropolitans of Emerita was Masona, the founder of a remarkable hospital for the poor.
Emerita was taken by the Suevian Rechila in 439; about 457 it figured in the campaigns of Theodoric when the city was said to have been saved from pillage by the intervention of St. Eulalia. In 468 it was retaken by Euric from the Suevians and was defended against the latter the following year. In the revolt against Agila, Emerita remained loyal to the king; later, during Hermenegild's uprising, the city appears to have taken the Catholic side and had to be recovered by Leovigild during the course of his campaign against his son. It is doubtless to this event, in the autumn of 582, that Leovigild's coins bearing VICTOR and VICTORIA refer. In 588 a revolt against Reccared, led by the Arian bishop of the city and joined in by certain Gothic nobles, was suppressed by Claudius, Duke of Emerita; it is possible that Reccared's coins with VICTOR concern this success of the Catholic king. An important council took place at Emerita in the year 666. Among a number of inscriptions from Visigothic times
After a siege of several months Mérida, called by the Arabs Māridah
The only rare Visigothic coins of Emerita are those of Gundemar (four specimens), of Iudila (one only, in the HSA collection), and of Chindasvinth and Reccesvinth (two specimens).
Heiss argued (p. 51) that the Visigothic mint of Elvora probably was not Évora in Aebura of the Carpetani, in the extreme northwest of the province of Toledo on the right bank of the Tagus. But modern criticism, as stated above, tends to make the several names identical; and furthermore, not all the Lusitanian mints used the Lusitanian busts.
Catholic Encycl., II, p. 194, IV, p. 188; E. of I.,8. v. Mérida (1, pp.49, 51, 91, 200; Byzantinischen Besitzungen, pp. 518–526; idem, Leovigild, p. 163; idem, Hermenegild, p. 38; Monnaies Antiques, pp. 398–399; Histoire, p. 19;
A single case of IMERITA under Sisebut.
Rulers: Reccared, Liuva, Witteric, Sisebut, Suinthila, Chintila.
Spelling: AEMINIO (Reccared); IMINIO (Reccared, Liuva, Witteric, Sisebut); EMINIO (Sisebut, Suinthila, Chintila). AEMINIO is the earlier and more correct spelling, but it was abandoned after Reccared; while IMINIO and EMINIO are about equally frequent, I have chosen the latter, being closer phonetically to the original form, as the standard Visigothic spelling. Epithets: IVSTVS — Reccared, Sisebut. PIVS — Reccared, Liuva, Witteric, Sisebut, Suinthila, Chintila.
Types: Reccared: first type, obverse, facing bust (5 d); reverse, facing bust of of Lusitanian type (8 b); second type, various combinations of facing busts (8 b: 5 m, 5 d:5 a, 5 l:5 r).
Liuva: facing busts of standard Lusitanian type (8 c, 7).
Witteric: facing busts (obverse, standard Lusitanian type 8 c; reverse, 5 l).
Sisebut: first type, obverse, facing bust of standard Lusitanian type (8 c) or a variation (8 d); reverse, standard Lusitanian reverse facing bust (7); second type, unknown.
Suinthila, Chintila: facing busts of standard Lusitanian type (8 c, 7).
Modern Coimbra, capital of the district of the same name and of the province of Beira Litoral in Aeminium, one of the civitates stipendiariae of Lusitania. The actual site of ancient Aeminium appears to have lain on the road between Olisipo and Bracara, between Conimbrica (or Conimbriga) and Talabriga. The later name of the town and episcopal see of Conimbrica (Coimbra)2 was taken from that of the ancient Conimbriga, which lay 12 kilometers south of the existing city on the site of what is today known as Condeixa a Velha, between ancient Aeminium and Collippo. Thus it seems that in Visigothic times the urban center of the district was for some
Conimbriga to Aeminium, but the name of the originally more important locality was transferred to the new site. In the second half of the 5th century Coimbra appears to have suffered heavily as it repeatedly changed hands between Suevians and Visigoths.
The first known bishop was Lucentius, who was present at the First Council of Braga (561); the see was suffragan to Braga until transferred to Emerita (q.v.) in the middle of the 7th century. To the Arabs the town was known as Qulumrīyah ca. 714.
With the exception of the coins of Reccared, specimens of Eminio are very scarce, those of Liuva, Suinthila and Chintila being unica, and there are only two of Witteric and four of Sisebut.
Catholic Encycl., IV, p. 95; Histoire, p. 22; Hallazgos V, pp. 69–70;
Also spelled Conimbria, Conibria, Colimbria, etc. in the mediaeval ecclesiastical lists.
Rulers: Sisebut, Sisenand, Chindasvinth.
Spelling: LAMEGO, possibly LAMECO: there is too little evidence to enable one to decide definitely which spelling is preferred. Only three specimens are known. The specimen of Sisebut clearly has Ҁ (i. e., G); that of Sisenand has never been reproduced, and the fact that it is transcribed C means nothing; the one of Chindasvinth is damaged at this point in the legend and could be or
Epithet: PIVS.
Types: Sisebut: obverse, facing bust (5 1); reverse, variant of obverse.
Sisenand: unknown.
Chindasvinth: facing busts of standard Lusitanian type (8 c, 7).
Modern Lamego, a town in Vizeu district, Beira Alta province, about five kilometers south of the Doura. Although Heiss and others have stated that Lamego was the ancient Lamacum, Lamaecum or Lamecum, I have not been able to trace this name in classical geography. The episcopal see of Lamego appears to have been founded between 569 and 572; the first authentic bishop was Sardinarius, who was present at the Second Council of Braga in 572. At first suffragan to Braga, the diocese of Lamego was later (in 666) placed under Emerita. After the Arab conquest and until the reconquest by Ferdinand I of Castile and Leon in the 11th century the bishopric was probably titulary, the actual seat being vacant. The city was said to have been destroyed on one occasion (982) by al-Manṣūr ibn abi'Āmir. In Arabic the first two consonants of the city's name were transposed, i.e., Malego
Catholic Encycl., VIII, pp. 761–762; Histoire, II, p. 261, III, p. 74; Elias Garcia, Lamecum, pp. 7–8; La Capilla, p. 113;
Ruler: Reccared.
Spelling: MONECPIO, MONECIP.2
Epithet: IVSTVS.
Types: first type, obverse, facing bust of standard Lusitanian reverse type (7); reverse, facing bust (5 l); second type, facing busts of general type (5 f).
Tentatively identified as modern Monsanto, a town about six kilometers northeast of Idanha a Velha (Egitania, q. v.) in Beira Baixa province, Mene followed by Cipio (=Menecipio?) are mentioned in some versions of the mediaeval ecclesiastical divisions, included in the diocese of Egitania; and a Bishop Eucharius of Municipio is reported to have been present at the Council of Elvira (see Eliberri). The proximity of Monecipio to Egitania (if this identification is correct) would help explain the abandonment of the diocese and mint after Reccared.
Rulers: Reccared, Witteric, Suinthila, Ervig, Egica, Egica & Wittiza.
Spelling: SALAMANTECA (Reccared); SALMANTECA (Reccared); SALA-MANTICA (Witteric); SALAMANTC (Suinthila); SALMANTICA (Ervig); SALMATICA(?) (Egica).
Epithet: IVSTVS? — Reccared. PIVS — Reccared(?), Ervig.
Monograms:
Types: Reccared: facing busts (5 l, d).
Witteric, Suinthila: facing busts (5 e).
Ervig: observe, bust, right, facing cross (2 ll); reverse, symbol of sun (?) (12 f). Neither of these types can be considered verified, as the only illustration of the coin is a dubious drawing in Florez.
Egica: obverse, crude facing head in the form of a cross; reverse, cross 3 steps.
Egica & Wittiza: obverse, confronting figures (13 i); reverse, mint monogram.
Modern Salamanca, capital of the province of the same name, on the Tormes River, in western Salmantica, a large city of the Vaccaei or of the Vettoni, besieged by Hannibal in 220 B. C., later a municipium. Salmantica (also sometimes rendered Helmantica) lay on the military highway connecting Emerita and Asturica. A large bridge of originally Roman construction, probably built by Trajan, crosses the river at this point. The episcopal see of Salmantica (also spelled Salamantica, a variant represented on the coinage)1 reportedly dates from immediately post-Apostolic times; at all events it was represented as early as the Third Council of Toledo (589).
Probably occupied by Mūsa b. Nuṣayr ca. 713, the city, known as Shalmantiqah
Specimens of the coinage are rare, the known specimens of Witteric and Egica being unica. There were four specimens of Suinthila in the hoard of La Capilla and the only one of these whose whereabouts is known is the piece in the collection of the Hispanic Society of
Beltrán, p. 411; Suevia, pp. 86–87, 104; Elias Garcia, Monecipio, pp. 14–19;
I take it that IS, following these letters, stands for IVSTVS. Among other problems connected with the identification of the mint is the fact that at least two of the coins have Ҁ (not C), which usually stands for G.
Catholic Encycl., XIII, p. 391; E. of I., s. v. Salamanque (French ed.); Histoire, pp. 20, 50, 310, 321, 421; A, col. 1985;
Ruler: Reccared.
Spelling: TOTELA.
Epithet: VICTOR (spelled VECTOR).
Type: facing busts (obverse, 5 f; reverse, 5 o).
Location unknown. A locality by the name of Tutela, in the diocese of Viseu, appears in the Liber Itacii, the "Division of Wamba," and the Acts of the Council of Braga. Pio Beltrán has suggested to me that the place was probably captured in the campaign against the Suevians in 585.
Ruler: Chintila.
Spelling: VALENTIA.
Epithet: PIVS.
Type: facing busts of standard Lusitanian type (8 c, 7).
Presumably, because of the Lusitanian busts on the unique specimen, modern Valencia de Alcántara, a commune in Cáceres province, 47 miles west of Cáceres. The identification, originally made by Valentia in Lusitania. For this reason and because "el grabado de Heiss da la sensación de clara falsedad," Beltrán rejects the coin in question as a fabrication; but it appears to me genuine. See the remarks following catalogue No. 293.
Salmatice in the Itinerarium Antonini.
Lusitânia, p. 66; Madrid, p. 361;
Ruler: Sisebut.
Spelling: VESEO.
Epithet: PIVS.
Type: facing busts of standard Lusitanian type (8 c, 7).
Modern Viseu (Vizeu), a commune in north central Veseo, Viseo, Beseo in the mediaeval lists) dates from the 6th century, the first recorded bishop being Remissol (572–585), who was present at the Second Council of Braga (572). The continuity of the see was interrupted at various times after the Arab conquest, which took place under Mūsa b. Nuṣayr in 713.
According to an unconfirmed tradition preserved in the chronicle of Alfonso III, the tomb of Roderic was located in a church at Veseo, marked by an inscription, "Hic requiescit Rudericus, ultimus rex Gothorum " Veseo is reported to have been among the cities recaptured by Alfonso I in 754; in the 10th century it was the capital of the Christian province of Beira, known by the Arabs simply as "Galicia." The Arabic name for the city was Bāzu
The mint is represented by a single specimen in the Museu Municipal of Lisbon.
Akhbār Majmū'ah, p. 264; Ballesteros, I, pp. 882–883; Catholic Encycl., XV, pp. 496–497; Histoire, II, p. 258, III, p. 9; idem, Recherches, I, pp. 121, 150; Histoire, p. 50;
Ruler: Suinthila.
Spelling: ALIOBR:O.
Epithet: PIVS.
Type: unknown.
Location uncertain. The name of Aliobrio, which appears in some of the mediaeval ecclesiastical lists as subject to the diocese of Portocale, is undoubtedly the place named on the coin. Hübner suggested that the site was to be sought near Portus Cale. Russell Cortez places it just north of the Douro, due north of Lamego. Fernández y Lopez cannot have been right in proposing the "Caeliobriga" of Ptolemy, which is identified with Caliabria (q. v., p. 114).
The present location of the two known specimens of the mint, both from the hoard of La Capilla, is unrecorded.
Rulers: Reccared, Witteric.
Spelling: ARRES (Reccared). ARROS (Witteric).
Epithet: PIVS:SVS -Reccared. PIOSVS — Witteric.
Types: Reccared: facing busts (obverse, 5 d; reverse, 5 l).
Witteric: facing busts (obverse, 5 v; reverse, variation).
Identity and locality uncertain. Hübner's view was that the location was to be sought in the neighborhood of Iria Flavia, which in turn is to be identified with Padrón Santa Maria on the Ulla River in La Coruña province; and that the name was perhaps associated with the Arconi, an Asturian people mentioned by Pliny.
While I have no knowledge whether any traces of antiquity are present at the locality, or whether the site is otherwise likely, I would suggest the possibility of an identity with Ares, on the Ria de Ares, south of El Farrol and Mugardos and northeast of the capital city of La Coruña. The spelling ARRES on the unique specimen of Reccared (Hispanic Society collection) might support this identification.
Revista Critica, p. 97; La Capilla, pp. 79–80; Russell Cortez, p. 71;
Suevia, pp. 131–134; Madrid, p. 379 (quoting Beltrán); P-W. II, col. 1260, IX, col, 2035.
Rulers: Reccared, Suinthila, Chindasvinth.
Spelling: ASTVRIE (Reccared, Chindasvinth). ASTORICA (Suinthila).
Epithet: PIVS.
Types: Reccared: facing busts (obverse, 5 a; reverse, 5 d).
Suinthila: crude facing busts resembling 5 q.
Chindasvinth: facing busts (5 e).
Modern Astorga, a commune in León province, 28 miles west-southwest of the capital city of León, ancient Asturica Augusta, administrative and military capital of Asturia and an important road-center. As an episcopal see Asturie or Astorica antedates the Visigothic period and was founded perhaps as early as the 3rd century. Spelled Asturica or Astorica, and also known as Asturiense or Asturicense, it was suffragan to Bracara. In 445 the existence of a Manichaean group in the city came to light and in the subsequent investigation Bishop Toribio of Astorga took a prominent part. The city was sacked by Theodoric (ca. 456); and the Suevian population is reported to have successfully resisted Leovigild's attacks in 569, but this event appears to lack solid documentation. Certainly Leovigild carried his arms into the region in 573 and 575.
Astorga, known to the Arabs as Ashturqah
The coins of Reccared and Suinthila are unica, the former hitherto unpublished and in the collection of the Hispanic Society of
Cambridge, II, p. 166; Catholic Encycl., II, p. 18; Görres, Leovigild, pp. 140–141; Histoire, pp. 21, 49–50;
Ruler: Chindasvinth.
Spelling: AVRENSE.
Epithet: PIVS.
Type: facing busts (5 f).
Modern Orense, capital of the province of the same name, on the Miño river. The name, but not the precise locality, appears to be associated with Aquae Originae (or Aquis Originis), on the road between Bracara and Asturica, and probably to be identified with the springs of Santa Comba de Bande or Baños de Rio Caldo. The diocese (Auriensis, also sometimes Auria in the mediaeval lists) dates at least from the 5th century, perhaps as early as 433. Bishop Witimir of Aurense was present at the Second Council of Braga in 572. Leovigild appears to have reached the area in his campaign of 575. The city, known to the Arabs as Ūriyah
The unique specimen of the mint is in the collection of the Academia de la Historia.
Rulers: Reccared, Witteric.
Spelling: BERGANCA (Reccared). BERGANCIA3 (Witteric).
Epithets: VICTOR —Reccared. PIVS —Witteric.
Types: Reccared: facing busts (5 o).
Witteric: facing busts (5 e).
Near modern Betanzos in La Coruña province, about 18 kilometers southeast of the city of Coruña, ancient Brigantium, a town of the Lucensian Callaici, situated on the coastroad between Lucus Augusti and Asturica. The place was marked by a high lighthouse, perhaps that of La Coruña (Flavium Brigantium) itself, which has a Roman foundation.4 Variant Latin spellings were Brigantia and Bregantium.
Attached to the Metropolis of Bracara, the locality appears as Bregantia, Bregancia or Bergancia in certain recensions of the mediaeval ecclesiastical lists, as Brigantia in the Parroquial of Lugo of the year 569. One cannot be certain which of Reccared's Basque campaigns is alluded to by the epithet VICTOR.
Catholic Encycl., XI, pp. 295–296;
Suevia, pp. 89, 104; Miscellen, p. 440; Revista Critica, p. 97; Hallazgos V, pp. 72–73;
I take J (in the HSA specimen) to be read as G.
Beltrán (and following him, Mateu y Llopis) suggested that the identification with Betanzos is to be rejected in favor of Bergança (or Berganza) in extreme northeast Brigantium, etc., and in view of the variant classical spellings (specifically Brigantia) and the BERGANCIA spelling under Witteric, I see no reason as yet to abandon the older view.
Ruler: Sisebut.
Spelling: BERGIO.
Epithet: PIVS.
Type: facing busts (5 n).
The ruins of Bergio, ancient Flavium Bergidum, are probably those known as Castro de la Ventosa, located near the modern Villa-Franca del Bierzo (or Vierzo) in the province of León, about 60 kilometers northwest of Astorga and 100 kilometers west of León. Flavium Bergidum lay on the road between Bracara and Asturica. Nothing is known of the Christian history of Bergio (Bergido, Beriso in late ecclesiastical lists) other than that it lay in the diocese of Asturica.
Rulers: Leovigild, Witteric, Suinthila, Sisenand(?), Chindasvinth, Reccesvinth Egica, Egica & Wittiza.
Spelling: BRACARA.
Epithets: VICTOR — Leovigild. PIVS — Witteric, Suinthila, Sisenand(?), Chindasvinth, Reccesvinth, Egica.
Remarkable legend: PI·SB·T·R·C·R (Sisenand).
Monogram:
Types: Leovigild: obverse and reverse, bust right of "Early Visigothic" type (1 c). The authenticity of the unique specimen has been questioned (see catalogue, p. 197); certainly the correctness of the description (bust, right, on reverse, instead of cross on steps) is dubious.
Witteric: obverse, facing bust of standard Lusitanian reverse type (7); reverse, facing bust (5 n, varation).
Suinthila: crude facing busts (5 j).
Sisenand(?): facing busts (5 e).
Chindasvinth: first type, facing busts (5 e); second type, standard Lusitanian busts (8 c, 7).
Reccesvinth: obverse, bust, right, of distinctive type (2 a, and variant); reverse, cross on 3 and 4 steps, in one case the cross extending upward into the border and interrupting the legend.
Egica: obverse, uncertain bust; reverse, cross on steps.
Egica & Wittiza: obverse, confronting busts (13 f); reverse, mint monogram.
Modern Braga, capital of the district of Braga and of the province of Minho, in northwest Bracara Augusta (also known as Augusta Bracaria and simply as Bracara), the ancient capital of the Bracarian Callaici. In the Augustan division Bracara fell in Hispania Tarraconensis and was capital of the Conventus Bracarensis; in the later Empire, however, the city was the capital of Gallaecia, and in the Suevian division, capital of the Bracarian synod as well as chief city of the Lusitanian realm. The ecclesiastical and political connection with Lusitania is reflected in several of the coin issues bearing Lusitanian types.
The exact date of the founding of the episcopal see is uncertain, but a Bishop Paternus, ca. 390, is known. In 416, or perhaps later (after the destruction of Asturica in 456 by the Visigoths), Bracara, which also suffered in the invasion, became an arch-diocese (period of St. Leo I, 440–461), a dignity which it shared for some time with Lucu (Lugo). After 589 and, with a few interruptions to the present, Bracara has continued to be the Metropolis. In the Visigothic period it was the capital of the ecclesiastical province of Gallaecia. Bracara is famous, among other reasons, for its councils, especially those of 561, 572 and 675.
Bracara came definitively into Visigothic hands when Leovigild took the city from Andeca in 585, and it must have been in allusion to this event that the epithet VICTOR appears on the unique coin of that ruler.1 Known as Brāqarah
Coins of Bracara are not common, in spite of the relatively large (for Gallaecia) number of kings who issued coins there; those of Leo-
unica. All but two of the seven specimens of Suinthila were from the hoard of La Capilla.
Suevia, p. 164;
The question of the authenticity of this coin is discussed in the catalogue, p. 197; see also above, p. 45.
Catholic Encycl., II, pp. 728–729; García Villada, II1, pp. 52, 201–202, 208; Histoire, p. 50; Madrid, pp. 255, 341–342, 365–366;
Rulers: Reccared, Sisebut, Suinthila, Chindasvinth.
Spelling: CALAPA(Sisebut, Suinthila, Chindasvinth). CALABACIA (Reccared). Epithets: VICTOR — Reccared. PIVS — Sisebut, Suinthila, Chindasvinth. Types: Reccared: facing busts (5 o).
Sisebut: facing busts (5 l).
Suinthila: unknown.
Chindasvinth: facing busts of standard Lusitanian type (8 c, 7).
Both Calapa and Calabacia are probably to be identified with modern Calabor in the province of Zamora, just over the northern border of Calapages majores (Calabazas majores, Calabacas maiores, etc.) appears in the ecclesiastical lists under the diocese of Aurense.2
Mateu y Llopis suggests that the legend on Reccared's coin is to be read CALABACIA VICTOR (IA), but VICTOR would appear to me to be an epithet referring to Reccared as on other specimens, and the reference is probably to one of Reccared's Gallaecian campaigns (cf. Bergancia).
Only one specimen of each of the first three named rulers is known; and there are two of Chindasvinth.
Suevia, pp. 147, 149, 151–152, 161; Deutsche Litteraturzeitung, col. 501; idem, Revista Crítica, 1897, p. 95; Madrid, p. 375; Hallazgos IV, p. 248, note 2;
Fernández-Guerra and Heiss attempted to identify the locality with the ruins of Caladuna (of the Itinerarium Antonini,) between Cualedro (42 kilometers southeast of Orense) and Moimenta (25 kilometers northwest of BraganÇa on the Portuguese frontier). Campaner considered Calapa and Calabacia to be two different mints. Hübner rejected the identification with Calapages majores, etc., and suggested a corruption of Caliabria, but CALABACIA is so clear that this view can hardly be accepted. Ferndnáez y Lopez misread the mint entirely on the La Capilla specimen of Suinthila.
Ruler: Suinthila.
Spelling: CASSAVIO (actually C·SSΛVIOPIS:).
Epithet:
PIVS.
Type: obverse, crude facing busts of unusual types (obverse, 12 e; reverse, 5 y).
Beltrán suggests that this name is to be identified with Casaio, the name of a stream which flows into the Sil near Puente Nuevo, and of two villages, one on each bank of the stream, in the present diocese of Astorga. I have not been able to locate the name on available maps. The name Casavio (Casayo) appears in the Acts of one of the Councils of Braga as a parish of Aurense.
Ruler: Witteric.
Spelling: CATORA.
Epithet: PIVS.
Type: facing busts (5 f).
Identity and location uncertain. On the basis of fabric and style Heiss assigned the mint to Lusitania or Gallaecia, but his speculations with regard to exact identification were not pertinent. Pio
Ruler: Sisebut.
Spelling: IN CEIO.
Epithet: PIVS.
Type: obverse, facing bust of Lusitanian type (8 c?); reverse, facing bust of Gallaecian type.
Identity and location uncertain. A place named Celo, subject to Bracara, appears in certain mediaeval ecclesiastical lists. We might, therefore, read IN CELO (comparable to IN TVDE, except that
VICTOR is not present), assuming L to have been defectively written as I, which latter letter, according to Mateu y Llopis, is clear on the coin. Or the name may be INCEIO, perhaps to be identified with the modern locality of Incio, northeast of Orense and Monforte, in the province of Lugo. The issue is discussed in full by Mateu y Llopis in his review of Elias Garcia's note. His argument with reference to the epigraphy I cannot evaluate, not having seen the coin or a reproduction.
Suevia, p. 149;
Suevia, p. 119; Madrid, p. 379;
Nombres de Lugar, 1942, p. 33; idem, Ampurias, VII-VIII (1945–1946), pp. 471–473; Ampurias 1944, p. 209.
Rulers: Leovigild, Reccared.
Spelling: CEPIS.
Epithet: IVSTVS.
Types: Leovigild: unknown. Reccared: facing busts (obverse, 5 o; reverse, 5 d?).
Cepis (Cepio), location undetermined, was subject to the diocese of Portocale, according to the Liber Itacii and the Acts of one of the Councils of Braga.
Rulers: Reccared, Witteric.
Spelling: FLAVAS3 (Reccared). FLABAS (Witteric).
Epithet: PIVS.
Types: Reccared: facing busts of Gallaecian type.
Witteric: facing busts (5 j).
Modern Chaves, a commune in Vila Real district, Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro province, in extreme north-central Aquae, Flaviae or ad Aquas (in the Itinerarium Antonini) of Gallaecia. The Roman bridge across the Tamega still stands, and numerus Latin inscriptions have been found in the neighborhood. In the Suevian period Aquas Flavias, as it is known in some of the mediaeval lists, was an episcopal seat: the bishop-historian Idacio (Hidacio) resided there, and it was in the church of Aquas Flavias that he was taken prisoner by Frumarius, contender for the Suevian throne, in 460.
Ampurias, 1945–1946, pp. 473–474;
Or FLAVIAS or FLAVIIS?
Rulers: Witteric, Suinthila, Chindasvinth.
Spelling: FRAVCELLO (FR·ΛVCEL:O on the coin of Chindasvinth).
Epithet: PIVS.
Types: Witteric, Suinthila: unknown.
Chindasvinth: facing busts of standard Lusitanian type (8 c, 7).
According to Campaner and Frogellos (Frogelos, Frogello, Francellos, Francelloe, etc.) appears under the diocese of Asturica. Nor is it likely that the place is the Francelos, west of Orense, suggested by Heiss. The fact that the specimen of Chindasvinth is of modified Lusitanian type is curious but does not necessarily rule out the proposed identification.
Rulers: Witteric, Sisebut, Suinthila.
Spelling: GEORRES (Witteric). GIORRES (Sisebut, Suinthila).
Epithet: PIVS.
Types: Witteric: facing busts (5 f).
Sisebut: facing busts (obverse, 5 w; reverse, 5 a).
Suinthila: facing busts of a type somewhat resembling the Lusitanian obverse type (8 e).
Apparently to be identified with the site of modern Puebla de Val de Orras (or Orres) in the province of Orense, near the frontier of Lugo and Leon, known in mediaeval times as Val de Geurrez (or Jurres). I have not succeeded in identifying Puebla de Val de Orras on available maps, but it is doubtless in the vicinity of Villamartín de Valdeorras and El Barco de Valdeorras on the river Sil in northeasternmost Orense province. Beltrán gave "Cigarrosa," near "Puente de Petin," as the location of Georres, but neither of these names occurs on maps to which I have had access.
The name Georres is associated with the ancient Gigurri of Pliny (ρóόοσ Γιγονόόῶν of Ptolemy), a people of Asturia, the location of whose city, Calubriga, is unknown.
Suevia, pp. 99, 166–168; La Capilla, pp. 67, 93; Madrid, p. 380; Hallazgos IV, p. 248;
Suevia, p. 148; Madrid, p. 375;
Rulers: Witteric, Sisebut, Tulga.
Spelling: LAETERA.
Epithet: PIVS.
Types: Witteric, Sisebut: facing busts (5 l).
Tulga: facing busts (5 n).
Probably to be identified with the Latra, Ledra or Ledera of the mediaeval lists, in the diocese of Bracara. Latra is said to be the modern name of one of the affluents of the Miño and of a village on its banks, but I have been unable to locate either the stream or the locality.
The specimens of Sisebut (HSA) and of Tulga are unica.
Ruler: Sisebut.
Spelling: LAVRE.
Epithet: PIVS.
Type: facing busts (5 o).
The only specific identification that has been proposed is Laubis (diocese of Bracara), occurring in some versions of the mediaeval divisions, but I do not know on what basis. Mateu y Llopis, who proposed this identification, later suggested that LAVRE = Laurencio = LAVRVCLO, q. v. Only two specimens of the mint are known.
Ruler: Witteric.
Spelling: LAVRVCLO.
Epithet: PIVS.
Type: facing busts (5 f).
Probably to be identified with Labrencio (Laurencio), a pagus (or country district) in the diocese of Portocale, mentioned in the Acts of the Council of Lugo (569), and in the form Lambrencio (Lambrecio, Laborencio, etc.) in other mediaeval lists. The name probably also appears on a Suevian triens in the form (Munita) Laurentina. It is assumed that the name derived from a church or monastery dedicated to St. Lawrence (Laurentius). The mint is represented by a single specimen.
Suevia, p. 134; Madrid, p. 372; Hallazgos IV, p. 248;
Nombres de Lugar, 1942, p. 33, note 14.
Laurencio, pp. 359–363; Lauruclo y Vallearitia; Ampurias V, p. 359 (review of Revista de Guimarāes, LII (1942), pp. 52–60); idem, Hallazgos IV, p. 247.
Ruler: Leovigild.
Spelling: LEBEV = LEBEA. The epithet IVSTVS is written IΛSTΛS, the V's inverted; therefore the letter V in the mint-name may be assumed to be inverted, that is, Λ.
Epithet: IVSTVS.
Type: facing busts (5 m).
Identification uncertain. Campaner first very tentatively suggested Iulia Libica, perhaps modern Llibiá or Livia, in the Pyrenees near Puig Cerdá; Heiss proposed the Libia of the Itinerarium Antonini, in the region of the upper Ebro on the military road from Caesaraugusta to Asturica, perhaps to be identified with ruins near a locality named Herramelluri(?), not far from Leiba (or Leiva) in northwestern Logroño province. Beltrán has questioned the reading of the name on the single specimen known, particularly the B, but having examined the coin itself I am satisfied at least that LEBEV is correct.
Ruler: Suinthila.
Spelling: LEIONE.
Epithet: PIVS.
Type: Unknown.
Modern León, capital of the province and of the former kingdom of the same name, the Roman military station Legio VII Gemina. The city was in Suevian hands when captured about 585 by Leovigild. As a diocese its history dates at least to the 3rd century, but while
Legione) appears on some of the mediaeval lists as a diocese of the Metropolis of Bracara, at most times it seems to have been subject to Astorga, or independent of any metropolis. León (
The only known specimens or specimen (perhaps only one) were in the hoard of La Capilla.
Catholic Encycl., IX, pp. 175–177; La Capilla, pp. 95–96; Histoire, pp. 21, 50; Madrid, p. 381; Dictionary, II, pp. 153–154; Vázquez de Parga, pp. 22–31.
Rulers: Reccared, Sisebut, Suinthila, Chintila, Tulga, Chindasvinth, Egica & Wittiza.
Spelling: LVCO (Reccared, Suinthila). LVCV (Sisebut, Chintila, Tulga(?), Chindasvinth.
Epithets: IVSTVS — Reccared. VICTOR — Sisebut, Suinthila. PIVS —Chintila, Tulga (?), Chindasvinth.
Monograms:
Types: Reccared: facing busts (5 o).
Sisebut: obverse, facing bust of Lusitanian type (8 c); reverse, facing bust (5 e).
Suinthila: obverse, facing bust (5 f); reverse, facing bust of distinctive type (12 a).
Chintila: facing busts (5 u).
Tulga: unknown.
Chindasvinth: obverse, facing bust of Lusitanian reverse type (7, variation); reverse, mint monogram of distinctive type.
Egica & Wittiza: obverse, confronting figures of indeterminate type; reverse, mint monogram.
Modern Lugo, capital of the province of the same name in northwestern Lucus Augusti in the territory of the Kapari, settled by the Romans as early as 27 B. C., capital of the Conventus Lucensis, on the highway between Asturica and Brigantium. The city was fortified as an outpost against the Germanic invasions in the 3rd century. About the year 460 Lucu, then capital of one of the two Suevian ecclesiastical divisions, was taken by the Visigoths. The earliest authentic bishop of the diocese of Lucu (also spelled Luco and Lugo in the mediaeval lists) was Agrescius (433), ranked as an arch-
Synodus Lucensis and Synodus Bracarensis. Later, certainly from 589, the diocese was suffragan to Bracara. Councils were held at Lucu in 559, 572 and possibly 610.
Known to the Arabs as Lūqu, Luqūsh or Lakkuh
The epithet VICTOR used by Sisebut is doubless to be connected with the punitive expedition against the Asturians under the generalship of Rechila and Suinthila, mentioned by Isidore; and the occurrence of the adjective again under Suinthila must have reference to the same event or else to a similar success in the course of his campaign against the Cantabrians and Basques.
The specimens of Reccared, Sisebut (in the HSA collection) and Chintila are unica.
Ballesteros, I, p. 870; Suevia, p. 134; Catholic Encycl., IX, pp. 417–418; García Villada, II1, pp. 200–202, 208; Histoire, p. 50;
Rulers: Sisenand, Chintila, Chindasvinth.
Spelling: MAVE.
Epithet: PIVS.
Types: Sisenand: facing busts (obverse, 12 d; reverse, 5 e?).
Chintila: facing busts (obverse, 5 n; reverse, 5 e).
Chindasvinth: facing busts (5 q).
Uncertain, but probably the modern Mave, a small town on the Pisuerga river, about 8 kilometers north of Alar del Rey, which in turn is 35 kilometers northeast of Saldaña, in the province of Palencia. Heiss and Fernández-Guerra argued rather for a locality named San Tirso de Mabegonda (Mavegunda) near Betanzos, but Beltrán quite reasonably urges the identification with the present Mave because of the identity of name and the similarity of the Mave issues to those of Petra and Saldania. Also, so far as the type is concerned, it is typically "frontier." Certainly Fernández-Guerra's suggestion that Mave on the coins represents the capital of Mavitania (Murcia) is to be rejected.
Suevia, pp. 119–120, 129; Botet y Sisó, Notes Numismàtiques, p. 26; Madrid, pp. 383–384;
Rulers: Liuva, Witteric, Gundemar, Suinthila.
Spelling: NANDOLAS2
Epithet: PIVS — Liuva, Witteric, Gundemar. IVSTVS — Suinthila.
Types: Liuva: facing busts (obverse, 5 o; reverse, 5 x).
Witteric: facing busts (obverse, 6 a, variant; reverse, 5 n, variant). Gundemar: unknown.
Suinthila: facing busts (5 q).
Not positively identified. In the mediaeval ecclesiastical lists the nearest approximation to the name as it appears on the coins is that of a locality in the diocese or Portocale, variously given as Flandolas and Mendolis or Mendolas. Most numismatic writers have listed the mint as Mandolas, because of an initial mistaken reading of Campaner's. The first letter is clearly N on all the specimens I have seen, including the unique specimen of Suinthila in the HSA collection. However, as noted above, Reinhart transcribes the Niepoort collection specimen of Gundemar with M (and no final S); but I have not seen this coin.
Ruler: Witteric.
Spelling: OL·IO·VΛ·ᔕ·O.
Epithet: VS (for IVSTVS?).
Type: facing busts (5 e).
This mint is extremely uncertain. I have rejected all the specimens of Reccared (see p. 462), and would be inclined also to dismiss the specimen of Witteric as a forgery, were it not for two considerations: (a) my notes taken while examining the Vidal collection record no suspicion of the authenticity of the piece (although in fact I did not at that time have it in mind to look at it particularly critically), and (b) in the absence of any reasonable identification of the mint-name, it is difficult to imagine why a forger should have made such a piece. We know of instances of the invention of coins to fill some historical or antiquarian desideratum, but it is not reasonable to expect a counterfeiter to invent a specimen for a very obscure if not unidentifiable
Ologasis in Paphlagonia; Campaner proposed Oeaso, Oleaso or Olarso of the Basques;
Deutsche Litteraturzeitung, col. 500; idem, Revista Crítica, p. 97; La Capilla, p. 123;
Gundemar, according to Reinhart: MΛNDOLΛ.
Suevia, p. 119; Madrid, pp. 377–378;
Ruler: Witteric.
Spelling: PΛL:NTVCIO.
Epithet: PIVS.
Type: Facing busts (obverse, 5 q; reverse, 5 l).
Exact locality unknown, but undoubtedly the Palanticio (Palan-tusmo) of the mediaeval lists, subject to the diocese of Bracara. The unique specimen is in the Vidal Quadras y Ramón collection.
Rulers: Reccared, Witteric.
Spelling: PANNONIAS (Witteric).
Epithet: PIVS — Witteric.
Types: Reccared: unknown. Witteric: obverse, facing bust of Lusitanian reverse type (7); reverse, facing bust (5 l).
Modern Panóias, in the vicinity of Valnogueiras, about 20 kilometers southwest of BraganÇa in Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro province, Cividade of the Lapiteae. The name ultimately derives from the Danubian Pannonia. In certain mediaeval church lists the name of Pannonias (Pannoias) appears as a parish of Bracara. The Lusitanian obverse of Witteric's coin is suggestive of the proximity of the mint to the southwestern province.
Ruler: Sisebut.
Spelling: PESICOS.
Epithet: PIVS.
Type: facing busts (5 o).
Probably Pesoz (spelled "Pezos" by Beltrán), about seven kilometers northeast of Grandas de Sabime on the west bank of the Navia, in westernmost Oviedo province. The name Pesicos (Paesicos, Besicos) appears in certain mediaeval lists (e. g., Acts of one of the Councils of Braga) as a parish of the diocese of Astorga. The unique specimen is in the Madrid Museum.
2, col. 2515.
Suevia, pp. 165–166; Madrid, p. 830.
Rulers: Chintila, Chindasvinth.
Spelling: PETRA.
Epithet: PIVS.
Types: Chintila: facing busts (obverse, 5 t; reverse, 5 v, variant). Chindasvinth: facing busts (5 q).
Probably Piedrafita (spelled "Piedrahita" by Beltrán and, after him, by Mateu y Llopis), a village about 22 kilometers northwest of Villafranca and eight kilometers southeast of Los Nogales, in western León province. This locality has been identified with the Petra-Speranti of certain mediaeval lists (Acts of the Councils of Braga), a parish in the diocese of Astorga. Boudard's suggested identification of the name as Betri (= Petra-Lata) is to be rejected.
Rulers: Reccared, Sisebut, Suinthila.
Spelling: PINCIA.
Epithets: PIVS — Reccared, Sisebut, Suinthila. VECTOR (sic) — Reccared.
Types: Reccared: facing busts (obverse, 5 o; reverse, 5 b, w).
Sisebut: facing busts (5 1).
Suinthila: obverse, facing bust (5 f); reverse, facing head (12 c).
Modern Pinza, a village near Viana del Bollo in Orense province, about 65 kilometers southeast of Orense and roughly 50 kilometers northwest of BraganÇa, the Pincia (Pinza) of certain mediaeval lists, a parish in the diocese of Aurense.3 The VECTOR (VICTOR) of Reccared's coin must have reference to one of his campaigns against the Basques, possibly the same as that commemorated on his coins of Bergancia, Tornio and Tude. The unique specimen of Sisebut is in the collection of the Hispanic Society of
Suevia, p. 164; Madrid, p. 380.
Suevia, pp. 148–149, 150–151; Madrid, p. 375,
Melón has modern Pentes, ancient Pinctum.
Rulers: Leovigild, Reccared, Liuva, Sisebut, Suinthila.
Spelling: PORTOCALE (Leovigild, Reccared, Liuva, Sisebut). PORT CALE (Suinthila).
Epithet: PIVS —Reccared, Liuva, Sisebut, Suinthila.
Remarkable legend: PORTOCALE VICTI (Leovigild).
Types: Leovigild: facing busts (obverse, 5 aa; reverse, 5 l).
Reccared: facing busts (5 f).
Liuva: facing busts (5 d).
Sisebut: obverse, facing bust of Lusitanian type (8 c); reverse, facing bust (5 e).
Suinthila: facing busts of standard Lusitanian type (8 c, 7).
Modern Pôrto (O'Porto), the well-known seaport at the mouth of the Douro, capital of Pôrto district and of Douro Litoral province, ancient Cale, a name doubtless of Iberian origin, later referred to as Portu Cale, Portu Cale castrum, Portumcale castrum, etc. The original name is preserved in that of Villanova de Gaya, opposite Pôrto. As a diocese, subject to the archbishopric of Bracara, Portocale dates at least from the mid-sixth century. Leovigild brought Portocale definitively into the Visigothic dominion in 585 during his campaign against Andeca, and it is doubtless to this event that the legend PORTOCALE VICTI refers.
The town was occupied by the Arabs and was known to them as Burtuqāl
Rulers: Sisebut, Suinthila.
Spelling: SIMVRE (Sisebut). SENVER (Suinthila).
Epithet: PIVS.3
Types: Sisebut: facing busts (obverse, 5 l; reverse, 5 o).
Suinthila: facing busts (5 f).
Modern Zamora, capital of the province of the same name, possibly identical with or near the Ocelo Duri of the Itinerarium Antonini. The name occurs in mediaeval documents as Semure, Senure,
Senimure, Senuire, Sumere, Semura, etc., under the diocese of Astorga. The episcopal see of Zamora appears not to have been created until 905 in the time of Alfonso III. The strange spelling of the name on Suinthi- la's coins eludes explanation.1 It would appear to me that the legend on the specimen of Sisebut is the more nearly correct, especially if we allow the I to be an intended E, the horizontal strokes having been omitted, as they sometimes are, by error.
Semure, called by the Arabs Sammũrah
Catholic Encycl., XI, pp. 260–261; Elias Garcia, Portocale; García Villada, II1, p. 52; Histoire, pp. 50, 223; Madrid, pp. 366, 369–371;
Suevia, pp. 165, 167; Catholic Encycl., XV, pp. 747–749; Gómez-Moreno, Zamora, p. 83; s. v. Zamora in E. of I.; Madrid, pp. 382–383;
Misspelled PTVS on Sisebut's coin.
Ruler: Suinthila.
Spelling: SENABRIA .Actually on the unique specimen the legend is SE·NΛBR Λ; the first point obviously does not indicate an omission, and therefore it might be argued that the second point likewise is meaningless, giving SENABRA. But in view of the modern name and the spelling in the early ecclesiastical lists it would appear that the second point does indicate an omitted I. Epithet: PIVS.
Type: Facing busts (5 q).
Modern Puebla de Sanabria in the Valle de Sanabria, in westernmost Zamora province, about 30 kilometers northeast of Bragança. The name is of Celtic or Iberian origin, from Senabriga, the element -briga or -brica (hill, fortress) occurring in several ancient names in the peninsula. The name (Senabia, Sanabria) appears in the mediaeval church lists as a parish in the diocese of Asturie or of Aurense.
Further confusion has resulted from various misreadings and mis-transcriptions of the name by modern numismatic writers.
Suevia, p. 149; La Capilla, p. 101; Madrid, pp. 375, 415; P.-W. IIA, col. 1453, Suppl. Vol. III, col. 216.
Rulers: Sisenand, Chintila (?), Chindasvinth.
Spelling: TVRIVIANA (Sisenand). TORIVIANA (Chindasvinth).
Epithet: PIVS.
Types: Sisenand, Chintila(?): unknown.
Chindasvinth: facing busts of distinctive type (12 b).
Location unknown. Toriviana is probably the Torceptiana of Ptolemy, or the Torebia or Torevia of the mediaeval lists, a parish in the diocese of Portocale.
Ruler: Reccared.
Spelling: TORNIO.
Remarkable legend: VICTORIA.
Type: facing busts (5 n).
Probably modern Torroño (Torroña), a parish of San Pedro de Burgeyra in the district of Túy in the province of Pontevedra,3 the Turonio (Turinio, Toronio, Toroño) of the mediaeval lists. The various possible identifications advanced by
Rulers: Reccared, Witteric, Sisebut, Chindasvinth, Reccesvinth, Egica, Egica & Wittiza.
Spelling: TVDE.
Epithets: PIVS —Reccared, Reccesvinth, Egica. IVSTVS —Witteric, Sisebut, Chindasvinth.
Remarkable legends: VICTORIA IN TVDE (Reccared). PIVS IN TVDE (Reccared). IN TVDE PIVS (Reccared).
Monogram: uncertain.1
Types: Reccared: first two types, facing busts (obverse, 5 n; reverse, 5 f(?) and 5 1); third type, facing busts of Lusitanian obverse type (8 a).
Witteric: obverse, facing bust of standard Lusitanian type (8 c); reverse, facing bust of general type (5 e).
Sisebut: obverse, facing bust of standard Lusitanian type (8c); reverse, facing bust of distinctive general type (5 i).
Chindasvinth: obscure facing busts (5 v).
Reccesvinth: obverse, bust, right, of modified "Early Visigothic" type (1 h); reverse, cross on 3 steps extending into margin.
Egica: obverse, bust, right, holding cross (2gg); reverse, cross on 3 steps.
Egica & Wittiza: obverse, confronting busts (?); reverse, mint monogram.
Modern Túv on the Miño river, in the province of Pontevedra, on the Portuguese frontier, the ancient castellum Tyde of Pliny, Toδδαí of Ptolemy, Tuda of the Itinerarium Antonini. The episcopal see dates at least from the 6th century and was represented at the First Council of Bracara in 561. The first historically known bishop was Anila, suffragan to Lucu, present at the Second Council of Bracara in 572. In the mediaeval lists the name of the diocese appears as Tude, sometimes Teude. As there are no recorded Suevian uprisings in Reccared's reign, it has been suggested that the legend, VICTORIA IN TVDE (cf. Tornio), signifying perhaps "Recaredo consigue una victoria enTude," refers to one of Reccared's Basque campaigns in which the road to Gallaecia had been cut off. Heiss' explanation of the legend — the commemoration of Reccared's taking of Tude in 587 from the rebels Sunna, Segga and Witteric — is inadequately documented.
The city was the governmental seat of Wittiza during the joint rule of Egica and his son (698–702); his residence has been identified with the site known as Pazos de Reyes.
Tude, known by the Arabs as Tūdhā or Tawdhah ca. 868) recolonized by Alfonso III. Ermogius, Bishop of Tude, was taken prisoner by 'Abd al-Raḥmān III in 920.
Suevia, p. 104; Madrid, p. 369;
The reproduction of the unique specimen is obscure.
Suevia, pp. 113, 162–163; ,Miscellen, p. 440; Madrid, pp. 373, 415;
Suevia, pp. 162–163; Catholic Encycl., XV, p. 105; Miscellen, p. 441; La Capilla, p. 121; Histoire, pp. 50, 223, 310; Madrid, pp. 373–374; 1, col. 771;
Rider: Witteric.
Spelling: VALLEARITIA.
Epithet: none.
Type: facing busts (5 n).
Modern VilariÇa de Moncorvo, in the district of BraganÇa, province of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, about 70 kilometers southwest of the city of BraganÇa. The mediaeval and modern name (= Villa Aritia) is apparently to be identified with ancient Aritium or Aritia.2 The locality appears as Vallericia and, corruptly, as Vallacia (diocese of Portocale) in the Acts of the Council of Lugo, and as Valeritia in the so- called Hitación of Wamba. The etymology is doubtless "Valle-Aritia" (= "Valla de Ariza," not "Vila-Ariza"). Ancient ruins have been found at the presumed site.
Ruler: Reccared.
Spelling: VALLEGIA?
Epithet: none.
Type: facing busts (5 z).
Uncertain. In a personal communication Pio Beltrán suggests that we have here another specimen of Vallearitia. The letter which I have read as G is admittedly obscure, but I find it difficult to make an R of it, and unless it is R the word can scarcely be an abbreviation of the name Vallearitia. There is today a locality by the name of Vallega, just south of Ovar, 35 kilometers south of Oporto, which might possibly be the Vallacia (in the diocese of Portocale) in the mediaeval lists.3 The unique coin is in the collection of the Hispanic Society of
Rider: Suinthila.
Spelling: VENTOSA.
Epithet: PIVS.
Type: facing busts (5 v).
Tentatively identified by Pio Beltrán as modern Benavente,1 a town in the province of Zamora, about 55 kilometers north of the capital of the province and 65 kilometers south of León, the Ventosa (Asturica) of the mediaeval lists. Melón suggests Castro de la Ventosa, ruins near Villafranca del Bierzo.
Ampurias, 1945–1946, p. 471; Lauruclo y Vallearitia; idem, Valericia, pp. 304–306; Madrid, p. 371.
It cannot be the Aritium of Ptolemy and the Aritium Praetorium of the Itinerarium Antonini, which lay on the road between Olisipo and Emerita (cf. P.-W. II, cols. 1116–17).
Pio Vallacia is corrupt; also that Velegiam (Iria), in the Suevian "division," is an erroneous form of Salagiam.
Suevia, pp. 113, 164–165; Madrid, p. 380;
Rulers: Chindasvinth & Reccesvinth, Reccesvinth, Egica & Wittiza. Monograms: as above.
Types: Chindasvinth & Reccesvinth: obverse, bust, left, of distinctive type (2 dd); reverse, mint monogram.
Reccesvinth: obverse, bust, left, of uncertain type; reverse, mint monogram.
Egica & Wittiza: obverse, confronting busts (13 f); reverse, mint monogram.
The identity of the mint represented by these apparently related monograms is unknown. Earlier writers have either left the question open or have suggested Egessa, "Gesta," or "Egesta," and Beatia. While "Egessa" could be read, there is no evidence that Egessa (Segia) was a diocese in the Visigothic period,3 its occurrence in the "Nomina Oretense" being a later interpolation. It has occurred to me that, faute de mieux, one might read "Cesaragusta," but there are strong arguments against this: (a) the essential letter "R" is lacking; (b) the monogram
According to the Enciclopedia Universal Ilustrada, VIII, p. 22, Benavente is believed by some to be the lnierammium Flavium of Ptolemy. But P.-W. IX, col. 1603, places this ancient site near Bembimbre between the rivers Noceda and Baëza.
Madrid, pp. 281–282.
The coin of Leovigild is a forgery (seo Forgeries, No. 9, p. 453). Beltrán (pp. 416, 426) compares the coin of Egica & Wittiza to Madrid no. 308, and reads "Elvora," but the monograms on the coins in question are not similar. In a personal communication to me Beltrán has suggested VESEV, but the letter at the top of the monogram on the coins of Chindasvinth & Reccesvint h and of Reccesvinth is certainly distinct from the V (or Λ) at the bottom, and the corresponding letter on the monogram of Egica & Wittiza (at the right) is definitely C or
For the categories of urban centers in Visigothic ibid, and García Villada, II1.
As stated elsewhere (p. 168), I have had access to Pio Beltrán's analysis of the hoard of La Capilla, which includes the most authentic figures on the composition of the find.
Excluding, of course, names which occur only on forgeries, as well as certain mint-names which have hitherto been accepted but which have proven to be misreadings.
The table between pp. 148 — 149 gives the principal forms of the letters used in the Visigothic numismatic alphabet, together with the several combined letters or ligatures. For obvious reasons all the variations represented here could not be reproduced in type in the corpus; the type used in the transcriptions is a compromise in which the shapes of the letters are somewhat conventionalized and only the chief variations in actual letter forms are represented. The following observations may be made with regard to individual letters of the alphabet:
Λ This, with variations in shape, is the common form. A is very uncommon: there are instances of its use on coins of Leovigild at Barcinona, Cesaragusta and Saldania, of Reccared at Saldania and Emerita, and of Sisenand at Tarracona.
B Occasionally retrograde. Sometimes P: Leovigild, Suinthila at Narbona and Cordoba.
C Resembles the modern form. Occasionally retrograde.
D Many forms. D and Ϸ are equally common. Δ occurs on Leovigild's early issues and on some coins of Reccared, Witteric, Gundemar, Sisebut, Suinthila, Sisenand, Tulga, Wamba, Ervig, Egica, and Egica & Wittiza. It is especially common in Baetica, particularly at Cordoba, where the Greek influence was strong. Sometimes it is inverted. Numerous other forms, such as P, b, ᑯ,
E Usually resembles the modern capital. Rarely in the uncial form €: Leovigild at Italica and Emerita; in the name of Reccesvinth with his father at Toleto, and during his sole rule at Gerunda, Toleto and Cordoba; Wittiza at Gerunda. The E form is occasionally retrograde, or lacks the central horizontal. In the middle period the horizontals are frequently formed by dots or wedge punches and are separated from the perpendicular.
F A rare letter. An unusual form Ϸ occurs at Reccopolis under Reccared.
G Several forms. C, ᒣ, Ҁ and other forms occur on Leovigild's early issues; but beginning with his regular later issues and thenceforward the common form is
M In the later period frequently misrepresented as N or H.
N Very frequently N. In the later period often misrepresented as H. O Occasionally with a central dot. Frequently small.
P Occasionally b: Reccared at Cordoba. Frequently P in the middle and later periods.
R Numerous shapes but usually closely resembling the modern capital.
S Frequently retrograde or on its side, or ᔕ or ᔓ.
⊝ Often ⦶, ⊙ or O. Occurs for TH in Chindasvinth's and Reccesvinth's names; and at Gerunda under Wittiza.1 V Stands for both U and V.
W Always formed by two free-standing V's.
X Also very commonly +. Frequently small.
Z Equally frequently represented as s
The earliest ligatures are
See p. 84.
All genuine Visigothic coins were struck with dies, unhinged but evidently marked or notched so that die positions are relatively constant, at least from Reccared's time to about the period of Wamba. Of 760 specimens the die positions of which I have been able to record, roughly 85% have their reverses placed approximately at 6 o'clock with relation to the obverse (↓ or ↙ or ↘),1 and 60%, or 462 specimens, have their reverses amost exactly at 6 o'clock ( ↓ ). The total number of coins taken into consideration in this regard is admittedly small, but the following statistics are presumably a reasonably reliable indication of the usual practice.
Under the several rulers the positions recorded are:1
It will be observed that under Leovigild the pattern is uncertain; at Toleto, for example, Leovigild's type B has 2 specimens at ↑ and 1 at ↖, whereas all 8 recorded die positions of type C are ↓ . However, under Reccared and succeeding rulers down through Reccesvinth, there is an overwhelming preference for the reverse die position at or near 6 o'clock ( ↓ ); in fact, until we reach Sisenand there is only one recorded instance of position ↑ , this being a single specimen of Barbi under Suinthila (one of 15 recorded die positions of that mint and ruler). Under Reccesvinth position ↓ is still preferred, but there is an increase in 12 or 1 o'clock positions; from Wamba to the end the pattern is completely confused. Reverting to the earlier period, it is interesting to note the record at a few of the mints where we have a fairly large number of observed die positions: for example at Ispali under Sisebut, Suinthila and Sisenand, of 67 recorded positions, 53 are ↓ , 1 is ↘ , and 13 are ↙; at Emerita under the same rulers, of 79 recorded positions, 55 are ↓ , 2 are ↘ , 8 are ↙, 5 are ↑ , and 9 are ↗. In the case of Emerita all the instances of approximate 12 o'clock positions are coins of Sisenand of one type, corpus No. 273 (a); types 273 (b), (c), (d), (f) and (g) are all at approximately 6 o'clock, as are two specimens of 273 (a).
Chiefly as the result of the opportunity to study in detail a large part of the hoard of La Capilla (see pp. 166–171), it has been possible to record a considerable number of coins from identical pairs of dies, and of other die combinations. There are doubtless many more among the numerous specimens of the same mint-ruler-type in the corpus, but the following are the only ones I have been able to record by close examination at first hand.2
The largest number of observed specimens of a single die is 12, the obverse of Sisenand-Emerita, corpus No. 273(a) 1–7 (also same reverse die), 8–10 (another reverse die), 11–12 (another reverse die). There is little evidence of die wear among these, except that the globular eyes of the ruler's face on a few of them are blurred or nearly obliterated. It is interesting to note that the die positions of 1–7 are the same (↗), as are those of 11–12 where a different reverse die was used, while 8–10, with another reverse die, are aligned at 12 o'clock exactly ( ↑ ).
The use of punches in executing both the legends and the busts on the dies is evident from the time of Reccared onward. The simpler letters are formed with single punches, while the more complex ones, especially those containing diagonals, lines at right angles, and loops, are constructed by using combinations of punches or the same punch in different positions or at different angles. The technique is most clearly revealed in the coins of Suinthila and Sisenand, especially at such mints as Acci, Barbi, Eliberri and Tucci. During this period at these mints the die-engravers were so careless in constructing their letters that the several punches used frequently are improperly coordinated or stand free, or else essential elements of letters are missing because certain punches were omitted.
OTHER DIE COMBINATIONS
At Barbi under Suinthila, for example, it is quite evident that the same perpendicular stroke punch was used for B, E, I, L, P, and sometimes N. The letter R is frequently constructed by using the punch for Λ with the same half-circle punch which forms the loops of B and P and the eye-brows of the bust. The small triangular or wedge punch (.) is widely employed for the horizontal lines of the letters E and L; when carelessly omitted, as it frequently is (see especially Suinthila-Eliberri), the same letters appear as I; and when the horizontals of E are widely separated from the perpendicular, the legend appears to read I : (and is frequently so represented in my transcriptions — especially when the separation is great). The same wedge forms the arms of the cross, and is often used for the diagonal stroke of R in combination with the perpendicular. At Tucci under Suinthila there are examples of R represented as I and P as I, the half-circle punch having been omitted or not strongly enough impressed to show on the coin. Probably the worst die execution, from this standpoint, is that at Acci during Sisenand's rule.
The obverse die, unexpressed, is understood to stand at 12 o'clock.
The diagonal positions (↘ ↙ ↖ ↗ ) are only approximate in this summary, but the angle is seldom more exaggerated than 5, 7, 11 or 1 o'clock.
The letters indicate obverse dies, the figures reverse dies. By"types"are meant sub-entries under a given number in the corpus, "combined types" being coins having an obverse of one sub-type and a reverse of another sub-type. For example, the coin of Sisebut-Tarracona referred to is corpus No. 177 (c)1, in which an obverse die of type 177(c) is combined with the same reverse die as that used for No. 177(a) 1. In the table the figure in parentheses records the number of specimens of the given combination, when there are more than one.
One should not conclude from the accompanying lists that die pairs and other combinations were more common under Suinthila and Sisenand than at other times; they are prominent here only because of the large number of hoard specimens of these rulers in the collection of the Hispanic Society of
The legal weight of the Visigothic triens (or tremissis), which is the only denomination of Visigothic coinage during the period under consideration in this volume, was based on the Constantinian standard, i. e., the solidus aureus = 1/72 of the late Roman pound, equivalent to 4.548 grams, or 1.516 grams for the triens. References in the Visigothic code to the siliqua (1/24 of the solidus) must have concerned Roman silver still in circulation, for no true silver Visigothic coin has ever come to light. Nor is there any genuine Visigothic copper or bronze coinage, and again the plentiful Celtiberian and Roman bronze must have served for small change.1
The accompanying table sets forth the average weights of trientes at the various mints and under each ruler, so far as I have been able to record weighed specimens. The amount of material taken into consideration here far exceeds that heretofore assembled, and, except where the preserved coinage of certain rulers and mints is very scarce, and with due allowance for wear, we may consider the averages to be as close an approximation of the true averages in Visigothic times as can be arrived at. The graph illustrates the rise and fall of the standard with reference to the legal weight; it reaches its highest point during the joint rule of Chindasvinth and Reccesvinth, its lowest under Wittiza. It is interesting to note that the graph in some respects reflects the course of general political well-being in the kingdom throughout the period of its history with which we are concerned. If we omit the few specimens of Hermenegild (which belong actually with the earlier period of Leovigild's coinage) we note a rise to roughly 1.44–1.47 grams during the reigns of Reccared, Liuva II, Witteric, Gundemar and Sisebut; there follows a decline until Chintila, whereafter, under Chindasvinth and especially under Reccesvinth, the standard rises to 1.48–1.50 grams, very close to the legal requirement. This restitution coincides with a reform in the style of the coinage and with other administrative activities such as the codification of the laws. Then, beginning with Wamba, there is a steady decline to Wittiza's low of 1.25.
The relatively high averages under Roderic and Achila are unreliable, for only four specimens of the former and six of the latter have been taken into consideration.
Of the important mints of whose coinage we have a well-represented and continuous, or nearly continuous, series, the capital, Toleto, has the highest average,11.465, almost always above the general average, the standard never dropping below 1.417, and standing at 1.474 even during the rule of Wittiza when the general average of all mints drops to 1.250. The over-all averages for other important mints are: Emerita, 1.440; Ispali, 1.428; Tarracona, 1.410; Cesaragusta (only 11 rulers), 1.399; Cordoba, 1.377.
So far as I am aware, no assay of Visigothic gold has been made in modern times. To judge by appearances, the gold of the earlier rulers is very fine; during Egica's rule2 marked debasement begins, and thereafter the proportion of silver increases greatly. During the joint rule of Egica and Wittiza the majority of the coins are of "pale gold" or electrum, and many actually have the appearance more of silver than of gold.
RECORDED WEIGHTS
For largely theoretical discussions of Visigothic metrology, see Madrid, pp. 173–189; Jesse, p. 3.
Average of averages under the rulers.
The appearance of the coins that I have been able to examine shows no evidence of a decline in fineness during the rule of Tulga when the remarkable decrease in weight standard takes place.
The earliest recorded hoard of Visigothic coins of which I am aware is that of Garrobillas, which was unearthed in 1731. The name is evidently that of a locality entitled Garrovillas de Alconétar, in the diocese of Coria, province of Cáceres. The hoard contained at least 11 coins of Reccared, and others, including some of Leovigild, the majority probably from mints in Baetica and Lusitania. The exact composition of the hoard cannot de reconstructed, but we do know that part of it, at least, was acquired by the Real Academia de la Historia and is now there.1
A hoard of 140 Merovingian and 38 Visigothic trientes was found in Bordeaux in November, 1803, "lors de la démolition d'une vieille maison située près de la porte de l'ancien palais de l'Ombrière." The earliest Visigothic coins in the hoard were two specimens of Leo- vigild's "mintless" issues; the latest, two of Wamba. The mints were scattered, most of them common ones in all the provinces except Gallaecia. Unfortunately the integrity of the hoard is open to some doubt, for its reconstruction was attempted only in 1936.
See Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos IV, pp. 244–245.
"Trouvaille de monnaies d'or des Mérovingiens et des Wisigoths faite à Bordeaux en 1803," RN, 1936, pp. 87ff. Cf. Mateu y Llopis, Hispania Tarraconense, p. 21. Throughout Le Gentilhomme's article, for "Hess" read "Heiss."
According to a manuscript deposited in the archives of the Academia de Buenas Letras in Barcelona, a hoard of "some 800" Visigothic coins was found on December 10, 1816, in a bronze vessel buried in a vineyard belonging to the widow of a farmer by the name of Rafael Morera, located in the district of La Grassa, parish of Constantí, "one and a half hours" distant from Tarragona, "one and a quarter hours" from Reus, and "three-quarters of an hour" from Constantí. The hoard was scattered soon after its discovery, and all that is known of its composition is that it appears to have been buried toward the end of Chindasvinth's sole reign, and that the following 32 coins were acquired by José Mariano Cabanes: Suinthila: Barbi (2), Emerita (1); Sisenand: Toleto (1), Emerita (2); Chintila: Emerita (1); Tulga: Emerita (1); Chindasvinth: Ispali (2), Emerita (18), Asturie (1), Bracara (1), Lucu (2).1
The hoard of La Capilla is the largest and most important find of Visigothic coins that has been recorded, and the fact that a very considerable portion of the hoard found its way into the collection of the Hispanic Society of
The bulk of the hoard was sold by the workmen to a merchant in Seville at seven pesetas apiece, while some 250 specimens were commandeered by the landlord, General Chinchilla.1 Fortunately, Manuel Fernández y López made a visit to Carmona and was able to record most of the different legends (at least their essential elements) before the coins were entirely dispersed, so that we have a certain amount of reliable information about the composition of the hoard gathered on the spot.
My own particular interest in the hoard began with two observations which I made while first sorting out the Visigothic coins in
In analyzing the composition of the hoard of La Capilla I have been immeasurably aided by the inventory so courteously furnished me by Pio El Tesoro Visigótico de la Capilla, gives a detailed listing of the number of specimens of each ruler and mint. Beltrán's list, however, compiled from material in the Academia de la Historia which was first handled by Pujol y Camps in 1891, and after his death by Fernández-Guerra and Fita, but published by none of them, contains a presumably accurate inventory of that part of the hoard which received scholarly scrutiny before it was scattered. In it the number of coins of each ruler and mint are listed along with a not always complete break-down of the distribution of the specimens among the following individuals: General Chinchilla; Fernández y González, Fernández y López, Mariano Fernández, and Caro, all of Seville; Vidaurre of Madrid; Juan Fernández, Barrajo, Manuel Nieto, Alberto García Solá, José Siles, and a laborer and a barber, all of Carmona; and Cervera (obviously previous to his acquisition of a large portion of the hoard, for only four specimens are here assigned to him). Rough transcriptions of the principal legends are included in the inventory, but there are no descriptions of types except by reference to infra. Here I give only a summary of the composition of the hoard by rulers and mints:1
It will be noted that all the provinces, except Narbonensis, are represented, and that Baetica has by far the largest number of specimens (420), followed by Lusitania (207), Carthaginensis (112), Gallaecia (19) and Tarraconensis (9). In other words, the bulk of the recorded portion of the hoard (627 specimens) came from the south, where, a priori, one would expect it to originate in view of the location of the find. Remarkable is the considerable number of Gallaecian
While in all instances it has not been possible to determine which coins in the HSA collection come from La Capilla, I am quite confident, after laborious calculations based on close examination of the coins themselves and comparisons with Beltrán's list (which calculations are recorded in detail throughout the pertinent sections of the catalogue), that there are at the very least 248 specimens from the hoard in the collection, and in all probability many more (e. g., pieces not showing traces of "La Capilla soil" but interlocked by dies or otherwise related with specimens that can confidently be assigned to the hoard) — perhaps as many as 300. Obviously, therefore, Mr. Huntington acquired more than General Chinchilla's share,1 which as noted above was variously recorded as 200 or 250 specimens. This fact incidentally is already apparent in several places in the catalogue, where the number of obviously La Capilla pieces in the HSA collection exceeds the number of specimens assigned to Chinchilla in
The principal literature relating to the hoard of La Capilla is: La Capilla;
El Archivo (Valencia), V (Oct. 1891), pp. 259–260; Fidel Fita, Bol. dela R. Acad. de la Hist., XIX (1891), p. 456; RN, 1892, p. 187; Bulletin de Numismatique, 1891–2, p. 109; Deutsche Litteraturzeitung, XVIII (1897), cols. 498–501; idem, Revista Critica, II (1897), pp. 93–97; Ampurias 1941, pp. 99–100.
Hallazgos VI, no. 470.
According to Fita, General Chinchilla acquired 200, and 500 went to the merchant Satumino Fernández in Seville. This individual is doubtless the Fernández y González who figures so prominently in Pio Beltrán's unpublished list. It was probably he who mended and mounted some of the coins now in the HSA collection (see the footnote to No. 187(f) in the corpus). Chabás says that Satumino Fernández Gómez (sic) acquired 504; surely this was the same merchant or jeweler.
Apparently not all of Chinchilla's share, for there are instances where Beltrán's inventory lists specimens acquired by Chinchilla but not now in the HSA collection: e. g., Sisebut-Tucci.
The distribution by rulers differs in some minor respects in Beltrán's note on the hoard in Ampurias 1941, p. 99, where the table is obviously in error in more than one detail: e. g., the column of figures adds up to 766, not 770; and Witteric is assigned only one specimen.
On the day following the find, 755 pieces were counted, but undoubtedly many were held back by the workmen (La Capilla, p. 12). Chabás gives the total reported on in the Academia de la Historia as 752. Beltrán's unpublished inventory gives 767 (766, but wrongly added up as 770, in Ampurias 1941, p.99): Pujol y Camps (according to Beltrán) registered 763. Some less reliable reports give even more — as many as 1500 (e. g., EN 1892, p. 187). That there were more than the 767 in Beltrán's inventory can be deduced from at least one detail of my analysis of the HSA collection (see below): viz., Sisenand's issues at Tucci are known only from the hoard, yet the HSA collection has 16 specimens, but Beltrán's information supplies only 8 specimens from La Capilla.
Cf. Engel, 1898, p. 128.
The evidence of these relationships is so plentiful that it is unnecessary to give here more than a few of the very many possible examples: (a) there was only one specimen of Liuva-Emerita in the hoard, it was acquired by Chinchilla, later by Cervera, and it is now in the HSA collection; (b) there are 12 specimens of Sisebut-Ispali with traces of "La Capilla soil" in the HSA collection, certain of which are identifiable as ex-Cervera, and Beltrán's list gives 12 specimens of this ruler and mint to Chinchilla (see the discussion under No. 187(i) in the corpus); (c) there was only one specimen of Sisebut-Tude in the hoard, it was acquired by Chinchilla, was in the Cervera collection, is now HSA 16117, and has traces of "La Capilla soil"; (d) Campaner (p. 566) records Cervera's specimens of Leovigild-Saldania and Sisebut-Acci (now HSA 16001 and 16103); etc., etc.
Possibly 2.
E. g., A. Vives y Escudero, La Moneda Hispánica (Madrid, 1926), p. CLXXXII; and Publicaciones de la Sociedad Geográfica National (Madrid, 1934), p. 25. These references chiefly concern the Celtiberian and Roman portions of Cervera's collection, but they are sufficient to establish the later history of that collection as a whole. As pointed out in the Foreword to the present volume, no direct information with regard to the provenance of any part of the HSA collection has been available to me.
A Basque peasant found five Visigothic coins (Suinthila: Toleto, Eliberri, Ispali, Tucci; Sisenand: Castelona) while demolishing an old wall in the castle of Mauléon in the Basses-Pyrénées. The coins were deposited in the Museum of the Société de Borda at Dax.2
Early in 1932 a hoard of approximately 110 Visigothic coins was found in an earthenware pot in a field near the village of Abusejo,
Some of his specimens are missing, however; see p. 168, footnote 1, above.
RN, 1897, pp. 105–106.
A hoard consisting mostly of Visigothic trientes was discovered on September 12, 1945, during the course of scientific excavations at Cerro de la Oliva, Zorita de los Canes, province of Guadalajara, the presumed site of Reccopolis. There were 90 coins in the hoard, classified as follows: "Merovingian" type, 6; Suevian, 1; "Narbonese" Visigothic, 5; imitations of Justinian, 14; of Justin II, 41; "primitive Leovigildan," 23. The find, which should be of salient importance in the classification of the early "pre-national" Visigothic coinage (outside the scope of this volume), is thoroughly discussed by Juan Cabré Aguiló in Zorita de los Canes (see especially pp. 33–41 for the circumstances and exact find-spot). A brief summary will be found in the section in the present volume dealing with the mint of Reccopolis, pp. 96–98.
Mateu y Llopis (Madrid, p. 33) writes "Huedra," but the atlases give "Huebra."
There are certain discrepancies in Mateu y Llopis' two discussions of the hoard. Cf. Madrid, p. 37, footnote 36, and my own observations in the present catalogue. Among other things the weights are in many instances differently reported. Also, in Mateu y Llopis' Cordoba three specimens of Tulga-Cordoba are described as coming from the Abusejo hoard, but in response to my inquiry Mateu has acknowledged in correspondence that this is an error possibly due to "a confusion of plaster-casts." The hoard and its discovery is discussed in Madrid, pp. 31–38, and Adquisiciones en 1932, pp. 4–8.
The corpus is arranged in the following manner: Ruler, Province (Narbonensis, Tarraconensis, Carthaginensis, Baetica, Lusitania, Gallaecia, in that order), Mint (alphabetically within the Province), Type (as far as determinable chronologically at the given mint under the given ruler). Each Type receives a main corpus number; varieties are sub-listed with (a), (b), etc. Obverse description is on the left, reverse on the right. Specimens of each variety are listed beneath the description and are numbered 1, 2, 3, etc. The equality sign (=) connecting two or more citations (see the list of sources for abbreviations) signifies that these references concern the identical specimen. Specimens illustrated in the works referred to are marked*. Weights (in grams), diameters (in millimeters) and die-positions, where available, are given in parentheses after the last reference to each specimen. In general the order of citations is: HSA, other museums, private collections, other published specimens, auction and sales catalogues. The mark # after HSA numbers signifies that the coin bears traces of "La Capilla soil" (see p. 167).
In most publications lack of special type precludes the representation of the true forms of the letters in the transcriptions of legends; hence it is not always possible to determine just which variety a specimen should be assigned to, especially as many of the varieties differ from each other only in the form of one or two letters. Where the true forms of the letters are known or can be surmised, either by reproductions or by comparison with coins actually seen, the normalized or formalized letters appearing in the transcriptions are altered to the presumed form; but in some cases, in the absence of comparative material, it has been necessary to reproduce the transcriptions as given in the original publication, with the exception that Λ is always substituted for A. In many cases where D or X occurs in the transcription of the legends of unillustrated coins, the form may well be ɖ or +, etc.
Bust types are described as "facing," "right," "left," "confronting," etc., and further identified, as closely as possible, by reference to a type number and letter; see pp. 54–66 for the key to these bust forms.
1(a). Bust, right. Type 1 a.
ƆIIIVST IIIVΛC
Victory, right.
CLIVVIԛILDIΓεΓIƧ
1. Madrid, no. 64* = Velazquez, no. 6 (Leyrens) =
2. Lonja del Almidón, no. 690*.
(b) . ƆIIIVƧTI IIIΛVΛC
VCLIVVICILDIRεƪIS
1. Germanen-Erbe, p. 72, no. 7*. PLATE 1, 1
2.
3.
(c) . ƆNTSNV IVNSTC
LIVVIƆ ICVS
In exergue: CO
1. Zorita de los Canes, no. 82* (1.44).
Plate 1, 2
(d) . DNIVSTIIIIΛVΛ2
CLIVVIGILDIREGIS
1. Jusué, p. 484 (given to Museo Municipal de Santander) = Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos III, no. LXXXVII, 3.
(e) . Similar to (a)-(d), but exact legends uncertain.
1. Lonja del Almidön, no. 691.
Assigned by Reinhart to Andalusia (?).
Hallazgos III, has G in place of Λ at the end. I have followed Jusué's transcription.
2. Bust, right. Type 1 b.
Ɔ·N·IVIV GILV
Victory, right.
IΛIVNIS
In exergue: OИO
1. Madrid, no. 68* (1.28).
3(a). Bust, right. Type 1 b.
ƆNLEVV CILDIR
Victory, right.
VIITOI IΛVCCC
In exergue: CON
1. Zorita de los Canes, no. 84* (1.20).
Plate I, 3
(b) . Obverse as (a).
VISTOI ΛVCCC
In exergue: CON
1. Zorita de los Canes, no. 85* (1.15).
4. Bust, right. Type 1 a.
ƆVCLIVVICCILDIRECI
Victory, right.
VCLIVV·GILDIREGIS
1.
These legends are copied from Reinhart's transcriptions; they are not legible in the plates. Reinhart (1945, p. 228) observes that this specimen is "del mismo cuño" as no. 1(b)1, above; by which he must mean "the same style" or mint, because the reverses are certainly not from the same die.
5. Bust, right. Type 1 a.
... IVVIGILDVS...
Victory, right.
LI...LDIREGIS
1. Madrid, no. 69* (fragmentary coin).
Assigned by Reinhart to Mérida(?). Both Reinhart (pp. 83, 85) and Mateu y Llopis (Madrid, p. 171) recognize this specimen as a transition issue connecting one class of early types with Reinhart's Group C=type G, below. The legends are copied from Mateu's transcription, the reproduction not being fully legible.
Assigned by Reinhart to Andalusia (?).
6. Bust, right. Type 1 d.
ᒧVI Ɔ0VƧREX
Victory, right.
LVVVV·V∫REX
1. PLATE I, 4 Reinhart (p. 85) includes this very crude specimen among his Group C (Mérida?), my type G, but I see no resemblance in style whatever. It appears to me to be rather a distinct issue, unrelated to other types.
7(a). Bust, right. Type 1 b.
ΛИLIVVI·ILΔVSREX2
Victory, right.
ΔИLIVVICLDVSREX
In exergue: ONO
1. Madrid, no. 65* = (?)
2. Inst. de Valencia, no. 6* = 15*. PLATE I, 5
(b). ΔИLIVLICILΔVSRE
ΔИLIVV... REX
In exergue: ONO
1. Madrid, no. 67* (fragmentary coin).
The reproduction is not sufficiently clear to guarantee the reading of the legends.
(c). ΔИLIVVILDVSRE
ΔИLIVVIGILDVSREX
In exergue: OИ4
1.
(d). DNLIVVICILΔVƧREX
DИLIVVIGLDVƧREX
In exergue: CON
1. Madrid, no. 66* (1.32).
The legends are not clear in the reproduction but appear to be as transcribed above; they do not conform with the transcriptions as given in the Madrid catalogue.
(e). DИLIVVIϚILDVSREX
DИLIVVIϚILΔVSREX
In exergue: Add.
1. HSA 15990 (↓ 18, 1.34).
2. Heiss, no. 6* (Cabinet de Madrid) = Robert, no. 6*.1
3. Ennes, no. 6.
Plate 1, 6
(f). ////ИLIVVIϚ∃LDVSREX
DИLIVV///////VSREX
In exergue: /////dd
1.
(g). DИLIVVICILΔVSREX
DИLIVVIϚILΔVSRE
In exergue: X
1.
(h). DNLIVVILDVSRE
LIVVILDVSR
In exergue:?
1. Jusué, p. 484* (given to Acad, de la Historia) = Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos III, no. LXXXVII, 4 (1.36).
The illustration is scarcely legible and the transcriptions cannot be relied upon.
(i). LIVVIϚI LΔIREXPS
LIVVIϞIL ΔIREXN
In exergue: IVИ
1. Zorita de los Canes, no. 83* (1.51).
Plate 1, 7
Type H.
2
8(a). Bust, right. Type 1 c.
✠IVVI|ϞI + PV∫
Victory, right.
∫|RE✠|IИC✠ITV
In exergue: OИO
1. Heiss, no. 2* (BM) = Robert, no. 2* = Keary, 1886, pl. III, no. 67* (1.30).
(b). XIVVI|CIXDVSb
S|REX|IИCXITV
In exergue: OИO
1. PLATE I, S
(c). ✠IVVI|ϞI+PVS∫
∫|RE✠|IИC✠ITV
In exergue: OИ
1. Florez, p. 170*.
(d). +lVV//////|ϞI✠DVI∫
∫|RE+|IИC✠ITI
In exergue: ONO
1. HSA 7892 (↙20,1.37 [broken & repaired]).
Plate I, 9
(e). LIVVICI|LDVƧD
Ƨ|RCX|INCLTV
In exergue: ONO
1. Mahudel, pl. 11, no. 5* = Velazquez, no. 15.
(f) . ✠IVVICI✠DVSI
Ƨ|
In exergue: ONO
1. Mahudel, pl. 11, no. 4* = Velazquez, no. 16.
(g) . ✠IVVICI✠DVSI1
∫|REX|INC✠ITV
In exergue: ONO
1. Reinhart Coll., no. 2 (1.24).
(h). XIVVIC✠IXPV∫I
I|REX|INCXV
In exergue: OИO
1. HSA 16002 (↙19, 1.31).
Plate I, 10
(i). XIVVIϞ✠IXPV∫
I|REXI|INCXITV
In exergue: OИO
1. HSA 16003 (↓ 22, 1.32).
2. VQR no. 5015.
Plate I, 11
(j). XIVVIC✠IXDVI
I|REX|INCXV
In exergue: OИO
1. HSA 16781 (↙19, 1.30).
Plate I, 12
(k). XIVVI✠CILDVS2
I|REX|INCLIT
In exergue: OИO
1. Madrid, no. 70* (1.04).
(1). XIVVIC✠ILDVSƆ
I|REX|INCXV
In exergue: OИO
1. Madrid, no. 71* (1.29).
(m). ✠IVVIGILDVS (illegible in plate) I|REX|INCLIT(?)
In exergue: OИO
1. Madrid, no. 72* (1.34).
(n). XIVVI✠CIXDV
? |REX|INCXV
In exergue: OИO
1. VQR no. 5017*.
(o). XIVVIC✠IXDV∫
REX|INCXV
In exergue: OИO
1. VQR no. 5016 = Piot, p. 268 (pl. VI,1)* = Meynaerts, no. 5 = Heiss, no. 4* = Robert, no. 4* (1.29).
(p). XIVVICIXDV
REX|INCXVS
In exergue: OИO
1. Velazquez, no. 14 (Juan Antonio de las Infantas, Toledo).
(q). LIVVIGILDVS
REX|INCLI
In exergue: OИO
1. Museu de Belem, Lisbon (Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos V, p. 70).
(r). * IVVI*CIXPV
REXI|NCXITVS
In exergue: OИO
1. Reinhart Coll., no. 1 = idem, Germanen-Erbe, p. 72, no. 8* = idem, 1941, pl. 33, nos. 3–4* (exceptionally large flan: 23,1.12).
Plate I, 13
(8). LDV∫R✠LIVVICI
Ƨ|RCϞN |INCLITV
In exergue: ONO
1. Le Gentilhomme, no. 1* = LeBlanc, p. 32, no. 3* = Lenormant, p. 328 (pl. XII, no. 9)* = Heiss, no. 3* = Robert, no. 5* (1.29).
2.
(t). LDVƧR|LIVVIϞI
Ƨ|RCX|INCLTV
In exergue: ONO
1. Le Gentilhomme, no. 2* = Heiss, no. 4a= Robert, no. 3* (1.28).
(u). DVƧRX|LIVVIϞL
Ƨ|REX|INCLITV
In exergue: ONO
1. Ratto, no. 2433*.
(v). ✠ IVVIƆИ✠VII✠ƆV
RE✠|ИCИIV
In exergue: OИO
1. Zorita de los Canes, no. 88* (1.34).
Plate I, 14
(w). ✠ IVVI✠I✠PVSI
RE✠|INC✠V
In exergue: OИO
1. Zorita de los Canes, no. 89* (1.36).
In addition to the specimens categorized under types A-H, above there are a few published coins which may possibly carry the name of Leovigild but which are anomalous and equivocal in the form of their legends and in style. These include:
Assigned by Reinhart to Mérida (?).
This specimen is not in the Madrid catalogue.
Two specimens in the Inst. de Valencia de Don Juan (nos. 7* and 8*) bear legends apparently similar to the obverse here, but I cannot make out the reverse legends on the plate.
The X is not transcribed in the Madrid catalogue but is probably present.
Assigned by Reinhart to Toledo.
The transcriptions of the legends on this and other Madrid specimens below are based on my reading of the plates, which are not very clear; they do not always conform with the readings in Mateu's text, which is, among other things, limited in accuracy by the lack of adequate type fonts.
Very inaccurate drawing, if this is the coin illustrated in Madrid.
Sic, Not CON as transcribed in
9. Facing bust, crowned. Type 3 a.
✠LIVVI
Facing bust, crowned. Type 3 c.
✠·NΛRBONΛ
1. HSA 16005 = Heiss, no. 21* (Ponton d'Amécourt) = Robert, no. 10* = Belfort, no. 3139* ( ↓ 20,1.47). PLATE II, 1
Documentary evidence that the HSA specimen is that which was owned by Ponton d'Amécourt is lacking,1 but to judge by the engraving in Heiss (not that in Robert, which is faulty) there can be little doubt of the identity: on both obverse and reverse the striking is weak in exactly the same places, and the centering appears to be identical.
10. Facing bust, crowned. Type 3 a.
Legend as No. 9.
Facing bust. Type 3 b.
NARϷONΛCΛLER·Λ
1. VQR no. 5027 = Meynaerts, 1850, p. 1* = Meynaerts, no. 6 = Heiss, no. 20* =
There are minor differences in the several engravings of this coin, but it is apparent that Vidal Quadras y Ramón acquired Meynaerts piece and that only one specimen is known.
11(a). Facing bust. Type 5 c.
✠DNLEOVI
As obverse.
✠NΛRBONΛ
1. HSA 15989 ( ↓ 16, 1.50).
For the defense of the authenticity of this piece, see the appendix on forgeries, pp. 452–3.
(b). ✠DNLEOVIСILDVSREX
✠NΛRDONΛ
1. Florez, p. 187* = Masdeu, p. 8 =
The forgeries designed after the illustration of this type in Florez are discussed on p. 453.
I have not been able to find the specimen listed in any of the Ponton d'Amécourt catalogues.
12. Facing bust. Type 5 k.
* at left.
✠ LEOVICILDVSREx
Facing bust. Type 5 b. * at right.
✠NΛRBONΛPIVS
1. VQR no. 5026 = Piot, p. 268* = Meynaerts, no. 7 = Boudard, p. 344 = 3141* (1.44). PLATE II, 3
13. Bust, right. Type 1 c.
XIVVICILDVS
Cross on 4 steps.
REXVARCINONA:·
(begins at 7 o'clock)
1. Gabinete Num. de Cataluña, no. 9869 (Mateu y Llopis, Barcelona, no. 1 *) = (probably) Campaner, p. 205, note 3 (Coll. Luis Bolos, Olot) = Madrid, p. 273 = Mateu y Llopis, Barcelona, no. 2 (1.27).1
14. Facing bust. Type 5 c, variant.
✠LEOVIƆIᒧDVSREI
As obverse.
✠BΛRCINONVIVSTVƧ
1. Gabinete Num. de Cataluña, no. 9870 (Mateu y Llopis, Barcelona, no. 3*) (1.48).
Mateu y Llopis lists the Bolos and Gabineto Num. de Cataluña specimens separately, but I imagine they are the same piece.
15. Bust, right. Type 1 c.
LIVVICILDVS
Cross on 4 steps. At r. and 1.: * (or pellet?). Beneath:
·m·
CE:ΛRΛCO:TΛ (begins at 7 o'clock)
1. Madrid, no. 93* = Florez, p. 186* (Gabriel) = Masdeu, p. 326 = Lenormant, p. 328 = Heiss, no. 7* = Madrid, p. 192* (1.29).
16(a). Facing bust. Type 4 a.
* LIVVICILϷVSRE
Facing bust. Type 4 b.
CE:ΛR:C·O:TΛIV:TV:
(begins at 1 o'clock)
1. VQR no. 6018 = Heiss, no. 8* = Traité, fig. 118* (1.46).
(b). Facing bust. Type 4 d.
✠ LEOVI
As obverse.
CE:ΛR:C·O:TΛIV:T·
(begins at 1 o'clock)
1. VQR no. 5019 = Campaner, 1866, no. 8 = Heiss, no. 9* = Madrid, p. 192* (1.46).
(C). As (b).
✠LEOVI
CE:AR:C·O:TΛIV·T:
1. Johns Hopkins (Schulman, 1921) (16,1.48).
(d). Facing bust. Type 4 a, b, or d. ✠LIVVIGILDVSRE
As obverse.
CE:ΛR:CO:TΛIV:TV:
1. Campaner, 1866, no. 7 (ex Coll. Jaime de Puiguriguer) (1.51).
(e). As (b).
✠ LEOVI
CE:ΛR:C·O:TΛIV:T:
1.
Estocolmo, no. 4* (1.50).
Published transcription inaccurate.
17. Facing bust. Type 4 d.
✠ TOLCOB
(begins at 1 o'clock)
As obverse.
BICE∫
(begins at 1 o'clock)
1. HSA 16669 (ex Cervera) = Campaner, p. 206, note 2 = Fernández-Guerra, p. 368 =
This unique coin has been much discussed (see the references above) but never illustrated, and the legends have never been correctly transcribed. Campaner and Fernández-Guerra assigned the piece to Cesarea;
At the time of Campaner's writing this piece belonged to Cervera; its previous owner (1862) was Antonio Calvo Cassini.
18. Bust, right. Type 1 c.
✠LVVI|LDV∫R
(begins at 1 o'clock)
Cross on 3 steps.
In exergue: ONO
CVMDI|ROPΛ
(begins at 12 o'clock)
1. VQR no. 5029 = Heiss, no. 24* = Campaner, 1873, p. 47*
= Madrid, p. 269* (1.27). PLATE II, 6
19(a). Facing bust. Type 5 1.
✠ LEOVICILDVSRE
1. HSA 16007 (↓ 16,1.45).
(b). ✠LEOVICILϷVƧRE 1 2
As obverse.
✠ROϷΛS·NIVSTVS
Plate II, 7
✠ROϷΛSИIVSTVS
1. Heiss, no. 25* (Stroganoff) = Bradley, p. 326* = Madrid, p. 269*.
2.
20. Not described.
1. Gabinete Num. de Cataluña (Madrid, p. 270, note 273) (1.61).
21. Facing bust. Type?
✠ LEOVIGILDVSRE✠
Facing bust. Type?
✠ T·R·A·C·N·ΛIVSTVS
1. Ferreira, no. 1 = Campaner, p. 208, note 2 = Heiss, 1891, p. 100 = Botet y Sisó, I, p. LXXXI = Mateu y Llopis, Tarragona, p. 82, no. 1 (1.48).
22. Bust, right. Type 1 c.
LIVVIC·LPVS
Cross on 4 steps. * at r. and 1. Faint circle enclosing cross and all but bottom step. In exergue: ·m·.
·TIRΛ·S·И·
1. HSA 16670 (↓ 20, 1.21).
Beneath the legends of both obverse and reverse are traces of faint relief which may possibly indicate a previous striking of the flan; but these traces are illegible and it is equally possible that the relief is simply that which frequently is to be observed between the letters of the legends on Visigothic coins caused by the hard striking of thin flans. The faint circle on the reverse (which appears on some other coins of Leovigild, e. g., at Toleto) is perhaps the die-engraver's centering device. In spite of the peculiarities of the coin and the fact that Tirasona as a mint under Leovigild is hitherto unrecorded, there can be no doubt whatever of the authenticity of the piece. The existence of the mint under Leovigild's son Reccared is well documented.
23(a). Bust, right. Type 1 c.
LIVVICILDVSREX
Cross on 4 steps.
In exergue: CONOB
RECCOPOLIT
1. HSA 16006 (ex Cervera) (↓ 19, 1.25).
(b). LIVVICILDVSRE+
In exergue: ✠ ONO ✠
RECCO*POLITΛ
1.
24. Facing bust. Type 5 a.
✠ LEVVIGILbVSREX
As obverse.
✠RECCOPOLIFECIT
1. VQR no. 5028 = Heiss, no. 23* (Campaner) = Campaner, 1873, p. 50* (1.46).
25. Facing bust, crowned. Type 3f.
LIVVIC|ILDVSRE
(begins at 7 o'clock)
Facing bust, crowned. Type 3g.
RECCOXPOLIFECIT
(begins at 1 o'clock)
1. Ramón y Fernández, p. 88* (found at El Alijar, district of Robledillo de Trujillo, Cáceres, property of Gómez- Moreno) = Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos V, no. 298 = Hallazgos VI, pl. I, no. 21* (18 mm.).
While there are differences in the drapery of the busts, the types resemble that on the obverse of a coin of Emerita,1 as bothMateuand Pio Beltrán have pointed out. In consideration of its provenance and of his examination of a cast provided by Gómez-Moreno, Mateu has no doubts with regard to the authenticity of this coin, and its appearance as shown in Ramon y Fernández' plate offers no grounds for suspicion.
26. Facing bust. Type 5 1.
LIVVE¿EL ΔƧRE+
(begins at 7 o'clock)
As obverse.
SALΔAИIAIVSTVƧ
(begins at 6 o'clock)
1. HSA 16001 (ex Cervera) = Campaner, pp. 208, 566 =
See No. 40, below. For forgeries of the Emerita coin, see p. 455.
27. Bust, right. Type 1 c.
✠IVVIC✠IXPVSI
Victory, right. In exergue:
COиMO
TOLEιTOREX
(begins at 8 o'clock)
1. Florez, p. 175* = Masdeu, p. 6 = Heiss, no. 26* = Madrid, pp. 192*, 289* (23 mm.).
Type B
28(a). Bust, right. Type 1 c. ϷИLIVVICILϷVS
Cross on 4 steps. Very faint circle surrounding cross and upper 2 steps. In exergue: COИOB
TOLET°RE+
(begins at 8 o'clock)
1. HSA 15993 ( ↑ 18,1.30).
2. HSA 15994 (↑ 18,1.31).
3. HSA 16000 (↑ 17,1.25).1
Plate II, 11
4. Estocolmo, no. 2* (1.33).
5.
6. Schulman, Oct. 1927, no. 818* = Rackus, fig. 24*.
(b). ϷИLIVVICILPVS
TOLETOREX In exergue: COИOB
1. Madrid, p. 289*.
2.
3. Schrötter, pl. 8, no. 125*.
4. Schulman, Jan. 1929, no. 446.
(c). PИLIVVICIИ(?)ϷVS
TOLETORE+
In exergue: COИOB
1. Madrid, no. 111* (1.32).
(d). DNLIVVIGILDVS
TOLETOREGE1
In exergue: COMO
1. Campaner, 1866, no. 5 (Biblioteca Nacional) = Heiss, no. 27a (Cabinet de Madrid) (1.33).
Type C
29(a). Facing bust. Type 5 a.2
✠LEOVI
As obverse.
✠TOLETOIVSTVᔕ
1. HSA 15992 (↓16,1.43).
2. HSA 15996 ( ↓ 16,1.51).
3. HSA 15997 (↓ 17,1.49).
4. HSA 15998 (↓17,1.50).
5. BM no. 3A (acquired 1864) = Heiss, no. 28* (↓ 17,1.58).
6. Madrid, no. 112* (1.40).
7. Madrid, no. 115* (same dies as no. 6; 1.50).
8. Madrid, no. 113* (1.55).
9. Madrid, no. 114* = Catalogo-Guia, pl. X, 2 (1.52).
10.
11. Estocolmo, no. 3* (1.51).
12. Cabinet des Médailles.
13. Grierson Coll. (↓ 1.51).
14. Reinhart Coll., no. 3 =
15. VQR no. 5031.
16. Florez, p. 176*.
17. Lenormant, pl. XII, 11*.
18. Hess, June 1922, no. 109* (Berlin, no. 3) = Rackus, fig. 25*.
19. Bourgey, no. 303* = Hess, loc.cit., no. 110* (Berlin, no. 1).
20. Schulman, Jan. 1931, no. 652*.
21. Glendining, May 1936, no. 287*.
22. Wayte Raymond, July 1939, no. 33*.
23. Marqués de L1., no. 1496* (1.56).
24. Inst. de Valencia, no. 10*.
Plate 11, 12
(b).✠LEOVI
1. HSA 15991 (↓ 16,1.55).
✠TOLETOIVSTVᔓ
(c) .✠LEOVI
✠TOLETOIVSTVS
1. HSA 15995 (Pierced at 7 o'clock on obverse, ↓ 17,1.47)1.
Plate II, 14
(d). LEOVI
1. VQR no. 5030.
TOLETOIVSTVᔕ
(e). Similar to (a)-(d), but forms of letters uncertain.
1. Augustin, p. 294 = Masdeu, p. 7.
2. Velazquez, no. 13 (Academia).
3. O'Crouley, p. 523.
4. Lisbon, no. 9 = Ennes, p. 105, no. 7 (1.43).
One of the three HSA specimens is from the Cervera collection.
Could this be a misreading of one of the types above? It does not appear in Mateu y Llopis' catalogue. One the other hand, the two authorities, Campaner and Heiss, are excellent.
Delgado, whom Campaner copied, was mistaken in transcribing TOLETO PIVS. Beltrán (Rectificaciones, p. 408), who left the question open, not having seen the specimen, now in
This bust varies considerably; on all the specimens, however, the breast decoration consists of four, rather than three, vertical lines, and the neck of the obverse is usually more rounded than that of the reverse. There is also some difference in the rendering of the hair on obverse and reverse.
30(a). Facing bust. Type 9 a.
✠ LEOVI
Facing bust. Type 9 a (variant).
C°RϷ°BΛBIS°ϷTIИVIT
1. VQR no. 5020 = Heiss, no. 10* = Mateu y Llopis, Cordoba, pl. I, 1* (1.52).
(b). Facing bust. Type 9 b. ✠
✠LEOVI
As obverse.
C°R°PBΛBIS°PTINVIT
1. Velazquez, no. 12* (Pedro Villaceballos, Córdoba).
2. Florez, p. 181* (Gabriel) = Masdeu, p. 8.2
3. Dias, no. 1.
(c) . Facing bust. Type?
✠LEOVIGILDVSRE+
Facing bust. Type?
✠CORDOBABISOPTINVIT
1.-2. Ferreira, nos. 2–3 (1.03, 1.40).
Mateu y Llopis states3 that specimens of this issue of Leovigild at Cordoba are not rare, there being specimens "en otras muchas colecciones públicas o privadas," but I know of the above six specimens only, and of these several perhaps are relistings of pieces in collections that have changed hands. Mateu lists the VQR specimen as separate
One of the 6 HSA specimens of type C is from the Cervera collection.
Cordoba, p. 51, names this as a forgery, but I am inclined to believe that it represents a genuine specimen. There is little doubt that Florez' illustration served as the original for the common forgery (see p. 454, No. 11(b)). But what became of the Gabriel specimen? It is not included in the Madrid catalogue, either as a genuine piece or as a forgery.
Cordoba, p. 51.
31(a). Bust, right. Type 1 c.
RE+LIVVIҀILDVS
(begins at 7 o'clock)
1. HSA 16004 (↗18,1.24).
(b) . REXLIVVICILDVS
(begins at 7 o'clock)
Cross on 4 steps.
CVMDOOP
(begins at 7 o'clock)
Plate II, 15
CVMDCOPTINITƧPI
(begins at 6 o'clock)
1. HSA 15988 (ex Cervera) = Campaner, p. 208, note 4 (then Coll. Sanchez, Seville) =
PLATE II, 16
It is to be noted that while Beltrán corrected Campaner's reading of this coin, he was not in possession of an adequate reproduction of the specimen, with the result that his reading (CVMDOOPTINVITSPI) is not exactly correct.
32. Bust, right. Type 1 c.
PIVSLIVVICILϷVS
(begins at 7 o'clock)
Cross on 4 steps.
CVMDE°SPΛLIΛDGVISITΛ
(begins at 10 o'clock)
1. PLATE II, 17
Although I believe this coin to be genuine, one must admit the possibility of its being a forgery. The legend with the word ADQUISITA may perhaps reveal the attempt of a forger to create a type recording the first capture of Ispali in the year 572; but obviously a coin of the above type could not have been struck in this year (see the discussion of the evolution of Leovigild's types, p. 44). There is some confusion about the location of the piece: Reinhart records it as being in the Cabinet des Médailles in
33(a). Facing bust. Type 5 a.
✠LEOVICILDVSRE
Facing bust. Type 5 h.
✠CVMDOPTINITSPLI
1. HSA 8114(↙17,1.50).
PLATE II, 18
(b) . Facing bust. Type 5 h.
✠LEOVICILDVSREX
Facing bust. Type 5 a.
✠CVMDOPTINITSPL
1. BM no. 1A (acquired 1863) = Heiss, no. 16* (↓ 17,1.08).1
Plate II, 19
2.
(c) . Facing bust. Type 5 k.
✠LEOVI
Facing bust. Type 5 a.
✠CVMDOPTINITSPI
1. Madrid, no. 204* = Florez, p. 179* (Gabriel) = Velazquez, no. 11* (Leyrens) = Masdeu, p. 9 = Heiss, no. 16a (1.49).
2. Sotheby, Nov. 1848, no. 1181.
(d). Facing bust. Type 5 m.
✠LEOVICILьVSRE
As obverse.
✠CVMDOPTNVTSPI
1. Reinhart Coll., no. 4 =
(e). Facing bust. Type 5 1.
✠LOVI
As obverse.
·C
1. HSA 16668 (ex Cervera?) (↓ 16,1.56).
(f). Inadequately described.
1. Cumano, no. 1504.
Plate II, 20
34. Bust, right. Type 1 c. PIVƧLIVVICILDVƧR∊
(begins at 7 o'clock)
Cross on 4 steps.
CVMDEOETΛLICΛ
(begins at 6 o'clock)
1. HSA 16751 ( ↑ 20,1.21).
Plate III, 1
35. No description.
1. Campaner, 1866, p .116 = Heiss, no. 28a = Campaner, p. 208, note 3.
Tucci is not listed by Reinhart as a mint for Leovigild, probably because of the inadequacy of Campaner's documentation. However, in view of Campaner's reliability and of the fact that he took the pains to list the issue and explain that he had unfortunately lost the source, I am inclined to accept it as authentic in spite of the fact that we know of no other issues at Tucci until Sisebut.
Heiss gives the weight as 1.62, but the BM reports 1.08.
36(a). Bust, right. Type 1 c.
ϷNLIVVICILϷVS
(begins at 7 o'clock)
1. HSA 15982 ( ↖ 17,1.09).
2. HSA 15987 ( ↑ 16,1.39).
Cross on 4 steps.
In exergue: ONO
ELVOR✠ΛRE✠
(begins at 7 o'clock)
Plate III, 2
Plate III. 3
3. Grierson Coll. (ex Reinhart Coll., no. 6) =
(b). DNLIVVIҀILDV
Reverse as (a).
1. HSA 15986 (ex Cervera) (↘ 16,1.19).
Plate III, 4
(c). DNLIVVICILDVS
ELVORΛRE+
1. Moraleda y Esteban, p. 531* (found in excavations at Talavera de la Reina).
37(a). Facing bust. Type 5 a.
✠LE•VICILϷVSRE+1
1. HSA 15984 (↓ 16,1.50).
2. HSA 16008 (↓ 17,1.49).
3. HSA 16010 (↙ 16.1.50).2
As obverse.
✠TOSELVORΛIVS
Plate III, 5
Plate III, 6
4. Madrid, no. 298* = Augustin, p. 329 = Florez, p. 184* = Masdeu, p. 330 = Heiss, no. 12 (Cabinet de Madrid)3 = García de la Torre, no. 5727 (1.51).
5. Johns Hopkins (Schulman, 1921) (17,1.53).
6. VQR no. 5022.
7. Severim, p. 149.
8. Cantos Benítez, p. 10.1
9. Velazquez, no. 10 (Academia).
10. Merino, pl. 16, no. 1*.
11. Schulman, Cat. no. 76 (fixed price), Oct. 1921, no. 2766* (1.53).
12. Maison Florange, 1952 (1.55, same dies as no. 3).2
(b) . ✠LEOVI
1. HSA 15983 (↓ 17,1.44).
2. HSA 16009 (↓ 16,1.50).
3. Academia de la Hist. (Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos IV, pl. I, 3*) = Velazquez, no. 9 = Heiss, no. 12*.
4. VQR no. 5021 = Piot, 1850, no. 5* = Meynaerts, no. 8.
Reverse as (a).
Plate III, 7
(c). Obverse not described.
1. Sotheby, Nov. 1848, no. 1180.
✠TOSELVORIVS
Sometimes
One of these three specimens was in the Cervera collection.
Heiss cites two specimens under no. 12, with RE in place of RE+, but it is to be assumed that the specimen in the "Cabinet de Madrid" is Mateu's no. 298, and that the difference in the legend was inadvertently not noted.
38(a). Bust, right. Type 1 c.
DNLIVVICILDVSREX
(begins at 7 o'clock)
1. Soares, no. 1.730, p. 128* (1.31).
Cross on 3 steps.
EMERITΛVICTORIΛ
(begins at 11:30 o'clock)
(b). Obverse as (a).
DNLIVVICILDVƧRE+
(begins at 7 o'clock)
1. HSA 16498 (ex Cervera) (↓ 19,1.22).
2. Teixeira, no. 333.3
Cross on 4 steps.
Legend as (a) (begins at 12 o'clock)
Plate III, 8
(c). DNLIVVICILDVƧR∊X
Reverse as (b).
1. Reinhart Coll., no. 5 =
(d). DNLIVVICILDVƧREX
Cross on 3 steps. Legend as above.
1. BM no. 2A (acquired 1849) = Heiss, no. 13* = Madrid, p. 346* = Elias Garcia, Luaitânia, no. 5 (↓ 19,1.06). PLATE III, 9 2. Ferreira, no. 4 (1.27).1
(e) . DNLIVVICILϷVSRE
Cross on 3 steps. Legend as above.
1. VQR no. 5023 = Campaner, 1866, no. 4.
(f) . DNLIVVICILDVSRE2
Cross on 3 steps.
EMERIΛVICTORIΛ
1. Academia de la Hist. (Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos IV, pl. I, no. 1*) = Heiss, no. 13 (1.50).
2. Elias Garcia, Lusitânia, no. 3 (Casa Almeida, Lisbon).
3. Ibid., no. 3 (Coll. António Marrocos, Idanha-a-Velha).
(g) . DNLIVVIC✠ILDVSRE
Cross (potent, pointillé) on 3 steps. Legend as (f) (begins at 10 o'clock).
1. VQR no. 5024* = (probably) Moliné, p. 267* (Juan Prat y Sancho) (1.30).
(h) . DNLIVVICILDVSRE
EMERTITΛVICTORIΛ
(number of steps not indicated)
1. Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos V, p. 71 (Coll. Nieport, Oporto).
(i) . Types similar to above, but obverse legend not transcribed and number of steps not specified. VICTOREMERITΛ.
1. Heiss, no. 13a (A.C.H.).3
Wrongly attributed to Toleto.
Not included in mint and weight statistics.
S not retrograde in the transcription, but the actual forms of letters are not represented in this catalogue.
39. Facing bust. Type 3 d.
✠DNLEOVI
Facing bust. Type 6 d.
✠ PIVƧEMERITΛVICTOR
1. Heiss, no. 14* (A.C.H.)4 = Madrid, p. 346* (1.50).
2. Ferreira, no. 5 (1.34).
3. Stack's 1942, no. 10209B (1.60).
4. Inst. de Valencia, no. 11* (obv. bust variant; rev. bust more like 5 k).
RE + .
Mateu transcribes RX, but the plate appears to show RE.
The initials "A.C.H." are not listed in Heiss' key to abbreviations. One might suppose that "Ac.H." (Heiss' abbreviation for "Academia de la Historia") is intended, but there is no equivalent to the present piece in Mateu's inventory; nor to Heiss, no. 14, which is also designated "A.C.H." (see No. 39, below).
See footnote 3, above.
40(a). Facing bust, crowned. Type 3e.
✠DNLEOVI
Facing bust. Type 5 1.
✠PIVƧEMERITΛVICTOR
1. Acad. de la Hist. (Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos IV, pl. I,2*) =
(b). ✠ DNLEOVI
Reverse as (a).
1. Florez, p. 182* = Masdeu, p. 7 = Heiss, no. 15* = Madrid, pp. 215*, 349* = Antonio
There has been considerable discussion of the authenticity of both (a) and (b). There is no doubt whatever that (b), via the drawing in Heiss, served as the model upon which numerous modern forgeries were designed (see p. 455), and some1 have condemned (b) itself as a forgery. I am, however, inclined to agree with Pio Beltrán2 that the specimen illustrated by Florez and copied by Heiss is genuine, this position being supported by an analogous issue of Reccopolis.3 As for (a) , Mateu4 is undecided, there being no certainty that the coin was found in the hoard of Garrovillas; and
(c). Facing bust, crowned.
✠DNLEOVIGILDVSREX
Reverse as (a).
1. Molder, May 1950. no. 407* (rev. only illustrated).
The reverse of this specimen is certainly not that of the well-known forger; whether the piece is genuine or not cannot be determined from the very inferior reproduction of the reverse.
41(a). Facing bust. Type 8 a.
✠DNLEOVI
Facing bust. Type 5 1.
✠PIVƧEMERITAVICTOR
1. Estocolmo, no. 5* (1.48).
(b). Obverse as (a).
1. Freeman Collection.
Facing bust. Type 6 a, variation. Legend as (a).
Plate III, 11
This specimen must be accepted with some reserve; the piece itself should be reexamined with an eye to doubtful traits of fabric and "feel." At first I was inclined to reject the coin on account of the bust types, but subsequent examination of the
Arte, p. 57.
See No. 25, above.
Hallazgos IV, pp. 245–246.
42. Bust, right. Type 1 c.
✠LEOVIGILDVSREX
Bust, right. Type 1 c.
BRΛCΛRΛVICTOR
1. EstaÇo, p. 241 = Florez, p. 185 = Masdeu, p. 324 = Heiss, no. 6a = Campaner, p. 205.
The authenticity of this piece, or the accuracy of its description, was questioned by both Heiss and Campaner. Pio Beltrán1 leaves the question open, perhaps inclining toward accepting the coin as genuine, in view of the existence of a triens of Portocale with an analogous legend (No. 45, below). I see no intrinsic reason for suspecting the coin, although the description of both obverse and reverse busts is almost certainly wrong. The chronology (A. D. 585) calls for facing busts. But to be certain, one should examine the coin, and it has disappeared.
43. Type unknown.
✠LEOVIGILIVSRE
Type unknown.
✠CEPISIVSTVS
1. A Madrid collector (communicated by W.
44. Facing bust. Type 5 m.
✠LEOVICILϷVƧRE•
As obverse.
✠ LEBEVIΛSTΛS
1. VQR no. 5025 = Campaner, 1866, no. 9 = Heiss, no. 17*
= Campaner, p. 207, note 1 (1.36).
Plate III, 12
45. Facing bust. Type 5 aa.
✠ LEOVICILDSᴚE
Facing bust. Type 5 1.
✠ PORTOCΛLEVICTI
1. Heiss, no. 21a* (Joaquim dos Santos) = Campaner, p. 207, note 2 = Elias Garcia, Porlocale, p. 5.
As Elias Garcia remarks, this coin does not appear in the Schulman sales catalogue of the Dos Santos collection (June, 1906); in like manner others from this collection appear to have been disposed of before Schulman's sale. Pio Beltrán believes the specimen to be authentic.1
A.D. 579–684
46(a). Bust, right. Type 1 c.
ERMEN|EҀILDI
(begins at 1 o'clock)
1. HSA 16013 (↑ 17,1.42).
(b). ERMEN|·EҀLD·—
Victory, right. In exergue:
ONO
INCLIT| I | R⊏Ҁ—
(begins at 1 o'clock)
Plate III, 13
INCLIT|R|CҀI
1. Bibliothèque Nationale = Heiss, no. 2* (Cabinet de Madrid, p. 222* =
(c) . ERMEN | IҀILDI —
INCLIT|IREC
1. VQR no. 5032 = Heiss, no. 1* = Robert, no. 12* (1.32).
47(a). Bust, right. Type 1 c.
•ERMENIEҀILDI
(begins at 1 o'clock)
Victory, right. In exergue:
ONO
REҀlΛDE|O|VITΛ
(begins at 1 o'clock)
1. Madrid, no. 73* (p. 228) = España Sagrada, vol. 24, p. 3341 = Florez, p. 190* (Gabriel) = Masdeu, p. 10 = Lenormant, p. 329 = Fernández-Guerra, pl. I* (1.35).
b). ·ERMEN|EҀILDI·
Reverse as (a), but in exergue: OИO
1. BM no. 4A (acquired 1863) = Heiss, no. 3* = Robert, no. 13* = Keary, pl. III, no. 15* = Madrid, p. 222*
(↓ 19,1.26).
Plate III, 14
HERMENEGILD
(c) . Obverse as (a).
1. Johns Hopkins (20,1.28).
This piece is a little suspicious.
In exergue: OИO
REҀIΛbE|O|VITΛ
Plate III, 15
(d) . A specimen probably similar to (a), (b) and (c), presented by Philip II of
1. Morales, Bk. 11, fol. 76r = (?) Augustin, p. 295 = Mariana, I, p. 312 = de Yepes, I, fol. 353v-354r = Velazquez, no. 18 = Cantos Benítez, p. 8 = Escorial, p. 273.
Augustin and Velazquez read "REGNMBONOOVITA," but even the former was in some doubt and said, "muy mal se leen." Morales read "REGEMDEVITA."1 Both are quite patently misreadings of the legend occurring on the Madrid,
Reinhart quite rightly draws attention to the fact that authentic specimens of Hermenegild's coinage are excessively rare, much rarer than commonly believed;3 in 1940 he knew of only three. As set forth above I recognize seven (or perhaps six), of which one has disappeared. Another specimen, not included above, is listed in the catalogue of the Royal Mint, Hallazgos VI, no. 408), the property of Jaime Butina of Bañolas.
Florez wrote: "yo la tengo en mi coleccion."
Cf. Mariana, "Hombre Luye al rey."
On the relationship of Augustin to the Escorial and the transfer of his collection to that library, see Escorial, pp. 20, 274–275, 282–283, and Mateu y Llopis' Inventari ntvmismàtic.
A.D. 586–601
48(a). Facing bust. Type 51.
✠ RECCΛREDVSREX
As obverse.
✠NΛRBONΛFELIX
1. Acad. de la Hist. (Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos IV, pl. I, 16*).
(b). ✠ RECCΛREDVSRE
Reverse as (a).
1. HSA 16043 (ex Cervera) ( ↓ 16,1.50).
2. Heiss, no. 22* (Acad. de la Hist.)1 = Robert, no. 15* (1.50).
3. Museé de Narbonne (Belfort, no. 3143*) (1.47).
4. Coll. d'Amécourt, formerly Dassy (Belfort, no. 3143) (1.50).
Plate IV, 1
(c). Obverse?
1. Cantos Benítez, p. 11.
NΛRVONΛFELIX
49(a). Facing bust. Type 5 d.
✠ RECCΛREDVSRE
As obverse.
✠NΛRBONΛPIVS
1. HSA 16044 (ex Cervera) (↓ 15,1.41).
Plate IV, 2
(b) . Obverse as (a).
✠ИΛRBONΛPIVS
1. Campaner, 1866, no. 5 (Acad. de la Hist.)1 = Heiss, no. 22a = Robert, no. 16 = Belfort, no. 3144 (1.45).
2. Musée de Narbonne (Boudard, p. 344*) = Campaner, 1866, no. 5. = Amardel, Musée de Narbonne, no. 1 = Belfort, no. 3144* (1.45).
Not in Mateu y Llopis' inventory of the Academia collection.
50(a). Facing bust. Type 6 a.3
✠ RECCΛREDVSREX
As obverse.
✠BΛRCINONΛIVSTVS
1. Acad. de la Hist. (Mateu y Llopis, Barcelona, no. 13).4
(b) . ✠RECCΛREDVSRE+
✠BΛRCINONΛIVSTV
1. Reinhart Coll., no. 7 = Mateu y Llopis, Barcelona, no. 12 (1.47).
(c) . ✠RECCΛREDƧRE+
✠BΛRCINONΛIVƧT
1. Acad, de la Hist. (Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos IV, no. 15*) = idem, Barcelona, no. 11.
2. Lonja del Almidón, no. 692*.
3. Ferreira, no. 9 (1.40).
(d) . Obverse as (c).5
✠BΛRCINONΛIVX
1. Pi y Arimón, p. 128, no. 3* (obvious inaccuracies in drawing and transcription)= Botet y Sisó, Noticia, pl. I, 39* (Coll. Ripoll) = Mateu y Llopis, Barcelona, no. 9* =
ibid., no. 14 (reduplicated reference, here given as "Salat, Tratado, Vol. III," signifying Botet y Sisó's Noticia).
(e). ✠RECCΛREDVSRE
✠BΛRCINONΛIVSTV
1. Inst. de Valencia, no. 12* = Mateu y Llopis, Barcelona, no. 10.
The inventory of Reccared's issues at Barcelona is not simplified by Mateu y Llopis' La Ceca Visigoda de Barcelona, in which there is a good deal of confusion, inaccuracy and reduplication. For example, the two specimens cited under his no. 1 are not the same; the citation for no. 6 is the same as the second reference under no. 4; no. 16 is the same specimen as no. 4; no. 17 is the same as no. 5; no. 9 is the same as no. 14; no. 18 is Heiss, no. 3a, not no. 3; retrograde letters are not indicated in the transcriptions; the "diadem" is omitted from no. 7; no. 15 has a "diadem," not a cross, etc., etc. In the circumstances it is impossible to determine whether the unillustrated specimens in this monograph are correctly described and transcribed, and in the listing below, while I have done my best to straighten out the equivocations, I cannot guarantee the accuracy of the description of pieces which I have not seen.
The types are essentially similar, differing fundamentally only in respect of the ✠,
There are many varieties of this bust, even with due allowance for inaccuracies in the drawing of specimens in the older literature. For the sake of simplification I have given all the busts a single type number.
I do not know why this specimen does not appear in Mateu's inventory of the Academia collection in Hallazgos IV. Perhaps it is no longer there.
This specimen may well be one of the counterfeited copies of Florez referred to by
51(a). Facing bust. Type 6 a.
✠ RECCΛREDVƧRE
1. HSA 10620 (↓ 15,1.51).
(b) . Obverse as (a).
As obverse.
Plate IV, 3
1. Johns Hopkins (Schulman, 1922) (15,1.50).
(c) . Obverse as (a).
1. Botet y Sisó, Noticia, pl. IV, 43* (drawings obviously inaccurate) = Mateu y Llopis, Barcelona, no. 15 (inaccurately described).
2. Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos III, no. XC* (found by and in possession of Juan Serra Vilaró, Solsona).1
3. Florez, p. 208* (misprinted 280) = Masdeu, p. 323.
(d) . Obverse as (a).
1. HSA 16067 (ex Cervera) (↓ 14,1.50).
Plate IV, 4
(e) . Obverse as (a).
1. Carles-Tolrá, no. 1001* (1.50).
(f) . ✠ RECCVREDVƧRE
1. VQR no. 5034 = Heiss, no. 2* = Carreras y Candi, p. 146* = Mateu y Llopis, Barcelona, nos. 5 and 17 (16,1.49).
2. Heiss, 1891, p. 101 (Ferreira).
(g). ✠ ΓҀҀΛREDVƧRE
1. Stuttgart, no. 1334.
Plate IV, 5
This specimen is transcribed ... IVSTV, but in the illustration the V appears not to be present.
52(a). Facing bust. Type 6 a.
✠RECCΛREDVSRE
As obverse.
✶ BΛRCINONΛIΛST
1. VQR no. 5033 = Heiss, no. 1* = Carreras y Candi, p. 146* = Madrid, p. 273* = Mateu y Llopis, Barcelona, nos. 4* and 16 (16,1.52).
(b) . Obverse as (a).
1. Hoffmann, 1886, no. 25.
(c) . Obverse as (a).
✶ BΛARCINONΛIVST
✶ BΛRCINONVIΛST
1.
(d). ✠RECCΛREDVSΛE
✶ BΛRCINONΛIVSTV
1. HSA 16582 (ex Cervera) (↙16,1.50).
Plate IV, 6
53(a). Facing bust. Type 6 a.
✠RECCΛREDVSRE
As obverse.
✺BΛRCINONΛIVS
1. Le Gentilhomme, no. 4* = (probably) Bouterouë, p. 179* = Heiss, no. 3* = Carreras y Candi, p. 146* = Mateu y Llopis, Barcelona, no. 6 (but not no. 4, although designated Cabinet de
(b).1 Obverse as (a).
✺ BΛRCINOMΛIVS
1. Salat, p. 267* = Pi y Arimón, p. 127, no. 2* = Mateu y Llopis, Barcelona, no. 8*.
(c) . ✠ RECCΛREDVCRE
✺BΛRCINONΛIVS
1. Mahudel, pl. 11, no. 9* = Velazquez, no. 35 = Gússeme, VI, p. 24, no. 2.
54. Specimens presumably similar to above with incomplete descriptions.
1. Cantos Benítez, p. 11.
2. Elías de Molins, Catálogo, p. 309, no. 104.
3. Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos V, no. 299 (property of X. Calicó).
My reasons for rejecting Heiss' no. 3a (with BARCINONΛPIVS) are given in the appendix on forgeries, p. 458.
Very inferior drawings. Possibly a forgery. The weight is given as "30 granos."
55(a). Facing bust. Type 4 c.
✠ RECCΛREDVSREX
1. HSA 16015 (↘ 17,1.52).
(b) . Obverse as (a).
1. Madrid, no. 94* (1.45).
As obverse.
CE:ΛR:C·O: TΛIV: T:
Plate IV, 7
CE:ΛR:C·O:TΛIV:T·
CE:ΛR:C·O:TΛIV:T·
(c) . ✠RECCΛREDVSRE
1. HSA 16016 (↓ 16,1.48).
2. Florez, p. 208* (misprinted "280") = (probably)
España Sagrada, vol. 24, p. 333.
3. Schulman, Apr. 1912, no. 302* = Rackus, fig. 29 (wrongly attributed to Heiss) (1.50).
Plate IV, 8
(d) . ✠ RECCAEDVSRE
CE:ΛR:C·O: TΛIV: TO
1. BM no. 7A (acquired 1860) ( ↓ 17,0.93).
(e) . ✠RECCΛREdVSREX
CE:ΛR:C·O:TΛIV:T
1. HSA 16018 (ex Cervera) (↓ 17,1.46).
Plate IV, 9
(f) . ✠ RECCΛREdVSRE
CE:ΛR:C·O: TΛIVS+
1. Madrid, no. 95* (1.25).
(g). Obverse as (f).
CE:ΛR:C·O:TΛV: +
1. Johns Hopkins (Wayte Raymond, 1923) (19,1.47).
(h). Obverse as (f).
✠CE:AR:C·O:TΛ: + : (begins at 1 o'clock)
1. BM no. 6A (DeSalis) = Heiss, no. 6* = Madrid, p. 277*
(↘ 19,1.45).
Plate IV, 10
(i). Obverse as (f).
✠CE:ΛR:C·O:TΛIV:+
1. VQR no. 5037 = Piot, no. 5* = Meynaerts, no. 14.
(j). Obverse as (f).
XCE:ΛR:C: O: TΛIV+
1. Velazquez, no. 50 = Gússeme, VI, p. 24, no. 4.
(k). Obverse as (c).
1. Inst. de Valencia, no. 15*.
✠CE:ΛR:C·O:TΛ: I:
56. Facing bust. Type 4 c.
✠ RECCΛREԛVSRE
As obverse.
•
1. HSA 16069 (ex Cervera) (↓ 19,1.45).
2. Inst. de Valencia, no. 14*.
Plate IV, 11
57(a). Facing bust. Type 4 c.
✠ RECCΛREdVƧRE
As obverse.
✺CE:ΛR:C.O: TΛIV:T
1. VQR no. 5036 = Heiss, no. 5* (1.45).
(b) . ✠RECCΛREDVƧR:
1. HSA 16017(↓ 18,1.44).
✺C·E:T:VI:V:TV:
Plate IV, 12
58. Facing bust. Type 4 d.
✠ RECCΛRE∇VSRE
1. Carles-Tolrá, no. 1002* (1.50).
As obverse.
CE:ΛR:C·O: TΛIVT:
59. Facing bust. Type 4 d.
✠RECCΛREDVSR
As obverse.
C·EƧTΛVVIIVST:1
1. VQR no. 5038 = Campaner, 1866, no. 15* = Heiss, no. 42* = Madrid, p. 283*.
The above coin is discussed under forgeries, p. 458. The specimen in the Hispanic Society collection (No. 57(b), above) throws further light on the question of the identification of "Cestavi" as Cesaragusta, so competently elucidated by Ampurias 1941, p. 86. Quite apparently some of the contemporary die-engravers became careless in the rendering of the abbreviated mint-name (which takes so many forms) to such an extent perhaps that they ignored the significance of the letters. Both HSA 16017 and VQR no. 5038 are examples.
The reproductions of the legends in Campaner and Heiss do not agree in every particular.
60. Inadequate descriptions.
1. Florez, p. 210 (San 'Ildefonso).1
2. Cumano, no. 1506.
3. O'Crouley, p. 382.
4. Reinhart Coll., no. 13 (1.46).2
61. Facing bust. Type 4 c.
✠RECCΛREɖVSRE
As obverse.
DERTOSΛIEECΓ:
1. VQR no. 5040 = Campaner, 1866, no. 2 = Heiss, no. 9* = Madrid, p. 275* (1.43).
62(a). Facing bust. Type 4 d.
✠R·ECCΛ·R·EDΛƧRE
As obverse.
ᔓPERTOƧΛIVƧ·A
1. Florez, p. 210* (Ildefonso) = Masdeu, p. 329 = Heiss, no. 8* = Botet y Sisó, Noticia, pl. V, no. 28* = Madrid, p. 275*.
(b). Bust types?
✠ RECCΛREDVSRE
✠DERTOSΛIVSΛS
1. Velazquez, no. 32 (Pedro de la Cueva, Granada) = Gússeme, VI, p. 24, no. 6.
63(a). Facing bust. Type 6 a.
✺RECCΛREDVƧREX
As obverse.
1. Mabbott Coll., = Boudeau, 1913 (Berlin no. 16) = Bourgey, no. 304* = Stack's 1942, no. 10209c (↓ 15, 1.48). PLATE IV, 13
2. VQR no. 5056 = Boudard, p. 348 = Campaner, 1866, no. 6 = Heiss, no. 27* = Madrid, p. 270* = Mateu y Llopis, Hispania Tarraconense, pl. II, 16* (1.50).
D of RECCΛREDVS retrograde.
CE: ΛR:C.:TΛIVT.
64. Facing bust. Type 6 a.
✠ RECCΛREΔVSRE
As obverse.
1. VQR no. 5057 = Campaner, 1866, no. 7 = Heiss, no. 28* = Madrid, p. 270* (1.51).
65(a). Facing bust. Type 4 c.
✠RECCΛREbVƧREx
As obverse.
TERR:C·NΛIV: T·ᔓ
1. HSA 16050 (ex Cervera) (↓ 18,1.42).
Plate IV, 14
(b) . ✠RECCΛREPVƧRE[X?]
TΛRΛ:CONΛlV:T·
1. Heiss, no. 31* (Stroganoff) = Mateu y Llopis, Tarragona, no. 7*.
(c) . ✠ RECCΛREDVSREX
TΛRR·CONΛIV
1. Velazquez, no. 33 (supposedly Mahudel, but not there?) = Gússeme, VI, p. 24, no. 16 = Mateu y Llopis, Tarragona, no. 8.
(d) . ✠RECCΛREbVƧ·R·E
TERR:CONΛIV:TO·
1. VQR no. 5060 = Piot, 1850, no. 6* = Meynaerts, no. 15 = Campaner, 1866. no. 12 = Heiss, no. 33* = Madrid, p. 267*= Mateu y Llopis, Tarragona, no. 15* (1.46).
2. Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos VI, no. 409 (found in Montpeó, Cervera, Lérida province).
(e). ✠RECCΛREbVƧRE
IV: TOSTERR:CONΛ1
1. Augustin, p. 272 = Velazquez, no. 34 = España Sagrada, vol. 24, p. 334 = Gússeme, VI, p. 24, no. 17.
66. Facing bust. Type 4 c.
✠ RECCΛREbVƧRE
1. HSA 16046 (↓ 17,1.45).
As obverse.
✠TΛRR:C°NΛIV
Plate IV, 15
As given by Augustin; Velazquez has TOS: TERR: CONΛ . One cannot tell where the legend actually begins.
67(a). Facing bust. Type 4 c.
✠RECCΛREbVƧREx
As obverse.
✺TΛRR:CONΛIV:T
1. Estocolmo, no. 11* (1.40).
Plate IV, 16
(b). ✠RECCΛREbVƧRE
✺ TΛRR:CONΛIV: T
1. Madrid, no. 84* = Campaner, 1866, no. 9 = Mateu y Llopis, Tarragona, no. 6* (1.47).
68(a). Facing bust. Type 4 c.
✠RECCΛREbVSREX
As obverse.
1. Le Gentilhomme, no. 16* = Mahudel, pl. 11, no. 12* = Florez, p. 207 = Masdeu, p. 343 = Heiss, no. 30* = Traité, fig. 119* = Madrid, pp. 259*, 267* = Mateu y Llopis, Tarragona, no. 10* (1.47).
(b) . ✠RECCΛREDVSREX
1. O'Crouley, p. 382.
(c) . ✠ RECCΛREbVSRE
1. HSA 16047 (↓ 19,1.48).
2. Stuttgart, no. 1336.
(d) . ✠ RECCΛREbVƧRE
Plate IV, 17
1. VQR no. 5059* = Campaner, 1866, no. 11 = Mateu y Llopis, Tarragona, no. 9 (1.44).
69(a). Facing bust. Type 4 c.
✠ RECCΛREϷVSRE+
As obverse.
✠TΛRR:CONΛPIV·+
1. Madrid, no. 85* = Campaner, 1866, no. 10 = Heiss, no. 34* = Madrid, p. 259* = Mateu y Llopis, Tarragona, no. 2* (1.48).
(b). ✠ RECCΛREDVSRE
✠TΛRR:CONΛPI·
1. Gabinete Num. de Cataluña (Mateu y Llopis, Tarragona, no. 3* (1.43).
(c). Bust type?
✠RECCΛREbVSRE
Bust type?
1. Ferreira, no. 8 = Heiss, 1891, p. 101 (1.50).
(d) . Obverse not described.
[✠]TARRΛCONEPIVS
1. Heiss, no. 35a (Academia de la Hist.) = Mateu y Llopis, Tarragona, no. 4 (1.40).1
Inaccurately described by Delgado.
70(a). Facing bust. Type 4 c.
RECCΛREDVSREX
Cross beneath arch.
TΛRR·COИΛIVSTV
1. BM no. 14A (acquired 1849) = Heiss, no. 32*= Traité, fig. 123* = Madrid, pp. 260*, 267* = Mateu y Llopis, Tarragona, no. 11* (↓ 17,1.43).
(b) . RECCΛREbVƧRE+
1. HSA 16056 (↓ 16,1.51).
(c). RECCΛREbVSRE
TΛRR:C°ИΛIV:T:
Plate IV, 18
TΛRR:CONΛIV:T·
1. HSA 16048 (ex Cervera) (↓ 16,1.47).
Plate IV, 19
(d). ✠ RECCΛREDVSR
TΛRRΛCOИΛIV:T·
1. Gabinete Num. de Cataluña (Mateu y Llopis, Tarragona, no. 12* (1.48).
(e). Obverse as (d).
TΛRRΛCOИΛIVS
1. Inst. de Valencia, no. 13* = Mateu y Llopis, Tarragona, no. 13*.
71. Facing bust. Type 5 l.
✠RECCΛR:ϷV:RE
As obverse.
·TΛRRΛC·N:ԛIV·
1. Acad. de la Hist. (Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos IV, pl. I, 17* = Mateu y Llopis, Tarrangona, no. 52 (15 mm).
To judge from Mateu y Llopis' inventory of the Academia collection (Hallazgos IV), this specimen is no longer in that cabinet. Mateu's listing in Tarragona gives a different reading of the reverse from that in Heiss (which latter I have adopted), and also gives the obverse legend, which is lacking in Heiss. This would imply that Mateu had seen the specimen; but if so, why is it not in his Academia inventory?
The transcriptions in these two publications do not agree with each other, nor with the photograph in the former.
72. Facing bust. Type 5 k, variation.
✠ RECCΛREDVƧRE
Equilateral cross.
BTΛRΛCONΛIVTƧ
1. BM no. 15A (acquired 1860) = Heiss, no. 35* = Madrid, pp. 260*, 267* = Mateu y Llopis, Tarragona, no. 14* (↓ 15,1.43).
2. Soares, no. 1.733, p. 129* = Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos V, p. 71 (small diam., 1.49).
Plate IV, 20
73. No description.
1. Botet y Sisó, I. p. LXXXI (R. Bosch Alsina).
74(a). Facing bust. Type 4 c.
✠ RECCΛREdVSRE
As obverse.
✠ TIRΛ:O:ИΛIV:
1. Madrid, no. 107* = (?) Florez, p. 212 (Real Biblioteca) (1.37).
(b) . Obverse as (a).
1. VQR no. 5062*.
(c) . Obverse as (a).
1. Heiss, no. 36* (Noguez) (1.37).
2. Inst. de Valencia, no. 16*.
✠TIRΛ:OИEIV:+
✺TIRΛ:O:ИΛIV:T
(d). Obverse as (a).
1. HSA 16072 (ex Cervera) (↓ 18,1.49).
2. VQR no. 5061 = Heiss, no. 37* (1.48).
Plate V, 1
75(a). Facing bust. Type 4 d.
✠RECCΛREdVSRE
1. Madrid, no. 108* (1.40).
(b). ✠RECCΛREϷVƧRE
As obverse.
✠TIRΛA:O+ИΛIV:
✺TIRΛ:O:ИΛIVI:T
1. Madrid, no. 109* = Velazquez, no. 51 (Leyrens) = Florez, p. 212 (Gabriel) = Gússeme, VI, p. 24, no. 18 = Campaner, 1866, no. 13 (1.37).
76. Facing bust. Type 4 d.
✠RECCΛR:ϷVƧR
As obverse.
TIR:Ƨ:ИΛIPIV:
1. Florez, p. 211* = Masdeu, p. 345 = Heiss, no. 38*.
77(a). Type A(?).
1. Velazquez, no. 52 (Cueva).
(b) . "Tipo tarraconense."
1. Mateu y Llopis, Ampurias 1948, p. 439 (found at Castro de Esturãos, and described by F. Russell Cortez in Arquivo de Alto Minho, 1946).
(c) . Uncertain.
1. Mateu y Llopis, Ampurias 1945–46, p. 474 (found in the Río Pavía, about 1 km. from Viseu, and described by José Coelho, "Nótulas numismáticas" in Beira Alta, IV, pp. 37–47).
78(a). Facing bust. Type 5 f.
✠ RECCΛREbVSREX
As obverse.
✠ MENTEᔕΛPIVᔕ
1. Florez, p. 199* (Villacevallos) = Masdeu, p. 337.
2. Velazquez, no. 48 (Academia) = Gússeme, VI, p. 24, no. 13.1
(b). ✠RECCΛRE/////SRE+
Reverse as (a).
1. VQR, no. 5052 = Heiss, no. 21* = Madrid, p. 313* (1.34).
(c). ✠RECCΛREϷVSRE+
1. Inst. de Valencia, no. 19*.
Reverse as (a).
The forms of the S's on the reverse are not indicated in Velazquez, but they are probably as above. The specimen is evidently no longer in the Academia collection.
79(a). Facing bust. Type 5 a.
✠ RECCΛRE∇VSREX
As obverse.
✠RECCOPOLIFECIT
1. Florez, p. 197* = Gússeme, VI, p. 24, no. 15 = Masdeu, p. 12.
(b). ✠RECCΛRIPVSREX
Reverse as (a).
1. VQR no. 5055 = Meynaerts, no. 16 = Heiss, no. 26* = Madrid, p. 300* =
(c). ✠RECCΛREDVSREX
✠RECCOPOLVFECI
1. Acad, de la Hist. (Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos IV, pl. I, 18*) = Heiss, no. 26a (1.40).
(d). ✠RECCΛREDVSR
✠RECCOPVLIϷEI
1. Mabbott Coll. = Rokesmith, p. 9 = Stack's 1942. no. 10209E (↓ 18,1.50).
2. VQR, no. 5054*.1
Plate V, 2
Plate V, 3
(e). * RECCERILVSREX2
1. VQR, no. 5053*.
✠ RECCOPOLIFECIT
Plate V, 4
80. Facing bust. Type 5 d.
✠RECCAREΔVᔓRE
1. HSA 16045 (↓ 17,1.56).
As obverse.
✠Ƨ
Plate V, 5
81(a). Facing bust. Type 5 d.
✠RECCΛREDVSREX
1. HSA 16055 (↓ 18, 1.51).3
As obverse.
✠T° LET°PIVᔕ
Plate V, 6
2. Madrid, no. 126* (ex Basilio Sebastián Castellanos de Losada) (1.50).
(b) . ✠RECCΛREϷVSREX
1. HSA 16052 (↓ 17,1.42).
2. Madrid, no. 117* (1.52).
3. Madrid, no. 118* (1.52).
4. Wayte Raymond, July 1939, no. 34*.
Reverse as (a).
Plate V, 7
(c) . * RECCAREϷVSRE+1
1. HSA 16049 (↙17,1.50).
2. HSA 16051 (↙17,1.59).
3. HSA 16053 (↘ 17,1.51).
4. HSA 16054 (↙ 17,1.53).
5. HSA 16057 (↓ 17,1.44).
6. HSA 16058 (↓ 16,1.51).
7. HSA 16059 (↓ 17,1.50).
8. HSA 16060 (↓17,1.57).
9. HSA 16063 (↓ 18,1.53).
10. HSA 8102 (↓ 17,1.48).2
11. BM no. 16A (acquired 1860) (↘ 17,1.52).
12. Madrid, no. 116* = Adquisiciones en 1932, pl. I, 4* (1.60).
13. Madrid, no. 119* = (?) Femández-Guerra, pl. I* (1.50).
14. Madrid, no. 122* (1.47).
15. Madrid, no. 123* (1.47).
16. Madrid, no. 124* (1.47).
17. Estocolmo, no. 10* (1.54).
18. loc.cit., no. 9* (1.51).
19. loc. cit., no. 6* (1.49).
20. loc. cit., no. 8* (1.48).
21. loc. cit., no. 7* (1.55).
22. Stuttgart, no. 1337.
23. Dumbarton Oaks.
24. Freeman Coll. (same obv. die as no. 9).
25.-26. Freeman Coll.
27. Grierson Coll., no. 7888 (ex Bute, Sotheby, 7 May, 1951, no. 117*) (↓ 1.52).
28. Grierson Coll., no. 7889 (ex Bute, loc.cit., no. 119) (↓ 1.47).
29. Reinhart Coll., no. 10 =
30. Reinhart Coll., no. 11 (1.47).
31. Niggeler Coll. (1.46).
32. VQR no. 5063.
Reverse as (a).
Plate V, 8
Plate V, 9
33. Acad, de la Hist. (Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos IV, pl. I, 13*) = (probably) Velazquez, no. 37 = Gússeme, VI, p. 24, no. 19.
34. Acad, de la Hist. (Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos IV, pl. 1,14*) = Heiss, no. 39* = Madrid, p. 289* (1.50).
35. Le Gentilhomme, no. 17* = (?) Mahudel, pl. 12, no. 25* = Velazquez, no. 39 = (?) Traité, fig. 117* (1.48).
36. Le Gentilhomme, no. 18 = LeBlanc, p. 32, no. 5* = (probably) Mahudel, pl. 12, no. 15* = Velazquez, no. 38 (1.50) .
37. Ferreira, no. 17 (1.49).
38. Carles-Tolrá, no. 1004* (1.50).
39. Carles-Tolrá, no. 1005* (1.50).
40. Florez, p. 194*.1
41. Lelewel, pl. I, no. 25*.2
42. Bourgey, no. 305*.
43. Huth Collection, no. 231*.
44. Schulman, Mar. 1930, no. 326*.
45. Schulman, Jan. 1931, no. 653*.
46. Cahn, Apr. 1933, no. 2147* (1.46).
47. Forrer 1950 (1.47).
48. Marqués de Ll., no. 1497*.
49. Inst. de Valencia, no. 18*.
(d) . Obverse as (c).
1. Madrid, no. 121* (1.49).
✠TOLETOPIVS(?)
(e) . ✠ RECCΛREϷVSRE+
1. Madrid, no. 125* (1.32).
(f) . As (a)-(e), but forms of letters uncertain.
1. Morales, Bk. 12, fol. 98v.3
2. Augustin, p. 296 = Velazquez, no. 40.
3. Velazquez, no. 37 (Infantas).
4. Cantos Benítez, p. 11.
5. García de la Torre, no. 5728.
6. -7. Cumano, no. 1507 (2 spec.).
8. Teixeira, no. 336.
9. O'Crouley, p. 382.
10. Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos V, no. 255.4
11. Sotheby, Nov. 1848, no. 1180.
12. Stack's 1942, no. 10209 D (1.50).
Reverse as (a).
The dios of these two specimens appear to be identical. There can be no doubt of the authenticity of either piece, both of which I have examined.
The busts vary considerably in style.
The transcription of the obverse, which differs from the rendering in the VQR catalogue, is mine; the second E(?) and the L(?) are obscure. The star at the beginning of the legend is blurred.
All these specimens from different dies.
This specimen, represented by a faulty engraving, is not a Becker, which most of Lelewel's are.
One of the 12 HSA specimens was in the Cervera collection.
Morales wrote that some specimens have a bust on obverse and reverse, others a cross on the reverse; the latter assertion is certainly wrong.
A specimen found in ancient Segobriga, according to Pelayo Quintero, Uelés, pp. 131 ff.
82(a). Facing bust. Type 9 (c).
* RECCΛREDVSREX
As obverse.
✠CORDOBΛPIVᔓ1
1. Madrid, no. 180* = Mateu y Llopis, Cordoba, pl. I, 2*
(1.50).
2. Cordoba, p. 52 = idem, Estocolmo, no. 13* (1.48).
3. Le Gentilhomme, no. 6* = (probably) Mahudel, pl. 11, no. 10* = Velazquez, no. 47 = (probably) Heiss, no. 72
(1.50) .
(b) . Obverse as (a).
✠CORDOBΛPIVᔓ
1. Acad, de la Hist. (Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos IV, pl.
I, 11*.
(c) . ✠ RECCΛREDVƧREX
1. HSA 16020 (↓ 16,1.53).
(d). ✠RECCΛREDVᔕREX
Reverse as (b).
Plate V, 10
Reverse as (b).
1. VQR no. 5039 = Piot, p. 272* (attributed to Reccared II) = Meynaerts, no. 28 = Heiss, no. 7*3 = Mateu y Llopis, Cordoba, pl. I, 3* (1.52).
(e) . ✠ RECCΛREAVsREX
*COROObΛbIVS
1. Cabinet des Médailles.
2. Inst. de Valencia, no. 20* (obv. legend?).
(f) . ✠ RECCΛREDVcREX
Reverse as (b).
1. Madrid, no. 179* = Mateu y Llopis, Cordoba, pl. I, 4* (1.52).
(g). Obverse as (f).
✠CORDODΛblVS
1. Le Gentilhomme, no. 8 (1.55).
2. Cordoba, p. 52 (incorrectly described) = idem, Estocolmo, no. 12* (1.55).
(h). Obverse as (f).
✠CORDOϷΛPIVS
1.
(i). ✠RECCΛREΔVCREX1
✠CORΔOBΛbIVᔓ
1. Le Gentilhomme, no. 7 = Mahudel, pl. 12, no. 22* = Velazquez, no. 46 (1.60).
(j). ✠RECCΛREDVɾEX
✠CORΔOBΛPVᔕ
1. Le Gentilhomme, no. 5 = LeBlanc, p. 32, no. 6*2 = Mahudel, pl. 12, no. 23* = Velazquez, no. 45 = Heiss, no. 7a (1.48).
(k). Obverse as (f).
Reverse as (j).
1. Velazquez, no. 44 (Villaceballos) = Gússeme, VI, p. 24, no. 5.
(l). ✠RECCΛREDVCPEX
✠CORDOBΛAPVᔕ
1. BM no. 8A (Banks Coll.) (↓ 18,1.48).
Plate V, II
(m). Obverse as (f).
✠CORDORIϷV∞
1. HSA 16019 (ex Cervera, ↓ 18,1.44, damaged).
Plate V, 12
(n). As (a)-(m), but lettering uncertain.
1. Le Gentilhomme, p. 126 (formerly in Cabinet des Médailles, sold to Hoffmann in 1863).
2. Cantos Benítez, p. 11.3
3.
The D varies in form from conventional to round or almost square.
Heiss represents the D's as Δ, but this is probably the same specimen.
The drawing of the reverse in Heiss suggests that the bust is of a different type, but I imagine that this impression is given by the worn state of the specimen or by poor copying.
83(a). Facing bust. Type 5 d.
✠RECCΛREϷVSRE+
1. HSA 16065 (↓ 18,1.43).
2. Madrid, no. 169* (1.42).
3. VQR no. 5042.
4. Reinhart Coll., no. 16 (1.38).
5. Inst. de Valencia, no. 23*.
As obverse.
✠ELIBERRIPIVS
Plate V, 13
(b) . Obverse as (a).
✠ELIBERIPIVS
1. Cabinet des Médailles = Heiss, no. 12* (1.44).
(c) . Obverse as (a).
✠LIBERIPIVS
1. HSA 16023 (ex Cervera?) (↓ 18,1.42).
2.
Plate V, 14
(d) . Obverse as (a).
1. Heiss, no. 12a* (Dos Santos).
2. Ferreira, no. 10 (1.42).
(e) . As (a)-(d), but lettering uncertain.
1. Huth Coll., no. 230.
✠LIBERRIPIVᔕ
Legends as copied by me in the Cabinet des Médailles.
The legends in the engraving in LeBlanc do not conform in full with those given in Le Gentilhomme, but this is probably the same specimen. The legends given above are as copied by me in the Cabinet des Médailles.
Surely not CORDOVΛ, as given.
84. Facing bust. Type 5 d.
✠ RECCΛREPVSRE
As obverse.
✠TVSILIBERRIIVS
1. VQR no. 5041 = Campaner, 1866, no. 31 = Heiss, no. 11*.
85(a). Facing bust. Type 5 d.
✠ RECCΛREϷVSRE+
As obverse.
* ISPΛLIPIVS
1. BM no. 13A (De Salis) = Heiss, no. 19* (↓ 18,1.422).
2. Le Gentilhomme, no. 14* = Le Blanc, p. 32, no. 7* = Mahudel, pl. 11, no. 11* (1.48).
3. Estocolmo, no. 14* (1.53).
4. VQR no. 5049 = Campaner, 1866, no. 4 (1.45).
5. VQR no. 5050 (billon).3
Plate V, 15
(b) . ✠RECCΛREDVSREX
1. Ferreira, no. 11 (1.42).
(c) . ✠RECCΛREDVSREx4
✠ISPΛLIPIVS
✠ ISPΛLIPIVS
1. HSA 16037 = (perhaps) La Capilla, no. 1 (Fernández y González5). (↓18,1.48).
Plate V, 16
(d). ✠ RECCΛREϷVSRE
Reverse as (a).
1. Grierson Coll., no. 1075 = Shore Sale, no. 614* (↓ 19, 1.41).
2. Ampurias 1944, pl. I, 2 (top row)* and no. 6* (same coin).
(e) . ✠RECCΛREDVSRE·
1. Dumbarton Oaks.
✠ ISPΛLIPIVS·
Plate V, 17
(f). As (a)-(e), but lettering uncertain.
1. O'Crouley, p. 382.1
2. -3. Inst. de Valencia, nos. 21*-22* (plate obscure).
Campaner, inadvertently probably, has REX.
Heiss mistakenly gives the weight as 1.18.
Described as "ensayo.. .en vellón." Beltrán (p. 417) plausibly suggests that this is probably a contemporary counterfeit. I have examined the coin, and while it is of billon it is certainly contemporary and probably not a forgery but an "ensayo."
The X is very small and almost invisible.
The · at the end of the reverse legend is not noted, but the equivalence is possible. There was only one specimen of this mint and ruler in the board of La Capilla. One of the six HSA specimens is from the Cervera collection.
86(a). Facing bust. Type 5 d.
✠ RECCΛREϷVSREX
As obverse.
✠PIVSISPΛLI
1. HSA 16041 ( ↓ 17,1.55).
2. HSA 16509 (↓ 18,1.51).
3. Madrid, no. 207* (1.52).
4. Estocolmo, no. 16*.2
5. Acad. de la Hist. (Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos IV, pl. I, 12*).3
6.
Plate V, 18
(b) . ✠ RECCΛREϷVSRE+
1. HSA 16038 (↓ 18,1.51).
2. HSA 16036 ( ↓ 18,1.54).
3. Musée de la Ville de Pau.
4. Grierson Coll. (1950) (1.49).
5. Reinhart Coll., no. 15 (1.45).
6. Heiss, no. 19a (Stroganoff).
7.
(c) . As (a)-(b), but form of X uncertain.
1. Augustin, p. 320.
2. Velazquez, no. 42 (Trabuco) = Gússeme, VI, p. 24, no. 11.
(d). ✠RECCΛREϷVSRE
Reverse as (a).
1. HSA 16039 (↓17,1.51).
2. Madrid, no. 205*4 = (?) Velazquez, no. 43 (Leyrens) (1.44).
Plate V, 20
3. Ampurias 1944, pl. I, 1 (top row)*.
4. Ratto, no. 2434*.
5. Lonja del Almidón, no. 693.1
(e). ✠ RECCΛREϷVSRE·
Reverse as (a).
1. Madrid, no. 206* (1.49).
2. Estocolmo, no. 15*2 (1.35).
3. Stuttgart, no. 1339.
4. Grierson Coll., no. 7892 (ex Bute Coll., Sotheby, 7 May, 1951) (↓ 1.55).
5. VQR no. 5051 = Piot, no. 4* = Meynaerts, no. 13.3
(f). ✠ RECCΛREϷVSRX
Reverse as (a).
1. Ampurias 1944, pl. I, 1 (2nd row)*.
(g). ✠RECCΛREϷVSR.
Reverse as (a).
1. Freeman Coll. = Schulman, July 1922, no. 140* = Rackus, fig. 28* (wrongly attributed to Heiss).
(h). As (a)-(g), inadequate description.
1. Sotheby, Nov. 1848, no. 1184.
The H in the transcription is obviously to be ignored as an error of copying.
Photograph interchanged with no. 15.
X is evident in the plate, although omitted from the transcription in Mateu's inventory.
The E of RE is not entirely clear.
87. Type?
✠ RECCΛREDVSRE
Type?
TΛ+COLEIV+IV
1. Campaner, 1866, no. 18 (Coll. Bruna, Sevilla) = Heiss, no. 6a = Campaner, p. 210, note 2.
88. Facing bust. Type 5 1.
✠RECCΛREPVSRE
As obverse.
✠CONTONSΛIVS
1. b
4 = Mateu y Llopis, Estocolmo, no. 19* (1.28).
Plate VI, 1
The transcription HISPALI is obviously an error.
Photograph interchanged with no. 16.
The pellet after RE, although omitted from the transcription in the VQR catalogue, is present .
Delgado transcribed CONTONSPIVS, which is possible, but I believe the legend is as given above (i.e., IVS[TVS]). There is a flaw in the die at this point in the legend, a "blob" which makes either reading acceptable. Pio Beltrán in a communication of July, 1950, writes that he finds it difficult to accept this coin as authentic; he had not, however, seen the coin, or the photograph which is reproduced in Plate VI. Had he had this opportunity, I believe he would have agreed that the specimen appears to be perfectly genuine.
89. Facing bust. Type 5 d.
✠ RECCΛRIϷVSRE(x?)
As obverse.
✠E
1. Thomsen, no. 1090 = Heiss, no. 10* = Madrid, p. 358* = Elias Garcia, Egitánia, p. 16*.
90(a). Facing bust. Type 5 d. ✠RECCΛREϷVSRE+
As obverse.
✠ TVSELVORΛIVS
1. HSA 16021 (↓ 17,1.48). PLATE VI 2.
2. HSA 16022 (↓ 17,1.49).
3. BM, no. 9A (acquired 1849) = Heiss, no. 13*1 = Madrid, p. 357* (↓ 18,1.48).
4. Madrid, no. 299* (1.47).
5. Madrid, no. 300* (1.44).
6. Madrid, no. 301* (1.37).
7. Le Gentilhomme, no. 9* = Mahudel, pl. 11, no. 13* = (?) Velazquez, no. 30 (1.55).
8. Estocolmo, no. 18* (1.50).
9. Johns Hopkins (Schulman, 1921) (17,1.47).
10. VQR no. 5043 = (probably) Piot, no. 3* = Meynaerts, no. 12.
11. Amardel, Musée de Narbonne, no. 6 = Elias Garcia, Lusitânia, no. 100.
12. Morales, Bk. 12, fol. 99r = EstaÇo, p. 172 = Faria y Sousa, I, p. 343 = Masdeu, p. 330.2
13.
14. Schulman, Oct. 1913, no. 297*.
15. Schulman, Cat. No. 76 (Oct. 1921), no. 2767* (1.47).
(b). Obverse as (a).
✠ TOSELVORΛIVS
1. HSA 16024(↓ 17,1.57).
2. HSA 16071 (↓ 18,1.52).
3. Madrid, no. 302* = Velazquez, no. 28 (Leyrens) = Gússeme, VI, p. 24, no. 7 (1.57).
4. Madrid, no. 303* (1.57).
Plate VI, 3
5. Acad, de la Hist. (Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos IV, pl. I, 10*) = Velazquez, no. 28 = (?) Heiss, no. 14*1 (1.50).
6. Grierson Coll. (ex Reinhart Coll., no. 14) (1.51).
7.
8. Inst. de Valencia, no. 27*.
(c) . ✠ RECCΛREϷVSRE
1. HSA 16025 (↓ 18,1.52).
2. VQR no. 5044.
3. Augustin, p. 329.2
Reverse as (b).
Plate VI, 4
(d) . As (a)-(c), but lettering uncertain.
1. Severim, p. 152.
2. Velazquez, no. 229.
3. O'Crouley, p. 382 (IVSTOS).
4. Huth Coll., no. 229.
5. Glendining, 1 July, 1936, no. 260.
6. Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos VI, no. 469 (found in Torre de Don Jimeno).
The engraving in Heiss mistakenly shows the second R on the obverse as retrograde.
Morales does not give the obverse legend, but records the reverse as ELBORAIVSTVS. The later authors give RECΛREDVSREX for the obverse. These irregularities are probably errors in copying. EstaÇo, citing Morales, gives both ELBORΛIΛSTVS and IVSTVSELVORΛ.
91. Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠RECCΛREΔVSREx
As obverse.
✠ERBO:RΛ:PIVS
1. Grierson Coll., no. 1074 =
Plate VI, 5
Through correspondence with Messrs. Grierson, Reinhart and
Outwardly the piece has almost every aspect of authenticity: weight, general style, and feel present no cause for suspicion. The metal differs somewhat in appearance from that of other specimens of this mint and ruler which I have seen; but this is perhaps a legitimate aberration. The legends, however, and to some extent the epigraphy, are definitely anomalous and raise the question of genuineness. The form of the name, ERBORA, is without precedent: ELVORA is the usual form. No support is to be gained from the very dubious EBORA under
The drawing in Heiss, not resembling the photograph in Mateu's inventory, raises the question of identity.
Transcribed ELVOIΛ, but probably as here.
The mint-name mistakenly rendered ERVORA on p. 192 of this reference.
92(a). Facing bust. Type 8 b.
✠DNRECCΛREPVSREx
Facing bust. Type 5 1, variation.
✠ PIVSEMERITΛVICTOR
1. Le Gentilhomme, no. 13* = LeBlanc, p. 32, no. 9* = Mahudel, pl. 11, no. 6* = Velazquez, no. 19 =
2. Teixeira, no. 334.
3. O'Crouley, p. 623.
4. Inst. de Valencia, no. 26*.
(b) . Obverse as above.
1. Madrid, no. 245* (1.45).
(c) . ✠DNRECCΛREPVƧREX
1. Madrid, no. 244* (1.54).
(d) . ✠ DNRECCΛREPVSRE1
✠PIVƧEMERITΛVICTOR
Reverse as (a).
Reverse as (a), bust variation.
1. BM no. 12A = Sotheby, Nov. 1848, no. 1182 = Heiss, no. 17*2 (↓ 17,1.50).
2. VQR no. 5048.3
Plate VI, 6
A minute x is possibly present.
Heiss mistakenly gives the weight as 1.63.
Reverse bust type?
93(a). Facing bust. Type 8 b and 8 c.
✠ RECCΛREDVSREX
1
Facing bust. Type 7.
✠EMERITΛVICTOR
1. HSA 160272 (↓17,1.46, pierced).
2. HSA 16028 (↓ 18,1.45).
3. -7. Madrid, nos. 246*, 251*, 253*-255* (1.49, 1.45, 1.45, 1.45, 1.52).
8. Madrid, no. 258* = (probably) Heiss, no. 16* (1.49).
9. Le Gentilhomme, no. 12 (1.50).
10. Estocolmo, no. 17* (1.51).
11.
12. Zürich (1.45).
13. Acad. de la Hist. (Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos IV, pl. I, 6* = Velazquez, no. 20.
14. Reinhart Coll., no. 9 =
15. Lisbon, no. 11.
16. VQR, no. 5046.
17. Soares, no. 1. 731, p. 129* (1.28).
18.-20. Elias Garcia, Lusitânia, no. 16 (Collections António Marrocos, Paiva Pessoa, Elias Garcia).
21. Severim, pp. 151–152.
22. Augustin, p. 328.
23. -24. Velazquez, no. 20 (Buriel, Infantas) = Gússeme, VI, p. 24, no. 8.
25.
26. Merino, pl. 16, no. 2*.3
27. Dias, no. 3.
28.
29. Weber, no. 3351 (Berlin, no. 18).
30. Hess, April 1928, no. 5047*4 = Rackus, fig. 27* (wrongly attributed to Heiss).
31. Molder, April 1948, no. 220.
32. Molder, May 1948, no. 196.
33. Schulman,
34. Inst. de Valencia, no. 25*.
Plate VI, 7
(b). Obverse as (a).
1. Madrid, no. 256*5 (1.52).
✠EMERITΛVCTOR
2. BM no. 11A1 = Piot, no. 1* = Meynaerts, no. 10 ( ↘ 17, 1.48).
Plate VI, 8
(c). ✠ RECCΛREDVSRE+
Reverse as (a).
1.-3. Ferreira, nos. 13–14, 16 (1.51, 1.50, 1.46).
(d). * RECCΛREDVSERx
Reverse as (a).
Plate VI, 9
1. HSA 16029 (↓ 18,1.51).
2. Madrid, no. 257* (1.48).
3. VQR no. 5047* = Piot, no. 2* = Meynaerts, no. 11.
4. Dias, no. 4.
(e). ✠ RECCΛREDVSRE✶
1. Ferreira, no. 15 (1.50).
Reverse as (a).
Reverse as (a).
(f). ✠ RECCAREDVSRE2
1. HSA 16030 ( ↓ 18,1.54).3
Plate VI, 10
2. HSA 16042 = Dos Santos, no. 2907* (same dies, ↓ 18,1.53).4
3. HSA 16032 (↓ 18,1.51).
4. HSA 16034 (↓ 17,1.51).
5. Madrid, no. 247* (1.42).5
6.-9. Madrid, nos. 248*-250*, 252* (1.49, 1.57, 1.49, 1.42).
10. Acad. de la Hist. (Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos IV, pl. I, 4*)6 = (?) Velazquez, no. 21.
11. Acad. de la Hist. (loc.cit., pl. I, 5*) = (?) Velazquez, no. 23.
12. Acad. de la Hist, (loc.cit., pl. I, 7*) = (?) Velazquez, no. 24.
13. Acad. de la Hist, (loc.cit., pl. I, 8*) = (?) Velazquez, no. 25.
14. Anderson Collection (same dies as no. 4) (1.51).
15. Carles-Tolrá, no. 1003* (1.50).
16. Soares, no. 1.732, p. 129* (1.41).
17. Elias Garcia, Lusitânia, no. 18 (Coll. Pavia, Estremoz).
18. Ferreira, no. 12 (1.51).
19. Faria y Sousa, I, p. 343*.1
(g) . ✠ RECΛREDVSRE
Reverse as (a).
1. Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos V, no. 300 (found in Bañolas, Gerona).
(h) . Obverse as (a)-(g), but exact lettering uncertain.
Reverse as (a).
1. Morales, Bk. 12, fol. 93v.
2. Cantos Benítez, p. 11.
3. Velazquez, no. 21 (Villaceballos).
4. Velazquez, no. 22 (Pedro de la Cueva).
5. Cumano, no. 1505.
6. Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos VI, no. 410 (property of Jaime Butiñá, found in Beuda, Olot, Gerona province).
Some variation in the form of the D and the size of the X.
This specimen is recorded as coming from the Banks collection, but almost certainly this is an error, the piece probably having been at some time inadvertently exchanged with BM no. 10A (Type C, below), which is labeled as "De Salis Gift." Certainly there is no doubt of the identity of the present specimen and the piece illustrated in Piot.
The obverse bust of this specimen combines the features of both types 8 b and 8 c.
The E of RE is frequently very narrow, insufficient space being left for the horizontal strokes.
The drawing of the obverse bust cannot be correct.
One of the HSA specimens in this group is ex Cervera.
The E of REX appears to be retrograde.
Adhering to this specimen are some faint traces of red sealing-wax. A cast forgery in the Madrid collection (see forgeries, No. 28, p. 461) appears to be from the same dies as this piece. It is not altogether unlikely that the forgery was cast from a mold made by taking a wax impression of this coin at some date prior to its acquisition by Mr. Huntington. I reject the possibility that HSA 16030 and 16042 are forgeries, despite the die identities. They appear to me perfectly genuine. For the relationship between the Dos Santos collection and Mr. Huntington's collection, see Umayyads, pp. viii and 6.
The transcription does not notice the omission of I in VICTOR.
Mateu transcribes REX, but X is not evident in the plate.
Transcribed RX, but what has been read as X is probably a narrow E. The same remark applies to no. 11.
94(a). Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠RECCΛREDVSREX
1. HSA 16033 (↓ 19,1.48).
Facing bust. Type 7.2
✠EMERITAPIVS
Plate VI, 11
This particular specimen is evidently a transitional type. The reverse has the shorter bust of the VICTOR type, and the lettering is quite distinctive (note the form of the M and the A with bar).
(b). ✠RECCΛREϷVSRE+
✠EMERI|T|ΛPIVS
1. HSA 16026 ( ↓ 18,1.47, frg. lacking).
2.
3. BM no. 10A (↓ 18,1.58).3
4. The Hague.
5. VQR no. 5045.4
6. Elias Garcia, Lusitânia, no. 22 (Coll. Paiva Pessoa).
Plate VI, 12
7. Severim, p. 151*.
8.
9. Dias, no. 2.1
(c). ✠RECCΛREϷVSRE·
✠EMERI|T|ΛPIVᔕ
1. Madrid, no. 259* = (?) Velazquez, no. 26 (Leyrens) (1.50).
2. Elias Garcia, Lusitânia, no. 23 (Coll. Elias Garcia).
3. Schulman. Dec. 1934. no. 111.
(d). ✠ RECCΛREϷVSRE
Reverse as (c).
1. HSA 16035 (ex Cervera) (↓ 18,1.48).
2. Grierson Coll. (↓ 1.48).
3. Grantley Sale, no. 2795 (withdrawn from sale).2
Plate VI, 13
(e). As (a)-(d), but obverse legend not recorded.
1. Morales, Bk. 12, fol. 93r.
(f) . ✠ RECCΛREϷVSREX
1. HSA 16031 (↓ 18,1.49).
2. Madrid, no. 260* (1.47).3
3. Cabinet des Médailles.
4. Reinhart Coll., no. 8 (1.45).
5. Inst. de Valencia. no. 24*
✠ EMERE|T|ΛPIVᔕ
Plate VI, 14
(g) . ✠ RECCΛREDVSRE+
1. Lisbon, no. 10*.4
✠EMERE|T|ΛPIVS
(h) . ✠RECCΛREϷVSRE+
✠EMERE|TΛ|PIVᔕ
1. Le Gentilhomme, no. 11* = LeBlanc, p. 32, no. 10* = Mahudel, pl. 11, no. 7*5 = Velazquez, no. 27 = Gússeme, VI, p. 24, no. 9 = Heiss, no. 15a = Traité, fig. 120* (1.45).
The drawing, which appears to be tolerably accurate, shows the S on its side.
The sides of this bust now extend into and interrupt the legend. The vertical bars indicate the letter or letters enclosed within the base of the bust. Note that the obverse bust is now exclusively 8 c.
See note to No. 93(b)2, above.
In the transcription the X is represented as normal, the S on its side. The division of the legend is not indicated. The specimen is not illustrated.
95(a). Facing bust. Type 5 d.
✠RECCΛRIϷVSRE+
Facing bust. Type 8 b.
✠ ΛEM:NIOIVSTVS
1. Acad, de la Hist. (Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos IV, pl. I, 9*) = Velazquez, no. 31 = Gússeme, VI, p. 24, no. 1 = Heiss, no. 18a (1.50).1
(b). Types of busts unknown.2
✠RECCΛREDVSREX
1.
✠IVSTVSΛEMINIO
Form of letters and division not indicated.
Form of letters and division not indicated. This coin was apparently with- drawn because it was adjudged to be a forgery, possibly a contemporary one.
The style of this specimen, particularly the border of the obverse, is quite distinctive.
Weight given as 0.48 (for 1.48?).
Appears to read NECCΛREDVS etc., but this is the result of careless copying; R is clear in Le Gentilhomme's plate.
96(a). Facing bust. Type unknown.
✠RECCΛRIDVSREX
Facing bust. Type unknown.
✠ IMINIOPIVS
1. Dias, no. 5.
2. Teixeira, no. 335.
3. Elias Garcia, Lusitânia, no. 148 (Museu Municipal de Gaia, "famoso exemplar").
(b). ✠ RECCΛREDVSREX
Reverse as (a).
1. Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos V, p. 71 (Coll. Nieport, Oporto).
(c). Facing bust. Type 8 b.
✠RECCΛRIϷVSRE
Facing bust. Type 5 m.
✠IMINIOPIVS
1.
(d). Facing bust. Type 5 d.
✠RECCΛRIϷVSRE
Facing bust. Type 5 a.
✠ IMINIOPIVS
1. Grierson Coll., no. 7894 (ex Reinhart Coll., no. 12) (1.48).
Plate VI, 15
(e). Facing bust. Type 5 1.
✠RECCΛREϷΛ∃Ƨ
Facing bust. Type 5 r.
✠IMIИIOPIVS
1. Heiss, no. 18* = Thomsen, no. 1092 = Madrid, p. 360*.
(f). Facing bust. "Lusitanian" type.
✠RECCΛREDVSRE
Facing bust. "Lusitanian" type.
✠IMINIOPIVS
1. Elias Garcia, Lusitânia, no. 149 (Cat. Maria Guilhermina de Jesus, Jan. 1902, no. 1143).
2. Ibid., no. 149 (Coll. António Marrocos, Idanha-a-Velha).
(g). Facing bust. Type 8 c. Legend as (c).
1. Inst. de Valencia, no. 28*.
Facing bust. Type 7.
✠IMINI°PIVS
The transcriptions vary slightly throughout the literature. The above are copied from the illustration in Mateu's inventory. His transcriptions do not agree with the illustration.
This coin may possibly be the same specimen as the one in the Academia, No. 95(a). At all events, the order of the words on the reverse may be identical; the earlier writers were not consistent in their system of transcribing.
97(a). Facing bust. Type 7.
✠RIDVƧREXRECCΛ
Facing bust. Type 5 1.
✠OIVƧTVƧMONEҀPI
1. Elias Garcia, Monecipio, p. 11* (property of Julio d'Almeida, found at Demoura, near Guarda,
(b) . Obverse as (a).
✠ IVƧTVƧMONEҀPIO
1. Suevia, no. 8 (Viceate Paredes) = Elias Garcia, Monecipio, p. 10.
(c) . ✠ RIDVƧRE+RECCΛ
Reverse as (a).
1. Elias Garcia, Monecipio, p. 13* (property of Manuel Paiva Pessoa, found near Lousa, near Castelo Branco,
98. Facing bust. Type 5 f.
✠ ΛPIVƧREXRECC
As obverse.
✠ |Ϸ|ᔓ+MONEC·
1. Campaner, 1866, no. 16* (Manuel y Alejandros Cerdá, Valencia) = Heiss, no. 43* = Campaner, p. 211, note 2 = Suevia, p. 86 & no. 7 = Elias Garcia, Monecipio, p. 7*.1
2.
99(a). Facing bust. Type 5 1.
✠ RECCAREDVSRE
As obverse.
✠ SΛLΛM·VNTEC·I
1. VQR no. 5058 = Heiss, no. 29* = (probably) Campaner, 1866, no. 8* (ex Coll. Jaime Fustagueras y Fuster)1 = Madrid, p. 363* (1.50).
(b) . Facing bust. Type 5 d.
✠ RE+RECCΛREDVS
1. Madrid, no. 166* (1.47).
(c) . Facing bust. Type?
✠RECCΛREDVSRE
As obverse.
ECΛSΛ+ΛИNT2
Facing bust. Type?
SΛLMΛNTECΛIP
1. Ferreira, no. 7 = Heiss, 1891, p. 101 (1.39).
(d) . Facing bust. Type?
✠ RECCΛREDVSREX
Facing bust. Type?
✠SΛLΛMVNFECIT
1. Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos VI, no. 418 (from a description in El Averiguador Universal, 31 Mar., 1879).3
In Campaner's and Heiss' time this coin was not identified as an issue of Monecipio. Egitania was suggested. Later Beltrán read it correctly (Rectificaciones, p. 411).
While Heiss' engraving of no. 1 shows P instead of R in REX, and the point after C on the reverse is omitted, the drawings of no. 1 otherwise so closely resemble the coin of which the Münzkabinett possesses a plaster-cast that it must be considered very likely that nos. 1 and 2 are the same coin. However, documentary evidence of identity is lacking.
100. Facing bust. Type 5 f.
✠ RECCΛREDVƧREX
Facing bust. Type 5 o.
✠ TOTELΛVECTOR
1. Ex. Coll. Romulo Bosch Alsina4 = Madrid, p. 361 = Ampurias 1944, p. 209 = Elias Garcia, Lusitânia, p. 66.
Reinhart (p. 101) places this mint in Gallaecia.
The drawings and transcriptions in Campaner and Heiss do not conform in several particulars, and written evidence that Vidal Quadras y Ramón acquired Fustagueras' specimen is lacking, but I imagine that the two descriptions concern the identical piece. The engraving in Campaner is probably faulty. Mateu remarks (Madrid, p. 364) that in the reverse legend V is for Λ and I represents IVSTVS.
Mateu did not at first identify this obscure legend as representing Salmantica (Madrid, p. 315), but later ("Addenda et Corrigenda" at end of book) he attributed the coin correctly. Cf.
Mateu y Llopis suggests that the legend is probably not as given, but SΛLΛMΛNTECΛI (VSTVS).
Types and legends communicated to me by Pio
101. Facing bust. Type 5 d.
✠ RECCΛRIΔVSRE
1. HSA 16061 (↓ 18,1.57).
Facing bust. Type 5 1.
ΛRREᔓPIVƧ:ᔓVᔓ
Plate VI, 16
102. Facing bust. Type 5 a.
✠ RECCΛREϷVSRE
1. HSA 16014 (↓ 17,1.58).
Facing bust. Type 5 d.
✠ ΛSTVRIEPIOS.·.
Plate VI, 17
103(a). Facing bust. Type 5 o.
Pellet either side of head.
✠ RECCΛREPVᔕRE
Facing bust. Type 5 o.
BERCΛИCΛVICTOR
(legend begins at 7 o'clock)
1. BM no. 5A = Sotheby, Nov. 1848, no. 1183 = Heiss, no. 4* = Miscellen, p. 440 = Suevia, p. 89 & no. 9 (↓ 19,1.48). PLATE VI, 18
(b). Description lacking.
1. VQR (Campaner, 1866, no. 17).
2. D. N. Bruna of Seville (Campaner, 1866, no. 17).
104. Facing bust. Type 5 o.
✠ RECCΛREΔVSRE
As obverse.
TORCΛLΛBΛCIΛV:C
1. VQR no. 5035* = Campaner, p. 208, note 6 = Engel, 1893, p. 89, note 1 = Suevia, no. 2.
105(a). Facing bust. Type 5 o.
✠ RECCΛREDVSRE
Facing bust. Type 5 d?
✠ CEP|ᔓ|VSTVᔓ
1. Ferreira, no. 61 = Campaner, p. 210, note 1 = Heiss, 1891, p. 101* (1.39).
(b). Obverse as (a).
Facing bust. Uncertain type.
✠ CEPIᔓIVᔓT
1. Heiss, 1891, p. 101* (Manuel Sanchez Arteaga, Orense).
Transcribed RE+.
106. Facing bust. "Gallaecian" type.
RECCΛREDV·SRE·
As obverse.
FLΛVΛSPIVS1
1. Coll. Revista de Guimarāes, LIV (1944), pp. 36–392) = Ampurias 1944, p. 209 = Mateu y Llopis, Ampurias, 1946–1946, pp. 473–474 =
G. Lucu.
107. Facing bust. Type 5 o.
✠RECCΛREDVᔕRҀ
As obverse.
✠ LVCOIVᔕTVᔕ
1. Madrid, no. 320* = (probably) Campaner, p. 210, note 4 = Suevia, no. 1 = Ballesteros, I, p. 865* (0.52 [sic!]).
108. No details.
1. Ampurias 1944, p. 210 (Monetario del Museo Municipal de Lisboa).
109(a). Facing bust. Type 5 o.
✠ RECCΛREΔVSRE
Facing bust. Type 5 b.
✠ PINCIΛPIVS
1. Cabinet des Médailles (17,1.52).
(b). Facing bust. Type 5 o.
✠ RECCΛREDV·S·RE:
Facing bust. Type 5 w.
✠ PI·ИCIΛVECTOR1
1. Madrid, no. 318* = Velazquez, no. 49 (Leyrens)2 = 2 = Gússeme, VI, p. 24, no. 3 = Masdeu, p. 12 = Heiss, no. 24* = Suevia, no. 3 = Madrid, p. 377* (1.42).
Mateu y Llopis notes that the legend is obscure: possibly FLΛVIΛS or FLΛVIIS, and F more resembling K.
I have not seen this article and am familiar with it only through Mateu y Llopis' review in Ampurias.
110. Facing bust. Type 5 f.
✠ RECCΛRIPVSRE
As obverse.
✠ PORTOCΛLEPIVS
1. Heiss, no. 25* = Dias, no. 6 = Leite de Vasconcellos, Etnografia Portuguesa, p. 8, fig. 1* = Madrid, p. 370* = Elias Garcia, Portocale, p. 7.3
2. Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos V, p. 71 (Coll. Nieport, Oporto).
111. Facing bust. Type 5 n.
✠ RECCΛREdVSRE+
As obverse.
✠ TORNIOVICTORIΛ
1. VQR no. 5064 = Heiss, no. 40* = Campaner, 1873, p. 51* = Campaner, p. 210, note 6 = Gorres, Miscellen, p. 440 = Suevia, no. 6 = Madrid, p. 374* (1.16).
The style and fabric and the broad margin of this coin are unusual, but I do not question its authenticity.
112. Facing bust. Type 5 n.
✠ RECCΛREϷVSRE+
Facing bust. Type 5 f?
✠ VICTORIΛINTVϷPE
1. Madrid, no. 317* = Campaner, 1866, no. 14 = Heiss, no. 41 *4 = Campaner, p. 211, note 1 = Miscellen, p.441 = Suevia, no.4 = Madrid, p.374* (1.37).
The various drawings and transcriptions do not conform entirely with the photographs in Madrid; my reading of the latter, which is by no means clear, is the basis of the transcriptions given here.
Misread "Beacia" = Baeza. Cf.
This coin was published by E. A. Allen in 1862, Noticia e descripÇāo de uma moeda inedita (not available to me).
Heiss inadvertently assigns this coin to the
113. Facing bust. Type 5 n.
✠ RECCΛREbVSRE+
Facing bust. Type 5 1.
✠ PIVSINTVbE:
1. HSA 16062 (↓ 17,1.50).
Plate VI, 19
Type C
114. Facing bust. Type 8 a.
✠ RECCΛREDVSRE
Facing bust. Type 8 a, variation.
✠ INTVϷEPIVS
1. VQR no. 5064a* = Campaner, p. 211, note 1 = Beltrán, Suevia, no. 5.
M. Vallegia?
115. Facing bust. Type 5 z.
✠ RECCΛRIDVSRE
As obverse.
✠ VΛ
1. HSA 16064 (ex Cervera) (↓ 18,1.48).
Plate VI, 20
A.D. 601–603
116(a). Facing bust. Type 6 b.
✠ LE·oV
Facing bust. Type 6 c.
✠BΛRCINONΛIVSI1
1. Acad, de la Hist. (Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos IV, pl. I, 19*) = Heiss, no. 1a* = Madrid, p. 274 = Mateu y Llopis, Barcelona, no. 19* (1.30).
(b) . ✠LEoV
✠ BΛRCINONΛIVST
1. Pi y Arimón, p. 127, no. 1* = Campaner, 1866, no. 1 = Botet y Sisó, Noticia, pl. IV, no. 42* (Ripoll) = Mateu y Llopis, Barcelona, no. 20*.
117(a). Facing bust. Type 4 c.
As obverse.
✠ CE:ΛR:C·O:TΛIV*
1. Le Gentilhomme, no. 19* = Mahudel, pl. 11, no. 2* = Velazquez, no. 55 =
(b).
Reverse as (a).
1. VQR no. 5065 = Campaner, 1866, no. 2 = Heiss, no. 1* = Madrid, p. 259* (1.44).
118(a). Facing bust. Type 4 c.
✠ ϷИ:LIVVΛREX
As obverse.
1. HSA 16074 ( ↓ 18,1.49).
Plate VII, 1
(b). Obverse as (a).
1. Campaner, 1868, p. 129 (Coll. Luis F. de Alos or Marqués de Dou, Barcelona) = Campaner, Review of Heiss, p. 261* = Campaner, p. 211, note 3 = Mateu y Llopis, Tarragona, no. 16 (1.45).
2. Inst. de Valencia, no. 29* = Mateu y Llopis, Tarragona, no. 17*.
The last letter is transcribed T by both Heiss and Mateu y Llopis, but the illustrations appear to show I.
119. Facing bust. Type 5 n.
✠DNLIVVΛREX
As obverse.
✠T•LET•PIVᔕ
1. HSA 16076 (ex Cervera) (↓ 18,1.45).
2. Augustin, p. 2941 = Heiss, no. 8a.
3. Campaner, 1866, no. 4 (former Bruna collection).2
Plate VII, 2
120(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ ϷNLIVVΛREX3
As obverse.
✠ PIVSISPΛLI
1. BM no. 17A (acquired 1863) = Heiss, no. 6* (↓ 18,1.48).
2. VQR no. 6067 = (probably) Meynaerts, no. 17.
3. Morales, Bk. 12, fol. 106v
4 = Velazquez, no. 63 = Gússeme, IV, p. 324, no. 1.
(b). ✠ ϷNLIVVΛRE+
Reverse as (a).
1. HSA 16076 (ex Cervera) (↓ 19,1.51). PLATE VII, 3
2. Madrid. no. 208* =
3. Grierson Coll., no. 6418 = Glendining, June 1949, lot 148 (↓ 19,1.48).
4. Ampurias 1944, pl. I, 2 (2nd row)*.
5. O'Crouley, p. 383.
6. Ferreira, no. 18 (1.48).
7.
A specimen in Glendining, July 1, 1936 (no. 261), supposedly with LIVVΛREX and PIVSISPΛLIS, is doubtless incorrectly described.
The form of the S is not indicated.
Legends not given, but assumed to be as here.
I do not believe that Mateu y Llopis (Madrid, p. 332) is correct in taking Ϸ to be a ligature of I and D.
Possibly the same coin as (b) 2, below; and also probably the source of Mariana's statement (Vol. I, p. 334) to the effect that there are coins of Liuva with "HISPALIPIVS."
121. Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ϷNLIVVΛRE+1
As obverse.
✠ TVSELVORΛIVS
1. Madrid, no. 304* =
2. Cabinet des Médailles = Heiss, no. 2* = Madrid, p. 357* (1.452).
3. VQR no. 5066.
4. O'Crouley, p. 523.3
122(a). Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠ PNLIVVΛREX
Facing bust. Type 7.
✠EMER|ET|Λ PIVᔕ
1. HSA 16077 (ex Cervera) = La Capilla, no. 59 (Chinchilla) (↓ 19,1.50). PLATE VII, 4
2. Inst. de Valencia, no. 30* = García de la Fuente, pl. III, 1*.
3. Reinhart Coll., no. 17 (1.46).
(b). ✠ PNLIVVΛRE+
✠ EMER|ET|ΛPIVS
1. Le Gentilhomme, no. 20 = Mahudel, pl. 11, no. 1* = Heiss, no. 4* (1.46).
2. LeBlanc, p. 32, no. 1* (mentioned by Le Gentilhomme under his no. 20).
3. a
4 = Mateu y Llopis, Estocolmo, no. 20* (1.52).
(c) . Obverse as (b).
✠ EMERE|T|ΛPIVᔕ
1. Acad, de la Hist. (Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos IV, pl. I, 20*) = Heiss, no. 3* = Madrid, p. 346* (1.50).
(d) . As (a)-(c), but form of X and S, and division of reverse legend not indicated.
1. Teixeira, no. 337.
2. Gússeme, IV, p. 324, no. 3.5
(e). ✠ DNLIVVΛREX
1.
2. Severim, p. 152.
✠ EMERlTΛPIVS1
Nos. 1 and 2 are possibly the same specimen.
The X of REX is sometimes almost in its normal position.
My approximate weighing; Heiss gave 1.38.
Transcribed LIWA and ELVORA JUSTUS, but doubtless as above.
Wrongly transcribed by Delgado (and Heiss).
Obvious errors in transcription.
123. Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠DIILIVVΛRE+:2
Facing bust. Type 7.
✠ IMINIOPIVS
1. Heiss, no. 5* = Thomsen, no. 1093.
124. Facing bust. Type 5 o.
✠ LIVVΛRE+S
Facing bust. Type 5 x.
✠N·ΛHDOLΛSPIVᔕ
1. VQR, no. 5068 = (probably) Meynaerts, no. 18 = Campaner, 1866, no. 3* = Heiss, no. 7* = Madrid, p. 370* (1.44).
125. Types not described.
LIVVΛREX.S
1. O'Crouley, p. 383.
NΛNBOLΛSIJVS3
126(a). Facing bust. Type 5 d.
✠ PNLEVVΛREx
As obverse.
✠PORTOCΛLEPIvS
1. Teixeira, no. 338 = Heiss, no. 8* = Madrid, p. 370* = Elias Garcia, Portocale, p. 7.
(b). Types not described.
✠ DNLEVVΛREX
✠ PORTOCΛLE4
1. Madrid, p. 371, note 358 (in a Portuguese catalogue, communicated by A. Viana de Morais).
The order is PIVSEMERITA in
DII for DN.
This legend must be considered suspect; it is probably a misreading of a specimen similar to No. 124, above.
Is PIVS actually lacking, or only omitted by error in the transcription?
127(a). Facing bust. Type 5 r.* right and left of bust.1
✠ VVITTERICVSR:
Facing bust. Type 5 r, variation.
✠ NΛRBONΛPIVS
(b). As (a), but* at right only.
When examining the VQR specimen I was unable to compare it with the engraving in
128(a). Facing bust. Type 6 a.
X
Facing bust. Type 6 c.
✠ BΛRCINONΛIVᔕT
Plate VII, 5
(b).
Reverse as (a).
The engraving in
129(a). Facing bust. Type 4 c.
✠ VVITTERICVSRE
As obverse.
✠ CE:ΛR:C·O:TΛIV⊙
Plate VII, 6
(b). Obverse as (a).
✠ CE:ΛR:C·O:TΛIV●
(c) ✠ VVITTERICVSRE:
✠ · CE:ΛR:CO:TΛIV●
(d). ✠ VVITTIRICSVREX
✠ CE:ΛR:C·O:TΛIVO
Plate VII, 7
(e). Obverse as (d).
✠ CE:ΛR:C·O:TΛIV·
(f). ✠VVITTIRICVSRE
✠ CE:ΛR:C·O:TΛIVO
(g). Obverse as (f).
✠ CE:ΛR:C·O:TΛVIO
In Hallazgos V, p. 70,
Mistakenly labeled 9 in plate III.
Transcription not accurate.
130(a). Facing bust. Type 5 j.
✠ VVITTIRICVSRE
Facing bust. Type 6 a.
✴ ᏩERoNDΛIVSTX
(b). Types not described.
VVITTIRICVSREX
ᏩERONDΛIVSTXX2
(c). Types not described.
✠ VVITTIRICVSRE3
GERONDΛIVST
131(a). Facing bust. Type 4 c.
✠VVITTIRICVSRE+
As obverse.
✠ TΛRRΛCO:ΛIV:o:
Plate VII, 8
(b). ✠ VVITTIRICVSRE
✠ TΛRRΛCO:ΛIV⊙
132(a). Facing bust. Type 4 c.
✠ VVITTIRICVᴤRE
As obverse.
✠ ✴ PIV:TΛRR:CO:
16 Visigoth
(b). ✠ VVITTERICVSREX
TΛRRΛCOPIVS
loc.cit.) states that this coin was published by Memorial Numismático Español, I, but I do not find it there.
The transcriptions of these legends by
133. Description lacking.
134. Facing bust. Type 4 c.
✠ VVITTIRICVSRE
As obverse.
✠ TIRΛ:OᴻEI●
Plate VII,9
135(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ VVITTIRICVSRE+
As obverse.
✠ MENTESΛPIVSX
(b). ✠ VVITTIRICVᴤREI
✠MENTESΛPIVS
(c). Obverse as (a).
✠ MENTESΛPIV
136. Facing bust. Type 5 r.
Pellets above and at sides of bust.
✠ VVITTIRICVSRE
As obverse.
✠ SΛL·ΔΛᴻIΛPIVmiddot;S
Not now in the National collection in
137(a)
. Facing bust. Type 5 d.
✠ VVITTIRICVSREX
As obverse.
✠TOLEToPIVᔕ
Plate VII, 10
(b). ✠ VVITTIRICVSRE+
✠ TOLETOPIVS
(c). ✠ VVITTIRICVSRE:
Reverse as (a).
(d) As (a)–(c), inadequate descriptions.
138. Facing bust. Type 9 b.
✠ VVITTERICVᴤRE
As obverse.
✠ CORDOB
e. g., Nos. 17, 80, 116(a), (b)) to place it beyond suspicion on that score.
One of the two HSA specimens is ex
According to
WITIRICVS, but probably wrongly transcribed.
Rectificaciones, p. 387.
139(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ VVITTIRICVSRE
As obverse.
✠ PIVSELIBERRI
Plate VII, 11
(b). ✠ VVITTIRICVSREX
Reverse probably as (a), but misread PIVSBITTERRI (or BITERRI).
This misreading gave rise to the belief, until recently prevailing, that there was a Visigothic mint of Biterri (Béziers). Some of the earlier writers doubted that such a mint existed,2 and recently
140(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ VVITTERICVSREX
As obverse.
✠ PIVSISPΛLI
(b). ✠ VVITTERICVSRE+
Reverse as (a).
Plate VII, 12
(c). ✠ VVITTERICVSREmiddot;
Reverse as (a).
(d). ✠ VVITTERICVSRE
Reverse as (a).
For a supposed issue with HISPΛLIPIVS, see forgeries, p. 464.
Probable errors in transcription.
E.g., loc. cit.
Madrid
, p. 233, note 249,
141. Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ VITTIRI//////E
As obverse.
//////CΛLIΛBRIΛP/////3
One of the two HSA specimens is ex
Not RE, as transcribed in the text.
There are several differences among the various transcriptions of the legends, and
142(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ VVITTIRICVSRE
As obverse.
✠ TVSELVORΛIVᔕ
Plate VII, 13
(b). Obverse as (a).
✠ TVSELVORΛIVS
(c). As (a)–(b), but form of final S uncertain.
(d). ✠ VVITTERICVSRE
✠ ELVORΛIVSTVS4
(e). ✠ VVITTIRICVSREX
✠ TVSELVoRΛIVS
Covarrubias' description5 of a triens with reverse, ELBORΛPIVS is undoubtedly mistaken.
143(a). Facing bust Type 8 c.
✠ VVITTIRICVSREX
Facing bust. Type 7.
✠ EMERE|T|ΛPIVS
(b). ✠ VVITTIRICVSRE +
Reverse as (a).
Plate VII, 14
(c). As (a)–(b), but form of X uncertain.
(d). Obverse as (b).
✠ EMERE|T|APIVᔕ
(e). ✠ VVITTERICVSRE+
Reverse as (d).
Plate VII, 15
(f). Obverse as (e).
✠ EMERITΛPIVS
(g). ✠ VVITTERICVSREX
✠ EMERETΛPIVS
(h). Obverse as (e), but form of X uncertain.
Reverse as (a).
(i). Obverse lettering uncertain.
Reverse as (f).
(j). ✠ VVITTERICVSRE
✠ EMERI|T|ΛPIVS
One of the two HSA specimens is ex
+ of RE + omitted from transcription.
S of IVS not so markedly on its side.
Completely inaccurate drawing.
Probable errors in transcription.
This specimen lacks the pellets on the obverse bust. One of the three HSA specimens (see above) is ex
One cannot be certain that the order of the letters has not been normalized in transcription. If so, and if E in the king's name is an error for I, then this specimen would be one of the HSA pieces described above; in view of the relationship
"EMERELΛ," probably an error in transcription. Weight given as 0.46 (for 1.46?).
Covarrubias (ed. 1606), p. 491.
This description should perhaps be rejected. As
144. Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠ VVITTIRmiddot;CVS:
Facing bust. Type 5 l.
✠ IMINIOPIVᔕ
Plate VII, 16
145. Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ VVITTIRICVSRE
As obverse.
✠ SΛLΛMΛNTICΛ3
146. Facing bust. Type 5 v.
Pellets right and left of bust.
✠ VIITTIRICoSR:
Facing bust. Type 5 v, variation.
✠ SVSΛRROSPIO
147. Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ VITTIRICVᴤRE
As obverse.
✠ BERJΛNCI✠IVS4
Plate VIII, 1
Salmantica as a mint under Witteric is omitted from the table in
The second Λ is omitted from the transcription in the
At first glance the N on the HSA specimen looks like II, but with a strong glass one can detect the diagonal stroke. The form of the G on the VQR specimen, as given by
According to
148. Facing bust. Type 7.
✠ VVITTIRICVSRE
Facing bust. Type 5 n, variation.
✠ BRΛCΛRΛPIVS
149. Facing bust. Type 5 f.
✠ VV:T:RICV:RE
As obverse.
✠ CΛTORΛ:PIV[ᴤ]
150. Facing bust. Type 5 j.
✠ VVITTIRICoSR
As obverse.
✠ FLΛbΛᔕPIᔕ
151. Types unknown.
✠ VVITTERICVSR3
FRΛVCELLOP
Suevia) misattributed the coin to Calabacia.
152(a). Facing bust. Type 5 f.
Three pellets at right of bust.
✠ VVITTIRICVRE
As obverse, but one pellet each side of bust.
✠ CEORREᴤPIVᔕ
Plate VIII, 2
(b). ✠ VVITTIRICV:RE
No pellets.
✠ ᏩEORREᴤPIVᔕ
No pellets.
153(a). Facing bust. Type 5 l.
✠ VVITTIRICVSRE
As obverse.
✠ LΛETERΛPIVS
(b). Details lacking.
154. Facing bust. Type 5 f.
✠ VVITTIRICVᔓR
As obverse.
✠ LΛVRVCLOPIVᴤX
A specimen mounted on a ring seen by
155. Facing bust. Type 6 a, variant.
✠ VVITTIRICVᴤRES
Facing bust. Type 5 n, variant.
✠ NΛNDoLΛSPIVS
156. Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ VVITTIRICVSRE1
As obverse.
✠ OL·IO·VΛ·ᔕ·OVS
157. Facing bust. Type 5 q.
✠ VV·R·CVSRE+
Facing bust. Type 5 l.
✠ PAL·:NTVCIOP:VS
Plate VIII, 3
158(a). Facing bust. Type 7.
✠ VVITTIRICVᴤREX
Facing bust. Type 5 l.
✠ PΛNNONIΛSPI:S
Plate VIII, 4
(b). Description lacking.
159(a). Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠ VVITTIRICVSRE
Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠TVDEPIVS:
(b). Types not described.
Legend as (a).
TVDEPIVS
160. Facing bust. Type 8 c.1
✠ VVITTIRICVSRE
Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ TVȢEIVSTVS
161. Facing bust. Type 5 n.
✠ VVITIRICVSREX
As obverse, but with crescents at either side of neck.
✠ VΛLLEΛRITIΛ
Lacking the pellets on the bust.
162(a). Facing bust. Type 4 c.
✠C·ONɖEMΛRVSRE
As obverse.
✠ CE:ΛR:C·O:TΛIVO
(b). ✠ C·ONɖEMΛRVSR:
✠ CE:ΛR:C·O:TΛIV:O
Plate VIII, 5
163. Facing bust. Type 4 c.
✠
As obverse.
✠ SΛC·VNTOIVSTV:
164(a). Facing bust. Type 4 c.
✠ Ꮹ·OᴻϷEMΛRVSRE
As obverse.
✠ TΛRRΛCO:ΛIVo:
Plate VIII, 6
(b). ✠ C·OᴻȢEMΛRVSRE
✠ TΛRRΛCo:ΛIVs:
(c). ✠ C·OH:OMΛRVSRE
✠ TΛRRΛCO:ΛIV:O:
(d). ✠C·OᴻYEMΛRVSRE
✠ TΛRRΛCO·ΛIVO:
Apparently to judge by
Ampurias 1941, p. 90, note 2; cf. Inscripciones, loc cit.
165(a). Facing bust. Type 4 c.
✠ C·ONԛEMΛRVSRI
As obverse.
✠ TIRΛ:ONEIV·TO
Plate VIII, 7
(b). ✠C·OᴻbEMΛRV:R
✠TIRΛ:OᴻEIO:
166(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ X
As obverse.
✠ MEᴻTESΛPIVS
Plate VIII, 8
(b). Types as above?
✠ GVNDEMΛRVSRE
✠ MENTESΛPIVS
This specimen in the Tarragona, one illustrated by the photograph in his Catálogo, the other by España Sagrada, vol. 24, p. 337 (p. 226), which is the one first published by
This appears to be another duplicated reference. The illustration in
167. Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠
As obverse.
✠ TOLETOPIVᔕ
Plate VIII, 9
168(a). Types not illustrated, but "ordinary."
✠ GVNDEMΛRVSREX
✠ PIVSELIBERRI
(b). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠
As obverse.
Legend as (a).
Plate VIII, 10
169(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠CVNȢEMΛRVᴤREX
As obverse.
✠ IᔓPΛLIPIVZ
Plate VIII, 11
(b). ✠ X
✠ IᴤPΛLIPIVᴤ·
(c). ✠ GVNDEMΛRVSREX·
✠ ISPΛLIPIVS1
(d). ✠
✠ IᴤPΛLIPIVᴤ·
(e). ✠ GVNDEMΛRVSRE3
✠ ISPΛLIPIVS
In
Madrid
shows that the dots represent letters missing due to the fragmentary state of the coin.
This specimen apparently was formerly in
170. Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ ςVNΔEMΛRVSRE
As obverse.
✠ PIVSISPΛLI
171. Facing bust. Type?
✠ GVNDEMΛRVSRE
As obverse.
✠ TVSELVoRΛIVS
172(a). Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠
Facing bust. Type 7.
Λ EMERE|T|ΛPIVS
(b). Facing bust. Type ?
✠ GVNDEMΛRVSRE
Facing bust. Type ?
✠ EMERITΛPIVS
(c). ✠ GVNDEMΛRVSRE
✠ EMERETΛPIVS
Forms of letters uncertain.
Apparently not now in the Academia.
Forms of letters uncertain.
Is this perhaps the same specimen as no. 1?
The X of REX very small and obscure; it is lacking in the transcription.
173. Types unknown.
GVNDEMΛRVSRE
MΛNDOLΛPIVS
17 Visigoth
174(a). Facing bust. Type 4 c.
✠ SISEBVTVSREX
As obverse.
Λ CE:ΛR:C·O:TΛIV:O
Plate VII, 12
(b). ✠ SISEBVTVSRE +
✠ ·CE:ΛR:C·O:TΛIVS
175. Facing bust. Type 4 c.
✠ SISEBVTVSREX
As obverse.
Plate VIII, 13
176. Facing bust. Type 4 c.
✠ SISEBVTVSREX
As obverse.
✠ SΛC·VNTOIVSTV:o
One of the above three specimens is ex
The interesting "pedigree" of the coin is given here.
See Ampurias, 1941, p. 91, note 1, and loc.cit.
177(a). Facing bust. Type 4 c.
✠ SISEBVTVSREX
As obverse.
✠ TΛRR:Co:ΛIV:o:
Plate VIII, 14
(b). Obverse as (a).
✠ TΛRRΛCO:ΛIVO:
(c). ✠ SISEBVTVSRE+
Reverse as (a).
Plate IX, 1
(d). Obverse as (c).
✠ TΛRR:CO:ΛIVO:
(e). Obverse as (c).
Reverse as (b).
(f). Obverse as (a), form of X uncertain.
Reverse as (a).
(g). Obverse as (f).
✠ TΛRR:COIVSTO
178(a). Facing bust. Type 4 c.
✠ SISEBVTVSRE+
As obverse.
✠ Co: IV: ToTΛRR:
Plate IX, 2
(b). Obverse as (a).
✠ COIV:TO·TΛRR·
17*
(c). Obverse as (a).
✠ COIV:T·[?]TΛRR:1
(d). Obverse as (a).
✠ COIV: TOTΛRR·
(e). Obverse as (a).
✠ COIVSTOTΛRR:2
(f). Obverse as (a).
✠ COIVSTOTΛRR·2
(g). Obverse as (a), form of X uncertain.
✠ CoIV:ToTΛRR·
This specimen, or HSA 16115 (below), is ex
179. Facing bust. Type 4 c.
✠ SISEBVTVSRE
As obverse.
✠ TIo
180. Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ ᴤIᴤEBVTVᔕR⋮
As obverse.
✠ IVᴤTVᔕΛCCI
Plate IX, 3
The photograph is scarcely legible.
The second O is incomplete.
España Sagrada references as distinct specimens, but I imagine they describe the same coin.
There is no Sisebut-Acci issue listed in
181(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ SISEBVTVSRE
Facing bust. Type 5 g.
✠ PIVSMENTESΛ
Plate IX, 4
(b). ✠ SISEBVTVSR:
Reverse as (a).
182. Facing bust. Type 5 e.
/////ISEBVTVSR//////
As obverse.
✠ PIVSM////////ESΛ
Plate IX, 5
183(a). Facing bust. Type 5 d.
✠ SISEBVTVSREX
As obverse.
✠ TOLETOPIVᔕ1
Plate IX, 6
(b). ✠ SISEBVTVSRE+
✠ TOLETOPIVS
(c). Legends?
The loop of the P is usually far removed from the vertical member.
One of the four HSA specimens is ex
184(a). Facing bust. Type ?
✠ SISEBVTVSRE1
Facing bust. Type ?
✠ PIVSBΛRBI
(b). ✠ SISEBVTVSRI
Reverse as (a).
185. Facing bust. Type 9 b.
✠ SISIBOTVSRI
As obverse.
✠ CORΔOBΛPIVᴤ
Plate IX, 7
186(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ SISEBVTVSRE
As obverse.
✠ PIVSE
Plate IX, 8
(b). Obverse as (a).
✠ PIVSELIBERRI
(c). Obverse as (a).
✠ PIVSELIBERR: (cross incomplete)
(d). Obverse as (a).
PIVSELIBERR∵
(e). Obverse as (a).
PIVSEL:BERRI·:
Sometimes transcribed ELIBERRI. sic!), there are two R's.
187(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ SISEBVTVSRE
As obverse.
✠ ISPΛLIPIVS
Plate IX, 9
(b). Obverse as (a).
✠ ISPΛLIPIVS·
(c). Obverse as (a).
✠ ·ISPΛLIPIVS·
Plate IX, 10
(d). ✠ ·SISEBVTVSRE
Reverse as (c).
Plate IX, 11
(e). ✠ ·SISEBVTVSRE·
Reverse as (a).
Plate IX, 12
(f). Obverse as (e).
Reverse as (c).
Plate IX, 13
Plate IX, 14
Plate IX, 15
(g). ✠ ᴤISEBVTVSRE·
Reverse as (a).
Plate IX, 16
(h). As (a)–(g), but points and form of letters uncertain.
(i). ✠ SISHBVTVSRE
✠ ISPΛLIPIVS (?)
One cannot be certain of the equivalence proposed.
This specimen has two curious flat, circular, tooled copper excrescence about 1/8 inch apart on the surface of the reverse between the head and the cross. There are faint traces of "
I do not understand why
188. Facing bust. Type?
✠ SISEBVTVSRE
Facing bust. Type?
✠ IVSTVSTV⋮CI
a is listed as BM, but there is no like specimen in the BM and I have assumed VQR no. 5089 was intended.
Not in VQR collection.
Obvious errors in transcription.
It is not altogether unlikely that
189. Facing bust. Type 5 e, crude.
✠ SISEBVTVSREX1
As obverse.
✠ COLEIΛPIΛT.
190. Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠ SISIBVTVSRE+
Facing bust. Type 7.
✠ E
191(a). Facing bust. Type 5 d.
✠ SISEBVTVSREX
As obverse.
✠ TVSELVORΛIVS
Plate IX, 17
(b). ✠ SISEBVTVSREX ·
Reverse as (a).
Plate X, 1
192(a). Facing bust. Type 8 c
✠ SISEBVTVSREX
Facing bust. Type 7.
✠ EMERI|T|ΛPIVS
Plate X, 2
(b). Obverse as (a).
✠ EMERI|T|ΛPIVS*
Plate X, 3
(c). Obverse as (a).
✠ EMERE|T|ΛPIVS
(d). Obverse as (a).
✠ IMERITΛPIVS
(e). ✠ :SISEBVTVSREX:
✠ :EMERE|T|ΛPIVS:
Plate X, 4
(f). ✠ SISEBVTVSRE
✠ EMERETΛPIVS
(h). ✠ SESEBVTVSREX
Reverse?
(i). Legends uncertain.
VQR has · in place of X, but when I examined the coin I noted a faint X.
Wrongly transcribed by
Ȣ, not P.
The fantastic transcriptions of the legends on this coin are surely the result of an attempt to read the very bad drawing in
193. Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠ SISEBVTVSREX
Facing bust. Type 7. The bust is smaller than usual and does not extend into or interrupt the legend.
✠ EMERITΛPIVS*
Plate X, 5
194. Facing bust. Type ?
✠ SISIBVTVSREX
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ EMERITΛPIVS
195(a). Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠ SISIBVTVSREX
Facing bust. Type 7.
✠ IMIN|I|0PIVS
(b). Facing bust. Type 8 d.
✠ SISIBVTVSRE+
Reverse as (a).
✠ IMINI|O|PIVᔕ
Plate X, 6
(c). Facing bust. "Emeritan type."
✠ SISEBVTVSRE
As obverse (?).
✠ EMINI|O|PIVS
196. Types not described.
✠ SISEBVTVSREX
✠ IMINIOIVSTVS
197. Facing bust. Type 5 l.
✠ SISEBVTVSRE
Facing bust. Type 5 l, variant.
✠ LΛMEᏩOPIVS
Plate X, 7
198. Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠ SISEBVTVSREX
Facing bust. Type 7.
✠ VESE|O|PIVS+
Plate X, 8
199. Facing bust. Type 5 n.
✠ SISEBVTVSRE
As obverse.
✠ BER
200. Facing bust. Type 5 l.
✠ SISEBVTVSRE
As obverse.
✠ CΛLΛȢΛ∵PIVS
Plate X, 9
201. Facing bust. Lusitanian type.
SISEBVTVSRE
Facing bust. Gallaecian type.
INCEIOPIVS1
The coin was found near the Roman fortress of Tintinolho, three kilometers from Guarda, on a height overlooking the valley of the Mondego and about one kilometer from the locality now known as Cavadoude.
202. Facing bust. Type 5 w.
✠ SISIBVTVᴤRE
Facing bust. Type 5 a.
✠
203. Facing bust. Type 5 l.
✠ SISEBVTVSREX
As obverse.
✠ LΛETERΛPIVS
Plate X, 10
204(a). Facing bust. Type 5 o.
✠ SISIBVTVSRE
As obverse.
✠ LΛVREPIVS
(b). Obverse as (a), but pellet right and left of bust.
As obverse.
The S's, I judge from
I have not seen this article and am acquainted with it only through
Present location unknown?
Nombres de Lugar, 1942) states that this coin is from the hoard of
205. Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠ SISIBVTVSRE
Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ LVCVVICTOR
Plate X, 11
206. Facing bust. Type 5 o.
✠ SISIBVTVSRE
As obverse.
✠ PESICOSPIVS+
207. Facing bust. Type 5 l.
✠ ᴤIᴤIBVTVᴤRE
As obverse.
✠ PIᴻCIΛPIVᴤ
Plate X, 12
208(a). Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠ SISIBVTVSREX
Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ PORTOCΛLEPIV:
(b). Exact legends uncertain, PORTOCΛLEPIV
While
This might, of course, be one of the forgeries.
209. Facing bust. Type 5 l.
✠ ᴤIᴤEPVTVᴤRE
Facing bust. Type 5 o.
✠ SIMV·R·EȢTVS
210(a). Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠ SISEBVTVSRE+
Facing bust. Type 5 i.
✠ TVȢE·IVSTVS
Plate X, 13
(b). Obverse, as (a), variant.
✠ SISEBVTVSRE⋮
Reverse as (a), variant.
✠ TVDEIVSTVS
Quoted without comment by Caiálogo, p. 383.
211. Facing bust. Type 4 c.
✠ SIᴻTILΛR⋮
As obverse.
✠ NΛRȢOᴻΛ:*
212. Facing bust. Type 4 c.
XSVIᴻTHILΛRE·
As obverse.
✠ C:Λ:LΛC·ORREIV:
Plate X, 14
213(a). Facing bust. Type 4 c.
XSVIᴻTHILΛREX3
As obverse.
XCE:ΛR:C·O:TΛIV
(b). Obverse aa (a).
XCE:ΛR:C·O:TΛIV:
(c). Obverse as (a).
XCE:ΛR:C·O:TAIV.
(d). Obverse as (a).
✠ CE:ΛR:CO:TΛIVX1
(e). XSVIᴻTHILΛREX.
XCE:ΛR:C·O:TAIV:
Plate X, 15
(f). XSVIᴻTHILΛRE
XCE:ΛR:C·O:TΛIVS
(g). Obverse?
[X?]CE:ΛR:CS:TΛ
My transcriptions, taken directly from the coin, differ slightly from those in VQR.
The Λ is usually almost on its side, with the closed portion toward the right.
214(a). Facing bust. Type 4 c.
✠ SVINTHILΛREX
As obverse.
✠ TΛRR·Co:ΛIVo:
(b). ✠ SVINTHILΛRE·
✠ COIV:TOTΛRR
(c). ✠ SVINT·IHILΛRE
✠ COIV:TOTΛRR
Plate X, 16
Actually this type may not exist: the X supposedly at the end of the legend may be the cross on its side common to these issues, erroneously repeated in transcription.
Another specimen (or perhaps the same one), wrongly assigned by
I have no doubt that the specimen cited by
Madrid
, no. 98, although neither
This specimen was wrongly assigned to Tarracona in Ampurias 1941, p. 86, note 1.
215(a). Facing bust. Type 4 c.
✠ SVINTHILΛREX
As obverse.
✠ COPIV·TΛRR·
(b). Obverse as (a).
COPIVSTΛRR·4
(c). Obverse as (a).
✠ PIVSTΛRR5
(d). ✠ SVINTHILΛRE+
Reverse as (a).
Plate X, 17
18*
(e). ✠ SVINTHILΛRE
✠ COPIV:TΛRR.
Plate X, 18
(f). Obverse as (e).
✠ COPIV·TΛRR·
Plate XI, 1
(g). Obverse as (e).
✠ COPIVTΛRR·
(h). ✠ SVIᴻTHILΛRE
Reverse as (f).
Plate XI, 2
(i). ✠ SINTILΛRE
✠ TΛR:ΛC·NΛP
One cannot be certain that the legends are properly transcribed, nor of the number or precise ownership of the specimens.
La Capilla
, no. 38 (see no. 215(e)). But another specimen from the hoard is in the Institute de Valencia de Don Juan (see no. 215(g)).
There is a very marked deposit of "
La Capilla
, nos. 38-39, and assigns the three to
Not
España Sagrada as distinct coins.
The illustration is scarcely legible;
Actually this legend is transcribed by the early writers TARRACOPIVS or PIVSTARR[.]CO, but one can be almost certain that the order of the lettering is the usual one for these issues.
b and VQR no. 5106. RNB, I (1842), pp. 115–116, where mention is made of the purchase by
One can only speculate whether this legend is correctly transcribed; probably not.
216(a). Facing bust. Type 4 c.
XSVIᴻTHILΛREX
As obverse.
Plate XI, 3
(b). Obverse as (a).
217. Facing bust. Type 4 c.
✠ ᴤVINTHILΛREX
As obverse.
✠ VΛLEᴻTIΛIVᴤTV
218(a). Facing bust. Type 5 f.
✠ ᔓVINTILARI⋮
As obverse.
✠ IVSTVSΛCC:
Plate XI, 4
(b). ✠ SVINTII·ΛRI
✠ IVSTVSΛCI
Plate XI, 5
(c). ✠ SVINTILΛR
✠ IVSTVSΛCC⋮
(d). Obverse as (c).
Reverse as (b).
(e). ✠ SVINTIIΛR
Reverse as (b).
(f). ✠ SVINTILΛ·.E
✠ IVSTVSΛCC⋮
Plate XI, 6
(g). "✠ JΛJITΛPIVS"
✠ IVSTVSΛCI
This piece was (and still is) the cause of much fruitless speculation regarding the identity of "Jajita" (cf. p. 29). Rectificaciones, p. 414) when he suggested that
219(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ SVINTHIL∴RE
As obverse.
✠ PIVSMENT:SΛ4
Plate XI, 7
(b). ✠ SVINTILΛR⋮ Point right and left of head.
✠ PIVSMENTI⋮SΛ
Plate XI, 8
(c). Obverse as (b).
✠ PI⋮SMENTESΛ
Plate XI, 9
(d). ✠ SVIIITII.ΛRI:I
✠ PIVSMI⋮NTI:SΛ
Plate XI, 10
(e). ✠ SVINTH:L∴R··
✠ PIVM·.NTES∴
(f). ✠ SVINTH:L∴R⋮
✠ PIV·MENT··S∵
Plate XI, 11
(g). ✠ SVINTH:L∴.R:.
✠ PIVM∴NTESΛ
(h). ✠ SVINTI|·ΛRE The "L" is twice the height of the other letters.
✠ PIVSIII:IITI:S∴
(i). ✠ SVINTHIL:RX
✠ PIVSMENTSΛ
(j). Obverse as (a)?
Reverse as (i).
This specimen was, it seems, no longer in the
There is a faint point after the second S on HSA 8100, but this is probably a die-cutter's slip.
220(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ SVINTHIL·ΛRI⋮
As obverse.
✠ MEᴻTESΛPIVS
Plate XI, 12
(b). ✠ SVIᴻTHIL··ΛRI:
✠ MEᴻTESΛPIVS
(e). ✠ SVINTHILΛR
✠ MENTESΛPIVS1
And, according to
221. Types A or B. Lettering uncertain.
There were, according to
222. Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ SVINTHILΛRE
As obverse.
✠ SΛLDΛNIΛPIS
223(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ SVINTHILΛREX5
As obverse.
✠ TOLETOPIVᔕ6
Plate XI, 13
Plate XI, 14
Plate XII, 1
(b). ✠ SVINTIHLΛREX
Reverse as (a).
Plate XII, 2
(c). ✠ SVINTHILΛRE
Reverse as (a).
Plate XII, 3
(d). Legends uncertain.
For a contemporary (?) forgery in the HSA collection, see p. 469.
Presumably points have been omitted and the legends normalized in transcription.
From a find in the Pamplona region made in 1895 (according to Ampurias 1941) or in 1916 (Hallazgos III). The reproduction is too poor to permit accurate reading of the forms of the letters.
Obverse transcribed SIIN etc., reverse with delta-shaped
The X is sometimes small.
There is frequently a wide space between ᔕ and the cross.
224(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ SVINTHILΛRE
As obverse.
✠ PIVSBΛRBI
Plate XII, 4
(b). Obverse as (a).
✠ PVSBΛRBI
(c). ✠ SVIᴻTHILΛRE
Reverse as (a).
Plate XII, 5
(d). Obverse as (c).
✠ PIVSBΛRBI:
Plate XII, 6
(e). ✠ SVIᴻTHILΛRE:
Reverse as (d).
Plate XII, 7
(f). ✠ SVIᴻTHILΛRC
✠ PIVSBΛRBI
Plate XII, 8
(g). ✠ SVIᴻTHILΛRI
✠ ȢIVSBΛRBI
(h). ✠ SVIᴻTILΛRE
✠ PIVSBΛRBI
Plate XII, 9
(i). ✠ SVINTILΛRI2
✠ PIVSBΛRBI
(j). ✠ SVIᴻTHILII>R
✠ ȢIVSBΛRBI
(k). Similar to (a)–(j), but exact lettering uncertain.
It is impossible to determine just how many specimens should be entered here. According to
According to
N or ᴻ?
L engraved I
N in transcription, but probably ᴻ.
The engraving in
There were, according to
La Capilla
); but this can only be approximate, for several of the other HSA specimens are in all probability from the hoard, although they now lack traces of "
Inaccurately transcribed.
225(a). Facing bust. Type 9 b.
✠ SVIᴻTHILΛRE
As obverse.
✠ CORȢOBΛPIVS
(b). ✠ SVINTILΛR2
✠ C·RDoBΛPIVS
226(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
* SVINTHIL·REX3
As obverse.
✠ CORΔOBΛPIVS4
Plate XII, 10
Plate XII, 11
Plate XII, 12
(b). Obverse as (a).
✠ COR·ΔOBΛPIVS
Plate XII, 13
(c). Obverse as (a).
✠ COR
Plate XII, 14
(d). * SVINTHIL:REX
✠ CORΔOBΛPIVS
Plate XIII, 1
(e). Similar to (a)–(d), exact lettering uncertain.
It seems to me clear that all the above references concern the same specimen. There are one or two confusing factors which can be explained as follows: (a) Cordoba); (b)
Exact forms of letters not known.
X sometimes small.
Δ sometimes not closed at the bottom.
According to
227(a). Facing bust. Type 5 f.
✠ SVINTILΛRE
As obverse.
✠ PIVSEI·IBERI:
(b). ✠ SVINTILΛRI⋮
✠ PIVSEIIBER
Plate XIII, 2
(c). ✠ SVINTILΛRI:
✠ PIVSELIBERI
(d). ✠ SVINTILΛRI:.
✠ PIVSEI·IBER
Plate XIII, 3
(e). Obverse as (d).
✠ PIVSELIBERI:
Plate XIII, 4
(f). ✠ SVINTII·ΛRI:.
✠ PIVSEI·IBERI
Plate XIII, 5
(g). Obverse as (f).
✠ PIVᔕEI·IBER⋮
Plate XIII, 6
(h). Obverse as (f).
Reverse as (d).
Plate XIII, 7
(i). ✠ SVINTIIΛRI⋮
Reverse as (d).
Plate XIII, 8
(j). Obverse as (i).
✠ PIVSEI·IBER⋮
Plate XIII, 9
(k). ✠ SVINTI·IΛRI
Reverse as (b).
Plate XIII, 10
(l). ✠ SVINTII·ΛRI
✠ PIVSEI·IBERR:
Plate XIII, 11
(m). Obverse as (l).
Reverse as (f).
Plate XIII, 12
(n). Obverse as (l).
✠ PIVSEI·IBER:·
(o). ✠ SVINTIIΛRE
✠ PIVSELIBER
Plate XIII, 13
(p). ✠ SVINTIIΛR
✠ PIVSEIIBER
Plate XIII, 14
(q). Obverse as (p).
✠ PIVSE·IIBER
Plate XIV, 1
(r). ✠ SVIIITIIΛR
Reverse as (p).
Plate XIV, 2
(s). Obverse as (r).
✠ PIVSIEIIBER
(t). ✠ SVIᴻTILΛRE
Reverse as (c).
(u). Similar to (a)–(t), but exact lettering uncertain.
There are several divergences between text-transcription and reproduction of the throe specimens in the
There were, according to
There is, as noted elsewhere, an apparent dissimilarity between the illustrations in
228(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ SVINTHILΛRE
As obverse.
✠ ISPΛLIPIVS
Plate XIV, 3
Plate XIV, 4
Plate XIV, 5
(b). Obverse as (a).
✠ .ISPΛLIPIVS.
Plate XIV, 6
(c). ✠ SVINTHIL.ΛRE
Reverse as (a).
(d). Obverse as (c).
✠ ISPΛLIPIVS.
Plate XIV, 7
(e). ✠ SVINTHIL·ΛRE
Reverse as (a).
(f). ✠ SVIᴻTHILΛRE
Reverse as (a).
Plate XIV, 8
(g). Obverse as (f).
✠ ISPΛLIȢIVS.
Plate XIV, 9
(h). ✠ SVINTIHLΛRE
Reverse as (a).
Plate XIV, 10
(i). Similar to (a)–(h), but exact lettering uncertain.
(j). ✠ SVIͶTIIILΛRE
✠ ᴤVIԛIᒧΛԛᴤI
Plate XIV, 11
See the note to (m), above.
Dot at end of reverse legend omitted in transcription but evident in plate.
SVINTILAREX — PIVSELIBERI. I have seen no specimen with REX; Morales probably supplied the X.
This coin is of base gold and is spotted with a green oxide. It is slightly atypical. Perhaps it is a contemporary forgery; certainly it is not a modern one.
The engraving shows SVINTILΛRE — PIVSELIBER, but I suspect the artist normalized the letters.
The only legends given by
229(a). Facing bust. Type 5 f or 5 e.
✠ SVINTILΛRE
As obverse.
✠ IVSTVSTVCI
Plate XIV, 12
(b). ✠ SVINTHIL∴RE
Reverse as (a).
(c). Obverse as (b).
✠ IVSTVSTV⋮CI
Plate XIV, 13
(d). ✠ SVINTHIL∴RE⋮
Reverse as (c).
Plate XIV, 14
(e). ✠ SVINTHIL∵RE:
Reverse as (c).
Plate XV, 1
(f). ✠ SVINTHIL:RE
✠ IVSTVSTV:CI
9 Visigoth
(g). ✠ SVINTHILRE
✠ IVSTVSTV:.CI
(h). ✠ SVIᴻTHILRE
✠ IVSTVSTV⋮.CI
Plate XV,
(i). ✠ SVINTIIΛRE:
Reverse as (a).
Plate XV,
(j). ✠ SVINTII.Λ.RE
Reverse as (a).
Plate XV,
(k). ✠ SVINTII.ΛRI:.
✠ IVS·TVSTVCI
Plate XV,
(l). ✠ SVINTIIΛRI
Reverse as (a).
(m). ✠ SVINTHIL·RI
Reverse as (g).
Plate XV, 6
(n). ✠ SVINTHIL·ΛR:
Reverse as (g).
(o). ✠ SVINTII·ΛR
Reverse as (a).
Plate XV,
(p). ✠ SVINTII.ΛI·I
Reverse as (a).
Plate XV,
(q). ✠ SVINTII·ΛI·I·
Reverse as (a).
Plate XV, 9
(r). Obverse as (j).
Reverse as (c).
(s). Similar to (a)–(q), but exact lettering uncertain.
There were, according to
Error in transcription.
Transcribed REX, but the overwhelming evidence would indicate that this is an incorrect reading.
In spite of imperfections in plaster-casting, it is clear that these two illustrations represent the same specimen.
Transcribed REX, but in all probability the X is lacking.
230(a). Facing bust. Type 5 f.
✠ SVIIITIIΛRI
As obverse.
✠ PIVSTV⋮CI
Plate XV, 10
(b). Obverse as (a).
✠ IIVSTV⋮CI
Plate XV, 11
(c). Obverse as (a).
✠ IIVSTV⋮CI
Plate XV, 12
(d). Obverse as (a).
✠ PIVST··V⋮CI
231. Similar to nos. 229–230, but exact legends uncertain.
19*
.ΛR. and ✠IVSTVSTV·:CI, but obviously this is only one of the many varieties. According to
La Capilla
reference in this alternative category.
232(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ SVINTHILΛ.RE
As obverse.
✠ COLEIΛPIVS.
(b). ✠ SVINTIIIL·ΛRE
✠ COLEIΛPIVS
233. Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠ SVINTHILΛREX
Facing bust. Type 7.
✠ E.ITΛ|N|IΛPIVS
Plate XV, 13
234(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ SVINTHILΛREX
As obverse.
✠ TVSELVORΛI·VS
(b). Types not described.
✠ SVINTILΛREX
✠ EBORΛVICTOR
The authenticity of this unique coin (or the correctness of the
There was at least one specimen in the
235(a).
✠ SVINTHILΛREx
1
Facing bust. Type 7.
✠ EMERI|T|ΛPIVS
Plate XV, 14
Plate XV, 15
Plate XVI, 1
Plate XVI, 2
Plate XVI, 3
Plate XVI, 4
Plate XVI, 5
(b). Obverse as (a).
✠ EMERI|T|ΛPIVS✺
Plate XVI, 6
(c). Obverse as (a).
✠ EMERI|T|ΛPIVS.
Plate XVI, 7
(d). Obverse as (a).
✠ EMERI|T|ΛPIVSx
Plate XVI, 8
(e). ✠ ᴤVINTHILΛREX
Reverse as (a).
Plate XVI, 9
(f). ✠ ᴤVINTHILΛREX
Reverse as (d).
Plate XVI, 10
(g). Obverse as (e).
Reverse as (c).
(h). ✠ SVINTHILΛRE.
Reverse as (a).
(i). ✠ SVINTHILΛRE
Reverse as (c).
Plate XVI, 11
(j). ✠ SVINTHILREX
Reverse as (a).
(k). ✠ SVINTILΛREX
Reverse as (a).
(l). ✠ ᴤVINTTIILΛREX
Reverse as (a).
(m). ✠ SINDILΛREX
EMERIT|Λ|PIVS, followed by an ornament.
(n). Similar to (a)–(m), but exact lettering uncertain.
The vertical position of Λ and X, and the size of these letters, varies in this and other varieties. The borders are sometimes linear, sometimes beaded.
Only one specimen of Suinthila-Emerita figures in
236. Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠ SVINTHILΛR.
Facing bust. Type 7.
✠ EMIN|I|OPIVS
237(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ SVINTNILΛRC
As obverse.
✠ SΛLΛMΛNTC
Plate XVI, 12
(b). Legends uncertain, possibly similar to (a).
Previous notices of this issue, known only from the hoard of Rectificaciones (p. 414) he rightly remarks that the transcription of the reverse by
The pellet at the end of the reverse legend is omitted in this description, but there is a strong likelihood that the specimen in question is HSA 16183.
La Capilla
, no. 27, has SVINTHILΛRE, as noted above under (i), but it is assumed that this transcription is a generalization for all the varieties except no. 28, that is, (m). According to
238. Types ?
✠ SVI·N:IL·R·
✠ ΛLIoBR:oPI·
239. Facing bust. Type 5 q, very crude. Pellet right and left.
✠ SVIᴻTILΛRE·
As obverse.
✠ ΛSTORICΛPI
240(a). Facing bust. Type 5 j, crude.
✠ SVINTII·HΛRE
As obverse.
✠ PIVSBRΛCΛRΛ
(b). ✠ SVINTHILΛRE
✠ IV·SB·ΛCΛRΛ
(c). ✠ ᔕVINT·L·RE
✠ PIV·BRΛC·RΛ
Plate XVI, 13
(d). ✠ SVINTHILΛRI
✠ BRΛCΛR·PIV·
(e). Probably similar to (a)–(d), but exact legends uncertain.
241. Types?
✠ SVINTHILΛREX
✠ CΛL·PΛ+PIVS
loc. cit.) has called attention to the correct reading.
242. Facing bust. Type 12 e.
✠ SVIᴻTILΛR
Facing bust. Type 5 y.
✠ C·SSΛVIOPIS:
My transcriptions, taken from the coin itself, differ from those in VQR.
243. Types?
✠ SVINTILΛRE
✠ FRΛVCELLOP·I·
244. Facing bust. Type 8 e.
✠ SVINTILΛRE:
As obverse.
✠
Plate XVI, 14
245. Types ?
✠ SVINTILΛREX
✠ LEIONEPIVS⋮
246(a). Facing bust. Type 5 f.
✠ SVINTHILΛRE
Facing bust. Type 12 a.
✠ LVCOVICTOR
(b). ✠ ᴤVINTHIL·ΛRE
✠ LVCOVICTOR:
The obverse of this coin is illustrated in
I have adopted
Suevia he has RE;
La Capilla
has RE and PIVS.
247. Facing bust. Type 5 q.
✠ SVINTIIΛIE
As obverse.
✠ NΛNƥOLΛSIV
Plate XVI, 15
248. Facing bust. Type 5 f.
✠ SVIᴻTILΛRE
Facing bust. Type 12 c.
PIVS✠PIᴻCIΛ3
Plate XVI, 16
249. Facing bust. Type 8 c.
Pellet right and left.
✠ SVINTILΛRE
Facing bust. Type 7.
✠ PORTV|C|ΛLEPIV
250(a). Facing bust. Type 5 f.
✠ SVIIITILΛRE
As obverse.
✠ PIVSEᴻV·ER
(b). ✠ SVINTILΛRE
✠ PIVSENVER
The transcriptions of
It is obvious from the exceptional position of the cross that the legend is supposed to begin at 6:30 o'clook, as with many of the earlier Visigothic coins.
The entry in Traité (p. 52) for Sisenand/ SENV-ER is obviously confused with this issue.
251. Facing bust. Type 5 q.
✠ SVINTILΛRE
As obverse.
✠ SE·NΛBR·ΛP:V⋮
252. Facing bust. Type 5 v.
✠ SVINTILΛRX
As obverse.
✠ VENTOSΛP:·
According to
253(a).
✠ SEᴤENΛȢVSRE
As obverse.
✠ IIΛRB:oNΛIIVS
(b). Description lacking.
254. Facing bust. Type 4 c.1
✠ SISEᴻΛᴻɖVSRE✺
As obverse.
.
255. Facing bust. Type 4 c.
✠ SISEᴻΛ:ȢVSRE
As obverse.
✠ ᔕ:RVᴻΔΛIVSTVᔓ
Plate XVII, 1
Eye-brows and nose resemble a cross.
256(a). Facing bust. Type 4 c.3
✠ SISENΛ·DVSRE
As obverse.
✠ TΛRR:COIV+O:
(b). ✠ SISENΛ:bVSRE+
✠ COIV:TO:TΛRRᴐ
(c). ✠ SESENΛ:DVSRE+
✠ COIV·TOTΛRR⋮
(d). ✠ SESENANΔVSR:
✠ COIVTO·TΛRR
Plate XVII, 2
257(a) Facing bust. Type 5 f.
✠ SISINΛNDVSI:⋮
As obverse.
✠ IVSTVSΛCI
Plate XVII, 3
(b). ✠ SISINΛNIVSI:I⋮
✠ IVSTVSΛC⋮I
Plate XVII, 4
(c). ✠ SISINΛȢVSRI
Reverse as (a).
Plate XVII, 5
(d). ✠ ᔕISNΛNI:VSRI
✠ IVSTVSΛ·CI
Plate XVII, 6
(e). ✠ ᔕISNΛNȢVSRI⋮
Reverse as (a).
(f). ✠ ᔕISENΛINVS
Reverse as (a).
(g). As (a)–(f), but exact legends uncertain.
Nos. 1 and 2 resemble each other very closely.
The drawing in Botet y Sisó (reproduced by
Eye-brows and nose resemble a cross.
Madrid
(photograph), although he recognizes them as representing the same specimen. The transcriptions are inaccurate.
Here again
258(a). Facing bust. Type 5 f.3
✠ SISI·NΛNΔVSR⋮
As obverse.
✠ CΛSTI⋮I.ONΛPS
Plate XVII, 7
(b). ✠ SISI⋮NΛᔕVᔕR
✠ CΛSTI·IoNΛPS
(c). ✠ SISI·:NΛᔕVSR
✠ CΛSTIL·NΛPS
(d). ✠ SISINΛNɖVSR
✠ CΛSTI:I°NΛPVS
(e). ✠ SIS⋮SI⋮N··Λ··IVSR
✠ CΛSTI⋮I·NΛP:
Plate XVII, 8
(f). ✠ SISI:NΛ·IVSR
✠ CΛSTI⋮IoNΛPS
Plate XVII, 9
(g). Obverse as (f).
✠ CΛSTII·ONΛP
(h). ✠ SISINΛNDVS1
✠ CΛSTILoNΛI·VS
The plate is not clear, but the legends (which do not conform with
La Capilla
would leave six unaccounted for.
It will be noted that specimens with this bust have in common I or I followed by dots in the king's name, as contrasted with a clear and well-defined E in type B.
There were five specimens (ex
259(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ SISENΛNVSRE
As obverse.
✠ CΛSTEI·ᴻ·ΛP:
Plate XVII, 10
(b). ✠ SISEᴻΛᴻVSRE·
✠ CΛSTEIᴻΛPVS
Plate XVII, 11
(c). ✠ SISENΛN·VSRE·
✠ CΛSTEI·N·ΛI:
(d). ✠ SISI:NΛNɖVSR2
✠ CΛSTILoNΛPV
(e). ✠ ᴤIᴤENΛNΔVᴤR
✠ CΛSTIIoIIΛPS
Plate XVII, 12
260. Types and exact legends uncertain.
The forms of the letters are uncertain.
The second I would be an exception to the criterion stated in footnote 3, above, but the transcription cannot be relied upon. The illustration is illegible.
La Capilla
account for 10 specimens.
261(a). Facing bust. Type 5 f.
✠ SISI⋮NΛNɖVSR
As obverse.
✠ ȢIVSMI⋮NTI⋮SΛ
Plate XVII, 13
(b). ✠ SISI⋮NΛɖVSR
✠ PV⋮MENTESΛ
Plate XVII, 14
(c). Obverse as (b).
✠ PIVMEᴻTESΛ
Plate XVIII, 1
262(a). Facing bust. Type 5 g.
✠ SISENΛNDV·R+
Facing bust. Type 5 f.
✠ PIVSMENTE·Λ
(b). ✠ SISENΛNɖ:SR
✠ PIVSMI⋮NTI⋮S··
Plate XVIII, 2
(c). ✠ SISENΛɖVSR
✠ PIVSMI⋮NTES:
Plate XVIII, 3
(d). ✠ SISENΛNɖ:SI
✠ PIVSMI⋮NTESΛ
(e). ✠ SISENΛЬVSP
✠ PIVSMENTES∴
(f). ✠ SISENΛNd·S
✠ PIVSMENT⋮S∴
20 Visigoth
(g) ✠ SISENΛNd:SR
✠ PIVSIII⋮IIT⋮S:.
This particular specimen has two dots, like eyes, above the cross in the face of the obverse bust.
The busts as represented in
Supposed to be in the
See the note under No. 263 (b), below.
263(a). Types uncertain.
✠ SISENΛɖVSP:
✠ PIVSMENTPS:
(b). Types and legends uncertain.1
264(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e.3
✠ SISENΛNDVSREX
As obverse.
✠ TOLETOPIVᔕ
Plate XVIII, 4
(b). ✠ SISEᴻΛᴻьVSREX
Reverse as (a).
Plate XVIII, 5
(c). ✠ SISENΛNȢVSRE
Reverse as (a).
Plate XVIII, 6
(d). ✠ SESENΛNȢVSREX
Reverse as (a).
Plate XVIII, 7
(e). ✠ SESENΛNȢVSRE+
Reverse as (a).
Plate XVIII, 8
(f). ✠ SESEᴻΛᴻbVSRE+
Reverse as (a).
(g). Similar to (a)–(f), but exact lettering uncertain.
The bust is very irregular and often quite amorphous.
The single specimen in the
The drawing of this specimen shows the legend of the obverse beginning at 7 o'clock. It is most unlikely that this is correct.
265(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ SISENΛNɖVSRE
As obverse.
✠ PIVSΛSIɖONΛ
Plate XVIII, 9
(b). Probably similar to (a), details lacking.
20*
This number is probably to be reduced, for I suspect that more of the HSA specimens came from the hoard and have therefore already been described above. I have subtracted only two from the total of 12 given in
La Capilla
(different dies from the HSA specimens), this leaves one specimen unaccounted for.
266(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ SISENΛNDVSRE1
As obverse.
✠ PIVSBΛRBI
Plate XVIII, 10
(b). Obverse as (a).
✠ PIVSBΛRBI⋮
Plate XVIII, 11
(c). Obverse as (a).
✠ PI:VSBΛRBI∵
Plate XVIII, 12
(d). ✠ SISENΛNȢVSRE
Reverse as (a).
Plate XVIII, 13
(e). ✠ SISEᴻΛNDVSRE
Reverse as (a).
Plate XVIII, 14
(f). Obverse as (a).
Pellet either side of bust.
✠ PIVSBΛRBI∵
(g). Pellet either side of bust.
Legend as (a).
Pellet either side of bust.
✠ PIVSBΛRBI:
Plate XIX, 1
(h). As (a)–(g), exact lettering uncertain.
The horizontal bars of the E's are separated in varying degrees from the vertical stroke, but on some specimens the letter is so nearly an intregral E that I have transcribed them all as such even though some should strictly be transcribed I⋮.
267(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ SISENΛN·VSREI
As obverse.
✠ CORΔOBΛPIVS *
(b). ✠ SISENΛN·VSRE *
✠ CoRΔoBΛPIVS *
Plate XIX, 2
(c). ✠ SISENΛN·VSRE
✠ CORΔOBΛPIVS
(d). Obverse as (c).
✠ CORȢOBΛPIVᴤ*4
Plate XIX, 3
(e). Obverse as (c).
✠ COR
Plate XIX, 4
(f). ✠ SISENΛNΔVᴤI
✠ CoRΔoBΛPIVᴤ*
Plate XIX, 5
(g). ✠ SISEᴻΛᴻVSRE
✠ CoRȢoBΛPIVᴤ
(h). ✠ ᴤIᴤENΛNȢVSR:
✠ CoRȢoBΛPIVS
Plate XIX, 6
(i). Obverse as (h).
✠ CoRȢoBΛPIVᴤ
Plate XIX, 7
(j). ✠ ᴤIᴤE∵
Reverse as (f).
Plate XIX, 8
(k). ✠ ᴤIᴤE
✠ CoRΔoBΛPIVᴤ*
Plate XIX, 9
(l). ✠ ᴤIᴤENNȢVᴤRE
Reverse as (k).
(m). ✠ ᴤIᴤENΛNDVSR·
✠ CORDOBΛPIVS
(n). ✠ ᴤIᴤENΛᴻΔVᴤ·I
✠ CoRȢoBΛPIVᴤ✶
Plate XIX, 10
(o). ✠ ᴤIᴤENΛNΔVᴤ
Reverse as (n).
Plate XIX, 11
(p). ✠ ᴤIᴤENΛNΔ:R
✠ CoRoBΛPIVᴤ
(q) Obverse as (g)
Reverse as (d).
(r). Similar to (a)–(q), but exact lettering uncertain.1
According to
But not in
Note the weight. A forgery?
Or ✶.
268(a). Facing bust. Type 5 f.
✠ SISINΛNIVSR.
As obverse.
✠ PIVSEIIBER
(b). ✠ SISINΛNIVSR
✠ PIVSEIIBER·
Plate XIX, 12
(c). Obverse as (b).
Reverse as (a).
Plate XIX, 13
Plate XIX, 14
(d). ✠ SISINΛNI·VSR
Reverse as (a).
Plate XX, 1
(e). ✠ SISINΛᴻIVSR
Reverse as (b).
Plate XX, 2
(f). ✠ SISINΛNISR
✠ PIVSEIIBIRI
Plate XX, 3
(g). Similar to (a)–(f), but exact lettering uncertain.
Some of these specimens were published with transcriptions, but for various reasons I consider these transcriptions inaccurate.
SISENΛNDVSRE:
SISENΛNDVSR
There were two specimens in the
Reverse ends:.
269(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ SISENΛNȢVSRE
As obverse.
✠ ISPΛLIPIVS
(b). Obverse as (a).
✠ ISPΛLIPIVᴤ
(c). Obverse as (a).
✠ ISPΛ·LIPIVS
Plate XX, 4
Plate XX, 5
(d). ✠ SISENΛNDVSRE
✠ ISPΛL·IPIVS
(e). Obverse as (a).
✠ .ISPΛ·LI·PIVS.
Plate XX, 6
(f). ✠ SI·SENΛNDVSRE
Reverse as (c).4
Plate XX, 7
(g). ✠ SI·SENΛNȢVSRE
Reverse as (e).
Plate XX, 8
(h). ✠ SISENΛ·NȢVSRE
Reverse as (a).
(i). Obverse as (h).
Reverse as (b).
(j). ✠ SIS.ENΛNȢVSRE
Reverse as (c).
Plate XX, 9
(k). ✠ SISEN·ΛNDVSRE
Reverse as (e).
Plate XX, 10
(l). ✠ SISENΛᴻDVSRE
Reverse as (a).
(m). ✠ SISENΛᴻD.VSRE
Reverse as (a).
Plate XX, 11
(n). Obverse as (m).
✠ ISPΛ·LI·PIVS
Plate XX, 12
(o). Obverse as (m).
Reverse as (e).
Plate XX, 13
(p). ✠ SISEᴻΛᴻDVSRE
Reverse as (a).
(q). ✠ SISE·ᴻΛᴻDVSRE
Reverse as (a).
Plate XX, 14
(r). Obverse as (q).
Reverse as (b).
Plate XX, 15
(s). ✠ SISEᴻΛᴻΔVSRE
Reverse as (c).
Plate XXI, 1
(t). ✠ SISEᴻΛᴻΔVSRE
Reverse as (c).
Plate XXI, 2
(u). ✠ SISENΛNDVSRI
Reverse as (b).
(v). ✠ SISENΛNDVSI
Reverse as (a).
(w). Similar to (a)–(v), but exact lettering uncertain.
There were, according to
Transcribed SISINΛNDVSR
According to
The pellet after the Λ does not always show; however, on the specimens isted here where it is lacking it must have been present on the die, for these specimens are from the same die as others on which it is present.
270(a). Facing bust. Type 5 f.
✠ SISENΛNDVSR
As obverse.
✠ MΛLΛCΛPIVS3
(b). ✠ SISEᴻΛᴻΔVSI
Pellet either side of head.
✠ MΛI·Λ
Plate XXI, 3
According to
La Capilla
cannot of course account for all the dies in the hoard.
RIX, which must be doubtful, and ISPΛUPIVS, probably an error.
The legends are virtually illegible in the plate; reliance has therefore been placed on the transcriptions.
There are traces of earth on this specimen, resembling that on the coins which I have identified as coming from
This may be the HSA specimen.
Madrid
as well as
271(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ SISENΛNɖVSRE
As obverse.
✠ IVSTVSTVCCI
Plate XXI, 4
(b). Obverse as (a).
✠ IVSTVSTVCI
Plate XXI, 5
(c). Obverse as (a).
✠ IVSTVSTV:CI
Plate XXI, 6
(d). ✠ SISENΛNɖ:SRE
✠ IVSTVSTV⋮CI
Plate XXI, 7
(e). ✠ SISENΛNɖ:SR.
Reverse as (c).
Plate XXI, 8
(f). ✠ SISENΛNɖVSR·.
✠ IVSTVSTV·CI
Plate XXI, 9
(g). ✠ SISENΛNɖVSR:
Reverse as (c).
(h). ✠ SIS:NΛNɖVSR.
Reverse as (f).
Plate XXI, 10
(i). ✠ SISENΛɖVSR
Reverse as (b).
Plate XXI, 11
(j). ✠ SESENΛNɖVSRE
Reverse as (a).
Plate XXI, 12
(k). Obverse as (j).
Reverse as (c).
Plate XXI, 13
(l). Similar to (a)-(k), legends illegible in plate.
According to
This specimen has a die flaw that makes the C look like S.
This specimen, formerly broken in two pieces, has been mended by soldering; the solder would account for the exceptional weight.
La Capilla
soil," and there can be small doubt that all 16 HSA pieces are from the hoard, there being no other known specimens of this mint under Sisenand.
272(a). Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠ SISENΛNDVSREX
Facing bust. Type 7.
✠ E
(b). Obverse as (a).
✠ E
Plate XXI, 14
(c). As (a) or (b).
(d). ✠ SISENΛNDVSRE
✠ E
(e). ✠ SISENΛNDVSRE
✠ E
X is present, and, as this specimen was among those acquired by
273(a). Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠ SISENΛNDVSREX
Facing bust. Type 7.
✠ EMERI|T|ΛPIVS
Plate XXII, 1
Plate XXII, 2
Plate XXII, 3
(b). Obverse as (a).
Pellet at either side of
Plate XXII, 4
Plate XXII, 5
(c). Obverse as (a).
Plate XXII, 6
(d). ✠ SISENΛNDVSREX3
Pellet at either side of head.
✠ EMERI|T|ΛPIVS*
Plate XXII, 7
(e). ✠ SISENΛNDVSREx
Reverse as (a).
(f). ✠ SISENΛNDVSRE.
Reverse as (a).
Plate XXII, 8
(g). ✠ SISENΛNDVSRE*
Reverse as (c).
Plate XXII, 9
(h). ✠ SISENΛNDVSRE
✠ EMERITΛPIVS (division of legend not indicated)
(i). Similar to (a)–(h), but details uncertain.
Position of I not indicated in transcription.
Pellets omitted from description.
PIVS omitted from transcription.
Spot of green oxide.
X not full size, but larger than types (a)-(c).
This specimen was largely covered with a heavy green oxide, occasionally present on other specimens presumably from the hoard of
274. Types unknown.
✠ SISINΛ:ΔVSRE
✠ PIVSLΛIII⋮CO⋮
275. Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ S·S·NΛ·DV·RE
As obverse.
✠ PI·SB·T·R·C·R
I have adopted
The illustration is scarcely legible and the legends above are as given by
La Capilla
was published the coin belonged to
276. Facing bust. Type 12d.
✠ SISENΛNɖVSR.
Facing bust. Type 5 e (indeterminate).
✠ MΛVE·PIVS:
277. Types unknown.
✠ SESENΛNDVSRE
✠ TVRIVIΛNΛPIVS
There was only one specimen in the hoard, and, according to
278. Types?
✠ IV·IILΛRI⋮X
✠ PIVSI⋮LIBER1
279. Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠ IVDILΛREX
Facing bust. Type 7.
✠ EMERI|T|ΛPIVS
Plate XXII, 10
21 Visigoth
I have adopted the readings in
La Capilla
in preference to those of
280. Facing bust. Type 4c.
XCHIᴻTIL>REX
As obverse.
XCE:ΛR:C·O:TΛI·
Plate XXII, 11
281. Facing bust. Type 4c.
✠ CHIᴻTILΛRE
As obverse.
✠
The entry in Traité for Chintila-Tarracona (TΛRΛC:NΛ) must be an error. To my knowledge no specimen has been published.
282(a). Facing bust. Type 5 f.
✠ CHINTILΛREX
Facing bust. Type 5 o.
✠ VΛLENTIΛPVS (begins at 11 o'clock)
(b). Obverse as (a).
✠ VΛLENTIΛPIVS ✶
283(a)
✠ CHNTIL∴ΛR
As obverse.
✠ IVSTVSΛCI
Plate XXII, 12
(b). Facing bust. Type 5 f.
✠ :ΛIITᴻIHᴐ
As obverse.
✠ IVSTVSΛC·I
Plate XXII, 13
284
✠ CHINTIIΛI
As obverse.
✠ CΛST·L·NΛPI
285(a)
✠ CHINTILΛREX
As obverse.
✠ TOLETOPIVᔕ
(b). Obverse as (a).
✠ TOLETOPIVS *
(c). ✠ CHINTILΛRE+
Reverse as (a).
(d). Obverse as (a).
✠ TOLETOPIVᔕ
Plate XXII, 14
Transcription not accurate.
Wrongly numbered L. 4648.
286(a). Facing bust. Type 9 b.
✠ CHINTIIΛREX
As obverse.
✠ C.ORDOBΛPIVS
(b). ✠ CHINTILΛR
✠ CORDOBΛPIV.
287. Facing bust. Type 9 b.
✠ CHINTILΛREX
Facing bust. Type 10 a.
✠ CORDOBΛPIVS:
Plate XXII, 15
This, or the next coin, was
The sprig at the end of the reverse legend not shown.
The transcriptions are incorrect.
288. Facing bust. Type ?
✠ CHINTILΛRE
Facing bust. Type ?
✠ CORDOBΛPIVS
The evidence, so far as I have been able to assemble it, does not support
289.(a) Facing bust. Type ?
✠ CHINTILΛRX
Facing bust. Type ?
✠ EGΛBRPIVS
(b). ✠ CHINTILΛR
✠ PIVSEoᴐΛBR
290. Facing bust. Type 5 f.
✠ CHINTILΛR
As obverse.
✠ PIVSI⋮IIBI⋮RI
Plate XXII, 16
I am convinced, after meticulous scrutiny, that the HSA specimen, which may possibly be the identical piece cited by loc. cit.) about the issue were probably based on the curious succession of letters represented by
Cordoba, p. 54.
Madrid
, pl. F, no. 20; cf. p. 474,
PIVSI⋮III:I:I:I
291(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ CHI·NTIL.ΛRE
As obverse.
✠ ISPΛLIPIVS
Plate XXII, 17
(b). Obverse as (a).
✠ ISPΛL·IPI·VS
(c). ✠ CHINTIL·Λ.RE
Reverse as (a).
(d). Description incomplete.
292(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ CHINTILΛRE
As obverse.
✠ IVSTVSTVCI
Plate XXIII, 1
(b). ✠ CHINTIIΛP
✠ IVSTVSTVC⋮
(c). ✠ CH:ᴻTILΛR
✠ IVSTVSTVCI•1
Plate XXIII, 2
The reverse is double-struck and very obscure; the above legend has been read with the aid of a photograph from the
293(a). Facing bust. Type 8 c. Pellet at each side of head.
✠ CINTHILΛREX
Facing bust. Type 7. Pellet at each side of head.
✠ EMERI|T|ΛPIVS
(b). ✠ CINTHILΛREX.
Reverse as (a).
Plate XXIII, 3
(c). As (a) but star in place of pellet at each side of head.
✠ CINTHIL.ΛREX
As (a) but no pellets; same legend.
Plate XXIII, 4
(d). Probably as (a)–(c), details lacking.
294. Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠ CINTHILΛREX
Facing bust. Type 7.
✠ EMIN|I|OPIVᴤ
Plate XXIII, 5
The engraving in
295. Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠ CHINTIL.Λ.RE:
Facing bust. Type 7.
✠ VΛLEN|T|IΛPIVS
Plate XXIII, 6
296. Facing bust. Type 5 u.
✠ CHINTILΛRE·
As obverse.
✠ LVCVPIVS✶
Plate XXIII, 7
297. Facing bust. Type 5 n.
✠ CHINTILΛRE
Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ MΛVEPIVS
298. Facing bust. Type 5 t.
Facing bust. Type 5 v, variant.
✠ CINTILΛR⋮
✠ PETRΛPIVS *
Plate XXIII, 8
Pp. 434–435.
Cf.
Wrongly labeled pl. XIII, no. 10; actually no. 11.
299.
300. Facing bust. Type 4 c.
✠ TVLC·ΛREX*1
As obverse.
✠ NΛRB·OHΛPIV
Plate XXIII, 9
I have had this unique coin in my hands, Mme Kapamadji, proprietor of the Maison Florange, having been kind enough to send it to me for examination. I see no reason to suspect its authenticity. The coin came from an old collection in Béziers (cf. the specimen of Achila, No. 513(b)).
301. Facing bust. Type 4 c.
XTVL
As obverse.
XCE:ΛR:C·O:TA
302. Facing bust. Type 4 c.
✠ TVLC·ΛRE+o
As obverse.
✠ OC:IV:TOTΛRR:
The X curiously bent at the top and the left.
303. Facing bust. Type 5 l.
✠ TVL
Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ PIVSBIΛTIΛ
Plate XXIII, 10
304.(a) Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ TVL
As obverse.
✠ TOLETOPIVᔕ*
Plate XXIII, 11
(b). Obverse as (a).
✠ TOLETOPIVᔕ
Plate XXIII, 12
(c). ✠ TVI
Reverse as (a).
(d). Similar to (a)–(c), symbol uncertain.
305(a). Facing bust, tilted toward right.
Type 5 v.
✠ TVL
As obverse.
✠ PIVSBΛRBI
(b). ✠ TVL·
Reverse as (a).
Either this or HSA 16468 (below) is ex
This specimen, from the collection of Basilio Sebastián Castellanos, is, according to
306(a). Facing bust. Type 9 b.
✠ TVL
Facing bust. Type 10 a.
✠ CoRDoBΛPIVS
Plate XXIII, 13
(b). ✠ TVL
✠ CoRΔoBΛPIVS1
Plate XXIII, 14
Plate XXIII, 15
(c). TVL
✠ CORΔOBΛPIVS
(d). ✠ TVL.E:
Reverse as (b).
Plate XXIII, 16
(e). ✠ TVL.
✠ CoRoBΛPIVᴤ
The Δ is usually somewhat rounded.
Weight given as 0.86 in Cordoba.
Madrid
, no. 187, is silver but genuine.
Wrongly numbered L. 4640.
These two specimens and one other, (c)2, are stated to be from the Abusejo hoard, but Tulga evidently was not represented in this hoard (cf.
Madrid
, p. 35, and
See the note immediately above.
307(a)
✠ TVL
As obverse.
✠ ISPΛLIPIVS
(b). Facing bust. Type?
✠ TVL
Facing bust. Type ?
✠ ISPΛLIPIVS
308. Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠ TVLX
Facing bust. Type 7.
✠ E
309. Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠ TVL
Facing bust. Type 7.
✠ EMERI|T|ΛPIVS
310. Facing bust. Type 10 c.
X at either side of bust.
✠ TVL
Facing bust. Type 7.
✠ EMERI|T|ΛPIVS
311. Types and legends uncertain.
312. Facing bust. Type 5 n.
✠ TVLCΛNRE
As obverse.
✠ PIVSLΛETERΛ
313. No adequate description.
Where is this coin now? It evidently was not in the
The bust appears to differ from that on the Gabriel piece, but I suspect that a poor drawing is at fault.
Not the VQR specimen; its disposition, therefore, unknown.
Wrongly transcribed LATERA.
Wrongly labeled pl. XIII, no. 11, actually no. 12.
314(a). Facing bust. Type 4 c.
✠ CHIND:SVID:RE1
As obverse.
✠ NΛRBONΛP:S2
Plate XXIV, 1
Plate XXIV, 2
(b). ✠ CHIND·SVI·D:RE
Reverse as (a).
(c). ✠ CHIND:SVI:D:RE
Reverse as (a) ?
(d). ✠ CHIN:SVID:RE
✠ NΛRBONΛP.
(e). ✠ CHIND:SVIND:R
Reverse as (a).
(f). As (a)–(e), but exact lettering uncertain.
Pellets sometimes described as . instead of:, but probably always actually the latter.
The O is sometimes small.
Wrongly listed as a coin of Tulga's.
This is probably the same specimen as that descrided by Musée de Narbonne, p. 145) as having CHIND:SVI:D·RE.
This coin is described as having confronting busts and is therefore attributed to the joint rule of Chindasvinth and Reccesvinth, but I suspect the description and imagine it belongs here.
Described as having : after first D.
315.
316. Facing bust. Type 5 e, variation.
✠ CINbΛSV·NTVSR1
As obverse.
✠ BEΛTIΛPIVS
317. Facing bust. Type 5 q.
✠ CNᔕVINDVS
As obverse.
✠ SΛLȢΛNIΛIVS (begins at 1:30 o'clock)
318(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ C
As obverse.
✠ TOLETOPIVᔕ1
Plate XXIV, 3
Plate XXIV, 4
Plate XXIV, 5
(b). ✠
Reverse as (a).
(c). ✠ C
Reverse as (a).
(d). X at either side of bust.
✠ CHINDΛSVINTHVSR
X at either side of bust.
✠ TOLETOPIVᔕ *
22 Visigoth
Plate XXIV, 6
The loop of the P is usually quite far separated from the vertical stroke.
One of the HSA specimens is ex
The weight (1.08) given by
The transcription omits the V in the king's name, but this is doubtless an error.
Name misinterpreted as Reccesvinth with REC lacking.
Inaccurate details.
Aušvintas, and therefore, like all other Visigoths, a Lithuanian. Obviously the C was omitted by mistake, or is to be read in the initial ligature. Cf. loc. cit. This is an excellent example of the irresponsible misuse of numismatic evidence.
319. Facing bust. Type 9 b.
⋮ at either side of head.
✠ C⋮N//////ΛᴤV:NTVSRE
As obverse.2
✠ C/////RboBΛPIVS
Plate XXIV, 7
320. Facing bust. Type 9 b.
✠ CH
As obverse.
✠ CoRȢoBΛPΛTRCIΛ
Plate XXIV, 8
321(a). Facing bust within beaded circle. Type 9 b.
Facing bust within beaded circle. Type 10 a. Pellet at each side of bust.
✠ CORȢOBΛPΛTR·CIΛ
(b). As (a), but both obv. and rev. have
The small missing sector of the coin containing the D (obv.) and O (rev.) also contained two of the three pellets to the right of the head on the reverse.
The plaster-cast from which the photograph in the
This specimen is stated to be from the Abusejo hoard, but Chindasvinth was not represented in the hoard. See p. 332, note 5. In all probability this is. a rubbing of the
2(a). Facing bust within beaded circle. Type 9 b.
✠
Facing bust within beaded circle. Type 10 b.
✠ C∘RD∘BΛPΛTR·CIΛ
(b). As (a), but pellet at either side of bust.
✠
As (a), but pellet at either side of bust.
✠ C∘Rb∘BΛPΛTR·CIΛ
(c). Obverse as (b).
✠
Reverse as (b).
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTR·CIΛ (cross at 1 o'clock)
(d). Obverse as (b).
✠ ϷICIIbSVIITIVSRX
Reverse as (b).
✠ C∘RϷ∘BΛPΛTR·CIΛ
Despite the errors in the obverse legend, betraying a misunderanding of the ligatures, I consider this piece to be genuine.
(e). Exact type ?
✠ INVNDSVINTIVS
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTR·CIΛ
(f). Probably similar to (a)–(e), exact legends uncertain.
*
There are discrepancies between the drawing in
Very inaccurate drawing, if indeed this is the coin in question.
Sic, in
323. Facing bust. Type 10 a.
✠ C:NϷΛSVNTVSR
Facing bust. Type 9 b.
✠ PI⋮VSELI⋮BER:
324(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ CNDΛSVIN⊖VS
As obverse.
✠ ISPΛLIPIVS
(b). ✠ CИ·SVIN⊖VS
Reverse as (a).
(c). ✠ CM·SVIN⊖TVS
Reverse as (a).
(d). ✠ CNSVINⲐVSR:
Reverse as (a), large space at end of legend.
(e). Bust variation.
Reverse as (a).
✠ CINDΛSVINTSPX
Plate XXIV, 13
(f). ✠ CINDΛSVINTSR
Reverse as (a).
(g). ✠ CINDΛSVINTVSR
Reverse as (a).
325(a). Facing bust. Uncertain type.
✠ DNCHNΛS·VN⊝SR
As obverse.
✠ ISPΛLIPIVS
(b). ✠ DNCNSVN⊖SRX
Reverse as (a).
The existence of this type must be considered very doubtful. The authorities are relatively poor, and the lack of a
The transcriptions in
326(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ CI
As obverse.
(b). As (a), but pellet at each side of obverse bust.
Plate XXIV, 14
327. Description incomplete; ISPΛLIPIVS.
328(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ CINDΛSVINTVSR
As obverse.
✠ VRBISPΛLIPIVS
(b). Obverse as (a).
✠ VRBISPΛL·PIVS
(c). Probably similar to (a)-(b), description incomplete.
The description is not accurate, but this is doubtless the piece acquired by
329. Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠ CI·DΛ//////VƧRX
Facing bust. Type 7.
✠ E
330(a). Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠ C
Facing bust. Type 7.
✠ EMERI|T|ΛPIVS
Plate XXTV, 15
Plate XXIV, 16
(b). Obverse as (a).
✠ EMERI|T|APIV
(c). ✠ C
Reverse as (a).
Plate XXV, 1
(d). ✠ C
Reverse as (a).
Plate XXV, 2
(e). ✠ C
Reverse as (a).
Plate XXV, 3
(f). ✠ C
✠ EMERI|T|ΛPIVS✶
Plate XXV, 4
(g). Probably similar to (a)–(f), exact lettering uncertain.
1.-16.
The ligature is often obscure and in some cases doubtless varies in form and completeness. In view of the difficulty of determinig its exact shape from plates that are frequently poor, and from faulty descriptions, I have had to list all under this form. ⊖ is sometimes Ⲑ or O.
S of PIVS more nearly ᔕ.
S of PIVS on side.
331.(a) Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠ CHINDΛSVINTSRE×
Facing bust. Type 7.
✠ EMERI|T|ΛVICTOR
Plate XXV, 5
(b). Probably similar to (a), but exact lettering uncertain.
1–2.
332. Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠ CH:NDΛSV:NTƧRI✶
Facing bust. Type 7.
✠ LΛME|C|OPIVƧ
Transcribed C
333(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e. Pellet at each side of head.
✠ C
As obverse.
✠ ΛTVRIEPIVS
This coin, of reddish metal, is not above suspicion.
(b).✠ C
Reverse as (a).
Plate XXV, 6
(c). Description lacking, except (allegedly) ΛSTVRICEPIVS
Quite possibly, (b)1 and 2, and (c)1 are the same coin.
334. Facing bust. Type 5 f.
✠ C
As obverse.
✠ ΛVRENSEPIVS.
335(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ CINDΛSVINTH
As obverse.
✠ BRΛCΛRΛPIV·
Plate XXV, 7
(b). ✠ C·NϷΛSVIN·V:R:
Reverse as (a).
Plate XXV, 8
(c). ✠ C.NDΛSVIN.V.R:
✠ BRΛCΛRΛ·PIV
336(a). Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠ C
Facing bust. Type 7.
✠ BRΛCΛ|R|ΛPIVS
(b). ✠ C
Reverse as (a).
(c). ✠ C
Reverse as (a), but pellet at either side of head.
✠ BRΛC|Λ|RΛPIVS
(d). ✠ CИSVINSVSRE
Reverse as (c).
Plate XXV, 9
(e). Obverse as (a), but pellet at either side of bust.
✠ C
✠ BRΛC|Λ|R·P.V·
Plate XXV, 10
337. Description lacking, except BRΛCΛRΛPIVS
338(a). Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠ CIИPΛᔕVIИT·R
Facing bust. Type 7.
✠ CΛLΛ|P|A+P
(b). ✠ CI
✠ CΛLΛPΛ|P|ΛXPIV
I. Inst.
The transcription must be considered doubtful.
Wrongly listed as a coin of
339. Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠ CINDΛSVINT:
Facing bust. Type 7.
✠ FR·ΛV|C|EL:O
340(a). Facing bust. Type 7, variation. Monogram:
✠ C
✠ LVCVPIVS✺
Plate XXV, 11
(b). As (a), but obverse legend ends with R·.
(c). ✠ C
Reverse as (a).
Plate XXV, 12
(d). ✠ CNSVINOV:R
Reverse as (a).
(e). Description lacking, except LVCVPIVS.
1.-2.
341. Facing bust. Type 5 q. Pellet at left of bust.
✠ CNDΛSVINTVSRE
Facing bust. Type 5 q.
✠ MAVEPIVƧ
The drawing in
12. Facing bust. Type 5 q.
✠ CI2
As obverse.
✠ PETRΛPIVS.·.
43. Facing bust. Type 12 b.
✠ CNDΛᔕVINTVSR:
As obverse.
✠ TORIVIΛNΛPIVᔕ
Plate XXV, 13
344(a). Facing bust. Type 5 v (obscure).
✠Cx
As obverse.
✠ TVDEIVSTVS
(b). ✠ C
✠ TVDEIVSTVS (cross at 1 o'clock)
Plate XXV, 14
Campaner says and VQR, but probably only the one specimen is known, i. e., VQR's was
Wrongly numbered L(orichs). 4641, and listed under
a.d. 649–653
345(a). Bust, right. Type 1 c.
✠ C
Monogram:
✠ R∈CC∈SVIN⊖VSR
(b). Obverse as (a).
Monogram:
✠ R∈CC∈SVIN⊖VS
Plate XXV, 15
346(a). Bust, right. Type 2 h.
✠ C
Monogram:
✠ R∈CC∈SVIN⊖VS
Plate XXV, 16
347. CNSVINDVSRE
Monogram.
RECCESVINDVSRE
348(a). Bust, left. Type 1 e.
✠ RECCE|S|I
Monogram:
✠ C
Plate XXV, 17
(b). ✠ RECCE|S·| I
✠ C
349. Bust, right. Type 1 f.
✠ RECCE|Ƨ·|I
Monogram:
✠ C
Plate XXV, 18
350(a). Bust, right. Type 1 f.
✠ RECCES|V|INOVS
Monogram:
✠
(b). Type and monogram not described.
RECCESVINDVSRE
CNSVINDVSRE
Uncertain Mint.
351. Bust, left. Type 2 dd.
C
Monogram:
RCCE:VIИOV
See also Nos. 380 and 490.
⊖ sometimes appears as O.
a.d. 649–672
353. (a) Bust, right. Type 2 e.
✠ RECCESVIN⊖VSREX
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ NΛRBONΛP·VS
Plate XXVI, 1
(b). Obv. as (a), bust variation.
✠ NΛRBoNΛPIΛS
353. Bust, right. Type 2 w.
✠ RECCESVINO:RE
Cross on 3 steps.* right and left.
✠ NΛRBONΛP:S
354. Bust in profile. Legend ?
Cross on steps. Legend ?
Published by Beira Alta
355. Bust, right. Obscure type.
✠ R∊CC∊SVIИ⊙·SRE
✠ ν∊RVИ⊙:ɖ|VS
356(a). Bust, right. Type 1 g.2
✠ RECCES|V|INO
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ TΛRRΛCOϷIV
Plate XXVI, 2
(b). ✠ RECCESVIN⊖R·
✠ TΛRRΛCOPIV·
(c). Obverse as (a).
✠ TΛRRΛCOϷIV✺
Plate XXVI, 3
(d). ✠ RECCESVINO·
✠ TΛRRΛCOPIV
(e). ✠ RECCESVINOR
✠ TΛRRΛCOPIV
This specimen was found in a field in the region of
The vertical lines of the bust are sometimes single, sometimes double.
Possibly a pellet after N in the king's name.
The coin is variously described, but doubtless of this type.
Obviously faulty description, probably of this type; from the Bordeaux hoard but not sent to
7(a). Bust, right. Type 2 cc.
✠ RECCE|SVINO
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ TΛRRΛCOϷIV·
Plate XXVI, 4
(b). Obverse as (a).
✠ TΛRRΛCOϷIV:
(c). ✠ RECCES|VINO:
✠ TΛRRΛCOϷIVS:
(d). ✠ RECCES|VIИOR·
Pellet each side of cross, beneath arm.
✠ TΛRRΛCOϷIV
Plate XXVI,5
(e). ✠ RECCE|SV|И⊖R
Reverse as (a), legend as (d).
(f). ✠ RECCE|SV|ИOR
Reverse as (d), legend as (a).
358(a). Bust, right. Type 2 d.
✠ RECCESVIN⊖:
Cross on 3 steps; pellet at each side, beneath arm.
✠ TΛRRΛCOϷIVS
(b). ✠ RECCESVINO:
✠ TΛRRΛC°ϷIV:
23 Visigoth
Hallazgos V, p. 71) lists two specimens supposedly with the legends RECCESVINDRX, and TΛRRΛCONIV and TΛRRΛCONVS, in the Museu Soares specimens recorded above (No. 357(c) and No. 358(a)).
The bust is very elongated.
359. Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ R∈CC∈SVIN⊖VSR∈
As obverse, bust variation.
✠ TOLETOPIVS
Plate XXVI, 6
360(a). Bust, right. Type 1 h.
✠ RECCES|V|IN⊖VS
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ TOLETOPIVS
(b). Obverse as (a).
Reverse as (a), but pellet beneath.
Plate XXVI, 11
(c). Obverse as (a).
Reverse as (a).
✠ ·TOLETOPIVS·
Plate XXVI, 12
(d). Obverse as (a).
Cross on 3 steps; vertical line joining lower 2 steps.1 Legend as (c).
Plate XXVI, 13
(e). Obverse as (a).
Reverse as (a), but star at either side of cross. Legend as (a).
(f). Obverse as (a).
Cross on 4 steps. Legend as (a).
Plate XXVI, 14
(g).✠ R∈CC∈S|V|IN⊖VS
Reverse as (a).
Plate XXVI, 15
(h). Details lacking.
⊖, Ⲑ, ⊙, or O. One of the dots of the inner band of the "shoulder" frequently stands free and appears as a pellet beneath the letter V.
Wrongly numbered L. 4644 and listed under
Many of the HSA specimens show traces of earth, suggesting that they come from a hoard; a likelihood supported by the large number of specimens (18) of one mint and ruler in the collection. There were two specimens in the
Errors in drawing and transcription.
"PIVS·TOLETO·HI." See the note immediately above.
Obverse and reverse flans appear different, but this may be the result of careless plaster-casting.
The drawing contains many inaccuracies, showing among other things a cross beneath two steps as well as the principal cross on the steps; but the specimen probably belongs to the type listed here.
Wrongly listed under
Same coin as no. 1 ?
The pellets in the reverse legend not noted in the text. 23*
361. Facing bust within beaded circle. Type 10 d.
✠ RECCESVI
Facing bust within beaded circle. Type 10 b.
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTR·CIΛ
Plate XXVI, 16
362(a). Facing bust within beaded circle. Type 10 e.
✠ RECCESVI
Cross on 3 steps within beaded circle.
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTR·CIΛ
Plate XXVI, 17
(b). Obverse as (a).
✠ CORϷOBΛPΛTR·CIΛ
Plate XXVII, 1
363. Facing bust. Type 10 f.
✠ RECCESVIN⊖VSR
Facing bust. Type 11 a.
✠ CORϷOBΛPΛTRCIΛ
364(a). Bust, right. Type 1 h.
✠ RECCEƧVIN⊖VƧ
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ CORPOBΛPΛTRC:Λ·
3
(b).
✠ RECCES|V|IN⊖VS
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either side.
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTRICIΛ
Plate XXVII, 2
(c). Obverse as (b).
Reverse as (b), but
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTRCIΛ
(d). Obverse as (b).
Reverse as (b), but
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTRICΛ
(e).✠ RECCES|V|IN⊖VSR
Reverse as (b).
(f). Obverse as (e).
Reverse as (b) but
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTR·CIΛ
Plate XXVII, 3
(g).✠ RECCEƧ|V|IN⊖VƧ
Reverse as (b).
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTRCIΛ
Plate XXVII, 4
(h). ✠ RECCESVIN⊖VS
Reverse as (b), but ȯ at right of cross, above.
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTRICIΛ
(i). Obverse as (a).
Cross on 3 steps.: at either side.
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTRICIΛ
Plate XXVII, 5
(j). Obverse as (e).
Reverse as (i).
(k). Uncertain type with CORDOBΛPΛTRICIΛ
(l). Uncertain type with CORDOBΛPΛTRCIΛ
My notes show the point between R and C on the reverse to be lacking.
Possible difference in lettering.
"Busto... con diadema," this type ?
Wrongly listed under
Transcribed from the Plate; the transcription in the text differs.
365. Bust, right. Type 1 h.
✠ RECCES|V|IN⊖VS
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ CORDOBΛPIVS
Plate XXVII, 6
366. Bust, right. Type 1 f.
✠ RECCE|S
✠ ISPΛLIPIVS
Plate XXVII, 7
This unique and remarkable piece was perhaps issued during
Obverse legend probably incorrectly rendered.
367(a). Bust, left. Type 1 e.
✠ RECCES|V|IN⊖VSR
Cross on 4 steps.
✠ ISPΛLIPIVS
Plate XXVII, 8
(b). ✠ RECCES|V|NOVSR
Reverse as (a).
368(a). Bust, right. Type 1 f.
✠ R·CCISV·NT·S·R·
Cross on 3 steps (?).
✠ ISPΛLIPIVS
(b).
✠ RCCIS|V|·NT.SR·
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ ISPΛLIPIVS✺
Plate XXVII, 9
(c). ✠ R·CCISV·NT·SR
Reverse as (b).
(d). ✠ R·CCIS|V|·
Reverse as (b).
(e). ✠ R·CCISV·N·SP
Reverse as (b).
369(a). Bust, right. Type 1 h.
✠ RECCES|V|INTVSR1
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ ISPΛLIPIVS
Plate XXVII, 10
Plate XXVII, 11
(b). ✠ ·RECCES|V|INTVSR·
✠ ·ISPΛLIPIVS·
(c). ✠ RECCESV|I|NOVS
Cross on 4 steps.
Legend as (a).
Plate XXVII, 12
(d). ✠ RECCES|V|INOVS
Reverse as (c).
(e). ✠ RECCES|V|IN⊖VS
Reverse as (a).
(f). Obverse as (a).
Reverse as (a), but pellet beneath.
Plate XXVII, 13
Plate XXVII, 14
(g). Obverse as (a).
Reverse as (a), but • • beneath.
Plate XXVII, 15
(h). Obverse legend uncertain.
Reverse as (a).
✠ ISPΛLI:O:VS
(i). ✠ RECCESVINTVS
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either side.
On some specimens a partially completed
Wrongly listed under
There were two specimens, in addition to HSA 16507 (No. 367(a), above), in the
Weight given as 1.55 in the latter reference.
370. Bust, right (?). Type uncertain.1
✠ RECCESVINTVSR
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either side.
✠ ISPΛLIPIVS
371. Specimens with inadequate, confusing or mistaken descriptions.
372(a). Bust, right. Type 1 h.
✠ RECCES|V|IN⊖VS
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ E
(b). Obverse as (a).
✠ E
Described as "left," but probably not with reference to the viewer. "Todo en medio de una corona al parecer de laurel." So also the reverse. Is this coin perhaps simply another specimen of No. 369(i) ?
Supposedly HISPΛLI; certainly H is not present.
Bust "right"; RECCESVINTHVSR; 4(?) steps.
373. Bust, right. Type 2 g.
✠ RECCES|V|INTVSREX
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ E
374(a). Bust, right. Type 1 i.
✠ RECCES|V|IN⊖VS
Cross on 4 steps.
✠ EMERITΛPIVS
Plate XXVIII, 1
Plate XXVIII, 2
(b). Obverse as (a).
Cross on 3 steps. Legend as (a).
Plate XXVIII, 3
375(a). Bust, right. Type 1 j.5
✠ RECCES|V|IN⊖VS
Cross on 4 steps.
✠ EMERITΛPIVS
Plate XXVIII, 4
(b). Obverse as (a).
Cross on 3 steps. Legend as (a).
Transcribed TH in place of ⊖, but probably the latter.
V's of unusual form.
There was one specimen of this type in the
Wrongly listed under
Some variation in the number of horizontal lines in the lower part of the bust.
376(a). Bust, right. Type 1 h.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ RECCES|V|IN⊖VS
✠ EMERITΛPIVS
Plate XXVIII, 5
Plate XXVIII, 6
Plate XXVIII, 7
Plate XXVIII, 8
(b). Obverse as (a).
Cross on 2(?) steps.
✠ ƧVIśΛTIЯƎMƎ
Wrongly listed under
Error in transcription.
Transcribed (by error ?) ... ⊖ NS
There was one specimen of this type in the
377. Specimens with inadequate descriptions.
378(a). Bust, right. Type 2 a. Bust interrupts legend.
Cross on 4 steps. The cross extends upward to the border and interrupts the legend
✠ RECCESVIN|⊖VS
✠ BRΛCΛRΛPIVS|
Plate XXVIII, 9
(b). Bust, right, similar to (a) except in treatment of shoulder. Bust does not interrupt legend.
Reverse as (a).
✠ RECCESVIN⊖VSR
Plate XXVIII, 10
(c). Uncertain bust. Legend as (a).
Cross on steps. Legend as (a).
Provenance unknown, but almost certainly the coin from Vienna, illustrated by
379. Bust, right. Type 1 h.
Cross on 3 steps, extending into margin. At right: ·.·
✠ RECCES|V|INOVSR
TVDE⋮ PI: VS
Plate XXVIII, 11
It is possible that the above references represent two different coins, but I suspect that in spite of certain discrepancies there is actually only one specimen. Campaner in 1866, as well as Hallazgos IV.
380. Bust, left. Type?
Monogram:
R: VINOV: R·: X:
RCCE: VIИOV
See also Nos. 351 and 490.
Morales has BRACCARAPIVS.
a.d. 672–680
381(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e or 5 u.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ VVΛMBΛREX
✠ TΛRRΛCOPIVS
(b). ✠ VVΛMIIΛREX2
Reverse as (a).
(c). ✠ I·D·N·N·M·VVΛMBΛ
Reverse as (a).
383(a). Bust, right. Type 2 n.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ I·D·N·N·N·VVΛMBΛ
✠ TΛRRΛCOPIV
Plate XXVIII, 12
(b). ✠ I·D·N·N·MVVΛMBΛ
✠ TΛRRΛCOPIVS
Despite the fact that the profile bust has already appeared under Reccesvinth, the facing bust is placed first because on (a) and (b) the IDN etc. formula, which later becomes the rule, is lacking. Type (c) appears to be a transitional piece.
R and E incomplete.
383. Description lacking.
Tarragona, no. 73) lists a specimen "cited by
384. Bust, right. Type 2 h.1
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ I·D·N·M·N·VVΛMBΛ
✠ TOLETOPIVS
Plate XXVIII, 13
Plate XXVIII, 14
385. Bust, right. Type 2 b, variation.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ I·D·N·M·N·VVΛHBΛ
✠ TOLETOPIVS
Plate XXVIII, 15
Considerable variation in the headdress and treatment of the shoulder.
M frequently appears as N or H. These minor variations are not noted below.
There was apparently one specimen in the
Inaccurate reproduction.
Transcription probably faulty.
386(a). Bust, right, with cruciform scepter in hand. Type 2ff.1
✠ I·D·N·M·N·VVΛMBΛ
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ TOLETOPIVS
Plate XXIX, 1
(b). Obverse as (a).
Reverse as (a), but pellet beneath.
Plate XXIX, 2
Plate XXIX, 3
24
(c). As (a) or (b).
The pellet above the scepter is sometimes omitted in drawn reproductions.
See footnote to No. 384 with regard to the form of M.
Very inaccurate drawing, if indeed this is the coin in question.
Transcription of obverse differs, but probably the usual legend. The plate cannot be read.
387. Inadequate descriptions.
388. Bust, right. Type 2 n.
✠ IND·IN·MVVAMBΛ
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTRICIΛ
389. Bust, right. Type 2 p.
✠ l·D·IN·MVVΛMBΛ
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet beneath.
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTRICIΛ
390(a). Bust, right. Type 2 p.
✠ IND·IN·MVVΛMΛ
Cross on 3 steps. •• beneath.
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTRICIΛ
Plate XXIX, 4
(b). Bust, right. Type 2 t, variant.
✠ I·IN·MVVΛNBΛ
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTRICIΛ
Bungled obverse legend.
391. Inadequate description.
392(a). Bust, right. Type 2 b.
✠ I·Δ·INṀ·VVΛMBΛ
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ * ISPΛLIPIVS
Plate XXIX, 5
(b). Obverse as (a).
✠ *ISPΛLIPIVS
Plate XXIX, 6
(c). ✠ ·I·Δ·M·INMVVΛMBΛ
Reverse as (b).
Plate XXIX, 7
(d). ✠ I·Δ·IN·MVVΛMBΛ
Reverse as (b).
(e). Obverse as (a).
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet beneath.
✠ ✶ISPΛLIPIVS1
Plate XXIX, 8
(f). Obverse as (a).
Reverse as (e), but
✠ ·✶ISPΛLIPIVS
(g). ✠ I·Δ·IṀMVVΛИBΛ
Reverse as (e), but
✠ ✶IᔕPΛLIPIVS
Plate XXIX, 9
(h). ✠ I·Δ·IMṀVVΛMBΛ
Reverse as (g).
Plate XXIX, 10
(i). Probably similar to (b), (c), or (d).
(j). Full details lacking.
See footnote to No. 384 with regard to the form of M.
· over M sometimes not noted.
393(a). Bust, right. Type 2 n.2
✠ IND·IN·M·EVVAMBΛ
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ EMERITΛPIVS✺
Plate XXIX, 11
(b). ✠ IND·IN·M·EVVΛMBΛR
Reverse as (a).
(c). Obverse as (a).
Reverse as (a), but
✠ EMERITΛPIVS
Plate XXIX, 12
(d). ✠ I
Reverse as (c).
(e). Obverse as (d).
Cross on 4 steps. Legend as (c).
Plate XXIX, 13
(f). ✠ I
Cross on 4 steps.
✠ EMERITPIVS
Plate XXIX, 14
(g). ✠ I
Reverse as (c).
(h). ✠ IPINM·EVVΛNBΛ
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ EMERITΛPIVS
(i). ✠ IPIN·MEVVΛNBΛ
Reverse as (h).
(j). ✠ I·D·IN·M·EVVΛMBΛ
Reverse as (c).
Plate XXX, 1
(k). ✠ I·D·IN·M·EVVΛ
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either side. Legend as (c).
(l). Full details lacking.
Number of points of star varies.
"Plata," probably base gold.
The bust varies considerably in barbarity.
The forms of N and M are frequently irregular. Also there is some variation in the points, either in fact or in the publishers' transcriptions.
There was one of this type in the
394(a). Bust, right. Type 2 p.
✠ I·Ϸ·IN·M·EVVΛ
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ EMERITΛPIVS
Plate XXX, 2
(b). ✠ I·Ϸ·IN·M·EVVΛMBΛ
Reverse as (a).
Plate XXX, 4
395. Inadequate or equivocal descriptions.
Described as "argent," probably base gold.
The form of the D varies.
There was one of this type in the
Morales has the bust holding a scepter, and I·D·N·N·VVΛNBΛREX.
a.d. 680–687
396(a). Bust, right, with cruciform scepter in hand. Type 2 ee.
✠ I·D·N·M·N·ERVI
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ NΛRBONΛPIVS
Plate XXX, 5
Plate XXX, 6
The first coin listed above (HSA 16572) poses a curious problem. There can be no doubt whatever that the coin illustrated by
specimen is "enteramente igual á [that in the Biblioteca Nacional, i.e., Madrid], pero con el nombre del monarca completo," which, in fact, properly describes the VQR piece. The second I is missing in type (a). I have therefore placed VQR no. 5174 below.
(b). ✠ I·D·N·M·N·ERVI
Reverse as (a).
(c). ✠ I·D·N·M·NERVI
Reverse as (a).
(d). ✠ ·IDN·N·NERVI
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet beneath and at each side.
✠ NΛRBONΛPIVS.
(e). Uncertain, probably similar to (a)–(d).
This is reported to be of "silver," and
See the discussion relating to (a) 1, above.
This specimen should be found either in the VQR collection or in the British Museum. But it lacks the second I of Ervig's name, and therefore is not the VQR specimen; and if the drawing is to be trusted it is not the coin which
Is this the same specimen as that described by Amardel ((a) 7, above)? If so, description and weight are inaccurate in one case or the other.
The transcriptions of the obverse legend in Belfort and Boudard do not agree, and there are minor differences between them and that given above.
Here is another embarrassment: this specimen does not appear in Madrid
397(a). Facing bust. Type 5 p.
✠ I·D·NNERVI
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ CESΛRΛ
Plate XXX, 7
(b). ✠ I·D·NN·ERVI
✠ CESΛRΛ
(c). ✠ I·D·NN·ERVI
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet beneath.
✠ CESΛRΛ
Plate XXX, 8
(d). I·D·N·NERVI
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either sid.
✠ CESΛRΛ
(e). Details lacking, except ✠ I·D·N·N·ERVI
398(a). Facing bust. Type 5 q.
✠ I·D·N·N·N·ERVI
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ TΛRRΛCоPIVS:
Plate XXX, 9
(b). Obverse as (a), but • at end of legend.
✠ TΛRRΛCOPIVS
(c). ✠ I·D·N·N·ERVI
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either side. Legend as (b).
(d). ✠ I·D·N·N·ERVI
Reverse as (a).
✠ TΛRRΛCOϷIVS:
The published transcriptions of this and the following specimens are inaccurate.
Wrongly listed under
Second N transcribed M.
399(a). Bust, right, bearded. Type 2 j.2
✠ I·D·N·M·N·ERVI
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ TOLETOPIVS
Plate XXX, 10
(b). ✠ I·D·N·M·ERVIIVS
Reverse as (a).
Plate XXX, 12
(c). ✠I·DN·HERVICIVS
Reverse as (a).
(d). ✠ I·D·N·HM:ERVICIVS
Reverse as (a).
(e). ✠ ·N·M·E·ERVIIVS
4
Reverse as (a).
(f). Obverse as (a).
Reverse as (a), but (·) beneath.
Plate XXX, 14
(g). Probably similar to (a)–(f), description inadequate or lacking.
Differently transcribed.
I adjudge the apparent pellet beneath the reverse to be a flaw.
This bust varies considerably in detail, particularly with respect to the shape of the shoulder, which is sometimes square, sometimes triangular, and to its ornamentation.
The
N and M frequently bungled, and points not always clear.
This and the above wrongly listed under
One evidently in the
Approximate: the reproduction is not very clear.
The exact lettering of the obverses of these
It is obvious that
Weight given as 1.60 in Madrid.
IND represented as a ligature.
Wrongly listed under
400(a). Bust, right. Type 2 r.
✠ I·D·IN·M·ERVI
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet beneath.
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTRICIΛ
Plate XXXI, 1
(b). ✠ I·D·IN·M·ERVIIVSR
Reverse as (a).
Plate XXXI, 2
(c). Obverse as (b).
////ORDOBΛPΛTRICΛ
(d). ✠ I·Ϸ·.·N·M·E·RVIIVS
Reverse as (a).
401. Facing bust. Type 5 o.
✠ I·Ϸ·IN·HERVI
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTRICIΛ
Published transcriptions not accurate.
Wrongly listed under
402 (a). Facing bust. Type 11 b.
✠ IϷ·IN·И·NERVI
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet beneath.
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTRICIΛ
(b). ✠ IDIN·NMERVI
Reverse as (a).
(c). ✠ ID·IN·M·ERVI
Reverse as (a), but • • beneath. Legend as (a).
403. Facing bust. Type 11 d.
✠ IDIN·MERVI
Cross on 3 steps. • • beneath.
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTRICIΛ
404. Types ? Legends apparently as in types A–D.
405. Bust, right. Type 2 r. Pellet at left.
✠ I·D·И·H·ERVI
Cross on 3 steps. ••• beneath
✠ ELIBERRIPIVS
Third letter from end transcribed V, but appears to be Λ.
Obviously inaccurate drawing; exact type indeterminate.
I have transcribed what appears to be legible in the plate, although this does not conform with
406. Facing bust. Type 11 h.
✠ ID·NMERVI
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either side.
✠ ELIVERIPIVS✶
Plate XXXI, 3
407. Bust, right. Type 2 b.1
✠ I·Δ·IИMERVI
Cross on 3 steps. : at either side.
✠ ✶ ISPΛLIPIVᔕ
Plate XXXI,4
408. Bust, right, with cruciform scepter in hand. Type 2 jj.
✠ I·Δ·INMERVI
Cross on 3 steps •• beneath, · at either side.
✠ ✶ISPΛLIPIΛS
409(a). Facing bust. Type 11 r.
✠ I·Δ·INMERVI·
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ ✶ ISPΛLIPIVS3
Plate XXXI, 5
(b). ✠ I·Δ·INMERVI
Reverse as (a).
(e). ✠ I·Δ·NMERVI
Reverse as (a).
(d). ✠ I·Δ·INM·ERVICIVS
Reverse as (a).
(e). ✠ I·Δ·INMERVI
Reverse as (a).
Utterly barbaric, hardly recognizable.
There was one of this type in the
Star sometimes 7-pointed.
There was one of this type in the
410(a). Facing bust. Type 11 n.1
✠ I·Δ·INMERVI
Cross on 3 steps. ••• beneath.
✠ ✶ISPΛLIPIVS
Plate XXXI, 8
(b). Similar to (a), but bust variation and no points beneath steps.
(e). Similar to (a), but full details lacking.
1.-2.
11. Inadequate description.
12(a). Bust, right, bearded. Type 2 q.
✠ I·D·IN·M·ERVI
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ TVCCI
(b). ✠ I·D·N·M·ERVI
Cross on 3 steps, pellet at either side.
✠ TVCCI
Plate XXXI, 9
The number of concentric folds composing the shoulder and breast of this bust varies.
It is quite possible that this coin is the one now in the HSA collection, No. 12(b).
413(a). Bust, right. Type 2 p.
✠ I·D·IN·M·NERVI
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ E
Plate XXXI, 10
(b). ✠ I·D·M·N·ERVI
Reverse as (a).
414. Facing bust. Type 11b.
✠ I·D·N·ERVI
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ ELBORΛPIVS
415(a). Facing bust. Type 11 b.2
✠ I·D·IN·M·N·ERVI
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ EMERITΛPIVS
(b). Obverse as (a).
Cross on 4 steps. Legend as (a).
25
(c). ✠ I·D·N·M·ERVICIVS
Reverse as (a).
(d). ✠ I·D·I·N·M·N·ERVICIVS
Reverse as (a).
(e). ✠ I·D·I·N·N·M·ERVICIVS
Reverse as (a).
(f). ✠ I·D·N·IN·ERVICIVS
Reverse as (a).
(g). ✠ I·D·N·N·ERVI
Reverse as (a).
Plate XXXI, 14
(h). ✠ I·D·IN·H·N·ERVI
Reverse as (a).
Plate XXXI, 15
(i). ✠ I·D·I·N·H·N·ERVIcIVS
Reverse as (a).
Not wholly legible in the plate, but thus transcribed in the text.
The Madrid plates are not sufficiently clear to enable one to verify the reading of the obverse legend. In the text the only transcription is IN·DI·NMEERVIGIVSREX, which in no case is present. Some of these specimens should perhaps be under (c).
Considerable variation in the form of the caricature. The ears (or cross) are sometimes represented by half circles, sometimes by simple wedges.
The weights as given in the Madrid catalogue and in Adquisiciones differ in every case. I have adopted those in the catalogue.
Points sometimes obscure or partly lacking; N and M never wholly clear and variously transcribed; I·D sometimes read
Wrongly numbered L. 4655.
There were two specimens in the
Legend bungled, possibly a contemporary forgery.
There is no "MC" in Madrid), in which case this piece would be one of those listed above.
I·D· is followed by a series of joined N's.
416(a). Bust, right, facing cross. Type 12 11
✠ I·D·N·H·H·ERVI
Symbol of sun ? Type 12 f.
✠ SΛLMΛNTIC////////I
(b). ✠ I·D·N·M·N·ERVI
✠ SΛLMΛNTICΛPIVS
Wrongly numbered L. 4657.
Allegedly with two E's in the obverse legend.
The types and legends of this coin, known only by the dubious drawings in loc.cit., points out that the drawing in
If the transcriptions are correct, one may assume this to be a genuine coin, not one of the common forgeries.
a.d. 687–702
17. Bust, right, with cruciform scepter in hand. Type 2 ff.
✠ I·D·N·M·N·E
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet beneath and at each side.
✠ NΛRBONΛPIV
18. Bust, right. Type 2 f.
✠ I·D·N·N·N·E
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ NΛRBONΛPIVS
19(a). Bust, right. Type 2 k.
✠ I·D·N·H·N·E
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ NΛRBONΛPIVS
Plate XXXII, 1
(b). Obverse as (a).
Cross on 3 steps.
25*
(c). Obverse as (a).
Reverse as (b).
✠ NΛRBONΛPIVS·
Plate XXXH, 4
(d). Obverse as (a), bust variant.
Reverse as (a) but pellet at either side.
(e). Probably similar to (a)-(d).
Heiss' drawing clearly shows that this specimen, now in the HSA collection, is the one sold by
420.(a). Facing bust. Type 5 p.
✠
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ BΛRCIHOИPIVS
Plate XXXH, 5
(b). ✠ ID N·N·H·E
✠ BΛRCIИOИPIVS
Described as "cuivre"; probably debased gold.
Possibly the same coin as no. 1. The drawing in Indicador do not agree. Also there are differences between this coin as described and illustrated and the HSA specimen, but I suspect they are identical, and although positive evidence is lacking it is more than likely that the HSA piece is the very coin first published by Indicador concern two different coins, which of course they do not.
Transcribed from the plates, but accuracynot guaranteed because the half-tones are not entirely clear. The transcription in the text of Hallazgos III does not conform.
421(a). Facing bust. Type 5 s.
✠ I·D·N·M·N·E
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ CESΛRΛ
Plate XXXII, 6
(b). Facing bust. Type 5 s, variant. Legend as (a).
✠ CESΛRΛ
(c). Facing bust. Type 5 s, variant.
✠ IDH·M·H·E
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet beneath and at each side.
✠ CESΛR·ΛcVSTΛPIS
Plate XXXII, 7
422. Bust, right. Type 2 f, variant.
✠ I·DN·M·N·E
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at left,* at right.
✠ CESΛRΛ
423. Inadequate descriptions.
424(a). Bust, right. Type 2 b.
✠
Cross on 3 steps.
✠
(b). ✠·
Rev. as (a).
Plate XXXII, 8
(c). ✠
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at left.
✠
(d). Bust, right. Crude variation of type 2 b.
Reverse as (a).
✠ ·
Plate XXXII, 9
(e). Probably similar to (a)–(d).
Not clear in Plate whether
M frequently appears as H.
425(a). Bust, right, holding cross. Type 2 gg.
✠ I·D·И·H·ИE
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ RODΛSIVSTVS
(b). Description lacking.
426(a). Facing bust. Type 5 p.
✠ I·D·N·N·E
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ TΛRRΛCOPIVS
(b). ✠ I·D·N·N·N·E
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at left, * at right. Legend as (a).
(c). Obverse as (b).
Cross on 3 steps. * at left, pellet at right. Legend as (a).
(d). Obverse as (b).
Cross on 3 steps.
Plate XXXII, 11
Legends given as IND·NMEGICΛRX and GERVNDΛPIVS, but one must question the accuracy of these transcriptions.
427(a). Bust, right. Type 1 h.
✠ I·Ϸ·N·N·E|
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ TΛRRΛCOIVST:
Plate XXXII, 12
(b). Obverse as (a).
✠ TΛRRΛCOIV·TS:
(c).✠ I·Δ·N·N·|E|
Reverse as (b).
428. Bust, right, with cruciform scepter in hand. Type 2 kk.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ I·Ϸ·N·N·E
✠ TΛRRΛCOI:ST·
Plate XXXII, 13
429(a). Bust, right. Type 2 z.
Cross on 3 steps. Possible symbol at right.
✠ I·D⊏·H·И⊏
✠ VΛL⊏ИTIΛP.VS
Plate XXXII, 14
(b). Obverse as (a), variant.
✠ I
Cross on 3 steps. * at either side.
✠ VΛLEИTIΛP.VS
I have accepted the transcription in VQR of the obverse legend, with which Campaner's does not agree.
A fragment with part of
430(a). Bust, right. Type 2 s.
✠ ·IDИ·M·N·E
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either side.
✠ ΛCCI
Plate XXXII, 15
(b). ✠ ID·II·II·HE
Reverse as (a).
431(a). Facing bust. Type 11 d, head only.
✠ IDNME
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either side.
✠ MENTEƧΛPIVƧ·
Plate XXXIII, 1
(b).✠ IP·N·M·E
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at left; : at right.
✠ MEИTESΛPIVS
(c). Bust variant (featureless, surmounted by cross).
✠ IPNME
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet beneath. Legend as (b).
Incorrectly described as facing busts, probably confused with the VQR specimen of Egica & Wittiza at Valentia.
Heiss' attribution, "Musée de Madrid
Madrid
432.
✠ IᗡNME
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at left.
✠ MENTESΛ·PIVS
Plate XXXIII, 2
433(a). Bust, right, bearded. Type 2 j, variation.
✠ INϷINMNE
Cross on 3 steps. ••• beneath.
✠ TOLETOPIVS
Plate XXXIII, 3
(b). Obverse as (a), but ends R·.
Reverse as (a).
(c). ✠ I·II·IϷ[ ?] INN·N·E
Reverse as (a).
(d). Pellet above
Reverse as (a).
✠ ID////////E
(e). Legend obscure, but ends
(f). Probably similar to (a) – (e).
The quality of the gold varies considerably.
There were four specimens of Egica-Toleto in the
The transcription of the obverse legend in the text appears to be greatly at variance with the legend as it appears in the plate.
As read from the Plate, which is not entirely clear. The text has simply "semejante a la anterior," which it is not.
The obverse legend is doubtless fully legible on the coin, but as I have had access to the Plate only in a photostatic reproduction I have been unable to make out all the letters. The figures (pl. 33, nos. 15–16) are wrongly captioned "Erwig."
434. Bust, right. Type 2 m.
✠ ·I·D·N·M·NE·
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ TOLETOPIVS
Plate XXXIII, 4
435. Bust, right. Type 2 c.
✠ IND·INME
Cross on 3 steps. • • beneath.
✠ TOLETOPIVS
Plate XXXIII, 5
436(a). Bust, right, with cruciform scepter in hand. Type 2 gg. 1
✠ IND·INM·E
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ TOLETOPIVS
Plate XXXIII, 6
(b). ✠ I
Cross on 3 steps. (·) beneath. Legend as (a).
(c). ✠ IND·//////////E
Reverse as (b).
(d). Obverse as (a), but pellet at top of scepter.
✠ IND·IN·
Reverse as (b).
(e). Obverse as (d).
✠ IND·INME
Cross on 3 steps.
(f). Bust as (a), but with leaves on staff of scepter. Type 2 hh.
✠ IND·IN
Reverse as (b).
Plate XXXIII, 7
(g). Bust as (f).
✠ ID·INM·E
Reverse as (b).
Plate XXXIII, 8
(h). Bust as (f).
✠ ID·✠NNE
Cross on 3 steps. • • • beneath. Legend as (a).
(i). Bust as (a).
✠ N✠PN·M·E
Reverse as (a).
Plate XXXIII, 9
(j). Full details lacking.
There are numerous variations in the style of this bust, particularly with respect to the shape and ornamentation of the shoulder and breast.
The transcription of the obverse legend in the text of the (·) beneath the steps. Whatever this symbol is, it is not evident in the plate. The metal is described as debased in the catalogue, and as "plata dorada" in Adquisiciones; so also Madrid
N and M throughout types D and E are frequently malformed; points often obscure or lacking or differently placed.
Possibly the same specimen as no. 2 ?
First part of obverse legend obscure.
Apparently N in place of the ME ligature. The specimen appears not to have been in the
Not wholly legible in the reproduction. The present transcription is a compromise between
Heiss' drawing shows (·) beneath the cross, but my notes show • • •; in all probability the specimen described by
437(a). Bust, right, with cruciform scepter in hand. Type 2 gg.
✠
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ TOLETOPIVS
(b). ✠·N✠PNOM·N·E
Reverse as (a), but pellet beneath.
Plate XXXIII, 10
(c). ✠ IN✠DINMECCΛ
Reverse as (a).
(cc). ✠И✠PIN/////E
Cross on 3 steps. (·) beneath. Legend as (a).
(d). As (a), but
✠ IN✠PINM·E
Reverse as (a).
Plate XXXIII, 11
(e). Obverse as (d).
✠ IN✠D·INN·ECICΛ VTR·
Reverse as (a).
(f). Obverse as (d).
✠ N✠PINM·E
Reverse as (a).
Plate XXXIII, 12
(g). Obverse as (d).
✠ N✠PIN///////
Reverse as (a).
Plate XXXIII, 13
(h). Obverse as (d).
Reverse as (a).
✠ IN✠PIN·M·E
Plate XXXIII, 14
(i). Obverse as (d).
✠ N✠PIN·M·E
Reverse as (a).
Plate XXXIV, 1
(j). Obverse as (d).
✠ N✠PINM·E
Reverse as (a).
(k). Obverse as (d).
✠ И✠PINME
Cross on 3 steps. • • beneath. Legend as (a).
Plate XXXIV, 2
(l). Similar to (d), details lacking.
(m). Similar to (a)–(l), details lacking or unreliable.
Apparently no point between N and M on obverse.
Not in Madrid
438. Facing bust. Type 11 k.
✠ IDNMИE
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ TOLETOPIVS
Plate XXXIV, 3
Minor differences in obverse legend, but probably as here.
Obverse transcription not accurate; apparently as given here.
Obverse legend misunderstood; probably as here. Apparently not in the
With (·) beneath reverse.
439(a). Bust, right, bearded; cross on helmet. Type 2 o.
✠ IND·IN·ME·E
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet beneath and at either side.
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTRICIΛ
Plate XXXIV, 4
(b). Obverse similar to (a), but unbearded and lacking cross on helmet. Type 2 p.
✠ IND:IN:M:EE
Reverse as (a), but : at either side.
440(a). Bust, right, bearded, holding cruciform scepter in hand. Type 2 ii.
✠ IND·E·N·ME·E
Cross on 3 steps. ∵ at either side.
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTRICIΛ
Plate XXXIV, 5
(b). ✠ IND·IN·MEE
Reverse as (a).
Plate XXXIV, 6
(c). ✠ IND·INMEE
Reverse as (a).
441(a). Facing bust. Type 11 e.
✠ I·D·N·N·E
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ ELIPERRIPIVS
(b). ✠ I·D·II·II·E
✠ ELIBERRIPIVS
(c). Probably similar to (a)-(b), description inadequate.
See the note under No. 262 (e). The illustration in
442(a). Bust, right. Type 2 b.
✠ I·Δ·INME
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ *ISPΛLIPIVS3
Plate XXXIV, 7
(b). Obverse as (a).
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet beneath and O at either side. Legend as (a).
Plate XXXTV, 8
(c). Obverse as (a).
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet beneath. S at left, Ƨ at right.
✠ *ISPΛLIPIΛS
(d). ✠ I·Δ·INNE
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ ISPΛLIPIVS
Although they may be present, the oblique bars of N and M are not visible n the plate.
Some differences in the placing and number of points.
The number of points in the star varies from 5 to 7.
C transposed.
Weight given as 1.3 in Adquisiciones.
I·Δ·IN·M·E, etc.
Wrongly numbered L. 4662.
Not IISPΛLI as published.
443. Bust, right, with cruciform scepter in hand. Type 2 jj (obscure).
✠I·Δ·INME
Cross on 3steps... beneath
✠ *ISPΛLIPIVS
444(a). Facing bust. Type 11 p.
✠I·Δ·INME
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ *ISPΛLIPIΛS (legeni begins at 6 o'clock)
Plate XXXIV, 9
(b). Obverse as (a).
Reverse as (a). Legend: *ISPΛLIPIVS
I was at first inclined to consider the HSA coin a forgery because of (a) its exceptional type, (b) the curious symbols on the reverse and the
per se impossible in the bust here; (b) the symbols are indeed strange and appear as if upside down, but if one reverses the position of the coin the symbols take on a more conventional appearance and the legend begins at the usual place (but this, of course, puts the cross and steps upside down, so an aberration remains); (c) apparent filing is present on many genuine specimens of this period.
This coin, broken into one largo and one small fragment, was inventoried in the HSA under separate numbers. The star anti IS ut the beginning of the reverse legend on the small fragment were sufficient to identity it as belonging to the larger piece.
First part of the legend very obscure.
445(a). Bust, right, with cruciform scepter in hand. Type 2 jj (obscure).
✠ I·D·N·MN·E
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either side, beneath arms.
✠ E
(b). Bust, right. Type 2 p.
✠ I
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ E
446. Bust, right, with cruciform scepter in hand. Type ?
✠ ENMNEICΛREX
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ PIVSELBORΛ
26 Visigoth
1.–2. Severim, pp. 162–3* = Lusitânia
The transcriptions cannot be considered reliable, but I see no inherent reason for suspecting the coins as
447. Bust, right. Type 2 n.
✠ I·D·H·M·N·E
Cross on 4 steps, middle two joined by vertical bars.
✠ EMERITΛPIVS
Plate XXXIV, 11
448(a). Bust, right. Type 2 p.
✠ I
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ EMERITΛPIVS
(b). ✠ I·D·M·И·H·E
Reverse as (a).
449(a). Bust, right. Type 2 i.
✠ I·D·N·M·N·E
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ EMERITΛPIVS
Plate XXXIV, 12
(b). Obverse as (a).
Reverse as (a), but pellet beneath steps.
Wrongly attributed to
Wrongly numbered L. 4663.
The Meynaerts-Campaner references may be to a different coin in view of the strange description of the reverse ("croix posée sur un X; dessous une barre"), but I suspect a misunderstanding. Perhaps the two upper steps are joined by a vertical bar, forming an "X".
450. Descriptions inadequate.
451. Facing bust. Type 11 j.
✠ IND·INM////N//////E
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ EMERITΛPIVS
452. Facing bust (or cross ?). Type 11 f.
✠ I·D·И·N·N·EƆICΛ
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ SΛLH·ΛTICΛ·IS·II·
Not in the
Two lower steps joined by a vertical bar.
453. Bust ("Cara que parece hidria antigua").
✠ I·DINM·EGICΛ
Cross on steps.
✠ BRΛCΛRΛPIVS
453(X). Bust, right, holding cruciform scepter. Type 2 gg.
✠ N·///P///HE
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either side.
✠ TVDEPIVᔕ
The legend is undoubtedly clear on the coin itself, but I cannot read it all in the half-tone plate.
Ca. a.d. 692–693
54. Bust, right, with cruciform scepter in hand. Type 2 gg. Pellet above scepter.
✠ D·
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either side and .... beneath.
✠ TOLETOPIVS
Plate XXXIV, 13
Translated into Spanish in La Andalucía Moderna, Sevilla, Dec. 18, 1898 (cf. loc. cit., p. 102, note 1; Mowat, loc. cit.
Ca. a.d. 698–702
455(a). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 a.
✠ ID·N·M·E
Monogram:
✠ VVITTIZΛ
Plate XXXV, 1
(b). ✠ ID·NM·E
✠ VVITTIZΛ
Plate XXXV, 2
(c). ✠ IDNME
✠ I·DNVVITTIZΛ
(d). ✠ IDN·M·E
✠ VVITTIZΛ
(e). ✠ IDNM·E
Reverse as (d).
Plate XXXV, 3
(f). ✠ IDN·M·E
Reverse as (d).
(g). ✠ ·IDN·H·E
Reverse as (d).
(h). ✠ IDNM·E·
Reverse as (d).
(i). As (d)–(h), exact lettering?
M frequently malformed in this and the following issues.
There was one specimen of this type in the
The transcriptions in
incomplete.
Incorrectly transcribed.
456(a). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 b.
✠ I·DN·N·ME
Monogram:
✠ VVITTIZΛ
(b). ✠ I·D·N·N·MECICΛ
✠ VVITTIZΛ
457(a). I·D·I:MN·EGICΛPE5
VVITTIZΛN:R
(b). Description lacking.
For coins of Elvora improperly attributed to Narbona, see p. 426.
Incorrectly transcribed.
My recording of the legends differs in some respects from
Amardel assigns another piece to VQR, which would be VQR no. 5207, but the latter is actually a coin of
Wrongly assigned to
Transcriptions probably not wholly reliable.
This is possibly the piece referred to by
458(a). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 c.
✠ D·N·M·HEGICΛ
Monogram:
✠ VVITTIZΛ
(b). ✠ ·IϷ·H·N·N·E
Monogram:
✠ VVITTIZΛ
(c). ✠ ·
Monogram as (b).4
✠ VVITTIZΛ
459. Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 c.
✠ VVITTIZΛ
Monogram:
✠
Because of the illegibility of the plate in Barcelona, I have had to rely largely on the transcriptions.
Monogram incorrectly represented on p. 150.
The legends of both obv. and rev. are not entirely clear in the plate, and these transcriptions may not be accurate.
Possibly Λ instead of R at right.
This specimen mistakenly attributed to
460(a). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 d.1
✠ I·D·N·H·E
Monogram:
✠ VVITTI
Plate XXXV, 4
(b). ✠ I·D·N·M·E
✠ VVITTIZΛ
(c). ✠ I·D·N·M·E
Reverse as (a).
(d). ✠ IPNME
✠ VVITTIZ·Λ·
(e). ✠ IDIIIIE
✠ VVITTI
Plate XXXV, 5
(f). ✠ I·D·N·M·E
Monogram as (a), but pellet in each quarter.
✠ VVITTIZΛ
(g). Similar to (a)-(f), but legends uncertain.
(h). ✠ IDNME
Monogram:
✠ VVITTIZ·Λ
Considerable variety in this exceedingly crude type.
N and M(H) here and below frequently imperfect.
The oblique stroke of the Z varies in direction.
By error assigned to "C. M." (Cabinet de
Legends scarcely legible in the plates. I have adopted
The transcription in Madrid
461(a). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 c.
✠ ·
Monogram:
✠ VVITTIZΛ
Plate XXXV, 6
(b). ✠
✠ VVITTIZΛ
(c). ✠
✠ VVITTIZΛ
(d). Obverse as (c).
✠ VVITTIZΛ
Plate XXXV, 7
(e). ✠
✠ VVITTIZΛ
(f). ✠·
✠ VVITTIZΛ
(g). ✠
Reverse as (e).
(h). As (a), but * beneath each bust.
✠
Monogram faulty ?
Reverse as (d).
(i). ✠·
✠ VVITTIZΛ
My transcriptions from the VQR coin, differing from previous versions.
Incorrectly attributed to
2(a). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 g.
✠
Monogram as Type A.
✠ VVITTIZΛ
Plate XXXV. 8
(b). ✠
✠ VVITTIZΛ
63(a). Facing bust. Type 11b.
✠ ·
Monogram as Type A.
✠ VVITTIZΛ
Plate XXXV, 9
(b). Obverse as (a); legend?
✠ VVITTIZΛ
464. Description, or full details, lacking.
Mint wrongly identified as Lerida.
Legends transcribed: ·ND·N·N·M·E
Full description lacking, but compared to
465(a). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 c.
✠ I
Monogram:
✠ VVITTI
(b). ✠ /////////·И·H·E
Reverse as (a).
(c). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 a.1
✠
Reverse as (a).
✠ VVITTI
(d). Probably similar to (a)–(c). Description lacking.
466. Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 f, variation.
✠ IDEIИHNE
Monogram: apparently
✠ VVITTI
Plate XXXV, 10
The identification of the mint-monogram has been disputed. The reproduction above is drawn from the coin itself, and while the L is a little doubtful, the other three letters are clear, and I believe there can be little doubt that "Valentia" is intended. The versions of the monogram in VQR and Engel do not conform with what I see on the
coin, and Flavia Navia of
Apparently without cross-hatching in the rectangular lower bust.
The above transcriptions are only partly based on the plate, which is scarcely legible; for part of both legends, the published transcriptions are adopted, I have guessed at the form of the initial ligature on the obverse.
467(a). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 l.
I·N·M·N·M·EGICΛ/R
Monogram:
✠ [INMNE]⋮ VVTTZΛ+ ·
(b). As (a), but
✠IIIDIIIIIIIIE
Monogram:
✠ IИDIИEVVlTT
Plate XXXV, 11
(c). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 h.
✠ IPINME
Monogram:
✠ VVITTIZΛPXRE'ᔕ
(d). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 d, variation.
✠ IϷINME
Monogram:
✠ VVITTIZΛREXREϚ·S
(e). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 k, variation.
✠ IPIИMEI
Monogram:
✠ VVITTI
Plate XXXV, 12
(f). As (a)–(e), exact type unknown.
✠ IDINME
Monogram : probably as (d).
✠ VVITTIZΛRE+REϚ·S
(g). Obverse type 13 j. Legend?
Monogram as (a), but letter at left inverted. Legend as (f)?
The legends are given as transcribed by Mateu; they are not legible in the plate. The earlier transcriptions do not conform in several respects, but doubtless both
468(a). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 f.1
✠ INDNMNE
Monogram:
✠ VVITTI
Plate XXXV, 13
(b). ✠ INDINM·NE
Reverse as (a).
(c). Obverse as (a).
✠ VVITTI
(d). ✠ INDINNE
✠ VVITTIZΛ
Plate XXXV, 14
(dd). As (a)-(d), legends uncertain.
(e). ✠ INDINME
Monogram:
✠ VVITTIΛZ
(f). Obverse as (a), but
Reverse as (e).
Legend: ✠ VVITTI
(g). ✠ INDINME
Monogram:
✠ VVITTI
(gg). Apparently as (g), but reverse legend as (a).
(h). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 k.* beneath each figure.
✠ INDINNE
Monogram:
✠ VVITTI
(i). Obverse as (h), but without stars.
✠ INDIMIEGIΛ
Reverse as (h), but with
✠ VVITTIZΛ
(j). Obverse as (i).
✠ INDINNE
Monogram: evidently
✠ VVITIZΛ
Plate XXXVI, 1
(k). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 k, variation.
✠ INDNM
Monogram:
✠ VVITTI
The heads are sometimes bald, sometimes provided with hair. In common the busts have three parallel "legs" at the bottom.
Thus apparently in the plate; the transcriptions differ in the text.
N and M frequently imperfect.
The legends are not entirely clear in the plate, and there are no transcriptions.
Point after M?
Weight given as 1.3 in Adquisiciones.
Wrongly assigned to
Weight given as 1.4 in Adquisiciones.
Evidently; Plate not wholly legible.
Weight given as 1.5 in Adquisiciones.
469. Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 f, variation.
✠ INDINNE
Monogram surrounded by beaded circle:
✠ VVITI
470. Busts not illustrated, legends inadequately or inaccurately described, with the following monograms:3
471(a). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 f. ••• beneath.
✠ IDINMNE
Monogram:
✠ IDINMEVVITTI
(b). ✠ INDINMNEE
Monogram:
✠ IDINMEVVITTI
(c). ✠ INDINMNEE
Monogram as (b). ✠ IDINMEVVITTI
(d). Obverse similar to (a), but ·
✠ INDINMEE
Monogram:
✠ INDINMEVVITTI
Plate XXXVI, 2
(e). Similar to above, but full details lacking.
Florez describes the coin as silver; probably, like most of the period, very base gold.
These renditions must be accepted with reserve. Among other considerations, it is possible that some of the monograms have been read with the coin held in a position so that the reverse begins at 3, 6 or 9 o'clock instead of the usual 12 o'clock.
IN·DINMEICΛR and VVITTIZΛD + REC+.
472. Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 f. • above each bust. Surrounded by beaded circle.
✠ INDINMNEE
Cross, within circular legend: ✠ CORDOBΛP All surrounded by beaded circle.
✠ INDINMEVVITTI
Plate XXXVI, 3
Differences in engraving.
Described as "silver."
473(a). Scepter between facing busts. Type 13 n.
✠ INDINMNE
Monogram:
✠ IDINMNEVVITTI
Plate XXXVI, 4
(b). Entirely as (a), but obv. legend: ✠ INDINMNEE
474(a). Scepter between facing busts. Type 13 n. Pellet beneath each bust. Surrounded by beaded circle.
✠ INDINMNEE
Monogram:
✠ DINMNEVVITTI
(b). Obverse as (a). Legend:
✠ INDINMNEE
Reverse as (a), but legend begins at 6 o'clock:
IDINMNEVVITTIZΛ
475. Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 f. Surrounded by beaded circle.
✠ INDINHNE
✠ INDINMEVVITTI
Madrid
Same specimen as no. 4?
476. Obverse type not described.
IN·D·MNEEGICΛRX
Monogram: (to judge by description)
ID·NNEVVITTIZΛRX
477(a). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 f.
✠ I·D·N·NE
Monogram:
Pellet in each quarter.
✠ INNPNNEVVITTIZΛR
(b). Obverse as (a).
Legend: ✠ I·D·INM·E
Monogram:
Pellet in upper right and upper left quarters.
✠ INNDINMEVVITTIZΛR
478(a). Confronting busts of type 13 f, no scepter.
IPHHE
Monogram:
IINMVVITI
(b). Obverse as (a).
Reverse as (a).
IPИИVVITI
(c). Legend?
Monogram as (a), but pellet left and right, above. Legend as (b)?
Mint mistakenly identified as Tarrasa (= Egara).
The transcriptions in both Madrid
479. Type?
✠ INDINETHEGICΛP
Uncertain monogram.
✠ VVITIZΛPIRECIS
480(a). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 f.
✠ I·Δ·INME
Monogram:
✠ INHPINNEVVITTIZΛ
(b). As (a), but reverse legend: ✠ INIDINMEVVITTIZΛR
(c). Obverse as (a).
Monogram:
INNPINMEVVITTIZΛ
Plate XXXVI, 5
(d). Obverse as (a).
Monogram:
INIPINNEVVITTIZΛ
Plate XXXVI, 6
(e). Obverse as (a).
Monogram as (d).
INPINNEVVITTIZΛ
Plate XXXVI, 7
(f). ✠ INPINME
Monogram:
✠ INPIIIIIEVVITTIZΛ
(g). Obverse as (a).
Monogram as (a). Above: ∴
INIPIMNEVVITI
(h). Obverse as (a).
Monogram apparently
Legend as (e).
(i). As (g), but reverse legend: INPINNEVVITI
(j). As (g), but reverse legend: ✠ INDINMEVVITTI
(k). Obverse as (a).
Monogram as (a). Above: ∴ Beneath:*
Legend as (i).
(l). As (k), but reverse legend: INPINMEVVITTI
(m). ✠ I·Δ·INHE
Reverse as (k).
✠ INPINHEVVITTI
Plate XXXVI, 8
(n). Obverse as (a).
Monogram as (a). Four pellets, one in each quarter. Legend as (l).
Plate XXXVI, 9
(o). ✠ INPINNE: CICΛ
Reverse as (n).
✠ INPINNEVITI
Plate XXXVI, 10
(p). Obverse as (a).
Monogram as (a), o in lower left and lower right quarters. Legend as (l).
Plate XXXVI, 11
(q). Obverse as (a).
Monogram as (a), o in upper left and upper right quarters.
INPIMNEVVITTI
(r). Obverse as (a).
Monogram as (a).
Plate XXXVI, 12
(s). Obverse as (a).
Monogram as (a), but * right and left, above.
INPINHEVVITIZΛ
In the reverse legends N and M(H) are sometimes malformed throughout this series.
Legends not given, but compared to a, which is erroneously assigned to Ispali but is actually
According to
In Adquisiciones the weight is given as 1.2.
Weight given as 1.45 in Adquisiciones.
Legends not given. To judge by Hallazgos IV, this coin is no longer in the Academia collection.
Not in the
Described as "silver."
Type B
481(a). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 f.
✠ I·Δ·INNE
Monogram within beaded circle:
INPINHEVVITTI
(b). ✠ I·Δ·INNE
INPINHEVVITTI
(c). ✠ I·Δ·INHE
INPINMEVVITTI
Plate XXXVI, 13
Uncertain Type
482. Inadequate description.
Monogram:
483(a). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 e.
✠ IDINMNEE
Monogram:
Pellet in lower left and lower right quarters.
✠ IDINMEVVITTI
Plate XXXVI, 14
(b). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 f.
✠ IDINMИEE
Monogram as (a).
✠ IDINMEVVITTI
Plate XXXVII, 1
(c). As (b), but legends:
✠ INDINMNE
✠ IDINM∃VVITTIZΛ
(d). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 f, variant. Legend as (c) ?
Monogram as (a) but ✺ in upper right quarter.
✠ IDИHVVITTI
Weight given as 1.55 in Adquisiciones.
484(a). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 f.
✠ IDINME
Monogram:
✠ VVITTI
(b). ✠ INDNNE
Monogram:
✠ VVITTIZΛRX
(c). ✠ INDN·NE
Reverse as (b).
(d). ✠ INDNME
Monogram as (b).
✠ VVITTIZΛRE+
(e). ✠ INDNME
Monogram as (b).
✠ VVITTIZΛR
(f). ✠ IND·N·ME
Monogram as (b). Ornament resembling arrow (?) in upper left and upper right quarters.
+ I·
(g). Similar to (a), legends uncertain.
Are nos. 1 and 2 perhaps the same coin ?
485(a). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 f.
✠ INDM·N·E
Monogram :
+ VVITTI
Plate XXXVII, 2
(b). ✠ INDINMNE
Monogram:
✠ VVITTIZΛ
(c). ✠ INDINME
Monogram:
✠ VVITTIZΛNDE
(d). ✠ INDINMEE
Monogram:
✠ VVITTIZΛ
(e). Legends transcribed as (d).
Monogram:
(f). Obverse type?
✠ INDINMNE
Monogram:
✠ VVITTIZΛNDE
(g). Legends incomplete.
Monogram:
(h). Legends unknown.
Monogram:
(i). INDI·NME·EGICΛRX
Monogram contains letters ELBOΛ
VVITTIZΛREXREGIS
(j). As above, legend and monogram uncertain.
The horizontal strokes of the second E are obscure but appear to be present.
Neither obverse nor reverse legend is entirely clear in the plates. Carles-Tolrá attributed the coin to "Beatia."
Legends and monogram reproduced as transcribed in Madrid
486(a). Scepter between confronting busts. Types 13 l, j, m and variations.
✠ INDN·M·E
Monogram:
✠ I
Plate XXXVII, 3
(b). Obverse as (a).
Monogram as (a).
✠ I
(e). Obverse as (a).
Monogram as (a).
✠ I
Plate XXXVII, 4
(d). Obverse as (a).
Monogram as (a).
✠ ID·N
(e). Obverse as (a).
Monogram as (a).
✠ ID·NI·EVVITTIZΛ
(f). Obverse as (a).
Monogram as (a).
✠ IN·NNEVVITTIZ
(g). ✠ IND·N·ME
Monogram as (a).
✠ VVITTI
Plate XXXVII. 5
(gg). As (g), but reverse legend ends REX.
(h). ✠ IND·N·NE
Monogram as (a).
✠ I
(i). Similar to (a)–(h), but exact legends doubtful, illegible, inaccurately transcribed or unknown.
(j). ✠ IN·D·NM·E
Monogram as (a).
✠ VVITTI
(k). Obverse as (a).
Reverse as (j), but legend:
✠ VVITTI
(l). Obverse as (g).
Reverse as (j), but legend:
✠ VVITTI
(m). Obverse as (a).
Monogram as (a).
✠ I
Plate XXXVII, 6
(n). Obverse as (a).
Monogram as (a). * in upper left quarter;
✠ I
Plate XXXVII, 7
In the latter publication Madrid
Adquisidones, pl. III, 10, are probably the two pieces supposedly of Madrid
N and M sometimes confused in fact or in transcription in these and other specimens described below.
Obscure in the plate.
This mint was originally identified as "Britonia."
Or
Reinhart, p. 100.
The transcriptions of the legends of these and other Madrid
Assigned to VQR, but not in the VQR catalogue.
487(a). Type ?
✠ IN·N·MIV·ECICΛPX
Monogram:
✠ I·DM·NE·ΛΛ·TT
(b). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 i.
////// IDIИMIИE
Monogram:
✠ VVITT////////RE
Plate XXXVII, 8
I owe to Pio
488. Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 f, variant.
✠ IPINME
Monogram :
✠ VVITTIZΛREX
The legends are obviously inaccurately described, and I have assumed the lettering to be as here because of the presence of "star and palm," although to be sure the legends might vary while the reverse type remains the same. It is quite possible that nos. 2 and 3 are the identical specimen.
I have little doubt that
489. Scepter between confronting busts ? Legend ends E
Monogram : Legend uncertain.
489(X). Facing busts. Legend illegible in plate
Monogram. Legend illegible in plate.
I. Inst.
490. Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 f.
✠ INDNMNE
Monogram:
✠ VVITTIZΛDIRE
See also Nos. 351 and 380.
In v, 195v and 197v) mentions coins of Egica & Wittiza, without indication of mint ("a sort of cross," i. e. monograms).
Ca. a.d. 698–710
491(a). Bust, right. Type 2 v.1
✠ I·DN·
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ NΛRBONΛPIVS
(b). As (a) but RX.
(c). ✠ I·D·N·M
✠ NΛRBONΛPIVƧ
Plate XXXVII, 9
(d). Probably similar to (a)-(c), description inadequate or details lacking.
492(a). Facing bust. Type 5 p.
✠ IDN·NVVITTIZΛ∵
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ CESΛ·RΛ:VSTΛ
(b). ✠ ·D· ИИVVITTI
✠ CES:RΛ
(c). ✠ PИ·MVVITTIZ:·2
✠ CESΛ·R·Λ·
(d). ✠ DИMVVITTIZΛ∵
As (a), but pellet beneath.
✠ CESΛRΛ
(e). Type?
✠ ·DN·M·VVITTIZΛR·
Cross on 3 steps?
✠ CESRΛΛGV·TΛ
(f). Similar to (a)–(d), legends illegible in plate. 1.–2. Inst.
Sometimes only 3 "legs".
Transcription of the obverse legend does not exactly conform, but this is probably because of typographical limitations and the convention of introducing periods indicating abbreviations in transcribing legends.
493(a). Facing bust. Type 11 q.
✠ I
Cross on 3 steps.•••• beneath.
✠ CESΛRΛ
Plate XXXVII, 10
(b). Type ?
✠ INDINIEVVITTIZΛ
Cross on 3 steps ?
✠ CESΛRΛCVSTΛPIVS
494(a). Facing bust. Type 11c.
✠ ·
Cross on 3 steps.
✠
(b). ✠ ·
✠
(c). ✠ ·
✠
Plate XXXVII, 11
(d). ✠ ND·VVITTIZΛ
✠ SERVNӨΛPVS8
(e). Obverse as (d).
✠ SERVӨΛPIVS
(f). Probably as (a)–(e), descriptions inadequate.
The obverse legend is not transcribed, but it appears to read thus in this Somewhat obscure plate.
Probably this type; the illustration is obscure.
Both legends have been read from the plate.
The identity is certain, despite the engraving which shows barred Λ's and other differences. There is only one specimen of Madrid, p. 24) that García's coin of Wittiza was acquired by the national museum. Madrid
Two entries for the same coin.
Very inaccurate drawing, if this is the same coin.
Or O in place of Φ.
VQR no. 5212 described as a variant of
Transcription admittedly faulty. Found in Pauls, near Cherta, Ebro, in 1861; cited by Blanch Ylla as property of Hernández of Tarragona.
Probably
Probably
495(a). Facing bust. Type 5 p.
✠ IPИDVVITTIZΛ
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ TΛRRΛCOPIVS
(b). ✠
✠ TΛRRΛCOPIV··
(c). Facing bust. Type 5 s.
✠ IDN·N·M·VVITTIZΛ
✠ TΛRRΛCOPIVS
(d). Type?
✠ INNHVVITTIZΛ·
Cross on 3 steps?
✠ TΛRRΛCOPIVS
496(a). Bust, right. Type?
✠ VVITTIZΛRX
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ MENTESΛPIV
(b). Bust, right. Indeterminate type, somewhat resembling 2 k.
✠ VVITTI
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either side.
✠ MENTESΛPIVS
Two entries for the same specimen.
Both authorities assign the coin to VQR, but it does not appear in the catalogue nor is it in the collection now.
496(X). Facing bust. Type 11 b, distinctive variation.
✠ VVITTIZΛ
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either side.
✠ MEИTESΛPIVS
496(Y). Facing bust of uncertain type. Legend?
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either side.
✠ MENTESΛPIVS
497. Bust, right. Type 2 g.
//////////D·H·И·VVITTI
Cross on 3 steps. (at left,) at right.
///////COPVL·PIVS1
Plate XXXVII, 12
498. Bust, right. Indeterminate type resembling 2 j, but not bearded(?).
✠ INDNNEVVITZ
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ TOLETOPIVS
A sector of the coin is missing. The transcriptions are mine, from the coin itself, and differ somewhat from those in VQR.
Reinhart, p. 100, queries this issue.
My reason for placing this type first, in spite of the fact that Egica's issues end with a facing type, is that the familiar cross-on-steps appears here and it would be unlikely that the mint would have returned to this after introducing the cross within a wreath.
There is no documentary evidence that VQR acquired the coin described by
499(a). Facing bust. Type 11 m.
✠ I
Cross within ornamental vinelike border.
✠ TOLETOPIVS
Plate XXXVIII, 1
Plate XXXVIII, 2
(b). ✠ I
Reverse as (a).
(c). Same type as (a)?
✠ I
Reverse as (a)?
Type C
500(a). Facing bust, with long, curly hair. Type 11 o.
✠ I
Cross within ornamental, vinelike border.
(b). ✠ I
✠ TOLETOPIVS·
Plate XXXVIII, 3
(c). Bust as (a), variant.
✠ I
Reverse as (a).
(d). As (c), but ✠ TOLETOPIVS *
In Dr.
The drawing is probably not wholly accurate; the bust differs in some respects from that of the HSA specimen. No point is indicated before
501(a). Facing bust. Type 11 1.
✠ INDI
Cross. ✺ above, beneath, and at each side.
✠ TOLETOPIVS
(b).✠ I
✠ TOLETOPIVS
Plate XXXVIII, 4
(c). ✠ IHDI
Reserve as (b).
Although one cannot say with absolute certainty because of inequalities in plaster-casting, it would appear that the illustration in
501 (X). Facing bust. Type 11 r.
/////EVVITTIZΛ
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ TOLETOPIVS
I. Inst,
502. Description lacking.
Since the above lines were written, two other specimens, (a) 2 and (c) have appeared. Note again the heavy weight of (c). In my present opinion all four specimens are genuine.
503(a). Bust, right. Type 2 u.
IDINMNEVVITTIZΛ
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTRICIΛ
Plate XXXVIII, 5
Plate XXXVIII, 6
(b). IDINMEVVITTIZΛ
Reverse as (a).
504. Bust, right. Type 2 bb.
IDINMNEVVITTI
Cross on 3 steps. • • • beneath.
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTRICIΛ
505. Facing bust. Type 11 b, variation.
////// NIIMEVVITTIZΛ
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTRICIΛ
506. Description lacking.
Wrongly listed as
Wrongly transcribed with ✠ at the beginning of the obverse legend.
Described as "silver."
Z in place of
507(a). Bust, right. Type 2 aa.
✠ I·P·NHEVVITTIZΛ
1. HSA 16661 (↑ 21,1.01, chipped, virtually silver).
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either side.
✠ I·SPΛLIPIVS✺
Plate XXXVIII, 8
(b). ✠ IDNNEVVITTIZΛP(or
1. Cabinet des Médailles =
✠ ISPΛLIPIVS✺
(c). IþNHEVVITTIZΛ
1. Cabinet des Médailles = a (1.15).
✠ * ISPΛLIPIVS
(d). ////IDNNEVVITTIZΛP (legend begins at 9 o'clock)
1. Acad. de la Hist. (
Hallazgos IV, pl. III, 9*).
Reverse as (b).
(e). ✠ DHHEVVIT///////
(restruck ✠ I·SPΛLI//////)
1. VQR no. 5214*.1
✠ I·SP·////////
(restruck I·NHEVVIT/////), followed by punched( ?)*.
507(X). Facing bust of indeterminate type. Legend ?
1. Inst. de
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either side.
✠ ISPΛLIPIVS✺
508(a). Bust, right. Type 21.
✠·NNEVVITTIZΛ
1.
Madrid, no. 296* =
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either side.
✠ EMERITΛPIVS
(b). ✠ I
1.
Madrid, no. 295* (
Reverse as (a).
(c). ✠ NDINEVVITTIZ
1.
Madrid, no. 297* (
Reverse as (a).
(d). ✠ I
Cross on 3 steps.
(e). As (a)–(d), but ornaments on reverse not described.
The above transcriptions, taken from the coin itself (and differing from those in the VQR catalogue) are doubtful, the specimen being very obscure and difficult to read.
509. Facing bust. Type ?
✠ INDNNEVVITTIZΛ
1.
Lusitânia
, no. 92 (Coll.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ EMERITΛPIVS
509(X). Facing bust. Type 11 o.
✠ ////VVITTIZΛ
1. Inst. de
Lusitânia, after no. 94 (
Equilateral cross. Star in each quarter.
✠ EMERITΛPIVS
Transcribed from the plate;
It is not noted in
Madrid
that this specimen is from the
End of legend not clear in the plate.
Some differences in the transcriptions; also the weight, given as 0.88 in
Transcribed with one T only.
510(a). Bust, right. Type 21.
✠ I
1.
✠ EMERITΛPIVSII
(b). ✠ ////VVITTIZ
1. Inst. de
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either side.
✠ EMERITΛPIVS
511. Bust, right. Type 2 x.
✠ I•
1. VQR no. 5221 = Plate XXXVIII, 9
Cross on 4 steps, upper three connected by vertical bar.
✠ TOLET(·)PIVS
512(a). Facing bust. Type 11 i.
✠ I
1.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ E
Plate XXXVIII, 10
(b). As (a), but pellet at either side of cross on reverse.
(c). As (a)-(b), details lacking.1
1. r =
Egitânia
, p. 8.
2.
3.-4.
Hallazgos V, p. 71 (
5.
Lusitânia, no. 140 (
6.-7.
Lusitânia, no. 144 (
Very faulty drawing.
Usually
Ligatures not indicated in transcription.
"
513(a). Bust, right. Type 2 y.2
✠ I:ɖ•
1. Roi Inconnu, no. 3 (
Roi Achila, no. 3* =
Cross on 3 steps. : at either side.
✠ИΛRB°NΛPIVƧ·.
(b). ✠ I:ɖ•
1.
Nouveau Triens
, p. 140 =
✠ИΛRBONΛPIVS:
Plate XXXVIII, 11
(c). ✠I⋮C
1. Musée de Narbonne, no. 53 =
Roi Inconnu
, no. 2 =
✠ NΛRBONΛPIVƧ
Plate XXXVIII, 21
(d). ✠I•ᗡIEΛCNILΛ
Cross on 3 steps. : at either side. Pellet beneath.
✠ИΛRBOИΛPIVS
(e). ΛCNIL
1.
Roi Inconnu, p. 23 =
Beneath steps a crista
✠ИΛ
This specimen appears to be an overstrike on an earlier coin, the emblem in the lower right being explained as a part of the head of Victory.
I have done my best to untangle the very complicated and almost hopeless bibliography of the specimens described below, but I am not confident that I have succeeded in straightening out all the references. The only way in which the actual number of specimens and their proper transcriptions could be accurately determined would be to start at the beginning again with the coins themselves. Some of the confusion was dealt with by
Nouveau Triens
, p. 143.
Or I⋮ ᗡ ( ?).
This extremely crude type varies considerably in detail. In place of hair there are sometimes several dots, or two "horns." In view of the obscurity of the type and the doubtful character of many of the reproductions, only one variety (
Wrongly assigned to Société Archéologique de
The transcriptions are from the coin which
Transcription differs.
Wrongly assigned to VQR.
Wrongly assigned to VQR and equated with
There are several differences in the various transcriptions; I have transcribed from the plate in
Wrongly assigned to VQR. The illustration is from
Nouveau Triens, p. 143, and
514. Facing bust. Type 11 g.
✠ NDINEΛCHILΛ
1. RN 1916, p. 128, fig. 1* (
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ NΛRBONΛPIVS
515. Description lacking, except GERVNDΛPIVS
1.
Hallazgos V, no. 307.2
516. Facing bust. Type 11 s.
✠
1. VQR no. 5222 =
Roi Achila
, p. 442 =
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ TΛRRΛCOPIVS
Plate XXXVIII, 13
Found near
Found by
In the following appendix an effort has been made to list and describe all the known varieties of Visigothic fabrications and forgeries. As obversed in the Foreword, the number of these is proportionately very large, and—chiefly because of the almost
The subject of the modern counterfeiting of Visigothic coins is not without interest, for its history extends back at least into the 17th century. In fact we know of a 16th century fabrication, the spurious "coin" of
with a large body of faithful reproductions from which more or less accurate copies were produced. The latest, and most expert, forgeries, copied by various techniques directly from genuine pieces, date from the early 20th century, evidently between 1900 and 1910, and are said to have been made in
Fortunately a general discussion can be dispensed with here in view of the recent excellent literature on the subject. Rectificaciones y falsificaciones en las monedas visigodas (see the bibliography) the whole subject is dealt with in exhaustive fashion. His treatment includes a detailed history of Visigothic fabrications and counterfeits and of Visigothic coin collections in general, together with a discussion of most of the known forgeries, as well as consideration of misattributions and the restitution to good standing of some coins previously condemned as false. What Neuerliche Fälschungen westgotischer Münzen and Ueber einige weitere Fälschungen westgotischer Münzen (see the bibliography). In addition to the invaluable reproductions,
As in judging forgeries in other numismatic fields there is no single rule of thumb by which one can determine spuriousness. Needless to say, the prime requisite is the opportunity to examine a large number of genuine coins; but thereafter one must in each case test the coin in question by the application of several of a number of criteria—fabric, feel, technique, execution, design, style, special mint characteristics, metal, weight, etc., etc. The quality of the gold, expecially with reference to the particular period under consideration, is important. Some modern forgers have made the mistake of using good gold for imitations of the later Visigothic coins when the quality of the gold was universally bad. Excessive weight (in general anything over 1.60 grams) is always suspicious. Except when dealing with a hoard, the existence of two or more specimens from the same pair of dies is good cause for examining such coins most critically for other tell-tale traits.
the hoard of
How much I owe to the contributions of
Becker the Counterfeiter; I have omitted references to
There are undoubtedly mistakes in judgment in the following compilation, not only in what has been included but also in what has been excluded, but I hope they are not too numerous. I should imagine that there are more forgeries improperly admitted to the corpus of genuine coins in the main body of the work than there are authentic pieces unfairly condemned in the listing below.
I am further indebted to
1. Bust, bearded, right. Spear tip at right.
1.
Madrid
, pl. B, no. 20* (Ꜹ 1.55).
Bust, right, with sword in hand ( ?), within beaded border.1
✺BΛRCINONΛIVS
The obverse bust is quite evidently related to the reverse of another pure fabrication, that of
2. Youthful bust, facing.
ΛLΛRICVᔓREX
1.
Victory seated, right, holding wreath in left hand.
LEMOVCVMPIVS
This "coin" was said to have been found at Auch, but the editor had not seen it and had only a wax impression of the obverse and a "trait au crayon peu terminé" of the reverse. RN 1851, p. 380).
The type is not described and the plate is not clear.
3. Facing bust. Type 4 d.
✠ •ΛMΛLΛRICO
1.
Bust, right, spear tip in front; within circle.
✠ HISPΛLIS:PIVᔓ
Aside from the obvious anachronisms, note the
4. Facing bust, resembling type 7 or 5 m.
✠
1. HSA 8136 (billon, ↑ 18,3.07).
2.
Madrid
, pl. B, 21* (Ꜹ, 1.05, same dies as no. 1).
Head, facing. Line beneath.
✠
Plate A, 1
5. Bust, right, resembling type 1 a, but with circle in place of cross.
✠Λ
1.
España Sagrada, vol. 42, p. 47 (Acad, de la Hist.) =
Facing bust. Type 9 b.
//////PERTOSΛIVS: AI
6. Facing head within circle. Curved line beneath.
✠ ΛTΛNΛEILþ∘
1.
Madrid
, pl. B, 24* (Ꜹ, 1.00).
As obverse.
✠ •RECOPOLI:FEC•
7. Imitation of Type H.
1.-6.
Madrid
, pl. B, nos. 16*, 17*, 18*, 19*;
8. Facing bust. Type 5 c.
✠ DNLEOVI
1.
2.-6.
Madrid
, no. 80*, pl. E, 3*, pl. G, 1*, 2*, 3* (Ꜹ, Æ and
Facing bust. Type 5 a.
✠ NΛRPONΛ
All the above are from the same dies and/or molds. It will be noted that I have accepted one of the specimens, after which the illustration in Florez, p. 187, was drawn, as genuine, despite the fact that
and alpha, which it really does not resemble; it is simply an ornamental space filler, which incidentally was not needed in the HSA specimen. identical (the spacing of the letters being different and lacking
Forgeries of the earlier, anonymous types of
At the time of writing,
"Metal compuesto," for which I have translated "alloy"; probably billon.
9. Bust, right. Type 1 c.
LIVVICILDVS
(begins at 8 o'clock)
1. Cabinet des Médailles =
Madrid
, p. 281* =
Cross on 4 steps. In exergue: ONO
REXEϞESS
(begins at 8 o'clock)
10(a). Facing bust. Type 5 a.
✠ LEOVI
1.-2.
Madrid
, pl. E, 4*, 5* (same dies, Ꜹ, 2.40, 1.50).
As obverse.
✠ TOLETOIVSTVᔕ
This forgery was copied from
(b). Facing bust. Type 4 c.
//////LIVIϞILDVSR/////
1.
Cross within wreathlike border.
✠ TOLETOPIVS
This is a fabrication in which a Tarraconese obverse is combined with a reverse type of
See the note under Corpus No. 28(a) for a supposed coin with TOLETOPIVS, which belongs in the classification of mistaken descriptions (
11(a). Facing bust, resembling type 9 c, but with fibula on left shoulder.
✠ LEOVI
1.-3.
Madrid
, pl. E, l*, 2*, pl. I, 1*(Ꜹ and alloy, 1.50–1.60).
As obverse.
✠ C°RD°BΛBISOPTIИVIT
(b). Facing bust. Type 9 b.
Legend as (a).
1.-11. Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 1* (Ꜹ).
12.-15. HSA 8083–86 (Ꜹ, ↗ ↗ ↑ ↗, 1.39, 1.40, 1.39, 1.34).
16.-17.
As obverse.
✠ C°RD°BΛBIS°PTINVIT
Plate A, 2 (8085)
All the above are from the same dies. This forgery was undoubtedly designed after
12. Facing bust resembling type 5 a.
✠ LEOVI
1.-6. Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 3* (Ꜹ).
7.-8. The Numismatist, Jan. 1937*; in trade,
As obverse.
✠ CVMPOPTINITSPI
Plate A, 3
This forgery is obviously copied from
Cf.
Communication of
Cf.
3. (
Becker
). Facing bust. Type 5 a.
✠ LEOVI
Becker
, no. 276*: HSA 15985 (Ꜹ ↙, 1.97);
As obverse (rounded shoulder).
✠ TOSELVORΛIVS
Plate A, 4
14. Facing bust. Type 3 e.
✠DNLE°VI
1.-2. Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 2* (Ꜹ).
3. HSA 8126 (Ꜹ ↗, 1.36).
4.-5. Specimens in museums of Arte, p. 57).
Facing bust, resembling type 7, but not extending into legend.
✠ PIVƧEMERITΛVICT°R
This forgery is clearly a copy of
Plate A, 5
Prologo), with DNLIVVIGILDVSREX and EMERITΛVICTOR purportedly bearing a "Victory" on the reverse. As
15(a). Bust, right. Type 1 c.
VΛLEИTΛ✠REX
(begins at 7 o'clock)
1.
Madrid
, p. 304*1 =
Cross on 3 steps. In lower left quarter:
LIVVIϞ|ILDVᔕ
(b). Similar to (a), but different dies, and ∧, ° left and right of cross.
1.-2.
Neuerliche Fälschungen
, no. 4* (Ꜹ).
3.
Ampurias
1941, p. 92, fig. 12*.
Plate A, 6
All the references under (a) concern the single piece in the loc. cit.) has convincingly shown to be in itself a 17th century fabrication created to illustrate the mint of Valence in the
Wrongly described, rectified in some copies of the catalogue, and later corrected by
Ampurias
, 1941, p. 92, note 1. Cf.
16. Facing bust, crowned, with shoulders resembling type 5 e. At left: ✺; at right:
✠ •þ·N·LEoVI
1. HSA 8129 (Ꜹ, ↗ 1.42).
Facing bust, resembling type 4 b. ✺ at right.
✠
Plate A, 7
Fabric, style of epigraphy, reverse bust type (at least), omission of the second C of
Cf.
The cross is joined to the crown and is probably intended to be a part of it.
17(a). Similar to the genuine piece,
1.-4.
Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 5* (Ꜹ).
5. HSA 8118 (Ꜹ, ↑ 1.38).
Plate A, 8
All the above are from the same dies; copied from
(b). Similar to the genuine piece,
ERMEN|EϞLD••
INCLIT|R|EϞI
In exergue: OИO
Plate A, 9
This forgery appears to be a free copy of 1
(c). Bust, left, somewhat resembling type 2 h. Cross on 3 steps at left.
Victory, right.
✠ ERMENE
1.
IIIΛNV|IC|TO
In exergue: ONO2
As
18(a). Similar to the genuine piece,
Barcelona, no. 7) is one of these. See, in this connection, the remarks in the footnote to
(b). "Variety" of
1. a (Acad. de la Hist.) =
Barcelona, no. 18 (wrongly given as
Such a coin probably does not exist, the entry being the result of some confusion. Apparently the supposed piece is not now in the Academia, to judge by A is wrong.
Cf.
Actually ONO is off center and not strictly in exergue; obviously misunderstood by the fabricator.
19(a). Specimens with "CE:ΛR:C•O:TΛIV:T" or "GE•ΛR:G•O TΛIVX:"
I designate these imperfectly described coins forgeries solely on account of the metal.
(b). Facing bust. Type 4 d.
✠ RECCΛREΔVSR
1. HSA 16073 (ex Cervera) (Ꜹ, ↘ 1.96).
2.
3.
4. Inst. de Valencia, no. 178* =
Madrid
, p. 2831;
5.-6. Museo Arque. Nac.,
7.
8.-9( ?).
As obverse.
CEƧTΛ////////VIIVST:
Plate A, 10
All the specimens that I have seen, and doubtless all the others, are from the same dies. To judge by the former, which in every aspect—epigraphy, fabric, design and weight—are patent forgeries, the space between Λ (or is it I ?) and V in the reverse legend has either been blanked out in the die, or else the die simply contained no letter. In any case, the explanation is quite clear: the forger copied the VQR piece (
Transcribed CESTIOVI?IVST.
20. Similar to Corpus No. 62(a).
1. Inst. de Valencia, no. 17* (alloy) = Beltrán, p. 441 = Madrid
A forgery copied from
21. A probable forgery is a, with RECC∧CEDVS and TIRSV∧∧IPIVS, supposedly in the Academia de la Historia. It is evidently no longer there, the legends are anomalous, the weight (1.00) is far too light for the period.
22. Similar to Corpus No. 78(a).
1.-3. Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 8* (Ꜹ).
4.-6. HSA 8103, 8104, 16068 (Ꜹ, ↑ ↑ ↑, 1.56, 1.37, 1.38).
7. ANS (ex Newell) (Ꜹ, ↑ 1.35).
8.-9.
Plate A, 11 (8104)
Nos. 1–8 are all from the same dies (also doubtless no. 9, not illustrated). The prototype is undoubtedly
23(a). Facing bust. Type 5 a.
✠ RECC∧REIVSR+
1.
Madrid
, no. 120* (Ꜹ, 1.30).
As obverse.
✠ TOLETOPIVᔓ
Mateu remarks, "cuño muy degenerado"; Beltrán, pp. 416–417, suggests that the piece is a contemporary forgery.
(b). (Becker). Facing bust. Type 5 1.
✠ RECC∧PEDVSRE:
Hill, Becker, no. 277* (same rev. die as Becker's
Madrid
, pl. C, 2*, pl. H, 2* (Pb. and alloy); Fecht Collection (Pb.);
Facing bust. Type 5 a.
✠ TOLETOPIVS
Plate A, 12
(c). Specimen supposedly with TOLETOIVSTVS
1. r =
This supposed coin is either a mistaken description or else a very early forgery.
Cf. the remarks relative to Corpus Nos. 57(b) and 59.
Ampurias
1941, p. 86.
Cf. Beltrán, p. 445; "copia de una moneda."
24. Facing bust resembling type 3 b or 9 c, without the shoulder knot.
✠ RECC∧REᗡᔓREX
1.-2. Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 6* (Ꜹ).
As obverse.
✠ CORDOB∧PIVᔓ
Plate A, 13
The inspiration for this forgery is doubtless
25. Similar to Corpus No. 83(c).
1.
Madrid
, pl. E, 6* (Ꜹ,1.10).
According to Mateu, this piece is copied from a (Corpus No. 83(d)), the only similar piece illustrated there, differs in the form of the final S.
26(a). Similar to Corpus No. 86(a).
1.–2.
Madrid
, pl. E, 9*, pl. G, 4* (Ꜹ, 1.30, and alloy, cast( ?), 2.00).
The plates are not sufficiently clear to enable one to determine aether the above two forgeries are from the same dies or molds. ateu suggests that no. 1 is copied from
(b). Similar to Corpus No. 86(e).
1. Weitere Fälschungen, no. 2* (Ꜹ,2.01).
Plate A, 14
Beltrán, p. 445, labels this a copy of a genuine piece.
Cf. Beltrán, p. 445.
27. Similar to Corpus No. 90(a).
1.
Madrid
, pl. E, 8* (Ꜹ, cast, 1.60).
28. Similar to Corpus No. 93(f), and apparently from the same dies as HSA 16030 and 16042.
1.
Madrid
, pl. E, 7* (Ꜹ, cast, 1.45).
See the note under Corpus No. 93(f) with regard to the possible onnection between this forgery and HSA 16042.
For a possible forgery similar to Corpus No. 94, see the note under Corpus No. 94(d).
29. Types ?
RECAREDVSREX
1.
OLISBONAPIVS
This supposed coin is either an invention or simply a misreading.1
30. Facing bust. Type 5 x.
Pellet at either side.
✠ RECC∧REᑫVSRE
As obverse, variation.
Pellet at either side.
✠ OLOV∧SloPlVᔓ
Plate A, 15
Cf. Beltrán, p. 448 (g), where it is referred to as "ideada."
Nos. 2, 3, and 4 are patent forgeries, from the same dies, copied from the drawing in
31(a). Bust, right. Barbarous Roman type.
RECC∧R|EDVSREX
(legend begins at 8 o'clock)
1. Le Gentilhomme, no. 15* =
Cross on globe. At left: M
V
At right: ∧
||
In exergue: (OИO)
VICTORI∧∧VIONV
(legend begins at 8 o'clock
(b). Similar to (a), but distinctly different dies.
1.-2. Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 7* (Ꜹ).
Plate A. 15
This pure fabrication, supposedly an imitation of an issue of
32(a). Similar to Corpus No. 120(b).
1. HSA 16078 (debased Ꜹ, ↑ 1.30, chipped).
This coin is possibly a contemporary counterfeit.
Plate B, 1
(b). Similar to (a).
1.-5. Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 9* (Ꜹ).
6.-8. HSA 8125, 10616, 16079 (Ꜹ, ↑ ↑↑ 1.62,1.32,1.39).
9.-12.
13. Tinchant, The Numismatist, Jan. 1937*.
Plate B, 2 (10616)
All the above are from the same dies. The forgery is a copy of
(c). Obverse as (a).
✠ ϷNLIVV∧PEX
Face, facing.
✠ PIVSISP∧LI
The descriptions of figs. 9 and 10 are interchanged.
Cf. Beltrán, p. 445.
33. Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ DNLIVV∧REX
As obverse.
✠ TVSELVOR∧IVS
Plate B, 3
As Beltrán (p. 445) points out, this forgery appears to be one of the earlier copies of a
A piece of
34(a). (Becker). Facing bust. Type 5 a.
✠ VVITTIRICVSRE
Hill, Becker, no. 278* (same obv. die as Becker's Witteric/Emerita; same rev. die as his
Madrid
, pl. C, 3* pl. H, 3* (Pb., alloy).
Facing bust. Type 5 f.
✠ PIVSELIBER
Plate B, 4
(b). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ VVITTIRICVSRE+
1.-2. Neuerliche Fálschungen, no. 10* (Ꜹ).
As obverse.
✠ ELEBERIPIVS
Plate B, 5
There appears to be no exact prototype for this forgery.1
(c). Similar to Corpus No. 139(a).
1.-2.
Madrid
, pl. E, nos. 10*, 11* (Ꜹ, 2.15, 1.95).
3.
Plate B, 6
Coins of Witteric attributed to "Bitterns" are all of Eliberri (see the note after Corpus No. 139).
35(a). Similar to Corpus No. 140 (d).
1.
Madrid
, pl. G, 5* (alloy, 1.70).
(b). To be classified as a mistaken description is the entry in r,2 obverse legend not given, reverse
36(a). (Becker). Obverse as Forgery No. 34(a).
Hill, Becker, no. 279* (same obv. die as Becker's Witteric for Eliberri; same rev. die as his Tulga/Emerita):
Madrid
, pl. C, 4*, pl. H, 4* (Pb. and alloy); Fecht Coll. (3 spec., Pb.);
Facing bust. Type 7.
✠ EMERIITI∧PIVS
Plate B, 7
(b). Similar to Corpus No. 143(b).
Plate B, 8
This forgery was probably freely copied from
(c). Beltrán, p. 440, speaks of the existence of several specimens of an early 19th century forgery in silver identical with
Cf. Beltrán, p. 445.
Cf.
Cf. Beltrán, p. 445, where for
The plate is too obscure to establish with certainty that this specimen is similar to the one illustrated in
For
37. Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ .
1.-7. Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 11* (Ꜹ).
8.-9. HSA 16097, 16099 (Ꜹ, ↑ ↑ 1.60, 1.38).
10.-11.
Madrid
, pl. E, 12*, 13* = (?)
12.
Madrid
, pl. I, 2* =
13.
14.
15. Coin Collector's Journal, July 1939, no. 35* (Ꜹ).
Plate B,9(16099)
As obverse.
✠ IƧP∧LIP1VƧ.
The attempt made above to associate the
Cf. Beltrán, p. 445.
38. (Becker). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ SISEBVTVSREX
1.
Facing bust. Type 4 c.
✠ N∧RBON∧P:S
Plate B, 10
This is a hitherto unrecorded muling of Becker dies.
39. Similar to Corpus No. 178(f), but: ✠ COIVSTCT∧RR.
1.-8. Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 13* (Ꜹ).
9.-10. HSA 16130, 16131 (Ꜹ, ↑ ↑ 1.59,1.40).
11.
Madrid
, pl. E, 15* =
12.
Tarragona
, no. 35* (
13.
14.
15.-16. Schulman, Apr. 1912, nos. 308–9 (Ꜹ,1.30,1.30).3
Plate B, 11 (16130)
Nos. 1–12 are all from the same dies, the others probably also. The prototype is certainly
A forgery of
In
Madrid
See the note above. Mateu (
Tarragona
, p. 79) considered this piece "certainly authentic."
These two specimens are not illustrated and the transcription does not exactly conform, but considering Schulman's note, "authenticité douteuse," it is a safe assumption that they are examples of this forgery.
40(a). (Becker). Obverse as Forgery No. 38.
Hill, Becker, no. 280* (same obv. die as Becker's
Madrid
, pl. H, 5*, pl. C, 5* (Alloy, Pb.); Fecht Coll. (Pb.);
Reverse as Forgery No.23(b).
(b). Facing bust. Cross on breast.
✠ SISEBVTVSREX
1.
Lower part of bust like type 1 c, surmounted by cross on 2 steps in place of head. Pellet at each side.
TOLE|ToPIV
A fabrication of the most fanciful sort.
(c). Facing bust, Type 5d.
✠ SISEBVTVSRE+
I. Marqués de Ll., no 1500* (1.68).
As obverse.
✠ TOLETOΓIVᔓ
41. Similar to Corpus No. 187(a), but: ✠ .SISEBVTVSRE.
1.
Madrid
, pl. E, 14* (Ꜹ,2.90).
42. Similar to Corpus No. 190, but REx.
1.
The drawings in these plates are too inaccurate to enable one to detect forgeries among the coins illustrated, but this piece is marked "
43. Bust.
DNSISEBVTVSREX
Cross, dividing legend:
CIVITASEBORA
Around:
DEVSADIVTORMEVS
1. Resende (ed. 1593), Bk. V, p. 37 (ed. 1600, pp. 335–6) = r = a = Lusitânia, no. 107 (
This obviously is a fabrication, and was recognized as such as early as 1835 by
44(a). Similar to Corpus No. 195(a).
Plate B, 12
No. 2 ("authenticité douteuse") is probably from the same dies as no. 1.
(b). Portocale/Eminio muling.
Weitere Fälschungen, no. 5*,1 illustrates a forgery (of which he had seen two specimens) struck from two reverse dies, one of Eminio (probably the same as (a) above), and one of Portocale, the same reverse as that of Sisebut/Portocale, illustrated by Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 12 (see No. 46(a), below).
Plate B, 13
45. Facing bust. Types ?
✠ SISIBVTVSREX
✠ OLISBON∧PIVS
As these supposed coins have not been illustrated it is impossible to tell whether they are from the same dies. In any case, both were probably inspired by the supposed existence of a coin of Reccared struck at
Cf. Portocale, p. 9.
Cf.
46(a). Similar to Corpus No. 208(a), but lacking : at end of reverse legend.
1.-9. Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 12* =
Portocale
, p. 9. (Ꜹ).
10.-11. HSA 8124, 16134 (Ꜹ, ↑ ↑, 1.57, 1.36).
12.
13.
14.
Plate B, 14 (16134)
All the above are from the same dies.
(b). Similar to (a), but different dies.
1. ANS (
Plate B, 15
For a
47. Facing bust, Type 4 c.
✠ SVIИTHILΛREX
1.
Madrid
, pl. E, 17* (Ꜹ, 1.30).
As obverse.
A forgery after
48(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ SVIИTИILΛREx
1. HSA 16289 (Æ, gilt, ↓ 1.12, clipped).
As obverse.
✠ TOLETOPIVS
This appears to be a contemporary counterfeit: the epigraphy is crude and atypical, but it does not in any respect resemble the lettering of modern forgers. The gilt wash has flecked off in several places, revealing the bronze flan, and a deposit of green oxide covers most of the coin.
(b). (
Becker
). Facing bust. Type 5 f.
✠ SVINTILΛRE
Becker
, no. 281* (same obv. die as
Reverse as Forgery No. 23(b).
Plate B, 16
In
Madrid
(p. 405)
49. Types ?
✠ SVINTHILAREX
1.
Cordoba
, p. 53 (Æ).
✠ CORDOBATOPRM1
One is tempted to dismiss this strange issue as a mistaken description, but on the other hand the fact that
50. (
Becker
). Obverse as Forgery No. 48(b).
1.
2.
Reverse as Forgery No. 34(a).
This
51. (
Becker
). Facing bust.
Type 8 c.
✠ SISENΛNþVSREx
Reverse as Forgery No. 38.
Becker
, no. 282* (same rev. die as
Plate B, 17
Thus in
52. Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠ SISENΛNDVSRE
1.-2. Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 14* (Ꜹ).
Cross on 3 steps. : at either side.
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTRICIΛ
Plate C, 1
53(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ SISI·I·IΛI·II·VSE
1.
As obverse.
✠ ISPΛLII·IVS
(begins at 6 o'clock)
(b). Similar to Corpus No. 269(a).
1. Weitere Fälschungen, no. 6* (Ꜹ).
Plate C, 2
(c). As (b), but different dies.
1.
Madrid
, pl. F, 18* (base Ꜹ, 2.90).
Both (b) and (c) are doubtless copied from
54. Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠ SISENΛNDVSRE
1.-8. Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 15* =
Egitânia
, p. 23* (Ꜹ).
9.-10. HSA 8120, 8122 (Ꜹ, ↑ ↑ 1.32, 1.67).
11.-12.
Facing bust somewhat resembling type 7.
✠ E
Plate C, 3 (8120)
All the above are from the same dies. The metal differs in the two HSA specimens, the second having a reddish copper tinge. While the forger undoubtedly copied from x of REX.
Cf.
55(a). Similar to Corpus No. 273(a).
Plate C, 4
(b). Similar to Corpus No. 273(b).
1.
Madrid
, pl. F, 19* (Ꜹ, 1.80).
(c). Types ?
✠ SISENANdVSR
1.
Lusitânia
, no. 49 (Ꜹ).
✠ PIVSEMRED
The original from which (a) was copied would be 1 As for (b), there appears to be no illustrated published specimen, and, as
56. Facing bust. Type 4 c.
✠ CHINTILΛREX
1. Le Gentilhomme, no. 28* =
Madrid
, p. 236* =
Cross on 3 steps, joined to top step.
* NΛRBONΛPIV
As indicated above, there is only one known specimen of this fabrication, preserved in the Cabinet des Médailles.
designed to fill a lacuna in the series for Narbonne. The bust, of Traité,
Cf.
57. (
Becker
). Facing bust.
Type 5 e.
✠ CHINTILΛREX
Becker
, no. 283* (same rev. die as
Reverse as Forgery No. 23(b).
Plate C, 5
58. Facing bust. Type 5 f.
✠ CHINTILΛREX
Facing bust. Type 5 o.
✠ VΛLENTIΛPIVS
(legend begins at 11:30 o'clock)
Plate C, 6
This forgery was copied quite faithfully from the drawing in
Madrid
, pp. 236, 238; "El Arte monetário Visigodo,"
59. Similar to Corpus No. 290.
1. Madrid, pl. F, 20* (Ꜹ, cast, 1.90).
Mateu states that this cast piece is molded from a genuine coin, and I have argued (under Corpus No. 290) that this forgery is probably made from an impression taken from the HSA specimen or from another genuine piece struck with identical dies.
60(a). Similar to Corpus No. 293(b).
1.-10. Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 17* (Ꜹ).
11. HSA 16456 (Ꜹ, ↗1.43).
12.-14. Grierson Coll., nos. 1101–2 = Shore Sale, no. 625;
Freeman Coll. (Ꜹ).
15. Schulman, March 1930, no. 328* (Ꜹ).
Plate C, 7
All the above are from the same dies, copied from Florez, p. 248 (cf. Beltrán, p. 445).
(b). Facing bust, resembling type 5 a.
✠CHINTILΛREX
1. LeBlanc, p. 32, no. 17* = Heiss, no. 4* (Ꜹ).
Facing bust. Type 5 l.
✠EMERITΛVICTOR[X]1
As Florez (p. 248) obverses, this piece seems to have disappeared by the time of Mahudel's writing. It probably was a fabrication.
61. Similar to Corpus No. 304(b).
1.-4. Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 18* (Ꜹ).2
5. HSA 8105 (Ꜹ, ↑ 1.32).
6. Schulman, Apr. 1912, no. 315* = Rackus, fig. 36* (Ꜹ, 1.35).
Plate C, 8
All are from the same dies. This forgery is quite clearly copied from Florez, p. 250.3
LeBlanc shows nothing following R; Heiss' engraving has a faint X.
Wrongly transcribed TULGΛM in the text.
Not p. 200 as cited by Beltrán, p. 445.
62(a). Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✕ at either side.
✠ TVL
1. HSA 16467 (Ꜹ cast, ↓ 1.45).1
2.-3. Madrid, pl. F, 21*, 22* (Ꜹ cast, 1.90, 1.20).
Facing bust. Type 7.
✠ EMERI|T|ΛPIVS
Plate C, 9
(b). (Becker). Facing bust. Type 10c. Reverse as Forgery No.36(a). Legend as (a).
Hill, Becker, no. 284* (same rev. die as Becker's Emerita for Witteric): HSA 16466 (Ꜹ, debased, ↙ 1.11, clipped); Madrid, pl. H, 9*, pl. C, 9* (Alloy, Pb.); Fecht Coll. (2 spec., Pb.); Lelewel, pl. I, 27* (Ꜹ); Renesse-Breidbach, no. 9169 (Æ).
Plate C, 10
Becker's forgery copied Florez, p. 252, but omitted the symbols at either side of the obverse bust. The other, a cast, would appear to be a copy of a coin similar to Corpus No. 309, but whose exact type, with the obverse symbols, has not been published.
63(a). (Becker). Facing bust.
Type 4 c.
✠CHINß:SVIß·RE
Hill, Becker, no. 285* (same rev. die as Becker's Narbona for Sisebut and Sisenand): Madrid, pl. H, 10*, pl. C, 10* (Alloy, Pb.); Grierson Coll., no. 1143 = Shore Sale, no. 618* (Ꜹ); Lelewel, pl. I, 28* (Æ); Renesse-Breidbach, no. 9170 (Æ).
Reverse as Forgery
No. 38.
Plate C, 11
(b). Similar to Corpus No. 314(a).
1.-2. Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 21* (Ꜹ)
3. VQR no. 5133a = Meynaerts, 1842, p. 363* = Piot, 1850, no. 9* = Meynaerts, no. 66 (Ꜹ).
(A). Plate C, 12
I am not certain that no. 3 is from the same dies as nos. 1 and 2, not having been able to compare the VQR specimen with Reinhart's plate; but I was convinced when examining the VQR piece that it was a forgery. Forgery (b) is obviously copied from Florez, p. 256 (cf. Beltrán, p. 445).
Either this or HSA 16466 was in the Cervera collection.
64(a). Similar to Corpus No. 318(a).
1. Madrid, no. 136* (ex Castellanos) (Æ, 1.20).
Mateu considered this piece genuine, despite the metal. I suspect it is a contemporary counterfeit. All the genuine specimens of Toleto under Chindasvinth that I have seen are of fine gold.
(b) Similar to above.
1.-2. Madrid, pl. F, 23*, pl. G, 6* (Ꜹ cast, 1.90, alloy, 1.50).
(c) . Facing bust. Type 5 q.
✠ INDNCINDΛSVSI
1. Heiss, no. 20* (Cabinet de France) (Ꜹ, 1.43).
Facing bust, resembling type 8 e.
✠TOLETOPI[VS]
It is scarcely credible that this piece, with its anomalous busts and (for Toleto) exceptional legend, is genuine. So far as I know it is not now in the Cabinet des Méailles.
(d) . Facing bust. Type 5 o.
Legend as (c).
1. Cabinet des Médailles (Ꜹ, 1.08).
Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠ TOLETO·PIVƧ
The thin fabric, flat letters, general appearance and anomalous combination of busts mark this specimen as a forgery.
C. Ispali.
65. Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠Cl
1. HSA 16471 (ex Cervera) (Ꜹ, ↓ 1.48).
2. Freeman Coll. (Ꜹ).
3. Cahn, Apr. 1933, no. 2158* (Ꜹ, 1.52).
As obverse.
Plate C, 13
All three are from the same dies. Conceivably nos. 2 and 3 are the same coin, but the Cahn illustration, being of a poorly made plaster-cast, is not good enough to permit of positive identification. The fabric and sharpness of the HSA specimen betray the piece as a forgery, even without the knowledge of the existence of a specimen (or specimens) from the same dies.
66. Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ CINDΛSVINTH¨¨
1. ANS (ex Defendorf) (Æ, base, ↓ 2.20).
As obverse.
✠BRΛCΛRΛPIV¨¨
Plate C, 14
Fabric and epigraphy, which appear authentic, suggest that this is a contemporary counterfeit.
67. Similar to Corpus No. 343.
1.-3. Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 19* (Ꜹ).
4. HSA 8115 (Ꜹ, ↙ 1.25).
5. Johns Hopkins (Wayte Raymond, 1925) (Ꜹ, 1.36).
6. Tinchant, The Numismatist, Jan. 1937*.
PlateC, 15
All are from the same dies, copied from Heiss, no. 22 (cf. Beltrán, p. 445).
A. Narbona.
68. Cross between confronting busts. Type 13 f.
✠ CHI
Cross on 3 steps. At left: ˚
At right: ·
✠ NΛRBONΛPIVS
1.-2. Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 20* (A).
3. Heiss, no. 3* (Acad. de la Hist.) = Campaner 1866, no. 2 = idem, Review of Heiss, p. 266 = Campaner, p. 217, note 1 = Belfort, no. 3152* = Madrid, pp. 216*, 237* (Ꜹ, 1.50).
4. Schulman, Apr. 1912, no. 317* = Beltrán, p. 4462 (Ꜹ,1.30).
5. Freeman Coll. (Ꜹ). Plate C, 16
6. Tinchant, The Numismatist, Jan. 1937*.
There are perhaps two distinct forgeries represented here, one in the Academia in Heiss' time, and another copied from Heiss' drawing. The latter specimens are all from the same dies. Lacking a photographic reproduction, it is impossible to determine whether the former is from the same dies. The specimen first mentioned by
The final stroke of the R does not appear in the Heiss, etc., drawings.
Cf. Beltrán, p. 445, where the reference to Heiss is to be corrected.
>B. Toleto.
69. Bust, right. Type 2 h.
✠C
✠ R∈CC∈SVINΘVS
Monogram:
Plate C, 17
Both specimens are from the same molds, reproducing very accurately either Florez, p. 257, or else a genuine piece such as the Shore specimen. The obverse of the latter is almost identical with the forgery, the reverse very close. The Madrid specimen is doubtless a cast, although not recꜸgnized as such in the catalogue.
70(a). (Becker). Bust, left. Type 1 e.
✠ RECCE|S·|I
Monogram:
✠ CꜸSVIN0VS
Hill, Becker, no. 286* (same obv. die as Becker's Reccesvinth/Emerita; same rev.die as (b), below): Madrid, pl. C, 11*, pl. F, 27*, pl. H, 11* (Pb., Ꜹ, cast, 7.00, alloy); ANS (H.L. Freeman gift) (Æ, ↑ 1.34); Fecht Coll. (Pb.); Lelewel, pl. I, 29* (Æ).
Plate C, 18
(b) . (Becker). Bust, right. Type 1 h. Reverse as (a).
✠ RECCES |V| INΘVS
Hill, Becker, no. 287* (same obv. die as Becker's Reccesvinth/Toleto and Ispali; same rev. die as (a), above).
Plate C, 19
(c) . Bust, left. Type 1 e.
✠ RECCE|S|I
Monogram as above.
✠ CNSVINΘVS
1.-5. Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 23* (Ꜹ).
6.-8. HSA 8106, 8108, 16066 (Ꜹ, ↑ ↑ ↑,1.37,1.67,1.41).1
9.
Plate D,1 (8106)
All the above are from the same dies. The source would be
(d). Obverse similar to (a), different die.
1. HSA 8107 (Ꜹ, ↑ 1.39).
Monogram as above.
✠ CꜸSVᒣN⊖VS
Plate D, 2
This is a very crude forgery with a smooth surface, quite different in fabric and style from (c). It is probably an independent copy of
(e). A "denier d'argent," with
71(a). Bust, right.
✠ RECCESVIN⊖VSREX3
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ NΛRBONΛP·S
Plate D, 3
(b). Anomalous bust, right.
✠ RECCESVIИ⊖VSRE
1.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ ИΛRBOИΛP:S
Plate D, 4
One of these evidently belonged to the
Cf.
72(a). ( Becker). Obverse as Forgery No. 70(a).
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet beneath.
✠TOLETOPIVS
Hill,
Becker
, no. 290* (same obv. die as
Plate D, 5
(b). Very crude bust, right.
Type 1 h.
✠ RECCES|V|INOVS
1.
Crude cross on 3 steps, cross-bar near base.
✠ TOLETOϷIVS
Plate D, 6
I do not know what metal this apparent forgery is made of. It does not look like gold in the photograph.
(c).
1. v =
73(a). Facing bust, resembling type 5 a.
✠ƧVTИIVƧ∃Ɔ∃Ь
1.
Within beaded circle, cross on 2 steps, · at either side.
✠ CORϷOBΛ:ϷΛT//////
(b). Similar to Corpus No. 364(e).
1.-4.
Madrid
, pl. F, 24*, 25*, pl. G, 7*, 8* (Ꜹ and alloy, all cast, 2.15, 2.70, 1.70, 2.40).
Madrid
, no. 196. The first two, at least, were in the
(c). Facing bust within beaded circle. Type 10 d.
✠ RECCESVIITVS
1.-5. Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 22* (Ꜹ).
6.-7. HSA 8128, 16488 (Ꜹ, ↑ ↑ 1.39,1.22).
8.
9.
10.
Facing bust within beaded circle. Type 10 b.
✠CORDOBΛPΛTR˙CIΛ1
Plate D, 7 (8128)
All the above are from the same dies, the forgery being copied from
74(a).
( Becker). Obverse as Forgery No. 70(a).
Hill,
Becker
, no. 289* (same obv. die as
Cross on 3 steps. Short line beneath.
✠ ISPΛLIPIVS
Plate D,8
(b). Similar to Corpus No. 368(c).
1.-2.
Madrid
, pl. F, 26*, pl. G, 9* (Ꜹ, cast, alloy, cast, 1.70, 2.40).
According to
Madrid
, no. 227.
75(a).
( Becker). Obverse as Forgery No. 70(a).
Hill,
Becker
, no. 288* (same obv. die as
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet beneath.
✠ EMERITΛPIVᔓ
Plate D, 9
(b). Similar to Corpus No. 376(a).
1.
A slanting line connects the final Λ with the left arm of the cross.
Cf.
A. Tarracona.
76. ( Becker
?). In the Renesse-Breidbach catalogue (no. 9175) there is listed a silver piece of Wamba/
B. Toleto.
77(a). Similar to Corpus No. 384.
1.-4.
Madrid
, pl. F, 28*, no. 143* (?)1, pl. G, 13*, 14* (Ꜹ, alloy, 2.15,1.49,2.90,1.80).
(b) . Similar to (a).
1.
Madrid
, no. 144* (ex
While
(c). Bust, right, resembling type 2 ff.
✠ IDNNNVVΛMBΛ
1.
✠ TOLETOPIVS
The illustration of this coin is probably invented.
(d). Bust, right, resembling type 2 h.
✠ ·I·D·N·H·N·VVAMBA
✠ TOLETOPIVS
Plate D, 10
Nos. 1 and 2 are from the same dies; no. 3 probably also, but while I examined the specimen I had no opportunity to compare it for die identity with the others.
(e). Bust, right, resembling type 2 h.
✠ ·I·D·N·H·N·VVAMBARX
1. HSA 8135 (billon, ↗ 1.18).
X TOLETOPIVS (begins at 11 o'clock)
Plate D, 11
(f).
( Becker). Bust, right, with cruciform scepter in hand. Type 2 ff.
✠ I·þ·NNNVVΛMBΛ
Hill,
Becker
, no. 293* (same obv. die as
Reverse as Forgery No. 72(a).
Plate D, 12
(g). Similar to Corpus No. 386(b).
1.
Madrid
, pl. I, 4* (
(h). As (g), different dies, very crude obverse.
1.
This is perhaps a contemporary counterfeit.
This is not classified as a forgery by
Mentioned by Description de la imperial ciudad de Toledo (v.
78.
Pp. 438 (fig. 16) and 441.
Not 167, as given in
79(a).
( Becker). Obverse as Forgery No. 77(f).
Hill,
Becker, no. 292* (same obv. die as
Reverse as Forgery No. 74(a).
(b).
a) a variety of Corpus No. 392(e), with scepter, in the "Cabinet de
(c). Obverse as (a).
✠ ID·N·M·N·VVΛMBΛ
1.-3. Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 25* (Ꜹ).
4.
5. Tinchant, The Numismatist, Jan. 1937*.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ ISPΛLIPIVS
Plate D, 13
(d). Bust, right, resembling type 2 b.
✠ I˙Δ˙INMVVΛMBΛR
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet in each quarter; Pellet at each side of steps.
✠ ISPΛLIPIVS
Plate D, 14
Style, fabric, and quality of metal (reddish gold) of both specimens are atypical. These forgeries are probably copied from
80. Types ?
VVΛMBΛREX
1. Egitânia, p. 10 (Manoel Pereira da Silva Leal, Memórias, p. 26).
IGED1TANEAPIVS
This would appear to be an invented description or a fabrication. Lusitânia.
Æ blundered.
81(a).
( Becker). Obverse as Forgery No. 77 (f).
Hill,
Becker, no. 291* (same obv. die as
Reverse as Forgery No. 75 (a).
(b). Bust, right, resembling type 2 n.
✠ I
1. Weitere Fälechungen, no. 8* (Ꜹ).
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ EMERITΛPIVS
Plate D, 15
This forgery appears to have been copied from
(c). Obverse as (b).
✠ I
1. HSA 8111 (same rev. die as (b), Ꜹ, ↑ 1.35).
Reverse as (b).
Plate D, 16
The obverse closely resembles that of (b) and obviously was made by the same forger, as the reverses are from the same die.
(d). Bust, right, resembling type 2 p.
✠ I˙D˙IN˙M˙EVVΛ
1.-3. Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 24* (Ꜹ).
4.-5. HSA 8134, 16656 (Ꜹ, debased, Ꜹ, ↑ ↑ 1.67,1.58).
6.-7.
8.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ EMERITΛPIVS
Plate D, 17 (16656)
All the above are from the same dies, copied from
(e). Bust resembling type 2 f, but to left.
Legend ?3
1.
Madrid, pl. B, 23* =
Conventionalized Victory, left.
✠ .EMERITΛ˙PIVS·
Quite evidently a fabrication of the fantastic type.
(f). Severim (p. 160) illustrates a supposed specimen with bust, right, holding scepter.1 The drawing is probably incorrect. Could it have served as
Cf.
* Cf.
Not legible in the plate.
82(a).
( Becker). Facing bust. Type 11 b.
✠ IDIN·N·NEIRV
Hill,
Becker
, no. 296* (same obv. die as
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ TΛRRΛCOPIVS:
Plate D, 18
(b). Facing bust, resembling type 5 q.
✠ I·DNII·I·┘·ERVICIVS
1.-6. Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 26* (Ꜹ).
7.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ TΛRRΛCOPIVS
Plate D, 19
Copied from
83. Probably to be listed as a mistaken description is a supposed specimen with bust on both obverse and reverse, and ERV1GIVSREX and PIVSTOLETO, described by
1.
84. Bust, right, resembling type 2 r.
✠ I·DIN·M·ERVIQIVSRX
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet beneath
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTRICIΛ
Plate E,1
Quite clearly copied from
Cf. Lusitânia, no. 75.
Cf.
85(a).
( Becker). Obverse as Forgery No. 82(a).
Hill,
Becker
, no. 295* (same obv. die as
Reverse as Forgery No. 74(a).
(b). Similar to Corpus No. 410 (a), except star on reverse has only 6 points.
Plate E, 2
The HSA specimen because of its metal, fabric and style is a patent forgery, copied from the illustration in
86(a).
( Becker). Obverse as Forgery No. 82(a).
Hill,
Becker
, no. 294* (same obv. die as
Reverse as Forgery No. 75(a).
(b). Bust, right, bearded. Type 2 r.
✠
1. VQR no. 5172 =
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ EMERITΛPIVS
This coin, which I have examined, has all the characteristics of a modern forgery.
(c). Similar to Corpus No. 415(a).
1.
Madrid
, pl. F, 29* (Ꜹ, cast, 1.40).
This specimen appears to be a cast of an authentic coin.
87. Bust, right, facing cross. Type 2 ll.
✠ I·DN·H·H·ERVI
Symbol of sun ? Type 12 f.
✠ SΛLMΛNTICAERVI
1.-4. Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 27* (Ꜹ).
5.-9. HSA 8091, 8092, 10615, 16579, 16580 (Ꜹ, ↑ ↗ ↗ ↑ ↑ , 1.37,1.22,1.34,1.59,1.78).
10.
11.
12. Glendining, May 1936, no. 290* (Ꜹ).
13. Lusitânia, no. 173 (Tinchant).1
14. Forrer, 1950 (Ꜹ,1.35).
Plate E, 3 (16580)
All the above are from the same dies, clearly copied from
88(a).
( Becker). Bust, right, with cruciform scepter in hand, somewhat resembling type 2 gg. Above cross:
✠ IN + PINHE
Hill,
Becker
, no. 297* (same obv. die as
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ NΛRBONΛPIVᔓ
Plate E, 4
(b). Similar to Corpus No. 419(b).
1.-2.
Madrid, pl. F, 31*, pl. G, 20* (Ꜹ, cast, 2.35; alloy, cast, 1.80).
3.
Plate E, 5
This forgery is molded from a legitimate coin, possibly from HSA 16601.
(c). Similar to (b), different mold.
1.
Madrid
, pl. G, 21* (alloy, cast, 2.70).
(d). Bust similar to (a), somewhat resembling type 2 jj. Cross in front of face.
✠ +I·I·IINME
1.-2. Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 30* (Ꜹ).
3. HSA 8132 (Ꜹ, ↗1.31).
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ NARBONAPIVS
Plate E, 6
The obverse of this forgery is probably copied from
(e).
This is not illustrated, but there can be little doubt that it is a specimen of this forgery.
89(a). Facing bust. Type 5 p.
✠ I·D·N·N·N·E
Cross on 3 steps,
✠ TΛΛRΛCOPIVS
Plate E, T
The reproduction of no. 2, a rubbing, is too poor to permit of reliable comparison, but it appears probable that Dr.
(b). Bust, right, somewhat resembling types 2 g and 2 p.
✠ IND:IN:M:EE
1. Dumbarton Oaks (Ꜹ).
Facing bust. Type 4 c.
✠ COIVSTCTΛRR·
Plate E, 8
This fantastic hybrid is a muling of the die of the obverse of the forgery of
90(a).
( Becker
).Obverse as Forgery No. 88 (a).
Hill,
Becker
, no. 298* (same obv. die as
Reverse as Forgery No. 72 (a).
(b). Similar to Corpus No. 437 (d), lettering not clear in plate.
1.-5.
Madrid, pl. G, 15*, 16*, 17*, 18*, 19* (alloy, 1.70, 2.40, 2.05, 3.05, 1.70).
Doubtless inspired by the drawing of
Cf.
Cf. Wamba/Toleto, Forgeries nos. 77 (c), (d), and (e).
Wrongly listed as Wamba/Toleto on p. 409.
91(a).
( Becker), Obverse as Forgery No. 88(a).
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ CORϷOBΛPΛTRICIΛ
Plate E, 9
This muling of
(b). Obverse as Forgery No. 89(b).
1.-8. Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 28* (Ꜹ).
9. HSA 16591 (Ꜹ, ↑ 1.41).
10.
11.
12.
Cross on 3 steps. : at either side.
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTRICIΛ
Plate E, 10
Nos. 1–11 are from the same dies, no. 12 probably also. The original from which the forgery was copied is undoubtedly
92. Bust, right, resembling type 2 b.
✠ I·Δ·IN·M·E
1.-5. Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 29* (Ꜹ).
6.-12. HSA 8087, 8088, 8089, 8090, 16598, 16600, 16604 (Ꜹ, ↗ ↑ ↗ ↑ ↑ ↗ ↗, 1.35, 1.37, 1.36, 1.37, 1.85, 1.49, 1.60).
13.
14.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠
Plate E, 11 (8090)
Nos. 1–13 are from the same dies. No. 14 (not illustrated, "authenticité douteuse") probably is also. The forgery is copied from
93. A specimen listed by
94(a). Similar to Corpus No. 452.
This is copied from
(b). Similar to (a), but:
✠ I·D·И·H·N·E
✠SΛL·NATICΛ
1.-8. Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 31* =
9.-11. HSA 10614, 16596, 16645 (Ꜹ ↑ ↗ ↗ 1.32,1.79,1.62).
Plate E, 12 (16596)
12.
13. Glendining, May 1936, no. 291* (Ꜹ).
14. Forrer, 1950 (Ꜹ,1.45).
All are from the same dies, crudely copied from
(c). Bust, right, resembling type 2 b.
✠ I·Δ·IN·M·E
Cross on 3 steps,
✠ SΛLN·ΛTICΛ
1. Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 32* (Ꜹ).
Plate E, 13
This is a muling of the obverse of the common forgery for Ispali (No. 92) with the reverse of (b), above.1
Cf.
On p. 440 there is confusion between the Ervig and the
Cf.
95. (
Becker
). Scepter between confronting busts, resembling type 13 l.
✠
Hill,
Becker, no. 299*:
Monogram:
✠ VVITTI
Plate E, 14
96. Similar to Corpus No. 472.
1.-6. Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 33* (Ꜹ).
7.-8. HSA 8130, 16646 (Ꜹ, ↑ ↑ 1.89,1.72).
9. Specimen in hands of dealer in Denver, Colo., 1950 (Ꜹ).
10.
Plate E, 15 (8130)
Nos. 1–9 are from the same dies; no. 10 (not illustrated, "authenticité douteuse") almost certainly also. The forgery is a copy of
97. Similar to Corpus No. 480 (r).
1.-3.
Madrid
, pl. F, 32*, pl. I, 5*, 6* (Ꜹ, 2.25,
Copied from a genuine piece, or else from
Cf.
98. Similar to Corpus No. 486 (a), but legends:
✠ INDN·H·E
1.-3. Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 34* (Ꜹ).
4.
Madrid, no. 289 =
5.
6.
7.
✠ I
Plate E, 16
All are from the same dies, copied presumably from a genuine specimen (cf.
99(a). ( Becker). Bust, right, somewhat resembling types 2 g and 2p.
✠ I
Weitere Fälschungen, no. 19*2 (same obv. die as
Reverse as Forgery No. 88 (a)
Plate E, 17
This
b). Bust, right, resembling type at 2 v.
✠ IDИ·
1.-2. Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 36* (Ꜹ).
3.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ NΛRBONΛPIVS
Plate F, 1
This is copied from
This coin is supposedly from the
Numbered 10 on plate 200.
100. Bust, right, same die as obverse of Forgery No. 99 (b).
1.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ TΛRRΛCOPIVS
Plate F, 2
101(a). Facing bust, resembling type 11m.
✠ I
1.
Cross within ornamental vinelike border.
✠ TOLETOPIVᔕ
Plate F, 3
This has the appearance of a late 18th or early 19th century fabrication. Note the diameter. The model was either
(b). As above, bust variation.
✠ I
1.-2.
✠ TOLETOPIVS
I have classified these two coins as forgeries because no. 2 is silver and no. 1 is stated to be from the same dies. Support for this conclusion is lent by: (a) the statement that the two coins are "d'une belle fabrique," and (b) the fact that neither
(c). As above, bust variation.
✠ I
1.-9.
Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 37* (Ꜹ).
10.-11. HSA 8127, 16657 (Ꜹ, ↑ ↑ 1.73, 1.51).1
12.
13.-16.
17.
✠ TOLETOPIVᔕ
Plate F, 4 (16657)
Nos. 1–12 and 15–17 are from the same dies; probably also nos. 13–14 (not illustrated, "authenticité douteuse"). There probably is some duplication among the auction-catalogue references, that is, unsold specimens from
catalogues, or
(d). To be classified as an erroneous description is a supposed coin with VVITIGISREX and TOLETOPIVS, first mentioned by
1. v = a and pp. 150–1 =
The metal of the two HSA specimens is quite d1fferent, the color of the first having a copperish tinge.
102. ( Becker). Obverse as Forgery No. 99 (a).
Becker
, no. 300* (same obv. die as
Reverse as Forgery No. 91(a).
103. Bust, left, facing scepter, resembling right-hand figure of type 13 j.
✠ VVITTIZΛ
1.-6.
Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 35* (Ꜹ).
7.
8. The Numismatist, Jan. 1937.*
9.
Monogram:
✠ INPIHИEVVITTIZΛ
Plate F, 5
All specimens are from the same dies. Either with the intent of showing that
Cf. Beltrán, p. 445.
104. Bust, right, somewhat resembling types 2 g and 2 p.
✠ I
1.
Lamecum
, p. 20 =
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either side.
✠ BRΛCΛRΛPIVᔕ
Plate F, 6
This patent forgery, with an obverse probably owing its inspiration to
105(a). Bust, right, resembling type 2 x. In front:
✠ I
1.-5.
Neuerliche Fälschungen
, no. 39* (Ꜹ).
6. The Numismatist, Jan. 1937*.
Cross on 4 steps, connected by vertical bar.
✠ TOLETOPIVS
Plate F, 7
Copied quite accurately from
(b).
✠ I
1.-4.
Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 40* (Ꜹ).
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either side.
✠ TOLETOPIVᔕ:
5.-6. HSA 8112, 16664 (Ꜹ, ↑ ↑ 1.71, 1.38).1
7.
8. The Numismatist, Jan. 1937.*
Plate F, 8 (16664)
As
Cf.
106(a). ( Becker). Facing bust, somewhat resembling type 11 i.
✠ I
Becker
, no. 301*:
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either side.
✠ E
Plate F, 9
(b). Bust resembling above.
✠ I
1. idem,
Germanen-Erbe
, p. 72, no. 11* (Ꜹ, 1.85).
Reverse as (a).
✠ EITΛN
Plate F, 10
(c). As above, but bust variation (cf.
Madrid
, no. 310).
✠ I
1.-2.
Madrid, pl. F, 33*, pl. I, 7* (Ꜹ, cast, 1.55,
3.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ E
Plate F, 11
Although
(d). Facing bust, somewhat resembling types 11 i and 11 o.
✠ I
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ E
Plate F, 12
The VQR specimen, which I have examined, is clearly a forgery. The specimen at The Hague also appears to be a forgery, to judge by the plaster-cast kindly furnished me by
(e). Obverse as above, but bust grotesque and misunderstood.
✠ I
1.-2.
Neuerliche Fälschungen
, no. 38* (Ꜹ).
3.-4. HSA 8131, 16663 (Ꜹ, ↗ ↗ 1.39,1.74).2
5.
Egitênia
, p. 15* = (probably)
6.
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either side.
✠ E
Plate F, 13 (16663)
If allowance is made for inaccuracies in the drawing, there can be little doubt that the
The metal of the two HSA specimens differs, the color of the first having a copperish tinge.
107. Facing bust, resembling type 11 s.
✠
1.
Weitere Fälschungen, no. 11* (Ꜹ).
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ TΛRRΛCOPIVS
Plate F, 14
Copied from
One of the HSA specimens is from the
The names of the Visigothic mints are printed in boldface type.
(See key between pp. 148 and 149)