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 attributable to different mints in Spain, but material of established provenance is still too scanty to warrant positive attribution.1
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) , deriving ultimately from a common Roman prototype,2 the figure of Victory, right or left, holding a crown in one hand and a palm leaf in the other.3
1 |
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.
|
2 |
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.
|
3 |
Cf. Tolstoī, Monnaies Byzantines, pls. 9–10.
|
4 |
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 (three at Rodas and usually at Emerita). This reverse derives from the cross on four steps of Tiberius II Constantinus (Emperor, A. D. 578–582), who was, of course, Leovigild's contemporary.
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 anonymous types (not dealt with in this volume), 568 - 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 from these considerations, 584 was the year in which Hermenegild's rebellion was finally suppressed, and a strong case can be made for the introduction in this year of the facing bust reverse (and obverse) in recognition of Reccared's now exclusive position as heir to the throne.
1 |
Cf. Reinhart's attempts in D.J.f.N., 1940/41, pp. 81–84, and in A.E.d.A., 1945, pp. 226–230.
|
1 |
Cf. Reinhart's articles referred to above, Madrid, pp. 139 ff., and Stefan, pp. 108–110, for the proposed dating of these earlier types.
|
2 |
Cf. Reinhart, "Die früheste Münzprägung im Reiche der Merowinger," 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.
|
2 |
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.
|
3 |
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.
|
3 |
Cf. the histories of the individual mints and the sketch of Leovigild's career (pp. 21–23) for the documentation.
|
4 |
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.
|
4 |
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.
|
5 |
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 A. de Longpérier.2 There is some reason to believe that there may have been borrowing here, one way or the other, for marriages were proposed between Reccared and Rigonthe (Rigunta), daughter of Chilperic, or Clodosvinta, daughter of Childebert, and perhaps between Leovigild's daughter and Childebert. A Frankish embassy to Leovigild about 582, and Visigothic embassies to Chilperic about 584 and in 587, were concerned with these negotiations.1 However, H. Longuet, who has made a detailed study of this and later Merovingian facing busts in a very interesting article,2 quite persuasively denies that there was any Visigothic influence in the creation of Merovingian facing busts, and maintains rather that the various types developed on the one hand through imitation of Byzantine facing busts and on the other through barbaric deformations of the facing Byzantine Victory.3 Whether there was any exchange of influence or not among Visigoths and Merovingians in this respect, the fact remains that the facing bust became the Visigothic type 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.
1 |
Cf., for example, C. Piot in RNB 1842, p. 264; Heiss, p. 29; Elias Garcia, Lamecum, pp. 11–13. Contra:
Reinhart, A.E.d.A., XX (1947), pp. 127–128.
|
1 |
Cf. Lot, Pfister & Ganshof, p. 259, Menéndez Pidal, pp. 100, 105, 111, Traité, p. 73.
|
2 |
Notice des monnaies franÇaises composant la collection de M. J. Rousseau
, Paris, 1847, no. 90, pp. 27–28 (cf. Robert, II, p. 68, no. 3; Traité, I, p. 73, fig. 180).
|
2 |
"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.
|
3 |
There are Merovingian facing busts from Chalon-sur-Saone, Compreignac, Diablentas, Paris, Cambrai, Aosta, Lausanne, Avenches, Tonnerre, BesanÇon, St. Jean-de-Maurienne, Laon, Chitry-les-Mines, Candes, Argentat,
Troyes, Foix, Thiverzay, Sées, Celle-l'Éivécault, and Angers. They can best be reviewed in Longuet's article in 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, G. de Ponton d'Amécourt in 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 under Reccared; no further specimens of its coinage are known until Egica. The borderland mint of Valentia employs the Tarraconese type under Suinthila, but more universal types (5 f, o) under Chintila.1
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 "Emeritan type." While this is the predominant type, nevertheless at a number of Lusitanian mints varieties of the common facing busts appear sporadically: 5 e at Caliabria and Coleia, 5 l at Contosolia, 5 d at Egitania, 5 d, e at Elvora, a variation of 5 l at Emerita, 5 a, d, 1, m and r at Eminio, 5 1 at Lamego, 5 f, 1 at Monecipio, 5 d, e and 1 at Salmantica, and 5 f, o at Totela. At Emerita under Tulga there is an issue with a 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.
1 |
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. Reinhart, 1941, p. 190. Or is it a helmet? See Reinhart, loc. cit., footnote 1, p. 46, above.
|
1 |
See p. 90, where the mint of Valentia is discussed.
|
1 |
Die Münzen ... von Toledo, pp. 89–90.
|
2 |
Cf. F. S. Lear's note on decalvation in "The Public Law of the Visigothic Code," Speculum, 1951, pp. 15–16.
|
2 |
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 Beltrán, Suevia, pp. 97–99.
|
3 |
Cf. Reinhart, 1941, p. 191.
|
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 of Leovigild's time;1 and even while Chindasvinth was alive there appear other varieties of the bust with oblique breast and shoulder lines and distinctive diadem (with 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 holding a cruciform scepter (2 ee-ll), later used also by Ervig, Egica and Suniefred. It has been suggested that Heraclius' recovery of the Holy Cross was influential in bringing the symbol into prominence both on the reverses and in the form of the scepter on the obverse.1
1 |
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.
|
2 |
For a discussion of Gothic helmets and their representation on Visigothic coins, see Reinhart, Los yelmos visigodos.
|
3 |
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.
|
4 |
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 the figure of Christ on coins of Ervig's contemporary, Justinian II.1 There is, for example, a remote resemblance between bust types 11 h, i and j, and the reverse of Justinian's coin, B.M.Cat. Imp.Byz. Coins, II, pl. XXXVIII, 25. Another group, especially 11 n and o, is suggestive of certain Merovingian busts.2
1 |
Cf. Mateu y Llopis, loc. cit. in footnote 3, p. 51, above, pp. 47–52.
|
2 |
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.
|
3 |
A few at Barcinona, Cesaragusta and Cordoba.
|
4 |
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
1 |
B.M.Cat.
Imp.Byz.Coins, II, pl. XXXVIII, 15–17, 20–22, 25, etc.
|
2 |
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.
|
3 |
Only the principal sub-types are represented; there are many variations and gradations.
|
4 |
B.M.Cat. Imp.Byz.Coins, II, pl. XXXVI, 1–3, 8–10, pl. XXXVII, 5–11, etc.
|
5 |
Op.cit., pl. XXXVIII, 6.
|
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 c Leovigild: No mint name, Barcinona, Cesaragusta, Rodas, Tirasona, Reccopolis, Toleto, Ispali, Italica, Elvora, Emerita, Bracara. Hermenegild: No mint name. Chindasvinth & Reccesvinth: Toleto.
1 e Chindasvinth & Reccesvinth: Ispali. Reccesvinth: Ispali.
1 f Chindasvinth & Reccesvinth: Ispali, Emerita. Reccesvinth: Ispali.
1 h Reccesvinth: Toleto, Cordoba, Ispali, Egitania, Emerita, Tude. Egica: Tarracona.
2 b Wamba: Toleto, Ispali. Ervig: Ispali. Egica: Gerunda, Ispali.
2 f Egica: Narbona, Cesaragusta.
2 g Reccesvinth: Egitania. Wittiza: Reccopolis.
2 h Chindasvinth & Reccesvinth: Toleto. Wamba: Toleto.
2 j Ervig: Toleto. Egica: Toleto. Wittiza: Toleto.
2 k Egica: Narbona. Wittiza: Mentesa (variant).
2 n Wamba : Tarracona, Cordoba, Emerita. Egica: Emerita.
2 p Wamba: Cordoba, Emerita. Ervig: Egitania. Egica: Cordoba, Egitania, Emerita.
2 r Ervig: Cordoba, Eliberri, Emerita.
2 z Egica: Valentia (Tarraconensis).
2 dd Chindasvinth & Reccesvinth:
2 ff Wamba: Toleto. Egica: Toleto.
2 gg Egica: Rodas, Toleto, Tude. Suniefred: Toleto.
4 c Reccared: Cesaragusta, Dertosa, Tarracona, Tirasona.
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 Leovigild: Cesaragusta.
Reccared: Cesaragusta, Dertosa, Tirasona.
5 a Leovigild: Reccopolis, Toleto, Ispali, Elvora.
Reccared: Reccopolis, Eminio, Asturie.
Sisebut: Georres.
5 b Leovigild: Narbona.
Reccared: Pincia.
5 c Leovigild: Narbona, Barcinona (variant).
5 d Reccared: Narbona, Saldania, Toleto, Eliberri, Ispali, Egitania, Elvora, Eminio, Salmantica, Arros, Asturie, Cepis(?).
Liuva: Portocale.
Witteric: Toleto.
Sisebut : Toleto, Elvora.
5 e Liuva: Ispali, Elvora.
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 Reccared: Mentesa, Monecipio, Totela, Portocale, Tude(?).
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 Sisebut: Mentesa.
Sisenand: Mentesa.
5 j Witteric: Gerunda, Flavas.
Suinthila: Bracara.
Chintila: Castelona.
5 k Leovigild: Narbona, Ispali.
Reccared: Tarracona (variant).
5 l Leovigild: Rodas, Saldania, Ispali, Emerita, Portocale.
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 Leovigild: Ispali, Lebea.
Reccared: Eminio.
5 n Reccared: Tornio, Tude.
Liuva: Toleto.
Witteric: Bracara, Nandolas, Vallearitia.
Sisebut: Bergio.
Chintila: Mave.
Tulga: Laetera.
5 o Reccared: Totela, Bergancia, Calapa, Cepis, Lucu, Pincia.
Liuva: Nandolas.
Sisebut: Laure, Pesicos, Semure.
Chintila: Valentia.
Ervig: Cordoba.
5 p Ervig: Cesaragusta.
Egica: Barcinona, Tarracona. Wittiza: Cesaragusta, Tarracona.
5 q Witteric: Palentucio.
Suinthila: Asturie, Nandolas, Senabria. Chindasvinth: Saldania, Mave, Petra. Ervig : Tarracona.
5 r Reccared: Eminio.
Witteric: Narbona, Saldania.
5 s Egica: Cesaragusta.
Wittiza: Tarracona.
5 u Chintila: Lucu.
Wamba: Tarracona (or 5 e).
5 v Witteric: Arros.
Suinthila: Ventosa.
Chintila: Petra.
Tulga: Barbi.
Chindasvinth: Tude.
(All amorphous, variant types)
6 a Leovigild: Emerita.
Reccared: Barcinona, Rodas.
Witteric: Barcinona, Gerunda, Nandolas.
7 Reccared: Emerita, Eminio, Monecipio.
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 Leovigild: Emerita.
Reccared: Tude.
8 b Reccared: Emerita, Eminio.
8 c Reccared: Emerita, Eminio.
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.
9 b Leovigild: Cordoba.
Witteric: Cordoba.
Sisebut: Cordoba.
Suinthila: Cordoba.
Chintila: Cordoba.
Tulga: Cordoba.
Chindasvinth: Cordoba, Eliberri.
10 a Chintila: Cordoba.
Tulga: Cordoba.
Chindasvinth: Cordoba, Eliberri.
11 b Ervig: Cordoba, Elvora, Emerita.
Egica & Wittiza: Gerunda.
Wittiza: Mentesa (variation), Cordoba.
11 d Ervig: Cordoba.
Egica: Mentesa.
11 o Wittiza: Toleto, Emerita.
13 a Egica & Wittiza: Narbona, Tarracona.
13 b Egica & Wittiza: Narbona.
13 c Egica & Wittiza: Barcinona, Gerunda, Tarracona.
13 d Egica & Wittiza: Cesaragusta, Mentesa.
13 f Egica & Wittiza: Toleto, Valentia, Cordoba, Egabro, Eliberri, Ispali, Tucci, Egitania, Elvora, Bracara,
13 g Egica & Wittiza: Gerunda.
13 h Egica & Wittiza: Mentesa.
13 i Egica & Wittiza: Salmantica.
13 j Egica & Wittiza: Mentesa, Emerita.
13 k Egica & Wittiza: Mentesa, Toleto.
13 l Egica & Wittiza: Mentesa, Emerita, Lucu (?).
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 ); on the reverse, the name of the mint, usually followed, or occasionally preceded, by an epithet referring to the ruler, usually either PIVS or IVSTVS, sometimes abbreviated. The king's name is sometimes introduced by DN (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 the two rulers, one on each side; the names of the latter pair of rulers are frequently followed by various abbreviations of the formula REX REGES (i. e., "King Egica [and] King Wittiza, kings").
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
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 Spain:2 one in Narbonensis, ten in Tarraconensis, seven in Carthaginensis, nine in Baetica, 13 in Lusitania, 38 in Gallaecia, one to which a province has not been assigned. The largest
NARBONA | TRARRCONENSIS | CARTHAGINENSIS | BAETICA | LUSITANIA | GALLAECIA | UNKNOWN | TOTAL | |
Leovigild | 1 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 19 |
Hermenegild | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Reccared | 1 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 9 | 13 | 0 | 36 |
Liuva II | 0 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 10 |
Witteric | 1 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 15 | 0 | 32 |
Gundemar | 0 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 11 |
Sisebut | 0 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 12 | 0 | 31 |
Suinthila | 1 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 15 | 0 | 36 |
Sisenand | 1 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 21 |
Iudila | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
Chintila | 0 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 18 |
Tulga | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 12 |
Chindasvinth | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 10 | 0 | 21 |
Chindasvinth & Reccesvinth .. | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
Reccesvinth | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 11 |
Wamba | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
Ervig | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 12 |
Egica | 1 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 19 |
Suniefred | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Egica & Wittiza | 1 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 21 |
Wittiza | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 10 |
Roderic | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
Achila II | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
MINT | Leovigild | Hermenegild | Reccared | Liuva II | Witteric | Gundemar | Sisebut | Suinthila | Sisenand | Iudila | Chintila | Tulga | Chindasvinth | Chindasvinth & Reccesvinth | Reccesvinth | Wamba | Ervig | Egica | Suniefred | Egica & Wittiza | Wittiza | Rideric | Achila II | TOTALS |
Narbonensis | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Narbona | 5 | 9 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 17 | 4 | 20 | 13 | 17 | 8 | 7 | 107 | ||||||||||
Tarraconensis | 383 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Barcinona | 2 | 26 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 39 | |||||||||||||||||
Calagorre | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Cesaragusta | 7 | 23 | 2 | 9 | 3 | 7 | 13 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 10 | 12 | 9 | 105 | ||||||||
Dertosa | 4 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Gerunda | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 9 | 19 | 12 | 1 | 51 | |||||||||||||||
Rodas | 5 | 3 | 2 | 10 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Sagunto | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Tarracona | 1 | 28 | 3 | 7 | 7 | 22 | 20 | 5 | 1 | 21 | 7 | 6 | 9 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 146 | |||||||
Tirasona | 1 | 12 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 19 | |||||||||||||||||
Valentia | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 6 | |||||||||||||||||||
Carthaginensis | 675 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Acci | 3 | 19 | 13 | 2 | 2 | 39 | ||||||||||||||||||
Beatia | 1 | 2 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Castelona | 18 | 1 | 19 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Mentesa | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 37 | 20 | 4 | 7 | 4 | 84 | ||||||||||||||
Reccopolis | 4 | 6 | 1 | 11 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Saldania | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 6 | ||||||||||||||||||
Toleto | 44 | 69 | 3 | 16 | 3 | 17 | 28? | 32 | 13 | 10 | 22 | 6 | 67 | 41 | 44 | 57 | 1 | 22 | 17 | 1 | 513 | |||
Baetica | 1144 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Asidona | 8 | 8 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Barbi | 2 | 76 | 26 | 2 | 106 | |||||||||||||||||||
Cordoba | 6 | 20 | 1 | 1 | 47 | 59 | 4 | 16 | 15 | 41 | 14 | 14 | 6 | 22 | 7 | 273 | ||||||||
Egabro | 2 | 2 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Eliberri | 12 | 8 | 4 | 8 | 76 | 32 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 158 | |||||||||||
Ispali | 11 | 7 | 42 | 10 | 15 | 7 | 74 | 74 | 65 | 6 | 4 | 17 | 4 | 50 | 23 | 24 | 16 | 39 | 6 | 494 | ||||
Italica | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Malaca | 3 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Tucci | 1 | 2 | 65 | 19 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 97 | ||||||||||||||||
Lusitania | 949 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Caliabria | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Coleia | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Contosolia | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Egitania | 1 | 1 | 4 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 11 | 44 | ||||||||||||
Elvora | 21 | 35 | 4 | 13 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 10 | 96 | |||||||||||||
Emerita | 22 | 102 | 11 | 19 | 4 | 29 | 160 | 123 | 1 | 14 | 8 | 48 | 2 | 53 | 46 | 48 | 23 | 32 | 12 | 757 | ||||
Eminio | 12 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 21 | |||||||||||||||||
Lamego | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Monecipio | 5 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
MINT | Leovigild | Hermenegild | Reccared | Liuva II | Witteric | Gundemar | sisebut | Suinthila | sisenand | Iudila | Chintila | Tulga | Chindasvinth | Chindasvinth & Reccesvinth | Reccesvinth | Wamba | Ervig | Egica | Suniefred | Egica & Wittiza | Wittiza | Roderic | Achila II | TOTALS |
Salmantica | 4 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 14 | |||||||||||||||||
Totela | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Valentia | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Veseo | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Gallaecia | 146 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Aliobrio | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Arros | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Asturie | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Aurense | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Bergancia | 3 | 2 | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Bergio | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Bracara | 1 | 1 | 7 | 1? | 9 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 24 | |||||||||||||||
Calapa (Calabacia) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||
Cassavio | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Catora | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Celo | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Cepis | 1 | 2 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Flavas | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Fraucello | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Georres | 3 | 1 | 1 | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Laetera | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Laure | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Lauruclo | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Lebea | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Leione | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Lucu | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 1 | 15 | ||||||||||||||||
Mave | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Nandolas | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 6 | |||||||||||||||||||
Oliovasio | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Palentucio | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Pannonias | 1 | 2 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Pesicos | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Petra | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Pincia | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Portocale | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 8 | ||||||||||||||||||
Semure | 1 | 2 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Senabria | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Toriviana | 1 | IT | 1 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Tornio | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Tude | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 14 | ||||||||||||||||
Vallearitia | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Vallegia? | 1 | 1 |
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 without the hoard, the coins of Reccared would be the most common by far. The mints most heavily represented in the hoard were located in Baetica, Lusitania and Carthaginensis, in the following order: Emerita, Ispali, Eliberri, Cordoba, Barbi, Tucci, Mentesa, Acci. While coins from several of these mints are generally relatively common, others, but for the hoard, are not. For example, roughly two-thirds of the known coins of Barbi and Tucci are from La Capilla, as are four-fifths of those of Acci. The proportion is even more striking in the case of some of the less common mints: e. g., only 19 coins of Castelona are known, and 14 of these are from La Capilla; two of the three known coins of Fraucello, and seven of the eight of Asidona, are from the hoard; and several mints (Aliobrio, Leione, Senabria) would be unknown were it not for the find.
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.
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 France; Roman 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, ) was occupied by the Arabs under al-Samḥ b. Malik about 719, and perhaps temporarily even earlier; but the city was retaken by Pépin le Bref about 751.
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 or C should be read S, and that SACER or SACER A is intended ;4 or that the die-engraver misspelled GALLIA or GALLIAE;5 or that the letters should be transposed to read C. ARELA and that therefore the issue was struck at Arles(!);1 or that the epithet "doit être rapprochée de celle de 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 French interest in the history of Narbonne, forgeries and fabrications of Narbona issues are common. There are known examples of Leovigild, Sisebut, Sisenand, Chintila, Chindasvinth, Egica, and Wittiza.
1 |
Amardel, Roi Achila, pp. 425–440; Carson, pp. 144–145; Catholic Encycl., III, p. 331; García Villada, II1, pp. 75, 94; Görres, Anfänge, p. 594; Hill, Narbonensis, pp. 2–3; Lévi-ProvenÇal, Histoire, pp. 39–41, 46; Lübker, pp. 699–700; Menéndez Pidal, passim, p. 294; Oxford, p. 597; P.-W., Suppl. VII, cols. 515–549.
|
1 |
Prou, p. 503.
|
1 |
Ibid., p. 4.
|
2 |
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.
|
2 |
Carson, p. 148.
|
2 |
Blanchet, p. 188.
|
3 |
Heiss, p. 39.
|
4 |
Meynaerts, 1850, p. 3.
|
5 |
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).
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 Spain, took up his residence in Barcelona, where he died in the summer of 415. The city figures prominently in Visigothic history both as a political and an economic center, and as the seat of a bishopric, it having been an episcopal see from very early Christian times. It was the site of two provincial councils, those of the years 540(?) and 599. Variant spellings of the name in the mediaeval diocesan lists are Varcinona and Barcilona.
Barcelona (Barshilūnah, ) was occupied by the Arabs perhaps as early as 713, but from 801 onward, with the exception of a few temporary Muslim occupations, it remained in Christian hands.
The exceptional spelling VARCINONA on the earliest specimen of the mint is interesting in that it suggests a local substitution of V for B in pronunciation as early as the 6th century. It may, however, simply be an error.1
There is no ready explanation of the apparent inactivity of the mint between 610 and 687.2
1 |
Cambridge I, pp. 278, 403; Catholic Encycl., II, p. 289; E. of I., s. v, Barcelone (French ed.); García Villada, II1, p. 76; Heiss, p. 45; Lévi-ProvenÇal, Histoire, pp. 22, 39, 123, 125ff.; Menéndez Pidal, pp. 57, 294; P.-W. III, col. 7; Vázquez de Parga, pp. 22–31.
|
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, ) was perhaps first occupied by 'Abd al-Raḥmān I about 781, certainly a few years later (796) by a general of al-Ḥakam I.
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 () appears before Ervig. Under Ervig, Egica and Wittiza the name is spelled in full CESΛVSTΛ, or the equivalent with abbreviations.
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⊏OBLDVS and BICEᔕR⊏AIV (Leovigild). C·E:T:VI and C·E:ƧTΛVVI (Reccared).
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, ), and doubtless after the reconquest when Zaragoza became the Aragonese capital.
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 Beltrán's attribution to Cesaragusta. This attribution involves the reading of ⊏ as C (or G) in the reverse legend, but as E on the obverse — a somewhat embarrassing circumstance. The legends are perhaps to be read LEOBGILDVS+TO and BI CESARCA IV, with some possibility of interpreting them as 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 and on coins of Chindasvinth & Reccesvinth, of Reccesvinth alone, and of Egica & Wittiza, as 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.
1 |
Cf. Campaner, p. 205, note 3; Mateu y Llopis, Barcelona, pp. 3–4.
|
1 |
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.
|
2 |
Mateu y Llopis, Barcelona, remarks on but does not attempt to explain the hiatus.
|
3 |
Campaner, p. 214; Catholic Encycl., III, p. 148; Hill, pp. 174–180; Lévi-ProvenÇal, Histoire, pp. 90, 122; Madrid, p. 282; Menéndez Pidal, p. 279; P.-W. III, cols. 1327–28; Vázquez de Parga, pp. 22–31.
|
4 |
Cambridge
I, p. 413; Catholic Encycl., XIII, pp. 468–469; E. of I., s.v. Saragosse (French ed.); García Villada, II1, p. 75; Hill, pp. 86–98; Lévi-ProvenÇal, Histoire, p. 21; Menéndez Pidal, pp. 31, 65, 75, 279, 289, 294, 418; P.-W. III, cols. 1287–88; Vázquez de Parga, pp. 22–31.
|
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 known as 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, ) under the 'Āmirid slave kings and the Hūdids. According to Heiss,1 the building which served as the Arab mint still existed when he wrote, but I have not been able to trace his authority for this statement. Might he perhaps have confused the 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)?
1 |
See the references there to earlier discussions.
|
2 |
See the references there for "Cestavi."
|
3 |
Catholic Encycl., XIV, p. 785; E. ofI., s. v. Tortosa; Heiss, Monnaies Antiques, pp. 128–131; Hill, pp. 74–75,103; Lévi-ProvenÇal, Inscriptions, pp. 83–84; idem, Histoire, p. 128; Madrid, pp. 274–275; Menéndez Pidal, pp. 83, 279; P.-W. V, cols. 246–258; Vádzquez de Parga, pp. 22–31.
|
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.
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 in Moslem times. There are few details of the limited Arab occupation, which dated probably from 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.
1 |
Monnaies Antiques, p. 130.
|
2 |
Catholic Encycl., VI, p. 530; Hill, p. 61; al-ḥimyari, p. 248; Lévi-ProvenÇal, Histoire, pp. 22,40,91; Mateu y Llopis, Gerona, pp. 168–172; Menéndez Pidal, pp. 123, 279, 294; P.-W. VII, cols. 1284–85; Vázquez de Parga, pp. 22–31.
|
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 Spain, occupies and covers the ruins of the ancient Rhode ('Pόδε), an emporium founded, probably in the 5th century B.C., by Phocaeans from Massalia.1 The ruins have not yet been positively identified. The earliest coinage consists of drachms datable to the first half of the 4th century. It has sometimes been stated that Roda or Rodas (one cannot tell from the few coins preserved which was the preferred spelling) was an episcopal see in Visigothic times,2 but the name does not occur in the lists of 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 in Moslem times concern the Roda of Huesca and other localities, not Rosas.
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 hitherto weakly documented evidence for the operation of the mint of Rodas at this late date.
1 |
Campaner, 1873, pp. 48–50; Catholic Encycl., II, pp. 285–286; Görres, Leovigild, p. 142; Heiss, Monnaies Antiques, p. 84; Hill, pp. 6–7; Madrid, pp. 269–270; P.-W. IA, col. 954; Zorita de los Canes, p. 30.
|
1 |
A tradition to the effect that the colony was first established by Rhodians has little foundation.
|
2 |
E. g., Heiss, p. 58, and 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 = 3 (from Murviedro, etc.) Sagunto was well known to the Arab geographers, who remark, among other things, on the Roman theater there.
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 G. While 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.
1 |
Heiss, Monnaies Antiques, pp. 217–218 (288–290 for ARSE); Hill, pp. 111–127; al-ḥimyari, p. 217; Mateu y Llopis, Ampurias, 1941, pp. 88–89; P.-W. IA, cols. 1755–56; Yāqūt, IV, p. 486.
|
2 |
Just when this name gained currency is uncertain; it occurs in the so-called Division of Wamba (probably late 11th century).
|
3 |
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).
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 Tarracona in the Vidal Quadras y Ramón collection. The city was perhaps raided by the Arabs about 714, and fell in 724 or shortly thereafter, but within a century it was restored to the Christians and subsequently changed hands between Moslems and Franks several times. The Arabic name was Tarrakūnah .
1 |
Catholic Encycl; XIV, pp. 459–461; E. of I., s. v. Tarragone (French ed.); García Villada, II1, pp. 53, 200, 204; Heiss, Monnaies Antiques, pp. 115–118; Hill, pp. 39–50; al-ḥimyari, pp. 153–154; Lévi-ProvenÇal, Histoire, pp. 22, 128; Mateu y Llopis, Tarragona; Menéndez Pidal, pp. 75–76, 105, 279, 294; P.-W. IVA, cols. 2398–2403.
|
1 |
Most of the extensive literature can be traced through Otto Voetter, "Zur Streitfrage ob Tarraco oder Ticinum" (NZ, Wien, 1926, pp. 145–154), Percy H. Webb, "Third Century Roman Mints and Marks" (NC, 1921, pp. 233ff.), Jules Maurice, Numismatique Constantinienne, II (Paris, 1911), pp. 197ff.
|
2 |
Mateu y Llopis characterizes this form of the name as "romance o vulgar" (Tarragona, p. 76).
|
2 |
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.
|
3 |
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, ) was taken by the Arabs early in the third decade of the 8th century; and later, alternating with Tudela (Tuṭīlah), became the seat of governors of the Marches.
The publication of the collection of the Hispanic Society of America adds two names, Leovigild and Witteric, to the list of kings during whose rules the mint at Tirasona was active.
Rulers: Suinthila, Chintila, Egica, Egica & Wittiza.
Spelling: VALENTIA.
Epithet: IVSTVS —Suinthila. PIVS —Chintila, Egica.
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 D. Junius Brutus, a colony in imperial times. The coins with Latin legends bear VALENTIA and VAL. It appears likely that Valentia was among the coastal towns occupied by the Visigoths during the reign of Euric (466–484). Its documented ecclesiastical history begins with Bishop Justinianus (531–546), mentioned by St. Isidore; in 546 a provincial council was held at Valencia, and the oldest monastic school in Spain is stated to have been located there. It was the first site of Hermenegild's banishment after his removal from Seville. In the numerous mediaeval episcopal lists, and in the earliest, of the late 7th century, Valentia (sometimes spelled 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 of Toledo and Tarragona contending for jurisdiction.1 In the late 15th century Valentia became an Archdiocese, which it is today.
The city fell to the Arabs in 714, about the same time as Sagunto, Jativa and Denia, and became known as Balansīyah . It was the seat of a governor in the period of the Emirate and Caliphate, and after the breakup of the latter in the early 11th century it became the capital of an important independent kingdom, and later was attached to Toledo. Its prominence in the days of the Cid is well known and extensively documented. Balansīyah was a Moslem mint from 'Āmirid days onward until the reconquest, and thereafter it had its own Christian numismatic history.
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.
1 |
Catholic Encycl., XIV, pp. 452–453; Heiss, Monnaies Antiques, p. 190; Hill, pp. 162–168; al-ḥimyari, p. 150; Lévi-ProvenÇal, Histoire, p. 41; Menéndez Pidal, p. 279; Smith, Dictionary, 8.v, Turiaso; Vázquez de Parga, pp. 22–31.
|
1 |
Numismatic writers frequently list Valentia under Chintila and Egica as a mint of Carthaginensis: e.g., Reinhart, p. 100.
|
2 |
Beltrán, pp. 434, 441–442; Catholic Encycl., XV, pp. 251–253; E. of I., 8. v. Valence (French ed.); García Villada, II1, pp. 52–53; Görres, Byzantinischen
Besitzungen, pp. 530–532; Heiss, Monnaies Antiques, pp. 222–223; al-Ḥimyari, pp. 59ff.;Lübker, p. 1081; Madrid, pp. 307–310; Mateu y Llopis, Ampurias 1941, pp. 92–95; idem, Hallazgos V, p. 70; Menéndez Pidal, pp. 77, 90, 105, 278, 294, 391; P.-W. VIIA, cols. 2148–50; Vázquez de Parga, pp. 22–31. See also C. Torres, "La fundación de Valencia," in 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 and Wādi'l-Ashi, i. e., river or valley of Ash or Ashi, derived from the name Acci; and the modern name Guadix of course comes from the Arabic. The town flourished during the first centuries of Moorish occupation, but during the Muwaḥid period and for some time thereafter it suffered eclipse. The episcopal see was restored in 1492, and Guadix is still a diocese today.
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 reign, or perhaps to one of the other uprisings that marked his rule; but what local significance there may be with reference to Acci, if any, is not recorded in written history.
Eleven of the 39 known specimens of Acci are in the collection of the Hispanic Society of America, and most of the rest were in the hoard of La Capilla. A coin of Acci in this find supposedly with the legend "JAJITA," which occasioned much discussion, has been shown simply to bear a retrograde writing of Suinthila's name.1
1 |
Cambridge, II, pp. 180–181; Catholic Encycl., XIV, p. 172, XVI, p. 43; E. of I., 8. v. Guadix; Görres, Leovigild, p. 143; Heiss, Monnaies Antiques, p. 256; al-Ḥimyari, p. 233; Maqqari, I, pp. 46, 353; Melón, p. 170; Menéndez Pidal, pp. 101, 132, 278; P.-W. I, cols. 139–140;
Vázquez de Parga, pp. 22–31.
|
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 restores the original u (or o).
Most of the known specimens of Castelona, including the seven in the HSA collection, come from the hoard of La Capilla.
1 |
Cf. p. 29, footnote 1, p. 37, footnote 1.
|
2 |
Catholic Encycl., VIII, p. 267; Görres, Anfänge, p. 601; al-ḥimyari, p. 72; Hübner, MLI, p. 243; Menéndez Pidal, pp. 278, 318 (notes 62 and 64); Melón, p. 170; Smith, Dictionary, I, p. 384; Vázquez de Parga, pp. 22–31.
|
3 |
Cf. Beltrán, pp. 408, 416.
|
4 |
Catholic Encycl., VIII, p. 267; Heiss, Mommies Antiques, p. 284; al-ḥimyari, pp. 191 (note 2), 248 (note 13); Lévi-ProvenÇal, Histoire, p. 237; Mata, pp. 18–20; Menéndez Pidal, pp. 278, 318 (note 64); P.-W. III, cols. 1778–80; Vázquez de Parga, pp. 22–31.
|
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.
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, ) was a semi-independent city-principality in Umayyad times is clear from several references to the fortress and its "lords" in the Arabic chronicles.
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.
1 |
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.
|
1 |
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.
|
2 |
Akhbār Majmū'ah, pp. 258–259; Dozy, Histoire, I, p. 226, II, pp. 38, 55, 100; al-ḥimyari, p. 248 (note 14); Lévi-ProvenÇal, Histoire, pp. 244, 288; Menéndez Pidal, p. 278; Melón, p. 170; P.-W. XV, col. 963; Vázquez de Parga, pp. 22–31.
|
2 |
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 Spain by Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Razi ("Crónica del Moro Rasis"), the name of Reccopolis as given in the Spanish translation being rendered "Racupel." According to this account, the Castillo of Zorita de los Canes1 was built with stones taken from Reccopolis. Later Moslem geographers record the name: Yāqūt (A. D. 1228) spells 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 in the hoard is not at all convincing; nor can the chronological arguments relating to the destruction of the city, based on the presence of the hoard in the "baptistry" of Leovigild, be considered entirely reliable.1 In the second place, we must reject Cabré Aguiló's related assertion that "las cuatro emisiones de trientes de Leovigildo y Recaredo publicadas por Heiss... deben ser falsas." Both Beltrán and Mateu y Llopis have pointed out that this argument can be valid only if 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. Copenhagen (Heiss); 3. VQR (Heiss); 4. Gómez-Moreno. 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 unfortunately the single damaged piece in the VQR collection is too obscure to serve as a firm basis for discussion.
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.
1 |
Cabré y Aguiló (including Beltrán's reply); E. of I., s. v. al-Rāzi (Lévi-ProvenÇal); Görres, Anfänge, pp. 616–617; idem, Leovigild, pp. 146–147; idem, Rekared, p. 272; Heiss, pp. 38–39; al-ḥimyari, p. 161; Madrid, p. 300; Mateu y Llopis, Review of Zorita de los Canes in Ampurias, IX-X (1948), pp. 435–437; Menéndez Pidal, pp. 102, 108 (note 27); Ramón y Fernández, p. 89; Yāqūt, II, p. 802; Zorita de los Canes, especially pp. 7, 33–35, 41–54.
|
1 |
An excellent photograph of the castle in Zorita de los Canes, pl. II.
|
1 |
Beltrán, using the same numismatic evidence, concluded that the excavated ruins cannot be those of Reccopolis at all because
the hoard (pre-578) antedates the founding of the city.
|
2 |
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).
|
2 |
No. 1 is slightly under weight, but it is a little chipped and worn.
|
3 |
"... 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 and about 30 kilometers south of the foothills of the Cordillera Cantabrica. Roman remains testify to the antiquity of the site, but little is known of its history. On the borders of Gallaecia, it has been alternatively reckoned in that province or in Carthaginensis. Visigothic occupation of the town appears to date from Leovigild's campaign against Cantabria in 574; the later coins are evidence that it continued to be a northern outpost of Visigothic dominion. It is interesting to note that one of the two (or more?) known coins of Suinthila struck at Saldania was found in a cemetery at Pamplona, a town which appears not to have been a Visigothic mint, but in an area which was evidently penetrated by Suinthila in his expedition "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 America.
1 |
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.
|
2 |
Dozy, Histoire, II, p. 130; Lévi-ProvenÇal, Histoire, pp. 439–440; Madrid, pp. 299–300; Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos III, pp. 223–224, 229; Menéndez Pidal, p. 101.
|
3 |
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
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 fourth type, obverse, facing bust (111); reverse, cross; fifth type, facing bust (11r); reverse, cross on 3 steps.
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 control, and after the Kingdom of Toulouse came to an end in 507 and the Visigothic center of gravity shifted beyond the Pyrenees, Toleto, well fortified and strategically situated, eventually became the chief city of the new kingdom in Spain. While Athanagild is reported to have selected Toleto as the seat of government (567), it appears that only under Leovigild did it become the official and effective capital. We know that it was called urbs regia in the acts of the Third National Council convened in 589.
As political capital, diocesan, and later primatial archepiscopal see of Spain, and site of the most important general Councils, the city became the center of the civil, ecclesiastical and cultural life of the Visigoths. The most famous of the National Councils held in Toleto was the Third, in May, 589, when Reccared and his followers abjured the Arian heresy and professed the Catholic doctrine of the Council of Nicea. The Basilica of Santa María was consecrated for use by the Catholics on April 13, 587.
In 714 Toleto (Ṭulayṭulah, ) fell to Ṭāriq b. Ziyād. Its history during the period of the Umayyad Caliphate was a stormy one, punctuated by many rebellions; after the collapse of the Caliphate in the early 11th century, the city became the capital of the independent kingdom of the Dhu'l-Nūnids, later in the same century was annexed by the king of Badajoz, and finally (in 1085) was retaken by the Christians under Alfonso VI of Castile. A mint was located here after the fall of the Umayyad Caliphate as well as after the reconquest.
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
1 |
The name of Shalṭāniyah (but spelled in the Arabic text) appears in the so-called "Partage de Constantin" (al-ḥimyari, pp. 246–247), described as the "country
of the son of Gomez." Lévi-ProvenÇal identifies this name as Celtiana, equivalent to "la territoire des Célticos," in the northwest corner of Spain.
|
1 |
Forgeries of the latter are common.
|
2 |
Catholic Encycl., XIV, pp. 755–759; E. of I., s. v. Toledo (Lévi-ProvenÇal); García Villada, II1, pp. 41, 61, 64ff., 200, 204; Görres, Anfänge, pp. 611–612; Heiss, Monnaies Antiques, pp. 262–264; Menéndez Pidal, passim; P.-W. VIA, col. 1673.
|
3 |
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 and later as Madīnat Ibn al-Salīm (not to be confused with Madīnat Sālim—Medinaceli), the town figured in the earliest history of Islam in Spain, situated as it was near the site of the battle between Ṭāriq and Roderic in 711. The following year Shadhūnah fell to Mūsa b. Nuṣayr.
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.
1 |
E. of I., 8. v. Medina-Sidonia (Lévi-ProvenÇal); Görres, Byzantinischen Besitzungen, pp. 518ff.; idem, Leovigild, p. 140; Heiss, Monnaies Antiques, p. 370; al-ḥimyari, pp. 123, 195; La Capilla, pp. 107–108; Lévi-ProvenÇal, Histoire, pp. 15, 19; Madrid, pp. 319, 338; Mateu y Llopis, Nombres de Lugar, 1940, p. 73; Melón, p. 172; Menéndez Pidal, pp. 278, 318; P.-W. II, col. 1579, IV, col. 540; Vázquez de Parga, pp. 22–31.
|
2 |
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.
|
3 |
Or, according to other authority, at the Fourth National Council in 633. Cf. Menéndez Pidal, p. 318. It is interesting to
note that the only known coins date from 631–636.
|
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 Florez, have identified Barbi with an ancient "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 Hübner, i.e., 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 America.
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).
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 M. Claudius Marcellus (169, 152 B.C.). The name Colonia Patricia takes the place of 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 Greeks are reported to have received from Leovigild a bribe of 30,000 solidi.
The fame of Cordoba under the Arabs (Qurṭubah, ), especially during the Umayyad period, is proverbial. The city fell to Mughīth al-Rūmi, a freedman, in 711, doubtless with the connivance of the resident Jews; and from 719 onward until the collapse of the Caliphate early in the 11th century, it was the capital of Muslim Spain (the principal, if not the only, 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).
1 |
Florez, p. 238; La Capilla, pp. 71–76; Madrid, p. 322; Melón, p. 181; P.-W. IIIA , cols. 235–236.
|
1 |
In modern times, before 1851, Córdoba was suffragan to Toledo, but since that date it has been, as formerly, within the Archiocese
of Sevilla.
|
2 |
Catholic Encycl., IV, pp. 359–360; E. of I., a. v. Córdoba (C. F. Seybold); García Villada, II1, p. 52; Görres, Anfänge, p. 602; idem, Leovigild, pp. 140–141; idem, Byzantinischen Besitzungen, pp. 516, 518–526; idem, Hermenegild, pp. 46–49; Grant, pp. 4–5; Heiss, Monnaies Antiques, pp. 296–297; Mateu y Llopis, Córdoba, pp. 50ff.; Menéndez Pidal, pp. 95, 100, 105, 278; Miles, Umayyads, pp. 33–43, 50–51; P.-W. IV, cols. 1221–24; Vázquez de Parga, pp. 22–31.
|
2 |
For the unique Umayyad coin (in the HSA collection) bearing the mintname Madīnat Qurṭubah, see Miles, Umayyads, p. 50–51.
|
3 |
See the discussion of the authenticity of this coin, pp. 243–4.
|
Rulers: Chintila, Egica & Wittiza.
Spelling: EGABR (Chintila). EGABRO (Egica & Wittiza).
Epithet: PIVS.
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 , whence the modern name.
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.
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 Spain, known as the Council of Elvira, held in the early 4th century, probably 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 , whence the Spanish Elvira, sometimes as Qasṭīlah , located by the mediaeval Moslem geographers close to Granada, between Atarfe and Pinos Puente at the foot of the Sierra de Elvira. Ilbirah was a flourishing town during the Caliphate, but the inhabitants began to desert it for Granada early in the 11th century.
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).
1 |
al-ḥimyari, pp. 178–179; Madrid, p. 331; Menéndez Pidal, pp. 220, 278; P.-W. IX, col. 965; Vázquez de Parga, pp. 22–31.
|
2 |
Sometimes rendered Aegabro.
|
3 |
Catholic Encycl., V, pp. 395–396, VI, pp. 723–724; Dozy, Recherches (3rd ed.), I. PP. 327–340; E. of I., s. v. Elvira (C. F. Seybold); Heiss, Monnaies Antiques, pp. 325–326; al-ḥimyari, pp. 30, 37; Melón, p. 173; Menéndez Pidal, p. 278; P.-W. IX, cols. 1060–61, Suppl. III, cols. 1211–15;
Vázquez de Parga, pp. 22–31.
|
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).
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, ) fell to Mūsa b. Nuṣayr and was chosen as the Moslem capital by Mūsa's son Ἁbd al-Ἁzīz, who married Roderic's widow. About 719 the seat of government was transferred to Cordoba. A mint existed at Ishbīliyah under the 'Abbādids, Murābiṭs, Muwaḥḥids, and the later Hūdids. The city was reconquered by Ferdinand III in 1248 after a siege of sixteen months.
The exceptional legend VRB ISPALI PIVS under Chindasvinth (two specimens) is of interest as a reflection of the strong classical influence predominant in Visigothic Spain during the middle of the 7th century.1
1 |
Beltrán, Suevia, p. 88; Catholic Encycl., XIII, pp. 744–746; E. of I., s. v. Seville (Lévi-ProvenÇal); García Villada, II1, pp. 51–52, 56, 60, 75, 126, 200; Görres, Byzantinischen Besitzungen, pp. 518–526; idem, Hermenegild, pp. 13, 27–28, 38ff., 46; Heiss, Monnaies Antiques, pp. 392–394; al-ḥimyari, pp. 24–28; Menéndez Pidal, pp. VIII, 22, 29, 96, 103, 105, 286, 294; P.-W. VIII, cols. 1963–65;
Miles, Umayyads, p. 34; Vázquez de Parga, pp. 22–31.
|
1 |
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 America,4 with a legend resembling those of Leovigild's at Ispali, must date from 582 or 583 and commemorates one of Leovigild's victories in the course of his campaign of pacification in Baetica. The inscription is probably to be read CVM DE[O] O[BTINVIT] ETALICA. Whether the initial letter of the mint-name is an error or rather represents a contemporary pronunciation and spelling is uncertain.
To the later Moslems in Spain Italica (Ṭāliqah, ), then in ruins, was known as the site of an ancient and important capital, and its remains, including a remarkable statue of a young woman (goddess?) are described at some length by Maqqari and al-ḥimyari. It must have been during the course of the first centuries of Moslem occupation that the city fell into complete ruin, and thereafter, and until relatively recent times, the ancient structures on the site served as a quarry for the neighboring Sevillans.
1 |
Cf. Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos IV, p. 248.
|
2 |
E.of I., s. v. Seville; Görres, Hermenegild, pp. 45–46; Heiss, Monnaies Antiques, pp. 378–380; al-ḥimyari, pp. 8, 26, 149–150; Lübker, p. 505; Maqqari, I, pp. 60, 367 -368 (valuable bibliographical note
by Gayangos listing descriptions of the ruins); Menéndez Pidal, pp. 105, 278; Oxford, p. 462; P.-W. IX, cols. 2283–84; Vázquez de Parga, pp. 22–31.
|
3 |
Johannes Biclarensis: "Leovigildus muros Italicae antiquae civitatis restauravit."
|
4 |
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 Spain, ancient Malaca, founded by Tyrians soon after Gades (ca. 1100 B.C.), and next to Gades the most important of their colonies in Spain. Coins with Punic inscriptions (MLKA) were struck here in the 4th-3rd centuries B.C., but there appears to have been no mint at Malaca in the Roman period. Very little is known of the city's Roman history, which began in 205 B.C. It was at first a 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 and ranked among the most important of southern Spain; a mint existed here under the Hammūdids and successors, Murābiṭs and Naṣrids.
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 evidence of the existing specimens is not conclusive, but probably MALACA, not MALAGA, is intended, although the peculiar form on the HSA specimen might be read either way. The name appears commonly as Malaca on the mediaeval church lists, but the forms Mallaca, Malace, Malacha and Malaga also occur.
1 |
Catholic Encycl., IX, p. 565; E. of I., s. v. Malaga (Lévi-ProvenÇal); Görres, Byzantinischen Besitzungen, pp. 518ff., 530–532; idem, Anfänge, p. 601; Heiss, Monnaies Antiques, pp. 311–313; al-ḥimyari, pp. 213–215; Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos IV, pp. 243–244; Menéndez Pidal, pp. 278, 318 (note 67); P.-W. XIV, cols. 823–824; Vázquez de Parga, pp. 22–31.
|
2 |
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.
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 , sometimes wrongly vocalized Tash; but in the latter half of the 10th century the town became known as Mārtush (or Mārtosh), after the name of the district, whence the modern name.
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.
1 |
Dozy, Recherches, I (3rd ed.), pp. 311–313; Menéndez Pidal, p. 278; P.-W. VIIA, 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 Portugal, on the Douro, five kilometers northeast of Almendra and 12 kilometers southeast of Vila Nova de Foz-Coa; ancient Caelobriga, possibly identical with the Kοιγιóβόιγα, a city of the Coelerni, mentioned by Pliny. Caliabria (also spelled 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.
1 |
Beltrán, Suevia, p. 152; Elias Garcia, Lusitânia, p. 69; Fernández-Guerra, II, pp. 439–446; Florez, pp. 221–222; Madrid, p. 362; Menéndez Pidal, pp. 279, 318 (note 69); P.-W. III, col. 1276; Vázquez de Parga, pp. 22–31.
|
2 |
See Elias Garcia, Lusitânia, p. 69, for a bibliography of works dealing with the ruins.
|
3 |
Blázquez, p. 84; Campaner, 1866, p. 120; Elias Garcia, Lusitânia, p. 64; Fernández-Guerra, II, pp. 439–446; Heiss, p. 49; Vázquez de Parga, pp. 98, 113, etc.
|
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.
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 Portugal; the ancient Civitas Igaeditanorum (or Aegiditanorum), recorded in inscriptions. Egitania, also spelled 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.
1 |
Fernández-Guerra, II, pp. 439–446; Heiss, p. 49; Melón, p. 182; P.-W. IV, col. 1160.
|
2 |
Catholic Encycl., VII, p. 49; Lévi-ProvenÇal, Histoire, p. 211; Menéndez Pidal, pp. 40, 278–279; P.W. IX, col. 965; Sampere y Miquel, pp. 69–73; Vázquez de Parga, pp. 22–31.
|
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.
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 Portugal;1 ancient 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 or 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).
1 |
Catholic Encycl., V, pp. 670–671; Heiss, Monnaies Antiques, pp. 407–408; al-ḥimyari, pp. 239, 251; Lévi-ProvenÇal, Histoire, p. 22; Madrid, p. 355; Menéndez Pidal, p. 279; Melón, p. 171; P.-W. I, col. 441; V, cols. 1896–97, 1901; Vázquez de Parga, pp. 22–31.
|
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).
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 bust, right (2 i); reverse, cross on 3 steps; fourth type, obverse, facing bust of late type (11 j); reverse, cross on 3 steps.
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 Spain, 33 miles east of the provincial capital, on the right bank of the Guadiana river (classical 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 found at Emerita is one which records the restoration of the Roman bridge over the Guadiana, apparently in the year 701.
After a siege of several months Mérida, called by the Arabs Māridah , fell to Mūsa b. Nuṣayr in June, 713.
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).
1 |
Heiss argued (p. 51) that the Visigothic mint of Elvora probably was not Évora in Portugal because the type of bust is not
Lusitanian; he agreed with some others that it might be Talavera de la Reyna, to be identified with the 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.
|
2 |
Catholic Encycl., II, p. 194, IV, p. 188; E. of I.,8. v. Mérida (Lévi-ProvenÇal); Garcīa Villada, II1, pp.49, 51, 91, 200; Görres, Byzantinischen Besitzungen, pp. 518–526; idem, Leovigild, p. 163; idem, Hermenegild, p. 38; Heiss, Monnaies Antiques, pp. 398–399; al-ḥimyari, pp. 210–213; Lévi-ProvenÇal, Histoire, p. 19; Menéndez Pidal, pp. XII, XXVIII, 39, 71, 75, 95, 105, 131, 220, 278–279, 288, 292, 294, 313; P.-W. V, cols. 2493–96.
|
3 |
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 Portugal, on the Mondego River, 108 miles north-northeast of Lisbon; ancient 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 reason, probably economic, shifted from 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 ; it fell to Ἁbd al-'Azīz b. Mūsa 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.
1 |
Catholic Encycl., IV, p. 95; al-ḥimyari, p. 197; Lévi-ProvenÇal, Histoire, p. 22; Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos V, pp. 69–70; Menéndez Pidal, pp. 36, 37, 40, 75, 279; Melón, p. 171; P.-W. I, cols. 593–594, IV, col. 884; Vázquez de Parga,
pp. 22–31.
|
2 |
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 .
1 |
Catholic Encycl., VIII, pp. 761–762; Dozy, Histoire, II, p. 261, III, p. 74; Elias Garcia, Lamecum, pp. 7–8; Heiss, p. 54; Ibn 'Idhāri, II, p. 319; La Capilla, p. 113; Menéndez Pidal, pp. 40, 278–279; Vázquez de Parga, pp. 22–31.
|
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, Portugal. Documentary evidence relating to the ancient and mediaeval locality is scanty: the words 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.
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 Spain, ancient 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 to the Arabs, is reported to have been recovered, at least temporarily, as early as 754 (or 757?) by Alfonso I, but about 920 the bishop of the diocese was the prisoner of ‘Abd al-Raḥmān III, and during this period and later, until 1055, Salamanca changed hands many times.
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 America, where also is located one of the two specimens of Egica & Wittiza.
1 |
Beltrán, p. 411; Beltrán, Suevia, pp. 86–87, 104; Elias Garcia, Monecipio, pp. 14–19; Vázquez de Parga, pp. 97, 113.
|
2 |
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.
|
3 |
Catholic Encycl., XIII, p. 391; E. of I., s. v. Salamanque (French ed.); al-ḥimyari, p. 249; Lévi-ProvenÇal, Histoire, pp. 20, 50, 310, 321, 421; Lübker, p. 907; Menéndez Pidal, p. 279; P.-W. IA, col. 1985; Vázquez de Parga, pp. 22–31.
|
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 Heiss, is supported by "l" abondance de monuments romains qu'elle renferme," but unfortunately there is no ancient or mediaeval literary documentation to establish the existence of a Roman or Visigothic 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.
1 |
Salmatice in the Itinerarium Antonini.
|
2 |
Blázquez, p. 84; Elias Garcia, Lusitânia, p. 66; Madrid, p. 361; Vázquez de Parga, pp. 98, 113 etc.
|
3 |
Beltrán, p. 434; Heiss, pp. 63–64.
|
Ruler: Sisebut.
Spelling: VESEO.
Epithet: PIVS.
Type: facing busts of standard Lusitanian type (8 c, 7).
Modern Viseu (Vizeu), a commune in north central Portugal, capital of the district of the same name and of the province of Beira Alta, 41 miles northeast of Coimbra, in the vicinity of a locality known as "Cava de Viriato," which is identified as the site of a camp founded by Decius Brutus and captured by Viriatus. The diocese of Viseu (spelled variously 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.
1 |
Akhbār Majmū'ah, p. 264; Ballesteros, I, pp. 882–883; Catholic Encycl., XV, pp. 496–497; Dozy, Histoire, II, p. 258, III, p. 9; idem, Recherches, I, pp. 121, 150; Lévi-ProvenÇal, Histoire, p. 50; Maqqari, I, p. 291; Menéndez Pidal, II, p. 155; Menéndez Pidal, pp. LIV, 40, 279; Vázquez de Parga, pp. 22–31.
|
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. Beltrán, however, after suggesting other possibilities, concluded, on the basis of information given by Maciñeira, that Arros and Aron were probably identical, the latter being in the valley of Montojo, between Cedéira and the mouth of the River Mera (in the extreme north of La Coruña province). Heiss' speculations chiefly concern villages named Arros in Lérida province.
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.
1 |
Blázquez, p. 84; Hübner, Revista Critica, p. 97; La Capilla, pp. 79–80; Russell Cortez, p. 71; Vázquez de Parga, p. 98.
|
2 |
Beltrán, Suevia, pp. 131–134; Fernández-Guerra, II, pp. 439–446; Heiss, pp. 43–44; 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 , was captured by Mūsa b. Nuṣayr in 714, but by the middle of the 8th century it was recovered by Alfonso I, and thereafter it played an important part in the struggle between Islam and Christianity.
The coins of Reccared and Suinthila are unica, the former hitherto unpublished and in the collection of the Hispanic Society of America.
1 |
Cambridge, II, p. 166; Campaner, 1866, p. 134; Catholic Encycl., II, p. 18; Görres, Leovigild, pp. 140–141; Heiss, p. 44; al-ḥimyari, p. 246; Lévi-ProvenÇal, Histoire, pp. 21, 49–50; Menéndez Pidal, pp. XII, 30, 33, 100, 270, 279; P.-W. II, col. 1864; Vázquez de Parga, pp. 22–31.
|
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 , was temporarily held by Ἁbd al-'Azīz b. Mūsa in 716.
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.
1 |
Catholic Encycl., XI, pp. 295–296; Heiss, p. 44; al-ḥimyari, pp. 246–247; Menéndez Pidal, pp. 40, 101, 279; P.-W. II, col. 303; Vázquez de
Parga, pp. 22–31.
|
2 |
Beltrán, Suevia, pp. 89, 104; Blázquez, p. 84; Campaner, 1866, p. 120; Görres, Miscellen, p. 440; Hübner, Revista Critica, p. 97; Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos V, pp. 72–73; Melón, p. 181; Menéndez Pidal, p. 383; P.-W. III, col. 847.
|
3 |
I take J (in the HSA specimen) to be read as G.
|
4 |
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 Portugal. He observes that the C of Reccared's issues must have the value Z. But
there can be little doubt of the identity of the Visigothic mint-name with the ancient name 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).
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 Portugal, Roman 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 to the Arabs, the city was only temporarily in Moorish hands; it was apparently among those cities retaken by Alfonso I in the middle of the 8th century, and it rapidly recovered its importance as the principal city of the northwest.
Coins of Bracara are not common, in spite of the relatively large (for Gallaecia) number of kings who issued coins there; those of Leo- vigild, Witteric, Sisenand (?), Egica and Egica & Wittiza are unica. All but two of the seven specimens of Suinthila were from the hoard of La Capilla.
1 |
Beltrán, Suevia, p. 164; Florez, p. 234; Heiss, pp. 45–46, 65; Melón, p. 181; P.-W. III, col. 291.
|
1 |
The question of the authenticity of this coin is discussed in the catalogue, p. 197; see also above, p. 45.
|
2 |
Catholic Encycl., II, pp. 728–729; García Villada, II1, pp. 52, 201–202, 208; al-ḥimyari, pp. 83, 246; Lévi-ProvenÇal, Histoire, p. 50; Madrid, pp. 255, 341–342, 365–366; Melón, p. 172; Menéndez Pidal, pp. XII, 40, 70, 106, 278–279, 294; P.-W. III, col. 802.
|
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 Portugal, about 17 kilometers north af Bragança. The proximity to Lusitania is clearly reflected in the Lusitanian types on Chindasvinth's coin. The name 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.
1 |
Blázquez, p. 85; Beltrán, Suevia, pp. 147, 149, 151–152, 161; Campaner, pp. 208–210, 216; Fernández-Guerra, II, pp. 439–446; Heiss, pp. 46–47; Hübner, Deutsche Litteraturzeitung, col. 501; idem, Revista Crítica, 1897, p. 95; Madrid, p. 375; Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos IV, p. 248, note 2; Vázquez de Parga, pp. 98, 101, 113.
|
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 Beltrán has agreed with Heiss on the possibility of identification with a locality named Catoira, near (10 km.?) Caldas de Reyes, which latter is about 20 kilometers north of Pontevedra. The name is listed in Pauly-Wissowa with the suggestion that its location is to be sought in Gallaecia.
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.
1 |
Beltrán, Suevia, p. 149; Blázquez, p. 85.
|
2 |
Beltrán, Suevia, p. 119; Fernández-Guerra, II, pp. 439–446; Heiss, pp. 47–48; Madrid, p. 379; Melón, p. 182; P.-W. III, col. 1794.
|
3 |
Mateu y Llopis, Nombres de Lugar, 1942, p. 33; idem, Ampurias, VII-VIII (1945–1946), pp. 471–473; Reinhart, 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 Portugal, between Braga and Bragança, ancient 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.
1 |
Blázquez, p. 84; Campaner, p. 210; Vázquez de Parga, p. 98.
|
2 |
Mateu y Llopis, Ampurias, 1945–1946, pp. 473–474; Menéndez Pidal, pp. 30, 35; P.-W. II, col. 300.
|
3 |
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 Beltrán, probably to be identified with modern "Frogelos," in the "Forcellos" valley, at the source of the Ulver, which empties into the Sil river at Puente de Domingo Flórez about 12 kilometers east of El Barco on the border between Orense and Leon provinces. It can scarcely be Frogelle in Lugo province, a few miles west of the capital, or Forcela, some 15 miles south of the same city, for in the mediaeval lists 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.
1 |
Beltrán, Suevia, pp. 99, 166–168; Blázquez, p. 86; Heiss, p. 52; La Capilla, pp. 67, 93; Madrid, p. 380; Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos IV, p. 248; Melón, p. 182; Vázquez de Parga, p. 98.
|
2 |
Beltrán, Suevia, p. 148; Heiss, pp. 52–53; Madrid, p. 375; Melón, p. 182; P.-W. VII, cols. 1357–58.
|
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.
1 |
Beltrán, Suevia, p. 134; Blázquez, p. 83; Heiss, p. 54; Madrid, p. 372; Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos IV, p. 248; Melón, p. 182.
|
2 |
Mateu y Llopis, Nombres de Lugar, 1942, p. 33, note 14.
|
3 |
Beltrán, Suevia, pp. 129–130; Blázquez, p. 84; Bouza Brey, Laurencio, pp. 359–363; Bouza Brey, Lauruclo y Vallearitia; Mateu y Llopis, Ampurias V, p. 359 (review of F. Bouza Brey, "Una ceca sueva desconocida en la diócesis de Portucale" in 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 its name (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 ( Liyūn) was seized by Mūsa b. Nuṣayr in 714 but was recovered by Alfonso I in the mid-8th century and thereafter frequently changed hands in the Moslem-Christian wars.
The only known specimens or specimen (perhaps only one) were in the hoard of La Capilla.
1 |
Beltrán, p. 409; Campaner, p. 207; Campaner, 1866, p. 116; Fernández-Guerra, II, pp. 439–446; Heiss, p. 54; Melón, p. 182;
P.-W. X, col. 8, XIII, col. 111.
|
2 |
Catholic Encycl., IX, pp. 175–177; La Capilla, pp. 95–96; Lévi-ProvenÇal, Histoire, pp. 21, 50; Madrid, p. 381; Melón, p. 169; P.-W. XII, cols. 1629–42; Smith, 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.
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 Spain, ancient 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- bishop. Lucu's position as a Metropolis of Gallaecia continued at least until 572, although from 416 the Bishop of Bracara also claimed the title of Metropolitan, a confusion resulting from the heritage of an earlier political division of Gallaecia under the Suevians into a 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 city was temporarily under Arab control in the early years of the conquest but was among those places recovered by Alfonso I about 754.
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.
1 |
Ballesteros, I, p. 870; Beltrán, Suevia, p. 134; Catholic Encycl., IX, pp. 417–418; García Villada, II1, pp. 200–202, 208; al-ḥimyari, pp. 35, 223, 247; Lévi-ProvenÇal, Histoire, p. 50; Maqqari, I, p. 291; P-W. XIII, col. 1709; Vázquez de Parga, pp. 22–31.
|
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.
1 |
Beltrán, Suevia, pp. 119–120, 129; Botet y Sisó, Notes Numismàtiques, p. 26; Campaner, 1866, p. 130; Fernández-Guerra,II, pp. 439–446; Heiss, p. 55; Madrid, pp. 383–384; Melón, p. 183.
|
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 mint. No conclusive identification for the mint — if it exists — has been proposed. Florez tentatively suggested a colony deriving its name from Ologasis in Paphlagonia; Campaner proposed Oeaso, Oleaso or Olarso of the Basques; Heiss, with much reserve, Santa-Maria de Olibes, some 30 kilometers north of Pontevedra and 21 kilometers south of Santiago in the extreme northwest, or Olicio, a village in the province of Oviedo. Beltrán considered all the proposals doubtful.
1 |
Blázquez, p. 84; Campaner, 1866, pp. 121–122; Hübner, Deutsche Litteraturzeitung, col. 500; idem, Revista Crítica, p. 97; La Capilla, p. 123; Melón, p.183.
|
2 |
Gundemar, according to Reinhart: MΛNDOLΛ.
|
3 |
Beltrán, Suevia, p. 119; Campaner, 1866, p. 124; Fernández-Guerra, II, pp. 439–446; Florez, pp. 213–214; Heiss, pp. 56–57; Madrid, pp. 377–378; Melón, p. 183.
|
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, Portugal, to be identified with the region of the Roman 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.
1 |
Blázquez, p. 84; Heiss, p. 57; P.-W. XVIII2, col. 2515.
|
2 |
Blázquez, p. 83; Russell Cortez, pp. 8f., 69ff.
|
3 |
Beltrán, Suevia, pp. 165–166; Blázquez, p. 86; Fernández-Guerra, II, pp. 439–446; 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 America.
1 |
Beltrán, Suevia, p. 164; Blázquez, p. 86; Boudard, p. 349; Heiss, p. 57; Madrid, p. 380.
|
2 |
Beltrán, Suevia, pp. 148–149, 150–151; Blázquez, p. 85; Madrid, p. 375, Melón, p. 184.
|
3 |
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 , but it was temporarily recaptured by the Christians under Alfonso I in the mid-eighth century, and again but not permanently recovered by Count Vimarano Perez at the instigation of Alfonso III in 868. The final Christian reconquest did not occur until the beginning of the 12th century.
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 , was occupied by Berbers at the time of the Moslem conquest but appears to have been evacuated in the middle of the 8th century as a result of the Christian advance from León. It was then reconquered by the Moslems, again taken by the Christians under Alfonso III in 893, attacked by 'Abd al-Raḥmān III in 939, and captured by al-Mansūr in 989 and by his son in 1005; whereafter, in Christian hands again it played an important part in the history of Castile. It is interesting to note that the chronicler Ibn 'Idhāri remarks that Zamora was founded by the "foreigners of Toledo," i. e., the Visigoths .
1 |
Catholic Encycl., XI, pp. 260–261; Elias Garcia, Portocale; García Villada, II1, p. 52; al-ḥimyari, p. 246; Lévi-Provençal, Histoire, pp. 50, 223; Madrid, pp. 366, 369–371; Menéndez Pidal, p. 279; P.-W. III, col. 1347; Vázquez de Parga, pp. 22–31.
|
2 |
Beltrán, pp. 411–412; Beltrán, Suevia, pp. 165, 167; Blázquez, p. 86; Catholic Encycl., XV, pp. 747–749; Gómez-Moreno, Zamora, p. 83; al-ḥimyari, pp. 120–122; Ibn ‘Idhāri, II, p. 127; Lévi-ProvenÇal, s. v. Zamora in E. of I.; Madrid, pp. 382–383; Melón, p. 184 (who says modern Seura in León?); P.-W. XVII, col. 1766.
|
3 |
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.
1 |
Further confusion has resulted from various misreadings and mis-transcriptions of the name by modern numismatic writers.
|
2 |
Beltrán, Suevia, p. 149; Blázquez, p. 85; 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 Campaner, Heiss, Görres and Melón are purely speculative. The significance of the legend VICTORIA is likewise obscure, but one may assume that the reference relates to one of Reccared's campaigns against the Basques (cf. Tude, below).
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 and (later) Tūyah , was occupied during the conquest but appears to have been returned to Christian hands, at least temporarily, in the middle of the 8th century, and was later (ca. 868) recolonized by Alfonso III. Ermogius, Bishop of Tude, was taken prisoner by 'Abd al-Raḥmān III in 920.
1 |
Beltrán, Suevia, p. 104; Campaner, 1866, p. 135; Heiss, p. 62; Madrid, p. 369; Melón, p. 184.
|
1 |
The reproduction of the unique specimen is obscure.
|
2 |
Beltrán, Suevia, pp. 113, 162–163; Campaner, 1873, p. 51; Görres,Miscellen, p. 440; Heiss, p. 62; Madrid, pp. 373, 415; Melón, p. 185.
|
3 |
Mateu y Llopis, without elucidation, gives Torroña (diocese of Tude), which I have been unable to locate.
|
4 |
Beltrán, Suevia, pp. 162–163; Catholic Encycl., XV, p. 105; Görres, Miscellen, p. 441; Heiss, pp. 39, 63, 87; al-ḥimyari, pp. 77, 246; La Capilla, p. 121; Lévi-ProvenÇal, Histoire, pp. 50, 223, 310; Madrid, pp. 373–374; Melón, p. 172; Menéndez Pidal, pp. LI, 111, 133, 139, 279; P.-W. VIIA1, col. 771; Vázquez de Parga, pp. 22–31.
|
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 America.
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.
1 |
Ampurias, 1945–1946, p. 471; Bouza Brey, Lauruclo y Vallearitia; idem, Valericia, pp. 304–306; Blázquez, p. 84; Madrid, p. 371.
|
2 |
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).
|
3 |
Pio Beltrán, however, writes me that Vallacia is corrupt; also that Velegiam (Iria), in the Suevian "division," is an erroneous form of Salagiam.
|
4 |
Beltrán, Suevia, pp. 113, 164–165; Blázquez, p. 80; Madrid, p. 380; Melón, p. 185; Vázquez de Parga, p. 107.
|
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 for Cesaragusta occurs under Egica & Wittiza and it is unlikely that two quite different monograms (not simply variations in letter positions, which frequently occur in other monograms) for the same mint would occur in the same reign.
1 |
For the categories of urban centers in Visigothic Spain, see Melón, pp. 166–167; and for the ecclesiastical and political administration and their relationship to each other, ibid, and García Villada, II1.
|
1 |
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.
|
2 |
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. also is exceptional : Leovigild at Cesaragusta, Reccared at Saldania, Liuva II at Barcinona, and Witteric at Cordoba. Λ is sometimes turned on its side and sometimes formed with wedge punches.
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, , and ᑯ occur at various times.
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 , with variations, and Ҁ becomes less common. occurs at Gerunda under Chintila, Reccesvinth and Wittiza (frequently misrepresented as S in transcriptions). L Occasionally retrograde. Commonly ✠ on one of Leovigild's early types.
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 and on a unique coin of Leovigild at Ispali and on one of his issues of Emerita; and at Cordoba there are rare specimens with under Sisenand. But the common use of ligatures begins with Chindasvinth in the spelling of his name and in the introductory DN, etc., formulae; and their use continues throughout the rules of Reccesvinth and Wamba, becoming somewhat less frequent during the succeeding and final reigns.
1 |
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.
↓ | ↘ | ↙ | ↑ | ↖ | ↗ | ← | → | |
Leovigild | 24 | 1 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 1 | ||
Hermenegild | 1 | 1 | ||||||
Reccared | 66 | 3 | 3 | |||||
Liuva II | 5 | 1 | 1 | |||||
Witteric | 12 | 1 | 3 | |||||
Gundemar | 5 | 1 | 1 | |||||
Sisebut | 40 | 5 | 4 | |||||
Suinthila | 120 | 6 | 34 | 1 | ||||
Sisenand | 81 | 2 | 58 | 5 | 1 | 11 | ||
Iudila | 1 | |||||||
Chintila | 12 | 1 | 1 | |||||
Tulga | 5 | 1 | ||||||
Chindasvinth | 27 | 3 | 4 | 1 | ||||
Chindasvinth & Reccesvinth | 1 | 1 | ||||||
Reccesvinth | 30 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 1 | 3 | ||
Wamba | 5 | 8 | 6 | 1 | 5 | 1 | ||
Ervig | 8 | 4 | 3 | 8 | 9 | 1 | ||
Egica | 5 | 2 | 9 | 6 | 3 | 10 | 2 | |
Egica & Wittiza | 13 | 1 | 4 | 9 | 3 | 2 | 2 | |
Wittiza | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | ||||
Achila II | 1 | |||||||
462 | 36 | 149 | 53 | 11 | 44 | 5 | 1 |
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
Ruler-Mint | Pairs | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | i | |
Reccared -Emerita | 2 | 2 | |||||||
Sisebut-Ispali | 5 | ||||||||
Suinthila-Toleto | 2 | ||||||||
Suinthila-Cordoba | 2 | ||||||||
Suinthila-Eliberri | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |||||
Suinthila-Ispali | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |||||
Suinthila-Tucci | 3 | 2 | 2 | ||||||
Suinthila-Emerita | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | ||||
Sisenand-Asidona | 2 | ||||||||
Sisenand-Barbi | 2 | 3 | |||||||
Sisenand-Cordoba | 2 | ||||||||
Sisenand-Eliberri | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | |||||
Sisenand-Ispali | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||
Sisenand-Tucci | 2 | ||||||||
Sisenand-Emerita | 7 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
Ervig-Narbona | 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
Ruler-Mint | Die Combinatons 1 | ||||
SAME TYPE | COMBINED TYPES | ||||
Obv. repeat | Rev. repeat | Obv.& Rev. repeat | Obv. repeat | Rev. repeat | |
Reccared-Toleto | Al | ||||
Sisebut-Tarracona | Al | ||||
Sisebut-Ispali | Al | B2 | |||
Suinthila-Mentesa | Al | ||||
Suinthila-Barbi | A1B2(2) | ||||
Suinthila-Cordoba | Al | ||||
Suinthila-Ispali | Al | ||||
Suinthila-Emerita | Al | B2C3(3) | |||
D2 | |||||
Sisenand-Mentesa | Al | ||||
Sisenand-Toleto | Al | ||||
Sisenand-Asidona | Al(3) | ||||
A2 | |||||
Sisenand-Barbi | A1A2 | B4 | A3 | C5D5 | |
Sisenand-Cordoba | A1D4 | B2 | C3E5 | ||
Sisenand-Eliberri | B2(2) | Al(3) | |||
Sisenand-Ispali | Al(4) | E4(2) | B2C3(2) | ||
F5G6 | D2H7 | ||||
Sisenand-Tucci | Al | A3D6 | C4D5 | ||
B2(2) | |||||
Sisenand-Emerita | Al(3) | C5D | 6 | B3(4) | F8(2) |
A2(2) | E7(3 | 0 | B4(2) | ||
Chindasvinth-Toleto | Al | ||||
Reccesvinth-Toleto | Al | ||||
Reccesvinth-Ispali | Al | ||||
Reccesvinth-Emerita | Al | ||||
Wamba-Ispali | Al | ||||
Ervig-Toleto | Al | ||||
Ervig-Emerita | Al | ||||
Egica-Cesaragusta | Al |
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.
1 |
The obverse die, unexpressed, is understood to stand at 12 o'clock.
|
1 |
The diagonal positions (↘ ↙ ↖ ↗ ) are only approximate in this summary, but the angle is seldom more exaggerated than 5, 7, 11 or 1 o'clock.
|
1 |
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.
|
2 |
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 America.
|
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
1 |
For largely theoretical discussions of Visigothic metrology, see Heiss, pp. 24–26; Reinhart, pp. 87–89; Madrid, pp. 173–189; Jesse, p. 3.
|
1 |
Average of averages under the rulers.
|
2 |
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. P. Le Gentilhomme 2 admits that some of the coins which he illustrates in his article on the hoard may not actually have belonged to the find and that they are rather duplicates of specimens in the hoard already in the Cabinet du Roi. The most serious reflection on the integrity of the hoard, or of its reconstruction, is the presence of three fabrications, one of Leovigild-"Valenta," one of Reccared-"Massilia," and one of Chintila-Narbona (see the appendix on forgeries, Nos. 15, 31, and 56).
1 |
See Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos IV, pp. 244–245.
|
2 |
"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 America is of special interest in connection with the present publication. The find was made on August 27, 1891, by a construction worker digging at the foundations of a wall near the farmhouse of La Capilla (formerly known as Lortes), located about five miles east of Carmona, a town in the province of Seville, eighteen miles northeast of the capital. The farm of La Capilla was the property of General Jose Chinchilla. At a depth of about 25 centimeters the workman's pick shattered an earthenware pot containing a large quantity of Visigothic coins. The exact number will never be known, as some were lost in the nearby river and others were divided among some of the finder's companions before the farmer of La Capilla arrived on the scene and attempted to reassemble all the coins, but there were probably between 800 and 1000 pieces,2 perhaps even more.
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 Mr. Huntington's collection when that collection was transferred from the Hispanic Society of America to the custody of the American Numismatic Society. One discovery was that of the presence of the unique piece of Iudila struck at Emerita, which I found had at one time belonged to Rafael Cervera y Royo,2 and which belonged before him to General Chinchilla; from other literary souces I knew that Cervera's collection had been acquired by Mr. Huntington. 3 The other almost simultaneous observation was that many of the coins in Mr. Huntington's collection, especially the numerous specimens of Sisebut, Suinthila and Sisenand issued at certain mints (e. g., Mentesa, Barbi, Eliberri, Ispali, Tucci, etc.), among them many from the same dies, bore traces of soil of a particular consistency and color, which in the catalogue I have referred to as "La Capilla soil." Subsequent research and observations, supported by Pio Beltrán's valuable inventory of the recorded specimens in the hoard and by his list of Visigothic coins in the Cervera collection (see below), have established beyond any possible doubt that at least the major portion of General Chinchilla's share1 of the hoard of La Capilla (mostly via Cervera), as well as other coins from the hoard, ultimately found their way into the collection now known as that of the Hispanic Society of America.2 In fact, it would appear that nearly one-third of the hoard is in this collection.
In analyzing the composition of the hoard of La Capilla I have been immeasurably aided by the inventory so courteously furnished me by Pio Beltrán, to which I have referred above. None of the published accounts of the hoard, including Fernández y López' 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 Heiss, where appropriate, and to Fernandez y Lopez. The details of distribution among the original owners appear at the relevant places in the corpus, infra. Here I give only a summary of the composition of the hoard by rulers and mints:1
Ruler | Province | Mint | Number of Specimens | Totals |
Reccared | Baetica | Ispali | 1 | 1 |
Liuva II | Lusitania | Emerita | 1 | 1 |
Witteric | Tarraconensis | Cesaragusta | 1 | |
Carthaginensis | Toleto | 1 | ||
Lusitania | Elvora | 1 | ||
Gallaecia | Bergancia | 12 | ||
Fraucello | 1 | 5 | ||
Gundemar | Baetica | Ispali | 1 | |
Lusitania | Emerita | 1 | 2 | |
Sisebut | Tarraconensis | Tarracona | 3 | |
Carthaginensis | Toleto | 2 | ||
Baetica | Barbi | 1 | ||
Eliberri | 1 | |||
Ispali | 32 | |||
Tucci | 2 | |||
Lusitania | Elvora | 1 | ||
Emerita | 4 | |||
Gallaecia | Tude | 1 | 47 | |
Suinthila | Tarraconensis | Cesaragusta | 2 | |
Tarracona | 3 | |||
Carthaginensis | Acci | 13 | ||
Mentesa | 27 | |||
Saldania | 1 | |||
Toleto | 15 | |||
Baetica | Barbi | 42 | ||
Cordoba | 31 | |||
Eliberri | 53 | |||
Ispali | 49 | |||
Tucci | 36 | |||
Ruler | Province | Mint | Number of Specimens | Totals |
Lusitania | Coleia | 1 | ||
Egitania | 3 | |||
Emerita | 98 | |||
Eminio | 1 | |||
Salmantica | 4 | |||
Gallaecia | Aliobrio | 2 | ||
Bracara | 5 | |||
Calapa | 1 | |||
Fraucello | 1 | |||
Leione | 2 | |||
Lucu | 1 | |||
Nandolas | 1 | |||
Senabria | 1 | 393 | ||
Sisenand | Carthaginensis | Acci | 12 | |
Castelona | 14 | |||
Mentesa | 15 | |||
Toleto | 12 | |||
Baetica | Asidona | 7 | ||
Barbi | 23 | |||
Cordoba | 42 | |||
Eliberri | 27 | |||
Ispali | 48 | |||
Tucci | 23 | |||
Lusitania | Egitania | 2 | ||
Emerita | 88 | |||
Lamego | 1 | |||
Gallaecia | Bracara | 1 | ||
Toriviana | 1 | 316 | ||
Iudila | Baetica | Eliberri | 1 | |
Lusitania | Emerita | 1 | 2 | |
TOTAL | 767 |
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 mints (11 altogether), including several mints unknown to Visigothic numismatics previous to the discovery of the hoard.
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 Beltrán's list. Among the many interesting elements provided by the opportunity to study this large portion of the hoard at first hand has been the study of die relationships (see pp. 150–152).
The principal literature relating to the hoard of La Capilla is: La Capilla; Campaner, pp. 561–567; R. Chabás, 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; Hübner, Deutsche Litteraturzeitung, XVIII (1897), cols. 498–501; idem, Revista Critica, II (1897), pp. 93–97; Beltrán, Ampurias 1941, pp. 99–100.
1 |
Elías de Molins, p. 12; Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos VI, no. 470.
|
1 |
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.
|
1 |
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.
|
1 |
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.
|
2 |
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.
|
2 |
Cf. Engel, 1898, p. 128.
|
2 |
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.
|
1 |
Possibly 2.
|
3 |
E. g., A. Vives y Escudero, La Moneda Hispánica (Madrid, 1926), p. CLXXXII; and P. Arturo García de la Fuente, "Resumen histórico de la numismática española," 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, between the Huebra1 and the Yeltes rivers, between Salamanca and Ciudad Rodrigo in the province of Salamanca. Thirty-five coins from this hoard were acquired by the Museo Arqueológico Nacional in Madrid; the rest by the Instituto de Valencia de Don Juan. The rulers represented were Reccared (1 specimen), Reccesvinth (2), Wamba (3), Ervig (12), Egica (20), Egica and Wittiza (53), Wittiza (19). The mints were widely distributed, somewhat as follows:2 Narbona (5), Barci- nona (2), Cesaragusta (13), Gerunda (4), Tarracona (3), Mentesa (5), Toleto (23), Cordoba (11), Eliberri (5), Ispali (12), Tucci (1), Egitania (3), Elvora (2), Emerita (18), Salmantica (1), Tude (1), uncertain (1).
1 |
Some of his specimens are missing, however; see p. 168, footnote 1, above.
|
2 |
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.
1 |
Mateu y Llopis (Madrid, p. 33) writes "Huedra," but the atlases give "Huebra."
|
2 |
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) = Florez, p. 169* (Gabriel) = Masdeu, p. 5 = Heiss, no. 1* = Robert, no. 1*.
2. Lonja del Almidón, no. 690*.
(b) . ƆIIIVƧTI IIIΛVΛC
VCLIVVICILDIRεƪIS
1. Reinhart, 1937, pl. XXXVII, 18* (Inst. de Valencia de Don Juan) = Reinhart, Germanen-Erbe, p. 72, no. 7*. PLATE 1, 1
2. Reinhart, pl. 10, no. 4* (Hans H. Völkers, Prague) = Reinhart, 1945, fig. 4, no. 11* (1.30).
3. Reinhart, pl. 10, no. 5* (Archivo Municipal de Sevilla).
(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.
1 |
Assigned by Reinhart to Andalusia (?).
|
2 |
Mateu y Llopis, 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. Reinhart, 1945, fig. 4, no. 12* (no provenance) (1.18).
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).
1 |
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.
|
2 |
Assigned by Reinhart to Andalusia (?).
|
6. Bust, right. Type 1 d.
ᒧVI Ɔ0VƧREX
Victory, right.
LVVVV·V∫REX
1. Reinhart, pl. 10, no. 14* (Hans H. Völkers, Prague). 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* = (?) Fernández-Guerra, pl. I*3 (1.45).
2. Inst. de Valencia, no. 6* = Reinhart, pl. 10, no. 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. Reinhart, 1945, fig. 4, no. 17* (no provenance).
(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. Reinhart, pl. 10, no. 17* (no provenance).
(g). DИLIVVICILΔVSREX
DИLIVVIϚILΔVSRE
In exergue: X
1. Reinhart, pl. 10, no. 16* (no provenance).
(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. Reinhart, pl. 11, no. 13* (Archivo Municipal de Sevilla) = Reinhart, 1945, fig. 4, no. 23* (1.23). 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
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 = Reinhart, 1937, pl. XXXVII, 19* (Shore) = idem, Germanen-Erbe, p. 72, no. 8* = Reinhart, pl. 11, no. 14* = 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. Reinhart, pl. 11, no. 15* (provenance).
(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:
1 |
Assigned by Reinhart to Mérida (?).
|
1 |
This specimen is not in the Madrid catalogue.
|
1 |
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.
|
2 |
The X is not transcribed in the Madrid catalogue but is probably present.
|
2 |
Assigned by Reinhart to Toledo.
|
2 |
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.
|
3 |
Very inaccurate drawing, if this is the coin illustrated in Madrid.
|
4 |
Sic, Not CON as transcribed in Reinhart, 1945, p. 234.
|
9. Facing bust, crowned. Type 3 a.
Facing bust, crowned. Type 3 c.
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* = Campaner, 1866, no. 11 = Robert, no. 9* = Belfort, no. 3140* = Blanchet, p. 188 (1.43).
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.
As obverse.
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
1. Florez, p. 187* = Masdeu, p. 8 = Beltrán, p. 433, fig. 13*.
The forgeries designed after the illustration of this type in Florez are discussed on p. 453.
1 |
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 = Campaner, 1866, no. 10 = Heiss, no. 18* = Robert, no. 7* = Belfort, no. 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).
1 |
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.
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).
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).
CE:ΛR:C·O:TΛIV:T:
1. Stockholm = Lorichs, no. 46151 - Mateu y Llopis.
Estocolmo, no. 4* (1.50).
1 |
Published transcription inaccurate.
|
17. Facing bust. Type 4 d.
(begins at 1 o'clock)
As obverse.
(begins at 1 o'clock)
1. HSA 16669 (ex Cervera) = Campaner, p. 206, note 2 = Fernández-Guerra, p. 368 = Beltrán, pp. 412–413(↙16, 0.97).
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; Beltrán, I believe rightly, to Cesaragusta. After a long period of doubt, during which I was inclined to consider the coin a fabrication because of its strange legends, its anomalous epigraphy and its extremely light weight, I have finally concluded that it is genuine. There is no prototype or reasonable explanation for such a fabrication. With Beltrán, I cannot explain the legends in full; see the discussion on p. 82.
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. Berlin, no. 2 (provenance unknown).
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. Copenhagen, no. 1 = Heiss, no. 22* = Thomsen, no. 1087* = Reinhart, pl. 11, no. 20* (23,1.34).
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 = Beltrán, p. 439 = Cabré y Aguiló, p. 352 == Mateu y Llopis, 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 = Fernández-Guerra, I, p. 321 (information of Pujol y Camps) (↓ 17,1.35).
1 |
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. Stockholm = Lorichs, no. 4618 = Campaner, 1866, no. 62 = Mateu y Llopis, Estocolmo, no. 2* (1.33).
5. Berlin, no. 12 (provenance unknown).
6. Schulman, Oct. 1927, no. 818* = Rackus, fig. 24*.
(b). ϷИLIVVICILPVS
TOLETOREX In exergue: COИOB
1. Heiss, no. 27* (Noguez) = Madrid, p. 289*.
2. Reinhart, pl. 11, no. 19* (location?).3
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
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. Copenhagen, no. 2 = Thomsen, no. 1088 (1.49).
11. Stockholm=Lorichs, no. 4617 = Mateu y Llopis, Estocolmo, no. 3* (1.51).
12. Cabinet des Médailles.
13. Grierson Coll. (↓ 1.51).
14. Reinhart Coll., no. 3 = Reinhart, 1937, pl. XXXVII, 21* = Reinhart, pl. 12, no. 3* (1.49).
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
1. HSA 15991 (↓ 16,1.55).
✠TOLETOIVSTVᔓ
✠TOLETOIVSTVS
1. HSA 15995 (Pierced at 7 o'clock on obverse, ↓ 17,1.47)1.
Plate II, 14
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).
1 |
One of the three HSA specimens is from the Cervera collection.
|
1 |
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.
|
2 |
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 Stockholm, rightly remarks that it is difficult
to understand how Delgado could have read PIVS for RE +. The legend is perfectly clear.
|
2 |
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.
|
3 |
Dr. Reinhart writes me that he cannot recall the provenance of this piece.
|
30(a). Facing bust. Type 9 a.
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. ✠
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 from that illustrated in Heiss, but they are the identical piece. The existence of many forgeries of this issue (see p. 454) may have misled him, although he was aware of certain forgeries himself. It would be interesting to know where the other genuine pieces referred to by him are located.
1 |
One of the 6 HSA specimens of type C is from the Cervera collection.
|
2 |
Mateu y Llopis, 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.
|
3 |
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.
(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) = Beltrán, p. 413 (↓ 17, 1.30).
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. Reinhart, pl. 11, no. 18* (Museu Municipal, Lisbon?). 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 Paris, but I did not see it when I examined the Visigothic coins there in May, 1951; Pio Beltrán, who in a personal communication expresses the view that the coin is a forgery, assigns it to the Municipal Museum in Lisbon.
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. Reinhart, pl. 12, no. 2* (Staatl. Münzsamml., München).
(c) . Facing bust. Type 5 k.
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 = Reinhart, pl. 12, no. 1* (1.41).
(e). Facing bust. Type 5 1.
As obverse.
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.
1 |
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) = Reinhart, pl. 11, no. 17* = Reinhart, 1941, pl. 33, nos. 7–8* (1.20).
(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
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
1 | |
2 |
One of these three specimens was in the Cervera collection.
|
3 |
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 = Reinhart, 1937, pl. XXXVII, 20* (1.29).
(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
1 |
Wrongly attributed to Toleto.
|
2 |
Not included in mint and weight statistics.
|
3 |
S not retrograde in the transcription, but the actual forms of letters are not represented in this catalogue.
|
39. Facing bust. Type 3 d.
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).
1 |
RE + .
|
2 |
Mateu transcribes RX, but the plate appears to show RE.
|
3 |
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).
|
4 |
See footnote 3, above.
|
40(a). Facing bust, crowned. Type 3e.
Facing bust. Type 5 1.
✠PIVƧEMERITΛVICTOR
1. Acad. de la Hist. (Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos IV, pl. I,2*) = Beltrán, p. 439.
Reverse as (a).
1. Florez, p. 182* = Masdeu, p. 7 = Heiss, no. 15* = Madrid, pp. 215*, 349* = Antonio Beltrán, pl. XCVI, fig. F* = Beltrán, p. 439, fig. 17*.
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 Beltrán considered it somewhat suspect. Having judged (b) to be authentic, I see no intrinsic reason to suspect (a); but the ultimate decision must rest upon critical examination of the coin itself. The argument for the authenticity of the type is strengthened if the next specimen (c), the most recent to come to light, is genuine.
(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.
Facing bust. Type 5 1.
✠PIVƧEMERITAVICTOR
1. Stockholm = Lorichs, no. 4616 = Mateu y Llopis. 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 Stockholm piece, (a), removes my objections on this score, at least with respect to the obverse.
1 |
Reinhart, Arte, p. 57.
|
2 |
Beltrán, p. 439.
|
3 |
See No. 25, above.
|
4 |
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. Reinhart, Nov., 1951).
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
1 |
Beltrán, p. 407.
|
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
1 |
Beltrán, p. 407.
|
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 France) = Robert, no. 11* = Bradley, p. 323* = Madrid, p. 222* = Reinhart, pl. 11, no. 21* = Rackus, fig. 26* (1.37).
(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 Spain to the Escorial in 1580, but evidently no longer preserved there.
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, British Museum and Johns Hopkins specimens. There is no proof that the piece described by Augustin, Morales, Mariana, etc. is the one which was given to the "Monasterio de El Escorial," and which according to the entry in the contemporary inventory read "REGIMINEVICTA," but in view of Augustin's close connection with the Escorial, I believe we may safely assume this to be the case.2
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, London (no. 4784); but not having seen the coin or a reproduction of it I cannot tell whether it is genuine or one of the forgeries, of which several different varieties exist (see p. 457). The same remark applies to a specimen recently mentioned by Mateu y Llopis (Hallazgos VI, no. 408), the property of Jaime Butina of Bañolas.
1 |
Florez wrote: "yo la tengo en mi coleccion."
|
1 |
Cf. Mariana, "Hombre Luye al rey."
|
2 |
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.
|
3 |
Reinhart, p. 85.
|
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).
1 |
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.
1 |
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.
|
2 | |
3 |
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.
|
4 |
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.
|
5 |
This specimen may well be one of the counterfeited copies of Florez referred to by Beltrán, p. 440. It is impossible to tell
from the inaccurate drawings. If the "29 grans" indicated by Botet y Sisó are English grains, the piece is certainly a forgery.
|
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
1 |
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. Copenhagen, no. 3 = Thomsen, no. 1089 (15,1.49).
(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 France) (14,1.49).
(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.
1 |
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 Beltrán, pp. 409–411. See also Mateu y Llopis, 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. Beltrán suggests that the VQR specimen was inaccurately reproduced in Heiss, but I imagine that the principal fault is that of the die-engraver himself, as it is in the case of the HSA specimen.
1 |
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).
1 |
D of RECCΛREDVS retrograde.
|
2 |
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
1 |
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. Stockholm = Lorichs, no. 46261 = Mateu y Llopis, 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
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).
1 |
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?
|
2 |
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).
1 |
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* = Menéndez Pidal, p. 102* (1.40).
(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.
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. Stockholm = Lorichs, no. 4627 = Mateu y Llopis, Estocolmo, no. 10* (1.54).
18. Stockholm = Lorichs, no. 4628 = Mateu y Llopis, loc.cit., no. 9* (1.51).
19. Stockholm = Lorichs, no. 4629 = Mateu y Llopis, loc. cit., no. 6* (1.49).
20. Stockholm = Lorichs, no. 4630 = Mateu y Llopis, loc. cit., no. 8* (1.48).
21. Stockholm = Lorichs, no. 4631 = Mateu y Llopis, 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 = Reinhart, pl. 12, no. 7* (1.48).
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).
1 |
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.
|
1 |
The busts vary considerably in style.
|
1 |
Florez, p. 196, remarks that there are specimens with RE, but I have seen none.
|
2 |
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.
|
2 |
All these specimens from different dies.
|
2 |
This specimen, represented by a faulty engraving, is not a Becker, which most of Lelewel's are.
|
3 |
One of the 12 HSA specimens was in the Cervera collection.
|
3 |
Morales wrote that some specimens have a bust on obverse and reverse, others a cross on the reverse; the latter assertion
is certainly wrong.
|
4 |
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. Stockholm = Lorichs, no. 4621 = Mateu y Llopis, 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. Stockholm = Lorichs, no. 4620 = Mateu y Llopis, Cordoba, p. 52 (incorrectly described) = idem, Estocolmo, no. 12* (1.55).
(h). Obverse as (f).
✠CORDOϷΛPIVS
1. Stockholm = Lorichs, no. 4621.
(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. Florez, p. 201 = Masdeu, p. 327.
1 |
The D varies in form from conventional to round or almost square.
|
2 |
Heiss represents the D's as Δ, but this is probably the same specimen.
|
3 |
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. Florez, p. 202 (Calvelo) = Masdeu, p. 332.
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
1 |
Legends as copied by me in the Cabinet des Médailles.
|
2 |
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.
|
3 |
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. Stockholm (ex Thieme) = Mateu y Llopis, 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. Reinhart, 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).
1 |
Campaner, inadvertently probably, has REX.
|
2 |
Heiss mistakenly gives the weight as 1.18.
|
3 |
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."
|
4 |
The X is very small and almost invisible.
|
5 |
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. Stockholm = Lorichs, no. 4624 = Mateu y Llopis, Estocolmo, no. 16*.2
5. Acad. de la Hist. (Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos IV, pl. I, 12*).3
6. Berlin no. 15 (provenance unknown).
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. Florez, p. 200*.
(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. Reinhart, 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. Stockholm = Lorichs, no. 4625 = Mateu y Llopis, 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. Reinhart, 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.
1 |
The H in the transcription is obviously to be ignored as an error of copying.
|
2 |
Photograph interchanged with no. 15.
|
3 |
X is evident in the plate, although omitted from the transcription in Mateu's inventory.
|
4 |
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. Stockholm = Lorichs.no. 4619 = Campaner, 1866, no. 1 = Heiss, no. 6b 4 = Mateu y Llopis, Estocolmo, no. 19* (1.28).
Plate VI, 1
1 |
The transcription HISPALI is obviously an error.
|
2 |
Photograph interchanged with no. 16.
|
3 |
The pellet after RE, although omitted from the transcription in the VQR catalogue, is present .
|
4 |
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.
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. Stockholm = Lorichs, no. 4622 = Mateu y Llopis, 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. Florez, p. 206.
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. Florez, p. 205*.
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).
1 |
The engraving in Heiss mistakenly shows the second R on the obverse as retrograde.
|
2 |
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 = Reinhart, 1941, pl. 33, nos. 9–10*3 = Shore Collection, no. 613* = Beltrán, p. 435 (↓ 1.41).
Plate VI, 5
Through correspondence with Messrs. Grierson, Reinhart and Beltrán I have established the fact that all the above references concern the same specimen. It was illustrated by Reinhart before its sale by Glendining to Mr. Grierson. The latter has very kindly made the specimen available to me for examination, first in the form of a plaster-cast and later by sending me the coin itself.
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 Suinthila (No. 234); a little perhaps from the specimens of Egica with ELBORA (No. 446), and of Egica & Wittiza with monograms composed of the letters E, L, B, O and Λ (Nos. 486 (a), (b), (h)), and with E, B, O, R, Λ (Nos. 485 (f) and (g)). PIVS is exceptional at Elvora, but not unknown (Ervig and, perhaps, Egica); under Reccared and the four kings successively following him, the adjective is always IVSTVS. With respect to the epigraphy, the forms of R, D and X differ markedly from those of all other issues of Reccared at Elvora. Beltrán condemns the coin, both in the reference cited and in personal correspondence, but after long consideration I have concluded that the piece is genuine. If it is genuine, it is certainly the product of a different die-engraver from the one who designed all the other known coins of Reccared at this mint, possibly of a different workshop, even of a different mint with a name resembling that of the common Elvora.
1 |
The drawing in Heiss, not resembling the photograph in Mateu's inventory, raises the question of identity.
|
2 |
Transcribed ELVOIΛ, but probably as here.
|
3 |
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 = Florez, p. 204 = Gússeme, VI, p. 24, no. 10 = Masdeu, p. 14 (1.51).
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
1 |
A minute x is possibly present.
|
2 |
Heiss mistakenly gives the weight as 1.63.
|
3 |
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. Stockholm = Lorichs, no. 4623 = Mateu y Llopis, Estocolmo, no. 17* (1.51).
11. Copenhagen, no. 5 (1.51).
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 = Reinhart, 1937, pl. XXXVII, 25* = Reinhart, pl. 12, no. 10* (1.41).
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. Florez, p. 203*.
26. Merino, pl. 16, no. 2*.3
27. Dias, no. 3.
28. Berlin, no. 17 (provenance unknown).
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, N.Y., 1950.
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).
1 |
Some variation in the form of the D and the size of the X.
|
1 |
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.
|
2 |
The obverse bust of this specimen combines the features of both types 8 b and 8 c.
|
2 |
The E of RE is frequently very narrow, insufficient space being left for the horizontal strokes.
|
3 |
The drawing of the obverse bust cannot be correct.
|
3 |
One of the HSA specimens in this group is ex Cervera.
|
4 |
The E of REX appears to be retrograde.
|
4 |
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 Miles, Umayyads, pp. viii and 6.
|
5 |
The transcription does not notice the omission of I in VICTOR.
|
5 |
Mateu transcribes REX, but X is not evident in the plate.
|
6 |
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. Copenhagen, no. 4 = Heiss, no. 15* = Thomsen, no. 1091 (1.50).
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. Florez, p. 204*.
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).
1 |
The drawing, which appears to be tolerably accurate, shows the S on its side.
|
2 |
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.
|
3 |
See note to No. 93(b)2, above.
|
4 |
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. Florez, p. 206 = Masdeu, p. 321.
✠IVSTVSΛEMINIO
1 |
Form of letters and division not indicated.
|
2 |
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.
|
3 |
The style of this specimen, particularly the border of the obverse, is quite distinctive.
|
4 |
Weight given as 0.48 (for 1.48?).
|
5 |
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. Reinhart, pl. 12, no. 11* (Cale, Portugal).
(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
1 |
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.
|
2 |
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, Portugal) (1.48).
(b) . Obverse as (a).
✠ IVƧTVƧMONEҀPIO
1. Beltrán, 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, Portugal) (1.45).
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 = Beltrán, Suevia, p. 86 & no. 7 = Elias Garcia, Monecipio, p. 7*.1
99(a). Facing bust. Type 5 1.
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
1 |
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).
|
2 |
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 = Reinhart, Ampurias 1944, p. 209 = Elias Garcia, Lusitânia, p. 66.
Reinhart (p. 101) places this mint in Gallaecia.
1 |
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.
|
2 |
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. Beltrán, p. 415.
|
3 |
Mateu y Llopis suggests that the legend is probably not as given, but SΛLΛMΛNTECΛI (VSTVS).
|
4 |
Types and legends communicated to me by Pio Beltrán, who writes that if the owner did not dispose of the coin in his lifetime
it must have gone to the Museo Arqueológico de Barcelona. Reinhart locates the specimen in the Gabinete de Barcelona.
|
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* = Görres, Miscellen, p. 440 = Beltrán, 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 = Beltrán, 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).
1 |
Transcribed RE+.
|
106. Facing bust. "Gallaecian" type.
RECCΛREDV·SRE·
As obverse.
FLΛVΛSPIVS1
1. Coll. Dr. Montalvão (A. Elias Garcia, "Um triente de Recaredo batido em Chaves," in Revista de Guimarāes, LIV (1944), pp. 36–392) = Reinhart, Ampurias 1944, p. 209 = Mateu y Llopis, Ampurias, 1946–1946, pp. 473–474 = Beltrán, p. 414.
G. Lucu.
107. Facing bust. Type 5 o.
✠RECCΛREDVᔕRҀ
As obverse.
✠ LVCOIVᔕTVᔕ
1. Madrid, no. 320* = (probably) Campaner, p. 210, note 4 = Beltrán, Suevia, no. 1 = Ballesteros, I, p. 865* (0.52 [sic!]).
108. No details.
1. Reinhart, 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 = Florez, p. 198* (Gabriel)2 = Gússeme, VI, p. 24, no. 3 = Masdeu, p. 12 = Heiss, no. 24* = Beltrán, Suevia, no. 3 = Madrid, p. 377* (1.42).
1 |
Mateu y Llopis notes that the legend is obscure: possibly FLΛVIΛS or FLΛVIIS, and F more resembling K.
|
2 |
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 = Beltrán, 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 = Görres, Miscellen, p.441 = Beltrán, Suevia, no.4 = Madrid, p.374* (1.37).
1 |
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. Beltrán read PINCIN·
or PINCIA:.
|
2 |
Misread "Beacia" = Baeza. Cf. Beltrán, p. 408.
|
3 |
This coin was published by E. A. Allen in 1862, Noticia e descripÇāo de uma moeda inedita (not available to me).
|
4 |
Heiss inadvertently assigns this coin to the British Museum; but the one he describes (the only one known) is clearly this
specimen in the Madrid collection.
|
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.
1. HSA 16064 (ex Cervera) (↓ 18,1.48).
Plate VI, 20
A.D. 601–603
116(a). Facing bust. Type 6 b.
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).
✠ 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 = Florez, p. 217 = Gússeme, IV, p.324, no. 2(1.43).
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*.
1 |
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* = Florez, p. 216* (Gabriel) = Masdeu, p. 14 = Fernández-Guerra, Pl. I* (1.52).
3. Grierson Coll., no. 6418 = Glendining, June 1949, lot 148 (↓ 19,1.48).
4. Reinhart, Ampurias 1944, pl. I, 2 (2nd row)*.
5. O'Crouley, p. 383.
6. Ferreira, no. 18 (1.48).
7. Berlin no. 21 (Boudeau, 1913) = Bourgey, no. 306*.
A specimen in Glendining, July 1, 1936 (no. 261), supposedly with LIVVΛREX and PIVSISPΛLIS, is doubtless incorrectly described.
1 |
The form of the S is not indicated.
|
2 |
Legends not given, but assumed to be as here.
|
3 |
I do not believe that Mateu y Llopis (Madrid, p. 332) is correct in taking Ϸ to be a ligature of I and D.
|
4 |
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* = Florez, p. 217* (Gabriel) = Gússeme, IV, p. 324, no. 4 (1.50).
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. Stockholm = Lorichs, no. 4632 = Heiss, no. 4a 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. Florez, p. 216.
2. Severim, p. 152.
✠ EMERlTΛPIVS1
Nos. 1 and 2 are possibly the same specimen.
1 |
The X of REX is sometimes almost in its normal position.
|
2 |
My approximate weighing; Heiss gave 1.38.
|
3 |
Transcribed LIWA and ELVORA JUSTUS, but doubtless as above.
|
4 |
Wrongly transcribed by Delgado (and Heiss).
|
5 |
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).
1 |
The order is PIVSEMERITA in Florez, but the words are probably in the usual order. The form of X and S, and the division,
are not indicated.
|
2 |
DII for DN.
|
3 |
This legend must be considered suspect; it is probably a misreading of a specimen similar to No. 124, above.
|
4 |
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 Boudard, but so far as I can recall the two were very similar, and it is possible that Vidal Quadras acquired the Tarboriech piece. The VQR specimen is certainly suspicious because of its strange apperance and feel, the character of the epigraphy in high relief, and its careless busts. But in view of the anomalous character of many of the issues of Narbona, I am not ready to condemn it and have listed it. as genuine. However, for future reference, it might be well to bear in mind the possibility that both (a) and (b) are fabrications.
128(a). Facing bust. Type 6 a.
Facing bust. Type 6 c.
✠ BΛRCINONΛIVᔕT
Plate VII, 5
Reverse as (a).
1 |
The engraving in Heiss omits the stars.
|
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, Mateu y Llopis describes a coin in the Niepoort collection (Oporto), supposedly with the legends VITERICVSREX and CEΛRCOTΛPIVS (types?). In view of the unusual character of the legends I requested verification and a more complete description from Professor Mateu y Llopis. Unfortunately he had no cast or rubbing of the coin and in his communication he implied that he had examined the coin hurriedly and that his transcriptions might not be correct.
1 |
Mistakenly labeled 9 in plate III.
|
2 |
Heiss has "C.M.", for "Cabinet de Madrid," but the coin is not there and the description corresponds with the specimen in
Paris, which I have examined. Undoubtedly Heiss' notation was a slip for "C.F.", "Cabinet de France."
|
3 |
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
1 |
Mateu (loc.cit.) states that this coin was published by Pujol y Camps in Memorial Numismático Español, I, but I do not find it there.
|
2 |
The transcriptions of these legends by Campaner, Elías de Molins and Mateu y Llopis do not agree; I have adopted those in
Elías de Molins' article.
|
3 |
Mateu has VVITTERICVS, but according to the list which Reinhart has furnished me, the name is spelled as given above.
|
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
1 |
Not now in the National collection in Madrid. The transcriptions of Morales down through Gússeme are probably inaccurate (normalized) renderings of the legends of a genuine
piece similar to (a), but the Heiss entry is puzzling, as one would suppose it concerns a coin with the reverse legend actually
so arranged.
|
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.
Heiss considered this coin a forgery because of the flat relief and the forms of the Λ and S. Pio Beltrán,4 however, accepts it as genuine, basing his belief partly on the inadequacy of Heiss' objections and partly on the assurance of Gómez-Moreno, who had seen the specimen. Mateu y Llopis concurs. I also see no reason to reject it. So far as the form of the Λ is concerned, there are sufficient other examples (e. g., Nos. 17, 80, 116(a), (b)) to place it beyond suspicion on that score.
1 |
One of the two HSA specimens is ex Cervera.
|
2 |
According to Heiss, in the British Museum; but it is not there now.
|
3 |
WITIRICVS, but probably wrongly transcribed.
|
4 |
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 Beltrán has definitely laid the fancy to rest, suggesting that the coin was a specimen of Eliberri misread, retouched or falsified.3
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.
1 |
Probable errors in transcription.
|
2 |
E.g., Heiss, p. 46, Campaner, loc. cit.
|
3 |
Beltrán, p. 407 ; cf.
Madrid
, p. 233, note 249, Mateu y Llopis, Ampurias 1941, p. 90, note 1. Reinhart properly omits the supposed mint from his table (p. 100).
|
141. Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ VITTIRI//////E
As obverse.
//////CΛLIΛBRIΛP/////3
1 |
One of the two HSA specimens is ex Cervera.
|
2 |
Not RE, as transcribed in the text.
|
3 |
There are several differences among the various transcriptions of the legends, and Mateu's transcription is normalized without
indicating the missing portions. I have copied what I can see in Mateu's plate.
|
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
1 |
One of the two HSA specimens is ex Cervera.
|
1 |
+ of RE + omitted from transcription.
|
2 |
S of IVS not so markedly on its side.
|
2 |
Completely inaccurate drawing.
|
3 |
Probable errors in transcription.
|
3 |
This specimen lacks the pellets on the obverse bust. One of the three HSA specimens (see above) is ex Cervera.
|
4 |
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 Chinchilla-Cervera-HSA,
this is more than likely.
|
4 |
"EMERELΛ," probably an error in transcription. Weight given as 0.46 (for 1.46?).
|
5 |
Covarrubias (ed. 1606), p. 491.
|
5 |
This description should perhaps be rejected. As Meynaerts' collection went to the BM and VQR, this piece should turn up in
one of these collections, but it is in neither. Perhaps it is VQR no. 5073, (h), above.
|
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
1 |
Reinhart, p. 100, lists Eminio as a mint under Witteric. Whether he refers to the Stuttgart specimen or another is not known.
|
2 |
Salmantica as a mint under Witteric is omitted from the table in Reinhart, p. 101.
|
3 |
The second Λ is omitted from the transcription in the Madrid catalogue, although it is clear in the plate.
|
4 |
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 Heiss, is Ꮹ. I failed to check it when I examined the collection in Paris.
|
5 |
According to Fernández y López (p. 37), this was one of the coins sent to Madrid by Pujol y Camps. The former did not see the coin and was not certain of the details of the legends (which is evident, because
he transcribes VVITTERICVSREX and PIVSBERGΛNCIA). Pio Beltrán has written me that there was probably only one specimen in
the hoard and this was acquired by Chinchilla, although according to other reports a specimen went to Vidaurre of Madrid. The HSA piece is undoubtedly Chinchilla's and was probably the only one in the hoard.
|
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
1 |
Campaner gives 1.10 as the weight.
|
2 |
Beltrán points out that he had originally (in Suevia) misattributed the coin to Calabacia.
|
3 |
Beltrán gives ✠ WITTIRICVmiddot;R: and ✠ FRΛCELLO.
|
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
Mateu y Llopis attributes Inst, de Valencia, no. 171*, to Witteric at Lucu (transcribed ✠VETImiddot;ECVS and LVCVmiddot;PIVSV), but to judge by the debased style and the reverse type (cross-on-steps), as evident in the plate, the coin certainly cannot be an issue of Witteric. I cannot read the legends in the illustration.
1 |
Campaner read the mint as SEOBRES.
|
2 |
A specimen mounted on a ring seen by Hübner in Braga.
|
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
1 |
Heiss has FE in place of RE, but the engraving in Piot shows that this letter is partly off the flan and is probably R.
|
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
1 |
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:
Mateu y Llopis 2 argues effectively for the genuineness of this piece.
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:
1 |
Apparently to judge by Mateu y Llopis' inventory, no longer in the collection of the Academia.
|
2 |
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.
As obverse.
✠ MEᴻTESΛPIVS
Plate VIII, 8
(b). Types as above?
✠ GVNDEMΛRVSRE
✠ MENTESΛPIVS
1 |
This specimen in the Madrid collection is surely the one published by Florez. Mateu has confused the identity by giving it two entries in his Tarragona, one illustrated by the photograph in his Catálogo, the other by Florez' (Heiss') drawing. Heiss transcribed IVS:, but in Florez it is clear that what Heiss took to be S is
an incomplete O. The letter S in place of O does appear to be present on a specimen below (b). Mateu is mistaken in equating
this specimen with España Sagrada, vol. 24, p. 337 (p. 226), which is the one first published by Augustin.
|
2 |
This appears to be another duplicated reference. The illustration in Schulman shows that Mateu's no. 27 is not correctly transcribed;
also, apparently, that Stefan acquired the Schulman specimen.
|
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
✠ IᴤPΛLIPIVᴤ·
(c). ✠ GVNDEMΛRVSREX·
✠ ISPΛLIPIVS1
✠ IᴤPΛLIPIVᴤ·
(e). ✠ GVNDEMΛRVSRE3
✠ ISPΛLIPIVS
1 |
In Heiss the legends are transcribed GVND·MARVS etc., T·LETO etc.; but the illustration in
Madrid
shows that the dots represent letters missing due to the fragmentary state of the coin.
|
2 |
This specimen apparently was formerly in Reinhart's collection.
|
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
1 |
Forms of letters uncertain.
|
2 |
Apparently not now in the Academia.
|
3 |
Forms of letters uncertain.
|
4 |
Is this perhaps the same specimen as no. 1?
|
5 |
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
Mateu y Llopis and Beltrán agree that this coin is authentic.3
1 |
One of the above three specimens is ex Cervera.
|
2 |
The interesting "pedigree" of the coin is given here.
|
3 |
See Ampurias, 1941, p. 91, note 1, and Beltrán, 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·
1 |
This specimen, or HSA 16115 (below), is ex Cervera.
|
179. Facing bust. Type 4 c.
✠ SISEBVTVSRE
As obverse.
180. Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ ᴤIᴤEBVTVᔕR⋮
As obverse.
✠ IVᴤTVᔕΛCCI
Plate IX, 3
1 |
The photograph is scarcely legible.
|
2 |
The second O is incomplete.
|
3 |
Mateu lists the Florez and España Sagrada references as distinct specimens, but I imagine they describe the same coin.
|
4 |
There is no Sisebut-Acci issue listed in Campaner's or Fernández y López' analysis of the hoard, nor is there an entry in
Beltrán's list. However, Beltrán's inventory of Cervera's collection compiled from Vives' rubbings records three specimens,
all from La Capilla.
|
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?
1 |
The loop of the P is usually far removed from the vertical member.
|
2 |
One of the four HSA specimens is ex Cervera.
|
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.
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·:
1 |
Mateu y Llopis has REX, but Reinhart's list shows RE.
|
2 |
Campaner transcribed REX and ELIBER, but as there was only one specimen in the hoard of La Capilla, and the HSA specimen not
only shows traces of soil which I have concluded is that characterizing the hoard specimens in the HSA collection but also
belonged to Cervera, I propose that Campaner's transcriptions are in error and that we have here the specimen of La Capilla.
|
3 |
Sometimes transcribed ELIBERRI. Florez remarks equivocally that in the "originales" and the "copias mas puntuales" (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 (?)
1 |
One cannot be certain of the equivalence proposed. Campaner transcribes ELIBERR ∵ and EL: BERRI·: (see (e), below) for the
two Ferreira specimens he mentions, but none like the Ferreira specimen illustrated by Heiss. I suggest that Campaner misread
this specimen. The lettering of these coins (particularly the E's and other multi-punch letters) is frequently obscure.
|
1 |
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 "La Capilla soil" adhering to the coin. These two elements open
a wide field of speculation. It is unlikely, given the nature of the rest of the hoard, in which there are many specimens
from the same dies, implying that many of the coins remained together almost from the time they were issued by the mint, that
any mounting was attempted before burial. And indeed the shiny appearance of the copper suggests that the excrescences are
the result of fairly recent tampering (but not more recent than, say, 1900). It would seem rather that some of the specimens
of the La Capilla hoard were mounted by a jeweller (perhaps by Saturnino Fernández) after the discovery of the hoard and before
their acquisition by Mr. Huntington. This conclusion finds support in the presence of the mended piece (HSA 16126) with its
three copper clamps on the edge which hold the cracked coin together. This coin is from the same dies as four others, three
of which show "La Capilla soil," and one may be almost certain that it also is from the hoard.
|
2 |
I do not understand why Heiss later (1891) says, "On n'avait pas encore publié de monnaie de Sisebut, émise dans cette ville."
|
188. Facing bust. Type?
✠ SISEBVTVSRE
Facing bust. Type?
✠ IVSTVSTV⋮CI
1 |
Heiss no 7a is listed as BM, but there is no like specimen in the BM and I have assumed VQR no. 5089 was intended.
|
2 |
Not in VQR collection.
|
3 |
Obvious errors in transcription.
|
4 |
It is not altogether unlikely that Campaner misread one of the specimens of La Capilla accounted for in the classes above.
Pio Beltrán's list gives Chinchilla one specimen with this legend (similar to Campaner): this, again according to Beltrán's
inventory, would make 12 specimens acquired by Chinchilla, which is the exact number of HSA specimens on which I believe I
detect "La Capilla soil." Beltrán figures a total of 32 La Capilla specimens, including the present one.
|
189. Facing bust. Type 5 e, crude.
✠ SISEBVTVSREX1
As obverse.
✠ COLEIΛPIΛT.
190. Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠ SISIBVTVSRE+
Facing bust. Type 7.
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.
1 |
VQR has · in place of X, but when I examined the coin I noted a faint X.
|
1 |
Schulman notes "authenticité douteuse," but in view of the fact that there are, to my knowledge, no forgeries of this mint
under Sisebut, and considering the satisfactory weight, I see no reason to suspect the specimen's authenticity.
|
2 |
Wrongly transcribed by Delgado.
|
3 |
Ȣ, not P.
|
4 |
The fantastic transcriptions of the legends on this coin are surely the result of an attempt to read the very bad drawing
in Mahudel. I imagine the original was an ordinary issue with EMERETΛ.
|
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.
200. Facing bust. Type 5 l.
✠ SISEBVTVSRE
As obverse.
✠ CΛLΛȢΛ∵PIVS
Plate X, 9
1 |
Reinhart's photograph closely resembles Heiss' drawing, and I have assumed the two to represent the identical coin.
|
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.
1 |
The S's, I judge from Mateu's description, are turned on their sides.
|
2 |
I have not seen this article and am acquainted with it only through Mateu's review.
|
3 |
Present location unknown?
|
4 |
Beltrán informs me that Reinhart's pl. 12, no. 13 confuses two coins: the obverse is Suinthila-Cassavio, the reverse is the
present coin. Mateu y Llopis (Nombres de Lugar, 1942) states that this coin is from the hoard of La Capilla, but I think this must be an error, for neither Fernández y López
nor Pio Beltrán (in the list which he has furnished me) mentions it.
|
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
1 |
While Elias Garcia recognizes that Velazquez and Florez were dealing with the same specimen, he deals with the Madrid specimen separately.
|
2 |
This might, of course, be one of the forgeries.
|
209. Facing bust. Type 5 l.
✠ ᴤIᴤEPVTVᴤRE
Facing bust. Type 5 o.
✠ SIMV·R·EȢTVS
Gómez-Moreno is, I believe, in error when he speaks of two coins, one with SIMVREPIVS and the other with SEMVRE;1 these are simply two readings of the single specimen in Madrid.
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
1 |
Quoted without comment by Mateu, 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
18 Vliigoth
(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
XCE:ΛR:C·O:TΛIVS
(g). Obverse?
[X?]CE:ΛR:CS:TΛ
1 |
Belfort implies that there are two specimens (Chalon and VQR), but I imagine, although the documentary evidence is not available
to me, that Vidal Quadras y Ramón acquired the Chalon piece and that only one specimen is known. While none of the drawings
can be considered wholly reliable, that in Piot (i. e., VQR) so closely resembles that in Lelewel (i.e., Chalon) that the
identity seems highly probable.
|
2 |
My transcriptions, taken directly from the coin, differ slightly from those in VQR.
|
3 |
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·
(c). ✠ SVINT·IHILΛRE
Plate X, 16
1 |
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.
|
2 |
Another specimen (or perhaps the same one), wrongly assigned by Augustin to Tarracona, gave rise to Velazquez, no. 82, and
Gússeme, VI, p. 255, no. 9. Cf. Beltrán, p. 406.
|
3 |
I have no doubt that the specimen cited by Campaner and by Heiss in the references above is
Madrid
, no. 98, although neither Campaner nor Heiss mention the "palm" in place of X, and although Heiss' transcription of the reverse
legend does not conform in every particular with respect to the points. Mateu (p. 278) remarks on the unusual "mark" on the
obverse and on the exceptional color of the gold.
|
4 |
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
1 |
One cannot be certain that the legends are properly transcribed, nor of the number or precise ownership of the specimens.
Beltrán's inventory of the hoard lists three specimens of the mint under Suinthila in all, including
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)).
|
1 |
There is a very marked deposit of "La Capilla soil" on this specimen. Although Fernández y López' transcription under his
no. 38 differs from the leg-end here (RE: and PIVSTΛIΛP), which incidentally gave rise to speculation regarding an unknown
mint, I suspect that the equivalence I have proposed is correct and that the legends were misread. Although it cannot be proved
that this is Chinchilla's specimen (as Beltrán's inventory simply lists the three La Capilla specimens together,
La Capilla
, nos. 38-39, and assigns the three to Fernández y González, Chinchilla and Vidaurre — see 214(a), above —), the evident presence
of so many of Chinchilla's specimens in Cervera's collection, supports this identification. A fourth La Capilla specimen,
apparently not provided for in Beltrán's list, appears below (215(g)).
|
2 |
Heiss wrongly transcribed SVINT·HILΛRE.
|
2 |
Not Heiss, no. 14, as stated by Mateu.
|
3 |
Mateu refers to the specimens in Florez and in España Sagrada as distinct coins.
|
3 |
The illustration is scarcely legible; Mateu has REX in transcription, but I can see no X; the lettering of the reverse is
problematical in view of the character of the reproduction. This specimen, according to Mateu, is from the hoard of La Capilla.
The complications of identifying the La Capilla pieces are discussed in footnote 1 on p. 275 and footnote 1, above.
|
4 |
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.
|
4 |
Mateu lists the same coin (with errors in transcription) under two entries as separate specimens, apparently not recognizing
the identity of Heiss, no. 14b and VQR no. 5106. Mr. Philip Grierson informs me that in the catalogue of the collection of H.M. Leclercqz (or Leclerqz),
Bruxelles, 1838, and the sales catalogue of the same collection (2 Apr. 1839), p. 123, there is listed a coin with inscriptions
similar to the above; this specimen was from the Mons hoard of Byzantine and Merovingian coins found in 1820. Almost certainly
this is the coin acquired by Meynaerts and later by Vidal Quadras y Ramón, for not only are the legends identical, but also
Mr. Grierson writes me that he has evidence that Leclercqz was a purchaser at the sale in question. Cf. RNB, I (1842), pp. 115–116, where mention is made of the purchase by Leclercqz of a ring from the Mons hoard.
|
5 |
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). Pio Beltrán has offered the obvious explanation: the obverse with a retrograde SVINTILΛR legend was misread by Fernández y López. The inferior quality of the epigraphy at Acci under Suinthila fully supports the argument. Beltrán slipped (Rectificaciones, p. 414) when he suggested that Lorichs, no. 4640, might be a duplicate: that coin is Chintila's, not Suinthila's.
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).
1 |
Heiss in transcribing omitted the V from the obverse.
|
2 |
This specimen was, it seems, no longer in the Madrid collection when Mateu compiled his catalogue.
|
3 |
Fernández y López gives the obverse as SVINTILΛR, but he may have normalized the L in transcription. There is no evidence
that this HSA specimen is from the hoard of La Capilla, but as one specimen belonged to Chinchilla this may well be his.
|
4 |
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
1 |
And, according to Beltrán, ex
La Capilla
. There are no traces of "La Capilla soil," but there is a spot of green oxide on the reverse.
|
221. Types A or B. Lettering uncertain.
There were, according to Beltrán's inventory, 27 specimens in the hoard of La Capilla. I have accounted for a possible six in the HSA collection (five belonging to Chinchilla and one other). However, it is quite possible that other HSA specimens came from La Capilla; it is impossible to tell. Except for one specimen, No. 219 (h), Fernández y López gives only one set of legends (his no. 35): SVINTHIL:RE and PIVSMENT·SΛ; this obviously is an oversimplification. Furthermore he cannot have been accurate in another respect, for this set of legends does not provide for HSA 16268, which is from La Capilla, with the less common order of words on the reverse. Beltrán's inventory lists the following owners in addition to Chinchilla: Fernández y Gonzalez (17 specimens), Vidaurre (3), Campaner (1), Mariano Fernández (1).
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.
1 |
Presumably points have been omitted and the legends normalized in transcription.
|
2 |
Velazquez wrongly reversed the order of the words.
|
3 |
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.
|
4 |
Obverse transcribed SIIN etc., reverse with delta-shaped D. Pujol does not record how many specimens were found in the hoard
of
La Capilla
, and Beltrán therefore reckons only one in his inventory.
|
5 |
The X is sometimes small.
|
6 |
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
Mateu classifies this specimen as a forgery of the class deriving from Heiss' drawings. There is no likely prototype in Heiss; and furthermore I see nothing in the photograph to suggest that the coin is not authentic. The weight is light, but so are other legitimate pieces of this mint and ruler.
(k). Similar to (a)–(j), but exact lettering uncertain.
1 |
It is impossible to determine just how many specimens should be entered here. According to Beltrán's inventory there were
15 specimens in the hoard (Fernández y González (12), Chinchilla (3)). If we subtract the five specimens, including (c) below,
on which I detect "La Capilla soil", this would eliminate Chinchilla's three and two others. But I suspect that there are
more La Capilla specimens in the HSA collection (e.g., no. 2, above, from the same dies as no. 1), on which there are no traces
of soil. Also one cannot be certain that all the hoard specimens bore the exact legends of (a), as given by Fernández y López;
for example (c), with RE in place of REX, is one exception. According to Beltrán's list there was only one specimen in Cervera's
collection, but this cannot be considered conclusive.
|
1 |
According to Beltrán's list, at least two of the HSA specimens are from the hoard of La Capilla and were in the Cervera collection.
It will be observed, however, that there are traces of "La Capilla soil" on many more of the HSA pieces.
|
1 |
N or ᴻ?
|
2 | |
2 |
N in transcription, but probably ᴻ.
|
3 |
The engraving in Heiss appears not to represent the coin illustrated by Mateu, but I assume that t he same specimen is under
consideration; if this is true, the engraving is very faulty.
|
3 |
There were, according to Beltrán's list, 42 specimens in all in the hoard, the original distribution being: Fernández y Gonzáles
(30), Chinchilla (10), Vidaurre (1), Mariano Fernández (1). I have accounted for 13 specimens above (HSA and the one illustrated
in
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 "La Capilla soil."
|
4 |
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).
Plate XII, 14
(d). * SVINTHIL:REX
✠ CORΔOBΛPIVS
Plate XIII, 1
(e). Similar to (a)–(d), exact lettering uncertain.
1 |
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) Heiss gives the location as "CM", i.e., Cabinet de Madrid, but this is doubtless an error
for "CF", Cabinet de France, for there is no specimen in the Madrid collection and furthermore the engraving in Heiss very closely resembles the illustration of Le Gentilhomme (curiously, Mateu
does not raise the question in his Cordoba); (b) Heiss' engraving shows Λ with a cross-bar in both the name of the king and that of the mint, which, considering the
period, would place the genuineness of the coin under suspicion ; but an examination of Le Gentilhomme's photograph establishes,
I believe, that these apparent bars are simply flaws in the dies or in the striking.
|
2 |
Exact forms of letters not known.
|
3 |
X sometimes small.
|
4 |
Δ sometimes not closed at the bottom.
|
5 |
According to Beltrán's list there was one specimen (from La Capilla) in the Cervera collection.
|
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.
1 |
Mateu compares this to Heiss, no. 7; possibly at this time he had not seen the piece.
|
1 |
There are several divergences between text-transcription and reproduction of the throe specimens in the Madrid catalogue. I have followed my own reading of the plates in preference to the text, but the quality of the plates renders
confident readings impossible.
|
2 |
There were, according to Beltrán's list, 31 specimens in all in the hoard, the original distribution being: Fernández y González
(16), Chinchilla (13), Vidaurre (2). I have accounted for 8 specimens above, but the same remarks apply here as those in the
footnote to No. 224 (k), above.
|
2 |
There is, as noted elsewhere, an apparent dissimilarity between the illustrations in Heiss and in Mateu 's inventory, but
I assume the same specimen is under consideration. The L in the king's name is perhaps complete.
|
3 |
Beltrán's list shows two La Capilla specimens in the Cervera collection.
|
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
1 |
See the note to (m), above.
|
1 |
Dot at end of reverse legend omitted in transcription but evident in plate.
|
2 |
SVINTILAREX — PIVSELIBERI. I have seen no specimen with REX; Morales probably supplied the X.
|
2 |
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.
|
3 |
Augustin has SVINTILΛRE ; Velazquez introduces an H, although he refers to Augustin.
|
4 |
The engraving shows SVINTILΛRE — PIVSELIBER, but I suspect the artist normalized the letters.
|
5 |
The only legends given by Fernández y López are SVINTILΛRI and PIVSELIBERI, but it is clear from the HSA specimens described
above that this description is a generalization. There were, according to Beltrán's list, 53 specimens in the hoard, the original
distribution being: Fernández y González (34), Chinchillas (15), Vidaurre (4). I have accounted for 15 specimens above, but
the same remarks apply here as in the footnote to No. 224 (k).
|
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, 2
(i). ✠ SVINTIIΛRE:
Reverse as (a).
Plate XV, 3
(j). ✠ SVINTII.Λ.RE
Reverse as (a).
Plate XV, 4
(k). ✠ SVINTII.ΛRI:.
✠ IVS·TVSTVCI
Plate XV, 5
(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, 7
(p). ✠ SVINTII.ΛI·I
Reverse as (a).
Plate XV, 8
(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.
1 |
There were, according to Beltrán's list, 49 specimens in all in the hoard, the original distribution being: Fernández y González
(31), Chinchilla (11), a mason of Carmona (3), Mariano Fernández (2), Vidaurre (1), Juan Fernández (1). I have accounted for
12 specimens above, but see the remarks in footnote to No. 224 (k).
|
1 |
Error in transcription.
|
2 |
Transcribed REX, but the overwhelming evidence would indicate that this is an incorrect reading.
|
2 |
In spite of imperfections in plaster-casting, it is clear that these two illustrations represent the same specimen.
|
3 |
Beltrán's inventory lists one other specimen of Suinthila-Ispali in the Cervera collection.
|
4 |
Beltráns' inventory gives four Cervera specimens from La Capilla.
|
5 |
Transcribed REX, but in all probability the X is lacking.
|
230(a). Facing bust. Type 5 f.
✠ SVIIITIIΛRI
As obverse.
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*
1 |
Fernández y López has ✠SVINTHIL.ΛR. and ✠IVSTVSTV·:CI, but obviously this is only one of the many varieties. According to Beltrán's list there were in all 36
specimens in the hoard, the original distribution being: (a) like Heiss, no. 17 (No. 229 (g)), Fernández y González (4), Chinchilla
(4), Vidaurre (1), Barrago (1); (b) like Heiss, no. 18 (No. 229(l)), Fernández y González (21), Chinchilla (5). I have accounted
for 7 specimens, but as usual see the remarks in footnote to No. 224 (k). Beltrán's list distinguishes between the types of
busts (types 5 e and 5 f) by reference to Heiss, which so far as I can see does not indicate a fundamental difference in type.
The opportunity to study minutely the large group in the HSA collection has revealed the existence of the PIVS type, which
understandably has not been detected by previous writers as there appears to be only one published specimen, and it not identified
(No. 230(a)3). Very probably there were others in the hoard of La Capilla, and for this reason I have placed the
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 ading) must be considered extremely doubtful. See the discussion f No. 91. Reinhart does not record Elvora as a mint under Suinthila.
1 |
There was at least one specimen in the Cervera collection.
|
2 |
Fernández y López stated that there was only one specimen in the hoard, but according to Beltrán's communication Pujol cited
two for General Chinchilla, which would be the two now in the HSA collection, and one other in an unnamed collection; this
other would be the one illustrated by Fernández y López (no. 3, above), now, according to Elias Garcia, in the Instituto de
Valencia de Don Juan, but it does not appear in Mateu y Llopis' inventory of the latter collection.
|
235(a). Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠ 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.
1 |
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.
|
2 |
Only one specimen of Suinthila-Emerita figures in Beltrán's list of the Cervera collection.
|
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 La Capilla, are confusing. Fernández y López, giving the legends as SVINTILΛREX and SΛLMΛNTICΛPIVS, but admitting that he was uncertain of their exact form as he did not see an example of the original or a rubbing, wrote that there were two specimens in the hoard, both of which were taken to Madrid by Pujol y Camps. Campaner recorded SΛLΛMΛNTICΛ, without an adjective. Beltrán's list gives four specimens, the original distribution being: Chinchilla (1), Cervera (1) (presumably the HSA specimen), Fernández y González (1), and Caro of Seville (1). In his Rectificaciones (p. 414) he rightly remarks that the transcription of the reverse by Fernández y López must be wrong because it is too long to be contained in the space available; that this observation is to the point is established by the HSA specimen, which not only omits the adjective but also abbreviates the mint-name.
1 |
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.
|
2 |
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 Beltrán's list there were in all 98 specimens in the hoard, the original
distribution being: Fernández y González (67), Chinchilla (26), Vidaurre (2), Manuel Nieto (1), Campaner (1), Juan Fernández
(1). I have accounted for 16 specimens: HSA and (m); but the remarks in the footnote to No. 224 (k) apply here as usual.
|
3 |
Fernández y López noted that there was only one specimen in the hoard, and this is confirmed by Beltrán's list. The owner
was, and is, unknown.
|
238. Types ?
✠ SVI·N:IL·R·
✠ ΛLIoBR:oPI·
239. Facing bust. Type 5 q, very crude. Pellet right and left.
✠ SVIᴻTILΛRE·
As obverse.
✠ ΛSTORICΛPI
1 |
Campaner gives PIVS, but Fernández y López' reading is probably more exact. Beltrán, reading "Alcobrio," writes that there
were two specimens in the hoard, one going to Fernández y González, the other to "Barrajo de Carmona."
|
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
Fernández y López read PIVSTΛIΛP, but Mateu y Llopis (loc. cit.) has called attention to the correct reading. Beltrán records that there was only one specimen in the hoard, disposition unknown.
242. Facing bust. Type 12 e.
✠ SVIᴻTILΛR
Facing bust. Type 5 y.
✠ C·SSΛVIOPIS:
1 |
My transcriptions, taken from the coin itself, differ from those in VQR.
|
2 |
Fernández y López' transcription does not entirely conform, but in all probability the description is of this type.
|
3 |
Beltrán's list gives five specimens in all, the original distribution being: Chinchilla (1) [probably the HSA specimen], Fernández
y González (3), Caro of Seville (1). I have accounted for three above. The four varieties of legends in Beltrán's list roughly correspond to the three given
by Fernández y López with the addition of BRΛCΛRΛ·IVS.
|
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:
1 |
The obverse of this coin is illustrated in Reinhart's plate by error in association with a reverse of Sisebut-Laure. I am
indebted to Pio Beltrán for this information and for the details of description, later confirmed by Mateu y Llopis' publication.
This coin is the one referred to by Reinhart in his table of mints, p. 101.
|
2 |
I have adopted Fernández y López' readings, which are at variance with Campaner's. Beltrán records one specimen only in the
hoard, property of Fernández y González.
|
3 |
Fernández y López records two specimens in the hoard, although according to Beltrán, Pujol cited only one, the property of
Fernández y González. The readings above are taken from Beltrán's list; in 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
1 |
Beltrán's list records only one specimen in the hoard, property of Fernández y González. The points at the end of the reverse
legend are supplied from Beltrán's record.
|
2 |
The transcriptions of Fernández y López and of Campaner, which differ from each other, are both incorrect, that of Fernández
y López being closer to the original. There was only one specimen in the hoard and this went to Chinchilla and eventually
to the HSA collection.
|
3 |
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.
|
4 |
The entry in Traité (p. 52) for Sisenand/ SENV-ER is obviously confused with this issue.
|
5 |
Beltrán gives PIOSEMVER and refers to Heiss, no. 13 and "Col. Ferreira" (see the next entry).
|
251. Facing bust. Type 5 q.
✠ SVINTILΛRE
As obverse.
✠ SE·NΛBR·ΛP:V⋮
252. Facing bust. Type 5 v.
✠ SVINTILΛRX
As obverse.
✠ VENTOSΛP:·
1 |
According to Beltrán (in a personal communication), this, the single specimen in the hoard, was acquired by Manuel Fernández
of Seville.
|
253(a). Facing bust. Type 5f.
✠ 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
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:
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.
1 |
Nos. 1 and 2 resemble each other very closely.
|
2 |
The drawing in Botet y Sisó (reproduced by Mateu y Llopis) shows N in the name of the king, but the other details of the legends
are so similar to nos. 1 and 2 that I suspect ᴻ is the form actually present on this piece.
|
3 |
Eye-brows and nose resemble a cross.
|
4 |
Mateu y Llopis unaccountably gives two entries to the same specimen, with reproductions from Heiss (drawing) and
Madrid
(photograph), although he recognizes them as representing the same specimen. The transcriptions are inaccurate.
|
5 |
Here again Mateu gives this coin two separate entries, one referring to Heiss, the other to VQR. The transcriptions are inaccurate.
|
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
1 |
The plate is not clear, but the legends (which do not conform with Fernández y López' transcriptions) appear to be as above.
|
2 |
Beltrán's list gives 12 specimens in all, the original distribution being: Fernández y González (9), Chinchilla (3). Although
traces of "La Capilla soil" remain on only one of the HSA specimens, I believe there can be little doubt that they are all
from the hoard. These four plus the two illustrated in
La Capilla
would leave six unaccounted for. Campaner's transcriptions are obviously generalized (SISINΛDVSRE and IVSTVSΛ·CI).
|
3 |
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.
|
4 |
There were five specimens (ex La Capilla) in Cervera's collection.
|
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
Plate XVII, 12
260. Types and exact legends uncertain.
1 |
The forms of the letters are uncertain.
|
2 |
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.
|
3 |
Beltrán records 14 specimens in all: Fernández y González (7), Chinchilla (5), Vidaurre (1), Cervera (1). I assume all seven
HSA specimens to have come from the hoard; these and the specific descriptions in
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:.
1 |
This particular specimen has two dots, like eyes, above the cross in the face of the obverse bust.
|
2 |
The busts as represented in Heiss differ in several particulars from those on the HSA specimens, but the obverse has a cross
in place of the face and I suspect that the drawings are simply inaccurate with respect to the breasts. The transcriptions
in Heiss' text differ from the legends as they appear in the drawings.
|
3 |
Supposed to be in the Madrid collection, but this specimen, like some others, is not in Mateu y Llópis' catalogue. Fernández-Guerra had access to Ferreira's
collection, and the drawings in Heiss and Fernández-Guerra are not dissimilar. Also the legends are identical.
|
4 |
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.
1 |
Fernández y López has SISENΛNDVS and PIVSMENT:S∴, which legends, incidentally, closely resemble those of Type B, (f), above.
Did this particular specimen finally turn up at Schulman's?
|
2 |
Beltrán records 15 specimens in all, the original distribution being: Fernández y González (11), Chinchilla (4). Assuming
all the HSA specimens to be from the hoard, there remain nine to be accounted for.
|
3 |
The bust is very irregular and often quite amorphous.
|
4 |
Beltrán's list records one specimen in the Cervera collection.
|
5 |
The single specimen in the Madrid cabinet in 1936 does not conform with this description.
|
6 |
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*
1 |
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 Beltrán's list: one for the HSA piece
with traces of "La Capilla soil," and one more to account for Chinchilla's second specimen. The original distribution of the
remainder was: Fernández y González (9), Caro of Seville (1).
|
2 |
Beltrán's list ascribes one specimen to the Cervera collection (ex La Capilla).
|
3 |
Beltrán's inventory lists seven specimens: Fernández y González (4), Chinchilla (2), Cervera (1). I assume that all five HSA
specimens are from the hoard; with the one illustrated 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.
1 |
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⋮.
|
2 |
Beltrán's list of the Cervera collection lists two specimens, both from La Capilla.
|
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).
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
Reverse as (f).
Plate XIX, 8
✠ 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
(q) Obverse as (g)
Reverse as (d).
(r). Similar to (a)–(q), but exact lettering uncertain.1
1 |
Beltrán lists 23 specimens in all, original distribution as follows: Fernández y González (9), Chinchilla (12), Vidaurre (1),
Cervera (1). All 15 of the HSA specimens (of which 11 show traces of "La Capilla soil") are undoubtedly from the hoard. This
leaves eight to be accounted for.
|
1 |
According to Beltrán's list there were two specimens with ᴤIᴤ… and PIVᴤ in the Cervera collection.
|
2 |
But not in Mateu y Llopis' recently published inventory.
|
3 |
Note the weight. A forgery?
|
4 |
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.
1 |
Some of these specimens were published with transcriptions, but for various reasons I consider these transcriptions inaccurate.
|
2 |
SISENΛNDVSRE:
|
3 |
SISENΛNDVSR
|
4 |
Beltrán's list gives 42 specimens in all in the hoard, the original distribution being: Fernández y González (23), Chinchilla
(14), "Casro(?) de Sevilla" (2), Alberto Garcia Solá (1), Manuel Nieto (1), Juan Fernández (1). Although only 10 of the HSA
specimens show "La Capilla soil," I have assigned all 14 to the hoard because this is the exact number acquired by General
Chinchilla, whose share seems to have come more or less intact into the HSA collection.
|
5 |
There were two specimens in the Cervera collection, both from La Capilla.
|
6 |
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.
1 |
There were, according to Beltrán, 27 specimens in the hoard, originally distributed as follows: Fernández y González (18),
Chinchilla (6), Caro (1), Campaner (1), a barber of Carmona (1). I have assigned all 14 of the HSA specimens to the hoard,
which when Mr. Huntington ceased collecting was the only source of coins of this ruler and mint.
|
2 |
Transcribed SISINΛNDVSR
|
3 |
According to Beltrán's list, the Cervera collection contained two specimens (both from the hoard of La Capilla). HSA 16391
has more nearly D than Ȣ.
|
4 |
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.
Plate XXI, 3
1 |
According to Beltrán's list, there were 48 specimens in the hoard, originally distributed as follows: Fernández y González
(32), Chinchilla (14), Vidaurre (1), Caro (1). I imagine all 28 HSA specimens are from the hoard, but I have calculated only
25, those bearing traces of "La Capilla soil" together with those from similar dies (whether mulings or pairs). With (v) this
leaves 22 specimens unaccounted for. The single set of legends in
La Capilla
cannot of course account for all the dies in the hoard.
|
2 |
RIX, which must be doubtful, and ISPΛUPIVS, probably an error.
|
3 |
The legends are virtually illegible in the plate; reliance has therefore been placed on the transcriptions.
|
4 |
There are traces of earth on this specimen, resembling that on the coins which I have identified as coming from La Capilla,
but none of the authorities on the contents of the hoard cites the coin.
|
5 |
This may be the HSA specimen. Pio Beltrán is the source of the information given in
Madrid
as well as Reinhart's source. Mateu y Llopis (
Madrid, loc. cit.) writes that Beltrán saw a reproduction of the coin, or that it was in a sales catalogue (Hallazgos IV, p. 243). Beltrán himself, to whom I am indebted for the confirmation that the legends are probably the same as on the HSA
specimen, writes that the coin belonged to Rollin and that its disposition is, to him, unknown; it might be the HSA piece,
or the Barcelona piece, or another. I have not been able to locate the specimen in any Rollin & Feuardent catalogue, but if
that piece was disposed of before, say, 1906, there is, I suspect, a strong likelihood that it went to the Hispanic Society,
and therefore that nos. 1 and 2 are the same coin.
|
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.
1 |
According to Beltrán's inventory, there were five specimens in the Cervera collection, all from the hoard of La Capilla.
|
2 |
This specimen has a die flaw that makes the C look like S.
|
3 |
This specimen, formerly broken in two pieces, has been mended by soldering; the solder would account for the exceptional weight.
|
4 |
Beltrán lists only eight specimens of Sisenand-Tucci in the hoard of La Capilla, distributed as follows: Chinchilla (4), Fernández
y González (3), Vidaurre (1). Obviously this total is incorrect; there are at least 11 HSA specimens with traces of "
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.
(b). Obverse as (a).
Plate XXI, 14
(c). As (a) or (b).
(d). ✠ SISENΛNDVSRE
(e). ✠ SISENΛNDVSRE
✠ EITΛNIΛPIVS*1
1 |
Fernández y Lopez has RE*, but I suspect that REX is present, and, as this specimen was among those acquired by Chinchilla, that the piece is the same one as that now in the
HSA collection. According to Beltrán's list there were only two specimens in the hoard: Chinchilla's and one other which went
to Fernández y González.
|
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 head: legend as (a).
Plate XXII, 4
Plate XXII, 5
(c). Obverse as (a).
at either side of head; legend 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.
1 |
Position of I not indicated in transcription.
|
1 |
Pellets omitted from description.
|
2 |
Beltrán lists three specimens in the Cervera collection, all from La Capilla.
|
2 |
PIVS omitted from transcription.
|
3 |
Spot of green oxide.
|
3 |
X not full size, but larger than types (a)-(c).
|
4 |
This specimen was largely covered with a heavy green oxide, occasionally present on other specimens presumably from the hoard
of La Capilla. Adhering to this oxide was a small fragment of a debased coin measuring 8 × 4 mm. This fragment, almost entirely
copper, was carefully detached and cleaned. Unfortunately nothing is legible but part of an X.
|
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
1 |
Fernández y López gives REX but omits all other details. Beltrán records 88 specimens in the hoard, originally distributed
as follows : Fernández y González (66), Chinchilla (15), Vidaurre (4), A. M. Fabié (1), Manuel Nieto (1), José Siles (1).
I have assigned 33 of the HSA specimens to the hoard, including those with connecting dies as well as those with traces of
"La Capilla soil."
|
2 |
I have adopted Fernández y López' transcription of the reverse in preference to Campaner's undoubtedly normalized rendering.
According to Beltrán there was only one specimen in the hoard, the property of Fernández y González.
|
3 |
The illustration is scarcely legible and the legends above are as given by Fernández y López. The reading must be considered
doubtful : Fernández y López suggested Bracara, Campaner the same or Betera (Betra). Pio Beltrán states that there was only
one specimen in the hoard and that of uncertain disposition. When
La Capilla
was published the coin belonged to Fernández y López, for the plate so indicates.
|
276. Facing bust. Type 12d.
✠ SISENΛNɖVSR.
Facing bust. Type 5 e (indeterminate).
✠ MΛVE·PIVS:
277. Types unknown.
✠ SESENΛNDVSRE
✠ TVRIVIΛNΛPIVS
1 |
Reinhart does not record Mave as a mint under Sisenand.
|
2 |
There was only one specimen in the hoard, and, according to Beltrán, this went to Fernández y González.
|
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
1 |
I have adopted the readings in
La Capilla
in preference to those of Campaner as probably being more accurate.
|
2 |
Campaner recorded this single specimen as belonging to Saturnino Fernández of Seville; Beltrán lists it (with a query) as the property of Fernández y López.
|
280. Facing bust. Type 4c.
XCHIᴻTIL>REX
As obverse.
XCE:ΛR:C·O:TΛI·
Plate XXII, 11
Reinhart (p. 100) lists Cesaragusta as a mint under Chintila, which would indicate either that he was acquainted with the Cervera piece or that he had knowledge of another. The present specimen is the only one known to me.
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 ✶
Beltrán (pp. 441–442) accepts (a), and probably (b), as genuine, ave seen (b) and consider it genuine. Beltrán is in error in equating QR no. 5120 with Piot no. 4 (Meynaerts); the latter is one of the geries based on the illustration in Florez (see p. 473).1
283(a) . Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ CHNTIL∴ΛR
As obverse.
✠ IVSTVSΛCI
Plate XXII, 12
(b). Facing bust. Type 5 f.
✠ :ΛIITᴻIHᴐ
As obverse.
✠ IVSTVSΛC·I
Plate XXII, 13
284 . Facing bust. Type 5 j.
✠ CHINTIIΛI
As obverse.
✠ CΛST·L·NΛPI
285(a) . Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ CHINTILΛREX
As obverse.
✠ TOLETOPIVᔕ
(b). Obverse as (a).
✠ TOLETOPIVS *
(c). ✠ CHINTILΛRE+
Reverse as (a).
(d). Obverse as (a).
Plate XXII, 14
1 |
Meynaerts, no. 41 is listed as a "denier d'argent," and the illustration hows that it is one of the copies.
|
2 |
Transcription not accurate.
|
3 |
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
1 |
This, or the next coin, was Cervera's.
|
2 |
The sprig at the end of the reverse legend not shown.
|
3 |
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 Mateu y Llopis's assertion1 that the mint at Cordoba struck "abundantly" during Chintila's reign. The above four specimens appear to be the only ones known.
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 Florez, is genuine. The forgery illustrated by Mateu y Llopis 2 is almost certainly molded from a coin struck with dies identical with those from which the HSA piece was struck, perhaps from the HSA piece itself at some earlier time in its history. The latter has the appearance of an authentic coin; and the weight is acceptable. Florez' transcription3 is a reasonable interpretation of the letters which I recognize on the HSA coin : the loops of the B are very faint and are separated from the vertical stroke (i. e., I: in Florez' reading), and the loop and oblique stroke of the R are equally obscure (I: again in Florez' reading). For this reason I say that Calvelo's and the HSA piece may be the same. Campaner's doubts (loc. cit.) about the issue were probably based on the curious succession of letters represented by Florez, but these letters and dots assume intelligible form when one realizes that I⋮ = E, that the horizontal stroke of L is omitted, and that I: = B. Florez himself recognized these probabilities.
1 |
Cordoba, p. 54.
|
2 |
Madrid
, pl. F, no. 20; cf. p. 474, infra.
|
3 |
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
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
1 |
The reverse is double-struck and very obscure; the above legend has been read with the aid of a photograph from the Ashmolean.
|
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
1 |
The engraving in Heiss is incorrect, the pellets and points after X on the obverse having been omitted, although they are
present in Florez' drawing.
|
295. Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠ CHINTIL.Λ.RE:
Facing bust. Type 7.
✠ VΛLEN|T|IΛPIVS
Plate XXIII, 6
Beltrán 1 considers this piece a fabrication. Although I have not seen the piece itself, I find nothing suspect in the appearance of the coin in the plaster-cast furnished me by the British Museum; and despite Beltrán's very authoritative view (with which I should like to agree) I consider the coin authentic.2
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
1 |
Pp. 434–435.
|
2 |
Cf. Heiss, p. 64, citing the opinion of de Salis, who believed that "l'original était d'une authenticité qui ne pouvait être
suspectée."
|
3 |
Wrongly labeled pl. XIII, no. 10; actually no. 11.
|
299. Reinhart (p. 101) tabulates Toriviana as a mint under Chintila, presumably on the basis of an unpublished specimen.
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.
As obverse.
302. Facing bust. Type 4 c.
✠ TVLC·ΛRE+o
As obverse.
✠ OC:IV:TOTΛRR:
1 |
The X curiously bent at the top and the left.
|
303. Facing bust. Type 5 l.
Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ PIVSBIΛTIΛ
Plate XXIII, 10
304.(a) Facing bust. Type 5 e.
As obverse.
✠ TOLETOPIVᔕ*
Plate XXIII, 11
(b). Obverse as (a).
Plate XXIII, 12
Reverse as (a).
(d). Similar to (a)–(c), symbol uncertain.
305(a). Facing bust, tilted toward right.
Type 5 v.
As obverse.
✠ PIVSBΛRBI
Reverse as (a).
1 |
Either this or HSA 16468 (below) is ex Cervera.
|
2 |
This specimen, from the collection of Basilio Sebastián Castellanos, is, according to Mateu y Llopis (p. 295), of gilded silver,
but probably an official issue, not a contemporary forgery.
|
306(a). Facing bust. Type 9 b.
Facing bust. Type 10 a.
✠ CoRDoBΛPIVS
Plate XXIII, 13
✠ CoRΔoBΛPIVS1
Plate XXIII, 14
Plate XXIII, 15
✠ CORΔOBΛPIVS
Reverse as (b).
Plate XXIII, 16
1 |
The Δ is usually somewhat rounded.
|
2 |
Weight given as 0.86 in Mateu y Llopis, Cordoba.
|
3 | |
4 |
Wrongly numbered L. 4640.
|
5 |
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 Adquisiciones en 1932, pp. 4-8). Mateu, in reply to my query, has agreed that there must be some error, i. e., that these coins are not from the
hoard. Are they perhaps other reproductions of specimens in the Madrid collection? It is difficult to tell from the plate.
|
6 |
See the note immediately above.
|
307(a) . Facing bust. Type 5 e.
As obverse.
✠ ISPΛLIPIVS
(b). Facing bust. Type?
Facing bust. Type ?
✠ ISPΛLIPIVS
308. Facing bust. Type 8 c.
Facing bust. Type 7. at either side of bust.
309. Facing bust. Type 8 c.
Facing bust. Type 7.
✠ EMERI|T|ΛPIVS
310. Facing bust. Type 10 c.
X at either side of bust.
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. Belfort had a rubbing, according to Blanchet, with LVCVVIVS [PIVS?]; Campaner was furnished with a description by Arturo Pedrals, but the legends are not given.
1 |
Where is this coin now? It evidently was not in the Madrid collection at the time of the compilation of Mateu y Llopis' catalogue.
|
2 |
The bust appears to differ from that on the Gabriel piece, but I suspect that a poor drawing is at fault.
|
3 |
Not the VQR specimen; its disposition, therefore, unknown.
|
4 |
Wrongly transcribed LATERA.
|
5 |
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.
1 |
Pellets sometimes described as . instead of:, but probably always actually the latter.
|
2 |
The O is sometimes small.
|
3 |
Wrongly listed as a coin of Tulga's.
|
4 |
This is probably the same specimen as that descrided by Amardel (Musée de Narbonne, p. 145) as having CHIND:SVI:D·RE.
|
5 |
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.
|
6 |
Described as having : after first D.
|
315. Reinhart (p. 100) tabulates Cesaragusta as a mint under Chindasvinth, presumably on the basis of an unpublished specimen.
316. Facing bust. Type 5 e, variation.
✠ CINbΛSV·NTVSR1
As obverse.
317. Facing bust. Type 5 q.
As obverse.
✠ SΛLȢΛNIΛIVS (begins at 1:30 o'clock)
1 |
Florez has a curiously combined TV, in place of the pellet, but I imagine this piece and VQR's are similar and that the latter's
transcription is more accurate.
|
318(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
As obverse.
✠ TOLETOPIVᔕ1
Plate XXIV, 3
Plate XXIV, 4
Plate XXIV, 5
Reverse as (a).
Reverse as (a).
(d). X at either side of bust.
✠ CHINDΛSVINTHVSR
X at either side of bust.
✠ TOLETOPIVᔕ *
22 Visigoth
Plate XXIV, 6
1 |
The loop of the P is usually quite far separated from the vertical stroke.
|
2 |
One of the HSA specimens is ex Cervera.
|
3 |
The weight (1.08) given by Heiss is that of the piece which I have classified as a forgery.
|
4 |
The transcription omits the V in the king's name, but this is doubtless an error.
|
5 |
Name misinterpreted as Reccesvinth with REC lacking.
|
6 |
Inaccurate details.
|
7 |
Rackus, p. 190, in a nonsensical argument, uses this specimen (to the exclusion of others) to show that the name of the king
was not Chindasvinth, but 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. Elias Garcia, 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.
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 at beginning of legend.
1 |
Heiss mistakenly assigns the specimen to VQR, which collection contains no such piece. It is obvious that the coin went to
the BM from Meynaerts via De Salis.
|
2 |
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.
|
3 |
The plaster-cast from which the photograph in the Cahn catalogue was made is very poor, but a careful comparison of the photograph
with Mr. Dickie's specimen leaves no doubt of the identity.
|
4 |
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 Madrid coin, i. e., no. 1 = no. 2.
|
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.
✠ CISVIVS·RX1
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 3
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTR·CIΛ
(f). Probably similar to (a)–(e), exact legends uncertain.
*
1 |
There are discrepancies between the drawing in Heiss and that in Piot.
|
2 |
Very inaccurate drawing, if indeed this is the coin in question.
|
3 |
Sic, in Reinhart's list, but there the ligatures are not indicated.
|
323. Facing bust. Type 10 a.
✠ C:NϷΛSVNTVSR
Facing bust. Type 9 b.
✠ PI⋮VSELI⋮BER:
324(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
As obverse.
✠ ISPΛLIPIVS
Reverse as (a).
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 Piot entry for the Meynaerts specimen is suspicious. Possibly (a) and (b) are the same coin and both readings are mistaken.
1 |
The transcriptions in Piot and Meynaerts do not exactly agree with each other or with VQR, but the identity is probable.
|
326(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
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.
1 |
The description is not accurate, but this is doubtless the piece acquired by De Salis and given to the British Museum.
|
329. Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠ CI·DΛ//////VƧRX
Facing bust. Type 7.
330(a). Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠ CSVIN⊖VS 1
Facing bust. Type 7.
✠ EMERI|T|ΛPIVS
Plate XXTV, 15
Plate XXIV, 16
(b). Obverse as (a).
Reverse as (a).
Plate XXV, 1
Reverse as (a).
Plate XXV, 2
Reverse as (a).
Plate XXV, 3
✠ EMERI|T|ΛPIVS✶
Plate XXV, 4
(g). Probably similar to (a)–(f), exact lettering uncertain.
1.-16. La Grassa.
1 |
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.
|
2 |
S of PIVS more nearly ᔕ.
|
3 |
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. La Grassa.
332. Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠ CH:NDΛSV:NTƧRI✶
Facing bust. Type 7.
✠ LΛME|C|OPIVƧ
1 |
333(a). Facing bust. Type 5 e. Pellet at each side of head.
As obverse.
✠ ΛTVRIEPIVS
This coin, of reddish metal, is not above suspicion.
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.
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.
Facing bust. Type 7.
✠ BRΛCΛ|R|ΛPIVS
Reverse as (a).
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.
✠ 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.
✠ CΛLΛPΛ|P|ΛXPIV
I. Inst. de Valencia, no. 71*.
1 |
The transcription must be considered doubtful. Piot's and Campaner's renderings do not agree and the piece is nowhere reproduced.
|
2 |
Wrongly listed as a coin of Tulga.
|
339. Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠ CINDΛSVINT:
Facing bust. Type 7.
✠ FR·ΛV|C|EL:O
340(a). Facing bust. Type 7, variation. Monogram:
✠ LVCVPIVS✺
Plate XXV, 11
(b). As (a), but obverse legend ends with R·.
Reverse as (a).
Plate XXV, 12
(d). ✠ CNSVINOV:R
Reverse as (a).
(e). Description lacking, except LVCVPIVS.
1.-2. La Grassa.
341. Facing bust. Type 5 q. Pellet at left of bust.
✠ CNDΛSVINTVSRE
Facing bust. Type 5 q.
1 |
The drawing in Heiss (pl. XIII, no. 13, not 12 as given in the text) is inaccurate : the face of the reverse bust is not represented
by a cross as shown there.
|
12. Facing bust. Type 5 q.
As obverse.
✠ PETRΛPIVS.·.
43. Facing bust. Type 12 b.
✠ CNDΛᔕVINTVSR:
As obverse.
✠ TORIVIΛNΛPIVᔕ
Plate XXV, 13
344(a). Facing bust. Type 5 v (obscure).
As obverse.
✠ TVDEIVSTVS
✠ TVDEIVSTVS (cross at 1 o'clock)
Plate XXV, 14
1 |
Mateu's reproduction is not entirely clear, nor is the drawing in Heiss, with respect to the last two (or three ?) letters.
Heiss transcribed S where Mateu has a "palma o ramo," which it appears to be. Mateu has RE. Surely E is not present, but it
may be R· as Heiss gives it.
|
2 |
Campaner says Meynaerts
and VQR, but probably only the one specimen is known, i. e., VQR's was Meynaerts'.
|
3 |
Wrongly numbered L(orichs). 4641, and listed under Tulga.
|
a.d. 649–653
345(a). Bust, right. Type 1 c.
✠ R∈CC∈SVIN⊖VSR
(b). Obverse as (a).
Plate XXV, 15
346(a). Bust, right. Type 2 h.
Plate XXV, 16
347. CNSVINDVSRE
Monogram.
RECCESVINDVSRE
348(a). Bust, left. Type 1 e.
Plate XXV, 17
✠ CSVIN⊖VS 1
349. Bust, right. Type 1 f.
Plate XXV, 18
350(a). Bust, right. Type 1 f.
(b). Type and monogram not described.
RECCESVINDVSRE
CNSVINDVSRE
Uncertain Mint.
351. Bust, left. Type 2 dd.
See also Nos. 380 and 490.
1 |
⊖ 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 ?
1 |
Published by José Coelho, "Nótulas Numismáticas" in
Beira Alta
, 1945, pp. 35–47; found in "exploraciones mineras" near Viseu in 1944. Mateu y Llopis has some doubts about the authenticity
of this coin but does not decide conclusively against it.
|
355. Bust, right. Obscure type.
✠ R∊CC∊SVIИ⊙·SRE
✠ ν∊RVИ⊙:ɖ|VS
356(a). Bust, right. Type 1 g.2
✠ RECCES|V|INO 3
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ TΛRRΛCOϷIV
Plate XXVI, 2
(b). ✠ RECCESVIN⊖R·
✠ TΛRRΛCOPIV·
(c). Obverse as (a).
✠ TΛRRΛCOϷIV✺
Plate XXVI, 3
(e). ✠ RECCESVINOR
✠ TΛRRΛCOPIV
1 |
This specimen was found in a field in the region of San Jaime de Lierca, Olot.
|
2 |
The vertical lines of the bust are sometimes single, sometimes double.
|
3 | |
4 |
Possibly a pellet after N in the king's name.
|
5 |
The coin is variously described, but doubtless of this type.
|
6 |
Obviously faulty description, probably of this type; from the Bordeaux hoard but not sent to Paris, having been given by the commissioner of police to the Bordeaux Museum in 1804.
|
7(a). Bust, right. Type 2 cc.
✠ RECCE|SVINO 1
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ TΛRRΛCOϷIV·
Plate XXVI, 4
(b). Obverse as (a).
✠ TΛRRΛCOϷIV:
(c). ✠ RECCES|VINO: 2
✠ 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.
Cross on 3 steps; pellet at each side, beneath arm.
✠ TΛRRΛCOϷIVS
✠ TΛRRΛC°ϷIV:
23 Visigoth
Mateu y Llopis (Hallazgos V, p. 71) lists two specimens supposedly with the legends RECCESVINDRX, and TΛRRΛCONIV and TΛRRΛCONVS, in the Museu Soares dos Reis. Coins with such legends are not listed in Barros' little catalogue, and it is to be assumed that in spite of the striking differences in the inscriptions the two pieces referrred to by Mateu y Llopis are the two Soares specimens recorded above (No. 357(c) and No. 358(a)).
1 | |
2 |
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 1
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
Reverse as (a).
Plate XXVI, 15
(h). Details lacking.
1 |
⊖, 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.
|
1 |
Wrongly numbered L. 4644 and listed under Chindasvinth.
|
1 |
Florez (p. 261) drew attention to the fact that HI, for "Hispania," had been read on some specimens, presumably of this type;
but he astutely remarked that this supposed reading was probably simply a misinterpretation of the steps read as a legend
from the side.
|
2 |
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 Cervera collection, according
to Beltrán's inventory.
|
2 |
Errors in drawing and transcription.
|
2 |
"PIVS·TOLETO·HI." See the note immediately above.
|
3 |
Obverse and reverse flans appear different, but this may be the result of careless plaster-casting.
|
3 |
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.
|
4 |
Wrongly listed under Chindasvinth.
|
4 |
Same coin as no. 1 ?
|
5 |
The pellets in the reverse legend not noted in the text. 23*
|
361. Facing bust within beaded circle. Type 10 d.
Facing bust within beaded circle. Type 10 b.
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTR·CIΛ
Plate XXVI, 16
362(a). Facing bust within beaded circle. Type 10 e.
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.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ CORPOBΛPΛTRC:Λ· 3
(b).
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
Reverse as (b).
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTRCIΛ
Plate XXVII, 4
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
1 |
My notes show the point between R and C on the reverse to be lacking.
|
1 |
Possible difference in lettering.
|
2 |
"Busto... con diadema," this type ?
|
2 |
Wrongly listed under Chindasvinth.
|
3 |
Transcribed from the Plate; the transcription in the text differs.
|
365. Bust, right. Type 1 h.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ CORDOBΛPIVS
Plate XXVII, 6
366. Bust, right. Type 1 f.
✠ ISPΛLIPIVS
Plate XXVII, 7
This unique and remarkable piece was perhaps issued during Chindasvinth's lifetime. It is most closely related to No. 349 (HSA 16510), with the same type of bust, the same ligature () and monogram. It is the only instance that has come to my attention of a reverse with mint monogram as well as mint-name written in full in the marginal legend.
1 |
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).
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·
Cross on 4 steps.
Legend as (a).
Plate XXVII, 12
Reverse as (c).
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 (division ?)
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either side.
1 | |
1 |
Wrongly listed under Chindasvinth.
|
2 |
There were two specimens, in addition to HSA 16507 (No. 367(a), above), in the Cervera collection.
|
2 |
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.
Cross on 3 steps.
(b). Obverse as (a).
1 |
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) ?
|
2 |
Supposedly HISPΛLI; certainly H is not present.
|
3 |
Bust "right"; RECCESVINTHVSR; 4(?) steps.
|
373. Bust, right. Type 2 g.
✠ RECCES|V|INTVSREX
Cross on 3 steps.
374(a). Bust, right. Type 1 i.
✠ RECCES|V|IN⊖VS 2
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
Cross on 4 steps.
✠ EMERITΛPIVS
Plate XXVIII, 4
(b). Obverse as (a).
Cross on 3 steps. Legend as (a).
1 |
Transcribed TH in place of ⊖, but probably the latter.
|
2 |
V's of unusual form.
|
3 |
There was one specimen of this type in the Cervera collection, according to Beltrán's list.
|
4 |
Wrongly listed under Chindasvinth and as a coin not belonging to the Lorichs collection.
|
5 |
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.
✠ EMERITΛPIVS
Plate XXVIII, 5
Plate XXVIII, 6
Plate XXVIII, 7
Plate XXVIII, 8
(b). Obverse as (a).
Cross on 2(?) steps.
✠ ƧVIśΛTIЯƎMƎ
1 |
Wrongly listed under Chindasvinth.
|
2 |
Error in transcription.
|
3 | |
4 |
There was one specimen of this type in the Cervera collection.
|
5 |
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
✠ BRΛCΛRΛPIVS|
Plate XXVIII, 9
(b). Bust, right, similar to (a) except in treatment of shoulder. Bust does not interrupt legend.
Reverse as (a).
(c). Uncertain bust. Legend as (a).
Cross on steps. Legend as (a).
1 |
Provenance unknown, but almost certainly the coin from Vienna, illustrated by Heiss.
|
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 Heiss and Campaner again in his review of Heiss' work, attribute the coin to the Academia de la Historia. In his article of 1873, however, Campaner illustrates a coin in the V QR collection (which would be V QR no. 5157) which is in almost every respect identical with that illustrated in Heiss. The only difference is PI: VS (as it is, in fact, on the VQR coin), the lettering being P: IVS in Heiss. Careless drawing could account for this difference. Heiss has 2.35 for the weight, which is impossible, unless the coin is a forgery, but the fact that Campaner in 1873 gives 1.35 suggests that Heiss erred in the first figure and that we are dealing with the V QR coin. Finally, if there was a specimen in the Academia, where is it now? It does not appear in Mateu y Llopis' inventory in Hallazgos IV. Beltrán does not give the location. I would conclude, therefore, that Campaner's original reference to the Academia is mistaken and that all descriptions concern the VQR specimen, which I have seen and illustrate in plate XXVIII.
380. Bust, left. Type?
R: VINOV: R·: X:
See also Nos. 351 and 490.
1 |
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).
Reverse as (a).
383(a). Bust, right. Type 2 n.
Cross on 3 steps.
Plate XXVIII, 12
✠ TΛRRΛCOPIVS
1 |
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.
|
2 |
R and E incomplete.
|
383. Description lacking.
Mateu y Llopis (Tarragona, no. 73) lists a specimen "cited by Florez," but Florez (p. 268) wrote "podemos suponer" an issue of Tarragona.
384. Bust, right. Type 2 h.1
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ I·D·N·M·N·VVΛMBΛ 2
✠ TOLETOPIVS
Plate XXVIII, 13
Plate XXVIII, 14
385. Bust, right. Type 2 b, variation.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ TOLETOPIVS
Plate XXVIII, 15
1 |
Considerable variation in the headdress and treatment of the shoulder.
|
2 |
M frequently appears as N or H. These minor variations are not noted below.
|
3 |
There was apparently one specimen in the Cervera collection.
|
4 |
Inaccurate reproduction.
|
5 |
Transcription probably faulty.
|
386(a). Bust, right, with cruciform scepter in hand. Type 2ff.1
✠ I·D·N·M·N·VVΛMBΛ 2
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 Visigoth
(c). As (a) or (b).
1 |
The pellet above the scepter is sometimes omitted in drawn reproductions.
|
2 |
See footnote to No. 384 with regard to the form of M.
|
3 |
Very inaccurate drawing, if indeed this is the coin in question.
|
4 |
Transcription of obverse differs, but probably the usual legend. The plate cannot be read.
|
387. Inadequate descriptions.
388. Bust, right. Type 2 n.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTRICIΛ
389. Bust, right. Type 2 p.
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet beneath.
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTRICIΛ
390(a). Bust, right. Type 2 p.
Cross on 3 steps. •• beneath.
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTRICIΛ
Plate XXIX, 4
(b). Bust, right. Type 2 t, variant.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTRICIΛ
1 |
Bungled obverse legend.
|
391. Inadequate description.
392(a). Bust, right. Type 2 b.
✠ I·Δ·INṀ·VVΛMBΛ 1
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ * ISPΛLIPIVS
Plate XXIX, 5
(b). Obverse as (a).
Plate XXIX, 6
(c). ✠ ·I·Δ·M·INMVVΛMBΛ 2
Reverse as (b).
Plate XXIX, 7
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
Reverse as (e), but
✠ ✶IᔕPΛLIPIVS
Plate XXIX, 9
Reverse as (g).
Plate XXIX, 10
(i). Probably similar to (b), (c), or (d).
(j). Full details lacking.
1 |
See footnote to No. 384 with regard to the form of M.
|
2 |
· over M sometimes not noted.
|
393(a). Bust, right. Type 2 n.2
✠ IND·IN·M·EVVAMBΛ 3
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ EMERITΛPIVS✺
Plate XXIX, 11
(b). ✠ IND·IN·M·EVVΛMBΛR
Reverse as (a).
(c). Obverse as (a).
Reverse as (a), but
Plate XXIX, 12
Reverse as (c).
(e). Obverse as (d).
Cross on 4 steps. Legend as (c).
Plate XXIX, 13
Cross on 4 steps.
Plate XXIX, 14
Reverse as (c).
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ EMERITΛPIVS
Reverse as (h).
Reverse as (c).
Plate XXX, 1
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either side. Legend as (c).
(l). Full details lacking.
1 |
Number of points of star varies.
|
1 |
"Plata," probably base gold.
|
2 |
The bust varies considerably in barbarity.
|
3 |
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.
|
4 |
There was one of this type in the Cervera collection, according to Beltrán'e
|
394(a). Bust, right. Type 2 p.
✠ I·Ϸ·IN·M·EVVΛΛ 2
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ EMERITΛPIVS
Plate XXX, 2
Reverse as (a).
Plate XXX, 4
395. Inadequate or equivocal descriptions.
1 |
Described as "argent," probably base gold.
|
2 |
The form of the D varies.
|
3 |
There was one of this type in the Cervera collection, according to Beltrán's list.
|
4 |
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.
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 Heiss (copied by the others referred to above) is the identical specimen now in the HSA collection; it is most unlikely that two coins from the same dies could have flans chipped in the identical manner. Heiss gives the weight as 1.38 and I find 1.41, but this slight difference can be due to faulty scales. According to Heiss the specimen belonged to Vidal Quadras y Ramón, and it would therefore presumably be VQR no. 5174. But the VQR collection is intact. I can only propose in explanation that Heiss confused the VQR specimen with another and that this other was acquired by Mr. Huntington. In support of this hypothesis is Campaner's statement (1866, no. 9) that the VQR
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.
Reverse as (a).
Reverse as (a).
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet beneath and at each side.
✠ NΛRBONΛPIVS.
(e). Uncertain, probably similar to (a)–(d).
1 |
This is reported to be of "silver," and Beltrán proposes to classify it as a contemporary counterfeit. I imagine it is simply
of base gold.
|
1 |
See the discussion relating to (a) 1, above.
|
2 |
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 De Salis gave to
the British Museum.
|
3 |
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.
|
4 |
The transcriptions of the obverse legend in Belfort and Boudard do not agree, and there are minor differences between them
and that given above.
|
5 |
Here is another embarrassment: this specimen does not appear in Mateu y Llopis' catalogue, where one would expect to find
it if Heiss' notation was correct. Also Campaner's description differs from Heiss', but does not fit
Madrid
, no. 81.
|
397(a). Facing bust. Type 5 p.
Cross on 3 steps.
Plate XXX, 7
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet beneath.
Plate XXX, 8
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either sid.
(e). Details lacking, except ✠ I·D·N·N·ERVIIVS and ✠ CESΛRΛVSTΛP·
398(a). Facing bust. Type 5 q.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ TΛRRΛCоPIVS:
Plate XXX, 9
(b). Obverse as (a), but • at end of legend.
✠ TΛRRΛCOPIVS
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either side. Legend as (b).
Reverse as (a).
✠ TΛRRΛCOϷIVS:
1 |
The published transcriptions of this and the following specimens are inaccurate.
|
2 |
Wrongly listed under Wamba.
|
3 |
Second N transcribed M.
|
399(a). Bust, right, bearded. Type 2 j.2
✠ I·D·N·M·N·ERVIIVS 3
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ TOLETOPIVS
Plate XXX, 10
Reverse as (a).
Plate XXX, 12
Reverse as (a).
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.
1 |
Differently transcribed.
|
1 |
I adjudge the apparent pellet beneath the reverse to be a flaw.
|
2 |
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.
|
2 |
The Berlin photographs associate their no. 57 (No. 21 here) with this specimen, but they are not the same.
|
3 |
N and M frequently bungled, and points not always clear.
|
3 |
This and the above wrongly listed under Wamba.
|
4 |
One evidently in the Cervera collection.
|
4 |
Approximate: the reproduction is not very clear.
|
5 |
The exact lettering of the obverses of these Madrid specimens is not entirely clear in the plate.
|
5 |
It is obvious that Mateu y Llopis has confused the obverse with that of a coin of Ispali (no. 102). The obverse illustrated
at no. 98 is imposible for Toleto.
|
6 |
Weight given as 1.60 in Madrid.
|
7 |
IND represented as a ligature.
|
8 |
Wrongly listed under Wamba.
|
400(a). Bust, right. Type 2 r.
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet beneath.
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTRICIΛ
Plate XXXI, 1
Reverse as (a).
Plate XXXI, 2
(c). Obverse as (b).
////ORDOBΛPΛTRICΛ
Reverse as (a).
401. Facing bust. Type 5 o.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTRICIΛ
1 |
Published transcriptions not accurate.
|
2 |
Wrongly listed under Wamba.
|
402 (a). Facing bust. Type 11 b.
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet beneath.
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTRICIΛ
Reverse as (a).
(c). ✠ ID·IN·M·ERVIIΛSR1
Reverse as (a), but • • beneath. Legend as (a).
403. Facing bust. Type 11 d.
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·ERVIIVSR3
Cross on 3 steps. ••• beneath
✠ ELIBERRIPIVS
1 |
Third letter from end transcribed V, but appears to be Λ.
|
2 |
Obviously inaccurate drawing; exact type indeterminate.
|
3 |
I have transcribed what appears to be legible in the plate, although this does not conform with Mateu y Llopis' text.
|
406. Facing bust. Type 11 h.
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either side.
✠ ELIVERIPIVS✶
Plate XXXI, 3
407. Bust, right. Type 2 b.1
Cross on 3 steps. : at either side.
✠ ✶ ISPΛLIPIVᔕ
Plate XXXI,4
408. Bust, right, with cruciform scepter in hand. Type 2 jj.
Cross on 3 steps •• beneath, · at either side.
✠ ✶ISPΛLIPIΛS
409(a). Facing bust. Type 11 r.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ ✶ ISPΛLIPIVS3
Plate XXXI, 5
Reverse as (a).
Reverse as (a).
Reverse as (a).
Reverse as (a).
1 |
Utterly barbaric, hardly recognizable.
|
2 |
There was one of this type in the Cervera collection.
|
3 |
Star sometimes 7-pointed.
|
4 |
There was one of this type in the Cervera collection.
|
410(a). Facing bust. Type 11 n.1
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. Reinhart Coll., nos. 66–67 (1.50, 1.47).
11. Inadequate description.
12(a). Bust, right, bearded. Type 2 q.
Cross on 3 steps.
Cross on 3 steps, pellet at either side.
Plate XXXI, 9
1 |
The number of concentric folds composing the shoulder and breast of this bust varies.
|
2 |
It is quite possible that this coin is the one now in the HSA collection, No. 12(b). Campaner wrote that the legends were
copied from a drawing the accuracy of which he could not vouch for. The differences could be the result of careless drawing.
But I am unable to say whether it was possible for the Garcia piece to have been acquired by Mr. Huntington.
|
413(a). Bust, right. Type 2 p.
Cross on 3 steps.
Plate XXXI, 10
(b). ✠ I·D·M·N·ERVIIVS 1
Reverse as (a).
414. Facing bust. Type 11b.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ ELBORΛPIVS
415(a). Facing bust. Type 11 b.2
✠ I·D·IN·M·N·ERVIIVS 3
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ EMERITΛPIVS
(b). Obverse as (a).
Cross on 4 steps. Legend as (a).
25 Visigoth
Reverse as (a).
Reverse as (a).
Reverse as (a).
Reverse as (a).
Reverse as (a).
Plate XXXI, 14
Reverse as (a).
Plate XXXI, 15
Reverse as (a).
1 |
Not wholly legible in the plate, but thus transcribed in the text.
|
1 |
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).
|
2 |
Considerable variation in the form of the caricature. The ears (or cross) are sometimes represented by half circles, sometimes
by simple wedges.
|
2 |
The weights as given in the Madrid catalogue and in Adquisiciones differ in every case. I have adopted those in the catalogue.
|
3 | |
3 |
Wrongly numbered L. 4655.
|
4 |
There were two specimens in the Cervera collection.
|
4 |
Legend bungled, possibly a contemporary forgery.
|
5 |
There is no "MC" in Heiss' key to abbreviations; "MC" may be an error for "CM" (Cabinet de Madrid), in which case this piece would be one of those listed above.
|
6 |
Elias Garcia distinguishes among varieties with various points and with N in place of M, etc., but in my opinion most published
transcriptions are not sufficiently reliable, nor many of the reproductions sufficiently legible, to permit of such detailed
classification.
|
7 |
I·D· is followed by a series of joined N's.
|
416(a). Bust, right, facing cross. Type 12 11
Symbol of sun ? Type 12 f.
✠ SΛLMΛNTICΛPIVS
1 |
Wrongly numbered L. 4657.
|
2 |
Allegedly with two E's in the obverse legend.
|
3 |
The types and legends of this coin, known only by the dubious drawings in Florez, must be considered very questionable. Beltrán,
loc.cit., points out that the drawing in Florez is the origin of the numerous forgeries (see p. 487), and that the coin itself was
probably a restrike. Beltrán's text relating to this coin is confusing in that reference is primarily to Egica's issue of
Salmantica, but the present coin is illustrated and discussed in the caption of fig. 18.
|
4 |
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.
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet beneath and at each side.
✠ NΛRBONΛPIV
18. Bust, right. Type 2 f.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ NΛRBONΛPIVS
19(a). Bust, right. Type 2 k.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ NΛRBONΛPIVS
Plate XXXII, 1
(b). Obverse as (a).
Cross on 3 steps. at either side. Legend as (a).
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).
1 |
Heiss' drawing clearly shows that this specimen, now in the HSA collection, is the one sold by Hoffmann in Paris; the configuration of the damaged flan is the proof. Robert restored the shape of the coin (!), an example of the unreliability
of many of the earlier engravings. Either HSA 16601 or 16602 was in the Cervera collection.
|
420.(a). Facing bust. Type 5 p.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ BΛRCIHOИPIVS
Plate XXXH, 5
(b). ✠ ID N·N·H·EICΛ 3
✠ BΛRCIИOИPIVS
1 |
Described as "cuivre"; probably debased gold.
|
2 |
Possibly the same coin as no. 1. The drawing in Campaner, 1880 does not appear accurate, and the transcriptions there and
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 Campaner. Mate uy Llopis, by giving two separate entries, with the variant transcriptions, implies that the descriptions
in Campaner, 1880 and Indicador concern two different coins, which of course they do not.
|
3 |
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.
Cross on 3 steps.
Plate XXXII, 6
(b). Facing bust. Type 5 s, variant. Legend as (a).
(c). Facing bust. Type 5 s, variant.
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·EICΛ 1
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at left,* at right.
423. Inadequate descriptions.
424(a). Bust, right. Type 2 b.
✠ ·N·M·N·EICΛ 2
Cross on 3 steps.
Rev. as (a).
Plate XXXII, 8
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).
1 | |
2 |
M frequently appears as H.
|
425(a). Bust, right, holding cross. Type 2 gg.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ RODΛSIVSTVS
(b). Description lacking.
426(a). Facing bust. Type 5 p.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ TΛRRΛCOPIVS
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. at each side. Legend as (a).
Plate XXXII, 11
1 |
Legends given as IND·NMEGICΛRX and GERVNDΛPIVS, but one must question the accuracy of these transcriptions.
|
427(a). Bust, right. Type 1 h.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ TΛRRΛCOIVST:
Plate XXXII, 12
(b). Obverse as (a).
✠ TΛRRΛCOIV·TS:
Reverse as (b).
428. Bust, right, with cruciform scepter in hand. Type 2 kk.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ I·Ϸ·N·N·EICΛ 2
✠ TΛRRΛCOI:ST·
Plate XXXII, 13
429(a). Bust, right. Type 2 z. at right.
Cross on 3 steps. Possible symbol at right.
✠ VΛL⊏ИTIΛP.VS
Plate XXXII, 14
(b). Obverse as (a), variant.
Cross on 3 steps. * at either side.
✠ VΛLEИTIΛP.VS
1 |
I have accepted the transcription in VQR of the obverse legend, with which Campaner's does not agree.
|
2 |
430(a). Bust, right. Type 2 s.
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either side.
Plate XXXII, 15
Reverse as (a).
431(a). Facing bust. Type 11 d, head only.
✠ IDNMEICΛ 3
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either side.
✠ MENTEƧΛPIVƧ·
Plate XXXIII, 1
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at left; : at right.
✠ MEИTESΛPIVS
(c). Bust variant (featureless, surmounted by cross).
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet beneath. Legend as (b).
1 |
Incorrectly described as facing busts, probably confused with the VQR specimen of Egica & Wittiza at Valentia.
|
2 |
Heiss' attribution, "Musée de
Madrid
" must be in error; at least there was no specimen in the
Madrid
collection at the time of Mateu y Llopis' preparation of the catalogue. I have assumed that Heiss saw the VQR specimen and
that despite differences in transcription in the texts of Heiss and VQR, the specimen illustrated by the former was VQR'S.
|
3 |
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at left.
✠ MENTESΛ·PIVS
Plate XXXIII, 2
433(a). Bust, right, bearded. Type 2 j, variation. at right.
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·EICΛ 4
Reverse as (a).
Reverse as (a).
(e). Legend obscure, but ends . Reverse as (a) but • • beneath.
(f). Probably similar to (a) – (e).
1 |
The quality of the gold varies considerably.
|
2 |
There were four specimens of Egica-Toleto in the Cervera collection, one of them being either HSA 16610 or 16616 (see Type
D).
|
3 |
The transcription of the obverse legend in the text appears to be greatly at variance with the legend as it appears in the
plate.
|
4 |
As read from the Plate, which is not entirely clear. The text has simply "semejante a la anterior," which it is not.
|
5 |
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.
Cross on 3 steps. at either side.
✠ TOLETOPIVS
Plate XXXIII, 4
435. Bust, right. Type 2 c.
Cross on 3 steps. • • beneath.
✠ TOLETOPIVS
Plate XXXIII, 5
436(a). Bust, right, with cruciform scepter in hand. Type 2 gg. 1
✠ IND·INM·EICΛ 2
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ TOLETOPIVS
Plate XXXIII, 6
(b). ✠ I·I·MNEICΛ 4
Cross on 3 steps. (·) beneath. Legend as (a).
Reverse as (b).
(d). Obverse as (a), but pellet at top of scepter.
Reverse as (b).
(e). Obverse as (d).
Cross on 3 steps. at either side. Legend as (a).
(f). Bust as (a), but with leaves on staff of scepter. Type 2 hh.
Reverse as (b).
Plate XXXIII, 7
(g). Bust as (f).
Reverse as (b).
Plate XXXIII, 8
(h). Bust as (f).
Cross on 3 steps. • • • beneath. Legend as (a).
(i). Bust as (a). above scepter.
Reverse as (a).
Plate XXXIII, 9
(j). Full details lacking.
1 |
There are numerous variations in the style of this bust, particularly with respect to the shape and ornamentation of the shoulder
and breast.
|
1 |
The transcription of the obverse legend in the text of the Madrid catalogue cannot bo correct: there are certainly not two E's, nor REX. I have copied what I can read in the reproduction.
The reverse is described as having a δ in addition to (·) 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
, no. 159 (below).
|
2 |
N and M throughout types D and E are frequently malformed; points often obscure or lacking or differently placed.
|
2 |
Possibly the same specimen as no. 2 ?
|
3 |
First part of obverse legend obscure.
|
3 |
Apparently N in place of the ME ligature. The specimen appears not to have been in the Madrid collection when the catalogue was written.
|
4 |
Not wholly legible in the reproduction. The present transcription is a compromise between Barros' transcription and what I
can see in the reproduction.
|
4 |
Heiss' drawing shows (·) beneath the cross, but my notes show • • •; in all probability the specimen described by Heiss is the one I saw.
|
437(a). Bust, right, with cruciform scepter in hand. Type 2 gg.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ TOLETOPIVS
Reverse as (a), but pellet beneath.
Plate XXXIII, 10
Reverse as (a).
Cross on 3 steps. (·) beneath. Legend as (a).
(d). As (a), but above scepter.
Reverse as (a).
Plate XXXIII, 11
(e). Obverse as (d).
✠ IN✠D·INN·ECICΛ VTR·
Reverse as (a).
(f). Obverse as (d).
Reverse as (a).
Plate XXXIII, 12
(g). Obverse as (d).
Reverse as (a).
Plate XXXIII, 13
(h). Obverse as (d).
Reverse as (a).
Plate XXXIII, 14
(i). Obverse as (d).
Reverse as (a).
Plate XXXIV, 1
(j). Obverse as (d).
Reverse as (a).
(k). Obverse as (d).
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.
1 |
Apparently no point between N and M on obverse.
|
2 |
Not in
Madrid
.
|
438. Facing bust. Type 11 k.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ TOLETOPIVS
Plate XXXIV, 3
1 |
Minor differences in obverse legend, but probably as here.
|
2 |
Obverse transcription not accurate; apparently as given here.
|
3 |
Obverse legend misunderstood; probably as here. Apparently not in the Madrid collection when the catalogue was prepared.
|
4 |
With (·) beneath reverse.
|
439(a). Bust, right, bearded; cross on helmet. Type 2 o.
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.
Reverse as (a), but : at either side.
440(a). Bust, right, bearded, holding cruciform scepter in hand. Type 2 ii.
Cross on 3 steps. ∵ at either side.
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTRICIΛ
Plate XXXIV, 5
Reverse as (a).
Plate XXXIV, 6
Reverse as (a).
441(a). Facing bust. Type 11 e.
Cross on 3 steps. at either side.
✠ ELIPERRIPIVS
✠ ELIBERRIPIVS
(c). Probably similar to (a)-(b), description inadequate.
1 |
See the note under No. 262 (e). The illustration in Fernández-Guerra suits the Ferreira specimen, and there was no similar
coin in the Madrid collection when the catalogue was compiled.
|
442(a). Bust, right. Type 2 b.
✠ I·Δ·INMEICΛ 2
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
Cross on 3 steps. at either side.
✠ ISPΛLIPIVS
1 |
Although they may be present, the oblique bars of N and M are not visible n the plate.
|
2 |
Some differences in the placing and number of points.
|
3 |
The number of points in the star varies from 5 to 7.
|
4 | |
5 |
Weight given as 1.3 in Adquisiciones.
|
6 |
I·Δ·IN·M·E, etc.
|
7 |
Wrongly numbered L. 4662.
|
8 |
Not IISPΛLI as published.
|
443. Bust, right, with cruciform scepter in hand. Type 2 jj (obscure).
✠I·Δ·INMEICΛ 2
Cross on 3steps... beneath
✠ *ISPΛLIPIVS
444(a). Facing bust. Type 11 p.
Cross on 3 steps. at either side.
✠ *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 position at which the reverse legend begins, and (c) apparent traces of filing. The acquisition of a photograph of the very similar Johns Hopkins specimen, however, with different obverse and reverse dies, placed the matter in a different light. Had the Johns Hopkins dies been the same as those of the HSA specimen, my suspicions would have been confirmed and I would have had little hesitation in pronouncing them both forgeries. But there is almost no instance of counterfeiters of Visigothic coins making more than one set of dies for nearly identical issues. In fact the existence of two sets of dies is a fairly reliable indication of authenticity, and in the circumstances the objections mentioned above can be reconsidered: (a) types at all mints under Egica are various and unpredictable, and in view of other strange creations of this period there is nothing 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.
1 |
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.
|
2 |
First part of the legend very obscure.
|
3 |
Beltrán is correct in observing that the drawing in Velazquez and copied by Heiss is a "dibujo incorrecto de una moneda legítima"
and that it was copied by later forgers. The true appearance of the coin is evident hi the Madrid photograph.
|
445(a). Bust, right, with cruciform scepter in hand. Type 2 jj (obscure).
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either side, beneath arms.
(b). Bust, right. Type 2 p.
Cross on 3 steps.
446. Bust, right, with cruciform scepter in hand. Type ?
✠ ENMNEICΛREX
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ PIVSELBORΛ
26 Visigoth
1.–2. Severim, pp. 162–3* = Florez, p. 178 = Campaner, p. 219, note 1 = Elias Garcia, Lusitânia , no. 109.
The transcriptions cannot be considered reliable, but I see no inherent reason for suspecting the coins as Florez did; probably the drawings were simply inaccurate. Among other things Florez objected to the B in the mint-name, and he revised the letter to V. But see the issue of Reccared at ERBORΛ (No. 91), and the monograms under Egica & Wittiza.
447. Bust, right. Type 2 n.
Cross on 4 steps, middle two joined by vertical bars.
✠ EMERITΛPIVS
Plate XXXIV, 11
448(a). Bust, right. Type 2 p.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ EMERITΛPIVS
Reverse as (a).
449(a). Bust, right. Type 2 i.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ EMERITΛPIVS
Plate XXXIV, 12
(b). Obverse as (a).
Reverse as (a), but pellet beneath steps.
1 |
Wrongly attributed to Chindasvinth.
|
2 |
Wrongly numbered L. 4663.
|
3 |
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.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ EMERITΛPIVS
452. Facing bust (or cross ?). Type 11 f.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ SΛLH·ΛTICΛ·IS·II·
1 |
Not in the Madrid collection in 1936 ?
|
2 |
Two lower steps joined by a vertical bar.
|
3 |
Beltrán's discussion confuses the Salmantica coin of Ervig and the forgeries copied from it with the similar original and
copies here. At all events, as in the other case, the coin described by Florez is the only genuine one, and the legends as
well as the obverse type must remain uncertain until another genuine specimen is found. Reinhart does not list Salmantica
as a mint under Egica, perhaps because he considers the piece described by Florez to be a forgery, or, possibly, because of
an error in tabulation.
|
453. Bust ("Cara que parece hidria antigua").
Cross on steps.
✠ BRΛCΛRΛPIVS
453(X). Bust, right, holding cruciform scepter. Type 2 gg.
✠ N·///P///HEICΛVCT(?)1
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either side.
✠ TVDEPIVᔕ
1 |
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.
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either side and .... beneath.
✠ TOLETOPIVS
Plate XXXIV, 13
1 |
Translated into Spanish in La Andalucía Moderna, Sevilla, Dec. 18, 1898 (cf. Beltrán, 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·EICΛRES:1
Plate XXXV, 1
(b). ✠ ID·NM·EICΛRE·S4
Plate XXXV, 2
Reverse as (d).
Plate XXXV, 3
Reverse as (d).
Reverse as (d).
Reverse as (d).
(i). As (d)–(h), exact lettering?
1 |
M frequently malformed in this and the following issues.
|
2 |
There was one specimen of this type in the Cervera collection.
|
3 |
The transcriptions in Meynaerts and Piot (and the drawing in the latter) do not exactly conform, but there can be little doubt
that these references are to the piece later acquired by the BM. The S at the end of the reverse legend is very obscure. Beltrán
(p. 414) is in error in stating that the BM specimen is not of Narbona but of Elvora.
|
4 |
incomplete.
|
5 |
Incorrectly transcribed.
|
456(a). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 b.
(b). ✠ I·D·N·N·MECICΛR5
457(a). I·D·I:MN·EGICΛPE5
VVITTIZΛN:R
(b). Description lacking.
For coins of Elvora improperly attributed to Narbona, see p. 426.
1 |
Incorrectly transcribed.
|
2 |
My recording of the legends differs in some respects from Heiss, etc.; the transcriptions above are mine.
|
3 |
Amardel assigns another piece to VQR, which would be VQR no. 5207, but the latter is actually a coin of Toleto.
|
4 |
Wrongly assigned to Ispali.
|
5 |
Transcriptions probably not wholly reliable.
|
6 |
This is possibly the piece referred to by Beltrán, p. 414, as being a misattributed specimen of Elvora. Beltrán refers to
Florez, p. 153, but this reference is obviously mistaken.
|
458(a). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 c.
✠ D·N·M·HEGICΛ·R·GS1
(c). ✠ ··N·NE·EICΛG3
Monogram as (b).4
459. Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 c.
1 |
Because of the illegibility of the plate in Barcelona, I have had to rely largely on the transcriptions.
|
2 |
Monogram incorrectly represented on p. 150.
|
3 |
The legends of both obv. and rev. are not entirely clear in the plate, and these transcriptions may not be accurate.
|
4 |
Possibly Λ instead of R at right.
|
5 |
This specimen mistakenly attributed to Narbona by Barros ("prata dourada").
|
460(a). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 d.1
✠ I·D·N·H·EICΛ:2
Plate XXXV, 4
✠ VVITTIZΛ R:3
Reverse as (a).
(d). ✠ IPNME ICΛ 5
Plate XXXV, 5
Monogram as (a), but pellet in each quarter.
(g). Similar to (a)-(f), but legends uncertain.
1 |
Considerable variety in this exceedingly crude type.
|
2 |
N and M(H) here and below frequently imperfect.
|
3 |
The oblique stroke of the Z varies in direction.
|
4 |
By error assigned to "C. M." (Cabinet de Madrid) instead of "C. F." (Cabinet de France).
|
5 |
Legends scarcely legible in the plates. I have adopted Mateu's transcriptions with some corrections.
|
6 |
The transcription in
Madrid
differs from what the plate appears to show.
|
461(a). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 c.
Plate XXXV, 6
(c). ✠ ·N·M·N·EICΛ·C:2
(d). Obverse as (c).
Plate XXXV, 7
Reverse as (e).
(h). As (a), but * beneath each bust.
Monogram faulty ?
Reverse as (d).
1 |
Heiss has "M. R." for the location of this specimen; that this is an error for "M.B." = "Musée Britannique" is evident by
comparison of the Heiss drawing and the BM plaster-cast in my possession.
|
2 |
My transcriptions from the VQR coin, differing from previous versions.
|
3 |
Incorrectly attributed to Cesaragusta, as noted by Beltrán, p. 404.
|
2(a). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 g.
Monogram as Type A.
Plate XXXV. 8
63(a). Facing bust. Type 11b.
Monogram as Type A.
Plate XXXV, 9
(b). Obverse as (a); legend?
464. Description, or full details, lacking.
1 |
Mint wrongly identified as Lerida.
|
2 | |
3 |
Full description lacking, but compared to Heiss, no. 10.
|
465(a). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 c.
Reverse as (a).
(c). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 a.1
Reverse as (a).
(d). Probably similar to (a)–(c). Description lacking.
466. Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 f, variation.
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 Campaner gave a makeshift and erroneous form. Engel suggested "Navia," for the Flavia Navia of Pliny and Ptolemy. Mateu y Llopis argues convincingly for Valentia as the correct reading. In Reinhart's table the mint does not figure under Egica & Wittiza.
1 |
Apparently without cross-hatching in the rectangular lower bust.
|
2 |
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
✠ [INMNE]⋮ VVTTZΛ+ ·
(b). As (a), but at left, * at right.
Plate XXXV, 11
(c). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 h.
✠ VVITTIZΛPXRE'ᔕ
(d). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 d, variation.
✠ VVITTIZΛREXREϚ·S
(e). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 k, variation.
Plate XXXV, 12
(f). As (a)–(e), exact type unknown.
Monogram : probably as (d).
✠ VVITTIZΛRE+REϚ·S
(g). Obverse type 13 j. Legend?
Monogram as (a), but letter at left inverted. Legend as (f)?
1 |
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 Campaner and Heiss refer to this specimen.
|
468(a). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 f.1
✠ INDNMNEICΛ 2
Plate XXXV, 13
Reverse as (a).
(c). Obverse as (a).
Plate XXXV, 14
(dd). As (a)-(d), legends uncertain.
✠ VVITTIΛZ 6
(f). Obverse as (a), but incomplete.
Reverse as (e).
(g). ✠ INDINMEICΛ 1
(gg). Apparently as (g), but reverse legend as (a).
(h). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 k.* beneath each figure.
✠ INDINNEICΛ... ?2
Monogram: in upper left quarter.
(i). Obverse as (h), but without stars.
Reverse as (h), but with (?) in upper left quarter, • in lower right.
(j). Obverse as (i).
Monogram: evidently * in upper right quarter.
Plate XXXVI, 1
(k). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 k, variation.
Monogram: • in lower left and lower right quarters.
1 |
The heads are sometimes bald, sometimes provided with hair. In common the busts have three parallel "legs" at the bottom.
|
1 |
Thus apparently in the plate; the transcriptions differ in the text.
|
2 |
N and M frequently imperfect.
|
2 |
The legends are not entirely clear in the plate, and there are no transcriptions.
|
3 |
Point after M?
|
3 |
Weight given as 1.3 in Adquisiciones.
|
4 |
Wrongly assigned to Narbona.
|
4 |
Teixeira's probably inaccurate description differs from Heiss' drawing in several respects, but the references are almost
certainly to the same coin.
|
5 |
Weight given as 1.4 in Adquisiciones.
|
6 |
Evidently; Plate not wholly legible.
|
7 |
Weight given as 1.5 in Adquisiciones.
|
469. Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 f, variation.
Monogram surrounded by beaded circle:
✠ VVITIΛRECƧ1
470. Busts not illustrated, legends inadequately or inaccurately described, with the following monograms:3
471(a). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 f. ••• beneath.
Monogram: • in upper right quarter.
Monogram as (b). ✠ IDINMEVVITTIΛR
(d). Obverse similar to (a), but · · beneath.
Monogram: • in lower right quarter.
Plate XXXVI, 2
(e). Similar to above, but full details lacking.
1 | |
2 |
Florez describes the coin as silver; probably, like most of the period, very base gold.
|
3 |
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.
|
4 |
IN·DINMEICΛR and VVITTIZΛD + REC+.
|
472. Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 f. • above each bust. Surrounded by beaded circle.
Cross, within circular legend: ✠ CORDOBΛP All surrounded by beaded circle.
Plate XXXVI, 3
1 |
Differences in engraving.
|
2 |
Described as "silver."
|
473(a). Scepter between facing busts. Type 13 n. beneath.
Plate XXXVI, 4
(b). Entirely as (a), but obv. legend: ✠ INDINMNEEICΛ
474(a). Scepter between facing busts. Type 13 n. Pellet beneath each bust. Surrounded by beaded circle.
✠ INDINMNEEICΛ (begins at 11 o'clock)
(b). Obverse as (a). Legend:
Reverse as (a), but legend begins at 6 o'clock:
475. Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 f. Surrounded by beaded circle.
within circular legend: ✠ EΛBROP·S, surrounded by beaded circle.
1 |
Mateu y Llopis supposes this type with facing busts to be the earlier, because PΛRC (i.e., "Patricia") is present. I do not
follow the argument. In any case, some of those with confronting busts have PΛRC. Also, in
Madrid
, (p. 330) Mateu has the order of the issues reversed.
|
2 |
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·NEICΛR·2
Pellet in each quarter.
✠ INNPNNEVVITTIZΛR
(b). Obverse as (a).
Pellet in upper right and upper left quarters.
✠ INNDINMEVVITTIZΛR
478(a). Confronting busts of type 13 f, no scepter.
(b). Obverse as (a).
Reverse as (a). in upper left quarter.
(c). Legend?
Monogram as (a), but pellet left and right, above. Legend as (b)?
1 |
Mint mistakenly identified as Tarrasa (= Egara).
|
2 |
The transcriptions in both
Madrid
and Heiss do not conform with what J see in the plate.
|
479. Type?
✠ INDINETHEGICΛP
Uncertain monogram.
✠ VVITIZΛPIRECIS
480(a). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 f.
✠ INHPINNEVVITTIZΛ 1
(b). As (a), but reverse legend: ✠ INIDINMEVVITTIZΛR
(c). Obverse as (a).
Plate XXXVI, 5
(d). Obverse as (a).
Plate XXXVI, 6
(e). Obverse as (a).
Monogram as (d).
Plate XXXVI, 7
(g). Obverse as (a).
Monogram as (a). Above: ∴
(h). Obverse as (a).
Legend as (e).
(i). As (g), but reverse legend: INPINNEVVITIΛ
(j). As (g), but reverse legend: ✠ INDINMEVVITTI·R
(k). Obverse as (a).
Monogram as (a). Above: ∴ Beneath:*
Legend as (i).
(l). As (k), but reverse legend: INPINMEVVITTIΛ
Reverse as (k).
Plate XXXVI, 8
(n). Obverse as (a).
Monogram as (a). Four pellets, one in each quarter. Legend as (l).
Plate XXXVI, 9
Reverse as (n).
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.
(r). Obverse as (a).
Monogram as (a). in upper left and upper right quarters. Legend as (l).
Plate XXXVI, 12
(s). Obverse as (a).
Monogram as (a), but * right and left, above.
1 |
In the reverse legends N and M(H) are sometimes malformed throughout this series.
|
1 |
Legends not given, but compared to Heiss, no. 12a, which is erroneously assigned to Ispali but is actually Narbona. This, however, must be Ispali, because Molder took his
reference from Heiss.
|
1 |
According to Beltrán's list, one similar to this or to HSA 16632 (below), and one other of uncertain characteristics, were
in the Cervera collection.
|
2 |
In Adquisiciones the weight is given as 1.2.
|
2 |
Weight given as 1.45 in Adquisiciones.
|
3 |
Legends not given. To judge by Hallazgos IV, this coin is no longer in the Academia collection.
|
4 |
Not in the Madrid collection when Mateu y Llopis' catalogue was compiled.
|
5 |
Described as "silver."
|
Type B
481(a). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 f.
Monogram within beaded circle:
Plate XXXVI, 13
Uncertain Type
482. Inadequate description.
483(a). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 e.
Pellet in lower left and lower right quarters.
Plate XXXVI, 14
(b). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 f.
Monogram as (a). in lower left and lower right quarters.
Plate XXXVII, 1
(c). As (b), but legends:
(d). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 f, variant. Legend as (c) ?
Monogram as (a) but ✺ in upper right quarter.
1 |
Weight given as 1.55 in Adquisiciones.
|
484(a). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 f.
✠ VVITTIZΛRX
Reverse as (b).
Monogram as (b).
✠ VVITTIZΛRE+
Monogram as (b).
✠ VVITTIZΛR
Monogram as (b). Ornament resembling arrow (?) in upper left and upper right quarters.
(g). Similar to (a), legends uncertain.
1 |
Are nos. 1 and 2 perhaps the same coin ?
|
485(a). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 f.
+ VVITTI REES1
Plate XXXVII, 2
(b). ✠ INDINMNEICΛR2
(d). ✠ INDINMEEICΛ 3
(e). Legends transcribed as (d).
(f). Obverse type?
(g). Legends incomplete.
(h). Legends unknown.
(i). INDI·NME·EGICΛRX
Monogram contains letters ELBOΛ
VVITTIZΛREXREGIS
(j). As above, legend and monogram uncertain.
Reinhart (unintentionally ?) omits Elvora as a mint under Egica & Wittiza in his table.3
1 |
The horizontal strokes of the second E are obscure but appear to be present.
|
2 |
Neither obverse nor reverse legend is entirely clear in the plates. Carles-Tolrá attributed the coin to "Beatia."
|
3 |
Legends and monogram reproduced as transcribed in
Madrid
; they cannot be read in the plate.
|
4 |
Beltrán (p. 414) is mistaken in referring to this as one of the misattributed specimens from the Abusejo hoard.
|
486(a). Scepter between confronting busts. Types 13 l, j, m and variations.
Plate XXXVII, 3
(b). Obverse as (a).
Monogram as (a).
✠ IENMEVVITTIΛ 1
(e). Obverse as (a).
Monogram as (a).
✠ I·NVVITTIΛ 2
Plate XXXVII, 4
(d). Obverse as (a).
Monogram as (a).
(e). Obverse as (a).
Monogram as (a).
(f). Obverse as (a).
Monogram as (a).
Monogram as (a).
Plate XXXVII. 5
(gg). As (g), but reverse legend ends REX.
Monogram as (a).
(i). Similar to (a)–(h), but exact legends doubtful, illegible, inaccurately transcribed or unknown.
Monogram as (a). in lower right and lower left quarters.
(k). Obverse as (a).
Reverse as (j), but legend:
(l). Obverse as (g).
Reverse as (j), but legend:
✠ VVITTIΛ...(?)1
(m). Obverse as (a).
Monogram as (a). in upper left and upper right quarters.
Plate XXXVII, 6
(n). Obverse as (a).
Monogram as (a). * in upper left quarter; in upper right quarter.
Plate XXXVII, 7
1 |
In the latter publication Mateu wrongly attributed this coin to Narbona; in
Madrid
, he corrected this error. Cf. Beltrán, p. 414. This and Adquisidones, pl. III, 10, are probably the two pieces supposedly of Narbona in the Abusejo hoard, referred to in
Madrid
, p. 251.
|
1 |
N and M sometimes confused in fact or in transcription in these and other specimens described below.
|
1 |
Obscure in the plate.
|
2 |
This mint was originally identified as "Britonia." Beltrán, p. 414, points out that it is undoubtedly a specimen of Elvora.
The form of the monogram is doubtful.
|
2 | |
3 |
Reinhart, p. 100.
|
3 |
The transcriptions of the legends of these and other
Madrid
coins below are not certain as they are read from the plates which are not always fully legible, and the transcriptions in
the text are not exact.
|
4 |
Assigned to VQR, but not in the VQR catalogue.
|
487(a). Type ?
✠ IN·N·MIV·ECICΛPX
✠ I·DM·NE·ΛΛ·TT
(b). Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 i.
Plate XXXVII, 8
I owe to Pio Beltrán the suggested identification of the mint monogram on the HSA specimen. The letter N is doubtless to be read as M and N, and the letter at the right as L, if not also as Λ.
488. Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 f, variant.
✠ VVITTIZΛREX
1 |
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.
|
2 |
I have little doubt that Heiss refers to the VQR specimen; Campaner probably communicated a rubbing of the latter specimen
to him.
|
489. Scepter between confronting busts ? Legend ends EICΛ;
489(X). Facing busts. Legend illegible in plate
Monogram. Legend illegible in plate.
I. Inst. de Valencia, no. 159*.
490. Scepter between confronting busts. Type 13 f.
See also Nos. 351 and 380.
In Gússeme, III, p. 111, no. 11 (also VI, p. 618, no. 1), a coin is listed with bearded bust on the obverse, bust and cross on the reverse, and the legends I·D·NN·EGICΛREX and VVITTIZΛREX (no mintname). Almost certainly this specimen is improperly described. Morales (Bk. 12, fols. 186v, 195v and 197v) mentions coins of Egica & Wittiza, without indication of mint ("a sort of cross," i. e. monograms).
1 |
Mateu y Llopis proposed the reading "Salaca" (for Salmantica) for the monogram, but Beltrán (p. 415) has suggested Lucu and
in a personal communication has written that there can be no doubt whatever that this is the correct reading.
|
Ca. a.d. 698–710
491(a). Bust, right. Type 2 v.1
Cross on 3 steps. at either side.
✠ NΛRBONΛPIVS
(b). As (a) but RX.
✠ 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· ИИVVITTIΛ:1
(c). ✠ PИ·MVVITTIZ:·2
(d). ✠ DИMVVITTIZΛ∵
As (a), but pellet beneath.
(e). Type?
✠ ·DN·M·VVITTIZΛR·
Cross on 3 steps?
✠ CESRΛΛGV·TΛ
(f). Similar to (a)–(d), legends illegible in plate. 1.–2. Inst. de Valencia, no. 165*, 166*.
1 |
Sometimes only 3 "legs".
|
2 |
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.
Cross on 3 steps.•••• beneath.
Plate XXXVII, 10
(b). Type ?
Cross on 3 steps ?
✠ CESΛRΛCVSTΛPIVS
494(a). Facing bust. Type 11c.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ ∊RVNⲐΛPIVS4
Plate XXXVII, 11
(d). ✠ ND·VVITTIZΛ 7
✠ SERVNӨΛPVS8
(e). Obverse as (d).
✠ SERVӨΛPIVS
(f). Probably as (a)–(e), descriptions inadequate.
1 |
The obverse legend is not transcribed, but it appears to read thus in this Somewhat obscure plate.
|
1 |
Probably this type; the illustration is obscure.
|
2 |
Both legends have been read from the plate.
|
2 |
The identity is certain, despite the engraving which shows barred Λ's and other differences. There is only one specimen of
Wittiza–Gerunda in the Madrid collection, only one specimen of Wittiza in the García de la Torre collection, and Mateu records (Madrid, p. 24) that García's coin of Wittiza was acquired by the national museum. Gaillard notes that the piece is broken;
Madrid
no. 92 is broken, as the Plate shows. The engraving in Gaillard's catalogue is a good example of the liberties taken by artists
in the days before coin photography : not only are epigraphical features inaccurate, but the coin is shown as intact, even
though the description indicates that it is in two fragments.
|
3 |
Heiss indicates "C.B.", i.e., BM, for the location, but as there is no specimen in the BM, and the transcription of the legends
is virtually as above, and the weight is the same, there is little doubt that this notation is an error for "CM.", i.e., Cabinet
de Madrid.
|
3 |
Two entries for the same coin.
|
4 |
Very inaccurate drawing, if this is the same coin.
|
4 |
Or O in place of Φ.
|
5 |
VQR no. 5212 described as a variant of Heiss, no. 3; but they are the same coin !
|
6 |
Transcription admittedly faulty. Found in Pauls, near Cherta, Ebro, in 1861; cited by Blanch Ylla as property of Hernández
of Tarragona.
|
7 | |
8 |
495(a). Facing bust. Type 5 p.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ TΛRRΛCOPIVS
✠ TΛRRΛCOPIV··
(c). Facing bust. Type 5 s.
✠ 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.
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either side.
✠ MENTESΛPIVS
1 |
Two entries for the same specimen.
|
2 |
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.
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.
Cross on 3 steps. (at left,) at right.
///////COPVL·PIVS1
Plate XXXVII, 12
498. Bust, right. Indeterminate type resembling 2 j, but not bearded(?).
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ TOLETOPIVS
1 |
A sector of the coin is missing. The transcriptions are mine, from the coin itself, and differ somewhat from those in VQR.
|
2 |
Reinhart, p. 100, queries this issue.
|
3 |
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.
|
4 |
There is no documentary evidence that VQR acquired the coin described by Gaillard, but Pio Beltrán writes me that there is
reason to believe these coins were bought by Meynaerts, whose collection we know went in large part to V QR. The illustrations
in Gaillard and Heiss seem to be of the same coin.
|
499(a). Facing bust. Type 11 m.
Cross within ornamental vinelike border.
✠ TOLETOPIVS
Plate XXXVIII, 1
Plate XXXVIII, 2
Reverse as (a).
(c). Same type as (a)?
Reverse as (a)?
Type C
500(a). Facing bust, with long, curly hair. Type 11 o.
Cross within ornamental, vinelike border.
✠ TOLETOPIVS·
Plate XXXVIII, 3
(c). Bust as (a), variant. at either side.
Reverse as (a).
(d). As (c), but ✠ TOLETOPIVS * *
1 |
In Dr. Reinhart's list, which he furnished me, this coin is compared to Heiss, no. 8 (above (a) 2); but is it perhaps the
same coin as Type C, below?
|
2 |
501(a). Facing bust. Type 11 1.
Cross. ✺ above, beneath, and at each side.
✠ TOLETOPIVS
Plate XXXVIII, 4
Reserve as (b).
Although one cannot say with absolute certainty because of inequalities in plaster-casting, it would appear that the illustration in Schulman and Hess are of the same coin; certainly the dies are the same. The weight of 1.6 grams, which Schulman gives, is high, but not impossible. Rackus gives a weight of 1.8, which may be fictitious (several of his weights appear to be); but on the other hand he may have acquired the coin itself and this may be bis weighing. I had originally been inclined to reject (b) as a forgery (considering (a) the possibility that the Schulman and Hess pieces were two specimens from the same dies, (b) the weight, especially that given by Rackus, and (c) the unusual type). But having seen the specimen in the Cabinet des Médailles, the reverse of which at least is from another die, and the weight of which is satisfactory, I am now prepared to accept both as genuine.1
501 (X). Facing bust. Type 11 r.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ TOLETOPIVS
I. Inst, de Valencia, no. 176* (rev. inverted in plate).
502. Description lacking.
1 |
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.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTRICIΛ
Plate XXXVIII, 5
Plate XXXVIII, 6
Reverse as (a).
504. Bust, right. Type 2 bb.
Cross on 3 steps. • • • beneath.
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTRICIΛ
505. Facing bust. Type 11 b, variation.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ CORDOBΛPΛTRICIΛ
506. Description lacking.
1 |
Wrongly listed as Wamba on p. 198.
|
2 |
Wrongly transcribed with ✠ at the beginning of the obverse legend.
|
3 |
Described as "silver."
|
4 |
507(a). Bust, right. Type 2 aa.
1. HSA 16661 (↑ 21,1.01, chipped, virtually silver).
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either side.
✠ I·SPΛLIPIVS✺
Plate XXXVIII, 8
1. Cabinet des Médailles = Heiss, no. 5* (1.15).
✠ ISPΛLIPIVS✺
1. Cabinet des Médailles = Heiss, no. 5a (1.15).
✠ * ISPΛLIPIVS
(d). ////IDNNEVVITTIZΛP (legend begins at 9 o'clock)
1. Acad. de la Hist. (Mateu y Llopis, 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 Valencia, no. 175*.
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either side.
✠ ISPΛLIPIVS✺
508(a). Bust, right. Type 21.
1. Madrid, no. 296* = Campaner, 1866, no. 4 = Heiss, no. 2a (1.20).
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either side.
✠ EMERITΛPIVS
(b). ✠ I HI·EVVITTIZ 1
1. Madrid, no. 295* (Abusejo hoard) = Adquisiciones en 1932, pl. IV, 8* (1.45).2
Reverse as (a).
(c). ✠ NDINEVVITTIZ 3
1. Madrid, no. 297* (Abusejo hoard) = Adquisiciones en 1932, pl. IV, 7* (1.10).
Reverse as (a).
Cross on 3 steps. at either side. Legend as (a).
(e). As (a)–(d), but ornaments on reverse not described.
1 |
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 ?
1. Elias Garcia, Lusitânia , no. 92 (Coll. Elias Garcia).
Cross on 3 steps. at either side.
✠ EMERITΛPIVS
509(X). Facing bust. Type 11 o.
1. Inst. de Valencia, no. 172* = García de la Fuente, pl. III, 3* (obv. only, rev. of another coin) = Elias Garcia, Lusitânia, after no. 94 (Abusejo hoard).
Equilateral cross. Star in each quarter.
✠ EMERITΛPIVS
1 |
Transcribed from the plate; Mateu's transcription differs.
|
2 |
It is not noted in
Madrid
that this specimen is from the Abusejo hoard, but a comparison of the illustrations establishes the identity. In Adquisiciones the weight is given as 1.55.
|
3 |
End of legend not clear in the plate.
|
4 |
Some differences in the transcriptions; also the weight, given as 0.88 in Heiss.
|
5 |
Transcribed with one T only.
|
510(a). Bust, right. Type 21.
1. Reinhart Coll., no. 89 (1.35).
✠ EMERITΛPIVSII
1. Inst. de Valencia, no. 173*.
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either side.
✠ EMERITΛPIVS
511. Bust, right. Type 2 x. in front.
1. VQR no. 5221 = Piot, no. 20* = Meynaerts, no. 92* = Campaner, 1866, no. 1 = Heiss, no. 2* (1.46). Plate XXXVIII, 9
Cross on 4 steps, upper three connected by vertical bar. right and left.
✠ TOLET(·)PIVS
512(a). Facing bust. Type 11 i.
1. Reinhart, pl. 12, no. 24* (Archaeological Museum, Coimbra).
Cross on 3 steps.
Plate XXXVIII, 10
(b). As (a), but pellet at either side of cross on reverse.
(c). As (a)-(b), details lacking.1
1. Morales, Bk. 12, fol. 200r = Masdeu, p. 37 = Elias Garcia, Egitânia , p. 8.
2. Ferreira, no. 77 (1.47).
3.-4. Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos V, p. 71 (Museu de Belem, Lisbon; Coll. Nieport, Oporto).
5. Elias Garcia, Lusitânia, no. 140 (Conimbriga Museum, from excavations).2
6.-7. Elias Garcia, Lusitânia, no. 144 (Severim, p. 164; Guilhermina, Suppl., May 1901, no. 773).
1 |
Very faulty drawing.
|
1 | |
2 |
Ligatures not indicated in transcription.
|
2 |
"Busto ornamentado."
|
513(a). Bust, right. Type 2 y.2
1. Amardel, Roi Inconnu, no. 3 (Musée de Narbonne) = Belfort, no. 3160* = Amardel, Roi Achila, no. 3* = idem, RN 1901, no. 5* (1.40).
Cross on 3 steps. : at either side.
✠ИΛRB°NΛPIVƧ·.
(b). ✠ I:ɖ•Λ⋮CHI•LΛ 3
1. Amardel, Nouveau Triens , p. 140 = Belfort, no. 3161* = Amardel, Roi Achila , no. 4 = idem, RN 1901, no. 6* = (almost certainly) Maison Florange, 1951 (↗ 1.41).
✠ИΛRBONΛPIVS:
Plate XXXVIII, 11
(c). ✠I⋮C•:CHILΛ1
1. Boudard, p. 342, pl. IX, 2* (Musée de Narbonne) = Campaner, 1866, p. 153, no. 2 = Heiss, no. 2*2 = ( ?) Amardel, Musée de Narbonne, no. 53 = Robert, no. 33*4 = Amardel, Roi Inconnu , no. 2 = Fernández y Gonzalez, p. 94 = Belfort, no. 3156* = Amardel, Roi Achila, no. 2 and no. 2 bis ( ?)5 = idem, RN 1901, no. 3* = Madrid , p. 237* = Reinhart, 1937, pl. XXXVII, 31* = idem, Germanen-Erbe, p. 72, no. 12* = Reinhart, 1941, pl. 33, nos. 17–18* (1.48).6
Plate XXXVIII, 21
Cross on 3 steps. : at either side. Pellet beneath.
✠ИΛRBOИΛPIVS
(e). ΛCNILBOИΛP (legend begins at 6 o'clock)
1. Robert, no. 34* = Amardel, Roi Inconnu, p. 23 = Belfort, no. 3158* = Amardel, Roi Achila, no. 1 bis.8
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. would seem to represent ΛNΛR.
1 |
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 Amardel in
Nouveau Triens
, p. 143.
|
1 |
Or I⋮ ᗡ ( ?).
|
2 |
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 (Reinhart,
1937) is presented in the table of busts.
|
2 |
Wrongly assigned to Société Archéologique de Béziers.
|
3 |
The transcriptions are from the coin which Mme Kapamadji sent me from the Maison Florange for examination late in 1951. Amardel's
transcriptions and drawing of the legends differ a little, but I am convinced by a comparison of the Florange specimen and
Amardel's drawings that the two specimens are at least from the same dies, the differences in Amardel's drawings and transcriptions
being understandable misinterpretations; and in all probability the specimen at Florange is in fact the identical piece described
by Amardel. When I reported this conclusion to Mme Kapamadji she informed me that the specimen did come "en effet d'une très
vieille collection de Béziers." In the literature we are informed that the specimen was found at Las Illas in Pyrénées-Orientales,
and that it was later acquired by Louis Comes and/or Frédéric Donnadieu of Béziers. Amardel gave the weight as 1.40; my weighing
gave 1.41.
|
3 |
Transcription differs.
|
4 |
Wrongly assigned to VQR.
|
5 |
Wrongly assigned to VQR and equated with Belfort, no. 3157. In this article Amardel does not know which collection the specimen
is in.
|
6 |
There are several differences in the various transcriptions; I have transcribed from the plate in Reinhart, who informs me
that this piece is from the "Société Archéologique, Narbonne."
|
7 |
Wrongly assigned to VQR. The illustration is from Robert.
|
8 |
Robert assigns this piece to the Société Archéologique de Béziers, but Amardel (
Nouveau Triens, p. 143, and
Roi Achila
) says it is not.
|
514. Facing bust. Type 11 g.
1. Amardel, RN 1916, p. 128, fig. 1* (Musée de Narbonne) (1.30).1
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ NΛRBONΛPIVS
515. Description lacking, except GERVNDΛPIVS
1. Mateu y Llopis, Hallazgos V, no. 307.2
516. Facing bust. Type 11 s.
1. VQR no. 5222 = Campaner, 1866, no. 3* (p. 153) = Heiss, no. 3* = Fernández y Gonzá1ez, p. 94 = Amardel, Roi Achila , p. 442 = Madrid , p. 268* = Mateu y Llopis. Tarragona , no. 92* (1.45).
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ TΛRRΛCOPIVS
Plate XXXVIII, 13
1 |
Found near Castel-Roussillon, Pyrénées-Orientales, acquired by P. Thiers and given by him to the museum.
|
2 |
Found by P. de Palol Salellas in the castle of Rosas, 1948.
|
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 barbarous simplicity of most Visigothic coins and the ease with which they can be imitated by able counterfeiters—the detection of many of them is quite difficult. In consequence many private collections contain more forgeries than genuine coins, and no public collection is entirely free of them. The collection of the Hispanic Society of America, for example, contains 76 specimens, among them a number of duplicates. More than one reputable dealer has sold certain of these forgeries in good faith, believing them to be genuine; and experts in other numismatic fields—both dealers and collectors—frequently refuse to have anything to do with Visigothic coins because of the dangers involved. One of the purposes, therefore, of this appendix is to provide collectors and curators with a convenient guide to what is believed to be the majority of these false coins. It is perhaps not too much to hope that the present compilation will materially contribute to the ultimate elimination of the curse of Visigothic forgeries from the market.
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 Elvora ("Ebora"), supposedly struck by Sisebut, described by Morales. The publication of Florez' illustrated work in the late 18th century stimulated interest in Visigothic coins and provided a series of models after which forgers produced numerous crude imitations. In the early 19th century the remarkable counterfeiter Carl Wilhelm Becker executed a number of skillful dies which for some years added to the perplexities of collectors. In the late eighteen-hundreds Heiss' great work not only lent a great impetus to the study of Visigothic numismatics but also provided unscrupulous artisans
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 Valencia and Seville.
Fortunately a general discussion can be dispensed with here in view of the recent excellent literature on the subject. Mateu y Llopis devotes a section of his catalogue of the Madrid collection (pp. 395–410 and plates A–I) to the forgeries in that cabinet. In Pio Beltrán's 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 Beltrán's most valuable study lacks is adequate photographic illustration, and this is supplied, at least so far as the more recent forgeries are concerned, by Wilhelm Reinhart's plates in his two very useful articles Neuerliche Fälschungen westgotischer Münzen and Ueber einige weitere Fälschungen westgotischer Münzen (see the bibliography). In addition to the invaluable reproductions, Reinhart's articles present a succint statement of the principal characteristics of Visigothic counterfeits.
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. Reinhart went so far as to say, "es ist eine große Seltenheit, zwei stempelgleiche echte Stücke zu finden." That genuine specimens from the same pairs of dies, and many mulings, do exist becomes evident from the publication of numerous coins from
the hoard of La Capilla in the present volume, but Reinhart has not had the opportunity of studying such a series of coins from a single find.
How much I owe to the contributions of Mateu y Llopis, Beltrán and Reinhart is evident in the ensuing pages.1 For the sake of completeness I have included Becker's counterfeits in the compilation, in spite of the fact that they are already well known. For them the primary reference is, of course, Sir George Hill's Becker the Counterfeiter; I have omitted references to Heiss' reproductions of Becker's dies as superfluous. It will be noted that several previously unrecorded mulings of Becker dies have come to my attention. After the description of each forgery (including Becker's) I have listed published specimens as well as other examples that I have seen. In this connection one should bear in mind that there is in many instances a considerable likelihood of reduplication of references: for example, when Reinhart lists six specimens of a given forgery (without indicating their location), it may well be that certain of these are the same specimens which I have seen or which have appeared in publications to which I make reference. Also in some cases two or more auction or sales catalogue references may refer to the same specimen or may concern an example now in a private collection which I have examined.
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.
1 |
I am further indebted to Dr. Reinhart for permission to reproduce many of his illustrations of forgeries.
|
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 Amalaric (see No. 3, below).
2. Youthful bust, facing.
ΛLΛRICVᔓREX
1. Ardant, no. 9* (p. 253) = Barthélemy, p. 379 = Heiss, p. 150, no. 5 (Ꜹ).
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. Barthélemy recognized the supposed coin as a pure fabrication, as did E. Cartier (RN 1851, p. 380).
1 |
The type is not described and the plate is not clear.
|
3. Facing bust. Type 4 d.
1. Heiss, p. 146, no. 1* (Acad. de la Hist.).
Bust, right, spear tip in front; within circle.
✠ HISPΛLIS:PIVᔓ
Aside from the obvious anachronisms, note the Spanish form of the name, the spelling of the mint, the Tarraconese type of obverse bust. Heiss also observed that epigraphy and fabric are anomalous. For the reverse type, cf. No. 1, above.
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.
1. España Sagrada, vol. 42, p. 47 (Acad, de la Hist.) = Heiss, p. 146, no. 2* = Botet y Sisó, Noticia, pl. V, 27*.
Facing bust. Type 9 b.
//////PERTOSΛIVS: AI
6. Facing head within circle. Curved line beneath.
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*; Reinhart, pl. 11, no. 22* (BM)2 (cast coins all from same mold, Ꜹ and base metal, weights ranging from 1.70–3.70).
8. Facing bust. Type 5 c.
1. Heiss, no. 19* (BM) = Robert, no. 8* = Belfort, no. 3142* = Carson, p. 145, no. 1* (Ꜹ, 1.34).
2.-6. Madrid , no. 80*, pl. E, 3*, pl. G, 1*, 2*, 3* (Ꜹ, Æ and alloy,3 weights ranging from 1.30–7.00).
Facing bust. Type 5 a.
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 Beltrán (pp. 432–433) condemns the whole lot. I entirely agree that the BM
and Madrid specimens are forgeries, copied from Florez or the original, and of course the silver specimens mentioned by Florez are similarly false. My argument rests upon my acceptance of HSA 15989 (No. 11(a) in the Corpus) as authentic. On this specimen the letter is present (but not ). It is not, however, beneath the bust, and therefore Florez' suggestion that it serves as a base for the bust is unacceptable; nor can it be read as W, for on the HSA specimen the letter occurs at an asymetric point in the legend, where an inverse reading of the legend is highly improbable. If this letter is not W, then there remains no justification for reading the sign as alpha, which it really does not resemble; it is simply an ornamental space filler, which incidentally was not needed in the HSA specimen. Beltrán argues that the G and the D (for B) in the Florez specimen illustrated are bad; I agree, but I suspect that they are simply the result of bad copying by the engraver. In short, I see no reason to suspect the HSA piece, and consequently I consider it at least possible that one of the gold specimens which served as Florez' model, and which resembles the HSA piece but is not identical (the spacing of the letters being different and lacking ), may be genuine also.
1 |
Forgeries of the earlier, anonymous types of Leovigild and his predecessors are not included here.
|
2 |
At the time of writing, Reinhart (pp. 86–87) did not recognize this "solidus" as a forgery. He mentions the existence of other
similar pieces in the collection of the Jesuit Order in Barcelona (now dispersed). Beltrán, p. 460, correctly identified the
coin as a forgery of the above type, and subsequently in a personal communication to me, Dr. Reinhart has confirmed Beltrán's
view.
"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 = Heiss, no. 11* = Madrid , p. 281* = Beltrán, p. 426 ().
Cross on 4 steps. In exergue: ONO
(begins at 8 o'clock)
Heiss (p. 85) declared this piece to be a cast silver copy of an authentic coin; Beltrán, however, convincingly argues that it is a "a copy" of a non-existent coin, Egessa not having been the seat of an administrative division. The drawing in Heiss is not exact. Egessa should be struck from Campaner's and Reinhart's mint-tables.
10(a). Facing bust. Type 5 a.
1.-2. Madrid , pl. E, 4*, 5* (same dies, Ꜹ, 2.40, 1.50).
As obverse.
✠ TOLETOIVSTVᔕ
This forgery was copied from Heiss' illustration.
(b). Facing bust. Type 4 c.
//////LIVIϞILDVSR/////
1. Heiss, p. 147, no. 3* = Beltrán, p. 448 ().
Cross within wreathlike border.
✠ TOLETOPIVS
This is a fabrication in which a Tarraconese obverse is combined with a reverse type of Wittiza's.
See the note under Corpus No. 28(a) for a supposed coin with TOLETOPIVS, which belongs in the classification of mistaken descriptions (Lorichs, no. 4618).
11(a). Facing bust, resembling type 9 c, but with fibula on left shoulder.
1.-3. Madrid , pl. E, l*, 2*, pl. I, 1*(Ꜹ and alloy, 1.50–1.60).
As obverse.
✠ C°RD°BΛBISOPTIИVIT
Mateu suggests that the above forgery is copied from Heiss, but the resemblance is not very clear.
(b). Facing bust. Type 9 b.
Legend as (a).
1.-11. Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 1* (Ꜹ).
12.-15. HSA 8083–86 (Ꜹ, ↗ ↗ ↑ ↗, 1.39, 1.40, 1.39, 1.34).
16.-17. Freeman Coll.; Grierson Coll. no. 1100 = Shore Sale, no. 625 (Ꜹ).
As obverse.
✠ C°RD°BΛBIS°PTINVIT
Plate A, 2 (8085)
All the above are from the same dies. This forgery was undoubtedly designed after Florez, p. 181.1
12. Facing bust resembling type 5 a.
1.-6. Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 3* (Ꜹ).
7.-8. Tinchant, The Numismatist, Jan. 1937*; in trade, Paris, Aug., 19502.
As obverse.
✠ CVMPOPTINITSPI
Plate A, 3
This forgery is obviously copied from Florez, p. 179.3
1 |
Cf. Beltrán, p. 444.
|
2 |
Communication of Mr. Philip Grierson.
|
3 |
Cf. Beltrán, p. 444.
|
3. ( Becker ). Facing bust. Type 5 a.
Hill, Becker , no. 276*: HSA 15985 (Ꜹ ↙, 1.97); Madrid , pl. C, 1*, pl. H, 1* (Pb. and alloy); Fecht Coll. (Pb.) ; Renesse-Breidbach, no. 9161 ().
As obverse (rounded shoulder).
✠ TOSELVORΛIVS
Plate A, 4
14. Facing bust. Type 3 e.
1.-2. Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 2* (Ꜹ).
3. HSA 8126 (Ꜹ ↗, 1.36).
4.-5. Specimens in museums of Barcelona and Alicante (Reinhart, Arte, p. 57).
Facing bust, resembling type 7, but not extending into legend.
✠ PIVƧEMERITΛVICT°R
This forgery is clearly a copy of Heiss, no. 15 (Florez, p. 182).
Plate A, 5
Velazquez (no. 8) describes a piece after Yanez (vol. 2, p. 641, and vol. 1, Prologo), with DNLIVVIGILDVSREX and EMERITΛVICTOR purportedly bearing a "Victory" on the reverse. As Velazquez himself, and Florez (pp. 183–184) pointed out, Yanez must have been mistaken in respect to the reverse type.
15(a). Bust, right. Type 1 c.
VΛLEИTΛ✠REX
(begins at 7 o'clock)
1. Le Gentilhomme, no. 3* = LeBlanc, p. 32, no. 2* = Mahudel, pl. 11, no. 3* = Velazquez, no. 17 = Florez, p. 189 = Masdeu, p. 347 = Lelewel, pl. I, no. 23* = Lenormant, p. 328 (pl. XII, 10*) = Heiss, no. 5* = Madrid , p. 304*1 = Reinhart, pl. 11, no. 16* (p. 86) = Beltrán, pp. 420–422, fig. 8* (Ꜹ, 1.29).
Cross on 3 steps. In lower left quarter: In lower right: .. In exergue: OИO
LIVVIϞ|ILDVᔕ
(b). Similar to (a), but different dies, and ∧, ° left and right of cross.
1.-2. Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen , no. 4* (Ꜹ).
3. Mateu y Llopis, Ampurias 1941, p. 92, fig. 12*.
Plate A, 6
All the references under (a) concern the single piece in the Cabinet des Médailles, which Beltrán (loc. cit.) has convincingly shown to be in itself a 17th century fabrication created to illustrate the mint of Valence in the Dauphiné (Dépt. Drôme). An argument in favor of the authenticity of this "coin" would be that it came from the Bordeaux hoard, but Le Gentilhomme's reconstruction of this hoard is by no means reliable. See p. 165. The plentiful speculation on the curious type and symbols, on the meaning of "Valenta," on the historical connotations, etc., contained in the above references, is no longer worth reviewing or discussing. As for (b), a more recent forgery, struck with different dies, its origin is doubtless the drawing of the Paris fabrication in Heiss.1 The location of the specimen illustrated by Mateu y Llopis is not indicated.
1 |
Wrongly described, rectified in some copies of the catalogue, and later corrected by Mateu in
Ampurias
, 1941, p. 92, note 1. Cf. Beltrán, p. 415.
|
16. Facing bust, crowned, with shoulders resembling type 5 e. At left: ✺; at right: .
✠ •þ·N·LEoVIILþVSRE2
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 Reccared's name, are sufficient grounds for rejecting this curious piece as a fabrication, even without consideration of the suspiciously unique occurrence of the two names on a single coin. Obviously the "coin" was fabricated to create a rarity commemmorating an historical event, the association of Reccared with Leovigild on the throne at Toleto.3 The fabric is very similar to that of No. 79(d), a forgery of Wamba for Ispali.
1 |
Cf. Beltrán, p. 444.
|
2 |
The cross is joined to the crown and is probably intended to be a part of it.
|
3 |
Pio Beltrán, to whom I communicated a reproduction of this piece, agrees that it cannot be authentic.
|
17(a). Similar to the genuine piece, Corpus No. 47(a).
1.-4. Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 5* (Ꜹ).
5. HSA 8118 (Ꜹ, ↑ 1.38).
Plate A, 8
All the above are from the same dies; copied from Florez, p. 190.1
(b). Similar to the genuine piece, Corpus No. 46(b).
ERMEN|EϞLD••
INCLIT|R|EϞI
In exergue: OИO
Plate A, 9
This forgery appears to be a free copy of Heiss, no. 2.1
(c). Bust, left, somewhat resembling type 2 h. Cross on 3 steps at left.
Victory, right.
1. Heiss, p. 147, no. 4* = Beltrán, p. 448 ().
IIIΛNV|IC|TO
In exergue: ONO2
As Heiss pointed out, the obverse of this absurd piece was inspired by types of Wamba.
18(a). Similar to the genuine piece, Corpus No. 51(c).
Beltrán, p. 440, speaks of the existence of various copies of Florez, p. 208, made in the first half of the 19th century. I have not seen any, but I suspect that Pi y Arimón, p. 128, no. 4 (Mateu y Llopis, Barcelona, no. 7) is one of these. See, in this connection, the remarks in the footnote to Corpus No. 50(d). Corpus No. 53(b) is also perhaps a forgery of this class.
(b). "Variety" of Heiss, no. 3 = Corpus No. 53(a), with BARCINONΛPIVS
1. Heiss, no. 3a (Acad. de la Hist.) = Mateu y Llopis, Barcelona, no. 18 (wrongly given as Heiss, no. 3) (1.50).
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 Mateu's publication of the collection. PIVS is unique and improbable; one A is wrong.
1 |
Cf. Beltrán, p. 445.
|
2 |
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. Stuttgart, no. 1338.
3. Maison Florange, 1951 (Ꜹ, 2.30).
4. Inst. de Valencia, no. 178* = Madrid , p. 2831; Beltrán, p. 410.
5.-6. Museo Arque. Nac., Madrid (Beltrán, p. 410).
7. Lonja del Almidón, no. 694 (Ꜹ).
8.-9( ?). Augustin Cortés of Palma de Mallorca (Beltrán, p. 410; at least 2 specimens).
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 (Corpus No. 59, with the die broken at this point) as reproduced in Heiss. Beltrán (pp. 409–411) has clearly exposed the whole case the VQR specimen is genuine, and the proposed mint of "Cestavi"— a reading resulting from the flaw in the die—created a "rarity," which was reproduced after Heiss' engraving. The mint of "Cestavi" does not exist and should be deleted from Campaner's and Mateu y Llopis' and other lists. Beltrán of course is right in recognizing the VQR specimen as an issue of Cesaragusta.1 Mateu y Llopis also,2 quoting Gómez-Moreno, has recognized the "Cestavi" pieces as forgeries.
1 |
Transcribed CESTIOVI?IVST.
|
20. Similar to Corpus No. 62(a).
1. Inst. de Valencia, no. 17* (alloy) = Beltrán, p. 441 = Madrid , pp. 274–5.
A forgery copied from Florez, p. 210.
21. A probable forgery is Heiss, no. 38a, 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. Reinhart, 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. Berlin, no. 19 (location ?); Schulman, Apr. 1912, no. 303 (Ꜹ, 1.70).
Plate A, 11 (8104)
Nos. 1–8 are all from the same dies (also doubtless no. 9, not illustrated). The prototype is undoubtedly Florez, p. 199.3
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 Sisebut, Suinthila and Chintila): ANS (H. L. Freeman gift, Ꜹ, ↓ 1.83); Madrid , pl. C, 2*, pl. H, 2* (Pb. and alloy); Fecht Collection (Pb.); Renesse-Breidbach, no. 9162 ().
Facing bust. Type 5 a.
✠ TOLETOPIVS
Plate A, 12
(c). Specimen supposedly with TOLETOIVSTVS
1. Morales, Bk. 12, fol. 99r = Velazquez, no. 41 = Florez, p. 196 = Gússeme, VI, p. 24, no. 20 = Beltrán, p. 405 ( or debased Ꜹ).
This supposed coin is either a mistaken description or else a very early forgery. Morales designated the metal silver, which would support the latter conclusion.
1 |
Cf. the remarks relative to Corpus Nos. 57(b) and 59.
|
2 |
Ampurias
1941, p. 86.
|
3 |
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. Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 6* (Ꜹ).
As obverse.
✠ CORDOB∧PIVᔓ
Plate A, 13
The inspiration for this forgery is doubtless Heiss, no. 7 (Corpus No. 82(d)).1
25. Similar to Corpus No. 83(c).
1. Madrid , pl. E, 6* (Ꜹ,1.10).
According to Mateu, this piece is copied from Heiss, but Heiss no. 12a (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 Heiss.
(b). Similar to Corpus No. 86(e).
1. Reinhart, Weitere Fälschungen, no. 2* (Ꜹ,2.01).
Plate A, 14
Beltrán, p. 445, labels this a copy of a genuine piece.
1 |
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. Faria y Sousa, I, pt. III, cap. XVII, p. 343 = Masdeu, p. 338.
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
1 |
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 Florez. No. 1 has not hitherto been
considered fabrication, but in view of its weight and appearance I suspect that also is not genuine. See the discussion of
the mint, p. 138.
|
31(a). Bust, right. Barbarous Roman type.
RECC∧R|EDVSREX
(legend begins at 8 o'clock)
1. Le Gentilhomme, no. 15* = LeBlanc, p. 32, no. 4* = Mahudel, pl. 11, no. 8* = Velazquez, no. 36 = Florez, p. 215 = Gússeme, VI, p. 24, no. 21 = Lelewel, pl. 1, 24* = Heiss, no. 20* = Robert, no. 14* = Belfort, 1892, p. 55, no. 2464 = Belfort, no. 2464 = Blanchet, p. 187 = Beltrán, p. 425, fig. 9*1 (Ꜹ,1.21).
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. Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 7* (Ꜹ).
Plate A. 15
This pure fabrication, supposedly an imitation of an issue of Maurice Tiberius struck at Marseilles, has been fully exposed by Beltrán, pp. 422–425. The fruitless speculation of the many writers cited above need not be discussed. Like the "Valenta" Piece of Leovigild (Forgeries No. 15), this 17th century fabrication has more recently been copied in the form of (b), probably from the engraving in Heiss.2
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. Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 9* (Ꜹ).
6.-8. HSA 8125, 10616, 16079 (Ꜹ, ↑ ↑↑ 1.62,1.32,1.39).
9.-12. Stuttgart, no. 1340; Johns Hopkins (ex Schulman, 1925, ex Monteiro); Freeman Coll.; Grierson Coll., no. 1097 (Ꜹ).
13. Tinchant, The Numismatist, Jan. 1937*.
Plate B, 2 (10616)
All the above are from the same dies. The forgery is a copy of Florez, p. 216.1
(c). Obverse as (a).
✠ ϷNLIVV∧PEX
Face, facing.
✠ PIVSISP∧LI
1 |
The descriptions of figs. 9 and 10 are interchanged.
|
2 |
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 Florez drawing. It is interesting to note that the X of REX is rendered in the form represented by Florez, not + as it actually appears on the coin itself, which later was acquired by the Madrid Museum.
A piece of Cordoba (Corpus No. 138), condemned by Heiss, is now considered to be authentic. See the comments on pp. 243–4.
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 Suinthila / Eliberri): 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. Reinhart, 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. Johns Hopkins (Wayte Raymond, 1923) (Ꜹ, 2.12).
Plate B, 6
Florez, p. 220, probably served as the original for this forgery.
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 Morales, Bk. 12, fol. 107r,2 obverse legend not given, reverse HISPALIPIVS: the H of course is not present, and the order of the words has been inverted.
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.); Anderson Coll. (, 1.43); Renesse-Breidbach, no. 9163 ().
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 Heiss, no. 10.1
(c). Beltrán, p. 440, speaks of the existence of several specimens of an early 19th century forgery in silver identical with Florez, p. 220; I have not seen any of these nor do I know if they have been published.
1 |
Cf. Beltrán, p. 445.
|
2 |
Cf. Masdeu, p. 15, inaccurately representing Morales.
|
1 |
Cf. Beltrán, p. 445, where for Florez 260, read 216.
|
2 |
The plate is too obscure to establish with certainty that this specimen is similar to the one illustrated in Heiss.
|
3 |
For Thomsen 7094, read 1094.
|
37. Facing bust. Type 5 e.
1.-7. Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 11* (Ꜹ).
8.-9. HSA 16097, 16099 (Ꜹ, ↑ ↑ 1.60, 1.38).
10.-11. Madrid , pl. E, 12*, 13* = (?) Florez, p. 225* (Gabriel)* = Masdeu, p. 16 (Ꜹ,1.47,1.45).
12. Madrid , pl. I, 2* = Velazquez, no. 61* (Leyrens) = Gússeme, III, p. 401, no. 1 ( or alloy).
13. Grierson Coll., no. 4567 (Ꜹ).
14. Stuttgart, no. 1345 (Ꜹ).
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 Velazquez, Florez, etc., representations with the forgeries illustrated in the Madrid catalogue may not have been successful. As the former specimens should form part of the Madrid cabinet and do not appear among the genuine pieces but have the legends characteristic of the common forgery, I have assumed that the identifications are roughly correct. Nos. 1–9, 13–15 are struck with identical dies; the others may not be (it is difficult to tell from the Madrid plates). If they are different, then two groups of forgeries are involved, one a very early one existing in the days of Leyrens, etc., and the other more recent, copied from Florez, p. 225 (cf. Beltrán, p. 445). In the circumstances I have grouped the lot together.
1 |
Cf. Beltrán, p. 445.
|
38. (Becker). Facing bust. Type 5 e.
✠ SISEBVTVSREX
1. Freeman Coll, (same obv. die as Becker's Sisebut/Toleto; same rev. die as his Narbona for Sisenand and Chindasvinth) (Ꜹ).
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. Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 13* (Ꜹ).
9.-10. HSA 16130, 16131 (Ꜹ, ↑ ↑ 1.59,1.40).
11. Madrid , pl. E, 15* = Adquisiciones en 1933–1934, no. 22 = Mateu y Llopis, Tarragona , no. 36* (Ꜹ,1.35).1
12. Mateu y Llopis, Tarragona , no. 35* (Dr. Stefan) (Ꜹ).2
13. Berlin, no. 29 (location?).
14. Grierson Coll., no. 1145 (Ꜹ).
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 Florez, p. 234 (cf. Beltrán, p. 445). It is interesting to note in this connection that the specimen illustrated in Florez' drawing had a worn or faulty O in the reverse legend, appearing like C, which the forger has faithfully and uncomprehendingly reproduced as C.
A forgery of Egica/Tarracona (No. 89(b), below) was struck with the identical reverse die.
1 |
In
Madrid
Mateu y Llopis correctly recognized the piece as a forgery; later, in his
Tarragona
(pp. 79–80 and 91, note 71) he unfortunately reverses his opinion, basing his argument partly on the similarity of the piece
in question to one of Dr. Stefan's. The piece was said to have come from excavations — in circumstances which are entirely
characteristic of the kind of fraud so frequently perpetrated by unscrupulous antique dealers.
|
2 |
See the note above. Mateu (
Tarragona
, p. 79) considered this piece "certainly authentic."
|
3 |
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 Sisebut/Narbona; same rev. die as his Toleto for Reccared, Suinthila and Chintila): ANS (H. L. Freeman gift) (, ↑ 2.39); Madrid , pl. H, 5*, pl. C, 5* (Alloy, Pb.); Fecht Coll. (Pb.); Renesse-Breidbach, no. 9165 ().
Reverse as Forgery No.23(b).
(b). Facing bust. Cross on breast.
✠ SISEBVTVSREX
1. Heiss, p. 149, 7* = Beltrán, p. 448.
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. Fernéndez-Guerra, p1. I* ().
The drawings in these plates are too inaccurate to enable one to detect forgeries among the coins illustrated, but this piece is marked "," and furthermore it is not present in Mateu y Llopis' catalogue.
43. Bust.
DNSISEBVTVSREX
Cross, dividing legend:
CIVITASEBORA
Around:
DEVSADIVTORMEVS
1. Resende (ed. 1593), Bk. V, p. 37 (ed. 1600, pp. 335–6) = Morales, Bk. 12, fol. 113r = Velazquez, no. 67 = Florez, p. 231 = Gússeme, VI, p. 221, no. 2 = Masdeu, pp. 18, 329 = Lelewel, I, p. 19, note l = Heiss, no. 4a = Heiss, p. 150, no. 3, and p. 153 = Elias Garcia, Lusitânia, no. 107 ().
This obviously is a fabrication, and was recognized as such as early as 1835 by Lelewel. Florez, before him, found the legends extraordinary. Morales wrote, "se hallan en Euora muchas monedas de plata" with these legends, but in fact Resende, on whose authority Morales describes the supposed coin, spoke only of one specimen. Immediately thereafter (Resende, ed. 1593, p. 38) follows, "Nec raro aliorum Gothorum regum numismata in hac urbe [Elvora] reperta sunt,"—a statement which later was confused with this fabrication.
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.
Reinhart, 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 Reinhart, 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 Lisbon.2 No. 2 was recognized as "trés-suspecte"; all the Renesse-Breidbach Visigothic coins were forgeries.
1 |
Cf. Elias Garcia, Portocale, p. 9.
|
2 |
Cf. Beltrán, p. 448 (g).
|
46(a). Similar to Corpus No. 208(a), but lacking : at end of reverse legend.
1.-9. Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 12* = Elias Garcia, Portocale , p. 9. (Ꜹ).
10.-11. HSA 8124, 16134 (Ꜹ, ↑ ↑, 1.57, 1.36).
12. Johns Hopkins (ex Schulman, 1930) (Ꜹ, 1.44).
13. Stuttgart, no. 1347.
14. Grierson Coll., no. 4569 (Ꜹ).
Plate B, 14 (16134)
All the above are from the same dies.
(b). Similar to (a), but different dies.
1. ANS (H. L. Freeman gift) (, ↑ 1.07).
Plate B, 15
Florez, p. 233, is clearly the source of these two forgeries (cf. Beltrán, p. 445).
For a muling of the reverse of (a) with a reverse of Eminio, see No. 44(b), above.
47. Facing bust, Type 4 c.
✠ SVIИTHILΛREX
1. Madrid , pl. E, 17* (Ꜹ, 1.30).
As obverse.
A forgery after Heiss, no. 15* (Corpus No. 216(a)).
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
Hill, Becker , no. 281* (same obv. die as Becker's Suinthila/Eliberri; same rev. die as his Toleto for Reccared, Sisebut and Chintila): Madrid , pl. H, 6*, pl. C, 6* (Alloy, Pb.); Fecht Coll. (Pb.).
Reverse as Forgery No. 23(b).
Plate B, 16
In Madrid (p. 405) Mateu lists a forgery of Suinthila/Barbi, but I consider this coin authentic (see Corpus No. 224(j)).
49. Types ?
✠ SVINTHILAREX
1. Augustin, p. 317 = Velazquez, no. 77 = Gússeme, VI, p. 255, no. 3 = Beltrán, p. 406 = Mateu y Llopis, 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 Augustin noted that the piece was of silver suggests that it describes an actual fabrication. In any case, I cannot explain the meaning of the reverse legend.
50. ( Becker ). Obverse as Forgery No. 48(b).
1. Grierson Coll., no. 2924 (same obv. die as Becker's Suinthila/Toleto; same rev. die as his Witteric/Eliberri) = Shore Sale, no. 616* (Ꜹ).
2. Renesse-Breidbach, no. 9166 (Æ).
Reverse as Forgery No. 34(a).
This muling of Becker dies was not recorded by Heiss or Hill.
51. ( Becker ). Facing bust.
Type 8 c.
✠ SISENΛNþVSREx
Reverse as Forgery No. 38.
Hill, Becker , no. 282* (same rev. die as Becker's Narbona for Sisebut and Chindasvinth): Boudard, p. 345; Madrid , pl. H, 7*, pl. C, 7* (Alloy, Pb.); Fecht Coll. (Pb.); Renesse-Breidbach, no. 9167 (Æ).
Plate B, 17
1 |
Thus in Augustin; Velazquez has PROM.
|
52. Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠ SISENΛNDVSRE
1.-2. Reinhart, 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. Florez, p. 243*, at left (Gabriel) and p. 155 = Beltrán, p. 417 (Æ, gilt).
As obverse.
✠ ISPΛLII·IVS
(begins at 6 o'clock)
Beltrán suggests a contemporary forgery. The specimen appears not to have been in the Madrid collection when the catalogue was prepared in 1936; it is not similar to (c), below.
(b). Similar to Corpus No. 269(a).
1. Reinhart, 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 Florez, p. 243 (at right).1
54. Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✠ SISENΛNDVSRE
1.-8. Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 15* = Elias Garcia, Egitânia , p. 23* (Ꜹ).
9.-10. HSA 8120, 8122 (Ꜹ, ↑ ↑ 1.32, 1.67).
11.-12. Stuttgart, nos. 1353, 1392 (Ꜹ).
Facing bust somewhat resembling type 7.
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 Florez, p. 244,1 he was not exact in that he omitted the small x of REX.
1 |
Cf. Beltrán, p. 446.
|
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. Schulman, Nov. 1911, no. 6 = Elias Garcia, Lusitânia , no. 49 (Ꜹ).
✠ PIVSEMRED
The original from which (a) was copied would be Florez, p. 244.1 As for (b), there appears to be no illustrated published specimen, and, as Mateu remarks, it must be a crude copy of a genuine coin (possibly of the Hoffmann or Lorichs specimen ?). The nature of (c) is difficult to determine : it may be a fabrication, or perhaps a mistaken description.
56. Facing bust. Type 4 c.
✠ CHINTILΛREX
1. Le Gentilhomme, no. 28* = Mahudel, p. 12, no. 27* = Velazquez, no. 88 = Florez, p. 248 = Gússeme, II, p. 158, no. 3 = Masdeu, p. 20 = Boudard, p. 345 = Heiss, no. 9* = Robert, no. 20* = Belfort, no. 3149* = Madrid , p. 236* = Beltrán, pp. 427ff. (Ꜹ, 1.39).
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. Beltrán has pointed out that the coin is undoubtedly of French manufacture,
designed to fill a lacuna in the series for Narbonne. The bust, of Tarraconese type, is possible, but the cross is not only wrong for the period but also anomalous in form, being of Merovingian type. Writers as recent as Le Gentilhomme (1936) and Mateu y Llopis (1936 and 1945)1 did not recognize the piece as a fabrication. Narbona under Chintila should be deleted from the mint lists (Campaner, Traité, Reinhart, etc.). The piece was supposedly in the Bordeaux hoard; cf. p. 165.
1 |
Cf. Beltrán, p. 445.
|
57. ( Becker ). Facing bust.
Type 5 e.
✠ CHINTILΛREX
Hill, Becker , no. 283* (same rev. die as Becker's Toleto for Reccared, Sisebut, Suinthila): Madrid , pl. H, 8*, pl. C, 8* (Alloy, Pb.); Fecht Coll. (Pb.); Renesse-Breidbach, no. 9168 (Æ).
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 Florez, p. 247. The location of the original is no longer known. Beltrán (p.442) knew of the existence of the HSA specimen by means of the rubbings of the Cervera collection which he acquired from Vives; not having seen the piece itself he erred in stating that it was of gold. He mentions others of gilded silver. Anent the Piot specimen, see the comment following Corpus No. 282.
1 |
Madrid
, pp. 236, 238; "El Arte monetário Visigodo," Archivo Español de Arqueología, XVIII (1934), pp. 37, 47, 48, etc. In the latter article the coin unfortunately serves as the basis of certain argumentation
which, in the circumstances, is not valid.
|
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
1 |
LeBlanc shows nothing following R; Heiss' engraving has a faint X.
|
2 |
Wrongly transcribed TULGΛM in the text.
|
3 |
Not p. 200 as cited by Beltrán, p. 445.
|
62(a). Facing bust. Type 8 c.
✕ at either side.
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).
1 |
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.
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.
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.
✠ CHIDKSVINTVSR1
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 Campaner, represented by Heiss, and reproduced so often since has not hitherto been recognized as a fabrication, which I have no doubt it is. Another of the series created to fill desiderata in the Narbonne series, it is completely anomalous in its conception, an obverse proper to Egica and Wittiza with the name of Chindasvinth, joined with a reverse bearing the mint name only and omitting the name of Reccesvinth.
1 |
The final stroke of the R does not appear in the Heiss, etc., drawings.
|
2 |
Cf. Beltrán, p. 445, where the reference to Heiss is to be corrected.
|
B. Toleto.
69. Bust, right. Type 2 h.
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.
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).
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.
Monogram as above.
1.-5. Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 23* (Ꜹ).
6.-8. HSA 8106, 8108, 16066 (Ꜹ, ↑ ↑ ↑,1.37,1.67,1.41).1
9. Freeman Coll. (Ꜹ).
Plate D,1 (8106)
All the above are from the same dies. The source would be Florez, 258.2
(d). Obverse similar to (a), different die.
1. HSA 8107 (Ꜹ, ↑ 1.39).
Monogram as above.
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 Florez, or perhaps of Becker's forgery.
(e). A "denier d'argent," with , illustrated in Piot, 1850, no. 13 (= Meynaerts, no. 69) is probably a contemporary forgery.
71(a). Bust, right.
✠ RECCESVIN⊖VSREX3
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ NΛRBONΛP·S
Plate D, 3
Boudard remarked that the specimen described and illustrated by him might be considered of doubtful authenticity except for the fact that M. Mazel was so scrupulous and "difficult" about admitting any dubious coins to his collection. The specimen at the Maison Florange is a palpable forgery and is classified as such by the dealer. It is not unlikely that the latter, which closely resembles Boudard's engraving, is the very piece formerly in Mazel's collection.
(b). Anomalous bust, right.
✠ RECCESVIИ⊖VSRE
1. Stuttgart, no. 1364.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ ИΛRBOИΛP:S
Plate D, 4
1 |
One of these evidently belonged to the Cervera collection.
|
2 |
Cf. Beltrán, p. 445.
|
3 |
Boudard mistakenly has D for ⊖, part of which is lacking because of faulty striking.
|
72(a). (Becker). Obverse as Forgery No. 70(a).
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet beneath.
✠TOLETOPIVS
Hill, Becker , no. 290* (same obv. die as Becker's Chindasvinth & Reccesvinth/Ispali, Reccesvinth/Ispali; same rev. die as his Toleto for Wamba and Egica): Madrid , pl. D, 14*, pl. H, 14* (Pb., alloy); Fecht Coll. (Pb.); Renesse-Breidbach, no. 9174 (Æ); Hess, Apr. 1928, no. 5051 (Ꜹ).
Plate D, 5
(b). Very crude bust, right.
Type 1 h.
1. Stuttgart, no. 1363.
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). Morales described a specimen supposedly with RECENSVINTHVS and TOLETOIVSTVS, undoubtedly a misreading or a forgery.
1. Morales, Bk. 12, fol. 161v = Velazquez, no. 95 = Florez, p. 261 = Gússeme, VI, p. 26, no. 13 = Masdeu, p. 27 = Beltrán, p. 406.1
73(a). Facing bust, resembling type 5 a.
1. Heiss, p. 149, fig. 8* = Beltrán, p. 448 (Æ, 24mm).
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).
Mateu describes these as being molded from Madrid , no. 196. The first two, at least, were in the Madrid collection when Gil y Flores composed his inventory (ca. 1903).
(c). Facing bust within beaded circle. Type 10 d.
1.-5. Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 22* (Ꜹ).
6.-7. HSA 8128, 16488 (Ꜹ, ↑ ↑ 1.39,1.22).
8. Freeman Coll. (Ꜹ).
9. Stuttgart, no. 1361.
10. Schulman, Apr. 1912 (Ꜹ,1.75).
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 Florez, p. 262.2
1 |
Florez suspected the reading; Beltrán considers it possible that the coin was authentic.
|
74(a). (Becker). Obverse as Forgery No. 70(a).
Hill, Becker , no. 289* (same obv. die as Becker's Chindasvinth & Reccesvinth for Ispali and Reccesvinth/Toleto; same rev. die as his Ispali for Wamba and Ervig): Madrid , pl. D, 13*, pl. H, 13* (Pb., alloy); Fecht Coll. (Pb.); Renesse-Breidbach, no. 9173 (Æ).
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 Mateu, both the above are molded from Madrid , no. 227.
75(a). (Becker). Obverse as Forgery No. 70(a).
Hill, Becker , no. 288* (same obv. die as Becker's Chindasvinth & Reccesvinth for Ispali; same rev. die as his Emerita for Wamba and Ervig): Madrid , pl. C, 12*, pl. H, 12* (Pb., alloy); Renesse-Breidbach, no. 9172 (Æ).
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet beneath.
✠ EMERITΛPIVᔓ
Plate D, 9
(b). Similar to Corpus No. 376(a).
1. Madrid, pl. I, 3* (Æ. or alloy).
1 |
A slanting line connects the final Λ with the left arm of the cross.
|
2 |
Cf. Beltrán, p. 445.
|
A. Tarracona.
76. (Becker ?). In the Renesse-Breidbach catalogue (no. 9175) there is listed a silver piece of Wamba/Tarracona. As all the other Visigothic coins in this collection are Beckers, it is probable that this is an unrecorded muling of Becker's obverse die for Wamba at Toleto, Ispali and Emerita, and of his reverse die of Tarracona for Ervig.
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 Basilio Sebastián Castellanos) (Æ,1.00).
While Mateu does not list this piece among the forgeries, he states that it is obviously not genuine, although not a modern forgery. The implication is that it is a contempovary counterfeit.
(c). Bust, right, resembling type 2 ff.
1. Faria y Sousa, I, pt. II, cap. XX, p. 362*2 = Masdeu, p. 29 (Ꜹ)?.
✠ TOLETOPIVS
The illustration of this coin is probably invented.
(d). Bust, right, resembling type 2 h.
✠ 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. Beltrán (p. 446) remarks that this forgery is "invented." The reverse, at least, may have been inspired by the illustration in Faria (No. 77 (c), above), or may have some relation with the fanciful cross and steps in a forgery of Egica/Narbona (Velazquez, no. 123). See also (e), below.
(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.
Hill, Becker , no. 293* (same obv. die as Becker's Wamba for Ispali and Emerita; same rev. die as his Toleto for Reccesvinth and Egica): Madrid , pl. D, 16*, pl. H, 16* (Pb., alloy); ANS (H. L. Freeman gift) (Æ, ↓ 1.98); Fecht Coll. (Pb.).
Reverse as Forgery No. 72(a).
Plate D, 12
(g). Similar to Corpus No. 386(b).
1. Madrid , pl. I, 4* ( or alloy).
(h). As (g), different dies, very crude obverse.
1. Cahn, Apr. 1933, no. 2164* ("nearly Æ", 0.87).
This is perhaps a contemporary counterfeit.
1 |
This is not classified as a forgery by Mateu, but it appears to me that it is from the same dies as pl. F, 28. Of course it
may have been the model.
|
2 |
Mentioned by Francisco de Pisa, Description de la imperial ciudad de Toledo (Toledo, 1617), fol. 19v.
|
78. Beltrán 1 mentions the existence of forgeries of Wamba/ Cordoba in silver and alloy, derived from the drawing in Florez, p. 267,2 with sharp, linear profiles uncharacteristic of Visigothic engraving. I have not met with any specimens.
1 |
Pp. 438 (fig. 16) and 441.
|
2 |
Not 167, as given in Beltrán, p. 438.
|
79(a). (Becker). Obverse as Forgery No. 77(f).
Hill, Becker, no. 292* (same obv. die as Becker's Wamba for Toleto and Emerita; same rev. die as his Ispali for Reccesvinth and Ervig): (no other specimens seen; not in Heiss).
Reverse as Forgery No. 74(a).
(b). Heiss lists (no. 5a) a variety of Corpus No. 392(e), with scepter, in the "Cabinet de France." Was this perhaps a Becker? Ꜹ, 1.82.
(c). Obverse as (a).
✠ ID·N·M·N·VVΛMBΛ 1
1.-3. Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 25* (Ꜹ).
4. Stuttgart, no. 1368.
5. Tinchant, The Numismatist, Jan. 1937*.
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ ISPΛLIPIVS
Plate D, 13
Beltrán (p. 445) describes this forgery as a "hybrid," its inspiration doubtless deriving from Becker.
(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 Florez, p. 267, the pellets on the reverse being added. My notes taken in the Cabinet des Médailles show a faint cross before the bust, which certainly is not present on the HSA specimen; hence there may be two obverse dies. The weight of the Paris specimen is another unfavorable factor. For a forgery of similar fabric, see No. 16.
80. Types ?
VVΛMBΛREX
1. Elias Garcia, Egitânia, p. 10 (Manoel Pereira da Silva Leal, Memórias, p. 26).
IGED1TANEAPIVS
This would appear to be an invented description or a fabrication. Elias Garcia does not include it in his Lusitânia.
1 |
Æ blundered.
|
81(a). (Becker). Obverse as Forgery No. 77 (f).
Hill, Becker, no. 291* (same obv. die as Becker's Wamba for Toleto and Ispali; same rev. die as his Emerita for Reccesvinth and Ervig): Madrid, pl. D, 15*, pl. H, 15* Pb., alloy); ANS (H. L. Freeman gift) (Æ, ↑ 2.23); Fecht Coll. (Pb.); Renesse-Breidbach, no. 9176 (Æ).
Reverse as Forgery No. 75 (a).
(b). Bust, right, resembling type 2 n.
1. Reinhart, Weitere Fälechungen, no. 8* (Ꜹ).
Cross on 3 steps.
Plate D, 15
This forgery appears to have been copied from Heiss, no. 31(Corpus No. 393(g)), the drawing of which is almost certainly faulty; the result is a bust of quite atypical appearance.
(c). Obverse as (b).
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.
1.-3. Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 24* (Ꜹ).
4.-5. HSA 8134, 16656 (Ꜹ, debased, Ꜹ, ↑ ↑ 1.67,1.58).
6.-7. Stuttgart, nos. 1370, 1371 (Ꜹ).
8. Grierson Coll., no. 1098 (Ꜹ).
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ EMERITΛPIVS
Plate D, 17 (16656)
All the above are from the same dies, copied from Florez, p. 268.2
(e). Bust resembling type 2 f, but to left.
Legend ?3
1. Madrid, pl. B, 23* = Beltrán, p. 448 (f) (Ꜹ,1.10).
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 Becker's model ?
1 |
Cf. Beltrán, p. 446.
|
2 |
* Cf. Beltrán, p. 445.
|
3 |
Not legible in the plate.
|
82(a). (Becker). Facing bust. Type 11 b.
Hill, Becker , no. 296* (same obv. die as Becker's Ervig for Ispali and Emerita): Madrid , pl. D, 19*, pl. H, 19* (Pb., alloy);Thomsen, no. 1114 (); Fecht Coll. (Pb.); Renesse-Breidbach, no. 9179 ().
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ TΛRRΛCOPIVS:
Plate D, 18
(b). Facing bust, resembling type 5 q.
1.-6. Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 26* (Ꜹ).
7. Stuttgart, no. 1375 (Ꜹ).
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ TΛRRΛCOPIVS
Plate D, 19
Copied from Florez, p. 273.
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 Morales.
1. Velazquez, no. 114 = Florez, p. 269 = Gússeme, III, p.160, no. 2 = Beltrán, pp. 405–6.
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 Heiss, no. 2 (Corpus No. 400(a)).2
1 |
Cf. Elias Garcia, Lusitânia, no. 75.
|
2 |
Cf. Beltrán, p. 446.
|
85(a). (Becker). Obverse as Forgery No. 82(a).
Hill, Becker , no. 295* (same obv. die as Becker's Ervig for Tarracona and Emerita; same rev. die as his Ispali for Reccesvinth and Wamba): Madrid , pl. D, 18*, pl. H, 18* (Pb., alloy); Fecht Coll. (Pb.); Renesse-Breidbach, no. 9177 ().
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 Florez, or perhaps even the same forgery as the one which Florez' illustration represents.
86(a). (Becker). Obverse as Forgery No. 82(a).
Hill, Becker , no. 294* (same obv. die as Becker's Ervig for Tarracona and Ispali; same rev. die as his Emerita for Reccesvinth and Wamba): Madrid , pl. D, 17*, pl. H, 17* (Pb., alloy); Fecht Coll. (Pb.); Renesse-Breidbach, no. 9178 ().
Reverse as Forgery No. 75(a).
(b). Bust, right, bearded. Type 2 r.
1. VQR no. 5172 = Piot, no. 2* = Meynaerts, no. 82.
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.
Symbol of sun ? Type 12 f.
1.-4. Reinhart, 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. Johns Hopkins (Schulman 1925, ex Monteiro) (Ꜹ, 1.35).
11. Stuttgart, no. 1374 (Ꜹ).
12. Glendining, May 1936, no. 290* (Ꜹ).
13. Elias Garcia, 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 Florez, p. 272 (cf. Beltrán,p. 445).
88(a). (Becker). Bust, right, with cruciform scepter in hand, somewhat resembling type 2 gg. Above cross:
Hill, Becker , no. 297* (same obv. die as Becker's Egica for Toleto and Cordoba; same rev. die as his Narbona for Wittiza): Madrid , pl. D, 20*, pl. H, 20* (Pb., alloy); Fecht Coll. (Pb.); Meynaerts, no. 86 (Ꜹ).
Cross on 3 steps. at either side
✠ 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. Stuttgart, no. 1380.
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.
1.-2. Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 30* (Ꜹ).
3. HSA 8132 (Ꜹ, ↗1.31).
Cross on 3 steps. at either side
✠ NARBONAPIVS
Plate E, 6
The obverse of this forgery is probably copied from Velazquez, no. 125, the reverse from Florez, p. 2801.
(e). Velazquez, no. 123 (Cueva),2 with a curious bust on the obverse and on the reverse,3 and legends ✠ I·D·N·N·N·ECICΛRE and ✠ NΛRBONΛPIVS, is either a forgery or else an exceedingly faulty drawing of an authentic coin, probably the latter.
1 |
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.
Cross on 3 steps, at either side.
Plate E, T
The reproduction of no. 2, a rubbing, is too poor to permit of reliable comparison, but it appears probable that Dr. Stefan's piece is a forgery from the same mold as the HSA specimen. The inspiration is undoubtedly Heiss, no. 17 (Corpus No. 426(d)).
(b). Bust, right, somewhat resembling types 2 g and 2 p.
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 Egica/Cordoba (No. 91(b), below) and of the reverse of the forgery of Sisebut/Tarracona (No. 39, above).
90(a). (Becker ).Obverse as Forgery No. 88 (a).
Hill, Becker , no. 298* (same obv. die as Becker's Egica for Narbona and Cordoba; same rev. die as his Toleto for Reccesvinth and Wamba): Madrid , pl. D, 21*, pl. I, 21*4 (Pb., alloy); Fecht Coll. (Pb.); Renesse-Breidbach, no. no. 9181 ().
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 Heiss no. 19.
1 |
Cf. Beltrán, p. 445.
|
2 |
Gússeme, III, p. 110, no. 4.
|
3 |
Cf. Wamba/Toleto, Forgeries nos. 77 (c), (d), and (e).
|
4 |
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 Becker dies has not been previously noticed.
(b). Obverse as Forgery No. 89(b).
1.-8. Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 28* (Ꜹ).
9. HSA 16591 (Ꜹ, ↑ 1.41).
10. Freeman Coll. (Ꜹ).
11. Stuttgart, no. 1372.
12. Schulman, Apr. 1912, no. 323.
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 Florez, p. 277 (cf. Beltrán, p. 445). The obverse die was also used by the forger in producing a fabrication of Tarracona (No. 89 (b), above).
92. Bust, right, resembling type 2 b.
1.-5. Reinhart, 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. Stuttgart, no. 1377.
14. Schulman, Apr. 1912, no. 325 (Ꜹ,1.70).
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 Florez, p. 277.1 Nos. 6–12 provide an interesting sequence of forgeries. No. 10 is the earliest in the series; nos. 11 and 12 show a minor reverse die scratch running from upper left to lower right; in nos. 6–9 this scratch has been repaired and eliminated by cleaning or polishing, but a clear die break has occurred, again on the reverse die, running from lower left to upper right. Reinhart's illustrated example, incidentally, has no scratch or break. It is also interesting to note that the forger used three different batches of metal: no. 10 is normal in color, nos. 11 and 12 are pale, nos. 6–9 have a reddish tinge similar to many other forgeries undoubtedly from the same work-shop. This latter group is remarkably uniform in weight, while nos. 11–12 vary considerably, no. 10 being far overweight.
93. A specimen listed by Schulman, Apr. 1912, no. 324, with bust, right, I·DN·M·N·EGICΛ, and cross on 3 steps, EMERITΛPIVS, weight 1.80, "authenticité douteuse," is doubtless a forgery.
94(a). Similar to Corpus No. 452.
This is copied from Florez, p. 279, or Heiss, no. 15.
(b). Similar to (a), but:
1.-8. Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 31* = Beltrán, pp. 439–40 (Ꜹ).
9.-11. HSA 10614, 16596, 16645 (Ꜹ ↑ ↗ ↗ 1.32,1.79,1.62).
Plate E, 12 (16596)
12. Schulman, Jan. 1931, no. 655* (Ꜹ).
13. Glendining, May 1936, no. 291* (Ꜹ).
14. Forrer, 1950 (Ꜹ,1.45).
All are from the same dies, crudely copied from Florez, or from Heiss, and a more recent forgery than (a).3
(c). Bust, right, resembling type 2 b.
Cross on 3 steps,
1. Reinhart, 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
1 |
Cf. Beltrán, p. 445.
|
2 |
On p. 440 there is confusion between the Ervig and the Egica/Salmantica forgeries.
|
3 |
Cf. Beltrán, p. 445, as well as pp. 439–441.
|
95. ( Becker ). Scepter between confronting busts, resembling type 13 l.
Hill, Becker, no. 299*: Madrid , pl. D, 22*, I, 22* (Pb., alloy); Anderson Coll. (,2.30); Fecht Coll. (Pb.); Lelewel, pl. I, 31* (); Renesse-Breidbach, no. 9182 ().
Plate E, 14
96. Similar to Corpus No. 472.
1.-6. Reinhart, 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. Schulman, Apr. 1912, no. 327 (Ꜹ,1.80).
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 Florez, p. 284 (cf. Beltrán, p. 445).
97. Similar to Corpus No. 480 (r).
1.-3. Madrid , pl. F, 32*, pl. I, 5*, 6* (Ꜹ, 2.25, or alloy).
Copied from a genuine piece, or else from Florez, p. 283 (left), or Heiss, no. 11.
1 |
Cf. Beltrán (p. 445), who describes the forgery as "hybrid and invented"; neither he nor Reinhart happened to observe, or
to remark on, the other products of the dies.
|
98. Similar to Corpus No. 486 (a), but legends:
1.-3. Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 34* (Ꜹ).
4. Madrid, no. 289 = Adquisiciones en 1932, pl. III, 5* (Ꜹ, 1.35).1
5. Freeman Coll. (Ꜹ).
6. Anderson Coll. (Ꜹ, 1.37).
7. Huth Collection, no. 240* (Ꜹ).
Plate E, 16
All are from the same dies, copied presumably from a genuine specimen (cf. Beltrán, p. 445).
99(a). (Becker). Bust, right, somewhat resembling types 2 g and 2p.
Reinhart, Weitere Fälschungen, no. 19*2 (same obv. die as Becker's Wittiza for Cordoba; same rev. die as his Narbona for Egica): Stuttgart, no. 1387 (Ꜹ); Lelewel, pl. I, 32* (); Renesse-Breidbach, no. 9183 ().
Reverse as Forgery No. 88 (a)
Plate E, 17
This Becker muling was not listed by Hill, nor apparently did Reinhart recognize it as such.
b). Bust, right, resembling type at 2 v.
1.-2. Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 36* (Ꜹ).
3. Freeman Coll. (Ꜹ).
Cross on 3 steps. at either side.
✠ NΛRBONΛPIVS
Plate F, 1
This is copied from Heiss, no. 6 (Corpus No. 491 (a)).
1 |
This coin is supposedly from the Abusejo hoard, but I suspect that Mateu y Llopis interchanged the reproduction of a specimen
from that hoard with another of different provenance. As observed elsewhere (p. 332), there is some confusion in his treatment
of coins from Abusejo. Mateu's statement that the gold of this specimen is "better than the others" supports my identification
of this specimen with the forgery published by Reinhart.
|
2 |
Numbered 10 on plate 200.
|
100. Bust, right, same die as obverse of Forgery No. 99 (b).
1. Stuttgart, no. 1388 (Ꜹ).
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ TΛRRΛCOPIVS
Plate F, 2
101(a). Facing bust, resembling type 11m.
1. Yockers Collection (, 22mm., 1.94).
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 Florez, p. 288, or a genuine coin.
(b). As above, bust variation.
1.-2. Meynaerts, nos. 89–90 = Piot, no. 1*, 2 (Ꜹ, ).
✠ 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 Vidal Quadras y Ramón nor the British Museum acquired these specimens from the Meynaerts collection. Unless the drawing is very inaccurate, this forgery is not the same as the common one, (c), below.
(c). As above, bust variation.
1.-9. Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 37* (Ꜹ).
10.-11. HSA 8127, 16657 (Ꜹ, ↑ ↑ 1.73, 1.51).1
12. Freeman Coll. (Ꜹ).
13.-16. Schulman, Apr. 1912, nos. 329–30, Oct. 1912, no. 1116*, Jan. 1931, no. 656* (Ꜹ,1.70,1.40,1.70).
17. Hess, June 1922, no. 120* = Rackus, fig. 44* = Berlin, no. 61 (Ꜹ).
✠ 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 Schulman 1912 may have appeared in later
catalogues, or Hess' may have been bought from Schulman, and Freeman's piece probably was originally from one of these sales; the identity of the dies makes it difficult to determine. The origin of the forgery is doubtless Florez, p. 288.1
(d). To be classified as an erroneous description is a supposed coin with VVITIGISREX and TOLETOPIVS, first mentioned by Alcocer in the mid-16th century. The "coin" has been much discussed in the literature cited below. Beltrán disposes of it for good and all. Obviously the faulty description concerns a coin of Wittiza, not of Witteric or "Witigis."
1. Alcocer, Bk. I, Cap. XXXII, fol. XXVIII = Covarruvias, ed. 1591, p. 641, ed. 1606, pp. 490–1 = Morales, Bk. 12, fol. 197v = Velazquez, no. 135 = Masdeu, p. 36 = Gússeme, VI, p. 619, no. 9 = Heiss, no. 10a and pp. 150–1 = Beltrán, p. 405.
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).
Hill, Becker , no. 300* (same obv. die as Becker's Wittiza for Narbona; same rev. die as his Cordoba for Egica): Madrid , pl. D, 23* (Pb.); Fecht Coll. (Pb.).
Reverse as Forgery No. 91(a).
103. Bust, left, facing scepter, resembling right-hand figure of type 13 j.
1.-6. Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen, no. 35* (Ꜹ).
7. Glendining, May 1936, no. 292* (Ꜹ).
8. Tinchant, The Numismatist, Jan. 1937.*
9. Berlin, no. 66 ("Dr. Lederer").
Plate F, 5
All specimens are from the same dies. Either with the intent of showing that Wittiza was sole ruler, or because he lacked sufficient room, the forger omitted the confronting bust on the left. The forgery is, as Beltrán suggests (p. 445), "invented," but its inspiration is in the authentic types of Egica & Wittiza.
1 |
Cf. Beltrán, p. 445.
|
104. Bust, right, somewhat resembling types 2 g and 2 p.
1. Stockholm, no. 20857:1F = Rasmusson, p. 325 = Elias Garcia, Lamecum , p. 20 = Mateu y Llopis, Estocolmo , no. 69* (, 1.36).
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either side.
✠ BRΛCΛRΛPIVᔕ
Plate F, 6
This patent forgery, with an obverse probably owing its inspiration to Becker's Wittiza, and with an invented reverse, came to the Stockholm cabinet supposedly from a find in Schonen. Dr. Nils Rasmusson has kindly informed me that the coin was not represented as coming from a hoard but was reputed to have been a loose find. The forgery falls in the class of those invented in order to create a "unique" or "very rare" issue.
Reinhart's listing of Bracara as a mint under Wittiza (Reinhart, p. 101) is doubtless the result of the mention of this coin (before it was recognized as a forgery) by Dr. Rasmusson.
105(a). Bust, right, resembling type 2 x. In front:
1.-5. Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen , no. 39* (Ꜹ).
6. Tinchant, The Numismatist, Jan. 1937*.
Cross on 4 steps, connected by vertical bar. at either side.
✠ TOLETOPIVS
Plate F, 7
Copied quite accurately from Heiss, no. 2 (VQR).1
(b). Grotesque and misunderstood bust, somewhat resembling type 2 p or 2 u, but to left. Scepter at left.
1.-4. Reinhart, 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. Grierson Coll., no. 1144 == Shore Sale, no. 624* (Ꜹ).
8. Tinchant, The Numismatist, Jan. 1937.*
Plate F, 8 (16664)
As Beltrán (p. 445) remarks, this forgery appears to have been "invented," although the inspiration for the bust is doubtless in some of the busts of Ervig, Egica, and Wittiza.
1 |
Cf. Beltrán, p. 445.
|
106(a). (Becker). Facing bust, somewhat resembling type 11 i.
Hill, Becker , no. 301*: Fernández-Guerra, Caida , pp. 55–56; Madrid , pl. D, 24*, pl. I, 24* (Pb., alloy); ANS (gift of R.I.Nesmith) (gilt Ꜹ); Fecht Coll. (Pb.); Lelewel, pl. I, 33* (); Renesse-Breidbach, no. 9184 ().
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either side.
Plate F, 9
(b). Bust resembling above.
1. Cabinet des Médailles = Reinhart, 1937, pl. XXXVII, 30* = idem, Germanen-Erbe , p. 72, no. 11* (Ꜹ, 1.85).
Reverse as (a).
Plate F, 10
Reinhart did not classify this piece as a forgery, but when I examined it in Paris my suspicions were immediately aroused by its appearance, and they were confirmed when I weighed the coin.
(c). As above, but bust variation (cf. Madrid , no. 310).
1.-2. Madrid, pl. F, 33*, pl. I, 7* (Ꜹ, cast, 1.55, or alloy).
3. Johns Hopkins (Schulman, 1925, ex Monteiro) (Ꜹ, 1.47).
Cross on 3 steps.
Plate F, 11
Although Mateu y Llopis does not connect nos. 1 and 2, it appears to me that no. 2 is from the same mold (or dies?) as no. 1. No. 3 almost certainly is identical with no. 1. The forgery seems to be a copy of an authentic coin, the obverse possibly from the Madrid specimen mentioned.
(d). Facing bust, somewhat resembling types 11 i and 11 o.
Cross on 3 steps.
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 Dr. A. N. Zadoks-Jitta. Not having been able to compare the VQR coin and the cast from the Hague at the same time, I cannot vouch for the identity of dies, but my recollection is that they are very similar in appearance.
(e). Obverse as above, but bust grotesque and misunderstood.
✠ I RVDERICVS 1
1.-2. Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen , no. 38* (Ꜹ).
3.-4. HSA 8131, 16663 (Ꜹ, ↗ ↗ 1.39,1.74).2
5. Piot, no. 1* = Meynaerts, no. 91 = Elias Garcia, Egitênia , p. 15* = (probably) Beltrán, p. 441 (, varios ejemplares ) ().
6. Stuttgart, no. 1390.
Cross on 3 steps. Pellet at either side.
Plate F, 13 (16663)
If allowance is made for inaccuracies in the drawing, there can be little doubt that the Piot specimen is from the same dies as the others. In any case it, as well as nos. 1–4 and 6 (which are definitely from the same dies), is copied from the misconceived drawing in Florez, p. 289 (cf. Beltrán, p. 445).
1 |
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. Reinhart. Weitere Fälschungen, no. 11* (Ꜹ).
Cross on 3 steps.
✠ TΛRRΛCOPIVS
Plate F, 14
Copied from Heiss, no. 3 (cf. Beltrán, p. 446).
1 | |
2 |
One of the HSA specimens is from the Cervera collection. Cf. Beltrán p. 442.
|
Plate I | |
1 | Reinhart, 1937, pl. XXXVII. |
2–3 | Zorita de los Canes . |
4–5 | Reinhart, pl. 10. |
6 | HSA. |
7 | Zorita de los Canes . |
8 | Reinhart, pl. 11. |
9–12 | HSA. |
13 | Reinhart, 1937, pl. XXXVII. |
14 | Zorita de los Canes . |
Plate II | |
1–2 | HSA. |
3 | VQR. |
4 | Stockholm. |
5 | HSA. |
6 | VQR. |
7–16 | HSA. |
17 | Reinhart, pl. 11. |
18 | HSA. |
19 | BM. |
20 | HSA. |
Plate XIII | |
1–8 | HSA. |
9 | BM. |
10 | Stockholm. |
11 | Freeman. |
12 | VQR. |
13 | HSA. |
14 | BM. |
15 | Johns Hopkins. |
Plate IV | |
1–4 | HSA. |
5 | Stuttgart. |
6–9 | HSA. |
10 | BM. |
11–12 | HSA. |
13 | Mabbott. |
14–15 | HSA. |
16 | Stockholm. |
17–19 | HSA. |
20 | BM. |
Plate V | |
1 | HSA. |
2 | Mabbott. |
3–4 | VQR. |
5–10 | HSA. |
11 | BM. |
12–14 | HSA. |
15 | BM. |
16 | HSA. |
17 | Dumbarton Oaks. |
18–20 | HSA. |
Plate VI | |
1 | Stockholm. |
2–4 | HSA. |
5 | Grierson. |
6 | BM. |
7 | HSA. |
8 | BM. |
9–14 | HSA. |
15 | Grierson. |
16–17 | HSA. |
18 | BM. |
19–20 | HSA. |
Plate VII | |
1–7 | HSA. |
8 | Stuttgart. |
9–10 | HSA. |
11 | BM. |
12–15 | HSA. |
16 | Stuttgart. |
Plate VIII | |
1–2 | HSA. |
3 | VQR. |
4 | Reinhart, 1937, pl. XXXVII. |
5–6 | HSA. |
7 | BM. |
8–9 | HSA. |
10 | Grierson. |
11 | Reinhart, 1937, pl. XXXVII. |
12–14 | HSA. |
Plate IX | |
1–3 | HSA. |
4 | BM. |
5–17 | HSA. |
Plate X | |
1–3 | HSA. |
4–5 | BM. |
6 | HSA. |
7 | Stockholm. |
8–9 | Reinhart, pl. 12. |
10–13 | HSA. |
14 | VQR. |
15–18 | HSA. |
Plate XI | |
1 | HSA. |
2 | Dumbarton Oaks. |
3 | BM. |
4–14 | HSA. |
Plate XII | |
1–14 | HSA. |
Plate XIII | |
1–14 | HSA. |
Plate XIV | |
1–14 | HSA. |
Plate XV | |
1–15 | HSA. |
Plate XVI | |
1–13 | HSA. |
14 | Copenhagen. |
15 | HSA. |
16 | Musée de la Ville de Pau. |
Plate XVII | |
1 | Reinhart, pl. 12. |
2–14 | HSA. |
Plate XVIII | |
1–14 | HSA. |
Plate XIX | |
1–14 | HSA. |
Plate XX | |
1–15 | HSA. |
Plate XXI | |
1–14 | HSA. |
Plate XXII | |
1–12 | HSA. |
13 | Stockholm. |
14 | HSA. |
15 | BM. |
16–17 | HSA. |
Plate XXIII | |
1 | Stuttgart. |
2 | Ashmolean. |
3 | Grierson. |
4 | Johns Hopkins. |
5–7 | BM. |
8 | VQR. |
9 | Maison Florange. |
10 | Copenhagen. |
11–14 | HSA. |
15 | Johns Hopkins. |
16 | HSA. |
Plate XXIV | |
1 | HSA. |
2 | Stockholm. |
3–5 | HSA. |
6 | BM. |
7 | HSA. |
8 | Dickie. |
9 | Freeman. |
10 | HSA. |
11–14 | BM. |
15 | HSA. |
16 | BM. |
Plate XXV | |
1 | BM. |
2 | HSA. |
3 | Johns Hopkins. |
4 | HSA. |
5 | BM. |
6 | Reinhart, pl. 12. |
7–10 | BM. |
11 | VQR. |
12 | Stuttgart. |
13 | VQR. |
14 | Stockholm. |
15 | Copenhagen. |
16 | Reinhart, pl. 12. |
17–18 | HSA. |
Plate XXVI | |
1–5 | HSA. |
6 | Grierson. |
7–17 | HSA. |
Plate XXVII | |
1–6 | HSA. |
7 | Grierson. |
8 | HSA. |
9 | Johns Hopkins. |
10–11 | HSA. |
12 | BM. |
13–15 | HSA. |
Plate XXVIII | |
1–2 | HSA. |
3 | BM. |
4–8 | HSA. |
9 | Ashmolean. |
10 | Berlin. |
11 | VQR. |
12 | BM. |
13–14 | HSA. |
15 | Stuttgart. |
Plate XXIX | |
1–12 | HSA. |
13 | BM. |
14 | HSA. |
Plate XXX | |
1–3 | HSA. |
4 | Grierson. |
5–6 | HSA. |
7 | Stockholm. |
8 | HSA. |
9 | BM. |
10–12 | HSA. |
13 | Stuttgart. |
14 | HSA. |
Plate XXXI | |
1 | BM. |
2 | HSA. |
3 | BM. |
4–5 | HSA. |
6 | Grierson. |
7 | HSA. |
8 | Grierson. |
9–13 | HSA. |
14 | Stockholm. |
15 | Stuttgart. |
Plate XXXII | |
1 | Stockholm. |
2–7 | HSA. |
8–9 | Stuttgart. |
10 | HSA. |
11 | Copenhagen. |
12 | Stockholm. |
13–15 | HSA. |
Plate XXXIII | |
1 | HSA. |
2 | Stockholm. |
3–8 | HSA. |
9 | Stuttgart. |
10–14 | HSA. |
Plate XXXIV | |
1–9 | HSA. |
10 | Johns Hopkins, |
11–12 | HSA. |
13 | Engel. |
Plate XXXV | |
1–5 | HSA. |
6 | BM. |
7 | Stuttgart. |
8 | HSA. |
9 | BM. |
10 | VQR. |
11 | HSA. |
12 | Berlin. |
13 | HSA. |
14 | Grierson. |
Plate XXXVI | |
1 | Stuttgart. |
2 | HSA. |
3 | Copenhagen. |
4 | HSA. |
5 | BM. |
6–14 | HSA. |
Plate XXXVII | |
1–11 | HSA. |
12 | VQR. |
Plate XXXVIII | |
1 | HSA. |
2 | BM. |
3 | HSA. |
4 | Berlin |
5 | HSA |
6 | Reinhart, pl. 12. |
7 | Stockholm. |
8 | HSA. |
9 | VQR. |
10 | Reinhart, pl. 12. |
11 | Maison Florange. |
12 | Reinhart, 1937, pl. XXXVII. |
13 | VQR. |
Plate A | |
1–2 | HSA. |
3 | Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen. |
4 | Hill, Becker. |
5 | HSA. |
6 | Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen. |
7–8 | HSA. |
9 | Reinhart, Weitere Fälschungen. |
10–11 | HSA. |
12 | Hill, Becker. |
13 | Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen. |
14 | Reinhart, Weitere Fälschungen. |
15 | HSA. |
16 | Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen. |
Plate B | |
1–3 | HSA. |
4 | Hill, Becker. |
5 | Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen. |
6 | Johns Hopkins. |
7 | Hill, Becker. |
8 | Stuttgart. |
9 | HSA. |
10 | Freeman. |
11 | HSA. |
12 | Berlin. |
13 | Reinhart, Weitere Fälschungen. |
14 | HSA. |
15 | ANS. |
16–17 | Hill, Becker. |
Plate C | |
1 | Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen. |
2 | Reinhart, Weitere Fälschungen. |
3 | HSA. |
4 | Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen. |
5 | Hill, Becker. |
6–9 | HSA. |
10–11 | Hill, Becker. |
12 | Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen. |
13 | HSA. |
14 | ANS. |
15 | HSA. |
16 | Freeman. |
17 | HSA. |
18–19 | Hill, Becker. |
Plate D | |
1–2 | HSA. |
3 | Maison Florange. |
4 | Stuttgart. |
5 | Hill, Becker. |
6 | Stuttgart. |
7 | HSA. |
8–9 | Hill, Becker. |
10 | Reinhart, Weitere Fälschungen. |
11 | HSA. |
12 | Hill, Becker. |
13 | Stuttgart. |
14 | HSA. |
15 | Reinhart, Weitere Fälschungen. |
16–17 | HSA |
18 | Hill, Becker. |
19 | Stuttgart. |
Plate E | |
1–3 | HSA. |
4 | Hill, Becker. |
5 | Stuttgart. |
6–7 | HSA. |
8 | Dumbarton Oaks. |
9 | Hill, Becker. |
10–12 | HSA. |
13 | Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen. |
14 | Hill, Becker. |
15 | HSA. |
16 | Freeman. |
17 | Hill, Becker. |
Plate F | |
1 | Freeman. |
2 | Stuttgart. |
3 | Yockers. |
4 | HSA. |
5 | Berlin |
6 | Stockholm. |
7 | Reinhart, Neuerliche Fälschungen. |
8 | HSA. |
9 | Hill, Becker. |
10 | Reinhart, 1937, pl. XXXVII. |
11 | Johns Hopkins. |
12 | The Hague. |
13 | HSA. |
14 | Reinhart, Weitere Fälschungen. |
1 |
The names of the Visigothic mints are printed in boldface type.
|
(See key between pp. 148 and 149)