Alas, I can't supply any proper references as I am nowhere near my (or any other, for that matter)
library. However, by my perception, it is self-evident and common sense. Though barbarian nations did not use coined
money in their own internal economies or even necessarily for trade between themselves, the inter-civilisation trade that would have occured between the Germanic
foederati peoples (and even non-Roman aligned tribes) and the Empire would have occasionally necessitated or been facilitated by coined
money, whether that be via official coinage, or self-produced coinage intended to either deceive or
act in lieu of said official coinage.
To my knowledge, there is no evidence that the northern barbarians at this period were in the habit of using coined money of any kind.
There is in fact literary evidence to support the usage of
Roman coinage in 'barbarian' lands as early as the 1st Century AD.
Tacitus - 'Germania':
The Germans however adjoining to our frontiers value gold and silver for the purposes of commerce, and are wont to distinguish and prefer certain of our coins. They who live more remote are more primitive and simple in their dealings, and exchange one commodity for another. The
money which they like is the old and long known, that indented, or that impressed with a
chariot and two horses. Silver too is what they seek more than gold, from no fondness or preference, but because small pieces are more ready in purchasing things
cheap and common.
Victor Clark asserts:
So the Germanic people were quite used to using Roman money by the fourth century. Since these coins are struck, this would also mean that there were ‘mints’ that produced these ‘barbarous’ coins. Bastien even admitted that these coins came from “well organized work-shops.”5 This level of organization coupled with the designs seems to indicate 'barbarous' origins for these coins. If these coins were not minted by foederati in Roman territory or 'barbarians' across the borders, how long would an organized mint producing counterfeits in an area under Roman control have lasted? Counterfeiting was a crime that Rome did not look upon kindly. For my
part, and from professional experience of dealing with a
good number of
ancient counterfeits, there is a great stylistic difference that can only be explained by varying cultural perceptions. Coins which bear only vague resemblance to the
type they are intended to copy, with botched and/or nonsensical legends are to my mind quite clearly produced by people with little to no knowledge of Latin, and possessing little familiarity with the fairly common devices and designs. To a barbarian eye, time-honoured
Roman reverses would
still appear as nothing more than decoration to be (largely inaccurately) copied.
