Failed to identify this particular Hadrian denarius

[monetanova]

Did I miss something? Look forward for any input.
Thanks!

[maridvnvm]

The style is not that of Rome and looks imitative. There is an outside chance it is an official eastern mint product.

[monetanova]

Could it be hybrid one?
The most puzzling is the reverse figure. I guess - Hadrian, in military dress, standing left, holding rudder on globe and reversed spear?

[rick2]

where was it found ?

if it comes from the balkans i d say its an imitative coin struck outside the border of the empire (albeit a very good one)

alternatively i d say its a forgery , a very well made struck forgery coming from a clandestine mint

IMHO its not an official mint that struck this

[monetanova]

Measures: 19.2 mm, 2.67 gms. And it is originated from Transylvania.

[ionutbd]

Is clear an imitative one. Thay are alot like this in the border area of Roman Empire

[monetanova]

Thank you. What about the proto coin or coins if it's a clear hybrid one? I would be happy to discover a prototype reverse, as for now there seems to be mixed elements from different reverses.

[maridvnvm]

The reverse type seems to be copying Clemetia sacrificing... The altar is not clear but there are lines where it should be.

[monetanova]

Thank you maridvnvm, it's seems to be the closest one
By mixed details I mean for example - part of the dress put over an elbow as with Fortuna depictions:

[rick2]

if we esclude a modern forgery

then my suggestion is that this is some kind of protomoney issued by the barbarians tribe living there

the only problem i have is that this one looks very very good for an imitative
the legend are clear and correct for example , when imitative have legend that do not make sense

[monetanova]

There seems to be even better imitations

[Joe Sermarini]

I am under the impression that the term protomoney describes objects that are not money but were used as a substitute for money (shells, catttle, ingots, etc.).  I believe a coin IS money, even if it is imitative and even if it was used by tribes outside the Roman empire.  I don't think imitatives should be described as protomoney.  

[rick2]

protocoinage then

for me they are the first stage of the formation of a coinage

if you look at other periods you see the same patterns , the arabs used byzantine coinage as their sample , the bulgarians the same , the serbians used venetians coins and so on


the point is that these barbarians came into contact with the empire , saw what the romans had to offer and decided to copy what suited them best , religion and coinage being prime examples.

it still goes on today with you guys being the major exporter of "democracy" around the world

[Rich Beale]

No, proto- as a prefix denotes the first of something. This cannot be termed protomoney or protocoinage, since there was coinage in existence long before this denarius was struck, and is an incorrect usage of the term. Cast electrum blobs or ingots are protomoney. Seashells are protomoney. Bronze dolphins are protomoney. This is an imitative, nothing more and nothing less.

[maridvnvm]

I mentioned the eastern issues as they are quite varied in style.

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=39488.0

Martin

[rick2]

This is an imitative, nothing more and nothing less.

that s the problem

for far too long we have treated these as imitative , somehow dismissing them

some of these coins are way too crude to be passed on as forgeries , noone would have accepted them as payment in the roman world
on the other hand you start to have the barbarians that after spending 2 centuries trading with the romans are starting to organize themselves from tribes into kingdoms and forming institutions
so where is their coinage ?

one case point in my view is the imitative VLPP struck around 320 , for me this is an issue that was struck by barbarians for barbarians

[Joe Sermarini]

I don't think the term imitative is dismissive in any way.  It simply means they imitated the types of another coinage.  They certainly were not forgeries.  They certainly were tribal coinage.  Yes, they were struck by barbarians for barbarians.  Still, they are imitative and not protomoney or protocoinage. 

[Snegovik]

VLPP

Sorry for an off-topic question, but what does VLPP stand for? Acronym finder suggests   Valsalva Leak Point Pressure, Virginia League for Planned Parenthood, Very Low-Pressure Pyrolysis, Veterans Life Prescription Plan and Valeur Liquidative par Part.

[maridvnvm]

VICTORIAE LAETAE PRINC PERP

[PeterD]

I don't believe that imitative coins had anything to do with 'barbarians' at all. The original term 'barbarous' referred to coins found in Britain and were believed to have been made by later 'barbarians' i.e. early Anglo-Saxons. This view was soon dismissed. They are now known to have been made and used in Roman Britain. Clearly they did circulate in a Roman province, even when badly made.

True they also circulated on the western borders of the empire, but there is no reason to think they were made by 'barbarians'. If so, there should be hoards of only imititatives when in fact they are normally found mixed with regular coins.

[Snegovik]

Thank you, maridvnvm

[rick2]

these imitative are a very large class , it s like saying roman coins or byzantine coins , as you know roman coins include republican , imperatorial , LRB (or late roman bronzes for those who do not like acronims ) provincial and so on.

we are simply classifying everything into the imitative class.

yes tetricus imitative circulated in britain and gaul but that s only part of the story
you have imitative IV century , like FTR , urbs roma , victoria avggnq imitative that circulated around the middle of the IV century in the same area that are associated with the fall of magnentius
you have magnentius imitative themselves
you have VLPP which are a completely different class and for me they originate outside the danube
you have some marcus aurelius asses that are imitative
you have vandals coinage imitating V century nummi

yet we tend to bang them on in the same class

when we should be spending more time trying to understand them

here are some examples

http://www.museum.com.ua/expo/varvar_en.html

plus if you study some of the history of these "barbarians" you see that they settled around the time of these imitatives and they start to evolve , organizing themselves into kingdoms.

for example the goths by the time of valens already had a king and a kingdom

for Joe

we can call it whatever we like proto coinage is a term i used and thought it fitted the description as it means the first coinage used by   a distinctive set of people.

[Rich Beale]

There are of course two sides to this argument:

some of these coins are way too crude to be passed on as forgeries , noone would have accepted them as payment in the roman world
on the other hand you start to have the barbarians that after spending 2 centuries trading with the romans are starting to organize themselves from tribes into kingdoms and forming institutions
so where is their coinage ?

one case point in my view is the imitative VLPP struck around 320 , for me this is an issue that was struck by barbarians for barbarians

People then as now, tend not to pay too much attention to the coins in their pockets. Forgeries did circulate, many of them quite crude. The tribes on the northern frontiers did not have advanced institutions as the Romans would understand them, and certainly they had little requirement for centralised mints when it was simpler to use the abundant Roman coinage.  

I don't believe that imitative coins had anything to do with 'barbarians' at all. The original term 'barbarous' referred to coins found in Britain and were believed to have been made by later 'barbarians' i.e. early Anglo-Saxons. This view was soon dismissed. They are now known to have been made and used in Roman Britain. Clearly they did circulate in a Roman province, even when badly made.

True they also circulated on the western borders of the empire, but there is no reason to think they were made by 'barbarians'. If so, there should be hoards of only imititatives when in fact they are normally found mixed with regular coins.

Do not forget that the Celtic tribes struck imitative tetradrachms much as the Danubians later struck imitative Republican denarii, and while it is certainly likely that localised minting operations did exist in the time of Hadrian to turn bullion into a readily acceptable form for trade with Roman merchants, due to the lack of contextual evidence or recorded hoards, it is very difficult to determine if these coins were produced within the empire or outside of its borders.

Certainly the case can be made that imitatives may derive from both counterfeiters and foreign tribes, however it would be difficult, if not impossible, to say with any certainty what ratio of such imitatives derive from either source.

[Rich Beale]

yet we tend to bang them on in the same class
when we should be spending more time trying to understand them

But you cannot determine their source. That is precisely the reason they are referred to as imitatives, and tend to be lumped under this generic heading.

plus if you study some of the history of these "barbarians" you see that they settled around the time of these imitatives and they start to evolve , organizing themselves into kingdoms.

for example the goths by the time of valens already had a king and a kingdom

That does not mean that you can jump to the conclusion that they must have operated their own 'official' mints.

we can call it whatever we like proto coinage is a term i used and thought it fitted the description as it means the first coinage used by   a distinctive set of people.

In this case you should simply refer to such a thing as the earliest coinage of 'xxx' people, tribe or culture, just to be clearly understood by others. 

[rick2]

I don't think the term imitative is dismissive in any way.  It simply means they imitated the types of another coinage.  They certainly were not forgeries.  They certainly were tribal coinage.  Yes, they were struck by barbarians for barbarians.  Still, they are imitative and not protomoney or protocoinage. 

just to expand a bit more

we have other classes of this type of coinage

the arab - byzantine is a great example
these are the coins that the first umayyad caliphs issued for their tribesman yet we do not call them imitative

when the umayyad caliphate cames into existence they issue coins that imitates the byzantine counterpart , so you have gold and copper coins.
only after 80AH or 700ad they reform the coinage and start to issue their own types

as you know islam forbids idolatry and assumes that the power stems from god and not from the caliph, and this is why no pictures is usually found on islamic coins (there are some exceptions of course but 99% of islamic coins have legends only)
yet some of these coins carry the figure of the caliph just to make them look like the byzantine ones

another example is the serbian and bulgarian issue of the venetian grosso

another is the celtic imitation of greek macedonian copper of the III and II century BC

and finally even the mighty US dollar started out as an imitative coinage as it was imitating the spanish piece of 8
which at the time was the most widely used currency in the world

even the $ sign is thought to originate form the ribbon that went around the pillar of hercules

so for this i think it s wise to assume that these "barbarians" once they came into contact with mighty rome started to copy and assimilate whatever was needed