Someone correct me if my understanding is still incorrect. After the Romans lost influence in Northern Italy and Gaul for the last time the Franks and Lombards were in the area. The Franks issued coinage in the 6th century that was a respectible facsimilie of Byzantine types but that quickly degraded. By the 8th century the Merovingians and later Carolignians as well as the Continental Anglo-Saxons issued really cruddy coins that can be barely recognized as Byzantine knock offs. Out of these coins grew the modern pennies and then in the Renaissance the artistry slowly got better.

As i understand it that's about it.

Although i really like some of the crude early pennies. The simplicity just wins me over... which shocks me more than anyone else. I think the history does more than the design generally anyhow.

I agree, unless I'm staring right at one of those Baktrian tetradrachms. But by tracing the artistic styles in western coin portraiture through my collection I can get both cohesion and variety. The trouble will be finding good representative samples from the 14th and 15th century. The question of who influences who seems to get a bit muddled.

I really don't know what you are looking for here Jorg, but the Carolingian coinage, especially the third issue of 793-4 ad (Cross/ Monogram type) and the portrait issues are as far removed from being `really cruddy' as you can possibly get (?)

Far superior to any Byzantine coinage i've seen to date.

In fact, the coinage of Pepin the Short, father of Charlemagne (752-768) is superior to Byzantine coinage IMHO.

The Merovingian coinage up to Pepin's time can be a bit `hit and miss' as far as
aesthetics are concerned. By the way, most of the 4000 known Merovingian silver denier types came from a hoard found at Cimiez near Marseilles in 1850. Some are crude, but certainly not cruddy.

As an aside, much of the gold coinage of the 7th century was derived from the design of the Byzantine solidi of Heraclius (610 -641 ad) . That is, a cross on a base. These were counterfeited in silver or even issued in low quality / debased gold . When silver coinage was issued in France circa 670 ad several of the new coins of that same design carried the denomination DINARIOS in the legend. That is, the start of the `silver penny'. (?)

(reference JN Roberts' `The Silver Coinage of Medieval France')

Ian

Ian, I am just trying to sketch the development of coinage style from the 6th to the 15th centuries. My high level goal is to identify were and when there was a significant styl;e change (new denominations are a bonus) and that put that coins on my future "To Buy" list. So at a high level I might get a 6th century Frankish piece as well as the Byzantine piece it is based on. A portrait of Pepin or Charlemagne would definitley be a good next step as would an 8th century Saxon coin. Going forward, I'd look for those coins that really show a shift from their predecessors. Someone just brough the Groat of James III of Scottland to my attention as being the first Renaissance coin art in Britain.

Basically I'm window shopping for my future collection

And you are correct I should not use the term cruddy. I think abstract might be a batter description.

Portrait coins of Charlemagne will be a little hard to come by unless you have a really deep pockets. You can find an illustration of one at:

http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/coins/coin.../euro/euro.html

or

http://www.geldmuseum.de/sonder/sonder_kar...r_grosse.en.php

If you are more on a budget like mine, you can always go for something like my prize (see the image below). Okay, its chipped and probably looks a little cruddy, but its cool with tons of history from my perspective. I could have spent 3 to 5 times more and acquired a really nice piece, but the style doesn't get much better. Charlemagne's father's coins are even more scarce, but they run about the same in price.

The French denier that became the standard denier, pfennig, or penny of the middle ages began from these roots.

I don't think I have the budget for the Charlemagne portrait coin right now. Maybe Pepin or one of his close successors is a bit less pricey...

Is there a difference in the development of the Frankish denier and the Saxon sceat?

Take a look at Tom Oberhot's sampler of French coinage:

http://home.eckerd.edu/~oberhot/froy.htm

You won't find many portraits there, although there are portraits spread throughout the series. Portraits of the Carolingian period are all rare and don't appear to be realistic (that's a mild way of saying they are really cruddy!).

For a good overview of many Carolingian coins, try Tom's Collection Idéale des Monnaies Carolingiennes:

http://home.eckerd.edu/~oberhot/Ccarol.htm

The lack of variation in design is partly a product of establishing a uniform coinage in a time and place when many people held coining rights, partly a product of the technology in use and a small number of masters in relation to mints, and in part of product of the fact that their eye for the potential of coin arts basically sucked. Nevertheless, they grow on you and I'm hooked.

You might want to substitute a cool Charlemagne monogram such as the entry for Depeyrot 622 on Tom's list (and check out entry 607 with the portrait of Charlemagne's son, Louis the Pious, and the hammers and dies used to strike coins - way cool and I want one, rare, but they come up now and again and would probably run $3,000 to $4,000 depending on quality - out of my league everytime I've had the chance).

Bill

Thanks for the links I'll have to delve into them some more. There's a few periods where the portraits run $5k or even $10k, I'll put these on the bottom of my list. Maybe in ten years I'll have that kind of money

When speaking of `portrait coinage' of the Carolingian period, you are really only talking about Charlemagne and Louis the Pious. Sure, there were one or two of Louis the Fourth, but that's basically it. I've not seen any `original' portrait coins of Charles the Bald or Charles the Simple, although they each re-issued the protrait coins of Charlemagne.

Now, IF you base your opinion of the portraiture coinage of the `Carolingians' based upon the images in the links you provide, then I can understand your statement concerning `cruddy'. However, of the sixteen or so different portrait types of Louis the Pious that could have been shown the very extreme abstract/ gross caricature type of Toulouse is given prominence, creating the somewhat skewed impression that they are ALL of the same ilk. That is far from the case. For example, what about the classical style bust of Louis the Pious that appeared on the coinage of Arles? It continued the Charlemagne fine portrait style, as did others (Sens and Quentovic for example). Cruddy? No way!

Ian

[quote=Ian,Dec 24 2005, 02:12 AM]
For example, what about the classical style bust of Louis the Pious that appeared on the coinage of Arles? It continued the Charlemagne fine portrait style, as did others (Sens and Quentovic for example). Cruddy? No way!


I agree, but these are not the best examples of the skilled die engraver creating realistic portraits. That said, it is the period that I'm attracted to and collect. I don't really think they are "cruddy," but my non-collecting friends don't see much of artistic interest except in a polite way of acknowledging the age and history. I believe they are important, however, for studying the evolution and use of imagery. The portraits just weren't the most important aspect of he coinage at this point in time and that doesn't really have much bearing on the skill of the engraver one way or the other. Look for example at Palaeolithic art. The cave paintings of France are exceptional in their ability to capture the image of animals whether using extreme naturalistic detail or the simple use of the cave wall and a few lines to emphasize natural shapes in the wall. Depictions of humans, on the other hand, are extremely simple and poorly done. There are a few exceptions and one humorous drawing of a male that incorporates a flow of white calcium in a suggestive manner, but the highly skilled artists didn't invest much of their talent in human portraiture. I have to believe that the medieval engravers likewise had little interest in creating portraits because they are so rare. The few coins with portraits are exceptions in an otherwise prolific series of coins.

Bill

The portrait coinage of the time is indeed practically non existant. As to the skills of the die engravers..well it's all relative really, isn't it? Cruddy in comparison to what?

Jorg's original post included "By the 8th century the Merovingians and later Carolignians as well as the Continental Anglo-Saxons issued really cruddy coins that can be barely recognized as Byzantine knock offs". My point is that the comparator was presented as `Byzantine' and as such, while much of the Merovingian coinage may well have been `cruddy' in comparison to Byzantine, the same cannot really be said for the Carolingian coinages.

My contention is that Charlemagne's third and fourth coinage would certainly hold it's own against any Byzantine coinage and was not `cruddy' in comparison. However, I do have to agree that its artistic merits pale in comparison to the much more modern gothic crown of Queen Victoria, or the much earlier coinage of Magna Graecia.

The context comparator was however `Byzantine'.

Ian

Let me elaborate a little on the term cruddy. It really comes from reading auction catalogs where the barbarian, imitative issues are refferred to as inferior, abstract, degraded and so on. I went along with this because it was the definition on top of my head and it works fairly well to communicate the essence of what is meant to a modern 21st century ready.

That said, designs by all sorts of cultures considered barbaric and described as cruddy, abstract, and so in, should really be looked at in context. The way we look at an image is not the way other people looked at an image. The people who used the coins may have been seeing as lifelike a portrait in the coin we see as odd and abstract as we do in our modern idealized pieces.

My point is:

The term `cruddy' as defined above does not apply to most coins of the early Carolingian period. The assumptions made in your original post are incorrect. The non portrait coinage is (IMHO) not as `cruddy' as most Byzantine coinages (your comparator). However if we stick with `portrait' coinages then a) there wasn't a lot of stuff to compare like with like in the first place but of the stuff that there is, very few types fall into the definition. There are far more types (not necessarily in quantum for type) that are of classic style than other. As such I still fail to see how anyone could look at coinage of the Carolingian period and conclude that they are `cruddy' by any definition in comparison to Byzantine coinage.



Again, in the context of your original post, the portrait coinage of the Carolingians is defined by about 25 different coin types the vast majority being those of Charlemagne. Of that number a couple (most notably the Toulouse mint example of Louis le Pieux) are arguably `cruddy' by your definition and probably reflect the differences in `talent' available for the task at the various mints. The others however look to me to be a match for any Byzantine piece. I'm not saying that any of them are a match for a Syracusan dekadrachm, only that the majority would give Byzantine coinage a run for its money. The early non portrait coins of the period, especially Charlemagnes third coinage most definitely could not be categorised as `cruddy', but as time goes by (ie a few rulers later) the artistic consideration given to coinage certainly diminished.

Sadly, there's not enough good examples of the coinage left that would enable you to pop round to the corner shop and see for yourself. The only portrait ones i've ever seen are in books and in museums.

I beg to differ, Byzantine coinage is much more appealing

Just kidding. I haven't looked at Charlemagne and the Carolignian portraits because they will likely be out of my price range for quite some time. In the future I will stay away from certain terms as well . Cruddy is a bad word for a numismatist to use for ANY coin.

Right now I am seriously contemplating this Lombard piece.

Lobard Half Siliqua

My best guess is that it will go between $1000 and $1200. But it is so vert interesting

I like the fullness of the description....oh yes, AND the coin.

Nice well struck example, nicely centred. OUCH!!....that IS going to be expensive and probably just out of my price range too. Besides if I had that amount of spare readdies hanging around i'd probably buy something from Akragas or around those parts.

Ian

Yeah, the final price will be one bidding increment above whatever I put down.

I hate those floor bidders

I think that this coin speaks volumes:
http://www.khm.at/system2E.html?/staticE/page631.html

You can see that they had the ability to do good work, but you can also see that this is only an improvement on a stylized tradition. The outline of the face, especially the nose, can be found on silver pennies of the preceding centuries.

I believe also that Bill's point is cogent. To me, it has been too easy to pass off the art of the Dark Ages and Middle Ages as being crude and uninteresting and then to excuse that on the ground that those people did not value life on Earth. That is true, of course: they did not. It would be 1000 years before Hobbes would declare life "cruel, brutish, and short" but that sums it up well enough for the Dark Ages.

Nonetheless, I now consider that to be necessarily unfair. The coins (and other artifacts) of ages past still existed. One of sad ironies of the Dark Ages is that those Germanic warlords -- the Gunthers and Hagens and even the Siegfrieds -- amassed large piles of gold and silver "stuff" like dragons guarding hoards, while the world around them perished from poverty. They did not know how to turn money into wealth. But they had the money -- and the goblets and the plates and the jewelry -- so they knew what it looked like. It was not that they could not reproduce it, but that they chose not to.

All of this is to say that if you can divide the timeline into artistic styles -- (Romanesque is an easy one: look at the court at Aix-la-Chapelle) -- then will find necessarily that the coinage follows the same models.

We do not pay much attention in the mainstream to money as SEMATA as symbols or signs. If the die cutter is working for a living emperor, then the portrait will be more lively than if the cutter is merely attaching a sign to an object. (Old traffic lights used to have the words STOP and GO cut into the lamp. Now we know what red and green stand for and we don't do that anymore.)

Another analogy is that when literacy was lost, rulers did not sign their names, but used a MONOGRAM which they could copy and which stood for their names. I believe that many modern Germans still do this. I have seen businessmen and engineers who put down some fancy scribble on a piece of paper and then, realiizing that they are working with Americans, laboriously write out their actual names. Are they illiterate? ... or are they only following a tradition?

I ad an interesting discussion via email with a coin dealer about the differences in designs. What he helped me realize is that the images we see on coins are not the images people saw when the coins were made. The way our braisn process imagery is different that that of people and cultures that have come before our time. You can take certain Celtic and Sasanian coins that look abstract rotate them and see a portrait more along the lines of what we would expect. The Celts and Sasanians probably saw the portrait without any need rotation. Similarly there are forgeries that are accepted in their own time only to be condemned in latter decades. The style of those forgeries looked correct but to latter people it looks completely different. Also, children and adults shown the same image will not always see the same thing. Our brains are impacted by our cultures and so to judge art with our eyes is incomplete. The same is true in music. Listening to more than one Gregorian chant can seem quite repetaive and boring, the differences completely lost on the modern man. But to the medieval churchgoer the experience was likely much more spiritual because they were focused on different elements.

Who told you that?

The reason I ask is that only now is this becoming more widely understood. The discoverer was Geraldine Chimirri-Russell. (See http://traumwerk.stanford.edu:3455/SeeingThePast/324)

Celtic coins are not "Picassos" or "crude" or "abstract" anything of the kind. They were meant to be view not flat-on, but edge-on. Apparently, this was true of other cultures as well.

I collect holed coins and I am fascinated by the ones holed at right angles to the images. I can see wanting Victoria upright ... and OK, you don't like her, so you hole the coin with the Shield or St. George upright and her upsidedown. But at right angles to both? That tells me that whoever holed the coin probably did not perceive the images, but only saw abstract lines.

This Celtic thing may happen to our coins in the near future, once the designers understand what G C-R has uncovered and explained.

Robert K of Calgary Coins. He is dangerously well informed. Apparently the Inuit also have different viewpoints. They make statues of three animails at once that we can see only one at a time of as we rotate the piece but they can see all three animails at once. Interesting ideas.

The tricky part will probably be understanding the why. I do see that the position ans size of the eye in relation to the profile makes a huge difference in how the portrait is perceived.

Being in Calgary, he is also dangerously close to Geraldine Chimirri-Russell at the Nickle Arts Museum of the University of Calgary. Robert made the first day of the conference in November 2004, but could not stay for more, unfortunately.

I posted a longer write-up to RCC, partly in response to Kerry's Reply from the Editor to my Letter in the December Celator. G C-R has been speaking on this subject for a couple of years. The people at the conferences hear her. Sometimes, there are published procedings. So, it was only a matter of time before word got out.

Regarding the Traumwerk essay, I was impressed with the additional information about Arabian, etc., issues.

Yes, I noticed that he was geographically close to that web page's source.

I haven't seen the December Celator yet, I'll probably get two months at once.

This is a hugely fascinating topic. It makes me wonder if there are any cultural similarities and differences evidnced in the differing art styles. If our coinage looks much like that of 2nd century Rome what does it mean. If the Arabians and Celts issued almost identical looking designs does it mean they thought the same way about life, or just a part of life?

Thank you Jorg for starting an excellent thread, one that captures so many elements of my collecting interests (they include Celtic iconography, visual perception in prehistoric art, etc.). But, this post returns to the earlier part of the thread. I agree with Ian (as I hope I conveyed earlier) that "cruddy" is an inappropriate term. He mentioned one of the few earlier portrait coins, that of Louis IV issued in Chinon. I've inserted a scan from Poey d'Avant of the basic coin (they come on the market from time-to-time, again they've always been beyond my budget at the time). They are of interest to me for the series they spawned in the area of Blois, Chartres, Châteaudun and surrounding area to a lessor extent. In addition to the Louis IV portrait coin, I've included Poey d'Avant's illustration of the degenerate portrait on a denier of Blois (Edues II 996-1037).

[attachmentid=917][attachmentid=918]

I received an example of the Eudes II denier yesterday that I purchased in Jean Elsen's Auction 86. I have concentrated my interests in medieval France around the series because the evolution of the portrait and its continued abstraction over the next several hundred years makes for an excellent study of artistic evolution, political maneuvering, and feudal economics. There are several earlier stages in the evolution of Louis into the abstract portrait, but the Edues II denier is stylistically close to the first issue of Blois a few years earlier. All the early coins in the series are very rare to unique, but some are collectible. The denier pictured below is the most expensive purchase I've made in the series (under $1,000) with other equally rare pieces running a few hundred dollars to less than $100 (not many specialize in this topic). I included the illustration above because the toning/corrosion on the obverse somewhat obscures the protrait.



To my eye, these are beautiful coins for the simplicity of the basic punches made to produce the image and the wonderfully abstract result. The image paid service to the legitimacy of the royal lineage (and thereby the local political legitimacy of the count), while the abstract imagery maintained a distance that supported local independence from the royal crown. It was a delicate balance to maintain. While my topic is specialized in a relatively narrow time and space, your broader interest should make for a fascinating collection and sample of artistic norms across different cultures and times.

Excellant thread. I am learning a lot from this, in fact I have to keep looking things up to know what you are talking about.

Firstly, a nice coin acquisition you have made Bill. I'm envious

Quick question though, as to the `Louis IV' image.... isn't that Lothaire as opposed to Louis IV (?)

On the Louis IV portrait coin I know of from Chinon the bust is much fatter and a bit more abstract and carries the legend `LUDOVICUS REX'. Presumably the legend on the obverse being put there to tie in the portrait as being that of the current king at the time since it was the first new regal portrait to appear on a french coin for over 100 years. You probably have much more data on that than I do though (I don't have a copy of Poet D'Avant on hand) so i'd appreciate any data you can provide.

I do know that there was a portrait issue for Lothaire at Chinon but don't have an image of it. Does Poet D'avant provide any?

It's strange but for me the abstract image of Eudes reminds me vaguely of the tribal coinage of the Aedui (Auvergne area) just before and around the time of Julius Caesar. Again, simplistic but definitive design and artistry.

Ian

Those are some nice coins Bill. Those two would be excellent additions for me as well, the change they show is fantastic. I am glad the types aren't all too expensive either; while patience is a virtue it is fun to buy at least a few coins now and then. I will add these to my list as one of the many branches of design. Hopefully, over time, I will at least be able to go two layers deep.

Compare that one from 1150 AD with this one from 1550:

http://www.money.org/AM/Images//charles5osm3.jpg

Now tell me, which one is "medieval" and which is "Renaissance" or "Classical" or whatever...

It reminds me of the proposed Dollar coin from Gasparro of the Flowing Hair design. The comment here from Jorge -- yea said as well by others --that it was th coin that should have been. I disagree. The Flowing Hair motif is from an earlier time. As much as we like those classic American type coins, we have to leave them behind and embrace a graphical vocabulary for the current century

I agree in general that the coinage designs of the past belong there, I'm sure if we let them, today's artists could do better. However, the SBA and Sacagawea are bad enough that I rather see an old idea rehashed than a bad new one.

Depeyrot lists a single portrait coin from Chinon with Lothaire's name, but provides no illustration, weight, etc. He cites Brussels as the location of the coin. The coin is not in Poey d'Avant. The coin I included is more appropriately cataloged as Chinon-Tours, but it is one of several versions of ostensibly the same design. The Tours issues have Tours on the obverse with the bust. The Chinon issues have Louis's name. Both are typically listed as examples of the original designs in the stylistic evolution. Belaubre shows the Tours coin as the first in the series, the Louis coin of Chinon as the second. My preference is the Tours coin as the Fecamp hoard has examples of both plus a Tours inscribed coin where the bust is clearly rendered much as the bust on the later deniers of Bois. New finds could change this history once again, but that is the current state of evolution of the designs as I understand them today. (By the way, there are two early Vendôme deniers that fit in this early sequence as well.)

I've just started pulling my research notes together in an attempt to better understand these coins. I've got about 25 in my collection as of now and have finally reached a point where I can start trying to understand what I'm reading while refering to real coins. Its far from comprehensive, but enough variety to begin testing some ideas.

Thanks for the data Bill.

Just so everyone can see what we are talking about in relation to some of the Carolingian portrait coinage, here's links to scans I have made from Jim Roberts book purely for this educational purpose. I'll keep the links open for 24 hrs.

The first is those of Charlemagne


The second is those of Louis the Pious


The third is the only one I was aware of from Chinon mint.


Ian

Now you are getting closer to my kinda thing... the mention of Blois dragged me out of my ivory tower.

That bottom coin with it's abstract imagery looks not unlike the coins being produced in other places in Northern Europe a century or so later. You're getting real close to dragging me into this thread... cue to Ian.

Oh...go on then. Stephen..where art thou?

Ah Steve's alright, it's the other one you've not got to get me started on...

Steve will be along shortly.

I thought I would start at the top though ....after all he does have a nice portrait once you suss it out....

Blois Humbug! Pah Winchester! A pox upon thee

Ian

You leave my bishop friend alone... d'yer hear?


Well i don't think much to the red background experiment i did. My computer screen is also set on dark it seems, so it might look a bit 'pasty' on everyone else's. Either that or my monitor at work is set far, far too bright.

What does it look like when you view it edge-on?
Do those outsized lips take on a different appearance?

No, nothing there. The relief is really too low for much to happen. Your post did get me looking a little closer at my Celtic pieces. Nothing surprising on most of them that I didn't already know. I did take a close look at a piece of the Bellovaci, 1st century B.C., running man style. My piece does not match any shown in the catalogs that I have. Its not surprising since the coin appears in many different minor varities. Despite the fact that I've photographed it (I need to give it one more go before I'm ready post an image) and studying it, I've always been trying to link it up with a catalog entry. The running man is surrounded by annulets or rings and has a braid draped down the back of the head. He's running towards another annulet and beaded design (or so I've always thought), but on closer inspection as I turned it in the light, I realized I was looking at a bird. Its easy to see now and very obvious, but I never noticed it before. Its a good lesson to sometimes break convention in how we look at our coins in order to be able to really see them.

I'm reminded of some Chumash rock art sites in southern California (one of my areas of specialty in prehistoric art). At a site called Condor Cave, there is a painting in red and white of a frog with long antennae. It is very static, upper legs straight up, lower legs straight down. But, its painted in a curved pocket in the sandstone. Step to one side and look again, it is leaping off the rock, an active rather than static image.

So, Jorge -- love the new avatar -- what does that look like when you rotate it and look at it edge-on?

Well now it looks the same to me either way. Turning it on edge did help me see the lips and the face better. but I think it's pretty clear. What do you see?

If the celtic coin I got was fully struck I think the second eye would be visible edge on.