| Issuer | Uncertain Germanic tribes |
|---|---|
| Year | 337-400 |
| Type | Standard circulation coin |
| Value | |
| Currency | Solidus (circa 301-750) |
| Composition | Bronze |
| Weight | 2.38 g |
| Diameter | 19 mm |
| Thickness | |
| Shape | Round (irregular) |
| Technique | Hammered |
| Orientation | |
| Engraver(s) | |
| In circulation to | |
| Reference(s) |
| Obverse description | Pearl-diademed, draped, and cuirassed bust facing right and surrounded by nonsensical legend. |
|---|---|
| Obverse script | Latin |
| Obverse lettering |
CONTHITINSOIIIVS AVG (Translation: [Constantius or Constantine] Augustus [Constantius or Constantine], August) |
| Reverse description | Castle under star and surrounded by legend. |
| Reverse script | Latin |
| Reverse lettering |
FHSTIH - THSALVG NSN (Translation: [Providentiae Caess] [Province of the two Caesars]) |
| Edge | Smooth. |
| Mint | |
| Mintage |
ND (337-400) IIOII - Imitating uncertain mint - ND (337-400) NSN - Imitating Nicomedia mint - |
| Numisquare ID | 4306903070 |
| Additional information |
Historical Context: This Æ piece, struck by uncertain Germanic tribes (337-400 AD), exemplifies "barbarian imitation" coinage, specifically issues of Constantine II or Constantius II. During this tumultuous period, Roman currency circulated widely along the *limes*. Tribal communities, lacking sophisticated mints, produced these imitations to fulfill local economic needs, supplementing official Roman issues. This phenomenon underscores the profound economic and cultural influence of the Roman Empire on its Germanic neighbors, adapting Roman currency for their own economies, rather than reflecting Roman imperial propaganda.
Artistry: Lacking centralized control and skilled artisans, this imitation falls under the "pseudo-imperial" or "barbarian" stylistic school; no engraver is identifiable. The bust facing right is characteristically simplified and crude, diverging significantly from Roman prototypes. Features are generalized, often disproportionate, and rendered with angularity, reflecting local tribal interpretations. The aesthetic prioritizes functional recognition over artistic fidelity, often resulting in an almost abstract representation of the imperial portrait.
Technical/Grading: As a barbarian imitation, technical execution is inherently variable and inferior. For grading this type, critical high-points include the clarity of the imperial diadem, the basic outline and definition of the bust, and any discernible facial features retaining a semblance of the Constantinian prototype, despite crude rendering. Strike quality, off-center or weak, and the preservation of the irregular flan are paramount. A relatively complete and legible (if stylized) portrait on a decent flan signifies a superior example within this category.