thrasemundus between thomsen and peiresc : an enquiry into the pedigree of some merovingian coins /...

8/10/2019 Thrasemundus between Thomsen and Peiresc : an enquiry into the pedigree of some Merovingian coins / Arent Pol

1/12

81

Trasemundus between Tomsen and

Peiresc: an enquiry into the pedigreeof some Merovingian coins

of the place of production, and so the (still mostlydiademed) bust was changed into an anonymousone. Although the execution of the designs on thesewestern coins varied considerably, in the end it allcame to the same general picture. And yet sometimesanother variation made its appearance.1

Te Franks, in their national series of Meroving-ian gold coinage, a phase that lasted from c.585 toc.675, saw a few examples of tremissesproduced bydie cutters who were partly inspired by much oldercoins. One of such inspired coins is a unique tre-missisof oulouse which shows a she-wolf sucklingtwo children on the reverse. It was copied after a lateRoman bronze coin of the Urbs Roma type, strucksome three centuries earlier.2At the very other end ofthe Frankish realm, another variety was produced bythe Maastricht monetariusTrasemundus: a tremissiswith an obverse on which the usual (bare headed,diademed) bust was replaced by a non-conventionalbust wearing a helmet. Tis variety is an exact copyof the design on the obverse of the same Romancoin type that supplied the oulouse wolf and twinsreverse, namely a small bronze of Constantine the

1 Grierson/Blackburn 1986, 118-120; Lafaurie 1967,

43-46.

2 HOLOSAFI / MAGNOMONIARIO: Lafaurie 1969

and Lafaurie 1974, 138, 143 no. 7.

Arent Pol

Only four specimens are nowadays known of aMerovingian tremissis of Maastricht of a rare typewith a helmeted bust on the obverse copied after alate Roman coin. All four of these specimens weredocumented for the first time between 1868 and2004, but in fact the type itself was already described

before the 19th century. Apparently the famousFrench scholar Peiresc was presented with a smallgold coin of a similar description by the duke of

Aarschot in 1606. Is this a fifth specimen of the type,or is it identical with one of the four existing pieces,namely the coin now preserved in Copenhagen? In early medieval Western Europe, during thesixth and seventh centuries, coinage was character-ized by its uniformity in denomination and design.In most cases only small gold coins, the so-calledtremisses (singular tremissis,equalling a third of asolidus) were produced and they all showed a buston the obverse and either a standing Victory or across on the reverse. Ostrogoths, Burgundians, Visi-goths, Franks and Frisians alike generally adheredto the example supplied by the Byzantine emperor,whose status was very high in the Germanic Westand whose coins circulated there as well. On theimitations the (diademed) bust was originally sur-rounded by a legend that showed a more or lessblundered version of the emperors name. Tis ele-ment was later abandoned in favour of the name

65377_jorgen steen jensen_001-126_.indd 81 15-11-2007 14:11:36


2/12

Arent Pol

82

Great that was struck in numerous mints in the years330-335.3(Figs. 1-2)

Te four Maastricht tremisses with helmeted bustdiscussed here one of them once in the collectionof the Danish numismatist Christian Jrgen Tom-sen and now preserved in the Royal Collection ofCoins and Medals at Copenhagen were all struck

from the same obverse and reverse dies. (Figs. 3-6) On these Maastricht tremisses the obverse leg-end is segmented and runs clockwise, starting be-hind the head with two characters, continuing withthe larger part of the legend in front of the faceand ending with one character on top of the hel-met: RIECOFI. It consists of two wordsand should be read as RIECO FI (struck atMaastricht). On the reverse the cross over a globeis accompanied by two pellets. Its legend runsNRASEMVNDVSM; this should be understoodas HRASEMVNDVS Monetarius (moneyer

Trasemundus), the letter N in the name of themoneyer being an indifferently shaped H.4Althoughnot all four specimens are equally well preserved the Copenhagen and Mnster copies seem to showsome wear and tear it is still possible to concludethat all were struck when the upper and lower dies

were in the same condition. Especially the die-crackon the reverse running as a thin oblique line overthe globe can clearly be distinguished on all fourspecimens. In Maastricht, Trasemundus was one out oftwelve moneyers active there in the nine decades orso between the late 6th and the second half of the7th century. Tis number, together with the fact

3 Outside the Frankish realm, in Anglo-Saxon Eng-

land at the same time another die-cutter was in-

spired by a coin of the 4th-century caesar Crispus

showing a helmet as well: Gannon 2003, 51-54.

4 Felder 2003, 326 refers to a different type of the

same moneyer (Prou 1175-1176 = Belfort 4435)

that shows the same orthography.

that more than 170 original Maastricht tremisseshave survived to the present day, makes it one of themore important mints in the Frankish empire anda very important one in its northern periphery. OfTrasemundus 15 coins are recorded which seem tobe originals, whilst a number even bigger than that

must be labelled as imitations made elsewhere. Sothis moneyer had a slightly lower than average sharein the output of the Maastricht mint, and it almostcompletely consisted of (varieties of) the usual type.ypology and comparison of the contents of hoardssuggest a dating of Trasemundus activity aroundthe middle of the first half of the 7th century.5Teanalysis of the gold content of 14 out of 15 originalsseems to confirm this finding: they range from 89 %to 72 %, the median being 79 %.6Te two elementsin this moneyers name at first sight seem to havea somewhat contradictory connotation: RASE- is

probably related to the gothic and old-nordic rasawhich means drohend strmen, whilst MVND-essentially stands for Beschtzer.7

Although in earlier periods the tremissesof riec-tum were often ascribed to Utrecht (raiectum adRhenam) and even in Belfort the material is clas-sified partly under Utrecht and partly under Maas-tricht (raiectum ad Mosam), there has since longbeen a widely shared consensus that it is the latterplace where these coins were produced.8

As remarked above, it happened only very rarelythat 7th-century Frankish die-cutters chose a non-

5 Pol 1995, 188 and 194-195.

6 Unpublished research by the present author.

7 Felder 2003, 268-270, 326; in footnote 1808

other links are given that relate to wtend and

drohend.

8 Grierson & Blackburn 1986, 136-137; after Bel-

forts volume III appeared, a dispute arose between

Belfort, Cumont and Stephanik, which was settled

definitively in favour of Maastricht.

Fig. 1. Franks, tremissisc. 600, Toulouse / moneyer Magno

Paris. Bibliothque Nationale de France: inv. 1969-444Fig. 2. Roman Empire, Constantine the Great 307-337, small

bronze, Lugdunum 330-335: VRBS ROMA

Utrecht, Geldmuseum: inv. 1950-0187



3/12

hrasemundus

83

standard design and the variety discussed here is theonly example of this phenomenon in the whole ofthe Maastricht series. On an object of quite distinctcharacter, a piece of jewellery in the (round) shape ofa bracteate dating from a slightly earlier period, thevery same Roman coin type is encountered.9Herethe helmeted bust and the she-wolf with twins bothare combined in the obverse design. Te reason why

9 Hines & Odenstedt 1987; Gannon 2003, 145-146.

the maker chose this option seems to lie in the factthat on the always uniface bracteates only one sideis available (Fig. 7) Of a (slightly) later date than the Trasemundus

tremissesare some gold and silver coins struck inAnglo-Saxon England which also show reminiscenses

of older Roman copper coins with a helmeted headand a wolf and twins, one of the caesar Crispus andanother of the general Urbs Roma type.10Neitherthese coins nor the Undley bracteate bear a directrelationship with the Maastricht coins, but they doshow us that in the early medieval period the copy-ing of a coin design from an older example was notan isolated phenomenon but was practised fromtime to time outside the Frankish world as well. Having discussed the outer appearance of thehelmeted Trasemundus, we should now have alook at the background of the four individual coinsin this group that are known to us today. wo speci-mens turned up in the 19th, one in the 20th andone in the 21st century. Te (approximate) findspotand (approximate) year of the find is known of threeof the coins only the pedigree of the Copenhagenone is not flawless.

10 Gannon 2003, 51-54 and 145-147.

Fig. 3. Copenhagen, Nationalmuseet: inv. ( Thomsen 1157).

gold 1,27g 13mm 6h 80 %

Fig. 4. Brussel, Koninklijke Bibliotheek: inv. (Vanhoudt 84).

gold 1,26g 13mm 6h 76 %

Fig. 5. Mnster, Westflisches Landesmuseum fr Kunst- und

Kulturgeschichte: inv. 18954 Mz.gold 1,24g 13mm 12h 82 %

Fig. 6. Zurich, private collection dr D. Faltin.

gold 1,29g 13mm 12h unknown % (not yet analysed)

Fig. 7. Bracteate, probably North German or South Scandinavian,

5th century; found 1981 at Undley Common near Lakenheath,

Suffolk London, British Museum: inv. P&E 1984, 11-1, 1

gold 2,24g 23mm

the runic inscription gaegogae maga medupossibly means [this

bracteate representing] a she-wolf [is] reward to a relative

copyright Trustees of The British Museum



4/12

Arent Pol

84

Copenhagen-NM:

Acquired in 1868, ex Tomsen-collection.Te numismatist Christian Jrgensen Tomsen,collector and director of the Royal Collection of

Coins and Medals, died in 1865 without leaving asingle clue as to when and where he bought the coinfor his private collection (Erslev 1873-1876, vol. I,99 no. 1157); Tomsen visited Paris several timesbetween 1842 and 186111and on one of these oc-casions he might have come across it. At least thereseems to be a Paris connection in the drawing thatis found in a recueil de dessins (brought togetherby Anatole de Barthelemy over several decades inthe 19th century) where underneath the illustrationis written or, IVECO FI.. HRASEMVNDVS

M, Tomsen.12

Brussel-KBB:

Acquired in 1884, ex Garthe-collection (at auc-tion Heberle / Lempertz, Cologne 10 Sept. 1884no. 3716) and said to have been found in the vicinityof Dsseldorf some 40 years earlier (Cumont 1885,70-72 pl. V.3; Serrure 1886, 43 pl. VI.6; Belfort1892-1895, no. 4436; Vanhoudt 1982, 126 no. 84;Pol 1995, 196 no. 4).

Mnster-WLKK:

Acquired in 1965, ex coin dealer H. Tormann,Osnabrck, probably found not long before inEmsland or Ostfriesland, possibly region Aschen-dorf13(Berghaus 1980, 173 no. 8).

Zrich private collectiondr D. Faltin:

Acquired in 2003, ex finder: found 2003 at the so-called South Lincolnshire productive site (Bruins

11 Jrgen Steen Jensen has no recollection of the coin

being mentioned in Tomsens correspondence

(personal communication 2007); on Tomsen, see

Kromann & Jensen 1988.

12 BNF CdM Rs.Ms 12004 BAR folio; vol II

p. 137 no. 1636 represents the Copenhagen speci-

men.

13 Personal communication prof. Peter Berghaus,

1980.

& Faltin 2004; Allen, Abdy & de Jersey 2004, 205no. 50; Abdy & Williams 2006, 52 no. 212). In the usual works of reference for Merovingiancoins like Prou 1892, Belfort 1893 and Grierson

& Blackburn 1986, this type is only mentioned byAdrien de Belfort 1893. Under no. 4436 he refersto two specimens in two different collections, i.e.Cabinet de France and Muse de Bruxelles. How-ever, among the four existing specimens there is nonein the Paris collection now nor was any specimenmentioned by Maurice Prou 1892 as being there.Still, Belfort is persistent by giving two illustrationsas well. Te right-hand one is a fairly accurate re-presentation of the Brussels coin at actual size as aremost other coins in Belfort. Te illustration on the

left is much bigger and drawn in a distinct style.With it goes a reference to Conbrouse,AtlasXLVI,3.Guillaume Conbrouse published a number of itemson French numismatics, but he released his printedmatter often in loose sets of pages and plates. Atthe beginning of a series he came up with a table ofcontents that later appeared not to be exactly cov-ering the plates that were actually published in theend. He also left the choice to his readers to bindthe loose paperwork together in a volume or not.

Consequently bindings may contain different sets of

material, complete or incomplete. For Conbrouse

himself the project was a disaster or so it seems. Inthe preface of one of his later publications he com-plained about the destruction of the larger part ofthe engraved copper plates of his Catalogue(1839)after only a few prints on paper had been made.14Conbrouse then set out to bring out an Atlas(1840)that partly redeemed the badly missed illustrations,and next produced hisMontaires(1843) that con-tains a few of the older plates that had been savedfrom the disaster mentioned before. In the latterwork of 920 coins on 62 plates, it can be observedthat several plates here saw a secondary use and forthat purpose had been renumbered, all previousnumbers in the Atlasalso being still shown at the topof the plates (in most cases the contents of the plateshad been left unchanged). Tese circumstances canmake referring to Conbrouse a bit hazardous, or atthe least troublesome for those who wish to checksuch references. In this case, too, I have been unable

14 See the report given by an anonymous reviewer in

Revue Belge de Numismatique2, 1846, 423-426.

65377_jorgen steen jensen_001-126_r1.indd 84 20-11-2007 20:18:52


5/12

hrasemundus

85

to find an illustration that matches the type withhelmeted bust discussed here in one way or another,nor is there any text entry that unmistakably refers tothat type. Yes, there is a plate 46 in his Montairesand on that plate at number 3 indeed an illustra-tion of a Trasemundus coin can be found, but itis of a different type, i.e. Prou 1175 = Belfort 4435.Te same applies for number 808 on page 51 ofhis Catalogue(1839) that refers to that same typeagain. In fact, at the number in Belfort preceding thatof the type discussed here, there is an identical refer-ence to Conbrouse, with a normal drawing of thecoin of that normal type. Was Belfort led astray?Did he mix up things? Belfort was not a specialist in

Merovingian numismatics and he only did the verygood job of putting together the notes and drawingsthat Gustave de Ponton dAmcourt had assembledfor many decades. In this process several mistakes

were made, not only in the attribution of coin typeswhere he followed the often preliminary notes hewas confronted with after dAmcourts death, butalso in a more administrative sense. For examplemore than once it happened that one and the samecoin was mentioned and illustrated at two, three oreven four different places throughout the volumi-nous four-volume reference work. Although far from

being flawless, Belfort is used till the present day,since it contains the widest body of material for thisgroup in early medieval numismatics in a readilyaccessible order. As we are unable to retrieve Trase-mundus helmeted bust in Conbrouse, this leavesus with the question where Belfort i.e. PontondAmcourt had come across the bigger of the twoillustrations given under Belfort 4436. Te answer is(surprisingly) given by Conbrouse hmself. He warnshis readers not to use the works of his predecessorsLe Blanc and Bouteroue, because their illustrations

were notoriously imprecise and their readings equallyinaccurate.15

15 Conbrouse 1839, 4: de ne recourir ni a Bouter-

oue, ni a Leblanc qui par linfidlit du dessin et

linexactitude des lectures, les entraineraient dans de

graves erreurs; Conbrouse nevertheless sometimes

copied types from their books where he had no ac-

tual coins at his disposal in this case he refrained

from doing so, for unknown reasons.

In 1690 the first of several editions of Trait historiquedes monnoies de France depuis le commencement de lamonarchie jusques a presentby Frederic le Blanc waspublished, but in his works there is no trace of theTrasemundus coin. Le Blanc contented himself withincorporating one coin of every Merovingian mintthat he knew, irrespective of the moneyer. A quarterof a century earlier, in 1666. Claude (de) Bouteroue(dAubigny), conseiller en la Cour des Monoyes inParis, published his Recherches cvrievses des monoyesde France depvis le commencement de la monarchie.In this work on pages 364-366 the Trasemunduscoin with helmeted bust is described and illustrated.(Fig. 8) Te bigger of the two line drawings in Bel-fort at 4436, does indeed totally match the illustra-

tion in Bouteroue, albeit that the outer contour lineis left out. Bouteroues illustrations are readily recog-nizable from the pearl border. Te curiously shapedF on the obverse and the P-like D on the reverse arefaithfully copied; only the second letter is made intoan H where on the coin it is clearly an N. Here the story seems to end. Bouteroue was thefirst in attempting a systematic survey of early Frenchcoinage and before his book was published onlyextremely few Merovingian coins had appeared inprint amongst these none of Maastricht were re-presented. However, a fortunate coincidence enables

us to proceed further into this detail by way of thenumismatic notebooks of Peiresc. Nicolas-ClaudeFabri de Peiresc (1580-1637) was of aristocratic de-scent, living in Aix-en-Provence for the larger partof his life. He was a man of learning, interested ina wide variety of topics like anatomy, archaeology,astronomy, botanics, history, mathematics, naturalhistory, oriental cultures, philology and numisma-tics. Peiresc corresponded with many scholars and(sometimes high-ranking) collectors from all overEurope, exchanging news and views and at the sametime expanding his collections that also encompasseda considerable library.16Peirescs brother was his

16 Te result of this prolific writing without ever

giving a single page in print is preserved in his

massive archive that is largely kept in Carpentras;

part of Peirescs letters were published by amizey

de Larroque 1888-1898 and Lebgue 1976, whilst

an extensive use was already made by Peirescs bio-

grapher Gassendi 1655; for a recent contribution on

Peiresc and his circles, see Miller 2000.



6/12

Arent Pol

86

heir and only after the death of the latter his collec-tions and papers were sold in 1645 or 1646. Large

parts of his impressive written legacy came to theBibliothque dInguimbert at Carpentras and somegroups of documents ended up in what is now theBibliothque Nationale de France. Te two volumeswith numismatic notes, however, went astray andpossibly were for a while in the hands of oussaintLauthier, later certainly to be acquired by Achille deHarlay.17Tey successively came into the possessionof Jerme Bignon, Jean Foi Vaillant, Claude Grosde Boze, president de Cotte, Pieter van Damme andWillem Hendrik Jacob van Westreenen. After thelatters death in 1848 his collections were turned

into Museum Meermanno-Westreenianum in TeHague and the two manuscript volumes are theretill the present day.18

In the second volume entitled Nummi gallici,gothici, italici, britannici, arabici et turcici, Peirescdiscusses Merovingian coins in the first chaptercalled Nummi ex prima stirpe regum Franciae(pp. 99-133). However, in the second chapterNummi ex 2a stirpe regum Franciae on Carolin-gian coins he records a gift he once received. In 1606he had made a well-planned tour, going via Parisand London to the Low Countries where he visitedAmsterdam, Leiden, Delft, Rotterdam, Dordrecht,

17 Boeren 1979, 90-91 no. 10 C 30-31, but compare

Gravit 1950, 5-9, 27 and 42.

18 Te two manuscript volumes were brought to the

attention of numismatists by Delisle 1889, Prou

1890 and Dompierre de Chaufepi 1896, more re-

cently the importance of the manuscripts for numis-

matic research was stressed by Van der Meer 1997

and Archibald 2006.

Antwerp, Louvain, Brussels, Ghent and ournai,heading to Paris again before returning home. Atthis occasion he also visited the duke of Aarschotin his castle at Beaumont near Mons in present-dayBelgium.19Te duke enjoyed Peirescs presence andmore or less forced him to accept a precious gift ofslightly less than 70 gold, silver and copper coins ofmixed Greek, Roman, Merovingian and Carolingianorigin (pp. 159-160).20Under the heading gold andsilver coins given to me by prince Charles of Croy,duke of Aarschot, on the 11th of september 1606,Beaumont, eight gold coins are listed. Seven of theseare Merovingian: a coin of king Teudebert I is men-tioned together with tremissesof Clermont-Ferrand,Metz, Maastricht (2x), royes and Rodez (lines 2-8).

On the fifth line the description TRIECTO FIT,caput galeatus, RASEMVNDVS MINwithout anydoubt refers to the coin type discussed here, thetwo words in the middle meaning helmeted head.(Fig. 9) Considering the rarity of the type three out ofthe four existing coins were definitely retrieved fromthe soil only after the 18th century it is not difficultto accept that the coin donated by Croy-Aarschotto Peiresc must have been the same specimen as theone that was mentioned and illustrated by Bouterouemore than half a century later. Tis is the more prob-

able because, on the sixth line in Peirescs manuscriptnotebook, the Trasemundus coin is joined by asecond Maastricht tremissis of Madelinus. Of thelatter coin Peiresc rendered the reverse legend incom-pletely as the first and final characters it shouldread MADELINVS M must have been unclear ormissing on the original coin. In Bouteroue, on the

19 Gassendi 1655, 57 states that Peiresc had enjoyed

Croy-Aarschots hospitality at Beaumont for no less

than ten days.

20 Te bigger group in the first chapter was published

by Prou 1890, 149-168 after he had spent somehours studying the manuscript in Te Hague; how-

ever, he did not notice the few merovingian coins

mentioned in the Aarschot donation, because they

were incorporated in the second chapter on coins of

the carolingian period the type discussed here was

the subject of a paper given by the present author

(Pol 1983), but the section had been noticed before

by Dompierre 1896, 115-116 and the fact of the

dukes generous gift had been mentioned already in

general terms by Gassendi 1655, 57.

Fig. 8. Bouteroue 1666, 364.



7/12

hrasemundus

87

same plate as the other coin, one finds a match inillustration 4. I now propose to identify this coin as

one of the two of this Maastricht moneyer preservedin the Cabinet des Mdailles et Antiques of the Bib-liothque Nationale de France in Paris. At first sightthis seems difficult to accept because the shape ofthe actual coin is so distinct from the illustration inBouteroue. However, it must be taken into accountthat throughout Bouteroues plates all the items arerendered as perfectly round and well-centered henormalised every coin. (Fig. 10) Nevertheless, inhis au lecteur preceding the main text, Bouterouestates that all the coins described and illustrated inhis book he had seen himself and that he had takengreat efforts in making sure that the illustrations werecorrect. He there also mentions the collections thathe consulted and chaque planche aura un chifre pourmarquer le lieu dou les pices auront t tires.Tosebelonging to the king had a small fleur-de-lis andthose from the rich collection of Achille dHarlay

were given the interlaced characters DH:le publicverra quil doit sa generosit la meilleure partie demon ouvrage.Bouteroue then continues by giving alist of 14 names, among which also those of M. de

Peiresc(DP) and himself (BB). However, many of theillustrated coins are not accompanied by any mark at

all and this is difficult to explain. Usually on a hori-zontal strip three coins are represented next to eachother and it appears that in many cases there the DHmark occurs only in the centre, apparently for themiddle coin only. Tis applies to those pages wheremany coins are illustrated, e.g. 364, as well as those

where there are only a few. For example p. 222 showsthree horizontal strips with one, three and one coineach respectively. In all three strips there is only oneDH mark in the middle. In the central one wherethree coins are illustrated, the mark seems to standfor the ownership of the middle coin. However,since this situation of missing indications occurs sooften, another suggestion might be useful. PossiblyBouteroue meant the central mark to be valid forall three coins in the strip. Tis would mean that inmany (most? all?) cases where a mark is lacking theitem must be seen as ex Harlay. Tis possibilityseems to be corroborated by the author where in hisau lecteur he explicitly refers to the extensive usehe had made of Harlays collection. In the light ofthis circumstance it is likely that when Bouteroue

Fig. 9. Peiresc, manuscript notes (after 1606).

The Hague, Museum Meermanno-Westreenianum: inv. 10 C 31, p. 159



8/12

Arent Pol

88

took his notes and illustrations somewhere before1666, both coins of Madelinus and Trasemunduswere already in the collection of Achille dHarlay.21However, this remains speculation and their precisevicissitudes after Peiresc are unknown. It wouldnot have been unlikely for the Trasemundus cointo end up in the French national collection of coins,medals and antiquities. At present it is not in theParis collection, nor was it a hundred years ago whenProu made his catalogue of that collection. Neithercan it be found among the many illustrations in theworks of Lelewel, Conbrouse or others like Cartier

etc. who published so many merovingian coins inthe Revue Numismatiquefrom 1836 onwards. Andalthough the Cabinet des Mdailles et Antiques ex-perienced a serious loss by the theft of many goldobjects in 1831, it is not very likely that this coinwas there and was lost at that occasion.22 It musttherefore be assumed that Trasemundus probablynever made it to the kings collection, or had strayedfrom there as early as the 18th century. From thatperiod onwards not a single hint as to its where-abouts exists that deserves serious attention. In 18th-century Dutch numismatic literature theTrasemundus with helmeted bust is encounteredtwice, i.e. in the works of Frans van Mieris (1726)and Gerard van Loon (1734) where Merovingiancoins struck in the present-day Netherlands are dis-

21 For the complicated history of the Peiresc collection,

see Babelon 1901, 126-127, 136 and 146; Gravit

1950, 5-8 and 27 and Yvon 1966, 130 n. 7.

22 Mersan 1838, 187-188; it appears that mainly ro-

man coins were lost at this occasion.

cussed. Van Mieris, however, only copied Trase-mundus (and Madelinus plus some other ones)from Bouteroue. Van Loon in turn copied thesefrom Van Mieris, adding some from Le Blanc as well.Neither of the two authors mentions his source(s)for the illustrations, let alone that the whereaboutsof the Trasemundus coin itself are mentioned. It is not difficult to see where the illustrationshad been taken from since all of Bouteroues coinshave a pseudo pearl rim where Le Blanc merely gavethem an extra contour line that is slightly thicker.In Van Mieris, on each coin of the first plate theareas surrounding head and cross (except the placefor the legend) is darkened by way of shading, anelement not seen on the illustrations of Bouteroue

or Le Blanc. (Figs. 11-13) Most of the coins onthis plate are drawn in a more or less realistic wayand at a correct size, only two pieces are much big-ger. Also in this respect Van Mieris and Van Loonfollowed Bouteroue closely. In Merovingian goldcoinage two denominations are known, the biggersolidusand the smaller tremissis, the latter being byfar the more numerous. In Bouteroues days Mero-vingian numismatics was still in its initial phase. Hetherefore must not be blamed too much for labellingsome coins as demi sol instead of either sol or tiersde sol. But remembering his explicitly mentioned

carefulness regarding the illustrations, it remains astrange thing that he rendered most tremissesat their(more or less) actual size, enlarging only some ofthem without reason. Also the Trasemundus andMadelinus coins from his sixth plate on p. 364 areenlarged erroneously, since a solidusof these types or of these moneyers or mint, for that matter hasnever turned up! wo centuries ago the Trasemundus coinpopped up again, or so it seemed, in the collectionof the great international dealer and collector Pietervan Damme. It was sold in Amsterdam on March21, 1808 and the auction catalogue mentions onp. 305-306 no 71 a monnoye de la ville dUtrechtavec nom du montaire, peu diffrente de celle dansvan Mieris pl I no 2.Te latter indication clearlyrefers to the helmeted Trasemundus type, but thewords peu differente are ominous. Since this mon-eyer also produced coins with the usual bust withouta helmet, the coin in Van Dammes auction cannotbe identified as Peirescs Trasemundus that had dis-appeared such a long time ago. Needless to add that

Fig. 10. Paris, Bibliothque Nationale de Fance: inv. (Prou

1185)



9/12

Thrasemundus

89

Fig. 11. Van Mieris (1726) plate 1, detail

Fig. 12. Van Loon 1734, 28, detail

Fig. 13. Van Loon 1734, 28, actual size

nrs. 1+2+10 ex Le Blanc, no. 11 ex Bouteroue, rest ex Van Mieris (and, except for 8, in turn ex Bouteroue)



10/12

Arent Pol

90

all the gold coins in the Van Damme auction werebought for the Dutch state and that there is not nor ever has been any trace of a Trasemundus

with helmet in the collection of the Koninklijk Pen-ningkabinet that for a long time was housed at TeHague, then for a short while at Leiden (1986-2006)and now at Utrecht, being incorporated in the newGeldmuseum. We seem to have no other option than to con-clude that Peirescs Trasemundus has been lost. Orcould it be identical to Tomsens coin that firstoccurs in the middle of the 19th century? For sucha suggestion there is not a single scrap of evidenceavailable: because of the long-standing absence ofPeirescs Trasemundus from all sources, it seems

more safe to assume that Tomsens specimen is infact a more recent find of unknown place anddate. Also, as for Peirescs specimen, nothing aboutwhere and when it was found is known for certain.However, since the collecting of medieval and mod-ern coins is a relatively new phenomenon in the 16thcentury whilst before that time all precious metalwould end up sooner or later in the melting pot,one could suppose that it was a find not far outsidethe circles of the duke of Aarschot.23Te best guessthen would be somewhere in present-day Belgium,

somewhere at the end of the 16th century. Andthis of course applies to the other Aarschot coins inPeirescs collection as well

Acknowledgements

I am very grateful for the various help of severalfriends and colleagues: Michel Amandry (Paris),Peter Berghaus (Mnster), Michel Dhnin (Paris),Jrgen Steen Jensen (Copenhagen), Sonja Mar-zinzik (London), Gay van der Meer (Te Hague),Rickey ax (Te Hague) and Bouke Jan van derVeen (Leiden).

23 Possibly the coin is mentioned in one or two in-

ventories that seem to exist of the Croy collection:

according to Serrure 1880, xvi-xvii one is called

toutes les mdailles dpos es jadis au chateau de Hvre,

laquelle collection appartenoit la maison de Chimay

and dated 1st of January 1601 according to Piot

1845, 238.

Manuscript sources

Peiresc ms. 1606

N.C. Fabri de Peiresc, Nummi Gallici, Gothici, Italici,

Britannici, Arabici et Turcici,undated [Museum Meer-manno-Westreenianum, s-Gravenhage: 10 C 31]

Peiresc ms. 1637

N.C. Fabri de Peiresc, Inventaire des m dailles, graveures,pierres pretieuses et poidz antiques de cabinet de feu M.de Peires,1637 [Bibliothque Nationale de France,Dpartement des Manuscrits, Paris: mss. ff. 9534]

de Barthelemy ms. 1894

A. de Barthelemy, Recueil de dessins de monnaies mrovingiennes donn au Cabinet des Mdailles par M.

Anatole de Barthelemy, membre de lInstitut, en 1894,1894 [Bibliothque Nationale de France, Dparte-ment des Monnaies Mdailles et Antiquits, Paris:Rs. MS 12004 BAR folio]

Bibliography

Anon. 1846

Anon. [compte-rendu: G. Conbrouse, Decameron nu-mismatique, Paris imp. de Fournier 1844 ], RevueBelge de Numismatique2, 1846, 423-426. [this contri-

bution is signed Y by an un-identified reviewer]

Abdy & Williams 2006

R. Abdy & G. Williams, A catalogue of hoards and singlefinds from the British Isles, c. 410-675, in: B. Cook& G. Williams (ed.), Coinage and history in the NorthSea world c. 500-1250. Essays in honour of MarionArchibald, Leiden/Boston 2006, 11-73.

Allen, Abdy & de Jersey 2004

M. Allen, R. Abdy & P. de Jersey, Coin register 2003,British Numismatic Journal74, 2004, 198-229.

Archibald 2006

M. Archibald, Cottons Anglo-Saxon coins in the lightof the Peiresc inventory of 1606, British NumismaticJournal76, 2006, 171-203.

Babelon 1901

E. Babelon, raitdes monnaies grecques et romaines., I:Torie et doctrine, Paris 1901.



11/12


12/12

Arent Pol

92

Tomsen 1788 29. december 1988,Aarbger forNordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie1988, 97-112.

Lafaurie 1967

J. Lafaurie, Panorama de la numismatique mrovingi-enne, Cercle dtudes de Numismatique. Bulletin4,1967, 41-51.

Lafaurie 1969

J. Lafaurie, Tiers de sou mrovingien indit frapp Tou-louse, Bulletin de la Socit Franaise de Numismatique24, 1969, 357-358.

van Loon 1734

G. van Loon, Hedendaagsche penningkunde, zynde eeneverhandeling van den oorspronk van t geld,s Graven-hage 1734.

van der Meer 1997

G. van der Meer, An early seventeenth-century inventoryof Cottons Anglo-Saxon coins, in: C.J. Wright (ed.),Sir Robert Cotton as collector. Essays on an early Stuartcourtier and his legacy, London 1997, 168-182.

du Mersan 1838

M. du Mersan, Histoire du Cabinet des Mdailles,Paris1838.

van Mieris 1726

F. van Mieris, Beschryving der bisschoppelyke munten enzegelen van Utrecht,Leyden 1726.

Miller 2000

P.N. Miller, Peirescs Europe: learning and virtue in theseventeenth century, New Haven 2000.

Piot 1845

C. Piot, [mlanges], Revue Belge de Numismatique 1,1845, 238.

Pol 1983

A. Pol, Roma en Trasemundus, Karel van Croy en Peir-esc, Revue Belge de Numismatique129, 1983, 241.

Pol 1995

A. Pol, Les montaires Huy et Maastricht. Production etdistribution des monnaies mrovingiennes mosanes,Bulletin de lInstitut Archologique Ligeois107, 1995,185-200.

Prou 1890

M. Prou, Fabri de Peiresc et la numismatique mrovingi-enne,Annales du Midi2, 1890, 137-169.

Prou 1892

M. Prou, Catalogue des monnaies mrovingiennes de laBibliothque Nationale,Paris 1892

Serrure 1880

C.P. Serrure Notice sur le cabinet montaire de S.A. le princede Ligne, dAmblise et dEpinay,Gand 1880.

Serrure 1886

R. Serrure, Monnaies mrovingiennes, Revue Numisma-tique3s 4, 1886, 33-47.

Tamizey de Larroque 1888-1898P. Tamizey de Larroque, Lettres de Peiresc, Paris

1888-1898.

Vanhoudt 1982

H. Vanhoudt, De merovingische munten in het Penning-kabinet van de Koninklijke Bibliotheek te Brussel.Een katalogus van de hedendaagse verzameling, RevueBelge de Numismatique128, 1982, 95-194.

Yvon 1966

J. Yvon, Petau numismate, Gazette des Beaux-Arts,sep.

1966, 123-130.

thrasemundus between thomsen and peiresc : an enquiry into the pedigree of some merovingian coins /...

Documents