Battle of Teutoburg Forest in 9AD question

[Paullus Scipio]

Could you elaborate on that please, Robert?
...Are you saying that coins post Varus have turned up on the site? That would complicate the picture........

[geala]

Yes, a hint would be fine, Robert. My last reliable information is from 2008 and so a bit outdated.

[Robert Vermaat]

It simply means that the coins found with the VAR countermark are no longer considered to be from Varus. I thought that was common knowledge? The VAR countermark, as I understood it, is no longer claimed to mean 'Varus', and therefore it is no longer correct to say that we know for a fact that all the coins found at the Kalkriese site date from up to AD 9 and not later.

If this is incorrect, please let me know.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

No, I didn't know that. And I'm pretty common..... :|

[Paullus Scipio]

Thanks Robert!....so the dating is no longer secure. I must say, it always seemed odd to me that "Imperial"/official coinage should be over-stamped with the initials of a private individual - which might be considered an act of rebellion.

I am no numismatist, but do those of you who are know of any other example of 'friendly' overstampimg of official Roman coinage?

[Robert Vermaat]

This knowledge afaik dates back a few years, 2004 I think it was. I'm not a numismatist either, but I think the VAR-mark had to do with a shortage in coins. The marks signified that a larger amount had to be paid when more coins became available.

I found this, dating from 2004:
VAR=VNCIA AUREI REPONERE=a twelfth of an aureus to be returned. Sole from Germany for this countermark VAR 13 different types of dies are known.
The countermark VAR on coins issued by the Roman army means: VAR = VNCIA AVREI REPONERE = returning 1 twelfth of an Aureus. This means, this coin, which was made more valuable by this countermark due to coin shortage in the army, later when there were enough coins again, the army changed into an uncia of an Aureus.
That means: VNCIA = one twelfth in this case were 2 silver denarii. 1 Aureus = 25 denarii, for 12 with VAR countermarked coins only 24 denarii were payed to the soldiers, the missing 1 denarius per Aureus was commission and fee for the money exchange which handled the army, both together were 4% of an Aureus.

Also this:
Prof. Reinhard Wolters in 'Hermeneutik des Hinterhalts. Die antiken Berichte zur Varuskatastrophe und der Fundplatz von Kalkriese, in: Klio 85, 2003, S.131-170' proves that these As's from the 'Altar II' serie, i.e. RIC#233 to #245, are not minted beginning in 9AD but beginning first in 12AD or 14AD and come into circulation only with delay.

By 2001, it was already known that VAR could not mean 'Varus' alone, and that in some ocasions it could certainly not mean 'Varus':
A coin in the municipal museum of Rennes with "VAR" applied over the Tiberian "TIB AVC" makes this hypothesis very unlikely, if not impossible (R.Martini 2001, CAESAR AUGUSTUS in Glaux special series, ENNERE, Milano). "VAR" is, by the way, applied later than the "large wheel", "IMP", and "CVAL", but before or simultaneously to "AVC". "VAR" is relatively common with maybe up to 500-1000 pieces known, and geographically spread over a very wide area: from Gallia to the Rhine and even into the Danube area. Surprising, as Varus was under the damnatio memoriae.

[Paullus Scipio]

are not minted beginning in 9AD but beginning first in 12AD or 14AD and come into circulation only with delay.

...so, not before Germanicus' time then ? Oh dear !

I recall at the time of the Kalkriese finds I wrote to various people suggesting that one should not jump to conclusions, and that the site fitted Tiberius' or Germanicus' campaigns equally well......at the time the coins were pointed to as good evidence for Varus and hence a date no later than 9 AD !!

[Robert Vermaat]

..so the dating is no longer secure.

Well, at least not on the sole basis of some of the coinage. I agree with you that the site could fit a later battle (maybe the Germans tried to repeat the earlier ambush with a second attempt?), or maybe the coins were dropped when the battlefield was 'cleaned up' later.

My main problem with the identification so far is that too many people get away with explaining the Kalkriese site as 'the' site of 'the'batttle, which to all intents and purposes it wasn't. The battle as we know was a long dragged-out affair, most of the time pure attrittion, with one choke point that we know of.

But where are the camps that we know were created?
And was the army defeated at Kalkriese? Finds show it was not - so where did the rest go? No-one lived to tell the tale, so shouldn't we conclude on the basis of archaelogy combined with the various historical accounts, that the latter are incomplete?

[PhilusEstilius]

I do think that from the Numismatics point of view Major Tony Clunn MBE is one who should know a bit more than many, for indeed he put an awful lot of effort into his search. I must also agree with Robert that there are many who run off with the idea that the Kalkriese was THE site of this 9 AD battle, that is not the case for the Varas march was spread out over a very LONG distance it just so happens that much evidence has come to light at this point.
There must be other places east and indeed west of here that have yet to be found and much more evidence will come forward, the place Kalkriese is only one point along the way where this disaster happend.
I also think that in our time there are many who would appear to paint Varus as an incompetant, I do not think that he was for we find that he simply trusted a man called Arminius but then when he discovered this it was too far gone.

I also find that the name Kalkriese has also taken over in another direction for I have several times reproduced the famous mask found there, and now we find that all the cavalry masks similar to that type are now known as a "Kalkriese type" even though so many were found long before that one even came out of the ground.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Wel, lets all go for a long walk along the trail, with metal detectors, and see what comes to light.
Surely, as it'sbeen pointed out, there will more traces of other ambushes.
Unless the Grmans were withdrawing after each assault and the Romans were able to police the scenes?

[geala]

This knowledge afaik dates back a few years, 2004 I think it was. I'm not a numismatist either, but I think the VAR-mark had to do with a shortage in coins. The marks signified that a larger amount had to be paid when more coins became available.

I found this, dating from 2004:
VAR=VNCIA AUREI REPONERE=a twelfth of an aureus to be returned. Sole from Germany for this countermark VAR 13 different types of dies are known.
The countermark VAR on coins issued by the Roman army means: VAR = VNCIA AVREI REPONERE = returning 1 twelfth of an Aureus. This means, this coin, which was made more valuable by this countermark due to coin shortage in the army, later when there were enough coins again, the army changed into an uncia of an Aureus.
That means: VNCIA = one twelfth in this case were 2 silver denarii. 1 Aureus = 25 denarii, for 12 with VAR countermarked coins only 24 denarii were payed to the soldiers, the missing 1 denarius per Aureus was commission and fee for the money exchange which handled the army, both together were 4% of an Aureus.

Also this:
Prof. Reinhard Wolters in 'Hermeneutik des Hinterhalts. Die antiken Berichte zur Varuskatastrophe und der Fundplatz von Kalkriese, in: Klio 85, 2003, S.131-170' proves that these As's from the 'Altar II' serie, i.e. RIC#233 to #245, are not minted beginning in 9AD but beginning first in 12AD or 14AD and come into circulation only with delay.

By 2001, it was already known that VAR could not mean 'Varus' alone, and that in some ocasions it could certainly not mean 'Varus':
A coin in the municipal museum of Rennes with "VAR" applied over the Tiberian "TIB AVC" makes this hypothesis very unlikely, if not impossible (R.Martini 2001, CAESAR AUGUSTUS in Glaux special series, ENNERE, Milano). "VAR" is, by the way, applied later than the "large wheel", "IMP", and "CVAL", but before or simultaneously to "AVC". "VAR" is relatively common with maybe up to 500-1000 pieces known, and geographically spread over a very wide area: from Gallia to the Rhine and even into the Danube area. Surprising, as Varus was under the damnatio memoriae.

To the first: it is an explanation created by Rainer Friebe, a zealous fighter against the connection Kalkriese-Varus and pro Halberstadt in the Harz region as the site of the battle, and seen more or less as nonsense by many scientists, as far as I know. The problem starts with the money shortage crisis which cannot be backed by any material. And why did the Romans use this ingenious instrument not later on but only in the year 14 AD?

To the second: but about what coins in what context he is talking here? I think it is connected with the argument that Lugdunum II coins allegedly did not come to Germania Magna prior to 17 AD. Therefore the "Germanicushorizont" would be the same as the "Halternhorizont" and undistinguishable so that Kalkriese could be a Germanicus battlefield. This is possible but not cogent. The problem is that money from Germanicus time was found in forts in the two Germania military districts left of the river Rhine and it is hard to understand why it should not have been taken with in the area east of the Rhine.
So I insist: afaik no coins clearly identified as belonging to the Lugdunum II series were found at Kalkriese till 2008. At least it is not published.

To the third: this is indeed strange and I cannot explain it for myself. The only reason I can imagine till now is what Paul mentioned: that the Varus countermark was used after his death. Sounds not so convincing. Or the countermark is wrongly interpreted, hehe. Otherwise it may be evidence that VAR has nothing to do with Varus or sometimes nothing to do. I don't know. The text missed to say that VAR or QVAR countermarks were not only found in Gallia, Germania or at the Danube but also in Syria. I don't understand the mention of the damnatio memoriae. Coins of other persons under it were also used after and were widely spread.

In total I would stay with my first remark that the coin discussion about Kalkriese-Varus is difficult/not decisive and that no proof can be found by it, not pro but also not contra. And by the way I had the wish that the Kalkriese officials and tourist managers would have been a bit more reserved when they connected Kalkriese with the Varus battle. The findings are a big sensation on its own (a huge ancient battlefield), no need to push emotions. But that's life... :wink:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Wasn't Varus out in Syria before....so there would be coins wit hhis mark in that region to, you would think?

[geala]

Varus was governor of the province Syria from 7/6 to 4 BC. Wether the countermarks on the asses were connected to him is of course as uncertain as with the VAR countermarks in the west afaik. I'm however not at all interested in coins and know nothing about it except what I read in connection with the Kalkriese findings (in which I'm interested because it is not so far away from where I live :wink: ). Perhaps a member with numismatic background can give more information.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

While I was not interested in coins before, I too was interested in their connection to Kalkriese, and now I am begining to understand their relevance to dating finds.
But it would seem a strange coincidence for these to be found in locations he was known to have been in, and not have any relevance to him. :?

[Quintius Clavus]

In the "Ancient Warfare" Special Varian Disaster Issue, there is a picture of a coin with Varus' head on it, struck while he was governor of Africa Province (modern Tunisia) - page 28. The coin pictured is in the museum at Haltern now.