That is indeed a problem. I wasn't aware that these early siliquae were already present in the Papal States' catalogue. What complicates matters is that these Papal siliquae were struck under Byzantine rule. The Papacy officially rejected Byzantine authority only in the 750s AD, so until then the Byzantine emperors are the primary authorities depicted on the coinage, the popes being relegated to just monograms on the reverse (similar coins having already been struck since the 7th century). As a result, they are included in Byzantine reference works too. Due to the coins still recognising Byzantine rule, I would personally include them in the Byzantine catalogue. Rome, after all, continued minting solidi and 30 nummus coins in the Byzantine style alongside these siliquae and those did not include any signs of Papal authority. However, in the case of these siliquae, strong arguments can also be made in favour of including these in the Papal States' catalogue too.
Yes, they are included in both catalogues for sure (see how several reference numbers are different between 2 duplicates), question is where Numista catalogue will sort them :-)
According to CNG, who does quality attributing on their auction lots … this was minted in Rome (origin) as “papal-imperial” currency (both entities are credited). Since this is before Charlemagne, the empire they are referring to must be Byzantine. If you make the argument that it has the pope's monogram, well it has Leo's face on it. I see no reason we cant use both issuers.
According to CNG, who does quality attributing on their auction lots … this was minted in Rome (origin) as “papal-imperial” currency (both entities are credited). Since this is before Charlemagne, the empire they are referring to must be Byzantine. If you make the argument that it has the pope's monogram, well it has Leo's face on it. I see no reason we cant use both issuers.
Simply because Numista prevents adding 2 issuers to the same coin (it's the very issue here)
What we can do is creating Leo as ruling authority in Papal States issuer though, poke @tdziemia this way we can add both rulers
Excellent solution, agreed. There is a limited set of occurrences like this as it was pointed out by Zimm that Rome and the Byzantines broke away from each other shortly after this time period. But for this type, having Leo as “co-ruler” under Papal States works for me. Thank you.
Status changed to Started(tdziemia, 16 Nis 2025, 15:57)
That sounds like a reasonable solution (including the emperors who struck such coins as ruling authorities). Notably, Hahn does not include said pieces in his Byzantine catalogue, likely due to the presence of the monograms displaying enough autonomy for them not to be considered “proper” Byzantine coins (though he does include the gold and copper of the period, which lacked all signs of Papal autonomy). As Hahn's work is the most up-to-date for the period, it would, in my opinion, make sense to follow his example and leave the siliquae for the Papal States' catalogue, but recognising the role of the nominal rule of the emperors, while keeping the gold and copper coinage in the Byzantine catalogue.
However … to accommodate a denomination of a fractional siliiqua it looks like we also need to attach the Byzantine currency of this time to Papal States.
Status changed to Done(tdziemia, 17 Nis 2025, 19:25)
