oA m Bi ae HAMPSHIRE ’ 
 
 aot _INTERLIB ce 
 / Pike wi Pope 
 yf oe 
 
 : NUMISMATIC N con % ape. 
 
 fh, A 
 
 | THE ANONYMOUS BYZANTINE 
 3 ‘BRONZE COINAGE 
 
 ALFRED R. BELLINGER 
 
 § 
 oe, 
 
 THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY 
 BROADWAY AT 156TH STREET 
 _ NEW YORK > 
 ~ eg et ae 
 
PUBLICATIONS 
 
 ———— 
 
 } 
 
 The American Journal of Numismatics, 
 1866-1920. 
 
 Monthly, May, 1866-April, 1870 
 Quarterly, July, 1870-October, 1912. 
 Annually, 1913-1920. 
 
 With many plates, illustrations, maps and tables 
 Less than a dozen complete sets of the Jour- 
 nal remain on hand. Prices on application. 
 
 The numbers necessary to complete broken sets 
 may in most cases be obtained. An index to 
 the first fifty volumes has been issued as part 
 of Volume LI. It may also be purchased 
 separately for $3.00. 
 
 ‘The American Numismatic Society. Catalogue 
 of the International Exhibition of Contempo- 
 rary Medals. March, 1910. New and revised 
 edition. New York. IQII. xxxvi, 412 
 pages, 512 illustrations. $10.00. 
 
 The American Numismatic Society. Exhibition 
 of United States and Colonial Coins. 1914 
 vii, 134 pages, 40 plates. $1.00. 
 
 —s ee 
 
Peeve! SMA] IC 
 NOTES AND MONOGRAPHS 
 
NuUMISMATIC NOTES AND MONOGRAPHS 
 is devoted to essays and treatises on sub- 
 jects relating to coins, paper money, 
 medals and decorations, and is uniform 
 with Hispanic Notes and Monographs 
 published by the Hispanic Society of 
 America, and with Indian Notes and 
 Monographs issued by the Museum of the 
 
 American Indian—Heye Foundation. 
 
 PUBLICATION COMMITTEE 
 
 AcnEs BaLpwin Brett, Chairman 
 W. Gepney Beatty 
 Henry Russett DrowneE 
 
 Joun REILLy, Jr. 
 
 EDITORIAL STAFF 
 
 SypNEY Puitip Noe, Editor 
 How ranp Woon, Associate Editor 
 
THE ANONYMOUS BYZANTINE 
 BRONZE COINAGE 
 
 BY 
 ALFRED R. BELLINGER 
 
 { 
 
 THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY 
 BROADWAY AT 156TH STREET 
 NEW YORK 
 1928 
 
3 
 
 AIN3S ¢ W102 Cm. 
 
 THE ANONYMOUS BYZANTINE 
 BRONZE COINAGE 
 
 By ALFRED R. BELLINGER 
 
 The attribution of Byzantine coins is, in the main, 
 a simple affair because of the regular use on them of 
 the imperial name; the chief difficulty arises from the 
 profusion of Leos, Michaels and Constantines. But, 
 at one point, the assistance of the name deserts us 
 and we are confronted by a number of issues of 
 bronze which bear in their types no evidence as to 
 the issuer. Considerations of style alone would 
 assign them to the 1oth and 11th centuries, and, as 
 it happens, we have the explicit testimony of a 
 Byzantine historian to the effect that the series was 
 begun by John J. On December 11, 969, John 
 Zimisces had assassinated Nicephorus Phocas. 
 Nicephorus had been Emperor of the Romans by 
 right of his guardianship of Basil and Constantine, 
 sons of Romanus I], heirs to the throne, and John, 
 having disposed of his predecessor, was himself 
 crowned as John I, associating with himself the 
 rightful princes, as Nicephorus had done. Never- 
 theless, his was the hand that directed the empire 
 until his death on January 10, 976, when his wards 
 were left to reign together as Basil II and Con- 
 stantine VIII. During the usurper’s reign was 
 begun the series of anonymous bronze coins, of 
 pious types, which continued through several suc- 
 
 I 
 
2 ~ © THE ANONYMOUS 
 
 ceeding reigns, whose more definite attribution to 
 their respective emperors is the purpose of this 
 work. The testimony as to the initiation of the 
 series is:that of John Scylitzes, as quoted by George 
 Cedrenus (Cedren. IJ, pp. 413,f Bonn 1839) 
 TIpocétate 38 kat év tH voutocuare Kat gv tH 6B0AM 
 etkdva éyyedpecbat tod cwrijpoc, ut) TedtEpoy TOUTOU 
 ytvougvou. éypdgovto 6&8 Kal yoduuata pwuatorl 
 éy Oatéom wéper Mdé wy Sre&tdyta “’Iyncotc Xototds 
 Baotkedo BactAéwy.”’- sotto 58 kat of kabettc érn- 
 onoay BactAetc. 
 
 ‘‘And he commanded the likeness of the Savior 
 to be engraved on the nomisma and the obol, which 
 was not done before this. And Greek letters were 
 engraved on the other side to about this purport, 
 ‘Jesus Christ, King of Kings’ And the kings who 
 succeeded him did the same.” It is not certain 
 what the author means by zy. The actual in- 
 scription to which he obviously refers is thsys/ 
 /xristys/basiLey/bAsiLe where the abbreviations 
 are necessitated by the shape of the coin. This 
 seems like too insignificant a variation to demand 
 the qualification zy, but, on the other hand, the 
 succeeding types which do materially change the 
 inscription (e.g. 1s xs/bAsILe/bASILe) were, as we 
 shall see, certainly not the coinage of John. But 
 there are two more important inaccuracies in the 
 passage. In the first place, while the nomisma 
 does bear the bust of Christ on one side, it has not 
 the inscription on the other, as Scylitzes’ language 
 
 implies. Instead, busts of John and the Virgin 
 
 ae Se ee ee eee ee ee ee, oe a 
 
 aie re ¥ 
 a. ae ae Oe 
 
BYZANTINE BRONZE 3 
 
 appear on the reverse (which is generally referred 
 to as the obverse, from the convention of considering 
 the obverse always that side which bears the im- 
 perial portrait) and John is there named. In the 
 second place, the phrase wh xpdtepov tovToU 
 ytvougvou is misleading. Christ had appeared on 
 the gold of eleven previous reigns.! We must con- 
 clude, then, that in both these cases Scylitzes was 
 speaking loosely and really had reference to the 
 bronze obol only and not to the gold nomisma. 
 Making these minor allowances, we may accept 
 the passage as it stands, for it affords an accurate 
 description of the earliest type of anonymous bronze, 
 which we have every reason to suppose was struck 
 by John. But before we leave Scylitzes, it is worth 
 considering for a moment how far we can use him 
 in determining the date of this first issue. Wroth 
 (B.M.C. p. 481) quotes him to the effect that this 
 coinage was inaugurated in 972. There is no date 
 in the passage, so that Wroth, who gives no further 
 evidence for what he says, must have dated the 
 event from its position in the history. Now the 
 passage immediately before the one under consider- 
 ation deals with John’s rebuilding of a church and 
 
 1 Justinian II, 685-695 and 705-711, Michael III and 
 Theodora, circ. 852-856, Basil I, 867-886, Leo VI and 
 Constantine VII, 911-912, Alexander, 912-913, Con- 
 stantine VII and Romanus I, 919-921, Romanus I and 
 Christopher, 921-927, Romanus I, Christopher and Con- 
 stantine VII, 927-931, Constantine VII, 945, Constantine 
 
 VII and Romanus II, 945-959, and Nicephorus IT, 963- 
 969. 
 
4 THE ANONYMOUS 
 
 _ remitting a certain tax in celebration of his triumph 
 over the Russians which occurred in 972 (Schlum- 
 berger ‘‘L’Epopée Byzantine a la fin du Dixiéme 
 Siécle,’”’ Chapter III). It would then be natural to 
 suppose that the striking of these coins came at the 
 same time.! But the chronological value of the 
 paragraph is gravely impaired by the fact that it 
 ends with a notice of the deposition of the patriarch 
 Basil, which occurred in 974 (Schlumberger op. cit. 
 Chapter V) while the next paragraph returns to 
 mention the appearance of the comet in August 972. 
 It seems as though the historian, having paused to 
 mention the rebuilding of the church, chose to deal 
 briefly with sundry other miscellaneous matters 
 before going back to the course of his narrative. The 
 probability is all against so late an initiation of the 
 coinage, for, as we have no other types for John, 
 we must believe, if we follow Scylitzes, that from 
 December 969 until August 972 he had no coins of 
 his own at all and therefore had to continue in cir- 
 culation the issues of Nicephorus, whom he had 
 murdered. This seems so questionable, both from 
 policy and sentiment, that we are justified in setting 
 aside the equivocal testimony of Scylitzes and as- 
 suming that John’s coinage begins where it normally 
 should, in 970. The words of the text show. that 
 bronze coins with pious legends continued beyond 
 the reign of John, and, as a matter of fact, there are 
 
 1 Schlumberger (p. 184) adopts this view: ‘fit alors 
 
 graver sur sa monnaie, certainement en reconnaissance des 
 victoires obtenues.”’ 
 
BYZANTINE BRONZE 5 
 
 the following types, bearing no imperial name, to be 
 accounted for. 
 
 Class I. Obv.i—+eMMANOVHA Bust of Christ, 
 bearded, facing, wearing nimbus cruciger, tunic 
 and mantle; right hand raised in benediction; left 
 hand holds book of the Gospels; in field 1c xc to 
 right and left. Border of dots. Nimbus and book 
 with various ornaments. Rev.—thsys/xristys/ba- 
 stLey/basiLe. Above and below, various orna- 
 ments, or none. Border of dots. PI. I, 2-6. 
 
 Class II. Obv.—Similar. Nimbus with two 
 pellets and © in each limb of cross. Book with 
 s*, Rev.—is xs/bas 1Lée/bas ILé in the angles of a 
 Latin cross on three steps. A pellet at each ex- 
 tremity of the cross, the top one with —-— to left 
 and right. Border of dots. PI. I, 7. 
 
 Class III. Obv.—Same inscription. Half length 
 figure of Christ, bearded, standing facing, wears 
 tunic, mantle and nimbus cruciger with one pellet 
 in each limb of the cross; right hand raised in bene- 
 diction; left hand holds book of the Gospels with 
 pellets on cover; in field 1c xc to left and right. 
 Border of dots. Rev.—ic xc/NI KA in the angles 
 of a jewelled cross with a large pellet in the center, 
 a large pellet and two small ones at each extremity. 
 Border of dots.! Pl. I, 8, 9. 
 
 Class IV. Obv.—Similar to Obv. of Classes I and 
 II, except that both hands hold book. Two pellets 
 in each limb of cross; 2s on book. Rev.—is xs/ 
 
 1 This type sometimes reads NI KA, Pl. I, 8 (so given 
 B.M.C. p. 507) but it is more commonly NI KA, PI. I, 9. 
 
6 THE ANONYMOUS 
 
 hastLe/bastIL. Above -*=; below —w-.  Bor- 
 der of dots; Pli- 1, 10; 
 
 Class V. Obv.—Christ, bearded, seated facing 
 on throne without back, wearing plain nimbus 
 cruciger, tunic and mantle; right hand outstretched 
 in benediction; in left hand, book of Gospels with 
 ‘+3 oncover. In field 1c xc to left and right. Border 
 of dots. Rev.—isxs/bAsILE/basIL. Above —4— 
 below *. Border of dots. Pl. II, 1. 
 
 Class VI. Obv.—Christ, bearded, seated facing 
 on throne with back, wearing nimbus cruciger with 
 one pellet in each limb of cross, tunic and mantle; 
 right hand raised in benediction; in left hand, book 
 of Gospels with “*” on cover; in field 1c xc to left 
 and right. Border of dots. .Rev.—i1sxs/basive/ 
 basIL. Above —+— below -—we Border of dots. 
 Piglivai 
 
 Class VII. Obv.—Bust of Christ, bearded, facing, 
 wearing plain nimbus cruciger, tunic and mantle; 
 right hand in benediction; left hand holds book of 
 the Gospels; in field 1¢ xc to left and right. Border 
 of large dots. Rev.—Bust of the Virgin, facing, 
 orans; wearing nimbus, and mantle and veil orna- 
 mented with *:* on brow and shoulders; in field 
 M-P ®V to left and right. Border of large dots. 
 Pl. Il, 3. (The casts are transposed.) 
 
 Class VIII. Obv.—Bust of Christ, bearded, 
 facing, wearing nimbus cruciger with pag in each 
 limb of cross, tunic and mantle; right hand raised 
 in benediction; left hand holds book of the Gospels 
 with %° on cover; in field 1c xc to left and right. 
 
BYZANTINE BRONZE 7 
 
 Border of dots. Rev.—Patriarchal cross with one 
 large pellet and two small pellets at each upper 
 extremity; at base, large pellet with floral ornaments 
 to left and right. Border of dots. PI. I], 5. 
 
 Class IX. Obv.—Similar to Class VIII, but with 
 one pellet in each limb of cross. Rev.—Latin 
 cross with one large pellet and two small pellets at 
 each upper extremity; at base, large pellet with 
 floral ornaments to left and right. Above, crescents 
 to left and right. In the center of the cross X 
 Border of dots. PI. II, 6. 
 
 Class X. Obv.—Bust of Christ, bearded, facing, 
 wearing tunic and mantle; right hand raised in 
 benediction; left hand holding book of the Gospels. 
 Behind his head, cross, with °%: in each limb, wv 
 between the limbs. In field 1c xc to left and right. 
 Border of dots. Rev.—Latin cross with large pellet 
 and two small pellets at each extremity. Below 
 the cross, large crescent. To left and right, above 
 and below, large pellets surrounded by small 
 pellets. Border of dots. PI. II, 7. 
 
 Class XI. Obv.—Bust of Christ, bearded, facing, 
 wearing nimbus cruciger with one pellet in each 
 limb of cross, tunic and mantle; right hand in bene- 
 diction; left hand holding book of the Gospels. 
 Border of large dots. Rev.—Half length figure of 
 the Virgin, orans, wearing nimbus, veil mantle and 
 tunic; in field © to left and right. Border of 
 large dots. PI. II, 8. 
 
 Class XII. Obv.—Similar. Rev.—Cross of four 
 equal limbs, with a pellet at each upper extremity; 
 
8 THE ANONYMOUS 
 
 base ending in floral ornaments to left and right. 
 Above, to left and right, crescents. In the center 
 of the cross X Border of dots. 
 
 Class XIII. Obv.—Similar. Rev.—Small cross 
 pattée. Above 1c; below xc; to left, N1; to right KA. 
 Piya 
 
 The only thoroughgoing attempt to assign these 
 classes to the emperors who issued them was made 
 by Warwick Wroth, who discusses the problem on 
 pages 480-483 of the Catalogue of Imperial Byzan- 
 tine Coins in the British Museum. Though my 
 own arrangement necessarily differs from his in 
 certain respects, and though it has seemed to me 
 more useful to reexamine the whole question from 
 the beginning than to make his essay the point of 
 departure, I am deeply indebted to his labors, as 
 everyone who works in the Byzantine field must be. 
 It was Wroth who first pointed out that the order 
 of issue of these classes could be determined by the 
 evidence of restriking. That evidence, as far as it 
 has come to my attention, is as follows: Class II is 
 restruck on Class I (B.M.), Class III is restruck on 
 Class II (B.M.), Class V is restruck on Class III 
 (B.M.), Class V is restruck on Class IV (Berlin), 
 Class VI is restruck on Class III (B.M.), Class VII 
 is restruck on coins of Constantine X, 1059-1067, 
 Class VIII is restruck on coins of Nicephorus III, 
 1078-1081 (B.M.), Class IX is restruck on coins of 
 Nicephorus III (Berlin), Class X is restruck on 
 Class IX (Yale), Pl. II, 11, Class XI is restruck 
 on Class X (Berlin). The necessary sequence of 
 
BYZANTINE BRONZE 9 
 
 Classes, then, may be expressed graphically, thus— 
 
 Class I 
 | 
 
 Class I] 
 
 | 
 
 Class II] Class IV 
 
 mc ve 
 Class V 
 
 Class VI 
 
 Constantine X 
 
 Class VII 
 
 _Nicephorus III 
 Zh EN 
 
 Class VIII Class IX 
 | 
 
 Class X 
 
 Class XI 
 
 From the reign of John until that of Constantine 
 X there are no bronze coins with an imperial name 
 or initial, so that Classes I to VI may be placed, 
 between the years 969 and 1059, and assigned to the 
 following rulers: John; Basil IJ and Constantine 
 VIII together, 976-1025; Constantine VIII alone, 
 1025-1028; Romanus III, 1028-1034; Michael IV, 
 1034-1041; Michael V, 1041-1042; Zoe and Theo- 
 dora together, 1042; Constantine IX, 1042-1055; 
 
10 THE ANONYMOUS 
 
 _ Theodora alone 1055-1056; Michael VI, 1056-1057; 
 Isaac I, 1057-1059. -Wroth’s arrangement was 
 based on style: I propose to use the evidence of 
 excavation. In the excavation of Corinth, con- 
 ducted by the American School of Classical Studies 
 at Athens, great numbers of coins are unearthed. 
 In the year 1925, 693 Byzantine coins were found 
 in sufficiently good condition to be identified, and, 
 of these, 198 were anonymous bronze, distributed 
 as follows: Class I, 79; Class II, 19; Class III, 11; 
 Class IV, 1; Class V, 3; Class VI, 6; Class VII, 10; 
 Class VIII, 15; Class IX, 31; Class X, 2; Class X1, 
 20; Class XII, 0; Class XIII, 1. It is impossible 
 to be certain about the results of previous years, 
 but, so far as I have been able to compare with 
 those results, the proportions of the 1925 dig seem 
 to be borne out. At least there are no striking dis- 
 crepancies. With numbers as large as these, pro- 
 portions begin to be significant, and it may fairly 
 be laid down that the frequency of an emperor’s 
 coinage ought to be proportional to the length of 
 his reign. Of course this rule must be followed with 
 caution, but it is a useful supplement to the other 
 evidence. Now, as we have seen, the coins of Class 
 I are of the type described by Scylitzes as struck by 
 John. But John reigned only from December 11, 
 969 to January 10, 976, and, even if we assume that 
 he began to coin at once, instead of a year and a 
 half after his accession, as the current theory has it, 
 that gives him only five years, which is obviously 
 insufficient to account for any large number of finds. 
 
BYZANTINE BRONZE II 
 
 Nicephorus II reigned six years, and there were only 
 three of his pieces in the 1925 dig. Further, Class | 
 exhibits a great variety of detail. As Wroth pointed 
 out in an article contributed to ‘Corolla Numis- 
 matica’’, 1906, there are different forms of orna- 
 mentation in the cross of the nimbus, on the cover 
 of the book, and above and below the reverse in- 
 scription. A list of the varieties which have come 
 to my attention, which are not all in the British 
 Museum Catalogue, is as follows: 
 
 In cross In book 
 
 ‘ieee : oUt above and below 
 2 nothing ce es ca 
 
 (Ply. h3) 
 
 a + - below 
 4 > nothing’; 
 5 ia) and éé 
 6 pam 66 66 66“ 
 2 bc c bh 
 3 ? an 
 9 Hh 66 4c éé 
 Io at (?) 46 46 é6 
 II a ee Ay < 3 
 12 : —— i a :; 
 13 LEE og aa N % yi 
 A 66 66 bb 
 ie 3G 66 66 $6 
 16 —f\— 6é 66 ° é6 
 
 tPinl A) 
 
 -—h- ‘* and below 
 
 Lo] 
 ~J 
 
12 THE ANONYMOUS 
 
 In cross In book 
 
 1B : —-K - above and below 
 19h Gy tees eo Ne 
 ty : nothing 5s ie 
 21 —x- fg aa oe 
 22 -o-. - a a 
 23 Oe si ahaha aoe 
 24 Saale] “é sé ‘é 
 (PST, °3) 
 71 ee f0) si ‘““ and below 
 
 26 (O] “ebro sé (as ic 
 
 28 © gh Be ENS 3S oats 
 29 3. -9 eS EECA ere 
 EY cher ast Sine “ ‘ “ 
 31 + -f. bs T 6a 
 32 + + + # d: 3 
 33 of. 300 rT ‘“ ‘ 
 4 oS. ae i 
 35 ‘7 ea “ ‘ ‘6 
 36 see ‘ -f — ‘ “a & 
 Siac (?) =o at a 
 BS ives". (?) —)x¢— «Sage eo 
 39 ig : wu “4 ‘“ 7 
 40 see . wih «i 66 ‘c 
 41 % pa rT “ “ 
 
 (Pl. I, 5 rev.) 
 Pe pe (?) —-A~ above and below 
 43 * (O] —C- 66 66 bc 
 
BYZANTINE BRONZE 13 
 
 In cross In book 
 
 45 (?) -A~ above and below 
 46 w °° oo fo 66 66 66 
 CU eee i ony g , + . 
 ORB 
 ay, | wei as eae 
 ME pA amg -“- :s ; “ 
 
 (PI. I, 6 rev.) 
 Shey ? — + = “and below 
 
 John minted two types of gold and two of silver, 
 both, apparently in very small quantities. It is 
 out of the question to assume that he issued fifty-one 
 varieties of bronze. Wroth’s way out of the dif- 
 ficulty is an ingenious one. He assumes that the 
 decorations in the cross of the nimbus furnish the 
 key and, after comparison with the gold and silver 
 coinage, assigns to John only those pieces with one, 
 two, or three pellets in the cross, reserving all the 
 others of this class for John’s successors, Basil, 
 Constantine, and Romanus. But there are objec- 
 tions to this, both theoretical and practical. Why 
 is the nimbus ornament any more important than 
 the ornament on the book, or the ornaments on the 
 reverse? It will be seen, for example, that the 
 device ~O— on the reverse occurs with four dif- 
 ferent nimbus ornaments and four different book 
 ornaments (Nos. 14, 22, 29, 35, 41). Why not 
 assign all these to one emperor? Against any real 
 difference of type, of course, such similarity of orna- 
 ment would be of no value, but when it is merely 
 
14 THE ANONYMOUS 
 
 one ornament against another, the case seems much 
 more doubtful. And, practically, the solution, while 
 in the right direction, is nothing like radical enough. 
 Nos. 45 and 46 he reserves for Constantine alone, 
 and No. 47 he gives to Romanus, but that still 
 leaves thirty varieties for the five years of John’s 
 reign, eighteen, at the most, for Basil and Con- 
 stantine together, who reigned for fifty years! Of 
 the 79 coins from Corinth, 44 would fall to John, 9 to 
 Basil and Constantine, I to Romanus; the orna- 
 ments of the other 25 are illegible. Clearly, this 
 will not do. Yet no other arrangement of Wroth’s 
 method will make things better. We must find a 
 surer basis of differentiation or give it up. For- 
 tunately there is another test available: that of 
 fabric. The bronze of Nicephorus is struck on 
 small flans (21-28 mm.) and generally on irregular 
 ones (Pl. I, 1). There occur also certain pieces of 
 Class I of identical fabric, with inscriptions in small 
 letters like those of Nicephorus (Pl. I, 2). The 
 general resemblance is so striking that it is impossible 
 to avoid the conclusion that these were struck by 
 John, continuing, as a matter of course, the fabric, 
 though not the types of his predecessor. This 
 conclusion is further strengthened by the occasional 
 coins of this kind struck over types of Nicephorus. 
 These pieces are uncommon: 3 out of 79, which 
 would make them about on a par with the coinage 
 of Nicephorus. As the gold and silver of both these 
 emperors is rare, I believe that they issued little of 
 any currency and relied chiefly on the coins of 
 
BYZANTINE BRONZE 15 
 
 Constantine VII, 913-959, and Romanus I, 919-944, 
 which were abundant. If we assume that John 
 struck the small coins only, we may then credit to 
 Basil and Constantine the large issues of fine new 
 flans of 30 mm. and over, which constitute the bulk 
 of Class I. There are, however, two intermediate 
 varieties, Nos. 24 and 40, which, while struck on 
 better flans than those of Nicephorus, are regularly 
 smaller than the other varieties, only one that I 
 have seen reaching 30 mm. (PI. I, 3). I should 
 put these two as the first issues of Basil and Con- 
 stantine, reserving the larger coins for the period of 
 prosperity which began with the collapse of the 
 rebellion of Bardas Phocas in 989. Further than 
 this I confess I have no suggestion to offer as to the 
 order of varieties, except to report that inconclusive 
 evidence from restriking of one variety on another 
 indicates No. 5 as an early one. The letters on 
 some of the varieties may furnish a useful clue, but, 
 at present, there is no evidence that is reliable. Nor 
 am I prepared to prove how long Class I continued. 
 If it was struck by Basil and Constantine together, 
 it is natural to suppose that, after Basil’s death, 
 Constantine alone would continue its use, and inter- 
 esting evidence of its persistence beyond the reign 
 of John is furnished by the lead seals. Schlum- 
 berger (Sigillographie de l’Empire Byzantin, p. 421) 
 publishes a cut of a seal of Basil II, showing on one 
 side the portrait of the Emperor with his name, on 
 the other, the bust of Christ of just the type of the 
 anonymous bronze. A still more striking example 
 
16 THE ANONYMOUS 
 
 is a seal in the possession of Mr. Thomas Whitte- 
 more of New York (PI. III, 8). The imperial por- 
 trait of Constantine VIII is exactly like that on his 
 gold coins, while the type of the reverse is so close 
 to the anonymous bronze in size, details and style 
 that it seems almost as though it were struck from a 
 coin die. But Romanus III introduced an entirely 
 new type on his gold, and we should expect him to 
 change the type of the bronze, also. Yet Wroth 
 assigns to him one of the varieties of Class I, and, 
 though I cannot be so specific as that, I am forced 
 to conclude that he did strike bronze of Class I or 
 none by the evidence of proportion. The simplest 
 exposition of this evidence is to list the emperors, 
 their regnal years, the Classes which I assign to 
 them and the number of coins of each class found 
 among the 198 before referred to. 
 
 John I Dec. 969-Jan. 976 5 years ClassI 3 
 Basil I and 
 
 Constantine VIII Jan. 976—-Dec. 1025 50 years Class I 
 Constantine VIII Dec. 1to25-Nov. 1028 3 years ClassI; 76 
 
 Romanus III Nov. 1028-Apr. 1034 5 years Class I 
 
 Michael IV Apr. 1034-Dec. 1041 8 years ClassII 19 
 Michael V Dec. 1041-Apr. 1042 none ° 
 Zoe and Theodora Apr. — June 1042 none re) 
 Constantine IX June 1042~Jan. 1055 1234 years Class III 11 
 Theodora Jan. 1055-Aug. 1056 134 years ClassIV 1 
 Michael VI Aug. 1056-Aug. 1057 1tyear ClassV 3 
 Isaac I Aug. 10§57-Dec. 1059 2 years ClassVI 6 
 Michael VII Aug. 1071-Mar. 1078 634 years Class VII 10 
 
 Classes VIII-XIII will be considered later. 
 
 As to the two reigns to which no bronze is attri- 
 buted, the former has only one type of gold, attri- 
 buted by a probable conjecture (B.M.C. p. 498) 
 
BYZANTINE BRONZE ez 
 
 and no silver, the latter neither silver nor gold. 
 Each of the others is represented by at least one 
 type of signed gold. It will be seen that the 
 number of coins found, while not in exact proportion 
 to the lengths of reign, is roughly parallel, and this, 
 combined with the sequence of types, makes the 
 arrangement a plausible one. If Class II were 
 attributed to Romanus III where it ought to be on 
 purely reasonable grounds, that would move Class 
 III up to Michael IV. That would be possible, 
 though it would not improve the present proportions, 
 but, then, the 12% years of Constantine IX would 
 be represented by a single coin of Class IV, which 
 is most unlikely. A better amendment would be to 
 assign to Romanus III the one piece of Class IV, of 
 which we only know that it must come before Class 
 V. But there are two objections to this. In the 
 first place the fabric is not right. The size of the 
 flan gradually shrinks after Basil and Constantine, 
 and the place of Class IV in this process of degenera- 
 tion is clearly after Class III even though there is 
 no evidence from restriking. In the second place, 
 such a change would necessitate either leaving 
 Theodora without bronze, giving her Class V and 
 leaving Michael without bronze, or moving Class V 
 and VI up and leaving Isaac I without bronze. Of 
 these choices, the second is the better, for, while 
 Michael struck certainly one and probably two 
 types of gold, Theodora struck two of gold and one 
 of silver, Isaac three of gold and one of silver. 
 Moreover, the reign of Michael was the shortest. 
 
18 THE ANONYMOUS 
 
 But it was not short enough to deprive him of his 
 bronze without good reason. As nothing is accom- 
 plished by putting Class VI ahead of Class IV or V 
 or both, and as, on the evidence of restriking, no 
 other rearrangement of Classes I-VI is possible, 
 the present order must remain as the best available 
 solution until further evidence shall confirm or 
 refute it. 
 
 The case of Class VII is different, and presents a 
 problem. The termini of the type are defined by 
 restruck specimens. It is found in Berlin struck 
 over the type of Constantine X bearing figures of 
 Constantine and Eudocia. On the other hand, 
 De Saulcy (Numismatique Byzantine p. 250) 
 reported that it was used as a flan for Romanus IV, 
 and such a coin, in the possession of the American 
 Numismatic Society, is figured on Pl. II, 4. There 
 are, then, three possibilities between which we must 
 choose. 1. Class VI] isa late type of Constantine X. 
 2. It is an early type of Romanus IV. 3. It isa 
 type of Eudocia, widow of Constantine X, and her 
 sons, Michael and Constantine. None of the choices 
 seems satisfactory. The interregnum of Eudocia 
 and her sons lasted only from May to December 
 1067, and Class VII is much too common a type to 
 have been issued in eight months. If either Con- 
 stantine or Romanus was the issuer, he must have 
 restruck one type of his own coinage on another. 
 This is not an unparalled phenomenon, but it is a 
 rare one, and a solution which one is reluctant to 
 accept. As between the two, the balance of proba- 
 
BYZANTINE BRONZE 19 
 
 bility is slightly in favor of Constantine on the 
 grounds of proportion. In the 1925 dig there are 
 two coins of the signed issues of Constantine X, 
 one of each, and two of the type of Romanus bearing 
 his initial. Since the former reigned for 7% years, 
 the latter for a little less than 4, the extra ten pieces 
 of Class VII might more reasonably be attributed 
 to the former. It might also be argued that the 
 striking of an anonymous piece over a signed piece 
 is different from striking a piece with an initial over 
 an anonymous one, but whether this argument 
 favors Constantine or Romanus will depend on the 
 point of view of the individual. But there is an- 
 other circumstance which bears against them both. 
 Whereas the coinages of both occur in the excavation 
 in small but regular numbers, Michael VII, who 
 reigned from August 1071—March 1078 struck a 
 type of bronze bearing his name, but it is represented 
 at Corinth only by a single specimen found in 1907. 
 This dearth is the more surprising because his suc- 
 cessor Nicephorus III, 1078-1081, contributed 
 forty-six coins to the 1925 dig alone, Alexius I, 
 1081-1118, one hundred and eighty seven! We 
 know of no circumstance which could have isolated 
 Corinth during the reign of Michael VII, and he 
 was not without coinage, for he struck, in addition 
 to his signed bronze, three types of gold and four of 
 silver. To meet this difficulty I propose the fol- 
 lowing explanation. After Eudocia and her sons. 
 had reigned for part of the year 1067, in December 
 she married again, and her husband, Romanus 
 
20 THE ANONYMOUS 
 
 Diogenes, was crowned as Romanus IV. The fact 
 that this was a friendly arrangement, at least at 
 first, and not an act of usurpation, is attested by the 
 gold nomisma bearing Romanus and Eudocia on 
 one side, Michael, Constantine and Eudocia’s other 
 son Andronicus on the other. Now the interregnum 
 is also represented by a nomisma, showing Eudocia, 
 Michael and Constantine, and it is possible that at 
 the same time the issuance of Class VII began and 
 either ran concurrently with the bronze of Romanus, 
 or, having been superseded by his type, was revived 
 again when the Seljuks had taken Romanus pris- 
 oner, by Michael, whose imperial position had 
 never lapsed and who now came to the sole power 
 at the capture of his step-father and the deposition 
 of his mother. Of course, this explanation cannot 
 be regarded as proved, and probably not as capable 
 of proof, but it would show how the type of Romanus 
 came to be struck on Class VII, and would assign 
 to Michael VII that large class, supplying his reign 
 with proper representation at Corinth, and forming 
 an appropriate prelude to the abundant issues of 
 Nicephorus III and his successors. 
 
 Wroth attributes Classes VII and XI both to 
 Constantine IX and considers that “in type and 
 fabric this (Class XI—his Class VIII) differs little 
 from Class VII.” The restriking shows the attri- 
 bution to be impossible, and, while the types are 
 certainly notably similar, the fabric does in fact 
 differ so markedly as to make it certain that Class 
 XI, which is consistently smaller, was issued by 
 
BYZANTINE BRONZE 21 
 
 another emperor, and a later one. In the Numis- 
 matic Museum at Athens there is a piece of this 
 type clearly struck over a coin of Nicephorus ITI. 
 It must, then be a type of Nicephorus himself, of 
 Nicephorus Melissenus, pretender to the throne, 
 1080-1081, or of Alexius I. As the bronze of suc- 
 ceeding rulers is smaller, much thinner, and of en- 
 tirely different types, they need not be considered. 
 The frequency of the issue precludes the possibility 
 of the pretender, and we must chose between Nice- 
 phorus III and Alexius. As there are nine types of 
 bronze bearing Alexius’ name, one hesitates to 
 increase his already large issue, but the intimate 
 relations between this, and another of his types, to 
 be discussed presently, force the conclusion that. 
 Class XI is his. 
 
 Classes VIJTI—X and XI and XIII form an inter- 
 esting group which has been rejected from the 
 Byzantine series by the most competent authorities. 
 Sabatier (Vol. II, p. 231) and De Saulcy (op. cit. 
 pp. 377ff.) originally attributed them to the Latin 
 Emperors of Constantinople, 1204-1261. Against 
 this attribution, Wroth (B.M.C. p. 554) rightly 
 objects that their fabric ‘‘is of the eleventh and 
 twelfth centuries rather than of the thirteenth 
 century,” and that, as they occur restruck on coins 
 of Isaac I, Constantine X, Michael VII and Nice- 
 phorus III, they should be placed about the time 
 of Alexius. But Schlumberger will not admit them 
 as imperial coins. His argument is based on 
 provenance. ‘‘Tous les exemplaires de ce type que 
 
22 THE ANONYMOUS 
 
 j'ai recu’’ he says (Numismatique de l’Orient Latin, 
 p. 22) ‘‘me sont venus de Beyrouth, d’Alep, et 
 meme de Bagdad, confondus avec d’autres piéces de 
 cuivre des comtes d’Edesse, de Roger et de Tancréde 
 d’ Antioch—I]1 est impossible que des piéces frappées 
 & Constantinople ne se trouvent qu’en Syrie ou sur 
 les bords de |’Euphrate.”’ Influenced by the simi- 
 larity of certain pieces of Baldwin II of Edessa, 
 (cf. ibid. Pl. I) he therefore attributes the anony- 
 mous pieces to the same ruler. De Saulcy accepted 
 his reasoning, and Wroth regards them as “coins of 
 the Crusaders struck in Syria or Palestine.’’ These 
 are authorities not lightly to be set aside, but the 
 facts are clearly against them. No coin struck by 
 the Crusaders in Asia Minor has yet been found at 
 Corinth. If one or two did turn up it would be no 
 more surprising than the occasional finding of 
 English pennies of Henry III. But of Class X 
 there were 2 in 1925, of Class VIII, 15, and of Class 
 IX, 31. The excavations of other years have 
 produced them regularly in similar quantities. 
 Moreover, they occur quite as regularly elsewhere 
 in Greece: in the British excavations at Sparta, 
 for instance, and even at the Fogg Museum’s 
 small dig at Eutresis in Boeotia. They can be 
 found in the hands of any antique dealer in Athens. 
 Surely this is sufficient refutation of M. Schlum- 
 berger’s argument that they are found only in the 
 East. And surely there is only one coinage which 
 could be current both in Corinth and in Syria: the 
 Imperial Byzantine issues. The conclusion is that 
 
BYZANTINE BRONZE 2 
 
 WwW 
 
 they are coins of Alexius—Crusaders’ coins truly, 
 but struck for the Crusaders and not by them. 
 The type is so significant that it seems impossible 
 to attribute them to Nicephorus III, whose brief 
 and uneasy reign is well supplied with bronze bearing 
 his initial. Earlier than Nicephorus they cannot 
 be, as they occur struck over his coins, and the 
 emperors after Alexius are definitely excluded on 
 the evidence of fabric. The few coins of Class X 
 that I have seen are 27 mm. in diameter, or slightly 
 larger; Class VIII averages 25.5 mm.; Class IX, 
 24mm. The bronze coinage of Alexius which bears 
 his name averages slightly under 20 mm., and, 
 ‘though the less common bronze of John II, 1118- 
 1143, is slightly over 20 mm., that of his successor, 
 Manuel I, 1143-1180, is never larger than 19.5 mm. 
 and averages only a trifle over 16 mm. This de- 
 crease in diameter is accompanied by a decrease in 
 thickness, hardly measurable but instantly apparent. 
 Style as well as fabric make an attribution of the 
 anonymous pieces to emperors later than Manuel 
 out of the question. Their likeness to the coins of 
 Baldwin of Edessa is now fully explained; Baldwin’s 
 currency was imitated from the imperial issues. 
 But we are now met with irritating difficulties. 
 On the evidence of fabric, Class X, which is the 
 largest, should come before Classes VIII and IX. 
 But there is in the Yale collection a specimen which 
 shows unmistakably a part of the Latin cross with 
 floral ornaments of Class IX under the obverse 
 type of Class X. Furthermore, Class XI, with the 
 
24 THE ANONYMOUS 
 
 bust of Christ and the half length figure of the Virgin, 
 is found struck over Class X. There are five coins 
 in Berlin which show traces of both types, and, 
 much as I should like to believe that Class XI is 
 the earlier, it is only too plain that this is not so. 
 One piece, for example, was struck first by Nice- 
 phorus III. On the obverse is visible part of the 
 nimbus, two limbs of the cross and part of the head 
 and robe of Christ from his type. Above this are 
 the two other types: the bust of Christ with a 
 border of large dots, and the cross on a crescent, 
 with only one of the large pellets surrounded by 
 small pellets showing. This might be ambiguous, 
 but, on the reverse, the ® and A, one arm of the 
 cross and one globule of the reverse of Nicephorus 
 can be seen, over which is the half length Virgin, 
 with no sign of the reverse of Class X, which could 
 hardly be the case if this were the last type struck. 
 Were it not for this complication, the coinage of 
 Alexius would be comparatively simple. We should 
 attribute Class XI to his earlier years, 1081-1095, 
 the types with Christ and a cross to the period of 
 his dealings with the Crusaders, and the types 
 bearing his initial or name to his later years. One 
 would like to believe that these pious pieces were 
 first struck in connection with the pious enterprise 
 which Alexius incautiously stimulated, and which 
 all but engulfed him. But, if we do so, we must 
 hold that, for the first fifteen years of his reign he 
 struck no bronze, which seems unlikely in the 
 extreme. The only way out is to prove that the 
 
BYZANTINE BRONZE 25 
 
 various types were struck concurrently, whether at 
 the same or at separate mints, and for such a purpose 
 we need a great deal more evidence than we now 
 have. This confusion of types does, however, 
 make it more certain that they are all the coinage of 
 Alexius, especially when we find occasional pieces 
 of the bronze with his name bearing the circle of 
 large dots of Class XI (cf. B.M.C. Pl. LXV, 17 and 
 22). Moreover, there is one piece in the Yale col- 
 lection one side of which bears the half length figure 
 of the Virgin, orans, of Class XI, while the other 
 has the Latin cross, large and small pellets, of Class 
 X (Pl. II, 12). The coin is worn and obscure, but 
 it does not seem to have been overstruck. It is 
 apparently either a mule or a rare transitional issue 
 between Classes X and XI. We must rest our 
 case, then, with the assumption that Class VIII is 
 the first of Alexius’ types, to a modification of 
 which he later returned because of its appropriate- 
 ness to the Crusaders with whom he had so many 
 financial dealings. 
 
 The question of priority between Classes VIII 
 and IX is conjectural. I put them in this order 
 because, in the first place, the flans of Class VIII 
 average slightly larger than those of Class IX, and, 
 in the second place, the Latin cross of Class IX 
 with X in the center is more closely connected 
 with the cross of equal limbs, with X in the center 
 which appears on the reverse of the earliest of 
 Alexius’ signed bronzes. Class XII is figured by 
 Sabatier Vol. II, Pl. LVIII, No. 16. It has not 
 
26 THE ANONYMOUS 
 
 occurred at Corinth so far as I know. I assume 
 that it is another step in the development of the 
 cross pattée. In the case of Class XIII, Pl. II, 
 9, 10, the cross pattée appears, though, it is true, 
 the X in the center is missing. I assign them ten- 
 tatively to the very end of the anonymous series, 
 certainly to the reign of Alexius. It is to be hoped 
 that a more thorough study of that reign may 
 eventually serve to clear up the problems of his unat- 
 tractive but important coinage. 
 
 It remains to say a word about the barbarous 
 imitations of these anonymous pieces. There are 
 two caricatures of Class II in Berlin among the 
 coins from Baalbec (PI. III, 1, 2). There is a worn 
 coin in the Yale collection bearing, on the obverse, 
 Christ seated on a throne with a back, on the reverse 
 a blundered imitation of Class III. A smaller and 
 clearer piece from Berlin is similar, Pl. III, 7... 
 Another barbarous imitation of Class 
 III comes from Berlin, Pl. III, 4. 
 There is an obscure imitation of Class 
 VIII among the coins from Corinth, 
 Pl. III, 5. And, finally, there is an- 
 other coin in the Yale collection bear- 
 ing a barbarous bust of Christ on the obverse and 
 with the reverse like Fig. 1. This, to be sure, is not 
 related to the anonymous coins, being an imitation 
 of a signed type of Alexius I (B.M.C. p. 551, Type 
 9). But I introduce it here for the light it sheds 
 on the coin which Schlumberger figures, Pl. I, 17, 
 among the pieces of the Counts of Edessa. I have 
 
BYZANTINE BRONZE 27 
 
 made no systematic search for such imitations, which 
 may be quite common, and may either be the early 
 attempts of the Crusaders themselves, or forgeries 
 of Moslems or northern barbarians. 
 
 The problems of the anonymous bronze are cer- 
 tainly not yet finally settled, but it has seemed useful 
 to record such evidence as is now available, in the 
 hope that it may advance a little the much neglected 
 study of Byzantine numismatics. 
 
aeerest 
 a? 
 
 ik 
 3 
 
 - 
 
 leg fot, ene 
 
 PPA 
 
a i ake 3 
 % 
 t. 
 an 
 : . 
 ‘ 
 Eras 
 ty, 
 . ? 
 i 
 of q 
 , , 
 if ~ 
 E + 
 : re ’ ry 
 52% ex 
 wee ee) FATT Hy 5 re 
 
 ¥ A, p 5 
 y | { uy, oa 
 ; f a Ee ee 
 
ANONYMOUS BYZANTINE BRONZE 
 
 ry, 
 
Plate I 
 
 >. 
 vi Preven 
 S460 28U 
 TONG 
 
 a L 
 
ANONYMOUS BYZANTINE BRONZE 
 
Plate II 
 
tote bee ee he, 
 
ANONYMOUS BYZANTINE BRONZE Fonte é Saat 
 
Plate ITI 
 
NumisMaTic NoTEs AND MONOGRAPHS _ 
 
 1. Sydney P. Noe. Coin Hoards. 1921. 47 pp. 
 6 pls. 50c. eee 
 4. Howland Wood. The Mexican Revolutionary | 
 Coinage. 1913-1916. 1921. 44 pp. 26 pls. 
 $2.00. 
 6. Agnes Baldwin. Five Roman Gold Medallions. 
 1921. 103 pp. 8 pls. $1.50. . : 
 7. Sydney P. Noe. Medallic Work of A. A. Wein- 
 man. 1921. 3lpp. 17 pls. $1.00. 
 8. Gilbert S. Perez. The Mint of the Philippine © 
 Islands. 1921. 8pp. 4pls. 50c. 
 9. David Eugene Smith, LL.D. Computing Jetons. 
 1921. 70 pp. 25 pls. $1.50. 
 10. Edward T. Newell. The First Seleucid Coinage 
 _ of Tyre. 1921. 40 pp. 8pls. $1.00. 
 11. Harrold E. Gillingham. French Orders and 
 Decorations. 1922. 110 pp. 35 pls. $2.00. 
 ——— Sollars (Ol too.) ieee. 
 
 Uohammedan Coinage of 
 56 pp. I5 pls. $2.00. 
 belos I of Characene. 
 $1.00. 
 
 cistes (A Contribution to 
 yc 1922. 234 pp. 13 
 
 nemorative Coinage of 
 63 pp. 7pls. $1.50. 
 man Bronze Medallions. 
 $1.50. 
 
 galpa Coinage of 1823. 
 50c. 
 
 xander Hoards—II. De- 
 1923. 162pp. 8pls. $2.50. 
 
 manhur Hoard. 
 
REE 
 
 34. 
 
 NUMISMATIC NOTES AND MONOGRAPHS 
 > x (Continued) 
 
 . Harrold E. Gillingham. Italian Orders of Chivatry 
 
 and Medals of Honour. 1923. 146 pp. 34 
 pls. $2.00. 
 
 . Edward T. Newell. “Mesander Hoards—IlII. 
 
 Andritsaena. 1924. 39 pp. 6 pls. $1.00. 
 
 . C. T. Seltman. A Hoard from Side. 1924. 20 
 
 pp. 3pls. $1.00. 
 
 . R. B. Seager. A Cretan Coin Hoard. 1924, 55 
 
 pp. 12 pls. $2.00. 
 
 . Samuel R. Milbank. The CHnante of Aegina. | 
 
 1925. 66 pp. Spls. $2.00. 
 
 . Sydney P. Noe. A Bibliography of Greek pe 
 
 Hoards. 1925. 275 pp. $2.50. 
 
 . Edward T. Newell. Mithradates of Parthia and 
 
 Hyspaosines of Characene. 1925. 18 pp. 2pls. — 
 , 50c. N - e 
 
 . Sydney P. Noe. The Mende (Kaliandra) Hoard, 
 
 1926. 73 pp. 10pls. $2.00. 
 
 . Agnes Baldwin. Four Medallions from the Arras 
 
 Hoard. 1926. 36 pp. 4 pls. $1.50. 
 
 . H. Alexander Parsons. The Earliest Coins of 
 
 ‘Norway. 1926. 41 pp. 50c. 
 
 . Edward T. Newell. Some Unpublished Coins of ; 
 
 Eastern Dynasts. 1926. 21 pp. 2 pls. 50c. 
 
 . Harrold E. Gillingham. Spanish Orders of Chival- 
 
 ry and Decorations of Honour. 1926. 165 pp. 
 40 pls. $3.00. : 
 
 . Sydney P. Noe. The Coinage of irae rerescneei: 
 
 1927 (Part 1). 134 pp. 23 pls. $3.00. 
 Edward T. Newell. Two Recent Egyptian 
 Hoards—Deita and Keneh. 1927. 34 pp. | 
 3 pls. $1.00. . 
 Edward Rogers. ‘The Second oy Third Seleucid 
 Coinage of Tyre. 1927. 33 pp. 4pls. $1.50. 
 
 K