DOCSLIB.ORG

308 23. the Pseudo-Byzantine Coinage

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
308 23. the Pseudo-Byzantine Coinage 23. The Pseudo-Byzantine Coinage. 23.4. The earliest Arab-Byzantine coins: 638-647 (Foss; 5.26 gms. 030. 2008). 1 623.99. Emperor and Empress standing (Goodwin Type A). 23.1. m; NIUKO below. 10.16 gms. 160. 637.99. 23.5.* 5.24 gms. 180. 779.02. Three standing figures each holding globus cruciger or cross (Goodwin Type B). Type B (i) (M); Cyprus imitations. PS&S Class I.1a; pseudo-mint mark (a). M, X/u/II to right, à beneath, KVâP below. 23.6. 4.94 gms. 180. 205.87. 23.2.* 5.66 gms. 030. 110.85. 23.7. 4.12 gms. 180. 1366.08. 23.3.* 5.63 gms. 200. 502.95. 308 Type B (i) (M); Cyprus imitations. Type B (ii) (M); other imitations citing year 17 PS&S Class I.1a; pseudo-mint mark (a). (mainly X/u/II). PS&S Class I.1; pseudo-mint marks b-d. 23.8.* 4.11 gms. 200. 23.12.* 781.02. NñuP; à. MIB x44. 6.48 gms. 180. 474.95. 23.9. 3.96 gms. 180. 587.97. 23.13. Nñu; à. 5.61 gms. 190. 536.95.2 23.10.* 3.69 gms. 150. 586.97. 23.14. X/1/I. CON; à. 5.47 gms. 150. 585.96. 23.11. 3.50 gms. 150. 780.02. 23.15.* VOk; à. 4.42 gms. 000. 836.02. 309 Year 7 (I1 or 1/I). 23.16. ñCP; B. MIB x51. 4.27 gms. 270. 500.95. 23.20.* NIKO; B. 9.45 gms. 210. 798.02. 23.17. CON; ». 3.84 gms. 000. 499.95. 23.21.* CON; à. 8.09 gms. 180. 3 1601.12. 23.18. ñCP; B. MIB x51. Year 12 (IX/I) or X/II). 3.61 gms. 180. 837.02. Type B (iii) (M); other pseudo-dates/mint marks. 23.22.* PS&S Class I.1; pseudo-mint marks b-d. NIKO. 4.41 gms. 200. Year 5 (u). 916.02. 23.19. NIKO; A. 23.23. 8.20 gms. 340. 494.95. ñ. 3.86 gms. 180. 1928.13. 310 Type B (iii) (M); other pseudo-dates/mint marks. Year 16 (X/1). Year 13 (X/II/I or X/III). 23.28. B. 23.24. 4.85 gms. 240. CON; à. 1287.06.4 7.17 gms. 000. 1995.14. Year 14 (X/IIII). 23.29. CON; à. 4.25 gms. 200. 1367.08. 23.25.* tHP; B. MIB x43. 5.58 gms. 290. 152.87. 23.30.* ION; A. 2.97 gms. 190. 651.99. 23.26. tHP; B. Year 20 (X/X). MIB x43. 5.30 gms. 180. 834.02. 23.31.* KYZ; A. 5.43 gms. 000. 2077.15. 23.27. tHP; B. MIB x43. 4.55 gms. 180. 670.00. 311 Type B (iii) (M); other pseudo-dates/mint marks. PS&S Class I.1; pseudo-mint marks b-d. Year 20 (X/X). 23.36. i. 3.92 gms. 180. 835.02. 23.32. tHñuP; ñ. 5.26 gms. 160. 475.95. 23.37. 3.89 gms. 150. 588.97. 23.33.* B. 4.35 gms. 180. 1500.10. 23.38. å. Uncertain year. 3.08 gms. 000. 658.99. 23.34. Two standing male figures (PS&S Class II.1). uH; È. 7.87 gms. 030. Cyprus imitation; year 17 (X/u/II). 5 1540.11. 23.39.* Vãâ; à. PS&S pl. VI, 1. 4.49 gms. 180. 1365.08. 23.35.* 4.51 gms. 030. 577.96. 312 Two standing figures; main figure in military dress PS&S Class I.2. Three standing figures; central holding a long cross (Goodwin Type C). figure in military dress holding a long cross. Year 13 (X/III). 23.40. M between A/N/N/O and A/í/ã, ñ beneath, COtK below. 23.44.* 4.59 gms. 090. A beneath. 1979.13. 3.68 gms. 000. 1439.09. Year 15 (X/u). 23.41. ã beneath. 4.27 gms. 000. 659.99.6 23.45. ñ beneath. 4.64 gms. 020. 1368.08. 23.42. Heraclian monogram Half folles (K); two standing figures. to right. 4.18 gms. 170. 657a.99.7 23.46.* 1. 2.88 gms. 200. 1983.13. 23.43. X/I to right, à beneath. 3.24 gms. 170. 657b.99.8 23.47. 2.12 gms. 170. 1945.13. 313 Facing bust: 645-647 (Foss; 2008). Beardless bust (Goodwin Type G). Cyprus imitation; year 17 (X/u/II). 23.52. 3.69 gms. 000. 359r.90. 23.48.* Kñâ; à. 4.65 gms. 210. 1645.12. & PS S Class III.1b (pl. VII, 3). M, ñ/O to right, O3O below. PS&S Class III.1a. Obverse legend INPñR CONSt. 23.53.* 4.36 gms. 200. 1649.12. 23.49.* M between A/N and A II ñ / / . 3.84 gms. 030. 2036.14. 23.54. 4.29 gms. 220. Other pseudo-dates and mint marks. 501.95. 23.50.* M between A/N/O and 1/I, å beneath, KYZ below. 4.40 gms. 220. 373.91.9 23.55. 4.11 gms. 330. 1987.13. 23.51. A. 3.93 gms. 180. 1647.12. 314 PS&S Class III. 23.60. 4.53 gms. 000. 23.56. 1957.13. CON; A. 3.71 gms. 080. 1371.08. Bearded bust (Goodwin Type H). 23.61. 3.96 gms. 140. 1988.13. 23.57.* M, 1/II to right. 5.47 gms. 000. 2035.14. 23.62. 3.26 gms. 140. 23.58. 1937.13. M, ã beneath. 3.87 gms. 030. 359q.90. The Imitative Coinage: 647-670 (PS&S Class IV). 23.63. 3.18 gms. 200. Imperial figure standing wearing crown with cross 760.01. and holding long cross and globus cruciger. A/N/A N/ñ/O (or similar) around m. m; close imitations (Goodwin Type E); (Foss; 2008). 23.64. m between A/N/N 23.59.* and A/ú/ã. 8.81 gms. 000. 2.86 gms. 150. 2067.14. 1540a.11. 315 Poor imitations (Goodwin Type E); (Foss; 2008). The Lazy S coinage. 23.65. 23.70.* CON. m; 3/È/N/O to left. 3.88 gms. 200. 2.93 gms. 010. 1538.11. 571.96. 23.71. 23.66. m between X/S and 3.61 gms. 150. K/N/S, A beneath. 1316.07. 2.63 gms. 250. 572.96. 23.72. m between A/3 and 3/ñ/O. 23.67. D. O. (Foss) 27. 2.87 gms. 150. 4.05 gms. 110. 590.97. 1498.10. Standing figure with M. Close imitations (Foss; 2008). 23.68. 2.62 gms. 150. 514.95. 23.73.* M, à beneath, NIK below. 4.51 gms. 180. 498.95. 23.69. 2.14 gms. 030. 513.95. 316 Standing figure with M: Close imitations (Foss; 2008). 23.78. PS&S pl. X, 5. 2.57 gms. 180. 23.74.* 1373.08. M, 1/I to right, B beneath, KYZ below. 3.53 gms. 030. 1946.13. 23.79. 2.91 gms. 170. 1317.07. 23.75. 2.97 gms. 000. 1545.11. Type I (circa 670); copying a Sicilian follis of Constantine IV. Bust facing wearing cuirass and helmet with plume and holding a globus cruciger. Poor imitations (Foss; 2008). M between two figures; SCL below. 23.76.* PS&S pl. X, 5. 23.80. 5.25 gms. 200. 1372.08. D. O. 25. 2.61 gms. 180. 1559.11.10 REFERENCES AND GENERAL NOTES 23.77. Goodwin, T., Arab-Byzantine Coinage, Studies in PS&S pl. X, 5. the Khalili Collection, London, 2004. This is the 4.14 gms. 180. best introduction. It classifies the Pseudo- 1374.08. Byzantine coinage by iconographical type (Types A- I), building, perhaps, on an initial survey of the subject by Shraga Qedar in Copper Coinage of Syria in the Seventh and Eighth Century A. D., Israel Numismatic Journal, volume 10 (1988-89), pp. 27- 39. A great deal of information is also provided in 317 Pottier, Schulze and Schulze, Pseudo-Byzantine 23.10. All of the reverse is retrograde. Coinage in Syria under Arab Rule (638 - c. 670); 23.12-13. Intriguingly, there seems to be a u in classification and dating; in Revue Belge de the left hand obverse field of MIB x44 (plate 15). Numismatique, CLIV (2008), pp. 87-155; (Pottier et See also V. C. Vecchi auction no. 7 (March 1982), al., or PS&S). On some of the coins with date lot 521, for a similar coin to 23.13 on which the arrangements, see Goodwin, T., A Mint Striking same symbol is visible in the obverse left field. Early Dated (?) Arab-Byzantine Coins, Numismatic 23.15. The date arrangement is to the left of the Circular (NC) April 2011, pp. 8-12; for catalogue M and is retrograde but year 17 seems to be numbers 23.46; 23.57 and 23.74. intended. 23.20. Partly retrograde reverse. A basic chronological structure is given in Foss, C., 23.21. No obverse legend but of a good standard Arab-Byzantine Coins, An Introduction with a of manufacture. catalogue of the Dumbarton Oaks collection (D. O. 23.22. The coin may be a regular class 4 follis of Byzantine Collection Publications 12), Washington Heraclius, but these are not known for regnal year DC, 2008. The classification provided by Goodwin 11 and the fabric, style and blundered lettering of has been modified slightly for the purposes of this the coin point towards a copy of some kind.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Middle Byzantine Numismatics in the Light of Franz Füeg's Corpora Of
    This is a repository copy of Middle Byzantine Numismatics in the Light of Franz Füeg’s Corpora of Nomismata. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/124522/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Jarrett, J orcid.org/0000-0002-0433-5233 (2018) Middle Byzantine Numismatics in the Light of Franz Füeg’s Corpora of Nomismata. Numismatic Chronicle, 177. pp. 514-535. ISSN 0078-2696 © 2017 The Author. This is an author produced version of a paper accepted for publication in Numismatic Chronicle. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher's self-archiving policy. Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ REVIEW ARTICLE Middle Byzantine Numismatics in the Light of Franz Füeg’s Corpora of Nomismata* JONATHAN JARRETT FRANZ FÜEG, Corpus of the Nomismata from Anastasius II to John I in Constantinople 713–976: Structure of the Issues; Corpus of Coin Finds; Contribution to the Iconographic and Monetary History, trans.
    [Show full text]
  • Byzantine Coinage
    BYZANTINE COINAGE Philip Grierson Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection Washington, D.C. © 1999 Dumbarton Oaks Trustees for Harvard University Washington, D.C. All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Second Edition Cover illustrations: Solidus of Justinian II (enlarged 5:1) ISBN 0-88402-274-9 Preface his publication essentially consists of two parts. The first part is a second Tedition of Byzantine Coinage, originally published in 1982 as number 4 in the series Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Collection Publications. Although the format has been slightly changed, the content is fundamentally the same. The numbering of the illustrations,* however, is sometimes different, and the text has been revised and expanded, largely on the advice and with the help of Cécile Morrisson, who has succeeded me at Dumbarton Oaks as advisor for Byzantine numismatics. Additions complementing this section are tables of val- ues at different periods in the empire’s history, a list of Byzantine emperors, and a glossary. The second part of the publication reproduces, in an updated and slightly shorter form, a note contributed in 1993 to the International Numismatic Commission as one of a series of articles in the commission’s Compte-rendus sketching the histories of the great coin cabinets of the world. Its appearance in such a series explains why it is written in the third person and not in the first. It is a condensation of a much longer unpublished typescript, produced for the Coin Room at Dumbarton Oaks, describing the formation of the collection and its publication. * The coins illustrated are in the Dumbarton Oaks and Whittemore collections and are re- produced actual size unless otherwise indicated.
    [Show full text]
  • The Gender of Money: Byzantine Empresses on Coins (324–802)’ Gender & History, Vol.12 No
    Gender & History ISSN 0953–5233 Leslie Brubaker and Helen Tobler, ‘The Gender of Money: Byzantine Empresses on Coins (324–802)’ Gender & History, Vol.12 No. 3 November 2000, pp. 572–594. The Gender of Money: Byzantine Empresses on Coins (324–802) Leslie Brubaker and Helen Tobler Coins played different roles in the ancient and medieval worlds from those that they play in the economy today. In the late antique and early Byzantine world – that is, roughly between 300 and 800 – there were in a sense two currencies: gold coins and base metal (copper) coins. Both were minted and distributed by the state, but the gold solidi (in Latin) or nomismata (in Greek), introduced in 309, were by the end of the fifth century in practice used above all for the payment of tax and for major transactions such as land sales, while the copper coins (nummi, replaced in 498 by folles) were broadly the currency of market transactions.1 Another striking difference is that late antique and Byzantine coin types changed with great frequency: as an extreme example, Maria Alföldi catalogued over seven hundred different types for a single emperor, Constantine I the Great (306–37, sole ruler from 324).2 There are many reasons for this, but one of the most import- ant has to do with communication: centuries before the advent of the press, images on coins were a means to circulate information about the state. This is particularly true of the first three and a half centuries covered by this article. While the extent to which coins were used in daily exchange transactions is still uncertain, and was very variable, the frequency with which they appear in archaeological excavations of urban sites throughout the former eastern Roman empire until 658 indicates their wide diffusion.
    [Show full text]
  • Byzantine Gold Coins and Jewellery
    Byzantine Gold Coins andJewellery A STUDY OF GOLD CONTENTS * Andrew Oddy * and Susan La Niece * Department of Conservation and Technical Service, and Research Laboratory *, British Museum, London, United Kingdom When the capital oftheRoman Empire was transferredfrom Rome to Constantinople in 330 A.D., a new `Rome' was created in the Eastern half oftheEmpire which was initially to rival, and very soon eclipse, the original one. This city became the capital of onehalfof a divided Empire, and as most of the Western half was gradually overrun and fell to `barbariuns'from outside the Empire during the next 150 years, Constantinople became the centre forthesurtrival of `classical' culture. The Byzantine Empire slowly changed, of course, being affected by the emergence ofMedievalEurope to the Westand oflslam to the East andSouth, but despitethepressuresfromthesetwopotentaenemies, the essential culture ofearly Byzantium adhered to Roman traditions, particularly in art, architecture, and all other applied arts, such as coinage. The Byzantine Gold Coinage same in the main mint of Constantinople until the reign of The standard gold coin of the later Roman Empire was the Nicephorus 11 (963-969 A.D.) although the designs changed solidus, first introduced by Constantine the Great in 312 A.D. and dramatically, with the introduction of other members of the struck at 72 to the Roman pound (i.e. an individual weight of about imperial family on either obverse or reverse and, from the first reign 4.5 g). The shape and weight of this coin remained essentially the ofJustinian 11(685-695 A.D.), with a representation of Christ on Fig. 1(above) The Byzantine Gold Coinagefrom A.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Remilitarising the Byzantine Imperial Image: a Study of Numismatic Evidence and Other Visual Media 1042-1453
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Birmingham Research Archive, E-theses Repository REMILITARISING THE BYZANTINE IMPERIAL IMAGE: A STUDY OF NUMISMATIC EVIDENCE AND OTHER VISUAL MEDIA 1042-1453 by MICHAEL STEPHEN SAXBY A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies College of Arts and Law University of Birmingham March 2017 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. Abstract The messages in the imagery on Byzantine coins, although often neglected by scholars, were a key means of projecting imperial power. Emperors could project power via dress, ceremonial, and displays, but these methods would not have reached all subjects. Byzantine coins had the advantage of reaching all subjects, as the Byzantine economy was fundamentally monetized. Military symbols (figures, dress, and weapons), whose study has been rather overlooked, formed an important part of this imagery. Whilst military symbols disappeared from Byzantine coins in the early eighth century, and were absent for some three centuries, they were reintroduced in the mid-eleventh century and appeared until 1394/5.
    [Show full text]
  • John I Tzimiskes and the Invention of Class “A” Anonymous Folles Jeremy J
    Piety and Propaganda: John I Tzimiskes and the Invention of Class “A” Anonymous Folles Jeremy J. Johnson For almost a century now, scholars have attributed the inven- this series run from 969 to 1092 AD, and although not really tion and decoration of Class “A” Anonymous Folles to the anonymous, these classes have been identified as such because piety of the Byzantine Emperor John I Tzimiskes (969-976 they represent the first examples of Byzantine coins to lack AD).1 Evidence for such a claim has come not only from the the traditional image and inscription relating them to a spe- ancient sources and archaeological record, but also from the cific emperor.3 decorative scheme of the coins themselves. With both the ob- Over the years, numismatists have attended to this unique verse and reverse of these coins solely dedicated to the name series of coins, specifically focusing their studies on those coins and image of Christ (Figure 1), it is no wonder that scholars of Class “A.”4 Unfortunately, however, most of the studies deal- think of these coins and the reasons behind their creation as ing with Class “A” coins have been, on the whole, numis- strictly religious in nature. However, in the examination of matic in nature. That is to say, in the words of Philip Grierson, the iconography of these coins and the social-historical events these studies have taken on the following format: surrounding John I Tzimiskes, it becomes rather apparent that The identification, classification, and de- the motive behind the issuing of these coins was not only one scription of individual coins, their attribu- of piety, but also one of propaganda.
    [Show full text]
  • The Solidus – the Dollar of the Middle Ages
    The Solidus – the Dollar of the Middle Ages It was the symbol of imperial power in Byzantium. Popular and willingly accepted everywhere in the then-known world, it was admired and copied by many kings in many kingdoms. There was no coin that could be compared to it: the Byzantine solidus. For more than 700 years struck in the same weight and fineness, the solidus was the principal trade coin from Europe throughout Asia – the dollar of the Middle Ages. 1 von 15 www.sunflower.ch Roman Empire, Constantine I the Great (307-337), Solidus, 314, Treverorum Denomination: Solidus Mint Authority: Emperor Constantine I Mint: Treverorum (Trier) Year of Issue: 314 Weight (g): 4.45 Diameter (mm): 24.0 Material: Gold Owner: Sunflower Foundation Constantine the Great had the solidus minted for the first time in the mint of Treverorum (Trier), shortly after his ascension to power. Subsequently the coin was issued in other mints of Constantine's sphere of influence as well. After the emperor had become sole ruler in 324, he made the solidus the standard gold coin of his entire realm. It replaced the aureus, which had been minted since the 3rd century BC, but had lost its reputation in the course of the 3rd century AD. Under most of Constantine's successors, solidi were minted in good quality regarding their fineness and weight. This was why the coins soon became renowned for their solidity. The solidus and its third, the tremissis, were issued until the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, and subsequently by several Germanic tribes of the migration period.
    [Show full text]
  • The Monetary History of the East Mediterranean in the Middle Ages As Judged from Imitated Coins
    The Monetary History of the East Mediterranean in the Middle Ages as Judged from Imitated Coins Hiroshi KATO and Michiya NISHIMURA Introduction The Arab–Islamic powers emerged in the 7th century. After that, the East Mediterranean was divided into three civilizational–political circles, Greek–Orthodoxy (Byzantine Empire), Latin–Catholic (Frankish Empire and its successors), and Arab–Islam (Islamic dynasties). These three circles developed their own distinctive monetary systems, but they were both opposed to and interconnected with each other. This paper aims to explain some features of these opposing but interconnected monetary systems in the East Mediterranean during the Middle Ages, which we define as the period between the emergence of the Arab–Islamic powers in the 7th century and the rise of Italian city-states in the 15th century. 1. Conceptual framework The conceptual framework of our research is shown by the triangle comprising the state, and international and local markets in Figure 1. Monetary affairs are complicated phenomena in which economic activities in apparently separate international and local markets are in reality closely linked with each other. However, monetary affairs in the international and local markets could be distinguished and be dealt with separately, at least in theory. The key concept of our research is the imitated coin. In history, coinages have been imitated in two respects: imitation of design and manipulation of intrinsic value (fineness and/ or weight). Based on the dichotomic theory of monetary origin, the state vs. the market, the imitated coins reflect the delicate relationship between the supplier of coin, the state or local community, and its user, the market.
    [Show full text]
  • Byzantine Imperial Image
    University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. List of Illustrations Figure Facing Page 1. Silver tetradrachm of Philip II (359-336 BC) 1 2. Orich sestertius of Trajan (AD 98-117) 1 3. Gold solidus of Justin II (565-78) 1 4. Gold solidus of Anastasios (491-518) 2 5. Bronze coin of Arcadios (383-408) 2 6. Silver ceremonial coin of Leo III (717-41) 2 7. Class 13 copper trachy of Andronikos III (1328-41) 3 8. Class 12 copper trachy of Andronikos III (1328-41) 3 9. Class 14 copper trachy of Andronikos III (1328-41) 3 10. Aspron trachy nomisma in electrum of John II (1118-43) 4 11. Class IV gold histamenon of Constantine IX (1042-55) 4 12. Silver miliaresion of Constantine IX (1042-55) 4 13. Portrait of Basil II (976-1025) 5 14. The Barberini Ivory, c. 6th century 6 15. Class I gold histamenon of Isaac I (1057-59) 7 16. Class II gold histamenon of Isaac I (1057-59) 7 17. Silver miliaresion of Michael VII (1071-78) 7 18.
    [Show full text]
  • Use of Money in the Byzantine Empire: Some Examples of Transactions
    Use of Money in the Byzantine Empire: Some Examples of Transactions Michiya NISHIMURA Preface The Byzantine Empire, which survived until 1453, was the continuation of the Roman Empire. With a history of over 1,000 years, the empire was not only a successor to classical antiquity but also a dynamic actor in several contemporary affairs of the Middle Ages, including monetary arrangements.1 This paper is inspired by work of Kuroda, (2008a) and (2008b), with his perception of the complementarity among monies, and of the factors concerning time and space (temporality, seasonality, and locality) in making transactions that cause this complementarity. However, the economic situation in this empire was quite different from that in our era. For the present, two points must be mentioned. Firstly, there are few data for statistical analysis, which is not the case in modern fields of history. This paper employs qualitative analysis from textual evidence to examine the use of money in the empire. It is difficult to determine whether temporality, seasonality, and locality of money in the empire caused complementarity or not, but these keywords have been insufficiently examined and analyzed, as we show below. Secondly, in Byzantine studies, until today the empire’s economy has been the main focus. There is some controversy about the Byzantine economy, especially its market. Laiou explained this controversy using K. Polanyi’s three types of economic integration: ‘redistribution’, ‘reciprocity’, ‘exchange’.2 Laiou suggested, “Polanyi’s three integrative systems describe not economies but systems of exchange”. She identified two types of exchange. One is the ‘economic exchange’ that is Polanyi’s ‘exchange’.
    [Show full text]
  • The Proclamation of Peace on the Coinage of Carthage Under Constans II David Woods
    The Proclamation of Peace on the Coinage of Carthage under Constans II David Woods Y THE REIGN of Constans II (641–668), the mint at Carthage was the second most important in the empire, Bstriking coins in gold, silver, and copper.1 Over the reign of Constans, it struck only one denomination of silver coin, a third siliqua, but struck this in four different types. Un- fortunately, none of these types bear dates, but their order of production can be determined from the changing styles of the portraits on the obverse, in particular the presence or length of the emperor’s beard. Furthermore, the approximate dates of these portrait types can also be determined by their use on dated gold and copper coins from Constantinople and else- where. The purpose of this paper is to propose a new inter- pretation of the reverse on the second of the four successive types of third siliqua struck at Carthage under Constans, that 1 In general see Philip Grierson, Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection II.2 Heraclius Constantine to Theodosius III (641–717) (Washington 1968: henceforth DOC ) 412–413, 468–484; Wolfgang Hahn, Moneta Imperii Byzantini III Von Heraclius bis Leo III. alleinregierung (610–720) (Vienna 1981: henceforth MIB ) 126–127, 134– 135, 142–145. I refer to the coins of Heraclius and his successors by their numbers under their names in the latter volume. For coins of the earlier periods I cite their numbers under the relevant emperors in Wolfgang Hahn and Michael Metlich, Money of the Incipient Byzantine Empire: Anastasius I– 2 Justinian I, 491–565 (Vienna 2013: henceforth MIBE ), and Money of the Incipient Byzantine Empire Continued: Justin II–Revolt of the Heraclii, 565–610 (Vienna 2009: henceforth MIBEC ).
    [Show full text]
  • Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi………………………………………
    Celal Bayar Üniversitesi CBÜ SOSYAL BİLİMLER DERGİSİ Yıl : 2011 Cilt :9 Sayı :2 BYZANTINE EMPRESS EVDOKIA MAKREMBOLITISSA "COPPER FOLLES OF KONSTANTINE X DOUKAS FROM KUVA-Yİ MİLLİYE MUSEUM and MANİSA MUSEUM" Yrd. Doç. Dr. Ceren ÜNAL Celal Bayar Üniversitesi, Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi, Sanat Tarihi Bölümü ABSTRACT Emperor Konstantinos X Doukas was depicted with his wife, empress Evdokia Makrembolitissa on his copper coins which were struck on between 1059 to 1076 and classified in Folles, Class 1. This group of copper coins are rare examples of Byzantine coinage with the depiction of empress. Furthermore, Folles, Class 1 are interesting and special examples with a depiction of empress on left hand side from the spectator’s point of view which was very unusual hierarchical order in Byzantine coin iconography. In this paper, coins selected from Kuva-yi Milliye Museum and Manisa Museum and these unusual copper coins will be introduced. Keywords: Byzantine, coins, Follis, Evdokia Makrembolitissa, Kuva-yi Milliye Museum, Manisa Museum BİZANS İMPARATORİÇESİ EVDOKIA MAKREMBOLITISSA "KUVA-Yİ MİLLİYE VE MANİSA MÜZESİ’NDEN X. KONSTANTINOS DOUKAS DÖNEMİNE AİT BAKIR FOLLES" ÖZET İmparator X. Konstantinos Doukas (1059-1067) döneminde basılan bakır sikke birimi Folles, Sınıf 1 sikkelerinin arka yüzünde imparator, karısı Evdokia Makrembolitissa ile beraber tasvir edilmiştir. Bu sikke grubu Bizans sikke ikonografisinde sık kullanılmayan bir tip olan imparatoriçe tasvirlerine güzel bir örnek olmasının yanı sıra, imparatoriçenin sikkenin sol tarafında yer alması ise Bizans sikke tasvir hiyerarşi düzenine uymaması bakımından da ender örnekler arasında yer almaktadır. Kuva-yi Milliye Müzesi ve Manisa Müzesi sikke seksiyonlarından seçilen sikke örnekleri ile bu ilginç bakır sikke grubu tanıtılacaktır.
    [Show full text]