bronze hoard of the period of Zeno I

Author
Adelson, Howard L., Kustas, George L.
Series
Numismatic Notes and Monographs
Publisher
American Numismatic Society
Place
New York
Date
Source
Donum
Source
Worldcat
Source
Worldcat Works

License

CC BY-NC

Acknowledgement

Open access edition funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities/Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Humanities Open Book Program.

Export

Table of Contents

FRONT

BODY

DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS

Among the holdings of the American Numismatic Society is a large bronze hoard of Æ 3 and Æ 4 ranging from the time of Constantinethe Great to the second reign of Zeno in the latter part of the fifth century. Plans to publish this and similar hoards of minimi 1 in the Society's collection had been developed by Miss Katherine Edwards, but were thwarted by her death in 1950. She had proceeded to the point of grouping together the various reverse types and of producing a tentative check-list of the contents of the hoard. Her notes indicate that the coins were purchased in the Greek city of Volo in Thessaly sometime in the 20's. No further information about provenience is presently available.

The Volo hoard consists of 2231 bronze pieces. Of these, 1064 are legible in whole or in part and are listed in the catalogue. The illegible 1167 remaining have been disregarded. Among the latter are included 9 specimens of extremely small module (c. 3 mm.) which do not appear to have received the imprint of a die, and 20 pieces of exceedingly thin flan showing two or more "taps" on the surface in the following form: image. We have ignored the slivers, as they serve no scientific purpose other than to record the brittleness of the metal. Their number increases in proportion to the number of times they are handled. At present there are about 100.

The hoard shows the same general composition as Y. If its purchase in Volo is a sign of its geographical provenience, our hypothesis that the Yale deposit lay somewhere on "a line running from Corinth through Dalmatia" seems supported. 2 The hoard consists of both Æ 3 pieces, all of which have been cut down, and Æ 4's:

Total of hoard 2231 Total Æ 3 187 Total Æ 4 2044
Total legible 1064 Total Æ 3 legible 38 Total Æ 4 legible 1026
Total illegible 1167 Total Æ3 illegible 149 Total Æ 4 illegible 1018
Of the 1064 legible specimens, 62 are barbarous issues, the rest Roman. Of these 62, 5 are Æ 3 and the remainder Æ 4. All the examples of Æ 3 in the hoard have been cut down. As in Y, they all show a very high degree of wear because of the long period of circulation. The sharp edges suggest that the clipping was done not at the time of manufacture but at some later date in the fifth century, as an integral part of the system of production 3 , no doubt for the purpose of making them conform generally to the reduced weight and module of the Æ 4, although even clipped they continue to be somewhat heavier than these. It is instructive to note that Y, which extends from Constantine I only as far as Leo, contains a higher percentage of Æ 3. Clearly, as time went on, more were lost to circulation. 4

The evidence of barbarization is less than in Y. There are, for example, no coins equivalent to 504-515 in the Yale catalogue, which show reverses bearing no correspondence whatever to Roman issues. However, one occasionally finds among the issues of Marcian, Leo, and Zeno a specimen which shows a degree of debasement which could not conceivably be the product of a Roman mint. 5 The larger body of material in comparison with Y thus permits us to draw back the curtain a little more and verify the existence of the irregular moneyer. However, the rarity of these barbarous issues only serves to point up the almost complete control that the Roman mint still retained over its coinage, a control that has hitherto not been fully realized.

V has also some barbarous Æ 3, a phenomenon not appearing in Y. Because they are so out of keeping with the character of the remainder of the hoard, so similar to issues found abundantly in Western finds, and at the same time so limited in number (5: 8, 54, 64, 65, 80), we are justified in supposing them Western barbarian intrusions into an Eastern Roman hoard. Not only the style but the metal, which is a dark, rich brown as against the greenish-gray of the hoard as a whole, suggests minting in a different area. 6 The styling reminds one of the Roman issues of the period of Valentinian III with their heavy lettering and generally "dumpy" fabric. Since the types are drawn with much greater sparsity and with a debased economy of line that has much in common with the so-called barbarous radiates, it is difficult to determine their origin with any exactness. Northeastern Italy or the northwestern portion of the Balkans will be a reasonable guess. 7

The coins of V are as a rule much clearer and more legible than those in Y. In a good many instances the mint-mark may be read. As a whole they give us a better indication of the numismatic production of the period than has generally been available from other published finds. 8 Beginning sometime in the reign of Theodosius II and continuing throughout the century, the dies are practically always larger than the flan. The reduction in the size of the coins created a demand for miniaturization in die-cutting that the unskilled craftsman of the day could not easily meet, while the technique of coining itself was not adequate to an accurately placed impression on so small a flan.

With the exception of those issues which bear the mint-mark of Rome and those few of Roman provenience or for which a Roman provenience is probable or possible, 9 all the coins in the hoard, aside from the barbarous Æ 3 mentioned above, were minted in the eastern regions of the Empire. If we consider that V offers twice as many legible specimens as Y, the proportion of issues from Rome in both hoards (21 Y; 23 V) would suggest that Y is to be located in the western Balkans, closer to Rome than V, which will have a provenience somewhere in eastern Greece. V being a later deposit, the issues from Rome, which belong to the middle of the century, tended to be rejected or to pass out of circulation more and more. In other words, they show the same pattern of disuse as the Æ 3.

Neither Alexandria nor Heraclea is represented in the hoard. Y has 3 Alexandrian specimens, 2 of Arcadius and 1 of his general period. No examples have been recorded for Zeno, while Leo's issue is limited to the early "lion" series. 10 The sparsity of representation from Alexandria suggests that the output from this mint served mostly Egyptian needs. Indeed, the chaos of Egyptian currency in the fifth century to which Milne has called attention 11 attests the isolation of the region from the rest of the Empire. After Theodosius II's CONCORDIA AVG cross reverse from Alexandria, there appears to be a break. None of his "cross in wreath" has, so far as we have been able to determine, an Alexandrian source, nor do any of Marcian's issues. Among the coins of the Eastern mints from Licinius I to Theodosius II found in the Agora excavations at Athens, Alexandria makes the poorest showing. 12 It is therefore not surprising that in the region to the north of Athens for the latter part of the century, when the mint was still in operation, the representation falls to nothing.

Heraclea Thracica stands in somewhat similar case. In reviewing the Agora material, Thompson remarks: "One would except to find Heraclea outranking the two more distant mints (viz., Nicomedia and Antioch). Its small representation may indicate minor importance as a workshop or a channeling of its output to the north rather than the south." 13 Unfortunately, no material from the north has been published in complete enough form to assist us here. However, a suggestion of the truth of Thompson's statement issues from a comparison of V with the Agora coins, Pearce and Wood's Dalmatian hoard, and Mattingly's Corinthian pieces. Corinth has only i Heraclean specimen out of 478 coins; 14 the Dalmatian hoard to the north 10 out of 2197—a somewhat larger proportion. Y has 3 out of 928. The total lack of representation from Heraclea in V is probably accidental, but the scarcity in these Balkan hoards, coupled with a similar absence in Pearce's hoard from Asia Minor, 15 implies an output from this mint progressively declining in the course of the fifth century. Only in a deposit in the environs of Heraclea may we expect to find any sizeable representation of this mintage.

The coinage from Antioch shows a steady contraction from the voluminous issues of the House of Constantine. The last verifiable example from Antioch in V is the "cross in wreath" of Theodosius II and his period, where, indeed, the number of specimens exceeds that from any other mint. This large sampling is unusual, particularly as neither the Agora nor the Corinth material confirms it. Whether it implies a direct line of communication between Thessaly and Antioch is hard to say. Antiochene coins of the reign of Marcian are quite rare (none in V). 16 The decline in volume is deducible from the fact that only the "lion in wreath" coinage is recorded for Leo. 17 It is tempting to assume that the same imperial order brought about the interruption of coining in Antioch as well as Alexandria, but absence of confirmatory evidence makes a closer determination at present impossible.

The assumption that only Constantinople minted for Zeno, 18 in any case, must be rejected. The Agora has unearthed a monogram issue from the mint of Thessalonica (Thompson, 1678,. unconfirmed) and V has two more (990, 991, confirmed). Cyzicus shows a total of 6 coins (921, 922, 936, 937, 959, 994), and there is one from Nicomedia (1004) with a rare reverse (Sab. 18) and unusual fabric and style. The preponderance of Zeno's issues, however, show no mint-mark and, indeed, no space for one. It may be presumptuous under the circumstances to assign them all to Constantinople. The force of tradition would play a hand here, aside from considerations of economy. Efficiency would be better served by a more equitable and wider distribution of currency throughout the realm than by the concentration of coining in only one location. Nor should one neglect the purely material consideration that, as the module of Zeno's coins becomes smaller, there is really no room left for the inclusion of the mint-mark. The smaller size could quite easily provoke the removal of the mint-mark as it did the finer details of the wreath border. Further, since the dies were always larger than the flan, any reduction in module would tend to eliminate the impression of the mint-mark. The possibility of differentiation according to style bears out the assumption of more than one mint. From the evidence available Cyzicus appears to have used only two forms of Zeno's monogram, image and image (V 3 and 4), while Thessalonica shows only image (V 5). Generalizations are facile and dangerous, but most of the coins which show monograms image and image (V 3 and 4), 915-988, are of poorer metal and lighter weight than those with monograms image and image (V 1 and 2), 896-914, and display a workmanship which pays less attention to detail, the lineation of both obverse and reverse being thicker and more economical.

A similar problem arises when one considers those issues of Leo with the standing female figure on the reverse (Sab. 15). This issue constitutes by far the largest single grouping in the hoard (740-886), a total of 147 coins, or one seventh of all the legible pieces. None shows a mint-mark. Is it not at least theoretically possible, considering the wide distribution of mints for both Leo and Zeno, 19 that some of this large number should be assigned to mints other than Constantinople? It is true that a high consistency of styling can not be expected in a period which, as we have suggested, 20 could not always command the services of good die-cutters. Nor does the volume of the issue require any other explanation than a decision on the part of emperor or mint-master. However, the possibility of arriving at certain clearly defined stylistic groupings evokes a tantalizing suspicion that there is an inner logic to material at first sight so seemingly amorphous, could we but find the key, and reconfirms the close measure of control over the economy of the Empire and its coinage that the poverty of the individual minimus seems to belie. In this particular instance a tentative division might again be made on the basis of weight and module, and we may further observe that some coins show a thickness and economy of line reminiscent of some of the monogram issues of Zeno. Whether this distinction has its source in a particular period of the reign or in a particular geographical area is a question which must await the evidence of additional finds for its solution. Attempts to connect such features with particular versions of the obverse legend for both Leo and Zeno, a technique which would allow at least a relative dating, have not produced meaningful results.

In the final analysis, however, we should not lose sight of the very heavy concentration of Constantinopolitan issues. The capital continued throughout the century to be the prime source of coinage for the Empire as a whole and may indeed have arrogated to itself more of this privilege as time went on. Leo's various "lion" reverses, a total of 91 coins, where we can read the mint-mark, all come from Constantinople. The exception is 418 with CVZ, on which the lion is in standing posture. The group allows us a neat stylistic evaluation, for it falls into two very distinct series, the "crouching" form of the animal (424-508) displaying a homogeneity of style quite distinct from the coins with the "standing" variety (418-423), which are of totally different composition and much more finely made. The fact that the crouching variety in V all issues from Constantinople would suggest that the recorded specimens from other mints must be quite rare. 21

The 27 coins from Nicomedia in V attest the continuing importance of the city in the economy of the Empire. We note that under Marcian its output is practically the same as that of Constantinople. However, although the concentration is large, it is also selective. Nicomedia shows a large proportion of the varieties of the Marcianic monogram but appears not to have minted any of Leo's monogram series, its coining for the latter emperor being limited to the "emperor and captive" type. Marcian shows two mint-marks, NIC and NICO, Leo only NIC. The styling of Nicomedian coins can be distinguished with a fair amount of certainty. The flans tend to be broader and thinner, with somewhat higher relief. The outlines of the figure reverses, the leaves of the wreath, and the monogram lines are sharp and distinct. The wreath is invariably well made, the leaves not filled out but represented by sharply drawn lines in good relief.

Like Nicomedia, Cyzicus is a major mint of the Empire and continues its production through the reign of Zeno. The absence of specimens in V from the reign of Marcian and the strongly rising representation from the two succeeding emperors (Leo, 5; Zeno, 5) point to an increased output from this source or, conversely, a reduc- tion in minting between Theodosius II (7 coins) and Leo. However, the fact that a relatively high proportion of the coins of Marcian on which the mint-mark is legible is from Cyzicus (2 out of 10) warns us against too arbitrary a conclusion. For both Leo and Zeno Cyzicene style and fabric are the crudest among the specimens in V. The metal is flaky and brittle, the styling close to barbarous.

Of all the mints Thessalonica is closest to the area of deposition. Hence it is surprising that no examples of its coinage appear before Marcian. Y shows a similar lack. The phenomenon is particularly strange when we observe that coins from Thessalonica head the list in the Agora excavations. 22 Corinth shows a very sizeable representation for the fourth, but a heavy drop for the fifth century. 23 Pearce and Wood's Dalmatian material and Mattingly's Corinthian hoard 24 have similar lacunae. Part of the explanation lies in the fact that the mint suspended operations in bronze between 393 and the joint reign of Honorius and Theodosius II, 408-423. 25 However, this does not explain the notable lack of examples from before or after this period. Aside from emphasizing the importance of Athens and the relative decline of Corinth in the commerce of the fifth century, 26 the evidence would indicate that money from Thessalonica was sent abroad by sea to serve the large marts of the Empire. The inland regions of the Balkans were left to their own devices, supplied with currency from the more distant mints (in part by overland means?). There must have been little contact between the Greek littoral and the Balkan hinterland in the fifth century. Leo's issues from the mint of Thessalonica are the best made of the coins in the hoard. They are carefully rounded and the metal is firm. The lines of the monogram are curved, as if to conform to the contour of the coin itself. The lettering is carefully executed.

Five coins from the reign of Marcian bear a mint-mark usually read as CHES (323-325, 374, 375). The mark has occasioned some difficulty. Cherson has been suggested. 27 However, there is no reason to posit a mint in such a remote area at this time. Chersonese coinage probably does not begin before Justinian I, in any case in the sixth, not the fifth century. 28 Pearce and Wood record the existence of several more examples, again of Marcian, in the Dalmatian hoard, but attempt no ascription. It is noticeable that no Marcianic coins occur with the traditionally recognized marks of Thessalonica, TES or THS, or with any formula that may be so interpreted. There is thus a gap in the coinage of Marcian from Thessalonica which requires explanation. The mint is working in both the previous and succeeding reigns and there is no reason to suspect a suspension of its operations under Marcian. The large sampling in V of CHES coins (5 out of 30 on which the mint-mark is legible) would suggest a major output such as could more easily be met at a major minting center than at a new site. Theodosius II has a wider range of mints to supply his needs. With Marcian there is a contraction of imperial power to the Eastern territories. This would also help explain the sharp rise in coinage from Thessalonica that we observe for Leo in the hoard. While there is no doubt of the form of the initial letter in our mint-mark, we have no hesitation in supposing C to stand for T and CHES to represent the mint of Thessalonica. The transition from the form T to C in this period is confirmed by coin 511 which clearly has the rounded T (THS for THS), with the same distinctive styling as the other Thessalonican specimens from Leo's reign. The assignment of CHES to Thessalonica is epigraphically sound. It supplies the gap in the hoard material and meets the historical requirements of the period.

A more serious difficulty is raised by KOC, observed in large numbers for Leo (10 coins), with 1 specimen recorded for Basiliscus 29 and 2 for Zeno. The specimens of all these emperors have a common style, in some particulars close to that of Nicomedia. The flans tend to be broader than usual and the relief somewhat higher. Effect is achieved by emphasis on line, in the wreath, the lettering, or the monogram. The exergual line is very prominent in this group and invariably wavy.

Let us consider first the KOC coins of Leo. V contains 10 examples (667-675 and 703), 9 image (V 6) and 1 (703) of indeterminate monogram. It is a fair assumption that this maverick is also image (V 6), The hoard as a whole has 26 coins (667-692) with this monogram. It records no other mint-mark for this series. So far as the preservation of the obverses permits us to judge, there is a fairly wide variety of legends, with a preponderance of the short DNLEO. The K of the mint-mark would seem to indicate that KOC is a Greek, not a Latin abbreviation. C is then the lunate sigma. This distinguishes the mark from other mints. One should therefore look to find a city whose Greek name could be abbreviated as KOC. For a Balkan hoard Corinth comes to mind, only to be summarily dismissed, for there is no evidence to connect Leo with Corinth in any way nor is it likely that this fading outpost of empire would be graced with such a distinction. The excavations at Corinth seem not to have yielded a single specimen. KOC could equally well represent the first and last two letters of Cyzicus. This supposition has more in its favor, for Cyzicus continues an important mint throughout the fifth century. Cyzicus, however, seems sufficiently represented by the usual CVZ. Barring new evidence, it is hardly possible that the island of Cos is meant. It is a sufficiently valid rule of thumb that a Roman mint be located in a city of some major military or administrative importance, and the island does not meet this qualification for our period. Further, the minting cities in the East are all located within a surprisingly short radius from the capital and seem to have supplied all of the Eastern empire from within this small circle.

Assuming Corinth, Cos, and Cyzicus can be ruled out, let us consider the claims of Constantinople itself. It is the one mint we should have expected to see most fully represented, yet among Leo's coins it shows only 3 with a monogram reverse, 509, 510 with image (V 1) and 589 with image (V 2). The obverse legend on 510 can not be read, but 509 and 589 both show the distinctive fuller form of the legend with the imperial name in the genitive, DNLEOSPFAVG. Leo's monograms image, image, image, image (V 1-4) should be read as abbreviations of LEOS or LEONS (LEON IS?). Assuming these are Latin forms, with, image, image and image (V 5, 6, 8) we pass into Greek. The O at the top of the left perpendicular line has acquired a cross-bar beneath it which could be interpreted as omega and the monogram as standing for ΛΕΩΝ. It thus becomes possible to suggest that KOC stands for the name of the capital in its Greek form and marks a transition from Latin to Greek sometime in Leo's reign. Its introduction is a step in the Grae-cisation of the Empire. Y, which ends in the middle of Leo's reign, has no monograms with the omega and all its monogram issues show the longer and earlier forms of the legend. In the case of Zeno KOC again appears in conjunction with only those forms of monogram image and image (V 1, 2) which have the omega. Indeed, ZENON, which probably stands for the Greek nominative in the legend, appears only with these forms (901, 902, 905, 912).

The clear differences between the styling of Leo's monogram issues with CON and the KOC series suggest that we have to do not with an arbitrary development but with an abrupt change brought about by some strong external factor. Here we are in the realm of pure speculation. Is it all possible to suppose that the very destructive fire which consumed Constantinople September 2, 465 30 destroyed part of the mint, requiring the importation of new die-cutters and prompting a new departure in the coinage? If so, may not the similarities with Nicomedian style suggest the source? 31 The KOC coins may represent the output of a particular workshop within the particular minting arrangements of the capital.

The case for Constantinople, plausible though it may appear on other grounds, meets two objections: 1) would not the force of tradition in favor of CON, the standard symbol for the mint of the capital, have prevailed over any newcomer, particularly since CON continues in use throughout the life of the Eastern Empire? and 2) the fact that Basiliscus shows both KOC (1023) and CON (CK 2284, 2285) also suggests at least the possibility of two distinct mints, if we do not accept the thesis of two distinct workshops within the confines of the capital. The present state of our evidence does not permit differentiations in date for the Basiliscan specimens. It is also worth noting that no Zeno coins with CON appear either in our hoard or in the CK listings.

The city of Cios lies on the southern coast of the Propontis on the Gulf of Myrlea, roughly equidistant from Cyzicus and Nicomedia. It was an important stop on the main road from Lydia to Constantinople as well as to Nicaea and the east. 32 An old and proud city, it produced its own coinage until the reign of Saloninus. In the fifth century it returns to prominence as an independent metropolis in the ecclesiastical lists of bishoprics. A measure of its civil importance is gained by the fact that a detachment of Scholarii, or domestic guards, was stationed there until the time of Justinian. 33 A number of its bishops in the fifth century are cited as active in church affairs. 34 Thus, Cios could be a center for a mint and, since the KOC coins are similar in style to those of Nicomedia, its die-cutters may easily have come from the latter city. The Greek form of the monogram on the KOC specimens would be more in keeping with the Greek hinterland than with the capital and its Roman associations and would fit in with the tradition of the Greek imperial series for which Cios is known. The coins of Zeno bearing no mint-mark might then be reserved for the capital and his KOC specimens assigned to Cios. The occasion for the re-opening of the mint must remain obscure. Military pressure on Nicomedia in the earlier years of Leo's reign from barbarian incursions is a possibility 35 . One caveat should be given: how likely is it that Cios could abbreviate its mint designation to KOC, or, put another way, is the tradition of a mint-mark in three letters for this period strong enough to overcome the difficulty involved in the removal of the iota? Thus, because of the nest of problems connected with the proper assignment of the KOC coins, we prefer to postpone any final judgment pending the appearance of additional evidence.

The catalogue is arranged chronologically by reign, but does not list the issues necessarily by order within the reign itself. The internal order is in question primarily for the reign of Leo because of the variety of the reverse types and obverse legends. On the usual numismatic assumption that the issue with the fullest range and form of obverse legend within the type should precede, this honor would then be bestowed on the "lion" series (418-508). The same assumption would require KOC to be late in the reign, for these coins almost all show simply DNLEO. The last issue will be the "two emperors enthroned," represented in V by a single specimen (887), the other Augustus being presumably Leo's grandson of the same name, coopted in October, 473. 36 If we may draw an inference from the small number of "lion" types with the short obverse legend DNLEO (5 out of 91 coins), the series may have been minted only to the beginning of the DNLEO obverse and then gave way. Possibly the date of its demise is the same as the introduction of KOC, which has the short form almost exclusively. The issues with the Latin form of the monogram image, image, image, image (V 1-4), seem to stop at the same point, with only 1 coin (524) showing the short form out of 156 pieces. Leo's "emperor and captive" series has as its largest obverse form DNLEOPERPET. It then passes through the two genitive forms of the name, LEONS and LEOS, and shows many coins with the short form also. We may suppose it begins shortly after the DNLEOPERPETAVG and runs well through the reign. 37 The later issues show the distinctive mint-mark of a star or cross in the left field and CN in the exergue. The "empress" series appears to have the same range of obverse legend and may be considered contemporaneous. The monogram issues begin shortly after the "lion" types. They range from what appears to be an abbreviation of the PERPETAVG (seen as PT in 528 and 531) through a heavy concentration of obverses with the genitive down to the short forms. 38

In giving the monograms of the emperors, we have listed a larger number of varieties than has previously been done, although surely those with only one or two examples reflect not an official change but the whim of the individual artist. The distinctions may possibly prove useful to future research if more examples of the rarer forms should be found. We append tables showing the correspondences between our numbering of the varieties of monogram found in V and that given in other works:

MARCIAN V 1 image = CK 7
V 2 image Y 358
V 4 image = Y 359-361
V 5 image = Y 362, 363 = CK 2 = Pearce and Wood, seventh on d. 275
V 7 image = Y 364, 365 = CK 6 = Pearce and Wood, second on p. 275
V 8 image = Y 366, 367 Var.
V 9 image = Y 368, 369 = CK 4 - Pearce and Wood, first on p. 275 = Sab. 21 = BMC. fourth on p. 326
V 10 image = CK 5 = Pearce and Wood, ninth on p. 275
LEO V 1 image = Y 38o-396 = Sab. 23
V 2 image = Y 397-405 =CKi
V 4 image = Y 416-419 Var.
V 5 image = BMC, eighth on p. 326
V 8 image = CK 2
V 9 image = CK 1A
ZENO V 1 image = CK i = Sab. 24 Var.
V 2 image = BMC, ninth on p. 326
V 3 image = CK 2
V5 image = CK 4
BASILISCOS V 1 image = CK 2
BASILISCUS
AND MARCUS V 1 image = CK i (under Basiliscus)
AELIA ZENONIS V 1 image = CK 4 (under Basiliscus)
LIBIUS SEVERUS V 1 image = Y 502 = CK 1
DISTRIBUTION OF MONOGRAMS BY MINT IN Y
MARCIAN V 1 image Constantinople. Nicomedia, CHES
V 2 image Constantinople
V 7 image Nicomedia
V9 image Nicomedia, CHES
V 10 image Constantinople, Nicomedia
V 12,13 image image Nicomedia
LEO V 1 image Constantinople, Cyzicus
V 2 image Constantinople, Thessalonica, Cyzicus
V 3, 4 image, image Thessalonica
V 6 image KOC
V 8 image Constantinople
V 9 image Thessalonica
ZENO V 1, 2 image, image KOC
V 3, 4 image, image Cyzicus
V 5 image Thessalonica
BASILISCUS V 1 image KOC

End Notes

1
Minimi is not a scientific term of reference and does not appear in the contemporary literature. In modern studies the word usually refers, as it will here throughout, to bronze pieces of Æ 4 module or smaller from the late fourth century on, minted either under official authority or by irregular moneyers in both the Eastern and Western portions of the Empire. For a discussion of the terminology used by the Romans themselves see Y, pp. 148ff.
2
Y, p. 148.
3
For a discussion of clipping see p. 18 and Y, p. 144.
4
Further proof of this lies in the Zacha hoard (unpublished), presently in the vault of the Society. Zacha is a village in the western Peloponnese. The hoard also starts with Constantine, but extends beyond V into the sixth century. Only a very few Æ 3 appear in it, in a proportion less even than V.
5
Marcian: 411-417; Leo: 508, 739, 886; Zeno: 1002; illegible monograms: 1014-1022.
6
There is, however, no reason to suspect that these coins are not integral to the hoard. The difference may perhaps be sufficiently accounted for by a difference in the composition of the metal as well as the placement of the coins within the deposit.
7
The range of style even among the regular issues is notable and no doubt to be explained in part through the social and economic disruptions of the period, as a result of which the experienced die-cutter became a rarity. See our remarks in Y, pp. 140, 141 and the judicious observations of J. W. E. Pearce in discussing similar coinage from a late 4th century bronze find ("An Eastern Hoard of Late Æ," Numismatic Chronicle 5th Series XI (1931), p. 321): "I am convinced that if unmistakable instances of degradation are found they must be due to forgers or, if legitimate, to local and temporary conditions at the mint and are no evidence in themselves of an empty Treasury and a consequent policy of inflation."
8
To the list of published material from this period listed in Y, pp. 145, 146, one should add a hoard found at Corinth in the course of the excavations of 1937. The contents are given by J. M. Harris, "Coins Found at Corinth," Hesperia X (1941), p. 145. The hoard contains some coins from the House of Constantine, 1 coin of Valentinian I, 6 Marcian, 3 Leo, 9 Zeno, 92 Anastasius, and 6 Justinian I. That all such finds represent official Roman minting is suggested also by A. Bon in his reference to a similar, unpublished hoard from the western Peloponnese (Le Peloponnèse byzantin jusqu'en 1204, Paris, 1951, p. 17, note 6): "—les monnaies authentiquement barbares sont rares, et l'on peut discuter pour savoir si les monnaies byzantines des Ve-VIe siècles qui passent pour des imitations barbares à cause de leur maladresse sont réellement l'oeuvre de graveurs non byzantins."
9
1 (23) of Valentinian II; 2 (37, 38) of Honorius; 1 (45) of Arcadius; 2 (66, 72) late 4th, early 5th century; 1 barbarous specimen (77) of Theodosius I, Arcadius, or Honorius; and 5 (258, 259, 266, 267, 270) of the period of Valentinian III show varieties of the Roman mint-mark. The three G's require 71 to have been issued either at Rome or Aquileia (see catalogue note s.v.). The type showing a camp-gate with a star between the turrets belongs to western mints (75, 76). As in the case of 71, since we have nothing definitely ascribable to any mint farther west than Rome, these too are probably Roman. The issues of Valentinian III and of his period showing a distinctive letter in the field are beyond a doubt Roman (254, 260-262, 265, 268, 269). Finally, examples of the "two victories facing one another, holding one wreath (and palms?)" (273), of which there are some specimens in Y (285-289), some given by Pearce and Wood (p. 283), and some by Newell (E. T. Newell, Two Hoards from Minturno. Numismatic Notes and Monographs No. 60. New York, 1933, pp. 31, 32 (95-108), in so far as the designation of mint is available, issue from Rome.
10
See CK 2932.
11
J. G. Milne, "Two Roman Hoards of Coins from Egypt," Journal of Roman Studies X (1920), p. 184.
12
Thompson, p. 6. Similarly for Pearce and Wood's Dalmatian hoard.
13
Loc. cit.
14
Bellinger, passim.
15
J. W. E. Pearce, "A Late Roman Hoard from Southwest Asia Minor," Numismatic Chronicle 5th Series, XV (1935), passim.
16
We have seen two such from the collection of Professor A. R. Bellinger of Yale University.
17
CK 2813; I unconfirmed specimen at Antioch (2028).
18
CK p. 110 and implicit in Sabatier's listings.
19
See p. 41.
20
Y p. 141.
21
CK list such for Thessalonica, Cyzicus, and Alexandria. A "walking" lion is recorded for Heraclea and Nicomedia (CK 2009, 2470), and the animal in standing position for Antioch (CK 2813).
22
Thompson, p. 6. For Licinius I through Theodosius II Thessalonica shows 1364 coins; Constantinople, the next mint in order of frequency, 1244.
23
Bellinger, passim. No specimens of Theodosius II appear in Corinth.
24
Dalmatia: 5 of Theodosius I and his period; 2 Arcadius; 7 Marcian CHES; 5 Leo. Corinth: 1 of Theodosius I; 1 Arcadius; 6 Marcian; none for Leo.
25
See CK p. 77.
26
For Corinth in the fifth century see J. H. Finley, Jr., "Corinth in the Middle Ages," Speculum VII (1922), pp. 477, 478, and P. Charanis, "The Significance of Coins as Evidence for the History of Athens and Corinth in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries," Historia IV (1955), pp. 163, 164.
27
By Miss Katherine Edwards in her notes on V.
28
On Byzantine coinage from the Chersonese mint see BMC, p. ciii.
29
Possibly 2, if the .O. of 1024 conceals KOC and not CON.
30
Our chief source is Evagrius, Hist. Eccl., ii 13. For details and supplemental references see Bury, pp. 321, 322.
31
The liaison between the two cities was in any case close. Wroth notes that coinage from Nicomedia and Cyzicus in the Byzantine period is closely modelled on that of the capital (BMC, p. c).
32
W. M. Ramsay, The Historical Geography of Asia Minor, London, 1890, p. 180.
33
Theophanes, Bonn ed., p. 236.
34
Theosebius took part as bishop of Cios at the Council of Ephesus in 431 (Mansi, J. D., Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, reprint, Paris, igoiff., vol. IV, 1270) and, if Ramsay is correct (op. cit., p. 428), a certain Julianus, whom he supposes to be bishop of Cios, was present at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 and appears in 458 as one of the correspondents of the Emperor Leo. See also V. Schultze, Altchristliche Städte und Landschaften, vol. II.i, p. 329.
35
See infra, note 37.
36
See note on coin 887. Bury, p. 323, note 1, remarks that "coins issued at the beginning of Leo's reign show Marcian's head, the legend being merely altered to DN LEO PERPET AVG."
37
An "emperor and captive'' reverse usually implies a victory of some kind or the hope for one. Leo's military ventures were singularly unsuccessful. The one exception appears to be a victory in Pontus over an unspecified barbarian people somewhat early in the reign, mentioned in certain episcopal letters of the time. Texts in Mansi, J. D., Sacrorum conciliorum nova—collòdio, vol. VII, 581, 583, 600, cited by Bury, p. 322, note 5. The evidence at present does not permit a more accurate designation. Although the date can not be determined, it is tempting to connect the "emperor and captive" issue with the Pontic victory, particularly as the only two mints to strike the type are Constantinople and Nicomedia, the latter being close to the battlefield.
38
The clearer and more copious evidence of V prompts this revision in substance of the arrangement tentatively offered in Y, pp. 144, 145. Future examples in which more mint-marks may be legible will sharpen present distinctions, no doubt, but we feel will not seriously alter the basic pattern.

METROLOGICAL ANALYSIS

Metrologicai analysis of the Volo hoard is particularly rewarding. The series of 968 Æ 4 coins which are fully described and weighed is a mine of data far surpassing in completeness anything previously available. A total of 956 of these coins can be used in the metrologicai analysis. This excludes from the study four coins of Libius Severus which were struck in the West in the period A.D. 461-465, one illegible Roman coin which can not be attributed with any certainty to a specific period, and seven pieces with illegible monograms which may be attributed to Leo or Zeno or Aelia Zenonis. Careful statistical study of the remaining 956 pieces used in the frequency tables reveals that they fall into three major classes: first, there are 810 specimens from the reigns of Valentinian II through Leo; second, 36 specimens from the reign of Basiliscus; and third, 110 specimens from the reign of Zeno. Thus the hoard covers a crucial period in Roman history, from the latter half of the fourth century to the reform coinage of Anastasius I and makes it possible to follow the major variations of the bronze coinage during the Völkerwanderung from the contents of a single hoard.

Before entering upon the body of the metrological analysis, however, it is necessary to put forth a few words of caution. Bronze coinage in general, and more particularly when the weight of the individual specimens is so small, will show a greater variation in weight than would be expected in the case of silver or gold. The bronze currency was always produced al-marco, and it must be doubted that there was ever an effective system of adjustment to maintain the weight standards. Since the individual coins were of very low value, the cost of systematic weight control would have cut sharply into the profits of the mint. In addition, the fact that the coins were fiduciary in character would have lessened the importance of weight as a factor in determining their value. It is more likely that there were small variations of weight from reign to reign which were without major economic significance. The state had seized complete control of the issuance of all currency, including the fiduciary bronze coinage, by the end of the third century. Such currency, of course, was highly overvalued at the mint and in the market place, and tremendous profits must have accrued to the mint from its manufacture. 39 We can perhaps point out some of the smaller weight changes which seem evident from the coins themselves and even suggest some probable reasons for these changes, but any attempt to present an adequate scientific description of the history of the bronze currency from the evidence of a single hoard would be illusory.

There is, indeed, another caveat which should be carefully considered in the statistical metrological study of minimi. All who have dealt with hoards containing minimi have been struck by the high incidence of clipping normally present. In our discussion of Y we treated the various explanations possible and concluded that, "Clipping, then, would seem an integral part of a new and poor system of production rather than a device for the conservation of metal supply." 40 This conclusion, which attributed the peculiar evidence of mass clipping to the general decay in minting procedures, appears to be further substantiated in this hoard. Once again the evidence of clipping is on a massive scale. Naturally this would affect the frequency curves to a certain degree. It is impossible to segregate the clipped from the undipped specimens in the hoard with any confidence. The crude workmanship which is evident in the production of the coins and the consequent lack of uniformity in their appearance make any very exact distinctions meaningless. The results of such haphazard clipping on the form of the frequency curve, however, can be predicted. All those characteristics which result from wear and oxidation would be exaggerated. It should, therefore, be expected that the mode, or point of highest concentration, would fall below the average weight and that the coefficient of variation would be quite high.

Fortunately, since the publication of Y there are data with which to make a direct comParison. For this purpose we shall add the information from that hoard to that derived from V. Many of the conclusions drawn from that study are confirmed in V. This is parti-cularlv true of the deductions based upon the frequencv table.

WEIGHTS Yale Hoard Valentinian II through Arcadius Theodosius II through Valentinian III Valentinian II * through Valentinian III Marcian Pre-Leo ** Leo Pre-Zeno *** Basiliscus **** Zeno
0.06-0.23 2
0.24-0.41 8 1 5 6 2 8 10 18 2 16
0.42-0.59 32 1 24 25 6 31 52 83 3 42
0.60-0.77 91 3 48 51 12 63 119 182 15 21
0.78-0.95 78 13 52 65 25 90 125 215 8 18
0.96-1.13 73 7 41 48 26 74 105 179 5 9
1.14-1.31 51 10 18 28 16 44 44 88 3 1
1.32-1.49 28 3 8 11 10 21 16 37
1.50-1.67 6 3 3 1 4 3 7
1.68-1.85 4 1 1
TOTALS 371 38 199 237 98 335 475 810 36 110

Before proceeding to deductions which may be made on the basis of the frequency table, a word should be said about the choice of the step interval. The reasoning behind the choice of an interval of 0.18 grams remains exactly the same as in the case of Y. It is unlikely that the Roman mint ever adjusted even its precious metal coinage to a finer degree than 0.095 grams or one-half carat. This appears to be the smallest weight in the ancient world which was directly determined. In the case of ai-marco issues of fiduciary bronze it is unlikely that the Roman mint would have been aware of any variations of less than a full carat. A table based upon a smaller step interval yields a multi-modal distribution because it applies a greater degree of accuracy than was exercised by the officials at the mint. A step interval of one carat seems to yield the best results.

In preparing the frequency table for V the coins are divided into appropriate chronological groups. Cumulative sub-totals of all the coins through the reigns of Valentinian III, Marcian, and Leo are included, so that the development of the larger picture of fifth century bronze currency may not be obscured. In addition, of course, as long as the series is homogeneous, the larger the body of data the more exact can be the conclusions which are derived from it.

There is one feature of the frequency table which must be explained. The distributions are normal for all periods save that from Valentinian II to Arcadius. For this segment of the hoard there is a bi-modal distribution. We must, however, remember that only thirty-eight coins are involved in this particular series and that clipping was very common. The condition and uncertain attributions of some of the pieces in Y make comparison in a rigid sense with the frequency table of that hoard impossible. Y contains only thirty-seven coins which were probably issued during the same interval. The interpretation of the data presented by Y can only be tentative because the number of variables is too great. It is possible that this bi-modal distribution results from striking the earlier issues of Æ 4 coinage at a slightly heavier weight than the later issues. This may also be due to clipping, which followed a specific pattern to reduce the weight of the older coins, or to other, unknown factors. All that can be said on the basis of the evidence now before us is that the coinage of the period from Valentinian II through Arcadius does not represent a homogeneous series. It will require further metrological and statistical analysis as more information comes to light from new finds. In the interests of clarity we have included a frequency table containing the information derived from Y and V.

WEIGHTS YALE HOARD VOLO HOARD TOTAL
0.06-0.23
0.24-0.41 1 1
0.42-0.59 1 1 2
0.60-0.77 6 3 9
0.78-0.95 4 13 17
0.96-1.13 8 7 15
1.14-1.31 12 10 22
1.32-1.49 5 3 8
1.50-1.67 1 1
1.68-1.85
TOTALS 37 38 75

If we place this unresolved metrological problem to one side for the moment and survey the broader picture, certain facts are immediately evident. The modal step for all the coins in V before the reign of Basiliscus, with the sole exception of those dating from the reign of Marcian, is between 0.78 and 0.95 grams. The coins of Marcian are only slightly heavier, the modal step being between 0.96 and 1.13 grams. Since Y contained coins through the reign of Leo, the two hoards are directly comparable, but the coins in Y are in much worse condition than those in the Volo deposit. They had evidently been in circulation for a longer period of time before being placed in a hoard or had received much worse treatment. V, on the other hand, contains specimens which, from the standpoint of wear, are in fairly good condition. They had very likely been collected over a longer period of time. An obvious conclusion to be drawn from the data included in the frequency table is that the Æ 4 coinage for the period from Arcadius to Zeno forms a homogeneous series which was perhaps struck very slightly heavier during the reign of Marcian. This confirms the finding made in the case of Y, save that the slight increase in weight during the reign of Marcian was not immediately evident in that case because of the paucity of coins dating from that reign included in the deposit.

New evidence from V in the case of the coinages of Zeno and the usurper Basiliscus, who intervened between the first and second reigns of Zeno, permits further deductions. It is impossible to determine which minimi of Zeno are derived from his first reign (474-475) and which from his second (477-491). Possibly the four coins of Zeno which have reverse types other than a monogram and seem to be slightly heavier (1003-1006) were struck in Zeno's first reign, and the more common monogram types, which are generally lighter, were issued during the second reign. This is conjectural, although it explains the greater rarity of iconographie types and the differing weights. We must not, however, place too much importance on the difference in weight between the two series because this in itself may be illusory. There are too few coins of the iconographie types to make any positive statements. We may safely assume that the bulk of the coinage of Zeno represented in this hoard dates from the second reign. Though Zeno enjoyed the imperial dignity from February 9, 474 in conjunction with his child, Leo II, it was only after November 17, 474 that he was sole emperor. 41 By January 9, 475 he had already been forced to flee and Basiliscus was in control of the capital. Thus the first period of sole reign for Zeno lasted less than two months. The total reign of Basiliscus lasted twenty months, from January 475 to August 476. It is improbable that the first reign of Zeno, which was only one-tenth as long as the reign of Basiliscus, saw the issuance of a greater number of coins. Since V shows no coins for Zeno as opposed to only 36 struck during the reign of Basiliscus, we may infer that the bulk of the coinage of Zeno derives from his second reign of seventeen years. We can not date the deposit of the hoard exactly, since the bronze coinage itself is undated, but it may well be that it was buried quite some time before the death of Zeno in 491. One can only say that the evidence points to a deposit made between August 476 and April 491. If we allow a certain length of time for the accumulation of Zeno's no specimens A.D. 480 would seem a reasonable guess.

If the deductions just made can be accepted, the next group of coins to be studied is the coinage of Basiliscus, Aelia Zenonis, and the joint issues of Basiliscus and Marcus. The pieces falling into this category may be dated exactly to the twenty months between January 475 and August 476. There is a noticeable drop in weight, reflected in the modal step, which falls between 0.60 and 0.77 grams. This decrease in weight is most obviously mirrored in the decline in the average weight of the coinage to 0.79 grams, the lightest yet encountered in the history of minimi. Basiliscus apparently took the first major step in the process of lightening the minimi below the level set during the reign of Arcadius.

The next phase, which covers the no specimens from the reign of Zeno, reveals a continuing decline in weight. We have presumed that most of these no coins date from August 476 to April 491. The modal step now falls to its lowest point, 0.42 to 0.59 grams, and the average weight reaches the nadir at 0.62 grams.

Thus the general outline of the history of the minimi may be inferred from the frequency tables, but a closer analysis of the frequency curves based upon these tables is necessary before the material can be treated with any degree of exactness.

VOLO HOARD YALE HOARD N M Mo Mdn MD σ V
371 .92 .75 .91 .24 .29 31.72
Valentinian II through Arcadius 38 1.00 .89 .99 .20 .24 24.40
Theodosius II through Valentinian III 199 .86 .83 .86 .20 .26 30.11
Valentinian II through Valentinian III 237 .88 .86 .88 .21 .25 28.41
Marcian 98 .98 .98 .99 .22 .26 26.53
Pre-Leo 335 .91 .89 .91 .22 .27 29.66
Leo 475 .87 .82 .85 .19 .26 29.55
Pre-Zeno 810 .88 .87 .88 .21 .26 29.43
Basiliscus 36 .79 .71 .76 .18 .22 28.34
Zeno 110 .62 .52 .58 .19 .24 39.03

Naturally, the same principles are adhered to in preparing this tabular analysis as in the frequency table itself. The curves are directly dependent upon the frequency tables, and the table given is merely a statistical analysis of the curves. Standard abbreviations have been used to indicate the various columns: N = the number of coins ina specific group; M = the mean or average weight; Mo = the mode or point of highest concentration; Mdn = the median or midpoint in the array of weights; MD = the mean or average deviation of the individual coins from the average weight; a = the standard deviation; and V = the coefficient of variation. The mean, mode, median, mean deviation, and standard deviation are calculated in grams, and the coefficient of variation, which inversely indicates the accuracy of minting, in terms of percent.

Questions of methodology have already been treated in other works. 42 Certain inferences, however, may be made from the table just given. The theoretical weight at which any series of coins is struck must lie between the average weight and the sum of the average weight plus the standard deviation. Thus, in the case of the Yale hoard we found that the theoretical weight of the minimi had to fall between 0.92 and 1.21 grams. A review of all the data seemed to indicate a theoretical weight of about 1.18 grams, with 276 minimi being struck from the pound of raw metal. Once again, however, great caution must be exercised, for the Roman moneyer probably made no distinctions in bronze coinage finer than the carat. The theoretical weight of this series could just as easily be 1.14 grams, with 288 minimi being struck from the pound of raw metal. It is inconceivable that a Roman moneyer could distinguish objects differing from one another by only 0.04 grams. We may logically suppose, however, that the theoretical weight of the coins was a specific unit of the Roman system of weights. The scruple, a unit of six carats, in the Roman system, weighs 1.14 grams. There are 288 scruples in the pound. With this in mind, we would suggest that the theoretical weight of the minimi issued during the period from Theodosius II through the reign of Leo, with the exception of those issued during the reign of Marcian, was one scruple in weight. This involves a revision of our findings on a very small scale from Y, but, more importantly, it does some violence to the principles upon which a frequency table is used in numismatics. In the case of Y the coefficient of variation was so great that we felt it more likely that the higher figure of 1.18 grams was more accurate. In actual fact, such a distinction would be meaningless because the difference is too small. Either figure could be accepted from the evidence of Y. The second objection is more serious, for it involves placing the theoretical weight one or two hundredths of a gram above the highest point in the range possible for the coins from the reigns of Theodosius II and Valentinian III, as well as in the series from the total period from Valentinian II through Valentinian III and in the reign of Leo. Theoretically, it is improbable that the coins in those series weighed more than 1.12 or 1.13 grams when issued. The fact that thirty-eight coins from the period from Valentinian II through Arcadius have been included in the total of 237 covering the reigns from Valentinian II to Valentinian III makes no appreciable difference in the results. Omitting these pieces does not alter the situation or eliminate the difficulty. All that can be said is that the picture given by 810 coins from the reign of Valentinian II to the first reign of Zeno seems to show a theoretical weight of 1.14 grams or one scruple. Perhaps the 136 coins from the reigns of Valentinian II through Arcadius and the reign of Marcian have compensated somewhat for the lightness of the remaining 674 pieces in the hoard from the period preceding the reign of Zeno.

This is not a completely satisfactory method for solving the difficulty. One is merely playing with figures in order to get a specifically desired results. We must allow the facts to speak for themselves. At certain periods the minimi were struck slightly heavier and at others slightly lighter. This conclusion can not be avoided. The differences, however, were negligible and even undetectable to the average citizen. They merely reflect imperial ordinances which stipulated that fewer or more coins be issued from the pound of raw metal. Perhaps during the reigns of Theodosius II and Valentinian III, as well as during that of Leo, as many as 300 coins were obtained from the pound of metal. Each piece would then have a theoretical weight of 1.09 grams (five and a half carats). This accords with the statistical data. In the reign of Marcian, however, minimi were issued at 1.18 grams theoretical weight (just above six carats) and 276 pieces were obtained from the pound of raw metal. These are limits within which the Roman moneyer might operate and still remain secure from discovery by the public. All coins would circulate together as if they were of a uniform weight of 1.14 grams and as if there were 288 pieces to the pound.

The solution just proposed is that there were minor fluctuations in the weight of the minimi which reflected governmental monetary policy. These fluctuations were not immediately evident or even discernible by the citizenry and were therefore of limited economic significance by themselves. They would naturally escape the notice of contemporary writers. This conclusion was not evident from Y because of uncertainty in some of the attributions. It would seem, however, a necessary result of the metrological analysis.

The major change in the weight of the minimi, we have seen, occurred in the reign of Basiliscus. The theoretical weight of the individual coins then fell to about 0.97 grams. Perhaps it was even as low as 0.94 grams (five carats), but the statistical data seem to indicate a slightly higher weight. In either case, the difference between the theoretical weight of the coins as issued from the mint and the weight at which the public had accepted the earlier coinage was now clearly visible. Most of the coins were more than two-tenths of a gram below the old theoretical weight, while only very few specimens approximated the established standard. Specimens from the reign of Zeno show an even greater drop to about 0.84 grams (four and a half carats), with 384 coins struck from the pound of raw metal. The public would now be fully aware of the change which had been introduced, and governmental recognition of the changed standard would become an economic necessity if complete repudiation were not to follow in the market place.

The fluctuation in the weight of the minimi now becomes clear. It remains for us to explain the monetary policy which caused these fluctuations and to relate the entire picture to the general economic history of the fifth century. The evidence for the period preceding the reign of Arcadius is somewhat confusing, but it would seem that during at least a part of the last quarter of the fourth century the minimi were struck at 1.18 grams theoretical weight. This agrees with the literary evidence, for in the year 396, the Emperors Arcadius and Honorius ordered that twenty-five pounds of bronze should be held equal to a solidus. 43 This constitution was included in the Theodosian Code published in 438. A Novella of Valentinian III of 445 states specifically that the solidus might be bought from the collectarii (i.e., the gild of moneychangers), for 7,200 nummi and sold for 7,000. 44 No significant change occurred in the weights of the gold or bronze coins in the period 396-445, and it seems clear that the emperor was simply trying to maintain a fixed value for the solidus in terms of bronze coins. Gold coinage values in terms of bronze were not allowed to fluctuate freely in the market, and the margin between the purchase and sale price of solidi by the collectarii was fixed by imperial edict. Thus the profit margin of the moneychanger was regulated by the government. Economic conditions in the market might dictate that the gap between purchase and sale price be made wider or smaller, and the collectarii might even petition for such a change. Indeed, we know that in 384/5 they did make such a petition. 45 The demand for solidi and minimi and the quantity of these coins available in the market would change, and as a result the purchase price for the moneychangers would have to reflect the economic variations within the limits prescribed by law. One is clearly before a case of governmental intervention in the operation of the market to control currency values. That there were constant difficulties arising from this governmental interference is clear from the number of laws issued reLating to it.

If the rate of 7,000-7,200 nummi to the solidus is taken as prevailing for the first half of the fifth century, and if the edict of Honorius and Arcadius remained in force, then a theoretical weight of 1.14 grams with 288 coins from the pound of raw metal is required for minimi. Both premises seem to be reasonable in the light of the evidence. The coinage of the period from Arcadius through the reign of Valentinian III fits this system well. It seems likely that the action taken by Honorius and Arcadius establishing the mint ratio of gold to bronze at 1:1800 was in the nature of a reform connected with a lightening of the bronze currency. The confused picture yielded by the frequency table for the coinage of the period before the death of Arcadius may be the natural concomitant of this change. In any event, it is clear that this was a period of financial and fiscal difficulty for the imperial government. Large tribute payments were made to the Huns and the other barbarians. At the same time the tax structure was completed and applied rigorously. By dint of these efforts the government managed to retain solvency and to maintain currency values.

A clear change occurred in the financial position of the government during the reign of Marcian. Perhaps the resolute quality of his control of the governmental policy towards the barbarians, as well as the evident weakness of the western rulers and the machinations of Justa Grata Honoria, induced the Huns to turn their attention from Constantinople to Ravenna and Gaul. Marcian stopped the enormous tribute payments which had been made to the Huns under the various treaty arrangements and managed to accumulate in the treasury more than 100,000 pounds of gold, a sum which excited the cupidity of Attila the Hun. 46 The emperor managed to do this while conducting the affairs of the empire in such fashion that not only did he refuse to institute new taxes but even removed old ones such as the follis, and also remitted arrears in taxes. His reign was later regarded as a golden age in which all things were well. 47 This new-found prosperity permitted the emperor to reduce the profits from the operation of the mint and to strike the minimi slightly heavier, perhaps at 1.18 grams or 276 coins from the pound of metal. Such a policy would have reduced the number of coins issued and at the same would have increased their value. In essence, the minimi appear to have been restored to the standard prevalent before 396.

This healthy state of government finances was not long-lived. Marcian was succeeded by Leo. The Byzantine authors have given Leo a reputation for rapacity and avarice which is perhaps somewhat undeserved: it may reflect the tightening of fiscal policy in times of need. The great unsuccessful expedition against the Vandals in Africa and the difficulties which ensued upon the murder of Aspar created a need for large sums of ready cash. Under the circumstances the government chose to gain a greater profit from the issuance of fiduciary bronze by reducing the weight once again to the standard set by Arcadius and Honorius. By this measure a greater number of coins could be obtained from a given weight of bronze.

These, then, are the fluctuations of the bronze currency from 375 to 474. There is a cyclical quality in these minor shifts which only becomes evident when a large mass of minimi from a single hoard becomes available for detailed study. The facts are quite clear, but a convincing explanation for these cyclical trends must remain conjectural in the absence of literary evidence or a complete series of price indices. In view of the paucity of certainly dated papyri from the fifth century, such a price index would appear to be beyond hope. The fluctuations of weight in the case of the minimi, however, do reflect governmental policy and are not mere chance. For reasons which are obscure today, but which nonetheless must have been evident to the Roman officials of the time, minor adjustments were made in the weight of the bronze currency. One such adjustment, as we have seen, was made in the reign of Marcian, and though we have considered a possible explanation, the evidence is insufficient for absolute certainty.

Apart from the brief return to a slightly heavier bronze coin in the years 450-457, we may judge the bronze currency of the period 396-475 to have been issued at 1.14 grams and 288 minimi to the Roman pound. It is possible that the theoretical weight was slightly higher, but there were no major changes during those years.

After 475 the picture changed abruptly. Perhaps the short reign of Basiliscus, continuing precariously for twenty months, exhausted what little may have been in the treasury at the time of Leo's death. The drain on the financial resources of the state must have been very great throughout the years following the death of Leo because of continued Ostrogothic pressure. 48 Under the circumstances a weight reduction of the fiduciary currency would have yielded a significant return. It could not have solved the fiscal problems of a government which was so largely dependent upon tax receipts in kind, but it would have had an ameliorating effect. At this point, if the same relationship of 7,000-7,200 nummi to the solidus held true, twenty pounds of bronze would have purchased one gold piece. This is a crucial change, and it can now be dated on numismatic grounds to the twenty-month reign of Basiliscus.

The text of the former edict of Honorius and Arcadius as preserved in the Theodosian Code records the older evaluation at twenty-five pounds of bronze to the solidus. When this same constitution was repeated in the Corpus Iuris Civilis, the valuation was changed to twenty pounds of bronze. 49 Since the TheodosianCodewas published in February 438 to take effect as of January 1, 439, the change must have been introduced after this date. No change is indicated in the later Novellae of Valentinian III or Majorian. In the preserved second Code of Justinian which was completed in 534, however, the change was already in force. The first Code of Justinian, which is unfortunately lost, was prepared in 529 by a commission of ten with very wide authority. They were empowered to remove obsolete or unnecessary constitutions, to reconcile contradictory laws, and even to make other necessary changes in texts and in the order of the enactments. Similar powers were given to Trebonianus, Dorotheus, and the three assisting advocates who worked on the second Code, which is extant. This is clear from the extant introductory constitutions to the various Codes. It seems evident, therefore, that the change occurred some time between the publication of the Theodosian Code and the Corpus Iuris Civilis. The monetary history of the later Roman Empire permits us to date the change to 475/6. Trebonianus and his aides simply reconciled the apparent contradiction by inserting the new valuation into the older constitution.

The story of the minimi does not end here. A fragment from the work of Malchus preserved in Suidas tells us that during the early part of the reign of Zeno the treasury had reached such a low ebb that nothing was left in it. Whatever Leo had managed to accumulate after the Vandalio expedition and before his death had been quickly exhausted by Zeno in largesses. 50 Even if this passage be dated to the first reign of Zeno, there can have been no substantial improvement during the tenure of Basiliscus. With an empty treasury the Emperor was forced to resort to all possible sources of revenue. The manipulation of fiduciary coinage yielded still greater mint profits than before. The average weight of the minimi now fell to 0.62 grams, and we may conjecture that the theoretical weight was only 0.84 grams. Approximately 384 coins were now struck from the pound of raw metal. The decline of the nummus, introduced in the fourth century and serving as virtually the only small change during almost the entire fifth century, was now complete. It remained for Anastasius, a ruler of better financial ability with a sense of strict economy, to institute reforms very early in his reign. 51 An entirely new system of bronze currency with some large so-called folles of forty nummi each and an average weight of almost seventeen grams came on the scene.

Certain conclusions may be drawn from the reconstruction of the history of the minimi. It seems obvious at a glance that the imperial government was well aware of the profits to be secured by tampering with the fiduciary bronze currency. The profit to the mint from the massive issues of minimi cannot have been inconsiderable, and in times of greatest urgency the weight of the coin was lowered and more coinage struck from a pound of metal. In times of relative prosperity there was some attempt to maintain a respectable fiduciary coinage. As is true in the case of most coinages, however, the imperial government was unable to resist temptation, and the general trend was towards lightening the coinage. This is particularly true after the reign of Leo. We may also note that the increase in the number of coins struck from a pound of metal probably meant an increase in the total number issued. It is unlikely that the imperial government restricted the mints in any way in terms of the quantity struck, since larger issues meant momentarily greater profits. As in all things, however, there was a day of reckoning, and that day came during the reign of Basiliscus, after the major force of the Völkerwanderung had spent itself and the West was lost. The larger issues of bronze of reduced weight must have lost some of their acceptability in terms of conversion into gold at the fixed rate of twenty-five pounds per solidus. This was disastrous because the intrinsic value of the fiduciary coinage was so low that their market value rested on such free conversion. Throughout the entire fifth century this small bronze currency had been issued in large amounts, but it seems entirely likely that Leo was forced into a position of issuing even greater amounts than before. His tremendous expenditures of treasure in the ill-fated Vandalio expedition in 468 had exhausted the reserves of over 100,000 pounds of gold left to him by Marcian. Procopius estimates the cost of the expedition at 130,000 pounds of gold, while John Lydus and Candidus give the estimate of 64,000 pounds of gold and 700,000 pounds of silver. 52 These tremendous expenditures could not possibly have been recouped before the accession of Basiliscus. The early sixth century author, Malchus, describes Basiliscus as a most avaricious ruler who, because of his desire for money, was guilty of the sin of extorting money from the churches. 53 This perhaps was the measure of his need. With an empty treasury and a shaky hold on the throne the emperor was in the direst straits. He had to secure money from all possible sources. What could be more natural than that he should seek a great increase in the profits from the operation of the mint? The evidence is quite conclusive that the economic situation required some govern- mental action. Two courses were open to him: either he might increase the number of minimi equal to the solidus and simply recognize the rise in price which must have occurred when the bronze lost some of its convertibility—in which case he derived no profit—or he might change the mint ratio of gold to bronze, with all that this implies. If he had changed the number of minimi equal to the solidus from 7,000 to 8,400, he would simply have stabilized the course of the fiduciary bronze currency. It is clear from the text in the Corpus Iuris Civilis that the second course, that of lowering the gold-bronze mint ratio from 1:1800 to 1:1440, was chosen. The reasons for the move are obvious. Stocks of bronze for monetary purposes must have been considerable. By lowering the mint ratio the Emperor added approximately one-fifth to the value of such bronze stocks. At the same time the move would have had the long-term effect of lowering prices in terms of fiduciary bronze currency. This, however, may never have come to pass because prices are notoriously slow on the downward grade, and it is doubtful that this move by itself would have created increased confidence in the fiduciary bronze. The population could have been forced to accept the government's terms in dealing with the highest authority, but there is no surety that in private transactions the move was particularly effective. Nevertheless, an incidental advantage which accrued to the imperial government from the change was the increased ability to lighten the currency still further for quick gain. The first solution, which implied recognition of an economic situation, that is, the decline in the value of bronze, would have been sounder from a purely theoretical standpoint. Governments, however, like individuals, are interested in profits rather than sound economics, and so the second course was chosen.

Zeno's return to power in 476 was not marked by any improvement in the economic position of the government. As we have indicated, the treasury was empty during his first years in power. Only one course lay open to the Emperor, a further reduction in the weight of the bronze currency together with a larger issue. Basiliscus had already cried up the bronze minimi to the breaking point. There can be no doubt that even the mint ratio of 1 : 1800 gave bronze a higher value than was actually true in the market place. Such is the nature of fiduciary currency. The government in its time of need was vitally interested in the profits which it could obtain from the operation of the mint. In the final analysis, when the minimi fell to an average weight of only 0.62 grams and a theoretical weight of 0.84 grams, the system could not be maintained. Not only was the bronze very obviously overvalued, but the actual coinage was below its theoretical weight to such a degree that all could detect it. This in itself might have been relatively meaningless, if the issues had been limited and free conversion into gold could have been maintained. Unfortunately, this does not seem to have been the case. The temptation to issue bronze for a quick profit must have been almost overwhelming in the case of a government in the midst of a financial crisis.

The exact nature of the reform of Anastasius remains somewhat enigmatic to the present day. There is no information as to how the older coinage was demonetized or how the exchange was accomplished. 54 Only one fact appears certain. An emperor of business ability with an astute eye for building up the treasury could not have made the error of reducing the value of the bronze in the treasury stocks and restoring the older mint ratio. Instead, the emperor reformed and changed the bronze monetary system by abolishing the minimi while retaining the mint ratio of 1:144o which appears in the Corpus Iuris Civilis.

COINS FROM Valentinian IIARCADIUS

image

YALE HOARD

image

YALE HOARD

image

VOLO HOARD

image

TOTAL OF COINS FROM Valentinian IIARCADIUS FROM BOTH HOARDS

THE VOLO HOARD

THE VOLO HOARD

image

COINS OF MARCIAN

image

COINS PRIOR TO THE REIGN OF LEO

image

COINS OF LEO

THE VOLO HOARD

image

COINS PRIOR TO THE REIGN OF ZENO

image

COINS OF BASILISCUS, AELIA ZENONIS, AND BASILISCUS AND MARCUS

image

COINS OF ZENO

TABLE OF MINTS

Constantinople Nicomedia Cyzicus Antioch Alexandria Heracle Rome Thessalonica KOC CHES
Philip II of Macedon
Constantinian Æ 3 2
Constantius Gallus
Constantinian Æ 3: Barbarous
Valentinian I, Valens, or Valentinian II Æ 3 1
Valentinian II Æ 4 1
Theodosius I Æ 4 1 1
Honorius Æ 4 (2)
Arcadius Æ 4 1
Arcadius Æ 4: Barbarous
Late 4th, early 5th century Æ 3 and Æ 4 1 1 1 2
Late 4th, early 5th century Æ3 and Æ 4: Barbarous
Theodosius I, Arcadius, or Honorius
Theodosius I, Arcadius, or Honorius Æ 4: Barbarous 1
Arcadius or Honorius Æ 3
Arcadius or Honorius Æ 3: Barbarous
Theodosius II Æ 4 4 1 1 2
Arcadius, Honorius, or Theodosius II 1 1
Arcadius, Honorius, or Theodosius II: Barbarous
Period of Theodosius II Æ 4 5 2 7 7
Period of Theodosius II or later: Barbarous
Valentinian III Æ 4 (1)
Period of Valentinian III Æ4 5
Period of Valentinian III Æ 4: Barbarous
Valentinian II, Theo-dosius I, Arcadius, Honorius, (Valentinian III) 1 1
Valentinian II, Theo-dosius I, Arcadius, Honorius, (Valentinian III): Barbarous
Honorius, Theodosius II, Valentinian III
Barbarous Imitations
Marcian 12 13 5
Marcian: Barbarous
Leo 47 5 5 7 10
Leo: Barbarous
Zeno 1 5 2 2
Illegible Monograms (of Leo, Zeno, or Aelia Zenonis) 1
Illegible Monograms (of Leo, Zeno, or Aelia Zenonis): Barbarous
Basiliscus 1
Basiliscus and Marcus
Aelia Zenonis
Libius Severus
Roman, Illegible 1
Varia
NUMBER OF COINS FOR EACH HEADING IN THE CATALOGUE
Regular Issues
Philip II of Macedon 1
Constantinian Æ 3 13
Constantius Gallus Æ 3 1
Valentinian I, Valens, or Valentinian II Æ 3 5
Valentinian II Æ 4 3
Theodosius I Æ 4 7
Honorius Æ 4 12
Arcadius Æ 4 7
Late 4th, Early 5th Century Æ 3 and Æ 4 19
Theodosius I, Arcadius, or Honorius 2
Arcadius or Honorius Æ 3 2
Theodosius II 36
Arcadius, Honorius, or Theodosius II 20
Period of Theodosius II 105
Valentinian III 4
Period of Valentinian III 16
Valentinian II, Theodosius I, Arcadius, Honorius, (Valentinian III) 16
Honorius, Theodosius II, Valentinian III 2
Marcian 98
Leo 475
Zeno no
Illegible Monograms of Leo, Zeno, or Aelia Zenonis 7
Basiliscus 9
Basiliscus and Marcus 11
Aelia Zenonis 16
Libius Severus 4
Roman, Illegible 1
Total 1002
NUMBER OF COINS FOR EACH HEADING IN THE CATALOGUE
Barbarous Issues
Constantinian Æ 3 1
Arcadius 2
Late 4th, Early 5th Century Æ 3 3
Theodosius I, Arcadius, or Honorius 1
Arcadius or Honorius Æ 3 1
Arcadius, Honorius, or Theodosius II 2
Period of Theodosius II 10
Period of Valentinian III 2
Valentinian II, Theodosius I, Arcadius, Honorius, (Valentinian III) 5
Imitations 14
Marcian 7
Leo 3
Zeno 1
Illegible Monograms of Leo, Zeno, or Aelia Zenonis 9
Varia 1
Total 62

End Notes

*
This constitutes the sum of the previous columns of the Volo hoard.
**
This is the sum of all of the coins issued before the reign of Leo in this hoard.
***
This is the sum of all of the coins issued before the reign of Zeno in this hoard.
****
In this column have been included not only the coins of Basiliscus alone, but those of his wife, Aelia Zenonis, and of the joint reign of Basiliscus and Marcus.
39
Cf. S. Bolin, State and Currency in the Roman Empire to 300 A.D., Stockholm, 1958, pp. 102-103. We need not resort to Bolin's thesis regarding the "natural range of variation'' of so-called "charged" coins in the case of fiduciary coins which were so overvalued that the intrinsic value of the metal played a very small part in their acceptability in the market. Only insofar as a given weight of bronze was legally equivalent to a given weight of gold would the value of bronze coinage vary with its weight. The actual quantity of bronze currency as compared with the needs for such currency would have affected the convertibility of the fiduciary currency into gold to a greater degree than weight. If there was too much bronze on the market to be absorbed by the economy, its convertibility would have fallen. Insofar as the quantity of bronze currency may be said to be a natural concomitant of its weight, the weight of the individual pieces may be said to reflect the convertibility into gold, provided a constant rate of absorption into the economy is postulated. Blake, pp. 87, 88, has made an interesting remark on the overvaluation of copper-bronze currency which was maintained during the early Empire: "The copper-bronze currency, however, was quite a different matter. During the earlier Empire it had been heavily overvalued, as compared to the gold and silver coinage. I suspect, though I cannot prove it, that the emperors intentionally increased the amount of copper in circulation in order to extricate themselves from their financial difficulties, and that certain measures such as the issue of the so-called Antoninianus, has as one of its basic aims the devaluation of the copper currency, as Hilliger asserts." Bolin stresses that the profits from the mint must have been very great.
40
Y, p. 144.
41
Bury, pp. 389-391. The child emperor Leo II had conferred the imperial dignity on his father and the coinage was issued in both names until the sole reign of Zeno. See J. Sabatier, Description générale des monnaies Byzantines frappées sous les empereurs d'Orient depuis Arcadius jusqu'à la prise de Constantinople par Mahomet II, reprint, Graz, 1955, Pis. VII, nos. 15, 16 and 17; VIII, no. 13.
42
See particularly G. Mickwitz, "Die Systeme des römischen Silbergeldes im IV. Jhdt. n. Christus. Ein Beispiel zur Anwendung der variationsstatistischen Methode in der Numismatik," in Societas Scientiarum Fennica (Finska Vetenskaps Societeten ), Commentationes Humanarum Litter arum, VI, Abh. 2 (1932), pp. 38-67, as well as G. F. Hill, "The Frequency Table," Numismatic Chronicle, 5th Series, IV (1924), pp. 76-84, and H. L. Adelson, Light Weight Solidi and Byzantine Trade During the Sixth and Seventh Centuries. Numismatic Notes and Monographs No. 138, New York, 1957, PP- 36-58. An example of the application of this technique to minimi appears in our study of Y.
43
C. Theod., XI, 21, 2. Cf. C. Just., X, 29, 1, which repeats this constitution exactly save for the omission of quinqué after viginti. In the course of the argument below we shall date this change.
44
Nov. Valent., XVI. See Y, p. 151, note 26, for our discussion of this text.
45
Letter of Symmachus in MGH, A. A., VI, pp. 303, 304.
46
Ioannes Lydus, De Magistratibus Populi Romani, III, 43 (Bonn ed., p. 236):μετά γοũν ϴεοδόσι καì Μαρκιανòν τòν μέτριον ἐλθὼν ὁ Λέων παοũτον εὑρὼν ὃν Ἀττìλας τῆς οἰκουμένης Πoλέμιoς λαμβάνειν ἒμελλεν (ῆν δν ὑπὲρ τάς χιλíας ἑκατoντάδαςτoũ χρυσíoυ λιτρῶυ).
47
Bury, pp. 236, 237, who cites the ancient sources. The later chronicler, Theophanes, speaks of the reign of Marcian as a "golden age" (Bonn ed., p. 167).
48
Cf. J. B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire from Arcadius to Irene, London, 1889, I, p. 253.
49
See note 43.
50
Malchus, frag. 5 (Bonn ed., p. 275): τό δὲ κoινòν τότε εỉς πᾶςαν ἀπoρíαν κα-τῆλθεν, ὡς μηδὲν ἒχετν ὑπόλoιπoν, ἄ τε γἀρ ἐν τῷ κoινῷ ταμεíῳ λὲων κατέλιπεν ἀπoθνᾑςκων ὑπò Ζήνωνoς ταχὑ ἐκεκὲνῳτo π?ντα, πλλὰ μὲν χαριΖoμένoυ τoĩς φíλoις, ὡς ἒτυχεν, oὑκ ὂντoς δὲ ἀκρι?oῦς, ὤςτε αὐτἀ γινὼςκειν, εἴ πῃ καὶ ἄλλῳς κλέπτoιντo. Bury, p. 401, dates the text to 477 without any further comment. C. Müller, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, Paris, 1868, IV, p. 116, repeats the same passage from Malchus, but he dates the event to 475, relying on the authority of Tillemont that the Praetorian Praefect Erythrius, whose activities are discussed in this passage, was in office in 473 and later, and that he was probably removed from office shortly before the return of Zeno. O. Seeck, Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, IV, col. 602, holds that Erythrius was still in office during the first reign of Zeno because the passage from Malchus states specifically, Ἐρύθριoς ἒπαρχoς γεγoνὼς ἐπὶ Ζήνῳνoς. In fact, the only constitutions addressed to Erythrius date from 466 and 472, during the reign of Leo I. See, ed. Paul Krueger, Codex Iustinianus in Corpus Iuris Civilis, ed. Th. Mommsen, Berlin, 1954, H» P- 5°7- Erythrius was apparently succeeded in office by Dioscorus sometime in the year 472, if we may judge from the constitutions in the Corpus Iuris Civilis. Also see E. Stein, Histoire du Bas-Empire, Paris, 1949, II, p. 66. Cf. Malchus 88 B (Bonn ed., p. 263): ὄτι τὸν ἄρχoντα α?γύπτoυ ἐπὶ μόλις χρυςíoυ λíτραις ν? ἐκπεμπόμενoν, ὥςπερ. This passage is repeated in Müller, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, IV, p. 120. It is dated by Müller to 477 without comment. The passage is questionable because of the improbability that the income from Egypt increased from fifty pounds of gold to 500 pounds of gold in any short period of time. Such a ten-fold increase would have been reflected in other works of the period, but there is no supporting evidence. Bury and the other modern historians have simply omitted any reference to it. Ioannes Lydus, De Magistratibus Populi Romani, III, 45 (Bonn ed., pp. 238, 239), says specifically that the state was on the verge of financial ruin from the death of Leo to the accession of Anastasius because Zeno forced the magistrates to purchase peace from the barbarians. John Lydus was a contemporary of Anastasius and Malchus, and it may be safely assumed that he would have known of any such great increase in wealth.
51
Blake, pp. 84-97, stresses the financial acumen of the emperor. See also Ioannes Lydus, De Magistratibus Populi Romani, III, 45 (Bonn ed., pp. 238, 239), who claims that Anastasius saved the state from virtual ruin. Bury, pp. 441-447, discusses the financial policy of Anastasius in laudatory terms.
52
Procopius, De Bello Vandalico, I, 6 (Bonn ed., I, p. 335); Ioannes Lydus, De Magistratibus Populi Romani, III, 43 (Bonn ed., p. 237); Candidus (Bonn ed., p. 477). Cf. Bury, p. 337, note 3, for a discussion of these figures. Also see E. Stein, Geschichte des spätrömischen Reiches, Vienna, 1928,1, pp. 531, 532.
53
Malchus, Frag. 4 (Bonn ed., pp. 274, 275) = frag. 7 in Müller, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, IV, p. 116.
54
Blake, pp. 84-97.

CATALOGUE

In the catalogue the obverse legend is given when some remains are visible. Busts are draped and pearl diademed unless otherwise indicated. Where either the obverse legend or type is recorded it is preceded by Obv. The reverse inscription and type are always given where legible. Three dots indicate an indeterminate number of illegible letters. The line following the statement of the reverse legend gives first the size, in millimeters, second, the die position, and third, the weight in grams. Reference to earlier literature follows, when pertinent. A "cf." preceding the reference to the standard catalogues indicates not an identification, but an approximation to the type. We have omitted a list of clipped coins such as appears in Y, p. 158, in the belief that clipping as a mode of manufacture was standard practice for the Roman mint beginning sometime in the reign of Theodosius II. If the worker is careful, he will produce a coin which in itself conceals the technique. The Libius Severus piece in V was produced in the same way as the Y specimen (see Y, p. 143).

The die position is given in all cases where it can be determined. The smaller proportion of erratic positions in the Æ 4 starting from Theodosius II and continuing through Zeno attests the greater care applied to the minting of minimi in the fifth in contrast to the production of the late fourth century. Of the regular Æ 3 coinage 12 are 6 o'clock, 8 are 12 o'clock, and 8 erratic, that is, anywhere else on the dial. Of the Æ 3 barbarous specimens, 1 is 12 o'clock and 1 erratic. Of the regular Æ 4, 330 are 6 o'clock, 322 are 12 o'clock, and 191 erratic. The Æ 4 barbarous pieces show 10 at 6 o'clock, 8 at 12 o'clock, and 12 erratic.

An asterisk preceding the number indicates that the coin is illustrated in the Plates.

PHILIP II OF MACEDON

SNG Copen., Maced. Pl. 14, 619
I. Obv: Heracles in lion's skin. 1 Club; Φιλιππoυ; below, M. 10-11 ↘ 1.03

End Notes

1
Nothing more need be said about the inclusion of a Hellenistic coin in a late Roman hoard other than to commend its persistence. It is impossible to suppose that a coin of Philip of Macedón would serve as currency to the Romans of the fifth century. This represents something lying about the house. The issue must have been a copious one, for these specimens have a penchant for intruding themselves into Roman hoards. Another example is provided by the hoard from Corinth of quite similar composition to V, described by Mattingly, p. 229.

CONSTANTINIAN

Æ 3 Reverse illegible
2. Obv. ...NVSPFAVG Head is veiled 2 13-15 1.14
FEL TEMP RE PARATIO Soldier 1., spearing fallen horseman 3
3. Obv: ...STANT... FEL... 11-14 ↓ 1.10 image 4. Obv: ...TAN... ...EMP... 10-13 ↑ .84
5. Obv: ...VS... ...ATIO 11-12 ↙ .75 6. FELTEMP... 12-16 → 1.04
7. ...TEMP... 13-14 ← 1.33
Same Type (Barbarous)
8. 12-13 ↑ 1.05
FEL TEMP REPARATIO Phoenix on globe
9. Obv: ...NSTA... FE... image 9-11 ↙ .85
SPES REIPVBLICE Emperor standing 1., holding globe in r. and leaning on spear
10. ...VBLICE 9-12 ↖ .87 11. 13-14 ↙ 1.10
12. 12-14 ↑ 1.19 13. 11-14 ↓ 1.05
14. 13 ↘ 1.43 15. 9-15 ↓ .95

End Notes

2
The veiled head is no doubt the posthumous issue for Constantine I. C. 760.
3
The type occurs from Constantine II through Julian II. Y 10-24.

CONSTANTIUS GALLUS

FEL TEMP REPARATIO Soldier 1., spearing fallen horseman
16. Obv: .NFLCLCON... .ELTE... 8-12 ↓ .53

Valentinian I, VALENS, or Valentinian II

Æ3 SECVRITAS REIPVBLICAE Victory running 1., with wreath and palm
17. Obv: ...AVG SECVRITAS... image 12-16 ↑ .91 18. SECVR... 9-13 ↓ 47
19. 12-15 ↑ 1-15 20. 11-13 ↓ .75
21. 13-15 → 1.88

Valentinian II

Æ 4 SALVS REIPVBLICAE C. 30 Victory running 1., dragging captive
22. Obv: DNVAI... 11 ↖ .82 image 23. Obv: ...NVSPFAVG SALVS... 10-11 ↑ .72 image RIC Vol.IX,p. 133, 64a
VOT V within wreath
24. V[OT]V 4 11-13 ↗ .85

Theodosius I

SALVS REIPVBLICAE C. 30 Victory running 1., dragging captive
25. Obv: .. THEODO-SiVS... 12 ↓ .91 RIC, Vol. IX, 67b image 26. Obv: DNTHEOD... AVG ...PVBLICAE 11-13 ↑ 1.17
27. Obv: ...SIVS... ...PVBLICAE image 12-13 ↓ 1.11 RIC Vol. IX, p. 234, 86b 28. Obv: DNTHEO... 11-12 ↑ 1.20
29. Obv: ...O-SIV... ...VBL... 3-5 ↗
VICTORIA AVG(GG) 5 Two victories facing one another, each holding wreath
30. Obv: ...SIVSPF... ..CTOR... 11-12 ↑ .89
Reverse illegible
31. Obv: ...SIVSP... 11-13 1.17

End Notes

4
The number of letters on the obverse, although they can not be read, requires the ascription of this coin to Valentinian II and not to the other possible emperors for the eastern mints, Gratian, Arcadius, and Theodosius I.
5
C. 43 has -AVGGG. -AVG is recorded for the mint of Thessalonica in RIC IX, p. 187, No. 63b. Y 47, 48.

HONORIUS

Æ 4 GLORIA RomanORVM C. 38
Three emperors, standing, with spears; two outer resting hands on shields; central figure slightly smaller 6
32. Obv: DNHONOR... 10-14 ↖ .89 Obv. mint-mark to left of head: *
SALVS REIPVBLICAE Victory running 1., dragging captive
33. Obv: DNHON... ...LVSRE... 11-12 ↘ 1.01 image 34. Obv: .NPON... 7 10-12 ↑ 1.13
VICTORIA AVGG(G) 8 Victory running 1., with wreath and palm
35. Obv: ..HONORIVS... ...AAVGGG 11-12 ↙ .85 36. Obv: DNHO... ...AVGG image 11-12 ↑ 1.47
37. Obv: DNHON... 10-11 ↙ 1.43 image 38. Obv: ..HON... 11 ↙ 1.27 image
39. Obv: ..HONOR... 11-12 ↓ 1.09 40. Obv: ..HON... ...AV... 10-11 ↗ 1.25
41. Obv: DNH... 11 ↑ 1-42
Reverse illegible
42. Obv: ...ONO... 11-12 .69 43. Obv: ..HONOR... 10-11 1.19

End Notes

6
All specimens in V (32, 115, 116, 121-132, 134-138, 297, 298) and in Y (69, 90, 106, 151-158, 314-317) depicting two or three emperors are larger by about 2 mm. than the Æ 4. However, they do not reach regular Æ 3 size. We can not but agree with Pearce that a distinction from both Æ 3 and Æ 4 was originally intended [Roman Coinage, "Corrections and Additions," p. 4; also in "A Late Roman Hoard from Southwest Asia Minor," Numismatic Chronicle 5th Series, XV (1935), pp. 21-24). Pearce at first called them Æ 4, but later preferred to refer to them as "JE 3 small" (Roman Coinage, p. 22). The reverses remind one of the Æ 3 types with the emperor in various postures. CK throughout refers to these as Æ 3.
7
Since the coin is well made, the P for H in the name is probably no more than a die-cutter's error.
8
The possibility of a third G for the type is suggested by Cohen's listing (No. 39) and Thompson, No. 1616. An actual specimen from the Roman mint is mentioned by Pearce, Roman Coinage, p. 81, No. 83.

ARCADIUS

Æ4 SALVS REI PVBLICAE Sab. 41 Victory running 1., dragging captive
44. Obv: DNARCADIVSPFAVG 11-12 ↑ .92 45. Obv: DNARC...AVG SA...ICAE 11-14 ↑ .81 image RIC Vol. IX, p. 133, 64c Var.
46. Obv: ..ARCADI... SALVS... 7 ↓ .36
CONCORDIA AVG(GG) Cross Sab. 32
47. Obv: DNARCADI... .. .DIAAVGGG 11 ↑ .65 48. Obv: DNARCADIVSPFAVG CON... 11-13 ↑ .97
49. Obv: DNAR... CONCOR-DIA... 11 ↓ .82
Reverse illegible
50. Obv: DNARC... 12-13 1.10
Reverse illegible (Barbarous)
51. Obv: Arcadius in jumbled lettering? 10 .90
Gate of camp (Barbarous)
52. Obv: NAR... 9 ← .52

LATE 4th, EARLY 5th CENTURY

Æ3 CONCORDIA AVG(GG)
Rome or Constantinople, helmeted, seated facing, head 1., holding globe and partly seen spear; r. leg bare 9
53. CONC... 13-14 .98
Same type (Barbarous)
54. 11-12 .85
GLORIA ROMANORVM Emperor with labarum, dragging captive r. 10
55. .. .VM 9-13 .54 image 56. 13-14 ↑ 1.18
57. 11-14 ↑ 1.45 58. 11-14 ↑ .84
59. 13-15 ↓ 1-37 60. 12-13 ↓ 1.15
61. 11-15 ↓ .97 62. 13 ↓ .93
63. 12-14 ↓ .96
Same type (Barbarous)
64. Obv: ...AVG 10-12 ↘ 1.13 65. 9-11 .56
Reverse illegible
66. image 11-12 .88 67. image12-14 .99
Æ4 VOT X MVLT XX within wreath 11
68. Obv: ...VSPFAVG VOT X MVLT XX 11 ↓ .94 69. VOT X MVLT XX 11-12 ↘ .88
70. ...X MVLT XX 12 ↖ 1.18
VICTORIA AVG(GG) 12 Two victories facing one another, each holding wreath
71. .. .RIAAVGGG image 10-13 ↓ .99 72. VI... image 12-14 ↘ 1.30
Uncertain VOTA type
73. 9 ↓ .83 image 74. Obv: ...SP... ...XX... 9 .95

End Notes

9
The type is found for Gratian, Valentinian II, Theodosius I, Arcadius, and Honorius, and shows either -AVG or AVGGG. Y 73.
10
The type is found for Valentinian I, Valens, Gratian, Valentinian II, Theodosius I, and Arcadius. Y 74-83.
11
The type is found for Gratian, Valentinian II, Theodosius I, and Arcadius. Y 85.
12
The type is found for Valentinian II, Theodosius I, and Arcadius. -AVG is Thessalonica, -AVGGG Rome. Y 86-88.

Theodosius I, ARCADIUS, or HONORIUS

SPES ROMANORVM Gate of camp 13
75. SPESRO... 10-11 ↓ 1.24 Star between turrets
Same Type
76. 11 1.32
Same type (Barbarous)
77. image11-12 ↓ 1.02

ARCADIUS or HONORIUS

Æ3 VIRTVS EXERCITI Emperor standing r., leaning on spear; victory 1., crowning him
78. 12-14 ↖ .94 79. 12-14 ↑ 1-40
Same type (Barbarous)
80. 9-10 .39

Theodosius II

Æ4 VT XXXV in three lines within wreath Sab. 31
81. Obv: ..TH... VTXXXV 10-11 ↓ .49 *82. Obv: ...SPFAy 14 TOV XXXV 12-13 ↓ .94
83. VT XXXV 10 ↓ 1.11 84. VT.XXXV 9-10 ↑ .83
85. VT XXXV 15 11-12 ↓ .86 86. [VT X]XXV 10-12 ↑ 1.21
CONCORDIA AVG (G) 16 Victory standing, facing, wreath in each hand
87. Obv: .. .DOSIVSPFAVG CONC... image12-13 ↓ 1.22 88. Obv:...IVSPCAVG(sic!) CONC...AVGG 11 ↙ .84
Anepigraphic. Cross in wreath. Sab. 32
89. Obv: DNTHEOD... image 10 ↑ .74 90. Obv: ..HEODSVSPF... (sic!) image 11 ↓ .59
91. Obv: DNTHEODO... image 10 ↓ .88 92. Obv: ...SIVSP... image 12 ↓ .96
93. Obv: .NTH... image ↘ .34 94. Obv: DNTHEODO... 12 ↓ .93 image
95. Obv: ...HEO... 10 ↓ .96 image 96. Obv: .NTHEObOSlV-SPFAVG 10-12 ↑ 1.34
97. Obv: DNTHEODOSIVS... 11-12 ↓ 76 98. Obv: DNTHEODO... 11-12 ↓ .95
99. Obv: DNTHE...AVG 11-12 ↑ 103 100. Obv: DNTH... 9-11 1.01
101. Obv: DNTH... 10-11 ↓ 1.19 102. Obv: DNT.. .VSPFAVG 11 ↓ .91
103. Obv: DNT... 12-13 ↑ .74 104. Obv: DNT... 9 .61
105. Obv: DNT... 10 .96 106. Obv: ..THEODOSIVS.. 11-12 ↑ .77
107. Obv: .. THEODO... 11-12 .99 108. Obv: ..THEO... 10-11 ↗ .72
109. Obv: ...HEODOS... 10 1.07 110. Obv: ..HEO... 11 ↑ .79
111. Obv: .. .DOSIVSPFAVG 10-11 ↑ .72 112 . Obv: ...DOSIVS... 9-11 ↘ .80
113. Obv: ...DOSIV... 9 107 114. Obv: ...OSI... 8-10 ← .7O
GLORIA ROMANORVM Two emperors standing, holding spears and leaning on shields
115. Obv: ..THEODO... ...NOR.. 11-12 ↑ .67 Mint mark in upper left obverse:*
Reverse illegible
116. Obv: ...OD... 17 10-11 .98

End Notes

13
According to RIC, the sub-type showing the star between the turrets was issued only by western mints. The type exists for Valentinian II through Honorius. Y 91-93. GLORIA REIPVBLICE is also possible.
14
The coin is well enough made to be a regular issue, though by a careless die-cutter working backwards. Can -ty possibly be a ligature or abbreviation for -AVG? Coin 696 is in similar case.
15
The piece is double-struck.
16
The legend ends in either -AVG or -AVGG. See Pearce and Wood, pp. 272, 279. Y 107.

ARCADIUS, HONORIUS or Theodosius II CONCORDIA AVG(GG) around cross 18

117. Obv: ...VSPFAVG ... COR-DIAAVGGG 12 ↓ .86 118. CONCOR-DIA 11 ↗ .84
119. CONCOR... 9-10 ↑ .63
Same Type (Barbarous)
120. 9-11 .65
GLORIA ROMANORVM Three emperors, standing, with spears; two outer resting hands on shields; central figure slightly smaller
121. Obv: ...VSPF... 12-14 1 .68 122. image 9-15 ↓ .84
123. image11-12 ↓ .68 124. image11-14 .96
125. 8-11 ↑ .58 126. 11-13 ↑ .77
Mint mark in upper left obverse:*
127. 12 ↓ .99 128. 11 ↓ .87
129. 11 ↗ 1.29 130. 12 ↘ 1.40
131. 11-13 .57 132. 12-13 1.05
Same Type (Barbarous)
133. 10-11 .89
GLORIA ROMANORVM Two emperors standing, holding spears and leaning on shields 19
134. Obv: ... PFAVG ..ORI... 11-13 ↑ .81 135. 12-14 ↑ 1.07
136. 12-13 ↓ 1.04 137. 12-14 ↘ 103
138. 10 ↘ .84

End Notes

17
Headdress is rosette.
18
The type exists for all three emperors in either -AVG or -AVGGG. Y 149, 150.
19
Pearce lists a doubtful specimen of Valentinian III (Roman Coinage, p. 78, No. 141). Y 158.

PERIOD OF Theodosius II 20 Anepigraphic. Cross in wreath.

139. Obv: DN... 10 ↓ 1-19 140. Obv: ...SPFAVG 10-11 ↓ 1.01
141. Obv: ...SPFAVG 10-11 .88 142. Obv: ...PFAVG 10-11 ↓ 1.17
143. Obv: ...PFA.. 11 ↓ 1.08 144. Obv: ...PFA.. 11 ↓ 1.19
145. Obv: ...AVG 9 ↓ .75 146. Obv: DN... 10-11 ↑ 1.12 image
147. Obv: ...SP... 11-13. ↓ .81 image 148. Obv: ...FAVG 10-11 ↗ .85 image
149. 9-10 ↓ 1.28 image 150. 9-10 ↓ .78 image
151. 11-12 ↑ 1.23 image 152. 9-10 ↓ 1.O3 image
153. 9 ↗ 95 image 154. 10-11 ↗ .72 image
155. Obv: ...AVG 10-12 ↓ .64 image 156. 12-13 ↗ .63 image
157. 10-12 ↑ .61 image 158. 11-13 ↑ .58 image
159. 9-11 ↓ .81 image 160. 10 ↑ .58 image
*161. 11 ↑ .99 image 162. 10 ↓ .75 image
163. 9-11 ↓ .49 image 164. 10 ↗ .56 image
165. 9 ↓ .74 image 166. 11-12 .92 image
167. 9-10 ↑ .58 168. 9 ↑ .52
169. 8-9 ↓ .60 170. 10-11 .84
171. 10-11 ↑ .94 172. 9-10 ↑ .85
173. 10-11 ↑ .74 174. 9-11 ↑ .86
175. 9-11 ↑ .66 176. 11 ↑ .87
177. 11 ↑ .79 178. 12-13 ↑ 1.51
179. 8 ↑ .77 180. 10-11 ↑ .97
181. 9 ↑ .81 182. 8-10 ↓ .51
183. 10 ↓ .82 184. 11-12 ↓ .83
185. 8-9 ↓ .56 186. 10 ↓ .95
187. 9-10 ↓ .84 188. 10-12 ↓ .75
189. 9-11 ↓ .63 190. 11 ↓ .60
191. 12-13 ↓ .96 192. 9-12 ↓ 1.25
193. 9-10 ↓ .65 194. 9-11 ↓ .69
195. 10-12 ↓ .72 196. 10-11 ↓ 1.16
197. 10 ↓ .91 198. 9-11 ↓ .70
199. 11 ↓ 1.27 200. 9-10 ↓ .81
201. 10 ↓ .88 202. 11 ↗ .56
203. 9-10 ↗ 1.58 204. 11 ↗ .87
205. 10-11 ↗ 1.07 206. 10-11 ↙ .96
207. 10-11 → 1.14 208. 9-10 ↖ .66
209. 7-9 .64 210. 8 .78
211. 8-9 .87 212. 11-12 .67
213. 11-12 .60 214. 10-11 1.12
215. 8-10 .66 216. 9 .59
217. 9 .83 218. 8-10 .45
219. 10-12 1.04 220. 9-10 .56
221. 10-12 .89 222. 11-12 .74
223. 8-9 .48 224. 9 1.02
225. 11 .84 226. 9 .39
227. 8-9 .63 228. 7-10 .45
229. 10 .62 230. 7-11 .30 21
231. 7 .52 232. 9-11 .53
233. 10 .96 234. 9-10 .49
235. 10-11 1.04 236. 9-10 .87
237. 9-10 .89 238. 8-10 .26
239. 8-10 .45 240. 11-12 1.21
241. 9-10 .72 242. 9 .54
243. 8-9 .47

End Notes

20
Most of these coins should be assigned to Theodosius II. However, Valentinian III also has the type (see a rare specimen from the Agora, Thompson, No. 1657). Since Valentinian III is rather well represented in the hoard, with 4 coins definitely his and 16 others belonging to his period, it is possible that at least one of the coins under this heading is his.
21
The piece is broken in two.

PERIOD OF THEODOSIUS II OR LATER: BARBAROUS

Anepigraphic. Cross in wreath
244. 8-9 ↑ 41 245. 10-11 ↓ .55
246. 8-9 ← 26 22 247. 9-10 .51
248. 10-11 .96 249. 9-10 .47 23
Anepigraphic. Cross pattée within wreath.
250. Obv: Dots for lettering 10-11 .71 251. 9-10 .41 24
252. 10-11 1.20 253. 9 .86

Valentinian III

VICTORIA AVGG Victory running 1., with wreath and palm 25
*254. Obv: .NVALE... ...AAVG. 10-11 ↑ .88image
SALVS REIPVBLIC(A)E 26 Victory running 1., with wreath and palm
255. Obv: ... ALENTINI... ...VBLI... 10-11 ↑ 1.09 256. Obv: ...NVSPFA... ...PVBLIC.). 10-11 ↓ 1.04
Victory running 1., with wreath and palm 27
257. Obv: ...NIANVS... 10-12 ↑ .60

End Notes

22
Obverse is anepigraphic.
23
A reel border on the reverse has replaced the wreath.
24
Obverse is anepigraphic.
25
Cf. C. 12, 13 and Pearce and Wood, pp. 273, 282. Y 253, 254.
26
Additional specimens in Pearce and Wood, p. 282.

PERIOD OF VALENTINIAN III 28

VICTORIA AVGG Victory running 1.. with wreath and palm
258. Obv: ...AVG image VIC... 12-13 ↑ 1.14 259. VICTOR... image 11-12 ↑ .98
260. VICTOR... image 11-13 ↑ .60 261. VICTO... image 10 ↓ .84
262. ...AAVG. image 10-13 ↓ .96
SALVS REIPVBLICE Victory running 1., with wreath and palm
263. ...BLICE 11-12 ↑ 1.29
SALVS REIPVBLIC(A)E Victory running 1., dragging captive
264. ...VS REI... image 10 ↑ .90
Victory running 1., with wreath and palm 29
265. Obv: ...SPFA.. 10-11 ↖ 1.09 image 266. Obv: ...FAV. 10-12 ↑ 1.01 image
267. 10-11 ↑ 1.33 image 268. 10-11 ↑ 1.02 image
269. 11-12 ↑ 1.38 image 270. 10-11 ↓ 1.37 image
271. 9-10 ↓ 1.34 272. 10-11 ↓ 1.22
VICTORIA AVGG(G)
Two victories facing one another, holding one wreath (and? palms) 30
273. 10-11 ↗ .76

End Notes

27
Either VICTORIA AVGG or SALVS REIPVBLIC(A)E is possible. Y 256.
28
The coins of Valentinian III have a style all their own which distinguishes them as a rule from other material in the hoard. The relief tends to be higher, but, since the outlines are not sharply cut, the figures are thick and heavy. The same characteristics apply to late coins of Honorius. See Pearce and Wood, p. 273. Y 259-298.
29
See note 27. Y 269-280.

PERIOD OF VALENTINIAN III: BARBAROUS

Victory running 1., with wreath and palm 31
274. Obv: ... PFAVG 10-11 ↓ .99 275. 9-10 ↓ .60

Valentinian II, Theodosius I, ARCADIUS, HONORIUS, (Valentinian III)

SALVS REI PVBLICAE Victory running 1., dragging captive 32
276. Obv: ...SPFAVG ...PVBLICAE 11-12 ↓ .73 277. Obv: ...PFAVG ...PVBL... image 10-11 ↓ .60
278. Obv: ...AVG 12 ↘ 1.03 image 279. SAL... image 12 ↑ 1.24
280. 12-13 ↑ 1.05 image 281. 11-12 ↓ .73 image
282. 11 ↑ 1.14 image 283. ...PVBLICAE 12 ↑ 1.07
284. ...PVBLICAE 12-13 ↓ .90 285. ...PVBLIC... 11-12 ↑ .78
286. SALVS... 11-12 ↓ 1.03 287. ...REP... 10-13 ↓ .56
288. ...RE... 11-12 ↘ 1.35 289. 10-11 ↑ .86
290. 9-11 ↓ .64 291. 8-10 .66
Same Type (Barbarous)
292. Obv: Jumbled lettering 11-12 ↓ 1.14 image 293. 11-12 ↓ .84 image
294. Obv: Jumbled lettering 9 ← .55 295. 8-10 ↓ .61
296. 9-11 ↓ .56

End Notes

30
For the third G see E. T. Newell, Two Hoards from Minturno. Numismatic Notes and Monographs. No. 60, New York, 1933, p. 31. Y 285-289.
31
See note 27.
32
We have included these common pieces at this point because Valentinian III is also known to have issued the type. The SM- mint-mark, of course, precedes him. Y 299-312.

HONORIUS, THEODOSIUS II, Valentinian III

GLORIA ROMANORVM
Two emperors of equal height, standing, each with spear, together holding globe
297. ...ANOR.. 10-11 ↑ 1.54 298. 12-13 ↑ 1.36

BARBAROUS IMITATIONS

Victory running 1., with wreath and palm 33
299. Obv: DN... 9-11 ↖ .56 300. ...IAAV... 10-1 ↓ 1.11
301. 8-9 ↑ .60 302. 9-11 ↑ .56
303. 8-9 ↓ .31 304. 10-12 ↘ .84
305. 11-13 → .64 306. 9-10 ← .24
307. 8-9 .41 308. 10-11 .54
309. 11-13 .85
Victory standing, facing, wreath in each hand
310. Obv: ...AVG 10-11 ↑ 1.04
Victory running 1., dragging captive
311. 9-10 .56
Lines to represent figure 34
312. 11-12 .77

End Notes

33
The fabric of these pieces maintains a good standard, but the style is quite crude. From the present evidence it is impossible to date them as to reign. The equivalent specimens in Y are 318-345. Some of these coins illustrate poor workmanship within the Roman mint itself. For example, those with good Roman lettering could be the products of a literate but clumsy artist. Others, such as Y 320 and 336, may by the same criterion be truly barbarous productions. Since there is no evidence of Vandalic mintage in the hoard, these pieces were probably produced by the irregular moneyer.

MARCIAN

(V 1) within wreath Sab. 11
313. Obv: .NMARCIANVSPFAVG 10-11 ↗ 1.33 image 314. Obv: ..MARC. 11-12 ↓ .96 image
315. Obv: DN... 10-11 ↓ .95 image 316. 10-11 ↑ .90 image
317. 11 ↙ 1.10 image 318. Obv: ...IANVS... 10-12 ↘ 1.23 image
319. Obv: ..AVG 11-12 ↓ 1.39 image 320. Obv: ..MARC... 10-12 ↓ 1.22 image
321. Obv: DNM... 9-12 ↑ .77 image 322. Obv: ...PFAV. 9 ↗ .82 image
*323. Obv: ...IANVS... 9-10 ↓ 1.23 image 324. 10-11 ↑ .90 image
325. 10 ↘ 1.46 image 326. Obv: DNMARCIA... 9 ↓ 1.06
327. Obv:... NVSPFAVG 10 ↓ 1.03 328. Obv: ...ARCIANVS.. 11 ↗ 1.42
329. Obv: ..MARC... 9 ↑ 1.19 330. Obv: ..MARC... 11-12 ↙ .46
331. Obv: ..ARCIAN... 10-11 ↑ 1.14 332. Obv: DNM... 11 ↓ 1-19
333. Obv:DN... 9-11 ↙ 1.04 334. Obv: ...FAVG 9-12 ↓ 1.14
335. Obv: ...AVG 10-12 ↙ .67 336. Obv: .. .AVG 10-11 ↑ 1.20
337. Obv: ...AVG 10-11 ↗ .68 338. 9-11 ↑ .85
339. 10-12 ↓ 1.33 340. 10 ↓ .64
341. 9 ↓ .61 342. 9-10 ↓ .99
343. 10-11 ↓ 1.17 344. 9 ↙ .95
345. 10 ↙ .81 346. 10-11 ↙ 1.40
347. 8-9 .47 348. 10-11 .82
(V 1) Var. (Cross at an angle) within wreath
349. 9-10 ↓ .71 350. 10-11 ↙ 1.12
or (V 1, 7) within wreath
351. Obv.: ...AN... 9-11 ↑ .50 352. Obv: ...A...FAV. 9-10 ↖ .92
353. 8 ↓ .79 354. 8-9 ↓ .92
(V 2) within wreath
355. 10-11 ↑ 1.06 image
(V 3) within wreath
356. 9-11 ↓ .93 357. 9-10 ↓ .82
(V 4) within wreath
358. Obv: ...AR.IA... 10-11 ↑ .97
(V 5) within wreath
359. Obv:DNMARCIANVS... 10 ↓ 1.21 360. 10-11 ↑ 1.06
361. 10-11 ↗ 1.26
(V 6) within wreath
362. Obv: DNMAR... 11-12 ↙ 1.08 363. 10 ↓ .64
(V 7) within wreath
364. 9-10 ↑ .98 image
(V 8) within wreath
365. Obv: DNMAR... 10-11 ↓ .92 366. Obv: ...SPFAVG 9-11 ↓ .90
367. 10-11 ↗ 1.10
(V 9) within wreath
368. Obv: ...ANVSPA.. 10-11 ↓ .85 image 369. Obv: ..NV... 10-11 ↑ 1.06 image
370. Obv: DNM... 10-11 ↖ .84 image 371. Obv: ...RCIANVS... 9-11 ↘ .89 image
372. 11-12 ↓ 1.11 image 373. 11-12 ↓ 1.36 image
374. Obv: ...IANVS... 10-11 ↓ .72 image 375. 9-10 ↑ .83 image
376. Obv: DN...NVSPFAVG 10-11 ↓ 1.23 377. Obv: DNMAR... 12-13 ↑ 1.44
378. Obv: DNMAR... 10-13 ↙ 1.54 379. Obv: DNMA...VG 10-12 ↓ .94
380. Obv: ...CIA... 9-10 ↓ .99 381. Obv: ...SPFAVG 10-11 ↑ 1.47
382. Obv: ...VSPFA.. 9-11 ↑ 1.31 383. Obv: ...VSP... 9-11 ↓ 1.13
384. 9-10 ↑ .60 385. 10-11 ↓ .78
386. 11-12 ↓ 1.12 387. 8-9 ↓ .57
388. 8 ↓ .99 389. 10 ↓ .97
390. 10 ↙ 1.18 391. 10 ↗ 1.08
(V 10) within wreath
392. 9 ↓ 1.01 image 393. 9-10 ↑ .91
394. Obv: ...ANVS... 11-12 ↑ 1.13 image 395. Obv: DNMAR... 9-10 ↓ .80
396. Obv: ...NVS... 10-12 ↓ 1.19
(V 11) within wreath
397. 10 ↗ 1.00
(V 12) within wreath
398. 10-11 ↑ .54 image
(V 13) within wreath
399. Obv: ...NVSPFAV. 10 ↓ 1.07 image
(V 14) within wreath
400. Obv: .. .ANVSPFAVG 10 ↓ .92
(V 15) within wreath
401. 9-11 ↑ .40
(V 16) within wreath
402. 10-11 ↓ 1.11 image
(V 17) within wreath
403. 11 ↓ 1.32
Indeterminate monogram within wreath
404. Obv: ..MARCIANVSP... 10 ↙ 1.21 image 405. Obv: DNMA... 10-11 ↓ .83 image
406. Obv: ...VSP... 9-10 ↑ .62 407. 10-11 ↓ .67
408. Obv: ...AV. 9 ↑ .66 409. 8-9 ↓ .55
410. 6-9 .28

End Notes

34
This is possibly a very poor attempt to portray a victory type of some sort.

MARCIAN: BARBAROUS

(V 18) within wreath
411. 8-9 ↑ .45
(V 19) within wreath
412. 9-11 ↙ .55
(V 20) within wreath
413. 8 .46
(V 21) within wreath
414. 9-10 ← .39
(V 22) within wreath
415. 8 .28
Indeterminate monograms
416. 7-9 ↑ .32 417. 11 ↖ 1.15 35

LEO I

Anepigraphic. Lion standing 1., wreath border. Cf. Sab. 20
*418. Obv: DNLEOPFAVG 10-11 ↑ .92 image 419. 10 ↓ .89 image
Anepigraphic. Lion standing 1., above, star; reel border. Cf. Sab. 20
420. Obv: .NLEOPERP... 9-10 ↓ 1.36 image 421. Obv: DNLEOP...AV. 10-11 ↑ 1.08 image
422. Obv: ...N... 9-10 ↗ 1.24 image 423. Obv: ...OPE... 10 ↑ .73 image
Anepigraphic. Lion crouching 1., looking r. Double border. 36 Sab. 19 Var.
424. Obv: DN... 9-11 ↑ .90 425. Obv: ...EOS 37 10 ↓ 1.12
426. Obv: ...E. 9-10 ↘ .69 427. Obv: ...O 8-10 ↙ .82
428. Obv: ...P... 9-12 ↘ .87 429. Obv: ...FAV. 9 ↓ .53
430. Obv: ...VG 9 ↘ .85
Anepigraphic. Lion crouching 1., looking r. Sab. 19
431. Obv: ...NSPFA.. 9-10 ↓ .68 image 432. Obv: ...AVG 9-10 ↙ .91 image
433. 10-11 ↑ .71 image 434. Obv: ..LEO... 11-13 ↓ .73 image
435. Obv: ...PF... 9-11 ↓ .78 image 436. 9-10 ↑ .66
Anepigraphic. Lion crouching 1., looking r; no star, reel border
437. Obv: DNLEOPFAVG 11-12 ↓ .91 image 438. Obv: DNLEO.. 9-10 ↑ 1.33 image
439. Obv: DNHE...AVG 38 10-12 ↑ 1.27 image 440. Obv: DNLE.. 11-12 ↑ 1.07 image
441. Obv: DNLE... 10 ↓ .86 image 442. Obv: .NLE... 10-11 ↓ .57 image
443. Obv: .NL... 11-12 ↘ .55 image 444. Obv: ..LEOPA.. 11 ↓ 1.22 image
445. Obv: ...EOSPFA.. 10-11 ↑ 1.17 image 446. Obv: ...PETAVG 9-11 ↑ .82 image
447. Obv: ...PFAVG 10-11 ↑ .74 image 448. Obv: ...PFAVG 10-12 ↓ 1.27 image
449. Obv: ...FAVG 10 ↑ 1.29 image 450. Obv: ...AVG 11-12 ↑ .59 image
451. Obv: ...AVG 10-11 ↓ .78 image 452. Obv: ...AVG 10-11 ↓ 1.34 image
453. Obv: ...AVG 9-11 ↗ .86 image 454. Obv: ...PF... 10-11 ↑ .73 image
455. 9 ↑ .87 image 456. 10-11 ↑ .75 image
457. 9 ↑ .83 image 458. 10-11 1.08 image
459. Obv: .NHE... 10-12 ↓ .92 image *460. Obv: DNL... 10 ↑ 1.10 image
461. Obv: ...PFAVG 9-10 ↑ 1.13 image 462. Obv: ...AVG 11 ↑ 1.14 image
463. 8-10 ↓ .63 image 464. Obv: DNHE... 11 ↓ 1.13 image
465. 9-10 ↗ .77 image 466. Obv: DN... 10-11 ↗ .77 image
467. 10-11 ↑ 1-08 image 468. Obv: .NL... 10-11 → 1.01 image
469. 9-10 ↑ .78 image 470. Obv: DNLEOPFAVG 9-10 ↙ 1.28
471. Obv: DNHEOPFAV. 10-13 ↘ .74 472. Obv: DNLEOPF... 10-11 ↓ .87
473. Obv: DNLEO... 9-10 ↙ .82 474. Obv: DNLE... 10-11 ↓ .64
475. Obv: DN... 10-11 ↓ .64 476. Obv: DN... 9-10 ↑ 1.15
477. Obv: DN... 9-11 ↙ .43 478. Obv: .NLE... 10-11 ↙ 1.33
479. Obv: .NLE... 9 ↘ .57 480. Obv: . .LEOPFAVG 39 10-11 ↙ .80
481. Obv: ..LEO... 10-12 ← 1.11 482. Obv: ..LE... 8-10 ↑ .82
483. Obv: ...EOPFAV. 11 ↓ 1.19 484. Obv: ...EOPF... 10-11 ↑ .72
485. Obv: ...EO 9-10 ↑ .85 486. Obv: ...E. 10 ↓ .79
487. Obv: ...OPFA... 9-10 ↑ .69 488. Obv: ...PFRAVG 10-11 ↙ .65
489. Obv: ...PFAVG 11-13 ↓ 1.02 490. Obv: ...PFA.. 9-10 ↙ .92
491. Obv: ...FAVG 11 ↓ 1.23 492. Obv: ...FAVG 9-10 ↗ .66
493. Obv: ...FAVG 9 ↙ .77 494. Obv: ...FAV. 9-10 ↗ 1.07
495. Obv: ...AVG 10-11 ↑ .81 496. Obv: ...AVG 10 ↙ 1.10
497. Obv: ...AVG 10-11 ↗ .46 498. Obv: ...VG 10-11 ↙ .87
499. 9-10 ↓ 1.09 500. 10-11 ↓ .93
501. 10-11 ↓ .79 502. 9-10 ↖ .77
503. 9-10 ↓ .80 504. 10 ← 1.08
505. 10-11 .84 506. 9-10 1.03
507. 8 .46
Same type (Barbarous)
508. Obv:D-I... 9-10 .81
(V 1) within wreath Sab. 18
509. Obv: ...OSP... 9-10 ↙ .73 image 510. 9-10 ↙ .95 image
*511. 8-9 ↑ 1.05 image 512. 9 ↑ .71 image
513. 8-9 ↗ 1.04 image 514. Obv: .NLEO... 9 ↙ 1.10 image
515. 8 ↑ .65 516. 8-9 .53
517. 7-8 .55 518. Obv: DNLEO... 10-12 ↓ 1.30
519. Obv: DNLEO... 11-12 ↓ 1.17 520. Obv: DNLE... 9-18 ↓ 1.08
521. Obv: DN...FAVG 8-10 ↓ .81 522. Obv: DN... 10-11 ↑ 1.06
523. Obv: .NLEO... 11 ↗ .73 524. Obv: .NLE-0 8-9 ↑ .53
525. Obv: .NLE... 10-11 ↗ 1.31 526. Obv: .NLE... 9-11 ↑ .71
527. Obv: .NL... 9 ↓ 1.13 528. Obv: ...EOPT... 9-11 ↑ .65
529. Obv: ...EO... 10-12 ↗ 1.02 530. Obv: .. .EO... 10 ↙ 1.12
531. Obv: ...OPT... 9 ↑ .77 532. Obv: ...O... 9-10 ↓ 1.02
533. Obv: ...EP... 10-12 ↑ 1.10 534. Obv: ...PFAVG 9 ↑ .76
535. Obv: ...FAVG 9-10 ↓ 1.03 536. Obv: ...PAV. 9 ↑ .99
537. Obv: ...FA.. 9 ↑ 1.12 538. Obv: ...AVG 9-11 ↓ .80
539. Obv: ...AVG 9 ↖ .58 540. Obv: ...AVG 9 ↑ 1.36
541. 9 ↑ .72 542. 9-11 ↑ .78
543. 10-11 ↑ .66 544. 10 ↑ .98
545. 9 ↑ .69 546. 9-10 ↑ 1.10
547. 9 ↑ .61 548. 9 ↑ .74
549. 9-11 ↑ .62 550. 9 ↑ 1.12
551. 9-11 ↑ .95 552. 8-9 ↑ .61
553. 9-10 ↑ 1.19 554. 9-10 ↑ .66
555. 9-10 ↓ .56 556. 10 ↓ 1.01
557. 10-11 ↓ 1.19 558. 8-9 ↓ .93
559. 9 ↓ .83 560. 8 ↓ .50
561. 9 ↓ 1.00 562. 10-11 ↓ 1.08
563. 9 ↓ .75 564. 8 ↓ .54
565. 9-11 ↓ 1.07 566. 9-11 ↓ 1.28
567. 9-10 ↓ .86 568. 8 ↓ .60
569. 9 ↓ .97 570. 9 ↓ 1.09
571. 9-10 ↓ 1.01 572. 9-10 ↓ 1-00
573. 8 → .60 574. 9 ↓ .63
575. 9-10 ↙ .77 576. 8-9 ↙ .56
577. 8-9 ↙ .52 578. 10 ↗ 1.03
579. 9-10 ↗ .95 580. 9-10 ↗ .71
581. 10 ↖ .85 582. 9-10 ↙ 1.08
583. 9 ↘ .66 584. 8-9 .76
585. 9-10 .67 586. 10 1.03
587. 9-10 1.24 588. 8-9 .47
(V 2) within wreath Sab. 18
*589. Obv: DNLEONSPFA.. 11-12 ↘ 1.38 image 590. Obv: .NLE... 10 ↓ .71 image.
591. 8-9 ↓ .37 image 592. 9 ↑ .77 image
593. Obv: DN... 8-9 ↑ 1.06 image 594. Obv: ..LE... 9-10 ↓ .94
595. Obv: DNLE... 9-10 ↑ 1.61 596. Obv: DNI... 9-10 ↓ .88
597. Obv: DN... 9 ↓ .55 598. Obv: .NLEO... 9 ↘ .68
599. Obv: .NL... 11-12 ↗ 1.26 600. Obv: ...E... 9-10 ↑ .86
601. Obv: ...SPFA.. 10 ↓ 1.16 602. Obv: ...FAVG 10 ↑ .93
603. Obv: ...AVGO 8-9 ↓ .43 604. Obv: ...VGO 9 ↓ .50
605. 8-10 ↑ .75 606. 7-8 ↑ .49
607. 9 ↑ .58 608. 8-9 ↑ .68
609. 9-10 ↑ .82 610. 9-10 ↑ .89
611. 9 ↑ .78 612. 9-10 ↑ .84
613. 9-10 ↑ .65 614. 9 ↓ .66
615. 8 ↓ .58 616. 8-10 ↓ .94
617. 8 ↓ .70 618. 10 ↓ .60
619. 8-10 ↘ .73 620. 9-10 ↗ .89
621. 9-10 ↖ 622. 9 .58
623. 9 .84 624. 8-9 ↑ .70
or (V 1, 2) within wreath Sab. 18
625. Obv: DN... 9 ↓ 1.06 626. Obv: ..LEO... 9 ↖ .61
627. 9-10 ↑ 1.01 628. 9 ↑ .54
629. 9 ↑ 1.43 630. 10 ↑ .55
631. 8-9 ↑ .62 632. 9-10 ↑ .53
633. 9-10 ↓ .44 634. 10-11 ↓ 1.20
635. 8-9 ↓ .69 636. 8-9 ↓ 1.13
637. 8 ↘ .62 40 638. 8 ↗ .48
639. 8-9 ↙ .40 640. 8 .71
641. 8-10 .37 642. 9-11 .49
(V 3) within wreath
643. Obv: ...AVGO 9 ↓ 1.00 image
(V 4) within wreath Sab. 18
644. 7-10 ↑ .96 image 645. 8-10 .94 image
646. Obv: DNL... 9 ↗ .92 647. Obv: DN... 9-10 ↓ .54
648. Obv: DN... 8 ↓ .56 649. Obv: ...SP... 8-11 ↑ .85
650. Obv: ...O 8-10 → .70 651. Obv: ...PFAVG 8 ↓ .62
652. 9 ↑ .43 653. 8 ↑ .74
654. 9-10 ↑ .81 655. 9-10 ↑ .44
656. 9-10 ↑ .78 657. 7-9 ↓ .41
658. 8-9 → .51 659. 9-10 .62
660. 9-10 .60 661. 9-10 .83
662. 8-11 .36 663. 9-10 ↑ .85
664. 8-9 ↓ .49
(V 5) within wreath Sab. 18
655. Obv: ...SPFAV. 10 ↑ 1.20 666. 9-12 ↑ 1.02
(V 6) within wreath Sab. 18
667. Obv: ...EO 9 ↘ .60 image 668. 10-11 ↑ 1.09 image
669. 10-12 ↘ 1.22 image 670. 10-12 ↓ 1.01 image
671. Obv: ...PRT 10-11 ↓ 1-16 image 672. Obv: ..LE. 10 ↙ 1.02 image
673. Obv: ...O 10-11 ↗ 1.00 image 674. Obv: ...E... 9-10 ↓ .88 image
675. Obv: ...E. 9-11 ↓ .84 image 676. Obv: DNLEO... 11 ↑ 1.06
677. Obv: DN... 10-11 ↑ 1.03 678. Obv: .N... 9-11 ↙ .36
679. Obv: ...RT... 9-10 ↙ 1.11 680. Obv: ...O 10-11 ↙ .84
681. Obv: ...PEAVG 10-11 ↙ 1.04 682. Obv: ...AV. 9-10 ↓ .84
683. Obv: ...AV 10-11 ↓ .74 684. 9-12 ↑ .83
685. 9-11 ↑ .80 41 686. 9-11 ↑ .71
687. 9-11 ↓ .37 688. 8-9 ↓ .57
689. 10-11 ↓ .65 690. 10-11 → .82
691. 10-11 ↘ 1.13 692. 10-11 .98
(V 7) within wreath Sab. 18
693. Obv: DNLE. 10-11 ↓ .69 694. 8-9 .39
(V 8) within wreath Sab. 18
695. 10-11 ↙ 1.04 image 696. Obv: ...PFimage 42 9-10 ↓ .85
697. 10-11 ↑ .75 698. 7-8 ↓ .49
699. 8-9 ↗ .67 700. 10-11 ↙ .97
701. 9-10 ↙ .64
(V 9) within wreath Sab. 18
702. Obv: ...AVG 8-9 ↑ 1.00 image
Indeterminate monogram
703. Obv: ...E. 10-11 ↓ .73 image 704. 8-12 .37
Anepigraphic. Emperor, in military dress, standing r., holding long cross in r., captive with 1. Cf. Sab. 14
705. Obv: DNLEONSPFAVG 43 11 ↓ .95 image *706. Obv: DNLEOPERPET 10-13 ↓ 1.16 image
707. 10-11 ↑ 1.33 image 708. Obv: DNL... 11-12 ↑ 1.06
709. Obv: DNL... 9-11 ↓ .61 710. Obv: DNL... 9-10 ↑ .78
711. Obv: DNLE... 11-12 ↙ 1.11 image 712. Obv: DN... 11 ↑ .96 image
713. Obv: .NL-EO 11 ↓ .95 image 714. Obv: ...EO 11 ↑ 1.44 image
715. Obv: ...RPET 9-10 ↑ 1.23 image 716. 9-10 ↓ .82 image
717. Obv: DNL-EO 10-11 ↘ 1.30 image 718. Obv: DNL-EO 11-12 ↑ .65 image
719. Obv: DN...O 10-11 ↑ 1.39 image 720. Obv: ...L-EO 10-11 ↖ 1.08 image
721. 9-12 ↓ .66 image 722. 11-12 ↗ 1.07 image
723. Obv: ...S...E... 10-12 ↑ .70 image 724. 9-10 ↑ .69 image
725. 8-10 ↓ .63 image 726. Obv: DNL-EO 10-11 ↑ 1.61
727. Obv: DNLEO... 9-11 ↑ .93 728. Obv: DN... 9-10 ↑ .98
729. Obv: .NLEO... 9-11 ↓ .91 730. Obv: .NLE... 10-11 ↙ 1.34
731. Obv: ...EO 8-10 ↑ 1.42 732. Obv: ...OSPFAVG 10-11 ↑ 1.37
733. Obv: ...AVG 9-10 ↑ .65 734. Obv: ...AV. 10 ↓ 1.23
735. 9-11 ↓ .82 736. 8-11 ↓ 1-01
737. 9-10 ↓ .69 738. 11 .80 44
Same Type (Barbarous)
739. 9-10 ↑ .89
Anepegraphic. Figure in long robes, nimbate, standing facing, holding cross-surmounted globe in r., and scepter transversely in l. 45 Cf. Sab. 15
740. Obv: DNLEO..PFA.. 11-13 ↙ 1.20 image 741. Obv: DNL...G 9-11 ↑ 1.14 image
742. Obv: DNL... 11 ↗ .90 image 743. Obv: DNL... 10 ↑ .66 image
744. Obv: DNL... 10-11 ↓ .95 image 745. Obv: .NLEO... 10 ↑ .93 image
746. Obv: .NL-EO 11-12 ↑ image 747. Obv: ..L-EO 10-11 ↗ .96 image
748. Obv: ...EO 10-11 ↑ .67 image 749. Obv: ...E. 10-11 ↑ .85 image
750. Obv: ...OSPFA.. 9-11 ↑ 1.06 image *751. Obv: ...FAVG 9-10 ↓ .87 image
752. Obv: ...AVG image 8-10 ↑ .83 753. 11 ↑ .94 image
754. 10-11 ↓ .74 image 755. 10-12 ↓ 1.22 image
756. 10-11 ↓ .94 image 757. 9-10 .93 image
758. Obv: DNLEO... 10 ↓ 1.05 image 759. Obv: DNL... 9-10 ↓ .86 image
760. Obv: DNL... 10-11 ↑ .90 image 761. Obv: DNL... 10-11 ↓ .71 image
762. Obv: DNL... 11-12 ↙ 1.19 image 763. Obv: DN... 10 ↑ 1-80 image
764. Obv: .NL... 10-12 ↙ .75 image 765. Obv: .N... 10 ↑ .87 image
766. Obv: ..LE... 9-10 ↓ 1.08 image 767. Obv: ...EO 11-13 ↑ 1.07 image
768. Obv: ...E. 9-11 ↑ .78 image 769. Obv: ... E... 8-9 ↑ .66 image
770. Obv: ...O 10-11 ↑ .98 image 771. Obv: ...RPET 10-12 ↑ .93 image
772. Obv: ...VG 9-14 ↑ 1.24 image 773. 10-11 ↑ 1.05 image
774. 9-11 ↑ .86 image 775. 8-9 ↓ .61 image
776. 10-11 ↓ 1.12 image 777. 10-11 ↓ .85 image
778. 10-11 1.11 image 779. Obv: DNLEO...AVG 11 ↗ 1.01 image
780. Obv: DNLE... 9-11 ↑ .71 image 781. Obv: DNLE... 9-11 ↓ .86 image
782. Obv: DN...O 11-13 ↑ 1.16 image 783. Obv: DN...O 11-12 ↑ 1.12 image
784. Obv: DN... 11-12 ↑ .83 image 785. Obv: DN... 9-11 ↑ .75 image
786. Obv. DN... 8-9 ↓ .41 image 787. Obv: DN... 11-13 ↗ .62 image
788. Obv: D... 9-10 ↑ .89 image 789. Obv: D... 10-11 ↑ .89 image
790. Obv: D... 10-11 ↓ .79 image 791. Obv: .NL-EO 11 ↑ 1.05 image
792. Obv: .NL... 9-11 ↑ .69 image 793. Obv: .NL... 9-10 ↑ .86 image
794. Obv: .NL... 9-11 ↘ .70 image 795. .N...AV. 10-11 ↑ .91 image
796. Obv: ...EO...AV. 10 ↓ 1.17 image 797. Obv: ...EO 10-11 ↓ 1.24 image
798. Obv: ...EO 11 ↙ 1.03 image 799. Obv: ...EO 11 ↓ 1-12 image
800. Obv: ...E. 8-10 ↙ .83 image 801. Obv: ...E. 9-10 ↑ .83 image
802. Obv: ...E. 8-9 ↓ .59 image 803. Obv: ...E. 10 ↓ .89 image
804. Obv: ...E. 9-11 ↓ .69 image 805. Obv: ...O 10-11 ↑ 1.36 image
806. Obv: ...O 10-11 ↓ .90 image 807. Obv: ...O 10 ↓ .74 image
808. 10-11 ↑ 1.15 image 809. 9-10 ↑ 1.08 image
810. 10-11 ↑ 1.10 image 811. 10-11 ↑ 1.07 image
812. 8-11 ↑ .59 image 813. 10-11 ↑ 1.03 image
814. 9-11 ↑ .84 image 815. 9 ↑ 1.07 image
816. 10-11 ↑ .67 image 817. 7-9 ↓ .63 image
818. 9-10 ↓ .79 image 819. 9 ↓ .69 image
820. 10 ↓ 1.51 image 821. 9-11 ↓ .68 image
822. 9-10 ↓ 1.14 image 823. 11 ↓ 1.11 image
824. 10 ↓ .85 image 825. 10 ↓ .92 image
826. 10-11 ↗ .54 image 827. 9-10 ↗ .99 image
828. 10-11 ↗ .87 image 829. 10-11 ↙ 1.06 image
830. 10-11 ↙ .80 image 831. 7-12 .63 image
832. 10-11 1.15 image 833. 10-11 .84 image
834. 10-11 .89 image 835. 10 1.04 image
836. 10 .79 image 837. Obv: DNL...G 11-12 ↑ .70
838. Obv: DNL-.. 7-11 ↓ .64 839. Obv: DN... 9-11 ↑ .43
840. Obv.DN... 9 ↑ 1.05 841. Obv: DN... 9-11 ↗ .60
842. Obv: DN... 10-11 ↗ .93 843. Obv: DN... 10 ↗ 1.31
844. Obv: ..LEO... 9-10 ↗ 1.08 845. Obv: ..LE... 9-10 ↓ .84
846. Obv: ...OSPFA.. 9-10 ↑ .88 847. Obv: ...SPFAVG 8-10 ↑ 1.12
848. Obv: ...V. 8-9 ↑ .45 849. Obv: ...G 8-11 ↓ .82
850. Obv: ...EO 10 ↓ .88 851. Obv: ...EO 10 ↑ .90
852. Obv: ...EO 10 ↓ .84 853. Obv: ..E. 10 ↑ 1.33
854. Obv: ...E. 10-12 ↑ 1.19 855. Obv: ...E. 9-11 ↓ .87
856. Obv: ...E. 9-10 ↓ .50 857. Obv: ...O 9-10 ↑ .67
858. Obv: ...O 10-11 ↑ 1.09 859. Obv: ...O 9 ↑ .65
860. Obv: ...O 10 ↓ 1.00 861. Obv: ...O 10 ↙ 1.21
862. 9-11 ↑ .54 863. 10 ↑ .70
864. 9-10 ↑ .55 865. 8-9 ↑ .43
866. 10 ↑ 1.00 867. 7-9 ↑ .63
868. 8 ↑ .78 869. 10 ↑ 1.06
870. 9-11 ↑ 1.04 871. 10-11 ↑ .82
872. 10 ↑ 1.09 873. 10-11 ↑ .76
874. 9-10 ↓ .67 875. 9-10 ↓ .49
876. 9-10 ↓ .66 877. 9 ↓ .72
878. 11-12 ↓ 1.06 879. 9 ↓ .51
880. 8-9 ↓ .75 881. 8 ↓ .65
882. 8-9 ↓ .95 883. 10 ↙ 1.21
884. 9-10 .98 885. 9-11 .80
Same Type (Barbarous)
886. 9-10 → .50

Anepigraphic. Two emperors seated on throne, facing, nimbate, each holding transverse scepter; above, cross. Sab. NOT; CK 2276 46

*887. 10 ↑ .79
Reverse illegible
888. Obv: .NL.. 10-11 .87 889. Obv: ..L-E. 9-10 .71
890. Obv: ...EO 11-12 1.37 891. Obv: ...EO 9-10 1.23
892. Obv: ...E. 9-10 .50 893. Obv: ...EO 9-12 .49
894. Obv: ...E. 9 .70 895. Obv: ...O 10-12 .72

End Notes

35
Either 4 or 6, but barbarous.
36
The outer border is wreath, the inner reel.
37
The obverse shows a cross above Leo's head. See CK p. 91.
38
439,459, 464, and 471 show HEO instead of LEO. As in the case of Y 457, 475, 483, 484, 487, they are all of good Roman manufacture. It is noticeable that these specimens in both V and Y occur only in the "lion" series.
39
The coin is pierced in the center.
40
The obverse is anepigraphic, the head being enclosed in a reel border. The lack of obverse legend is remarkable, for the style and quality of manufacture are clearly Roman.
41
The piece is double-struck on an elongated flan and the types repeated on both obverse and reverse. Apparently the workman struck the coin very much off center the first time, so that only a part of the head is visible on one end of the obverse and part of the wreath on the reverse. When he found he still had enough space to stamp the coin properly, he did so, so that the obverse shows one full head and part of another and the reverse part of the wreath facing outward on one corner and also the full monogram on the other end.
42
For - image see note 14.
43
705-710 show a reel border and no star; 711-716 show a reel and star; 717-722 show a cross and no reel; 732-738 show no star or cross, and no reel border is visible.
44
The piece is broken in two.
45
There would seem to be practically universal agreement (Sabatier, who thinks of the Emperor, is the exception) that the figure represented on the reverse of these coins is female. This presumption seems to us confirmed by the material in V which, being relatively well preserved, admits the identification of detail not hitherto possible. The headdress is most clearly the women's imperial crown seen, for example, at San Vitale in Ravenna. More difficult is the identification of the woman herself. Eudoxia and Verina have been considered. The interchange of b and v during this period, as Grierson maintains ("Three Unpublished Coins of Zeno (474-491)," Numismatic Chronicle 6th Series, VIII (1948), p. 226), is possible, but it is hard to see why the small case for b followed by a capital E. Relevant literature and discussion in Y, catalogue note 68.
48
Although the obverse legend is not visible, the style and fabric of the coin leave no doubt that this is one of Leo's issues. A further description of the type occurs in CK p. 44. The unique specimen in V attests the rarity of issue. If the ascription to Leo is correct, the figures represented may be Leo himself on the right and his grandson, Leo, on the left. Leo died February 3, 474. He coopted his grandson as Augustus the previous October. The coin must fall between these dates and represent the Emperor's last issue. What may be part of a letter appears in the lower right field.

ZENO

(V 1) within wreath
896. Obv: ...ZENO... image 8-9 ↓ .74 897. Obv: ..ZEN... 7-9 ↓ .43
898. Obv: ...VG 10 ↓ .81
(V 2) within wreath
*899. 9-11 ↓ .71 image 900. Obv: ...A.. 8-10 ↘ .49
901. Obv: .. .ONPFAVG 10-12 ↗ 1.03 902. Obv: ...NPER 11-12 ↓ 1-11
903. Obv: ...N...G 10-11 ↖ .83 904. 9-10 ↑ .91
905. Obv: ..ONP..VG 11-12 ↑ 1.52 906. Obv: ...PEVG 9-10 ↓ 1.02
907. Obv: ...ES... 8-9 ↓ .84 908. 7-10 ↓ .86
909. 10 ↑ .80 910. 9-10 ↓ .83
911. 8-9 ↓ .29
or (V 1, 2) within wreath
912. Obv: ...NONP 9-11 ↘ .83 913. Obv: ...N... 8-10 ↓ .42
914. 8-9 ↓ .57
(V 3) within wreath
915. Obv:DNZ... 10 ↑ .88 916. 11-12 ↑ .80
917. 8-10 ↓ .63 918. 9 ↓ .68
919. 7-8 ↙ .25 920. 8-9 .59
(V 3) within reel border
921. 8-9 ↑ .75 image 922. 7-8 .30 image
923. 9 ↑ .63 924. 8-9 ↑ 1.04
925. 9 ↑ .96 926. 8-9 ↑ .54
927. 8-9 ↓ .60 928. 8-9 ↓ .58
929. 8 ↓ .43 930. 8-9 ↓ .62
931. 8 ↘ .55 932. 8-10 ↙ .58
933. 8-9 ↗ .55 934. 9-10 ↘ .97
935. 6-7 25
(V 4) within wreath
*936. Obv: ...AVG 11-12 ↑ .85 image 937. 10 ↓ 1.05 image
938. Obv:DN... 8-10 ↓ .43 939. Obv: ..Z... 7-10 ↙ .40
940. Obv: ...OPF... 10 ↓ .86 941. Obv: ...AVG 8 ↓ .57
942. 8-10 ↑ .50 943. 10 ↑ .68
944. 10-11 ↑ 1.30 945. 8 ↑ .42
946. 9 ↑ .52 947. 9 ↑ .88
948. 9-10 ↓ .81 949. 9-10 ↓ .68
950. 7-9 ↓ .31 951. 8-9 ↙ .57
952. 8-9 ↙ .51 953. 8-9 ↙ .50
954. 8-9 .29 955. 8-9 .61
956. 9-10 .56
(V 4) within reel border
957. Obv: ...N... 8-9 ↓ .58 958. Obv: ...FAV. 8-10 ↑ .20
959. 8-9 ↓ .54 image 960. 8 ↑ .42
961. 9-10 ↑ .52 962. 8 ↑ .52
963. 8 ↑ .33 964. 9 ↑ 71
965. 8 ↑ .46 966. 9-10 ↑ .66
967. 8-9 ↑ .47 968. 8-9 ↑ .54
969. 9 ↓ .69 970. 8-9 ↓ .36