Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T07:00:43.612Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Byzantine Scyphate Bronze coinage in Greece

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2013

D. M. Metcalf
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Byzantine coinage in the twelfth century was of three kinds. There were gold nomismata, with a purchasing power which must have been a good deal greater than that of a present-day five-pound note, and also nomismata of ‘pale gold’—gold alloyed with silver—of lower value; at the other extreme there were bronze coins, smaller than a modern farthing, which were the coinage of the market-place; intermediate, but still of low value, there were coins about the size of a halfpenny, normally made of copper lightly washed with silver. The silvered bronze and the gold were not flat, as are most coins, but saucer-shaped. The reason for their unusual form is not known. Numismatists describe them as scyphate, and refer to the middle denomination in the later Byzantine system of coinage as Scyphate Bronze, to distinguish it from the petty bronze coinage. Scyphate Bronze was first struck under Alexius I (1081–1118). Substantive issues were made by John II (1118–43), and such coinage became extremely plentiful under Manuel I (1143–80) and his successors Isaac II (1185–95) and Alexius III (1195–1203). After the capture of Constantinople in the course of the Fourth Crusade, the successor-states to the Byzantine Empire at Nicaea, Salonica, and in Epirus continued to issue scyphate bronze coinage, although in much smaller quantities, until after the middle of the thirteenth century.

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual of the British School at Athens , Volume 56 , November 1961 , pp. 42 - 63
Copyright
Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1961

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* I am grateful to Mr. L. H. Bell for his expert help in making the photographs.

1 There is little to be gained by attempting to compare prices in different societies. A figure of ‘over five pounds’ has been given simply so that the reader has an idea what kind of transactions a nomisma might and might not have been used in. See Clark, C., The Conditions of Economic Progress (1951).Google Scholar The exchange-rate of Scyphate Bronze against gold must, I believe, remain uncertain in view of the conflicting evidence and various weight-standards of the bronze, but one may say that they were comparable in purchasing power with British silver coins of today.

2 Note the important Arta hoard, published by Mattingly, H. in Num. Chron. 1923, 31 ff.Google Scholar

3 Thompson, Margaret, The Athenian Agora: ii. Coins (1954) 7Google Scholar; Bellinger, A. R., Greek and Byzantine Studies i (1958) 163 ff.Google Scholar; Bellinger, A. R. and Metcalf, D. M., Num. Chron. 1959, 155 ff.Google Scholar

4 They have been published, although for the most part only very summarily, in the pages of Izvestiya na Arkheologicheskiya Institut and Studii şi Cercetari de Numismatica

5 The point was first noted by Mrs. E. Varoukha, in publication of the Paros hoard; cf. also Bellinger, op. cit.

6 Bellinger and Metcalf, op. cit.

7 Pergamum: Regling, K. in Blätter für Münzfreunde 1914, 5671–85 and 5703–18.Google Scholar Sardes: Bell, H. W., Sardis xi, Coins i, 1910–14 (1916).Google Scholar

8 Mosser, S. McA., A Bibliography of Byzantine Coin Hoards (1935) 14 f.Google Scholar, under ‘Brusa’.

9 See BCH 1956, 228 for a brief notice of accession.

10 BCH 1960, 498, where the coins of Theodore attributed to Isaac II. This is an error for which I responsible.

11 I examined every coin in the parcel, but counting them. As soon as possible, on the same day, and before it had occurred to me to calculate the proportions shown in Table 2, I wrote down the total numbers of coins of each scarce type or variety and the approximate proportions of the common types. The information from those notes has been reproduced without amendment.

12 ADelt xiv (1931–2) 78–83. A different account of the hoard appears in Mosser, op. cit., under ‘Naousa’.

13 For a general survey, see Galavaris, G. P., Museum Notes viii (1958) 99 ff.Google Scholar

14 Svoronos, J. N., in Journal international d'archéologie numimatique xv (1913) 71 f.Google Scholar, and Mosser, op. cit., where the attribution of 250 coins to John II has resulted from careless transcription of Svoronos's list.

15 Where the type is not altogether clear from the description, the entry in Table I has been marked [?] or [??].

16 Bellinger, op. cit., corrects BMC.

17 Site-finds consist predominantly of petty coins. The smaller scyphate bronze coins might therefore be expected to be over-represented. Cf. the Brauron hoard, p. 47 and n. 22 below.

18 Ratto, R., Monnaies Byzantines (sale catalogue of 9 Dec. 1930, Lugano)Google Scholar; a reprint (Amsterdam, 1959) is now available.

19 Goodacre, H., A Handbook of the Coinage of the Byzantine Empire, part iii (1933) 279Google Scholar, no. 23 (author's collection).

20 Bellinger and Metcalf, op. cit.

21 The two coins in the Santorin hoard, listed in Table 1, were evidently of a larger variety, as were two others in the Amorgos hoard, measuring 29 and 28 mm. respectively: Svoronos, , Journal international d'archéologie numismatique xiii (1911) 71 f.Google Scholar

22 BCH 1957, 498 briefly notes the accession of the to the Greek National Numismatic Collection. The Scyphate coin is in good style.

23 Its size was 16–20 mm., obverse die, c. 12 mm. The other coin was of Anonymous Type I.

24 BCH 1958, 654.

25 Only the coins found in 1925 were published one by one (Bellinger, A. R., Catalogue of Coins found at Corinth, 1925, (1930)Google Scholar); two specimens measured 22½ and 19 mm.

26 Bellinger, , Greek and Byzantine Studies i (1958) 163 ff.Google Scholar, and Metcalf, , BSA lv (1960) 38 ff.Google Scholar

27 e.g. French and Armenian coins.

28 Gerasimov, T., Izvestiya na Bulgarskiya Arkheologicheski Institut' xiv (1940–1942) 282 ff.Google Scholar

29 IBAI xi (1937) 315 ff.

30 Ibid. I have wondered whether these two might parcels from the same hoard.

31 Mosser, op. cit.

32 See p. 49 below and no. 1189.

33 Schlumberger, G., Numismatique de l'Orient latin (1878).Google Scholar

34 See the description below, under nos. 1184–7.

35 Bellinger, op. cit. F.

36 Bellinger and Metcalf, op. cit.

37 Adelson, H. L., Light Weight Solidi and Byzantine Trade during the Sixth and Seventh Centuries (1957).Google Scholar

38 The arrangement of the letters in the legend shows considerable variety, and may prove to be of value in distinguishing provincial issues. Unfortunately, very few examples are struck up sufficiently for their complete legends to be read. See Kubitschek, W., Numismatische Zeitschrift 1918, 55 ff.Google Scholar, where there is also some useful information about the weights of Scyphate Bronze coins.

39 Băncilă, I., Studii şi Cercetări de Numismatică (Academy of the People's Republic of Romania) 1957, 425 ff.Google Scholar

40 Variant reverse types associated with a single obverse type may turn out to be a feature of the Scyphate Bronze series. Cf. Isaac's Type 6 as a variant of Type 4, and, of course, Manuel's Type 11, with and without asterisks.

41 The reverse was not illustrated and not specifically described.

42 One might say that in principle the number of find-spots needed would increase roughly as the square of the number of mints; also, the find-spots need to be well spread.

43 Note that even BMC Type 6 should be subdivided. There is one variety with pendants in the form ΣΤ′, and with a flourish or ornament of some kind on the staff of the cross, and a second variety (perhaps of slightly poorer fabric and workmanship and slightly lower weight?) with pendants in the form Ζ′, and with no ornament on the staff of the cross.