A Bronze Hoard of The Period of Zeno I / by Howard L. Adelson and Georg L. Kustas

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-17 16:47 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.
$b460946
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike / http://www.hathitrust.org/access_use#cc-by-nc-sa-4.0
A Bronze Hoard
of the Period of Zeno I
By HOWARD L. ADELSON
AND
GEORGE L. KUSTAS
THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY
NEW YORK
1962
Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-17 16:53 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.$b687478

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY
THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY
PRINTED IN GERMANY
AT J. J. AUGUSTIN. GLUCKSTADT

NUMIS MATIC NOTES AND MONOGRAPHS
Number 149
NUMISMATIC NOTES AND MONOGRAPHS
is devoted to essays and treatises on subjects relating
to coins, paper money, medals and decorations.
PUBLICATION COMMITTEE
ALFRED R. BELLINGER, Chairman
THEoDORE V. BUTTREY, JR.
JoHN V. A. FINE
THOMAS O. MABBOTT
EDITORIAL STAFF
SAwYER MCA. MOSSER, Editor

HowARD L.ADELSON, Associate Editor
Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-17 14:16 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015012841196

CONTENTS
PREFACE V
ABBREVIATIONS X
DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS I
METROLOGICAL ANALYSIS 17
TABLES 36
CATALOGUE 44
PREFACE
This monograph marks the publication of the second of three
hoards of Roman bronze from the late fifth century which have come
to our attention. The hoards are all basically of the same composition.
In each case, the earliest specimens, which decrease in number as
one moves down in time, are the remnants of the coinage of the
middle and late fourth century still in circulation. The first hoard,
part of the collection of Yale University, was published by us in
Museum Notes IX, pp. 139-188. It extends to the period of Leo I.
Of the second and third, both acquired for the American Numismatic
Society by Miss Katherine M. Edwards during her sojourns in Greece
in the 1920's, the second continues to the second reign of the Emperor
Zeno, while the third has its terminus in the pre-reform coinage
of the early years of the reign of Anastasius.
The period represented by the three hoards forms what is often
viewed as the deep trough of an impenetrable fog lying between the
Constantinian age and the Byzantine splendor of the epoch of
Justinian. We hope that through this work the reader will come to
share our regard for the importance of the coins as historical pieces
of evidence with a personality of their own and that the study
will contribute toward the reconstruction of the history of the
times in sharper outline than has previously been possible.
Although the study as a whole represents a collaborative effort
and is, inevitably, the product of continual cooperation between
its joint authors, the metrological analysis and its tabulation are
the work of Mr. Adelson, while Mr. Kustas is responsible primarily
for the description of the hoard and the conclusions derived therefrom.

It is worthwhile to report that the application of two essentially
different methodologies for the study of the coins, each elaborated
independently of the other, has in no instance yielded contradictory
results. Whether our conclusions are thereby mutually validated
we leave to the discretion of our readers.
vii
viii
Preface
We should like to thank the Publication Committee of the Society
for sanctioning the publication of the work, and we owe a particular
debt to the friends and colleagues who have belabored their eyesight
along with us in attempting an identification of some of the more
stubborn specimens. The errors in ascription and discussion we

guard as our very own.
ABBREVIATIONS
Y = the bronze hoard of minimi of Leo I, part of the Yale collection;
published by us with the title, "A Bronze Hoard of the Period
of Leo I," in Museum Notes IX (i960), pp. 139-188.
V = the Volo hoard.
Bellinger = A. R. Bellinger, Catalogue of the Coins Found at Corinth,
1925, New Haven, 1930.
Blake = R. P. Blake, "The Monetary Reform of Anastasius I and
Its Economic Implications," American Council of Learned Societies.
The Disciplines of the Humanities. Studies in the History of Culture.
Menasha, Wisconsin, 1942.
Bury = J. B. Bury, History of the Roman Empire from the Death
of Theodosius I to the death of Justinian (A.D. 395 to A.D. 565),
London, 1931, vol. I of 2 vols.
CK == Part II. Bronze Roman Imperial Coinage of the Later Empire,
A.D. 346-48, by R. A. G. Carson and J. P. C. Kent, included
in a volume entitled Late Roman Bronze Coinage A.D. 324-498,
London, i960. Part II is a reprint with corrections and additions
of a series of articles originally appearing in Numismatic Circular
from 1957 to 1959.
Mattingly = H. Mattingly, "A Late Roman Hoard from Corinth,"
Numismatic Chronicle, 5th Series XI (1931), pp. 229-233.
Pearce, Roman Coinage = J. W. E. Pearce, Roman Coinage from
A. D. 364-423, London, 1933.
Pearce and Wood = J. W. E. Pearce and M. E. Wood, "A Late
Roman Hoard from Dalmatia," Numismatic Chronicle, 5th Series
XIV (1934). PP- 269-283.

Thompson = M. Thompson, The Athenian Agora. Volume II.
Coins from the Roman through the Venetian Period, Princeton, 1954.
Waage = D. . Waage, Antioch-on-the-Orontes, IV, Part II. Greek,
Roman, Byzantine and Crusaders' Coins, Princeton, 1952.
BMC = W. Wroth, Catalogue of the Coins of the Vandals, Ostrogoths
and Lombards (and the Empires of Thessalonica, Nicaea and
Trebizond) in the British Museum, London, 1911.
ix
DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS
Among the holdings of the American Numismatic Society is a
large bronze hoard of 3 and 4 ranging from the time of Constan-
tine the Great to the second reign of Zeno in the latter part of the
fifth century. Plans to publish this and similar hoards of minimi1 in
the Society's collection had been developed by Miss Katherine Ed-
wards, 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 exceed-
ingly thin flan showing two or more "taps" on the surface in the fol-
lowing form: J^. We have ignored the slivers, as they serve no scien-
tific 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 3
pieces, all of which have been cut down, and JE 4's:

1 Minimi is not a scientific term of reference and does not appear in the con-
temporary literature. In modern studies the word usually refers, as it will here
throughout, to bronze pieces of 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. 148s.
* Y, p. 148.
1I
Descriptive Analysis
Total of hoard 2231
Total legible 1064
Total illegible 1167
Total 3 187
Total 3 legible 38
Total 3 illegible 149
Total 4 2044
Total 4 legible 1026
Total 4 illegible 1018
Of the 1064 legible specimens, 62 are barbarous issues, the rest
Roman. Of these 62, 5 are 3 and the remainder 4. All the
examples of 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 circula-
tion. 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 production8, no doubt for the purpose
of making them conform generally to the reduced weight and module
of the 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 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.s
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 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
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 Ploponnse. The hoard
also starts with Constantine, but extends beyond V into the sixth century.
Only a very few JE 3 appear in it, in a proportion less even than V.
'Marcian: 411-417; Leo: 508, 739, 886; Zeno: 1002; illegible monograms:
1014-1022.
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 bar-
barous 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
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 re-
marks in Y, pp. 140, 141 and the judicious observations of J. W. E. Pearcc

in discussing similar coinage from a late 4th century bronze find ("An Eastern
Hoard of Late JE," 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 Ploponnse (Le Ploponnse 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 V-VIe sicles qui
passent pour des imitations barbares cause de leur maladresse sont rellement
l'oeuvre de graveurs non byzantins."
i*
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 o
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 3 mentioned above, were minted in the eastern
regions of the Empire. If we consider that V offers twice as mam-
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 prov-
enience 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 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
I (23) of Valentinian II; 2 (37, 38) of Honorius; 1 (45) of Arcadius; 2

(66, 72) late 4th, early 51 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, Tuv
Hoards from Minturno. Numismatic Notes and Monographs No. 60. New York,
^ PP- 31 32 (95_I8)i in so far as the designation of mint is available, issue
from Rome. 10 See CK 2932.
in the fifth century to which Milne has called attention11 attests
the isolation of the region from the rest of the Empire. After Theo-
dosius 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 repre-
sentation 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 com-
parison of V with the Agora coins, Pearce and Wood's Dalmatian
hoard, and Mattingly's Corinthian pieces. Corinth has only i Herac-
lean specimen out of 478 coins;14 the Dalmatian hoard to the north
10 out of 2197a somewhat larger proportion. Y has 3 out of 928.
The total lack of representation from Heraclea in V is probably ac-
cidental, but the scarcity in these Balkan hoards, coupled with a

similar absence in Pearce's hoard from Asia Minor,16 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
11 J. G. Milne, "Two Roman Hoards of Coins from Egypt," Journal of Roman
Studies X (1920), p. 184.
13 Thompson, p. 6. Similarly for Pearce and Wood's Dalmatian hoard.
13 hoc. cit.
14 Bellinger, passim.
15 J. W. E. Pearce, "A Late Roman Hoard from Southwest Asia Minor,"
Numismatic Chronicle 5th Series, XV (1935), passim.
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 Anti-
och 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,ls
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 ot
6 coins (921, 922, 936, 937, 959, 994), and there is one from Nico-
media (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
w 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.
available Cyzicus appears to have used only two forms of Zeno's
monogram, ^ and (V 3 and 4), while Thessalonica shows only
(V 5). Generalizations are facile and dangerous, but most of
the coins which show monograms and (V 3 and 4), 915-988, are
of poorer metal and lighter weight than those with monograms
|s and (V i 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 thick-
ness 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.
19 See p. 41.
20 Y p. 141.
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 Con-
stantinople 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. How-
ever, although the concentration is large, it is also selective. Nico-
media 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-
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).
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 representa-
tion for the fourth, but a heavy drop for the fifth century.23 Pearce
and Wood's Dalmatian material and Mattingly's Corinthian hoard24
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,28
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.
12 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.
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.
10
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.*7 However, there is no reason
to posit a mint in such a remote area at this time. Chersonese coin-
age probably does not begin before Justinian I, in any case in
the sixth, not the fifth century.28 Pearce and Wood record the ex-
istence 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 to stand for T and
CHES to represent the mint of Thessalonica. The transition from the
form T to 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 , observed in large
numbers for Leo (10 coins), with 1 specimen recorded for Basiliscus29
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
*' By Miss Katherine Edwards in her notes on V.
28 On Byzantine coinage from the Chersonese mint see BMC, p. ciii.
2* Possibly 2, if the .O. of 1024 conceals and not CON.
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 coins of Leo. V contains 10 examples
(667-675 and 703), 9 t (V 6) and 1 (703) of indeterminate
monogram. It is a fair assumption that this maverick is also t-
(V6). The hoard as a whole has 26 coins (667-692) with this mono-
gram. 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 of the mint-mark would seem to indicate that is a Greek,
not a Latin abbreviation. is then the lunate sigma. This distin-
guishes the mark from other mints. One should therefore look to
find a city whose Greek name could be abbreviated as . For
a Balkan hoard Corinth comes to mind, only to be summarily dis-
missed, 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. 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 mili-

tary 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 ^ (V 1) and 589
with ts (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
12 Descriptive Analysis
, $. N. & (V 1-4) should be read as abbreviations of LEOS or
LEONS (LEON IS?). Assuming these are Latin forms, with , 4 and t<
(V 5, 6, 8) we pass into Greek. The at the top of the left per-
pendicular line has acquired a cross-bar beneath it which could be
interpreted as omega and the monogram as standing for AEflN.
It thus becomes possible to suggest that 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
again appears in conjunction with only those forms of monogram
fs and 4 (V I, 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 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 specu-
lation. Is it all possible to suppose that the very destructive fire which
consumed Constantinople September 2, 46530 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 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 tra-
dition in favor of CON, the standard symbol for the mint of the ca-
pital, 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 (1023) and CON (CK 2284,
2285) also suggests at least the possibility of two distinct mints, if
30 Our chief source is Evagrius, Hist. Eccl., ii 13. For details and supplemental
references see Bury, pp. 321, 322.
81 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).
13
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 Constanti-
nople 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 cen-
tury 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 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
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 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 in-

cursions is a possibility35. One caveat should be given: how likely is it
that Cios could abbreviate its mint designation to , or, put an-
other way, is the tradition of a mint-mark in three letters for this
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,
i90iff., 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 Stdte und Landschaften,
vol. II.I, p. 329.
35 See infra, note 37.
period strong enough to overcome the difficulty involved in the re-
moval of the iota? Thus, because of the nest of problems connected
with the proper assignment of the 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 in-
ternal 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 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, 473.38 If we may draw
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 , which has the short form almost exclusively. The issues with
the Latin form of the monogram , ^ (V1-4), 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 geni-
tive 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
3e Sec 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 toDN LEO PERPET AVG."
"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
15
field and CN in the exergue. The "empress" series appears to have
the same range of obverse legend and may be considered contem-
poraneous. 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 concen-
tration 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 Vi $1 = CK 7
V2 = Y 358
V 4 = y 359-361
V 5 Ml = Y 362, 363 = CK 2 = Pearce and
Wood, seventh on p. 275
V 7 f = Y 364, 365 = CK 6 = Pearce and
Wood, second on p. 275
V 8 = Y 366, 367 Var.
V 9 = Y 368, 369 = CK 4 = Pearce and
Wood, first on p. 275 = Sab. 21 =
BMC, fourth on p. 326

V 10 ]* = CK 5 = Pearce and Wood, ninth on
P- 275
letters of the time. Texts in Mansi, J. D., Sacrorum conciliorum nova col-
lectio, 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 battle-
field.
38 The clearer and more copious evidence of V prompts this revision in sub-
stance of the arrangement tentatively offered in Y, pp. 144, 145. Future ex-
amples in which more mint-marks may be legible will sharpen present distinc-
tions, no doubt, but we feel will not seriously alter the basic pattern.
I6
LEO Vi ft
V2 ft
v4 &
V5 U
V8 <E
V9
ZA/0 Vi 4
V2 M
V3 U
5 ft
ASI LI SC U S
BASILISCUS
AND MARCUS
A ELI A ZENON IS
LI BWS SEVERUS
= Y 380-396 = Sab. 23
= Y 397-405 = CK i
= Y 416-419 Var.
= BMC, eighth on p. 326
= CK 2
= CK iA
= CK i = Sab. 24 Var.
= BMC, ninth on p. 326
= CK 2
= CK 4

vi U = CK2
V i * = CK i (under Basiliscus)
V i M = CK 4 (under Basiliscus)
V i tf = Y 502 = CK i
DISTRIBUTION OF MONOGRAMS BY MINT IN Y
MARCIAN
Vi
P& Constantinople, Nicomedia, CHES
V2
f' Constantinople
V7
Nicomedia
v9
Nicomedia, CHES
Vio
J& Constantinople, Nicomedia
V 12,13
, fe Nicomedia
LEO
Vi
ft Constantinople, Cyzicus
V2
ft Constantinople, Thessalonica, Cyzicus
V3,4
ft Thessalonica
V6
ti
V8
t<t Constantinople
V9
s Thessalonica
ZENO
Vi, 2
H, M
V3,4
. Cyzicus
V5
ft Thessalonica
BASILISCUS Vi
UKOC
METROLOGICAL ANALYSIS
Metrological analysis of the Volo hoard is particularly rewarding.
The series of 968 JE 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 metrological
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 ille-
gible 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 Vlkerwanderung from the contents
of a single hoard.
Before entering upon the body of the metrological analysis, how-
ever, 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 com-
plete 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
17
i8
Metrological Analysis
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 con-
sidered 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
* Cf. S. Bolin, State and Currency in the Roman Empire to 300 a.D., Stock-
holm, 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 o
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 de-
gree 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 postu-
lated. 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 deva-
luation of the copper currency, as Hilliger asserts." Bolin stresses that the
profits from the mint must have been very great.
*o Y, p. 144.
M etiological Analysis
19
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 concentra-
tion, 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-
cularly true of the deductions based upon the frequency table.
through
Valentinian III
Valentinian II*
through
Valentinian III
Valentinian II
through
Arcadius
Theodosius II
Basiliscus****

WEIGHTS
Yale Hoard
Marcian
Pre-Leo**
j Pre-Zeno***
Zeno
O.06-O.23
O.24-O.4I
10
18
16
.42-.59
32
24
25
31
52
83
42
O.60-O.77
91
48
51
12
63
119
182
IS
21
20
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 al-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 Valenti-
nian 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 inter-
pretation of the data presented by Y can only be tentative be-
cause the number of variables is too great. It is possible that this
bi-modal distribution results from striking the earlier issues of 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
21
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
O.06-O.23
O.24-O.4I
O.42-O.59
O.60-O.77
O.78-O.95
13
17
15

O.96-1.13
I.I4-I.3I
12
10
22
1.32-1.49
1.50-I.67
I.68-I.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 imme-
diately 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 JE 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,
22 Metrological Analysis
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 deter-
mine 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 110
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
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 gnrale des monnaies byzantines
frappes sous les empereurs d'Orient depuis Arcadius jusqu' la prise de Con-
stantinople par Mahomet II, reprint, Graz, 1955, Pis. VII, nos. 15, 16 and 17 .
VIII, no. 13.
23
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 110 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 en-
countered 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.
YALE HOARD
M1
Mo
Mdn
MD
CT

N1
Valentinian II
371
.92
75
.91
.24
29
31-72
through Arcadius
38
i.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
24
YAL HOARD
Mo
Mdn
MD
371
.92
75
.91
.24
.29
3172
Marcian
98
.98
.98
99
.22
.26
26.53
Pre-Leo
335
.89
.91
.22
27
29.66
Leo
475
.87
.82
.85
19
.26
29-55

91
Pre-Zeno
810
.88
.87
.88
.21
.26
29-43
Basiliscus
36
79
71
.76
.18
.22
28.34
Zeno
no
.62
52
58
19
.24
903
_)
25
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 Theo-
dosius 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 Theo-
dosius 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 appreci-
able 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
26
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 spe-
cifically desired results. We must allow the facts to speak for them-
selves. 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 Valen-
tinian 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 indi-
vidual 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
27
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 Arca-
dius 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
cottectarii [i.e., the gild of moneychangers), for 7,200 nummi and sold
for 7,00o.4* 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 collectant 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
C. Theod., XI, 21, 2. Cf. . Just., X, 29, I, which repeats this constitution
exactly save for the omission of quinqu after viginti. In the course of the
argument below we shall date this change.
"Nov. Valent., XVI. See Y, p. 151, note 26, for our discussion of this text.
28
change. Indeed, we know that in 384/5 they did make such a peti-
tion.46 The demand for solidi and minimi and the quantity of these
coins available in the market would change, and as a result the pur-
chase 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 prevail-
ing 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 :i8oo 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 struc-
ture 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
48 Letter of Symmachus in MGH, A.A., VI, pp. 303, 304.
29
the cupidity of Attila the Hun.4e 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 heav-
ier, 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
* Ioannes Lydus, De Magistratibus Populi Romani, III, 43 (Bonn ed., p. 236):
Hetc yov 06o5aiov ! MccpKiavv tv phpiov Xcov A<ov Kai t6v uAotov
Epcov v 'AttXos Tqs otxovpvTis ; XanjvEiv heXXev (fv 5 mip Ts
XXas KorrovTSocs xpvôu AiTpv).
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).
30
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 signi-
ficant return. It could not have solved the fiscal problems of a govern-
ment 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 Novelloe of Valentinian III or Majorian. In the preserved second
Code of Justinian which was completed in 534, however, the change
48 Cf. J. B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire from Arcadius to Ire,
London, 1889, I, p. 253.
* See note 43.
31
was already in force. The first Code of Justinian, which is unfor-
tunately lost, was prepared in 529 by a commission of ten with very
wide authority .They were empowered to remove obsolete or unneces-
sary 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 Vandalic expedition and before his death had been quickly
exhausted by Zeno in largesses.60 Even if this passage be dated to
50 Malchus, frag. 5 (Bonn ed., p. 275): t 5 koivv tte els -rropiav -
TfjAEV, d>s uriSv xe,v nrAomov, & te yp v koivc tcxuIco Acov koteAittev
TTo6vr|aKcov OrroZrivoovos tocxkekevcto TrvToc, TroAA uv xapitouvou to Aoi,
>S tvxev, oCk wtos 5 xpiôOs, ccCrr yivcbaKEiv, eI ttij 1 AAcos kAetttoiuto.
Bury, p. 401, dates the text to 477 without any further comment. C. Mller,

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 dis-
cussed 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-Encyclopdie 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, 'EpOpio -rrap/os yeyovcos 1 Zrjvcvos. 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- 57- Erythrius was apparently succeeded
in office by Dioscorus sometime in the year 472, if we may judge from the con-
stitutions in the Corpus Iuris Civilis. Also see E. Stein, Histoire du Bas-Empire,
Paris, 1949, II, p. 66. Cf. Malchus 88B (Bonn ed., p. 263): ti tv&pxovto
Alyvrrrou irl uAis ' Ahpcns v' EKrreuTruevov, ESonnovEarpocs ysvouvris
f\ TrpaEV, ! TrevTocKOCTais uo ATpai . This passage is repeated in
Millier, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, IV, p. 120. It is dated by Mller to
the first reign of Zeno, there can have been no substantial improve-
ment 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
o.62 grams, and we may conjecture that the theoretical weight was
only O.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." 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 im-
perial 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
477 without comment. The passage is questionable because of the improbability

that the income from Egypt increased from fifty pounds of gold to 5oo 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.
* Blake, pp. 8497, 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. 441447, discusses the financial policy of Anastasius in laudatory terms.
33
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 govern-
ment 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
Vlkerwanderung 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 in-
trinsic 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 expen-
ditures of treasure in the ill-fated Vandalic 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 tre-
mendous 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.58 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 in-
crease in the profits from the operation of the mint? The evidence
is quite conclusive that the economic situation required some govern-
5S Procopius, De Bello Vandlico, 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 sptrmischen Reiches, Vienna, 1928,1, pp. 531, 532.
53 Malchus, Frag. 4 (Bonn ed., pp. 274, 275) = frag. 7 in Mller, Fragmenta
Historicorum Graecorum, IV, p. 116.
34
M etiological Analysts
mental action. Two courses were open to him: either he might
increase the number of minimi equal to the solidus and simply re-
cognize the rise in price which must have occurred when the bronze
lost some of its convertibilityin which case he derived no profitor
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 fromapurely 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 :i8oo gave bronze a higher
value than was actually true in the market place. Such is the nature
35
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 accomplish-
ed.64 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 1:1440 which appears in the Corpus
Iuris Civilis.
84 Blake, pp. 84-97.

3'
14
>-<
14
12
12
10
10
-*
-1
I-
CO OS
pH
Ci 1>

<N
PS to O
111
11
<
CO
t-
OS 1 CO lO tO
111
"
1-1 11 1-1
YALE HOARD
< CS t~ LO ' - i~
Cl ^ " ; i c ^ X
I i i i i 7 "* "7 7 ~
W*tSi~-nce
YOLO HOARD
COINS FROM
VALENTINIANII ARCADIUS
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
i-H l-H i( i-t
J. 1 I I I I I I I I
*MOlt3ilNOII
YALE HOARD
II l-< l-M ft F-<
IIIIIIIIII
ci to I CO to
TOTAL OF COINS FROM
37
THE VOLO HOARD
>0
00
66
60
66
60
45
40
00
36
30
26
00
20
15
10
iiiii77777
1 CO ~ Ci t~
9 h n * to
IIIIII
* 00
N o i- a
I I!
N 00

CO CO
COINS FROM COINS FROM
THE0D0SIUS II TO VALENTINIAN II TO
VALENTINIAN III VALENTINIAN III
THE VOLO HOARD
is #
30 Q
25 GN *
20 * S
15 ed
10 6N1 *
r- co r- no co - c.5 r- no
QN *H no r- Co - cre ~m so oo
P-4 r-, * * *
|||||||||||TT
so -h on c oo eo -h or co oo
on * co r- co - co no co
r-i r-, r-i r-i.
COINS OF MARCIAN
ne
130 130
125 125 :F
120 120
115 115
110 110
105 105 no
100 co 100 S
95 # 95 M-
90 90

85 85
80 s 80
75 eel || || 75
70 co 70
65 65
60 60 $
55 - 55
50 3: 50 :
45 45
40 r-i 40
35 co 35
30 * 30
25 CN 25 se
20 20 | c.
15 || 00 # *
10 <h ed
55*
# * $ # 3 : 3 S #3 # 5 # S # 3 # 3 S #2
1 1 | 1 | T T TT T. ! I I I ITT T. T. T.
ec * @N, co oo eo *H GN d oo eo six o' c oo ec + or c oo
COINS PRIOR COINS OF LEO
TO THE REIGN OF LEO
*~~
'
NA
'
/5
Pi
>
9S[
981-891
9I-0SI
6H-SEI

181-
11-96
96 -8
U -09
69 -*
if -fz
S -9
(isoisoio
) <M <N i-l ri
CO
(J
ii
&
8*
Ii
rtl
91
981-891
91-091
6~
ISI-flI
811-96
96 -8
-09
69 -Zf
If ~fZ
Z -9
40
TABLE OF MINTS
Philip II of Macedn
Constantinian 3
Constantius Gallus
Constantinian 3:
Barbarous
Valentinian I, Valens, or
Valentinian II 3
Valentinian II 4
Theodosius I 4
Honorius 4
Arcadius 4
Arcadius 4: Barbarous
Late 4th, early 5th century
3 and 4
Late 4th, early 5th century
3 and 4: Barbarous
Theodosius I, Arcadius, or
Honorius
Theodosius I, Arcadius, or
Honorius 4: Barba-
rous
Arcadius or Honorius 3
Arcadius or Honorius 3:
Barbarous

Theodosius II 4
Arcadius, Honorius, or
Theodosius II
Arcadius, Honorius, or
Theodosius II: Barbar-
ous
Period of Theodosius II
or later: Barbarous
Valentinian III 4
-*-
'
<
"
"
i*
41
4I
TABLE OF MINTS
Period of Valentinian III
AE 4
4: Barbarous
Valentinian II, Theo-
dosius I, Arcadius, Ho-
norius, (Valentinian III)
Valentinian II, Theo-
dosius I, Arcadius, Ho-
norius, (Valentinian III):
Barbarous
Honorius, Theodosius II,
Valentinian III
Barbarous Imitations
Marcian
Marcian: Barbarous
Leo
Leo: Barbarous
Zeno
Illegible Monograms (of
Leo, Zeno, or Aelia
Zenonis)

Illegible Monograms (of
Leo, Zeno, or Aelia
Zenonis): Barbarous
Basiliscus
Basiliscus and Marcus
Aelia Zenonis
Libius Severus
Roman, Illegible
Varia
I2
47
I3
IO
42
NUMBEROF COINS FOR EACH HEADING IN THE CATALOGUE
Regular Issues
Philip II of Macedn
Constantinian 3
13
Constantius Gallus 3
Valentinian I, Valens, or Valentinian II iE 3
Valentinian II iE 4
Theodosius I iE 4
Honorius iE 4
12
Arcadius iE 4
Late 4th, Early 5th Century iE 3 and iE 4
19
Theodosius I, Arcadius, or Honorius
Arcadius or Honorius iE 3
Theodosius II

Arcadius, Honorius, or Theodosius II
20
105
Valentinian III
16
Valentinian II, Theodosius I, Arcadius, Honorius, (Valentinian III)
10
Honorius, Theodosius II, Valentinian III
Marcian
Leo
475
Zeno
110
Illegible Monograms of Leo, Zeno, or Aelia Zenonis
Basiliscus
Basiliscus and Marcus
11
Aelia Zenonis
16
Libius Severus
Roman, Illegible
Total
1002
NUMBER OF COINS FOR EACH HEADING IN THE CATALOGUE
Barbarous Issues
Constantinian iE 3 1
Arcadius 2
Late 4th, Early 5th Century iE 3 3
Theodosius I, Arcadius, or Honorius 1
Arcadius or Honorius iE 3 1
Arcadius, Honorius, or Theodosius II 2
Metrological Analysis 43
Period of Valentinian III 2
Valentinian II, Theodosius I, Arcadius, Honorius, (Valentinian III) 5
Imitations 14
Marcian 7
Leo 3
Zeno i
Illegible Monograms of Leo, Zeno, or Aelia Zenonis 9
Varia i

Total 62
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 Une fol-
lowing the statement of the reverse legend gives first the size, in milli-
meters, 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 approx-
imation 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 Severas 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 4 starting from Theodo-
sius 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 3 coinage 12 are 6 o'clock, 8 are 12
o'clock, and 8 erratic, that is, anywhere else on the dial. Of the 3
barbarous specimens, 1 is 12 o'clock and 1 erratic. Of the regular 4,
330 are 6 o'clock, 322 are 12 o'clock, and 191 erratic. The 4 barba-
rous 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. PI. 14, 619
I. Obv: Heracles in lion's skin.1
Club; ; below, M.
10-11 \ 1.03
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 Macedn would serve as currency to the Romans
of the fifth century. This represents something lying about the house. The issue
44
Catalogue
45
CONSTANTINIAN
Reverse illegible
2. Obv: ...NVSPFAVG
Head is veiled2
13-15 1.14
FEL TEMP REPARATIO
Soldier 1., spearing fallen horseman3
Obv: .. .STANT... 4. Obv: .. .TAN...
FEL... i ...EMP...
11-14 4- 1- CONA 10-13 t -84
5. Obv: ...VS... 6. FELTEMP...
...ATIO 12-16 -* 1.04
11-12 / .75
7. ...TEMP...
13-14 <- 1.33
Same Type (Barbarous)
8. 12-13 t 1-05
FEL TEMP REPARATIO
Phoenix on globe
9. Obv: ...NSTA... |
FE... CNS
9-11 / .85
must have been a copious one, for these specimens have a penchant for intrud-
ing themselves into Roman hoards. Another example is provided by the hoard
from Corinth of quite similar composition to V, described by Mattingly, p. 229.

* 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.
Catalogue
SPES REIPVBLICE
Emperor standing 1., holding globe in r. and leaning on spear
io. ...VBLICE Ii. 13-14 / 1.10
9-12 \ .87
12. 12-14 t 119 13- 11-14 4- 105
14. 13 \ 1.43 15. 9-15 I .95
CONSTANTIUS GALLUS
FEL TEMP REPARATIO
Soldier 1., spearing fallen horseman
16. Obv: .NFLCLCON...
.ELTE...
8-12 I .53
VALENTINIAN I, VALENS, or VALENTINIAN II
^3
SECVRITAS REIPVBLICAE
Victory running 1., with wreath and palm
17. Obv: ...AVG i 18. SECVR...
SECVRITAS... SM 9-13 i .47
12-16 f .91
19. 12-15 t 115 20- I 75
21. 13-15 \ 1.88
VALENTINIAN II
JE 4
SALVS REIPVBLICAE C. 30
Victory running 1., dragging captive
22. Obv: DNVAL... , 23. Obv: ...NVSPFAVG

Ii \ .82 SALVS... p
10-11 f 72 r7
RIC Vol. IX, p. 133,64a
Catalogue
47
24. V[OT]V4
11-13 /
VOT V within wreath
85
25. Obv:
12
THEODOSIUS I
SALVS REIPVBL1CAE C. 30
.THEODO-SIVS...
I -91 +|
RIC, Vol. IX, 67b ATA
27. Obv: ...SIVS...
...PVBLICAE
12-13 lu
CONSA
26. 0w:DNTHEOD.
AVG
...PVBLICAE
11-13 f 1.17
28. Obv: DNTHEO..
11-12 f 1.20
RIC Vol. IX, p. 234, 86b
29. OZw: ...O-SIV...
...VBL...

3-5 / -49
VICTORIA AVG(GG)5
Two victories facing one another, each holding wreath
30. Obv: ...SIVSPF...
..CTOR...
11-12 t -89
31
Obv: .
11-13
.SIVSP.
1.17
Reverse illegible
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.
s C. 43 has -AVGGG. -AVG is recorded for the mint of Thessalonica in RIC
IX, p. 187, No. 63b. Y 47, 48.
48
Catalogue
HONORIUS
JE 4
GLORIA ROMANORVM C. 38
Three emperors, standing, with spears; two outer resting hands on
shields; central figure slightly smaller*
32. Obv: DNHONOR...
10- 14 \ -89
Obv. mint-mark to left of head: *
SALVSREIPVBLICAE
33. Obv: DNHON... 34. Obv: .NPON...'
...LVSRE... p| 10-12 t 1.13
11- 12 \ 1.01 TTT~
VICTORIA AVGG(G)8
35. Obv: .. HONORIVS... 36. Obv: DNHO...
... AAVGGG ... AVGG 777
11-12 / .85 11-12 f !-47
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 4. However, they do not reach regular 3 size.
We can not but agree with Pearce that a distinction from both 3 and 4
was originally intended (Roman Coinage, "Corrections and Additions," p. 4;
also in "A Late Roman Hoard from Southwest Asia Minor," Numismate
Chronicle 51 Series, XV (1935), pp. 21-24). Pearce at first called them 4,

but later preferred to refer to them as " 3 small" (Roman Coinage, p. 22).
The reverses remind one of the 3 types with the emperor in various postures.
CK throughout refers to these as 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.
Catalogue
49
37. Ofo:DNHON...
10- 11 / 1.43
39. Obv: ..HONOR.
11- 12 1-09
41. 06: DNH...
il f 1.42
38. Obv: ..HON...
Ii / 1.27
40. Obv: ..HON...
.. .AV...
10-11 / 1.25
Reverse illegible
42. Obv: .
11-12
.ONO..
.69
43. Obv: ..HONOR.
10-11 1.19
ARCADIUS
JE4
SALVSREIPVBLICAE Sab. 41
44- Obv: DNARCADIVSPFAVG 45. Ob: DNARC.. .AVG
11-12 \ .92
46. Obv: ..ARCADI..

SALVS...
7 ^ -36
SA...ICAE
11-14 t 81RQP
7 Vol. IX, p. 133,
64c Var.
CONCORDIA AVG(GG)
Cross Sab. 32
47. Obv: DNARCADI.
.. .DIAAVGGG
Ii t .65
49. Obv: DNAR...
CONCOR-DIA...
.82
48. Obv: DNARCADIV-
SPFAVG
CON...
11-13 f .97
50 Catalogue
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
CONCORDIA AVG(GG)
Rome or Constantinople, helmeted, seated facing, head 1., holding
globe and partly seen spear; r. leg bare9
53. CONC...
13- 14 -98
Same type (Barbarous)
54. 11-12 .85
GLORIA ROMANORVM
Emperor with labarum, dragging captive r.10
55. ...VM 56. 13-14 t 1.18
9-13 -54 7TKA
57. 11-14 t 1-45 58- "-14 t .84
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.
Catalogue 51
59. 13-15 \ 1.37 60. 12-13 I 1.15
61. 11-15 I .97 62. 13 I -93
63. 12-14 4. .96
64. Obv: ...AVG 65. 9-11 .56
10- 12 \ 1.13
Reverse illegible
66. R*. 67. .MNA
11- 12 .88 12-14 .99
JE4
VOT X MVLT XX within wreath"
68. Obv: ...VSPFAVG 69. VOT X MVLT XX
VOT X MVLT XX 11-12 \ .88
11 .94
70. ...X MVLT XX
12 \ 1.18
VICTORIA AVG(GG)12
Two victories facing one another, each holding wreath
71. ...RIAAVGGG_L 72. VI...
10-13 4- -99 I2"I4 \ 1-30
Uncertain VOTA type
73- 9 I -83 74- Obv: ...SP.
CON ...XX...
95
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.
52
Catalogue
THEODOSIUS I, ARCADIUS, or HONORIUS
SPES ROMANORVM
Gate of camp13
75. SPESRO...
10- 1.24
Star between turrets
Same Type
76. il 1.32
I Same type (Barbarous)
77. R7
11- 12 I 1.02
ARCADIUS or HONORIUS
I3
VIRTVS EXERCITI
Emperor standing ., leaning on spear; victory 1., crowning him
78. 12-14 \ -94 79- 12-14 t 1'4
80. 9-10 .39
THEODOSIUS II
VT XXXV in three lines within wreath Sab. 31
81. Obv: ..TH... *82. Obv: ...SPF#U
VTXXXV TOV XXXV
10-11 .49 12-13 I -94
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 -/^ possibly be a ligature or abbreviation
for -AVG ? Coin 696 is in similar case.
Catalogue
53
83. VT XXXV 84. VT XXXV
10 i.ii 9-10 f .83
85. VT XXXV18 86. [VTX]XXV
Ii-12 \ .86 10-12 f 1.21
CONCORDIA AVG(G)16
Victory standing, facing, wreath in each hand
87. Obv: .. .DOSIVSPFAVG
CONC...
12-13 I 1.22
CON
88. Ofo:...IVSPCAVG(sic!)
CONC...AVGG
Ii / .84
Anepigraphic. Cross in wreath. Sab. 32
89. Obv: DNTHEOD..
10 .74
91. Obv: DNTHEODO
10 I .88
93. Obv: .NTH...
10-11 \ .34
ANTA
95-
97-
99.
103.
Obv:
10

101.
.HEO..
I .96
SMNA
Obv: DNTHEODOSIVS.
11-12 I .76
Obv: DNTHE...AVG
11- 12 f 1.03
Obv: DNTH...
10-11 1.19
Obv: DNT...
12- 13 f -74
90. Obv:
(sic!)
il
.HEODSVSPF.
CON
I 02
CO.
ANT.
I -59
Obv: ...SIVSP.
11 I .96
94. Obv: DNTHEODO...
12 .93 _L_
SMK.
96. Obv: .NTHEObOSIV-
SPFAVG
10- 12 f !-34
98. Obv: DNTHEODO...
11- 12 -95
100. Obv: DNTH...
9-11 1.01
102. Obv: DNT...VSPFAVG
il .91
104. Obv: DNT...
9 .61
16 The piece is double-struck.
14 The legend ends in either -AVG or -AVGG. See Pearce and Wood, pp. 272,
279. Y 107.
54
Catalogue
105. Obv: DNT...
10 .96
107. Obv: .. THEODO...
11-12 .99
109. Obv: ...HEODOS...
10 1.07
ni. Obv: ...DOSIVSPFAVG
10-11 f .72
113. Obv: ...DOSIV...
9 107
106. Obv: ..THEODOSIVS.
11-12 t .77
108. Obv: ..THEO...
10-11 / .72
110. Obv: ..HEO...
il f .79
112. Obv: ...DOSIVS...
9-1i \ .80
114. Obv: ...OSI...
8-10 <r- .70
GLORIA ROMANORVM
Two emperors standing, holding spears and leaning on shields
115. Obv: ..THEODO...
...NOR..
11-12 f 67

Mint mark in upper left obverse:*
Reverse illegible
116. Obv: .. .OD..
10-11 .98
ARCADIUS, HONORIUS or THEODOSIUS II
CONCORDIA AVG(GG) around cross18
117. Obv: ...VSPFAVG 118. CONCOR-DIA
.. .COR-DIAAVGGG 11 / .84
12 f .86
119. CONCOR...
9-10 f 63
17 Headdress is rosette.
18 The type exists for all three emperors in either -AVG or -AVGGG. Y 149,
150.
Catalogue 55
I20. g-ii .65
GLORIA ROMANORVM
Three emperors, standing, with spears; two outer resting hands on
shields; central figure slightly smaller
121. Obv: ...VSPF... 122. SMNA
12-14 \ .68 9-15 I .84
123. .NTA I24- SM. A
11-12 j- .68 11-14 .96
125. 8-11 t -58 !26. n-13 f .77
Mint mark in upper left obverse:*
127. 12 f .99 128. 4- .87
129. il / 1.29 130. 12 \ 1.40
131. 11-13 .57 132. 12-13 1.05
133. 10-11 .89
GLORIA ROMANORVM
Two emperors standing, holding spears and leaning on shields19
134. Obv: ...PFAVG 135. 12-14 f 1.07
..ORI...
11-13 f .81
136. 12-13 I 104 137. 12-14 4. 1.03
138. 10 \ .84
18 Pearce lists a doubtful specimen o Valentinian III (Roman Coinage, p. 78.

No. 141). Y 158.
56
Catalogue
PERIOD OF THEODOSIUS /7
Anepigraphic. Cross in wreath.
139. Obv: DN..
141.
10
Obv: .
10- II
143. Obv: .
il
145. Obv: .
Obv: .
11- 13.
47-
I 1.19
.SPFAVG
.88
..PFA..
4- 1.08
.AVG
I -75
.SP...
I .81 _
9-10
11-12
151
153- 9

149
155- Obv
I 1.28
t 1.23
/ -95
..AVG
CON
CON
.MNA
.KA
140. Obv: ...SPFAVG
IO-II I.OI
142. Obv: ...PFAVG
10-11 1.17
144. Obv: ...PFA..
il f 1.19
146. Oiv: DN...
IO-II f 1.12
148. 06v: ...FAVG
10-11 / .85
CON
9-10 \ .78
9-10 I 1.03
150.
152.
154. IO-II /
156. 12-13 /
.72
.63
CON
.ON
..NA
SMKB
10-12
.64
..KB
Catalogue
171.
IO-II
94
172.
9-IO
t .85
173.
IO-II
74
174-
9-11
f .86
175-
9-11
.66
176.
II
t -87
177.
il
79
178.

12-13
t X.51
179.
77
180.
IO-II
t -97
181.
.81
182.
8-10
1 -51
183.
10
.82
184.
11-12
-83
185.
8-9
56
186.
10
1 -95
187.
9-10
84
188.
10-12
1 -75
189.
9-11
63
190.
II
.60
58
Catalogue
233. 10
235. IO-II
237. 9-10
239. 8-10
241. 9-10
243. 8-9
96
04
89
45
72
47
234. 9-10
236. 9-10
238. 8-10
240. 11-12
242. 9
49
.87
.26
1.21
54
PERIOD OF THEODOSIUS II OR LATER: BARBAROUS
Anepigraphic. Cross in wreath
244. 8-9 f -41 245- 10-11 .55

246. 8-9 <- 2622 247. 9-10 .51
248. io-ii .96 249. 9-10 .4723
Anepigraphic. Cross patte within wreath.
250. Obv: Dots for lettering 251. 9-10 .41
io-ii .71
252. io-ii 1.20 253. 9 .86
VALENTINIAN III
VICTORIA AVGG
Victory running 1., with wreath and palm25
254. Obv: .NVALE...
...AAVG. IL
io-ii t .88
SALVSREIPVBLIC(A)E2e
255. Obv: ...ALENTINI... 256. Obv: ...NVSPFA...
...VBLI... ...PVBLiq.).
io-ii f 1.09 io-ii I 1.04
22 Obverse is anepigraphic.
23 A reel border on the reverse has replaced the wreath.
24 Obverse is anepigraphic.
25 Cf. . 12, 13 and Pearce and Wood, pp. 273, 282. Y 253, 254.
28 Additional specimens in Pearce and Wood, p. 282.
Catalogue 59
257. Obv: ...NIANVS...
10- 12 f .60
PERIOD OF VALENTINIAN III*
VICTORIA AVGG
258. Obv: ...AVG J_ 259. VICTOR... S|
VIC... RM R.
12-13 f 1.14 11-12 f .98
260. VICTOR... e]_ 261. VICTO... _
11- 13 f -6o 10 4- "' .84
262. ...AAVG. S|
10- 13 \ .96
SALVS REIPVBLICE
263. ...BLICE
11- 12 f 1.29
SALVS REIPVBL1C(A)E
264. ...VSREI... R\_
lo f .90
265. Obv: ...SPFA.. 266. Obv: ...FAV.
10-11 \ 1.09 Tl 10-12 t I.OI L
R.
"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.
Catalogue
267. 10- t 1-33 I 268. 10-11 f 1.02 _ej
R.
269. 11-12 f 1.38 le 270. 10-11 \ 1.37 Is
RM
271. 9-10 I 1.34 272. 10-11 I 1.22
VICTORIA AVGG(G)
Two victories facing one another, holding one wreath (and? palms)*0
273. 10-11 / .76
PERIOD OF VALENTINIAN III: BARBAROUS
274. Obv: .. .PFAVG 275. 9-10 4. .60
10- 11 I -99
VALENTINIANII, THEODOSIUSI, ARCADIUS, HONORIUS,
(VALENTINIAN III)
SALVSREIPVBLICAE
Victory running 1., dragging captive82
276. Obv: ...SPFAVG 277. Obv: ...PFAVG
...PVBLICAE ...PVBL... +1
11- 12 \ .73 10-11 \ .60
278. Obv: ...AVG 279. SAL... P!
12 \ 1.03 PJ_ 12 f 1.24 CONSA
280. 12-13 t x-5 I 281. 11-12 I .73 PI
SMN.
282. il t 1.14 Ei- 283. ...PVBLICAE
12 t 1-07

80 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.
** 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.
Catalogue
6l
284. ...PVBLICAE
12-13 -9
286. SAL VS...
11-12 I 1-03
288. ...RE...
11-12 \ 1.35
290. 9-1i I .64
291. 8-10
285. ...PVBLIC...
11-12 t 78
287. ...REP...
10-13 -56
289. 10-11 f .86
.66
292. Obv: Jumbled lettering
11-12 1.14 pl
293. 11-12
.84 Ii
294. Ofa/: Jumbled lettering
295. 8-10
.61
9 *- -55
296. 9-11 4- .56
HONORIUS, THEODOSIUS II, VALENTINIAN III

GLORIA ROMANORVM
Two emperors of equal height, standing, each with spear, together
holding globe
297. ...ANOR.. 298. 12-13 1.36
10- f 1.54
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 Uterate but clumsy artist. Others,
such as Y 320 and 336, may by the same criterion be truly barbarous produc-
tions. Since there is no evidence of Vandalic mintage in the hoard, these pieces
were probably produced by the irregular moneyer.
BARBAROUS IMITATIONS
299. 0w:DN... 300. ...IAAV...
9-11 \ .56 10-11 -11
62 Catalogue
301. 89 t 60 302. 9-II t .56
303. 89 .3I 304. IO-I2 N. .84
305. II-I3 -> .64 306. 9-IO .24
307. 89 .4I 308. IO-II .54
309. II-I3 .85
Victory standing, facing, wreath in each hand
31o. Obv. . . .AVG
IO-II ( I.04
Victory running l., dragging captive
3II. 9-IO .56
Lines to represent figure
312. II-I2 .77
MARCIAN
BR (V 1) within wreath Sab. II
313. Obv. .NMARCIANVSPFAVG 314. Obv. . . MARC. . .
IO-II I. | II-I2 .06
A I.33 CON W .9 con
315. Obv. DN. . . 316. IO-II t .90
IO-II | CON
W .95 co"
317. II A I.IO 318. Obv: ... IANVS. . .
CON IO-12 N. I.23
CON
319. Obv. . .AVG 320. Obv. . . MARC. . .
II12 | 1.39 | IO-12 | 1.22 _ _
C.. NIC

321. Obv: DNM. . . 322. Obv. ... PFAV.
I2 - .82
9 ! .77 NIC 9 A NIC
* This is possibly a very poor attempt to portray a victory type of some sort.
Catalogue
*323-
Obv: ...IANVS...
324. 10-11 t .90 1
9-10 1.23 1
CHES
CHES
325-
10 \ 1.46 1
326. Obv: DNMARCIA...
CHE.
9 \ 1.06
327-
Obv:... NVSPFAVG
328. Obv: ...ARCIANVS...
10 1 1.03
il / 1.42
329-
Obv: ..MARC...
330. Obv: . .MARC...
9 t 1-19
11-12 / .46
331-
Obv: ..ARCIAN...
332. Obv: DNM...
10-11 t 1.14
il 1.19

333-
Obv: DN...
334- Obv: ...FAVG
9-11 / 1.04
9-12 i 1.14
335-
Obv: ...AVG
336. Obv: ...AVG
10-12 / .67
IO-II t 1.20
337-
Obv: ...AVG
338. 9-11 t -85
10-11 / .68
339-
10-12 1 1.33
340. 10 .64
341-
9 \ .61
342. 9-10 .99
343-
10-11 \ 1.17
344- 9 -95
345-
10 / .81
346. IO-II / 1.40
347-
8-9 -47
348. 10- .82
(V 1) Var. (Cross at an angle) within wreath
349-
9-10 \ .71
35O. IO-II / I.I2
PsR or f (V i, 7) within wreath
351-
Obv . AN...
352. Obv: ...A...FAV.
9-11 t .50
9-10 \ .92
353-
8 i 79
354- 8-9 1 .92
p^-' (V 2) within wreath
64 Catalogue
$ (V ) within wreath
356. 9-11 -93 357- 9- -82
(V 4) within wreath
358. Obv: ...AR.IA...
10- 11 f .97
J<J^ (V 5) within wreath
359. Obv: DNMARCIANVS... 360. 10-11 f 1.06
10 I.2X
361. 10-11 /* 1.26
Jk^ (V 6) within wreath
362. 06v: DNMAR... 363- 1 .64
11- 12 / 1.08
^ (V 7) within wreath
364. 9-10 f .98 _L
JJCp, (V 8) within wreath
365. Obv: DNMAR... 366. Obv: .. .SPFAVG
10-11 I 92 9-11 I 90
367. IO-II / 1.10
(V 9) within wreath
368. Obv: ...ANVSPA.. 369. Obv: ..NV...
10-11 J. .84 |_ 10-11 t i-o6 I
NIC NIC
370. Obv.DNM... 371. Obv: .. .RCIANVS...
10-11 \ .84 I 9-11 \ .89 I
NIC. NICO
372. 11-12 \ I.II I 373. 11-12 I I.36 I

NIC NICO
Catalogue
65
374-
Obv: ...IANVS...
375-
9-10
t .83 1
IO-II i .72 1
.HES
CHES
76.
Obv: DN...NVSPFAVG
377-
Obv: DNMAR...
378.
10-11 I 23
Oto: DNMAR...
379-
12-13 f 1.44
Obv: DNMA...VG
380.
10-13 / 1.54
Obv: ...CIA...
381.
10-12
Obv: .
.94

. .SPFAVG
9-10 i .99
Obv: ...VSPFA..
IO-II
t 1-47
..VSP...
382.
383-
Obv: .
9-11 t 1.31
9-11
1 1.13
384-
9-10 t .60
385.
IO-II
1 .78
386.
11-12 1.12
387-
8-9
1 -57
388.
8 1 -99
389-
10
1 -97
39-
10 / 1.18
391-
10
/ 1.08
10) within wreath
392-
q l 1.01
393-
9-10
t -91
NIC
394. Obv: ...ANVS..
11-12 t 1.13
396. Obv: ...NVS..
10-12 I 1.19
66
Catalogue
400.
4OI.
402.
403.
4O4.
406.
408.
4IO.
4II.
4I2.
4I3.
#R (V 14) within wreath
Obv. . . . ANVSPFAVG
IO W .92
9-II ? .40
Io-II I.II
CO
II W I.32
Indeterminate monogram within wreath
Obv : . . MARCIANVSP. . . 405. Obv: DNMA. . .
IO / I.21 can IO-II ) .83 CON

Obv. . . .VSP. . . 407. IO-II .67
9IO ! .62
Obv. . . .AV. 409. 89 .55
9 ? .66
69 .28
MARCIAN: BARBAROUS
|XR (V 18) within wreath
89 t .45
D&R (V 19) within wreath
9-II V .55
BSR (V20) within wreath
8 .46
Catalogue
67
(V 21) within wreath
414. 9-10 - .39
(V 22) within wreath
415. 8 .28
Indeterminate monograms
416. 7-9 t 32 4!7- 11 \ "35
Anepigraphic. Lion standing 1., wreath border. Cf. Sab. 20
*4i8. Obv: DNLEOPFAVG | 419. 10 .89 _*_
io-ii t -92 CVZ
Anepigraphic. Lion standing 1., above, star; reel border. Cf. Sab. 20
420. Obv: .NLEOPERP...
421. Obv: DNLEOP...AV.
9-10 1 1.36 *
io-ii f 1.08 *
422. Obv: .. .N...
423. Obv: ...OPE...
9-10 / 1.24
10 t -73 *
Anepigraphic. Lion crouching 1., looking r. Double border.36
Sab. 19 Var.
424. Obv: DU...
425. Obv: .. .EOS37
9-11 t 90
10 1 1.12
426. Obv: .. .E.

427. Obv: ... 0
9-10 \ .69
8-10 / .82
428. Obv: ...P...
429. 0w: ...FAV.
9-12 \ .87
9 1 -53
430. Obv: ... VG
9 \ -85
3S Either 4 or 6, but barbarous.
3e The outer border is wreath, the inner reel.
37 The obverse shows a cross above Leo's head. See CK p. 91.
68 Catalogue
Anepigraphic. Lion crouching 1., looking r.
431. Obv: ...NSPFA..
9-10 I .68 !_
CON
433. 10-11 f 71
CON
435. Obv: ...PF...
9-11 .78
Sab. i g
432. Obv: ...AVG
9-10 / .91
434. Obv: ..LEO...
11-13 i -73
436. 9-10 f .66
CON
CO.
.N
Anepigraphic. Lion crouching 1., looking r; no star, reel border
437. Obv: DNLEOPFAVG
11-12 i .91 |_
CON
439. Obv: DNHE...AVG38
10- 12 f 1.27 I
CON
441. Obv: DNLE...
10 .86 I

CON
443. Obv: .N1
11- 12 \ .55 _J_
CON
445. Obv: ...EOSPFA..
10- i 1.17 L_
CON
PFAVG
447. Obv: .
IO-II
t 74 I
CON
449. Obv: ...FAVG
10 f 1.29 I
CON
451. Obv: ...AVG
10-11 .78
CON
438. Obv: DNLEO..
9-10 t 1.33
440. Obv: DNLE..
11-12 f 1.07
442. Obv: .NLE...
10-11 I .57
444. Obv: ..LEOPA. .
il 1.22 L_
CON
446. Obv: ...PETAVG
9- 11 t .82 !__
CON
448. Obv: ...PFAVG
10- 12 I 1-27
CON
CON
CON
CON
450. Obv: .. .AVG
11-12 f .59
452. Obv: .. .AVG
10-11 1.34
CON
CON
38 439.459, 464. and 471 show HEO instead of LEO. As in the case of Y 457,
Catalogue
69
453. Obv: ...AVG
9-11 / .86
455- 9
t .87
457- 9 I -83
459. Obv: .NHE...
10-12 I .92
CON
CON
CON
CON
461. Obv: ...PFAVG
9-10 f 1.13
CO.
463. 8-10 .63 I
CO.
465. 9-10 / .77 _L_
467. IO-II f 1.08
469. 9-10 t .78
.ON
CN
471. Obv: DNHEOPFAV.
10-13 \ -74
473. Obv: DNLEO...
9-10 / .82

475. Obv: DNI
10-11 I .64
477. Obv: DN...
9-11 / .43
479. Obv: .NLE...
9 \ -57
481. Obv: ..LEO...
10-12 *- 1.11
483. Obv: ...EOPFAV.
il \ 1.19
39 The coin is pierced in the center.
454-
Obv: .
IO-II
.PF...
t -73
CON
io-il f .75
456.
458. IO-II
460. Obv: DNL.
CON
1.08 I
CON
10
t 1.10 I
Obv:
il
.AVG
t 1.14
462
464. Obv: DNHE
466
468
CO.
CO.
II
I 113
Obv: DN..
IO-II /
77
.ON
Obv: .NL...
70
Catalogue
485. Obv: .
9-10
487. Obv: .
9-10
489. Obv: .
11-13
491. Obv: .
il
493. Obv: .
495. Obv: .
10-11
497. Obv: .
IO-II
499. 9-10
501. IO-II
503. 9-10
505. IO-II
507. 8
..EO
t -85
..OPFA..
t -69
..PFAVG
I 1.02

. .FAVG
I 1-23
..FAVG
/ 77
..AVG
t .81
..AVG
/ 46
I 1.09
I 79
I .80
.84
.46
486. Obv: .
10
488. Obv: .
IO-II
490. Obv: .
9-10
492. Obv: .
9-10
494. Obv: .
9-10
496. Obv: .
10
498. Obv: .
IO-II
500. IO-II
502. 9-10
504. 10
..E.
79
..PFRAVG
*/ 65
..PFA..
/ -92
..FAVG
/ .66
..FAV.
/ 1-07
..AVG
/ 1.10
..VG
Catalogue
517-
7-8
55
518.
Obv: DNLEO...
10-12
1 1-30
519.
Obv: DNLEO...
520.
Obv: DNLE...
11-12
1.17
9-18
1 1.08
521.
Obv: DN...FAVG
522.
Obv: DN...
8-10
1 .81
IO-II
t 1.06
523-
Obv: .NLEO...
524-
il
/ -73
8-9
t -53
525-

Obv: .NLE-0
Obv: .
NLE...
526.
Obv: .
NLE...
IO-II
/ 1.31
9-11
t -71
527-
Obv: .NL...
528.
Obv: .
..EOPT..
1 1.13
9-11
t .65
529-
Obv: .
..EO...
530.
Obv: .
.. EO...
10-12
/* 1.02
10
/ 1.12
531-
Obv: .
.....
532.
06t;: .
..0...
t -77
9-10
72
Catalogue
559-
.83
561
1.00
5-
75
565.
9-11
1.07
57-
9-10
.86
59-
97
571-
9-10
I.OI
573-
-*
.60
575-
9-10 /
77
577-
8-9
52
579-
9-10
95
581.
10
85
583.
.66
585.
9-10
.67
587-
9-10
1.24
560.
50
562.

IO-II
1.08
564-
54
566.
9-11
1.28
568.
Catalogue
73
603. Obv: .
..AVGO
8-9
43
605.
8-10
75
607.
.58
609.
9-10
.82
611.
.78
613.
9-10
.65
.58
617.
.70
619.
8-10
73
621.

615.
9-10 \
.84
623.
.84
604. Obv: ...VGO
9 I- -50
606. 7-8 t .49
608. 8-9 f .68
610. 9-10 f .89
612. 9-10 f .84
614. 9 4- .66
616. 8-10 I -94
618. 10 4. .60
620. 9-10 / .89
622. 9 .58
624. 8-9 f .70
{ôr{^(Vi, 2)
within wreath Sab. 18
625.
Obv: DN...
626.
Obv: .
.LEO...
4- 1.06
\ .61
627.
9-10
f I.OI
628.
74
Catalogue
^ (V 4) within wreath Sab. 18
644. 7-10 f
96 1
645-
8-10
94 -
646. Obv: DNL.
THS
647.
Obv: DN...
9/
.92
9-10
\ -54
648. Obv: DN..
649.
Obv: ..
.SP...
81
56
8-11
t .85
650. Obv: .. .0
651.
Obv: ..

.PFAVG
8-10 ->
.70
1 .62
652. 9 f
43
653-
t -74
654. 9-10 f
.81
655.
9-10
t -44
656. 9-10 f
.78
657-
7-9
1 .41
658. 8-9 ->
51
659-
9-10
.62
660. 9-10
.60
661.
9-10
83
662. 8-11
.36
663.
9-10
t .85
664. 8-9 4-
49
.HS
$<(V5)
655-
667.
669.
671.
Catalogue
75
677. Obv: DN...
678.
Obv: .
N...
10-11 f 1.03
9-11 /
.36
679. Obv: .. .RT...
680.
Obv: .
..0
9-10 / 1.11
IO-II
.84
681. Obv: ...PEAVG
682.
Obv: .
..AV.
10-11 / 1.04
9-10
.84
683. Obv: ...M
684.
83

9-12
10-11 j- .74
685. 9-11 f .80"
686.
9-11
71
687. 9-1i .37
688.
8-9
57
689. 10-11 4- 65
690.
IO-II
>
.82
691. 10-11 \ 1.13
692.
IO-II
.98
C4(V7)
within wreath Sab. 18
693. OZw:DNLE.
694.
8-9
39
IO-II I .69
(V 8) within wreath Sab. 18
696. OZw: .
695. 10-11 / 1.04
CON
697. IO-11 f .75
699. 8-9 / .67
701. 9-10 / .64
698.
9-10
7-8
.PF/y42
I .85
I .49
76
Catalogue
703. Obv: .. .E.
10-11 I .73
Indeterminate monogram
704. 8-12
37
Anepigraphic. Emperor, in military dress, standing ., holding long
cross in ., captive with 1. Cf. Sab. 14
705. Obv: DNLEONSPFAVG43
il 4 -95 J
CO.
707. 10-11 f 1.33
.1
709. Obv: DNI
9-11 4 .61
711. Obv: DNLE...
11-12 / i. HA
713. Obv: .NL-EO
il \ -95-
CN
CN
715. Obv: ...RPET
9-10 f i-23
717. Obv: DNL-EO

10-11 \ 1.30 * I
719. Obv: DN.. .0
10-11 t 1.39 +1
721. 9-12 4 .66 +J
723. Obv: ...S...E.
10-12 f .70
725. 8-10 4. .63
NIC
NIC
*7o6. Obv: DNLEOPERPET
10- 13 4 1.16 I
NIC
708. Obv: DNI
11- 12 f 1.06
710. Obv: DNI
9-10 t .78
712. Obv: DN...
il t .96 *l
CN
714. Obv: ...EO
il t I-44-lL-
716. 9-10 4 .82 _!J
718. Obv: DNL-EO
11-12 f .65 +1
720. Obv: .. .L-EO
10-11 \ 1.08 1
722. 11-12 / 1.07 +
724. 9-10 t 69
NIC
726. Obv: DNL-EO
10-11 f 1.61
"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.
Catalogue
77
727. Obv: DNLEO...
9-11
t -93
729.
Obv: .
NLEO..
9-11
1 -91
731-
Obv: .
..EO
8-10
t 1.42
733-
Obv: .
..AVG
9-10
t .65
735-
9-11
i .82
737.
9-10
1 .69
728. Obv: DN...

9-10 t .98
730. Obv: .NLE...
10- / 1.34
732. Obv: ...OSPFAVG
10-11 t 1.37
734. Obv: .. .AV.
10 I 1.23
736. 8-11 I I.OI
738. il .8044
739. 9-10 t .89
Anepegraphic. Figure in long robes, nimbate, standing facing,
holding cross-surmounted globe in ., and scepter transversely in 1.4S
Cf. Sab. 15
740. Obv: DNLEO..PFA.. 741. Obv: DNL...G
II-13 / 1.20 b|E 9-11 t I.14 b E
742. Obv: DNL... 743. Obv: DNI
il / .90 b E 10 t -66 b 1E
744. Obv: DNL... 745. Obv: .NLEO...
10-11 .95 b 1E 10 t .93 b 1E
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 identifica-
tion 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 Verinahavebeenconsidered.
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.
78
Catalogue
746. Oto: .NL-EO
II-12 f I.I2 b I E
748. Oto: ...EO
io-ll f .67 b[E
750. Obv: ...OSPFA..
9-11 f 1.06 b I E
752. Obv: .. .AVG blE
8- 10 t .83
754. 10-11 j 74 b[E
756. 10-11 I .94 I E
758. Obv: DNLEO...
10 4 1.05 i"
760. Obv: DNL...
10- 11 .90 bI"
762. Obv: DNL...
11- 12 / 1.19 b 1"
764. Obv: .NL...
10-12 ,/ -75 bj"
766. Oto: ..LE...
9- 10 4 1.08 _b_T
768. Obv: ...E.
9-11 f .78 M"
770. Oto: .. .O
10- 11 t .98 b|"
772. Obv: .. .VG

9-14 t 1-24 _
774. 9-II t -86 M"
776. 10-11 i i.12 I"
778. 10-11 1.11 bI"
780. Obv: DNLE...
9-11 f 71 "|E
782. Obv: DN.. .O
11- 13 f 1.16 _^J_E
747. Obv: ..L-EO
10-11 / .96 !E
749. Obv: .. .E.
10-11 t .85 b E
*75i. Oto: ...FAVG
9-10 .87 d E
753. Ii t -94 blE
755. 10-12 4- 1.22 ME
757. 9-10 .93 1E
759. Obv: DN!
9-10 \ .86 b["
761. Oto: DNI
10- 11 4 .71 b"
763. Obv: DU...
10 f 1.80 b|"
765. Obv: .N...
10 f -87 Jb_T
767. Obv: .. .EO
11- 13 t 1.07 b|"
769. Obv: ...E...
8- 9 f .66 M"
771. Oto: ...RPET
10- 12 t .93 b I"
773. 10-11 t 1.05 M"
775. 8-9 I .61 "
777. 10-11 I .85 "
779. Oto: DNLEO...AVG
11 / 1.01 "j E
781. Oto: DNLE...
9- 11 I -86 "; E
783. Oto: DN.. .O
11- 12 t 112 "i E
Catalogue
784. Obv: DN...
11-12
t .83
|E
786. Obv: DN...
8-9
1 -41
|E
788. Obv: D...
9-10
t .89
tt
IE
790. Obv: D...
IO-II
1 79
//
IE
792. Obv: .
NL...
9-11
t -69
ri
|E
794. Obv: .

NL...
9-11 \ .70
IE
796. Oiw: .
..EO...
AV.
10
1.17
tt
|E
798. Obv: .
..EO
il
/ 1.03
|E
800. Obv: .
..E.
8-10
/ -83
|E
802. Obv: .
..E.
8-9
1 -59
"
804. Obv: .
..E.
9-11
1 -69
"
806. Ofo: .
..0
IO-II
\ .90
"
808. IO-II
t 1.15
"
[E
810. IO-II
8o
Catalogue
826. 10-11 / .54 "IE
828. io-ii / .87 "|E
830. io-ll / .80 "|E
832. io-ii I.15 "IE
834. io-ll .89 "|E
836. 10 -79 "IE
838. Obv: DNL-..
7- 11 .64
840. Oto: DN...
9 t 1-05
842. Obv: DM...
io-ii / .93
844. Obv: ..LEO...
9-10 / 1.08
846. Obv: ...OSPFA..
9-10 f .88
848. Obv: ...V.
8- 9 t 45
850. Obv: ...EO
10 .88
852. Oto: ...EO
10 .84
854. Obv: ...E.
10-12 f 1.19
856. Obv: ...E.

9- 10 I .50
858. Oto: ...O
io-ii f 1.09
860. Obv: ...O
10 1.00
862. 9-11 t .54
864. 9-10 f .55
827.
9-10 / .99"
829.
io-ii / 1.06"
831.
7-12 .63"
IE
833-
io-ii .84"
IE
835-
10 1.04"
IE
837-
Obv: DNL...G
11-12 f .70
839-
Obv: DN...
9-II t 43
841.
Obv: DN...
9-11 / .60
843-
Obv: DN...
10 / 1.31
845-
Obv: ..LE...
9-10 1 .84
847.
Obv: ...SPFAVG
8-10 f 1.12
849.
Obv: ...G
8-11 \ .82
Catalogue
81
866.
10
1.00
867.
7-9
t .63
868.
.78
869.
10
t 1.06
870.
9-11
1.04
871.
IO-II
t .82
872.
10
1.09

873-
IO-II
t -76
874.
9-10
.67
875-
9-10
-49
876.
9-10
.66
877.
1 .72
878.
11-12
1.06
879.
-51
880.
8-9
75
881.
i .65
882.
8-9
95
883.
10
/ 1.21
884.
9-10
.98
885.
9-11
.80
82 Catalogue
ZENO
(V i) within wreath
896. Obv: ...ZENO... _J_ 897. Obv: ..ZEN...
8-9 74 7-9 4- 43
898. Obv: ...VG
10 .81
j^.^ (V 2) within wreath
899. 9-11 4 .71 L 900. Obv: ...A..
oc 8-10 \ .49
901. Obv. ...ONPFAVG 902. Obv: ...NPER
10-12 / 1.03 11-12 4 I.il
903. Obv: ...N...G 904. 9-10 f .91
10- 11 \ .83
905. Obv: ..ONP..VG 906. Obv: ...PEVG
11- 12 f 1.52 9-10 4 1.02
907. Obv: ...ES... 908. 7-10 4 .86
8- 9 4 .84
909. 10 f -8o 910. 9-10 4 -83
911. 8-9 4 -29
(V I, 2) within wreath
912. Obv: ...NONP 913. Obv: ...N...
9- 11 \ .83 8-10 4 .42
914. 8-9 4 -57
(V 3) within wreath
915. Obv: DNZ... 916. 11-12 f .80

10 f .88
917. 8-10 4 .63 918. 9 4 .68
919. 7-8 / .25 920. 8-9 .59
Catalogue
83
(V ) within reel border
921.
8-9
75--L
922.
7-8
923.
.63 CVZ
924.
8-9
1.04 CVZ
925.
.96
926.
8-9
54
927.
8-9
928.
8-9
58
929.
43
930.
8-9
.62
931-
55
932.
8-10
58
933-
8^
55
934-

.60
9-10 \
97
935-
6-7
25
(V 4) within wreath
*936.
Obv: .
..AVG
937-
10
1 1.05
11-12
.85 1
938.
Obv: DN..
CVZ
939-
84
Catalogue
965- 8
.46
966. 9-10 t
.66
967. 8-9
47
968. 8-9 t
54
969. 9
.69
970. 8-9 \
36
971. 8
.72
972. 8-9 \
.76
973- 8
34
974. 8-9 \
.76
975- 9
31
976. 8
33

977. 7-8
57
978. IO-II
58
979. 8-9
57
980. 8-9
47
981. 9
33
982. 9
.42
983- 8-9
44
(V 3, 4) within wreath
984. Obv: .
.ZE...
985. 8-9
.64
9-10
55
986. 9-11
.40
987. 8-10
45
988. 9
74
989. Obv: DNZIN.
10-12 .81
^ (V 5) within wreath
(V 5) within reel border
990. Obv: ...NOPFAVG
9-10 1 57
992. 7-9 f -45
*99i. Obv: DNZE...
10 I .77
993. 0w: DNZEN.
Catalogue
85
996. 7-8
998. 9
1000. 7-8
.16 997. 8-9
47 999- 8
.88 1001. 6-9
Monogram of Zeno (Barbarous)
.48
.26
.24
1002. 9
.70
Anepigraphic. Emperor in military dress, standing, facing, holding
long cross in ., globe in 1. Sab. 18
1003. Obv: DNZINONSPFAVG *ioo4. Obv: ...ENOPES.
NIC
Emperor nmbate, standing, facing, holding labarum in 1. and globus
cruciger in r.47
1005. 9-10 I i-io
47 The coin is apparently an unpublished specimen. Its general characteristics
and similarity to the two preceding specimens make it obvious that it belongs
to Zeno. The combination of labarum with globus cruciger may suggest imperial
hegemony over the Church. Perhaps the issue is commemorative of Zeno's
Henotikon and datable to 481 or shortly after. Because the coins showing
the emperor with long cross and globe (1003, 1004) make a similar religious

statement and are of the same style and fabric, perhaps they too should be
assigned to the same period. P. Grierson, op. cit., p. 226, publishes another
specimen of Zeno's small bronze showing the emperor nimbate, in short mili-
tary tunic, standing facing, holding long cross in ., globus in 1. In the left
field is 2 and in the right ^ The specimen in V has just the faintest sugges-
tion of lettering on either side of the figure. All these coins show a consistency
of style that sets them apart from the monogram issues of Zeno. If they are not
medallic in character, they are most certainly to be considered special issues.
They all seek to put forth a religious and political definition of the imperial
office which only a major event in the reign, such as the Henotikon, could have
prompted.
48 The coin shows two borders, one reel, the other wreath. No chronological
conclusions as to date of Leo's issues need be drawn from a hybrid combination
of Zeno's head with Leo's lion reverse. The coin may have been struck early in
the reign by using one of the old reverse dies of Leo which happened to hand.
It may be the result of the testing procedure of a mint-worker.
IO-II \ .79
IO-II / .89 1
ZENO: HYBRID
Lion crouching 1., looking r; double border48
1006. Obv: ...END
12 / .96
86 Catalogue
Illegible Monograms (of LEO, ZENO, or AELIA ZENONIS)
1007. 8-9 1 .38 1
1008. Obv: ...AVG
NIC
9 .68
1009. Obv: ...RP
1010. Obv: ...PFAG
9 1.02
9-10 .91
ion. Obv: .. .RP...
1012. 8 .37
il -59
1013. 7-9 .44
Illegible Monograms (of LEO, ZENO, or AELIA ZENONIS)
BARBAROUS
1014. 8-9 / .73
1015. 9 .54
1016. 9-10 .79
1017. 11-13 1.45
1018. 9-11 .37
1019. 7 .53
1020. 7-8 .17
1021. 9-10 .60
1022. 10 .64
(Vi)
BASILISCUS

within wreath
1023. Obv: ...VG 1024. 10 \ 1.09
10-11 / 1.09 I
1025. Obv: ...AVG KOC 1026. Obv: ...AVG
9-10 I 1.01 9-10 / .85
1027. il 1-73 1028. Obv: ...PFA...
9-10 \ .69
(V 2) within wreath
1029. 9 f .87 1030. 8-11 4- 1.01
"Obverse is anepigraphic.
.O.
Catalogue
87
AS ILI SC U S AND MARCUS
[j^P, (V 1) within wreath
1031. Obv: DNBASI.
IO-II
1033. Obv: .
IO-II
1035. Obv:
IO-II
1037. Obv: .
IO-II
1039. 10
1041. 7-9
j- .91
..ASILET.
I -71
...ETMAR
I .68
..TM...
t -63
t -77
/ .67
1032.
1034-
Obv
10
il

Ov: .
1036. Obv: .
9-10
1038. 8
.BA...
I 1.00
...ETMAR
4- 1.15
...AS...
t -67
t -67
1040. 9-1i f .69
Two
emperors seated on throne, facing, nmbate, each
holding globe in l.50
*i042. Obv: ...ISCVSP
10-11 f .89
AELIA ZENONIS
(V 1) within wreath
1043. Obv: AZE.
10-12 f
1045. Obv: AZE.
10 f
1047. Obv: .ZE..
9-10 I
1049. 10-12 .58
.NIS
74
.69
.72
1044. Obv: AZEN...
10- 12 4, .75
1046. 0w: AZE...
10 f 1.18
1048. Obv: ...0N1S
11- 12 f .82
1050. 10
f .88
so The piece is unpublished. The figures on the reverse are undoubtedly Basi-
liscus and his son, Marcus, whom he associated with him as Augustus. The
omission of Marcus' name in the obverse legend should be noted. The type is
reminiscent of the gold issue of Valentinian I (C. 66) and others where the
88
Catalogue
(V i) within pearl border
1051. Obv: AZEN... 1052. Obv: AZE...
9-10 t .91 8 t -53
1053. Obv; KL... 1054. Obv: ..EN..IS
9 t .47 10-11 \ .40
1055. OZw: ...ONIS 1056. 7-8 .33
10-12 t 1.19
1057. 9 t .79 1058. 8 .72
LIBIUS SEVERUS
(V i)61
1059. 10-11 t .94 1060. 8 t .96
1061. 10-11 .95 1062. 9 .90
ROMAN, ILLEGIBLE
1063. Obv: ...SPFAV.
11-12 t -68 __!_
CON
BARBAROUS VA RI UM
Two emperors standing, facing, each with spear52
1064. 9-10 t -67
61 This is the monogram of Ricimcr, first identified by J. Friedlnder (Du
Mnzen der Ostgoten, Berlin, 1844, pp. 5t.). The bust on the obverse is Libm
Severus III. A specimen appears also in Y (502, q.v.).
52 The coin shows good workmanship and faint traces of an obverse legend.
It should be compared with a piece of larger flan and poorer construction
noted in BMC, No. 62, p. 25. The type appears derived from the GLORIA

ROMANORVM issues of Honorius (C. 27), but because of style and size must
have a later provenience.
TABLE OF MONOGRAMS
MARC IAN
F& ff f*P t& Jtt M tRKfcra
123456 7 89
10
il 12 13 14 15
BARBAROUS
l6
17
M* t*R M* KU M
18
19
20
LEO
21
22
I234 56789
M M H ft
BASILISCUS
AELIA ZENONIS
A SI LIS CUS AND MARCUS
LI BWS SEVERUS
fit


82
161
fv /
254
672
589
670
706
751
887^^
899
936
991
1003
1004

A Bronze Hoard of The Period of Zeno I / by Howard L. Adelson and Georg L. Kustas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Bronze Hoard of The Period of Zeno I / by Howard L. Adelson and Georg L. Kustas

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Bronze Hoard of The Period of Zeno I / by Howard L. Adelson and Georg L. Kustas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-17 16:47 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.

of the Period of Zeno I

THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-17 16:53 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.$b687478

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY

THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-17 14:08 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.$b460947

NUMIS MATIC NOTES AND MONOGRAPHS

NUMISMATIC NOTES AND MONOGRAPHS

is devoted to essays and treatises on subjects relating

to coins, paper money, medals and decorations.

ALFRED R. BELLINGER, Chairman

THEoDORE V. BUTTREY, JR.

SAwYER MCA. MOSSER, Editor

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-17 14:08 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.$b460947

HowARD L.ADELSON, Associate Editor

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-17 14:16 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015012841196

This monograph marks the publication of the second of three

In each case, the earliest specimens, which decrease in number as

part of the collection of Yale University, was published by us in

Museum Notes IX, pp. 139-188. It extends to the period of Leo I.

Society by Miss Katherine M. Edwards during her sojourns in Greece

of the early years of the reign of Anastasius.

The period represented by the three hoards forms what is often

viewed as the deep trough of an impenetrable fog lying between the

Constantinian age and the Byzantine splendor of the epoch of

of evidence with a personality of their own and that the study

will contribute toward the reconstruction of the history of the

times in sharper outline than has previously been possible.

Although the study as a whole represents a collaborative effort

and is, inevitably, the product of continual cooperation between

the work of Mr. Adelson, while Mr. Kustas is responsible primarily

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-17 14:16 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015012841196

It is worthwhile to report that the application of two essentially

different methodologies for the study of the coins, each elaborated

independently of the other, has in no instance yielded contradictory

results. Whether our conclusions are thereby mutually validated

we leave to the discretion of our readers.

We should like to thank the Publication Committee of the Society

for sanctioning the publication of the work, and we owe a particular

along with us in attempting an identification of some of the more

stubborn specimens. The errors in ascription and discussion we

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-17 14:16 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015012841196

guard as our very own.

Y = the bronze hoard of minimi of Leo I, part of the Yale collection;

published by us with the title, "A Bronze Hoard of the Period

of Leo I," in Museum Notes IX (i960), pp. 139-188.

V = the Volo hoard.

Bellinger = A. R. Bellinger, Catalogue of the Coins Found at Corinth,

1925, New Haven, 1930.

Blake = R. P. Blake, "The Monetary Reform of Anastasius I and

Its Economic Implications," American Council of Learned Societies.

The Disciplines of the Humanities. Studies in the History of Culture.

Menasha, Wisconsin, 1942.

Bury = J. B. Bury, History of the Roman Empire from the Death

of Theodosius I to the death of Justinian (A.D. 395 to A.D. 565),

London, 1931, vol. I of 2 vols.

CK == Part II. Bronze Roman Imperial Coinage of the Later Empire,