How to categorize this weird “anonymous” silver from “Justinian’s time”?

Anonymous, time of Justinian I, 527-565. Third Siliqua (Silver, 13.94 mm, 0.87 g). Constantinopolis. Personified bust of Constantinopolis right, draped and cuirassed, wearing crested helmet with fork on top and flowing dotted pendants. Rev. Large potent K. Vagi 3051. Bendall, Anonymous, Type 8. Sutherland, pl. 2, 28. Kent, Urbs Roma and Constantinopolis pl. 2, 28. Porous, Good Very Fine.


That coin is not mine, but I have seen it sporadically in auctions. It is often labelled as “anonymous” and from the “time of Justinian”. But literature of byzantine coinage completely ignores this weird coin.

Can you tell me something about it and/or provide me some articles/link about this coin?

My main question is: Are we 100% sure this coin is Eastern Roman/Byzantine?

In case one of you know something I would be glad to hear it. Thanks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

This one maybe?
https://www.numisbids.com/n.php?p=lot&sid=7160&lot=1024

 

Quite a few of these seem to be turning up. I had a question about one, quite a while ago, and the answer was that these were issued over quite a few reigns and over a great period of time in Constantinople, with wildly different styles. The ones I looked at were advertised as Constantine IV, possibly Italian mint, but probably weren't Italian.

 

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/scripulum.282752/

 

If K stands for Constantinople and P or R for Rome, what do these mean? Are they a variation on Chi-Rho? A lot of these issues look very unofficial. I'm assuming those are the later ones?

 

TX, I don't have the answer. Others are K, P, R, T, & CV representing their respective mints. Yes these are later issues.

 

Maybe a barbaric Chi-rho

 

Most of the recent vcoins ones resemble the above coin. That type was the one which I was considering.

 

Some of this is from my own as-yet unpublished research so might be controversial to some extent but the gist of it is that there are actually two series, though they're often treated as one because of the superficial similarity.

The first were issued in conjunction with the founding of Constantinople and feature the bust of Roma with a "P" reverse and a counterpart of Constantinopolis with a "K" reverse. The K & P are visual identifiers that would have been understood to the Greek-speaking populace; K for Constantinople and P, the letter Rho, for Rome (get it?) This is also an indication that the silvers were produced in and primarily for the citizens of the East as these letters would have been unintelligible in the Latin-speaking provinces.

The second series is a revival most likely dating to 537 CE upon news reaching Constantinople that Rome had been recaptured. With the timing very closely aligning to the bicentennial celebration it was more or less obvious why they would choose the same series.

The most fascinating part is that the symbolism used in this second series confirms the speculative assignment of the P & K letter meanings of the first. This is because, in addition to using the P & K reverses, there are also R and Chi-Rho* reverses too both of which further these as mnemonics; in this case clearly R for Roma and the Chi-Rho as a Constantinople-Roma pairing, respectively.

*the missing loop on the Chi-Rho, while detracting somewhat from this association to our modern eyes, is not as problematic for 6th century Byzantines. This is because Christian iconography was not yet standardized and the rendition of Christograms was variable. The I over X styling probably signified the initials for Jesus Christ in Greek (ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ) but was as equally and instantly recognizable a symbol as the more commonly seen Chi-Rho; the salient point being that it served as a visual aid that recalled Christ and the first two of these letters through coincidence further serve to correlate the two cities.

I have more on this but perhaps best to leave it for the next book where I can more fully explore these associations.

Rasiel

 

So how do you explain the weights of these types?

Ross G.

 

For more details of these interesting types see:

Bendall, S. "Some Comments on the Anonymous Silver Coinage of the Fourth to Sixth Centuries AD" in RN 158 (2002).

But don’t take everything Bendall says as gospel.

The Revue Numistique is available online. For the relevant plates (XI & XII) go to the Planches at the foot of the contents page of volume 158.

Ross G.