Merry Christmas with Anastasius and his coin reform

This year will stay on everyone's memory for all the wrong reasons, but for me it was also the year that I got hooked on ancient coins. It does feel like an addiction as it is not long enough after I receive a coin that the only thing on my mind is where the next coin is coming from! On that level, perhaps I was too quick to post my top coins of the year as the following arrival which was intended as a Christmas present to myself, would definitely sit comfortable within that list.

It is an early Byzantine follis, perhaps the earliest one can get as it is from Anastasius who in numismatic terms is regarded as the first emperor of what we conveniently call the 'Byzantine Empire'. It is a big big coin, weighting 18 grams and with a diameter of 39 millimetres, but it is not my biggest as that honor goes to a follis of Justinian I got earlier this year. But for me the highlight of the coin is its desert patina. It feels absolutely gorgeous in hand and the photo doesn't do it justice. I dare anyone to hold such a coin in their hands and not fall in love with Byzantine coinage. The Byzantine empire stretched from Italy to middle east, so the range of patinas that you can find on its bronze coinage is so diverse that same type coins can look completely different from one another. That is one of the appeals of collecting byzantine coins in my opinion. Enough with the talk though, here is the not so little gem:



But that's not all. It comes with a little brother. When I ordered the follis I remembered that once I saw from a different seller a neat and a very inexpensive half-follis by Anastasius at around £25. I reckoned that this was a good opportunity to finally get that one too and complete my Anastasius mini-set. Luckily the coin was still available, so I did the honorable thing and made it possible for it to be re-united with its long lost big brother. Who knows, maybe they crossed paths before while in circulation.



With such nice arrivals from such an important emperor that happens to be connected to a very important numismatic event (the great bronze monetary reform), I thought it would be a nice opportunity for an extensive write-up. However the more I researched the subject it became quite apparent that it is a topic that has been extensively covered in books and online articles and also within Cointalk. I don't think there is anything I could really add to what others with much greater knowledge than me have already said. So I will just very briefly summarize things just for the sake of those that are not familiar with these events and coins.

Anastasius became emperor quite late in his life at 61, but he managed to stay there for almost 30 years until his death. He is regarded as a very successful emperor, not because of his conquests or cunning scheming, but due to his great administrative skills. He ought to be the patron saint of all accountants everywhere. He successfully fought corruption and on his deathbed he left the empire with a surplus of 29 million gold solidi something that was well appreciated by both his subjects and of course modern collectors that enjoy some of those very same solidi. In numismatic terms, the most important aspect of Anastasius' reign was his reform of the shambolic bronze coinage system that had been pretty much worthless for numerous decades and more. Nobody had been using bronze coins for a while and bartering was rife (and so was the corruption that comes with it) as the gold coinage was simply too valuable for every day trading. He was the one that introduced the celebrated follis (40 nummi) and its fractions that are now synonymous with Byzantine coinage and the object of affection of so many collectors. A very important characteristic of the new coinage was the use of Greek letters to denote the denominations which was an indication of the emerging Greek nature of the eastern Roman empire.

Show me your Anastasius coins and happy holidays everybody!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Very nice coins @Only a Poor Old Man! I don't really collect Byzantine but I do have an Anastatius Nummus in almost collectable condition.


Anastasius. 491-518 AD. AE Nummus
Obv: DN A-NAS, pearl diademed, draped, cuirassed bust right.
Rev: Monogram of Anastasius within linear circle.

 

Anastasius Dicorus, 491-518 A.D.

Type: Large AE Follis, 39 mm 19 grams

Obverse: DN ANASTASIVS PP AVG, Diademed draped and Cuirassed bust right, star on right shoulder (rare)

Reverse: Large M, Epsilon below. Cross above M, star in left field, Mintmark CON





He was called Dicorus because he had one blue eye and one brown eye.

 

Nice coin, and it shows what I said about patinas in my main post. Same denomination, same emperor and timeframe, even same mint to my coin, yet they look so different.

 

Thanks for the writeup and coin, @Only a Poor Old Man .

ANASTASIUS


BZ Anastasius I 491-518 AE Post Reform Folles M monogram

 

My only one of him.


Anastasius (491-518)
Æ Follis, "Small Module"
O: DN ANASTASIVS P P AVG, diademed, draped, cuirassed bust right.
R:Large M, cross above, CON in ex.
Constantinople Mint
25mm
12.65g
Sear 14 DO 16

 

I was wondering what that means, but then I read @Valentinian 's very informative site where he explains that when Anastasius first reformed the bronze coins, the populace weren't happy because the follis (40 nummi) wasn't 40 times heavier than the old pre-reform nummus coin. So in 512 there was a second reform and the follis became a lot bigger and more impressive (still not 40 times to the old coin though). So I guess that means I can reduce the minting window of my coin to 512-518 AD?

 

Its ironic you wrote this, i just purchased last week "The Origins of the Anastasian Currency Reform" by D. M. Metcalf. I have not received it yet but it should be an interesting read.

My only coin was number 1 on my best of list. The small piece of gold started a new collection for me.

Anastasius I AV Tremissis. SBCV-8 1.49gm 15mm

 

I have this Anastatius nummus in very collectible condition.

The sand encrustation sort of obscures the face, but I'm okay with not messing with a rather rare and valuable example of a Nummus.

 

hey, i think thats great. It's hard enough to find a nummus that is even identifiable to begin with.

 

Great post, Only a Poor Old Man! I always love to read about Anastasius and his coins. Imagine the effect his reformed coinage would have had upon a populace used to those tiny nummi that must have had to circulate in bags!

As is well known, his currency reform developed in two stages. The first, in 498, consisted in the issuance of multiples of the nummus, denominations of 40, 20, and 10 nummi. Then in 512, the weights were doubled, and at the same time, a further multiple, the pentanummium of 5 nummi was introduced. The striking of the tiny nummi continued. In addition to their much heavier weight and size, the distinguishing feature of the reform coins is the reverse type, consisting of a Greek letter corresponding to the appropriate denomination. M = 40; K = 20; I = 10; ε = 5. Below are some examples of the various denominations. The first row reflects the initial, lighter reform of 498-512, and the second row, the corresponding denominations of the second reform of 512-518. The obverse images are on the left, while the reverses are on the right. All are from the mint of Constantinople, although the other mints followed the same development. The coins are, from left to right:

First row. Initial, lighter reform of 498-512.

Follis. 8.50 gr. 26 mm. Hr. 6. Sear 14; Hahn 22; DO 16; BNP 11-12.
Half follis. 3.76 gr. 20 mm. Hr. 6. Sear 24; Hahn 32; DO 21b; BNP 37.
Quarter follis (decanummium). 1.51 gr. 16 mm. Hr. 12. Sear 26; Hahn 34a; DO 19; BNP 44-50.
Nummus. 0.79 gr. 7 mm. Hr. 12. Sear 13; Hahn 40; DO 15; BNP 1-10.


Second row. Subsequent (heavier) reform of 512-518.

Follis. 18.17 gr. 36 mm. Hr. 6. Sear 19; Hahn 27; DO 23d, e; BNP 69-75.
Half follis. 9.07 gr. 31 mm. Hr. 6. Sear 25 (this coin); Hahn 33; DO 24d; BNP 14.
Quarter follis (decanummium). 4.16 gr. 22 mm. Hr. 6. Sear 28; Hahn 36; DO -; BNP –
Eighth follis (pentanummium). 1.90 gr. 16 mm. Hr. 7. Sear 29; Hahn 39; DO 26d; BNP 92.


When the weights of the follis and its fractions were doubled in 512, the mint evidently considered that the increased size of the flans would allow for a figural reverse type, a seated representation of Constantinople holding a globus cruciger. Examples exist for the type on the follis, its half, and quarter, but it evidently did not give satisfaction, and specimens are extremely rare today. I have shown these before; apologies for trotting them out again, but they are at least topical, and I love them.

Anastasius I. Constantinople. 512-17. Half follis. 9.62 gr. 24.5 mm. hr. 8. Sear 25A; Hahn 20a (this coin). Ex Vecchi 8, Dec. 4, 1997, lot 401. Published in The Celator, April 1999, “A Pair of holed rarities”.

Anastasius I. Constantinople. 512-17. Decanummium. 4.30 gr. 20 mm. hr. 6. Sear 28A; Hahn 21. Ex Triton XV, lot 1573.

An example of the follis came up in Triton XIX, lot 688. However, when I saw where the bidding was going, I decided that Meat Loaf's song “Two out of three ain't bad” made a lot of sense. Another song lyric, in this case from John Entwhistle’s “My Wife”, also suggested the importance of restraint: “My life’s in jeopardy, shot down in cold blood I’m gonna be” (or would have been if I had purchased it.)


Besides the doubling of the weights, the coinage of the second reform in 512 also added to the reverses such accessories as privy marks in the form of stars or crescents, and officina numbers appeared as well, as can be seen in the above examples. However, two examples of a very curious follis exist, offering the tantalizing possibility of a transitional or trial strike between the initial and final reform. George E. Bates privately published the first example of this rare type in his 1981 A Byzantine coin collection, of which it is number 18. Simon Bendall republished this same specimen in the December 2000 issue (p. 307) of the “Spink Numismatic Circular” in his short article, “The First Reformed Follis of Anastasius I”. Although Hahn did not include this unique coin in the corpus of his Money of the Incipient Byzantine Empire, he did mention it in Footnote 90: “The Bates collection (no. 18) contained a specimen which seems to be a survivor of an experimental issue showing the first reform type MIBE 22 (i. e., without privy marks or officina letter) but having the size of 30 mm. and the weight of 16.57 grams….; it might indicate that even in 498 there was at first the intention to strike full weight coins.” 5 years ago I was able to acquire a second example of this type; it is the second coin from the left below and I have flanked it with examples of the initial and subsequent reform coins to show its simple unadorned reverse type of the first reform, but having the larger size of the second reform of 512.

Its description is: Follis, Constantinople, 498 (?). 17.27 gr. 32 mm. Hr. 6. Not in Sear, Hahn, DO, BNP, etc.

 

Wow @Voulgaroktonou , your post is a prime example of what an awesome place this forum is. You can't buy that kind of knowledge, a treasure of experience accumulated by painstaking research over the years available to us by a simple click of a button. We need a standing ovation smilie . Also I feel like a fool thinking I was 'done' with Anastasius by getting a follis and a half-follis. Your collection shows that the collecting possibilities are endless, and we hardly even touched the gold ones. I wonder if the coins of the various reforms were simultaneously in circulation. It must have been quite confusing for people to have same denominations of various weights in their pockets.

I can't possibly understand why they didn't like those gorgeous coins. Was that conclusion reached by scholars simply because they are scarce? Maybe they were special commemorative editions or something? Or maybe people liked them so much that they started collecting them instead of spending them, so the state decided to drop them!

 

Beautiful coins Voulgaroktonou! Especially the Constantinopolis seated and those transitional issues.

I have always been very puzzled by the 512 reform.

The reform of 498 makes perfect sense. Look for example at the cost per nummus of your four specimens:
Your 8.50 g follis of 40 nummi yields 0.21 g/nummus.
The 1/2 follis of 20 nummi at 3.76 g of yields 0.19 g/nummus.
The deca of 1.51 g yields 0.15 g/nummus.
All of these are way under the nummus standard of the time (approx 0.84 g), or in fact any 5th century nummus standard. Thus they were a highly profitable option and analogous with the introduction early third century antoninianus - 2 denarii for the cost of 1 1/2.

But then in 512 the weight of each denomination is doubled. Thus the State's costs are doubled. Again, just looking at your examples:
Follis of 0.45 g/nummus.
Half-follis of 0.45 g/nummus.
Deca of 0.42 g/nummus.
Penta of 0.38 g/nummus.

So Anastasius doubled his cost to make coinage vis-a-vis the previous 14 years - which is actually a fairly long time in an economy. It does still represent a good savings compared to the pre-498 standard, but still, a 100% increase in costs is hard to explain.

I had the chance to raise this with Dr. Hahn some years ago but never really found a satisfactory explanation.

SC

 

Dear Only a Poor Man, You are most kind; we are ALL lucky to have so many knowledgeablepeople on Cointalk who are willing to share their experiences. I learn something new every time I sign on. I don’t know whether the second reform in 512 made the coins of the initial reform obsolete, or whether it was common knowledge that 2 lighter folles were equal to one “new” one, etc.

Nor do I know how to account for their rarity today. Quite a few of the ones that have come down to us are holed. A follis of the type that appeared in Triton XIX, lot 688 was holed. My half follis is holed, as was the second specimen of the half follis that was in the Fleischmann Collection and is now in DO. In fact, when I published my coin and the Fleischmann coin in my little Celator article from April 1999, I whimsically alluded to their both being pierced by the title, “A Pair of holed rarities”. This suggests that they MAY have been popular, being pierced and worn as a pendant or talisman.

But earlier today, the exact opposite occurred to me, when I thought of the passage of John of Ephesus (Ecclesiastical History III.3.15). John implies a negative public reception of the seated Constantinople on the solidi of Justin II, contrasting this type with the cross on steps introduced by his successor Tiberius Constantine: “And further he also [Tiberius Constantine] made a public profession of being a Christian; for Justin had introduced in the coinage of his darics [solidi] a female figure, which was generally compared to Venus, and this Tiberius discontinued, and had a cross struck upon the reverse of his coins: and this act, as he himself said, was dictated to him in a vision.” But Justin’s solidi are plentiful today, so this fact detracts from that argument….

 

Dear otlichnik, thank you for breaking down the relative costs per nummus. This is fascinating!

 

Well, another Anastasius half-follis arrived today! Why did I get another one you may ask? It is because I suspect that it is from the second coin reform of Anastasius while the original one from this thread was from the first reform.



The seller provided the date range of 507 to 512, but according the weight differences between the two reforms I would expect it to be post 512. What do you think? Here are the two coins side by side:



The new coin is 10 millimetres wider and more than double the weight. Am I right to think that it should be post 512? I bet that these coins circulated simultaneously at some point. It must have been a bit of a headache and somewhat confusing having these two in your pocket. Especially if you were going shopping at night-time!

 

Here's a photo of a small and large follis of Anastasius - I have since upgraded, but these are the only comparison photos I had. The size is very apparent:



There are some follis variations for Anastasius - the dots-above-star type was apparently only issued at the very end of his reign. I have two of them, both cruddy in different ways. These are large-module types:





SB 21; MIB 28b.

Notes: "According to Hahn, at the beginning of the last lustrum of Anastasius' reign (September 517), dots were added to all new cut coins. Since Anastasius died 10 months later (July 518), these coins are somewhat scarce."
CT - Severus Alexander, Dec. 2017

"Only the 5th officina is recorded for this type with the M flanked...by a star with pellet above and below." FORVM

 

OK here is mine:

Anastasius I AD 491-518. Constantinople Follis Æ 38mm., 17,93g. DN ANASTA-SIVS P P AVG; diademed, draped, and cuirassed bust right / Large M; cross above, stars flanking; E below M, CON in exergue. Very fine DOC I 23j:MIB I 27; SB19
This photo doesn't do it justice.