Why is coinage from Anastasius considered to be the "beginning"?

As most of you know after the Roman Empire was divided in two administrations the western part dwinled imediately while the eastern part (Byzantine Empire) continued for 1000 years or so.

Among coin collectors it is appearently accepted that during the reign of Anastasius (491-518) it was the beginning of a distinct "byzantine coinge".

But that makes not much sense if you ask me. Because I do not see anything specific during the reign of Anastasius. Yes, he did introduce a new monetary system, but many others emperors before and after Anastasius also had monetary reform.

Take a look her where I will describe the evolution of the coinage of the eastern part of Roman Empire:


Here we have a coin of Arcadius (383- alone:395-408), and as you see it is not much different from the coins during the reign of Diolectian (286-305). They are the same: Bust looking to right, and with the usual "Dominos Noster...", and that was all started by Diolectian.





Then during the reign of Anastasius (491-518), he introduced a new system, the big "M" implying a denomination. We have M (40), K (20), I(10) and E(5). Nothing different from Arcadius. The only difference is the reverse with M.







That "M" continued until Theophilus (829-842) decided to remove the "M" and instead prised himself:






Later during the reign of John I Tzimisces (969-976) he decided to remove the portrait of emperor on the obverse and instead let the image of Christ appear. That coin here was during the reign of Basil II (976-1025):






Somehow 100 years later or so, one emperor decided to remove the text on reverse and instead putted an image of emperors/empress:






Later during the reign of Alexios I Komnenos (1081-1118) he introduced a completly new monetary reform, and among other he also made the coins concave:


And that concave coins with a portrait of Christ on obverse and emperor on reverse continued until the demise of the Byzantine Empire.






Now I want to ask: How can Anastasius' monetary reform be "the beginning" of a specific "byzantine coinage"? I would say that the reign of Diolectian (286-305) could be just as a good bet as Anastasius. Even the reign of Arcadius (383- alone:395-408) would be also a good starting point for the coinage of Byzantine.

By the way the monetary reform of Anastasius was no more "revolutonary" than the reform of Diolectian. It was neither more "revolutionary" than when Leo III's (717-741) monetary reform when he introduced milearesion. Or Alexios I Komnenos (1081-1118) when he introduced a completly new denomination system.

Why are Anastasius' coins considered to be the beginning of a specific "byzantine coinage"? Why not Diolectian, Leo III or Alexios I Komnenos?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

You answered your own question "he did introduce a new monetary system". This is a convenient reign for coin collectors to begin the Byzantine Era, however, it is Constantine the Great who began the Byzantine Era when he declared the new capital of the Roman empire to be Constantinople .

 

Diolectian (286-305), Anastasius (491-518), Leo III's (717-741) and Alexios I Komnenos (1081-1118) also all introduced monetary reform.

So why pick Anastasius out of the four?

 

The obvious answer (which tends to be the only one I know) is that Anastasius's monetary reform was the first after the fall of the Roman Empire in the West, which finally disappeared in 476. The coins with the large Ms on the back are therefore distinctively Byzantine.

Diocletian wasn't a 'Byzantine' emperor, he was emperor of the whole Roman Empire, so his coin reform was seen in the West as much as the East. The Western Empire didn't dwindle immediately - it was still there in the early 400s, with coins struck there by Arcadius (Arles, Milan, Rome, Trier) like your example.

Honorius Siliqua, 407-408

Rome. Silver, 1g (RIC X 1267). Found Cambridgeshire.

Nice coins and write up, by the way.

 

Anastasius is the successor of Romulus Augustulus (476-507AD) who was removed by Odacer, a german tribesman. He let Romulus escape to Constantinople.
From then on The west roman empire ceased to exsist. Odacer became King of Italy.



Romulus Augustulus last emperor of the West Roman Empire (not my coin)

 

The reigns of Anastasius and the Justinian dynasty do mark a shift away from Late Roman coinage in terms of artistic style and imagery.

During the 6th Century, the traditional pagan Roman imagery of deities disappeared on the coinage, to be replaced by Christian designs. The gold Solidus of Justin II was the last time traditional pagan imagery was on a Roman coin, as it depicts the goddesses Victoria and Constantinopolis. The Roman Victoria was first replaced by the Christian angel during the reign of Justinian on his solidii. Emperor Tiberius II took it a step further by issuing solidii that depict a cross potent on steps. The cross potent on steps reverse type would be a common motif on Byzantine coins until the Macedonian dynasty.

The Follis of Anstastius represented an drastic artistic shift away from Roman coinage stylistically. Anastasius’s bust on his Follis display the crude, flat, linear portraiture that is characteristic of Byzantine coinage. Late Roman Imperial coins of earlier rulers such as Theodosius II tend to have more refined, higher relief, sculpted busts.

 

Like others have said, many things makes the case easy. One, coinage reform after the fall of the west. Two, stylistic differences occuring. Three, look at the coin introduced. It did not have XL, it had M. The empire had so much that it was now a greek empire, not a latin one. Those changes occurred gradually throughout the fifth century, so much so by the time of coinage reform the empire was unrecognizable, hence a new name.

 

As far as the coinage of Anastasius I goes, there is indeed no break in continuity with the coinage of the previous century – insofar as the gold and silver goes. The solidus and its fractions continued to be issued, and the silver continued to be struck, but in the reduced rate as had obtained for much of the 5th century (as opposed to the large numbers of siliquae struck in the 4th century). But in order to appreciate the innovation of Anastasius and his successors, one must look at the base metal coinage of the 5th century. Apart from the sporadic “AE 2” coinage struck under Theodosius II onwards in Constantinople, but intended for Cherson, the small change of the 5th century consisted of tiny coins often under 10 mm. in diameter and weighing less than a gram. These are referred to as “nummi”, AE 4s, or as we Classics graduate students in the 1970s called them, “flattened BBs”. They are often too small to have any obverse inscription, and usually must be attributed by the imperial monogram on the reverse. Typical examples of these are the first 5 coins below, all of Zeno. (The first coin has an unusual thickness of ca. 4 mm. The last coin on the lower right, also of Zeno, has a figural reverse, but I will not discuss it here.)


As is well known, the Anastasian 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. This innovation, although subject to a gradual reduction of weight, continued through the 6th c., although the 7th c. witnessed the extreme decline of weight of the follis, with a gradual corresponding disappearance of the smaller denominations. By the reign of Theophilos, 829-42, the nummus had long ceased to be struck, the concept of a 40 nummus coin was meaningless, and the mark of value was replaced by an inscription in several lines.
Below are some examples of the various denominations as established by Anastasius. 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.


Imagine the effect his reformed coinage would have had upon a populace used to those tiny nummi that would have had to circulate in bags!