Jump to content

Alexius III Angelus-Comnenus new unusual trachy.


Simon
 Share

Recommended Posts

One of the most common but most confusing trachea. Alexius III Angelus-Comnenus  1195-1203 AD . Even though David Sear listed only three types, Dumbarton Oakes IV lists 10 variations of these coins. 

This one that arrived during my travels, was acquired from Roma. The coin itself does not seem to be silver coated but a silver coin. This is very unusual because the denomination above this, was the Electrum Aspron Trachy, completely different design and it was so debased in some cases it did not contain any gold. I have never seen a silvered billion trachy of Alexius III and I could easily confuse this billion trachy with his Electrum Aspron Trachy. 

2012.jpg.1d946cb8ddc435a065245fd143991b61.jpg

Alexius III Angelus-Comnenus BI Aspron Trachy. Constantinople, AD 1195-1197. [+KЄPO] HΘЄI, Facing bust of Christ Emmanuel; [IC]-XC across upper fields / Blundered legend, Alexius and St. Constantine standing facing, each holding labarum and a globus cruciger between them. DOC 3d; Sear 2011. 4.05g, 25mm, 6h.

Near Extremely Fine.

From the Vitangelo Collection, collector's tickets included.  (This coin should have been attributed SBCV-2012)

 

Here is a variation from Nomo, it is EF but SBCV-2011

2011.jpg.02e36ae90f11a71cd158a3db758320bc.jpg

Another from a group lot purchased a few years back. ( SBCV-2012)

2012a.jpg.2391fa11e2537d6222c47f42c49379fd.jpg

 

And one of my favorites, Green Patina.  (

2011a.jpg.ffa324b91f9f936c56c963bf6975095f.jpg

 

I think the new silver coin is real, no signs of modern silvering to me. no bubles or such. However, if anyone has doubts, please speak up. AND of course, feel free to show off your trachea. 

  • Like 14
  • Smile 1
  • Mind blown 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A most interesting coin. 

Its general appearance is very similar to the trachy of Theodore Mangaphas (probably from 1188-9) which is shown below and discussed here:

A Silvered Trachy of Theodore Mangaphas? (glebecoins.org)

As you will note in the write-up the key question is how real is the silver coating - i.e, is it separately applied or just the result of pickling? In the case of the Mangaphas coin one thing at least seems certain, namely that the coating is not recent. 

Ross G.

 

2035749220_Phil.-ThMang.-I-7b-4.19g-BBS158-480.jpg.52f5e73658314c72e5091916fb9b1b9f.jpg

Edited by Glebe
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the comment Ross, this Alexius III looks legit to me but out of place for the series. Do you think I am missing something here? In other words do you think the silvering is modern? The weird thing is I think it is silver not just coated. His average was under 2% silver but one was recorded at 4.8% (Doc Notes.)

For others unfamiliar with the debasement that Alexius III did to his coinage, here are two Electrum Aspron trachea, SBCV 2009 and 2010. Very little gold tome at all. Some examples recorded had no silver. 

b1.jpg.7002b05995401059d99ca8efe13c0be2.jpg

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Glebe said:

A most interesting coin. 

Its general appearance is very similar to the trachy of Theodore Mangaphas (probably from 1188-9) which is shown below and discussed here:

A Silvered Trachy of Theodore Mangaphas? (glebecoins.org)

As you will note in the write-up the key question is how real is the silver coating - i.e, is it separately applied or just the result of pickling? In the case of the Mangaphas coin one thing at least seems certain, namely that the coating is not recent. 

Ross G.

 

2035749220_Phil.-ThMang.-I-7b-4.19g-BBS158-480.jpg.52f5e73658314c72e5091916fb9b1b9f.jpg

I had not seen that coin from you before, a very nice find, congratulations. I have never seen a silvered coin from Isaac Comnenus of Cyprus, the other usurper but DOC does mention his tetartera cointained silver. 

In my collection I do have a partial silvered Isaac II , by description I have always thought it was a faithful imitation ( or Bulgarian copy) 

b2.jpg.40e69c599ee0220c65641951b9af8f8c.jpg

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Simon said:

One of the most common but most confusing trachea. Alexius III Angelus-Comnenus  1195-1203 AD . Even though David Sear listed only three types, Dumbarton Oakes IV lists 10 variations of these coins. 

This one that arrived during my travels, was acquired from Roma. The coin itself does not seem to be silver coated but a silver coin. This is very unusual because the denomination above this, was the Electrum Aspron Trachy, completely different design and it was so debased in some cases it did not contain any gold. I have never seen a silvered billion trachy of Alexius III and I could easily confuse this billion trachy with his Electrum Aspron Trachy. 

2012.jpg.1d946cb8ddc435a065245fd143991b61.jpg

Alexius III Angelus-Comnenus BI Aspron Trachy. Constantinople, AD 1195-1197. [+KЄPO] HΘЄI, Facing bust of Christ Emmanuel; [IC]-XC across upper fields / Blundered legend, Alexius and St. Constantine standing facing, each holding labarum and a globus cruciger between them. DOC 3d; Sear 2011. 4.05g, 25mm, 6h.

Near Extremely Fine.

From the Vitangelo Collection, collector's tickets included.  (This coin should have been attributed SBCV-2012)

 

Here is a variation from Nomo, it is EF but SBCV-2011

2011.jpg.02e36ae90f11a71cd158a3db758320bc.jpg

Another from a group lot purchased a few years back. ( SBCV-2012)

2012a.jpg.2391fa11e2537d6222c47f42c49379fd.jpg

 

And one of my favorites, Green Patina.  (

2011a.jpg.ffa324b91f9f936c56c963bf6975095f.jpg

 

I think the new silver coin is real, no signs of modern silvering to me. no bubles or such. However, if anyone has doubts, please speak up. AND of course, feel free to show off your trachea. 

Simon, I tend to agree with Glebe, that the coin is "pickled billon" with an unusual amount of silver on the surface. The only way to be sure what the composition is would be to give it an accurate specific gravity test 😉. Some of the Diocletian era nummi have retained a lot of silver on the surface despite being only 4-5% silver, like the coin pictured below. 819323711_4882929-006GaleriusasCaesar.jpg.633cf575a4cb0fa11aac09d491809c31.jpg

Galerius as Caesar, AD 296-305. Billon Nummus: 9.07 gm, 27 mm, 6 h. Cyzicus Mint.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On reflection I have to doubt that pickling can account for the silvering on the two coins in question here.

The silver content of the 12th C. billon trachies is very low and in my experience chemical cleaning of these types does not bring up any significant silvering.

I'm also wondering whether the silvered Mangaphas coin could maybe date from his second reign in 1204-5, which could perhaps tie in with Simon's Alexius III coin. I.e, in 1204-5 some billon trachies were being coated with a relatively thick layer of silver for some reason.

Ross G.

P.S.  And the Isaac II coin is clearly a nice example of the standard silver coating from Isaac's time.

Edited by Glebe
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/17/2022 at 5:56 PM, Glebe said:

On reflection I have to doubt that pickling can account for the silvering on the two coins in question here.

The silver content of the 12th C. billon trachies is very low and in my experience chemical cleaning of these types does not bring up any significant silvering.

I'm also wondering whether the silvered Mangaphas coin could maybe date from his second reign in 1204-5, which could perhaps tie in with Simon's Alexius III coin. I.e, in 1204-5 some billon trachies were being coated with a relatively thick layer of silver for some reason.

Ross G.

P.S.  And the Isaac II coin is clearly a nice example of the standard silver coating from Isaac's time.

Interesting theory. I would imagine the trachy style would have changed within that time frame, were the AE coins issued first reign and the “AR” issued second. 


As for mangaphas, im neither totally convinced these coins are his nor that if they were, they can ever be dated to a specific reign without find evidence.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I don't think that there is a doubt Theodore Mancaphas   minted coinage. That is documented by Nicetas who wrote the history of Theodore Mancaphas , the author was also present at the battle of Adramyttiurn in where Theodore was defeated. In DOC IV Hendy goes into complete detail almost eliminating the other contenders for the minter of this coinage. The first example was found in 1970 but in DOC IV they made mention Nicetas said it was a silver coin and that could have translated as silver or Electrum.

Now I did find this article on academia, it was in Russian, so I used the translator, for the preview, if translated correctly they have both an Electrum and Billion aspron trachy, I had never seen an electrum coin of his nor did the article have any plates. 

(99+) Philadelphia Darphanesi̇nden Nadi̇r Bi̇r Si̇kke: Theodoros Mankaphas Baskisi Bakir Trakhy | ceren unal - Academia.edu

"The copper trachy coin included in the Tunay Demran Collection is a rare find that was issued by Theodoros Mancaphas of Philadelphia after he revolted against the Byzantine Emperor in Constantinople to proclaim himself emperor. Theodoros Mancaphas minted his own coinage and engraved his name on it to maintain his official governance in the region, and he received military support from Philadelphia and its surroundings, which indicates the chaos in Western Anatolia and the weakness of the empire's authority in the late 12th and early 13th centuries. In this period, the Byzantine Empire was economically and politically weakened, and uprisings and riots in various regions foreshadowed the demolition of the Empire by the Fourth Crusade. Electron and billon aspron trachy coins attributed to Theodoros Mancaphas are very important since they are rare finds and their iconography and legend forms differ from those of Byzantine coinage. Numismatists have different views on these electron and billon coins, which emerged under the political, economic and social conditions of the late 12th and early 13th centuries and are attributed to Theodoros Mancaphas, the rebel. In the extant studies, these coins were classified in accordance with two different views and various opinions. In our study, numismatists' opinions on the ruler to whom these coins should be attributed will be examined, and their circulation by Theodoros Mancaphas for a while will be discussed and accompanied with this rare coin find-whose copper version has yet to be published- in the Tunay Demran Collection."

As you pointed out @thetrachyenjoyer site finds are not helping the attribution, in Metcalfs Coinage of South Easter Europe he mentions the coins were found in Asia minor but the Balkans as well. 

It would be interesting to find out more on the Electrum version and how it differed from the billion version.  

Perhaps Ross @Glebe you coin is electrum, after all it was only a couple of carrots being used on the Alexius III coinage (Same time period) as seen earlier in the post in some of his el aspron trachea no gold at all was detected.  

Edited by Simon
half thought
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Simon. 

I seriously doubt that my coin is electrum - it seems to be what it seems to be, i.e, a silver coated "billon" coin.

It also seems that the so-called electrum example in the Barber institute (the coin quoted by Hendy in DOC IV) is not actually electrum (Bendall, N. Circ. 2002, p.187), as noted in my article.

The whole question of the Mangaphas types (there are in fact two billon versions - Gr. 1126 & 1127) is discussed in detail in CLBC Chapter IX, without coming to a definitive conclusion.

Ross G.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Good Morning Ross {Here), I normally do not take CLBC too seriously because Val did not read DOC IV but something tells me Robert Watcher wrote that chapter (I see your article is mentioned.), I wish they had noted on the source of 50 different dies noted. Thats a huge number for such a scarce coin. I had hoped the electrum coin was real but Bendall observation is enough for me to exclude it. The contemporary documents that Mancaphas created silver coins, that is in his favor, does any such documents exist for the other contenders? 

 I think David Michael Metcalf said it best, in fact it is one of my favorite quotes in all Numismatic literature.

"Archeological Evidence cannot lie, because it cannot talk. Only written sources preserve the very words and thoughts of another age, and language offers incomparably richer testimony than do the materials remains."

As for the false electrum here is a coin that I have always meant to get tested, its color is off and I always curious if it was a different metal than what was listed. This is my idea of what Simon Bendall found examining the Barber coin. 

a3.jpg.504b1332d621f117ccb57ca463771f4f.jpg

 

 

Edited by Simon
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t really think the evidence is at all conclusive 

ΘΔΡ ΒΜ

Is but one possible reading of the legend and not all definitive. This series is far from being properly attributed and most likely never will. Theodore Mangaphas is but one plausible theory 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is some reason to keep the Branas theory in mind -- it seems many such coins are still under the radar on account of their condition and mainly the obverse that is usually almost flat. Oberlander-Tarnoveanu favors this attribution for instance and notes some possible specimens from Severin based on the general appearance (material, flan size, the high degree of convexity/concavity of the strike) despite being otherwise impossible to clearly pin down. Another more recent spec (attributed to Branas by the authors) is recorded by Custurea and Talmatchi in a hoard from the Danube Delta general area (Isaccea II), together with "Bulgarian imitations" of which some clipped. I have seen another spec offered on ebay from Bulgaria, very likely found in Bulgaria. This is not by far a clear cut, as far as I understand from Oberlander-Tarnoveanu's reasoning their presence in trade on the Danube and certainly in Bulgaria proper and on the Black Sea shore would indicate (although circumstantially) a "Bulgarian" or "Thracian" origin.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, seth77 said:

There is some reason to keep the Branas theory in mind -- it seems many such coins are still under the radar on account of their condition and mainly the obverse that is usually almost flat. Oberlander-Tarnoveanu favors this attribution for instance and notes some possible specimens from Severin based on the general appearance (material, flan size, the high degree of convexity/concavity of the strike) despite being otherwise impossible to clearly pin down. Another more recent spec (attributed to Branas by the authors) is recorded by Custurea and Talmatchi in a hoard from the Danube Delta general area (Isaccea II), together with "Bulgarian imitations" of which some clipped. I have seen another spec offered on ebay from Bulgaria, very likely found in Bulgaria. This is not by far a clear cut, as far as I understand from Oberlander-Tarnoveanu's reasoning their presence in trade on the Danube and certainly in Bulgaria proper and on the Black Sea shore would indicate (although circumstantially) a "Bulgarian" or "Thracian" origin.

I note that the Isaccea II hoard as listed by Custurea & Talmatchi doesn't include any Bulgarian imitations (as such) - the latest coins included seem to be official issues of Alexius III, which predate Branas (1205-6?). Are the Bulgarian types mentioned elsewhere?

This hoard is also recorded in Jordanov as Isaccea VI (Hoard 83), with no mention of any Bulgarian types. For some reason this hoard is not mentioned in Custurea & Talmatchi, although they do reference other Isaccea hoards included in Jordanov.

Ross G.

Edited by Glebe
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both Oberlander-Tarnoveanu and Custurea&Talmatchi note the regular Byzantine 'official' coins (Oberlander 651 specs in RESEE 1992 p. 49 and C&T 660 specs in 'Repertoire of hoards...' 2011 p. 230 instead of the 784 coins recovered). C&T note however another 60 specs clipped (p. 230). Oberlander dates the hoard initially (1992) to 1195-1203, but returns on both the dating (presumably on the account of the other non-descript material) and on the attribution of the 1 trachy to Branas later on in his 'Money and society...' work, dating the whole hoard to 1206-1210. In 2011 C&T accept the revisement and note the trachy in question to Branas. Interestingly RESEE p. 50 gives another hoard Isaccea VIII of ca. 1244 to 1274 to 1350 specs, with yet another spec from the type in question, where Oberlander ponders between Mankaphas and Branas. Again, just the 'official' coinage is accounted for, no further notes. Apparently between 1992 and 2003 when 'Money and society...' was published Oberlander-Tarnoveanu settled on the Branas attribution, as noted on p. 166 (if I am not mistaken, I don't have that book at hand now, just using my older notes). Custurea&Talmatchi use that attribution at face value in 2011.

Now regarding the non-descript material in all these hoards, I have initially done some hypothesizing regarding what it is -- both from the note regarding the clipping from C&T and the correction added later about the dating of Isaccea II to 1206-1210, dates corresponding to 'Latin imitations' (at least types A to perhaps C or D?) and 'Bulgarian imitations' -- and noted for myself "Isaccea II on the other hand consists mainly of pre-1204 Byzantine issues, although with some 60 clipped ("Bulgarian" imitations?) from the 1195-1210/15 period. An attribution to Adrianopole under Branas of this type would thus be somewhat in tune with the rest of the material, connecting the earlier pre 1204 material to (perhaps) the post 1204 "Bulgarian" imitations." 

For further reference, the EBPB citation refers to Etudes Byzantines et post-Byzantines III, 1997 where Oberlander-Tarnoveanu returns to Isaccea II with some explanations. Unlike his 'Money and society...' work that is in Romanian, his English language papers are more accessible. Here at p. 116 is a note regarding the actual composition of the hoard consisting also of 'Bulgarian anonymous imitative issues' and at p. 117 the author firmly attributes the 1 specimen attested to Branas at Adrianople. There's also another mention of a similar trachy from Silistra II p. 118.

I have managed to buy the Custurea&Talmatchi book in 2018 for less than 8EUR.

IMG_20220721_124539.jpg.f331a7bb06a323307722aaee9d11812a.jpg

Edited by seth77
added links to cited literature, added another paragraph regarding EBPB
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Interesting and good conversation but I doubt if anyone will have changed their mind from the data presented.  This puzzle starts with a dozen pieces from a London coin dealer in 1967 and since then the coins have been attributed to several people. 

DOC IV (1999) puts the issue between Mancaphas and Branas (Branas became a contender in 1992.), Michael Hendy eliminates Branas because of the date of the hoard of Alexius III official issues and the fact that hoard was dated before the Latins put Branas in charge of defending the city of Adrianpole in 1206. Hendy also notes Branas was not in a position to create coins politically.  Maybe Hendy was wrong, who knows. 

Since we no longer have a consensus on when the Bulgarian imitations (Now called faithful imitations) were actually created then the hoard data is not helpful, also we do not know who started clipping the coins, Alexius III or later by the Latin occupiers. Another problem, were the coins properly attributed as official issues or faithful copies? So that does not help with any conclusive hoard data.

My only factual reason to go with Manachapas is because it was written in contemporary documents, he issued coinage. As I asked above is there any written evidence to date that Branas issued coinage? Your replies were no. So if reattribute this to Branas what coinage do we attribute to Manachapas? 

As for those unfamiliar with the coin, it is interesting and stands out because it is deeply concaved, almost like it was issues flat and a device was used to concave it. I owned one many years ago and for that reason alone it stood out.  I also sold it years ago and it is now a sale I regret but I have a really nice Alexius III silver coin now that will not leave my collection. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Simon
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@catadc -- thank you for your offer, I am actually ok with Romanian, as I am pretty much ok with most European languages, perhaps excepting Scandinavian and Fino-Ugric. I am actually impressed by the degree of digitalization that Romanian research institutions implemented for their periodicals. Pontica is online, same with EBPB, Peuce, Revue des Etudes Sud-Est Europeennes etc.

@Simon -- I am not pleading for the Branas theory. I am saying that it has some merits and some very involved researchers favor it. All three authors that I have cited are well respected in their field internationally. Oberlander-Tarnoveanu has dedicated a lot of study to late Byzantine and 'Latin' coinage and he's recognized at least at an European level. I admit I would like for the Branas theory to be proven right (eventually) just because it raises such interesting prospects for 'feudalism' and subsidiarity in an Eastern Byzantine context. But until that happens, I have no dog in this fight, I just want all positions to be fairly represented. Also, I have said many times on CT, local researchers should be followed more closely. Often they develop insights that more famous Western researchers lack -- and that is not detracting from the likes of Hendy, Grierson, Metcalf etc. It's just how the world evolves -- things that were for instance unknown by Pick and Regling in AMNG are common knowledge by the time Nubar Hampartumian (ad)noted the Histria III volume with local finds from Istros of Istros coinage. This is just the nature of how things go. And the continuous presence of the trachy in question on the Danube trade, from Severin to Dristra to the Danube Delta is something to be considered, alongside other things.

Edited by seth77
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2022 at 8:26 PM, seth77 said:

Both Oberlander-Tarnoveanu and Custurea&Talmatchi note the regular Byzantine 'official' coins (Oberlander 651 specs in RESEE 1992 p. 49 and C&T 660 specs in 'Repertoire of hoards...' 2011 p. 230 instead of the 784 coins recovered). C&T note however another 60 specs clipped (p. 230). Oberlander dates the hoard initially (1992) to 1195-1203, but returns on both the dating (presumably on the account of the other non-descript material) and on the attribution of the 1 trachy to Branas later on in his 'Money and society...' work, dating the whole hoard to 1206-1210. In 2011 C&T accept the revisement and note the trachy in question to Branas. Interestingly RESEE p. 50 gives another hoard Isaccea VIII of ca. 1244 to 1274 to 1350 specs, with yet another spec from the type in question, where Oberlander ponders between Mankaphas and Branas. Again, just the 'official' coinage is accounted for, no further notes. Apparently between 1992 and 2003 when 'Money and society...' was published Oberlander-Tarnoveanu settled on the Branas attribution, as noted on p. 166 (if I am not mistaken, I don't have that book at hand now, just using my older notes). Custurea&Talmatchi use that attribution at face value in 2011.

Now regarding the non-descript material in all these hoards, I have initially done some hypothesizing regarding what it is -- both from the note regarding the clipping from C&T and the correction added later about the dating of Isaccea II to 1206-1210, dates corresponding to 'Latin imitations' (at least types A to perhaps C or D?) and 'Bulgarian imitations' -- and noted for myself "Isaccea II on the other hand consists mainly of pre-1204 Byzantine issues, although with some 60 clipped ("Bulgarian" imitations?) from the 1195-1210/15 period. An attribution to Adrianopole under Branas of this type would thus be somewhat in tune with the rest of the material, connecting the earlier pre 1204 material to (perhaps) the post 1204 "Bulgarian" imitations." 

For further reference, the EBPB citation refers to Etudes Byzantines et post-Byzantines III, 1997 where Oberlander-Tarnoveanu returns to Isaccea II with some explanations. Unlike his 'Money and society...' work that is in Romanian, his English language papers are more accessible. Here at p. 116 is a note regarding the actual composition of the hoard consisting also of 'Bulgarian anonymous imitative issues' and at p. 117 the author firmly attributes the 1 specimen attested to Branas at Adrianople. There's also another mention of a similar trachy from Silistra II p. 118.

I have managed to buy the Custurea&Talmatchi book in 2018 for less than 8EUR.

IMG_20220721_124539.jpg.f331a7bb06a323307722aaee9d11812a.jpg

Yes, there were apparently 124 undescribed examples in Isaccea II/VII (120 on Jordanov’s figures), including it would seem the 60 “clipped” types mentioned by C. & T. These last are odd as they would presumably have to date from after c.1220 (when clipping started), so there should be plenty of Latin and Nicaean types in the hoard, but they don’t get a mention. This hoard obviously needs re-examination to sort out what’s going on (but see now next post - ed.).

Actually the really important hoard here is Stara Zagora II (Veroia), hoard 168 in Jordanov.

This hoard included one example of Mangaphas in a total of 699 identified coins (plus 61 unidentified), with the latest coins being Isaac II types, i.e, there are no recorded Alexius III’s, official or imitative, and no post-1204 Latin or Nicaean types.

So unless you assume that there are Alexius III types (both official and imitative) among the 61 unidentified coins it’s obviously hard to reconcile Branas with this hoard.

But wait, there’s more - compounding the problem of Stara Zagora is Oberland’s similar Silistra II hoard (= Jordanov hoard 161, Silistra I).

This is a large hoard of 2500 coins with 1 example of the Mangaphas type, terminating (almost) with 996 Isaac II issues, but there are also 3 examples listed as Alexius III (and no listed Bulgarian imitative types).

Evidently the almost total lack of types after Isaac II in this large hoard means that it must date from very early in Alexius III’s reign, and so it has to predate Branas by some time.

Ross G.

Edited by Glebe
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Oberlander’s republication of Isaccea II does (more or less) clear up the situation.

The clipped coins in the hoard are evidently examples of the well-known “neatly clipped” imperial types from the late 12th cent. (not the later Latin types), and at the same time the “small” versions of the imperial types from Manuel I to Alexius III in the hoard are, as Oberlander says, very likely “Bulgarian” imitatives, dating from the 1st decade of the 13th cent.

So far so good, but the trouble is of course that this scenario is consistent with both Mangaphas in 1188-9, and Branas in 1205-6, with the latter squeezing in (just) before the first Latin and Nicaean issues appear on the scene.

Ross G.

P.S.  I must add though that it would seem more than a little odd that Branas got to issue coins before his overlords in Constantinople did (if that is indeed what happened). Did he perhaps jump the gun?

Edited by Glebe
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This revisement in dating the material also accounts for the second reign of Mankaphas in 1205. If Branas (as O, C&T note), Oberlander puts a date on it to ca. 1206-8. If Stara Zagora II has been treated similarly to the Issaccea and Silistra hoards with notes regarding just the 'official' (and I dare say easily attributable) coins then it is likely that the rest of the material would be similar to the hoards mentioned by Oberlander and Custurea&Talmatchi. Of course, all this adds a new instance of 'what ifs' to the problem, without actually solving anything.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Gentlemen, you are both in my consideration, experts on 13th plus century coinage, I have always valued the opinions of you both.  I think the conclusion to this coin is that we have a more likely answer but not conclusive. 

@seth77 I do agree in your previous statement about the authors writing from the lands these coins are from, the problem is they are less known, rarely in English and difficult books to find. I use 2 different sets of books from Konstantine Duchov, one I cannot read because it is not in English, the other is a two set that is in English but starts in 1259, coins found in Bulgarian lands. Both books have been extremely helpful. Yesterday I purchased a small work from Oberlander-Tarnoveanu, based on your recommendation, I found it on Abe books from a reseller in Oregan. I could find no other works; it is regarding a 12th century hoard. 

@Glebe Questions for you, the last I read was that the clipping of coins was done at the end on Alexius III OR by Alexius IV and Isaac II 2nd reign, OR during the Latin rule. Who are you citing for such a precise time of clipping?  A second clipping after 1220? Again, I was unfamiliar with that event, what is the source and what coins were affected?

As of right I do not believe that Bulgarian Imitations (Faithful imitations.) were minted in Bulgaria, the latest literature I have read is Julian Bakers book, he mentions the theory they were minted by Alexius IV to pay the debt owed to the crusaders allowing him and his father to rule. I have also read the Latins created them at the same time as the Latin imitations. Also the thought they were coinage military minted from a traveling mint(Not likely because the sequence starts with Manuel?).  Another question we will not get an answer to until we find a contemporary history of that coinage.  His books by the way are excellent but I find some of his conclusions to be to based on thin ice. He cites Metcalf on most of his controversial findings and seems to have a disliking to Hendy. He was though a student of D.M. Metcalf so his bias is understandable. 

 

 

Edited by Simon
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am nowhere near @Glebe's knowledge and insight though. In fact part of what I know (or think I know) and understand regarding the Latin Empire and Greek successor states after 1204 and then Palaiologan coinage, I owe to his wonderfully synthetic site and his awesome work sequencing hoards to help us better understand both the chronology and the typologies used by different rulers (and/or polities) at different times post 1204. When I started my interest in this niche area of numismatics in 2018 it was his site that gave me the frame to work with. And as I have advanced in the study, I have returned there again and again because many of his notes were so advanced that I could not readily understand them as a newbie. In my notes, I often refer to his work and I have sometimes come to similar conclusions by myself, which just goes further to show how clear and sound his analysis in this field is.

I don't think that we disagree too much on this either. My replies with the references to Oberlander and Custurea&Talmatchi were in no way me building an argument against his, I was just answering to a question and trying to be helpful as much as I could. It's just that I am not that convinced this trachy type is Mankaphas and I think this issue might still surprise us in time. In fact this whole field of late Byzantine base metal coinage study is still in its infancy.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...