A Hoard of Sixth-Century Solidi, Light-Weight Solidi and Fractions from Gökler (Phrygia)

REVUE --------------------------------------------------- NUMISMATIQUE

Dirigée par Fr. Duyrat, C. Grandjean, C. Morrisson, M. Bompaire, A. Suspène

Secrétaires de la rédaction V. Drost, J. Jambu, J. Olivier

ISSN 0484-8942

2015(172e volume)

SOCIÉTÉ FRANÇAISE DE NUMISMATIQUE

Diffusion : Société d’édition « Les Belles Lettres »2015

----------------------------------------------------Revue soutenue par l’Institut National des Sciences Humaines et Sociales

du Centre national de la recherche scientifique

RN 2015, p. 317-335

Zeliha Demirel Gökalp*, Andrei GanDila**

A Hoard of Sixth-Century Solidi, Light-Weight Solidi and Fractions from Gökler (Phrygia)

Summary – A hoard of 6th century solidi and fractions was found in 1994 in Gökler, Turkey, during illegal prospections with a metal detector. The hoard includes seven die-linked solidi of Justinian, three solidi of Justin II, five solidi of Tiberius II and thirty-six solidi, semisses, and tremisses of Maurice, many of them die-linked. The most interesting coins in the hoard are two 23-carat light-weight solidi of Maurice. The hoard was probably concealed in the last decade of the 6th century.

Keywords – Die-link, light-weight solidus, donativa, Justinian, Maurice, Phrygia.

Résumé – Un trésor de monnaies d’or byzantines du vie siècle a été trouvé à Gökler, Turquie en 1994 au cours de prospections illégales au détecteur de métaux. Le trésor comprend sept solidi de Justinien liés de coins, trois solidi de Justin II, cinq solidi de Tibère II et trente-six solidi, semisses et tremisses de Maurice, ces derniers avec plusieurs liaisons. Les pièces les plus intéres-santes sont les deux solidi légers de 23 carats de Maurice. Le trésor a probablement été enfoui pendant la dernière décennie du vie siècle.

Mots clés – Liaison de coins, solidus léger, donativa, Justinien, Maurice, Phrygie.

A hoard of early Byzantine gold coins was found in 1994 at Gökler (Kütahya district), in the ancient province of Phrygia. Although ancient remains have been reported in the past, no systematic excavations have been conducted so far at Gökler.1 The modern village is located ca. 10 km east of Gediz (ancient Kadoi) off the main highway going east to Kütahya (ancient Kotyaeion), a town with a rich history spanning several millennia. In the same region of Kotyaeion an early Christian church and a Byzantine fortification are currently being excavated at Aslanapa and Simav, respectively. In addition, some 50 km south-west of Kütahya excavations are being conducted at Çavdarhisar (ancient Aizanoi) where the Late Antique layers have already yielded a significant number of coins.2 Aside from 14 sixth-century gold coins with unknown provenance, the collection

* Anadolu University, Art History Department, 26470 Yunusemre Campus, Eskişehir, Turkey.Email: [email protected].

** University of Alabama in Huntsville, History Department, Roberts Hall, Huntsville, AL 35899, USA. Email: [email protected].

1. Belke, mersich 1990, p. 261.2. köker 2013, p. 133-151.

ZELIHA DEMIREL GÖKALP / ANDREI GANDILA318

RN 2015, p. 317-335

of the Kütahya Museum includes no less than 1 250 Byzantine bronze coins, of which 296 are sixth-century issues, most of them found on the territory of ancient Phrygia.3

The Gökler hoard was found in circumstances unfortunately all too common in the last decades, by illegal prospections with the metal detector. Investiga-tions conducted by the local authorities between 1994 and 1996 have revealed the fact that an unknown number of coins, possibly belonging to the hoard, had been smuggled abroad and sold to a German collector.4 Although the 59 coins (247.7 g total) now in the Kütahya Museum may represent an incomplete hoard, the selection of pieces removed from the hoard seems to have been done randomly by the two illegal metal detectorists, who clearly knew little to nothing about Byzantine gold coins. This explains why the treasure hunters left untouched the most valuable coins of the hoard, the two rare and highly collectible light-weight solidi of Maurice. Moreover, the age structure of the hoard is quite typical for accumulations closed towards the end of the sixth century, which lends some credibility to the statistical charts proposed below.

Many of the coins are uncirculated, some still retaining the original mint luster, although quite a few are struck with worn or even cracked dies. The average weight of the regular solidi is 4.47 g, close to the 24-carat standard, with the heaviest weighing 4.51 g and the lightest 4.31 g (figure 3).5 Several coins of Maurice have test marks on the center, a practice known from other hoards as well (nos. 30, 38 and 45).6 The hoard covers several decades, from Justinian to Maurice, which is common for medium-sized hoards of this period. Due to the broad dating of solidi of Justinian and Maurice, the emperors who enjoyed the longest reigns of the sixth-century, we are unable to determine a more precise chronology. The actual age span of the hoard can be as short as two decades (c. 565-585) or as long as five (c. 542-592) (figure 1).

From a numismatic perspective the hoard found at Gökler presents a number of interesting peculiarities. The most unusual feature is the presence of seven die-linked solidi of Justinian in a hoard concealed as late as five decades later, towards the end of the century. The obverse portrait corresponds to MIBE 75 and 76, which Wolfgang Hahn dates to the second half of the reign. Three obverse dies and three reverse dies were used to strike the seven coins, all from officina Δ.

3. The coins have been studied by Zeliha Demirel Gökalp in 2013 at the Kütahya Museum. This study was carried out under the Project no. 1208E123 submitted to Anadolu University Council of Scientific Research Projects.

4. The authors wish to thank Recep Karaca (Kütahya Museum) for information regarding the investigation.

5. Elaborate metrological calculations do not seem warranted for our hoard, but they have been done with important results for larger hoards published in the past, most of them seventh-century accumulations, such as Nikertai, Beth She’an, Limassol, Rougga, and Aydin, to name only the most significant.

6. See for example ahipaz 2007, p. 159.

A HOARD OF SIXTH-CENTURY SOLIDI FROM GÖKLER (PHRYGIA) 319

RN 2015, p. 317-335

�S�o�l�i�d�u�s�(�8�6�.�4�5�%�)

�2�3�-�c�a�r�a�t� �s�o�l�i�d�u�s�(�3�.�3�9�%�)�

�S�e�m�i�s�s�i�s�(�5�.�0�8�%�)�

�T�r�e�m�i�s�s�i�s�(�5�.�0�8�%�)

�2�3� � � � � �-� �2�4� �c�a�r�a�t�s�(�7�6�.�4�7�%�)

�2�2� � � � � �-� �2�3� �c�a�r�a�t�s�(�3�.�9�2�%�)

�2�3� �-� �2�3� � � � � �c�a�r�a�t�s� �(�1�9�.�6�1�%�)

Emperor Date Solidus 23-sil. solidus Semissis Tremissis Total

Justinian I 545-565 7 7 7 / 11.87%

Justin II 565-567567-578

12

12 3 / 5.08%

Tiberius II 578-582 5 5 5 / 8.48%

Maurice 582582-583583-602

18

27 2 3 3

18

3645 / 76.27%

Total 51 2 3 3 59 59 / 100%

Figure 1 - The age structure of the Gökler hoard.

Figure 4 - Frequency of die-linked solidi.

Figure 2 - Frequency of gold denominations.

Figure 3 - Metrology of the regular solidi.

�0

�1�0

�2�0

�3�0

�4�0

�5�0

�G�ö�k�l�e�r

�T�h�e�s�s�a�l�o�n�i�c�a

�R�o�u�g�g�a

�S�e�k�u�l�i�c�a

Bakırköy

�S�a�m�o�s

�D�a�p�h�n�e

�B�i�l�e�c�i�k

�B�e�t�h� �S�h�e�a�n

�N�i�k�e�r�t�a�i

�L�i�m�a�s�s�o�l

�K�ü�s�t�ü�l�l�ü

Afyon


RN 2015, p. 317-335

Two pairs of dies are cross-linked. The coins probably arrived as a homogeneous group directly from the mint and were subsequently hoarded by the owner. On average, the die-linked solidi of Justinian are also the heaviest pieces in the hoard. These coins may well reflect the reception of a quinquennial donativum, estimated at five solidi per man.7 If the donativum was kept intact then nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, cross-linked, represent the five solidi in question, the customary gift. Nos. 4 and 7 could be a fraction of a distinct payment, simultaneous with the first, most likely, since the coins were also issued by the fourth officina in Constan-tinople. Although it is generally believed that officinae operated according to the fiscal and administrative needs of the state, their exact function and evolution in time remain to be determined. Further hoard evidence might confirm the supposition that the fourth officina was occasionally commissioned by Justinian’s officials to produce coinage for purposes of imperial largesse.

Although the circumstances of the find are less than ideal, there is no evidence to indicate that the coins of Justinian may have belonged to a different hoard. Indeed, the seven coins of Justinian correspond to the chronological logic of the hoard, as they are dated in the later part of his reign. Moreover, the presence of Justinianic issues in hoards buried during the reign of Maurice is almost a general norm. Based on evidence from the Balkans, they are only missing in hoards where the accumulation is too small to be statistically relevant.8 Unlike other hoards, however, in the case of Gökler the coins were kept by the owner in his “savings account” for several decades. Less homogeneous groups of coins were added in time, although die-links can still be found among the coins of Tiberius II and Maurice. The obverse of nos. 11 and 15, both solidi of Tiberius II, was struck by the same die although the coins were issued in different officinae, A and Z, respectively. Since officinae may have operated in the same facility, this is not necessarily an anomaly, and the practice has long been noted and discussed.9 The same situation can be found on the die-linked solidi of Maurice, where three coins have the same obverse but two different officina marks on the reverse (nos. 19-21). Additional die-links, less consistent, can be found through-out the list of coins dating from the reign of Maurice. Not only pairs of solidi (nos. 30-51, 33-40, and 48-49), but also fractions, semisses (nos. 54-55) and tremisses (nos. 57-58), show evidence of die-linkage. This seems to be a defining feature of our hoard, but how common are die-links in early Byzantine gold hoards (figure 4)?

7. henDy 1985, p. 177.8. Hoards from the Balkans closed during the reign of Maurice containing issues of Justinian:

Jambol (Trésors, no. 19), Slava Rusă (Trésors, no. 79), Zaldapa (Trésors, no. 82), Patras (Trésors, no. 174), Vid (Marović 1988, p. 299), and four hoards from Sadovec (Trésors, nos. 243-246).

9. See for instance morrisson 1972, p. 42-43, who suggested that the official in charge with coin dies redistributed them indiscriminately to officinae of the same mint; Bijovsky 2002, p. 167-171.


RN 2015, p. 317-335

Leaving aside exceptional situations like the single-die hoard of Heraclian solidi recently found in Jerusalem,10 we can still mention several notable cases. One of the best documented is the hoard of Nikertai, concealed a century after the Gökler hoard, which contains frequent die-links with several different officinae recorded.11 A contemporary hoard found close to Antioch (Daphne), although much smaller in size, has the same characteristics.12 Close to the Turkish coast, the large hoard found on the island of Samos, contains many die-linked specimens of Phocas and Heraclius, while the “Molos” hoard from Limassol (Cyprus) has surprisingly few die-links given the narrow age structure of the hoard.13 From Turkey, the hoard found at Afyon in Phrygia, just 150 km east of Gökler, contains only one obverse die-link (Justinian), while the hoard of Küstüllü, close to Mersin, contains three die-linked solidi of Phocas, which are also the latest in the hoard.14 Further north, in Bithynia and Europa, two hoards found near Bilecik and at Bakırköy, respectively included die-linked solidi of Phocas.15 In Transcaucasia, on the territory of modern Georgia, the large, but unfortunately dispersed, hoard from Chibati included a large number of die-linked solidi of Phocas and Heraclius.16 In the Eastern Mediterranean, the hoard of Bat Galim in Haifa, also dispersed, contained a large number of solidi of Phocas, most of them die-linked.17 A much more detailed publication of another large Palestinian hoard (Bet She’an) has revealed an equally large number of die-links.18 Further west, at Rougga in North Africa, a large hoard of 268 coins included a signifi-cant number of die-links.19 In most of these cases, however, we are dealing with seventh-century hoards. Unfortunately, hoards from the Balkans, where we find the bulk of the early Byzantine hoards concealed in the second half of the sixth century, offer little information about die-links unless we deal with rare issues of Thessalonica.20 Illustration is often missing and the quality of the images, where available, prevents any assumptions regarding possible die-link situations.21

10. Bijovsky 2010, p. 55-92.11. morrisson 1972, p. 42-43.12. metcalf 1980, p. 91-101.13. caramessini-oeconomiDes, Drossoyianni 1989, p. 153-161; nicolaou, metcalf 2007,

p. 405 (all coins of Heraclius). 14. morrisson et al. 1989, p. 142; tekin, ÜnlÜ 1998, p. 280, pl. I.15. GanDila, Demirel Gökalp 2014, p. 202-203; akyay 1966, p. 161-162.16. aBramishvili 1968, p. 159-176. Only 124 coins were retrieved out of ca. 2 000 mentioned

in the initial report.17. BenDall 1975, p. 66. Some of the coins from this large hoard may have found their way

to Jerash where a similar group of coins was reported around the same time. BenDall 1976, p. 80, no. 330.

18. Bijovsky 2002, p. 168-170.19. Guéry 1982, p. 27, 35, 44 and 54.20. caramessini-oeconomiDes, touratsoGlou 1979, p. 311.21. A notable exception is the hoard from Sekulica, for which see ivanišević, konDijanov

1992, p. 82, table 2.


RN 2015, p. 317-335

To conclude this brief overview, die-links are by no means uncommon in early Byzantine gold hoards, but they tend to be more frequent in large hoards of several hundred pieces. There is frustratingly little comparanda material in Anatolia or Syria to help us contextualize the sixth-century hoard of Gökler, buried decades before the hoarding frenzy of the next century when historical circumstances favored intensive hoarding and loss (figure 5). At any rate, the heavy presence of die links in the Gökler hoard (40.67%) compels us to classify this accumulation as a savings hoard, developed in several stages.

�B�l�a�c�k� �S�e�a

�M�e�d�i�t�e�r�r�a�n�e�a�n� �S�e�a

�A�d�r�i�a�t�i�c�S�e�a

�E�u�p�h�r�a�t�e�s




�T�i�g�r�i�s�T�i�g�r�i�s

�H�a�l�y�s

�H�a�l�y�s

�D�a�n�u�b�e

�D�a�n�u�b�e

�M�o�r�a�v�a

�A�p�i�d�e�a

�B�a�r�g�a�l�a

�S�a�m�a�r�i�n�o�v�a�c

Bački Monostor

�S�a�d�o�v�e�c�P�r�o�v�a�d�i�j�a

Selinti

�S�i�d�e

Abrit

Slava Rusă

Adamclisi

�J�a�m�b�o�l

�V�i�d

Eleusis AthensPatras

�P�e�r�g�a�m�o�n

Sardis

�A�m�o�r�i�o�n

�G�ö�k�l�e�r

Dorylaeum

Nokalakevi

�N�i�c�a�e�a

5000 m1500 m500 m200 m100 m0 m

0 200 400 km

Figure 5 - Hoards of Byzantine gold closed during the reign of Maurice.(in fine print: major Byzantine cities in Anatolia)

The seven die-linked coins of Justinian clearly reflect the first phase of the accumulation. The coins of Justin II and Tiberius II were added later and the obverse die-link noted for two solidi of Tiberius II (nos. 11 and 15) suggests additional payments of money that saw little circulation. The bulk of the hoard is represented by the abundant coinage of Maurice, whose close inspection reveals at least two more stages of accumulation. The early coinage of Maurice, dated by Hahn in the first two years of reign, is represented in our hoard by nine issues. Five of the later ones (MIBEC 5) are die-linked. Moreover, nos. 19-20 and 23-24, respectively were struck with the same pair of dies. The earliest coin in the series, however, is a very rare MIBEC 3 issue from the very beginning of


RN 2015, p. 317-335

the reign when Maurice still used the name of his predecessor (no. 16). The rarity of this issue is confirmed by the fact that the specimen in the Gökler hoard was struck with the same obverse die as the coin illustrated in Hahn’s latest cata-logue. Given the die-linkage and the large number of early issues of Maurice in our hoard, amounting to almost a quarter of all coins of this emperor, we can safely assume that they reflect another important stage in the creation of this savings deposit. This group of early issues could be related to the imperial largesse occasioned by the emperor’s accession or perhaps his first consulship assumed shortly after (583).

In all hoards dating from this period the bulk of Maurice’s coinage is repre-sented by issues minted after 583. The chronology of solidi dated 583-602 remains uncertain, but several numismatists have long suggested that the size of the emperor’s head / helmet on the obverse decreased during the almost two decades when this type was in use.22 Hahn has identified four sub-types based on this stylistic feature. Although we consider Hahn’s criteria for distinguishing between these four types to be somewhat arbitrary due to the much wider stylistic variety of Maurice’s coinage, the coins from the Gökler hoard seem to belong to the earliest types. This tentatively places the hoard in the first decade of Maurice’s reign, up to the early 590s. The two 23-carat light solidi from the hoard seem to strengthen this hypothesis, since they both belong to the “large head” type (MIBEC 111), clearly distinguished from the “small head” version also used on 23-carat light-weight solidi (MIBEC 112).

The actual function of light-weight solidi still eludes modern scholars despite the fact that these irregular issues received plenty of attention in the last few decades. Several explanations have been put forward, from circumstances related to foreign payments to administrative reasons related to taxation. 23 There is still insufficient evidence to reach a consensus but we should still note the presence of two 23-carat light solidi in the Gökler hoard, found in the heartland of the empire. Light-weight solidi are extremely rare in hoards from within the bound-aries of Early Byzantium. It has been repeatedly pointed out that most of them come from Syria, but evidence accumulating from Anatolia seems to challenge this notion.24 Aside from the hoard of Gökler, the deposit found in 1998 at Allianoi, not far from Bergama, also included two light-weight solidi of Maurice worth 23 siliquae, while a larger hoard found near Bilecik (Bithynia) included a similar light-weight solidus of Phocas.25

22. BellinGer 1966, p. 106-107.23. For a recent discussion of the function of light-weight solidi and the previous theories,

see carlà 2009, p. 378-390.24. smeDley 1988, p. 126-127. Sixth-century light-weight solidi were also part of a large hoard

found at Hama in Syria, unfortunately dispersed, for which see aDelson 1957, p. 80.25. tekin, erol-özDizBay 2012, p. 400, nos. 289-290. GanDila, Demirel Gökalp 2014, p. 202,

no. 64.


RN 2015, p. 317-335

To be sure, less than 0.5% of the gold coins from hoards found in the Balkans and Asia Minor are light-weight issues.26 Two hoards found in Bulgaria at Provadija and Sadovec, in the frontier provinces of the Lower Danube, include two light-weight solidi of Maurice of 22 and 23 siliquae, respectively.27 Evidence from the Near East is more substantial. In Palestine, the dispersed hoard of Bat Galim, already mentioned, included four light-weight solidi of Phocas.28 The hoard of Meroth, also from Palestine, has no less than 22 underweight solidi of 23 and 22 siliquae, but the author did not clarify whether he referred to weight loss during circulation or the special light-weight solidi issued by the mint.29 Several other Syro-Palestinian hoards include light-weight solidi issued by seventh-century emperors.30 Despite new evidence from the Empire, the most significant collective find of light-weight solidi of Maurice remains the hoard found at Nokalakevi (Georgia) during archaeological excavations at Archaeopolis, the capital of Lazica, a Byzantine client state in the sixth century.31 The 23 pieces of 23-carat light weight-solidi of Maurice are die-linked and belong to the “small head” type dated in the second half of the reign. The find of such anomalous solidi both in the heartland of the empire and in the frontier region and beyond may suggest that they actually performed several distinct functions, depending on circumstances. We are, unfortunately, far from reaching any definitive conclusions.

One last notable feature of the Gökler hoard is the significant presence of semisses (figure 2). Numismatists have long suggested that semisses gained a ceremonial nature, being primarily related to donativa and other instances of imperial largesse. Such an interpretation seems to be grounded not just in the typology but also in the relative rarity of semisses among finds, as they are definitely scarcer than the other major fraction, the tremissis. Hoard evidence confirms this difference. Only 2.62% of the gold coins from hoards found in the Balkans and Asia Minor are semisses, while the proportion of tremisses is significantly higher, 13.05%.32 In fact, with the exception of the small sixth- century hoard from Cernavodă, on the Lower Danube, the only hoards from the Balkans containing semisses are from Turkey and Greece.33 Perhaps it is not a coincidence that the hoard found at Afyon, not far from Gökler, has no

26. morrisson, ivanišević 2006, p. 45, fig. 1.27. Provadija (Trésors, no. 52), Sadovec (Trésors, no. 243). Other significant hoards from

the Balkans with light-weight solidi: Međulužje (three solidi of Justinian worth 20 siliquae, Trésors, no. 263); Mecitözü (22-carat solidus of Phocas, Trésors, no. 338).

28. Bijovsky 2013, no. 54.29. kinDler 1989, p. 317.30. Bijovsky 2002, p. 171-172, n. 9.31. aBramishvili 1963, p. 158-165.32. morrisson, ivanišević 2006, p. 45, fig. 1.33. Cernavodă (Trésors, no. 65), Bakırköy (Trésors, no. 3), Athens (Trésors, no. 133), and

Patras (Trésors, no. 175).


RN 2015, p. 317-335

less than 17 semisses in its composition, more than a third of the entire hoard.34 Off the coast of Turkey, the small accumulation found on the shipwreck of Yassı Ada included nine semisses of Heraclius, while two of the seventh- century hoards found on the islands of Samos and Cyprus, respectively, also included semisses.35 In addition, such hoards are recorded in Syria (Daphne and Nikertai), Palestine (Awarta, Bet She’an, and Meroth), and Egypt (Alexandria and Saqqara).36 In the hoards of Meroth and Alexandria semisses account for a significant percentage of the accumulation (c. 15%) while in the seventh-century hoard from Awarta semisses represent one third of the entire hoard.

In the Gökler hoard, two of the three semisses (nos. 54-55) were struck with the same pair of dies, which further substantiates the idea that they were part of a payment received directly from the mint. Interestingly, two of the three trem-isses from the hoard (nos. 57-58) were also struck with the same pair of dies, already worn and cracked in several places. Unlike the solidus, the chronology of its fractions cannot be established with any precision. Consequently, the semisses in question may belong to the early group of die-linked solidi of Maurice from the hoard.

To conclude this discussion, we seem to be dealing with at least two distinct payments, probably donativa, the first dating from the later part of Justinian’s reign and the second from the early regnal years of Maurice. The hoard was completed with fragments of dispersed payments or imperial gifts, as well as with random additions of coins withdrawn from more regular payments. In what concerns the historical value of the hoard and the circumstances of its loss we are of course in the realm of speculation. Judging by the structural and chronological particularities of the hoard it seems plausible to suggest that the accumulation belonged to an officer, or in any case to a family of several career soldiers, who began by serving in Justinian’s army during the war with Persia which concluded with the peace treaty of 561, so well recorded by Menander the Guardsman, and continued to serve under his successors during renewed conflict with Persia from ca. 572 to 591.37

General insecurity explains why so many gold hoards, some amounting to real fortunes, were never retrieved. According to a recent inventory, the last decades of the sixth century mark an important peak in the hoarding of gold coins, mainly in the Balkans.38 Hoard evidence from Turkey is unfortunately

34. morrisson 1989, p. 139.35. faGerlie 1982, p. 145-154. For Samos and Limassol see above, n. 13.36. Daphne: metcalf 1980, p. 91-101. Awarta: Dajani 1951, p. 41-43. Alexandria: Dutilh

1905, p. 155-164. Saqqara: QuiBell 1912, p. 38. For Nikertai and Bet She’an see above, n. 11 and 18.

37. The best historical narrative of the late sixth century remains WhitBy 1988.38. morrisson, ivanišević 2006, p. 46-47.


RN 2015, p. 317-335

less generous, but historical accounts suggest similar levels of insecurity. On the other hand, western Anatolia was not directly affected by warfare with Persia until the second decade of the seventh century. The theater of operations in the second half of the sixth century shifted between Transcaucasia and northern Syria, too far east to threaten the region of modern Gediz, where the hoard was found. The owner of the hoard, an officer according to our tentative scenario, may have hailed from the region of Gökler but tragically met his fate during one of the fierce battles recorded in the 580s on the long front stretching from the Caucasus to Syria. This interpretation dovetails nicely with the chronology of the hoard, which dates to the first half of Maurice’s reign, if we rely on the typology of the obverse. After peace was concluded with Persia in 591, the theater of operations moved to the Danube where operations continued until the mutiny led by Phocas in 602.

The hoard found at Gökler only begins to fill a chronological gap in the record of Byzantine gold hoards from modern Turkey and hopefully contributes to a better understanding of the still obscure mechanisms of hoard formation in the Byzantine heartland.


RN 2015, p. 317-335

CATALOGUE39

JUSTINIAN I

Solidus

542-565Die links:Obv. 1 (no. 1)---------------Rv. 1 (no. 1)Obv. 1 (nos. 2, 3)-----------Rv. 2 (nos. 2, 3)Obv. 2 (nos. 4, 7)-----------Rv. 3 (nos. 4, 7)Obv. 3 (no. 5)---------------Rv. 1 (no. 5)Obv. 3 (no. 6)---------------Rv. 2 (no. 6)

1 4.51 g, 20 / 21 mm, die pos. 6. Off. Δ; Ref.: MIBE 7 (pl. 13); Inv. no. 7043.2 4.51 g, 20 / 21 mm, die pos. 6.: Off. Δ; Ref.: MIBE 7 (pl. 13); Inv. no. 7046.3 4.50 g, 20 / 21 mm, die pos. 6. Off. Δ; Ref.: MIBE 7 (pl. 13); Inv. no. 7045.4 4.50 g, 20 mm, die pos. 6. Off. Δ; Ref.: MIBE 7 (pl. 13); Inv. no. 7048.5 4.49 g, 20 / 21 mm, die pos. 6. Off. Δ; Ref.: MIBE 7 (pl. 13); Inv. no. 7030.6 4.47 g, 21 mm, die pos. 6. Off. Δ; Ref.: MIBE 7 (pl. 13); Inv. no. 7047.7 4.45 g, 21 mm, die pos. 7. Off. Δ; Ref.: MIBE 7 (pl. 13); Inv. no. 7044.

JUSTIN II

Solidus

565-5678 4.51 g, 21 / 22 mm, die pos. 6. Off. θ; Ref: MIBEC 1 (pl. 1); Inv. no. 7028.

567-5789 4.47 g, 20 mm, die pos. 6. Off. Γ; Ref: MIBEC 5 (pl. 1); Inv. no. 7031.10 4.48 g, 20 mm, die pos. 6. Off. Є; Ref.: MIBEC 5 (pl. 1); Inv. no. 7029.

TIBERIUS II

Solidus

578-58211 4.48 g, 21 mm, die pos. 6. Off. A, same obv. die as no. 15; Ref.: MIBEC 4

(pl. 11); Inv. no. 7038.

39. All coins minted in Constantinople.


RN 2015, p. 317-335

12 4.49 g, 21 mm, die pos. 7. Off. B; Ref.: MIBEC 4 (pl. 11); Inv. no. 7041.13 4.48 g, 21 mm, die pos. 6. Off. B; Ref.: MIBEC 4 (pl. 11); Inv. no. 7039.14 4.50 g, 21 mm, die pos. 6. Off. Z; Ref.: MIBEC 4 (pl. 11); Inv. no.7042.15 4.47 g, 21 mm, die pos. 6. Off. Z, same obv. die as no. 11; Ref.: MIBEC 4

(pl. 11); Inv. no. 7040.

MAURICE

Solidus

58216 4.48 g, 21 / 22 mm, die pos. 6. Off. Γ; Ref.: MIBEC 3 (pl. 17), same obverse die

as the coin on Hahn’s plate; Inv. no. 7051.

582 / 83Die links:Obv. 1 (nos. 19, 20)--------Rv. 1 (nos. 19, 20)Obv. 1 (no. 21)-------------Rv. 2 (no. 21)Obv. 2 (nos. 23, 24)--------Rv. 3 (nos. 23, 24)

17 4.46 g, 21 mm, die pos. 6. Off. I; Ref.: MIBEC 4a (pl. 17); Inv. no. 7069.18 4.31 g, 22 mm, die pos. 6. Off. I; Ref.: MIBEC 4a (pl. 17); Inv. no. 7067.19 4.48 g, 21 mm, die pos. 6. Off. Γ; Ref.: MIBEC 5 (pl. 17); Inv. no. 7080.20 4.47 g, 20 / 22 mm, die pos. 6. Off. Γ; Ref.: MIBEC 5 (pl. 17); Inv. no. 7077.21 4.45 g, 21 mm, die pos. 7. Off. H; Ref.: MIBEC 5 (pl. 17); Inv. no. 7055.22 4.47 g, 22 mm, die pos. 6. Off. I; Ref.: MIBEC 5 (pl. 17); Inv. no. 7085.23 4.51 g, 21 / 22 mm, die pos. 6. Off. Δ; Ref.: MIBEC 5 (pl. 17); Inv. no. 7060.24 4.43 g, 21 / 22 mm, die pos. 6. Off. Δ; Ref.: Ref.: MIBEC 5 (pl. 17); Inv. no. 7083.

583-60225 4.49 g, 21 mm, die pos. 6. Off. A; Ref.: MIBEC 61 (pl. 17); Inv. no. 7056.26 4.47 g, 21 mm, die pos. 6. Off. A; Ref.: MIBEC 61 (pl. 17); Inv. no. 7053.27 4.46 g, 21 mm, die pos. 6. Off. A; Ref.: MIBEC 61 (pl. 17); Inv. no. 7061.28 4.45 g, 22 / 23 mm, die pos. 7. Off. A; Ref.: MIBEC 61 (pl. 17); Inv. no. 7058.29 4.49 g, 22 mm, die pos. 6. Off. B; Ref.: MIBEC 61 (pl. 17); Inv. no. 7084.30 4.47 g, 21 mm, die pos. 6. Off. B; same obv. die as no. 51; center obv. test punch;

Ref.: MIBEC 62 (pl. 17); ; Inv. no. 7064.31 4.45 g, 21 mm, die pos. 6. Off. Δ; Ref.: MIBEC 61 (pl. 17); Inv. no. 7086.32 4.49 g, 20 / 22 mm, die pos. 6. Off. Є; Ref.: MIBEC 61 (pl. 17); Inv. no. 7078.33 4.49 g, 21 mm, die pos. 6.: Off. S; same rv. die as no. 40; Ref.: MIBEC 62

(pl. 17); Inv. no. 7072.34 4.48 g, 22 mm, die pos. 6. Off. S; Ref.: MIBEC 62 (pl. 17); Inv. no. 7075.35 4.48 g, 20 / 21 mm, die pos. 6. Off. S; Ref.: MIBEC 61 (pl. 17); Inv. no. 7068.36 4.46 g, 21 / 22 mm, die pos. 6. Off. S; Ref.: MIBEC 62 (pl. 17); Inv. no. 7070.


RN 2015, p. 317-335

37 4.46 g, 20 / 21 mm, die pos. 6.: Off. S; Ref.: MIBEC 61 (pl. 17); Inv. no. 7073.38 4.45 g, 21 / 22 mm, die pos. 6. Off. S; center obv. test punch; Ref.: MIBEC 61

(pl. 17); Inv. no. 7065.39 4.45 g, 21 mm, die pos. 6. Off. S; Ref.: MIBEC 62 (pl. 17); Inv. no. 7082.40 4.34 g, 20 / 21 mm, die pos. 6. Off. S; same rv. die as no. 33; Ref.: MIBEC 62

(pl. 17); Inv. no. 7081.41 4.49 g, 22 mm, die pos. 6. Off. H; double strike; Ref.: MIBEC 61 (pl. 17);

Inv. no. 7052.42 4.45 g, 21 / 22 mm, die pos. 6. Off. H; Ref.: MIBEC 62 (pl. 17); Inv. no. 7054.43 4.43 g, 21 mm, die pos. 6. Off. H; Ref.: MIBEC 61 (pl. 17); Inv. no. 7050.44 4.51 g, 20 / 21 mm, die pos. 6. Of: θ; Ref.: MIBEC 61 (pl. 17); Inv. no. 7062.45 4.49 g, 21 mm, die pos. 6. Off. θ; rv. center test punch; Ref.: MIBEC 62 (pl. 17);

Inv. no. 7057.46 4.51 g, 21 mm, die pos. 6. Off. I; Ref.: MIBEC 61 (pl. 17); Inv. no. 7071.47 4.50 g, 21 / 22 mm, die pos. 6. Off. I; Ref.: MIBEC 61 (pl. 17); Inv. no. 7074.48 4.49 g, 21 mm, die pos. 6.: Off. I; Ref.: MIBEC 62 (pl. 17); Inv. no. 7063.49 4.47 g, 20 / 21 mm, die pos. 6. Off. I; same pair of dies as no. 48; Ref.: MIBEC 62

(pl. 17); Inv. no. 7049.50 4.44 g, 21 / 22 mm, die pos. 6. Off. I; Ref.: MIBEC 61 (pl. 17); Inv. no. 7076.51 4.47 g, 22 / 2 mm, die pos. 6. Off. Є; same obv. die as no. 30. Ref.: MIBEC 61

(pl. 17); Inv. no. 7059.

Light Weight 23-carat Solidus

583-60252 4.24 g, 22 / 22 mm, die pos. 6. Off. Γ; Ref.: MIBEC 111 (pl. 18); Inv. no. 7066.53 4.31 g, 20 / 21 mm, die pos. 6. Off. I; Ref.: MIBEC 111 (pl. 18); Inv. no. 7979.

Semissis

583-60254 2.24 g, 20 mm, die pos. 6; Ref.: MIBEC 17a2 (pl. 18); Inv. no. 7032.55 2.23 g, 18 / 21 mm, die pos. 6; same pair of dies as n. 54; Ref.: MIBEC 17a2

(pl. 18); Inv. no. 7034.56 2.23 g, 16 / 18 mm, die pos. 6; Ref.: MIBEC 17a2 (pl. 18); Inv. no. 7033.

Tremissis

583-60257 1.47 g, 16 / 17 mm, die pos. 6; Ref.: Ref.: MIBEC 201 (pl. 18); Inv. no. 7036.58 1.47 g, 15 / 16 mm, die pos. 6; Ref.: Ref.: MIBEC 201 (pl. 18), same pair of dies

as n. 57; Inv. no. 7035.59 1.51 g, 16 mm, die pos. 6; Ref.: MIBEC 201 (pl. 18); Inv. no. 7037.


RN 2015, p. 317-335

Abbreviations

Trésors: C. morrisson, Vl. PoPović, V. ivanišević (eds.), Les Trésors monétaires byzantins des Balkans et d’Asie Mineure (491-713), (Réalités Byzantines, 13), Paris, 2006.

Bibliography

aBramishvili 1963: T. aBramishvili, Nokalakevskii klad, Vizantiiski Vremennik, 23, 1963, p. 158-165.

aBramishvili 1968: T. aBramishvili, Bizant’iuri okros monet’ebi (Chibatis gandzi), Akad. S. Janashias sachelobis sakartvelos sachelmts’ipo muzeumis moambe, 25-B, 1968, p. 159-176.

aDelson 1957: H. L. aDelson, Light Weight Solidi and Byzantine Trade during the Sixth and Seventh Centuries, (Numismatic Notes and Monographs No. 138), New York, 1957.

ahipaz 2007: N. ahipaz, A Hoard of Byzantine Solidi from the Deir ‘Aziz Synagogue, Israel Numismatic Research, 2, 2007, p. 157-165.

akyay 1966: Y. akyay, Bakırköy’de bulunan bizans sikke definesi, Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri, 13-14, 1966, p. 159-165.

Belke, mersich 1990: K. Belke, N. mersich, Tabula Imperii Byzantini. Band 7: Phrygien und Pisidien, Wien, 1990.

BellinGer 1966: A. BellinGer, The Helmet of Maurice, MN, 12, 1966, p. 106-107.BenDall 1975: S. BenDall, Notes on Two Byzantine Hoards, CH, 1, 1975, p. 66.BenDall 1976: S. BenDall, Jordan (Jerash?), 1974, CH, 2, 1976, p. 80.Bijovsky 2002: G. Bijovsky, A Hoard of Byzantine solidi from Bet She’an in the

Umayyad Period, RN, 158, 2002, p. 161-227.Bijovsky 2010: G. Bijovsky, A single Die Solidi Hoard of Heraclius from Jerusalem,

in Mélanges Cécile Morrisson, (Travaux et Mémoires, 16), Paris, 2010, p. 55-92.Bijovsky 2013: G. Bijovsky, Gold Coin and Small Change: Monetary Circulation in

Fifth-Seventh Century Byzantine Palestine, Trieste, 2013.caramessini-oeconomiDes, Drossoyianni 1989: M. caramessini-oeconomiDes, P. Dros-

soyianni, A Hoard of Byzantine Gold Coins from Samos, RN, 31, 1989, p. 145-182.caramessini-oeconomiDes, touratsoGlou 1979: M. caramessini-oeconomiDes, J. tourat-

soGlou, The 1948 Thessaloniki hoard of 6th Century Byzantine Gold Coins: A Contribution to the Study of the Mint of Thessaloniki, NAC, 8, 1979, p. 289-312.

carlà 2009: F. carlà, L’oro nella tarda antichità: aspetti economici e sociali, Torino, 2009.

Dajani 1951: A. Dajani, A Hoard of Byzantine Gold Coins from Awarta, Nablus, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 1, 1951, p. 41-43.

Dutilh 1905: E. D. J. Dutilh, Une trouvaille de 191 monnaies d’or byzantines et de une pièce en argent, RBN, 61, 1905, p. 155-164.

faGerlie 1982: J. M. faGerlie, The Coins, in Yassı Ada. Volume I. A Seventh-Century Byzantine Shipwreck, College Station, 1982, p. 145-154.

GanDila, Demirel Gökalp 2014: A. GanDila, Z. Demirel Gökalp, A Hoard of Early Byzantine Gold Coins from Bithynia, NC, 174, 2014, p. 193-203.


RN 2015, p. 317-335

Guéry et al. 1982: R. Guéry, C. morrisson, H. slim, Recherches archéologiques franco-tunisiennes à Rougga III: Le trésor de monnaies d’or byzantines, Rome, 1982.

henDy 1985: M. henDy, Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy c. 300-1450, Cambridge, 1985.

ivanišević, Kondijanov 1992: v. ivanišević, j. Kondijanov, Le trésor de Sekulica, RN, 34, 1992, p. 77-99.

kinDler 1989: A. kinDler, The Synagogue Treasure of Meroth, Eastern Upper Galilee, Israel, in Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Numismatics, London, September 1986, I. A. Carradice (ed.), Wetteren, 1989.

köker 2013: H. köker, Aizanoi kazisi 2011-2012 Yılları Sikke Buluntuları, in 2012 Yılı kazı ve araştırma raporları, Elif Özer (ed.), Bilgin, 2013, p. 133-151.

Marović 1988: I. Marović, A Hoard of Byzantine Gold Coins from Narona, in Studia Numismatica Labacensia Alexandro Jeločnik Oblata, P. Kos, Ž. Demo (eds.), Ljubljana, 1988.

metcalf 1980: W. E. metcalf, Three Seventh-Century Byzantine Gold Hoards, MN, 25, 1980, p. 87-108.

morrisson 1972: C. morrisson, Le trésor byzantin de Nikertai, RBN, 118, 1972, p. 29-91.morrisson et al.: C. morrisson, A. ilasli, S. özGÜnDÜz, Le trésor de monnaies byzantines

d’Afyon, Phrygie (vie siècle), RN, 31, 1989, p. 138-144.morrisson, ivanišević 2006: C. morrisson, V. ivanišević, Les émissions des vie-viie siècles

et leur circulation dans les Balkans, in Trésors.nicolaou, metcalf 2007: I. nicolaou, M. metcalf, The Limassol (Molos) Hoard of

Byzantine Gold, t.p.q. 641, Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 2007, p. 399-433.

QuiBell 1912: J. E. QuiBell, Excavations at Saqqara (1908-9, 1909-10). The Monastery of Apa Jeremias, Cairo, 1912.

smeDley 1988: J. smeDley, Seventh-Century Byzantine Coins in Southern Russia and the Problem of Light Weight Solidi, in Studies in Byzantine Gold Coinage, W. Hahn, W. E. Metcalf (eds.), New York, 1988, p. 111-130.

tekin, erol-özDizBay 2012: O. tekin, A. erol-özDizBay, Coins from Allianoi Exca-vations: Campaign of 1998, Colloquium Anatolicum, 11, 2012, p. 347-401.

tekin, ÜnlÜ 1998: O. tekin, Y. ÜnlÜ, Küstüllü Hoard of Byzantine Solidi, Anatolia Antiqua, 6, 1998, p. 279-285.

WhitBy 1988: M. WhitBy, The Emperor Maurice and His Historian: Theophylact Simocatta on Persian and Balkan Warfare, Oxford, 1988.


RN 2015, p. 317-335

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15


RN 2015, p. 317-335

16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28 29 30


RN 2015, p. 317-335

31 32 33 34 35

36 37 38 39 40

41 42 43 44 45


RN 2015, p. 317-335

46 47 48 49 50

51 52 53 54 55

56 57 58 59

A Hoard of Sixth-Century Solidi, Light-Weight Solidi and Fractions from Gökler (Phrygia)

Documents

Transcript of A Hoard of Sixth-Century Solidi, Light-Weight Solidi and Fractions from Gökler (Phrygia)