Byzantium in Dark-Age Greece the numismatic evidence in its Balkan context
Monday, 6. August 2007, 03:21:37
(the numismatic evidence in its Balkan context)
Florin Curta
University of Florida
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies Vol. 29 No. 2 (2005) 113–146
Much has been made of the presence or absence of seventh- and eighth-century coins
on several sites in Greece, primarily in Athens and Corinth. Kenneth Setton and Peter
Charanis have paved the way for a cultural-historical interpretation of coin finds, but a
thorough comparison of both single and hoard finds from Greece with others from the
Balkans suggests a very different interpretation. Instead of signalising decline, lowdenomination
coins, especially from Athens, may point to local markets of low-value
commodities, such as food, as well as to the permanent presence of the fleet.
Almost half a century ago, three polemical articles appeared in Speculum on seventhcentury
Corinth. Apparently, the debate opposing Peter Charanis to Kenneth Setton was
about an obscure episode, the alleged conquest of Corinth by a group of nomads known
to Byzantine sources as Onogurs.1 In fact, at stake was more than just the interpretation of
a confusing passage in a late source, namely a letter of Isidore, the fifteenth-century
metropolitan of Kiev, who had allegedly preserved ‘a reminiscence of a Peloponnesian
tradition’.2 In his first article, Setton reacted against Charanis’s earlier work,3 in which he
had treated the Chronicle of Monemvasia, one of the most controversial sources for the
early medieval history of Greece, as ‘absolutely trustworthy’. According to Setton, the
Chronicle was no more than ‘a medley of some fact and some fiction’ that historians
should use ‘with caution’.4 Charanis had taken the Chronicle at face value. By contrast,
Setton believed it was ludicrous to claim that the Peloponnese had remained under
Avar-Slavic domination for 218 years. According to him, ‘much of the Slavonisation of the
Balkans and of Greece’ was the result of peaceful settlement: ‘unknown numbers of Slavs’
came ‘at unknown times and under unknown circumstances’. There was, however, no
such thing as a Slavic conquest of Greece. ‘The Slavs came, but they did not conquer.’5 In
response, Charanis wrote of Slavic domination and great numbers of settlers coming to
Greece during the entire period from ‘just before the beginning of Maurice’s reign
[582–602] to the early years of the reign of Heraclius [610–41]’.6 He attacked the ‘official
version of the Slavic problem in Greece’ espoused by Stilpon Kyriakides: ‘no Greek
scholar, writing in Greece, has ever acknowledged that Slavs settled in Greece during the
sixth century’.7
At a first glimpse, the Setton-Charanis debate was nothing new. Many of the arguments
used by both sides were almost a century old. The Chronicle of Monemvasia was
first used as a primary source for the history of the Slavs in Greece by Jakob Philipp
Fallmerayer, the German journalist who claimed that the modern Greeks were descendants
not of ancient Greeks, but of Slavs and Albanians whose ancestors had settled in
Greece during the Middle Ages and had learned to speak Greek from the Byzantine
authorities.8 In fact, Setton went as far as to claim that although Charanis seemed to
hold Fallmerayer up to opprobrium, his views were not ‘unlike those entertained by
Fallmerayer more than a century ago’.9 In 1952, comparing one’s work with that of
Fallmerayer was a serious charge. In Greece, Fallmerayer had been demonised to the point
that, although actually an enemy of Russia, he came to be regarded as a Panslavist and as
an agent of the tsar.10 Long before its first translation into Greek, Fallmerayer’s work was
stigmatised as ‘anti-Greek’.11 During and after the Civil War, the ‘Slavs’ became the
national enemy. By 1950, those embracing the ideology of the right saw their political
rivals as the embodiment of all that was anti-national, Communist, and Slavic. A strong
link was established between national identity and political orientation, as the Civil War
and the subsequent defeat of the left-wing movement turned Slav Macedonians into the
Sudetens of Greece.12 To hold Fallmerayeran views was thus a crimen laesae maiestatis.
Dionysios A. Zakythinos, the author of the first monograph on medieval Slavs in Greece,
wrote of the Dark Ages separating Antiquity from the Middle Ages as an era of decline
and ruin brought by Slavic invaders.13 Some insisted on the beneficial Byzantine influence
that forced the Slavs to abandon their nomadic life of bandits.14 Others rejected the
Chronicle of Monemvasia as an absolutely unreliable source.15
In reality, the controversy was substantially different from everything published until
then on the ‘Slavic problem’. Kenneth M. Setton and Peter Charanis ‘infused the study of
the texts with information from numismatics and archaeology’.16 Setton first used the
archaeological evidence to support arguments derived from the interpretation of written
sources. Despite his criticism of Charanis, he believed that the archaeological evidence
confirmed ‘to some extent’ the Chronicle of Monemvasia, ‘especially as to the Greek abandonment
of Corinth’. He noticed that the largest number of seventh-century coins from
Corinth had been found on the Acrocorinth and that such finds were rare in the lower
town, a distribution he further interpreted as indicating that the inhabitants of the city
moved ‘within the protection of the precipitous heights of the citadel’.17 Charanis’s interpretation
of the distribution of coins on the Acrocorinth differed only in that he viewed it
as an indication that the Avars had severely damaged Corinth and that, as a consequence,
all economic activities indicated by coins had been transferred to the Acrocorinth.18 Both
historians agreed that following the attacks of the barbarians (according to Setton, the
Onogurs), Corinth must have been a deserted village. According to Setton, ‘we must fit the
Corinthian archaeological evidence as best we can into the historical pattern of events
established for us by the literary and documentary record’. His eagerness to use the
archaeological evidence, albeit of artifacts rather than of closed finds, seems to have been
based on a firm belief that coins and other archaeological finds are ‘from their very nature
susceptible to fewer distortions by the historian than most literary texts, which can be in
substance inaccurate and misleading and the historical value of which can never exceed
their authors’ knowledge of the events they describe’.19 By shifting the emphasis from
written to archaeological sources, Setton bequeathed to posterity not only his vision of the
early medieval history of Greece, but also a powerful methodology for exploring its Dark
Ages. It demanded that, in the absence of reliable written sources, archaeological data be
used for historical reconstructions. Since the interpretation of the archaeological evidence
relied on the ‘historical patterns of events established for us by the literary and documentary
record’, such reconstructions quickly replaced traditional accounts based on historical
and linguistic evidence without altering their fundamental thrust.20
This is particularly true for the numismatic evidence. Following Setton’s insistence
upon the decreasing number of coin finds in Corinth, Charanis drew coin frequency lists,
which he then interpreted in accordance to what was known from the meagre historical
record about Dark Age Corinth. He noticed that in Athens, the number of coins minted
for Emperor Philippikos (711–3) was larger than that of any other reign within that period
of decline and he explained the phenomenon in reference to the mission of the spatharios
Helias, who, shortly after the execution of Justinian II, had been sent to the western
provinces with Justinian’s head. According to Charanis, Philippikos struck new coins to
replace those of the ‘fallen tyrant’ and Helias must have been responsible for the presence
of these coins in Athens.21 As for the overall diminishing number of coins found in Corinth
and Athens, this was usually interpreted as a sign of economic and social transformations.
Some spoke of the ‘feudalisation’ of Byzantine society22 and pointed to a pre-Dark Age
date for the beginning of the gradual reduction in the distribution of coins.23 Others cited
new finds from Corinth disproving Setton’s and Charanis’s interpretation: the number of
seventh-century coins found in the lower town is in fact larger than that of coins from the
Acrocorinth.24 More to the point, the relatively large number of coins from Justin II to
Phokas now in the collection of the Patras museum is believed to demonstrate that one
cannot take the Chronicle of Monemvasia very seriously, since it is precisely during that
period of time that, according to the Chronicle, the inhabitants of Patras had moved to
Reggio Calabria.25 Besides an obsessive preoccupation with associating coin finds with
almost every event known from historical sources,26 the recent literature on Byzantine
coins from Dark Age Greece typically ignores finds from other areas of the Balkans, while
at times pointing to those of Anatolia. Despite complaints about the scarcity of numismatic
evidence,27 the Dark Age Balkans produced so far over 1,500 coins of copper, silver,
and gold, of which more than 1,300 are Greek finds. There are several reasons for adopting
a general view of the Balkans when dealing with the Byzantine presence in Greece
during this period. First, the general withdrawal of Byzantine troops from the Balkans
in c.620 was followed by the creation of the first themes, Thrace first and then Hellas.28
Second, it has long been noted that in terms of coin circulation during the period dubbed
‘Dark Ages’ because of the relative lack of written sources,29 Greece has much more in
common with the coastal areas of the Balkan peninsula than with Anatolia, where copper
coins disappear between the late seventh and the early ninth century. By contrast, such
coins continued to appear in the Balkans, and not just in Greece, until after 800.30 Unlike
Asia Minor, where gold was not hoarded any more between the reigns of Heraclius and
Theophilos, there are no less than three hoards of gold in the Balkans dated to the seventh
century. Indeed, it has long been noted that in the Balkans, ‘some form of arrangement
involving sporadic and vestigial monetary payments to the army has survived or
evolved’.31
At a quick glimpse, there is a sharp contrast between the Balkan distributions of coins
dated to the first two decades32 and the remainder of the seventh century, respectively
(Fig. 1). Instead of a significant number of hoards of copper and a few hoards of gold,
Greece produced so far only three hoards, two of gold and one of copper, that could be
dated after c.630. With just one exception (the solidus minted for Justinian II discovered in
Athens, see Catalogue no. 96), all stray finds from the subsequent period are of copper.
Figure 1 Seventh-century Byzantine coin finds in the Balkans: copper (circle), silver (square), and gold(star).
Larger symbols show hoard, smaller ones show stray finds. Numbers refer to the catalogue
The contrast is also striking in relation to the northern regions of the peninsula. Instead of
copper33 or copper and silver,34 silver alone now dominates in the Lower Danube region in
the form of hexagrams mostly found in hoards. In the early 600s, hoards of gold were
buried in the immediate vicinity of Constantinople35 and from Greece.36 After c.630, gold
finds appear in the northern Balkans, especially on the northwestern coast, as well as in
the Middle Danube region. Istria and the Dalmatian coast are the only regions in the
Balkans that have so far produced a significant number of gold coins dated to the second
half of the eighth century (Fig. 2). By contrast, the northeastern region (Dobrudja) produced
mainly copper and silver.37 Copper coins minted for Emperor Heraclius that could
be dated after 630 (i.e., after the new weight reduction of the follis) are rare in the Balkan
region (Catalogue nos 1–5), while his silver coins known from that area are all hexagrams
of his first series (MIB III 140–5), dated between 615 and 638/40 (Catalogue nos 9–13).
Hexagrams of that particular series are otherwise known from Armenian (Dvin I and II,38
Kosh) and Georgian hoards (Marganeti, Mtskheta) or from finds in the Kama-Perm
region. The latter also produced miliaresia minted for the same emperor, often in large
quantities. For example, the Bartym hoard with 272 die-linked specimens has been interpreted
as a lump payment or gift to a local chieftain.39 This may also be true for hoards
with hexagrams of Heraclius. In fact, to a much larger extent than miliaresia, the
emperor’s hexagrams seem to have been coins specifically struck for paying mercenaries
recruited for his Persian campaigns, most importantly for his conquest of Tiflis.40 A similar
interpretation applies to the hexagrams of Constans II. All Balkan specimens are hoard
finds, and include specimens of Constans’ first (MIB III 142, dated between 642 and 646),
fourth (MIB III 149–151, dated between 654 and 659), and fifth series (MIB III 152–4,
dated between 659 and 668).41 To the latter belongs the closing coin of the Valandovo
hoard (Catalogue no. 45), while in most Romanian hoards accumulation continued
through Constantine IV’s reign. Emperor Constans II also issued gold coins, such as ‘light
weight solidi’ of 20 carats commonly found in rich burial assemblages in the Middle
Dnieper region. Since specimens from Malo Pereshchepino and Novo Senzhary are
die-linked, it has been suggested that gold coins of Constans II may have been struck for
distribution to nomads in the steppes north of the Black Sea.42 None of the Balkan coins
minted for Emperors Heraclius and Constans II belongs to this category. Nor are gold
coins found in Hungary or western Romania ‘light weight solidi’ of the kind commonly
associated with Ukrainian burial assemblages. On the contrary, given the presence of some
coins minted in Carthage or Sicily, it is more likely that they mirror the Avar-Byzantine
rapprochement during Constans II’s campaign in Italy against the Lombards. As such,
they must have come from Italy, not from the steppes north of the Black Sea.43 The same
may be true for twelve copper coins of Constans II found in the Balkans (Catalogue nos
16–17, 21, 30–1, 38–9). Three of them were minted in Carthage.44
Figure 2 Eighth-century Byzantine coin finds in the Balkans: copper (circle), silver (square), and gold
(star).
Larger symbols show hoard, smaller ones show stray finds. Numbers refer to the catalogue
By contrast, out of 817 coins of Constans from the Athenian Agora, 108 were struck
in Constantinople between 655 and 657. The number of coins of Constans found in Athens
is almost four times larger than that of coins struck during the much longer reign of his
father, Heraclius. The unusually large number of coins of Constans has been explained
in terms of the emperor’s visit to Athens in 662/3.45 Indeed, more than 600 pieces from
the Athenian series were minted before that date. Moreover, they seem to cluster along
the axis of the Panathenaic Way, which may indicate the existence of ‘a military or paramilitary
encampment’ on or near the Areopagus.46 However, leaving aside the chronological
difference — for it is hard to understand why the emperor would have ‘injected’ into
Athens issues that were already several years old — the phenomenon is also visible in
Corinth and cannot be explained as a mere consequence of the imperial sojourn in Athens.
Moreover, there is a similar and, indeed, parallel, surge in the number of copper coins of
Constans in Sicily.47 It is therefore more likely that responsible for this phenomenon was
the military accompanying the emperor, not just Constans or his court. This hypothesis is
further substantiated by the presence among the Athenian coins of a relatively large
number of half-folles, all minted in a single year (659/60), whereas, with just one exception
(Catalogue no. 38), this denomination is not known from anywhere else in the Balkans.
The evidence suggests that in Greece or, at least, in Athens, small change was suddenly put
into circulation on the eve of the Italian campaign.48 It would be hard to visualise this
surge as anything else than the arrival in Athens of a group of people carrying coins
available at that time in Constantinople.49 In the case of Athens and Corinth, it is possible
that the sudden infusion of radiate was indeed associated with the military preparations
preceding the mobilization of the fleet for the war in Italy, although the local demand
for low denominations continued long after the beginning of the Italian campaign.50 A
number of coins from Sicily suggest that the mint of Constantinople was not alone in
meeting that demand.
Coins from Italy continued to reach the Balkans during the reign of Constantine IV.
Many copper coins of this emperor, as well as of his successors Justinian II and Tiberius
III, were found in coastal regions (Catalogue nos 59, 60, 62–6, 92–4, 100–01), including
the five folles of Constantine IV minted in Sicily and retrieved from excavations in the
southern Agora of Corinth.51 By contrast, all silver coins of Constantine IV are hexagrams
from North Balkan hoards.52 The latest are the closing coins of the Galatci and Priseaca
hoards, which are specimens of Emperor Constantine’s third series (MIB III 66–8, dated to
674–81). The largest group of coins in the Priseaca hoard date to the 670s, at the time of
Mu‘awiyah’s attack on Constantinople. We know that following the Byzantine victory,
‘the Chagan of the Avars as well as the kings, chieftains, and castaldi who lived beyond
them, and the princes of the western nations, sent ambassadors and gifts to the emperor,
requesting that peace and friendship should be confirmed with them’.53 It has been
suggested that the hoards of silver found in Romania were initially bribes or gifts sent to
the Bulgars, who had recently arrived in the Lower Danube region. By such means,
Emperor Constantine ‘was aiming at ensuring good relations with the new barbarians at
the empire’s northern frontier’, during the difficult period preceding the Byzantine
victory.54 An equally special purpose had the token of ½ siliqua from the Silistra hoard
(Catalogue no. 77). The token was struck in Constantinople at some point between 668
and 685, perhaps shortly before 681, for the celebration of either Rome (12 April) or, more
likely, Constantinople (11 May).55 A date c.681 may also be accepted for two of the three
hoards with gold of Constantine IV that were found in the Balkans. At least one of them
may have been buried in the circumstances surrounding the invasion of the Bulgars and
their settlement in the northeastern region of the peninsula. Most other gold coins of the
late seventh and early eighth century are stray finds from coastal areas minted in neighboring
mints (Constantinople for Catalogue nos 82–4, 86 and 96; Rome for no. 85; Ravenna
for no. 98). Except specimens found in such assemblages as the Athenian hoard with a
closing date during Constans II’s reign or the ‘Attic hoard’ with a closing date within the
reign of Leo III, the solidus minted for Justinian II during his second reign (705–11) is so
far the only Dark Age gold coin found in Greece. The rare Balkan finds of such coins, as
well as of those struck under Tiberius III, should not be taken as an indication of low mint
output, for issues of both emperors were found in relatively significant numbers in burial
assemblages in the north Caucasus and Lower Don areas. This has been rightly associated
with the liveliest Byzantine relations with both Khazars and Alans.56
In contrast with finds of gold, an unusually large quantity of copper minted for
Philippikos has been found in Athens, with a coin/regnal year ratio second only to that of
Constans II.57 Since among the thirty-one legible coins, only six obverse dies were represented,
it has been suggested that these die-linked specimens formed a body of coin specifically
transported from Constantinople and ‘injected’ into the circulating medium at
Athens.58 Responsible for this phenomenon must have been the military.59 It has also been
noted that all pieces were minted during Philippikos’ second regnal year (712/3), which is
also the year in which the apotheke appeared in the Aegean Sea.60 All identifiable coins
are 10-nummia pieces struck over half-folles of Justinian II. Margaret Thompson initially
proposed that they were the products of a local mint, despite the fact that they all bear the
mint mark CON. If indeed struck in Constantinople, such coins are conspicuously absent
from the Saraçhane series.61 On the other hand, coins of a later date found in the Athenian
Agora have been overstruck in Constantinople on coins of Philippikos.62 The relatively
large number of coins of Philippikos found in Athens is indeed remarkable, especially in
the light of the absence of such coins from Sicily, in spite of the creation of the Sicilian
theme precisely at this point in time.63 But the absence of any coins of Philippikos from
Corinth makes any interpretation of this surge in connection with the apotheke highly
dubious. Unfortunately, little is known about coins in circulation in Thessalonica during
this period, for despite extensive archaeological work within the perimeter of the city, no
comprehensive catalogue of coin finds has so far been published that would allow us to
draw comparisons.64 In Greece, on the other hand, the earliest seals are those of military65
and fiscal66 officials of the theme of Hellas. While the appearance of a genikos
kommerkiarios of Hellas in 698/9 may have been connected with the creation of the
strategia not long before 695, when the first strategos is mentioned in written sources,
there is no necessary association between the surge in coins of Philippikos and the seal of
a kommerkiarios of the apotheke of Thessalonika. An un-named state official in charge
with the imperial kommerkia of the strategia of Hellas was operating between 705 and
710. If the coins of Philippikos were in any way related to the peaks of activity of local
kommerkiarioi, one would expect an equally large amount of copper for the subsequent
reigns, for the imperial kommerkia of Hellas appear also on seals dated to 738/9 and 748/
9. While twenty-two out of twenty-three coins struck for Leo III that were found in Athens
are indeed 10-nummia pieces, the reign of Constantine V coincides in time with one of
the lowest points in the monetary history of both Athens and Corinth. Similarly, the
kommerkia of Mesembria are attested without interruption between the beginning of the
eighth century until the joint reign of Constantine V and Leo IV (751–75).67 However,
there are no coins minted during all that period, for the coin series in Mesembria stops
with Justinian II’s first reign (685–95) and resumes only with that of Theophilus (829–
42).68 Coins of eighth-century emperors appear only sporadically outside the city walls, in
Dobrudja.
Between Tiberius III and Leo IV, there are no finds of silver coins in the Balkans.
Gold coins of Constantine V, the only such finds of the second half of the eighth century,
are known from burial assemblages in Croatia. But in all five graves from Biskupija that
produced solidi of Constantine V, the associated grave goods indicate a date in the first
half of the ninth century.69 All these coins were minted in Syracuse and must therefore
have come across the Adriatic.70 Unlike coins of other emperors of the eighth century,
those struck in gold for Constantine V cluster in the western and northwestern region of
the Balkans. By contrast, seven out of fourteen copper coins of Constantine VI and Irene
are from Greece. The only Balkan finds of gold and silver struck for that emperor are
those from Bulgaria. Particularly important are the two coins, one of gold, the other of
silver, found in burial 34 in Kiulevcha, the earliest coin-dated burial assemblage in early
medieval Bulgaria known to date.71
There are several conclusions to be drawn from this survey of coin finds from the
Dark Age Balkans. First, there is a clear cluster of gold and silver coins in the northern
region. In Dobrudja and eastern Bulgaria, there is more gold and silver minted for
Constans II and Constantine IV than copper struck for the same emperors, even though a
significant number of gold coins of the former and hexagrams of the latter are hoard finds.
On more than one occasion, various scholars have associated finds of solidi or hexagrams
with special relations maintained by those emperors with individual barbarian leaders on
the frontier.72 This may even be true for other hoards, such as Valandovo, the southernmost
example of this group, which was found not far from the area known to have been
taken over by Kouber’s followers after leaving the Avar qaganate.73 The presence of
copper on the northeastern and northwestern coast has received comparatively less attention.
Particularly important for the purpose of this paper are hoard and stray finds in and
around Nesebabr (Mesembria; Catalogue nos 28–9, 52–3, 66–7, 86 and 94), which represent
half of all copper coins minted between Heraclius and Justinian II that were found in the
region. During that period, Mesembria remained under direct Byzantine control without
any interruption. The city is mentioned several times as an important port and military
outpost on the western Black Sea coast.74 Emperor Constantine IV stopped in Mesembria,
‘together with five dromones and his retinue’, following his defeat by the Bulgars in 679 or
680.75 During Justinian II’s first reign, Mesembria was the place of exile for the future
Emperor Leo III and his parents.76 A Bulgar chieftain, Sabinos, found shelter within the
city walls after being overthrown in 761 or 762.77 Another Bulgar ruler, Krum, when eventually
taking the city in 812, found ‘36 brass siphons and a considerable quantity of the
liquid fire that is projected from them as well as an abundance of gold and silver’.78 At
least part of the apparent prosperity of Mesembria in the early ninth century must have
been associated with the role the city played in the trade network in the Black Sea region.
Mesembria was the main centre of trade with the Bulgars, and active trade may indeed
have been the reason behind the early appearance of local kommerkiarioi.79 It is often
assumed that the main task of these officials was to provide and sell military equipment
and weapons to the soldiers80 and that the presence of copper coins may be associated
with transactions between the apotheke and the local soldiery in which, in addition to inkind
payments, small amounts of cash may have been used for purchases. We know very
little about prices in the late seventh or early eighth century, but even a hoard of copper
such as that found in 1979 or 1980 in Nesebabr (Catalogue nos 28, 66 and 94), must have
been worth a very small fraction of a solidus.81 Copper coins could not have been used for
the purchase of expensive items, such as weapons. Given the fiduciary nature of copper
coinage, it is also very unlikely that copper coins could indicate special relations with barbarian
chieftains, even if isolated finds of copper in the northern Balkans are relatively
common in the 600s and 700s (Catalogue nos 30, 33, 37, 102, 118 and 126).82
While the presence of kommerkiarioi in Greece cannot be dated earlier than c.700,
the large number of coins minted for Constans II, Constantine IV, and Justinian II found
during excavations in Athens and Corinth cannot be explained in terms of either tax payments
or special-purpose coinage. If, as suggested above, the ‘injection’ of a large number
of coins of Constans II into the market at Athens, a situation without any parallel in the
Balkans, may be associated with the preparations for Constans II’s expedition to Italy in
663, it may be possible to raise the question of what system may have been in place in
Byzantine Greece before the inception of the theme of Hellas. If anything, the numismatic
evidence suggests that although copper coins have the tendency to follow the military,83
there is no mechanical association between warfare or the presence of Byzantine troops,
on one hand, and copper coinage on the other. Indeed, one of the most conspicuous
aspects of the distribution of seventh-century coins in the Balkans is the absence of a
significant number of Istrian finds. There are only few coins that could be dated to this
period (Catalogue nos 14, 39, 60, 71, 98 and 113). Long time under the authority of the
exarch of Ravenna, Istria seems to have become in the late seventh century a separate
administrative unit, much like a kleisoura, with its own troops under the command of a
local magister militum.84 Besides milites alii per Histriam mentioned by Paul the Deacon,
the magister militum had a small number of soldiers (about sixty) under his direct command,
all of whom were local recruits.85 By the late sixth or early seventh century, Trieste
had become a separate administrative and military border unit, the numerus tergestinus.86
In addition, the network of castella in northern Istria (Piran, Umag, Rovinj, Labin,
Motovun, Buzet, and Nezakcij) was designed to control access from Lombard or
Avar-held territory to the north.87 Judging by the measure of their participation in crushing
the usurpation of imperial power following Constans II’s assassination in 669, the
Byzantine troops in Istria must have been relatively numerous.88 Yet no seals of
kommerkiarioi have so far been found in Istria or anywhere else in Croatia. Nor is
the apotheke mentioned in the Adriatic Sea at any point in time.89 The absence of the
apotheke dovetails with the rarity, if not absence, of Byzantine copper coins from the
north Adriatic region.90 That this is by no means the result of a lack of more elaborate
administrative structures in Istria (such as the theme) is shown by the equally relevant
absence of copper coins in Thrace. By the end of the seventh century, when the Thracian
theme was created, it may not have comprised more than just two narrow strips of land
along the western coast of the Black Sea and the northern coast of the Aegean Sea.91 The
size of the theme must have grown considerably only after the revived Byzantine offensive
under Constantine V, Leo IV and Irene.92 Yet absolutely no coins of copper have been
found so far in the eastern region of the Balkans that could be dated to the eighth century.
To be sure, the imperial kommerkia of Thrace are mentioned on seals dated to 730–41 and
751–75.93 Why then the absence of coins?94
The only regions in the Balkans to have produced a significant quantity of radiate
are Greece, Dobrudja and eastern Bulgaria. By far the largest number is that of Greek
finds (144 out of all 156 documented half-folles and 10-nummia pieces). In Athens, the
three reigns conspicuously represented by such petty coinage are those of Constans II,
Philippikos, and Leo III. Among coins from the northeastern area, four out of ten specimens
were found in Mesembria. While less evident quantitatively, finds from Romania
and Bulgaria may help us understand the significance of the Greek finds. For example, the
decanummia of Philippikos found in Athens have been long viewed as a special local issue
that did not circulate beyond Athens.95 But 10-nummia pieces are now known not only
from other parts of Greece (Catalogue no. 108), but also from Dobrudja (Catalogue
no. 109). There seems to be some connection between petty currency and coastal regions
easily accessible by sea.
Indeed, neither Istria, nor Thrace (as a theme) had any particular importance for the
Byzantine fleet. The local troops in both areas were mainly designed to wage war on land,
and no local harbour facility is known to have played any major role in various military
confrontations in which Byzantium was engaged during the seventh or eighth century. By
contrast, Mesembria, Athens, and Corinth were strategic points of control that the Empire
did not relinquish at any time before 800. The interruption of the coin series in Mesembria
after the first reign of Justinian II may well be a consequence of the increasing importance
of the Bulgarian trade with its typical lack of monetary exchanges. But in the case of
Greece, the presence of copper coins has to do more with the concomitant presence of the
fleet than with the implementation of either the strategia or the apotheke. If the surge in
number of coins minted for Emperor Constans II can be associated with his preparations
for the sea expedition to Italy, the presence and importance of the fleet in Hellas during
the reign of Constantine IV is highlighted in a passage from the second book of the
Miracles of St Demetrius, in which we are told that a strategos of the fleet named Sisinnios
was sent to Thessalonica together with his troops to sort out things related to accusations
of conspiracy levelled at Mauros and his men.96 That coins struck in Carthage, Rome, or
Syracuse were found in Dobrudja (Catalogue nos 17, 38, 62, 70 and 123) could hardly be
explained without reference to the fleet. The letters sent by Pope Martin from his Crimean
exile in 655 and 656 are often cited as an example of the bleak economic situation within
a peripheral region of the empire.97 But it is often forgotten that they also demonstrate
that sea communications between Chersonesus and Rome were not interrupted in the
mid-seventh century.
Nor were the sea-lanes between Athens and Constantinople interrupted at any point
during the subsequent period. If the 10-nummia pieces minted for Philippikos found in
the Agora of Athens were indeed minted in Constantinople, their presence in both Greece
and Dobrudja should also be attributed to the fleet. Indeed, one is reminded of the similar
situation of the late fifth and early sixth century, when both areas must have been flooded
with relatively large numbers of minimi that later turned out in hoards with latest coins
minted before c.570.98 By the time hoards without such coins were closed in the 570s
or 580s, the smallest fractions of the follis were already valueless and probably out of
circulation.99 Similarly, by the time 10-nummia pieces of Philippikos may have been in use
in Athens, the value of the follis itself had dropped to 1/288 of a solidus.100 The seventhcentury
collection of the miracles of St Artemius describes a man who, after falling on a
muddy street of Constantinople, gathers all the small change he dropped on the ground,
‘down to the last half-follis’, as if this were the smallest denomination in existence.101
That small change remained in use throughout this period is further confirmed by other
sources.102 On the other hand, the rapidly diminishing value of the follis makes one
wonder what was the exact use people had for such low-value denominations as 10-
nummia pieces. According to the seventh-century Life of St. John the Almsgiver, five folles
were sufficient for buying the daily ration of food.103 All known 10-nummia pieces from
Athens could have bought food for three days, if the monetary value was still reckoned in
nummia, but taken individually, each one of them could not have been worth much more
than a portion of the daily ratio of vegetables.104 In fact, such coins may not even have
circulated at fixed value, as suggested by the practice of overstriking lower on higherdenomination
coins. The half-folles and decanummia found in Greece and Dobrudja may
thus signal the existence of local markets of low-price commodities, most likely food in
small quantities, serving a population that had direct access to both low-value coinage and
sea-lanes. Such coins can hardly be associated with either the apotheke or the high-ranking
individuals serving as kommerkiarioi during this period. Nor should the low-value coinage
be interpreted as evidence of ‘deserted villages’, for, if anything, the presence of such small
change suggests that oarsmen or sailors of either commercial or war ships could rely
on constant supplies of fresh food in certain points along the coast. In the absence of a
‘historical pattern of events established for us by the literary and documentary record’, the
numismatic evidence can in this case guide us towards a different understanding of the
Dark Ages.
Dark-Age coins in the Balkans: A catalogue
Dark Age coins in the Balkans_ A catalogue.txt
WIDGETIZE
How to use Quote function: