No abstract

Relations between numismatists and historians have been confused by uncertainties about each other's role. As well as classifying coins numismatists should study them with a view to answering historical questions. This paper examines the ways in which coins convey information and illustrates the potential, as well as the problems, of using numismatics in answering some of the questions posed by the study of seventh century Syria. It also warns against the danger of pre-conceptions about the role of coinage and the status of different forms of evidence. Numismatists and historians The relationship of numismatics to other branches of historical study has always been a peculiar one. Trained historians have rarely found time or energy to master its details; and trained numismatists have been prone to content themselves with a slender historical equipment. C.G. Crump and C. Johnson (1902) Coins belong to a class of historical evidence whose exploitation, like papyri or cinema newsreels, requires a degree of expertise not usually available to the conventional historian and also one which, like photographs, are often studied and collected for their own sake. The numismatist's brief is to record their appearance and physical characteristics and then to try and identify the authority that issued them and the time and place when they were struck. Most would regard it as part of their job to comment on the cultural influences on the design, fabric and material of the coin or coin series, to estimate the size of its issue, and the scope of its circulation. Numismatists have developed techniques such as die study and frequency tables and, inevitably, a certain amount of jargon. An eye for style is also often required but the results of this are not always easy to communicate and, pace Michael Bates, take practice to acquire. 1 To go further and ask who used the coin and why, what does the knowledge we have gleaned about it tell us about the historical identity of the society which generated it, in particular its economy and fiscal system; and, since all history is about change, our theoretical understanding of the trends in the historical development of that society, is to move into the territory of the historian.

No abstract

After the city of Antioch was captured by the crusaders in 1098 Bohemond ofTarentum declared himself Prince of Antioch. In the summer of 1099 he was captured bythe Danishmendids and remained a prisoner for four years. During his absence Antiochwas ruled by his nephew Tancred. In 1104 Bohemond left the Holy Land and neverreturned. Until his death in 1111 he titled himself Prince of Antioch and was succeededby his infant son, also called Bohemond. Tancred (1104–12) and his successor Roger(1112–19) also used the title 'Prince‘ and obviously considered themselves more thanjust simply 'regents‘ for Bohemond I or II.The coinage attributed to Bohemond I, prince of Antioch (1098–1111) consists of asingle type in copper in Byzantine style. It depicts a bust of St Peter on the obverse and afloreate cross, with the letters B H M T in the angles, on the reverse. Ever since it wasfirst attributed to Bohemond I by de Saulcy in 1847 it has been generally accepted thatthis type is a coin of Bohemond I and not Bohemond II (1119–30). The copper coins ofthe princes of Antioch were usually overstruck on preceding types and until now therehas been no sign of a coin of Bohemond‘s successors, the 'regents‘ Tancred, Roger andBohemond II, overstruck on a coin of Bohemond I. The article publishes a clear exampleof a type 3 coin of Tancred overstruck on a coin of Bohemond I, so the identification isnow secure.The coins of Bohemond I are scarce but recently a relatively large number haveappeared in trade. This provides an opportunity to analyse the coinage in more detail.There are two types in somewhat different styles and it is not clear whether they shouldbe regarded as substantive types or just the work of different die cutters. The articleconsiders the possibility that one could belong to the first period of Bohemond‘s presence in Antioch and the other to his second. If this is the case then it is possible that some of Tancred‘s early coins date from the time of his first 'regency‘ since the precedent for coinage had been established. It seems more likely, however, that both types belong to Bohemond‘s second stay and that Tancred did not begin to coin until after Bohemond left Antioch for good.As a postscript a new 'variety‘ of the coinage of Bohemond of scyphate fabric is published.