Folia archeologica 27.
Katalin Bíró-Sey: I. Anastasius ezüst medalionja a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum éremgyűjteményében
SILVER MEDAL OF ANASTASIUS I 125 the fact that at the time of the publication only the medal of Leo and not those of Justin were known. As the inscription of the observe is illegible, he attributed the specimen to Justinian holding it for a new portrait of the emperor. An iconographical comparison of the medal with those of Justin settled the question. 1 2 According to Hahn these medals were minted with an identical die. 1 3 Comparing the observes and reverses, put in chronological order on the plate, we can obverse a massive deterioration of style regarding both representations and letter types. On the medal of the emperor Leo the portrait is much more minute, the letters of the inscription small and firm, unlike those on the medals of Anastasius and Justin. The minute and plastic execution of the wreath on the reverse of the Leo medal is quite different from the later ones. On both sides of the Anastasius medal we find a flatter, more linear representation. The letters of the legend are larger, those on the obverse disorderly, the single links almost incoherent. The wreath of the reverse is not only linear and flat but much more schematized as that of the Leo medal. The misprint of the abbreviation MVLT can be found also on the Justin medals. The portrait is here marked merely by a few lines, the letters on the reverse fill the field almost completely, allowing only a small place for the wreath. The letters of the reverse are, compared with those of the Leo medal, almost twice as large. The rough-and-ready execution is characteristic for both sides of the medals. The chronology of the Anastasius medal is uncertain, as neither the mints of Leo, nor those of Justin can be linked to a nearer date, settling the time of their minting exactly. Though they were stuck during the reign of different emperors, they have the common problem of their dating, furthermore that of the chronological peculiarity of the reverse legends. Analysing the representations of the obverses and reverses, as well as the letters, we have pointed to the fact that these medals show a change, i. e. a deterioration of style. This deterioration can be followed gradually, the sequence of the emperors giving a chronological basis for it. The circumstance that their reverse representations differ from those of the contemporaneous coins, can be explained. It is rather an usual phenomenon, as their prototypes, the Roman medals, differ as for their representation from the coins in circulation as well. Roman medals, though, record an outstanding event, an annyversary, but always something which really happened. In the case of these Byzantine medals the alleged events are fictitious, as neither the reign of Anastasius, nor that of Justinian lasted - not even approximately - as long as 40 years. The text of Leo's medal (VOT/XXXV/MXLT/XXXX is, however, consequent as for its sense, but his reign had no 35 years' anniversary either. In the case of our Byzantine medal as well as the analogies mentioned, the reverses of mints, stuck under an earlier emperor, were used as prototypes and copied incorrectly, their meaning having been lost. Here only Theodosius II can come in question, whose reign lasted long: on his solidi the legend referring to the anniversary is according to the sense. As for the different numbers figuring together with the word VOTA on the reverse of Leo's medal we advert but briefly to a hypothesis. It is quite possible 1 2 Ibid. 103. N 7. 1 3 Ibid.
