Byzantine Cherson (in Greek it is spelled with a chi, so its pronunciation is somewhat like "CARE son") was located where Sevastopol is now. Sevastopol is in the Crimea, Ukraine, on the peninsula projecting into the north side of the Black Sea. The ruins of Cherson cover a cape on the edge of the city and parts are under water. Ancient Cherson (destroyed by the Mongols-Tatars in the 13th century) is the one labeled with large letters - it is not the modern Cherson (founded 1779) labeled with small letters.
    The city is the "Tauric" Chersonesus as opposed to the "Thracian" Chersonesus at Gallipoli on the European side of the Dardanelles. In the Greek period, coins of both places are found under "Thrace," although in different subsections.

Byzantine coins of Cherson (Kherson) :
A comprehensive list
        by Warren Esty
e-mail me at: 
Copyright (c) 2002-2009, all rights reserved
I welcome comments, suggestions, and corrections.
If you care about these coins, please contact me.

Introduction :  Coins are organized chronologically by emperor and type. The primary reference is  Anokhin. Sear is the secondary reference.

Attributions by Sear (Byzantine Coins and Their Values) and the other major western references (Dumbarton Oaks, Grierson, Berk, etc.) frequently differ substantially from those of Anokhin. There are three main areas of controvery (The arguments are discussed below ).
1)  Who issued the AE14-16 coins with VICTOR reverses?  Excellent examples show at least "IVSTIN ...." Some legends are clearly of Justinian. The question is if any are of Justin. Some legends are short enough for Justin, but those seem so blundered it is not certain they intended to say "IVSTINVS" instead of "IVSTINIANVS."
2)  Who issued the "M" and "H" folles and "K" and "delta" half-folles with legend "XEPCONOC "? Very similar coins were issued in the name of Maurice, so older attributions of the "XEPCONOC" types were also to Maurice, but now some scholars have argued that they were originally issued by Justin II.
3)  Which of the several types with monograms of "Romanus " belong to which of the four emperors named "Romanus" ?

For arguments about attributions, see below . The table uses green to indicate that the reference in green (usually Sear) attributes the types differently than I have in these tables. For notes about references to Sear, see below .

Format , abbreviations , references , types , and color code are discussed below. Monograms are easy to find in the table itself. However, in addition, all monograms are listed in one place and linked to the table .

To search this page, use the usual "Find" command: "ctrl, F". To find a type by Sear number use "S" as a prefix with no following space, eg. S1772 .

Struck or Cast ? Coins from Cherson from the 5th century through Constans II (641-668) were struck. Their fabric, if not their designs, resembles normal Byzantine coin fabric. After a long gap in production, coinage apparently resumed at Cherson in the late 8th century with crude cast (not stuck) coins imitating earlier types. Coinage attributable to a particular emperor resumed with Theophilus (829-842) and from then on most types were cast. The fabric of the cast coins of Cherson is distinct and unlike that of other contemporary series of coins.

Emperors in the tables.
400-500:  Theodosius II and Valentinian III, Zeno   [coins usually attributed to Constantinople, but found only near Cherson]
500-600:  Justin I,  Justinian I, Justin II and Sophia, Maurice
600-668:  Heraclius, Constans II
**** Above here, coins are struck. After here, almost all coins are cast.
829-900:  Theophilus, Michael III, Basil I, Leo VI and Alexander
900-1000:  Constantine VII and Romanus I, Romanus II, Nicehorus II, John I, Basil II and Constantine VIII
1000-1071:  Romanus III, Romanus IV    [the final coins of the Cherson mint]

Table Format:  Emperor (dates). (Link to images)  [typical sizes]

E# (Esty     type   number) size: mm

Obverse    type or line drawing

Reverse    type or line drawing

Anokhin number:    Axxx Sokolova plate.number:  SoX.Y

Sear   number:   Sxxxx green color code

Berk number:   Bxxx

Grierson  number:    Gxxx

DO numbers

comments

Struck Coins of Cherson
Theodosius II (402-459) and Valentinian III (425-455). Images.  [AE2's]

ES1 21mm	AE2 helmeted bust right DN THEO...	two emps stg on either side of long cross CONCORDIA AGV [sic]	A--	SR-- So--	RIC X 460 "R3"  "? 437" Con	Hahn 71 pl. 4  Con	DO LRC 435 Con	NC 1995 p. 271-5
ES2 21mm	the same  but DN VAL...	same	A--	SR-- So--	RIC X 461 "R4" Con	Hahn --	DO LRC --	NC 1995 p. 271-5 pl. 48: 2-3

RIC X, p. 92: "As with the AE2 of Leo and Zeno, provenences imply that this denomination was struck at Constantinople specifically in Cherson and its hinterland."  NC 1995 notes that there seems to be no exception to the provenences being the region of Cherson. [Hahn does not cover Valentinian III.] Valentinian III's pieces are much rarer, which is not surprising this far east because he was the western ruler.
These and the Leo pieces have a mintmark of Constantinople in exergue:  CON or CONE. NC 1995 suggests (but does not assert) it should be believed.

Leo I (457-474) and Verina. Images. [AE2's]

ES3 19mm	AE2 bust right	VIRTVS EXRCITI [sic] emp rt. with standard and globe foot on captive	A-- So1.1	S--	RIC X 652-4 Constantinople	H23a-b Pl. 9 Con	DO LRC 560
ES4 19mm	AE2 bust right	SALVS R-PVBLCA [sic] emp rt. with standard and globe foot on captive	A-- So1.2-3	SR4339	RIC X 657-664 Constantinople	H24a-b Pl. 9 Con	DO LRC 561	D. Markov: Perhaps the high-quality ones really are  from Constantinople.
ES5 19mm	AE2 Verina bust right	SALVS REIPVBLICAE,  Victory seated right,  inscribing chi-rho on shield.	A-- So--	SR4345	RIC X 655-6 Constantinople	H25 Con pl. 9	DO LRC 598

Anokhin does not attribute any coins of Theodosius II, Valentinian III, or Leo I to Cherson. However, if they were not actually struck in Cherson, they were certainly associated with Cherson in that they are found in the region of Cherson and generally not elsewhere.  Hahn calls these pieces "maiorina."

Zeno  (474-491). Images.   [Small AE2's]

ES6 17mm

AE2, bust right DN ZENO  PF AVG

CONCORDIA // emp stg r, holding spear and globe captive at feet

A309 So1.4-9

RIC X 948 R2 p. 312, pl. 33 p. 118 Constantinople

H23.1-2 pl. 13 Con

DO LRC 604 = H23.1

H "second reign" p. 74  sites NC 1948 p. 224

Anokhin attributes this type to Cherson. The region of Cherson is the provenence of finds. The flan is usually too small for the dies.

Justin I (518-527). Images.   [14 mm]

ES7 14mm	bust right	VICTOR  emp stg w long cross and shield	A312 So1.11-12	S112B	B111v1 Justin I LD	G--	H77 Justin I	(DO371) cites T.515f
ES8 14mm	bust right	VICTOR  emp stg w labarum	A313 So1.10	S112A	B110 Justin I	G--	H76.1,76.2 Justin I
ES9 14mm	bust right	VICTOR emp stg w  long cross and globe	A311 So. 1.13-14	S112C	B--				This has a short, blundered, obverse legend. See ES11 for the same type with a longer legend. A326 is a later cast of this type.

    Sear gives all three VICTOR types to Justin, and the third type also to Justinian, as listed in these tables. Anokhin gives them all to Justinian. Many examples have a legend short enough to be Justin, but none are clear and sensible all the way to the end of the legend. The three types above are associated with shorter obverse legends and therefore given to Justin. When a VICTOR piece has a long obverse legend definitely showing enough letters to be attributible to Justinian, it is type ES11, with emperor holding a globe. Sokolova attributes examples of "emperor holding a globe" with a short, blundered, obverse legend (ES9), to Justin I, and very similar examples with slightly longer blundered legends to Justinian I (ES11). Sear has the same distinction. Without any confidence in them, I have chosen to reproduce these attributions here.
    If these three types were not given different Sear entries, they would probably be regarded as one type with three minor variants.
    For the arguments supporting the various points of view, see below .

Justinian I  (527-565). Images . [14-16 mm]

ES10 16mm	bust right	VICTORIA AVGGG  emp standing	A310	S--	B309v2	G--	H252b (pl. 29, p. 157) = A310		Hahn (2000): "one die .. a thoughtless copy of the solidus legend."
ES11 14-17 mm	bust right	VICTOR emp stg w long cross and globe	A311 So1.13-14 So2.1-4	S197A	B309v1	G159	H78 (pl. 11, p. 106f)  Justin  I H252a1, 252a2  (pl. 29, p.157f)		See also ES9.  See also A326 for a later cast version, "second half of 8th century"
ES12 14mm	bust right		A314 So2.5-9	S197	B310	G160	H253	DO I: XXIV 108.1,108.2

Anokhin gives all the VICTOR types to Justinian I (See the reasoning below ). Hahn ascribes some to Justin I (518-527). Sokolova attributes some VICTOR types (ES7-9) to Justin and some also to Justinian (ES11). Even her Justinian pieces have short, blundered, legends and I cannot tell how he distinguishes ES11 from ES9 in the coins she illustrates. ES11 is often larger, less blundered, and has more letters. Here, the intention is that coins with long obverse legends indicating Justinian will be ES11; short legends with barely enough letters for Justin will be ES9.

Justin II and Sophia  (565-578). Images .
    [The attribution of types with obverse legend "XEPCONOC" to Justin II by Anokhin and Hahn is rejected here in favor of attribution to Maurice, as in Sear. However, many dealers are now using the attribution to Justin II.]

Maurice  (582-602). Images.

ES13 30mm	two figures XEPCONOC	figure, M	A315 So3.1-2	S603 LD, Maurice	B357	G162	DO I: LXXX 297.1-2	S604 w LD is this type with legend DNMAV.... The existence of S604 is doubtful. A--, DO (302) cites Sabatier.
ES14 24mm	two figures XEPCONOC	figure, K	A316 So3.3	S608 Maurice	B359	G--	(298)	S609 is this type with legend DMMAV... The existence of S609 is doubtful. A--, B--, DO --
ES15 30mm	two figures XEPCONOC	figure, H	A317 So3.4-6 So5.3-6	S605 S606 Maurice	B356	G161	299.3, 300.2 6 pieces, slight variants	So6.2 is this type with a Heraclius monogram countermark
ES16 24mm	two figures XEPCONOC	figure,Δ	A318 319 So3.7	S610 LD  (rev only) Maurice	B358	G163	DO 301	There are later cast imitations  See below .
ES17 30mm	two figures DNMA...	figure,  H	A320 So4.1-4	S607	B458 LD	G--	DO I, 303.2 2 pieces	+ above and between figures
ES18 25mm	two figures DNMA...	figure, Δ	A321 So5.1-2	S611	B460	G--	DO--	There are later smaller cast imitations See below .

    Anokhin assigns the varieties with XEPCONOC to Justin II, instead of the older attribution to Maurice used by Sear. Anokhin leaves only those with DNMAVRIC PP AVG to Maurice. Grierson does not outright deny it, but has his doubts. For the arguments, see below .
    The types with M and K (S604, S609) in the name of Maurice probably do not exist. No modern author has found an example and old citations and the Sear line drawing are all from one source, Sabitier, who probably just misread type ES13. Anokhin has no example and the DO number for ES13 is in parentheses "(302)", which means they have no example.
    The obverse legend for Maurice is given in references in an ideal form: DN MAV-RIC PP AVG, or something similar, however the coins themselves may omit letters and the delta type omits several.

Heraclius  (610-641)  [no images]

ES19 26mm

two figures

H, cross, figure

A322 So6.1

S926

B633  LD "< 5 recorded"

MIB 265

DO II,I: XXII 311

Sear: "The obverse of this coin is sometimes countermarked with the Heraclian monogram 32."

Constans II (641-668) Image.

ES20 26mm

two figures cross between

figure, K           B

A--

S1145c

B714 LD

G--

DO (210) "Bosporus?"

S: "extremely rare" DO no photo

Hahn (NCirc, 1978) knew of only 3 examples. He is certain that it has "KB" and not "XB" as Morrison read one example. The example here is much clearer and makes it certain.  This is the last major die-struck type from Cherson (assuming it is from Cherson). Almost all later coins are cast.
After this type, there is a long gap until the late 8th century with no coins from Cherson. The next type attributable to a particular emperor belongs to Theophilus.

Cast Coins of Cherson:
From this time on, most coins are cast, not struck.  (Some of the very rare earliest types are struck.)
Late 8th Century. Images.

E1 20-15 mm			A323-325 So6.4-5	S--	B--	G--	DO--	much reduced size, crude cast imitation of types of Justin II and Maurice. Hahn (1978) said only 3 were known
E2 15-12 mm			A328-329 So.6.6-11	S--	B--	G--	DO--	A: "late 8th-early 9th century" very crude and small

There is a cast imitation, A326, of the "VICTOR" type, ES9 above, which Anokin gives to the "second half of the 8th century."

Theophilus  (829-842). Images.   [12 mm]

E3 12mm

A330 So6.12-13

S--

B--

G--

DO--

extremely     rare

Michael III  (842-867):  Images.   [13-15 mm]

E4 13mm			A331-332	S--	B--	G--	DO--	A: "emperor". A332 may have a small B to the right of the M. This type is struck, not cast.
E5 14mm			A333-336	S--	B--	G--	DO--	A: "Protevon".  This type is struck, not cast.
E6 14mm			A337	S--	B--	G--	DO--	A: "Archont". These 3 are the "first series" of Michael III. This type is struck, not cast.
E7 14- 12mm			A338-340 342 So7.1-2	S1699	B903 LD	G866 So7.2	DO III,I:XXIX 15.1,2,3	The next two are this type, but with order of the letters switched on the obverse (E8/7) and on both sides (E8). G, page 187: "AD 866-867" The ill-cast A344 may lack the reverse "o".
E8/7 14mm			A341	S1699/ 1700	B--	G--	DO--	reverse of E7 and obverse of E8. That is, this is E7 with the order of the letters reversed on the obverse
E8 13mm			A343 So --	S1700	B904	G--	DO--	the previous type, E7, with the order of the letters reversed on both sides
E9 14mm			A345-348 So6.14	S1701	B---	G865	(14)	This type is struck, not cast. DO: "class 1, 860-866"  p.469.  Sokolova "9th C." p. 140
E10 15mm			A349 So8.12-13	S1739 Alexander	B926	G876	DO II,II: Alex XXXV (4)	This type is struck, not cast. A: "Archont"  G:  autonomous So:  Alexander, AD 912-2
E11 13mm	? M ? garbled	?	A350	S--	B--	G--	DO--	This type is struck, not cast. Small  "early 9th C."   One unclear piece.

Sokolova gives the "MB" piece (E7) to Michael III and Basil I, AD 867, but does not list the "BM" piece (E8).

Basil I  (867-886). Images.   [15-17 mm, rarely larger]

E12 19-13 mm			A351	S--		G--		This type is struck, not cast. A has one example, larger than the usual  Basil I "B", but the reverse is garbled. A 13 mm example is (perhaps) unpublished.
E13 15mm			A354-358 So7.3-6	S1720	B913	G867	DO III,II: 17.a2-3, 17.c	A353 is struck., but similar in design to these. DO pl. XXXIII G:  class 1, 867
E13v 12mm	retro- grade		A359	S1720v				as E13, but obverse retrograde
E14 17mm			A360-375 So7.7-9 So.7.12	S1719v1	B911	G870	DO 20a.3,.9	A370 and So7.8 do not have pellets beside the cross. On So7.12 the "B" is similar to E15, but with no dot
E15 15mm			A376 So7.16	S1719v2		G--	DO--	So7.16 has no clear dot in the B. The cross is wider than E16.
E16 16mm			A377-383 So7.13-15	S1719v3		G871	DO 20b.1-3	Similar to A360 above, but with pellets.  It is slightly reduced in size and the bottom  loop is almost a delta. The top is not quite closed.
E17 22-19 mm			A384 So.13.8	S--	B--	G--	DO--	Anokhin "9th century", listed right after Basil I. Sokolova: "anonymous". Zagreba  #60 calls it "interregnum" after Constantine VII (913-959) and before Romanus II and Basil II (959-963)

There are various shapes of "B", from an almost modern "B" to a delta-shaped lower part. They also come with and without pellets on either side.

Leo VI and Alexander  (886-912). Images.   [16-15 mm, one up to 18 mm]

E18 18- 15 mm			A385-388 391,393,396 So8.1-2,5-7	S1731 LD	B920	G872	DO III,II 9.1 pl. XXXV	Lambda, epsilon for "Leo". Leo VI A386 lacks dots beside the cross.
E19 16mm			A389 So8.3-4	S1733 LD	B922	G874	DO III,II 11	Leo VI and Alexander
E20 16mm			A390 So8.8-9	S1734 LD (rev)	B923	G875	12.1-3	Leo VI and Alexander
E21 16mm		facing   bust	A392 So8.10-11	S1732 LD	B921	G873	10.1-2	Leo VI
E22 15mm		facing   bust	A395	S1771v1 Con VII	B940v1	G--	DO--	Anokhin has these letters with dots for Con VII while he was assoc. ruler 908-912 (That is why E22 is here rather than below.) See E23, next, for the obverse without dots during his own reign. Sear distinguished E22 and E23 in the first edition, but  not the second.

The coins with "A" that Sear lists as "Alexander" are listed here under Michael III as Archont, as attributed by Anokhin.

Constantine VII (913-959) and Romanus I (920-944). Images.  [15-17 mm]

E23 16mm		facing   bust	A397-400 So9.3-5	S1771v2	B940 LD	G878	DO III,II 29.1,29.4	See E22 above for similar type with dots. DO pl. XL
E24 16mm	facing   bust	facing   bust	A401-402 So9.1-2	S1763	B932	G877	28	Sear says "Con VII/Zoe" (914-919), as does Sokolova. A says "Con VII/Helen"
E25 16mm	P bust O	X bust P	A403 So9.9	S1769	B938	G880	(31)	S: RO for Romanus, XP for Christopher Anokhin thinks the portraits are of Constantine and Helen and the legends for Romanus and Christopher, putting all four on one coin.
E26 16mm	facing   bust		A404-407 So9.6-8	S1766	B935	G879	30.2	Romanus monogram
E27 16mm			A408 So10.1	S1768	B937 LD	G883	DO III,II 35 pl. XL
E28 17mm			A409-413 419-421 So10.2-6	S1775 Romanus II	B942	G887	3a.3-4 pl. XL	P sometimes (usually?) retrograde, as in Sear's photo, and A409-410.
E29 17mm			A414-418 So10.7-8	S1770	B939	G885	37.1	"Constantine" abbreviated
E30 15mm			A423-424 426-427 So13.5-7	S-- cf S1764	B--	G--	DO--	Small size. Resembles E44 but much smaller. Sokolova "anonymous"
E31 17mm			A428-430 So10.9-10	S1772	B941 LD	G886	DO 38.1,38.7	The obverse top sometimes almost looks like a P

Note:  The  monogram and the  monogram previously attributed to Romanus I are given by Anokhin to Romanus IV and Romanus III, respectively (below).

Romanus II (959-963), with Basil II (from 960)  Images. [16-20 mm]

E32 17mm			A431-432 So11.1-2	S1767 Romanus I	B936 LD ill-drawn	G884	DO III,II 36, pl. XL	B for his baby son, co-emperor Basil II Sokolova: Romanus II
E33 20- 18mm			A433-434 So10.8-9	S1718 Basil I	B---	G868	DO 18, pl. XXXIII	Associate rulers Basil II  and Constantine VIII Sokolova:  Basil II and Con VIII
E34 16mm			A--	S--	B--	G--	DO--	CNG 41 (3/97) lot 2439

Nicephorus II (963-969). Images. [18 mm]

E35 18mm

A435-437 So10.3-4

S1784 LD

B945 LD

G888

DO III,II 9 pl. XLI

John (969-976). Images.  [18 mm]

E36 18mm

A438-440 So10.5

S1794 LD

B947

G889

DO III,II 8.1,8.3 pl.XLII

Zagreba claims a new type for John, his #65, with this obverse and a slightly variant reverse, but I see it as a miscast coin of this type.

Basil II (976-1025) and Constantine VIII (976-1028). Images. [17 or 22 mm]

E37 17mm			A441-444 So10.6-7	S1814 LD	B949	G890	DO III,II, pl. XLVII 21a, 21b.1-2	A443: retrograde obverse DO 21.b retrograde rev.
E38 22mm			A445-448 So7.10-11	S1717 Basil I	B910	G869	DO III,II Basil I 19.1 pl. XXXIII	large, AE23 So. Basil II

Sear does not attribute any coins to Cherson after Basil II, S1814.

Romanus III  (1028-1034). Images.  [24 mm]

E39 24mm			A449-452 So13.3-4	S1765v2 Romanus I	B934v2	G882	DO--	The top of the delta may vary:
E40 24mm			A453 So12.5-6	S1764v2 Romanus I	B933v2	G--	DO III,II,  pl.XL 32.b1
E41 24mm		blank	A-- So--	S1764v3 Romanus I	B--	C--	DO --	Usually attributed as A453 (S1764v2) with  a very weak reverse. Malloy LVI (3/00) lot 898
E42 24mm			A454	S--	B--	G--	DO--

Sokolova attributes all the  and  monogram pieces as "anonymous XI-XIII century" (p.143 and plates 12-13).
Anokhin cites conclusive hoard evidence to prove that these "rho-omega" types must be XIth century or later. The timing and monogram apparently fit Romanus III. He convinces me they can not be of an earlier Romanus (I or II). However, I see no reason to assume that the next, slightly different, monogram should be attributed to Romanus IV, skipping thirty years and several reigns. I prefer the caution of Sokolova.

Other late issues attributed by Anokhin to Romanus IV (1067-1071). Images. [24 mm]

E43 24mm			A455	S1765v1 Romanus I	B934v1	G--	DO III,II 34.1-2 pl.XL	This resembles E39, merely with a different version of the rho-omega.
E44 24mm			A456-462 465-467 So12.1-4,7-8	S1764v1 Romanus I	B933v1     LD	G881	32.a1-2	The cross is usually weak. It may be that some pieces said to be "weak" are really blank, as A468-480 below. See E30 for a smaller piece.
E45 24mm			A463-464	S--	B--	G--	DO--

Issues of the late 11th and early 12th centuries. Images.  [various sizes]

E46 22mm		blank	A468-474 476-480 So12.10,13.1-2	S1764v3 Romanus I	B933v2	G---	DO III,II XL: 33.2	A476-480 have somewhat reduced size. This type is usually attributed as A456-467 with a very weak reverse.
E47 20mm		other,   X	A475 So11.9	S--	B--	G--	DO--

References and their Abbreviations :

A = Anokhin, Coinage of Chersonesus (in Russian), 1977.  [This was translated into English. See the next reference. Coins numbered 309-480 are Byzantine and illustrated on plates XXII-XXXII and clearly listed on pages 156-166.]
A = Anokhin, The Coinage of Chersonesus, IVth Century B.C. - XIth Century A.D., translated into English by H. Bartlett Wells, BAR International Series 69, 1980. This is a rare book which translates the Anokhin above. In attributing the coins to various emperors I have made some judgements about the arguments put forth in this book. This affects the attributions of types that Anokhin gives to Justin II and other types he gives to Romanus IV.
B = Berk, East Roman Successors of the Sestertius
    Note:  Many Berk types are identified only by Sear number, which can be misleading because they are numbers from the first edition of Sear, which sometimes differ by 1 from those in the second edition. Here is a concordance between Sear's second edition and his first .
DO = Dumbarton Oaks, Byzantine Coins
    volume 1: Anastasius to Maurice (498-602)  [plates XXIV, LXXX, p. 109, 373-5]
    volume 3, part 1:  Theophilus to Michael III (829-867)
    volume 3, part 2:  Basil I to John (867-976)  [plates XXXIII, XL, XLII, XLVII]
    Note: Parentheses around the DO number, e.g "(210)", means they do not have an example and the illustrated coin is from another source.
DO LRC = Grierson and Mays, Late Roman Coins in the Dumarton Oaks Collection  
G = Grierson, Byzantine Coins
    [Especially pages 73 and 187-8, and plates 10 and 48-49. All Grierson coins have photos.]
H = Hahn, Money of the Incipient Byzantine Empire (491-565) [2000, a revision of MIB, volume I]
    or Hahn, Moneta Imperii Romani - Byzantini: Die Ostpragung des Romisches Reiches im 5. Jahrhundret (408-491)
    [This only covers Eastern emperors.]
H,NCirc  = Hahn, Numismatic Circular (1978) pp.414-5, 471-2, 521-3.
    [A well-illustrated survey article on the struck types from Cherson.]
MIB = Hahn, Moneta Imperi Byzantini, volume II, Justin II - Phocas (1975)
NC 1995 = "The Large Bronze of Valentinian III" by Korshenko, Gorshkov, and Holmes,
     Numismatic Chronicle , 1995, p.271-5 and plate 48, 2-3.  Here is a summary of their comments about the mint .
RIC X = Kent, Roman Imperial Coinage, volume X (1994)
    [especially pages 291 & pl.25-26 (Leo I and Verina), 312 & pl. 33,(Zeno)]
S = Sear, Byzantine Coins and Their Values, second edition, 1988.
    Sear is the most common reference for Byzantine coins, but not the most up-to-date for coins of Byzantine Cherson.
    All monograms are drawn on his page 32.  The Sear numbers given here are second-edition numbers.
    Here is a concordance between Sear's second edition and his first . 
Sidorenko, Valery. "The copper Coinage of Byzantine Bosporus" in "Ukrainian Papers at the XXth International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Paris 19-25 August 2002, published in 2007, edited by Alexander Aibabin and Hlib Ivakin. 
SR = Sear, Roman Coins and Their Values (only up to AD 498)
So = Sololova, Coins and Seals of Byzantine Cherson (in Russian), 1983
    [129 coins of Byzantine Cherson illustrated on 13 plates, plus a loose two-page plate of monograms illustrated and a two pages of 42 monograms in line drawings (plus 7 more page plates of seals plus about 50 more seals illustrated and fully discussed individually). The list of coin types on pages 138-144 gives the corresponding BMC, DO, and BNC numbers, but unfortunately does not reference his own plates.]
Whitting, Byzantine Coins (1973)  [not a major source]
Zagreba, Maxim, "Coins of Byzantine Cherson, IX-XII centuries" pages 10-17 in Numizmatika and Faleristika #3, 1998. [See types E17 and E36 which mention this article.]

Other references
Here is what the ANS has (an edited page of search results, used with permission).

History:
Neal Ascherson, The Black Sea (1995)   [An entertaining travelogue/history] 
J. C. Carter,  Crimean Chersonesos: City, Chora, Museum and Environs (2003). This is a beautiful book on the ancient city and artifacts recovered from it. The archaeological site was a well-kept military secret from many years because it was at the site of the Soviet naval base for the Black Sea fleet. Unfortunately, the book has very little to say about coins or about the time period as late as Byzantine Cherson.

Of course, there are the standard Byzantine history books by Ostrogorsky, Vasiliev, the Cambridge Medieval History, and the recent enjoyable volumes by John Julius Norwich. However, none of these focus much on Cherson.

The table format for the cast coins is:
Emperor (dates):   [Typical diameters]

E# (Esty    type number) size in mm

Obverse       type line drawing

Reverse      type line drawing

Anokhin  number:    Axxx Sokolova plate.number SoX.Y

Sear number:  Sxxxx

Berk number:   Bxxx

Grierson  number:    Gxxx

DO numbers

comments

Sear color code:  If the Sear attribution disagrees with the one given here, it is in green. When Sear's attribution is in green, the Berk, Grierson, and Dumbarton Oaks attributions agree with Sear (even though only the Sear disagreement is highlighted by green.)
    Sear number suffix v1 or v2 distinguishes two Anokhin types with the same Sear number. For example, Sear does not distinguish between  and  , but Anokhin does.
    Sear has some photos, some line drawings, and some coins without either. Those Sear numbers (which are second edition numbers) with photos are in bold, those with line drawings say "LD". Click here for a concordance to first edition numbers .
    To search this page for Sear numbers, use "Ctrl, F" and "Sxxxx" (with no space between the "S" and the number).

Abbreviations:  [See also " References " above]
ES# = Esty Struck type number
E#  =  Esty cast type number
--, as in "S--" = not listed
xx =  work remains to be done here
LD = illustrated by a line drawing
v1, v2 = suffix on Sear numbers to distinguish two Anokhin types with the same Sear number. For example, Sear does not distinguish between  and  , but Anokhin does.
Sear or Berk number in bold = illustrated with a photo.

Coins are listed by type.  This lists all the intentional types, but not all the varieties, issued at Cherson.  "Types" are regarded as coin designs that were intended to be different by the issuing authority. "Varieties" are minor variants on what was intended to be the same design. The distinction between "type" and "variety" is always subject to question -- we cannot know what was in the minds of the authorities over 1000 years ago. Therefore, in cases of close calls, I have selected in favor of different "types" if and only if I think modern "type" collectors would have good reason to think something in the design was intentionally changed.

In some cases I have used a different criterion. For example, when a legend is retrograde it is doubtful a new type was intended, but the interest for collectors is sufficient to list it as a different "type." In the case of Sear 197A-C (Justinian I / VICTOR), the three similar varieties have been listed as three types because Sear did so.

Types, diameters, and weights.  A "type" may exist in several minor variants, varying both in design details and diameter. But even more variable are the weights of cast pieces, because the the preparation of weight-adjusted flans is not part of the minting  process. The process of casting does not lend itself to accurate weight adjustments. The typical diameter in millimeters of each type is given in the left column in black.

Coins listed in the order of the Anokhin numbers . Russian scholars have reattributed many types since Sear was published in 1988. Anokhin's order and attributions are probably preferable to Sear's. When Sear lists the coin under a different emperor than Anokhin, the Sear listing is in green . Also, Anokhin has determined that some differences regarded as "varieties" by Sear actually distinguish significantly different types. When a single Sear number refers to two or more types distinguished here, it will be followed with "v1" or "v2" to distinguish significant varieties.

Obverse/reverse. If coins are slightly bowed, the obverse is taken as the convex side. This usually is the side with the monogram of the emperor. Therefore, on essentially flat coins, the side with the monogram of the emperor is treated as the obverse. This is not always in agreement with Sear or other references. To find a type in the list, if you don't find the "obverse" in the obverse column, look for it in the "reverse" column.

Monograms.  Most monograms are of the emperor's name. The other monograms are listed first.
  "Polis"  (city);       "Polis";       "Polis Cherson";
  "Cherson";      genitive: "Of  Cherson", the "E" prominant as a mark of value (according to Grierson);
  "Archont" (according to Anokhin, but "Alexander" according to others. All place it under Michael III).
   "Despot";        "Despot";

Monograms of the emperors' names :
     (Some appear twice, or more, in the table. The link is to the first appearance).

   "Dominus Nostrum[?] Theophilus"
  "Michael III";    Michael III and Basil I;     The previous type, reversed;
  to     variants of "Basil I";
 and        "Leo VI";
     "Leo VI and Alexander";
  "Constantine VII";       "Constantine VII"
   "Romanus I";      "Romanus I" (with what looks like two m's);
   "Romanus I";      "Romanus";      "Romanus" (where is the "m"?);
  "Romanus";
  and      "Basil"
  and      "Constantine VIII" (under Romanus II)
  "Nicephorus";        "Despot"
   "Iohannes" = "John";      "Despot" (xx, ?)
   "Basil II and Constantine VII"
   "Romanus III";        "Despot". Another variant, with a different top to the delta
   "Romanus IV".

Return to the list of, and links to, emperors in the tables .

Comments on history, coins, dates, and attributions.
1)  Who issued the AE14-16 coins with VICTOR reverses?
Anokhin gives all "VICTOR" types sometimes attributed to Justin I to Justinian I (that is, all three of S112A-C, which Sear gives to Justin). Hahn claims the legend of H77 is clear and of Justin I. The legend in his picture does show a crude DNIVSTINV.... However, its blundered termination does not inspire confidence. In contrast, some VICTOR coins with cross and globe (ES10) do spell IVSTINIANVS correctly.
    For Anokhin the type ES9, which is apparently a unique piece, is the original prototype from which all the others are more or less degraded copies. On this one coin the name IVSTINIANVS is said to be legible (but it is not clear on the published photo). If so, and if you accept the usual progressive decline in size and artistry, then the other VICTOR types must follow and therefore be of Justinian also. However, Justinian did reform coins and increase their sizes, and type ES11, generally accepted as later, is reasonably well executed and certainly not as crude as most of the VICTOR types.
    Hahn (1978) notes that Procopius mentions that the Bosporus submitted to Justin I. This would be a good reason to expect coins of Justin I.  
Hahn, plates 11 (Justin) and 29 (Justinian), gives "shields" to Justin and "globes" to Justinian, with the exception of Justin 78 = A311 (same coin), a "globe", which is not at all clear, given to Justin.
    Sokolova illustrates several "long cross and globe" with short, blundered, obverse legends. In any case, the majority of pieces of types ES7 and ES8 have short obverse legends (not clear all the way to the end, though), and the majority of pieces of ES10 have longer obverse legends. Therefore, I have tentatively given, without confidence, some of the "long cross and globe" type to each (ES9 and ES11), and the others (ES7 and ES8) with a short obverse legend to Justin.

2)  Who issued the "M", "K", "H" and "delta" follis and half-follis pieces with legend "XEPCONOC "?
Very similar coins were issued in the name of Maurice, so older attributions of the "XEPCONOC" types were also to Maurice, but now some scholars have argued that they were originally issued by Justin II. Under the old attribution the obverse figures are Maurice and his wife and the reverse figure is his son Theodosius. Grierson (p. 73) says, "If the coins all belong together it would seem reasonable to regard them as an insurrectionary coinage struck at Cherson in 602, the intention of the rebels having been initially to depose Maurice in favor of his son Theodosius and not the upstart adventurer Phocas." According to this theory, the revolt prompted a new coin with a neutral legend, which was replaced by the emperor's name when the outcome favored Maurice. This attribution is accepted by Sear.
    Anokin (1980) and Hahn (1978) concur in attributing them to Justin II (and the following period). Anokin argues the two-figure type resembles the regular type introduced by Justin II and Sophia. However, a type can resemble one of Justin II and be issued a few years later. Anokhin says (p. 92) "if the striking commenced from the moment Theodosius was named Augustus, i.e. in 590, all three series with differing types would have had to be issued within limits between 590-602, which is unlikely." Hahn also argues that there are several minor varieties which would probably take a number of years to mint. However, the  varieties are clearly very similar and not numerous. I think there is no need to postulate more than ten years to mint three very similar types, all of which are scarce.
    Anokhin (p. 92) argues "if we assign the coins described to Maurice we expose their failure to correspond with empire-wide coins, which have on the obverse a portrait of Maurice alone." But that argument is feeble -- we know Maurice minted such coins that fail to correspond with empire-wide coins -- some of the coins we are attributing have his name on them!
    Anokhin (p. 93) thinks the reverse figure, if a real person, could "be Tiberius, the future emperor, who was proclaimed Caesar in December 574 and who reigned as co-regent jointly with Sophia during the last four years of the life of Justin II who was mentally ill." However, he does not accept that it is a real person and says "it most likely represents some symbolic figure or a saint."
    Hahn notes that the reverse figure seems to be a Caesar (because the pendillia are lacking) and says in the later 6th century the only appropriate Caesar is Tiberius II under Justin II. However, the older attribution already had an acceptable Caesar, just in the early 7th instead of the late 6th century. Hahn notes the first issue, with the "M" and "K" has a capital omega in "XERCWNOC", rather than the later "O", as do some of the "H" and delta pieces. Clearly, the "M" and "K" are the first of the series. However, that does not make them issued by Justin II.
    Hahn admits, as noted by Grierson, that the two-figure type is very similar to some coins of Focas, showing a continuum of types could equally well be at either end of the potential attribution period. Hahn gives the attribution to Justin II and calls it "secure." It may well be that the "M" and "K" types began under Justin II, but the Hahn paper presents no convincing evidence.
    If we postulate this type began under Justin II, it is hard to explain why it pops up again under Maurice with a 12-year gap from the end of Justin II (578) until Maurice (582-602) promotes Theodosius to Caesar (May 26, 590). Unless, of course, it was minted throughout the period as a type immobilise.
    I can not read Russian so I cannot follow the reasons for the attributions of Sokolova. The four illustrated "H" pieces with legend of Maurice all have a cross between and above the two figures. Some of the "H" XEPCONOC pieces have a cross and some do not. But some of each are given by Sokolova to each emperor. Plate 3.4-5 (without) are given to Justin II  but 5.6 (without) is given to Maurice. Whereas, 3.6 (with) is given to Jusin II, but 5.3-5 (with) are given to Maurice.
         Anokhin's argument is, in my opinion, very weak. I do not find the arguments for the reattribution away from Maurice compelling. Therefore, I have used the older attributions in this table -- the ones used by Sear.
 

3)  Which of the several types with monograms of "Romanus " belong to which of the four emperors named "Romanus" ?
    Whitting (p. 181)  says Cherson was transferred to Prince Vladimir of Kiev in 989. This would serve as an explanation for why Byzantine coins of Cherson were thought to end with Basil II who reigned AD 976-1025 (Sear 1814). Some coins that used to be attributed to Romanus I are now attributed to the later rulers Romanus III and Romanus IV. Anokhin cites conclusive hoard evidence to prove that these "rho-omega" types must be XIth century or later. The timing and monogram apparently fit Romanus III. He convinces me they can not be of an earlier Romanus (I or II). However, I see no reason to assume that the next, slightly different, monogram should be attributed to Romanus IV, skipping thirty years and several reigns. Even if coins really were issued by Romanus III (1028-1034), why are there no coins attributed to any of the half-dozen rulers between Romanus III and Romanus IV (1068-1071)?  A glance at the types now attributed by Anokhin to these rulers shows they are quite similar, merely with variant monograms. Agreeing with Sokolova, I would attribute the first type to Romanus III and assert nothing stronger than that the other late "rho-omega" types, both large and small, are as late or later.
    I am ignorant of the arguments that justify switching attributions of some Romanus I and Romanus II coins. Here, I have merely accepted Anokin's attributions.

    This is the end of the main page on Byzantine Coins of Cherson (Kherson).

Return to the list of emperors near the top of this page .