А COIN OF BOHEMOND I OF ANTIOCH OVERSTRUCK BY TANCRED
А COIN OF BOHEMOND I OF ANTIOCH OVERSTRUCK BY TANCRED

Summary/Abstract: After the city of Antioch was captured by the crusaders in 1098 Bohemond of Tarentum declared himself Prince of Antioch. In the summer of 1099 he was captured by the Danishmendids and remained a prisoner for four years. During his absence Antioch was ruled by his nephew Tancred. In 1104 Bohemond left the Holy Land and never returned. Until his death in 1111 he titled himself Prince of Antioch and was succeeded by 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 than just simply ‗regents‘ for Bohemond I or II. The coinage attributed to Bohemond I, prince of Antioch (1098–1111) consists of a single type in copper in Byzantine style. It depicts a bust of St Peter on the obverse and a floreate cross, with the letters B H M T in the angles, on the reverse. Ever since it was first attributed to Bohemond I by de Saulcy in 1847 it has been generally accepted that this type is a coin of Bohemond I and not Bohemond II (1119–30). The copper coins of the princes of Antioch were usually overstruck on preceding types and until now there has been no sign of a coin of Bohemond‘s successors, the ‗regents‘ Tancred, Roger and Bohemond II, overstruck on a coin of Bohemond I. The article publishes a clear example of a type 3 coin of Tancred overstruck on a coin of Bohemond I, so the identification is now secure. The coins of Bohemond I are scarce but recently a relatively large number have appeared 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 should be regarded as substantive types or just the work of different die cutters. The article considers 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.

• Details
• Contents