More Wicked ‘Byzantine’ Problems

A Dissertation Update

As some might have noticed, I’ve been absent from here for quite some time now. This post is an update on my research and some ideas I am playing with. As I noted in my post yesterday, writing on this blog supports my academic thought process, so I intend to make it a habit to write more. That said, I am considering moving the blog to a new host server and provider. More to come. Additionally, a few housekeeping items about the open-access notebook (OAN). Let’s get the latter dealt with first.

I’ve disabled the link on this blog to Rogue Notes, the OAN, which is part of my dissertation — for now. I have not updated the OAN for some time, and to be honest, it's a train wreck at the moment. Part of my thought process is to navigate this blog to my Obsidian publish site (Rogue History Notes) and maintain it there. There are many logistical issues I need to consider. The primary reason I want to pursue this option is to link my research notes directly to my blog posts. Additionally, I do not like running two websites. It's cumbersome and expensive. I will hopefully have it back up and running soon. So hang tight.

The dissertation.

July 18th, 2025, was my last post about anything to do with my dissertation and research. I discussed the concept of what I term Wicked ‘Byzantine’ Problems. (WBP). This theoretical backbone for my dissertation builds on John Schofield's Wicked Problems for Archaeologists and on how we, as archaeologists, can play a significant role in helping solve some of the biggest problems our world currently faces, i.e., Climate Change, Social Justice, and Conflicts, to name a few. My theoretical model is currently underdeveloped, but it has a skeleton and some connective tissue, and I am not proposing that Byzantinists can and should tackle these complex issues with our disciplinary approach. The dissertation has also evolved to explore the implications of LLMs (Large Language Models) on our field ('Byzantine' Studies) and the wicked problems we now face.

One issue I am contending with is how to demonstrate that renaming Byzantine Studies to East Roman Studies, Medieval Roman Studies, or simply Roman Studies is not just a noble endeavour that needs to be accomplished, but it is also a matter we as stewards of this history need to ensure is not communicated or perceived as a scholarly or pedantic concern in the eyes of the public. Rather, when we account for the vast digital infrastructure we, as scholars, are directly or indirectly engaged with, these discussions and changes will inevitably trickle down, disrupt some of the digital ethos in which knowledge and data are stored and maintained, and influence public reception. (Remember, my dissertation is a Public History PhD; thus, public reception is a crucial through line). And in the so-called age of AI, this is a critical issue we now face as 'Byzantinists' that no one in our field appears to be discussing. If I am wrong and there is literature on Byzantine Studies and LLMs, please share it with me.

Thus, the 'Byzantine' question must consider public reception in manners and forms. Books, Movies, YouTube, Podcasts, and LLMs are all within our disciplinary scope. Indeed, Google's Gemini, OpenAI's ChatGPT, Anthropic's Claude, and X's Grok are now the main sources of information for the public at large. These wicked problems I am exploring in the digital realm are examined through a case study of the tetarteron coins of Manuel I Komnenos (1143-1180 CE).

Those who know me are not surprised that I am working with coins. These little bronze nuggets have a complex analog and digital existence that I intend to demonstrate in greater detail within the dissertation. The tetarteron, I argue, remained in circulation for quite some time during the 12th and 13th centuries, well into the Latin conquest and rule of Constantinople (the Fourth Crusade). These coins were produced on a mass scale, officially and unofficially, and supported some cohesive economic order while the political and cultural landscape of the East Roman polity evolved (or ended in 1204, as I think it did, but that is a discussion for another day), and, again as I argue in my dissertation, were used for well over a hundred years in and around what we now know as modern Greece. Their complexity is obfuscated by the label 'Byzantine' which affects their digital footprint and representation.

Moving forward, even for those who are Byzantinists, the field of numismatics (the study of coins, money and tokens) is an isolated island of misfit toys that keeps to itself, with few venturing to or from the island to explore interdisciplinary possibilities. Numismatics is a long-established field with roots in the Enlightenment and antiquarianism, which, in itself, speaks to its Eurocentric and colonial origins. However, coin collecting can trace its roots back to the ancient world, even to the reign of Augustus (Octavian). Now, being a coin collector and a numismatist are very different in practice, but they do share common threads. Coins are obtained and isolated from their depositional contexts for study and analysis, or for observation and display, from Art Historical, political, and economic perspectives. The early development of numismatics did not take archaeological contexts into account, in part because archaeology as a whole was not fully professionalized until the 19th century.

However, scholars like Fleur Kemmers and Nanouschka Myrberg (2011), Andrei Gândilă (2018), and Jean-Marc Doyen (2011) call for reconciling numismatics with history and archaeology while shifting our methodological and theoretical presumptions about a coin’s agency and the evidence it can provide about the past. Scholars such as Chris Lightfoot, Florin Curta, and Guy Saunders, among others, continue to use coins as archaeological and historical material culture, whose significance extends beyond dating sites and stratigraphy to evidence of socio-cultural changes over time. The numismatic disciplinary isolationism is being addressed, but more can be done, especially within Byzantine Studies.

Ethan Gruber, though not a Byzantinist, has addressed the digital spectrum of coins in his work "The Fralin Numismatic Collection: Ten Years Later", among other discussions that engage with Linked Open Data, the internet and coins. Eric Kansa and Sarah Whitcher Kansa (2022) have promoted an open, collaborative methodology and archaeological practices regarding identifiers and databases in "Promoting Data Quality and Reuse in Archaeology through Collaborative Identifier Practices." Though their arguments addressed coins ephemerally, their observations have significant implications for identifying gaps in the digital discourse surrounding Byzantine Studies as a whole. Nevertheless, 'Byzantine' numismatics faces a daunting challenge in the coming years: how do we adapt to LLMs? And there is no doubt in my mind that we as a discipline need to adapt. Generative AI is not disappearing and is, indeed, being forced upon us, whether we like it or not, knowingly or unknowingly, in a way that no one can match the speed at which LLMs are evolving. This is a Wicked 'Byzantine' Problem.