Baldwin's of St. James's
Auction 14 14 Jan 2018
View prices realized
► Sale information
Find similar lots
Ancient Coins, Byzantine Coins, Arab-Byzantine, Anonymous, but probably temp. of Mu'awiya bin Abi Sufyan (AH 41-60/661-680 CE), dechristianised imitation gold solidus of Byzantine Emperor Heraclius, standing figures of Heraclius, Heraclius Constantine and Heraclonas, rev. VICTORIA AVGUB, column on four steps with the letters I and A in the left and right fields, in ex. CONOB, (Constantinople) the conventional mint name, wt. 4.23gms. (A.354B; Walker p.18:54 for type, but does not record for letter A; Bernardi 4), about extremely fine and of the highest rarity
This, like the other dechristianised solidi, is an enigmatic and challenging coin. The best discussion of this coinage is found in George Miles' article Earliest Arab Gold Coinage in the American Numismatic Society Museum Notes No 13. In this article, which still has scholarly validity, Miles records four types of dechristianised solidi. The first of the Emperor Phocas, the second of the young Emperor Heraclius with his son Heraclius Constantine, still a boy. The third shows a much older and heavily bearded emperor with a clean shaven Heraclius Constantine. The fourth is the same type as this piece, except that on Miles' coin the reverse field bears the letters I and B which appear to left and right of the pole on steps. The dumbbell-like object on top of the pole turns it into a crude version of the Tau cross, thus the resulting design is a crude but virtually identical copy of the Byzantine original, but lacks the crossbar seen on the Christian cross. As such it represents a critical break from conventional Byzantine iconography.
This coin, a type which is very rarely encountered today, is well struck and one of the best-preserved specimens recorded. The coin itself gives little obvious clue as to its purpose and origins, but in the historical context of what little is known about Byzantine-Arab relations at the time of its striking, the following observations can be made. There were two occasions when Mu'awiya was obliged to pay tribute to the Byzantines. One was in the year 659 CE when the payment supposedly amounted to a thousand nomismata, a slave and a horse every day. The second was in 678 CE when Mu'awiya was forced to agree to a very harsh treaty that obliged him to make an annual payment to the Byzantine emperor of three thousand nomismata, fifty prisoners and fifty horses. At the same time, and during the same reign, Mu'awiya tried to introduce a dechristianised gold coinage for circulation in Syria. It is also recorded that the Byzantine government refused to accept coinage that did not bear a faithful representation of the Christian cross, and the same was also said of its reception by the largely Christian inhabitants of Syria. This rejection by both the Byzantine authorities and the Syrian population would certainly account for the very great rarity of these coins today.
But which of the four types of solidi were intended for tribute to the Byzantine and which for local circulation in Syria is unknown, and neither Miles nor any other previous or subsequent authority has questioned how these four types can be differentiated from one another. Neither historical nor local traditions give us any idea as to how this problem can be solved, but the iconography of the coins themselves may suggest an answer. The originals of all four types certainly circulated widely in Syria, which depended on Byzantine gold and copper coinage to support their monetary needs for both large transactions and everyday purchases.
The originals of the first three types were undoubtedly well known to the inhabitants of Syria and, with only minor alterations in their design, Mu'awiya could expect them to be accepted in circulation. In its original form the fourth type, with its Christian and imperial iconography, was struck in great quantities by the Byzantines and would have been familiar to the general public. However, one expert has suggested that on this dechristianised piece the three figures have lost their imperial trappings and appear as tribute bearers, such as the three magi bringing their gifts. The present cataloguer agrees with this interpretation. Once the tribute reached Constantinople, these gold coins would have been rejected, melted and re-struck into conventional Byzantine solidi, which would account for their extreme rarity. This hypothesis is reinforced by the two letters I and A, flanking the pole of the reverse, because they could stand for the first tribute payment of the year A. The other example of this piece carries the letters I and B, which would have been the tribute for the year B. In this cataloguer's opinion Mu'awiya's treaty obligations to the Byzantines would have taken priority over the issuance of a purely local coinage for his own subjects who had, up to this time, been able to supply their domestic needs through existing coinage stocks.
This extremely rare piece satisfies Miles' observations on the earliest Arab gold coinage and it may be regarded as the precurser of all the later Islamic gold coinage.
References: Miles, G: Earliest Arab Gold Coinage in the American Numismatic Society Museum Notes, No 13, 1967; Foss, S: Arab Byzantine Coins: An Introduction with a Catalogue of the Dumbarton Oaks Collection, Harvard University Press 2008
($100000-125000)
This, like the other dechristianised solidi, is an enigmatic and challenging coin. The best discussion of this coinage is found in George Miles' article Earliest Arab Gold Coinage in the American Numismatic Society Museum Notes No 13. In this article, which still has scholarly validity, Miles records four types of dechristianised solidi. The first of the Emperor Phocas, the second of the young Emperor Heraclius with his son Heraclius Constantine, still a boy. The third shows a much older and heavily bearded emperor with a clean shaven Heraclius Constantine. The fourth is the same type as this piece, except that on Miles' coin the reverse field bears the letters I and B which appear to left and right of the pole on steps. The dumbbell-like object on top of the pole turns it into a crude version of the Tau cross, thus the resulting design is a crude but virtually identical copy of the Byzantine original, but lacks the crossbar seen on the Christian cross. As such it represents a critical break from conventional Byzantine iconography.
This coin, a type which is very rarely encountered today, is well struck and one of the best-preserved specimens recorded. The coin itself gives little obvious clue as to its purpose and origins, but in the historical context of what little is known about Byzantine-Arab relations at the time of its striking, the following observations can be made. There were two occasions when Mu'awiya was obliged to pay tribute to the Byzantines. One was in the year 659 CE when the payment supposedly amounted to a thousand nomismata, a slave and a horse every day. The second was in 678 CE when Mu'awiya was forced to agree to a very harsh treaty that obliged him to make an annual payment to the Byzantine emperor of three thousand nomismata, fifty prisoners and fifty horses. At the same time, and during the same reign, Mu'awiya tried to introduce a dechristianised gold coinage for circulation in Syria. It is also recorded that the Byzantine government refused to accept coinage that did not bear a faithful representation of the Christian cross, and the same was also said of its reception by the largely Christian inhabitants of Syria. This rejection by both the Byzantine authorities and the Syrian population would certainly account for the very great rarity of these coins today.
But which of the four types of solidi were intended for tribute to the Byzantine and which for local circulation in Syria is unknown, and neither Miles nor any other previous or subsequent authority has questioned how these four types can be differentiated from one another. Neither historical nor local traditions give us any idea as to how this problem can be solved, but the iconography of the coins themselves may suggest an answer. The originals of all four types certainly circulated widely in Syria, which depended on Byzantine gold and copper coinage to support their monetary needs for both large transactions and everyday purchases.
The originals of the first three types were undoubtedly well known to the inhabitants of Syria and, with only minor alterations in their design, Mu'awiya could expect them to be accepted in circulation. In its original form the fourth type, with its Christian and imperial iconography, was struck in great quantities by the Byzantines and would have been familiar to the general public. However, one expert has suggested that on this dechristianised piece the three figures have lost their imperial trappings and appear as tribute bearers, such as the three magi bringing their gifts. The present cataloguer agrees with this interpretation. Once the tribute reached Constantinople, these gold coins would have been rejected, melted and re-struck into conventional Byzantine solidi, which would account for their extreme rarity. This hypothesis is reinforced by the two letters I and A, flanking the pole of the reverse, because they could stand for the first tribute payment of the year A. The other example of this piece carries the letters I and B, which would have been the tribute for the year B. In this cataloguer's opinion Mu'awiya's treaty obligations to the Byzantines would have taken priority over the issuance of a purely local coinage for his own subjects who had, up to this time, been able to supply their domestic needs through existing coinage stocks.
This extremely rare piece satisfies Miles' observations on the earliest Arab gold coinage and it may be regarded as the precurser of all the later Islamic gold coinage.
References: Miles, G: Earliest Arab Gold Coinage in the American Numismatic Society Museum Notes, No 13, 1967; Foss, S: Arab Byzantine Coins: An Introduction with a Catalogue of the Dumbarton Oaks Collection, Harvard University Press 2008
($100000-125000)