Heritage World Coin Auctions
Showcase Auction 61288 18 Sep 2022
View prices realized
► Sale information
Find similar lots
Ancients
Heraclonas (AD 641) or Constans II Pogonatus (AD 641-668). AV solidus (20mm, 4.34 gm, 5h). NGC Choice AU 5/5 - 4/5, clipped. Constantinople, 6th officina, May-December AD 641. d N CONStAN-tINЧS PP AVG, bust of Constans II or Heraclonas facing, beardless and with small head, wearing crown and chlamys pinned at right shoulder, globus cruciger in right hand / VICTORIA-AVϚЧ S, cross potent on three steps; CONOB below. Sear 936. Struck with an excellent portrait. Scarce; possibly an issue of Heraclonas, who ruled for only several months. A coin with interesting historical background and exciting intrigue.
From the Historical Scholar Collection. Ex CNG Auction 76 (12 September 2007), lot 3422; John A. Seeger Collection; Peus Auction 334 (4 November 1992), lot 1165
The origins of this enigmatic issue are unclear. To make a determination about who is on the obverse of the coin, one must first understand the chronology. Towards the end of his reign, which spanned three decades, Heraclius began to slip into mental instability. Possibly driven to madness by the abject failures against the Arabs, the once-great Heraclius died a broken man on 11 February AD 641. He was succeeded by his eldest son Heraclius Constantine, but he was ill with tuberculosis from the moment he was crowned and died on 25 May after merely three months of rule. Heraclius Constantine's will stipulated that he would have three successors, his son Constans II, his step-brother Heraclonas, and his step-mother Martina.
Constans II was only ten years old, so Heraclonas (age 15) and his mother Martina held all the cards. Martina was viciously hated by the people of the capital; her incestuous marriage to Heraclius, her uncle, had scandalized the Byzantine populace (and resulted in many children with disabilities), and rumors soon abounded that she had poisoned Heraclius Constantine in order to secure the succession for her son Heraclonas and power for herself. Martina set about running the government, dispatching troops to fight the Arabs in Egypt and raising money for the war. But the people of Constantinople held such vitriol for her and her innocent son that they would not tolerate her rule. An army loyal to Constans II's possibly poisoned father and a Constantinople mob joined forces to overthrow Heraclius and Martina in early November, mutilating them both before exiling them to Rhodes. It was the first instance of political mutilation in Byzantine society, a trend that became unfortunately common in the coming centuries.
And now for an analysis of this coin. We can be sure that it was struck in mid-to-late AD 641, soon after the death of Heraclius, but whether or not the figure is Heraclonas or Constans II is unclear. Both Heraclonas and Constans were nicknames; their formal names were Constantinus Heraclius for Heraclonas and simply Constantinus for Constans. Thus the obverse legend does not provide any assistance. However, the age of the two young rulers is a key clue. At the time this coin was struck, Constans II was ten years old and Heraclonas fifteen. The obverse clearly depicts a younger figure, but one that more resembles a late teenager such as Heraclonas than a boy of ten. Of course, it is possible that the portrait of Constans was given added age to make his rule more legitimate, but the obvious youth of the standing portraits of Heraclonas (age 10-12) on earlier coinage of Heraclius' late reign contradicts this theory. We know that Martina, in her desperation to hold on to power, paid the army tens of thousands of solidi in order to secure their loyalty and the legitimacy of her and her son. It makes sense that she would want the army to receive coins with her son's portrait, solidifying his position. Thus, it is probably more likely that the issues of late AD 641 (Sear 936 and 937) are of Heraclonas rather than of Constans II. Sear leaves the issue open to debate, but fellow Byzantine numismatic expert Philip Grierson has convincingly argued that these coins ought to be attributed to Heraclonas (see Dumbarton Oaks Catalogue, Volume II, Part 2, pg. 389-401 and p. XXIII).
https://coins.ha.com/itm/ancients/byzantine/ancients-heraclonas-ad-641-or-constans-ii-pogonatus-ad-641-668-av-solidus-20mm-434-gm-5h-ngc-choice-au-5-5/a/61288-95302.s?type=DA-DMC-CoinArchives-WorldCoins-61288-09182022
HID02906262019
© 2022 Heritage Auctions | All Rights Reserved
Heraclonas (AD 641) or Constans II Pogonatus (AD 641-668). AV solidus (20mm, 4.34 gm, 5h). NGC Choice AU 5/5 - 4/5, clipped. Constantinople, 6th officina, May-December AD 641. d N CONStAN-tINЧS PP AVG, bust of Constans II or Heraclonas facing, beardless and with small head, wearing crown and chlamys pinned at right shoulder, globus cruciger in right hand / VICTORIA-AVϚЧ S, cross potent on three steps; CONOB below. Sear 936. Struck with an excellent portrait. Scarce; possibly an issue of Heraclonas, who ruled for only several months. A coin with interesting historical background and exciting intrigue.
From the Historical Scholar Collection. Ex CNG Auction 76 (12 September 2007), lot 3422; John A. Seeger Collection; Peus Auction 334 (4 November 1992), lot 1165
The origins of this enigmatic issue are unclear. To make a determination about who is on the obverse of the coin, one must first understand the chronology. Towards the end of his reign, which spanned three decades, Heraclius began to slip into mental instability. Possibly driven to madness by the abject failures against the Arabs, the once-great Heraclius died a broken man on 11 February AD 641. He was succeeded by his eldest son Heraclius Constantine, but he was ill with tuberculosis from the moment he was crowned and died on 25 May after merely three months of rule. Heraclius Constantine's will stipulated that he would have three successors, his son Constans II, his step-brother Heraclonas, and his step-mother Martina.
Constans II was only ten years old, so Heraclonas (age 15) and his mother Martina held all the cards. Martina was viciously hated by the people of the capital; her incestuous marriage to Heraclius, her uncle, had scandalized the Byzantine populace (and resulted in many children with disabilities), and rumors soon abounded that she had poisoned Heraclius Constantine in order to secure the succession for her son Heraclonas and power for herself. Martina set about running the government, dispatching troops to fight the Arabs in Egypt and raising money for the war. But the people of Constantinople held such vitriol for her and her innocent son that they would not tolerate her rule. An army loyal to Constans II's possibly poisoned father and a Constantinople mob joined forces to overthrow Heraclius and Martina in early November, mutilating them both before exiling them to Rhodes. It was the first instance of political mutilation in Byzantine society, a trend that became unfortunately common in the coming centuries.
And now for an analysis of this coin. We can be sure that it was struck in mid-to-late AD 641, soon after the death of Heraclius, but whether or not the figure is Heraclonas or Constans II is unclear. Both Heraclonas and Constans were nicknames; their formal names were Constantinus Heraclius for Heraclonas and simply Constantinus for Constans. Thus the obverse legend does not provide any assistance. However, the age of the two young rulers is a key clue. At the time this coin was struck, Constans II was ten years old and Heraclonas fifteen. The obverse clearly depicts a younger figure, but one that more resembles a late teenager such as Heraclonas than a boy of ten. Of course, it is possible that the portrait of Constans was given added age to make his rule more legitimate, but the obvious youth of the standing portraits of Heraclonas (age 10-12) on earlier coinage of Heraclius' late reign contradicts this theory. We know that Martina, in her desperation to hold on to power, paid the army tens of thousands of solidi in order to secure their loyalty and the legitimacy of her and her son. It makes sense that she would want the army to receive coins with her son's portrait, solidifying his position. Thus, it is probably more likely that the issues of late AD 641 (Sear 936 and 937) are of Heraclonas rather than of Constans II. Sear leaves the issue open to debate, but fellow Byzantine numismatic expert Philip Grierson has convincingly argued that these coins ought to be attributed to Heraclonas (see Dumbarton Oaks Catalogue, Volume II, Part 2, pg. 389-401 and p. XXIII).
https://coins.ha.com/itm/ancients/byzantine/ancients-heraclonas-ad-641-or-constans-ii-pogonatus-ad-641-668-av-solidus-20mm-434-gm-5h-ngc-choice-au-5-5/a/61288-95302.s?type=DA-DMC-CoinArchives-WorldCoins-61288-09182022
HID02906262019
© 2022 Heritage Auctions | All Rights Reserved