Three Unpublished Copper Varieties of Constans II

CONTENTS Preface v The Heraclian mint of Isaura Tony Goodwin 1 Some Observations on the Copper Coinage of Thessalonica under Heraclius Steve Mansfield 21 Folles of Heraclius struck in Sicily Stephen Maxfield 39 Three Unpublished Copper Varieties of Constans II David Woods 45 Reflections on the two different iconographies of Christ on the gold coins of Justinian II Stephen Maxfield 55 Coin Circulation in Carthage and its Hinterland Tasha Vorderstrasse 67 More on a very peculiar group of early Pseudo-Byzantine coins Tony Goodwin 87 Two Seventh Century Coins from Udhruh Jordan Michael den Hartog & Mark Driessen 95 The Lazy BZ Workshop, the OHO Workshop, and other Byzantine-Arab Phase 1 Workshops Andrew Oddy 103 Byzantine Solidi in 7th century Syria, Arab-Byzantine imitations and the transition to the post-reform dinar Dietrich Schnädelbach 123 The enigmatic Minting of Standing Caliph Coins in Jund Qinnasrīn Ingrid Schulze 141 Where were the Standing Caliph coins with the mint names Tanūkh and Jibrīn struck? Wolfgang Schulze 163 The Standing Caliph coins with the mint name Qūrus – Third approach Wolfgang Schulze 177 iii The Legends of the Most Common Variety of the Two Imperial Bust Type of ArabLatin Gold Coinage from North Africa David Woods 185 Umayyad Caliphal Seals Nitzan Amitai-Preiss 191 The Significance of the Monetary Reforms of ʽAbd Al-Malik Marcus Phillips 205 iv Three Unpublished Copper Varieties of Constans II David Woods1 The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to some unpublished varieties of the copper coinage of Constans II (641-68) that have appeared upon the market in recent years, that is, varieties that do not appear in the standard catalogues of the coinage of this emperor by Grierson, Hahn, or even in Mansfield’s catalogue of his extensive personal collection.2 I. An Unpublished Dodecanummium from Egypt a b Fig. 1: a. Dodecanummium of Constans II (20 mm, 7.48g); MIB 188. Ex Classical Numismatic Group, E-Auction 288 (10 October 2012), lot 573; b. Dodecanummium of Constans II (21 mm, 8.30g); MIB 189. Ex Aquila Numismatics, Auction 5 (25 September 2022), lot 546. Extensive research has been conducted upon the Egyptian dodecanummia of the seventh century in recent years, and it is agreed that the mint at Alexandria struck two main types of dodecanummium for Constans II during the brief period between his accession as emperor at Constantinople in September 641 and the final Byzantine surrender of Alexandria to the Arabs in September 642.3 The 1 David Woods is the Head of the Department of Classics at University College, Cork, Ireland: d.woods@ucc.ie. P. Grierson, Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and the Whittemore Collection, 2.2: Phocas to Theodosius III 602-717 (Washington, D.C., 1968); W. Hahn, Moneta Imperii Byzantini, 3: Von Heraclius bis Leo III. Alleinregierung (610-720) (Vienna, 1981); S. Mansfield, Early Byzantine Copper Coins: Catalogue of an English Collection (Manchester, 2016) and Supplement to Early Byzantine Copper Coins: Four Hundred Coins from an English Private Collection (London, 2022). 3 See e.g. L. Domaszewicz and M.L. Bates, ‘Copper coinage of Egypt in the seventh century’, in J.L. Bacharach (ed.), Fustat Finds: Beads, Coins, Medical Instruments, Textiles and Other Artefacts from the Awad Collection (Cairo, 2 45 obverse of the earlier type (MIB 188) depicts a beardless facing bust with chlamys and crown holding a globus cruciger at shoulder level in its right hand (Fig. 1a). The associated reverse depicts the numerals I and B on either side of a small cross above a letter M, all above an exergue containing a legend abbreviating the name of Alexandria. The obverse of the later type (MIB 189) depicts a beardless facing figure standing and holding a staff topped by a staurogram in his right hand and a globus cruciger in his left hand. The associated reverse depicts the numerals I and B on either side of a globus cruciger, all above an exergue containing a legend abbreviating the name of Alexandria. In fact, there are two slight variants of this reverse, one that depicts a single large pellet to the left and right respectively of the numerals I and B, and one that does not. Fig. 2: New dodecanummium of Constans II (19mm, 10.64g). Ex Demos Auctions, Auction 10 (14 May 2022), lot 792. A new type of dodecanummium that appears to combine features of both of the known types recently appeared on the market (Fig. 2). While this specimen is quite worn, and has been struck slightly offcentre, it is clear that the obverse depicts a standing emperor with a staff in his right hand and a globus cruciger in his left hand as on the obverse of MIB 189. In contrast, the reverse seems to combine features of the reverses of both MIB 188 and MIB 189. On the one hand, it depicts the numerals I and B on either side of a small cross above a letter, much as on the reverse of MIB 188, the main difference lying in the identity of the letter. While MIB 188 depicts the letter M beneath the cross, the new type depicts what appears to be an ñ there instead. On the other hand, it also depicts a single large pellet to the left and right of the numerals as on the reverse of one of the variants of MIB 189. The obvious suggestion, therefore, is that this new type represents a brief intermediate type struck between the end of the striking of MIB 188 and the beginning of the striking of MIB 189. The most interesting feature of this new type is the presence of the ñ beneath the cross on the reverse. If this is the Greek numeral for five, then it is difficult to understand what it could mean. It cannot denote a regnal year, because 641/42 was the first regnal year of Constans. It cannot denote an indictional year either, because 641/42 was actually the 15th year of the indictional cycle.4 If one looks to the letter M on the reverse of MIB 188 in the hope that it may cast some light upon this problem, one is quickly disappointed, because the meaning of that letter is not much clearer. Comparison of the occurrence of the M on the reverse of the decanummium to its occurrence on the reverse of other denomination coins struck at widely differing dates and locations throughout the Byzantine empire suggests that the common factor is association with a cross, so that it probably abbreviates some term 2002), pp. 88–107; M. Metlich and N. Schindel, ‘Egyptian copper coinage in the 7th century AD. Some critical remarks’, Oriental Numismatic Society Newsletter 179 (2004), pp. 1–15; T. Goodwin, ‘Some aspects of 7th C Egyptian Byzantine coinage’, in A. Oddy, I. Schulze, and W. Schulze (eds.), Coinage and History in the Seventh Century Near East 4 (London, 2015), pp. 27–35; D. Woods, ‘Deciphering the dodecanummia of Heraclius and Constans II’, Israel Numismatic Research 13 (2018) pp. 195-227. 4 Dodecanummia had not traditionally displayed any form of date. However, the dodecanummia struck in the name of ‘Abd al-‘Azīz ibn Marwān, the Umayyad governor of Egypt in 669-82, seem to have used Greek numerals to denote indictional years. See D. Woods, ‘A note on the Arab-Byzantine dodecanummium struck in the name of ‘Abd al-‘Azīz ibn Marwān’, Israel Numismatic Research 16 (2021), pp. 243-53. 46 used in reference to the veneration of the cross or what it was that the cross symbolized for early medieval Christians. Perhaps the most obvious suggestion is that it abbreviates the Greek term μυστήριον ‘mystery’, or its Latin transliteration mysterium, in reference to what Christians described as the mystery of the cross and resurrection.5 The best approach to the problem posed by the presence of the ñ beneath the cross on the reverse of the decanummium seems to be to approach it in the same way as was done in the case of the problem posed by the presence of the M on the reverse of MIB 188, by investigating whether other mints also included it on the reverse of the coins that they struck, and what the common factors were if they did. The simple answer to this question is that the mint at Constantinople used the same mark in the reverse field of several different types of solidi struck during the mid-seventh century. However, the same mark does not necessarily mean the same thing in every case, and one needs to pay due attention to context. For example, during the early reign of Constans II, the mint at Constantinople struck solidi depicting an ñ in the field to the right of the cross on its reverse (MIB 9-10). However, it also struck similar solidi depicting an S (MIB 11-15), Ζ (MIB 16-17), or Η (MIB 18-19) in the field to the right instead, so confirming that these were all Greek numerals used in reference to the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th indictional years respectively (646/47- 649/50). Of much more relevance here is that the mint at Constantinople also struck a solidus depicting an ñ in the field to the right of the cross on its reverse in about 641 (Fig. 3) when this was not part of some numerical sequence (MIB 53). At about the same time, it also struck a solidus depicting a Κ in the field to the right of the cross (MIB 52). It is clear from the fact that these coins were struck at about the same time that the marks Κ and ñ must have been co-ordinated in some way, that they share a common theme or purpose, even if this theme or purpose is not obvious now. Fig. 3: Solidus of Heraclius from Constantinople (19mm, 4.35g); MIB 53. Ex Classical Numismatic Group, E-Auction 527 (16 November 2022), lot 477. Hahn attributes MIB 52 to the reign of Constantine III as senior emperor and MIB 53 to that of Heraclonas (also known as Heraclius II) as senior emperor. He does this on the assumption that the Κ abbreviates the name Κωνσταντῖνος ‘Constantine’ in the former case and that the ñ abbreviates the adjective ἕτερος ‘other, second’ in the latter case.6 As far as the dodecanummium under discussion is concerned, one has to admit that the interpretation of the ñ as an abbreviation of ἕτερος in reference to Heraclonas is superficially attractive. It would help explain why three different types of dodecanummia were struck in such a short period if MIB 188 were attributable to Constantine III, the new type to his successor Heraclonas, and MIB 189 to Constans II. However, Heraclonas was senior emperor for almost twice as long as his predecessor Constantine III, nearly 6 months against little over 3 months, so that it seems odd that only one specimen of the dodecanummium attributable to him should have survived, while that apparently attributable to his predecessor should have survived in such relatively large numbers.7 Woods, ‘Deciphering the dodecanummia’ (see n. 3), pp. 202-04. Hahn, MIB 3 (1981), pp. 87-8. 7 On the duration of the reigns of these emperors, see W. Treadgold, ‘A note on Byzantium’s year of the four emperors (641)’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 83 (1990), pp. 431-33. 5 6 47 On the whole, it seems more likely that the Κ and ñ of the Constantinopolitan solidi abbreviate terms used in reference to the veneration of the cross, or the worship of the crucified Christ, than that they abbreviate imperial names or titles in the manner suggested by Hahn. As I have argued elsewhere, the Κ probably abbreviates some form of the term κύριος ‘lord’ used in reference to the crucified Christ, while the ñ probably abbreviates the verb ἐλέησον ‘Have mercy!’, a plea to the crucified Christ.8 As far as Constantinople is concerned, the plea may have been for Christ to save the emperor Heraclius as he drew ever nearer death, or to relieve the empire from the relentless assaults of the Arab invaders. As far as Alexandria is concerned, however, one may suspect that the prayer was more personal, a desperate plea to prevent the final surrender of the city to the Arabs as agreed in September 641. This is not to claim that whoever was responsible for the design of the reverse of the dodecanummium under discussion must have been familiar with the solidus displaying the ñ in its reverse field. It is a case rather of similar responses to the same desperate political situation utilizing a common liturgical term familiar to every Christian throughout the empire.9 II. Star rather than Κ: A Variant of a Follis (MIB 177) from Constantinople The mint at Constantinople struck a surprisingly large number of different types of follis under Constans II, and most types can be subdivided into two or more sub-types according to the different marks appearing above the large denomination mark M (or m) on the reverse. Since the time of Anastasius’ reform of the coinage in 498, the follis had normally displayed a small cross above the denomination M, although this had occasionally been replaced by a chi-rho symbol or a staurogram. During the last years of Heraclius, however, this cross was no longer a permanent feature of the reverse, but was reduced rather to the status of a variable mark that was changed on as regular basis to distinguish one series of production from the next. The mint employed five different devices over the denomination M during the period 629-637, beginning with the traditional small cross (MIB 164a) and ending with a form of the monogram of Heraclius’ name that included the cross (MIB 164d), but there were normally two marks in use at any one time. All of these marks seem to have been Christian in nature, since even Heraclius’ monogram now contained a cross.10 This treatment of the small cross above the denomination M as but one of a series of variable marks continued into the reign of Constans. However, during his reign, the mint only ever used three different marks above the denomination M (or m), the traditional small cross, a star (Fig. 4), and a Κ. See D. Woods, ‘Respecting the cross: Praying with coins in mid-seventh century Constantinople’, Studia Patristica 104 (2021), pp. 105-14. 9 On the origin of the prayer Kyrie eleison in the Christian mass, see E. Bishop, ‘Kyrie eleison: a liturgical consultation’, The Downside Review 18 (1899), pp. 294–303 and his ‘Kyrie eleison: a liturgical consultation II’, The Downside Review 19 (1900), pp. 44-55. 10 For a discussion of these marks, and Heraclius’ new monogram, see D. Woods, ‘Greek monograms and countermarks in seventh-century Syria’, in T. Goodwin (ed.), Coinage and History in the Seventh Century Near East 6 (London, 2015), pp. 101-20, at 101-04. 8 48 a b Fig. 4: a. follis of Constans II from Constantinople (20mm, 3.92g), dated RY 1 (641/42); MIB 162. Ex Savoca Coins, 106th Blue Auction (27 June 2021), lot 1674; b. half-follis of Heraclius from Constantinople (22mm, 5.65g); MIB 171a. Ex Savoca Coins, 5th Blue Auction (24 Feb. 2018), lot 1616. The fact that the mint only used three different marks above the denomination M during the whole of the reign of Constans is noteworthy, as is the fact that the mint had not used either the star or the Κ in this position before. The decision to set a Κ there is not surprising, given the frequency with which it had appeared as a mark in the reverse field of the solidi and hexagrams struck under Heraclius, when it had almost certainly abbreviated the term κύριος ‘lord’, as noted above. The star is a rather different case, being a much rarer symbol heretofore. Under Heraclius, it had been used on the reverse of lightweight solidi of 23 or 22 carats to identify them as such. One may perhaps doubt its religious symbolism in this case, particularly when one type of light-weight solidus had depicted two stars, one to either side of the cross (MIB 55). It had also been used once in the field besides the cross on the reverse of a rare issue of hexagram (MIB 142). Of most relevance here, however, is the fact that a star sometimes replaced the small cross between the heads of the figures on the obverse of the threequarter- (MIB 168) and half-folles (MIB 171) struck during the period 629/36 (Fig. 4b). This strongly suggests that it was thought to possess the same or similar religious significance. As to how or why anyone should equate these two symbols in this way, the answer probably lies in Christ’s words to the apostle John at the end of the Book of Revelation (22.16): ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ῥίζα καὶ τὸ γένος Δαυίδ, ὁ ἀστὴρ ὁ λαμπρὸς ὁ πρωϊνός. ‘I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.’11 Hence the three variable marks depicted above the denomination M during the reign of Constans all seem to allude to Christ in some way: the small cross to his crucifixion, the star to his selfidentification as the morning star, and the Κ to his status as the Lord.12 For further discussion of Christ as a star, see M.S. Moore, ‘Jesus Christ: “Superstar” (Revelation xxii 16b)’, Novum Testamentum 24 (1982), pp. 82-91. 12 There is also a variant with no mark at all. 11 49 Fig. 5: follis of Constans II from Constantinople (22mm, 4.42g); MIB 177. Ex Nomos, Obolos 12 The denomination mark M was far less prominent on the three varieties of follis struck at Constantinople following Constans’ promotion of his two younger sons Heraclius and Tiberius to rank as Augusti in 659. The reason for this was that the coins had now to accommodate the depiction of four different emperors rather than the mere two whose depiction they had had to accommodate during the period 654-59 or the single emperor before that. The result was that denomination M was severely reduced in size and transferred from the reverse to the obverse in the case of MIB 175 struck during the period from 659 to 664 (regnal years 19 to 23). A small cross was retained above the denomination M, but no other mark seems to have replaced it during the five-year period 659-64. In the case of MIB 176 struck during the year 665/666 (regnal year 25), the denomination M was restored to the reverse and increased in size. The cross was retained above it, but two different forms of the cross were used, one without steps (MIB 176a) and one with steps (MIB 176b). Hence the traditional differentiation between two series of production, distinguishable by means of the use of different marks above the denomination M, was restored. Finally in the case of MIB 177 (Fig. 5), which bears no date but has traditionally been attributed to the period 666-68, the denomination mark is reduced in size again as the busts of all three sons are squeezed tightly around it. This means that there is no space to include a mark above the M, whether the traditional cross or one of the other favoured varieties of mark under Constans, a star or a Κ. However, a Κ was inserted in the field to the right of the bust of Constans on the obverse, and a question arises concerning its significance. On the one hand, it may simply abbreviate the official name of Constans in Greek (Κωνσταντῖνος).13 On the other hand, it may represent the variable mark that has been displaced from above the denomination mark on the reverse. Fig. 6: Half-follis of Constans II from Constantinople (20mm, 2.62g); MIB 185. Ex Sol Numismatik, Auction 9 (10 December 2022), lot 387. In favour of the identification of this Κ as an abbreviation of the imperial name, one notes that it seems to have been used in this way on the obverse of half-folles struck in 643/44 (MIB 181), 659/60 (MIB 13 So Grierson, DOC 2.2, p. 549. 50 184), and (possibly) 664/68 (MIB 185) (Fig. 6). Furthermore, it had often appeared to the side of the figure of Constantine III on the obverse of folles struck during the period 629/37 (MIB 164). Against this, one notes, it had not been used to identify Constans by name on any of the different types of folles struck since his succession as sole Augustus in 641. More importantly, most of these folles had not provided any indication of his name. There the matter would have to be left to rest were it not for the fact that two specimens have appeared on the market in recent years revealing that a star was sometimes used on the obverse of MIB 177 instead of a Κ (Fig. 7a-b). While both specimens are rather worn, there can be no doubt that a star appears in the field to the right of the bust of Constans II exactly where one would normally have expected to find a Κ. The fact that this variant has not been noted previously suggests that it is much rarer than that depicting the Κ to the side of Constans’ bust. However, if previous patterns of production are anything to go by, this is not particularly surprising. For example, in the case of MIB 167, the variant with the small cross above the denomination M was struck at between two and four workshops each year for three years (MIB 167b), the variant with the Κ above it was struck at between three and four workshops each year for two years (MIB 167d), while the variant with the star above it was only struck at one workshop for one year (MIB 167c). Similarly in the case of MIB 173, the variant with the Κ above the denomination was struck at between one and four workshops each year for three years (MIB 173d), but the variant with the star above it was only struck at one workshop in one year (MIB 173c). In this case, one specimen (Fig. 7a) displays the top of the letter gamma Γ immediately blow the denomination mark, confirming that it was struck in the 3rd officina, but the second specimen (Fig. 7b) does not preserve its officina number. a b Fig. 7: a. follis of Constans II from Constantinople (25mm, 5.03g). Ex Savoca Coins, 111th Blue Auction (29 August 2021), lot 2158; b. follis of Constans II from Constantinople (23mm, 5.07g). Ex ebay April 2018. The fact that the new variant of MIB 177 depicts a star where the majority of specimens depict a Κ suggests that the latter is best regarded as the variable sign that had traditionally appeared over the denomination M, but has been displaced to the obverse in this case. 51 III. Omega rather than Omicron: Another Variant of a Follis (MIB 169) from Constantinople When the mint at Constantinople began striking folles in the name of Constans II in 641, it surrounded his figure on the obverse with the legend ñNTÕTONIKA ‘Conquer in this!’ rather than his name.14 This phrase traces its origin back to a phrase that the emperor Constantine I is supposed to have seen written in the sky next to a cross of light sometime shortly before the battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312. According to the famous account by Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, this phrase ran τούτῳ νίκα ‘Conquer by this!’ in reference to the cross of light besides it.15 On the reverse of the new folles struck in the name of Constans II, the legend proclaimed ANA and NñO to either side of the denomination mark in abbreviation of the term ἀνανέωσις ‘renewal’.16 Hence the new coins were consistent in their rendering of what should have been an omega w, if the legend was written in Greek, as a letter omicron Ο instead, on both reverse and obverse.17 This practice continued as long as these legends remained on the folles, with one noteworthy exception. Hahn published a variant of MIB 169 struck in regnal year 11 (651/52) upon which the omicron of the NñO on the reverse has been replaced by an omega instead (MIB 169.2). Since the obverse of MIB 169 depicts a bust of Constans surrounded by an abbreviation of his name rather than the legend ñNTÕTONIKA, there was nothing to correct in that case. However, I know of two examples of a variant that pairs an obverse depicting a standing Constans surrounded by the legend ñNTÕTONIKA with the reverse of MIB 169.2 (Fig. 8a-b). In both cases, the omicron on the obverse has been corrected to read an omega instead, exactly as on the reverse. It is interesting to note that these two coins were struck from two different obverse dies and two different reverse dies. The differences in the reverse dies include the officina number, Γ in the case of Fig. 8a and Β in the case of Fig. 8b. Fig. 8a: follis of Constans II from Constantinople (22mm, 4.05g). Ex Savoca Coins ebay (October 2019) On the earliest folles, see T. Goodwin, ‘The early folles of Constans II’, Numismatic Circular 120.1 (April 2012), pp. 18-20. 15 Eusebius, Vita Constantini 1.28. 16 On the tendency of seventh-century emperors to represent themselves as a new Constantine (306-37) or a new Justinian I (527-65) set upon renewing the empire once more, see J. Haldon, ‘Constantine or Justinian? Crisis and identity in imperial propaganda in the seventh century’, in P. Magdalino (ed.), New Constantines: The Rhythm of Imperial Renewal in Byzantium, 4th-13th Centuries (Aldershot, 1994), pp. 95-108. 17 It is not clear why the engravers preferred to use omicron rather than omega. One possibility is that the Greek terms were actually written in Latin script, that is, transliterations from Greek into Latin, so that the apparent omicron is really a Latin O. In support of this, one notes that none of the other letters are definitely Greek in form rather than Latin. In that case, the official responsible for the variants discussed here has failed to realize that the legends on Constans’ folles were in Latin, not Greek, and so corrected something that did not really need correcting at all. 14 52 Fig. 8b: follis of Constans II from Constantinople (23mm, 4.32g). The suspicion that these two variants, MIB 169.2 itself and that combining a standing-figure obverse with the reverse of MIB 169.2, may have been substantial issues originally is encouraged by the fact that one can discover an Arab-Byzantine imitation of both. In the first example below (Fig.9a), an imitation of the standing-figure variant, one can clearly see the letters Tw on the right side of the head of the standing figure on the obverse. The most interesting feature of the obverse legend, however, is that the letters Ο and Υ have been separately engraved rather than combined in ligature as Õ. On the reverse, one can see the left-hand side of the letter w where one expects to find it. However, the abbreviation mark below that seems to have been bungled. Another indication that this is an ArabByzantine copy, although a very good one by the normal standards of such copies, is that it weighs much less than its Byzantine model would have. Finally, the fact that it depicts the officina number Α suggests that its model was struck in this officina, so that this Byzantine variant was probably produced in at least three officinae (Α, Β, Γ). The second example (Fig. 9b), an imitation of MIB 169.2, is a far less accurate copy of its Byzantine model. Nevertheless, one can detect the remnant of the date ΙΑ in the presence of a curved Ι at the bottom left immediately before a large A in the exergue on the reverse. The bust on the obverse does not match that of MIB 169.2 in that it clearly does not bear a long beard, but the choice to depict a bust rather than a standing figure here is itself significant, regardless of the fact that the details of the busts do not entirely match. Finally, one should note that, in stark contrast to the previous example, this specimen is far heavier than its Byzantine model would have been. Fig. 9a: an Arab-Byzantine follis (22mm, 2.91g). Ex Ancientground ebay (May 2020); 53 Fig. 9b:an Arab-Byzantine follis (28mm, 5.94g). Ex Numismatik Lanz ebay (January 2020). 54