Hello. These two coins are classified as Arab Byzantine coins. In fact , when Arabs took over byzantine cities in the seventh century AD they had no Arab coins yet. So they used the Byzantine coins and over struck them with the name of the invaded cities in the Arabic language. In these two coins the city was the same , that is Hims or Homs in Syria, formerly known as Emesa. The surprising point is that one of these coins has normally the image of the Byzantine Emperor on the obverse( naturally because it was originally a Byzantine coin ) whereas the second coin has the image of the Arab Caliph on its obverse. Please explain this historic complicated issue. Thanks.. Charles
Its still being researched, but there were numbers of emmissions right after the arabs took over in this area, (modern day Syria and Lebanon mainly). Each mint crafted their own imitative dies, so that why there are so many varieties.
To add; coins were often not overstruck. Generally the same people in the same mint continued making coins in the way they were accustomed to. They just adapted to the new rulers in making slightly changed dies. This was also of benefit to the new rulers. As they needed their new subjects to continue to trust the money that was issued. That is far more difficult if you change the design and the monetary system overnight. This happened all over the orient at multiple occasions. That's why there are also arab-sasanian hybrids and bull and horseman coins from both hindu and different islamic dynasties.
Not to mention Arab-Bukharan coins, Trilingual hunnic coins, etc. What "money" looks like is a very cultural phenomenon, most people do not pay that much attention to "money" besides its appearance. All of these examples enabled the new rulers to continue to foster economic activity while minimizing the effects of ruler change to working class citizens. Look at how arabic silver in Persia had the exact same thin flan of Sassnid coinage for centuries after they took over. There was a reason Chinese still used cash coins for 2000 years. Only after 100 years of having a lot of exposure to western style coins did the chinese feel it was safe enough to change the form of their money. Try it yourself. Think of a $20 bill. What design is on the reverse? Who's signature appears on all of the twenties in your wallet? Heck, most Americans cannot even name the scumbag who appears on the $20. But they know it has a 20 in the corner and LOOKS like a $20, right?
Great. The first Arab Caliph to have issued the first Arab coin in History was Abdul Malak Ben Marwan from the Umayyad era. He figures in one of the two coins above. So why would he put his figure on obverse of a Byzantine coin and then change or even disfigure the reverse by turning the cross into a loop, as seen above? Thanks.. Charles
No one is exactly certain who the figure on the obverse represents. "Standing Caliph" is merely the popular description of the type. This is a very important thing to remember. The inhabitants of 7th century Syria were not striking Byzantine style coins because they lacked creativity. To them, a facing bust and a large M on the reverse was simply what money looked like, same way a rectangular green piece of paper is how we imagine money in the US today. And by the way, I never really grasped the broad hatred of Jackson until I studied the contemporary sources. A powerful and important figure, without a doubt, but no president since has so single handedly alterred American life.
Personally, some of my ancestors were on the Trail of Tears, and her siblings died on it. That is the main basis for my hatred of the man, also known as the only sitting President in US History to openly defy and ignore a Supreme Court ruling. BUT, I digress and apologize for derailing this thread. I did not intend to.
Thanks to all of you , for your sincere and extended collaboration. Hope my next thread would be less complicated. I learnt that many academies are still unable to completely resolve the " mystery" of Arab Byzantine coins. Some researchers even tend to believe that most of these coins are probably fakes. Charles
That is a weird conclusion I have never heard sir, that they are all fakes. There is numismatic literature discussing these for over 100 years. They are not new numismatic items, they were simply underresearched until recently. I have absolute zero doubt both arab-byzantine and arab-sassanid coins are authentic.
I think something got lost in translation. I assume he read that they were all imitations, or something of the like.
Oh, as in local imitative coins, not official manufacture. I would understand that argument then. I don't really agree with it, but could understand where it came from, kind of like Roman imitative coinage from the 4-5th centuries. I am sure a FEW of these types are exactly that, local imitative coinage. Problem is, official Byzantine coinage at the time is so horribly made its kind of hard to distinguish byzantine imitative, byzantine official, and arabic imitative. I have a pile somewhere of a hoard of these I bought. Its pretty dang hard to figure out which is which. A few are clearly official Byzantine, a few are clearly arab-byzantine, and the other 100 or so are somewhere in between or too crude to tell much.
Right, I meant as you said , some kind of local imitations or ancient counterfeits. Then I said they tend to believe, and probably, beside most and not all of them. Actually I was consulting Wikipedia five years ago. Also , have you noticed that I said " some researchers " or " many academies ". Finally I was willing to guess the values of these two coins. Thank you. Charles
