Just starting..

So I searched 'Google Images' for 'Abbasid Dirham' and this came up. I think it may be a match.


Silver dirham 181 AH/797 AD Muhammadiya, Abbasid Caliphate - Silver dirham of Harun al-Rashid (786-808 AD) w/Jaffar, Abbasid Caliphate

Shahada spread on both sides, date and mint in margins, citing the heir al-Amin and Vizier Jaffar. Minted in 181 AH = 797 AD, mint of Muhammadiya. 26mm, 2.87 grams. Album 219.9.

"Jaffar" cited on the reverse of this coin is Jaffar al-Barmaki, the famous Vizier (chief minister) from the Persian Barmakid family. This Jaffar, along with most of the Barmakid family, was eventually killed by Harun (803 AD), but he served as a prototype for the evil "Ja'far" of 1001 nights and Alladin story.

Harun al-Rashid (17 March 763 or February 766 — 24 March 809) was the fifth Abbasid Caliph. Harun ruled from 786 to 809, and his time was marked by scientific, cultural, and religious prosperity. Islamic art and Islamic music also flourished significantly during his reign. Since Harun was intellectually, politically, and militarily resourceful, his life and his court have been the subject of many tales. Some are claimed to be factual, but most are believed to be fictitious. An example of what is factual, is the story of the clock that was among various presents that Harun had sent to Charlemagne. The presents were carried by the returning Frankish mission that came to offer Harun friendship in 799. Charlemagne and his retinue deemed the clock to be a conjuration for the sounds it emanated and the tricks it displayed every time an hour ticked. Among what is known to be fictional is The Book of One Thousand and One Nights, which contains many stories that are fantasized by Harun's magnificent court and even Harun al-Rashid himself.



EDIT: OK, I think it's pretty close at least. There is one less line on the reverse than your coin, but I think it gets you further along.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

OK,

I think I have it now. Apologies if I discovered too much, but I enjoy a challenging attribution myself. Today I learned a little more about Arabic coinage and Islamic history as well. So the gratitude is mutual.



Abbasid Coinage
temp. Harun al-Rashid AD 786-809

Reign anonymous, temp. Harun al-Rashid AH170-193
Denomination AR dirham
Date Struck AH 185 (AD 801)
Mint al-Muhammadiya (now Reyy near Tehran in Iran)
Obverse in the margin: "in The Name of God. This dirham was struck in al-Muhammadiya in the year five and eighty and one hundred" (185) in the center: "There is no deity except/ (the one) God alone/He has no equal.
Reverse
in the margin: "Muhammad is the messenger of God. He sent him with guidance and the true religion to reveal it to all religions even if the polytheists abhor it".
in the center: on the top: Arabic letter waw و followed by "Muhammad is the Messenger of God/From what was ordered by the Prince al-Amin/
Muhammad Son of The Prince of The Faithful/", Below it in Arabic Governor's name Ja'far جعفر
Weight 2.94 gr.
Diameter
25 mm.
Reference Album #219.9 (although lacks the ruler's own name, it bears the name of his heir, al-Amin).
Grade Good VF/XF
Comments
Harun al-Rashid was the fifth Arab Abbasid Caliph that encompassed modern Iraq. His birth date remains a point of discussion, though, as various sources give the dates from 763-6.
Born: 763? AD, Rayy (near Tehran)
Died: 809 AD, Tous (near Mashhad in Iran)
Spouse: Zubayda bint Ja`far (daughter of Ja'far Barmakid)
Children: Al-Ma'mun, Al-Amin, Al-Mu'tasim (all his successors)
Parents: Al-Mahdi, Al-Khayzuran

 

@Herodotus that is just incredible. thank you so much! and thanks for the pointer to that tool--it will be a great help in the future.

 

I'm a fairly 'new-to-ancients' collector myself. VCoins 'Search feature' was one of the first sites that I discovered to aid me in attributing unknown coins.

It(along with other online sites) has helped me to learn how to recognize certain portraits, deities, commonly used symbols and denominations in ancient coinage.

I get a real thrill out of going through a pile of unattributed coins and trying to learn what they are. It's also inspired me to learn the histories of the ancient locations and persons that the coins were minted for.

It's safe to state that I've been bitten by the ancient coin bug.

In addition to Wildwinds and auction archives sites like ACsearch, Coin Archives or individual auctions sites like CNG...

Here's a handful of more good resources to check out:

https://www.all-your-coins.com/en/blog/antique/romaines/comment-identifier-les-monnaies-romaines

http://numismatics.org/crro/

http://www.romancoin.info/

http://bpmurphy.ancients.info/

https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/

https://www.tesorillo.com/aes/_cec/cecas1.htm

http://ptolemybronze.com/ptolemy_series.html

https://www.greekcoinvalues.com/introduction.php

https://www.imgonline.com.ua/eng/combine-two-images-into-one.php

http://numismatics.org/sco/

http://numismatics.org/ocre

 

I came into this one recently in a bag of uncleaned ancients I picked up at an estate auction. I figure this bag of unknowns may help me learn ancients. I did clean it up with a toothbrush and some water. I think it's a Severus Alexander given the three legionary standards topped with wreathes on the reverse. The closest I've found so far to compare to is this one http://www.coinproject.com/siteimages/142-Z0936LG.jpg (Bronze) but what is strange is that almost all the S. Alexander's I see have NI-K-AI-E/ΩN but this one seems to be missing the "E" and it also is a very gold color where these others all seem to be grayish/green. Is the color of the one I have just a ruined patina? Also, why no "E"? is this signifying the date or monetary value?

 

Your coin is from Nicaea in Bythinia, see here. The type with the three standards was produced from Elagabalus to Gordian III. Your coin might well be Severus Alexander, but I can't read the legends in your picture. Maybe, you can decipher them in hand.

 

You ancient guys ( not personally , lol ) are AWESOME ! I can't wait to get my 1st in a day or so . Just hope you can help me out as you did others.

 

Your coin most certainly is Severus Alexander. It has been harshly cleaned down to the brassy metal while most of us prefer the more natural patinas in green/brown/grey. The letter placement on these varies from die to die. Remember that ancient dies were hand cut so they do not all match like the modern ones made from mechanical processes. Below I show two Alexanders to illustrate variations. This is one of the most common Roman Provincial coins.


This last one is Alexander's mother Julia Mamaea and shows a small flan that loses legends the opposite way from yours where the E was off flan. Coins with perfect centering that lose no legend and have clear, smooth surfaces command a premium. I have none to show.

 

@Orielensis @dougsmit thank you again. This rabbit hole is deep. This would be a great way to teach history in high school --I've learned so many things about ancient Rome in a couple of weeks even though I've visited there several times -- I never knew Julius Caesar and Augustus were each responsible for adding a month to the year (July for Julius & August for Augustus) and Rome was named after it's founder Romulus and it ended under an emperor named Romulus (Romulus Augustulus).

@dougsmit -- also your pictures are awesome. I've been reading a bit that you have posted on the subject.

also, now I know that greenish brown is better than gold The bag of coins I purchased are super dirty (like thousand-year dirt). almost everything has been ground down to the metal and I can find only one out of a couple hundred that is centered. lots of fun. I wonder if anyone has been successful at using machine learning to help with the discovery/search process. I'm going to do a bit of reading on that this week as it's something I know a bit about.

 

"...and Rome was named after it's founder Romulus and it ended under an emperor named Romulus (Romulus Augustulus). "


Roman Imperial. Commemorative Series. 330-354 AD. Æ Follis (15mm, 1.29 g, 12h). Arelate (Arles) mint, 1st officina. Struck under Constantine I, AD 334.
VRBS ROMA,Bust of Roma left wearing crested helmet and imperial mantle. / She-wolf standing left, head right, suckling the twins Romulus and Remus; above, Christogram (Chi-Rho) between two stars; PCONST in exergue.
Issued to commemorate the founding of Constantinople (in 330 AD) while affirming Rome as the traditional center of the Empire.

Welcome, @bernard55. You'll find this to be a very helpful group that includes lots of experts. I've learned a lot from the members of the Ancient Coins Forum!

 

Another interesting tidbit about our calendar(if you weren't already aware).

September, October, November & December names were also given to us by the Romans.

What's funny is that Sept.(7), Oct.(8), Nov.(9) and Dec.(10) are the 9th,10th,11th and 12th months in our current calendar year.

The reason for this is that March(named after Mars) was originally the first Month of the year in the Roman Calendar. Named after Mars(Martius), it was also the first month of Spring and many festivals and religious ceremonies were held in Mars' honor.

The Romans later added two more months(Jan. and Feb.) to the calendar.

The original name of July was 'quintilis'(5th) and August was 'sextilis'(6th).

 

I have another novice question. Where do I read about the taxonomy used to categorize ancients?

I'm so used to something simple such as:

• Region (USA, Germany...)
• Type (Cents, Nickel, Dime, Quarter, Dollar..)
• Series (Flying Eagle Cent, Barber quarter..)
• Year (1898..)
• Mint (Philadelphia, San Francisco...)
• Rating (MS 62 etc..)

​

but when it comes to ancients, I see people referencing text such as:
"HGC 6, 1457" --is this similar to KM numbers?

When I look at sites such as https://www.forumancientcoins.com/ I see that they categorize most Roman coins by who was in power:

• Roman Coins Roman Republic before 150 B.C.
• Roman Coins Roman Republic 150-100 B.C.
• Roman Coins Roman Republic 99-50 B.C.
• Roman Coins Roman Republic after 50 B.C.
• Roman Coins The Twelve Caesars Augustus
• Roman Coins The Twelve Caesars Livia
• Roman Coins The Twelve Caesars Tiberius
• Roman Coins The Twelve Caesars Caligula
• Roman Coins The Twelve Caesars Claudius
• Roman Coins The Twelve Caesars Nero

​

and it seems from a Greek perspective they go by geography:

• Greek Coins Greece Peloponnesos
• Greek Coins Greece Crete
• Greek Coins Greece Other Greece
• Greek Coins Macedonia Macedonian Kings
• Greek Coins Macedonia Koinon of Macedonia
• Greek Coins Macedonia Amphipolis

​

My Question: what is the appropriate way that the taxonomy is suppose to work according to the numismatic experts?

 

Your in the right place. coin talk is a wealth of knolage here in fourms and members that know as much as professional coin graders and collage history teachers. There hasnt been a coin I asked about that I didnt find help on. You will learn alot here.

 

to simplify my question a bit:

on numismatics.org I see descriptions such as "RIC III Marcus Aurelius 677" found here Online Coins of the Roman Empire: RIC III Marcus Aurelius 677 (numismatics.org)

is this the same as "type" (example: Silver Dollar)

and

is this "Silver Denarius of Marcus Aurelius, Rome, AD 161 - AD 175. 1911.23.340" more like the 'series' (example: Morgan Dollar) found here American Numismatic Society: Silver Denarius of Marcus Aurelius, Rome, AD 161 - AD 175. 1911.23.340

When I look at an NGC ancient they use this taxonomy Ancient Coin Attributions Guide | NGC (ngccoin.com).

I'm just trying to understand the 'mutually understood' way to reference a specific ancient coin (Greek, Roman, Asia etc...)

 

Sadly, there is no easy answer here. We don't know what the ancients called all of their coins or denominations - though we know some. We also don't know exactly how they structured their coinage. No mint records survive.

There is a difference between attribution and type.

Attribution generally refers to matching a coin to some catalogue or guidebook. RIC-III Marcus Aurelius 677 really just means the 677th entry under Marcus Aurelius in the third volume of The Roman Imperial Coinage, by Spink Books.

But different books (including the different volumes of RIC) treat the coinage differently.

Take a bronze coin of Marcus Aurelius. RIC might give different numbers depending on whether the SC is in the field or under the design (in the exergue). Or different numbers for different spacing gaps in the legend. These are differences that you can see and you can decide which one your coin fits in. But did they matter to the Romans? Did they reflect different issues by time or mint or workshop? Or where they just differences from different engravers or even the same engraver on different dies? We don't always know.

SC

 

@otlichnik thank you for your reply. my apologies if you get this note twice as I was logged out while writing it the first time. Each Ancient Coin website I visit seems to have a different way of referencing an ancient coin. I am searching for what you as an expert expect when you hear about someone referencing a coin. For example, with Greek coinage, is it better to reference the "Hellenistic Period" or "Alexander the Great" or "Seleucid Empire" or "Anatolia - Caria - Rhodos".

I have a website that several people use to manage their collections and I want to extend it to ancients but my current taxonomy (same as PCGS: Country, Type, Series, Year, Mint, Other..) doesn't seem to work well for the more serious ancients collectors.

as an ancients expert, what are the 3 or 4 things I would need to tell you so you would know what coin (or set of coins) I'm referencing--and is it different from rome to arabic to greek etc..

as an example, is this correct?:
it's a "Roman" "Denarii" referencing "Antoninus Pius (138 - 161)" from "the Nerva–Antonine dynasty (The Adoptive Emperors)"

it's a "Greek" "Drachma" referencing "Alexander the Great" from "the Hellenistic Monarchies"

 

Here is the link to a big online catalog just mentioned if you haven't seen it, its awsome for alot of roman coins. You can search coins by date. Obverse, reverse, mint, all sorts of stuff.

http://numismatics.org/ocre/

Edit: I see it was posted in a few post above, so I will second its good info...lol

 

Bernard, I am glad I am not the only one who often writes a message and then realizes I was not logged in. I do it all the time....

For the kind of taxonomy you are talking about there is no single answer. The OCRE site, associated with the highly professional American Numismatic Society, is certainly an excellent one to follow.

But here are a few examples of challenges.

The coins, like those from Nicaea above, were issued during the Roman Empire, by towns in the Empire, for local use. They often have legends in Greek. They are known as Roman Provincial - to distinguish from Roman Imperial, Roman Imperatorial, Roman Republican, etc. But they are also widely know as Greek Imperial. To me Roman Provincial makes sense.

The coinage of Judaea or Nabataea is listed in many sources, especially older ones, as Greek. Greek, Judaean. Yet they aren't Greek at all - not part of Greece, not a Greek colony, often don't use Greek on the coin. This was simply because to some authors of the past the taxonomy was Greek or Roman or Post-Roman. So under Greek went Greek and Judaean and Celtic, etc.

All this to say there is not perfect or universally accepted system. It is not like biology where you classify your insect collection using "the proper way".

I find that the more comfortable you are with your collection, and the larger it is, the less info you need. If I look at my 80 or so Seleucid coins. Some of the ones I got first have Greek, Seleucid, Antiochos III at the top of the tag I wrote. Later tags had Seleucid, Antiochos III, dropping the Greek as it was obvious to me. Now that I have three trays of only Seleucid my tags start Antiochos III. I figure that even if I get hit by a bus tomorrow whomever my family takes the coins to to sell will be able to figure it all out by context.

But if I have a tray of widely diverse coins I would start each tag with Greek, Roman Imperial, Bactrian, Chinese etc.

SC

 

For Roman Imperial and Roman provincial coins, this is how I do it (and there's more than one way).

Emperor/Empress and dates of reign
I mention "Roman" or "Roman provincial", then metal, then denomination, then measurements.
Location of mint and year minted
Obverse description -- inscription followed by bust description
Reverse description -- inscription followed by description of image
References by catalog number; for imperials, I list RIC, BMCRE, Cohen, Sear, and (if applicable) Strack, MIR or others; for provincials, RPC, BMC Greek, Sear, and a host of specialty references, such as AMNG, Varbanov, Ruzicka, Moushmov, SNG Cop, SNG von Aulock, etc, etc.
Notes if there's something interesting to say about a coin.

Here's an example of a Roman imperial listing:


Philip I, AD 244-249.
Roman AR Antoninianus, 23mm, 3.93 g, 7h.
Rome mint, 5th officina, 8th emission, AD 248.
Obv: IMP PHILIPPVS AVG, radiate, draped, and cuirassed bust right.
Rev: VIRTVS AVGG, Philip I and II on horseback galloping right; Є below.
Refs: RIC IV 10; RSC 241a; RCV 8976; Hunter 43.
Notes: Issued for the Ludi Novae Saeculares ("Games of the New Age" or the "Millennial Games") of AD 248, which marked the 1,000th anniversary of Rome's foundation.

Here's an example of a Roman provincial listing:


Faustina II, AD 147-175.
Roman provincial Æ assarion, 6.04 g, 19.2 mm, 1 h.
Koinon of Thessaly, Larissa, AD 158-165.
Obv: ΦΑVϹΤЄΙΝΑ ϹЄΒΑϹΤΗ; bare-headed and draped bust of Faustina II, right.
Rev: ΚΟΙΝΟΝ ΘЄϹϹΑΛⲰΝ; Athena Itonia in snake-adorned aegis, striding right, brandishing spear and holding shield.
Refs: RPC IV.1 4570 (temporary); Rogers 98a, SNG Cop 349; SNG Evelpidis 1685; BCD Thessaly II 966.1 & 966.2.
Notes: Ex-BCD collection. Issued in three denominations: tetrassarion (RPC 4569), diassarion (RPC 4568), and assarion (such as this coin).