Just bought this one. I've been wanting one for a few years now. Now that I actually can afford to collect, I can buy stuff that I like. One of my favorite AE coins of any region. Kings of Axum (Aksum) Anonymous AD 400-500 AE 14, 0.75 grams Obverse: Crowned bust right, holding cross-tipped scepter Reverse: Greek Cross; central punch-hole inlaid in gold, Inscription "May this (cross) please the country." Munro-Hay 76, BMC Aksumite 316 Link if picture isn't visible: http://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-72009 stainless
First time I have ever seen a coin like this, very cool. I like it alot. Looks to have a great patina too. Hopefully Doug or someone can educate me and others on something like this?
Axum is a very interesting place historically. Its actually the first kingdom to switch officially to Christianity. It was in modern day Ethiopia, but also influenced Yemen and had a role in Roman trade with India. I agree, very cool coins. Pretty scarce, pretty interesting, but little collected generally. One of my favorites!
This is an above average coin of a series that we don't see offered very often. There are really great gold and silver coins but the bronzes are most common including the ones with the gold fill. I know next to nothing about them but do own a couple books that enable me to see what I'm missing. My gold spot coin is not as nice as the stainless but I'll just tag on a couple of others to make the point that nice ones are not easily found. Anonymous (successor of Ezanas? - never had gold spot) 350-400 AD, Succesors of Kaleb 520-542 AD (gold remains), Joel 7th century (no gold)
Btw Munro-Hay has written the two most referenced books in this series, Aksumite coins and Aksumite Coins in the BMC. I prefer Aksumite Coins but the BMC book is more widely available today. The gold spots are very interesting on these bronzes. It was the first time I had experienced bimetallic ancient coinage, and except for a recent Hepthalite purchase is the only bimetallic ancient I am aware of if you exclude debased silver Romans, (whihc to me were not true bimetallic but rather debasement of the silver). Well I guess you could count electrum, but again that is a alloy not a true bimetallic, like these.
Could you please show so pics of this one for us? And yes, they are very hard to find in nice examples. I did find one that was very nicely detailed but encrusted and not as attractive overall. The seller also used the BMC reference and the Greek inscription, I got the Munro-Hay reference from a friend, as well as some interesting info. stainless
I know its a horrible pic, but on the throat there is a gold plug in this silver Hepthalite coin. Its more goldish in hand on the plug, and other examples range from black to bright gold. I even saw one once with the plug fallen out, showing they punched into the silver but not through to make a hole for the gold. It is Nezak Huns, Vakhu Dezha, around 8th century. I have never heard a reason for the gold plug. I would assume to higher rate the value of the coin, but its weird since these size silver coins had circulated for 500 years at this point, so I don't know the reason they wanted to retariff them. Chris Edit: Btw calling this ancient is a little of a stretch, but I collect Sassanid and consider them ancient. These were contemporary with the Sassanid empire, and of similar style. I know in Europe for this date they call it medieval. However, Byzantines are also called ancients. There is some definite overlap here.
I know that it tachnically isnt "ancient" by standards, but it's older enough for me to consider it. Very cool Hepthalite, I've never seen that type before. It's a drachm, right? stainless
Its identical to other drachsm in size, thinness, and weight, but no one knows the denomination. It would be weird for them to put gold in and still call it a drachm I would imagine. Just one of those cool, weird coins I like. Ardatirion here is the expert in them. I am trying to write a paper on Hepthalite coinage currently.
I used to be hardline on the term 'ancient' but it started bothering me that coin dealers who handled only ancients were selling Byzantine up to the mid 1400's but ignoring other regions from the 500's. I don't care what we call them but I now collect coins that were made in the good old fashion pre-mechanical methods. For the most part that means struck but not pressed. There are some casts but few enough that I can accept them in whichever group the struck coins of the same group fall. The best answer, IMHO, is no answer. History is not a subject to be compartmentalized neatly. Any teacher who requires students to memorize that Rome fell in 476 AD worries me. Anyone who can draw a line in the sand at 27 BC between the Roman Republic and The Roman Empire is little better. I suppose we have to have some lines here and there but we need to learn that Nerva (13th Caesar), Leo (too late to be Roman, too early to be Byzantine) and other historical fence straddlers need love too.
