Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Marsyas Mike, post: 24789335, member: 85693&quot;]Feast or famine; with ancient countermarks, I find that either there is no information on them whatsoever, or a feast, with an abundance of information.&nbsp; This unappetizing Byzantine follis I recently found on eBay turned out to be a feast, with several theories on why it got countermarked and where. </p><p><br /></p><p>First the coin (some may find the ugliness of this coin to be disturbing, so viewer discretion advised):</p><p><br /></p><p><a href="https://content.invisioncic.com/k321387/monthly_2023_10/image.jpeg.9f55a48d02e65a17d8661a367282d81e.jpeg" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://content.invisioncic.com/k321387/monthly_2023_10/image.jpeg.9f55a48d02e65a17d8661a367282d81e.jpeg" rel="nofollow"><img src="https://content.invisioncic.com/k321387/monthly_2023_10/image.jpeg.9f55a48d02e65a17d8661a367282d81e.jpeg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></a></p><p><br /></p><p>Byzantine Empire Æ Follis Heraclius (c. 610-640 A.D.) Caesarea Maritima (Egypt?) Host coin:&nbsp; Constantinople (?) follis star | cross | star type of Justin I (SB 62) (518-527 A.D.) or Justinian I (SB 160) (527-538 A.D.) Countermark: Stylized eagle, pellet above, in 9 mm circle. (9.64 grams / 30 x 28 mm) eBay Oct. 2023&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;ve only been able to find one other sale of these online, which fortunately was from FORVM, which can always be relied upon to give a lot of information.&nbsp; Here is FORVM:</p><p><br /></p><p>Byzantine Empire, Maurice Tiberius, 13 August 582 - 22 November 602 A.D.; Palestina Prima Countermark</p><p><br /></p><p>Due to new finds around Caesarea Maritima, Wolfgang Schulze re-attributed this countermark from Egypt to Palestina Prima. David Woods proposes that &quot;Nicetas, the cousin of the future emperor Heraclius, ordered the countermarking of these coins as he advanced from Egypt into Palestine during the summer of 610 in order to signal the change of government from Phocas to the Heraclii.&quot; Another possible date is after the recovery of Syria from the Persians in 628. Schulze dates it to the Arab siege of 637 - 640 A.D., to which Caesarea succumbed. This is only the third example known of this eagle countermark applied to a coin of Maurice Tiberius. Woods identified the other examples, as &quot;a careless accident.&quot;&nbsp; SH77069. Bronze follis, Hahn MIB II 65b, DOC I 22 var. (no 4th officina), SBCV 494; for countermark see Schulze INR 2009, and Woods (Heraclius, Palestina Prima), countermark: VF, coin: aF, areas of corrosion, 4th officina, Constantinople (Istanbul, Turkey) mint, weight 11.287g, maximum diameter 31.5mm, die axis 180o, coin c. 583 - 584, countermark c. 610 - 637; obverse DN mAV - RC P P AV, crowned bust facing, crown with cross and pendilia, globus cruciger in right hand, shield on left shoulder; reverse large M (40 nummi) between ANNO and II (regnal year 2), Δ (4th officina) below, CON in exergue; countermark: in exergue, eagle standing facing, head right, wings raised, in a round punch; from The Jimi Berlin Caesarea Collection (found at Caesarea, Israel); very rare countermark; SOLD</p><p><br /></p><p><a href="https://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalog/roman-and-greek-coins.asp?param=77069q00.jpg&amp;vpar=1376&amp;zpg=87823&amp;fld=" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalog/roman-and-greek-coins.asp?param=77069q00.jpg&amp;vpar=1376&amp;zpg=87823&amp;fld=" rel="nofollow">https://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalog/roman-and-greek-coins.asp?param=77069q00.jpg&amp;vpar=1376&amp;zpg=87823&amp;fld=</a></p><p><br /></p><p>Unlike FORVM&#039;s example, the host coin on my example is the more common Justin I / Justinian I follis; I suspect mine is Justin I, based on the spacing of the letters, but I am not entirely sure of this, as the middle NVS/ANVS part of the legend is missing.&nbsp; The mintmark on mine is also mostly missing, but I think I can make out the N for CON. </p><p><br /></p><p>I was able to locate Schulze&#039;s article on academia.com, and find his theories observations on what, where and why for this countermark to be very compelling. </p><p><br /></p><p>The Byzantine ‘Eagle’ Countermark –Re-attributed from Egypt to Palestine</p><p><br /></p><p>by WOLFGANG SCHULZE</p><p><br /></p><p>ABSTRACT&nbsp; During the turbulent years of the Arab conquest of Syria in the 30s of the seventh century CE, a series of Byzantine countermarks was in use. One of them, the ‘eagle’ countermark, has been attributed for a long time to Egypt and may now be re-attributed to Palestine on the basis of new evidence. This countermark may have been applied on old and worn Byzantine coins in order to revalue them during the siege of Caesarea (637–640 CE).</p><p><br /></p><p>INTRODUCTION&nbsp; Byzantine coins bearing a countermark depicting an eagle with upraised wings were first published over 30 years ago (Bendall1976:230). Up to now such countermarks were known exclusively on coins of Justin I and Justinian I (Fig. 1)The round countermark shows a standing bird (‘eagle’) with wings curved upward and a pellet above. It has a diameter of approximately 8 mm and is placed exclusively on the reverses of the host coins. Evans stated that “all [countermarks]are placed at approximately the same place on the reverses of folles, obscuring the offcinae , but carefully avoiding disfiguring the M or the mintmark.” (Evans 2006:24). Looking at the coins in the catalogue below, we can be more precise. On most of the coins, the application of the countermark at the same place of the host coin is indisputable. The countermarks are usually placed on the mintmark or on the offcina, disfiguring one or the other and sometimes both. But nevertheless there are four coins with countermarks placed indiscriminately beside or on the M (Cat. Nos. 1, 10, 16, 21).In contrast to the worn host coins, the countermarks are usually fresh. Takinginto account the fact that Bendall only knew of three specimens and that we can use the evidence of 25 specimens today, his statement “the designs of the countermarks are as worn as the coins” (Bendall 1976:230) cannot be maintained. It seems that several ‘eagle’ countermark dies were in use, sometimes of fine, sometimes of rough style. This could point to a larger production than their rarity in excavations, museums or in trade may suggest (Fig. 2).&nbsp; <a href="https://www.academia.edu/6830710/The_Byzantine_Eagle_Countermark_Re_attributed_from_Egypt_to_Palestine" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.academia.edu/6830710/The_Byzantine_Eagle_Countermark_Re_attributed_from_Egypt_to_Palestine" rel="nofollow">https://www.academia.edu/6830710/The_Byzantine_Eagle_Countermark_Re_attributed_from_Egypt_to_Palestine</a></p><p><br /></p><p>The article goes on with various other aspects and theories about this countermark and the tumultuous history of those times.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>Feel free to share any other Byzantine and/or Arabic countermarks, etc.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in