One of the fun things about forums like CoinTalk is that I go through boxes of coins I haven't looked at in many, many years to come up with an interesting piece to discuss. This is one I forgot that I had but always wanted to know more about. Perhaps someone can help me out. It's a follis from Theoupolis which I presumed was for Justinian and is typical for this Emperor. Here's the coin: Looks kind of normal except the obverse legend was odd. Turning it 90 degrees shows this: It pretty clearly reads DN ANASTA - SIVS ..., except no Anastasius follis was ever struck in this city. Someone once told me this may be a recorded piece but I could never find it. Any ideas?
There are Antioch folles of Anastasius though some seem likely to be barbarous and the ones listed in catalogs use the ANT city name rather than Theoupolis. I know nothing about these but, were it my coin, I'd post it in the Forvm Byzantine section and see what the Byzantine crowd there has to say.
The reverse looks like it is sear 217 minted 536/7-539, and since Anastasius died about 20 years before that , + with the poorly engraved letters on the obverse, I would guess it is a barbarous imitation
hu..i have no clue...but that legend is pretty garbled up hu? nice lookin' coin with a cool mint mark. an uncontroversial anastasius...
The name of Antioch was changed to Theopolis ("City of God)" under Justinian. This is the mintmark of the OP coin. The circumstances of the change are fascinating: http://esty.ancients.info/interesting/Justinian.html Anastasius ruled long before the change, so the OP coin must be an imitation.
It should be imitative but the more I look at it the less I think it is. It isn't about anything but 25 years of looking at ancients. This one just doesn't fit the mold. Maybe I'm stubborn but I'm not ready to give up on it just yet. I'll just put it back in my TBD box.
@Valentinian : I wrote to a well-known (unnamed) Byzantine expert in Europe and showed him the coin. He says that these are known for both Anastasius and Justin I and are actually mentioned in Dumbarton Oaks - Byzantine but are referred to as "barbarous" issues. He didn't think this was entirely correct and wrote this explanation: "The issue cannot be one of Anastasius, Antioch was not renamed to Theopolis until 528 per Procopius, and this correlates with the fact that the ANT* mintmark is replaced during Justinian's reign. It's also incredibly unlikely that this could be an issue of Justinian; what emperor issues a coin proclaiming another as ruler? It’s just not done as coins established the authority of the current ruler. The style is very good, so even though it's not an official issue it was done by people with similar skills and resources. We know the Sasanians minted Byzantine style coins in Egypt in the early 7th century. Henri Pottier also has made a good case that local issues in Syria were struck using the images of prior rulers during the presence of the Persian armies. In 540 the Persian army was not only near Antioch it sacked the city and removed all the inhabitants. There were no official coins in 540/41 and 541/42 and again in 543/4 544/5 ad 545/6, the former due to the Persian sack and the latter because of the plague. Lastly there is the resettlement of Romans from Antioch into Persia. Taking all this information together it seems most probably that the coins would be struck under Persian rule or at least for dealing with Persians. It would explain why the current monarch was not placed on the coin."
The devastation of Antioch resulted in severe mint disruption as explained above and on the website I mentioned above. http://esty.ancients.info/interesting/Justinian.html The "Persian" explanation above seems quite plausible. I pay attention and have not seen another coin like that, so, if intentional, the issue was small. The possibility that the coin is simply an ancient imitation "mule" is supported by the unusually crude lettering "DN ANASTASIVS" but opposed by the completely normal quality of the reverse, including its mintmark lettering, and the portrait (which while not well done, is similar to most Byzantine coins of the period). I suppose, as proposed above, it is possible that this coin was issued by the mint, or at least mint workers, with an obverse legend that names a previous emperor (and "IVSTINVS" for Justin does not work well because it looks a lot like "IVSTINIANVS") to intentionally avoid naming the current emperor while otherwise meeting the conventions for acceptable currency. Brian, you have a very interesting coin.
Thanks @Valentinian, I think we have to be careful on what we refer to as "imitative" or "barbarous" issues. We all know the types where the legends and design are so far removed from the actual issued coinage that there is no mistake as to what they are. On the other hand we have this coin which without the mismatched obverse legend wouldn't be questioned as genuine. It is interesting that Dumbarton Oaks calls it barbarous (I am just quoting what he said, I do not have this volume). This obviously means they have seen enough examples to both mention the existence of the coin and make a determination that it was not an official issue. The Byzantine expert who authored the previous response told me he has both Anastasius and Justin I types. Perhaps I'm biased but I think the Persian explanation fits this coin perfectly and explains the proper Theoupolis reverse design mated with a previous Emperor's name. It can't be proven without a shadow of a doubt but that's really not that unusual in the world of ancient coins.
A very interesting coin. Have a look at www.byzantine-ae.info chapter 6 and also pages 408-417. There has also been some interesting research in the last few years on when (and how) the name of the city was changed to Theopolis. I'm due to give a paper on the subject to a conference in the UK next March.
A very interesting coin. Have a look at www.byzantine-ae.info chapter 6 and also pages 408-417. There has also been some interesting research in the last few years on when (and how) the name of the city was changed to Theopolis. I'm due to give a paper on the subject to a conference in the UK next March.
@S J Mansfield : Thank you very much for the link to that site. It finally gives me some answers as regards to this issue. As long as I have you on the line I do have one other coin that I've posted previously, but I am hoping you can take a look at it. Easier to see in hand but the obverse is clearly DN IVST... and the reverse is a follis type with NIKM in exergue and branches to either side. To me it's obviously Justin I but the reverse is not a listed type. The only thing that another Byzantine collector surmised was that it may have been struck to commemorate an event in Nikomedia. Would definitely appreciate your opinion.
Hello. I thought I had left a reply. Perhaps you could contact me via the contact button on the Early Byzantine Copper Coins website?
