Another flea market find, this time a Byzantine overstrike. I am a little shaky on Byzantine attribution, even when its a good and clear strike. I am guessing this is something like a Heraclius over somebody restrike but I hope some member can tell me, for sure what this is. I am also guessing at the original coin being of lesser value, maybe a 30 or 20 nummia now being valued at 40 nummia? Anyone well versed on Byzantine overstrikes, please tell us more about them in general and this one in particular. Thanks.
Damn, wish my flea markets had some ancients like that. Only ones I find are cleaned junkers and the usual U.S & World mix.
Nice overstrike. I really like collecting these - they can be had fairly inexpensively, and sometimes with a little work, you can figure out the undertype. Here is one of my favorites - it may have a touch of bronze disease, but I've owned it for five years and the green hasn't budged since then. Heraclius & Her. Constantine Æ Follis Yr. 4 (613-614 A.D.) Constantinople Mint ddNNhЄRAC[LIyS ЄτhЄRACONSτPPA]; Her. & Her. Const. / M; ANNO left; II/II rt.; chi-rho above; Off. Δ below; CON in ex. Sear 805; DOC 76d Overstrike: Maurice Tiberius follis (582-602 A.D.). (10.29 grams / 28 mm)
Start by deciding if the coin has two obverses on one side and two reverses on the other or one of each on each. Most overstruck coins we see are the same denomination but often a large follis clipped down to a lighter weight standard. Reverses can be recognized by the M or the mintmark in exergue. Be on the lookout for triple overstrikes or double strikes which can trip you up if you assumed it was a simple overstrike. Familiarize yourself with clues like which rulers wore a crown with a cross or trefoil, which used the type with their queen or son standing beside them (short or tall second person?) or anything that will allow you to rule out someone. You have a two figure obverse with globus crucifer between so rule out rulers who never put a second person on the coin. After you ID the overtype, check literature like Sear for clues like the statement: "often overstruck on xxxx". I have a page that may help....or not??? http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/feac70byz.html
The OP coin is an overstrike of Heraclius (610-641) and son, as @kevin McGonigal noted. There is a way to try to determine the undertype if you can see any of it. Byzantine AE coin strikes almost always have die-axis 6:00 (like a US quarter). That means if you can find any of the undertype and put that upright and flip it top-to-bottom, the other side will be upright and you can look for remaining details is the right places with the correct orientation. Let's try that with the OP coin. The reverse seems easier to begin with. The overtype has M and ANNO down its left, with Δ for officina and CON below. This is Sear 805. (Sear is the main reference for Byzantine coins.) Now, I see a second ANNO tilted to the left of that, about 11:00. Regard that as upright. Then I think I see a cross (+) above a rounded M (m). Rounded m's are used by the previous emperors Phocas (602-61), Maurice (582-602), but only at Antioch and overstrikes are usually on coins of the same mint, and Tiberius II (578-582). Flip it over using that axis and expect the top of the other side to be upright (which will be in the same orientation in the second picture if you a reading this, that is, look at it as if the top were 11:00.) I can't make out much--maybe ON STAN 10:30 - 1:30? That must be wrong. I looked in Dumbarton Oaks and did not find Tiberius II Constantine with that legend split, and it would not be Phocas (FOCAS on his coins). So, I can't make out the undertype. Maybe with it in hand you can spot more of the undertype. In December 2016 I started a thread with a triple strike, all identifiable: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/triple-strike.287629/#post-2587155
Some Byzantine overstrikes are easy to attribute. This is another Heraclius and son/M, Sear 805. The symbol to the right of the M is for year 6 with officina Є, CON below. In this case the undertype is almost as bold as the overstrike. On the obverse at the left the original obverse legend shows CAS + PER of Phocas (FOCAS on coins) and the reverse top is at 9:00 with ANNO across the top and XXXX for 40, across the middle. I can't make out its mintmark but is likely the same mint, that is, Constantinople. If so, it is Sear 640 of Phocas at Constantinople. Most (all?) Heraclius coins of the type of Sear 805 are overstruck, and many of them are on identifiable undertypes.
That's great information but I have a question. Why the overstriking at all if the value, in this case one follis of 40 nummia, remains the same?
That is a very good question. Throughout the Byzantine period there are very many overstrikes, usually on the same denomination of a previous emperor, but sometimes even on a coin of the same emperor. We might conjecture some version of trying to remove the memory of the previous emperor, but that can't explain my "anonymous folles" are very often overstruck on other anonymous folles--they didn't even have emperor's names. This site gives examples of overstruck anonymous folles: http://augustuscoins.com/ed/ByzAnon/#overstrikes I can conjecture a couple of possibilities, but I don't recall seeing scholars settle on a good reason. I am actively interested in this question. If I find out a convincing answer, I will let the forum know.
