Oh Constans II, what have you done?!!?

FORVM members are typically good about scanning single articles from Numismatic Circular. I put out a request, but it will take some time...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Quant.Geek

Can I ask your opinion?

As you wrote, and I have also noticed, there were coins which were expected to be byzantines, but have turned out to be Arab.

I have a coin of Constans II minted in Constantinople according to David Sear:


Obverse: "MPER CONST", Constans, unbearded bust facing, wearing crown and chlamys, holding cross on globe

Reverse: Large M, "ANA" to left, cross above, "III" to right, officina letter below, "NEOS" in ex

SEAR: 1004


According to David Sear the above is Byzantine, and minted in Constantinople. - Taking into consideration what you have read from other sources, do you also think that the above coin is Byzantine, and NOT Arab?

 

A lot of the questions can be answered by the meaning of the legends which is where most of the confusion comes from. What used to be ANNO with the corresponding regal year was changed by Constans II. In reality, most of the catalogs have the legends incorrect for Constans II. The typical A/N/A and N/Є/O/ς is actually a single word - ANANЄOCIC which is "renew" or "renewal" in Greek. The idea was the Constans II would bring about a new era similar to his namesake of Constantine (more on that later).

Unfortunately, the new legend proved difficult for the die setters since they also needed to add the value mark, officina and the regal year and thus several attempts were made to abbreviate. Among them was the various ligatures for CIC (again, more on that later).

So, to answer your question, no this is not an Arab-Byzantine coin, but an actual Byzantine coin that was minted during RY 3. You can see that in the OP coin as well as several other coins that got re-struck. As to whether it was minted in Constantinople or another mint, that is still up in the air. Finally, the type was copied over in the Sicilian mint using a similar pattern:

 

Thank you, that would be great! I didn't know where to even start with this one. When someone who knows these posts a thread, we all come out of the woodwork with our lonely and set-aside coins for help!

 

Actually, according to ERIC-II, Constans II now has been revised as Constans III. The real Constans II is super rare.
The older books have a lot of mistakes due to recent discoveries.
John

 

Are there any references to the reclassification? I am all for updating attributions based on more accurate information, but references are important. Not all "re-classifications" were justified and thus has either been reverted or ignored.

Thanks,

QG

 

Yes, but Mr. Saurez showed that he was the son of Constantine III and was elevated as co Emperor by his Father.
When I was actively collecting papilionidae (swallowtails)
there where always new periodicals on new discovered sp./ ssp./ forms. Same thing with coins, most references from 60s/70s/80s/90s are pretty obsolete.
John

 

Its a bit weird that the only reference I can find to Constans III is from Saurez, either through ERIC II or his website dirtyoldcoins.com. The information that he uses seems to be similar to the information that is already available in DOC and other sources, at least, from what I can gather. I don't have ERIC II to read his thoughts on the subject...

 

There are lots of revisions in ERIC-II, many new Emperors/ etc. I think with the demise of the East Bloc, more coin types came to light. But that is normal, my Friedberg book 2018 edition. has lots of new listings from older 2009 edition. Maybe, in next ten years more will come out. But to be sure, older references will become obsolete, so will market prices....

 

Maybe @Suarez could comment?

 

Definately, he is the "expert" and author of the fantastic ERIC-II

 

After looking at my copy of ERIC-II, it seems that the traditional Constans II is the same person as Constans III.

• Constans I - Constantine's son
• Constans II - Constantine III's son - 409-411 AD
• Constans III - the old Constans II because nobody really counted the 5th century Constans - 641-668 AD.

 

Correct! At least Mr. Saurez did some research and updated recent discoveries in his book. Same with historical references, now it is known there where advanced civilizations before the Egyptians/ Sumerians.

 

@Quant.Geek - can you get something out of this mess? The coin is approx 22.7 mm and 5.13 gr. I believe it might be a Constans II. Did not intentionally buy his coins, because of the mess on them, did not study it, and the few i have came as part of small lots. Thanks

 

I would suspect it is a Sear 1010 that was overstruck on an earlier Constans II follis. It will be difficult to determine the undertype as majority of the reverse legend is gone around the cursive m.

 

At the risk of being a nuisance, I just got three new Byzantine Heraclius/Constans II/Arabic follises from my local dealer that I could use a little help on. I've put a couple hours in ransacking the Internet, but I am not making much headway.

The one on the left seems to be Heraclius but I am not entirely sure if there is a third figure on the left. The two figures I can see both have on civilian robes, which further confused me. I really like the potato chip flan.

The middle one looks Arabic to me, based on the inscription under the M. Is that a "K" over the M?

The one on the right utterly stumps me. Is that a reverse countermark to the left of the M - a standing figure? Or am I seeing things?

Any help greatly appreciated!

 

Here is an AR Silique Arelate Mint the "real" Constans II

 

As part of the "renewal", Constans II introduced new coinage bringing back the labarum of Constantine from the bygone era which has not been seen in Byzantine Coins. Furthermore, like Constantine, Constans introduces the Greek version of IN HOC SIGNO VINCES (in this sign, conquer) - ЄNTOVTONIKA (in this, conquer). This gets abbreviated as ЄNTϪT ONIKA.

Constans II also changes the value mark to a cursive m, which causes problems as there is no more room to add the officina under the letter. The legend ANANЄOCIC for renewal is added as opposed to ANNO that is typically found in Byzantine coins. This extremely rare coin type is not illustrated in Sears (unfortunately, its not mine) and is classified as one of the first coin types of the series. The officina and the regal year is added towards the end. The die engravers must have had several challenges with the new design:

 

It seems that you are associating Constans II from 409-411 CE with Constans II of 641-668 CE or are you saying that this coin is really Heraclonas?

 

No...
Before the Constans II AR Silique was found, he was unknown to coin collectors/ historians. Now, that coins have surfaced, it is now proven he was the son of Emperor Constantine III and raised to co-Augustus by his Dad. Thus hi is Constans the II. So, the older unkept "Bearded" Byzantine Emperor now is Constans III. Same thing happened to Byzantine Emperor Theodosius III, who now is Theodosius IV. After it was proven the Theodosius III was the son of the ill fated Maurice Tiberius. He was co-Emperor from 590 till he got beheaded along with Dad in 602AD
There will probably be more revisions with future coin finds....which is a "good thing"