| Dmitry Markov Coins & Medals | M&M Numismatics Ltd > Auction 60 | Auction date: 9 January 2024 |
| Lot number: 271 Price realized: Unsold | |
| Lot description: A lot of four 4th century reduced folles, all silvered and all graded MS by NGC. Includes: Licinius I. Cyzicus. Jupiter // Constantine I. Thessalonica. Camp-gate // Constantine II, as Caesar. Nicomedia. Camp-gate // Constantius II, as Caesar. Cyzicus. Camp-gate. Estimate: 750 USD |  |
Match 1:
| Classical Numismatic Group > Electronic Auction 552 | Auction date: 13 December 2023 |
| Lot number: 591 Price realized: 550 USD (Approx. 510 EUR) Note: Prices do not include buyer's fees. | |
| Lot description: Maximinus II. AD 310-313. "BI Pseudo-Argenteus" – Follis (18mm, 2.91 g, 12h). Treveri (Trier) mint, 1st officina. Radiate, draped, and cuirassed half-length bust left, raising hand and holding globe / Sol driving facing quadriga, head left, raising hand and holding globe and whip; PTR. RIC VI 826; RSC 174. Toned partial silvering amd brown patina, minor flan crack, light cleaning scratches. VF. From the Quietus Collection. Ex Nomisma S.p.a E-Auction 8 (27 January 2019), lot 176. The curious sometimes titled 'pseudo-argentei' or 'billon-siliquae' of Treveri (Trier) present an interesting anomaly within early 4th century Imperial coinage. Issued only at Trier, there are three types within this series that correspond to the three rulers between AD 310-313: Constantine I, Licinius I, and Maximinus II Daia. Dr. Bruun et al in RIC VII (1966) attributed the issues of Constantine and Licinius to 318-9 while Sutherland et al conversely attributed those of Licinius and Maximinus to 310-313 in RIC VI (1967). Given that there is an example from this series of Maximinus II as Augustus (310-313), the earlier date of 310-313 is preferable. This assumes, however, that these three issues are indeed from the same series. For clarity, the coins of the series specifically in question are as follows: Constantine I, RIC VII 208A; Licinius I, RIC VI 825 VI = RIC VII 211-212; and Maximinus II, RIC VI 826. Given this background, the issue of what exactly these coins represent denominationally remains to be unpacked. Easily dismissible from any serious discussion is the 'billon-siliquae' phraseology. The siliqua was not introduced as a denominational replacement for the argenteus (itself a replacement for the denarius) until Constantine's monetary reforms of 324. Consequently, any reference to these coins as being derivative of the siliqua is extraneous. Perhaps more valid is the sometimes-employed wording of the 'pseudo-argenteus.' Indeed, the argenteus was the silver denomination of the Tetrarchy which immediately preceded the time in question of 310-313. Thus, using its phraseology to help describe the curious phenomena encountered in these coins makes some sense. However, simply calling them pseudo-argentei makes assumptions about the successor to the argentus between the time of its discontinuation at Trier in 310 and before the introduction of the later silver denominations of Constantine – conventionally titled the siliqua and miliarense. As such, what exactly these coins represented as circulating currency and were valued at is difficult to say. In the intervening period between the Argenteus' discontinuation and the introduction of new silver denominations in Constantine's later currency reforms, the question is begged as to what denomination was held as the median coin between the highly valued aureus and the much lower valued follis. Ultimately, future more research may uncover this missing link, if indeed there was a median denomination at the time. Alternatively, as seen in the fallout from Diocletian's 301 edict on maximum prices, the Roman public may have simply generally ignored the central government's directives and efforts to preserve its currency standards by largely resorting to localized barter methods. But this hypothesis still fails to explain what could be represented by these so-called "pseudo-argentei," many of which seem to feature a noticeably higher silver content than other folles. However, other examples, apparently from this same series, feature lower silver content more in-line with the silver wash treatment that folles received of approximately 2-5%. Could it be that perhaps only the early issues of this series at Trier were given this higher silver content "billon-treatment." If so, what was the purpose and reasoning behind the decision to seemingly release these coins at a higher silver content before abandoning the technique? The answers to these questions are perhaps unlikely to become apparent without additional research into the monetary system of 301/10-324. In the meantime, this interesting series provides an area for further research for those intrigued by the changes in the Roman monetary system between Diocletian's efforts to stabilize and rebalance monetary policy, and the later reforms of Constantine I following his triumph over Licinius I. Estimate: 100 USD |  |
Match 2:
| Numismatica Ars Classica > Auction 146 | Auction date: 8 May 2024 |
| Lot number: 2398 Price realized: To Be Posted | |
| Lot description: Licinius I augustus, 308 – 324. Medallic silver bowl of one Roman pound, Ephesus 1 March 322, AR 200 mm, 330 g. Silver bowl with simple curved profile. In the centre is a struck medallion within a lathe-cut circle: LICINIVS AVG OB D V LICINI FILI SVI Bare-headed, draped, and cuirassed facing bust of Licinius I. On the outside of the bowl, near the rim, is a small round stamp: EUG/EFE/MEB in three lines. For three medallic bowls of the same issue, cf. J.P.C. Kent and K.S. Painter, Wealth of the Roman World AD 300-700, pp. 20ff., nos. 1-3. B. Overbeck, Argentum Romanum: ein Schatzfund von spätrömischen Prunkgeschirr, pp. 23, 29. Ex Triton sale VII, 2004, 1044. This impressive medallic silver bowl belongs to a group of at least three other bowls, all weighing one Roman pound and produced as largesse distributed to important individuals on the occasion of the quinquennalia (five-year anniversary) of the reign of Licinius II as Caesar, which took place on 1 March 322. Because Licinius II was only seven years old at the time, he did not personally arrange for the production and distribution of the bowls. Instead, as indicated by the legend LICINIVS AVG(ustus) OB D(iem) V (=quinquennalium) LICINI(i) FILI(i) SVI surrounding the facing portrait on the medal, the bowls were made by the Augustus Licinius I on behalf of his son. This particular bowl is especially remarkable due to the three-line legend EUG /EFE / MEB, in which EFE is thought to name Ephesus as the city in which it was produced. The three other known bowls name Nicomedia and Antioch, both of which were imperial mints under the Licinii. Ephesus, however, did not produce coinage for the Licinii or any other late Roman emperors. It has been suggested that the preceding abbreviation EUG may refer to an official, possibly named Eugenes or Eugenius. The meaning of MEB after the city abbreviation is somewhat uncertain, but it seems to correlate with the NEB found on one of the two bowls produced at Nicomedia. It has been proposed that the latter may stand for N[OMISMATWN] E[RGASTHRION] B (Coin Workshop 2), but this reconstruction seems problematic for the present bowl in light of the fact that Ephesus did not serve as a mint. The medallic depiction of Licinius II on the bowl is of the same remarkable facing type found on gold coins struck at Nicomedia and Antioch on the occasion of his quinqennalia. While such facing portraits are extremely rare earlier in Roman numismatic history, the facing Licinius II portrait marked the beginning of a trend towards frontality that would see its greatest flowering in the Byzantine period. The association of the bowl with a hoard of campgate folles from the mint of Heracleia and the reigns of Licinius I, Licinius II, Constantine I, Constantine II, and Crispus, but none of Constantius II or Constans (both elevated to the rank of Caesar on 13 November 324), indicates that the bowl and the coins mist have been buried before late 324. A probably occasion for burial would be the capture of Heraclea by Constantine the Great, in July 324 during his offensive against the Licinii. Estimate: 20000 CHF |  |
Match 3:
| Roma Numismatics Ltd > Auction XXX | Auction date: 21 March 2024 |
| Lot number: 60 Price realized: 80,000 GBP (Approx. 101,343 USD / 93,306 EUR) Note: Prices do not include buyer's fees. | |
| Lot description: Sicily, Siculo-Punic AR Tetradrachm. 'People of the Camp' mint (Entella?), circa 320-315 BC. Female head (Artemis-Tanit or Elissa-Dido?) to right, wearing Phrygian tiara / Lion walking to right; palm tree with three date clusters behind, s'mmhnt ('People of the Camp') in Punic in exergue. Jenkins, Punic, series 4, 272 (O85-R226, these dies); De Luynes 1472 (these dies); Rizzo pl. 68, 8 (these dies); Boston MFA 36 (these dies). 17.31g. NGC graded AU★ 5/5 - 5/5 (#6674505-002). Extremely Rare. Ex 'Exceptional Collection' assembled between the early 70's-late 90's, Numismatica Ars Classica, Auction 132, 30 May 2022, lot 233 (hammer: CHF 130,000). Carthage, at the head of considerable commercial empire in the western Mediterranean, like Etruria and Phoenicia, did not adopt the Greek practice of coining until the last decade of the 5th century BC when she came into direct contact with the Greek city states of Sicily such as Naxos, Syracuse and Messana, which had started to produce coins of the highest technical quality in the artistic style of the late archaic Greek school in the last quarter of the 6th century BC. The origin of the so-called Siculo-Punic coinage, often of rather crude style mostly imitating contemporary Syracusan tetradrachms produced at Rash Melkarth (= 'Promontory of Herakles', possibly Kephaloidion), Panormos (Ziz, 'the splendid'), Motya (the 'spinning factory') and the 'people of the camp' and 'pay master' military mint (generally considered that of Entella) for the payment of the army including many Italian and Greek mercenaries, is dated to about 410 BC and the Carthaginian military operations in Sicily. Hannibal, grandson of Hamilcar, taking the opportunity presented by the quarrels of the Greek cities in Sicily and of the mutual exhaustion of Athens and Syracuse, invaded western Sicily with a strong military force and defeated the Greeks at Himera in 409. The obverse female figure is wearing an oriental tiara in the form of a Phrygian cap, which in Greek iconography generally denotes personages of oriental origin, including Amazons, Trojans, Phrygians, Persians and the great Anatolian mother goddess Kybele and her youthful lover Attis, as seen on the coinage of Amastris (cf. SNG BM Black Sea 1304). 19th and 20th century numismatists poetically described this head as that of Dido (Virgil) or historically, Elissa (Timaeus), the sister of Pygmalion, king of Tyre, who fled Phoenicia to found Carthage in 814 BC (cf. Pierre Straus in Münzen und Medaillon sale 43, 1970, 33-4). However, a realistically more convincing interpretation is that it is the portrait of a goddess also represented in certain terracotta figurines of the latter 4th century found at the archaeological sites of Selinos and Gela, both within the Punic sphere of influence by this time. These terracottas depict a female in a Phrygian cap, sometimes accompanied by a lion and a palm tree. This goddess has been called Artemis-Astarte by some authorities and Kybele by others, but the only certainty is that she was one of the great Asian nature-deities, who were subject to syncretic amalgamation in the Hellenistic period (cf. P. Orlandini, 'Typologia e cronologia del Materiale archeologico di Gela della nuova fondazione di Timoleonte all'atà di Ierone II,' in Archeologia Classica 9, 1957, pl. 14, 2). The reverse type combines two of her symbolic attributes. The palm tree is an ancient Semitic fertility symbol, recalling the Carthaginian homeland in Phoenicia. The lion is associated with the Asian mother goddess in her aspect as mistress of wild beasts. The lion is also a solar symbol as is the horse, which appears regularly on Punic coinage. The die engraving of both sides of this coin is of exceptional and restrained classical Greek workmanship. The obverse is graced with a portrait of serene divinity, realistic curly hair below a pleated headdress, reminiscent of the finest 5th century sculpture. The reverse is no less of a masterpiece, depicting a majestic lion with a muscular body, protruding veins, luxuriant mane and emphasis on the power of the animal reminiscent of 4th century funerary lions found in the Kerameikos cemetery in Athens. Estimate: 65000 GBP |  |
Match 4:
| Classical Numismatic Group > Triton XXVII | Auction date: 9 January 2024 |
| Lot number: 909 Price realized: 8,000 USD (Approx. 7,327 EUR) Note: Prices do not include buyer's fees. | |
| Lot description: Constantine I. AD 307/310-337. Æ Follis (19mm, 3.16 g, 12h). Constantinople mint, 1st officina. Struck AD 327. CONSTANTI NVS MAX AVG, laureate head right / SPES PVBLIC, labarum, with Christogram at top and three medallions on drapery, spearing serpent; A|–//CONS. RIC VII 19. Dark brown-green patina, scratches, smoothing. Good VF. Rare and popular type. From the J. K. Biblical Collection. Ex Nomos 19 (17 November 2019), lot 358 (hammer CHF 5500). There has been much speculation regarding this rare issue, minted only at Constantinople during AD 327/8, since it is the only issue of Constantine I which appears to be so overtly Christian in its symbolism. The reverse shows for the first time the labarum (a Christian emblematic replacement for the vexillum) firmly planted on the back of a wriggling serpent. Influenced by the ancient sources (the Panegyrici Latini and, in particular the Vita Constantini of Eusebius), J. Maurice, in his Numismatique Constantinienne (II, pp. 506-13), was the first to argue for such an unambiguous interpretation – the symbol of Christ piercing the dark powers of Satan – a view accepted by subsequent scholars and numismatists (P. Bruun, "The Christian signs on the coins of Constantine" in Studies in Constantinian Numismatics: Papers from 1954 to 1988 [Rome: 1991], p.61). Constantine I was constantly adjusting his public image to meet the changing status of his political career. Such was the case with his new diademed portrait, adopted in 324 following his victory over Licinius I, which depicted Constantine I looking slightly upward, as if in the attitude of prayer. There, the emperor seemed to have been intentionally ambiguous, so that imperial images could be viewed by various groups within the empire in the context of their own hopes and aspirations (for a discussion of Constantine's use of deliberately ambiguous language and imagery, see T.G. Elliot, "The Language of Constantine's Propaganda," TAPA 120 [1990], pp. 349-353 and H.A. Drake, Constantine and the Bishops: The Politics of Intolerance [Johns Hopkins, 2000]). Is that same ambiguity, however, at work here? Beginning with the sons of Constantine and their successors (excluding Julian II, the Apostate), the labarum would appear more regularly on imperial solidi of the mid-fourth century onwards and would be interpreted by Christians and pagans alike as an emblem of imperial power. Likewise, the serpent (or dragon), which first appeared as a non-beneficent symbol on the denarii of Julius Caesar (Crawford 443/1), came to represent enemies of the state, such as "barbarians", "pagans", and "heretics" (cf. Gnecchi 2 for the serpent as a representation of Germanic tribes on a bronze medallion of Constantine I). As with the labarum, the serpent thereafter became an integral part of late Roman imperial iconography, particularly on the reverse of various solidi, where the emperor is depicted triumphally placing his foot on a serpent. In 327, however, the imagery presented on this coin may not have been so ambiguous and may have been directed specifically to those Christians living in and around the new capital. Following his defeat of Licinius I at Chrysopolis in 324, Constantine I worked to reestablish peace and stability within a restored empire. In 325, he successfully convened and oversaw an ecumenical council of Christian bishops in at Nicaea, primarily to address the trouble produced by the Arian controversy in the eastern portion of the empire. The result of this council was the creation of the Nicene Creed and the establishment (under imperial auspices) of a theologically orthodox Christianity. This success, however, was tempered the following year when the imperial family underwent a crisis when Constantine executed his son and heir-apparent, Crispus, and the empress Fausta, allegedly on account of mutual improper behavior. Now, a new dynastic arrangement needed to be implemented, and a period of contrition followed. Not only were the remaining three sons elevated to receive the empire jointly, but also the emperor's mother, Helena, went on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, in part to expiate the sins of the imperial household, and during which journey she discovered a number of important holy relics, including the True Cross, which she brought back to Constantinople. Now, with religious controversies settled, the difficulties of the previous heir replaced by the three new co-heirs, and the bringing of holy relics to the new capital, Constantinople could be untainted by the faults of the old. In the context of these recent events, this coin, meant for local popular consumption, could reassure the populace that Constantine I and his rule, inspired by divine intervention and represented by the labarum, would ensure orthodox stability against all imperial enemies, represented by the serpent. Estimate: 3000 USD |  |
Match 5:
| Classical Numismatic Group > Auction 126 | Auction date: 28 May 2024 |
| Lot number: 1029 Price realized: This lot is for sale in an upcoming auction - Bid on this lot  | |
| Lot description: Umayyad Caliphate. temp. 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan to 'Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz. AH 65-101 / AD 685-720. AV Solidus (16mm, 4.35 g, 6h). North Africa (Carthage) mint. Struck circa AH 79-90 (AD 698-710). NON ЄST dS NIS IPSЄ SOL CS ЄT NON ABЄII, crowned and draped Byzantine-style older and younger facing busts (modeled on Heraclius and Heraclius Constantine) / [...]NOΔNCI SIb ЄbNCIPIAS OΔЄI, modified cross potent, surmounted by globus and set on two steps. SICA 1 –; AGC I 9 (this coin illustrated); cf. Walker, Arab-Byzantine p. 55, HSA 1 and 145 (AV Semissis); cf. Album 115 (for similar issue with horizontal bar on steps). Iridescent toning, deposits in devices. Good VF. Unique. From the Family of Constantine Collection, assembled with guidance by Roland Michel, Geneva. Ex Triton VI (13 January 2003) lot 1189; Dr. Anton C. R. Dreesmann Collection (Part II, Spink 144, 13 July 2000), lot 846, purchased from J. Schulman, 14 November 1967. The Muslim conquest of North Africa began during the caliphate of Mu'awiya (AH 41-60 / AD 661-680). Qayrawan, the capital of the new Umayyad province of Ifriqiya, was founded by the general 'Uqba b. Nafi' in AH 50 (AD 670). The Arab conquest, however, was met with determined resistance, from the Berbers as well as Byzantine forces, and the great city of Carthage remained a Byzantine stronghold in North Africa for a quarter of a century. It was only in AH 76 (AD 695) that the city first fell to the Arabs when the inhabitants surrendered to the besieging forces of Hassan b. al-Nu'man. While many of the wealthier inhabitants fled to Italy, Greece and Spain, the rest of the city's population offered no resistance and Hassan occupied Carthage without much bloodshed. Judging his position secure, Hassan constructed chains across the city's harbor to deter the Byzantines from launching a counter-attack by sea, and then departed with most of his troops to meet the threat of the Berbers to the west. Hassan's faith in these chains proved misplaced. The Byzantine emperor Leontius sent a strong naval force under John the Patrician to retake Carthage. John equipped his largest ships with specially reinforced hulls, allowing him to smash through the chains and land safely in the city's harbor. Outnumbered, the Arab garrison was no match for John's Sicilian and Gothic troops. John quickly retook the city, and the defenders withdrew to Qayrawan. But the Byzantines were hopelessly slow to support John's initial success, so that Hassan reappeared before the walls of Carthage with a fresh army before John's reinforcements had even left the port of Constantinople. Now it was John's turn to find himself helpless in the face of a far superior force, and he had little option but to withdraw. The Byzantine army held the walls long enough to allow a hasty but relatively orderly retreat; Hassan reoccupied Carthage in AH 79 (AD 698). Fearing the consequences of having to report their failure to Leontius, John's troops mutinied, killing John and proclaiming one of their number, Apsimar, as emperor. Apsimar's forces entered Constantinople later in AD 698, deposing and mutilating Leontius, and leaving Apsimar to rule as Tiberius III. It is possible to trace the course of these momentous events in the coinage record. The Byzantine mint at Carthage was evidently still active in AH 76, since Carthaginian solidi are known dated to the tenth year of the reign of Justinian II (MIB 18b), so when the city first surrendered to Hassan b. al-Nu'man the Arabs would have taken control of an operational Byzantine mint for solidi. This in itself would have been a highly significant development, because there had been no active gold mint in any of the Byzantine provinces which the Arabs had previously conquered, leaving them dependent on imported solidi to maintain coinage stocks. Thus once Carthage was securely in Muslim hands after the defeat of John in AH 79, the victorious Arabs began to strike gold coins of their own there, including the unique piece offered here. Although 'Abd al-Malik b. Marwan had introduced reformed, purely Islamic dinars at Damascus in AH 77 (AD 696/7), the Arabs continued to strike gold which copied earlier Byzantine types, recognizing the need to produce coins which would have been acceptable to the local population. Interestingly, they chose to copy an issue of Heraclius (AD 610-641) rather than the most recent solidi of Justinian II, probably to avoid the adverse political connotations of being seen to follow current Byzantine types; this preference for an older prototype is also seen on the Arab-Sasanian silver drachms struck in the Eastern Islamic territories, which usually bore the portrait of the long-dead Khusraw II rather than the last Sasanian ruler, Yazdigerd III. The new Arab solidi, which maintain the familiar 'globular' fabric of their Byzantine predecessors, were struck to the local Byzantine weight standard and issued in three denominations: solidus, semissis, and tremissis. They bear the familiar twin facing busts of Heraclius and Heraclius Constantine, largely unaltered except for the removal of all overtly Christian crosses, and a similarly 'de-Christianized' cross-on-steps on the reverse. The legends, written in abbreviated Latin rather than Arabic, are monotheistic rather than Islamic: the proclamation on the obverse of this coin that 'There is no God but God alone and He has no associate' would have been largely acceptable to Christians and Muslims alike. On virtually all surviving examples of this rare coinage, the modification of the cross-on-steps is used to indicate the denomination. Solidi and tremisses generally have the upper limb of the cross removed so that the shaft terminates in a T-bar, while semisses replace the cross with a globe. While there has been much scholarly debate over the symbolism of these changes, comparison with Byzantine prototypes suggests that the Arabs simply turned the Byzantine cross on each denomination upside-down, so that the base of the cross on the prototype became the top of the modified cross on the Arab adaptation. Thus the base of the cross potent on the tremisses becomes a T-bar set on a single step, the globe at the base of the cross potent on the semisses becomes a globe set atop a pole on two steps, and the cross-on-steps on the solidi also becomes a shaft surmounted by a T-bar set on three steps. The unique solidus offered here appears to be the only known solidus of this type which has a globe on top of the cross shaft instead of a T-bar. It does not fit with the system of denominations and types which the Arabs used for their Carthaginian coinage, and instead appears to look back to the modified cross-on-steps dinars with Arabic legends issued at Damascus before the introduction of the reformed gold coinage in AH 77 (AD 696/7). This in turn raises the tantalizing possibility that this unique piece might have been struck circa AH 76-77, during Hassan's first occupation of Carthage, and that Hassan simply followed current Damascus practice in striking solidi with a globe atop the cross-shaft on the reverse. It would only have been after the defeat and expulsion of John, when the Arabs had time to establish a structured denominational system for their Carthaginian gold coinage, that the decision would have been taken to use a T-bar instead of a globe on the solidi. Estimate: 20000 USD |  |
