voulgaroktonou

Heraclius alone. From left to right, and bottom. Solidus, Constantinople, 610-13. 4.40 gr. 23 mm. 7 hr. Sear 731; Hahn 5; DO 3b; BNP 3, 6; BM 3, 5-7; T. 3. Tremissis, 610-13. 1.47 gr. 17 mm. 6 hr. Sear 786; Hahn 73a; T. 30. As was seen with Phokas, the portraits on fractional gold and the silver from North Africa are generally beardless. Third siliqua, Class I, Carthage, 611. 0.61 gr. 12.4 mm. 7 hr. Sear 869; Hahn 147; DO (231) = T. 41; BNP 1 Beardless facing bust; Victory running left, holding in right hand a wreath, in left, a palm branch. DOC 2:1, p. 348, note 1 indicates that “[t]his is theoretically datable 610-13, but its rarity suggests that it was struck only briefly in 611, when the news of Heraclius’ success at Constantinople would have reached Carthage.”

Revolt of the Heraclii Follis, Alexandretta, 610/11. 9.66 gr. 31.5 mm. 6 hr. Sear 723; Hahn 16b; DO 17. Bearded bust of Heraclius (on left) and of his father, the exarch of Africa, Heraclius. The revolt of Heraclius against Phokas lasted from summer 608 to November 610, when the latter was overthrown and executed. The year 14, as indicated by X/IIII, would be anomalous, but it represents the 14th indictional year(610/11). An indiction was a 15-year cycle originally based upon tax revenue.

Here are 2 Antiochene halves , @Severus Alexander, the first of which resembles your great example, and the second, that of the follis I shared earlier.

A few of my Phokades to supplement the portrait gallery! Top row, left to right. Ceremonial silver miliaresion. Constantinople, 602/7. 1.21 gr. 18.9 mm. 7 hr. Sear 638A; Hahn 54. The portraits on Phokas’ fractional gold and occasional silver coins are generally beardless, unlike the bearded ones on his other issues. Follis, Thessalonika, 605/6. 10.55 gr. 31.7 mm. 6 hr. Sear 653; Hahn 91; BNP 2-3. Follis, Kyzikos, 607/8. 8.64 gr. 29.5 mm. 6 hr. Sear 665; Hahn 76; DO 73a; BNP 6; BM 90; R. 1237 Lower row, left to right. Half follis, Kyzikos, 603/4. 6.50 gr. 25.9 mm. 6 hr. Sear 670 var.; Hahn 79 var.; DO 79a var.; BM 98 var.; R. 1239 var. This variety, with the regnal year to the left of the mark of value, is not noted. The raised position of the officina letters on the halves from this mint shows that they were later added to the die. @Valentinian has earlier noted the eccentricity of the Kyzikene portraits for Maurice. We see the “tradition” alive and well on occasional half folles of his successor from this mint. Or as my wife, classically trained in Greek pottery, is wont to assert, “proof that space aliens interbred with inhabitants of the eastern Mediterranean in late antiquity.” And who am I to disabuse her? Half follis, Kyzikos, 603/4. 5.51 gr. 23.3 mm. 11 hr. Sear 670; Hahn 79; BM 99; T. 106-7; R. 1240. The brain behind the hand that designed this had a slightly better understanding of human physiognomy. Follis, Antioch, 608/9. 10.56 gr. 30.2 mm. 5 hr. Sear 672A; Hahn 84 b. Portrait of fine style. This is the second example of this portrait I have encountered. I published a better example of it in a private collection (now in DO) in The Celator, Aug. 2000, pp. 16-20: “From the hand of a master – an Antiochene follis of Phocas”.

Here are a few of my Maurice Tiberius specimens (and one Theodosius) for the current portrait gallery: The top row of folles struck celebrating his Vicennalia, marking 20 years of rule in 601/2. From left to right. Nikomedia. 13.91 gr. 7 hr. Sear 513; Hahn 77d; DO 109a; BNP 12. Note the heavy wreath border on reverse. Kyzikos. 13.51 gr. 34.5 mm. 12 hr. Sear 519; Hahn 86d; BNP 16-17. (Pertinent to @Valentinian’s observation of odd portraits from that mint!) Officina A. Kyzikos. 13.89 gr. 34.3 mm. 6 hr. Sear 519; Hahn 86Da var. DO 134b; BM 162. Officina B. Bottom row: Carthaginian silver. From left to right. Carthage, 582/3. Half siliqua 0.91 gr. 15 mm. 9 hr. Sear 551; Hahn 57; BNP 1-2; BM 228. The novel type, an inscription (here, *SALVS MVNDI [Salvation of the world] surrounding a cross within a circle was to be repeated for centuries in western European coinage. Carthage, 602. Half siliqua 0.73 gr. 13.1 mm. 1 hr. Sear 553; Hahn 61; BNP 4; BM 229-230; R. 1031. Another strongly religious message, A Ω flanking a cross potent on steps. Carthage, Theodosius, son of Maurice, 590-602. 200 Nummi 0.64 gr. 14 mm. 9 hr. Sear 615A; Hahn 62; BNP 6.

"Cyzicus has some of the worst Byzantine portraits, and that is saying something:" Well said, my friend!

Love this brockage!

Thank you for your kind words. Yours is a very nice stavraton; much of the legend in both circles is visible, something that is not always found on these crudely struck issues.

On Tuesday 29 May 1453 an Ottoman army of ca. 80,000 men, led by Sultan Mehmet II, captured the city of Constantinople after a 53 day siege, ending the Christian Eastern Roman empire. Rather than submit to the Sultan's demand to surrender Constantinople, the emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos chose to die fighting in defense of the city and his faith. Although the 7,000 defenders fought bravely, the city's massive 5th c. AD walls, which had for a millennium proved impregnable to successive sieges, were no match for the Turkish cannon, and the Ottoman army overwhelmed the small defending force of Byzantines and their Italian allies. Once Constantine realized the city was lost, he plunged into the midst of the fighting and he perished along with his City. There have been numerous studies of the fall of Constantinople, but one of the most convenient for English readers is Sir Steven Runciman's The Fall of Constantinople 1453. The quoted sections that follow are from his wonderful book. On Monday the 28th, realizing the end was near, the emperor encouraged his small force by reminding them what they were fighting for. “To his Greek subjects he said that a man should always be ready to die either for his faith or his country or for his family or for his sovereign. Now his people must be prepared to die for all four causes. He spoke of the glories and high traditions of the great Imperial city. He spoke of the perfidy of the infidel Sultan who had provoked the war in order to destroy the True Faith and to put his false prophet into the seat of Christ. He urged them to remember that they were the descendants of the ancient heroes of Greece and Rome and to be worthy of their ancestors. For his part, he said, he was ready to die for his faith, his city, and his people.” That evening the last Christian service was held in the great church of Holy Wisdom, the Hagia Sophia, that for a thousand years had been the heart of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Latin Catholic and Greek Orthodox put aside their bitter doctrinal differences. “Priests who held union with Rome to be a mortal sin now came to the altar to serve their Unionist brothers. The Cardinal was there, and beside him bishops who would never acknowledge his authority; and all the people came to make confession and take communion, not caring whether Orthodox or Catholic administered it. There were Italians and Catalans along with the Greeks. The golden mosaics, studded with the images of Christ and his saints and the emperors and empresses of Byzantium, glimmered in the light of a thousand lamps and candles; and beneath them for the last time the priests in their splendid vestments moved in the solemn rhythm of the Liturgy. At this moment there was union in the Church of Constantinople.” Coins of this last Roman emperor are very rare, but a small hoard of them entered the market in 1991. Attached is a photo of two of them. The obverse depicts the image of Christ, while the emperor's portrait appears on the reverse. They are diminutive, modest silver coins, but their history speaks volumes. The signature of Constantine XI Palaiologos, 1448-1453, the last emperor of the Romans is from a contemporary chrysobull, or imperial decree. The wording follows very closely the inscriptions found on his stavrata and that of his immediate predecessors: + Κωνσταντίνος εν Χριστώ τω Θεώ πιστός βασιλεύς και αυτοκράτωρ των Ρωμαίων ο Παλαιολόγος :+ Constantine, in Christ, God, faithful emperor and autocrat of the Romans, the Palaiologos. My dear friend Fred and I used to imagine that we would one day travel to the City (Constantinople, not Istanbul), mount the surviving walls, replant a cross on Hagia Sophia, and afterward drink the emperor’s health. My friend has now entered the heavenly City, and is, I have no doubt, currently sharing a drink with Constantine himself.

Dear friend @Valentinian, we appear to have a die match. Mine is ex Hunt Collection, Sotheby's Dec. 5-6, 1990, lot 21. Over the years, I've seen several examples from these dies. Yours is a beauty.

I remember those prices! This is my first solidus, Justin II. It cost me $32, ca. 1968....

Antioch issued in years 1 and 2 of Justin II an anomalous copper series, the obverse of which is modelled upon that of the solidi, i. e., one having a bust of the emperor holding a victory upon a globe instead of the more frequent enthroned figures. (An aside to this is that my wife, trained in Classical Greek art, sees the enthroned pair as space aliens, and considers this evidence that extra terrestrials interbred with humans in the eastern Mediterranean in late antiquity, but that is merely an aside, and I am not entirely won over to it.) N. B. Photos are not to scale: I have managed to make the half folles larger than the folles! Please see descriptions of individual coins for accurate size. Top row: 1. Solidus. Constantinople, 565-78. 4.40 gr. 21 mm. 6 h. Sear 345; H. 5; DO 4a. 2. Follis. Antioch, 565-6. Year 1, officina 3. 18.15 gr. 34 mm. 5 h. Sear 378; H. 55b. An unusual feature of this coin is that the bust is bearded. Ex Protonotarios collection. 3. Follis. Antioch, 566-7. Year 2, officina 3. 17.01 gr. 33 mm. 5 h. Sear 378; H. 55b. Middle Row: 4. Half Follis. Antioch, 565-6. Year 1. 8.27 gr. 29 mm. 11 h. Sear 380; H. 58a. 5. Half Follis. Antioch, 565-6. Year 1. 10.25 gr. 27 mm. 5 h. Sear 380; H. 58c. 6. Half Follis. Antioch, 566-7. Year 2. 8.19 gr. 28 mm. 11 h. Sear 380; H. 58a. Bottom Row: 7. Quarter Follis. Antioch, 565-6. Year 1. 4.72 gr. 22 mm. 5 h. Sear 382; H. 62; DO 147b. 8. Quarter Follis. Antioch, 566-7. Year 2. 2.68 gr. 19 mm. 4 h. Sear 382; H. 62. Hahn notes that the appearance of the stars accompanying the years on coins 2,3, 5, 7, 8 below alludes to the consulate of 566. Only the folles bear officina numbers. I have not attempted to reproduce the eccentricities of the obverse inscription of the copper coins; it is enough to state that they continue the tortured ineptitude of the final years of Justinian’s Antiochene coppers.

You were a student at UC in the 1990s? Can you give you your name? Is that permitted on numisforums? As far as a more precise dating of the hexagrams with the "K" to right of the cross on steps, only Hahn dates it beyond the usual 615-638 range as in DO, etc. Hahn would put its introduction to 625 (p. 98 of MIB III).

Dear @Nerosmyfavorite68, I believe that black gunk is horn silver. I was very happy to get that Ravenna Heraclius. They are very rare; it had been mis-attributed to Constantinople, hence I could afford it. I'll review the literature to see whether one can narrow down the dating of the class with the "K" and get back with you.

You are very kind. Thank you.

@quant.geek, you are most kind. I'm so grateful for these online fora that allow us all to become friends and learn from each other! (even if I am too technologically challenged to know how to use them!)

Here's another Anastasius with bearded bust. It is Sear 22.

You're most welcome. I don't know whether there has been a hoard of 7th. c. ceremonial silver discovered, but in the past few years I've seen more of them on the market (although they remain very rare) than I have in the past 50 years of looking.

Thank you for your kind words!

Thank you!

I love the hexagrams! Thanks, @Nerosmyfavorite68, for initiating a discussion of them. Wonderful photos and informative posts from so many of you! Here are some examples from my 7th century Byzantine silver menagerie. Their descriptions follow the group photo. All examples appear from left to right, and from the first, second, and third rows. The mint is Constantinople unless otherwise noted. Dates are from Hahn, Moneta Imperii Byzantini and Money of the Incipient Byzantine Empire. In addition to the regular hexagrams, I’ve included a few ceremonial miliaresia; while these correspond on the obverse to specific classes of the hexagram, they differ from the regular coinage in having instead of the “Deus adiuta Romanis” reverse inscription, the cross flanked by palm fronds. They had no fixed relation to the regular coinage, being distributed to the populace on ceremonial occasions. As a result, their weights vary more than that of the hexagram; they are often lighter, and are not uncommonly holed for suspension. Below the description of the coins, for any readers still awake, is a short excursus on the denomination. I am indebted to my dear friend @Valentinian, for his suggestion to split up the text this way. First Row 1. Heraclius and Heraclius Constantine. 610-641. Struck 635-37. 4.58 gr. 24 mm. 6 h. Obv: ∂∂ NN ҺЄRACIIЧS Єτ ҺЄRA CONSτ P P A, Heraclius and Heraclius Constantine seated facing on double throne, each holding globus cruciger in right hand; cross above. On this later issue Heraclius Constantine is nearly the same size as his father. Rev: ∂ЄЧS A∂IЧτA ROmANIS, cross potent on globe set on three steps. Heraclian monogram in left field; in right field, I. Sear 801; H. 145; DO 67; BM 97-98; Yannopoulos 88-95. Somewhat light weight, but BM 98 = 4.37 gr and a second BM specimen acquired in 1935 weighs 4.95 gr. 2. Heraclius and Heraclius Constantine. Ravenna, 615-32. 6.04 gr. 25 mm. 6 h. Obv: DD NN HЄRΛCLIVS [Єτ] ЄRΛ CONST P P ΛVC, Heraclius and Heraclius Constantine seated facing on double throne, each holding globus cruciger in right hand; cross above. Heraclius Constantine is nearly the same size as his father. Rev: DEVS ADIVTA ROmANIS, cross potent on globe set on three steps. Sear 903; H. 153; DO 277; BNP 1-3; BM 440-41; Yannopoulos 390-400. A Ravennate attribution is based upon style, suggestions of a wreath border on the reverse, and in particular, the letter forms. Note the Roman “D” and “V” for “δ” and “υ”. 3. Heraclius, Heraclius Constantine and Heraclonas. 610-641. Struck 637-41. 6.58 gr. 23 mm. 6 h. Obv: Anepigraphic. Crowned and draped figures of Heraclonas, on left, Heraclius, in center, and Heraclius Constantine, on right, standing facing, each holding globus cruciger. Rev: ∂ЄЧS A∂IЧτA ROmANIS, Cross potent on globe set on three steps. Sear 803; H. 146; DO 68; BNP 16; BM 108; Yannopoulos 374-389. Ex CNG E-355, Lot: 668. 4. Heraclius, with Heraclius Constantine and Heraclonas. 610-641. Struck, 637-641 . Ceremonial Miliaresion, 3.78 gr. 21.2 mm. 6h. Obv: All as previous coin. Anepigraphic. Crowned and draped figures of Heraclonas, on left, Heraclius, in center, and Heraclius Constantine, on right, standing facing, each holding globus cruciger. Rev: Cross potent on base above globe and three steps; to either side, palm frond. Sear 791; H. 131; BNP 1 5. Constans II. 641-668. Struck 642-7. 6.78 gr. 27 mm. 6 hr. Obv: [∂] N CONSτAN - τINЧS PP AV, Crowned and draped facing beardless bust, holding globus cruciger Rev: ∂ЄЧS A∂IЧτA ROmANIS , cross potent on globe set on three steps. Sear 989; H. 142; DO 48; BNP 1; BM 79; R. 1540; Yannopoulos 1-37. Second Row 1. Constans II and Constantine IV, 641-668. Struck 654-9. 5.09 gr. 24 mm. 5 hr. Obv: ∂ N CONSτANτINЧS C CONSτANτ, crowned facing busts of Constans and Constantine, each wearing chlamys; cross above. Constans has a long beard; Constantine is smaller and beardless. Rev: ∂ЄЧS A∂IЧτA ROmANIS, cross potent on globe set on three steps; B to right. Sear 996; H. 150; DO 55; BNP 14-7; BM 87; R. 1600; Yannopoulos 122-164. 2. Constans II and Constantine IV. 641-668. Struck 659-68. Ceremonial Miliaresion, 4.21 gr 20.6 mm. 6h Obv: Fragmentary inscription. Draped facing busts of Constans II, wearing long beard and plumed helmet, and Constantine IV, wearing crown; cross above. Constantine is nearly the same size as his father. Rev: Cross potent on base above globe and three steps; to either side, palm frond. Sear 987; H. 141; BM 89; T. 269 3. Constans II, with Constantine IV, Heraclius, and Tiberius. 641-668. Struck 659-668. 6.88 gr. 22 mm 7h Obv: [Fragmentary legend]: ∂ C. Draped facing busts of Constans II, wearing long beard and plumed helmet, and Constantine IV, wearing crown; cross above. Constantine is nearly the same size as his father. Rev: [∂]ЄЧ A∂I[ЧτA ROmANIS], cross potent on globe set on three steps. Crowned and draped figures of Heraclius and Tiberius standing facing to either side, each holding globus cruciger. Sear 998; H. 152; DO 57; BNP 18-9; BM 91-2; R. 1622; Yannopoulos 189-223. Like the previous ceremonial issue, this class is characterized by fragmentary inscriptions on the obverse. On this example, the obverse legend consists of only 2 visible letters: ∂ C. Another feature of this class is the addition of Constantine IV’s brothers Heraclius and Tiberius on the reverse. This crowding of the reverse further reduces the reverse legend. 4.Constantine IV, with Heraclius and Tiberius. 668-685. Struck 669-74 6.03 gr. 22 mm. 6h Obv: ∂ N CO - A - ЧS P. Helmeted, cuirassed beardless bust facing slightly right, holding spear. Rev: [∂ЄЧS A∂IЧ]τ[A Rom]ANI. Cross potent on globe set on three steps; crowned and draped figures of Heraclius and Tiberius standing facing to either side, each holding a globus cruciger. Sear 1168; H. 63c; DO 23; BNP 2-6; BM 23-24; Yannopoulos 27-124 This class is characterized by continued fragmentary inscriptions, and as on the previous coin, being crowded by the addition of the standing figures on the reverse. Only 4 letters of the reverse inscription are present. Ex Hunt collection, Sotheby’s Dec. 5-6, 1990, lot 419. 5. Constantine IV. Struck 674-85. Ceremonial Miliaresion, 4.42 gr. 21.3 mm. 6 hr. Obv: ∂ N C. Helmeted, cuirassed bearded bust facing slightly right, holding spear. Rev: Cross potent on base above globe and three steps; to either side, palm frond. Sear 1165; H. 61. As the previous example, the obverse inscription is fragmentary. Third Row With the reign of Justinian II (685-95 and second reign, 705-11) one can practically call the issuance of hexagrams as a distinct denomination at an end. They were issued in far fewer numbers than earlier in the century, and by the end of the century were primarily ceremonial in nature. The size and weight of these silver pieces no longer have any relationship to the hexagram standard and are simply off-metal strikes using solidus reverse dies, with the use of separate types appropriate to the silver denomination being discontinued. For the condition of several of them I apologize, but they are rare and one must be content with such scraps as fall from the table… 1.Justinian II, first reign, 685-95. Struck 692-5. 6.43 gr. 25 mm. 6h Obv: IhS CRISTOS RЄX – RЄ [GNANTIЧM]. Facing bust of Christ Pantokrator; cross behind. He raises right hand and holds in left, Gospels. Rev: D IUSTINI [ANUS SERU ChRISTI]. Justinian standing facing, wearing crown and loros, and holding akakia and cross potent set on two steps. Beneath, CONOP. Struck with solidus dies, although officina number not visible. Sear 1259; H. 40; DO 17; Yannopoulos 3-12. Justinian’s novel introduction of a Christ portrait on the obverse of his gold and silver coinage, relegating the emperor to the reverse, was not continued by his immediate successors, and disappeared entirely from the coinage during the Iconoclastic period (ca. 726 – 843); following the restoration of Orthodoxy by Theodora, widowed empress of Theophilos in Mar. 843, however, Justinian’s unprecedented innovation was to provide the pattern for Byzantine coinage down to the end of the empire. 2. Justinian II, second reign, 705-711. Struck 705. 3.43 gr. 22 mm. 7h Obv: δ N IҺS CҺS RЄ - X RЄGNANTIЧM. Facing bust of Christ Pantokrator; cross behind. He raises right hand and holds in left, Gospels. Rev: δ N IЧST – [INIAN]ЧS MЧLTЧS AN. Crowned facing bust of Justinian, holding in right hand cross potent set upon three steps and in left, a globus cruciger inscribed PAX. Sear 1423; H. 39; DO [8] = BM (first reign) 28 = T. 76. The portrait of Christ from Justinian’s second reign, with its short hair arranged in tight curls, is vastly different from the more familiar image of the Saviour that appears on precious metal coinage of the first reign. I am working on some notes relevant to this, and will share with my NumisForums friends later. Holed, as is also the BM specimen, cited by Hahn in MIB III. A few non-holed specimens have entered the market, but as I noted above, I am but a dog eating the scraps that fall from the master’s table! 3. Anastasius II Artemius, 713-715. Struck 713 (?). 2.24 gr. 20 mm. 6h Obv: δ N A[RTЄMIЧS A]NASTASI[ЧS MЧL] Crowned and diademed bust facing, wearing chlamys and holding globus cruciger in his right hand and akakia in his left. Rev: [VIC]TORIA [AVGЧ]. Cross potent on base and three steps. Beneath, CONOB. Sear 1468A; H. 27; Yannopoulos 1-2. The extreme rarity, the great weight differences in surviving specimens (ranging from less than 2.5 to over 6 gr) and the use of solidus dies indicate that this issue was not struck for regular circulation. It probably served a ceremonial role and may have been struck on the accession to power of Artemius in 713. 4. Theodosius III, 715-717 AD. Struck 715 (?). 2.27 gr. 19 mm. 4h Obv: δ N THεΟδO SIЧS M[ЧL A']. ] Crowned and diademed bust facing, wearing loros, holding a globe surmounted by patriarchal cross in his right hand and akakia in his left. Rev: VIC[TORIA AVGЧ] A. Cross potent on base and three steps. Beneath, CONOB. Sear 1491; H. 12. As noted above, the rarity, the weight differences in surviving specimens and the use of solidus dies indicate that this issue was not struck for regular circulation. It likely commemorated the accession to power of Theodosius in 715. 5. Leo III, 717-741. Struck, 717-720. Pattern silver Solidus or ceremonial issue. 2.56 gr. 24 mm. 6 h Obv: [δΝ]Ο LЄO -N - PA MЧL. Helmeted and cuirassed bust facing, holding spear over shoulder and shield with horseman motif. Rev: [VICTORIA A]VGЧ I. Cross potent set upon three steps. Beneath, CONOB. Sear 1511; H. 23; T. 43 ; Füeg 2 (officina 10 not recorded). Naumann auction 102, lot 823, May 3, 2021. From other specimens of this coin, officinae Δ, E, S, H, and Θ are known, so the selection of dies appears to have been random. This coin adds off. I to our population. The Naumann auction cat. describes the off. as “S”, while another example from the same dies (Rauch 82, lot 683) is there noted as “E?”. But the letter is more likely “I”. They were struck in two types, both with the same reverse, but one with a bust type (in civilian dress) known for solidi (SB 1510) and one which appears to have been rejected for the gold coinage (SB 1511 as this coin). Perhaps Grierson’s explanation of this coinage (from NumChron 1965, p. 184) is still the best. He notes this coin: “...does not correspond to the regular solidus type of Leo’s early years, which consists of a facing bust wearing a chlamys and holding a globus cruciger and an akakia. It should probably be interpreted as a pattern for a solidus that was not approved for the gold but was set aside as a model for the copper [and was based on the portraits of Constantine IV]. The use of solidus dies for a silver ‘coin’ is easily explained. During the three decades c. 690-c. 720, in the interval between the disappearance of the thick and heavy Heraclian hexagram and the introduction of the thin and light Isaurian miliaresion, [a story for another day] the silver ‘coins’ that were needed for customary distributions were frequently struck with the dies normally used for solidi, or, as in this case, with a die prepared originally for solidi but not actually used for them.” Background notes to the denomination. Despite the regular and plentiful series of silver coinage in the mid-to late 4th century Roman world, silver coinage appeared only sporadically in the East during the 5th - 6th centuries. While the reconquest of portions of the western empire under Justinian (527-65) resulted in the continuance of regular issues of fractional silver that had circulated in the territories formerly ruled by Germanic kings, silver coinage in the east only appeared infrequently and assumed primarily a ceremonial role. A notable exception to this was the appearance of the hexagram during the first decades of the reign of Heraclius (610-41), which was struck extensively during his reign and those of his immediate successors. Heraclius’ institution of the hexagram is traditionally linked to a passage in the Chronicon Paschale (a Byzantine world history based on earlier sources, probably compiled in the 630s) for the year 615. However, analysis of the surviving manuscripts shows that though all texts give the date 615, the passage had originally belonged to the text under the year 626. (K. Ericsson, “Revising a date in the Chronicon Paschale” in Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinischen Gesellschaft 17(1968), 17-28). Because seldom do our surviving ancient texts specifically refer to coin denominations, it is worth while to quote it in full: “In this year the silver hexagram coin was introduced by law; and during the same year official salaries were paid in it, at half the former rate.” The bulk of his issues appears to belong to the period after 621, when the church surrendered its silver to the emperor’s use in the crisis years of the Persian War. Of this, the 8th c. historian Theophanes the Confessor in his Chronographia entry for 620/1 writes: “Being short of funds, he [Heraclius] took as loan the moneys of religious establishments and he also took the candelabra and other vessels of the holy ministry of the Great Church, which he minted into a great quantity [of coin].” At a theoretical weight of 6.82 gr. = 6 scruples (εξι γραμματα), hence its name, the new coin was heavier than any other regular imperial Roman silver coin, and as Grierson notes in the DOC 2:1, p. 17 it “represents in some sort a revival of the ancient didrachm”. However, the weights of individual specimens vary widely (the Heraclian coins in Dumbarton Oaks range between 6.77 gr. and 5.02 gr., while those of Constans II range from 6.79 gr. – 4.29 gr. and similar variations obtain for the coinage of their successors), and in large transactions the coin probably passed by weight, not tale. Examples are common under Heraclius and Constans II, but become scarcer under Constantine IV, and under Justinian II and his successors, rarer still, in effect declining to the status of a ceremonial coin. A gold – silver reform by the Umayyad caliph ‘Abd al-Malik in the 690s involved a revised gold – silver ratio of 1:14, from the traditional 1:18, resulting in a silver drain from the empire in exchange for gold, accounting for the present rarity of the later hexagrams today. (DOC 2:1, p. 18). If one can make any generalization about the hexagrams, it is that they were struck carelessly, one might even not unfairly say slovenly, a trait they share with the ceremonial silver of the same period. The flans are often irregular and not well struck up. As a result, the devices are often unclear and a complete legend is often not present. In the 80-odd years of their issuance, the coins have in common on the obverse the image of the emperor (as well as accompanying figures of his co-Augusti children or brothers when appropriate), with Latin inscriptions naming the rulers. As will be seen, the coinage of Justinian II breaks from this tradition. From the later years of Constans II, the legends on both the obverse and reverse tend to become fragmentary. The reverse type is a cross on globe surmounting steps with the inscription “Deus adiuta Romanis”. Later issues of Constans II and Constantine IV also include the standing figures of the co-rulers Heraclius and Tiberius, sons of Constans II and brothers to Constantine IV. In addition to the innovative nature of its weight, a remarkable aspect of this coin is the reverse inscription “Deus adiuta Romanis”, as noted above. This Latin phrase, “God, help the Romans” has been usually interpreted as a desperate, direct appeal for divine aid in a time of mounting and overwhelming military reverses in the final Romano-Persian war of 602-628. (In fact, I recently selected for my university library a new book on this conflict, with the title The last great war of antiquity.) The overthrow of Maurice Tiberius by Phokas in 602 provided a convenient casus belli for Chosroes II to invade Roman territory. Initially the Romans suffered a series of catastrophic reverses, first being driven from Northern Syria, followed by a chain of losses of wealthy cities of the Levant and Egypt, such as Antioch in 611, Damascus, in 613, Jerusalem in 614, and Alexandria in 619. The loss of revenue and its dispersion to Ctesiphon of these cities, which had been the bedrock of Roman rule in the east for centuries was nearly the deathblow to the Roman Empire. In 626, the Persians laid siege to Constantinople itself. However, in a subsequent stunning reversal of fortune, the Romans were able to mount an offensive into the heart of Persia, finally toppling Chosroes II from power in 628. Although peace was restored, both great empires were exhausted, leaving the Romans to be threatened in the 630s by an even more dangerous foe… However, in his article “A note reconsidering the message of Heraclius’ silver hexagram, circa AD 615” in Byzantinische Zeitschrift 112 (2019), 221-232, Douglas C. Whalin offers an alternate explanation to the traditional interpretation of frantic appeal for divine aid in this novel inscription, a message of strength and defiance. Whalin cites passages from the anonymous Strategikon, a late 6th-early 7th c. military manual usually attributed to the reign of Maurice Tiberius (582-602), or no later than the end of Phokas’ rule (before 610). In addition to the usual military adages such as cavalry training and formations, sections on strategy, attacks, ambushes, and sieges, the work conveys such instructions on what prayers are to be offered on the day of battle. And in a passage very pertinent to the language of the hexagram reverse, just before the frontline troops are about to engage the enemy: “the command is given: ‘Ready’ [παρατι – parati]. Right after this, another officer shouts: ‘Help us’ [αδιουτα – adiuta]. In unison everyone responds loudly and clearly, ‘Oh, God!’ [δεους – deus].” Of linguistic interest is that the manual, naturally in Greek by this time, preserves fossilized Latin commands, as we see in the Latin inscription of the hexagram. A later example of such fossilization of Latin in specific contexts is found in the 10th-C. treatise of Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos that treats court ceremony: De ceremoniis aulae byzantinae. The close parallel of the message of the reverse inscription with the explicit commands set out in the rules of engagement according to the Strategikon lends weight to the theory that this remarkable legend is a statement of defiance and strength to bolster the army in its life and death struggle with the Persians. This is corroborated by the archaeological record. Hoard evidence indicates that these coins were primarily circulated as military payments, often to foreign allies. Very few examples of hexagrams have been unearthed within imperial territories; most hoards containing hexagrams are found outside the Roman frontiers – the steppes, the Balkans, and Transcaucasia.

Beautiful ones!

Now THAT'S interesting! 😀

While I understand neither the syntax of nor the reference to the question posed the stony old gentleman in his garden in Split, his reply pretty much captures the essence recorded by Aurelius Victor’s Epitome De Caesaribus 39:6, to messengers from Maximianus and Galerius asking him to resume the mantle of empire: "Utinam Salonae possetis visere olera nostris manibus instituta, profecto numquam istud temptandum iudicaretis".

A nice one, Valentinian. Here's mine. 9.11 gr. 27 mm. 6 hr. Sear 1693; DO 8; BNP 1-5; BM 11-12; R. 1849; T. 18. Ex Hunt Collection. Sotheby's Dec. 5-6, 1990, lot 476. As you mention, Michael had criticized the Latin language as a "barbarous and Scythian tongue" in a letter to Pope Nicholas I. The curial reply was that it was "ridiculous for the emperors to call themselves Roman if they were ignorant of Latin" (quia ridiculum est vos apellare Romanorum imperatores et tamen linguam non nosse Romanam). This coin inscription was "evidence" that Latin was alive and well in Constantinople!