Byzantine Follis with Eagle Countermark: Last Stand at Caesarea Maritima against Islam?

[Marsyas Mike]

Feast or famine; with ancient countermarks, I find that either there is no information on them whatsoever, or a feast, with an abundance of information.  This unappetizing Byzantine follis I recently found on eBay turned out to be a feast, with several theories on why it got countermarked and where. 

First the coin (some may find the ugliness of this coin to be disturbing, so viewer discretion advised):

Byzantine Empire Æ Follis Heraclius (c. 610-640 A.D.) Caesarea Maritima (Egypt?) Host coin:  Constantinople (?) follis star | cross | star type of Justin I (SB 62) (518-527 A.D.) or Justinian I (SB 160) (527-538 A.D.) Countermark: Stylized eagle, pellet above, in 9 mm circle. (9.64 grams / 30 x 28 mm) eBay Oct. 2023                   

I've only been able to find one other sale of these online, which fortunately was from FORVM, which can always be relied upon to give a lot of information.  Here is FORVM:

Byzantine Empire, Maurice Tiberius, 13 August 582 - 22 November 602 A.D.; Palestina Prima Countermark

Due to new finds around Caesarea Maritima, Wolfgang Schulze re-attributed this countermark from Egypt to Palestina Prima. David Woods proposes that "Nicetas, the cousin of the future emperor Heraclius, ordered the countermarking of these coins as he advanced from Egypt into Palestine during the summer of 610 in order to signal the change of government from Phocas to the Heraclii." Another possible date is after the recovery of Syria from the Persians in 628. Schulze dates it to the Arab siege of 637 - 640 A.D., to which Caesarea succumbed. This is only the third example known of this eagle countermark applied to a coin of Maurice Tiberius. Woods identified the other examples, as "a careless accident."  SH77069. Bronze follis, Hahn MIB II 65b, DOC I 22 var. (no 4th officina), SBCV 494; for countermark see Schulze INR 2009, and Woods (Heraclius, Palestina Prima), countermark: VF, coin: aF, areas of corrosion, 4th officina, Constantinople (Istanbul, Turkey) mint, weight 11.287g, maximum diameter 31.5mm, die axis 180o, coin c. 583 - 584, countermark c. 610 - 637; obverse DN mAV - RC P P AV, crowned bust facing, crown with cross and pendilia, globus cruciger in right hand, shield on left shoulder; reverse large M (40 nummi) between ANNO and II (regnal year 2), Δ (4th officina) below, CON in exergue; countermark: in exergue, eagle standing facing, head right, wings raised, in a round punch; from The Jimi Berlin Caesarea Collection (found at Caesarea, Israel); very rare countermark; SOLD

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalog/roman-and-greek-coins.asp?param=77069q00.jpg&vpar=1376&zpg=87823&fld=

Unlike FORVM's example, the host coin on my example is the more common Justin I / Justinian I follis; I suspect mine is Justin I, based on the spacing of the letters, but I am not entirely sure of this, as the middle NVS/ANVS part of the legend is missing.  The mintmark on mine is also mostly missing, but I think I can make out the N for CON. 

I was able to locate Schulze's article on academia.com, and find his theories observations on what, where and why for this countermark to be very compelling. 

The Byzantine ‘Eagle’ Countermark –Re-attributed from Egypt to Palestine

by WOLFGANG SCHULZE

ABSTRACT  During the turbulent years of the Arab conquest of Syria in the 30s of the seventh century CE, a series of Byzantine countermarks was in use. One of them, the ‘eagle’ countermark, has been attributed for a long time to Egypt and may now be re-attributed to Palestine on the basis of new evidence. This countermark may have been applied on old and worn Byzantine coins in order to revalue them during the siege of Caesarea (637–640 CE).

INTRODUCTION  Byzantine coins bearing a countermark depicting an eagle with upraised wings were first published over 30 years ago (Bendall1976:230). Up to now such countermarks were known exclusively on coins of Justin I and Justinian I (Fig. 1)The round countermark shows a standing bird (‘eagle’) with wings curved upward and a pellet above. It has a diameter of approximately 8 mm and is placed exclusively on the reverses of the host coins. Evans stated that “all [countermarks]are placed at approximately the same place on the reverses of folles, obscuring the offcinae , but carefully avoiding disfiguring the M or the mintmark.” (Evans 2006:24). Looking at the coins in the catalogue below, we can be more precise. On most of the coins, the application of the countermark at the same place of the host coin is indisputable. The countermarks are usually placed on the mintmark or on the offcina, disfiguring one or the other and sometimes both. But nevertheless there are four coins with countermarks placed indiscriminately beside or on the M (Cat. Nos. 1, 10, 16, 21).In contrast to the worn host coins, the countermarks are usually fresh. Takinginto account the fact that Bendall only knew of three specimens and that we can use the evidence of 25 specimens today, his statement “the designs of the countermarks are as worn as the coins” (Bendall 1976:230) cannot be maintained. It seems that several ‘eagle’ countermark dies were in use, sometimes of fine, sometimes of rough style. This could point to a larger production than their rarity in excavations, museums or in trade may suggest (Fig. 2).  https://www.academia.edu/6830710/The_Byzantine_Eagle_Countermark_Re_attributed_from_Egypt_to_Palestine

The article goes on with various other aspects and theories about this countermark and the tumultuous history of those times.    

Feel free to share any other Byzantine and/or Arabic countermarks, etc.

 

[Ancient Coin Hunter]

Very interesting find, thanks. I wonder what the coin's purchasing power would be given the countermark.

[Marsyas Mike]

2 hours ago, Ancient Coin Hunter said:

Very interesting find, thanks. I wonder what the coin's purchasing power would be given the countermark.

I wonder about the purchasing power too...the original coin was so old, that the purchasing power of a follis surely would've changed over the decades.  The article by Schulze speculates:

"What could happen in such a situation? For the authorities, an obvious possibility was to look for older coins that were out of circulation — some of
them extremely worn — and revalue them by countermarking. Using the eagle symbol — either reminiscent of imperial power known to the people of Caesarea
through their own Roman provincial coin issues or following the example set by contemporary lead seals — the old coins were carefully revalued by replacing the mintmark with the ‘eagle’ countermark as a sign of new authority. This brought them back into circulation or gave them a new value. All of this certainly did not happen immediately after the battle of Yarmukh, but probably in the years 637–640."

But doesn't this mean that there was some kind of hoard of "coins that were out of circulation" in the imperial treasury?  Why keep such coins around?  As any collector of Byzantine AEs can tell you, the Byzantine authorities constantly overstruck older coins (and I'm guessing they melted down older ones for re-coinage as well).  I suppose this could mean they stockpiled old coins for such overstriking.  Another factor is shrinkage - the follis of the time of Heraclius was much smaller than those of the Justinian era.  Maybe old, but big, folles with new, crisp eagles countermarked on them were an effort to bolster morale among the troops?  Heck if I know!  But it is fun to speculate.  

 

[Al Kowsky]

On 10/31/2023 at 12:16 PM, Marsyas Mike said:

Feast or famine; with ancient countermarks, I find that either there is no information on them whatsoever, or a feast, with an abundance of information.  This unappetizing Byzantine follis I recently found on eBay turned out to be a feast, with several theories on why it got countermarked and where. 

First the coin (some may find the ugliness of this coin to be disturbing, so viewer discretion advised):

Byzantine Empire Æ Follis Heraclius (c. 610-640 A.D.) Caesarea Maritima (Egypt?) Host coin:  Constantinople (?) follis star | cross | star type of Justin I (SB 62) (518-527 A.D.) or Justinian I (SB 160) (527-538 A.D.) Countermark: Stylized eagle, pellet above, in 9 mm circle. (9.64 grams / 30 x 28 mm) eBay Oct. 2023                   

I've only been able to find one other sale of these online, which fortunately was from FORVM, which can always be relied upon to give a lot of information.  Here is FORVM:

Byzantine Empire, Maurice Tiberius, 13 August 582 - 22 November 602 A.D.; Palestina Prima Countermark

Due to new finds around Caesarea Maritima, Wolfgang Schulze re-attributed this countermark from Egypt to Palestina Prima. David Woods proposes that "Nicetas, the cousin of the future emperor Heraclius, ordered the countermarking of these coins as he advanced from Egypt into Palestine during the summer of 610 in order to signal the change of government from Phocas to the Heraclii." Another possible date is after the recovery of Syria from the Persians in 628. Schulze dates it to the Arab siege of 637 - 640 A.D., to which Caesarea succumbed. This is only the third example known of this eagle countermark applied to a coin of Maurice Tiberius. Woods identified the other examples, as "a careless accident."  SH77069. Bronze follis, Hahn MIB II 65b, DOC I 22 var. (no 4th officina), SBCV 494; for countermark see Schulze INR 2009, and Woods (Heraclius, Palestina Prima), countermark: VF, coin: aF, areas of corrosion, 4th officina, Constantinople (Istanbul, Turkey) mint, weight 11.287g, maximum diameter 31.5mm, die axis 180o, coin c. 583 - 584, countermark c. 610 - 637; obverse DN mAV - RC P P AV, crowned bust facing, crown with cross and pendilia, globus cruciger in right hand, shield on left shoulder; reverse large M (40 nummi) between ANNO and II (regnal year 2), Δ (4th officina) below, CON in exergue; countermark: in exergue, eagle standing facing, head right, wings raised, in a round punch; from The Jimi Berlin Caesarea Collection (found at Caesarea, Israel); very rare countermark; SOLD

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalog/roman-and-greek-coins.asp?param=77069q00.jpg&vpar=1376&zpg=87823&fld=

Unlike FORVM's example, the host coin on my example is the more common Justin I / Justinian I follis; I suspect mine is Justin I, based on the spacing of the letters, but I am not entirely sure of this, as the middle NVS/ANVS part of the legend is missing.  The mintmark on mine is also mostly missing, but I think I can make out the N for CON. 

I was able to locate Schulze's article on academia.com, and find his theories observations on what, where and why for this countermark to be very compelling. 

The Byzantine ‘Eagle’ Countermark –Re-attributed from Egypt to Palestine

by WOLFGANG SCHULZE

ABSTRACT  During the turbulent years of the Arab conquest of Syria in the 30s of the seventh century CE, a series of Byzantine countermarks was in use. One of them, the ‘eagle’ countermark, has been attributed for a long time to Egypt and may now be re-attributed to Palestine on the basis of new evidence. This countermark may have been applied on old and worn Byzantine coins in order to revalue them during the siege of Caesarea (637–640 CE).

INTRODUCTION  Byzantine coins bearing a countermark depicting an eagle with upraised wings were first published over 30 years ago (Bendall1976:230). Up to now such countermarks were known exclusively on coins of Justin I and Justinian I (Fig. 1)The round countermark shows a standing bird (‘eagle’) with wings curved upward and a pellet above. It has a diameter of approximately 8 mm and is placed exclusively on the reverses of the host coins. Evans stated that “all [countermarks]are placed at approximately the same place on the reverses of folles, obscuring the offcinae , but carefully avoiding disfiguring the M or the mintmark.” (Evans 2006:24). Looking at the coins in the catalogue below, we can be more precise. On most of the coins, the application of the countermark at the same place of the host coin is indisputable. The countermarks are usually placed on the mintmark or on the offcina, disfiguring one or the other and sometimes both. But nevertheless there are four coins with countermarks placed indiscriminately beside or on the M (Cat. Nos. 1, 10, 16, 21).In contrast to the worn host coins, the countermarks are usually fresh. Takinginto account the fact that Bendall only knew of three specimens and that we can use the evidence of 25 specimens today, his statement “the designs of the countermarks are as worn as the coins” (Bendall 1976:230) cannot be maintained. It seems that several ‘eagle’ countermark dies were in use, sometimes of fine, sometimes of rough style. This could point to a larger production than their rarity in excavations, museums or in trade may suggest (Fig. 2).  https://www.academia.edu/6830710/The_Byzantine_Eagle_Countermark_Re_attributed_from_Egypt_to_Palestine

The article goes on with various other aspects and theories about this countermark and the tumultuous history of those times.    

Feel free to share any other Byzantine and/or Arabic countermarks, etc.

 

Excellent coin & interesting writeup ☺️!

[Kiaora]

On 11/1/2023 at 3:16 AM, Marsyas Mike said:

Feast or famine; with ancient countermarks, I find that either there is no information on them whatsoever, or a feast, with an abundance of information.  This unappetizing Byzantine follis I recently found on eBay turned out to be a feast, with several theories on why it got countermarked and where. 

First the coin (some may find the ugliness of this coin to be disturbing, so viewer discretion advised):

Great write up and here's another example that makes yours look positively FDC! I am not even sure which way up the obverse photo should go. 

As far as I can tell, the host coin, as is the OP, is a very worn pre-reform follis of either Justin I or Justinian I, with the eagle counter mark placed very carefully over the officina letter.

I was intrigued by the progression of the theories. To expand a little on the original post (apologies for any duplication) these were:

Bendall (1976)

Simon Bendall published a short note in the 1976 Numismatic Chronicle (page 230), noting 3 specimens. While he highlighted that one had ‘long been known’ … ‘the exact design was unrecognised until the discovery of another, better preserved, specimen’. He believed that the countermarks must have been contemporaneous to the issuing of the original coins, I.e. c. 517-539, based on the observation that the the countermarks were as worn as the coins. While the potential for the countermarks to be dated to the reign of Heraclius (given that other countermarks of pre-reform coins use Heraclian monograms and so can firmly be associated with his reign), this was dismissed as unlikely on the basis that ‘the imperial monogram would surely be more prominent’. No conjecture was made as to place of issue or any potential local significance.

Hahn (1978)

In a subsequent Numismatic Chronicle article focused on 3-nummi and 1-nummus issues from Alexandria with an eagle on the obverse, Hahn argued that the countermarks were better associated with Heraclius. On the basis that these eagle countermarked coins and the 3-nummi pieces are closely associated, he noted that the form of the eagle was based on the scipio or consular sceptre surmounted by an eagle, with its wings raised. This adornment did not appear earlier than Tiberius II, thus ruling out a Justinianic dating for both the Alexandrian nummi, and by correlation, the countermark.

Further, Hahn associated the nummi and the counter marked coins with Alexandria, and dated them to 613-17 thereby placing the eagle countermark as being concurrent with the Heraclius monogram countermarks.

Goehring (1983)

In a short note in the 1983 Numismatic Chronicle, Goehring highlighted 2 further examples of the eagle countermark, both found during archaeological excavations in Upper Egypt between 1975 and 1978. He noted that the find spot supported the idea of the countermark being ‘of a local Egyptian significance’, and that the well-preserved condition of one of the countermarks supports a Heraclian dating (per Hahn, and contra. Bendall).

Schulze (2005 and 2009)

In his second 2009 article, published in Israel Numismatic Research, Schulze expanded the list of known specimens to 25, which strengthened his tentative 2005 hypothesis that the place of striking was not Egypt, but Palestine. Of the coins with a known provenance, 3 were excavated or acquired in Egypt, compared to 17 from Palestine. Caesarea Marítima was proposed as the location of minting.

He also published an example of the countermark on a follis of Maurice Tiberius, precluding once and for all a Justinianic dating and confirming the Heraclian dating in face of some residual doubts. He rejected Hahn’s dating of 613-17 on the basis that there ‘is no historical starting point for such a monetary measure’; after all from 610-630 Syria was occupied by the Persians who produced a dedicated coinage, and no contemporary Syrian countermarks are known. He therefore proposed 637-640, following the battle of Yarmouk in 636 after which Caesarea was under siege between 639 and 641. They were therefore issued during a period of shortage of coins and thus the need to revalue coins previously out of circulation.

Woods (2015)

Finally, in a paper in Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 55 (2015), Woods published 2 further examples, and made the case for re-dating the issue to 610, ordered by Nicetas as he ‘advanced from Egypt into Palestine during the summer of 610 in order to signal the change of government from Phocas to the Heraclii as consuls’ - at the same as noting that ‘there is no easy and obvious answer to the question who it was that stamped the eagle countermark on the folles …, or why this authority did so’.

[Marsyas Mike]

8 hours ago, Kiaora said:

Great write up and here's another example that makes yours look positively FDC! I am not even sure which way up the obverse photo should go. 

As far as I can tell, the host coin, as is the OP, is a very worn pre-reform follis of either Justin I or Justinian I, with the eagle counter mark placed very carefully over the officina letter.

I was intrigued by the progression of the theories. To expand a little on the original post (apologies for any duplication) these were:

Bendall (1976)

Simon Bendall published a short note in the 1976 Numismatic Chronicle (page 230), noting 3 specimens. While he highlighted that one had ‘long been known’ … ‘the exact design was unrecognised until the discovery of another, better preserved, specimen’. He believed that the countermarks must have been contemporaneous to the issuing of the original coins, I.e. c. 517-539, based on the observation that the the countermarks were as worn as the coins. While the potential for the countermarks to be dated to the reign of Heraclius (given that other countermarks of pre-reform coins use Heraclian monograms and so can firmly be associated with his reign), this was dismissed as unlikely on the basis that ‘the imperial monogram would surely be more prominent’. No conjecture was made as to place of issue or any potential local significance.

Hahn (1978)

In a subsequent Numismatic Chronicle article focused on 3-nummi and 1-nummus issues from Alexandria with an eagle on the obverse, Hahn argued that the countermarks were better associated with Heraclius. On the basis that these eagle countermarked coins and the 3-nummi pieces are closely associated, he noted that the form of the eagle was based on the scipio or consular sceptre surmounted by an eagle, with its wings raised. This adornment did not appear earlier than Tiberius II, thus ruling out a Justinianic dating for both the Alexandrian nummi, and by correlation, the countermark.

Further, Hahn associated the nummi and the counter marked coins with Alexandria, and dated them to 613-17 thereby placing the eagle countermark as being concurrent with the Heraclius monogram countermarks.

Goehring (1983)

In a short note in the 1983 Numismatic Chronicle, Goehring highlighted 2 further examples of the eagle countermark, both found during archaeological excavations in Upper Egypt between 1975 and 1978. He noted that the find spot supported the idea of the countermark being ‘of a local Egyptian significance’, and that the well-preserved condition of one of the countermarks supports a Heraclian dating (per Hahn, and contra. Bendall).

Schulze (2005 and 2009)

In his second 2009 article, published in Israel Numismatic Research, Schulze expanded the list of known specimens to 25, which strengthened his tentative 2005 hypothesis that the place of striking was not Egypt, but Palestine. Of the coins with a known provenance, 3 were excavated or acquired in Egypt, compared to 17 from Palestine. Caesarea Marítima was proposed as the location of minting.

He also published an example of the countermark on a follis of Maurice Tiberius, precluding once and for all a Justinianic dating and confirming the Heraclian dating in face of some residual doubts. He rejected Hahn’s dating of 613-17 on the basis that there ‘is no historical starting point for such a monetary measure’; after all from 610-630 Syria was occupied by the Persians who produced a dedicated coinage, and no contemporary Syrian countermarks are known. He therefore proposed 637-640, following the battle of Yarmouk in 636 after which Caesarea was under siege between 639 and 641. They were therefore issued during a period of shortage of coins and thus the need to revalue coins previously out of circulation.

Woods (2015)

Finally, in a paper in Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 55 (2015), Woods published 2 further examples, and made the case for re-dating the issue to 610, ordered by Nicetas as he ‘advanced from Egypt into Palestine during the summer of 610 in order to signal the change of government from Phocas to the Heraclii as consuls’ - at the same as noting that ‘there is no easy and obvious answer to the question who it was that stamped the eagle countermark on the folles …, or why this authority did so’.

What a terrific, and well-organized account of all the various theories behind these eagle countermarks!  Thank you so much for providing this @Kiaora - I learned a lot - especially that the latest theory (Woods) places this issue back to c. 610 A.D.  Verrry interesting.  

It is also nice to see another eagle countermark example - it looks great to me.  When it comes to countermarks on ancients, I don't worry too much about condition - these coins were typically worked very hard.  Which makes them very interesting.  

Thanks again.  

[Kiaora]

You’re welcome!

Regarding purpose:

On 11/4/2023 at 2:20 AM, Marsyas Mike said:

But doesn't this mean that there was some kind of hoard of "coins that were out of circulation" in the imperial treasury?  Why keep such coins around?  As any collector of Byzantine AEs can tell you, the Byzantine authorities constantly overstruck older coins (and I'm guessing they melted down older ones for re-coinage as well).  I suppose this could mean they stockpiled old coins for such overstriking.  Another factor is shrinkage - the follis of the time of Heraclius was much smaller than those of the Justinian era.  Maybe old, but big, folles with new, crisp eagles countermarked on them were an effort to bolster morale among the troops?  Heck if I know!  But it is fun to speculate. 

Given the significant difference in size and weight between the the current coinage and the counter-marked coins, perhaps they had a non-monetary purpose, eg. some sort of ticket or pass token? (pure speculation - I’ve never read anything proposing this)

 

Edited November 4, 2023 by Kiaora