Historical introduction :

the Persian Near East (602-630 AD) and its coinage

7

Clive FOSS

The coinage which forms the subject of the present volume was virtually unknown

before the researches of M. Henri Pottier. He has assembled and organized a corpus of
material, analyzed its significance and shown that it forms a coherent series. This coinage
fills an gap in the numismatic record of the Near East at a crucial time of transition from the
ancient to the medieval world, for, as M. Pottier shows, these large bronze pieces, imitated
from the coinage of sixth and early seventh century Byzantium, were issued under the
Persians when they ruled the Near East in the early seventh century. Their significance will
become clear when they are placed in the historical context

1

.

When the emperor Maurice was murdered in the year 602, the Persian king Chosroes II

launched the last world war of antiquity against the Romans

2

. Persian forces broke into

Armenia in 603 and won control of the whole region after campaigns that culminated in
607 with the capture of Theodosiopolis (Karin)

3

. In Mesopotamia, where the Persians

faced powerfully fortified Roman cities, Chosroes himself led the army : his first success
was the capture of Dara, the bulwark of the frontier, in 604 after a long siege

4

. Finally, in

609, Edessa, the metropolis of the region, surrendered on terms.

Meanwhile, the Roman East was in turmoil. A revolt that spread to Egypt and Syria

culminated in the accession of Heraclius, on 5 October 610. During that civil war, the
Persians had made another devastating advance. On 7 August, their greatest general,

___________________________
1. What follows is a brief historical summary. For a more detailed treatment, with full refer-

ence to the sources, see C. Foss, « The Persian Near East (602-630 AD) »,

Journal of the

Royal Asiatic Society, 13/2, 2003, p. 149-170.

2. For general accounts of the war see A. N. Stratos, Byzantium in the Seventh Century I

(Amsterdam 1968), p. 103-117 and The Armenian History attributed to Sebeos, trans. R. W.
Thomson, historical commentary by J. Howard-Johnston (Liverpool 1999 ; henceforth
« Sebeos » and « Sebeos commentary »), p. xxi-xxv and the detailed discussions of the
commentary, p. 193-231.

3. Conquest of Armenia : Sebeos 59-65 with commentary, p. 199-203.
4. Campaigns in Mesopotamia and their chronology : Sebeos commentary 197f.

LE MONNAYAGE DE LA SYRIE

SOUS L’OCCUPATION PERSE

(610-630)

Shahrbaraz, crossed the Euphrates

5

. The Roman defenses rapidly collapsed ; Antioch, the

greatest city of Roman Syria, surrendered to the Persians on 8 October 610

6

. Emesa

opened its gates in 611, Damascus in 613. With the conquest of Syria complete, the
Persians could turn south. The best attested event of these wars is the capture of Jerusalem
in May 614, a true catastrophe for Christendom

7

. The Persian army entered the city,

massacred tens of thousands and looted extensively. Their prize was the True Cross on
which Christ had been crucified ; it was sent off in triumph to Chosroes. Persian armies
next attacked Alexandria, the greatest city of the Roman East

8

. It fell in 619 after a long

siege ; the patriarch and governor fled. During the next year or two, the Persians occupied
the rest of the country.

The conquest of the Roman East was complete. Yet it did not long endure : Persian

occupation lasted more than twenty years in Mesopotamia, less than ten in Upper Egypt. It
was curtailed by the brilliant campaigns of Heraclius who left Constantinople in 624 for
the Caucasus whence he struck deep into the heartland of Persia. Chosroes fled and was
murdered in February 628. The new government made peace, agreeing to evacuate all the
conquests west of the Euphrates. After further revolutions in Persia (in which Shahrbaraz
briefly became king) a weakened regime agreed to surrender all lands that had been Roman.
By 630, the last Persian troops withdrew, Heraclius solemnly received the true Cross in
Jerusalem, and the East returned to Roman rule.

At first sight, scattered and fragmentary sources seem to suggest that Persian rule was a

disaster for the conquered territories. A closer look, though, indicates that destruction was
limited – generally to places that had resisted, and to the initial stages of conquest – and
that the Persians maintained a centralised, orderly administration. Since they had long expe-
rience running an empire, they could impose their own systems or use those already in
place. Like the Arabs after them (for whom they may have provided a precedent), they
ruled the new provinces with a minimum of change or disturbance, to ensure that they

8

L

E MONNAYAGE DE LA

S

YRIE SOUS L

’

OCCUPATION PERSE

(610-630)

___________________________
5. For the date see

Chronicon 724 in A. Palmer, The Seventh Century in the West-Syrian

Chronicles (Liverpool 1993 ; henceforth, « Palmer ») 17 ; see B. Flusin, Saint Anastase le
Perse (Paris 1992 ; henceforth S. Anastase) II.74-76 for the chronology and comparative
texts.

6. The sources for the date are ambiguous, with the Greek chronicler Theophanes giving May

611 for the Persian attack on Syria. 8 October, however, is attested by the generally reliable
Syrian chronicler Dionysius (Palmer 127), and most sources agree that the event took place
in the first year of the reign of Heraclius (October 610-October 611). Strictly speaking, the
date could be 610 or 611, but numismatic evidence supports the earlier date : Heraclius
struck no coins at Antioch ; the last Byzantine issues there are of the last year of Focas,
609-610.

7. For a general account, see Stratos (above, n. 2) I.107-111 ; or, in full detail, with careful

analysis of the sources, S. Anastase II.129-164.

8. For the conquest of Egypt, see A. J. Butler, The Arab Conquest of Egypt, ed. P. J. Fraser

(Oxford 1978), p. 69-92.

generated needed revenue. Treatment of the Near East varied from one region to another
but inevitably involved establishing stability.

Armenia, a crucial frontier district, was put under a governor or marzban who combined

civil and military powers

9

. After an initial atrocity in 609, when Chosroes deported the

inhabitants of Karin, this military regime seems to have provided security and some degree
of prosperity

10

. In 618, the Catholicos Komitas was able to restore his cathedral and to

dedicate a new church in the ecclesiastical capital Valarshapat (Echmiadzin), clear evidence
that the Persian occupation did not interrupt the prosperity of the country

11

. Armenian pil-

grims were reaching the Holy Land after the Persian conquest and Modestus, patriarch of
Jerusalem, could ask Komitas for material help in rebuilding his churches

12

. The Persians

consistently favored the local monophysite church, hostile to the orthodox Chalcedonians
of Constantinople. The church functioned, and the marzban presided over the selection of
new patriarchs in 628 and in 630, until the Roman administration returned with its demands
to follow the Chalcedonian creed

13

.

Mesopotamia followed a similar pattern. In Dara, which had resisted Chosroes, the

inhabitants were slaughtered and everything valuable carried off to Persia

14

. This was

evidently an effective warning, for all the other cities surrendered on terms, so that, in
the words of the Armenian chronicler Sebeos, they « were preserved in peace and prosper-
ity »

15

. The Persians kept Edessa as the administrative centre and seat of a marzban

16

.

The new rulers took an active interest in the church, expelling the hated Chalcedonian
prelates, to the great satisfaction of the locals

17

. In Edessa, as elsewhere, the Persians left

local authorities in place. Eventually, however, around 622, relations between the marzban
and the population deteriorated. The governor told the king of the fabulous wealth of
the city and proceeded to despoil the churches and aristocratic houses of 120,000 pounds of
silver (sixty tons of metal, a huge amount), which he sent to Chosroes

18

. Clearly, Edessa

had retained considerable wealth under the occupation, and was capable of paying high
rates of tax.

Scattered sources for Syria also give the impression that life continued normally ; there

are no reports of destruction, devastation or looting by the Persians. Information about three
cities – limited to one incident each – suggests a far more peaceful situation.

9

H

ISTORICAL INTRODUCTION

:

THE PERSIAN NEAR EAST

(602-630 AD)

AND ITS COINAGE

___________________________
9. They are listed in Sebeos (above, n. 2) 66f. ; cf. commentary 204f.
10. Karin : Sebeos 64.
11. Sebeos 76.
12. Relations between Armenia and Jerusalem are known from the correspondence between

Komitas and Modestus, preserved in Sebeos, p. 70-76, cf. commentary, p. 208-210.

13. Sebeos 84f.
14. Sebeos 58, the most detailed account.
15. Sebeos 63.
16. See Dionysius in Palmer (above, n. 5) 134, n. 305.
17.

Ibid., 125f., with note 283.

18. Ibid., 133f., with note 303.

In Antioch, the monophysite patriarch Athanasius openly occupied his throne when the

Persians took control. He corresponded with the monophysite patriarch of Alexandria,
called a meeting of his bishops and agreed that the Syrian and Egyptian churches should be
united. Around 614, therefore, Athanasius set sail for Alexandria with five bishops, was
warmly received and consummated the ecclesiastical union

19

. About a year later, the

cavalry officer Magoundat (better known as Saint Anastasius the Persian) deserted the
Persian army and settled in Hierapolis near the Euphrates. He lived there for four years with
a Persian Christian silversmith. During this time, he became fascinated with Christianity
(he had been a Zoroastrian) thanks to visits to the local churches and the sight of the images
of martyrs

20

. Damascus appears only after the war, when the emperor Heraclius arrived.

He met Mansur, son of Sergius, whom Maurice (582-602) had put in charge of local
finances. When Heraclius demanded the back taxes that had not been paid to
Constantinople during the Persian occupation, Mansur replied that he had sent them to
Chosroes. In a rage, the emperor had him arrested and beaten until he finally extracted
100,000 gold pieces, then restored him to his old position

21

. Damascus (or Mansur) plainly

had not been impoverished by the occupation. This incident reveals a remarkable continuity
of administration : the same official collected the taxes before, during and after the Persian
occupation.

Here, texts can be supplemented by archaeology, for the hills of northern Syria contain

remains of hundreds of villages. Their churches are often dated by inscriptions, which stop
abruptly in 610. At first sight, this seems to suggest that the Persian occupation had a
drastic effect, even provoking abandonment of the region. Excavation, however, has shown
that that life was not interrupted, but continued long after

22

. In the south, in the territory of

Bostra, the picture is quite different. Dated mosaics show churches being built, restored or
decorated during the occupation as they had been before and continued to be after.
Evidently, the Persians brought no major disruption to this area

23

.

The most valuable textual evidence relates to Palestine, where the life of Saint

Anastasius the Persian provides an unusually detailed image of Caesarea

24

. In 620, after

converting to Christianity and living seven years in Jerusalem, Anastasius came to
Caesarea, where he stayed in the church of St. Mary

25

. One day, as he was going to pray in

the shrine of St. Euphemia, he saw Persian magi practicing their rites in a house. He

10

L

E MONNAYAGE DE LA

S

YRIE SOUS L

’

OCCUPATION PERSE

(610-630)

___________________________
19. See

History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria, ed. and tr. B. Evetts,

Patrologia Orientalis 1.480-482.

20. S. Anastase (above, n. 5) text I.49f., commentary II.226-230.
21. Eutychii patriarchae alexandrini annales in Migne, PG, 1089.
22. See the summary in C. Foss, « Syria in Transition (550-750 AD) : An Archaeological

Approach », DOP 51 (1998), p. 204-206, 232-234.

23. Ibid., p. 252-254.
24. For the text of his biography see S. Anastase I.40-91, and for a comprehensive commentary

and historical discussion, ibid., the entire vol. II.

25. For what follows, see S. Anastase I.57-75, II.231-243.

entered, and denounced their superstitions. As he left, the magi asked him not to say any-
thing about them. Nearby, some cavalrymen who were sitting in front of the governor’s
palace noticed Anastasius and stopped him, thinking he might be a spy. When he explained
that he had left the service, they held him till the commanding officer, the sellarios, interro-
gated and arrested him. Three days later, the marzban returned to Caesarea, examined
Anastasius, found out that he was a Christian and a deserter and had him imprisoned in the
fortress, where he was put to hard labor. After trying in vain to make Anastasius renounce
Christianity, the marzban wrote to the King, who replied in a few days. Anastasius was
again given the option of renouncing Christianity with no further punishment. When he
refused, the governor sent him to the public prison to wait till a convoy of prisoners was
arranged for transport to Persia. In his cell, he received two monks from his monastery in
Jerusalem, who prayed and sang hymns with him. At this point, a prominent Christian offi-
cial, the commerciarius, who controlled the taxes on trade, got the governor’s permission to
take Anastasius to church for the festival of the Holy Cross. Soon after, Anastasius and two
other Christian prisoners set out for Persia, accompanied by the two monks from Jerusalem.

This narrative, the most detailed account of life under the Persian occupation, reveals

the existence of an organised administration that maintained normal relations with the
population. The seat of government in the province was Caesarea, as it had been under the
Romans. The marzban had a palace, subordinate officers called sellarioi, and an assistant,
meizoteros, whom he sent to communicate with Anastasius. His garrison troops, cavalry-
men, guarded the palace, and were on the lookout for spies. The governor was in easy com-
munication with the central government ; messages to the King went back and forth rapidly.
Royal orders issued to the provincial governor were received and followed.

The regime plainly did not oppress the Christians : churches and monasteries were open,

and churchmen could even visit the prison and accompany the saint on his final journey.
Christians could occupy high positions, as did the commerciarius, so trusted that he could
take Anastasius from prison for a church service. Anastasius himself was not being perse-
cuted for being a Christian, but for deserting his post and abandoning his ancestral religion.

The prominence of a commerciarius implies a remarkable continuity of institutions and

economic life, for these had been important tax officials in port and frontier towns since the
sixth century

26

. The economic system seems unchanged. Churches and civil buildings,

including the governor’s palace, a fortress where high-ranking prisoners were kept, and a
public prison, were all in operation : the Persians apparently kept the urban fabric much as
they found it. The life of St. Anastasius, if no specific information had been given, would
seem to be set in a normal (and peaceful) province of the Persian empire.

Before coming to Caesarea, Anastasius had lived in Jerusalem, where he stayed with a

Christian silversmith, following the profession he had learnt in Hierapolis. When he made
known his desire to convert, the silversmith introduced him to a priest of the Holy
Sepulchre, who passed him on to Modestus, the acting patriarch, who baptized him and

11

H

ISTORICAL INTRODUCTION

:

THE PERSIAN NEAR EAST

(602-630 AD)

AND ITS COINAGE

___________________________
26. See N. Oikonomides, « Silk Trade and Production in Byzantium from the Sixth to the Ninth

Century : The Seals of Kommerkiarioi »,

DOP, 40 (1986), p. 33-53.

helped him to become a monk. By 620, when Anastasius arrived, Jerusalem had made
some recovery from the devastation that accompanied its conquest. The siege, sack and
massacres of 614 stand out in the sources, but the Persians did not destroy the Holy City.
Quite the contrary : they actively aided Modestus in rebuilding the churches. He set to work
energetically, restoring the Holy Sepulchre, Holy Zion, and completely rebuilding the
church of the Ascension

27

. Modestus sought funds at home and abroad. He went to

Diospolis, Tiberias, Tyre and Damascus, where he received substantial sums for rebuilding
his churches. John, the orthodox patriarch of Alexandria also sent money, together with
supplies, food, clothing and animals, and special allowances for ransoming the nuns of
Jerusalem and prisoners of the local Saracens

28

. Modestus’ appeals reached as far as

Armenia, where he established contact thanks to pilgrims who arrived from there in about
616. His correspondence with the Armenian patriarch shows that communications were
open between far-flung regions of the new Persian territories and that pilgrimage was
continuing, even to Sinai, an area often endangered by the local tribes

29

. It appears that the

Persians had established order over a vast region.

The archaeological record offers little support for notions of widespread destruction by

the Persians

30

. On the contrary, numerous inscriptions (mostly epitaphs from churches)

dated to the period 614-630 reflect normal activity during the occupation. They provide
evidence for the region southeast of the Dead Sea and for the large villages of the Negev in
southern Palestine

31

. Papyrus documents and inscriptions from Nessana in the Negev show

that the same family played a dominant role before, under and after the Persians, with influ-
ence extending into the 680’s

32

. Here, too, it would seem that the Persian occupation

caused no serious social or economic disruption.

The last place the Persians conquered was Egypt, with its rich and flourishing capital,

Alexandria. Under John the Almsgiver, orthodox patriarch from 610 to 617, the church
possessed huge amounts of gold, property in the city, and ships of ocean-going capacity.
This wealth enabled John to deal with refugees from Syria and Palestine. Government
officials, churchmen and many others arrived destitute in Alexandria, where John provided
charity and built hostels to shelter them

33

.

12

L

E MONNAYAGE DE LA

S

YRIE SOUS L

’

OCCUPATION PERSE

(610-630)

___________________________
27. See

S. Anastase II. 172-180, with full source references.

28. See S. Anastase II. 174f.
29. The letters are reproduced by Sebeos (above, n. 2) I, p. 70-76.
30. See the important discussion of R. Schick, The Christian Communities of Palestine from

Byzantine to Islamic Rule. A Historical and Archaeological Study. Studies in Late Antiquity
and Early Islam 2 (Princeton 1995), p. 20-26.

31. Evidence summarised ibid., p. 39-47 ; cf. R. Schick « The Settlement Pattern of Southern

Jordan : The Nature of the Evidence » in A. Cameron and G. R. D. King eds, The Byzantine
and Islamic Near East II. Land Use and Settlement Patterns (Princeton 1994), p. 133-154.

32. See C. J. Kraemer, Excavations at Nessana 3 : Non-literary Papyri (Princeton 1958) 132f.,

p. 157.

33. Léontios de Néapolis - Vie de Syméon le fou et vie de Jean de Chypre, trad. A. J. Festugière

(Paris 1974), cap. 6.

Despite war and occupation, communications were maintained between Egypt,

Palestine and Syria. John was in active contact with the church of Jerusalem, to whom he
sent material aid, just as the monophysite patriarch Anastasius was with his colleague from
occupied Antioch. Athanasius of Antioch actually sailed to Alexandria in about 614, met
Anastasius in a monastery on the sea (for the Chalcedonian John presided in the capital),
held a meeting at which union between the two churches was concluded, and stayed a
month in the country

34

. John did not remain with his flock to face the invader. Instead,

together with the governor, he sailed away to Cyprus, where he died in 619. They were part
of another wave of refugees terrified by the advance of the Persians into Egypt, and able to
make their way to the relative safety of Cyprus

35

. Others, including a future patriarch of

Jerusalem, left Alexandria (where they had already taken refuge from the Persians) for the
more remote safety of Rome

36

.

When Alexandria opened its gates, the invaders supposedly massacred the young men

and killed many monks of the region, but no narrative source describes conditions under
their rule. On the other hand, the archaeological record reveals that the great monastic com-
plex of St. Menas in the desert outside Alexandria was destroyed at this time

37

. There are

only hints about the situation in Alexandria : the Persian governor built a palace that was
still standing three centuries later, and when the monophysite patriarch died in 622, a new
one succeeded without a problem, maintaining monophysite supremacy

38

. The countryside

seems to have faced the same initial devastation. The governor of Alexandria, on his way to
Upper Egypt, slaughtered monks in the Delta, and in Coptos far up the Nile valley church-
men fled into the mountains at the approach of the fire-worshippers

39

. Hoards of gold and

copper coins buried at this time are a witness to the disturbed conditions, as people fled,
hoping to retrieve their treasures when better days were at hand

40

.

Documentary evidence suggests that normal methods of administration resumed after an

initial phase of brutality

41

. One undated letter from the Fayyum recounts that the writer had

been abducted and tortured (presumably to reveal information) and had lost his children

13

H

ISTORICAL INTRODUCTION

:

THE PERSIAN NEAR EAST

(602-630 AD)

AND ITS COINAGE

___________________________
34.

HistPatr (above, n. 19), p. 480-482.

35. See the brief eyewitness account of the Cypriot monk John in P. van den Ven, La Légende

de S. Spyridon évêque de Trimithonte (Louvain 1953) 81f.

36. See the biographical sketch of John Moschus, Elogium auctoris, in Migne, PL, 74.121.
37. For the remains of the site see P. Grossmann, Abu Mina I, Die Gruftkirche und die Gruft

(Mainz 1989) 182ff. ; and for the numismatic evidence that establishes the date,
H. C. Noeske, Münzfunde aus Ägypten I : Die Münzfunde des ägyptischen Pilgerzentrums
Abu Mina und die Vergleichsfunde aus den Diocesen Aegyptus und Oriens vom 4.-8. Jh.
n. Chr. (Berlin 2000) I.186f.

38. Governor : HistPatr 485 ; patriarch : ibid., p. 489.
39. HistPatr 486 ; Coptos : Life of Pisentios summarized in Butler 85f.
40. See Noeske (above, n. 37) I.77-79 (gold), I.132-135 (bronze).
41. The evidence is analyzed by Leslie MacCoull, « Coptic Egypt During the Persian

Occupation », Studi classici e orientali 36 (1986), p. 307-313.

when the Persians came

42

. Similarly, an estate agent reports to his employer that he cannot

carry out his duties because he had fallen into the hands of the Persians. In another case, a
widow asks the help of a local bishop after the Persians had beaten her son and taken away
her cattle

43

.

This text, like others, reveals that the Persians were collecting taxes and making the

usual requisitions, and that normal business was being carried on, though travel seems to
have been restricted. One lady had been obliged to travel by land to her property during the
occupation because shipping was not available ; she perhaps lacked an official permit, such
as has survived in a Pahlavi document. Other papyri in Pahlavi – direct evidence of the
activity of a Persian administration – contain requisitions for a variety of products, mostly
foodstuffs, and levies of men (perhaps recruited into the army) from numerous towns.
Bilingual Pahlavi-Greek documents also mention tax registers and imply the full panoply of
a bureaucratic administration. In some cases, sellarioi were involved : letters from one of
them in Oxhrynchus deal with the expenses of a posting station, showing that communica-
tions were maintained thought the country by normal means

44

.

Evidence from the occupied provinces from Armenia to Egypt reveals a consistent pat-

tern : stability, continuity and tolerance followed a initial period of violence. The conquest
was often bloody, but once order was established, the Persians ruled according to a regular
system where a marzban governed a province, with an administrative hierarchy and garri-
son troops, of whom cavalry were the elite. The marzbans ruled from capitals of Roman
provinces, and, like the Romans, relied heavily on established local authorities. In large
cities like Edessa and Damascus, or villages like Nessana, the same families retained the
influence they had long exercised.

The Persian regime collected taxes, apparently without major change. There was

still a commerciarius in Caesarea, and Egyptians endured their customary taxes and requisi-
tions. If the provinces could pay tax, it was because they were still rich, and even prosper-
ing. The new churches of Armenia, like the stored wealth of Edessa and Damascus,
certainly do not suggest poverty or overwhelming exactions. The urban fabric of towns that
had surrendered survived intact. Silversmiths in Hierapolis and Jerusalem indicate an active
trade in luxury goods or precious metals.

Communications were regular between province and capital and within provinces,

though in Egypt private travel required official permission. A cleric like Modestus could
travel widely and carry on correspondence with distant Armenia. More striking is the
apparent freedom of movement between the occupied territories and those still Roman : the
patriarch of Persian Antioch could sail to Roman Alexandria, just as the patriarch of that
city could send aid to Persian Jerusalem. War evidently did not cut the enemy powers off
from each other.

14

L

E MONNAYAGE DE LA

S

YRIE SOUS L

’

OCCUPATION PERSE

(610-630)

___________________________
42. For references to this and other papyri, see MacCoull (previous note).
43. J. Drescher, « A Widow’s Petition »,

Bulletin de la société d’archéologie copte, 10 (1944)

p. 91-96.

44. Pap. Oxy. XVI. 1862, 1863.

A natural concomitant of an organised administration is coinage. After all, if taxes

are to be paid – as they were under the Persians – cash is useful, as it is essential for trans-
actions in the marketplace. At first sight, though, it is not evident what kind of coinage, if
any, was struck or circulated in the occupied territories. Only one issue has been attributed
to the Persians : a series of bronzes of Alexandria, struck in four denominations – 12, 6, 3
and 1 nummus – on an unusually heavy standard, and featuring new types. The 12-nummus,
bears the head of the (unnamed) emperor, wearing a crown with a crescent and a cross, and
with a star and crescent beside his head. The others have a palm tree (6 and 3-nummus) or a
star (1 nummus). These form a coherent series. Subsequently, the standard was reduced and
only the 12, now without the crescent on the emperor’s crown, was stuck, but in very large
quantities. In these cases, local tradition in denomination and type was maintained, but with
the addition of symbols that indicated a new authority

45

.

As for gold, which the Sassanians themselves hardly ever struck, it seems likely that

Roman solidi continued to circulate in Syria and Egypt. A large hoard discovered in north-
ern Syria contained 534 gold pieces, of which 115 were struck during the years of occupa-
tion. Analysis showed that the earlier coins were more worn than the later (the hoard was
buried around 685), suggesting that they had remained in circulation a long time, possibly
from the years when they were struck

46

. Documentary evidence comes from Persian

Egypt, where papyri show that gold solidi continued to be used for loans and exchanges,
but do not reveal whether they were new or old coins

47

.

The backbone of the Sassanian coinage consisted of large thin silver pieces. Mints

all over the empire issued them in vast quantities. The Greek term for these was
miliaresion, as revealed by texts of the late sixth and early seventh century. In 593,
Chosroes, in gratitude for his wife conceiving a child, presented 5 000 miliaresia to the
shrine of St. Sergius at Sergiopolis (Rusafa) in Syria

48

. A Christian woman of Nisibis in

15

H

ISTORICAL INTRODUCTION

:

THE PERSIAN NEAR EAST

(602-630 AD)

AND ITS COINAGE

___________________________
45. The 12-nummus pieces were described and identified by J. R. Phillips, « The Byzantine

bronze coins of Alexandria in the seventh century »,

NC (1962), p. 225-241. For the rest, see

Hahn, MIB 3.113f. Most recently, L. Domaszewicz and Michael Bates, « The Copper
coinage of Egypt in the Seventh Century » in J. L. Bacharach, ed., Fustat Finds : Beads,
Coins, Medical Instruments, Textiles, and Other Artifacts from the Awad Collection (Cairo
2002), p. 88-111 have proposed to reattribute the 12s at least to Anastasius, on grounds that
strike me as quite implausible.

46. See Cécile Morrisson, « Le tresor byzantin de Nikertai », RBN 118 (1972), p. 29-91, espe-

cially 34f. For other hoards of Byzantine gold from late seventh-century Syria, containing
pieces of Heraclius, see S. Heidemann, « The Merger of Two Currency Zones in Early
Islam… », Iran 36 (1998) 95-112 at 96, with further references. See also Noeske (above,
n. 37) I.81-83.

47. See MacCoull (above, n. 41) 311. Noeske (above, n. 37) I.77-79 lists two Egyptian hoards

that contain gold coins of Heraclius, but the numbers are too small to support conclusions.

48. Theophylact Simocatta, Historiae, ed. de Boor (Leipzig 1972) V.14.6, 11 ; Evagrius,

Ecclesiastical History, ed. J. Bidez, L. Parmentier (London 1898) VI.21.

49. John Moschus, Pratum spirituale, cap. 185 (Migne, PG, 87.3.3057-3061).

Persian Mesopotamia converted her pagan husband by the miraculous multiplying of their
capital of 50 miliaresia

49

. Likewise, a posthumous miracle of Saint Anastasius the Persian

(martyred in 628) involved a coiner of miliaresia who lived in the Persian capital,
Ctesiphon

50

. Understanding this term casts new light on the efforts of the marzban to con-

vert Anastasius. As his first proposal to bring the renegade back to his religion, the gover-
nor tried to bribe him with horses, miliaresia and protection

51

. In other words, Persian

silver coins were in use in occupied Palestine and evidently considered a main store of
value, at least among the occupying forces. Whether these were imported from the central
Persian lands or struck locally cannot be determined. Archaeological evidence confirms the
circulation of Sassanian coins – both miliaresia and copper – in Palestine, Syria and Egypt,
though always in very small quantities

52

.

The situation for the copper coinage was similar to the gold : Byzantine coins continued

to circulate during at least the first decade of the occupation. Three large hoards were
buried around 630-635. In each case, a substantial proportion consists of bronze folles of
Heraclius struck from 610-616, with very few later examples

53

. In these hoards, the older

coins are more worn, showing that the finds represent coinage in circulation at the time.
Since it is unlikely that the returning Roman armies would have brought heavy obsolete
coins with them (the standard of the metropolitan copper coinage had declined drastically
during the war), it is safe to assume that the heavy early folles of Heraclius were still reach-
ing Syria until at least 616. The coinage described in this volume in fact includes types
derived from these early issues, further indicating their presence in Syria. It is in this con-
text that M. Pottier’s contribution may be appreciated.

So far, the coinage of the occupied regions appears to have been imported, but in 1967

an anomalous bronze follis of Heraclius was discovered in the excavations of Apamea. It
bore the mintmark of Antioch and was dated to the 14

th

regnal year of the emperor, 623-

16

L

E MONNAYAGE DE LA

S

YRIE SOUS L

’

OCCUPATION PERSE

(610-630)

___________________________
50.

S. Anastase (above, n. 5) I.121.

51. S. Anastase I.61.
52. For Syria, see C. Foss, « The Coinage of Syria in the Seventh Century : the Evidence of

Excavations », INJ, 13 (1999) 119-132, and for Palestine, S. D. Sears and D. T. Ariel,
« Finds of Late Sasanian and Early Muslim Drachms in Historical Palestine », Atiqot, 40
(2000), p. 139-150. Noeske (above, n. 37) I.92f. summarises this material, ading three exam-
ples of Persian silver from Egypt.

53. See E. Leuthold, « Monete bizantine rinvenute in Siria », RIN, 54/5 (1952-1953), p. 31-49 ;

G. E. Bates, « A Byzantine Hoard from Coelesyria », ANSMN, 14 (1968), p. 67-109 ; and
W. Metcalf, « A Heraclian Hoard from Syria », ANSMN, 20 (1975), p. 109-137. Note that
the first and third of these each contain one coin of the « Pottier » type. See also Noeske
(above, n. 37) I.144-148, p. 215-264. Coins from excavations reflect a similar phenomenon,
though with a more even distribution through the reign of Heraclius (and the Persian occupa-
tion) : see the tabulation and references in C. Foss, « Coinage of Syria » (previous note) 121.

54. The coin was published by the excavator, J.-C. Balty : « Un follis d’Antioche daté

de 623-634 et les campagnes syriennes d’Héraclius », Gazette numismatique suisse, 20
(1970), p. 4-11.

624, and seemed to raise serious questions about a possible Byzantine reoccupation of
Antioch during the war

54

. Subsequently, more such coins were discovered or identified.

They were generally regarded as imitations, like the bronzes struck in Syria after the Arab
conquests, though some considered them as official issues

55

. Yet they differed in their size

and weight, being struck to a heavy standard prevailing in the early years of Heraclius. On
the other hand, they bore garbled images and combinations of mintmarks and dates that
seemed impossible.

It remained for Henri Pottier to begin scientific study of this material, based on an ever

increasing number of specimens. In the present volume, he subjects a corpus of 190 exam-
ples to a rigorous analysis to show that they form a coherent whole and represent the
coinage struck in Syria under the Persians. The coins bear the images of Justin II, Maurice,
Focas and Heraclius, with illiterate inscriptions and mintmarks of Constantinople,
Nicomedia and Antioch, also usually misspelled, written backward or otherwise garbled.
Nevertheless, Pottier’s careful study of the dies shows conclusively that they all belong to
one series, and that even though the images and mintmarks correspond to no reality, the
system of dating is consistent and realistic. The coins are dated to years 1 through 21. These
numbers are not arbitrary, for the coins of each year are of the same weight, though the
series as a whole shows some variations. Furthermore, the officina marks on the coins, that
in the Byzantine system indicated the workshop responsible for the issue, are also real, for
the years that have the largest number of officinae correspondingly are those with the
largest number of examples. These are not the work of a forger – for they are struck at a
higher standard than the contemporary coins of Constantinople – or of a local artisan, for
they maintain careful and consistent standards. Everything indicates that this is an official
issue of an established regime.

This organized series, struck over twenty years, was necessarily issued before the Arab

conquest, for one of them is countermarked with a monogram used in 636, during the brief
Byzantine reoccupation of Syria. These coins have appeared on the market in Syria and
Palestine ; the few that have a specific provenance come from northern Syria. the conclu-
sion is inevitable that they represent the local bronze coinage of Persian Syria, issued by a
central authority that controlled their volume and quality. The dates correspond exactly to
the period of Persian occupation, which in Syria lasted from 610 to 630 – that is for the 21
years that appear on the coins. Whether these dates represent the regnal years of Heraclius
or simply count from the beginning of Persian rule is not clear. The site of their mint is
uncertain : hoards and excavations point to northern Syria, but their absence from the exten-
sive finds of Antioch seem to exclude that city. Only a few pieces that bear the image of
Focas and the years 1-4 are so close in style to regular Antiochene issues that they may
have been struck there. The rest, though, diverge in style and were possibly issued at
Emesa, as M. Pottier tentatively suggests.

17

H

ISTORICAL INTRODUCTION

:

THE PERSIAN NEAR EAST

(602-630 AD)

AND ITS COINAGE

___________________________
55. See W. Hahn, « Minting Activity in the Diocese of Oriens under Heraclius »,

NCirc, 85

(1977) 307f., a pioneering attempt to make sense of the series.

In any case, these coins reveal another aspect of a Persian administration that kept care-

ful records, collected taxes, maintained regular communications and tolerated Christianity.
Coinage would form a valuable part of a regular administrative system, which wanted to
ensure a normal economic life in its territories. The familiar Christian types with the
emperor’s image and the Cross made the coinage acceptable to the local population

56

.

They could have used these bronze coins for small scale commerce, while Persian silver
and Byzantine gold were available for larger dealings. It is possible, therefore, that the
locals continued to use coins that were familiar, while the Persian administration was
supplied with the typical silver coins of its empire. The Arabs followed a similar policy in
regard to bronze coinage during the first decades of their rule by producing coins to a
Byzantine standard with the emperor’s image (though not his name) and Christian symbols,
even though the bilingual or Arabic inscriptions made it clear that they were the products of
an Islamic regime. Here, as in much else, the Persian occupation provided a precedent for
future developments.

Henri Pottier, therefore, in the present volume has made a major contribution not only to

numismatics by discovering, organizing and analyzing an entirely new coinage, but also
to the history of the Near East in a crucial and poorly understood period. The work that
follows will speak for itself.

18

L

E MONNAYAGE DE LA

S

YRIE SOUS L

’

OCCUPATION PERSE

(610-630)

___________________________
56. Note the statement of the seventh-century Maronite Chronicle that the caliph Muawiya,

around 660, issued gold and silver coins that the people refused to accept because they did
not bear there was no cross on them : see Palmer (above, n. 5) 32.