Which Ancient / Medieval Coins Have The Most Historical Significance In Your Collection And Why?

Neat topic. I look forward to seeing what gets posted here.

I doubt any of the coins from my own current collection would qualify as particularly important from a historical perspective. The coins I sold off years ago included my more historically important ones. My Orodes II coins were relevant to the discussion given their possible minting around the time of the Battle of Carrhae. My Mithradates II coins were interesting since he was such an important ruler in Parthia - greatly expanding its power and borders.

While there is nothing historically earth-shattering about the antiquities I present below, they are at least interesting for different reasons.

To begin with, a simple 2nd century Roman gray ware bowl, reassembled from sherds. It's a significant entry because it is so rare that antiquities come with such specific archaeological information like this one did. This bowl was excavated at Dean's Hanger, Towcester, Northamptonshire, England in 1972. It was subsequently owned by a fellow, Michael Green of Tiverton, England, between the 1970s and 2012.



The following four weapons are significant only in that they are the oldest in my collection. The dagger at left is from Western Iran - likely Luristan or Elam - and dates from the 3rd to 2nd millennium BC. The dagger blade next to it is ex-Shlomo Zeitsov Collection (which is, in itself, significant). It is Canaanite and dates from the early to mid-2nd millennium BC. The third item is a Sumerian arrowhead associated with Susa, dating to c. 2000 BC. Next to it is another bronze arrowhead, this one possibly Elamite, dating to some time over a long span: c. 2200 - 1050 BC.

Great entries!

I remember reading 'The Last Days of Pompeii' when I was fairly young and it colored my view of antiquity because it wasn't historically accurate at all. It was a British popular vision of antiquity, written right before Victoria ascended to the throne of the British Empire, where the role of Christianity was greatly exaggerated in the early days of the Roman Empire. The book was written as an allegory to fit within a mold that sought to teach that decadence and depravity in 1st century Rome was punished by G_d through the tragedy of the eruption of Vesuvius. It took me a while to unlearn that Anglo-centric view of the Roman world that I learned during my very formative years.

The coin you posted is a far more objective representation of the era without all the proto-Victorian flourishes.

Hard to chose really, there are many notable people on my coins, Alexander the great, Marcus Aurelius and Hadrian among my favourites but Mark Antony is a big name and that these legionary denarius were used to pay soldiers is somewhat cool to think about.

Ahhh, Numistudent. Tainted, varnished, whitewashed, biased histories. A sad but true reality. History used as a propaganda tool. It has been going on for as long as there was a human history to pass on. My introduction to the eruption of Vesuvius and the ancient cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum was this book.

As a teen, I frequented local used book stores where I found this splendid volume. Large and heavy. Full of information, detailing the excavation of the cities. Hundreds of wonderful photos and illustrations! It was the beginning of a lifelong fascination. ['Pompeii and Herculaneum: The Living Cities of the Dead' by Theodor Kraus, 1973.]

Great topic!

My collecting habits have been a springboard for learning about European history in the medieval to early modern eras. I will ponder the topic, but this first one is easy (though it is well past the limit for medievals, by any yardstick...I promise to behave myself and move back a few centuries with the next one).

In 1795 the third partition of Poland occurred, wiping the Polish state off of the map of Europe for the next 123 years. Here is a 6 groszy coin minted in the last year of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth:

As for the OP's question: it's difficult to say which of my coins is the "most historically significant". But in my mind, "historical significane" relates to the impact of the coins themselves in understanding the history of the coin-issuing culture.

For some cultures, such as ancient Greece and Rome, the coins usually aren't really all that significant, as these civilizations left behind a great many other records, from architectural monuments to preserved written records. Other societies are not so well attested, and the coins themselves provide significant information. I have two examples of such "fringe culture" coinages to name in this thread.

First, we have the Axumite Empire. The most powerful nation in ancient sub-Saharan Africa, and the only one to issue its own coinage. Yet very little is known about the kings of Axum; a list of names has been preserved by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, but this list is mixed with numerous mythical and semi-mythical names and the chronology is just as mixed up. The coins help us tell the difference between man and myth. Here is my one and only Axumite coin, struck in the name of King Ousanas, as he is named in Greek on this coin:


Besides the coins, no monuments or inscriptions naming Ousanas have been found; the coins are the only physical evidence of his existence.

This is apparently the same king that the church records name as "Ella Amida", and was the first king to convert to Christianity; as was the case with Constantine, this personal religious conversion did not see an immediate change in coinage design, as his coins retained the pagan moon-symbol a the top; his successors began to place a cross there instead.

My second "fringe culture" coinage example, I don't have pics of them on file so I will post them later.

Yow...livingwater. That is one niiiice Claudius. Sharp!

Looking through my collection, I felt drawn to post this AE24 of Mithradates. One of Rome's greatest opponents.

History: exploring both sides of the proverbial coin, so to speak!