Notae Numismaticae - Zapiski Numizmatyczne (10.2015)

JOHN SHANNAHAN

southem Levant became a frontier of the Persian Empire. It now required defence
against hostile Egyptian Pharaohsf New Persian interest in the govemance of the
region left severai marks on the archaeoiogicai record. The most extensive re-
late to defence.^ The administration of the region was Consolidated, as indicated
by changes in stamp impressionsd The numismatic evidence rehects the situation
through the increased use of Achaemenid motifs. In Philistia Gitler, suggested that
this may rehect the łocal eliteT desire to integrate itself with the Achaemenids.^ In
Samaria, in the midst of the changing political landscape, a new mint was activat-
ed.^ This mint Irequently used Achaemenid motifs, and has become the locus of
extensive research on "iconographic precedents.'^ The following study examines
two varieties of Samarian coinage which are yet to receive discussion.
In many cases the identihcation of iconographic precedents in Samarian coin-
age is straight forward. Tiarate heads were popular. ^ They bear the influence of
Cilician examples showing satraps' heads.^ The Achaemenid royal hgure was also
prevalentA He was shown riding a horse, engaging with real and mythicał beasts,
seated on a throne, or in adaptations of the traditional running archerT The royal
hero was frequently shown battling animals in monumental and glyptic Achaeme-
nid art.'- Sidonian die-engravers, known to have created prototypes exploited by
the Samarians, also showed this motifA The king's positioning on a throne in
Samarian coinage mimics Achaemenid court scenes where he was presented in the

was marching towards Egypt. See BRIANT 2002: 619. (2) Isoc. 4.140. (3) D.S. 15.42^13. (4) Syncellus: 426, 20.
(5) D.S. 16.40.3; Isoc. 5.101-102. (6) D.S. 16.48-51. See RUZICKA2012.
'D.S. 14.79.4, 15.3.3, 15.9.4, 15.90.2; Isoc. 6.63; Theopomp.Hist.(FGrF 115) F103;X.Xge& 2.27-30.
3 FANTALKIN and TAL 2006; UDEM 2012.
" LIPSCHITS and VANDERHOOFT 2007; UDEM 2014: §4.
^ GITLER 2000; IDEM 2011.
^ See UEHLFNGER 1999: 178f. The majority of Samarian coinage is known from two hoards: the Samaria
Hoard (CF 9.413) and the Nablus Hoard (7GCF 1504). MESHORER and QEDAR 1999 published both,
expanding on the catalogue of UDEM 1991. Further additions to the corpus of known Samarian issues were madę
by GITLER and TAL 2006b; RONEN 2007; MESHORER, BIJOVSKY and FISCHER-BOSSERT 2013: 208,
no. 42 and 216, nos. 148-150. On the dates of Samarian coinage, see MESHORER and QEDAR 1991: 65; ELAYI
and ELAYI 1993: 230; TAL 2011: 450, n. 8.
'BODZEK 2008: 3.
' E.g. MESHORER and QEDAR 1999: nos. 71-72.
^ E.g. RMC Cilicia: 100, no. 9, PI. XVII.9. On the possible signihcance of these tiarate heads and their
diadems, see ZAHLE 1982; DUSINBERRE 2003. On tiarate heads in Samarian coinage: BODZEK 201 la.
BRIANT 2002: 714-716; WYSSMANN 2013. On designating the hgure as generically royal (i.e. not the
Achaemenid king); ROOT 1979: 303-308. Cf. BOARDMAN 2000: 148f.
" On horse: e.g. MESHORER and QEDAR 1999: nos. 15, 74. See BODZEK 2000; IDEM 2007. Engaging
with beasts: e.g. MESHORER and QEDAR 1999: nos. 20, 22, 35, 55-56. On throne: e.g. IIDEM: nos. 40. 47.
Running archer: e.g. UDEM: nos. 16, 32, 97, 153, 205.
" E.g. monumental: ROOT 1979: Pis. 28a-b; BRIANT 2002: 224, Fig. 24. Glyptic: BOARDMAN 2000:
Figs. 4.19, 5.1-2; GARRISON and ROOT2001.
" See MESHORER and QEDAR 1991: 23.