DOI Heft:
Artikuły / Articles
DOI Artikel:Bodzek, Jarosław: A new Achaemenid coin: several comments on a unique tetradrachm of the type “Great King/Prow” and some other issues of the satraps
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.43282#0037
A NEW ACHAEMENID COIN...
some minor stylistic discrepancies. The stempost, although also bent forwards in
an S-shaped form, seems somewhat morę robust on the daric, while the beams
of theproembolion are joined together with two elements. The epotis on the prow
of the daric is less discernible and the deck board is longer and higher in comparison
to the stempost on the tetradrachm. Finally, there is no open-work part on the daric.
Also worth mentioning is the Carian letter “e” on the daric, which takes the place
of the parasemon on the tetradrachm. There is no additional element in the form
of a dolphin image on the reverse of the daric.
Similar stylistic differences pertain to the image of the Great King on the obverse.
The surface of the daric’s obverse is in worse condition than that of the tetradrachm,
with the coin die imprint not completely overlapping with the disc surface. For this
reason, it is impossible to make a precise assessment of certain details of the gold coin.
Despite the king being in the same position, his figurę has slightly different proportions.
The torso comes across as longer and slimmer and the legs, shorter. The daric’s state
does not make it possible to determine if the details of the (bare) left leg are depicted
in a way that is similar to that of the figurę on the tetradrachm. The robe is, generally
speaking, similar, but the folds are not represented in as regulär a fashion as on
the tetradrachm, while the trimming that draws the triangle in the upper segment of
the robe, though more distinct, is apparently more schematic. In the case of the daric,
the king’s head is slightly bowed forward; the beard does not lean against his shoulder,
as in the case of the tetradrachm, but rather falls upon his ehest. The wear and tear
of this gold coin - but also the fact that it is off-centred - makes it impossible to
discern the details of the king’s headwear, beard, and hair. It can be said for certain that
the beard is long and that the hair resembles the “ostrich-plume” type. There are,
however, elear differences between the weaponry on both coins. The ends of the bow
on the daric are not bent outwards, while the spear has a wider and more solid leaf-
shaped head and a globe-shaped (or apple-shaped) rest.24
Although these differences only concern the details, they indicate that the coins
represent two separate, unconnected issues. However, because they make use of
the same iconographic motif, it may be that inspiration for one of the coins is drawn
from the other.
At this point, it should be said that maritime iconography, which makes
references to the concept of naval supremacy, was not very popular on Achaemenid
coinage, either with regards to royal issues or issues by satraps. To date, we only have
a handful of issues in the name of satraps in which maritime motifs are employed.25
24 Cf. footnote 12 above.
25 On this topie, cf. BODZEK 2003.
some minor stylistic discrepancies. The stempost, although also bent forwards in
an S-shaped form, seems somewhat morę robust on the daric, while the beams
of theproembolion are joined together with two elements. The epotis on the prow
of the daric is less discernible and the deck board is longer and higher in comparison
to the stempost on the tetradrachm. Finally, there is no open-work part on the daric.
Also worth mentioning is the Carian letter “e” on the daric, which takes the place
of the parasemon on the tetradrachm. There is no additional element in the form
of a dolphin image on the reverse of the daric.
Similar stylistic differences pertain to the image of the Great King on the obverse.
The surface of the daric’s obverse is in worse condition than that of the tetradrachm,
with the coin die imprint not completely overlapping with the disc surface. For this
reason, it is impossible to make a precise assessment of certain details of the gold coin.
Despite the king being in the same position, his figurę has slightly different proportions.
The torso comes across as longer and slimmer and the legs, shorter. The daric’s state
does not make it possible to determine if the details of the (bare) left leg are depicted
in a way that is similar to that of the figurę on the tetradrachm. The robe is, generally
speaking, similar, but the folds are not represented in as regulär a fashion as on
the tetradrachm, while the trimming that draws the triangle in the upper segment of
the robe, though more distinct, is apparently more schematic. In the case of the daric,
the king’s head is slightly bowed forward; the beard does not lean against his shoulder,
as in the case of the tetradrachm, but rather falls upon his ehest. The wear and tear
of this gold coin - but also the fact that it is off-centred - makes it impossible to
discern the details of the king’s headwear, beard, and hair. It can be said for certain that
the beard is long and that the hair resembles the “ostrich-plume” type. There are,
however, elear differences between the weaponry on both coins. The ends of the bow
on the daric are not bent outwards, while the spear has a wider and more solid leaf-
shaped head and a globe-shaped (or apple-shaped) rest.24
Although these differences only concern the details, they indicate that the coins
represent two separate, unconnected issues. However, because they make use of
the same iconographic motif, it may be that inspiration for one of the coins is drawn
from the other.
At this point, it should be said that maritime iconography, which makes
references to the concept of naval supremacy, was not very popular on Achaemenid
coinage, either with regards to royal issues or issues by satraps. To date, we only have
a handful of issues in the name of satraps in which maritime motifs are employed.25
24 Cf. footnote 12 above.
25 On this topie, cf. BODZEK 2003.