DOI issue:
Artikuły / Articles
DOI article: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 Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.43282#0038
JAROSŁAW BODZEK
Some notable examples are the aforementioned gold coin from the de Luynes
collection depicting a prow on the reverse, the silver coins of the well-known issue
o f Pharnabazos, struck at Kyzikos,26 and the tetradrachm of the “Tiarate Head/King
with Galley” type, known from pieces in collections in Berlin and New York.27
To these, we should also add a chalkus in the name of Mazakes (333-332 BC),
the satrap of Egypt, which is not covered in the previously mentioned article by
J. Bodzek.28 A similar iconographic pattem is used in all of the above-mentioned
cases: the obverse bears the issuer’s image, while a representation referring to naval
supremacy is depicted on the reverse. The obverses of the coins in the name of
Pharnabazos, Mazakes, and the anonymous issuer of the coin type “Tiarate head/
King with Galley” feature a head with a tiara, which is not only the headwear that
is part of the Iranian cavalry outfit but a symbol of affiliation with the Achaemenid
aristocratic caste. At the same time, this headwear is the symbol of the office/
function exercised by the satrap, by a karanos, or generally by a military commander
(admirał).29 The obverse type would thus refer in all these cases to the direct holder
of the funds who is, at the same time, the superior of the soldiers/sailors who would
have been the recipients of this coinage, thus ensuring the loyalty of these soldiers/
sailors. With regard to the daric from the de Tuynes collection, the image of the Great
King on the obverse has two meanings, both of which are slightly different from
26 With regard to relatively recent publications, cf. BODZEK 2000: 172; IDEM 2003: 12f; IDEM 2004:
18f; MAFFRE 2004: 1 lff; BODZEK 2011: lOOflf and the bibliography therein. On the basis of a stylistic analysis,
C.M. Harrison (1982: 422ff) opted for ascribing the issue in question to Pharnabazos the Younger, commander of
the Persian fleet in the years 334-333 BC. This attribution is incorrect for the following reasons: 1) Pharnabazos
the Younger had no access to Kyzikos during the naval campaign against Alexander, as it was already under
Macedonian control (cf. BODZEK 2000: 172; MAFFRE 2004: 12f); 2) The style of the tiarate head image, though
indeed characteristic of the 4th Century BC, is closer to the beginning of that Century rather than to its latter half
(cf. BODZEK 2000). The most complete listing of all the known pieces in this denonunationally extensive issue
canbe found in: MAFFRE 2004: 2ff, 28, ill. 1-11 (tetradrachms); 29, ill. 1-5 (drachmae); la-lb (hemidrachms);
cf. also BODZEK 2000: 170, PI. 1-9 (tetradrachms), 10-12 (drachmae), 13-14 (hemidrachms).
27 HEAD 1877: 50, PI. III, 25; SIX 1888: 109f; BABELON 1893: xxxi; IDEM 1910: no. 52, col. 103ff,
PI. LXXXVI1I, 10; REGLING 1924: PI. XIX, 425; ROBINSON 1948: 48ff; SCHWABACHER 1957: 101,
PI. IV, 3; FRANKE and H1RMER 1966: PI. 184, no. 623; CAHN 1975: 85; STARR 1977: 89; HARRISON 1982:
97ff; MILDENBERG 1993: 70f; DEBORD 1999: PI. I, 16; MILDENBERG 2000: 13f, PI. III, 2; BODZEK
2003: 15ff, PI. I, 3; IDEM 2011: 771F, 187, PI. IX, 5. The piece in the ANS collection is available for perusal at:
http://numismatics.org/collection/1967.152.462?lang=pl [accessed24 September 2017], The coin is part of an issue
that is comprised of tetradrachms (cf. WEISSER 2006: no. 49), drachmae (HEAD 1877: PI. III, 26 = BABELON
1910; no. 52, PI. LXXXVIII, 11; WINZER 2005; no. 10.6, PI. 3), hemidrachms (Babelon 1893: no. 3, PI. IV,4
= IDEM 1910: no. 53, PI. LXXXVIII, 12; MILDENBERG 2000: PI. III, 3), chalkoi (BABELON 1910: no. 54,
PL LXXXVIII, 13; CAHN 1985: 591, fig. 9; KLEIN 1999: no. 254; WINZER 2005: no. 10.1, PI. 3); cf. BODZEK
2011: 77ff, 187; IDEM 2014: 71. It should be noted that only the tetradrachms in the Berlin andANS collections
bears the war ship depiction.
28 Cf. NICOLET-PIERRE 1979: PI. 26C; HARRISON 1982: 500, Series II; AL RAM 1986: 117, type 2,
no. 377, PI. 12; VAN ALFEN 2002: 32, fraction 1; WINZER 2005: 49, no. 21.1, PI. 4; BODZEK 2011: PI. VIII,
15. I would not include the silver obol(?) minted in the name of Sabakes (c. 340-333), Mazakes’ predecessor as
satrap of Egypt. This coin is actually a Sydon-type imitation and it would be difficult to regard the reason for its
having been minted as being other than economically motivated.
29 Cf. BODZEK 2000: 173; BODZEK 2003: 17.
Some notable examples are the aforementioned gold coin from the de Luynes
collection depicting a prow on the reverse, the silver coins of the well-known issue
o f Pharnabazos, struck at Kyzikos,26 and the tetradrachm of the “Tiarate Head/King
with Galley” type, known from pieces in collections in Berlin and New York.27
To these, we should also add a chalkus in the name of Mazakes (333-332 BC),
the satrap of Egypt, which is not covered in the previously mentioned article by
J. Bodzek.28 A similar iconographic pattem is used in all of the above-mentioned
cases: the obverse bears the issuer’s image, while a representation referring to naval
supremacy is depicted on the reverse. The obverses of the coins in the name of
Pharnabazos, Mazakes, and the anonymous issuer of the coin type “Tiarate head/
King with Galley” feature a head with a tiara, which is not only the headwear that
is part of the Iranian cavalry outfit but a symbol of affiliation with the Achaemenid
aristocratic caste. At the same time, this headwear is the symbol of the office/
function exercised by the satrap, by a karanos, or generally by a military commander
(admirał).29 The obverse type would thus refer in all these cases to the direct holder
of the funds who is, at the same time, the superior of the soldiers/sailors who would
have been the recipients of this coinage, thus ensuring the loyalty of these soldiers/
sailors. With regard to the daric from the de Tuynes collection, the image of the Great
King on the obverse has two meanings, both of which are slightly different from
26 With regard to relatively recent publications, cf. BODZEK 2000: 172; IDEM 2003: 12f; IDEM 2004:
18f; MAFFRE 2004: 1 lff; BODZEK 2011: lOOflf and the bibliography therein. On the basis of a stylistic analysis,
C.M. Harrison (1982: 422ff) opted for ascribing the issue in question to Pharnabazos the Younger, commander of
the Persian fleet in the years 334-333 BC. This attribution is incorrect for the following reasons: 1) Pharnabazos
the Younger had no access to Kyzikos during the naval campaign against Alexander, as it was already under
Macedonian control (cf. BODZEK 2000: 172; MAFFRE 2004: 12f); 2) The style of the tiarate head image, though
indeed characteristic of the 4th Century BC, is closer to the beginning of that Century rather than to its latter half
(cf. BODZEK 2000). The most complete listing of all the known pieces in this denonunationally extensive issue
canbe found in: MAFFRE 2004: 2ff, 28, ill. 1-11 (tetradrachms); 29, ill. 1-5 (drachmae); la-lb (hemidrachms);
cf. also BODZEK 2000: 170, PI. 1-9 (tetradrachms), 10-12 (drachmae), 13-14 (hemidrachms).
27 HEAD 1877: 50, PI. III, 25; SIX 1888: 109f; BABELON 1893: xxxi; IDEM 1910: no. 52, col. 103ff,
PI. LXXXVI1I, 10; REGLING 1924: PI. XIX, 425; ROBINSON 1948: 48ff; SCHWABACHER 1957: 101,
PI. IV, 3; FRANKE and H1RMER 1966: PI. 184, no. 623; CAHN 1975: 85; STARR 1977: 89; HARRISON 1982:
97ff; MILDENBERG 1993: 70f; DEBORD 1999: PI. I, 16; MILDENBERG 2000: 13f, PI. III, 2; BODZEK
2003: 15ff, PI. I, 3; IDEM 2011: 771F, 187, PI. IX, 5. The piece in the ANS collection is available for perusal at:
http://numismatics.org/collection/1967.152.462?lang=pl [accessed24 September 2017], The coin is part of an issue
that is comprised of tetradrachms (cf. WEISSER 2006: no. 49), drachmae (HEAD 1877: PI. III, 26 = BABELON
1910; no. 52, PI. LXXXVIII, 11; WINZER 2005; no. 10.6, PI. 3), hemidrachms (Babelon 1893: no. 3, PI. IV,4
= IDEM 1910: no. 53, PI. LXXXVIII, 12; MILDENBERG 2000: PI. III, 3), chalkoi (BABELON 1910: no. 54,
PL LXXXVIII, 13; CAHN 1985: 591, fig. 9; KLEIN 1999: no. 254; WINZER 2005: no. 10.1, PI. 3); cf. BODZEK
2011: 77ff, 187; IDEM 2014: 71. It should be noted that only the tetradrachms in the Berlin andANS collections
bears the war ship depiction.
28 Cf. NICOLET-PIERRE 1979: PI. 26C; HARRISON 1982: 500, Series II; AL RAM 1986: 117, type 2,
no. 377, PI. 12; VAN ALFEN 2002: 32, fraction 1; WINZER 2005: 49, no. 21.1, PI. 4; BODZEK 2011: PI. VIII,
15. I would not include the silver obol(?) minted in the name of Sabakes (c. 340-333), Mazakes’ predecessor as
satrap of Egypt. This coin is actually a Sydon-type imitation and it would be difficult to regard the reason for its
having been minted as being other than economically motivated.
29 Cf. BODZEK 2000: 173; BODZEK 2003: 17.