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#0039
A NEW ACHAEMENID COIN...
the meaning of the obverses mentioned above. First of all, this daric is of a type
that is characteristic for Achaemenid gold coinage; these coins had much popular
appeal and were readily received by soldiers. The choice of the type was therefore,
on the one hand, certainly dictated by economic reasons, but on the other hand,
the selection of the Great King’s image may be treated as an expression of the issuer’s
loyalty towards the ruler and at the same time as confirmation of the legitimacy of
the military Operation being embarked upon. Simultaneously, the issuer buttressed
his own authority by appealing to that of his superior, namely the Great King.30
We should view in a similar context the presence of the Great King’s figurę on
the reverse of the above-named tetradrachm of the “Tiarate head/Great King with
Galley” type and the other coins that are part of this issue as well as the obverses
of the coin type “Great King/map of Ionia” and those of the “Great King/Iranian
horseman” type.31 In turn, the maritime motifs on the reverses of the four issues
described here make reference to the idea of naval supremacy and, most probably,
also to the character of the military campaigns being prepared.32 At least in one
case, the issue of Pharnabazos struck at Kyzikos, the reverse type refers to a specific
victory, namely the Battle of Knidos.33 In three cases, the maritime motifs are prow
or warship images (the latter in the case of Mazakes’ issue), these constituting
the main reverse type. In the fourth case, while it is true that the warship in the coin
type “Tiarate head/King with Galley” is just an addition to the figurę of the Great
King, on account of the size of the ship’s depiction in relation to the main image
(the king), it should not be seen as an ordinary complementary symbol. Instead,
this is morę like an extra motif bearing a definite symbolic meaning. The subject of
this article, the recently published tetradrachm, fits in perfectly with the ideological
Programme as described above, though it is particularly similar, of course, to its
closest analogy, i.e. the daric from the former de Luynes collection.
To grasp the whole context of the origin of this coin, it is worth considering
when the coin may have been issued. In the auction item description, the auctioneer
proposed that the coin be dated to c. 350-333 BC, pointing to the era of the
30 Cf. the so-called Dependenztheorie represented in the context of Achaemenid art by J. Borchhardt (1983b;
IDEM 1985).
31 For this interesting issue, which includes tetradrachms, drachinae, andbronze coins, cf. SIX 1877: PI. III;
BABELON 1893: cxx-cxxv, 91-92, nos. 620-623, PI. XVII, 14-16; IDEM 1910: 159ff; KONUK 2000: 177ff,
PI. XXX, 8-23; MEADOWS 2002: 210ff, PI. 30-31; ANDERSON and VAN ALFEN 2008: PI. 47, 5-7; BODZEK
2011: 70fF, 192fF, PI. IX, 9-13.
32 Cf. IDEM 2003: 20fF.
33 Cf. IDEM 2000; IDEM 2004: 18f; IDEM 2011: lOOff. However, Maffre (2003) takes a different view,
for he dates this particular issue to the years 398-396/395 BC. Cf. BODZEK 2011 for a bibliography for further
reading and for other propositions for dating this coinage. See also footnote 24.
the meaning of the obverses mentioned above. First of all, this daric is of a type
that is characteristic for Achaemenid gold coinage; these coins had much popular
appeal and were readily received by soldiers. The choice of the type was therefore,
on the one hand, certainly dictated by economic reasons, but on the other hand,
the selection of the Great King’s image may be treated as an expression of the issuer’s
loyalty towards the ruler and at the same time as confirmation of the legitimacy of
the military Operation being embarked upon. Simultaneously, the issuer buttressed
his own authority by appealing to that of his superior, namely the Great King.30
We should view in a similar context the presence of the Great King’s figurę on
the reverse of the above-named tetradrachm of the “Tiarate head/Great King with
Galley” type and the other coins that are part of this issue as well as the obverses
of the coin type “Great King/map of Ionia” and those of the “Great King/Iranian
horseman” type.31 In turn, the maritime motifs on the reverses of the four issues
described here make reference to the idea of naval supremacy and, most probably,
also to the character of the military campaigns being prepared.32 At least in one
case, the issue of Pharnabazos struck at Kyzikos, the reverse type refers to a specific
victory, namely the Battle of Knidos.33 In three cases, the maritime motifs are prow
or warship images (the latter in the case of Mazakes’ issue), these constituting
the main reverse type. In the fourth case, while it is true that the warship in the coin
type “Tiarate head/King with Galley” is just an addition to the figurę of the Great
King, on account of the size of the ship’s depiction in relation to the main image
(the king), it should not be seen as an ordinary complementary symbol. Instead,
this is morę like an extra motif bearing a definite symbolic meaning. The subject of
this article, the recently published tetradrachm, fits in perfectly with the ideological
Programme as described above, though it is particularly similar, of course, to its
closest analogy, i.e. the daric from the former de Luynes collection.
To grasp the whole context of the origin of this coin, it is worth considering
when the coin may have been issued. In the auction item description, the auctioneer
proposed that the coin be dated to c. 350-333 BC, pointing to the era of the
30 Cf. the so-called Dependenztheorie represented in the context of Achaemenid art by J. Borchhardt (1983b;
IDEM 1985).
31 For this interesting issue, which includes tetradrachms, drachinae, andbronze coins, cf. SIX 1877: PI. III;
BABELON 1893: cxx-cxxv, 91-92, nos. 620-623, PI. XVII, 14-16; IDEM 1910: 159ff; KONUK 2000: 177ff,
PI. XXX, 8-23; MEADOWS 2002: 210ff, PI. 30-31; ANDERSON and VAN ALFEN 2008: PI. 47, 5-7; BODZEK
2011: 70fF, 192fF, PI. IX, 9-13.
32 Cf. IDEM 2003: 20fF.
33 Cf. IDEM 2000; IDEM 2004: 18f; IDEM 2011: lOOff. However, Maffre (2003) takes a different view,
for he dates this particular issue to the years 398-396/395 BC. Cf. BODZEK 2011 for a bibliography for further
reading and for other propositions for dating this coinage. See also footnote 24.