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#0041
A NEW ACHAEMENID COIN...
by the form of the name ÜYGArOPHE, known from Ionia and the neighbouring
islands and attested only in the coinage of Ephesus and Samos; it is also confirmed
by inscriptions from Kolophon.42 The above-mentioned appearance of the identical
officiaTs name on the coins out of one of the civic series of Ephesus was the reason
that this city’s mint was credited with having manufactured these specific coins.
The identity of the figures behind the issues must be ruled out, however, in the
light of the new chronological findings. The series of the civic coinage of Ephesus
bearing the name TlY0ArOPHI had been struck several years after the depositing
of the “Pixodaros Hoard,” i.e. after 341/340 BC.43 This latter deposit included, as
I have noted, one piece from the described issue of the type “Great King/map of
Ionia.” Thus, the satrap’s issue would have come at least several years earlier than
the civic coins with the said name. Although the identification of two Pythagores
coins has been questioned, the hypothesis on the mintage of the issue “Great King/
map of Ionia” at Ephesus remains likely.44 The dates of these coins have proved to
be difficult to determine as well. They were associated with Memnon of Rhodes,
thus putting their datę of issue to the years before c. 334 BC.45 The presence of one
piece in the “Pixodaros Hoard” has shifted the terminus ante quem for this particular
issue to 341/340 BC. Still, the key to the correct determination of the issue dates of
these coins is a smali hoard unearthed at Miletus in 2007.46 Among its nine coins
there were two pieces that belonged to the presently described issue. The hoard was
discovered during regulär archaeological research work, thanks to which we know
the fuli details of its composition and context. According to B. Weisser, this hoard
would have been deposited in c. 390-385 BC, or perhaps even a little earlier.47
Therefore, the beginning of the issue of those coins should be dated back to at least
the very beginning of the 4,h Century BC. A different question is the duration of
this specific coinage. The number of obverses and reverses as well as the presence
(or absence) of diverse legends may indicate - though it does not have to - that
42 JOHNSTON 1967: 86; MEADOWS 2002: 209; for the attribution of this particular issue to Ionia and
Ephesus, see: JOHNSTON 1967: 88.
43 MEADOWS 2002: 209; KINNS 2002: 183. 194f, 205; WEISSER 2009: 154.
44 Cf. JOHNSTON 1967: 88. The author also takesnote ofthe resemblance betweenthe mintage ofthe coins
of this issue and the coinage of Ephesus. A. Meadows (2002; 2009) and B. Weisser (2009: 155) have pointed,
however, to the substantiated presence of this name in other cities of Ionia as well.
45 Cf. BABELON 1910: 129ff; JOHNSTON 1976: 89; MILDENBERG 1998c: 25; IDEM 1998a: 286,
no. 81 - dated to c. 340 BC. Mildenberg argues that the existence of many different obverse and reverse dies
indicates that production began early and was long-running. For the possible dates of issue, cf. also IDEM 2000: 13.
As already mentioned, Mildenberg rejects the idea that it is possible to regard this coinage as an issue of the satraps,
instead considering it a royal issue.
46 WEISSER 2009: passim.
47 IDEM 2009: 156. B. Weisser gives this hoard a slightly earlier dating because of the fact that no coins of
Hekatomnos are present among its contents. Nonetheless, it should be taken into account that the hoard contained
only nine coins, which could be the reason for the lack of coins in the name of the satrap of Caria.
by the form of the name ÜYGArOPHE, known from Ionia and the neighbouring
islands and attested only in the coinage of Ephesus and Samos; it is also confirmed
by inscriptions from Kolophon.42 The above-mentioned appearance of the identical
officiaTs name on the coins out of one of the civic series of Ephesus was the reason
that this city’s mint was credited with having manufactured these specific coins.
The identity of the figures behind the issues must be ruled out, however, in the
light of the new chronological findings. The series of the civic coinage of Ephesus
bearing the name TlY0ArOPHI had been struck several years after the depositing
of the “Pixodaros Hoard,” i.e. after 341/340 BC.43 This latter deposit included, as
I have noted, one piece from the described issue of the type “Great King/map of
Ionia.” Thus, the satrap’s issue would have come at least several years earlier than
the civic coins with the said name. Although the identification of two Pythagores
coins has been questioned, the hypothesis on the mintage of the issue “Great King/
map of Ionia” at Ephesus remains likely.44 The dates of these coins have proved to
be difficult to determine as well. They were associated with Memnon of Rhodes,
thus putting their datę of issue to the years before c. 334 BC.45 The presence of one
piece in the “Pixodaros Hoard” has shifted the terminus ante quem for this particular
issue to 341/340 BC. Still, the key to the correct determination of the issue dates of
these coins is a smali hoard unearthed at Miletus in 2007.46 Among its nine coins
there were two pieces that belonged to the presently described issue. The hoard was
discovered during regulär archaeological research work, thanks to which we know
the fuli details of its composition and context. According to B. Weisser, this hoard
would have been deposited in c. 390-385 BC, or perhaps even a little earlier.47
Therefore, the beginning of the issue of those coins should be dated back to at least
the very beginning of the 4,h Century BC. A different question is the duration of
this specific coinage. The number of obverses and reverses as well as the presence
(or absence) of diverse legends may indicate - though it does not have to - that
42 JOHNSTON 1967: 86; MEADOWS 2002: 209; for the attribution of this particular issue to Ionia and
Ephesus, see: JOHNSTON 1967: 88.
43 MEADOWS 2002: 209; KINNS 2002: 183. 194f, 205; WEISSER 2009: 154.
44 Cf. JOHNSTON 1967: 88. The author also takesnote ofthe resemblance betweenthe mintage ofthe coins
of this issue and the coinage of Ephesus. A. Meadows (2002; 2009) and B. Weisser (2009: 155) have pointed,
however, to the substantiated presence of this name in other cities of Ionia as well.
45 Cf. BABELON 1910: 129ff; JOHNSTON 1976: 89; MILDENBERG 1998c: 25; IDEM 1998a: 286,
no. 81 - dated to c. 340 BC. Mildenberg argues that the existence of many different obverse and reverse dies
indicates that production began early and was long-running. For the possible dates of issue, cf. also IDEM 2000: 13.
As already mentioned, Mildenberg rejects the idea that it is possible to regard this coinage as an issue of the satraps,
instead considering it a royal issue.
46 WEISSER 2009: passim.
47 IDEM 2009: 156. B. Weisser gives this hoard a slightly earlier dating because of the fact that no coins of
Hekatomnos are present among its contents. Nonetheless, it should be taken into account that the hoard contained
only nine coins, which could be the reason for the lack of coins in the name of the satrap of Caria.