DOI issue:
Artykuły/Articles
DOI article:Bodzek, Jarosław: The Satraps of Caria and the Lycians in the Achaemenid Period: Where is the Numismatic Evidence?
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.57341#0026
JAROSŁAW BODZEK
24
Asia Minor, possibly at Adramytteion in Aeolis (variation B).64 This double use of
the Iranian horseman type by the same satrap in the case of two different mints,
located in different regions seems to be quite significant.
To sum up: while striking coins in his own name in Lycia, Tissaphemes decided
to use a type which was unusual and extraordinary for Lycian coinage but meaningful
and relatively popular for satrapal issues. What is significant is that the satrap did not
choose the other coin type popular in Lycia and also recalling to ethos of Achaemenid
aristocracy i.e. tiarate head. The latter type was used by some Lycian dynasts active in
the later 5th and early 4th centuries BC,65 and is usually interpreted as a manifestation
of a pro Persian attitude. However, there is no degree of certainty who are depicted
on the coins. Are they dynasts, satraps, deities or deified ancestors? For example,
Herbert A. Cahn proposed identifying tiarate heads on Lycian coins as portraits of
Tissaphemes and of other satraps.66 Whatever the case, it seems that the Iranian
horseman type, given that it is much more individual and stands out in the Lycian
milieu, better served Tissaphemes’ self-propaganda than the head with a tiara type
presented on coins of different issuers of lesser rank (dynasts and so on). It is worth
emphasizing that Tissaphemes would have probably had to supply his own metal
in order to strike an issue with a distinctive iconography and carrying his name.67
From our point of view, an interesting issue concerns Tissaphemes’ position
when he struck the discussed Lycian coins. Was he acting as a karanos, a satrap
of Lydia or a satrap of Caria? The answer is far from clear and directly related to
the question of how we date the Xanthian coin. Tissaphemes was politically active
in the western provinces of the Achaemenid state c. 413-3 95 BC.68 He twice fulfilled
the post of karanos and satrap of Sardes (Lydia/Sparda) during this time, first between
c. 413 and 407 BC (Ctesias 52) and again in the years 400-395 BC. Meanwhile,
in 407M01 BC, he acted as a satrap of Caria where he had his oikos (i.e. a manor
or palace) (Xen. Hell. 1.4. Iff; Xen. Anab. 1.1.2, 1.9.7).69 It is generally agreed that
Tissaphemes struck his Lycian issue between 400 and 395 BC, which is to say,
during the second period of his rule as karanos.70 The basis for these dates has to
64 On the Tissaphemes bronze coins with horseman type, see: CAHN 1985: 588, no. 3, Fig. 4; IDEM 1989:
99, Pl. 3, 1; STAUBER 1996: 255f, A-B; KLEIN 1999: no. 255, Pl. IX; DEBORD 1999: Pl. 1,13; BODZEK 2011:
248f, Pl. II, 2; IDEM 2012: 109, Fig. 3; IDEM 2014a: Fig. 19; NIESWANDT 2012: 94, Tissaphemes typus 2.
65 On this topic, see: SCHWABACHER 1968; MORKHOLM and ZAHLE 1976: 76ff; ZAHLE 1982; IDEM
1990a; IDEM 1990b; BODZEK 1994.
66 CAHN 1975.
67 Cf. ZAHLE 1989: 172, 176.
68 Cf. SCHAEFER 1940: 1579f; SCHMITT 1992.
69 See: RUZICKA 1985; on Tissaphemes’ oikos in Caria, cf. Xen. Hell. III. 2.12; and HORNBLOWER
1982: 7, note 28. Cf. also PODRAZIK 2019 and a review of literature there.
70 It was Hurter (1979: 101) who dated the coin under discussion to between c. 400 and 395 BC. Anumber
of authors have come out in favor of the coin’s having been struck between these dates, including Zahle (1989:
24
Asia Minor, possibly at Adramytteion in Aeolis (variation B).64 This double use of
the Iranian horseman type by the same satrap in the case of two different mints,
located in different regions seems to be quite significant.
To sum up: while striking coins in his own name in Lycia, Tissaphemes decided
to use a type which was unusual and extraordinary for Lycian coinage but meaningful
and relatively popular for satrapal issues. What is significant is that the satrap did not
choose the other coin type popular in Lycia and also recalling to ethos of Achaemenid
aristocracy i.e. tiarate head. The latter type was used by some Lycian dynasts active in
the later 5th and early 4th centuries BC,65 and is usually interpreted as a manifestation
of a pro Persian attitude. However, there is no degree of certainty who are depicted
on the coins. Are they dynasts, satraps, deities or deified ancestors? For example,
Herbert A. Cahn proposed identifying tiarate heads on Lycian coins as portraits of
Tissaphemes and of other satraps.66 Whatever the case, it seems that the Iranian
horseman type, given that it is much more individual and stands out in the Lycian
milieu, better served Tissaphemes’ self-propaganda than the head with a tiara type
presented on coins of different issuers of lesser rank (dynasts and so on). It is worth
emphasizing that Tissaphemes would have probably had to supply his own metal
in order to strike an issue with a distinctive iconography and carrying his name.67
From our point of view, an interesting issue concerns Tissaphemes’ position
when he struck the discussed Lycian coins. Was he acting as a karanos, a satrap
of Lydia or a satrap of Caria? The answer is far from clear and directly related to
the question of how we date the Xanthian coin. Tissaphemes was politically active
in the western provinces of the Achaemenid state c. 413-3 95 BC.68 He twice fulfilled
the post of karanos and satrap of Sardes (Lydia/Sparda) during this time, first between
c. 413 and 407 BC (Ctesias 52) and again in the years 400-395 BC. Meanwhile,
in 407M01 BC, he acted as a satrap of Caria where he had his oikos (i.e. a manor
or palace) (Xen. Hell. 1.4. Iff; Xen. Anab. 1.1.2, 1.9.7).69 It is generally agreed that
Tissaphemes struck his Lycian issue between 400 and 395 BC, which is to say,
during the second period of his rule as karanos.70 The basis for these dates has to
64 On the Tissaphemes bronze coins with horseman type, see: CAHN 1985: 588, no. 3, Fig. 4; IDEM 1989:
99, Pl. 3, 1; STAUBER 1996: 255f, A-B; KLEIN 1999: no. 255, Pl. IX; DEBORD 1999: Pl. 1,13; BODZEK 2011:
248f, Pl. II, 2; IDEM 2012: 109, Fig. 3; IDEM 2014a: Fig. 19; NIESWANDT 2012: 94, Tissaphemes typus 2.
65 On this topic, see: SCHWABACHER 1968; MORKHOLM and ZAHLE 1976: 76ff; ZAHLE 1982; IDEM
1990a; IDEM 1990b; BODZEK 1994.
66 CAHN 1975.
67 Cf. ZAHLE 1989: 172, 176.
68 Cf. SCHAEFER 1940: 1579f; SCHMITT 1992.
69 See: RUZICKA 1985; on Tissaphemes’ oikos in Caria, cf. Xen. Hell. III. 2.12; and HORNBLOWER
1982: 7, note 28. Cf. also PODRAZIK 2019 and a review of literature there.
70 It was Hurter (1979: 101) who dated the coin under discussion to between c. 400 and 395 BC. Anumber
of authors have come out in favor of the coin’s having been struck between these dates, including Zahle (1989: