Divine Attributes on Hellenistic Coinages: From noble to humble and back (original) (raw)
Related papers
Hellenistic Royal Coinage (Review Article)
Numismatic Chronicle, 2021
Review of S. Glenn Money and Power in Hellenistic Bactria, Numismatic Studies 43, New York, The American Numismatic Society, 2020 and K. Panagopoulou, The Early Antigonids: Coinage, Money, and the Economy, Numismatic Studies 37, New York, The American Numismatic Society, 2020.
In the course of the last few decades the coinage of the kings of Paphos has been the object of studies dedicated to the attribution – or reattribution – of coin series1, to discussions on the iconography, epigraphy or metrology of specific coin issues2 and to the study of coin circulation and distribution3. Although no complete die study has been published for this coinage – a thorough analysis that could help us better understand the succession of the kings, the dating of the issues, the volume of the coinage, the continuity or not of specific series, the surviving denominations with their iconographical choices and legends – , our knowledge of the coinage of the kings of Paphos has progressed in the past few years. Tracing the evolution of research is one part of this paper’s contribution, but its main purpose is to restore the list of the kings of Paphos through the combined study of the literary, epigraphic and numismatic evidence available and to enquire about dating and other issues that will help us to evaluate – and re-evaluate – our state of knowledge.
The paper develops in full the idea that the portrait of the ruling Ptolemy could appear on silver coinage only if it was struck in newly acquired or recovered territory. This policy was modified somewhat in the second and first centuries, and different policies governed the appearance of royal portraits on gold and bronze coinage.
Control marks on Hellenistic royal coinages: use, and evolution towards simplification?
Revue belge de Numismatique, 2012
is paper aims to shed light on the interpretation of secondary marks (symbols, monograms and letters) on Hellenistic royal issues. ese marks have been variously interpreted as personal marks of a range of people, acting either outside the mint (the eponym magistrate of the city, the magistrate in charge of the monetary affairs, the benefactor who provides the metal, or even the military commander for whom coins were primarily issued) or inside the mint (the mint master, the engraver or various subordinate monetary officials). ey have also been attributed to non-personal purposes (to identify officinae, indicate the source of the metal, or to designate military units as beneficiaries). Not all these explanations are convincing, and several appear very unlikely or exceptional (magistrates, liturges, engravers, military officers or units). e marks are best viewed as internal control marks, whose number and efficiency have to be considered in their broader archival context. Hence, the paucity of secondary marks on late Ptolemaic issues (a year and a mint) likely implies a more secure system of written records.
Roman coins are peculiar objects. In the first place, they were the official means of payment of the Roman Empire and thus the most important mass product of the pre-modern era. Because of the many images and texts depicted on ancient coins, we can also correctly refer to Roman coins as the first mass medium of antiquity. Given their intrinsic monetary function, they reached the remotest corners of the empire and were able to communicate the messages of the imperial administration to the people. However, in their aesthetics—both in their materiality and in their function as a means of communication—Roman coins differ fundamentally from their modern relatives. It is precisely this that the present exhibition takes as a starting point, aiming to present a broad perspective of the phenomenon of Roman coins and their peculiar aesthetics and significance in an ancient context. To this end, we have chosen five representative thematic areas, which we believe can be used to present the most important perspectives on ancient life: Beautiful and Ugly / Portraits / Representations of Nature / Dynasties / Role Models. The broad spectrum of themes makes it clear; the beauty or specific nature of these objects is and was truly in the eye of the beholder.
The iconography of the indigenous coinages of Palestine was influenced by Western (Greek, Eastern Greek and Southern Anatolian), Eastern (Phoenician and Achaemenid in the broad sense of the term), and Egyptian sources. However, the most striking influence on the Philistian coinage is notably Athenian, that on the Samarian coins was remarkably Achaemenid and the influence on the coinage of Judah is principally Athenian and Achaemenid. The people of ancient Palestine observed these foreign motifs and more often than not adopted and adapted them to local use. The external influence was so strong that the local designs, in many cases, remarkably resemble the original motifs. The repetitive nature of much of the designs in these coins suggests that the figures and scenes they depict were familiar to contemporaries within the region‚s defined borders and probably even beyond.This paper examines the appearance of the image of the Achaemenid Great King on Philistian, Samarian and Judean issues of the Persian period in an attempt to determine whether this can been seen as antecedent evidence for the so-called local royal cult reflected on Palestinian coins of the early Hellenistic period.
C. Lauranson-Rosaz & Ph. Delaigue (eds.), Mémoires des origines et stratégies de légitimation du pouvoir, Paris 2021 (1st ed. 2020), 81–103., 2021
Collective memory quite often lies in the nexus where social beliefs can be interwoven with legitimacy claims advanced by authority, while ideology customarily emerges to provide symbolic models and suasive images through which power is justified. The image of Alexander the Great persisted long after his passing and was disseminated over a large area, especially with the assistance of the means of coinage. Even more, the figure of Alexander transcended the Hellenistic Age and continued to have a significant impact, haunting the metallic fields of coins and coin-shaped artefacts. The appeal of the great campaigner was employed on occasion to draw attention to cities as ‘lieux de mémoire’, to evoke identity pieces from a glorious past, as well as to flatter ambitions of Roman emperors. As Alexander was transformed after a fashion into a model of chivalry, his images travelled through time surviving into the Renaissance and beyond. Building upon essays that take a broader approach, the present paper focuses on a few somehow neglected case studies, in an attempt to offer a more thorough analysis of the selected material. Such a case is constituted by coin issues of Smyrna with the representation of the local legend relating the ‘dream of Alexander’ (first emission appearing in the name of Marcus Aurelius; a couple more were minted just before the middle of the 3rd century AD). Another intriguing example is traced on ‘medallions’ of Abydos depicting the crossing of the Hellespont by Alexander; the query about the raison d’être of the initial appearance on an issue for Commodus as caesar leads to a rather revealing insight; quite interestingly this coin type was later re-used by Septimius Severus, Caracalla (as caesar), Severus Alexander and Maximinus Thrax. The lasting impression made by the numismatic portrait of Alexander the Great moves to another level as the discussion comes to certain Renaissance medallions. The focus is turned particularly on the reputed meeting of Alexander with the Jewish High Priest, illustrated on medals produced for Pope Paul III by the engraver Alessandro Cesati (1545/46), a subject rich in connotations.