Academia.eduAcademia.edu
Coins from Asia Minor and the East Selections from the Colin E. Pitchfork Collection 2011 Coins from Asia Minor and the East Selections from the Colin E. Pitchfork Collection Nicholas L. Wright with contributions by O. Bopearachchi, G. Davis, J. Elayi, L. Horne, H. Ingvaldsen and K.A. Sheedy Ancient Coins in Australian Collections Volume Two AUSTRALIAN CENTRE FOR ANCIENT NUMISMATIC STUDIES Macquarie University NUMISMATIC ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA Coins from Asia Minor and the East: selections from the Colin E. Pitchfork collection by Nicholas L. Wright Copyright © 2011 he Australian Centre for Ancient Numismatic Studies, Sydney. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced without permission of the Australian Centre for Ancient Numismatic Studies Series editor Photographer K.A. Sheedy R.E. Climpson Published by the Numismatic Association of Australia, Adelaide. Produced by Phoenix Ofset. Printed in China. ISBN 978-0-646-55051-0 he exhibition Coins from Asia Minor and the East: selections from the Colin E. Pitchfork Collection was opened at the Macquarie University Museum of Ancient Cultures on the 25th of November 2011 at the hird Biennial Conference of the Numismatic Association of Australia. Exhibition Design R. Banks with the assistance of N.L.Wright and K.A. Sheedy Contents Page Preface and acknowledgements 6 Foreword 7 Understanding the earliest coinages Gil Davis 11 he island of Hippokrates, silver coins and a portrait myth Håkon Ingvaldsen 17 he heroic image and the portrait coinages of Lykian dynasts Kenneth A. Sheedy 23 he dating on coins: a Phoenician invention Josette Elayi 31 he problem of the autonomous wreathed coinage of Asia Minor Lauren Horne 35 he iconography of succession under the late Seleukids Nicholas L. Wright 41 he emergence of the Greco-Baktrian and Indo-Greek kingdoms Osmund Bopearachchi 47 Selections from the Colin E. Pitchfork collection Nicholas L. Wright 51 Cities and dynasts of Asia Minor 53 Pergamon and the autonomous wreathed tetradrachms of Asia Minor 77 Cities and dynasts of Southern Anatolia 87 Phoenicia 101 Imitative Attic issues of Palestine and Babylonia 115 Seleukid kings 119 Parthian kings 161 Greco-Baktrian kings 167 Abbreviations 180 Bibliography 181 he iconography of succession under the late Seleukids Nicholas L. Wright Australian Centre for Ancient Numismatic Studies, Macquarie University he Seleukid dynasty was one of the more complex and convoluted houses to rise from the ashes of Alexander the Great’s world empire.1 Past studies of Seleukid dynastic politics have focused either on the early period of the dynasty which saw the empire at its height, or else on the politics of the bitter internecine quarrels which brought the kingdom to its ultimate demise.2 his approach has largely been forced upon modern scholars by the limited and biased nature of the literary evidence available: Appian’s overview of the dynasty focusing on the second century BC defeat by Rome, scattered passages in Polybius, Diodorus, Justin, Josephus, Eusebius, Athenaeus and the books of the Maccabees. By and large, the scant archaeological evidence provides little insight into intra-dynastic policy, although epigraphic and numismatic data can be used to provide limited supplementary evidence. It is the intention of this paper to approach the subject of legitimacy and succession among the Seleukidai from a somewhat diferent angle. After providing a brief history of the dynasty’s internal disputes, I hope to highlight one of the mechanisms employed to maintain the functional integrity of the ruling house: the use of coinage to display familial continuity. When Alexander the Great died in 323 BC, he left no competent heir and his sprawling empire soon collapsed into competing Diadochic (successor) states. One of these successors, Seleukos I Nikator, consolidated western and central Asia into the largest of the new Hellenistic kingdoms. he dynasty founded by Seleukos continued to rule parts of Asia for almost two hundred and ifty years until the last of its kings were deposed by the Roman general Gnaeus Pompey in 64 BC. hroughout the early phase of their history (until 175 BC), the Seleukid ruling house showed remarkable stability. Rule of so vast a territory called for the delegation of royal authority and, almost from its inception, the Seleukid empire functioned smoothly as a diarchy.3 he king held supreme power but was collegially assisted by his eldest son who was associated with his father in power and considered the undisputed successor upon the king’s death. here are several good examples of this process: Seleukos I with Antiochos I;4 Antiochos I with his son Seleukos and later with Antiochos II.5 he collegial relationship fell apart when power was shared between the brothers Seleukos II and Antiochos Hierax6 but resumed its co-operative course under the former’s son Antiochos III with Antiochos ‘the Son’ and later with Seleukos IV.7 However, external forces conspired to dismember the program of diarchic partnerships. In 188 BC, Antiochos III the Great was compelled to sign the Peace of Apameia which stipulated that one of the king’s sons be sent to Rome as a hostage. Antiochos III retained his eldest surviving son and designated successor, the future Seleukos IV and dispatched his next eldest son (the future Antiochos IV Epiphanes) to Rome.8 After Seleukos IV’s succession, the new king sent his own son Demetrios to Rome in accordance with the Peace. His brother Antiochos was released from captivity and took up residence in Athens. Seleukos IV died unexpectedly in 175 BC and was succeeded by his younger son, another Antiochos, under the guidance of the chief minister (epi ton pragmaton) Heliodoros.9 However, the late king’s brother (still in Athens) was proclaimed king by Eumenes II of Pergamon and drove Heliodoros from the kingdom, assuming the throne as Antiochos IV Epiphanes. Epiphanes established a popular 1 See igure 1. For example, Bevan 1902; Bellinger 1949; Grainger 1990; Sherwin-White and Kurt 1993; Ogden 1999: 117-70. 3 Ogden 1999: 117-8. 4 App. Syr. 61; Euseb. Chron. Schoene edition p.247; Plut. Vit. Demetr. 38; SC 1: nos.233, 235, 279-82, 283a, 285-90, Ad19. 5 Trog. Prologue 26; Austin 2006: nos.163, 169. 6 Plut. Mor. 489a. 7 Welles 1934: no. 32; Vatin 1970: 87; Ogden 1999: 137-8. 8 App. Syr. 39; I Macc. 1.10. 9 App. Syr. 39 45. 2 41 N.L. Wright 42 Figure 1. Stemma of the Seleukid kings. he iconography of succession under the late Seleukids kingship and, married to the late king’s widow, founded his own line of successors.10 hus upon the death of Epiphanes in 164 BC, there were two equal claimants to the Seleukid kingship: Demetrios I, son of Seleukos IV, and his cousin Antiochos V, son of Antiochos IV Epiphanes. he next forty years saw endemic conlict between the senior and the Epiphanaic branches of the Seleukids which only ended with the death of Alexander II Zabinas, the last of the line of Epiphanes.11 However, a further schism had already developed within the senior branch of the dynasty. he detention of Demetrios II at the Parthian court between 138 and 129 BC led to the accession of his brother Antiochos VII Sidetes who, like Epiphanes before him, proved a popular and successful king and founded his own line of legitimate successors.12 From 114/3 BC the descendants of Demetrios II and Antiochos VII Sidetes perpetuated a self-destructive civil war which saw up to four kings (in 94 BC) disputing an ever shrinking territory until the kingdom was dissolved in 64 BC. Against this backdrop of familial feud and domestic violence, individual kings took certain measures to shore up their support base and the continued prosperity of their own line at the expense of their brothers and cousins. One powerful mechanism was the employment of rival sets of dynastic iconography. In the early second century BC, Apollo, the mythical progenitor of the Seleukid house, was far and away the single most dominant religious igure depicted on Seleukid coinage (see for example, coin nos.59-60 and 62-7 in the Pitchfork collection). With Antiochos IV Epiphanes’ usurpation in 175 BC came an iconographical reform which saw Apollo surpassed by Zeus as the royal patron (see nos.68-9). he reasons behind the religious change have been discussed elsewhere and need not be repeated here;13 it is suicient to say that Epiphanes’ iconographic program was perpetuated by kings who claimed their legitimacy through him: Antiochos V (no.70), Alexander I (no.72), and Alexander II (no.78). In contrast, the descendants of Seleukos IV (Demetrios I (no.71), Demetrios II (no.73) and Antiochos VII (no.75)) retained either the more traditional Apollo imagery, or else introduced their own unique iconographic types such as Atargatis-Tyche or Athena. Epiphanes also introduced the radiate crown as an attribute of Seleukid divine kingship and, like his utilisation of Zeus imagery, the radiate crown was employed by his descendants (see for example no.74), but was ignored or rejected by their contemporary rivals, the descendants of Seleukos IV. hat both the Zeus imagery and radiate crowns were popularly received in Syria is best illustrated by their adoption by Antiochos VIII Grypos (nos.7980), the descendant of Seleukos IV who inally removed the threat of Epiphanaic claimants through his defeat of Alexander II.14 he iconographic programs of Alexander I Balas and Alexander II Zabinas provide an interesting case in point. he two kings (his son and grandson respectively) drew their legitimacy from Antiochos IV Epiphanes, although both were subject to negative propaganda which cast doubt upon their parentage. At best, Alexander Balas was accepted as a Seleukid king without comment;15 at worst he was derided as a young man of the lowest station who falsely claimed royal paternity.16 He was accepted in Rome as the legitimate successor of Antiochos Epiphanes, although in Appian he is referred to three times as Alexandros Nothos – Alexander the Bastard.17 It is within this claim of bastardy that we ind the original reason behind the accusation that Balas was illegitimate. Beside his wife Laodike IV, Antiochos Epiphanes was known to have bestowed great honours upon his concubine Antiochis and it seems likely that this woman was the mother of Epiphanes’s second son, Alexander I Balas.18 All previous Seleukid rulers had been the legitimate children of a Seleukid king and his queen – in Alexander Balas we may have the irst son of a concubine to assume the Seleukid diadem. His mother’s lack of royal status could 10 App. Syr. 45; Athen. 5.193d; Livy 41.20-1; Polyb. 30.25-6. Just. Epit. 39.2.5-6. 12 App. Syr. 68; Joseph. AJ 13.222. 13 Wright 2007-08. 14 Wright 2005: 74. 15 Diod. 31.32a; Joseph. AJ 13.35. 16 Athen. 211a; App. Syr. 67; Just. Epit. 35.1.6-8; 2.4; Livy Epit. 52. 17 Polyb. 33.18; App. Syr. 67-9. 18 II Macc. 4.30; Ogden 1999: 145-6; Wright 2007-08: 536-7. 11 43 N.L. Wright cast him as both low born and a bastard although, as the eldest surviving son of the popular Epiphanes, he was able to make a successful claim for the royal title. In apparently similar circumstances, the non-royal maternity of Ptolemy XII of Egypt would cause him to be deined Nothos, either overtly or implicitly by opponents of his reign.19 Regardless of his actual paternity, Alexander Balas issued coins as the true successor of Antiochos Epiphanes and the latter’s eldest son, Antiochos V. Aside from a more general application of the radiate crown and Zeus imagery, Balas allowed emissions of quasi-municipal coinage at numerous mints across the Levant and Mesopotamia, a privilege previously allowed by Antiochos IV Epiphanes and Antiochos V.20 He also produced regal coinage employing the epithet heopator (no.72) in reference to his direct descent from Antiochos Epiphanes’ own heotes or godhead (no.68), as well as issuing posthumous coins in honour of both Epiphanes and Antiochos V, thereby cementing his ilial and fraternal relationships with his predecessors.21 he eldest son of Alexander I Balas, Antiochos VI was also designated Nothos by Appian although as his parentage was indisputably legitimate and royal on both sides, the term nothos may here imply that his father’s illegitimacy was carried over, or perhaps merely implies that as a member of the cadet line of the Seleukidai, he was therefore spurious rather than a bastard.22 At this juncture it is interesting to note that Alexander Balas introduced a short-lived obverse type at the central mints of Antioch and Apameia which depicted the king’s head wearing the scalp of a lion.23 he types are traditionally seen as alluding to the king’s successful namesake Alexander the Great and there can be little doubt that a rather hope-illed parallel was being drawn.24 Alexander the Great’s famous coin type employed a youthful Herakles head on the obverse, and the Macedonian king was sometimes depicted wearing a lion-scalp helmet.25 However, as Smith rightly posits, there was also the secondary evocation of Herakles, ancestor of the Macedonian royal house and prototype of the process of apotheosis through which mortals could be deiied on account of their benefactions.26 A third hypothesis might be ofered for Balas’ resumption of the lion-scalp headdress iconography. Both Herakles and Alexander the Great were individuals of unconventional paternity. It was widely put about that Alexander’s father was not Philip II but Zeus-Ammon,27 while Plutarch states that the Athenians acknowledge Herakles as the patron of nothoi because, as the son of a divine father and mortal mother, he was himself a nothos among the gods.28 Balas’ epithet heopator stressed the king’s divine paternity but said nothing of the nature of the king’s mother. Her status was irrelevant next to the illustrious bearing of his divine father, Antiochos IV heos Epiphanes. It could be said that this type of iconographic manipulation was a potentially dangerous line for Balas to take, but if his illegitimacy was commonly accepted fact, the Herakles imagery suggested that it was enough that the king was the son of a god. Beyond merely associating Alexander Balas with the Macedonian conqueror, his employment of Heraklean imagery annulled the negative connotations of the monarch’s bastardy by bringing to mind the illegitimacy inherent in the two greatest culture heroes of the Hellenistic world. A second son of Alexander I Balas, Alexander II Zabinas, also received mixed reviews from the ancient sources. As with Balas, Josephus accepts Zabinas’ kingship as legitimate without criticism and his coin iconography again conformed to the Epiphanaic familial program, including the repetition of Balas’ lion-scalp headdress.29 Like Antiochos VI, Alexander II Zabinas also made signiicant use of Dionysiac themes on his bronze coinage which, while not unique, was otherwise unusual in the Seleukid 19 Trog. Prologue 39; Cic. Verr. 2.4.27-30; Leg. agr. 2.42; Paus. 1.9.3. SC 2: nos. 1799, 1800, 1803, 1806-10, 1820, 1822-3, 1825-8, 1833-4, 1838, 1847-53. 21 Mørkholm 1960: 29; 1983: 59-60; Le Rider 1995: 394; Gariboldi 2004: 370; SC 2: nos.1883-7. 22 App. Syr. 69; Ogden 1999: 144. 23 SC 2: nos.1795 and 1805. 24 Newell 1918: 54-5; SC 2: 212, 443. 25 See for example the famous sarcophagus of Abdalonymos from Sidon, Smith 1988: 63-4. 26 Smith 1988: 40. 27 See for example Curt. 4.7.25-30; Plut. Vit. Alex. 27. 28 Plut. Vit. hem. 1. See also Aristoph. Birds 1640-70; Ogden 1996: 199-203; Beliore 2000: 80. 29 Joseph. AJ 13.9.3; SC 2: no. 2231. 20 44 he iconography of succession under the late Seleukids corpus; this reinforced the fraternal solidarity between the two kings.30 Furthermore, Zabinas produced an obverse portrait depicting the king in an elephant-scalp headdress.31 he elephant headdress is perhaps more speciically oriented towards Alexander the Great, echoing images of the king’s conquest of the East (speciically India) produced irst by Ptolemy I at Alexandreia32 and later by Seleukos I at Babylon, Susa and Ekbatana.33 However, the earliest models of this type clearly drew their inspiration from Alexander’s own Herakles obverse and although not central, the god should not be left completely out of the understanding of the imagery. Speciically, the elephant-scalp headdress could be seen as an allusion to the Bacchic conquest of the East and it may be signiicant that it is only Alexander II Zabinas, whose oicial epithet was Dionysos, who utilised this imagery.34 On the other hand, Justin states that Zabinas was really the son of an Egyptian merchant named Protarchos who only adopted the name Alexander on his accession.35 he popular pseudonym ascribed to Alexander II, Zabinas, was a Semitic proper name roughly translated as ‘Purchased [from a god]’. Implicit is the underlying slander that he had been ‘bought’ by Ptolemy VIII of Egypt and was therefore his creature.36 However there is something odd with Justin’s account. Protarchos, an Egyptian merchant with a Greek name, was supposed to have given his Egyptian son a Semitic name. It is dubious to suggest that despite slander and bad press, this low-born Egyptian pretender, whose claims to the throne were based on generally accepted falsehoods, was still received as a viable Seleukid king by the cities of Syria. hat the name Zabinas has persisted through the millennia is no surprise due to its scandalous connotations, but the entire story feels inconsistent and was probably invented in the rival courts of Demetrios II or Antiochos VIII and kept alive by later authors speciically on account of its disparaging nature.37 Beyond straight iconographic programs, royal portraiture too played a role in legitimising a monarch’s succession. his was less obviously the case with the early kings, whose reigns were practically uncontested, than with their second and irst century BC successors. here was clear continuity in portraiture between later coins of Antiochos III (no.65) and those of his sons Seleukos IV (no.66) and Antiochos IV Epiphanes (no.68). he kings appear at once mature but full of vitality, their faces neither gaunt nor leshy, with short cropped hair which recedes towards the diadem above the temple. he nose may show a slight bump but is essentially straight. he same basic features were continued (albeit slightly rejuvenated) on the portraiture of Epiphanes’ eldest son and successor, the child king Antiochos V (no.70). Contrary to the account in Diodorus that Alexander I Balas was accepted as the son of Antiochos IV Epiphanes because of a close familial resemblance, Balas’ coin portraits bore little in common with the image of his presumed father (no.72).38 Among the senior branch of the Seleukidai, there was a certain likeness in the rendering of Demetrios I (no.71) and his sons Demetrios II (no.73) and Antiochos VII Sidetes (no.75), particularly in the depiction of a fuller face and a developing aquiline shape of the nose. he most obvious use of familial likeness as an expression of legitimacy was employed among the parallel lines descended from the latter two brothers. he second son of Demetrios II and Kleopatra hea was Antiochos VIII Epiphanes Philopator Kallinikos, popularly known as Grypos or ‘Hook nose’ (see for example nos.79-80).39 Indeed, although his father, uncle and grandfather had all been depicted with relatively aquiline noses, the bump of Grypos’ nose was often especially accentuated. In contrast, his rival Antiochos IX Kyzikenos (no.81), the son of Antiochos VII Sidetes and Kleopatra hea and therefore Grypos’ half brother and cousin, was 30 Wright 2005: 81. SC 2: no. 2234. 32 Zervos 1967: series B-D; Lorber 2005. 33 SC 1: nos.101, 188-90, 222-3. 34 Smith 1988: 41. 35 Just. Epit. 39.1.4-6. 36 Euseb. Chron. Schoene edition p.257; Bevan 1902: vol. II p.306. 37 Wright 2007-08: 537-8. 38 Diod. 31.32a. 39 Euseb. Chron. Schoene edition p.257. 31 45 N.L. Wright depicted with a far more linear nose, occasionally turned up slightly towards the tip. he conlict between the two kings carried over into the succeeding generations. he sons of Grypos, ive of whom ruled as kings – Seleukos VI (no.83), Demetrios III (no.82), Antiochos XI, Philip I (no.85) and Antiochos XII – were all depicted with exaggerated, hawk-like, downturned noses conirming that their legitimacy was drawn from their long-reigning, hook-nosed father. he son of Kyzikenos, Antiochos X Eusebes, could equally draw upon the reign of his own father as the source of his authority. Eusebes set himself against the sons of Grypos by depicting his own nose as short with a knob or up-turn at the end (no.84).40 he two branches emphasised distinct and contrasting physiognomic features to set themselves apart in the minds of the Syrian populace. he divisions within the Seleukid house, sown initially by the foreign captivity of princes Antiochos IV, Demetrios I and Demetrios II, were ultimately to cause the downfall of the dynasty and its kingdom. However, that is not to say that the end result was inevitable, nor that the scions of the royal house sat back idly and watched while their inheritance crumbled around them. It must be stressed that except for an early struggle between Seleukos II and Antiochos Hierax, and a brief incident between Philip I and Demetrios III, succession by primogeniture was respected within each patrilineal branch of the Seleukidai. No two claimants of the Epiphanaic line emerged simultaneously, nor until the mid90s BC did any other branch see more than a single king ruling contemporaneously. he problem was that once an individual was accepted as a king, his eldest living son evidently saw himself as eligible to succeed, even if there were already equally qualiied successors of previous rulers waiting in the wings. From the reign of Antiochos IV Epiphanes, mechanisms were instituted to mould and deine the royal image in order to emphasise continuity and stress an individual’s right to rule over the rights of his cousins. he war of imagery encompassed both the obverse and reverse of royal coinage, identifying the king’s partisanship through the advertisement of divine patronage and the use of divinising imagery, and accentuating the legitimacy of a king through his physiognomic inheritance. 40 Interestingly, the nasal shape exhibited on the numismatic portraiture of Antiochos IX and Antiochos X resembles that of the Late Seleukid matriarch, Kleopatra hea, as shown on coin no.79. 46