Ancient Iranian Numismatics In Memory of David Sellwood (Ancient Iran, 12) 9781949743166, 1949743160

Citation preview

ANCIENT IRANIAN NUMISMATICS IN MEMORY OF DAVID SELLWOOD

Ancient Iran Series Editor in Chief Touraj Daryaee (University of California, Irvine) Managing Editor Sherivn Farridnejad (Free University of Berlin, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna) Editorial Board Samra Azarnouche (École pratique des hautes études) Chiara Barbati (University of Pisa) Matthew Canepa (University of California, Irvine) Carlo Cereti (Sapienza University of Rome) Hassan Fazeli Nashil (University of Tehran) Frantz Grenet (Collège de France) Simcha Gross (University of Pennsylvania) Almut Hintze (SOAS University of London) Nasir Al-Kaabi (University of Kufa) Irene Madreiter (University of Inssbruck) Antonio Panaino (University of Ravenna) Céline Redard (SOAS University of London) Robert Rollinger (University of Inssbruck) Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis (British Museum) M. Rahim Shayegan (University of California, Los Angeles) Mihaela Timuş (University of Bucharest) Rolf Strootman (Utrecht University) Giusto Traina (University of Paris-Sorbonne) Yuhan S.-D. Vevaina (University of Oxford)

VOLUME 12 The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/ais

Ancient Iranian Numismatics — in Memory of David Sellwood Mostafa Faghfoury © Mostafa Faghfoury 2020 Mostafa Faghfoury is hereby identified as author of this work in accordance with Section 77 of the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 Cover: Kourosh Beigpour | Layout: Ilia Faghfouri | ISBN: 978-1-949743-16-6 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publishers. This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, resold, hired out or otherwise circulated without the publisher’s prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and condition is redundant.

Ancient Iranian Series Editor Touraj Daryaee (Irvine) Editorial Board Samra Azarnouche (Paris) Chiara Barbati (Pisa) Matthew P. Canepa (Irvine) Carlo G. Cereti (Rome) Hassan Fazeli Nashli (Tehran) Frantz Grenet (Paris) Simcha Gross (Pennsylvania) Almut Hintze (London) Nasir Al-Kaabi (Kufa) Irene Madreiter (Innsbruck) Antonio Panaino (Ravenna) Céline Redard (London) Robert Rollinger (Innsbruck) Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis (London) M. Rahim Shayegan (Los Angeles) Mihaela Timuş (Bucharest) Giusto Traina (Paris) Yuhan S.-D. Vevaina (Oxford)

FORWARD

T

he present volume is a collection of articles in memory of David Sellwood, who made important contributions to the study of Iranian numismatics, specifically that of the Parthian Empire. It is only fitting that a number of distinguished colleagues and friends of the late Dr. Sellwood dedicate these articles on various aspects of Iranian numismatics in his memory. The Dr. Samuel M. Jordan Center for Persian Studies and Culture at the University of California is happy to publish such an important volume. I would like to thank Mr. Mostafa Faghfoury for his tireless effort in preparing this volume.

Touraj Daryaee Maseeh Chair in Persian Studies & Culture University of California, Irvine

ANCIENT IRANIAN NUMISMATICS IN MEMORY OF DAVID SELLWOOD

Mostafa Faghfoury

2020

Artwork by Majid Faghfouri, Tehran 2019

to all courageous and learned persons who have kept Iranian culture alive…

Table of Contents

vii  Preface ix  Sellwood’s Biography xiii  Sellwood’s Bibliography xv  Tributes xxv  About Authors

1  The Heavy Bronzes of Antiochus III and Demetrius I of Bactria K. Rutter and S. Glenn



7  The Date of the Battle at the River Lycus: Antiochus VII Defeated the Parthian General Indates on Friday 12 June 130 BC G.R.F. Assar

59  Introducing a forthcoming book: Volume 2: Mithradates II c.122/121–91 BC The Sylloge Nummorum Parthicorum (SNP) V. Sarkhosh-Curtis, A. Magub and E. Pendleton

63  The Gold Variety of a Silver Drachm of Mithradates III of Parthia (87‑80 BC) G. R. F. Assar

113  Some Observations on Parthian Bronze Coinage M. Faghfoury

129  Onomastica Persida: Names of the Rulers of Persis in the Seleucid and Arsacid Periods Kh. Rezakhani

135  A Revised Frataraka Chronology and Coinage K. Gholami

157  Sasanian Coins from Āmul, Tabaristān H. M. Malek

193  “The Maker of the World Without Fear”: Observations on the Gold Coin of Khosrow I T. Daryaee

197  An Anomalous Group of Khusrau II Drachms S. Tyler-Smith

203  Cities and Mint Centers Founded by the Sasanians B. Badiyi

233  Leiden Conventions for Greek Numismatic Epigraphy E. C. D. Hopkins

Preface

The focus of this volume is on ancient Iranian numismatics between two invasions/occupations: those of Alexander III and of the Arabs. Coins are clearly proven to be evidence for understanding history and culture and that is what David Sellwood worked to accomplish in his lifetime. This volume is a memorial for David Sellwood. Although he was once recognized in 2007 in volume 8 of the annual publication of Parthica which was dedicated exclusively to him and his works during his lifetime, his contributions have been great enough to warrant a special tribute from his fellow numismatists since his passing. The result is something that we can leave behind as a token of appreciation for a man who loved history, loved numismatics and loved Iran.

Credits and Acknowledgments I wish to thank the contributors for their involvements in this project. Without their participation the intention of producing a volume like this would have never been realized. In the section called tributes, I have included pieces from some people who knew David personally and remember him by sharing their memories of him. I would like to thank them as well. I would particularly like to thank Dr. Farhad Assar who in addition to two articles to this volume provided a biography and an updated bibliography of Sellwood. I would also like to thank Professor Touraj Daryaee who agreed to include this volume as part of the Ancient Iran Series which is published by the Jordan Center for Persian Studies at the University of California (Irvine). Finally, I would like to thank our production team without whom the artistic and practical parts of this project from start to the end would have been impossible:

• to Mr. Nader Rastegar, an Iranian philanthropist, whose financial aid and support;

• to my brother, Ilia Faghfouri whose professional dedication to this project goes beyond our family bonds. He is responsible for the layout of the present book;



• to Dr. William Couch for proofreading the entire text; • to Mr. Kourosh Beigpour from California who designed the cover and made final preparation of the work before going into print;



• to Mr. Majid Faghfouri, my cousin who gave me his charcoal drawing of Sellwood appearing in the early pages of this volume.



A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

vii

Editorial Notes Images used in this collection are not necessarily the same as the actual sizes. Some have been enlarged for the details to be visible. In most cases authors have provided the weights and dimensions so the readers can estimate the actual sizes. Some Persian names of persons and places are written by different authors in different Latin (English) spelling. We have decided to leave those spellings as their authors rendered them. Authors are responsible for the factual claims of their works. Mostafa Faghfoury Toronto, Canada February 2020

viii

David Sellwood

23 July 1925–7 April 2012 G.R.F. ASSAR

David Grenville John Sellwood was born in Brentford West London to Thomas Dorey Sellwood and Jenny Rebecca Lawes. After completing his primary and secondary schools, he followed in his father’s footsteps and chose engineering as a career (Tom Sellwood was an aeronautical engineer working on important engineering projects during and after WWII particularly at the new Spitfire factory at Castle Bromwich built by Lord Nuffield and later managed by Vickers-Armstrong). David began his National Service in 1946 serving in the Royal Engineers in India, Malaya, Singapore and Japan, rising to the rank of Captain. Later David went to Birmingham University to take a degree in Mechanical Engineering and then worked in industry for a few years. He joined Kingston College of Technology (as it was then called) as a lecturer to teach engineering in evening classes; he quickly became a permanent member of staff. He remained in academia for over 40 years gaining an MSc in Metallurgy in the 1970s and finally retiring as a Principal Lecturer in 1995. David was immensely proud to be an engineer and always championed the profession. With his great intellect and numerous contacts in further education, David was able to help and to advise many people, not just his engineering students. He is, nevertheless, recognized around the world only for his interest in coins which began in childhood when his grandfather gave him a box of assorted currency.

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

ix

David’s passion for collecting and studying coins continued throughout his adult life and included ground-breaking numismatic research. One of David’s friends from the Royal Numismatic Society, John Casey (lecturer in Roman archaeology and numismatics at Durham University during 1972-2000) summed up his impact as follows: “David’s contributions to the field of numismatics were outstanding. Best known for his pioneering work on the coinage of the Parthians, he put Iranian numismatic studies on a new footing with the publication of two editions of An Introduction to the Coinage of Parthia”. David also contributed to the study of the Sasanian successors to the Parthians with a work which made these coins accessible to the non-specialist. I have been drawing upon David’s articles and books for many years and believe that the true significance of his contributions to Parthian numismatics has not yet been fully appreciated. As the product of an insightful and incisive intellect, David’s papers have set the highest standards of critical scholarship. They represent an important landmark in the study of Arsacid coinage and play a pivotal role in establishing numismatics as an essential technique of historical research.

First Edition, 1971

Second Edition, 1980

David was undoubtedly a remarkable teacher and a writer of considerable erudition. He not only developed a technique of coin classification, but also was at heart a working scientist, a metallurgist and an engineer. He brought his professional expertise to bear on problems which had vexed historians for generations. To this end the workshops of Kingston Polytechnic became a branch of the mint of ancient Athens where David applied practical methods to answer the question of ‘not what was produced, but how much was produced’. Re-establishing the technology and metallurgy of antiquity, he made dies and struck coins to the extinction of the dies thereby defining the quantitative limits of ancient coin production per die. He thus transformed a subject hitherto based on historical art studies into one in which serious scientific and economic questions could be addressed. David was appointed President of the Royal Numismatic Society (RNS) in 1979. Chosen to fill this role he served until 1984 with distinction in an office which had been held for more than a century by great scholars. As President of the RNS he furthered the application of science to numismatic studies. His achievements were recognized by his appointment as an Honorary Fellow of the Society. David was generous with his knowledge. A short conversation with him was worth a month’s formal library research. Classical Music too was a passion throughout David’s life and one of the interests he shared with many people. He himself played the flute and piccolo, forming a trio with two friends, Andy Tittensor and Kenneth Jenkins; they often held concerts at Christmas in each other’s homes. He had an enormous collection of recorded classical music first on

x

vinyl records and later on CDs. In later years, his favourite composer was Schubert and he chose for his funeral music the Adagio from Schubert’s Quintet. David had two loving marriages. The first was to June Ethel Mary Woollard whom he married in 1954 and with whom he had two daughters, Lynette and Philippa. June, an art teacher by profession, sadly died in 1981 at the early age of 53. David later married Gladys in 1991 and with her he shared many of his interests until his death. David enjoyed going to concerts with Gladys and many other friends, making the most of what music London had to offer. Though a natural athlete, he was very modest about his prowess in a number of sports. Much to his embarrassment, given his gentle manner, he was a champion boxer in the army. He played basketball at Birmingham University after the War at a time when the team was Varsity champions. He was a powerful swimmer and met his first wife June through a swimming club. During summer holidays at Rustington, he was the only swimmer on the beach attempting a butterfly stroke in a strong Channel swell. He played squash well into his sixties while at Kingston University.

1985

David also loved to travel; this may have stemmed from his days of National Service. He was not only a traveller but also a linguist who worked in both Germany and Sweden; he spoke fluent French and German and could more than “get by” in Italian and Spanish. A big thrill for David was finally to travel to Iran with me in October 1994. Together we visited several museums and David delivered two lectures on Parthian coinage and history at the Iranian Cultural Heritage Centre in Tehran. We then travelled to Kerman visiting the provincial museum as well as the famous Arg-i Bam a massive mud-brick construction from the Parthian and Sasanian periods. We continued to Shiraz visiting Persepolis, Naqsh-i Rustam and Pasargadae to the north and several Sasanian sites to the south of that city. Up until his final days, David was involved in the revision of his An Introduction to the Coinage of Parthia in collaboration with me. He even wrote the “Foreword to the Third Edition” on 11 May 2011 while waiting for some coins from his collection to be photographed at the offices of Spink’s in London. Implementing the changes that he had approved I shall complete the project in his memory as a comprehensive volume on the political and numismatic history of Parthia. David is survived by his second wife, his two daughters from his first marriage and two grandchildren, Holly and Jacob. Although Parthian numismatics will be poorer without David Sellwood, his legacy will surely endure for years to come.

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

xi

Bibliography of David Sellwood G.R.F. ASSAR

This is an extended version of the list in Parthica. Incontri di Culture nel Mondo Antico, 8 (2006/7), 15–16. 1962, “Medieval Minting Techniques”, The British Numismatic Journal (British Numismatic Society) 31. 57–65. 1962, “The Parthian Coins of Gotarzes I, Orodes I, and Sinatruces”, Numismatic Chronicle, 73–89. 1963, “Some Experiments in Greek Minting Techniques”, Numismatic Chronicle, 217–231. 1965, “Wroth’s Unknown Parthian King”, Numismatic Chronicle, 113–135. 1967, “A Die Engraver Sequence for Later Parthian Drachms”, Numismatic Chronicle, 13–28. 1967, “The Parthian Dark Ages in the Light of ‹Susa›”, Numismatic Circular, 75.11, 293–294. 1968, “The Parthian New Year” (1968) Numismatic Circular, 76.5, 155–156. 1968, “Parthian Drachms — A Concordance of Attributions”, in J.L. Malter (ed.), The Coinage of Parthia, Malter-Westerfield Pub. Co., San Diego, CA. 83–84. 1968, “A Currently Emerging Parthian Hoard”, Numismatic Circular, 76.12, 371. 1969, “A Small Hoard of Parthian Drachms of the First Century B.C.”, Seaby›s Coin and Medal Bulletin, 611.7, 227–232. 1971, “Deux notes sur les drachmes Arsacides”, Revue Numismatique, 13, 154–159. 1971, with M. T. Abgarians, “A Hoard of Early Parthian Drachms”, Numismatic Chronicle, 103–119. 1971, An Introduction to the Coinage of Parthia, Spink and Son Ltd. London (1st ed.). 1971, “A Novel Solution to a Parthian Mint Dilemma”, Journal of the Society for Ancient Numismatics, 2.3–4, 46–47. 1971, Record of the Parthian Coinage, Malter-Westerfield Pub. Co., San Diego, CA. 1. 1971, “Some Politic Alterations in the Parthian Series”, in R.A.G. Carson (ed.), Mints, Dies and Currency: Essays Dedicated to the Memory of Albert Baldwin, London. 33–37. 1972, “The Mint-Towns of Parthia”, in M.Y. Kiani (ed.), The Memorial Volume of the VIth International Congress of Iranian Art and Archaeology, Oxford, September 11–16, 1972. Tehran (1976). 293–298. 1972, “A Parthian Overstrike”, Journal of Numismatic Fine Arts, 1.7, 128–129. 1975, “Parthian Mints”, Journal of Numismatic Fine Arts, 4.3, 57–60. 1976, “Minting”, in D. Strong and D. Brown (eds.), Roman Crafts. London. 63-73. 1976, “The drachms of the Parthian Dark Age”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1, 2–25. 1976, “Dies Which Were Used in the Ancient World”, in H.A. Cahn and G. Le Rider (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Congress of Numismatics, New York-Washington, September 1973 Paris: Association internationale des numismates professionnels. 371–375. 1978, with A. Simonetta, “Again on the Parthian Coinage from Mithradates II to Orodes II”, Numismatica e Antichità Classiche — Quaderni Ticinesi, 7, 95–119. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

xiii

1980, An Introduction to the Coinage of Parthia, Spink and Son Ltd. London (2nd ed.). 1980, “The Ancient Near East”, in M.J. Price (ed.), Coins: An Illustrated Survey, 650 B.C. to the Present Day, New York. 251–257. 1980, “Early Sasanian Coinage and its Background”, Occasional Paper No. 14, Oriental Numismatic Society, 1–10. 1980, “The Production of Flans for Byzantine ‘Trach’ Issues” in D.M. Metcalf and W.A. Oddy (eds.), Metallurgy in Numismatics, Vol. 1. Royal Numismatic Society Special Publication No. 13. London. 174–175. 1980, “The Striking of Samanid Double Dirhems” in D.M. Metcalf and W.A. Oddy (eds.), Metallurgy in Numismatics, Vol. 1. Royal Numismatic Society Special Publication No. 13. London. 176–177. 1980, “Alterations in Mint Technology for the Edwardian Penny” in D.M. Metcalf and W.A. Oddy (eds.), Metallurgy in Numismatics, Vol. 1. Royal Numismatic Society Special Publication No. 13. London. 178–179. 1983, “Minor States in Southern Iran”, in E. Yarshater (ed.), The Cambridge History of Iran. The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods, 3.1, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 299–321. 1983, “Parthian Coins”, in E. Yarshater (ed.), The Cambridge History of Iran. The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods, 3.1, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 279–298. 1985, with P.W. Whitting and R.W. Williams, An Introduction to Sasanian Coins, Spink and Son Ltd., London. 1989, “New Parthian Coin Types”, Numismatic Chronicle, 162–168. 1990, “The End of the Parthian Dynasty”, Spink Numismatic Circular, 98.5, 157. 1991, “Parthian Gold Coins”, in T. Hackens and G. Moucharte (eds.), Proceedings of the XIth International Numismatic Congress, vol. 1 (Brussels, 8–13 Sep 1991) Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium: Association Professeur Marcel Hoc (1993). 295–298. 1991, “Trade Routes Through Parthia”, in Amal Kumar Jha (ed.), Coinage, Trade and Economy, January 8th 11th 1991, 3rd International Colloquium, Indian Institute of Research in Numismatic Studies. Maharashtra. 23–27. 1993, Book Review: “A Hoard from Eastern Parthia by H. Koch”, Numismatic Chronicle, 311–312. 1993, “Parthian Mint Operations”, in M.J. Price, A. Burnett, and R. Bland, (eds.), Essays in Honour of Robert Carson and Kenneth Jenkins, London. 101–105. 1993, “Early Austrian and German Machine Minting” in M.M. Archibald and M.R. Cowell (eds.), Metallurgy in Numismatics, Vol. 3. Royal Numismatic Society Special Publication No. 24. London. 108–117. 1995, “The ‘Victory’ Drachms of Phraates IV”, American Journal of Numismatics, 7–8, 75–81. 1998, “Parthians and Scythians”, in Amal Kumar Jha and Sanjay Garg (eds.), Ex Moneta: Essays on Numismatics, History and Archaeology in honour of Dr. David W. MacDowall, Vol. 1, New Delhi, Harman Publishing House. 97–102. 1998, “A Die Count for a Group of Parthian Drachms”, in R. Ashton and S. Hurter, Studies in Greek Numismatics in Memory of Martin Jessop Price in association with Georges Le Rider and Roger Bland, Spink and Son, London. 317–320. 2002, “A Remarkable Offering of Early Parthian Tetradrachms”, in Triton V Sale Catalogue, 15–16 January, Lancaster, Pa, Classical Numismatic Group, 2, 118. 2006, with A.M. Simonetta, “Notes on the Coinage and History of the Arsacids from the Advent of Orodes II to the End of the Reign of Phraates IV”, Quaderni Tecinesi di Numismatica e di Antichità Classiche, 35, 283–315. 2012, “Counterfeit Parthian Drachms”, The Numismatic Chronicle, 215–217 and Pl. 12.

xiv

Tributes

A FRIENDLY SCHOLAR

I met David through the Royal Numismatic Society and as a result of his enthusiasm I started to take an interest in Parthian coins. I was impressed by his book on the subject, since I found it a very easy way to identify any coins that were brought by collectors to the British Museum. I had always found the chronology of Parthian coins difficult to understand, but whenever David gave a talk about the subject, it all seemed a little clearer. He was always very friendly and courteous, and it was a pleasure to be in his company. I also enjoyed his sense of humour. Andrew Burnett Former Deputy Director, British Museum Former President, Royal Numismatic Society *** A GENEROUS SPIRIT

I got to know David soon after I joined the British Museum in 1970. I immediately warmed to his generous spirit and admired his deep knowledge of Parthian coins. I had the pleasure of being a council member of the Royal Numismatic Society while he was president and during his last year of office. I served with him as one of its secretaries. He was deeply respected by everyone in the numismatic world and was always a welcome visitor to the British Museum coin room. Throughout my career in numismatics, it was always to David’s book that I turned when seeking information on Parthian coins. On many occasions I was able to chat with him about particularly problematic coins and academic issues. I also came to know through these conversations of his experimental work on trying to understand the making of ancient coins. As Parthian numismatics has moved on into a new generation and into new approaches, it remains a reassurance to have a copy of his 1980 The Coinage of Parthia on my desk for ready reference to the series. David was an example to us all in his friendships and his scholarly approach to the study of coins and continues to be much missed. Joe Cribb former Keeper of Coins & Medals, British Museum former President of the Royal Numismatic Society former Secretary-General of the Oriental Numismatic Society ***

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

xv

A WONDERFUL SCHOLAR

I came to know David Sellwood through his publications, and I relied heavily on his definitive typology when creating the Parthia.com web site. I eventually had the great privilege of meeting him in 2000 in London, introduced by our mutual friend, Farhad Assar. Following a Persian lunch, David showed us several of his prize coins which I photographed at the Victory Services Club. It was here that I learned David had been a captain in the engineers and I believe he rather enjoyed tea in the military atmosphere. We developed a regular correspondence and when I again had the chance to visit London in 2004, David invited me to his home where he had his full collection available for me to photograph. With only a few days to work through the large collection, David dictated the details and comments about each coin into a tape recorder. Those audiotape recordings are now a prize memory for me not only of the event, but also of a kind and wonderful scholar. Chris Hopkins Ohio, USA *** RENAISSANCE MAN

David Sellwood was affable and gregarious; he was a sportsman, a musician and possessed of many other talents. David had what one likes to call a ‘hinterland’ of a mind wherein lies even more of interest and ability than what appears initially. I recall many a conversation with him not only about numismatics, but also about the latest offering on the stage of the Royal Opera. His ‘day job’ was as a Principal Lecturer in Engineering and he brought his specialist knowledge to bear on a study that was close to his heart – numismatics. Rather than simply theorizing, he took a practical approach to the thorny questions surrounding the striking of coins. This approach informed not only his famous article (‘Some Experiments in Greek Minting Technique’) in Num. Chron. 1963, but also such pieces as that on ‘Parthian Mint Operations’ which he contributed to the Essays in Honour of Robert Carson and Kenneth Jenkins (1993). His particular area of interest was the coinage of Parthia on which he published the standard reference work. David was a signal example of the source of many outstanding contributions to our diverse world of numismatics. He was one of the so–called ‘amateurs’ who pursue their chosen area of interest with expertise and passion. It was an honour for me to publish a note of his (‘New Parthian Coin Types’) in Num. Chron. 1989. Keith Rutter Edinburgh, Scotland *** UNFORGETTABLE HUMOR

David Sellwood´s first edition of An Introduction to the Coinage of Parthia (1970) became an indispensable reference tool for everybody who was interested in the field of Arsacid numismatics. It’s publication was a milestone of the coin world and stands alongside Warwick Wroth´s Catalogue of the Coins of Parthia (1903), Edward T. Newell´s, The Coinage of the Parthians (1938) and George Le Rider´s study on the coin finds from Susa (1965). In very concise form David succeeded in organizing and presenting the types and denominations of the royal Parthian coins with an exact description of the individual images, legends and mint marks thereby offering an outstanding basis for further investigations. When Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis and I began the SyllogeNummorum Parthicorum project in 2008, it was clear to us that without David´s outstanding contribution, this enterprise would not have been able to start.

xvi

David supported our project from the very beginning and gave us access to his extraordinary collection. We are especially grateful for everything we learned from him. I met David when I was still a student working on my dissertation. He was extremely helpful, took me to his house and showed me his collection which was located in an old mobile home in his garden. We spent a wonderful afternoon together studying his coins and engaging in discussions. He was an impressive personality with a special kind of humor. He was a man I will never forget. Michael Alram Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Muenzkabinett President of the International Numismatic Council *** INCREDIBLY APPROACHABLE

I first met David Sellwood in 1995 when I joined the Department of Coins and Medals of the British Museum as a part-time curator of Parthian and Sasanian coins. He was incredibly approachable and helpful. He demonstrated the fulness of his kindness and generosity when he agreed to allow the Sylloge Nummorum Parthicorum to include his unrivalled collection of Parthian coins in the series. I spent many happy hours at his home in Wimbledon examining his collection and discussing various aspects of Parthian coinage. His knowledge was vast, and he enjoyed sharing it. David Sellwood raised Parthian numismatics to a higher level. His Coinage of Parthia will always remain the standard book for Parthian numismatics. Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis London, England *** A JOVIAL PHILOPARTHIAN

I first met David Sellwood about 1982. He was a tower of a man with an impressive black beard which as time moved on changed almost imperceptibly to grey and then to white. He was a jovial character who would greet me with “how are you young man”. He was generous with his time and like any good teacher was able to explain the complexities of a subject in terms comprehensible to those even as simple as myself. His main numismatic interest was in Parthian coins, but his expertise was so much broader than that. His two seminal books on Parthian and Sasanian coins were artistically created in his beautiful copperplate handwriting. However, important as it was, he would have been the last to claim that any of his work was definitive. In reality just the subject of Parthian coins is vast and many more coins have come to light since his work. Moreover, other sources of history have become available which are now being gathered together in the Parthian coin project and the publishing of the Sylloge Nummorium Parthicorum, an endeavour which he supported during his lifetime. David was close to that other great scholar Professor David Bivar and they would often be seen together at meetings of the Royal Numismatic Society. The passing of both Davids feels as if an era has ended. Neither is replaceable and both are sadly missed. Hodge Mehdi Malek London, England *** A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

xvii

A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS

I first heard of David Sellwood as a leading Parthian numismatist in 1973. This happened in the early autumn of that year during a fortuitous meeting with Dr. Malek-Iraj Moshiri in Tehran. I was haggling with a local coin dealer over the price of a Parthian drachm (S85.1) as Dr. Moshiri entered the shop. He was already a renowned Sasanian connoisseur while I was an amateur collector in pursuit of affordable Parthian coins. The seller and I believed that the coin I intended to buy was a rather rare drachm of the last Parthian king, Artabanus V (c. 213-227 AD) according to W.W. Wroth, BMC Parthia (1903). To be doubly sure of the identity of the coin’s issuer, I had turned to page 247 of my 1964 reprint of the BM Catalogue and noted Wroth’s reading of the uppermost horizontal line of the inscription on the reverse of similar drachms as Hartabi malka, “King Artabanus”. However, to get an expert verdict, the dealer handed the coin over to Dr. Moshiri who was, despite his strong penchant for the Sasanian series, not entirely averse to Parthian coins! As soon as he saw the obverse portrait of the coin, Dr. Moshiri responded: this is Osores II, a common late Parthian type!

National Museum of Iran, Tehran October 1994

To the astonished coin dealer and me, Osroes II was an unattested Parthian king! We enquired if Dr. Moshiri was confusing the king of our drachm with a homonymous Sasanian monarch! His answer was both reassuring and perplexing! Reassuring because Dr. Moshiri promptly mentioned the reference: An Introduction to the Coinage of Parthia by David Sellwood which he affirmed had been lately published by Spink and Son Ltd. in London (1971). Perplexing because I was unsure how this recent book had superseded the standard British Museum Catalogue of Parthian coins.

xviii

Thanks to Dr. Moshiri’s munificence, I soon had the chance to consult a copy of David Sellwood’s 1971 catalogue for the first time. After purchasing from the dealer the drachm of Osroes II for a reduced price because of its lack of rarity, I was invited by Dr. Moshiri to meet him three days later in his office at the Amira‘lam Hospital in Tehran; he was going to lend me his copy of Sellwood’s catalogue for a week! As an inexperienced Parthian collector that was a watershed moment in my life. Despite initially having some difficulty reading Sellwood’s handwriting, I was unable to take my eyes off his drawings of Parthian coin portraits, his arrangement and format of the legends on the reverse of the coins, and his systematic listing of the varieties of each coin-type. Even before I finished my first perusal of the book, I knew Sellwood had masterfully catalogued hundreds of Parthian coins with concise obverse and reverse descriptions. This was very easy to follow, after I trained my eyes to his admirable calligraphy. The volume was superior to the few Parthian catalogues I had seen before. It was during this opportune occasion that I discovered why Sellwood had assigned (respectively on pages 281 and 295-296 of his catalogue) my newly purchased S85.1 drachm to Osroes II, and also the S89-90 series of silver and bronze coins to Artabanus IV. The celebrated German philologist and linguist, W.B. Henning had highlighted in his Das Parthische in Handbuch der Orientalistik, erste Abteilung IV (1958), 40, the philological impossibility of Wroth’s reading Hartabi malka and suggested ḥwsrw MLK’, “King Osroes”. He had also dismissed Wroth’s Artavazi malka (King Artavasdes) on the S89-90 drachms and instead interpreted the Aramaic-script Parthian as ’rtbnw MLK’, “King Artabanus”. Not long after my meeting with Dr. Moshiri, I realised that other distinguished Iranian collectors too had acquired Sellwood’s catalogue and were consulting it as their main reference on Parthian coins. They included Messrs Mohsen Foroughi, Mehdi Azizbeglou and Dr. Mesrop Abgarians. From that moment on, not only was I craving to have my own copy of his catalogue, but also yearning to meet Sellwood in person as the embodiment of a true numismatist. My first wish came true in late summer of 1975 after my father returned from a trip to London with a copy of Sellwood’s Parthian catalogue that he had purchased from the W & G Foyle Ltd. Booksellers in Charing Cross Road. However, I had to wait until November 1987 to shake hands with Sellwood. This was because after coming to the UK in 1977 to continue my Postgraduate studies, I soon realised that academic obligations left me with insufficient time to pursue my collecting hobby with the same zeal as before. And yet, some months later I discovered through a local coin dealer in Edinburgh Scotland, that there were at least three major companies in London that regularly sold Parthian coins: Spink and Son, Ltd., A. H. Baldwin and Son Ltd. and Seaby Coins. It was through the good offices of Spink that I eventually met David Sellwood. That meeting completely quashed my perception of collecting Parthian coins. As one of his first pieces of expert advice, Sellwood told me that ancient coins are not simply metallic disks with more-often-than-not aesthetically appealing obverse and reverse designs. He wanted me to consider them as “small time capsules” and “pieces of history” all deserving our care and respect. In short, as a true numismatist, Sellwood was against collecting coins as artefacts only with little or no attention to the contributions they make to our understanding and appreciation of ancient technologies and technical skills as well as history. Despite his imposing stature, Sellwood was arguably a humble and kind man. I still feel the warmth from his hands when he came to his front-door to greet me on numerous occasions. He was also a great host and treated his guests with utmost care to make them feel at home. I can draft a separate note on his hospitality but will limit myself here to saying that regardless of whether it was a dark wintry or a bright summer morning, Sellwood was up at 6:30 AM whenever I stayed at his home. He then walked downstairs to set the table for breakfast. However, less than 20 minutes later he returned upstairs with a gentle knock at my bedroom door, handing me a small tray with a cup of tea. And he continued this extraordinary magnanimity until late in 2011 when he began to experience breathing complications. Another example of Sellwood’s tender care and affection relates to a meeting he had in London with Dr. Ahmad Tehrani Moqaddam, the then Director of Iran’s National Museum in Tehran (formerly Irān-e Bāstān Museum). Having travelled with Sellwood to Tehran in October 1994 and visited the Museum, I enquired whether he could view their Parthian coin collection. Dr. Tehrani Moqaddam agreed and Sellwood and I spent a day in the museum’s “Coin Room” viewing the leftover Parthian coins from the widespread plunder that ensued after the 1979 Iranian Revolution. In return for that favour, when Dr. Tehrani Moqaddam visited London in 1995, Sellwood drove from his home near Wimbledon (Southwest London) to Southgate (North London) with his entire Parthian collection (over 2500 coins).

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

xix

He then climbed up three floors (because the building had no elevator) and having met Dr. Tehrani Moqaddam, showed him his coins! Sellwood was endowed with an encyclopaedic memory. Coupled with his innate humility, this made him a masterful teacher, always ready to respond to an enquiry with patience and reference to various sources, including coins in his own collection and elsewhere. I vividly remember how Sellwood always welcomed my suggestion to travel from Scotland, stay with him over the weekend and talk about Parthian coins and history. Some of these memorable occasions began with dinner in a Persian, a Turkish or a Chinese restaurant because Sellwood was very fond of eastern cuisines! We then either drove to or occasionally caught the Waterloo to Raynes Park train to his home. After feeding his cat, named Titus, Sellwood began addressing my enquiries with his typical mastery of the subject while showing me coins that he had already taken out of his collection and lined up on the table in his dining room. Quite often our discussions of Parthian coins and history continued into the early morning hours. Especially so after I read and grasped Sellwood’s discoveries in his two ground-breaking papers on A Die Engraver Sequence for Later Parthian Drachms in The Numismatic Chronicle (1967) and The Drachms of the Parthian “Dark Age”, in The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland (1976). It was during one of these special tutorials that Sellwood showed me how he had identified the products of several Parthian mints. Displaying the reverses of two S30 drachms of the “Unknown King II”, he first drew my attention to his S30.18 example with ΕΝΡΑΓΑΙΣ “in Rhagae” in its inscription. Being convinced that it had been in the huge Parthian coin hoard (IGCH 1814) that was accidentally unearthed about 1955 in Gombad Qabus near Gorgan in northeast Iran, Sellwood had purchased this exceptionally rare drachm from Baldwin’s for £1 in 1962 (it is currently kept in my collection)! He then pointed to the common stylistic, iconographic and palaeographic features of his ΕΝΡΑΓΑΙΣ and a common S30.16 drachms, closing his arguments with the conclusion that a single craftsman had cut the corresponding two dies at Rhagae. In 1989, Sellwood recommended my fellowship to The Royal Numismatic Society thereby providing me with the opportunity to meet many eminent British and European scholars. They included Sellwood’s close friend and fellow Parthian numismatist Professor Alberto Simonetta, and the eminent archaeologist, numismatist and historian, Professor David Bivar. Two years later Sellwood and I travelled to Brussels to attend the 11th International Numismatic Congress during 8-13 September 1991. Despite vehement objections from several numismatists and members of the coin trade to the authenticity of a group of gold coins in the name of Vonones I of Parthia (c. 8-12 AD), Sellwood announced them as genuine while I contributed a short paper on Parthian calendars. I should add that Sellwood and I had discussed on several occasions but without definitive conclusion the organisation of the Macedonian style of the Seleucid calendar at Seleucia on the Tigris under Arsacid administration. However in view of the sparsity of the evidence, only three tetradrachms from the embolismic years 287, 317 and 390 SEM, we had to wait until 2003 for additional material to come to light in the interim, enabling me to settle the issue. Sellwood passed away on 7 April 2012 from postoperative complications following an unfortunate fall that he had near his doorstep. A day earlier, he conveyed to me a message through his second wife Gladys, apologising for his inability to review and edit the few pages of text I had left with him a fortnight earlier. Those pages were part of a revised edition of Sellwood’s Parthian catalogue which we had been jointly working on. I see little point in my repeating here what I have already written about David Sellwood in his short biography. All that remains for me to say is that he was an awe-inspiring mentor and teacher. I owe him a tremendous debt of gratitude for his extraordinary kindness, generosity and the many hours he spent teaching me the intricacies of Parthian numismatics. Had I not met Sellwood in 1987, I would probably still have been wondering how a monogram-less Parthian drachm could be attributed to a known district or city in the Arsacid Empire. I wish he were still with us so that I might share with him the many new Parthian coins that have come to light ever since his passing. I could then sit back and admire his elucidation of the evidence! G.R.F. Assar Oxford, England ***

xx

A TRUE PHILOPERSIAN

Professionals are said not to be just skillful in what they know or do, but to possess certain not so common qualities as well. They value knowledge over opinions. They seek out and cherish facts. They are open to expanding and updating their horizons. They are ready to admit their errors. They are excellent teachers of what they know and are eager to share their wisdom. They are serious about what they do, but never lose their sense of humor. They are great communicators. I met David Sellwood on three separate occasions while visiting England. All three times the meetings were facilitated through our common friend, Farhad Assar. The first visit was on Tuesday 13th of May 2003. I had gone to see my old school-mate, Farhad, who used to live in Scotland, but who was at the time in London. During our discussions of Parthian history and coins, Sellwood’s name repeatedly came up. I told Farhad that one of my great desires was to meet him. Farhad said David lived in Wimbledon near London and offered to call him to ask if he had some free time. Before long, we had a confirmed appointment to meet Sellwood at his house on the following day. Farhad said he hoped that I would have a chance to see the “Sellwood collection”. I thought to myself it was wishful thinking! When we arrived at his modest house near the train station, we knocked on the door. The door opened and a well-built tall gentleman welcomed us in with smile. The meeting was very pleasant. He had brought his entire famous Parthian coin collection to the living room. Farhad pointed to the mahogany coin cabinet and told me that it was designed and built by David himself. The coins were arranged chronologically. I was in awe; it seemed that there were more coins on the trays than listed in the Introduction. There was no time to see and enjoy all the coins in only one afternoon. After talking coins and showing me his collection, David invited us to his backyard and there with his wife, we were treated to wine and cheese. He wondered which part of Iran I was from. Before leaving him, he graciously signed in the familiar calligraphy of his style, a copy of his Parthian book. He dated his signature and the visit became eternalized in my memory and library.

At the backyard (Wimbledon 2003)

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

xxi

The next time in London I asked Farhad, who by this time lived in Oxford, if he could contact David to see whether another meeting was a possibility. David responded that because he was planning to visit London anyway, we should meet at Grays Antique Market off Bond Street. He arrived on the morning of March 1st 2006. There was a small cafe in the basement of the Mall. We sat there for drinks. He turned to Farhad with a smile and asked with his typical humor if he had discovered a new important date or a new king! Farhad at the time was reorganizing the dates and orders of the types Sellwood had published in his 1980 edition. I showed David my small gift for his collection: a “mule” drachm of Orodes II, adding that thanks to his efforts on the engraving styles of Parthian coins, the “mule” could now be identified to have an Ecbatana obverse and a Rhagae reverse. could now be determined to have an obverse from Ecbatana and a reverse from Rhagae (S.48.6/S.48.11). He took the coin, examined it carefully and thanked me for it. I then asked if he could sign a copy of his Introduction for a medical doctor in the USA who had started collecting Parthian coins. He autographed the book the book with encouraging words. Farhad retuned a few coins he had borrowed from David earlier and we said goodbye.

At the Grays (London 2006)

I could never have imagined that my third meeting with David would be the last time I would see him. It was Wednesday April 6th, 2011. We met again at his house in Wimbledon. Farhad had warned me that David had aged and we should not overstay our welcome. With that warning I thought I would not have a chance to view his collection again. To my surprise when we arrived, he greeted us with his usual smile, and I noticed that he had brought all his coin-trays one by one from upstairs. The cabinet was not xxii

there but all the trays with coins were piled up on the dinning room table where we sat. I knew I did not have much time to waste under the circumstances, so I asked David if I could see only his bronze coins. He had some exceptional pieces. While Farhad was showing me some coins from another tray, we both noticed that David begun dozing. Having realized that we had found him tired, David decided to start a conversation by enquiring whether I had any particular questions. I went ahead and asked if he could remember how he had assembled his collection. David left the room without saying anything and came back with a blue book. He handed it to me and said all my purchases through the years are recorded there. I could not believe what I was holding in my hand. It was a detailed history of the contents of one the most well-known collections in the field of ancient Persian numismatics. To Farhad’s astonishment, I asked David if I could borrow the book from him photocopy its content. He immediately agreed and trusted it to Farhad. I remember on returning to London that afternoon, we stopped at a copying-shop near Victoria station and made two copies of its pages. I still have my copy and I am sure Farhad has his. To my surprise I only recently discovered that the mule coin I presented to him on my second visit had been listed in David’s blue book.

With Farhad Assar (Wimbledon 2011) the blue book and coin trays are on the table

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

xxiii

A page from the blue book with refrence to my gift of 2006 recorded

I never would have guessed that the third meeting with David was exactly to the date a year before his death. He died on April 7th, 2012. Farhad reminded me that 2012 was a leap year.

I consider myself very lucky to have met a true “professional” numismatist and a great philopersian. I miss him. Mostafa Faghfoury Toronto, Canada

xxiv

About the Authors

GHOLAM REZA FARHAD ASSAR

received his BSc in Chemical Engineering from the University of Tehran in Iran, and MSc and PhD from Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland. His serious interest in collecting and studying Parthian coins and history began in mid-1980s, when he met David Sellwood. The resulting relationship lasted for over 25 years until Sellwood’s death in April 2012. Farhad’s passion for researching the history of Parthia also brought him into contact with many Assyriologists and cuneiformists, chiefly at the British Museum in London. This began in 1990 with simple inquiries and later flourished into a prolonged and in depth research. He spent a year (2004/5) at St. Catherine’s College, Oxford University, as Sir Harold Bailey’s Research Scholar. He is the author of over 35 papers and notes on Parthian history and coinage in various scholarly books and journals, and is currently preparing a two-volume book on these subjects. BAHRAM BADIYI

received his Bachelor and Master degrees in Architecture from University of Southern California Los Angeles. He is a highly respected practicing Architect and Designer as well as an adjunct Professor in architecture. Alongside of his professional life, Bahram’s free time is dedicated to the study of the history and numismatics of Iran specially the Sasanian and Qajar periods. He has done extensive research in the area of base-metal coinage of the Sasanian period and the second edition of his book Sasanian Base Metal Coinage will be printed soon. Bahram’s recent article was published in honor of Stephen Album as part of the volume of Iranian Numismatics, identifying formerly unknown AE fractions of Sasanian King Ardashir III. He was the chief editor for the translation of the Sunrise Collection:The Numismatic Art of Persia, Volume 1 from English into Farsi which was published in the Spring of 2019. TOURAJ DARYAEE

is the Maseeh Chair in Persian Studies and Culture and the Director of the Dr. Samuel M. Jordan Center for Persian Studies and Culture at the University of California, Irvine. He has taught at UCLA, and has been a senior research fellow at Oxford University and resident fellow at the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes. He specializes in the history and culture of Ancient Persia. His most famous publications include Sasanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire and Sasanian Iran (224-651 CE): Portrait of a Late Antique Empire. His latest book is entitled: Sasanian Iran in the Context of Late Antiquity: The Bahari Lecture Series at the University of Oxford, 2018. MOSTAFA FAGHFOURY

was born in Iran where he graduated with a BA degree from the University of Tehran in 1974. He received his postgraduate degrees from the University of Surrey (England) and the University of Ottawa (Canada). He made Canada home and taught courses in various universities until 2013 when he retired from teaching at Heritage College, CEGEP (Quebec). His interests in Iranian coins led him to collect Parthian coppers as well as starting an online store, Cyrus Coins, as a charter member at Vcoins.com. He has edited Analytical Philosophy of Religion in Canada (1982) and Iranian Numismatic Studies: A Volume in Honor of Stephen Album (2017) as well as authoring many papers in the areas of philosophy and human rights.

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

xxv

KIARASH GHOLAMI

has received his bachelor degree in chemical engineering and his master degree in polymer chemistry from the University of Waterloo, Canada. His numismatic interests focus on the Parthian, Persis, and Arab-Sasanian periods from the rise of the Seleucid empire until the end of the Umayyads. He has published a book entitled Parthian Coins: A Review of the Political History and Numismatics of the Arsacids (2013), and several papers on the coinage of the early Iranian and Arab-Muslim rulers after the fall of Sasanian Empire. Currently he is working on the chronology and numismatics of the early local rulers of Persis called frataraka and their interactions with the Macedonian and later Seleucid overlords. SIMON GLENN

took his first degrees at the University of Edinburgh and received his doctorate, on the coins of the early Graeco-Bactrian kings from the University of Oxford. Since 2016 he has held the position of research fellow in the Heberden Coin Room of the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, working on a number of different research projects from coins in the name of Alexander the Great, to Coin Hoards of the Roman Empire and pre-Roman coins of Spain. He is the editor (with Frédérique Duyrat and Andrew Meadows) of Alexander the Great. A Linked Open World, and the author of various numismatic articles. EDWARD C. D. HOPKINS

was a military pilot and systems program manager until retirement. Colonel Hopkins is a distinguished graduate of the Virginia Military Institute and holds a masters› degree in Middle East Area Studies from the American University of Beirut. His postgraduate degrees include the Air War College and the Defense Systems Management College. He has lived and studied extensively in the Middle East and, following retirement, continued independent research in numismatics. One of the world›s few specialists in Parthian coinage, he has documented over ninety thousand Parthian coins. In 1998, he established the Parthia.com web site, an important resource for students of Parthian history, art, and numismatics. He joined the International Parthian Coin Project in 2007 as an author of the Sylloge Nummorum Parthicorum series. He has photographed the major Parthian coin collections of European and USA coin cabinets plus the David Sellwood and other important private collections. He is a recipient of numerous study/travel grants from the Royal Numismatic Society, British Institute of Persian Studies and the Austrian Academy of Sciences. He is a Fellow of the Royal Numismatic Society and member of the Oriental Numismatic and American Numismatic Societies. ALEXANDRA MAGUB

completed her thesis on ‘Political and Religious Ideologies on Parthian Coinage of the 2nd-1st Centuries BC’ in 2018. She was the recipient of a Collaborative Doctoral Award, supported by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, and carried out her research at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) and the British Museum. As a member of the International Parthian Coin Project, she has worked on the publication of Sylloge Nummorum Parthicorum 2: Mithradates II with colleagues from the British Museum, Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis and Elizabeth Pendleton, and Edward Hopkins of Dayton, Ohio (US). In December 2018, Alexandra joined the V&A as a research assistant for a forthcoming exhibition on Iran.

xxvi

HODGE MEHDI MALEK

is a graduate of Keble College, Oxford and has extensively travelled in Iran and other parts of the Persian Gulf. He has an interest in Persian history with a particular focus on the Sasanian period as well as that of Mazandaran province more specifically. He has written various articles on Sasanian and Tabaristan numismatics; his publications include The Dabuyid Ispahbads and the Early ‘Abbasid Governors: History and Numismatics (2004) and Arab Sasanian Numismatics and History During the Early Islamic Period in Iran and Iraq (2019), both Special Publications of the Royal Numismatic Society. In 1997 he was awarded the Samir Shamma Prize for Islamic Numismatics by the Royal Numismatic Society for his papers on Tabaristan. ELIZABETH PENDLETON

works at the British Museum in the Department of Coins and Medals. Initially her work focussed on the coins of the Sasanian empire. With Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis and M. Elahé Askari, she co-authored the two volumes of Sasanian Coins: A Sylloge of the Sasanian Coins in the National Museum of Iran (Muzeh Melli Iran), Tehran. These volumes were the result of a successful joint project between the National Museum of Iran and the British Museum. Next Dr Pendleton started working on Parthian coinage as a member of the British Museum’s team within the multi-national Parthian Coin Project. With fellow team members V. Curtis, A. Magub (both then in the BM) and E.C. Hopkins (of Dayton, Ohio), she is a co-author of Volume 2 within the Sylloge Parthicorum Nummorum (SNP) series. This volume examines the coinage of Mithradates II and is now in press (Austrian Academy of Sciences). The same team is currently in the early stages of work on SNP Volume 4. With V. Curtis, M. Alram and T. Daryaee, Dr Pendleton co-edited The Parthian and Early Sasanian Empires: Adaptation and Expansion, the proceedings of a conference held in Vienna as part of the Parthian Coin Project. KEITH RUTTER

took his first degree at the University of Cambridge and his PhD at University College, London. Between 1971 and 2004 he taught in the Department of Classics in the University of Edinburgh and he is now Honorary Professorial Fellow in the School of History, Classics and Archaeology in the same university. His books include Campanian Coinages (1979) and Greek Coinages of Southern Italy and Sicily (1997). He was principal editor of the third edition of Historia Numorum (Italy) (2001) and is currently working on the third edition of Historia Numorum (Sicily). KHODADAD REZAKHANI

is a historian of Iran and Central Asia in the first millennium CE. He is the author of ReOrienting the Sasanians: East Iran in Late Antiquity (Edinburg UP, 2017) and editor of various volumes and many articles on the history, languages, and material culture of ancient and late antique Iran. He is currently an Associate Research Scholar and Lecturer at Princeton University in New Jersey, the United States. With an interest in the history of Central Asia, he is the author of the upcoming volume Inventing the Silk Road (Bloomsbury 2020) and several articles on the coinage of Persis and its script, as well as Sasanian and Eastern Iranian (Kushano-Sasanian and Iranian Huns) coins. His research interest also includes the transition period from the Sasanian to Islamic period, particularly the economic and social aspects of transition and the continuity and change in the history of Iran and Central Asia during this period.

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

xxvii

VESTA SARKHOSH CURTIS

is currently the Curator of Middle Eastern Coins at the Department of Coins and Medals at the British Museum. She has Successfully completed a joint collaborative project with the National Museum of Iran on Sasanian Coins of AD 224-651, which resulted in two volumes in 2010 and 2012 co-authored with Elahé Askari, the former Head of the Coins and Seals Department of the National Museum of Iran in Tehran, and Elizabeth Pendleton of the British Museum. She is currently the Joint Director and Co-Editor of the International Parthian Coin Project, the Sylloge Nummorum Parthicorum (SNP) with Michael Alram, She is the co- author of SNP Volume 2: Mithradates II (122/1–90 BC) with Alexandra Magub, Elizabeth Pendleton and Edward Christopher Hopkins (Vienna, in press). The team are currently working on SNP Volume 4: Mithradates III-Pacorus I. She has contributed to a series of major and minor exhibitions on Iran both in the British Museum, as well as abroad, including the Cyrus Cylinder Exhibition in Tehran in 2011-2012, in the US (2013) and in Mumbai in 2013-2014. She is currently preparing an exhibition in the British Museum on Parthian coins entitled ‘East meets West’ in Spring -Summer 2020. She has published extensively on ancient Persian coins, art and culture and is particularly interested in religious and royal iconography. Other publications include: Persian Myths; From Persepolis to the Punjab and From Persia to Punjab (both with Elizabeth Errington); The Art and Archaeology of Ancient Persia: Parthian and Sasanian Periods (edited with R. Hillenbrand and M.J. Rogers), The Idea of Iran Series I-IV (edited with Sarah Stewart); and The Parthian and Early Sasanian Empires: Adaptation and Expansion (edited with E. Pendleton, M. Alram & T. Daryaee. SUSAN TYLER-SMITH

grew up on a farm in Devon, England and trained as a librarian. She became interested in Sasanian and related coins in 1974 after hearing a lecture about them by the Byzantinist, Philip Whitting. She soon bought her first drachms of Khusru I and Hormizd IV, finding them attractive. She published her first article in 1983 and since then has specialized in the coinage of the later period including Khusru II and Yazdgard III. Susan has also published articles on medieval European coins and recorded parcels of Persis and Sasanian coins from hoards. Her first book was published in 2017. It began as a study of a parcel from the enormous ‘Shiraz’ or ‘Year 12’ hoard but developed into a study on the coinage reforms of Khusru II between 600 and 603 and the coinage of the usurper Vistāhm. Her interest in ‘pseudo’ Sasanian coins developed alongside her study of the official coins. She is currently co-editor of the Medieval and Modern section of The Numismatic Chronicle and editor of individual volumes in the Special Publications series of the Royal Numismatic Society. In 2019, Ms. Tyler-Smith edited Mr. Malek’s two volumes work entitled: Arab-Sasanian Numismatics and History during the Early Islamic Period in Iran and Iraq: The Johnson Collection of Arab-Sasanian Coins for Royal Numismatic Society (Special Publication no. 55).

xxviii

The Heavy Bronzes of Antiochus III and Demetrius I of Bactria 1

SIMON GLENN AND KEITH RUTTER

When writing about the production of coins from the mint of Ecbatana under Antiochus III, Houghton and Lorber comment (2002 I.I: 455) that although the precious metal coinage was ‘rather scanty’, the output of bronze coinage was ‘truly prolific’. The bronzes were issued in several denominations including some of the heaviest Seleucid coins up to that time. Among the latter are two groups of bronze coins of exceptionally high weight, the first certainly minted by Antiochus III at the mint of Ecbatana, the second by Seleucus IV at the same mint (Figure 1):

Figure 1: Seleucus IV, Ecbatana, denomination AA, 39.83g, Bibliothèque nationale de France R3780

1. Obv. Head of Antiochus, diademed, r. Rev. Apollo seated on omphalos facing l., testing arrow and resting l. hand on grounded bow; down r., BAΣIΛEΩΣ; down l., ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ; at l. below, elephant head l.; control marks at outer l. and outer r. 30–22mm, 27.06–22.44 g Seleucid Coins I.I, p. 459, no. 1246, Denomination AA; I.II, Pl. 95 Newell, ESM, 594 2. Obv. Draped bust of Dionysus crowned with ivy, three-quarters r. Rev. Elephant l.; above, BAΣIΛEΩΣ; below, ΣΕΛΕΥΚΟΥ. 36–33 mm, 39.83–27.28 g Seleucid Coins II.I, p. 30, no. 1353; Le Rider, Suse, 328, C.3, “octuples” a, c, d Newell, CSE 1205

1

The authors would like to express their appreciation, both of the honorand, and the invitation to contribute to this volume in his honour. May David long enjoy his visits to the opera! A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

1

Nothing similar to these coins in terms of weight and diameter is known in the Seleucid empire at this time.2 The rarity of these heavy coins in the Seleucid series contrasts with the situation in Ptolemaic Egypt where, perhaps circa 260, a series of bronze coins was introduced with eight different denominations three of which were of high weight (Mørkholm 1991: 155–6; Faucher 2013: 217–233). In Egypt the general monetary pressures are well known. There was in particular an overall shortage of silver for coining large denominations perhaps to provide an easy method for the collection of tax (Faucher 2013). Furthermore the weight of the heaviest denomination (probable theoretical weight about 92 g) seems to correspond to the local Egyptian unit of weight, the deben. Mørkholm suggested that the bronze coinage was also intended to substitute for silver as an exchange medium in the rural areas of Egypt outside the urban centres of Alexandria and in the small number of Greek cities as well (Mørkholm 1991: 105-6). For the Seleucid issues on the other hand the reasons(s) that lay behind the minting of the heavy bronze coins are poorly understood. To explore the problem we start from the historical and in particular the military context. From 212 Antiochus III embarked on a seven-year ‘Anabasis’ in the east. The precise chronology is in dispute, and suggested chronologies differ by a year or so; however, a possible explanation is that in the spring after he had wintered at Seleucia on the Tigris in 212/211, Antiochus proceeded to Media where he looted the temple of Aene (Anaitis) at Ecbatana (Polyb. 10.27.11–13). In 209 he expelled Parthian raiders from Media and entered Parthyene where he received the submission of the Parthian king. During the years 208–206 he fought with the Bactrian king, Euthydemus, who ultimately recognized Seleucid suzerainty and surrendered his force of war elephants. In 206 Antiochus advanced into Mauryan India where he is said to have renewed a relationship with King Sophagesenus and gained more elephants. It was presumably this military activity that stimulated the massive bronze output of the mint of Ecbatana, including the heavy denomination[s] noted above. For the latter Houghton and Lorber suggest (I.1, p. 455) a date of around 210. Apart from the Seleucid issues discussed in the previous paragraphs, the only other heavy bronze coins of comparable weight in the east belong to a series issued by Demetrius I of Bactria (Bopearachchi 1991: 167, Série 6, Pl. 5), illustrated in Figure 2:

Figure 2: Demetrius I, uncertain mint, ‘sextuple unit’, 20.82g, 30mm, Ashmolean Museum.

3. Obv. Shield of Athena; in the centre, Gorgon head. Rev. Trident; down r., BAΣIΛEΩΣ; down l., ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΥ; monogram: . 34–30 mm; 25.69–18.61 g, average weight 25.2 g, described as a ‘sextuple’, or hexachalkon. The diameter and weight of these coins were larger than any other bronze issue produced by the Bactrian kingdom. (For the designation of the denomination as a hexachalkon, that is six rather than eight chalkoi, see MacDowall 1989: 31; 2005a.) In addition, the character of the obverse type differs from those on earlier Graeco-Bactrian bronze coins which were a bust of a deity or hero, either Hermes or Heracles. On the hexachalka the types are symbolic: the obverse shows a shield with a Gorgon head, the decoration of Athena: the reverse has the trident of Poseidon. Furthermore, unlike the other bronze denominations of Demetrius, the hexachalka have only one monogram on the reverse ( ), which is itself a first appearance in the Graeco-Bactrian series. The issue was not large. Only one control mark was used and their production consumed an estimated 23.3 obverse dies (Glenn 2015: 176). 2

2

Later issues of Seleucid heavy bronzes are known: of Timarchus (Seleucid Coins II.I, p. 147, no. 1594, 148, no. 1598) and of Demetrius I (Seleucid Coins II.I, 200, no. 1740).

What is the date of the reign of king Demetrius I and of this issue? For once in the story of the kings of Bactria we know some history, specifically about the relations between the kings of Bactria and the kings of the Seleucid empire. Demetrius I was the son of Euthydemus who was king of Bactria at the time when Antiochus invaded in 209 (208?). After fierce fighting, summarised by Polybius (10.49), Euthydemus ‘was struck with terror and pulled back with his army to Zariaspa (Bactra)’, where he was besieged for two years (Polybius 10. 49.15). The siege was only ended by negotiation conducted initially by Teleas, an emissary of Antiochus. On the Bactrian side the agreement between the two kings was ratified by Demetrius, Euthydemus’ son, who is described by Polybius at the time as a young man (νεανίσκος). (11.39.6). He was perhaps around twenty years of age or a little younger. Euthydemus continued to rule in Bactria, though he was compelled to hand over his force of elephants to Antiochus as the latter proceeded on his way to India. Two further pieces of evidence help to throw light on the military achievements of Demetrius and his relationship to Euthydemus. A passage in Strabo (11.11.1) refers to the conquest of Indian tribes by ‘Demetrius the son of Euthydemus, the king of the Bactrians’, and an inscription (Bernard, Pinault and Rougemont 2004: 229–232) records a dedication in which good fortune is invoked for ‘Euthydemus, greatest of all kings, and his outstanding son Demetrius renowned for fine victories’ (transl. Hollis 2011: 110). Thus far, we have seen that Antiochus III and Demetrius I both produced heavy bronze coins. We have observed the specific military context for the issues of Antiochus III. Could the same factor apply in the case of those of Demetrius I? As the passage in Strabo (11.11.1) states, he campaigned in India, and MacDowall argued (2005b: 198) that this occurred already while his father Euthydemus was still king. Just like the Seleucids, the Bactrian kings made use of co-regencies. The adoption by Demetrius of the elephant scalp headdress on his earliest coinage could indicate that he had already achieved his Indian conquests while his father was still king, The reverse type that accompanies it – a figure of Heracles, the patron hero of the Euthydemids, crowning himself with a wreath – clearly refers to a victory. A further hint of the Indian – and military – orientation of the heavy hexachalka is provided by their distribution. In striking contrast to the smaller denominations of bronze coins (which are mostly found north of the Hindu Kush), the hexachalka circulated for the most part in the Indian provinces south of that range. Among the six specimens whose provenance is noted by MacDowall (1989: 31; 2005b: 200), five come from south of the Hindu Kush (Begram, Jalalia (on the Indus, near Attock, 2 specimens); Taxila (2 specimens), and only one from north of that range (Tadjikistan). Alongside these large bronze issues, there exists the strange little series of bronze ‘coins’ of Agathocles (Bopearachchi 1991: 176, Série 11, Pl. 8). The flans of these coins are irregular in shape. Some are rectangular, others have a curved edge and seem to have been cut as quarters from larger coins. They are unlike any coins that had come before in the Graeco-Bactrian series. The types they bear are not Greek (Figure 3):

Figure 3: Agathocles, uncertain denomination, 5.33g, enlarged, Ashmolean Museum.

Obv. Six-arched hill; above, star; legend (written from r. to l.), Akathukreyasa Rev. Tree within an enclosure; legend (written from r. to l.) Hirañasame. 6.00–4.65g, unknown denomination. The six-arched hill is a symbol that is regularly found on Indian coinage. This prevalence has been used to suggest that the motif is a dynastic symbol of the Mauryans, perhaps originally adopted by Chandragupta (Allchin 1959). Although such a connection has been recently rejected (Bhandare 2012), it is clear that the iconography does not come A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

3

from a Greek source. Likewise the reverse image is very different from anything seen on coins issued by the Hellenistic kings of the region up until this point. The coins show a tree surrounded by a railing, a representation strongly reminiscent of the Bodhi tree under which the Buddha gained enlightenment. The name of Agathocles only appears written in the Kharosthi script on the obverse. The omission of a Greek legend and the royal title is also unique in the Graeco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek series up to this point. The reverse legend, Hirañasame, ‘Golden Hermitage’, should be taken (along with coins of similar types with a different legend), as a reference to a particular geographical area. The presence of this legend, along with the lack of a royal title, may suggest that these issues were of a civic nature, produced by a non-Greek population south of the Hindu Kush who still had a relationship with Agathocles that required them to add his name to these coins. Whatever the exact circumstances of production, it is clear that these coins were made for people very different from the those of the monolingual Attic standard silver, cupro-nickel and bronze coins of Agathocles and his contemporaneous kings. The surfaces of the coins are rarely smooth and on some specimens there could be traces of overstriking. No undertypes have yet been recognized, but comparison of the ‘quarters’ set against the flan of one of Demetrius’ hexachalka suggests that the ‘quarters’ could have been cut from such a flan and then overstruck. Thus these irregularly shaped pieces would have had a ‘second life’ as coins. Indirectly, the re-use of Demetrius’ sextuple coins for an unusual issue of civic character under Agathocles may be further evidence for his campaigns south of the Hindu Kush. Thus the comparison of the heavy bronzes of Antiochus III and Demetrius I indicates that the two issues were connected but that the reasons for their issue were different: in the case of Antiochus, it was financial necessity; in the case of Demetrius, it was an attempt to introduce some form of alignment with the Seleucid system used by Antiochus III and Seleucus IV in the eastern part of their empire.

4

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbreviations BNBact = Bopearachchi (1991) CSE = Houghton (1983) ESM = Newell (1938) Seleucid Coins = Houghton, Lorber, and Hoover (2002/2008) Allchin, F.R. (1959), ‘Upon the contextual significance of certain groups of ancient Indian signs’, Bulletin

African Studies 22, 548-555.

of the School of Oriental and

Bernard, P., Pinault, G.-P., and Rougemont G. (2004), ‘Deux nouvelles inscriptions grecques de l’Asie centrale’, Journal

des Savants, 2004/2, 227–356.

Bhandare, S. (2012), ‘From Kautilya to Kosambi and beyond. The quest for ‘Mauryan/Aśokan’ coinage’, in P. Olivelle, J. Leoshko, and H. Prabha Ray (eds), Reimagining

Aśoka. Memory and History, New Delhi, 93-128.

Boillet, P.-Y (2013), ‘La production de l’atelier monétaire d’Ecbatane: mise en perspective historique et financière’, Revue numismatique 170, 191–211. Bopearachchi, O. (1991), Monnaies Faucher, T. (2013), Frapper

gréco-bactriennes et indo-grecques: catalogue raisonné, Paris.

monnaie. La fabrication des monnaies de bronze à Alexandrie sous les Ptolémées, Alexandria.

Glenn, S. (2015), Royal Coinage University of Oxford.

in Hellenistic Bactria: a die study of coins from Euthydemus I to Antimachus I, unpublished D.Phil. thesis,

Hollis, A. (2011), ‘Greek letters from Hellenistic Bactria’, in D. Obbink and R. Rutherford (eds), Culture

Honour of Peter Parsons, Oxford, 104–118.

Houghton, A. (1983), Coins

in Pieces: Essays on Ancient Texts in

of the Seleucid East from the Collection of Arthur Houghton, ACNAC 4, New York.

Houghton, A., Lorber, C.C., and Hoover, O. (2002/2008), Seleucid

Coins: a Comprehensive Catalogue, 2 volumes, New York.

Kraay, C.M. (1981), ‘Demetrius in Bactria and India’, Quaderni

Ticinesi. Numismatica e Antichità Classiche 10, 219–233.

Le Rider, G. (1965), Souse sous les Séleucides et les Parthes: archéologique en Iran, Vol. XXXVIII, Paris.

les travailles monétaires et l’hotoire de la ville, Mémoires de la mission

MacDowall, D.W. (1989), ‘The copper coinage of Demetrius, the son of Euthydemus’, South

Asian Studies 5, 29–33.

MacDowall, D.W. (2005a), ‘The weight of the Graeco-Bactrian chalkous’, in C. Alfaro, C. Marcos, and P. Otero (eds), XIII

de Numismática, Madrid – 2003: Actas-Proceedings, Vol. 1, Madrid, 345–348.

Congreso Internacional

MacDowall, D.W. (2005b), ‘The role of Demetrius in Arachosia and the Kabul valley’, in O. Bopearachchi and M.-F. Boussac (eds), Afghanistan,

ancien carrefour entre l’est et l’ouest, Paris, 197–206.

Mørkholm, O. (1991), Early Newell, E.T. (1938), The

Hellenistic Coinage from the Accession of Alexander to the Peace of Apamea (336-188 B.C.), Cambridge.

Coinage of the Eastern Seleucid Mints from Seleucus I to Antiochus III, New York.

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

5

The Date of the Battle at the River Lycus

Antiochus VII Defeated the Parthian General Indates on Friday 12 June 130 BC G.R.F. ASSAR

The audacious Seleucid assault on Arsacid Babylonia in 138 BC ended up in vain when Mithradates I (165-132 BC) defeated and captured Demetrius II (146/5-138 BC, First Reign) in Jul/Aug of that year.1 Antiochus VII (138-129 BC) took advantage of his elder brother’s misfortune, returned from exile in Side (in Pamphylia, southern Asia Minor) and assumed the Seleucid throne some months later.2 He then married Cleopatra Thea, his former sister-in-law,3 and spent the next six years checking the unrest in Judaea, ultimately concluding a peace treaty with the Jewish high priest and ethnarch John Hyrcanus.4 Around half a year later, Antiochus led a major expedition to the east to recover lost Seleucid territories in Mesopotamia and beyond. His vast army of men and horse, which he had tempered in numerous wars against his neighbours, included a Jewish contingent under Hyrcanus, as well as auxiliaries from many eastern princes who detested the

1

2

3

4

See Assar (2006b), 93-95 for a brief discussion of the relevant sources. The inception of the reign of Demetrius II cannot be precisely dated because of a roughly 9-month gap in our Babylonian sources. The latest cuneiform text mentioning Alexander Balas (150-146/5 BC) is dated 20.VIII.166 SEB (21 Nov 146 BC), while the earliest document attesting to Demetrius’ sway over Babylonia is an Astronomical Diary fragment covering months V-IX of 167 SEB (23/24 Jul – 17/18 Dec 145 BC). See Clay (1913), 87 (No. 50) and Pl. 46 (hand-copy) for the document subscribed to Alexander Balas. For the text confirming Demetrius II see Sachs and Hunger (1996), 92-103, Diary -144. Although the royal name is not preserved in the colophon titles, Demetrius is attested from month VI in Obv 14 of this fragment. For the revised regnal years of Mithradates I see Assar (2004/5a), 88; Assar (2004/5b), 45, 73; Assar (2005/6), 41-45, 55; Assar (2006a), 73-78; Assar (2006b), 88-98; Assar (2006/7), 3. Using the evidence of coins alone, Dąbrowa (2005), 73, fn. 1, dates the death of Mithradates I to 139/8 BC. Then, neglecting my 2004/5a paper (with reference to a 2003 internet publication now removed), Dąbrowa cites Oelsner (1975), 30 sqq. and Van der Spek (1997/8), 173 as his sources to lower the terminal date of Mithradates I to 132 BC based on cuneiform records. Yet neither Oelsner nor Van der Spek date the last year of Mithradates I so late! In a subsequent publication some eleven years later, Oelsner (1986), 275 gives Mithradates I (c. 171-139/8 BC). Also, writing in Houghton et al. (2008), 42, Hoover attributes to Le Rider (1965), 322-323 my revised regnal years of Phraates I (168-165 BC) and with it the 165 BC inception of the reign of Mithradates I. This is incorrect! Le Rider consistently dates the reign of Mithradates I to c. 171-139/8 BC throughout his magisterial treatise. See, for example, Le Rider (1965), 237 and 460. Justin (35.2.1) relates that at the start of the war between Demetrius I (162-150 BC) and Alexander Balas, the former entrusted his two sons, the future Demetrius II and Antiochus VII, to a friend in Cnidus (southwestern Asia Minor). Appian (Syrian Wars 68) states that Antiochus VII was in Rhodes when he received the news of his brother’s captivity. See also Eusebius (Chron. I.255) in Schoene (1875), 255, and Porphyry (FGH 260, F32.17), in Jacoby (1929), 1217. Appian (Syrian Wars 67-68); Josephus (13.222). Appian relates that Cleopatra wedded Antiochus because she was jealous that her captive husband Demetrius II had married Rhodogune, daughter of Mithradates I of Parthia. See also Justin (38.9.3) on this inter-dynastic marriage. Unless stated otherwise, all references to Josephus concern his Jewish Antiquities. I.Maccabees (15.26-39, 16.1-26); Diodorus (34/35.1.1-5); Josephus (13.224-249); Porphyry (FGH 260, F32.18) in Jacoby (1929), 1217; Eusebius (Chron. I.255) in Schoene (1875), 255. Josephus (13.236) places the peace negotiations between John Hyrcanus and Antiochus not long after the Seleucid king’s invasion of Judaea in the 4th year of his reign and the 1st of Hyrcanus’ rule, in the 162nd Olympiad. These regnal years are incompatible with the accompanying Olympiad date: the 4th year of Antiochus VII fell in 135/4 BC whereas the 162nd Olympiad began in July 132 BC. Porphyry and Eusebius date Antiochus’ siege of Jerusalem to the 3rd year of the 162nd Olympiad (130/29 BC). But if counted on the Macedonian version of the Olympiad dating that began the year in autumn, Porphyry/Eusebius’ date would fall in 131/0 BC. Judging from Josephus (13.237-238) on the autumn rains at the setting of the Pleiades and his comments (13.242) on the start of the Festival of Tabernacles (celebrated on the 15th day of the Jewish month Tishre in Sep/Oct), the siege of Jerusalem lasted for about a year. This will take us close to the end of 131 BC, just before Antiochus began his Parthian campaign. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

7

arrogance of the Parthians.5 Justin (38.10.6) relates that Antiochus prevailed in three battles, entered Babylon and was hailed the Great. Yet, like his brother Demetrius before him, Antiochus failed to achieve his main objective: the subjugation of Parthia. About a year after his triumphant arrival in Babylon, the Parthians probably led by their young Arsacid prince Phraates II (132-127 BC),6 ambushed Antiochus in Media and he lost both his army and his life in the ensuing mêlée sometime in early spring 129 BC.7 The original Babylonian account of Antiochus’ Parthian expedition is lost, and this unfortunate hiatus has hampered scholarly efforts to date positively the Seleucid occupation of Mesopotamia before Antiochus met his end in a Parthian counteroffensive. It is generally believed that Antiochus and his army reached Mesopotamia around summer 130 BC, but some authors begin the Seleucid campaign a year earlier in 131 BC.8 According to Livy (Summaries 59) and Julius Obsequens (28), Antiochus’ expedition took place in the joint consulship at Rome of Appius Claudius and Marcus Perperna (130 BC).9 The 5th century AD historian, priest and theologian Paulus Orosius (5.10.8) records this Seleucid adventure in some detail. He begins with the 622nd year after the foundation of Rome10 whereupon the consul and pontifex maximus Publius Licinius Crassus Macianus (131 BC) was given the command to move against the Pergamene insurgent Aristonicus, the alleged brother of King Attalus III (138-133 BC) and son of King Eumenes II (197-152 BC). Crassus was defeated and slain on the battlefield. Orosius continues that Marcus Perperna who succeeded Crassus as consul (130 BC) marched into Asia against Aristonicus. He crushed the rebel in an unexpected battle and drove him into flight, ultimately securing his surrender and sending him to Rome to be executed by order of the Senate. According to Orosius, Perperna himself died shortly afterwards at Pergamon and at this same time, Antiochus, not content with Babylon, Ecbatana, and the entire Median Empire, engaged in battle with Phraates, king of the Parthians, and was conquered. Porphyry (FGH 260, F32.19) and Eusebius (Chron. I.255) relate that Arsaces attacked Antiochus VII at the onset of winter in the 4th year of the 162nd Olympiad (129/8 BC or 130/29 BC on the Macedonian calendar). The Seleucid prince bravely met the barbarians in a confined space but was injured and killed. Elsewhere Eusebius (Chron. II.130) reports that Arsaces slew Antiochus in Olympiad 163.1 (128/7 BC or 129/8 BC on the Macedonian count).11

5 6

7

8 9

10

11

8

Justin (38.10.5); Diodorus (34/35.16). See also Houghton et al. (2008), 349 who remark that the Seleucid force involved contingents from Commagene and Characene. For the revised regnal years of Phraates II see Assar (2003), 186, no. 25; Assar (2004/5a), 88; Assar (2004/5b), 73; Assar (2005/6), 43-44, 46; Assar (2006a), 77-78; Assar (2006b), 95-98; Assar (2006/7), 10-12. I should add that Hoover (2008), 51 mistakenly attributes to Del Monte (1997), 245 my amended 132 BC inception of the reign of Phraates II. He misses the point that Del Monte clearly states that the title of the Parthian rulers is simply King Arsaces in the cuneiform records VS XV 32 (107 AE = 171 SEB), LBAT 1038 (108 AE = 172 SEB), BRM II 52 (109 AE = 173 SEB) and in all the later texts down to the reign of Mithradates II with no possibility to locate the transition to Phraates II: senza che si possa individuare il passaggio a Fraate II. Del Monte (1997), 245-246 correctly identifies the BRM II 53 cuneiform tablet from Uruk dated […] V.180 SEB ( Jul/Aug 132 BC) as the first secure record from the reign of Phraates II. But he does not claim that Phraates II ascended the throne in 132 BC. He dismisses Debevoise (1938), 26, fn. 114 that the successor of Mithradates I reigned with his mother who was regent. Debevoise (1938), 29 identifies the young prince who followed Mithradates I on the throne as Phraates II and places his accession in 138/7 BC. In any case, Hoover neglects Del Monte (1997), 259 who gives the final year of Mithradates I and the inception of the reign of Phraates II as 139/8 BC and 138/7 BC respectively, not 132 BC. On the Parthian campaign of Antiochus VII and its immediate aftermath see Justin (38.10.1-39.1-6); Diodorus (34/35.15-18); Josephus (13.249-253) and Josephus (Jewish War 1.50 and 1.62); Appian (Syrian Wars 68); Orosius (5.10.8); Porphyry (FGH 260, F32.19) in Jacoby (1929), 1217-1218; Eusebius (Chron. I.255-257) in Schoene (1875), 225-227; Aelian (On the Character of Animals 10.34); Aelian (Historical Miscellany 241); Posidonius (Sciences and History 14.61a and 14.63 = FGH 87, F9a and F11); Athenaeus (Deipnosophistae 10.439e and 12.540b-c). For 130 BC see, for example, Grainger (1997), 29; Houghton et al. (2008), 349-350. Will (2003), 413 places it aussitôt après le reglèment des affaires judéennes (131/0), while Fischer (1970), 29-48 and 91-101, as well as Dąbrowa (2010), 69-70 opt for 131 BC. Livy places this episode after the victory of Marcus Perperna ( joint consul with Appius Claudius in 130 BC) over Aristonicus (son of King Eumenes of Pergamon) and before the initial failure of Gaius Sempronius ( joint consul with Manius Aquillius in 129 BC) against the Iapydae. The latter were the Illyrian Iapydes in Appian (Illyrian Wars 10), living on the nearer side of the Alps in the north-western regions of the Balkan Peninsula (covering parts of modern Albania, Slovenia and Croatia). Appian also relates that the Roman consul Sempronius waged war on the Iapydes. Julius Obsequens (28) dates Antiochus’ assault on Parthia to the joint consulship of Claudius and Perperna (130 BC), adding that: When Antiochus, King of Syria, was on campaign with a huge army, swallows built a nest in his tent. He failed to heed this portent, joined battle, and was slain by the Parthians. On this latter observation, see also Aelian in fn. 7 above. Orosius seemingly took the Olympic year 6.4 (21 Apr 753 BC – 20 Apr 752 BC) as the date of Rome’s foundation (ab urbe condita) and the epoch of the pre-Julian reform Roman calendar. This covered Januarius 752 BC from which month Orosius reckons the consular year 622 AUC. Livy (Summaries 47) counts from the Olympic year 7.2 (751/0 BC) and relates that in the year 598 AUC (153 BC) Roman consuls began to enter upon their office on the Kalends of Januarius (1 January). See Samuel (1972), 153-17 and 249-276. For a lucid discussion by the late C.J. Bennett of the structure of the preJulian reform Roman calendar and the Julian dates of the beginning of Roman months see the following links: instonebrewer.com/TyndaleSites/Egypt/ptolemies/chron/roman/chron_rom_cal.htm (Calendar) instonebrewer.com/TyndaleSites/Egypt/ptolemies/chron/roman/roman_civil.htm (Dates) Schoene (1866), 130.

Besides these 1st century BC-4th century AD accounts, we have references to the death of Antiochus VII in two Armenian sources as well as in some obscure 8th-12th century AD literature. With no indication of a date, Moses Khorenats‘i the 5th century AD Armenian bishop and historian relates that having defeated and captured Demetrius II, Aršak (Mithradates I) led his prisoner to Parthia. Then hearing that Antiochus, the brother of Demetrius had occupied Syria, Aršak returned to attack the new Seleucid king.12 Discomfited by the severity of the winter, Antiochus met the Parthian force in a narrow spot and perished with his army. According to the incoherent and anachronistic account of Sebēos the 7th century AD Armenian clergyman and writer, as Aršak marched on Babylon in the winter of the 128th year of his reign, Antiochus suddenly fell on him in a narrow pass but was worsted and lost his army and life.13 The Chronicle of the Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Maḥre places Antiochus’ demise 1884 years after the birth of Abraham,14 and the Maronite Chronicle dates it to year 182 (Seleucid era) in synchronisation with the 17th regnal year of Ptolemy VIII Physcon of Egypt (145-116 BC), that is, 129/8 BC:15 wbšnt qpb (182) wdPṬLM’WS yz (17) qṭl ’RŠQ Prtwy’ l’NṬYWKWS SDṬWS And in the year 182, the 17th (year) of Ptolemy, the Parthian Arsaces killed/defeated Antiochus Sidetes

Michael Syrus relates that in the year 196 which was Ptolemy’s 17th year, the Jewish leader Hyrcanus marched with Antiochus and killed the Parthian general Indates.16 He then adds that Arsaces, the Parthian, killed Antiochus; Arsaces, king of the Medes and Persians, captured Demetrius; Antiochus and Hyrcanus defeated the Parthian general and set up a memorial stele near the River Lycus in honour of their victory.17 Surprisingly, these late literary sources have nothing on the preliminaries to Antiochus’ Parthian anabasis, particularly its time and place of launch. It is, perhaps, this omission that has led some modern commentators to postulate a prefatory march to Babylonia in 131 BC and to follow that event up with an incursion into Media in 130 BC.18 Using the above cited literature together with several cuneiform colophons and dated coins, I had elsewhere placed the termini post and ante quem of Antiochus’ short grip on Babylonia in May/Jun 130 BC and 5 Nov 129 BC respectively.19 But I have since noticed that a key testimony of Nicolaus of Damascus, the Greek philosopher and historian of the Augustan age, can narrow down this interval. Preserved in Josephus (13.249-252), Nicolaus’ statement helps us decide the Julian date of a battle between the Seleucid and Parthian forces in central Mesopotamia. Briefly speaking, Nicolaus says that a conflict involving the two armies began at the River Lycus (the Greater Zāb in Adiabene, northern Mesopotamia) and ended with the defeat of the Parthian general Indates. Thanks to Josephus’ synchronisation of this battle with a Jewish festival, we can place it in Friday 12 June 130 BC both on astronomical and calendrical grounds (see below).20 We can then use this secure date to estimate the moment of Antiochus’ entry into Babylon. However, to work towards these targets smoothly, I shall begin with a re-examination of the literary and numismatic evidence first to decide the 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Thomson (1978), 132. Thomson (1978), 364-365. The reference to year 128 of Aršak (129 BC) is probably based on the epochal year 256 BC, the year of the joint consulship of Lucius Manlius Vulso Longus and Marcus Atilius Regulus. See Justin (41.4.3) who places the first Parthian revolt in this same consular year. At any rate, the whole of this section of Sebēos’ narrative is quite confused. He first places the annexation by Demetrius II of Babylonia in the 114th year of Aršak, king of the Parthians, in the 4th year of the reign of Demetrius. These dates are inconsistent with our contemporary account of Demetrius’ defeat and captivity: the 4th year of Demetrius II (146/5-138 BC, 1st Reign) fell in 143/2 BC and counting from 256 BC, the 114th year of Aršak was 143/2 BC also. However, we know from our Babylonian sources that Mithradates I defeated and took Demetrius prisoner in the summer of 138 BC, some 5 years later than the date in this Armenian source. See Sachs and Hunger (1996), 160-161, Diary -137A; Del Monte (1997), 110-111; Assar (2006b), 94-95. It is possible that Sebēos confused the summer 141 BC Parthian conquest of Babylonia with the later episode that ended with the defeat and capture of Demetrius II. The Armenian writer then continues that when Demetrius saw that Aršak had arrived with a large army to attack him, he withdrew to Antioch where the two armies joined in battle! Demetrius was defeated and captured. Antiochus VII then ruled over Syria and Asiastan (Asia Minor?). Then, following a 10-year reign, Antiochus raised an army and invaded Babylon. Aršak released Demetrius and sent him back to his brother to tell him what he would do to him! Yet Demetrius did not go to Babylon and instead went to Asiastan. Finally, Aršak led a 130,000 strong army against Antiochus VII in the 128th year of his reign. Chabot (1927), 51 (Syriac text); Chabot (1949), 41-42 (Latin); Zehnder (2010), 193 (German). Brooks (1955), 50 (Syriac text); Chabot (1955), 42 (Latin); Zehnder (2010), 193 and 200 (German). Chabot (1899), 127 (French); Moosa (2014), 101 (English). The date 196 for the killing of the Parthian general is either wrong or according to an unknown calendar. Chabot (1899), 132; Zehnder (2010), 200-201; Moosa (2014), 102. It is not quite clear which Parthian Arsaces and Seleucid Antiochus are meant in the reference to Arsaces, the Parthian, killed Antiochus. See, for example, Fischer and Dąbrowa in fn. 8 above. Assar (2006b), 99-103. See also Jacoby (1926), 381 (FGH 90, F92(74), erroneously dating this episode to 129 BC). A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

9

inception of Antiochus’ Parthian anabasis. I shall then amend my earlier explanation of a 183 SEB colophon and briefly reassess its chronological impact on the final major clash between the Seleucid and Parthian empires. Next, I shall estimate the Seleucid army’s march duration to the River Lycus using the result later to check the computed 12 June 130 BC date. And lastly, I shall decide the moment of Antiochus’ entry into Babylon.

I. The Epigraphic Evidence of the Parthian Expedition of Antiochus VII I.1: YEAR 181 SEM (C. 26/27 OCT 132 BC – C. 13/14 NOV 131 BC)

Our sole record from this Seleuco-Macedonian year is a double-dated dedicatory Greek inscription from Susa with the following incompletely preserved date-formula:21 1: Ἔτους `I˹P˺ ὁ ˹ε?˺[….] 2: βασιλεὺς ἄγ[ει] 3: ὡς δὲ πρότε[ρον] 4: ΑΠΡ μηνὸς 5: Ξανδικοῦ ….

In the year 117, [according to?] the king’s reckon[ing (but)] according to the form[er reckoning] (year) 181, month Xandikos, ….

Because this lapidary text has retained part of its Arsacid Era date 117 (AE), it confirms Parthian sway over Susa as late as Xandikos 181 SEM (c. 21/22 Apr – c. 20/21 May 131 BC) ≈ Nisannu 181 SEB. We shall presently see that Susa probably submitted to Antiochus VII sometime in late 182 SEM (late summer 130 BC) or shortly after the beginning of 183 SEM (early November 130 BC). I.2: YEAR 181 SEB (21/22 APR 131 BC – 9/10 APR 130 BC)

All useful dates in the Babylonian astronomical diaries from this year including the colophon titles are lost and the disjointed historical notes from months V? and XI in the existing clay fragments offer very little on the state of affairs in Babylonia:22 Month V? (18/19 Aug – 15/16 Sep 131 BC): Phraates II 1: [….] south …. [….] 2: [….] citizens to the province [….] 3: [….] That month, I heard that at the end of the month the [….] 4: […. from Seleucia] which is on the Tigris to [….] 5: [….] messengers of the general [….] 21

22

10

Cumont (1932), 279-284; Debevoise (1938), 30, fn. 5 (correctly restores the lost Arsacid era year as 117, but wrongly equates Xandikos 181 SEM with the Babylonian Addaru 181 SEB and so places the text in the period 13 Mar – 10 Apr 130 BC); Potts (1999), 367 (Table 10.1, no. 25); Canali De Rossi (2004), 110 (no. 197); Rougemont (2012), 60-62 (no. 16). Illustrating the image of the inscribed marble block, Rougemont (at 61) comments that contrary to the hand-copy of Cumont (1932), 280, the stone is not broken after ἔτους (in line 1) and that there are traces of letters before its righthand edge. Dismissing Cumont’s restored Arsacid era date ϛιρ (116), Rougemont and his associate P. Bernard believe that there are traces of four letters after ἔτους: a sudden vertical line perhaps from a K or a Π, then a ϛ, followed by a certain O (not P) and finally a very clear E that has lost its upper horizontal bar. These cannot be resolved into any Arsacid date in relation to the preserved Seleucid year 181 SEM (line 4). Having inspected the image of the inscribed stone, I noted after ἔτους the letter zeta as ` (i.e. I with long serifs rather than Z), followed by an I and a slightly damaged P (respectively the vertical line and ϛ according to Rougemont). These make up the three letters of the Arsacid date `IP (117 AE). The early form of zeta (as `) is attested in the extant Susian material only once: in the personal name ΣΩ`ΑΙΑΣ (Σωζαιας) in a stone inscription with lost date(s), but nevertheless compiled sometime in the late 2nd to early 1st century BC. See Cumont (1933), 260-264; Potts (1999), 362 (Fig. 10.4, no. 2) and 367-368 (no. 26); Canali De Rossi (2004), 108-109 (no. 195); Rougemont (2012), 65-66 (no. 18). The later form of zeta (as Z) is attested four times from Susa: (a) in the personal name Zamaspes in an undated (or date lost) lapidary inscription, (b) in a similar text but dated to 313 SEM (AD 1/2), also mentioning Zamaspes, (c) and (d) respectively in ἐπιζητήσεως in line 14 of the inscription of the stele of Artabanus IV (AD 9-41), and in the daynumber 17 (IZ) of month Audanaios (sic!) in 268 AE (= 333 SEM) of the same text. For (a), see Cumont (1930), 211-220; Potts (1999), 362 (Fig. 10.4 no. 3) and 396; Canali De Rossi (2004), 117-118 (no. 213); Rougemont (2012), 48-49 (no. 11). For (b) see Cumont (1931), 238-250; Potts (1999), 396; Canali De Rossi (2004), 118-120 (no. 214); Rougemont (2012), 50-56 (no. 12). For (c) and (d) see Cumont (1932), 238-260; Potts (1999), 363-364 (Table 10.1, no. 1); Canali De Rossi (2004), 121-123 (no. 218); Rougemont (2012), 25-36 (no. 3). See also Assar (2000), 6-12 and Assar (2003), 176184 on the 64- and 65-year differences between the SEM and AE dates in some Parthian era Greek inscriptions. Sachs and Hunger (1996), 238-244, Diaries -130A-D; Del Monte (1997), 130 (points out the uncertainty over the date of the reverse of diary fragment B).

6: [….] …. That month, the 1st, the satrap [….] ———————— 7: [Month VI? ….] sunset to moonset [….]; it was low to the sun [….]

The obverse text of this fragment contains in its lines 6-8 enough data on the 2 July 131 BC total lunar eclipse to identify the corresponding month as III.181 SEB (20/21 Jun – 18/19 Jul 131 BC).23 On the other hand, the reverse retains almost no useful astronomical input to permit positively dating its sketchy historical notice. But it may be possible to identify its compilation month from the incomplete statement in line 7 above. This concerns a slender crescent moon that was sighted quite close to the sun, setting below the western horizon soon after the sunset at the start of the month that followed the above discontinuous historical commentary. The relevant astronomical computations (Table 1) show that the corresponding first lunar crescent at the start of months VI-XII in 181 SEB attained its lowest elevation of 6.9˚ at the start of month VI.181 SEB (16/17 Sep – 15/16 Oct 131 BC). The preceding month, that is the month of the above sketchy comments, could thus be V.181 SEB. Month XI (10/11 Feb – 11/12 Mar 130 BC): Phraates II 18: […. Seleu]cia 19: [….] bank? of the Tigris 20: [….] …. from the cities

These vestiges of the original historical notice add nothing to our knowledge of the state of affairs in Babylonia and elsewhere in Parthia around the beginning of spring 130 BC. Of the non-contemporary material from this year, an extant Goal-Year Text fragment provides the following incomplete colophon implying Arsacid sway over Babylon throughout 181 SEB:24 1: […. AN.K]U10.MEŠ šá a-na MU-1-me-17.KÁM [….ecl]ipses, which are established for year 117, 2: [šá ši-i MU-1-me-1,21.KÁM mAr]-šá-ka-a LUGAL [which is year 181,] King Arsaces. kun-nu-u’

However, we know the Babylonian astronomers compiled each Goal-Year Text in advance of the year for which it was intended, dating it to the reigning king and anticipating his rule down to the end of the Goal-Year. Yet the incumbent sovereign may have died or lost his crown to a rival any time after the compilation of the Goal-Year Text and before the end of the Goal-Year.25 This drawback diminishes the historical implications of Goal-Year Text colophons because they overlook reign-changes. Therefore we cannot use the above 181 SEB date-formula independently of supporting material to argue for Arsacid jurisdiction over Babylon throughout that year. As just pointed out, the 181 SEB GoalYear Text was compiled at some point in 180 SEB and assigned to the reigning Parthian ruler without knowing whether he would still be on the throne and/or exercise power over Babylonia down to the end of 181 SEB. Added to this uncertainty is the earlier quoted colophon from 180 SEB styling Arsaces and his mother (named Rīnu) as joint kings in month V of 180 SEB (30/31 Jul – 27/28 Aug 132 BC).26 We do not know whether the 181 SEB Goal-Year Text was completed before the date of this attested Parthian co-regency when, as the recognised authority, the Great King Mithradates I was still alive. Neither are we sure that it was finalised sometime after the juvenile prince Phraates II came of age and began to rule as King Arsaces independently of his mother. All we know is that when the 181 SEB Goal-Year Text was completed in 180 SEB, Babylon still acknowledged a King Arsaces. In any case, a date-formula following the lunar eclipse section of the 199 SEB Goal-Year Text (199 – 18 = 181 SEB) confirms Arsacid dominion

23 24 25

26

The total eclipse of the moon on 13.III.181 SEB. See the following link for details: eclipsewise.com/lunar/LEprime/-0199--0100/LE-0130Jul02Tprime.html Hunger and Sachs (2006), 228-229, No. 57. See Sachs (1948), 282-286, and Hunger and Sachs (2006), IX-XIII, on the contents of the Goal-Year Texts. See Assar (2009), 106-115 on interpreting the historical value of some date-formulas and colophon dates in Goal-Year Texts. Compared with its colophon date, the earliest entry in a Goal-Year Text is the Venus section which precedes the Goal-Year by 8 years. This means that in theory a Goal-Year Text for year X + 8 may be prepared as soon as sufficient data for Venus in year X is recorded. Necessary information on other planets and the moon to complete the corresponding sections would already be available for the Goal-Year X + 8 because they all precede the Goal-Year by more than 8 years: Jupiter by 71 and 83 years (two sections), Mercury by 46, Saturn by 59, Mars by 47 and 79 (two sections), and the moon by 18 and sometimes 19 years. See fn. 7 for the relevant literature. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

11

over Babylon up to about the beginning of summer 131 BC. It records the 18 June 131 BC invisible solar eclipse in Mesopotamia:27 7: MU-1-me-1,21.KÁM mAr LUGAL 8: GU4 28 AN.KU10 šámaš ki PAP NU IGI

Year 181 (SEB), King Ar(saces) Month II, the 28th (18 Jun), solar eclipse, when I watched, I did not see it.

Although this colophon mentions King Arsaces (Phraates II), it cannot on its own place Babylon under Parthian rule after the eclipse date because theoretically speaking Antiochus VII could have arrived at the city a day later to assume power. The above date formula nevertheless shows that Babylonian scribes occasionally dropped the Arsacid era (AE) date in their Parthian records and used a single Seleucid era year (SEB) only. I shall later explore the chronological implications of this practice when discussing the date of the Parthian anabasis of Antiochus VII (Section I.4 below). Finally, we have a poorly preserved date-line with an uncertain year 117 which may or may not be from the Parthian period.28 It reads: 39: […. ITU.x] ˹UD˺ 30.KÁM MU-1-me-˹17˺.KÁM [….]

[…. Month x,] 30th day, year 117 [….]

With no traces of the names of the month and reigning king, this mutilated colophon has no historical value even if it turns out to be from the Parthian epoch. I.3: YEAR 182 SEB (10/11 APR 130 BC – 29/30 MAR 129 BC)

Our present corpus of Babylonian astronomical and non-astronomical cuneiform texts includes no dated colophons and/or date formulas from 182 SEB. What is left of the original astronomical diary for this year is a handful of fragments with discontinuous historical notices from months I-V.29 When treated independently, these incomplete testimonies are neither dateable to Phraates II nor to Antiochus VII. However, thanks to the above-mentioned key statement of Nicolas of Damascus on the battle at the River Lycus in central Mesopotamian, we can now positively identify the ruler under whom each of these historical excerpts was drawn up: Month I (10/11 Apr – 9/10 May 130 BC): Phraates II 1: [….] …. 2: […. the equi]valent (of one silver shekel) was: barley, in the beginning of the month, 3 pān 3: [….] …. [….] 1/2 qa, in the middle of the month, 4 sūt, at the end of the month, 4 sūt 1 qa30 Lines 4 and 5 (astronomical observations and data on river levels) 6: [….] That month, the 4th (13/14 Apr), the satrap of Babylonia entered Babylon (coming) from the camp of the king 7: [….] …. with a message of the king went out to the camp of the king 8: [….] the (Greek) citizens (lúpi-li-ta-an)31 went out to the camp of the king by a message of the king,32 9: [….] their [….] went out from Babylon [….] of the king?. I heard that on the 22nd (1/2 May) Lines 10-11ʹ: (probably erased) 12: [….] message of the king

27 28

29 30 31 32

12

Hunger and Sachs (2006), 282-283. See: eclipsewise.com/solar/SEcatalog/SE-0199--0100.html for the eclipse date and time. Reisner (1896), viii (no. 60), and 115 (hand-copy); Fischer (1970), 93; Oelsner (1975), 31-32 and 45. Placing the tablet in the period 148-226 SEB on prosopographical grounds, Oelsner believes that this incomplete date line is from the Arsacid era. He also concludes that the year number is more likely to be 117 rather than 118 (AE) and that there is enough space after the preserved Arsacid date in this line to accommodate both the Seleucid era year and the ruler’s name. Professor S.M. Maul (Rurecht-Karls-Universität, Heidelberg) collated the colophon and informed me that it may be from the Seleucid period instead of the Parthian era (personal communication 17 May 2002). The prevalent uncertainty excludes this text from all historical discussions. Sachs and Hunger (1996), 244-255, Diaries -129A1+A2 and B. See Sachs and Hunger (1988), 34 on the modern equivalents of the Babylonian capacity units: 1 kur = 5 pān; 1 pān = 6 sūt; 1 sūt = 6 qa, with qa being about 1 litre and therefore 1 kur approximately equalling 180 litres. Van der Spek (1987), 65-70, 74 as well as Van der Spek (2001), 446-450 concludes that the Akkadian pu-li-ṭa-an is the Greek politai, the Hellenist community/Greek citizens of Babylon. Del Monte (1997), 130-134 states that: the gaps at the beginning of the corresponding lines of text conceal the motive for calling to the king’s camp the Greek citizens of Babylon. It is possible that because of the potentialities of the community, this was in relation to the military exigencies of an ongoing or imminent war against Antiochus VII. Phraates II is known for his predilection of Greek militia in Justin (42.1.4-5) which precipitated his demise a couple of years later. We now know that this convocation was unrelated to an ongoing war. It was perhaps in anticipation of the looming hostilities.

13: [….] …. That day, the administrator of Esangil 14: […. Bel and Belti]ja, the great gods, [for the life] of the king? 15: [he performed ….]

Month II (10/11 May – 8/9 Jun 130 BC): Phraates II 14: a few [locusts] attacked. Night of the 30th (8/9 Jun), the north wind blew. The 30th (9 Jun), at noon, a few [….] locusts attacked. That month, the equivalent (of one silver shekel) was: barley 3 pān 1 sūt, not good (barley), 3 pān 2 sūt; dates, in the beginning of the month, 1 kur 1 pān 1 sūt, until [….] 15: [….] …. 5 sūt; sesame, 4 sūt; wool, 2 minas in [….]. 16: [….] …. That month the 10th (19/20 May), the satrap of Babylonia fr[om ….] 17: [….] one of the (Greek) citizens (lúpu-li-ṭa-an) who were in Babylon, who in the message of the king was appointed governor of Babylon, from the king’s camp …. [….] 18: [….] the Babylonians, the assembly of Esangil [provided] one bull and three (sheep) sacrifices for this governor of Babylon at the Ka-sikila, the great gate …. [….] 19: [….] he performed (offerings) [for the life of the ki]ng [personal/dynastic name lost] and for his (own) life. That month, the 17th (26/27 May), a mess[enger] of the general ….the harvest? of Elam [….] 20: [….] …. and the Babylonians, the assembly of Esangil …. entered the Akītu temple. That month the 24th (2/3 Jun), a me[ssenger ….] 21: [….] to …. [….] whom? Imerusu, the chief guardian of the (royal) treasury, informed, to the king [….] 22: [….] …. which to the administrator [….] 23: [….] …. the Babylonians, the assembly of Esangil, was written, which …. of one [….] 24: […. the Babylon]ians, the assembly of Esangil, [provided] one bull and 4 (sheep) sacrifices for [….]

Month III (9/10 Jun – 8/9 Jul 130 BC): mostly Phraates II and partly Antiochus VII(?) (several lines of text, probably all historical notices, have been destroyed) 1: [….] …. the 20th (28/29 Jun) I heard that [King] Arsa[ces ….]

Month IV (9/10 Jul – 6/7 Aug 130 BC): Antiochus VII 12: That month, the equivalent (of one silver shekel) was: barley, in the beginning of the month, 3 pān 4 sūt […. un]til the middle of the month, 5 sūt, until the end of the month, [….] 13: 3 sūt 3 qa; the 27th, 28th, (and) 29th, 3 sūt; wool, 2 ½ [minas. ….] 14: That month, the 5th (13/14 Jul), the satrap of Babylonia [….] and the general …. (at least 30 signs are lost) 15: from Seleucia which is on [the Tigris ….] …. (around 30 signs are lost) 16: at the ‘Gate of the Son of the Prince’ of Esangil …. (about 40 signs are lost) 17: The 17th (25/26 Jul), the satrap of Babylonia [….] …. (about 40 signs are lost) 18: from Babylon to Seleuc[ia ….] …. (about 42 signs are lost) 19: [….] That month the Arabs33 [….] …. (more than 42 signs are lost) 20: [….] …. on the river [….] …. (over 45 signs are lost) 21: [….Ar]abs of [….] …. (over 45 signs are lost) 22: [….] …. [….] …. (over 50 signs are lost) (2-3 lines of text have been destroyed)

Month V (7/8 Aug – 5/6 Sep 130 BC): Antiochus VII 12: [….] sesame, in the beginning of the month, 3 sūt, in the middle of the month, 2 sūt 4 qa (and) one-forth. 13: (astronomical data) 14: [….] which is on the Tigris 15: [….] above Babylon 17: [….] …. (only unintelligible traces of some signs)

33

See Del Monte (1997), 133-134 on Arab raids into Babylonia and Mesene (Characene) under Hyspaosines as the possible origin of the invaders. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

13

Month VI (6/7 Sep – 4/5 Oct 130 BC): Antiochus VII 11: [….] 3 pān 2 sūt; dates, 1 kur 1 pān 4 sūt; mustered, 3 kur 12-13: (planetary data) (unknown number of lines of text have been destroyed)

Left Edge There are traces of three lines of text most probably including the colophon titles that allocated the first 3-4 months of the year 182 SEB to Phraates II and the remainder to Antiochus VII.34 The above incomplete and in some cases rather incoherent historical notices sum up our contemporary epigraphic testimonies from the early spring-early autumn 130 BC (months I-VI of 182 SEB). Some authors, however, assign to this year a further text with an erroneously determined colophon date. This is a Sumero-Babylonian hymn from 183 SEB not 182 SEB and so is discussed below. I should add that the offering of animal sacrifices for the life of king in lines 14 and 19 of the notices respectively in months I (before 9/10 May 130 BC) and II (before 26/27 May 130 BC) in 182 SEB agree with Parthian traditions,35 not the Seleucid. In the former, the names of royal consort(s) and/or children are excluded from this ritual whereas with three exceptions36 Seleucid queens accompany their reigning spouses in documents on slave oblation and manumission, cultic rituals, certain festivals (e.g. the Akītu at the Babylonian New Year) and honorific dedications. An example of the latter genre of Seleucid records is a post-135 BC dedicatory stone inscription from Ake-Ptolemais mentioning King Antiochus VII and Queen Cleopatra Thea.37 Given that Antiochus VII took with him on his perilous Parthian anabasis his young son, Seleucus and niece (daughter of Demetrius II),38 if he had reached Babylon before the start of 182 SEB, we expect the above-mentioned animal sacrifices in May/June 130 BC to include the well-being of the absent queen and/or the royal progenies also. The absence of the queen’s name and those of the royal offspring from the 17.II.182 SEB ritual precludes Antiochus’ arrival in Babylon before 26/27 May 130 BC, the date of the latest animal sacrifices for the life of king in that month. I.4: YEAR 183 SEB (30/31 MAR 129 BC – 16/17 APR 128 BC)

We have two contemporary records and two non-contemporary colophons from 183 SEB. The earlier of the two contemporary texts is, as alluded to above, a Sumero-Babylonian hymn from 22.II.183 SEB (19/20 May 129 BC) whose closing date-line reads:39 27: …. E.KI ITU.GU4 UD-22.KÁM MU-1-me-1,23.KÁM 28: [ blank ] 29: ˹m˺An-ti-’u-uk-su EŠ5.MAN

…. Babylon. Month II, 22nd day, year 183 (blank) King Antiochus

This decides the terminus post quem of the end of Antiochus’ rule in Babylonia: it must have happened sometime after 19/20 May and before 5 Nov 129 BC, the date of the below given Lunar Text. Yet the above colophon does 34 35 36

37 38

39

14

Sachs and Hunger (1996), Pl. 230, No. 129A (BM 41478) Obv. Had the date-formula survived, it would have given us the arrival month in Babylon of the Seleucid expedition. I will deal with this point in some detail in a forthcoming contribution. In two cases from 205 and 202 BC, Antiochus III (222-187 BC) appears without his wife and children. The former involves animal sacrifices at Babylon for the king only. See Sachs and Hunger (1989), 202-203, Diary -204C. The later example from 202 BC concerns a building dedication to King Antiochus only. See Jordan (1928), 40-41 (wrongly reads the year date as 130 SEB), and Taf. 108.c; Falkenstein (1941), 6-7; Van Dijk (1962), 47; Sherwin-White (1983), 158-159; Linssen (2004), 125. An online transcription and translation of the cuneiform text appears (as Item 1: Anu-uballiṭ Kephalom 1) at: oracc.museum.upenn.edu/cams/selbi/corpus. The third case records animal sacrifices for King Demetrius I (162-150 BC) although the incomplete text does not entirely rule out his wife and/or children. See Sachs and Hunger (1996), 40-41, Diary -160A. Landau (1961), 121-126 identifies the ruler as Antiochus VII; Fischer (1970), 102-109 tentatively ascribes the text to Antiochus IX; Grainger (1997), 30 and Houghton et al. (2008), 354 agree with Landau. Porphyry (FGH 260, F32.19-20) and Eusebius (Chron. I.255-257) mention Seleucus, son of Antiochus VII, who was captured by the Parthians after the death of his father. Justin (38.10.10) claims that the daughter of Demetrius II accompanied her uncle to Mesopotamia. She was also taken prisoner after Antiochus VII died on the battlefield, but Phraates II took her as his wife. Reisner (1896), viii, No. 25 (VATh 406+1782), dates it to 183 SEB, but his hand-copy on page 51 reads 182 SEB; Clay (1913), year 82 (error for 182 SEB); Olmstead (1937), 14 (22.II.182 SEB = 1 Jun 130 BC), fn. 71 (mentions 22.II.183 SEB = 19 May 129 BC); Debevoise (1938), 32, fn. 18 (year 182 SEB); Fischer (1970), 91 (182 SEB); Oelsner (1975), 32, fn. 21 (183 SEB after collation); Oelsner (1986), 276, 308 (fn. 108), and 506 (183 SEB), Del Monte (1997), 247 (183 SEB); Van der Spek (1998), 233 (183 SEB). Collation by Professor S.M. Maul (Rurecht-Karls-Universität, Heidelberg) confirmed the year date as 183 SEB (personal communication 17 May 2002).

not prove that Antiochus VII was still alive on 19/20 May 129 BC. Granted that after pacifying Babylonia in early summer 130 BC Antiochus and his troops marched to Media to force a peace treaty upon Phraates II leaving him only his ancestral domain as a tributary,40 the hapless Seleucid ruler probably met his end before 19/20 May 129 BC somewhere in Parthia. Then in order to surprise the enemy’s garrisons in Babylonia,41 the victorious Parthians perhaps blocked the Zagros passes both to the west and the south cutting down the fleeing survivors.42 This delayed the news of the Seleucid defeat and Antiochus’ downfall from reaching Mesopotamia and thenceforth to Antioch in Syria for several weeks.43 Hence the above colophon was assigned to Antiochus to confirm his suzerainty over Babylonia in late spring 129 BC. The second contemporary record is a Lunar Text, reporting the 13.VIII.183 SEB (5 Nov 129 BC) visible lunar eclipse:44 1: MU-1-me-19.KÁM šá ši-i MU-1-m[e-1,23.KÁM] 2: mAr-šá-ka-a LUGAL 3: APIN GE6 13 7? 30 ME DIR muš [x] 4: ár MAŠ.MAŠ ziq-pi sin AN-KU10 Á [x]

Year 119, which is year 1[83] King Arsaces (Month) VIII, night of the 13th, moonrise to sunset: 7˚?30´, measured (despite) clouds (When) the rear of Gemini culminated, lunar eclipse (occurred); …. ….

This eclipse date sets the terminus ante quem for the end of Antiochus’ disastrous Parthian expedition: it took place before 5 Nov 129 BC. Yet because of insufficient evidence we cannot ascertain whether Arsacid authority was re-imposed in Babylonia before or after the beginning of 184 SEM (c. 1.VIII.183 SEB) about 24 Oct 129 BC (see Section II below). The non-contemporary material dated to 183 SEB consists of two astronomical colophons, one in a Normal Star Almanac assigned to King Arsaces, the other in an Almanac ascribed to King Antiochus. The former reads:45 28: […. meš-ḫ]i šá MU-1-me-1,23.KÁM mAr-šá-ka-˹a˺ [LUGAL]

[…. Prediction]s for year 183, Arsaces (is) [King]

and the second colophon gives:46 16: […. meš-ḫi šá KUR-ád.MEŠ šá d]UDU-TIL.MEŠ šá MU-1-me-1,23.KÁM 17: [m]An-ti-’u-uk-su LUGAL

40

41

42

[…. Predictions of the reachings] of the planets of year 183 Antiochus (is) King

Diodorus (34/35.15). Athenaeus (Deipnosophistae 10.439e and 12.540b-c) and Orosius (5.10.8) also place Antiochus VII in Media. Justin (38.10.6) relates that following his victories in three battles and seizure of Babylon, all peoples began to defect to Antiochus leaving the Parthians with nothing but the land of their fathers. Josephus (13.254) reports that as soon as the Jewish leader John Hyrcanus heard of the death of Antiochus, he marched out against the cities of Syria because they were devoid of fighting men. This suggests that the Jewish contingent had not followed Antiochus to Media and instead camped in Babylonia during the winter of 129 BC. Justin (39.1.1) comments that following the annihilation in Parthia of Antiochus VII and his troops, all Syria went into mourning for the loss of the army. Diodorus (34/35.17) provides a rather vivid picture of the aftermath of this fiasco. He relates that: When Antioch received the news of Antiochus’ death, not only did the city go into public mourning, but every private house as well was dejected and filled with lamentation. Above all, the wailing of the women inflamed their grief. Indeed, since three hundred thousand men had been lost, including those who had accompanied the army as supernumeraries, not a household could be found that was exempt from misfortune. Some were mourning the loss of brothers, some of husbands, and some of sons, while many girls and boys, left orphaned, wept for their own bereavement…..These sensational remarks suggest that perhaps by preventing the news of the Seleucid debacle from spreading far and wide soon after their victory, the Parthians caught the unwary Seleucid camp in Mesopotamia by surprise and slaughtered a large number of non-combatant camp-dwellers.

43

According to Diodorus (34/35/15), the futile peace negotiations between Antiochus VII and Phraates II took place in early spring, followed by the Parthian attack that ended with the Seleucid king’s death. Porphyry (FGrH 260, F32.19) and Eusebius (Chron. I.255) place the war between the two antagonists at the onset of winter. Justin (38.10.8-9) too relates that Antiochus distributed his army throughout the cities during the winter and that when he heard of the Parthian attack, he was still in his winter quarters.

44

Sachs (1955), xxxiii, no. 1441, 227 (hand-copy by Pinches) gives the two Arsacid and Seleucid era dates as 120 AE = 184 SEB, but collation confirms 119 AE = 1[83] SEB; Fischer (1970), 91 (120 AE = 1[84] SEB); Oelsner (1975), 31 (120 AE = 1[84] SEB); Hunger and Sachs (2001), 64-65 (119 AE = 1[83] SEB). See the following link on this eclipse: eclipsewise.com/lunar/LEcatalog/LE-0199--0100.html Sachs (1955), xxii, nos. *1045+*1046 (to which was later added two fragments); Hunger and Sachs (2014), 180-185, No. 82. See Sachs (1948), 281-282 for the description and content of the Babylonian Normal Star Almanacs. Sachs (1955), 171, No. 1137; Oelsner (1975), 32; Del Monte (1997), 248; Van der Spek (1998), 233; Hunger and Sachs (2014), 326-331, No. 174. See Sachs (1948), 277-280 for the description and content of the Babylonian Almanacs.

45 46

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

15

Believing that the corresponding astronomical tablets had been prepared soon after the beginning of the first month in 183 SEB (30/31 Mar – 27/28 Apr 129 BC), I first interpreted their discrepant colophons as evidence of Arsacid jurisdiction in Babylon at the start of that year, followed by Seleucid authority shortly afterwards.47 Then realising that this would leave insufficient time between the arrival in Babylonia of Antiochus’ expedition and his defeat and death in Parthia some months later, I subsequently concluded that: (a) the Seleucid army reached Babylon in the late summer 182 SEB (Jul/Aug 130 BC), not in spring 183 SEB (Mar/Apr 129 BC) and (b) King Arsaces in the colophon of the first record above is a mere scribal slip and that the Babylonian astronomers compiled the corresponding Normal Star Almanac under King Antiochus.48 The latter view stemmed from the perception that the scribes in Arsacid Babylonia never dated their documents according to Seleucid reckoning only; they always enhanced it by adding the equivalent Arsacid date also. However, I have since examined over twenty Babylonian astronomical and astrological records from the Parthian epoch that carry single Seleucid era dates only, both with and without the dynastic name and regal title of the reigning Arsaces.49 This new evidence strongly suggests that the above incompatible colophons neither place the arrival at Babylon of the Seleucid army in early 129 BC nor prove that the 183 SEB Normal Star Almanac was erroneously subscribed to King Arsaces. I am thus obliged to re-examine here these anomalous date-formulas in order to decide their correct chronological order as well as historical implications. As briefly explained earlier, Babylonian astronomers compiled their Goal-Year Texts before the start of the target years and ascribed them to the reigning kings anticipating that the incumbents would still be on the throne at the end of the Goal-Years. This means that unless supported by other evidence Goal-Year Text colophons cannot prove that the kings under whom they were drawn up lasted until the end of the Goal-Years. Similar uncertainty affects the colophons and accompanying dates in the Babylonian Normal Star Almanacs and Almanacs which exclusively contain predicted not observed astronomical data.50 Owing to their predictive nature and inexact compilation dates, the Normal Star Almanac and Almanac for a year wherein a new king ascended the throne could have different colophon-titles if they were separately composed on either side of the latest accession. I have considered here the following case in order to further clarify this key point. According to a Hellenistic King List drawn up probably under Mithradates I in Arsacid Babylonia,51 the Seleucid King Antiochus II (261-246 BC) died in month V of year 66 SEB (Jul 246 BC) and was succeeded by his son Seleucus II (246-225 BC).52 Two astronomical diary fragments now confirm this reign-change, one telling us that the news of the death of Antiochus II reached Babylon on 20.V.66 SEB (18/19 Aug 246 BC), the other showing that Seleucus II was immediately recognised as his father’s successor:53 1: na-ṣar šá gi-né-e šá TA BAR EN KIN mAn-ti-’u-ku-su LUGAL TA IZI EN KIN mSe-˹lu˺-k[u] ˹A-šú˺ LUG[AL] 1: Diary from (month) I to (month) VI, King Antiochus, from (month) V to (month) VI, Ki[ng] Seleucus

This preserved reign-change illustrates that if the 67 SEB Goal-Year Text had been completed and dated before the arrival in Babylon of the news of the death of Antiochus II on 20.V.66 SEB, its colophon would have been wrongly assigned to that monarch and not, as we expect, to his successor son Seleucus II whose authority is attested from 67 SEB.54 The colophons of the 67 SEB Almanac and Normal Star Almanac would have fared no better had they been 47 48

Assar (2001), 23-24. Assar (2006b), 99-102.

49

Sachs (1955), xxxiv (no. 1470), 229 (hand-copy) = Rochberg (1998), 126-128 (223 SEB); Sachs and Hunger (1996), 236-237, Diary -131B (180 SEB); Rochberg (1998), 116-120 (187 SEB), 121-125 (195 SEB and 197 SEB), 129-131 (229 SEB), 132-134 (231 SEB), 134-136 (236 SEB), 137-140 (243 SEB); Hunger and Sachs (2001), 68-69 (224 SEB), 352-353 (171 SEB and 172 SEB); Hunger and Sachs (2006), 260-261 (174 SEB), 264-265 (186 SEB), 268-271 (175 SEB twice, 176 SEB twice), 274-275 (194 SEB), 282-283 (181 SEB), 292-293 (195 SEB), 294-295 (183 SEB and 184 SEB), 314-315 (199 SEB), 318-319 (192 SEB), 340-341 (177 SEB), 346-347 (186 SEB), 348-349 (227 SEB), 352-353 (175 SEB), 358-359 (201 SEB); Sachs (1976), 386-389 (355 SEB) = Hunger and Sachs (2014), 434-437, No. 215. For the predictive nature of the Babylonian Almanacs and Normal Star Almanacs see Sachs (1948), 277-282; Hunger and Sachs (2014), X-XII. Sachs and Wiseman (1954), 202-211. The authors place the compilation date of this record after 175 SEB, about the time of Arsacid domination over Mesopotamia. See also Del Monte (1997), 208-211. Sachs and Wiseman (1954), 203 and 206. For the revised regnal years of Seleucus II (and his sons Seleucus III and Antiochus III) see Assar (2007), 49-53.

50 51 52 53 54

16

Sachs and Hunger (1989), 68-71, Diary -245A+B. Sachs and Wiseman (1954), 203 and 206. See also Clay (1913), 84, No. 17, and Pl. 13 (hand-copy) a “Legal Document” from Uruk dated to Seleucus II on 22.III.67 SEB (10/11 Jul 245 BC).

dated before 20.V.66 SEB. However, the situation would be different if these non-contemporary astronomical tablets had been separately dated on either side of 20.V.66 SEB. The one dated before the death of Antiochus II would have been wrongly ascribed to him giving the dead king the whole of 67 SEB as if he was still alive! But the one dated after 20.V.66 SEB would have been correctly subscribed to Seleucus II who was, according to the colophon-titles of the above 66 SEB Astronomical Diary, immediately recognised as king in Babylon after his father. An earlier colophontitles, though somewhat mutilated, further illuminates this anomaly and underpins the uncertainty over the dates in the Babylonian Normal Star Almanacs and Almanacs. This is found on the upper edge of the Normal Star Almanac for 31 SEB (30/31 Mar 281 BC – 17/18 Apr 280 BC). As explained earlier, this astronomical record was compiled at some point in 30 SEB (for 31 SEB) under the joint rule of Seleucus I (311-281 BC) and his son and heir Antiochus I (281-261 BC).55 Implying that the father and son co-ruled throughout year 31 SEB, the corresponding incomplete date-line reads:56 1: [meš-ḫi šá] ˹MU˺-31.KÁM mSe-lu-ku ù mAn-t[i-’u-ku-su A-šú LUGAL.MEŠ] 1: [Predictions of] year 31, [Kings] Seleucus and [his son] Anti[ochus]

However, the earlier-quoted Hellenistic King List reports that Seleucus I reigned for 25 years and was killed in the Ḫani land (the European side of the Hellespont) in month VI of 31 SEB (25/26 Aug – 23/24 Sep 281 BC).57 There is little point in stressing here that while finalising the 31 SEB Normal Star Almanac sometime in 30 SEB, the scribe could not have foreseen the demise of Seleucus I some months later in 31 SEB. Accordingly, he went ahead and ascribed his record to the incumbent kings Seleucus I and Antiochus I, believing that the senior monarch would still be on the throne at the end of 31 SEB. Returning to the two discordant 183 SEB colophons, we would see that the one acknowledging King Arsaces must have been completed and dated in 182 SEB before the arrival in Babylon of the Seleucid expedition about mid-summer 130 BC, while the one confirming Antiochus VII as the new master of Babylonia would have been compiled after that date. Interestingly, these anomalous date-formulas strongly indicate that the ephemeral Seleucid annexation of Mesopotamia did not occur in the summer of 131 BC (early 181 SEB). It took place a year later in the summer of 130 BC (early 182 SEB). This concludes our brief survey of the Babylonian cuneiform material pertaining to the 130-129 BC Seleucid invasion of Mesopotamia. Unfortunately, while the sum of preserved epigraphic material leaves little doubt about the Parthian anabasis of Antiochus VII in 130 BC, it provides no clues on the alleged three battles in Justin (38.10.6) between the Seleucid and Parthian armies. Nor does it give an indication of the date thereupon the expedition reached Babylon. I shall, in the following section, briefly review the numismatic evidence of Antiochus’ presence in Babylonia to see whether it could throw a fresh light on these key historical uncertainties.

II. The Numismatic Legacy of the Parthian Expedition of Antiochus VII II.1: SILVER TETRADRACHMS AND DRACHMS FROM SELEUCIA ON THE TIGRIS

Three literary sources offer various estimates of the size of the Seleucid army with which Antiochus VII conquered Mesopotamia: Diodorus (34/35.17) puts the figure at 300,000 men, including those who accompanied the troops as supernumeraries; Justin (38.10.2) reports 80,000 combatants and 300,000 camp followers of whom the greater number were cooks, bakers and stage-players; Orosius (5.10.8) claims Antiochus had 100,000 men in his army as well as 200,000 servants and camp followers. Taking these as somewhat exaggerated figures and halving them to roughly 40,000 as a more realistic number of men-at-arms, we would still have a large force the Seleucid king was obliged to 55 56 57

See, for example, the date formulas in the two Diary fragments -281A and -281B from 30 SEB, both ascribed to Kings Seleucus and Antiochus. Sachs and Hunger (1988), 306-313. Hunger and Sachs (2014), 8-9, No. 4, and Pl. 2 (BM 47724). The image of this fragment clearly shows that the lost date-formula had extended on to its right edge. It also justifies the restoration at the beginning of the line. Sachs and Wiseman (1954), 203 and 205-206; Del Monte (1997), 208-209. For the land of Ḫani and the Ḫanians as the metaphorical descriptions respectively of Macedonia and the Macedonians in the Hellenistic period see Sachs and Hunger (1988), 184-191, Diary -328, where Alexander the Great is styled as who is from the land of Ḫani; Briant (2002), 863. An Aramaic ostracon from Idumaea dated to year 2 of Alexander also introduces him as ’lksndr MLK’ ḤNH, Alexander, the Ḫanian king. See Lemaire (1996), 41-46 No. 38*. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

17

finance. However, because we have no reliable data on the wages of the infantry and cavalrymen in Seleucid armies, we cannot accurately determine the overall cost of Antiochus’ Parthian anabasis. Perhaps, aside from their regular salary, the fighting men in the Seleucid army had been promised to loot and pillage as part of their income. We have some evidence that this might have been the case in certain areas under the new administration. Justin (38.10.8) relates that not only the offensive behaviour of Antiochus’ men in their winter quarters enraged the local population, but also the hosts found themselves harassed by having to furnish supplies and tolerate their offenders.58 At any rate, taking the salary of a hypaspist59 under Alexander and that of the Roman infantry and cavalry soldiers about the middle of the 2nd century BC as a benchmark, we can see that the net cost of Antiochus’ entire operation must have been enormous. The Greek text of a treaty with Alexander from about 336 BC indicates that a hypaspist serving in the League Troops with the Macedonian leader received from the city of Athens a drachm a day.60 Polybius (6.39.12-15) relates that a Roman foot-soldier received two obols (at one sixth of a drachm each) per day, a centurion twice as much, and a cavalry fighter a drachm. In addition, the monthly corn allowance of a foot-soldier was about two-thirds of an Attic medimnus (about 52 litres),61 while a cavalry trooper received seven medimni of barley and two of wheat.62 Of the allied forces, the infantry received the same wheat ration, but the cavalry one and one-third medimnus of wheat and five of barley. These figures put the daily cost of maintaining around 40,000 Roman and probably also Seleucid infantry and cavalry at about the same number in drachms (or roughly 10,000 tetradrachms). We do not know if the Seleucid treasury bore the entire operational cost until the expedition reached Babylon where Antiochus expected to receive the annual revenues and contributions from his newly conquered subjects. However, we know that at least part of Antiochus’ overall military expenditure came from a Jewish source. Josephus (7.393 and 13.247-249; Jewish War 1.61) relates that following his peace treaty with Antiochus VII, the Jewish high priest John Hyrcanus opened the tomb of David and carried off 3000 talents of silver part of which (300-500 talents) he gave to Antiochus. Porphyry (FGH 260, F32.18) and Eusebius (Chron. I.255) relate that the Seleucid siege of Jerusalem took place in the 3rd year of the 162nd Olympiad (131/0 BC on the Macedonian count) not long before the Parthian expedition of Antiochus. Granted that he coined the bullion he had received from Hyrcanus just before his anabasis, Antiochus would have had 1.8-3 million extra drachms (450-750 thousand tetradrachms) in his ambulatory war-chest63 covering his military expenditure for roughly 45-75 days at the cost of around 40,000 drachms per day. Josephus (13.249 and 1.61) further tells us that Hyrcanus drew on the surplus silver to pay a mercenary force and so became the first Jewish ruler to support foreign troops. Perhaps in order to unburden Antiochus, Hyrcanus personally financed the Jewish contingent under his own command64 hoping to recoup his investment with a handsome profit after the war. Also, the eastern princes who met the Seleucid king on his march to Babylonia and offered him themselves and their kingdoms65 may have contributed to the expedition both in financial and military terms. In any case, whether Antiochus simply ran out of money soon after reaching Babylon or decided to mark his conquests with a special coinage, recovered material shows that he reactivated the dormant royal mint in Seleucia on the Tigris and struck a series of silver and bronze denominations there. These were the first coin issues after a 9-year gap of inactivity that followed the last Seleucia coinage of the Great Parthian monarch Mithradates I.66

58

59 60 61 62 63

64 65 66

18

Diodorus (34/35.17) too relates that upon hearing the Parthian attack, Athenaeus, the general of Antiochus, who in billeting his soldiers had done many wrongs, was the first to take flight. But though he abandoned Antiochus, he met the end he deserved, for when in his flight he reached certain villages that he had mistreated in connection with quartering his men, no one would admit him to his home or share food with him, and he roamed the countryside until he perished of starvation. A Shield Bearing fighter, carrying a spear and a sword. Herodotus (5.111) describes a hypaspist as an esquire and a renowned and valiant soldier. IG II2 329 = IG II3 1 443. Available online at: atticinscriptions.com/inscription/IGII2/329 See Herodotus (1.192) on the Persian measure artabē containing one Attic medimnus and three choenices, altogether about 12 gallons or 52 litres. Polybius (34.8.7-10) provides useful information on the prices of some commodities including barley and wheat: The Sicilian medimnus of barley costs one drachm and that of wheat nine Alexandrian obols (or one-and-a-half drachm). Any silver from the time of King David (c. 10th century BC) would have been as bullion not coins. The Seleucid king may have had the silver he received form John Hyrcanus partly coined in Antioch (or some other mints under his control) to carry with him on his expedition. The remainder was perhaps coined in his absence and despatched to him by a military treasury (κατὰ στρατείαν γαζοφυλάκιον). On KATA ΣTPATEIAN see Welles (1934), 90-91 and 98 who misinterprets the term as a place name, etc. For correct interpretation see Sellwood (1976), 13-14; Sellwood (1983), 287. Josephus (13.249-253). Justin (38.10.5). Sellwood (1980), 42-43 (S13.5 tetradrachms and S13.10 drachms, both dated ΔΟΡ = 174 SEM).

The silver emission of Antiochus VII from Seleucia on the Tigris is comprised of some extremely rare tetradrachms and an up to now unique drachm both with a right-facing portrait of the Seleucid king on the obverse (Plate 1, A-B).67 The reverse of the tetradrachms shows Athena advancing left, resting her left hand on a grounded shield and supporting Nike in her right hand. The reverse of the drachm depicts Nike advancing left and holding a wreath in her right hand. Both denominations bear the inscription ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟY ΕYΕΡΓΕΤΟY, (the coin of) King Antiochus the Beneficent, and carry the monograms ± above E in the outer field left and ¯ in the exergue (respectively beneath the advancing Athena and Nike’s right foot).68 The two control marks ± and ¯ also appear on the S17.2-3 tetradrachms and S17.4 drachms of Phraates II (Plate 1, F) while ¯ is found on the reverse of the S17.1 tetradrachms and some new variants (all sharing ° as their second mint magistrate’s mark).69 These common monograms strongly imply that the two mint masters ± and ¯ supervised the Seleucia issues of both Antiochus VII and Phraates II and that the corresponding outputs were contiguous. The extreme rarity of Antiochus’ Seleucia coinage probably suggests that he had vast quantities of coins in his war treasury and that the reactivated Seleucia mint struck a token issue for him to mark his triumph over the Parthians. It is believed that the thoroughly western style of Seleucia’s silver coinage for Antiochus VII must indicate that a western die engraver accompanied the campaign. I have suggested elsewhere that this western style is also observed on the S17.1-4 issues (and new variants) of Phraates II from that same mint.70 The stylistic and iconographical similarities between these Seleucid and Parthian issues suggest that the western craftsman (probably an Antiochene) who cut dies for Antiochus’ Seleucia drachms and tetradrachms did not flee to the west after the defeat and death of the Seleucid king in early 129 BC. He stayed behind (or was obliged to remain) at the royal workshop in Seleucia on the Tigris under Parthian administration and continued to craft aesthetically appealing dies for subsequent Arsacid princes down to about 110 BC in the reign of Mithradates II.71 The Seleucia tetradrachms and drachms of Antiochus VII and Phraates II are all undated but given the monetary conventions and mint practices of that city, we could determine their year date. Insofar as the extant evidence is concerned, Seleucia on the Tigris minted no dated coins under the Seleucids and it is to be presumed that the practice of placing dates on coins – at least those of bronze – was adopted by this mint from Syria or Phoenicia only after the occupation of Babylonia by the Parthians.72 We do not know the exact purpose of this practice in Arsacid Seleucia, but dating coins probably served to control the mint’s output and distinguish between successive emissions. At any rate, recovered coins confirm that following the Parthian conquest of Babylonia in the summer of 141 BC, the initial Seleucia issues of Mithradates I carried no dates. Lasting for some twenty years afterwards down to the accession in 121 BC of Mithradates II, this was probably a precautionary measure to ensure that the undated outputs would inaugurate their respective series.73 As a corollary to this numismatic observation, we may add that the mint at Seleucia on the Tigris remained active in the

67

68 69 70 71

72

73

Newell (1938), 478 and Pl. 140 “O” and “T”; Le Rider (1965), 154-155, 366, 377-378, and Pl. XXXI, A-B (tetradrachms) and C (drachm); Le Rider and Seyrig (1967/8), 36 (nos. 199-200) and Pl. VIII, 200; Houghton et al. (2008), 394-395, (nos. 2127-2128). See also Assar (2006b), 101-104 for a brief discussion of the numismatic legacy of the Mesopotamian expedition of Antiochus VII. The exergual monogram on the reverse of the drachm is only partially struck up on the coin flan, but the traces are consistent with ¯ of the corresponding tetradrachms. Sellwood (1980), 52-53. One variety of S17.1 has the two exergual monograms positioned as ¯ ° (instead of ° ¯) while the second has ¯ in the exergue and ° in the outer field left. Houghton et al. (2008), 394. Dedicated to the highest artistic standards, this celator was, on iconographical grounds, responsible for the S18.1 (and its dated variant from 187 SEM) tetradrachm dies of Artabanus II (127-126/5 BC), the S21.1-4 (and their new variants) of Artabanus III (126/5-122 BC), the S23.1-2 of Arsaces X (autumn 122 BC – early spring 121 BC) and the S24.1-7 tetradrachms (and their new varieties) of Mithradates II (121-91 BC), all from Seleucia on the Tigris. McDowell (1935), 147. The Seleucia issues of the Seleucid kings can be found in Houghton et al. (2002), 52-67 (Seleucus I), 139-143 (Antiochus I), 207-210 (Antiochus II), 274-278 (Seleucus II), 339-340 (Seleucus III), 345 (Molon), 437-448 (Antiochus III); Houghton et al. (2008), 25-27 (Seleucus IV), 102-107 (Antiochus IV), 145 (Timarchus), 183-188 (Demetrius I), 248-250 (Alexander Balas), 309-312 (Demetrius II). These are all undated. Perhaps if the first striking in each series too had been dated, the later users of the coins may have anticipated issues from earlier years. Keeping the initial output undated conveniently eliminated that possibility. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

19

interval 141-121 BC only when the reigning Arsacid king for whom it issued coins was present in that city or Babylon probably during wintertime as related by Strabo (11.13.1) and Athenaeus (Deipnosophistae 12.513-514).74 Returning to the silver issues of Antiochus VII and Phraates II from Seleucia and invoking the above discussed practice of adding dates on coins in that workshop, we may place the undated silver coinage of Antiochus in 183 SEM (c. 4/5 Nov 130 – c. 22/23 Oct 129 BC) and that of Phraates in 184 SEM (c. 23/24 Oct 129 – 10/11 Nov 128 BC) after the re-imposition of Arsacid dominion in Babylonia. II.2: BRONZE COINAGES FROM SELEUCIA ON THE TIGRIS, SUSA, AND URUK

Aside from minting silver tetradrachms and drachms for Antiochus VII, Seleucia also struck for him some equally rare bronze coins. Yet unlike his undated silver issues, Antiochus’ bronze outputs from Seleucia are mostly dated. The earliest of these consists of a small number of coins depicting on their obverse the right facing head of Athena wearing a crested Corinthian helmet. Their reverse shows a tripod flanked by ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟY on the right and ΕYΕΡΓΕΤΟY on the left with the exergual date ΒΠΡ = 182 SEM (Plate 1, C).75 Next in this series is an example dated ΓΠΡ = 183 SEM,76 followed by a specimen in the British Museum Cabinet whose partial date appears as ˹Δ˺ΠΡ = 18˹4˺ SEM.77 Granted that this bronze issue was exclusively minted at Seleucia on the Tigris, its latest output confirms that the news of the death of Antiochus VII reached the royal city no earlier than the turn of the year 183 SEM (ending c. 22/23 Oct 129 BC) even though the Seleucid king had lost his life in Media in late winter – early spring 129 BC. However, it has been suggested that the first letter of the incomplete date on the British Museum piece may be A rather than Δ, rendering the date 181 SEM (c. 26/27 Oct 132 – 13/14 Nov 131 BC).78 If this turns out to be the case, attribution to Seleucia alone of the Athena/tripod bronze issue may be impossible since, as we have already noted, Antiochus VII arrived in Mesopotamia no earlier than mid-summer 130 BC (in the second half of 182 SEM). The second bronze coinage of Antiochus VII from Seleucia on the Tigris is more securely attributed. It consists of a handful of rare specimens with varying dimensions, weights and debatable control marks (Plate 1, D).79 Depicting on the obverse the diademed head of Antiochus to right, these bronzes have two slightly different reverse designs: (a) Nike advancing left, holding wreath before her face and palm frond over her shoulder with ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟY on the right and ΕYΕΡΓΕΤΟY on the left, and (b) Nike advancing left, flanked by the same inscription, but extending the wreath to the left beyond the royal epithet Beneficent. Both reverse designs carry the exergual date ΓΠΡ = 183 SEM which also 74

75 76 77

78 79

20

Babylonian sources confirm that Parthian forces had pacified Mesopotamia by 28.III.171 SEB (5/6 Jul 141 BC). But they fail to tell us if Mithradates I personally led the invasion. Accepting Strabo (16.1.6) on the yearly Parthian court movements, Mithradates I must have stayed at Ecbatana and in Hyrcania during the summer of that year and hence Seleucia issued no coins for him until after 1 Dios 172 SEM (c. 4/5 Nov 141 BC) when he moved his winter court to that city or Babylon. This explains why the inaugural S13.1 and S13.2 tetradrachms, and S13.6 drachms (the latter two with the exergual monogram ¦ on the reverse) are undated. Note that the undated S13.7 drachm with the monogram r in the outer left field of its reverse does not exist. The next Seleucia issues of Mithradates I are the S13.2-3 tetradrachms and S13.8-9 drachms. Both series are dated ΓΟΡ (173 SEM) and respectively carry the controller marks § and ¨ in the outer left field of their reverse. The final Seleucia issues of Mithradates I are the S13.5 tetradrachms and S13.10 drachms both dated ΔΟΡ (174 SEM) with no monograms. Cuneiform texts show that Mithradates I suffered a paralytic stroke soon after his last Seleucia issues and finally died in early 132 BC. This meant that the Parthian king spent no more time in Babylonia after 174 SEM and so Seleucia ceased to issue further coins for him. See Assar (2005/6), 44 and Assar (2006b), 95, fn. 28 on the related sources. As already shown in the main text, Phraates II began his Seleucia coinage in 184 SEM with the S17.1-3 victory tetradrachms (and their new variants) and S17.4 drachms all undated. He then left to counter the Scythian invaders but was killed about autumn 127 BC. Hence the absence of Phraates’ further Seleucia issues. Finally, we have the S21.1-3 tetradrachms of Artabanus III (autumn 126/5 – autumn 122 BC) all dated 188 SEM (c. 7/8 Nov 125 – c. 26/27 Oct 124 BC). However, Artabanus died about two years later in autumn 122 BC while fighting the Tocharian tribes around Margiane (Marv). Because he too failed to return to Babylonia after his last dated tetradrachms, Seleucia minted no more coins for him. Le Rider (1965), 155-156 (under no. 321, “unit”), 377-378, and Pl. XXXI, 321 and D; Assar (2004/5), 78-79; Assar (2006b), 103-105; Houghton et al. (2008), 395 (no. 2131.1). Houghton et al. (2008), 395 (no. 2131.2). Seen in London commerce by myself. Houghton et al. (2008), 395 (no. 2131.3/1956-4.9.57, T.W. Armitage Bequest). Having examined the coin itself, I believe the incomplete date is more likely to be ˹Δ˺ΠΡ not ˹A˺ΠΡ = 18˹1˺ SEM. I should add that the date on a bronze coin of Antiochus VII from Antioch had been initially read as ΔΠΡ = 184 SEM. This shows respectively on its obverse and reverse the winged bust of Eros and headdress of Isis. See Houghton and Spaer (1998), 262 (no. 1968). However, Houghton et al. (2008), 368 (under no. 2067.18) now believe that the date on this specimen probably reads ΛΠΡ. If so, it will be difficult to decide whether this bronze was minted in 181 or 184 SEM. Suggested during exchanges between Oliver Hoover and Mark Passehl on Hellenistica discussion group. I should thank Ms Sylvie Chabert d’Hyères for bringing this point to my attention. Le Rider (1965), 155-156 (under no. 321, “double unit”), Pl XXXI, E-G; Assar (2004/5), 78-79; Assar (2006b), 103-104; Houghton et al. (2008), 394-395 (nos. 2129-2130) with dimensions and weights varying from 19 to 21 mm and 4.76 to 9.26 g respectively.

appears in the inner field left near Nike’s feet on a couple of examples. However, some specimens in this series have undated reverses, although it is unclear whether the corresponding dies were undated or that their dates fell outside the coin flans during striking.80 If the reverse dies carried no date, it is possible that the Seleucia coinage of Antiochus VII began with an undated bronze output towards the end of 182 SEM (early Aug – early Nov 130 BC) before the start of the undated silver and dated bronzes in 183 SEM. As noted earlier, the inaugural silver emissions from Seleucia on the Tigris remained undated under Mithradates I and his successors through to Artabanus III (died c. autumn 122 BC). This practice may have been applied to the bronze outputs from that city in earlier times also, thus resulting in an undated bronze issue for Antiochus VII in 182 SEM. However, because the evidence is too thin, it is difficult to impute any chronological value to the apparently undated bronzes in this group. Numismatic evidence further shows that Susa, the provincial capital of the Elymaean satrapy in the south, also minted a bronze issue for Antiochus to acknowledge Seleucid over-lordship. Recovered examples from successive French excavations at the site of the ancient city during 1897-1934 depict on their obverse the draped bust of Artemis right wearing a stephane with a quiver over her shoulder, all within a dotted border. The reverse shows a rightfacing helmeted and draped bust of Athena with ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ to right and ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟY on the left often curving, sometimes abbreviated, all inside a dotted border also (Plate 1, E).81 These small Susian bronzes are undated and so contribute little to the chronology of the years 182-183 SEM. However, because the Susa mint altered its reverse designs for small bronze issues annually (and quasi-annually when a single year was shared by two or more rulers),82 and because no new reverse designs for Antiochus VII have come to light since the 1897-1934 official excavations in that city, we may tentatively assign the extant specimens in this group to 183 SEM only. Perhaps following his pacification of Babylonia by about the middle of summer 130 BC (latter part of 182 SEM), the Seleucid king had no time to initiate a coinage in Susa before the beginning of 183 SEM. In any case, this Susian bronze issue probably vindicates Justin (38.10.5) that learning of the approach of the Seleucid expeditionary army, many eastern princes defected to Antiochus VII. However, it fails to tell us whether an independent ruler held sway over Elymais at that juncture or a Parthian vassal governed the satrapy. Finally, the ancient city of Uruk in southern Mesopotamia may have issued for Antiochus VII a small bronze coinage to confirm Seleucid suzerainty. This is known from a single example showing on its obverse the diademed head of Antiochus to right with Athena standing left on the reverse holding Nike in her extended left hand and resting her right hand on a grounded shield.83 Like its Susian counterpart, this small Urukean bronze issue is undated and so contributes nothing to the chronology of the period under consideration here. To sum up, the numismatic legacy of the Parthian anabasis of Antiochus VII tells us nothing about the precise moment of his arrival in Babylon. But like the contemporary and later epigraphic material, it too strongly indicates that the Seleucid king set out on his Parthian campaign in 130 BC and reached Babylonia in that same year, not in 131 BC nor 129 BC.

III. The Date of the Battle at the River Lycus III.1: THE BEGINNING OF THE PARTHIAN ANABASIS OF ANTIOCHUS VII

When and where did Antiochus VII assemble his vast army to march on Parthia, which routes did he traverse through northern and central Mesopotamia to cross the Euphrates and Tigris and when did he arrive in Babylon to be hailed the new master of Babylonia? The answers to these questions can provide a better insight into the planning and 80 81 82

83

Le Rider (1965), 155 and Pl. XXXI, H-J. Le Rider (1965), 83-84, no. 110 (recording 31 archaeologically recovered examples), 249-250 (Trésor 7), 377-378 (discussion), and Pls. XI and LII; Assar (2004/5), 77-79; Houghton et al. (2008), 396 (no. 2133). Le Rider (1965), 351; Sellwood (1976), 5. This criterion does not hold for the Seleucid period because the number of extant Susian bronzes for each king does not match his regnal years. Starting with Kamnaskires I (149/8-140/39 BC, intermittently) down to the end of the reign of Phraates III (70/6958/57 BC), the number of “annual” bronze issues from Susa in each group agrees with the corresponding regnal years. See Tables 1 in Assar (2004/5), 88; Assar (2006b), 150-151; Assar (2006/7), 59. Le Rider (1965), 458, no. 1 (tentatively gives to Antiochus IV), Pl. LXXIV, 29; Houghton et al. (2008), 395-396 (no. 2132, give to Antiochus VII and assign the issue to Uruk); the coin has a 13-14 mm diameter and weighs 0.82 g. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

21

execution of the last Seleucid assault on Parthian dominion from its inception to completion. Sadly, however, we know precious little about the logistics of Antiochus’ campaigns in the east and our knowledge of his itinerary and entry date into Babylon is imprecise. It is quite probable that some contemporary cuneiform tablets either fully or briefly documented the moment of the fall of Babylon to Antiochus.84 Had these first-hand records survived the perils of time, they may have given us a clearer picture of the impermanent Seleucid takeover of Mesopotamia regardless of the extent and quality of their original contents. However, it now appears that such compilations are almost entirely lost. As shown earlier, the two Astronomical Diary fragments covering months I-VI of 182 SEB have retained no useful dates and descriptive historical accounts. What is preserved on these clay pieces of the original account of the events leading to and including the capture of Babylon is merely some disconnected activities, probably involving troop movements in and around that city. These carry little strategic and logistical values and cannot help us settle the above key enquiries. Appealing to the classical literature for answers to our questions will be in vain also because they are disappointingly incomplete. Of the handful of Greek and Latin commentators who indulged in writing about the first leg of Antiochus’ march to Babylon and before his campaigns in Media, Justin (38.10.1-10) provides the fullest account. Yet he neglects all the key logistical issues and gives no indication of the time and place of the start of the Seleucid expedition. Instead he delves into some politically unimportant points and embellishes these with such dramatic anecdotes as there was as much provision in the army of Antiochus for luxurious living as for fighting a campaign and that there was certainly so much silver and gold that even the common soldiers fastened their buskins with gold, and trod underfoot the metal for the love of which nations contend with the sword. Justin finishes his description of the size and splendour of the Seleucid force by adding that cooking vessels, too, were of silver as though they were proceeding to a dinner rather than a war. This staggering apathy, if not ineptitude, to report key historical affairs also manifests itself in Orosius (5.10.8) whose account is more limited in scope than that of Justin. Orosius reduces to 200,000 the 300,000 camp-followers in Justin (38.10.2) to mostly cooks, bakers and actors and adds harlots to the army of non-combatants also! However, despite insufficient clarity, Justin (38.10.6) relates that the Seleucid king had already won three battles ahead of his triumphant entry into Babylon. This naturally adds further questions to our list of enquiries: where, when and against whom did Antiochus wage these wars? Do the three victories in Justin include the one at the Lycus River briefly recounted by Josephus (13.249-253) and Michael Syrus (5.7)?85 If so, did Antiochus fight the other two wars also against the Parthians or their allies after crossing the Euphrates and Tigris? Granted that Justin neglected no major engagements involving the Seleucid army, one of his reported three victories ought to have been scored by Antiochus at the River Lycus, probably on or near the Gaugamela battleground where Darius III (336-330 BC) fought and lost his third and final battle against Alexander the Great (336-323 BC) on 1 Oct 331 BC.86 As mentioned earlier, this particular war between the Seleucid and Parthian forces can now be accurately dated thanks to a key excerpt in Josephus’ terse account of the encounter (at 13.249-252). We are told that when Antiochus undertook an expedition against the Parthians, Hyrcanus (the Jewish High Priest) set out with him. On this we have the testimony of Nicolaus of Damascus, who writes as follows: after defeating Indates, the Parthian general, and setting up a trophy at the River Lycus, Antiochus remained there two days at the request of the Jewish Hyrcanus because of a festival of his nation on which it was not customary for the Jews to march out. The timing of the Seleucid victory in this passage is on its own quite vague. This is because any one of the several Jewish festivals or holy convocations during which the Jews perform no manner of servile work could have fallen either one day before or after the Sabbath, the traditional Jewish rest day on the seventh day of the week, to force a

84

85 86

22

For other victorious marches into Babylon see Sachs and Hunger (1988), 178-179, Diary -330A+B. The reverse text of this clay fragment provides several clear dates concerning the aftermath of the victory of Alexander the Great over Darius III. The date of Alexander’s entry into Babylon has not survived but was on or shortly after 14.VII (20/21 Oct) in 331 BC (lines 9-11 of the reverse text). See also Sachs and Hunger (1996), 134-135, Diary -140A. The incomplete statements in lines 7-9 of the reverse text of this cuneiform tablet confirm the triumphant entry into both Seleucia on the Tigris and Babylon of the leading Parthian general after the forces of Mithradates I annexed Mesopotamia. See footnote 16 on Michael Syrus, the 12th century Syrian clergyman and historian. As the second reference mentioning Parthian commander Indates, Michael Syrus probably consulted Josephus for his source. The battle date is given as 24.VI.5th regnal year of Darius III in line 15 of the obverse of the above quoted Diary -330A+B in fn. 84. Discussing the location of Gaugamela in detail is beyond the scope of this note. However, because I believe the conflict at the River Lycus between Antiochus VII and Parthian general Indates took place at or near Gaugamela, I have briefly dealt with its approximate location in Appendix II.

two-day pause at the Lycus.87 However, probably drawing from an original Jewish source, Josephus (13.252-253) goes on to identify for us the celebration in Nicolaus’ testimony. He writes nor does he (Nicolaus) speak falsely in saying this; for the Festival of Pentecost had come around, following the Sabbath, and we are not permitted to march either on the Sabbath or on a festival. As we shall presently note (Section III.2), counting inclusively Josephus places the Festival of Pentecost (Hebrew Shavuot) 50 days after the start of the 7-day long Feast of Unleavened Bread (Hebrew Matzah) which commenced on the 15th day of the Jewish month Nisan. This extra information of putting Pentecost after the Sabbath enables us to decide precisely the date of the battle near the River Lycus and then to estimate the moment of Antiochus’ victorious march into Babylon. However, before attempting to determine the Julian date of the Seleucid success, I shall briefly examine the relevant literature to clarify some key questions concerning this final military encounter between the Seleucid and Arsacid empires. In so doing, I shall first seek to estimate the time Antiochus and his army may have taken to reach the point of contact with the Parthian force under Indates. To do this objectively and without undue complications, I shall select two starting points in time and place to address the first two questions in our list: When and where did Antiochus assemble his men to march on Parthia? Finally, by examining certain Babylonian and Jewish calendrical and astronomical practices, I shall compute the Julian date of the battle at the Lycus River. Going back in time by about 35 years, we learn from I.Maccabees (3.13-37) and Josephus (12.293-297) that around the beginning of the spring Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 BC), the great uncle of Antiochus VII, abandoned his plans to attack Judaea and instead marched away to Persia in the 147th year to collect the tribute of that country.88 I have followed Josephus’ account and started the Parthian anabasis of Antiochus VII around the beginning of spring 130 BC. Contemporary astronomical records (Section III.3) and modern computations show that the Babylonian spring began either on 1.I.182 SEB (10/11 Apr 130 BC), or some 12 days earlier on 17.XII.181 SEB (29 Mar 130 BC), the Babylonian vernal equinox;89 this was not the actual equinoctial point (24 Mar 130 BC) at that time. Because the Seleucid calendar had already been subordinated to its Babylonian counterpart under Seleucus I (311-281 BC),90 we could say that spring started in Seleucid Syria either on 1 Xandikos ≈ 1 Nisannu or around 12 days earlier. Setting out in spring would have considerably reduced the hazards of crossing the Euphrates and Tigris both of which annually peaked in summer. Polybius (9.43.1-5) tells us that the Euphrates is in highest flood at the rising of the Dog-star (Sirius in the constellation Canis Major), and the stream is largest in Syria. Strabo (16.1.9) accepts this observation and asserts that when the snows in Armenia begin to melt, the Euphrates rises in spring, reaching flood-tide at the outset of summer.91 Reporting this very natural phenomenon, Pliny (Natural History 5.21.90) adds that like the Nile, the Euphrates also increases in volume at fixed periods with little variation, and floods Mesopotamia when the sun has reached the 20th degree of the Crab.92 Modern computations show that for 87

Stern (2001), 114 doubts the veracity of Josephus’ account but I believe otherwise. Firstly, there is no reason why both Nicolaus and Josephus should associate the battle with a traditional Jewish festival if there was no link between the two. Secondly, as we shall see later, the Julian date of the battle agrees with other pieces of evidence unconnected to Jewish religious rites.

88

The year date 147 is on the Macedonian count from 1 Dios (c. 11/12 Nov 166 BC) to the end of Hyperberetaios (c. 29/30 Oct 165 BC). Spring began in Babylon on 1.I.147 SEB = 7/8 Apr 165 BC, while the Babylonian vernal equinox fell in 20.XII.146 SEB (29 Mar 165 BC). The actual spring equinox in that year fell in 24 Mar. On the Babylonian method of computing (not observing) the equinoxes and solstices see Neugebauer (1947), 143-148; Neugebauer (1948), 209-222 (table of SEB years at 216). Neugebauer (1948), 209-222 (table of SEB years for equinoctial and solistitial dates at 216).

89 90

91 92

Malalas (8.16) relates that Seleucus I ordered that the months in Syria should be in Macedonian fashion …. Because Syria under the Achaemenid administration operated the Babylonian calendar, Malalas’ reference means that Seleucus subordinated the Macedonian calendar to the Babylonian time-reckoning. In other words, the new Seleucid calendar was virtually the Babylonian time-keeping with Macedonian month names. However, the late Chris Bennett was adamant that he had verifiable evidence against this calendrical reform! Having missed a simple computational error, Bennett (2011), 202-208 presented his erroneously interpreted evidence in favour of an original Macedonian calendar under the Seleucids. However, having detected the slip, I notified Bennett who finally abandoned his initial position, shortly before his untimely death, in favour of the operation under the Seleucids of a Babylonian style of the Macedonian calendar. See the corrections and amendments to his views on pages 8-10 at: academia.edu/1134799/Alexandria_and_the_Moon_Addenda_et_Corrigenda. For the reference in Malalas to the Seleucid calendar reform see Jeffreys et al. (1986), 106. See Assar (2000), 6-12 and Assar (2003), 177-184 on the Macedonian style of the Seleucid and Parthian calendars. See Assar (2006a), 63, fn. 16 on the correction of my earlier postulate that the Seleucid version of the Parthian calendar had, at certain times, begun the year with 1 Hyperberetaios not 1 Dios. Equated with the 8th Babylonian month Araḫsamnu, the Macedonian Dios was always the 1st month of both the pre- and post-Seleucus I calendar reform. Similar to the inundation of the Nile in Egypt because of the summer downpours in Upper Ethiopia. See Strabo (7.3.6 and 17.1.3-5). The zodiacal sign Cancer. We have no precise knowledge of the limits of Cancer at the time of Pliny. In AD 220, Cancer covered the arc 90˚-120˚ in the tropical zodiac (with the vernal point at 0˚ Aries). The proleptic style of this zodiac would have had Cancer at 86.9˚-116.9˚ and 88.3˚-118.3˚ from the equinoctial points in AD 1 and AD 100 respectively. For the sun’s ecliptic longitude to be 106.9˚ and 108.3˚ (i.e. 20˚ in Cancer of the fixed zodiac) the corresponding dates would have been 12 Jul AD 1 and 13 Jul AD 100 (Pliny the Elder died in AD 79 in the eruption of the Vesuvius). Consult Powell (2007) on the relevant astronomical computations. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

23

the geographical latitude of 30˚, Sirius’ heliacal rising occurred about 16-20 July during 500 BC to 1 AD, depending on the atmospheric visibility conditions.93 For Babylon at 32˚33´ north of the equator, Sirius would have appeared a few days later around 20-23 July in the same time period.94 In any case, Josephus (12.242-243 and 13.237) refers both to a great downpour of rain which came with the setting of the Pleiades,95 and the advent of the Festival of Tabernacles (Hebrew Sakkōt) just before the end of the Seleucid siege of Jerusalem and the ensuing peace negotiations between Antiochus and Hyrcanus. These reference points provide useful clues on the season of the year and indicate that the Seleucid expedition to Parthia began some months after the autumn of 131 BC. As for the place from which the march began, I have opted for Antioch on the River Orontes, the Seleucid capital in northern Syria near the modern city of Antakya in south-central Turkey.96 However, selecting the expedition route(s) from Antioch to the Lycus is more challenging than picking the time and place of its beginning. This is because Antiochus could have chosen any one of the several crossing points at the Euphrates and Tigris on his march to Babylon. As a likely spot for the first major river crossing in the course of this Seleucid anabasis, I have considered Thapsacus (also known as Zeugma, Pontoon Bridge). Rebuilt later by Seleucus Nicator (311-281 BC) and named Seleucia on the Euphrates, Thapsacus was strategically situated on the west side of a bend of the Euphrates about 12 km north of the modern town of Birecik in southeast Turkey (Fig. 1).97 It lay approximately 245 km northeast of Antioch on the Orontes98 and was an important ancient crossing point that linked Syria to Mesopotamia. According to Arrian (2.13.1 and 3.7.1), after his defeat at Issus (in early winter 333 BC) Darius III rode at full speed to Thapsacus to quickly put the Euphrates between himself and Alexander while the latter bridged the river at the same crossover sometime in the Athenian month Hekatombaion (early Jul – early Aug) 331 BC on his way to fight Darius at Gaugamela.99 Returning to Antiochus’ march from Antioch on the Orontes to Babylon, we have the testimonies of Strabo, Arrian and Quintus Curtius on some relevant distances from Thapsacus to the crossing of the Tigris probably at Ninus, the ancient Assyrian city of Nineveh100 and from there to the Lycus. Quoting the Greek polymath Eratosthenes of Cyrene (c. 285-194 BC) who very often used the measurements of Alexander’s bematists in his own geography,101 Strabo (2.1.24-26 and 16.1.21-22) gives the distances from Thapsacus respectively to the Tigris where Alexander crossed it and Babylon as 2400 and 4800 stadia. Arrian (3.8.7, 3.15.5, 6.11.5) puts it at about 600 stadia (three times) and at about 500 stadia (once) between Gaugamela and Arbela, and Quintus Curtius (4.9.10) places Gaugamela roughly 80 stadia from the Lycus. However, there are problems with these ancient measurements. Firstly, such round figures as 4800, 93 94

De Jong (2006), 437-438. Pliny (Natural History 18.68.269-270) dates the rising in Assyria of the Dog-star to 20 July. Censorinus (The Birthday Book 21.10) reports that on 20 July Sirius the Dog Star usually rises over the horizon for the first time in Egypt.

95

See Strabo (15.1.17-18) on the setting of the Pleiades in autumn. According to Pliny (Natural History 18.57.212-213), the morning setting of the Pleiades is at the close of the autumnal equinox, but other mathematicians and astronomers put it later, e.g. Thales places it 25 days after the equinox. Pliny (18.69.280 and 18.74.309) associates the setting of the Pleiades with the onset of winter. See also Robinson (2009), 370 on the morning setting on 8 November of Alcyone (η Tauri, one of the Pleiades) in agreement with Pliny (18.74.313) who dates the event to 11 Nov. Josephus (3.239, 3.244-247, 8.100, 8.225-230, 11.75-78, 11.154) dates the Festival of Tabernacles to the 7th Jewish month Tishre which he equates with the Macedonian month Hyperberetaios. The sun set at 15:25 UT and 16:01 UT respectively in Babylon and Antioch on the Orontes on 10 Apr 130 BC, and one minute later in both cities the next day. Because 1 Nisannu in Babylon began on 10 or 11 Apr 130 BC either by direct observation of the first lunar crescent or computationally (Section III.3), the slender moon would have been sighted, barring clouds and other meteorological obstructions (e.g. dust and/or high levels of humidity), after the sunset in Antioch 36 minutes later on those same days. Gawlikowski (1996), 123-133; Brunt (1999), 486-487 places Thapsacus in Jerablus c. 23 km south of Birecik; Comfort et al. (2000), 108-113, 122; Comfort et al. (2001), 45.

96

97 98

Strabo (16.2.1) and Pliny (Natural History 6.30.125) place Zeugma (Thapsacus) respectively 1400 stadia and 175 Roman miles from Seleucia in Pieria. At 1 stadion = 0.185 km and 1 Roman mile = 1.480 km, the figures in Strabo and Pliny are virtually the same: 259 km. Strabo (16.2.7) also gives the distance between Antioch on the Orontes and Seleucia in Pieria as 120 stadia, about 22 km. This leaves 237 km between Antioch and Zeugma. The road going from the modern city of Antakya via the town of Kilis to Birecik on the west side of the Euphrates in southwestern Turkey, lying about 12 km below the site of Seleucia on the Euphrates at Balkis, is 244 km long, a close match for the above calculated ancient distance. According to Xenophon (Anabasis 1.4.11), the Achaemenid prince Cyrus the Younger (401 BC) camped for 5 days at Thapsacus on the Euphrates, a large and prosperous city on his way to fight his brother, Artaxerses II (404-359/8 BC), at Cunaxa around 85 km north of Babylon. 99 After amending Arrian (3.15.7) who incorrectly places the Battle of Gaugamela in Pyanepsion, the 4th Athenian calendar month. Plutarch (Camillus 19.3) correctly reports Boedromion, the 3rd month. Establishing the error in Arrian’s date falls outside the scope of this note. 100 Green (2003), 283. Nineveh lay on the eastern bank of the Tigris, opposite modern-day Mosul in northern Iraq. 101 Or bematistae (Lit.: having expert knowledge of steps, strides, paces). Especially trained men who could count their steps in order to measure distances. However, it is possible that instead of recording the number of steps, the bematists counted in their measurements the number of revolutions of a marked wheel (of a cart, for example) with a pre-determined circumference.

24

2400, 600 and 500 stadia may well have resulted from rounding down or up of somewhat shorter or longer distances either by the original writers themselves or later copyists.102 Secondly, apart from the fact that Herodotus (2.149) equates 600 feet with one Greek stadion (Latin stade), we do not know the exact length of this ancient unit of length because different standards for the foot (ποῦς) were simultaneously in vogue in the Greek world.103 However, taking one Attic foot as 30.82 cm yields one stadion = 184.92 m. Termed the Ptolemaic or Attic stadion, this is consistent with the figures quoted in most classical sources from the early 2nd century BC to the late 1st century AD. For example, Polybius (3.39.8) gives 1 Roman mile (5000 feet) as 8 stadia which, at 1 Roman foot (Latin pes) = 29.6 cm,104 leads to 1 stadion = 185 m.105 Strabo (7.7.4 and 7 F57) equates 8 stadia with one (Roman) mile (Latin mille passus) also, and Pliny (Natural History 2.21.85) measures one stadion as 125 Roman paces or 625 feet (185 m). He then adds (at 12.30.53) that by the calculation of Eratosthenes, one schoenus measures 40 stadia, that is 5 (Roman) miles, but some authorities have made the schoenus 32 stadia. However, because of the variations in the ancient standards for the foot, modern scholarship has postulated other equivalents of the stadion. For example, the Olympic, the Babylonian-Persian and the Phoenician-Egyptian. These respectively measure 176.4 m (600 × 29.4 cm/foot), 196.2 m (600 × 32.7 cm/Doric foot),106 and 209.4 m (600 × 34.9 cm/foot). Given the uncertainty over the length of stadion, we ought to assess the veracity of the above quoted ancient distances from Thapsacus to Babylon before deciding the length and duration of the Seleucid march from Antioch to the Lycus. It is worth noting that, while giving the distances from Hekatompylos (in Parthia) to several Bactrian cities according to the measurements of Diognetus and Beaton, the surveyors of Alexander’s expedition, Pliny (Natural History 6.21.61-62) adds that in some copies of this record we find different numbers. We are, therefore, justified in seeking to check the accuracy of the distances in Strabo which, as he himself claims, were taken from Eratosthenes who found them in the works of Alexander’s bematists. The most direct route from Birecik (Thapsacus) to Mosul (Nineveh) is 468 km or 2530 stadia (at 185 m/stadion), some 130 stadia more than the 2400 in Strabo. Obviously, a less straight path would be longer. This suggests that we should either abandon the Thapsacus-to-the-Tigris distance in Strabo or assume that the ancient geographer used a slightly longer version of stadion. The ratio of 2530 to 2400 stadia (1.0542) is close to that of 196 to 185 meters (1.0595) in the Babylonian-Persian and Ptolemaic-Attic stadia respectively. In other words, 2400 Babylonian-Persian stadia yield 471 km, practically the same as the modern shortest distance from Birecik to Mosul (468 km). However, it is highly unlikely that Alexander and his army traversed a mathematically straight track from Thapsacus to the Tigris. This means that we must consider alternative routes that are somewhere between 470-520 km in overall distance.107 One possibility is to advance around 320 km from Thapsacus to the ancient city of Nisibis (Nusaybin in southeast Turkey), continue eastwards by about 92 km to the Tigris and, keeping the river on the left, move due south approximately 145 km to the crossing just below Nineveh, covering in total a distance of about 555 km (c. 2830 Babylonian-Persian stadia).108 However, there is a shorter route from Nisibis to the Tigris (Map I). It goes southeast towards Nineveh by about 190 km and so cuts the distance to roughly 510 km (c. 2600 Babylonian-Persian stadia) from Thapsacus. Because this road is closer in length to Strabo’s 2400 stadia, I shall use it in my later analysis.109

102 See, for example, Brunt (1999), 494-497 on distances from Ecbatana to Rhagae and thence to the Caspian Gates and Hekatompylos quoted by Strabo and Pliny. 103 See, for example, Hansman (1968), 118; Engles (1985), 298, 308, 310-311; Gulbekian (1987), 359-363. Also Oxford Classical Dictionary: archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.120461/page/n873 104 This may be derived from the measurements in Pliny (12.30.53 and 2.21.85) briefly discussed above: 40 stadia = 5 Roman miles (each 1480 m) and 1 stadion = 625 feet. See also Hosch (2011), 206-207. 105 See Brunt (1999), 488 on 1 stadion generally being 0.185 km and that the length of “foot” varied in different Greek systems. 106 Walkup (2005) at: maa.org/press/periodicals/convergence/eratosthenes-and-the-mystery-of-the-stades-how-long-is-a-stade and maa.org/book/export/html/116342 107 520 km is roughly 10% longer than the shortest 470 km track. See Marsden (1964), 23 on adding ten percent to straight-line measurements to get close matches with actual distances. 108 Green (2003), 283 makes the distance 371 miles (597 km). 109 There is nothing in the extant literature to show that Eratosthenes (followed by Strabo) exclusively used the measurements of Alexander’s surveyors in his own geographical investigations. The distance from Babylon to Nineveh and from there to Thapsacus must have been known to the Persians before Alexander’s conquest of the Achaemenid Empire. It is not impossible that Eratosthenes found the Thapsacus-to-the-Tigris distance in some Persian records. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

25

Map I: Showing the traversed routes by Alexander the Great and Antiochus VII to the Tigris

As for deciding the distance from the crossing of the Tigris to the Lycus between Ninus and Arbela, Arrian’s 600 and 500 stadia (c. 110-118 km and c. 93-98 km depending on the length of stadion) from Gaugamela to Arbela may be useful. I have used these measurements in Appendix II in conjunction with several other ancient and modern distances to locate the site of the final battle between Darius III and Alexander. It is possible that the two epic encounters at Gaugamela (331 BC) and the River Lycus (130 BC) were fought on two very close if not identical fields. After all, Arrian (3.8.7) and Curtius (4.9.10) relate that Darius III had prepared the battleground at Gaugamela to deploy his army for a major combat. There is no reason why the same field of battle could not have been exploited some 200 years later for another grand encounter. In any case, knowing that Alexander probably crossed the Lycus not far from the Tigris near the modern al-Kuwayr (in central Iraq) on his way to Arbela, we may add to Antiochus’ route an extra 45 km from the Tigris crossover to the battlefield to complete his approximately 800 km journey from Antioch on the Orontes to the Lycus. To close our preliminary reconstruction and discussion of the Seleucid march, I shall now estimate the time Antiochus and his army might have taken to cover roughly 800 km before the war with the Parthian general Indates. This depends on several factors such as the average daily pace, the number of halts throughout the march and the delays at the crossings of the Euphrates and Tigris. Sadly, we have no precise knowledge of these key points except for one: the Jewish regiment in the Seleucid army would have abstained from performing impious duties on both the Sabbaths and the festivals. In other words, we are assured of a one-day pause every seven days for the observance of Jewish religious rites. However, the Seleucid king may have authorized extra halts given the large number of supernumeraries who followed as militarily untrained men and women on the heels of the soldiers. It has been suggested that conditioned Roman soldiers who were obliged to do a 20-mile (Roman) march each month (about 30 km) could do 20-26 km/day for 5 or at the most 6 days, pausing for a day afterwards.110 It is thus possible 110 Lord (1938), 28-32 and fn. 69 quoting earlier works (including one by an accomplished military critic).

26

that the makeup of Antiochus’ army demanded an extra halt on the fourth day of the week so that five days of march would be interspersed with two days of recuperation. This extra break would have allowed the superintendents to replenish the army’s water supply, procure food for men and horses, oversee repairs on the war engines and other equipment, attend to the sick and injured, among other resposibilities. Given the overall size of the Seleucid army, we may add ten days to these halts because of the delays at the two river crossings, the first in Syria (the Euphrates), and the second in Mesopotamia (the Tigris). In support of these additional two pauses, we have the testimonies of Curtius (4.9.9-10 and 4.10.1). He reports that having bridged the Lycus, Darius III took five days to get his army across, and that before marching on to Gaugamela, Alexander ordered a 2-day halt after crossing the Tigris.111 Besides these routine breaks in the march, if one or two of the three Seleucid battles in Justin (38.10.6) had taken place before the one at the Lycus, we would have to introduce into our estimated journey time an extra 2-3 days for each encounter, one day for the opposing forces to engage and a couple of days afterwards for the victorious army to attend to its dead and injured. I have placed before the Lycus battle only one of the two remaining wars and allowed a 3-day break for its conclusion prior to the resumption of the march. Taking T as the march duration (days) and V the average daily mileage (km/day), we may derive the following approximate equation:

simplifying gives:

However, the above equation cannot be solved for T without the knowledge of V. But inserting into it some arbitrary average daily speeds and assuming Sunday 12 Apr 130 BC as the departure day from Antioch, we may get an idea about the length of time Antiochus and his army may have taken to reach the Lycus as well as the related arrival dates (Table 1). I have chosen the 12 Apr 130 BC departure date to ensure that it did not fall on a Sabbath, barring the Jewish regiment in Antiochus’ army from marching. V (km/day)

T (days)

Arrival Date

10

125

15 Aug 130 BC

12.5

106.6 (103)*

24 Jul 130 BC

15

87.7 (88)*

9 Jul 130 BC

17.5

77

28 Jun 130 BC

20

69

20 Jun 130 BC

22.5

62.8 (63)*

14 Jun 130 BC

25

57.8 (58)*

9 Jun 130 BC

27.5

53.7 (54)*

5 Jun 130 BC

30

50.3 (51)*

2 Jun 130 BC

32.5

47.5 (48)*

30 May 130 BC

35

45

27 May 130 BC

* signifies rounded up to whole days

Table 1: Estimated mileages and the corresponding arrival dates at the River Lycus

111 Herodotus (7.56) relates that the Achaemenid king Xerxes I took 7 days and nights to cross the Hellespont on a bridge of boats in 480 BC. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

27

While some of the daily mileages in this table are speculative, others are based on ancient figures. For example, in his brief discussion of the geography of Scythia, Herodotus (4.101) reckons a day’s journey as 200 stadia, that is around 35 or 37 km depending on the length of stadion as 0.176 or 0.185 km respectively.112 He then explores (at 5.53-54) the nature of the Achaemenid royal road and gives the distances from Sardis to Susa, Ephesus to Sardis, and Ephesus to Susa respectively as 13,500, 540 and 14,040 stadia. According to Herodotus the corresponding journey times were 90, 3 and 93 days respectively at the rate of 150 stadia (c. 26.5 or 27.8 km at 1 stadion = 176.5 or 185 m respectively) per day close to the 27.5 km/day in Table 1. In contrast to these rather fast paces we have two comparatively slow marches under Xerxes I (486-465 BC) and Cyrus the Younger. Herodotus (7.56-8.51) relates that having bridged the Hellespont and moved his army across from Abydos to Sestos sometime in the spring of 480 BC when Kalliades was archon at Athens, Xerxes took four months to reach Attica, covering a track of around 1000 km. We do not know exactly how long it took the Achaemenid army to complete this journey because Herodotus’ four months may well be a rounded up or down figure. But the march duration may have been somewhere between 110-130 days, leading to an average speed of about 8-9 km/day. Around eighty years later in 401 BC, Cyrus the Younger covered the approximate 710 km distance from Thapsacus to Cunaxa in 33 marching stages and had six rest days.113 It has been suggested that the Achaemenid prince probably had two or three additional halts in the latter part of his march that do not appear in Xenophon’s account. Assuming a minimum of forty days to cover the Thapsacus-to-Cunaxa distance yields an average of about 18 km/day.114 A later example concerns Alexander’s march from the Thapsacus crossover on the Euphrates to the Tigris, about 525 km or 480 km, depending on his route (see above). Curtius (4.9.12-14) claims that the Macedonian army covered the distance in 14 days! This is highly improbable because deducting three one-day halts from 14 leaves 11 days to traverse about 500 km, roughly 46 km/day which is an excessively fast and unsustainable pace for an army composed mostly of infantry.115 However, Arrian (3.6.7) informs us that Alexander reached Thapsacus in the month Hekatombaion and Plutarch (Alexander 31.4 and Camillus 19.3) places the lunar eclipse of 20 Sep 331 BC and the Macedonian victory at Gaugamela respectively in month Boedromion and five days before the waning of that same month (1 Oct 331 BC). These dates show that Alexander’s army took a minimum of 43 or a maximum of 73 days to travel the 500 km route from Thapsacus to the Tigris at an average daily pace of about 11 km or 7 km respectively.116 These mileages will increase to about 14 km and 8 km per day if we consider a one-day pause every 6 days throughout the march.117 We then have the testimony of Curtius (5.1.16) that after marching out of Arbela (2 or 3 Oct 331 BC), Alexander reached the city of Mennis in 4 days. There he found a cavern from which a spring pours out so vast an amount of bitumen that it is a well-known fact that the walls of Babylon, a prodigious work, are cemented with bitumen from that spring. The precise location of Mennis is unknown, but its site near the modern city of Kirkuk is indicated by the bitumen springs.118 Kirkuk lies about 89 km south of Erbil on a straight line, but the modern road is about 100 km long suggesting that the army of Alexander marched, on the average, about 25 km per day in this stretch of road to Babylon. The contemporary account of the Battle of Gaugamela and its aftermath show that Alexander entered Babylon on 14/15 Tašrītu (21/22 Oct) 331 BC.119 Arrian (3.15.5) writes that Alexander reached Arbela one day after the battle, 112 Foot soldiers cannot march at this speed for more than a day or two at the most, but as shown below in the main text, an unaccompanied cavalry force can achieve 35 km/day (or more) for around 10 days. 113 Xenophon (Anabasis 1.4.19-1.8.1). 114 Marsden (1964), 19. 115 Arrian (3.12.5) gives the makeup of Alexander’s army at Gaugamela as 7000 cavalry and 40,000 infantry. Diodorus, Justin, Curtius and Plutarch give no troop numbers. 116 Equating 25 Boedromion (the 3rd Athenian month) with 1 Oct 331 BC leads to 14 Boedromion as the Athenian date of the 20 Sep 331 BC lunar eclipse in that year. Alexander may have reached the Tigris sometime during 10-13 Boedromion = 16-19 Sep 331 BC. Adding to this 60 days for Hekatombaion (1st month) and Metageitnion (2nd month) yields a c. 73-day march. Alternatively, the Macedonian army may have arrived at Thapsacus on the last day of Hekatombaion with Metageitnion being a 29-day hollow month. In that case the journey would have taken about 43 days to complete. 117 Alexander was purposely delaying his arrival at the battlefield firstly to collect as much provisions as possible for his army in the temperate north Mesopotamia lands, and secondly to avoid the blistering summer temperatures of central Babylonia. Hence his slow average march speed. 118 Rolfe (1998), 331, fn. “f”. 119 Sachs and Hunger (1988), 178-179, Diary -330A+B (Rev. 7-11).

28

and Diodorus (17.64.3-4) and Curtius (5.1.10-11) relate that he speedily moved his camp and advanced to Babylon. These figures suggest that it took Alexander and his army 19-20 days to reach Babylon. As indicated earlier, Strabo (2.1.21, 2.1.24, 2.1.26, 16.1.21, 16.1.22) gives the distances from Thapsacus to Babylon and from Thapsacus to the crossing of the Tigris as 4800 and 2400 stadia respectively, leaving 2400 stadia (c. 445-470 km depending on the length of stadion) from the Tigris crossover (near Mosul) to Babylon. This is almost the same as the shortest distance (447 km) from Mosul to Hillah (the site of Babylon) south of Baghdad. Modern roads connecting these cities are 529 km (via Baiji, Tikrit, Samarra and Baghdad) and 569 km long (via Baiji, Tikrit, Samarra and Karbala). Strabo’s calculation of 2400 stadia is therefore uncertain and cannot be used to estimate the distance from Arbela to Babylon. The shortest distance between Erbil and Hillah is, as the crow files, 417 km while the two modern roads, one via Kirkuk, Baqubah and Baghdad, and the other through Tikrit and Baghdad measure 483 and 532 km respectively. Perhaps Alexander covered around 450-460 km in his 20-day march from Arbela to Babylon at an average daily rate of about 23 km.120 Around 24 Nov 331 BC,121 Alexander left Babylon and according to Diodorus (17.65.2) crossed into the satrapy of Sittacene122 on the 6th day. Then, having lingered there for a number of days because Sittacene was a rich province that abounded in all sorts of provisions, we learn from Arrian (3.16.7) that Alexander reached Susa 20 days after departing from Babylon. It is impossible to ascertain exactly how many days Alexander rested his army in Sittacene from the fatigue of their long marches but 2-3 days may be reasonable. Quoting Eratosthenes, Strabo (2.1.34) puts 3400 stadia (c. 600-630 km depending on the length of 1 stadion) between Babylon and Susa. But like several earlier questionable figures in his Geography, Strabo’s distance in this case is also inconsistent with modern roads from Hillah (Babylon) to Shūsh (Susa). These measure 477, 502 and 516 km while the direct distance between the two modern cities is about 362 km. It has been suggested that Alexander probably covered some 370 km from Babylon to Susa123 at about 22 km/day in late Nov – early Dec 331 BC. Alexander then left Susa and marched as far as the Pasitigris River (modern Kārūn in southwest Iran). Without recording the direction of the journey, Diodorus (17.67.2) and Curtius (5.3.1) state that Alexander reached the river on the fourth camp while Arrian (3.17.1) gives no indication of the duration of the march. The shortest distances from Shūsh to the Kārūn and the city of Shūshtar on the eastern bank of the same river are respectively about 54 and 59 km. Covering about 60 km in 3.5-4 days (4th day of march) yields an average daily pace of about 15-17 km. However, there are strong indications that Alexander crossed the Pasitigris about 600 stadia further south near Ahvaz.124 This leads to an average daily pace of about 28 km/day (4 days march), taking 1 stadion = 0.185 km. Then, around six months later and while pursuing Darius III, Alexander left Ecbatana and, according to Arrian (3.20.2) reached Rhagae 11 days later. The road from Hamedān (Ecbatana) to Shahr-e-Rey (Rhagae) in Iran is about 327 km long; the shortest distance between the two cities is 281 km. Perhaps, being in hot pursuit of Darius on that occasion, Alexander covered some 310-350 km in 11 days at an average speed of around 28-32 km/day. Another example involves Eumenes and Antigonus Monophthalmus, two of the leading generals of Alexander and later adversaries in the Wars of the Diadochi after the death of their leader. Diodorus (19.21.2) relates that sometime after successfully obstructing Antigonus’ crossing of the Pasitigris around the end of Aug 317 BC,125 Eumenes and his army departed for Persepolis, a march of 24 days. Although Diodorus omits the length of this journey,126 several key citations in his work and other sources suggest that Eumenes probably covered about 3500-3600 stadia from the Pasitigris to Persepolis at an average speed of 145-150 stadia or around 27-28 km/day.127 This is indeed a very rapid pace and would be even faster if we consider four one-day breaks during the journey, increasing the daily mileage to 120 Brunt (1999), 492 estimates the distance from Gaugamela to Babylon as c. 400 km. 121 Diodorus (17.64.4) states that Alexander and his army stayed in Babylon “around 30 days”, but Curtius (5.1.39) makes it 34 days. This leads to about 54 days after Gaugamela (1 Oct 331 BC) or about 24 Nov 331 BC. 122 Strabo (15.3.12, 16.1.5, 16.1.17), the land between Babylonia and Susiana, also called Apolloniatis. See also Potts (1999), 380. 123 Brunt (1999), 492. 124 Proving this point is beyond the scope of the current note. It will be discussed in a future publication. 125 At least 40 days after Eumenes, his satraps and generals had learned of Antigonus’ encampment in Media. See Diodorus (19.19.1-19.21.4). The skirmishes between the two Macedonian generals took place in the season when the Dog Star (Sirius) rises. See Diodorus (19.18.3). 126 Bennett (2011), 205, fn. 25 suggests a 340 mile (547.5 km) or 2958 stadia long road to Persepolis from a start near Ahvāz. 127 This will also be discussed in detail in a future exposition. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

29

175-180 stadia (c. 32.5-33.5 km). Perhaps Diodorus’ 24-day is a slip by himself or a later copyist for 34 days, yielding an average daily march of around 19.5 to 22.5 km. In fact, Diodorus (19.17.4-6) relates that when Eumenes requested some ten thousand bowmen from Peucestes the satrap of Persia to picket the eastern bank of the Pasitigris from its source to the sea against Antigonus, some of the Persians were distant a thirty days’ journey. This diminishes the veracity of Diodorus’ 24-day march duration from the Pasitigris to Persepolis and suggests a longer period of around 34 days. Diodorus (19.44.4-5, 19.46.1-6) further reports that having reached Media (after his failed attempt to overcome Eumenes in Susiane), Antigonus spent the winter of 316 BC in a village near the provincial capital Ecbatana. He then took possession of 4000 talents of uncoined silver (equivalent to 24,000,000 drachms) and marched to Persepolis in about 20 days. But once again Diodorus gives no indication of the distance between the start and terminal point of his reported march and so we cannot ascertain Antigonus’ average daily speed. An estimate, however, may be worked out from the three modern roads connecting Hamedān to Persepolis. They cover 896 km (via Arāk, Isfahān, Shahrezā, Ābādeh), 903 km (via Malāyer, Aligūdarz, Shahrezā, Ābādeh) and 956 km (via Sāveh, Isfahān, Shahrezā, Ābādeh). These suggest that Antigonus probably marched no more than 900 km in about 20 days at an average rate of about 45 km/day. Considering three one-day halts en route will increase the mileage to around 53 km/day. This is an unsustainable daily pace and so militates against Diodorus’ approximately 20-day march duration. An unburdened cavalry force may cover 45-50 km/day,128 but foot soldiers cannot keep pace with horses for more than a couple of days at this speed. Normally, it would have taken Antigonus around 40 days including six one-day pauses to move his troops and treasure from Ecbatana to Persepolis at an average speed of about 26.5 km/day. In fact, the next case clarifies this key point and shows that Antigonus and his army could not have covered around 900 km in 20 days or so. Diodorus (19.54.1-2) relates that at some point in time in the Athenian archon and Roman consular year 315/14 BC, Antigonus took his large treasure and set out from Susa arriving in Babylon after a 22-day march. We have already noted above that around late Nov – early Dec 331 BC, Alexander and his army covered the same distance of about 370 km in 20 days including a pause of an unspecified duration in Sittacene. This is consistent with Antigonus’ 22-day march from Susa to Babylon at an average daily pace of about 17 km (increasing to about 21 km per day if we consider three one-day halts). It also strongly indicates that Antigonus and his men could not have covered the roughly 900 km distance from Ecbatana to Persepolis in 20 days. Finally, we have the testimonies of Polybius (3.41.7-3.42.6-7 and 3.49.5-3.50.1) on two marches under the Carthaginian general Hannibal and his army in 218 BC.129 In the first instance, we learn that part of the Carthaginian force marched for 200 stadia (37 km) up the bank of the River Rhone in a single day on orders from their commander. Then on the same day, Hannibal’s men constructed some rafts, crossed the river and rested for a whole day after their exertions. In the second case, Hannibal himself advanced with his army to a place called the Island between the two rivers Rhone and Isère. He then began the ascent of the Alps after a ten days’ march of eight hundred stadia along the bank of the river (Isère) moving at an average speed of 80 stadia (around 15 km) per day. This brief survey of some known ancient marches most of which appear to have proceeded at an average daily speed of 20-25 km concludes our attempts to estimate the duration of Antiochus’ journey from Antioch on the Orontes to the Lycus. An average pace of about 22.5 km/day agrees with reported mileages elsewhere. We are told that in most conditions, the average length of a day’s march for infantry or combined forces was rarely more than 12-14 miles (c. 20-23 km) which has been an average for most infantry forces throughout recorded history, and this figure would more often than not be reduced where large numbers of troops, particularly including infantry, were involved.130 Our Table 1 shows that setting off from Antioch on 12 April 130 BC (the beginning of spring) and covering about 22.5 km per day, Antiochus VII and his vast army would have reached the River Lycus on 14 June 130 BC. Keeping this date in mind, we may now return to the testimony of Josephus (13.249-253) in conjunction with some key astronomical observations to compute the Julian date of the battle between the Seleucid and Parthian forces at the Lycus.

128 Haldon (1999), 164 asserts that “unaccompanied cavalry can achieve distances of up to 40 or 50 miles (65-80 km) per day provided that the horses are regularly rested, well-nourished and watered”. 129 See Polybius (3.40.2), recording the Roman consuls Publius Cornelius Scipio and Tiberius Sempronius Longus for year 218 BC. 130 Haldon (1999), 165.

30

III.2: WEEKDAYS OF PASSOVER AND PENTECOST IN 130 BC

Thanks to our preserved cuneiform and numismatic material, we now know that the Parthian expedition of Antiochus VII reached Babylonia in 130 BC not a year earlier nor later. We also know from the combined testimonies of Nicolaus of Damascus and Josephus (13.249-253) that having vanquished Indates the general of Phraates II, Antiochus set up a trophy to celebrate his victory. He then rested his men for two days near the River Lycus in central Mesopotamia at the behest of John Hyrcanus, the leader of the Jewish regiment in the Seleucid army. Following Josephus (13.252-253), this Seleucid triumph fell in a Friday before the Sabbath and the Jewish festival of Pentecost on Sunday in 130 BC. Taking these key references in time prima facie, it may be thought that the exact date of the encounter between the Seleucid and Parthian armies could be readily worked out because we know the intervals between the biblically derived festivals of Passover, Unleavened Bread, and Pentecost. However, owing to the loss of two key pieces of information, the situation is not quite straightforward. We do not know the precise Julian date of the start of Jewish year in 130 BC. This leaves the dates of the above three celebrations undetermined in that year. As we shall presently note, these chronologically interdependent feasts commence at fixed intervals from 1 Nisan, the first month of the Jewish ecclesiastical calendar. Our astronomical cuneiform texts too are unhelpful because they have not preserved the date of the beginning of the first Babylonian month Nisannu in 130 BC. This would have provided useful clues on the date of 1 Nisan. Like their Babylonian counterparts, Jewish months also began with the apparition of the first lunar crescent after sunset following the lapse of either 29 or 30 days from the previous sighting of the thin moon. These unfortunate breaks in our evidentiary material create computational difficulties and explain why there has never been an attempt to decide the date of the battle at the River Lycus. Thankfully all is not lost. Briefly reviewing both the biblical and Josephus’ accounts of the organisation of the above-cited Jewish festivals, I shall first establish their correct weekdays in the first and third Jewish months Nisan and Sivan. I shall then use a series of astronomical and calendrical procedures to compute the Julian date of the Seleucid-Parthian conflict at the River Lycus. Accepting the chronological order of the 39 books in The Old Testament (The Bible) according to the Protestant Church canon, the earliest allusions to the slaying of the Paschal Lamb and the Passover are preserved in Exodus (12.1-11): The sacrificial lamb shall be kept until the 14th day of the first Jewish month (Nisan), slaughtered in the evening (start of 15th Nisan), and having it roasted with fire, eaten in haste with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. This is the Lord’s Passover. As for the Feast of Unleavened Bread, we respectively find in Exodus (12.15, 12.18, 23.15 and 34.18) that: Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread, …. In the first month, on the 14th day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of month at even. …. Thou shalt eat unleavened bread seven days. The Pentecost celebration or the Feast of Weeks or Harvest is only vaguely mentioned in Exodus (23.16 and 34.22) with no specific number of days from the two previously defined Jewish festivals of Passover and Unleavened Bread. Several later books in The Bible also record the dates of the three Jewish celebrations. For example, Leviticus (23.5), Numbers (9.3-5 and 28.16), II.Chronicles (35.1), and Ezra (6.19) all start the Passover on 14th Nisan at evening. Beginning the Feast of Unleavened Bread on 15th Nisan is attested in Leviticus (23.6) and Numbers (28.17), while Leviticus (23.7-8) and Deuteronomy (16.3-8) ensure that it lasted for 7 days. Finally, Leviticus (23.15-22), Deuteronomy (16.9-10 and 16.16) and II.Chronicles (8.13) in The Old Testament, and The Acts of The Apostles (2.1) in The New Testament mention the Pentecost. But only Leviticus (23.15-16) and Deuteronomy (16.9) speak of the time of this feast. The former relates that: And ye shall count onto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths shall be complete: Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the Lord. This is the fullest Biblical account of the Pentecost because Deuteronomy (16.9) is quite brief: Seven weeks shalt thou number unto thee: begin to number the seven weeks from such time as thou beginnest to put the sickle to the corn. Our next sources on the organisations of the above-mentioned three festivals are the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria (c. 1st Cent. BC – mid 1st Cent. AD) and the Jewish historian Josephus (1st Cent. AD). Philo (The Special Laws 2.27.145-2.30.187) does not name the month on whose 14th and 15th days respectively begin the Passover and Unleavened Bread feasts, but he implicitly assigns both occasions to the first month. Philo (1.35.181-182) also

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

31

makes the feast of Unleavened Bread last for seven days. Finally, he tells us (2.29.162 and 2.30.176-179) that the count to the Pentecost begins on the 16th day of the month of Passover and continues for 50 days.131 However, Josephus is more specific. He tells us (1.80-81) that: Moses appointed Nisan, that is to say Xanthikos,132 as the first month for the festivals, because it was in this month that he brought the Hebrews out of Egypt; he also reckoned this month as the commencement of the year for everything relating to divine worship, but for selling and buying and ordinary affairs he preserved the ancient order.133 This is followed by an unambiguous description of the Passover, Unleavened Bread, and Pentecost celebrations together with their start days. Of these, the first two fell in Nisan and the third, through continuous count, in Sivan. Josephus (3.248-257) relates that: In the month of Xanthikos, which with us is called Nisan and begins the year, on the 14th day by lunar reckoning, the sun being then in Aries, our lawgiver, seeing that in this month we were delivered from bondage to the Egyptians, ordained that we should year by year offer the same sacrifice which, I have already said (at 2.311-314), we offered then on departure from Egypt – the sacrifice called Pascha. And so in fact we celebrate it by fraternities, nothing of the sacrificial victims being kept for the morrow. On the 15th the Passover is followed up by the Feast of Unleavened Bread, lasting 7 days, during which our people subsist on unleavened loaves and each day there are slaughtered two bulls, a ram, and seven lambs. These are all used for burnt-offerings, a kid being further added as sin-offering, which serves each day to regale the priests. On the 2nd day of Unleavened Bread, that is to say the 16th (of Nisan), our people partake of the crops which they have reaped and which have not been touched till then, and esteeming it right first to do homage to God, to whom they owe the abundance of these gifts, they offer to Him the first-fruits of the barley in the following wise …. Moreover, besides the first-fruits of the crops, they offer a young lamb as a burnt-offering to God. When the 7th week following this sacrifice has elapsed – these are the 49 days of the (so-called) “Weeks” – on the 50th day, which the Hebrews call Asartha, the word denoting “fiftieth”, they present to God a loaf of two assarôns of flour of wheat made with leaven and, as sacrifice, two lambs. …. (the remainder of Josephus’ description of the Feast of Weeks in 3.252-257 does not concern us because it chiefly elaborates on the performance of burnt-offerings and other sacrifices). Combining the above-cited biblical testimonies with the timings of the three Jewish festivals in Philo and Josephus as our principle informant on the battle at the River Lycus in 130 BC permits of a coherent reconstruction of two points: the aftermath of the Seleucid-Parthian encounter in northern Mesopotamia, and determination of the battle date. First, we know that the count to Pentecost begins on the 16th day of Nisan after sunset (start of the Babylonian/Jewish day) and lasts for seven weeks. Counting inclusively from 1 Nisan, Pentecost would begin 65 days later at sunset. For this feast to cover the night of Saturday through to sunset of Sunday, that is the day after Sabbath whereon the Jewish contingent in the army of Antiochus VII abstained from marching in 130 BC, 1 Nisan would have to begin and end respectively with sunsets of Friday and Saturday. This concurrence of the 1st day of Jewish year and Sabbath is rather rare and quite irregular.134 But because we do not have an uninterrupted list of dates of 1 Nisan from several centuries both before and after 130 BC, it would be impossible to work out the exact frequency of 1 Nisan = Friday/ Saturday. A comparison with the observationally decided dates of the Babylonian 1 Nisannu also over the course of several centuries could provide useful clues. Yet this too is unworkable because of many gaps in our astronomical cuneiform material. For example, the earliest and latest Babylonian Astronomical Diaries with preserved first months are from 568 BC and 83 BC.135 However, only 69 out of the 484 intervening years in this period have secure Julian

131 For Philo (The Special Laws) Books I-III see the following (in the Loeb Classical Library): archive.org/stream/PhiloSupplement01Genesis/Philo%2007%20Decalogue%2C%20Special%20Laws%20I-III#page/n411/mode/2up 132 The sixth month of the Macedonian calendar both before and after its subordination to the Babylonian time-reckoning scheme under Seleucus I (311-281 BC). 133 For the old Hebrew year beginning in autumn see, for example, St. John Thackeray (2001), 38, fn. “b”. 134 A lunar year is either 354 or 355 days (see Section III.3). Because the Babylonian and Jewish calendars intercalated a 29- or 30-day month in years 1, 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, and 17 of a 19-year cycle to keep their lunar and solar time-reckoning schemes in approximate accord, occasionally a Babylonian/ Jewish lunisolar year was 383, 384, or 385 days long. The sum of days in a random combination of 354-, 355-, 383-, 384- and 385-day years as a whole multiple of 7 (days/week) following a year with 1 Nisan = Sabbath yields an irregular pattern of such years. See Assar (2003), 171-176 on a brief discussion of the organisation of the Babylonian lunisolar calendar. 135 See respectively Sachs and Hunger (1988), 46-47, Diary -567, and Sachs and Hunger (1996), 474-477, Diary -82A.

32

dates of 1 Nisannu.136 This yields 14.6% as the survival rate of such years during 568-83 BC. Of the 71 preserved cases of Nisannu in this same interval, 14 respectively begin and end with Friday and Saturday dusks,137 that is 19.7% of the instances. But this does not represent the recurrence rate of such coincidences because of many breaks in our evidentiary material ranging from one to around 150 years.138 As briefly presented below, it may be possible to estimate the number of Babylonian years with 1 Nisannu = Fri/Sat in the period 568-83 BC. This would give us an idea about the scarcity of the Jewish years with 1 Nisan falling in Sabbath. Having first established the accuracy (93.7%) of a computational model for predicting the date of the first days of lunar months (Section III.3), I used its predicted dates to find the following: for the period 625-83 BC, the numbers of 1 Nisannu falling in Friday, Saturday, and Sunday were respectively 61, 88, and 69. These are reduced to 54, 81, and 57 for the period 568-83 BC under consideration here. But we already know that there are 14 attested cases of 1 Nisannu = Saturday. This adjusts our predicted numbers to 54, 67, and 57 respectively. Applying the 6.7% computational error to these numbers, we get 4 cases of Friday, 5 of Saturday, and 4 of Sunday that could be ±1 day out. This increases the final number of 1 Nisannu = Saturday to 67 – 5 + 14 (confirmed) + 2 (Friday + 1 day) + 2 (Sunday – 1 day) = 80 in the period 568-83 (485 years). So, the average rate of years with 1 Nisannu = Sabbath is about 16.5% or 1 in every 6-7 years. Returning to the battle at the River Lycus in 130 BC, the key question is whether 1 Nisan of the Jewish calendar in that year coincided with Sabbath. If it did this rather special concurrence would place the Feast of Pentecost in Sunday 65 days later. This would then ensure a 2-day rest after the Seleucid victory because of the Sabbath one day earlier. I shall attempt to answer this question in the next and final part of my paper. III.3: THE JULIAN DATES OF 1 NISAN AND PENTECOST IN 130 BC

We do not have the Julian date of 1 Nisan 130 BC, but we know that the Jewish calendar closely though probably not always exactly, followed the Babylonian lunisolar calendar.139 This correlation between the two time-keeping systems could derive for us the Julian date of 1 Nisan 130 BC either from the first day of the Babylonian Addaru 130 BC, the 12th month in 181 SEB, or from that of Nisannu 130 BC, the first month in 182 SEB. The reason why the Jewish Nisan may have been coincidental either with Addaru or Nisannu is that we are not sure if the months of the two calendars always ran concurrently. For example, intercalation of a month in two different years or even in the same year of both

136 Sachs and Hunger (1988), 46-47 and 52, Diary -567 (month I of both 568 BC and 567 BC); 60-64, Diary -418A; 76-77 and 82, Diary -381A; 108-111 and 118, Diary -372A+B; 128-131 and 138, Diary -372A; 152-152, Diary -346; 156-159 and 162, Diary -342A; 162-164, Diary -338; 192-195 and 204, Diary -324A; 204-207 and 218, Diary 322A+D (month I of both 323 BC and 322 BC); 220-223 and 228. Diary 321; 232-235 and 238, Diary -308; 246-247 and 250, Diary -302; 250-252, Diary -301; 258-260, Diary -294; 266-267 and 274, Diary -291A+B; 284-286, Diary -287; 318-321 and 332, Diary -277A; 334-335 and 346, Diary -273A (month I of both 274 BC and 273 BC); 368-369 and 376, Diary -261A (month I of both 262 BC and 261 BC); Sachs and Hunger (1989), 16-19 and 24, Diary -255A; 42-43, Diary -251; 50-52, Diary -248; 58-61 and 64, Diary -246; 66-69 and 72, Diary -245A; 84-86, Diary -238; 116-119 and 122, Diary -230A+B; 174-177 and 188, Diary -209A+B; 190-193 and 196, Diary -207A; 196-204, Diary -204A+B+C; 206-209 and 214, Diary -202A; 214-217 and 220-222, Diary -201A+D (month I of both 202 BC and 201 BC); 228-230, Diary -199A; 230-233 and 238, Diary -198A; 240-241 and 254, Diary -197A (month I of both 198 BC and 197 BC); 274-275 (1.II.118 SEB = 3-0.I.118 -SEB, making the first month hollow) and 290, Diary -193A; 302-303 and 314, Diary -190A; 324-326, Diary -188; 352-355 and 356, Diary -184A; 386-389 and 394, Diary -180A; 396-397 and 404, Diary -179A; 420-421 and 424, Diary -176A; 464-466, Diary -169; 486-489 and 490, Diary -165A; Sachs and Hunger (1996), 28-31 and 38, Diary -161A1+A2; 44-45 and 54, Diary -158A; 58-63 and 70, Diary -156A; 114-117 and 130, Diary -141A+B; 130-135 and 158, Diary -140A; 178-177, Diary -137E; 258-261 and 264, Diary -125A; 264- 265 and 280, Diary -124A; 306-311 and 316, Diary -119A1+A2+B1; 319-321 and 328, Diary -118A+B; 336-339 and 346, Diary -111A; 352-355 and 362, Diary -108B; 370-371 and 376, Diary -107C; 378-381, 394-396, Diary -105A+B+C; 410-411 and 416, Diary -96A; 416-421 and 424, Diary -95A+B+C; 426-427, Diary -94; 442-446, Diary -88A; 446-449 and 456-457, Diary -87A+C (month I of both 88 BC and 87 BC); 474-477 and 480, Diary -82A. 137 See the underlined cases in the previous footnote. These respectively give: 13/14 Apr 323 BC; 9/10 Apr 309 BC; 22/23 Apr 302 BC; 2/3 Apr 292 BC; 31 Mar/1 Apr 262 BC; 17/18 Apr 231 BC; 2/3 Apr 208 BC; 30/31 Mar 194 BC; 26/27 Mar 191 BC; 3/4 Apr 181 BC; 8/9 Apr 157 BC; 28/29 Mar 137 BC; 26/27 Mar 96 BC; 7/8 Apr 89 BC. To work out the weekdays of these dates I used the Julian Day Calculator at the following link: bowie.gsfc.nasa.gov/time/julian.html 138 Note the 148-year gap between 1.I.38 Nebukadnezar II (12/13 Apr 567 BC) and 1.I.5 Darius II (26/27 Mar 419 BC) in Sachs and Hunger (1988), 52-53 (Diary -567) and 60-63 (Diary -418A). 139 Detailed discussion of the organisations of the Babylonian and Jewish calendars falls outside the scope of this paper. It suffices to say that we do not know if these two time-keeping schemes always followed a common 19-year intercalary cycle. If they did not, the consequent misalignment would have regularly led to a one-month difference between the start of the Babylonian and Jewish years. For a revision of the Babylonian calendar see Stern (2012), 70-123. For a detailed discussion of the Jewish calendar, particularly in the Hellenistic and Hasmonaean periods, see Stern (2001), 3-5, 27-31 and 47-53. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

33

calendars but at different times of year would have displaced by a month some of the Jewish and Babylonian months that would have otherwise run synchronously. For 1.XII.181 SEB we already have the secure date 12/13 Mar 130 BC (Thu/Fri) in a Babylonian astronomical text.140 This means that if 1 Nisan fell in 1.XII.181 SEB, then Pentecost began 64 days later (65 days counting inclusively) on the 15/16 May 130 BC Sabbath (Fri/Sat). But we know Josephus (13.252-253) places Pentecost after Sabbath in his narration of the battle at the River Lycus. In other words, Pentecost should have fallen in 16/17 May 130 BC (Sat/Sun) requiring the Jewish year to begin on 13/14 Mar 130 BC (Fri/Sat) one day later than the start of Addaru on 12/13 March. This 1-day discrepancy between the first days of the Babylonian Addaru and Jewish Nisan is not unprecedented. It could have arisen if the Jewish and Babylonian days were asynchronous in mid-March 130 BC.141 A prime example of this is the death-date of Alexander the Great. The Babylonian tradition reports 29 Ayyaru (11 Jun 323 BC).142 On the other hand, Plutarch (Alexander 76.4) dates it to 28 Daisios according to the Macedonian Court Diaries. Because we do not know how John Hyrcanus’ entourage in the Seleucid army decided the beginning of Jewish months throughout their march from Judaea to Babylon, we cannot automatically synchronise 1 Nisan with the Babylonian 1 Nisannu = 12/13 Mar 130 BC. The first day of Nisan may have begun on the 13/14 Mar 130 BC Sabbath, that is one day later than the Babylonian 1 Nisannu on 12/13 Mar 130 BC. This would have started the Pentecost in 16/17 May (Sat/Sun) after the Sabbath on 15/16 May 130 BC.143 As the earlier of the two possible candidates, this date agrees with Josephus on the aftermath of the Seleucid-Parthian encounter at the River Lycus. However, I shall discuss below several neglected pieces of evidence to show that Nisan and Pentecost respectively fell in April and June of 130 BC, one month later than the above derived dates in March and May of that same year. The second and, as we shall see later, by far the most likely scenario is that 1 Nisan coincided with or began one day earlier/later than its Babylonian counterpart 1 Nisannu in April 130 BC. The difficulty here is that save for one unclear and one inexact planetary phenomenon, nothing else has survived from the astronomical observations in the first month of 182 SEB. What is left reads:144 4: […] EN 24 ina ˹MAŠ-MAŠ in˺ 26 GU4-UD ina ŠÚ ina TIL MÚL-MÚL ŠÚ 4: […] until the 24th (of Month I), in Gemini; around the 26th (of Month I), Mercury’s last appearance in the west in the end of Taurus

If this incomplete text had retained a lunar position with respect to a background fixed star, we could have used it to compute the exact date of 1.I.182 SEB. This is because the moon’s daily motion of about 13˚ renders the lunar positions on two consecutive nights at any past or present time easily recognisable and therefore impervious to computational errors. But the situation is totally different with the slow-moving superior planets Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, averaging respectively about 0.5˚, 0.083˚ and 0.034˚ per day. These figures are within the limits of modern measurement inaccuracies. Therefore, we cannot use ancient reports on the positions of these outer planets to accurately work out their Julian dates. Even the two fast-moving inferior planets Mercury and Venus are not exempt from this handicap. Travelling respectively about 0.5˚-2.1˚ and 1˚-1.2˚ per day depending on the time of year, the small daily movements of these celestial wanderers render prediction of their positions in the sky susceptible to computational errors, both ancient and modern. Especially so when the daily speeds of Mercury and Venus slow down as they approach inferior conjunction; that is, when the planet is aligned with the Earth on the same side of the sun. Nevertheless, it is worth showing that the lost part of the above incomplete text recorded a Mercury phenomenon after the sunset on 24.I.182 SEB. This may help us decide the date of 1.I.182 SEB and consequently get an insight into the moment of 1 Nisan 130 BC. 140 Sachs and Hunger (1996), 242-244, Diary -130D. 141 See Cicero (Against Verres II.2.52.129) on the Sicilian and Greek customs of adding to or subtracting from a month 1 or 2 days at the most to bring the days of the month in agreement with the motions of the sun and moon. 142 Sachs and Hunger (1988), 206-207, Diary -322B. 143 Stern (2001), 113-116 overlooks the fact that the Jewish 1 Nisan could have started one day later than 1 Nisannu in Babylon which was probably decided observationally with actual sighting of the first lunar crescent after sunset on 12 Mar 130 BC. 144 Sachs and Hunger (1996), 244-247, Diary -129A1 (I.182 SEB). See Neugebauer (1955b), 321-324, No. 302 (computations for Mercury as evening and morning star for the period 166-189 SEB), and the author’s comment (on 324) that our tablet is an exceedingly carelessly copied text, based on a correct original. Neugebauer (1955c), 164 (No. 302) transliterates the computed date of the last visibility of Mercury in the west as: 3,2 bar 29, i.e. 29.I.182 SEB, 3 days later than the date given in Diary -129A1 (26.I.182 SEB). See Sachs (1955), 29, No. 105 (Col. III) for the hand-copy of the cuneiform text No. 302 on Mercury.

34

However, to show that we are dealing here with Mercury, we should determine the positions in the sky after the sunset on 24.I.182 SEB of the remaining four planets Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.145 This would naturally require the Julian date of 1.I.182 SEB which is not preserved in the corresponding Babylonian Astronomical Diary and elsewhere in our extant cuneiform texts. But we can still show that 1.I.182 SEB was not earlier than 10/11 Apr 130 BC nor later than 11/12 Apr 130 BC. These dates will restrict our computations for 24.I.182 SEB to the two sunsets on 3 and 4 May 130 BC at Babylon (geographical coordinates: 44˚25´E and 32˚33´N at 60 m above the sea level). But before attempting to restore the lost Mercury phenomenon of 24.I.182 SEB, I should recall that a lunar month is 29.530588 days on the average and so a lunar year would be 12 × 29.530588 = 354.3671 days long. In terms of whole numbers, a lunar month is either 29 days (hollow) or 30 days (full). This means that a normal lunar year with no intercalated month is either 354 (6 × 29 + 6 × 30) or 355 days (5 hollow and 7 full months). Intercalation, on the other hand, leads to three different lunar year-lengths of 383, 384 and 385 days depending on whether the extra month is hollow or full. These numbers show that when direct evidence is wanting, we could with ±1day accuracy estimate the date of the beginning of a lunar month from a secure date either in the preceding or the following month. The same holds true for a normal and with less precision an intercalary year the dates of whose first days may be estimated from those of one year earlier or later. In the case of 182 SEB we have several preserved lunar and planetary observations from its second month. These secure for us the Julian date of 1.II.182 SEB as 10/11 May 130 BC.146 Given that the previous month would have been either 29 or 30 days long, we can be sure that 1.I.182 SEB began either 30 days earlier with sunset of Friday 10 Apr 130 BC or 29 days earlier in Saturday 11 Apr 130 BC at sunset. Confirmation for these dates also comes from the earlier discussed last month of the previous year where 1.XII.181 SEB = 12/13 Mar 130 BC. Given that the next month began either 29 or 30 days later, 1.I.182 SEB could have fallen either in 10/11 Apr (Fri/Sat) or in 11/12 Apr 130 BC (Sat/Sun). The question now is whether we could extend these arguments to include the contemporary Jewish calendar and posit that 1 Nisan 130 BC fell in the 10/11 Apr 130 BC Sabbath. If we could, this date would place the Pentecost 64 days later in 13/14 Jun 130 BC after the 12/13 Jun 130 BC Sabbath. And because the battle at the River Lycus finished a day earlier, the Seleucid triumph could be dated to Friday 12 Jun 130 BC! However, we have no direct evidence that 1 Nisan 130 BC fell in the 10/11 Apr 130 BC Sabbath even though this is now increasingly likely. The reason for this is quite simple. The Jewish 1 Nisan could have started either 1 day earlier than the Babylonian 1.XII.181 SEB = 12/13 Mar 130 BC, or fallen in the same day, or began 1 day later in 13/14 Mar 130 BC. Given that a lunar month is either 29 or 30 days long, we could have four possible dates (six with two repeats) for 1 Nisan if it started a month later: 9/10, 10/11 (one repeat), 11/12 (one repeat), and 12/13 Apr 130 BC. So, we should return to our Babylonian evidence in the hope of deciding the Julian date of 1.I.182 SEB first and then, as the corollary of our investigations, equate the beginning of the Jewish year in 130 BC with the Sabbath of 10/11 Apr. In order to identify and date the lost planetary phenomenon at the beginning of the above-given partially preserved Babylonian text, I used NASA’s HORIZONS Web-Interface (JPL’s Solar System Dynamics)147 to compute and tabulate below the relevant planetary data (Table 2). My computations cover Mars and Saturn for assurance although they appear after Mercury in the Babylonian astronomical traditions and so could have been eliminated. For adjusting the modern ecliptic longitudes of the planets (and of the moon later) in terms of the tropical zodiac to the Babylonian sidereal zodiac I added Δλ from the following equation:148 Δλ = 3.20˚ ± 0.09˚ -1.3828˚×Y Y = Julian century count from year 0; example: 126 BC = year -125, Y = -1.25 For 130 BC we get Δλ = 4.98˚ ± 0.09˚ or roughly 4.9˚-5˚ correction. The adjusted longitudinal figures quickly exclude Jupiter from being the planet in the break at the beginning of the incomplete planetary phenomenon in Nisannu 182 SEB: It was in Libra both on 3 and 4 May 130 BC. Saturn too could be eliminated because it was invisible at over 61˚ below the western horizon in Capricorn. As for Venus and Mars, even though they were in Gemini on 3 and 145 Babylonian astronomers were only aware of the two inferior and three superior planets in the solar system. However, the order in which these planets appear in the Babylonian astronomical records is different from their orbits around the sun. See, for example, Sachs and Hunger (1988), 26 giving: Jupiter, Venus, Mercury, Saturn and Mars. 146 Sachs and Hunger (1996), 246-249 and 254, Diary -129A1+A2 (II 0 = 129 May 9/10).

147 At: ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi#results 148 Britton (2010), 630. Powell (2007), 8, fn. 1 suggests Δλ = 3.05556˚ – 0.0138889˚×Y, with Y = year date number, counting from 0, e.g.: 130 BC = -129 and hence Δλ = 3.05556˚ – 0.0138889˚ × (-129) = 4.85˚ correction. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

35

4 May 130 BC, their ecliptic longitudes kept increasing in the remaining 5 or 6 days of month I.182 SEB; that is, 5-10 May 130 BC. In other words, these two planets kept moving deeper inside Gemini and towards Cancer (90˚-120˚) until the end of Nisannu 130 BC and beyond.149 This militates against the partially preserved planetary phenomenon in Gemini in the Babylonian text which lasts until 24.I.182 SEB only. That day began with the sunset of 4 May 130 BC at the latest. We could therefore safely exclude Venus and Mars and confirm Mercury in the lost part of the text.150 But this still leaves us with the question of what astronomical phenomenon involving Mercury took place prior to and up until 24.I.182 SEB in Gemini. The answer lies in the preserved part of the same text. It records the last appearance of Mercury in the west after sunset around 26.I.182 SEB. This indicates that having attained its greatest eastern elongation of 22.25˚ on 20 Apr 130 BC and subsequently having approached the Sun-Earth line for inferior conjunction, Mercury may have become stationary and then begun its retrograde motion on 24.I.182 SEB.151 Computed ecliptic longitudes for the period 27 Apr – 6 May 130 BC at Babylon (Table 3) show that Mercury had indeed begun its backward journey (at 07:00 UT) on 3 May 130 BC. But the difficulty is that the above Babylonian text places Mercury inside the zodiacal sign Gemini (60˚-90˚) until 24.I.182 SEB whereas modern computations have the planet at 59.66˚ just outside 60˚ longitude on 3 May 130 BC. Although this small difference of 0.34˚ is within the range of computational errors,152 it nevertheless undermines the veracity of our results because Mercury could have been inside Gemini on 4 May 130 BC also. In our search to secure the date of 1.I.182 SEB, we could turn to the last and preserved part of the above Babylonian text. It records another, though less precise, Mercury phenomenon: its last appearance in the west around 26.I.182 SEB. As stated earlier, the date of this planetary event is recorded in a Babylonian mathematical astronomical text as 3,2 BAR 29; that is, 29.I.182 SEB, thus reinforcing the uncertainty over the date.153 In any case, we have no knowledge of a Babylonian observational criterion whereby the date of Mercury’s last visibility in the west could be accurately determined.154 Modern investigations of the recorded sightings in the preserved material from Babylonia suggest an arcus visionis of about 11.1˚ for Mercury at or below which the planet would have been invisible in the western evening skies.155 Computations show that at sunset on 5 and 6 May 130 BC, Mercury was respectively 12.4˚ and 11.1˚ above the horizon. As the planet touched the horizon (altitude = 0˚) before setting, the sun was around 12.9˚ and 11.8˚ below it on the same days (Table 3). These altitudinal differences were less than the invisibility threshold of 11.1˚ respectively at 10˚ and 10.6˚ at sunset on 7 May 130 BC. However, even though the prescribed method for deciding the date of the first and last visibilities of the planets may be a simple way of parametrising the conditions for these phenomena, it is not necessarily correct. This is because it ignores the key azimuthal difference between the sun and planets. Therefore, we cannot be confident that Mercury indeed had its last visibility in the west on the 5th not the 6th of May 130 BC. Given the differences in the Sun-Mercury azimuths of about 3.7˚-3.8˚ at sunset on those two days, Mercury could have

149 After conversion from the tropical to the sidereal zodiac, Venus’ longitude increased from 80.3˚ to 88.5˚ during 5-10 May 130 BC while that of Mars went from 63.1˚ to 67.7˚ in the same period. 150 We cannot be sure whether the Babylonian astronomers observed or computed the date of the corresponding Mercury phenomenon. Because of its proximity to the sun, spotting Mercury with the naked eye is rather difficult and there is nothing in the preserved text from the original report to indicate that the planet was observed. For the Babylonian methods to track and record Mercury’s motions see, for example, Neugebauer (1955b), 287-299. 151 The planets generally move eastward in relation to the background fixed stars in the sky. Yet sometimes they slow down, reach a stationary point and then retrograde; that is, travel westward. They then slow down and after the lapse of a certain number of days, stop and resume their eastward journey. The two inferior planets Mercury and Venus approach their stationary points to begin retrograding westward around the inferior conjunction. For Mars, Jupiter and Saturn as the superior planets, this happens in opposition at which point the planet and Earth are directly on the opposite sides of the sun. 152 A similar situation concerns Venus’ positions in the zodiacal signs Gemini, Cancer and Leo in the 30-day long Month II.182 SEB. See Sachs and Hunger (1996), 246-249, Diary -129A1+A2, Obv. lines 14-15: Venus, until the 3rd, was in Gemini, until the 29th, in Cancer, at the end of the month, in Leo; …. Computations show that the (corrected) ecliptic longitude of Venus on 3.II.182 SEB (12 May 130 BC) was c. 88.5˚, in Gemini (60˚-90˚). But the planet was still in Gemini on 4.II.182 SEB (13 May 130 BC) because its ecliptic longitude was 89.7˚, just short of Cancer (90˚-120˚) by about 0.3˚. Similarly, Venus was in Cancer until 29.II.182 SEB (7 Jun 130 BC) with its longitude at 118.5˚. However, instead of being in Leo (120˚-150˚) on the following night, 30.II.182 SEB (8 Jun 130 BC), it was, according to our computations, still in Cancer at longitude 119.6˚ just outside Leo. 153 See footnote 144 above. 154 See, for example, Neugebauer (1951), 110-116; Neugebauer (1955b), 287-299 on the mathematical approach to the question. 155 Schoch (1924), 732-734. Schoch describes arcus visionis (arc of vision) as: Depression of the sun below the horizon, measured in the vertical circle for the moment when the star sets on the last evening when it is visible or rises on the first morning when it is visible. According to Purrington (1988), 72-73, arcus visionis is comprised of two numbers: distance of the sun below the horizon and minimum altitude of the star or planet above it.

36

been invisible on 5 May 130 BC = 26.I.182 SEB, leading to 1.I.182 SEB = 10/11 Apr 130 BC.156 Alternatively, it could have had its last visibility in the west a day later, meaning that1 Nisannu fell in 11/12 Apr 130 BC. The foregoing analyses illustrate that combined with modern computational errors, the uncertain moments of the two Mercury phenomena in early May 130 BC preclude pinpointing the date of 1.I.182 SEB. Both 10/11 Apr (Fri/Sat) and 11/12 Apr (Sat/Sun) in 130 BC are equally possible. I then compared these dates with those of the predicted first lunar crescent visibilities from five computational models. The first of these took the lunar altitude and the azimuthal difference between the sun and moon at sunset to decide the apparition date of the first crescent. It predicted that following the New Moon (conjunction of the sun, moon and earth) at 14:15 UT on 9 Apr 130 BC, the first crescent was visible after sunset (15:25 UT) on 10 Apr 130 BC in Babylon.157 Next, I checked the accuracy of this criterion by comparing its outputs with actual observation dates and those restored astronomically in our Babylonian records. Of the 745 preserved cases in the period 568-61 BC, I found that 50 were either one day earlier or later than their computed counterparts.158 This meant that the first model had made an overall error of 6.7%, thus ensuring that the computed dates were 93.3% correct.159 However, the probability of actually observing the first crescent moon on 10 Apr 130 BC turned out to be about 25% for the two slightly different visibility criteria in this empirical model.160 On the other hand, both criteria confirmed 100% visibility at sunset on 11 Apr 130 BC. The second procedure relies on the sum of lunar elongation (angular separation between the sun and moon as seen from the earth) and lagtime (the interval between sunset and moonset in degrees). This put the visibility of the first crescent of 1.I.182 SEB in 10 Apr 130 BC at sunset.161 The third criterion described in a late 3rd century BC cuneiform text from Uruk contains both a theoretical limit of 10˚ lagtime for a potentially successful first crescent sighting and computational rules to determine month-lengths and first visibility dates. Given that the sun and moon set at 15:25 UT and 16:21 UT on 10 Apr 130 BC respectively and so the lunar lagtime was 14˚, this Urukean visibility criterion put 1.I.182 SEB on that same day. However, I could not check the prescribed formula in this tablet to decide a more precise lunar lagtime at sunset on 10 Apr 130 BC. As shown in the following equation, it required three pieces of additional data which are unavailable for our case:162 Expected Lagtime (degrees for 1st visibility): (NAN)i = (NAN)i - 223 – 1/3×(ŠÚ + NA)i - 229 where NAN = time between sunset and the first visible setting of the new lunar crescent (lagtime); ŠÚ = time between moonset to sunrise, measured at last moonset before sunrise and NA = time from sunrise to moonset measured at first moonset after sunrise. To work out NAN for 1.I.182 SEB, we would require NAN for the first month one Saros Cycle (223 synodic months)163 earlier as well as the ŠÚ and NA from half a year before that (229 synodic months). These are not preserved in our extant astronomical material from Babylonia. 156 As Mercury approaches inferior conjunction, its apparent magnitude increases to about +7.25 and thus becomes invisible to the naked eye in the sun’s glare. 157 Parker and Dubberstein (1956), 42. Add 3 hours to UT to get local time for Babylon. 158 Sachs and Hunger (1988), 52-378 provide 260 secure dates of which 26 are ±1 day out in comparison with the computed ones. I have excluded the dates on page 60 because the corresponding Diary was wrongly assigned to year 24 of Artaxerxes I (465-423 BC). This fragment is from year 23 of Artaxerxes II (404-359/8 BC). See Koch (1991/2), 101-103 for correct dating. I have also found an error on page 376: PD give 16/17, not 17/18 Apr for year -260 (261 BC). Sachs and Hunger (1989), 6-498 contain 267 dates of Day-1 for the lunar months. Only 16 of these are ±1 day in error with regard to the predicted dates. Sachs and Hunger (1996), 22-516 provide 218 dates with 8 cases disagreeing with their predicted counterparts. 159 Stern (2008), 21-35; Stern (2012), 84-89. 160 See Huber (1982), 24-27 for computational procedures. Using NASA’s HORIZONS (see footnote 147 for Internet link), I found the solar and lunar azimuths and the moon’s altitude at sunset (15:25 UT) on 10 Apr 130 BC in Babylon as 278.5˚, 280.2˚, and 10.2˚ (hmoon) respectively. From the |Δ|-h table in Huber, h for the azimuthal difference |Δ| = 1.7˚ turns out to be about 10.3˚ and 10.6˚ for the two prescribed models. Because Δh = hmoon – h in both cases is less than zero, the probability of seeing the crescent moon is about 25% irrespective of the first (PVN) and second (LFS) methods. See Fatoohi et al. (1999), 63-70 on the limitations of these models. 161 Neugebauer (1955a), 65-67; Neugebauer (1975, Part II), 539-540. According to Neugebauer, the first crescent will be visible if its elongation + lagtime ≈ 21˚. Computations show that at sunset (15:25 UT) on 10 Apr 130 BC, the moon set at 16:21 UT and the lunar elongation was 11.2˚. Because the sunset to moonset lagtime of 56 minutes = 14˚, the sum of moon’s elongation and lagtime = 11.2˚ + 14˚ = 25.2˚ > 21˚, indicating visibility. 162 Brack-Bernsen and Hunger (2002), 39 and 66; Brack-Bernsen (2011), 159-177; Ossendrijver (2012), 161-178 and 195-202. 163 The interval between two Sun-Moon-Earth conjunctions (New Moons), averaging 29.530588 days. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

37

The fourth and fifth procedures are structured on actual Babylonian sightings to work out minimum lagtime for the first crescent sighting as functions of solar and lunar azimuthal difference (ΔAz). The first of these models proposes the following best fit to the original data:164 Lagtime (in degrees) = 8.7462˚ – 0.0314 × |ΔAz| – 0.0056 × ΔAz2 while the second method, founded on both Babylonian observations and predictions, establishes a lower boundary condition for a possible successful detection of the slender moon:165 Lagtime (in degrees) = 8.5635˚ + 0.0558 × |ΔAz| – 0.0158 × ΔAz2 + 0.0002 × |ΔAz|3 Given that solar and lunar azimuths were respectively 278.5˚ and 280.2˚ at sunset on 10 Apr 130 BC, plugging |ΔAz| = 1.7˚ into the above two equations yielded 8.68˚ (34m42s) and 8.61˚ (34m27s) lagtimes respectively. These figures are well below the 14˚ (56m) lagtime at sunset on 10 Apr 130 BC, thus predicting positive visibility of the first crescent moon on that day in Babylon. I then checked the situation at Antioch on the Orontes whence the Seleucid army may have begun its march to Babylonia and where the sun set (16:01 UT) about 36 minutes later than Babylon (15:25 UT) on 10 Apr 130 BC. Again, the last four of the above models reported positive sighting of the first lunar crescent on that day. Moreover, because the moon set 40 minutes later at Antioch (17:01 UT) than at Babylon (16:21 UT), one of the two criteria in the first method increased the probability of sighting to 75% even though the second model kept it at 25%, the same as the case in Babylon on 10 Apr 130 BC.166 Nevertheless, I must point out that the above used empirical methods have a common drawback: they all assume ideal atmospheric conditions, whereas clouds, mist, dust in the sky as well as human error could have obscured and/or missed sighting of the thin moon on the predicted date 10 Apr 130 BC. And because we already know that the previous month (XII.181 SEB) began with the sunset on 12 Mar 130 BC, there is no guarantee that the Babylonian astronomers saw the crescent moon and started off Nisannu 29 days later in 10 not 11 Apr 130 BC after the lapse of 30 days. In any case, save for the above given equation in an astronomical tablet from the late 3rd century BC Uruk, we have no evidence of any Babylonian mathematical method to decide the first day of month in unfavourable weather conditions. But the Babylonian astronomers must have had at least one model to take care of the problem. Many examples in the extant Astronomical Diaries from Babylonia where the lunar month could not be started observationally because of poor visibility conditions attest to the existence of a workable procedure to overcome the problem mathematically.167 So, we are left here with a secure date 1.XII.181 SEB = 12/13 Mar 130 BC (Thu/Fri) and a predicted but highly likely 1.I.182 SEB = 10/11 Apr 130 BC (Fri/Sat) from which to decide the date of 1 Nisan 130 BC. And since there is nothing to prevent us from starting off 1 Nisan in 13/14 Mar 130 BC (Fri/Sat) a day later than 1.XII.181 SEB, we have practically two computed but feasible dates for the beginning of the Jewish year in 130 BC. As it happens, these dates both fall in Sabbath and are the only candidates in March and April 130 BC that can put the feast of Pentecost on Sunday 64 days later; that is, starting the festival at sunset on Saturday and finishing it at sunset on Sunday. The question now is whether we have any plausible excuse for abandoning 1 Nisan = 13/14 Mar 130 BC (Sabbath) in favour of 10/11 Apr 130 BC (Sabbath). I believe we have! As briefly discussed below (Appendix III), the Jews like their Babylonian counterparts, must have had a schematic calendar which could decide for them the beginning of their months when unfavourable weather conditions impeded the sighting of the first lunar crescent. Using the more accurate of the two

164 Krauss (2012), 10. 165 Gautschy (2014), 87-88. On the problems of first crescent visibility see also the earlier works of Doggett and Schaefer (1994), 388-403; Schaefer (1996), 759-768; Hoffman (2005), 156-168. 166 Solar and lunar azimuths on 10 Apr 130 BC at Antioch were 278.9˚ and 279.8˚ respectively. The moon’s elongation was 11.5˚ and it had an altitude hmoon = 10.5˚ above the horizon with 1% surface illumination. Lunar lagtime was 15˚, and for ΔAz = 0.9˚, Huber (1982), 24 (Table 5.1) gives h = 10.4˚ (PVN) and 10.7˚ (LFS). 167 See, for example, Sachs and Hunger (1988), 58-59, Diary -453: [Month XI], sunset to moonset: 14˚; there were dense clouds, so that I did not see the moon; Sachs and Hunger (1989), 18-19, Diary -255A: Month II: (the 1st of which was identical) with the 30th (of the preceding month, sunset to moonset): 13˚, dense clouds, I did not watch; Sachs and Hunger (1996), 174-175, Diary -137D: Month XI: (the 1st of which was identical) with the 30th (of the preceding month, sunset to moonset): 12˚40ˊ; clouds, I did not watch [….] …. clouds were in the sky. See also Stern (2012), 88-89 on the possibility that the Babylonians must have devised a mathematical model for predicting the beginning of lunar months.

38

schemes,168 the Kallippic calendar, I will briefly show below the advantage of 1 Nisan = Sabbath in April over the Sabbath in March 130 BC. For 1 Nisan = 13/14 Mar 130 BC, the number of days D from the 28 Jun 330 BC (JDN = 1601069) epoch to 13 Mar 130 BC (JDN = 1674012) would be 72943. So, D ÷ 27759: Q 1 = 2, and 72943 – 2 × 27759 = 17425. Dividing this by 63: Q 2 = 276 and 17425 + Q 2 = 17701 which, divided by 30, gives Q 3 = 590 and R = 1. Finally, the month and day numbers equal 591 and 2 respectively. In other words, on the Kallippic count 13/14 Mar 130 BC is the 2nd, not 1st day of the schematic month Adar in 130 BC. Repeating the above steps for 1 Nisan = 10/11 Apr 130 BC (JDN = 1674040), we get D = 72971 days. So, D ÷ 27759: Q 1 = 2, and 72971 – 2 × 27759 = 17453. Dividing by 63: Q 2 = 277 and 17453 + 277 = 17730 which divided by 30 gives Q 3 = 591 and R = 0. These yield month and day numbers of 592 and 1 respectively. As the perfect match for the 1st day of the schematic month Nisan, these results show that even if the Babylonian 1.I.182 SEB began in 11/12 Apr 130 BC, its Jewish counterpart started a day earlier in 10/11 Apr (Fri/Sat). And we have already seen that starting off Nisan in 10/11 Apr 130 BC Sabbath places the Pentecost in 13/14 Jun (Sat/Sun) 130 BC, two days after the conclusion of the battle at the River Lycus on Friday 12 June 130 BC sometime before sunset at 19:18 local time (16:18 UT). It now remains for me to estimate the arrival date of the Seleucid expedition in Babylon. This can then be used to verify allocation to Phraates II and Antiochus VII of the fragmentary historical notices from Babylonia (Section I.3: year 182 SEB). As we have already noted (Section III.1), setting off from Antioch on the Orontes on 12 Apr 130 BC and marching at the average speed of 22.5 km/day, Antiochus and his vast army would have covered the approximately 800 km distance to the River Lycus in 63 days, arriving on 14 Jun 130 BC (Table 1). This is compatible with the abovederived battle-date 12 Jun 130 BC from Josephus (13.249-253) on the defeat of the Parthian troop commander Indates. Granted that the Seleucid expedition covered the distance from the battlefield to Babylon at the same average pace, we could estimate the march duration in this stage of Antiochus’ campaign. However, because we have no ancient road measurements from the River Lycus to Babylon, we can only estimate the distance from modern figures. These put about 500 km between the bridge over the Greater Zāb at Al Kuwayr and Hillah (Babylon) about 85 km south of Baghdad. At about 22.5 km/day average mileage, the estimated 500 km distance would have been covered in 22-23 days. We have already noted above (Section III.1) that it took Alexander the Great 19-20 days in Oct 331 BC to move from Arbela to Babylon, a distance of roughly 485 km (modern Erbil to Hillah). Our estimated 22-23 days march from the battleground near the Lycus to Babylon agrees with the contemporary account of the aftermath of the Battle of Gaugamela. Therefore, we may place Antiochus VII and his army in Babylon around 7-8 Jul 130 BC. It was here that according to Justin (38.10.6) the ambitious Seleucid king was hailed the Great. We now know that it was also in Babylon in early July 130 BC that the countdown to Antiochus’ demise began! This concludes my search to find the date of the encounter in Adiabene, northern Mesopotamia, between the vast army of Antiochus VII and the Parthian forces under their commander Indates.

168 The Metonic calendar with its 27 Jun 432 BC epoch ( JDN = 1563813) places 13/14 Mar and 10/11 Apr 130 BC respectively in 28th day of Adar and 27th of Nisan. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

39

A

C

B

D

E

F A: Tetradrachm of Antiochus VII, undated, Seleucia on the Tigris (ex A. Houghton collection) B: Drachm of Antiochus VII, undated, Seleucia on the Tigris (ex E. T. Newell collection – currently in the American Numismatic Society) C: Bronze “unit” of Antiochus VII, dated ΒΠΡ = 182 SEM, uncertain mint (Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris) D: Bronze “double unit” of Antiochus VII, dated ΓΠΡ = 183 SEM, Seleucia on the Tigris (Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris) E: Chalkous of Antiochus VII, undated, Susa (Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris) F: Tetradrachm of Phraates II, undated, Seleucia on the Tigris

Plate 1: Coin issues related to the 130-129 BC expedition of Antiochus VII

40

24.I.182 SEB = 3 May 130 BC Sunset = 15:40 UT

Planet

Zodiacal Sign

24.I.182 SEB = 4 May 130 BC Sunset = 15:40 UT

Zodiacal Sign

h

λcomputed

λcorrected

h

λcomputed

λcorrected

Venus

32.3˚

72.9˚

77.9˚

Gemini

32.7˚

74.1˚

79.1˚

Gemini

Mars*

17.0˚

56.8˚

61.8˚

Gemini

16.4˚

57.5˚

62.5˚

Gemini

Jupiter

23.8˚

195.5˚

200.5˚

Libra

24.6˚

195.4˚

200.4˚

Libra

Saturn*

-61.8˚

285.5˚

290.5˚

Capricorn

-60.9˚

285.5˚

290.5˚

Capricorn

h = elevation above horizon; λcomputed and λcorrected = ecliptic longitude in tropical and sidereal zodiacs * given the Babylonian order of planets, the incomplete text probably concerns neither Mars nor Saturn

Table 2: Planetary positions with respect to the zodiacal signs on the 3rd and 4th May 130 BC

Mercury Ss (UT)

Year = 130 BC 27 Apr

28 Apr

29 Apr

30 Apr

1 May

2 May

3 May

4 May

5 May

6 May

15:36

15:36

15:37

15:38

15:38

15:39

15:40

15:40

15:41

15:42

h

19.2˚

18.8˚

18.0˚

17.2˚

16.5˚

15.5˚

14.5˚

13.6˚

12.4˚

11.1˚

λcorrected

58.37˚

58.78˚

59.11˚

59.37˚

59.54˚

59.64˚

59.66˚

59.61˚

59.48˚

59.29˚

α

1.79˚

1.62˚

1.44˚

1.24˚

1.03˚

0.81˚

0.57˚

0.32˚

0.06˚

-0.21˚

AZSun

285.7˚

286.0˚

286.5˚

286.9˚

287.2˚

287.6˚

288.1˚

288.3˚

288.7˚

289.2˚

AZMercury

282.6˚

282.8˚

283.1˚

283.5˚

283.7˚

284.0˚

284.4˚

284.6˚

285.0˚

285.4˚

M0 (UT)

17:12

17:10

17:07

17:04

17:01

16:57

16:53

16:48

16:43

16:38

HSun1

-19.6˚

-19.1˚

-18.3˚

-17.6˚

-16.9˚

-16.0˚

-15.1˚

-14.0˚

-12.9˚

-11.8

Ms (UT)

17:16

17:13

17:11

17:08

17:04

17:00

16:56

16:51

16:46

16:41

-20.3˚

-19.6˚

-19.1˚

-18.4˚

-17.5˚

-16.6˚

-15.7˚

-14.6˚

-13.5˚

-12.4˚

HSun2

Ss = Sunset; UT = Universal Time; h = Mercury altitude above horizon at sunset; λcorrected = ecliptic longitude in sidereal zodiac; α = ecliptic latitude; AZSun = solar azimuth at sunset, AZMercury = Mercury azimuth at sunset; M0 = Time of h = 0˚ (Mercury on the horizon); HSun1 = Sun’s depression below horizon at M0; Ms = Mercury-set; HSun2 = Sun’s depression below horizon at Mercury-set

Table 3: Planetary and solar positions after sunset in Babylon during 27 April – 6 May 130 BC

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

41

Appendix I JULIAN DATE OF THE BEGINNING OF THE BABYLONIAN MONTH VI IN 181 SEB

Solar & Lunar Data

Calendar Months IV

V

VI

VII

VIII

IX

X

XI

XII

Nmoon/ time (UT)

18/7/131 03:49

16/8/131 13:42

14/9/131 23:00

14/10/131 08:32

12/11/131 18:58

12/12/131 06:35

10/1/130 19:18

9/2/130 08:54

10/3/130 23:15

Vis.date

19/7/131

18/8/131

16/9/131

16/10/131

14/11/131

13/12/131

12/1/130

10/2/130

12/3/130

Ss (UT)

16:08

15:47

15:13

14:35

14:08

14:02

14:19

14:45

15:07

Ms (UT)

16:59

16:44

15:52

15:57

15:33

15:19

16:13

15:59

16:38

Δset

00:51

00:57

00:39

01:22

01:25

01:17

01:54

01:14

01:31

NA

12.75˚

14.25˚

9.75˚

20.50˚

21.25˚

19.25˚

28.50˚

18.50˚

22.75˚

Saz

296.8˚

288.0˚

275.3˚

261.2˚

249.4˚

242.7˚

243.9˚

252.4˚

265.1˚

Maz

280.4˚

261.6˚

252.8˚

232.8˚

229.3˚

232.2˚

237.2˚

253.2˚

266.9˚

hmoon

9.3˚

10.7˚

6.9˚

13.3˚

13.2˚

12.2˚

20.1˚

13.7˚

17.5˚

Mlat

-4.03˚

-5.83˚

-5.71˚

-3.70˚

-1.60˚

0.57˚

3.50˚

4.60˚

4.60˚

Cres.age

36:19

50:05

40:13

54:03

43:10

31:27

43:01

29:51

39:52

Φ (%)

2.8

6.1

4.3

7.7

4.5

2.1

3.7

1.6

2.6

16.4˚

26.4˚

22.5˚

28.4˚

20.1˚

10.5˚

6.7˚

0.8˚

1.8˚

h

7.1-7.5˚

≈ 3.5˚

5˚

10˚

7.0˚

2.9-3.0˚

10.1-10.4˚

3.0-3.3˚

6.9-7.2˚

Δaz

Vis.prob.

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

(λsun)s.s.

112.5˚

141.6˚

170.1˚

200.2˚

229.6˚

259.2˚

289.7˚

318.9

348.5˚

(λmoon)s.s.

131.4˚

169.6˚

193.3˚

231.6˚

254.0˚

276.0˚

311.4˚

332.8

6.4˚

Δλ

18.9˚

28.0˚

23.2˚

31.4˚

24.4˚

16.8˚

21.7˚

13.9˚

17.9˚

Mel

19.2˚

28.6˚

23.8˚

31.6˚

24.4˚

16.8˚

22.0˚

14.7˚

18.5˚

NA + M.el.

32.0º

42.9º

33.6º

52.1º

45.7º

36.1º

50.5º

33.2º

41.3º

Nmoon = New Moon; UT = Universal Time; Vis.date = Julian date of first lunar crescent visibility; Ss = sunset; Ms = moonset; Δset = moonset – sunset; NA = lunar lagtime in degrees (right ascension); Saz = solar azimuth; Maz = lunar azimuth; hmoon = lunar elevation; Mlat. = lunar latitude; Cres.age = age of first lunar crescent (hh:mm); Φ = lunar phase (% surface illuminated); h = minimum lunar elevation for visibility; Δh = hmoon – h; Vis.prob. = visibility probability; (λsun)s.s. = solar ecliptic longitude at sunset; (λsun)s.s. = lunar ecliptic longitude at sunset; Δλ = (λsun)s.s. - (λsun)s.s. (longitudinal difference); Mel = lunar elongation. Geographical coordinates for Babylon at 60 meters above the sea level = 44˚25´E, 32˚33´N. For the dates and times of New Moons in the period 200-101 BC consult the page at: astropixels.com/ephemeris/phasescat/phases-0199.html

Table 4: Computed first lunar crescent visibility data for months IV-XII.181 SEB at Babylon

42

Modern computations show that at the 15 Oct 131 BC sunset, the lunar crescent was unobservable because its elevation (7˚-7.4˚) fell 2.1˚-2.5˚ below the limiting altitude for the solar and lunar azimuthal difference of 16.9˚ on that day.169 However, another visibility criterion renders that thin crescent visible because the sum of its elongation (L) and the moonset lagtime (S) in degrees (right ascension) was greater than 21 degrees.170 The complexities of the lunar crescent visibility, both modern and ancient as well as actual and empirical, have been discussed in detail elsewhere.171 Despite the fact that modern calculations rule out visibility for values of Δh < –1, it is theoretically possible that starting on the 7th Babylonian month, a 30h04m old crescent was observed (or predicted) 4.9˚ above the horizon after the sunset (14:36 UT) on 15 Oct 131 BC, the crescent itself setting 31 minutes later. Although direct sighting of such a low crescent is unreported in the preserved Babylonian astronomical records, the compiler of the 208 SEB Normal Star Almanac computed a slightly lower one at NA = 7˚30´ (30m) for 1.II.208 SEB in case the previous month in that same year turned out to be hollow (29 days).172 However, despite its fragmentary state, the Astronomical Diary -103A has retained enough observational data to confirm that 1.II.208 SEB began at the sunset of 23 Apr 104 BC.173 This proves that the previous month Nisannu which, according to modern computations, had begun at the sunset of 24 Mar 104 BC did not finish on 22 Apr 104 BC as a hollow month. It ended at the sunset of 23 Apr 104 BC as a full month. Granted that the crescent moon of 15 Oct 131 BC was observed or predicted, the text on the reverse of Diary -130B may be assigned to month VI.181 SEB (16/17 Sep – 14/15 Oct 131 BC) instead of month V (18/19 Aug — 15/16 Sep 131 BC). See below for computational details: Month VII starting at sunset of 15 Oct 131 BC: NA = 7.75˚ (7˚45´) S.s. (UT)

M.s. (UT)

Δ.set

S.az

M.az.

hmoon

M.lat

Cres.age

Φ (%)

14:36

15:07

00:31

261.6˚

244.7˚

4.9˚

-4.66˚

30:04

2.4

Δ.az.

h

Δh

Vis.prob

(λsun)s.s.

(λmoon)s.s.

Δλ

M.el

NA + M.el

Vis.prob

16.9˚

7-7.4˚

-(2.1˚-2.5˚)

0.0%

199.2˚

216.5˚

17.3˚

17.9˚

25.7˚

100% !?

Table 5: Computed solar and lunar data for 15 October 131 BC at Babylon

Except for 1.II.208 SEB whose NA was computed to be 7˚30´ in case the first month in that year ended up having 29 days, lunar lagtimes less than 8˚ are unattested in the extant Babylonian astronomical material. I have found 25 cases, mostly computed, in the interval 8˚ ≤ NA < 10˚ from the Achaemenid, Macedonian, Seleucid and Parthian periods.174 Also, it is theoretically possible that month X in 181 SEB started at the sunset (14:18 UT) on 11 Jan 130 BC with NA = 13˚15´ (00:53) and lunar elevation of 8.5˚, rather than on 12 Jan 130 BC with NA = 28˚30´ (01:54) and lunar elevation 169 See Huber (1982), 24-27 for the relevant computational steps. 170 This criterion is discussed in Neugebauer (1955), 66-68 and 83-85. See also Fatoohi et al. (1999), 63 who computed L + S for 209 actual Babylonian first crescent sightings and found that the smallest value was 22˚. 171 Fatoohi et al. (1999), 51-75; Brack-Bernsen and Hunger (2002), 39 and 66; Stern (2008), 19-42; Brack-Bernsen (2011), 156-176; Krauss and Reijs (2012), 1-95; Ossendrijver (2012), 161-178 and 195-202; Gautschy (2014), 79-90. 172 Hunger and Sachs (2014), 220-221 (No. 95), Obv. 4: GU4 1 20,50, TAB ina 30-šú 7,30 GE6 3 USA[N ….] = Month II, the 1st (of which will follow the 30th of the preceding month); sunset to moonset: 20˚50´, TAB; if (its 1st day will be identical with the) 30th (of the preceding month), 7˚30´. Night of the 3rd, first part of the nig[ht ….]. See page XIII in the same work for the interpretation of the logogram TAB. 173 Sachs and Hunger (1996), 398-401 Diary -103A. Obv. 4´ text places the moon 1.5 cubits (3˚-3.3˚) behind (east of) and 4.5 cubits (9˚-10˚) south of the Normal Star ϑ Leonis (tropical coordinates 132.9˚/9.7˚ in 104 BC) at the beginning of the night of 8.II.208 SEB. Modern computations give 139.9˚/2.1˚ as the tropical coordinates of the moon at the sunset of 30 Apr 104 BC, confirming 1.II.208 SEB = 23/24 Apr 104 BC. For the Babylonian angular distance cubit = 2˚ see Sachs and Hunger (1988), 22 (with reference to earlier works). Fatoohi and Stephenson (1997/8), 212 have used Babylonian data to obtain 1 cubit = 2.2˚. 174 Sachs and Hunger (1988), 362-363 (1.VII.47 SEB: 9˚30´ observed), 370-371 (1.VI.50 SEB: 9˚30´ calculated); Sachs and Hunger (1989), 104-105 (1.VIII.79 SEB: 8˚10´ calculated), 454-455 (1.VII.141 SEB: 9˚ observed), 470-471 (1.VI.143 SEB: 9˚20´ calculated), 488-489 (1.VI.146 SEB: 9˚40´ calculated); Sachs and Hunger (1996), 210-211 (1.VI.179 SEB: 8˚ calculated); Hunger and Sachs (2001), 94 (1.IX.2 Philip: 9˚30´ observed), 98-99 (1.IX.60 SEB: 9˚40´ calculated), 178-179 (1.II.12 Artaxerxes I: 9˚ observed?/calculated?); Hunger and Sachs (2006), 34-35 (1.VI.76 SEB: 8˚10´ calculated), 138-139 (1.VIII.122 SEB, 8˚50´ calculated); Hunger and Sachs (2014), 42-43 (1.IX.80 SEB: 9˚40´ calculated), 50-51 (1.V.87 SEB: 9˚ calculated; 1.VI.87 SEB: 8˚50´ calculated), 56-57 (1.IV.93 SEB: 9˚50´ calculated), 58-59 (1.I.94: 9˚30´ calculated), 152-153 (1.V.158 SEB: 9˚ calculated), 160-161 (1.XII.172: 9˚50´ calculated), 196-197 (1.X.188 SEB: 9˚40´ calculated; 1.XI.188 SEB: 9˚,10´ calculated), 210-211 (1.XII2.194 SEB: 8˚[?´] calculated), 256-257 (date lost: 8˚ calculated), 282-283 (date lost: 8˚20´ calculated), 284-285 (date lost: 8˚ calculated). A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

43

20.1 degrees.175 However, given that the moon would have had only 0.7% of its surface illuminated at that point in time, it would have been impossible to visually detect such a slender crescent due to its proximity to the sun.

Appendix II THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF GAUGAMELA

The eyewitness account of Alexander’s anabasis must have been distorted so much that by about the end of the 1st century BC it was impossible to separate facts from fiction in its later versions. According to Strabo (11.5.5 and 11.6.4) writing in late 1st century BC – early first century AD, the stories that have been spread far and wide with a view to glorifying Alexander are not accepted by all; and their fabricators were men who cared for flattery rather than the truth and that neither is it easy to believe most of those who have written the story of Alexander; for those toy with facts, … It is, therefore, not surprising why both the Greco-Roman sources and modern investigators give conflicting references to the location of the last battle between Darius III and Alexander.176 Diodorus (17.53.4) quite vaguely relates that Darius intended to deploy for battle near Nino (Nineveh) because the adjacent plains afforded him ample manoeuvrability for his large army. According to Curtius (4.9.10) Gaugamela was 80 stadia (c. 15 km) northwest of the Lycus River, while Arrian (3.8.7, 3.15.5, 6.11.5) gives the distance between Gaugamela and Arbela (modern Erbil in northern Iraq) twice as 600 and once as 500 stadia (c. 110 km or 93 km), Erbil itself lying about 400 km north of Babylon. These uncertain measurements177 imply that after his victory Alexander took a meandering route following Darius’ own march to the battlefield, because the distance from Gaugamela to Arbela was no more than 380 stadia or c. 70 km (see below). If we accept Arrian’s figures, we must assume that Alexander kept galloping up and down the battlefield to cover an extra 120-220 stadia (c. 22-41 km) before crossing the Lycus to reach Arbela after a 600 or 500 stadia march from Gaugamela. The shortest distance from Mosul to Erbil via Bartella and Aski Kalak (Route 2) is 83 km (c. 450 stadia), while a longer road going south from Mosul to the Greater Zāb at Al Kuwayr and then turning eastward to Erbil (Route 80) is about 99.4 km (c. 540 stadia); both distances are shorter than Arrian’s 600 stadia from Gaugamela to Arbela but the second measurement is close. This means that Gaugamela could not possibly have been 600 stadia distant from Arbela. Did Arrian confuse the total distance from the crossing of the Tigris to Gaugamela and thence to Arbela with the one between the latter two points? The 540 stadia from Mosul to the Greater Zāb and thence to Erbil is close to Arrian’s 600 stadia. In any case, Curtius (4.9.10) places the battlefield at a distance of about 80 stadia from the Lycus. He then adds (at 4.10.1-2, 4.10.8, 4.10.15) that having remained in his camp for 2 days after crossing the Tigris and witnessing the total lunar eclipse of 20 Sep 331 BC (at 21:06 UT),178 Alexander proceeded to meet the enemy, keeping the Tigris on his right, that is moving southwards parallel to the river’s eastern bank, not due east, facing the sun with his back to the Tigris.179 Not long afterwards and having covered an unspecified distance from the Tigris crossing, Alexander learned 175 Although NA values as high as 28˚30´ are quite uncommon, they are not unreported in the extant Babylonian astronomical records. We have at least four cases of NA = 28˚ from regnal years 3, 4, 5, and 12 of Artaxerxes I (465-424 BC) as well as one from year 6 of Artaxerxes II (404-359/8 BC). A higher value of 1 bēru = 30˚ is also attested at least three times, once in year 7 of Cambyses II (530-522 BC) and twice in years 13 and 27 of Artaxerxes I. See Hunger and Sachs (2001), 164-165, 174-175, 178-179, 186-187, and 192-193. For 25˚ ≤ NA ≤ 27˚ see Hunger and Sachs (2001), 122-123 (26˚40´), 166-167 (27˚), 176-179 (26˚, 27˚, 26˚), 182-185 (25˚20´, 25˚ three times), 188-191 (26˚, 25˚); Hunger and Sachs (2006), 10-11 (26˚30´), 82-83 (26˚), 114-115 (25˚30´), 120-121 (25˚), 222-223 (26˚), 254-255 (25˚); Hunger and Sachs (2014), 236-237 (25˚30´). 176 Modern sources both on the location of and the battle at Gaugamela are legion. See, for example, Tarn (1933), 379 (18 miles/c. 30 km N.E. of Mosul), 382 (Arbela 56 miles/c. 90 km from the battlefield); Stein (1942), 164 (about 6 mile/c. 10 km southeast of Keramlais); Griffith (1947), 77-89 (no reference to the location of Gaugamela); Tarn (1948a), 46 (the flat plane near Keramlais, between the Tigris and the Khajir), 51 (Arbela 35 miles/c. 56 km from the battleground); Tarn (1948b), 189 (mound of Tel Gōmel, near Keramlais, about 30 miles/c. 50km, from Erbil); Burn (1952), 84-91; Marsden (1964), 11-23 (Tell Gomel, north of Jebel Maqlub, northeast of Mosul), Brunt (1999), 509-514 (says location of Gaugamela remains uncertain); Lane Fox (2004), 228-230 (76 miles/c. 123 km southeast of the Tigris crossing at the modern Abu Dhahir); Green (2013), 286-287 (no distances). 177 Arrian (3.15.5) relates that following his victory at Gaugamela, Alexander rested his cavalry till towards the midnight, and hurried on again to Arbela, to seize Darius there with his treasure and other royal belongings. He arrived at Arbela next day, having covered in all, since the battle, about 600 stadia in the pursuit. There is no way Alexander and his cavalrymen could have covered a distance of about 110 km in the few hours between the midnight and next day. This undermines the veracity of Arrian’s 600 stadia (or 500 stadia) between Gaugamela and Arbela. 178 Recorded in the Astronomical Diary -330A+B, Sachs and Hunger (1988), 176-177 (Obv. 2-4), also by Cicero (De Divinatione 1.53.121), Curtius (4.10.1-8), Pliny (Natural History 2.72.180), Plutarch (Alexander 31.4) and Arrian (3.7.6). 179 Sachs and Hunger (1988), 178-179, Diary -330A+B (Obv. 15) shows that the battle began in the morning.

44

that Darius was no more than 150 stadia (c. 28 km) distant from him. In other words, Alexander was, at that point in time, about 230 stadia (c. 43 km) from the crossing of the Lycus (by Darius). The two modern bridges over the Greater Zāb near al-Kuwayr and Aski Kalak in northern Iraq lie about 46 km (c. 250 stadia) and 44 km (c. 240 stadia) respectively to the south and southeast of Mosul on straight lines. This means Alexander had not moved far from his camp at the Tigris when he got wind of Darius and that his route to the Lycus was in the direction of the crossing at al-Kuwayr (c. 320 stadia or 59 km from Erbil), not towards the one near Aski Kalak (c. 178 stadia from Erbil). As noted earlier, the modern road from Mosul to Erbil via al-Kuwayr is close to Arrian’s 600 stadia between Gaugamela and Arbela; Gaugamela itself lying around 80 stadia from the Lycus. Given that the present-day distance from Erbil to al-Kuwayr is about 55 km (300 stadia), Darius probably took this route.180 He then crossed the Lycus and keeping close to the northern bank of the river moved up by about 80 stadia to Gaugamela. Some days later, Alexander crossed the Tigris and having travelled about. 220 stadia (c. 41 km) due south to Gaugamela, defeated Darius and marched 380 stadia to Arbela, covering in total Arrian’s 600 stadia. This reconstruction offers a better understanding of Alexander’s movements from his first camp after the Tigris crossing. It also shows that the Macedonian leader had already marched about 70 stadia (c. 13 km) when he learned that Darius was no more than 150 stadia (c. 28 km) distant from him; this was a small feat Alexander could have accomplished in a day.

Appendix III THREE KALLIPPIC DATES IN JOSEPHUS’ JEWISH WARS

Contemporary cuneiform material proves that apart from their lunisolar calendar, the Babylonians had a civil timereckoning system also. This was used, insofar as the extant evidence is concerned, for dating the vernal and autumnal equinoxes as well as the summer and winter solstices.181 Without delving into the history of similar calendars elsewhere, it is worth mentioning that the approximately 11 days difference between a lunar year (354.3671 days) and a solar year, whether tropical (365.2422 days) or sidereal (365.2564 days),182 causes the lunar year to lag behind its solar counterpart by about a month every three years. Being aware of this natural recession, the Babylonian astronomers contemplated several ways to remedy the problem so that the beginning of their lunar year would not continuously slip backward in the solar cycle. They first realised that occasionally inserting an additional month in a lunar year would bring it into approximate accord with the solar year. This intercalation was originally haphazard and had to be approved by the reigning king. However, cyclic intercalation of months later became an integral part of the Babylonian time-keeping schemes, both astronomical and schematic.183 One of the earliest Babylonian intercalary cycles recommended three intercalations in an 8-year period (octaeteris), probably in years 3, 5 (or 6) and 8. This was because Babylonian astronomers had realised that 8 lunar years plus three extra months (8 × 12 + 3 = 99) has approximately the same number of days as 8 solar years: 99 × 29.530588 (days/month) = 2923.5282 days 8 × 365.2564 (sidereal year) = 2922.0512 days

However, the almost 1.5 days difference between 99 lunations and 8 solar years accumulated to about a full month after 160 years and thus called for a more accurate calendar. Subsequent trials eventually led to the inauguration in 503 BC of the well-attested Babylonian lunisolar calendar with 7 intercalations in a 19-year cycle:

180 The bridge over the Lycus at Aski Kalak is c. 178 stadia from Erbil. Had Alexander marched in this direction, he would have had to cover roughly 420 stadia (78 km) to make up the 600 stadia from Gaugamela to Arbela. This would place Gaugamela c. 30 km northeast of Mosul. Although not impossible, it would make little strategic sense for Darius to pick his battleground so far away from the two undefended crossings of the Lycus. 181 Neugebauer (1947), 147; Neugebauer (1948), 216 and 220. 182 A tropical year is the length of time the Earth takes to start from an equinoctial point, revolve around the sun and return to the same point. The sidereal year is the length of time the Earth takes to start from the conjunction point with the sun and a distant fixed star, revolve around the sun and return to the same conjunction. Because the Earth’s axis rotates at the rate of about 1˚ every 72 years (causing the precession of the equinoxes), the sidereal year (365d 6h 9m 10s) is about 20 minutes longer than the tropical year (365d 5h 48m 45s). 183 See Assar (2003), 171-176 for a brief discussion of the Babylonian calendars. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

45

(19 × 12 + 7 = 235 months) × 29.5306 = 6939.6910 days 19 × 365.2564 = 6939.8716 days (with respect to sidereal years) 19 × 365.2422 = 6939.6018 days (with respect to tropical years)

Insertion of an additional month in this new calendar took place in years 1, 3, 6, 9, 11, 14 and 17, with a second Ulūlu (VI2), the 6th month in year 1, and six cases of Addaru (XII2) in the remaining years of the cycle.184 Parallel with this advanced lunisolar calendar whose months were purely lunar- so far as their first days could be decided observationally- the Babylonians had a schematic calendar with mathematically determined month-lengths. We do not know the exact mechanism whereby the Babylonians constructed their schematic time-reckoning. Later literary sources show how Meton, the great Greek astronomer, devised his. Geminus (Isagoge 8.50-60) writes that astronomers around Euktemon, Philip and Kallippos had realised that 19 solar years and 235 lunar months had practically equal numbers of days. They then designed a calendar composed of schematic months which gave them the same number of days: (19 × 12 + 7 = 235 months) × 30 day/month = 7050 days 19 × (365 + 5/19 days/Metonic solar year) = 6940 days Difference: 7050 – 6940 = 110 days 6940 = 125 × 30 + 110 × 29

These simple equations showed the astronomers of the Euktemon et al. school that the number of days in 110 hollow (29-day) and 125 full (30-day) months was 6940. Accordingly, they removed 110 days from 235 full months by dividing 6940 by 110 to get 63 first. This meant that a uniform distribution of hollow months could be achieved by eliminating a day after every 63 days in a continuous count from a chosen epoch. We now know that Meton, who inaugurated his famous parapegma on 27 June 432 BC (summer solstice), followed this simple rule.185 However, realising that Meton’s calendar had led to a deficiency of one day in 76 years, Kallippos devised and set in motion a more accurate time-reckoning scheme on 28 June 330 BC (summer solstice). He argued that the solar year was 1/76th of a day shorter than Meton’s 365+5/19 days, that is 365+19/76 = 365.25 days. Following the same elision rule to decide the full and hollow months of the Metonic cycle, Kallippos’ calendar had 4 × 235 = 940 months and 4 × 6940 – 1 = 27759 days.186 The question is whether or not the Jews employed Kallippos’ schematic calendar to decide the first days of their months when adverse atmospheric conditions prevented direct observation of the first lunar crescent. To answer this question and support my arguments with attested cases, I would have to formulate simple equations first to work out the number of days in a given number of Metonic months and also to convert whole numbers of elapsed days from a fixed epoch into Metonic and Kallippic months and days. Recalling the above-mentioned elision rule, the number of days (De) in M months of the Metonic or Kallippic calendars is:187

If M = 940 (last month of the Kallippic calendar), then De = De – 1. Straight brackets signify the absolute or integer value of the operation(s) inside them. The equivalent number of Metonic or Kallippic months (M) and remaining days (R) for a given number of days (Do) from the corresponding epochs is worked out as follows:

where C = 6940 and C = 27759 for the Metonic and Kallippic calendars respectively. 184 185 186 187

46

Neugebauer (1955a), 33; Sachs and Hunger (1988), 14; Britton (2007), 122-127. Fotheringham (1924), 383-387; Van der Waerden (1960), 170-173 and 175-179; Samuel (1972), 42-47. Fotheringham (1924), 387-392; Van der Waerden (1960), 173-175; Samuel (1972), 47-49. See Van der Waerden (196c0), 172-174 on the conversion of dates into the Metonic and Kallippic calendars.

and

where d = 12 and d = 0 for the Metonic and Kallippic counts respectively. Current month Mc = M in the Metonic calendar and Mc = M + 1 in the Kallippic. Current day-number Dc = R + 1 in both counts. As noted in the main text, the number of days from the Metonic and Kallippic epochs 27 Jun 432 BC and 28 Jun 330 BC to 10 Apr 130 BC was respectively 110227 and 72971. When converted to the current months and days in the two calendars, the Metonic conversion was unsatisfactory putting 10/11 Apr 130 BC in 27/28 Adar 130 BC. However, we found a perfect match for 1 Nisan = 10/11 Apr 130 BC in the Kallippic scheme. This is not a fortuitous coincidence because I have located three later dates in Josephus which are most probably on the Kallippic count also. The first of these is in Josephus (Jewish War 6.289-290). It concerns a portent that happened just before the beginning of the First Jewish-Roman War (66-73 AD). Josephus relates that: So it was when a star, resembling a sword, stood over the city, and a comet which continued for a year.188 So again when, before the revolt and the commotion that led to war, at the time when the people were assembling for the Feast of Unleavened Bread, on the 8th of the month Xanthikos, at the 9th hour of the night, so brilliant a light shone round the altar and the sanctuary that it seemed to be broad daylight; and this continued for half an hour. According to Tacitus (Annals 15.33 and 15.47), this comet appeared at the close of the joint consulate of Gaius Laecanius and Marcus Licinius (64 AD), thus placing Josephus’ above observation in 65 AD. However, the date of the Jewish festival in this passage has been incorrectly interpreted because of the confusion over the organisation of its calendar.189 Here the Macedonian month Xanthicus (Xandikos) is no longer lunar and so cannot be equated with the Jewish lunar Nisan or the Babylonian Nisannu. After the Roman annexation in the mid to late 1st century BC of Asia Minor, Northern Syria, Judaea, Phoenicia and Egypt, the cities in these newly won provinces switched from lunisolar to solar calendars. This happened despite the fact that some regional authorities in the new administration kept the original Macedonian or their own local month-names.190 For example Antioch on the Orontes, the central seat of the Seleucid Empire, no longer began the year in autumn with 1 Dios of the Seleuco-Macedonian lunisolar calendar. It started with 1 Audnaios which had been assimilated with the 31-day Roman month Januarius. Instances of dating by this reformed calendar abound in John Malalas’ Chronicle where Macedonian-Roman synchronisms AudynaiosJanuary, Peritios-February, Dystros-March, Xandikos-April, Artemisios-May are frequently attested.191 Returning to Josephus’ above passage, he is saying that the congregation preceding the Feast of Unleavened Bread took place on day 8 of Xanthikos, at the 9th hour of night (around 3 AM). In other words, the feast itself had not started with the previous sunset (beginning of Jewish day) because the Jews were arriving in the early hours of the morning to prepare for the 7-day long festival. According to my below computations, the Feast of Unleavened Bread began with the following sunset starting off the 9th day of Xanthikos. That day would have traditionally fallen in 15 Nisan, as related in the main text. But it would be impossible to prove that 9 Xanthikos = 15 Nisan 65 AD because we have no knowledge of the Julian date of the first day of both the Feast of Unleavened Bread and month Xanthikos in that 188 See Lynn (1893), 327-328 on the late 64 AD comet. Josephus says it lasted for a year. On the same comet see also Seneca (Natural Questions 7.17.2); Suetonius (Nero 36.1); and perhaps Pliny (Natural History 2.23.92). 189 Stern (2001), 57-58. 190 Bickerman (1968), 47-51; Samuel (1972), 171-188. 191 See, for example, Jeffreys et al. (1986), 46 (Xandikos-April), 92 (Dystros-March), 99-100 (February-Peritios), 106 (Artemisios-May), 144 (AudynaiosJanuary). A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

47

year. The difference between the two day-numbers 9 and 15, however, indicates that the calendar of month Xanthikos was neither lunar nor lunisolar. Otherwise it would have been less than 6 (±1 or ±2 days would have indicated such a possibility). Could we recover the Julian date of 1 Xanthikos 65 AD from our preserved sources? This requires the date to be on a calendar that synchronises the Macedonian months with their Julian counterparts in 65 AD and also takes into account the corresponding day-epochs. The candidate satisfying these conditions would be similar to the aforementioned calendar of Antioch on the Orontes which came into operation sometime after Syria was annexed into the Roman Empire in 64 BC. In any case, taking 9 Xanthikos as the Macedonian date of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and considering that there would be a 1-day discrepancy between this and its Julian equivalent due to their different day-epochs, I tested the equation 9 Xanthikos = 10 April 65 AD to find its relationship with 15 Nisan in that year. This is not an unprecedented case because I found the 1-day difference between 9 Xanthikos and 10 April in my equation also in a double-dated Greek document from Dura-Europos, synchronising 29 Xanthikos with the Julian 30 April in 254 AD. The relevant text reads:192 Upper text, line 1:

[Ἔτους ε]ξφ μηνὸς Ξα[ν]θικοῦ εἰκασενά[τῃ ….] [Year 5]+560 (SEM), month Xa[n]thikos, (day) twenty-ninth [….]

Lower text, lines 2-3:

…. […. πρὸ] δύο Καλανδῶν [Μ]αείων [..]τ[.]ες […. ….] π[έ]μπτου ξφ ἔτους …. two (days) [before] the Kalends of Maius, year five (and) 560 (SEM) ….

The equation between the two dates in 254 AD is: 29 Xanthicus = ante diem II Kalendas Maius = two days before the Kalends (first day) of May = 30 April (counting inclusively), leading to 9 Xanthicus = 10 April in that year. Taking these calendrical points into account, I worked out the lunar equivalent of 9 Xanthikos 65 AD and found that it fell in 15 Nisan on the Kallippic count: Do = JDN (10 Apr 65 AD) – JDN (28 Jun 330 BC): 1744899 – 1601069 = 143830 days. From Equ. 2 we get Q 1 = |143830 ÷ 27759| = 5 and D = 143830 – 5 × 27759 = 5035 days (in the 6th Kallippic cycle).193 From Equ. 3 we work out Q 2 = |5035 ÷ 63| = 79 eliminated days; D + Q 2 = 5035 + 79 = 5114 days; M = |5114 ÷ 30| = 170. From Equ. 4 we get R = 5114 – 30 × 170 = 14. Therefore, current month Mc = 171 and current day Dc = 15. In other words, we get confirmation of 9 Xanthikos = 10 Apr 65 AD = 15 Nisan = Feast of the Unleavened Bread on the Kallippic timereckoning. This puts 1 Nisan in 27/28 Mar 65 AD against the predicted first lunar crescent sighting one day earlier in 26 March.194 However, computations show that following the New Moon on 25 Mar 65 AD (15:03 UT),195 the sun and moon set on 26 Mar 65 AD respectively at 15:54 UT and 16:40 UT in Jerusalem (35˚13´E; 31˚46´N; 754 m above sea level). The solar and lunar azimuths at sunset were respectively 272.5˚ and 265.9˚, while the lunar altitude above the horizon was 8.6˚ on that day. Using the first of the five prescribed methods in the main text to determine the date of first lunar crescent visibility, I found the thin moon invisible at the 26 Mar 65 AD sunset, but visible on the following day.196 The remaining four criteria confirmed first crescent sighting on 26 Mar 65 AD. Yet we do not know if the Jews in Jerusalem actually observed the slender moon on that day to start Nisan in 26 rather than 27 Mar 65 AD. The second date in Josephus (Jewish War 2.528) concerns the attack on Jerusalem by Cestius Galus, the Roman governor of Syria in early autumn 66 AD.197 Having left Antioch on the Orontes to take the field against the insurgent Jews, Cestius brought his force into the vicinity of Jerusalem, pitching his camp 50 stadia (c. 9-10 km) from the city and remaining there for 3 days. Meanwhile finding the enemy outside the walls of their capital, the Jews abandoned the Feast of Tabernacles and attacked the Romans on a Sabbath, slaughtering 550 fighting men. However, Cestius took advantage of the ongoing factional strife among the Jews and attacked their camp with his entire army, routing the enemy and pursuing them to Jerusalem. He then pitched his camp 7 stadia distant (c. 1.5 km) from the city and 192 193 194 195 196

Welles et al. (1959), 166-169, No. 32 (Divorce Document). This is confirmed by Equ. 1: 170 (from Equ. 3) × 30 – |30 × 170 ÷ 64| = 5021 + 14 (from Equ. 4) = 5035 days. Parker and Dubberstein (1956), 47 compute visibility of the first lunar crescent on 26/27 Mar 65 AD. astropixels.com/ephemeris/phasescat/phases0001.html Huber (1982), 24. For the azimuthal difference of 6.6˚, the two h values from Table 5.1 are c. 9.75˚ (PVN) and 10.05˚ (LFS). These yield Δh = hmoon – h of -1.15˚ and -1.45˚ respectively, both confirming the moon’s invisibility. 197 For the date (66 AD) see Josephus (Jewish War 2.284 and 2.555), placing this episode in the 12th year of the principate of Nero (13 Oct 54 AD – 9 Jun 68 AD).

48

suspended further assaults on the Jews for 3 days, hoping that the defenders in Jerusalem would readily capitulate. Probably frustrated by his failure to conclude a surrender, Cestius deployed his forces and assaulted the city on the 4th day, the 30th (τριακὰς) of the month Hyperberetaios. Nevertheless, despite initially gaining the upper hand, he failed to sack Jerusalem and had to beat a hasty retreat some days later. Given that 30 Hyperberetaios was not very far from the Feast of Tabernacles in 66 AD might we not be able to determine its Julian equivalent? Ignoring the fact that Josephus gives unconverted dates according to their original calendars and that the Macedonian months in Syria were no longer lunar in the first century AD, the above passage too was incorrectly dated. Hence 30 Hyperberetaios = 30th day of Jewish Tishre = 8 Nov 66 AD, placing the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles on 22 Tishre on 31 Oct 66 AD.198 However, Josephus does not say the festival was already over before the Jews attacked the Roman camp on a Sabbath. He confirms that the celebrants abandoned the feast: ἀφέμενοι τὴν ἑορὴτν and then rushed to arms. To solve the problem, I equated, as in the previous case, 30 Hyperberetaios with 31 Oct 66 AD (1-day difference because of different day-epochs) and found the perfect matches below. Following the New Moon on 7 Oct 66 AD at 19:46 UT, the first lunar crescent was visible with a 100% probability at sunset (15:18 UT) on 9 Oct 66 AD in Jerusalem.199 Taking 1 Tishre = 9/10 Oct 66 AD (Thu/Fri), the Feast of Tabernacles in that year started on 15 Tishre = 23/24 Oct (Thu/Fri).200 The following day 16 Tishre = 24/25 Oct (Fri/Sat) was a Sabbath on which the Jews attacked Cestius who had pitched his camp for 3 days about 9-10 km from Jerusalem. They were beaten and fled to the city allowing Cestius to move to within about 1.5 km of Jerusalem. Camping for a further 3 days, Cestius resumed the war on the 4th day. Counting inclusively from 16 Tishre = 24/25 Oct (Sabbath) by 7 would take us to 22 Tishre = 30/31 Oct 66 AD (Thu/Fri) = 30 Hyperberetaios. Because the latter started like 22 Tishre at sunset on 30 Oct 66 AD, the Feast of Tabernacles fell in 23 Hyperberetaios = 23/24 Oct and the Sabbath in 24 Hyperberetaios = 24/25 Oct 66 AD. Owing to the fact that all these dates depend on the veracity of 15 Tishre (lunar) = 23/24 Oct 66 AD, I mapped the 1st and 15th days of the Jewish month on to the Kallippic calendar in case Tishre did not begin observationally: Do = JDN (9 Oct 66 AD) – JDN (28 Jun 330 BC) = 144377 days; Q 1 = |144377 ÷ 27759| = 5 and D = 144377 – 5 × 27759 = 5582 days (in the 6th Kallippic cycle); Q 2 = |5582 ÷ 63| = 88; D + Q 2 = 5582 + 88 = 5670 days; M = |5670 ÷ 30| = 189; R = 0; therefore, Mc = 190 and Rc = 1, confirming 1 Tishre = 9/10 Oct 66 AD independently of the observation of the first lunar crescent. Similarly: Do = JDN (23 Oct 66 AD) – JDN (28 Jun 330 BC) = 144391 days; Q 1 = |144391 ÷ 27759| = 5 and D = 144391 – 5 × 27759 = 5596 days (in the 6th Kallippic cycle); Q 2 = |5596 ÷ 63| = 88; D + Q 2 = 5596 + 88 = 5684 days; M = |5684 ÷ 30| = 189; R = 14; therefore, Mc = 190 and Rc = 15 and so 1st day of the Feast of Tabernacles = 15 Tishre = 23/24 Oct 66 AD. These results confirm that the Kallippic calendar would have schematically accurately decided for the Jews the Julian dates of the 1st and 15th days of Tishre irrespective of the sighting of the first lunar crescent to start off the lunar month. The third and final date in Josephus is from the fourth year of the Jewish-Roman war in 70 AD. According to Dio Cassius (65(66).1.1 – 65(66).4.1), having been appointed joint consul with his father Vespasian (69-79 AD) in 70 AD,201 Titus led the war against the Jews. He crossed the Egyptian desert to Syria and initially sought to win them over by pledges and representations. However, because the Jews refused to yield to him, he proceeded to lay siege to Jerusalem. Josephus (Jewish War 5.99) writes that: During a temporary lull in the war without the walls, faction renewed its hostilities within. When the day of the (Feast) of Unleavened Bread came around on 14th Xanthikos, the reputed anniversary of the Jews’ first liberation from Egypt, Eleazar and his men partly opened the gates and admitted citizens desiring to worship within the building.

198 Stern (2001), 121-122. 199 Jerusalem: 9 Oct 66 AD: sunset = 15:18 UT, moonset = 16:37 UT, lunar lagtime = 79m (19.75˚), solar azimuth = 263.7˚, lunar azimuth = 245.2˚, lunar altitude = 14.4˚, lunar elongation = 23.9˚, lunar phase (percent of surface illuminated) = 4.3%, azimuthal difference = 18.5˚, h = 6.8˚ from Table 5.1 in Huber (1982), 24, Δh = hmoon – h = 14.4˚ - 6.8˚ = 7.6˚ (100% visibility). Parker and Dubberstein (1956), 47 give 1 Tašrītu = 9/10 Oct 66 AD.

200 On the day (15th) and month (7th =Tishre) of the Feast of Tabernacles see Philo (The Special Laws 1.35.186-189, 2.33.204-210) and Josephus (3.244, 8.100, 8.230, 11.154). 201 For the consular date see Samuel (1972), 268. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

49

It has been suggested that the date 14 Xanthikos in this passage relates to the Jewish Passover.202 But the text is clear that it concerns the Festival of Unleavened Bread (ἀζύμων) which began with 15 Nisan, one day after the Passover. The difficulty, however, is that apart from the year of the above episode, we do not know the equivalent day and month of the Jewish festival in the Julian calendar. This is a characteristic feature of Josephus’ dates in his narration of the Jewish-Roman conflicts. Computations, nevertheless, show that barring adverse atmospheric conditions, the Jewish lunar month Nisan would have started in Jerusalem either on 31 Mar or 1 Apr 70 AD with the sighting of the first crescent moon.203 This means the Feast of Unleavened Bread fell either in 14 or 15 Apr 70 AD. The uncertainty over the exact date could be removed by equating 14 Xanthikos with 15 Apr 70 AD (with 1-day difference due to different day-epochs) and mapping it on to the Kallippic calendar for confirmation: Do = JDN (15 Apr 70 AD) – JDN (28 Jun 330 BC) = 145661 days; Q 1 = |145661 ÷ 27759| = 5 and D = 145661 – 5 × 27759 = 6866 days (in the 6th Kallippic cycle); Q2 = |6866 ÷ 63| = 108; D + Q 2 = 6866 + 108 = 6974 days; M = |6974 ÷ 30| = 232; R = 0; therefore, Mc = 233 and Rc = 15, confirming 14 Xanthikos = 15 Nisan = 15 Apr 70 AD independently of the observation of the first lunar crescent. To recap, the above three Macedonian dates 9 Xanthikos (= 10 Apr) 65 AD, 30 Hyperberetaios (= 31 Oct) 66 AD, and 14 Xanthicos (= 15 Apr) 70 AD are not lunar. They belong to a Julian calendar with Macedonian month names and sunset day-epoch, unlike the Roman version that started the day at midnight. They also perfectly match the lunisolar Kallippic dates of the Feast of Unleavened Bread on 15 Nisan in 65 AD and 70 AD and the Feast of Tabernacles on 15 Tishre in 66 AD. Hence my decision to employ the Kallippic calendar to confirm the equation 1 Nisan = 10/11 Apr 130 BC and compute the date of the Battle at the River Lycus as Friday 12 June 130 BC.

Abbreviation: AE SEB SEM F FGH PD

Arsacid Era: epoch = 1 Mīhr (Zoroastrian) = 1 Nisannu (Babylonian) = 14/15 Apr 247 BC. Seleuco-Babylonian Era: epoch = 1 Nisannu = 2/3 Apr 311 BC. Seleuco-Macedonian Era: epoch = 1 Dios = Araḫsamnu (Babylonian) = 5/6 Nov. 312 BC. Fragment Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker [see Jacoby F. (1926 and 1929)] Parker and Dubberstein (1956) in the bibliography

202 Stern (2001), 37. 203 Jerusalem: 31 Mar 70 AD: sunset = 15:57 UT, moonset = 16:52 UT, lunar lagtime = 55m (13.75˚), solar azimuth = 274.7˚, lunar azimuth = 274.0˚, lunar altitude = 10.1˚, lunar elongation = 11.1˚, lunar phase (percent of surface illuminated) = 0.93%, azimuthal difference = 0.7˚, h = 10.4˚ (PVN) and h = 10.7˚ (LFS) from Table 5.1 in Huber (1982), 24, Δh = hmoon – h = 10.1˚ – 10.4˚ = -0.3˚, Δh = hmoon – h = 10.1˚ – 10.7˚ = -0.6˚ (both cases with 25% visibility). Parker and Dubberstein (1956), 47 give 1 Nisannu = 31 Mar/1 Apr 70 AD. Visibility probability will be 100% on 1 Apr 70 AD: sunset = 15:57 UT, moonset = 18:04 UT, lunar lagtime = 167m = 41.75˚, solar azimuth = 275.1˚, lunar azimuth = 273.6˚, lunar altitude = 24.3˚, lunar elongation = 25.2˚, lunar phase = 4.8%.

50

Bibliography: Assar G.R.F. (2000), “Recent Studies in Parthian History: Part I”, The Celator. Journal of Ancient and Medieval Coinage. Vol. 14:12 (December). 6-22. Assar G.R.F. (2001), “Recent Studies in Parthian History: Part II”, The Celator. Journal of Ancient and Medieval Coinage. Vol. 15:1 (January). 17-27 and 41. Assar G.R.F. (2003), “Parthian Calendars at Babylon and Seleucia on the Tigris”, Iran. Journal of the British Institute of Persian Studies 41. 171-191. Assar G.R.F. (2004/5a), “Genealogy and Coinage of the Early Parthian Rulers. I.”, Parthica. Incontri di Culture nel Mondo Antico 6. 69-93. Assar G.R.F. (2004/5b), “History and Coinage of Elymais During 150/149-122/121 BC”, Nāme-ye Irān-e Bāstān. The International Journal of Ancient Iranian Studies 4:2 (Autumn-Winter). 27-91. Assar G.R.F. (2005/6), “Genealogy and Coinage of the Early Parthian Rulers. II. A Revised Stemma”, Parthica. Incontri di Culture nel Mondo Antico 7. 29-63. Assar G.R.F. (2006a), “Moses of Chorene and the Early Parthian Chronology”, Electrum. Greek and Hellenistic Studies 11. 61-86. Assar G.R.F. (2006b), “A Revised Parthian Chronology of the Period 165-91 BC”, Electrum. Greek and Hellenistic Studies 11. 87-158. Assar G.R.F. (2006/7), “Arsaces IV (c. 170-168 BC) the 1st “Missing” Parthian King”, Nāme-ye Irān-e Bāstān. The International Journal of Ancient Iranian Studies 6:1-2. 3-14. Assar G.R.F. (2009), “Some Important Seleucid and Parthian Dates in the Babylonian Goal-Year Texts”, Electrum. Orbis Parthicus. Studies in Memory of Professor Józef Wolski. 15. 105-117. Bennett C. (2011), Alexandria and the Moon. An Investigation into the Lunar Macedonian Calendar of Ptolemaic Egypt. Studia Hellenistica 52. Lueven-Paris-Walpole, MA. Bickerman E.J. (1968), Chronology of the Ancient World. London. Brack-Bernsen L. and Hunger H. (2002), “TU 11: A Collection of Rules for the Prediction of Lunar Phases and of Month Length” SCIAMVS: Sources and Commentaries in the Exact Sciences. Vol. 3. 3-90. Brack-Bernsen L. (2011), “Prediction of Days and Pattern of the Babylonian Lunar Six”, Archiv für Orientforschung 52. 156-176. Briant P. (2002), From Cyrus to Alexander. A History of the Persian Empire. Translated by P.T. Daniels. Winona Lake, IN. Britton J. (2007), “Calendars, Intercalations and Year-Lengths in Mesopotamian Astronomy”, in J.M. Steele (ed.), Calendars and Years. Astronomy and Time in the Ancient Near East. Oxford. 115-132. Britton J. (2010), “Studies in Babylonian Lunar Theory: Part III. The Introduction of the Uniform Zodiac”, Archive for History of Exact Sciences 64. 617-663. Brooks E.W. (1955), Chronica Minora. II. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. Editum Consilio. Universitatis Catholicae Americae et Universitatis Catholicae Lovaniensis. Vol. 3. Scriptores Syri. Tomus 3. Louvain. Brunt P.A. (1999), Arrian. Anabasis of Alexander. Books I-IV. Loeb Classical Library 236. Cambridge, MA. Burn A.R. (1952), “Notes on Alexander’s Campaigns, 332-330”, The Journal of Hellenic Studies 72. 81-91. Canali de Rossi F. (2004), Iscrizioni dello Estremo Oriente Greco. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften Nordrhein-Westfälische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Bonn. Chabot J.-B. (1899), Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche (1166-1199). Tome Premier. Paris. archive.org/details/chroniquedemiche01mich A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

51

Chabot J.-B. (1927), Incerti Auctoris Chronicon Pseudo-Dionysianum Vulgo Dictum. I. [Chronicon Anonymum Pseudo-Dionysianum Vulgo Dictum]. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. Editum Consilio: Universitatis Catholicae Americae et Universitatis Catholicae Lovaniensis. Vol. 91: Scriptores Syri. Tomus 43. Lovanii. Chabot J.-B. (1949), Incerti Auctoris Chronicon Pseudo-Dionysianum Vulgo Dictum. I. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. Editum Consilio: Universitatis Catholicae Americae et Universitatis Catholicae Lovaniensis. Vol. 121: Scriptores Syri. Series Tertia – Tomus I. Versio. Lovanii. Chabot J.-B. (1955), Chronica Minora. II. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. Editum Consilio. Universitatis Catholicae Americae et Universitatis Catholicae Lovaniensis. Vol. 4. Scriptores Syri. Tomus 4. Louvain. Clay A.T. (1913), Babylonian Records in the Library of J. Pierpont Morgan. Part II: Legal Documents from Erech Dated in the Seleucid Era (312 – 65 B.C.). New York. Comfort A., Abadie-Reynal C., Ergeç R. (2000), “Crossing the Euphrates in Antiquity: Zeugma Seen from Space”, Anatolian Studies 50. 99-126. Comfort A. and Ergeç R. (2001), “Following the Euphrates in Antiquity: North-South Routes Around Zeugma”, Anatolian Studies 51. 19-49. Cumont F. (1930), “Nouvelles inscriptions grecques de Suse”, Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. Comptes Rendus. 208-220. Cumont F. (1932a), “Une lettre du roi Artaban III a la ville de Suse”, Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. Comptes Rendus. 238-261. Cumont F. (1932b), “Nouvelles inscriptions grecques de Suse”, Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. Comptes Rendus. 271-286. Cumont F. (1933), “Deux inscriptions de Suse”, Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. Comptes Rendus. 260-268. Dąbrowa E. (2005), “Les aspects politiques et militaires de la conquête Parthe de la Mésopotamie”, Electrum. Ancient Iran and Its Neighbours 10. 73-88. Dąbrowa E. (2010), The Hasmoneans and Their State. A Study in History, Ideology, and the Institutions. Electrum 16. Kraków. Debevoise N.C. (1938), A Political History of Parthia. Chicago, IL. De Jong T. (2006), “The Heliacal Rising of Sirius”, in E. Hornung, R. Krauss, D.A. Warburton (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Chronology. Handbook of Oriental Studies. Section One: The Near and Middle East. Vol. 83. Leiden-Boston. 432-438. Del Monte G.F. (1997), Testi dalla Babilonia Ellenistica. Vol. I: Testi Cronografici. Studi Ellenistici IX. Pisa-Roma. Doggett L.E. (1994), “Lunar Crescent Visibility”, ICARUS. International Journal of Solar System Studies 107:2. 388-403. Engels D. (1985), “The Length of Eratosthenes’ Stade”, The American Journal of Philology 106:3. 298-311. Falkenstein A. (1941), Topographie von Uruk. I. Teil: Uruk zur Seleukidenzeit. Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka. Band 3. Leipzig. digital.library.stonybrook.edu/cdm/ref/collection/amar/id/96240 Fatoohi L.J. and Stephenson R.J. (1997/8), “Angular Measurements in Babylonian Astronomy”, Archiv für Orientforschung 44/45. 210-214. Fatoohi L.J., Stephenson R.J., and Al-Dargazelli S.S. (1999), “The Babylonian First Visibility of the Lunar Crescent: Data and Criterion”, Journal for the History of Astronomy 30. 51-72. Fischer T. (1970), Untersuchungen zum Partherkrieg Antiochos’ VIII. im Rahmen der Seleukidengeschichte. Inaugural – Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Philosophischen Fakultät I der Ludwig – Maximilians – Universität zu München. Tübingen. 52

Fotheringham J.K. (1924), “The Metonic and Callippic Cycles”, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 24. 383-392. Gautschy R. (2014), “On the Babylonian Sighting-Criterion for the Lunar Crescent and Its Implications for Egyptian Lunar Dates”, Journal for the History of Astronomy 45:1. 79-90. Gawlikowski (1996), “Thapsacus and Zeugma the Crossing of the Euphrates in Antiquity”, Iraq 58.123-133. Grainger J.D. (1997), A Seleukid Prosopography and Gazetteer. Mnemosyne Supplements. Subseries: History and Archaeology of Classical Antiquity. Vol. CLXXII. Leiden-New York-Köln. Green P. (2013), Alexander of Macedon 356-323 B.C. A Historical Biography. Berkeley, LA. Griffith G.T. (1947), “Alexander’s Generalship at Gaugamela”, The Journal of Hellenic Studies 67. 77-89. Gulbekian E. (1987), “The Origin and Value of Stadion Unit used by Eratosthenes in the Third Century B.C.”, Archive for the History of Exact Sciences 37:4. 359-363. Haldon J. (1999), Warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World 565-1204. London and New York. academia.edu/29942672/Warfare_State_And_Society_in_the_byzantine_world Hansman J. (1968), “The Problems of Qūmis. I. The Historical Perspective”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. 111-139. Hoffman R.E. (2005), “Rational Design of Lunar-Visibility Criteria”, The Observatory 125. 156-168. Hoover O. (2008), Reviewing: P.A. van’t Haaff. Catalogue of Elymaean Coinage. Ca. 147 B.C.- A.D. 228. Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. Lancaster, PA. American Numismatic Society Magazine. Vol. 7.2 (Summer). 50-55. numismatics.org/magazine/elymaeansummer08/ Hosch W.L. (2011), The Britannica Guide to Numbers and Measurements. New York. Houghton A. and Spaer A. (1998), The Arnold Spaer Collection of Seleucid Coins. Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. Israel I. Jerusalem. Houghton A., Lorber C. (2002), Seleucid Coins. A Comprehensive Catalogue. Part I. Seleucus I through Antiochus III. Vol. I. Introduction, Maps, and Catalogue. Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. Lancaster, PA. Houghton A., Lorber C., Hoover O. (2008), Seleucid Coins. A Comprehensive Catalogue. Part II. Seleucus IV through Antiochus XIII. Vol. I. Introduction, Maps, and Catalogue. Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. Lancaster, PA. Huber P.J. (1982), “Astronomical Dating of Babylon I and Ur III”, Monographic Journals of the Near East. Occasional Papers on the Near East. Vol. I, Issue 4 (June). Malibu, CA. 1-93. Hunger H. and Sachs A.J. (2001), Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia. Vol. V: Lunar and Planetary Texts. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse. Denkschriften, 299. Band. Wien. Hunger H. and Sachs A.J. (2006), Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia. Vol. VI: Goal Year Texts. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse. Denkschriften, 346. Band. Wien. Hunger H. and Sachs A.J. (2014), Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia. Vol. VII: Almanacs and Normal Star Almanacs. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse. Denkschriften, 466. Band. Wien. Jacoby F. (1926), Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker. Zweiter Teil. Zeitgeschichte. A. Universalgeschichte und Hellenika. Berlin. Jacoby F. (1929), Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker. Zweiter Teil. Zeitgeschichte. B. Spezialgeschichten, Autubiographien und Memoiren. Zeittafeln. Berlin.

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

53

Jeffreys E., Jeffreys M. Scott R. (1986), The Chronicle of John Malalas. Australian Association for Byzantine Studies. Byzantina Australiensia 4. Melbourne. Jordan J. (1928), Uruk-Warka nach den Ausgrabungen durch die Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft. Leipzig. Koch J. (1991/1992), “Zu einigen astronomischen ‘Diaries’”, Archiv für Orientforschungen 38/39. 101-109. Krauss R. and Reijs V. (2012), “Babylonian Crescent Observation and Ptolemaic-Roman Lunar Dates”, PalArch’s Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology 9:5. 1-95. palarch.nl/wp-content/Krauss-2012-Babylonian-Crescent-Observation-and-Ptolemaic-Roman-LunarDates-PJAEE-9-5-2nd-Ed.pdf and also: academia.edu/2334725/BABYLONIAN_CRESCENT_ OBSERVATION_AND_PTOLEMAIC-ROMAN_LUNAR_DATES Landau Y.H. (1961), “A Greek Inscription from Acre”, Israel Exploration Journal 11:3. 118-126. Lane Fox R. (2004), Alexander the Great. London. Lemaire A. (1996), Nouvelles inscriptions Araméennes d’Idumée au Musée d’Israēl. Supplément no 3 à Transeuphratène. Paris. Le Rider G. (1965), Suse sous les Séleucides et les Parthes. Les trouvailles monétaires et l’histoire de la ville. Mémoires de la Mission Archéologique en Iran. Tome XXXVIII. Mission de Susiane sous la direction de MM. R. Ghirshman et G. Salles. Paris. Le Rider G. and Syrig H. (1967/8), “Objets de la Collection Louis de Clercq donnés en 1967 au Cabinet des Médailles de la Bibliothèque nationale par le comte et comtesse Henri de Boisgelin”, Revue Numismtique. 6e Série. Tome 9. 7-53 and Pl. I-X. Linsen M.J.H. (2004), The Cults of Uruk and Babylon. The Temple Ritual Texts as Evidence for Hellenistic Cult Practices. Cuneiform Monographs 25. Leiden-Boston. Lord L.E. (1938), “The Date of Julius Caesar’s Departure from Alexandria”, The Journal of Roman Studies 28. 19-40. Lynn W.T. (1893), “The Comet of AD 64”, The Observatory 16. 327-328. Marsden E.W. (1964), The Campaign of Gaugamela. Liverpool, UK. McDowell R.H. (1935), Coins from Seleucia on the Tigris. Ann Arbor, MI. Moosa M. (2014), The Syriac Chronicle of Michael Rabo (The Great): A Universal History from the Creation. A Publication of the Archdiocese of the Syriac Orthodox Church for the Eastern United States. Teaneck, NJ. Neugebauer O. (1947), “A Table of Solstices from Uruk”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 1. 143-148. Neugebauer O. (1948), “Solstices and Equinoxes in Babylonian Astronomy During the Seleucid Period”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 2. 209-222. Neugebauer O. (1951), “The Babylonian Method for the Computation of the Last Visibility of Mercury”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 95. 110-116. Neugebauer O. (1955a), Astronomical Cuneiform Texts. Babylonian Ephemerides of the Seleucid Period for the Motion of the Sun, the Moon, and the Planets. Vol. I: Introduction: The Moon. London. Neugebauer O. (1955b), Astronomical Cuneiform Texts. Babylonian Ephemerides of the Seleucid Period for the Motion of the Sun, the Moon, and the Planets. Vol. II: The Planets. Indices. London. Neugebauer O. (1955c), Astronomical Cuneiform Texts. Babylonian Ephemerides of the Seleucid Period for the Motion of the Sun, the Moon, and the Planets. Vol. III: Plates. London. Neugebauer O. (1975), A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy. In Three Parts with 9 Plates and 619 Figures. Berlin-Heidelberg-New York.

54

Newell E.T. (1938), “The Coinage of the Parthians” in A.U. Pope (ed.), A Survey of Persian Art from Prehistoric Times to the Present. Vol. VII. Plates 1-257. Pre-Achaemenid, Achaemenid, Parthian and Sāsānian Periods. London and New York. 475-492. Oelsner J. (1975), “Randbemerkungen zur arsakidischen Geschichte anhand von babylonischen Keilschrifttexten”, Altorientalische Forschungen 3. 25-45. Oelsner J. (1986), Materialien zur Babylonischen Gesellschaft und Kultur in Hellenistischer Zeit Assyriologia 7. Budapest. Olmstead A.T. (1937), “Cuneiform Texts and Hellenistic Chronology”, Classical Philology 32. 1-14. Ossendrijver M. (2012), Babylonian Mathematical Astronomy. Procedure Texts. New York. Parker R. and Dubberstein W.H. (1956), Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C. – A.D. 75. Providence. RI. Potts D.T. (1999), The Archaeology of Elam. Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge-New YorkMelbourne. Powell R. (2007), History of the Zodiac. San Rafael, CA. Purrington R.D. (1988), “Heliacal Rising and Setting: Quantitative Aspects”, Journal of History of Astronomy. Archaeoastronomy Supplement 19. 72-84. Reisner G. (1896), Sumerisch-Babylonische Hymnen nach Thontafeln Griechischer Zeit. Königliche Museen zu Berlin. Mittheilungen aus den Orientalischen Sammlungen. Heft X. Berlin. Robinson M. (2009), “Ardua et Astra: On the Calculation of the Dates of the Rising and Setting of Stars”, Classical Philology 104:3 (July). 354-375. Rochberg F. (1998), Babylonian Horoscopes. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society Held at Philadelphia for Promoting Useful Knowledge. Vol. 88, Pt. 1. Philadelphia, PA. Rolfe J.C. (1998), Cuintus Curtius. History of Alexander. Books I-V. Loeb Classical Library 368. Cambridge, MA. Rougemont G. (2012), Inscriptions grecques d’Iran et d’Asie centrale. Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum. Part II. Inscriptions of the Seleucid and Parthian Periods and of Eastern Iran and Central Asia. Vol. I: Inscriptions in Non-Iranian Languages. London. Sachs A.J. (1948), “A Classification of the Babylonian Astronomical Tablets of the Seleucid Period”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 2. 271-290. Sachs A.J. and Wiseman D.J. (1954), “A Babylonian King List of the Hellenistic Period”, Iraq. Journal of the British School of Archaeology in Iraq 16. 202-211 and Pl. LIII. Sachs A.J. (1955), Late Babylonian Astronomical and Related Texts. Copied by T. G. Pinches and J. N. Strassmaier. Brown University Studies XVIII. Providence, RI. Sachs A.J. (1976), “The Latest Datable Cuneiform Tablets”, in B.L. Eichler (ed.), Kramer Anniversary Volume. Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel Noah Kramer. Alter Orient und Altes Testament. Veröffentlichungen zur Kultur und Geschichte des Alten Orients und des Alten Testaments. Neukirchen-Vluyn. 379-398 and Pls. XV-XIX. Sachs A.J. and Hunger H. (1988), Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia. Vol. I: Diaries from 652 B.C. to 262 B.C. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse. Denkschriften, 195. Band. Wien. Sachs A.J. and Hunger H. (1989), Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia. Vol. I: Diaries from 261 B.C. to 165 B.C. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse. Denkschriften, 210. Band. Wien.

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

55

Sachs A.J. and Hunger H. (1996), Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia. Vol. III: Diaries from 164 B.C. to 61 B.C. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse. Denkschriften, 247. Band. Wien. Samuel A.E. (1972), Greek and Roman Chronology. Calendars and Years in Classical Antiquity. München. Schaefer B.E. (1996), “Lunar Crescent Visibility”, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 37. 759-768. Schoch C. (1924), “The “Arcus Visionis” of the Planets in the Babylonian Observations”, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 84:9 (July). 731-735. Schoene A. (1866), Evsebi Chronicorvm Libri Dvo. Vol. II. Armeniam Versionem Latine Factam e Libris Manvscriptis Recensvit H. Petermann. Hieronymi Versionem e Libris Manvscriptis Recensvit. A. Schoene. Syriam Epitomen Latine Factam e Libro Londinensi Recensvit E. Roediger. Berolini. Schoene A. (1875), Evsebi Chronicorvm Libri Dvo. Vol. I. Armeniam Versionem Latine Factam ad Libros Manvscriptos Recensvit H. Petermann. Graeca Fragmenta Collegit et Recognovit Appendices Chronographicas Sex Adiecit A. Schoene. Berolini. Sellwood D.G. (1976), “The Drachms of the Parthian “Dark Age””, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. 2-25. Sellwood D.G. (1980), An Introduction to the Coinage of Parthia. London. Sellwood D.G. (1983), “Parthian Coins” in E. Yarshater (ed.), The Cambridge History of Iran. Vol. 3(1): The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods. Cambridge. 279-298. Sherwin-White S.M. (1983), “Ritual for a Seleucid King at Babylon?”, The Journal of Hellenistic Studies 103. 156-159. Stein A. (1942), “Notes on Alexander’s Crossing of the Tigris and the Battle of Arbela”, The Geographical Journal 100:4 (October). 155.164. Stephenson F.R. and Fatoohi L.J. (2001), “The Eclipses Recorded by Thucydides”, Historia. Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 50:2. 245-253. Stern S. (2001), Calendar and Community. A History of the Jewish Calendar. Second Century BCE–Tenth Century CE. Oxford. Stern S. (2008), “The Babylonian Month and the New Moon: Sighting and Prediction”, Journal for the History of Astronomy 39. 19-42. Stern S. (2012), Calendars in Antiquity. Empires, States, and Societies. Oxford. St. John Thackeray H. (2001), Josephus. Jewish Antiquities. Books I-III. Loeb Classical Library 242. Cambridge, MA. Swerdlow N.M. (2014), The Babylonian Theory of the Planets. Princeton, NJ. Tarn W.W. (1933), “Alexander: The Conquest of the Far East”, in J.B. Bury, S.A. Cook and F.E. Adcock (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. VI. Chapter XIII: Macedon 402-301 B.C. Cambridge, UK. 387-437. Tarn (1948a), Alexander the Great. I. Narrative. Cambridge, UK. Tarn (1948b), Alexander the Great. II. Sources and Studies. Cambridge, UK. Thomson R.W. (1978), Moses Khorenats‘i. History of the Armenians. London. Van der Spek (1987), “The Babylonian City”, in A. Kuhrt and S. Sherwin-White (eds.), Hellenism in the East. The Interaction of Greek and Non-Greek Civilizations from Syria to Central Asia after Alexander. London. 57-74. Van der Spek R.J. (1997/8), “New Evidence from the Babylonian Astronomical Diaries Concerning Seleucid and Arsacid History”, Archiv für Orientforschung 44/45. 167-175. Van der Spek (1998), “Cuneiform Documents of Parthian History: The Raḫimesu Archive. Materials for the Study of the Standard of Living”, in J. Wiesehöfer (Hg.), Das Patherreich und seine Zeugnisse (The Arsacid Empire: Sources 56

and Documentation. Beiträge des Internationalen Colloquiums Eutin (27. – 30. Juni 1996). Historia. Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte – Revue d’Histoire Ancienne – Journal of Ancient History – Rivista di Storia Antica. Heft 122. Stuttgart. 205-258. Van der Spek (2001), “The Theatre of Babylon in Cuneiform”, in W.H. van Soldt (ed.), Veenhof Anniversary Volume. Studies Presented to Klaas R. Veenhof on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Leiden. 445-456. Van der Spek R.J. (2003), “Darius III, Alexander the Great and Babylonian Scholarship”, in W. Henkelman, A. Kuhrt (eds.), A Persian Perspective. Essays in Memory of Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenberg. Achaemenid History XIII. Leiden. 289-346. Van Dijk J. (1962), “Die Inschriftenfunde” in H.J. Lenzen (ed.), Vorläufiger Bericht über die von dem Deutschen Archäologischen Institut und der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft aus Mitteln der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschrift unternommenen Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. Abteilung Baghdad. XVIII. Berlin. 39-62. Van der Waerden B.L. (1960), “Greek Astronomical Calendars and Their Relation to the Athenian Civil Calendar”, Journal of Hellenic Studies 80. 168-180. Walkup N. (2005), “Eratosthenes and the Mystery of the Stade – How Long Is a Stade?”. Convergence (free online journal of the Mathematical Association of America) 2. See the full article at: maa.org/press/periodicals/convergence/ eratosthenes-and-the-mystery-of-the-stades-how-long-is-a-stade Welles C.B. (1934), Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period. A Study in Greek Epigraphy. London Welles C.B., Fink R.O. and Gilliam J.F. (1959), The Excavations at Dura-Europos. Conducted by the Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters. Final Report V. Part I: The Parchments and Papyri. With an Account of the Three Iranian Fragments by W.B. Henning. New Haven, CT. Will É (2003), Histoire politique du monde hellénistique 323-30 av. J.-C. Préface inédite de Pierre Cabanas. Tome II. Des avènements d’Antiochos III et de Philippe V à la fin des Lagides. Paris. Zehnder M. (2010), “Aramäische Texte”, in U. Hackl, B. Jacobs, D. Weber (Hg.), Quellen zur Geschichte des Partherreiches. Textsammlung mit Übersetzungen und Kommentaren. Band 3: Keilschriftliche Texte, Aramäische Texte, Armenische Texte, Arabische Texte, Chinesische Texte. Beiträge von Barbara Böck, Uta Golze, Gudrun Schubert, Kerstin Storm, Guisto Traina, Markus Zehnder. Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus/ Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments. Band 85. Göttingen. 175-401.

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

57

Introducing a forthcoming book:

Volume 2: Mithradates II c.122/121–91 BC The Sylloge Nummorum Parthicorum (SNP) VESTA SARKHOSH CURTIS, ALEX ANDRA M AGUB AND ELIZABETH PENDLETON

Parthian Numismatics owes an immeasurable debt to David Sellwood whose An Introduction to the Coinage of Parthia (1971, 1980) elevated Parthian coins to the status they deserve alongside Greek and Roman coinage. The British Museum’s Catalogue of the Coins of Parthia by Warwick Wroth in 1903 presented Parthian coins as part of the Greek coin series. Indeed, until relatively recently Parthian coins were regarded as a minor relative of the much superior Hellenistic dynasties. This Helleno-centric approach is deeply embedded in western scholarship. With Sellwood’s death in 2012 the numismatic world lost a truly great scion in the field of Parthian coins. He was an immensely knowledgeable and erudite scholar and at the same time approachable and enthusiastic. His passion for the subject and his willingness to help both connoisseurs and beginners made him an inspiration to many young scholars. He was keen to spread his knowledge and expertise and generously shared his collection with those who were interested in Parthian numismatics. It was much appreciated when he accepted a proposal by Michael Alram and Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis, the joint directors of the Sylloge Nummorum Parthicorum (SNP), to include his private collection in the multi-national study of Parthian coins based on the collections held in coin cabinets in Vienna, London, Tehran, Paris, Berlin and New York. It is a measure of the esteem in which he was held and the importance of his collection that he was the only private individual invited to take part. Altogether nine volumes are planned for the SNP publications. Of these, Volume 7 by Fabrizio Sinisi on the coinage of Vologases I to Pacorus II was the first to appear in 2012. The British Museum team consisting of Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis, Alexandra Magub1 and Elizabeth Pendleton has been responsible for Volume 2, which presents a study of the coins of Mithradates II. Our team was supported by Edward C.D. Hopkins in the USA who set up and runs Sylloge.org, the database for the entire project. In addition, he created and managed a bespoke database for Volume 2. Modern technology made it possible for us to collaborate closely despite the geographical distance.2 The manuscript of SNP 2 is currently with the Austrian Academy and publication is expected by April 2020.

1 2

Alexandra Magub is now Exhibition Research Assistant - Iran at the Victoria and Albert Museum, London. E.C.D. Hopkins is a co-author of SNP2. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

59

Volume 2 catalogues 1,648 silver and bronze coins from the collections of the various institutions3 involved in the project. In addition 215 specimens from the David Sellwood collection are also listed. Further supplementary material was drawn from several sources chief among them being the Numismatische Zentralkartei (NZK) of the Institut für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte of the University of Vienna and E.C.D. Hopkins’ own database www.parthia.com. These extra resources enabled the British Museum’s team to take account of coins in trade and a few relevant coins in non-participating institutions. Altogether these supplementary sources brought a further 6,908 coins of Mithradates II to our study. In total, 8,905 specimens were examined for Volume 2. Of these 1,997 coins have been catalogued and illustrated: 1,648 coins from the participating institutions, 215 Sellwood coins and 134 coins from supplementary sources. The sheer volume of material examined permitted an overview of the coin production during this period as it represented the broadest possible dataset on which to base our research. While much of the study was performed using digital images incorporated within our database, team members were able to conduct a personal examination of the coins of Mithradates II at the British Museum, the Bibliothèque nationale, Berlin, Vienna, Tehran and David Sellwood’s own collection in London. For Volume 2 we have largely followed the model created by Fabrizio Sinisi in SNP 7. However, the different nature of the coins of Mithradates II made some changes of approach necessary, the most significant factor arising from the lack of dates and mint names on the coinage of our period. The authors therefore first had to establish a framework based on iconographic developments and the evolution of the legends. An analysis of the control marks and of the styles of the die engravers was also crucial in creating this structure. Only then was it possible to establish a workable typology and chronology. We did not rely solely on numismatic evidence. We also identified and examined primary textual sources of relevance to our king. These are comprised of cuneiform tablets4 from Babylonia, chief amongst which were the Astronomical Diaries; some Parthian ostraca from Nisa; a Greek parchment from Avroman and a small number of contemporary Greek inscriptions from the Parthian world. We also studied Greek and Latin textual sources that refer to Mithradates II as well as some Chinese accounts. The historical events of his reign are exceptionally hazy and ambiguous but despite these difficulties, we were able to address many significant areas of uncertainty, such as the date he came to power, when he adopted the title “King of Kings” and the year of his death. In addition to presenting a historical discussion, our volume uses coins to enable numismatists and enthusiasts to achieve a fresh and deeper understanding of the coin production under Mithradates II during a complex historical period. Using the framework outlined above, we were able to establish four main chronological phases spanning the thirty years of his rule. A key factor in the coinage of this period is the shifting balance between the production of tetradrachms and drachms. While the former were minted at Seleucia-on-the-Tigris and also very occasionally Susa, the latter were produced mostly in the highlands of Iran. In addition, evidence from our typology shows that production of the relatively small number of tetradrachms, which are all undated, was confined to the early years of his reign. By contrast, drachms formed the principal silver denomination throughout most of his reign. We have identified the principal mints as Ecbatana, Rhagae and Arsacia. Coins can be allocated to these and other subsidiary mints on the basis of an interpretation of mintmarks used in the earlier part of Mithradates’ reign, in combination with individual styles that develop within each mint centre. A chapter is devoted to the iconography of the various denominations, followed by discussions of the legends, the control marks and identification of mint centres. A detailed examination of the less-studied bronzes from the principal mints as well as the civic mints, namely Susa and Nineveh, is also included. An analysis of the metrology and geographical distribution of the numismatic material takes into account the weights of all the denominations within each of the four chronological phases. The results of this technical study reveal with some clarity changes over time in the coin production. 3 4

60

These are: the American Numismatic Society; The British Museum; Bibliothèque Nationale de France; Institut für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte; Kunsthistorisches Museum; Staatliche Museen zu Berlin; National Museum of Iran. The discussions of the cuneiform tablets that offer such an important primary source for the study of Mithradates II would have been impossible without the assistance of C.B.F. Walker, former Deputy Keeper at the Department of the Middle East, the British Museum, who readily shared with us his vast knowledge of the subject. At the same time, any errors of interpretation are entirely ours.

Following the pattern of the SNS (Sylloge Nummorum Sasanidarum)5 and also Sinisi’s SNP Volume 7, we commissioned detailed line drawings to illustrate and clarify each type within our coin typology. These were drawn by Rebecca Green whose artistic skill greatly enhanced our volume. They enable the user to identify key features that are not always apparent on photographs. The final part of this volume is the coin catalogue proper. In addition to the technical data for each coin, the descriptions offer bibliographic information as well as an indication of die links and a commentary on certain individual coins. The catalogue follows the sequence of the typology. Our aim is to provide a chronological and geographical reconstruction of Mithradates’ coin system as accurately as possible for this complex corpus of an exceptional reign. In general the vast and homogeneous coinage of Mithradates II reveals to the casual observer only limited information about when and where it was struck. Our studies enable the reader to penetrate beneath the surface to grasp the underlying patterns. Despite the lack of dates and mint names on the coinage, we present a coherent overview of his coin production. Our examination of the coin production demonstrates that Mithradates II played an important role in the consolidation of the Parthian empire, particularly in the structure of its monetary administration and in the development of its royal iconography. Mithradates II’s legacy and royal imagery left a long-lasting imprint on his successors, on local kingdoms in the region and as well on the Sasanian period, in particular the reign of Ardashir I. It is a measure of the sterling worth of David Sellwood’s work that we cite Sellwood’s 1980 type numbers, so that the user can relate our new typology to his authoritative reference work. While we present our own interpretation of the coinage of Mithradates II, we acknowledge that our work is built upon the firm foundation of An Introduction to the Coinage of Parthia. Our study of the coinage of this period began with Sellwood’s foundation, but the results of our research enabled us to construct a typology of the coinage of Mithradates II which we hope will serve as the standard reference for the future. Given the paucity of other primary sources for this period, his plentiful coins issued over his long reign offer an important contemporary resource for a better understanding of the economic and political history, as well as the culture and art of the early Parthian period. The complexity of the numismatic material inevitably results in complex numismatic discussions and interpretations; nevertheless, the purpose of the whole SNP series is to provide scholars and enthusiasts with a means of utilising the wealth of available material. In addition it is also aimed at non-numismatists who often ignore this important primary source.6

The Sylloge Nummorum Parthicorum SNP 2: Mithradates II Drawings by Rebecca Green

Figure 1: Tetradrachm, mint of Seleucia-on-the-Tigris: Sellwood 1980, Type 24.4 © Trustees of the British Museum

5 6

The SNS series is edited by M. Alram and R. Gyselen and is also published by the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna. Our detailed and extensive study would not have been possible without the cooperation of the participating institutions and generous support from many Parthian numismatists and colleagues. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

61

Figure 2: Drachm, mint of Ecbatana: Sellwood 1980, Type 28.1 © Trustees of the British Museum

Figure 3: Bronze coin, mint of Susa: Sellwood 1980, Type 27.17 © Trustees of the British Museum

Figure 4: Bronze coin, mint of Nineveh: Sellwood 1980, Type not attested © Trustees of the British Museum

62

The Gold Variety of a Silver Drachm of Mithradates III of Parthia (87‑80 BC) G.R.F. ASSAR

The notion that the Arsacid rulers of Parthia struck no gold currency is so deeply ingrained in the minds of modern numismatists that with very few exceptions they will go to great lengths to stigmatise as forgery any gold coin with an obverse portrait and reverse titulature of a Parthian king. For example, as one of the objections to the authenticity of the aurei of Vonones I (8/9-12 AD) that came to light in the mid-1980s, it was claimed that a hoard of ancient gold coins could not be comprised of around 300 pieces! This unfounded view not only flies in the face of common sense, but also runs counter to the evidence from several ancient Greek coin hoards containing from 2 to 7200 gold pieces.1 Another argument against the originality of those Parthian aurei concerned their elemental composition, showing about 98 percent gold in some cases.2 Yet this highly refined gold alloy is neither incompatible with ancient reports of the purity of Persian gold currencies, Darics,3 nor with the metallurgical analysis of several Croeseid, Carthaginian, and Roman gold coins. Herodotus (4.166) tells us that Darius I the Great (522-486 BC), had coined money out of gold refined to an extreme purity. This is reflected in the results of specific gravity measurements on seven gold Darics in the British Museum, giving an average fineness of 0.981 (or 98.12%).4 Similarly, the average purity of seven Croeseid gold staters has been shown to be 0.991 (or 99.07%).5 Furthermore, accurate assaying has revealed that some Carthaginian coins have as high as 98.5 and 100 percent gold,6 while an aureus of the Roman emperor Nero minted at Rome contains 99.45 percent gold.7 These high levels of gold are consistent with Pliny’s observation (Natural History 33.80) that certain naturally occurring gold can be about 97.2 percent pure with the residual impurity mostly as silver.8 Given that both natural and purified gold in ancient coins (and objects) contained only low levels of silver and base metals (copper, lead, tin, zinc, etc.), one wonders why Vonones’ aurei could not have been struck from rich alloys having up to about 98 percent gold. I should, however, add that the agreement between the fineness of the alloy of Vonones’ aurei and the ancient and modern reports of the purity of certain gold coins from antiquity does not necessarily render the Parthian 1

2 3 4

5 6 7 8

Thompson et al. (1973), Nos. 1965 and 2299 (each containing two gold coins), and No. 1508 (having 7200 gold coins from three pot hoards). See also Nos. 336, 399, 410, 414, 689, 714, 797, 853, 1012, 1152-1158, 1160-1161, 1171, 1234, 1355, 1508, 1553, 1694-1695, 1708, 1822, 1943, 1950, 1956-1958, 1965, 2185, 2204, 2209, 2261, 2266, 2274, 2282, and 2299, all containing gold and/or electrum coins, ranging from 3 to several hundred. Of the 108 aurei tested for gold, silver and copper, the highest fineness was 97.84% gold. The Greeks called both the Achaemenid gold and silver coins Darics. See Plutarch’s Lives (Cimon 10). Hunkin (1916), 258-259 and fns. 20-21 works out the average specific gravity (SG) of the gold Darics as 18.96. He then takes the SGs of gold and silver as 19.26 and 10.47 respectively, and calculates the fineness of Darics. More accurate modern SGs are 19.32 and 10.50 for gold and silver respectively. Accepting Hunkin’s average SG of 18.96 for the seven gold Darics and using the modern SGs of the two metals yield an alloy with 97.74% gold and 2.26% silver. See also Hill (1922), cxxii. For modern values of gold and silver densities and specific gravities see Perry (1985), 3-13; Benenson et al. (2002), 231-232. See Appendix I for computing the percentages of the constituents of binary alloys. Hunkin (1916), 258-259 computes the average specific gravity of the seven Croeseids as 19.11 which, taking his SGs for gold and silver, yields a binary alloy with 99.07% gold and 0.93% silver. However, working with modern values leads to an alloy with 98.69% gold and 1.31% silver. Jenkins et al. (1963), 139-140 (nos. 26-27 and 30-31). Cope (1972), 309-310. The silver content detected quantitatively by NAA (Neutron-Activation Analysis) was 0.48 percent. According to Pliny, the proportion of silver to gold in the Albucrara mine in the Roman province of Callaecia (or Gallaecia) in northwest Hispania was 1/36th (2.78%). A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

63

gold issue authentic.9 It only underlines the extent to which most modern numismatists are prepared to ignore ancient testimonies and modern investigations to condemn Parthian gold coins as outright forgeries. It is of course, true that a fair number of fakes in both high- and low-quality gold have turned up in the past and still crop up occasionally purporting to be from the reigns of Mithradates II (121-91 BC) through to Vologases V (191-208 AD).10 But these forgeries neither prove nor even suggest that the Arsacids never struck gold issues. Intriguingly, most numismatists and ancient coin dealers believe that an absence of evidence in this case amounts to an evidence of absence. They allege that because no one has ever seen an authentic Arsacid gold coin, the lack of evidence serves to confirm the absence of Parthian gold outputs! This is an unprovable claim and as well an untenable premise because we do not know precisely what was minted throughout the Parthian period. Likewise, we do not know what has been unearthed over the course of time and ever since the downfall of the Arsacid monarchy in the 3rd century AD. Parthian gold coins may have been withdrawn from circulation and restruck as fresh issues, or like all kinds of ancient coins that were destroyed sooner or later after their discovery, found their ways into the melting pots of jewellers and/or metalsmiths. As one startling example of the destruction of ancient coins, we have an eyewitness testimony from April 1896. It relates that less than four weeks after the death of Moḥammad-Ḥasan khān Moqaddam Marāḡa’ī (entitled) E‛temād al-Salṭana (1843–1896), Nāṣer-al-Dīn Shāh Qājār (1848-1896) confiscated the ancient coin collection of his deceased dragoman, including many Parthian pieces. Then, just before his assassination on 1 May 1896 and while he was preparing for the start of his 50th anniversary as king of Persia, the Qājār ruler ordered all sorts of ancient coins in his treasury, including many gold pieces that were renowned for their purity, to be taken to the royal mint, melted down and restruck as fresh silver and gold issues! It is reported that the gold pieces alone in that lot of destroyed coins yielded some 6000 ashrafis in the name of Nāṣer-al-Dīn Shāh!11 Although similar cases may be on record from earlier and later times, this less-than-125-years-old numismatic catastrophe serves to show the fate of many ancient coins in Iran and its neighbouring lands throughout the ages. The question now is whether one could insist there were no authentic Parthian gold coins in the collections that the witless Qājār tyrant destroyed, nor among the tens of thousands of discovered coins before and since that dreadful incident. We will, unfortunately, never know the true answers. What is certain is that new varieties of Parthian silver and bronze issues keep coming to light not infrequently. These often show remarkable iconographical and stylistic differences with the known types. Yet we do not dismiss them as counterfeits simply because they are uncatalogued. Instead we welcome them into our corpus of primary materials as indispensable additions, hoping that one day they may settle for us some key numismatic and/or historical enquiries. In any case, we should be open-minded about the question of Parthian gold coins for a simple reason: while there is no evidence that all successors of Arsaces I (247-211 BC) issued gold currencies, there is no proof either that some Arsacid princes did not do so on certain occasions. This uncertainty obliges us to set aside our prejudices and approach each case according to its merits. After all, we know for sure that several Achaemenid and Sasanian kings minted gold coins respectively before and after the Arsacids. If the Parthians indeed never emulated their predecessors in minting gold issues, it is incumbent on us to ascertain what prevented them from doing so rather than condemning all of their gold coins as modern counterfeits. Did the Arsacids abandon gold as a coinage metal just for the sake of restricting its use to ceremonial issues and medals as well as the manufacture of ornamental artefacts? Or, could it be that the Arsacid treasury retained no gold reserves, or that Arsaces I and his descendants forfeited their right to strike monetised gold for some reasons? Sadly, given our current knowledge of the numismatic history of Parthia, these questions cannot be answered with absolute certainty. Yet, as we shall see later, there are strong indications that gold was used as an exchange medium in routine transactions under the King of Kings Mithradates II in the last and first decades respectively of the second and first centuries BC. These are in addition to several earlier attestations of gold in our exiguous Parthian material. Dated to the month and year VIII.187 SEB (7/8 Nov–6/7 Dec 125 BC), the oldest of these testimonies is from Arsacid Babylonia. It tells us that Ti’mutusu (Timotheus), son of the Characenean ruler Hyspaosines (129/8 BC–10/11 Jun 184 BC),12 who was, at that time, residing in Babylon, had silver and gold like other … 9 10

11 12

64

A detailed discussion of the authenticity of Vonones’ aurei falls outside the purview of this note. The earliest Parthian gold forgery I have seen imitated a S24.9 drachm of Mithradates II. It was a poorly made cast copy with many air bubble holes on its surfaces. These were formed during casting when molten metal was poured into the moulds made from a S24.9 drachm. The latest gold forgery I am aware of copies a S86.3 drachm of the Arsacid king Vologases V. Ahmadi (1992), 19-21 and 23. Ashrafi was a generic term for gold coins under several post-Islamic royal dynasties in Iran. Assar (2006), 106-126.

made for the kingship.13 Even though the context is somewhat unclear here because of two damaged and unintelligible cuneiform signs in the corresponding passage, it appears that the Characenean prince had probably retained, among other things, gold and silver coins perhaps to cover his own and his retinue’s expenditures in Babylon.14 Our next reference to gold is found in the historical notices of month XII of the Astronomical Diary for 204 SEB (26/27 Feb–27/28 Mar 107 BC) under Mithradates II. However, here too we have breaks at some critical points in the cuneiform text. What is left of the original narrative suggests that coming from Media, an unnamed Parthian official from the north-Mesopotamian city of Subartu entered Babylon on 13/14 Mar 107 BC. Then having performed certain functions in place of Orodes, the chief of all temples, including animal sacrifices for the well-being of the reigning Parthian king of kings, he robbed gold from the Esangil temple and hastily returned to Media! Was this robbery carried out with the consent of the reigning Arsacid monarch? What was the stolen gold intended for back in Media? The relevant lines from the corresponding historical commentary read:15 15: … That month, Mitradata, [the chief] of troops, departed to the surrounding of Seleucia as before. 16: That [month], the 16th (13/14 Mar 107 BC), one man from Subartu, who performed/acted instead of (as representative of) Orodes, the chief (rab kumarrī) of all temples [and?] of all the […], entered [Babylon] from Media. 17: The 18th (15/16 Mar 107 BC), the administrator of Esangil, the Babylonians, the assembly of Esangil, provided 1 bull and 5 (sheep) sacrifices as offering at the ‘Gate of the Son of the Prince’ of Esangil; 18: He performed (it) to [Bel and] Beltija, the great gods, and for the life of the king of kings, and prostrated himself; afterwards he entered Esangil and went down from Esangil; one shield of musukkannu-wood 19: […] … a mounting? … was placed in … above the Lamassu-rabi gate of Esangil. One unclean … man he let go down and 20: […] was placed, he robbed and peeled gold off from its inside. Worry, anxiety, and wailing he placed in the city. This man from Subartu did not stay in the city, quickly 21: he went out to Media. That month disease … for the land as before.

It is inconceivable that this sacrilegious act was committed with impunity and without the knowledge of the Arsacid king of kings who was probably tarrying in Ecbatana or Rhagae in Media in early spring 107 BC.16 Otherwise fearing punishment, the robber would not have returned to Media. In any case, we do not know the weight nor the value of the stolen gold in this alleged temple robbery, but it may have been substantial. Support for this may be found in four reports from Hellenistic Babylonia mentioning gold in different contexts. First, we have an incomplete notice from month V of the 12th regnal year (2/3-30/31 Aug 325 BC) of Alexander the Great (336-323 BC). It reads: […] gold for making the tiara of Bel which […].17 Although the quantity of gold is lost here, judging from a later account from 187 BC when a crown for Antiochus III (222-187 BC) took about 8.5 kg of gold to make (see below), it may have amounted to several kilograms. The second oldest attestation appears in the historical notices from month and year VIII.9 SEB (27/28 Oct-25/26 Nov 303 BC) in the reign of Seleucus I (312/11-281 BC). It speaks of 113 talents (c. 2960 kg)18 of silver (and) 2 talents (c. 52 kg) of gold of (the God) Nabû which in front … […] they brought [from?] the craftsmen’s house and the streets of Borsippa … […].19 We do not know the reasons for transporting these quantities of silver and gold, but 2 talents of gold would have yielded roughly 6000 staters at about 8.70 g each. 13 14

15 16 17 18 19

Sachs and Hunger (1996), 272-273, Diary -124B (Obv. 2) and Pls. 236 (hand-copy) and 238 (photograph). The two damaged cuneiform signs in Obv. 2 of Diary -124B look like ŠID-tú = Akkadian manûtu, “currency standard, counting system”, less so with maḫāṣu = SIGx-ṣa “beaten, struck, minted, stamped, coined”, although depending on the value of “x”, the Sumerogram SIGx (e.g. SIG6, SIG9, or SIG10) too may qualify for the first partially preserved sign in this line to read maḫāṣu = “coined”. See Labat (1976), 142-143 (No. 314) and 174-175 (No. 381) for ŠID and tú respectively; 268 for SIGx with x = 1-14; 134-135 and 312 for SÌG/SIG3 = “frapper”. See Civil et al. (1977), 71-84 and 228 for maḫāṣu and manûtu respectively. See Kennedy (1968), Pls. 33 (No. 144, lines 6 and 21) and 34 (No. 148, lines 1 and 4) for ŠID-tú. On manûtu as “counting/ counting system” see Van der Spek (2014), 205; Van der Spek (2017), 33-37. Further collation of the damaged cuneiform signs is required to clarify the uncertainty. Sachs and Hunger (1996), 370-371, Diary -107C. According to Athenaeus (Deipnosophistae 12.513-514), the Parthian kings resided in springtime at Rhagae. Sachs and Hunger (1988), 200-201, Diary -324B (Rev. 23). The largest Greek weight. It was 60 minas with its full theoretical weight of 26.19 kilograms. One talent yielded 6000 Attic drachms at about 4.37 grams each. It is possible that the word talent was used during the late Hellenistic period to describe the sum of 6000 drachms. See Jones (1986), 223. Sachs and Hunger (1988), 248-249, Diary -302/301 (Rev. 5-6). A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

65

The third reference to gold in our Babylonian material is from month and year XII2.50 SEB (19/20 Mar-16/17 Apr 261 BC) in the sole reign of Antiochus I (281-261 BC).20 Despite its fragmentary state, the relevant text tells us that silver, gold, garments and linen were probably moved to the royal palace in that year for protection against the enemy (possibly Ptolemy II Philadelphus (283-246 BC) of Egypt against whom Antiochus II (261-246 BC) began the Second Syrian War in 260 BC). Again the quantities of gold and silver are unreported in this document also, but they may not have been meagre. Otherwise, they would not have been transported to the royal quarters for safekeeping. The fourth account is rather fuller and speaks of the presentation to Antiochus III of a gold crown and probably other objects on 4.XI.124 SEB (14/15 Feb 187 BC). Dispensing with the transliteration of the cuneiform text, I have given below the translation of the related passage in the corresponding Astronomical Diary:21 7: […] entered. The 4th, at Kasikila, the great gate of Esangil … cattle and sheep for Bel, Be[ltija, and the great gods, …] 8: [… for the life] of his wife and his sons he sacrificed (and) prostrated himself. The šatammu of Esangil and the Babylonians, the assembly of Esangil […] 9: […] under? it, a crown of 1 thousand shekels of gold (c. 8.5 kg) they presented to King An(tiochus). That day, the governor of Babylon […] 10: [… go]ld they presented to King An(tiochus). That day, he went up to Esangil and prostrated himself. That day, he entered the Akītu temple; cattle and sheep […] 11: […T]intir, a golden crown […], a golden box of Beltija, and the purple garment of King Nebukadnezar, which in the treasure house [was kept? …] 12: […] this […] came out from the treasure house. He went over to? the royal garden which is on the west bank. That day, he entered his palace. On the 5th, […]

This presentation to Antiochus III of a gold crown is reminiscent of a similar episode in 71 AD. Josephus (Jewish Wars 7.105-106) relates that the Parthian King Vologases I (51-78 AD) sent a crown of gold as gift to Titus, the son and heir of the Roman Emperor Vespasian (69-79 AD), to congratulate him on his victories over the Jews. The above 187 BC notice from the final year of Antiochus III indicates that the Esangil temple in Babylon held large quantities of wealth and so the earlier cited robbery under Mithradates II in 107 BC may have netted the thief considerable amounts of gold some 80 years later. In any case, this impious act of pillaging temple riches is not unprecedented because our classical writers also report three similar raids from the Seleucid and Parthian epochs. The first two plots by Seleucid kings were foiled, but an Arsacid prince successfully accomplished the third assault. Strabo (16.1.18) relates that Antiochus III met his death (187 BC) in a vain attempt to plunder the temple of Bel in Elymais.22 According to Diodorus (29.15.1) that sanctuary had accumulated a large store of gold and silver, derived from the dedications. This probably tempted the Seleucid king who had been compelled by the Romans, after the Battle of Magnesia in 190/189 BC and at the Peace Treaty of Apamea in 188 BC, to pay a very high war indemnity of 15,000 talents of silver over twelve years. Some 22 years later in 165/4 BC, Antiochus IV (175-164 BC) was forced to beat a disorderly retreat from Persia when confronted by the enraged and armed populace. As recounted in II.Maccabees (9.1-2), the Seleucid king had entered Persepolis in a bid to take over the city and loot its temple. Antiochus may have met a similar fate earlier that year when he raided Elymais to plunder its provincial shrines.23 But he accomplished nothing and died some months later. Lastly, Strabo (16.1.18) speaks of an unnamed Parthian prince who, despite being warned by what had happened to Antiochus III, invaded Elymais with a great force. He took the two temples of Athena and Artemis (called Azara) and carried off treasures valued at 10,000 talents.24 20 21 22 23

24

66

Sachs and Hunger (1988), 376-377, Diary –261C (Rev. 11-12). Sachs and Hunger (1989), 330-333, Diary -187A (Rev. 7-12). See also Diodorus Siculus (28.3.1) and Justin (32.2.1-2). Before attacking Persepolis, Antiochus IV may have invaded Elymais to rob its enriched temples also. Josephus (Jewish Antiquities 12.354-355) relates that while on his eastern anabasis, Antiochus heard of a city in Persia of surpassing wealth, named Elymais, with its rich temple of Artemis, full of dedicatory offerings. The Seleucid king set out for Elymais, assaulted it and began a siege. However, the inhabitants of the city thwarted the attack. They stoutly held out and drove Antiochus and his troops off. This Parthian king cannot be securely identified because we have references to three Arsacid princes invading Elymais: Mithradates I (165/4-132 BC), Artabanus III (126-122 BC), and Orodes I (80-75 BC). See Assar (2004/5), 61-64; Assar (2006), 91-94, 122-125 (Artabanus I; the regnal number has since changed to III); Assar (2006/7), 77-79.

As for the reason behind the probable transportation to Media of the stolen gold around mid-March 107 BC, we remain in ignorance. One possibility is that it was intended for a ceremonial coinage. Scanty Babylonian historical notices suggest that the Armenian Tigranes II the Great (96-55 BC) began his life as a Parthian hostage at the court of Mithradates II in 111/10 BC.25 A later inscribed parchment dated to the Macedonian month and year Apellaios 225 SEM (20 Oct–18 Nov 88 BC) confirms that Gotarzes I (91-87 BC), the son and successor of Mithradates II, had Aryazate, daughter of Tigranes II, as one of his three queens.26 Because Lucian (Makrobioi 15) claims that Tigranes was 85 years old at his death, the Armenian prince must have been born c. 140 BC and so about 33 years old in the spring of 107 BC. He could, therefore, have fathered Aryazate 15-17 years earlier in 122-124 BC in Armenia. These dates suggest that the dynastic marriage between prince Gotarzes of Parthia and princess Aryazate of Armenia probably took place in early spring 107 BC and so the illicitly procured gold from the Esangil temple in Babylon could have been coined as a special issue to mark the occasion.27 Additional references and perhaps the most compelling allusions to gold as a monetised metal in lieu of coined silver and bronze are found in the Raḫimesu archive of 36 tablets from Babylon,28 covering the period 28.I.218–26. VI.219 SEB (30 Apr 94 BC–12 Oct 93 BC) under Mithradates II. As a private banker and an official responsible for a special class of treasury, the ḫallatu basket (made of reed and bitumen), Raḫimesu was a regular administrative functionary financially managing the temples of Babylon. The ḫallatu basket received, in linen purses or leather bags, the income of several temple cashboxes (quppa), almost always in silver (KÙ.BABBAR = kaspu) perhaps owing to the high purchasing power of the metal and that it was by far the predominant means of payment at the time. Acting as the trustee of the ḫallatu treasury, Raḫimesu oversaw the expenditures from the entire income of the cashboxes. He received rations expended by himself, made various specific payments and then separately deposited the remaining balance in the reed basket, again in linen purses or leather bags. Raḫimesu’s outlays covered three major categories: acquisition of supplies for the upkeep of the temple offering system, repairs and restorations to the temple complex and rations and wages for temple personnel and hired labourers.29 As far as the preserved evidence is concerned, these transactions were concluded in terms of the traditional Babylonian ponderal unit manû (mina = c. 510 g) and its most frequently used fractions šiqlu (shekel = 1/60th mina = c. 8.33 g),30 maḫat (grain = 1/12th of a shekel), ḫi (half maḫat), and ra (quarter maḫat).31 Because payments in Hellenistic Babylonia were made in this fashion while prices were sometimes given in “staters”, not in minas or shekels,32 it has been posited that a standard equivalence gradually developed in Mesopotamia whereby 2 shekels = 1 tetradrachm; 1 shekel = 2 drachms; 1 maḫat = 1 obol (1/6th drachm), etc.33 However, two late 5th-century BC papyri from Elephantine (in Upper Egypt, near Aswan) under the Achaemenid rule also equate 1 Greek stater (tetradrachm) with 2 shekels,34 thus confirming that the relationship between the Babylonian shekel and Greek stater had already been in vogue in the Near East before the advent of Alexander the Great.

25 26 27

Sachs and Hunger (1996), 346-347, Diary -110 (line 14). According to Strabo (11.14.15) and Justin (38.3.1), Tigranes was a hostage among the Parthians for some years. See Assar (2006), 141, fn.167. Minns (1915), 22 and 28-30. See also Assar (2006/7), 67. On the celebratory nature of some gold issues see Herodotus (4.166) who relates that Darius I the Great minted gold Darics both to perpetuate his own memory and to crown his achievements.

28 29

Van der Spek (1998), 209 reports 29 tablets; Hackl (2016) 87 lists a further 11 cuneiform texts with 4 duplicates. McEwan (1981), 131; Van der Spek (1998), 209, 245-247. Subsumed in Raḫimesu’s expenditures were purchases of sacrificial sheep, bread and meat for regular offerings, vats of wine, salt, clothing, bitumen, barley, firewood and charcoal, transport of straw from the river to the courtyard of the Esangil temple, wages of millers, brewers, sweepers, soakers, cleaners of the Akītu temple, weavers for the whitening of laundry, rations of porters and parchment scribes, removal of rainwater from the passageway to the Esangil and shifting of dust from temple roofs, building bridges, restoration of door frames of temple treasuries and other temple expenses.

30

Jursa (2002), 120 (No. 8), line 1 of the text dated 12.X.2 (7 Jan 321 BC) of Philip III Arrhidaeus (323-317 BC), equates 1/3rd mina (= 20 weight-shekels) with 10 staters (tetradrachms) and so confirms 1 tetradrachm = 2 weight-shekels. See also Jones (1986), 35-35 (Attic weight standards), 144-145 (giving the weight of “light manah” as c. 500 g). Tal (2007), 24 gives 1 Babylonian sheqel = c. 8.6 g. Van der Spek (2017), 34 equates 10 Babylonian shekels with 1 Persian karša (83.3 g) = 5 Greek staters, and 6 karša (c. 500 g) = 1 Babylonian mina. Smaller fractions existed and were used to determine the weight of silver, but are beyond the scope of this note. Vargyas (2004), 344-346 (lists 103 occurrences of the staters of Alexander III and the Seleucid kings in the Babylonian cuneiform sources); Vargyas (2010), 185-189. Van der Spek (1998), 246-247, gives later references (after Tal 2007) that refer to the Egyptian evidence. Tal (2007), 22, fn. 11 citing earlier works on the relationship between the Greek stater (tetradrachm) and the Elephantine weight-shekel.

31 32 33 34

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

67

Another interesting aspect of the Raḫimesu archive material is that like other Arsacid temple records, it mentions no payment of rations in kind.35 Instead, it gives the prices of goods and wages in terms of weights of coins: shekels, maḫat and smaller fractions.36 We have, for example, a text from the reign of Mithradates II dated to 10.IX.217 SEB (15 Dec 95 BC) saying that the keeper of the cashboxes of the Esabad temple in Babylon, Marduk-šuma-iddin, received some shekels (exact number is lost) as ŠID-tú šá E.KI (manûtu ša Bābili), according to the currency/counting system of Babylon, while a later record from 30.II.219 SEB (18 Jun 93 BC) reports that the same Marduk-šuma-iddin and his colleague, Marduk-zera-ibni, delivered to the cashbox of the Esangil temple and entrusted to Raḫimesu 18 GÍN KÙ.BABBAR SIG11-ṣa (18 šiqil kaspi maḫāṣu), 18 shekels of beaten/stamped/coined silver.37 These key testimonies strongly indicate that the economy of Arsacid Babylonia had a dual monetary-ponderal basis; that is, the intrinsic value of coins determined their buying power.38 Yet, despite settling a key question as to the overall fiscal policies of the Parthians, this fact raises an equally crucial enquiry involving routine transactions: how were expenditures in small sums of money made, given the high value of silver coins in Babylonia, mostly tetradrachms (= 2 shekels)? Intriguingly, the answer lies in an earlier record from the joint reign of Antiochus I and his eldest son Seleucus (280/79-266 BC). We are told that as the two Seleucid kings were preparing to open The First Syrian Wars (274-271 BC) against the Ptolemies of Egypt in the spring of 274 BC (month and year XII.38 SEB), they removed from Babylon, among other things, so much silver that transactions in that city were conducted with Greek copper coins: MU BI KI.LAM (nadänu) ina E.KI ù URU.MEŠ a-na URUDU zi-i-pi šá KUR ia-man-na iš-šá-am: That year, the “exchange rate”39 in Babylon and the (other) cities was made with copper coins of Ionia (i.e. Seleucid bronze coins).40 This took place despite the fact that the commodity prices throughout that month were given in terms of one shekel of silver which could buy: 1 pān (36 litres) of barley; 2 pān 3 sūt (90 litres) of dates; 3 pān 2 sūt (120 litres) of mustard; 1 sūt 2 qa (8 litres) of cress; 2 sūt 3 qa (15 litres) of sesame; [number lost] minas of wool.41 The solution to this apparent difficulty is rather simple because the exchange rate between silver and bronze currencies had already been established beforehand: 1 tetradrachm = 2 shekels = 4 drachms = 24 obols = 192 chalkoi (1 obol = 8 chalkoi each weighing c. 2 g).42 Briefly speaking, one shekel was tariffed at about 95-100 chalkoi and so when the situation demanded purchases could be made with low value bronze coins even though prices of goods were in high value silver shekel.43 But what about gold whose worth Herodotus (3.95) puts at 13 times that of silver at the time of Darius I the Great? It may have retained its earlier value under the Arsacids also. We are assured that before the Parthians wrested Babylonia from the Seleucids in the early summer of 141 BC,44 Seleucus I and his successors had, with the exception of Molon (222-220 BC) the usurper, Seleucus IV (187-175 BC), and Demetrius II (146-138 BC 1st Reign), all minted gold coins as legal tender.45 Yet there is no mention of gold in an economic context in the (Babylonian cuneiform) tablets from the Seleucid period.46 What has survived as commodity prices in our original Seleucid sources, mainly the Babylonian Astronomical Diaries,47 is, with one exception in bronze alluded to earlier, silver based. Perhaps, irrespective of their value ratio against silver, Seleucid gold coins were special issues not intended for 35 36 37 38

McEwan (1981), 132 Van der Spek (1998), 247. Van der Spek (1998), 214 (Text 4, Obv. 1 and 4), 239-240 (Text 27, Obv. 1 and 9). McEwan (1981), 132; Van der Spek (1998), 247.

39 40

Van der Spek (2016a) 53; Van der Spek (2016b), 139-141; Van der Spek (2017), 34 interpret KI.LAM (nadänu) as “exchange rate”. Sachs and Hunger (1988), 344-347 Diary -273B (Rev. 33 and Upper edge 2).

41 42

See Sachs and Hunger (1988), 34 for the capacity units kur (180 litres), pān (36 litres), sūt (6 litres), and qa (about 1 litre). Sellwood (1980), 9; Jones (1986), 50-51. On the value ratio of obol to chalkous (8 to 1 at Athens) see Julius Pollux (Onomasticon 4.175 and 9.65-81), the 2nd century AD Greek scholar and rhetorician from Naucratis, Egypt, under the Roman Emperor Commodus (177-192 AD). Sellwood (1980), 297-302 (Nos. 92.1-92.34) lists the “Autonomous City Issues” in bronze struck in Seleucia on the Tigris, covering the period c. 125 BC – c. 40 AD. Together with the standard Parthian bronze emissions from that great commercial centre, the civic issues of Seleucia would have served the monetary needs of the local populace of Babylonia regardless of the presence or absence of silver coinages. See also McDowell (1935), 61-200 on Parthian royal coinage and autonomous city issues. Assar (2006), 90-91.

43

44 45

46 47

68

Houghton et al. (2002), 18, 27-28, 32, 35, 40-41, 45, 48, 52, 62-63, 68, 75, 79-80, 87, 99, 107, 110, 481 (Seleucus I); 144, 151, 153, 161 (Antiochus I); 178-181, 183-184, 194-195, 198, 200, 207, 210-212, 215, 219, 227 (Antiochus II); 247, 253, 257-258, 262-266, 274, 279, 283-284, 289 (Seleucus II); 302, 309 (Antiochus Hierax); 333 (Seleucus III); 349 (Achaeus); 378, 386, 394-395, 420, 426, 428, 438-439, 450 (Antiochus III). Houghton et al. (2008), 38 (Antiochus son of Seleucus IV); 63 (Antiochus IV); 134 (Antiochus V Eupator); 149 (Timarchus); 164, 166-168, 183-184, 196, 203 (Demetrius I); 219, 243, 253 (Alexander Balas). McEwan (1981), 132 and 137 (line 4 of Commentary). See the 3 volumes by Sachs and Hunger (1988, 1989, 1996) on the Astronomical Diaries of the Seleucid period.

ordinary trade. Interestingly preserved evidence shows that this was not the case in Arsacid Babylonia because the income of the ḫallatu treasury was not always made entirely in silver. A cuneiform tablet dated to 30.II.219 SEB (18 Jun 93 BC) in the reign of Mithradates II confirms that the reed basket had received as its income on 25.III.154 AE = 218 SEB (26 Jun 94 BC) about 110 grams of gold. This is remarkable on two counts. First, we have here for the first time, a clear reference to gold as part of the income of a Babylonian temple cashbox. Second, because economic texts from Arsacid Babylonia report no commercial businesses that did not involve strictly monetary undertaking, gold must have been once again accepted as a coinage metal under the Parthians! The following translation of the relevant cuneiform text underpins this fascinating aspect of Arsacid fiscal practices and shows that the responsibility for the expenditure of the gifted gold, whether as coins or bullion, had been entrusted to Raḫimesu also:48 1: [1.5 shekels, 2 maḫa]t of gold, wel[coming gif]ts to the tr[easury of Bel?, which the …]s collected and which […] … which entered?; 4: 2.5 maḫat of gold, the welcoming gifts from the bīt-ḫilṣu chapel of Esabad Marduk-šuma-iddin, the baker, son of Nabu-naṣir, and Marduk-zera-ibni, the goldsmith, son of Bel-aba-uṣur collected. 9: 13.5 shekels of gold, which on the 25th day of month III of year 154 (AE), which is year 218 (SEB), was deposited in a linen purse into the reed basket and of which the responsibility of the expenditure was entrusted to Raḫimesu. 14: Total: 15 shekels, 4.5 maḫat of gold for splitting and cleaning and placing in the furnace to (into the custody of) Nabu-mušetiq-uddi, the goldsmith, son of Bel-aḫḫe-iddin, son of Bel-iddin and Bel-uṣuršu, son of Belšumu, the goldsmith, was given. 21: Month II, the 30th day, year 219 (SEB), Arsaces (being) king of kings.

It may be worth mentioning here that of the many hoards either exclusive of or including Parthian issues, both recorded and unreported, none has yielded ingots or offcuts with some indication that the uncoined metal had been earmarked for use as a form of legal tender.49 Although inconclusive, this hiatus lends weight to the notion that gold, silver and bronze mostly changed hands in day-to-day trades throughout the Arsacid empire not as bullion, but as coins with the portraits and titulatures of their issuing authorities. This arrangement would have ensured the standard weight and purity of the coined metal and so made the use of accurate balances in daily transactions redundant. Fortunately, the above evidence on the Parthian monetisation of gold is not unique. Two further texts in the Raḫimesu archive also mention the metal. The first of these is a contract in dialogue from Babylon dated to 28.I.155 AE = 219 SEB (18 May 93 BC). It speaks of an unspecified amount of gold as part of the income of the Akītu temple cashbox for the period 28.I.219 SEB to 27.I.220 SEB (7 May 92 BC).50 The second record has unfortunately lost its year date, but belongs to the same archive on prosopographical grounds. It reports 5.5 shekels and 4 maḫat of gold (c. 47 g) which was given to Nabu-mušetiq-uddi, the same goldsmith as the one in the above text from 18 Jun 93 BC, probably for smelting and purification.51 It may be that the reason for purifying the temple payments in gold in the late 90s BC Arsacid Babylonia — a smelting process with its roots in the Neo-Babylonian period (626-539 BC) — was twofold. First, to ensure the high standard of the coinage metal because coins struck from adulterated gold were in circulation around that time.52 Second, perhaps to restrike the purified gold in the name of King of Kings Mithradates II, the recognised Parthian authority in Babylonia throughout 121-91 BC. Interestingly, despite these contemporary testimonies on the currency of monetised gold under the Parthians, there is an old wives’ tale about why the Arsacid rulers never minted gold coins. This is included in a book by the above-mentioned E‛temād al-Salṭana on the history of Parthia. It relates that because of a peculiar arrangement, the Romans had forbidden the Arsacids and other nations from minting gold coins!53 Identifying the source of this unattested curb as Aelius 48 49 50 51 52 53

McEwan (1981), 136-138 (Text AB 245); Van der Spek (1998), 239 (Text 26). See, for example, Thompson et al. (1973), Nos. 1737, 1739, 1742, 1744, 1745, 1747, 1779, 1781, 1783-1788, 1798, 1804, 1806, 1807, 1809-1811, 1813-1818. Van der Spek (1998), 235-237 (Text 24, Obv. 5). Van der Spek (1998), 245 (Text 35, Obv. 1). The goldsmith, Nabu-mušetiq-uddi, in this text also appears in the earlier record from 18 Jun 93 BC. McEwan (1981), 131-132. See Appendix II for a debased gold dinar of Sinatruces. See also Houghton et al. (2008), 164 (No. 1623) on an emergency issue of the Seleucid king Demetrius I, struck from pale gold, either natural electrum or probably a gold-silver alloy. Ahmadi (1992), 150-151. Pirnya (1937/8), 2674-2675 also repeats this unfounded claim that the Romans had barred the Arsacids from minting gold coins! A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

69

Lampridius54 a pseudo Roman historian and one of the alleged six contributors to the Historia Augusta (probably drafted in late 4th or early 5th century AD), E‛temād al-Salṭana notes that the Roman emperor Severus Alexander (222-235 AD) falsely boasted of having defeated the Sasanian king Ardashīr I (224-242 AD) during his 231-233 AD campaigns in the East. The Qājār statesman then professes that upon triumphantly entering Rome in a chariot drawn by four elephants abreast, Severus averred that he had seized in battle with the Persians 300 elephants. Of these the Roman emperor claimed, only the four pulling his quadriga had survived the ordeal, the rest having perished on the march from the battlefield to Rome. E‛temād al-Salṭana then cites a celebratory gold medallion struck for Severus in Rome, showing the emperor in a chariot drawn by four horses, not elephants! The scene on this commemorative pendant, according to the Qājār Court Interpreter, unmasks Severus’ lies that he had defeated the Persians and captured their war elephants. Instead, it proves that the Sasanian king had vanquished the Romans.55 This Persian victory, asserts E‛temād al-Salṭana, impelled Ardashīr to renounce the earlier arrangement and issue a gold currency to affirm his absolute power because Rome had not granted to its allies and tributaries the right to strike gold coins. Minting in gold had been, up to that moment in time, the prerogative of Roman emperors who had placed on their aurei and other gold denominations their own images. They had also barred Roman merchants from accepting the gold currencies of other nations, thus restricting their transactions with non-Romans to silver coins only. E‛temād al-Salṭana finishes his anecdote by saying that like other allies and partners of Rome, the Parthians were mindful of Roman sensitivities and so chose not to mint gold issues! However, as related above the Sasanians flouted this agreement by minting in gold even though Sasanian gold coins were not intended to satisfy the routine monetary needs of the populace. They were issued on a small scale simply to defy Rome and proclaim Persian power and prestige. Hence their extreme rarity. It is true that Lampridius (Severus 55.2 and 56.3) refers in Historia Augusta to 700 elephants in Ardashīr’s army, but the pseudo-Roman historian nowhere reports that of those beasts Severus took captive three hundred. In fact, Lampridius gives the number of captured elephants as 30 with 200 slain on the field of battle and 18 led in triumph. But he indirectly shows (Severus 57.4) that Severus did not enter Rome in a chariot at all, saying that as the Roman emperor and his entourage headed for the Palace on foot, four elephants drew his triumphal chariot behind him. In any case, there are clear discrepancies between the two accounts of Lampridius and E‛temād al-Salṭana. This leads me to believe that the latter version is a modern construct concocted to rule out Parthian gold coins. There is nothing in Lampridius’ narrative nor in other Latin and Greek sources on Rome’s interference in Parthian monetary practices. Yet E‛temād al-Salṭana’s florid tale has, for around 125 years, led many Iranian students of Parthian history and numismatics into believing that it was Rome that prevented the Parthians from minting gold issues. Fortunately, however, about a decade before the controversy over the authenticity of the aurei of Vonones I began to gather momentum in the early 1990s, genuine Parthian gold coins had already come to light during the Soviet-Afghan archaeological excavations in 1978-79 at the Tillya-tepe necropolis in northern Afghanistan.56 The Sixth Tomb at that site had preserved the skeletal remains of a woman of high social standing (probably a princess) between 25 and 30 years of age. The excavation report asserts that: Discovered amidst the thousands of gold spangles on her bosom was the gold figurine of a winged goddess that has conveniently been dubbed the Bactrian Aphrodite. Beneath her neck was a pair of massive clasps depicting an amorous scene from the Dionysian cult cycle. It is possible that her arms lay above the shroud. Her right arm held a golden sceptre, while her left fist grasped a gold Parthian coin. One more Parthian coin, this one of silver, was found in her mouth quite in keeping with the Greek ritual of internment, as the coin was intended to symbolize the fee to Charon for ferrying the dead person across the (Rivers) Styx (and Acheron) to Hades (the god of the deceased and the master of the underworld).57 As it turned out, this gold coin was a S33 type dinar of the Arsacid king Sinatruces (93/2-70/69 BC, intermittently) from an east-Parthian mint.58 Thought at the time to be unique, this authentic Parthian gold coin had a diameter of 18 mm and weighed 3.35 grams. However, given that the densities of gold, silver, and copper are respectively 19.32, 10.50 and 8.96 grams 54

55 56 57 58

70

Having consulted the chapter on Severus in Historia Augusta, Vol. II, Loeb Classical Library edition, translated by David Magie (1924), 178-313, especially sections LV, LVI, and LVII on the wars between Severus and Ardashīr, I found nothing to confirm the claim by E‛temād al-Salṭana. Perhaps the reference to Lampridius is an error. Should the readers be aware of the correct source or sources, I would be grateful if they could alert me to it/them. Herodian (6.3.1-6.7.3), too, gives a rather detailed account of the campaigns of Severus against Ardashīr, but adds that these led to the defeat and destruction of the Roman army in Parthia (Persia?), and great losses in another Roman army that had overrun Media. Sarianidi (1985), 47. Sarianidi (1985), 47 and 52. Sarianidi (1985), 52-53, 258, and Ill.128 (does not identify the issuer of the gold coin); Loginov et al. (1996), 51 (note 17); Senior (2000a), 105-106; Senior (2000b), 145 (no. 194.3D).

per cubic centimetre, the coin’s comparatively low weight suggests that it may be a fourrée, probably with a copper core. But without knowing its volume or the metallurgical analysis of its interior, it would be impossible to prove that this is simply a gold-plated dinar (see Appendix II). It could have been struck from a low gold-content alloy or even from electrum, a naturally occurring gold-silver mixture. In any case, a second specimen of this Parthian issue (S33) in base gold later surfaced in Hamburg (Germany). Given that the first of these two Arsacid gold coins had been ritualistically placed in the hand of a deceased princess, we can be confident that the two pieces belonged to a regular gold issue in circulation at the time of her death. Even if one or both S33 gold dinars are later proven to be fourrée, it is quite likely that they were intended to imitate an official gold currency of a Parthian king or administration in northern Bactria. Otherwise, the forger(s) would not have risked counterfeiting gold replicas of a contemporary silver (or bronze) output, knowing well that it would trigger the suspicion of their local tax-collectors and/or governmental authorities. Put differently, if the existing monetary system at the time had not supported an official gold coinage, forging gold coins in high- or low-quality gold or even as plated pieces would have been fraught with danger. It would, therefore, have made little sense. Unless, of course, conspicuous gold counterfeits mingling with regular silver and bronze currencies could be mistaken for genuine gold coins already in circulation and accepted in ordinary day-to-day transactions, thus clearing the way for forged replicas also to pass unnoticed.

The Gold Dinar and Silver Drachm of Mithradates III (87‑80 BC) As the oldest or probably the second oldest59 Parthian gold dinar, this hitherto unique and outstanding coin (Plate I) originally entered the collection of Mr. Mehdi Azizbeglou in the mid-1950s.60 However, it was not until some years later that David Sellwood found the opportunity to inspect it thoroughly and approve its authenticity. He argued that this coin had once been set in an ornate bezel and probably used as a pendent along with some heavy pieces of jewellery (see below). Also, unlike most Parthian fakes, the S31 gold dinar was struck, not a cast nor a pressure-cast copy.61 Sellwood then pointed out that even though he did not have the elemental makeup of the coin’s alloy to ensure it was not modern, its weight of 8.38 grams (Table 1) agreed with the average weight c. 8.35 grams of some late 6th – late 4th century BC Achaemenid gold Darics.62 He finally detailed the iconographical, epigraphical and palaeographical harmony between the gold and silver issues of Mithradates III from Rhagae (S31.6 drachms), stressing that these lent weight to the authenticity of the gold dinar. Some years later and following Sellwood’s initial studies, the coin was sent to the International Association of Professional Numismatists (IAPN in Geneva, Switzerland) for further investigations. This happened before the alloy of the S31 dinar was assayed at Oxford and the metallurgical results were made available (see below). The S31.6 silver drachm from Rhagae that shares its dies with the gold dinar (Plate I)63 recently came to my attention while inspecting a hoard of around 2000 Parthian drachms. Emanating mostly from Rhagae,64 the coins in this historically and numismatically important group, including many examples sharing one or both dies, cover the reigns of Mithradates II through to Arsaces XVI (75-62 BC) with a handful of examples from the earlier reigns (e.g. Phraates II). There can now be no doubt about the age and originality of the dies with which both the S31 gold dinar 59

60

61 62 63 64

Sinatruces reigned intermittently during 93/2-70/69 BC while Mithradates III was on the throne throughout the period 87-80 BC. Because the two known gold dinars of Sinatruces are undated, they could have been minted either shortly prior to 80 BC, the terminal regnal year of Mithradates III, or afterwards in the period 79-69 BC, hence the possibility that the dinar of Mithradates III could be the earliest extant Parthian gold coin. See Assar (2006/7), 55-62 and 69-75 for a brief discussion of the reigns of Sinatruces and Mithradates III. Azizbegloue was among the earliest groups of Iranian students sent under Reza Shah Pahlavi to Germany to study engineering. He returned as a railway engineer and later became an avid collector of Iranian coins. He often corresponded with David Sellwood who acknowledged his assistance in the Foreword to the first edition of his An Introduction to the Coinage of Parthia (1971). Clear stress (or striation) marks, caused by lateral metal flow during striking are discernible in the right field of the reverse near the edge of the coin as well as at the end of the top horizontal line of inscription (see the main text below for further discussions). Regling (1915), 94-106 gives the normal and average weights of Darics as 8.40 and 8.354 grams respectively; Hill (1922), cxxi (follows Regling); Bivar (1985), 617-624; Carradice (1987), 76-77. Adhered to both the obverse and reverse surfaces of this drachm are several spots of residual copper compounds and reduced metallic copper the original deposits left behind after cleaning. In the case of Mithradates III, for example, the ratio of his Rhagae to Ecbatana drachms was over 50/1, a rather strong indication that perhaps the Ecbatana mint was not functioning to its full capacity because of the ongoing internal feud and external hostilities (see the main text for further comments). A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

71

and silver drachm of Mithradates III were struck probably around 85 BC (see below). As for the two examples sharing a pair of common obverse and reverse dies, it may be worth admitting here, for the sake of clarity, the use of single dies and die-pairs in coining different metals in antiquity. Relevant to our case are the Achaemenid gold Darics and silver sigloi for which die-links between the two series have been observed.65 We then have several outputs from the Seleucid epoch where dies intended for striking silver were used to mint gold also (and occasionally vice versa). Chief among these are several special emissions in the names of Antiochus II (261-246 BC), Seleucus II (246-225 BC),66 Seleucus III (225-222 BC), Antiochus III (222-187 BC), Antiochus V Eupator (164-162 BC), probably the usurper Timarchus (164-161 BC), Demetrius I (162-150 BC) and Alexander Balas (150-145 BC).67 Moreover, Types S2, S3, S4, and S5 drachm obverse dies of Arsaces I (247-211 BC)68 and the majority of the S6 dies of Arsaces II (211-185 BC) are now known to have been used in striking parallel bronze issues also. The obverses of our complementary S31 gold and silver outputs depict the medium-bearded bust of Mithradates III left, wearing both a diadem-bound tiara decorated with an eight-pointed central star and a multi-turn pellet-ended neck-torque. The reverses display the ubiquitous archer of the majority of Parthian silver emissions enthroned right, holding a bow in his outstretched right hand. Around him and in a square format is a 7-line inscription noting the imperial titulature of Mithradates III: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΜΕΓΑΛΟΥ ΑΡΣΑΚΟΥ ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑΤΟΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΟΠΑΤΟΡΟΣ ΕΠΙΦΑΝΟΥΣ ΦΙΛΕΛΛΗΝΟΣ, (the coin of the) Great King Arsaces, the Autocrat, Father-Loving, Beneficent, (and) Philhellene. As an interesting feature of these Parthian gold and silver outputs, we find small protrusions at several points on their obverse portraits; these can be detected at the righthand side of the tiara’s earflap, on the end of the penultimate turn of the neck-torque and on the pendent ends of the tiara at the nape of the king’s neck.69 Triggered by minute blow-holes just beneath the engraved surfaces into which the repeated pressure of the coined metal produces cavities, these small bulges are symptomatic of what is termed in mint practices as die breakage. Perhaps, together with later disfiguring flaws, the appearance of these undesired defects rendered the blemished die unusable rather quickly and before it reached its final disintegration stage. Hence the rarity of coins struck from this particular obverse die. It would be difficult to offer a definitive answer to the question of which one of the two metals, gold or silver, induced these tiny breaks onto the surface of this particular obverse die. When annealed, gold and silver have almost similar Mohs and Brinell hardness numbers of 2.5 and 250-270 MPa (mega-pascal) respectively.70 This means that either of the two metals could have transferred on to the surface of the obverse die sufficient pressure from the hammer blows to cause the weak points of the design above the blow-holes to collapse. In any case, it is impossible to ascertain from the present die flaws whether the S31 gold dinar or the silver drachm is anterior. This is because apart from a slight change in the convexity of the reverse die (see below), the surfaces of their common die-pair show no further deterioration in the interval between the two strikings. Nor can we see on either of the two coins any appreciable deformation of their design details. Perhaps the S31 gold dinar and silver drachm were minted no more than a day or two apart. Citing the presence of ancient brockages,71 Sellwood concluded that the fact that such a phenomenon can occur at all in hand-striking 65 66 67

68 69 70 71

72

Tuplin (2014), 131. See Assar (2007), 49-53 for the revised terminal dates Dec 225 BC and spring 222 BC of the reigns of Seleucus II and Seleucus III respectively. Houghton et al. (2002), 227 (No. 640 gold octadrachm struck from tetradrachm dies), 253 (No. 678.6 gold stater struck from a drachm reverse die), 283-284 (Nos. 809.2-810 gold staters sharing a common obverse die with silver drachms), 333 (No. 920 gold octadrachm struck from tetradrachm dies), 394 (No. 1037 gold octadrachm struck from a tetradrachm obverse die), 394-395 (No. 1038 gold octadrachm sharing its obverse die with tetradrachms), 428 (No. 1126 gold octadrachm sharing its obverse die with tetradrachms), 438 (No. 1156 gold octadrachm struck from tetradrachm dies), 438-439 (No. 1157 gold octadrachm struck from a tetradrachm obverse die); Houghton et al. (2008), 134 (No. 1574 gold octadrachm, sharing one or both dies with silver tetradrachms), 149 (gold stater, probably struck from a used drachm obverse die), 166 (No. 1627 emergency gold stater struck from drachm dies), 166-167 (No. 1628 gold octadrachm sharing its worn obverse die with a silver tetradrachm), 184 (No. 1685 gold octadrachm struck from a worn tetradrachm obverse die), 196 (Nos. 1724 and 1725.1 gold staters struck from drachm dies), 253 (No. 1869 gold stater struck from a well-used drachm obverse die). A unique S5 bronze of Arsaces I is in my collection. See Sellwood (1963), 226-228 for similar problems during his experiments with minting coins in antiquity. Perry (1985), 23.50 (Table 23.19), giving HB numbers 25 and 27 kg/mm2 (250-270 MPa) for 99.95% annealed gold and silver respectively. See also Benenson et al. (2002), 240 quoting HB = 206 and 189 MPa for annealed silver and cast gold respectively. As what may be termed a mint error, a brockage is produced when an already struck coin adheres to an upper die with which another blank is struck, thus impressing upon the latter the mirror image of the obverse of the stuck piece. See Grierson (1975), 193; Jones (1986), 42. See Goddard (1993), 86, (Plate 1), Nos. 1-17 for some Roman brockages.

means that production must have been at the rate of one coin every second or so; if a longer interval elapsed, the fact that the last coin was still adhering to the upper die could have been noticed quickly enough to halt operations.72 This entails a production rate of about 2000-3000 coins per hour. If we agree with Sellwood that a reverse die could yield around 4000 coins in cold striking and roughly double this figure in hot striking,73 the S31 gold dinar and silver drachm could have been minted about 2-3 hours apart in a single day, provided that the corresponding die-pair was not set aside for future use after striking the first of these two coins (see below for making the dinar an earlier output).

Reasons for Condemning the Gold Dinar of Mithradates III as a Counterfeit Copy Following Sellwood’s confirmation of the authenticity of this Parthian gold coin, it was decided to run a metallurgical test on its alloy and then submit the analytical results and the dinar itself to the IAPN for further investigations. As it happened, a very brief report on the elemental composition of the coin was made available on 10 April 2008,74 almost six years after a member of the IAPN had summed up his studies in a written statement on 21 October 2002,75 condemning the gold dinar as a modern forgery! I have given in Appendix III the original German text of that report with its tentative English translation presented below: Arsacid King, Orodes I (ca. 90-77 BC), Gold Stater, Ecbatana, Sellwood 31.6 (variety),76 8.38 gr., Ex Azizbeglu Collection (?) A preliminary investigation of the coin yielded no clues to suspect it as a forgery. Neither the bust on the obverse nor the enthroned seated figure and inscription on the reverse show anything remarkably anomalous. The styles of the representation of the figure and of the inscription resemble those of the known drachms in the series. In addition, contrary to most previous Parthian forgeries which are cast copies, the coin in question is well struck. However, because no genuine Parthian gold coin has so far come to light, it was necessary to conduct a thorough investigation of the present coin. As this went on, some obvious signs began to emerge, including that the dies with which this coin was minted had been manufactured from an already existing coin (presumably a drachm). It is well known that beginning with the late 2nd century BC, nearly all Parthian coins are characterised by a mis-alignment of the obverse and reverse dies on the coin flan, leading to the respective designs being slightly off-centre. Often the reverse inscription is only partially legible because the mis-aligned die has prevented it from being fully struck up. More importantly, the border of dots or reel-and-pellet border around the obverse portrait is incomplete; it does not follow the curvature of the coin-flan and ends in two points at its edges. At the first sight, this also seems to be the case with the present gold coin. But closer examinations revealed that the border of dots around the obverse bust on this coin was interrupted abruptly at 11 o’clock, not at the edge, but still in the middle of the flan where the dots are most sharply struck. A microscopic investigation of the suspect part produced no signs of the gradual and continuous weakening of the dots at this point as expected to happen with wear or caused by weak striking. Apparently, the border of dots on the die used to mint this coin was already incomplete. In my opinion, this allows us ultimately to conclude that the present coin was produced using a die that had been cast-copied from a similar (silver) coin with a poorly centred design. What concerns this coin is that although it has been made by an expert hand, it is a forgery. Consequently, we still know no real Parthian gold coin.

The (delayed) brief report on the elemental composition of the alloy of the gold dinar reads as follows: The Parthian gold coin is not like the fakes I looked at in the 1990s which were highly refined gold: this one contains about 3% silver, but little if any copper ( 24.41% (0.00% Au)

Table 2: Compositions of various gold alloys of S33 dinar of Sinatruces

ASSUMING THE S33 DINAR IS GOLD PLATED WITH A COPPER CORE

The above brief assessment of the alloy of S33 dinar revealed that depending on the thickness (and consequently the volume) of the coin, its alloy could contain high levels of copper (as high as 91% with t1 = 1.50 mm and Ag = 3%). These high quantities of copper could be present either as one of the three main components of the alloy, or form the core of a coin plated with a thin layer of some gold-silver alloy. Unfortunately, because we do not have the results of an accurate metallurgical analysis of the S33 dinar of Sinatruces, we cannot ascertain whether or not this coin is a fourrée example of a regular gold issue. However assuming that this is indeed a gilded specimen and not a solid gold coin, using simple mathematics we could again explore several possibilities involving different coin thicknesses, t1 = 1, 1.25, and 1.50 mm, in combination with three Ag contents 3, 10 and 35%, to determine the thicknesses of the gold

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

101

layer for each case. To do this I shall assume that the coin itself as well as its gold layer and copper core each have a fixed thickness (Fig. 3). This enables me to derive the following equations to relate the thickness of the copper core and gold layer (W = weight, V = volume):

Expanding first and then rearranging gives:

Because we have:

and:

Substituting these in the above and simplifying gives the following cubic equation:

This may be further simplified by taking:

so that:

102

The relevant root t2 ≤ t1 of this equation can be obtained from the following solution:147

and finally:

We may now compute the thickness of the copper core for t1 = 1 mm assuming, as before, that the S33 gold dinar has 3% silver, and keeping in mind that a1 = 9 mm, b1 = 8.5 mm, Wcoin = 3.35 g, Vcoin = 0.2403 cm3 and SGcoin = 13.94 (see above). Because we already know the specific gravities of the coin and copper (8.96), all we need to do is to estimate the specific gravity of the gold layer. For this we require both the weight and volume of Au and Ag in the coin, assuming that silver is present solely in gold as impurity or deliberate addition. For the case of 3% silver (0.1005 g in Wcoin = 3.35 g), we have already worked out the weight and volume of gold: WAu = 2.206 g, VAu = 0.1142 cm3. This means that the total weight and volume of the gold layer are: WAu-Ag = 2.206 + 0.1005 = 2.3065 g, VAu-Ag = 0.1142 + 0.0096 = 0.1238 cm3, and so its specific gravity would be: 2.3065 ÷ 0.1238 = 18.64, i.e., SGAu layer in the above derived equations. At this point we can also work out the percentages of gold and silver in the layer around the copper core: Au ≈ 95.6% (100 × 2.206 ÷ 2.3065) and Ag ≈ 4.4% (= 3% of the coin’s weight). We can now compute the three coefficients of the cubic equation in t2 (thickness of the gold layer): α2 = 3.3, α1 = 2.72, α0 = – 0.1486, and so P = – 0.91, Q = 0.4784, and W = 0.74327 as well as W = 0.40816, both giving t2 = 0.0513 cm (or 0.514 mm) as the thickness of the copper core. This means that the thickness of the gold layer will be (1 – 0.513) ÷ 2 ≈ 0.243 mm. In other words, with an overall thickness of 1 mm, the S33 dinar of Sinatruces could be a plated coin with a copper core and a rich gold layer (95% Au + 4.4% Ag), respectively about 0.50 and 0.25 millimetre thick.

147 For details see, e.g., http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CubicFormula.html#eqn19 A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

103

b2 a2

t1

Solid Coin

b2 a2

t1

t2

Copper Core

Gold Layer t1 – t2 2 Figure 3: Schematic representation of the S33 gold dinar as both a solid and a plated coin

Having repeated the above computations for Ag = 10 and 35% in the gold layer (with t1 = 1 mm) as well as for Ag = 3, 10, and 35% in each of the two cases t1 = 1.25 and 1.50 mm, I summarised the results below (Table 3). These show that for the coin thickness t1 = 1 and %Ag in coin = 3 and 10, as well as for t1 = 1.25 mm and %Ag in coin = 35, the S33 dinar can be a fourrée copy of an official gold output. This is because both the gold layer and copper core thicknesses are around 0.25 mm or more making the former less likely to peel off or wear away rather quickly in circulation. Nevertheless, I do not know whether or not the counterfeiters could have manufactured thinner leaves perhaps by hammering sheets of gold or beating thin Au foils sandwiched between layers of leather. If the S33 dinar of Sinatruces is indeed a plated coin, the forgers would have probably aimed to use as little gold as possible to make the endeavour more profitable. This underpins the importance of the metallurgical analysis of the coin. As for the gold layer thicknesses of around 0.1 mm, I think countermarking might have damaged the coating and exposed the copper core to attacks from soil chemicals. In any case, unless we have the accurate weight, volume and elemental composition of this genuine Parthian dinar, it will be difficult to decide whether it was struck from a rich or debased gold alloy or forged by striking a planchet with a copper core coated with a thin layer of gold. Nonetheless, the foregoing computations provide a better insight into the composition of the gold alloy whether as the only constituent of the coin’s material or as a thin layer covering a copper core. In other words, in the absence of such physical properties as the coin’s volume, specific gravity and material of its interior, we can mathematically work out the composition of the gold alloy for a range of coin thicknesses that covers the actual value.

104

Coin

Gold Layer

Copper Core

Thickness (mm)

Volume (cm3)

Specific Gravity

%Ag

Weight (g)

Specific Gravity

Au (%)

Ag (%)

Thickness (mm)

Thickness (mm)

1.00

0.2403

13.94

3

2.305

18.64

95.64

4.36

0.243

0.514

1.00

0.2403

13.94

10

2.475

17.35

86.46

13.54

0.283

0.434

1.00

0.2403

13.94

35

3.083

14.64

61.97

38.03

0.431

0.137

1.25

0.3004

11.15

3

1.301

18.14

92.27

7.73

0.134

0.982

1.25

0.3004

11.15

10

1.471

16.22

77.23

22.77

0.171

0.908

1.25

0.3004

11.15

35

2.079

13.11

43.61

56.39

0.308

0.634

1.50

0.3605

9.29

3

0.297

15.04

66.13

33.87

0.035

1.429

1.50

0.3605

9.29

10

0.467

12.06

28.27

71.73

0.070

1.360

1.50

0.3605

9.29

24.41*

0.818

9.29

0.00

100

0.142

1.215

* No Au-Ag-Cu ternary alloy with SG = 9.292714 can have Ag > 24.41% (0.00% Au)

Table 3: Different compositions of the gold layer of plated S33 dinar of Sinatruces

Appendix III: The Original Report Condemning the Gold Dinar as a Modern Forgery Vorgelecte Münze: REICH DER ARSAKIDEN, Orodes I. ca. 90-77 v. Chr. Goldstater, Ekbatana. Zu Sellwood 31,6. 8,38 g. Ex Slg. Azizbeglu (?) Eine oberflächliche Untersuchung der Münze ergab keinerlei Anhaltspunkte für den Verdacht einer Fälschung. Weder die Büste auf der Vorderseite noch die thronende Gestalt und die Legende auf der Rückseite weisen irgendwelche auffälligen Anomalien auf. Der Stil der figürlichen Darstellungen und der Schriftduktus gleicht dem von entsprechenden Drachmen der Serie. Außerdem ist das Stück im Gegensatz zu den meisten älteren Fälschungen parthischer Münzen nicht gegossen sondern geprägt. Aber die Tatsache, dass sich bislang keine einzige echte Goldmünze der Arsakiden gefunden hat, ließ eine besonders gründliche Untersuchung angezeigt erscheinen. Bei dieser wurden dann freilich Anzeichen dafür offenbar, dass die Stempel, mit denen das vorliegende Goldstück geprägt worden ist, von einer bereits existierenden Münze (mutmaßlich einer Drachme) abgenommen worden sind. Nahezu die gesamte arsakidische Münzproduktion seit dem späten zweiten Jahrhundert v. Chr. zeichnet sich bekanntlich durch eine mangelhafte Zentrierung der Stempel auf den jeweiligen Schrötlingen aus. Häufig sind nur Teile der Legende auf der Rückseite lesbar, weil die fehlenden Zeilen wegen fehlerhafter Zentrierung keinen Platz mehr auf dem Schrötling gefunden haben. Und beinahe noch häufiger kommt es zu einer Unterbrechung der Perloder Girlandenumrandung des Bildnisses auf der Vorderseite, weil dieselbe nicht entsprechend der Rundung des Schrötlings verläuft und mithin an zwei Stellen über dessen Rand hinausgeht. Auf den ersten Blick hin scheint so etwas auch bei der vorliegenden Goldmünze der Fall zu sein. Aber bei genauerer Betrachtung zeigt es sich, dass der Perlkreis um die Büste auf der Vorderseite bei 11 Uhr nicht etwa vom Rand des Schrötlings unterbrochen wird, sondern noch mitten auf demselben abrupt abbricht, und das ausgerechnet an der Stelle, an welcher dieser Perlkreis am schärfsten ausgeprägt ist. Eine mikroskopische Untersuchung der fraglichen Partie zeitigte keinerlei Hinweis auf irgendwelche schwachen Spuren einer Fortsetzung des Perlkreises an dieser Stelle, A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

105

wie sie bei Abnutzung oder auch bei einer allfälligen Prägeschwäche zu erwarten wären. Der Perlkreis war allem Anschein nach schon auf dem hier verwendeten Prägestempel unvollständig, und das lässt meines Erachtens nur den Schluss zu, dass wir es bei diesem Gepräge mit einem Stempel zu tun haben, der unter Zuhilfenahme einer echten, schlecht zentrierten (Silber)-Münze des vorliegenden Typs im Abgussverfahren hergestellt worden ist. Es handelt sich bei der Münze also um eine – wenn auch von Meisterhand geschaffene – Fälschung! Mithin kennen wir immer noch keine echte arsakidische Goldmünze. Frankfurt, den 21.10.2002

106

(Wilhelm Müseler)

Bibliography: Ahmadi N. (editor, 1992), Dorrar al-Tījān fi Tārīḵ baī Aškān. Authored by Moḥammad-Ḥasan khān E‛temād al-Salṭana (originally published in 3 volumes during 1890-1892). Tehran. ‫ ﺗﺎﻟﯿﻒ ﻣﺤﻤﺪﺣﺴﻦ ﺧﺎن اﻋﺘﻤﺎداﻟﺴﻠﻄﻨﻪ‬،‫ درراﻟﺘﯿﺠﺎن ﻓ� ﺗﺎرﯾﺦ ﺑﻨ� اﺷ�ﺎن‬:‫ ﺗﺎرﯾﺦ اﺷ�ﺎﻧﯿﺎن‬،(١٣٧١) ‫ ﻧﻌﻤﺖ‬،‫اﺣﻤﺪی‬ ‫ ﺗﻬﺮان‬.(‫ ﻫﺠﺮی ﻗﻤﺮی‬١٣١٠ ‫ ﺗﺎ‬١٣٠٨ ‫ ﺟﻠﺪ ﺑﯿﻦ ﺳﺎﻟﻬﺎی‬٣ ‫)ﭼﺎپ اول در‬ Assar G.R.F. (2003), “Parthian Calendars at Babylon and Seleucia on the Tigris”, Iran 41. 171-191. Assar G.R.F. (2004/5), “History and Coinage of Elymais During 150/149-122/121 BC”, Näme-ye Irän-e Bästän. The International Journal of Ancient Iranian Studies 4:2. 27-91. Assar G.R.F. (2006), “A Revised Parthian Chronology of the Period 165-91 BC”, Electrum. Greek and Hellenistic Studies 11. 87-158. Assar G.R.F. (2006/7), “A Revised Parthian Chronology of the Period 91-55 BC”, Parthica. Incontri di Culture nel Mondo Antico 8. 55-104. Assar G.R.F. (2007), “The Inception and Terminal Dates of the Reigns of Seleucus II, Seleucus III and Antiochus III”, Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 3 (septembre). 49-53. Assar G.R.F. (2011), “Iran under the Arsakids, 247 BC – AD 224/227” in B.R. Nelson (ed.), Numismatic Art of Persia. The Sunrise Collection. Part I: Ancient – 650 BC to AD 650. Lancaster, PA. 113-171. Badian E. (1959), “Sulla’s Cilician Command”, Athenaeum. Studi Periodici di Letteratura e Storia dell’ Antichità 37. 279-303. Badian E. (1964), Studies in Greek and Roman History. Oxford. Benenson W., Harris J.W., Stöcker H., Lutz H. (2002), Handbook of Physics. New York. Bickerman E.J. (1966), “The Parthian Ostracon No. 1760 from Nisa”, Bibliotheca Orientalis 23. 15-17. Bivar A.D.H. (1983), “The Political History of Iran under the Arsacids”, in E. Yarshater (ed.), The Cambridge History of Iran. Vol. 3(1): The Seleucids, Parthian and Sasanian Periods. Cambridge. 21-99. Bivar A.D.H. (1985), “Achaemenid Coins, Weights and Measures”, in I. Gershevitch (ed.), The Cambridge History of Iran. Vol. 2: The Median and Achaemenid Periods. Cambridge. 610-639. Carradice I. (1987), “The ‘Regal’ Coinage of the Persian Empire”, in I. Carradice (ed.), Coinage and Administration in the Athenian and Persian Empires. The 9th Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History. Oxford. Civil M., Gelb I.G., Oppenheim A.L., Reiner E. (1977), The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Vol. 10: Letter “M”. Part I. Chicago. Colledge M.A.R. (1967), The Parthians. London. Cope L.H. (1972), “The Complete Analysis of a Gold Aureus by Chemical and Mass Spectrometric Techniques”, in E.T. Hall and D.M. Metcalf (eds.), Methods of Chemical and Metallurgical Investigation of Ancient Coinage. A Symposium Held by the Royal Numismatic Society at Burlington House, London 9-11 December 1970. Royal Numismatic Society Special Publication No. 8. London. 307-323. Corey Brennan T. (1992), “Sulla’s Career in the Nineties: Some Reconsiderations”, Chiron. Mitteilungen der Kommission für Alte Geschichte und Epigraphik des Deutschen Arcxologischen Institut 22. 103-158. Debevoise N.C. (1938), A Political History of Parthia. Chicago, IL. Delamare F. and Montmitonnet P. (1984), “A Mechanical Analysis of Coin Striking: Application to the Study of Byzantine Gold Solidi Minted in Constantinople and Carthage”, Journal of Mechanical Working Technology 10. 253-271. Delamare F. and Montmitonnet P. (1985), “Evolution of Coin Striking Processes: A Mechanical Survey. I. Hammer Striking”, Journal of Mechanical Working Technology 11. 37-62. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

107

Delamare F., Montmitonnet P., Morrisson C. (1988), “A Mechanical Approach to Coin Striking: Application to the Study of Byzantine Gold Solidi”, in W.A. Oddy (ed.), Metallurgy in Numismatics. Vol. 2. Royal Numismatic Society Special Publication No. 19. London. 41-53 and Plate 4. Del Monte G.F. (1997), Testi dalla Babilonia Ellenistica. Volume I: Testi Cronografici. Studi Ellenistici IX. Pisa, Roma. Dobbins K.W. (1974), “Mithradates II and His Successors: A Study of the Parthian Coins 90-70 B.C.”, Antichthon 8. 63-79. Dobbins K.W. (1975), “The Successors of Mithradates II of Parthia”, The Numismatic Chronicle, 7th Series, Vol. 15. 19-45. Dressel H. (1922), “Ein Tetradrachmon des Arsakiden Mithridates III”, Zeitschrift für Numismatik 33. 156-177. Figueira T. (1998), The Power of Money: Coinage and Politics in the Athenian Empire. Philadelphia, PA. Frye R.N. (1983), The History of Ancient Iran. München. Gardner P. (1877), The Parthian Coinage. The International Numismata Orientalia. London. Gardner P. (1913), “Coinage of the Athenian Empire”, The Journal of Hellenic Studies 33. 147-188. Geller M. and Traina G. (2013), “Tigranu, the Crown Prince of Armenia: Evidence from the Babylonian Astronomical Diaries”, Klio 95. 447-454. Ghirshman R. (1958), “Trois monnaies Parthes inédites” in H. Ingholt (ed.), Centennial Publication of the American Numismatic Society. New York. 279-284 and Pl. XVII. Gilter H. (2006), “A Hacksilber and Cut Athenian Tetradrachm Hoard from the Environs of Samaria: Late Fourth Century BCE”, Israel Numismatic Research 1. 5-14. Goddard J.P. (1993), “Roman Brockages: A Preliminary Survey of Their Frequency and Type”, in M.M. Archibald and M.R. Cowell (eds.), Metallurgy in Numismatics. Vol. 3. Royal Numismatic Society Special Publication No. 24. London. 71-86. Grainger J.D. (1999), “Prices in Hellenistic Babylonia”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 42(3). 303-325. Grierson P. (1975), Numismatics. Oxford. Gyselen R. (2004), “New Evidence for Sasanian Numismatics: The Collection of Ahmed Saeedi”, in R. Gyselen (ed.), Contributions à l’histoire et la géographie historique de l’empire sassanide. Res Orientales XVI. Bures-sur-Yvette. 49-140. Hackl J. (2016), “New Additions to the Raḫimesu Archive: Parthian Texts from the British Museum and the World Museum Liverpool”, in K. Kleber and R. Pirngruber (eds.), Silver, Money and Credit. A Tribute to Robartus J. van der Spek on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. Leiden. 87-106. Hansen W. (1996), Phlegon of Tralles’ Book of Marvels. Exeter. Hill G.F. (1922), Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Arabia, Mesopotamia, and Persia (Nabataea, Arabia, Provincia, S. Arabia, Mesopotamia, Babylonia, Assyria, Persia, Alexandrine Empire of the East, Persis, Elymais, Characene). A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum. Vol. 28. London. Houghton A., Lorber C. (2002), Seleucid Coins. A Comprehensive Catalogue (with Metrological Tables by B. Kritt). Part I. Volumes I and II: Seleucus I through Antiochus III. New York, Lancaster, London. Houghton A., Lorber C., Hoover O. (2008), Seleucid Coins. A Comprehensive Catalogue. Part II Volumes I and II: Seleucus IV through Antiochus XIII. New York, Lancaster, London. Hunkin J.W. (1916), “A Note on the Silver Coins of the Jews”, The Numismatic Chronicle and Journal of the Royal Numismatic Society. 4th Series. 251-259. 108

Jacoby F. (1929), Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker. Zweiter Teil: Zeitgeschichte. B: Spezialgeschichten, Autobiographien und Memoiren. Zeittafeln. Berlin. Jacoby F. (1950), Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker. Dritter Teil: Geschichte von Staedten und Voelkern (Horographie und Ethnographie). B: Autoren Ueber Einzelen Staedte (Laender): Nr. 297-607. Leiden. Jacoby F. (1954a), Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker. Dritter Teil: Geschichte von Staedten und Voelkern (Horographie und Ethnographie). b (Supplement): A Commentary on the Ancient Historians of Athen (Nos. 323a – 334). Volume I: Text. Leiden. Jacoby F. (1954b), Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker. Dritter Teil: Geschichte von Staedten und Voelkern (Horographie und Ethnographie). b (Supplement): A Commentary of the Ancient Historians of Athens (Nos. 323a – 334). Volume II: Notes – Addenda – Corrigenda – Index. Leiden. Jenkins G.K., Lewis R.B. (1963), Carthaginian Gold and Electrum Coins. Royal Numismatic Society Special Publication No. 2. London. Jones J.M. (1986), A Dictionary of Ancient Greek Coins. London. Jursa M. (2002), “Florilegium babyloniacum: Neue Texte aus hellenistischer und spätacämenidischer Zeit (Florilegium Babyloniacum: New Texts from the Hellenistic and Late Achaemenid Periods), in: C. Wunsch (ed.), Mining the Archives. Festschrift for Christopher Walker on the Occasion of His 6oth Birthday 4 October 2002. Babylonische Archive 1. Dresden. 107-130. Keaveney A. (1981), “Roman Treaties with Parthia circa 95 – circa 64 B.C.”, The American Journal of Philology 102, No. 2 (Summer). 195-212. Kennedy D.A. (1968), Late-Babylonian Economic Texts. Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum. Part XLIX. London. Kraay C.M. and Moorey P.R.S. (1968), “Two Fifth Century Hoards from the Near East”, Revue Numismatique 10. 181-235 and Pls. XIX-XXVIII. Kraay C.M. (1976), Archaic and Classical Greek Coins. London. Kurke L. (1999), Coins, Bodies, Games, and Gold: The Politics of Meaning in Archaic Greece. Princeton, NJ. Labat R. (1976), Manuel d’épigraphie Akkadienne (Signes, Syllabaire, Idéogrammes). Paris. Le Rider G. (1965), Suse sous les séleucides et les parthes. Les trouvailles monétaires et l’hisroire de la ville. Mémoires de la mission archéologique en Iran. Tome XXXVIII. Mission de Susiane sous la direction de MM. R. Ghirshman et G. Salles. Paris. Lewis Th. (1728), The History of the Parthian Empire from the Foundation of the Monarchy by Arsaces to its Final Overthrow by Artaxerxes the Persian. Contained in a Succession of Twenty-nine Kings. Compiled from the Greek and Latin Historians and Other Writers, and the Chronology Settled. London. Lindsay J. (1852), A View of the History and Coinage of the Parthians with Descriptive Catalogues and Tables. Illustrated with a Complete Set of Engravings of Coins, a Large Number of Them Unpublished. Cork. Loginov S.D., Nikitin A.B. (1996/published 1998), “Parthian Coins from Margiana: Numismatics and History”, Bulletin of the Asia Institute. New Series, Vol. 10 (1996): Studies in Honor of Vladimir Livshits. 39-51. McDowell R.H. (1935), Coins from Seleucia on the Tigris. Michigan. McEwan G.J.P. (1981), “Arsacid Temple Records”, Iraq 43. 131-143. Minns E.H. (1915), “Parchments of the Parthian Period from Avroman in Kurdistan”, The Journal of the Hellenic Studies 35. 22-65.

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

109

Neusner J. (1965), A History of the Jews in Babylonia. I. The Parthian Period. Studia Post-Biblica. Vol. 9 (edited by P.A.H. de Boer). Leiden. Pirnya (Moshīr-al-Dowleh) H. (1937/8), Ancient Iran. A Detailed History of Early Iran with 58 Plates and 1 Map. Vol. 3: The Remainder of Book III, Alexander’s Successors and the Seleucids. Vol. IV: The Parthian Government. Tehran. .‫ ﺑﻘﯿﻪ ﮐﺘﺎب ﺳﻮم‬:‫ ﺟﻠﺪ ﺳﻮم‬.‫ ﻧﻘﺸﻪ‬١ ‫ ﮔﺮاور و‬۵٨ ‫ ﺗﺎرﯾﺦ ﻣﻔﺼﻞ اﯾﺮان ﻗﺪﯾﻢ ﺑﺎ‬.‫ اﯾﺮان ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺎن‬،(١٣١٧) ‫ ﺣﺴﻦ‬،(‫ﭘﯿﺮﻧﯿﺎ )ﻣﺸﯿﺮاﻟﺪوﻟﻪ‬ ‫ ﺗﻬﺮان‬.‫ دوﻟﺖ ﭘﺎرت‬:‫ ﮐﺘﺎب ﭼﻬﺎرم‬.‫ﺟﺎﻧﺸﯿﻨﺎن اﺳ�ﻨﺪر و ﺳﻠﻮﮐﯿﻬﺎ‬ http://www.ketabfarsi.org/ketabkhaneh/ketabkhani_2/ketab2003/ketab2003_8.pdf Perry R.H., Green D., Maloney J.O. (1985), Perry’s Chemical Engineering Handbook. 6th edition. Singapore. Rawlinson G. (1873), The Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy; or the Geography, History, and Antiquities of Parthia. Collected and Illustrated from Ancient and Modern Sources. London. Reden S. von (2010), Money in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge. Regling K. (1915), “Dareikos und Kroiseios”, Klio (Beiträge zur alten Geschichte) 14. 91-112. Robinson E.S.G. (1960), “Some Problems in the Late Fifth Century Coinage of Athens”, The American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 9. 1-15 and Pls. I-II. Ruehl F. (1886), M. Ivniani Ivstini. Epitoma Historiarum Philippicarum Pompei Trogi. Accedvnt Prologi in Pompeivm Trogvm ab Alfredo de Gvtschmid Recensiti. Lipsiae. Sachs A.J. and Hunger H. (1988), Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia. Vol. I: Diaries from 652 B.C. to 262 B.C. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klass Denkschriften, 195. Band. Wien. Sachs A.J. and Hunger H. (1989), Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia. Vol. II: Diaries from 261 B.C. to 165 B.C. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klass Denkschriften, 210. Band. Wien. Sachs A.J. and Hunger H. (1996), Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia. Vol. III: Diaries from 164 B.C. to 61 B.C. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klass Denkschriften, 247. Band. Wien. Samuel A.E. (1972), Greek and Roman Chronology. Calendars and Years in Classical Antiquity. München. Sarianidi V. (1985), The Golden Hoard of Bactria From the Tillya-tepe Excavations in Northern Afghanistan. Translated from the Russian by Arthur Shkarovsky-Raffé. New York. Sellwood D.G. (1962), “The Parthian Coinage of Gotarzes I, Orodes I, and Sinatruces”, The Numismatic Chronicle. 7th Series, Vol. 2. 73-89 and Pls. VII-VIII. Sellwood D.G. (1963), “Some Experiments in Greek Minting Techniques”, Numismatic Chronicle. 7th Series, Vol. 3. 217-231 and Pls. XXIII-XXV. Sellwood D.G. (1965), “Wroth’s Unknown Parthian King”, The Numismatic Chronicle. 7th Series, Vol. 5. 113-135 and Pls. X-XI. Sellwood D.G. (1976), “The Drachms of the Parthian “Dark Age””, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. 2-25. Sellwood D.G. (1980), An Introduction to the Coinage of Parthia. 2nd ed. London. Sellwood D.G. (1983), “Parthian Coins”, in E. Yarshater (ed.), The Cambridge History of Iran. Vol. 3(1): The Seleucids, Parthian and Sasanian Periods. Cambridge. 279-298. Senior R.C. (2000a), A Catalogue of Indo-Scythian Coins. Vol. I: An Analysis of the Coinage. Somerset. Senior R.C. (2000b), A Catalogue of Indo-Scythian Coins. Vol. II: Illustrated Catalogue. Somerset. 110

Sherwin-White A.N. (1977), “Ariobarzanes, Mithridates, and Sulla”, The Classical Quarterly 27. 173-183. Sherwin-White A.N. (1984), Roman Foreign Policies in the East: 168 B.C. to A.D. 1. London. Sherwin-White A.N. (1994), “Lucullus, Pompey and the East”, in J.A. Crook, A. Lintott, and E. Rawson (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History. 2nd Edition. Vol. IX: The Last Age of the Roman Republic, 146-43 B.C. Cambridge. 229-273. Simonetta A.M. (1957a), “An Essay on the So-Called “Indo-Greek” Coinage”, East and West. Quarterly published by Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente 1 (April). 44-66. Simonetta A.M. (1957b), “Notes on the Parthian and Indo-Parthian Issues of the First Century B.C.”, Congres International de Numismatique, Paris 6-11 juillet 1953. Tome Deuxième. Actes. Comité International des Sciences Historiques. Commission Internationale de Numismatique. 111-121. Simonetta A.M. (1966), “Some Remarks on the Arsacid Coinage of the Period 90-57 B.C.”, The Numismatic Chronicle. 7th Series, Vol. 6. 15-40 and Pls. I-II. Simonetta A.M. and Sellwood D.G. (1978), “Again on the Parthian Coinage from Mithradates II to Orodes II”, Quaderni Ticinesi. Numismatica e Antichità Classiche. 7. 95-119 Simonetta A.M. (2001), “A Proposed Revision of the Attributions of the Parthian Coins Struck during the So-called ‘Dark Age’ and its Historical Significance”, East and West. Quarterly published by Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente 51 (Nos. 1-2, June). 69-108. Tal O. (2007), “Coin Denominations and Weight Standards in Fourth-Century BCE Palestine”, Israel Numismatic Research 2. 17-28. Temin P. (2002), “Price Behaviour in Ancient Babylon”, Exploration in Economic History 39. 46-60. Thompson W.E. (1966), “The Function of the Emergency Coinage of the Peloponnesian War”, Mnemosyne (A Journal of Classical Studies), 4th Series, Vol. 19, Fasc. 4. 337-343. Thompson W.E. (1970), “The Golden Nikai and the Coinage of Athens”, The Numismatic Chronicle 10. 1-6. Thompson M., Mørkholm O., Kraay C. (1973), An Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards. American Numismatic Society. New York. Tuplin C. (2014), “The Changing Pattern of Achaemenid Imperial Coinage”, in P. Bernholz and R. Vaubel (eds.), Explaining Monetary and Financial Innovation. Cham, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London. 127-168. https://www.academia.edu/7887267/The_changing_pattern_of_Achaemenid_imperial_coinage Van der Spek R.J. (1998), “Cuneiform Documents on Parthian History” in Wiesehöfer (hg.), Das Partherreich und sein Zeugnisse. The Arsacid Empire: Sources and Documentation. Beiträge des Internationalen Colloquiums, Eutin (27.-30. Juni 1996). Historia. Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte. Revue d’Histoire Ancienne. Journal of Ancient History. Rivista di Storia Antica. Heft 122. Stuttgart. 205-258. Van der Spek R.J. (2000), “The Effect of War on the Prices of Barley and Agricultural Land in Hellenistic Babylonia”, in J. Andreau, P. Briant, and R. Descat (eds.), La guerre dans les économies antiques. Entretiens d’Archéologie et d’Histoire 5. Économie Antique. Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges. Paris. 293-313. Van der Spek R.J. (2006), “How to Measure Prosperity? The Case of Hellenistic Babylon”, in R. Descat (ed.), Approches de l’économie hellénistique. Entretiens d’Archéologie et d’Histoire 7. Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges. Paris. 287-310. Van der Spek R.J. (2014a), “Factor Markets in Hellenistic and Parthian Babylonia (331 BCE – 224 CE)”, Journal of the Social and Economic History of the Orient 57(2). 203-230.

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

111

Van der Spek R.J. (2014b), “The Volatility of Prices of Barley and Dates in Babylon in the Third and Second Centuries BC”, in H.D. Baker and M. Jursa (eds.), Documentary Sources in Ancient Near East and Greco-Roman Economic History. Methodology and Practice. Oxford. 234-259. Van der Spek R.J. (2016/1), “KI.LAM = nadānu in Late Babylonian”, Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires. 53 (No. 28). Van der Spek R.J. (2016/3), “KI.LAM = nadānu, “Exchange Rate”: More Evidence from the Price Lists”, Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires. 139-141 (No. 83). Van der Spek R.J. (2017/1), “Manûtu ša Bäbili: The Babylonian Subdivision of Mina”, Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires. 33-37 (No. 20). Van’t Haaff P.A. (2007), Catalogue of Elymaean Coinage. Ca. 147 B.C. – A.D. 228. Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. Lancaster, PA. Vargyas P. (2004), “Le libéralisme Séleucid et l’essor économique de la Babylon: un rapport de cause à effet?”, in: V. Chankowsky and F. Duyart (eds.), Le roi et l’économie: Autonomies locales et structures royales dans l’économie de l’empire Séleucide. Actes des rencontres du Lille (23 juin 2003) et d’Orléans (29-30 janvier 2004). Topoi. Orient-Occident. Suppl. 6. Lyon. 333-347. Vargyas P. (2010), “Le libéralisme Séleucid et l’essor économique de la Babylon: un rapport de cause à effet?” in: Csabai Z. (2010), From Elephantine to Babylon: Selected Studies of Péter Vargyas on Ancient Near Eastern Economy. Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean Studies. Volume 1. Budapest. 177-190. Watson J.S. (1882), Justin, Cornelius Nepos, and Eutropius. Literally Translated, with Notes and a General Index. London. Weiskopf M. (1981), “The Kuh Dasht Hoard and the Parthian “Dark Age””, The American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 26. 125-152. Wolski J. (1993), L’empire des Arsacides. Acta Iranica. Troisième Série: Textes et Mémoires. Vol. XVIII. Lovanii. Wroth W. (1903), Catalogue of the Coins of Parthia. A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum. Vol. 23. London. Yardley J.C. and Develin R. (1994), Justin. Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, with Introduction and Explanatory Notes. Amrican Philological Association. Classical Resources Series. Atlanta, GA.

112

Some Observations on Parthian Bronze Coinage MOSTAFA FAGHFOURY

It is commonly said and frequently repeated that among various kingdoms and empires, the Parthians were the “forgotten” ones. If there is any truth to this, one may well add to it that the study of Parthian bronze is the most neglected aspect of Parthian research. This is not to ignore the works of McDowell (1935), Le Rider (1965) and Sellwood (1980) over the last 75 years. However despite the works and studies done the Arsacid dynasty, no comprehensive study is available to help scholars, collectors or dealers in this area of ancient studies where the east really meets the west. There may be different reasons for the lack of enthusiasm among scholars and collectors as far as Parthian bronze is concerned: • Lack of available visual reference to various examples and types throughout the Parthian period. • Due to softness of the metal much of the necessary details are or could be missing. • Most of the finds of such numismatically important materials are ignored, melted or destroyed at the source. • Until very recently it was not possible to depict them. (Thanks to digital technology pictorial representations now facilitate the research). Having said this, it should be noted that there are two very important works that clear the road for better understanding the Æ coinage of Parthia. First is the work of Le Rider on his archaeological discoveries in southern Iran in the 60s and the publication that included the descriptions of bronze coins among the many other artifacts found in Susa1. In reviewing the Susian Æ coins found, he came to the conclusion that bronze coins in Susa were issued annually during the reign of each ruler. The second important publication in this regard has been the publication of Sellwood’s first and second editions of An Introduction to the Coinage of Parthia in 1971 and 1980 respectively. In addition to providing a modest “introduction” to the Parthian coinage, it provided a much pointed and needed reference and exposure to bronze types and varieties available to him at the time.2 However, despite these two very valuable sources, not much interest was generated among scholars and collectors of Parthian bronze. In the meantime, many more unknown Æ examples have surfaced since 1980. Instead of grouping bronze coins together in one lot without full descriptive details, now we often see that the image of each Parthian bronze historical importance is fully described. In this short paper, I would like to focus on Parthian bronze coins and highlight some special features relating to them. My observations will be divided into different headings for those readers who may not be fully familiar with the subject-matter.

1 2

Le Rider G. (1965): Suse sous les Séleucides et les Parthes. Les trouvailles monétaires et l’histoire de la ville. Mémoires de la Mission Archéologique en Iran. Tome XXXVIII. Mission de Susiane sous la direction de MM. R. Ghirshman et G. Salles. Paris. See Brindley, James C. (1976): “The Organisation of the Parthian Bronze Coinage”, in Proceedings of the 8th International Congress of Numismatics, New York- Washington September 1973 Cahn, Herbert A. & Le Rider, Georges (editors), Publication No. 4, Paris-Bale, 33-38 A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

113

Parthian Bronze Like many other empires and kingdoms, Parthians struck copper and bronze coins in various cities and areas under their control. They were either issued directly by them or were given rights to local governors/ or kingdoms under their control for civic use and for different purposes. The main purpose of their use was as public local instruments for everyday usage. making it easier to deal with local transactions. Due to the general and common usage and also due to the softness of the metal, most of the surviving example are scarce in quantity and rarely seen as uncirculated pieces. Once the time for each issue had expired, they were melted and replaced with new issues with new reverses. What we observe is that for each silver type, there is usually a corresponding bronze type during the reign of each ruler. Longer the reign of a ruler, more varieties are recorded and found. Another purpose of striking Æ coins was for particular occasions or for propaganda purposes. Parthian must have noticed that coins could mark the occupation of or victory over a region/an important city by issuing local coins either to celebrate or signify their control of the population. For example, there are, unpublished in the Sellwood 1980 edition, a few varieties of bronze coins issued during the reign of Arsaces II (Artabanus I), on them eagles standing with open wings over bull’s head, in effect challenging Seleucid’s hegemony.3

There is a “Victory” bronze coin from the same king with the Nike on reverse.4 Mithradates I’s victory in Ecbatana ends up in production of various bronze type/sub-types5. Another purpose of bronze/copper coins would have been to collect taxes from the local population. When a large number of Æ coins of one denomination is studied, we can notice that its weight varies although it has the same obverse or reverse. This can be shown, for example, by a group of 35 coins of S.28.8 and S.28.10 from Rhagae with 5 Greek lines and a pegasus flying right on their reverse in my collection. The result is as follows; the heaviest in the group is 4.67g (with 2 other ones over 4g). Then there are 6 coins under 3.94 to 3.50g range. From 3.39-3.01g there are 10 coins. Examples within 2.99 to 2.23g make up 14 coins and there are 2 pieces under 2g (one 1.97 and the last one 1.59g). What is noticeable about the group beside the weight difference that exist among them, is that in dimension they are all almost the same (17mm). Based on this simple observation, we may conclude that Parthians either did not care about the weight of copper or bronze or in this case towards the end of the reign of Mithradated II, perhaps in order to cover and pay for expenses of the wars, the treasury may have been forced to issue lighter coins for the same value as they did during the earlier period.

3 4

It is published since by B. Simonetta, “Brevi note di numismatica Partica: Chalkoi di Arsaces II,” SM 144 (Nov 1986), p. 88 See Assar, G.R.F. (2006/7): “An Early Parthian Victory Coin”, Parthica. Incontri di Culture nel Mondo Antico 8. 25-35.

5

See Sellwood (1980), S.12, pp. 39-41

114

Rulers Since the 1980 publication of Sellwood’s Introduction, the names and sequences of Parthian kings and rebels along with their reigns have gone through serious, and in some cases, major changes. Thanks to scholarly works of people like Dr. Assar, we have a much clearer understanding of the history of Parthia today. I am using here the latest published lists of the rulers who have issued coins over from 247 BC to AD 224.6 There seems to be forty four kings or rebels who struck, what we identify to be, Parthian coins. However, as of today, there are some handful rulers that bronze coins for their reign either have not been found or discovered or they did not have any. They are the following: We cannot assign any Æ coins to the reigns of Arsaces IV (170-168 BC) and Phraates I (168-164BC). The short lived rule of Arsaces X (122-121BC) similarly does not have a bronze coin. The son of Mithadates II, (Gortares I 91-87 BC) never had a chance to strike a bronze coin of his own. Most probably during his time, his father’s civic coinage were still in circulation. The challenger to Phraates IV, (Tiradates 29-27 BC) has no Æ coins assigned to him yet. No wonder that Orodes III (AD 6) for his very short reign did not have a bronze coin. By contrast, kings like, Mithadates II (121-91 BC), Phraates III 70-57 BC), Orodes II (55-38 BC), Phraates IV (38-2 BC), Artabanus IV (AD 10-38) and Pacorus (AD 78-120) have more bronze coins with different types and varieties than all other Parthian rulers. Political conflicts and/or economic stability during the long reign of a ruler may provide clues to the question as to why we have more bronze coins for a few rulers, fewer coins for many others and none at all for a handful who were probably not long enough in power to justify striking local civic coinage. A study on Parthian bronze from 2005 concluded that in one database targeted, type 52 of Sellwood (Phraates IV) was the most productive of all individual Æ coins.7

Common Features In almost all cases obverse patterns of bronze coins follow the same pattern of their corresponding silver types. They generally bear the images of rulers facing left; however, in a few example the rulers face right. The exceptions are what Sellwood has identified as types S.12 (Mithadates I), S.23 (Mithradates II), and all bronze Susian coins from S.12.5 to S.26.32. We should not forget that there are some Parthian coins with images of kings facing. It has been suggested that they were special issues for major victories. The very first example of this style is of S.35 of Phraates III that Sellwood attributes it to Darius of Media. Other examples of facing images on obverse coins are S.67 of, Mithradates V (ca. AD 51), S.80.27-8 of, Osroes I (AD 108-128), S.84.136-143 for (AD 147-191) Vologases IV and of S.86 (AD 191-208) Vologases V. There are two examples that the image of the king Mithadates I is missing on the obverse of S.12.26 and S.12.29 from Susa. Instead the head of Tyche appears to right.8 Before turning to the reverse patterns of the bronze coinage, we should also mention very rare dated example of Vologases IV in which the king is on horseback heading left with the Seleucid date 484 (AD 172/173) minted in Seleucia on the Tigris (S.84.154). The many varieties of reverse images make Parthian bronze coins exceptional among ancient Iranian numismatics. The earliest images of “bow in case” and “elephant’s head” for Æ examples of Arsaces I, in my opinion, mark a turning points in this regard for subsequent issues to follow. I will explain this later when mints are discussed.

6 7 8

Assar, G.R.F. (2011): “Iran under the Arsaids, 247 BC - AD 224/227” in Numismatic Art of Persia, The Sunrise Collection, Part I: Ancient- 650 BC to AD 650, Nelson, B.N. (Ed.), CNG Inc., Lancaster PA,113 -171. See Bob Rives’ Parthian Coin Statistical Analysis on Pathia.com. See p.120 S.12.26 (Le Rider 95). A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

115

Two early examples of Arsaces I

There are different images of animals, natural/manufactured objects and of deities which can be found on the back of Parthian bronze pieces. It seems in some cases from the time of Mithradates II (S.24) to the end of Orodes II’s reign (S.48), the repetition of certain images was intentional to signify denominations. This pattern can be demonstrated by using charts comparing images of the identical forms. This observation will be elaborated under the discussion of denominations.

Special Features Like many silver drachmas of Parthian types, there are many similar symbols like stars, crescents and anchors on the obverse sides of bronze types. It seems there are certain common coins that were made for everyday use in different regions of the empire. However there are some special issues that were used for particular purposes like victory symbols either in anticipation of wars or post-occupations of territories as propaganda tools. David Sellwood’s different types for the same ruler depend on the title (s) of the king on the reverse. They vary from one single title or name on the early types up to 8 lines in later coinage. It is difficult to find all the legends in full and legible on the soft metal of bronze coinage. It should be noted that counter-marks on Parthian coins are very rare. However, many kings with long reigns re-struck on their own earlier coins. We also observe an anchor behind the bust of the king Orodes I (S.34.9), the symbol usually associated with coins from Elymais. The rival king must have attempted to remove it from some of the surviving coins.

It should be noted as well that there is a special “dot” on the foreheads of some Parthian kings that is commonly known as “Royal Wart”. It appears from the reign of Orodes II (S.47) on his tetradrachms but not all his drachms and not on any of the bronze examples of the same type. However, S.48 of the same king bears the wart on almost all subtypes. Phraates IV has warts on his Sellwood types 50, 51, 52, 53 and 54. We notice also that the wart appears on types S.57 and 58 of Phraataces only on his tetradrachms and not on any other denominations for him. Coins of Vardanes I (S.64) has warts whereas coins of Gotarzes II (his tetras) do not, although some of his drachmas and Æ units do have the pellet over the brow. The issuer of type 67 of Sellwood shows the wart over the ruler’s left eye. Vardanes II (S.69) on his tetradracms has the wart, but on his drachms and bronze units the wart is lacking. The case 116

is reversed when it comes to Sellwood type 70. The tetradrachms do not have warts but examples from Ecbatana silver or bronze have them. All drachms of Ecbatana of Sellwood type 71 show warts. This is the last type for which we see warts on Parthian coins. Sellwood states the “presence of a wart …assumed for later princes a sort of a guarantee of authentic Arsacid blood” (1980, p.132). Whatever the reason, it seems noteworthy that the presence of the pellet over the eyes of the kings for a certain period of the Parthian numismatic could not have been accidental.

Mints Parthian coinage starts modestly with the reign of Arsaces around 247 BC in Mithradatkart-Nisa with the image the king on the obverse and his name in Greek on the reverse. Close to 500 years later one of the mightiest empires of ancient times, ends up only issuing coins in the city of Ecbatana in the face of a new challenger from Persis.9 What happens to Parthian numismatic history in the meantime can be seen in an examination of where they struck their coins. Mints do attest to victories and falls of different rulers. Similarly we can understand the presence or absence of a king by comparing mint marks or styles of coins with classical literature for the same period. In the following section, I would like to observe the very limited mints of Parthians compared to the very numerous mints of the of Sasanian period. This contrast with the Sassanian mints can be seen on the map reproduced in this volume.10 MITHRADATKART-NISA

The citadel near Nisa was the birthplace of the Parthian coinage. It is situated in modern Turkmenistan, about 18 km to the west from its capital Ashgabat. The archeologists maintain that the area consists of two distinct parts: New Nisa and Old Nisa. New Nisa flourished from at least the Parthian period to the Middle Ages, while Old Nisa perhaps was a ceremonial center for the rulers of the Arsacid dynasty. It is almost certain that the early Parthian kings could not have issued coins other than in the area near Nisa. It is not clear however from Sellwood (1980) why he attributed his type 6 to Rhagae-Arsacia followed by a question mark. He must have known that Rhagae did not fall into the control of the Parthians until the middle of Mithradates I’s rule. At any rate, following Dr. Assar’s attributions and discovery of new coins for Arsaces II (Artabanus I) they are assigned to this mint. Sellwood did not attribute any coins to king Phripatus, ca 185-170 BC, but it is very unlikely that a king would rule for about 15 years without issuing any coins. Assar attributes bronze coins of S.8 to the reign of this king. His mint reference of this type is cautious with a question-mark, whereas Sellwood identifies his examples of 8.2 and 8.3 to Hekatompylos. There is an example of type 8 that is not listed in Sellwood which might be from Mithradatkat-Nisa.

Phripatus S.8.2 (Mithradatkart-Nisa?)

Phripatus S.8.3 (Mithradatkart-Nisa?)

The simple legend of APΣAKOY on this type which Sellwood attributes it to the early part of Mithrades I is more in line with the two earlier Parthian kings than the later rulers. Silver coins with mint mark N or NI of Mithradates I are more likely to be from this place. However the first time NI starts appearing on bronze coins is a double unit that is reportedly of Phrases II (S.16.28). It can be found is behind 9 10

See the image of the last Parthian bronze issued in Ecbatana p.119. See Badiyi’s map of Sasanian mint centres, p. 205 A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

117

the bust of the king on obverse. Although the mint monogram of Nisa continues to appear on Parthian coinage, a new distinct monogram for Mithradatkart starts to appear on the coinage as well. The earliest example is on a rare silver drachm from the nameless king (Arsaces XVI) that Sellwood lists as S.30.30 which by contrast is separated from S.30.23 that is attributed to Nisa. Similarly Sellwood type 36 has two different silver examples: one from Nisa (S.36.14) and two entries for Mithradatkart (S.36.11 and S.36.12). The very first bronze coin I have come across from Mithradatkart is a victory coin of Phraates III is S.36.21 that signifies the presence of the Parthians in the city and the importance they attached to it (S.38.21). The separation of mints from Nisa and Mithradatkart continues hereafter during the reigns of Mithradates III and Orodes II and Phraates IV until we notice that Nisa gradually fades away from coins and Mithradatkart gains prominence. Numismatically it is noteworthy that that the latter king during the challenge from Tiridates 29-27 BC takes refuge in Mithradatkart and strikes an abundance of Æ coins, many of which are surfaced after Sellwood’s 1980 edition (S.51). If my observation is correct, Vardanes I (40-45 AD) was the last Parthian king who struck a bronze coins in Mithradatkart (S.64.39) as well as many unpublished examples.

Phraates III (S.35var.) from Mithradatkart

Phraates IV (S.51) from Mithradatkart

In the history of Parthian numismatics, the period between 148 to138 BC is a turning point for many reasons. It is the time during which the Parthians turn from a small rebellious tribe into a mighty empire. It was during the latter years of the first Mithradates before the autumn of 148 BC when he advanced his forces into the Iranian plateau and captured Media Magna from the Seleucid occupation and appointed his brother, Bagasis, as a new satrap there S,12.23 and S.12.24a.

An example of S.12.24 (a)

Instead of continuing westward he marched backwards towards the northeast against the Baktrians. Having secured the north and central Persia, he then aimed for the west. About July 141 BC he took Susa and issued his own bronze coins. From 141 to 138 BC he was fighting on two fronts against both the Bactrians in the east and the forces of Demetrius II in the west, thereby expanding his territory to the largest since the time of Darius the great. With the expansion of his territory came new mints.

118

HEKATOMPYLOS

This city was located near today’s Damghan in Iran. It was known as the city of Hundred Gates by the Greeks although it had only 4 gates! It is also known in local literature as Shahr-e-Qumis in history books. It is said the city was perhaps the first capital of the Arsacid dynasty around 200 BC. The prominence of this mint numismatically is that perhaps coins were struck during the latter part of the reign of Mithradates I after his victorious return from central Iran and Mesopotamia. S.11 bears the inscription The Great King Arsaces which is more in line with some Æ coins from Ecbatana. It seems this mint was not active during the reigns of the later Parthian kings except that there is a rare bronze coin from Mithradates II’s time after 109 BC when he assumed the title of King of Kings (S.27). This coin has a signature mark H that is suspected to be of Hekatompylos. See the image below11:

Mithradates II (S.27)

ECBATANA (AGBÁTANA)

Perhaps one of the most important Iranian cities in ancient times, Ecbatana’s history goes back to the Median empire as the summer capital of the Achaemenids. Satrapal seat of the province of Media the Achaemenid to the Sassanian periods. Alexander the Great visited the city. In the spring of 330 BC following the conquest of Persepolis and Pasargadae when he marched in pursuit of Darius to Ecbatana, where he captured the Persian treasury. What followed after Alexander was not any better in the hands of his successor, Seleucus I, who plundered whatever was left in gold and silver. There are coins minted in the city in the name of Alexander and Seleucid rulers. Mithradates I successfully managed to capture Ecbatana in 147. However, the attempts by Antiochus VII in 130 to restore Seleucid power in Persia never reached Ecbatana, as the invasion by Tigranes II of Armenia in the later years of Mithradates II interrupted their attempts. The Parthians continued to use Ecbatana as a royal summer residence to the end of their reign. The early coinage from Ecbatana demonstrates the fine workmanship of Greek artistry, unlike during the late period when Ekbatana mints coins on which the legends are not even legible. The last coin below does not even have a legend.

S.27.6

S.90.2. (last Parthian unit) Two examples from Ecbatana mint

11

See CNG 90, Lot 786, (3.95g, 19mm) A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

119

SELEUCIA ON THE TIGRIS

It is reported in the classical texts that the constructed weirs across the Tigris in order to prevent any enemy having a superior naval force from sailing up from the sea into their country. It is also being reported that it was Alexander who destroyed as many of them as he could when Persia was invaded. Seleucus I decided to move the political center of his power in Mesopotamia from Babylon to a new capital in his name on the banks of two rivers. However, it should be noted that after the fall of the Seleucid Empire, Seleucia continued to be a major mint for the Parthians. Almost all of the silver tetradracms of the empire were struck there. Dated silver coins of Mithradates I (S.13) were struck for the first time at Seleucia on the Tigris.

S.23.5

By contrast, Vologases VI was the last king who issued tetradrachms in Selecia (S.88). As for bronze examples, the very first known issue is S.23.5 of Mithradates II is dated SE 191 of Mithradates II. and the last reported are 3 coins (S.88.26-28) dated respectively SE 524-526 from the time of Vologases VI who had the control of the city against his brother, Artabanus whose coins are exclusively from Ecbatana.

S.79.50var (new date)

S.80.20

SUSA

The history of this city is inseparable from that of Elam. According to recent chronology, its establishment goes back to 2400 BC. Susa during the Elamite period had been not only one of the political capitals of Elam, but also one of the economic, cultural, and artistic capitals of the Near Eastern world until the arrival of Cyrus the great in 539 BC when he captured Babylon. Alexander III visited Susa twice in his conquest of Persia; once at the end of December 331, after defeating Darius III at Arbela when the local satrap surrendered the town without a fight. The second time, he returned to Susa in January 324 and stayed in the town for several weeks. The first coins are struck with date to the end of the reign of Alexander or shortly after his death. However soon after, until the end Seleucus I’s reign. the Seleucids issued many coins in the city until around 150 BC. When the Seleucid kings attempted to reinforce their presence in the region the local rebels started resisting. For a short period, Susa fell under the control of the first Kamniskires in 148 as a founder of a new dynasty. In around 140, the Parthians under the command of the first Mithradates led his army against Elymais. Despite several setbacks, the Parthian kings managed to hold on to Susa at least until AD 45 continuously. Excavations in Western Iran show that during the occupations of the Parthians, the Arsacids managed to

120

issue annual bronze units for years 140 to 57 BC (except for five years from 137 to 132 BC that Tigraios was in control of the city and also for one year in 130 BC during the reign of Antiochus VII).12 Selected images below are some Susian Æ units during Parthian rule:

S.12.26 (Le Rider 95)

S.14.6 (Le Rider 111)

S.21.7 (Le Rider 115)

S.23.5 (Le Rider 121)

S.24.43 (Le Rider 126)

S.31.16 (Le Rider 161)

RHAGAE

Now Reyy near Tehran is situated on a very ancient road that started in the west through Ecbatana and Caspian Gates to Rhagae, and then through Parthia towards the east in Bacteria. It is said in mid 521 BC, it was taken by Darius I. In 330, the last Achaemenid king, escaped through Rhagae, but was killed soon afterwards by Bessus. On the ruins of the old village Seleucus I established it under the name Europos. However, during the Parthian period it was also called Arsacia. The very first Parthian coin struck and attributed to Rhagae is a silver drachm S.12.3 for Mithradates I, however the bronze coinage were regularly issued during the reign of Mithradates II (S.24.34-40 and 24.45-46) onwards. I have a single unpublished bronze example in my collection that in style is similar to S.12.3 and could be from the same mint. If my observation is correct, it seems from the reign of Orodes II (S.48) to the time of Artabanus IV (S.63) the mint of Rhagae was not active in striking any Æ unit except one during the rule of Vonones (S.60.9) as a victory piece. Sellwood cautiously attributes a unit to this mint (S.78.18) with a question mark. It is safe to assume that the last confirmed bronze Parthian coins were issued by Artabanus IV in Rhagae.

S.24.18

S.41.20 Two examples from Rhagae mint

12

See Assar’s paper in this volume p.40, image E. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

121

BLACK SEA

Edessa (Urfa)

Mithradatkart-Nisa (Ashkhabad)

CASPIAN SEA

Nineveh Ekbatana (Hamadan) Konkobar (Kangavar) Seleucia on the Tigris

Margiane (Merv)

Traxiane (Tus?) Rhagae (Tehran)

Hekatompylos (Qumis)

Areia (Herat)

Laodicea (Nihavand)

Susa (Shush)

PERSIAN GULF ARABIAN SEA

Mints of Bronze Parthian Coins

OTHER MINTS

Despite the fact that Parthian empire ruled nearly 500 years, and produced numerous silver coins in many mint houses within their dominations, the number of bronze mints do not match with their AR coinage. Of course there are handful of mints beside what have been listed mentioned above but by comparison those issues are very limited. That raises the question as if Æ coins were for local usage then how come we do not see a much bigger quantities from the other mints. In the following I mention cities from which bronze coins have been found and cited. One possibility is that bronze coins were either struck in central mints in the region or dies were made and sent for production to local places. As mentioned above, with expansion of the kingdom under Mithradates I in 140s, Parthians started either minting coins themselves or allowing smaller kingdoms under their rule to strike their own coinage. Persis kings issued their own silver coins, Characens and Elamais in the west issued their own coins. The Sanabares in the northeastern part of the empire were permitted, for a short period between AD 50-65 strike their own coins in cities of Margiane, Mithradatkart, Traxiane and Aria. 122

However, bronze coins from the following mints are reported: Nineveh: there is a small coin reported by Sellwood (S.23.10) and presented in this volume page 62 (figure 4) that has no legend and no mint mark. Margiane (today’s Merv): the first reported bronze coin is S.40.2013 with mint monograms of Π or M. On other examples we notice MAP is engraved. We do not see any more bronze examples in Sellwood until we come across S.63.29.

S.47.20

Kangavar in western Iran known by the same now. The first known bronze coins in Sellwood are identified with letter K on the reverse during the reign of Orodes II ( S.47.43 and S.47.47).

S.47.43

S.47.47

Laodicia (today known as Nihavand in the west of Iran). The first issue for this mint is a unit (S.48.30-31) with a mint monogram of Λ. There are other units from Phraates IV from the same mint S.51.55, S.52.62 to 52.64. Artabanus IV also has a rare unit from this mint S.63.37. Beside this, I have come across an historically important group of Sellwood’s type 61 that is from this mint. I will not discuss the importance of that here since it is beyond the scope and purpose of this paper.

Orodes II. Circa 57-38 BC, Æ (11.3mm, 2.23g). Laodicea mint. Sellwood 45 (unrported)

13

BMC, Parthia (1903) p.63, plate 13, no. 4. Parthia.com PDF 20274 A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

123

Edessa (now in today’s Turkey). There is an impressive large coin from the reign of Vologases IV with an Arsacid symbol on reverse which could be a commemorative issue for his victory in the area (S.84.134)

Vologases IV. Circa AD 147-191. Æ (22mm, 10.93g). Edessa mint. Sellwood 84.134

It should be noted that since the publication of Sellwood’s Introduction in 1980 many more bronze coins have surfaced notably of type 35 in Traxiane (today’s Tus in Iran), Aria (Herat), Nisa and Margiane. I intentionally have not included the so-called “copper drachm” here because they were intended to be used as drachms.

Denominations The issue of denominations of Parthian bronze is a complex one. Sellwood’s categories of them are not fully satisfactory. He does not provide either weight or dimensions of the coins he either owned or examined. He does not provide any reference to sources he had studied. Others since his publication of the Introduction are either confused or repeat what he had done. My intention here is to share my observations so it may generate some interest. Sellwood uses the Greek/Seleucid term chalkos, χαλκός to refer to the common bronze unit. There are 3 main denominations used throughout the Arsacids’ rule. We do not know what term the Parthians used for their bronze local currency. In the absence of this information, it is safe to use the term “unit” referring to it. The three main denominations seem to be: “unit”, “double-unit” and “4-unit”. The size and weight for each differs from each type or the ruler. Not all kings have all three types. From time to time special coins have been issued for different occasions. Of course it should be mentioned that two other less frequent denominations can be observed. They are an “8-unit” in two types and “half-unit” in rare cases. The bronze coins of the early rulers have images of heads of animals like horses and elephants or full images of horses or on some coins bow cases. Whether the use of those images on the reverse is significant or not we will see later. However, it seems besides two cases during the reign of the second Arsaces, Artabanus I, which have surfaced since Sellwood’s 1980 book, a pattern emerges that the use of images on the reverse of Æ coins was very limited. From 140s, Mithradates I started striking coins with the benefit of access to fine master engravers in Ecbatana. Horses and elephants are still used but other images start appearing. For our considerations here, we should mention what Bono Simonetta published in his 1982 paper14 that three symbols were used to signify the denominations. The following symbols are found on the obverse of coins behind the bust: Δ Χ for a 4-unit, (S.12.9, S.12.10 and S.12.11) Β Χ for a 2-unit, (S.12.14, S.12.15 and S.12.17) A for a unit, (S.12.19, S.12.23) Χ This is an early indication of an attempt to state the value of the currency on bronze coins. We do not see it repeated except a very small and very rare reference in Sellwood where he lists the symbol X behind king Mithradates II’s bust on the obverse. Χ for a half-unit, (S.24.46) 14

124

Simonetta, B., Osservazioni sulla monetazione Partica in bronzo da Mithradates I a Phraates IV. In Schweizerische numismatische Rundschau 61, 43–57.

Having considered many hundreds of Parthian bronzes pieces, I can now conclude that the during the reign of Mithradates II a currency reform was introduced that lasted at least to the end of Orodes II’s reign. This reform attempted to unify and present a coherent and consistent currency as far as denominations were concerned. The images on the reverse of coins seem not to be accidental. Unlike the drachm which almost always had an archer seated with bow to right, bronzes coins used images corresponding to their value and worth. Images of full-size animals represent the 4-units, heads of animals for the 2-units and the bow case for single units. At the time of victories or special occasions an image of Nike was used. The following sets of three coins each are examples of my observations:

Mithradates II (26.25) (S.26.28) (S.26.29) Ecbatana mint

Mithradates III (31.11) (S.31.13) (S.31/ 18) Ecbatana mint

Phraates III (38.19) (S.38.22) (S.38.23) Ecbatana mint

It should be noted here that in Susa annual coins were struck only as units. It seems after or during the rule of Phrases IV, the practice of reform was stopped. Larger 4-units and 2-units were generally struck in Seleucia usually with dates and 2-units and units made in various cities particularly in Ecbatana and Mithradatkart with images until the fall of the empire. The only two examples of 8-units are from the reign of Mithradates I, perhaps the heaviest of all Parthian Æ coins (S.12.6, S.12.7 and S.12.08). I have an example of S.12.6 that weighs close to 19g with 27mm in size. Although Sellwood attributes them to Ecbatana. However, from the unusual weight and dimensions it can asumued to be re-struck on coins from Bactria.

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

125

S.12.6

Eukratides I

The other 8-units are from Osroes I (AD 109-129) that struck in Seleucia with dates (S.80.3 to S.80.6)

S.80.4 (Numbers)/Weights in Hopkins’ database

(Numbers)/Weights in my collection:

The Mean

4-units: S.24.34-36

(50)/9.14g to 6.43g

(10)/8.15g to 6.71g

7.5g

2-units: S.24.37-39

(84)/4.54g to 2.98g

(10)/3.87g to 3.08g

3.75g

unit: S.24.40

(92)/2.41g to 1.60g

(6)/2.22g to 1.65g

1.85g

1/2 unit: S.24.45

(23)/1.40g to 0.91g

(1)/1.36g

0.90g

Sellwood numbers

Obverse

Reverse

A comparison of denominations of Sellwood type 24 minted in Rhagae15 15

126

I would like to acknowledge the help and encouragement I have received from Chris Hopkins for providing me access to his database of more than 68,000 Parthian coins at parthia.com.

Conclusion In a brief paper like this, no justice can be done to all aspects of Parthian bronze coins. It is clear that there are more studies needed to place them in historical contexts as they were made. There are new coins that have been found and that new insights have become available in this neglected section of Arsacid coinage. Sellwood, Le Rider and Assar among others have provided the foundation for future researchers and scholars to build a better understanding of the Iranian past.

Bibliography Assar, G.R.F. (2005): “The Susian Bronzes of the Parthian Period 140/139-58/57BC”, unpublished. Assar, G.R.F. (2006): “A Revised Parthian Chronology of the Period 165-91 BC”, Electrum. Greek and Hellenistic Studies 11. 87-158. Assar, G.R.F. (2006/7a): “A Revised Parthian Chronology of the Period 91-55 BC”, Parthica. Incontri di Culture nel Mondo Antico 8. 55-104. Assar, G.R.F. (2006/7b): “An Early Parthian Victory Coin”, Parthica. Incontri di Culture nel Mondo Antico 8. 25-35. Assar, G.R.F. (2011): “Iran under the Arsaids, 247 BC - AD 224/227” in Numismatic Art of Persia, The Sunrise Collection, Part I: Ancient- 650 BC to AD 650, Nelson, B.N. (Ed.), CNG Inc., Lancaster PA,113 -171. Brindley, James C. (1976): “The Organisation of the Parthian Bronze Coinage”, in Proceedings of the 8th International Congress of Numismatics, New York- Washington September 1973 Cahn, Herbert A. & Le Rider, Georges (editors), Publication No. 4, Paris-Bale, 33-38 Debevoise, N.C. (1938): A political history of Parthia. Chicago. University of Chicago Press. Le Rider G. (1965): Suse sous les Séleucides et les Parthes. Les trouvailles monétaires et l’histoire de la ville. Mémoires de la Mission Archéologique en Iran. Tome XXXVIII. Mission de Susiane sous la direction de MM. R. Ghirshman et G. Salles. Paris. McDowell, R.H. (1935): Coins from Seleucia on the Tigris. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Mørkholm, O. (1980): The Parthian Coinage of Seleucia on the Tigris, c. 90-55 BC. In Numismatic Chronicle 20, 33–47. Sellwood D.G. (1980): An Introduction to the Coinage of Parthia. 2nd. ed. London. Simonetta, B. (1982): Osservazioni sulla monetazione Partica in bronzo da Mithradates I a Phraates IV. In Schweizerische numismatische Rundschau 61, 43–57.

Internet Sites: “ARSACIDS,” Encyclopaedia Iranica in Yarshater, Ehsan (ed.), II/5, pp. 525-546: available online: iranicaonline.org/articles/arsacids-index Chris Hopkins’ site: parthia.com Vladimir Belyaev’s site: zeno.ru Jona Lendering’s site: livius.org/category/persia

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

127

Onomastica Persida: Names of the Rulers of Persis in the Seleucid and Arsacid Periods KHODADAD REZAKHANI

One of the most intriguing questions of ancient Iranian history is concerned with the survival of the memory of the Achaemenids in later native Iranian historiography.1 While the memory of the Arsacids (ca. 239 BCE-226 CE) and the Sasanian (224-651 CE) dynasties is preserved in the historiography of the medieval and early modern periods (less so of the Arsacids), no sign of the Achaemenids can be found in these sources. Instead, Iranian historiography has preserved a memory of the ‘mythological’ Pishdadid and Kayanid dynasties in what is called the Iranian National Historiography.2 In this scheme the discovery of the Achaemnids is more attributable to the 19th century European Orientalists and their use of Greek and Biblical sources for the reconstruction of the Achaemenid memory.3 In this debate, the conduits through which the preservation of such memory might have taken place have received less attention.4 Without taking any sides in the debate, the present paper tries to make use of one of these available conduits through which memories of the past might have been preserved not only for posterity, but also for legitimisation of kingship and the quest for authority. While onomastics is never a completely safe source for studying historical processes, the socio-cultural context of onomastic changes and continuities can provide some way of moving forward on the debate.

The Kingdom of Persis The geographical area from which the Achaemenid dynasty itself sprang continues a rather curious history after the demise of the Achaemenids. A major target of Alexander’s invading forces, it seems to have nevertheless been left in relative calm in the aftermath of the conquests. Archaeologically speaking, there are no signs of any major Alexandrine or Seleucid foundations in the area. The local settlements in Persis5 do not seem to have been altered in any way that can be detected. Perhaps more glaringly the coins of the local rulers of Persis carry no Greek inscriptions, unlike the Seleucid, Arsacid or the Elymaid and Characene coinage.6 It is my purpose here to concentrate on these coins and the names of their issuers within the context of onomastic continuities in the Seleucid and Arsacid periods.7

1

2 3 4 5 6 7

The debate has been commented upon by generations of scholars most recently Shayegan 2017 and Callieri 2011 who take on an archaeological outlook. Olbryht 2016 provides a possible way of seeing these connections in genealogical terms as does Canepa 2013 and 2010. Shahbazi 2001 provides a summary of many arguments, while Daryaee 1995 provides an interesting historiographic intervention. Yarshater 1983. See Imanpour 2015 as well as Daryaee 2009 for an overview. From an artistic and materially cultural point of view, Canepa has done an excellent job of addressing such conduits, namely Canepa 2010 and his 2018 book. See Callieri 2003 & 2007 for various discussions on the archaeology of post-Achaemenid Persis including the period of the Frataraka. Alram 1986 still provides the most complete catalogue of the Persis coinage. I have relied on the more updated volume of Klose & Müseler 2008 for most of the references. For an outline of the history of Persis during this period, see Wiesehöfer 1994, as well as some updates in Wiesehöfer 2012. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

129

The first series of Persis coins are commonly known as the Frataraka series based on the presence of the the legend prtrk’ zy ’lhy’ “The Frataraka of the God/Lord.”8 The famous first authority of this series, Baydād,9 bears a name that carries a simple etymology made up of Baga “god” and the participle dād “given”.10 However already after Baydād, the second Frataraka of the dynasty had an Achaemenid name, Ardashir, written as ’rthštr(y) on his coins, showing a preservation of the ideal Old Persian form, arta-xšaθra “Right(eous) King.” Apart from its direct connection to the name of three Achaemenid kings of kings, this name is important as it continues throughout the Persis coin series. It in fact survives throughout the rule of the Persis kings and is best known as the name of the last Persis authority, the future founder of the Sasanian Dynasty, Ardashir I Pābagān (224-241). In particular one name in the dynasty is significant mostly because of its connection to the Achaemenid Dynasty, but as well to its importance in Iranian mythology and later Sasanian dynastic genealogy. Written as d’ryw, this king belongs the phase of Persis rulers where the rulers designate themselves as ‘king’ (Arm. MLK’) on their coins. While the name d’ryw was normally read as Dārēw by numismatists, the reading of d’ryn on a silver bowl has led most subsequent studies to interpret the name as Dārāyān.11 The name is a later rendition of the name of the famous Achaemenid ruler Darius, derived from Old Persian as daraya-vahauš. While the reading by Skjærvø of d’ryn on the silver bowl seems indisputable, from a numismatic viewpoint there is no reason to modify the reading on the coins which appears as d’ryw and accords better with the later appearance of the name in New Persian as Dārā(b). Two kings of Persis are called d’ryw on their coins. The first one, Dārēw or Dārāyān I12 issued coins in the same style as those of the previous Frataraka rulers with the head of the king in profile looking right on the obverse and a schematic picture of a building/altar flanked by an attendant and a bird on the reverse. The significant thing about the coins of Dārēw I is the use of the title of MLK’ on the coins perhaps signaling a sort of independence (from the Seleucids?) for the Persis rulers. The successor of Dārēw I appears be a certain Vādfradād (Autophradates) III.13 On most of the coins associated with this authority, the style of his portraiture differs from that of Dārēw I; it shows an Arsacid-influenced portrait of the king on the obverse wearing a longer beard and only a diadem band instead of a flat cap on the king’s head. Significantly these portraits also show the king’s full bust including his shoulders and what appears to be several torques around the king’s neck. Similar to the coins of Dārēw, the coins of Vādfradād show a moon crescent above the king’s head. On the other hand, with the exception of the missing moon crescent, at least one coin in the Munich collection shows a coin bearing the legend wtprdt MLK’ on its reverse with a portraiture virtually indistinguishable from those of Dārēw I. This is why Klose and Müseler have posited the creation of a new Vādfradād, giving him the ordinal number III, and have made the previous Vādfradād III with Arsacid influences to be Vādfradād IV.14 While not an Achaemenid royal name, the continuity represented by this name with its connection to the name of Achaemenid administrators shows the preservation of the memory of the Achaemenids in the Persis dynasty. The presence of one or two authorities with the name Vādfradād is important for the second king known as Dārēw. Issuing coins in a new style, this second authority calls himself d’ryw MLK’ BRH wtprdt MLK’: Dārēw, King, son of Vādfradād, King. This revives the convention from the earlier Frataraka coins (before Dārēw I) where the name of the fathers was mentioned on the coins of the Frataraka rulers (e.g. bgdt…br bgwrt).15 The style of the coins shows the king in a bust with three torques around his neck and wearing a long beard and long hair. However, unlike the previous Vādfradād (and indeed all previous Persis authorities), this king’s face looks left. Additionally instead of the diadem of Vādfradād or the flat cap of Dārēw I, the king Dārēw II wears a long headgear 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

130

Frataraka was an Achaemenid administrative title occurring in several papyri from Achaemenid Egypt. For a discussion of the meaning and etymology of the title, see Henning 1968, 138-145 and Wiesehöfer, 1991, 305-309; see also Skjærvø 1997, 102. See Sarkhosh Curtis 2010 and Engels 2013 for an alternative order of the early Frataraka rulers. Justi 1895, 57. For example, see Klose and Müseler 2008: 45. Klose and Müseler 2008, 43 & 45. The name occurs in various Achaemenid period documents, including a famous satrap of Lydia; see Dandemayev 1987. At the same time, the “new” Vādfradād III shows clear stylistic similarities to Vādfradād II, the authority preceding Dārēw I, although certain stylistic features would put him after Dārēw, hence the ordinal ‘III’; see Klose & Müseler 2008, 44. See Skjærvø 1997, 101;

that appears to cover his entire skull, has flaps covering his left ear and is decorated with three rows of pearls and a moon crescent in the middle. More surprising than the obverse is the reverse of the coin. Instead of the traditional building/altar with the god’s bust and flanked by the attendant and the bird, the reverse scene switches to a new theme. Here the legend dominates the reverse in a square surrounding the full-body shape of an attendant facing a simple altar and holding a staff which is perhaps, the Zoroastrian sacrificial barsom twigs.16 Both the obverse and reverse style of the coins, including those with wide-ranging variations, become the prototypical style of the Persis coins for many subsequent authorities. Apart from establishing the coinage style, Dārēw II seems to have acted as the progenitor of a line in a literal sense. The next two authorities, Ardashir II and Vahšīr,17 both identify themselves as the sons of King Dārēw and issue coins following his general style. As well Nambed, a later king and an innovator in his own right, also identifies himself as a son of Ardashir II and is thus a descendant of Dārēw II. Both Ardashir II and Vahšīr also show up on the famous silver bowl inscription where they are called the sons of “King Dārāyān” and are perhaps descendants of King Dārāyān/ Dārēw I.18 As mentioned above, Dārēw II identifies himself as a son of Vādfradād, although the kinship with Dārēw I cannot be verified. However, the legend on the silver bowl does mention the relation to another Dārēw/Dārāyān and might very well establish a kinship the line of Dārēw. Although there is no direct evidence to connect the Persid lineage to the mythological one,19 we cannot help but notice the similarity to the legendary ancestry of Ardashir I, the founder of the Sasanian line from the Kayanid king Dārā ī Dārāyān, Pakōr I, the next known coin authority identifies himself as pkwr MLK’ BRH whwhštr, or “Pakōr the King, son of Vahšīr”, thus showing the genealogical continuity in the dynasty. His name Pakōr is a common name among the Arsacid and Arsacid-influenced rulers of the time (e.g. Armenian and Georgian rulers).20 The occurrence of the name in the Persis line possibly shows a period of Arsacid control or cultural influence over the area; nevertheless, the clear patronymic demonstrates that the real power remained in the hands of the descendants of the family of Dārēw/ Dārāyān. The positing of a second king Pakōr, presumably the son of Pakōr I (although no patronymic is included on the coins), is purely conjectural and based on numismatic evidence which shows a variation on the coins of the first Pakōr. This second Pakōr’s issues might well be the issues of a younger Pakōr I.21 The issues of Nambed, identified as a son of Ardashir (presumably Ardashir II), show a shift of power from Vahšīr’s branch of the family to that of his elder brother, Ardashīr. Nambed’s name is written as nmwpt on his coin indicating a short initial vowel;22it is thus unrelated to Ir. Nām “name.” The second element -pt is a well-known Iranian suffix, MP –bed meaning “master, lord”23 (from OIr. pati- “to protect”). The name Nam(ō)bed appears to be a unique occurrence and it might itself be a misreading.24 Perhaps the most significant innovation on Nambed’s coins is the occurrence of a prominent star and crescent on the reverse a trend that also continues on the coins of his son. Nambed’s son Napād (np’t MLK’ BRH nmwpt) continued the line of Dārew/Dārāyān with coins that bear a similar iconography to those of his father and grandfather. The reverse of his coins also have a star and crescent, but the full body “priest” on the reverse is replaced by a bust of a priest or a king (perhaps his father Nambed) occasionally looking right.25 The name of Napād is itself significant. We see the name on graffiti in Dura Europus, where a np’t son of b’wk 16

18 19

Markoe 1982 studies a case of the presence of a similar iconographic device in a pre-Achaemenid context. See Karanjia 2001 on the function of barsom in Zoroastrian ritual. Skjærvø 1997, 93 reads this as Wahīxšahr which is indeed closer to the coin legend of whwhštr, although an analogy with ‘rthštr for Ardashir might justify the Vahšīr reading or possibly Wahušīr “Good Ruler.” See the full discussion in Skjærvø 1997 with further discussion of the text and the possible reading of the genealogy by Shayegan 2005, 169-171. This is already mentioned in Skjærvø 1997, 10, and is likened to the similarity created between the Achamenid Hystaspes/Wištāspa (father of Darius I) and the Avestan Kay Wištāsp, the patron of Zarathushtra. Whatever the later process of myth making might have been, one cannot deny the existence of the lineage of Dārāy ī Dārāyān as early as the time of Ardashir II and his brother Vahšīr and its survival into the Sasanian period. Thus, it testifies to a process of legend creation or to a sign of a Sasanian memory of the Achaemenids per Shayegan 2005, 169. This is primary evidence for the origins of the Sasanian memory of their Persid ancestors and lineage.

20 21 22 23 24 25

See Justi 1898, 238. Klose & Müseler 2008, 52-53. See Justi 1898, 228, who writes the name as Nemōpat, following normal German orthographic conventions. Weber 2007, 965. See op. cit, quoting Mordtmann 1877 to have read it as Yazdkart, an impossibility given the space. See Klose & Müseler 2008, 54-55 & 60-62 for the coins of Nambed and Napād.

17

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

131

(Bāwag)26 appears on a list.27 One of the proposed etymologies of the name is from OP. napāt “grandson” (cf. MP. Np / nab/), important when considering the position of the king Napād in the genealogy of the house of Dārēw/Dārāyān. Napād was indeed the grandson of Ardashir II the progenitor of one of the two branches of the house, the other branch being that of Vahšīr and his son Pakōr. From a numismatic point of view, the immediate followers of Napād are unknown as their coins bear no legible inscriptions. These authorities are called the Unknown King II or Princes X, Y, and Z. While some of these coins can be associated with Napād himself,28 they provide us with no names that can be considered within the present study. The next series of Persis coins starts with the issues of another Vādfradād (V). While these coins bear some resemblance to those of the dynasty of Dārēw/Dārāyān, the absence of any patronymic prevents us from directly connecting them to that line.29 The style of the legends on the reverse of the coin, identifying the king as wtprdt MLK’ are noticeably different from those on the previous coins, marking a new stage in the orthography of the Persis coins.30 Among the successors of Vādfradād V, the most significant is the “family” of Mancihr. The name Mancihr brings to mind the name of the famous Persian epic king, Manucihr (Av. Manučiθra “the one with the nature of Manu”).31 The coins of this dynasty, which includes four kings called Mancihr and one Ardashir (IV) plus an Unknown King III,32 are significant because of the appearance of a bust on the reverse. This bust is surrounded by what appears to be a halo of sun-rays, a sign of the god Mithra and might demonstrate the particular interest of these dynasts in that god.33 The best way to close this short onomastic note is to comment on the occurrence of the name Manuchihr. It is known from Iranian epic literature and appears amongst the kings of Persis. The lineage of Ardashir I, the founder of the Sasanian dynasty and the last Arsacid ruler of Persis, is famously connected to the Kayanid Dynasty, the legendary dynasty mentioned in the Avesta and other Iranian sources. Ardashir, based on Islamic and Iranian sources, is the descendant of Kayanid kings Bahman and Luhrasb. His removal of Artabanus IV from the throne is in fact a revenge for the blood of his “paternal cousin, Dārā, son of Bahman.”34 Dārā, known as Dārāb (cf. Dārēw and Parth. Dārāw)35 in the classical Persian epic such as the Shahnameh, is considered the father of another Dārā often called Dārā ī Dārāyān,36 the last Kayanid King before Alexander and taken to be a preservation of the memory of Darius III in Iranian epic history. While the attention of the debate on the Sasanians memory of the Achaemenid past is usually focused on the recollections of the time immediately preceding Alexander, one might consider this within a larger perspective of the early Sasanian understanding of history. The survival of many ‘Achaemenid’ names amongst the Persis coin authorities, not limited to Ardashir and Dārēw but also including Achaemenid satraps like Vādfradād (Autophradates), might show us a closer connection of the Persis rulers to their history. While preserving the memory of the Achaemenids in their names shows a quest for legitimacy, it also shows a close perhaps familial connection with the Achaemenid administration 26 27 28 29

30

C.f. Bābak/Pābag, written as p’pk in Parthian inscriptions (Schmitt 2016, 147 n. 320), the name of the father of the Sasanian founder, Ardashir I (Ardashir V of Persis). Schmitt 2016, 144, n. 313. Klose & Müseler 2008, 55. However, we have to consider that the name of Vādfradād, unlike the names of those following him, shows a continuity with the house of Dārēw/ Dārāyān. The coin is in fact related to the coins of Prince Y with the star and crescent having moved from the reverse to the center of the king’s headgear, in fact similar to the obverse of Dārēw/Dārāyān II. For a study of Persis coin legends and their development, see Rezakhani 2012.

31

Gignoux 1986, 115 n. 559. At the same time, the name sometimes is taken to be at the root of the name Juzihr, known from al-Tabari as the ruler of Istaxr, the capital of Persis (Al-Tabari I.814-915) at the time of Ardashir V/I. The name Manushihr (Arabic for Persian Manuchihr) appears on the same passage of al-Tabari as the ruler of the Kūn.s (?) and so is unlikely to have been a mix-up. See Klose & Müseler 2008, 68 for a brief discussion.

32

Klose & Müseler 2008, 67 speculate that the name starts with M- and read Mihr/Mithra or Makatta (with no clear etymology). I have earlier suggested a reading of Pakōr and assigned the ordinal number III to this king, although I am open to suggestions. The orthography of the reverse legends is certainly bizarre and if it were not for the obverse iconography would have prompted me to put these coins before Dārēw/Dārāyān II; see Rezakhani 2010. Klose & Müseler 2008, 66-67. Al-Tabari, I.813-814. Skjærvø 1997, 94; also Gignoux 1986, 74, n. 301 where the form Dārāb occurs as part of the combination Dārāb-Aštād. Perhaps worth pointing out that the actual Persian rules for pronunciation of the word requires the (restoration) of the glide, -y-, for a pronunciation Dārāy-ī-Dārāyān.

33 34 35 36

132

and structure. At the same time names such as Vahbarz, Vahšīr and perhaps Pakōr show a connection between the Persis rulers and their contemporary world and their vitality within it. Finally their preference for epic names with roots in ancient legends in this case Mancihr, indicates the increasing importance of these stories in the world of late second and early third century Persis, indeed the very world in which Ardashir was starting his career. Consequently, the presence of a king Dārāw son of Dārāw (or perhaps as we see above, the grandson or ‘napād’ of him), transported back and fitted into the legendary genealogy of the Kayanids, is in fact the perfect seed for Ardashir’s descent from the Kayanids and as well a later re-working of the encounter of Darius III and Alexander.

Bibliography Alram, Michael. 1986. Nomina Propria Iranica in Nummis. Vienna: Verlag d. Österr. Akad. d. Wiss. Callieri, Pierfrancesco. 2007. L’archéologie du Fars à l’époque Hellénistique. Persika 11. Paris: de Boccard. Callieri, Pierfrancesco. 2003. “Some Notes on the So-Called Temple of the Fratarakas at Persepolis.” Studi in Onore Di Umberto Scerrato 1: 153–165. Callieri, Pierfrancesco. 2011. “Les Sassanides Étaient-Ils les Héritiers Des Achéménides? l’évidence Archéologique.” In Un Impaziente Desiderio Di Scorrere Il Mondo. Studi in Onore Di Antonio Invernizzi per Il Suo Settantesimo Compleanno, edited by C. Lippolis and S. de Martino, 187:187–200. Florence. Canepa, Matthew P. 2010. “Technologies of Memory in Early Sasanian Iran: Achaemenid Sites and Sasanian Identity.” American Journal of Archaeology 114 (4): 563–596. Canepa, Matthew P. 2013. “Building a New Vision of the Past in the Sasanian Empire: The Sanctuaries of Kayānsīh and the Great Fires of Iran.” Journal of Persianate Studies 6 (1–2): 64–90. Canepa, Matthew P. 2018. The Iranian Expanse: Transforming Royal Identity Through Architecture, Landscape, and the Built Environment, 550 BCE-642 CE. University of California Press. Dandemayev, M. A. “Autophradates.” In Encyclopaedia Iranica (Online), 1987. Daryaee, Touraj. 1995. “National History or Kayanid History: The Nature of Sasanid Zoroastrian Historiography.” Iranian Studies 28 (3–4): 129–41. Daryaee, Touraj. 2006a. “The Construction of the Past in Late Antique Persia.” Historia: Zeitschrift Für Alte Geschichte 55 (4): 493–503. Daryaee, Touraj. 2006b. “The Importance of Seleucid Kingship on Iranian Imperial Ideology.” Bulletin of Ancient Iranian History I (March). www.iranancienthistory.com. Daryaee, Touraj. 2009. “The Study of Ancient Iran in the Twentieth Century.” Iranian Studies 42 (4): 579–589. Engels, David. 2013. “A New Frataraka Chronology.” Latomus: Revue d’études Latines 72 (1): 28–80. Gignoux, Philippe. 1986. Noms propres sassanides en moyen-perse épigraphique, Iranisches Personenamenbuch 2/3. Vienna: Verlag der ÖAW.hu Henning, Walter B. 1968. “Ein Persischer Titel im Altaramäischen,” Mamoriam Paul Kahle, Matther Black and Georg Fohrer (eds.) 138-145, Berlin: De Gruyter. Imanpour, Mohammad-Taqi. 2015. “Re-Establishment of Achaemenid History and Its Development in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries.” Iranian Studies 48 (4): 515–530. Justi, Ferdinand. 1895. Iranisches Namenbuch. Marburg: NG Elwert’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Klose, Dietrich O. A., and Wilhelm Müseler. 2008. Statthalter, Rebellen, Könige: Die Münzen aus Persepolis von Alexander dem Großen zu den Sasaniden. Munich: Staatliche Münzsammlung. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

133

Markoe, Glenn. «Barsom or Staff? An Inscribed Urartian Plaque.» Metropolitan Museum Journal 17 (1982): 5-8. Olbrycht, Marek J. 2016. “Dynastic Connections in the Arsacid Empire and the Origins of the House of Sāsān.” In The Parthian and Early Sasanian Empires: Adaptation and Expansion, edited by Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis, Elizabeth Pendelton, Michael Alram, and Touraj Daryaee. The BIPS Archaeological Monograph Series V. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Rezakhani, Khodadad. 2010. “The ‘Unbekannter König III’ and the Coinage of Hellenistic and Arsacid Persis.” Name-ye Iran-e Bastan 15–16: 53–52. Rezakhani, Khodadad. 2016. “From Aramaic to Pahlavi: Epigraphic Observations Based on the Persis Coin Series.” In The Parthian and Early Sasanian Empires: Adaptaion and Expansion, edited by Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis, Elizabeth Pendelton, Michael Alram, and Touraj Daryaee. BIPS Archaeological Monograph Series 5. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Sarkhosh Curtis, Vesta. 2010. “The Frataraka Coins of Persis: Bridging the Gap between Achaemenid and Sasanian Persia.” In The World of Achaemenid Persia, edited by John Curtis and St. John Simpson, 379–94. London: I. B. Tauris. Schmitt, Rüdiger. 2016. Personennamen in parthischen epigraphischen Quellen, Iranisches Personennamenbuch 2/5. Vienna: Verlag der ÖAW. Shahbazi, A. Shapur. 2001. “Early Sasanians’ Claim to Achaemenid Heritage.” Name-Ye Iran-e Bastan 1 (1): 61–73. Shayegan, M. Rahim. 2005. “Nugae Epigraphicae.” Bulletin of the Asia Institute, 19, 169-179. Skjærvø, P. Oktor. “The Joy of the Cup: A pre-Sasanian Middle Persian Inscription on a Silver Bowl.” Bulletin of the Asia Institute 11 (1997): 93-104. Al-Tabari, Muhammad B. Jarir. 1999. The History of Al-Tabari: The Sasanids, the Lakhmids, and Yemen (Vol. 5), tr. C. E. Bosworth. Albany: SUNY Press.jj Weber, D., 2007. “Pahlavi Morphology.” Morphologies of Asia and Africa. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Wiesehöfer, Josef. 1991. “PRTRK RP HYL’, SGN und MR” in Achemenid History 6, ed. Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg 305-309, Leiden: NIvNO. Wiesehöfer, Josef. 1994. Die’dunklen Jahrhunderte’ Der Persis: Untersuchungen Zu Geschichte Und Kultur von Fārs in Frühhellenistischer Zeit (330-140 v. Chr.). Berlin: CH Beck. Wiesehöfer, Josef. 2012. “Kings of Persis.” In Encyclopaedia Iranica (Online). Yarshater, Ehsan. 1983. “Iranian National History.” In The Cambridge History of Iran, 3:359–477. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

134

A Revised Frataraka Chronology and Coinage KIARASH GHOL A MI

Introduction Our knowledge of the post-Alexandrian history of Persis remains poor until the early 3rd century CE with the rise to power of Ardaxšīr ī Pābagān, the founder of the Sasanian empire. This is especially true for the period covering the reigns of the five early rulers of Persis who, according to their coins, were called Frataraka1. Our literary sources for the history of Persis and the Frataraka chronology are limited to a handful of unhelpful accounts by Polyaenus and Stephanos von Byzanz.2 Unfortunately, this is also the case for the archeological discoveries from the frataraka dynasts in Persis.3 For such reasons the only alternative source of information, the numismatic data, plays a key role in reconstructing the political history of frataraka and the nature of their relationships with the successors of Alexander the Great in Persis. However, the latter source (numismatic evidence), is not quite as easy to deal with as the two former (texts and discoveries). The proper classification and attribution of the Persis coinage have been long debated among scholars. The earliest introduced frataraka coin was a tetradrachm of Baydād which was published by the pioneer French numismatist de Luynes in 1846.4 He noted that the obverse’s bust design follows the Sasanian and the Achaemenid style. However, being puzzled by the Aramaic inscription on the coin, he suggested the reading Saripadate as the satrap’s name and assigned the coin to Bactria due to its type and engraving characteristics. The origin of these frataraka coins was first recognized by Allotte de la Fuye5 who classified them as the first of the three series of Persis coinage. Later in 1922, Hill published the first paper about the frataraka coins and divided them into four main groups.6 His first group consisted only of the frataraka coins, whereas the second to fourth groups included all the remaining Persis coins bearing the official title of MLKA (King) on them. Consistent with de la Fuye’s theory, Hill considered Baydād as the first frataraka and suggested the regnal sequence Baydād / Vahbarz / Ardaxshir I / Vadfradād I, for the frataraka chronology. Such an assumption is due to the unusual iconography of the first known series of Baydād’s silver fragments and relies on the fact that the under-type of his restruck coins on the Alexander-type coins issued by Seleucus I, appears less worn than those of restruck by the other.7 Such a sequence was widely accepted and reflected in the studies of later numismatists, such as David Sellwood.8 Conducting die sequence studies on the coins of Vahbarz and Ardaxhshir I, Alram convincingly demonsrated that Vahbraz had used some

1

The evidence of using the title frataraka dates back to the Achaemenid period. Such a title was equivalent to the administrative head of a district or province in Egypt (Porten and Yardeni 1986 Vol. I: 41, Cowley 1923: no. 20 l. 4)

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

For more information, rf. Polyaenus: 7.39-40, Stephanos von Byzanz: Stasis. Schmidt 1953: 55-56 de Luynes 1846 Vol. I: 42; Vol. II: pl. VI. de la Fuye 1906: 63-97. Hill 1922: clx-clxxxii, pls. XXVIII-XXXVII. For more information rf. Klose & Müseler, 2008: 50, Klose 2005: 93-103, Engels 2013: 42. Sellwood 1983 Vol 3(2): 299-321. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

135

of Ardaxshir’s worn obverse coin dies to issue his early coins and thus, he was the successor of Ardaxshir I.9 He also declared that the frataraka coins and all the later issues of kings of Persis, form a homogeneous group that ran with no interruption most probably from the beginning of the 2nd century BCE to the early 3rd century CE. The suggested sequence (Baydād / Ardaxshir I / Vahbarz / Vadfradād I) by Alram was then confirmed and extensively discussed by Wiesehöfer in his outstanding book Die ,dunklen Jahrhunderte› der Persis.10 However, the appearance of an interesting tetradrachm of Baydād11 on the market in June 2005, led numismatists to doubt the accuracy of Alram/Wiesehöfer’s regnal sequence for the frataraka rulers. This important tetradrachm of Baydād was overstruck on that of another frataraka whose mouth-guard and headgear was still visible. Based on his observations on the discussed issue of Baydād and after conducting extensive studies on the frataraka overstrikes on the Seleucid under-types, Hoover suggested a third frataraka regnal sequence.12 According to his pioneering theory, Baydād could not be the first frataraka of Persis.13 Moreover, Hoover presented a tetradrachm of Vadfradād I with the Aramaic graffito naming Baydād.14 Referring to this evidence, he concluded that Baydād might have succeeded Vadfradād I and thus offered the third regnal sequence as Ardaxshir I / Vahbarz / Vadfradād I / Baydād. However, the publication of an overstruck tetradrachm of Vadfradād I on that of Baydād by Klose and Müseler15, later led Hoover to suggest that these two fratarakas might have been contemporary rivals.16 Another probable theory has been presented by Klose and Müseler based on the two different types of Baydād’s coins.17 Such a theory retains Baydād as the first frataraka assuming that his early coin series, depicting him seated on the throne, had been struck during his first reign. On the other hand, his later coin series might have been issued during his second reign and shortly after the rise to power of his successor, Ardaxshir I and thus, bears the typical reverse iconography of frataraka coins. This theory also explains the presence of the late-type tetradrachm of Baydād overstruck on that of another frataraka assuming that the under-type belongs to Ardaxshir I.18 Most recently, Engels has published a detailed article on the frataraka coinage and chronology introducing Vadfradād I as the successor of Vahbarz.19 Consistent with the theory of Hoover, Engels considers Baydād as either the successor or the contemporary of Vadfradād I. The purpose of this paper is to examine the results of the research carried out over the last few decades on the history of frataraka rulers and to attempt to provide a reliable chronology by analyzing the numismatic data combined with the very little literary evidence and the relevant archaeological dicoveries in Persis. Subsequently, I shall review the different frataraka coinages in the hope of finding new insights into the regnal sequence of fratarakas. The result will be used to link securely the numismatic data with the two other above-mentioned sources of information.

1. Ardaxshir I Despite the now widely accepted third sequence of frataraka dynasts (Ardaxshir I, Vahbarz, Vadfardad I/Baydād), we still have no clue about the exact date and duration of their reigns in Persis.20 Numismatic evidence shows that the first frataraka dynast was Ardaxshir who is attested on his earliest issue (Type 1 A) from Persis as ‘rthštr’ prtrk’ ZY ALHYA «Ardaxšir (the) Fratrakā of gods» (Figure 1 A-D). The obverse of these coins depicts the bust of Ardaxshir wearing a satrapal hat with a mouth-guard made of Kyrbasia. On the reverse, Ardaxshir is standing right with raised hands in front of a square structure; a standard similar to those used by the Achaemenids is to the right. The square structure 9 10 11 12 13

Alram 1986: 166. Wiesehöfer 1994: 101-112 CNG Mail Bid Sale 69, lot 766, 8th June 2005. See Figure 19.C. Hoover 2008: 209-230. Hoover 2008: 213.

14 15 16 17 18

Hoover 2008: 215. Klose & Müseler 2008: 87, no. 2/18. For more information rf. Sarkhosh Curtis 2010: 388. Klose & Müseler 2008: 24, Engels 2013: 42. Engels has also suggested that A last hypothesis would be to assume that the coin overstruck by Bagadat belonged not to his successor Ardashir, but rather to a yet unknown predecessor of Bagadat’s (perhaps his father Bagawart he alludes to in his legend), whose coins would then not yet have been found (Engels 2013:42). Engels 2013: 40-42, 75-76. Engels 2013: 42-49.

19 20

136

has often been identified as an example of the Achaemenid constructions known as Ka’ba-i Zardusht and Zindan-i Sulayman respectively located in Naqsh-i Rustam and Pasargadae.21

A

B

C

D

Figure 1. A-D) Type 1 Tetradrachms of Ardaxshir I from a single obverse die and 3 different reverse dies (B and C share the same reverse die).22

On the later issues of Ardaxshir as shown in Figure 2 A, on the later issues of Ardaxshir (Type 2 A), the legend is expanded into ‘rthštr’ prtrk’ ZY ALHYA / [BR] / prs. The last five letters BR prs often appear somewhat incomplete or probably abbreviated. This additional epithet has been interperted in different ways as the separate legend ‘pus pārsa «son of the Persian/Persia»23 / «son of FraDa»24 or in combination with the previous inscription (prs prtrk’) as frataraka of Pārs.25 A later variety of this issue (Type 2 B), depicts a monogram on the reverse die between Ardaxshir and the square construction (Figure 2 B), depicts a monogram on the reverse die between Ardaxshir and the square construction.

A

B

Figure 2. Types A) 2 A and B) 2 B tetradrachms of Ardaxshir I from Persis.26

21

These two buildings have more-or-less flat roofs whereas the one appearing on the coins of Ardaxshir is crownd with three parapet elements. Accordingly, it has been widely accepted that these elements could be representitive of small fire altars on the rooftops of the square buildings (Hill 1922: 195-196, Ghirshman 1945, Engels 2013). However, I believe that these parapets are closeley related to the roof decorations that have been found in Persepolis and Surkh Kotal (Haerinck et al. 2008). It is possible that the parapets on the roof of Ka’ba-i Zardusht or Zindan-i Sulayman collapsed or were entirely destoryed in the past.

22 23 24 25

A) Gorny & Mosch Giessener Münzhandlung, Auction 121, Lot 224, B) CNG, Auction Triton XXI, Lot 568, C) Heritage Auctions, Inc., Auction 3044, Lot 30052, D) Heritage Auctions, Inc., Auction 3048, Lot 32070. Itō 1976: 53-54, Wiesehöfer 1994: 109 n.61, Engels 2013: 38-39. Bank of Leu, Zurich 1987: 71. Boyce & Grenet 1991 Vol.3: 113.

26

A) CNG, Mail Bid Auction 60, Lot. 1037, B) Gemini, LLC, Auction VIII, Lot. 116. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

137

2. Vahbarz Numismatic evidence suggests that the next frataraka was Vahbarz. This conclusion relies on the fact that Vahbarz used some of the worn obverse dies of Ardaxshir to mint his own coinage (Compare Figure 2 A and Figure 3 A). The inscription on the reverse of Vahbarz’s early tetradrachms readytgs as follows: whwbrz prtrk’ ZY ALHYA [BR] prs «Vahbarz (the) Fratrakā of gods, son (of), (of) Persia»27 (Figure 3 A).

A

B

C

Figure 3. A, B Type 1 tetradrachms of Vahbarz struck from a worn obverse die of C) Type 2 A tetradrachms of Ardaxshir I.28

Vahbarz’s next coinage is known from only 3 examples with a unique iconography (Figure 4). The two earlier specimens that were introduced previously29 are presented in Figure 4 A-B, and now, a third example of this type in a private collection has come to light (Figure 4 C). The earliest known specimen of this type (Figure 4 Type A) was first considered as a modern fake due to its unusual iconography.30 However, after the appearance of a second example (Figure 4 B) on the market, both were held to be genuine.31 The legends with an apparently smaller lettering on the reverse of these examples bear the dynast’s name and his new title (krny)32 as usual on the left and right sides respectively. The word deciphered as krny also appears in an Aramaic document from the time of Achaemenid king, Artaxeres III, referring to the title of a certain high-ranking Vishtaspa in Bacteria.33 Therefore, the Vishtaspa Aramaic document preserves the earliest known occurrence of the title krny. An alternative interpretation of krny34 can be found in the accounts of the Greek author, Xenophon, who describes a Persian title rendered in Greek as κάρανος, as a high-ranking office of the Achaemenid empire: καὶ Κῦρος, ἄρξων πάντων τῶν ἐπὶ θαλάττῃ καὶ συμπολεμήσων Λακεδαιμονίοις, ἐπιστολήν τε ἔφερε τοῖς κάτω πᾶσι τὸ βασίλειον σφράγισμα ἔχουσαν, ἐν ᾗ ἐνῆν καὶ τάδε· Καταπέμπω Κῦρον κάρανον τῶν εἰς Καστωλὸν ἁθροιζομένων. τὸ δὲ κάρανον ἔστι κύριον.35

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

138

The author believes that the two pieces BR and prs belong to two different incomplete sentences and should not be combined together in translation. A) CNG, E. Auction 106, Lot. 97, B) Dr. Busso Peus Nachfolger, Auction 371, Lot. 212, C) CNG, Mail Bid Auction 60, Lot. 1037. Alram 1987: pl. 20.7, Klose & Müseler 2008: 30, Engels 2013:39. Alram 1987: 147-155, J. Wiesehöfer 2007: p. 37–49. Wiesehöfer 2010: 107–122, Shayegan 2011: 170, Engels 2013: 39. For more information see Schmitt 1972: 189-190, Schmitt 1983: 197-205, and Alram 1987: 148 n. 2, 152 n. 21 who referring to Schmitt, has read and interperted krny as kāren or kārān. For further information see Naveh & Shaked 2012: 187-191, and Hyland 2013: 1-7. Hyland 2013: 3. Xenophon, Hellenica, 1.4.3.

The Persian high-ranking military title κάρανος, that is associated with a certain Cyrus (most probably Cyrus the younger)36 in Xenophon’s account, ought to be equated with krny. This title has been also attested to from the Hellenistic era on and most of all Seleucus I who used this office as the administrative basis of the coregency of his son Antiochus.37 A later example of the title krny appears on the Sellwood Type 3-4 drachms38 and bronzes of Arsaces I minted at Mithradatkart. Referring to Bivar’s note39 , Sellwood has also interpreted this word as karen or κάρανος, that was mentioned by Xenophon40. It appears that the title krny on the issues of Arsaces I (S 3-4) was closely related with the Greek title αυτοκράτορος, referring to supreme military command, on his drachms and bronzes (S 1-2)41. Based on the evidence, one might securely claim that the title krny had been adopted by Vahbarz almost as an equivalent of his former title, frataraka, which is itself recorded in an Aramaic papyri from Egypt as the title of the administrative head of a district or province.42 Nevertheless, the Aramaic letters at the bottom of the above drachms of Vahbarz appear to be somewhat more complicated and have not been read with certainty. Consequently, the bottom inscription has been read and interperted in different ways, as dnt-ZY43 and also as wzt-ZY44, which as noted by Engels45 neither makes sense in Middle Pesian or Aramaean.46 It is anything but favorable to the solution of the mystery that in the Aramaean alphabet, many letters like D, K, R and W (‫ו‬, ‫ר‬, ‫ך‬, ‫ )ﬢ‬look nearly identical. Moreover,the Persian and Aramaean terminology is generally very often intermingled in Achaemenid and Hellenistic official terminology, and the poor orthography of many frataraka coins is often marked by missing or mis-spelled letters. Thus, the first letter has been read as D or W, but may also be an R or K. The second one has been read as Z or N (‫נ‬, ‫ )ז‬and the third has usually be seen as a T (‫)ת‬, but a contraction of two other letters or even an inversion of another similar letter like H or Ħ (‫ה‬, ‫ )ח‬cannot be excluded. The last two letters, however, have been associated with the letters Z and Y forming the word ZY (‫)יז‬, well attested on many other frataraka coin legends. However, ZY is a classical relative particle always forming a construction expressing genitive relationships between the two words linked by ZY47, like the Hebrew ha- or the Arabic al-. This leaves us with a major problem: There is a word before the ZY, but not behind, though neither krny nor the dynast’s name makes any sense as the second element in a ZY-construction.48 As a result, Engels suggests a third reading of the legend as wn(n)hwy assuming that the second N might have been skipped in order to avoid the reduplication, and the fourth and fifth letters are H and W, rather than T and Z. Consequently, he interprets his reading as WaNa(na)-HuWaTa (‫יוה‬-‫)ננו‬, vanana-huvaǰa, meaning “victorious over Susania” and relates that with a successful military expedition of Frataraka forces into Susania perhaps during Ptolemy’s III invasion of Babylonia in 245 B.C.49 I believe that such a reading by Engels might not be accurate due to several reasons. First of all, there is an evident space between the first three and last two Aramaic letters in the bottom inscription. This indicates that one should read them as two separate words rather than as the single word, wn(n)hwy. Moreover, Engels’ theory about the reason for missing an N letter between the second and third letters of the inscription is not likely. Last but not least, since the name whwbrz, located on the left side, contains the examples of both Aramaic letters W and H, the third and fourth Aramaic letters in the bottom inscription could not be read as H and W, respectively.

36 37 38

Hyland 2013: 2. Engels 2013: 55-56. Sellwood 1971b: Pl. 1, types 3.1, 3.2, and 4.2

39 40

Bivar 1961: 119-127. Sellwood & Abgarians 1971a: 103-104.

41 42 43

Hyland 2013: 2. Porten & Yardeni 1986 I: 41, Cowley 1923: no. 20 l. 4, Wiesehöfer 1991: 305-309. Public talk by A. D. H. Bivar at the 10th international numismatic congress, London 1986, Cited by Engels 2013: 60 n. 174, Klose & Müseler 2008: 39 n. 136, Alram 1987: 147-148, Boyce & Grenet 1991: 114 n. 246. Klose & Müseler 2008: 27. Engels 2013: 60. Cf. Alram 1987: 147-148. Cf. Folmer 1995: 259-324. Engels 2013: 60-61. Engels 2013: 61-62.

44 45 46 47 48 49

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

139

Shayegan has also offered a possible reading of the bottom inscription as wnt-ZY, building on another suggestion by Alram.50 According to Shayegan, the whole inscription might be read as follows: whbrz51 wnt52 ZY krny (wahbarz wānād/ wānēd ī kāren) «Wahbarz, was/may be victorious, (he) who (is) the commander [the κάρανος]».53 Although the suggested reading and interpertation of the inscription by Shayegan might look quite reasonable, Engels doubts its accuracy, since this interpretation offers no convincing explanation of the place of krny within the zy-construction and analyses it as a simple apposition.54 I might offer an alternative reading of this inscription on Vahbarz’s drachm. Such a reading relies on comparing the inscriptions of the above drachms and earlier coin types of Vahbarz. Both coin series consist of four distinct Aramaic words with two identical words whwbrz and ZY. The third word, which appears as prtrk’ on the earlier type, refers to the high-ranking administrative title of Vahbarz, and has been replaced with the equivalent title krny on the later type. Based on this observation, one might expect to observe a similar relationship or equivalency between the last word, ALHYA on the earlier type, and on that of the under discussion type written at its right bottom. Therefore, the bottom line on the later type may be also read as klt-ZY which could be representative of κλητ-όυ,55 the genitive form of the masculine Greek noun κλητός (klētós) meaning summoned or divinely selected by God to an office.56 Such a Greek noun perfectly matches with the Aramaic ZY ALHYA (ī bayān) «of Gods» that appears on earlier coin types of Vahbarz. As a result, the entire inscription may be read as krny / klt-ZY / whwbrz (κάρανου57 / κλητ-όυ / whwbrz) «of Vahbarz, (who is) divinely called (or appointed as) the military-leader».

A

B

C

Figure 4. A-C Type 2 B drachms of Vahbarz struck from dies cut by the engraver of the victory coinage58 of Seleucus I.59

The question that might arise here is: why were the two earlier old-Persian legends, fratarakā and ī bayān, replaced with the equivalent titles known as κάρανου (in Greek) and κλητ-όυ, respectively? The design and engraving features of the dies of these coins, which are totally different from the earlier fratarakā issues, could help to answer this key question. Initially one might argue that on the reverse dies of these drachms, a highly skilled engraver has carefully cut the Aramaic 50 51 52

53 54 55 56 57 58 59

140

Alram 1987: 148, 152. It appears that Shayegan had solely focused on the reading and interpretation of the bottom inscription since he failed to correctly read the name whwbrz and referred to whbrz several times in his notes. See Shayegan 2011: 169-171. According to Shayegan: Alram suggests reading in an admittedly unlikely Middle Persian derivation from Old Persian *vantā “victor.” The word can easily represent the third singular present indicative or subjunctive of the verb wān- “be victorious; win,” thus, wānēd or wānād, rather than a derivative of *vantā (Shayegan 2011: 170, n. 533). Shayegan 2011: 170. Engels 2013: 61f. It appears that the Aramaic relative particle ZY has been used as an equivalent of the Greek relative particle όυ (of, from), while the three letters klt might present an Aramaic spelling of the Greek κλητ. Strong 1890: 43 no. 2822. I would rather prefer to use the genitive form, κάρανου, as an equivalent for the Aramaic krny on this type. Houghton A., 1980, Notes on the early Seleucid victory coinage of Persepolis, Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau 59: 5–14. See Figure 6.B. A) Klose & Müseler 2008: Farbtafle 6, B) NYS, Auction 37, Lot. 241, C) Private collection.

letters in a comparatively small size, and as well depicted an idealized Achaemenid (?) king preparing to slay a captive Greek/Seleucid soldier. At the same time, the craftsman has carelessly (or habitually) added traces of a wing behind the Achaemenid king, very similar to those of Nike on many Macedonian and Seleucid coins. Considering this point, one may conclude that the engraver of Type 2.B drachms of Vahbarz either had no idea about the physical features of the slayer or that he recut a worn Seleucid (?) die that already included Nike as part of its design. So, the engraver simply went ahead and corrected the remaining traces of a wing on the former die. Of these two theories, the first one seems to be more likely because as we shall see later, it appears that the engraver of the reverse dies of this issue attempted to idealize the physiognomy of the Achaemenid king and assimilate him with Nike. These unique engraving features also strongly suggest that we are dealing with a non-Iranian craftsman who was probably ordered to cut the victory dies of Vahbarz. Such a “Common Engraver” case was not unprecedented in antiquity. We have, for example, a single engraver responsible both for the dies of the rare drachms of the Seleucid usurper Alexander Balas from Ecbatana60 as well as for the Sellwood 10.10, 10.14 and 12.1-2 Ecbatana drachms of Mithradates I61 after the Parthian king annexed the satrapy of Media (Figure 5 A-C). A further example involves the engraver who originally cut the tetradrachm and drachm dies of Antiochus VII in Seleucia on the Tigris,62 but subsequently engraved the Sellwood 17.1-4 tetradrachm and drachm dies of the young Arsacid prince Phraates II in the same royal mint63 (Figure 5 D-E).

A

B

C

D

E

Figure 5. Drachms of A) Alexander Balas, B, C) Mithradates I from Ecbatana, and tetradrachms of D) Antiochus VII, and E) Phraates II, from Seleucia, presenting identical mint masters’ monograms.64

60 61 62 63 64

Houghton 1983: 117 no.1270-1273, Plate 75. Sellwood 1980: type 10.10, 10.14, 12.1, and 12.2. Houghton, Lorber and Hoover 2008: SC II, No. 2127. A) Münzen & Medaillen GmbH, Auction 32, Lot. 185, B) Bibliothèque nationale, Paris, 1972-42, C) NYS, Auction 37, Lot. 25, D) The reference (catalogue number) will be added later, E) CNG, Triton V, Lot. 1561. A) Münzen & Medaillen GmbH, Auction 32, Lot. 185, B) Bibliothèque nationale, Paris, 1972-42, C) NYS, Auction 37, Lot. 25, D) Houghton, Lorber and Hoover 2008: SC II, No. 2127. E) CNG, Triton V, Lot. 1561. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

141

Comparing the design and engraving features of the Type 2 drachmas of Vahbarz with the contemporary victory coinage of Seleucus I (Nicator) from Persepolis/Pasargadae (Figure 6 A-B) that bear the monogram PY on the reverse,65 reveals more information about the origin of this engraver. As pointed out by Newell, the Victory (also called trophy) issues of Seleucus I from Persepolis with the monogram PY also have small and irregular lettering in their inscriptions. It was later claimed that close similarities between the so-called victory issues from Susa and Persepolis/Pasargadae, including their style and monograms, strongly suggest that they were entirely minted at Susa and that the Persepolis/ Pasargadae mint was most probably never used for striking this coinage.66 In contrast, a considerable portion of the hoards of Seleucus’ Victory coins were found in Fars region (Persis) as compared with those discovered at Susa.67 Two of these finds are more remarkable than the others. The earlier hoard, which was unearthed during the Persepolis excavations by Herzfeld in 1934, includes one victory-type tetradrachm of Seleucus I, one tetradrachm of Vahbarz, one tetradrachm of Baydād and four tetradrachms of Vadfradād I.68 The later discovery by Stronach in 1962 at Pasargadae consisted of six victory-type coins of Seleucus I (three drachms and three tetradrachms), four tetradrachms bearing the name of Alexander (one lifetime and three posthumous types) and four tetradrachms of Philip III. All of these coins were sealed in the destruction level in the Citadel of Pasargadae.69 Accordingly, Stronach arrived at two important conclusions: first, that the discovery of this hoard fully confirms Newell›s original suggestion that a specimen of a similar issue from the Herzfeld hoard was minted at Persepolis, and second, a national revolution must have taken place during or immediately after the reign of Seleucus.70

A

B Figure 6. Comparison of A) Type 2 drachm of Vahbarz and B) victory tetradrachm of Seleucus I, designd by a single craftsman.71

Considering the discovery of the Victory coin hoards of Seleucus I in Persepolis and Pasargadae, together with the close association between the monograms of these coins and those minted in Susa,72 leads one to conclude that all the Victory coins of Seleucus I were issued in Susa.73 These were subsequently transported to the Persepolis/Pasargadae region either by a military campaign of Seleucus I (or trading), or that their die engraver moved to Persepolis/

65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73

142

Newell 1938: 154-161, Hadley 1974: 9-13, Jenkins 1978: 198. Houghton 1980: 6-8, Hoover 2002: 51. Potts 2016: 351-352. Newell 1938: 159-169, Stronach 1964: 38. Stronach 1964: 38 Stronach 1964: 38-39. The second theory has been rejected by Houghton, since he puts the deposition date of this hoard sometime immediately before 300 B.C. (Houghton 1980: 14) A) NYS, Auction 37, Lot. 241, B) CNG, Auction Trition XX, Lot. 339. Houghton 1980: 6-8, Hoover 2002: 51. Houghton 1980: 6-8, Hoover 2002: 51.

Pasargadae along with the Seleucid army to continue his work in those workshops. Combining the three known Fig 4 Type 2 drachms of Vahbarz with the testimonies of Polyaenus lends weight to the later theory. Polyaenus74 reports the murder of 3000 Persian rebels in a village called Rhanda on orders from a certain Seleucus, who was indeed Seleucus Nicator, the founder of the Seleucid dynasty.75 This account is believed to be related to the destruction level in Tell-i Takht, the above-mentioned Achaemenid citadel of Pasargadae,76 which according to the evidence of Stronach’s two coin hoards,77 was dated to the final years of or immediately after the reign of Seleucus I.78 However, as correctly discussed by Houghton, the deposition date of the two coin hoards should be put at the end of the period when Susa’s victory coinage was struck, and immediately before the appearance of the elephant biga and quadriga issues of that mint and Seleucia, or c. 300 B.C.79 The latter theory puts the date of the destruction level shortly before 300 BCE. Since none of the frataraka coins appear in these hoards, we might safely put the beginning of the rule of Ardaxshir I, as the first frataraka, sometime after 300 BCE. Immediately after the report of the slaughtered Persians, Polyaenus80 relates a similar story concerning the massacre of 3000 katoikoi (colonists) in Persia who were hatching a plot upon orders from the Persian frataraka Oborzus (Vahbarz). The Victory (helmeted) coinage of Seleucus I from Susa and Persepolis/Pasargadae has been traditionally attributed to a victory over Antigonus Monophthalmus at Ipsus in the summer of 301 BCE. However, as correctly pointed out by Mørkholm,81 it does not seem to be rational to celebrate a victory in Ipsus by minting a special coinage only at the comparatively small mints of Susa and Persepolis. Mørkholm instead believes that these issues were minted by Seleucus to refer generally to the victories of Alexander over the Orientals and to Seleucus as his rightful successor in the Iranian provinces. According to the horad evidence, the helmeted victory coinage of Seleucus was struck between 304 and 295/4 BCE.82 If we accept Stronach’s second theory, the apperance of the victory coins of Seleucus I in the destruction level of Pasargadae, suggests that the massacre of the 3000 Macedonian/Seleucid katoikois took place shortly after the murder of the same number of Persians on orders from Seleucus I sometime in the period 304 to 300 BCE.83 As illustrated in Figure 6, the iconographical comparison between a PY signed tetradrachm from the so-called victory coinage of Seleucus Nicator and a Type 2 victory drachm of Vahbarz leaves no doubt that the corresponding dies were cut by a single Macedonian/Seleucid engraver. The undeniable similarities are notably the engraving details of the obverse busts, as well as the unusually small size of the Aramaic and Greek letters on the reverse of both types. However, there is an apparent discrepancy in the content of the motifs on the reverse of these two types.

First Theory On the victory dies of Seleucus I, the engraver depicts Nike placing a wreath on an effigy or trophy that is dressed in Macedonian/Seleucid armor. Conversely, on the die of Vahbarz, he replaces Nike with an Achaemenid prince who is preparing to slay a Macedonian/Seleucid captive who wears a dress similar to that of the trophy on the victory coins of Seleucus Nicator. If we recognize the slain captive as a Seleucid soldier, this would suggest that Vahbarz apparently attempted to void both the previous victory of Seleucus and the Macedonian occupation of Persia on his own coins. Instead, he highlighted his own later victory in defeating the Seleucid overlords and evicting them from his land. Therefore, it seems that Vahbarz ordered the same engraver to replace Nike, a well-known Hellenistic figure, with a winged Achaemenid king as the representative of a mythical Persian hero. Here, on the victory coin of Vahbarz, the Persian sovereign has forced to his knees the Macedonian/Seleucid soldier who had previously received a wreath from 74

Polyaenus: 7.39.

75 76

Grainger 1990: 213, Wiesehöfer 1994: 60, Sekunda 2007: 230. Engels 2013: 46-47, Wiesehöfer 1994: 93-96.

77 78 79 80 81 82 83

Stronach 1964: 38. Sekunda 2007: 230. Houghton 1980: 14. Polyaenus: 7.40. Mørkholm 1991: 72. Hoover 2002: 54. The lower date limit, 300 B.C, is due to the absence of any elephant biga and quadriga issues in Stronach’s coin hoards from Pasargadae. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

143

Nike on Seleucus’ coins. The old-Persian legends written in Aramaic have been replaced by their Greek equivalents, but also written in Aramaic. Issuing such a coinage with the equivalent Greek legend in Aramaic, appears as an effort by Vahbarz in Persis to convey a message of the defeat and massacre of the Seleucid heirs of Alexander. Such an issue would be of tremendous value as propaganda for Vahbarz. The lack of any remarkable Seleucid emissions from Fārs has been taken as one indication of the loss of Seleucid political control over Persis.84 Combining this with the earlier discussed evidence of the relocation of the die-engraver for the victory coins of Seleucus I from Susa to Persis suggests that Seleucid troops had permission to enter Persis and later probably tried to encroach upon the territory of the autonomous fratarakas of Persis sometime between 304 and 300 BCE. However, considering the motifs and legends of the victory coins of Vahbarz in Persis, it appears that within less than a decade he had successfully defeated the Seleucid enemy in his territory and as well employed their skillful die-engraver to issue Vahbarz’s own victory coinage.

Second Theory Nevertheless, it is also possible to recognize the slain character in Greek/Macedonian dress as one of the numerous inner enemies were greek and outer enemies were macedonian Greek and Macedonian enemies of Seleucus I,85 as the tradition of shoring the killing of one’s own (Greek or Macedonian) enemies goes back to the beginnings of hellenism, as already the north fronton of the so-called Alexander sarcophagus shows very similar scenes of killing between Greek and Macedonian soldiers.86 In evidence I cite the account of Polyaenus (7.40) about the murder of 3000 katoikoi (colonists) in Persia who were accused of hatching a plot against the Persian frataraka Oborzus. These Macedonian katoikoi were probably settled in Persis after Alexander’s invasion of Persia. They were living there in an agreement with Seleucus I, as one of Alexander’s diodochi, and probably also with the consent of Vahbarz, as a local elite (krny) of Persis under the Seleucid rule. Such an assumption perfectly matches with our numismatic observations on the contemporary coins struck by Vahbarz, Seleucus I and his heir, Antiochus I. First of all, Vahbraz’ use of the title krny instead of the title MLKA (king) is more indicative of a collaboration between him and the Seleucid overlord, than as an anti-Seleucid usurpation.87 This theory is more likely, since it would not be rational to assume that a local elite in Persis, a region surrounded by the Seleucid forces, was powerful enough to revolt against and overcome them. Moreover, Polyaenus, who has precisely narrated the number and location of the katoikoi slain by Oborzus (Vahbarz), does not mention him as a usurper or subsequently his aggressive action as a revolt against the Seleucids. The appearance of the title krny on Vahbarz coins might also imply that Vahbarz had claimed a vice-regal power over all “upper satrapies” equal to the power once wielded by Antiochus I during his co-regency (294-281 B.C.) with Seleucus I.88 Additionally, we have now seen above that the dies of a number of Victory coins of Seleucus I and those of Vahbarz associated with Ployaenus’ passage (7.40), had been cut by a single engraver. This observation reveals that Vahbraz and Seleucus I or Antiochus I must have met somewhere around Persis and sometime during the final years of Seleucus I’s reign. The approximate dating of this meeting relies on the “common engraver” case for the victory issues of Vahbraz89 and Seleucus I and a common Greek monogram that only appears on the later coins of Vahbarz and those struck by Antiochus I during his co-regency90 with Seleucus I. As will be discussed later in the paper, the title krny has disappeared on the coins of the three later fratarakas. Engels believes that the káranoi were not permanent vice-kings commanding several satrapies, as was the case with Antiochus’ exceptional coregency over the upper satrapies, but simply supra-regional military officials specifically appointed to muster and occasionally lead troops from several

84 85 86 87 88 89 90

144

Potts 2016: 351, Callieri & Askari 2013: 690-717. Cf. Klose & Müseler 2008: 27: Am Boden kniet hier eine männliche Gestalt in der halbrüstung des griechischen bzw. makedonischen hopliten, ohne Waffen und ohne helm, aber mit dem typischen großen rundschild. Engels 2013: 65-66. For more info. see Engels 2013: 55-60, 62-65. Engels 2013: 56. See Figure 6.A. Houghton & Lorber 2002: 94f.

satrapies to accomplish precise conquests, sometimes not even officiating themselves as satraps.91 Such an observation obviously lends weight to the view that Vahbarz had not claimed this title by himself and he had most probably received this award from his Seleucid overlord for a certain period of time. Finally, there is absence of any overstruck coins of Vahbarz on the Victory coinage of Seleucus I. This is unlike the issues of his next two successors, Baydad and Vadfradad. It suggests that his coinage was contemporary to that of Seleucus I, and also confirms that they were probably allies. An earlier Babylonian chronicle dealing with Antiochus I, as a viceroy of Seleucus I (294-281 B.C.), mentions the deportation of the the Macedonian citizens of Babylon under Alexander and his early successors, to Seleucia on the Tigris, following the order of the crown prince, Antiochus I. The damaged diary, which according to van der Spek probably dates 287/286 B.C92., follows as: [Month ..]. That month Antiochus, the crown [prince], settled [the Mace]donians, as many as there were in Babylon, [whom king Alexander? into Babylon] had forced to enter, from Babylon [into Seleucia o]n the Tigris.93 Such an attitude by Seleucus I, was most probably to eliminate any threats that might be arisen by his Macodnian rival, Demetrius poliorcetes, at Babylon. Consequently, we might recall the account of Polyaenus94 concerning the massacre of 3000 colonists (kataoikoi) settled in Persia. We are told that upon learning that these settlers are hatching a plot, Oborzus (Vahbarz) dispatched them to Comastus 95, where they were killed by his troops and buried during the night. Considering this story, the deportation of the Macedonian citizens of Babylon to Seleucia in the Tigris by the crown prince, Antiochus I, might have taken place about the same time and for the same reason. Comparing the Babylonian chronicle and Polyaenus’ account, one might conclude that Vahbarz was most probably ordered by Seleucus I to deport any Greco-Macedonian katoikoi (colonists) from Persia. However, it appears that Vahbarz has stepped further by ordering to kill the colonists. Such a violent reaction might be addressed to Vahbarz’s personal hostility with Greco-Macedonians. Therefore, it seems that Vahbarz has most likely minted his type 3-4 coinage to celebrate the expulsion and elimination of the Macedonian heirs of Alexander the Great from Persia, sometime ca. 287/286 B.C. This postulation perfectly matched with the previously mentioned “common engraver” and “common mint master monogram” observations. Moreover, this theory enables us to recognize the identity of the Macedonian slain soldier by Vahbarz, who under the support of Seleucus I and his crown prince, Antiochus I, achieved a proper occasion to revenge the invasion of Persia by Alexander the Great some half a century earlier. The third coinage of Vahbarz (Figure 7 A) was previously known from the only illustrated tetradrachm specimen.96 However, there is now a tetradrachm of Vadfradād I that was overstruck on a Figure 7A Type 3 tetradrachm of Vahbarz struck from the same reverse die.97 These extremely rare issues have two interesting features. First, their obverse has been struck from a well-known worn obverse die of Type 1A tetradrachms of Ardaxshir I (Compare Figure 7A with Figure 7 B-E). Second, their reverse die unusually bears a Greek monogram and the legend krny whwbrz that was cut by the same Seleucid engraver who had produced the obverse and reverse dies of the Victory coinages of Seleucus I and Vahbarz. It is worth pointing out that the monogram on this type is a combination of the Greek letters ΠΤΥΜΑ which could be found solely on a certain coinage struck by Antiochus I during his coregency (294-281 BCE) with Seleucus I or even during his sole rule.98 91 92 93

Engels 2013: 57. Van der Spek 2006: 272. BCHP 5 rev. 6-9. See van der Spek 2006: 280-284.

94 95 96 97 98

Polyaenus 7.40. A place in Persia (Polyaenus 7.40). Klose & Müseler 2008: 26-30, Engels 2013: 40. See Figure 14.A. Houghton & Lorber 2002: 94f, Engels 2013: 62-63: It is much more probable that the control monogram is exactly what it should be: the suggestion of a technical link attesting the involvement of an official Seleucid mint in the fabrication of Vahbarz’s coin. This hypothesis is strengthened by the monogram itself: It combines the letters ΠΤΥΜΑ and is identical with a control monogram found only on certain coins from Antiochus’ I coregency 294-281 or even sole rule, probably struck in Drangiane or Western Arachosia as suggests their known provenances. If we remember that the authority of a κάρανος generally encompassed several satrapies, and if we accept that Vahbarz exercised this office on behalf of the Seleucids, perhaps facilitating (or smoothing) the levying of new troops thanks to his social and political standing, then it would not seem surprising that he had to deal with the smaller eastern Iranian satrapies adjacent to Persia, explaining why his new office and his military successes were advertised by the local mints. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

145

A

B

C

D

E

Figure 7. A) Type 3 tetradrachm of Vahbarz and B-E) Type 1A tetradrachms of Ardaxshir I, struck from the same obverse die.99

It appears that Vahbarz did not have enough time to issue his final type with new obverse dies and thus he used a worn observe die of his predecessor Ardaxshir I to issue his final coinage.

3. Baydād (Bagadates) Baydād or Bagadates started his own coinage with a different iconography on the obverse, depicting his bust wearing kyrbasia with the ear-flaps tucked in at the top beneath a band, a type of hat generally worn by Achaemenid officials of sub-satrapal rank like city kings.100 Baydād’s coinage can be divided into two major types with respect to their reverse iconography. The first type follows the typical reverse pattern of the frataraka issues depicting Baydād standing in front of a square building (Ka’ba-i Zardusht or Zindan-i Sulayman?) and a standard. The most complete Aramaic legend on his coins could be read as bgdt-prtrk’-ZY-ALH[YA]-[BR]-bgwrt-prs (Figure 8), whereas the previous readings omitted the word prs.101 Such an inscription on Baydād’s coins suggests that the legend prs corresponded to the toponym Persis, whereas bgwrt102 was most probably Baydād’s patronymic. Unfortunately, earlier fratarakas do not provide us with their patronyms on their coins, and thus it is hard to make further assumptions about their paternity and relation with each other or Baydād.

Figure 8. Type 1A tetradrachm of Baydād from Persis bearing the extra word prs.

A similar iconography can be observed on a unique drachm as a new verity of Baydād’s type 1 coinage. As illustrated in Figure 9 A, the obverse of this issue depicts a typical portrait of Baydād, whereas the reverse presents a different 99

A) Klose & Müseler 2008: 35, 30, B) Gorny & Mosch Giessener Münzhandlung, Auction 121, Lot 224, C) CNG, Auction Triton XXI, Lot 568, D) Heritage Auctions, Inc., Auction 3044, Lot 30052, E) Heritage Auctions, Inc., Auction 3048, Lot 32070. 100 Engels 2013:41, See also Boehmer & Gall 1973:72. 101 See Ito 1976: 47-66, Wiesehöfer 1994: 103-104, Alram 1986: 165, Sellwood 1983: 302. 102 It appears that this name consists of the two separate words bg and wrt. The first one could be easily recognized as the Old Persian baga or its Middle Persian equivalent bay (god), whereas the second word is somewhat complicated. Even though I have no clue about the meaning of the word wrt (ward), if we consider the conversion of initial w to b (wart → bart) from Late Middle Persian to Early New Persian (Bagheri 1997:121), then the name bgwrt might be equivalent to the toponym, bay-bart (‫ ﺑﺎﯾﺒﺮد‬،‫ )ﺑ�ﯿﺒﺮت‬or the modern Bāyburt in Turkey. Similarly, the name bgdt (Bagdād/Baydād) could be found in its partially converted (but still Aramaic) form as the toponym Bagdād, in Irāq

146

illustration of the sacred structure. Accordingly on the reverse, Baydād appears standing in front of a standard to the left and a square structure decorated with two arrow slot shapes and only two parapet fragments on the top. Such a design has been also recorded from the Kanishka temple at Surkh Kotal located in Afghanistan103 (Figure 9 B-C).

A

B

C

Figure 9. A) Type 1 B drachm of Baydād and B, C) parapet fragments from Surkh Kotal.104

The second type, however, has a novel iconography on its reverse. It depicts Baydād enthroned left holding a scepter and lotus blossom with a military standard in front (Figure 10 A). Such a scene on the reverse of Baydād’s coins appears to be taken from the bas-reliefs of Darius I and Xerxes I Mørkholm in Persepolis (Figure 10 B).

A

B

Figure 10. A) Type 2 A tetradrachm of Baydād and B) Rock relief of Darius I in Persepolis.105

It has been widely accepted that the first tetradrachm series of Baydād, typically showing him standing in front of a holy structure, was minted after the second series depicting him enthroned.106 However, numismatic evidence suggests the opposite sequence. A closer inspection of several speciemens from these two types suggests that worn obverse dies of Type 1, depicting a holy structure on the reverse, were used for striking Baydād’s Type 2 coinage (Figure 11 A-C).

103 104 105 106

Schlumberger 1960: 10; Pl. VI.1-2, See also Haerinck & Overlaet 2008: 207-233. A) Private collection, B. C) Schlumberger 1960: 10; Pl. VI.1-2. A) CNG, Auction Trition XXI, Lot. 567. Hill 1922: 195-196, Ito 1976: 52, Alram 1986: 165, Klose & Müseler 2008: n° 2/1-2/6, Engels 2013: 41-42. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

147

A

B

C

Figure 11. A, B) Type 1 and C) Type 2A tetradrachms of Baydād struck from the same obverse die.107

Additionally, the traces left on some Figure 12 Type 2A silver fragments of Baydād confirm that these coins were overstruck on his Type 1 issues, and thus should be considered as later issues. On the obverse of one of these overstruck tetradrachms an earlier bust of Baydād could be seen at 45°, whereas, the reverse shows traces of the holy structure at 225° in relation to the later design depicting him enthroned (Figure 12 A-B). This is also the case for some smaller silver fragments of Baydād, notably the obol illustrated in Figure 12 C-D.

A

B

C

D

Figure 12. A) Type 2 A tetradrachms of Baydād overstruck on his B) Type 1 tetradrachm. C) Type 2 A obol of Baydād overstruck on his D) Type 1 obol.108

As illustrated in Figure 13A, Baydād later issued a second variety of his Type 2 tetradrachms.109 This was apparently minted to convey a propaganda message against Vadfradād I. The reverse of this unique specimen depicts Baydād enthroned left with a lion lounging under his feet together with the same legend as on the earlier variety of his Type 2 107 Maison Palombo, Auction 16, Lot. 16, B) Numismatica Ars Classica NAC AG, Auction 88, Lot. 447, C) Nomos, Auction 2, Lot. 142. 108 A) NY, Auction XXXVII, Lot. 230, C) Author’s Collection. 109 This unique issue was minted on an Alexander-type tetradrachm with a 180° rotation.

148

coinage. The obverse of this new issue, however, has been struck from a worn die of Type 2A tetradrachm of Baydād (Figure 13 B). Interestingly, the traces left from the under-type on the later issue confirm that it was overstruck on a tetradrachm of the Macedonian king, Demetrius Poliorcetes. Luckily, I was able to find a tetradrachm of Demetrius that had been minted from the same reverse die as that used for the under-type of Baydād’s overstrike (Figure 13C-D). The mint monogram on Demetrius’ issue confirms that it was struck at Pella, the capital of ancient Macedonia, circa 289– autumn of 288 BCE.110 Considering the dating of Demetrius’s tetradrachm, it is possible to put the beginning of Baydād’s reign sometime after autumn of 288 BCE.

A

B

D

C

Figure 13. A) Type 2B and B) Type 2A tetradrachms of Baydād struck from the same obverse die; C) tetradrachm of Demetrius Poliorcetes struck from the same reverse die that appears as the under-type of the Type 2A tetradrachm of Baydād as illustrated in Figure 13 D.111

Vadfradād I (Autophradates I) The next frataraka according to the evidence of the coins is Vadfradād who is simply introduced as wtprdt prtrk’ ZY ALHYA on all his coins. The obverse of Vadfradād’s issues presents his bust crowned with the kyrbasia in a manner very similar to those of Vahbarz and Ardaxshir I; three different iconographies have been recorded for their reverses. On the reverse of his early type, Vadfradād I appears standing in front of the royal standard and the fire temple that is now surmounted by a Faravahar as the symbol of Zoroastrianism (Figure 14 A-E).112 The appearance of Farvahar, the winged symbol of Zoroastrianism sometimes identified with Ahura Mazda or the royal Kvarnah113 on the coinage of Vadfradād I suggests that he also tried to proclaim himself as a successor of the Achaemenid kings, as Baydād had done before. During his early coinage, Vadfradād exclusively overstruck the previous Seleucid and fratarakas issues114 (Figure 14 A-E). In a special case, traces of a second specimen of the unique Type 3 tetradrachm of Vahbarz can be easily identified from its distinctive mint monogram (Figure 14 A).

110 111 112 113 114

Newell 1917: 96-97; no 90. A) Leu Numismatik, Auction 2, Lot 165, B) CNG, Auction Triton XVI, Lot 640, C) Stack’s Bowers Galleries, Auction ANA (August 2015), Lot 30035. Calmeyer 1979:47-365, Wiesehofer 1994: 11 Engels 2013: 70. Hoover 2008: 227, Klose & Müseler 2008: 30, Engels 2013: 40. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

149

A

B

D

E

C

Figure 14. Tetradrachms of Vadfradād I struck on A) Type 3 tetradrachm of Vahbarz, B) tetradrachm of Philip III, C) Type 1 tetradrachm of Baydād overstruck on an Alexander-type tetradrachm, D) Type 2A tetradrachm of Baydād, and E) victory tetradrachm of Seleucus.115

Numismatic data suggests that the third frataraka, Baydād, was challenged by Vadfradād I and finally dethroned by him. Judging from its iconography, Type 2 coinage of Vadfradād I appears to have been minted during the campaigns against his rival, Baydād. On the reverse of these extremely rare issues (Figure 15), Vadfradād is shown standing alone in front of a fire temple, surmounted by a Faravahar and showing the royal standard on the right bearing a perched eagle.

A

B

Figure 15. Type 2 A) tetradrachm and B) drachm of Vadfradād I depicting an eagle alighted atop the royal standard.116

The final coinage of Vadfradād I depicts him standing in front of a fire temple and being crowned by Nike standing behind him (Figure 16). Most probably, issuing this coinage was an attempt by Vadfradād I to confirm his legitimacy as the chosen frataraka, after his successful defeat of Baydād. Accordingly, Type 3 coinage of Vadfradād I must have been minted immediately after the Type 2 A-B series of Baydād depicting him seated on the Achaemenid throne.

115 A) Private Collection, B) Stack’s Bowers Galleries, Auction 151, Lot. 8139, C) Private Collection, D) Cayón Subastas, Auction December 2005, Lot. 77, E) CNG, Auction 90, Lot. 788. 116 A) Klose & Müseler 2008: Farbtafel 7, B) Gorny & Mosch Giessener Münzhandlung, Auction 156, Lot. 1542.

150

A

B

Figure 16. Type 3 A) tetradrachm and B) hemidrachm of Vadfradād I depicting Nike standing behind Vadfradād and crowning him with a wreath.117

5. Vadfradād II (Autophradates II): According to his usually incomplete coin inscription wtprdt prtrk’ ZY ALHYA that rarely appears on the extant specimens, the fifth and last frataraka was also named Vadfradād (II). During his entire reign, Vadfradād II is depicted on the obverse wearing a diadem and kyrbasia adorned with a double-winged eagle, with minor changes to his reverse coin designs. The coinage of Vadfradād II can be divided into three major types. The reverse of the only known drachm of Vadfradād II, classified here as his Type 1 coinage, depicts him with a bow in front and wearing a kyrbasia similar to that of his predecessor, Vadfradād I. The eagle that appeared on the Type 2 coinage of Vadfradād I is omitted from this type of Vadfradād II’s coin (Figure 17).

Figure 17. Type 1 drachm of Vadfradād II depicting him with a kyrbasia and chin guard, and standing in front of a fire temple and the royal standard.118

Given the steady changes to a number of corresponding dies, the reverse of Types 2-3 of his coinage appears to have been minted for a long time. Vadfradād II is seen wearing his peculiar crown with an eagle atop the royal standard similar to that on the final coinage of Vadfradād I (Figure 18). Moreover, traces of a bow in front of Vadfradād can still be seen on the earlier issues of his Type 2 coinage (Figure 18 A-B); however, they completely disappear from the later issues of this type (Figure 18 C-D). The obverse of Type 3 coinage of Vadfradād II shares its iconography with his Type 1-2 coinages. It has a distinctive crescent attached to the rear of his kyrbasia. Along with the type 2 coinage of Vadfradād II, these issues were initially assigned to an uncertain ruler (Uncertain King I).119 With the discovery of hoards of later Persid issues, Type 2 coinage was attributed to Vadfradād II because of the traces of a weak inscription on some specimens.120 However, the attribution of Type 3 remained uncertain due to its lack of inscription.121 Interestingly, comparing the later output of Vadfradād’s Type 2 and Type 3 series confirms that they were struck under the same authority. On most of the former coins, Vadfradād II appears with a deep scar on his cheek, most probably to highlight his victory in a war with an unidentified enemy. This unique feature, which is also repeated on his Type

117 118 119 120 121

A) NYS, Auction XXXVII, Lot 247, B) Gorny & Mosch Giessener Münzhandlung, Auction 253, Lot 250. Private collection. Hill 1922: 202-208. Wiesehöfer 1994: 112-114. Wiesehöfer 1994: 112-114. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

151

3 coinage that had been previously assigned to an Unknown King I, indicates that the Type 3 output too may be attributed to Vadfradād II.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Figure 18. Early-Type 2 A) tetradrachm and B) drachm, Late-Type 2 C) drachm, D) obol, and E) hemiobol, Type 3 F) drachm and G) hemidrachm of Vadfradād II.122

Conclusions Until fairly recently it was believed that Baydād was the founder of the fratarakas dynasty.123 However, Hoover demonstrated that the remaining traces from an under-type on the obverse of a tetradrachm of Baydād (Figure 19 C) confirm that the latter had overstruck the coins of at least one of the three earlier fratarakas, namely Ardaxshir I, Vahbarz, and Vadfradād I.124 Therefore, Baydād could not have reigned before Ardaxshir I and Vahbarz because Vahbarz had already utilized several used obverse dies of Ardaxshir. Accordingly, Hoover suggested that Baydād was a successor or contemporary of Vadfradād I.125 Similarly, Engels postulated that since Baydād had overstruck a tetradrachm of an earlier frataraka, the under-type must have belonged to Vadfradād I owing to the fact that Vadfradād I had already overstruck the coins of Ardaxshir I and his successor Vahbarz.126 However, this conclusion can no longer be maintained because the fratarakas not only overstruck the coins of their predecessors, but also those of the earlier Macedonian and Seleucid rulers, as Vadfradād I can be shown to have done. Additionally, as demonstrated in Figure 19 A-D, the under-type of the tetradrachm of Baydād, which was attributed to Vadfradād I by Engels127, is actually a tetradrachm 122 A) CNG, Auction 97, Lot 440, B) CNG, E. Auction 176, Lot. 65, C) Roma Numismatics Limited, E. Sale 2, Lot 353, D) Roma Numismatics Limited, E. Sale 2, Lot 356, E) collection of M. Alavi, F) CNG, Auction 90, Lot 792, G) NYS, Auction XXXVII, Lot. 252. 123 Hill 1922: elxiv-elxviii ?? & 195-202, Ito 1976: 52, Wiesehöfer 1994: 103-109. 124 Hoover 2008: 213-215. 125 Hoover 2008:213. 126 Engels 2013:42. 127 Engels 2013:42.

152

of Vahbarz from a well-known die. Therefore, as yet there is no evidence to confirm that Vadfradād I succeeded Vahbarz. Several examples from the early type of Vadfradād I’s coins have been overstruck on both Type 1 and Type 2 tetradrachms of Baydād (Figure 14 C-D), whereas the reverse design and engraving characteristics of the latest type of Vadfradād I is related to the early type of the last frataraka, Vadfradād II. This indicates that Baydād ruled as the predecessor to and later as a contemporary rival of Vadfradād I, who was finally defeated by Vadfradād I during the early years of his reign.

A

B

C

D

Figure 19. A, B) Comparison between the undertype traces of C) a type 1 tetradrachm of Baydād and D) a type 1 tetradrachm of Vahbarz.128

In 2015, a hoard of 305 frataraka coins was found by local workers during road construction near Shiraz. The hoard was solely composed of eight (used) tetradrachms of Baydād in good-to-very fine condition and 297 (probably uncirculated) tetradrachms of Vadfradād I mostly in very fine-to-mint condition. Combining this evidence with the fact that the reverse dies of the early type of Baydād follow the pattern on the reverse dies of the previous frataraka, Vahbarz, gives more weight to the theory that Vahbarz was succeeded by Baydād (and not byVadfradād I). The reverse iconography of the early coins of Baydād perfectly matches those of his predecessor, Vahbarz. On the other hand, if we compare the reverse iconography of the later types of Baydād, which present him enthroned left, with those of Vadfradād I depicting the figures of the eagle, Fravahar, and Nike, we note that there must have been an ongoing strife between the two fratarakas in the final years of Baydād’s rule. Each of the rivals tried to legitimize his rule against the claims of his opponent with his coins. Vadfradād I started his coinage by adding to the reverse the winged symbol of Zoroastrianism, Fravahar (usually identified as Ahura Mazda or the royal Kvarnah129) in order to demonstrate his ambition to succeed the Achaemenids.130 It appears that in response to Vadfradād I issuing such a coinage, Baydād minted his type 2 A reformed coinage depicting him seated on the Achaemenid throne. The Type 2 B coinage of Baydād, which was presented and discussed earlier, should be considered as his final issue with respect to the obverse die sequence of the only known tetradrachm of this type. It seems that Baydād attempted some propaganda to agrandize himself in relation to his rival, Vadfradād I. He thus pretended to be victorious by issuing a coinage that showed him enthroned left with a lion lounging under his feet. Contemporary with Baydād’s Type 2 reformed coinage, Vadfradād I probably issued his Type 2 coins on the reverse of which he is depicted in front

128 C) CNG Mail Bid Sale 69, lot 766, D) NYS, Auction XI, Lot 125. 129 Engels 2013: 70. 130 Klose & Müseler 2008: 30, Engels 2013: 70. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

153

of the holy structure along with an eagle perching on the royal standard, most probably to emphasize the legitimacy of his rule against Baydād. Issuing his Type 3 coinage that depicts on its reverse Vadfradād I receiving a wreath from Nike standing behind him (most probably as a sign of victory) suggests that Vadfradād I finally overcame his rival, Baydād. The reverse pattern of the Type 3 coinage of Vadfradād I was then used by Vadfradād II, his successor and the last frataraka. The Type 3 coinage of Vadfradād II, which was previously attributed to an Uncertain King I of Persis, has now been linked to the Type 2 coinage of Vadfradād II by the unique deep scar on his cheek on both types. The apparent continuous change in the designs of Type 1 to Type 3 coinage of Vadfradat II also suggests that he reigned for a comparatively long period before the accession to the throne of his successor, the first king of Persis, Darius I. Consequently, in light of the earlier conclusions in this paper, the chronolgy of the frataraka rulers can be summarized as shown in Table 1. Despite recording a set of remarkable numismatic data, yet we are extremely ill-informed about the post-Alexander history of Persis. It is to be hoped that further numismatic or archaeological discoveries will throw more light on the history and coinage of the fratarakas of Persis. Ruler

Numismatic evidence

Reign

Ardaxshir I

Hoard evidence: Stronach’s coin hoards I & II of from Pasargadae

After 300 B.C. Before ca. 295/294

Vahbarz

Common die engraver: Type: Victory coinage of Seleucus I. Common Monogram: Type: Antiochus I’s coregency (295/294-281 B.C.) struck at Drangiane or Western Arachosia.

Contemporary to ca. 295/4-281 B.C.

Baydād

Overstrike Under type: Newell-90 coinage of Demetrius Poliorcetes from Pella (ca. 289-autumn 288 B.C.)

After autumn 288 B.C.

Vadfradād I

Overstrike Under type: Horse-head coinage of Antiochus I (Hoover 2008: 227.)

After Sep. 281 B.C.

Vadfradād II

–

Long after Sep. 281 B.C.

Table 1. Chronology table of the frataraka rulers based on the historically important overstrikes or common die characteristics.131

131 Arrows show the direction of the numismatic information flow on the chart.

154

BIBLIOGRAPHY Alram, M. (1987), “Eine neue Drachme des Vahbarz (Oborzos) aus der Persis?” in LNV 3. Alram M. (1986), Nomina propria Iranica in nummis. Iranisches Personennamenbuch. Vienna. Bagheri, M. (1997), History of Persian Language (In Farsi). Tehran: Ghatreh. Bivar, A.D.H. (1961), “A ‘Satrap’ of Cyrus the Younger,” Numismatic Chronicle (7th Series) 1:119-127. Boehmer, M. (1973), Von GAll, H., Das Felsrelief bei Batas-Herir, BaM 6. Boyce, M., Grenet, F. (1991), A history of Zoroastrianism, Vol. 3, Zoroastrianism under Maccedonian and Roman Rule, Leiden. Callieri, P., Askari Chaverdi, A. (2013), ‘Media, Khuzestan, and Fars between the end of the Achaemenids and the rise of the Sasanians’, OHAI, 690-717. Calmeyer, P. (1979), Fortuna – Tyche – Khvarenah in Jahrbuch des DAI 94, p. 47-365. Cowley, A. E. (1923), Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C., Oxford. Curtis, V. S. (2010), ‘The Frataraka Coins of Persis: Bridging the Gap between Achaemenid and Sasanian Persia’, in J. Curtis and S. J. Simpson (eds.), The World of Achaemenid Persia: History, Art and Society in Iran and the Ancient Near East, London and New York, p. 379–394. de Luynes, H. (1846), Essai sur la numismatique des Satrapies et de la Phénicie sous les Rois Achæmenides: avec supplement & planches, Paris. de La Fuye, A. (1906), Étude sur la numismatique de la Perside, dans Corolla Numismatica, Paris. Engels, D. (2013), ‘A New Frataraka Chronology’, Latomus 72, p. 28–82. Folmer, M. L. (1995), The Aramaic Language in the Achaemenid Period: A Study in Linguistic Variation, Leuven. Ghirshman, R. (1945), La tour de Nourabad. Étude sur les temples iraniens anciens, Syria 24, p. 175-193. Grainger, J. D. (1990), Seleukos Nikator: Constructing a Hellenistic Kingdom, London/New York: Routledge. Hadley, R. A. (1974), Royal Propaganda of Seleucus I and Lysimachus, Journal of Hellenistic Studies, 94, 50-65. Haerinck E., Overlaet, B. (2008), “Altar shrines and fire altars? Architectural representations on Frataraka coinage”, Iranica Antiqua 43: 207–233. Hill, G.F. (1922), Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum: Arabia, Mesopotamia and Persia, London. Hoover, O.D. (2002), “The Identity of the Helmeted Head on the ‘Victory’ Coinage of Susa.” Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau, 81, 51-62. Hoover O. D. (2008), “Appendix 5: Overstruck Seleucid coins”, pp. 209–230 in A. Houghton, C. Lorber & O. Hoover (eds.) Seleucid Coins. A Comprehensive Catalogue Part 2: Seleucus IV through Antiochus XIII, 2 Vols., New York and Lancaster, PA. Houghton A., Lorber C. (2002), Seleucid Coins. A Comprehensive Catalogue, vol. 1: Seleucus I through Antiochus III. Lancaster, PA and London. Houghton, A., Lorber, C., and Hoover, O. (2008), Seleucid Coins: A Comprehensive Catalogue. Part 2: Seleucus IV through Antiochus XIII, 2 vols. New York and Lancaster, PA. Houghton, A. (1983), Coins of the Seleucid Empire from the Collection of Arthur Houghton. New York: American Numismatic Society. Houghton A. (1980), Notes on the early Seleucid victory coinage of Persepolis, Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau 59: 5–14. Hyland, J. (2013), ‘Vishtaspa krny: An Achaemenid Military Official in 4th-Century Bactria’, in Arta, p. 1–7. Itô, G. (1976), Gathika XIV-XV . Syenian frataraka and Persian pratarak. New Iranian Elements in Ancient Aramaic in Orient 12, p. 47-66 A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

155

Jenkins, G. K., Coins in Stronach, D. (ed.) (1978), Pasargadae: a Report on the Excavations Conducted by the British Institute of Persian Studies from 1961-1963, Oxford. Klose, D. O. A., Müseler, W. (2008), Statthalter, Rebellen Könige. Die Münzen aus Persepolis von Al- exander dem Großen zu den Sasaniden, München. Klose D. O. A. (2005), “Statthalter, Könige, Rebellen”, Numismatisches Nachrichtenblatt 54 (Mar.): 93–103. Mørkholm, O. (1991), Early Hellenistic Coinage from the Accession of Alexander to the Peace of Apamea (336-188 B.C.) (ed. by Ph. Grierson / U. Wester mark), Cambridge. Naveh, J., Shaked, S. (2012), Aramaic Documents from Ancient Bactria (Fourth Century BCE). From the Khalili Collections, London. Newell, E. T. (1917), The Seleucid Mint of Antioch,” American Journal of Numismatics, LI. Newell E. T. (1938), The Coinage of the Eastern Seleucid Mints. New York. Parker R. A., Dubberstein W. H. (1956): Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.- A. D. 75, Vol. 19, Brown University Press. Potts, D. T. (1999), The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Porten, B., Yardeni, A. (1986-89), Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt, Jerusalem. Schlumberger, D. (1960), “Descendants non-méditerranéens de l’art grec,” Syria, 37, p. 253-318. Schmidt, E.F. (1953), Persepolis I — Structures, Reliefs, Inscriptions (Oriental Institute Publications 68), Chicago. Schmitt, R. (1972), ‘Persepolitanisches II’, in Die Sprache 18, p. 188–193. Schmitt, R. (1983), ‘Sūrēn, aber Kārin: Zu den Namen zweier Parthergeschlechter’, in Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 42, p. 197–205. Sekunda, N. (2007), Boxus the Persian and the Hellenization of Persis in Tuplin, Chr. (ed.), Persian Responses. Political and Cultural Interaction with(in) the Achaemenid Empire, Swansea. Sellwood, D., Parthian Coins, in E. Yarshater (ed.), The Cambridge History of Iran. Volume 3.2: The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods, Cambridge, 1983, p. 299–321. Sellwood, D., Abgarians, M. T. (1971a), A Hoard of Early Parthian Drachms, Numismatic Chronicle, 103-119. Sellwood, D. (1971b), An Introduction to the Coinage of Parthia, 1st edn., London, Spink and Son Ltd., 315 pp. Shayegan, M. R. (2011), Arsacids and Sasanians. Political ideology in Post-Hellenistic and Late Antique Persia, Cambridge. Stronach, D. (1964), “Excavation at Pasargadae: A third preliminary report”, Iran 2: 21-39. Strong, J. (1890), Dictionaries of the Hebrew and Greek words, Aringdon-Cokesbury Press: New York. van der Spek, R. (2006), ‘The Size and Significance of the Babylonian Temples During the Successors’, in P. Briant and F. Joannes (eds.), La transition entre l’empire achéménide et les royaumes hellénistiques, Persika, 9, Paris: De Boccard, p. 261-307. Wiesehöfer, J. (2007). “Fars under Seleucid and Parthianrule”, pp. 37–47 in V. S. Curtis & S. Stewart (eds) The Age of the Parthians. London and New York. Wiesehöfer, J. (1994), Die “Dunklen Jahrhunderte” der Persis: Untersuchungen zu Geschichte und Kultur von Fars in frühhellenistischer Zeit (330–140 v. Chr.), München. Wiesehöfer, J. (2011), ‘Frataraka Rule in Early Seleucid Persis: A New Appraisal’, in: Erskine, Andrew and Jones, Lloyd Llewellyn (eds), Creating a Hellenistic World, Swansea: 107–21. Wiesehöfer, J. (1991), “PRTRK, RB HYLʾ und MRʾ,” in H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg and A. Kuhrt, eds., Achaemenid History VI. Asia Minor and Egypt: Old Cultures in a New Empire, Leiden, pp. 305-309.

156

Sasanian Coins from Āmul, Tabaristān HODGE MEHDI MALEK

Introduction The principal monetary unit of the Sasanian period from the accession of the first Sasanian king Ardashīr I (224-241) until the death of the last ruler Yazdgard III (632-651) was the Sasanian drachm. These coins were intended to weigh approximately 4.1 grams (at least after the early period when the intended weight seems to have been a bit heavier) and were for the most part struck in good quality silver. The Sasanian empire had a significant degree of central administrative control and this is reflected in its coinage. Coins were struck at many mints throughout the empire. However, the dies were cut at central locations for most of these mints. Accordingly, the designs for the coins were relatively uniform. The basic type was with the bust of the king on the obverse and a fire altar with attendants on either side on the reverse. From Yazdgard I (399-420) most coins bear only a mint signature in abbreviated form. From Pērōz (457/9-484) there is also included a regnal year commencing with year 1, the year in which the monarch ascended the throne. Thus, from the time of Pērōz, the mint signature appears in the right field and the date in the left field of the reverse. Sasanian drachms were struck in vast numbers for the purposes of commerce and taxation. During the reign of Khusrau II (590-628) they were minted in massive numbers to pay for his wars with the Byzantines. Sasanian numismatics is no way near as advanced as the well-trodden paths of Greek, Roman and Byzantine numismatics. Many Sassanian mint signatures are attributed but without a high level of confidence. There are not even any reliable or up to date works for the entire series which list the recognized mint and date combinations. That said, in recent years there has been a push to publish some of the major museum collections, but even those catalogues or sylloges do not give a good account of mint and date combinations. To prepare a proper table of mint and date combinations for Sasanian coinage from the reign of Pērōz until Yazdgard III would be a major undertaking. The subject of this article is modest, namely attributing the coinage with the single albeit scarce mint signature AM which probably represents Āmul in Tabaristān.

AM Mint Signature Attribution The attribution of mint signature abbreviations to specific places involves the consideration of various factors one or more of which can be conclusive or merely pointers depending upon the specific signature. The various main factors along with their applicability to AM are set out below.1

1

Malek 2019, pp.79-82 on attributing mint signatures. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

157

1.

The Letters Forming the Signature

The general pattern with Sasanian mint signatures is that they consist of one of the following:

(a) The full name of the locality: example is the mint signature LD which is an archaic form of the full name of Ray (Media). (b) The first two or more letters of the full name: there are numerous examples of this type such as KL for Kirmān and BYŠ for Bīshāpur (Fārs). Following this pattern, the letters AM should represent a place beginning with those letters. The only likely candidate (other factors being absent) would be Āmul. There were two significant centres in the Sasanian period of a size sufficient to justify a mint with the name Āmul. The first is Āmul which was the chief city of the Tabaristān region at least by the time of the late Sasanian period in the sixth and seventh centuries AD. The second is Āmul (Āmuye) by the left bank of the river Oxus near Marv (Merv) in northern Khurāsān.

2.

Periods in Which the Mint Represented by the Signature Was Active It is noteworthy that AM is not known as a signature either under Yazdgard III (632-51) or the Umayyads.

The signature is not known for the Arab-Sasanian series which was predominant from about 20H until 86H. The Umayyads did not manage to conquer the region of Tabaristān by the Caspian Sea and most of these incursions into that region ended up in stalemate (at best) or disaster. The signature AM is not known for the Arab-Sasanian series thus indicating it was in an area not conquered prior to around 86H. In fact, the first coins struck in Tabaristān after the fall of the Sasanians were those of the Ispahbad Farrukhān dated PYE60 (equivalent to 93H /AD711) some 7 or so years after the Umayyads or their opponents ceased striking ArabSasanian drachms in the area covered by the former Sasanian empire. This is another indication in favour of an attribution to Āmul in Tabaristān. Although Āmul by the river Oxus was in an area not taken in the early Umayyad period, it was also often generally outside Sasanian control, especially after Pērōz and during the reign of Kavād I (484, 488-97, 499-531). The fact that AM appears for both Pērōz and Kavād I indicates that it does not represent Āmul in northern Khurāsān.

3.

Presence of Abbreviation on Administrative Seals or Bullae

There are quite a few mint signatures where the abbreviation is found in the centre of an administrative seal or bulla with the full name of the location as part of an inscription near the margin. An example is AHM for Hamadān (Media). No seals or bullae are known with AM in the centre; however, AMW is found on some bullae of a shahrab with the full name ʼmwl (Āmul) around near the margin. The form AMW is found on a bronze coin of Pērōz found at Marv and given that the signature is not known for Kavād I, it probably represents Āmul by the river Oxus.2 This is because after the defeat and death of Pērōz at the hands of the Hephthalites, this area by the river Oxus was occupied by the Hephthalites who remained there throughout the reign of Kavād I until they were driven out by an alliance between Khusrau I (531-579) and the Turks. Figure 1 is an administrative seal legend of no earlier than the sixth century AD with AMW for Āmul in the centre referring to a shahrab in the marginal legend. This probably represents Āmul in Tabaristān, rather than Āmul by the river Oxus.

2

158

Shavarebi 2019, p.173; Tyler-Smith 2017, p.117 (for references). Herzfeld 1938, p.422 considered that such bullae of a shahrab refers to Āmul in Tabaristān, but this was doubted by Gyselen 2002, pp.128-9. Gyselen 2019, p.33 (ATb355a) considers that AMW probably on bullae represents Āmul in Tabaristān. There is a seal of magūh which refers to Āmul and Dumbāwand (Damāvand) that evidently is a reference to Āmul in Tabaristān: Gyselen 2002, pp.128-9, 220-1, fig.28; Gyselen 2019, pp.33-35 (ATb236a; ATb901a). A magūh has authority over a province, thus the bulla indicates that Āmul and Damāvand were at one stage in the later Sasanian period governed as a province: Gyselen 2007, I/102, p.192.

Fig.1 Seal legend of Āmul referring to shahrab (Gyselen 2019, p.33, ATb355a)

Figure 2 is an administrative seal of legend with the names of Āmul and Danbāwand (ʼmwl W dnb’wndy) referring to a mowūh (mugūh) showing them as being part of the same administrative area.

Fig.2 Seal legend of Āmul and Danbāwand referring to mowūh (Gyselen 2019, p.35, ATb236a)

Figure 3 is an administrative seal legend with the name of the district Dēl-i-Dēlān within the province of Tabaristān referring to a mowūh (ATb902a). This has been found on bullae attached to documents dated in the 8th century AD (e.g. PYE 93 – AD 744).

Fig.3 Seal legend of Tabaristān referring to mowūh (Gyselen 2019, p.213, ATb902a).

4.

5.

Abbreviation Found with Name in Full

For Yazdgard I there are coins both with an abbreviation and the mint place in full. AM is not known for any issue prior to Varhrān V (420-38) and hence not for Yazdgard I (399-420).

Excavations and Hoards

Most Sasanian coins in collections, on the market or in museum collections have no established discovery location. Sasanian coins circulated widely and stray finds in excavations and hoards both provenanced and unprovenanced generally contain a good variety of mint and date combinations. Sometimes it is possible to infer from a higher proportion of a mint signature in a find than would be expected in a normal range, that the signature represents a place in the region, if not the actual locale of the find. As can be seen from the reign of Khusrau II, any hoard of late Sasanian drachms usually contains well below 1% of coins with the AM mint signature. The present writer is unaware of any hoards containing more than a small percentage of drachms with the AM mint signature even including Mazandarān province (covering a large part of former Tabaristān). From the low percentages one may assume that the mint represented by the abbreviation was not one of the chief centres or cities of the Sasanian empire, unlike for example ART (Ardashīr-Khusra), BYŠ (Bīshāpūr), ST (Istakhr) and YZ (Yazd) in the Fārs region.

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

159

6.

Combinations:

As well as being a suffix or prefix to the mint name KLMAN, a significant number of signatures are found on their own thus confirming that the mints for those signatures would have been located within the region of Kirmān (e.g. BN for Sasanian coins and KLMAN-BN for Arab-Sasanian coins). AM is not found as a suffix with KLMAN, confirming that it does not represent a place within the Kirmān region.

Style: Coins struck in the outer regions of the Sasanian empire such as in Sīstān (SK) can have their own distinctive style consistent with the dies being cut locally. The coins with the AM mint signature are generally well cut in a fine style no different in quality from those from mints within Iraq, Khuzistān or Fārs.

In conclusion, there is a compelling case for concluding that AM probably represents Āmul in Tabaristān. Nevertheless the attribution is not certain.

Epigraphy of mint signature In the four centuries of the Sasanian period, it is perhaps not surprising that the form and style of lettering changed over time. This is reflected in the coins with AM mint signature. An examination of the coins illustrated in this article shows this pattern. Thus the following forms set out in Table 1 can be observed as examples illustrating the trend. Ruler

Coin No.

Regnal Year

Ruler

Coin No.

Regnal Year

Varhrān V

1

-

Signature

Hormizd IV

84

2

Yazdgard II

2

-

Khusrau II

102

5

Pēröz

3

-

126

16

Jamasp

6

1

136

31

Kavād I

10

-

159

38

14

19

Kavād II

161

2

19

22

Ardashīr III

166

2

32

40

Būrān

167

1

34

4

Khusrau IV

168

1

42

12

50

23

Khusrau I

Signature

Table 1: Epigraphy of mint signature

Āmul in the Sasanian Period Tabaristān, roughly covering modern day Mazandārān and the highlands of northern Semnān province, was a mountainous region. To the east was Gurgān, separated by a pass. The east was protected by a wall said to have been constructed during the reign of Khusrau I (531-579). The southern flank was protected by the Elborz mountain range. To the west was the province of Gīlān, which at its south was bordered by Daylam. Situated north of Rayy and the centre-west of Tabaristān was Dumbāvand (Damāvand) governed by a masmughān. South-west of Tabaristān, but also north of Rayy was Rūyān which at times is described as part of Daylam but sometimes as part of Tabaristān. It was easy to defend and had a degree of autonomy under the local leadership. In the late Sasanian period, the chief town was Āmul, but Sāri was also a major centre; it later became the administrative centre under the ʽAbbāsids. 160

In the early Sasanian period, Āmul was part of the region designated as Hamag-Parishkhwarkōf (3rd century AD), but by the 6th century AD was known as Parishwārgar or Padishkhwārgār (‘the montain Parishwār).3 At the time of Khusrau I, Āmul formed with Gīlān a Nestorian bishaperic. The numismatic, seal and literary sources for Āmul and Tabaristān paint a confusing and often inconsistent picture. Whilst at the time of the ‘Abbāsid conquest it may be fairly concluded that Āmul was within the province or region of Tabaristān, in the Sasanian period it formed part of different or differently named regions.4 In the late Sasanian period Tabaristān including Āmul was governed largely by a dynasty of military governors, the Dābūyid Ispahbads, who claimed descent from the Sasanian king Jamasp (497-9). At some point the highlands of Tabaristān came under the control of the Bāvandids, who claimed descent from Kavād I (494, 488-97, 499-531) and the Qārinvands. Tabaristān managed to remain independent after the collapse of the Sasanian empire, even though the Umayyads repeatedly tried to take it. It did not finally fall until about 142/3H (c. AD 730) when the last Dābūyid Ispahbad Khurshīd was defeated. Tabaristān was known as a prosperous province in the early Islamic period and this is consistent with the high levels of tribute said to have been extracted and large volume of Tabaristān drachms under the ‘Abbāsids. Writing in the fourth century Hijrī, the anonymous author of Hadūd al ‘Ālam described the region as a prosperous district with great wealth and numerous merchants. He wrote that Āmul was a great town and the capital of Tabaristān, with a moat but no walls. It was stated to be the seat of the kings of Tabaristān, a haunt of merchants and a place of great wealth with numerous scholars in every science.5 The history of Tabaristān as set out in the local chronicles6 and the more general histories7 written in the third and fourth centuries Hijrī is largely obscure for the Sasanian period. It is only with the Arab conquest of the Sasanian empire that the sources provide detail, primarily in relation to attempts to conquer the region or suppress insurrections. For the pre-Islamic period much of the literature is a mixture of fact and legend, if not purely mythical. Āmul’s Sasanian and Zoroastrian heritage is reflected in the fire temple of Āmul (Atashkadeh Āmul) which still stands today.

Fig.4 Sasanian fire temple in Āmul 3 4 5 6 7

It is listed as one of the provinces in the 3rd century inscription of Shāpūr I at the Ka‘ba-ye Zartosht. Gyselen 2019, pp.213-5. Hadūd al‘Ālam, p.134. Ibn Isfandiyār and Marʽashī. For a discussion of these sources, see Sárközy 2008, pp.22-3. Al-Tabarī, Khwandamīr (a late source). A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

161

Varhrān V (420‑438) The earliest known issues with the mint signature AM is a very rare drachm of Varhrān V’s second type. 1.

Johnson (770100): 4.06g; 27.5mm, type I/2.8

Notes: Neither Paruck 1944 nor SNS3 recorded any coins with AM for the rulers prior to Pērōz.

Yazdgard II (438) The coins of Yazdgard II are relatively plentiful, albeit they would not have been struck as in the vast numbers under Khusrau II. A significant proportion of Yazdgard II’s coins bear no mint signature at all, but instead have the Pahlavi word nwk’ in the place to the left of the attendants on the reverse. The mint signature AM is extremely rare for Yazdgard II and does not feature in any of the main catalogues of collections. 2.

Johnson (30056): 4.03g; 29mm, type I/1.

Pērōz (457/9‑484) Drachms of Peroz are common and must have been struck in large numbers. Dated drachms with regnal years 2 to 7 are scarce. Drachms with AM mint signatures are only known for the undated type where to the left of the attendants on the reverse is the letter M, presumably an abbreviation for malka (‘king’). These coins are rare for the mint signature. 3.

Johnson (400087): 4.20g; 26mm, type II/3.

4.

Johnson (25235): 4.06g; 25.5mm, type II/3.

5.

Universität Hamburg, Asien Afrika Institut, Photo Files (SB 089158): 4.12g. Type III/3.

Notes: SNS 3, pl.77/A2 AMW: 1.48g; 17mm (Logniov and Nikitin 1993/3, no.86). It is unlikely that this mint signature represents the same mint place as AM, but probably denotes Āmul (Āmūye) along the Oxus in Khurāsān: Shavarebi 2019.

Balash (484‑488) Balash who had a short reign, is not known for any coins with the AM mint signature. His coinage is in any event scarce.

Jamasp (497‑499) Jamasp’s silver drachms are struck with regnal years 1 to 3. All three are represented in the Johnson collection, even though the mint signature is rarely encountered for his rule. 6.

Year 1: Johnson (030319) (Schulten, 24.4.1989, lot 945): 3.45g; 26mm, type IB/1.

7.

Year 2: Johnson (030320): 3.66g; 29mm, type IA/1.

8.

Year 3: Johnson (770101): 3.92g; 28.5mm, type IA/1.

Note: Paruck 1944, p.93 noted without illustration years 1 and 3.

8

162

References to type are unless otherwise stated to be those in Göbl 1971.

Kavād I (484, 488‑497, 499‑531) Kavād I had a long, but not uninterrupted reign and his coins are known for an early undated type as well as the dated coins of regnal years 11 to 42. Drachms with mint signature AM are known for most regnal years suggesting a regular annual output. Given the scarcity, it is unlikely Āmul was a major mint under Kavād I, nor indeed at any time in the Sasanian period. Although the Muzeh Melli Iran collection has 281 drachms of Kavād I, none bears AM as the mint signature, an indication of its rarity. Kavād I’s son Kāvūs was made ruler of the Caspian marches with the title Padashvārshāh, who made his capital in Āmul. At that time Āmul had a significant community of Nestorian Christians, but of course the bulk of the population were Zoroastrians.9

9 10 11

9.

Undated: Johnson (021630); 3.82g; 20mm, type I/1.

10.

Undated: Johnson (025240): 3.91g; 27.5mm, type I/1.10

11.

Year 1: Universität Hamburg, Asien Afrika Institut, Photo Files (SB 07510) — mule, reverse with Jamasp: 3.22g, type I/1.

12.

Year 11: Johnson (021687): 4.01g; 20mm, type II/1.

13.

Year 14: Universität Hamburg, Asien Afrika Institut, Photo Files (SB 08331): 3.82g, type II/1.

14.

Year 16: Johnson (021688): 4.09g; 28mm, type II/1.

15.

Year 17: Universität Hamburg, Asien Afrika Institut, Photo Files (SB 08333): 4.08g, type II/1.

16.

Year 18: Johnson (021690): 4.02g; 28mm, type II/1. Date equivocal either 17 or 18.

17.

Year 22: Johnson (021458): 4.03g; 27mm, type III/1.

18.

Year 22: Johnson (025507): 3.93g; 28mm, type III/1.

19.

Year 22: Johnson (021691): 4.3g; 28mm, type III/1.

20.

Year 23: Universität Hamburg, Asien Afrika Institut, Photo Files (SB 08334): 3.76g, type III/1.

21.

Year 24: Johnson (0750-0037): 3.44g; 27mm, countermark at 1h obverse margin, type III/1.

22.

Year 24: Johnson (0770-0059) (NC 175 (2015), no.3): 3.85g; 27mm, type III/1.

23.

Year 25: Universität Hamburg, Asien Afrika Institut, Photo Files (SB 08335): 3.88g, type III/1.11

24.

Year 26: Universität Hamburg, Asien Afrika Institut, Photo Files (SB 03163): 4.11g, type III/1.

25.

Year 27: Universität Hamburg, Asien Afrika Institut, Photo Files (SB 08336): 4.10g, type III/1.

26.

Year 28: Johnson (022040): 3.81g; 27mm, type III/1.

27.

Year 29(?): Johnson (021692): 4.01g; 30mm, type III/1.

28.

Year 30(?): Universität Hamburg, Asien Afrika Institut, Photo files (SB 01437): 3.95g, type III/1.

29.

Year 35: Johnson (021565): 4.13g; 28mm, type III/2.

30.

Year 35: Johnson (025509): 3.98g; 28mm, type III/2.

31.

Year 35: Johnson (021459): 3.98g; 28mm, type III/2.

32.

Year 40: Johnson (025519): 4.13g; 30mm, type III/2.

Bosworth (Āmol). Undated: see also SNS3/2, pl.105/A1. Year 25: see also Berlin parcel no.19 (Tyler-Smith 2009, p.326). A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

163

Note: Paruck 1944, p.93 noted without illustration years 16, 18-20, 24, 26-29, 35-38. For dates not illustrated here the following have been published or noted: Year 20: Pushkin, no.75. Year 25: Berlin parcel, p.326. Year 31: Paruck 1944, p.93. Year 36: Private (Belgium). Year 37: Paruck 1944, p.93. Year 38: SNS 3, pl.114/5 (Prokesch-Osten, Berlin), 6 (W/GR 2638, Vienna).

Khusrau I (531‑579) As with Kavād I, his son Khusrau I had a long reign. His coins bear regnal years 1 to 48 with year 1 being particularly rare. His coins with the mint signature AM are less rare than under previous rulers but are still relatively rare compared to those mints with manifestly high outputs such as the major mints within Fārs (e.g. BYŠ for Bishāpūr and DA for Darabgerd). It is possible to compile an almost complete run of coins dated years 2 to 48, omitting only 5, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28. In all probability coins with AM were struck regularly throughout his reign, save perhaps year 1 which is rarely encountered for any mint signature. The Muzeh Melli Iran collection has 418 drachms of Khusrau I but only 11 drachms with this mint signature (MMI1, nos.587-97; years 4, 6, 9, 11, 12 and 32).

12 13 14 15 16

164

33.

Year 2: Johnson (770153): 4.09g; 29mm, type I/1.

34.

Year 4: Johnson (770154): 4.10g; 30mm, type I/1.12

35.

Year 6: Universität Hamburg, Asien Afrika Institut, Photo files (SB 06275): 3.70g, type II/2.13

36.

Year 7: Johnson (770155): 4.13g; 29mm, type II/2.

37.

Year 8: Johnson (770156): 4.15g; 29mm, reverse margin HW at 3h, type II/2.

38.

Year 9: Johnson (770157): 3.91g; 29.5mm, type II/2.14

39.

Year 9: Johnson (400032): 4.04g; 28.5mm, type II/2.

40.

Year 10: Johnsn (031742): 4.03g; 31mm, type II/2.

41.

Year 11: Johnson (031743): 3.27g; 28mm, type II/2.15

42.

Year 12: Johnson (031744): 3.95g; 29mm, type II/2.

43.

Year 12: Johnson (025319): 4.02g; 29mm, type II/2.

44.

Year 12: Johnson (022137): 3.71g; 29mm, type II/2.16

45.

Year 13: Johnson (025251; Elsen auction 69, 16.3.2002, lot 658): 4.10g; 29mm, type II/2.

46.

Year 14: Universität Hamburg, Asien Afrika Institut, Photo files (SB 08429): 3.96g, type II/2.

47.

Year 18: Universität Hamburg, Asien Afrika Institut, Photo files (SB 07389): 3.64g, type II/2.

48.

Year 20: Johnson (025552) (broken into 3 pieces); 3.58mm, type II/2.

Year 4: see also MMI1, nos.587 (Mazandaran), 588. Year 6: see also MMI1, no.589. Year 9: see also SNS (Israel), no. 97. Year 11: see also MMI1, nos. 591, 592, 593 (?). Year 12: see also MMI1, no. 594.

17 18 19 20 21 22 23

49.

Year 23: Johnson (031745): 3.95g; 29mm, type II/2.

50.

Year 23: Johnson (450478): 3.97g; 29mm, type II/2.

51.

Year 23: Johnson (025553): 4.05g; 29mm, type II/2.

52.

Year 24: Johnson (031746): 4.17g; 29.5mm, type II/2.

53.

Year 26: Johnson (025554): 4.08g; 30mm, type II/2.

54.

Year 27: Johnson (031747): 4.08g; 31mm, type II/2.

55.

Year 29: Johnson (025555): 4.13g; 29mm, type II/2.

56.

Year 30: Johnson (025559): 4.12g; 31mm, type II/2.

57.

Year 30: Johnson (025558): 4.00g; 30mm, type II/2.

58.

Year 30: Johnson (025557): 4.12g; 29mm, type II/2.

59.

Year 30: Johnson (031748): 3.80g; 30mm, type II/2.

60.

Year 30: Johnson (025152): 3.77g; 29mm, type II/2.17

61.

Year 31: Johnson (031749): 3.94g; 31mm, type II/2. Date equivocal either 31 or 33.

62.

Year 31: Johnson (400033): 3.84g; 30mm, type II/2.

63.

Year 31: Johnson (025560): 4.08g; 29mm, type II/2.

64.

Year 32: Johnson (031750): 3.91g; 31mm, type II/2.

65.

Year 32: Johnson (031751): 4.06g; 29mm, type II/2.

66.

Year 32: Johnson (025320): 3.92g; 29mm, type II/2.18

67.

Year 33: Johnson (031752): 3.89g; 30mm, type II/2.

68.

Year 33: Johnson (025321): 3.92g; 32mm, type II/2.

69.

Year 33: Johnson (025252): 4.03g; 29.5mm, type II/2.

70.

Year 34: Johnson (025561): 4.02g; 33mm, type II/2.19

71.

Year 35: Universität Hamburg, Asien Afrika Institut, Photo files (SB 07392): 4.03g, type II/2.

72.

Year 36: Johnson (0790-0002): 3.81g; 28mm, type II/2.20

73.

Year 37: Johnson (0790-0003): 3.94g; 29mm, type II/2.

74.

Year 37: Johnson (031753): 3.88g; 31mm, type II/2.

75.

Year 38: Johnson (0710-0050): 3.70g; 30mm, type II/2.

76.

Year 39: Johnson (025253): 3.83g; 29mm, type II/2.21

77.

Year 40: Universität Hamburg, Asien Afrika Institut, Photo files (SB 07388): 3.96g, type II/2.22

78.

Year 41: Johnson (031754): 4.13g; 32mm, type II/2.23

Year 30: see also SNS (Orumiyeh), no.3. Year 32: see also MMI1, no. 595. Year 34: see also Berlin parcel, no.208 (Tyler-Smith, 2009, p.386). Year 36: see also Berlin parcel, no. 209 (Tyler-Smith 2009, p.386). Year 39: see also Kirkuk hoard, no.6 (BM1928.6-6.195) = Tyler-Smith 2017, p.245; Pushkin, no.84. Year 40: see also Pushkin, no. 85. Year 41: see also Kirkuk hoard, no. 7 (BM 1928.6-6.157) = Tyler-Smith 2017, p.245; Berlin parcel, no.210 (Tyler-Smith 2009, p.386). A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

165

79.

Year 41: Johnson (025322): 3.61g; 29mm, type II/2.

80.

Year 42: Johnson (031220): 4.14g; 30.5mm, type II/2.

81.

Year 44: Johnson (400034): 2.71g; 25.5mm (clipped), type II/2.24

82.

Year 45: Johnson (031219): 4.09g; 31mm, type II/2.

83.

Year 48: Johnson (031755; Sothebys, 24.3.1988, lot 103): 4.15g; 29mm, type II/2.

Note: Paruck 1944, p.93 noted without illustration years 7, 10, 13, 14, 17, 21, 24, 26, 30-33, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 45. For dates not illustrated here the following have been published or noted: Year 15: Private, Belgium. Year 17: Paruck 1944, p.93. Year 21: Paruck 1944, p.93. Year 43: Paruck 1944, p.93. Year 46: Kirkuk hoard, no.8 (BM 1928.6-6.193) = Tyler-Smith 2017, p.245; SNS (Israel), no.98. Year 47: Gurnet photo database.

Hormizd IV (579‑590) The coins of Hormizd IV span 13 regnal years with those of year 1 particularly rare and year 13 scarce. The Muzeh Melli Iran collection has 463 drachms of which only two bear the AM mint signature (MMI1, nos.997-8) dated year 12, the most commonly encountered year for his coinage. No drachms have been published in the main catalogues of Sasanian coins for most years. 84.

Year 2: Johnson (450494): 4.07g; 31mm, type I/1.

85.

Year 6: Johnson (025190): 4.12g; 32mm, type I/1.

86.

Year 6: Johnson (025441): 4.16g; 30.5mm, type I/1.

87.

Year 10: Johnson (025367): 3.53g; 31.5mm, type I/1.

88.

Year 10: Johnson (025366): 2.75g; 26mm, type I/1.

89.

Year 10: Johnson (0790-0060): 4.02g; 30mm, type I/1.

90.

Year 10: Johnson (0790-0061) 4.04g; 30mm, type I/1.25

91.

Year 11: Johnson (025443): 4.10g; 31mm, type I/1.

92.

Year 12: Johnson (025368): 4.14g; 31.5mm, type I/1.

93.

Year 12: Johnson (0770-0099) (NC 175 (2015), no.100): 4.04g; 30mm, type I/1.

94.

Year 12: Johnson (0790-0062): 4.10g; 30mm, type I/1.26

95.

Year 13: Universität Hamburg, Asien Afrika Institut, Photo files (SB 08123): 4.02g; 29mm, type I/1. The reverse mint abbreviation seems first to have been scratched out on the die itself, on the elevated field the M is substituted.

Note: Paruck 1944, p.93 only listed year 12 for this mint signature. 24 25 26

166

Berlin parcel, no.211 (Tyler-Smith 2009, p.386). Year 10: SNS (Orumiyeh), no.98. Year 12: see also MMI1, nos. 997, 998; Babylon, no. 52 (Simon 1976, p.225).

Khusrau II (590‑628) Khusrau II ascended the throne following the overthrow of his father Hormizd IV in 590. He too lost the throne the year after his accession as his general Varhrān (Bahrām) Chubin sought power for himself. Khusru was restored to power with the help of the Byzantine Emperor Maurice. He sought to consolidate his position by removing his uncles who had assisted him: Vindoes and Vistahm. Both Varhrān VI and Vistahm struck coins, but none with the AM mint signature. In 610 Maurice was deposed and replaced by the general Phocas. This gave Khusrau II the pretext for war with the Byzantines, which continued under Phocas’s successor Heraclius. This was a long and expensive war which lasted until the final defeat of Khusrau II in late 627. Like his father, he too was deposed in a coup in which his own son, Shiroe was at least complicit. Shiroe became king in early 628 as Kavād II. Khusrau II struck vast numbers of silver drachms particularly during the 30s regnal years of his reign. The last date on his coins is year 39 and is very rare and only known for a small number of mints. While drachms in the name of Khusrau II with the AM mint signature are more common than for other rulers, this is more a reflection of the very high output of coins during his reign. In the Muzeh Melli Iran catalogue are listed only 9 drachms from Āmul out of a total of 2,551 drachms with legible mint signatures (0.35%). Published hoards also usually have significantly less than 1% of drachms with mint signature AM. In particular: I

Susa I: hoard of 2,278 drachms found in a jar during the 1930-1 season of the French Mission excavations at Susa.27 The hoard comprised Khusrau I (4), Hormizd IV (4), Khusrau II (2,175), Ardashir III (29), Khusrau III beardless type (20), Būrān (7), Hormizd IV (36) and Yazdgard III (3). Of the 2,175 Khusrau II drachms, only 8 bear the AM mint signature (0.38%).

II

Susa II: hoard of 1,171 drachms found in a jar during the 1976 season excavations.28 The hoard comprised Khusrau I (1), Hormizd IV (2) and Khusrau II (1,168). Of the 1,134 Khusrau II drachms with legible mint signatures, only 5 bear the AM mint signature (0.44%).

III

Seleucia: hoard which included190 drachms of Khusrau II excavated at Seleucia.29 None of these bears the

AM mint signature.

IV

Damascus: hoard of 3,815 found in 1950, including 1,309 Sasanian drachms.30 The Sasanian part of the hoard comprised Khusrau I (56), Hormizd IV (115), Varhrān VI (1), Khusrau II (1,121), Khusrau III ?(1), Khusrau III (4), Būrān (1), Khusrau IV (1), Hormizd VI (4), Yazdgard III (5). Only 2 coins in the hoard have the AM mint signature: Khusrau II, years 4 (no.304) and 14 (no. 305). Thus only 2 of the 1,121 Khusrau II drachms are AM (0.2%).31

V

Basle: a group of 355 drachms in the Bibliothèque Nationale, described as the Basle hoard as it was denoted by a Basle coin dealer in 1973.32 The hoard comprised Khusrau I (1), Hormizd IV (7), Khusrau II (337), Khusrau III beardless type (2), Hormizd IV (8). None of the drachms bears the AM mint signature.

VI

Quetta: hoard of 299 drachms, described as the Quetta hoard as it was sold by a Quetta coin dealer in 1991.33 The hoard comprised Khusrau II (298), Hormizd VI (1). Only one drachm of Khusrau II has the AM mint signature (0.34%).

VII

Ilam: a group of 474 drachms made available for study by a London coin dealer in 2015 said to have been found as a hoard in a field in Ilam province.34 The hoard comprised Kavād I (70), Khusrau I (29), Hormizd IV (124), Varhrān VI (Bahrām) (1), Khusrau II (250). Four drachms in the group have the AM mint

27

Allotte de la Füye 1934; Gyselen 1979.

28 29 30 31 32 33 34

Gyselen 1977. Göbl 1973. Al-ʽUsh 1972. Al-ʽUsh 1972. Curiel 1973; Gyselen 1990. Malek 1993. Malek 2015. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

167

signature: Kavād I, year 24 (no.3); Hormizd IV, year 12 (no.100); Khusrau II, years 4 (no.230) and 10 (no.231). Thus only 2 out of the 250 Khusrau II drachms are AM (0.8%). VIII

Shiraz parcel: a group of 562 drachms which may derive from the massive Shiraz hoard of 1967 (some 37,000 coins is a figure given).35 The group comprised Varhrān V (Bahrām) (1), Kavād I (2), Khusrau I (12), Hormizd IV (20), Khusrau II (527). Of the 513 drachms of Khusrau II with legible mint signatures, only 2 are with AM: years 3? (no.45) and 10 (no.46) (0.39%).

IX

Kirkuk parcel: a selection of 377 drachms made by Major C.J. Edmonds from a hoard of over 2,000 Sasanian coins found in a jar in Kirkuk in 1923 and was donated to the British Museum.36 The selection comprised Khusrau I (208), Hormizd IV (102), Varhrān VI (Bahrām) (2), Khusrau II (65), Hunnish copy (1). The selection contains 4 drachms with the AM mint signature: Khusrau I, years 39 (no.6), 41 (no.7), 46 (no.8); Khusrau II, year 4 (no.313). Out of 65 Khusrau II drachms only one is with AM (1.54%).

X

Orumiyeh hoard: In 2007 jars of Sasanian drachms were found during the construction of a border sentry post in the Piran-Shahe area within the Orumiyeh region of West Azerbaijān.37 It is not known whether the jars were Sasanian or modern and it is possible that the contents were an accumulation of coins placed there in recent times by persons aiming to smuggle them out of Iran. The group comprised 1267 coins (registered in the Orumiyeh Museum): Khusrau I (95), Hormizd IV (203), Khusrau II (964), Āzarmidokht (1), Hormizd VI (3), Arab-Sasanian (1). Of the 1267 coins, 13 were with the AM mint signature (1.03%). 96.

Year 2: Johnson (550397): 4.04g; 29mm, type II/2.38

97.

Year 3: Johnson (025461): 4.04g; 31mm, type II/2.

98.

Year 3: Johnson (025460): 4.07g; 30mm, type II/2.39

99.

Year 3: Johnson (025005): 4.09g, reverse margin pellet at 7h, type II.2.

100.

Year 4: Johnson (550398): 4.14g; 30mm, reverse margin pellet at 7h, type II/2.40

101.

Year 4: Johnson (025203): 3.98g; 29.5mm, reverse margin pellet at 7h, type II/2.

102.

Year 5: Johnson (025006): 4.21g; 31mm, reverse margin pellet at 7h, type II/2.41

103.

Year 5: Johnson (025462): 4.09g; 31mm, type II/2.

104.

Year 5: Johnson (550399): 3.66g; 30mm, reverse margin pellet at 7h, type II/2.

105.

Year 5: Johnson (550400): 4.00g; 31mm, reverse margin pellet at 7h, type II/2.42

106.

Year 7: Johnson (550401): 4.12g; 31mm, type II/2.43

107.

Year 8: Johnson (025463): 4.06g; 31mm, type II/2.44

108.

Year 9: Johnson (550402): 4.07g; 30mm, type II/2.

109.

Year 9: Johnson (0790-0089): 3.99g; 31.5mm, type II/2.45

35 36

Tyler-Smith 2017. Tyler-Smith 2017.

37 38 39 40

SNS Orumiyeh. Year 2: see also Astan Quds Razavi Museum, no. S52, R2 (Amini 2016, p.319). Year 3: see also, Shiraz parcel, no. 45 = Tyler-Smith 2017, p.158. Year 4: see also Kirkuk hoard, no. 313 (BM 1928.6-6.019) = Tyler-Smith 2017, p.253; Ilam hoard, no. 230 — Malek 2015; MMI2, no. 1634; al-ʽUsh 1972, no.304) (Damascus hoard). Year 5: see also SNS (Orumiyeh), no.332. Year 5: see also Tsotselia 2002, no. 1158 (Tsitelikskaro). Year 7: see also MMI2, no. 1635, SNS (Orumiyeh), no.334. Year 8: see also Mitchiner 1978, no. 1209; MMI2, no. 1636 (?): BM 1957.0304.36; SNS (Orumiyeh), no.335. Year 9: see also Tsotselia 2002, no. 1276 (Tsitelitskaro); SNS (Orumiyeh), no.336.

41 42 43 44 45

168

46 47 48 49 50 51 52

110.

Year 10: Johnson (0790-0090): 4.00g; 30mm, type II/2.46

111.

Year 10: Johnson (0770-0106): 4.11g; 31mm (NC 175, 2015, no.231), type II/2.

112.

Year 11: Universität Hamburg, Asien Afrika Institut, Photo files (SB 09520); 4.01g, early type II/2.

113.

Year 11: Johnson (0790-0091): 4.03g; 30mm, type II/2.47

114.

Year 11: Universität Hamburg, Asien Afrika Institut, Photo files (SB 12051): 4.02g, transitional type, type II/3.

115.

Year 12: Johnson (0790-0094): 4.00g; 30mm, reverse bonnets headdress, type II/3.48

116.

Year 13 (?): Johnson (550403): 4.04g; 32mm, type II/2.49

117.

Year 13: Universität Hamburg, Asien Afrika Institut, Photo files (SB 08712): 3.59g, type II/3.

118.

Year 13 with ʼpd: Johnson (025204): 4.11g; 29mm, type II/3.

119.

Year 13 with ʼpd: Johnson (025205): 4.17g; 29mm, type II/3.

120.

Year 13 with ʼpd: Johnson (550404): 4.04g; 31mm, reverse no crescents above bonnets for attendants, type II/3.

121.

Year 14: Johnson (025206): 4.03g; 32mm, type II/3.50

122.

Year 14 with ʼpd: Johnson (0510-0027): 4.17g; 31mm, type II/3.

123.

Year 15: Johnson (550405): 4.07g; 30mm, type II/3.

124.

Year 15: Johnson (550406): 3.96g; 31mm, type II/3.

125.

Year 16: Johnson (025464): 3.62g; 32mm, mint is retrograde left and date right on reverse, type II/3.

126.

Year 16 with ʼpd: Johnson (550407): 4.09g; 32mm, type II/3.

127.

Year 17: Johnson (0740-0123): 4.17g; 30mm, type II/3.

128.

Year 17 with ʼpd removed: Johnson (550408): 4.07g; 31mm, type II/3.

129.

Year 22: Johnson (740039): 4.07g; 31mm, type II/3.

130.

Year 27 with ʼpd: Johnson (022156): 3.52g; 31mm, reverse ink graffiti in Q2, type II/3.

131.

Year 28: Johnson (0783-0025): 4.10g; 32mm, type II/3

132.

Year 29 with ʼpd: Johnson (550409): 3.86g; 30mm, type II/3.

133.

Year 29 with ʼpd: Johnson (025263): 4.11g; 32mm, type II/3.51

134.

Year 30 with ʼpd: Johnson (0510-0028): 3.73g; 29.5mm, type II/3.52

135.

Year 31: Johnson (550412): 4.12g; 32mm, type II/3.

136.

Year 31: Johnson (0510-0029): 4.14g; 33mm, type II/3.

137.

Year 31 with ʼpd: Johnson (550411): 3.09g; 29mm, obverse margin simorgh countermark at 1h, type II/3.

Year 10: see also Shiraz parcel, no. 56 = Tyler-Smith 2017, p. 158; MMI2, no. 1637 (?). Year 11: see also BM India Office Collection 484. Year 12: see also SNS (Orumiyeh), no.337 (crown headdress). Year 13: see also Susa II hoard, Allotte de la Füye 1934 = BNF Susa Y.700.14. Year 14: al-ʽUsh 1972, no. 305 (Damascus hoard). Year 29: see also SNS (Orumiyeh), nos.339, 340. Year 30 (ʼpd): see also Pushkin, no. 123; Bāb Tūmā, no.489 (Gyselen and Kalus 1983, p.92); SNS (Orumiyeh), no.341. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

169

138.

Year 32: Johnson (0510-0030): 4.12g; 32mm, type II/3.

139.

Year 32: Johnson (0783-0028): 4.10g; 32.5mm, type II/3.

140.

Year 32: Johnson (550413): 3.48g; 30mm, type II/3.53

141.

Year 32 with ʼpd: Johnson (550417): 4.16g; 32mm, type II/3.

142.

Year 32 with ʼpd: Johnson (550414): 4.05g; 33mm, type II/3.

143.

Year 32 with ʼpd: Johnson (550415): 4.00g; 33mm, type II/3.

144.

Year 32 with ʼpd: Johnson (025007): 3.90g; 31mm, type II/3.

145.

Year 32 with ʼpd: Johnson (025264): 4.14g; 32mm, type II/3.54

146.

Year 33: Universität Hamburg, Asien Afrika Institut, Photo files (SB 08720): 4.02g. type II/3.

147.

Year 33 with ʼpd: Johnson (550419): 4.11g; 32mm, type II/3.

148.

Year 33 with ʼpd: Johnson (550410): 4.16g; 32mm (Pegan, 5.9.1991, lot 358), type II/3.

149.

Year 33 with ʼpd: Johnson (550418): 4.14g; 32mm, type II/3.

150.

Year 33 with ʼpd: Johnson (0783-0027): 4.13g; 33mm, type II/3.

151.

Year 33 with ʼpd: Johnson (550577): 4.15g; 32mm, (500577), type II/3.55

152.

Year 34 with ʼpd: Johnson (550420): 4.02g; 32mm, type II/3.56

153.

Year 36 with ʼpd: Johnson (550421): 4.15g; 34mm, type II/3.

154.

Year 37: Johnson (550423): 3.91g; 32mm, type II/3.

155.

Year 37: Johnson (550424): 4.29g; 31mm, type II/3.

156.

Year 37: Johnson (740041): 3.97g; 31mm, type II/3.

157.

Year 37 with ʼpd: Johnson (550422): 3.87g; 31mm, type II/3.

158.

Year 37 with ʼpd: Johnson (550425): 4.13g; 31mm, type II/3.

159.

Year 38: Johnson (550427): 3.37g; 31mm, (Műnz Zentrum, 27.4.1978), obverse countermark 33a at 2h margin, type II/3.

160.

Year 38: Johnson (550426), Quetta hoard, no.26: 3.99g, 33mm, type II/3.57

Note: Paruck 1944, p.93 noted without illustration years 2 to 38 and with ʼpd years 13, 14, 16, 29-33, 37. For dates not listed above there are examples of years 6 in SNS (Orumiyeh), no.333, 19 in SNS (Orumiyeh), no.338, and 35 with ʼpd in MMI2, no.1642.

Kavād II (628) Kavād II’s coinage is only known for scarce drachms with regnal year 2. Output would have been relatively low judging from the scarcity of his coins in collections and in the coin trade. He died after being king for only about 8 months. Only one example of a drachm with mint signature AM is known.

53 54 55 56 57

170

Year 32: see also MMI2, no. 1638. Year 32 (ʼpd): see also MMI2, nos. 1639, 1640. Year 33 (ʼpd): see also Mitchiner 1978, no. 1210 (read as 31); MMI2, no. 1641; SNS (Orumiyeh), no.342. Bāb Tūmā hoard, no. 599 (Gyselen and Kalus 1983, p.94). Year 38: see also Tsumura 2003, nos. WQ-I-2-43, WQ-I-2-44 (Xinjiang).

161.

Year 2: Private (Belgium): 4.14g; 31mm, type I/1.

Note: Paruck, p.93 did not list any coins with mint signatures AM after Khusrau II, apart from Būrān.

Ardashīr III (628‑630) Ardashīr III ascended the throne as a boy hence the bust shown on his coins is without a beard. He must have been deposed during the second year of his reign as for that year there is a new crown. His coins are dated either year 1 and 2. No drachms from Āmul are known for regnal year 1 or with his first crown. 162.

Year 2: Johnson (500457): 3.96g; 32mm, type II/1.

163.

Year 2: Johnson (022009): 3.19g; 29mm, type II/1.

164.

Year 2: Johnson (500458): 4.08g; 33mm, Sothebys, 9.3.1989, lot 609, type II/1.

165.

Year 2: Johnson (022176): 4.03g; 32mm, type II/1.

166.

Year 2: Johnson (0750-0041): 3.56g; 32.5mm. Album auction 19: 15.5.2014, lot 59; Heidemann NC 174, 2014, pl.53/1.

Note: Paruck 1994, p.93 did not list any coins with the AM mint signature for Ardashīr III. An example with the AM signature of regnal year 2 with the second crown was included in a parcel of 66 drachms on the market in 2012 comprising Ardashīr III (65) and Yazdgard III (1).58 Another example is included in a second parcel of 176 drachms on the market in 2013.59 The two parcels are probably related. This second parcel included drachms of Ardashīr III (169), Hormizd VI (2) and Yazdgard III (5). See also Gyselen and Kalus 1983, no. 254 (Qamišliyya hoard); BNF 1968.867.

Būrān (530‑531) The coinage of Būrān spans three regnal years. Not only were silver drachms issued in her name, but also very rare gold dinars and some bronze issues as well. Her reign too was a short one. Apart from drachms with an SK mint signature (Sīstān) which are either year 2 or 3, her drachms are dated regnal years 1 and 2. They were struck from a limited number of mints including AM for Āmul for regnal year 1. 167.

Year 1: Johnson (0787-0090): 4.11g; 33.5mm. Album auction 26: 15.9.2016, lot 81.

Note: Paruck 1944, p.93 lists year 1 for the AM mint signature. The drachms with Āmul are of a fine style unlike the cruder and more common issues from Sīstān. For further examples see Malek and Curtis 1998, nos.1-6 (AM) and 7 (AMWY); Amini 2008, pp.178, 182, figs.10-11; BNF, Susa excavations.

Khusrau IV (631‑7?) There are two kings named Khusrau who held positions in the period after the death of Ardashīr III but before the last Sasanian king Yazdgard III took the throne in 632. Khusrau III whose coins have a bust without a beard and Khusrau IV whose coins have a bust with a beard. Khusrau IV drachms are known for regnal years 1, 2, 3 (?), and 4 to 10. Only one issue with the AM mint signature is known. 168.

Year 1: Universität Hamburg, Asien Afrika Institut, Photo files (SB 08721): 3.43g, type I/1.

No other issues are known for the Sasanian kings and queens who succeeded Khusrau II in the period 628 to 651. There are no issues known for Āmul for Khusrau III whose reign lasted more than a short period and his areas of control were limited as indicated by the small number of known mint signatures. Āzarmidokht is only known for

58 59

Heidemann 2013, pp.414-422, no.4. Heidemann 2014, pp.333-51. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

171

WYHC (Ctesiphon area) and ŠY (probably Shirāz). Hormizd VI is known for a modest number of mint signatures, but not AM. Yazdgard III (632‑51) During the period in which Yazgard III was king, he sought to rule over an empire crumbling under his eyes with the Arab onslaught and a divided nobility. No coins are known in his name for Āmul, but in a fragmenting empire, even when he was alive, the local rulers felt that they were largely autonomous. The histories refer to Farrukhān Gīlānshāh as being the Ispahbad of Tabaristān when the Arabs conquered the bulk of the Sasanian empire.60 He showed his allegiance to Yazdgard III by sending a contingent of troops to the battle of Nihavand in which the Sasanians were soundly defeated. At one point he agreed to a truce with the Arabs and to pay tribute of 500,000 dirhams a year, but soon fell into arrears. Towards the end of his reign Yazdgard III, according to al-Tabarī, refused an offer of refuge from the overlord (sahib) of Tabaristān, whom he promoted to Ispahbad.61 Shortly after, Yazdgard III was murdered in Merv in 651 (30H). It was not until 711 (PYE 60; 93H) that any further coins were struck in the region of Tabaristān and these were in the name of the Dābuyad Ispahbad Farrukhān. These were Sasanian-style drachms, weighing half the weight of conventional Sasanian drachms, with the mint place named as Tabaristān. As Āmul was the chief administrative centre in the region in the late Sasanian period, these drachms may well have been struck in Āmul itself.62 Even after Tabaristān finally fell in about 730 (142-3H) during the reign of Khurshīd, such drachms continued to be struck well into the ʽAbbāsid period. Although the Umayyads (102-3H) and ʽAbbāsids issued post-reform dirhams minted in Tabaristān, neither issued dirhams or gold dinars with the mint place named as Āmul. The first known post-reform bronze fals naming Āmul is dated 221H under Muhammad b. Qārin (Māzyār).63 Beyond the ʽAbbāsids various dynasties struck coins with Āmul as the mint place.64

Conclusions The coinage of Āmul and Tabaristān is a rich source of history. Up until now studies have generally been confined to specific dynasties in the Islamic period. The present article brings the history of coinage from this mint place back into the Sasanian period. Previous catalogues of collections give a very incomplete view of coins struck. The current article shows that Āmul was an active mint from the 5th century AD up until the final years before the last Sasanian king Yazdgard III ascended the throne in 632.65

60 61 62 63 64 65

172

For the treatment of Farrukhān Gīlanshāh’s reign, see ibn Isfandiyār, p.157 (trans., p.97); al-Tabarī, I, 2657-60, 2835-9; ii, 1322 (trans., vol.14, pp.27-31; vol.15, pp.41-5). Al-Tabarī, I, 2875 (trans., vol.15, p.82). Malek 2004, which deals in detail with the Arab-Sasanian coinage of Tabaristān. See also Malek 2017. Malek 2004, pp.49, 156, no.156. Stern 1967. Islamic coins struck in Āmul are an important source of history and they show who was in control at various points. For ʽAlid coinage which Stern covered from 250 and 344H, see Vardanyan 2010. Dr Stefan Heidemann and Francois Gurnet kindly provided comments on a draft of this article. The seal legend images are produced with the kind permission of Rika Gyselen.

Coin 1

Coin 2

Coin 3

Coin 4

Coin 5

Coin 6

Coin 7

Coin 8

Coin 9

Coin 10

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

173

174

Coin 11

Coin 12

Coin 13

Coin 14

Coin 15

Coin 16

Coin 17

Coin 18

Coin 19

Coin 20

Coin 21

Coin 22

Coin 23

Coin 24

Coin 25

Coin 26

Coin 27

Coin 28

Coin 29

Coin 30

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

175

176

Coin 31

Coin 32

Coin 33

Coin 34

Coin 35

Coin 36

Coin 37

Coin 38

Coin 39

Coin 40

Coin 41

Coin 42

Coin 43

Coin 44

Coin 45

Coin 46

Coin 47

Coin 48

Coin 49

Coin 50

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

177

178

Coin 51

Coin 52

Coin 53

Coin 54

Coin 55

Coin 56

Coin 57

Coin 58

Coin 59

Coin 60

Coin 61

Coin 62

Coin 63

Coin 64

Coin 65

Coin 66

Coin 67

Coin 68

Coin 69

Coin 70

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

179

180

Coin 71

Coin 72

Coin 73

Coin 74

Coin 75

Coin 76

Coin 77

Coin 78

Coin 79

Coin 80

Coin 81

Coin 82

Coin 83

Coin 84

Coin 85

Coin 86

Coin 87

Coin 88

Coin 89

Coin 90

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

181

182

Coin 91

Coin 92

Coin 93

Coin 94

Coin 95

Coin 96

Coin 97

Coin 98

Coin 99

Coin 100

Coin 101

Coin 102

Coin 103

Coin 104

Coin 105

Coin 106

Coin 107

Coin 108

Coin 109

Coin 110

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

183

184

Coin 111

Coin 112

Coin 113

Coin 114

Coin 115

Coin 116

Coin 117

Coin 118

Coin 119

Coin 120

Coin 121

Coin 122

Coin 123

Coin 124

Coin 125

Coin 126

Coin 127

Coin 128

Coin 129

Coin 130

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

185

186

Coin 131

Coin 132

Coin 133

Coin 134

Coin 135

Coin 136

Coin 137

Coin 138

Coin 139

Coin 140

Coin 141

Coin 142

Coin 143

Coin 144

Coin 145

Coin 146

Coin 147

Coin 148

Coin 149

Coin 150

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

187

188

Coin 151

Coin 152

Coin 153

Coin 154

Coin 155

Coin 156

Coin 157

Coin 158

Coin 159

Coin 160

Coin 161

Coin 162

Coin 163

Coin 164

Coin 165

Coin 166

Coin 167

Coin 168

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

189

Bibliography Allotte de la Füye, F-M. (1934), ‘Notes additionelles au sujet des inventaires du Dr. J.M. Unvala et quelques pièces n’y figurant pas’, in Memoires de la mission archéologique de Perse 25 (Paris), pp.84-104. Amini, A. (2008), History and Coin at the end of Sasanian Empire (Tehran). Amini, A. (2016), Pre-Islamic Iranian Coins in the Astan Quds Razavi Museum (Mashhad). Bosworth, C.E. (Āmol), Bosworth, ʽĀmol’, in Encyclopaedia Iranica. Curiel, R. (1973), ʽUn trésor de monnaies sassanides tardives au Cabinet de Médailles’, BSFN 28, pp.454-6. Göbl, R. (1971), Sasanian Numismatics (Braunschweig). Göbl, R. (1973), ‘Der Sāsānidische Münzfund von Seleukia (Vēh Ardašer) 1967’, Mesopotamia 8-9, pp.229-60. Gyselen, R. (1977), ‘Trésor de monnaies sassanides, trouvés à Suse’, Cahiers de la Délégation archéologique française en Iran 7, pp.61-74. Gyselen, R. (1979), ‘Un trésor monétaire tombe dans l’oubli’, Pad nām-I yazdān, Traveux de l’Institut de’Etudes iraniennes 9, pp.143-9. Gyselen, R. 1990), ‘Un trésor de monnaies sassanides tardives’, RN 32, pp.212-31. Gyselen, R. (2002), Nouveaux matériaux pour la géographie historique de l’empire Sassanide: Sceaux administratives de la collection Ahmad Saeedi, Studia Iranica Cahier 24 (Paris). Gyselen, R. (2007), Sasanian Seals and Sealings in the A. Saeedi Collection, Acta Iranica 44 (Peeters, Leuven). Gyselen, R. (2019), La géographie administrative de l’empire Sassanide: Le temoignages épigraphiques en moyen-perse, Res Orientales 25 (Bures-sur-Yvette). Gyselen, R. and Kalus, L. (1983), Deux trésors monétaires des premiers temps de I’Islam (Paris.) Hadūd al-ʽĀlam. The Regions of the World, A Persian Geography (372AH-982AD), trans. V. Minorsky; ed. C.E. Bosworth (2nd ed, 1970). Heidemann, S. (2013), ‘A hoard from the time of the collapse of the Sasanian Empire’, NC 173, pp.414-22. Heidemann, S. (2014), ‘A hoard from the time of the collapse of the Sasanian Empire — Part II: Analysis of the minting system of Ardashīr III, NC, 174, pp.333-51. Herzfeld, E. (1938), ‘Achaemenid Coinage and Sasanian Mint names’, Transactions of the International Numismatic Congress, London 1936, (London), pp.413-26. Ibn Isfandiyār, Tārīkh-ī Tabaristān, Abbās Iqbal (ed.) (Tehran, undated, c.1941). Ibn Isfandiyār (trans.), Tārīkh-ī Tabaristān, abr. and trans. E.G. Browne, Gibbs Memorial Series 2 (Leiden and London, 1905). Khwandamīr, Ghiyās al-Din Khwandamīr, Tārīkh-ī Habib al-Siyar 2 (Tehran, SH 1333). Malek, H.M. (1993), ‘A seventh century hoard of Sasanian drachms’, Iran 31, pp.77-93. Malek, H.M. and Curtis, V. (1998), ‘History and Coinage of the Sasanian Queen Bōrān (AD629-631)’, NC 158, pp.114-29. Malek, H.M. (2004), The Dābūyid Ispahbads and Early ‘Abbāsid Governors of Tabaristān: History and Numismatics, Royal Numismatic Society SP39 (London). Malek, H.M. (2015), ‘A hoard of Sasanian drachms from Ilam province buried c. AD602’, NC 175, pp.309-29.

190

Malek, H.M. (2017), ʽTabaristān during the ʽAbbāsid period: The overlapping coinage of the governors and other officials (144-178H)’, in M. Faghfoury (ed.), Iranian Numismatic Studies: A Volume in Honour of Stephen Album (Classical Numismatic Group, Lancaster/London), pp.101-26. Malek, H.M. (2019), Arab-Sasanian Numismatics and History during the Early Islamic Period in Iran and Iraq, Royal Numismatic Society SP55 (London). Marʽashī, Mir Zahīr al-Din Marʽashī, Tārīkh-ī Tabaristān wa Rūyān wa Māzandarān (Tehran, 1966). Mitchiner, M. (1978), Oriental Coins and their Values. The Ancient and Classical World 600BC — AD650 (Sanderstead). MMI1, Curtis, V. et al., Sasanian Coins: A Sylloge of the Sasanian Coins in the National Museum of Iran (Muzeh Melli Iran), Tehran. Vol.1: Ardashīr I — Hormizd IV, Royal Numismatic Society SP 47 (London, 2010). MMI2, Curtis, V. et al., Sasanian Coins: A Sylloge of the Sasanian Coins in the National Museum of Iran (Muzeh Melli Iran), Tehran. Vol.2: Khusrau II — Yazdgard III, Royal Numismatic Society SP 49 (London, 2012). Paruck, F.D.J. (1944), ‘Mint Marks on Sasanian and Arab-Sasanian Coins,’ JNSI 6 (1944), pp.79-151. Pushkin, Nikitin A., ‘Sasanian Coins in the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts Moscow’, Ancient Civilizations 2/1, pp.71-91 (Leiden, 1995). SNS (Israel), Schindel, N. , Sylloge Nummorum Sasanidarum, Israel (Vienna, 2009). SNS 3, Schindel, N. , Sylloge Nummorum Sasanidarum. Paris, Berlin, Wien 3: Shapur II — Kawad I (Vienna, 2004). SNS (Orumiyeh), Akhazadeh, D. and Schindel,N., Sylloge Nummorum Sasanidarum Iran: A late Sasanian Hoard from Orumiyeh (Vienna, 2017). Shavarebi, E. (2019), Shavarebi, ‘Āmul/Āmū (ye): die nordöstlichste Münzstäte — des Sasanidenreiches im 5. Jahrhundert a. Chr.’ In M. Stermitz (ed.), Sammlungen und Sammler: Tagungsband zum 8. Österreichischen Numismatikertag. [Kärtner Museumsschriften 86] (Klagenfurt am Wöthersee: Landesmuseum Für Kärnten), pp.173-9. Sárközy, M. (2008), ‘The Survival of the Myth of the Sāsānians in Early Islamic Tabaristān’, in Á. Szabó and P. Vargyas (eds.), Cultus deorum studia religionum ad historiam vol.III. Res Medievalia et recentiora ab Oriens ad Europa. In memoriam István Tóth (Pécs-Budapest), pp.21-36. Simon, H. (1976), ‘Die Sāsānidischen Mūnzen des Fundes von Babylon. Ein Teil bei Koldeweys Ausgrabungen in Jahre 1900 gefundenen Münzschatzes’, Acta Iranica 5, pp.149-337. Stern, S.M. (1967), ‘The coins of Āmul’, NC 7 (1967), pp.205 278. al-Tabarī, Tārīkh al-rasul wa al-mulūk, M.J. de Goeje (ed.) (Leiden, 1879-1901. al-Tabarī (trans.), The History of al-Tabarī, E. Yarshater (ed.) (New York, 1987-99). Tsotselia, M. (2002), History and Coin Finds in Georgia, Sasanian and Byzantine Coins from Tsitelitskaro (AD 641), Collection Moneta 26 (Wetteren). Tsumura M., et al (2003), Sasanian and Arab-Sasanian Silver Coins from Xinjuang — Sasanian Type Silver Coins from the Xinjiang Museum, Bulletin of the Research Center for Silk Roadology. Silk Roadology 19 (Nura, Japan). Tyler-Smith, S. (2009), ‘The ‘Berlin’ Parcel of Sasanian drachms’, NC 169, pp.375-400. Tyler-Smith, S. (2017), The Coinage Reforms (600-603) of Khusrau II and the Revolt of Vistaāhm, Royal Numismatic Society SP 54 (London). al-ʽUsh, M. (1972), The Silver Hoard of Damascus (Damascus). Vardanyan, A. (2010), ‘Numismatic evidence for the presence of Zaydī ‘Alids in the Northern Jibāl, Gīlān and Khurāsān from AH 250 to 350 (AD 864-961)’. NC 170, pp.355-74.

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

191

“The Maker of the World Without Fear” Observations on the Gold Coin of Khosrow I TOURA J DARYAEE

Throughout Sasanian history the minting of gold coins (dēnar) appears to have been far less common than the huge output of silver (drahm) and copper (pašīz) which were minted regularly. Among the last gold issues, there is a special issue coinage which was initially attributed to Khosrow II (590-628 CE) by Robert Göbl.1 While there have been discussions by Karina Mosig-Walburg,2 and the authenticity of the coin, it is Rika Gyselen who has resolutely classified the coin as belonging not to Khosrow II, but rather to Khosrow I (531-579).3 Nikolaus Schindel has given a more detailed discussion and classification of this gold coin.4 In memory of the great Parthian numismatist David Sellwood, I would like add some further discussion in regard to the piece which should be seen less as a coin and more as a medallion. Let us look at the coin and its specific features. Initially these had caused confusion in the coin’s attribution to Khosrow II; however, later it was suggested to belong to the time of Khusrow I (Figure 1). On the obverse the king is presented fully frontal, a feature that is mainly known from the time of Khosrow II when he minted his special issue coins. The legends hwslwd / Khosrow together with ’pzwn’ which is usually translated as “increasing,” or “bountifulness,” have had several different interpretations. I would like to suggest that along with the halo or nimbus appearing around the bust of Khusrow, the meaning of ’pzwn’ should be read as the king’s Xwarrah or “Glory increasing”.

Figure 1: Johnson 555518, Gobl type V/6, Year 13, ex. Spinks auction, 12 October 1993, lot 453.

1 2 3 4

Göbl 1971. Mosig-Walburg 1993. Gyselen 2004: 63. Schindel 2006. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

193

This similar formula, but in its complete form as hwslwd GDH ’pzwd’ / Khosrow xwarrah abzūd appears on the reform coinage of Khosrow II.5 As a note, it should be mentioned that in the Frahang ī Pahlawīg, the word waxšēnīdan “to let grow” is glossed by afzūnī.6 This brings out exactly the meaning of the message on the coin. Furthermore, Khosrow II’s coin has a double halo around the bust signifying the increase in his glory (Figure 2). The most telling symbolism on the obverse is the crown of Khosrow II. With the exception of year 1 which harkened back to that of Khosrow I (Figure 3), Khrosrow II wears a winged crown from year two on, an avatar of the Zoroastrian deity, Wahrām.7 However, it is Khosrow I’s crown with the crescent on his silver coin that matches the gold coin under discussion.

Figure 2: A Coin of Khosrow II

Figure 3: A Coin of Khosrow I

On the reverse of the gold coin, Khosrow I is shown standing again in a frontal position and wearing full regalia. The legend is of great importance here. It can be read as hwslwdy in the third quadrant and gyh’n ’pybym krt’l in the first and second quadrant.8 The legends taken together should read then “Khosrow, the maker of the world without fear.”9 However the real question is what did Khosrow do that he now has minted this legend on his coinage? For this idea and an almost exact phraseology, I would like to point to the Bundahišn (Book of Primal Creation), which has kept a record of the deeds and actions of Sasanian kings. For the vitae of Khosrow I, the text has the following passage that is important for our discussion (Bd 33.24):

5 6 7 8 9

194

Daryaee 1997. Nyberg 1988: 118. Daryaee 1996: 89. Schindel 2006: 18. Gyselen translates as: “He (that is Khusro) has rendered the world without fear” 2004: 63.

tā anōšag-ruwān Husraw ī Kawādān ō purnāyīh mad ud Mazdak ōzad ud dēn ī māzdēsnān winnārd ud awēšān Hyōnān kē-šān asp-tāg ō Ērānšahr hamē kard spōxt ud widarag bast ud Ērānšahr abēbīm kard 10 “Till the Immortal Soul, Khosrow the son of Kawād came of age (lit. an adult) and killed Mazdak and arranged the Mazda-worshipping Religion, and repulsed and blocked the passage of those Huns who had rushed with horses to Ērānšahr and made Ērānšahr without fear”. In this passage because of Khosrow’s actions against the Huns, Ērānšahr, the Empire of the Iranians, has become “without fear” abēbīm kard.11 To give more context to this question, we should understand that the large movement of Huns in the fifth century CE in Eurasia created a new trend in the interaction between Sasanian Iran and Rome which was initially quite violent. The tribal and nomadic invasions of such peoples as the Hephthalites, Goths, Vandals, and Isaurians created a sense of urgency for both empires.12 In the fifth century, in what has been called the “Age of Attila,” nomadic tribes invaded Rome and the Danube frontier, areas later occupied by the Avars and Turks.13 On the Sasanian front the coming of the Hephthalites, who have been called “Iranian Huns,” arrived in waves on the borders of Iran.14 These Hunic tribes included the Kidarites in the fourth CE, and the Alkhons as well as the Nezaks in the fifth and sixth centuries CE. Their invasions reached all the way to Afghanistan.15 Finally, the Hephthalites themselves were able to devastate the Sasanian Empire during the reign of Pērōz in the fifth century CE.16 Pērōz had faced the incursion of Kidarites in 467 and was captured by the Hephthalites in 474. After paying a large sum of silver (1500 kg), he was released, but again opted to battle them. This time he lost his life in 484 and the Sasanian Empire became a tributary to the Hephthalite invaders.17 It would take almost a century for the Sasanians under the rule of Khosrow I to see the demise of the Hephthalites. However, the exact circumstances of this demise are not altogether clear. The Sasanian based sources such as Tabarī and to some extent the Shāhnāmeh of Ferdowsī give the credit to the Sasanians. Menander (frg 6.1), notes that in the Byzantine-Sasanian Treaty of 562 CE, the Sasanians took credit for the destruction of the Hephthalites (Ἐφθαλιτῶν). However, it appears that it was the Turks who had the more direct hand in the defeat of the Hephthalites, while the Sasanians only collaborated in this affair.18 It should be mentioned that David Sellwood, in his study of Sasanian coins had mentioned that Khusrow I was responsible for the defeat of the Hephthalites in alliance with the Turks. Furthermore, Khosrow I had fortified the frontier east of the Caspian Sea against nomadic invaders and made the Oxus River, the Sasanian Empire’s eastern boundary.19 All these reasons would have been ideal for minting the gold issue coins/medallions with the legend of making the world without fear from the nomadic incursions not only for Ērānšahr but also for the entire world.

10 11 12 13

Pakzad 2005: 367-368. I may not be the first person to point out this passage in relation to Khosrow I. See O. Klíma, 1970: 141. Drijvers 2012: 448. Maas 2015: 39.

14 15 16 17 18 19

Rezakhani 2017: 89-102. Rezakhani 2017. Schottky 2004; Rezakhani 2017. Alram 2016: 97. Rezakhani 2018. Sellwood 1985: 141. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

195

Bibliography Alram, M. et. al., (2016), Das Antlitz des Fremden: Die Münzprägung der Hunnen und Westtürken in Zentralasien und Indien, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Wien. Daryaee, T. (1996), “The Effect of Civil War on Mint Production in the Sasanian Empire,” in (ONS) Oriental Numismatic Society, No. 150, Autumn, pp. 8-9. Daryaee, T. (1997), “The Use of Religio-Political Propaganda on Coins of Xusrō II,” in The Journal of the American Numismatic Society, Vol. 7, November, pp. 41-54. Drijvers, J.W., (2012), “Rome and Sasanid Empire: Confrontation and Coexistence,” in A Companion to Late Antiquity, ed. Ph. Rosusseau, (Wiley-Blackwell): 441-454. Göbl, R. (1971), Sasanian Numismatics, Braunschweig. Gyselen, R. (2004), New Evidence for Sasanian Numismatics: The Collection of Ahmad Sae edi, Res Orientalis XVI. Klíma, O. (1970), “Über zwei Aufschriften auf den Münzen des sassanidischen Königs Chosroes I,” Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte und deren Nachleben. FS Franz Altheim, eds. R. Stiehl & H.R. Stier, Band 2, Berlin, pp. 140-142. Maas, M. (2014), The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Attila, Cambridge University Press. Mosig-Walburg, K. (1993), “Die Flucht des persischen Prinzen Hormizd und sein Exil im römischen ... “Sonderprägungen des Xusro II. vom Typ Göbl V/6 und VI/7, Iranica Antiqua 28, pp. 169-191. Nyberg, S.H. & Toll, Ch. (1988), Frahang ī Pahlavīk, Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden. Pakzad, F. (2005), Bundahishn Zoroastrische Kosmogonie und Kosmologie, Band I. Kritische Edition, Centre for the Great Islamic Encyclopaedia, Tehran. Rezakhani, Kh. (2017), ReOrienting the Sasanians: East Iran in Late Antiquity (Edinburgh University Press). Rezakhani, Kh. (2018), “Shahnameh as a Historical Source, 1: The Türk and the Hephthalites,” Hollyfest, thehollyfest.org/index.php/khodadad-rezakhani/. Schindel, N. (2006), “Khusro I. oder Khusro II.?,” in: Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Numismatischen Gesellschaft 46/1, S. 16-29. Schindel, N. (2006), “Kosrow I,” Encyclopaedia Iranica, ed. E. Yarshater, 2006, iranicaonline.org/articles/kosrow-i-iii-coinage#prettyPhoto. Schottky, M. (2004), “Huns,” Encyclopaedia Iranica, ed. E. Yarshater, iranicaonline.org/articles/huns. Sellwood, D., Whitting, P. & Williams, R., (1985), An Introduction to Sasanian Coins, Spink, London.

196

An Anomalous Group of Khusrau II Drachms SUSAN TYLER-SMITH

Introduction The silver drachm coinage of Khusrau II (590–628) is remarkably uniform across the whole empire regarding weight (about 4.15 grams), fineness (as far as we know),1 design, style and die axis (usually at either about 3 o’clock or 9 o’clock2). It is generally assumed that the dies were made centrally and then distributed to individual mints for the striking of coins. Consequently, it is normally impossible to identify a mint or even to localise its general geographical location from the style of the obverse design.3 The style of the obverse developed over time, but the standardisation of the coinage means that one has to consider the possibility that any coin or group of coins which differs from the norm may not have been authorised by the Sasanian state. A key innovation which took place in year 12 (601/2) of Khusrau II was the addition of the Pahlavi letters ʾpd in the second quadrant of the obverse margin. This word is usually translated as ‘excellent’ though its significance is uncertain. It was not used by any of Khusrau II’s successors (see below).

The Imitations of Coins of Khusrau II Silver drachm production under Khusrau II was huge. About 30 mints were in operation for most of his 38 years with the output of each mint varying considerably. It is not surprising therefore that his coins were much copied. Some of the copies that survive may be outright forgeries; however, others could be the work of mints with some sort of status conferred by a self-appointed local authority. Such organisations could have operated in the chaos that followed the defeat of the Persians by the Byzantines or the subsequent Arab invasion.4 Imitations were also struck to the north and east of the frontiers of the Sasanian empire where there was a tradition of imitating Sasanian coins. In general imitations are impossible to attribute, but it is highly unlikely that any were struck in Iran before the fall of Khusrau II. The first coins that can be attributed to the local Arab rulers have words inserted in the same place as the ʾpd legend. After their conquest of the Sasanian empire, the Arabs added obverse marginal legends to close copies of Khusrau II’s drachms, as well as to copies of Yazdgard III’s (632–51) coins. At first these legends were always in the same position as the ʾpd legend. Later the legends became longer and expanded into other quarters of the margin. Although the dating of these early Arab coins can be problematic as the dates may be frozen or using one of three different eras (Yazdgard, Post Yazdgard, Hijra), they can at least be dated to after the Arab conquest.

1

2 3 4

Gordus has published a number of studies such as ‘Neutron activation analysis of coins and coin streaks’, at pp. 132 and 147. Recent studies of fewer coins have shown more variable results: see Blet-Lemarquand et al., ‘La question récurrente de la raison d’être de ʾpd sur le monnayage de Khusrō II (590–628)’. See for example Tyler-Smith, ‘The ‘Year 12: Berlin 2016’ hoard, Tables 7–10, 424–5. There are two well-known exceptions to this general rule: BBA (the Court) from year 27 and SK (Sakastan) from year 30, see Tyler-Smith, Coinage Reforms, 85. A hoard of copies of Khusrau II (including coins with the mint AW dated 35, without the ʾpd legend) and Yazdgard III drachms (struck apparently using official Sasanian dies) has been dated to this period by Stefan Heidemann et al. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

197

Copies of Khusrau’s drachms without Arabic legends are much more difficult to date than those with Arabic legends. They could have been struck after the Arab conquest and, judging by their style, some certainly were. The use of a triangle of three pellets on some coins, often also used on Arab-Sasanian coins, suggests such coins may have been struck after the introduction of this feature by the Arabs. Copies with no Arabic legends tend to be very varied in their style. They also copy many different ‘mints’ and ‘years’, though some mints were more favoured than others.5 Of course some copies have illegible mints and dates. In particular the mint of BBA was widely copied. Two groups of such copies are known in relatively large numbers. Low-weight coins copying the court mint BBA and dated year 27 have been attributed to the Hephthalites in Khorasan before CE 700.6 A second group, mostly copying the mint BBA but with the year 21 and possibly located in the Caucasus region, has been discussed elsewhere.7 We do not know why some mint abbreviations were chosen for copying rather than others. One reason was probably because some letters were easier to engrave. An example of this is the mint AW of which large numbers of copies exist. These copies fall into at least two substantial groups. The most common group has the regnal year 35 (624/5) and the marginal legend ʾpd (figs 1–3). These coins are the subject of this paper. In addition to what could be called this ‘main’ group there are other coins which share some of the same distinguishing features (mint and obverse marginal legend ʾpd), but also have a triangle of three pellets at about 7h in the obverse margin. These are dated year 30 as well as year 35. The style of these latter coins is usually different from the ‘main’ group. They will not be discussed further here. It needs to be stressed that coins in apparently normal style exist for AW year 35 but without the marginal ʾpd (fig. 4). On the other hand, all coins, with one exception, that I have seen of AW year 35 with the ʾpd legend appear to be of a variable but clearly unofficial style.

The Designs and Legends of Copies One of the easiest ways to identify non-official coins of Khusrau II is by their style. Another is by examining the details of their designs and legends. The general design on the copies is always the same as on the official coins with the crowned bust of the shahanshah facing right on the obverse and a fire-altar and two attendants on the reverse. Both the obverse and reverse have the correct number of circles and star/crescent decorations in the margin. However, the details may be incorrect. For example, the star and crescent by the altar flames are sometimes transposed and pellets and stars (and less often Pahlavi letters) may be added to the obverse or reverse margin or field. The legends on copies always attempt to render the correct hwslwy ʾpzwt GDH (which can be translated as ‘Khusrau has increased the royal glory’) on the obverse and the mint to the right and date to the left on the reverse, though these legends are often incorrectly engraved and/or crude.

The Mint (AW) and the Year (35) AW (sometimes transliterated AO) is a common Sasanian mint abbreviation. Its identification is not certain, but it may represent Hormizd-Ardashir (later Suq al-Ahwaz in Huzestan). That centre began striking coins in the reign of Ardashir II (379–83).8 It then struck coins from Varhran IV (388–99) onwards for almost all shahanshahs until Buran (629–30). Coins are known for every year of Khusrau II’s reign.9 After the fall of the Sasanians AW is found far 5

6 7 8

9

198

Imitations found in a Caucasian hoard have been published by F. Gurnet in K. Mousheghian et al., History and Coin Finds in Armenia, 36–7, 110–13. Three groups of copies were discussed in Tyler-Smith, ‘Pseudo-Sasanian coinage in the name of Khusru II’, 35–52. The present group was mentioned briefly, 38–9. Many examples have been offered for sale in recent years, see for example Classical Numismatic Group electronic auction 317, lot 153 (32mm, 3.42g, 3h), https://cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=248794. See Tyler-Smith, ‘BBA 21 Group’. For the identification see Tyler-Smith, Coinage Reforms, 120 and Schindel, Sylloge Nummorum Sasanidarum 3/2, 151–2. The mint may have started under Shapur II (309–79) as the letters AW are found behind the king’s head on some of Shapur’s drachms. The significance of these letters, and others which are found in the same position, is uncertain; see Schindel, Sylloge Nummorum Sasanidarum 3/2, plates 1–3 for examples with various letters. It varies between 14th most common out of 32 mints and 7th most common out of 31 mints in three large hoards analysed by Akbarzadegh and Schindel, Sylloge Nummorum Sasanidarum Iran: Orumiyeh: Bab Tuma, 23, table 15 and Babylon, 24, table 18.

less often, being known only for Arab-Sasanian anonymous types in the name of Khusrau up to 35YE/46H, and then for year 51H of Ziyad b. Abi Sufyan (671AD) and year 56H of Ubayd Allah b. Ziyad (674AD).10 In general regnal year 35 is one of the most common and sometimes the most numerous year to be found in hoards.11 The commonness of the date could be one reason why it was copied. The Pahlavi mint letters are also very easy to engrave as they are merely three simple strokes.

The Significance and Use of the Marginal Legend ʾpd This legend is found on coins of Khusrau II but not on those of any other Sasanian shahanshah.12 It is always in the same place. Although the word has been translated (usually as ‘excellent’), its significance is not understood.13 It was introduced in Khusrau’s regnal year 12 (601/2) and was used by almost all mints for the rest of his reign (the only exception was SK, Sakastan). The proportion of coins carrying the legend varies considerably at different mints. Some mints (e.g. BBA) use it for a few years only and even in those years strike only small numbers of coins with the legend. By contrast, other mints such as BYSh (Bishapur) strike large numbers of ʾpd coins in many years.14

The Use of ʾpd at the Mint AW The collection of data from all available sources (hoards, published collections, commercial catalogues and websites) indicates that AW struck very few ʾpd coins for the six regnal years 33 (622/3) to 38 (627/8) apart from the group under discussion. For these six years I have recorded 80 coins of AW with the marginal legend ʾpd. Only five of these are regular ʾpd coins and none, as far as it can be ascertained, is dated 35. The remaining 75 coins, all dated 35, seem to be copies.15 For the same six years 142 non-ʾpd coins have been located: that is, nearly 97% of regular official drachms of the AW mint were non-ʾpd coins. This suggests that the AW 35 ʾpd coins were a distinct and unusual issue.

Identification and Dating of the AW Year 35 ʾpd Group This group of coins stands apart from all other coins of AW and all other coins dated 35. It is ‘standard’ with regards to four of the above listed criteria: weight,16 fineness (as far as it can be judged by the eye),17 design and die axis. What distinguishes it from standard regular issues is the unusual style and often rusty dies (fig. 3). This style is unlike that of any other copies, so much so that the coins can always be identified from the style of the obverse design.18 Having identified this issue, the question is: when were the coins struck, where and by whom? An answer to the second and third questions is difficult to suggest; however, one can attempt to answer the first. Either the date on the drachms is a correct regnal year (624/5) or it is a meaningless copy. The only way to decide is to look at the hoard evidence. If the coins were struck in 624/5 they should be found in hoards buried before the collapse of the Sasanian dynasty. If they were later products, struck during the time of Arab domination, then of course they could not have been included in hoards buried before the death of Yazdgard III in 651. As already emphasised the group is relatively large — over 75 examples have been located. Most of these come from hoards without a known provenance and none from a 10 11

Malek, Arab-Sasanian Numismatics 104-5. See analyses in Tyler-Smith, Coinage Reforms, 58, tables 4-24 and 4-25; 59, table 4-26; 60, tables 4-28 and 4-28; 61, table 4.29; and Akbarzadegh and Schindel, Sylloge Nummorum Sasanidarum Iran: Orumiyeh, 23, table 16; 25, table 19, 26, table 22.

12 13 14 15

It is also found on later coins of Tabaristan. See Tyler-Smith, Coinage Reforms, 83–95 for a fuller discussion of the subject. This is my impression, but no one has yet done the counting. One cannot be completely certain as hoard reports do not normally illustrate every coin but I have seen only one coin of AW 35 ʾpd which is in the ‘regular’ style. The highest weight I have so far recorded is 4.11g, Curtis et al., Sasanian Coins, no. 1903.

16 17 18

No coins of AW year 35 were analysed in Blet-Lemarquand et al., ‘La question récurrente de la raison d’être de ʾpd sur le monnayage de Khusrō II (590–628)’. The mints of BBA and SK can both be identified from their obverses at certain periods, but the exact year cannot be named. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

199

hoard buried in Sasanian times. They are, however, present in small numbers in some well-known hoards which were deposited after the collapse of Sasanian power. This suggests that the AW 35 ʾpd coins may not have been available to hoarders before 651. Hoard (no. of coins of Khusrau II, date of latest coin)

No. of ʾpd coins

No. of non‑ʾpd coins

Orumiyeh (964 coins, tpq 662)19

0

2

Wuquia (538 coins, tpq 680)20

8+

0

Bab Tuma Damascus (596 coins, tpq 748)21

1

2

Sahat al-Tahrir Damascus (1116 coins, tpq 749)22

2

1

Qamishli (207 coins, tpq 816)23

2

1

Babylon (330 coins, tpq 820)24

0

1

Gazira (312 coins, tpq 821)25

2

0

Table 1. Number of AW 35 ʾpd and Non-ʾpd coins in Post-Sasanian Hoards

The evidence is not as clear as one would like as the AW 35 ʾpd coins are not present in all post-651 hoards (they are not in the Babylon or Orumiyeh hoards), and even when present are usually found only in small numbers. The Wuquia (Xinjiang province) hoard is the only hoard to contain more than two examples. It is also the hoard with the earliest ‘closing date’ to contain AW 35 ʾpd coins: its latest coin can be dated to 680. This means that the AW 35 ʾpd drachms must have been struck before then. Three of the coins have been countermarked suggesting a few years (at least) had probably elapsed since striking, to allow time for the coins to be included in the circulation area of the Hephthalites, to be countermarked and then to travel farther east. As one would expect of a hoard of this date none of the coins has been significantly clipped.

Conclusion and Future Work This large issue of AW 35 ʾpd coins stands out from the other issues bearing the same mint abbreviation struck during the last six years of Khusrau II’s reign. One can with reasonable certainty identify it as a non-official issue; that is, it was not struck by the usual coin-issuing authorities. No suggestion can at present be made about who struck these coins nor where they were struck. As to their date, we can only say they were struck before 680. One can hope for further hoard evidence which may help narrow down the date of issue or even suggest a location. In addition it would be very useful to know the metal content which might indicate a time or location of making. Meanwhile, a die study should help estimate how many coins were struck and possibly reveal patterns of issue, even a break in the sequence of minting. A preliminary study of 52 drachms shows somewhat surprising results: there are 46 obverse and 45 reverse dies with three die links. The few dies studies so far carried out suggest one might expect more reverse dies than obverse dies in a similar sample from an official Sasanian mint, though the figures are not decisive.26 One might also expect more die links. In order to understand fully the significance of these data, a die study of all available coins needs to be completed and the results then compared with die studies of official issues of the same period at the mint AW and other mints. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

200

Orumiyeh is located in north-west Iran, Akbarzadegh and Schindel, Sylloge Nummorum Sasanidarum Orumiyeh. Tsumura et al., Sasanian and Arab-Sasanian Silver Coins from Xinjiang. Eight coins are illustrated fully, one is identified as AW 35 ʾpd but not illustrated and for one coin the obverse only is illustrated (302, WQ-III-I-78). Gyselen and Kalus, Deux trésors monétaires des premiers temps de l’Islam. Al-ʿUsh, The Silver Hoard of Damascus. Gyselen and Kalus, Deux trésors monétaires des premiers temps de l’Islam. Simon, ‘Die Sāsānidischen Münzen des Fundes von Babylon’. Gyselen and Nègre, ‘Un trésor de Gazīra (Haute Mésopotamie)’. See die charts in Tyler-Smith, Coinage Reforms, 31–9 for coins of Khusrau II years 9 to 12, and 261–4 for coins of the usurper Vistahm; on the other hand the 173 coins of BYSh dated year 13, in the Bishapur hoard were struck by 12 obverse and 11 reverse dies: Szaivert, ‘Der Fund von Bišapur’. The imitative group of ‘BBA year 21’ coins used 25 obverse and 33 reverse dies, Tyler-Smith, ‘BBA 21 Group’, 31–3, with a significant number of die links, 29.

List of Figures KHUSRAU II, MINT AW, YEAR 35 WITH ʾPD IN THE OBVERSE MARGIN

Fig. 1. 4.01 g, 32 mm, 3 h.

Fig. 2. 4.10 g, 34 mm, 9 h.

Fig. 3. 3.27 g, 30 mm, 3 h (worn obverse die, clipped).

KHUSRAU II, MINT AW, REGNAL YEAR 35

Fig. 4. 4.15 g, 32 mm, 3 h.

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

201

Works Cited Akbarzadegh, Daryoosh and Schindel, Nikolaus, Sylloge Nummorum Sasanidarum Iran: A late Sasanian Hoard from Orumiyeh (Veröffentlichungen zur Numismatik 60) (Vienna, 2017). Al-ʿUsh, Muḥammad Abū-L-Faraj, The Silver Hoard of Damascus (Damascus, 1972). Blet-Lemarquand, Maryse, Gyselen, Rika and Gordus, A.A., ‘La question récurrente de la raison d’être de ʾpd sur le monnayage de Khusrō II (590–628): étude préliminaire’, Sources pour l’histoire et la géographie du monde iranien (224–710), Res Orientales 18, (2009), 41–58. Curtis, Vesta Sarkhosh, Askari, M. Elahé, Pendleton, Elizabeth J., Sasanian Coins. A Sylloge of the Sasanian coins in the National Museum of Iran (Muzeh Melli Iran) Tehran, 2 (Royal Numismatic Society Special Publication 49) (London, 2012). Gordus, Adon A., ‘Neutron activation analysis of coins and coin streaks’, in E.T. Hall and D.M. Metcalf (eds) Methods of Chemical and Metallurgical Investigation of Ancient Coinage (Royal Numismatic Society Special Publication 8) (London, 1972), 127–48. Gyselen, Rika and Kalus, Ludvik, Deux trésors monétaires des premiers temps de l’Islam (Paris, 1983). Gyselen, Rika and Nègre, Arlette, ‘Un trésor de Gazīra (Haute Mésopotamie): Monnaies d’argent sasanides et islamiques enfouies au début du IIIe siècle de l’hérige / IXe siècle de notre ère’, Revue Numismatique6 24 (1982), 170–205. Heidemann, Stefan, Josef Riederer, Dieter Weber, ‘A hoard from the time of Yazdgard III in Kirmān’, Iran 52 (2014), 79–124. Malek, Hodge Mehdi, Arab-Sasanian Numismatics and History During the Early Islamic Period in Iran and Iraq. The Johnson Collection of Arab-Sasanian Coins, Royal Numismatic Society Special Publication 55 (London, 2019). Mousheghian, K., Mousheghian, A., Bresc, C., Depeyrot, G., Gurnet, F., History and Coin Finds in Armenia. Coins from Duin, Capital of Armenia (4–13th c.). Inventory of Byzantine and Sasanian Coins in Armenia (6–7th c.) Collection Moneta 18 (Wetteren, 2000). Schindel, Nikolaus, Sylloge Nummorum Sasanidarum. Paris, Berlin, Wien 3/2: Shapur II. — Kawad I. / 2. Regierung (Vienna, 2004). Simon, Hermann, ‘Die Sāsānidischen Münzen des Fundes von Babylon. Ein Teil des bei Koldeweys Ausgrabungen im Jahre 1900 gefundenen Münzschatzes’, Acta Iranica Textes et Mémoires 5, Varia 1976, 149–337. Szaivert, Wolfgang, ‘Der Fund von Bišapur’, Jahrbuch für Numismatik Geldgeschichte 28–29 (1978–9), 35–42. Tsumura, Makiko; Yamauchi, Kazuya; Sugaya, Fuminori and Morimoto, Kousei, Sasanian and Arab-Sasanian Silver Coins from Xinjiang – Sasanian Type Silver Coins from the Xinjiang Museum (Bulletin of the Research Center for Silk Roadology. Silk Roadology 19) (Nara, Japan, 2003). Tyler-Smith, Susan, ‘The ‘BBA 21 Group’: Copies of Khusrau II’s drachms struck in the Caucasus region?, in Transactions of the State Hermitage Museum, 81, Materials and Researches of the Numismatics Department, Based on the Proceedings of the International Conference ‘Two Centuries of Islamic Numismatics in Russia. General Results and Prospects’ (St Petersburg, 2017). Tyler-Smith, Susan, ‘The ‘Year 12: Berlin 2016’ hoard of Late Sasanian coins’, Numismatic Chronicle 117 (2017), 419–50. Tyler-Smith, Susan, ‘Pseudo-Sasanian coinage in the name of Khusru II’, in M. Faghfoury (ed.), Iranian Numismatic Studies: A Volume in Honor of Stephen Album (Lancaster PA / London, 2017), 35–52. Tyler-Smith, Susan, The Coinage Reforms (600–603) of Khusru II and the Revolt of Vistāhm, Royal Numismatic Society Special Publication 54 (London, 2017). 202

Cities and Mint Centers Founded by the Sasanians BAHRA M BADIYI

The majority of Sasanian kings contributed either to the creation of new cities or to the expansion of old ones. These were often the old cities with commercial interests along trade routes. They were also the newly minted ones with growing populations thanks largely to Sasanian military activities. Successful campaigns led to the displacement of enemy populations to new areas sometimes enhancing the existing cities and sometimes founding new ones. In general, greater Persia during the Sasanian period became a far larger urban society than during any previous period. Over the span of four and a half centuries, the Sasanid kings added to or developed nearly 109 cities. Only a handful of these cities became minting centers. They can be recognized by their well-known mint signatures. In addition, there were a few cities that could possibly be considered mint centers as they shared the abbreviations of their names with other cities that were recognized as minting centers. This developmental activity remains unprecedented in the history of pre-Islamic empires in Iran. Daily goods markets within or around the cities as well as the many military camps and operations generated the need for a constant flow of hard currency. Sasanian cities also had to supply the most basic human needs for water, food, shelter and security before indicators of true urban life could appear. Rivers and their basins provided the water for most Sasanian cities such as those in Pars and Huzistan (Kor, Pulvar and Shapur basins), for Asuristan and Huzistan (Tigris, Euphrates, Karun and Karkheh basins), Tabaristan and Gorgan/Dehistan (Atrak and Caspian Sea basins), Ispahan/Jay (Zayandehrud basin) among others. These basins also provided the requirements for strong agricultural-based communities for the residents, and their local markets as can be seen in the excavated remains of Veh Ardashir (Geller). Taken all together they aided in the creation of a wealthy and religiously diverse Sasanian culture. This can be seen in the development of new cities and mint centers. In addition to the markets, cash payments to the troops and the subsequent exchanges of larger to smaller units or fractions by those troops (possibly for the purpose of being sent to their families) remained a dominant feature of a Persian military camp. A map of such a camp specifically attributed to the Sasanid King of Persia (Fakhr-e Modabbir) indicates that the location of the money lenders and exchange dealers was right in the heart of the camp alongside other major services. Tabari records a few such monitary exchanges by troops during the subsequent period of Islamic conquest of the Persian Empire indicating routine and long-lived practices. These cash demands created a need for active minting centers. In order to determine better the nature and characteristics of the cities that were minting centers, several categories were brought together. (See Table 1). These categories are:

A. Population: From a study of the original and secondary records of the diverse makeup of the populations (including native peoples or deportees/prisoners of war during the reigns of Šāpūr I, Šāpūr II, Pērōz, Yazdgīrd II, Kavād I and Khosau I), it appears that none of the cities built especially to house Roman or Byzantine prisoners of war, deportees from Syrian cities or deportees from Bahrain and Arabia was selected as a mint center. Populations also impacted the internal layout A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

203

of the city. Almost all cities designed for the prisoners of war or for civilian deportees who were primarily Christian show the “grid” layout; other cities have circular or zoomorphic shapes such as the horse or eagle (Ibn Balkhi). The zoomorphic shapes in abstract forms as well as many Sasanian decorative elements can be seen best in local traditions of tribal rugs in the province of Fars (Ancient Persis) where these forms have survived from the Sasanian time and for centuries. An extensive study of these forms along with examples from these rugs were completed and published by Cyrus Parham and Siavosh Azadi in Tehran in 1992. One city, Bišāpūr (City of Šāpūr), also shows some Roman influences in decorative arts. However, it was not a city made for Roman prisoners. Rather it housed the palace of Šāpūr I, the Fire temple and buildings on which were placed many of the reliefs commemorating his victories over Romans. Sasanian cities had diverse minorities as well as the majority of native peoples. Cities such as Veh Ardasir, Jay/ Sepahan, Ahmadan, Ray had large Jewish communities as well as those cities such as present day Mosul and northern Mesopotamia.1 Regions such as Harev (Herat), Badaxšan and Kandahār maintained very large and thriving Buddhist communities until their brutal destruction by the Hephtalites. Unless an uprising took place such as the one in the city of Jay by the Jewish residents over religious disputes that led Peroz to suppress it, the records show tolerant policies toward most if not all minorities. In terms of Christians and especially during the reign of Šāpūr II when the followers of Christ were seen as the 5th column of the enemy (Rome). With only some exceptions after that, the Sasanids did not persecute Christians any longer since Persian Christians deliberately cut all ties with the Church of Rome establishing their own Nestorian doctrine. The relationship between the bishops of the Christian church/ communities and Sasanian Kings such as Yazdgird I, Peroz, Khosrau I and Khosrau II was respectful and built on mutual understanding of the politics that governed Sasanian Iran.

B. Proximity among major cities or mint centers Some of the mint centers are close to each other; such as those in and around Ctesiphon. Others were quite distant from any major city. The two longest distances between growing centers recognized as new cities can be observed for Ardabīl in the northwest and Kāšghar in the east. Recognizing the development of these centers provides us hints as to the increase in the quantity of currency/coins needed for the vibrant markets around these new cities. The increasing number of minting centers might also indicate a possible decrease in the size of precious metal reserves in an older minting facility adjacent to the new ones, or a stoppage of minting altogether at the older facility.

C. Internal and external political and socio‑economic conflicts Major internal events affected the minting of coinage. The overthrow of the Parthian Dynasty and their feudal allies, conflicts with the Romans and the Byzantines on the west, and the Hepthalites and Turks on the east and north-east had major economic impact. The flow of revenue, material goods and man power/labor translated into the increase or decrease in the output of coinage. Tabari recorded the capture of numerous bags of coins from the fleeing Persian camp after the battle of Qādesīyyah. This seems to illustrate the cash-rich nature of Sasanian military camps engaging with internal or external enemies. According to Tabari, at the time of Khosrau II’s death, the legendary Sasanian Royal treasury had been reduced to almost one eighth of its size before the Perso-Byzantine war. Ostensibly millions were spent with no clear gain for those who participated in this destructive conflict.

D. Religious Supremacy The rise of Zoroastrianism to the official religion of the empire resulted in violent interactions with the Manichaeans and Mazdakites. The destructive and bloody aftermath had a great impact upon labor and production. According to Tabari, the participants in the Mazadakite revolt came from all levels of society: royalty, shop owners, peasants and artisans. Some 80,000 members were executed outside of Ctesiphon (Tha’labi). The vacuum in terms of manpower

1

204

The zoomorphic shapes in abstract forms as well as many Sasanian decorative elements can be seen best in local traditions of tribal rugs in the province of Fars (Ancient Persis) where these forms have survived from the Sasanian time and for centuries. An extensive study of these forms along with examples from these rugs were completed and published by Cyrus Parham and Siavosh Azadi in Tehran in 1992.

BLACK COLCHIS SEA Batum Teflis (Tbilisi)

Cac

Darband (Derbent) Yazdgird II & Khosrau I Fortifications

ALBAINA

Ganzak (Ganja)

Yerevan

Lankaran Mayyafariqin (Martyropolis) (Silvan/Diarbakir)

Tabriz

ATURPADAN

Sad Peroz(Ardabil)

DEHISTAN

Port of Anzali

Qumis Tepe

ve nsi efe an Gorgan DGorg

DAYLAMAN

TABARISTAN

(Mosul)

Sinjar

Budh Ardasir

Zanjan

Shiz

Xorzad Ardasir Xwarrah Kavad Ninevah B(W)ozorg Ardasir

Qobadan in Badaxsan Province

CASPIAN SEA

Astara

Sariya (Sari) Amol

Kasvin (Qazvin)

Arbil

Eran Asan Kard Kavad Sahrezur Qasr e- Sirin

Bertha

Khosrau Sapur

(Tagrit) Haditha(Parwand)

Ashgabat Sahr-e Ram Peroz

wa

Hulwan

Kermansah

Pusang

Ctesiphon Aspanvar

Astabaz Ardasir? (Ostad Ardasir)

Veh Ardasir

Zuzan

Ghorian

Herat

HAREV (HARI)

Kashan

(Vazan?)

Akbarieh (Bozorg Sapur)

Xost

KUSANSAHR

Badgis

KHORASAN

Xolm

Mazari Sharif

Marv U Rud Morghab

Tehran

Nihavand

Baghdad

Sabargan (Sapur Gan) Peroz Sapur

Tus

Valas Xwarrah (Valasfarr) Dastgerd

Anbar

Balkh (Balx)

Balasgerd

Nivsapur

Ram Peroz Ecbatan (Ahmadan) Ray Qom RHAGAE Asad Abad Qobadbazn

MAH

Marv (Merv)

ABARSAHR

Abad Kavad

Damghan (Qumis)

MEDIA

GARAMIG NODADASHIRGAN

Mithradatkart (Nisa)

Eran Xwarrah Yazdgerd (?) Yazdgird II - fortifications

f ll o

Rosan Peroz Astar Abad Ardasir

Abhar

Volasgerd Hanbu (Xandaq) Sapur

Samarqand

Bukhara (Buxara)

Baku

Sapur Xast Falk-ol Aflak

Veh Antioch Khosrau Sabat

ASPAHAN

Kaskar Wasit

ASURISTAN Gondisapur Khosrau Mah (ASORISTAN) Veh Antioch Sapur Eran Xwarrah Sapur (Susa) (Umma)

Susangerd

VEH KAVAD REGION Zandvard (?)

Balad Sapur Iransahr Sapur Sustar Tustar

Ram Hormazd Vehest Ardasir (Basra) (Behbahan) Ram Ardasir Wahman Ardasir(?) Asta Baz Ardasir Sad Sapur (?) Xorramsahr

MESENE (MESHAN)

Yazd

Izad Kavad (Izeh) Izad Xast

Hormazd Ardasir Abar Kavad(?) (Ahwaz)

HUZISTAN

Gorzavan (Gorz) (Farah)

Sepahan jay Kavad subdivisions

Zabol

Abar Kavad (Abarqu) Veh Az Amad Kavad Arrajan Nobandagan Pasargad

PERSIAN GULF Khark Island

Kazeroun

Shiraz

Istaxr

PARS

N IA RS

PE

Karzin Karian

Bam

Gowyam Hajiabad

MEKRAN

LF BAHRAIN

Ram Peroz ?

Darabgerd

Siraf

GU Jabur

Kandahar

(Lashkar Gah)

SAKASTAN

Kirman Bardsir Ardasir Gan (Sirjan)

Fasa

Rev Ardasir Gor (Ardasir Xwarrah) (Rem Ardasir) Jahrom

Bost

Ram Peroz ? Zarang

Boxt Ardasir Kish Island Hijra?

Fawran Ardasir (Al Khott or Al Khorr)

alone cannot be ignored in examining economic prosperity and development. Commerce and agriculture as well as the output of currency due to labor shortages must have been seriously curtailed.

E. Natural hindrances Tha’labi recorded that Ardašīr I ordered the Imperial treasury to pay for the public losses during the deadly drought and famine that took place in Persis during his reign (224-242 CE). Many more examples of this kind of social beneficence have been recorded about Peroz (Tabari, Dinvari, Isfahani) and his heroic defense of the public facing deadly famine. These expenditures to save the public led to the bankruptcy of the royal treasury and created a major A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

205

Roxvad?

rift between Peroz and his courtiers and their allies in the religious establishment. Valkash has also been recorded to have spent vigorously to provide relief for the victims of famine especially stopping peasants from relocating from their farms due to effects of famine and lack of water. Such public expenditure affected deeply the quality of the currency and quantity of its production.

Mint Centers The cities that are recognized as minting centers and were created by the Sasanians were: • Ardašīr Xwarrah or Gōr (ART) • Rām Hōrmāzd (RĀM) • Hormozān Ardašīr (Ahwāz) (AW) • Veh Ardašīr (WH) • Reyšahr (RI) also known as Rēw Ardašīr (RīV) • Sīrjān (Ardašīr Gān) (SIR or SI) • Astar Abād Ardašīr (Estarabad) (AS) • Shād Shāpūr (Forat-e Mesene) (PR) • Gundīšāpūr (GN) • Qōm (QO or GO or GW) • Jay (Aspāhān) (GD) • Yazd (YZ) • Abaršahr (Nivsapur) (AP) The Following mints became active from Kavad I’s reign onward. They are all located in the eastern provinces of the Sasanain Empire (Mochiri): • Marw’u rud (MRWRD) • Bost (BST) • Xost (Khost) (Xvst) • Gorzavan (Gorz) • Xolm (Xlm) • Roxvadeh (Roxv) • Zuzan (Zozno) Given the list above and the numismatic evidence form the recognized outputs, we can state that majority of the cities minting coins during the Sasanian era were not built or created by Sasanians and their existence (not as a mint center but as cities) pre-date their advent in to power. In addition some of the mint centers founded by the Sasanians share the same abbreviations with some other known mint centers. This becomes problematic in the correct identification and attribution of coins to their respective mint centers. These cities are: 1. Kašvin (Qazvin) established by Sapur II sharing the abbreviation (KA) with Kāriān and Kārzīn (KA) 2. Qōm established by Bahram V, recognized by Steve Album sharing the abbreviation (GW) with Gorgan (GO & GW). Also the abbreviation of “GOM or GWM” have been observed on silver drachm from Peroz (Fig 23).

206

3. Parwand (Parvand) also known as “Haditha” in present day Iraq’s Anbar province established by Shapur II. A rare silver drachm of Shapur II has the abbreviation of “PR” (see photo). The mint abbreviation is the letter of the first part of the name “Par” and the second letter from the second part “Wand”which will be a natural selection. So far and in the absence of any other City that can have similar abbreviation, PW most likely represents “Parwand” 4. Astarabad (Astar Abād Ardašīr Estarābād) which was part of Gorgan shring the abbreviation (AS) with Aspānvar (part of Ctesiphon) and Aspāhānā (Isfahan) (AS). (See Table 1) Let us begin with the cities that were founded by Sasanian kings of Iran starting with Ardašir I. ARDAŠĪR I 224-240 CE

1. Ardašīr Xwarrah (Ardašīr Khurreh or Gōr). The city is presently known as Fīrūzābād in Fārs (Persīs) province in Southern Iran (Tabari, Dinvari, Tha’labi). This City is the most symbolic of all Sasanian cities and architecturally was and is a remarkable statement about the resurgence of Ancient Persian culture versus Alexander of Macedon’s destruction of that heritage. Even though not necessarily a numismatic concern, it is extremely important to discuss, in a few words, the ideas that created this monumental city. The city dates back to the Achaemenid period and more than likely before that. Alexander of Macedon (the Great), set siege to the city. When he could not easily take it, he changed the course of the nearby river to flood and drown the city and its population. The new layout in round form was created by Ardashir I in the wake of his victorious rise to power and becoming a Shah’n shah, a title not used since the Achaemenids governed the Persian Empire. Ardasir Xwarrah presents a circular design with concentric circles creating various residential and institutional or governmental zones. Incidentally the layout for the living and thriving city in circular form such as original “Baghdād” modeled after examples such as “Gōr” was not far different than that of the circular “Tower of Silence” destined to be the resting place of dead; the city of living (Gōr) exemplified a major circular mass (fire temple tower) at its center and the city of dead exemplified a major circular void or (nothingness/death) at its center where the bones were collected. It is almost impossible to look at these two examples of architecture and not see the resemblances and their opposing presence; physically and philosophically. In this comparison one exemplifies existence and the other non-existence. Fīrūzābād/Gōr was a most symbolic Sasanian City. It celebrated the life and faith of its founder Ardašīr I, a priest and warrior, who triumphed against impossible odds and cheated certain death at the hands of his powerful Parthian overlord. It was initially believed that term “Gōr” in Pahlavi was synonymous with a sunken place or a hole in the ground but not necessarily a “Grave” (Hamza Al Isfahani). The similarity was the main reason that Adud-Al Dawla of the Būyīd dynasty changed the name to Firuzābād to take away the negative connotation (Ibn Balkhi). However, with a discovery of a 7th century Arab-Sasanian coin with the mint name of Pērōz Abād, it is obvious that the City’s name existed before the advent of the Daylamites (Gyselen & Miri). The name Pērōz Ābād by itself means the “City of Victory” confirming Ardašīr’s unparallel success. 2. Veh Ardašīr (Bahurasir) (Fig 4): Mint Abbreviation of “WH”, A large urban addition to the city of Seleucia-Ctesiphon capital of Parthians and later Sasanians)-(Tabari). 3. Veh Ardašīr (Bahurasir) is located in Kerman province of Iran. The Arabized version of the name was Behrsīr which is currently “Bardsīr” (Hamza Al-Isfahani). Yāqūt in his book Nōzhat-Al Qōlōub called this city Gavāšīr, also known as the “City of 6 Gates”. However, since Gavāšīr dates back to 2nd century BCE, this might have been a renaming of an existing city. 4. Rām Ardašīr is attributed to be present-day Basra in Iraq at the north western shore of Persian Gulf. (Tabari, Dinvari and Gardēzī) 5. Rām Ardašīr is also known as Rišahr or Reyšahr on the Iranian coast of Persian Gulf.

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

207

6. Āstā-bāz Ardašīr or Astāz Ardašīr is the city of Anbār in present-day southern Iraq according to the Persian historian and geographer Abu Sa›id Gardīzī (Tabari, Dinvari). Hamza Al Isfahani called this City Ôstād Ardašīr. 7. Bahman Ardašīr (Wahman Ardašīr) is the present Bahmanšir in Kerman province of Iran. Tha’labi notes that there is also a city with the same name near present day Basra in Southern Iraq. 8. Hōrmaz Ardašīr or Hōrmōzān Ardašīr (Fig 3): Mint Abbreviation of “AWH” is the present-day Ahwāz, the capital of Hūzistān (Khuzistan) province of Iran. Some attribute the foundation of this City to the final victory of Ardašhīr over his Parthian overlord in the nearby field of Hūrmazdagān (Tabari, Dinvari). There are some references from the medieval Islamic era which refer to Tustar (Muqqadasi) being founded by Ardašhīr. However, according to Tabari, Tustar was part of Ahwāz during the Arab conquest of Iran. According to Hamza Al Isfahani, there were two cities, one Ahwaz and the other Hōrmaz Ardašhīr. Hōrmaz Ardašhīr was an aristocratic city and was utterly destroyed by Arab armies during the seventh century invasion of Iran; however, Ahwāz which was the commercial center survived. Ahwaz is near and central to large number of cities founded by the Sasanians all within a range of 70-75 mile (20 Parsang) of each other in Huzistan Province of Iran (see Table 1). It also is situated with a reasonable distance from some of the major cities of Mah province. 9. Fāwrān Ardašir(Dinvari) (Khōtt or Khorr-Ibn Balkhi) is located on the island of Bahrain or in neighboring Qatar. The word Fāwrān is a corrupted form of “Farwār, p’lw’l meaning “fortification with watch towers” (Farahvashi). In present day Qatar we have two cities, one called Al-Khorr and another city called Al Gahriyah Fawyarit, which given the similarities in pronunciation and linguistics could both be candidates. 10. Bād-gīs (Vādgēs) (Tha’labi) is present-day Bād-e Qase or Bād-e Ghase in greater Khōrāsān. It is also known as Badghis in Afghanistan. 11. Rēw Ardašīr also known as Rīšahr (Tabari) was a major commercial port during the Sasanian era. It was utterly destroyed during the Islamic conquests of the seventh century and later was replaced by the near-by Port of Būšehr. It is currently a highly active commercial and oil exporting port in Iran. 12. Pūšang (Pērōz Ardašīr Gān? or Pās(ā) Ardašīr?) lies in present-day Afghanistan. The names of many cities associated with ancient Persian culture were replaced by Pashtūn names under various Pashtūn Amirs of Afghanistan during the 19th century as part of the independence movement and separation from Iran. This city is currently known as Poshtun Zarghūn. The Pahlavi book of Šahrestānihā ī Ērānšahr attributes Pushang to Šāpūr I. In historical book of Khūdā-Nāmah, there is a city called Pās(ā) Ardadšīr. (Pās=Guardian (Farahvashi) which might be a reference to this city given the linguistics and pronunciations in the areas concerned (Gardezi’s Zayn Al Akhbar). 13. Astar Abād Ardašīr is a city to which two (2) locations have been attributed. One is on the present-day Island of Bahrain, but the exact location unknown (Tha’labi). The other is presently known as Astarābād (Estarābād) in Gorgan on the south-western coast of the Caspian Sea in Tabaristan (Muqaddasi’s Ahsan AlTaqāsim). The city became a major minting center during Iran’s Islamic era. It is possible given the history of minting for the city, that Astarabad was also active during the Sasanian era when the abbreviation AS stood for its name which derives from Astar-ta-kīh=calm and order (Farahvashi). 14. Khōrzād Ardašīr (Xwār zād or Xwārrah Zād Ardašir) also known as Bōzōrg Ardašīr or Bōz Ardašīr is known to be the foundations of the present-day city of Mosul (Dinvari). It could also possibly be an addition to a Hellenic city already existing in Northern Iraq. Such additions or renovations can be traced in the City of Takrit, also known as Tagrit, which came into existence as a result of further development of a Hellenic city called Bertha. According to Ibn Balkhi, the city that Ardašīr built near Mosul was called Hōzzeh. Tabari called it Xōrreh which most likely is derivative of Xwārrah or Xwār Zād. 15. Ardašīr Gān lies in present-day Sīrjān in Kermān province of Iran. The entire area is a major Sasanian archeological site including another city about 40 miles north-west of it called Šahr-e Bābak (City of Pāpak).

208

16. Wahman Ardašīr (Bahman Ardašīr) is present-day Bahmanshīr in Iran’s province of Hūzistān (Hamza Al-Isfahani). 17. Būdh Ardašīr (Bōvad Ardašīr or Bōd/y Ardašīr?) is part of the present-day city of Mosul in northern Iraq (Hamza Al Isfahani). Its name seemingly derives from Bōd/y=wisdom and conscience (Farahvashi). 18. Vehešt Ardašīr (Behešt Ardašīr) (Hamza Al Isfahani) is considered to be the present-day Basra. 19. Veh Tan Ardašīr (Beh Tan Ardašīr and eventually Betan Ardašīr) is on the Island of Bahrain (Hamza Al Isfahani). At present he city is known as Madinat Al Khat. 20. Asad Abād whose original name might have been Ardašīr Abaad. The name later seems to have turned into Šīr Abād, followed by the Persian name of Lion (Šīr) with its equivalent in Arabic (Asad). This name might have been a reference to a community with a similar name near the biblical city of Ecbātān or Ahmadān (18 miles (25+/- kilometers) west of modern day Hamadān. Like the Achaemenids, the Sasanian emperors considered Ahmadan their second summer capital after the spiritual capital of Istaxr. 21. Bōxt Ardašīr was located between the shoreline of the Persian Gulf and Qešm Island. Bōxt more than likely is the corrupted form of Vohuxšatr which refers to a “just king and ruler” (Farahvashi). ŠĀPŪR I 240-270 CE

22. Šāz or Šād Šapur (Forāt-e Mesene) (Tabari, Tha’labi, Istakhri) was built opposite the future city of Wasit on the river Tigris is what is present day Iraq. The original city has not survived. Muqaddasi considers Šād Šapur to be the center of the region of Kaškar which was near the ancient capital of Ctesiphon. Kaškar is also noted to have been a city built by Šāpūr I to house the deported Greek- speaking population from northwest Syria. (Harrak; the acts of Mār Māň the apostle-2005). Currently the Kaškar area is referred to as Wasīt. 23. Gōndī Šapur or Jūndi Šapur also known as Šapur Šahr has faded into the past. Almost nothing remains of the city except for an area presently known as the mound of Šah Ābād in Huzistān province in Iran. It is a well-known fact that during the Sasanian era, the city had a famed medical library and hospital operated by Christians. The library was set on fire by the invading Arab armies during the 7th century. (Tabari, Dinvari, Tha’labi). At some point the city was also known as Šah-Ābād according to Hamza Al-Isfahani. Ibn Al Gifti in his book Tārīkh al Hōkamā noted that this city was laid out in a pattern similar to Constantinople. This was most likely a reference to the use of the “Grid” layout of streets and city blocks following Greek and Roman traditions. It suggests the definite presence of foreigners in the city (Anīrān). Most if not all the physicians appointed to run this city’s medical institutions were Christians and remained so long after the Sasanians were gone. 24. Veh Andīv Šāpūr also known as Veh Antīoch Šāpūr: was in present Iran’s province of Huzistān. It is believed to have been an addition to Šuštar or a settlement near Gōndī Šapūr (Tabari)(CambridgeYarshater). Majmal Al -Tawārīkh notes the city being laid out in checker (grid) format. The pattern most likely indicates that it was planned by captured Roman engineers. Hamza Al Isfahani also confirms the grid layout of the settlement. Veh Andīv Šāpūr has also been considered as a replacement for the city of Beth Lāpāt which was the seat of a Christian diocese before the Sasanians came to power. Within decades of its creation Veh Andīv Šāpūr merged into greater Gōndī Sapur. (Cambridge-Yāršāter) 25. Balād Šāpūr was a city near Gōndī Šapūr (Majmal Al Tawārīkh & Istakhri). Hamza Al Isfahani refers to this city as Vōlaš Šāpūr. 26. Šuštar (an addition to an existing city founded by Ardašīr I) can be found In Huzistān province of Iran. The city houses the tomb of Daniel the prophet and is sacred to all three major religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Roman captives built a bridge and a dam at this city at the order of Šapur I (a selected UNESCO World Heritage Site). Šuštar was also noted to be Tastar by Hamza Al Isfahani. Also, according to Hamza, the city was laid out in the shape of a horse.

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

209

27. Bīšāpūr (Veh Šāpūr or Beh Šāpūr also known as Bēnā Šāpūr) exists as a major archaeological site from the Sasanian era in the province of Fārs (Persis) in Iran (Tha’labi). According to Istakhrī in his description of the province of Persis (Eqlīm-e Fārs), the original Bīšāpūr existed long before the Sasanian rise to power. It was destroyed by Alexander the Great and was rebuilt by Šāpūr I. This is also confirmed by Hamza Al Isfahani. The layout of the city showed major axis roads with perpendicular streets leading to semi-private and residential quarters. The city had both Persian and Roman planning principals present. 28. Šāpūr Khāst (Šāpūr Xāst) is attributed to Šāpūr I (Istakhri). The ancient castle of Šāpūr Xāst was the foundation of the giant citadel of Falak-al Aflāk in the city of Khorramābād in Luristan (Lorestan) province of Iran. Farahvashi suggests Xāst=Rise or Dawn. 29. Nīshapur (Nīv Šāpūr and presently Neyšāpūr): is located in present day Khōrāsān Razavi province of Iran. The City was reduced to rubble during the Mongol invasion of the 13th century CE but made a comeback later on. However, it never reached its Pre-Mongol status neither in commerce nor culture. Tabari attributes the foundation of this City to Šāpūr II as well. The strong intellectual heritage of the city is wellrecognized by two of its native sons and major poets, Khayyām and Attār (who perished in the Mongol slaughter). Archeological work on the city has began to focus on the Sasanian era as recently as 2004-2007 CE (Sasanika). There are references to another city named Firūz Šāpūr (Victorious Šāpūr) which might be a reference to this city or to Bīšāpūr. 30. Siraf (Auzinza) was a commercial port on Persian Gulf. A large portion of the Harbor was built by the Roman Engineers captured during the war with Rome. (Ibn Hawqal; Cambridge) HŌRMIZD OR HŌRMAZD I 270-271 CE

31. Rām Hōrmazd (Ārām Hormazd) is a city still under the same name 60 miles east of the present city of Ahwaz in Hūzīstan province of Iran. Both Tha’labi and Masudi mention the foundation of this city in the province of Hūzistān in southwest Iran. Hamza Al Isfahani attributed the foundation of this city to Ardashir I and called it Rām Hōrmazd Ardašīr. He notes that the name became abbreviated later to Rām Hōrmazd. According to Hamza, Hormazd I created the settlement of Vehešt Hōrmōz (known by locals as Xōvarnaq) in the region of Rām Hōrmazd (see Hormazd II below). The word Xōvarnaq has been mentioned many times by literary figures of medieval Persia as a term exemplifying palatial luxury and the high life. Given this meaning and reference, the local Xōvarnaq most liklely is the Arabized version of the Pahlavi/Avestan word Xvarenah meaning glory and splendor. Local beliefs and folk tales point toward the city being the burial place of Hormazd I. The area of his supposed tomb was visited by American archaeological teams in the 1950s and 1960s. The surge in the cultural revival of Iranian cities remaining from the Sasanian era during 1950s and 1960s is responsible for many discoveries in the areas including several Sasanian dams. 32. Dasgarāh or Daskareh also known as Dastgird or Dastgerd exists as a suburb and parts of the present city of Baquba between present-day Baghdād and Basra in Iraq which is built over it. It is also suggested as being between Baghdād and the now-vanished city of Wāsit (Tha’labi & Muqaddasi). According to Christensen Dastgerd was near the Hellenic city of Artamita or Artemita. This is the same city or compound that Heraclius engaged in a hard-fought battle with the Persians during the Perso-Byzantine wars of the 7th century eventually forcing Khosrau II to flee and finally be overthrown. BAHRĀM I (VARHRĀN I) 271-274 CE

No new city has been attributed to him BAHRĀM II (VARHRĀN II) 274-293 CE

No new city has been attributed to him

210

BAHRĀM III (VARHRĀN III): 293-? AD

There has been much research into the brief rule of this monarch in conjunction with the rule of Nārsēh. There are many difficulties in attribution of the coins from this era due to the power struggle for the crown. In any case no new city has been attributed to him NĀRSĒH OR NĀRSĒ 293-302 CE

33. Khāwrazm or Xwār Razm(gāh)? This city pre-dates the Sasanians, However several Sasanian kings have been credited to have made improvements to the city and its fortifications specially Narseh. City is also known as Čač(Chāch) (Šahrestānihā ī Ērānšahr). This name is more than likely a reference to an addition or renovation to an already existing city possibly Tāškand (presently known as Tāškent in the Republic of Uzbekistan). An inscription of Šāpūr I refers to the area as Chāch which pre-dates the Sasanian era. Šāh Nāma (Shahnameh) also has references to the city of Chāch as a place where the strong archery bows that Rūstam used in firing the deadly arrow that killed his Tūrānian opponent Aškboos in an epic battle were made. The poem describing the battle refers to Rustam’s bow as a “Kham-e Čarkh-e Čāči” (meaning a bow made in the “wheel shape Čač”). The region has the archeological remains of several major round-form castles and fortifications (some of the earliest) that are considered masterpieces of military engineering for their time. The roundness of the fortifications and the outlying towers on the perimeter appear to be like a radiating sun, thus leading to the poetic Xwār (MacKenzie). Followed by the word Razm or Razm(gāh) (McKenze) meaning battleground (castle), it might be an explanation for naming the region Xwar Razm. Hamza Al Isfahani considered Ardašīr I to be the founder of this city. Čač was recognized as a minting center with its abbreviation described by both David Sellwood and Robert Göbl. HŌRMĪZD OR HŌRMAZD II 302-309 CE

34. The settlement of “Hōrmazd Behešt” as part of Rām Hōrmōz is attributed to Hormizd II by Ibn Balkhi in Fārs Nāma (Farsnameh). This might be the same as Vehešt Hōrmōz noted under the Hormizd I section earlier in this paper. The exact location is disputable. ŠĀPŪR II 309-379 CE

35. Kašvīn (Fig 1): Mint Abbreviation (KŠ) or (KA) exists as present-day Qazvīn, the capital of Qazvīn province in Iran. Given its proximity to the Caspian Sea and the ancient Silk Road, Qazvin has always had a strategic position in central northwest Iran. Many fortifications, including the famous castle of Assassins called Alamūt, are within a 20-mile range of the City. The military bases in the area also remind us of the precautions taken to be close to Daylamān province on the southern coast of the Caspian Sea where the tribes were traditionally restless and rebelious (Masūdi, Ibn al Faqih, Yāqūt). Based on his research of the works of medieval Persian and Arab historians (such as Barqi’s book Al Tebyān and Hamdallah Mōstōwfi’s Tārīkh-e Gōzīdeh), Bartold attributes Kašvīn to Šāpūr I. 36. Pērōz Šāpūr known as Anbār was near the City of Balkh in present-day Afghanistan. Its exact location is unknown (Dinvari and Ibn Balkhi). Currently there is a city near Balkh named Šabarqān (Šāpūrgān) which is considered the contender for the location. 37. Pērōz Šāpūr known as Anbār lay in Sawād which is in central Iraq (Dinvari, Tha’labi & Hamza Al Isfahani). The city was set on fire by the Emperor Julian in his invasion of Persia. He forceda the inhabitants who were a mixture of Arabs, Christians and Jews to take refuge at Ctesiphon. The refugees were relocated to a new city called Hadithā located south of present-day Mosul (Chisholm). The present-day cities of Ramadi and Falluja are built over and adjacent to ancient Anbār. 38. Irān Xwarrah Šāpūr is today’s Sūsā. Šāpūr II destroyed the old city and massacred its inhabitants after an uprising. He replaced the old city with a new one named after himself (Hamza Al Isfahani). The layout (grid?) of Šāpūr’s city is unknown. Given its proximity to the tomb of the prophet Daniel, Susa housed many Christians and Jews throughout its turbulent history. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

211

39. Bōzōrg Šāpūr (Great Šāpūr): Formerly known as Akbarā or Akbarieh (Akbar meaning “Great” in Arabic, same as “Bōzōrg” in Persian) in Islamic era which became a part of the City of Baghdād in the following centuries (Ibn Balkhi and Hamza Al Isfahani). During the Sasanian era Baghdād was a village near the Capital of Ctesiphon. It was also a thriving place for commercial caravans to lodge and held a fair like event allowing all the goods by merchants of Silk Road to be displayed. It also possessed a large cemetery known as “Gabr” (Zoroastrian) cemetery (more than likely a “Tower of Silence”) which was recorded (it is interesting to note the interpretation of Gōr’s design earlier and Baghdad). The ancient Akbarieh was completely absorbed in to Baghdad and no trace of its past exists today. Similar replacement of Persian words with Arabic ones as seen here can be observed in the explanation of Asad Ābād noted under Ardašīr I. 40. Abaršahr ((Tha’labi) exists under the same name in the present-day Khōrāsān Razavi province of Iran. Hamza Al Isfahani attributes this city to Šāpūr I (Fig. 13). 41. Nīsībīs is present-day Nūsaybīn located at the border of Turkey and Syria. This was a re-population project after the Christians fled the city in the fear of conquest by Šāpūr II. According to Dinvari some 12,000 families were moved from Istaxr to Nisibis to re-populate the city with a more pro-Persian population than its former pro-Roman inhabitants who had fled the city. 42. Irānšahr Šāpūr was in the present-day province of Hūzistān in Iran. It was likely part of Šuštar created to house many of the inhabitants of Roman Syria captured during the wars. (Tabari) 43. Xwarrah Šāpūr or Farreh Šāpūr or Xōršāwar is a city that has been debated but not proven to be an addition to the present-day city of Pēšāwar in Pakistan (Tha’labi and Ibn Balkhi). The region of Pēšāwar was mentioned in the “Zend Avesta” as the seventh most beautiful place created by Ahura Mazda. It also became known as the crown jewel of Bactria. Both the Indo-Parthian kings and later the Kushans held control of the region until their defeat and destruction by Shapur II. The foundation of the actual city has been attributed to the Kushans. According to Yāqūt’s Mu’jam Al Bōldān, Xwarrah Šāpūr is either Lāhōre or near Lāhōre which is the capital of the Punjab in present day Pakistan. Pēšāwar and Lāhōre are approximately 500 kilometers (230 miles) apart. Recent archeological activities have uncovered the remains of many different eras from pre-Acaemenids, to Parthians, Kushans (who destroyed and rebuilt it) and eventually Huns, Sasanians and Muslims. 44. Šāpūr: Exact location is unknown. However, there is a small city known as Jābūr (Ibn Balkhi) on the Island of Bahrain in the Persian Gulf. After the defeat of the Arab pirates, Šāpūr II created a military base with a naval force on Bahrain from which the Pirates had originally launched their attacks against merchant vessels as well as local villages along the shores of Persian Gulf. According to Tabari and Tha’labi, Šāpūr relocated many prisoners to Najrān (present-day Saudi Arabia) and Bahrain as well as to the city of Tawwaj (Miri) (between Bīšapūr and Rēv Ardašīr) in Fars province and in “Dārin”(near Nišapūr) in the province of Khōrāsān. In addition, the same texts record that the leaders of these tribes were relocated to the city of Pērōz Šāpūr (Anbār) in Sawād region (presently central Iraq). Unlike those that we have for the Roman prisoners of war, there are no records in terms of anything special or new for the areas housing these relocated populations 45. Mārtyrōpōlis is known in the region as “Mayyāfārīqīn” in present Turkey, near Iraq border. 46. Vāzān (Šahbāzān? or Šāpūr Bāzān?) (Hamza Al Isfahani) is located In present Iran’s western province of Luristan. 47. Hadīthā was a settlement built by Šāpūr II near Anbār in present-day Iraq to house the Roman prisoners of war (Hamza Al Isfahani). According to other reports the city was built to house the refugees from the city of Anbār after that city was destroyed by Julian the Apostate during his invasion of Persia. (see Pērōz Šāpūr above). A city with the same name exists on the bank of the Euphrates River. It is a strong farming community adjacent to the Haditha dam lake in Anbar Province of Iraq. The original name of the city was Parwand or Parvand (present-day Barwānā directly east of the current city whose name translates from Parwand = Enclosure for the captives (Farahvashi) (Fig. 21).

212

48. Abhar still exists under the same name near present day Zanjān (Yāqūt). There is another city called Hanbū Šāpūr that has been attributed to this king. Hanbū Šāpūr is an Arabized version of the name Khandaq Šāpūr or Xandaq-e Šāpūr (Moat of Šāpūr). It was a network of massive fortifications including moats and watch towers built between Basra and the Persian Gulf as a deterrent against the incursions of Arab tribes into the southern Mesopotamia and Sawād region. Such fortifications and concentration of troops bring about settlements nearby. In this case the region was already rich in urban settlement which these fortifications relied on heavily for basic needs and man power. ARDAŠĪR II 379-383 CE

No new city or addition has been attributed to him ŠĀPŪR III 383-388 CE

No new city or addition has been attributed to him BAHRĀM IV (VARHRĀN IV) 388-399 CE

49. Kermānšāh was an administrative city established to shorten the distance between Bīsūtūn and Dīnāvar (Cambridge). Dinavar became an active mint from Kavad I’s reign and continued to operate well in to the last years of Sasanian Iran. Yāqūt mentions Bahrām IV adding buildings to the city of Gavāšīr in Kermān (See Ardašīr I above). YAZDGĪRD I 399-420 CE

50. Yazd still thrives under the same name in central Iran. The city which sits on the edge of great salt desert is part of the “UNESCO World Heritage Sites” due to its environmentally friendly architecture that works beautifully in creating comfort for its residents in such a hot and arid climate. It is important to note that almost none of the medieval sources attribute this City to Yazdgīrd I. This might be due to their bias inherited from the Zoroastrians time due to Yazdgīrd’s pro-Christian policies (Fig. 12). 51. Sūsangerd (Šušāngīrd) in present-day Hūzīstān province of Iran was founded by Yazdgird’s Jewish wife and powerful queen Šušāndokht, the mother of Bahram (Varhran) V (Šahrestānihā ī Ērānšahr). BAHRAM (VARHRAN) V 420-438 CE

52. Marw’ul Rud exists with the same name in present-day Afghanistan (Šahrestānihā ī Ērānšahr). The mint located there became highly active at the time of Kavad I, Khosrau I and Hormizd IV. It was also a major military post where Bahram VI stopped while fleeing from Khosrau II’s assassins (Fig. 14). 53. Qōm exists with the same name in present-day Iran. It is the location of one of the largest centers of “Shīa” theological teaching. It also houses the monumental mosque and complex of a Shīa Saint. (Tārīkh-e Qōm or History of Qōm by Hasan b. Mohammad Qōmi). Mochiri presented a drachm minted here from Peroz with the mint abbreviation of GOM (Fig. 23). Steve Album also recognized the mint of GO or GW as being that of Qōm or Ghōm (Fig. 10). 54. Āšghar or Āšqar was as Tabari notes a small city and compound as well as a large farming area named Kaškār (Āšqar?). Its exact location is unknown. Tabari recorded that this was a place with a large number of stables for horses and other farm animals. It was near Ctesiphon and belonged to a prince named Nārsēh who was a cousin of Khōsrau II. In a series of skirmishes between the Persians and Arabs, the city fell to the Arabs around the same time as the siege of Ctesiphon was taking place. It is possible that the city had stopped functioning by then due to various reasons such as the flood of the Tigris that damaged the entire agricultural system of the region toward the end of the reign of Khosrau II. Tabari does not mention anything about a city named Kaškār built during the reign of Sapur II to house the deportees from the Syrian war

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

213

55. Kāškar: Kāšghar lies in present-day China very near the border of Afghanistan (Šahrestānihā ī Ērānšahr). The city is located within the province of Xianjing in China. Tha’labi mentions an agreement between Bahram V and the Hephtalite forces to establish a military fortification at the outer edge of the empire’s eastern border. 56. Bahram Avand Mah (Dinavar) is a city of in Mah province. It became an active mint during the reign of Kavad I notably toward the end of dynasty. There are some disputes as to the city being founded by Bahram V or perhaps much later (Ibn Hawqal) (Fig. 22). Dinavar was reduced to rubbies during Timur (Tamerlane) operations in the area in 14th centurey. YAZDGĪRD II 438-457 CE

57. Caspian Gate also known as Darband is present day Derbent in the Republic of Azerbaijan (Masudi). The historical records regarding Yazdgird’s operation and construction of the fortification are many and beyond the scope of this paper. The fortification which spanned land and sea was considered as a masterpiece of engineering and construction by medieval Persian and Arab historians. Some records indicate Khosrau I as responsible for the masterful defensive wall. 58. Eran Xwarrah Yazdgīrd was according to some on the eastern shores of the Caspian Sea, and according to others on the north-eastern frontiers of present-day Iran near Nivsapur. Given Yazdgīrd II’s large military activities in both the west and northwest against Romano/Byzantines, and on the eastern and north-eastern frontiers against the Hephtalites, the construction of military camps and fortifications as well as settlements seems very likely. The Gōrgān defensive wall was built or completed at the time of Khōsrau I. The installation was made up of many (a total of 33, Wilkinson) military fortifications and settlements along the wall and in strategic areas where Hephtalite forces could easy cross the Persian border. Yazdgīrd II’s military operations in the area should not be considered any different. PĒRŌZ 457/459-484 CE

59. Pērōz Rām or Rām Pērōz was an extension to the city of Ray (Rhages) and using the same name as Šahr-e Ray south of present-day Tehran. It was a major minting center for the Parthians and the Sasanians. (Tabari, Tha’labi) 60. Rōšan Pērōz (Rowshan Peroz) was considered to be an expansion the city of Gōrgān (Ibn Balkhi). Both Tabari and Tha’labi state this city to be somewhere between Gōrāgn and Derbent. 61. Rām Pērōz was in the present-day province of Sīstān in Iran. The exact location is unknown. Ibn Balkhi considered this city to be part of India. Medieval Persian and Arab historians when making reference to India typically mean the areas of Pēšāvar, Lāhōre or Kāšghar which were border cities of the Sasanian Empire with its eastern adversaries. This also might be a reference to sporadic military fortifications and settlements of Khōqand or Kōkand (Hamza Al Isfahani) in the Fergānā region of present day Uzbekīstan. The Fergānā (Ferghānā) region and valley have a long history of silver mining during the Islamic era; however, little is known of such activity during the Sasanian or Parthian era. From other records such as the seal of an āmārgar (census taker), Šahr-e Rām Pērōz stood as an addition to the Parthian capital of Nisā near present day Ashgābāt in the Republic of Turkmenistan. Pērōz tried to create new settlements to replace the losses of territory in battles with the Hephtalites (their capture of Gōrgān which they called “Gōrgō” (Bayāni)), among others. The creation of Ardabil opposite of Gōrgān on the other side of Caspian Sea more than likely was a strategic response to replace Gōrgān and other lost resources. 62. Šād Pērōz or Šahrām Pērōz (Ibn Balkhi, Tabari, Thalabi) was in the province of Azarbaijan and is presently known as Ardabil. Dinvari called Ardabil as Bād Pērōz (Everlasting Pērōz! or possibly Ābād Pērōz). Ardabil had a strategic position of being inland and close enough to the Caspian Sea. According to Masūdi the city was attacked and razed by the federation of Russo/Swedish (Vikings) ships in the 9th century. Istakhrī refers to the name of Ardabil as Ardavil. Naval and maritime activities in the Caspian Sea have been

214

recorded by the Roman historians since Parthian times. It was clearly an important point for commerce as well as for military back-up for Derbent and its fortifications in times of emergency. 63. Sepāhān was a military base built after the Jewish rebellion in the city of Jay. Eventually the two adjacent cities merged and became known as Isphahan or Isfahan (Ibn Balkhi). Isfahan became the Capital of Persia during the Seljuks’ rule and later on the Safavids. Archeological excavations indicate that the Jāmeh Mosque in Isfahan sits on the remains of a large Sasanian Fire Temple. Jameh Mosque is considered one of the most important architectural masterpieces in the entire Islamic world. The monument was damaged badly during the Iran-Iraq war air raids in the 1980s but since then it has been repaired. There are many other archeological ruins such as Ātašgāh (Fire Temple) located 8 kilometers west of the present city center that are indicative of a long Sasanian heritage of the city (Fig. 7 and Fig. 11). In addition to the above cities, there are several villages and settlements in Afghanistan such as Nakhjīr Pērōz (meaning “hunting (ground) of Pērōz”) near the Balkh/Herat axis which are not noted in any of the major historical records as being founded by this king. Hunting being the royal sport of almost all Sasanian kings including Pērōz, it seems possible he was actively building here as well. It seems possible as well given the large military activities of Pērōz in the east. Hamza Al Isfahani mentions several other possibilities in India which might be references to urban construction notably in Pesawar or Lahore. However, these need to be further verified. VALKAŠ (BALĀŠ) 484-488 CE

64. Sābāt was an addition to the capital of Ctesiphon (Hamza Al Isfahani). Tabari called this city Balāšwās (Balāš Avād?). Tha’labi called this city Balāšbād (Balāšābād). There are several notations by medieval Persian and Arab geographers as to this city having a very large number of fruit orchards of peaches and apricots that were exported. This area is currently known as Abū Halafiyeh. 65. Balāš Farr or Balāš Xwarrah was near Hulwan (present day Sarepol-e Zahab) in Western Iran (Tha’labi). Hamza Al Isfahani called this city Balāšgīrd or Balāšgerd. Tabari attributes the foundation of Hulwan to Kavad I. However, Hulwan’s existence predates the Sasanian era. 66. Balāšgīrd or Balāšgerd (Tha’labi) was located near the present-day city of Merv, which was the eastern capital of Sasanian Iran in the republic of Turkmenistan. As was the case with Pērōz, there are several other cities with associations to this king’s name in the south, central and western parts of Iran. However, no major historical record makes any mention of them. ZĀMĀSP ( JĀMĀSP) 496-498 CE

No new city has been attributed to this King. As a peaceful end to his reign and abdication in favor of his brother Kavad I, Zamasp accepted the governorship of the province of Tabaristan and Armenia as well as the Caucasus region. According to several sources, his successor Kavad I made a series of additions to existing cities in the Tabaristan region. These unfortunately are not well-recorded. Zamasp as governor most likely was involved closely with these projects. KAVĀD (QŌBĀD OR GHŌBĀD) I 488-496 AD AND 498-531 CE

According to Tabari and Dinvari, Kavād I built considerably more than any other Sasanian king. 67. Qōbādān (Kavadaan) lies at present in Badakhšan province of Afghanistan, North-East of Kabul province bordering China. The city is the birth place of the renowned medieval Persian historian and geographer Nāser Khōsrau (Tha’labi). 68. Arragān is at present known as Arrajān in the province of Fars (Persis) in Iran (Tha’labi). 69. Xwarrah-Kavād (Qōbād-Khurreh) is the present-day city of Behbahān (Veh az- amad-Qōbādān) in southern Iran (Tha’labi, Ibn Balkhi). Tabari mentions a city named Xwarrah Kavād as an addition to A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

215

the existing city of Ardashir Xwarrah or Gōr (Fīrūz Ābād). The nature of the addition is not known as it is typically difficult to add to perfect geometrical shapes such as a circle which in this case is the layout of Gōr. If this were an addition, most likely it started as a settlement outside the original city walls and was later incorporated. Hamza Al Isfahani refers to this city as being part of Arrajan. 70. Hūlwān (Ibn Balkhi) is currently known as Sarepol-e Zahab in Western Iran. It is an archeological site on the Perso-Mesopotamian border. It was known during the late Sasanian period as the location of royal hunting grounds with aristocratic hunting lodges. Once again is hard to determine the nature of the work as an expansion or addition. Hulwan dates back to pre-Sasanian era 71. Upper Veh Kavād was located in Northern Iraq (the Jazīreh region: Ibn Balkhi, Dinvari). Its exact location is unknown. Possibly it was near Mosul since that was an area where many Sasanian kings made additions to. 72. Lower Veh Kavād was located in Southern Iraq (the Sawād region: Ibn Balkhi, Dinvari). Its exact location is unknown. It is possible that this was an addition to an existing Hellenic city such as Bertha known today as Takrit. 73. Ābād Kavād (Ābād-Qōbād) was located between Gorgān and Abaršahr in North-Western Iran. It may have been an addition to the earlier-built Abaršahr (Hamza Al Isfahani). 74. Vōlašgerd or Khābū (Xwarrah Šāpur?) is near or part of the present-day city of Mosul in northern Iraq (Hamza Al Isfahani). It is possible the construction of this city started under Valkaš since it is named after him. Its other name Khāhbū suggests a reference to the city of Hānbū Šāpūr and a possible addition to it (under Šāpūr II as noted earlier). 75. Irān Šād Kavād was somewhere between Hulwan and Šahr-e Zoor on the present border between Iran and Iraq. Its exact location is unknown (Hamza Al Isfahani). 76. Qōbādbazn (Qobad Bazm?) was in the Qom region where good number of late Sasanian coins and other artifacts have been found. Its name Bazm=Festivity (Farahvashi). 77. Khābūr Kavād or Šāpūr Kavād (Khuda-Nameh) or Xwarrah Kavād? was near Mosul in present day Iraq (Hamza Al Isfahani). 78. Izad Kavād or Yazd Kavād (Khuda-Nameh) is the present-day city of Īzeh in Hūzīstān province of Iran. The city has been in existence since the Elamite period and was known then as Ayapir. Hamza Al Isfahan considers this city as part of the Sawad region in southern Iraq. The city houses the ruins of Tāgh-e Tavīle from the Sasanian period as well as others from subsequent periods. The city is considered the coldest city in the province of Hūzīstān. The cold climate within a province which is typically hot and humid made the city an ideal location for the summer residence of the aristocracy. In this it was similar to Hulwan. 79. Abar Kavād was situated between the provinces of Pars and Huzistan in Iran. The city was built to house the population relocated from Roman Syria (Dinvari and Tha’labi). Given the evidence of city planning in previous decades, most likely the city was laid out in grid form. 80. Abar Kavad (Abar Qōbād) is thought to be Abarkooh or Abarqū in Yazd province of Iran. It was/is sacred to Zoroastrian Persians as the place of the holy Zoroastrian tree called Sarv-e Abarqu believed to have been planted by the prophet Zoroaster. More research will be required for proper and exact attribution. The city houses one of the earliest mosques built in the aftermath of the Islamic conquest of Persia. The city is directly north of Istaxr by a distance of 100 mile (43-45 Parsang). 81. Kazeroun (Addition that Increased the size of existing City) 82. Erān-Āsān-Ke(a)rd-Kavād (Šahrestānihā ī Ērānšahr) was a city or region very near Hulwan (Sarpol e Zahab) in Western Iran. The name of the city means “Kavad made Iran peaceful” (Cambridge). It is indicative that this settlement and many others were created as a result of military operations to secure the region. 83. Subdivisions within the City of Sepāhān are present day Isfahan (Dinvari). 216

84. Sariyeh (Sari) and several other unnamed cities or additions are located in the Province of Tabaristan (Ibn Balkhi also Mar’ashi-History of Ruyan and Tabaristan). The local folklore attributes the foundation of the city of Sārī (the present capital of the coastal province of Mazandaran in Iran) to Kavad I. However, the city clearly predates the Sasanians given the archeological discoveries in nearby caves. In addition, Sari was rebuilt several times, the last time during the 10th century when the local governor had to create a new city as the old one lay in complete ruin due to a devastating earthquake. 85. Bōst was an addition to what is present-day Lašgar Gāh in Afghanistan. Given the numismatic evidence presented by Mochiri, the city’s earliest known drachm was minted during the time of Kavad I. The original city predated the Sasanian era (Šahrestānihā ī Ērānšahr) (Fig. 15). 86. Xōst is Khost in present day Afghanistan. The same as for Bost, the earliest evidence of the city’s coinage is a minted drachm belonging to Kavad I (Mochiri) (Fig. 16). In addition to the cities above, there are other cities and settlements attributed to this king and bearing his name. These cities are “Owlād Qōbād” in the western province of Luristan and Qōbād Bāghiān (meaning Gardens of Qōbād) in Western Azarbaijan on the border with presen-day Iraq. KHŌSRAU (KHŌSRŌW OR CHŌSRŌE) I 531-579 AD

87. Veh Antioch Khōsrau was a suburb added to the capital, Ctesiphon. Khōsrau relocated the inhabitants of Antioch to this new area. This addition was built as a duplicate of the original city Merchants who were used to trading in Antioch would be able to navigate the new city as easily as before. This enabled the flourishing of trade lost from the original city. Most of the prized silk workshops and their workers were relocated to the new city depriving the Byzantines of their temporary economical advantage over the Persians in processing silk (Hamza Al Isfahani). Given the Byzantine grid- iron layout of the ancient city of Antioch, the new one was also built based on the same grid-iron format. 88. Aspānvar and Visp Sad Khosrau were suburbs considered part of greater Ctesiphion/Veh Ardasir. Mochiri provided numismatic evidence of drachms for the mints that possibly originated in these two areas of the capital. 89. Khōsrau Šāpūr) was located in Māh province. More than likely the areas of development were Qasr-e Sirin and Khosrawi (Hamza Al Isfahani). 90. Darband (Derbent) received improvements and new fortifications (Tabari). 91. Aden (Ibn Balkhi) is at present in Yemen. It was built by Wahrāz the commander of the Sasanian army who captured Yemen. It was called Mashra’ e Aden which according to Ibn Balkhi meant “drinking water source for Aden.” In addition we also have evidence of fortifications and bridges built in the Sasanian style of construction and architecture (Nicole). 92. Zandvard was located between Basra and Wasīt (Dinvari). 93. Kaškar was made the capital of the regions of Bahrsir (Dinvari). The name is a reference to the region of Hōrmōzd Xwarrah and Mesene in southwestern Iran (See Shapur II and Bahram V). During the reign of Kavad I, a nearby dam over-flowed and broke creating flooding that damaged the area badly. Khosrau I made improvements on the city and the area. However, by the time of the Arab invasion, not much of the city was there except the royal family’s farms and related structures (Tabari). 94. Khōsrau Māh was an addition to a regional city that Dinvari called Jōwkhā (Jōxā) in the Sawād/Mesene region or southern Iraq. The area is adjacent to Sumerian city which is presently called Umma. 95. Large number of fortifications were added in Caucasia. Tha’labi recorded the number of these fortifications to be about 100. Khōsrau made sure that the region could be well-defended from the Byzantines and others by creating a standing army that lived and worked within these fortifications. Such a cautious approach to the defense the region was highly accurate as the counter offensive of Heraclius against Khōsrau II began in this area some 60 years later. A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

217

96. Nōbandagān was built in present-day province of Fars (Ancient Persis) in Iran (Tha’labi). From the name of the city (new captives) one can see that the city was populated by the deportees and those captured in war. Mōqaddasi stated the city had a great reputation in textile making probably the result of the many silk and fabric workshops that Khōsrau I captured and relocated from Byzantines. 97. Hejrā was on the Island of Bahrain (Tha’labi). The area might be in present Oman. More research will be required. 98. Ardabīl (Tha’labi) was an addition to an existing city built at the time of Pērōz. See the section related to Pērōz earlier in this paper. 99. In addition to the above, we also need to look closely at the major fortifications and defensive walls of Gorgan which according to some records had begun during the rule of Pērōz and according to others at the time of Pērōz’s father Yazdgīrd II. But it was Khōsrau I who enhanced and completed the project (a total of 33 forts and settlements-Wilkinson). Given the labor and military presence required, the construction of the wall was not just limited to the wall itself but to settlements and roads necessary to the development and protection of the region. HŌRMIZD IV 579-590 CE

Most of the mints from this era are in the eastern provinces where the Sasanian General Bahrām Chūbin (Chōbin) and later Bahram VI waged a successful campaign against the Turks. Given the disastrous experiences of Peroz and Kavad I, Sasanian Iran began to build various military posts and related towns to reduce the marching distance of the troops, as well as to create a supply chain at the time of military engagements. Some of the cities, however, had never minted coins before. 100. Marw U Rud was an addition to the city created by Bahrām V. Numismatic evidence from Mochiri indicates the city minting drachms at the time of Hormazd IV (Fig. 14). 101. Zuzan (Fig 20): Mint abbreviation “ZOZNO”: Numismatic evidence by Mochiri indicates that the city was minting drachms at the time of Hormazd IV. The numismatic evidence has been disputed given the meaning of Zuzan being drachm. Steve Album and several others have noted that the series minted with this mint and the abbreviation “ALM” replacing standard “GDH” in back of the king’s head on the obverse were mostly minted after the Arab conquest of Iran. 102. Khōlm (Xōlm) (Afghanistan) (Fig. 18), 103. Gōrzavān (Afghanistan) (Fig. 17), 104. Roxvādeh (somewhere in western Pakistan) (Fig. 19), 102. Samarkand (Republic of Uzbekistan) (Fig. 24), 106. Čāč (Republic of Uzbekistan), 107. TZI (unknown mint) (Fig. 25, 27, 28) and 108. TAI or “TA”(unknown mint possibly Tus in Khōrāsān, Iran) have produced drachms IV. Numismatic evidence from Mochiri proves this for all of these minting centers/cities (Fig. 26?). KHŌSRAU II (APARVĪZ) 590-628 CE

109. Qasr-e Šīrīn exists under the same name in Iran’s province of Kermānšāhān. The area was an important summer retreat of the court. Folk tales attribute the city as a castle/court of Khosrau’s beloved wife Shīrīn. The proximity to Hulwan (Sarpole Zahab) also points toward a large number of fortifications built in the area. Many scholars date these to the Sasanian era. There are no new cities or additions to existing cities recorded for the remaining Kings of Sasanian Iran who came to the throne after Khōsrau II. 218

Observations and Conclusions: According to Table 1 which is the summary of the study above: The distance method is the “Range Method” which identifies the sphere or circle of influence for satellite or nonsatellite cities. The distances range from 70 to 80 miles which is about 20 “parsang (farsang)” each parsang being 3.5 miles or 5.6 kilometers. This formula is utilized many times in distancing cities from each other. For exact distances the ICBM method is the most favored (coordinates system); however, exactness is not the purpose as city planning does not rely on exact distances. The new cities were established based upon the shortest distance for communication and trade; but especially for the deployment of soldiers (acceptable marching distances per day) from one post to another. It was noted from Achaemenid times that goods with a weight of 130 to 220 lb could be moved by humans (without horse or mule) 6 to 9 miles a day which is about 2 to 3 parsang. The range method is also highly accurate when dealing with even plains (Asuristan-Sawad) rather than mountainous regions (Afghanistan and Caucasus). The archeological discoveries of the remains of Achaemenid currier stations between the Mamasanī and Deh Lūrān plains in Southwestern Iran indicate a distance of seventeen to eighteen kilometers (about 4 parsang) which could be travelled on foot in a day and on horseback in less than an hour (Wright & Neely). The spacing of the cities at the distance of 20 parsang (70 -75 miles or 110 kilometers) allowed for fast communication and delivery of almost within a day on horseback with stations between for changing the horses. The distance also allowed for delivery of money in the forms of bags of coins from one city to another if necessary. The total number of cities presented in Table is 109. Out of these there were 20 new minting centers. Most of the minting centers were created within the cities that existed prior to the rise of the Sasanids in Iran such as Ctesiphon, Ray, Dārābgīrd, Amōl, Gōrgān, Jay, Šūšā, Ecbātānā (Ahmadān) and many others. It is important to note that from 272 to 293 CE for 23 years (the reigns of Bahrām I, Bahrām II) and then from 379-388 CE for 11 years (the reigns of Ardašīr II and Šāpūr III) we have no record of any new city or addition. The total years with no urban development stand at 34 years. Out of 109 cities, 15 were in Asuristan (the Sawad region-Southern Iraq) and 14 were located in Hūzīstan (South-west Iran). These 29 cities sheltered enough of a labor force to increase the agricultural production of the region to the maximum and maintain a healthy and wealthy trade/economy for the empire. Many of these cities were created to house the deportees as well as soldiers captured in the many wars. Out of 109 cities, 7 were built in Pārs (Fārs) province with Istaxr as its spiritual capital (and Ardašīr Xwarrah as resurrected capital) and another seven in Kerman province. Some of the cities such as Nōbandegān also housed deportees and prisoners of war. Other centers given their religious status (Abar Kavād- Abarqū) were expanded without including Christians or other minority deportees. The three new minting cities (Ardašīr Xwarrah (Gōr), Bišāpūr and Rev Ardašīr) almost matched the existing centers such as Istaxr, Darabgerd and Karian/Karzin. We do not know if this increase also doubled the supply of drachms or simply distributed the task for the same number to allow for a timely output and better distribution. During the rise of the Greek City States the number of people required for founding a new city or populating a quarter was fifteen thousand (15,000). The number we have from the Sasanian era is twelve thousand (12,000). These people were relocated from Isrtaxr to Nisibis during the reign of Sapur II after the Christian population left in fear of the advancing Persians. Even though the numbers are not recorded for any other city, this number is close to the Hellenic norm used in the Greek city planning system. It is hard to determine who participated in minting plated coins or in the technique that was used. Many of the plated coins look fully official and not minted by dealers or by money exchangers as conterfeits such as those left from the era following the collapse of Sasanian Iran. According to Zoroastrian teaching and religious canons creating wrongful standards in weights and currencies was considered a high abomination and was to be dealt with severe punishment. (This was similar to Islamic laws legislated in the aftermath of the confiscation of drachms with low silver content by Moslem governors of conquered regions after the collapse of Sasanian Iran). Almost none of the cities with a considerable population of deportees and prisoners of war was selected as a minting center (except Gondīšapūr and possibly Bīšapūr). It is more than likely that deportees and prisoners of war were not subject to Zoroastrian religious

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

219

canons and thus could, at the direct order of the court and its officials, mint plated coins. This theory obviously needs further investigation. Several cities such as Kašvin (Qazvin) created under Šāpūr II, followed by Erān Xwarrah founded by Yazdgird II and Ardabīl created by Pērōz, substantially reduced the distances/stations from the minting centers of Amol, Shiz, Ray and Gorgan toward the northwest and northeast Iran. Such a measure provided a better organized system to pay troops for the massive fortifications of Darband (Derbent) and later the massive defensive wall of Gorgan which was backed by nearly 33 fortifications (Wilkinson). At the time of Hormazd IV, the need to create stable organizations such as minting facilities with related cities in the eastern provinces of Sakastan, Zavolistan and Kusansahr became apparent as the number of cities and minting centers began to increase. The coins from these areas known as eastern drachms were called “Bōghlī” or “Bōqlī” (Dinvari). The standard weight of one Mithqāl (4.25 gr) applied to all drachms from these regions (Dinvari). The mintage of these drachms continued well after the Sasanians were gone and until the reforms of Abdulmalik of Umayyids. During the Arab Sasanian era, the weights of these coins and their silver content began to change for the worse causing a major crackdown and mass collection and mass melting of all drachms in the region (Dinvari). As seen above, there are mint abbreviations that cannot be fully identified. For examples, GUY (Guyam?-Moshiri/ F1929), TA or TAI and others. Given the part appearances of such mints, the possibility of them being a mint center begin to give way to considering them as temporary mints that accompanied the kings, his entourage during campaigns. Such examples are seen at later centuries (16, 17, 18 and 19 centuries) which indicate the word “rēkab” (king’s camp). Coins on figures 16 and 19 might well fall under such categories which were minted during Bahram VI campaign in the East while he was a general under Hormizd IV. There is much more that can be added to Table 1 such as the layout of the cities and their urban plans. That will require having substantial records of the excavated cities from the Sasanian era. This effort is already being undertaken; however, it will be decades before we can get records of the layout of all these Sasanian cities given the budget restrictions on the part of local governments, war and chaos such as seen in Afghanistan where approaching cities such as Qobadiyan is extremely dangerous and at times proven deadly for researchers. Also the turmoil in Iraq does not leave much space for research and excavation in the areas that maintain most of the archeological remains of Sasanian Asuristan or Sawad which came to be known as Del-e Iranšahr or “Heart of Sasanian Persia”. A glimpse into the recent excavation at Pēšāvar in Pakistan and the discoveries of various layers on top of each other from the Indo-Parthians, the Kušans, the Huns, the Sasanians and the early Islamic era provide us with the highly complex task of discovery and identification of what is the Sasanian past. It would more than likely take decades even if the work could continue without interruption.

220

Mint Abbreviations In Pahlavi: AHMADĀN = AHM or AH

KAŠVĪN (QAZVĪN) = KŠ or KA(?)

ĀMŌL = AM

KERMAN or KERMANŠAH = KR

APARŠAHR (ABARŠAHR) = APR

KHŌLM = XŌLM

ARDAŠĪR XWĀRRĀH (GŌR)= ART

MERV = MR

ARRAGĀN = AR

MARW U RUD = MRWRT or MRWORT

ARDAŠĪR GĀN (SĪRJĀN)= SIR or SI

MĀH and MĀHĀN = MA

ARMENIA = ARM

NISHAPUR (NĪV ŠĀPŪR) = NI

ASPĀNVAR (CTESIPHON) = AS

NIHAVAND = NIH

AŪSRĪSTĀN = AS(?)

PARWAND (HADĪTHĀ) = PW

BIŠĀPŪR = BIŠ

QŌM (GHOM) = GOM, GWM

BALX (BALKH) = BLH or BLX

QŌM (GHOM) = GO, GW

BŌST= BST

RĀM HŌRMAZD = RĀM

ČĀČ = ČĀČŪ

RAY = RD or RY

DĀRĀBGĪRD = DA

RĪV ARDAŠĪR or RĪŠAHR = RIV

DINAVAR = DINAV

RŌXVĀDEH = RXV

FORĀT-E MESENE = PR

SAMARKAND (SAMARQAND) = SMR

GANZAK (GANJA) = GNZK

SEPĀHĀN or ASPAHAN (ISFAHAN or ISPHAHAN) = AS

GŌRGĀN – GO, GW

ŠĪZ = ŠI

GŌRZAVĀN = GRZ

STAXR = ST

GŪNDĪŠĀPR = GN

TAWS (TOOS) ? = TA or TAI

HERAT (HAREV) = HR

TAPURISTAN (TABARISTAN) = TA (?) IN ISPAHBOD’S PERIOD = TAPURISTAN

HŌRMAZD ARDAŠĪR, (AHWAZ) = AWH

--------= TZI and TCI

HUZĪSTĀN = HŪZ

VISP SAD XOSROW (VISP SAD KHOSRAU) (CTESIPHON) =

IMPERIAL COURT (CTESIPHON) = BBA

WEH ARDAŠĪR= WH

IRĀN XWARRAH ŠAPŪR (ŠŪŠĀ) = AI, AIR, AIRAN

YAZD = YZ

JAY = GD or GY

ZŪZĀN = ZOZNO

KARIAN or KARZIN = KA

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

221

KING

ARDAŠĪR I, 224‑240 AD

Šāpūr I: 240‑270 AD

BISH

Siraf (Auzinza)

Šāpūr Xāst (Khorram Ābād), Falak ol Aflak fortification

Nīshapur (Nīv Šāpūr)

28

29

30

✓

✓?

✓

Bīšāpūr (Veh Šāpūr or Beh Šāpūr also known as Bēnā Šāpūr

PR

GN

NI

SI or SR?

GN?

GN?

27

✓

✓

GN?

Šād Šapur (Forāt-e Mesene)-Kaškār

22

AS ?

Šuštar

Asad Ābād

21

✓?

Balād Šāpūr

Astar Abād Ardašīr

20

26

Būdh Ardašīr

25

Khōrzād Ardašīr

18

19

Gōndī Šapur

Pūšang

17

RI RSH

ĀRT

SI

(AWH)

Veh Antīoch Šāpūr

Bād-gīs (Vādgēs)

16

✓

✓

✓

✓

WH

24

Bōxt Ardašīr (Port)

15

MINT CENTRE

✓

MINT ABBRIVIATION

23

Fāwrān Ardašir (Fārwār Ardašir)

Vehtan Ardašīr (Madinat Al Khatt)

14

12

13

Veh Ardašīr (Bardsīr)

Rām Ardašīr (Rēw Ardašīr / Rīšahr)

11

Ardašīr Gān (Sirjan)

Ardašir Xwārrāh (Gōr)

Vehešt Ardašīr (Basra?)

9

Wahman Ardašīr (Bahmanšīr)

7

8

10

Wahman Ardašīr

Hōrmaz Ardašīr (Ahwaz)

5

Āstā-bāz Ardašīr Near Forat-e Mesene

4

6

Veh Ardašīr (Bahurasir)

Rām Ardašīr (near Basra)

1

Āstā-bāz Ardašīr Near present day Ramādī

NUMBER

2

CITY NAME

3

Ctesiphon

Ahwaz

NAME

✓

220 Mi / 62 Par

✓

Siraf Ram Ardasir (Reyshar)

Herat

✓

Gorgan

✓

Ardasir Xwarrah ✓

✓

Rev Ardasir

Dinavar

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Ardasir Xwarrah

Hormaz Ardasir (Ahwaz)

Hormaz Ardasir (Ahwaz)

Hormaz Ardasir (Ahwaz)

Hormaz Ardasir (Ahwaz)

Hormaz Ardasir (Ahwaz)

Ahmadan

Gorgan

Arbil

Arbil

Herat (Harev)

Herat (Harev)

Sirjan ✓

120 Mi / 34 Par

✓

Rām Ardasīr (Reyshar)

Siraf

100 Mi / 28 Par

230 Mi / 68 Par

250 Mi / 70 Par

90 Mi / 25-27 Par

100 Mi / 28 Par

250 Mi / 70 Par

70 to 75 Mi / 20 Par

70 to 75 Mi / 20 Par

70 to 75 Mi / 20 Par

70 to 75 Mi / 20 Par

70 to 75 Mi / 20 Par

65 to 70 Mi / 18 Par

10 Mi / 3 Par

10 Mi / 3 Par

35-40 Mi / 10 Par

55 Mi / 14 Par

30-35 Mi / 10 Par

35-40 Mi / 10 Par

220 Mi / 62 Par

140 Mi / 40 Par

200 Mi / 57 Par

250 Mi / 70 Par ✓

30 to 35 Mi / 10 Par

70 to 75 Mi / 20 Par

70 to 75 Mi / 20 Par

Siraf

✓

✓

✓

70 to 75 Mi / 20 Par

70 to 75 Mi / 20 Par

270 Mi / 80 Par

270 Mi / 80 Par

70 to 75 Mi / 20 Par

80 to 85 Mi / 22 Par

1 to 3.5 Mi / 1 Par

1 to 3.5 Mi / 1 Par

70 to 75 Mi / 20 Par

RANGE

Ardasir Xwarrah (Gor)

Kerman

Istaxr

Darabgerd

Ahwaz

✓

Veh Ardasir Ahwaz

✓ ✓

Ahwaz

✓

✓

✓

✓

MINT CENTER

Ardasir Xwarrah (Gor)

Ahwaz

Ctesiphon

✓

DOMESTIC CONFLICT POWER STRYGGLE ✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

FOREIGN CONFLICT ✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓?

✓?

✓

✓?

✓

✓

✓?

Zor / Mani

Zor / Mani

Zor / Mani

Zo

Zor / Mani

Zor / Mani

Zor / Mani

Zor / Mani

Zor / Mani

Zor / Mani

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

RELIGIOUS POWER

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

NATIVE RELIGOUSLY DIVERSE

ANIRAN

POPULATION TYPE

✓

?

?

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓?

✓?

✓?

✓?

✓?

✓?

✓?

✓

✓

DEPOTEES REFUGEES

IRAN

✓

?

?

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

WAR PRISONERS

MAJOR EVENT

SW

SW

LOCATION WITHIN THE EMPIRE W

S

S

SW

SW

SW

SW

SW

NW

N

W

W

E

E

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

SW

SW

SW

SW

SW

SW

GEOGRAPHY TYPE

Abaršahr

Māh/luristan

Pārs (Fārs), Persis

Pārs (Fārs), Persis

Hūzīstān

Hūzīstān

Hūzīstān

Hūzīstān

Asūristān

Māh

Tabaristan

Mōsūl, Nōdshīragān

Mōsūl, Nōdshīragān

Harev

Harev

Pārs (Fārs), Persis

Bahrain

Bahrain

Pārs (Fārs), Persis

Kerman

Pārs (Fārs), Persis

Kerman

Asūristān Hūzīstān

Hūzīstān

Hūzīstān

Hūzīstān

Asūristān

Asūristān

Asūristān

Hūzīstān

SASANIAN PROVINCE

IMPORTANT NEARBY CITY

Khorasan, Iran

Iran

Siraf, Iran

Fars, Iran

Khuzistan, Iran

Khuzistan, Iran

Khuzistan, Iran

Khuzistan, Iran

South Iraq

Hamadan, Iran

Gorgan

North Iraq

North Iraq

Afghanistan

Afghanistan

Qešm Island, Iran

Bahrain

Qatar

Fars, Iran

Kerman, Iran

Fars, Iran

Kerman

South Iraq

Kerman

Khuzistan, Iran

Khuzistan, Iran

South Iraq

South Iraq

South Iraq

Khuzistan, Iran

CURRENT REGION

NATURAL HINDERENCE

KING

Hōrmazd I: 270‑271 AD

NARSEH: 293‑302

Hōrmazd II: 302‑309 AD

Šāpūr II: 309‑379 AD

Sapur II: 309‑379 AD

Bahrām IV (Varhrān IV): 388‑399 AD

Dastgerd

Xwārrazm (Čač)

Hōrmazd Behešt

Pērōz Šāpūr (Anbār); Near present city of Ramadi

Bōzōrg Šāpūr (Akbarieh), Part of present Baghdad

Irān Xwarrah Šāpūr (Sūsā)

Irānšahr Šāpūr (Sustar)

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

MINT CENTRE

Abhar: under the same name near present day Zanjān (Yāqūt).

47

48

Kermānšāh

47- Hadīthā (Parwand)

46

49

Xōršāwar (Pēšāwar)

Vāzān (Part of Falk-ol Aflāk-Khorramābād?)

45

✓?

✓

KR?

PW

AP

RANGE 250 Mi / 70 Par 230 Mi / 68 Par ✓

✓

FOREIGN CONFLICT

DOMESTIC CONFLICT POWER STRYGGLE

Zor / Mani

Zor / Mani

✓?

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

50-55 Mi / 15-16 Par

135-140 Mi / 40 Par

70-75 Mi / 20 Par

150 Mi / 43-45 Par

220 Mi / 60-65 Par

280 Mi / 80 Par

220 Mi / 32 Par

100 Mi / 32 Par

100 Mi / 32 Par

120 Mi / 34 Par

200 Mi / 57 Par

55 Mi / 15-16 Par

70 Mi / 20 Par

25 Mi / 7 Par

85-90 Mi / 27 Par

470-475 Mi / 138-140 Par

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓?

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Dinavar

✓

40 Mi / 12 Par

✓

Zor

Ardašīr II : 379-383 AD, Šāpūr III, no new city or addition or renovation: 383-388 AD = 11 Years

Kašvīn (Qazvin)

Veh Ardasir

Susa

Balkh Or Balx

Kabul

Gorgan

Abarshahr

Pērōz Šāpūr, Near the City of Balkh

44

Budh Aradsir (Mosul)

✓

✓?

Ray

Siraf

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Budh Aradsir (Mosul)

43

✓

✓

MINT CENTER

Ram Ardasir (Reyshar)

Ahvaz

Ahvaz

Veh Ardasir

Veh Ardasir

Exact Location Disputed

Merv

Nīsībīs (present day Nūsaybīn)

KASH

AIRAN

CACU

Mārtyrōpōlis (Mayyāfārīqīn), Present Silvan

✓

Veh Ardasir

Ahvaz ✓

✓

NATIVE RELIGOUSLY DIVERSE

NATURAL HINDERENCE

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Bahrām I (Varhrān I): 271-274 AD, Bahrām II (Varhrān II): 274-293 AD, Bahrām III (Varhrān III): 293-? AD, Nārsēh or Nārsē: 293-302 AD

RAM

MINT ABBRIVIATION

41

✓?

✓

✓

✓

NAME

42

Kašvīn (Qazvīn)

40

Šāpūr ( Jabur)

Rām Hōrmazd

NUMBER

39

CITY NAME

31

RELIGIOUS POWER

ANIRAN

POPULATION TYPE

✓?

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

?

✓

DEPOTEES REFUGEES

IRAN

✓?

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

?

✓

WAR PRISONERS

MAJOR EVENT

S

LOCATION WITHIN THE EMPIRE W

W

W

W

E

E

NE

NW

NW

NW

S

SW

SW

SW

SW

NW

SW

GEOGRAPHY TYPE

Māh

Māh / Dylaman

Mōsūl, Nōdshīragān

Māh

Kushansahr

Kushansahr

Abaršahr

Syria (Sam) Anatolia

Syria (Sam)

Māh / Media

Bahrain

Hūzīstān

Hūzīstān

Asūristān

Asūristān

Sōghdīānā

Asūristān

Hūzīstān

SASANIAN PROVINCE

IMPORTANT NEARBY CITY

Kermansah, Iran

Qazvin, Iran

Masoul, Iraq

Lūrīstān, Iran

Pakistan

Afghanistan

Khorasan, Iran

Turkey, Diarbakir

Turkey

Qazvin, Iran

Bahrain, Qatar

Khuzistan, Iran

Khuzistan, Iran

South Iraq

South Iraq

Republic of Uzbekistan

Baqūba, South Iraq

Fars, Iran

CURRENT REGION

KING

Yazdgīrd I: 399‑420 AD

Bahram V: 420‑438 AD

Yazdgīrd II: 438‑457 AD

Pērōz: 459‑484 AD

Valkaš (Balāš): 484‑488 AD

Qōm

Bahrām Āvand Māh (Dinavar)

Marw’ul Rud (Morghab)

54

55

MINT CENTRE

Ray

Rōšan Pērōz (add to Gōrgān).

Šād Pērōz (Ardabil)

Ram Peroz in Sakastan (Zaranj or addition to)

Sepāhān (ASPAHAN)

Sābāt

Balāš Farr (Balāš Xwarrah) near Hūlwān

Balāšgīrd or Balāšgerd Addition to the city of Merv

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

Merv

✓

—

80 Mi / 23 Par 90 Mi / 25/26 Par

1 to 3.5 Mi / 1 Par

—

22 Mi / 7 Par

Dastgerd

✓

✓

240 Mi / 70 Par

135-140 Mi / 40 Par

—

—

140 Mi / 40 Par

160 Mi / 45 Par

450 to 500 Mi / 140 to 150 Par

180 Mi / 50-52 Par

40 Mi / 12 Par

70 to 75 Mi / 20 Par

70-75 Mi / 20 Par

25-30 Mi / 7 Par

170-175 Mi / 50 Par

RANGE

Kermansah

Veh Ardasir

Jay

Zabol

✓ ✓

Shiz

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

MINT CENTER

Herat

Gorgan

Nivsapur

Ganzak (Ganja)

Pesawar

Herat (Harev Region)

Kermansah

Ray

Veh Ardasir

Ahwaz

Jay-Sepahan

Erān Xwarrah Yazdgīrd

AS

MRWRT

DIN

GW & GO

YZ

MINT ABBRIVIATION

Rām Pērōz (add to Ray) — under the same name as Šahr-e Ray south of present day Tehran and major minting center of Parthians and Sasanians. (Tabari, Tha’labi)

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

NAME

58

Kāšghar (Kāšqar)

Āšghar (Kašqar)

52

53

Caspian Gate, also known as Darband

Šušāngerd

51

57

Yazd

NUMBER

56

CITY NAME

50

DOMESTIC CONFLICT POWER STRYGGLE ✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

FOREIGN CONFLICT ✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓?

✓

✓

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor / Jewd

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓ ✓

NATURAL HINDERENCE

Zor / Christ

NATIVE RELIGOUSLY DIVERSE

Zor / Christ

RELIGIOUS POWER

ANIRAN

POPULATION TYPE

✓

✓

✓?

✓?

✓?

✓?

✓?

✓?

DEPOTEES REFUGEES

IRAN

✓

✓

✓?

✓?

✓?

WAR PRISONERS

MAJOR EVENT

S

LOCATION WITHIN THE EMPIRE E

W

SW

S

E

NW

N

N

NE

NW

E

SW

SW

GEOGRAPHY TYPE

Margiana

Māh

Asūristān

Aspāhān, Īsfahāna

Sakastan

Adurbadagn

Gōrgān (Khōrāsān)

Ray, Goyman Region

Abaršahr

Albania

Chin

Kušanšahr

Māh

Ray

Asūristān

Hūzīstān

Pārs (Fārs), Persis

SASANIAN PROVINCE

IMPORTANT NEARBY CITY

Republic of Turkmenistan

Sar-e Pōl Zahāb, Iran

Madaen, Iraq

Isfahan, Iran

Afghanistan

Azarbaijan, Iran

Gorgan, Iran

Ray, Iran

Khorasan, Iran

Repub. Azabaijan

Xianjing China

Afghanistan

Kermanshah, Iran

Qom, Iran

Wasit, Iraq

Huzistan, Iran

Yazd, Iran

CURRENT REGION

KING

Kavād (Qōbād or Ghōbād) I: 488‑496 AD and 498‑531 AD

Khōsrau (Khōsrōw or Chōsrōe) I, 531‑579 AD:

MINT CENTRE

Veh Antioch Khōsrau

87

Merv

Caucasia (Fortification)

Derbent (Fortifications)

Ardabīl (Addition)

Khōsrau Šāpūr (Qasr-e Sīrīn)

Gōrgān (Fortifications)

96

97

98

99

Ctisphon

Khōsrau Māh ( Joxa), Adjacent to Umma (Sumerian City ruins)

94

95

—

Aden

93

Bisapur

Gorgan

Kermanshah

Shiz

Barda (Ganzak)

Barda / Gandjak

Exact Location Unknown

Nōbandagān

Veh Ardasir

Forat-E Mesene

Veh Ardasir

Veh Ardasir

Veh Ardasir

Kabul

Kandahar

Hejrā (in Oman?), Record states in Bahrain

VISP?

✓

Qom Amol

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Istaxr

✓

✓

✓

Ardasir Xwarrah

92

AS?

XCST

BST

✓

✓

✓

✓ ✓

Jay & Aspāhān ? ? Aspāhān

Istaxr

Kermansah

Budh Ardasir, (Mosul)

Budh Ardasir, (Mosul)

91

Kaškār

Lower Veh Kavād

86

Zandvard

Upper Veh Kavād

89

Xōst (new or addition)

84

85

90

Bōst (Lašgar Gāh)

Aspānvar and Visp Sad Khosrau

Qōbādān (Qōbādiyān) (Badaxšān Province)

82

83

88

Qōbādbazn

Sārīya (Addition to the City of Sārī)

80

81

Kazeroun (Addition)

79

✓

AR? AS

Abar Kavad (Abarqū)

76

✓?

Dinavar (Addition), Numismatic Evidence

75

Arragān

Erān-Āsān-Kard-Kavād (present Sar-e Pōl Zahāb)

74

Sepāhān (Subdivision)

Khābūr Kavād, Part of Mosul

78

Kermansah

Irān Šād Kard Kavād, Part of Mosul

72

73

77

Budh Ardasir, (Mosul)

Vōlašgerd (Khābū), Part of Mosul

Dinavar

71

Ram Hormaz

Izad Kavād (Īzeh)

DINAV

✓ ✓ ✓

Ahwaz

Ahwaz

MINT CENTER

Ram Hormaz

Hūlwān (Major Addition)

✓

MINT ABBRIVIATION

69

Abar Kavād

Xwarrah Kavād (Behbahān) also known as (Veh azamad-Qōbādān)

NUMBER

67

NAME

70

CITY NAME

68

RANGE

✓

DOMESTIC CONFLICT POWER STRYGGLE ✓

100 Mi / 30 Par

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

130-140 Mi / 40 Par

exact unknown

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

FOREIGN CONFLICT

10 Mi / 2 Par

—

70-75 Mi / 20 Par

70-75 Mi / 20 Par

—

1-3 Mi / 87 1 Par

1-3 Mi / 87 1 Par

100 Mi / 30 Par

80 Mi / 23/24 Par

1-10 Mi / 2-3 Par

45 Mi / 13 Par

1-5 Mi / 1-2 Par

70-75 Mi / 20 Par

—

100 Mi / 30 Par

100 Mi / 30 Par

80 Mi / 23/24 Par

80 Mi / 23/24 Par

—

—

—

40 Mi / 12 Par

30 Mi / 8/9 Par

20 Mi / 6/7 Par

100 Mi / 30 Par

80 Mi / 23/24 Par

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor / Maz

Zor / Maz

Zor / Maz

Zor / Maz

Zor / Maz

Zor / Maz

Zor / Maz

Zor / Maz

Zor / Maz

Zor / Maz

Zor / Maz

Zor / Maz

Zor / Maz

Zor / Maz

Zor / Maz

Zor / Maz

Zor / Maz

Zor / Maz

Zor / Maz

Zor / Maz

RELIGIOUS POWER

✓

NATURAL HINDERENCE ✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

NATIVE RELIGOUSLY DIVERSE

ANIRAN

POPULATION TYPE

✓?

✓?

✓?

✓?

✓

✓

✓?

✓

✓

?

?

?

?

?

?

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

?

✓

✓

DEPOTEES REFUGEES

IRAN

✓?

✓

✓?

✓

✓

?

?

?

?

?

?

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

?

✓

✓

WAR PRISONERS

MAJOR EVENT

SW

LOCATION WITHIN THE EMPIRE NE

W

NW

NW

NW

SW

S

S

S

SW

SW

SW

SW

SW?

W?

E

E

NE

N

N

S

S

S

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

SW

SW

GEOGRAPHY TYPE

Gōrgān (Khōrāsān)

Māh

Aturpadan

Albainia

Albainia, Golciz - Lazia

Asūristan

Yemen

Bahrain

Pārs (Fārs), Persis

Asūristān

Asūristān

Asūristān

Asūristān

Asūristān

Mōsūl, Nōdshīragān

Sakastan

Sakastan

Khorasan

Tabaristan

Ray

Pārs (Fārs), Persis

Aspāhān, Īsfahān

Pārs (Fārs), Persis

Aspāhān, Īsfahān

Māh

Māh, Mōsūl, Nōdshīragān

Mōsūl,, Nōdshīragān

Mōsūl, Nōdshīragān

Mōsūl, Nōdshīragān

Māh

Hūzīstān

Hūzīstān

Asūristān

SASANIAN PROVINCE

IMPORTANT NEARBY CITY

Khorasan, Iran

Kurd/Lur, Iran

Azarbai, Iran

Repub. Azerbai.

Repub. Georgia

South Iraq, Iran

Yemen

Oman?

South Iran

South Iraq

South Iraq

South Iraq

South Iraq

South Iraq

North Iraq

Afghanistan

Afghanistan

Afghanistan

Sari, Iran

Qom, Iran

Fars, Iran

Isfahan, Iran

Fars, Iran

Yazd, Iran

Kermansah, Iran

Sar-e Pōl Zahāb, Iran

Mosul, Iraq

Mosul, Iraq

Mosul, Iraq

Lūrīstān, Iran

Hūzīstān, Iran

Hūzīstān, Iran

South Iraq

CURRENT REGION

KING

Hōrmizd IV: 579‑590 AD

Khōsrau II (AParvīz): 590‑628 AD

Qasr-e Šīrīn

TAI

108

109

Čāč

Samarkand

TZO or TCI

105

106

107

Gōrzavān

Roxvādeh

103

104

Zuzan

✓

✓

MINT CENTRE

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

MINT ABBRIVIATION

TAI

TZO

CACU

SMR

RXV

GORZAN

XLM

ZOZNO

MRWRT

Herat (Harev)

NAME

Dinavar & KermanŠah

Exact Location Unknown

Exact Location Unknown

Samarkand

Cacu

Exact Location Unknown

Kabul

Kabul

Herat (Harev)

✓

✓

MINT CENTER ✓

✓

✓

✓

175-180 Mi / 50-52 Par

RANGE

Table 1.1

—

—

110-120 Mi / 38-40 Par

110-120 Mi / 38-40 Par

—

190-200 Mi / 58-60 Par

90-100 Mi / 30 Par

110-120 Mi / 38-40 Par

✓

✓

DOMESTIC CONFLICT POWER STRYGGLE ✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

FOREIGN CONFLICT ✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Zor Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

Zor

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

NATIVE RELIGOUSLY DIVERSE

ANIRAN

? ?

✓?

?

?

?

?

?

? ?

✓?

?

?

?

?

?

W

NE

NE

E

E

E

E

E

LOCATION WITHIN THE EMPIRE

NATURAL HINDERENCE

GEOGRAPHY TYPE

Zor: Zoroastrianism | Maz: Mazdakism | Mani: Manichaenisim | Christ: Christianity | Jewd: Judaism

Key: Mi: Mile | Par: Parsang (3.4 Mile or 5.6 Kilomete) | ✓?: Possible given the pattern by records | ✓: Possible but no record

100

Khōlm (Xōlm)

Marw U Rud (Addition)

NUMBER

101

CITY NAME

102

RELIGIOUS POWER

POPULATION TYPE

DEPOTEES REFUGEES

IRAN WAR PRISONERS

MAJOR EVENT

Māh

Sōghdīānā

Sōghdīānā

Sakastan

Kušanšahr

Kušanšahr

Kušanšahr

Kušanšahr

SASANIAN PROVINCE

IMPORTANT NEARBY CITY

Kurd/Lur, Iran

Khorasan

Khorasan

Republic of Uzbekistan

Republic of Uzbekistan

Afghanistan

Afghanistan

Afghanistan

Afghanistan

Afghanistan

CURRENT REGION

List of Figures

Fig. 1. Mint KSh-Kasvin, Peroz

Fig. 2. Mint Ram Hormazd, ruler Khosrau II

Fig. 3. Mint Ahwaz, ruler Yazdgird I

Fig. 4. Mint, Veh Ardasir, Ruler Zamasp

Fig. 5. Mint Rev Ardasir, ruler Yazdgird II

Fig. 6. Mint Sirjan, ruler Bahram V

Fig. 7. Mint, Astarabad (possible), ruler Khosrau I

Fig. 8. Mint, PR, ruler Khosrau II

Fig. 9. Mint, Gondisapur, ruler Khosrau I

Fig. 10. Mint Qom, Ruler Bahram V

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

227

228

Fig. 11. Mint, Jay, ruler Hormazd IV

Fig. 12. Mint Yazd, ruler Khosrau II

Fig. 13. Mint Aparsahr, ruler Hormzad IV

Fig. 14. Mint Marwurud, rular Hormazd IV

Fig. 15. Mint Bost, rular Khosrau I

Fig. 16. Mint Xawst or Xost from Mochiri

Fig. 17. Mint Gorzavan, ruler Yazdgird III

Fig. 18. Mint Xolm from Mochiri

Fig. 19. Mint Roxvad from Mochiri

Fig. 20. Mint Zuzan, rular Hormazd IV

Fig. 21

Fig. 22.

Fig. 23.

Fig. 24.

Fig. 25.

Fig. 26.

Fig. 27.

Fig. 28.

Fig. 29.

Fig. 24. [reverse-mint ART (?)]

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

229

Bibliography References: 1

Adams, R.Mc.C.; Land beyond Baghdad, Chicago, 1965

2

Afshar, I, Yazd; Historical and Archaeological evidences, Tehran 1990

3

Album S., Bates M., & Floor W. (1993), Coins and Coinage. The Sasanians (224-650 AD) Encyclopaedia Iranica

4

Alram, Michael & Gyselen, Rika (2003); Sylloge Nummorum Sasanidarum, Paris, Berlin, Wien

5

Amini, Amin;(2008), History and coin at the end of Sasanian empire. Tehran

6

Amini, Amin;(2008), Hormazd IV Coinage, Tehran

7

Adalan, N., Bakhtiar, L.; Sense of Unity, The Sufi Tradition in Persian Architecture. Chicago, 1973

8

Ayati, M.E.; Yaqubi’s Al Boldan, Tehran 1964

9

Bahar, M.S.; Tarikh e Sistan, Tehran 1964

10

Bahrami, A.; Sasanian Cities: Barasihayeh Tarikhi #70, Tehran 1972

11

Badiyi, Bahram (2004): Sasanian Coinage; an analysis of base metal and AE fractions in the context of Sasanian economy in the fifth and sixth century AD. Part 1: Bahram V to Khusru I ; Costa Mesa, CA

12

Badiyi, Bahram (2016): A concise History of Sasanian Empire of Persia, Goldberg, Baldwin, Markov, M&M Ancient and World Coins Auction XXXVII, New York

13

Bahram Badiyi (1993), Representation Techniques in Sassanian Coinage,Malter Galleries Classical Numismatics, Auction 55, Los Angeles

14

Bahram Badiyi (2018), “Sasanian Coinage” chapter for “Tyrants of Tigris and Euphrates” Exhibition at Long Beach Convention Center by Ira and Larry Goldberg.

15

Bradley, Nelson Editor (2011); Numismatic Art of Persia, The Sunrise Collection, Part I, Lancaster, London

16

Dana-seresht, A. (1998), Biruni, Athar-ul Baghiyeh, Tehran

17

De Morgan, J. (1923), Manual of Ancient Numismatics of Orient, Paris

18

Dodgeon, M.H.; Lieu, S.; The Roman Eastern Frontiers and Persian Wars, London, 1991

19

Drayaee, Touraj (2008), Sasanian Iran, Portrait of a late antique empire, Costa Mesa

20

Eghtedari, A.; Archeo. Sites; Coasts of Persian Gulf and Sea of Oman, Tehran 1985

21

Eghtedari, A.; Archaeological. Sites in the province of Huzistan, Tehran 1975

22

Farahvashi, Dr. B; Farhang e Pahlavi, Tehran 1973

23

Fasai, M.R.; Farsnameh-e Ibn Balkhi, Shiraz, 1995

24

Faza-eli, M. (1989), Tha’Alibi: Akhbar, Tehran

25

Ferdowsi, A. Shahnameh, Tehran 1966-1968

26

Gariboldi, Andrea (2010), Sasanian Coinage and History, the Civic Numismatic Collection of Milan, Costa Mesa

27

Gaube, Heinz (1973), Arabosasanidische Numismatik, Germany

28

Gignoux, P. & Gyselen, R.; Bulles et sceaux Sasanides de diverses collections, Studio Iranica, Belgium 1987

29

Göbl, Robert (1971), Sasanian Numismatic-Volume 1, Vienna

230

30

Göbl, Robert (1971), Der Sasanidische Siegelkanon, Braunschweig, 1973

31

Gullini, G.; Archeological report on excavations at Veh Ardashir,

32

Gyselen, Rika; (2000), Arab Sasanian Copper Coinage, Wien

33

Gyselen, Rika; (2000), Sasanian Seals and Sealings in the A. Saeedi Collection, Acta Iranica, 2007

34

Gyselen, Rika; La geographie administrative de l’emire Sasanide, Paris, 1989

35

Gyselen, Rika;“les donnees administrative dans le Sahrestaniha I Eran, Studia Iranica 1988, Paris, 1989

36

Gyselen, Rika; Sasanian Numismatics, The collection of Ahmad Saeedi, Paris, 2004

37

Gyselen, Rika; Des Indo-Grecs aux Sassanides: Donnees pour L’Historie et la Geographie Historique, Res Orirntales XVII, Paris, 2007

38

Huff, D.; Archeological Survey in Firuzabad, Tehran 1974

39

Huff, D.; Reconstruction of Firuz Abad, Istanbul

40

Ibn Hawqal; Book of Surat al Ardh, Tehran 1965

41

Ibn Khordadbeh; Masalik val Mamalik, Tehran 1980

42

Khamami, J; Mofakham-Payan’s Caspian Sea, Tehran, 1986

43

Khansari, A. S.; Fakhr-e Moddaber’s Adab al Harb va Shojaa, Tehran 1966

44

Khurshudian, E., Zohrabian, A. (2002), Sasanian Coins of Armenia, Almaty

1969-1970

45

Lambton, A.K.S. Cities: iii. Administration and social organization, Encylopedia Iranica

46

Le Strange, G.; Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, Cambridge 1905

47

Malayeri, M.M.; Heart of Eransahr, transfer of culture from Sasanian to Islamic period, Tehran 1999

48

Malek, H.M.; A survey of research on the Sasanian Numismatic, Numis. Chronicle 1993

49

Markwart J.; Catalogue of Provincial Capitals of Eransahr, Rome 1931

50

Ma’soumi G; Siraf (Bandar-e Tahiri); Tehran 1984

51

Miri, N.; Sasanian Pars, Costa Mesa, 2010

52

Mochiri, Malek Iradj (1983), Etude Numismatique Iranienne, Sassanides et Arabe-Sassanides-TomeII

53

Modi, J.J.; The cities of Iran as described in the old Pahlavi treatise of “Shatro-I-Iran, Bombay branch of Royal Asiatic Society, 1898

54

Moholy-Nagy, S.; Matrix of Man, History of Urban Environment, London 1968

55

Moqaddasi A. Ahsan al Taqasim, edited by Monzavi, A.

56

Negro Ponzi, M.M.; Al Madain; Topographic problems, Rome, 2004-2005

57

Pigulrvskaja N.; Les Villes de L’etat Iranien, Paris 1963

58

Payandeh, Q. (1984) , History of Al-Tabari, Volume 2, Tehran

59

Payandeh, Q. (1970), Mas’udi : Al-Tanbih, Tehran

60

Paynadeh, Q. (1994), Mas’udi : Muruj adh-dhahab, Tehran

61

Pourshariati, Parvaneh (2008), Decline and Fall of the Sasanian Empire, London

62

Shamoradi, S. M.; Abdolrahman’s Asar al Balad va Akhbar al ebad, Tehran 1984

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

231

63

Shahrestanha-ie Eranshahr, Bomby

64

Sellwood, D., Whitting, P., Williams, R.(1985), Introduction to Sasanian Coins, London

65

She’ar, J. (1995), Aufi: Djawamiul Hikayat, Tehran

66

She’ar, J. (1967), Hamzah-Al Isfahani, History of Kings and Prophets, Tehran

67

She’ar, J (1996), Dinawari; History, Tehran

68

Shams-Eshragh, A.(1990); A study of the earliest coinage of Islam’s Empire, Isfahan

69

Shahrestanha-I Eran, (Translated to English)

70

Schindel, N.; Sylloge Nummorum Sasanidarum, Paris-Berlin-Wien, Band III, 2004

71

Sotoodeh, M.(editor); Hudud al Alam, Tehran 1962

72

Vanden Berghe, L.; Archeologie de l’Iran Ancient, Leiden 1959

73

Wiesehofer, J; Ancient Persia, 1966

74

Williamson, A.; Persian Gulf Commerce in the Sasanian Period and the first two centuries of Islam. Bastanshenasi va honar e Iran, 1973

75

Omrani Rekavandi, H., Sauer, E., Wilkinson, T. & Nokandeh, J. (2008), The enigma of the red snake: revealing one of the world’s greatest frontier walls, Current World Archaeology, No. 27, February/March 2008 on Defensive wall of Gorgan.

76

Roaf, M. & Simpson, S.J.; Map 91 Ctesiphon

77

Yaqubi, A; Tarikh e Ya’qubi, Tehran

78

Yarshater, E. (Editor); Encyclopedia Iranica

79

Zeidi, M., McCall, B. and Khosrowzadeh,A.; Survey of Dashte-Rustam and report on University of Sydney expedition to the Mamasani district, 2006

232

Leiden Conventions for Greek Numismatic Epigraphy EDWARD C. D. HOPKINS

Epigraphers have long dealt with the need to document inscriptions in a comprehensible fashion. A measure of standardization was achieved with development of conventions by scholars of the Union Académique Internationale meeting at the University of Leiden in 1931.1 These conventions established rules to indicate the condition of an epigraphic or papyrological text in modern edition. They are simple and straightforward but often ignored in numismatic documentation. This paper draws upon the traditions of numismatists and recommends sigla that achieve standardized documentation of inscriptions. It follows the Leiden Conventions with several exceptions widely used in numismatic publications. It will consider as well different requirements of plain-text and decorated (rich) text word processors. For more than 48 years David Sellwood’s An Introduction to the Coinage of Parthia has been the preeminent reference for cataloging Parthian coins. When populating a large database of Parthian coins (drawing from the catalogs of more than 2,000 sources), I verified the near-universality of Sellwood as the post-1971 standard reference. In the process I also confirmed the great divergence in techniques used to document Greek numismatic inscriptions. A distinctive feature of Sellwood’s Introduction is his handwritten text. The calligraphy is not only beautiful in its own right, but it allowed him flexibility in spacing, including hand-drawn devices and monograms that capture minor differences, and faithful reproduction of inscriptions. No typesetter, even if equipped with an extensive array of computer fonts, could hope to match the accuracy of his text. Both his 1971 and 1980 editions are composed of text, figures, maps, and tables drawn by hand. The only exceptions are the photographic plates that were, characteristically, created using the traditional plaster casts. In a world where technology is moving quickly — and where many students are no longer taught cursive handwriting — Sellwood’s work provides the endpoint to an earlier and more engaging era in numismatic publishing. His methodology had one great advantage. As shown in Figure 1, he illustrates Greek inscriptions as they appear on the coins, usually in the square arrangement so dominant on Parthian coins.2

1 2

McLean, 27 Sellwood (1980), 181 A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

233

Figure 1

The graphic documentation of the inscription plus a cartoon of the design leaves no question as to the content and physical layout. While suitable for printed text, the extensive use of illustrations is rarely practical in digital documentation, particularly where large numbers of inscriptions must be entered. How then does a scholar or cataloger reliably indicate not only the inscription, but its arrangement? How does one indicate what is missing and what is erroneously present? Digital plain text is devoid of decoration and is typically entered into a simple text editor or database field. While Unicode fonts offer many accented and special characters, the decoration of text with color, underline, overline, italics, superscripts and other features is generally the province of sophisticated presentation formats. Plain text editors can display only the Unicode characters, not complex combining characters and other Unicode features, and thus display no decoration. On the other hand, decorated text is easily achieved using sophisticated rich text word processors such as Microsoft Word or the presentation formatting capabilities of HTML.3 Examine the inscription on the central coin image in figure 1. Line ‘a’ below renders the pro forma inscription. Line ‘b’ applies the Leiden Conventions sigla and the last line repeats line ‘b’ using the ancient and archaic Greek glyphs of the Numismatica Pro or Cardo fonts4 to closely imitate letters on the coin. The regularity of inscriptions on Parthian coins allows restorations that otherwise might be marked as lacuna. a. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΝ ΑΡΣΑΚΟΥ ΕΥΕΡΓΕΤΟΥ ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑΤΟΡ ΕΠΙΦΑΝΟΥΣ ΦΙΛΕΛΛΗΝΟΣ ΦΙΛΟΡΩΜΑΙΟΥ b. [ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ] / ΒΑΣΙΛΕ[ΩΝ] // [ΑΡΣΑΚΟΥ / Ε]ΥΕΡΓΕΤΟΥ // [Α]ΥΤΟΚΡΑΤΟΡ // [Ε]ΠΙΦΑΝΟΥΣ / [ΦΙ]ΛΕΛΛΗΝΟΣ // ΦΙΛΟΡΩΜΑΙΟ[Υ]

c.

[ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ] / ΒΑΣΙΛΕ[ΩΝ] ⫽ [ΑΡΣΑΚΟΥ / Ε]ΥΕΡΓΕΤΟΥ ⫽ [Α]ΥΤΟΚΡΑΤΟΡ ⫽ [Ε]ΠΙΦΑΝΟΥΣ / [ΦΙ]ΛΕΛΛΗΝΟΣ ⫽ ΦΙΛΟΡΩΜΑΙΟ[Υ]

The following numbered sections describe the use of capital letters, the Leiden sigla used in plain and decorated text documentation, the few sigla that require decorated text and finally, the non-Leiden arrows occasionally used by numismatists. The preferred Unicode usage5 for each is followed by acceptable alternates in order of preference.

3 4

Hypertext Markup Language is the standard language for creating web pages and web applications Numismatica Pro font is available at parthia.com/fonts. David Perry’s Cardo font is available at scholarsfonts.net/cardofnt.html

5

The Unicode Standard, version 12.0.0 (March 2019), provides character charts for the listed codes

234

1. The use of capital letters to document Greek numismatic inscriptions: ΑΒΓΔ

Inscriptions in capital letters

Numismatic epigraphy has traditionally used capital letters. This is a significant exception to conformance with the Leiden Conventions. When used in a numismatic inscription, capital letters do not have the Leiden Conventions’ meaning of “reading clear, interpretation unknown”. Use only capital letters in the Unicode Greek and Coptic range U+0370 to U+03FF, or alternate Greek letterforms located in the Unicode Private Use Areas of specialty fonts. Do not use look-alike roman letters in digital documents. Computer search and sort capabilities rely on the use of correct Unicode letters. 2. The use of sigla suitable for documenting inscriptions in either plain or decorated text: [ΒΑΣ] Restorations of missing or damaged letters Square brackets indicate letters missing due to damage, or which are off flan, or those incompletely struck; the missing letters are restored by the editor. Unicode U+005B Left Square Bracket and U+005C Right Square Bracket enclosing one or more letters. — Spacing break A dash is used to indicate the letters are not contiguous, as when the lettering is spaced around a device. Unicode U+2014 Em Dash. Alternate: U+2013 En Dash or a U+002D Hyphen-Minus. [. . .] or [. . 12 . .] Lacuna (extent known) A lacuna or gap in the original inscription not restored by the editor (extent known) is as shown above. The number of points always indicates the number of lost letters; an Arabic numeral may be used to indicate a large number of missing characters. Unicode U+005B Left Square Bracket and U+005C Right Square Bracket enclosing one or more U+002E Full Stop. Use space between dots. Alternate: U+00B7 Middle Dot instead of Full Stop. [ – – – ] Lacuna (extent unknown) A lacuna or gap in the original inscription not restored by the editor (extent unknown) is as shown above. The lost or illegible letters are of an uncertain number: the number of dashes has no significance and does not suggest the number of missing letters. Unicode U+005B Left Square Bracket and U+005C Right Square Bracket enclosing one or more Unicode U+2013 En Dash. Use a space between dashes. Alternate: U+002D Hyphen-Minus or U+2012 Figure Dash, or U+2014 Em Dash. Omitted characters restored: additions and substitutions Characters erroneously omitted or left incomplete by the engraver that are restored or corrected by the editor are shown in Less Than/More Than brackets. Note: The Less Than Sign also operates as an escape character in Hypertext Markup Language. When preparing text for presentation in web browsers, encode the < and > signs as < and > in the source to avoid problems. Unicode U+003C Less Than Sign and U+003E Greater Than Sign enclosing one or more letters. Alternate: U+2329 Left-Pointing Angle Bracket and U+232A Right-Pointing Angle Bracket.

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

235

ΔΥΣΤ(ΡΟΥ) Resolution of abbreviations, symbols and ligatures For the resolution of a symbol or abbreviation expanded by the editor use uppercase letters enclosed within parentheses to complete words abbreviated in the inscription. Unicode U+0028 Left Parenthesis and U+0029 Right Parenthesis enclosing one or more Greek capital letters that complete the abbreviation. ΔΙΚΑΙΟΥ (Κ retrograde) Explanation To explain any special aspects of the inscription the editor provides a lowercase description contained within parentheses. In the example, the font does not provide a retrograde K so it is thus explained. Unicode U+0028 Left Parenthesis and U+0029 Right Parenthesis enclosing the explanation. {Ν} Superfluous Letters in the inscription considered erroneous and superfluous by the editor, such as letters added in error by the engraver and excised by the editor, are thus bracketed. Unicode U+007B Left Curly Bracket and U+007D Right Curly Bracket enclosing one or more letters. Ε/ Possible reading Letters for which sufficient traces remain to print them in the text, but not enough to exclude other readings are so indicated. Letter immediately followed by Unicode U+002F Solidus. [[ΑΒΓ]] or 〚ΑΒΓ〛 Rasures Letters deliberately erased from a die or coin in antiquity are bracketed as described below. Two Unicode U+005B Left Square Bracket and two U+005C Right Square Bracket enclosing one or more letters. Alternate: U+301A Left White Square Bracket and U+301B Right White Square Bracket. / (or |) Line or section separator A single solidus mark or vertical bar is used to separate individual lines or groups of lines. While the Leiden Conventions specify the vertical line, the solidus is used more often for numismatic epigraphy due to the frequent appearance of vertical lines that represent various letters, especially in later Parthian inscriptions. Unicode U+002F Solidus, preceded and followed by a space. Alternate: Unicode U+007C Vertical Line. // or ⫽ (or || or ‖) Section separator A pair of solidus marks or a pair of vertical bars are used to separate groups of lines in an inscription; this is also used to separate the main inscription from letters in exergue or fields. While the Leiden Conventions specify the double vertical line, the solidus is used more often in numismatic epigraphy due to the frequent appearance of vertical lines to represent various letters, especially in later Parthian inscriptions. Two Unicode U+002F Solidus or one U+2AFD Double Solidus Operator, preceded and followed by a space. Note the double solidus operator is found in only a few fonts. Alternate: Two Unicode U+007C Vertical Line, or one Unicode U+2016 Double Vertical Line.

236

+ + + Trace letters, not restorable Plus signs are used to indicate traces of letters, insufficient for restoration. While the Leiden Conventions specify the plus sign, care must be taken to avoid confusion with the Greek ‘phi’ in fonts that offer the plus sign as a variant of ‘phi’ on coins; e.g., ΦΙΛΕΛΛΗΝΟΣ vs. ΦΙΛΕΛΛΗΝΟΣ Unicode: One or more U+002B Plus Sign, with spaces between \ΒΑΣΙΛ/ΕΩΝ Insertion The use of solidi as above indicate insertions above the line. They also are used to handle letters from overstrikes. Unicode U+005C Reverse Solidus and U+002F Solidus enclose the letters that were inserted above the line on the original inscription. vac. or vacat Space left empty The Latin vacat, “I am empty,” indicates where a space is left empty on the coin or where the remainder of the line has not been engraved. 3. The use of sigla suitable for documenting inscriptions only in decorated text (the following are included for completeness but rarely have been used in numismatics): ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΝ Parts read earlier now missing (underlined) An underline is used for letters in an inscription that have been broken or further damaged since first read and published and are thereby no longer legible. A possible application in numismatics is for legibility lost due to corrosion since first documented. To each underlined letter add a Unicode U+0332 Combining Low Line. The complexity of using Unicode combining glyphs with Greek letters exceeds the capability of a plain text Unicode document. Alternate: Most word processors and markup languages such as HTML are capable of displaying underlines. ḄẠΣΙΛΕΩΝ Ambiguous characters (underdotted) Dots beneath are used for letters damaged or otherwise unclear in the inscription or ambiguous outside of their context. The character is in evidence on the support but its exact identity is not clear. Use underlining for an inscription broken or further damaged since first read and published, and thus no longer legible. Unicode U+0323 Combining Dot Below. The complexity of using Unicode combining glyphs with Greek letters exceeds the capability of a plain text Unicode document. Most word processors such as Microsoft Word, and markup languages such as HTML, are capable of displaying underdots. 4. The use of non-Leiden sigla: ← ↑ → ↓ ⟲ ⟳ ↶ ↷ ↺ ↻ ⤸ ⤹ et cetera Directional Arrows Some editors use arrow glyphs to indicate directional aspects of inscriptions. Arrows can indicate reading from the inside or outside, the text direction of boustrophedon lines, a clockwise circular legend, among others. Unicode contains many arrow characters useful to graphically explain inscriptions. These are contained in Unicode ranges U+2190 – U+21FF Arrows, U+27F0 – U+27FF Supplemental Arrows-A, U+2900 – U+297F Supplemental Arrows-B, U+2B00–2BFF Miscellaneous Symbols and Arrows, and U+1F800–1F8FF Supplemental Arrows-C.

A NCI ENT I R A N IA N NUM ISM ATICS

237

BIBLIOGRAPHY Cayless, Hugh, Charlotte Roueché, Tom Elliott and Gabriel Bodard. “Epigraphy in 2017,” in Changing the Center of Gravity: Transforming Classical Studies through Cyberinfrastructure. Digital Humanities Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 1 (2009). digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/3/1/000030/000030.html Hartmann, John E. Greek Numismatic Epigraphy: A primer on the inscriptions of Greek coins. Chicago: Argonaut, 1969. McLean, Bradley H. An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods from Alexander the Great Down to the Reign of Constantine (323 B.C.-A.D. 337). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002. Perry, David J. Document Preparation for Classical Languages. Greentop Publishing, 2010. Sellwood, David. An Introduction to the Coinage of Parthia. London: Spink and Son, 1980 (2nd ed.). Unicode Consortium. The Unicode Standard, Version 12.0 — Core Specification. Mountain View, CA: The Unicode Consortium, March 2019. unicode.org Woodhead, A. G. The Study of Greek Inscriptions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

238