Unusual Reverse on Persian Achaemenid AR Siglos: Incuse Archer w/ Dagger?

I picked this Persian AR Siglos up a couple of weeks ago, and have been trying to decide what to make of the reverse (that's why I bought it). I can't find any other example with quite this style, though I may be missing something. It appears to be an incuse design, possibly depicting the same imagery as one finds on the front of these (king with bow, dagger), though rather crudely. Seen side-by-side, as in the attachment, they look rather like mirror images of each other, the obv and rev. Perhaps I'm just seeing banker's marks and my mind is playing tricks on me. Has anyone seen something like this before? I know the incuse punches occasionally have imagery inside, but this seems different. Any thoughts? Thank you

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I see the same thing you do, but I can't help you out. Sorry.

 

Well, it helps to know I'm not completely crazy!

 

We collect 2000 + year old coins. Are you sure we're not crazy?

 

Lol, crazy, but not completely​ crazy !!

 

Huh? ... funny, because my Running-man coin has a fairly dramatic reverse, but it doesn't seem to be associated with the obverse? (you should check a bunch of other examples and see if there is a correlation) ...

 

Now THAT one I do recognize from searching auction results, etc. Very nice, stevex6! (Wanna trade, lol!?) I suspect mine may just be D-shaped countermarks in a position that creates an illusion. That would also explain the "bulgey" obv appearance. No other examples in any of the usual places one would look, so this was sort of a last effort to see if it could be a type someone has seen before.

 

Curtis - the "dagger" you are seeing on the reverse is a banker's mark and not a part of the original design. Although it is very off center, the king appears to be carrying a dagger. It looks like Carradice Type IV C, from the time of Artaxerxes II to Artaxerxes III, circa 375-340 BC

 

Ah, thank you very much! That helps me quite a bit.

 

Much more experienced numismatists than myself have pondered the significance of these incuse stamps, and I'm aware that some of them have symbolic significance. But I have to wonder if in some cases they're just the image of a purely utilitarian device meant to hold the flan in place as it was being struck - that in fact, some of the sigloi are uniface coins.

 

=> you're probably correct JA => I'm pretty sure that the reverse is merely the outline of a dirty ol' stick used to perform the incuse "squish"

 

All I'm suggesting is maybe - sometimes. A lot of those incuse stamps look like some sort of corrugated surface to which the flan could adhere while the obverse was being struck. But some do suggest a symbolic meaning.

 

Some of them do quite clearly have iconography (there are variants with a king's head, flowers, animals, etc.) and deliberately contoured ones like stevex's above, but usually they were just oblong punches. Even those seem to be more than just a striking surface, though (while some do look like they were just struck on something hard). I don't know the history of it, but there was clearly variation over time

 

They were perhaps evolving into fully-fledged reverse designs.

 

Maybe some kind if brokerage error?

 

That is how reverses progressed. All started as punches then moved to designs. For some reason, the Achaemenid Persians were the last to make this move, as the greeks had done so in just a few decades after beginning coinage. Why the Achaemenids took so long we may never know.

 

I'll go the opposite way and ask why a culture that avoided using any of the propaganda or other side values of coinage even bothered to make the minor changes they did to the design. Coins in Persia were made as spenders not the multipurpose objects we see in some cultures. Coins with reverses would be harder to make and people like money that they know and trust. A fair question might be, "Why bother?"

 

True, the chinese did not add markings to the reverse of their cash until the turn of the millenium probably for the same reason. However, you would think they would see the greek coins, and wish to appear similar. However, indian coins also did not strike the reverse as well. But, since the persians did adopt "western" style coinage, i still find it odd they did not follow the rest of the western world technologically, rather stuck with the technology they inherited from Lydian in the 7th century.

 

While studying these oddities, watch also the development of legends on coins. It took quite a while for authorities to add even a few letters telling where the coin was from or who was king. All this peaked when Trajan issued large coins with tiny letters naming all the possible reasons you might be glad he was the emperor albeit in abbreviated codes. Obviously most people not being able to read had an effect on this but it developed in similar patterns to the technical ones.