Hello. I have just purchased a Carradice type II siglos (5.1g - 15mm) with unusual stylistic characteristics. The oddly curved bow is low, which puts the upper tip at eye level with the shooter. The lower tip is below the knee. Both legs are covered with one continuous row of folds and the reverse incuse is large and round. I can't find one like it and I hesitate to ask why; but, here goes, why?
I noticed that one when it was listed. If it is genuine, it is certainly an outstanding example! Although I was attracted to its centering and detail, I chose not to pursue acquiring it partly because the weight was a little low -- but mostly because in a few different ways it just appears dissimilar to the myriad of other examples. I scrolled slowly through about 400 full-siglos Type II on ACS, and didn't see even one with similar style/design/features. Of course the "Type II" issues were no doubt struck from a very large number of dies, but... this one just seems... to my eyes... a little off. (Likewise, to my eyes, the reverse punch has a degree of dissimilarity.) Although I'm fairly familar with Achaemenid coinage and have owned a handful of them, I don't pretend to be an expert. I'm quite curious to see other opinions by those more knowledgeable.
Hello @Arthur Chrysler. Welcome to CoinTalk. Whenever I am trying to authenticate a coin, I search the following web site, for examples of the coin type. https://www.acsearch.info/
Thank you for the tip. It's an awesome site, with so many examples, but still no matches. I couldn't even find a match for the large round incuse punch!
That's a little low, but close to where it should be. I would call it hopeful news. See the opening paragraph, written by Joe Sermarini, at this web page: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=siglos Especially note this sentence: "Purity was at first issue 97-98% but by the middle 4th century was 94-95%."
Thanks for the link to Forum. Unfortunately, my siglos is about 100 years too old to parallel the 94% purity. Considering the 5.1g weight (a little light), and 93.5 purity (a little low), and the design peculiarities (a little off), I think that I am 100% satisfied with this one-of-a-kind beauty!
I found this article that may shed some light on this particular token: The "Archers" of Darius: Coinage or Tokens of Royal Esteem? – Cindy L. Nimchuk Vol. 32, Medes and Persians: Reflections on Elusive Empires (2002), pp. 55-79 (25 pages) Published By: The Smithsonian Institution Abstract This article reconsiders the traditional view that the Achaemenid imperial coinage bearing emblems of the Royal Archer (in gold darics and silver sigloi) was instituted by Darius I primarily to serve economic needs as a mode of payment for mercenaries in the west. Traditionally, the Achaemenid Archers are thought to be direct functional successors of the Lydian Croeseid Lion-and-Bull bimetallic coinage. Here, by contrast, the communicative and ideological aspects of the Archers are emphasized over the economic. Reassessment of the state of our knowledge of the introductory phases of the Archer series and of the weight ratios in the Achaemenid system suggests that, unlike the Croeseids, these coins were not initially intended to facilitate monetary exchange. Furthermore, iconographical analysis of the Type I and Type II Archers designed in the reign of Darius I shows the force of the messages these items conveyed as tokens of wealth, power, obligation, identity, and protection. The primary intended recipients of these messages were, the article argues, Persian elites in Asia Minor, with non-Persian elites as a secondary audience. The Archers can thus be considered as part of the system of royal gifting from the king to his nobles that reinforced symbolic relationships by offering tokens of value well beyond the mere guaranteed weight and content of the metal. Rethinking the question of the balance among ideological, political, and economic elements of the Archers provides new perspectives on early coinage and early Achaemenid history.
@Arthur Chrysler Did you return it? I either saw it or its twin sibling on eBay as a new listing this morning.
Thanks for the message. I am selling it as a "possibly unpublished siglos." When I took pictures for the listing, I noticed clear signs of crystallization which is evidence of the passage of time, isn't it? I started the bidding at $500.00, hoping that those in the know will end up paying what its true value is. In the meantime, I am delighted to have this strange siglos in my collection!
