A curious case of confused coins for cataloguing

Hi all

It’s been a little while since I have posted – it has been very busy at both work and personally, so I haven’t had a lot of time to post, and have only had time to do some quick CT reading on my phone before falling asleep at night.

For those that know me, I like to put a bit of thought into my frameworks for how I categorise and present my coins. And by categorisation, I don’t mean technical categorisation (which I like to confirm, but is not a focus for me) – I mean categorisation by time period, and/or state/nation/cultural group.

This has served me well to date, particularly given my original focuses., For ancients, at this stage I have:

· Ancient Greek states – 600 to 30BC
· Roman Republic – 509 to 27 BC
· Roman Empire – 27 BC to 395 AD
· Western Roman Empire – 395 AD to 476 AD
· Eastern Roman Empire – 395 AD to 1453 AD

The above reflects some changes I made as I went, pivoting as information became clearer to me.

But… I have hit a bit of a snag.

I present two coins, that either stretch or break my above system. Unfortunately, these coins don’t know what they are , and therefore don’t sit neatly in my categories .


Kings of Cappadocia, Ariarathes VII Philometor AR Drachm. Eusebeia-Mazaca, uncertain RY, 116-101 BC. Diademed head to right / ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΡΙΑΡΑΘOV ΦIΛOMHTOPOΣ, Athena Nikephoros standing to left, with spear and shield; ΓAI monogram to inner left; uncertain date in exergue. Cf. Simonetta, Coins 1, 2b and 15; cf. Simonetta 4-10. 4.01g, 17mm, 1h.


Is this coin Persian? Or is it Greek? Or is it both and neither? I’m actually leaning towards Greek, given it was minted between 116 and 101 BC, meaning they were pretty well Hellenised by that point, despite their roots.

But, if I don’t, I will need to create a new category. Perhaps Hellenised Kingdoms? Hellenistic states? Or perhaps expand my current category to Greek and Hellenistic states?

I don’t know… all very annoying.

Here is the second coin that is causing me (and by me, I mean my system) some concern.



Seleukis and Pieria, Antioch AR Tetradrachm. In the name and types of Seleukid king Philip I Philadelphus. Pseudo-autonomous issue, uncertain date, circa 47-13 BC. Diademed head to right / Zeus Nicephorus seated to left; ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΥ to right, ΕΠΙΦΑΝΟΥΣ ΦΙΛΑΔΕΛΦΟ to left, monogram to inner left; [Caesarean Era date] in exergue; all within laurel wreath. Cf. RPC I 4127-4149; cf. McAlee 4-28; cf. Prieur 4-26. 14.79g, 26mm, 12h.


Ok, so this is supposedly a pseudo-autonomous issue. But I don’t believe it is, as it is after it was annexed by the Roman Republic in 64 BC. While Rome did provide some autonomy to other annexed kingdoms, the Seleucids were far too toxic and volatile to allow any sort of autonomy.

With that in mind, when it comes down to it, this is a Roman Republic coin. Even though it is struck in Greek style, and no doubt for use in Syria only, it is a Roman Republic coin. I know some people like to include a “Roman Provincial” category, but it doesn’t quite appeal to me.

I’m keen to hear thoughts and musings regarding my very serious and existential coin crisis .

Cheers

AC

 

Thanks Doug, that's good advice, and certainly works for all the successor kingdoms.

But... I still think it gets murkier as you move on in history.

For example, does that still work for all hellenistic states and hellenstic influenced states? Can they all be categorised as "Greek Kings"?

A few come to mind, like Cappadocia, Pontus, and Yavanarajya. Are they really Greek kings? Maybe?

And what about other coins, that are struck in Greek style, but clearly under Roman rule - like the Illyrian cow & calf drachm? Struck in Greek style, under Roman rule. I guess that would have to be Roman Provincial?

And if the Illyrian cow & calf drachm is a Roman Provincial, that probably makes Seleukis and Pieria tetradrachm Roman Provincial as well.