Tyre, AE13, 124/123 BC

Here’s an autonomous city issue of Tyre dating to the late 2nd century BC.



Phoenicia, Tyre, AE 13, Year 3 (124/123 BC, Lindgren III 1461ff. Laureate Head of Melqarth Left/Palm tree. Fine. Size: 13 mm.

I don’t know much about this coin, but I’ve managed to piece together a few pertinent pieces of the puzzle.


Tyre regained its independence from the Seleucid Empire in 126 BC, at which point the autonomous city coinage began its run. In 65 BC, Pompey incorporated Phoenicia as the Roman Province of Syria, but Tyre was allowed to keep its independence as a “civitas foederata”, and semi-autonomous city coinage continued to be produced until the first quarter of the 2nd century AD.

Melqarth was the tutelary deity of Tyre, and he makes his appearance on the Tyrian silver shekels right around the time the city is freed of Seleucid control. Melqarth is featured on the bronze coinage as well, but there are a number of autonomous and semi-autonomous bronze types, many of which exhibit Tyche as well.

I don’t know if this coin is scarce, or perhaps even rare, but it’s the only example of Lindgren 1461ff that I’ve come across. As pricey as the shekels of this period are, they seem to be far more readily available than any of the bronze. This is the example on Wildwinds, which gives us a clearer picture of the reverse design…

NOT MY COIN

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Nice coin. Great information. I have one from Tyre I got recently:

AE20
OBV: Turreted head of Tyche to right, palm branch behind
REV: Galley to left, prow terminating in volute, aphlaston at stern, NA (= 76/5 B.C.) and Tyre monogram above over IEΡAΣ [AΣNΛON] in monogram above, Phoenican letters below
Struck 76-75 BC
7g, 20mm
BMC 26

 

nice one JA, im tyreless at the time.

had no clue who "Melqarth" was, interesting.

 

Thanks for posting that coin, Bing. I've only given the Tyre coinage a brief look, but it seems to me that Tyche is more common on the bronzes. Melqarth appears on the shekels exclusively, but only a few of the bronze types. I wonder why that is?

 

This coin arrived today. Here are my own images.



Tiny little thing at AE13, but it definitely floated my boat to have a coin arrive in the mail after a summer of abstinence.

 

Your image is much clearer. How about the reverse?

 

Well, the reverse is on the first image - it's pretty worn. I realize that my pics aren't great - I'm putting together a new set-up with diffuse lighting and a tripod, so I'll be re-imaging all my coins soon.

 

I guess Melqarth was the Phoenician incarnation of Heracles, the hero-god.



I'm thinking it would make a great name for a big dog.

 

I have heard of that association, but I believe its more a Roman story. Melqarth is a much older tale originating from the middle east than the Herakles tale. My opinion is Melqarth is a type of demi-god, and the Romans simply associated him with Herakles so they can understand him.

Btw, your coin is not rare John, its just a lot of these small coins from eastern Med do not have a lot of followers, so many are sold in group lots. A shekel of Tyre, due to its large silver and notoriety, is always going to be separated out. I have seen coppers like yours in mixed group lots with Judean bronzes. Not saying its COMMON, but I have seen a few examples before.

 

OK, thanks for the clarification Chris! I didn't really think it was rare, and it doesn't matter to me one way or another. I'm more interested in acquiring some of this late 2nd-century/early 1st-century BC stuff as tangential collections to the Nabataeans. I also want a few pieces from Ashkelon and Judaea/Jannaeus. Eventually I'll get around to a Tyrian shekel, but not yet.

 

No problem. Btw, I wasn't saying I didn't like the coin, or find this area fascinating. I really do wish I had more time/money to focus on it, but my heart keeps pulling me back to Central Asia/Persia most of the time. I don't even think I have looked at the boxes of Nabateans I have for quite a while.

I really do think that a dedicated collector of coins from this area of the world can find some fascinating coins and new discoveries still. THat isn't very possible for many areas of ancient coins any longer.

 

That's OK - you stay on your side of the fence, I'll stay on mine.

 

=> man, I'm gonna go out and get myself a dog tomorrow!! (Melqarth rocks!!)

Ummm, I'm actually thinking that Melqarth should get together with this sassy lil' number from the Kushan Empire ... hey, I'm just sayin'

 

You need some Kushan for the pushin'!
I'm sorry, that was inappropriate. I'll delete it if anyone objects to it...

 

ahaha ... yah, non_cents, like I'm gonna make a fuss!! ...

=> I'm not wearing any pants!!

 

They would rock the house.

 

=> burn it down!!

 

In this case, it started with the Greeks, who would sync gods from other lands with theirs.

Heracles was identified with the Phoenician god Melqart (Melqarth is another spelling), and over time they were culturally synchronized, with Melqart taking on most of what Heracles did over time, while his older titles were quietly supressed and/or forgotten.

 

Quite right - I had it backwards. Here's a pertinent entry from the Ancient History Encyclopedia...

http://www.ancient.eu.com/Melqart/

If he had no anthropomorphic appearance before Hellenistic influence, however, the portrait we're looking at on the coin is, in fact, a variation of Hercules.

Here's a question, though: is the portrait on my coin really Melqarth? Melqarth is depicted very differently on larger denomination bronzes of the period, and on the Tyrian shekels. He has much thicker, more masculine features...



You can find this portrayal of Melqarth-qua-Herakles going back to Siculo-Punic issues. The bust on my coin does not resemble any other portrait of Melqarth I've seen. It has thinner, boyish features. Who is it?

 

In fact, I don't think this is an autonomous city issue at all. I believe it's an earlier Seleucid piece, possible Antiochus IV. It may have been found in a hoard of autonomous coins, and therefore attributed as such, but the portrait is much closer to various Seleucid renditions of their kings. Some more sleuthing is in order.