The cartoonification of Khusro II is complete

Very interesting, thank you! To my regret I don't have JSTOR access but I'll see if I can get somebody to hook me up — this is an area about which I very profoundly regret my lack of knowledge.

Fascinating — much obliged to you for your efforts in locating those excerpts. I sadly think I'm rather unequipped to comment here, having no knowledge of these matters whatsoever — if, as is evident, totally orthodox-looking фs are attested in the Bactrian context, I'd agree it seems prima facie peculiar for one of such variant appearance to show up on the countermark. But there's so much surrounding background here we'll never know.

I'm definitely not qualified to comment on Schnädelbach's piece. As noted, he seems to take the "фOPO" reading directly from Göbl, and he explicitly connects it to "Phromo Kesaro". The key question, I suspect, is what evidence is resting on what other evidence here (which isn't at all clear from the article, but is perhaps elementary to the experts) — if Phromo Kesaro is fully attested elsewhere (Schnädelbach notes he's "known from coins"), and the countermarked coins can be linked to him otherwise than by the countermark (e.g. by find location or whatever) then the "фOPO" reading seems like a safe bet: if the link is more tenuous, or is even something like the "Phromo" name derives from the countermark, then the situation gets a lot murkier. But like I said I'm much too uninformed to say anything smart here. Certainly if the great Göbl saw a ф in the countermark (for whatever reason) I'd be highly disinclined to disagree with him.

(is the non-standard ф you mention the letter at bottom-right of the right-hand image which looks like a ∅ without the central part of the line? Very interesting).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

In case it's helpful, I'm uploading a photo of another coin with a better counter-stamp, along with a CU of the stamp, both right side-up and upside-down:

 

JSTOR now gives away free ultra-restricted accounts. This feature lets you read just six articles a month. (You can read the same articles over and over.)

If you have ever wanted JSTOR access you should sign up. The article limit can be pretty frustrating when you are actively researching something. I am sure JSTOR expects you to upgrade. The limit is tolerable if you only occasionally need something.

 

Entirely new information to me! Thank you very much for making me aware of this.

 

Actually, Schnädelbach does not say this reading comes from Göbl. His actual statement is:
"Humbach identifies a very similar countermark (Göbl 59, PhOR,after 686), as one belonging to the ruler Phromo Kesaro who is known from coins as well."

As I read Schnädelbach, the Göbl reference here is to a similar mark not having the final "o." It is apparently illustrated in Göbl 59, and there Göbl dates the coin bearing said mark to after 686 AD. According to Schnädelbach, Humbach and Göbl do not agree on the dating of the coins struck for/by Phromo Kesaro; Humbach opting for 680 to 700, but Göbl placing him after 745 AD. It would appear that if Göbl dates the PhOR mark to sometime after 686, but presumably not three quarters of a century later, then Göbl did not associate the mark with Phromo Kesaro. That sits better for me inasmuch as I was having trouble seeing how PhOR or PhORO was related to Phromo. Nonetheless, Schnädelbach does make that leap.

The best example of this mark I was able to find is on a coin of Hormizd IV from a link at the zeno.ru site: https://www.zeno.ru/showphoto.php?photo=37833

Here is that mark:

In this example it appears to me that there is a gap between the initial "o" and the Bactrian (þ) š . While it is debatable that the gap is as large as it is between other letters, it is not what we expect for the Bactrian Phi, as that letter appeared to us in the Rabatak inscription. I am dubious of the reading PhORO, and would submit OšORO or O šORO, whatever either of those might mean. But given the other examples of this lettering, and my incapacity in Bactrian language, neither do I want to make too much of a single clear example. So I will give you the data and leave it here.

 

Thanks for this tip, @EdSnible! I immediately joined.

 

I didn't look at them for a long time, but here are my coins with this countermark, all three of them, that I acquired from one seller in a short period of time (Autumn 2014), probably been together in one bunch.

They are all three Hormizd IV imitations, with one or two countermarks, neatly in the margin. No conquerors obliterating vanquished foes in their faces or throats - showing who was the boss.

In the past, I fell for Dougsmit's phoro=tribute or tax argument, and I still think it might be something like that: one mythical animal countermark symbolising a tribal identity, and one of simple lettering, an administrative countermark meaning 'good' (like the 'jaz' of contemporary muslim coinage) or Value 10 (I'm saying that because of the likeness between Oshoro and the Arabic for 10, 'ashara). This is all very tentatively.

Here are the 'Oshoro' countermarks arranged in a row.



I'm sure these are five letters, no phi is there.

And the coins, typical silver imitations of Sasanian drachms. 31-32 mm, 3.45-3.69 gr.

 

I think the "animal" counter stamps are actually heads profiles, facing left:

 

You are absolutely right, see my third coin, that’s the most clear head.