A Drachm by any other name....

Discussion in 'Ancient Coins' started by Finn235, Dec 31, 2018.

  1. Orielensis

    Orielensis Well-Known Member

    The Elymaean AE coins minted under the Arsacid dynasty are commonly referred to as drachms. If I understand correctly, the most plausible current theory is that after the Parthians conquered Elymais and turned it into a vassal state, these coins replaced the earlier silver drachms while keeping the same system of denominations (explained by van't Haaff 2007, p. 18). Here is an example of such a bronze drachm:

    Elymais – Orodes V AE drachm.png
    Kingdom of Elymais, Orodes V, late 2nd–early 3rd c. AD, AE Drachm. Obv: Bearded bust of Orodes left with double diadem and tuft of hair on top of head (a hairstyle also known as a "man bun"). Rev: Bust of Artemis with beaded tiara left. Ref: van't Haaff 18.1.1-2A. 13 mm, 2.6g. Ex Numismatik Lanz, Munich.
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Sulla80

    Sulla80 Well-Known Member

    @Finn235 Excellent idea for a thread. A nice opportunity to experiment with a new photo setup - small plastic light box and USB microscope. Here's a favorite Parthian drachm from Vonones II AR Drachm from 51 AD - about 350 years newer than the OP drachm. I like this coin for its dark toning and forward facing portrait of a king of Parthia. For ~40 years (11-51 AD) Vonones had been king of Media Atropatene.

    Vonones for his short reign, gets this bland praise from Tacitus (12.14) written ~117 AD:
    "Vonones, then viceroy of Media, was called to the throne. No successes and no reverses entitled him to mention: he completed a short, inglorious and perfunctory reign, and the Parthian empire devolved upon his son Vologases."

    Vonones II.jpg
    Obv: Helmeted bust facing with short beard wearing diadem with loops at both sides; helmet with ornamentation horns and ear flaps. Royal wart on forehead; at each side six-pointed stars; border of dots.
    Rev: Beardless archer, seated right on throne; in right hand bow, monogram below bow; somewhat blundered Greek legend.
    Mint: Ecbatana
    Size: 3.5g; 20.1 mm
    Ref: Sellwood 67.1, Shore 368
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2019
  4. Clavdivs

    Clavdivs Well-Known Member

  5. EWC3

    EWC3 (mood: stubborn)

    Forgive me if I quibble about some details. Etymology is almost always guesswork, and I never was convinced by this grasping spits idea. At the most fundamental level of measurement, back maybe at 10,000 BC or earlier, a mina might well have indicated a man-days food, in grain. And that is roughly 500g. If you cup your hands and use them as a spoon – you will probably pick up a heap half that size. My hunch that was the ultimate idea behind the etymology – although it has got nothing directly to do with the value of coins, millennia later. That’s just my guess…..

    The 500g mina however did stick around – and was important in the Mediterranean just prior to coinage. There appear to have been 80 Aegina drachms of silver in such a mina. For some sort of political or economic reason Euboea had a short weight mina of just 70 Aegina drachms. Then along came Solon, who took the Euboean mina and rounded the drachms up to 100. That seems to be the origin of the Attic drachm. (c. 500g x 70/80 x 1/100)

    The Parthians and the early Sasanids do seem to follow the Seleucid and strike to Attic down as far a Peroz. The all of a sudden they got fed up with foreign western ideas and seem to have gone back to Persian measures. After Peroz the “drachm” seems to weigh close to 4.13g. The best explanation is they were striking a kind of “siglos” - 500g/120. But actually, they allowed a 1-drachm tolerance – so in practice - 500g/121. That again is just a best guess.

    The Indo-Sasanid issues seem to follow the late Sasanid 4.13g standard. How long they lasted is a bit of a mystery. John Deyell pointed out documents still mentioning their use in the 15th century as I best recall (the Phaiyda or some such)

    The very rare earliest Bull and Horsemen issues do seem most likely to me to be following the Islamic gold mithcal standard, c. 4.25g. And yes – that seems to come from in turn from the Seleucid or Alexander himself. (I mentioned this a while back and I note Michael Bates has since come to the same conclusion). But most Bull and Horsemen issues weight to the very ancient Hindu standard of the Mauryan punchmarked and indeed Indus valley weights (two or three thousand years earlier!) – thus c. 3.43g.

    As to the last drachm – well I suppose if you are willing to consider the matter etymologically, then:

    Drachm = Dramma = Damma = Dam are probably (?) all versions of the same word, and the copper dam of the Moghuls lasted right down to the 19th century. Of course seems likely to remember a (changed version) of the measure value - rather than the actual coin or its weight.

    Criticism sought, as ever!

    Rob T
     
    Trebellianus, Alegandron and Ryro like this.
  6. PipersSpring

    PipersSpring Celeste Jones Mining

    Thessalian League, AR drachm. 196-146 BC. 3.77 gr. 17.58 mm. ΓAYANA, laureate head of Apollo right / ΘEΣΣAΛΩN, Athena Itonia walking right, brandishing javelin and holding shield. Bunch of grapes in upper right field, Π-O Λ-Y across lower fields. BMC 4.42,36; cf Sear 2234.

    Such artistic ability and talent around 200 BC.
     

    Attached Files:

  7. dougsmit

    dougsmit Member

    A recurring problem in numismatic studies is when collectors or even scholars feel a need for a name for a coin and apply one that strikes them as possible to identify the coin whether or not the word would be recognized at the mint that produced the coin. The fact that Athens called its 4g. coin 'drachm' does not mean that Syracuse called its 4g. coin by this same name. For that matter, do we have solid evidence that Athens started using the name 'tetradrachm' for is 17g. product when the Archaic coins were first produced and continued with that name through the last 'New Style" issue? Certainly some of the many coins here were called by that name but how many are of that group and how many mean someone i the past 200 years decided they had no better answer and 'drachm' sounded more scholarly than 'coin'? Is the coin a quarter unit with four worth the unit or is it a drachm with four of them a tetradrachm. The same questions come up with other words - nummus, stater and follis come to mind - making some words mean little more than 'coin'. We can not always expect to know answers with certainty but we need to be careful not to put more effort in looking like we know than we do in knowing. I do not have a good and complete list of names of ancient coins that are applied certainly with good support from solid evidence. I would really like to know what each mintmaster that produced each coin shown in this thread called his product.
     
    EWC3, dlhill132, cmezner and 5 others like this.
  8. Curtisimo

    Curtisimo the Great(ish)

    Great thread and discussion so far and some really beautiful drachms!

    My favorite Greek-style drachm (my 2019 Saturnalia gift!)
    Menander_I_AR_Drachm_CSH.jpg
    Indo-Greek Kingdoms
    Menander I
    AR Drachm, Sagala(?) mint, struck ca. 165-130 BC
    Dia.: 20 mm
    Wt.: 2.46 g
    Obv.: BAΣIΛEΩΣ ΣΩTHPOΣ MENANΔPOY; helmeted head of king right.
    Rev.: Karoshthi legend, "Maharajasa tratarasa Menamdrasa"; Athena Alkidemos standing left, holding aegis on outstretched left arm, hurling thunderbolt with right hand, monogram at right.
    Ref.: Bop 16C


    My first Sassanid drachm (nice in-hand)
    IMG_5810.JPG
    Sasanian Empire
    Khusro II (AD 590 – 628)
    AR Drachm, BBA mint (court mint), Regnal year 30, struck ca. AD 619 / 620
    Obv.: Pahlavi script at left and right. Khusro bust facing, head right, wearing winged crown with star and crescent, inside double dotted border, crescent and stars at 3, 6 and 9 o’clock.
    Rev.: Date (left) and mint mark (right). Fire altar with two attendents, inside triple dotted border, crescent and stars at 3, 6 and 9 o’clock.
    Ref.: Göbl SN type II
    Ex Sallent Collection, Ex JAZ Numismatics, Ex Aegean Numismatics

    Khusro II: My First Tentative Step into a new Collecting Area
     
  9. cmezner

    cmezner do ut des Supporter

    Seleucid Kingdom, Antiochus I Soter, AE Drachm
    struck ca. 281 - 261 BC, Antioch on the Orontes
    14 x 16 mm, 4.30 g
    Ref.: Series 3, SC 351.1; HGC 9, 169
    Obverse: Diademed head of Antiochus right; border of dots
    Reverse: ΒΑΣΙLEΟΣ (ΑΝ)ΤΙΟΧΟΥ Apollo Delphios seated left on omphalos holding arrow and grounded bow; control mark to right
    upload_2019-1-6_20-15-4.png upload_2019-1-6_20-15-50.png
     
  10. dlhill132

    dlhill132 Member

  11. randygeki

    randygeki Coin Collector

  12. EWC3

    EWC3 (mood: stubborn)

    As I understand the best guess, this might have (theoretically) been a drachm in value, or a deben in weight, or indeed both (at full weight deben = c. 89g to 94g)

    Rob T
     
  13. EWC3

    EWC3 (mood: stubborn)

    Thanks - that link is a helpful effort. A pity there is no contact detail for the author

    Rob T
     
  14. EWC3

    EWC3 (mood: stubborn)

    Thanks for raising this here. I disagree that this is a problem. Adopting anything like a scientific approach demands we do do something just like that.

    Take an extreme example. I suspect when Homo Sapiens first came across Neanderthals they invented a name for them. Probably a bunch of names. But were any of those names “homo neanderthalensis”? Nope – they surely were not. Is that an argument for modern scientists to stop using that term? No – exactly because they have to have a name to carry on modern discussion.

    That is at essence the question we face with coins – although admittedly with coins it is a bit more complicated. A good few years back I suggested that the meaning of a medieval coin denomination “jital” be extended to cover a much bigger group of old coins. I explained exactly what I was doing when I did it. The name was being applied for to assist modern collectors, definitely not because it was universally applied in the medieval period.

    I immediately got criticisms from people who made just the point you do Doug. And also from others who wanted a different spelling. And even others who felt I pronounced it wrong! However, I also got support from people in numismatics, who understood what I was doing and why I was doing it. Perhaps most importantly Steve Album, but also folk at the BM etc. (I note now it even turns on on the denomination site Bob L linked to).

    Last year I got into a similar correspondence - about the use of denomination word “damma” in this new book

    https://www.amazon.com/Silver-Damma-qanhari-diminutive-600-1100/dp/8193829107

    The authors shared my view about such matters – in wishing to draw attention to a particular group of coins and give them an all embracing simple useful name. John Deyell had doubts about that idea, but I thought it a good plan, and although I have great regard for John’s opinions - I was still pleased when the authors stuck to their guns on that matter.

    It seems to me that really our difference here comes down to two contrary approaches. A scientific one vs a legalistic one. Now, I am not going go as far as to say “hang all the lawyers”, but I am going to object if they tend to obfuscate legitimate scientific approaches.

    On a separate matter. I agree with Grierson. An Athenian drachm theoretically weighs c. 4.37g. Now that is certainly open to debate, but I am very clear that it is wrong to say it weighs 4g. We can debate that another day maybe?

    many thanks for the criticism!

    Rob T
     
  15. dougsmit

    dougsmit Member

    No. You are being legalistic and not rounding off to a significant, whole number. The fact that the tetradrachm was given as 17g. suggests the quarter size would be a fraction over 4g. That is why I said 4g. rather than 4.000000g. The question was whether the Syracuse coin was a tetradrachm or a 20 litra piece.

    The scientific community realizes that names like “homo neanderthalensis” are for convenience and subject to change with future discoveries or reworking of old data. Few of the original "scientific" names survive intact. There is no such convention in the numismatic community and too many people take denomination names as a fact rather than an attempt to ease communication. I trust your new book explains why 'damma' was used and for what coins it is appropriate to be applied rather than just throwing it out there to be accepted.

    I tend to ignore anyone who argues about pronunciation of ancient terms. Certainly it is a field to study when specific to time and place but anyone who has met English speaking people from modern/historical London, Maine, Louisiana and Australia has to realize that people have been playing that game forever.
     
  16. Theodosius

    Theodosius Fine Style Seeker

    The issue is that people get confused and think that what WE call various size coins now is the same as what the people who MADE them called them.

    I think most new collectors ASSUME that this is the case, and then are surprised to learn that our names for certain coins are a relatively recent invention.

    It would be interesting to know what the makers called them.

    We do need clear names for things now in order to have clear discussions about them.

    John
     
    Orielensis and EWC3 like this.
  17. Finn235

    Finn235 Well-Known Member

    @EWC3 , regarding the Indo Sassanian coinage, there are many surviving inscriptions referring to various types of dramma, but the only one to be assigned to a physical, extant coin is the Adivaraha drachm of Bhoja I. I flipped back through Maheshwari last night, and the dated inscriptions mentioning the dramma start around 500 and stop around 1350.

    From my experience, the main Gadhaiya track seems to start at maybe a standard of 4.05g at its inception and drifts upward to maybe 4.3g, when it suddenly jumps to ~4.5g when the engravers dropped the line through the pupil of the portrait - this is also around the time that the purity drops from 80-90% to under 70%, then spirals down to about 15% - Maheshwari equates these last issues with the Inscriptional "Paruttha Dramma" given as being worth 1/8 of a regular dramma.

    Interestingly, the Sri Ha coinage varies so much that Maheshwari argues it to be a fiat currency, reckoned by count irrespective of weight or silver content.

    The final type, which developed from "Sri Ma" to the Adivaraha dramma stuck to a lower weight standard, finally settling at about 3.6g.

    I don't doubt that the word Dam is derived from Drachm, just like Dirham is - however, I reject the idea that a ~20g copper coin can be a continuation of a ~4.5g billon coin that ceased production about 200 years prior (from the end of the Gadhaiya to the time of Sher Shah) simply because it is named as such. Same reason I reject the claim that the Penny/Pfennig/Denier is a Denarius simply because it was named as such.

    But how rude of me, I forgot to post coins!

    Still working on my ~400 coin backlog, so bear with me.

    Gurjjar-minted Gadhaiya predecessors
    Indo Sassanian 1.1.2-1 22 4.15.jpg
    4.15g

    Indo sassanian 1.1.2-2 23 3.91.jpg
    3.91g

    Indo sassanian 1.1.2-5 21 3.92.jpg
    3.92g

    Indo Sassanian 1.1.6-1 23 3.98.jpg
    3.98g

    "Chavada" type (haven't taken weights yet)
    imgonline-com-ua-twotoone-583gPLlftd.jpg
    imgonline-com-ua-twotoone-0XzCjkMnCv.jpg imgonline-com-ua-twotoone-wjuNm5fNPivZ.jpg imgonline-com-ua-twotoone-MhW3PjLLkkVh.jpg
     
  18. Finn235

    Finn235 Well-Known Member

    Another interesting one to ponder on...

    Khwarezm kingdom, Afrighid Dynasty
    Sawashfan (Sawsafan, Sawrsafan, Shao She Fien)
    Fl. 750's
    AR Tetradrachm reduced to Dirhem standards (27mm, 3.17g)
    Bust of king right in ornate crown, Sogdian SWSPRN before
    King on horseback, raising whip, Chorasmian legend around MR'Y MLK S'YWRSPN (Sawashfan, King)

    Khwarezm Sawashfan AR.jpg

    This coin could arguably be called a tetradrachm, a drachm, and a dirhem! Originating in about the first century BC/AD as a ~13.5g tetradrachm, the weight was reduced to 6g by the start of the Afrighid dynasty, then further to about 4 grams, like the contemporary holdouts of the Hunnic drachms. By the 750s, the weight was further reduced to let these "reduced tetradrachms" circulate as dirhems - which they apparently did, as one of these coins was found in an 8th/9th century Viking hoard!

    But what did the good citizens of Khwarezm call these coins? Heck if I know!
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2019
  19. Carthago

    Carthago Does this look infected to you?

    How about a Roman Republican drachm?

    Anonymous Drachm, uncertain mint circa 225-214, AR (3.27g, 17.8mm, 6h). Laureate Janiform head of Dioscuri. Rev. Jupiter, holding sceptre and hurling thunderbolt, in fast quadriga l. driven by Victory; below, ROMA in exergue. Sydenham 67. Crawford 29/4. Historia Numorum Italy 335.

    Anonymous Drachm 29-4 Aste Bolaffi  PS 2018.jpg
     
  20. EWC3

    EWC3 (mood: stubborn)

    We can get few clues from surviving text (written by Narshakhi) mostly about the coins of Bukhara at about the same date (c. 775 AD). Writing in Arabic, he seems (?) to refer to versions of the coin you picture and call them "dirhems".

    He writes of other local coins of Bukhara at that time and called those local coins Ghidrifi, but also "dirhems". Actually from the types those were clearly derivatives of the Sasanid drachms. So I would say in one 'scientific' sense they were drachms.

    In the same way, I guess in a scientific sense these Sogdian pieces might well be classed with (reduced) tetradrachms - but I suspect the Arab speakers would actually call them "dirhems".

    But if so - I think it fair to say the arabic speakers would not call them dirhems because the coins were dirhems. More like, they would call them dirhems because they spoke arabic.....

    Rob T
     
  21. EWC3

    EWC3 (mood: stubborn)

    I agree the situation there is complicated. The prototype is later Sasanid, with a weight at around 4.13g Most of the early Indo-Sasanid weigh below that. In the middle period they seem to approach it, then as you say at the end they go higher

    Here is a pic of what I mean by middle period

    IMG_00813.jpg

    So its all a bit complicated and confusing. What we can say though is that about the time the Indo sasanid coins get close to c. 4.10 quite a lot of other issues in India do too. The Govinda Chandra gold coins, the silver coins of the Cholas etc. And these coins seem to be all called species of Gadyana (as I best recall) – thus it seems possible they were all actually following this c. 4.13g standard. There is no Hindu precedent for it I can think of.

    I agree. The argument however is that the word dam derives ultimately from the Indo-Greek drachm – which is about 1700 years prior. Two important things to bear in mind when evaluating this suggestion. Firstly - all the new work done by Fishman and Todd in the new book I linked to earlier. Secondly, contemporary with the big Moghul copper dams are (very) small Nepalese silver dams…….

    I agree that would be a poor argument. But the stronger argument that the denier actually derives from the denarius is this - at the reform of Charlemagne in the early 790’s, the weight of the denier was fixed at c. 1.7g and that it can be argued that that was quite deliberately fixed at exactly half the weight of Nero’s denarius at 3.4g.

    Actually I drafted a paper for the ANA magazine giving more details of that argument, but unfortunately it made no progress getting into print…….

    Rob T
     
    Finn235 likes this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page