Could I get someone who has been keeping up with the new wave of Parthian ID's to run through how what we are now calling the two coins below and the best guess dates for each? I thought I was keeping up when old Gotarzes was IDed as Sinatrukes but now we see coins that used to be Parthamaspates being old as Sanatrukes? (their vowel change and ?). Have they published the thoughts behind the current ID's? I gather now both Sellwood and Shore are considered worthless except we still use Sellwood numbers like 33.4 (first below) despite the fact that his associated ruler names have been changed twice. A summary would be appreciated if anyone has a handle on this.
This is indeed murky stuff. Parthicus has a better handle on this than I. Perhaps he’ll chime in. The reattributions were posited by Dr. G.R.F. Assar. His research was initially spread across multiple articles/periodicals, many included here: http://parthian-empire.com/articleListPage.php Some of it was published in a three part article in The Celator (December 2000, January 2001, and February 2001): https://community.vcoins.com/celator-vol-13-no-12-2/ https://community.vcoins.com/6239-2/ https://community.vcoins.com/celator-vol-15-no-02/ Assar had said, in a remembrance shortly after his friend David Sellwood’s passing, that he would complete the third edition of The Coinage of Parthia that Sellwood had been working on at the time of his death. Presumably that edition would have all of Assar’s reattributions. Maybe it will still happen, although I wonder if the Sylloge Nummorum Parthicorum, a multiyear project currently underway, may have stolen his thunder. In any event, the essay Assar wrote for the Numismatic Art of Persia: The Sunrise Collection, is the best encapsulation of his research – all in one place. The essay is entitled "Iran Under the Arsakids, 247 BC - AD 224/227." Thankfully Parthia.com has finally added a Sunrise column to its "Attribution Correlation Chart" at: http://parthia.com/parthia_corr.htm Out of frustration I had actually begun, some time ago, such a correlation chart for Sunrise. I’m pleased Parthia.com went ahead and posted one. Saves me the trouble of completing mine. However, as if to add to the confusion, Parthia.com's chart’s Sunrise equivalent to S.81 (Parthamaspates) is erroneously listed as “Sinatruces” instead of what Assar asserted in the article, “the anti-Roman Arsakid prince Sanatrukes, the nephew of Osroes I and the leader of the Parthian forces in Mesopotamia in AD 116.” To be clear: Sinatrukes (a.k.a. Sinatruces, the elder son of Mithradates I) and Sanatrukes (Sanatruces, nephew of Osroes I) are not the same individual.
Thanks. This will require some reading, I asked because the mail today brought these coins from the FSR sale but I bid and Frank sold them thinking of the old ID's so posting them here is not educational unless you read the above links. See the pretty coins. Too bad I don't know what they are yet.
Coin #1: Sinatrukes/Sinatruces (as per Assar), Sunrise 302 Sellwood 33.4 (Gotarzes I); Shore 113 (Gotarzes I) 93/2-70/69 BC (intermittently) Mint: Rhagae Coin #2: Sanatrukes/Sanatruces? (as per Assar), Sunrise 449 Sellwood 81.1 (Parthamaspates); Shore 423 (Parthamaspates) c. 116 AD Mint: Ecbatana Note: the question mark in the attribution of Sanatrukes is from Assar. In his essay which accompanies the catalog, he acknowledges that his attribution here is speculative and that “conclusive proof is lacking.”
@dougsmit : Bob L. has already given a good description of Assar vs. Sellwood/Shore attributions for your coins, there's not much for me to add there. For Sellwood type 81 (Parthamaspates/Sanatrukes), Assar's reasoning is as follows: Parthamaspates was acknowledged as king only at Ktesiphon (while the Romans were still hanging around) and doesn't seem to have had support in the Iranian highlands, while the anti-Roman rebel and Arsakid prince Sanatrukes was called by John Malalas "emperor of the Persians" and had his power base in Media, which includes Ekbatana where this drachm was minted. However, John Malalas wrote long after the events in question (6th century AD), and is not considered particularly reliable by most historians. Personally, I find Assar's argument fairly plausible, although as Assar himself states "conclusive proof is lacking". Sometimes we just have to live with uncertainty. I do think your characterization of Sellwood and Shore as "worthless" is much too harsh. Yes, further research has questioned some of their attributions, but that is the nature of any active research field- we must be prepared to challenge what we think we know. While there are a number of changed attributions, many others have remained unchanged (most of Mithradates II, Phraates II and III, Orodes II, Phraatakes and many others) and some are just a shift in numbering (the Artabanoses). And the Sellwood numbering system is still an excellent way or organizing Parthian coins, even if the attribution of type X to king Y may have changed since Sellwood wrote (39 years ago for the most recent edition)- I still consider any Parthian coin sold without assignment to the correct Sellwood type to be unattributed. Also, I just checked, and there is a seller on Vcoins selling a used copy of the Sunrise catalogue for just $69. I strongly urge you to buy it now- at that price, it's a steal.
Thanks. I note they are offering multiple copies so I wonder if it is being remaindered i preparation for a new edition.
I find it interesting how scholarship continues to evolve to shed new light on subjects once thought to have been fully and thoroughly researched. New archeological discoveries reveal minute amounts of data but each find seems to have the potential to make a huge impact on what we think we know. I'm amazed, really, at how precise some of our understanding of the past is. I made my way through the first two Assar articles and he makes very convincing points. I like Parthian coins and hope to acquire more of the coins and knowledge needed to enjoy them - I've got the Sunrise catalogue on the way. -d
I am not accustomed to buying high grade coins that show minute details of the engraving process so I took this opportunity to take some close ups of parts of the Sinatruces coin. These are larger images than usually posted here so those interested can click on these images and see things that may otherwise escape notice. I have said here before that I believe each of us should consider owning a microscope of some sort. This is why. These were taken with a single scope but I really refer a stereoscopic microscope for coin use. My scope is older than I am. whole coin Three letters from the upper left corner of the reverse shows interesting (to me) ways the letters were formed. I particularly like the B with dots, a straight bar and hashed curves. This frame is reduced in size as is my usual practice. It will enlarge a little if you click. Sinatruces' face was shot with five focus stacked images to provide front to back focus. This image is reduced but not as much as the first allowing you to see marks of the engraver that the man who made them never saw. Santa was not the first guy with eight tiny reindeer. Here are two of the hat deer up close and enlargeable. Yes there are scratches on the coin which show on this image but they are not visible with 'normal' magnification. I won't downgrade the coin for them.
Fascinating discussion (and excellent photos -- that deer tiara is very picturesque). If I could possibly tack on a question prompted by my reading this. Are there any ideas as to whether the Parthians themselves could identify and distinguish the ruler portraits, in the way we moderns are trying to do? It seems rather curious to me that different monarchs would strike different portraits (indicating, presumably, a desire to be identified as individuals), but everybody fell back on the Basilews Arsakou legend. Was it seen as a moot point in light of the (presumably) small size of the Greek-literate population?
I suspect the man on the street had a handle on how to tell one king from other recent ones but I have no idea how you could study this given the absence of primary sources. We really could use some comic plays like we have for the Greeks to shed light on such things that would not make history books (which we don't have either). It is not at all unusual for a king to use a generic name rather than what his mother called him. Even the Romans seem to have referred to them as Caesar rather than the name on their coins. Without photos, we have to wonder how many people could pick out the king from a passport photo grade image (no crowns allowed). For that matter, even with TV and newspapers, how many US citizens could label our Presidents of the last hundred years correctly? How many could name them? Trivia: Which US President was at one time a King? (Hint: Leslie.)
My copy arrived today. It was new and shrink wrapped. The seller offered a discount on multiple copies but I have no idea how many he has. When the book first came out, I was told that it would not be to my liking and I should not buy it (by a dealer who had seen it). At the issue price, that was absolutely correct. At $69+$17 postage, I believe the book is OK but I still have serious problems with it but have not read a single word of the text so I can not say whether the book will be educational enough to overcome the things I don't like. The big problem to my was of thinking is that this is just a record of a single collection of a very wealthy collector who had absolutely no use for cheap coins. It is filled with rarities including gold I have never seen. It is very weak in 'ordinary' coins even ihigh grades (99% of the coins are very high grade) . The Parthian section has a reasonable coverage of silver but no bronzes (zero!) or rarities that don't come in EF. The Sasanian section is weakest in the most common rulers with only 13 Khusro (Husrav) II including three gold and one rare silver with full facing bust. It is wonderful to see these but the 9 others will hardly help anyone appreciate the span of this huge coinage let alone catalog their collection. The Elymais section has five AE coins and 18 rare silvers. The Kushan section has two silvers, many gold and not a single bronze. The book should have been titled "The Precious Metal Numismatic Art of Persia". Do not buy it as a guide to the series listed in the contents. Many of the sections are just a few rarities and not a representative sample. The book is like an auction catalog of a very, very nice personal collection fleshed out by chapter head articles that I look forward to reading and should make the book worth much more than a simple auction catalog. That brings us to another matter. The book was published by CNG and has the usual CNG quality photos in actual size with highlights enlarged. There is a lot of blank space on the pages that could have been used for enlargements of the smaller coins but the better, usually larger, coins were selected for enlargement. The opportunity was missed when CNG did not list in the book how we could find all the digital images of the coins from their wonderful website. Then we could see enlarged versions of the tiny coins than really deserved better images than life size paper photos can provide. I would like to see this made a standard part of all print on paper books. Even the best photography loses something when shown life size on book grade paper. I have a lot of reading to do. Today, I am hopeful that I will find $86 worth of value in the text but by the time I finish reading, I suspect all the discounted copies will be gone. Should you buy one, too? Good question. I do not dispute this opinion (pending reading the text).
Note what they spent on postage. I would have sent them slower and cheaper but I am not a businessman. Spending 1/3 of the price of the book on domestic mailing makes little sense. It arrived safely and that is what counts.
As a Roman puppet "king", Parthamaspates never went as far as Ecbatana in Media to mint drachms there. The attribution of S81 series to Parthamaspates, which began in 1852 by John Lindsay, is quite unsafe. Please refer to my (G.R.F. Assar) chapter entitled "Iran under the Arsacids: 247 BC - AD 224/227" in the following: Numismatic Art of Persia. The Sunrise Collection. Part I: Ancient -650 to AD 650 Edited by: B.R. Nelson. Classical Numismatic Group (2011), pp. 112-171. For PDFs of my other contributions to the history and coinage of Parthia, see: www.parthian-empire.com
The attribution of S81 drachms and bronzes to Parthamaspates began with John Lindsay in 1852. I have found nothing in the literary sources to support the theory that this Roman puppet exercised power in Media (to the east of the Zagros Mts.). For Sanatruces/Sanatrukes we have, at least, something (in Malalas) which makes better sense than Lindsay's postulate.
Attribution to Parthamaspates began with John Lindsay (1852), "A View of the History and Coinage of the Parthians", pp. 105, 160, and Plate 64, no. 64.
Interesting discussion - thank you for all of the information. Here's a Sellwood 81.1 - which I am relabeling as Sanatrukes(?) son of Meherdates, AD 116 for others interested in the above references: John Lindsay (1852), "A View of the History and Coinage of the Parthians" as well as the reference to sixth century AD historian, John Malalas and his Chronicle. "In that year Meerdotes, emperor of the Persians who was Parthian by descent and the brother of Osdroes, emperor of the Armenians, began a campaign and came with a large force to make war on the Roman state. Accompanied by his son Sanatroukios, he captured cities and plundered many districts. While he was plundering the district of Euphratesia, he was thrown off his horse as he was riding. He was badly injured and died a natural death. When on the point of death, he made his son Sanatroukios “Arsakes”, that is emperor in his place; for in Persian “Torkim” is the translation for emperor. Sanatroukis, emperor of the Persians, continued to ravage Roman territory." - John Malalas Thanks for your suggestion, my copy arrived today (as mentioned by others, plastic-wrapped and new). With the impressive contributors, write-ups of history and coinage, rich bibliography, and beautiful coin photos, I am pleased to have this book.
