Another of my recent wins from Pars Coins' auction: Parthian Kingdom, Mithradatkart mint. AE dichalkoi (2.26 g, 15 mm). Phraates IV (38-2 BC). Obverse: Diademed bust of Phraates IV left, pellet border. Reverse: Uncertain object and Mithradatkart mintmark, badly blundered and meaningless "Greek" text around. Sellwood 51 type. This coin: Pars Coins Auction 7, lot 125 (July 14, 2020). (Note: Historical section below contains reused text from an older post by me. Reduce, reuse, recycle.) Phraates IV had a fair amount of interaction with the Roman world, and thus we know more about him than many other Parthian kings. Phraates was one of the thirty-plus sons of the Parthian king Orodes II (57-38 BC). Orodes had made clear that he considered his favorite son Pakoros his intended successor; however, Pakoros was killed in 38 BC while leading a Parthian incursion into Syria and Asia Minor. Distraught, Orodes now declared that Phraates would be his successor instead. Phraates, unfortunately, proved to be a cruel and power-hungry man. He promptly murdered his own father, then consolidated his power by killing all thirty-or-so of his brothers and their families. Mark Antony launched an ill-fated invasion of Parthia through Media Atropatene (Azerbaijan) in 36 BC; this would ultimately lead to a peace treaty with Rome whose terms were fulfilled in 20 BC. As part of the terms, Rome received the military standards and prisoners who had been captured from Crassus and subsequent Roman commanders. Among the gifts given to Phraates was a beautiful and charming courtesan named Musa. She would soon work her way into Phraates' favor, becoming his wife. Unfortunately, Phraates' seizure of power through parricide had set a bad precedent, and in 2 BC Musa and her son Phraates V or Phraataces (Little Phraates) would murder Phraates IV and take power for themselves. I bought this coin because it is better preserved than usual for Parthian bronzes, but also because of the mysterious reverse type. There are a number of published varieties of Phraates IV dichalkoi with reverses featuring a badly blundered Greek legend, Mithradatkart mintmark at right, and various objects at left, including a pomegranate, a wheel, amphora, small tree or plant, etc. (You can see some of these varieties at http://www.parthia.com/pdc_ballen_6.htm ). But none of these seem to match this piece, and I can't figure out what the object is supposed to be. If anyone has any guesses, or knows any similar specimens, I'd love to hear from you. Meanwhile, please post your coins of Phraates IV, or whatever else is relevant.
That's is a great looking coin!....I've had a dig around for the last 1/4 hour and can't find anything similar!....You mention a tree or plant but I've been unable to find a reference coin?...Do you have one?..... The closest for me without having a visual reference of the tree would be a bad depiction of the altar but it really doesn't seem to fit!...I'll keep looking and see what I can find,,,, Here's a Mithradatkart mint coin.... Vardanes I (40-47 AD) AE Chalkous 11mm/1.8gr.. Obverse- Bust left with short beard, wearing diadem and spiral torque; hair in three distinct waves with earring visible; diadem pendants shown as three lines; circular border of pellets. Reverse- Monogram ΜΤΘ; legend as dashes Mint- Mithradatkart-Near modern Askabad in Turkmenistan. Ref- Sellwood 64 type variant (ΜΤΘ monogram) This is quite a rare type
I have looked on the various sites dedicated to Parthian Coins....its definately a 51 type....and I can makeout the Mithradatkart mint mark....the object to the left....my best guess would be a bowcase. These are interesting and varied for sure. The reverses depict a wide array of symbols. Here is my coin from the same auction... Phraates III ca. 70/69-58/57 B.C AE Tetrachalkous Mithradatkart Sellwood 38.21
Thanks @Spaniard and @DBDc80 for you input. I did a quick look for S.51 type bronze reverses with the Mithradatkart mintmark and didn't find any photos of the type with "a small tree" (S.51.52), but here's what I found: The middle coin features a janky-looking animal that barely resembles a stag (51.53) and looks even less like a lion (51.51). The last coin with the "diadem" is interesting, because Sellwood does list a coin with the Laodicea mint-symbol (51.55), but of course without the Mithradatkart symbol. Since it makes no sense to have two mismatched mintmarks on one coin, this is presumably not the Laodicea mintmark but rather something else, maybe a diadem. A bow case would be a reasonable reverse for a Parthian coin, but I just don't see it on my coin. Here's a few Parthian reverses with bow cases that I found: None of these really looks that much like my coin. After thinking about it further (and reviewing a lot of Parthian bronze coins), my best guess is that it may be a herm. But I still don't feel at all certain of that. Any other viewpoints are welcome.
I agree that the symbol to the left doesn't seem to fit with anything I've seen?.... And I've pretty much viewed the same as you....IMO the coin is a lovely example of an Unpublished type?!.......'Ref herm'....It's a possibility? Show me something?
Very interesting work Parthicus, thank you for sharing! Palm branch or small tree (1), Agora 26, 48, S.51.52? "Circle" (2); pomegranate (3) (starveling) lion, S.51.51 (4); stag, S.51.53 (5) (CNG 402, 373) There are many other symbols or objects on the reverses of Mithradatkart bronzes for Phraates IV. For example (6 – 10) Regarding what I see on your coin (11), the only thing that immediately comes to mind is a sugar loaf, it is one option among many.
Thanks @Alwin for your post, you found a few nice S.51 Mithradatkart bronze types that I missed. Your suggestion about the sugar loaf is interesting, the object on my coin does somewhat resemble one. I do have a question: were sugar loaves like that in use at the time? My understanding is that sugar was rather rare in the ancient world, with mass production of sugar not really ramping up until plantations were started in the New World, and most ancient cooking used honey or fruits for sweetening. Thus, with sugar a rare (or possibly non-existent) commodity, it wouldn't be cast into large loaves. I think more research is needed (which is probably my favorite conclusion!).
Vers 510 avant J. C., les Perses envahirent l'Inde. Ils apprirent à y connaître le sarkara indien et décidèrent de développer la culture de la canne à sucre sur les bords de la Méditerranée orientale. Et ce fut un grand succès ! Tous les peuples du Moyen Orient se sont immédiatement rués sur ce sucre perse. Les Perses, qui ont toujours eu le sens des affaires, se sont immédiatement octroyé le monopole de la culture de la canne à sucre et réservé l'exclusivité du commerce du sucre. Mais sur les navires et caravanes qui apportaient le sucre aux acheteurs, s'organisa aussi toute une contrebande autour de la plante elle-même, tant et si bien que la canne à sucre fut bientôt cultivée de la vallée de l'Indus à la mer Noire, et du Golfe Persique aux confins du Sahara. Vers l'an 600, les Perses parvinrent à améliorer considérablement la cristallisation du sucre. Ils coulèrent la masse liquide dans des formes coniques, donnant ainsi naissance à ce qu'on appelle un 'pain de sucre'. Les Perses le nommèrent « Tabarseth ». Cela leur conférait ainsi une nouvelle avance sur la concurrence. Mais pas pour longtemps. Source: http://tiensesuiker.schawkdigital.com/static/fr/sugar/menu_historysugar
