Coinage of the Caravan Kingdoms, pp. –
© The American Numismatic Society
XVII
A Die Study of the ‘Abiel’ Coinages of Eastern Arabia
Plates – Peter G. van Alfen
Introduction¹
At some point in the third century BCE, an eastern Arabian ruler began to produce marked imitations of the coinage of Alexander III (‘The Great’) replacing Alexander’s name in Greek on the reverse of the coinage with a formula in Aramaic consisting of the name Abiel plus the name of Abiel’s father; at least five individuals are mentioned, indicating there were several successive (?) rulers named Abiel.2 While the earliest Abiel coins bear a tolerably close stylistic resemblance to their Greek prototypes, and appear to have been made of good silver, the same cannot be said of several other subsequent series of Abiel coins that probably post date the earliest coins by several decades if not more. The style of these later series is clearly derivative, the silver content visibly reduced to that of billon, or eliminated completely in the case of bronze coins. Each of the Abiel series appears to have been made in reasonably large, but not vast numbers, with most of the series having a tripartite range of denominations. We do not possess evidence, as we do for the early South Arabian kingdoms (see Stein [Chp. XII]), that tells us what the eastern Arabians called their coins. Because of this, and because the size and weight of the coins generally approximate those of Alexander’s issues, Greek denominational terminology is used here: tetradrachm, drachm, and obol. The Abiel coinage has been well studied.3 D.T. Potts’ (, ) typologies have become the basic reference, while Olivier Callot (; [Chp. XV]) has offered the most recent comprehensive
. I thank Carmen Arnold-Biucchi, Oliver Hoover, but especially Michael C.A. Macdonald for comments on earlier drafts of this study. All short comings, of course, remain my own. I also thank D.T. Potts for permission to reproduce photographs from Potts (, ), and Julian Biber for his help with the images. . For the problems and terminology of ancient imitative coinage see van Alfen (). . Arnold-Biucchi (); Callot (, , ); Haerinck (, , b, ); Mørkholm (); Potts (, ); Robin ().
550
Peter G. van Alfen
revision of the problems set forth by Potts and others. Michael C.A. Macdonald [Chp. XVI] presents a new take on the wider context in which the coinage was produced; one of the most important conclusions of Macdonald’s study of the coins’ Aramaic inscriptions is that the Abiels were not kings, as has long been thought, but rather queens. This chapter compliments Macdonald’s work by presenting a die study of the Abiel coinage and by exploring the economic factors of this coinage vis-à-vis die statistics and weight standards.
1. Overviews and typologies
Before we turn to the die study itself, an overview of the typologies, dates, and classifications of the coins presented by Potts, Callot, and Macdonald is necessary in order to understand what follows.4 As part of his larger study of eastern Arabian coinages, Potts identified classes of coins either signed with the name Abiel or seemingly related to the Abiel coinages. Potts () organized his classes according to the Aramaic inscriptions, various symbols found on the reverse of the coins, and stylistic similarities; in his supplement he added additional, previously unrecorded classes designated with the “S” prefix. An overview of the dating, classes, and the findspot(s) of the coins as presented by Potts (, ) is found in Table . Callot’s (;[Chp. XV]) revised schema, found correlated with Potts’ classes in Table , is based on a study of the coins held in the Sharjah Museum in the United Arab Emirates, hoard evidence and excavation finds. As can be seen in Tables and , the date range for all the Abiel coinages offered by Potts is the early-second century BCE to the first century CE; Callot extended the date range to start c. BCE and to end in the second, or possibly in the third century CE. We shall return to the dating of the coins below. Macdonald’s focus on the epigraphic rather than stylistic and other aspects has produced a fresh arrangement of the coinage. His four Epigraphic Traditions (hereafter ET) organize the coins by discrete epigraphic traits probably representing separate chronological, geographical, or political milieux. The ordering of ET – does not necessarily reflect a chronological progression, but simply four distinct traditions. Within each of the ET, I have identified one or more discrete Numismatic Styles (NS) based on the non-epigraphic aspects of the coins. In some cases, e.g., NS ., ., ., (drachms), , and , the coins have no legends so do not strictly accord with Macdonald’s epigraphic ordering. However, the non-epigraphic aspects of the coinage make it clear that the coins are closely related to other coins that do have legends (e.g., NS ., ) and so should fall under the same rubric (e.g., ET ). Table presents an overview of the Epigraphic Traditions and Numismatic Styles correlated with Potts’ classes. Table : Potts Overview
Class Early second c. BCE S Denomination tetradrachm drachm obol tetradrachm drachm Metal AR AR AR AR AR Findspot(s) Mleiha Mleiha Mleiha Susa, Bahrain, Thaj, Jabal Kenzan, Hofuf Mleiha
Late second c. BCE II
. Mørkholm () and Robin () also offered typologies, but those have been superceded by the typologies offered by Potts, Callot, and now Macdonald.
XVII. A Die Study of the ‘Abiel’ Coinage of Eastern Arabia
551
Table : Potts Overview, continued
Class III IV V VI VII VIII IX First c. BCE-first c. CE S Denomination obol obol drachm obol obol obol drachm drachm tetradrachm drachm obol tetradrachm drachm obol tetradrachm drachm tetradrachm tetradrachm tetradrachm drachm obol tetradrachm drachm tetradrachm drachm Metal AR AR/BI AR BI BI BI BI BI AR/BI AR/BI AR/BI AR/BI AR/BI AR/BI BI BI BI AR/BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI Findspot(s) Mleiha Thaj, Jabal Kenzan, Hofuf, Mleiha Jabal Kenzan Thaj, Ayn Jawan, Jabal Kenzan, ash-Sha’ba, Hofuf, ed-Dur, Mleiha Hofuf, Jabal Kenzan Thaj ash-Sha’ba Thaj, Jabal Kenzan, Hofuf Mleiha Mleiha Mleiha Mleiha Mleiha Mleiha ed-Dur, Mleiha ed-Dur, Mleiha ed-Dur, Umm al-Qaiwain, Mleiha ed-Dur, Mleiha ed-Dur, Mleiha ed-Dur, Mleiha ed-Dur, Mleiha ed-Dur, Mleiha ed-Dur, Mleiha ed-Dur, Mleiha ed-Dur, Mleiha
S
XLIV XLV XLVI XLVII
XLVIII XLIX
Table : Callot Overview
Period A: second half of third c. to mid-second c. BCE Early Series: Period B: mid-second c. to first c. BCE Middle Series: Period C: first c. to second c. CE Late Series: Category A: Category B: Category C: First Type: Second Type: Third Type: Category D: Potts class XLVIII Potts class XLIV Potts class XLVII, XV Potts class XLVII (possibly early third c. CE) Potts class S-S Potts class XLVII Potts class II Potts class S
552
Peter G. van Alfen
Table : Overview of the ‘Abiel’ Coinages
NS . EG A.., A.., A., A.. A.., A.., B., B. EPIGRAPHIC TRADITION IMITATION . . . . . C. C. C. [GS] D...a, D... D...a, D...b, D...c . . . [NL] [NL] [NL] [NL] [NL] [NL] S/ S/ S/ S/ S/ S/ drachm drachm obol drachm drachm obol AR BI AR AR AR AR, BI horse protome trident behind throne trident behind trident behind throne throne radiating coiffure horse protome trident behind throne swirling coiffure swirling coiffure swirling coiffure horse protome trident behind throne horse protome trident behind throne; alif horse protome trident behind throne; alif II II II II S/ S/ tetradrachm drachm obol obol tetradrachm tetradrachm AR AR AR AR, BI AR AR, BI swirling coiffure swirling coiffure horse protome horse protome (trident) horse protome horse protome horse protome trident behind throne horse protome trident behind throne Potts II Denomination Metal tetradrachm AR Obv. features Rev. features Sign, Symbols EPIGRAPHIC TRADITION horse protome alif, shin, bucranium
EPIGRAPHIC TRADITION
EPIGRAPHIC TRADITION . D....a, D....a D....b, D....e, D....a, D...b, D...c . D....a, D.. XLVIII tetradrachm BI, AE chevron pelt, dot horse, brimmed chevron in lap, hat trident XLVIII tetradrachm BI chevron pelt, dot horse, brimmed chevron in lap, hat trident
XVII. A Die Study of the ‘Abiel’ Coinage of Eastern Arabia
553
Table : Overview of the ‘Abiel’ Coinages, continued
NS . . EG D.. D....a, D....a D....a, D....c D....d, D...a . D....a, D....b D...b D....c, D... D.., D.. [EL] D....c, D....d D.. . D...b XLIX drachm tetradrachm BI BI, AE BI chevron pelt chevron pelt horse, brimmed cone in lap, hat trident behind horse trident in lap, dots trident in lap, dots XLVIII drachm XLIX tetradrachm BI BI herring., dot dot pelt, dot horse, brimmed chevron in lap, hat trident horse, brimmed cone in lap, hat trident behind XLVIII tetradrachm BI, AE herring., dot horse, brimmed chevron in lap, hat trident XLVII tetradrachm BI herring., dot horse, brimmed trident in lap, hat dots XLIV XLIV tetradrachm drachm BI BI, AR chevron pelt chevron pelt horse, brimmed trident in lap hat horse, brimmed trident in lap, hat dots, lines Potts Denomination Metal Obv. features Rev. features Sign, Symbols
D.., D.. XLV D....a, D..., D...c, [GS] D....c, D...d, [GS] D....c, D...b D...c, D...b, [GS]
XLVIII tetradrachm
chevron pelt, dot horse, hat or spiked
.
XLVII
tetradrachm
BI
chevron pelt
horse, hat or spiked
trident in lap, dots trident in lap, dots
.
XLVII
tetradrachm
BI, AE (AR)
chevron pelt, dot horse, spiked hair
.
D...a, XLVII D...b, D.., [GS] D...b D...a, D...b, [GS] XLVII XLVII
drachm
BI
radiating pelt
horse, spiky mane horse, spiky hair horse, spiky hair
trident in lap, dots trident in lap, dots trident in lap, dots
. .
drachm obol
BI BI
radiating pelt radiating pelt
554
Peter G. van Alfen
Table : Overview of the ‘Abiel’ Coinages, continued
NS . EG D.., D...a, D...b, D....b D....a, D...a D.., D....a, D...a, D...d, D...a, D...a . D...a, D...b, [GS] D....d D.. D...b, D...c D...b D..., App. [NL] XLVII obol BI, AR radiating pelt, dots dots above eye dots above eye BI BI, AR BI dots behind eye dots behind eye horse, triangle chest horse, triangle chest eagle, curving inscription eagle, curving inscription eagle eagle radiating coiffure horse protome crude crude horse protome, Nike horse protome alif alif horse trident in lap, dots trident in lap, dots trident in lap, dots trident in lap, dots trident in lap, dots Potts XLVII Denomination Metal tetradrachm Obv. features Rev. features Sign, Symbols trident in lap, caliper BI (AR) radiating pelt, dot horse, spiky hair
. .
XLVII XLVII
drachm drachm
BI
chevron pelt, dot horse, spiky hair horse
trident in lap, caliper trident in lap, dots
BI (AR) radiating pelt, dots
. . . .
XLVI XLVI XLVI XLVI XLVI XLVII
tetradrachm drachm drachm obol tetradrachm
AR
horse, triangle chest horse, triangle chest horse horse trident in lap, dots trident in lap
XLVI
drachm
BI
EPIGRAPHIC TRADITION E F., F. F., F. F.., F.. [NL] [GS] [NL] S S S VI II II II tetradrachm drachm obol obol obol obol obol AR AR AR AR AR AR AR
ADDITIONAL OBOL GROUPS
XVII. A Die Study of the ‘Abiel’ Coinage of Eastern Arabia
555
2.A The die study
The Appendix presents the corpus of Abiel coinage, which is arranged first by ETs – and their corresponding Epigraphic Groups (EG; for which see Macdonald [Chp. XVI]), and secondly by NS –. Table provides a condensed overview of the Appendix. Although Macdonald, Potts and I had different agendas in our approach to the coinage, there is a fair amount of, but not total alignment between my NS, Macdonald’s ET/EG, and Potts’ classes, each arrived at by different means and methods. The NS are based on die linking and stylistic analysis, the latter of which can be subjective. Within a particular ET, each NS probably represents: ) the work of an individual engraver, or group of engravers within a single mint, working within a short period of time; or ) the work of geographically separated mints united by the same administrative oversight. Subgroups within individual NS, e.g., ., ., etc., indicate that the coins are probably the products of the same mint(s) or administrative oversight, but have stylistic or other differences (e.g., the addition or subtraction of a symbol) that warrant attention. The sub-groups may also indicate close copying of coins by mints that are not necessarily related administratively or otherwise.5 While detailed descriptions of each NS are found in the Appendix, the following is a brief summary of the NS subgroups. NS .–. are coins that share a similarity in their reasonably close approximation of the Alexander prototype and their similar details in the rendering of Herakles’ lion pelt on the obverse and the general presentation of the deity, throne, palm tree and horse protome on the reverse, all of which stands in contrast to the treatment found on all the other Abiel issues.6 NS .–. are defined primarily by the “swirling coiffure” rendering of Herakles’ lion pelt on the obverse, and their generally crude reverses which often include legends that have become little more than geometric shapes (“[GS]”). NS .–. differ by the (non-)presence of dots on the obverse, and the (non-) presence or placement of the chevron, dots, or trident on the reverse. Likewise, NS . and . are otherwise similar with the exception that many NS . coins have a dot on Herakles’ cheek while this is not the case for coins of .. The drachms of NS . are similar in most details to the tetradrachms, drachms and obols of NS ., except the rendering of Herakles is more refined, the features more pronounced. NS . and . differ in the (non-)presence of the “caliper” symbol.7 Finally, NS . and . differ in the placement of the dots on the obverse, and in the rendering of the figure on the reverse. In the Appendix at the end of ET are five tetradrachms, two drachms, and two hemiobols (?) under the heading “Miscellaneous Epigraphic Tradition ” (nos. –). These are coins that, with the exception of the hemiobols, are not die linked to other coins, nor fit well for stylistic reasons within the other NS of ET . Given the size of ET generally, it is perhaps not surprising that there are outliers of this sort. Also, at the very end of the Appendix are three NS, , , , under the heading “Additional Obol Groups.” These coins have either no legend or geometric-shape legends and so lie outside of Macdonald’s ETs. Because they lack additional marks, like the trident
. As the entire Abiel series shows, the imitation of others’ coinage in antiquity was a common phenomenon. In the case of NS .–. particularly, the coins appear so stylistically similar that they clearly belong to the same stylistic tradition. It is open to question whether this ‘tradition’ represents either singular (or successive but related) administrative or artistic oversight, or just clever copying. . There are, of course, differences in the way the hair of the figure on the reverse is rendered between NS .–. and the also in the shape of Herakles’ face on the obverse. Despite these differences NS .–. have a similar ‘feel,’ which differ from that of NS , for example. . Note, however, that NS ., R (Appendix, no. ), does not have the caliper symbol on the reverse. The shared obverse (O) with R, which does have the caliper symbol, indicates that the two series are, again, closely related.
556
Peter G. van Alfen
symbol, and are stylistically singular, it is not immediately obvious where they belong within the corpus of Abiel coinage. The use of the horse protome on the reverse, rather than full horse of ET or eagle or ET , probably means these coins were produced within the milieu of ET or , but without further evidence it seems best to leave these on the sidelines for now.
2.B Comparative sizes of Abiel coinages
Table presents an overview of the number of observed dies and estimates for the total number of dies used in the production of the Abiel coinages.8 Although controversial, such statistically derived figures are useful for estimating the size of a particular coinage and for comparison with other series.9 As an additional aid, the estimated total number of observe dies (“D”) is converted to drachm-die equivalents (“DD”) in the case of the tetradrachms (Dx) and obols (D÷), which renders all the estimated totals, rounded to the nearest whole number, as drachm equivalents. This allows for direct comparison of the size of each NS. Comparatively, ET saw the largest output of Abiel coinage, particularly in tetradrachms. Within ET , NS – appear to have been the largest series in all denominations. ET tetradrachms were also produced in sizeable numbers, while those of ET and were not comparatively, although more emphasis appears to have been placed on the production of the larger tetradrachms in ETs and than on the drachms and especially the obols. Significantly, there are no accompanying smaller denominations in ET . Table : Comparative Sizes of the Abiel Coinages
n EPIGRAPHIC TRADITION NS ., tetradrachms: () NS ., tetradrachms: NS ., drachms: NS ., obols: NS ., obols: NS ., tetradrachms: () () () () . (.) . . n/a .±. (.±.) n/a n/a n/a .±. n/a () () d(o) d(r) R D DD
EPIGRAPHIC TRADITION Imitation
EPIGRAPHIC TRADITION
. The estimated total number of dies was calculated using Carter’s () method. The estimated number of dies (“D” in Table ) is most reliable, indicated by a small standard deviation, when the sample size (“n”) is greater than and the characteroscopic index (“R”) is greater than . Where this was not the case, and because the resulting figures would be effectively meaningless, I did not perform the calculations, indicated by “n/a.” In the Appendix, I also included coins that had one or more sides worn beyond recognition or so poorly photographed to preclude identification of the die; these are indicated by “?”. In the calculations of Table , all ?-coins were excluded from both “n” and “d(o)”, and therefore from “D”. But because each “?” could potentially represent yet another different die, separate calculations were therefore made that included each “?” in “n” but also as a separate “d(o)”. These calculations are found on the line below within the parentheses. In such cases the actual figure for “D” or “DD” must lie between the two figures, e.g., in the case of NS ., between DD and . . The collected essays in de Callataÿ () provide an overview of the problems of die estimates and quantification.
XVII. A Die Study of the ‘Abiel’ Coinage of Eastern Arabia
557
Table : Comparative Sizes of the Abiel Coinages, continued
n NS , tetradrachms: NS , drachms: NS , drachms: NS , obols: NS ., drachms: NS ., drachms NS ., obols: () () () EPIGRAPHIC TRADITION NS ., tetradrachms: NS ., tetradrachms: NS ., tetradrachms: NS ., drachms: NS ., tetradrachms: NS , tetradrachms: NS , drachms: NS , tetradrachms: NS , drachms: NS , tetradrachms: NS ., tetradrachms: NS ., tetradrachms: NS ., tetradrachms: NS ., drachms: NS ., drachms: NS ., obols: NS ., tetradrachms: () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () . . () . . . . (.) (.) . (.) . (.) . . (.) . .±. .±. n/a n/a .±. .±. .±. n/a n/a .±. (.±.) n/a .±. (.±.) n/a .±. (.±.) .±. (.±.) .±. (.±.) n/a .±. (.±.) .±. () () () () () () () () d(o) () () () d(r) () R n/a . . (.) . . (.) D n/a () n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a .±. (.±.) DD (x) () ()
558
Peter G. van Alfen
Table : Comparative Sizes of the Abiel Coinages, continued
n () NS ., drachms: NS ., drachms: NS ., obols: NS ., tetradrachms: NS ., drachms: NS ., drachms: NS ., obols: NS , tetradrachms: NS , drachms: NS , tetradrachms: NS , drachms: NS , obols: NS , obols: () () () () () ADDITIONAL OBOL GROUPS NS , obols: NS , obols: NS , obols: . n/a .±. n/a EPIGRAPHIC TRADITION () () (.) () . n/a . . (.) .±. n/a () n/a n/a n/a () () d(o) () () () () (.) () () n/a . (.) d(r) R (.) . . . D (.±.) .±. .±. .±. (.±.) n/a n/a n/a () n/a n/a n/a n/a DD () () () ()
The following abbreviations are used: the sample size (the number of coins): n; the number of different obverse dies observed: d(o); the number of different reverse dies observed: d(r); the characteroscopic index: R = n/d(o); the estimated original number of obverse dies: D; drachm-die equivalents: DD.
3. Die axes
In general, the die axes of all Abiel coinage appear to be random (see the Appendix).10 While there was not an administrative preference for die orientation, individual mint workers may have produced coins with consistent die axes. For example, many of the obols of NS . with the dies O/R, O/R, and O/R mostly have a die axis of either or , which may be indicative of personal preference if the same worker was responsible for using dies O–O and R–R. The other coins of NS . have random die axes. Likewise nearly all of the coins of NS . (drachms) have a (or –) degree orientation, which could again indicate personal preference.
. Callot (: ) claims that the die axes for NS tetradrachms, drachms, and obols exhibit a preference for . Roughly half of the total number of recorded coins for this class have a die axis ( of ), but I would hesitate to conclude as he does: “[s]uch regularity in the orientation of the dies is probably not fortuitous and should confirm the homogeneity of this series.”
XVII. A Die Study of the ‘Abiel’ Coinage of Eastern Arabia
559
The apparent randomness of the die axes is significant in light of the coin moulds found at Mleiha.11 By necessity, coins produced in these moulds will have consistent die axes, likely either or degrees. The fact that none of the NS exhibit the type of rigid consistency in die axes expected of mould-produced coins, particularly the coins of NS ., which appear stylistically closest to the mould images, suggests that none of the series under consideration here were produced using these or other moulds.12 It may well be that the Mleiha moulds were fabricated to produce counterfeits of the official struck coinage.
4. Metrology
Table and Figures – present the tabulated weights of the coins by ET. In general, the weights of the tetradrachms and obols (less so with the drachms) of ETs , , and are tightly clustered thus offering an indication of the weight standard used (see below). Conversely, the weights of all denominations in ET are not as tightly clustered and the interquartile ranges are comparatively large (e.g., . g for All NS; see Table ). This may suggest that some NS, particularly those in ET , were produced al marco rather than al pezzo. Considering too that most of the coins in ET appear to have been made of seriously debased silver, or simply of bronze, there would presumably have been less concern with exactitude in their weights when compared with the silver coinages of ET , , and .13
50 ET1 ET2 ET3 40 Number of specimens ET4
30
20
10
. See Potts (), appendix ; Callot (: –; ). . Callot (: –) observed no evidence for casting in the coins he examined. Also, none of the ANS coins I have handled appear to have been cast. . To date no metallurgical studies have been performed on any of the Abiel coinages. The notes concerning metal content in the Appendix and Table (e.g., AR, BI, AE) are based on observations recorded in Potts, Haerinck, and other catalogers. For those coins in the ANS collection, determination of the metal was based on my own observations.
.0 0 12 -12. .2 24 5 12 -12. .5 49 0 12 -12. .7 74 5 13 -12. .0 99 0 13 -13. .2 24 5 13 -13. .5 49 0 13 -13. .7 74 5 14 -13. .0 99 0 14 -14. .2 24 5 14 -14. .5 49 0 14 -14. .7 74 5 15 -14. .0 99 0 15 -15. .2 24 5 15 -15. .5 49 0 15 -15. .7 74 5 16 -15. .0 99 0 16 -16. .2 24 5 16 -16. .5 49 0 16 -16. .7 74 5 17 -16. .0 99 017 .2 4
Weight in grams Figure : Tetradrachm Weights
0
12
560
Number of specimens Number of specimens 10 15 20 5 15 20 25 30 0
10
0
5
0.
45
-0
0.
.4
50
9
-0
0.
.5
55
4
-0
0.
.5
60
9
-0
0.
.6
65
4
-0
0. 70
.6
9
-0
0. 75
.7
4
-0
0. 80
.7
9
-0
0.
.8
85
4
Weight in grams Figure : Drachm Weights
Weight in grams Figure : Obol Weights ET2 ET4 ET3 ET1
-0
Peter G. van Alfen
0.
.8
90
9
-0
0. 95
.9
4
-0
1. 00
.9
9
-1
1. 05
.0
4
-1
1. 10
.0
9
-1
1. 15
.1
4
-1
.1
9
3. 05 3. -3.0 10 9 3. -3.1 15 4 3. -3.1 20 9 3. -3.2 25 4 3. -3.2 30 9 3. -3.3 35 4 3. -3.3 40 9 3. -3.4 45 4 3. -3.4 50 9 3. -3.5 55 4 3. -3.5 60 9 3. -3.6 65 4 3. -3.6 70 9 3. -3.7 75 4 3. -3.7 80 9 3. -3.8 85 4 3. -3.8 90 9 3. -3.9 95 4 4. -3.9 00 9 4. -4.0 05 4 4. -4.0 10 9 4. -4.1 4.15-4 4 20 .1 4. -4.29 25 4 4. -4.2 30 9 4. -4.3 35 4 4. -4.3 40 9 4. -4.4 50 4 -4 .5 4
ET4 ET3 ET2 ET1
XVII. A Die Study of the ‘Abiel’ Coinage of Eastern Arabia
561
Table : Metrological Overview of the Abiel Coinage
NS . . .-. All NS . All NS All NS All NS .-. .-. . . All NS . .-. .-. All NS All NS Denomination tetradrachm drachm obol tetradrachm tetradrachm tetradrachm drachm obol tetradrachm tetradrachm tetradrachm tetradrachm tetradrachm tetradrachm tetradrachm tetradrachm tetradrachm drachm drachm drachm drachm obol tetradrachm drachm obol n Mean . g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Median . g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mode . g n/a . . n/a . . . . . n/a n/a . . . . . . . . . . n/a n/a . . . . . . . . . iq . g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
EPIGRAPHIC TRADITION EPIGRAPHIC TRADITION IMITATION
EPIGRAPHIC TRADITION
EPIGRAPHIC TRADITION
EPIGRAPHIC TRADITION
Table presents the mean, median, mode, and interquartile range (iq: third quartile - first quartile) of the weights for each denomination (tetradrachm, drachm, or obol) within each ET. When these figures are compared with the histograms in Figures –, we note that the silver coins of ET , , and appear to have been made on two, if not three different standards for the tetradrachm: c. . g (ET );14 c. . g (ET )15 and c. . g (ET ). In ET , despite the peak at c. . g
. For a discussion of this . g standard see van Alfen [Chp. XI]; cf. Fischer-Bossert [Chp. VII].. . The small sample size ( coins) of ET tetradrachms makes a presumed c. . g standard questionable; these
562
Peter G. van Alfen
(Figure ), the wide and relatively even distribution of weights between c. . and . g makes it clear that even if there was a ideal weight for these coins (. g?), the producers rarely took care to conform to that ideal. Significantly, however, while there appears to have been a reduction in the weight of the tetradrachm, there was no corresponding reduction in the weights of the drachms and obols; those of ET were made on the same standard (. g for the drachm; . g for the obol) as the drachms and obols of ET Imitation and ET . Given that in general drachms and obols were not produced in the same quantities as tetradrachms (cf. Table ), their weights may not have been as great a concern to the administrators of the coinages as those of the tetradrachms. This may reflect a difference in functionality (e.g., the drachms and obols were produced in limited quantities for one class of transactions while the tetradrachms were produced in greater quantities for another) or in economizing production (e.g., saving silver by reducing the weight of the largest coins). In any event, ET stands apart since there the standard for all three denominations appears to have been reduced. It is therefore unlikely that any of the Abiel coins were conceived to accord with the original Attic-Euboeic weight standard of the prototype coinage, which during Alexander’s lifetime employed a tetradrachm of . g, a drachm of . g, and an obol of . g, a standard that was also based on a duodecimal denominational structure (e.g., obols = drachm; mina = talent). Beginning in the third century BCE, the weight of the tetradrachm (and other denominations) of this standard was reduced, at times quite dramatically, within both the Ptolemaic and Seleucid kingdoms.16 But while it might be tempting to plot the observed standards of the four ETs alongside the gradual reductions of Seleucid standards (cf. Hoover and Iossif : appendix ), as a proxy method for dating, the sample size of our evidence is, unfortunately, too small and problematic to encourage enough confidence in the observed standards to proceed in this fashion.17 Even if the Abiel producers had thought to adopt the Attic-Euboic weight standard, they did not adopt the duodecimal denominational structure of the original ‘Alexanders.’ Generally, the Abiel series were produced in three denominations, which again here for the sake of convenience we call tetradrachms, drachms, and obols. But, as Table makes clear, the ‘obols’ of the Abiel series are not / drachms, as in the Attic-Euboic system, but rather / drachms; the denomination structure therefore is based on fourths. We cannot at this point be certain of the denominational structure of ET ; the lack of evidence for sub-tetradrachm denominations could, of course, mean that no such coins were produced. There also appears to have been a rare sub-obol denomination (c. . g), two examples of which, both produced from the same obverse and reverse dies, can be found towards the end of the Appendix under the heading “Miscellaneous Epigraphic Tradition .”
5. Discussion
Coins in the name of Abiel were not the only Alexander imitations produced in eastern Arabia, but, if the number of extant examples is any indication, they seem to have been the most widely used and among the longest produced. The other major series of marked (eastern) Arabian Almay simply be underweight coins produced on the . g standard. . For an overview of the Seleucid and Ptolemaic weight standards see Le Rider and de Callataÿ (: –). Under Ptolemy I, the weight of the tetradrachm was reduced to c. . g, for example, while the Seleucid tetradrachm by the time of Antiochus IV weighed c. . g. . Commenting of the weights of the NS . and other tetradrachms from the Bahrain hoard (IGCH ), Mørkholm (: ), for example, suggests over cleaning may account for the apparent low weights of the coins compared to the expected weight of c. . g.
XVII. A Die Study of the ‘Abiel’ Coinage of Eastern Arabia
563
exander imitations include the coins inscribed with sms [–];18 with horizontal s [– ];19 with vertical s [–];20 in the name Abyatha [–];21 in the name of Harithat, King of Hagar [];22 and drachms inscribed ntnw.23 The relationship, if any, between these coins and the Abiel coinages is unclear (cf. Callot [Chp. XV]). Most specimens of Arabian Alexanders have been collected as singletons on the surface at occupation sites like Mleiha and ed-Dur (see Table ); controlled excavations at these sites and others have also turned up individual coins and the rare hoard.24 Hoard evidence for all types is minimal, but offers some information for dates and circulation patterns, as can be seen in Table .25 Based on this evidence, the circulation of the Alexander imitations is primarily confined to eastern Arabia in an area from roughly Bahrain to the Oman peninsula, with only a small number of the silver issues travelling beyond the region, to Gordion in the north (Susa for Abiel types) and al-Jawf in to the south-west. As for the dating, most commentators have already noted that the production of Alexander imitations in Arabia falls into two broad categories and periods: an earlier period of silver production, probably beginning in the late-third to early-second century BCE, and a later period of production characterized by more derivative styles and the use of base metals in place of silver. Although the dates of the “silver” period are mostly secured by the hoard evidence, the dates of the “billon” period appear to fall anywhere between the first century BCE to the third century CE.26 Table : Hoards with Arabian Alexander Imitation Content
Publication IGCH
i
Findspot/date Burial Date Contents Bahrain Failaka Failaka – BCE – BCE – BCE c. BCE c. BCE tetr. tetr. (Antiochus III) tetr. (Seleucus II, Antiochus III) tetr. (Alex. III, Philip III, etc.) tetr. (Alex. III, Philip III, etc.)
Abiel-type NS .
Alexander -types vertical s2 horizontal s2 horizontal s2 Abyatha horizontal s2 horizontal s2 Abyatha
IGCH ii CH .iii
IGCH
iv
Gordion Gordion
IGCH v
. Cf. Potts classes XI, XII, XXI; Arnold Biucchi (: ). . Cf. Potts class XIII; Arnold Biucchi (: –). . Cf. Potts classes XIV, XVI-XX, XXII-XLIII; Arnold Biucchi (: –). . Cf. Potts classes I, VIII?; Arnold Biucchi (: –). . Cf. Arnold Biucchi (: –). . For the ntnw coins see Potts class IV, and Macdonald [Chp. XVI, Appendix ]. . See Callot (, , ); Haerinck (b, ); Mørkholm (, , ). Potts (, ) provides tabulations of the finds. . This table is reproduced and updated from Arnold-Biucchi (: ). . This is not to say that there was not, or cannot have been overlap between the production of silver and billon issues, or their contemporary circulation; see Potts (: ) for class XV silver obols found in contexts datable to the first century CE, for example. However, once billon issues became more widespread, Gresham’s law would dictate their use in circulation together would rapidly end as the silver was hoarded, and the billon used in exchange.
564
Peter G. van Alfen
Table : Hoards with Arabian Alexander Imitation Content, continued
Publication IGCH CH .vii IGCH viii
vi
Findspot/date Burial Date Contents Mektepini Syria Susa BCE c. BCE BCE
Abiel-type
Alexander -types Abyatha horizontal s2 Haritat vertical s2 s’z
tetr. (Alex. III, Philip III, etc.) AR (Antiochus I, II, III, etc.) AR (Alex. III, NS . Philip III, etc.) AR/BI NS . (Antiochus VIII, etc.)
Huth [Chp. IV]
al-Jawf
c. BCE
Potts (: –) ed-Dur I Potts (: ) Callot (: )
i ii
st c. CE? st c. CE? rd c. CE?
AR/BI tetr. ?
ed-Dur II Hoard AI
ḥ (obol) vertical s2 horizontal s2 NS vertical s2 misc. Abiel NS ? uncertain NS .?
Mørkholm (). Mørkholm (). For the Seleucid content see Houghton and Lorber (, vol. II, p.). iii Mørkholm (). For the Seleucid content see Houghton and Lorber (, vol. II, p.). iv For the Seleucid content see Houghton and Lorber (, vol. II, pp. –). v For the Seleucid content see Houghton and Lorber (, vol. II, p. ). vi For the Seleucid content see Houghton and Lorber (, vol. II, pp. –). vii For the Seleucid content see Houghton and Lorber (, vol. II, p. ). viii Le Rider (), Trésor . For the Seleucid content see Houghton, Lorber, and Hoover (, vol. II, pp. –).
Little can be said here about the relative dating of ET , , and , the coins of which are predominantly silver and stylistically closest to the prototype Alexander issues; it is likely that as a group they predate ET , which is almost exclusively billon coinage. Potts and Callot (cf. Tables and ) spread the silver issues across three centuries, arguing that the coins of ET were the earliest dating to the end of the third century BCE, ET appearing in the second century, and ET appearing in the first century BCE. Their basis for this dating is primarily stylistic: ET coins are the earliest, for example, because they seem closest to the prototypical Alexander issues in style and in the use of the eagle on the outstretched arm of the deity on the reverse rather than the horse protome found on the other two ET. These arguments, however, are purely speculative: IGCH (cf. Table ) shows that the ET tetradrachms could be dated to the mid-third century BCE, and are also contemporaneous with vertical s tetradrachms, which, like the ET coins, have an eagle on the reverse and not the horse protome of ET –.27 Arguments can therefore be made for placing all of the silver Abiel issues within a tighter chronological compass (but cf. Callot [Chp. XV]). Along these lines we should also note (cf. Table ) that the stylistic affinity among NS ., ., and . (spread across ET , ET imitation, and ET ); the use of the horse protome on the reverse in ET –; and the use of the trident symbol in ET imitation (NS .) and throughout ET all indicate a degree of proximity in these three Traditions that probably extends to the temporal realm. Although ET is the stylistic and epigraphic
. Mørkholm (: ) noted that one of the vertical s tetradrachms from the hoard was overstruck on what appears to be an issue of Antiochus I offering a post quem date for the imitation, and by association for the hoard, of c. BCE.
XVII. A Die Study of the ‘Abiel’ Coinage of Eastern Arabia
565
outlier among the Abiel silver issues, the distance between it and ET – could be geographic and not temporal. Whatever the size of the chronological or geographical gaps between ET (imitation), ET , and ET , their weight standards and comparative sizes indicate administrative differences (cf. Tables –). As noted, the Traditions appear to have used at least two distinct weight standards for the tetradrachms: c. . g (ET ; ET ?) and c. . g (ET ). Furthermore, as Table shows, emphasis was placed on the production of drachms and obols in ET (imitation), ET and , while this was not the case with ET . Drachm-die equivalences also show that the overall output of coinage in ET was far greater than the other three silver series combined.28 This large scale production of ET tetradrachms could account for the wealth of control marks found on the reverse of the coins (e.g., alif, shin, bucranium), a phenomenon not seen in the other three silver Traditions, again pointing to administrative differences.29 To understand how the Abiel silver coinages of ET (imitation), ET , and ET compare to the silver issues of Abyatha, Harithat, with sms,horizontal s , and vertical s, requires die studies of those issues as well. Some of the other imitative series, like the Potts class IV drachms, appear to have been rather small; others, notably the vertical s tetradrachms, were produced in reasonably large numbers.30 The sum total of all indigenous silver issues, including the Abiel coinage, meant that by the mid-second century BCE some sectors of the economies of eastern Arabia were well monetized, although we cannot say which sectors those were. Nor can we say why the eastern Arabians began to produce coinage when they did. External factors, particularly those emanating from the Seleucid Empire, may have played a role (cf. Callot [Chp. XV]). The reorganizing of minting in the eastern provinces under Seleucus I, for example, which included an emphasis on the continued production of Alexander types at Seleucia ad Tigris from c. BCE on, augmented the (not inconsiderable?) volume of Alexander types that could be used in regional and Gulf trade, thus offering an expanded template for the Arabian coins.31 However, the fact that so few non-Arabian coins have been found in eastern Arabia, and so few eastern Arabian coins have been found beyond the Gulf, suggests that coinage did not play a large role in trade between the Seleucid Empire and eastern Arabia at this time.32 Increasing military pressure by the Seleucids, rather than (external) trade, may have been a more important impetus in Gulf-area coin production. By the early third century a Seleucid garrison was established on Ikaros/Failaka (with its own mint); by the end of the century Antiochus III had marched on Gerrha (Thaj?), extracting large amounts of aromatics (frankincense and stacte) and precious metal from the Gerrheans, who also struck coins in the name of Antiochus.33 In a world that was becoming increasingly
. For drachm-die equivalences see Table . . One might also argue that the extensive use of control marks places the production of ET tetradrachms closer in terms of administrative practice to the Alexander prototypes than that of ET and ; this could have chronological implications as well. Lifetime and posthumous Alexander issues nearly always had control marks on the reverse. . Mørkholm (: ) counted obverse dies among the vertical s tetradrachms found in the Bahrain hoard (IGCH ), nearly the same number () of observed obverse dies for ET tetradrachms; cf. Table . . Houghton and Lorber (: xxxiv, ); cf. Potts [Chp. III]. It is difficult to say which, if any, of the lifetime or posthumous Alexander types the Arabian producers were copying specifically. The use of the palm tree motif on the reverse may have been inspired by Alexanders from Arados (cf. Price , no. ), which were in almost continuous production through the third century. The introduction of Zeus Nikephorus (rather than Aëtophorus) on the reverse of the post- Seleucia ad Tigris Alexanders might preclude their use as a prototype, but since only ET retained the eagle of the origin Alexanders this might not have mattered for the other Traditions. . Cf. Potts [Chp. II]; Haerinck (a); Mørkholm ; Le Rider () . Polybius ..–; Potts [Chp. II]; Callot [Chp. XV]; Salles (); Houghton and Lorber (: xxxvii; ). Seleucid influence on eastern Arabian coinage may be seen in a number of imitative types, e.g., Potts classes X (miscel-
566
Peter G. van Alfen
monetized, resistance to Seleucid incursions may have required specie to pay off mercenaries, or to buy off the Seleucids themselves.34 In any event, the production of lower value drachms and obols in ET and ET attests to the potential of this coinage to serve a range of transactional needs, and consciousness on the part of the producers to serve those needs. We should note, however, that there is no evidence that the eastern Arabians issued alongside their silver coins a fiduciary bronze coinage, like that of their Seleucid neighbors, in sub-drachm or sub-obol denominations. The lack of a bimetallic monetary policy and accompanying small change would seriously limit the range of daily transactions coin users could perform. The focus on higher-value silver coinage points to a more specialized purpose for the coinage, such as the large purchases or payments typical of governments and bulk traders. In nearly every way, ET represents a dramatic break from ETs , , and , which probably indicates if not a significant chronological gap between ET and the other Traditions, then an immediate and serious reversal in monetary policy. Among the most significant changes with ET is the change in the metal content of the coinage (cf. Table ). This adoption of billon or base metal in place of silver underscores a remarkable leap in the conceptualization of coin use in eastern Arabia. Although the basic tripartite denominational structure of ET coinage followed that of the other Traditions, the weights of the coins–at least the tetradrachms–and the precious metal content appear to have dropped precipitously from that of ET (NS .), which in both respects appears closest to the prototype Alexander coinage.35 If we assume that there was a reasonable amount of (diachronic) consistency in the purchasing power the tetradrachm, from the silver issues of NS . to the billon issues of NS ., all coinage produced in eastern Arabia at the time of ET was then seriously overvalued. The decision to maintain monometallism while reducing the precious metal content was made with the understanding that these coins would have little value beyond the boundaries of the political power that produced them and thus could enforce their hyped value. Such a decision could only have been made when there was already a high degree of monetization in local economies and a concurrent demand for currency that was strong enough to overcome resistance to the use of cheap coins. Why this decision was made, we can only guess: silver supplies were limited or seriously reduced (in the wake of Antiochus III’s march through the region?); it was a move, similar to that found in Ptolemaic Egypt or South Arabia, to close the monetary system and force the exchange of foreign coinage for local coinage as a source of revenue for the rulers.36 Whatever its origin, this shift in coin production suggests that the function or purpose of coinage in the region may have shifted as well. If the original purpose of coinage in eastern Arabia had been to finance anti-Seleucid endeavors, for example, by the time of ET , the purpose became more introspective, with the production of coinage serving as a source of revenue, or as a
laneous Seleucid-inspired obols); XI, XII (Seleucid-inspired obols of sms), XIVa, XIVb (Seleucid-inspired obols of s), and [], a Seleucid-inspired imitative tetradrachm. Also see Huth and Potts () and Le Rider (). . Oliver Hoover (pers. comm.) suggests that Gerrhaean imitations of Seleucid coins (cf. Houghton and Lorber : ) may have been produced to meet the payment demands of Antiochus III, who may have specified the type of coin to be paid. Lacking a ready store of appropriate coins, the Gerrhaeans might have had to make up the difference in imitations. . See Table for the weights. No metallurgical analysis has yet been performed on the Abiel coinage, but it is clear from autopsy alone that a significance change in metal composition occurred in ET . . For the Ptolemaic system, introduced c. BCE, see Le Rider and de Callataÿ (). Huth [Chp. X] suggests a similar system in play in South Arabia following the introduction of the Sabaean Unit coinage towards the end of the fourth century BCE. In both these cases, however, traders received silver coinage in return for their foreign silver coins, not billon or bronze coinage. The exchange of silver to billon/bronze admittedly makes the possibility of such a system in eastern Arabian less likely.
XVII. A Die Study of the ‘Abiel’ Coinage of Eastern Arabia
567
tool to facilitate local trade and the collection of taxes. Unfortunately, however, we can only guess at these purposes as there is no additional evidence that allows us to fully assess the economic, political, or social ramifications of the shift from silver to base metal coinages. Table shows that the production of ET coinage in toto was on a much greater scale than all the other Traditions combined, although this may be a factor of ET ’s greater longevity (cf. Tables and ). I have arranged the NS within ET stylistically, from NS exhibiting greater refinement to those showing the least; many of the NS of lesser refinement, e.g., NS –, also have a high proportion of legends that appear to be geometric shapes ([GS], cf. Table ). It is, of course, tempting to see these stylistic changes and increasing illegibility of the legends as a chronological progression, with successive die cutters repeatedly copying the work of their predecessors and losing refinement in the details in the process. The use and positioning of the various signs on the obverse and reverse of the coins, e.g., chevrons, cones, tridents, dots, and calipers, could reinforce these chronological assumptions by signaling successive issues. Direct evidence for the successive use of symbols is found in a recut die of NS (Appendix , no. ); the single reverse die originally had a trident in the figure’s lap, and either nothing, or something which is no longer visible between the figure’s back and the staff. When the die was recut, the cone was superimposed on the trident in the lap and a new trident was added behind the figure. While this single die indicates a progression from trident-in-lap to cone-in-lap, the prevalence of trident-in-lap types and the comparative rarity of cone-in-lap types (only NS ) complicates our reading of this evidence, especially in light of the stylistic-chronological assumptions expressed above. Was there, for example, a reversion back to trident-in-lap after the short lived cone-in-lap series? Or does NS represent the end of one group of successive issues (e.g., NS –NS ), while the coins of NS –NS , for example, represent a completely (geographically? politically?) distinct group? In the absence of further corroborating evidence, we must remain open to the possibility that some of these NS are in fact contemporary issues produced in the same mints by workers of varying skill levels, or in different mints altogether. Even with this caveat, there is little likelihood that all the NS of ET are immediately contemporaneous. Therefore we can safely assume that the duration of ET was somewhere in the order of two or more times longer than that of the other Traditions, based on their number of NS, and that the output of coinage was maintained at a fairly high level throughout ET . If the ordering of the NS does in fact represent a chronological progression, which again is open to question, it is worth noting that greater emphasis was placed on the production of tetradrachms and drachms at the early stages of ET , while obols only make their appearance towards the end (cf. Table ). Again, these decisions would have bearing on the overall functionality of the coinage in local economies.
Conclusions
This die study, in conjunction with Macdonald’s [Chp. XVI] work on the inscriptions, refines and adds greater nuance to our understanding of the Abiel series. This study does not, however, resolve the problem of dating the coins (cf. Callot [Chp. XV]). While I have challenged the view of Potts and Callot to spread the silver issues, i.e., ET (imitation), , and , across a broad temporal range (third–first centuries BCE), suggesting instead that they were probably (near) contemporary issues, I cannot, for lack of evidence, be more specific about absolute dates, although it seems probable that the coins were produced earlier (third century) than later. Likewise, while it is clear that there is little in the way of continuity between the any of the silver Traditions and ET , and that
568
Peter G. van Alfen
ET post-dated and was of longer duration than the other Traditions, I can offer no refinement of the dating offered by Potts or Callot. It is hoped that further work on the other Alexander imitations from eastern Arabia can help to resolve these issues.
Appendix
Obverse (O) and reverse (R) dies are recorded in the first column; weights (where known) in the second column; die axes (where known) in degrees in the third column; Macdonald’s [Chp. XVI] epigraphic group designations in the fourth column; additional information in the fifth column; and (publication) reference(s) in the sixth column. Note that Macdonald [Chp. XVI] provides more extensive publication information in his Concordance. Because Macdonald discusses the Aramaic inscriptions in detail, these are only noted here without further explication. Note also that coins with uncertain obverse and reverse dies are here listed under this same heading (e.g., O?/R? a., b., c., etc.) rather than individually as an expedient, which does not necessarily imply that such coins share obverse or reverse dies. The following abbreviations are used: [EL] = effaced legend [GS] = geometric-shape legend [NL] = no legend AE = bronze AR = silver BI = billon H = coins from Haerinck (b) H = coins from Haerinck () MB = coins from a private collection, casts and photographs of which are at the American Numismatic Society M.unp. = unpublished coins from the French excavations at Mleiha P = coins from Potts () P = coins from Potts () QB = coins from the Qa’lat al-Bahrain hoard (IGCH ) Sharjah = coins from the Museum of Sharjah published by Callot () * = the coin chosen to illustrate the die combination in the plates
XVII. A Die Study of the ‘Abiel’ Coinage of Eastern Arabia
569
EPIGRAPHIC TRADITION 1
NUMISMATIC STYLE ., tetradrachms with symbols (Potts Class II) Obv.: Head of Herakles to r.; lion’s jaw of prototype coinage has become a curving semi-circle. Rev.: Enthroned figure to l., supporting horse protome in outstretched r. hand; Aramaic inscription vertically behind; stylized palm tree in lower l. field, below which variously an Aramaic alif; an Aramaic shin; or a bucranium (buc); with, on two coins, to the r. of the legend a South Arabian alif. . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R a.* . g b. . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g b. . g a.* . g a.* . g b. . g a.* . g a. . g b.*. g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g A.. A.. A.. A.. A.. A.. A.. A.. A.. A.. A.. A.. A.. A.. A.. A.. A.. A.. A.. A.. A.. A.. A.. A.. B. B. B. buc buc buc buc buc buc buc + SA alif buc + SA alif buc alif alif alif alif alif alif (obv to l.) alif (none) alif alif alif alif shin alif alif alif QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. [] QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab.
NUMISMATIC STYLE ., tetradrachms without symbols (Potts Class II) Obv.: As above. Rev.: As above, but without symbols and letters below palm tree. . O/R a.* . g A.. QB.Ab. b. . g A.. QB.Ab. c. . g A.. QB.Ab. d. . g A.. QB.Ab. . O/R a.* . g A.. QB.Ab. b. . g A.. QB.Ab.
570
Peter G. van Alfen
. O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R? . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R
a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g b. . g a.* . g a.* . g a. . g a.* . g b. . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* ? a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* ? a.* . g a.* . g b. ? a.* . g a.* . g b. . g a.* . g b. . g c. . g d. . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* ? a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a. * ? a. * ? a. ?
? ? ? ? ? ?
A.. A.. A.. A.. A.. A Dubia A Dubia A.. A.. A.. A.. A.. A.. A.. A.. A.. A.. A.. A.. A.. A.. A.. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A.. A.. A.. A.. A.. [EL]
. O/R . O/R . O/R
. O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O?/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R .a O?/R?
QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. Y. Jawf , 37 QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. Susa . Sotheby Zurich (), QB.Ab. BM --- Susa . QB.Ab. ANS..;Arnold-Biucchi (), pl. ,; P. AAW QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. QB.Ab. BnF .. QB.Ab. P.
. Huth [Chp. IV] discusses both this coin and the Yemeni al-Jawf hoard in detail. Because the coin is bent, the obverse and reverse die links with QB.Ab. are not certain, but rather probable.
XVII. A Die Study of the ‘Abiel’ Coinage of Eastern Arabia
571
IMITATIONS OF EPIGRAPHIC TRADITION 1
NUMISMATIC STYLE ., tetradrachm (Potts Class II) Obv.: Head of Herakles to r.; lion’s jaw of prototype coinage has become a curving semi-circle. Rev.: Enthroned figure to l., supporting horse protome in outstretched r. hand; Aramaic inscription vertically behind; stylized palm tree in lower l. field. . O/R a. * ? ? C. Sharjah NUMISMATIC STYLE ., drachms (Potts Class II) Obv.: Head of Herakles to r.; lion’s jaw of prototype coinage has become a curving semi-circle. Rev.: Enthroned figure to l., supporting horse protome in outstretched r. hand; Aramaic inscription vertically behind; stylized palm tree in lower l. field. . O/R a.* . g C. P. . O/R a.* . g [GS] P.; Freeman & Sear (), . O/R a.* . g C. []; P. . O/R a.* . g C. trident on rev. []; CNG (), NUMISMATIC STYLE ., obol (Potts Class II) Obv.: Head to r. with swirling coiffure. Rev.: Enthroned figure to l., supporting horse protome in outstretched r. hand; Aramaic inscription vertically behind; stylized palm tree in lower l. field. . O/R a.* . g C. AR P. NUMISMATIC STYLE ., obols (Potts Class II) Obv.: Head to r. with swirling coiffure. Rev.: Enthroned figure to l., supporting horse protome (?) in outstretched r. hand; Aramaic inscription behind; date palm in l. field. . O/R a. . g [GS] P. b. . g [GS] P. c. . g [GS] P. d.* . g [GS] P. e. . g [GS] P. f. . g [GS] P. g. . g [GS] P. h. . g [GS] P. i. . g ? [GS] H. j. ? ? [GS] Sharjah k. . g ? [GS] Italo Vecchi (), l. . g ? [GS] MB col. m. . g [GS] ANS .. n. . g [GS] ANS .. o. . g [GS] ANS .. p. . g [GS] ANS .. . O/R a.* . g [GS] P. b. . g [GS] P. c. . g [GS] ANS ..
572
Peter G. van Alfen
. O/R
. O/R . O/R? . O/R? . O/R
a.* . g b. . g c. . g d. ? a.* ? a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g b. . g c. . g d. . g e. . g f. . g g. ? h. ? i. . g j. . g k. . g l. . g m. . g a. . g b. . g c. . g d. . g e. . g f.* . g g. . g a. . g b. . g c.* . g a. . g b.* . g c. . g d. . g a. . g b.* . g a.* . g a.* . g b. . g a.* . g b. . g a.* . g
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
[GS] [GS] [GS] [GS] [EL] [EL] no reverse shown [GS] BI [GS] AR [GS] BI [GS] BI [GS] BI [GS] BI [GS] [GS] [GS] [GS] [GS] [NL] [GS] [GS] BI [GS] BI [NL] BI [GS] BI [GS] AR [GS] AR [GS] [GS] AR [GS] AR [GS] AR [GS or NL] AR [GS or NL] AR [GS or NL] AR [GS or NL] AR [NL] AR [NL] AR [N] [N/NL] [N/NL] [NL] [NL] [NL?] BI
. O/R
. O/R
. O/R
. O/R . O/R . O/R? . O/R . O/R
P. P. H. M.unp. H. P. Sharjah P. P.; MB col. P. P. P. P. H. H. H. MB col. ; Sotheby Zurich (), MB col. ; Sotheby Zurich (), bis Italo Vecchi (), Alpha Bank P. P. P. P.; CNG (), P. []; H. MB col. P. P. P. P. P. P. ANS .. P. P. P. H. H. P. MB col. Italo Vecchi (),
XVII. A Die Study of the ‘Abiel’ Coinage of Eastern Arabia
573
EPIGRAPHIC TRADITION 2
NUMISMATIC STYLE ., tetradrachms (Potts Class S/) Obv.: Head of Herakles to r.; lion’s jaw of prototype coinage has become a curving semi-circle. Rev.: Enthroned figure to l., supporting horse protome in outstretched r. hand; Aramaic inscription vertically behind; in far r. field trident pointing downward (Potts Class S) or upward (Potts Class S); palm tree in lower l. field. . O/R a.* . g D...a AR P. . O/R a.* . g D...a AR P. . O/R a.* . g ? D...a Sharjah ; H. . O?/R a.* . g D...a AR P. . O/R a.* . g D... AR P.; NFA (), NUMISMATIC STYLE , tetradrachms (Potts Class S/) Obv.: Head of Herakles to r.; lion’s jaw of prototype coinage has become a curving semi-circle. Rev.: Enthroned figure to l., supporting horse protome in outstretched r. hand; Aramaic inscription vertically behind; on some in far r. field trident pointing upward; palm tree in lower l. field. . O/R a.* . g D...a AR []; Gemini I (), . O/R a.* . g ? D...b Spink (), . O/R a.* . g ? D...b Spink (), . O/R a.* . g D...a BI P. . O/R a.* . g D...a Sotheby Zurich (), . O?/R a.* . g D...c Sharjah NUMISMATIC STYLE , drachms (Potts Class S/) Obv.: Head of Herakles to r.; lion’s jaw of prototype coinage has become a curving semi-circle. Rev.: Enthroned figure to l., supporting horse protome in outstretched r. hand; in far r. field trident pointing downward, symbol (?) below; palm tree in lower l. field. . O/R a. . g [NL] AR / symbol? P. b.* . g [NL] AR / symbol? []; P. c. . g [NL] AR / symbol? P.; Freeman & Sear (), . O/R a.* . g [NL] AR / symbol? P.; MB col. . O/R a.* . g [NL] AR / symbol? P. NUMISMATIC STYLE , drachms (Potts Class S/) Obv.: Head to r., Nemean lion pelt, or hair, rendered stylistically. Rev.: Enthroned figure to l., supporting horse protome in outstretched r. hand; in r. field trident pointing downward; some appear to have additional symbols or letters below; palm tree in lower l. field. . O/R a. ? ? [NL] symbol? H. b.* . g [NL] BI/ symbol? Sharjah . O/R a.* . g ? [NL] Sotheby Zurich , ; MB col.
574
Peter G. van Alfen
NUMISMATIC STYLE , obols (Potts Class S/) Obv.: Crude head to r. with radiating coiffure. Rev.: Enthroned figure to l., supporting horse protome in outstretched r. hand; in r. field trident pointing downward (Potts Class S) or upward (Potts Class S); date palm in l. field. . O/R a. . g [NL] AR P. b.* . g [NL] AR P. c. . g ? [NL] MB. col. d. . g ? [NL] MB col. . O/R a.* . g [NL] AR P. . O/R a.* ? [NL] AR Sharjah a. O/R a.* . g [NL] AR ANS .. . O?/R? a. . g [NL] AR P. b. . g [NL] AR P. NUMISMATIC STYLE ., drachms (Potts Class S/) Obv.: Head to r. with swirling coiffure. Rev.: Enthroned figure to l., supporting horse protome in outstretched r. hand; in far r. field trident pointing downward (Potts Class S) or upward (Potts Class S); some appear to have additional symbols or letters below; palm tree in lower l. field. . O/R a.* . g ? [NL] symbol? H. . O/R a.* . g [NL] BI Sharjah . O/R a.* . g [NL] ANS ..; Lanz (), ; Arnold-Biucchi (), pl. , NUMISMATIC STYLE ., drachms (Potts Class S/) Obv.: Head to r. with swirling coiffure. Rev.: Enthroned figure to l., supporting horse protome in outstretched r. hand; in far r. field trident pointing downward (Potts Class S) or upward (Potts Class S); some have additional symbols or letters below trident; palm tree in lower l. field. . O/R a.* . g [NL] AR /alif? P. . O/R a.* . g ? [NL] alif H. . O/R a.* . g ? [NL] alif Sotheby , . O/R a.* ? ? [NL] alif? H. a. O/R a.* . g [NL] AR? ANS .. NUMISMATIC STYLE ., obols (Potts Class S/) Obv.: Head to r. with swirling coiffure. Rev.: Enthroned figure to l., supporting horse protome in outstretched r. hand; in r. field trident pointing downward (Potts Class S) or upward (Potts Class S); some have additional symbols or letters below trident; date palm in l. field. . O/R a.* . g [NL] AR P. . O/R a.* . g [NL] AR P. . O/R a.* ? ? [NL] H. . O/R a.* ? ? [NL] H. . O/R a. . g [NL] AR /alif? P. b.* . g [NL] AR /alif? P.
XVII. A Die Study of the ‘Abiel’ Coinage of Eastern Arabia
575
. O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R a. O/R . O?/R
a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a. ? b.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* ? a.* . g a.* ? a.* ? a.* ? a.* . g b.. g a.* . g a.* . g
? ? ? ? ?
[NL] [NL] [NL] [NL] [NL] [NL] [NL] [NL] [NL] [NL] [NL] [NL] [NL] [NL] [NL] [NL]
AR AR BI
AR
AR AR AR AR AR? AR
P. P. P. H. []; H. P. MB. col. H. H. H. Sharjah Sharjah P. ANS .. ANS .. P.
EPIGRAPHIC TRADITION 3
NUMISMATIC STYLE ., tetradrachms (Potts Class XLVIII) Obv.: Head of Herakles to r., pelt of Nemean lion rendered as chevrons or in herringbone pattern. Some with dot on cheek. Rev.: Enthroned figure to l. wearing brimmed hat, supporting horse on outstretched r. arm; trident behind, chevron-like symbol above lap; stylized palm tree in l. field; Aramaic inscription vertically in r. field. . O/R a. . g D....a BI P. b. . g D....a BI P. c. . g D....a BI P. d. . g D....a BI P. e. . g D....a BI P. f. . g D....a BI P. g.* . g D....a BI P.; Arnold Biucchi (), no. ; Freeman & Sear (), ; MB col. h. . g D....a BI P. i. ? ? D....a H. j. ? ? D....a H. k. ? ? D....a M.unp. l. . g D....a NFA (), . O/R a.* . g ? D...a H. . O/R a.* ? ? [EL] H. b. . g [EL] CNG (), ; MB col. . O/R a. . g D... BI P. b. . g D... BI P.
576
Peter G. van Alfen
c. . g d.* . g a.* . g b. . g a.* . g a.* . g a. . g b. . g c.* . g a. . g b. . g c. . g d.* . g
? ? ? ?
D... D... D....a D....a [EL] D....e [EL] D....a D....a D....a [EL] [EL] [EL] BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI
. O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R
. O/R
. O/R . O/R . O/R
e. . g a.* . g a.*. g b. . g a.* . g
? ?
D....a D....a D....a [EL] D....a
BI BI BI BI BI
. O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R
a.* . g b. . g a.* . g b. . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g b. . g a.* . g a.* . g
? ?
D....e [EL] [EL] D....b D....a D....a [EL] [EL] [GS] D....a
BI BI BI BI BI BI
H.; Italo Vecchi (), CNG (), P. P. P. P. P. P. Sotheby Zurich (), P. P. H. UBS (), ; Freeman & Sear (), ; Sternberg (), Italo Vecchi (), P. P. P. H.; Italo Vecchi (), ; (), ; (), ; (), []; H. P. P. P. P. Lanz (), P. P. H. UBS (),
NUMISMATIC STYLE ., tetradrachms (Potts Class XLVIII) Obv.: As above. Rev.: Enthroned figure to r. wearing brimmed hat, supporting horse on outstretched l. arm; trident behind, chevron-like symbol above lap; stylized palm tree in r. field; Aramaic inscription vertically in l. field. . O/R a.* . g ? D.. BI H.; Italo Vecchi (), b. ? ? D.. H. c. . g D.. AE ANS .. . O/R a.* ? ? D.. H. b. . g ? D.. H.
XVII. A Die Study of the ‘Abiel’ Coinage of Eastern Arabia
577
c. . g . O/R . O/R a.* . g a. . g b. . g c.* . g a.* . g
?
. O/R
Lanz (), ; CNG (), D.. AE Sharjah D.. BI P. D.. BI P. D.. AE Sharjah D....a AE / god to l. Sharjah
D..
NUMISMATIC STYLE ., tetradrachms (Potts Class XLIV) Obv.: Head of Herakles to r., pelt of Nemean lion rendered as chevrons or in herringbone pattern. Rev.: Enthroned figure to l. wearing brimmed hat, supporting horse on outstretched r. arm; trident above lap; stylized palm tree in l. field; Aramaic inscription vertically in r. field. . O/R a.* . D....a H.; Triton X (), b. . g D....a AE ANS .. . O/R a.* . g D....a BI P. b. . g [EL] BI P. . O?/R? a. . g ? [EL] BI P. NUMISMATIC STYLE ., drachms (Potts Class XLIV) Obv.: Derivative head of Herakles to r., pelt of Nemean lion rendered as chevrons or in herringbone pattern. Rev.: Enthroned figure to l. wearing brimmed hat, supporting horse on outstretched r. arm; trident above lap; stylized palm tree in l. field; Aramaic inscription vertically in r. field; additional dots or parallel lines variously appear behind the figure. . O/R a.* . g D....a BI P. b. . g D....a BI ANS .. . O/R a.* . g [EL] BI P. D....c BI P. . O/R a. . g b. . g D....c BI P. c. . g D....c BI P. d. . g D....c BI P. e. . g D....c AR P. f. . g ? D....c H. g. ? ? [EL] H. h. . g D....c BI Sharjah i. . g D....c BI Sharjah j.* . g D....c BI []; H. k. . g D....c NFA (), . O/R a. ? ? D....c H. b. *. g ? D....c H.; Künker (), c. . g ? D....c ANS .. . O/R a. . g [EL] BI P. b. * ? ? D....c H. . O/R a. . g D...a AR P. b. . g D...a BI P. c.* . g D...a AR P.
578
Peter G. van Alfen
. O/R
d. . g e. . g f. . g g. . g a.* . g b. ? c. . g d. . g e. . g a.* . g b. . g a. . g b.* . g c. . g d. ? a.* . g a.* . g
? ? ? ? ?
D...a [EL] [EL] D...a D...a D...a D...a D...a D...a D...d D...d [EL] D....a D....a D....a D....a D....a
BI BI AR
BI
. O/R
. O/R
. O/R . O/R
AR BI BI BI BI AE
[]; H. P. NFA (), Triton I (), P. H. H. Sharjah ANS ..; Arnold-Biuc chi (), pl. , no. Triton IX () ; CNG (), Sotheby Zurich (), P. P. Sharjah Sharjah P. []; Lanz (),
NUMISMATIC STYLE ., tetradrachms (Potts Class XLVII) Obv.: Head of Herakles to r., pelt of Nemean lion rendered as herringbone pattern. Dot on cheek. Rev.: Enthroned figure to l. (or r.), sometimes wearing brimmed hat, supporting horse on outstretched r. arm; trident above lap; stylized palm tree in l. field; Aramaic inscription vertically in r. field. Additional dots variously within or behind figure. . O/R a.* . g ? D....b H. b. . g D....b [];MB col. ; Sotheby Zurich (), . O/R a. . g D....a BI P. b. . g ? D....a H.; Italo Vecchi (), c.* ? ? D....a H. d. ? ? D....a H. . O/R a.* . g D....a BI Sharjah ; H. . O/R a. . g ? D...b H.; Italo Vecchi (), b.* ? ? D...b H.; Italo Vecchi (), NUMISMATIC STYLE , tetradrachms (Potts Class XLVIII) Obv.: As above. Dot on bridge of the nose. Rev.: Enthroned figure to r. or l. wearing brimmed hat, supporting horse on outstretched arm; trident behind, chevron-like symbol above lap; stylized palm tree in r. or l. field; Aramaic inscription vertically in r. or l. field. . O/R a.* . g D.. BI P. b. . g ? D.. H.; Alpha Bank
XVII. A Die Study of the ‘Abiel’ Coinage of Eastern Arabia
579
. O/R . O/R . O/R
. O/R
a.* . g b. . g a. . g b.* . g a. . g b.* . g c. . g a. . g b.* . g
? ?
[GS] [GS] D....c D....c [EL] [EL] [EL] D.. D..
BI BI BI BI BI AE BI
P. P. P. H. P. P. Lanz (), P. H.; Italo Vecchi (),
NUMISMATIC STYLE , drachms (Potts Class XLVIII) Obv.: As above. Rev.: As above. . O/R a.* . g [EL] BI . O?/R? a. . g [EL] BI
P. P.
NUMISMATIC STYLE , tetradrachms (Potts Class XLIX) Obv.: Crude head of Herakles to r., pelt of Nemean lion rendered as large dots. Dot on bridge of the nose. Rev.: Enthroned figure to either r. or l. wearing brimmed hat, supporting horse on outstretched l. arm; trident behind, cone-like object projected upward from lap; stylized palm tree in r. field; Aramaic inscription vertically in l. field. . O/R a.* . g D....c BI P. b. ? ? D....c H. c. . g ? D....c H. d. . g ? D....c Italo Vecchi (), . O/R a.* ? ? [EL] H.; Italo Vecchi (), . O/R a.* . g ? D....d H.; SNG Cop Suppl. ; Italo Vecchi (), . O/R a. . g D.. BI P. b. . g [EL] BI P. c. . g ? D.. H. d. . g ? [EL] H. e. . g [EL] Triton X (), f.* ? [EL] CNG (), . O/R a.* . g [EL] BI P. . O/R a.* . g ? [EL] H.; Italo Vecchi (), . O?/R? a. ? ? [EL] H.
580
Peter G. van Alfen
NUMISMATIC STYLE , drachms (Potts Class XLIX) Obv.: Head of Herakles to r., pelt of Nemean lion rendered as chevron pattern. Rev.: Enthroned figure to l. wearing brimmed hat, supporting horse on outstretched r. arm; trident behind, cone-like projecting upward from lap; stylized palm tree in l. field; Aramaic inscription vertically in r. field. . O/R38 a.* . g D...b BI P. b. . g D...b BI P. c. . g ? D...b MB. col. NUMISMATIC STYLE , tetradrachms (Potts Class XLV) Obv.: Head of Herakles to r., pelt of Nemean lion rendered as chevrons or in herringbone pattern. Rev.: Enthroned figure to r., supporting horse on outstretched l. arm; trident above lap; stylized palm tree in r. field; Aramaic inscription vertically in l. field; additional dots variously appear behind the figure. . O/R a.* . g D.. BI P. . O/R a. . g D.. BI P. b. . g D.. BI P. c. . g ? D.. H. d. . g ? D.. CNG (), e.* . g ? D.. BI Freeman & Sear (), . O/R a.*. g D.. BI P. b. . g D.. BI P. c. . g ? D.. H. . O/R a.* . g [EL] BI P. b. . g [EL] AE / to l.? Sharjah . O/R a.* . g [GS] BI P. . O?/R a.* . g ? [GS] AE Sharjah . O/R a.* . g [GS] BI P. b. . g ? [GS] H. . O/R a. . g [EL] BI P. b. . g [GS] BI P. c. . g [EL] BI P. d. . g [EL] BI P. e.* . g ? [GS] BI H.; Italo Vecchi (), f. . g ? [GS] Berk (), ; (), ; (), . O/R a. . g [GS] BI P. b.* ? ? [GS] H. c. . g [GS] AE ANS .. . O/R a.* . g [EL] BI P. . O/R a.* . g [EL] BI P. . O/R a.* . g [EL] BI P.
. This reverse die was recut; the cone-like item is a later addition. I thank Michael Macdonald for bringing this to my attention.
XVII. A Die Study of the ‘Abiel’ Coinage of Eastern Arabia
581
. O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O?/R . O?/R . O?/R . O?/R . O?/R . O?/R . O?/R . O?/R . O?/R . O?/R?
a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g b. ? a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a. . g b. . g c. . g d. . g e. ? f. ? g. . g h. . g
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
[GS] [EL] [GS] [GS] [GS] [EL] [EL] [EL] [EL] [GS] [EL] D.. [EL] [EL] [GS] [GS] [GS] [EL] [EL] [EL] [EL] [EL] [EL] [EL] [EL]
P. P. P. H.; Italo Vecchi (), H. H. H. AE w. silvering Sharjah Sharjah AE Sharjah BI P. BI P. BI P. BI P. BI P. Berk (), ; CNG (), CNG (), BI P. BI P. BI P. H. AE Sharjah AE Sharjah AE ANS .. AE ANS ..
BI BI BI
NUMISMATIC STYLE ., tetradrachms (Potts Class XLVII) Obv.: As above, but some with dot on cheek. Rev.: As above, but some figures wearing brimmed hat, some with spiked hair. . O/R a.* . g [EL] BI P. . O/R a.* . g [EL] BI P. . O/R a.* . g D....a Sharjah . O/R a.* . g ? D....b H. . O/R a.* . g D...c BI P. . O/R a.* . g [EL] BI P. . O/R a.* . g D...c BI P. . O/R a.* . g [GS] BI P. . O/R a.* . g ? D...a H. NUMISMATIC STYLE ., tetradrachms (Potts Class XLVII) Obv.: As above, but no dot on cheek. Rev.: As above. . O/R a. . g [GS] BI P. b.* . g ? [GS] H.
582
Peter G. van Alfen
. O/R . O/R . O/R
. O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O?/R . O?/R?
c. ? a. . g b.* . g a. . g b.* ? a. . g b. . g c.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g b. . g a.* . g a.* . g a. . g b. . g c. . g d. . g
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
[GS] [GS] [GS] [GS] [GS] [GS] [GS] [GS] [GS] D....c [GS] [GS] [GS] [GS] D...d D...d [GS?] [GS] [EL] [EL] [GS] [EL]
BI BI BI BI BI BI
BI BI BI
BI BI BI BI
H. P. Sharjah ; H. P. H. P. Sharjah Triton IX (), P. H.; Italo Vecchi (), P. H. H.; SNG Cop Suppl. ; Italo Vecchi (), P. H. MB col. H.; Italo Vecchi (), P. P. P. P. H.
NUMISMATIC STYLE ., tetradrachms (Potts Class XLVII) Obv.: As above, but with dot on cheek. Rev.: As above, but with spiked hair instead of brimmed hat. . O/R a. . g [GS] BI b.* . g [GS] BI . O/R a. . g [GS] BI b.* . g ? [GS] c. . g [GS] AE . O/R a.* ? ? D....c . O/R a.* ? ? [EL] . O/R a.* ? ? [EL] b. ? ? D...b . O/R a.* . g [GS] BI . O/R? a. . g b. . g c. . g d.* . g a.* . g [EL] no rev shown [EL] [EL] [EL]
. O/R
P. P.; MB col. P. H. ANS .. P. H. H. M.unp. Freeman & Sear (), ; NFA (), BI P. plated Sharjah plated Sharjah plated Sharjah BI P.
XVII. A Die Study of the ‘Abiel’ Coinage of Eastern Arabia
583
. O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R a. O/R . O/R a. O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O?/R . O/R . O/R? . O/R . O/R? . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R a. O/R . O?/R . O?/R?
a.* . g a.* . g a.* ? b. ? a.* . g b. . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a. . g b. . g c. . g d. . g e. . g f. . g g. . g h.. g i. . g j. . g k. . g l. . g m. . g n.. g o. . g p. . g
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
D...a [EL] D...b [EL] D...b D...b D...b D...b D...b D...b [GS] D...b D...c D...c [EL] [EL] [EL] D...b [EL] [GS] [GS] [GS] [GS?] D...b [EL] [EL] [GS] [EL] [EL] [NL/EL] [EL] [NL?] [GS] [NL?] D...a? [EL] D...a [EL] [EL] [EL]
BI P. plated Sharjah H. Sharjah BI P. BI P. BI ANS .. H.; Italo Vecchi (), BI ANS .. H. BI / to r. P. to r. Münz Zentrum (), BI P. BI P. BI P. H.; CNG (), BI P. MB col.; CNG (),; CNG (), BI P.; MB col. BI P. Triton IX (), NFA (), BI ANS .. MB. col. BI P. BI P. BI P. BI P. H. BI Sharjah BI Sharjah plated Sharjah AE Sharjah plated Sharjah plated Sharjah Sharjah Sharjah AE Sharjah AE Sharjah plated Sharjah
584
Peter G. van Alfen
NUMISMATIC STYLE ., drachms (Potts Class XLVII) Obv.: Crude head of Herakles to r., pelt of Nemean lion rendered as radiating pattern; lids of eye curved. Rev.: Enthroned figure to l. with long spiky, mane-like hair, supporting horse on outstretched r. arm; l. arm and staff at right angles; trident symbol above lap; stylized palm tree in l. field; Aramaic inscription vertically in r. field. Dots variously behind or within figure. . O/R a.* . g [EL] BI P. b. . g [EL] BI P. c. . g D...a BI P. d. . g [EL] BI P.; MB col. e. . g [EL] BI ANS .. f. . g D...a BI ANS .. . O/R a.* . g ? [EL] BI P. . O/R a. . g D...b BI P.; MB col. b.* . g D...b BI P.; MB col. . O/R a.* . g [EL/NL] BI P.; MB col. . O/R a.* . g [EL] BI P. b. . g ? D.. MB col. . O/R a.* . g ? [EL] H. a.O/R a.* . g D.. BI ANS .. . O/R a.* . g [GS] SNG Cop Suppl. . O/R a.* . g [EL] BI P. . O/R a.* . g D...b BI P. . O/R a.* . g [EL] BI P. . O/R a.* . g [EL] BI Sharjah . O/R a.* . g [NL] BI P. . O?/R? a. . g [EL] BI P. b. . g [EL] BI P. c. . g [EL] BI P. d. . g [EL] BI P. e. . g [EL/NL] BI P. f. . g [EL] BI Sharjah NUMISMATIC STYLE ., drachms (Potts Class XLVII) Obv.: Crude head of Herakles to r., pelt of Nemean lion rendered as radiating pattern; lids of eye curved. Rev.: Enthroned figure to l. with short spiky hair, supporting horse on outstretched r. arm; l. arm and staff at right angles; trident symbol above lap; stylized palm tree in l. field; Aramaic inscription vertically in r. field. Two to four dots behind figure. . O/R a.* . g [NL] BI P. . O/R a.* . g [GS] BI P. . O/R a.* . g [GS] BI Sharjah . O/R a.* . g [GS] BI Sharjah . O/R a.* . g D...b BI P. . O/R a.* . g [EL] BI P.
XVII. A Die Study of the ‘Abiel’ Coinage of Eastern Arabia
585
. O/R
a.* . g
[GS]
BI
Freeman & Sear (), ; NFA (),
NUMISMATIC STYLE ., obols (Potts Class XLVII) Obv.: Crude head of Herakles to r., pelt of Nemean lion rendered as radiating or chevron pattern. Rev.: Enthroned figure to l. (or r.) with short spiky hair, supporting horse on outstretched r. arm; l. arm and staff at right angles; trident symbol above lap; stylized palm tree in l. field; Aramaic inscription vertically in r. field. Two to four dots behind figure. . O/R a.* . g [NL] BI P.; MB col. b. ? ? [NL] H. c. ? ? [NL] H. d. ? [NL] BI Sharjah a. O/R a.* . g [NL] BI ANS .. . O/R a.* . g [EL] BI P. . O/R a.* . g [GS] BI P. . O/R a.* . g [GS] BI P. . O/R a.* ? ? D...b H. . O/R a.* ? ? [NL/EL] H. . O/R a.* ? ? [NL] to r. H. . O/R a.* ? [GS] AR Sharjah . O?/R a.* ? ? [GS?] H. . O?/R? a. . g [EL] BI P. b. . g [EL] BI P. c. . g D...b AR P. d. . g [EL] AR P. e. . g ? [EL] BI P. f. . g [EL] AR P. g. . g [EL] AR P. h. ? ? [EL] H. i. ? ? [EL] H. j. ? ? [EL] H. NUMISMATIC STYLE ., tetradrachms (Potts Class XLVII) Obv.: As above, but more crudely rendered; dot on cheek. Rev.: As above, but figure mostly with spiked hair. Calliper-like monogram variously behind and/ or below figure. . O/R a.* . g D.. AR []; P.; Freeman & Sear (), . O/R a.* . g D.. BI P. . O/R a.* . g D.. BI Sharjah ; H. . O/R a.* . g ? D.. BI H.; Italo Vecchi (), . O/R a.* . g ? [EL] CNG (), . O/R a.* . g [EL] BI P. . O/R a.* . g D.. Sotheby Zurich (), ; MB col.
586
Peter G. van Alfen
. O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R
a.* . g a.* . g
? ? ? ? ? ? ?
a.* . g a.* ? a.* . g a.* . g a.* ? a.* . g b. . g . O/R a.* . g . O/R a.* . g . O?/R . O/R . O/R a. O/R . O/R . O?/R a.* . g a.* . g a.* ? a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g
Lanz (), ; Peus (), D...b BI (no calliper) P.; Freeman & Sear (), D...a H. D...a H. D...b BI P. D...b BI P.; NFA (), D...b H. D...b BI Sharjah D...b H. D...b BI P.; NFA (), D...b AR []; New York Sale IX () D...b BI Sharjah [EL] H. [EL] H. D....b BI ANS .. [EL] BI Sharjah [EL] BI Lanz (), ; Aufhäuser (), ; (),
D..
NUMISMATIC STYLE ., drachms with calliper symbol (Potts Class XLVII) Obv.: Head of Herakles to r., pelt of Nemean lion rendered as chevron pattern. Dot on cheek. Rev.: Enthroned figure to l., with spiked hair, supporting horse on outstretched r. arm; trident above lap; stylized palm tree in l. field; Aramaic inscription vertically in r. field. Calliper-like symbol variously behind and/or below figure. . O/R a. ? ? [EL] H. b.* . g [EL] BI Sharjah . O/R a. ? ? [EL] H. . O/R a.* . g [EL] BI P. . O/R a.* . g [EL] BI P. . O/R a.* . g [EL] BI Sharjah ; H. . O/R a.* . g D....a BI Sharjah . O/R a.* . g D...a BI P. . O/R a.* . [EL] BI P. . O/R a.* . g ? D...b Peus (), NUMISMATIC STYLE ., drachms without calliper symbol (Potts Class XLVII) Obv.: Crude head of Herakles to r., pelt of Nemean lion rendered as radiating pattern. Series of dots above eye, which is rendered as two straight lines. Rev.: Enthroned figure to l. (or r.), with short hair, supporting horse on outstretched r. arm; l. arm curved around staff; trident symbol above lap; stylized palm tree in l. field; Aramaic inscription vertically in r. field. Additional dots variously within, behind, or below figure. . O/R a.* . g D.. BI P. . O/R a. . g ? D....a Lanz (),
XVII. A Die Study of the ‘Abiel’ Coinage of Eastern Arabia
587
. O/R
. O/R
b. . g c.* . g a. . g b.* . g c. . g a.* . g b. . g a.* ? b. ? a.* . g a.* . g b. . g a.*. g a.* . a.* ? a.* . g
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
D....a D....a D...a D...a D...a D...b D...b D...b D...b D...b D...a D...a D...a D...b D...b D...b
. O/R . O/R . O/R
. O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R
CNG (), Münz Zentrum (), BI P. AR CNG mailbid (), MB col. H.; Berk (), ; CNG (), BI Sharjah H. H. BI P. Sotheby - May (), MB col.; Italo Vecchi (), BI / god to r. P. BI H. H. Sotheby - May (),
NUMISMATIC STYLE ., obols without calliper symbol (Potts Class XLVII) Obv.: Crude head of Herakles to r., pelt of Nemean lion rendered as radiating pattern. Some with dots near eye or on cheek. Rev.: Enthroned figure to l. (or r.), with short hair, supporting horse on outstretched r. arm; l. arm curved around staff; trident symbol above lap; stylized palm tree in l. field; Aramaic inscription vertically in r. field. Additional dots variously within, behind, or below figure. . O/R a. . g [EL] BI P. b. . g D...b AR? P. c. . g D...b AR P. d. . g D...b BI P. e. ? ? D...b H. f. ? ? D...b H. g.* . g ? D...b CNG (), h. . g ? D...b Italo Vecchi (), . O/R a. . g [EL] BI P. b. ? ? D...b H. c.* . g ? D...b CNG (), . O/R a. . g D...b AR P. b.* . g D...b BI Sharjah . O/R a.* . g D...b BI P. b. . g D...b BI P. . O/R a. . g D...b P. b. . g D...b P. c. . g [EL] P.; MB col.
588
Peter G. van Alfen
d.* . g
D...b
e. . g f .* ? . (not used) . O/R a.* . g b. . g . O/R a.* ? . O/R a.* . g . O/R a.* . g . O/R . O?/R . O?/R a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
D...b D...b D...b [EL] [GS?] [GS] [GS] [GS] [GS] [GS]
Triton VIII (), ; New York Sale III (), ; CNG (), CNG () H. CNG (), SNG Cop Suppl. H. CNG (), MB col. ; Vecchi (), Italo Vecchi (), Italo Vecchi (), Italo Vecchi (),
NUMISMATIC STYLE ., tetradrachms (Potts Class XLVI) Obv.: Head of Herakles to r. with large round eye, with series of dots above eyebrow. Rev.: Enthroned figure to l. with triangular chest, supporting horse on outstretched r. arm; trident symbol above lap; stylized palm tree in l. field; inscription vertically in r. field. Additional dots variously within, behind, or below figure. . O/R a. . g D....d AR P. b.* . g ? D....d H. NUMISMATIC STYLE ., drachms (Potts Class XLVI) Obv.: As above. Rev.: As above. . O/R a.* . g ? D..
H.
NUMISMATIC STYLE ., drachms (Potts Class XLVI) Obv.: Head of Herakles to r. with large eye and series of dots behind eye. Rev.: Enthroned figure to l., supporting horse on outstretched r. arm; trident symbol above lap; stylized palm tree in l. field; inscription vertically in r. field. Additional dots variously within, behind, or below figure. . O/R a.* ? ? D...b H. . O/R a.* . g D...b P. . O?/R a.* . g D...d BI P. . O?/R a.* . g [EL] BI P. NUMISMATIC STYLE ., obols (Potts Class XLVI) Obv.: Head of Herakles to r. with large eye and series of dots behind eye. Rev.: Enthroned figure to l., supporting horse on outstretched r. arm; trident symbol above lap; stylized palm tree in l. field; inscription vertically in r. field. Additional dots variously within, behind, or below figure. . O/R a.* . g ? D...b H.; CNG (), . O/R a.* . g ? D...b H.; Italo Vecchi (),
XVII. A Die Study of the ‘Abiel’ Coinage of Eastern Arabia
589
. O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R
a. ? b.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g
? ?
D...b D...b D...b D...b D...b?
AR BI BI
H. CNG (), P. P. P.
NUMISMATIC STYLE , tetradrachms (Potts Classes XLVI, XLVII) Obv.: Head of Herakles to r. with large round eye. Rev.: Enthroned figure to l. with triangular chest, supporting horse on outstretched r. arm; trident symbol above lap; stylized palm tree in l. field; inscription vertically in r. field. Additional dots variously within, behind, or below figure. . O/R a.* . g Appendix BI Sharjah . O/R a.* . g [EL] BI P. b. . g [EL] BI P. . O/R a.* . g [EL] BI P. . O/R a.* . g D....a BI P. . O/R? a.* . g [EL] BI P. . O?/R? a. . g ? D...c BI P. b. . g D...c BI P. c. . g D...c BI P. d. . g D...c BI P. e. . g [GS] BI P. f. . g D...c BI P. g. . g D...c BI P. h.. g D...c BI P. NUMISMATIC STYLE , drachms (Potts Class XLVI) Obv.: Head of Herakles to r. Rev.: Enthroned figure to l. with triangular chest, supporting horse on outstretched r. arm; trident symbol above lap; stylized palm tree in l. field; inscription vertically in r. field. . O/R a.* . g [NL] BI P. b. . g [NL] BI P. c. . g ? [NL] MB. col. MISCELLANEOUS EPIGRAPHIC TRADITION (Potts Class XLVI, XLVII, S) Tetradrachms . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R . O/R Drachms . O/R . O/R a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* ? a.* . g a.* . g ? ? ? D...c D...b [EL] D...a D...d? D....c D...b BI BI AR AR P. P.; NFA (), P. H. NFA (), H. Sharjah Italo Vecchi (),
590
Peter G. van Alfen
Hemiobol (?) . O/R
a.* . g b. . g
?
D....b D....b
AR
[]; P. MB col.
EPIGRAPHIC TRADITION 4
NUMISMATIC STYLE , tetradrachms (Potts Class S) Obv.: Head of Herakles to r. wearing pelt of Nemean lion. Rev.: Enthroned figure to l. holding eagle on outstretched r. hand; Aramaic inscription to l., r. and below figure. . O/R a.* . g E AR []; H.; P. b. . g E H. c. . g E AR MB col.; NFA (), . O/R a.* . g E AR P. . O/R a.* . g E AR P. . O/R a.* . g E H. . O/R a.* . g E AR Sharjah ; H. . O/R a.* . g E AR P. b. ? ? E AR US col. . O/R a.* . g ? E MB col. . O/R a.* . g E Gemini I (), . O/R a.* ? E H. NUMISMATIC STYLE , drachms (Potts Class S) Obv.: As above. Rev.: As above, with the exception that one coin (H.a/Sharjah ) has only alif to l. . O/R a.* . g F. AR []; P. . O/R a.* . g F. H. . O/R a.* . g F. AR P.; MB col. . O/R a.* . g F. H. . O?/R a.* . g F. Sharjah ; H. . O/R a.* . g F. Sharjah ; H. NUMISMATIC STYLE , obols (Potts Class S) Obv.: As above. Rev.: Enthroned figure to l. holding eagle on outstretched r. hand; Aramaic alif to l. or r. varies. . O/R a.* . g F. AR Sharjah b. . g F. AR Sharjah . O/R a.* . g F. AR P. b. . g ? F. Freeman & Sear (), . O/R a.* . g F. AR []; P. NUMISMATIC STYLE , obols (Potts Class VI) Obv.: Crude head to r. Rev.: Enthroned figure to l., holding eagle in outstretched l. hand; stylized date palm in l. field; Aramaic inscription vertically in r. field. . O/R a.* . g F.. AR P.
XVII. A Die Study of the ‘Abiel’ Coinage of Eastern Arabia
591
. O/R . O/R? . O/R . O?/R?
b. . g a.* . g a.* . g a.* . g a. . g
? ?
F.. [EL] [EL] F.. [EL/NL]
AR AR AR AR AR
P. P. P. P. P.
MISCELLANEOUS ABIEL TYPES
Tetradrachms . O/R a.* . g [GS] Leu () ; Sotheby Zurich (); NFA () P.
. O/R
a.* . g
[EL]
BI
Obols Obv.: Heterogeneous obverse portraits to r.; NB: beard on No. . Rev.: Enthroned figure to l., supporting horse protome in outstretched r. hand; Aramaic inscription behind?; date palm in l. field. . O/R a.* . g [EL] AR P. . O/R a.* . g [EL] BI P. . O/R a.* . g [GS] AR / beard P. . O/R a.* . g [EL] AR P. . O/R a.* . g [NL] AR P.; MB col. . O?/R? a. . g [EL] AR P. b. . g [EL] AR P. c. . g ? [EL] AR P. d. . g ? [EL] H. e. . g ? [EL] H. f. ? ? [EL] H. g. ? ? [NL] H. h. ? ? [NL] H. i. ? ? [NL] H. j. ? ? [NL] H. k. ? ? [NL] H. l. ? ? [EL] Arnold-Biucchi (), pl. , m. ? ? [GS] Arnold-Biucchi (), pl. , n. .g ? [NL] MB col. o. . g ? [NL] MB col. p. . g ? [NL] MB col.
592
Peter G. van Alfen
ADDITIONAL OBOL GROUPS
NUMISMATIC STYLE , obols (Potts Class II) Obv.: Head to r. with radiating coiffure and wide eyes. Rev.: Enthroned figure to l., supporting horse protome in outstretched r. hand. . O/R a.* . g [NL] AR P. . O/R a.* . g [NL] AR P. . O/R? a. . g [EL?] P. b.* . g [EL?] P. a. O/R a.* . g [NL] ANS .. NUMISMATIC STYLE , obols (Potts Class II) Obv.: Crude head to r. with prominent chin and large ear. Rev.: Enthroned figure to l., supporting horse protome in outstretched r. hand; Nike [?] figure in l. field. . O/R a.* . g [GS] AR P. . O/R a.* . g [GS] AR P. . O/R a.* . g [GS] AR P. . O/R a.* ? ? [EL?] H. . O/R a.* ? ? [EL?] H. . O/R a.* . g ? [GS] Italo Vecchi (), . O/R? a.* . g ? [EL?] H. . O/R a.* . g [EL] AR P. . O/R a.* . g ? [NL?] ANS .. NUMISMATIC STYLE , obols (Potts Class II) Obv.: Crude head to r. with prominent nose. Rev.: Crudely executed enthroned figure to l., supporting horse protome in outstretched r. hand; Aramaic inscription behind? . O/R a.* . g [NL?] AR P. . O/R a.* . g ? [NL?] Italo Vecchi (), . O/R? a.* ? ? [NL] H.
XVII. A Die Study of the ‘Abiel’ Coinage of Eastern Arabia
593
References
Arnold-Biucchi, C. 1991. Arabian Alexanders. In W. E. Metcalf, ed. Mnemata: Papers in memory of Nancy M. Waggoner, pp. 99–115. New York. Carter, G.F. 1983. A simplified method for calculating the original number of dies from die link statistics. American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 28: 196–206. Callataÿ, F. de. 2006. Quantifications et numismatique antique: choix d’articles (1984–2004). Collection Moneta. Callot, O. 1990. Les monnaies dites ‘arabes’ dans le nord du Golfe arabo-persique à la fin du IIIe siècle avant notre ère. Failaka, Fouilles Francaises 1986–1988, pp. 221–240. Lyon/Paris. ———. n.d. Le trésor monétaire de la fouille 520. In J. Højlund and H. Andersen, eds. The Danish Excavation 520 at Ras al Qal‘a. The Carlsberg Foundation‘s Gulf Project. Copenhagen. ———. 1994. Un trésor de monnaies d’argent et monnaies diverses, Qal’at al-Bahrain, vol. I, pp. 351–360. Aarhus. ———. 2004. Catalogue des monnaies du Musée de Sharjah (Émirates Arabes Unis). Lyon. Haerinck, E. 1994. Héraclès dans l’iconographie des monnaies arabes pré-islamiques d’Arabie du Sud-est? Akkadica 89: 9–13. ———. 1996. Quelques monnaies pré-islamiques à monogramme provenant d’Arabie du sud-est. In H. Gasché and B. Hrouda, eds. Collectanea Orientalia. Civilisations du Proche-Orient. Serie I. Archeologie et Environnement 3: 113–117. ———. 1998a. International contacts in the southern Persian Gulf in the late 1st-century B.C./1stcentury A.D.: numismatic evidence from Ed-Dur (Emirate of Umm Al-Qaiwain, U.A.E.). Iranica Antiqua 33: 273–302. ———. 1998b. More pre-Islamic coins from Southeastern Arabia. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 9.2: 278–301. ———. 1998c. The shifting pattern of overland and seaborne trade in SE-Arabia: foreign pre-islamic coins from Mleiha (Emirate of Sharjah, U.A.E.). Akkadica 106: 22–40. ———. 1999. Abi’el, the ruler of Southeastern Arabia. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 10.1: 124–128. Hoover, O. and P. Iossif. 2008. Appendix 1. In A. Houghton, C. Lorber, and O. Hoover. 2008. Seleucid coins: a comprehensive catalogue. Part II. Seleucus IV through Antiochus XIII. Vol. II. New York: American Numismatic Society and Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. Houghton, A. and C. Lorber. 2002. Seleucid coins: a comprehensive catalogue. Part I. Seleucus I through Antiochus III. Vol. I. New York and Lancaster/London: American Numismatic Society and Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. ———., C. Lorber, and O. Hoover. 2008. Seleucid coins: a comprehensive catalogue. Part II. Seleucus IV through Antiochus XIII. Vol. I. (New York and Lancaster/London: American Numismatic Society and Classical Numismatic Group, Inc.). Huth, M., and D.T. Potts. 2002. Antiochus in Arabia. American Numismatic Journal 14: 73–81. Le Rider, G. 1965. Suse sous les Séleucides et les Parthes. Mémoires de la Mission Archéologique en Iran 38. Paris. ———. 1989. Le Golfe persique à l’époque séleucide: exploration archéologique et trouvailles monétaires. Revue Numismatique 31: 248–252.
594
Peter G. van Alfen
———. and F. de Callataÿ. 2006. Les Séleucides et les Ptolémées : L’héritage monétaire et financier d’Alexandre le grand. Monaco: Rocher. Mørkholm, O. 1960. Greek coins from Failaka. Kuml (1960): 199–207. ———. 1972. A Hellenistic coin hoard from Bahrain. Kuml (1972): 183–202. ———. 1979. New coin finds from Failaka. Kuml (1979): 219–236. Potts, D. T. 1991 The pre-Islamic coinage of Eastern Arabia. CNI Publications14. Copenhagen. ———. 1994. Supplement to the pre-Islamic coinage of Eastern Arabia. CNI Publications 16. Copenhagen. Price, M. 1991. The coinage in the name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus. London/ Zurich. Robin, C. 1974. Monnaies provenant de l’Arabie du nord-est. Semitica 24: 83–127. Salles, J.-F. 1987. The Arab-Persian Gulf under the Seleucids. In A. Kuhrt and S. Sherwin-White, eds. Hellenism in the east, pp. 75–109. Berkeley and Los Angeles. van Alfen, P. G. 2005. Ancient imitative and counterfeit coinage in context. In Z. Archibald, J. Davies, and V. Gabrielsen, eds., Making, moving, and managing: the new world of ancient economies, 323–31 BC. London: Oxbow.
Plate A Die Study of the Abiel Coinage of Eastern Arabia
ns .
van Alfen, A Die Study of the Abiel Coinage of Eastern Arabia
Plate
van Alfen, A Die Study of the Abiel Coinage of Eastern Arabia
Plate
ns .
ns .
ns . ns .
van Alfen, A Die Study of the Abiel Coinage of Eastern Arabia
Plate ns .
ns
ns
ns
ns .
a
ns .
ns .
a
a
van Alfen, A Die Study of the Abiel Coinage of Eastern Arabia
Plate ns .
van Alfen, A Die Study of the Abiel Coinage of Eastern Arabia
Plate ns .
ns .
ns .
ns .
ns ns
van Alfen, A Die Study of the Abiel Coinage of Eastern Arabia
Plate ns
ns ns
van Alfen, A Die Study of the Abiel Coinage of Eastern Arabia
Plate
ns .
ns .
van Alfen, A Die Study of the Abiel Coinage of Eastern Arabia
Plate
ns .
van Alfen, A Die Study of the Abiel Coinage of Eastern Arabia
Plate
a
a
ns .
a
a
ns .
van Alfen, A Die Study of the Abiel Coinage of Eastern Arabia
Plate ns .
a
ns .
van Alfen, A Die Study of the Abiel Coinage of Eastern Arabia
Plate
ns .
a
ns .
ns .
van Alfen, A Die Study of the Abiel Coinage of Eastern Arabia
Plate ns . ns .
ns
ns
misc. et
ns
van Alfen, A Die Study of the Abiel Coinage of Eastern Arabia
Plate
ns
ns
ns misc.
ns
a
ns
ns
van Alfen, A Die Study of the Abiel Coinage of Eastern Arabia
Academia © 2012