2238RE: RE: Coins of the III:rd Antiochus, the son of Antiochus II and Berenice?
- Oct 27, 2013
I think there is something interesting here as well. Coskun in a recent conference has proposed a new chronology that may help solve some of the issues a summary of the proceedings are here: http://wihs.uwaterloo.ca/sites/ca.wihs/files/SSD%204%20-%20Report%20130317Long%20final%20130319.pdf
---In firstname.lastname@example.org, <email@example.com> wrote:
That seems like a quite reasonable starting point for the analysis, Carl. SC I speaks of a multitude of portrait types, with several re-engravings and additions of paraphernalia such as wings on diadems. There is also the question of whether the Asia Minor issues of Seleucus II, briefly issued in the 240s BC, could be said to be placed in-between the lifetime Antiochus II issues and the coins attributed to Hierax. This was probably the foundation of Houghton's and Lorber's analysis, and it would be most interesting to hear Arthur Houghton comment on this. On p. 292, they mention a tetradrachm of Hierax from Lysimachia in Thrace (858), where the portrait was based on a lifetime obverse of Antiochos II, and the control also matches a lifetime monogram of his father (coin 483), as do many others of Hierax' coins. Coin 858 may be one candidate for the III:rd Antiochos - the dominance of the Ptolemaic fleet makes it suitable that the sole European Seleucid stronghold sided with Berenice's son. Le Rider attributed it to Antiochos II, but my knowledge of individual Seleucid coins is not professional enough to evaluate that.
I do however have a suspicion that some issues of Hierax were in fact little more than extortion money, as he was a highly unpopular king who ruled with the aid of Galatian mercenaries. Cities in Asia Minor may have paid up with posthumous coins of his father and grandfather - better Seleucid kings named Antiochus - a silent protest disguised as reverence, to which Hierax was of course unable to object. Hierax' coinage consisted mainly of tetradrachms - prestige money that served as payment for his Galatian mercenaries. He issued no bronzes, which indicates that he did not control the daily life of the cities of Asia Minor. The matter is quite complex, and may perhaps be the subject of further studies.
---In firstname.lastname@example.org, <jens.jakobsson@...> wrote:
now that it has been established that the son of Antiochus II and Berenice was named Antiochus, and that he was crowned as king - or at least that the Ptolemaic administration claimed this - is it not possible that some of the coinage attributed to Antiochus Hierax may in fact be earlier, and belong to his younger half-brother? Seleucid Coins I (cf part I, p. 293) states that the coinage of Hierax was most diverse, employing portrait types of Antiochus I & II, as well as new types presumably depicting Hierax himself. Could not some of this unusual variation of coins be explained by attributing a faction of them to cities in Asia Minor loyal to Berenice and her young son, c.246-5 BC? Posthumous portraits were at this time common within the Seleucid dynasty, so it would not be remarkable that the hapless infant king was not depicted himself. (In fact, no Hellenistic coins from the 3rd century BC depict infants.)
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>