Roma Numismatics Ltd
E-Sale 84 16 Jun 2021
View prices realized
► Sale information
Find similar lots
Asia Minor, uncertain mint AR Drachm. In the name and types of Alexander III. 'Pseudo-Chios' mint, circa 3rd - 2nd century BC. Celticised head of Herakles to right, wearing lion skin headdress / Zeus Aëtophoros seated to left, holding sceptre; blundered legend [AΛEΞANΔPOY] to right, monogram within circle above grape bunch in left field. Cf. Lorber, 'The 'Pseudo-Chios' Mint: a new Drachm Mint in Asia Minor' in NC 180 (London, 2020), pp. 21-38, 69; Roma E-76, lot 10 (same dies); cf. HGC 6, 1134 (Chios). 4.09g, 20mm, 1h.
Near Mint State; highly lustrous.
From the inventory of a German dealer.
This issue belongs to a group of imitations which are apparently modelled on Alexander type drachms struck at Chios (c. 280-270 BC). Their existence was noted by Robert Bauslaugh in 1979 ('The posthumous Alexander coinage of Chios' in ANSMS 24 (1979), pp. 1-45) and more recently has been the subject of a die-study by Catherine Lorber (see references). Most reverse dies identified by Lorber bear controls inspired by Chian prototypes, usually the letter M or a monogram based on this letter, sometimes circled with a grape bunch suspended from it. Others exhibit controls which do not appear to be inspired by Chian prototypes however they are linked to the 'pseudo-Chios' issues by obverse die or style (for classification and commentary on style, see Lorber p. 23-25, also compare Price 2317-2325, pl. CXXXIII).
Lorber has tentatively argued that the minting authority of this imitative coinage was likely a local dynast in Asia Minor and the imitative Alexander drachms satisfied their need to pay foreign mercenaries who naturally required coinage acceptable in international markets. Furthermore, the controls of the pseudo-Chian issues which are unrelated to Chios itself suggest strong allusions to cities in Asia Minor with alliance to or under the control of the Ptolemaic kingdom (for example, Ephesos – see Lorber Group 2, 7-9). Lorber notes that the use of ethnic symbols may have pertained to mercenary units and served as an accounting device by the issuing authority, it being unlikely that it was at the demand of the mercenaries themselves (p. 27).
Despite the controls linking the series to Ptolemaic possessions in Asia Minor, the use of the elephant head control strongly alludes to the Seleukid empire and Antiochos III (Lorber Group 6, 151ff). Lorber has posited the theory that the pseudo-Chian drachms were struck by a local dynast who entered the service of the Seleukid crown following the successful campaign of Antiochos III in Asia Minor of 197 which stripped Ptolemy V of his possessions there, the mint perhaps being located along one of the invasion routes (p. 28).
Near Mint State; highly lustrous.
From the inventory of a German dealer.
This issue belongs to a group of imitations which are apparently modelled on Alexander type drachms struck at Chios (c. 280-270 BC). Their existence was noted by Robert Bauslaugh in 1979 ('The posthumous Alexander coinage of Chios' in ANSMS 24 (1979), pp. 1-45) and more recently has been the subject of a die-study by Catherine Lorber (see references). Most reverse dies identified by Lorber bear controls inspired by Chian prototypes, usually the letter M or a monogram based on this letter, sometimes circled with a grape bunch suspended from it. Others exhibit controls which do not appear to be inspired by Chian prototypes however they are linked to the 'pseudo-Chios' issues by obverse die or style (for classification and commentary on style, see Lorber p. 23-25, also compare Price 2317-2325, pl. CXXXIII).
Lorber has tentatively argued that the minting authority of this imitative coinage was likely a local dynast in Asia Minor and the imitative Alexander drachms satisfied their need to pay foreign mercenaries who naturally required coinage acceptable in international markets. Furthermore, the controls of the pseudo-Chian issues which are unrelated to Chios itself suggest strong allusions to cities in Asia Minor with alliance to or under the control of the Ptolemaic kingdom (for example, Ephesos – see Lorber Group 2, 7-9). Lorber notes that the use of ethnic symbols may have pertained to mercenary units and served as an accounting device by the issuing authority, it being unlikely that it was at the demand of the mercenaries themselves (p. 27).
Despite the controls linking the series to Ptolemaic possessions in Asia Minor, the use of the elephant head control strongly alludes to the Seleukid empire and Antiochos III (Lorber Group 6, 151ff). Lorber has posited the theory that the pseudo-Chian drachms were struck by a local dynast who entered the service of the Seleukid crown following the successful campaign of Antiochos III in Asia Minor of 197 which stripped Ptolemy V of his possessions there, the mint perhaps being located along one of the invasion routes (p. 28).