Roma Numismatics Ltd
Auction XXII 7-8 Oct 2021
View prices realized
► Sale information
Find similar lots
Seleukid Empire, Antiochos III 'the Great' AR Tetradrachm. Uncertain mint 56, probably in western Asia Minor, perhaps Sardes, circa 203 BC. Diademed head to right / Indian elephant standing to right, left foreleg raised; ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ above ANTIOXOY below, ꓱΙ to left, MH monogram to right. SC 987.2b; Houghton, ANSMN 31, 19-20; CSE 1183. 16.86g, 28mm, 12h.
Extremely Fine. Very Rare; no other examples on CoinArchives.
Ex Heritage World Coin Auctions, NYINC Signature Sale 3071, 6 January 2019, lot 33198.
Minted under the rule of the sixth of the 'Elephant Kings', this silver tetradrachm is a very rare type among what Houghton ('The Elephants of Nisibis', 1986, p.107) designates as 'the more impressive coins of the Hellenistic rulers', those whose obverse depict Antiochos III and whose reverse honours the elephants used as a Seleukid dynastic symbol.
The mint for Antiochos' elephant silver coinage has been the subject of dispute. Houghton (1986, pp.118-121) challenged Newell's initial attribution of these coins to Ekbatana (ESM, 1978, pp.221-222), instead ascribing them to Nisibis on the basis of apparent stylistic features they shared with Apollo on omphalos tetradrachms from that mint. Houghton and Lorber subsequently revised such theories, pointing out aspects like the high relief of this present coin and the other elephant tetradrachms which set them apart from the flat late tetradrachms assigned to Nisibis (SC, 2002, p377). Houghton, Lorber and Hoover in Seleukid Coins suggest this coin belongs to a group which was probably minted in Asia Minor; this allows that the present issue could have been produced at Sardes, the historic Seleukid royal court (Strabo 11.13.5) restored as a provincial capital after Antiochos' siege against Achaios, though Houghton and Lorber note that the chronological gap between the bronze elephant type more securely linked to Sardes (981.4) and coins 987.2b-3 precludes certainty on their Sardian origin.
The Seleukid kingdom had historic associations with these largest of land animals depicted on the reverse of the current type: Strabo claimed that the military centre of Seleukos I at Apameia had been home to 500 war elephants, secured through a peace treaty with Chandragupta of India (Strabo, 16.2.10; 15.2.9); a Babylonian astronomical diary of 274/3 BC recorded the transportation of war elephants to be deployed by Antiochos I against Ptolemy II (Sachs and Hunger, 1988, 345 no. 273); Polybius (11.34.11-12) wrote of Antiochos III amassing 150 elephants through treaties with Euthydemos and Sophagasenos (206 BC). The Indian elephant featured prominently on coinage as part of the 'personal myth-making' of Seleukos I, commemorating his elephant corps and his reconquest of India on the obverse of bronze issues from Apamea, for instance (c.300-281 BC, SC p.XXII; 35). This Antiochos III coin probably honoured the war elephants in the context of the king's campaigning in Asia Minor, particularly his Ionian expedition (Houghton and Lorber, 2002, p.377), though John Ma (Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor, 1999) suggests that such a reverse could also relate specifically to the elephants which Antiochos gained from Sophagasenos shortly before this coin was minted. The visual impact of elephants on coinage even seemed to reflect their military role. Elephants posed strategic challenges in ancient warfare (see P. Sabin in T. Cornell, B. Rankov, and P. Sabin, eds., The Second Punic War: A Reappraisal, 1996, p.70), and much of their military purpose lay instead in their impressive appearance: despite the overall Roman victory, Livy wrote of 'magnum terrorem' (great terror) which the sight of the Seleukid corps did inspire at Magnesia (37.40.3).
The obverse of the present coin shows the ageing king with thinning hair in the latter part of his reign, as part of a series of portraits which Houghton and Lorber identified as an iconographic programme (2002, p.357). The fortunes of this king, his army, and elephant corps changed later with the Battle of Magnesia (190 BC): Antiochos' Indian elephants, equipped with 'towers placed upon their backs' (Livy 37.40.4), outnumbered the strategically inferior African variety of their opponents, yet could not reverse the disastrous outcome of the battle. Vast swathes of Seleukid territory, as well as the entire elephant corps, were ceded to the Romans under the harsh Treaty of Apameia (188 BC). Yet this coin was produced amidst Seleukid successes: Antiochos' eastern expansions saw him perform 'many exploits, from which he was named Antiochos the Great' (Appian, Syr. 1) and he followed up these advances with success in the Fifth Syrian War in 195 BC. Following these victories, the diademed king depicted on this coin was able to wield wide-reaching control, from Europe to modern Afghanistan, as the most powerful Hellenistic ruler of that time.
Extremely Fine. Very Rare; no other examples on CoinArchives.
Ex Heritage World Coin Auctions, NYINC Signature Sale 3071, 6 January 2019, lot 33198.
Minted under the rule of the sixth of the 'Elephant Kings', this silver tetradrachm is a very rare type among what Houghton ('The Elephants of Nisibis', 1986, p.107) designates as 'the more impressive coins of the Hellenistic rulers', those whose obverse depict Antiochos III and whose reverse honours the elephants used as a Seleukid dynastic symbol.
The mint for Antiochos' elephant silver coinage has been the subject of dispute. Houghton (1986, pp.118-121) challenged Newell's initial attribution of these coins to Ekbatana (ESM, 1978, pp.221-222), instead ascribing them to Nisibis on the basis of apparent stylistic features they shared with Apollo on omphalos tetradrachms from that mint. Houghton and Lorber subsequently revised such theories, pointing out aspects like the high relief of this present coin and the other elephant tetradrachms which set them apart from the flat late tetradrachms assigned to Nisibis (SC, 2002, p377). Houghton, Lorber and Hoover in Seleukid Coins suggest this coin belongs to a group which was probably minted in Asia Minor; this allows that the present issue could have been produced at Sardes, the historic Seleukid royal court (Strabo 11.13.5) restored as a provincial capital after Antiochos' siege against Achaios, though Houghton and Lorber note that the chronological gap between the bronze elephant type more securely linked to Sardes (981.4) and coins 987.2b-3 precludes certainty on their Sardian origin.
The Seleukid kingdom had historic associations with these largest of land animals depicted on the reverse of the current type: Strabo claimed that the military centre of Seleukos I at Apameia had been home to 500 war elephants, secured through a peace treaty with Chandragupta of India (Strabo, 16.2.10; 15.2.9); a Babylonian astronomical diary of 274/3 BC recorded the transportation of war elephants to be deployed by Antiochos I against Ptolemy II (Sachs and Hunger, 1988, 345 no. 273); Polybius (11.34.11-12) wrote of Antiochos III amassing 150 elephants through treaties with Euthydemos and Sophagasenos (206 BC). The Indian elephant featured prominently on coinage as part of the 'personal myth-making' of Seleukos I, commemorating his elephant corps and his reconquest of India on the obverse of bronze issues from Apamea, for instance (c.300-281 BC, SC p.XXII; 35). This Antiochos III coin probably honoured the war elephants in the context of the king's campaigning in Asia Minor, particularly his Ionian expedition (Houghton and Lorber, 2002, p.377), though John Ma (Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor, 1999) suggests that such a reverse could also relate specifically to the elephants which Antiochos gained from Sophagasenos shortly before this coin was minted. The visual impact of elephants on coinage even seemed to reflect their military role. Elephants posed strategic challenges in ancient warfare (see P. Sabin in T. Cornell, B. Rankov, and P. Sabin, eds., The Second Punic War: A Reappraisal, 1996, p.70), and much of their military purpose lay instead in their impressive appearance: despite the overall Roman victory, Livy wrote of 'magnum terrorem' (great terror) which the sight of the Seleukid corps did inspire at Magnesia (37.40.3).
The obverse of the present coin shows the ageing king with thinning hair in the latter part of his reign, as part of a series of portraits which Houghton and Lorber identified as an iconographic programme (2002, p.357). The fortunes of this king, his army, and elephant corps changed later with the Battle of Magnesia (190 BC): Antiochos' Indian elephants, equipped with 'towers placed upon their backs' (Livy 37.40.4), outnumbered the strategically inferior African variety of their opponents, yet could not reverse the disastrous outcome of the battle. Vast swathes of Seleukid territory, as well as the entire elephant corps, were ceded to the Romans under the harsh Treaty of Apameia (188 BC). Yet this coin was produced amidst Seleukid successes: Antiochos' eastern expansions saw him perform 'many exploits, from which he was named Antiochos the Great' (Appian, Syr. 1) and he followed up these advances with success in the Fifth Syrian War in 195 BC. Following these victories, the diademed king depicted on this coin was able to wield wide-reaching control, from Europe to modern Afghanistan, as the most powerful Hellenistic ruler of that time.