Roma Numismatics Ltd
Auction XXVII 22-23 Mar 2023
View prices realized
► Sale information
Find similar lots
Seleukid Empire, Timarchos AR Tetradrachm. Seleukia on the Tigris, circa 164-161 BC. Diademed and draped bust to right, wearing crested Boeotian helmet with scroll element / The Dioskouroi on horses prancing to right, each holding spear and palm; BAΣΙΛΕΩΣ MEΓAΛOY above, TIMAPXΟΥ below. SC 1588; Houghton, RN 1979, p. 214, fig. B = CSE 990; HGC 9, 761. 16.86g, 29mm, 12h.
Near Extremely Fine. Of the greatest rarity; the second known and the only one in private hands.
Ex Numismatica Ars Classica AG, Auction 134, 21 November 2022, lot 245.
Timarchos chose a familiar military iconography for one of his issues, presenting himself in a Boiotian helmet with the Dioskouri on the reverse, clearly in iconographic dialogue with the coinage of Eukratides I of Baktria. He further titles himself BAΣΙΛΕΩΣ MEΓAΛOY 'The Great King', a title also used by Eukratides and through which he distances himself from previous Seleukid rulers who never used this title on their coinage. In doing so, Timarchos portrays himself as the rightful king of his eastern kingdom by aligning himself with the Achaemenid Kings who had originally ruled in the Iranian satrapy of Media and by equating his rule with his contemporary Eukratides I of Baktria, who had also seized control of his domain by force. It has been suggested that the coinage reveals an alliance between the two rulers against a shared enemy, Mithradates I of Parthia, however, further evidence is required to support this theory, as it is also likely that the similarity was intended to support the legitimacy of Timarchos' issues through the imitation of a coinage which was already circulating and accepted in the east.
The geographical reach of Timarchos' authority is evidenced solely through the survival of coins which indicate that, alongside his main mint of Ekbatana, he struck occasional issues at different locations to fund his campaign. The extreme scarcity of these coins has not allowed for firm attributions for the majority, with the exception of a single tetradrachm (Houghton 990 = SC 1588) which has been attributed to Seleukia on the Tigris, demonstrating the extent of Timarchos' influence during his brief revolt.
The case for this tetradrachm's attribution was initially put forward by A. Houghton in 1979 and is based on the features of the coin which are characteristic of this mint. It is struck on a broad flan (the Ekbatana issues are on tight flans), it has a vertical die axis (Ekbatana is notable for loose die axes) and, most significantly, it has a remarkably different portrait to the Ekbatana issues. The bust is extended to reveal more shoulder, there is a scroll on the helmet and the treatment of the diadem end with one curved behind and the other hanging over the shoulder, as is also seen at the Seleukia mint under Demetrios I (see SC 1686 = Houghton 991, overstruck on a tetradrachm of Timarchos).
This current specimen therefore poses a question: is it the second known tetradrachm of Timarchos struck at Seleukia? Following Houghton's checklist, it is clear that the coin fits certain criteria, namely that it is struck on a broad flan, the die axis is 12h and the portrait has the longer bust and the horn on the helmet. It differs, however, in the arrangement of the diadem ends which fall behind the bust and also in the precision of the portrait which bears greater resemblance to SC 1589, the Ekbatana issue. The problem posed by the diadem ends can be explained through examination of Demetrios' tetradrachms struck at Seleukia which have both variations of diadem arrangement, straight behind and curved and over the shoulder, however the style of the portrait remains a source of contention.
Near Extremely Fine. Of the greatest rarity; the second known and the only one in private hands.
Ex Numismatica Ars Classica AG, Auction 134, 21 November 2022, lot 245.
Timarchos chose a familiar military iconography for one of his issues, presenting himself in a Boiotian helmet with the Dioskouri on the reverse, clearly in iconographic dialogue with the coinage of Eukratides I of Baktria. He further titles himself BAΣΙΛΕΩΣ MEΓAΛOY 'The Great King', a title also used by Eukratides and through which he distances himself from previous Seleukid rulers who never used this title on their coinage. In doing so, Timarchos portrays himself as the rightful king of his eastern kingdom by aligning himself with the Achaemenid Kings who had originally ruled in the Iranian satrapy of Media and by equating his rule with his contemporary Eukratides I of Baktria, who had also seized control of his domain by force. It has been suggested that the coinage reveals an alliance between the two rulers against a shared enemy, Mithradates I of Parthia, however, further evidence is required to support this theory, as it is also likely that the similarity was intended to support the legitimacy of Timarchos' issues through the imitation of a coinage which was already circulating and accepted in the east.
The geographical reach of Timarchos' authority is evidenced solely through the survival of coins which indicate that, alongside his main mint of Ekbatana, he struck occasional issues at different locations to fund his campaign. The extreme scarcity of these coins has not allowed for firm attributions for the majority, with the exception of a single tetradrachm (Houghton 990 = SC 1588) which has been attributed to Seleukia on the Tigris, demonstrating the extent of Timarchos' influence during his brief revolt.
The case for this tetradrachm's attribution was initially put forward by A. Houghton in 1979 and is based on the features of the coin which are characteristic of this mint. It is struck on a broad flan (the Ekbatana issues are on tight flans), it has a vertical die axis (Ekbatana is notable for loose die axes) and, most significantly, it has a remarkably different portrait to the Ekbatana issues. The bust is extended to reveal more shoulder, there is a scroll on the helmet and the treatment of the diadem end with one curved behind and the other hanging over the shoulder, as is also seen at the Seleukia mint under Demetrios I (see SC 1686 = Houghton 991, overstruck on a tetradrachm of Timarchos).
This current specimen therefore poses a question: is it the second known tetradrachm of Timarchos struck at Seleukia? Following Houghton's checklist, it is clear that the coin fits certain criteria, namely that it is struck on a broad flan, the die axis is 12h and the portrait has the longer bust and the horn on the helmet. It differs, however, in the arrangement of the diadem ends which fall behind the bust and also in the precision of the portrait which bears greater resemblance to SC 1589, the Ekbatana issue. The problem posed by the diadem ends can be explained through examination of Demetrios' tetradrachms struck at Seleukia which have both variations of diadem arrangement, straight behind and curved and over the shoulder, however the style of the portrait remains a source of contention.