27

Tom X

Kraków 2015

JOHN SHANNAHAN ACANS, Macquarie University, Australia

Samarian Depictions of the Figure in the Winged Disc

ABSTRACT: The following study discusses numismatic depictions of the fig-ure in the winged disc minted in Samaria in the fourth century BC. While Samar-ian die-engravers were capable of following prototypes closely, their depictions of this image vary greatly from those on coins and monuments from other parts of the Persian Empire. The differences between these Samarian types and the usual Achaemenid composition are the result of inspiration from a comparatively rare Achaemenid style, often found on clothing ornaments.

KEY WORDS: Samaria, winged disc, figure in winged discABSTRAKT: Samaryjskie wizerunki postaci w uskrzydlonym dyskuPoniższe studium dotyczy przedstawień postaci w uskrzydlonym dysku na mo-

netach bitych w Samarii w IV w. p.n.e. Chociaż samaryjscy rytownicy stempli mo- netarnych potrafili bardzo dokładnie powtarzać naśladowane pierwowzory, to w przy-padku opisywanego motywu ikonograficznego wizerunek na monetach z Samarii różni się znacząco od przedstawień monetarnych pochodzących z innych regionów państwa perskiego. Różnica ta jest rezultatem inspiracji samaryjskich rytowników stosunkowo rzadkim, achemenidzkim stylem, znanym z dekoracji tekstyliów.

SŁOWA KLUCZOWE: Samaria, uskrzydlony dysk, postać w uskrzydlonym dysku

INTRODUCTION*When Egypt revolted from the Achaemenid Empire at the end of the fifth cen-

tury, the Levant became a staging area for Persian attempts to reclaim the province. It ultimately took sixty years for the Empire to reincorporate Egypt. The cycle of planning, paying, and administering the Achaemenid invasion force was repeated six times between 405 and 343 BC.1 Furthermore, with the revolt of Egypt, the

1* I wish to thank A/Prof. K. Sheedy and the anonymous reviewers for their comments on drafts of this paper. I also wish to thank Prof. M. Garrison for his correspondence, and for sending me an article by JACOBS (in press) on the topic, which contained many valuable bibliographic references. They are not responsible for the errors that remain.

1 The six campaigns: (1) X. An. 1.3.20, 1.4.5; it is modern inference that the army to which Xenophon refers

DOI: 10.12797/ZP.10.2015.10.02

28

JOHN SHANNAHAN

southern Levant became a frontier of the Persian Empire. It now required defence against hostile Egyptian Pharaohs.2 New Persian interest in the governance of the region left several marks on the archaeological record. The most extensive re-late to defence.3 The administration of the region was consolidated, as indicated by changes in stamp impressions.4 The numismatic evidence reflects the situation through the increased use of Achaemenid motifs. In Philistia Gitler, suggested that this may reflect the local elite’s desire to integrate itself with the Achaemenids.5 In Samaria, in the midst of the changing political landscape, a new mint was activat-ed.6 This mint frequently used Achaemenid motifs, and has become the focus of extensive research on “iconographic precedents.”7 The following study examines two varieties of Samarian coinage which are yet to receive discussion.

In many cases the identification of iconographic precedents in Samarian coin-age is straight forward. Tiarate heads were popular.8 They bear the influence of Cilician examples showing satraps’ heads.9 The Achaemenid royal figure was also prevalent.10 He was shown riding a horse, engaging with real and mythical beasts, seated on a throne, or in adaptations of the traditional running archer.11 The royal hero was frequently shown battling animals in monumental and glyptic Achaeme-nid art.12 Sidonian die-engravers, known to have created prototypes exploited by the Samarians, also showed this motif.13 The king’s positioning on a throne in Samarian coinage mimics Achaemenid court scenes where he was presented in the

was marching towards Egypt. See BRIANT 2002: 619. (2) Isoc. 4.140. (3) D.S. 15.42–43. (4) Syncellus: 426, 20. (5) D.S. 16.40.3; Isoc. 5.101–102. (6) D.S. 16.48–51. See RUZICKA 2012.

2 D.S. 14.79.4, 15.3.3, 15.9.4, 15.90.2; Isoc. 6.63; Theopomp. Hist. (FGrH 115) F103; X. Ages. 2.27–30.3 FANTALKIN and TAL 2006; IIDEM 2012.4 LIPSCHITS and VANDERHOOFT 2007; IIDEM 2014: §4.5 GITLER 2000; IDEM 2011.6 See UEHLINGER 1999: 178f. The majority of Samarian coinage is known from two hoards: the Samaria

Hoard (CH 9.413) and the Nablus Hoard (IGCH 1504). MESHORER and QEDAR 1999 published both, expanding on the catalogue of IIDEM 1991. Further additions to the corpus of known Samarian issues were made by GITLER and TAL 2006b; RONEN 2007; MESHORER, BIJOVSKY and FISCHER-BOSSERT 2013: 208, no. 42 and 216, nos. 148–150. On the dates of Samarian coinage, see MESHORER and QEDAR 1991: 65; ELAYI and ELAYI 1993: 230; TAL 2011: 450, n. 8.

7 BODZEK 2008: 3.8 E.g. MESHORER and QEDAR 1999: nos. 71–72.9 E.g. BMC Cilicia: 100, no. 9, Pl. XVII.9. On the possible significance of these tiarate heads and their

diadems, see ZAHLE 1982; DUSINBERRE 2003. On tiarate heads in Samarian coinage: BODZEK 2011a.10 BRIANT 2002: 714–716; WYSSMANN 2013. On designating the figure as generically royal (i.e. not the

Achaemenid king); ROOT 1979: 303–308. Cf. BOARDMAN 2000: 148f.11 On horse: e.g. MESHORER and QEDAR 1999: nos. 15, 74. See BODZEK 2000; IDEM 2007. Engaging

with beasts: e.g. MESHORER and QEDAR 1999: nos. 20, 22, 35, 55–56. On throne: e.g. IIDEM: nos. 40, 47. Running archer: e.g. IIDEM: nos. 16, 32, 97, 153, 205.

12 E.g. monumental: ROOT 1979: Pls. 28a–b; BRIANT 2002: 224, Fig. 24. Glyptic: BOARDMAN 2000: Figs. 4.19, 5.1–2; GARRISON and ROOT 2001.

13 See MESHORER and QEDAR 1991: 23.

29

SAMARIAN DEPICTIONS...

same pose.14 These types also evoked earlier uses of the motif – with Baal/Zeus – but created a closer link to the Achaemenids with the headdresses added to the figures.15 The use of the running archer similarly adhered to the obverse type of Persian darics and sigloi.

The Achaemenid prototypes for the images found in Samarian coinage were ideologically significant. In an Achaemenid context, the depiction of a royal in-dividual in a heroic position glorified the position of the king and asserted his authority.16 The same messages were propagated by Samarian adaptations of the iconography. The use of the running archer, while taking advantage of the associa-tion with a reliable currency, also carried the connotations of the original type by dispersing an imperial message.17

Samarian die-engravers, however, were not restricted to pastiches of Ach-aemenid art. Their mimicry was centred on images already popular in coinage circulating in the local economy. Thus, we can also detect the influences of types from Athenian, Cilician, Phoenician, Sidonian, and satrapal coins.18 The easy iden-tification of prototypes has led to the characterisation of Samaria’s numismatic artistry as “prolifically derivative.”19

There remains, however, one motif which is famously complex in its Ach-aemenid context, and which was displayed by the Samarians in an equally intri-cate manner: the figure in the winged disc. Neither numismatists nor art historians have discussed its Samarian presentation in depth. Yet the composition of this fig-ure on Samarian coins is fascinating. The depiction of the figure with four wings (as opposed to two), and representation of his torso extending directly into feathers (instead of terminating in a disc), was rare in Achaemenid contexts. The composi-tion suggests that the die-engravers were inspired by small-scale depictions. No known numismatic representations of the figure in the winged disc are comparable to the Samarian examples under discussion here, and in this way the Samarian types are different to most Achaemenid-influenced coinage.

14 E.g. BRIANT 2002: Figs. 20–22.15 Baal/Zeus: see Tiribazus’ Cilician staters: CASABONNE 2004: 188–193; e.g. BM 1985,1114.3; SNG

Levante-Cilicia 177. The figure on the obverse of Tiribazus’ series is generally thought to be Baal, but one cannot preclude the possibility that it is Zeus: KRAAY 1976: 281; LE RIDER 1997: 152. Cf. MESHORER and QEDAR 1999: no. 40, where the obverse type (showing the Persian king) is accompanied by the legend ΙΕΥΣ. For the headdress, see for example IIDEM: nos. 6, 40, 47, 100, 123.

16 GARRISON and ROOT 2001: 53–60. See generally JACOBS 1987.17 DUSINBERRE 2003: 165–168; BODZEK 2015: 61.18 MESHORER and QEDAR 1999: 32. For Sidonian coinage, see for example IIDEM: nos. 55–56, 74.

On the influence of satrapal coins, see IIDEM: 46f. The precise chronology of Samarian coinage has not been established, so it is inference that the Samarian types follow Cilician, Sidonian, and satrapal coins. Samarian coins certainly post-date the Athenian and Phoenician types.

19 TUPLIN 2014: 155.

30

JOHN SHANNAHAN

CATALOGUEtype 1AR. Obv. Persian king seated on throne to r., wearing kidaris and kandys,

holding sceptre in l. hand and smelling flower in r. hand; to l. Aramaic ŠN. Rev. Crowned and bearded four-winged deity with bird’s tail, to r.; holding flower in r. hand and three-pointed ring in l. hand; to l. Aramaic MZ. Obols.

a) 0.87 g Coll. ANS, AR 1969: 10, Pl. 1:4 in MESHORER and QEDAR 1991: no. 21.

b) 0.78 gAshmolean Museum, Robinson (1970), ex Bank Leu, ex Nablus Hoard; Coll. Ox. 2 in MESHORER and QEDAR 1991: no. 21; MESHORER and QEDAR 1999: no. 100. (Pl. 1, Figs. 1–2).

c) 0.75 g ANS 2010.77.42; MESHORER, BIJOVSKY and FISCHER-BOSSERT 2013: 208, no. 42.

d) 0.74 g Sternberg 22 (1989) 144 in MESHORER and QEDAR 1991: no. 21.

e) 0.72 g ANS 2010.77.41; Leu 38 (1986) 158 in MESHORER and QEDAR 1991: no. 21; MESHORER, BIJOVSKY and FISCHER-BOSSERT 2013: 208, no. 41.

f) 0.71 g Coll. Copenhagen in MESHORER and QEDAR 1991: no. 21.

g) 0.69 g Spink 60 (1987) in MESHORER and QEDAR 1991: no. 21.

h) 0.66 g CNG Triton XVIII (2015) 212; Heritage Signature Sale (2012) 20067.

i) 0.66 g Coll. P1 958 in MESHORER and QEDAR 1991: no. 21.

j) 0.64 g BnF 1970.737; Coll. Paris 737 in MESHORER and QEDAR 1991: no. 21.

k) 0.64 g Coll. P5 in MESHORER and QEDAR 1991: no. 21.

AR. Obv. Forepart of crouching lion r., head facing. Rev. Crowned and bearded four-winged deity with bird’s tail, to r.; holding flower in r. hand and three-pointed ring in l. hand. Hemiobols.

l) 0.33 g Ashmolean Museum, Robinson (1970), ex Bank Leu, ex Nablus Hoard; MESHORER and QEDAR 1991: no. 14; MESHORER and QEDAR 1999: no. 84. (Pl. 1, Figs. 3–4).

m) 0.28 g ANS 2010.77.149; MESHORER, BIJOVSKY and FISCHER-BOSSERT 2013: 216, no. 149.

n) 0.24 g CNG 90 (2012) 713.

o) 0.19 g RONEN 2007: no. 5.

p) 0.17 g CNG e-auction 141 (2006) 91.

q) 0.17 g ANS 2010.77.150; MESHORER, BIJOVSKY and FISCHER-BOSSERT 2013: 216, no. 150.

31

SAMARIAN DEPICTIONS...

type 2AR. Obv. Crowned and bearded four-winged deity l. The figure’s torso ends in

a disc, the top of which is obscured. Feathers extend beneath the disc. Two tendrils extend diagonally below the disc and curl at the tips. Whole in dotted square bor-der. Rev. Rider on horse galloping l., underneath, uncertain figure. Obols.

a) 0.72 g CNG Mail Bid 82 (2009) 731. (Pl. 1, Figs. 5–6).

b) 0.61 g MESHORER and QEDAR 1999: no. 124.

AR. Obv. Unidentified object (four-winged uraeus?); dotted square border. Rev. Crowned and bearded four-winged deity r. The figure’s torso ends in a disc, the top of which is obscured. Feathers extend beneath the disc. Whole in dotted square border. Hemiobol.

c) 0.19 g ANS 2010.77.148; MESHORER, BIJOVSKY and FISCHER-BOSSERT 2013: 216, no. 148.

DISCUSSIONThe figure in the winged disc was a popular motif in Achaemenid art, associ-

ated with investiture of power and authority in the king.20 While there is debate regarding what exactly the symbol represents, it is universally acknowledged that it was intimately tied to Achaemenid kingship.21 The most prominent example is Darius I’s monument at Behistun.22 On that monument, the figure hovers above Darius, overlooking the king as he receives homage. But its use was not restricted to Darius I. The image is also found throughout Achaemenid palaces. It will fre-quently appear in entrance ways, again hovering above the royal figure.23 Although the motif rarely appears in Persepolitan glyptic from Darius I’s reign, later ex-amples have survived.24 These seals, however, do not always show the winged disc with a human figure.25 The winged disc on coins is rarer: it appears on the Cilician staters of Tiribazus with the human figure (ca. 386–381), and on a series of Mazaeus (ca. 360–334).26

20 MARAS 2009.21 On the debate: see SHAHBAZI 1974; ROOT 1979: 169–171; SHAHBAZI 1980; LECOQ 1984;

JACOBS 1987. Association with kingship: ROOT 1979: 211f; SHAHBAZI 1980: 121f; JAMZADEH 1982: 96–98; MARAS 2009: 52–57; GARRISON 2013: 574–576.

22 ROOT 1979: Pl. 8; see data in KUHRT 2007: §5.A.1.23 BRIANT 2002: 219f, Figs. 21–23; KUHRT 2007: 496, 504, 536, Figs. 11.11, 16, 29.24 GARRISON 2011: 48f.25 See examples in SCHMIDT 1957: Pls. 2–8; BOARDMAN 1970: Pls. 461, 831, 833, 836; BOARDMAN

2000: 160–163.26 On Tiribazus’ staters, see above note 15. On Mazaeus’ use, see for example BM 2003,1107.3.

32

JOHN SHANNAHAN

The figure in the winged disc appears on two types from Samarian coinage. They were limited in production in comparison to imitations of Athena or images of the royal figure in heroic positions.27 Type 1 always appears on the reverse (Pl. 1, Figs. 1–4). It shows a male figure with four wings extending diagonally from his torso. The wings are not symmetrical. In place of his legs are feathers extending downwards. The figure is bearded in a manner typical of Samarian coin-age.28 He wears a three-pointed headdress. In his right hand, raised towards his chin, is a flower. In his left hand, held horizontally, is a ring with three points extending outwards to the right. Type 2 is slightly different in its composition (Pl. 1, Figs. 5–6). There, the feathered tail does not extend directly from the torso, for the torso terminates in a disc. Instead, the feathers extend from the bottom of the disc. Two curved tendrils also extend below the disc, making a total of seven extensions from the human figure.

The composition of Types 1 and 2 is significant when determining their icono-graphic precedents. As mentioned in the introduction, even though crudely drawn, the prototypes for many Samarian coins are clear. The die-engravers could profi-ciently replicate Athenian imitations, the Arethusa/warrior head coins of Pharn-abazus and Tarkumuwa/Datames, and Cilician depictions of the standing Baal.29 Types showing the Achaemenid royal figure in combat also followed standard Achaemenid composition in pose, clothing, and weaponry.30 Surprisingly, given their unusual style (to which we will shortly turn), only cursory attempts have been made to identify the inspiration for Types 1 and 2. These have focused on compari-sons to the reverse of Tiribazus’ Cilician staters.31 Generally, commentators have been satisfied with identifying the figure in Types 1 and 2 as Ahuramazda or some variety of winged deity.32 There are, however, a number of differences between the types under discussion and the typical Achaemenid portrayal of the figure in the winged disc. The differences are such that these types cannot be considered to be derived from a coin or an extant monumental relief.

There are two primary differences between these Samarian types and the typ-ical Achaemenid portrayal of the figure in the winged disc (compare Figs. 1–8).

27 See below. Cf. MESHORER and QEDAR 1999: no. 13 (and data in IIDEM 1991: no. 36), IC2.28 Compare to MESHORER and QEDAR 1999: nos. 4–7, 13–16, 20–23, etc.29 Athenian imitations: IIDEM: 40f, e.g. nos. 57–59, 212–217. Arethusa: IIDEM: 38, e.g. nos. 73, 80–81.

Standing Baal: IIDEM: 55, e.g. nos. 117–120. Generally, on Samarian imitations and adaptations, see WYSSMANN 2014: §2.

30 MESHORER and QEDAR 1999: 43–46.31 MESHORER and QEDAR 1991: 28–29; IIDEM 1999: 52; MESHORER, BIJOVSKY and FISCHER-

-BOSSERT 2013: 216, no. 148; BODZEK 2011b: 279.32 E.g. MESHORER and QEDAR 1999: 51f; BOARDMAN 2000: Fig. 5.55; CURTIS and TALLIS 2005:

Cat. 362.

33

SAMARIAN DEPICTIONS...

The first is the number of wings. In Achaemenid reliefs, the winged disc is shown with two wings extending horizontally (Pl. 2, Fig. 8). Types 1 and 2 have four wings. This immediately precludes any comparison with the Cilician staters of Tiribazus (Pl. 2, Fig. 9), whose depiction of the winged disc is in keeping with standard Achaemenid versions (though the Hellenised figure on Tiribazus’ staters is unique). Four wings are seen in some Achaemenid seals.33 They still, however, differ in key details. The lower pair of wings in seals showing the four-winged figure is most frequently horizontal. Neither Type 1 nor Type 2 have horizontal wings. An exception can be seen on a seal held in Berlin.34 It is interesting for its depiction of two winged discs, one with a human figure and one without. The fig-ure in the winged disc on this seal is similar to Type 2. In both examples the human torso terminates in a disc with the top obscured, and four wings extend diagonally.

The second clear difference is the absence of the central disc from Type 1. In Type 1 the torso of the figure extends directly into a tail of feathers. In all monu-mental Achaemenid versions of the figure in the winged disc, the torso of the figure ends at the winged disc, from which feathers extend. On the other hand, among the corpus of Achaemenid seal impressions, the central disc is often obscure.35 But such seals can be remarkable for their own oddities. In one example the seal is un-usual for its depiction of the figure in an Assyrian garment.36 Indeed, a comparison of Type 1 with Assyrian depictions of Assur as archer reveals that the replacement of the legs with feathers is in keeping with Assyrian versions of the motif.37 On another seal the head of the figure is enlarged so as to be larger than the rest of the torso.38 Another Achaemenid seal which shows no central disc is so peculiar that it warranted discussion by Root.39 The composition of Type 1 is not commonplace. The absence of the central disc may suggest that the die-engraver was inspired by a seal like those outlined above.

In addition to these major differences, there were two minor adaptations made for Samarian coinage. The first was the presentation of the figure in the winged disc in isolation. In Achaemenid art, he hovers above humans or animals. Alongside the staters of Tiribazus, these Samarian types can be considered part of a handful of examples where he is alone.40 The hands of the figure are also

33 E.g. figures in MESHORER and QEDAR 1999: 51f (which appears to be BOARDMAN 2000: Fig. 5.18 = BM 89352); PORADA 1948: no. 831; ROOT 1999.

34 JACOBS 1991: Fig. 3.35 GARRISON and ROOT 2001: 69. See, for example, nos. 4, 29, and Pl. 248a–e.36 EADEM: no. 45.37 E.g. BM 124551.38 GARRISON and ROOT 2001: no. 58.39 ROOT 1999.40 SHAHBAZI 1974: 136.

34

JOHN SHANNAHAN

unmatched in Achaemenid art. In reliefs, he will frequently appear with a ring similar to that in Types 1 and 2. He may also appear with a lotus flower. The fig-ure in the winged disc, however, is not presented holding both objects at the same time in Achaemenid art.

Thus there were several changes made by the Samarians to the Achaemenid motif which render Types 1 and 2 noteworthy. The image clearly did not derive from any numismatic prototype, nor from any monumental depiction. While Type 2 is comparable to one seal impression, Type 1 remains an enigma. The evidence offered by dress ornaments, however, may hold the answer to the question of icon-ographic precedents.

Comparatively little of Achaemenid dress is known. Yet the similarities be-tween Types 1 and 2 and surviving Achaemenid jewellery are impossible to ignore. Four examples reveal the depths of the likeness. The first is a group of four-winged pendants found in the Caucasus (Sairkhe) (Pl. 3, Fig. 10).41 The lower pair of wings is almost horizontal, but the wings are splayed in a fashion reminiscent of Types 1 and 2 here. These pendants are comparable to another example: a clothing ap-pliqué found in a grave at Sardis.42 It is remarkable for its depiction of the figure with a tail extending like a fifth wing below him, and curving at the tip to the right. The third example is a clothing plaque from the Oxus treasure (Pl. 3, Fig. 11).43 It bears closest resemblance to Type 1. The four wings extend identically, and the figure is turned to the left, holding a lotus flower in his left hand (the right hand ap-pears empty). The torso terminates in a central disc, like Type 2. The final example is a pair of earrings, one of which is in the Norbert Schimmel Collection, while the other is held by the Boston Museum of Fine Arts (Pl. 3, Fig. 12).44 The figure faces left in one earring and right in the other, the lower pair of wings is almost horizontal, and the central disc is presented in the same manner as that in Type 2. Differences emerge in the length of the torso visible, and in the absence of tendrils from the jewellery pieces. Overall, these final two examples are the most compa-rable to Types 1 and 2.

As strange as it may seem, the iconographic precedents for these types must have been styled in a fashion similar to these Achaemenid ornaments. The angle of the wings is especially significant. Only the Berlin seal shows wings like Types 1 and 2.45 But all of the aforementioned clothing ornaments present their wings an-gled downwards. Their presentation of the central disc is also identical to Type 2.

41 KNAUSS 2006: Fig. 14.42 SHAHBAZI 1980: Fig. 1.43 CURTIS and TALLLIS 2005: Cat. 188; BM 123936.44 MUSCARELLA 1974: no. 156; TILIA 1978: Pl. C 1; MFAB accession number: 1971.256.45 I.e. JACOBS 1991: Fig. 3.

35

SAMARIAN DEPICTIONS...

If the clothing plaque from the Oxus treasure had its central disc removed, it would be almost identical to Type 1. Undoubtedly Types 1 and 2 bear more similarity to these devices than those on monumental or glyptic Achaemenid art. Nonetheless, the inspiration for Type 1 is difficult to identify. No example of Achaemenid art known to the author carries all of the same characteristics. The absence of the cen-tral disc is a clear mark of distinction from other four-winged versions of the motif. On the other hand, Type 2 resembles a number of dress ornaments, and carries sev-eral features also found on the seal in Berlin. Its iconographic precedent was styled in the same way. In any case, given the rarity of these portrayals in Achaemenid art, Types 1 and 2 must be considered noteworthy. These coins displayed a power-ful image, closely related to Achaemenid kingship. In the context of the political upheaval in Samaria at the time they were minted, they conveyed a sense of the central authority’s control over the region. The Achaemenid motif was recreated in its numismatic form with the highest levels of intricacy, and these types should be considered alongside those which feature cuneiform text as important examples of the adaptations made by Samarian die-engravers.46

REFERENCESBOARDMAN, J. 1970. Greek Gems and Finger Rings: Early Bronze Age to Late Classical, London.BOARDMAN, J. 2000. Persia and the West: An Archaeological Investigation of the Genesis of Achaemenid Art, London.BODZEK, J. 2000. “Cavalier vainqueur de Samarie. Remarques sur l’iconographie des mon-naies de Samarie”, Polish Journal of Biblical Research 1: 109–116.BODZEK, J. 2007. “Remarks on the Iconography of Samarian Coinage. Hunting in Parade-isos?”, Israel Numismatic Research 2: 35–45.BODZEK, J. 2008. “A Note on a Samarian Coin-Type”, Israel Numismatic Research 3: 3–12.BODZEK, J. 2011a. “Tiarate Heads on Samarian Coins”, Israel Numismatic Research 6: 3–19.BODZEK, J. 2011b. ΤΑ ΣΑΤΡΑΠΙΚΑ ΝΟΜΙΣΜΑΤΑ. Mennictwo satrapow w okresie pano-wania Achemenidow (ok. 550–331 a. C.), Kraków.BODZEK, J. 2015. “Achaemenid Asia Minor: Coins of the Satraps and of the Great King”. In. K. DÖRTLÜK, O. TEKIN, R. BOYRAZ SEYHAN, M. WILSON (eds.), The First Interna-tional Congress of the Anatolian Monetary History and Numismatics – Proceedings, Istanbul: 59–78.BRIANT, P. 2002. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire, trans. P.T. Daniels, Winona Lake.CASABONNE, O. 2004. La Cilicie a l’epoque achemenide, Paris.CURTIS, J. and TALLIS, N. (eds.). 2005. Forgotten Empire: The World of Ancient Persia, Berkeley.DUSINBERRE, E. 2003. “King or God? Imperial Iconography and the ‘Tiarate Head’ Coins of Achaemenid Anatolia”. In. D.C. HOPKINS (ed.), Across the Anatolian Plateau: Readings in the Archaeology of Ancient Turkey, Boston: 157–171.

46 LEMAIRE and JOANNÈS 1994.

36

JOHN SHANNAHAN

ELAYI, J. and ELAYI, A.G. 1993. Tresors de monnaies pheniciennes et circulation monetaire: Ve–IVe siecles avant J.-C., Paris.FANTALKIN, A. and TAL, O. 2006. “Redating Lachish Level I: Identifying Achaemenid Im-perial Policy at the Southern Frontier of the Fifth Satrapy”. In. O. LIPSCHITS, M. OEMING (eds.), Judah and the Judaeans in the Persian Period, Winona Lake: 167–198.FANTALKIN, A. and TAL, O. 2012. “Judah and its Neighbours in the Fourth Century BCE: A Time of Major Transformations”. In. J.U. RO (ed.), From Judah to Judaea: Socio-Economic Structures and Processes in the Persian Period, Sheffield: 133–196.GARRISON, M.B. 2011. “By the Favor of Auramazda: Kingship and the Divine in the Early Achaemenid Period”. In. P.P. IOSSIF, A.S. CHANKOWSKI, C.C. LORBER (eds.), More than Men, Less than Gods: Studies on Royal Cult and Imperial Worship, Leuven: 15–104.GARRISON, M.B. 2013. “Royal Achaemenid Iconography”. In. D.T. POTTS (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran, Oxford: 566–595.GARRISON, M.B. and ROOT, M.C. 2001. Seals on the Persepolis Fortification Tablets, Vol. 1. Images of Heroic Encounter, Chicago.GITLER, H. 2000. “Achaemenid Motifs in the Coinage of Ashdod, Ascalon and Gaza from the Fourth Century B.C.”, Transeuphratene 20: 79–87.GITLER, H. 2011. “Identities of the Indigenous Coinages of Palestine under Achaemenid Rule: The Dissemination of the Image of the Great King”. In. P.P. IOSSIF, A.S. CHANKOWSKI, C.C. LORBER (eds.), More than Men, Less than Gods: Studies on Royal Cult and Imperial Worship, Leuven: 105–119.GITLER, H. and TAL, O. 2006a. The Coinage of Philistia of the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BC: A Study of the Earliest Coins of Palestine, New York.GITLER, H. and TAL, O. 2006b. “Coins with the Aramaic ŠHRW and Other Unrecorded Sa-marian Issues”, Schweizerische numismatische Rundschau 85: 47–60.JACOBS, B. 1987. “Das Chvarnah – Zum Stand der Forschung”, MDOG 119: 215-248 JACOBS, B. 1991. “Der Sonnengott im Pantheon der Achämeniden”. In. J. KELLENS (ed.), La Re-ligion iranienne a l’epoque achemenide: actes du colloque de Liege, 11 decembre 1987, Gent: 49–80.JACOBS, B. In press. “Ahuramazdā”. In. CH. UEHLINGER, F. GRAF (eds.), Iconography of Deities and Demons in the Biblical World. Part I: Pre-Hellenistic Periods, Leiden. JAMZADEH, P. 1982. “The Winged Ring with Human Bust in Achaemenid Art as a Dynastic Symbol”, Iranica antiqua 17: 91–99.KATZENSTEIN, H.J. 1989. “Gaza in the Persian Period”, Transeuphratene 1: 67–86.KNAUSS, F. 2006. “Ancient Persia and the Caucasus”, Iranica antiqua 41: 79–118 (no. doi: 10.2143/IA.41.0.2004762).KRAAY, C.M. 1976. Archaic and Classical Greek Coins, Berkeley.KUHRT, A. (ed.). 2007. The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Pe-riod, London.LE RIDER, G. 1997. “Le monnayage perse en Cilicie du IVe siècle”, Numismatica e antichita classiche: quaderni ticinesi 26: 151–167.LECOQ, P. 1984. “Un problème de religion achémenide: Ahura Mazda ou Xvarnah?”, Acta Iranica 23: 301–326.LEMAIRE, A. and JOANNÈS, F. 1994. “Premières monnaies avec signes cunéiformes: Sama-rie, IVéme s.av.n.è.”, NABU 4: 84–86.LIPSCHITS, O. and VANDERHOOFT, D. 2007. “Yehud Stamp Impressions in the Fourth Cen-tury B.C.E.: A Time of Administrative Consolidation”. In. O. LIPSCHITS, G.N. KNOPPERS, R. ALBERTZ (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century BCE, Winona Lake: 75–94.LIPSCHITS, O. and VANDERHOOFT, D. 2014. “Continuity and Change in the Persian Period Juda-hite Stamped Jar Administration”. In. C. FREVEL, K. PYSCHNY, I. CORNELIUS (eds.), “Religious Revolution” in Yehud?: The Material Culture of the Persian Period as a Test Case, Fribourg: 43–66.

37

SAMARIAN DEPICTIONS...

MARAS, S.S. 2009. Iconography, Identity and Inclusion: The Winged Disk and Royal Power during the Reign of Darius the Great, University of California, Berkeley, Doctoral Thesis.MESHORER, Y. and QEDAR, S.H. 1991. The Coinage of Samaria in the Fourth Century BCE, Yerusalem.MESHORER, Y. and QEDAR, S.H. 1999. Samarian Coinage, Yerusalem.MESHORER, Y., BIJOVSKY, G. and FISCHER-BOSSERT, W. 2013. Coins of the Holy Land: The Abraham and Marian Sofaer Collection at the American Numismatic Society and the Israel Museum, Vol. 1, New York.MUSCARELLA, O.W. 1974. Ancient Art: The Norbert Schimmel Collection, Mainz.PORADA, E. (ed.). 1948. Corpus of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in North American Collec-tions. Vol. 1. The Collection of the Pierpont Morgan Library, New York.RONEN, Y. 2007. “Twenty Unrecorded Samarian Coins”, Israel Numismatic Research 2: 29–33.ROOT, M.C. 1979. The King and Kingship in Achaemenid Art: Essays on the Creation of an Iconography of Empire, Leiden.ROOT, M.C. 1999. “The Cylinder Seal from Pasargadae: Of Wings and Wheels, Date and Fate”, IA 34: 157–190 (no. doi: 10.2143/IA.34.0.519111).RUZICKA, S. 2012. Trouble in the West: Egypt and the Persian Empire, 525–332 BCE, Oxford.SCHMIDT, E.F. 1957. Persepolis II: Contents of the Treasury and Other Discoveries, Chicago.SCHNEIDER, U. 1976. Persepolis and Ancient Iran, Chicago.SHAHBAZI, A.S. 1974. “An Achaemenid Symbol, I: A Farewell to ‘Frahvar’ and ‘Ahuramaz-da’”, Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 7: 135–144.SHAHBAZI, A.S. 1980. “An Achaemenid Symbol, II: Farnah (‘God given fortune symbol-ized’)”, Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 13: 119–147.TAL, O. 2011. “Negotiating Identity in an International Context under Achaemenid Rule: The Indigenous Coinages of Persian-Period Palestine as an Allegory”. In. O. LIPSCHITS, G.N. KNOPPERS, M. OEMING (eds.), Judah and the Judaeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating Identity in an International Context, Winona Lake: 445–459.TAL, O. 2013. “The Greek and Roman Coinage of Palestine”. In. W.E. METCALF (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage, Oxford: 252–274.TILIA, A.B. 1978. Studies and Restorations at Persepolis and Other Sites of Fars, Rome.TUPLIN, C.J. 2014. “The Changing Pattern of Achaemenid Royal Coinage”. In. P. BERNHOLZ, R. VAUBEL (eds.), Explaining Monetary and Financial Innovation, Cham: 127–168 (no. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-06109-2_6).UEHLINGER, C. 1999. “‘Powerful Persianisms’ in Glyptic Iconography of Persian Period Palestine”. In. B. BECKING, M.C.A. KORPEL (eds.), The Crisis of Israelite Religion: Trans-formation of Religious Tradition in Exilic & Post-Exilic Times, Leiden: 134–182.WYSSMANN, P. 2013. “König oder Gott? Der Thronende auf den Münzen des perserzeitli-chen Samaria”. In. A. LYKKE (ed.), Macht des Geldes – Macht der Bilder, Wiesbaden: 25–44.WYSSMANN, P. 2014. “The Coinage Imagery of Samaria and Judah in the Late Persian Period”. In. C. FREVEL, K. PYSCHNY, I. CORNELIUS (eds.), A “Religious Revolution” in Yehud? The Material Culture of the Persian Period as a Test Case, Fribourg: 221–266.ZAHLE, J. 1982. “Persian Satraps and Lycian Dynasts. The Evidence of the Diadems”. In. T. HACKENS, R. WEILLER (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Numismatics, Vol. 1, Louvain-la-Neuve: 101–112.

Address of the Author:John ShannahanACANS, Macquarie UniversityRm 517, Level 5, Building W6A, Sydney, Australiae-mail: john.shannahan@mq.edu.au

38

PLATE 1 Fig. 1. Type 1 obol (b); Ashmolean Museum, Robinson (1970) 0.78 g, ex Bank Leu, ex Nablus Hoard Fig. 2. Line drawing of Type 1 obol (MESHORER and QEDAR, 1999: no. 100) Fig. 3. Type 1 hemiobol (l); Ashmolean Museum, Robinson (1970) 0.33 g, ex Bank Leu, ex Nablus Hoard Fig. 4. Line drawing of Type 1 hemibol (MESHORER and QEDAR, 1999: no. 84) Fig. 5. Type 2 obol (a). CNG Mail Bid 82 (2009) 731

PLATE 2 Fig. 6. Line drawing of Type 2 (MESHORER and QEDAR, 1999: no. 124) Fig. 7. The Darius Seal (BM 89132; Photograph © Trustees of the British Museum) Fig. 8. Figure in the winged disc at Persepolis (Photograph: A/Prof. J. Alvarez-Mon)

PLATE 3 Fig. 9. Reverse of SNG Ashmolean-Cilicia 1737; Ashmolean Museum, Robinson (1967) 10.52 g, ex Kress 138, no. 422 Fig. 10. Pendants from the Caucasus (KNAUSS 2006: Fig. 14) Fig. 11. Clothing plaque from Oxus Treasure (BM 123936; Photograph © Trustees of the British Museum) Fig. 12. Achaemenid earring (MFAB 1971.256; Photograph © 2015 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston)

39

PLATE 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

40

PLATE 2

7

8

41

PLATE 3

9

12

10

11