Last updated 2nd August 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. As we resolve the issues resulting from this, we are also experiencing some delays to publication. We are working hard to restore services as soon as possible and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
The rulers of the Persian Empire, during whose reigns the Persian Imperial coinage was issued, were the following:—
Dareios I., s. of Hystaspes ... ... ... ... 521-486
Xerxes I., s. of Dareios I. ... ... ... ... 486-465
Artaxerxes I. Makrocheir, s. of Xerxes I. ... ... 465-425
Xerxes II., s. of Artaxerxes I. ... ... ... ... 425
Ochos = Dareios II. Nothos, s. of Artaxerxes I. ... 424-405
Arsakas = Artaxerxes II. Mnemon, s. of Dareios II. ... 405-359
Cyrus the Younger, s. of Dareios II. ... ... ... 401
Ochos = Artaxerxes III., s. of Artaxerxes II. ... ... 359-338
Arses, s. of Artaxerxes III. ... ... ... ... 338-337
Kodomannos = Dareios III., s. of Arsanes, s. of Artostes or Ostahes, s. of Dareios II. ... ... ... ... 337-330
The Persian Imperial coinage consisted of gold coins, generally known to the Greeks as Darics (Δαρϵικοὶ στατῆρϵς), with smaller denominations, and silver coins, generally known as sigloi (σίγλοι, σίκλοι, σίκλα, the same word as Hebrew shekel), which also had smaller denominations. The word Δαρϵικός was sometimes also used by the Greeks of the silver coins. The Persian name for the gold coins is not known; there can be little doubt that the word Δαρϵικός is ‘a pure Greek formation from the Greek form of the Persian name Darayavaush; just as “fanciful” is a pure English formation from the English form “fancy” of the Greek ϕαντασία.’
1 References to recent authorities in Babelon, , Traité, II. ii. 44.Google Scholar See also the genealogical tree in Pauly-Wissowa, R.E. i. s.v. ‘Achaimenidai.’
2 The Plate accompanying this article represents a few of the more important varieties to which reference is made, enlarged to twice their actual size.
3 Cp. Plut. Cim. x.
4 It has long been known that there was a word dariku used in contracts of the reigns of Nabonidus and the false Smerdis, before the reign of Dareios I., as in the phrase ‘he gave in payment two talents of dry dates and a dariku.’ The meaning of the word, however, remains quite uncertain, and it is not clear that it is the name even of a weight, as Babelon, (Traité, II. ii. p. 39) now maintains.Google Scholar
5 Hill, , Hist. Greek Coins, p. 27.Google Scholar
6 Herodotus iv. 166; Harpocration, s.v. Δαρεικός (cp. Schol. Aristoph. Eccl. 602) says that it was named after some older king.
7 Klio, xiv. 1914, pp. 91 ff., with full tables of revised weights.
8 Borrell, (Num. Chr. vi. 1843, p. 153Google Scholar) reports that the average weight of 125 gold darics from the Canal Find was 129·4 grn., and that darics found in Asia Minor are always lighter, however well preserved, by from 2 to 2½ grn., than the lightest of those in the Canal Find.
9 Klio, l.c. p. 106.
10 Z.f.N. xxiv. 1904, p. 87, Taf. iv. 5.
11 Ibid. Taf. iv. 6. Obv. Head of King, r., bearded; rev. Incuse.
12 Num. Chr. 1916, p. 258.
13 Macdonald, , Hunterian Catalogue, iii. p. 354, No. 4Google Scholar; obv. King with bow and sword, rev. head of a satrap; therefore not a normal Imperial coin. Sir Hermann Weber possessed a quarter-siglos of 1·20grm. (18·6 grn.) similar to one in the British Museum weighing 1·10 grm. To Regling's list of sixths, add that in the Prowe Coll. (Egger Katal. xlvi. 2678, Taf. xli., 0·71 grm.) which is of Type I. (King with spear).
14 Regling, loc. cit. p. 100.
15 See especially Sayce, A. H. and Cowley, A. E., Aramaic Papyri discovered at Assuan (1906), pp. 22–23Google Scholar; Ganneau, Clermont, Recueil d' Arch. Orient. vi. pp. 153 ffGoogle Scholar.
16 P.S.B.A. xxv. (1903), p. 206. What precisely khalluru means, however, whether it is a small denomination of weight or coin, seems to me not to be quite made out.
17 The Hebrew shekel which Josephus, (Ant. Iud. iii. 8. 2)Google Scholar equates to four Attic drachms is the Tyrian shekel of his time which the Romans tariffed at four denarii (see Hultsch, Metr. Script., Index, s.v. σίκλος 3).
18 Hultsch, in Pauly-Wissowa, , R.E. iv. 2, 2092–3.Google Scholar
19 B.M.C. ‘Phoenicia,’ p. cii.
20 See especially Babelon, ; Les Perses Achéménides (1893), pp. xi–xviiiGoogle Scholar; ‘L'iconographie et ses origines dans les types monétaires grecs’ (Rev. num. 1908, and Mélanges Numismatiques iv. pp. 254–269); Traité des Monnaies grecques et romaines, Part II. i. (1907), 257–64; ii. (1910), 37–71. J. P. Six was for a time working at the problem, and communicated his views to Babelon (Perses Achém. p. xiii. n.) and Head (letters in 1891).
21 Trésor de Numism., Rois grecs, p. 135 (1849), quoted by Babelon, , Perses Achém. p. xiii.Google Scholar
22 Coinage of Lydia and Persia (1877), p. 28.
23 Hist. Num.2 p. 828.
24 Gardner, P., Hist, of Ancient Coinage (1918), p. 90.Google Scholar
25 These are: (1) Several of the Persian kings came to the throne young. [But none of them was so closely in touch with the Greeks, and therefore so likely to depart from the conventional bearded type; and the little mask of Pan on the reverse of the coin in question is purely Greek in style.] (2) ‘The extreme rarity of the coin is a strong reason against supposing that it was issued by Cyrus, who must have used gold coins in great quantities to pay his Greek mercenaries, who received a daric or more a month.’ [But there is no reason to suppose that Cyrus wanted more coins for his Greek mercenaries than other Persian kings for their vast armies. The rarity of ancient coins is also too much a matter of chance to serve as an argument.] (3) ‘The weight of the example in Paris (8·46 grm., 130·5 grn.) seems to point to the period of Alexander the Great.’ [The darics, on the contrary, which are shown by the style of their reverses (see below) to belong to the end of the Persian period, are not distinguished by high weights; and Regling (Klio, xiv. p. 104) finds the average of the double darics (which everybody admits to be of the time of Alexander the Great) to be 16·59 grm., which yields a daric of 8·30 grm., or less than the ordinary Persian daric. A table of frequency (intervals of 0·05 grm.) constructed from Regling's list shows the highest point (11 specimens out of 48) between 16·65 and 16·61 grm., which would place the normal weight a trifle higher than the average. The weight of the Paris specimen is, if anything, in favour of a pre-Alexandrine date.]
26 Babelon, , Perses Achém. p. 8, No. 64Google Scholar = Traité, Pl. LXXXVI. 10, describes one. Another was in the Weber, E. F. Collection (Hirsch Katal, xxi. 4407Google Scholar, Taf. LVIII., where it is described as having a crux ansata as symbol in field of obverse).
27 Babelon, , Perses Achém. p. 15, No. 124, Pl. II. 22Google Scholar; Traité, 11. ii. 36, Pl. LXXXVII. 24. For other views, see Gardner, P., Hist, of Ancient Coinage, p. 334.Google Scholar
28 Borrell, H. P., Num. Chron. vi. 1843, p. 153, note 56.Google Scholar
29 In H. P. Borrell's sale (Sotheby's, 1852, July 12–21) there were only 6 darics (lots 426–31), all from the Canal Hoard, and none of these was acquired by the British Museum. It is of course quite possible that certain specimens afterwards acquired from M. J. Borrell and Woodhouse and Sabatier may have originally come from H. P. Borrell
30 The only two specimens extant appear to be those in Paris and London, which are from the same dies on both sides. Babelon groups with them a siglos (Traité, Pl. LXXXVI. 18) which is, to judge by his reproduction, so badly worn that the beardlessness of the figure can hardly be assured.
31 Perses Achém. p. xv. On the objections which have been raised to this identification, see above, p. 119, note.
32 Babelon's contradiction of Head's perfectly correct description of this head is perhaps due to his having looked at the coin sideways; although even so it is difficult to see a boar's head in the object.
33 See MissBaldwin, in Zeit. für Num. xxxii. 1915, pp. 4–6 on the two hoards.Google Scholar It is supposed that what was by Löbbecke taken for a single hoard, deposited about 320 B.C., was really made up of two, the earlier of which, containing the gold coins, was buried about 360 B.C. One of the darics in question (there were four) is illustrated by Löbbecke, in Zeit. für Num. xvii. 1890Google Scholar, Taf. vi. (wrongly numbered x.) 1. Recently this find has been discussed by Orsi, P. in Atti e Mem. dell' Ist. Ital. di Num. iii. (1917), pp. 6 ff.Google Scholar
34 This reverse die, apart from its distinctive markings, is recognisable by the granulation at one end of the incuse. Sir Hermann Weber possessed another daric from the same reverse die, and one was sold at Sotheby's sale, 7 Dec. 1915, Lot 1.
35 Head, B. V., Num. Chron. 1876, p. 286, Pl. VIII. 1.Google Scholar
36 Nomisma, vii.
37 Num. Chron. loc. cit. Pl. VIII. 6; von Fritze, loc. cit. Taf. VI. 32.
38 Atti e Mem. dell' Ist. Ital. di Num. iii. (1917), pp. 1–30.
39 He assumes Babelon's classification to be substantially correct.
40 Num. Chron. 1914, pp. 1 ff.
41 A siglos which Mr. Newell received from Dr. Haynes's family after the publication of his article, and which by its appearance undoubtedly belonged to the ‘Cilieian find,’ was also of the ‘waistless’ type.
42 Num. Chron. 1916, pp. 1 ff.
43 Mr. F. W. Hasluck, who obtained the coins from a money-changer, is not confident that the statement of their provenance was correct. The eight coins still available for examination passed into the possession of Mr. E. S. G. Robinson, who presented two of them to the British Museum. Only one of the eight is without a punch-mark, and on no less than six of the others we find the same mark, No. 53a in the Table, p. 126. It would appear therefore that this mark was impressed by the person who had the coins not long before they were buried.
44 This is also Babelon's view: Perses Achém. p. xi.
45 With the exception of the daric attributed to Cyrus and, possibly, of one siglos.
46 Which must be strictly distinguished from the incuse symbols mentioned above, which form part of the reverse dies. For convenience of reference, the punch-marks which occur on coins which I have been able to examine, together with a few others drawn from Casts, are collected in the accompanying table (p. 126). It must be remembered that these marks are usually very imperfectly impressed, and it is consequently often impossible to recognise with certainty the design, or to draw it correctly. The drawings here given, though not by a professional draughtsman, are made with a view to showing no more than is visible on the original or can be reasonably inferred by comparison with other specimens.
47 Perses Achém. p. xi and p. 7, No. 58.
48 Journal of the, R. Asiatic Society (1895), pp. 865 ff. I understand that he no longer maintains this view, at least in its entirety.
49 Num. Chron. 1914, pp. 27 f. I have drawn those which are included in our table from casts of his coins. It should be said that the little table illustrating Mr. Newell's article in Num. Chron. was re-drawn in England for purposes of reproduction, and may not always do justice to his intention.
50 ‘Siebzehn Tafeln zur Ind. Paläographie’ (Grundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde, 1896).
51 Mrs. Maunder refers, in this connexion, to the Cypro-Mycenaean cylinder, J.H.S. xxi. (1901), p. 169Google Scholar, Fig. 147. This is an example of the orb surmounted by a crescent, which is doubtless the origin of the symbol; and this crescent resting on a globe seems to be of Babylonian or Mesopotamian origin. The punch-mark with the two crescents back to back (No. 42) is also probably a lunar symbol: see Roscher's Lex. s.v. Sin, 909.
52 As a matter of fact, I do not find on the Indian punch-marked coins in the British Museum anything corresponding exactly to the form on the sigloi except in the case of No. 22; Rapson appears, from his remark on p. 806, to have met with the same difficulty.
53 On the other hand the alleged Lycian ↑ (Fellows, Coins of Ancient Lycia, Pl. VIII. 2; Babelon, , Perses Achém. p. xiGoogle Scholar) is really No. 172 in our table.
