Coinage And Identities Under HekatomnidsUnder Hekatomnids

VARIA ANATOLICA XXVIII

4TH CENTURY KARIA

DEFINING A KARIAN IDENTITY UNDER THE HEKATOMNIDS

edited by

Olivier HENRY

INSTITUT FRANÇAIS D’ETUDES ANATOLIENNES GEORGES-DUMEZIL CNRS USR 3131 DE BOCCARD 11, rue de Médicis 75006 Paris 2013

Illustration de couverture : Façade restituée de l’Andron B de Labraunda (Th. Thieme & F. Löfvenberg)

Ce volume a été composé et imprimé par AS&64 Ltd. Şti. Çatalçeşme Sk. No: 15/1, 34410 Cağaloğlu et Acar Basım ve Cilt Sanayii, Istanbul, Turquie. La publication a pu en être réalisée grâce au concours financier du Ministère des Affaires étrangères et du CNRS.

Secrétaire aux publications : Aksel Tibet

© 2013, Institut Français d’Etudes Anatoliennes Georges-Dumezil - Istanbul

ISBN 978-2-36245-008-2

TABLE DES MATIERES Olivier Henry, Introduction

5

Paavo Roos, Reflections on border and identity

9

Ignasi-Xavier Adiego, Carian identity and Carian language

15

Diether Schürr, Kaunisch-Karisches in Krya: Revision der Grabinschrift und Vergleiche

21

Poul pedersen, The 4th century BC ‘Ionian Renaissance’ and Karian identity

33

Lars Karlsson, Combining architectural orders at Labraunda: a political statement

65

Olivier Henry, A Tribute to the Ionian Renaissance

81

Raymond DESCAT, Mylasa, les dieux et le village carien au 4 s. aC : retour sur I. Mylasa 11. e

91

Koray Konuk, Coinage and Identities under the Hekatomnids

101

Pierre Debord, Zeus Pigindenos

123

Gabriele Bockisch (†), Peter Ruggendorfer and Lilli Zabrana, Temple and altars for Greek and Carian gods. New evidence for religious life in Alinda during the late Classical and Hellenistic Period

129

Francesca Curti, Alessandra Parrini, Iasos: importazioni di ceramica attica figurata nel V e nel IV sec. aC.

163

Damien Aubriet, Mylasa et l’identité carienne

189

Anne Marie Carstens, Karian identity – a Game of opportunistic politics or a case of creolisation?

209

Coinage and identities under the hekatomnids Koray KONUK* Coinage may be regarded as the first mass-produced medium that allowed issuing authorities the means to disseminate images among a large population group. These images were carefully selected and reflected the way an issuing authority saw itself and, more subtly, the way it wanted to be seen by others. These issuing authorities could be elected officials, as in the case of a civic coinage or, more directly, the ruler himself, as with the Hekatomnids. Whoever they might be, they were to decide what shape and purpose the intended coinage would take. Yet, features inherent to any coinage such as the weight standard, the range of denominations and quantities struck, the choice of the iconography and legend could simply not emerge ex nihilo but were mostly the product of a preexisting monetary milieu. Local deities and less so mythology (and foundations myths) were the main subject matters displayed on coins, but besides these sacred and ancestral references, near or distant influences could bring about new and unusual images. The dynastic coinage of the Hekatomnids is no exception and its origins owe much to the earlier minting activity of their native city, Mylasa, as well as to a number of external influences. Hekatomnos paving tHe way for a dynastic coinage in mylasa Much has been written about the unique and pioneering nature of the Hekatomnids who ruled Caria and its neighbouring regions that were subjected to Persian authority1. Many of the remarkable feats they accomplished in just over half a century (c. 392-334 BC) are the result of a multi-layered syncretism. This rich cultural setting, engrained in traditional and local foundations, became particularly open to outside influences, some of which had been at play for a long time, but which the Hekatomnids encouraged and made more visible. As I have described elsewhere, in many ways, not least in their coinage, the 4th century BC satraps of Caria were the forerunners of Hellenistic kings2. They were unique in that period in issuing a regular and prolific dynastic coinage, which remained practically unchanged until the arrival of Alexander the Great3. Other satraps struck coins, but none was native, or more significant, hereditary, and there was no continuity of coinage from one family member to another as was the case with the Hekatomnids4. Their coinage is often described as satrapal, but it would be more appropriate to label it dynastic since it was not issued in the framework of their official duties as satraps; the Hekatomnids wore a double hat as official satraps and as hereditary dynasts. As a matter of fact, Mylasa, the ancestral seat of the dynasty, had been a fairly active mint prior to Hekatomnos’ rule and struck large numbers of small silver denominations

*) CNRS - Ausonius, UMR 5607. 1) Hornblower 1982; Ruzicka 1992; Carstens 2009. 2) Konuk 2009. 3) For a detailed study of the coinage of the Hekatomnids, see Konuk 1998a. 4) The contemporay or earlier ‘dynastic’ coinages of Lycia, Cilicia and Cyprus lack the continuity we see in the Hekatomnid coinage.

102

Koray KONUK

throughout the 5th century BC5. A lion forepart was usually depicted on the obverse of these tiny coins which weighed about half or a quarter of a gram. Mylasa is likely to have been among the first mints to have issued silver in the second half of the 6th century BC6. On each issue the lion occupied the pride of place, the earliest depiction representing its forepart in profile, the later electrum issues showing a facing lion forepart with forelegs on either side. the milesian standard issues In a recent study, I have argued that Hekatomnos’ predecessor and father Hyssaldomos issued fractional silver coins in Mylasa bearing the initial letter of his name in the Carian script7. It appears that Hyssaldomos added his initial to hemiobols, tetartemoria and hemitetartemoria which Mylasa had been striking before his rule. As a matter of fact earlier examples are either anepigraphic or simply carry the initial of Mylasa’s ethnic in the Carian script (Pl. 1, 1). Beside the ethnic initial, two Carian letters are attested: V and Ú, the latter is certainly Hyssaldomos’ initial (Pl. 1, 3 and 4), the former is found on slightly earlier issues and may be the initial of Hyssaldomos’ predecessor whose name has not been preserved in ancient sources (Pl. 1, 2). A common feature to all the light Milesian weight standard coinage of Hekatomnos and Maussollos is the Milesian-type lion forepart used as the obverse type. It copies the obverse design of regular Milesian obols of the archaic period which was the most plentiful silver coinage struck by any city before the Ionian Revolt. For his denominations smaller than the obol, Hekatomnos continued to mint under his name fractions that Mylasa had been issuing under his father Hyssaldomos and perhaps his predecessor (Pl. 1, 5, 6 and 7). But for bigger denominations including the obol, the diobol, the tetrobol and the stater (twelve obols), Hekatomnos not only copied the lion forepart of Milesian obols, but also their reverse design depicting a starlike floral pattern (Pl. 1, 8). In contrast to the coinage of his successors, Hekatomnos’ issues are remarkably varied. No fewer than six, maybe seven, different coin types were designed during a relatively short reign of about fifteen years. Hekatomnos used two distinct weight-standards for his silver coinage and neither he nor any of his successors struck bronze. Hekatomnos’ monetary system was further complicated by the many denominations struck in each standard, resulting in a medley of coins which must have been difficult to use simultaneously. It looks as though he had been hesitant to establish a single and unified system, and instead experimented with different coinages. The Chian standard8, which by the second or third decade of the 4th century BC was adopted by most Greek cities and rulers of Asia Minor, including the successors of Hekatomnos, had not yet imposed itself as the main weight standard. Hekatomnos himself came to use the Chian standard for his coinage, but for a fairly limited issue of tetradrachms (see below). The other standard which he used was Milesian, but so reduced that a stater was equal to three Attic drachms. Let us first examine the Milesian weight coinage of Hekatomnos. Not all Milesian standard issues of Hekatomnos feature a Milesian type (lion forepart/rosette). A range of silver fractions, some previously unattributed, others not even recorded, have surfaced over the past few years, and a number of these can be securely attributed to Hekatomnos. The regular Milesian standard (c. 14.20 g) was reduced by about 12 %. This deficit is, I believe, linked to the key denomination which fulfilled a function of interface for the entire series: the obol or twelfth-stater. Hekatomnos’ obols (with an E on the lion’s muzzle, Pl. 1, 9) derive from the regular obol of Miletos which was one of the most common and long-lasting early silver fractions to circulate in Asia 5) Konuk 2007; Coin Hoards VIII, 54. 6) Konuk 2007. 7) Konuk 2009. 8) The so-called Chian standard, adopted by Rhodes in the late 5th century BC, is in fact a reduced version (c. 15.25 g) of the original Chian standard (c. 15.60 g); see now Meadows 2011.

COiNAge ANd ideNtitieS UNdeR the heKAtOMNidS

103

Minor (Pl. 1, 8). Its theoretical weight was c. 1.18 g9. Long thought to have been issued only in the years preceding the suppression of the Ionian revolt in 494 BC, recent evidence suggests that Miletos continued minting obols through the 5th century BC10. This weight of c. 1.18g was not achieved by Hekatomnos who aimed at c. 1g, or fractionally higher. This reduction of the theoretical Milesian weight can be explained, I think, by the great number of obols which had been struck earlier and were certainly still circulating in the time of Hekatomnos. Most of these coins would have been worn by decades of circulation and as a result would have had lost some of their weight11. These extremely common obols (twelfth-stater) would have formed the basis of Hekatomnos’ reduced Milesian system, and determined the weights of its fractions and multiples. I believe that the Milesian-type obol was the cornerstone of Hekatomnos’s Milesian type system. The question of whether or not Hekatomnos controlled Miletos is also of course relevant to the debate. The assumption that he held the Ionian city is based solely on his Milesian type coinage12. Examples of popular coinages or types imitated by other states and rulers abound, and thus there should be no need to assume that any given city had to be taken over by a ruler in order for him to mint coins of that city’s type13. The evidence of some small 5th-century BC silver fractions is very much to the point. Small silver change was used extensively from the 5th century BC onwards in the area of the Halikarnassos peninsula and Mylasa to judge from the numerous local finds kept in the Archaeological Museums of Bodrum and Milas14. Thus, even if Miletos came under Hekatomnos’ rule, the phenomenon of his imitative coinage alone does not constitute in itself a sufficient argument for it. We know that there was a separate satrapy of Ionia, most likely created simultaneously with the Carian satrapy. Strouthas was the first incumbent and one does not see how he would have tolerated a supposed incursion of Hekatomnos’ forces in Ionian territory. One further piece of evidence against Hekatomnos’ control of Miletos is given by Polyainos, who reports that Maussollos sent his general Polyainos to take Miletos but failed15. One would therefore assume that Miletos could not have been under Hekatomnos’ rule. All in all, there is a better case for regarding Hekatomnos’ Milesian type coins as an imitative coinage struck in Caria, most probably in Mylasa, the ancestral capital of Hekatomnos. Contrary to the traditional view, Hekatomnos did not strictly speaking revive an archaic type for his coinage16. Hoard evidence suggests that Miletos was still

9) BMC Ionia, 185, 14ff.; Pfeiler 1966, 5-7; Becker 1988, 32. The actual weight of most of these coins was closer to 1.10 g than 1.20 g. 10) See supra n. 5. 11) Becker 1988, 5-33. 12) That Hekatomnos might have controlled Miletos was first suggested in Waddington 1856, 61-62. Babelon was less cautious and took Hekatomnos’ rule over Miletos for granted: Traité, 143-4. Hornblower 1982, 111 was also inclined to entertain the idea of the city being controlled by Hekatomnos: “These coins are more than merely good imitations of Milesian or Halikarnassian imitations of Milesian types: they probably show that Miletos was a Hekatomnid possession”. Six 1890, 228-231 supposed that these issues were an imitative coinage struck outside the territory of Miletos on the basis of what he regarded as their poor style. Although Head in BMC Ionia, xxxv-xxxvi followed Six’s suggestion that “the coins in question are merely imitations of the Milesian coinage struck by the Carian dynasts outside the territory of Miletus”, he catalogued under Miletos coins of Hekatomnos and Maussollos of Milesian type: 187-188; Regling 1918, 255; Kraay 1976, 275. Recently, Deppert-Lippitz 1984, 12ff. regards these coins as Milesian issues. In the opposite camp, ImhoofBlumer 1905, 260 considered the coins to have been minted in Caria imitating Milesian types. Kinns 1986, 249 states that “the hypothesis of Hecatomnid control is far from strong, depending largely on the EKA and MA coins, whose attribution to Miletus is only conjectural”. Debord 1999, 143 considers plausible the control and the minting at Miletos. 13) E.g. the owls of Athens imitated in the East and in Egypt; the colts of Corinth in southern Italy and Sicily, etc. A good parallel to the Milesian type coinage of Hekatomnos are the issues of Datames who imitated the coinage of Sinope and replaced the city’s ethnic by ΔΑΤΑΜΑ. 14) Three (separate?) hoards containing exclusively fractions circulating in the Halikarnassos peninsula are kept in Bodrum and were accessioned in the 1980s. Another two are preserved in Milas. It would appear that all these different hoards were found by the same two metal-detectorists, but our information does not have all the guarantees of reliability. 15) Polyain., Strat., 6, 8. 16) Kraay 1976, 275.

104

Koray KONUK

striking in the 5th century BC, and maybe until the beginning of the 5th century BC lion head/rosette obols17. An array of fractions as well as multiples were issued, among which the so-called drachm (a tetrobol in fact) is the most common. The extant denominations are as follows: – Hemitetartemorion (c. 0.12 g, Pl. 1, 7) – Tetartemorion (c. 0.25 g, Pl. 1, 5 and 6) – Obol (c. 1.05 g, Pl. 1, 9) – Diobol (c. 2.12 g, Pl. 1, 10) – Triobol (c. 3.10 g, Pl. 1, 13) – Tetrobol or third-stater (so-called drachm, c. 4.25 g, Pl. 1, 11) – Stater (so-called tridrachm, c. 12.70 g, Pl. 1, 12) It may seem odd that Hekatomnos should have issued tetrobols, rather that six-obol coins (drachms). It has been suggested that this denomination existed within the Milesian standard because it equalled an Attic drachm18. But the full weight of the Attic drachm (c. 4.36 g) was not achieved by Hekatomnos’ tetrobols at c. 4.25 g19. The reason for striking tetrobols could lie in the purpose that they served. There are indeed examples of unusual denominations struck for making specific payments such as those destined for troops or mercenaries. The griffin slayer issue (Pl. 1, 13) A unique coin in the British Museum may tentatively be attributed to Hekatomnos. It was first published by Jenkins who suggested Hekatomnos as the most likely issuing authority20. The obverse and reverse type combination is quite extraordinary. A typical Achaemenid design is used on the obverse which depicts the Persian king slaying a winged griffin which stands facing him; he holds a dagger (akinakes?) or some other weapon in his right hand21. There are traces of three Greek letters behind the King’s crowned head, in the upper left field, but they are too worn to be conclusively interpreted. The final letter, however, is very likely to be an omicron. Jenkins suggested that the letters might be regarded as the last three letters of the name of Maussollos (spelt Maussollo), and that the rest of the name would have been on the right side where the type is not preserved. Personally, I would rather see in these, the last three letters of Hekatomnos’ name (spelt Hekatomno), given that what is left of the preceding two letters could well be MN. The reverse of this coin provides a conclusive clue as for the origin of the coin. Its type is almost identical with the reverse of the Milesian type coinage of Hekatomnos. The same Milesian type rosette is depicted inside a round circle. There can be little doubt that this coin was issued in a Hekatomnid context, most probably by Hekatomnos himself. What is the significance of the Persian imagery of the obverse? Was Hekatomnos trying to please the Persian authorities at a time when his allegiance was in question? Advertising officially on a coin the supremacy of the Great King slaying a griffin – a potent and symbolic image that anyone could understand – would have been an effective and easy way for Hekatomnos to show that he was, after all, prepared to recognise the authority of the King of Kings. Its reverse type with the Milesian rosette suggests that it should be linked to the lion-head series, but its weight at 3.30 g differs from 17) For a detailed description of the hoard evidence see Konuk 1998a, 41-47. 18) Kraay 1976, 275. 19) Even the heaviest recorded specimen (4.29 g) does not come close to 4.35 g, the theoretical weight of the Attic drachm. 20) Jenkins 1971, 97-98, 31. See also Konuk 1998b. 21) This scene, sometimes with a lion replacing the griffin, is popular in Achaemenid art and is found at Persepolis and on other media such as engraved gems: e.g. Boardman 1970a, pls. 4, 82, 84, 86, 87, 93, 97, 98.

COiNAge ANd ideNtitieS UNdeR the heKAtOMNidS

105

the known denominations. It is very likely to be a triobol on the reduced Milesian standard. However, this issue might also be connected to the tetradrachm coinage on the Chian weight, and thus represent a drachm. The Bovine type issues (Pl. 1, 14) To the same light Milesian weight-standard belongs a series of bovine type diobols22. These depict on both sides a forepart of an ox; their reverse has the legend EKA on the back of the ox, all in a square or a round incuse. These three letters obviously stand for the beginning of the name of Hekatomnos, in the same fashion as on the lion-head coinage previously discussed. There exists another series of coins which are identical in every aspect (type, weight, fabric…) save for the legend, which is KIM instead of EKA, and the reverse incuse which is invariably round. Unless a specimen with a square incuse is found, it would be reasonable to assume that the KIM series came after the issues of Hekatomnos. If indeed a Greek name and not a Carian one, KIM may stand for Kimon, who is otherwise unknown, and it seems difficult to find him a place in history given the dynastic nature of this coinage. Also with an incuse square is a similar series of diobols with Carian letters23. These issues with Carian letters are of earlier style and are very likely to have preceded the KIM-EKA series. One further noteworthy coin (private collection), unique and unpublished, depicts on the reverse a similar ox forepart with an uncertain (Carian?) letter on its shoulder, and on the obverse a powerful bearded head to the right which looks like the depiction of an individual. I have often wondered whether all these bovine coins might not have been minted at Kaunos. Being in the southern fringe of Caria, it was under Hekatomnos’ control. A particularly close Hekatomnid relationship with Kaunos seems to have existed to judge from Kaunian dedications of statues of Hekatomnos and of his son Maussollos, and later Pixodaros’ promotion of the local cult of Basileus Kaunios at Xanthos24. As for the identity of KIM, he might have governed the city and its region on behalf of Maussollos after the death of Hekatomnos. Kaunos is now known to have had a substantial silver coinage until the 390s BC25. Furthermore, the city abandoned the use of the Carian script on its coinage in the c. 380s-70s BC, which would be consistent with the introduction of the Greek legend EKA in place of Carian letters at about the same time. A Kaunian issue of small bronzes struck a little later has on its reverse a very similar forepart of an ox, with one leg bent and the head slightly inclined. Other bronzes show a full depiction of the ox. the chian standard issues With the Chian weight tetradrachm series is inaugurated a type which will remain in use virtually unchanged throughout the coinage of the Hekatomnids. It is the figure on the obverse of Zeus Labraundos, bearded and laureate, standing to the right, wearing a himation, and holding a spear pointing downward in one hand and a labrys (double-axe) in the other, a potent image, sacred to all Carians by virtue of the importance of the sanctuary of Labraunda (Pl. 2, 15). The lifelong priests of the god were chosen from the most distinguished citizens of Mylasa26, and the Hekatomnids most probably held the priesthood in the 4th century BC27. Labraunda had indeed a special place in the 22) This series was briefly discussed by Wells 1984, 57-60. Wells lists three KIM specimens to which should now be added another eight. 23) Traité, 1789, pl. 150, 12 (2.14 g); Imhoof-Blumer 1905, 166, pl. 10, 20 (2.08 g); a third specimen in Oxford (2.18 g); Troxell 1984, pl. 40, 12a and 12b; Cancio 1989, 83; Konuk 2007. 24) Bean 1953, nos. 3 and 4; Işık & Marek 2005. 25) Konuk 1998b, 210-13. 26) Strabo, 14.2.23. 27) Ruzicka 1992, 30.

106

Koray KONUK

life of the Hekatomnids who successively developed and embellished the sanctuary. Hekatomnos’ successors would perpetuate the same image, but on the reverse of their coinage. This image of Zeus Labraundos, with a very Greek looking appearance, remained virtually unchanged throughout the different issues that were minted over a period of about half a century28. This might suggest that the coin design was modelled after the actual statue of Zeus at Labraunda29. The reverse of these tetradrachms depicts a lion in an unusual posture. It is standing to the left, roaring, its back legs straight and front legs bent, almost parallel to the ground line. Comparable lion postures are found on some contemporary Cypriot issues, on the 5th century BC diobol coinage of Miletos, and, perhaps not directly relevant, on the contemporary coinage of Velia in southern Italy30. The similar lions on various coinages of the 5th and 4th century BC in Cyprus, brings to mind the Cypriot expedition that took place soon after Hekatomnos’ accession to the satrapy of Caria, but I believe that a more convincing parallel is to be found once again on a particular issue of Miletos. One denomination only, a sixth-stater or diobol (c. 2.35 g), was struck with a very similar lion on the obverse and a Milesian rosette on the reverse (Pl. 2, 16)31. This series is usually dated to the middle of the 5th century BC, a date which is based mainly on stylistic grounds32. The style of the lion provides an attractive possibility for the origin of Hekatomnos’ type. Only one reverse die has a square incuse, all the other dies have a round incuse. Until the discovery of the ‘Hecatomnus hoard’ these coins were very rare and public collections contained only a handful of specimens33. maussollos at mylasa: a transitional coinage The introduction of the Chian weight coinage of Hekatomnos did not signal the end of Milesian weight issues in Mylasa. When Maussollos succeeded his father in 377 BC he continued to strike Milesian-type staters which must fall early in his reign (Pl. 2, 17). The style of the surviving dies is very consistent and suggests that these must have been issued over a brief period of time, perhaps a year or two. The lion head is stylistically more developed with a naturalistic rendering of the lion’s mane and the reverse rosette has longer and leaner segments than earlier issues. The other Milesianweight denomination struck by Maussollos at Mylasa is a small series of hemiobols which carry the usual lion head with tongue protruding and a head of a trident with the letters MA on the reverse (Pl. 2, 18). The trident is surely the attribute of Zeus Osogollis, an important deity of Mylasa also celebrated on the next issue34. These hemiobols are the only fractional coinage that can be securely attributed to Maussollos and are clearly a continuation of his father’s system in which small silver change seems to have played an important role. To the same mint of Mylasa must belong another issue known to us only in two tetradrachms from the ‘Pixodarus hoard’. The reverse is the standard Zeus Labraundos type introduced by Hekatomnos with the letters MA placed vertically behind him. The obverse carries the exceptional 28) The only variation of the type is the spear of Zeus which changes into a sceptre terminated by a triple-head fleuron on Idrieus’ didrachm coinage. Babelon, Traité, 142-153 wrongly describes the spear of Zeus as a sceptre for the coinage of Hekatomnos, Maussollos and Idrieus. 29) It has been suggested that Hekatomnos introduced a new cult-statue of Zeus Labraundos. A statue base discovered at the sanctuary records Hekatomnos’ dedication of a statue, probably of Zeus Labraundos: Crampa 1969, no. 27. Pace Ruzicka 1992, 31 the image of Zeus on Hekatomnos’ tetradrachms does not have “unemphatic breasts”, nor does he carry a sceptre but an inverted spear. 30) The comparison with Velian issues is worth mentioning for the closeness of the lion depiction: Williams 1992, Period IV, pl. 11. 31) The conventional shape of the rosette suggests that these diobols are indeed from Miletos. 32) Head 1911; BMC Ionia, 185, 12-13; Traité, 1752; Rosen, 585; SNG von Aulock, 2086. 33) Waddington 1856, 61 listed only one specimen kept in Berlin whose authenticity he doubted. The Berlin specimen was first published and illustrated in 1645 by Berger. Less than five percent of Hekatomnos tetradrachms are today in public collections. See Ashton et al. 2002a for the ‘Hecatomnus hoard’ 34) For Mylasa’s Zeus, see Debord 2001.

COiNAge ANd ideNtitieS UNdeR the heKAtOMNidS

107

depiction of Zeus Osogollis standing to the left and holding in one hand an eagle and in the other a trident (Pl. 2, 19)35. A further tetradrachm issue may be of Maussollos at Mylasa. Its obverse is quintessentially Persian and provides a vivid reminder of the nature and origin of the Hekatomnids’ office. We see the Great King as an archer crowned with a kidaris standing right and shooting an arrow (Pl. 2, 20). The Paris specimen has been known since the late 19th century and was associated with the satraps of Caria because of its distinct Hekatomnid obverse with the usual figure of Zeus Labraundos. But the absence of a legend rendered a more precise attribution particularly difficult. The remaining two extant specimens occurred in the ‘Pixodarus hoard’ which did not include any issues of Hekatomnos, the earliest Hekatomnid coins being the tetradrachms of Maussollos with Zeus Osogollis described above. A further point that would favour an attribution to Maussollos is the fact that Zeus Labraundos is always used as an obverse type on Hekatomnos’ tetradrachms, whereas it is exclusively a reverse type on Maussollos’ issues. Since the archer tetradrachms display Zeus on the reverse, an attribution to Maussollos is more likely. The image of the Great King as a shooting archer is well attested in glyptic art36. The recently discovered tomb of a noblewoman of the Hekatomnid period at Bodrum yielded a wealth of jewellery among which was a gold swivel ring with a chalcedony gem engraved with the image of a Persian soldier37. He is depicted standing to the right and holding his waist with his right hand and a long inverted upright spear in the other38. His trousers and tunic, as well as the head covering with side flaps are unmistakably Persian. Like the two coin types (griffin slayer type of Hekatomnos and the archer type of Maussollos), this gem provides evidence of the use of Persian imagery in Hekatomnid Caria. Hekatomnos’ Milesian type issues struck in large numbers along with his Chian-weight tetradrachms depicting a lion and Zeus Labraundos constituted important steps in establishing a dynastic coinage, but his lesser known fractions followed the old practice of striking small denominations at Mylasa which goes back several generations, including his father Hyssaldomos and perhaps his predecessor. maussollos and tHe advent of a dynastic coinage in Halikarnassos Maussollos’ reign marks the apogee of the Hekatomnid dynasty and its establishment as the ‘superpower’ of south western Asia Minor. Virtually free of Persian interference, his rule had a profound impact on the social, political and economic life of greater Caria39. Furthering his father’s conquests, Maussollos moved to Halikarnassos the seat of what was in effect an ever-expanding ‘pocket-empire’ encompassing the neighbouring regions and islands of Ionia and Lycia. This strategic move to a harbour-city coincided with the introduction of a new Chian weight coinage with 35) Zeus Osogollis’ other attribute, the crab, has been tentatively linked by Debord 1999 to the conquest of Kos by Maussollos, the crab being its civic type. This is difficult to accept since the coin featuring Zeus Osogollis was struck early in the reign of Maussollos (perhaps during his first or second regnal year), and certainly before he moved the satrapal seat to Halikarnassos. It seems much more likely that the conquest of Kos happened after Maussollos established Halikarnasssos as a major naval base. An alternative explanation for the crab could be the crater lake of Denizcik where crabs are found in numbers and which is situated about 6 km southwest of Milas. 36) Cf. Boardman 1970b, nos. 826, 826, 829. 37) Özet 1994, 91, figs. 6 and 7. 38) Özet compares the gem to a similar chalcedony scaraboid gem in the Hermitage. There is however a closer, if not identical, parallel in the Fitzwilliam Museum: Boardman 1970b, no. 884 and Hening et al. 1994, 37, 60. It is made of the same stone, has the same shape and treats the same subject-matter in the same matter. Indeed, so much similar is the engraving technique that these two gems are likely to be from the same hand, or at least workshop. 39) As Hornblower 1982, 2 rightly points out in his opening lines that Hekatomnid Caria is a political, not a geographical expression.

108

Koray KONUK

a three-quarter facing laureate head of Apollo type on the obverse, which continued a civic type inaugurated by Halikarnassos a few decades earlier. The reverse of this new coinage carried the same image of the Zeus of Labraunda used on the Chian weight tetradrachms of Hekatomnos (Pl. 2, 21). As a matter of fact, this new coinage was not much of an innovation since it combined two already existing coin types. As we have seen, Hekatomnos had already experimented with a three-quarter facing head on his hemiobols that may have been first introduced before Hyssaldomos in the final years of the 5th century BC. Unlike Maussollos’ coins, the three-quarter facing head on these earlier fractions did not carry a laurel wreath and the source of inspiration for the Apollo type is more likely to be found on the civic issues of Halikarnassos, c. 390-70 BC, showing a three-quarter facing and wreathed head of Apollo40. These Chian weight issues of Halikarnassos with a standing eagle on the reverse were modest in size, with only five obverse dies recorded for drachms, a single pair of dies for hemidrachms, and another pair of dies for a unique tetradrachm (Pl. 2, 22)41. This civic coinage of Halikarnassos should be regarded as an attempt to emulate the superb three-quarter facing heads of Apollo-Helios on the coinage of the recently synoikized city of Rhodes introduced a couple of decades earlier42. The only typological difference is the laurel wreath added to the Apollo heads of Halikarnassos. Architectural remains and inscriptions indicate that a sanctuary of Apollo stood on the summit of the Zephyrion peninsula where Maussollos had his palace built43. Besides the attractiveness and the obvious defensive qualities of this spot, Maussollos may also have selected it to fulfil a desire to reside near the sanctuary of Apollo and Hornblower has suggested that he may have identified himself with Apollo-Helios44. But the head on his coins is of Apollo rather than Helios. The two are often assimilated in the Hellenistic period, but Apollo in the 4th century BC is always depicted on coins wearing a laurel wreath, whereas Helios, as the coinage of Rhodes indicates, is either bare head, or is given a radiate crown45. Hence Hornblower is mistaken in calling the facing head of the Hekatomnid coinage “radiate Helios”46. There is further coin evidence for Apollo’s presence at Halikarnassos. The city struck some small bronze coins which depict a young and laureate head of Apollo to the left. These bronzes fall into two categories: an early issue with a reverse depicting a seven-cord lyre with the legend ΑΛΙ (Pl. 2, 23)47. and a later issue with a standing eagle with wings spread and the same legend on the reverse (Pl. 2, 24), a few of the later series were found in the Mausoleum excavations48. One would naturally associate the standing eagle bronzes with the silver issues of the same type, but a closer examination reveals a different treatment and style which suggests a date for the bronzes later than c. 380 BC. There is nothing, apart from modern misconception, to prevent these civic bronzes from

40) Contrary to common belief, the three-quarter facing head of Apollo was not directly copied from the coins of neighbouring Rhodes: pace Kraay 1976, 273; Hornblower 1982, 129 and 336; Zahle 1994, 86. Seltman 1955, 186 even proposed the coinage of Klazomenai as the source of inspiration. 41) Many drachms were included in the ‘Hecatomnus hoard’ (CH 5.17, 8.96, 9.387) and are published by Konuk in Ashton et al. 2002a. The unique tetradrachm (13.98 g, some surface corrosion; in trade, last recorded appearance: The New York Sale, 27, 04-06-2012, the Prospero collection, lot 533) was first published in Hurter 1966. Brett 1931 was wrong to suggest, solely on the basis of stylistic considerations, that the civic coins of Halikarnassos of the facing Apollo type succeeded the new coinage of Maussollos, which she believed to have been struck at Mylasa, and copied the coinage of the satrap. The ‘Hecatomnus hoard’ clearly indicates that the civic issues preceded the new coinage of Maussollos. 42) Ashton 1993, 13 and 2001. 43) Pedersen 2009, 331-332. 44) Hornblower 1982, 261, 336. 45) Examples of mints depicting a three-quarter facing head of Apollo wearing a laurel wreath are many. In Asia Minor these include, Klazomenai, Halikarnassos, Kaunos and Miletos. 46) Hornblower 1982, 336, 340. 47) At least two specimens were part of the ‘Phygela hoard’ of c. 400 BC. Ashton 2001, 4. 48) Jeppesen et al. 1981, 51, four bronze coins were found in the fill above the sacrificial layer, one may be two are of the Apollo/eagle type, the two others are unrecognisable, though their module is the same as the other two suggesting they all may be the same Apollo/eagle type; S. Hornblower, Classical Review, 32, 1982, 109; Hornblower 1982, 85, n. 56.

COiNAge ANd ideNtitieS UNdeR the heKAtOMNidS

109

being dated to the rule of the satraps49. Indeed, they were destined for local usage and the greatly expanded population of Halikarnassos would have naturally required a provision of small change for daily transactions at a time when a coin-based economy had firmly established itself in Greek cities. In fact a fractional silver coinage with several denominations had already circulated on the peninsula for several decades, and these bronzes of handy module may be considered as a replacement for these impractically small silver. It is indeed difficult to imagine how the dynastic silver issues of the Hekatomnids could have been used for petty transactions; they must have struck to make larger payments50. To the civic depiction of the three-quarter facing head of Apollo wearing a laurel wreath, Maussollos added a round chlamys fibula underneath the god’s chin, a detail which is often off-flan. By keeping as a reverse type the image of Zeus Labraundos introduced by his father, Maussollos perhaps wanted to symbolically associate the old and sacred identity of the ancestral dynasty (the dynastic sanctuary at Labraunda) to the new dynastic seat at Halikarnassos represented by a civic type previously used at its mint. The new Halikarnassian coinage of Maussollos was struck in three denominations: drachms and tetradrachms and a very limited issue of hemidrachms struck with the earliest series. Mention should be made here of the bearded Herakles head that is found on the obverse of contemporary issues of Kos51. The reverse depicts a crab above a club with the Koan ethnic and the name of a magistrate. Six compared the bearded head on the obverse with the so-called ‘statue of Maussollos’ from the Maussolleion, and found similarities. Hill, apparently independently, arrived at the same identification52. The comparison of course depends on identity of the statue, which is far from certain. We know that the Maussolleion was decorated with dozens of free-standing statues of which only the statue in question along with a female statue, and some fragments survive53. What is extant is a very small sample of what originally adorned the tomb, and the so-called Maussollos might depict another dignitary. Even if we accept that the statue represents the satrap, there are dies which do not convey the same resemblance as the specimens selected by Six and Hill. As Moysey observed, Hill chose a particularly close specimen and did not mention others which are not similar54. I think that useful evidence can be gained by examining the dating of the type and how it evolved. The ‘Hecatomnus hoard’ and IGCH 1204 provide evidence that Kos struck a series of tetradrachms with Herakles/crab in the opening decades of the 4th century BC (Pl. 2, 25)55. In other words, the type that Hill and Six illustrated existed before the time of Maussollos. We may therefore be confident that the obverse originally depicted Herakles and was not intended to depict an individual56. While Idrieus continued to issue tetradrachms and drachms in his own name like his brother Maussollos, he took the initiative of introducing simultaneously two new denominations: didrachms on the one hand, which were struck on a lighter standard than the tetradrachms and drachms, and trihemiobols (quarter drachms) on the other. Their use was seemingly interconnected, the trihemiobol 49) Six 1877, 85 rules out a bronze coinage in Halikarnassos until the death of Pixodaros. See also Ashton 2001, 9, n. 43. 50) The nature of these payments is discussed in the last chapter of Konuk 1998a. 51) Six 1899, 82-83. 52) Hill 1923, 208: “the silky Oriental moustache, the treatment of the eye, the slight tinge of melancholy, all combine to recall the likeness of the satrap”. Scholars discussing the alleged portraiture of Maussollos on Koan coins credit Hill, as he claims himself in his article, for being the first to call attention to “the resemblance which the features of Heracles on these coins bear to those of Maussollos, as represented in the statue from the Maussolleum”. It was in fact Six who proposed in 1899 the first comparison between the coins and the statue. 53) See Waywell 1978. 54) Moysey 1989, 128. 55) Ashton et al. 2002b; Ingvaldsen 2002, 84-90 56) Same conclusion in Ingvaldsen 2002, 66-68.

110

Koray KONUK

facilitating the conversion of a full weight tetradrachm with two light weight didrachms, the weight of the trihemiobol (c. 0.90 g) filling the gap between the two bigger denominations57. The trihemiobol retained the Apollo type on its obverse but saw the reintroduction of the Milesian type starlike floral pattern on the reverse (Pl. 2, 26). Idrieus’s didrachms (Pl. 3, 27) followed the Apollo/Zeus dynastic type, but a small variation was introduced to the reverse in the shape of a sceptre terminated by a triple-head fleuron instead of the usual downward pointing held by Zeus which Idrieus continued to use on his tetradrachms (Pl. 3, 28) and drachms. How are we to interpret the switching of the spear associated with Zeus Stratios for a sceptre which could be taken as a symbol of a ruler, or a dynastic symbol? Could this be the sign that Idrieus associated himself with Zeus? We know that Idrieus had the temple of Zeus at Labraunda rebuilt and enlarged and the cult statue might have undergone a similar changeover. On becoming satrap in 341 BC, Pixodaros struck a limited series of full Chian weight dynastic type Apollo/Zeus tetradrachms (Pl. 3, 29), drachms and a small series of trihemiobols for about a year or so. These rare tetradrachms and drachms depict the traditional spear attribute of Zeus; being old denominations there may have been an intention to keep the traditional types unchanged. Pixodaros, however, preferred instead to issue large amounts of light-weight didrachms of dynastic type but with Zeus holding a sceptre (Pl. 3, 30). What makes Pixodaros’ coinage exceptional are his gold emissions which are the only non-silver coins struck by the Hekatomnids. The only dating evidence is the letter epsilon which appears on some issues and may be connected with Epsilon silver series. On gold, the letter does not stand in its usual place between the foot and sceptre of Zeus, but is placed prominently on the left field (Pl. 3, 31). If they are associated, gold must have been introduced at the very beginning of Pixodaros’ rule, in 341/0 BC. The weight-standard was the Persian daric at c. 8.44 g58. Pixodaros’ gold issues are sub-divisions of the daric: 1/2, 1/6, 1/8, 1/12, and 1/24. By the time gold coinage was introduced, tetradrachms and perhaps drachms were no longer struck and convertibility existed between gold and silver issues: a 1/12th gold stater was equal to a silver didrachm according to the 1:10 ratio used in that period59. On the introduction of gold coinage, the obverse type changes from a three-quarter facing to a profile head of Apollo (Pls. 3, 31 and 32). Laureate Apollo heads in profile were a rather common design on coins. But on some of Pixodaros’ coins, the style of Apollo’s head is mirrored on the contemporary coinage of Miletos. Yet again the Milesian ‘connection’ is at work. The treatment and rendering of Apollo’s head is so close, that the same engravers must have been commissioned to produce dies at both mints. On most denominations the reverse type of Zeus Labraundos is left unchanged. Two new types, however, are introduced. The smallest denomination, 1/24 daric, has on the reverse the head of a labrys which, on a surface of less than half a centimetre, was certainly easier to accommodate than a full standing Zeus (Pl. 3, 32). The 1/8 daric is the only denomination to have a different obverse in the form of a trident, a type used by Maussollos on his obols and certainly referring to the cult of Zeus Osogollis (Pl. 3, 33). Its reverse is a labrys within an incuse square. A political meaning has been in the past attached to the gold coinage of Pixodaros. The minting of gold has often been considered the exclusive prerogative of the Great King, and any other coinage was believed to be insurrectional in character60. It is true that more often than not, gold was struck in times of crises to respond to an emergency demand. Pixodaros’ introduction of a gold coinage might also be explained, at least partly, by a shortage of silver which may already have begun under Idrieus. The striking of a reduced weight didrachms by Idrieus and Pixodaros and the abandonment of tetradrachms might both indicate that silver was more difficult to obtain. 57) For a detailed explanation, see Konuk 1991. 58) For a detailed study of the standard, see Konuk 1993. 59) Konuk 1998, 182. 60) For this question see Konuk 1998a, 179.

COiNAge ANd ideNtitieS UNdeR the heKAtOMNidS

111

Pixodaros’ daughter married a Persian by the name of Rhoontopates who ruled from 336/5 to 334 BC as the last satrap of Caria. The only coinage known for Rhoontopates as ruler of Caria is an emission of full-weight Chian tetradrachms of the Apollo/Zeus type (Pl. 3, 34) which is perhaps surprising for that denomination had been abandoned by his predecessor Pixodaros early in his reign in c. 341/0 BC. During his two-year rule Rhoontopates’ principal concern would have been the defence of Caria against Alexander, a task which must have entailed considerable logistical and financial effort which is not reflected in his modest issues of tetradrachms which only comprise six obverse dies. This sense of dynastic continuity that permeates in the coinage of the Hekatomnids is also apparent in their fondness to dedicating and erecting statues of themselves. They were among the first to practice this form of dynastic self-assertion in the Greek cultural area. Inscribed bases and inscriptions mentioning statues have been found in a number of places besides the main sanctuaries of Labraunda and Sinuri and as far as Erythrai, Tegea and Delphi61. A family portrait group was dedicated by Idrieus at Iasos and another one might have existed at Labraunda62. A recently found epigram belonging to this monument in Iasos underlines further the theme of dynastic continuity in displaying hereditary power63. I would like to conclude by briefly mentioning the outstanding but unfortunately looted grave chamber recently discovered at Uzunyuva in Milas which provides yet another but more impressive example of dynastic assertion64. It is in all probability that of Hekatomnos whose sarcophagus carved with reliefs on four sides may be viewed, in my opinion, as a remarkable example of power statement of the Hekatomnid ruling house65. The main side of the sarcophagus facing the entrance of the burial chamber depicts a banquet scene where members of his family surround the deceased. He may well be Hekatomnos reclining on a couch next to his seated wife (probably his sister Aba66) with features of a middle-aged woman, behind her stand a boy and a girl in their teens; on the left, before the deceased stand closer to him a bearded young man and behind him an older man with a more furnished beard. On either side of the couch stand two children. Although the general composition of this funerary banquet looks rather conventional67, the detailed treatment given to each character by means of individual features makes it no ordinary scene. It is as though we were witnessing the birth of portraiture, yet still imbued to some extant in ideal and character representation68. If this sarcophagus does indeed belong to Hekatomnos, one would be tempted to put names on each of these individuals and the three older males may well be Maussollos (perhaps the elder one standing 61) A useful list can be found in Carstens 2009, 146. 62) Berti et al. 2010. 63) Berti et al. 2010; Maddoli 2010. 64) Rumscheid 2010 argued that the podium monument at Uzunyuva was part of an unfinished proto-mausolleion which had not served as burial. It is now apparent that the burial chamber was completed and used. 65) A view first mentioned in Konuk 2010. The other sides, which I will not discuss here, carry reliefs depicting on the other long side the satrap on horseback hunting a lion and on the short sides, mourning scenes. Photographs were published in several press articles and many can be viewed on the World Wide Web. The tomb and its contents are to be published by Fahri and Cengiz Işık, Adnan Diler and Abuzer Kızıl. 66) The statue base from Iasos inscribed ‘Aba, daughter of Hekatomnos’ and belonging to a family group monument erected by Idrieus supports the view that Aba could not have been depicted simply as the aunt of Idrieus, but more probably as his mother: Berti et al. 2010, 177. In addition, an inscription found near the tomb has benefited from a new reading whereby the couple Hekatomnos and Aba are rendered a cult as daimones agathoi: Descat 2011. 67) ‘Totenmahl’ reliefs are very common in the Hellenistic period and a number have been found in the Halikarnassos peninsula: Hansen 2008. 68) In addition, seven (out of eight) free-standing marble statuettes portraying members of the Hekatomnid dynasty and originally placed as acroteria on the pediments angles of the sarcophagus lid have subsequently been confiscated in Denizli and are now kept in the Milas archaeological museum. These along with other objects seemingly also from the Uzunyuva tomb were presented to the press on January 16th 2011 by Ertuğrul Günay, Minister of Culture and Tourism. Their number would conveniently match the eight characters depicted on the main relief.

112

Koray KONUK

on the far left), Idrieus (young man carrying a Persian rhyton) and Pixodaros depicted as a teenager behind whom may be standing Artemisia in grief. The infant holding a bird and a doll by Aba’s side is clearly a girl, the other looks like a boy. The girl may well be Ada, the sister-wife of Idrieus. The boy cannot be identified and may be missing from ancient sources available to us at this time or he might have died at an early age69. All in all, the entire dynasty is gathered around the deceased and the long and well-established funerary banquet theme gave what appears to be Hekatomnos an opportunity to make a forward statement of power through his progeny, all heirs to his ruling house. Through their coinage and a variety of architectural and sculptural realisations, the Hekatomnids underlined key ingredients of political legitimacy and authority: dynastic relationships, ancestry and family.

69) If these infants were indeed Hekatomnos’, the age difference between them and his older son, probably Maussollos, would be in the range of about 20 to 25 years which seems excessively long for the same mother. Though this is not entirely impossible in a context of childbearing starting at a very early age, we might also entertain the possibility of them being half-siblings of their older brothers and sister.

COiNAge ANd ideNtitieS UNdeR the heKAtOMNidS

113

BiBliograpHy Ashton, R.H.J., 1993 : “A Revised Arrangement for the Earliest Coinage of Rhodes”, in M. Price et al. (éds.), Essays in Honour of Robert Carson and Kenneth Jenkins, London, 1993, 9-15. – 2001 : “The Coinage of Rhodes, 408-190”, in A. Meadows & K. Shipton (éds.), Money and its Uses in the Ancient Greek World, Oxford, 2001, 79-115. – 2006 : “The Beginning of Bronze Coinage in Karia and Lykia”, NC 166, 2006, 1-14. Ashton, R.H.J. et al., 2002a : “The Hecatomnus Hoard (CH 5.17, 8.96, 9.387)”, in A. Meadows & U. Wartenberg (éds.), Coin Hoards. Volume IX, Greek Hoards, London, 2002, 95-157. – 2002b : “The Pixodarus Hoard (CH 9.421)”, in A. Meadows & U. Wartenberg (éds.), Coins Hoards Volume IX: Greek Hoards, London, 2002, 159-243. Bean, G.E., 1953 : “Notes and Inscriptions from Caunus”, JHS 73, 1953, 10-35. Becker, F., 1988 : “Ein Fund von 75 milesischen Obolen”, RSN 67, 1988, 5-41. Berti, F., Fabiani, R., Kızıltan, Z. & Nafissi, N. (éds.), 2010 : Marmi erranti. I marmi di Iasos presso i musei archaologici di Istanbul, Istanbul, 2010. BMC Ionia : Head, B.V., Catalogue of the Greek Coins in The British Museum, Greek Coins of Ionia, London, 1892. Boardman, J., 1970a : “Pyramidal Stamp Seals in the Persian Empire”, Iran 8, 1970, 19-45. – 1970b : Greek Gems and Finger Rings. Early Bronze Age to Late Classical, London, 1970. Brett, A.B., 1931 : “Tetradrachm of Mausolus”, Bulletin of the Museum of Fine Arts 29, 1931, 12. Cancio, L., 1989 : “A New Satrapal Coin of the KIM-EKA Series”, SM 156, 1989, 83. Carstens, A.M., 2009 : Karia and the Hekatomnids. The Creation of a Dynasty, BAR, Oxford, 2009. Coin Hoards VIII : Wartenberg, U., Price, N.J. & McGregor, K.A., (éds.), Coin Hoards, VIII Greek Hoards, London, 1994. Crampa, J., 1969 : Labraunda, Swedish Excavations and Researches, III:2. The Greek Inscriptions, Stockholm, 1969. Debord, P., 1999 : L’Asie Mineure au IVe siècle (412-323 a.C.). Pouvoirs et jeux politiques, Bordeaux, 1999. – 2001 : “Sur quelques Zeus cariens : religion et politique”, Studi Ellenistici 13, 2001, 19-37. Deppert-Lippitz, D., 1984 : Die Münzprägung Milets vom vierten bis ersten Jahrhundert v. Chr., Typos 5, Aarau-Francfort/M.-Salzbourg, 1984. Descat, R., 2011 : “Autour de la tombe d’Hékatomnos, nouvelle lecture d’une inscription de Mylasa”, ZPE, 178, 2011, 195-202. Gunter, A.C., 1985 : “Looking at Hecatomnid Patronage from Labraunda”, REA 87, 1985, 113-124. Hansen, S.S., 2008 : “Hellenistic Totenmahl Reliefs from the Halikarnassos peninsula”, in P. Pedersen (éd.), Halicarnassian Studies V, Odense, 2008, 119-136. Head, B.V., 1911 : Historia Numorum, A Manual of Greek Numismatics, Oxford, 1911. Hening, M. et al., 1994 : Classical Gems. Ancient and Modern Intaglios and Gems in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, Cambridge, 1994. Hill, G.F., 1923 : “Some Coins of Southern Asia Minor”, in W.H. Buckler & W.M. Calder (éds.), Anatolian Studies Presented to Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, Manchester, 1923, 208-212, pl. 9-10 Hornblower, S., 1982 : Mausolus, Oxford, 1982. Hurter, S., 1966 : “42 Tetradrachmen von Klazomenai. Ein Fundbericht”, RSN 45, 1966, 26-35. IGCH : Thompson, M., Mørkholm, O. & Kraay, C.M. (éds.), An Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards, New York, 1973. Imhoof-Blumer, F., 1905 : “Zur griechischen und römischen Münzkunde”, RSN 13, 1905, 162-272. Ingvaldsen, H., 2002 : Cos – Coinage and Society. The chronology and function of a city-state coinage in the Classical and Hellenistic period, c. 390- c. 170 BC. (University of Oslo PhD.), Oslo, 2002. Işık, C. & Marek, C., 2005 : “Die Basen der Hekatomniden in Kaunos-Kbid”, in Synergia, Festschrift für Friederich Krinzinger, Band 2, 2005, 239-247. Jenkins, K., 1971 : “Two Coins of Asia Minor”, BM quarterly 36/3-4, 1971, 97-98, pl. 31.

114

Koray KONUK

Jeppensen, K. et al., 1981 : The Maussolleion at Halikarnassos, Reports of the Danish Archaeological Expedition to Bodrum, vol. I, The Sacrificial Deposit, Copenhagen, 1981. Kinns, P., 1986 : “The Coinage of Miletus”, NC, 146, 1986, 233-260. Konuk, K., 1993 : “Quelques réflexions sur le monnayage des satrapes hécatomnides de Carie”, in T. Hackens & G. Moucharte (éds.), Proceedings of the XIth International Numismatic Congress, Louvain-laNeuve, 1993, 237-242. – 1998a : The Coinage of the Hekatomnids of Caria, unpublished D.Phil. dissertation, Oxford 1998. – 1998b : “The Early Coinage of Kaunos”, in R. Ashton & S. Hurter (éds.), Studies in Greek Numismatics in Memory of Martin Jessop Price, London, 1998, 197-223, pl. 47-50. – 2000 : “Influences et éléments achéménides dans le monnayage de la Carie”, in O. Casabonne (éd.), Mécanismes et innovations monétaires dans l’Anatolie achéménide. Numismatique et histoire, Istanbul, 2000, 171-183. – 2003 : From Kroisos to Karia. Early Anatolian Coins from the Muharrem Kayhan Collection, Istanbul, 2003. – 2007 : “Coin Legends in Carian”, in I. J. Adiego, The Carian Language, Leiden, 2007, 71-92. – 2009 : “The Coinage of Hyssaldomos, Dynast of Mylasa”, in R. Einicke, S. Lehmann, H. Löhr et al. (éds.), Zurück zum Gegenstand. Festschrift für Andreas E. Furtwängler, Langenweissbach, 2009, 145-152. – 2010 : “Türkiye’nin Tutankhamon Mezarı [The Tuthankhamun Tomb of Turkey]”, Habertürk (newspaper), 12 August 2010, 22. Kraay, C.M., 1976 : Archaic and Classical Greek Coins, London, 1976. Maddoli, G., 2010 : “Du nouveau sur les Hékatomnides d’après les inscriptions de Iasos”, in R. van Bremen & J.-M Carbon (éds.), Hellenistic Karia . Proceedings of the First International Conference on Hellenistic Karia. Oxford, 29 June - 2 July 2006, Bordeaux, 2010, 123-131. Meadows, A., 2011 : “The Chian Revolution: Changing Patterns of Hoarding in 4th-Century BC Western Asia Minor”, in Th. Faucher, M.-Chr. Marcellesi & O. Picard (éds.), Nomisma: La circulation monétaire dans le monde grec [BCH suppl., 53], 2011, 273-295. Moysey, R.A., 1989 : “Observations on the Numismatic Evidence Relating to the Great Satrapal Revolt of 362/1”, REA 91, 1989, 107-139. Özet, M.A., 1994 : “The Tomb of a Noble Woman from the Hekatomnid Period”, in J. Isager (éd.), Hekatomnid Caria and the Ionian Renaissance. Halicarnassian Studies I, Odense, 1994, 88-96. Pedersen, P., 2009 : “The Palace of Maussollos in Halikarnassos”, in F. Rumscheid (éd.), Die Karer und die Anderen. Internationales Kolloquium an der Freien Universität Berlin 13. bis 15. Oktober 2005, Bonn, 2009, 315-348. Pfeiler, B., 1966 : “Die Silberprägung von Milet im 6 Jh. V. Chr.”, RSN 45, 1966, 21-22. Regling, K., 1918 : “Maussollos in Milet”, Franfurter Münzzeitung 198, 1918, 254-260. Rosen : Waggoner, N., Early Greek Coins from the Collection of Jonathan P. Rosen, New York, 1983. Rumscheid, F., 2010 : “Maussollos and the ‘Uzun Yuva’ in Mylasa: An Unfinished Proto-Maussolleion at the Heart of a New Urban Centre?”, in R. van Bremen & J.-M. Carbon (éds.), Hellenistic Karia . Proceedings of the First International Conference on Hellenistic Karia. Oxford, 29 June - 2 July 2006, Bordeaux, 2010, 69102. Ruzicka, S., 1992 : Politics of a Persian Dynasty. The Hecatomnids in the fourth century B.C., Norman & London, 1992. Seltman, C., 1955 : Greek Coins, London, 1955. Six, J.P., 1877 : “Monnaies des satrapes de Carie”, NC, 1877, 81-89. – 1890 : “Monnaies grecques, inédites et incertaines”, NC, 1890, 185-259. – 1899 : “Maussollos Fürst von Mylasa, Satrap von Karien”, Mitteilungen Archæologischen Institut, Rœmische Abteilung 14, 1899, 81-83. SNG Kayhan : K. Konuk, Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. Turkey 1, The Muharrem Kayhan Collection, Bordeaux - Istanbul, 2002. SNG von Aulock : SNG Collection Hans von Aulock, vol. 7 (Berlin, 1962) and vol. 17 (Berlin, 1968). Traité : E. Babelon, Traité des monnaies grecques et romaines. Deuxième partie, description historique, t. 2, Paris, 1910. Troxell, H.A., 1984 : “Carians in Miniature”, in A. Houghton et al. (éds.), Festschrift für/Studies in honor of Leo Mildenberg, Wetteren, 1984, 249-257, pl. 40. Waddington, W.H., 1856 : “Médailles frappées au Ve siècle en Carie et en Ionie”, RN, 1856, 47-62.

COiNAge ANd ideNtitieS UNdeR the heKAtOMNidS

115

Waywell, G.B., 1978 : The Free-Standing Sculptures of the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus. A Catalogue, London, 1978. – 1993 : “The Ada, Zeus and Idrieus Relief from Tegea in the British Museum”, in O. Palagia & W. Coulson (éds.), Sculpture from Arcadia and Laconia, Oxford, 1993, 79-86. Wells, H.B., 1984 : “Observations on the Signature KIM”, SM 135, 1984, 57-60. Williams, R.T., 1992 : The Silver Coinage of Velia, London, 1992. Zahle, J., 1994 : “Hekatomnid Caria, a province in Achaemenid Asia Minor”, in J. Isager (éd.), Hekatomnid Caria and the Ionian Renaissance. Halicarnassian Studies I, Odense, 1994, 85-87.

116

Koray KONUK

1) mylasa, ar hemiobol, c. 430 Bc. Bodrum, museum of underwater archaeology, 3-26-91. 2) predecessor of Hyssaldomos?, mylasa, ar hemiobol, c. 410 Bc. european private collection. 3) Hyssaldomos, mylasa, ar hemiobol, c. 400 Bc. european private collection. 4) Hyssaldomos, mylasa, ar tetartemorion, c. 400 Bc. new york, american numismatic society. 5) Hekatomnos, mylasa, ar tetartemorion, c. 390-380 Bc. european private collection. 6) Hekatomnos, mylasa, ar tetartemorion, c. 390-380 Bc. cambridge, the fitzwilliam museum, cm.69-1995. 7) Hekatomnos, mylasa, ar hemitetartemorion, c. 390-380 Bc. söke, muharrem kayhan collection, mk1629. 8) miletos, ar obol, c. 520-500 Bc. söke, muharrem kayhan collection, mk1416. 9) Hekatomnos, mylasa, ar hemitetartemorion, c. 390-380 Bc. söke, muharem kayhan collection, SNG Kayhan, 864. 10) Hekatomnos, mylasa, ar diobol, c. 390-380 Bc. söke, muharem kayhan collection, mk1564. 11) Hekatomnos, mylasa, ar tetrobol, c. 390-380 Bc. london, the British museum, 1979 1-1-485. ex von aulock coll. 12) Hekatomnos, mylasa, ar stater (12 obols), c. 390-380 Bc. european private collection. 13) Hekatomnos, mylasa, ar triobol, c. 390-380 Bc. london, the British museum, 1971 6-14-1. ex leu. 14) Hekatomnos, mylasa, ar diobol, c. 390-380 Bc. oxford, the ashmolean museum.

COiNAge ANd ideNtitieS UNdeR the heKAtOMNidS

117 plate 1

118

Koray KONUK

15) Hekatomnos, mylasa, ar tetradrachm, c. 380 Bc. auction, cng, triton Xv (03.01.2012), 1246. 16) miletos, ar diobol, c. 500 Bc. söke, muharrem kayhan collection, mk1526. 17) maussollos, mylasa, ar stater (12 obols), c. 377 Bc. auction, gorny & mosch, giessener münzhandlung, 169 (12.10.2008), 503. 18) maussollos, mylasa, ar hemiobol, c. 377 Bc. new york, american numismatic society. 19) maussollos, mylasa, ar tetradrachm, c. 377 Bc. london, the British museum, 1981 5-25-1. ex ‘pixodarus hoard’. 20) maussollos, mylasa, ar tetradrachm, c. 377 Bc. paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Traité, p. 159, 116, pl. 91, 6. 21) maussollos, Halikarnassos, ar tetradrachm, c. 370-60 Bc. auction, cng, triton Xiv (04.01.2011), 326. 22) Halikarnassos, ar tetradrachm, c. 400-380, auction, the new york sale, 27, 04-06-2012, 533. ex prospero coll. 23) Halikarnassos, ae chalkous, c. 400 Bc. söke, muharrem kayhan collection, SNG Kayhan, 761. 24) Halikarnassos, ae chalkous, c. 380-350 Bc. oxford, the ashmolean museum. 25) kos, ar tetradrachm, c. 390-380 Bc. auction, gerhard Hirsch nachfolger 263 (24.09.2009), 2425. 26) idrieus, Halikarnassos, ar trihemiobol, c. 350-340 Bc. söke, muharrem kayhan collection, SNG Kayhan, 885.

COiNAge ANd ideNtitieS UNdeR the heKAtOMNidS

119 plate 2

120

Koray KONUK

27) idrieus, Halikarnassos, ar didrachm, c. 350-340 Bc. söke, muharrem kayhan collection, SNG Kayhan, 881. 28) idrieus, Halikarnassos, ar tetradrachm, c. 350-340 Bc. auction, dr. Busso peus nachfolger 399 (04.11.2009), 165. 29) pixodaros, Halikarnassos, ar tetradrachm, 341 Bc. söke, muharrem kayhan collection, SNG Kayhan, 890. 30) pixodaros, Halikarnassos, ar didrachm, c. 340-336 Bc. auction, numismatik lanz münchen 146 (25.05.2009), 229. 31) pixodaros, Halikarnassos, av hemistater, c. 340-336 Bc. söke, muharrem kayhan collection, mk1706. 32) pixodaros, Halikarnassos, av 1/24th stater, c. 340-336 Bc. söke, muharrem kayhan collection, mk1383. 33) pixodaros, Halikarnassos, av 1/10th stater, c. 340-336 Bc. auction, giessener münzhandlung 60 (05-10-1992), 208. 34) rhoontopates, Halikarnassos, ar tetradrachm, c. 336-334 Bc. söke, muharrem kayhan collection, SNG Kayhan, 899.

COiNAge ANd ideNtitieS UNdeR the heKAtOMNidS

121

plate 3