Catalog
See full images - free registration
Continue with Google - no registration!
or register with email
Why register? Just to keep bots out of our catalog. Your email stays private - we will never share it or send you anything uninvited. We guarantee you that!
Obol
| Issuer | Uncertain Cilician city |
|---|---|
| Year | 400 BC - 301 BC |
| Type | Log in to see details |
| Value | Obol (⅙) |
| Currency | Log in to see details |
| Composition | Log in to see details |
| Weight | Log in to see details |
| Diameter | Log in to see details |
| Thickness | Log in to see details |
| Shape | Log in to see details |
| Technique | Log in to see details |
| Orientation | Log in to see details |
| Engraver(s) | Log in to see details |
| In circulation to | Log in to see details |
| Reference(s) | Log in to see details |
| Obverse description | Log in to see details |
|---|---|
| Obverse script | Log in to see details |
| Obverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Reverse description | Female head, identified as Aphrodite, depicted in profile facing left, rendered in the fine Greco-Persian style characteristic of 4th-century Cilician coinage. The hair is carefully arranged with individual strands visible, and the neck and facial features are modelled with delicate incised detail. No legend or subsidiary devices are present in the field. The reverse die shows the shallow relief and compact composition typical of small-denomination silver issues from uncertain Cilician mints of this period. |
| Reverse script | Log in to see details |
| Reverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Edge | Plain |
| Mint | Log in to see details |
| Mintage | Log in to see details |
| Additional information |
Cilicia in the fourth century BC was a patchwork of semi-autonomous cities and dynasts operating under the loose umbrella of Achaemenid Persian authority, each permitted — or at least tolerated — in striking their own small silver. The inability to assign this obol to a specific mint is not unusual; many Cilician issues from this period resist firm attribution because civic identity was sometimes deliberately ambiguous, and because the same engravers moved between workshops.
Göktürk's corpus remains the most systematic attempt to sort these unattributed Cilician fractions, though even that work leaves dozens of types in provisional categories.