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 Philistian city |
|---|---|
| Year | 450 BC - 333 BC |
| Type | Log in to see details |
| Value | Log in to see details |
| 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 | Variable alignment ↺ |
| 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 | A horse advancing to right is depicted restrained by a standing male figure facing outward toward the viewer, positioned in the foreground. The male figure holds a goad or pointed instrument, a motif common to Philistian and related Levantine fractional silver coinage reflecting Achaemenid-period artistic influence. The entire design is enclosed within a dotted border forming a square, itself set within a larger incuse square produced by the hammered striking technique. The incuse square format is consistent with early Philistian obol types as catalogued by Gitler and Tal. |
| Reverse script | Log in to see details |
| Reverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Edge | Log in to see details |
| Mint | Log in to see details |
| Mintage | ND (450 BC - 333 BC) |
| Additional information |
Philistian civic coinage of this period occupies a genuinely strange corner of ancient numismatics — these small silver fractions were struck by cities on the southern Levantine coast during the Persian satrapal period, when local authorities retained enough autonomy to mint but did so within an Athenian-influenced weight standard they had essentially borrowed wholesale. The attribution to a specific city remains contested; Gitler and Tal's classification acknowledges the uncertainty directly rather than forcing a provenance.
The reference XV.3O places this piece within a typological grouping rather than a firm civic attribution — a distinction worth noting when comparing against other cataloged Philistian material.