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 | Standard circulation coin |
| 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 | 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 | Nude or lightly draped horseman galloping to right, wearing a broad-brimmed petasos and billowing chlamys cloak; the rider sits astride a spirited horse rendered in full gallop, with all four legs extended. The figure is depicted in a lively, dynamic pose characteristic of Cilician satrapal coinage of the fourth century BC. No legend or inscription appears in the field. |
|---|---|
| Obverse script | Log in to see details |
| Obverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Reverse description | Log in to see details |
| 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 produced an extraordinary proliferation of small silver fractions from cities, satraps, and dynasts often impossible to distinguish with certainty — a direct consequence of the region's position as a nexus between Persian administrative coinage and Greek mercantile practice. Many of these issues served to pay mercenary troops, whose employers changed frequently enough that local mint identities became almost incidental.
The Brindley references place this piece within a recognized grouping, but attribution to a specific city remains contested in the literature.