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 - Nambed No king reverse
| Issuer | Kingdom of Persis |
|---|---|
| Year | 60-85 |
| Type | Log in to see details |
| Value | Log in to see details |
| Currency | Chian-Rhodian drachm |
| 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 | Aramaic |
| Obverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Reverse description | Central fire altar depicted in schematic form within a dotted border, flanked by attendant figures or stylized subsidiary elements. The field surrounding the altar contains Aramaic inscription fragments, though on this 'no king' type the royal name is absent. The design is characteristic of the Persis dynastic coinage tradition, rendered in a compact and somewhat schematic style typical of the obol denomination. |
| 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 | Log in to see details |
| Additional information |
Persis, the region centered on modern Fars province in Iran, maintained a line of local dynasts who continued striking coins in an archaic Iranian style long after the Achaemenid collapse — a deliberate act of cultural continuity under both Seleucid and Parthian overlordship. The "no king reverse" types represent a particularly enigmatic subset of Persid coinage: the omission of the royal figure on the reverse remains unexplained by scholarship, with no consensus on whether it signals a transitional authority, an interregnum, or simply a regional die-cutting economy. Alram's numbering places this piece firmly in the late dynastic sequence, a period when Parthian pressure on Persis was intensifying before the region's eventual absorption.