Alexander I Balas (152/1-145 BC). AE Tetrachalkon. Ekbatana mint, 150-147 B.C.
Obverse: Diademed and draped bust of Alexander Balas right.
Reverse: BAΣIΛEΩΣ AΛEΞANΔPOY ΘEOΠATOPOΣ EYEPΓETOY (“of King Alexander, Son of a Divine Father and Benefactor”). Elephant standing right; ΔX monogram above.
Reference: SC 1876; HGC 9, 894.
Weight: 6.28g
Size: 21mm
Extremely rare.
What happened during the time this coin got minted? Parthia was a significant threat to the Seleukids, conflicts were common, and there are many obscure coin issues in the eastern mints, including the above coin, that were struck relative to these conflicts that are quite unique in character, probably issues related to the military operations that were either being planned or executed. Alexander I Balas' reign is noted for significant losses that were incurred from not only the Parthians (who conquered the region of Seleukid Media), but also the Elymaians in the areas around the Zagros mountains. In 147 BC the great king Mithridates I of Parthia invaded Media, which became very unstable after the Seleukids suppressed a rebellion led by the usurper Timarchos, and occupied Ekbatana. After this moment on, no Seleukid coins were ever minted in this city again.
Now moving on to the special monogram on the coin, well before I start with this, I want to give a short introduction to the bronze denomination system of the Seleukid empire.
The Seleukid bronze coinage had 5 bronze denominations, which fluctuated in size and weight over all the reigns of the Seleukid kings.
The problem is that each city minted it's own bronze coinage, which resulted in coins with different size, weight and style. Therefore, a citizen who lived in a particular city, could not use his bronze coins to pay in another Seleukid city. Also, this made the bronze coinage entirely worthless, as there was no system where X amount of bronze coins is equal to X amount of silver coins.
King Antiochos IV decided to 'fix' this and to create a proper denomination system with a bronze-silver exchange rate. In Antioch on the Orontes he introduced, what most of you are familiar with, the Egyptian series!
The series consists of 4 denominations, with two new denominations: Denomination AA (octuple unit) and denomination AAA (obol).
The lowest Egyptian series denomination is equal to 1/8 of a silver obol (denomination B) and the highest denomination is equal to a whole silver obol.
The smallest denomination of the Egyptian series:
SELEUKID KINGS of SYRIA. Antiochos IV Epiphanes. 175-164 BC. Æ (19mm, 8.76 g, 1h). “Egyptianizing” series. Antioch mint. Struck 169-168 BC. Diademed and radiate head right / Eagle standing right on thunderbolt. SC 1415; HGC 9, 655. VF, dark green patina.
This seemed to have fixed the problem, but then... Antiochos IV decided to make two separate denominations. In the eastern realm, cities such as Seleukeia on the Tigris and Antioch in Mydgonia (Nisibis) started to introduce the Chalkous denomination.
But what is so special to this Chalkous denomination series? All the coins are properly labeled by the corresponding denomination.
See as example the coinage of Seleukeia on the Tigris.
Tetrachalkon (courtesy of CNG):
See the ΔX on the obverse, Δ being the 4th letter in the alphabet and X for χαλκοῦς (Attic Greek) or χάλκεος (Ionic Greek), meaning Chalkous. In other words a tetrachalkon.
The same system is applied for the Dichalkon and the Chalkous.
Dichalkon:
The Dichalkon has the BX monogram, B is the second letter of the alphabet, therefore a Dichalkon.
And finally, the Chalkous:
The Chalkous shows an AX monogram, with A being the first letter in the alphabet, therefore it is only 1 Chalkous.
The Chalkous has an equal value to the smallest Egyptian series denomination. The Chalkous is therefore the same value as the Denomination B, which is equal to an 1/8 obol.
But here the problem starts, the Egyptian series denomination B weights between 5.49 - 8.49g, while this Chalkous has an average weight of 3.77g.
How can two bronze coins with different weights, have the same silver value? Well they can't and that is why this beautiful experiment of Antiochos IV failed, and the Chalkous coinage quickly disappeared after the reign of Antiochos IV.
Now, let's go back to my coin:
So, what does any of this has to do with my coin?
This extremely rare coin is the only known coin type of a Seleukid ruler after Antiochos IV that reintroduced this Chalkous denomination.
The coin bears the same ΔX monogram (4x Chalkous) as the tetrachalkon of Antiochos IV issued in Seleukeia on the Tigris. Therefore, this coin is not part of the normal Seleukid denomination series, but of the Chalkous denomination series.
It is interesting to note that this tetrachalkon issued under Alexander I Balas weights only 6.28g, while the tetrachalkon issued under Antiochos IV in Seleukeia on the Tigris had an average weight of 16.33g. This shows how much the bronze coinage debased over the years to follow after Antiochos IV.
Why would Alexander I Balas reintroduce this system of Antiochos IV? Perhaps because not only he claimed to be the son of Antiochos IV but also wanted to be an example of him. Or perhaps there was a special interest from the people of Ekbatana to use the Chalkous denomination series (as the usurper Timarchos, also used the Tetrachalkon denomination in Ekbatana).
Comments