"Guide to the Principal Coins of the Greeks" (1959) / Tissaphernes

[rjohara]

Does anyone happen to have a copy of the British Museum publication A Guide to the Principal Coins of the Greeks (1959)?

I was just reading my new copy of G.K. Jenkins' Ancient Greek Coins (1972) and he illustrates a coin of the Persian satrap Tissaphernes featuring a portrait of Tissaphernes on the obverse along with an Athens-style owl and olive branch on the reverse. On the reverse the usual ATHE is replaced by BAS[ileos]. Jenkins dates the coin to 411 BC and assigns it to Miletus. I've never come across any coins of Tissaphernes that have been assigned to Miletus before, and I'm curious about the attribution. Jenkins cites "PCG 51.4" as the source for the coin, which is the above-mentioned volume, perhaps plate 51?

If anyone has Principal Coins of the Greeks and could check this item I'd be very grateful. I already came across one apparent error in Jenkins -- that's the origin of the "Artemis or Apollo" thread posted here a few days ago. I'm wondering if this is an error also, or if not, what the basis of the attribution is.

Many thanks.

[esnible]

Plates 51 and 52 are the "addenda" -- material not in the 1932 edition.  I have the 1965 reprint of the 1959 edition.  In addition to the basic description there is a paragraph of details.

"This is the earliest portrait of a living man to appear on any coin, being somewhat earlier than III A 41 (A Tissaphernes tetradrachm from Iasus -- Ed).  It was minted, probably, at Miletus in 412 BC and represents Tissapherens' financial subsidies to the Spartans and ther allies which was stipulated to be paid in Atic coin.  The magnificent portrait is undoubtedly from the hand of a Greek artist of the highest calibre.  This unique piece was unearthed together with a number of ordinary Athenian coins at Karaman (ancient Laranda in Lycaonia)."

[rjohara]

That's the coin -- many thanks. Funny how the "probably" disappeared from Jenkins' text.  He wrote: "The fact that he [the first living person on a coin] is a Persian and not a Greek is, if anything, an advantage for it has been possible to isolate the occasion and place; it was a coin minted for the satrap Tissaphernes at Miletos in 411 B.C., in order to pay a subvention to his Spartan allies." (p. 103)

If the specimen is unique, and wasn't found at Miletus, and no other information is available about it, it would seem to me that the "probably" is certainly warranted, and maybe even "perhaps" or "conjecturally." (And if it is unique, well, Tissaphernes paid off the Spartans pretty cheaply: just one tet.)