Phoenicia Arados - Bronze

[Arados]

Also attached for your consideration are two side views of the obverse and reverse.

[Altamura]

... Forvm friends, please feel free to offer your thoughts and observations regarding the coin type below. These coins are super rare with only two known museum samples, one residing in the BNF collection and the other belonging to the British museum. ...

That's an interesting case, I have never seen this type (being not astonishing if there are only two specimens extant ).

... Significant differences in flan size and weight can be ascertained when compared to the BNF and BNC samples. ...

Really 21.45g or is this a typo? If not, then the coin would not have convinced people to believe that it is like the other two. But for what other purpose should it have been produced?

... When studying the available imagery of the afore-mentioned coins, both appear to show signs of plating (silvering); more so on the BNF coin ...

What signs of being a fourrée do you see on the BnF coin? It is a bit corroded and has some little pieces chipped off, but what I see is in my eyes not enough to call it a fourrée .

... Note also that the BMC coin was suspected as being a counterfeit by G. F. Hill, this observation when roughly translated from the Duyrat 2005 publication reads as follows; ...

Not really . In BMC Phoenicia Hill himself wrote on page xxix ( https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/BMC/BMC_Phoenicia.pdf#page=29&zoom=auto,-164,1095 ):
"The British Museum specimen remained unknown because, having many years ago been condemned as false, it was relegated to the cabinet of forgeries. The reasons for its condemnation are not recorded; nor is any now apparent."
For me this sounds as if Hill accepted the coin as being genuine .
So, what exactly did Duyrat write about these two coins?

Regards

Altamura

[Arados]

Hi Altamura,

Thanks for contributing, your observations are most welcome.


The weight is correct so no typo and although my coin shares the same obverse and reverse iconography, your question regarding purpose of production is legitimate and needs further consideration.

Of course I can’t entirely be sure that the BNF or the BMC coins are in fact fourrée, but their characteristics do exhibit similar signs of flan deterioration akin to those of other samples of fourrée dating from the same period of Phoenician coin production; dark patches and what appears to be flaking silvering. This seen more astutely on the obverse of the BNF coin.

Well spotted, now that was a mistake on my behalf and you are correct in stating that Hill only made an observation and did not condemn the BMC coin outright. The question of if both coins are fourrée will only be answered with an in depth, hands on study of both samples.

Excerpt from Duyrat 2005

G. F. Hill note cependant que l’extrême rareté de ces monnaies a fait longtemps classer l’exemplaire de Londres parmi les faux.

G. F. Hill notes, however, that the extreme rarity of these coins has long caused the London example to be classified as a fake.

[Arados]

The latest addition to my Arados collection and extremely rare, this coin was struck in 24-23 BCE and has a combination of Phoenician and Greek letters below the galley prow. The Greek letters represent the Aradian era date (ΣΛς) 236.

Ref: Duyrat 2005, pg.70 nos.2482-2486.

https://phoeniciancoins.wordpress.com/2023/10/01/ar-no-tpap-236-dmσλς12-b-aen/

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=184502

[Curtis JJ]

Arados -- I've finally had an opportunity to use your very helpful site. Your collection and transcriptions has made it much more sensible.

If you don't mind (or anyone else), I wondered about two things, one specific and one more bibliographic.
I believe my example attached is Era 130 (coincidentally 130/129 BCE). With Nun (N) & Aleph (') above.
[Dealer photo attached, edited for brightness & file size.]


(Q1) The character below: I think mine is the one you refer to as Resh (R). Similar to your Nos. TPAP 130/N´R12-B (MH) through (ADM). (For those following, those labeled "nun, aleph & resh": https://phoeniciancoins.wordpress.com/arados-hellenistic-bronze-by-series-era-date/ and these four specimens: ...MH ; ...ADJ ; ...ADK ; ...ADM.)

Is it always the same character below? Mine was cataloged by the auction firm as "D" below (i.e., Dalet). Looking at the specimens, it's usually hard to tell if they are Resh or Dalet, because the "bar" extending below would be off flan. (Phoenician alphabet key I'm using: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenician_alphabet.)

But, using Forum's characters above, notice how similar the Dalet and Resh are:  and respectively. I'm not familiar enough with these to know if Dalet usually looks like that or just the triangle pointing left.

You have at least two that clearly shows the bar extending below. Can we be confident that all the coins from this year used the same character below? And how confident can we be that the character is "R" not "D"?

(Q2) The figurehead: It seems that the figurehead is almost universally described as Athena now. On clearer examples, it certainly looks consistent with Athena Itonia.

Wayne Sayles wrote an article in the second issue of The Celator in 1987 arguing that the figurehead is more likely the Locrian Ajax (Ajax the Lesser). And Poseidon is just about to hurl lighting-bolts and kill him for his crimes against the Temple of Athena and Cassandra during the sack of Troy.

https://social.vcoins.com/files/file/2-vol-01-no-02-april-may-1987/

In fact, my coin is the same specimen Sayles used to illustrate the article. That’s why I bought it – for the "bibliographic" interest, in a history-of-numismatics way. In 1987, it sounds like there was no consensus about the figurehead yet. I haven't written to ask him about it yet, but Sayles doesn't seem to have ever mentioned it again when he wrote about Locrian Ajax (in a later SAN article & in his Collecting Ancient Coins books).

Do you know if that theory was ever pursued by anyone else, or was it just a dead end, abandoned? (Either way is interesting to me – perhaps even more so if it ended there.)

[Arados]

Curtis JJ,

Thanks, I am really pleased that you found my website useful.

Q.1 The similarities between Daleth and Resh is a challenging question, the difficulty is in trying to decipher the individual writing styles of the workshop engravers and comprehending the numerous misleading graphs/tables showing the Phoenician alphabet. I am not suggesting that the forementioned tables are entirely incorrect, but some do give rise to confusion (see image below). Both letters are difficult to validate if not accustomed to Aradian coins of this period, but I will do my best to explain.

I have always associated Daleth and Resh with the following characters/letters (see images below); Daleth can be seen with either a shorter horizontal or sloping descender line and triangle upper letter part, and Resh with a predominately rounder upper letter part, apex and horizontal descender line [Apex being the digit seen above the upper letter part]. A clearer perspective of Resh can be ascertained in the abbreviated city names of Marathos (Amrit) and Karne (Qurn). I personally opted for the letter Resh on série 7 coins of Arados (era date 130) purely based on the upper letter formation with apex; however, it must be stated that the preferred letter in Duyrat 2005, nos.2357-2424 is Daleth; perhaps the engravers intention was to show an alphabetical progression in regards to the letters seen in exerque i.e. Gimel and then Daleth.

I am confident that all the era date 130 coins have the same letter, albeit with different interpretations of letter formation. I will leave this conundrum to your discretion, ultimately it´s your preference that matters. I can only explain the reasoning for why I prefer Resh as opposed to Daleth. 

Q.2 I totally agree that the accepted ships figurehead is that of Athena (Ἀθηνᾶ Πρόμαχος), this premise is also strengthened by a further three coin types depicting a solitary Athena figurehead on the prow of a galley i.e. série 1, 9 & 10; Poseidon hurling lightning bolts at Ajax the lesser seems a little far fetched, still i find it intriguing that this argument was put forward by Sayles and it needs further investigation.

Edit: P.S I hope that i have answered your questions in a satisfactory manner ?

[Joe Sermarini]

I am working on putting this one in the shop.  I think it is...

Arados, Phoenicia, c. 151 - 150 B.C., 3.763g 16.6mm, 12:00 die axis
Obv: Laureate, bearded head of Zeus right
Rev: Rostrum tridens (war galley ram) left, Phoenician letters above, Phoenician date (year 109) below
Duyrat 1872 ff.; DCA 767; HGC 10 88; cf. BMC Phoenicia p. 17, 118 (year 108)

I am posting here to hopefully confirm my reading of the date and for identification of the letters above the ram, and any other applicable corrections. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

[Arados]

Hi Joe,

I can confirm that the Aradian era date is 109 (151-150 BC), the Phoenician letters read from right to left are sadhe followed by heth. Duyrat was uncertain whether the Phoenician letter on the right was sadhe or mem, both variants were struck.

Your references are also correct.

Ref: Duyrat 2005 Pg.58 No.1872-84


Phoenicia, Arados 151-150 B.C

Obverse: Braided, bearded head of Zeus right, border of dots.

Reverse: Triple pointed ram of galley left, Phoenician letters heth (H) & sadhe (TS) above, Aradian era date 109 below.

[Joe Sermarini]

Thanks Martin. Of course I was hoping you would chime in. Thanks!

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalog/roman-and-greek-coins.asp?param=16262q00.jpg&vpar=598&zpg=122076&fld=

[Arados]

Here are two coins from my collection that have me slightly stumped, both with an unorthodox combination of Phoenician letters above the prow of galley. The standard method for distinguishing this type depicting Tyche on the obverse and Athena on the prow of the reverse, is by the abbreviated city name or monogram above the prow; this observed on coins of the Aradian peraia.

Arados = AP, Gabala = ΓB, Karne = QRN (Qurn), Simyra = ZI.

I will refer to both coins using my catalogue numbering system; coin 1 AGJ, and coin 2 AHP.

The Phoenician letters read from right to left on coin AGJ are as follows, aleph, shin, nun & taw (   ).

The era date runs partially of flan but appears to be between 37-39 (223-220 B.C); See images 1 & 2

https://phoeniciancoins.wordpress.com/2025/04/12/kr-no-tgcf-39%ef%80%a2qrn-d11-b-agj/


The Phoenician letters read from right to left on coin AHP are as follows, beth, shin, nun & taw (   ).

Using the Aradian dating system, the era date seen below the prow can be accurately dated to year 38 (222-221 B.C); See images 3 & 4

https://phoeniciancoins.wordpress.com/2025/11/07/arp-no-tgcf-39-tnsb-d12-b-ahp/


My initial thoughts were that both coins were struck in Karne, this due to iconographic similarities of the goddess Tyche. This was an incorrect assumption, coins struck in Karne should bear the letters qoph, resh, nun ( ) above prow, and era dates 37-38 already exist for this type. We can also discount coins struck in Gabala with the monogram ΓB; these were also struck at era date 38. I also feel that Simyra should be overlooked due to the city monogram of ZI, and limited production of coinage.

Additionally, the Phoenician letters seen above the prow on coins AGJ and AHP do not conform with the city name of Byblos or with that of Marathos.

Byblos = taw, mem, resh, qoph / lamedh, gimel, beth & lamedh (belonging to holy Gebal; the city monogram can also be seen on varying coins of Byblos).

Marathos = mem, resh & taw (meaning: Amrit).


So, what alternatives are there remaining, we have already discounted Byblos, Gabala, Karne, Marathos and Simyra. Arados remains an option but is it possible to expound the letters on AGJ and AHP and connect both coins to the Aradian mint.

On coin AGJ aleph is followed by shin, nun, taw and on AHP beth is also followed by shin, nun, taw.

If we ignore aleph and beth for the time being, then perhaps., shin, nun & taw are the [indirect) genitive for “in year” or simplified “in regnal year”. The letters aleph and beth could be denoting a specific regnal year. If we refer to the Phoenician alphabet, then aleph could represent [regnal year] 1 and beth [regnal year] 2. However, we must bear in mind that the Aradians already had a numerical system in use (see era date below prow)., note that shin and taw ( ) are already both accepted as meaning “in year”.

Here are a few extracts from the publications of Charles R Krahmalkov; A Phoenician-Punic Grammar & Phoenician-Punic Dictionary; See images 5, 6 & 7


So, if we assume that coin’s AGJ and AHP were struck during the 1st and 2nd regnal years, to whom is this referring. One possibility could be Antiochus III, the sixth ruler of the Seleucid Empire, reigning from 223 B.C to 187 B.C. A mere coincidence that his reign began at the exact same year coin AGJ was proposed to have been struck in Arados. Naturally, this could have also coincided with the 1st and 2nd regnal years of a satrap (governor).

In Frédérique Duyart´s publication “Hellénistique Étude historique et monétaire” there are no coins issued between years 31 (229 B.C) and 37 (222 B.C), the 6 coins tentatively attributed to era date 38 are unconvincing, the iconographic details, city monogram and era dates are unclear.

Reference Duyrat 2005, pg.45, nos.1446-1451 (no image of 1449). See image 8


I have put forward arguments for the attribution of both coins to Arados, but please feel free to comment if you can add substance to this topic, my knowledge of the Phoenician-Punic language is somewhat limited.

[Arados]

This reads better when the images are where they were intended to be within the body of the text, so if anyone requires a PDF then please let me know. Send a PM and include your email.

Thanks