(I wrote this up last night in response to Andrew's earlier post but I had not posted it yet. Andrew, that's an interesting point about the similarity between the gold coin and the later Ptolemy tetradrachms. I will have to think about that one.)
_________________________
I am so excited about this find. Although I was disappointed when I first saw the portrait. It's not what I had hoped for.
I'm on the fence as to whether I think the coin is genuine. But here's some thoughts.
Taphoi wrote:If I were looking for reasons to be dubious I might raise some of the following points:
1) The profile is extremely close to the profile of the ivory head supposed to be Alexander from Tomb II at Vergina, whereas the profiles on Ptolemy's tetradrachms are not particularly close to the Vergina ivory - this comes under the "too good to be true" heading.
Although that's what I would expect to see if the coin is genuine. Holt convincingly puts forth in his book
Alexander the Great and the Mystery of the Elephant Medallions, that these coins were made in the field soon after the battle with Porus. If so, then whoever engraved the die for the gold coin would have seen Alexander in real life and in present time. So the coin's portrait should have some realistic features.
And if the ivory head is a realistic rendering of Alexander, (which I believe it is), then the coin and the ivory head should have some similarities. Which you note they do.
Again
Taphoi wrote:...whereas the profiles on Ptolemy's tetradrachms are not particularly close to the Vergina ivory
Ptolemy's first coins were the usual Heracles/Zeus Alexander tetradrachms. IIRC, the Ptolemy coins with ATG in the elephant scalp, and with the seated Zeus on the reverse, were first minted in 322 BC. The Ptolemy coins with ATG in the elephant scalp, and with Athena on the reverse, were not minted until 314 BC.
So even if we're considering the earliest Ptolemy elephant/Zeus coin, (let alone the Athena issues started in 314 BC), the Egyptian, (or Greek), engraver of the coin dies would have been working from a memory of Alexander at least a year old. That's if he even ever saw Alexander in real life. Or he could have been copying from a statue. Or maybe the engraver had access to Alexander's body and could have used Alexander's real face to work from. Although I would think that even if embalmed, the features of the face may have been somewhat distorted. Certainly it was nothing like seeing him in real life.
So, assuming that the ivory head is a realistic likeness of Alexander, I am not surprised that the portraits on the Ptolemy tetradrachms look different.
BTW, have you compared the gold coin portrait with the profile in the
Alexander Mosaic? The prominent forehead, eyes and nose seem generally similar.
Taphoi wrote:
2) The elephant's trunk infringes significantly on the beading - on the Ptolemy coins the trunk is often truncated by the edge of the coin, but I think it is usually squeezed inside the beading.
I don't have too much of a problem with this one. Being a new design the ancient engraver might have just made a mistake and not left enough room for the trunk. Of course, if fake, the counterfeiters may not have left enough room either.
Taphoi wrote:
3) The other Porus medallions usually have the Xi and AB monograms on opposite faces.
But if someone was constructing such a fake you would think that they would not have made such an obvious "mistake". And although it is easy for us to think that the monograms have to be in a standard configuration, to the coin makers 2300 years ago their placement may not have been that important. Or maybe different people worked on the gold coins separate from the makers of the silver coins.
Taphoi wrote:4) The loose ties beneath the chin are seen in the Ptolemy tetradrachms, but they seem to be the ends of a knot of Heracles (which is very apt) and I do not see this in the gold specimen.
Do you mean the knot under Heracles chin on the Heracles/Zeus Alexander tetradrachms? No this gold coin does not have that knot. But neither the early Ptolemy ATG elephant scalp/Zeus coins, nor the later Ptolemy ATG elephant scalp/Athena coins, have that knot under the chin. Is that what you meant?
FYI, I have read that those loose upright "ties" under the chin on the Ptolemy "elephant coins" are actually cobras. That's why the ties are standing up and shaped in that way. You can see them on this gold coin also. They are on all the Ptolemy elephant coins with both the Zeus and Athena reverses. The cobras are just usually too small, worn or off the flan to make out clearly.
It's interesting that although the cobra is revered in Egypt, it is also revered in India. So if this gold coin is genuine, and therefore was first made and designed in India, the fact that it has cobra chin ties is not surprising. And it makes sense that they would have been easily adopted for Ptolemy's coins in Egypt.
Taphoi wrote:
5) The gold specimen seems to be in near mint condition - the silver Porus medallions show significant wear. A bit of wear would be helpful, since the specimen had at least presumably made a journey across high mountains on foot or horseback.
It's not so much that the silver Porus medallions usually show significant wear, as that they are just poorly struck and badly made from the start. This is a reason put forth by Holt that they were not minted in Babylon as some have suggested. And that they were in fact minted in the field in India during the monsoon season under poor working conditions. Babylonian Alexander tetradrachms are usually well made beautiful coins. The Porus medallions are not. And neither are the Porus bowman/elephant and chariot/elephant coins.
Also, I would guess that Alexander's best and experienced coin die engravers and mint workers were left at the mints in Babylon and other cities and not taken with him on the expedition east to India. I would think that he didn't plan on minting large amounts of coins in the field. Whereas the established mints needed to keep producing coins, especially so there would be enough to pay the soldiers when they returned. So this could be another reason why these coins, suspected of being made in the field in India, are poorly made. They were made by less experienced workers.
Now having pointed that out, why is the gold coin in such good condition? Is it a fake? Or did the person(s) working on the gold coins just do a better job? And was the gold coin buried in a hoard soon after being made before it had time to wear down? Many Alexander gold staters are in mint condition. They just got lucky and survived that way. Maybe this one did too. Or is it a fake? The mint condition makes it look suspect. But wouldn't the counterfeiters have added wear to make it appear more genuine? Round and round we go...
If anyone finds this subject interesting I would recommend you get Holt's book
Alexander the Great and the Mystery of the Elephant Medallions. The paperback is $14.00 on
Amazon. You can read Chaper 1 on the
University of California Press page.