Unprecedented Ephesos Gold Stater

CNG 100, Lot: 80. Estimate $7500. Sold for $7500. This amount does not include the buyer’s fee.

IONIA, Ephesos. Circa 88-84 BC. AV Stater (16.5mm, 8.42 g, 12h). Draped bust of Artemis right, wearing stephanos, bow and quiver over shoulder / Cult statue of Artemis of Ephesos facing, arms outstretched horizontally at sides, fillet hanging from each; star-in-crescent to upper left; to inner left, stag standing right; bee to inner right; EΦ-E-CI-ωN across field. Jenkins, Hellenistic, pl. A, 2 var. = M&M AG 44, lot 15 (star not in crescent, ethnic without lunate sigma); M&M AG 66, lot 243 var. (same). VF, a few marks, small scrape on cheek. Very rare.

From the collection of Dr. Lawrence A. Adams, purchased from Harlan J. Berk, December 1996.

The Hellenistic staters of Ephesos are all very rare. Originally, they were thought to belong to the period of the Mithradatic Wars, but G.K. Jenkins’s 1987 article conclusively showed that they were actually struck over a relatively long period, from the late 2nd to early 1st centuries BC. Noting the existence of a stater bearing the name of the Roman official C. Atinius C.f. Labeo (c. 122/1 BC), as well as two issues with letters that he equated to the dates on the cistophoric tetradrachms, Jenkins surmised that the entire series of staters was struck in concert with the cistophoroi, and may have even continued into the mid-late 1st century BC. Later numismatists, including F. de Callataÿ, have accepted his conclusions, particularly noting that the subsidiary symbols on the reverse, while often used by Mithradates, were actually symbols that were common to the cult of Artemis in general. While Jenkins’ overall conclusions are quite sound, there is one oversight in his analysis. While discussing the two dated staters, he notes that the subsidiary symbols on these two coins did not equate to the subsidiary symbols on the similary-dated cistophoric tetradrachms. Although he noted that this was not a problem for equating these staters to the tetradrachms, Jenkins then uses the subsidiary symbols on the undated staters to equate them to other tetradrachms, and thereby dates these staters based on this equivalence. Thus, his dating of the later staters is questionable.

In addition to the varying symbols on the staters, the ethnic also appears in two different forms. One group has a shortened ethnic, EΦ, across the upper field, while a second group has the full ethnic (there is also a single example without any ethnic, but it is not germane to the present discussion). Jenkins treated the second group as being separate from the first, and was less certain of its placement, suggesting that it may even belong to an earlier period in the mid 3rd-early 2nd centuries. The present coin was not known at the time of Jenkins’ article, but adds a critical element to the evidence. Previously, all of the long-ethnic coins used a four-bar sigma and the ending -ΩN, but the present coin uses a lunate sigma and ends -ωN. The lunate sigma does not appear in any ethnic of Ephesos on coins until the time of Domitian, but this stater certainly cannot be of such a late date. Perhaps even more importantly, the -ωN ending does not appear in the ethnic on any other recorded coin of Ephesos from the Greek or Roman periods.

Looking beyond the ethnic, lunate sigmas do appear in magistrates’ names at Ephesos as early as the issues of Attic weight drachms and their contemporary bronze, albeit rarely. Also, P. Kinns records a single example of one of the bronze issues where the magistrate is spelled with an uncial omega (Kinns, Attic, p. 96 = Münzzentrum 51, lot 136). Unfortunately, the letter is not clear at all on that coin; it might be an omicron or even a traditional omega. Moreover, the same magistrate’s name appears on the apparent half-unit of the same issue spelled with a traditional omega (Kinns, Attic, p. 97 = CNR XVII.4, no. 127). If the uncial omega is correctly read on these coins, though, it would give credence to Jenkins’s earlier placement of the full-length ethnic staters and provide a terminus post quem of circa 200 BC for the present coin. This leaves one aspect of the present stater in question.

Jenkins dismissed outright the possibility that the staters had any relation to the Mithradatic period, arguing that the subsidiary symbols were more likely reflective of the Ephesian cult of Artemis than the Pontic kingdom. His argument is persuasive concerning the stag and bee, both of which are common on coins of Ephesos from the 4th century onward, as well as a few of the other symbols that are also found on cistophoric tetradrachms and that are not typical Pontic symbols. However, his argument is less persuasive concerning the star, which is a typical Pontic symbol and only appears on a single issue at Ephesos, though it is a cistophoric tetradrachm. The present coin, though, has a star-in-crescent, which is a ubiquitous Pontic symbol, used extensively on Pontic royal issues as well as on civic coins of cities under the authority of Mithradates VI. It is a symbol that was never used at Ephesos on any other issue. So, it is certainly possible that this coin, unique among all the staters, has a direct reference to the Mithradatic period at Ephesos, and Jenkins’s chronology of the series does encompass the years that Eupator “freed” the Province of Asia from Rome.