Superb Stephanophoric Tetradrachm – Ellis-Evans Plate Coin
IONIA, Magnesia ad Maeandrum. Mid 140s BC. AR Tetradrachm (31mm, 16.76 g, 12h). Stephanophoric type. Erasippos, son of Aristeas, “magistrate”. Diademed and draped bust of Artemis right, bow and quiver over shoulder / Apollo Delphios standing left, left elbow resting on tall tripod behind, holding in right hand a branch tied with fillet; EPAΣIΠΠOΣ APIΣTEOY to left, MAΓNHTΩN to right, meander pattern below; all within laurel wreath. Ellis-Evans,
Wreathed, dies 36/EA35, 251 (
this coin, illustrated); Jones dies 33/b; SNG München 601 (same dies). Deep old cabinet tone, minor doubling on reverse. Superb EF. Very rare in this condition.
Ex Hess-Divo 327 (22 October 2014), lot 52; Schweizerischer Bankverein 28 (17 September 1991), lot 204.
With the collapse of Seleukid authority in Asia Minor in 189 BC, many communities of western Asia Minor celebrated their liberation from regal authority by issuing series of large and impressive tetradrachms. All of these coins were struck on the reduced Attic standard, and were struck on broad, thin flans that were influenced by the Athenian New Style coinage. These series also copied a feature on their reverses, a large laurel wreath that formed the border encompassing the entire reverse type. We know from the Delos inventory lists that these coins were referred to as stephanophoroi, attesting to the ubiquity of these series. The types appearing on the coins clearly indicated their civic nature, depicting the city's patron deity on the obverse and various aspects of the city's culture on the reverse.
Regardless of the particular city of issue, the stephanophoric coinage is regarded among the more artistic of the Hellenistic period. This is no surprise as nearly all of the issuing cities were located in western Asia Minor, an area whose numismatic artistry is well attested in the preceding Classical period. While the stephanophoroi represent a benchmark in coin design, the reason for their introduction is not certain, and there is little consensus among numismatists. On one extreme, C. Boehringer argued that their appearance and consistency represented an “Aegean Münzunion” (Boehringer, Chron., pp. 38-9), while at the other O. Mørkholm argued that the wreaths were not indicative of any political or economic significance, but merely the result of a design that gained popularity throughout the northern Aegean ("Chronology and Meaning of the Wreath Coinages of the early 2nd. Cent. B.C.," QT 9 [1980], pp. 145-54).
