The Sidonian silver one-sixteenth shekel is a model of conflicting iconography; the war galley on the obverse is a symbol of Sidonian power and mobility, which could symbolize both usefulness as a vassal state—the Phoenicians spent most of the first millennium B.C. under the rule of some empire or other, and were particularly useful to the Persians in terms of naval bases and forces—and/or a sense of national identity that warred with Phoenicia’s existence under the Persian empire. The answer is probably a shifting between the two, especially considering that while Sidon showed absolute loyalty earlier in its subjugation to the Persians, by the fourth century B.C.E. and the reign of Abd’ashtart I, the rulers of the city were becoming less happy with the empire’s presence above them.
            On the other hand, the reverse shows the Persian king, which could either be a privilege granted by the empire, showing Sidon’s position of favor (also symbolized by their authorization to print the silver double shekel) and/or an attempt by the Sidonians to show their loyalty to the Persians, again very plausible and probably sincere in the fifth century B.C.E., but possibly merely show and/or tradition by the reign of Abd’ashtart I, considering that at the same time he was minting these coins displaying the Persian king, he was also minting Attic tetradrachms with his own crowned head on the obverse.
Dating
            Betlyon describes his Sidonian coin no. 27 as follows:
            Obverse: War galley to l., with oars, row of shields along bulwark; small figure as figurehead on bow; ornament over stern; rudder; above, Phoenician letter b, below, zigzag line of waves. Border of dots.
            Reverse: o between legs of Persian king (or hero?) and lion, which king is slaying; lion stands before king on hind legs to [facing] l.; king, to r., seizes lion by forelock in l. hand and is about to strike with dagger in r. hand; in incuse square. (Betlyon 8-12)
            No other coin described in any Sidonian compendia matches so exactly; this coin is without any doubt Betlyon's 27. He dates the coin to the reign of Abd'ashtart I, which is logical, given the style—the war galley with oars instead of a sail, and on the ocean instead of in front of a city—and initials—the Phoenician b and o, the initials that Abd’ashtart uses on all his other coins.
            Abd'ashtart I's coin is of a type issued by several previous rulers: Abd'eshmun (ca. 410-400 B.C.E.), Ba'na (ca. 400-384/85 B.C.E.) and Ba'lshallim II (ca. 386/5-372 B.C.E.) (1) Abd'ashtart's coin is distinguishable from being of Abd'eshmun's or Ba'na's reign because they were still using the towered city as the war galley's background. Bal'shallim's coin is almost identical to Abd'ashtart's, except that instead of the o between the legs of the Persian king and the lion, there is just the lion's tail curling around. This is significant when combined with the fact that Abd'ashtart issued another one-sixteenth shekel during his lifetime; the other's obverse was dated with the year minted according to Abd'ashtart's reign (1-9) and had no letter above the war galley. Instead, the war galley's letter was placed next to the o between the legs of the Persian king and the lion (Betlyon 8-12).
            Since the dates and side-by-side initials seem characteristic of Abd'ashtart's coins (8 out of 11 in Betlyon have dates, 8 out of 11 have initials side-by-side) and the other 1/16 shekel minted has both of these, it seems likely that this coin, so similar to Ba'lshallim II's, was minted at the very beginning of Abd'ashtart's reign; he may have modified the former ruler's coin to bear his initial before taking the time to mint his own (Betlyon 12). As he began ruling ca. 375-370 B.C.E. (11), this dates the coin to within that period or shortly after.
The letters
            The B is combined with the o on the reverse to make the initials of Abd’ashtart I, the king of Sidon from approximately 372-358 B.C.E.; the practice of putting initials and/or names on coins was very common in the ancient world, and many of the Sidonian pre-Alexandrine kings have their initials on their coins. The coins tend to bear similar pictures—for example, the war galley is on just about every single Sidonian coin before 333 B.C., in various forms. The scene on the reverse of this coin, the Persian king fighting a lion, is also very popular, along with the Persian king in a couple of other positions. Therefore, the practice of putting initials on the coins makes them much easier to date, as otherwise similar coins, and coins from adjacent ruling periods, would be very difficult to accurately assign to a king. Some kings, such as Abd’ashtart I and Mazday the Persian governor, also included the year of their reign in which the coin was minted, which makes even more accurate dating possible; unfortunately, this coin does not have a date printed on it.
            Dating by initials can still be difficult, as the rulers tended to abbreviate their names with two or even just one letter, and the initials are sometimes quite similar. For example, king Abd’eshmun, ruling from approximately 410-400 B.C.E., uses exactly the same initials as Abd’ashtart I, and so there are several coins that have the same reverse and the same initials as Abd’ashtart; fortunately, Abd’eshmun’s portrayal of the war galley is an earlier style, with the ship in front of the towered city instead of rowing along the open sea, so the coins can still be accurately assigned.
The War Galley
            The Phoenician war galley portrayed on Sidonian coinage is a trireme (word from the Greek τριήρεις) a very common vessel in the ancient world; the Greeks also used them, and according to Herodotus, the ships were so similar that, when fighting for the Persians, some of the Phoenicians mistook the Greek ships for friendly, and got close enough to them to be captured before realizing their mistake. The story may be apocryphal, but it probably has some basis in fact, considering the ships’ multinational popularity.
            The trireme had three oar banks, hence the name (a bireme had two, etc.), which afforded it a great deal of speed when all oars were in use. The pictures on the coins are one of two media in which pictures of Phoenician war galleys are extant; the other is a very few Assyrian reliefs, at Khorsabad and Nineveh, from around 700 B.C., centuries earlier than this coinage. So, the coins are the main pictorial evidence for what Sidonian ships actually looked like, and they evolve somewhat through time; the earliest ones show a sail and no oar bank at all, similar to one type of ship in the Assyrian reliefs. As the coinage progresses, the sail becomes half-furled, and then entirely furled, and then disappears altogether and is replaced by the oar banks. The three-tier oars are represented by lines drawn across the bottom of the oars, showing the three points where the oars widen and end (Morrison 188-192). This type of ship is also shown in the Assyrian reliefs, although the main relief has only two lines of oars, despite the space depicted for three. Some of the coins may portray this two-line oar banks instead of three; as the rendering is very basic, it is difficult to tell if two lines instead of three—or no lines at all, seeming to indicate only one line of oars—is purposeful or just less-meticulous craftsmanship.
The War Galley and War
            The trireme itself was mainly a battleship; it was very difficult and expensive to outfit—Aubet says that it took 34,000 men to equip 200 Athenian triremes at the Battle of Salaminia in 480 B.C., and concludes that while the Greeks might have had resources enough to regularly use triremes in trade, the Phoenicians probably did not (177). Perhaps in war, especially if financed by the Persians, it would have been easier to get together the manpower and capital necessary to put enough of them out on the water.
            The trireme was, however, uniquely suited to war, and the Phoenicians helped make it that way. Also according to Aubet, the Phoenicians are credited not only with the invention of the keel and bitumen caulking—both inventions absolutely essential to shipbuilding as it was known then and for two thousand years afterward—but with the invention of the ram, a militarily vital addition to ships (173). As the Persians, Greeks, and Phoenicians were not using cannon, a naval battle without a ram would have been soldier standing on decks firing arrows at one another until the ships got close enough together to make boarding possible. With a ram, ships could attack one another directly, naval battles would have been revised entirely, and building a ship to be strong and sturdy would have become much more important (176).
            The war galleys on the coins are not only obviously warlike because of the type of ship and the ram, but because of the line of shields running all along the ship. The galleys on the coins are carrying soldiers, and so seem to be off to war—however, the warships have been seen on reliefs escorting heavier merchant ships. The Mediterranean was dangerous at that time; piracy was widely-practiced—and was, in fact, practiced by the Phoenicians themselves (Moscati 87). So the warship may not automatically symbolize war, but simply maritime strength, the ability to protect against violence and commit it themselves, if need be.
The War Galley and Trade
            As mentioned previously, the war galley was not very suited to trade, being more expensive to outfit than was practical for common trade missions. Also, the carrying capacity for cargo, built up as far as it would go, seems to have been only about two tons (Aubet 177); the ships were long, narrow, and already carried many oars and oarsmen. However, Assyrian reliefs show another type of ship, taller and rounder than the trireme, and without a ram. Judging by the relief, the ship might have had a few oarsmen for maneuvering and if the seas were dead calm, but relied mainly on sails (Aubet 174)—which may indicate that the ships on earlier coins, with their unfurled and half-furled sails instead of oars, are these merchant ships, which would indicate a slow progression toward a more warlike image on the coins.
            The cargo capacity of these ships was also probably more like one hundred to five hundred tons, depending on the size (Aubet 174), and when considering that amount of space, plus the much cheaper outfitting price, these ships were probably used more often for trade and travel between the colonies, despite what must have been a much slower pace and relative inability to defend themselves. Again, the reliefs at Khorsabad show triremes escorting these larger merchant ships, but those reliefs are depicting the flight of King Luli of Tyre, and are from the seventh century B.C.E., so that may have no bearing on the trade practices of the fourth century B.C.E., and whether or not the larger merchant ships were escorted by triremes.
Phoenician Maritime Strength
            The Phoenicians were undoubtedly the masters of the ancient Mediterranean. Their most famous accomplishment is probably the colony of Carthage, whose official date of establishment was 814 B.C., although there may have been a settlement there at least two hundred years earlier (Moscati 94-96). Carthage at its height stretched through North Africa and up into Spain, and rivaled Rome during the Punic Wars; it’s more famous than the Phoenicians who founded it. The Phoenicians were in their day what the great colonial powers were in the Age of Exploration; their first colonies in Carthage, Utica, and Cadiz grew beyond measure, in the terms of the ancient world.
            In addition to sailing the Mediterranean, the Phoenicians may have gone far beyond that. In 600 B.C., Pharaoh Necho asked the Phoenicians to circumnavigate Africa, and according to Herodotus, they did so; he says that the journal took two years, and that “On their return, they declared - I for my part do not believe them, but perhaps others may - that in sailing round Libya they had the sun upon their right hand. In this way was the extent of Libya first discovered” (4.42). This may indicate that they actually did sail all the way around Africa, if Herodotus is right in that they had sailed so far south that the sun was to their right. If so, it is certainly an enormous accomplishment, and if not, they had the reputation of having done it, which still contributes to their legendary status as great seafarers.
            In addition to being explorers and colonists, the Phoenicians were great traders; they were the first Near Eastern civilization to be regularly sailing around the Mediterranean, and had trade and shipping as a priority from possibly as early as 1100 B.C.E. If that date is correct, then the Phoenicians would have had a monopoly on the Mediterranean shipping and sea-trade for about five hundred years (Aubet 159). They had countless trading outposts and shipping stops throughout the Mediterranean; Carthage is unique among their colonies in actually being a growing, established city.
            The Greeks also acknowledged that the Phoenicians had preceded them into the Mediterranean, and they are acknowledged today as having been the first naval power in history. The Persians made use of Phoenician manpower as a navy against the Greeks and Egyptians, and Phoenician cities as ports during the same. Herodotus says that “The Phoenician ships were the best sailers in the fleet” (7.97). They have been generally credited as being the most navally accomplished ancient Near Eastern civilization.
The Sidonians
            The Phoenicians were not a unified state, but a group of people—who had not even given themselves the name “Phoenicians”—whose national identity was probably extremely subordinate to the identity they shared with their city-state. These city-states—on the mainland, Sidon, Tyre, Byblos, and Arados—varied in power and prominence, with Byblos, the oldest, beginning as the most powerful in the Bronze Age, and Tyre rising to the top at the beginning of the Iron Age. During the time these coins were minted, Sidon was the richest and most powerful of all the city-states.
            Evidence of this is found in archaeological excavation; Sidon was apparently possessed of a great many luxury items during this particular time period. (Markoe 52) The elite especially appear to have had a great deal of money, making coinage particularly important, especially within the city itself, as in the ancient world as today, minted money was more useful for buying things within the jurisdiction that had minted it. (This, in fact, may be the reason why Phoenicians developed printed coinage relatively late—450 B.C.E. at the earliest—because they did so much trading overseas that minting their own coinage would not have been nearly as useful as simply trading with gold or silver ingots.) (Markoe 98)
            Another indication of the wealth present in Sidon while these coins were being minted, and particularly while the focus of this paper was being minted, is Abd’ashtart I’s great personal wealth, and great enjoyment of same. His court was legendary for its luxury and decadence; the nobility and the traders of Sidon were at what was probably their highest peak of wealth during Abd’ashtart I’s reign.
            Outside sources agree to Sidon’s prominence among the Phoenicians at this time. Herodotus in particular favors the Sidonians. The earlier quote, beginning that the Phoenician were the best ships in the fleet, ends with “…and the Sidonian the best of the Phoenicians” (7.96). He mentions the Sidonian commander first of the Phoenicians (7.98), has the Sidonian king seated first among all the sea commanders in audience with the king (8.67) and says that Xerxes preferred to travel on a Sidonian galley (7.128).
            In the time of pre-Alexandrine coinage, the Sidonians were also apparently favored by the Persians; among all the Phoenician city-states, they were the only ones permitted to mint the valuable Persian double stater, a coin that weighed in at almost 28 grams of silver. There was also a residence for the Persian king within the city, and the sarcophagus of Eshmunazar attests that the Persians gave Sidon the Plain of Sharon as a gift of territory; the reason is not clear, but it may be for help in their campaign against the Greeks. Also unique among the Phoenician city-states, almost all Sidonian pre-Alexandrine coinage has an image of the Persian king on it, doing suitably military things like running and shooting a bow, riding in a chariot, and as on the coin that is the focus of this paper, fighting a lion.
            When compared to Persian coinage, this is also very interesting; Achaemenid imperial coins such as the daric and the siglos had one basic obverse image during this period, the Persian king running and shooting a bow. That exact image is reproduced on several Sidonian coins, without question deriving from the Persian coinage, and certainly indicating a close relationship to the Persians. This, added to the king’s image on almost all the coins, may mean the Sidonians were attempting to curry more favor with the Persians, were showing their loyalty, or perhaps had been granted the right to show the king as an honor from the Persian government.
            Also interesting is the disparity between the coinage of Sidon and the other major Phoenician cities, particularly Tyre. While the coinage of Byblos and Arados does show the war galley, the contemporary Tyrian coins do not have the war galley on them at all; instead, they have various marine animals, both mythological and real. Also instead of the Persian king, there is an owl (Athena's symbol) holding a crook and flail (accoutrements of the Egyptian monarch). (29) The fact that the Tyrian coins do not have the war galley on them at all is almost shocking, considering that Tyre was the greatest naval power among the Phoenicians for centuries before this era, even considering itself master over Sidon. But instead of the war galley, Tyre’s coinage has the dolphin and the winged seahorse—symbols for maritime deities—and the murex shell, which, as the animal that gave the Phoenicians their famous red dye, was a symbol of Phoenician commercial might, but not nearly so aggressive as the war galley. Just by looking at the coinage, one can see that Sidon had definitely taken over as the dominant Phoenician city during this period.
            Another interesting thing about Tyrian coinage is the owl, crook and flail. Considering that Tyre had thrown itself eagerly into Persian campaigns against Greek and Egypt within the last century or two, the fact that Tyre put on its coins the symbol of Athena, holding the symbols of Egypt’s pharaoh, shows a major turnabout. Tyre was probably moving in on the Greek and Egyptian markets to recoup losses of the sixth century (Markoe 51), and try to get itself back up to par with the Sidonians; Sidon, already enjoying great prosperity under the Persians, had no need to curry favor.
            The coins from Byblos do have the war galley, but it only takes up half the obverse; the other half is the Tyrian-style mythical animal--a winged seahorse. There are more animals (a lion taking down a bull) on the reverse; the animals probably symbolize various deities. (31) Of the Phoenician coins, those from Arados are most like the Sidonian coins, as most of them feature the war galley only on one side. However, instead of the Persian king is the face of a marine deity. (30)
Reverse
            The reverse of this coin shows the Persian king fighting a lion—or does it? The consensus seems to be that the figure is the Persian king, but there are a few dissenters. Betlyon, when he first introduces the type, has “Persian king (or hero?)” fighting the lion. In examining the coin, the figure doesn’t have anything about it that would indicate that it’s the Persian king rather than any hero. The controversy is even stronger about the coin reverses with the figure in the chariot, especially when the Sidonian king follows behind; the theory here is that the figure is Ba’al, and the procession is a religious ceremony, with the Sidonian king subordinate to the god.
            It seems to me that the figure is probably the Persian king, for a few reasons. 1) In other coins, when examined closely, the figure fighting the lion appears to have a crown on his head. 2) The theme is more Assyrian than Persian, but there are reliefs at Persepolis that show the Persian king fighting a lion, apparently in defense of his consort. The precedent in Persian art is present in the Sidonian appropriation of the king-shooting-a-bow image so popular in Persian coins. 3) They do use the Persian king, in the coins where the king shoots a bow, and they were highly favored by the Persians; until presented with evidence that the figure is not the Persian king, it seems logical to assume that it is.
            As for the figure in the chariot, point 3) applies, as does the point that the Sidonian king’s garments change from Egyptian to Persian as Sidon drifts in and out of Persian favor, but the chariot figure’s remain the same. Ba’al would, perhaps, continue wearing the same type of dress throughout regime shifts, but there is no doubt that the Persian Great King would not be wearing Egyptian-style garments rather than Asian-style, as the Sidonian king occasionally does. Also worth considering is that Phoenician art in general tended to be rather eclectic, and borrowed from a number of different cultures, so taking Persian images would be in-character.
Abd’ashtart I
            Before and after the reign of Abd'ashtart I, Phoenician coins remain almost entirely constant--the war galley on one side, and some representation of the Persian king on the other. As the 1/16 shekel shows, the designs were present during his reign as well. However, not all of Abd'ashtart's coins followed the standard; in fact, his minting practices show a drastic change. Some of the coins he minted don't have the Persian king on them anywhere; instead of the usual reverse, Abd'ashtart printed his own crowned head. (Betlyon 11-12)
            There is also one extant coin from Abd'ashtart I's reign that is not a Persian shekel--as is ever other extant Sidonian coin--but an Attic tetradrachm. Abd'ashtart was, in fact, much more friendly with the Greeks than with the Persians. Nicknamed "The Philhellene," his policies were very pro-Greek, as shown by this attempt to standardize to an Athenian weight instead of the Persian. In fact, Abd’ashtart didn’t just have a Greek nickname, but a Greek name, period; on the coinage he is Abd’ashtart I, but just as often, he is referred to by the name Straton I. This trend came to a predictable end; in 360 B.C. Abd'ashtart rebelled against Persia, sheltering the fugitive Egyptian pharaoh Tachos, and was put down by the Persians, who placed their own governor, Mazday (also called Mazaios), on the throne (Markoe 59, Moscati 25, Betlyon 12). The Sidonians, at this point, seem to have been too favored by the Persians; in being treated more like allies than like vassals—and possibly when presented with a weakening Persian Empire—the later Sidonian kings appear to have grown tired of being subject to the Persians and decided that they were wealthy and powerful enough to exist independently. However, the Persians remained capable of holding them down until Alexander arrived.
            There is a small but very significant change in the coinage from before Mazday’s rule, and after. Mazday kept all the traditional designs on the coins; they had all, except for Abd’ashtart’s few self-promotions, represented the greatness of the Persian empire in some fashion. The only thing that changes is the coins that have the Persian king in a chariot. Except for the earliest versions, these coins have the Sidonian king walking behind the chariot. Before Mazday, the king wears Egyptian-style garments. After Mazday, he wears Asian clothing. This seems to be a symbol of ever-tightening Persian control; before, while the Sidonians were obviously loyal to the Persians, the need to eradicate every foreign symbol simply did not exist; after all, the Persians were generally very lax governors. After the rebellion, however, they tightened their grip—although not quite enough, considering Sidon’s participation in the Great Satrapal Rebellion just ten years after Mazday was installed. King Tennes, who had been appointed by the Persians anyway, rebelled, and Mazday had to be placed in charge again. Just looking at Sidon, one can see the weakening of the Persian hold on their empire, which, thirty years after the end of Abd’ashtart’s reign, would be finished entirely as Alexander came conquering.