Agesilaos wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, now that Xenophon has deigned to reply to the charge of deliberately falsifying his evidence we may proceed to pass judgement.
I sincerely hope you never find yourself on a capital charge somewhere, endeavouring to defend yourself, for you will surely hang! Your case is as full of holes as a swiss cheese!
I do not for one minute accept the accused’d reconstruction of the passed two days wherein his insulted integrity diligently searched for further proofs that he was not a dupe or a fraud. There is only one image provided that is labelled as Ervand II this is the one from Wikipedia, which is you will observe exactly the same picture as the accused posted, yet he claims to have searched on Google for ‘Orontid coins’;
Wrong! Some people have real lives, and not as much time to deal with Forum matters as you seem to have. Clearly the Wikimedia came from somewhere – and I did not source that image from there. Furthermore I referenced – first – an Armenian site you have overlooked, with the same image.[ see above]. Where the image originated cannot be determined. It was uploaded to Wikimedia by an American of apparently Armenian descent, and he may have got it from the Armenian language site I referenced above – or somewhere else, such as this site where it also appears:
http://serials.flib.sci.am/- the Zhoghovrdipatmutyune
Xenophon wrote: Up came dozens of numismatic sites and I simply selected an image from one. I have no idea from where…
Are we to believe that the use of Wikipedia is so forgettable, it is certainly regrettable and had the accused just investigated one entry further down on the second page of his search (try it, Google ought to throw up the same sites in the same order) he would have found this (which I have only just discovered too) a full and detailed statement.
Had I found it on Wikimedia ( not Wikipaedia) I would have said so. [like other sources Wikipaedia and Wikimedia aren't all bad. It depends on
their sources...] As I have just written, it is not just found on Wikimedia, contrary to what you suggest, but on a number of sites elsewhere too, as I have referenced.
http://www.hyeetch.nareg.com.au/culture/metal_p1.html
“The extraordinary phenomenon of marking pieces of precious metal for use as money was a Greek invention of the seventh century before our era, first in the cities of Asia Minor and then on the islands and mainland of Greece itself. This greatly improved the development of international trade. In Armenia metal money only appeared much later. Until the fourth century B.C., commerce was carried out in the form of barter or by payment in gold and silver ingots according to weight. Only after this date was Armenian trade facilitated through the acceptance of coined money as a form of payment. .......etc.
Far from an independent satrapal coinage Alexander’s were used and later, Seleukid issues also
....You forgot to include the first paragraph of your source, which demonstrates, according to your source, that the Orontids DID independently issue coinage... [ It is true that thanks to trade, Alexandrian and Seleucid coins also circulated]
“
The Armenian plateau, rich in ores, was one of the first places to practice metallurgy and was ahead of neighboring regions in the use of copper and iron. Throughout history Armenians have been master metalworkers and jewelers. There is a near continuous tradition of metal objects from the first millennium B.C. to the present. Armenian metal craft can be divided conveniently, if arbitrarily, into three categories: 1) silver and bronze coins; 2) gold and silver works of art; and 3) bronze and other non-precious metal objects. Under the Orontid (Ervandian, fourth to second century B.C.) and Artaxiad (Artashesian, second to first century B.C.) Armenian dynasties, the minting of coins provided the art of engraving a natural outlet. During the first ten Christian centuries, however, Armenians did not strike coins. It is only under Cilician Armenian dynasties of the twelfth to the fourteenth centuries that the numismatic tradition of the Artaxiads is renewed. “ [ my emphasis]
A deliberate lie by omission, perchance? Or did you just turn a Nelsonian blind eye to it? To quote you: “then one can make a judgement on your incompetence or dishonesty.”
Hoist on your own petard I think.
My point that independent coinage was produced ( as with rebellious and other Satraps), as a piece of evidence of the autonomy or semi-autonomy of Armenia at the time in question is still demonstrated and valid.
Remains demonstrably invalid, we will come to the sign off coin in due course, named to Orontas.
Au contraire, according to your source also it is valid, andyou can find two dozen different coins minted by Orontes here:
http://www.asiaminorcoins.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?
search=Orontes&submit=search&album=search&title=on&newer_than=&caption=on&older_than=&keywords=on&type=AND&pid=on
Mostly from his time in exile as governor of Mysia.
We must first dispose of the counter charge that it is the prosecution that has been shoddy in its research.
Xenophon wrote:The coin I used ( gold, not silver, as is obvious) certainly appears to be the same as mine – but in that case the description you posted is in error in calling it silver, which should have warned you of possible inaccuracies.
I refer the jury to the accused’s final image of the sales record for Triton 9: Lot 974, indubitably the very same coin I have posted and the same reverse he posted, a glance at the description will reveal ‘AR Stater’ – AR for the uninitiated stands for ‘argentum’ – silver. Oh dear, severe firearm damage to the lower extremities, it is also, correctly attributed to Mallos a town about 400 miles from Armenia. One really ought to check material that one is posting before accusing others of sloppy preparation.
.......Really? How is it if you really researched other sources, you managed to miss the many sites listing Orontid coins, gold, silver and bronze; not to mention the many history sites that refer to same. The image I posted was simply one example, and was just for illustrative purposes.
.
Furthermore you seem somewhat geographically challenged (sloppy preparation?
); Mallus is about 240 miles from Armenian territory proper and bearing in mind the Orontids also ruled Sophene and Commagene as part of the Armenian satrapy ( until the Seleucids split these away), a mere 120 miles. Mallus, like various other Cilician cities, was a sanctuary with an oracle and independent under the Persians, and apparently Alexander too, who is supposed to have exempted the city from taxes when he passed through. What more natural than that they should choose to portray the last great independent Persian Satrap, if they wished ? For that matter they might well have wanted to curry favour with such a powerful neighbour, who probably had considerable influence there. For that matter, Orontes could have ordered the coins himself from the city’s mint.
However, as I said the identity of the Satrap on the coin must be uncertain, for the reasons I specified.
But his picture does look goldish (much lighter than the genuine ancient gold coins pictured), it has been photo-shopped, having been posted on Wikipedia by an Armenian patriot; just check the source of the picture.
An ingenious postulation, and perhaps possible, but one which cannot be proved, nor for that matter is there any evidence for such a thing, nor, given that the image appears on several other sites , is it possible to determine where it originated. The person who uploaded the image to Wikimedia is an American in Los Angeles, of Armenian descent. Who knows where he got it?
Moreover, why go to that trouble when there are plenty of other gold Orontid coins on the web anyway – simpler to just use one of those images.
Xenophon wrote:Now the reason for this confusing labelling is not difficult to discern. Virtually all coins out there are illegally sourced, which means they have no archaeological provenance. Without that, unless there is an inscription, dating the coin or even identifying its subject become pure guesswork – hence the many guesses in this instance.
This is nonsense if you have evidence for the illegal trade in ancient artefacts you need to go to the authorities rather than tar a well regulated trade with this slur in order to excuse your failure to check anything – contrariwise, if the attribution is so unclear why did you clearly label it Erwand II?
Nonsense? It is common knowledge in the Numismatic trade, and by collectors. You would be naive to think otherwise. If you travel to Greece or points east, you will be offered ancient coins for sale in almost evey bazaar. Most of these, of course, are fakes, some are genuine but not obtained legitimately and hence illegal. Even in the “well regulated” U.K. where there are strict ‘treasure trove’ laws, it is well known that more finds change hands illegally than ever go through the proper procedures.
It was not I who labelled it Orontes/Erewand II - it is labelled so on a number of sites, and as we have seen it now appears there are a number of ‘guesses’ as to attribution, thanks to the lack of archaeological provenence I referred to. Hence I wrote (above)
“Does that mean that my attempt to illustrate Orontid coinage is inconclusive? Yes. That coin may, or may not, be of Orontes II.”
No it is DEFINITELY NOT a coin of Orontes II, it was struck in Mallos over which he never held the slightest sway.
Another assertion totally unsupported by evidence - and see earlier in this post. There is no inherent reason why if portraying a Satrap on the city’s coins, they could not choose Orontes II, and lots of reasons as I said ante, why he might be chosen, or he might have chosen to use the city’s mint to mint coins for him. We cannot know why that particular person was chosen, nor identify him for certain, it now appears. But you most certainly cannot say it is definitely not a coin portraying Orontes II.
The accused seems determined to paint others as poor researchers too
but in fact he did exactly what I did, relied on a description of a coin from a single numismatic site,
Once I had finally tracked the coin down, I checked it with Wildwinds and several other sites, just to be sure; one should not assert that others have ones own low standards of practice, unevidenced.
So you admit you checked only that coin, and did not look for others, and in the end relied on that one description. Poor methodology. One does not assume a conclusion, then stop looking for evidence because one finds a single piece [the one possibly silver coin, even if you did check that coin elsewhere]that seems to ‘prove’ that conclusion. As I have said before, one should take a holistic approach and examine all the evidence. I did not do this either, but then I wasn’t trying to ‘prove’ anything, merely illustrate a known fact ( the Orontids minted their own coins independently)
Fortunately, I can illustrate a coin which is undoubtedly Orontid, because it is inscribed so ! ( see below attachment of nude hoplite coin)
Once again not referenced, but google images of ‘hoplite coin’ and it rapidly appears as a coin of Lampsakos (BM) or Klazomenai (seehttp://
www.snible.org/coins/hn/ionia.html#Clazomenae ) both Ionian not Armenian, and mid fourth rather than late, so equally deceptive.
Not deceptive at all. Agesilaos should have researched farther, there are two dozen or more types of coins of Orontes, mostly minted in various places in Mysia ( far western Anatolia a long way from Armenia) by Orontes I, Satrap of Armenia, serving time as (temporary) governor there, and most likely the coins are connected to the Satraps rebellion, when Orontes commanded the rebel Satrapal forces [see coin site above].....there was a surprising outcome, but the interested reader can research that for themselves. It is covered in the sources I recommended earlier.
The accused has demonstrated not only a lack of remorse but has aggravated the original offence; one might pardon lying about relying on a picture from Wikipedia, such a woeful faux pas may call for drastic measures: but to then produce a slew of irrelevance and with yet another coin with absolutely no connection to the putatively independent satrapy must demand the full penalty of the law.
There was no lie about relying on a picture from Wikimedia (not Wikipaedia) for it appears on a number of sites, unbeknownst apparently, to Agesilaos, even after I point him to such! There are many historical sites which record the independence of Armenia at this time – here’s just one example:
1. “[Orontes II] Leader of the Armenians (together with Mithraustes) in the battle of Gaugamela (Arrian, Anabasis 3.8.5), hence presumably the satrap of Armenia under Darius III Codomannus (who held this same rank before his accession to the throne); from the fact that we find homonymous satraps of the same province some decades before and after him (see nos. 2 and 4, respectively), it may be inferred that this province was (at least partly) hereditary within one family, which can be traced back to the famous “Seven Persians,” and that this Orontes was a descendant of Hydarnes, too, and possibly a grandson of Orontes I. Since Alexander the Great did not subdue Armenia and never even approached this province, it must be the same Orontes, who is satrap of Armenia still in post-Alexandrian times, about 316 B.C.E. (Diodorus 19.23.3; Polyaenus 4.8.3), all the more so as this Orontes is a friend of the Macedonian general Peucestas (Diodorus, ibid.; see, in general, H. Berve, Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage II, Munich, 1926, p. 295 no. 593).”
Source: Encyclopaedia Iranica
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/orontes
One might also consider that Ariarathes’ coins have Aramaic inscriptions, those of the Artaxiads continue with Greek, yet we know from the story of Orontes’ letter that the Armenians used Aramaic too.
Your point? Some coins even have bilingual inscriptions, some Greek, and some Aramaic......as do stone inscriptions. Both languages were in common use in the area.
What little evidence there is would suggest that Orontes II was deposed after or killed during the battle of Gaugamela and his relative Mithrines took over, the only evidence to the contrary is a speech in Appian where Mithridates claims that Alexander never conquered Armenia, yet in a speech in Curtius (at Opis I think) Alexander claims that he had!
We know that an “Orontes” ruled in Armenia in 317 BC from the forged letter [Diod XIX.23.3]. We know that Orontes II fought at Gaugemala, but there is no source evidence he was killed there whatsoever .They were therefore most likely one and the same [see quotation above] and he continued to rule despite Alexander’s attempt to supplant him with his son Mithranes. However, absolute certainty is not possible.
It does not matter though. An Orontid ruled Armenia as King and Satrap in 331 BC, and also in 317 BC, showing continuity of independent rule. ( whether Orontes II or III is neither here nor there)
No fighting is attested in the satrapy when Neoptolemos took over (possibly only as strategos leaving Mithrines as satrap). In the intervening six or seven years (323 to 317 or 316) Mithrines may have died and been succeeded by another Orontes, it is a common enough name.
Possible, but it must be said there is no evidence for Mithranes actually taking up rule in Armenia. Neoptolemus, and subsequently Eumenes failed utterly in Armenia and were clearly forced to leave. There may or not have been actual battles, but it is hardly surprising that Graeco-Macedonian sources maintain a discrete silence over the whole episode, and we are told virtually nothing of it.
Armenia remained within the empire but probably more as a vassal than a satrapy after the death of Perdikkas; the local dynasty seems to remain in charge and this would also allow Mithridates’[sic: Mithranes?] claim an element of truth.
“
the local dynasty seems to remain in charge.” The Orontids remained in charge ! Q.E.D. Why didn’t you just agree with me in the first place? Would have saved us both time and effort!
Do you have any evidence for ‘vassal’ status rather than independent ? Beyond Alexander’s boastful and obviously untrue claim at Opis. ( another topic for discussion?)
So, Mr Prosecutor, did you prove your accusations beyond reasonable doubt? Not even close! In fact you didn’t succeed in proving even one of your accusations. Consider yourself sacked.
To parody Rumpole's Judge Roger "The Mad Bull" Bullingham: "Prosecutor, you stand condemned out of your own mouth! "
And there we’ll leave you, hanging and swinging in the breeze........
P.S: For the usual fee, I’ll pull on your legs to speed your demise and ease your suffering.
