Summary Analysis

Coin catalogue sections:	Kelenderis
Coin corpus datasets:	Kelenderis, staters, Group 1, Kelenderis, staters, Group 2, Kelenderis, staters, Group 3, Aspendos, staters, Tarsos, staters after c. 388 BC

Summary

The subject of this analysis is a comparison of the weights of the Kelenderis staters with the weights of the Aspendos staters minted between approximately 465 and 250 BC and satrapal staters minted in Tarsos from about 388 to 323 BC. This analysis suggests that the weights of the Kelenderia coins of Group 3C are lower than the lightest issues of both Aspendos and Tarsos. Moreover, it seems that the Tarsian coins minted by the satrap Tiribazos in the period 388–380 BC are slightly lower than the coins minted under the following satraps in the period 380–323 BC. However, this does not necessarily mean that other weight standards besides the Persian weight standard were used in these areas. It is possible that these differences are due to a change in the technology of coin production at Tarsus in the case of the differences between Tiribazos and the following satraps, and a different coinage practice in the case of Kelenderis (e.g., poorly aligned official weights or different coin production technology or different seigniorage). For reliable conclusions, it is necessary to analyze also the production of Tarsos before 388 BC and to enlarge the analyzed data sets to ensure their representativeness.

Analysis

The production of the Kelenderis mint is compared with the pre-Hellenistic and early Hellenistic production of the Aspendos mint, and with the pre-Hellenistic production of the Tarsos mint during the reign of the satraps Tiribazos to Balakros. The Kelenderis staters are divided into Groups 1, 2 and 3 (see page Coin Catalogue / Kelenderis / Overview), with Group 3 being further divided into three subgroups 3A, 3B and 3C (see page Weight Analyses / Kelenderis, staters). The Aspendos staters are divided into early issues with a warrior on the obverse and a triskeles on the reverse, and later issues with two wrestlers on the obverse and a slinger on the reverse, with these later issues further divided into five series according to Tekin 1997. The Tarsos satrapal staters are divided by individual Cilician satraps, and these groups are further divided by major coin types (not all types are considered, but only the types with sufficient representation). An overview of the analysed groups of coins is given in Table 1. The usual dating of these groups is given in Table 2.

Mint	Group	Description
Aspendos	Warrior / Triskeles	Obv.: Warrior advancing right,. Rev.: Triskeles.
	Wrestlers / Slinger	Tekin 1997, Series 1
		Tekin 1997, Series 2
		Tekin 1997, Series 3
		Tekin 1997, Series 4
		Tekin 1997, Series 5
Kelenderis	Group 1	Types 1.1–3
	Group 2	Types 2.1–12
	Group 3A	Types 3.1–3 and 3.7–12
	Group 3B	Types 3.13–14
	Group 3C	Types 3.4–6 and 3.15–17
Tarsos	Tiribazos	1	Obv.: Baaltars standing half-left, holding eagle and lotus-tipped scepter. Rev.: Ahura-Mazda facing, head right, body terminating in solar disk with wings and tail feathers, holding up wreath and lotus blossom.
		2	Obv.: Satrap seated right on throne, wearing Persian headdress, raising his right hand and left hand placed on bow set on ground. Rev.: Bearded head right, wearing satrapal headdress.
		3	Obv.: Athena seated left, holding spear in her right hand and leaning left elbow on shield; behind, olive tree. Rev.: Female kneeling left, casting astragaloi; behind, lotus plant.
		4	Obv.: Head of Hera (?) left, wearing decorated tiara. Rev.: Herakles strangling the Nemean lion.
	Pharnabazos	1	Obv.: Head of Herakles facing slightly right, wearing lion’s skin. Rev.: Bearded male head (Ares?) left, wearing crested Attic helmet.
		2	Obv.: Baaltars seated left on throne. Rev.: Bearded male head (Ares?) left, wearing crested helmet.
		3	Obv.: Head of Arethusa facing slightly left. Rev.: Bearded male head (Ares?) left or right, wearing crested Attic helmet.
	Datames (Tarkumuwa)	1	Obv.: Head of Arethusa facing slightly left. Rev.: Bearded male head (Ares?) left or right, wearing crested Attic helmet.
		2	Obv.: Baaltars seated right, torso facing; all within crenellated wall. Rev.: Satrap seated right, wearing Persian dress, inspecting arrow.
		3	Obv.: Baaltars seated right, torso facing; all within crenellated wall. Rev.: Ana, standing right, extending hand and pointing at the head of Tarkumuwa, standing left, right hand raised; between them, thymiaterion; all within square dotted border in linear border.
	Mazaios	1	Obv.: Baaltars seated left on throne. Rev.: Lion left attacking stag left.
		2	Obv.: Baaltars seated left on throne, head facing. Rev.: Lion left attacking bull left.
		3	Obv.: Baaltars seated left on throne. Rev.: Lion left attacking bull left; below, pair of crenellated walls, each with four towers.
	Balakros	1	Obv.: Baaltars seated left on throne. Rev.: Lion left attacking bull left; below, pair of crenellated walls, each with four towers.
		2	Obv.: Facing bust of Athena, draped, wearing triple-crested helmet and necklace. Rev.: Baaltars seated left on throne.

Table 1: Analyzed groups of coins of Aspendos, Kelenderis and Tarsos.

Mint	Group	Approximate dating
Aspendos	Warrior / Triskeles	465 – 430 BC
	Tekin 1	420 – 410 BC
	Tekin 2	415 – 400 BC
	Tekin 3	400 – 380 BC
	Tekin 4	380/75 – 330/25 BC
	Tekin 5	330/25 – 310/250 BC
Kelenderis	Group 1	around 450 BC or possibly 440 – 430 BC
	Group 2	450 – 405 BC or possibly 430 – 405 BC
	Group 3	405 – 375 BC
Tarsos	Tiribazos	388 – 380 BC
	Pharnabazos	380 – 374/3 BC
	Datames	384 – 361/0
	Mazaios	361/0 – 334
	Balakros	333 – 323 BC

Table 2: Approximate dating of analyzed groups of coins

An analysis of the Kalenderis staters is presented on page Weight Analyses / Kelenderis, staters and is therefore not included here. Box plots1 of the Aspendos staters are shown in Figure 1. This chart and Table 3 below show that the warrior/triskeles type coins and the wrestlers/slinger type coins belonging to Tekin’s Series 1–3 were minted in the same weight standard. For Series 4, there is a slight decrease in the weight standard, and Series 5 is already minted at a significantly lower weight standard. In addition, the greater weight volatility and unclear minting time range of Series 5 suggests that it may not have been a homogeneous series, but that there may have been a further lowering of the weight standard during this period.

Figure 1: Aspendos, box plots

Box plots of the Tarsos staters divided by the coin types (see Table 1) and aggregated by individual satraps are shown in Figures 2a and 2b, respectively. These charts and Table 3 below indicate that a lower weight standard may have been used under Tiribazos than under subsequent statraps..

Figure 2a: Tarsos, box plots of individual types

Figure 2b: Tarsos, box plots of aggregated data by individual satraps

Figure 3a shows the box plots of all three mints together. On the left is Aspendos, the light green shaded area in the middle shows Kelenderis and on the right is Tarsos. Figure 3b shows the same, but outliers are omitted for clarity. The basic statistic characteristics of all these coin groups are presented in Table 3 (Std. Dev. denotes the standard deviation and IQR the interquartile range).

These results suggest that Kelenderis issues falling into Groups 1, 2 and 3A were minted at a slightly lower weight standard than the Aspendos issues from the warrior/triskeles type to Tekin’s Series 4. The median of Kelenderis Group 3B roughly corresponds to Tekin’s Series 5, while Kelenderis Group 3C lies well below Tekin’s Series 5. Since a significant part of the coinage of the Aspendos mint overlaps in time with a significant part of the coinage of the Kelenderis Mint (see Table 2), this raises the question of whether the two mints used the same Persian weight standard, or whether multiple weight standards were used simultaneously in Pamphylia and Cilicia Trachea.

As for Tarsos, Kelenderis Group 3B can be roughly compared with the coins of Pharnabazos and Datames, while Group 3C has no comparison with any part of the coinage of Tarsos in the period c. 388–323 BC. Group 3C is thus beyond comparison with the analyzed production of both mints.

Figure 3a: Box plots of individual groups of staters

Figure 3b: Box plots of individual groups of staters without plotting outliers

Mint	Group	Count	Mean	Median	Std. Dev.	IQR
Aspendos	Warrior	63	10.88	10.89	0.12	0.15
	Tekin 1	19	10.79	10.85	0.19	0.21
	Tekin 2	57	10.87	10.89	0.10	0.09
	Tekin 3	51	10.82	10.87	0.23	0.12
	Tekin 4	96	10.74	10.79	0.26	0.23
	Tekin 5	69	10.25	10.37	0.55	0.46
Kelenderis	Group 1	13	10.73	10.78	0.23	0.21
	Group 2	229	10.73	10.74	0.10	0.13
	Group 3A	180	10.64	10.68	0.23	0.18
	Group 3B	14	10.45	10.43	0.20	0.36
	Group 3C	29	9.90	9.98	0.34	0.19
Tarsos	Tiribazos	35	10.15	10.22	0.41	0.55
	Pharnabazos	87	10.52	10.64	0.38	0.29
	Datames	104	10.43	10.50	0.33	0.45
	Mazaios	102	10.68	10.75	0.34	0.32
	Balakros	62	10.73	10.82	0.31	0.25

Table 3: Basic descriptive statistics

The above results suggest in particular the following:

1. The weights of coins minted under Tiribazos were slightly lower than under the following satraps.
2. The weights of the Kelenderis coins of Group 3C are lower than the lightest issues of Aspendos (coins of Tekin’s Series 5) and Tarsos (coins minted by Tiribazos).

To confirm these observations, the percentile bootstrap method was used to compare the medians of these coin issues. Table 4 shows the observed sample medians and bootstrap 95% confidence intervals.2 Table 5 shows the differences in sample medians, their bootstrap 95% confidence intervals and p-values.3 The results show that the above two observations are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. However, the absolute differences in the medians reported in Table 5 are not so large as to suggest the use of different weight standards. It is possible that these differences are due to a change in the technology of coin production at Tarsus in the case of the differences between Tiribazos and the following satraps, and a different coinage practice in the case of Kelenderis (e.g., poorly aligned official weights or different coin production technology or different seigniorage). For reliable conclusions, it is necessary to analyze also the production of Tarsos before 388 BC and to enlarge the analyzed data sets to ensure their representativeness.

	median	95% confidence interval
Aspendos, Tekin 5	10.37	10.30	10.47
Tarsos, Tiribazos	10.22	10.12	10.39
Tarsos, satraps after Tiribazos	10.67	10.63	10.70
Kelenderis, Group 3C	9.98	9.91	10.02

Table 4: Medians and their confidence intervals

	medians difference	95% confidence interval		p-value
Tarsos, satraps after Tiribazos vs Tiribazos	0.45	0.28	0.56	<0.001
Aspendos, Tekin 5 vs Kelenderis, Group 3C	0.39	0.30	0.51	<0.001
Tarsos, Tiribazos vs Kelenderis, Group 3C	0.24	0.12	0.43	0.004

Table 5: Differences in medians