Lands of Asia layouts (Eng) 26.11.21

part ii | states
the initial form of money circulation in regions and countries adjacent to the states
which already had developed mechanisms of money circulation. The final phase
of this process was the issue of independent coinage in some areas of Transoxiana.
However, even if we accept this hypothesis, the question remains unclear as to
whether Seleucid and especially Graeco-Bactrian coins can be seen as ‘foreign’ in
Sogdia and Northern Bactria, or whether they were circulating here because both
these areas were part of the Hellenistic states. This question is connected with the
political history of Transoxiana in the 3rd–2nd centuries BC. However, information
from textual sources and numismatic data at present remains sparse.
It is unlikely that Seleucid and Graeco-Bactrian coins functioned only as ‘treasure’
rather than as a means of currency, especially since copper chalkoi often turn up in
finds, and these coins were very rarely used outside of the states where they were
minted. It is possible, however, that Achaemenid daric coins and sigloi (specimens
have probably been found, although the circumstances of these finds are unclear) or
coins from the 6th–5th centuries BC, such as the staters of Achaemenid satraps of
Asia Minor, imitations of Athenian coins, and coins of Macedonian kings from the
Amu Darya hoard, were imported into Central Asia.
A hoard of silver Achaemenid sigloi was recently discovered somewhere in southern
Turkmenistan. However, the number of Achaemenid coins in a world of barter probably
amounted to a mere sprinkling: there is no trace of them in the subsequent history of
coinage in Central Asia, and they did not become the basis for the development of later
coinage, whereas by contrast, Seleucid and especially Graeco-Bactrian coins were to
determine the formation and development of money circulation and coinage in Central
Asia for several centuries. They were the basis for the first imitations of coins that were
minted here and for the independent coinages that followed.
Clearly, the model proposed by E.V. Zeymal was not universal, and this is
borne out by an analysis of numismatic data. As we have already demonstrated,
the emergence of independent coinage followed different patterns in the different
historical and cultural areas of Transoxiana.
An enormous amount of numismatic material has been accumulated to date,
making it possible for the first time to produce a fairly detailed and meaningful
timeline of the development of money circulation in Transoxiana (but of course,
not limited to its geographical area) up to the 3rd–4th centuries AD. Unfortunately,
the almost complete absence of textual sources and epigraphic data makes it difficult
to clarify many issues about money circulation related to such things as rates of
exchange, financial policies, and so on.
The first period (second half of the 2nd millennium BC to the first half of the 1st
millennium BC).
92