ASIA MINOR. Uncertain. Bitorix, argyrotamias, circa 1st century BC. AE (Orichalcum, 25 mm, 14.39 g, 6 h), year 15 of an unknown era or ruler. Head of youthful Herakles to right, wearing taenia, lion skin tied around neck. Rev. B[I]TOΡΙΞ APΓΥ-ΡΟΤΑΜΙΑ[Σ] / ΕΤΟΥΣ [IΕ] Club; to outer right, monogram of BA. BMC 27 corr. (reverse legend misread as 'ΠΡΟΥΣΙΕ' and assigned to Prusias ad Mare) = RG 22 corr. (reverse legend misread as 'ΠΡΟΥΣΙΕ' and assigned to Prusias ad Mare). S. de Ricci: Communication. I. Un nouveau roi de Galatie, in: Comptes rendus des séances de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 1912, p. 493-495 corr. ('Bikorix') = O. Masson: Quelques noms celtiques en Grèce et en Asie Mineure, in: Études celtiques 19 (1982), p. 132-133 corr. (reverse legend misread as 'ΠΡΟΥΣΙΕ' and assigned to Prusias ad Mare). Extremely rare, the third example known and the only one in private hands. Somewhat corroded and with minor areas of weakness, otherwise, nearly very fine.


The enigmatic coins struck by Bitorix have thus far only been known from two examples, a very worn one held in the BM, and a slightly better one in Berlin. It was the latter example that allowed the reading of the name, Bitorix (read Bitokix by de Ricci), which is certainly Celtic in origin (meaning 'world-king'). This Bitorix carried the office of argyrotamias, frequently encountered in inscriptions from Greece and Asia Minor, which means 'treasurer' in Greek. More contentious so far has been the reading of the final line. It was originally read as 'ΠΡΟΥΣΙΕ' on the BM example, thus indicating Prusias ad Mare as the location of minting, but de Ricci read 'ΕΤΟΥΣ ΙΕ' on the Berlin example instead. His reading was later refuted by Masson based on a re-examination by Schultz, the conservator of the Berlin coin cabinet, who read 'ΠΡΟΥΣΙΕ', as on the BM example. Our coin, however, shows beyond any doubt that de Ricci was in fact correct, and the last line is indeed a date, not an ethnic.

The reading of a date also sheds further light on the meaning of the monogram. Two suggestions are that it is an abbreviation for BA(σιλεύς) or for B(itorix) A(rgyrotamias). Both are problematic. First, a 'regnal year' of 15 years, though not impossible, was a very long time for a magistrate to hold the same office but fits well with a ruler. Moreover, one might wonder at the usefulness of employing a monogram abbreviating a legend which is already present on the coin. However, we would expect that a king would stress his royal title rather than a civic office, and the legend 'Bitorix Argyrotamias' is not in the conventional genitive case used by rulers (including Galatian dynasts such as Amyntas in the 1st century BC), but in the nominative, which was more common in a civic context. Perhaps Bitorix was in fact king of one of the Celtic tribes in Asia Minor, yet the coin was issued in a markedly Greek context. Out of consideration for Greek sensitivities, or out of respect for civic traditions, Bitorix might have opted not to present himself as a king, but as a magistrate - much like some Roman emperors would later hold civic offices in some cities in Asia Minor - and referred to his title only with an inconspicuous monogram. This would also explain why there is no portrait on the coin, but an image of the demigod Herakles, and his well-known club.

Two other possibilities have hitherto also been unexplored, namely that the monogram does not belong to Bitorix all, but to the ruler he was subordinate to, a certain king A.... Or, secondly, that the monogram is not directly related to Bitorix at all, but just the signature of another official overseeing the production of the issue. Without further evidence, however, this must remain speculation. Equally uncertain is the location where this issue was produced. Prusias ad Mare is no longer a given, the iconography of the piece is too unspecific to pinpoint an exact city, and argyrotamiai are attested for many different cities. Based on Bitorix' name, a location in Galatia proper, or even Bithynia, may be preferred, but again, this is not certain, since the use of Celtic names was not confined to the original settlement regions of the Galatians, especially not in the 1st century BC. For example, we find a 'Zmertorix, son of Philonides' signing coins of Mark Antony's wife Fulvia from the Phrygian city Fulvia-Eumeneia in 41-40 BC (RPC I 3139), and a 'Valerius Zmertorix' - no doubt a descendant of the former - placing his name on coins of Tiberius from the same polis (RPC I 3144). All we can say for now is that the coin features an intriguing mix of Celtic, Greek, civic, and - perhaps - royal influences, thus providing a highly interesting glimpse into the multicultural society of Asia Minor in the 1st century BC.