PHILISTIA. Central Mint. Philistian-styled, circa 420-350 BCE. Rbʾ Šql = Drachm (Silver, 14 mm, 3.67 g, 12 h). Bearded male head to right, hair gathered at the back. Rev. Double facing gorgoneion (?), consisting of an upright and an inverted face sharing a single mouth; to left, 𐡔 (Š in Aramaic); all within dotted oval border within incuse square. Gitler & Tal XVIII.3Da = Gitler & Tal, Reclassifying, p. 14., Fig. 4 = Gitler, Johananoff & Tal, Bes (forthcoming), Table 1. 12. CP XVIII.3Da = Mildenberg, Petra, p. 65, 28 (this coin). Hendin -. Jeselsohn 304 (same dies). Shoshana -. Sofaer -. Extremely rare and by far the finest of only two known examples – or three, if one includes Classical Numismatic Group 118 (2021), 590, a specimen overstruck with a different type. Beautifully toned and of exceptionally fine style, with a particularly impressive apotropaic reverse. Struck from a somewhat worn obverse die and with a test cut on the reverse, otherwise, good very fine.



Whether these striking grotesque faces are to be understood as Bes or as the gorgoneion remains disputed. Mildenberg argued in favour of Bes, while Gitler and Tal described the type more cautiously as a 'monster-like figure facing (Bes?)'. In the first volume of the Jeselsohn Collection, however, the authors identify it as a gorgoneion. The same reassessment can be seen in the case of Gitler and Tal XIII.5D, where the earlier, more cautious description is likewise revised in the Jeselsohn Collection to 'gorgoneion'. The wide-open mouth with protruding tongue speaks in favour of identifying the image as a gorgoneion, or rather as a double gorgoneion. The identification as Bes, however, is supported by the 𐡔 (Š in Aramaic) in the left field, which clearly connects the present piece with XVIII.1-2, on which the Egyptian protective god appears on the reverse, though without the gaping mouth and protruding tongue.

As suggested in the commentary on lot 53 above, framing the question in strictly either/or terms may be too modern an approach. The image is perhaps better understood not as a case of mistaken identification, but as one of meaningful iconographic overlap: since both the gorgoneion and Bes were credited with apotropaic power, Philistine artists may here have combined features established in different visual traditions. The apotropaic force of the image was probably considered more important than strict iconographic clarity.