In the last months of 1980, a hoard of silver coins was found in Sicily1 and immediately dispersed in commerce. The largest number came to the United States; 479 coins in several lots were deposited at the ANS by a dealer in February 1981 for study and the preparation of a plaster cast record. This group no doubt represented the bulk of the hoard but did not include the rarest and most valuable specimens, mainly from Katane and Naxos, some of which were sold immediately.2 So the hoard was picked over at least twice before being brought toNew York. The ANS recorded the hoard coins but acquired none.3 At least 131 of the tetradrachms seen at the ANS returned to Europe and were sent for cleaning to the British Museum where they were recorded as well. They are now most likely in European collections. The remainder of the hoard has been identified with the help of colleagues, collectors and dealers.
Nothing is known about the circumstances of discovery nor about the exact location of the find. It is said to be near Randazzo, in northeastern Sicily at the foot of Mount Etna (see frontispiece) and the mints represented, particularly Katane, support the hearsay.
The legislative and political conditions that foster illegal excavations have been commented upon elsewhere.4 It is deplorable that the historical record so often must be reconstructed away from the original find context, to the detriment of scholarship. Coin hoards are no exception; on the contrary they are easier to take out of the country of origin than larger objects. It should be emphasized that the best preserved coins are very rarely found on excavation sites; rather, almost always as chance finds. Yet it remains a prime responsibility of the numismatist to record all that comes to light.
One cannot be sure that the "Randazzo" Hoard 1980, as it is catalogued here, is compelete. It seems, however, reasonable to assume that the 539 tetradrachms described form the largest part. Sicilian hoards of the same period, with the exception of the Gela hoard ( IGCH 2066) and the Avola hoard ( IGCH 2085) are usually smaller in size. Moreover selections or divisions of hoards are made very soon after discovery. The "best" pieces can be taken out first for special collectors but it is highly improbable that, for instance, all of the latest specimens in the hoard or a whole mint would be sorted out completely by the first finders. Therefore the conclusions proposed here need not be impaired by doubts about whether the record is complete.
All the coins that can be said with absolute certainty to come from the hoard are described here. May they encourage additions and supplements as necessary.
The hoard included only tetradrachms,5 all from Sicilian mints, as Rhegion historically and numismatically is considered such:
|Rhegion 10||(nos. 1-10)|
|Akragas 8||(nos. 11-18)|
|Gela 29||(nos. 19-47)|
|Katane 29||(nos. 48-76)|
|Leontinoi 14||(nos. 77-90)|
|Messana 136||(nos. 91-226)|
|Naxos 5||(nos. 227-231)|
|Syracuse 308||(nos. 232-539)|
|1||Coin Hoards 7 (1985), no. 17.|
|2||E.g. Bowers and Ruddy Galleries, Inc., Masterpieces of Ancient Coinage (Los Angeles, n.d). A brochure illustrating nine tetradrachms.|
|3||In 1983, A. A. Rosen donated 34 tetradrachms and Russell Trenholme 7 (see catalogue, ANS, ex Rosen; ex Trenholme).|
|4||M. J. Price and N. M. Waggoner, Archaic Silver Coinage: The Asyut Hoard (London, 1975), p. 9 (hereafter Price and Waggoner, Asyut).|
|5||There were unconfirmed rumors that the hoard also included decadrachms. The presence of Demareteia is possible and would not change the chronological conclusions reached here.|
The years covered by the hoard, ca. 510 to 450 B.C.,6 saw the rise of western tyrannies,7 their fall and immediate aftermath. From the end of the sixth century to the beginning of the fifth century B.C., the cities that interest us, Rhegion, Akragas, Gela, Katane, Leontinoi, Messana, Naxos and Syracuse, lost their autonomy and fell under the domination of three major families: the Anaxilades at the Straits, the Emmenids at Akragas, the Deinomenids at Gela and Syracuse. The rivalries and the ambitions of the strongest among these tyrants determined the history of this half century during which Sicily rose to the acme of its power and prosperity.
The main ancient sources for this period are Herodotos, book 7.153–67, Diodoros, chiefly book 11 and Pindar through his Odes to the glory of the Sicilian tyrants. These writers vary in objectivity and truthfulness and from them alone it is almost impossible to obtain a clear picture of the events. The approach of Diodoros or Pindar may sometimes be as distorted as our own, the former living in Caesar’s time, more than four centuries later than the early tyrants, the latter being a poet called to the Syracusan court to sing Hieron's exploits.
It was at Gela that the establishment of tyranny began.8 In 505 B.C., Kleandros, son of that Pantares who won the distinction of being the first Sicilian to gain a chariot victory at Olympia, replaced the oligarchy. Herodotos tells us that at Kleandros's death, the sovereignty passed to his brother Hippokrates,9 who proceeded to expand his influence over other Sicilian cities, a development typical of western tyrannies. He conquered the Chalcidian cities of Euboia and Kallipolis, Naxos, Zankle and Leontinoi, establishing subordinate tyrants in the last two (Skythes and Ainesidemos). Hippokrates also fought the Syracusans; while he did not succeed in taking over the city, he received Kamarina as part of the peace settlement.
At the death of Hippokrates in 491 B.C., his most capable general, commander of the cavalry, Gelon,10 son of Deinomenes, set himself up as tyrant thus averting the threat of a civil war. His reign inaugurated a period of prosperity and peace for Sicily in general and history records him as a just and benevolent despot, popular among his people. In 485 B.C. Gelon succeeded in what Hippokrates had attempted, the conquest of Syracuse, the wealthy and, thanks to its harbor, strategically important city on the western coast. The Gamoroi, or landowners of Syracuse, having been expelled to Kasmenai by the demos and the local serfs (the Killyrioi) asked Gelon for help. Although he returned the Gamoroi to the city, he installed himself as tyrant.11
Gelon’s most remarkable exploit no doubt was the defeat of the Carthaginians at the battle of Himera in 480 B.C.,12 with the help of his father-in-law, Theron, tyrant of Akragas. The interpretation of this conflict, however, has been rather tendentious, as historians have followed Diodoros’s emphatically nationalistic version.13 Diodoros presented the war between Sicily and Carthage as an inevitable war between two races, the Greeks and the Barbarians, and in so doing identified it with the Persian wars in Greece.14 In fact the Carthaginian attack on Sicily was caused more by internal antagonism than by external imperialism. Terillos, tyrant of Himera, and his son-in-law, Anaxilas of Rhegion, trying to remain independent from Gelon and Theron, asked the Carthaginians for help. After the battle, Gelon showed himself magnanimous toward the Carthaginians, sparing their lives and demanding only war indemnities. It is on this occasion that Gelon’s wife Demarete was given one hundred gold talents in gratitude. We shall discuss this point in detail below.
On Gelon’s death in 478/7 B.C., his brother Hieron succeeded him at Syracuse and in turn was succeeded at Gela by the third brother Polyzalos.15 Apart from his naval expedition to help Kyme against the Etruscans, and the victory that ensued in 474 B.C.,16 Hieron concentrated on the internal affairs of his Sicilian empire. Out of a desire to win the honors of a "heros ktistes" and so immortality, and also perhaps to secure himself a retreat in case of trouble in Syracuse, Hieron founded Aitna in 476/5 B.C.17 He moved the Chalcidian inhabitants of Naxos and Katane to Leontinoi18 and refounded Katane with Peloponnesians and Syracusans. Under Hieron the Syracusan court became an intellectual center where not only Pindar, but also Aischylos, Simonides, and Bacchylides sojourned and praised the tyrants.
The death of Hieron in 467/6 B.C. precipitated the fall of all Sicilian tyrannies. Akragas was already free; after the long and stable reign of Theron, who died in 473/2 B.C., his son Thrasy-daios was soon expelled. Selinus and Himera were also free and Polyzalos died at Gela probably before Hieron’s death. These cities quickly joined their land and sea forces to liberate Syracuse from Thrasyboulos, the last of the Deinomenids.19
Only the Anaxilades still survived. Anaxilas succeeded in providing both Rhegion and Zankle/Messana a stable government from 494 B.C., when he installed himself at Rhegion, and 490/89 B.C., when he expelled the Samians from Zankle, until his death in 476 B.C.20 Despite his efforts to contest with the Deinomenids for power and maintain his independence, the victory of Gelon at Himera forced Anaxilas to recognize Syracuse's supremacy. Mikythos succeeded him until 467/6 B.C., when Anaxila’s sons were old enough to reign. In 461 B.C. they were expelled and democracy restored.21
|6||M. I. Finley, Ancient Sicily (rev. ed., Totowa, N.J., 1979), pp. 45-64; E. A. Freeman, The History of Sicily from the Earliest Times, vol. 2 (Oxford, 1891), pp. 101-50, 162-388; A. Holm, Geschichte Siciliens im Atterthum, vol. 1 (Leipzig, 1870), pp. 144-60 and 192-263 (hereafter Holm); E. Will, Le Monde Grec et I'Orient, vol. 1 (Paris, 1972), pp. 219-59 (hereafter Will). For further bibliography see F. Sartori, "Storia della Sicilia Greca," Kokalos 22–23 (1976–77), pp. 331-49.|
|7||A. Andrewes, The Greek Tyrants (London, 1956), pp. 128-36, 154. H. Berve, Die Tyrannis bei den Grie-chen, vols. 1-2 (Munich, 1967), pp. 128-58 (hereafter Berve). C. Mossé, La Tyrannie dans la Grèce Antique (Paris, 1969), pp. 79-87. On the tyranny in general see K. H. Kinzl, ed., Die ältere Tyrannis bis zu den Perserkriegen. Beiträge zur griechischen Tyrannis, (Darmstadt, 1979); on Gelon see A. v. Stauffenberg, Trinakria, Sizilien und Grossgriechenland (Munich/Vienna, 1963), pp. 200ff; see also K. H. Waters, "Herodotus on Tyrants and Despots," Historia, Einzelschriften 15 (1971), pp. 38-41.|
|8||The two earlier tyrannies, that of Panaitios in Leontinoi in the seventh centuy B.C. and that of Phalaris of Akragas in the sixth century seem to have been precarious and short-lived. Hdt. 7.154; T. J. Dunbabin, The Western Greeks (Oxford, 1948), pp. 337-78 (hereafter Dunbabin); Holm, 1, p. 197; Berve, p. 137; G. K. Jenkins, The Coinage of Gela, AMuGS 2 (Berlin, 1970), p. 4 (hereafter Jenkins, Gela).|
|9||Holm, p. 197; Dunbabin, p. 376-409; Jenkins, Gela, p. 6; Berve, p. 137-40. For the chronology see Table 1 (below, p. 16), which gives the traditional dates based on Thucydides, accepted by Dunbabin and R. van Compernolle, Étude de chronologie et d’historiographie siciliotes (Brussels/Rome, 1959), p. 351. For the controversy about these dates and the proposed revisions see Dunbabin, pp. 432-34. G. Vallet, Rhégion et Zancle, Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, no. 189 (Paris, 1958), pp. 346-54 (hereafter Vallet. Rhégion); Jenkins, Gela, p. 7; Will, p. 227; and the final resolution, E. Gabba and G. Vallet, La Sicilia antica (Catania, 1980), pp. 601-2.|
|10||Holm, 1, pp. 202-11; Dunbabin, pp. 411-34; Berve, pp. 140-47; Jenkins, Gela, pp. 7-9; Will, pp. 230-37.|
|12||Holm, 1, pp. 205-10; Dunbabin, pp. 418-32; Berve, pp. 144-46; Will, pp. 233-37.|
|13||Diod. 11.20-26, the most detailed description of the battle.|
|14||For the very unlikely synchronism between Himera and Salamis or Thermopylai see P. Gauthier "Le parallèle Himère-Salamine," REA 68 (1966), pp. 5-32; Will, p. 230, n. 1.|
|15||Holm, vol. 1, pp. 212-48; Berve, pp. 147-52; Jenkins, Gela, pp. 9-11; Will, pp. 241-45.|
|16||Diod. 11.51. It is after that victory, perhaps more important than Himera, that Pindar started celebrating the power of the Deinomenids in the first Pythian ode.|
|18||Perhaps after an eruption of Mt. Etna, see Thuc. 3.116.2.|
|19||Arist, Pol. 1312b; 1315b; Diod. 11.68; Holm, vol. 1, pp. 249-54; Berve, pp. 152-54.|
|20||Holm, vol. 1, pp. 199-200; Vallet, Rhégion, pp. 335-55; Berve, pp. 155-58; Dunbabin, pp. 387-98 and 424-26.|
Little is known of the years following the end of the Sicilian tyrannies. Although Diodoros tells us that Sicily prospered in peace under democratic rule,22 most of the cities must have been plunged into confusion. Several of them were restored, such as Naxos, Kamarina, Katane; lands were redistributed followed by claims from, among others, expelled settlers returned home and old mercenaries who had served the tyrants. However, the most serious threat to the Greek cities of Sicily in those years was the rise of the Sikel power under Douketios.23 This hellenized leader of the Sikels appears in the literature for the first time at the restoration of Katane.24 We then learn that he founded Menainon and Palike, which became his capital.25 Following the example of the tyrants, Douketios tried to extend his power to the west and attacked a stronghold of the Akragantines, Motyon. Eventually the Syracusans defeated him at Nomai in 451 B.C. and exiled him to Corinth.26 In 446 B.C. Douketios returned to Sicily, founded Kale Akte,27 and established himself as leader of the Sikles. But by the death of Douketios in 440 B.C., the Syracusans had mastered the rebellion.28
The tyranny in Sicily flourished at a time when it had been abolished in mainland Greece. It seems to differ from that of a Pisistratos or a Kypselos, by not necessarily being a movement of the demos against the oligarchs: Gelon took power at Syracuse with the support of the Gamoroi; Anaxilas came from a rich and aristocratic family. Most important, the Sicilian tyrants organized themselves into a military power able to resist foreign invaders such as the Carthaginians and the Etruscans, whereas their Greek counterparts usually commanded limited political strength. In spite of the ethical condemnation that, following Aristotle,29 one is inclined to impose on such rulers, the early tyranny in Sicily brought prosperity, economic development, and geographic expansion to the Greek colonies. The tyrants can also take credit for fully developing the coinage, which in that period attained an artistic perfection, exceptional even for the Greek world.
The coins represented in the hoard were minted in this historical context. Possibly, the upheaval of Douketios’s revolt—perhaps his defeat at Nomai in 451 B.C.—prevented the owner of the hoard from ever retrieving his buried treasure.
|23||Holm, vol. 1, pp. 257-61; D. Adamesteanu, "L’ellenizzazione della Sicilia ed il momento di Ducezio," Kokalos 8 (1962), pp. 167-98; F. P. Rizzo, La repubblica di Siracusa net momento di Ducezio (Palermo, 1970); Will, pp. 248-52.|
|25||Diod. 11.78.5; 88.6.|
|29||Arist., Pol. 1312b.|
|Foundation||? 730–720 B.C.||580 B.C.||688 B.C.||729 B.C.||729 B.C.||? 730 B.C.||734 B.C.||733 B.C.|
|Tyrants||kleandros 505–498 B.C.|
|Anaxilas 494/3–476 B.C.||Hippokrates 498–491 B.C.||Gamoroi|
|Under the Deinomenids, no coinage||Under the Deinomenids, no coinage||Under the Deinomenids, 490–476 B.C., no coinage|
|Gelon 491/90–486/5 B.C.||Anaxilas 490/89-476 B.C.|
|Theron 489–473/2 B.C.||Hieron 486/5–478/7 B.C.||Ainesidemos 493–? B.C.||Gelon 486/5–478 B.C.|
|480 B.C. (battle of Himera)||480 B.C., mule cart victory at Olympia|
|474 B.C. (battle of Kyme)||Mikythos 476–467 B.C.||Thrasydaios 473/2–471 B.C.||Polyzalos 478/7-466 B.C.||476 B.C. foundation of Alina||476 B.C. Synoikismos||Mikythos 476–467 B.C.||476 B.C. Synoikismos||Hieron 478/7–466 B.C.|
|Anaxila’s sons 467–461 B.C.||Restoration, 461 B.C.||Anaxilas’s sons 467–461 B.C.||Restoration, 461 B.C.||Thrasyboulos 466/5 B.C.|
|Democracy||To 450 B.C. oligarchy of the "1,000"||Douketios’s revolt, 461–440 B.C.|
There are 10 tetradrachms from Rhegion in the hoard, belonging to two different periods. Nos. 1 to 6 are all from different pairs of dies. Their types are the same as those of Messana of the same period (nos. 91 to 173): on the obverse a mule cart driven by a seated male charioteer and on the reverse a hare running to right. The mule cart is one of the few Greek coin types alluding to a contemporary historical event. Aristotle explains that Anaxilas of Rhegion introduced the hare in Sicily and after winning the mule cart race at Olympia, celebrated his victory on the coins.30 The interpretation of the reverse probably reflects a legend created a posteriori to fit an unusual type. More likely the hare refers to the rural god Pan with whom it appears on later coins of Messana inscribed ΓAN.31 The obverse, however, is an original and personal variation of the agonistic horse quadriga introduced first at Syracuse to celebrate the Sicilian victories at the Olympian games and adopted by many other Greek cities of Sicily during the fifth century B.C. Anaxilas, with his new coin types, thereby presented himself as the peer if not the rival of the other tyrants of Gela and Syracuse.
The tetradrachms, nos. 7-10, all from the same pair of dies, present different types: a lion's head facing on the obverse, and on the reverse a bearded man seated, holding a staff, his legs wrapped in a himation. The lion is the sacred animal of Apollo, the god of the colonization, who enjoyed a special cult in the Chalcidian colonies such as Rhegion.32 Many interpretations have been suggested for the seated man on the reverse33 but Six’s hypohesisis—that he must represent the founding hero Iokastos, son of Aiolos whose kingdom the ancient mythographs place in the Lipari islands off the north coast of Sicily—has prevailed and is now generally accepted.34
At present there is no comprehensive corpus of the early series of Rhegion.35 E. S. G. Robinson however, in his article on the Samians at Zankle, established the general chronological sequence of the issues of Rhegion and Messana to the end of the fifth century B.C. and his conclusions are still valid. As was noted above, Anaxilas took power at Rhegion in 494/3 B.C, and succeeded in expelling the Samians from Zankle in 489/8 B.C, thus becoming master of the Straits. He first struck coins on the Chalcidian standard with a lion's head on the obverse and a
Calf’s head on the reverse.36 After winning the mule cart race at Olympia, he introduced the new types which interest us here. The date of his victory provides the terminus post quem for the tetradrachms, nos. 1-6. We know from Diodoros that Anaxilas died in 476 B.C. after 18 years of reign.37 Five Olympiads fall within those years. The first two, in 492 B.C. and 488 B.C., are certainly too early as they would leave almost no time at all for the first lion/calf coins.38 The fifth, in 476 B.C., is too late for it would presuppose that Anaxilas's successors and not the tyrant himself inaugurated this coinage after his death. There remain those of 484 and 480 B.C. Barron preferred the earlier date on the basis of the Passo di Piazza hoard39 which contained one didrachm of the mule cart type of Rhegion and which he thought had been buried before 480 B.C., although now a somewhat later date, 480/78 B.C., is generally accepted. The hoard also included three didrachms of the beginning of Group IV of Akragas. As Westermark has shown in a recent study,40 they are contemporary with the didrachms of Himera of Akragantine type, dated historically between 483 and 472 B.C. No reason compels us to date Anaxilas’s victory in 484 B.C., and in fact 480 B.C., the date suggested by E. S. G. Robinson, is preferable as it agrees better with the historical context. With the new types, Anaxilas also changed the standard of the coins from the Euboic-Chalcidian to the Euboic-Attic (four drachms to the tetradrachm instead of three to the stater, both of about 17 g). This is the standard used in Syracuse from the beginning of its coinage in the sixth century B.C. and after the battle of Himera in 480 B.C., which established the city’s supremacy and the Deinomenid’s hegemony over most of the island, it was adopted by all the other cities striking coins. It was also after the battle of Himera that Anaxilas had to renounce his rivalry with Gelon and submit to the Deinomenid authority in order to save his dominion over the Straits.
The terminus ante for the mule cart issues at Rhegion or the terminus post for the introduction of the new types, nos. 7-10, is generally thought to be the fall of the Anaxilades in 461 B.C. The hoard evidence supports this date. At that point Rhegion and Messana each resumed their own independent coinage with different types.41 The coinage of Rhegion, from the restoration of democracy in 461 B.C. to the middle of the fourth century B.C., has been studied in a corpus by H. Herzfelder. The lower limit for his first group, to which the tetradrachms, nos. 7-10 belong, is given by the Villabate hoard.42 A. Evans in the initial publication of the hoard suggested a burial date around 450 B.C.,43 accepted by Herzfelder. On the basis of the coins of Gela represented in the hoard, Jenkins showed that a slightly lower date is preferable.44 C. M. Kraay, noting that the hoard also contained one tetradrachm from Messana with the four-bar sigma, argued in favor of an even later date ca. 440 B.C.45 Since some interruption in the coinage between the change of regimes is likely, the tetradrachms, nos. 7-10, were probably minted around 450 B.C.
The tetradrachm, no. 1, with the ethnic reading from left to right is extremely rare. The only other published specimen, from the same pair of dies, is in the collection of King Gustav VI in Stockholm (see catalogue). The same reverse die is also combined with a different obverse.46 All the other coins from the mule cart/hare series at Rhegion bear a retrograde legend. The "abnormal" reverse die of no. 1 probably belongs to the beginning of the series, close to 480 B.C. It is interesting to note that Messana does exactly the opposite—the retrograde ethnic is rare, and the legend from left to right normal. The tetradrachms, nos. 3-6, have wider flans which indicate a later date. Nos. 7-10 are all from the same pair of dies, Herzfelder 1 (Dl/Rl). The obverse has been recut47 and on the reverse, die breaks have developed on the wreath and on the foot and raised right arm of Iokastos. In other words the dies are worn but the coins need not have circulated long after 450 B.C.
|30||Arist., fr. 568 Rose apud Pollux V 75. On these types see E. S. G. Robinson, "Rhegion, Zankle-Messana and the Samians," JHS 66 (1946), p. 17 (hereafter Robinson); Vallet, Rhégion, pp. 366-67; L. Lacroix, Monnaies et Colonisation dans l’Occident grec (Brussels, 1965), pp. 24-25 (hereafter Lacroix).|
|31||G. E. Rizzo, Monete Grecne della Sicilia (Rome, 1946), pl. 26, 11-12 (hereafter Rizzo, MGS); Kraay, ACGC, pl. 45, 776. For other interpretations, however, see E. Ciaceri, Culti e Miti nella Storia dell'Antica Sicilia (Catania, 1911), pp. 98-102; L. Bodson, "Lièvres et mules au royaume du Dètroit," ÉtClass 46 (1978), pp. 33-44.|
|32||H. A. Cahn, "Die Löwen des Apollon," MusHelv 7 (1950), p. 192; H. Herzfelder, Les Monnaies en argent de Rhégion (Paris, 1957), pp. 17-19 (hereafter Herzfelder); Lacroix, pp. 146-48.|
|33||Herzfelder, p. 19.|
|34||J. P. Six, "Rhegium-Iocastos," NC 1898, pp. 281-85; Herzfelder, pp. 19-21; Lacroix, pp. 44-46.|
|35||M. Caccamo Caltabiano in Messina is preparing a corpus of the coinage of Messana and of the parallel "hares" of Rhegion.|
|36||Robinson, pp. 18-19, pl. 5, 2-3; C. Arnold-Biucchi, "Appunti sulla zecca di Messana dal 480 al 450 B.C.," NumAntClas 12 (1983), pp. 49-64.|
|38||Regardless of whether this Chalcidian series began first at Rhegion soon after Anaxilas's accession to power in 494/3 B.C., or in both cities at the same time in 489/8 B.C., after Messana as well fell under the tyrant.|
|39||IGCH 2068. J. P. Barron, The Silver Coins of Samos (London, 1966), p. 42; but see Jenkins, Gela, pp. 21-22 and 156.|
|40||U. Westermark, "Overstrikes of Taras on Didrachms of Acragas," Essays Thompson (1979), pp. 287-93.|
|41||Herzfelder, pp. 46-47.|
|42||IGCH 2082. Herzfelder, pp. 46-47; Jenkins, Gela, pp. 66-67 and 160.|
|43||"Contributions to Sicilian Numismatics," NC 1894, pp. 201-16.|
|44||Jenkins, Gela, p. 66.|
|45||C. M. Kraay, Greek Coins and History (London 1969), pp. 35-36.|
There are 8 tetradrachms from Akragas in the hoard, nos. 11-18, from 7 obverse dies and 8 reverse dies. The main types—eagle and crab—are the same as those of the earlier didrachms and remain constant throughout the coinage of the city, including the bronzes. Only toward the end of the fifth century B.C. does a horse quadriga appear on the obverse. The eagle on the obverse, with a large beak and thick leg feathers, is a sea eagle.48 It is the sacred animal of Zeus whose cult is well attested in Akragas.49 We know that Theron erected a colossal temple to Zeus after his joint victory over the Carthaginians at Himera in 480 B.C.50 The reverse bears the original and very plastic representation of the crab to which sometimes symbols are added (nos. 15, 16, 18). Several interpretations, more or less fanciful, have been advanced for this typ.51 It now seems certain that it is a fresh water crab of the species telphusa fluviatilis 52 and generally believed to be a symbol of the river god Akragas after whom the city was named. The Greek ϰαϱϰíνος may at the same time be a pun on the name of the city.
U. Westermark is completing a corpus on the mint of Akragas and the sequence of the coins here follows her arrangement.53 The city started its coinage ca. 510 B.C. with an important issue of didrachms. On hoard evidence, these no doubt preceded the tetradrachms and do not overlap them. So the terminal date of the didrachms gives us the terminus post quem for the tetradrachms. Jenkins, in his monograph on Gela, established a preliminary arrangement of the didrachms in four groups, dated between 510 and 480 B.C.54 U. Westermark has now confirmed the relative chronology but also revised the absolute dates.55 She proved that Group 3 must end around 483/2 B.C. and Group 4 must be contemporary with the Himera didrachms minted during the Akragantine dominanee 482-472 B.C.56 The year 472 B.C. marks the end of the long and stable reign of Theron over Akragas. His son succeeded him only very briefly. The didrachms, then, end with the tyranny. It is probably at this time that an interruption in the
coinage occured—a hypothesis supported by the hoard evidence. The Monte Bubbonia and Casulla hoards, both buried perhaps ca. 470 B.C., contained only didrachms of Akragas and no tetradrachms.57 So the period between 464 or 461 and 450 B.C. where the dated issues of other mints in the Randazzo hoard belong, seems very suitable for the tetradrachms of Akragas as well.
The crab on the first tetradrachms has a rather small and triangular body (no. 11); symbols are added later as on the didrachms.58 All dies represented in the Randazzo hoard are well known in several specimens except for the pair of dies of no. 12, with the legs closely parallel on the left on the reverse, known only from a plated coin in Naples.
|46||Hess, 25 Mar. 1929 (Vogel), 115.|
|47||Herzfelder, pp. 24-25 and 72-73; pl. 1 and pl. 20, lc, lb, lq.|
|48||Haliaeetus albicilla; see U. Westermark, "The Fifth Century Bronze Coinage of Akragas," AIIN 25, Suppl. (1979), pp. 7-8.|
|49||J. A. de Waele, Acragas Graeca (s’Gravenhage, 1971), pp. 185-88.|
|50||G. Gruben, Die Tempel der Griechen, 3rd ed. (Munich, 1980), pp. 297-99.|
|51||For instanee I. Cazzaniga, "Un’ipotesi sul significato dell'emblema del granchio nella monetazione di Akragas Sicula," NumAntClas 1 (1972), pp. 27-31.|
|52||Westermark, (above, n. 48), pp. 8-9.|
|53||I am much indebted to her for reading and revising my original seminar paper and discussing many problems with me.|
|54||Jenkins, Gela, pp. 162-64.|
|55||Westermark (above, n. 40), pp. 287-93.|
|56||The relevant hoards are Gela, Monte Bubbonia, and Casulla, IGCH 2066, 2071, and 2075 (see below, pp. 41-44).|
There are 29 tetradrachms from Gela in the hoard, nos. 19-47, from 17 obverse dies and 21 reverse dies, including one die combination and one reverse die not known to Jenkins in his 1970 monograph.
Obverse 32 (no. 19) inaugurates the regular series of tetradrachms,59 preceded only by a very short experimental issue at the end of Group 1. The Syracusan quadriga is adopted as obverse type and remains constant throughout the entire coinage of Gela for this denomination, with variations only in the adjunct symbols. As noted above, the four-horse racing chariot is an agonistic type and it is most likely that the first Sicilian to win the Olympian chariot race was a Geloan, Pantares,60 father of the tyrant Kleandros. The small Nike flying above the chariot, crowning the horses, symbolizes the victory. In the later group of tetradrachms (nos. 40-47), Jenkins Group 3, the Nike is replaced by an Ionic column shown behind the horses. In this context it must be interpreted as a terma, a turning post in the race.61 The man-faced bull of the reverse represents the characteristic Geloan type, already adopted in the earliest issues of didrachms. Only the forepart appears in the two groups of tetradrachms present in the hoard. He is always bearded, with taurine ears and horns. The bent legs are often interpreted as "swimming" but more likely they simply conform to the archaic "Knielauf" schema and indicate movement.
In spite of H. P. Isler’s thesis, according to which the man-headed bull always represents the river god Acheloos,62 one must recognize here the local river god Gelas,63 just as other Sicilian and South Italian cities represent their local river gods on their coins. In this group of tetradrachms, symbols appear in the obverse exergue: a wheat ear (no. 40), or a ketos (no. 41-43). In the past such symbols have been interpreted in connection with contemporary historical evens,64 a view which has since been decisively challenged.65 We simply do not know the precise meaning of such symbols; perhaps they were used primarily to mark the issue. It is interesting to note that for Sicily the same symbol occurs at the same time at different mints, according to the revised lower chronology; for example: the ketos at Gela, Katane and Syracuse; the palmette at Gela and Katane; the lion at Syracuse and Leontinoi.
The coinage of Gela has been treated in full in Jenkins's exemplary and exhaustive corpus.66 His chronology has met with general approval,67 aside from some minor revision.68 Like Akragas, Gela first issued didrachms (Jenkins Group 1) followed without overlap by the tetradrachms (Jenkins Group 2).69 The Passo di Piazza hoard ( IGCH 2068)70 gives the terminus post quem for these: it did not contain any tetradrachms and as we have seen it cannot have been buried before 480/78 B.C. because of the Akragas didrachms of Group 4 and the Messana mule cart/hare didrachm. C. M. Kraay suggested that the tetradrachms with the new Syracusan obverse were introduced by Polyzalos, on his accession to power in Gela after Gelon’s death in 478/7 B.C. This possibility also occurred to Jenkins even though he did not stress the point.71 The lower limit of this first group of tetradrachms is given by the Monte Bubbonia hoard ( IGCH 2071) buried ca. 475/70 B.C., as Jenkins established.72 The latest coins represented are didrachms from Akragas Group 4 and didrachms from Himera with the crab on the revese,73 both dated to the reign of Theron of Akragas over Himera 483/2-472 B.C. Kraay argued for a date ca. 465 B.C. or late74 but his interpretation of the Sicily, 1890 hoard ( IGCH 2076) should not be followed, as we shall see in detail below. The first issue of tetradrachms, nos. 19-39, can be dated generally to the reign of Polyzalos.
The tetradrachms, nos. 40-47, belong to Jenkins Group 3—an interval of some years separate them from the previous group.75 The style has changed and on the obverse an Ionic column and a symbol in exergue are introduced. There is no direct evidence for the dating of Group 3. Jenkins places it between 465 and 450 B.C. on the basis of the number of dies used and of the beginning of Group 4. The terminus post quem for Group 4 is given by an overstrike of Gela on a coin of Mende dated ca. 450 B.C.76 Group 3 belongs to the period of restored democracy.
Jenkins has described all the dies and their stylistic evolution in great detail and with great precision and I can only refer the reader to his book. Nos. 27-28 deserve special notice as they present a die combination not known to Jenkins—O 37 with R 77. Obverse 37 occurs with R 74, 75 and 76 and R 77 with O 36 and 38,77 so the new combination merely confirms the arrangement and reinforces the linkage of Jenkins Group 2b. The reverse die of nos. 45 and 46 is not in Jenkin’s corpus. In style it is very close to R 121 and 124 and probably cut by the same engraver. Characteristic are the fine features of the face with the pointed nose and well-shaped mouth and the curly beard. The lettering of the ethnic is also fine and small. With O 62 we are almost at the end of Group 3 which includes O 65, the last obverse combined with the remarkable wreathed Gelas of R 130,78 and linked to the following Group 4.
|65||As early as K. Regling, rev. of E. Boehringer, Syrakus, in Gnomon 6 (1930), p. 632.|
|66||See above, n. 8.|
|67||E.g. the reviews of P. Naster, RBN 1971, pp. 315-16 and N. M. Waggoner, AJA. 75 (1971), pp. 448-49.|
|68||C. M. Kraay, rev. of Jenkins, Gela, in NC 1971, pp. 332-38.|
|69||Jenkins, Gela, p. 24.|
|70||See above, n. 39.|
|71||Kraay (above, n. 68), p. 334; Jenkins, Gela, p. 26.|
|72||Jenkins, Gela, pp. 22-24 and 154-55.|
|73||For the dating see also Jenkins, "Himera: the Coins of Akragantine Type," AIIN 16-17, Suppl. (1971), pp. 21-33.|
|74||Kraay (above, n. 68), p. 335 and "The Demareteion Reconsidered: A Reply," NC 1972, pp. 17-18.|
|75||Jenkins, Gela, pp. 52-53.|
|76||SNGANS 4, 63. Jenkins, Gela, pp. 65-66.|
|77||Jenkins, Gela, pp. 40-41.|
|57||In addition, we know that the Sicily, 1890 hoard ( IGCH 2076) also contained coins of Akragas but unfortunately E. J. Seltmann's description ("Über einige seltene M?nzen von Himera," ZfN 1895, p. 165), is too general and it is impossible to determine whether the hoard contained didrachms, tetradrachms, or both denominations.|
|58||Jenkins, Gela, pl. 37.|
|59||Jenkins, Gela, p. 43.|
|60||Dunbabin, pp. 378 and 404.|
|61||Jenkins, Gela, pp. 53-54.|
|62||H. P. Isler, Acheloos, Eine Monographie. (Berne, 1970); LIMC 1, 1, s.v. "Acheloos" (Isler), coins: pp. 15-16, nos. 32-53 (Gela nos. 32-35).|
|63||F. Imhoof-Blumer, "Fluss- und Meergötter auf griechischen und römischen M?nzen," SNR 23 (1923), pp. 199-201; Jenkins, Gela, pp. 165-75; Lacroix, pp. 116-17; LIMC 4, s.v. "Gelas" (Cahn).|
|64||E. Boehringer, Die M?nzen von Syrakus (Berlin, Leipzig, 1929), pp. 88-89 (hereafter E. Boehringer, Syrakus) for the ketos as symbol of the battle of Kyme in 474/3 B.C. and pp. 90-93 for the lion and other symbols.|
There are 29 tetradrachms from Katane in the hoard, nos. 48-76, from 8 obverses dies and 10 reverse dies.79 Two die combinations are new, as are one obverse die and two reverse dies.
The obverse bears a man-faced bull, representing the local river god Amenanos to the right,80 usually with the right foreleg bent to indicate that he is "swimming" or simply in motion, or sometimes just standing (nos. 70-73). The fish under the river god and the lack of exergue line in the earlier dies (nos. 48-59) emphasize the idea of the water. The branch above seems to be a pine branch.81 The sea monster (nos. 60-69) can also be interpreted as a marine symbol although its precise meaning remains unclear as at Syracuse and Gela. The palmette is purely decorative. Other symbols on the obverse are the Satyr (nos. 60-69) or the Nike (nos. 70-73).
On the reverse Nike appears, her hair rolled up, clad in a long, transparent chiton, showing the outline of the breasts and the legs. She runs or walks to the left, a fillet in her outstretched right hand, holding her drapery with her left (no. 48) or a branch (no. 70) or a wreath (no. 73). The type is quite common on coins and does not necessarily relate to a political victory such as that over the tyranny in this case. More likely it alludes to an agonistic victory. The later reverse dies, nos. 70-76, have a letter in field, or H. The ethnic is KATANE at first (nos. 48-58), then KATANAION (nos. 59-69, 74-76) or sometimes KATANAIO (nos. 70-73).
The Katane tetradrachms in the hoard represent the first emission of the city in its own name. Not much is known of the early history of Katane:82 it must have fallen under the domination of the tyrants with Kallipolis, Leontinoi and Naxos around 497 B.C. In 476 B.C., probably after an eruption of Mount Etna, Hieron of Syracuse evacuated the Kataneans to Leontinoi and refounded the city under the name of Aitna83 with new settlers from Syracuse and the Peloponnese. It became his capital. After the fall of the tyranny in 467 B.C., Hieron’s supporters were allowed to leave and settle at Inessa, which they renamed Aitna, and the original inhabitants of Katane could return home. It is at that time and not earlier as previously thought,84 that the first coins in the name of Katane were minted.85 Two issues in the name of Aitna survive—the first is known only by a unique tetradrachm in a private collection, bearing on the obverse a quadriga driven by Athena and on the reverse the seated figure of Zeus
Aitnaios, and by another unique drachm with a horseman and Zeus Aitnaos.86 The second consists of the unique tetradrachm in Brussels with the impressive Silenus head on the obverse and the seated Zeus on the reverse,87 accompanied by a series of obols. The issue with Athena as charioteer is certainly the earlier and dates from Hieron's Aitna, between 476 and 466 B.C. It was a special issue in honor of Hieron, while the regular money needed by the tyrant was supplied by the other mints under Deinomenid rule, such as Syracuse and Gela. The Brussels tetradrachm is generally thought to belong to Aitna-Ktanee and to be the work of the master of the Naxos tetradrachm, here nos. 227-31, struck just before 461 B.C. Kraay, however, pointed out that after the death of the last Deinomenid, Thrasyboulos, in 466 B.C. there was hardly an occasion for such a splendid coin and he suggested that the Brussels tetradrachm might be the first issue of Inessa rather than the last of Aitna.88 This is possible: the disappearance of the Syracusan quadriga from the obverse supports a date after the fall of the tyranny. The new settlement of Inessa/Aitna could be an appropriate occasion for the coin. The style is close to that of the Naxos tetradrachm and also to that of the first issue of Rhegion after 461 B.C. with the seated Iokastos, here nos. 7-10. However, Kraay’s argument is weakened by the fact that the litrai of Aitna also bear a Silenus head which continued in the litrai of Katane.
Katane then minted one special issue under Hieron in the name of Aitna and started its regular autonomous coinage only after the fall of the tyranny in 465 B.C. This is not surprising since the tyrants tended to monopolize the coinage and to prevent cities under their rule from striking autonomous coins as, for example, at Naxos and Kamarina.
The Amenanos/Nike tetradrachms from Katane are perhaps the most important and most interesting component of the hoard. These coins are quite rare, as a glance through the major collections and catalogues shows. The catalogue indicates the number of specimens known from each die pair before and after the discovery of the Randazzo hoard (e.g. 5/11), which on average has more than doubled their number. Very rarely do they appear in hoards (see chart, pp. 42-43) and never in any large number. To date only the Ognina hoard89 contained as many as 10 tetradrachms of Katane of the Amenanos/Nike type. Thus the Randazzo hoard with 29 examples is quite exceptional. The coins are not all in good condition; some are encrusted with a layer of dirt, as nos. 57 and 71. Many of them are poorly struck, off center, and often double struck (nos. 52, 56, 60, 62). Some might be overstruck if the flattened flan is an indication (nos. 51, 62, 75) but no traces of an undertype are discernable. The dies were used for a long time even after they began to crack (as the die of no. 48 at the right foreleg) or became corroded (nos. 56-57). It is interesting to note how closely die linked the group is. The whole relative sequence of the first issue of Katane with river god and Nike can be reconstituted practically on the basis of the specimens present in the Randazzo hoard. Few dies seem to be missing: the most conspicuous being the obverse die of Ognina 74 with the crane above the bull as symbol, which certainly belongs at the beginning, as shown by the reverse die linking to the obverse die with the branch (no. 48). Also not represented in the hoard is the later die with a similar water fowl as symbol in the British Museum90 or some with the Satyr as symbol. But the series is almost complete, as the latest dies with the Nike as symbol above the man-faced bull are present in the hoard. The die linkage indicates on the one hand that the coins must have been minted in a short span of time and also that they were struck not far from their burial site which strengthens the likelihood of Randazzo as the find spot.
With the conservative estimate of one die per year, the bull/Nike series fits very well between the years following the return of the Kataneans to their city after the death of Thrasyboulos and ca. 450-445 B.C.91 The more common quadriga/Apolo head tetradrachms which will replace this series are not represented in the hoard and cannot have started before 445/40 B.C. Nos. 59 and 73 present new die combinations. No. 69 stands out due to its very different, barbarous style: both the Nike and the man-faced bull are cut in shallow relief; the folds of Nike's chiton are very linear and stiff and so is the rendering of the feathers of the wings. No. 76 presents a new reverse die, certainly by the same hand as nos. 73 and 74, as can be seen in the rendering of the drapery and the wing. But the disposition of the letters of the legend is different, starting at the bottom of the wing and ending at the fillet. The H in field is smaller than on no. 71.
|78||Jenkins, Gela, p. 57 and pl. 54.|
|79||The early rumor that there were about 40 tetradrachms of Katane in the hoard remains unsubstantiated.|
|80||LIMC 1, 1, s.v. "Amenanos" (Cahn), pp. 663-64.|
|81||S. Mirone, "Le Moneee dell'antica Catana," RIN 30 (1917), p. 138, thinks it is the river plant parietaria officinalis.|
|82||C. Boehringer, "Hieron's Aitna und das Hieroneion," JNG 18 (1968), pp. 68-69.|
|83||Diod. 11.49.1-2; Strabo C 268.|
|84||HN, p. 130; Rizzo, MGS, p. 102.|
|85||Already in 1929 E. Boehringer, Syrakus, p. 89, argued that because of their very developed style, the Amenanos/Nike tetradrachms must belong after 461 B.C.; see also W. Schwabacher, "Zu den M?nzen von Katana" Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteiung 48 (1933), pp. 121-26; C Boehringer (above, n. 82), p. 94 and "Rekonstruktion des Schatzfundes von Ognina 1923," SNR 57 (1978), p. 138; Kraay, ACGC, p. 217.|
|86||C. Boehringer (above, n.82), pl. 7, 1-2; Kraay, ACGC, p. 212, 837.|
|87||De Hirsch 269; Kraay, ACGC 838.|
|88||Kraay, ACGC, p. 213 and also in his rev. of Jenkins (above, n. 68), p. 337.|
|89||IGCH 2120. C. Boehringer, SNR 57 (above, n. 85), pp. 102-43. The new "East Sicilian" hoard (Randazzo 2), to be published by C. Boehringer, also contains tetradrachms of this series, including one specimen of the hitherto unique Ognina 74.|
|90||BMCSicily, p. 41, 3; Rizzo, MGS, pl. 9, 15.|
There are 14 tetradachmss from Leontinoi in the hoard, nos. 77-90, from 9 obverse dies and 11 reverse dies. Nos. 77-87 belong to the first issue of the city and 88-90 to the second. Only one reverse die, no. 83, was hitherto unknown.
The first group has on the obverse the typical four-horse chariot, the agonistic type first introduced at Syracuse. The reverse shows a lion’s head in profile, with jaws opened wide and the tongue protruding; all surrounded by four grains of barley. The lion is the sacred animal of Apollo whose cult was predominant in the Chalcidian colonies.92 The type also offers a pun on the name of the city. The grains of barley symbolize the fertility of the soil which brought wealth to the city and at the same time indicate the denomination, the four-drachma piece.
In the second group, nos. 88-90, the Nike on the obverse crowns the charioteer rather than the horses. A lion appears in the exergue; again it must be interpreted as an allusion to the cult of Apollo, despite the different interpretations given this symbol, which will be discussed in greater detail below in relation to the parallel issue at Syracuse. On the reverse the head of Apollo himself replaces the lion; it is surrounded by three laurel leaves and a small lion like the one on the obverse.
The mint of Leontinoi awaits complete study by Christ of Boehringer. The arrangement of the coins in the catalogue follows that of the corpus in preparation. On hoard evidence, it is now generally accepted that coinage at Leontinoi did not start as early as previously thought. We know that the city was taken by Hippokrates of Gela around 490 B.C., as were Kallipolis, Naxos and Zankle.93 As Naxos, Katane, and Kamarina, Leontinoi did not strike its own coinage in that period. In 476 B.C., Hieron of Syracuse moved the inhabitants of Naxos and Katane to Leontinoi and enlarged the city.94 It must be at that time that the first coins were issued. There are no coins of Leontinoi in the Gela hoard buried ca. 490/485 B.C.,95 nor in the Passo di Piazza hoard buried ca. 480/78 B.C., but two tetradrachms are present in the Monte Bubbonia hoard buried ca. 475/70 B.C.96 They are of the quadriga/lion's head type and struck from the very first die of this issue.97 Leontinoi, unlike Gela and Akragas, must have minted tetradrachms and didrachms at the same time; the Casulla hoard ( IGCH 2075), buried ca. 470/65 B.C., contained two didrachms from Leontinoi. Also the lion's heads are very similar in style on both denominations. Exacty how long this first issue lasted can only be determinedd by the final die study but it seems reasonable to assume that it did not extend beyond Hieron s death in 466 B.C. Nos. 77-87 belong to this period. Few die links occur among the tetradrachms represented in the Ran-dazzo hoard and it can therefore be inferred that the total issue was much larger than the coins represented here. Style variations among the issues confirm this: there is a great differenee between the lion s heads of nos. 77-81, with a very fine and stylized mane, and the more realistic version of nos. 83-85, certainly of later date. No. 87 introduess the ethnic ?EONTINON in exergue on the obverse and a dotted truncation of the lion’s head on the reverse.
The dating of the second group, nos. 88-90 poses a problem which will only be solved satisfactorily by the compette die study and by the detailed publication of other hoards. The similarity between the tetradachmss of Leontinoi with the early Apollo head and the Syracuann Demareteia is obvious: they both bear the same lion in exergue on the obverse, repeated on the reverse as well at Leontinoi; both the Arethusa and the Apollo heads are wreathed with laurel and present a close similarity of stye.98 No doubt the Leontinoi tetradrachms were influenced by the Demareteion. But there are also differeness such as the rendering of the eye, clearly in profile on no. 90, whereas the Demaeteiaa still show a frontal eye.99 Also the quadigaa at Leontinoi, with the more realistic and fleshy charoteer,, compared to the wiry, stylized one of the Demareteia, is more advanced in style. So the Leontinoi tetradrachms are somewhat later but how much later remains open. If we accept a dating of the Syracuann decadrachm in the last years of Hieron s reign, there is not sufficient time for the early Apollo head tetradrachms of Leontinoi; this type so strongly associated with the Deinomenids must have been minted before their fall. On the other hand since the mint opened around 476 B.C., both issues of tetradrachms represented here must be compressed within ten years at the most. The early Apollo head issue at Leontinoi was no doubt a very limited one as there seem to be only two obverse and two reverse dies known.100 It is of course possible that the lion's head tetradrachms were paralell to this issue in the early 60s of the fifth century B.C. instead of strictly sequentall and also that the output of the mint of Leontinoi in Hieron's days was much more important than the conservaivee estimate of one die per year used for the coinages of Katane and Messana in the same period. One can also question whether in this early period a change of political regime was necessarlly reflected in the coin types. At any rate we must assume that the two Leontinoi series present in the Randazzo hoard belong to Hieron's reign.
The new reverse die, no. 83, with the fine lettering of the ethnic, the high relief of the lion's head, and the rendering of the contour of the jaw in a half circe,, is very similar to that of the tetradrachm in Naples from the same obverse die and most likely by the same hand.
|91||The number of dies is by no means an absolute criterion for calculating the duration of an issue and for establishing a chronology. We know very well from Athens and Syracuse, for example, that a mint could produce many dies in a single year. Nevertheless when a series of coins is tightly die linked and exhibits some stylistic development as we have here with nos. 48-76 and below, p. 27, nos. 174-226, the beginning of the Nike series at Messana—the length of the issue can be estimated roughly on the basis of one die per year, to be checked of course against other arguments.|
|92||H. A. Cahn (above, n. 32), p. 192; Lacroix, pp. 139-42.|
|93||Hdt. 7.154; Dunbabin, pp. 380-81 and 433-34. For the earlier dating see H. Chantraine, "Syrakus und Leontinoi," JNG 8 (1957), pp. 7-19; Holm, pp. 580-81.|
|94||Diod. 11.49.1-2; Strabo C 268; C. Boehringer (above, n. 82). p. 71.|
|95||Price and Waggoner, Asyut, p. 20, date the burial at 480 B.C.|
|96||IGCH 2071. Jenkins, Gela, pp. 22 and 154-55. The hoard cannot have been buried as late as 465 B.C., as Kraay has suggested, see U. Westermark and G. K. Jenkins, The Coinage of Kamarina (London, 1980), p. 23 (hereafter Westermark and Jenkins, Kamarina).|
|97||Rizzo, MGS, pl. 22, 4.|
|98||See R. Holloway, "Demarete's Lion," ANSMN 11 (1964), pp. 6-11, for the Demareteion Master at Leontinoi.|
|99||E. Boehringer, Syrakus, pl. 14; Rizzo, MGS, pls. 24 and 36.|
|100||Based on examination of the coins in the major published collections and in the ANS photo file.|
There are 136 tetradrachms from Messana in the hoard, nos. 91-226, from 70 obverse dies and 67 reverse dies. Like the coins of Rhegion, nos. 1-10, they can be divided into two different groups; nos. 91-173 bear on the obverse a mule cart and nos. 174-226 have the addition of a small Nike flying above the mules.
The types of the mule cart and the hare are identical to those of the first group at Rhegion, nos. 1-6, except for the ethnic, and have been explaneed above. They are the original badge of the tyrant Anaxilas. In the second group, the basic type is maintained but altered slightly by the adjunct of the small Nike crowning the mules on the obverse and of symboss or letters on the reverse above or below the hare's body, whereas at Rhegion, as we have seen, the types change to a lion s head and seated oecist at that time. The Nike is an agonisicc symbol and refers to the victory at the Olympian games; she does not symbolize the victory over the tyranny as has been postuated.101
The absolue chronology of the two groups of tetradrachms of Messana in the hoard is the same as that of Rhegion as Robinson has already demonsrated.102 The new types of Anaxilas struck on the Attic standad,, replacing the lion's head/calf's head types on the Euboic-Chaci--dian standard, were introduced in 480 B.C. after the tyrant's victory at Olympia, and lasted until the fall of the Anaxilades in 461 B.C. Since the issue without the Nike is a fairly large one, it seems reasonable to assume that the one with the Nike starts when Rhegion introduced the lion s head/oecstt issue. From then on the two cities resumed their independntt coinages. To date there are no known reverse die links between the two groups of Messana; an interruption in the coinage must have occurred with the change of regime. The lower limit of the second group of tetradrachms of Messana in the Randazzo hoard is given in relative terms103 by a change in the lettering of the ethnic: all the coins bear the curved sigma . The four-bar sigma was introduced soon after the burial date of the hoard and gives a terminus ante quem for the tetradrachms, nos. 174-226.
The hoard evidence for the introduction of the four-bar sigma is scanty as so few hoards have been published in detail. Also the coins of Messana were once regarded as less interesting or less important than those of other Sicilian mints such as Syracuse or Gela and are often not described at all in hoard reports dating to the end of the nineteenth or the beginning of the twentieth century. Three hoards in particular would be important: Calabria 1833, Villabate 1893 and Selinunte 1923.104 All contaneed tetradrachms of Messana but the details of the lettering are known only for the Villabate hoard: it contained 13 tetradrachms of the mule cart type, 10 of which had the four-bar sigma .105 A burial date ca. 445 B.C. is generaly accepted.106
Other factors can be considered in trying to establish the duration of the Nike group with the curved sigma, such as the number of dies represented, as Kraay has suggested,107 and over- strikes. There are 14 obverse dies and 12 reverse dies in this issue; a duration of about 10 years seems plausible. So the absolute dates for the two groups can be established as 480-461 B.C. for the first group and 461-450 B.C. for the second group.
The relative sequence within the issues, however, remanis more difficult to reconstitute. Until a compette corpus of the coinage of Messana is compiled,108 only a working hypothesis can be suggested.
The first group is particularly difficult to order because of the absence of symbols which could help to reconstuctt the sequence. Style is not really helpful either. There is very little evolution in the treatment of the mules, the charioteer, and the hare. There are differeness between the rather stylized and elongated charioteer of nos. 91 and 93 for instance, where both are of about the same size, and the more fleshy, squat and realistic version of nos. 165 and 168. Changes also occur in the leaf in the exergue, small and bulky on nos. 91 and 93 or small and flat on nos. 99-100, or larger and more naturalistic, with a rendering of the veins on nos. 146 and 156. The hare on the reverse develops from the skinny animal with a small head and short ears of nos. 91, 93, 98 into a more muscular and well-proportioned rendering in nos. 156 and 167. The basic position however remains the same throughout: the hare is running to right with outstretched parallel paws. On the whole these details are not sufficient to permit a refined stylistic classification, as for instance can be determined by the numerous variations in the rendering of the head of Arethusa at Syracuse in the same period.
Many die links have already been observed (see catalogue) and eventually they will assure the reconstitution of the series without the Nike. Meanwhile the most reliable criterion seems to be the lettering of the ethnic on the reverse. It is always MESSENION in the group without the small Nike, in the Ionian form, usually written from left to right around the hare, starting at the hind paws and ending at the tail, except for the dies of nos. 91-92 and 93-94 where the inscription is retrograde. At Rhegion, as we have seen, the opposite occurs and the "normal" form from left to right constitutes the exception. Such short-lived variations are usually thought to be experimental and placed therefore at the beginning of a series. At Messana this arrangement also agrees with the style: the stylized mule cart and hare of no. 91 are certainly earlier than those on no. 159 for example. The curved sigma is a local variation found at Rhegion and Zankle-Messana.109 On most dies in both groups the sigma is reversed, pointing to the left. Only the dies of nos. 99, 105-6, 107, 108, 114-15 and 126 in the first group and of nos. 177-78, 179-80 and 226 in the second group have the right-pointing sigma.110 Obverse die links connect the two forms: no. 99 is linked to no. 100 by the same obverse die and nos. 176 and 177 also share the same obverse die. The sigma pointing to the left and the one pointing to the right, or the reversed and the normal sigma, alternate rather than follow or supplant each other, as they both occur in the two groups. In the second group, whose sequence is certain, the sigma pointing to the right appears at the beginning with the letter A and is replaced by with B, C, and D but reappears later, if indeed no. 226 belongs where I have put it.
The shape and size of the letters vary: sometimes they are small and regular, as on nos. 91, 100, 108, or large and thicker as on nos. 137 and 147. Nos. 123, 125, and 129 show particularly small letters in the ethnic but it is possible that these dies were intended for didrachms rather than for tetradrachms.
The Nike group (nos. 174-226) is easier to classify: numerous die links, as well as symbols and letters on the reverse, assure the correct sequence. The letters A, B, C, and D appear below the hare. Coins with B and C share the same obverse die (nos. 184-194) and the wear of the die confirms the alphabetical order. Moreover the change in the ethnic from the Ionian MESSENION of the first group without Nike to the Doric MESSANION occurs at the beginning of the Nike group, more precisely between the letter A and the letter B issues: nos. 179-80 still have MESSENION but nos. 181-184 have MESSANION. The obverse die of no. 178, in more worn condition, is also used in combination with the reverse of 179, to strike coins with the letter A,111 proving that nos. 176 and 177 with the olive twig as a symbol below the hare must be placed before the series with letters (nos. 179ff.).
Nos. 174 and 175 with the olive twig and the olive as symbol, very likely belong at the beginning of the group. The round C for gamma and D for delta are typical archaic forms of the Euboean-Chalcidian alphabet. Letters were used on the coinage of the Samians at Zankle, where A, , ┐, △ ∃ and Z marked the yearly issues.112 The meaning of the letters in the Nike group at Messana is probably the same although they cannot be interpreted strictly as dates, rather they served to distinguish the issues. They cannot be meant to mark the dies since different dies share the same letter as on the coins of the Samians. The four issues vary in size and importance, it seems: there are many more coins with B and C than with A even though the number of dies used is approximately the same (perhaps 3). It is interesingg to note that dies in this period were used until badly deteriorated: the dies of nos. 184 and 217 in particular continudd to be used even after corrosion had made them almost unrecognizable. Also in this period dies were often recut: the B of nos. 185-87 is recut into a C on no. 188 and it confirms the practice of keeping the dies in use as long as possible. The reason might have been a shortage of die cutters after the fall of the Anaxilades when Rhegion and Messana resumed their independent coinage. A comparison of the coins struck after the restoration of democracy in 461 B.C. at Rhegion (nos. 7-10) and at Messana (Nike group nos. 174-226) is striking: at Rhegion the quality of the engraving is far superior, with the beautiful and plastic lion’s head facing and the seated oecist on the reverse, which successfully realizes an attempt at perspective. The coins are also carefully struck. At Messana, in contrast, the same mule cart and hare continue with practically no stylistic development. Only with the die of no. 203 do we encounter a representation in three-quarter view of the charioteer on the obverse. Otherwise the dies seem to have been made and cut poorly: not only do they rust but they also break very easily (nos. 174-75 and nos. 177-78 each have a large flaw behind the hare's neck). The coins of this series were struck hastily and carelessly. Many of them show signs of double striking (nos. 185-87, 193-99, 212-13, 217, 223). Obviously Messana needed coins quickly and in large quantities in that period. The small gold issue which, as I have suggested elsewhere, most likely belongs to this same period,113 reinforces the idea of an emergency coinage, struck perhaps to pay the soldiers or mercenaries who helped in the expulsion of the tyrants. As discussed earlier, the ancient sources for the history of Messana are scanty so we do not know in any detail what happened in that decade. At any rate, the change and the differeness between the issues of Rhegion and Messana after 461 B.C., where previously the two coinages had been identical under the Anaxilades, might indicate that Anaxilas had installed a single mint114 for the two cities under his rule, probably at
Rhegion, his capital. After the fall of the tyrants, Messana practically had to open a new mint, inoperative since the period of the incuse coinage preceding the Samians at Zankle. This would explain the difficulty in finding good engravers and good craftsmen to strike the coins.
|101||Kraay, "Fifth Century Overstrikes at Rhegium and Messana" AIIN 12-14, Suppl. (1969), p. 143.|
|102||Robinson, p. 18; see also C. Arnold-Biucchi (above, n.36), pp. 49-64.|
|103||Only in relative terms unfortunately since epigraphists often rely on the coin evidence for the dating of the lettering; see L. H. Jeffrey, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece (Oxford, 1961), p. 243.|
|104||IGCH 1891, 2082, and 2084.|
|105||Evans (above, n. 43), p. 210.|
|106||Jenkins, Gela, pp. 66-67. Westermark and Jenkins, Kamarina, p. 22.|
|107||Kraay (above, n. 101), pp. 141-50; ACGC, p. 219.|
|108||See above, n. 35.|
|109||Jeffery (above, n. 103), pp. 80 and 243-44.|
|110||I don’t believe the letters are "inadvertenty reversed" as Jeffery states, p. 243, since this is the more common form; the die engraver simply did what was easier for him.|
|111||No examples in this hoard; see Naville 18 June 1923 (BM dupl.), 946; Schlesinger 4 Feb. 1935, 292 (another specimen).|
|112||Barron, Samos (above, n. 39), pp. 40-43 and 178-79, pls. 6-7; a fraction with Z is illustrated by W. Schwabacher, "Zur M?nzprägung der Samier in Zankle-Messana," in Wandlungen, Studien zur antiken und neueren Kunst, Festschrift f?r E. Homann-Wedeking (Waldsassen, 1975), p. 108, pl. 23c; for the hemiobol in Oxford with Z, see Price and Waggoner, Asyut, p. 130, n. 26; for the shape of the letters see Jeffery (above, n. 103), p. 79.|
|113||Arnold-Biucchi (above, n. 36), p. 60.|
|114||G. Manganaro, "La Caduta dei Dinomenidi e il Politikon Nomisma in Sicilia nella prima metà del V sec. a.Ci.," AIIN 21-22 (1974/75), pp. 21-22, also suggested this possibility because of shared obverse dies between Rhegion and Messana; see Arnold-Biucchi (above, n. 36), p. 58.|
There are five tetradrachms of Naxos in the hoard, nos. 227-31, all from the same pair of dies.115 The obverse bears the head of Dionysos to right, bearded, with long hair pulled up and tied in a small bun behind his neck, crowned with ivy. Dionysos was the principal god of the island of Naxos in the Cyclades,116 but the ancient literary sources don't mention him in connection with Sicily; nor do the inscriptions, his cult is attested only by the coins. He is certainly an appropriate deity for the fertile region around Mount Etna rich in vineyards and wine.117 The reverse depicts a naked, ithyphallic Silenos, squatting; he is bearded, with long wild hair and a tail curling around his feet; he holds a kantharos in his right hand and rests on his left. He is the usual companion of Dionysos.
According to Thucydides, Naxos was the first colony in Sicily, founded in 734/3 B.C. by settlers from Naxos and Chalkis. H. A. Cahn studied the coinage of the city in a corpus and believed that it was also the first mint to issue coins in Sicily.118 After a detailed stylistic analysis, Cahn dated the beginning of the coinage ca. 550 B.C. This is now considered too early and Kraay tentatively suggests 530 BC.119 Moreover Selinus and Himera were the two major mints of sixth century Sicily, judging by the surviving number of coins and dies, and they must also have been the first to strike coins, not before 540/30 B.C., followed by Zankle and Naxos. The amazing feature of the coinage of Naxos is that from the beginnngg it displays a fully developed reverse type, the attribute of the deity on the obverse.
As noted, the city was taken by Hippokrates of Gela ca. 490 B.C. and stopped minting coins in its own name. Coinage was resumed only after the fall of the tyranny in Sicily in 461 B.C. with this remarkable issue,120 one of the greatest masterpieces of Greek coinage and Greek art in general. The head of the obverse reflects the monumentality of early classical art and the reverse is a daring representation, both in subject and in technique, of the human body in a complicated position, beautifully contained within the narrow circumference of the flan. The artist is thought to be the same as that of the later tetradrachms of Aitna that have survived only in the unique example with the Silenos head in Bussels.121
There is no doubt about the date of this issue:122 the Naxians had been moved to Leontinoi by Hieron in 476 B.C. and returned home in 461 B.C. They celebrated their recovered freedom with this new coinage.
With this issue the Naxians achieved the highest quality not only artistically but also in the manufacture of the dies: the five tetradrachms in the hoard are all from the same pair of dies (Cahn no. 54) which is the only one known for this issue. Cahn, in 1944, listed 56 known specimens, all from the same pair of dies. The number has since increased by at least 50%, some 20 new specimens having surfaced. Drachms of the same issue (Cahn no. 56) are known in more than 78 specimens. Rarely do Greek coinages present such a high number of surviving specimens from a single pair of dies (Knidos and some Cretan mints offer an even greater frequency). The condition of the dies is equally remarkable: there are die breaks, on the reverse between the hand holding the kantharos and the border of the coin, which Cahn thinks existed almost from the beginning of the emission sequence, and also on the obverse under the truncation of the neck, in front of the mouth, and at the beard, but there is apparently very little die deterioration.123 No. 227 is in very fresh condition and shows no traces of die breaks at the neck nor in front of the mouth on the obverse. The break in front of the mouth starts faintly on no. 228, develops into a small stroke on no. 229 and becomes larger on nos. 230 and 231 where the die break at the neck is also present, filling the border of dots.
|115||There were rumors of at least seven specimens but I could only obtain casts or photographs of the five listed in the catalogue.|
|116||RE (1935), s.v. "Naxos" col. 2085 (R. Herbst); LIMC 3 (1986), s.v. "Dionysos," pp. 141-514 (Carlo Gaspari, "fonti letterarie" Alina Venei).|
|117||Dunbabin, pp. 211. 220.|
|118||H. A Cahn, Die M?nzen der sizilischen Stadt Naxos (Basle, 1944).|
|119||Kraay, ACGC, pp. 206-7.|
|120||Cahn (above, n. 118), pp. 42-49 and 114-17.|
|121||De Hirsch 269.|
|122||Cahn, p. 47; Kraay, ACGC, p. 217.|
The coins from Syracuse form the major part of the Randazzo hoard with 308 tetradrachms (nos. 232-539) or 57%, struck from 127 obverse dies and 166 reverse dies. There are three obverse and eight reverse dies that were not known to E. Boehringer,124 as well as 25 new die combinations (including those with the new dies). Of these nos. 247, 257, 265-66, 393-96, 418, 421, 447, and 459 have been published in different sale catalogues since 1929 and nos. 307-9 are probably Boehringer's no. 271E. But nos. 232, 328-29, 333, 358, 398-99, 400, 422-23, 424, 427-29, 432, 445, 448, 469, 475, 481, and 510 are hitherto unpublished. The very limited number of new dies in such a large hoard shows once again how remarkably precise and reliable Boehringer's corpus remains even more than 50 years after its publication. We have an almost complete record of the dies.
The types remain the same throughout the tetradrachm issues represented in the hoard with some variation in details and symbols. The obverse bears a four-hosee chariot at the walk, driven by a male charioteer; the reverse shows a female head. In the first group (nos. 232-35), the ethnic or is placed above the horses on the obverse in a rather heavy and static composition. From the second group on (nos. 236ff),, a small Nike is added crowning either the horses or the charioteer, and the ethnic is moved to the reverse. The quadriga, which we already encountered at Rhegion, Gela, Leontinoi, and Messana, was originally a Syracusan type, first introduced there at the end of the sixth century B.C., inspired by northern Greek types.125 The Deinomenids adopted it and developed it to celebrate their exploits at the Olympian games as a symbol of their power. As the tyrants expanded their rule over cities, the quadriga appeared on those coinages and became a truly Sicilian type. Its meaning however is purely agonistic, we must assume, and not political, or the type would have disappeared with the tyranny.
The head on the reverse is at first very small, centered on an incuse swastika, but soon develops into a fully modeled head (nos. 236ff) surrounded by four dolphins and the ethnic. The hair style and the jewelry are rendered in an amazing variety of detail and attest to the level of sophistication of the time. The dolphins allude to the geographical location of Syracuse by the sea. The pearled diadem is purely decorative. In these early series no specific attributes characterize the female head further.126 Therefore, following Imhoof-Blumer,127 most scholars have recognized the local nymph on the coins128 as in many other Sicilian or South Italian mints. She is Arethusa: Pausanias tells us that she crossed the sea from Elis to the island of Ortygia in Syracuse, trying to escape Alpheios who was in love with her.129 She was turned into a spring sacred to the goddess Artemis.130 E. Boehringer preferred to recognize Artemis herself on the coins131 and his discussion created some confusion which has carried forward to the preset.132 The earliest literary sources, such as Pindar, don't mention Arethusa, but the iconography of the nymph can best be attested by the coins themselves.
The interpretation of two symbols is also important: the lion which appears on Boehringer's Group 3, 12e, the Demareterion series, (no. 524 has no lion in exergue but belongs to the same group) and the ketos, the sea monster of Boehringer's Group 4 (here nos. 525-39). The lion, as we have seen, also occurs on coins of Leontinoi (nos. 88-90) in the exergue on the obverse and under the truncation of Apollo’s neck on the reverse. Several interpretations have been suggested: for Holm133 and Head134 it symbolized the defeated Carthaginians. Holloway135 sees in the lion the seal of the Emmenids, the family of Demarete. Evans136 related it to the games in honor of the Delphic Apollo. The first two interpretations give the lion a political and historical meaning for which there is no parallel in Greek coinage.
Coin types do not refer directly to historical events or personal exploits in the sixth and fifth centuries B.C., with the notable exception of Anaxilas s mule cart at Rhegion (nos. 1-6) and Messana (nos. 91ff.). The hellenistic rulers introduced allusions to their victories on their coinages (Demetrios Poliorketes, Antigonos Gonatas, Agathokles) but only the Roman emperors will become masters of political propaganda and use the coinage for that purpose. Only then does every symbol and image on the coin relate to the person of the emperor and must be interpreted as such.137 Evan's hypothesis seems the most likely. The mythological significance of the lion is as the sacred animal of Apollo. As Boehringer pointed out, the ketos does not have any precise mythological meaning.138 He saw in it a reference to the naval victory of the Syracusans over the Etruscans at the battle of Kyme in 474 B.C. Again this seems a doubtful interpretation as will become clear in the discussion of the chronology.
|123||Cahn, p. 116, for a detailed description.|
|125||H. A. Cahn, "Olynthus and Syracuse," Essays Thompson, pp. 47-52.|
|137||K. Christ, "Antike Siegesprägungen," Gymnasium 64 (1957), pp. 509-31.|
E. Boehringer's book presents a corpus of the silver coinage of Syracuse from its inception to the period of the signing engravers and the change to the galloping quadriga ca. 425 BC.139 The relative classification of the issues is based on die linkage and remains sound. As noted above, since the publication of the corpus very few new dies have come to light in the numerous hoards recovered in the past 50 years. When they do occur, they can always be inserted logically into Boehringer's arrangement. There is no cause to revise the relative sequence except perhaps in some minor details.
Boehringer proposed the following absolute dates:
|Group 1||(Series 1-2)||530-510 B.C.||(nos. 232-35)|
|Group 2||(Series 3-5)||510-485 B.C.||(nos. 236-43)|
|Group 3||(Series 6-12d)||485-479 B.C.||(nos. 244-533)|
|(Series 12e) Demareteion||480-479 B.C.||(no. 524)|
|Group 4||(Series 13-18)||474-450 B.C.||(nos. 525-39) to Series 16a|
|Group 5||(Series 19-22)||450-439 B.C.|
|Group 6||(Series 23-25)||439-434 B.C.|
The cornerstone of this chronoogyy is the Demareteion,140 the early Syracusan silver decadrachm, which Boehringer thought was struck to commemorate the battle of Himera in 480 B.C. The second fixed point is given by the battle of Kyme in 474 B.C. to which the ketos is supposed to allude. The date of 530 B.C. for the beginning of the coinage at Syracuse is based on stylistic comparisons with works of sculpture of the second half of the sixth century BC.141 The date of 450 B.C. is tentatively suggested based on the victory of Syracuse over Douketios. The end date of 435 B.C. is calculated back from the destruction dates of Selinus, Akragas, Gela, and Kamarina by the Carthaginians between 408 and 405 B.C. In their last issues these cities had already adopted the galloping quadriga introduced by the signing engravers and Boehringer allowed ca. 20 years for this development.
If the relative chronology seems unassailable, the absolue chronology met with some criticism from the beginning. Regling in his review of Boehringer142 argued that the starting date of 530 B.C. is too high; at present the date generally recognized is ca. 510 BC.143 The most unlikely aspect of Boehringer's chronology is the postulated gap in the coinage between 479 and 474 BC.144 Coinage is always intermittent but after the battle of Himera, Gelon received not only the spoils of the war but 2,000 talents of silver from the Carthaginians to cover the war expenses he incurred.145 Moreover Hieron, succeeding his brother Gelon at his death in 478 B.C., must have needed coins for his numerous activities and in preparation for the war against the Etruscans. In this particular historical context, an interruption in the coinage would be illogical. Two solutions have been offered to fill the gap: either to continue Group 3, the "Massenpragung" until 474 B.C.,146 putting some of the issues after the Demareteion; or to begin the ketos group immediately after the Demareteion issue, abandoning the association of the sea monster with the battle of Kyme.147 The discussion of the hoard evidence and of the consequences of the Randazzo hoard for Sicilian chronology, will make clear which of these alternatives is preferable. The interval between 435 and 425 B.C. was also questioned but it does not concern us here.148
No doubt the most serious attack on Boehringer's dating and consequently on the very foundation of Sicilian chronology was made by Colin M. Kraay more than 20 years ago.149 In the 1830s two scholars, Karl Otfried M?ller150 and H. Duc de Luynes 151 independently identified the early Syracusan decadrachm with the coin of Demarete, wife of Gelon, mentioned by the ancient sources.152 Its commemorative character was readily accepted and thus the date of 480/79 B.C. for its issue, immediately after the battle of Himera. Since then the Demareteion has served as the cornerstone for the chronology not only for numismatists but for historians and archaeologists as well.153 Kraay argued that the date of 480/79 B.C. was too early for the decadrachm; therefore the coin could not be the Demareteion described by the ancient historians. In his opinion, the decadrachm was issued after the fall of the Deinomenids, possibly in 461 B.C., to pay a special donative to the elite army that was able to control the mercenaries' revolt.154 The Demarateion referred to in the sources must therefore be an as yet unknown gold coin. It seems superfluoss to repeat here the arguments that during the past two decades have gone back and forth between Kraay and those scholars who did not accept his "destruction" of the Demareteion.155 Suffice it to point out that Kraay's main objection to the traditional chronology relies on the assumption that it is not plausible to postulate, as Boehringer did, the concentration of dies for his Group 3, a massive coinage of about 150 dies (with the new additions of recent years), issued over a period of just seven years. Kraay also uses several hoards, notably Gela, Passo di Piazza, Monte Bubbonia, Seltmann, Villabate, and Selinunte ( IGCH 2066, 2068, 2071, 2076, 2082, and 2084) to support his arguments. The undermining of the Demareteion received some reinforcement from Christof Boehringer who in 1968 published a new tetradrachm from Aitna in a private Swiss collection.156 This remarkable piece bears on the obverse the usual horse quadriga driven not by a male charioteer but by the goddess Athena. The reverse has a seated Zeus. If we compare the Aitna quadriga to those on Syracusan coins, we find strong similarities in Group 3, 9-11 as Boehringer showed, as early as V86.157 For the new tetradrachm we have an absolute date or at least a terminus post quem: we know that the city of Aitna was founded after the inhabitants of Katane and Naxos were moved to Leontinoi after 476 BC.158 On the other hand this issue must be earlier than the famous Brussels tetradrachm with the head of Silenus. Stylistically then, the Demareteion is later than the Aitna tetradrachm with Athena and C. Boehringer's conclusion at the time was that the early decadrachm of Syracuse was not the Demareteion mentioned by Diodoros and other ancient sources but a "Hieroneion," a coin struck by Hieron around 470 B.C. to celebrate his exploits. He held to the commemorative character of the issue, considering the literary evidence about the Demareteion too detailed and formidable to be dismissed, but found it difficult to accept the idea of a gold Demareteion. More recently C. Boehringer has revised his opinion, following Maria R. Alöldi:159 the decadrachm is the Demareteion but it was not struck immediately after the battle of Himera; rather ca. 470 B.C., essentially for economic reasons not primarily as a commemorative issue.160
G. Manganaro 161 agreed with Kraay's downdating of the decadrachm but his arguments are mainly historical and philological; he prefers the date of 463 B.C. for the issue and thinks it was related to the distribution of to the army, described by Diodorus.162
Looking at the Syracusan tetradrachms represented in the hoard (nos. 232-539), it is immediately apparent how closely they follow and reflect E. Boehringer's arrangement: 4 coins belong to Group 1, nos. 232-35; 8 to Group 2, nos. 236-43; 281 to Group 3, nos. 244-524, and 5 to the beginning of Group 4; the ketos group, nos. 525-39. While the specimens of Group 2 in the hoard already display close die linkage, with three obverse dies used for eight coins (a ratio of 2.66); it is in Group 3 that the linkage is truly amazing, especialy for Series 8, 9, and 11. There are 114 obverse dies for 281 tetradrachms. The pattern of the hoard supports strongly E. Boehringer's view: Group 3 represents a massive and intensive coinage which most likely was struck over a relatively short period of time. The 15 tetradrachms of Group 4 stretch over Series 13a-b and 14a with very little die linkage. The output here must have been much more limited. Nos. 525-31 (Group 4, 13a) present a somewhat staring and expressionless archaistic stye,, particularly the heads on the reverses, and constitute as Boehringer rightly remarked, a transitional group between the still archaic massive coinage and the Demareteion group, and the severe style which follows. With no. 532 of Group 4, 14a, clearly a new phase begins: the head is much larger, the chin full and heavy and the flans more spread. The eye is fully in profile with for the first time a rendering of all the detals:: the iris, the pupil, and eyelashes on upper and lower lids. The archaic smile has disappeared. The hairstyle still shows the influenee of the archaic fashion but it falls in a more natural way and the krobylos is minimized. Soon it will be rolled up and developed into more complicated and innovative compositions as on R353 or R374 bound by a kekryphalos and then covered completely by a sakkos on R435. The quadriga does not show the stylistic development quite as clearly but the charioteer is now more articulated and muscular, the proportions and rendering of the horses more realistic. The latest tetradrachm of Syracuse in the hoard is no. 539, Boehringer 483 (V257/R346), the latest in his Group 4, 14a. Boehringer's Group 4, the ketos group, his nos. 408-627, includes 108 obverse dies (V211-V318) and 145 reverse dies (R288-R431) presumably evenly spread between 474 and 450 B.C. Die V257 stylistically still belongs in the first group of the heads, the 15 tetradrachms of our hoard cover a span of 46 dies and would thus be dated around 465 B.C. according to the traditional chronology. However this date will have to be lowered by about 10 to 15 years as will be seen from the discussion of the burial date and of the evidence of other hoards.
From the latest Syracusan issue in the hoard, one can return to the other groups and see what specific information can be drawn from the run of 308 tetradrachms. The four tetradrachms of Group 1 (nos. 232-35) represent the oldest coins in the hoard; as we have seen they most likely
date between 510 and 500 B.C. Their condition however is excellent,163 with hardly any more signs of wear than some of the latest specimens of Syracuse (nos. 525-39) or of Gela or Messana. We must therefore conclude that the Randazzo hoard is in all probability a savings hoard, representing the accumulation of wealth of one individual or one family over many years, and not a currency hoard or an example of coins taken from circulation at the specific time of burial.
Group 2 (nos. 236-43) introdcess the dolphins around the head together with a larger Arethusa head. These coins again are in quite good condition.
Group 3 comprises a large and closely die-linked component of the hoard, as tabulated in Table 2 (below, p. 36).164 Dotted lines indicate new links not known to E. Boehringer in 1929. A comparsonn of this chart to Maria Alföld's demonstrates that the hoard contents match exactly the arrangement of Boehringer’s corpus. At the same time some minor revisions can be suggested: the new die combinations of nos. 247 (V37/R47) and 248 (V37/R49) show that Series 6a ends with V37 (Boehringer 80), and Series 6b starts with Boehringer 81 (V38/R53). More important is the die combination of nos. 307-9 (V64/R187E). Boehringer did not know the obverse die for his no. 271E and placed his R187E in Series 11 because of its similarity with R179 (nos. 436-38) and R188 (nos. 449-52). This new combination places R187E in Series 8b; it is in style very close to R96 or R97 and R99 (nos. 299, 300, and 305); compare especially the rendering of the eye and the mouth. So in fact R187E is 99E; of importance is that if 187E can be compared to reverses in both Series 8b and 11, the two issues are very close in style and therefore in time. Boehringer165 has already emphasized that with Group 3, 8 and in particular Series 8b, we encounter such monotony and mediocrity in the style of the Arethusa heads that it becomes difficult to find an individualized head, let alone a masterpiece. There is no real stylistic development between Series 8 (nos. 258ff) and Series 12, rather just different types of heads and hair styles. The long tail falling on the neck and shoulder of no. 258 occurs again in Series 8b, nos. 274-75, or 301-5 on a larger type of head, Series 9a, nos. 366-67. Other heads are smaller, as on no. 270, 290-91, 319, 348-49. Others are of a definitely ugly, almost barbarous style, like the works of the artist of nos. 389-92, 393-96, 397, or those of the engravers of nos. 423, 425, 431, 455, etc. It is not the place here to divide the dies of the massive coinage into groups and attribute them to different engravers, which can be done in spite of the low artistic quality. But these few examples suffice to show that the differeness between Boehringer’s Series are due to individual styles and not to a chronological progression. Only Series 12e, the Demareteion issue, introduces significant innovations. There is only one tetradrachm of this group in the Randazzo hoard, no. 524;166 the obverse is in poor condition, the die however is worn and not the coin.167 The lion in exergue has disappeared from this die, the last of the group of tetradrachms of Series 12e. The reverse is by comparison a better preserved die in spite of the break above the upper lip. The head is wreathed, the expression of the face is softer, the eye is now for the first time in profile. Series 12a-d form a stylistically homogeneous group and belong together. Jenkins168 proposed to move these issues after the Demareteion issue 12e in order to fill the gap between 479 and 474 B.C. The last two tetradrachms of Series 12e, R276 and R276E are very similar to
|126||Later, in the period of the signing engravres, the head sometimes wears a wreath of ears of grains or a helmet and can clearly be interpreted as Demeter/Kore or Athena, or is named by an inscription such as .|
|127||F. Imhoof-Blumer, "Nymphen und Chariten auf griechischen M?nzen," JIAN 11 (1908), pp. 47-55.|
|128||Lauri O. Th. Tudeer, Die Tetradrachmen von Syrakus in der Periode der signierenden Künstler (Berlin, 1913), pp. 271-75; more recently, LIMC 1, 2 (1984), s.v. "Arethousa," pp. 583-84 (Cahn).|
|129||Paus. 5.7.2. For additional literary sources, see Cahn (above, n. 128).|
|131||Syrakus, pp. 95-102.|
|132||Lacroix, p. 106.|
|133||Holm (above, n. 6), vol. 3 (Leipzig, 1898), p. 582.|
|134||B. V. Head, "On the Chronological Sequence of the Coins of Syracuse," NC 1874, p. 10.|
|135||R. Ross Holloway, "Demarete's Lion," ANSMN 11 (1964), pp. 1-11.|
|136||A. J. Evans, "Syracusan ‘Medallions' and their Engravers," NC 1891, pp. 332-33.|
|138||Syrakus, pp. 84-90.|
|139||Where Tudeer's study begins (see above, n. 128).|
|140||Boehringer, Syrakus, p. 90.|
|141||Boehringer, Syrakus, p. 12.|
|142||Above, n. 65, p. 632.|
|143||Cahn, Essays Thompson (above, n. 125), p. 51; Kraay, ACGC, p. 209.|
|144||As immediately recognized by E. S. G. Bobinson, rev. of Boehringer. Syrakus, in NC 1931, p. 243.|
|146||Robinson (above, n. 144); Jenkins, Gela, p. 23.|
|147||Regling (above, n. 65); G. E. Rizzo. Saggi Preliminari su l’Arte delta Montta nella Sicilica Greca (Rome, 1938), p. 30.|
|148||Jenkins, Gela, pp. 66-67.|
|149||First in C. M. Kraay and M. Hirmer, Greek Coins (London, 1966), pp. 280 and 288; then more detailed in Greek Coins and History (above, n. 45), pp. 19-42; see also ACGC, pp. 205, 211.|
|150||Die Etrusker, vol. 1 (Breslau, 1828), pp. 327-28.|
|151||"Du Démarétion," Ann. Dell’Ist. di Corris. Arch. 2 (1830), pp. 81-88.|
|152||Principally Diod. 11.26.3; also Poll., Onom.. 9.84. For a more detalled discussion of the sources see C. Boehringer (above, n. 82), pp. 86-92 and Maria R. Alföldi, Dekadrachmon. Ein forschungsgeschichtliches Phänomen (Wiesbaden, 1976), pp. 109-12.|
|153||por instanee E. Langlotz, Zur Zeitbestimmung der strengrotfigurigen Vasenmalerei und der gleichzeitigen Plastik (Leipzig, 1920).|
|154||Diod. 11.76.2 tells us that the Syracusans paid 600 soldiers each a mina of silver or 100 drachms.|
|155||As witness the different reviews of Greek Coins: J. P. Barron in NC 1966, pp. 337-40; W. Schwabacher in SNR 45 (1966), pp. 185-89; and of Greek Coins and History: H. Chantraine in HBN 22-23 (1968-69), pp. 517-28, to which Kraay replied, "Sicilian Numismatic Chronology," HBN 24-26 (1970-72), pp. 211-14. The most detailed rejection of Kraay's downdating is perhaps R. T. Williams, "The Demareteion Reconsidered," NC 1972, pp. 1-11, followed by Kraay’s reply, "The Demareteion Reconsidered: A Reply," pp. 13-24. C. Boehringer (above, n. 82), pp. 67-98, was in favor of a downdating of the decadrachm as well, seeing it as a "Hieroneion." The best summary of the problem and the most reasonable "compromise solution" in its time remains that of Maria R. Alföldi (above, n. 152).|
|156||Above, n. 82, pp. 67-98.|
|157||Above, n. 82, p. 85.|
|158||Diod. 11.49.1-2; Strabo 6.268.|
|159||Above, n. 152.|
|160||Leo Mildenberg and Silvia Hurter, eds. The Arthur S. Dewing Collection of Greek Coins, ACNAC 6 (New York City, 1985), pp. 50-51.|
|161||G. Manganaro (above, n. 114), pp. 9-40.|
|163||I must emphasize once more that I worked mainly with casts and saw only very briefly a small portion of the hoard coins. For Syracuse and Gela, however, the known specimens help us to determine whether the die or the coin is worn.|
|164||Maria R. Alfoldi has similarly plotted the entire run of Syracusan dies down to the Demareteion (Group 3, 12e); see Dekadrachmon (above, n. 152), Table 1.|
|165||Syrakus, p. 20.|
|166||An unpublished tetradrachm in the Nelson Bunker Hunt collection is reputed to come from this hoard but I could not be certain and did not include it in the catalogue.|
|167||Boehringer, Syrakus, p. 188, 391 notes "Stempel kaum mehr kenntlich." At any rate we have already emphasized that the Randazzo hoard probably represents a savings deposit and therefore chronological conclusions from the condition of the coins must be drawn only with the greatest caution.|
|168||Gela, pp. 23-24.|
R243, R246 in Series 12d and even to some dies in 12a like R201 or 12b (R215) indicating that a reversal of Boehringer's arrangement is possible. R. T. Williams,169 among others, has readily accepted Jenkins's suggestion but Kraay rejected it;170 for him it is unthinkable that the "new style" of the Demareteion issue should not have influenced the following Series 12a-d. Table 2 (above, p. 36) illustrates the die linkage of Boehringer Group 3 as represented in the Randazzo hoard. It shows that the massive coinage can be divided into three groups or phases: 1) Series 6-8a; 2) Series 8b-11; 3) Series 12a-d.
These three phases probably developed in a chronological sequence, but within the phases the issues can be considered parallel and contemporary. I believe that phase 1 represents the beginning of Gelon’s coinage at Syracuse, phase 2 the coinage after the battle of Himera and phase 3, Hieron's coinage. The Demareteion issue belongs either at the end of phase 2 or with phase 3. But before deciding we need to discuss the burial date and the hoard evidence.
|169||Above, n. 155, p. 2.|
|170||Above, n. 155, pp. 13-16.|
Table 3 (below, p. 40) summarizes the latest issues in the Randazzo hoard. The dates for the different mints, as we have seen, are to a great extent independent in this period and based on historical events: Rhegion and Messana resume their individual coinages after the fall of the Anaxilades in 461 B.C.; so does Naxos after an interruption of almost 30 years when its inhabitants, displaced by Hieron, were able to return home. Katane, under similar circumstances, at last was free to inaugurate its own coinage. Jenkins’s reasons for dating the end of his Group 3 to 450 B.C. are sound and generally accepted. U. Westermark in her as yet unpublished corpus of the coinage of Akragas agrees to a date between 461 and 450 for the beginning of the tetradrachms. It is important to emphasize that these dates are not contingent on the chronology of Syracuse. The latest issues from these six mints are clearly contemporary and terminate at the same time.
If the Randazzo hoard is indeed a savings hoard, as was suggested abov,171 the condition or wear of the coins in this deposit is not a determining chronological factor. The earliest tetradrachms from Syracuse (nos. 232-35) are as fresh as some of the latest tetradrachms from Gela (e.g. nos. 38-39) or Leontinoi (no. 87). On the whole the coins are in very good condition. They did not circulate long but were saved within a few years after their issue. Many of the coins were struck from worn dies, in particular at Katane and Messana (nos. 218-26) and Syracuse (no. 524 from the Demareteion group but this has no bearing on its date). The two kinds of wear must not be confused.
Only the date for the latest tetradrachms of Syracuse, and consequently of Leontinoi, does not seem to coincide with the rest of the hoard. If we accept the traditional chronology there is a discrepancy of some 15 years between the last tetradrachms of Syracuse and those from the other mints. Syracuse is the most important mint in the hoard and the most productive in Sicily at that time. The hoard was deposited near ancient Katane, at or in the vicinity of Randazzo, only some 70 miles from Syracuse. This is certain even though little is known of the actual circumstances of discovery; otherwise one cannot explain the presence of so many tetradrachms of Katane. It is logical to assume that all the issues in the hoard must terminate at about the same time and that the latest coins of Syracuse are as late as the burial date.172 The hoard was probably interred around 450 B.C. It cannot have been buried before 455 B.C. due to the inclusion of the restoration issues of Naxos, Katane, Messana, and Rhegion. A date after 445 B.C. is implausible as well since the four-bar sigma at Messana is not represented in the hoard nor the later Apollo head tetradrachms of Katane and Leontinoi. Historically, 450 B.C. corresponds to the upheaval of the Sikel power under Douketios but we cannot be certain that there was any direct relation between the victory of Syracuse over Douketios and the close of the deposit.173
|Obv.||Lion’s head facing||Eagle standing to r.||Quadriga to r.; behind, column||Bearded man-faced bull kneeling||Quadriga to r.; lion in exergue||Biga of mules r.; Nike crowning charioteer||Head of Dinoysos||Quadriga to r.; ketos in exergue|
|Rev.||Iokastos||Crab; below, floral pattern||Forepart of man-faced bull (Gelas)||Nike walking; H||Head of Apollo; 3 laurel leaves and lion around||Hare running; olive twig below||Silenus squatting||Head of Arethusa|
|Ref.||Herzfelder 1||SNGANS 3, 984||Jenkins 234; 062/R121||New Rev.||SNGANS 4, 218||SNGANS 4, 333||Cahn 54||Boehringer 483; V257/R346|
|Date||461–450 B.C.||465/61–450 B.C.||465–450 B.C.||464–450 B.C.||Contemporary with the "Demareteion"?||461–450 B.C.||461–450 B.C.||474–462 B.C. Ketos-Group 4, 14a|
|172||R. T. Williams (above, n. 155), p. 3, in his criticism of Kraay's revised Sicilian chronology and of his dating of the Gela hoard in particular, argues that in a hoard buried away from Syracuse, the latest Syracusan coins included in the deposit may be considerably earlier than the burial date of the hoard. The distances within Sicily, however, are not great and we have ample evidence from many hoards that coins circulated among the main western Sicilian mints, perhaps less so among those of the northeastern coast.|
|173||The term "burial date" is used by numismatists for convenience but actually "termination date" would be more accurate. We should not assume that exceptional circumstances such as political conditions or wars prompted individuals to bury their treasures. It is more likely that coins and other savings were set aside in a secure place much as people use banks today. Sometimes the treasures could not be recovered, either because the owner died, or had to leave the country, or for other reasons, including war or strife. Therefore we must be careful in trying to connect all deposits with known historical events. I thank C. Boehringer for making this point clear to me.|
No matter how important a single hoard might be, the conclusions drawn are convincing only when the hoard’s evidence relates positively to that of other similar hoards, and is in agreement with the historical context of the period under consideration. Let us then compare the Randazzo hoard to other fifth century hoards with a similar distribution of mints and denominations (i.e. tetradrachms and didrachms of Sicily).
Table 4 (below, pp. 42-43), which graphs Randazzo and related hoards, is based on IGCH. Excluded are hoards whose contents appear too small to be relevant to the discussion of the chronology, such as IGCH 2069-70, 2073, 2080-81, 2083. The Avola hoard, IGCH 2085, is not included since only 21 coins are known today from the original content of ca. 2,000 coins.174 Table 4 lists the total number of coins in each hoard (contents), the breakdown of specimens of each mint, together with an indication of the latest coins represented per mint, when known and datable. I have not been able to examine these hoards myself and have relied on published descriptions.175 The burial dates are those generally accepted in the works cited with the exception of the Lentini hoard, IGCH 2077.
The burial dates are here discussed independent of Syracuse when possible to strengthen the objectivity of the chronological conclusions.
The Gela hoard, IGCH 2066, will soon be published in detail and hopefully whatever doubts and problems now remain will be solved.176 The burial date of 485 B.C. suggested by Jenkins certainly seems the most acceptable and objective one.177 As he pointed out, the Gela hoard must be dated by its Sicilian contents rather than by the Athenian.178 Among its latest datable coins are a tetradrachm of the Samians at Zankle with the letter A, in fresh condition, and one tetradrachm of Anaxilas's first coinage from Rhegion. The hoard also contained over 400 didrachms from Akragas, including 230 from Group 3. The group, however, was not represented in its entirety; the latest issues are absent. Group 4 of Akragas, as U. Westermark has demonstrated, belongs to the period 482-472 B.C.,179 which means that the latest issues of Group 3 must have been minted between the burial date of the Gela hoard and 482 B.C. The years 490-485 B.C., therefore, seem a reasonable span for the closing of the deposit. I see no reason to date the Gela hoard any later than 485 B.C.
The Passo di Piazza hoard, IGCH 2068, was discussed above in determining the chronology of the tetradrachms of Rhegion and Messana.180 It contained three early didrachms of Group 4 of Akragas and one didrachm of the new Anaxilas type from Messana with the mule cart and hare and must have been buried shortly after 480 B.C.
|174||Housed in Syracuse; all issues of Syracuse to B 631, see Jenkins, Gela, pp. 147-48.|
|175||Jenkins, Gela, pp. 142-61; Westermark and Jenkins, Kamarina, pp. 21-23 and 99-101.|
|176||In the series Bibliotheca, published by the Centro Internazionale di Studi Numismatici in Naples.|
|177||Gela, pp. 20-21 and 150-151; see also Kraay, Greek Coins and History (above, n. 45), p. 27; R. T. Williams (above, n. 155), pp. 2-3, Kraay (above, n. 155), pp. 16-17.|
|178||Compare Price and Waggoner, Asyut, p. 20.|
|179||U. Westermark, "Overstrikes of Taras on Didrachms of Acragas," Essays Thompson, pp. 289-90.|
|180||Above, pp. 18 and 26.|
|Hoards||Gela, 1956||Passo di Piazza||Monte Bubbonia (Mazzarino)||Casulla||Randazzo, 1980||Villabate||Sicily, 1890 (Seltmann)||Lentini, 1921||Selinunte, 1923|
|Contents||ca. 1,076||45||338||40||539||ca. 250||ca. 200||88||475|
|Rhegion||1 tetr. Lion/calf||4 tetr. Mule cart||10 tetr. H 1||1 tetr. H 5|
|Akragas||410 didr grp. 2, 1 (early)||6 didr. Grp. 4 (early)||78 didr. grp. 4 (early)||24 didr. grp. 4 (end)||8 tetr.||18+ tetr.||?||7 didr. 2 tetr.||88 didr. 3 tetr.|
|Gela||254 didr. grp. 1||19 didr. grp. 1||61 didr. 7 tetr. grp. 2||28 tetr. grp. 3||17+ tetr. grp. 4||?||2 didr. 9 tetr. grp. 3||70 didr. 25 tetr. grp. 5|
|J 40||J 82||J 178||J 234||J 350||J 217||J 378|
|Himera||1 dr. hen 5 didr. crab||4 didr. crab||9 tetr. G-S 6||12 didr. crab 8tetr., G-S 7 2 didr., G-S 1||2 didr. archaic 1 tetr., G-S 15 2 didr., G-S 2|
|Kamarina||1 didr. W-J 9,5|
|Katane||29 tetr. Nike/bull||2 tetr. Apollo hd.|
|Leontinoi||2 tetr. quadriga/lion||2 didr.||14 tetr. quadriga/Apollo||10 tetr. quadriga/lion||didr. tetr. quadriga/lion||1 tetr.||8 didr. 19 tetr. Apollo/lion|
|Messana||3 tetr. Zankle Samian A||1 didr. mule cart||2 dr. Zankle 5 tetr. mule cart||1 tetr. mule cart||136 tetr. Nike||13+ tetr. Nike||?||10 tetr.||20 tetr.|
|Naxos||5 tetr. C54|
|Selinus||30 didr. leaf||75 didr. 25 tetr. S 11|
|Hoards||Gela, 1956||Passo di Piazza||Monte Bubbonia (Mazzarino)||Casulla||Randazzo, 1980||Villabate||Sicily, 1890 (Seltmann)||Lentini, 1921||Selinunte, 1923|
|Syracuse||31 tetr. 2 didr. grp 2, 4||18 tetr. ? didr. grp 3, 6b||61 tetr. grp. 3, 12d||9 tetr. grp. 3, 12b||308 tetr. grp. 4, 14a||79+ tetr. grp. 4, 15||? didr. ? tetr. grp. 3, 12b||57 tetr. grp. 4, 16a||4 didr. 132 tetr. grp. 4, 18|
|Akanthos||2 tetr.||1 tetr.|
|Athens||166 tetr.||6 tetr.|
|Burial||490/85 B.C.||480/78 B.C.||475/70 B.C.||470/65 B.C.||455/50 B.C.||450/45 B.C.||450/45 B.C.||445/40 B.C.||435 B.C.|
The Monte Bubbonia or Mazzarino hoard, IGCH 2071, has been much discussed.181 Kraay wanted to lower its burial date to about 465/60 B.C. in accordance with the Sicily, 1890 hoard, IGCH 2076, and his downdating of the earlier Syracusan decadrachm. The one didrachm of Kamarina in this hoard, as shown by Westermark and Jenkins,182 belongs to the first period of the city, 492-485 B.C., and not to the time of its refoundation in 461 B.C. It cannot therefore be used as an argument in favor of a late burial date. Only the earlier half of the didrachms of Akragas Group 4 is represented.183 The latest tetradrachms of Gela extend almost to the end of Jenkins Group 2. The two tetradrachms of Leontinoi are of the quadriga/lion’s head type and belong to the first issue of the city struck between 478 and 470 B.C. at the latest, as noted above.184 The Himera didrachms with the crab on the reverse are those of the period of Akragantine dominion, 482-472 B.C., studied by Jenkins.185 The last specimen in this hoard is from obverse die O13, from a group ending with O15. So unless we want to "press" the chronology of the Syracusan coins down, there is no reason to date the Monte Bubbonia hoard much later than 475/70 B.C.
The Casulla hoard, IGCH 2075, is a very similar though smaller hoard of somewhat later date since it contained didrachms of Akragas through the end of Group 4 and Himera didrachms of the Akragantine type to obverse O15, the latest die in the group, in excellent condition.186
The next hoard listed in the IGCH is no. 2076, the Sicily, 1890 or Seltmann hoard. This is a very controversial find: it is "the crucial document" in Kraay's argument against the decadrachm being the Demareteion and therefore, of course, the most attacked by his opponents.187 The hoard was first acquired by E. J. Seltmann who published the most important pieces.188 He saw some 200 didrachms and tetradrachms of Akragas, Gela, Leontinoi, Messana, Segesta, Syracuse, and Himera. He described in detail only the Himera coins which he found most interesting. He further illustrated two tetradrachms and one didrachm from Leontinoi, two didrachms from Segesta, one early didrachm of Syracuse, Boehringer 99 (Group 3, 7) and one tetradrachm, Boehringer 321 (Series 12b, V156/R224) and one reverse R246 (Series 12d). For the other mints we have no details and it appears that it is no longer possible to reconstruct the hoard. Seltmann also remarked that the coins were in extremely fine condition. The latest Himera didrachm in the hoard is Gutmann and Schwabacher no. la; the latest tetradrachms are Gutmann and Schwabacher nos. 7a and 12.189 The latter is the rare issue with on the obverse above the quadriga which most likely is the first of the city after 472 B.C.190 So the latest tetradrachms would be Gutmann and Schwabacher no. 7, represented by six specimens in very good condition. The Leontinoi tetradrachm illustrated is from the same obverse die as our nos. 77-78 and represents the first issue of the city. The same is true of the Segesta didrachms.191
Unfortunately nothing is known of the Akragas, the Gela, or the Messana coins. Obviously the hoard must be dated by its latest coins: the Himera tetradrachms which cannot date before 472 or even 466 B.C.192 Possibly the first Pelops issue was minted between 466 and 460 B.C. and the second issue, including Gutmann and Schwabacher no. 7, only after 450 B.C. The coins from Leontinoi, Segesta and Syracuse in the hoard, on the other hand, date in the 470s. Clearly there is a discrepancy here that cannot simply be solved by downdating the Syracusan issues as Kraay tried to do.
We don't known where the hoard was discovered; because of the presence of a large number of coins of Himera, it is assumed to have been in the vicinity of the city. Table 4 (above, pp. 42-43) shows that the Sicily, 1890 hoard constitutes the exception and does not correspond to the general pattern of the other fifth century hoards. Its burial date is approximately that of the Villabate hoard. Why the Syracusan issues with the ketos are not represented remains unexplained but it is certainly not a reason to make Series 12d contemporary with the Himera tetradrachms of the 450s and put the other hoards at odds.
The Villabate hoard, IGCH 2082, 193 as can be seen from the Table 4 summary, must have been buried a few years after the Randazzo hoard. It was discovered near Palermo, some 20 miles west of Himera, in 1893. Among the latest datable coins is a tetradrachm from Rhegion, Herzfelder 5 (D2/R4) from the same group as Herzfelder 1 (Dl/Rl) in the Randazzo hoard. The latest tetradrachms from Akragas have an eight-rayed star as a symbol and are probably slightly later than our nos. 11-18.194 The Gela tetradrachms are represented to the beginning of Group 4, Jenkins 350 (O67/R135) which was minted after 450 B.C. The latest Himera tetradachms, Gutmann and Schwabacher no. 6, must have been minted after 450 B.C., as suggested above. As in the Sicily, 1890 hoard, their presence is the determining factor for the burial date, since these tetradrachms come from the mint closest to the findspot. The Leontinoi tetradrachms are of the quadriga/lion’s head type, the first issue of the city (as our nos. 77-87). No Apollo heads of the Demareteion type were present but since these were a rather limited issue, it should not be too surprising that they did not reach the northern part of the island. It is also possible that the more rare and valuable specimens were picked out before the hoard was shown to Evans. The Messana tetradrachms included types with the four-bar sigma , the relative terminus ante quem for the Randazzo hoard. The burial date around 445 B.C. suggested by Jenkins is in perfect agreement with the chronology of the different mints.
For the date of the Lentini, 1921 hoard, IGCH 2077, one must look to the Syracusan issues. Very little is known of the hoard.195 Of the 11 Gela coins, only three could be identified by Jenkins; the rest were not available. No details are known of the Akragas and the Messana coins included. The latest Syracusan coins represented, according to Jenkins, belong to Series 16a and are later than Gela Group 3. One must therefore rely on the known Syracusan tetradrachm and propose a burial date some years later than the Villabate and Sicily, 1890 hoards.
The last hoard relevant to the dating of the issues represented in the Randazzo hoard is the Selinunte, 1923 hoard, IGCH 2084. 196 It is the first hoard containing tetradrachms from Group 5 of Gela, dated by Jenkins between 440 and 430 B.C. The latest Himera tetradrachm included is Gutmann and Schwabacher no. 15 in mint condition. Two tetradrachms from Katane with the Apollo head on the reverse were also present. The Randazzo hoard shows that they must have been struck after 450 B.C. There were several Leontinoi tetradrachms of the ugly, severe, transitional style and one of the finer classical style.197 The Selinus tetradrachms included all belong to Schwabacher's Group 1.198 Unfortunately, once again the Messana tetradrachms were considered "too poor" to be described or illustrated. At any rate, as Herzfelder has demonstrated, the Selinunte hoard must have been buried some five to ten years after the Villabate hoard and on Jenkins’s revised chronology, this dates it to ca. 435 B.C.
To summarize: a comparison between the Randazzo hoard and other fifth century Sicilian hoards confirms its suggested burial date of about 455/50 B.C., five to ten years earlier than the Villabate hoard and definitely later than the Monte Bubbonia and Casulla hoards.
More important perhaps are the conclusions for the chronology of Syracuse. As indicated, the burial dates of eight of the nine related hoards (excluding Lentini, 1921) can be estimated independent of the Syracusan context. Looking at the distribution of the Syracusan issues in Table 4 (above, pp. 42-43), one observes a very cogent and regular sequence from Boehringer 46 (V27/R30) Series 4, practically the beginnngg of Group 2, through Boehringer 604 (V296/R410) Series 18, almost the end of Group 4, the ketos group. The only hoard which does not seem to follow the general pattern is the Sicily, 1890 hoard as was noted.199
We must then conclude that Group 2 at Syracuse—what Kraay calls the earliest dolphins— must have started before 485 B.C., i.e. before Gelon took power in Syracuse. As tempting as it might be to associate coinage with political events, as Kraay has done, too little is known about the earliest tyrannies in Sicily and the hoard evidence does not support Kraay’s idea that the new Arethusa heads constitute Gelons’s imperial coinage. The beginning of Gelon's coinage, I believe, is represented by Group 3, Series 6-8a. The interruption in the coinage following the battle of Himera in 480 B.C. supposed by E. Boehringer has rightly been criticized and must be rejected. The Passo di Piazza hoard shows that the real "massive coinage" of Series 8b-11 (or phase 2),200 must have started after 480/78 B.C., therefore after the battle of Himera. I would be inclined to see in this tightly linked group the result of the Carthaginian war indemnities of 2,000 talents paid as reparation. It was an intensive coinage, struck within a short period of time, and could possibly have started before Gelon's death.
The Monte Bubbonia and Casulla hoards show that Series 12 or the end of Group 3 extended into the 470s and represents in fact Hieron’s coinage. This is supporedd by the later hoards of Randazzo and Villabate where the "massvee coinage" is also the most important. As we have seen, Series 12e, the Demareteion issue, is not die linked to any other series, except for the stylistic similarity of die R276 and Series 12d.
Jendkins has suggested reversing the sequence and putting Series 12e before Series 12a-d. If we accept this solution, the Demareteion could be dated as early as 478 B.C., perhaps even before Gelon’s death, since, as E. Boehringer suggested, the "massive coinage" most likely comprised parallel issues that did not strictly follow each other in a chronological sequence.
This date would agree with Diodorus’s account but does not fit well with the hoard evidence or with stylistic considerations for if the Demareteion was issued at the beginning of Series 12, how does one explain that its new progressive style did not really influence the parallel and later issues a-d? There is also the difficulty with regard to the unique Aitna tetradrachm with Athena in the quadriga, which C. Boehringer is right in considering earlier or at least more conservative stylistically than the Demareteion. Of course the coinage of Aitna was a very limited and shortlived phenomenon and it is possible that the engraver of the first die had not been influenced by the progressive new style. Obviously Hieron did not use the coinage of his new city as an important carrier of his personal political propaganda or the issues would have been far more considerable.
The alternative is to leave Series 12e at the end of Group 2, where E. Boehringer had placed it and date it to ca. 475/70 B.C. according to the hoard evidence. This date would allow enough time for the first quadriga/lion’s head issues of Leontinoi to start before the Demareteion and for the second issue with the Apollo head to follow some years later.
This somewhat later date does not quite fit with the traditional interpretation of the literary sources; it means that the coin that Diodorus tells us was struck for Demarete, after the battle of Himera, in fact was issued at least five years after Himera, when Gelon’s widow had returned to Gela and married Polyzalos. This is not impossible. I tend to agree with Maria R. Alföldi that the Syracusan decadrachm is not primarily a commemorative issue but was struck for economic reasons—to pay the mercenaries after the war against the Carthaginians once the silver was available, perhaps as a special gift. At this point, we can be reasonably sure that the earlier silver decadrachm is the Demareteion mentioned by the ancient authors but we need more evidence than the Randazzo hoard to decide exactly when it was minted: at present the years 475/70 B.C., during Hieron’s reign, seem the most plausible date.
The hoard evidence also shows that at Syracuse the ketos group, Group 4, did not begin in 474 B.C. but some 10 to 15 years later. The Randazzo hoard points strongly to this conclusion. I consider Series 14 and following as the coinage of the restored democrayy after the fall of the Deinomenids in 466 B.C. Series 13, which Boehringer considered as the beginning of the group, is perhaps rather to be seen as a transitional phase at the end of Hieron’s reign. The style of the Arethusa heads, such as R288 or R289 (nos. 525-26) is still very close to that of Series 12 and heads like R311 (no. 528) of Series 13b are almost a stereotyped, lifeless, rendering of the severe style of the Demareteion. In contrast R338 through R346 (nos. 532-39) represent a new beginning that can be associated with the restoration of the democracy.
The end of Group 4 must also be lowered about 15 years beyond Boehringer s date of 450 B.C. as shown by the Selinunte hoard and also by the Randazzo hoard where only the very beginning of the group, Group 14a, is present just before 450 B.C.
Based on the foregoing, the following revised chronology is the most probable for Syracuse:
|Group 1||(Series 1-2)||510-500 BC.201|
|Group 2||(Series 3-5)||490-485 B.C.|
|Group 3||(Series 6-8a)||485-480 B.C.|
|(Series 8b-ll)||480/78-475 B.C.|
|(Series 12a-e)||475-470 B.C.|
|Transitional Phase||(Series 13)||470-466 B.C.|
|Group 4||(Series 14-18)||466-435 B.C.|
|197||As Rizzo, MGS (above, n. 31), pl. 23, 21.|
|198||W. Schwabacher, "Die Tetradrachmenprägung von Selinunt," Mitteilungen der Bayerischen Numismatischen Gesellschaft 43 (1925), pp. 30-.31.|
|199||Above, pp. 44-45.|
|200||See above, pp. 36-37.|
|201||Jenkins, Gela, p. 43, n. 2.|
|a||The following abbreviations and symbols are used:
B E. Boehringer, Die M?nzen von Syrakus (Berlin, Leipzig, 1929).
C H. A. Cahn, Die M?nzen der sizilischen Stadt Naxos (Basel, 1944)
G-S F. Gutmann and W. Schwabacher, "Die Tetradrachmen- und didrachmenprägung von Himera," Mitteilungen der Bayerischen Numismatischen Gesellschaft 47 (1929), pp. 101–44.
H H. Herzfelder, Les monnaies d’argent de Rhégion (Paris, 1957).
J G. K. Jenkins, The Coinage of Gela, AMUGS 2 (Berlin, 1970).
J, OObv. Die G. K. Jenkins, "Himera: The Coins of Akragantine Type," Atti del II Convegno del Centro Internazionale di Studi Numismatici – Naples 1969, AIIN 16–17, Suppl. (1971), pp. 21–36.
S W. Schwabacher "Die Ttradrachmenprägung von Selinunt," Mitteilungen der Bayerischen Numismatischen Gesellschaft, 43 (1925), pp. 2–89.
W-JU. Westermark and G. K. Jenkins, The Coinage of Kamarina (London, 1980).
? Unknown quantity present in hoard.
|181||Jenkins, Gela, pp. 22-24 and 154-155. Kraay, Greek Coins and History (above, n. 45), pp. 31-32 and NC 1972 (above, n. 155), pp. 17-18; R. T. Williams (above, n. 155), pp. 4-5; most recently Westermark and Jenkins, Kamarina, pp. 21–23.|
|182||Kamarina, p.145, no. 9.5|
|183||Westermark, Essays Thompson (above, n. 179), p. 290.|
|185||Above, n. 73, pp. 21-36.|
|186||Jenkins (above, n. 73), p. 31; Westermark, Essays Thompson (above, n. 179), p. 290; Westermark and Jenkins, Kamarina, p. 21.|
|187||Kraay, Greek Coins and History (above, n. 45), pp. 31-34; Kraay (above, n. 155), pp. 19-21; Williams (above, n. 155), p. 5; Jenkins, Gela, p. 159.|
|188||Above, n. 57, pp. 165-82, pl. 3.|
|189||Refereness are to F. Gutmann and W. Schwabacher, "Die Tetradrachmen- und Didrachmenprägung von Himera," Mitteilungen der Bayerischen Numismatischen Gesellschaft 47 (1929).|
|190||This has already been suggested by Westermark and Jenkins, Kamarina, p. 113, n. 90 and was Gàbrici’s opinion when he first dealt with the coinage of Himera, "Topografia e Numismatica dell’antica Imera e di Terme," RIN 1894, p. 410. See now C. Arnold-Biucchi, "La monetazione d’argento di Himera classica: i tetradrammi," NumAntClas 17 (1988), pp. 85-100.|
|191||For the dating see Kraay, ACGC, p. 220, ca. 470 B.C.|
|192||W. S. Barrett, "Pindar's Twelfth Olympian and the Fall of the Deinomenidai," JHS 93 (1973), pp. 23-25.|
|193||A. J. Evans (above, n. 43), pp. 201-16, pls. 6-7; Herzfelder, p. 47; Jenkins, Gela, pp. 66 and 160-161; Westermark and Jenkins, Kamarina, p. 22.|
|194||Evans (above, n. 43), pl. 7, 10.|
|195||Jenkins, Gela, p. 153.|
|196||A. H. Lloyd, "A Recent Find of Sicilian Coins," NC 1925, pp. 277-300, pls. 10-14; Herzfelder, pp. 47-49; Jenkins, Gela, pp. 70 and 159; Westermark and Jenkins, Kamarina, p. 22.|
Obv. Biga of mules r. driven by charioteer; in exergue, leaf (3-6).
|1||16.59||SNG Sweden 1 (King Gustaf VI Adolf Coll.), 18 = Schwabacher, Gr. Mz. 13. NFA 17–18 Sept. 1981, 27 (this coin).|
|3||17.15||Obv. Of Hirsch 17 Nov. 1913, 259.|
|4||17.17||Double Struck.||Rev. of Hess-Leu 27 Mar. 1956, 51.|
|5||17.11||SNGANS 628. ANS, ex Trenholme (this coin).|
|6||Bank Leu FPL, Dec. 1961, 97. Smithsonian (this coin).|
References for nos. 7-10 are to the die combinations in H. Herzfelder, Les monnaies d’argent de Rhégion (Paris, 1957).
Obv. Lion’s head facing.
Rev. RECINOS Iokastos seated 1., holding staff.
After 461 B.C.
|||17.32||Herzfelder 1 (19)|
|202||The number in parentheses indicates the number of specimens known for the referenced die combination. For explanation of the Katane example, see above, p. 23.|
Obv. AKARACAИTOΣ Eagle standing 1.
|11||17.36||BMC 37; Sambon-Canessa, 27 June 1927, 647; Cahn 27 Feb. 1933, 78.|
|12||Naples, Mus. Naz. Fiorelli 3912 (plated).|
|13||17.24||Baranowsky FPL. 1929, 1529b; MMAG FPL, Aug. 1967, 1.|
|14||17.13||Gulbenkian 159 = Jameson 2413; Ognina 1923 Hoard SNR 57 (1978), 22; SNGANS 971.|
|15||16.69||Below, flower with tendrils.||Cahn 9 May 1930, 99; Baranowsky FPL, 1934, 4612; SNG Sweden 1, (King Gustaf VI Adolf Coll), 23.|
|16||17.38||Eagle standing on capital.||Below, large spiral.||SNG Cop. 43; Hirsch 6 Dec. 1906, 208; Glendining 25 Nov. 1953, 35.|
|17||17.37||Below, no symbol.||Ognina 1923 Hoard SNR 57 (1978), 21; Hirsch 24 May 1910, 56; Naville 18 Oct. 1926, 670.|
|18||17.24||Above Φ; below, flower with tendrils.||SNGANS 984; SNG Lloyd 806; HessLeu 5–6 may 1965, 51.|
References are to the die combinations in G.K. Jenkins, The Coinage of Gela, AMUGS 2 (Berlin, 1970).
Obv. Quadriga r. driven by charioteer; above, Nike crowning hroses.
Rev. CEΛAΣ Forepart of rive god (Gelas) as man-faced bull, r.
|Jenkins Group 2. 480/75-475/70 B.C.|
|19||17.15||Jenkins 104 (19)|
|20||16.94||Jenkins 109 (4)|
|21||17.45||Jenkins 110 (5)|
|22||17.45||Charioteer looking back.||Jenkins 118 (7)|
|23||16.56||Die flaw to r.||Jenkins 119 (4)|
|24||16.81||Die break to r.; coin and die worn.||Die break above.||Jenkins 124 (8)|
|25||17.36||Die flaws above r.||Jenkins 128 (3)|
|27||16.70||Die break center.||Jenkins 037/R77|
|29||17.27||Lanz 25 Apr. 1983, 63 (this coin).||Jenkins 134 (5)|
|30||17.17||Jenkins 138 (3)|
|31||17.35||Jenkins 139 (6)|
|33||17.15||Jenkins 146 (7)|
|34||16.63||Jenkins 154 (1)|
|35||16.69||Small flaw r.||Small flaw r.||Jenkins 155 (1)|
|36||17.19||jJenkins 164 (4)|
|37||17.14||Jenkins 167 (6)|
|38||17.26||Lanz 25 Apr. 1983, 64 (this coin).||Jenkins 175 (5)|
|39||17.27||Jenkins 182 (2)|
|Jenkins Group 3. 465–450 B.C.|
|40||16.98||Behind, free standing Ionikc column; in exergue, wheat ear.||Jenkins 209 (2)|
|41||17.24||Quadriga 1. Behind, free-standing Ionic column; in exergue, ketos; large die break in center.||Above, Nike flying r. (off flan), crowning Gelas; die break in center.||Jenkins 220 (6)|
|43||16.86||Quadriga r.; behing, free-stranding Ionic column; in exergue, ketos; die flaws r.|
|44||17.28||Surface cracking.||Above, no Nike.||Jenkins 230 (11)|
|45||17.41||As 43.||As 44.||Jenkins 062/Rnew (in style, close to R121 (below, no. 47), R124.|
|47||17.24||As 44; die flaws below.||Jenkins 234(1)|
Obv. River god Amenanos as man-headed bull swimming r. or standing (70-73); above, branch (48-59) or Satyr (60-69) or small Nike (70-73); below, fish (48-59) or ketos (60-69) or palmette (74-76).
|48||17.26||Ognina 1923 Hoard SNR 57 (1978), 75; BMC 2; SNG Cop 175; Jameson 1891. NFA 17-18 Sept. 1981,32 (this coin).||(5/11)|
|53||17.32||Double struck and corroded.|
|54||17.29||De Luynes 887; BMC 1.||(2/3)|
|55||17.28||Ognina 1923 Hoard SNR 57 (1978), 77; Naville 3 July 1933, 462; SNGA shmolean 1702.||(3/6)|
|57||16.79||Die very corroded.||Die corroded.|
|58||17.04||Die corroded.||Ognina 1923 Hoard SNR 57 (1978), 78, 79 = Rizzo, pl. 9, 5.||(5/6)|
|59||16.71||New die combination; rev. of Rizzo, pl. 9, 13 (Acireale, Pennisi coll.)|
|60||17.19||De Luynes 888.||(2/4)|
|64||17.27||Die break to 1.|
|67||17.11||Nike holds fillet in each hand.||SNG Lloyd 887.||(3/5)|
|69||16.03||As 67||New dies.|
|70||17.48||Double struck.||Nike holds branch in 1. hand; to l., .||SNG Cop 174; BMC 7||(2/5)|
|71||17.35||Obscured by dirt deposit.|
|72||16.77||Obscured by dirt deposit.|
|73||17.32||Nike holds wreath in l. hand; to l., H.||New die combination. Obv. Of Jameson 533; Ognina 1923 Hoard SNR 57 (1978), 81; rev. of BMC 6; Hess-Leu 5-6 May 1965, 53 = Naville 17-19 June 1922, 217 MMAG 7-8 Oct. 1982, 43 (this coin).|
|74||17.12||Type as 73.||BMC 5.||(3/5)|
|76||17.09||As 73.||New rev. die. Bowers and Ruddy, Masterpieces, 1 (this coin).|
Obv. Quadriga r., horses galloping (77-78) or walking (79-87); above, Nike crowning the horses.
Rev. ΛEONTINON Lion’s hear r.; around, four barleycorns.
|77||17.24||De Luynes 989.|
|79||17.31||Very worn.||MMAG FPL Apr. 1959, 13 = H. Schulman 23-24 Mar. 1956, 657.|
|81||17.22||SNG Munich 539.|
|82||16.91||Large die break in exergue.||SNGANS 205.|
|83||16.32||Obv. Of Rizzo, pl. 22, 18 (Naples, Muz. Naz. 4491); new rev.|
|84||16.98||Rizzo, pl. 22, 21 (Berlin). Lanz 25 Apr. 1983, 94 (this coin).|
|85||17.44||Die more worn.|
|86||16.83||Ball 9 Feb. 1932, 42.|
|87||17.01||In exergue, ?EONTINON||Rizzo, pl. 22, 16 (Berlin); SNGANS 204; Pozzi 463; Jameson 622. ANS, ex Rosen (this coin).|
Obv. Quadriga r., horses galloping; above, Nike crowning charioteer; in exergue, lion running r.
Rev. 039B;EONTINON Laureate head of Apollo r.; around, three laurel leaves; below, lion running r.
|88||17.17||Gulbenkian 211; Cahn 26 Nov. 1930, 1084; SNGANS 217. Bank Leu 28 Apr. 1982, 33 (this coin).|
|90||17.25||SNG Lloyd 1046; SNGANS 218. Bowers and Ruddy, Masterpieces, 2 (this coin).|
Obv. Biga of mules r., driven by seated charioteer holding reins and whip in outstretched hands; in exergue, leaf.
Group 1: without Nike. 480-461 B.C.
|91||17.30||Die break to 1.||SNGCop 389; Stack’s 19-20 June 1969, 50.|
|92||17.28||Die more worn; break larger.|
|94||17.33||Die worn.||Die worn.|
|95||17.32||Below hare, pellet.||SNGANS 314; SNGFitzwilliam 1067.|
|96||17.39||Die break below.||As 95.||Sotheby 3 Feb. 1909, 229.|
|97||16.96||Die break large.||Coin Galleries (NY) FPL 1962/5, E46; Hess 28 Oct. 1930, 2282; Dewing 636.|
|99||17.15||Die break beginning below.||Malloy, 28 Mar. 1973, 25; obv. Of Kriecheldorf 28-29 May 1956, 944; H. Schulman 18-21 Mar. 1964, 8.|
|100||17.32||Die break large.||Baranowsky FPL, 1929, 1562a; MMAG FPL, May 1972, 16; MMAG FPL, Sept. 1973, 1; Kress 2 Apr. 1973, 120.|
|102||16.84||ANS, ex Rosen (this coin).|
|105||16.82||Below hare, pellet.||Naville 28 Jan. 1924, 405; Baranowsky FPL, 1929, 1562b; J. Schulman 6-8 Mar. 1958, 3618; Glendining 27 Sept. 1962, 64; G. Hirsch 22-24 June 1966, 116.|
|107||17.26||Corroded.||Rev. of Basel M?nzhdl. 1 Oct. 1935, 464.|
|108||17.23||Hamburger 25 Oct. 1932, 49; rev. of BMC 14; Vinchon 3-4 Mar. 1975, 10.|
|111||17.35||Below, large die break.||Below, beginning of die break||Coin Galleries (NY) FPL, 1964/1, A15; SNGAshmolean 1830.|
|112||17.34||Overstruck, vestiges of .||Below, die flaw.||Rev. of MMAG FPL, Aug. 1967, 7; Ciani 20-22 Feb. 1935, 66.|
|113||17.06||Overstruck, vestiges of ON in exergue||ANS, ex Rosen (this coin).|
|114||17.28||Die worn.||Below, die break.||Platt 3 Apr. 1938, 45; obv. Of MMAG FPL, Apr. 1965, 3.|
|115||17.36||More worn.||Dewing 641; obv. Of Hamburger 27 May 1929, 125.|
|116||17.37||Cahn 14 Oct. 1931, 155; BMC 11; obv. Of Naville 3 July 1933, 556; G. Hirsch 28-30 Sept. 1960, 1742.|
|117||17.36||Above and below, die breaks (or recut die?).||Obv. Of Rosenberg 19 June 1928, 1398.|
|119||17.19||Die more worn.||Rosenberg 19 June 1928, 1398|
|122||17.27||Bowers and Ruddy, Masterpieces, 3 (this coin).|
|123||17.36||Die of didrachm?|
|126||17.37||Die very worn; breaks below.||Obv. Of SNGANS 318; Kress 3 Nov. 1971, 164; Hess-Leu 6-7 Dec. 1966, 166; rev. of SNGANS 320.|
|127||17.28||Die breaks above and below.||Small die; large break above.||Glendining 9 Mar. 1931, 932; obv. Of H. Schulman, 25 Apr. 1953, 506; rev. of Florange 12 May 1926, 14; Gans 19 Apr. 1960, 140.|
|128||17.23||Large die break above.||Obv. Of Ciani 12-15 May 1926, 14; Gans 19 Apr. 1960, 140.|
|129||17.39||Die very worn; large vertical break increasing in exergue.||Small die.||Obv. Of Bourgey 5 Dec. 1932, 82; rev. of Malloy FPL, Aug-Sept. 1972, 276.|
|131||17.18||Die and coin worn; die break to r.||Die berak above and below.||Rev. of Sambon-Canessa 27 June 1927, 813.|
|135||17.34||Small flaw below.||Die break to 1.||Rev. of Sambon-Canessa 27 June 1927, 812.|
|136||17.14||Die break at center.||Rev. of Schulman Coin 6-9 Feb. 1974, 50; Kölner M?nz. 7-9 Nov. 1977, 23.|
|138||17.33||Very worn.||Beginning of vertical die break below.||Obv. Canessa 12 June 1928, 556.|
|139||17.28||Die break larger.|
|140||17.11||Worn and corroded.||Die break beginning below.||Obv. Of Grabow 9 July 1930, 193; Sotheby 1 May 1929, 21. ANS, ex Rosen (this coin).|
|141||16.89||More worn.||More worn.||ANS, ex Rosen (this coin).|
|142||17.16||Worn and corroded.||Die break larger.|
|143||17.26||Very worn and corroded.||Rev. of Bourgey 17-19 June 1959, 133.|
|144||17.36||Die break beginning to 1.||Did break beginning below.|
|146||16.90||Schlessinger 4 Feb. 1935, 291; rev. of Simonetti 3 Nov. 1974, 6.|
|147||17.34||Kress 3-5 Nov. 1971, 163.|
|153||17.34||Die break beginning above.||Rev. of Klenau 1-2 May 1977, 205.|
|154||17.39||Die break large.||Klenau 1-2 May 1977, 205. ANS ex Rosen (this coin).|
|155||17.18||Obv. Of MMAG FPL., Jan. 1966, 9.|
|158||17.35||Rev. of MMAG FPL, Jan 1966, 9.|
|159||17.28||More worn; die breaks large.|
|163||17.32||Die worn.||Obv. Of Berk FPL, Fall 1984, 29; rev. of Glendining 14 July 1977, 43.|
|164||16.95||Worn and corroded; flan split.|
|165||17.26||Schlessinger 4 Feb. 1935, 290 = Basel Münzhdl. 4 Oct. 1935, 465; Ball 9 Feb. 1932, 461.|
|166||17.18||Coin and die worn; die break beginning vertically below.|
|168||17.27||Naville 3 July 1933, 555 = Cahn 29 Nov. 1933, 131; Hamburger 3 Apr. 1933, 257.|
|169||17.38||Die break beginning above.|
|170||17.35||Die break to l.|
|172||17.30||Die worn.||Die break beginning below.|
|173||17.23||Obv. Of BM G0107|
Obv. Above, Nike flying r. crowning mules.
Group 2: with Nike. After 461 B.C.
|174||17.43||Below, olive twig with olive; large die break center.||SNGLloyd 1085 = Weber 1413; SNGANS 328; Glendining 25 Nov. 1953, 43.|
|175||17.29||More worn.||Die break larger.|
|176||17.29||Large die flaw below.||SNGMunich 639; obv. Of Hamburger 3 Apr. 1933, 259; Kress 2 Apr. 1973, 121.|
|177||17.35||More worn and corroded.||Die break above.||Hamburger 3 Apr. 1933, 259; Kress 2 Apr. 1973, 121.|
|178||16.95||Die break to r.||Obv. Schlessinger 4 Feb. 1935, 292; Naville 17-19 June 1922, 946; NumCirc. 1972, 7148 = Sotheby 8 May 1916, 43; all with rev. above, A.|
|179||16.97||Die break to r.||Above, A.||De Luynes 1012; SNGOxford 1835.|
|180||17.35||More worn; die breaks below.||Die break above.|
|181||17.32||Cahn 2 July 1928, 199; Hamburger 3 Apr. 1933, 260; SNGMunich 646.|
|182||17.30||Very worn and correded; die breaks to 1. And above.|
|183||17.15||Die breaks larger.||Rev. of SNGANS 332;|
|184||17.36||Above, B.||Rev. of SNGANS 332; SNGMunich 647; Riechmann 11 Dec. 1924, 265. SNGANS 335 (overstruck on Leontinoi); Kriecheldorf 12 June 1961, 169; Schlessinger 11 Feb. 1934, 60; De Luynes 1014.|
|185||17.41||Die worn and corroded||Below, B; double struck.||Rev. of Coin Galleries (NY) 17 Apr.1975, 247; BMC19.|
|187||17.09||Die corroded.||Die break below; double struck.|
|188||17.12||More corroded.||Below, B recut into C.||Obv. Of Helbing 20 Mar. 1928, 88.|
|195||16.95||Above, C; double struck.||Myers FPL ``A Numismatic Bestiary" [Feb. 1973], 18.|
|196||17.26||Die break above; double struck.||ANS, ex Rosen (this coin).|
|198||17.13||Die break larger; double struck.||SNGANS 336; Kress 1-2 Apr. 1974, 357; Ariadne 2 Dec. 1982. 26 (this coin).|
|199||17.23||Die more worn.|
|200||17.05||Double struck; die breaks 1. And below.|
|202||17.37||Die very worn.||Die breaks larger.|
|204||17.41||Die more worn.|
|205||17.37||Die more worn.|
|206||17.24||Flan surface layered.|
|210||17.35||Above, D. Corroded.||Jameson 646.|
|212||17.35||Die break to 1. center||Double struck.||Clerici 1 Mar. 1910, 334; Hamburger 2 Apr. 1933, 262; Coin Galleries (NY) 25 Nov. 1969, 1016; Canessa 12 June 1928, 553-obv. And 558-rev. (error on plate).|
|213||17.45||Die break larger.|
|214||17.23||ANS, ex Rosen (this coin).|
|215||17.08||Below, D.||McClean 2386; Auctiones A.G. 30 Sept. 1976, 54; Lanz 25 Apr. 1983, 101 (this coin).|
|216||17.31||ANS, ex Rosen (this coin).|
|217||17.31||Die more worn.|
|218||17.11||Link probable althogh die very corroded on this following lin ked obverses.||Die more worn.|
|219||17.29||Die progressively more worn on this and following linked reverses.|
|221||16.98||Did break to 1.|
|226||17.45||Die worn; breaks above and below.||Below, olive twig with flowers.||SNGMunich 642; SNGANS 333; De Luynes 1013; Naville 18 June 1923, 950.|
References for nos. 227-31 is to the die combination in H.A. Cahn, Die M?nzen der Sizilischen Stadt Naxos (Basel, 1944).
Obv. Head of Dionysos r., wearing ivy wreath.
Rev. NAXION Squatting Silenos holding kantharos in r. hand.
|After 461 B.C.|
|227||16.96||Die break beginning to 1.||Cahn 54.|
|228||17.35||Die break area off flan.||NFA 17-18 Sept. 1981, 45 (this coin).||Cahn 54.|
|229||17.42||Die break are off flan.|
|230||17.34||Dire break beginning below.||Die flaws expanding to 1.||NFA 31 Mar. 1987, 40 (this coin).||Cahn 54.|
|231||17.31||Die break larger.||Bowers and Ruddy, Masterpieces, 4 (this coin).||Cahn 54.|
Boehringer references are to the die combinations in E. Boehringer, Die M?nzen von Syrakus (Berlin-Leipzig, 1929). The sequence given is that of Boehringer; the revised dates are as adopted in this study.
Rev. Head of Arethusa 1. in center of quadripartite incuse square.
Group 1, 1-2. 510-500 B.C.
|232||16.73||Bowers and Ruddy, Masterpieces, 5 (this coin).||Boehringer V7/Rnew|
|233||16.85||Boehringer 23E (1)|
|234||17.16||Boehringer 26 (1)|
|235||17.10||NFA 8 Dec. 1982, 33 (this coin).||Boehringer 29 (3)|
Obv. Quadriga r. or l. (246) driven by charioteer; above, Nike flying r. crowning horses (236-39) or 1. Crowning charioteer (528-31).
|Group 2, 3-5. 490-485 B.C.|
|236||17.24||Boehringer 38 (8)|
|237||17.10||Boehringer 39 (3)|
|238||17.41||Boehringer 43 (3)|
|239||17.38||Boehringer 44 (2)|
|240||17.11||Boehringer 57 (8)|
|241||16.88||ANS, ex Trenholme (this cion)||Boehringer 57|
|242||16.80||Boehringer 59 (12)|
|243||17.13||Boehringer 60 (1)|
|Group 3, 6-8a. 485-480 B.C.|
|244||17.13||Boehringer 69 (2)|
|245||Boehringer 70 (5)|
|246||17.23||Boehringer 76 (15)|
|247||17.21||SNGFitzwilliam 1176; G. Hirsch 25-27 Sept. 1958, 55.||Boehringer V37/R47|
|248||17.39||Chan 5 Apr. 1911, 104.||Boehringer 79a (1)|
|249||16.78||ANS, ex Trenholme (this coin).||Boehringer 80 (8)|
|250||17.44||Boehringer 87 (3)|
|251||16.91||Boehringer 88 (4)|
|253||17.37||Boehringer 88E (1)|
|254||16.97||Boehringer 90 (4)|
|255||17.16||Boehringer 94 (5)|
|256||17.32||Die more worn.||Boehringer 94|
|257||17.03||Naville 3 July 1933, 659.||Boehringer V45/Rnew|
|258||17.11||Boehringer 102 (11)|
|259||16.92||ANS, ex Rosen (this coin).||Boehringer 102|
|261||16.96||Boehringer 104 (5)|
|262||17.00||Boehringer 105 (3)|
|263||17.40||Boehringer 107 (5)|
|264||16.21||Dirty and corroded.||Boehringer 107|
|265||17.10||Die break below.||Rasmussen 10-11 Mar. 1970, 411 (not ill.).||Boehringer V49/R81|
|267||17.09||Boehringer 112 (3)|
|269||17.15||Boehringer 113 (2)|
|270||17.28||Boehringer 116 (3)|
|271||17.28||Boehringer 117 (7)|
|Group 3, 8n–11. 480/78-475 B.C.|
|273||17.21||Die more worn; coin slightly corroded.|
|274||17.41||Boehringer 122 (5)|
|276||16.95||Boehringer 122E (1)|
|277||17.22||Boehringer 123 (4)|
|279||17.18||Boehringer 124 (4)|
|282||16.74||Coin dirty and corroded.||Boehringer 124E|
|283||17.28||Boehringer 125 (2)|
|284||17.12||Boehringer 127 (3)|
|285||17.12||Boehringer 128 (3)|
|288||17.47||Coin worn.||Boehringer 129 (1)|
|289||17.67||Boehringer 130 (3)|
|290||17.44||Die break below.||Boehringer 131 (3)|
|291||17.35||ANS, ex Rosen (this coin).||Boehringer 131|
|292||16.85||Die break above.||Boehringer 136 (3)|
|294||17.18||Boehringer 137 (2)|
|296||16.57||Die worn and coin corroded.||Boehringer 138 (4)|
|297||17.12||Die break beginning below.||Boehringer 139 (1)|
|300||17.24||Die worn.||Boehringer 140 (1)|
|301||16.92||Die and coin worn.||ANS, ex Rosen (this coin).||Boehringer 142 (2)|
|303||16.82||Die worn and ocin dirty.||Boehringer 143 (1)|
|304||17.37||Boehringer 144 (6)|
|309||17.04||Large die break centrer.||ANS, ex Rosen (this coin).||Boehringer V64/R187E|
|310||16.83||Coin worn.||Boehringer 147 (1)|
|311||17.42||Boehringer 148 (2)|
|312||17.09||Bowers and Ruddy, Masterpieces, 6 (this coin).||Boehringer 148|
|313||17.25||Die break below larger.||Boehringer 148|
|315||16.61||Coin dirty and corroded.||Boehringer 148|
|316||17.30||Die break below larger.||Boehringer 149 (5)|
|318||17.28||Die more worn.||ANS, ex Trenholme (this coin).||Boehringer 149|
|320||17.04||ANS, ex Rosen (this coin).||Boehringer 150 (1)|
|321||17.23||Boehringer 151 (6)|
|322||16.40||Boehringer 152 (9)|
|323||16.84||Raised surface to 1. Probably a deposit.||ANS, ex Trenholme (this coin).||Boehringer 152|
|324||16.30||Surface dirty and corroded.||Boehringer 153 (1)|
|325||17.33||Boehringer 154 (3)|
|327||17.44||Boehringer 155 (2)|
|328||17.07||Die break below r.||Boehringer V70/R104|
|329||16.84||ANS, ex Trenholme (this coin).||Boehringer V70/R104|
|330||17.40||Boehringer 156 (2)|
|332||17.49||Boehringer 160 (4)|
|334||17.30||Boehringer 164 (2)|
|335||17.15||Boehringer 165E (1)|
|337||17.11||Boehringer 166 (10)|
|338||17.33||Boehringer 169 (1)|
|339||17.25||Boehringer 172 (7)|
|341||17.23||Die break beginning below 1.||Boehringer 172|
|342||17.13||Boehringer 174 (3)|
|343||17.87||Boehringer 175 (2)|
|344||17.41||Boehringer 176 (2)|
|345||17.34||Boehringer 177 (5)|
|347||17.65||Boehringer 179 (4)|
|348||17.05||Boehringer 180 (3)|
|350||17.16||Boehringer 183 (5)|
|351||17.10||ANS, ex Rosen (this coin).||Boehringer 183 (5)|
|352||Boehringer 184 (7)|
|354||17.06||Boehringer 185 (4)|
|355||17.39||Boehringer 188 (2)|
|356||16.79||Boehringer 190 (1)|
|357||17.00||Die worn.||Boehringer 195 (2)|
|358||17.00||Die and coin worn.||Die corroded.||ANS, ex Rosen (this coin).||Boehringer V89/R134|
|359||17.08||Die and coin worn.||Boehringer 202 (3)|
|360||16.86||Die more worn.||Die worn; coin corroded||Boehringer 202|
|361||17.59||Boehringer 203 (4)|
|362||17.04||ANS, ex Rosen (this coin).||Boehringer 203|
|363||16.57||Die worn.||Die worn.||Boehringer 203|
|365||16.06||Boehringer 205 (5)|
|366||16.97||Die worn; coin corroded.||Boehringer 206 (1)|
|367||17.17||Boehringer 207 (5)|
|368||17.00||Boehringer 207E (2)|
|369||17.09||Boehringer 208 (7)|
|370||16.40||Boehringer 209 (2)|
|371||17.21||Boehringer 211 (1)|
|372||17.02||Boehringer 212 (6)|
|373||16.98||Die more worn.||ANS, ex Rosen (this coin).||Boehringer 212|
|374||17.23||Boehringer 213 (8)|
|375||17.10||Boehringer 215 (1)|
|376||17.29||Die break below r. larger.||Boehringer 216 (6)|
|378||17.40||ANS, ex Rosen (this coin).||Boehringer 216|
|379||17.00||Die and coin worn.||Boehringer 218 (8)|
|380||17.41||Die and coin worn.||Die and coin worn.||Boehringer 221 (4)|
|381||17.31||Die breaks center and below larger.||Boehringer 221|
|382||16.84||ANS, ex Rosen (this coin).||Boehringer 223E (1). Obv. Almost identical to Boehringer V60 (290-91) and V79|
|383||17.15||ANS, ex Rosen (this coin).||Boehringer 224 (7)|
|384||17.16||ANS, ex Rosen (this coin).||Boehringer 228 (2)|
|386||17.23||Die more worn.||Boehringer 229 (6)|
|387||17.02||Die more worn.||Boehringer 229|
|388||17.27||ANS, ex Rosen (this coin).||Boehringer 229|
|389||17.26||Boehringer 231 (3)|
|390||17.39||Boehringer 232 (2)|
|391||17.35||Boehringer 233 (6)|
|393||17.36||Naville 2 July 1930, 332 = Naville 3 July 1933, 677 = Gans-Grunthal 5 June 1950, 94.||Boehringer Vnew/Rnew|
|397||17.51||Boehringer 234 (2)|
|401||17.05||Boehringer 236 (4)|
|404||17.26||Boehringer 237 (5)|
|405||17.11||ANS, ex Rosen (this coin).||Boehringer 237|
|407||17.19||Boehringer 242 (3)|
|408||17.39||Boehringer 244 (6)|
|410||17.15||Die break below.||Boehringer 245 (1)|
|416||16.98||ANS, ex Rosen (this coin).||Boehringer 246|
|417||17.34||Boehringer 247 (1)|
|418||17.40||Die and coin worn.||ANS, ex Rosen (this coin).||Boehringer V111/Rnew|
|419||17.31||ANS, ex Rosen (this coin).||Boehringer 248 (2)|
|420||17.28||Boehringer 249 (2)|
|421||17.43||Kriecheldorf 11-12 Feb. 1971, 21.||Boehringer V113/Rnew|
|423||16.96||Die more worn.||Traces of die corrosion.||ANS, ex Trenholme (this coin).||Boehringer V113/R169|
|425||17.28||Boehringer 254 (3)|
|430||17.08||Boehringer 257 (3)|
|431||17.09||ANS, ex Rosen (this coin).||Boehringer 257E (1)|
|433||17.34||Die break center.||Boehringer 259 (2)|
|434||16.92||Coin corroded.||Boehringer 259|
|435||16.69||Die worn.||Coin corroded.||Boehringer 259|
|436||17.79||Coin corroded.||Boehringer 260 (2)|
|437||17.31||Boehringer 261 (1)|
|438||17.25||Die worn.||Boehringer 261|
|439||17.19||Double struck.||Boehringer 263 (2)|
|441||17.03||Coin worn.||ANS, ex Rosen (this coin).||Boehringer 265 (2)|
|442||17.19||Boehringer 267E (1)|
|443||17.31||Boehringer 268 (9)|
|444||17.26||Die more worn.||Boehringer 268|
|446||17.35||Boehringer 270 (2)|
|447||17.14||Dewing 757.||Boehringer V123/R189|
|449||17.26||Boehringer 272 (2)|
|450||17.39||Die more worn; die breaks below.||Boehringer 272|
|452||17.28||Die breaks larger.||Boehringer 272|
|453||17.12||Boehringer 273 (1)|
|454||17.00||Boehringer 274 (6)|
|456||17.24||Die more worn.||Boehringer 274|
|457||17.16||Die more worn.||Boehringer 274|
|458||16.99||Die more worn.||ANS. ex Rosen (this coin).||Boehringer 275 (1)|
|459||17.25||Kress 7-8 Aug. 1967, 15.||Boehringer V127/Rnew|
|460||17.39||Boehringer 278 (3)|
|461||17.35||Coin worn.||Boehringer 278|
|Group 3, 12a–e. 475-470 B.C.|
|462||17.24||Boehringer 296 (4)|
|463||17.37||Boehringer 297 (1)|
|464||16.79||ANS, ex Rosen (this coin).||Boehringer 300E (1)|
|465||17.21||Die break center.||Boehringer 301 (1)|
|466||17.45||Boehringer 302 (2)|
|467||17.32||Boehringer 303 (6)|
|470||16.56||Die worn.||Boehringer 305 (2)|
|471||17.22||Boehringer 307 (5)|
|472||16.60||ANS, ex Rosen (this coin).||Boehringer 307|
|473||17.14||Boehringer 308 (1)|
|474||17.41||Boehringer 310 (4)|
|476||16.62||Boehringer 310E (2)|
|478||17.28||Boehringer 312 (8)|
|479||16.90||Die worn and coin corroded.||Boehringer 312|
|480||17.20||Boehringer 313 (7)|
|482||16.63||ANS, ex Rosen (this coin).||Boehringer 314 (6)|
|484||17.12||Boehringer 316 (3)|
|485||17.29||Boehringer 317 (1)|
|486||17.27||Boehringer 318 (5)|
|487||17.44||Boehringer 320 (1)|
|489||17.05||Boehringer 321 (12)|
|492||17.10||Die more worn.||Boehringer 321|
|494||16.99||Boehringer 323 (7)|
|497||17.25||Die break below.||Boehringer 326 (2)|
|498||17.20||Die worn.||Boehringer 329 (1)|
|499||17.24||Boehringer 331 (6)|
|500||16.83||Coin corroded.||Boehringer 331|
|501||17.25||Die more worn.||Boehringer 331|
|502||17.05||Die more worn.||Boehringer 331|
|504||17.31||Boehringer 332 (9)|
|505||17.07||Coin dirty and corroded.||Boehringer 333 (4)|
|506||17.41||Boehringer 335 (2)|
|507||17.36||Boehringer 338 (5)|
|510||17.42||Coin corroded.||Boehringer V168/R237|
|511||17.31||Coin dirty and corroded.||Boehringer 341 (2)|
|512||17.32||Die more worn.||Die and coin worn.||Boehringer 343 (5)|
|513||16.93||Boehringer 344 (7)|
|514||17.11||ANS, ex Rosen (this coin).||Boehringer 344|
|515||17.31||Die more worn; die break center below.||Boehringer 344|
|516||17.39||Die worn.||Boehringer 346 (2)|
|517||17.20||Boehringer 347E (1)|
|518||17.35||Boehringer 348 (5)|
|519||17.28||Boehringer 352 (3)|
|520||17.45||Die berak center.||Boehringer 352|
|521||16.98||Coin dirty and corroded.||Boehringer 353 (5)|
|522||17.02||Die more worn.||Boehringer 353|
|523||16.67||Boehringer 354 (4)|
|524||16.86||Die very worn.||Arethusa in laurel wreath ("Demareteion" type).||Boehringer 391 (2)|
|Obv. In exergue, ketos.|
|Group 4, 13 (transitional phase). 470-466 B.C.|
|525||17.21||Boehringer 408 (6)|
|526||17.21||Boehringer 409 (3)|
|527||16.74||Boehringer 412 (4)|
|528||17.46||Bowers and Ruddy, Masterpieces, 7 (this coin).||Boehringer 435 (1)|
|529||17.41||Boehringer 440 (15)|
|531||17.16||Boehringer 441 (2)|
|Group 4, 14a. After 466 B.C.|
|532||17.20||Bowers and Ruddy, Masterpieces, 8 (this coin).||Boehringer 469 (2)|
|533||16.58||Boehringer 473 (3)|
|534||17.48||Bowers and Ruddy, Masterpieces, 9 (this coin).||Boehringer 474 (2)|
|535||17.16||Boehringer 477 (7)|
|537||17.18||Boehringer 478 (5)|
|538||17.31||Boehringer 480 (4)|
|539||17.21||Boehringer 483 (14)|
The index is to the text and footnotes; the tables and catalogue are self-explanatory. Numbers in italics refer to the main discussion of the subject.