(Plate 1)
Tetradrachms
1. Nike (?) driving biga r. on neckguard of helmet. No border of dots.
*ANS-ETN (Anthedon Hd., ANSMN V, P1. IX, 8), gr. 17.00↑
2. Nike (?) and biga on neckguard. No dots.
*Kambanis Coll. (Anthedon Hd., ANSMN V, P1. IX, 9), gr. 17.30
3. Biga on neckguard, driver not visible. 1 No dots.
a. *von Post Coll. (Opusc. Ath. I, 1953, P1. I, 1 and 1a), gr. 17.19↑
b. Paris = Lederer Coll. (BCH, 1938, P1. XVIII, 6) = Mainzer Coll. (ZfN, 1926, P1. VII, 1) = Hirsch (Lambros) 463, gr. 16.12 (oxydized)↑
4 tetradrachms: 3 obverse, 4 reverse dies
This issue, unknown to Beulé and to Svoronos, was discovered by Lederer who published in 1926 a single example from the Mainzer Collection. 2 The same coin had been in the possession of Jean Lambros and included in the Hirsch Sale of 1910 but without illustration and without indication of its uniqueness. Subsequently several specimens turned up in the Anthedon Hoard of 1935.
These are undoubtedly the first coins of the New Style series. No one of the three obverse dies has the circle of dots found on all other issues, with the exception of one die from the next striking. A stylistic peculiarity of this emission is the minute representation of a biga and driver which appears on the neckguard of Athena’s helmet. On Obverse 2 the charioteer seems to be winged and the rendering is generally similar to that of the Nike-in-quadriga symbol of MIKI — ⊖EOΦPA. In all probability the tiny figure behind the horses on these dies is also Nike. Were the victory representation on the obverse confined to the first issue of the coinage, one might be tempted to invest it with historical implications, but its recurrence on two later emissions suggests that it is merely the "signature" of a particular diecutter.
The monogram of the first mint magistrate was read by Lederer1 as . This he thought indicated a name beginning ΩN, ΩNI, INΩ, IΩN or NΩ. Of these, IΩN is the only combination which seems at all likely. However, the monogram is actually and not . The ANS coin from the Anthedon Hoard shows very clearly a separate horizontal line between ω and N; on the other reverses the effect is gained by flattening the bottom of the omega across the top of the nu. Thus Π (or possibly Γ) must be considered as part of the monogram. Even with this addition the elements present do not allow a wide choice in names. The one which seems most probable is IΠΠΩN, all letters of which are in the monogram. There is an Athenian of this name, IΠΠΩN AN⊖IΠΠOY KYΔA⊖HNAIEYΣ, known from a funerary inscription of the second century B.C. (PA 7678; IG II2 6579) and the name occurs also in records of the fifth, fourth and third centuries. ΓNΩ [ΣIAΣ] is a second possibility.
A⊖ which, as Lederer pointed out, almost certainly would expand into A⊖HN is too common a beginning to warrant any attempt at precise identification.
1 |
W. Schwabacher in publishing the von Post tetradrachm describes the obverse as having a single horse (or perhaps
a centaur) on the neckguard instead of the biga found on other dies, and the plate seems to bear out his observation. However,
a cast of
the coin, examined under a magnifying glass, shows two horses, the separate necks and heads definitely distinguishable. There
is no clear
indication of a charioteer. A few faint markings behind the horses are so involved with the curves of the helmet ornament
as to make any
identification inconclusive.
|
2 |
P. Lederer, "Ein unbekanntes athenisches Tetradrachmon," ZfN, 1926, pp. 55–61.
|
(Plate 1)
Tetradrachms
4. No border of dots.
() a. *London = Sotheby, Dec. 1924, 130, gr. 16.20 ↗
() b. *Athens (ANSMN V, P1. IX, A; Sv. 33, 7), gr. 17.05
5. Border of dots from here on.
() a. *ANS-ETN (Anthedon Hd., ANSMN V, P1. IX, 10), gr. 17.05↑
() b. Commerce 1953 (ANSMN V, P1. IX, B) = Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 901, gr. 16.90; Stockholm, gr. 17.07 ↗
6.
() a. *London (BMC 286; ANSMN V, P1. IX, C; Sv. 33, 9), gr. 17.06↑ dblst.
() b. Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 900 = Sv. 33, 10, gr. 16.55
() c. ANS = Baltatzi Coll. (Sv. 33, 11) = Mavrokordatou Coll. (JIAN, 1912, 1294), gr. 16.37↑; Damascus Collector
7.
() a. *Seyrig Coll., gr. 16.93↑
() b. Münz. u. Med. List 154, 29 = Giesecke Coll. (ANSMN V, P1. X, D;
Sv. 33, 8) = Hirsch VIII, 1189, gr. 16.98
11 tetradrachms: 4 obverse, 9 reverse dies
The particular interest of this issue lies in its variations: the addition of a circle of dots to Obverses 5–7, the change in first magistrates and the appearance on one die of a third monogram. Its earliest coins, those with , are known from only two examples. 1 Following is an unique tetradrachm in the American Numismatic Society which has in place of . The obverse of this coin is also used with a normal reverse and die breaks on No. 5b indicate that it is the later striking (see ANSMN V, P1. IX, 10 and B). From then on there is no variation in the combination.
It is possible, of course, that we have here the coinage of two separate years but it is not likely. The only reasons for dividing the issue would be the difference in first monograms and the fact that one die has no circle of dots. But there are other instances of a change in magistrates during the course of a single year and the circle of dots need not have been added at the beginning of an issue. Against separation is the strong evidence of continuity in symbol and second monogram.
Apparently the tradition of an Athena head without dots was carried over from the preceding issue by magistrates and . The style of their one obverse is closely related to Nos. 1–3 save that there is no biga on the helmet but merely a sweeping horizontal line suggestive of it. Then was replaced by and a single reverse with a third monogram would seem to indicate that for a time two men were associated with in the minting magistracy. 2 With the change in first magistrates came a change in the design of the obverse. A circle of dots was placed around the head of the goddess. Otherwise, Obverses 4 and 5 are practically identical surely the work of the same engraver.
Four monograms appear on reverses of this issue. Like of the preceding year, they are unrevealing in their extreme simplicity. There are numerous possibilities in names beginning ΠAP and AP; MHT is little better though perhaps in this case MHT[POΔΩPOΣ] might be suggested as a likely expansion since the name occurs elsewhere in the New Style series. There are three donors of that name recorded in an inscription of 183/2 B.C. (IG II2 2332; PA 10153, 10145, 10150). The third monogram of No. 5a would seem to stand for ΣιM... or ΣMI...
Two symbols are shown on all reverses: a kerchnos with grain through its handles in the upper right field and a bakchos beneath the amphora. This is the only instance in the series of two symbols employed on all dies of a single issue. The emphasis seems significant and when one reflects that both devices are Eleusinian in connotation and that 195/4 B.C. was a year of the Greater Eleusinia 1, it is highly probable that the choice of the first symbols of the new coinage was inspired by this important Athenian festival.
(Plate 2)
Tetradrachms
8.
instead of ΦANI; bakchos beneath amphora.
* London (BMC 303; ANSMN V, Pl. X, E; Sv. 33, 22), gr. 16.75↑
9.
a. *Mrs. E. T. Newell Coll. (Anthedon Hd., ANSMN V, Pl. X, 11), gr. 16.80↑; Munich, gr. 15.89 (pierced)
b. Vienna, gr. 16.85
10.
a. *Roš Coll., gr. 17.20↑
b. Kambanis Coll. (Anthedon Hd., ANSMN V, Pl. X, 12)
c. Kambanis Coll. (Anthedon Hd., ANSMN V, Pl. X, 13)
d. Glasgow (Hunt. 78; Sv. 33, 24), gr. 17.28↑
e. Athens (Sv. 33, 23), gr. 16.75
f. Lockett Coll. (SNG 1903), gr. 16.77↑
g. Berlin (von Prokesch-Osten Coll., ZfN, 1926, Pl. VII, 4), gr. 17.042
11 tetradrachms: 3 obverse, 10 reverse dies
Like the first issue, this striking has no symbol in the field, but one reverse has a bakchos beneath the amphora. This is clearly a survival from the issue immediately preceding and points to the contiguity of the two emissions as well as to the position of No. 8 as the first coinage of the new issue.
In one other respect No. 8 differs from the other tetradrachms. The name of the second magistrate, ΦANι, is rendered in monogram instead of in letters. This identity of monogram and abbreviated name was first recognized by Beulé and confirmed by Kirchner (ZfN, 1898, pp. 267f.) who further pointed out that the monogram occurring on the serpents issue must also be read as Phanias. It is quite likely that the Phanias of this issue is the same man who shared office exactly ten years later with his brother Moschos. 1
Beulé saw in all the elements of the name Lysimachos. This is possible but it is noteworthy that on all reverses the most prominent feature of the monogram is an X of four equal segments. By analogy with other monograms one would suppose that if lambda were the initial letter it would have been given greater emphasis, a result easily achieved by curtailing the upper segments of the X. One does in fact find just such a rendering in the first monogram of the thyrsos issue and there I think the name does start with lambda. For I should suggest a name beginning XAI.
(Plate 2)
Tetradrachms
NO SYMBOL
11.
() a. *Glasgow (Hunt. 68; Sv. 33, 20), gr. 16.94 ↑
() b. Berlin (ZfN, 1926, Pl. VII, 2; Sv. 33, 19), gr. 16.72; Berlin, gr. 16.88
() c. Vienna, gr. 15.46 (worn)
12. Biga and driver on neckguard of helmet.
a. *Seyrig Coll. (Kessab Hd.), gr. 16.86↑
() b. ANS-ETN (Anthedon Hd., ANSMN V, Pl. X, 14), gr. 17.09↑
13. Possibly biga and driver on neckguard.
a. Berlin (ZfN, 1926, Pl. VII, 3), gr. 16.97
b. Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 3195), gr. 17.08↑
CORNUCOPIAE
c. ANS, gr. 16.93↑
d. *Berlin (von Prokesch-Osten Coll., ZfN, 1926, Pl. VII, 5; Sv. 33, 17), gr. 16.85
14.
*Paris (de Luynes 2073; Sv. 33, 18), gr. 17.05↑
11 tetradrachms: 4 obverse, 10 reverse dies
It was Lederer in the 1926 Zeitschrift article who supplied two new readings of the second monogram, and , in place of the of Beulé and Head. The first form he interpreted as NIKH[THΣ] and the second as HNι[OXιΔHΣ] or HNI[OXOΣ].
Actually the variation is even greater than Lederer noticed and more extensive than indicated in the catalogue above. Nos. 11b and c show , Nos. 11a and 12b have , and of the other reverses only 13d gives a clear . Nos. 13a, b, c and 14 seem to have while No. 12a is so poorly struck up that only N appears on the coin.
What we apparently have is a series of carelessly cut monograms of which was the most accurate rendering. On some dies the lower diagonal of the K was omitted and on many more the upper one as well was abandoned. The which remained lost its precision on most dies due to a merging of the heavy strokes and a consequent filling in of the lower right corner of the monogram.
It seems to me that only one magistrate is indicated. 1 Niketes is a likely although not the only feasible expansion. The name occurs elsewhere in the New Style series and the present magistrate may be a member of the family of NIKHTHΣ NIKHTOY ΠEPΓAΣH⊖EN (see PA 10759 for stemma). Either the Niketes who was epimeletes of the Mysteries in 215/4 B.C. (IG II2 847) or his son is a possibility, the cornucopiae symbol perhaps indicative of the Eleusinian connection.
Lederer believed that the first monogram should be read E⊖ rather than ⊖E. The latter, as he pointed out, would be rendered . In this I think he is undoubtedly right. On all dies the E is strongly and clearly cut while on many the curve of the ⊖ is only perfunctorily indicated. Attic names beginning E⊖ are rare. There is an E⊖E∧ANΔPOΣ AXAPNEYΣ, a councilor of Oineis soon after 178/7 B.C. (PA 4637–8; IG II2 919; and for the date Hesp., Suppl. I, 1937, pp. 125–6, no.66).
Seven reverse dies have no symbol; three have a cornucopiae in the right field. The division in the catalogue is primarily one of convenience as there is no definite evidence for the placement of the no symbol strikings ahead of those with cornucopiae. It seems possible that the omission of a symbol was carried over from the preceding year on the earliest reverses of the issue and that the more careful rendering of the second monogram on Nos. 11–12 also indicates that these dies belong at the beginning of the emission when one might suppose that the engravers would show greater care in designating the magistrate. However, for a time at least, dies with and without symbol were in simultaneous use. No. 13 has four reverses: a and b without cornucopiae, c and d with it. The evidence of die breaks and recutting shows that 13d was the earliest stage of the obverse and 13a next. On the ANS and Cambridge coins (13c and b) the lower area of the die has broken down so badly that the hair and neck truncation have been recut. It is clear then that reverses with and without symbol are to be associated with both early and late stages of this obverse die. The die flaws of the neckguard which appear on all four coins make it impossible to be certain that a biga was part of the design as it undoubtedly was on No. 12.
1 |
The family is discussed in connection with the serpents issue (page 54).
|
1 |
According to a footnote in Lederer’s article, Regling too thought it possible that the omission of the K was due
to carelessness on the part of the diecutter and not indicative of a different magistrate. Certainly there are variations
in later issues
which can scarcely be explained except as careless workmanship.
|
(Plate 2)
Tetradrachm
15.
* ANS-ETN (Hesp., Suppl. VIII, 1949, Pl. 3, 4), gr. 16.75↑
NO MONOGRAMS NO SYMBOL
Drachms
16.
a. *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.10 ↗
b. Berlin (Sv. 33, 2), gr. 3.66
c. Stuttgart (Sv. 33, 1)
17.
* Athens (Delos Hd. B, 13; Sv. 33, 3), gr. 3.75 ↗
Hemidrachm
18.
* Berlin (Sv. 33, 4), gr. 1.72
1 tetradrachm
4 drachms: 2 obverse, 4 reverse dies
1 hemidrachm
The unique specimen published by Bellinger in 1949 is still the only tetradrachm representing the fifth New Style issue. In its first monogram one finds all but the last element of at least three names: Nikias, Nikagoras and Nikandros. It may be that the two palms, one in the lower left field and one beside the second monogram, are intended as a play on the name of the magistrate or as a reference to agonistic victories. 1 The second monogram certainly indicates a name beginning ≡E.
With this one tetradrachm I would associate the first fractional issues of the series. On his Plate 33, Svoronos brought together three drachms and three hemidrachms without monograms and without symbol. These fractions as a group he apparently regarded as belonging with the first issue of New Style tetradrachms. Nos. 1–4 are indeed related but Nos. 5–6 must, I think, be separated from them for three reasons. They are late in style, their obverses have a circle of dots not found on Nos. 1–4, and the owl sits on a club as in all later hemidrachm issues and not on an amphora as in No. 4.
Svoronos’ Nos. 1–4 are represented by Nos. 16–18 in the present catalogue. The first drachm and the hemidrachm (Nos. 16 and 18) are very similar in style; the near identity of the reverses of Nos. 16c and 17 indicates that this last fraction of rather different obverse style is to be associated with the other coins.
These drachm and hemidrachm strikings must be the first fractional coinage. It does not follow that they must belong with the first tetradrachm issue. The absence of dots on the obverse suggests such a relationship but actually this is not conclusive evidence. All that it implies is that these fractions without dots come before the trophy striking which has a drachm with dotted obverse. Once the tradition of placing the circle of dots on the obverse of the drachm was established it seems unlikely that it would be abandoned, but there is no reason to suppose that the appearance of the circle of dots on tetradrachms and fractions was necessarily a simultaneous phenomenon. It may well be that the drachms were at first thought to be too small for an outline of dots (certainly the size of the head on Obverse 16 left no room for such an addition) and that the earliest dies omitted this feature even though it had become standard practice for the tetradrachms. The same explanation would account for the absence of symbols on the first fractions.
In style these fractions have nothing in common with Obverses 1–4, the only tetradrachm dies without dots. The large head of No. 16 could be associated with Nos. 6–7 and a connection with the second issue is possible on the assumption that two diecutters were at work, the first producing No. 4 and later No. 5 with dots and the other the drachms and then Nos. 6 and 7 with dots. However, there are late elements—the rather large Pegasus, the heavy visor, the tortuous helmet ornament—which seem to bring No. 16 closer to No. 15 than to any obverse of the second issue. No. 17 is poorly preserved for purposes of comparison, but it bears a resemblance to No. 14 and has the spread visor which is a late feature on the tetradrachms.
Two other factors give some weight to an association of Nos. 15–18. The first is tenuous because there is no certainty that all drachm issues are known. But on the present evidence the earliest fractional strikings seem to have been spaced rather than annual. For the period from 196 B.C. down to about 178 when the drachms began to be issued in abundance and with increasing regularity, we have only three fractional issues: the one without symbol under current discussion, the one with trophy symbol and the one with herm. Assuming that the small change of the Old Style was sufficiently plentiful to meet the needs of the years immediately after 196 and that the first striking of New Style fractions came in 192, we have what seems to be a systematic program of emissions spaced at four or five year intervals— in 192, in 188, in 183 and about 178.
The other factor concerns the strange decline of coinage in 192/1 B.C. From the years preceding there are 4, 11, 11 and 11 tetradrachms; from those following we have 12, 25, 16 and 33. There are historical events (see page 113) which explain a scanty emission but even so the disproportion is striking. It becomes much less puzzling if the output of 192/1 included drachms and hemidrachms as well as tetradrachms.
1 |
For a possible historical implication see page 113.
|
(Plate 3)
Tetradrachms
19. Biga and driver on neckguard of helmet.
a. *ANS, gr. 16.97↑
b. *Mrs. E. T. Newell Coll., gr. 16.96↑ (only lower part of first monogram visible)
20.
* The Hague (Sv. 33,14), gr. 16.80
21.
a. *Cambridge (Grose 5897; Sv. 33, 15), gr. 16.99↑
b. *Roš Coll., gr. 17.00↑
22.
* Winterthur = Hamburger, June 1930, 756, gr. 16.94↑
23.
a. *Naples (Santangelo Coll., Fiorelli 10788), gr. 16.78↑
b. Paris, gr. 16.82↑
24.
*Paris (de Luynes 2077; Sv. 33, 12), gr. 17.05
25.
a. *London (BMC 289; Sv. 33, 16), gr. 16.87↑
b. Berlin (Sv. 33, 13), gr. 17.07
c. Athens, gr. 16.35↑
12 tetradrachms: 7 obverse, 12 reverse dies
With the present issue the biga and driver design appears for the last time on the coinage. Obverse 19 shows no trace of a wing on the charioteer but otherwise the rendering corresponds with that of earlier dies.
The club, which on all other reverses is headed left, points in the opposite direction on No. 19a. This slight deviation perhaps indicates that this reverse was the first to be cut; there is no evidence for the relative position of the remaining obverse and reverse dies.
Heretofore the monograms have been comparatively simple. Normally there is no problem as to what letters are present but these are seldom sufficient to justify a definite identification. For the first magistrate of this club issue we have a complex monogram which can, I believe, be accurately resolved. Its constituents are clearly E, which because of its position is almost certainly the first letter, Y, P, ω and ∆. Surely this is EY∆ωPO[Σ]. The name is not common in Attic prosopography but a Eudoros of Kydathenaion is listed among the donors of 183/2 (PA 5452; IG II2 2332). The "generous one" of the coinage of 191/0 B.C. may well be the same man.
may stand for ιΠΠω[N] and represent a variation of the first monogram of the series. It is difficult to see what else it could be except a name starting with Πω.
(Plate 4)
Tetradrachms
26.
a. instead of on this one reverse.
*London, gr. 16.26 ↗
27.
a. *Paris, Petit Palais
() b. London (BMC 287), gr. 16.67↑
() c. Berlin (Sv. 34, 3), gr. 16.91
() d. Athens (Sv. 34, 1), gr. 17.05
28.
a. *ANS-Gautier, gr. 16.43↑
() c. Paris (de Luynes 2078), gr. 16.55↑
() d. Helbing 83, 328 = Cahn 71, 338 = Ratto (Rogers) 340
() e. Leningrad, gr. 16.14 (pierced)↑
29.
a. *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.81 ↗; Empedocles Coll.
b. *Chiha Coll.; Berlin, gr. 16.76↑
c. Brussels (Sv. 34, 2), gr. 16.57; Petsalis Coll., gr. 15.83↑
d. Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 902, gr. 16.50
e. Cambridge (General Coll., SNG 3196), gr. 16.64↗
f. L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 14.25 (badly corroded)
g. Berry Coll., gr. 16.83↑
h. Leningrad, gr. 16.52↗
29X.
*Berlin, gr. 16.32↑
30.
( ) a. *Paris (Sv. 34, 5), gr. 15.50↑
() b Glasgow (Hunt. 66; Sv. 34, 4), gr. 17.06↗
25 tetradrachms: 6 obverse, 22 reverse dies
There is no means of determining the order of obverse dies except in the case of No. 26, which is the first of the issue. A die break directly behind the Pegasus is more pronounced in No. 26b than in 26a. The reverse of No. 26a is the only one with as the second magistrate and its position preceding a reverse with would thus indicate that the shift in officials came at the beginning rather than at the end of the year.
Concerning No. 30 I have some reservations. The two coins may be imitations and not products of the Athenian mint. The form of the first monogram is the most abbreviated known for this issue and the version of the second name is not encountered elsewhere. These deviations are not of great significance in an emission marked by monogrammatic diversity, but there are also some strange stylistic factors, notably the exaggerated eyes of the owl and the peculiar arrangement of the horse protomes above the heavy visor. The weight of the Glasgow specimen is 17.06 grams, that of the Paris piece only 15.50 but it shows no sign of plating. However, if the coins are imitations they are copied with greater fidelity than is generally the case in this period and their style is not sufficiently abnormal to justify unqualified inclusion in the category of imitations.
The first monogram is an elaborate one which takes at least four distinct forms. is the most common and seemingly the most accurate; the variations (such as 26b, 27b, 28b) sometimes omit the clearly-defined P or A but the missing letter can still be made out in what remains. NAYKPAT[HΣ] seems to me the most satisfactory resolution and this interpretation is strengthened by the rudder which appears on all coins. What we seem to have is a personal connection between the symbol and the name of the magistrate, such as may have been the case with NIK... of the fifth striking and is undoubtedly true of issues from a later period (e.g. HPA – APIΣTOΦ with the club and lion's skin of Herakles). Any certain association of the mint official Naukrates with a known Athenian of that name is impossible. He may belong to the family which supplied the basileus of 214/3 B.C. (IG II2 1706; Hesp., 1933, Pl. XIV, line 152) — conceivably he is the same man—but there are other possibilities.
who holds the second magistracy for most of the year is probably API... but beyond that it is pointless to speculate. His predecessor has a more distinctive monogram. The essential elements are ⊖, X and M. These do not combine easily; in fact the only name into which I can fit them is ⊖YMOX [APHΣ]. The name is of frequent occurrence in Athenian epigraphical records of the fifth-third centuries B.C.
(Plate 5)
Tetradrachms
31.
a. *Robinson Coll., gr. 16.97↑
b. Dewing Coll., gr. 16. 59↑
c. Berlin (Sv. 35, 7), gr. 17.01
d. Athens (Sv. 35, 10), gr. 16.57
() e. Paris (Sv. 35, 8), gr. 16.42 ↗; Mrs. E. T. Newell Coll., gr. 16.90 ↗
31X.
* Berlin (Babylon Hd., ZfN, 1928, p. 114, 59), gr. 15.92
32.
* London, gr. 13.40 (broken)↑
33.
* Wilkinson Coll. = Lockett Coll. (SNG 1905), gr. 16.68↑
34.
a. *Commerce 1956, gr. 16.88↑
() b. Cambridge (Grose 5900; Sv. 35, 11), gr. 16.90↑; Tübingen, gr. 16.45
35.
a. *London (BMC 298), gr. 16.65↑
b. Sophia (Sv. 35, 9), gr. 16.77
36.
a. *ANS, gr. 16.42 ↗
b. Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.65↑
16 tetradrachms: 7 obverse, 14 reverse dies
The obverses of this issue are distinguished by an unusual rendering of the Pegasus. This is not clearly visible on Nos. 31X–33 but on the other four dies the winged horse has a long, thin and swirling lion's tail instead of the thick straight brush which is its customary appendage. One might identify the creature as a griffin were it not for the distinctly equine legs and head, which seem to indicate that what we have is merely a strange version of the traditional Pegasus. This aberrant representation occurs on three other obverses belonging to later issues.
In the Sylloge publication of the Lockett piece (No. 33) a Δ ? is recorded as an amphora letter. From the cast I can see nothing to suggest that the coin was dated and no other reverse of the issue has an amphora marking.
Beulé thought that the bizarre form of the first monogram was due to its inclusion of a beta and that BYTT[AKOΣ] was a possible interpretation. This seems somewhat farfetched. Certainly one does not get any clear impression of a B from the monogram and it would have been easy enough to render BYTT... in a more intelligible way ( for example). My feeling is that delta is the dominant and initial letter and that ΔIOK∧[HΣ] is the most likely reading. There are three donors of that name in the inscription of 183/2 B.C. cited before (IG II2 2332) but there is no way of determining which, if any, of them was the mint magistrate.
In the second monogram the essential elements would seem to be M and either Φ or Ψ plus O. It looks like a simple rendering but extensive shifting of the letters for possible combinations produced only YΨιMOΣ as an entirely satisfactory solution. All the letters are present, even the terminal sigma. The name is not common in Attic prosopography. If the monogram has been correctly resolved, there is a distinct possibility that the monetary official is connected in some way with the YΨIMOΣ EIPEΣIΔHΣ of a second century inscription from the North Slope of the Acropolis (Hesp., 1933, p. 412).
(Plates 5–6)
Tetradrachms
37.
38.
*Empedocles Coll.
39.
40.
*Vienna, gr. 16.74; Moscow
41.
42.
*ANS-ETN, gr. 16.20↑
43.
44.
44X.
*Berlin, gr. 16.20↑
45.
*Berlin, gr. 16.76↑; Leningrad, gr. 15.17 (corroded)↑
46.
47.
48.
() b. L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 15.97
Drachm
49.
*Athens (Sv. 35, 6), gr. 3.90↑
33 tetradrachms: 18 obverse, 29 reverse dies 1 drachm
From the evidence of surviving coins and the number of obverse dies, the trophy striking is the heaviest thus far in the New Style series. It includes drachms as well as tetradrachms and these are the first regular fractions of the coinage in that they have monograms and symbol. Letters have not yet appeared on the amphora or in the field although Beulé records a Gotha tetradrachm, one of two in that cabinet, with ΠP near the vase. I have a cast of only one Gotha coin, a barbaric specimen (Plate 150, 1348). There is no way of checking Beulé’s reading but it seems dubious inasmuch as no other piece of this issue in my record or in that of Kambanis has lettering. Possibly the ΠP coin was also barbaric; possibly it had surface imperfections resembling letters.
No. 46, alone among the obverses of this issue, has the lion-tailed Pegasus found on dies of the preceding Nike striking.
The two monograms are rendered with great care and consistency except in the case of No. 39 which has a blundered and somewhat uncertain version of the second combination. A distinct variant of this same monogram appears on Nos. 48a, b and c, but the essential letters remain.
Beulé remarks that, among other names, he finds AΣKΛHΠIΛΔHΣ in the first monogram. All components are present and the possibility is strengthened by the fact that a magistrate of that name is connected with the coinage at a later date. A prominent Athenian family of the third and second centuries (PA 11339 for stemma) had a ≡ENΩN AΣKΛHΠIA∆OY ΦYΛAIOΣ, donor in 247/6 B.C. (IG II2 791 and Hesp., 1942, p. 291), and a grandson of the same name was a donor in 183/2 B.C. (IG II2 2332). The father of this second Xenon may have been the mint magistrate of 188/7; conceivably the ≡E.. of the issue with two palms is also a member of the family. Another Asklepiades, of Diomeia, is known to have made a dedication to a sanctuary in 186/5 B.C. (Hesp., 1947, p. 166).
The second monogram is highly uncertain. Beulé suggests a name beginning ΛEO but this is not convincing. E would seem to be the initial letter with an upsilon indicated by the diagonal stroke at the top (on the three dies without this line the right-hand part of the elongation which forms the middle bar of the E gives Y when turned sideways). It may be that ⊖ is part of the name, although there is no trace of a dot in the circle behind the epsilon, or the circular addition may be part of a reversed rho.1
1 |
The obverse of this Berlin coin is illustrated by Svoronos (Plate 35, 5).
|
1 |
A tetradrachm in Glasgow (Hunt. 64) weighing 15.22 grams is a cast replica of the British Museum coin.
|
(Plate 7)
Tetradrachms
50.
51.
52.
53.
*Benson Coll, gr. 16.76↑
54.
* Cambridge (Grose 5898), gr. 16.88↑
55.
26 tetradrachms: 6 obverse, 22 reverse dies
Since amphora letters have not yet appeared and there is no evidence of linking by reverse dies, the order of the obverses is arbitrary. The grain-ear symbol, found in the lower left field, may have a festival significance in that 187/6 B.C. was a year of the Greater Eleusinia. The same symbol marks an extensive group of fractions which Svoronos (Plate 34, 11–32) associates with the tetradrachms. These grain-ear drachms and hemidrachms are catalogued and discussed on pages 68–73, 145–147.
As magistrates Beulé suggests ΓΛYK[ΩN] and MHT[POΛΩPOΣ]. The latter interpretation is very probable and it is to be noted that two reverse dies of the present catalogue, inscribed , provide additional letters of the name: MHTPO. This man may well be identical with MHT, second magistrate of 195/4 B.C. With respect to the first monogram, Beulé’s reading ignores the definite N unless one assumes that all letters of ΓΛYKΩN were used with the exception of the omega. If this is true, it would seem to represent a deviation from the usual practice of including in the monogram all elements of the name down to the stopping place. It is significant that omega is clearly indicated in the monograms of the first and sixth strikings. Certainly the present monogram gives the impression that Γ is the initial letter with N an integral part of the name and O or P, possibly both, as additional constituent. Benjamin Meritt suggests ΓOPΓOINO[Σ] and this seems to me a likely reading. The name is extremely rare at Athens, known only from a late fifth century inscription (IG I2 324, 1. 82; B. D. Meritt, Athenian Financial Documents, pp. 186–143).
1 |
(Plate 8)
Tetradrachms
56.
57.
*Berlin (Sv. 37, 2), gr. 16.77; Commerce 1955
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
*ANS = Hirsch (Lambros) 462 = Warren (Regling 855), gr. 16.61↑
64.
31 tetradrachms: 9 obverse, 24 reverse dies
Nos. 57 and 58 are contiguous by reason of the reverse die link, the first instance of such coupling in the series. Otherwise there is no indication of relative position within the issue.
Both monograms are difficult. Kirchner (ZfN, 1898, pp. 275↑.) reads the first as ΠOΛYAPATOΣ, but ΠOΛYAPKHΣ or ΠOΛYKPATHΣ might be considered preferable in that the monogram seems to have an H, suggested by the otherwise unnecessary extension of both Y and P above the horizontal cross-bar.
The second monogram apparently has three distinct elements—Y, Γ and Φ—with Λ, P and O as possibilities. Although ΦPYΓIΛΛO[Σ] is by far the most satisfactory rendering, the name is not found in Attic prosopography. ΓPYΛΛO[Σ], a known Athenian name, is conceivable but less convincing since one would have to assume that the Φ form stands only for P and O.
(Plate 9)
Tetradrachms
65.
a. | A | on amphora | *Chiha Coll. (first monogram illegible) | |
b. | ? | on amphora | Munich, gr. 16.20; Evelpidis Coll., gr. 16.810 | |
c. | ? | on amphora | Commerce 1955 |
66.
a. | B | on amphora | *Aberdeen, gr. 16.10↑ | |
b. | B | on amphora | Commerce 1957 (Zahle Hd.) | |
c. | Γ1 | on amphora | Lockett Coll. (SNG 1906) = Ratto (Rogers) 343, gr. 16.64↑ | |
d. | Δ | on amphora | Glasgow (Hunt 73; Sv. 37, 11), gr. 15.99↑ | |
e. | ? | on amphora | Vatican (Sv. 37, 7), gr. 16.52; de Laval Coll., gr. 16.83 | |
f. | ? | on amphora | Copenhagen (SNG 116; Sv. 37, 9), gr. 16.59↑ | |
g. | ? | on amphora | Amsterdam (Boissevain 47), gr. 15.88 |
66X.
E on amphora *Bucharest, gr. 16.30
67.
a. | ⊖ | on amphora | Münz. u. Med. List 150, 10; *Berlin (Sv. 37, 8), letter uncertain, gr. 16.99 | |
b. | I | on amphora | Glasgow (Hunt. 75; Sv. 37, 12), gr. 16.26↑ | |
c. | ? | on amphora | Berlin, gr. 15.99 |
68.
I on amphora Kambanis Coll.; *Oxford (Sv. 37, 10), letter uncertain, gr. 16.20↑
69.
a. | K | on amphora | *Munich (Sv. 37, 13), gr. 16.34; Empedocles Coll, letter uncertain | |
b. | ? | on amphora | ANS-ETN, gr. 16.62↑ |
70.
a. | M | on amphora | CollBaltatzi Coll. (Sv. 37, 14) = Mavrokordatou Coll. (JIAN, 1912, 1303), gr. 16.58 | |
b. | M | on amphora | *Natl. Mus. Lebanon; Berlin, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.02 | |
c. | ? | on amphora | Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.87 ↗ | |
d. | ? | on amphora | Leningrad, gr. 15.87↑ |
71.
a. | Ṃ1 | on amphora | Glasgow (Hunt. 74; Sv.37, 15), gr. 16.47 ↗; Paris, letter uncertain, gr. 16.04↑ | |
b. | ? | on amphora | *Paris, gr. 16.15↑ |
72.
? on amphora *Berry Coll., gr. 16.20 ↗
73.
a. | ? | on amphora | *Damascus (Tell Ahmar Hd.) | |
b. | ? | on amphora | Uncertain (Sv. 37, 6, incorrectly assigned to Copenhagen2), gr. 16.58 |
33 tetradrachms: 10 obverse, 26 reverse dies Months: A, B, Γ, ∆, E, ⊖, I, K, M
The introduction of dates on the amphorae is an innovation of the present issue. With the exception of Nos. 72–73, the order of obverses is established by these letters. On the evidence available there seems to have been a short interval without coinage in the middle of the year, but it may be that illegible or missing reverses were marked Z and H.
Beulé lists an unique drachm with monograms and cicada symbol, information on it having been communicated to him by M. Isambert. If such a coin did exist, it has now disappeared—at least there is no record of it subsequent to Beulé’s publication. One wonders if it could perhaps have been confused with one of the common grain-ear drachms with ≡ or Σ in the left field.
Interpretation of the first monogram seems to me quite certain. E, the most prominent element in the combination, is clearly the initial letter. To this should be added K and O or Ω with A and Δ as further possibilities On several of The reverses the upper diagonal of the K is brought in slightly from the end of the top horizontal of the E while the lower diagonal extends to the tip of the lowest horizontal of the same letter. This may be simply fortuitous or it may reflect an effort on the part of careful die engravers to indicate the presence of both A and Δ in the monogram. I think the reading is EIKAΔIOΣ, all components being present if one assumes a retrograde sigma. The name is rare and in all probability the mint official of 185/4 B.C. may be identified with EIKAΔIOΣ TPINEMEEYΣ, donor in 183/2 B.C. (PA 4642; IG II2 2332).
is identical with the second monogram of the Nike striking four years earlier. Probably the same man — Hypsimos? —is serving again as mint magistrate.
1 |
In the Ratto catalogue the reading is E. Robinson in the Lockett publication gives it
as Γ (or E?); Kambanis lists it as Γ or E. I think it is almost certainly a gamma.
|
1 |
Macdonald gives the letter as H ?; Svoronos apparently read it as M or N since the coin is at the end of his
sequence. The date seems to me to be a worn M, definitely not N.
|
2 |
This is probably an Athens specimen. I was unable to see a small group of coins which had been on exhibit before the war.
One of them, with
the same weight as the Svoronos tetradrachm, belongs to this cicada issue.
|
(Plate 10)
Tetradrachms
74.
a. | A | on amphora | *Sotheby (Montagu) 389 = Photiadès 595. gr. 16.78 | |
b. | A | on amphora | London, gr. 15.78↑; Berlin, gr. 16.98 |
75.
A on amphora *Copenhagen (SNG 112; Sv. 35, 12), gr. 16.82↑
76.
B on amphora *Giesecke Coll. (Sv. 35, 13) = Hirsch (Rhousopoulos) 2032, gr. 16.92
77.
a. | B | on amphora | *Vienna = Egger XL (Prowe) 952, gr. 16.83; Berlin. gr. 16.38 | |
b. | B | on amphora | Leningrad, gr. 16.42↑ | |
c. | Γ | on amphora | London (Sv. 35, 14), gr. 16.88↑ | |
d. | ? | on amphora | London (Sv. 35, 17), gr. 16.70↑ | |
e. | ? | on amphora | Vatican |
78.
a. | Γ | on amphora | *Am. Univ. Beirut, gr. 16.25↑ | |
b. | ? | on amphora | Athens |
79.
a. | Z | on amphora | *ANS, gr.16.50↑; Hirsch (Sv. 35, 20), letter uncertain, gr. 16.90 | |
b. | ? | on amphora | Leningrad, gr. 15.36 (corroded)↑ |
80.
81.
I on amphora *Commerce 1955, gr. 16.60↑; The Hague, letter uncertain, gr. 16.40
82.
I on amphora *ANS-ETN, gr.16.40↑; Cambridge (Grose 5899), letter uncertain, gr. 16.00↑
83.
a. | Ṃ | on amphora | Berry Coll., gr. 16.51 ↗ | |
b. | ? | on amphora | Seyrig Coll., gr. 16.55↑ | |
c. | ? | on amphora | ANS, gr. 16.00 ↗; Turin (Mus. Ant., Fabretti 3055), gr. 16.67 | |
d. | ? | on amphora | *Dewing Coll. = Sotheby (Cumberland Clark) 189, gr. 16.90 ↗ | |
e. | ? | on amphora | Berlin (Sv. 35, 19), gr. 16.54 |
84.
a. | N | on amphora | *Paris, gr. 15.83↑ | |
b. | N | on amphora | London (BMC 297), gr. 16.02↑ | |
c. | ? | on amphora | Kambains Coll. | |
d. | ? | on amphora | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.53 |
85.
a. | ? | on amphora | *Frankfurt am Main, gr. 16.69↑ | |
b. | ? | on amphora | Damascus Collector | |
c. | ? | on amphora | Commerce (Sv. 35, 18), gr. 16.77; Commerce Beirut 1953 |
47 tetradrachms: 12 obverse, 35 reverse dies Months: A, B, Γ, Z, H, ⊖, I, M, N
As was the case with the preceding issue, the month letters give the approximate order of the obverses, save for No. 85 which has no legible markings. On Obverses 79 and 82 one finds the peculiar Pegasus with lion’s tail which distinguished dies of the Nike and trophy emissions.
Kirchner (ZfN, 1898, pp. 267f.) was the first to identify the monogram of this striking with the (ΦANI) of the third issue of coinage. he read as Moschos and it was his belief that the two men were brothers: the first, ΦANIA[Σ] MOΣXO[Y] KYΔA⊖HN[AIEYΣ] of a funerary inscription (IG II2 6599) dated after 317/6 B.C.1; the second, MOΣXOΣ MOΣX[OY] KYΔA⊖HNAIEYΣ, secretary in a decree of the year of the archonship of Archelaos. Subsequently in the Prosopographia Attica (10462) the secretary is cited as MOΣXOΣ MOΣX[IΩNOΣ] KY[ΔA]⊖HN (AIEYΣ) and the mint magistrates, Phanias and Moschos, are regarded as his sons.
This second inscription is now restored by Dow (Prytaneis, pp. 81ff., no.36) as MOΣXOΣ MOΣ[XIΩNOΣ A]ṆKYΛH⊖NN which would, of course, indicate a different family. The revised reading, however, does not affect Kirchner’s basic premise, which seems to me valid, that the mint magistrates of 184/3 B.C. are brothers from the family of Kydathenaion in which the two names occur. A Phanias of Kydathenaion is known from a prytany decree of 155/4, published by Meritt (Hesp., 1934, pp. 31ff., no. 21) and by Dow (Prytaneis, pp. 148ff., no. 84), and there is the possibility that he is either identical with our mint magistrate or else a son of one of the brothers of 184/3, the latter association being perhaps the more likely.
The transposition of monograms during the course of the year suggests that the two magistrates were of equal status. Phanias’ name was given precedence on eighteen reverse dies and that of Moschos on seventeen, covering five and four months respectively of the coinage of present record. The shift in position did not, however, coincide with the half year unless the arrangement of the names on No. 79a represents an error on the part of the diecutter.
This issue, like that with cicada symbol, shows gaps in the month sequence: Δ, E, K and Λ1 are missing in the current listing. The appearance of N on a few dies provides the first indication on the coinage of an intercalary year.
1 |
For the ambiguity of this kind of dating see George Stamires (Tὰ ’Eλενσίνια, I, 1946, p. 85). As used here, "after 317/6 B.C."
is merely a
terminus post quem, the stone may have been erected much later than the year mentioned.
|
(Plate 11)
Tetradrachms
86.
87.
() | a. | ? | on amphora | *Berry Coll., gr. 17.10↑ |
b. | on amphora | Empedocles Coll. |
88.
a. | ? | on amphora | *London (BMC 285), gr. 16.67 ↖ | |
b. | on amphora | *Commerce Beirut 1952 | ||
c. | ? | on amphora | Feuardent (Engel-Gros) 52 | |
d. | ? | on amphora | Berlin, gr. 15.99↑ |
89.
a. | Δ | on amphora | *Empedocles Coll. = Baltatzi Coll. (Sv. 36, 3) = Mavrokordatou Coll. (JIAN, 1912, 1293), gr. 16.87; Oxford, gr. 16.27↑; Arethuse, Suppl. comm. 1,330 = Ciani, Dec. 1921, 58; Bauer Coll. (Gans Mail Bid 16, 308) = Ratto (Rogers) 341, gr. 16.80↑ | |
b. | Δ | on amphora | Gotha, gr. 16.90 | |
c. | E | on amphora | ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.93↑; Commerce Beirut 1953 |
90.
a. | E | on amphora | *Berlin (Sv. 36, 2), gr. 16.60 | |
b. | on amphora | Paris, gr. 16.17↑ |
91.
a. | on amphora | *Leningrad, gr. 16.76↑ | ||
b. | on amphora | Petsalis Coll.; Berlin, gr. 16.70↑ | ||
c. | on amphora | Glasgow (Hunt. 65; Sv. 36, 1), gr. 16.80↑ | ||
d. | H | on amphora | Athens (Sv. 86, 4), gr. 17.05 |
92.
a. | ⊖ | on amphora | *Paris (Sv. 36, 5), gr. 16.91 ↗ | |
b. | ! | on amphora | *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.94↑ | |
() | c. | ? | on amphora | Athens, gr. 16.79↑ |
Drachms
93.
a. | H (?)1 | on amphora | *London, gr. 4.21 | |
b. | ? | on amphora | *The Hague (Sv. 36, 6), gr. 3.49 |
28 tetradrachms: 7 obverse, 21 reverse dies
2 drachms: 1 obverse, 2 reverse dies
Months: Γ, Δ, E, Z, H, ⊖, !
This third issue with amphora letters shows an apparent concentration of coinage in the middle of the year, just the reverse of the emphasis of the two preceding strikings. The letter zeta is retrograde on all known dies.2
Of the two monograms, the first—AP.. —is too common to justify even a tentative expansion. The second is carefully executed with the horizontal stroke at the bottom joining the ends of the two outer verticals while the center vertical is brought down below the horizontal. Two deltas are clearly suggested, and I believe that the reading is ΔIOΔOTOΣ, all elements of which are present. Possibly this is the ΔIOΔO who served for the Apollo issue eight years later.
1 |
Beulé, however, records Λ on a Turin coin. If this is our No. 83c the date seems to me quite illegible.
|
1 |
Possibly M, only the two vertical lines are visible.
|
2 |
This letter seems to have given the diecutters a great deal of trouble. During the Early Period it is almost invariably retrograde
when the
Z form is used. There are other examples of the engraver's carelessness in failing to reverse a letter form on the die but
such occurrences
are remarkably rare considering how easy it would be to make this mistake and how many individual letters were required for
an average
die.
|
(Plate 12)
Tetradrachms
94.
a. | No lettering visible | *Copenhagen (SNG 125; Sv. 39, 10), gr. 16.37↑ |
b. | No lettering visible | Leningrad, gr. 15.44 (corroded)↑ |
95.
No lettering visible *Romanos Coll.; Berlin
96.
a. | No lettering visible | *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.46 ↗ |
b. | No lettering visible | Aberdeen (Newnham Davis Coll., SNG 199), gr. 16.47↑ |
c. | No lettering visible | Commerce (Sv. 39, 9, Feuardent), gr. 16.50 |
97.
a. | No lettering visible | Paris, gr. 16.67↑; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 9; Sv. 39, 7), gr. 16.15 |
b. | No lettering visible | Athens, gr. 16.17↑ |
c. | M below amphora | *Commerce Beirut 1952 |
98.
a. | No lettering visible | *London (BMC 311; Sv. 39, 8), gr. 16.83↑ |
b. | No lettering visible | Berlin, gr. 16.66 |
c. | No lettering visible | Munich, gr. 15.47 |
d. | A on amphora | *Empedocles Coll. |
e. | Ạ on amphora | Berlin, gr. 16.76 |
99.
a. | No lettering visible | Kambanis Coll. |
b. | A below amphora | *Vienna, gr. 16.62 |
c. | M below amphora | Athens, gr. 15.50↑; Damascus |
d. | M below amphora | Berlin, gr. 15.94 |
100.
Ạ on amphora * Paris, gr. 16.18↑
101.
a. | No lettering visible | Athens, gr. 15.21 (much worn)↑ |
b. | M below amphora | *Gotha, gr. 16.47 |
c. | AP below amphora | *Berlin (Sv. 39, 6), gr. 16.91; Gotha, gr. 16.57 |
26 tetradrachms: 8 obverse, 21 reverse dies
Controls: A, AP, M
The first AMMΩ – ΔIO issue breaks with the pattern of month letters established by the last three strikings. On most reverses there is no visible lettering and although it could be pure chance that has left us twelve out of twenty-one reverses with all trace of letters eliminated by time, it seems more reasonable to suppose that some at least of these dies were originally uninscribed.
On the nine remaining reverses we find A, M and AP.1 Conceivably A and M are dates but if so their juxtaposition in Nos. 97–99 means that there was coinage for only the first and last months of the year. In view of the number of surviving coins and individual dies, this seems unlikely. The presence of AP, undoubtedly a control combination, on one reverse and the occurrence of AP and ME on dies of the next issue suggest rather that we have here the beginnings of a new control system, with dates temporarily abandoned in favor of control combinations: A (AP) and M (ME). Possibly in the early part of the year there was an attempt to do without controls of any kind. The arrangement of the reverses of No. 98 is determined by die flaws on the obverse—invisible on a, faint on b and c, pronounced on d and e—which place the A reverses after the three without lettering.
The one reverse die link (Nos. 97b and 98a) helps to establish the sequence of obverses. No. 94 with both reverses marked ΔIO instead of ΔIO may represent the initial phase of the striking. Otherwise the relative position of the entries is arbitrary.
AMMΩ is certainly AMMΩ(NIOΣ), possibly connected with the Ammonios of the later AMMΩNIOΣ – KA˄˄IAΣ striking.2 ΔIO in itself is not enough for an identification but one can safely assume a relationship between the two men since the names Dionysios and Ammonios occur in a family of Anaphlystos prominent in Athenian affairs during the second century B.C.
(Plate 13)
Tetradrachms
101 X.
ḄẠ below amphora *Totten Coll.
102.
103.
AP Δ below amphora *Berlin, gr. 16.65
104.
105.
Z1 1. field; ? on amphora *Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 6), gr. 16.50↑; Damascus Collector
106.
a. | Z 1. field; EP on amphora | London = Ratto (Rogers) 344, gr. 16.73↑; London, gr. 16.33↑ | |
b. | H 1. field; A 2 on amphora | *London (BMC 305; Sv. 38, 14) gr. 16.78↑ | |
c. | H 1. field; E on amphora | Oxford, gr. 16.91↑ | |
d. | H 1. field; ME on amphora | Copenhagen (SNG 119), gr. 16.67↑ | |
e. | H 1. field; ? on amphora | Munich, gr. 16.70 | |
f. | ⊖ 1. field; E on amphora | Leningrad, gr. 16.62↑; Berlin, gr. 16.42 | |
g. | ⊖ 1. field; ? on amphora | Berlin, gr. 16.56 | |
(ΠOΛI) | h. | ⊖ 1. field; ? on amphora | Berlin, gr. 16.19 |
107.
a. | ⊖ 1. field; | ΦϽ1 on amphora | *London (BMC 304), gr. 16.66↑ | |
(ΠO-TI | b. | ⊖ 1. field; | Ẹ 2 on amphora | Copenhagen (SNG 118; Sv. 38, 15), gr. 16.54↑; Paris (de Luynes 2075), gr. 16.80↑ |
c. | ⊖ 1. field; | ? on amphora | Romanos Coll. | |
d. | 3 1. field; | ? on amphora | *ANS (restruck, under type uncertain), gr. 16.39↑ |
108.
a. | I r. field; ? on amphora | *von Post Coll., gr. 16.45↑ |
b. | No trace of month letter; MẸ on amphora | Amsterdam (Boissevain 48), gr. 16.33 |
c. | I r. field; AP on amphora | Leningrad, gr.16.61↑; Berlin (Sv. 38 18), letters uncertain, gr. 16.15 |
109.
a. | I r. field; AP on amphora | *Vienna, gr. 16.45 |
b. | I I. field; ME (?) on amphora | Berlin (Sv. 38, 16), gr. 16.14 |
c. | I I. field; ME on amphora | *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.61↑; Athens (Sv. 38, 17), gr. 16.65↑ |
110.
a. | M 1. field; ME on amphora | Paris, gr. 16.71↑ |
b. | M 1. field; ? on amphora | *Athens (Sv.38, 20), gr. 16.60↑ |
c. | M 1. field; ? on amphora | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 5), gr.16.40↑ |
44 tetradrachms: 10 obverse, 35 reverse dies
Months: B, Γ, Δ, Z, H, ⊖, 1, M
Controls: A, AP, E, EP, M, ME, CΦ
The BM and MΓ (or ΓM) lettering found on reverses b, c, and e of No. 102 can scarcely be explained as control combinations. At least as controls they would be unparalleled in the entire New Style series and furthermore different from all other control combinations in not being the initial letters of a Greek word. Since this ΠOΛY - TI issue uses both dates and control combinations on later reverses, it seems clear that we have at the beginning of the year the same procedure but with only the first letter of the control combination employed in conjunction with the date. The occurrence of AP, EP and ME on other reverses of this issue suggests strongly that B and Γ are the months with A, E and M (standing for AP, EP and ME) the controls.
This is the first striking with both dates and control combinations and there seems to have been considerable uncertainty as to their placement. Originally the month was below the amphora and the control lettering either below or in the left field. With Z the month was shifted to the field, usually left but occasionally right, and the controls, now invariably two letters, cut on the amphora.
Month dates, supplemented in one instance by a reverse link (Nos. 108c and 109a), determine the order of obverses.
It was Beulé who first recognized that TI should be interpreted as TIMAPXIΔ[HΣ].1 ΠO˄Y he expanded to ΠOAY[XAPHΣ]. Kirchner (ZfN, 1898, pp. 268 to 275) accepted Timarchides but identified his colleague as a brother Polykles, the two men belonging to a well-known family of artists from Thorikos. Polypes and Timarchides were assumed to have held the minting office about 197 B.C. This is some sixteen years too early but otherwise Kirchner's exposition seems entirely sound.
1 |
Kambanis records these and adds an Athens entry with Γ or E on the amphora. I have examined the coin whose markings seem to
be surface
imperfections and not an obscured letter. Sundwall gives N for a Berlin piece but I can see no trace of this letter on any
of the Berlin
coins.
|
1 | |
1 |
Read as B in the left field and ΦϽ on the amphora. The date seems definitely ⊖ and the amphora letters ΦϽ, the straight line
behind the Ͻ
being merely the banding below the neck of the amphora.
|
2 |
It may be significant that on the Two AMMΩ – ΔIO issue! and the later AMMΩNIOΣ – KA˄˄IAΣ emission the symbols are Eleusinian:
kerchnos,
cornucopiae and torches.
|
2 |
The British Museum Catalogue gives M(?) on the amphora. Pick (editing Svoronos) records AM. It seems to me that AP is almost
certain.
There is a plated coin at Glasgow (Hunt. 79) from the same pair of dies on which the visor line and protomes of the obverse type have disappeared as the result of doublestriking. |
2 |
In the Sylloge the Copenhagen coin is described as having H in the left field and EΦ(?) on the amphora. A cast,
however, shows a clear ⊖ and the same letter is unmistakable on the de Luynes piece. The EΦ(?) is either EP or EY, more likely
the former;
no legible amphora letters are visible on the Paris coin.
|
3 |
This retrograde sigma is presumably intended as M.
|
(Plate 14)
Tetradrachms
111.
a. | EY | 1. field | *Gotha, gr. 16.51 |
b. | Π | 1. field | Glymenopoulos Coll. (Sv. 39, 16), gr. 16.69 |
c. | Π | 1. field | Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 909 = Sv. 39, 17, gr. 16.70 |
111X.
IΩ below (MH *ANS, gr. 16.40↑ erased 1. field)
112.
ΠP 1. field *Paris, gr. 16.47↑
113.
a. | ΠP | 1. field | Copenhagen (SNG 127; Sv. 39, 20), gr. 16.76 ↖ |
b. | ΠP | 1. field | Bucharest, gr. 16.52 |
c. | ZO1 | 1. field | *Chiha Coll. |
d. | E | 1. field | Naples (Santangelo Coll., Fiorelli 10786; Sv. 39, 11), gr. 16.59↑ |
e. | E | 1. field | Commerce Beirut 1953 |
114.
a. | E | 1. field | Petsalis Coll. (countermarked) 2, gr. 16.56 ↖; Damascus Collector |
b. | E | 1. field | Copenhagen (SNG 126), gr. 16.68↑ |
c. | ZΩ | 1. field | *Berlin (Sv. 39, 14), gr. 16.52 |
d. | EY | 1. field | Munich (Sv. 39, 12), gr. 16.26; Herakleion (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.74↑ |
114X.
a. | MH | below | *Berlin, gr. 16.24 |
b. | MH | 1. field | Leningrad, gr. 16.45↑ |
c. | IΩ | 1. field | Leningrad, gr. 16.21↑ |
115.
a. | EY3 | 1. field | *Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 3199; Sv. 39, 13), gr. 16.37 (Pl.)↑ |
b. | ΠPO | below | Athens (Sv. 39,18), gr. 16.65↑ |
116.
117.
a. | MH | 1. field | Empedocles Coll. |
b. | EY | 1. field | *Berlin, gr. 16.55; ANS-ETN, gr. 16.79↑ |
c. | IΩ | 1. field | Gotha, gr. 16.60 |
d. | Ṃ | 1. field | Berlin, gr. 16.63 |
118.
a. | EY | 1. field | *Berry Coll., gr. 16.98↑ |
b. | IΩ | 1. field | Athens (Sv. 39, 15), gr. 16.70 |
c. | ΠP | 1. field | Princeton Univ., gr. 16.66 |
d. | MH | below | ANS-ETN, gr. 16.54↑ |
119.
a. | EY | 1. field | Vatican |
b. | ? | *Ferguson Coll. |
120.
a. | EY | below | *Bucharest, gr. 16.56 |
b. | IΩ | 1. field | Geneva |
40 tetradrachms: 12 obverse, 34 reverse dies Controls: E, EY, ZΩ, Ṃ, MH, Π, ΠP(O)
Like the first AMMΩ - ΔIO striking, this issue uses control letters but no dates. Consequently the order of obverses is arbitrary save for the contiguity of Nos. 112, 113, 114 as evinced by reverse links. A die break across the right leg of the owl on No. 114a is proof that this stage of the reverse is later than that of No. 113e.
Four distinct controls are employed. As was the case for the two preceding issues, single letters are frequently used, the E presumably standing for EY, the M for MH and the Π for ΠP(O). Noteworthy variation occurs in the ZΩ control which is also rendered as Ω and IΩ.
Beulé's list includes no example of a month letter. In Sundwall there is the H read by Froehner on No. 612 of the Photiadès Catalogue. The coin is not illustrated and Kambanis notes, in entering this as an isolated instance of a date, that it is Froehner’s reading. The Leake Catalogue gives ⊖ on No. 115a, but the surface of the amphora is gouged where a letter would have been cut. I have found no evidence of a date on any coin of this issue.
AMMΩ-ΔIO served two years earlier, using then a kerchnos symbol.1 Beulé assumes different second magistrates in consequence of his theory that the symbol was the badge of the second official and that a change in symbols would therefore denote a shift in magistrates. However, Beulé’s connection of symbol and second magistrate is not valid and there is no reason to suppose that the two AMMΩ-ΔIO emissions involved any change in officials. There are other instances of a repetition of mint service on the part of the same pair of magistrates.
1 | |
1 |
Apparently a mistake for ZΩ.
|
1 |
A third AMMΩ - ΔIO listing is given by Beulé on the strength of a Copenhagen specimen which seemed to him to have no symbol.
This
suppression of the symbol he explains as an economy measure, a saving of either time or money. However, the Copenhagen coin
(No. 94a) does
have a small kerchnos barely visible to the left of the foot of the amphora.
|
2 |
This countermark seems to consist of two superimposed impressions, the upper one showing part of what may be a
Seleucid anchor and the lower possibly a bow in case. It is all highly uncertain.
|
3 |
The Sylloge gives EYP but the P is the foot of the amphora.
|
(Plate 15))
Tetradrachms
121.
a. | EY | 1. field | *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 16. 81↑; Berlin, gr. 16.21 |
b. | MH | 1. field | *Paris, gr. 16.52↑ |
c. | Π | 1. field | London (BMC 309), gr. 16.62↑ |
122.
a. | ΠPO | below | *Athens Salamis Hd.), gr.16.32↑ |
b. | 1 | 1. field | London (BMC 310), gr. 16.93↑; Athens, gr. 15.20 (crys- tallized)↑ |
123.
a. | EY | 1. field | *Leningrad (Sv. 39, 5), gr. 16.65 |
b. | ΠPO | 1. field | Kricheldorf III, 1186, gr. 16.71 |
124.
a. | MH | below | *Kambanis Coll. |
b. | MH | below | Romanos Coll. (Sv. 39, 4), gr. 15.80 |
c. | Ω | below | London, gr. 15.96 ↖ |
d. | 1. field | Berlin, gr. 16.02 |
125.
126.
a. | EY | below | *Glasgow (Hunt. 84; Sv. 39, 2), gr. 16.78 ↖ |
b. | ? | below | Athens, gr. 16.80↑ |
127.
a. | MH | below | *Paris (Sv. 39, 3), gr.16.88↑ |
b. | MH | below | Vienna, gr. 16.00 |
c. | EY | below | Copenhagen (SNG 124), gr. 16.45↑; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 8), gr. 16.70↑; Commerce |
d. | EY | below | Commerce Beirut 1953 |
e. | IΩ | below | Athens (Sv. 39, 1), )gr. 15.55 |
128.
? below *London (BMC 308), gr. 16.52↑
29 tetradrachms: 8 obverse, 23 reverse dies Controls: EY, ZΩ, MH, ΠP(O)
All reverses associated with Obverse 121 and the first reverse of Obverse 122 have instead of the customary H∧IO. In the case of No. 122 the two-line form is the earlier since there are die breaks on No. 122b which do not appear on No. 122a. Perhaps the name was broken on dies at the beginning of the year and cut in a single line later. A reverse link relates Nos. 125–126; otherwise there is no evidence for the arrangement.
Controls for this issue are identical with those of the second AMMΩ - ΔIO striking immediately preceding. Kambanis notes that neither he nor Beulé found any certain dates on the amphorae; I have found none. H is recorded for No. 126a in the Hunterian Catalogue and repeated in Sundwall. There is a banding line across the shoulder of the amphora but nothing else on the coin except surface flaws.
Adeimantos or Adeistos would seem to be the only possible expansion of AΔEI. The former name is more common in Attic records and our magistrate is very likely the Adeimantos of Ikaria known from a decree of 173/2 B.C. (see under AΔEI in the section on Magistrates). H∧IO must surely stand for H∧IOΔΩPOΣ but the name is common and it would be futile to attempt any precise
1 |
(Plate 16) Tetradrachms
129.
HPA-
XAPI
HPA-
XAPI
a. | MH | below | * Berlin (Sv. 43, 1), gr. 15.29 |
b. | EY | 1. field | Bucharest, gr. 16.91 |
c. | ΠPO | 1. field | *Romanos Coll. (Sv. 43, 2, commerce), gr. 16.86 |
130.
a. | ΠPO | 1.field | *Ratto (Rogers) 851, gr. 16.35 |
b. | MH | below | *Cambridge (Grose 5921; Sv. 43, 6), gr. 16.39↑ |
131.
a. | KTH | below | Damascus |
b. | 1. field | *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.39↑; Berlin, gr. 16.39 | |
c. | KTH | below | * Gotha, gr. 16.51; Berlin (Sv. 43, 3), gr. 16.90 |
d. | ΠP | 1. field | Leningrad, gr. 16.17↑ |
132.
a. | ΠP | 1. field | Athens, gr. 15.45↑ |
b. | KT | 1. field | *London, gr. 16.69↑ |
133.
a. | KT | 1. field | *Paris, gr. 16.04↑; Leningrad, gr. 16.37↑; Berlin, gr. 16.10 |
b. | ΠP | 1. field | Herakleion (Sv. 43, 4), gr. 16.50 |
c. | MEN | below | Giamalakis Coll., gr. 16.30; Athens, gr. 15.15 (crystallized)↑ |
134.
a. | EY | 1. field | *Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 16.85↑ |
b. | EY | below | Gotha, gr. 16.62 |
135.
a. | EY | 1. field | *Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 16.15↑ |
b. | MẸ | below | London (BMC 512), gr. 16.65↑ |
136.
a. | ME | below; Ꜹ 1. field |
*ANS-ETN, gr.16.69↑; Athens (Sv. 43, 5), gr, 15.09↑ |
b. | MH | 1. field; Ꜹ on amphora |
Commerce Beirut 1953 |
c. | ME | below | Oxford, gr. 16.80 |
d. | MH | below | Paris, gr. 16.91↑ |
137.
a. | AP | below; Ꜹ on amphora |
*Commerce 1955, gr. 16.75↑ |
b. | HPA | 1. field; Ꜹ on amphora |
Glasgow (Hunt. 95), gr. 16.84↑ |
c. | MH | 1. field; Ꜹ on amphora |
Berlin, gr. 16.19 |
31 tetradrachms: 9 obverse, 20 reverse dies Controls: AP, EY, HPA, KT(H), ME(N), MH, ΠP(O)
There is no evidence for the arrangement of obverses save for the reverse connections of Nos. 129–130, 131–132–133, 136–137. For the first time a single reverse is used with three obverses (131d, 132a, 133b) and the order of transfer is fairly certain. No. 131d shows a badly disintegrated obverse die, clearly in its last stages; on Nos. 132a and b there are die flaws indicating a certain amount of use; Nos. 133a and b represent an early stage of that obverse, definitely less worn than 133c. Two reverses (Nos. 129a-b) have HPA-XAPI. Since the transposition is not repeated, this would seem to be an error on the part of the engraver occurring possibly at the beginning of the year.
Obverses 132 and 134 are very similar, so much so that the latter may be a recutting of the former. There are, however, variations, notably the size and spacing of the dots, which make it difficult to believe that only one die is involved. On Obverse 137 the protomes above the visor line are missing. This omission recurs on dies of later issues and a general similarity of style characterizing all these obverses suggests that they are the work of the same engraver.
Controls AP, EY, ME, MH and ΠP have been employed on earlier issues; HPA and KT(H) are new. The use of three-letter controls is more common in this emission than in previous ones.
In Beulé there is no record of a month date except that he notes the marking on the amphora of the Glasgow coin (No. 137b) which he suggests may be H or M. Sundwall cites Beulé as having read N on this piece and adds for his part another N (JIAN, 1906, p. 311) and an M ? from a Berlin coin. Svoronos, however, in the JIAN publication reads the lettering correctly as Ꜹ and Macdonald publishes Ꜹ for the Hunterian tetradrachm. The Berlin coin also has the monogram. Kambanis lists A ? for a Cambridge piece (No. 130b) and A with control AP for a coin in his own collection. The latter is, I believe, the same specimen which appeared in trade in 1955 (No. 137a) with the amphora marking A/. It is impossible to read anything definite on the Cambridge specimen, possibly it once had the same monogram.
The addition of Ꜹ to certain reverse dies is puzzling. Most plausibly this monogram represents the brief appearance on the coinage of a third magistrate, as may have been the case with on No. 5a of the second New Style issue. These distinctive reverses have been placed at the end of the sequence but there is no evidence for their exact position. With respect to No. 136, the two reverses without Ꜹ are later than those with the monogram as is attested by die breaks at nape and chin on the obverse.
XAPI and HPA are expanded into XAPIAΣ and HPAK∧EI∆HΣ by Beulé. There are other names which are equally possible.
(Plate 17)
Drachms
138.1
(1)
139.
(2)
140.
(3)
141.
(4)
142.
(5)
143.
(6) *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.15→
144.
(7) *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.21↑; L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 4.03
46 drachms: 7 obverse, 21 reverse dies
145.
(8) Σ 1. field *Cambridge (Grose 5901; Sv. 34, 25), gr. 4.28↑
146.
(9)
a. | ≡ | 1. field | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.23↑ |
b. | Σ | 1. field | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.13↗; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.11↑Σ |
c. | Σ | 1. field | *Wilkinson Coll., gr. 4.01↑; Copenhagen (SNG 122), gr. 4.09↑; London (BMC 292), gr. 4.29 |
d. | Γ | 1. field; small Γ below amphora | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.10↑ |
e. | A | 1. field; A of ethnic erased from coin | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 3.29↑ |
147.
(10)
148.
(11)
a. | H 1. field | *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.25↑; Commerce (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.27↑; London (BMC 295), broken; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 3; Sv. 34, 19), gr. 3.56↑; Ratto (Rogers) 345, gr. 3.93 |
b. | H 1. field | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.22↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.16↑ |
c. | ∆ 1. field | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.27↑ |
149.
(12)
a. | A 1. field | *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4. 11↑ |
b. | ∆ 1. field | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr.4.07↑; Commerce (Attic Hd.), 4.31↗; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.31↑; Berlin, gr. 3.94 |
c. | ∆ 1. field | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.12↑ |
d. | ∆ 1. field | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.06↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.40↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.12↑; London; Athens (Sv. 34, 16), gr. 3.90↑ |
e. | Σ 1. field | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.24↑ |
f. | Γ 1. field | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.08↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.08↑; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 2; Sv. 34, 15), gr. 3.68↑ |
g. | Γ 1. field | Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 4.16↑ |
h. | ∆ 1. field | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.15↑ |
i. | H 1. field | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.27↑ |
j. | ≡ 1. field | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.16↑; Commerce (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.19↑; Gotha, gr. 3.60; Berlin (Sv. 34, 22), gr. 4.16; Athens (Sv. 34, 24), gr. 3.90↑ |
k. | ≡ 1. field | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.26↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.24↑ |
l. | ≡ 1. field | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 3.60↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.20↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.18↑ |
m. | Σ 1. field | Berlin, gr. 3.73 |
150.
(13 ) ∆ 1. field *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.18↑
151.
(14)
152.
(15)
a. | H 1. field | Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 4.02↑ |
b. | H 1. field | Feuardent (Sv. 34, 18), gr. 4.18 |
c. | H 1. field | *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.24↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.15↑ |
153.
(16)
Γ 1. field *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.17↑; Munich, gr. 2.96; ANS (Attic Hd.) with grain-ear erased from coin, gr. 3.97↑
154.
(17)
H 1. field *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.19↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 3.68↑; ANS (Atttic Hd.), gr. 4.13↑
155.
(18)
a. | ≡ 1. field | *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.32↑ |
b. | A 1. field | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.27↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.11↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.23↑; Berlin (Sv. 34, 14), gr. 3.96 |
c. | H 1. field | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.14↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.14↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.13↑; Berlin, gr. 3.81 |
d. | H 1. field | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.11↑; London (BMC 291), gr. 4.05; Copenhagen (SNG 120; Sv. 34, 20), gr. 4.04↑ |
e. | H 1. field | Berlin, gr. 3.92 |
156.
(19)
A 1. field *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.08↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.09↑
157.
(20)
a. | 1. field | *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.04↑; ANS, gr. 3.40↑ |
b. | 1 1. field | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.26↑; Feuardent (Sv. 34, 21), gr. 3.55 |
c. | ≡ 1. field | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.08↑; Rhousopoulos Coll. (Sv.34, 23) = Hirsch (Rhousopoulos) 2030, gr. 4.12 |
d. | ≡ 1. field | Berlin, gr. 3.91 |
157X.
No letter *Berlin, gr. 3.88
102 drachms: 14 obverse, 45 reverse dies
At some time during the decade between 180 and 170 B.C. the mint of Athens struck these two large issues of drachms which are without parallel in the New Style coinage. All are stamped with a grain-ear symbol but have no indication of mint magistrates. The series as a whole divides into two groups, the components of each being frequently linked by the transfer of reverse dies. Of these two issues, the first has no lettering other than the ethnic while the second usually carries a single letter in the left field.1
Of the 148 grain-ear drachms in the catalogue above, 100 come from the Attic Hoard acquired in large part by the American Numismatic Society in 1955. This find contained 78 other drachms of various periods and nine tetradrachms from the emissions of AΔEI – H∧IO, , ΔIOΦA – ΔIOΔO, ΔHMH – IEPΩ, , and KTHΣI – EYMA (pp. 478f. of the section on Hoards). From the evidence of wear, of proportionate representation and of stylistic parallels, it is clear that the two groups of grain-ear fractions are close in time and that both belong to the same decade as the tetradrachm strikings. Any restriction of the 180–170 B.C. dating is difficult and somewhat tenuous. The twenty-one obverse dies on Plate 17 show considerable diversity of style and there is no clear-cut relationship of either the first or second group with a single issue of the regular coinage. It seems likely that at least some new diecutters were pressed into service for the special emissions of fractions and that these engravers copied contemporary tetradrachms with varying degrees of fidelity. Unfortunately, too, there is little regular drachm coinage other than that of ΔHMH – IEPΩ which belongs to the period under discussion and stylistic comparisons between specimens of different denominations are rather less satisfactory than those provided by coins of like size.2
In general the obverses of Group I seem closest in style to the coins of – ∧YΣIA and but some show an affinity to later issues. Nos. 141 and 143 resemble the one thyrsos drachm of Plate 20 in profile, visor arrangement and helmet ornament. To a lesser degree they bear comparison with tetradrachms of that issue and the one immediately preceding (Nos. 134–137, 146–151 of the accordion plate). No. 144 is in the style of Nos. 139–142,perhaps even closer to No. 154 of the same plate. There is also a similarity with Obverses 202 and 220 of the eagle and aplustre strikings. The high relief and compact heads of Nos. 138–139 are comparable in technique and in style as well to Nos. 220, 224–225 of the drachm coinage of ΔHMH – IEPΩ (Plate 23).
Within Group II the heavy coarse heads of Nos. 156–157 and 157X can be associated only with the debased workmanship of the ΔIOΦA - ΔIOΔO striking. This is apparent rather in the Generally gross effect than in any exact correlation of details. Some of the other large heads (Nos. 145, 147, 154–155) bear comparison with Nos. 175–177 of the Apollo issue. Nos. 148 and 152 in the somewhat pinched features, visor design and helmet ornaments find perhaps their closest parallel in Nos. 232 and 234 of KTHΣI - EYMA but they also suggest the earlier Nos. 134–135 of - ∧YΣIA—note particularly the treatment of the hair. In the case of Nos. 146, 149–150, one can see some resemblance to Nos. 196 and 212 of the eagle and aplustre issues. No. 149 in particular has details of profile, visor, hair and ornament comparable with one or the other of the tetradrachm dies. No. 151 seems to me rather like a drachm of the eagle striking (No. 245 on Plate 25) in the lank hair, attenuated ornament, visor arrangement and to some extent the profile. Group II then would seem to have its closest stylistic parallels in the period from 175 to 170 while Group I belongs perhaps a few years earlier.
The absence of magistrates' names from all these grain-ear drachms would indicate that they were distinct from the general run of the Athenian coinage and issued for some special purpose. A clue to that purpose is provided by the grain-ear symbol which appears on all reverses and which strongly suggests that the drachms are to be associated with grain distributions to the people of Athens. This connection between the coins and gifts of grain, as elaborated in the Centennial article cited above, seems to me the most plausible explanation of the abundance of this drachm coinage and its peculiar aspects.
1 |
The parenthetical numbers are those of the catalogue of an earlier publication (M.Thompson, "The Grain-Ear Drachms of Athens,"
ANSCent., 1958, pp. 651–671). In order to retain a correspondense between the two listings the five new reverse dies
provided by the Berlin material, which became available only recently, have been inserted at the end of the appropriate catalogue
entries.
No. 157X, although it has no letter in the reverse field, resembles Nos. 156–7 in the heaviness of its obverse style and it
has accordingly
been placed at the end of Group II.
|
1 | |
1 |
Still a third striking of grain-ear drachms is catalogued under the coinage of TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO with which it is die-linked.
All three
categories of anomalous fractions are discussed in "The Grain-Ear Drachms of Athens," where the evidence for their dating
and the
significance of their distinctive aspects are dealt with in detail.
|
2 |
The accordion plate with its reductions will be more useful than the standard plates in showing the stylistic relationships
between drachm
and tetradrachm obverses. This folded sheet (Plate A) is to be found at the end of the volume of plates. In the
commentary, the numbers of the accordion plate are in italics to distinguish them from the catalogue entries.
|
(Plate 18)
Tetradrachms
158.
a. | Ạ | EP | below | *Chiha Coll.; The Hague (Sv. 38, 1), gr. 16.90; Leningrad, control letters uncertain, gr. 16.77↑ |
b. | Ẹ | EP | 1. field | Vienna, gr. 16.79 |
c. | ? | ΣΦAl | below | Glasgow (Hunt. 83; Sv. 38, 8), gr. 16.91↑ |
d. | ? | AP | below | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 7; Sv. 38, 9), gr. 16.85 |
e. | ? | ? | Vienna, gr. 16.20 |
159.
a. | Γ | AN | 1. field | *Romanos Coll. (Sv. 38, 5, commerce Crete), gr. 17.00; Athens |
b. | Γ | EP | 1. field | Kambanis Coll |
c. | Γ | TIΓ1 | below | Glasgow (Hunt. 82; Sv. 38, 4), gr. 17.17↗ |
d. | (?) | EP2 | below | Athens (Delos Hd. B, 12), broken |
160.
Γ | EP | 1. field | *Glasgow (Hunt. 81; Sv. 38, 3), gr. 16.97↑ |
161.
a. | Γ | EP | 1. field | *Berlin, gr. 16.63; Schlessinger (Hermitage 1) 185, gr. 16.70 |
b. | E | TI | below | Andreopoulos Coll. |
c. | ? | AN | 1. field | ANS, gr. 16.59↑ |
d. | ? | AP | 1. field | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.47 ↗ |
162.
a. | E | Tl | below | *de Laval Coll. = Ratto, Feb. 1928, 446, gr. 16.73 |
b. | E | AP | below | Damascus |
163.
E(?) | AN | below | *Kambanis Coll. |
164.
a. | Z(?) | AN | 1. field | Berlin (Sv. 38, 6), gr. 16.63 |
b. | H(?) | ME | 1. field | *London (BMC 307), gr. 16.15↑ |
c. | ? | AN | below | Berlin, gr. 15.74 |
165.
⊖ | EP | below | *ANS-ETN, gr. 14.363↑1 |
166.
a. | ⊖(?) | AP | below | *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.76↗ |
b. | ? | AP | below | Sophia (Sv. 38, 10) |
c. | ? | EP | 1.field | Commerce Beirut 1953 |
167.
a. | ⊖ | ME | below | *Chiha Coll.; Raymond, Jan. 1939, 204 |
b. | I/⊖(?)4 | AN | 1.field | Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 3198; Sv. 38, 2), symbol erased, gr. 16.67↑ |
c. | M(?) | EP | below | Petsalis Coll., symbol erased, gr. 16.63 ↖ |
d. | ? | ME | 1. field | Commerce Beirut 1953 |
e. | ? | TI | below | Herakleion ↖ |
f. | ? | EP | below | ANS, gr. 16.54 ↖ |
g. | ? | AN | 1. field | Berlin, gr. 16.84 |
h. | ? | ? | Empedocles Coll. | |
i. | ? | ? | Berlin, gr. 16.25 |
168.
? | AN | 1. field | *Meletopoulos Coll. (Sv. 38, 7) |
169.
a. | M (?) | EP (?) | below | London, gr. 16.71↑; ANS-ETN, gr. 16.05↑ |
b. | M (?) | AP | below | *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.36 ↗ |
c. | ? | TIΓ | below | *ANS, gr. 15.79↑ ( Plate 19) |
43 tetradrachms: 12 obverse, 34 reverse dies Months: A, Γ, E, Z(?), H(?), ⊖, I(?), M(?) Controls: AN, AP, EP, ME, ΣΦAI, TI(Γ)
Obverses 163, 164, 167 and 169 have the peculiarity mentioned in connection with Obverse 137 of the XAPI - HPA striking. The helmet of Athena is rendered without the customary row of horse protomes above the visor.
On two reverses (Nos. 167b and c) the symbol has been erased and in at least the second instance the erasure was from the coin rather than the die. The reverse in question was used with Obverses 167 (symbol erased) and 169 (symbol present). Since the latter obverse survived into the thyrsos striking, it would seem to have been the later of the two and the one more likely to have taken over the reverse die. For this apparently pointless deletion of the symbol I can offer no explanation.
This issue has a hybridization of the forms of the magistrates’ names akin to that of the earlier striking of ΠOΛY - TI Beulé thought the monogram and letters stood for three officials: AΠ, ΔΩ (ΔΩPO⊖EOΣ or ΔΩΣI⊖EOΣ) and ΛYΣI. For the last, due to a failure to note the final A of the name, he offered a number of tentative expansions, of which only ΛYΣIAΣ is possible. In the Zeitschrift for 1898 (p. 275) Kirchner read as AΠOΛΛO∆Ω[POΣ] and ΛYΣIA as ΛYΣIA[Σ] or ΛYΣIA[∆HΣ]. It seems to me that ΠANΔIΩ[N] is also a possibility for the first magistrate. The name is rare but there is a ΠANΔIΩN AΠOΛΛΩNI∆OY ⊖PIAΣIOΣ, known from a votive inscription of the beginning of the second century (PA 11576; IG II2 3864).
1 |
Erroneously altered by Beulé to ΠE.
|
2 |
Svoronos gives the reading KEP but I can see no trace of the K.
|
3 |
The coin seems genuine. Its low weight may be accounted for by the piercing and filing of the edges to which it has been subjected.
|
4 |
The Sylloge catalogue gives H on the amphora. There is, however, a curved line to the right which makes either I/⊖
or a poorly cut ⊖/H more likely.
|
(Plates 19–20)
Tetradrachms
169.
A | TIΓ1 | 1. field | *Paris (Sv. 37, 16), gr. 16.47↑ |
170.
a. | A(?) | KE | 1. field | *Vienna, gr. 16.80 |
b. | A(?) | EY | 1. field | Copenhagen (SNG 117), gr. 17.00↑ |
c. | ∆ | EY | below | Feuardent, June 1924, 99 |
171.
a. | ∆ | EP | below | *ANS, gr. 16.75 ↗ |
b. | H | KE | below | ANS-ETN, gr. 16.68↑ |
c. | H(?) | KE | below | Commerce Beirut 1953 |
d. | ⊖ | ME | below | Glasgow (Hunt. 67; Sv.37, 17), gr.16.84↑ |
e. | ? | ME | below | Santamaria (Signorelli) 472, gr. 16.60 |
172.
a. | I | AN | below | Oxford, gr. 16.36↑ |
b. | ? | EP | below | *Feuardent (Burel) 181 |
173.
EY | below | *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 16.88↑ |
174.
H | AN | below | *Berlin, gr. 16.36↑ |
175.
a. | K | EP | below | *L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.02 |
b. | K | ME | below | Oxford, gr. 16.70↑ |
176.
a. | K | EY | below | *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 16.80↑ |
b. | K | KE | below | Berlin (Sv. 37, 19), gr. 15.80 |
c. | ? | ME | below | Petsalis Coll. |
d. | ? | ME | below | Leningrad, gr. 14.612↑ |
e. | ? | ? | Athens, gr. 15.50↑ |
177.
a. | K | KE | below | ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.05 ↖ | |
() | b. | ? | ME | below | *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.23↑ |
c. | ? | AN | below | Berlin, gr. 16.42↑ | |
d. | ? | EY | below | Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 16.55↑ |
178.
a. | M | ΣΩ | below | *Berry Coll, gr. 16.65↑ |
b. | M | ME | 1. field | Leningrad (Sv. 37, 20), gr. 15.60 |
179.
a. | M | ME | 1. field | *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.72↑ |
b. | M | KE | below | ANS, gr. 16.21↑ |
c. | ? | ME | below | Athens, gr. 16.80↑ |
d. | ? | EY | below | Berlin, gr. 16.67↑ |
180.
() | ? | ME | below | *Damascus |
181.
() | ? | EP | below | *Damascus Collector |
182.
() | a. | ? | TIΓ | below | *London (BMC 288), gr. 16.30↑ |
() | b. | ? | EP | below | Hirsch (Weber) 1673 = Sv.37, 18, gr.16.67 |
c. | ? | ẸỴ | below | Damascus Collector | |
d. | ? | ? | Oxford, piece missing↑ |
Drachm
183.
No lettering visible *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.20↑
36 tetradrachms: 14 obverse, 34 reverse dies
1 drachm Months: A, ∆, Z, H, ⊖, K, M1 Controls: AN, EP, EY, KE, ME, ΣΩ, TIΓ2
For the first time on the evidence here assembled, there is a transfer of a die from one issue to another. Obverse 169, used with at least three reverses of -ΛYΣIA, is carried over into the thyrsos striking. The A on the amphora of the Paris tetradrachm establishes the order of the contiguous issues.
Obverses 169, 177, 178 and 175 are variants of the standard type. The first three have no protomes above the visor, the last has no Pegasus above the disk of the helmet.
After an interval of six years monograms replace abbreviated names on the coinage. Beulé identifies the first official as ΛYΣIAΣ, noting that all letters are present. His rendering of the monogram, however, omits the slanting line at the lower right, visible on all reverses, which surely indicates that K was part of the name. ΛYKIΣKOΣ, which occurs elsewhere on the coinage and of which all components are present, seems a likely reading. ΛYΣIKΛ[HΣ], ΛYΣIKΛ[EIΔHΣ] and ΛYKOM[H∆HΣ] are other possibilities. is probably ∆IOKΛH[Σ], in which case the omission of the top horizontal on three reverses is a major error.
1 |
This lettering, like that of No. 159c, was altered to ΠE by Beulé.
|
1 |
Beulé’s reading of Λ from a coin in his collection cannot be verified.
|
2 |
The weight suggests a plated or cast piece.
|
2 |
Kambains, in one of his notebooks, suggests that KE is a diecutter’s mistake for ME. This would seem more plausible if the
"error" were
confined to only one or two reverses. As it is, it occurs on five. Other control combinations appear with even less frequency:
MO and ⊖Y
twice each in the one issue of ∆HMH - IEPΩ. These might be interpreted as erroneous renderings of MΦ and EY but
TI(Γ), which is inscribed on only six reverses, can scarcely be an engraver's mistake for a more common combination.
|
(Plates 20–21)
Tetradrachms
184.
a. | B/A(?)1 | E | below | Petsalis Coll. = Baltatzi Coll. (Sv. 41, 17) = Mavrokordatou Coll. (JIAN, 1912, 1319), gr. 15.48↑ |
b. | ? | ? | *ANS-ETN, countermarked for Tralles, gr. 16.80↑ | |
c. | ? | ? | Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 16.37↑ |
185.
a. | A | EY | below | Geneva, gr. 16.47 |
b. | B | MΦ | below | *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 16.82↑ |
c. | Γ | E | below | Commerce Beirut 1952 |
d. | Ẓ | MΦ | below | Glasgow (Hunt. 89), gr. 16.45 ↗ |
e. | ? | ΠPO | below | Berlin, gr. 16.36 |
f. | ? | ? | Commerce Beirut 1953 |
186.
a. | ? | MΦ | below | ANS-ETN, gr. 16.76↑; Berlin, gr. 16.20 |
b. | ? | E | below | Leningrad (Sv.41, 23, rev. only), gr. 13.682↑ |
c. | ? | MΦ | below | London (BMC 388; Sv. 41, 18), gr. 16.78↑ |
d. | ? | ? | *Tübingen, gr. 16.54; Commerce Beirut 1953, gr. 16.77↑ | |
e. | ? | ? | Athens, gr. 15.97↑ |
187.
a. | EY | below | Berlin (Sv. 41, 19), gr. 16.81; *Gotha, letters uncertain, gr. 15.85 | |
b. | ? | ? | Commerce Beirut 1953 |
188.
a. | EM | below | Berlin, gr. 16.01 | ||
b. | Ẹ | E | below | Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 929 = Sv.41, 20, gr. 16.85 | |
c. | ? | ME | below | *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 16.88↑ |
189.
a. | I | MΦ | below | *Berlin, gr. 16.69 |
b. | EM | 1. field | Vienna, gr. 16.78 | |
c. | ? | ME/MΦ1 | below | Commerce Beirut 1952; London (BMC 389), gr. 16.10↑; Gotha, gr. 16.15 |
d. | ? | ME/MΦ | below | Damascus Collector |
190.
H | EY | below | *Commerce Beirut 1953 |
191.
a. | l | MΦ | 1. field | *Bucharest, gr. 16.03 |
b. | ? | EY | below | Damascus |
192.
K | EY | below | *ANS, gr. 16.81↑ |
193.
K | MΦ | below | *Berlin Coll. of Casts |
194.
a. | Ṃ | ME | below | Romanos Coll. |
b. | ? | ME | 1. field | *Berlin (Sv. 41, 15), gr. 16.39 |
195.
a. | ? | ME | below | *Sophia (Sv. 41, 21, rev. only), gr. 16.50; ANS-ETN, control letters uncertain, gr. 16.53↑ |
b. | ? | ? | Herakleion (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.45 ↗ |
196.
a. | ? | M | below | ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.18↑ |
b. | ? | M | below | *Berlin, gr. 16.00 |
c. | ? | ? | Copenhagen (SNG 136), gr. 15.04 (PI. ?)↑ |
197.
? | MΦ | below | *Romanos Coll. (Sv. 41, 16), gr. 16.65 |
198.
a. | ? | EM | below | *Commerce Beirut 1952 |
b. | ? | MΦ | below | Cahn 68, 1344, gr. 15.56 |
199.
? | EM | below | *ANS, gr. 16.27↑ |
200.
a. | ? | M | below | *Berlin, gr. 16.63 |
b. | ? | EΦ | below | Berlin, gr. 16.11 |
c. | ? | ? | L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 14.85 (badly worn and corroded) |
201.1
? | EM | below | *Damascus |
49 tetradrachms: 18 obverse, 40 reverse dies Months: A, B, Γ, E, Z2, H, ⊖, I, K, M controls: E, EM, EY, EΦ, M, ME, MΦ, ΠPO3
The Apollo figure takes two distinct forms. Thirteen reverses (Nos. 184–187) show the god side view holding a bow under his left arm and extending his right hand. On some dies the figure seems to be standing with the left leg straight and the right forward and bent at the knee; on other reverses the representation is rather that of a seated Apollo, resting on a straight support, probably a tree stump, with only the bent right leg visible. A baseline indicates a statuary prototype. The remaining reverses have a facing Apollo, standing free, with a large bow in the left hand and the right extended.
On the available evidence the profile Apollo preceded the frontal one but the demarcation between the two renderings is probably not as sharp as the catalogue would indicate since a large number of dies have uncertain or invisible lettering on the amphorae.
No. 184b was countermarked by the Lydian city of Tralles. The circular stamp shows the forepart of a humped bull to the left, left leg drawn back, right extended, head erect. To the left of the animal, TPA; above, ∧∧I; below, ΣΩ.1 The humped bull is a common type on the autonomous bronze of Tralles and one of the symbols on the cistophoric strikings of that city (BMC, 12 and 59–68). Letters and monograms, identifying minting officials, appear on some of this silver and bronze and it is reasonable to suppose that the ΣΩ of our counterstamp was a local magistrate.
As Bellinger points out, countermarking of posthumous Alexander tetradrachms and autonomous issues of Side was a common practice at a number of Anatolian mints, Tralles among them. The usual imprint of Tralles was a bow in its case with the letters TPA;2 I know of no other example of the bull as a countermark of that city although the device would be a most suitable one. It is noteworthy, too, that countermarking of New Style tetradrachms was an exceedingly rare phenomenon. With the exception of No. 114a from the second AMMΩ - ΔIO issue, this is the only instance of which I have record.
There is nothing which enables one to date the countermark with precision. Bellinger believes that it was applied between 189 and 126 B.C.; the tetradrachm gives 174 as a terminus post quem.
ΔIOΦA is most likely the abbreviated form of ΔIOΦANHΣ or ΔIOΦANTOΣ, possibly the same man as the second magistrate of the later ΔΩPO⊖E - ΔIOΦ striking. ΔIOΔO is certainly Diodotos.
1 | |
1 |
A small Φ to the right of the ME is clearly visible on the Gotha coin and on the Damascus piece (No. 189d), less distinct
on the Beirut and
London tetradrachms. Apparently the control ME was cut over the M of MΦ and the Φ left untouched.
|
1 |
The profile of this obverse has been crudely recut.
|
2 |
In diameter this piece measures only 32 mm., or about 3 mm. 1ess than the average for the Apollo issue (see page 127). Drastic
filing or
clipping of the edge would be one explanation of the extremely low weight; plating or casting is a possibility.
|
2 |
A I form of zeta is clear on No. 189a. The Z rendering is probable on No. 185d but not certain.
|
3 |
The controls of this issue are carelessly executed. E presumably stands for EM or EY, M for ME. EM is, I believe, a shortened
form of the
control EMΦ, which appears in the KTHΣI - EYMA issue, while MΦ and EΦ are probably misunderstood versions of the same combination.
|
(Plates 22–23)
Tetradrachms
202.
(No star) | a. | A | MO/AN | 1. field | *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.67↑; London (BMC 366; obv. of Sv. 41, 8), gr. 16.65↑; The Hague, letters uncertain. The Hague and ANS coins show clear evidence of recutting in the left field; the London coin is not struck up. |
(No star) | b. | A | CΩ | 1. field | Copenhagen (SNG 134), gr. 16.22↑; Commerce Beirut 1952; Glasgow (Hunt. 88), gr. 16.83↑ |
c. | A | ΣΩ | 1. field | Vienna, gr.16.49; Glasgow (Hunt. 87), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.50↑; Dorotheum (Zeno) 3710, gr. 16.85 | |
d. | ? | ⊖Y | below | ANS-ETN, gr. 16.59↑; L. Meletopoulos Coll., E or EM cut over ⊖Y, gr. 15.86 | |
e. | ? | HP | 1. field | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.19↑ |
203.
a. | A | HP | 1. field | *Leningrad (Sv. 41, 2) = Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 907, gr. 16.68↑1 | |
b. | A | CΩ | 1. field | ANS-ETN, gr. 16.62↑ | |
c. | A | MO/? | 1. field | Commerce 1955, possibly B/A on amphora, gr. 16.90↑; Empedocles Coll., a peculiar restriking with a section of the reverse wreath on the obverse | |
d. | A | CΦ | 1. field | Cahn 84, 304 = Hamburger, June 1930, 176 = Sv.41, 1, Feuardent gr. 16.50 | |
(No star) | e. | ? | CΦ(?) | 1. field | Copenhagen (SNG 135), gr. 15.97↑ |
204.
A | A | below | *London (BMC 367), gr. 16.29↑ |
205.
(No star) | a. | B | ΣΦ | 1. field | *Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 905 = Sv. 41, 5, gr. 16.70 |
(No star) | b. | ? | ? | Leningrad, broken↑ |
206.
a. | B | MH | 1 field | *Commerce Beirut 1952; Berlin (Sv. 41, 3), gr. 16.20 | |
b. | Γ(?) | EY | 1. field | ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr.16.33↑ |
207.
(No star) | Ḅ | HP | 1. field | *Damascus Collector |
208.
(No star) | a. | Ḅ | CΦ | 1 field | Athens, gr.16.75↑; *Vatican (Sv.41, 9), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.55 |
(No star) | b. | ? | CΦ | 1. field | London (BMC 371), gr. 14.38 (PI.)↑ |
209.
210.
a. | Δ | ΠP | 1. field | Berlin (Sv. 41, 7), gr. 16.40; Commerce 1952 | |
b. | Δ | AN | 1. field | Leningrad, gr. 16.70 ↖ | |
c. | ? | AN | 1. field | Romanos Coll. | |
d. | ? | ΠP | 1. field | *Berlin, gr. 16.39 | |
e. | ? | ? | ANS, gr. 16.08 ↗ |
211.
a. | Δ | AN(?) | 1. field | *Commerce Beirut 1953 | |
b. | E/Δ | MH | 1. field | Athens, gr. 16.70↖; Zygman Coll., gr. 15.51 (worn and cracked) ↖ | |
c. | ? | MH | 1. field | Naville (Bement) 1122 = Sotheby (O’Hagan) 430, gr. 16.64 |
212.
(No star) | a. | Δ | MH | 1. field | *Commerce 1953, gr. 16.46 |
b. | E(?) | Δl | 1. field | ANS-ETN, gr. 16.60↑ |
213.
AN | 1. field | *London (BMC 369), gr. 15.74↖; Damascus (Tell Ahmar Hd.) |
214.
a. | E(?) | EN | 1. field | ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.23↗ | |
(No star) | b. | ? | EN | 1. field | Gotha, gr. 16.41 |
c. | ? | EY | 1. field | ANS, gr. 16.56↑ | |
d. | ? | ΠP | below | *Damascus (Tell Ahmar Hd.) |
215.
M/∧(?) | EN | 1. field | *Vienna, gr. 16.35 |
216.
(No star) | ? | NE | 1. field | *London (BMC 370), gr. 16.49↑ |
217.
? | ΠP | 1. field | *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.73↗; Bucharest, gr. 16.45 |
217X.
? | EM | 1. field | *Turin (Mus. Ant., Fabretti 3061), gr. 16.14 |
218.
a. | ? | EN | 1. field | *Paris, gr. 16.76↑ | |
b. | ? | EY | below | ANS-ETN, gr. 16.35↑ | |
c. | ? | ΠP | below | Venice (Sv. 41, 10) |
218 X.
(No star) | ? | ? | *Berlin, gr. 16.77 |
Drachms
219.
(ΔH-IEPΩ) | A | below | *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.22↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.08↑; Berlin (Sv. 41, 11), gr. 4.27; Athens (Sv. 41, 12), letter uncertain, gr. 3.65 |
220.
(No star) | a. | A | on amphora | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.21↑ |
(No helmet) | b. | A | on amphora | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.11↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.38↑ |
(No star) | c. | Ạ | on amphora | *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.18↑; Petsalis Coll., letter uncertain, gr. 4.18 |
221.
a. | A | on amphora | *ANS, gr. 4.18↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.26↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 3.87↑; Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 962, gr. 4.00 | |
(No helmet) | b. | Ạ | on amphora | London, gr. 3.95 |
c. | Γ | on amphora | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.22↗; Berlin, gr. 4.09; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr.4.05↗; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.30↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.24 ↗; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.06↑ Amphora letter uncertain on all but first two |
222.
(No star) | B | on amphora | *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr.4.27↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 3.41↑; Commerce (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.24↑ |
223.
(No star) | Ḅ | on amphora | *Athens (Delos Hd. B, 44; Sv. 41, 13), gr. 4.02↑; Berlin (Sv. 41, 14), gr. 4.20 |
224.
(No helmet) | a. | ? | on amphora | *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.14↗; Berlin, gr. 4.17 |
(No star) | b. | ? | on amphora | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.20↑ |
225.
(No star) | a. | ⊖ | on amphora | *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.27↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), letter uncertain, gr. 4.25↑ |
(No helmet) | b. | ⊖ | on amphora | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.26↗; ANS (Attic Hd.)) gr. 4.19↗; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.16↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.20↗; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.13↗ Letter uncertain on last three |
1 |
This is also Newell's reading of the letters. Bellinger’s TPA∧∧ΩN (Hesperia, Suppl. VIII, p. 14) omits the I which
follows immediately after the second lambda and takes the Σ for an N placed on its side. Since the ethnic when
inscribed in full is invariably TPA∧∧IANΩN it would seem that only the TPA∧∧I of the countermark has to do with the ethnic
and that the ΣΩ
in- dicates a magistrate.
|
1 |
The coin illustrated by Schlessinger is still part of the Hermitage Collection; apparently it was returned before or after
the sale took
place.
|
2 |
Cf. R. Mowat’s study, "Trois contremarques inédites sur des tétradrachmes de Sidé," in Corolla Numismatica, pp. 201
f.
|
Hemidrachms
226.
*Athens, gr. 1.45↑
227.
62 tetradrachms: 19 obverse, 46 reverse dies
35 drachms: 7 obverse, 10 reverse dies
3 hemidrachms: 2 obverse, 3 reverse dies
Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, ⊖, Λ(?), M(?)1
Controls: A, AN, ΔI, EM, EN, EY, HP, ⊖Y, ME, MH, MO, ΠP, C(Σ)Φ, C(Σ)Ω2
The three coins of No. 202a show recutting in the left field, distinct on the ANS and The Hague specimens, almost invisible on the British Museum example which is weakly impressed. Under magnification the ANS coin reveals clear remains of the profile Apollo figure under the ΔM of the inscription. The conoid outline of head and hair appears at the top left of the delta and the triangular tip of the bow projects from the right center of the same letter. These features are visible in the illustration on PLATE 22 as is the long line of the body and leg extending down through the Δ and M. On the coin itself one can make out the rounded curve of the buttock and the terminal left foot. The advanced right foot is also clear and there is a broken line up from it which may be the bent right leg although the erasure here is deeper than elsewhere. What we have then is roughly . In the space below there is MC cut over AN with evidence of what seems to be other lettering under and just above these controls, but this section of the surface is so confused that nothing certain can be deduced from it. There is no trace of recutting in the right field.
It would seem that this isolated die represents a mistake of some kind. A new reverse may have been started toward the end of the magistracy of ΔIOΦA - ΔIOΔO and put aside in its unfinished state when it was found to be superfluous. It is possible that the abandonment was related to the shift from a profile to a frontal symbol, that a die with the earlier form had been partially cut when the decision was taken to vary the rendering of the symbol and that only in the following year was an attempt made to salvage it. Or it may be that the engraver of the first ΔHMH - IEPΩ reverse, accustomed to cutting the Apollo figure, placed it on the new coinage, subsequently rectifying his error by deletion and reworking. Whatever the explanation, this recutting provides valuable evidence of the contiguity of the Apollo and helmet strikings.
In Svoronos’ publication (Pl. 33, 1–6) three drachms and three hemidrachms are grouped together at the very beginning of the New Style coinage, presumably on the basis of the absence of magistrates' names and symbols from the reverses. Kambanis, however, in his notes registers the valid objection that all of these coins cannot belong to a single issue since the drachms and one hamidrachm have no circle of dots on the obverse while the two other hemidrachms have this added feature. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the hemidrachms with dots show the owl standing on a club while the one without dots has the bird on an amphora. Conceivably the addition of the dotted border and the shift from amphora to club could have been later developments within a single emission but the style of Nos. 5–6 on Svoronos’ Plate 33 separates them from Nos. 1–4.
The fractions without dots on the obverse (our Nos. 16–18) have been attributed to the issue with two palms struck by . The hemidrachms with dots I should assign to the ΔHMH – IEPΩ coinage, catalogued above as Nos. 226 and 227. Svoronos’ illustrations include both examples of No. 227; No. 226 is not reproduced by him but is recorded in the JIAN for 1907 (p. 206, 202).
Throughout the New Style coinage the hemidrachm is a rare denomination. It appears most commonly in years which produced a fairly heavy output of drachms and it is confined with few exceptions to a relatively early stage of the coinage, the period between 170 and 154 B.C. With ΓΛAY – EXE and later magistrates, the hemidrachms normally have the letters of the magistrates’ names and the pertinent symbol; they are fundamentally, save for the club beneath the owl, replicas in miniature of the tetradrachms and drachms.
Since the use of magistrates’ names and symbol would assuredly have remained constant after the practice had once been adopted, it seems likely that Nos. 226–227 antedate the magistracy of ΓΛAY – EXE. It also seems likely that they belong after the issue with two palms, to which the other fractions with ethnic alone have been assigned, and that furthermore they should be associated with an issue which produced a large drachm coinage.
Prior to ΓΛAY – EXE there are only three heavy emissions of drachms: the two grain-ear strikings and the coinage of ΔHMH – IEPΩ. Our temidrachms could be a part of any one of these emissions but an attribution to ΔHMH - IEPΩ seems to me the most tenable. The grain-ear drachms apparently served a special purpose, of which the symbol was the visible indication. Certainly the restriction of space on the smaller fractions which might at first have deterred the engravers from placing magistrates’ names and symbol on the dies, would not have prevented them from adding a symbol alone. The last of the grain-ear strikings, under TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO, does have the symbol on hemidrachms as well as drachms, and it is clear that if the symbol were an integral feature of the currency, as it undoubtedly was in this case, its use on all denominations would be mandatory.
In style No. 226 resembles Nos. 220, 224 and 225 of the ΔHMH-IEPΩ drachms, being perhaps closest to No. 220 in the proportions of the head, the width of the visor and the cast of the features. It is also very similar to No. 188, a grain-ear drachm of this same general period. No. 227 is like No. 219 of ΔHMH - IEPΩ in the shape of the head and the details of the helmet, comparable to No. 221 in the small tight twists of hair.
The first magistrate, ΔHMH, is surely Demetrios. IEPΩ may be Hieron or Hieronymos. No clue to a precise identification of either man can be drawn from the prosopographical record. A Hieronymos served as secretary in a decree of 169/8 B.C. (PA 7565; IG II2 910); another Hieronymos and also a Hieron were listed as donors of the middle of the second century (PA 7567 and 7531; IG II2 2334). From a much later date we have a [ΔHM]HTPIOΣ IEPΩNYMOY ΠOTAMICΣ, an ephebe of the late first century B.C. (IG II2 1963) and the association of names is of interest. It is certainly not impossible that the Demetrios - Hieronymos family from Potamos was active in the second century before Christ and indeed Kirchner (PA 3440) suggests a link between the abovementioned ephebe and a Timokrates son of Demetrios of Potamos whose floruit was in the third century B.C. (PA 13783).
A Macedonian connection of some kind for Demetrios is indicated by the symbol. The same type of helmet with pendent cheek-pieces is a common device on Macedonian regnal bronze of the third and second centuries. Most significantly, a bronze issue of Philip V has a type identical with our symbol even to the star surmounting the helmet (SNG, Copenhagen, 1242) and autonomous silver issues of Macedon struck between 185 and 168 B.C.1 show the same helmet, often with a star beside it.
1 |
The identification of the amphora letters in this issue is rendered very difficult by a peculiar framing device which the
engravers
frequently adopted. On many of the amphorae one finds heavy banding lines at the shoulder and above the base between which
the letter of
the month was inserted. This presents no great problem when the lines are extended across the entire body of the vase and
when the surface
of the amphora is well preserved (cf. Nos. 204 and 206a), but in many cases the lines are shortened (cf. Nos. 203a and 207)
and when this
happens the band at the left on a coin in poor condition looks like an 1 or the beginning of some letter with an initial vertical.
Svoronos
had noted this, for Sundwall says that he had been advised by the former that the I of the IA reading in the Hunterian Catalogue
(No. 88)
belonged not to the date but to the amphora. This eccentric technique on the part of the diecutters accounts for some of the
readings given
in Beulé, Sundwall and Kambanis which are not otherwise attested. Thus No. 203a, the Hermitage coin, was thought by Beulé
to have Λ or Δ
preceded by I, by Kambanis to have K on the amphora. The latter read H on No. 205a; the former reported a piece with what
seemed to be MP
on the amphora and another tetradrachm from his collection with a monogram in which one could distinguish N. All these seem
to involve a
confusion of letters and amphora bandings. The coins at Berlin and Athens, listed by Sundwall as having M on the amphora,
are almost
certainly the two drachms of No. 223 with a B between heavy amphora lines (Sv. 41, 13 and 14). The only letters of which I
feel confident
from my own observation are A, B, Γ, Δ, E and ⊖, with Λ and M likely but not certain.
|
2 |
A probably stands for AN. NE is more likely an inversion of EN than a separate control. The AM recorded for BMC 366
is due to the recutting of MO over AN, not easily recognizable on a weakly struck coin. Sundwall’s listing of ⊖E, after Svoronos,
would
seem to be a misreading of ⊖Y.
|
(Plates 24–25)
Tetradrachms
228.
a. | A | AN | below | *Vienna, gr. 16.52; The Hague, gr. 16.90 | |
b. | ? | AN | below | *Cancio Coll. = Glendining, Mar. 1957, 163, gr. 16.61↑ | |
c. | ? | EY | below | London (BMC 300), gr. 16.70↑ | |
d. | ? | EY | below | Berlin, gr. 16.00 |
229.
a. | A | ΣΦ(?) | below | *Milan, gr. 16.28 | |
b. | A | ΠP | below | *Platt (Luneau) 514 |
230.
a. | Δ | EY | below | *Vienna, gr. 16.52; ANS-ETN, gr. 15.60↑ |
b. | E | ΣΦ | below | Venice |
c. | E | AN | below | Berlin, gr. 16.30; Athens, amphora letter uncertain |
231.
232.
Ḥ | ẠṆ | below | *Leningrad, gr. 15.95 ↖ |
233.
a. | EY | below | *Glasgow (Hunt 71), gr. 16.71↑ | |
b. | ? | AN | below | Berlin, gr. 16.55 |
234.
a. | ⊖ | E | below | *Glasgow (Hunt. 70), gr. 15.71 ↖ |
b. | AN | below | Leningrad, gr. 15.60 ↖ | |
c. | ?1 | AN | below | Cambridge (Leake Coll, SNG 3197), gr. 16.48 ↖ |
235.
a. | K | 20 | below | *Naville (Woodward) 746 = Egger XL (Prowe) 953, gr. 16.64 |
b. | ? | ? | below | *Berry Coll, gr. 16.87 |
c. | ? | ΠP | below | Commerce Beirut 1953 |
236.
a. | K(?) | ΣΦ | below | *London (BMC 299), gr. 16.80↑ |
b. | M | ΠP(?) | below | Uncertain (Sv. 36, 10, Rhousopoulos),2 gr. 15.65 |
c. | M(?) | EY | below | Athens, gr. 16.66↑ |
d. | ? | AN | 1. field | Commerce Beirut 1952 |
237.
Λ(?) | AN | below | *Romanos Coll. (Sv. 36, 9), gr. 16.60 |
238.
a. | ? | ΣΦ(?) | below | *Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 16.40 ↖ |
b. | ? | ΠP | below | Glymenopoulos Coll. (Sv. 36, 7), gr. 16.88 |
c. | ? | EY | below | Arethuse, Suppl. comm. 1, 331 |
239.
? | EY | below | *Hirsch (Rhousopoulos) 2038 = Sv. 36, 11, St. Petersburg (but see p. 89, note 2), gr. 16.36 |
240.
a. | ? | AN | below | *Sophia, gr. 16.74 |
b. | ? | ΣΦ | below | Glasgow (Hunt. 69; Sv. 36, 8), gr. 16.54↑ |
241.
a. | ? | EY | below | *Münz. u. Med. List 154, 30 |
b. | ? | AN | below | Paris, gr. 16.14↑ |
c. | ? | ΣΦ | below | Copenhagen (SNG 113), gr. 15.97↑ |
242.
a. | ? | AN | below | *Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.53 ↖ |
b. | ? | ΣΦ | below | *ANS, gr. 16.43 ↖ |
c. | ? | ΠP | below | Glasgow (Hunt. 72), gr. 16.02 ↖ |
d. | ? | EY | below | Athens, gr. 15.80↑ |
243.
a. | ? | ΠP | 1. field | *Gotha, gr. 16.00; Leningrad, gr. 16.42↑ |
b. | ? | A | 1. field | Damascus (Tell Ahmar Hd.) |
c. | ? | E | 1. field | L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.03 |
244.
? | ? | *Chiha Coll. |
Drachms
245.
No lettering visible *Stephens Coll, gr. 4.22↑; Athens (Sv. 36, 13, commerce Athens), gr.4.05↑; Berlin, gr.3.70
246.
No lettering visible *Berlin (Sv. 36, 12), gr. 4.14
52 tetradrachms: 17 obverse, 44 reverse dies 4 drachms: 2 obverse, 2 reveres dies Months: A, Δ, E, Z, Ḥ, ⊖, K, , M Controls: A, AN, E, EY, ΠP, ΣΦ1
Beulé reads the first monogram as ΔHMHTPIOΣ, pointing out the similarity between this rendering and that found on the bronzes of Demetrios II of Macedon. The second combination he interprets as ΔIONY[ΣIOP]. Both identifications seem highly probable, but the names are so common that it would be impossible to make any firm association between the mint magistrates and Athenians known from epigraphical sources.
What does seem distinctly possible is that and ΔHMH of the issue just preceding refer to the same man. The helmet used as a symbol by ΔHMH finds its closest parallel on the coinage of Philip V; the eagle of , while not exclusively Macedonian, is nevertheless a common type on the regnal issues of Philip V and Perseus. The use of a symbol with strong Macedonian connotation on two issues for which a Demetrios served as first magistrate suggests at least that only one man is involved.
On most reverses the eagle surmounts the Y of the second monogram. Nos. 230c, 281d, e, f and 236b, c, d present a variation in that the bird stands free in the field over the monogram. Obverse 236 is without protomes and without the Pegasus on the helmet.
1 |
H. Gaebler, ZfN, 1897, pp. 169ff. and Die antiken Münzen Nord-Griechenlands, III, 1, Pl. I,
1.
|
1 |
H is given as the amphora letter in the Sylloge publication but I could see no certain marking on the coin.
|
1 |
Beulé gives ΠE, after a coin in Corsini, but the combination is otherwise unrecorded.
|
2 |
This is an error on Svoronos’ plate. The Rhousopoulos coin is No. 239 below, as illustrated in Hirsch’s catalogue. That same
piece is also
reproduced by Svoronos (Plate 36, 11) and identified as coming from St. Petersburg. One might assume that the provenances
of No. 10 and 11
had been transposed, but No. 10 is not in the Hermitage Cabinet.
|
Tetradrachms
(Plates 26–27)
247.
() | A | ΣΦ | below | *Glasgow (Hunt. 76; Sv. 36, 14), gr. 16.79↑ |
248.
() | a. | A | ΠP | 1. field | *London (Sv. 36, 20, Oman), gr. 16.75 ↖ |
(As above) | b. | ? | AN | below | Munich (Sv. 36, 19), gr. 16.25 |
249.
() | a. | B | ΠP | below | *Kambanis Coll. |
(As above) | b. | Ḅ | EY | below | Athens, gr. 16.02↑ |
(As above) | c. | Ḅ | AN1 | below | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 4), gr. 16.54↑ |
250.
() | Γ(?) | ΣΦ | below | *Berlin (Sv. 86, 15), gr. 16.96 |
251.
() | a. | Γ | AN | below | Jameson 2081 = Naville (Pozzi) 1595, gr. 16.84 |
(As above) | b. | ? | ΠP | below | *Paris, gr. 16.52↑ |
() | c. | Δ(?) | AN | 1. field | *Marseilles |
252.
a. | E | ΣΦ | below | *Empedocles Coll. = Weber 3514 (Sv. 36, 21), gr. 16.80; Damascus Collector | |
b. | E | EY | 1. field | Athens (Sv. 36, 16), gr. 16.98 | |
c. | ? | ΠP | below | Commerce Beirut 1952 |
253.1
a. | Ẹ | AN | below | *Berlin, gr. 16.77 | |
b. | ? | ΠP | below | Athens, gr. 16.25↑ | |
(As above) | c. | E | AN | below | *London (BMC 301; Sv. 36, 17), gr. 16.82↑ |
254.
? | ? | *Oxford, gr. 16.63↑; Herakleion (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.19 ↖ |
255.
256.
a. | ? | ΠP | 1. field | *Budapest, gr. 16.32↑ | |
b. | ? | AN | 1. field | Glasgow (Hunt. 77), gr. 16.71↑ | |
c. | ? | AN | 1. field | *ANS, gr. 16.67 ↖ |
257.
a. | K | ΣΦ | below | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 16.76↑ |
b. | K | EY | below | Leningrad, gr. 16.85↑ |
c. | Ḳ | AN | below | Deningrad, gr. 16.01↑ |
d. | K(?) | ΣΦ | below | *Paris (de Luynes 2074), gr. 16.72↑ |
e. | ? | AN | below | Athens, gr. 17.00↑ |
f. | ? | AN | below | Leningrad, gr. 16.41↑ |
258.
a. | K | ΠP | below | *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.39↑; Berlin, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.56 |
b. | K | ΣΦ | below | London (BMC 302; Sv. 36, 22), gr. 16.34↖ |
c. | M | EY | below | Vienna, gr. 16.23 |
d. | M | ΠP | below | *Berlin, gr. 16.20; Gotha, gr. 16.08; Copenhagen (SNG 114), gr. 15.79↑ |
e. | M | AN | below | Berlin (Sv. 36, 23), 16.89 |
259.
M | AN | below | *Leningrad, gr. 16.18↑ |
260.
( - ) | a. | ? | ΣΦ | 1 field | *ANS, gr. 16.62↑ |
(As above) | b. | ? | ΣΦ | below | Cahn 75, 323, gr. 16.37 |
(As above) | c. | ? | ? | Commerce Beirut 1952 |
261.
( | a. | ? | EY | below | *The Hague, gr. 16.70; Leningrad, gr. 16.80↑ |
(As above) | b. | ? | ΣΦ | below | Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 904, gr. 16.70 |
262.
() | ? | EY | 1. field | *Damascus Collector; Athens, gr. 15.90↑ |
263.
() | a. | ? | EY | 1. field | Munich, gr. 15.81 |
b. | ? | ΠP | below | Vienna, gr. 16.61 | |
c. | ? | ΠP | 1. field | *Ateees (Delos Hd. Γ, 3), gr. 16.80 |
264.
a. | ? | ΣΦ | below | *Berlin | |
() | b. | ? | AN below | *Gotha, gr. 16.67 |
265.
? | ΣΦ | below | *Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 16.56↑ |
55 tetradrachms: 19 obverse, 45 reverse dies Months: A, B, Γ, Δ(?), E, H, K, M1 Controls: AN, EY, ΠP, ΣΦ2
Obverse variations show no Pegasus on some dies (Nos. 258 its its later stage, 256 and 264) and no row of horse profomes on others (Nos. 255 and 257). This issue like the preceding one is noteworthy for the consistency of its control letters; both strikings use the same four combinations: AN, EY, ΠP, and ΣΦ.
There is, however, a great diversity in the rendering of the two monograms. found only on No. 251c, is the most elaborate form of the first name. In the is probably assumed to take the place of the A, while and are simply shorter versions of the basic monogram. Kitchner (ZfN, 1898, p. 275) reads as XAPINAYT[HΣ] but he bases his identification on only the one mono- grammatic form. The more complicated versions definitely include a Π and suggest that XAPIΠΠO[Σ] or XAIPIΠΠIO[Σ] is the correct interpretation.
For the second name there are no fewer than six varieties. Again the most elaborate version, or , is probably basic with the other forms merely shortened or misunderstood renderings of it. ΠOMΠIΔHΣ is the only name I can think of that correlates exactly with the elements of the monogram but there may well be others.
1 |
Svoronos' reading of ΣΦ for the letters below the amphora is, I think, erroneous.
|
1 |
No. 253c seems to me to be from the same obverse as Nos. 253a and b, the die having been extensively recut.
|
1 |
Beulé gives l on the amphora; the letter not included in Kambanis’ listing and I have no record of it.
|
2 |
ΔH aed ΣΩ are reported by Beulé. The first reading, from a British Museum coin, is apparently the AN of No. 253c. ΣΩ is probably
a
misreading of ΣΦ.
|
(Plates 28–29)
Tetradrachms
266.
B | EY | below | *ANS, gr. 16.75↑ |
267.
a. | B | EY | below | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 15.70↑ |
b. | ? | EY | 1. field | *Athens, gr. 14.92 (crystallized)↑ |
268.
a. | EY | below | Commerce Beirut 1952 | |
b. | Ẹ | ΠP | below | Romanos Coll. |
c. | ? | ME | 1. field | *Paris (de Luynes 2080), gr. 16.58↑; Commerce (Sv. 42, 18), gr. 16.21 |
d. | ? | EY | 1. field | Leningrad, gr. 16.76↑ |
e.1 | ? | ? | Athens (Sv. 42, 19), gr. 16.35 |
269.
270. | |||||
H | EN | l. field | *ANS, gr. 16.55 ↖ | ||
271. | |||||
a. | ? | EN | l. field | * Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 165), gr. 16.55↑ | |
b. | ? | ENΦ | below | Glasgow (Hunt.92), gr. 16.63 ↖; The Hague, control letters uncertain | |
c. | ? | EY | below | Leningrad, gr. 16.61 ↖ | |
272. | |||||
a. | H | ΠP | l. field | * ANS, gr. 16.55↑; Mass. Hist. Soc., gr. 16.77 | |
b. | H | ? | Giamalakis Coll., gr. 16.10 | ||
c. | Ө | ΠP | below | Milan (Sv. 42, 8), gr. 16.12 | |
d. | Ө | EY | below | Kambanis Coll. | |
e. | Ө | EMΦ | l. field | London, gr. 16.54 ↖ | |
f. | Ḳ | EMΦ | l. field | Berlin, gr. 16.45 | |
g. | ? | EMΦ | l. field | *Paris, gr. 15.60 ↖ | |
h. | ? | EMΦ | below | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 164; Sv. 42, 20), gr. 16.72↑ | |
i. | ? | ΠP | below | Berlin (Sv. 42, 7), gr. 15.87 | |
273. | |||||
? | EMΦ | l. field | London, gr. 16.55↑ | ||
274. | |||||
a. | Ө | EY | below | Leningrad, gr. 15.46↑ | |
b. | K | ME | below | Empedocles Coll. = Baltatzi Coll. (Sv. 42, 10) = Mavrokordatou Coll. (JIAN, 1912, 1829), gr. 15.88 | |
c. | K | EMΦ | l. field | * Berlin, gr. 15.75 | |
d. | K | ΠP | below | Berlin, gr. 15.08 (corroded) | |
e. | ? | EY | l. field | Gotha, gr. 16.41 | |
f. | ? | EY | l. field | Berlin, Cast Coll. | |
EY | below | ||||
g. | ? | ? | Athens, gr. 15.73↑ | ||
275. | |||||
K | ΠP | l. field | * Uncertain (Sv. 42, 9, erroneously ascribed to Paris) | ||
276. | |||||
a. | K(?) | EMΦ | l. field | *Romanos Coll. | |
b. | ? | EY(?) | below | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 163), gr. 16.85↑ | |
c. | ? | ? | Bucharest, gr. 16.20 | ||
277. | |||||
a. | Λ | ΠP | l. field | *ANS, gr. 15.95↑ | |
b. | Λ | ΠP | below | Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 940 = Sv. 42, 12, gr. 16.60; Herakleion ↖; Herakleion (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 15.88 ↖ | |
c. | Λ | ΠP | below | Tübingen, gr. 15.81; Berlin (Sv.42, 11), gr. 16.41 | |
d. | EMΦ | l. field | London (Sv. 42, 8, Oman), gr. 16.48↑ | ||
e. | Λ (?) | ΠP | l. field | Vienna, gr. 16.67 | |
f. | Λ (?) | EY | l. field | Athens, gr. 16.65↑ Vienna, gr. 16.01 | |
g. | M | ΠP | below | London (BMC 435), gr. 16.82↑ | |
h. | Ṃ | EMΦ | below | Leningrad, gr. 16.43 ↑ | |
i. | ? | EMΦ | l. field | Herakleion ↖ | |
j. | ? | EMΦ | below | Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 16.15 ↑ | |
k. | ? | ME | l. field | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.26 | |
l. | ? | EMΦ | l. field | Athens gr. 16.40 ↑ | |
m. | ? | EMΦ | below | Athens, gr. 16.45 ↑ | |
278. | |||||
a. | Λ | ME | below | *Cambridge (Grose 5902; Sv. 42, 1), gr. 16.43 ↑ | |
b. | M | EMΦ | below | Bauer Coll.; Paris (de Luynes 2081; Sv. 42, 14), gr.16.75↑; Paris, gr.16.12↑; Athens, gr.15.58↑ | |
c. | M | EMΦ | below | Berlin | |
d. | M | ME | below | Glasgow (Hunt.91; Sv. 42, 13), gr. 16.76↑ | |
e. | M(?) | ME | l. field | Commerce (Sv. 42, 17, Feuardent), gr. 16.76 | |
f. | M(?) | EY | below | Ratto (Rogers) 349, gr. 16.70 | |
g. | Ṇ | ME | l. field | Athens (Delos Hd. B, 119), gr. 15.95 ↑ | |
h. | ? | ΠP | l. field | Paris, gr. 15.69 ↑ | |
i. | ? | ? | Athens, gr. 16.90 ↑ | ||
279. | |||||
a. | Λ | EY | l. field | *Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 3201), gr. 16.53 ↑; Andreopoulos Coll. | |
b. | M(?) | EY | below | The Hague | |
c. | N | EMΦ | l. Field | Naville (Pozzi) 1606, gr. 16.85; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 122), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 14.42 (crystallized)↑; Leningrad, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.28 ↑ | |
d. | ? | ME | l. field | Copenhagen (SNG 133), gr. 16.76 ↑ | |
e. | ? | EMΦ | l. field | Athens, gr. 14.85 (crystallized) ↑ | |
f. | ? | ME | below | Leningrad, gr. 15.69 ↑ | |
280. | |||||
a. | N | ME | l. field | *Berlin (Sv. 42, 15), gr. 16.42 | |
b. | N | EY | l. field | *Berlin; Gotha, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.42 | |
c. | ?2 | ME | l. field | Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 3202), gr. 16.26↑ | |
d. | ? | EY | below | Berlin, gr. 16.16 | |
281. | |||||
? | ṂEN | below | *Ratto (Rogers) 350, gr. 16.70; Copenhagen (SNG 132), gr. 16.05 ↗ | ||
282. | |||||
? | ? | *Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 16.28 ↑ | |||
283. | |||||
a. | ? | ΠPO | below | *Basel (Sv. 42, 16); Commerce Beirut 1953 | |
b. | ? | ? | Herakleion (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.57↑ | ||
c. | ? | ? | Leningrad, gr. 16.70 ↑ | ||
284. | |||||
? | EY | below | *Paris, gr. 16.53 ↑ | ||
285. | |||||
? | ΠP | l. field | *Athens, gr. 16.15 ↑ | ||
286. | |||||
a. | ? | EY | l. field | *London (BMC 436), gr. 16.06↖ | |
b. | ? | ? | l. field | Athens (Delos Hd. B, 121), gr. 14.65 (crystallized) ↑ | |
102 tetradrachms : 21 obverse, 77 reverse dies Months: B, Δ, E, Z, H, Ө, K, Λ, M, N2 Controls: EMΦ, EN(Φ), EY, ME(N, NE), ΠP(O)3 |
On most dies the name of the second magistrate is written . The following fifteen reverses have the letters in one line across the right field: Nos. 267b; 268; 269a, b, j; 270; 271; 281; 282; 283a. Early and late month letters occur with both forms so that the variation is fortuitous and without chronological significance. As in preceding issues there are instances of the omission of the Pegasus from the obverse (Nos. 269, 274, 278, 279) and of the horse protomes above the visor (Nos. 272 and 286). A straight line above the triangular opening of the visor substitutes for the row of heads on these last obverses.
Beulé expands the abbreviated names into KTHΣI[AΣ] – EYMA[PEIΔHΣ]. There are, however, so many other possibilities that it seems futile to attempt an identification of either magistrate.
ΓΛAY – EXE BUST OF HELIOS 170/69 b.c.
(Plates 30–31)
Tetradrachms
287. | |||||
a. | A | KT | l. field | *Grabow 7, 109, gr. 16.49; Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.30↑ | |
b. | ? | KT | l. field | London (BMC 352), gr. 16.65 ↖ | |
288. | |||||
a. | A | HP | l. field | *Berlin, gr. 16.70; Wilkinson Coll. = Lockett Coll. (SNG 1907), gr. 16.78↑ | |
b. | B | KT | l. field | Cahn 66, 235, gr. 16.88 | |
c. | B | ΣΩ | l. field | Turin (Mus. Ant., Fabretti 3060), gr. 16.49 | |
d. | ? | A | l. field | Berlin (Sv. 40, 13), gr. 16.57 | |
e. | ? | KT | l. field | Budapest, gr. 16.20↑ | |
289. | |||||
a. | B | HP | l. field | *Seyrig Coll. (Kessab Hd.) gr. 16.71 ↗ | |
b. | B | HP | l. field | ANS, gr. 16.72↑ | |
c. | B | KT | l. field | Berlin (Sv. 40, 1), gr. 16.76 | |
d. | ? | AΠ | l. field | Evelpidis Coll. | |
290. | |||||
a. | B | ΣΩ | l. field | *London (Sv. 40, 2), gr. 16.75↑ | |
b. | B | AΠ | l. field | Salonika Hd.; Gotha, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.57 | |
c. | Γ | AΠ | l. field | ANS-ETN, gr. 16.27↑ | |
d. | ? | HP | l. field | Berlin (Sv. 40, 4), gr. 16.44; Ratto (Rogers) 347 = Ratto, Apr. 1927, 1378 (latter showing hole which was later concealed), gr. 16.25 | |
291. | |||||
a. | Γ | HP | below | Romanos Coll. (Sv. 40, 3), gr. 16.40 | |
b. | Γ | ΣΩ | below | Commerce Beirut 1953 | |
c. | Δ | AΠ | l. field | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.30↑ | |
d. | Δ | AΠ | below | Athens, gr. 16.10 (piece missing)↑ | |
e. | ? | HP | l. field | *London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.62↑ | |
f. | ? | ΣΦ | l. field | Leningrad, gr. 16.44↑ | |
g.1 | ? | ? | Salton-Schlessinger, Nov. 1955, 699 = Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 908 = Sv. 40, 14, gr. 16.60 | ||
292. | |||||
a. | Δ | ΣΦ | l. field | Andreopoulos Coll. | |
b. | Δ | HP | l. field | Met. Mus. Art (Ward 503), gr. 16.71 | |
c. | HP | below | Athens, gr. 16.55↑ | ||
d. | E | AΠ | l. field | *London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.34↑ | |
293. | |||||
E | ΣΦ | l. field | *ANS-ETN = Ratto (Rogers) 348, gr. 16.90↑ | ||
294. | |||||
a. | I/E | HP | below | Berlin, gr. 16.06; ANS-ETN = Sotheby, Dec. 1924, 129, gr. 16.65 ↗; Copenhagen (SNG 128; Sv. 40, 5), gr. 16.77 ↑; London (Salonika Hd.), no trace of underlying E, gr. 16.37 ↗ | |
b. | I | AΠ | l. field | *Gotha (Sv. 40, 6), gr. 16.82 | |
c. | ΣΦ | l. field | Berlin, gr. 16.43 | ||
d. | ? | ? | l. field | Athens, gr. 16:10↑ | |
295. | |||||
a. | I/Ẹ | ΣΦ | l. field | *ANS-Gautier, gr. 16.66↑ | |
b. | ? | ΣΦ | l. field | Stack's (South) 618 | |
c. | ? | ḲṬ | l. field | Athens (Sv. 40, 15), gr. 16.75 ↑ | |
296. | |||||
a. | I/E | ΣΦ | l. field | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.70↑ | |
b. | I/Ẹ | ΣΦ | l. field | Athens↑ | |
c. | H | AΠ | l. field | Commerce; Glasgow (Hunt.85), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.93 ↑ | |
d. | Ө | AΠ | below | Berlin (Sv. 40, 7), gr. 16.50 | |
e. | Ө(?) | ΣΦ | l. field | Copenhagen (SNG 130), gr. 16.58 ↑ | |
f. | I(?) | HP | l. field | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 15.64 ↑ | |
g. | ? | ΣΦ | l. field | Leningrad, gr. 16.07↑ | |
297. | |||||
H | HP | l. field | *ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.37↑ | ||
298. | |||||
a. | H | AΠ | l. field | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 61; Sv. 40, 10), gr. 16.70; Athens (Delos Hd. ΠH) | |
b. | K | HP | l. field | *Athens (Sv. 40, 8), gr. 16.90↑ |
299. | |||||
a. | ΣΦ | l. field | Commerce 1955 | ||
b. | Λ | HP | l. field | Naville (Bement) 1121 = Sotheby (Guzman) 13, gr. 16.72 ↑ | |
c. | Λ | ΣΦ | l. field | Ball VI, 274. gr. 16.20 | |
d. | ? | KT | l. field | Dewing Coll., gr. 16.28↑ | |
e. | ? | HP | l. field | Copenhagen (SNG 129), gr. 16.76 ↑ | |
f. | ? | A | l. field | Berlin, gr. 15.60 | |
300. | |||||
K(?) | AΠ | l. field | *Paris (de Luynes 2079; Sv. 40, 9), gr. 16.80 ↑ | ||
301. | |||||
K(?) | KT | l. field | *Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 16.98 ↑ | ||
302. | |||||
a. | K | AΠ(?) | l. field | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 15.97 ↑ | |
b. | Λ | AΠ | l. field | *Münz. u. Med. XIII, 1131 = Sv. 40, 11, Imhoof, gr. 16.81 ↗ | |
c. | Λ(?) | HP | l. field | Paris, gr. 16.30 ↑ | |
d. | ? | HP | l. field | ANS-Gautier, gr. 16.20↑; London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.84 ↑ | |
e. | ? | HP | l. field | Leningrad (Sv. 40, 17), gr. 16.57 | |
303. | |||||
a. | Λ | ΣΦ | l. field | *Romanos Coll. | |
b. | M(?) | ΣΦ | l. field | London (BMC 353; Sv. 40, 12), gr. 16.68 ↑ | |
c. | и | ΣΦ | l. field | *Salonika Hd. | |
d. | N(?) | ΣΦ | l. field | Vienna, gr. 16.61 | |
e. | ? | HP | l. field | L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.40 | |
304. | |||||
и | KT | l. field | *Princeton Univ., gr. 15.71 | ||
305. | |||||
и | HP | l. field | *Berry Coll., gr. 16.70 ↑ | ||
306. | |||||
a. | ? | KT | l. field | Leningrad (Sv. 40, 16), gr. 16.45 ↑ | |
b. | ? | KT | l. field | Leningrad gr. 16.20 ↑ | |
c. | ? | ? | l. field | *Athens↑ |
Drachms
307. | |||||
a. | A | — | *Berry Coll., gr. 4.11↑; Petsalis Coll., gr. 3.83; Petsalis Coll., gr. 3.90↑; Athens (Delos Hd. KϚ,8), gr. 3.35↑—amphora letter visible only on Berry coin | ||
b. | ? | — | The Hague; Ratto (Rogers) 354, gr. 3.48; ANS-ETN, gr. 4.05↑ | ||
c. | ? | — | Glasgow (Hunt.86; Sv. 40, 21), gr. 4.06↑ | ||
d. | ? | — | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.19↑ | ||
308. | |||||
a. | B | — | *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.20↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), letter uncertain, gr. 4.19↑; Commerce (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.17↑; Berlin, letter uncertain, gr. 4.14 | ||
b. | Ө | — | Berlin, broken | ||
c. | ? | — | Commerce (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.14↑; Paris | ||
d. | ? | K | l. field | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.18↑ | |
309. | |||||
a. | Γ | A | l. field | Athens (Sv. 40, 19), prob. = Hirsch (Rhousopoulos) 2042, gr. 3.80; Athens (Sv. 40, 20), gr. 4.08; London, gr. 3.95. With H/A: *Commerce (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.14↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.10↑ | |
b. | Γ | HP | l. field | Naville (Woodward) 751, gr. 3.71; Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 960 = Sv. 40, 22, gr. 3.85 | |
c. | ? | K | l. field | Glymenopoulos Coll. (Sv. 40, 18), gr. 3.50 | |
310. | |||||
a. | I | — | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.15↑; London (BMC 354), gr. 4.14; Bartlett Coll. = Hesperia Art VI, 19 | ||
b. | K | — | *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.12↑; Commerce (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.25↑; Budapest, letter uncertain, gr. 3.85 (pierced)↑ | ||
c. | ? | A | l. field | Feuardent (Ready) 361 | |
311. | |||||
? | A | l. field | * Vienna, gr. 3.58 |
Hemidrachms
312. | |||||
a. | No lettering | *ANS-ETN, gr. 2.07 ↖ Athens (Delos Hd. KϚ, 10; Sv. 40, 23), gr. 1.65 ↖ | |||
b. | No lettering | Paris; Athens (Sv. 40, 24), gr. 1.77↑ | |||
313. | |||||
l. field | *Athens (Delos Hd. B, 41), gr. 1.80↑ Paris | ||||
314. | |||||
l. field | *Copenhagen (SNG 131), gr. 1.92↑ 77 tetradrachms: 20 obverse, 64 reverse dies 33 drachms: 5 obverse, 13 reverse dies 7 hemidrachms : 3 obverse, 3 reverse dies Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, H, Ө, I, K, Λ, M(?), N Controls: A, AΠ, HP, KT, ΣΦ, ΣΦ1 |
This issue divides into two stylistic periods. During the early part of the year the obverse dies (Nos. 287–298) show a general similarity although there are individual differences in the rendering of the Athena head like those found in preceding strikings. Nos. 288, 290 and 291 have the lateral ornament which appears for the last time under ΓΛAY – EXE. On Nos. 291, 296 and 298 the horse protomes are missing, an omission which henceforth will recur only sporadically and then at a much later period.
With Nos. 299–306, the last dies cut in 170/69 b.c., a new and quite distinctive style is introduced. All obverses are clearly from the hand of the same engraver: a heavy, rather coarse profile, neatly ordered locks of hair, large Pegasi and a thick, ornately curvilinear ornament. There is no obvious relationship between this style and anything before or after it.
Beulé gives the magistrates as ΓΛAY[KOΣ] and EXE[KPATHΣ]. Head (HN, p. 381) suggests EXE[ΔHMOΣ] for the second official and regards it as possible that this is the man mentioned by Polybius (XXI. 4, 5—Loeb) as an emissary to Scipio in 191/0 b.c. Kirchner (ZfN, 1898, p. 75) further identifies the emissary with EXEΔHMOΣ MNHΣIӨEOY KYΔAӨHNAIEYΣ (PA 6168), who was a donor in 183/2 b.c. and again in 172/1 (IG II2 2332 and 2331).
Glaukos is the most likely expansion of ΓΛAY although there are other possibilities. Head (BMC xliii) and Kirchner cite a family connection between Lysandros and Glaukos, who shared the mint magistracy of 159/8 b.c., and the former suggests that the Glaukos of the present issue may have been the father of the later Glaukos. It seems to me probable that the same Glaukos served in 170/69 and again in 159/8.
MIKI–ӨEOΦPA NIKE IN QUADRIGA 169/8 b.c.
(Plate 32)
Tetradrachms
315. | |||||
a. | B | AΠ | below | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 202; Sv. 43, 15), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.67. With ME/AΠ below: Naville (Woodward) 756, gr. 16.64 | |
b. | Γ | ME | below | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 15.55 ↖ | |
c. | Γ | MH | below | Berlin (Sv. 43, 10), gr. 16.69 | |
d. | Γ | MH | below | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.33 ↖ | |
e. | Δ(?) | AΠ | below | Hesse (Otto) 447, gr. 16.47 | |
f. | ? | ME | below | Leningrad, gr. 16.13 | |
g. | ? | AP | below | *Dresse de Lébioles Coll., gr. 14.791↖ | |
h. | ? | ? | London, gr. 16.29 ↖ | ||
316. | |||||
a. | Γ | AP | below | Vatican (Sv. 43, 8), gr. 16.65 | |
b. | E(?) | AP | below | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.90↑ | |
c. | ? | ΣΩ | below | *ANS-Gautier, gr. 16.76 ↖ Glasgow (Hunt.93; Sv. 43, 14), gr. 16.86 ↖ | |
317. | |||||
a. | Δ | ME | below | *Romanos Coll.; Kambanis Coll. (Salonika Hd.) | |
b. | Δ | ME | below | Naville (Pozzi) 1609, gr. 16.64; Berlin, gr. 16.06 | |
c. | E | ME | below | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.24 ↖; Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 3203; Sv. 43, 9), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.37↑ | |
d. | E | AP | below | Paris (Sv. 43, 11), gr. 16.73↑; London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.62↑ | |
318. | |||||
a. | Δ | ME | below | Lockett Coll. (SNG 1908) = Ratto (Rogers) 352 = Sotheby, Dec. 1924, 128, gr. 16.60↑ | |
b. | Ẹ | ΣΩ | below | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.27↖ | |
c. | Ẹ | ME/AP | below | Gotha, gr. 16.37 | |
d. | I | AP | below | Commerce Beirut (Kessab Hd.) | |
e. | I | ME | below | L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.52 | |
f. | H | ΣΩ | below | Leningrad, gr. 16.27↖ | |
g. | Ḥ | AP | below | Leningrad, gr. 16.27↖ | |
h. | ? | ΣΩ | below | Gotha, gr. 16.72 | |
i. | ? | ME | below | Athens, gr. 17.00↑ |
319. | |||||
a. | I/E(?) | MH | below | *London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.63↑ | |
b. | Ө/H(?) | MH | below | ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.25↑ | |
c. | ? | ΣΩ | below | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 204), gr. 16.40↑ | |
320. | |||||
a. | /E(?) | ME | below | *London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.86↑; Herakleion (Sv. 43, 12), gr. 16.60 | |
b. | I/Ẹ | MH | below | below Commerce (Sv. 43, 13), gr. 17.01 | |
c. | I | ME | below | Judd Coll., gr. 16.45↑; Athens, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.40↑ | |
d. | H | AP | below | Florange-Ciani (Allotte de la Fuÿe) 404, gr. 16.75 | |
e. | Ө/H(?) | MH | below | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 15.84↑ | |
f. | ? | ME | below | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.23↑ | |
g. | ? | AP | below | Herakleion (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.50↑ | |
h. | ? | AP | below | Berlin, gr. 16.25 | |
321. | |||||
a. | Ө(?) | ΣΩ | below | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 15.93↑; Schulman 231, 3669 = Helbing 83, 327 = Cahn 71, 340 = Hess 202, 2477, gr. 16.57. With I/Ө: Glen-dining (Cunningham) 167, gr. 16.33 | |
b. | I | AP | below | *Yale Univ., gr. 16.75↑; London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.60↑ | |
c. | K(?) | ME | below | London, gr. 16.19 ↖ | |
322. | |||||
a. | I | MH | below | *Kambanis Coll. (Salonika Hd.) | |
b. | I | MH | below | ANS-ETN, gr. 16.86↑; Vienna, gr. 16.28 | |
c. | Λ | MH | below | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 15.85↑ | |
d. | Λ(?) | MH | below | Leningrad, gr. 16.56↑ | |
e. | M | ME | below | Lockett Coll. (SNG 1909), gr. 16.77↑; Berry Coll., amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.29↑ | |
323. | |||||
a. | Λ | ΣΩ | below | London (BMC 470; Sv. 43, 16), gr. 15.50↑ | |
b. | Λ | ME | below | Bauer Coll. (Gans Mail Bid 16,311), gr. 16.55↑ | |
c. | Λ (?) | MH | below | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 15.90↑ | |
d. | M | MH | below | Commerce (Salonika Hd.) | |
e. | M | AP | below | Bourgey, May 1950, 70 | |
f. | ? | MH | below | *Winterthur, gr. 16.86↖ | |
g. | ? | ΣΩ | below | Stockholm, gr. 16.34↑ | |
h. | ? | ME | below | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 203), gr. 16.05↑ | |
324. | |||||
a. | M | ME | below | *Kambanis Coll.; London (BMC 471; Sv. 43, 17), gr. 16.04↑ | |
b. | M | MH | below | *Copenhagen (SNG 137), gr. 16.90↑ (Plate 33); Athens (Delos Hd. KϚ, 13), gr. 14.92 (crystallized)↑ |
Drachms
325. | |||||
a. | B | *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.21 f; London, gr. 4.14 | |||
b. | Γ | Istanbul, gr. 4.13↑ | |||
c. | ? | Commerce (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.17↑ | |||
326. | |||||
a. | Γ | *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.22↑; Paris; Romanos Coll. (Sv. 43, 18), gr. 4.07; Glendining, Oct. 1957, 103 (Attic Hd.), gr. 3.76↑ | |||
b. | Δ/B | ANS-ETN, gr. 4.10↑ London (BMC 472), letter uncertain, gr. 3.89 | |||
c. | Δ | Commerce (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.30↑; Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 3233), letter uncertain,1 gr. 4.13↑ | |||
d. | M | Berlin (Sv. 43, 20), gr. 3.79 | |||
e. | ? | Munich, gr. 3.76; Berlin, gr. 3.69 | |||
327. | |||||
a. | ? | *Athens = Hirsch (Rhousopoulos) 2059 = Sv. 43, 21, gr. 3.96↑; Leningrad, gr. 3.78↑; Berlin, gr. 3.91 | |||
b. | ? | Naples (Sv. 43, 19) |
NO SYMBOL
Hemidrachms
328. | ||
a. | * Athens (Delos Hd. B, 138; Sv.43, 22), gr. 1.60↑; Gotha (Sv.43, 24), gr. 1.91; London (BMC 473), gr. 2.08; Petsalis Coll., gr. 1.79↑; poss. Herakleion; Berlin, gr. 1.95 | |
b. | Athens (Delos Hd. KϚ, 14), gr. 1.60↑; ANS-ETN, gr. 1.90↑; Leningrad (Sv. 43, 25), gr. 1.92↑; Naville (BM dupl.) 2018, gr. 1.89; probably Naville (Woodward) 757, gr. 2.08; Berlin, gr. 1.92 |
329. | ||
a. | *Athens, gr. 2.12↑; Copenhagen (SNG 138; Sv. 43, 23), gr. 2.07↑; Petsalis Coll., gr. 1.80↑; Boston MFA (Brett 1102), gr. 2.00 | |
b. | Paris | |
68 tetradrachms: 10 obverse, 46 reverse dies 19 drachms: 3 obverse, 7 reverse dies 17 hemidrachms: 2 obverse, 4 reverse
dies Months: B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, H, Ө(?), I, K(?), Λ, M Controls: AΠ, AP, ME, MH, ΣΩ |
Theophrastos is almost certainly the correct expansion of ӨEOΦPA. In all probability the second magistrate of the present issue is also the third magistrate of 167/6 and the first official of the ӨEOΦPA–ΣΩTAΣ striking a few years later.
MIKI[ΩN], as Head and Kirchner point out, is surely a member of the famous family prominent throughout the Hellenistic period. Kirchner (PA 10186) identifies this magistrate with MIKIΩN (III) EYPYKΛEIΔOY (I) KHΦIΣIEYΣ, a donor in 183/2 and victor in a chariot race after 191 b.c.
The inscription recording Panathenaic victories (IG II2 2314) presents certain problems. It consists of two catalogues (A and B) which Ferguson (Klio, 1908, pp. 346, 349–55), followed by Kirchner in the later IG, dates to 182/1 and 178/7 b.c. The name Mikion appears in both lists and Kirchner assumes two individuals, grandfather (Mikion III) and grandson (Mikion IV). With Ferguson's dating applied to Kirchner's identifications, the older man would have been a victor in 178 and the younger a victor in 182. Kirchner, however, notes in reference to Mikion III, whom he associates with the mint magistracy of this issue, that he would in 183/2 have been nearly eighty years old. It does not seem likely or even possible that a man of that age would have been competing in a chariot race in 178 and holding a minting office nine years later.
Actually the assumption that we are dealing with two individuals in the inscription cited is an argumentum ex silentio. In Catalogue A the name is followed by Nεώτε which led Kirchner to identify the victor of that listing as Mikion IV; in Catalogue B there is no indication of the adjective after the name, hence Kirchner's identification of the victor of that listing as Mikion III. But the inscription is fragmentary at this point ; there may once have been a Nεώτε, the same man may have been the victor of both races.
In any case the mint magistrate of 169/8 b.c. must be Kirchner's Mikion IV (PA 10187). His choice of symbol, Nike in quadriga, is clearly a reference to his Panathenaic victory or victories. It is this same Mikion who serves again, with his brother Eurykleides, in the mint magistracy of 156/5 b.c.
1 |
At this stage the obverse die has been recut.
|
1 |
The B reading of the Sylloge publication seems quite impossible.
|
1 |
On this reverse the amphora has no body.
|
1 |
The coin with AӨ cited by Sundwall and Svoronos is our No. 288d with the reading AΠ
practically certain. Beulé lists EP but notes that the combination looks more like KP, which leads one to believe that KT
is the correct
version. In one of Kambanis' notebooks there is an entry of EY for a Basel
tetradrachm, but this is not found in a second listing of Swiss collections which Kambanis had made and it seems
advisable to omit the combination from the present record.
|
1 |
From the weight this would seem to be a cast or plated piece.
|
1 |
The Sylloge catalogue records K on the amphora but I can see no clear indication of this; the Attic Hoard piece from
the same pair of dies has an unmistakable Δ.
|
2 |
Both Beulé and Kambanis record A on the amphora. The one example cited by the former cannot be checked. There are three specimens
listed by
Kambanis: our Nos. 276b, 278a and 269a. On the first neither Svoronos nor I could make out any letter. No. 278a, a Cambridge
coin for which Grose gives A, belongs with a group which includes M and N reverses. The letter in question looks
definitely like a lambda to me. The Glasgow piece, No. 269a, is almost certainly marked with a delta, which is also Macdonald's reading.
|
3 |
Sundwall lists NE from the Rhousopoulos Collection. If the combination exists it is surely a transposition of EN.
|
Twenty-eight issues with the monograms or the abbreviated names of two magistrates are included in the first period of the New Style series. If we assume an uninterrupted coinage, and there is nothing to indicate a break in the sequence, this early group would extend over the years between 196/5 and 169/8 b.c.
The evidence of the Anthedon Hoard on which the date for the beginning of the New Style money is based has been fully presented elsewhere.1 In brief recapitulation, four New Style tetradrachm issues and four Eretrian tetradrachm issues, all in a fine state of preservation, were found in the hoard, together with one tetradrachm issue of Chalcis and octobols of the two Euboean cities. The New Style coins are without question the earliest of the entire series ; they are clearly contemporary with the tetradrachm strikings of Eretria whose spread-flan coinage could have started only after the proclamation of the freedom of the Greek cities by Flamininus in 196 b.c. Since it is unlikely that Eretria would have delayed in striking the large silver denominations symbolic of her newly-acquired autonomy, numismatists generally have associated the first of these Eretrian issues with the period immediately following Flamininus' decree. At Athens it is conceivable that the new coinage started a year earlier, after Cynoscephalae had demonstrated that Philip's hold on Greece was broken and that the friends and supporters of Rome had now no cause to fear Macedonian power. However, it seems to me more probable that it was the enthusiasm engendered by the Isthmian proclamation of June-July 196, with its explicit definition of Roman policy toward Greece, which brought into being both the spread-flan coins of Eretria and the New Style series of Athens. It is unlikely that the short interval between the proclamation and the beginning of the new Attic year would have allowed sufficient time for the reorganization of the mint and the production of even a token emission; hence it is to 196/5 b.c. that I should assign the first New Style issue.
This early coinage has been the most difficult to arrange. In only two instances are individual issues firmly joined by the use of a common obverse die. This is probably due in part to the fact that our record for the early strikings, as provided by surviving specimens, is less complete than for the later periods;21 possibly, too, the practicality of carrying over an obverse die from one year to the next was not at first realized by the mint officials. In any case we are forced to rely rather heavily on style at the beginning of the coinage and it is at just this period that the evidence of style is most elusive. During the Middle Period and for much of the Late Period, one can establish the chronology with reasonable certainty even in the absence of die links. Only one or two engravers seem to have been engaged on the obverse dies of any one year, and each man's style is distinctive and consistent. So one can trace over a span of five to ten years the output of a single diecutter, steadily reproducing his own peculiar pattern. His technique is dominant for a time and then it gradually dies out as a new engraver comes in, first to work in association with the earlier diecutter and finally to supersede him. This second man produces for some years until he in his turn is replaced. Thus one has an interlinking sequence of sharply-contrasted styles as a guide in the establishment of the chronological order. Unfortunately the engravers of the Early Period were either more numerous or more prone to experimentation than their successors. One cannot always distinguish with precision the work of individual diecutters; diversities of style may indicate different engravers or simply the varying techniques of a single man. There is a great unevenness in craftmanship —some dies are splendidly executed while others are atrocious. It is only at the very end of the Early Period that any real stability in the rendering of the Athena head is achieved.
The experimentation that characterizes the modelling of the obverse dies is also apparent in the composition of the reverses. Here one must, albeit reluctantly, abandon any thought of establishing an orderly and logical progression. As Bellinger points out, there is at the beginning no fixed rule as to the use of a symbol. The second striking with a kerchnos is interpolated between issues which have no symbol. There is even inconsistency within a given year : the fourth issue has seven reverse dies without symbol and three with a cornucopiae. From then on, however, a symbol appears on all issues of this first group.
Month dates and control combinations were introduced fairly early in the coinage, and one would assume a reasonable sequence of no letters, then either dates or control marks alone, and finally a combination of the two. The earliest coins have no lettering and the latest have the combination but between the two there is a transitional group of eight issues which reflect experimentation in the setting up of a workable control system. Amphora letters alone seem to have been used for a few issues, then abandoned for control combinations alone, but one intermediate emission tries out both dates and control markings.
Even a division of issues according to the form of the magistrates' names — monograms, hybrids like – ΛYΣIA and ΠOΛY–TI, abbreviated names— cannot be maintained. The logical order is the one followed by Head, by Svoronos and by Kambanis in the notebooks which give his tentative arrangement of the series. Bellinger deviates by listing the ΠOΛY–TI issue well within the monogram group but otherwise he retains the traditional pattern.1 One must conclude, however, on the available evidence that there was no rigid formula for inscribing the names of the magistrates, at least until this Early Period was almost at an end. Each issue must have required a separate decision on the part of the monetary officials or the mint supervisor as to whether monograms or abbreviated names would be used. An indication of this flexibility is to be found in the replacement of by ΦANI on reverses of the third New Style issue. Proof of it is supplied by the die link which places – ΛYΣIA immediately before the striking with two monograms and a thyrsos. As we shall see when we come to the Late Period of the New Style series, there was no clear-cut break between issues with three magistrates and those with two, so, too, at the beginning of the coinage there was a time of transition when monograms and abbreviated names were used interchangeably.
In the discussion that follows, criteria of style, especially as applied to the obverses, are frequently basic in explaining the chronological arrangement. It is not easy to pursue a stylistic pattern, the distinctive quality of an individual engraver, through a number of plates. Furthermore, in the years which have month letters the sequence on the regular plates is that of the amphora dates, which means that the output of any one diecutter may be scattered throughout the year and consequently difficult to envisage as a whole. In the first accordion plate at the end of the volume, the tetradrachm obverses for the first twenty-eight New Style issues are reproduced, with reduction so that the resulting plate would not be too unwieldy.1 Within each annual issue the dies that apparently come from the same hand have been grouped together, in rough proximity to related dies from the years preceding and succeeding. This determination of stylistic affinity is, of course, a highly subjective matter, and the reader may take exception to some of the suggested groupings. In making them, I have considered all details of the type which vary in any degree from year to year and from die to die. The helmet presents many such variables: crest, visor, ornament on the bowl and the Pegasus representation. Treatment of the hair is often significant. Finally there is the profile, which seems to me perhaps the most important single criterion for identifying the work of different diecutters. The helmet and hair represent little more than a frame for the artist's concept of the goddess, and one would suppose that in repeating the type the individual engraver would retain a certain fidelity to his original conception, however much he might vary the decorative features of his composition. So, in loose analogy, the Madonnas of any of the great Renaissance artists tend to be similar in facial contours and expression, diverse in costume and background. The point cannot be labored. There must have been pupils and copyists in die engraving as in painting. Even apart from conscious imitation, the style of any one diecutter must over a period of time have been influenced to some extent by the work of his colleagues. All these factors have been weighed in the arrangement of the composite plate, whose pictorial record will, it is hoped, serve to clarify the commentary on the introduction and disappearance of individual obverse styles and their chronological relationship.
Eleven issues of the Early Period have no amphora dates and no control markings. One would expect them to come at the beginning of the new coinage and although, in view of the inconsistencies noted above, this cannot be taken for granted, the evidence of style does confirm their position and help to establish their sequence.
Toward the chronological arrangement outlined in the catalogue the reverses make only a minor contribution. Their type as it appears in the issues which must surely come first shows a compact sturdy owl, head small in proportion to the body, wings tightly folded, feathers of the tail and shanks delineated without exaggeration. Body plumage is indicated by heavy dots as was the case on the late Old Style silver. The bird stands erect with legs straight and close together on a small, well-proportioned amphora. An encircling wreath of olive has small berries and thin leaves, usually smooth but sometimes lightly incised. On the one reverse of the first issue which shows the fastening at the bottom (No. 3a) a simple knot is used; subsequent issues have pendent ties, either crossed or looped.
Over the eleven issues without controls, this type varies little in representation. There are changes but few indications of a clear evolutionary pattern. Individual reverses, particularly those of the Nike issue, enlarge the entire type. On Nos. 31a and 35a, an ungainly owl rests on an amphora of greatly increased size within a heavy wreath of clumsy, deeply incised leaves. Such exaggeration is exceptional; later reverses restore the elements of the type to more pleasing proportions. One notes that in general there is an increasing tendency in the trophy, grain-ear and pilei issues to separate the legs of the owl, extending the left one forward so that it clutches the handle rather than the body of the amphora, and that the pants of the bird become overheavy and shaggy in the same issues, but the only development which is quite consistent and therefore significant is concerned with the treatment of the plumage. In the beginning this is rendered, as mentioned before, by heavy dots clearly differentiated and arranged in rows over the surface of the body and the upper wing (cf. Nos. 5a, 7a, 11a and 15). On some of the club, rudder and Nike reverses the dots have lost their sharpness, becoming elongated and tending to run together so that the effect is that of strokes (cf. Nos. 19a and 31a). On practically all the reverses of the trophy, grain-ear and pilei issues the straight strokes are brought together at the bottom to form a U-shaped or V-shaped pattern, sometimes with an added vertical so that or results. These distinctive designs are perhaps clearest on Nos. 37a, 46a, 51a, 54, 58b and 63.
Fortunately we are not dependent on the reverses alone. The obverses do reveal certain stylistic developments which, when considered with the other evidence, indicate the relative chronology.
Examples of four New Style issues were found in the Anthedon Hoard, all in an excellent state of preservation indicative of contemporaneity. The earliest of these and the first issue of the entire series is undoubtedly the one controlled by the magistrates – who used no symbol on their coinage. This is the only issue which throughout has no circle of dots around the Athena head. All three of its obverses are superbly executed, No. 1 with its charming youthful goddess being perhaps the finest individual die in the whole New Style sequence. Nos. 2 and 3 are almost certainly from the same hand; like the first obverse, they have the tiny biga on the neckguard of the helmet. Whoever this first engraver was, he was a master craftsman. One need only compare his work with the Old Style heads of the late third century to appreciate the degree of vitality and artistry that he brought to the new coinage.
The second issue has a kerchnos symbol in the field and a bakchos below the amphora. There is a change of magistrates during the course of the year and a change in the rendering of the obverses. No. 4, the first die, has no circle of dots and is, moreover, almost identical in style with Nos. 2 and 3 of the preceding issue, but on the later obverse the diecutter has omitted the biga, which is merely suggested by a sweeping horizontal line above the edge of the neck-guard. Nos. 5–7 develop from No. 4 but on these as on all succeeding obverses, dots encircle the Athena head.
Magistrates –ΦANI revert to a coinage without symbol except for the first reverse which has a bakchos beneath the amphora, surely a carry-over from the kerchnos and bakchos issue immediately precedent. The style of No. 8 is markedly similar to that of No. 5 in all elements of the type; Nos. 6 and 9 are close.
The fourth issue found in the Anthedon Hoard, with cornucopiae or without symbol, shows several stylistic developments. Most distinctive of these is the treatment of the ends of the double crest. On all the early obverses and on No. 11 of the present striking, the crest drops naturally in lines roughly paralleling the curve of helmet and neck. On Nos. 12–14 and on all but No. 19 of the club issue, the inner end crosses the outer and is carried back in a sharp horizontal line. The ornament on the bowl of the helmet, which in the first three issues is carefully rendered as a series of rather large volutes branching from a predominantly vertical stem, becomes on most of the and club obverses more elaborate and tortuous with the individual volutes tending to be smaller. Note the treatment on Nos. 12, 18 and 22. On the earliest obverses the hair is cut in distinct and tightly curled locks. Nos. 6 and 8 have a looser rendering which characterizes the obverses of the fourth and sixth issues, Nos. 6, 12 and 18 being particularly close in hair style. As rendered on Nos. 12 and 18 the visor lines are larger and heavier than they were in the beginning. The presence of the biga and driver on Nos. 12 and 18, and possibly on No. 11, unite these two series with the first, and it seems to me quite certain that we have the output of the same diecutter in Obverses 1–5, 8, 12–13 and 18. In all likelihood he cut other obverses as well but the similarity of style is clearest through the dies listed. For the rest, No. 14 resembles No. 10 in the treatment of the profile and Nos. 19–22 are possibly later developments of the same style. Nos. 16–17 bear some similarity to No. 11 but not to a striking degree.
No. 15 has been inserted between the and club issues. Admittedly it is hazardous to fix the position of an issue on the evidence of one die, but I believe that this does represent the fifth of the New Style strikings. Its combination of early and late elements indicates at least that it must come after –ΦANI and before the rudder issue. The profile has a suggestion of Nos. 11 to 13 and Nos. 17–18 but is quite unlike later dies. In the relatively loose modelling of the hair it is close again to obverses of both the and club strikings. So, too, the heavy visor lines are comparable with those of Nos. 12 and 18 and, of course, with those of later dies as well. The treatment of the ends of the helmet crest and of the ornament ties it to the earlier Nos. 1–11 while the Pegasus is late, being larger than any other representation before that of No. 25.
All elements of the type considered, No. 15 would seem best suited to its present position and there is also an element of historical substantiation for its location. As the fifth issue of the series its date would be 192/1 b.c. This is precisely the year when Athens and the Athenian mint might be supposed to be operating under difficulties due to Antiochus III's seizure of Chalcis and the imminent threat of war between the Syrian forces and Rome. Antiochus' ships were in command of the sea, interrupting the commerce of the Piraeus and presumably interfering with regular deliveries of bullion from Laurium. The unsettled conditions prior to Antiochus' forced withdrawal in the spring of 191 b.c. could explain a curtailment of the coinage. If indeed the mint was unable to operate until after Thermopylae, the symbol of the two palms might be interpreted as a flattering gesture toward Rome, victor over Philip and over Antiochus; it is equally possible that nothing more significant was intended than the commemoration of two personal triumphs of the magistrate NIKA...
With the rudder issue there are innovations in style, most of them carried over into succeeding strikings. The base of the visor is, except on No. 23, heavier than it has been heretofore—on No. 24 it is clearly composed of two parallel lines. Pegasi are generally larger than on any of the earlier obverses, save for that of No. 15. A modified upturn at the end of the helmet crest, such as characterized the and club issues, survives on Nos. 23 and 25; other obverses show the ends brought down straight, the inner line on Nos. 24 and 26 shorter than the outer. The hair is rendered in tumbled masses, a treatment which foreshadows the over-elaboration of the Nike obverses. On No. 26 the attenuated lines and broken stem of the helmet ornament derive from No. 16. No. 27 on the other hand introduces a new pattern, a terminal design resembling a fleur-de-lis (), which appears again on No. 45 and becomes common at a later period. Placement of this issue depends primarily on Dies 23–25. The first two are, it seems to me, in the tradition of Nos. 11, 15–17. No. 25, although definitely cruder, carries in profile, crest and hair treatment some suggestion of No. 18.
A distinctive element on many of the dies of this early section of the coinage is the aegis serpent which appears on Nos. 1–5, 11–13, 22–23. Schwabacher in his article on the Parthenos archetype (Opusc. Ath., pp. 107f.) calls attention to this feature and uses it as a criterion for chronological arrangement.1 Certainly its presence on dies of Issues 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and not elsewhere2 is further indication that the issues enumerated are roughly contemporaneous, but I think it is unwise to go beyond that and maintain that Issues 3 and 5 which do not have this element must come at the end of the sequence. Except for the very first issue, there is no one of the five strikings which has the snake on all of its dies. Like the biga representation, this seems to have been a recurrent but not invariable addition to the standard type on dies of the first seven years of the coinage.
All obverses of the Nike sequence are obviously from the same hand. They owe something to No. 25 and possibly No. 26 of the rudder issue—compare, for example, the profiles of Nos. 25 and 29. The whole treatment is heavy: large features, over-size Pegasi, dominating visors with double baselines, tangled masses of hair. Ends of the crest hang loose in parallel lines; on Nos. 29 and 31 the under end crosses the upper and depends. Two distinctive features are present: a marked simplification of the ornament on the helmet and an unnatural rendering of the tail of Pegasus. On all legible obverses, clearest on Nos. 29 and 32, the winged horse has a lion's tail—long, thin and swirled—instead of a straight thick appendage, but it is still Pegasus and not a griffin that the artist is reproducing.
The last three issues of this early group without control marks are bound together and their order determined by the appearance and evolution of an unusual style which carries over into the issues with letters on the amphorae. Nos. 34–44 of the trophy striking seem to me to bear so little fundamental resemblance to earlier issues as to indicate that they are the work of a new die-cutter (or diecutters). He has borrowed in some respects from the Nike issue: the various renderings of the helmet crest are similar, the ornament on some dies is simply delineated, the profile on others suggests a copying of an earlier model (cf. No. 39 with No. 28). One die, No. 44, has the Pegasus with lion's tail. In general, however, the technique is quite different. The heads are smaller and less gross than the Nike ones, the elements of the helmet in better proportion, the arrangement of the hair more natural. No. 45 marks the first appearance of a style which becomes predominant in succeeding issues. Although reduced in scale, this seems rather closely modelled on the Nike obverses, notably in the cast of the features and in the treatment of the hair.
In the grain-ear issue the stylistic pattern is reversed. The dominant technique of the trophy striking survives in only one grain-ear die, No. 46 for comparison with No. 44. The minor style of the earlier issue becomes the major one of the later, No. 47 being very similar to No. 45 and Nos. 48–51 developments of the same basic rendering. Note the consistent treatment of the hair on Nos. 28–33, 45 and 47–51; note, too, the wavy lines terminating the helmet crest which appear on No. 45 and later on Nos. 47–51. Several variations are present. The helmet ornament on Nos. 47–51 is brought out from the inner corner of the neckguard and curved upward and out to end in small neat loops. Drastic reduction of the horse protomes above the visor rim is visible on Nos. 48, 50–51.
All obverses of the pilei issue are consistent in style and closely allied with Nos. 47–51 of the grain-ear striking. Compare No. 60 with Nos. 50–51. The only noteworthy development is in the rendering of the visor which on some dies (Nos. 56, 59–60) opens out in triangular shape. With this issue the sequence without amphora and control marks comes to an end.
The next eight issues represent a period of transition between the earliest emissions without supplementary lettering and those with both amphora dates and control combinations. Some strikings retain the convention of monograms while others designate both magistrates by the initial three or four letters of their names. In one instance there is a hybridization of letters and monograms.
Five issues at the beginning of this intermediate group are closely bound together by two distinct obverse styles, one a survival and the other an innovation. Nos. 62–70 of the cicada striking are clearly related to the dies of the pilei issue. The treatment of the hair in Nos. 62–65 is identical with that of Nos. 52–60; Nos. 66, 68–70 show a simplification which carries over into Nos. 71 to 74 of the serpents issue. The fluttering ends of the crest are alike in both pilei and cicada emissions; the rendering of Pegasi, visors and horse protomes very similar; the helmet ornaments closely comparable, save for No. 63 with its heavy tightly-curled volutes. The fleur-de-lis termination used on Nos. 27, 45 and 52 but not elsewhere appears again on four dies of the cicada striking (Nos. G4, 68–70). In the slightly parted lips, No. 64 repeats the modelling of Nos. 52–53 and 60 while the profiles of Nos. 64–70 are strongly reminiscent of Nos. 55 and 60. One die of the cicada striking (No. 61) marks the first appearance of a new and unusual style.
The two styles of the cicada emission recur in the serpents issue. Nos. 77 and 78 are very close to Nos. 62–63, No. 79 to Nos. 66–67, No. 80 to No. 64 with particular reference to the parted lips. Nos. 81–82 are exaggerated versions of the same style. All these serpents obverses have the fleur-de-lis ornament which was becoming popular in the preceding year, the elaborate hair of some of the cicada dies and the same fluttering crest terminals. Nos. 75–76 form a transitional stage between Nos. 77–78 and Nos. 71–74. The hair and helmet ornament are in the earlier tradition ; the heavy pendent necklace finds its nearest parallel in Nos. 46–47 of the grain-ear and Nos. 54 and 57 of the pilei striking. In the treatment of the ends of the crest, which now barely quiver, and in the rendering of the profiles there is a strong suggestion of Nos. 71–74. These last dies are the direct successors of No. 61 of the cicada emission. Note the close resemblance of Nos. 61 and 73–74. All five obverses are distinctive in the hard, grim cast of the features and the curtailment of the helmet ornament (especially noticeable in No. 74). The hair is comparable with that of Nos. 66, 68–70. Pegasi are larger than on any of the immediately preceding issues and on Nos. 71 and 74 there is the lion-tailed version which characterized the Nike issue. Indeed the general heaviness of the types and the rough correspondence of certain details, such as the lion-tailed horses and the attenuated ornaments, suggest that the engraver of the Nike obverses may have returned after an absence of three years to resume his work at the mint.
In any event, the style of the diesinker who produced Nos. 71–74 of the serpents issue is dominant in the herm emission. With regard to all aspects of the type, Nos. 83–88 are so similar to Nos. 71–74 as to be unmistakably the output of the same engraver. No. 89, representing a survival of the second style of the serpents issue, is closely comparable with Nos. 79–82 and even more clearly related to the earlier No. 67. Through the AMMΩ–ΔIO (kerchnos) and the ΠOΛY–TI strikings, the style of Nos. 83–88 is carried on in Nos. 90–91 and further in Nos. 98–101 ; the style of No. 89 persists in Nos. 93 and 103. We can then, I think, trace these two stylistic patterns over a considerable period of time. The earlier begins with the trophy striking (No. 45) and carries through the next seven years with Nos. 47–60, 62–70, 77–82, 89, 93 and 103. The second style comes in after the first had been established for several years, introduced on Die 61 of the cicada issue and repeated for another four years in Nos. 71–74, 83–88, 90–91 and 98–101. Both styles die out in the same year although both probably influenced later obverses. So consistent is the progression that I believe one can safely regard the issues from trophy through ΠOΛY–TI as a firm sequence. Conceivably AMMΩ–ΔIO and ΠOΛY – TI might be interchanged but the present arrangement seems the more likely on the basis of style and, as will develop later, on other grounds as well.
As for the miscellaneous dies which appear under AMMΩ – ΔIO (kerchnos) and ΠOΛY – TI, No. 92, except for the helmet ornament, is quite close to No. 91 and seems to have been the prototype for No. 102. Nos. 94–97 would seem to have been executed by at least two new diecutters, unless the first is the product of the man who worked on Nos. 34–44 and 46. There is a certain similarity of treatment but one cannot feel confident about the comparison. No. 104 has some affinity with No. 94 and No. 104X is quite similar to Nos, 96–97, but Nos. 105–106 are not obviously related to any other dies.
The last three issues of the transitional group are less tightly linked in style than the first five but they nevertheless do present several clearly-defined lines of connection. Nos. 107–113 of the AMMΩ–ΔIO (cornucopiae) striking have little in common with preceding issues and would appear to be the work of a new engraver. In the small size of his heads and the tight rendering of the hair on most of his dies, he borrows from the diecutter of Nos. 98–101 (compare Nos. 101 and 109), but his profiles are entirely different. Nos. 107–110 have a distinct pursing of the lips which gives the features an unpleasantly disdainful cast. No. 117 of AΔEI – HΛIO and Nos. 125–127 of XAPI – HPA were surely done by the same man; compare, for example, No. 117 with No. 110 and on the other hand with No. 125.
No. 114 is very like, particularly in profile, the preceding No. 102 and also close to Nos. 120 and 129. These dies seem to me clearly the output of a single engraver.
No. 115 is strikingly close to No. 94 of the earlier AMMΩ–ΔIO emission and something of the facial expression carries over into Nos. 121–122. The last die of the cornucopiae issue, No. 116, has no obvious prototype but it is related to Nos. 123–124 which develop into Nos. 130–133. Nos. 124 and 132 are similar in profile, visor decoration, helmet ornament and treatment of the crest with the inner end brought sharply back over the outer. Nos. 118–119 bear a resemblance to No. 128.
With the AΔE1 – HΛIO issue there is a tendency to broaden the flans and to enlarge the Athena heads, a trend which is followed in Nos. 130–133 of XAPI – HPA and in later issues. The last of the transitional strikings introduces an unusual arrangement of the helmet ornament, which again carries over into later dies. Instead of starting from the base of the neckguard and spreading straight or diagonally upward, the ornament (on Nos. 127–128) comes in from the back of the helmet and expands upward and downward.
The reverses of the eight transitional issues are more revealing than those of the earliest strikings since they now include amphora letters and control combinations. Type variations, however, are still fairly negligible. In general the reverses, like those of the preceding group, are neat with letters, monograms and symbols small and well cut; this is perhaps truer of the first three issues than of the last five. From the strikings of AΔEI – HΛIO and XAPI – HPA one finds rather more examples of ungainly owls and clumsily rendered letters and symbols than from the earlier transitional issues but there are individual dies of ΠOΛY – TI and the two AMMΩ – ΔIO emissions which are poorly executed.
Certain variations in the treatment of the amphora are discernible during this period. From the very beginning through the issue with monograms and herm, the diecutters reproduce a small well-rounded vase, its neck and handles short in proportion to the body. After the herm striking, there is a tendency to enlarge the amphora and to make the neck and handles dominant features of the vase. This rendering is particularly noticeable in Nos. 94a and 97c of AMMΩ – ΔIO (kerchnos), in many of the AΔEI – HΛIO reverses and in No. 130b of XAPI – HPA. No. 122a of the trident striking shows the greatest exaggeration—an over-sized amphora with heavy converging lines at the neck, large handles far apart, body squared off at the shoulder and brought down sharply to the foot in triangular shape. Similar representations become increasingly common at a later period. One notices, too, in the issues after the herm that the foot of the vase is broader and heavier than before (Nos. 97c, 109a, 122a, 128, 130b and 131c).
There are three issues of the transitional group —cicada, serpents and herm — which have amphora letters and no control combinations. Since they are so closely bound, stylistically, with each other and with the last issue of the preceding group (that with pilei symbol), it is clear that when controls were first applied to the reverses, they took the form of month letters on the amphorae.1
Thus far the evolution of the reverses has been logical : eleven issues without supplementary lettering of any kind, followed by three with month letters alone. With the next five issues the pattern breaks down. Of the twenty-one reverse dies of the AMMΩ–ΔIO (kerchnos) striking, twelve have no visible lettering, three have A on the amphora, one A below, four M below and one AP below. The earliest dies of ΠOΛY – TI have strange combinations of letters, always in the field or below the amphora: BM, MΓ (or ΓM), AΓ (or ΓA), EΓ (or ΓE), BA. Then there is a die with AP Δ below the amphora, and following it twenty-five dies on which we find both month letters (Z, H, Ө, I, M) and control combinations (AP, EP, ME, CΦ), the first invariably in the left field and the second always on the amphora.
For AMMΩ – ΔIO (cornucopiae), AΔEI – HΛIO and XAPI – HPA no dies with certain month letters are recorded. Control combinations (for the tabulation see page 614) appear throughout these issues but they have been moved from the amphora to the field. On a few dies of the last striking the monogram , cut on the amphora, apparently reflects the ephemeral appearance of a third magistrate on the coinage.
What we seem to have on these reverses of the transitional group is a series of false starts preliminary to the establishment of the dual system of month letters and control combinations which one encounters on all issues after that of XAPI – HPA. Experimentation first took the form of month letters. For some reason this was not deemed satisfactory and was, I think, abandoned under AMMΩ–ΔIO (kerchnos) in favor of a fumbling attempt at control combinations. It may be that for a time in that year there were no controls at all. As noted above, twelve of the twenty-one reverses have no visible lettering and although it is possible that the original markings have in all instances been effaced by wear or corrosion, it seems more likely, in view of the large number of dies involved and the good condition of some reverses which certainly bear no traces of letters, that there were in fact a number of unmarked reverses in this issue. If this is true, then the mint officials were reverting for an interval to the practice of the first eleven issues and trying to get along without month letters. Later they began to experiment with a new system of controls, of which A, M and AP are the visible evidence. The first two, of course, may be month letters but this seems unlikely when one studies the issue of ΠOΛY–TI which I believe to be next in sequence.
At the beginning of that year there are eight reverses associated with Obverse 102, six of them marked as follows: BM below the amphora, M left and B below, BA below, M left and Γ below, A left and Γ below, E left and Γ below. Now it is very difficult to interpret BM, BA, MΓ, EΓ and AΓ as control combinations—not only are they unduplicated elsewhere in the series but, unlike the regular control combinations, two at least cannot be expanded into any word that makes sense. One must conclude that one letter is a date and the other the first letter of a control combination. Since the most common combinations on later dies of ΠOΛY – TI are AP, EP and ME and nothing beginning with B or Γ is known for this period, it seems evident that the month letters are B and Γ, while A, E and M are the initial letters of the controls AP, EP and ME. By analogy the A and M of AMMΩ–ΔIO (kerchnos) can best be explained as initial letters of the same control combinations, one of which (AP) is written out on another die of that striking. In the issue of AMMΩ – ΔIO (cornucopiae) the control combination is still occasionally indicated by its initial letter. Three reverses have E (presumably for EY), one has M (for MH) and two have Π (for ΠP). All other dies use two or even three letters, as do those of AΔEI – HΛIO and XAPI – HPA.1
This interpolation of one issue with both dates and control combinations within a group which otherwise uses only dates or control combinations is disconcerting. Logically ΠOΛY–TI belongs after XAPI – HPA, at the beginning of the issues with both month and control letters. To place it there would, however, involve disregarding both the stylistic sequence of which the obverses of this issue form an integral part and the parallelism between AMMΩ–ΔIO (kerchnos) and ΠOΛY – TI in the use of identical single control letters during what seems to be the earliest stage of the control combinations. Furthermore, the placing of these combinations on the amphorae on later reverses of ΠOΛY – TI is an isolated phenomenon, most plausibly explained as yet another of the trial-and-error methods attendant on the introduction of control combinations on the coinage.
In recapitulation, then, we have the following picture for the transition between the first and last strikings of this Early Period. Month letters were tried for three years, after which the mint officials attempted to go back to the old practice of no controls that had characterized the first eleven issues. Later, with the realization that some check was needed, came a clumsy introduction of a new control system. Controls generally were tightened during the tenure of ΠOΛY–TI with the use of both dates and control combinations. Under AMMΩ – ΔIO (cornucopiae), AΔEI – HΛIO and XAPI – HPA, the dates were again abandoned but an increasingly elaborate series of control combinations came into being, AMMΩ–ΔIO with one, two and three letter combinations providing the connection between the two earlier and the two later issues.
All control combinations employed during this period are included in the listing on page 614. AP and ME appear first, under AMMΩ – ΔIO (kerchnos) and ΠOΛY–OP and later under XAPI-HPA. EY, MH and ΠP carry through AMMΩ–ΔIO (cornucopiae), AΔEI–HΛIO and XAPI-HPA. EP, CΦ, HPA and KT are isolated, the first two restricted to ΠOΛY – TI and the last two to XAPI – HPA. All four, however, appear again in later issues. Finally the peculiar combination of ZΩ and variants marks the contiguous strikings of AMMΩ – ΔIO (cornucopiae) and AΔEI – HΛIO.
Variant letter forms are found in this section of the coinage. Of greatest interest are the different representations of zeta, the diversity being particularly noteworthy in contrast to the orderly procedure which prevails in the three-magistrate series. With the latter, I is used throughout the first twelve issues and then Z is established, with one deviation, for the remainder of the coinage. Prior to the three-magistrate sequence, there are eleven issues in which zeta definitely appears as a date or as a part of a control combination. The renderings are as follows:
Monograms and serpents | Z | |||
Monograms and herm | ||||
ΠOΛY–TI | Z | |||
AMMΩ–ΔIO (cornucopiae) | Z | I | ||
AΔEI–HΛIO | ḷ | |||
Monograms and thyrsos | ḷ | |||
ΔIOΦA–ΔIOΔO | Ẓ | I | ||
Monograms and eagle | ||||
KTHΣI – EYMA | Z | |||
ΓΛAY – EXE | I | |||
MIKI–ӨEOΦPA | I |
According to the epigraphical record, I is the form in use until about 180 b.c. after which date both I and Z appear in inscriptions. On the coins, Z comes in by 184/3 b.c. at the latest and for the next fifteen years no preference seems to have been shown as among Z, I and the intermediate form (not known from inscriptions), all three occurring in at least one instance within the course of a single year. After the three-magistrate series begins, however, there is greater consistency in the coin dies than in the inscriptions.
Two issues of this earliest period, ΠOΛY – TI and ΔHMH – IEPΩ, use the lunate sigma in place of the usual four-barred letter on some of their dies. This form in inscriptions is occasionally found in the fourth century but more commonly after c. 200 b.c. Finally, the appearance of the cursive omega in the first monogram of 196/5 and in both monograms of 191/0 is noteworthy in that inscriptions with this rendering are not recorded earlier than the beginning of Augustus' principate.1
The last nine issues of the Early Period are set apart from those preceding by their consistent use of month letters on the amphorae and control combinations below or in the left field. Within this group two die links and a recutting help in establishing the over-all arrangement.
At the very beginning a common obverse die unites the issues with horse and thyrsos symbols.2 This is significant in itself but perhaps equally important for the opportunity it gives of testing for the first time the validity of the general stylistic arrangement. If the pattern of interlocking obverse styles revealed in these die-joined issues parallels that outlined throughout the series thus far, then the soundness of the stylistic sequence is substantially confirmed. This is, I believe, the case.
Returning to the accordion plate, Nos. 134–137 and Nos. 146–151 are extremely similar, both groups clearly deriving from Nos. 125–127 of XAPI – HPA. Note the somewhat dour expression, the arrangement of the hair in a few heavy locks drawn back and down in almost identical fashion, the visors consisting of two thick lines with horse protomes either omitted or faintly indicated, the crest ends following the outline of helmet and neck, and the reappearance on some dies (Nos. 135, 150–151) of the lateral ornament which had been introduced on Nos. 127–128 of XAPI – HPA. Nos. 125 and 134, 126 and 148, 127 and 150 seem to me particularly close in style.
Nos. 139–142 of – ΛYΣIA may be later developments of No. 129 but the connection is less clear than is their association with No. 152 of the thyrsos issue. Nos. 143–145 seem definitely related to Nos. 130–131 and to the later Nos. 156–157 as well. The cast of the features is similar, the hair comparable in Nos. 130–131,145,157 and the sharply turned crest terminal of Nos. 130–131 reflected in Nos. 145 and 156. For the rest, Nos. 153–155 and 158–159 of the thyrsos striking bear no relation to preceding dies but are to be associated with some of those which follow.
The two last dies show heavy Athena heads, relatively innocuous prototypes of the horrors which appear in the ensuing coinage of ΔIOΦA – ΔIOΔO. Among the Apollo dies are some of the most degenerate obverses to be found anywhere in the New Style series. Nos. 169–171, in the tradition of Nos. 139–140 and 152, are pleasing enough although overlarge, but Nos. 160–168 are in large measure clumsily fashioned and gross to the point of travesty. Nos. 174–177 seem to derive from Nos. 158–159. The features are somewhat similar as is the bunched hair, and the heavy circle of dots on some dies further relates the two groups. Nos. 172–173 are to be connected with Nos. 153–155, the former closest to No. 153 and the latter resembling No. 154 in profile and No. 155 in the slightly parted lips.
Erasure of the Apollo symbol and the cutting of ΔHMH over it on No. 202a of PLATE 22 ties the emission of ΔHMH – IEPΩ to that of ΔIOΦA – ΔIOΔO. The later striking is far better in style. Nos. 178–188 were probably produced by a single engraver, whose work owes something to Nos. 169–172 but is decidedly superior to the general standard of the Apollo dies. Nos. 189–194 reflect an unusual style, peculiar to this issue and to one die of the eagle striking (No. 209). The coarse dots, slight upturn of the crest terminals and the heavy treatment of the heads are reminiscent of the workmanship of Nos. 174 and 177. An additional stylistic link between the helmet and Apollo issues is provided by a drachm (No. 222 on Plate 23). This bears no similarity to any other die of ΔHMH – IEPΩ but it is close in style to No. 176 of ΔIOΦA – ΔIOΔO. Note especially the stringy hair and the profile.
No. 209 of the eagle issue is unmistakably from the same hand as Nos. 189 to 194; subsequently there is no clear indication of the work of this engraver unless Nos. 210–211 and later dies of related character are the result of a radical change in his technique. The highly consistent style of Nos. 178–188 of ΔHMH – IEPΩ breaks down with the eagle emission into a diversity of styles. Nos. 198 to 207 divide into several groupings, as indicated on the plate, whose relationship with each other and with the earlier Nos. 178–188 is tenuous although there is a suggestion of profile resemblance in some cases (Nos. 182–183 and 203, 178–180 and 202, 185–186 and 205–206). No. 207 is very similar to No. 172 of ΔIOΦA –ΔIOΔO. Nos. 195–197, 208 and 210–211 are not obviously associated with anything immediately preceding but No. 197 does seem to be a later example of activity on the part of the engraver of Nos. 125–127, 134–137 and 146–151. Profiles and fleur-de-lis ornaments are the noteworthy aspects.
With the dies of the aplustre striking there are lines of direct succession from the eagle issue. Compare Nos. 196 and 212 in profile, hair and fleur-de-lis ornament. Nos. 198–200 are close to Nos. 217–219 and Nos. 201–202 still closer to No. 220, the two last strikingly alike even to the details of the hair. Nos. 221 to 225 as a group bears a distinct resemblance to Nos. 205–207 (compare 223 with 207, 222 and 224 with 206). Nos. 226–227 are reminiscent of Nos. 154–155 and 173 in the delicacy of the profile and the slightly parted lips. Nos. 229–230 seem derivatives of Nos. 210–211, more with respect to the heaviness of the type than to any close correspondence in details although the features of No. 229 are not unlike those of No. 211. In the aplustre issue the lateral ornament, missing for three years, returns to the helmet with No. 214.
Many of the obverses of KTHΣI – EYMA are closely related to those of the aplustre emission. Nos. 249–251 represent the last appearance of the heavy Athena heads which have persisted through the preceding five years side by side with the smaller and more refined renderings, No. 249 close to 230, 250 to 229 and 251 going back to 210–211. No. 245 is in the tradition of Nos. 226–227. Compare No. 242 with Nos. 222 and 224–225, No. 239 with its prototypes 201 to 202 and 220. For the remainder, Nos. 243–244 can be associated with Nos. 205–206 and 221–225; Nos. 240–241 may be derivatives of No. 242, and Nos. 246–248 of No. 245. The significant dies of this issue, however, are Nos. 231 to 238. Of these, the first is very similar to No. 214 with reference to hair, crest ends, ornament, visor and profile. Nos. 232–234 seem to be derived from Nos. 215–216 particularly in the small size of the heads and in the visor arrangement. Nos. 235–238 are, I believe, the work of the same diesinker. The style of this engraver is of considerable import since it provides the strongest evidence for placing the issues of KTHΣI – EYMA and ΓΛAY – EXE in adjacent years, and it might be well at this point to see if the extent of his activity can be defined.
Taking the first twenty-eight strikings as a group, one notes several distinctive features of the obverse type which are peculiar to this section of the coinage: the lateral ornament on the helmet, the omission of horse protomes and Pegasi, and the open triangular form of the visor. This open visor is a fairly late development. Early dies depict the helmet with one heavy or two light lines over Athena's brow, the horse protomes affixed in a straight row to this base. Such a rendering is predominant throughout the New Style period. A variant, which appears first in the issue with pilei symbol and is not encountered after the striking of ΓΛAY – EXE, shows the visor opened out in triangular fashion with the top line slanting sharply upward and carrying above it the series of protomes.
From the issue of AΔEI – HΛAIO on, the triangular visor becomes increasingly common. The lateral ornament of the helmet, which appears a year later under XAPI – HPA and continues through ΓΛAY – EXE, is almost always found on obverses with this type of visor and the instances of the omission of protomes and Pegasi are also generally associated with it. This concentration of stylistic peculiarities within one group of dies cut during a ten year period suggests that we may have the work of a single engraver.
Most of the dies in question are to be found in the left-hand section of the accordion plate, starting with AΔEI – HΛIO and running through ΓΛAY – EXE but without representation in the issues of ΔIOΦA – ΔIOΔO and ΔHMH – IEPΩ. The pertinent numbers are 117–120, 125–128, 134–138, 146–151, 197, 213–216, 231–238 and 252–261. Of these Nos. 117, 125–127, 134–137, 146–151 and 197 seem to me unmistakably the output of one diesinker. Note that the concentration of his work comes in the issues with forepart of a horse and thyrsos symbols, strikings which are proved contiguous by a die link. Apparently this engraver was not with the mint during the years of ΔIOΦA–ΔIOΔO and ΔHMH – IEPΩ and perhaps cut only one die for the succeeding eagle issue: No. 197.
With Nos. 213–216, 231–238 and 252–261 of the next three strikings we have another group of dies which clearly belong together although these obverses present a more complex stylistic pattern than do those of the earlier sequence. The peculiarities of technique in rendering the helmet serve to unite the two groups, but the later heads differ from the earlier ones in facial structure and expression to such an extent that one cannot feel certain of their common origin. Either we have the work of two engravers, the second adopting the mannerisms of his predecessor, or we have two distinct stages in the style of a single artist.
This second sequence shows less consistency of style than the first. The engraver seems to be experimenting with his rendering of the Athena head so that two versions appear in the aplustre and KTHΣI – EYMA issues, the one represented by Nos. 213–214 and 231, the other by Nos. 215–216 and 232–234. Finally, however, there is a crystallization of style with Nos. 235–238 and this carries over into Nos. 252–261 of ΓΛAY – EXE.
These last dies are extremely close in style. Compare No. 235 with No. 255, No. 236 with Nos. 257, 259 and 261, Nos. 237–238 with No. 260. Profiles are almost identical, the bold masculine cast of Nos. 238 and 260 being particularly striking. The hair in general receives less emphasis than on other dies of the series. Note the arrangement in two thin horizontal lines on Nos. 234 and 236, repeated on No. 255 and to a lesser degree on No. 259. The heavier locks of No. 237 are comparable with those of Nos. 260–261. Both varieties of visor are represented: the type with well-defined horse protomes above a single heavy baseline on Nos. 236, 257 and 259; the triangular form on all other dies. On Nos. 237–238 the horses' heads merge into a straight line above the two visor bands and on Nos. 254–255 and 260 disappear entirely. Dies 235–238 have an upright ornament with twisting tendrils and normally a fleur-de-lis terminal as do Dies 254–259 and 261. The other three ΓΛAY – EXE obverses have the lateral ornament of Nos. 231, 233–234 in the series preceding.
The association of KTHΣI – EYMA and ΓΛAY – EXE is of crucial importance, particularly to the epigraphist, involving as it does contiguous intercalary years. It is most unfortunate that a die link which would prove the connection is missing, but it seems to me that the strong evidence of style cannot easily be dismissed. In the chronological sequence thus far outlined there have been instances of a distinctive style reappearing after an interval of several years in an isolated die or two of a later issue. Die 197, for example, is separated by three years from Nos. 134–135 of the – ΛYΣIA issue with which it has its closest affiliation. But it is noteworthy that there is no interval between issues when both have a substantial number of dies sharing a single distinctive style. The stylistic homogeneity of Dies 134–137 and 146–151 of the horse and thyrsos strikings attests the contiguity which the die link proves and the same is true of later issues which are firmly joined by the transfer of obverse dies. Nos. 235 to 238 and 252–261 present the same phenomenon of a highly distinctive style, found on a substantial number of the obverses of KTHΣI – EYMA and ΓΛAY – EXE and nowhere else in the series. It would seem to me extremely difficult to maintain that these emissions should be separated in time.1
Of the remaining dies of the ΓΛAY – EXE striking, Nos. 262–263 are related to earlier obverses. No. 262 closely resembles No. 242 and the preceding 221 to 225 while No. 263 has something of the facial expression of Nos. 220 and 239 with also a suggestion of Nos. 240 and 245 in the way in which the ornament on the helmet is curved out and swept over toward the Pegasus representation. Nos. 264–271 are unlike any other New Style obverses and must surely be the work of a new diecutter, temporarily employed at the mint during the second half of the year 170/69 b.c.
MIKI – ӨEOΦPA is the last issue of the two-magistrate period, joined by an obverse die to the three-magistrate striking of HPA – APIΣTOΦ. Here one finds a remarkable degree of stylistic coherence. Nos. 272–281 are indubitably the work of a single engraver. That he was the same man who produced Nos. 262 and 263 is possible; certainly he continued to turn out dies for the first issues of the period which follows.
The nine issues at the end of the Early Period include more coins with excessively spread flans than any other section of the coinage. Heretofore, there have been occasional examples of very large tetradrachms ; in the first three strikings of this group they are the rule rather than the exception. In the emission of ΔIOΦA–ΔIOΔO there is one specimen which measures 39 millimeters, a record size for the New Style period. Below is a listing of average dimensions based upon the measurements of all coins and casts from the nine issues under discussion :
– ΛYΣIA | 35.13 |
Thyrsos | 34.52 |
ΔIOΦA–ΔIOΔO | 35.30 |
ΔHMH – IEPΩ | 33.85 |
Eagle | 34.40 |
Aplustre | 33.56 |
KTHΣI – EYMA | 32.53 |
ΓΛAY – EXE | 32.23 |
MIKI–ӨEOΦPA | 31.17 |
HPA – APIΣTOΦ | 30.51 |
The picture is consistent : the first three issues very spread, the next three somewhat smaller, then a distinct curtailment with KTHΣI – EYMA and ΓΛAY – EXE, preliminary to the further reduction of MIKI – ӨEOΦPA which in turn gives way to the small flans of HPA – APIΣTOΦ and other early three-magistrate issues. It is noteworthy that in flan size as in other respects KTHΣI – EYMA and ΓΛAY – EXE belong together.
Reverse variations follow a pattern roughly parallel to that of flan dimensions. Despite an increase in the size of the coins, the type, lettering and symbols on the issues of – ΛYΣIA and are comparable with those of the AΔEI – HΛIO and XAPI – HPA strikings immediately preceding. There are examples of clumsy heavy owls on exaggerated amphorae but for the most part the representation is still relatively restrained. It should be noted, however, that the monograms of the thyrsos striking are generally more prominent than any earlier ones. With the issues of ΔIOΦA–ΔIOΔO, ΔHMH – IEPΩ and the emissions with eagle and aplustre symbols, the enlargement of the type is pronounced, a small bird on a modest amphora being rare. Nos. 187a, 213, 285b and 262 have owls which are large and shaggy to the point of caricature and such renderings are by no means exceptional. Individual reverses of these four issues show letters and monograms exceeding in size anything else in the series. Note Nos. 186b, 213, 243a and 258a. The second monogram of the aplustre issue is the most complicated in the entire sequence and is rendered with the greatest carelessness, there being six separate versions on the forty-five reverse dies. Finally, with the reduction of flan in the issues of KTHΣI – EYMA, ΓΛAY – EXE and MIKI –ӨEOΦPA comes a reduction and refinement of the type and lettering. There are still a few oversized owls in the KTHΣI – EYMA striking but only a few. There are none of grotesque proportions in the next two emissions. The lettering, too, is better on these three issues, especially neat in the case of most KTHΣI – EYMA dies.
One peculiar feature distinguishes the last four issues of this group. Through the eagle striking, the wreath has been carefully rendered with thin natural-looking leaves, generally neat in arrangement. Incision is sometimes present but delicately done as in Nos. 159a, 179a and 233a. On a few dies of the aplustre issue and on many more of KTHΣI – EYMA and ΓΛAY – EXE a new technique appears. The leaves are disproportionately elongated and represented merely by very heavy outline strokes enclosing an open area which is not raised above the surface of the flan. The obvious advantage of such a rendering from the point of view of the engraver readily explains its popularity. The new technique characterizes a large number of the dies of KTHΣI – EYMA and ΓΛAY – EXE, persists into the emission of MIKI –ӨEOΦPA but with less exaggeration and then vanishes with the coinage of HPA – APIΣTOΦ as convenience yields to artistry. Nos. 258d, 272a, 280a, 290a, 293, 294b, 321b and 322a among other reverses illustrate this highly individual treatment.
The amphora letters and control combinations which appear on these nine issues are not particularly revealing. The former show greater variety than those of earlier issues but again there is a question as to whether any valid deduction can be drawn from the absence of certain month letters in any given year in view of the number of reverses on which the letters are invisible or uncertain.
Control combinations are extremely varied. All but ZΩ of the preceding period continue in use and ten new ones are employed, many of them peculiar to this section of the coinage. The striking of ΔHMH – IEPΩ alone has thirteen different controls, the greatest number for any single New Style issue. In only one instance, that of the eagle and aplustre emissions, is there a recurrence of identical controls in contiguous issues. Otherwise, as the tabulation on page 614 shows, there seems no clear-cut pattern. EY, ME, ΠP and ΣΦ have the highest incidence—of these ME and ΣΦ continue to be used for the early issues of the three-magistrate series, ΠP reappears later and EY vanishes. AN, AΠ, ΔI and HP are of less frequent occurrence in this period, but the last three become quite common at a later date. Other combinations (MO, ӨY, EMΦ, ENΦ, TIΓ and KE)1 are rare at this time and not repeated afterwards. This erratic picture with regard to the control combinations is in marked contrast to the consistency which distinguishes the three-magistrate series.
Recutting of both amphora letters and control combinations occurs for the first time in this section of the coinage. There is one probable instance in the issue of –ΛYΣIA and certain examples in the strikings of ΔIOΦA–ΔIOΔO, ΔHMH – IEPΩ, ΓΛAY – EXE and MIKI – ӨEOΦPA.
Considering now the twenty-eight issues of the Early Period as a whole, the evidence for their chronological arrangement rests basically upon a succession of interlinking obverse styles which provides a consistent pattern from beginning to end. At certain points the sequence is verified or supported by evidence from die links, recutting, hoard data and reverse variations.
Use of the same obverse die places the – ΛYΣIA and thyrsos issues in consecutive years; a like phenomenon fixes the position of MIKI –ӨEOΦPA at the end of the Early Period joined to HPA – APIΣTOΦ of the three-magistrate series. The cutting of ΔHMH over the Apollo symbol of ΔIOΦA – ΔIOΔO makes those strikings contiguous.
Three hoards, discussed in greater detail in the section on Hoards, establish the chronological relationship of some issues within the general group. The Anthedon Hoard unites the first four New Style strikings. The Attic Hoard of drachms, which contained nine tetradrachms in a highly comparable state of preservation, indicates that the emissions of AΔEI – HΛIO, , ΔIOΦA–ΔIOΔO, ΔHMH – IEPΩ, and KTHΣI – EYMA are not far separated in time. Finally, there is the Salonika Hoard of 19291 with about 300 New Style tetradrachms, all coins of ΓΛAY – EXE, MIKI–ӨEOΦPA, HPA – APIΣTOΦ, MENEΔ – EΠIΓENO, TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO and ΠOΛYXAPM – NIKOΓ. As Bellinger points out in his study, the presence of only six issues in so large a deposit strongly suggests that they belong together. Four of the strikings are of the three-magistrate period, one (HPA – APIΣTOΦ) connected by obverse dies with the emission of MIKI – ӨEOΦPA. The other two-magistrate issue, that of ΓΛAY – EXE, should then immediately precede MIKI – ӨEOΦPA, which is exactly where the stylistic sequence places it.
Evidence from reverse variations and style is somewhat tenuous but there are general indications of chronology. The evolution of the owl's plumage over the first eleven issues of the coinage helps to confirm the validity of the stylistic evidence provided by the obverses. At a later period the peculiar technique used in the rendering of the wreath unites KTHΣI – EYMA with ΓΛAY – EXE and associates the two issues with the earlier aplustre emission and the later striking of MIKI–ӨEOΦPA.
In concluding this discussion of the Early Period, mention should be made of three noteworthy consequences of the present arrangement of the issues. The first concerns the intercalary years on the coinage and particularly the occurrence in successive strikings (171/0 and 170/69 b.c.) of N letters on the amphorae. There is among epigraphists a diversity of opinion as to the conjunction of intercalary years. Dinsmoor states his position categorically in his introduction to The Athenian Archon List in the Light of Recent Discoveries (pp. 13 to 14) when he proposes as a guiding rule the axiom that "the Athenians never placed two intercalary (long) years in immediate juxtaposition." Meritt on the other hand regards 415/4 and 414/3 b.c. as alike intercalary in his publication of Athenian Financial Documents of the Fifth Century (p. 176) and Pritchett and Neugebauer (The Calendars of Athens, p. 76) raise the possibility that both 176/5 and 175/4 were intercalary but suggest a suspension of judgment on the character of the two years pending additional evidence.
Clearly the evidence of the coinage for contiguous intercalary years in 171/0 and 170/69 b.c. is of considerable importance and this evidence is accepted by Meritt and incorporated in his recent study of the Athenian calendar.1 More detailed reference to his correlation of numismatic and epigraphical data regarding intercalary years in the second century will be made in the section on Amphora Letters at the end of this volume, but it seems pertinent to emphasize here that the evidence for contiguous intercalary years is one of the significant contributions of the early New Style issues.
A second consequence of the present study as it relates to the early coinage is the elimination of the die link between the issues of KTHΣI – EYMA and ΔHMH – IEPΩ, published in the 1928 volume of Arethuse (pp. 132–133). Kambanis does not illustrate the connection of the two strikings but his references to Svoronos' plates identify the tetradrachms upon which it is based : a Cambridge coin on Plate 42, No. 4 and one of uncertain provenance on Plate 41, No. 4.2 Attempts to associate these issues on the basis of obverse style proved frustrating. There seemed little stylistic connection between the two emissions save, of course, for the one mutual die. As between style and die link there is certainly no ground for argument but nevertheless this did represent an irritating anomaly in what was otherwise a consistent stylistic pattern. Then, in going over the notes and folders compiled by Kambanis, I found a reference to the possibility of an error on Svoronos' plates which would invalidate this linking of the two issues, and subsequently the photographic record of the Berlin coins provided decisive proof of the error which Kambanis had suspected.
The fourth coin on Svoronos' Plate 41, not identified as to source and with no weight given, is reproduced in juxtaposition to a ΔHMH – IEPΩ tetradrachm from Berlin (Plate 41, 3). If one examines these two coins it is apparent that the reverses are not only from the same die but are in fact the same coin. The correspondence in flan placement is too great for one to suppose that different strikings produced such identity. Svoronos' uncertainty as to the provenance and weight of No. 4 together with the circumstance that there is a Beirut tetradrachm (No. 206a) from the same pair of dies as Plate 41, 3 makes it clear that this obverse-reverse combination is correct while No. 4 represents an erroneous duplication of the reverse of No. 3 coupled with an alien obverse.1 From the Berlin record it can be established that the obverse in question belongs with the reverse of Svoronos' Plate 42, No. 5 and is, therefore, a part of the KTHΣI – EYMA striking.2
Lastly, as has already been pointed out, the sequence of early emissions disproves the theory of a clear-cut division between monogram issues and those with abbreviated names. The names of the magistrates of the first fourteen New Style strikings are inscribed in monogram on the coin dies. Thereafter the practice is to substitute the initial letters of the official's name for a monogram but within the abbreviated names series there are three instances of reversion to monograms, and this inconsistency, although of minor importance, is nonetheless puzzling. Not that inconsistency is remarkable in this period. It occurs in the use of symbols and in the fumbling attempts to introduce a precise control system, but the former is an insignificant variation which recurs sporadically in other sections of the coinage and the latter presumably reflects an uncertainty as to the relative merits of diverse control methods. The shifting back and forth between names and monograms seems a rather different matter. Once the practice of using abbreviated names had been established one would expect it to continue since it clearly represented a gain for magistrate and engraver alike. Surely the greater prominence and intelligibility of letters as opposed to a monogram would gratify the mint magistrate, while the relative simplicity of rendering letters instead of composing and executing a monogram, especially one of the complexity found at the end of this period, would find favor with those concerned with the technical aspects of the coinage. Why then the interpolation of three monogrammatic issues in the abbreviated names series ?
There is an explanation which does introduce an element of logic into this erratic procedure, namely that monograms were used to avoid confusion between the issues of magistrates whose abbreviated names would have been practically the same or exactly alike. Perhaps there had been some difficulty involving the two strikings of AMMΩ – ΔIO at the beginning of the abbreviated names sequence and it was felt desirable that there be clear differentiation on later occasions.
It must be borne in mind that the practice in writing the abbreviated names during this period was to use the first three, four or five letters of the word, ending always with a vowel. The first interpolated monogram issue is that of , the one name possibly to be interpreted as ΛYΣIK... and the second almost certainly as ΔIOKΛ... In accordance with established procedure the abbreviations would be ΛYΣI –ΔIO. The second magistrate of the issue just preceding was ΛYΣIA and a ΔIO had held office for two strikings earlier in the series.
Even clearer is the case of . Here there can be no doubt but that the first monogram stands for Demetrios and the second probably should be resolved as Dionysios. The abbreviated forms would be ΔHMH – ΔIO (or ΔIONY), capable of being confused with ΔHMH of the issue just preceding and with the ΔIO of earlier emissions. For the aplustre issue, the second monogram is quite uncertain but the first definitely seems to start XAPI or XAIPI. If the former is correct, use of letters would have involved a duplication of one element of the XAPI – HPA combination.
It is, of course, quite conceivable that nothing more complex than personal preference was responsible for the determination of the form of the individual names.1 However, it is noteworthy that after AMMΩ – ΔIO there is no duplication of abbreviated names and hence no ambiguity as to magistrates or issues such as might have been the case if the thyrsos, eagle and aplustre strikings had used letters instead of monograms.
1 |
M. Thompson, "The Beginning of the Athenian New Style Coinage," ANSMN V (1952), pp.
25–33.
The Anthedon Hoard is fundamental in the establishment of a date for the beginning of the New Style series. Another hoard, found near Corinth in 1938 and now being studied by Sydney P. Noe, provides confirming evidence that the Old Style coinage of Athens did not stop in 229 b.c. For our purposes this deposit has three significant features: it contains a tetradrachm of Seleucus III which dates the burial securely after 226/5 and probably after 220 b.c. if one makes a reasonable time allowance for the amount of wear which the coin shows and the distance it had to travel from Seleucia on the Tigris to Corinth; it has an abundance of Old Style tetradrachms of Athens but no New Style coins; its finest pieces in degree of preservation are four Athenian drachms with symbols, belonging to the latest Old Style period, whose condition indicates that they were put into circulation only a short time before the hoard as a whole was buried. |
1 |
The relationship of surviving coins to original output at different periods is discussed in some detail on pages 709–714.
|
1 | |
1 |
The numbering of the obverses on PLATE A does not correspond with that of the standard plates but there is a concordance at
the end of the
volume of plates. An exact duplication of numbers would, because of the diffusion of particular styles mentioned above, have
created
difficulties for the reader in the location of individual dies and would have made reference to groups of related obverses
a most cumbersome
procedure. It must be kept in mind, then, that in this commentary on the Early Period, the discussion of tetradrachm obverses
refers to the
numbers (in italic font) of the accordion plate, while the discussion of reverses and fractions refers of necessity to the
numbers of the
catalogue and standard plates.
All obverses are reproduced with seven exceptions: Nos. 29X, 31X, 44X, 111X, 114X, 217X, 218X. These dies represent material received after the plates had been arranged and it has not seemed worthwhile to shift the illustrations for their inclusion since they are so similar to other dies of the same issues as to add nothing to the stylistic argument. Two additional new dies, Nos. 66X and 101X, differing in style from the other obverses of their respective issues, have been interpolated, the second as an X entry. |
1 |
His suggested order is I) No symbol () 2) Kerchnos 3) No symbol or cornucopiae 4) Rudder 5) No symbol (ΦANI). In
a postscript written after the appearance of the Anthedon Hoard study, Schwabacher limits his rearrangement to a
placing of the ΦANI striking after that with no symbol or cornucopiae. However, I do not believe that even this minor shift
can be maintained.
The club emission has one die with a biga and one with an aegis serpent; the rudder issue has one with the latter marking.
Both are
represented by a number of obverse dies indicating a fairly extensive coinage and the absence of both from the Anthedon Hoard
points to their
having been struck after the four issues which are found in the deposit. Since these two issues with biga and snake elements
are later than
the ΦANI emission, which is in the hoard, there is no reason to upset the clear stylistic pattern by moving the no symbol
or cornucopiae
striking ahead of the ΦANI issue on the ground that the former has biga and snake representations while the latter does not.
|
1 |
The tabulation on page 609 gives the month letters that we have for these three issues and for the later ΠOΛY – TI striking. It would, however, be unwise to base any definite conclusions on this listing inasmuch as our record of surviving
reverses seems
to be less complete for this period than for any other and the gaps in the sequence of months are likely fortuitous.
|
1 |
There are a few instances at a later date of the use of a single letter for a control combination. The ΔIOΦA – ΔIOΔO striking
has six
examples, ΔHMH – IEPΩ one, the monograms and eagle issue three and ΓΛAY – EXE one.
|
1 |
The dating of the various letter-forms derives from Kirchner's Imagines (2nd ed.) and Larfeld's
Handbuch der attischen Inschriften. For zeta see Larfeld p. 472 ; for
sigma
Larfeld p. 464 and Kirchner p. 30, no. 123 ; for omega
Larfeld pp. 481 and 484 and Kirchner p. 30, no. 123.
|
1 |
Bellinger (Hesperia, Suppl. VIII, 1949, p. 9) places KTHΣI – EYMA
and ΓΛAY – EXE in consecutive years but does not comment on the juxtaposition of two N strikings.
|
1 |
NE, found on No. 216, is apparently a transposition of EN. MΦ and EΦ would seem careless renderings of EMΦ. ENΦ and EMΦ are
surely expansions
of EN and EM. It is possible that ENΦ, a strange combination, is merely a mistaken version of EMΦ.
|
1 |
S. P. Noe, A Bibliography of Greek Coin Hoards, NNM 78, No. 899.
|
1 |
B. D. Meritt, The Athenian Year, pp. 180–184.
|
1 |
Another example of an error on this same plate is Svoronos' No. 8 from the British Museum. The obverse is that of BMC
366 and the reverse of a different coin, BMC 368. Certainly with the mass of material involved, it would be astonishing
if a few such mistakes had not happened.
|
1 | |
2 |
On a few dies of the grain-ear, pilei, cicada and serpents issues (as Nos. 51, 57, 70 and 78)
one finds a light line extending upward from the front of the necklace which may be a late sketchy rendering of the aegis
snake. In any event,
it is an additional indication of the relationship of these four issues.
|
2 |
Although unpublished, this connection had been discovered by Kambanis. It is recorded in his notes, but the order of issues
is reversed.
Kambanis had not noticed the A on the amphora of the Paris coin and, therefore, placed the thyrsos striking before
that with the horse symbol.
|
2 |
There is an element of slight confusion in Kambanis' equation of the ΔHMH – IEPΩ coin on his Plate XXIII, 6 with Svoronos'
Plate 41, 4.
Actually Kambanis illustrates Svoronos' Plate 41, 3.
|
2 |
The obverse of No. 5 on Plate 42 is coupled with a reverse not illustrated by Svoronos: No. 269f of the present
catalogue.
|
HPA – APIΣΓOΦ CLUB, LION'S SKIN, BOW IN CASE 168/7 b.c.
(Plates 33–34)
Tetradrachms
324. | |||||
(Club alone) | ΠOΛYX | A | — | *Paris, gr. 16.60↑ | |
330. | |||||
a. | ΠOΛYX | A | — | *Vienna = Egger XL (Prowe) 955, gr. 16.00; Berlin, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.79 | |
b. | ΠOΛYX | A | — | *ANS-ETN (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.28↑; Petsalis, gr. 16.40↑ | |
c. | MENEΔ | B | AN | *ANS-Gautier, gr. 16.76 ↖; Athens, gr. 16.81↖ | |
d. | MENEΔ | Ḅ | AN | Empedocles Coll. | |
e. | MENEΔ | Ḅ | HP | London (BMC 334), gr. 16.70↑ | |
f. | ΔHMH | Γ | AN | Cahn 68, 1345, gr. 16.57 | |
331. | |||||
a. | ΠOΛYX | Ạ | — | Athens | |
b. | MENEΔ | B | HP | *Münz. u. Med. List 154, 35, gr. 16.53; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 184), gr. 16.65 | |
c. | MENEΔ | B | AN | Ratto (Rogers) 356 = Sv. 45, 2, commerce, gr. 16.70 | |
d. | MENEΔ | Ḅ | ΣΩ | Copenhagen (SNG 215), gr. 16.65↑ | |
e. | MENEΔ | Ḅ | ΓΛ | Cambridge (Grose 5906), gr. 16.19↑; Berlin, gr. 16.25 | |
f. | ΔHMH | Γ | HP | Empedocles Coll.; ANS (Cretan Hd. II), control letters uncertain, gr. 16.83↑; London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 15.95↑ | |
g. | ΔHMH | ? | HP | London, gr. 16.62↑ | |
332. | |||||
a. | ΔHMH | Γ | HP | *Petsalis Coll. (Salonika Hd.), gr. 15.93↑; Commerce (Sv. 45, 8), gr. 16.65↑ | |
b. | ΔHMH | ? | HP | Athens | |
c. | ΠOΛYM | Δ | HP | Athens | |
d. | ΠOΛYM | E/Δ | ΓΛ | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.71↑ | |
333. | |||||
a. | ΠOΛYM | Δ | AN | *Knobloch Coll., gr. 16.93; Athens (Sv.45,1), gr. 16.25; Stack's (South) 608 = Naville XVI, 1222 = Ball VI, 275, gr. 16.80 | |
b. | ΠOΛYM | E/Δ | ΓΛ | London, gr. 16.88 ↖ | |
c. | ΠOΛYM | ? | AN | Athens (Delos Hd. KϚ, 20), gr. 15.60↑ | |
d. | ΦIΛΩ | E | AN | Paris (Sv. 45, 5), gr. 16.70 ↑ | |
e. | ΦIΛΩ | E | AN | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 186), gr. 16.70↑; Berlin, gr. 16.85 | |
f. | APXE | E | AN | Vatican (Sv. 45, 6), gr. 16.80; Romanos Coll., amphora letter uncertain | |
g. | APXE | E | ΓΛ | Berry Coll. (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.40 ↖ | |
h. | APXE | ? | AN | Athens, gr. 15.88 | |
i. | APXE | ? | AN | Berlin, gr. 16.27 | |
334. | |||||
ΦIΛΩ | E | ΓΛ | *Münzhandl. Basel 10, 259 = Naville (Bement) 1120 = Merzbacher, Nov. 1909, 2937, gr. 16.69 | ||
335. | |||||
a. | ΦIΛΩ | Ẹ | ΓΛ | Athens | |
b. | EXE | H | AN | *Amsterdam (Boissevain 49), gr. 16.14; Kress 90, 239, gr. 15.90 | |
c. | EXE | H | AN | *Paris (Sv. 45, 7), gr. 16.80↑ | |
d. | ΦIΛAN | I | AN | *ANS-ETN = Naville (Pozzi) 1601, gr. 16.74↖ | |
e. | ΦIΛAN | I | AN | Commerce 1954 | |
f. | ΦIΛAN | ? | HP | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.56↑ | |
g. | BAΣIΛEI | K | AN | Paris, gr. 16.67↑; Kambanis Coll. (Salonika Hd.), amphora letter uncertain | |
h. | EΠIΣT[ | Λ | AN | Commerce 1954 | |
i. | EΠIΣTPA | Λ | HP | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.30↑ | |
j. | EΠIΣTP | ? | AN | Copenhagen (SNG 218), gr. 16.89↑; Berlin, gr. 16.67 | |
k. | EΠIΣTP | ? | AN | Berlin, gr. 16.38 | |
336. | |||||
a. | APXE | E? | ΓΛ | *Copenhagen (SNG 216), gr. 15.90↑; Athens (Delos Hd. KϚ, 19), gr. 15.75↑ | |
b. | APXE | I/Ẹ | HP | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 135), gr.16.25↑; Lockett Coll. (SNG 1912), gr. 16.77↑; Berlin, gr. 15.62 | |
c. | EXE | H | ΓΛ | Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 906, gr. 16.00 | |
337. | |||||
a. | HPAKΩ | Ө | HP | *Copenhagen (SNG 217; Sv. 45, 8), gr. 16.74↑ | |
b. | ΦIΛAN | I | ΓΛ | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.51↑ | |
c. | ΦIΛAN | I | ΓΛ | Berry Coll. (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.30↑ | |
338. | |||||
a. | ΦIΛAN | I | ΓΛ | *Boston MFA (Brett 1103), gr. 17.01; London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.41↑; Paris (de Luynes 2088; Sv. 45, 9), gr. 16.80↑; Commerce 1954, amphora letter uncertain | |
c. | ΦIΛAN | ? | HP | Hesperia Art, Apr. 1953, 89; Johns Hopkins Univ., gr. 15.63 | |
339. | |||||
a. | BAΣIΛEI | Ḳ | ΓΛ | Athens (Delos Hd. B, 98; Sv. 45,10),gr. 15.75 | |
b. | EΠIΣTP | Λ | AN | *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.07↑ | |
c. | EΠIΣTP | Λ | ΓΛ | *Paris (de Luynes 2084; Sv. 45,11), gr. 16.76↑ | |
d. | EΠIΣTP | Λ | ΓΛ | Kambanis Coll.; London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.37↑ | |
e. | EΠIΣTP | Λ | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.47↑ | ||
f. | APIΣTOK | M | ΓΛ | London (Sv. 45, 12), gr. 16.65↑ | |
g. | APIΣTOK | M | ΓΛ | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr.16.67↑ L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.42 | |
h. | APIΣTOK | M | ΓΛ | *ANS-ETN gr. 16.32↑ | |
i. | APIΣTOK | M | HP | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.56 | |
j. | APIΣTOK | M | HP | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.56↑ | |
j. | APIΣTOK | Ṃ | HP | Athens, gr. 16.70↑ | |
340. | |||||
a. | APIΣTOK | M | AN | *Commerce Beirut 1954, gr. 16.59↑; Commerce Beirut 1955 | |
b. | APIΣTOK | M | AN | Ball VI, 276, gr. 16.70 |
Drachms
341. | ||||||
a. | ΠOΛY | A | – | *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.15↑; ANS, gr. 4.10↑ | ||
b. | ΠOΛY | A | – | Commerce (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.20↑; Berlin gr. 4.18; Commerce (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.17↑; Commerce (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.20↑; London, gr. 3.92; Berlin (Sv. 45, 13), gr. 4.16; Paris, amphora letter uncertain; Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 959, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 4.10; London, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 3.65 | ||
c. | MENE | ? | – | London (Sv. 45, 14), gr. 4.18; Berlin, gr. 3.84 | ||
d. | ΔHMH | Γ | — | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.17↑ | ||
342. | ||||||
a. | ΔHMH | Γ | — | Vienna (Sv. 45, 15), gr. 4.07 | ||
b. | ΠOΛYM | Δ | — | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.20↑ | ||
(APIΣTO no bow) | c. | ΠOΛY | Δ | — | Commerce (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.03↑; Munich, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 3.71; Glasgow (Hunt.97), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 3.85 | |
343. | ||||||
ΠOΛYṂ | Δ | — | *Berlin (Sv. 45, 4), gr. 4.13 | |||
344. | ||||||
a. | ΠOΛYM | Δ | — | ANS-ETN, gr. 4.00↑ | ||
(Club alone) | b. | ΦIΛ | Ẹ | — | London, gr. 3.84; Berlin, gr. 3.42 | |
(APIΣTO Club) | c. | ΦIΛ | Ẹ | — | Berlin, gr. 4.06 | |
(APIΣTO Club) | d. | ΦIΛ | ? | — | Berlin, gr. 4.06 | |
(APIΣTO Club) | e. | APXE | ? | — | London (BMC 335), gr. 4.11 | |
(APIΣTO) | g. | EXE | H | — | London (BMC 336), gr. 4.00; Paris, letter uncertain; Athens (Sv. 45, 17), letter uncertain, gr. 4.15 | |
(APIΣTO Club) | h. | HPAKΩ | Ө | — | *Athens (Sv. 45, 18), gr. 4.15↑; Berlin, gr. 3.96; London, gr. 3.56; Petsalis Coll., letter uncertain, gr. 3.87↑ | |
(APIΣTO Club) | i. | HPAKΩ (poss. recut) | ? | — | Copenhagen (SNG 219), gr. 3.97↑ | |
345. | ||||||
(APIΣTO Club) | a. | BAΣI | K | — | Paris | |
(No bow) | b. | BAΣI | ? | — | Totten Coll.; Naville (Woodward) 749, gr. 3. 94 | |
(APIΣTO) | c. | EΠIΣ | Λ | — | *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.15↑ | |
(APIΣTO) | d. | EΠIΣ | ? | — | The Hague; London, gr. 4.15; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 103; Sv. 45, 19), gr. 3.65 |
HPA – APIΣTO
Hemidrachms
346. | |||||
a. | ΠOΛ | Athens, gr. 1.82↑; Berlin, gr. 1.86 | |||
b. | ΠOΛ | *ANS, gr. 1.85↑; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 101), gr. 1.75↑ | |||
c. | ΠOΛ | *London (BMC 337), gr. 2.03 | |||
(APIΣT Club) | d. | Π[ | Berlin, gr. 1.91 | ||
(Club) | e. | ΦIΛ | Berlin (Sv. 45, 20), gr. 1.78 | ||
(APIΣT Club) | f. | EΠI | Paris (Sv. 45, 21), gr. 1.99 | ||
84 tetradrachms: 12 obverse, 56 reverse dies 42 drachms: 5 obverse, 21 reverse dies 8 hemidrachms: 1 obverse, 6 reverse dies Magistrates: ΠOΛYX, MENEΔ, ΔHMH, ΠO–ΛYM, ΦIΛΩ, APXE, EXE, HPAKΩ, ΦIΛAN, BAΣIΛEI, EΠIΣTPA, APIΣΓOK Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, H, Ө, I, K, Π, M Controls: AN, ΓΛ, HP1 |
The coinage of HPA – APIΣTOΦ is spread over the entire year with a heavy preponderance in month E, during which at least five obverse and nine reverse dies were employed for tetradrachms alone. For that one month there is a deviation from the normal association of a single third magistrate with each calendar month: ΠOΛYM served for Δ and E, ΦIΛΩ for E and APXE for E and Z. Since all three men made use of Obverse 333, it seems likely that they held tenure in rotation rather than simultaneously.2
The elaborate symbol of club and bow in case draped with a lion's skin is consistent on all tetradrachms save for No. 324 which has only a club. On the fractions the bow or the bow and lion's skin are frequently omitted. The connection between the attributes of Herakles and the name HPA, noted by Beulé, explains the choice of device.
It is noteworthy that three reverses, the only ones associated with ΠOΛYX in month A, have no control letters. This omission at the very beginning of the three-magistrate series.may reflect an attempt to use the name of the third official as a substitute for the control combination. Apparently the result was unsatisfactory for controls return to the dies under MENEΔ in month B.
The order of the two annual magistrates is variously given in the numismatic publications. On the reverses ΣTOΦ consistently appears below HPA in the right field which would, I think, imply that the HPA – APIΣTOΦ sequence is correct. It is unusual to find the name of the first magistrate at the right but in the later issue of EΠIΓENH –ΣΩΣANΔPOΣ both names are inscribed in the right field, the left being reserved for the third magistrate and the symbol.
In view of the vast amount of prosopographical data in this three-magistrate period it seems desirable to consider it as a whole in a special section on Magistrates at the end of the volume. This includes a listing of all magistrates, indications of the extent to which certain names recur on the coinage, and tentative identifications where the evidence warrants an association of the mint official with a man known from other sources.
MENEΔ – EΠIΓENO ASKLEPIOS 167/6 b.c.
(Plate 35)
Tetradrachms
347. | |||||
a. | ӨEOΦP | A | ΓΛ | *Romanos Coll. | |
b. | ӨEOΦP | A | ΓΛ | ANS-ETN, gr. 16.21↑ | |
c. | ӨEOΦP | A | ΓΛ | Athens, gr. 16.17↑; Berlin, gr. 15.30 (corroded) | |
d. | ӨEOΦP | A | HP | Berlin (Sv. 49, 1), gr. 16.78; Winterthur, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.86↑ | |
e. | ΔIOΔO | B | ΓΛ | Berry Coll., gr. 16.68↑ | |
348. | |||||
a. | ӨEOΦP | A | AΠ | *Commerce 1954 | |
b. | ӨEOΦP | A | HP | Berry Coll. (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.02↑ | |
c. | ӨEOΦP | A | ΣΩ | Cahn 84, 305, gr. 16.65 | |
d. | ӨEOΦP | Ạ | AΠ | Empedocles Coll. | |
e. | ΔIOΔ | B | ΣΩ | Berry Coll., gr. 16.68↑; London, gr. 16.45↑ | |
f. | ΔIOΔ | B | ΓΛ | Knobloch Coll., gr. 16.75; Copenhagen (SNG 240). amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.61↑ | |
g. | ΔIOΔ | B | HP | Salonika Hd. | |
h. | ΔIOΔO | Ḅ | ΓΛ | Paris (de Luynes 2105), gr. 16.70↑ | |
i. | ΦIΛOӨ | Γ | ΣΩ | Athens (Sv. 49, 3), gr. 17.08 | |
j. | ΦIΛOӨ | Γ | ΣΩ | Paris (de Luynes 2104), gr. 16.85↑; Romanos Coll.; Glendining (Cunningham) 166, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.52 | |
k. | ӨIΛO | Γ | HP | Salonika Hd. | |
l. | OӨEΛOY | Δ | ΣΩ | Paris (Sv. 49, 6), gr. 16.92↑; Athens; Petsalis Coll. (Salonika Hd.), gr. 15.19↑ | |
m. | OӨEΛOY | Δ | HP | London (BMC 444), gr. 16.54↑ | |
349. | |||||
a. | ΔIOΔO | B | HP | *Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 181; Sv. 49, 2), gr. 16.55↑ | |
b. | ΔIOΔ | B | HP | Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 16.59↑ | |
c. | ΔIOΔ | B | ΓΛ | Wilkinson Coll., gr. 16.48↑; London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.36↑ | |
d. | ΔIOΔ | B | ΣΩ | ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.32↑ | |
e. | ΦIΛOӨ | Γ | ΓΛ | Cahn 75, 324, gr. 16.61 | |
f. | ΦIΛO | Γ | ΓΛ | London = Weber 3519, gr. 16.47↑ | |
350. | |||||
a. | ΦIΛOӨ | Γ | ΓΛ | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.00↑ | |
b. | OΦEΛOY | Δ | HP | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.60↑; Cancio Coll. = Glendining (Abbott) 240, gr. 16.98↑ | |
c. | OΦEΛOY | Δ | ΓΛ | *Romanos Coll. | |
d. | OΦEΛOY | Δ | ΓΛ | Paris, gr. 16.60↑; Salonika Hd. | |
e. | OΦEΛOY | Δ | ΓΛ | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.78↑ | |
f. | OΦEΛOY | Δ | ΣΩ | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.11↑; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 178), gr. 16.75↑ | |
g. | OΦEΛOY | Δ | ΣΩ | Berry Coll., gr. 16.79↖ | |
351. | |||||
a. | ΣΩΦA | E | ΔI | *London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.44↑ | |
b. | EΠIΓO | I | ΔI | London (BMC 445), gr. 16.50↑; Cahn 66, 236, gr. 16.66; Berlin, gr. 15.94 | |
c. | EΠIΓO | I | ΣΩ | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.34↑ | |
d. | EΠIΓO | I | HP | Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 3215; Sv. 49, 7), gr. 16.52↑ | |
e. | EΠIΓO | I | HP | Lockett Coll. (SNG 1930), gr. 16.85↑; Berlin, gr. 16.74; Athens | |
f. | NIKOΓ | H | HP | Commerce 1954, gr. 16.92; Berlin, gr. 16.58 | |
g. | NIKOΓNE | Ө | ΣΩ | Salonika Hd. | |
352. | |||||
a. | EΠIΓO | Ị | ME | *Gotha, gr. 16.54 | |
b. | EΠIΓO | Ị | ME | Commerce | |
353. | |||||
a. | EΠIΓO | I | ME | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.50↑ | |
b. | EΠIΓO | I | ME | Ball VI, 278, gr. 16.60 | |
c. | NIKOΓ | H | HP | Vienna, gr. 16.74 | |
d. | NIKOΓ | H | HP | London (Sv. 49, 8), gr. 16.58↑. With NE added and Ө/H: ANS-ETN, gr. 16.85↖ | |
e. | NIKOΓ | H | ME | *London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.74↑; ANS, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.63↑ | |
f. | NIKOΓNE | Ө | ME | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.67↖; Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.51 ↑ Athens, gr. 16.40↑; Berlin, gr. 16.73 | |
f. | NIKOΓNE | Ө | HP | Salonika Hd. | |
g. | NIKOΓNE | Ө | ME | Rosenberg 72, 430 = Hess 202, 2478, gr. 16.78; Helbing 83, 329 = Cahn 60, 574, gr. 16.90 | |
i. | ΛYΣAN | I | ΣΩ | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.82↑; Münzhandl. Basel 4, 711 = Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 942, gr. 16.86 | |
j. | ΛYΣAN | I | HP | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.56↑ | |
k. | ΛYΣAN | I | HP | Vatican (Sv. 49, 9), gr. 16.75 | |
l. | ΛYΣAN | ? | ME | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 179), gr. 16.37↑ | |
m. | AΛE≡A | K | HP | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.48↑ | |
354. | |||||
a. | NIKOΓNE | Ө | HP | *London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.26↑ | |
b. | NIKOΓNE | Ө | ΣΩ | Aberdeen, gr. 16.87 (mounted)↑ | |
c. | AΛE≡A | K | HP | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.56↖ | |
d. | AΛE≡A | K | ME | Paris, gr. 16.50↑; Berlin, gr. 15.90 | |
e. | AΛE≡A | K | ΣΩ | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.53 ↖; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 180), gr. 16.60↖ | |
f. | EYPYK | Λ | ME | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.57↑ | |
g. | EYPYK | Λ | ? | Tübingen, gr. 15.88 | |
h. | EYPYK | ? | ? | London (BMC 451), gr. 16.67↑ | |
i. | APIΣTE | N | ME | Berlin (Sv. 49, 12), gr. 16.65 | |
355. | |||||
a. | AΛE≡A | K | ΓΦ | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.63↖ Romanos Coll. (Sv. 49, 10), gr. 16.63; Velay Coll., gr. 16.57; Naville (Woodward) 754, gr. 16.58; London (BMC 448), control letters uncertain, gr. 16.87↖ | |
b. | AΛE≡A | K | HP | *London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.89↖ Commerce 1953, gr. 16.70↖ ANA Conv. Cat., Aug. 1952, 2251 | |
c. | EYPYK | Λ | ΣΦleft | Robinson Coll., gr. 16.85↖ | |
d. | EYPYK | Λ | ME | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.74↑; Berlin (Sv. 49, 11), gr. 16.77 | |
e. | APIΣTE | N | ME | Paris, gr. 16.58 ↖ | |
f. | APIΣTE | N | ΣΦ | London (BMC 450; Sv. 49, 13), gr. 16.67↑ |
MENE – EΓTI SERPENT STAFF
Drachms
356. | |||||
a. | ӨEO | A | *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.29↑ | ||
(MENEΔ) | b. | ΔIO | ? | Berlin, gr. 3.67 | |
c. | ΦIΛO | Γ | Paris; Giesecke Coll. (Sv. 49, 4) | ||
d. | ΦIΛ | Γ | ANS-ETN, gr. 3.79↑; Commerce (Attic Hd.), letter uncertain, gr. 4.11↖; Petsalis Coll., letter uncertain, gr. 4.10↖ | ||
e. | ΣΩΦ | I | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 3.95↑; Commerce (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.16↑; Commerce (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.05↑; London = Weber 8520 (Sv. 49, 15), gr. 4.13; Platt, Apr. 1983, 120 | ||
(MENEΔ – EΠIΓ) | f. | EΠI | ? | London (BMC 446), gr. 4.03; Berlin, gr. 3.92 | |
g. | NIKO | H | Hesperia Art X, 189 (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.30↑ | ||
357. | |||||
a. | EΠIΓ | I | Lockett Coll. (SNG 1945), gr. 3.87↑ | ||
b. | EΠIΓ | I | *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 8.94↖; London, gr. 3.59; Romanos Coll., letter uncertain | ||
(MENEΔ–EΠIΓ) | c. | EΠI | ? | Athens (Delos Hd. B, 124; Sv. 49, 14) gr. 3.80 | |
d. | NIKO | ? | Naville (BM dupl.) 2017, gr. 4.28 | ||
e. | NIKO | ? | Athens (Delos Hd. B, 127; Sv. 49, 16), gr. 8.55; Berlin, gr. 4.00 | ||
f. | NIKO | ? | Berlin, gr. 3.99 | ||
g. | ΛYΣ | I | Vienna = Naville (Bement) 1180, gr. 4.15; Athens (Sv. 49, 17), letter uncertain, gr. 3.90; London (BMC 447), letter uncertain, gr. 3.76; Petsalis Coll., letter uncertain, gr. 3.76 | ||
h. | ΛYΣ | I | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.07↑; Paris, letter uncertain; Copenhagen (SNG 241), letter uncertain, gr.3.84↑1. With AΛE/ΛYΣ: Copenhagen (SNG 242), letter uncertain, gr. 3.56↑ |
358. | |||||
(MENEΔ) | a. | AΛE≡ | K | *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.13↑; London (BMC 449), letter uncertain, gr. 3.92; Jameson 1196 (Sv. 49, 18) = Sotheby (Delbeke) 157, letter uncertain, gr. 4.09; Athens (Salamis Hd.), letter uncertain, gr. 4.07↖; probably London, letter uncertain, gr. 3.91; Berlin, letter uncertain, gr. 4.01; Brussels (de Hirsch 1290), letter uncertain, gr. 4.19↑ | |
(MENEΔ) | b. | EYPY | ? | Berlin (Sv. 49, 19), gr. 4.15 |
Hemidrachms
359. | |||||
a. | ΦIΛ | Athens (Sv. 49, 5), gr. 2.00↑ | |||
b. | NIK | *Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 3285), gr. 2.03↑; Copenhagen (SNG 248; Sv. 49, 20), gr. 1.90↑; L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 2.15 | |||
c. | NIK | *London (BMC 452), gr. 2.01 | |||
d. | ΛYΣ | L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 1.85; Berlin (Sv. 49,21), gr. 1.89; ANS-ETN, gr. 1.95↑; Berlin, gr. 1.89 | |||
e. | ΛYΣ | ANS-ETN, gr. 1.87↑ | |||
f. | EY | Athens (Delos Hd. B, 129; Sv. 49, 22), gr. 1.90 | |||
101 tetradrachms: 9 obverse, 63 reverse dies 40 drachms: 3 obverse, 15 reverse dies 11 hemidrachms: 1 obverse, 6 reverse dies Magistrates: ӨEOΦP, ΔIOΔO, ΦIΛOӨ, OΦEΛOY, ΣΩΦA, EΠIΓO, NIKOΓ, NIKOΓNE, ΛYΣAN, AΛE≡A, EYPYK, APIΣTE Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, H, Ө, I, K, Λ, N Controls: AΠ, ΓΛ, ΔI, HP, ME, ΣΦ, ΣΩ |
As is evident from the statistical tabulation (page 659), there is a fairly even distribution of coinage over the year except that month E is scantily represented and no dies are known for M. Striking, however, is resumed in the intercalary month N. For the most part each third magistrate holds office for a single month. The one certain exception is ΣΩΦA who puts out a limited number of tetradrachms in E and continues to strike drachms in Z. NIKOΓ of H and NIKOΓ NE of Ө provide an interesting numismatic record of two generations serving in the third magistracy in successive months. The use of NE or NEΩTE to distinguish a son from a father of the same name is known from inscriptions (e.g. IG II2 1835 and 2314) but this is the only instance of it on the coinage.
Controls are more varied than in the issues immediately preceding and succeeding. HP recurs throughout the year. AΠ and ΔI are used infrequently, ΓΛ and ΣΩ commonly in the early months and then apparently are replaced by ME and ΣΦ in Z and later months. These two last controls are the only ones recorded for the tetradrachms of TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO, which appear in the next year.
In the publications of Beulé and Sundwall and in Kambanis' notebooks there are some divergent readings of amphora and control letters for this and other three-magistrate issues. All such variations have been noted and investigated insofar as possible, but the citation of divergencies will from now on be largely limited to material which is currently inaccessible and which I have not, therefore, been able to check at first hand.
TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO ANCHOR AND STAR 166/5 b.c.
(Plates 36–37)
Tetradrachms
360. | ||||||
ΔΩPOӨ | A | ΣΦ | *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.62↑; The Hague, gr. 16.05 (pierced); Naville XVI, 1223 = Ball VI, 279, gr. 16.90; Athens, gr. 16.10 (Pl. ?)↖; Uncertain (Sv. 50, 1, cast at German School) | |||
361. | ||||||
a. | ΔΩPOӨ | A | ΣΦ | *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.41↖; Berlin, gr. 15.58 (pierced); Cahn 71, 342, gr. 17.01 | ||
b. | ΔΩPOӨ | A | ΣΦ | *London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.77↑ | ||
c. | ΔΩPOӨ | A | ΣΦ | Berry Coll., gr. 16.85 ↖ | ||
d. | MNAΣIK | B | ΣΦ | Berry Coll. (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.59↖; London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 15.78 (corroded)↖; London, gr. 16.61 ↖ | ||
362. | ||||||
a. | ΔΩPOӨ | A | ME | *Berlin (Sv. 50, 2), gr. 16.80 | ||
b. | ΔΩPOӨ | A | ME | Cahn 71, 341, gr. 17.38 (sic- lightly oxydized); Bucharest, gr. 16.41 | ||
c. | ΔΩPOӨ | Ạ | ME | Copenhagen (SNG 246), gr. 16.38↑ | ||
d. | MNAΣIK | B | ME | Empedocles Coll.; Gotha, gr. 16.46 | ||
e. | AMΦIKPATI | Γ | ME | *ANS (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.30↖; Athens (Delos Hd. KϚ, 34), gr. 15.24↖; Glasgow (Hunt.121), gr. 16.44↑ | ||
f. | AMΦIKPATI | Γ | ΣΦ | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.17↑ | ||
g. | ΣΩΣIΓE | Δ | ME | Athens (Delos Hd. AH ), gr. 15.70↑ | ||
363. | ||||||
a. | MNAΣIK | B | ΣΦ | *Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 228; Sv. 50, 3), gr. 16.70 ↖ | ||
b. | AMΦIKPATI | Γ | ΣΦ | *London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.48 ↖; Cahn 68, 1346, gr. 16.74 | ||
c. | AMΦIKPATI | Γ | ΣΦ | Berlin (Sv. 50, 4), gr. 16.72 | ||
d. | AMΦIKPATI | ΣΦ | Berlin, gr. 16.48 | |||
e. | ΣΩΣIΓE | Δ | ΣΦ | Paris (de Luynes 2111), gr. 16.88 ↖ | ||
f. | ΣΩΣIΓE | Δ | ME | Salonika Hd. | ||
g. | ΣΩΣI[ | Δ | ME | Berlin (Sv. 50, 5), gr. 16.68 | ||
h. | ΣΩΣIΓE | ΣΦ | Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 16.55 ↖ | |||
364. | ||||||
a. | ΣΩΣIΓE | Δ | ΣΦ | *Chiha Coll. (Salonika Hd.); Paris, gr. 16.67↖; London (Salonika Hd.), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.17↑ | ||
(NIKAΓ) | b. | MENAN | E | ΣΦ | *Empedocles Coll. | |
c. | ΛYΣIA | I | ΣΦ | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.37↑; Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.71↑; Morgenthau 405, 799 | ||
d. | ΛYΣIA | I | ME | London (BMC 500), gr. 16.53↖ | ||
e. | APXEΣ | Ḥ | ME | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.75↑ | ||
f. | APXEΣ | ? | ME | Berlin, gr. 16.81 | ||
(APXO) | g. | MENANΔPOΣ | Ө | ME | London (BMC 502; Sv. 50, 7), gr. 16.78↑ | |
365. | ||||||
a. | ΛYΣIA | I | ME | *Cambridge (Grose 5916; Sv. 50, 6), gr. 16.78↑; Münzhandl. Basel 4, 712 = Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 954, gr. 16.80 | ||
b. | ΛYΣIA | Ị | ΣΦ | Berlin, gr. 16.51 | ||
c. | MENANΔPOΣ | Ө | ΣΦ | *Tübingen, gr. 16.07 | ||
366. | ||||||
KΛEΩN | I | ΣΦ | *Berlin (Sv. 50, 8), gr. 16.58 | |||
367. | ||||||
a. | KΛEΩN | 1 | ΣΦ | London, gr. 16.81↑; Glendining, Mar. 1931, 1072, gr. 16.50 | ||
b. | ANTIOXOΣ | K | ME | *London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.71↑; Romanos Coll. (Sv. 50, 9), gr. 16.80 | ||
c. | ΦANOKΛE | Λ | ME | London (BMC 503; Sv. 50, 10), gr. 16.78↑ | ||
d. | ΦANOKΛE | Λ | ΣΦ | *Paris, gr. 16.80↑; Florange-Ciani(Caron) 208, gr. 16.58 | ||
368. | ||||||
a. | KΛEΩN | I | ME | *Berry Coll., gr. 16.59↑; Lockett Coll. (SNG 1937), gr. 16.74↑ | ||
b. | KΛEΩN | Ị | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 229), gr. 16.55 ↖ | ||
c. | KΛEΩN | Ị | ME | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.55 ↖ | ||
(NIKAΓ) | d. | ANTIOXOΣ | K | ME | *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.63↑ | |
e. | ANTIOXOΣ | K | ME | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.91↑ | ||
f. | ANTIOXOΣ | K | ΣΦ | Empedocles Coll.; Paris, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.51↑ | ||
g. | ΦANOKΛE | Λ | ΣΦ | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.31↑ | ||
h. | ΦANOKΛE | Λ | ME | London, gr. 16.82↑ |
Drachms
TIMAPX-NIKA ANCHOR
369. | |||||
(I)1 (TIMAPXO–NIKAΓ) | a. | ΔΩPO | A | *London (Sv. 50, 12, erroneously attributed to Munich) = Egger XXXIX, 287 = Hirsch (Lambros) 467, gr. 4.25 | |
(TIMAP Star) | b. | AMΦI | Γ | Munich (Sv. 50, 11, erroneously attributed to Romanos), gr. 4.09; Romanos Coll., letter uncertain; Gotha, letter uncertain, gr. 3.70 | |
c. | ΣΩΣI | ? | Copenhagen (SNG 249), gr. 3.97↑; Wilkinson Coll., gr. 3.89 | ||
d. | MEN | E | London, gr. 3.55; Athens (Sv. 50, 14), letter uncertain, gr. 3.85↑ |
NO MAGISTRATES GRAIN-EAR
370. | ||||
(21) | Symbol l. | M below | *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.19↑ | |
371. | ||||
(22, II) | a. | Symbol r. | ? below | *ANS-ETN, gr. 4.10↖ |
b. | Symbol r. | MH below | Athens (Delos Hd. B, 7; Sv. 34, 26), gr. 3.75 ↖; L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 4.03; Rosenberg 72, 429 = Cahn 71, 339, gr. 4.20; Berlin, gr. 3.99 |
c. | Symbol r. | ΠẸ below | London (BMC 294), gr. 3.62 | |
d. | Symbol r. | ΠE below | ANS-ETN, gr. 3.36 (corroded)↖; Copenhagen (SNG 123), gr. 3.72↗ | |
e. | Symbol r. | ? below | London; Wilkinson Coll. = Lockett Coll. (SNG 1944) = Naville (Pozzi) 1596, gr. 3.97↑; Baltatzi Coll. (Sv.34. 28), gr.4.12 |
TIMAP-NIKA ANCHOR
f. | APXE | H | *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.24 ↖; London, letter uncertain, gr. 8.75 | ||
(TIMA-NIK) | g. | APXE | ? | Copenhagen (SNG 247), gr. 3.86↑1; Berlin, gr. 3.63 |
NO MAGISTRATES GRAIN-EAR
372. | |||||
(23, III) | a. | Symbol r. | MH below | *London (BMC 298), gr. 4.08; Paris; Noe Coll., gr. 3.76↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.18 ↖; ANS (Attic Hd.). gr. 4.24↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.27↑; Athens (Sv. 34.27). gr. 3.43; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 9; Sv. 34, 29), letters uncertain, gr. 3.85 | |
b. | Symbol l. | AΠ below | Berlin, gr. 3.83; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 5; Sv. 34, 31), gr. 3.75↑ | ||
c. | Symbol l. | ? below | Berlin (Sv. 34.30), gr. 3.83 | ||
TIMAP-NIKA | ANCHOR | ||||
(TIMA-NIK) | d. | APXE | H | Paris (Sv. 50, 13), gr. 4.14; Athens, gr. 3.75↑ ; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.26↑ ; London (BMC 501), gr. 4.08; Münz. u. Med. List 168, 28 | |
e. | APXE | H | ANS-ETN, gr. 3.86 ↖; Berlin, letter uncertain, gr. 4.03 | ||
f. | MENA | Ө | Petsalis Coll., gr. 3.70↖ | ||
g. | MENA | ? | Berlin, gr. 3.79 | ||
h. | KΛE | ? | Athens (Sv. 50, 15), gr. 4.00↖ | ||
373. | |||||
(IV Star) | ΦANO | Λ | *ANS-ETN = Ratto (Rogers) 446 = Naville (BM dupl.) 2019, edges chipped↖ |
Hemidrachms
NO MAGISTRATES GRAIN-EAR
374. | |||||
(24) | Symbol r. | *Berlin (Sv. 34, 32),gr. 1.73 |
TIMAP-NIKA ANCHOR
375. | |||||
(V) | a. | ΔΩP | Athens (Delos Hd. B, 160; Sv. 50, 17), gr. 1.87↑; Berlin, gr. 1.90 | ||
b. | ΣΩΣI | Naville (Bement) 1131, gr. 2.01 | |||
(TIMA-NIK No anchor) | c. | APX | Athens (Delos Hd. B, 159; Sv. 50, 16), gr. 1.88↑; Berlin, gr. 2.01 | ||
66 tetradrachms : 9 obverse, 42 reverse dies 46 drachms: 5 obverse, 19 reverse dies 6 hemidrachms: 2 obverse, 4 reverse
dies Magistrates: ΔΩPOӨ, MNAΣIK, AMΦIKPATI, ΣΩΣIΓE, MENAN, ΛYΣIA, APXEΣ, MENANΔPOΣ, KΛEΩN, ANTIOXOΣ, ΦANOKΛE Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, H, Ө, I, K, Π Controls: ME, ΣΦ and AΠ, MH, ΠE on the grain-ear drachms |
This issue shows no overlapping of third magistrates unless MENANΔPOΣ (Ө) is the same as MENAN (E). Coins were struck from alpha through lambda with a relatively consistent distribution of obverse dies over that period. Two control combinations, ME and ΣΦ, appear throughout the year on the tetradrachm reverses.
The peculiar interest of the emission derives from the circumstance that both regular and grain-ear drachms were issued under TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO. Use of the same obverse dies for the two types of fractional coinage proves their contemporaneity; otherwise there are no points of similarity. The regular drachms are identical with the tetradrachms of Timarchos and Nikagoras in most respects. The grain-ear fractions have no magisterial names, no month letters, a different symbol and different control combinations. Obviously they represent a special currency unrelated to the normal pattern of small change during the New Style period, the significance of which may, it seems to me, best be explained in terms of grain distribution. It is quite likely that the Seleucid device adopted as the symbol of this issue is indicative of the source of the grain.
ΠOΛYXAPM – NIKOΓ WINGED CADUCEUS 165/4 b.c.
(Plate 38)
Tetradrachms
368. | ||||||
ΔHMOΣӨE | B/Ạ | Ị | Athens (Delos Hd. B, 147), gr. 15.30 (crystallized) | |||
376. | ||||||
a. | ΔHMOΣӨE | B/Ạ | ΔI | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.89↖ | ||
b. | ΔHMOΣӨE | B/Ạ | ΣΦ | *Paris (Sv. 49, 24), gr. 16.58↖ | ||
c. | AIANTI | B | ΣΦ | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.37↑ | ||
d. | ΦIΛOΔO | ? | ME | Berlin, gr. 15.79 | ||
377. | ||||||
AIANTI | B | ΣΦ | *Empedocles Coll. | |||
378. | ||||||
a. | ΦIΛOΔO | Γ | ME | London (Sv. 49, 25), gr. 16.74↑ | ||
b. | AΠOΛΛΩNIΔ | Δ | ME | *Commerce 1953, gr. 16.71; Paris (Sv.49, 26), gr. 16.65↑; L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 15.93 | ||
c. | AΠOΛΛΩNIΔ | Δ | ΔI | Copenhagen (SNG 244), gr. 16.53↖1; Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.76↖ | ||
d. | ΔIONYΣIOY | E | ΔI | Berlin (Sv.49, 27), gr. 16.54; Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.91↖ | ||
e. | ΔIONYΣIOY | E | ΣΦ | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.43↑ | ||
(XPAM) | f. | ӨEMIΣTOKΛH | I | ΔI | London (BMC 494), gr. 16.39↖ | |
g. | ӨEMIΣTOKΛH | I | ΔI | Paris (de Luynes 2110), gr. 16.85↖ | ||
h. | ӨEMIΣTOKΛH | I | ΔI | Commerce | ||
i. | ӨEMIΣTOKΛH | I | ΔI | Berlin, gr. 16.83 | ||
j. | ӨEMIΣTOKΛH | ? | ΣΦ | Romanos Coll. | ||
379. | ||||||
a. | ΔIONYΣIOY | E | ME | Lockett Coll. (SNG 1936), gr. 16.58↑ | ||
b. | ӨEMIΣTOKΛH | I | ΣΦ | *Berlin, gr. 16.85 | ||
c. | ӨEMIΣTOKΛH | I | ΣΦ | *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.64↑ | ||
d. | ӨEMIΣTOKΛH | I | ΔI | London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.08↑ | ||
e. | ӨEMIΣTOKΛH | I | ME | Berry Coll., gr. 16.80↑; Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.83↖ |
f. | ӨEMIΣTOKΛH | I | ME | Uncertain1 | ||
g. | ӨEMIΣTOKΛH | I | ME | London (Sv. 49, 28), gr. 16.88↑; ANS = Naville (Bement) 1128, gr.16.67↑; Istanbul, gr. 16.77↑ | ||
(XAP) | h. | ӨEMIΣTOKΛH | I | ME | ANS, gr. 16.66↑; Cahn 66, 237, gr. 16.52; Berlin, gr. 16.65 | |
i. | ӨEMIΣTOKΛH | Ị | ME | Zygman Coll., gr. 16.65↑ | ||
j. | ӨEMIΣTOKΛH | Ị | ΔI | Athens (Delos Hd. KÇ, 32), gr. 15.70↑ | ||
k. | KAPAIXOY | K | ΣΦ | London (Sv. 49, 29), gr. 16.91↑ | ||
l. | KAPAIXOY | ? | ME | Berlin (Sv. 49, 23), gr. 16.76 | ||
m. | ΠPOTIM | Λ | ME | Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 3214), gr. 16.48↑ | ||
n. | ΠPOTIM | Ị | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.67↑ | |||
o. | ΠPOTIM | ME | *Gotha, gr. 16.55; Glymenopoulos Coll. (Sv. 49, 30), gr. 16.75 | |||
380. | ||||||
a. | KAPAIXOY | K | ΔI | *Commerce Beirut 1953; Oxford, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.48↖ | ||
b. | ΠPOTIM | Λ | ME | ANS-ETN, gr. 16.84↑; Feuardent (Collignon) 256 | ||
c. | ΠPOTIM | Λ | Ị | Berlin, gr. 16.86 | ||
d. | ΠPOTIM | ? | ΣΦ | Paris (de Luynes 2109), gr. 16.75↑ | ||
e. | ΠPOTIM | ? | ṂE | Berlin, gr. 16.22 | ||
f. | ΔΩPOӨE | ? | ΔI | Berlin, (Sv. 49, 31), gr. 16.04 |
ΠOΛYX-NIK CADUCEUS
Drachms
373. | |||||
(ΠOΛYXA-NIKO | a. | ΦAN | Ạ | *London, gr. 4.04; Berlin, gr. 3.27 | |
(NIKO) | b. | ΔHM | Ḅ | Athens (Delos Hd. B, 148), gr. 3.77↑; Berlin, gr. 3.59 | |
381. | |||||
(ΠOΛY Winged caduceus) | a. | AΠO | Athens (Sv. 49, 34), gr. 4.10↑ |
b. | ΔION | E | *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.20↑; Hamburger (von Kaufmann) 250, letter uncertain, gr. 3.90; Copenhagen (SNG 245), letter uncertain, gr. 3.73↑ | ||
c. | ӨEM | ? | Athens (Delos Hd. A, 30; Sv. 49, 33), gr. 4.00; Petsalis Coll., gr. 3.93↑ | ||
(ΠOΛY) | d. | ΠPO | ? | Berlin (Sv. 49, 32), gr. 3.91 |
ΠOΛ–NI NO SYMBOL
Hemidrachms 1
382. | |||||
a. | AΠ | *London (BMC 495), gr. 1.91; L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 1.77; Romanos Coll. (Sv. 49, 35), gr. 1.94 | |||
(ΠOΛY) | b. | ӨE | Athens (Delos Hd. B, 146), gr. 1.90↑ | ||
49 tetradrachms : 6 obverse, 35 reverse dies 11 drachms : 2 obverse, 6 reverse dies 4 hemidrachms: 1 obverse, 2 reverse
dies Magistrates: ΦAN(OKΛE), ΔHMOΣӨE, AIANTI, ΦIΛOΔO, AΠOΛΛΩNIΔ, ΔIONYΣIOY, ӨEMIΣTOKΛH, KAPAIXOY, ΠPOTIM, ΔΩPOӨE Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, K, Λ, M (?) Controls: ΔI, ME, ΣΦ |
Two obverse dies (Nos. 368 and 373 as illustrated on Plate 37) are carried over from the preceding year, thus establishing the contiguity of the issues of TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO and ΠOΛYXAPM – NIKOΓ.
In contrast to earlier three-magistrate strikings, this emission is light and the distribution of coinage spotty. No reverses are recorded for months H, Ө and I. M is not certain but a Berlin tetradrachm (Sv. 49, 31) with ΔΩPOӨE seems to show a later stage of the obverse die than specimens with KAPAIXOY and ΠPOTIM reverses, indicating that Dorotheos held office in M or N. In the present catalogue ΦAN(OKΛE) is known only from drachms dated Ạ in the Berlin and London Cabinets. Sundwall, however, lists two tetradrachms inscribed ΦANOKΛE : from a publication by Engel (RN, 1885, p. 19 with A on the amphora) and from the von Prokesch-Osten Collection. Neither piece can be checked but there is no reason to doubt the readings, confirmed as they are by the drachms.
On the evidence available, ΦANOKΛE struck briefly in A, ΔHMOΣӨE in A and B, and AIANTI in B. Thereafter, a single third magistrate is associated with each month. A heavy concentration of coinage occurs under Themistokles with at least four obverse and sixteen reverse dies in operation during zeta. One of the two tetradrachms dies used by Themistokles (No. 379) is remarkable for its durability; some fifteen different reverses are combined with it over a period of four months.
ΔΩPOӨE – ΔIOΦ FOREPART OF LION 164/3 b.c.
(Plate 39)
Tetradrachms
383. | ||||||
a. | ——— | A | ME | *London (Sv. 46, 15), gr. 16.96 ↖; Athens, gr. 16.75 ↖ | ||
b. | ——— | A | ΣΦ | London, gr. 16.70↑; Copenhagen (SNG 225), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.71↑ | ||
c. | ——— | Ạ | ΔI | Andreopoulos Coll. | ||
d. | ΔIOKΛE | B | ME | Empedocles Coll. = Weber 3516, gr. 16.59 | ||
e. | ΔIOKΛE | ? | ME | Berlin, gr. 16.49; Athens, control letters uncertain, gr. 16.59 ↖ | ||
384. | ||||||
a. | ——— | A | ΔI | Zygman Coll. = Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 931 = Sv. 46, 16, gr. 16.98 ↖ | ||
b. | ——— | A | ΔI | ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.95↖ | ||
(ΔΩP ΩӨE OӨE | c. | ——— | A(?) | ΔI | Glasgow (Hunt.106), gr. 16.83↑ | |
d. | ——— | ? | ΣΦ | Evelpidis Coll., gr. 16.70; Berlin, gr. 16.70 | ||
e. | ΔIOKΛE | B | ΔI | *Berry Coll., gr. 16.89 ↖ | ||
f. | ΔIOKΛE | B | ΔI | Ciani, Dec. 1921, 59 | ||
g. | ΔIOKΛE | B | ME | Berlin (Sv. 46, 17), gr. 16.91 | ||
385. | ||||||
a. | ΔIOKΛE | B | ΔI | *Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 930, gr. 16.70 | ||
b. | ΔHMHOYΛI | Γ | ΔI | ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), tooled and graffito (KΛHON) in front of face.gr. 16.91 ↑ | ||
c. | ΔHMHOYΛI | ME | Berlin, gr. 15.84 | |||
386. | ||||||
a. | ΔIOKΛE | Ḅ | ΣΦ | *Commerce 1957, gr. 16.77↑ | ||
b. | ΔHMHOYΛI | ΔI | L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 15.70 | |||
c. | ΔHMHOYΛI | ? | ΣΦ | *Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 8205), gr. 16.73↑ | ||
d. | ΔHMHOYΛI | ? | ΣΦ | Berlin, gr. 15.71 (worn) | ||
387. | ||||||
a. | ΔHMHOYΛI | Δ | ΣΦ | *Paris (Sv. 46, 18), gr. 16.88↑ | ||
b. | ΔHMHOYΛ | Ẹ | ME | Paris, gr. 16.84 (pierced) ↖ | ||
388. | ||||||
a. | ΔHMHOYΛ | I | ΣΦ | *Romanos Coll. = Weber 3517, gr. 16.90 | ||
b. | ΔHMHOYΛ | Ị | ΔI/?ΣṂ | Bucharest, gr. 16.72 | ||
c. | ΔHMHOYΛ | ? | ΣΦ | London (BMC 890), gr. 16.82↑ | ||
d. | NIKOΔΩ | H | ΔI | Commerce 1956; Athens, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.05 ↖ | ||
e. | NIKOΔΩ | ? | ΔI | Gotha, gr. 16.41 | ||
f. | NIKOΔΩ | ? | ME | Commerce (Kessab Hd.) | ||
g. | AIΣXINHΣ | ? | ME | Florange-Ciani (Allotte de la Fuÿe) 407, gr. 16.50 | ||
389. | ||||||
a. | NIKOΔΩ | H | ΔI | Paris (de Luynes 2113; Sv. 46, 19), gr. 17.00↑ | ||
b. | NIKOΔΩ | H | ME | Oxford, gr. 16.67 | ||
c. | NIKOΔΩ | H | ME | Petsalis Coll. | ||
d. | AIΣXINHΣ | H | ΔI in l. field | *Brussels (de Hirsch 1291; Sv. 46, 20), gr. 16.75↑ | ||
e. | AIΣXINHΣ | Ө | ΔI | Athens, gr. 16.70 ↖; ANS-ETN = Ratto (Rogers) 358, gr. 16.80 ↖ | ||
f. | XAPMI | Λ | ΣΦ | Empedocles Coll. | ||
g. | XAPMI | ME | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 112; Sv. 46, 22), gr. 16.60↑ | |||
h. | ANTIΛOX | M | ΔI | London (BMC 391; Sv. 46, 23), gr. 16.67↑; Athens, gr. 15.25↑ | ||
i. | ANTIΛOX | M | ΣΦ | Berlin (Sv. 46, 24), gr. 16.85 | ||
j. | ANTIΛOX | M | ΣΦ | Berlin, gr. 16.75 | ||
390. | ||||||
a. | ΔIONY | K | ME | *Athens (Delos Hd. B, 70; Sv. 46, 21), gr. 16.45 ↖ | ||
b. | ΔIONY | K | ΔI | Cambridge (SNG 8206), gr. 16.65↑ | ||
c. | XAPMI | Λ | ΔI | ANS, gr. 16.70t | ||
d. | XAPMI | Λ | ΔI | Vienna, gr. 16.77 | ||
e. | XAPMI | ΣΦ | Berlin, gr. 16.54 | |||
f. | ANTIΛOX | M | ME | Paris, gr. 16.77↖ | ||
g. | ANTIΛOX | ? | ΔI | Ratto (Rogers) 359, gr. 16.38 | ||
h. | ANTIΛOX | ? | ? | Berlin, gr. 16.72 |
ΔΩ–ΔIO
Drachms
391. | ||||||
(ΔΩP) | a. | — | ? | Athens (DelosHd. B, 73 ; Sv. 46,25), gr. 4.03↑ | ||
(ΔΩPOӨE–ΔIOΦ) | b. | ΔIOKΛE | B | Berlin (Sv. 46, 26), gr. 4.22; London (BMC 392), gr. 3.71; Berlin, gr. 3.67 | ||
c. | ΔHMOY | ? | Berlin, gr. 3.91 | |||
392. | ||||||
a. | ΔHMOY | Δ | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.25↑; Berlin (Sv.46, 27), gr. 4.21; Athens (Salamis Hd.), letter uncertain, gr. 3.95↖ | |||
b. | ΔHMOY | ? | *ANS, gr. 4.05↑; Cambridge (SNG 3234), gr. 3.78↑1 | |||
393. | ||||||
ΔHOY | ? | *Paris; Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 961, gr. 4.00 | ||||
394. | ||||||
a. | NIK | ? | Athens (Sv.46, 28), gr.4.00; Totten Coll. | |||
(ΔΩPO Lion's head) | b. | AIΣ | H | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.27↑; London, gr. 3.89; Paris; Commerce (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.14↑; Vienna, letter uncertain, gr. 3.81; Modena (Sv. 46, 29), letter uncertain, gr. 4.00; Berlin, letter uncertain, gr. 3.89 | ||
c. | ΔIO | K | *Berry Coll., gr. 4.17↑; Berlin, gr. 3.83; Berlin, gr. 4.07; Glasgow (Hunt.107), gr. 3.97; Commerce 1959, gr. 4.11; Athens (Sv.46, 30), letter uncertain, gr. 4.17; Paris, letter uncertain ; Budapest = Hirsch (Weber) 1713, letter uncertain, gr. 3.99↑ | |||
d. | XAP | Λ | Berlin (Sv. 46, 31), gr. 3.90; Paris; Commerce (Attic Hd.), letter uncertain, gr. 4.14↑; L. Meletopoulos Coll., letter uncertain, gr. 3.95; Petsalis Coll., letter uncertain, gr. 3.35↖ |
(ΔΩP) | e. | ANT | Ṃ | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.17 ↖; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 72; Sv. 46, 82), gr. 3.58 |
ΔΩ–ΔI No SYMBOL
Hemidrachms
395. | |||||
a. | — | *Athens, gr. 1.75 ↑ | |||
b. | ΔI | *ANS-ETN, gr. 1.70↑ | |||
c. | Ạ | Athens, gr. 1.751 | |||
53 tetradrachms: 8 obverse, 43 reverse dies 36 drachms: 4 obverse, 10 reverse dies 3 hemidrachms : 1 obverse, 3 reverse
dies Magistrates: ΔIOKΛE, ΔHMHOYΛI, NIKOΔΩ, AIΣXINHΣ, ΔIONY, XAPMI, ANTIΛOX Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, H, Ө, K, Λ, M2 Controls: ΔI, ME, ΣΦ3 |
Comparatively few tetradrachms are known for this issue but the output of drachms is quite extensive. Although all months except I are represented, coinage seems to have been concentrated at the beginning and the end of the year.
The sequence of magistrates is highly irregular. All seven reverses for alpha are uninscribed; apparently there was no third official functioning during the first month of this emission. ΔHMHOYΛI served for four consecutive months (Γ–Z) while AIΣXINHΣ took over from NIKOΔΩ in H and continued in office during Ө. In the form ΔHMHOYΛI we have another attempt at precise identification similar to that of NIKOΓNE three years earlier. The addition of the patronymic OYΛI(AΔOY) must surely have been intended as a way of distinguishing this Demetrius from another man of the same name.
Three control combinations are in use throughout the issue: ΔI, ME and ΣΦ. These are identical with those employed by ΠOΛYXAPM – NIKOΓ.
ANTIOXOΣ – NIKOΓ ELEPHANT 168/2 b.c.
(Plate 40)
Tetradrachms
396. | |||||
a. | ANTIΛOX | A | ME | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.74↑; Seyrig Coll. (Kessab Hd.), gr. 16.70↑ | |
b. | ANTIΛOX | A | ΣΩ | *Hart Coll. = Lee (de Zogheb) 268, gr. 16.46↑ | |
c. | NIKΩN | B | ME | *Seyrig Coll. (Kessab Hd.), gr. 16.83↑; Berlin (Sv. 44, 8), gr. 16.55; Giesecke Coll. (Sv. 44, 4), gr. 16.70 | |
ANTIOXOΣ–KAPAIXOΣ | |||||
d. | ABPΩN | ? | ṂE | Berlin, gr. 16.31 ; Athens, gr. 16.70↑ | |
e. | EIPHNA | Δ | ME | Munich (Sv. 44, 9), gr. 16.62 | |
f. | EIPHNA | Δ | ME | London, gr. 16.70↑; Tübingen, amphora letter and controls uncertain, gr. 16.42 | |
ANTIOXOΣ–NIKOΓ | |||||
397. | |||||
a. | ANTIΛOX | Ạ | ΣΩ | Met. Mus. Art (Ward 504), gr. 16.76 | |
b. | ANTIΛOX | Ạ | Berlin (Sv. 44, 1), gr. 16.35 | ||
c. | NIKΩN | Ḅ | ΣΩ | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 36; Sv. 44, 2), gr. 16.70 | |
d. | NIKΩN | ? | ΣΦ | Berlin, gr. 16.63 |
ANTIOXOΣ–KAPAIXOΣ
e. | ABPΩN | ΣΦ | Gotha (Sv. 44, 6), gr. 16.68 | ||
f. | EIPHNA | Δ | ΣΩ | *Empedocles Coll. | |
g. | EIPHNA | ΣΩ | L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.22; Athens (Delos Hd. KϚ, 17), gr. 16.00↑ | ||
h. | ΣKYMNOΣ | E | ΣΦ | *Tübingen, gr. 16.90; Berry Coll., gr. 16.55↖ | |
i. | ΣKYMNOΣ | E | ΣΩ | Romanos Coll. = Ratto (Rogers) 855 = Sv. 44, 10, commerce, gr. 16.40 (weight of unbroken coin illustrated by Svoronos) | |
j. | ΣKYMNOΣ | E | Glasgow (Hunt.96), gr. 16.49↑ | ||
k. | ΣKYMNOΣ | ? | ME | Copenhagen (SNG 212), gr. 12.22↑1 | |
l. | EYMAXOΣ | E | ME | Gotha, gr. 16.56 | |
m. | EYMAXOΣ | E | ME | London (BMC 322; Sv. 44, 16), gr. 16.45↖ |
398. | |||||
ΠPΩTOΓE | I | ΣΩ | *London (BMC 323 ; Sv. 44, 19), gr. 16.17↖ ; Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 16.67↖ | ||
399. | |||||
a. | ΠPΩTOΓE | I | ΣΩ | *Seyrig Coll. (Kessab Hd.), gr. 16.84↖ | |
b. | ΠPΩTOΓE | Ị | ME | Lockett Coll. (SNG 3537) from Halmyros Hd., gr. 16.43↑ | |
c. | ΣAPAΠI | Ө | ΣΦ | Berlin, gr. 16.45 | |
d. | MENAN | I | ΣΦ | Seyrig Coll. (Kessab Hd.), gr. 16.85↑ | |
e. | MENAN | Ị | ΣΦ | Berlin (Sv. 44, 23), gr. 16.78 | |
f. | MENAN | ? | ME | Copenhagen (SNG 213), gr. 16.89↑ | |
g. | AΓAӨA | K | ΣΩ | London, gr. 16.47↑ | |
400. | |||||
a. | ΣAPAΠI | Ө | ΣΩ | *Münz. u. Med. List 154, 34, gr. 16.52 ↖; Paris, gr. 16.86 ↖; Berlin (Sv. 44, 20), gr. 16.47; Andreopoulos Coll. | |
b. | ΣAPAΠI | Ө | ΣΦ | Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 911, gr. 16.20 | |
c. | ΣAPAΠI | Ө | ΣΦ | Berry Coll., gr. 16.20↖ | |
d. | EYNOM | I(?) | ΣΩ | Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 910 = Sv. 44, 21, gr. 16.85 | |
e. | MENAN | I | ΣΦ | London (BMC 824), gr. 16.64↑ ; Athens, gr. 16.28↑ | |
f. | MENAN | I | ΣΩ | *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.77↑; Athens (Salamis Hd.), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.66↖ | |
g. | MENAN | I | ΣΩ | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 37; Sv. 44, 22), gr. 16.65 | |
h. | AΓAӨA | K | ΣΦ/ΣΩ | Athens, gr. 15.72↑ | |
i. | AΓAӨA | K | ΣΩ | Commerce 1957 (Kessab Hd.), gr. 16.70↑ | |
j | APIΣTO | ? | ΣΩ | Berlin, gr. 16.73 | |
401. | |||||
a. | AΓAӨA | K | ΣΩ | Giesecke Coll. (Sv. 44, 24), gr. 16.74 | |
b. | AΓAӨA | Ḳ | ΣΦ/ΣΩ | *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.42↑ | |
c. | HΓHMΩ | Λ | ME | *The Hague (Sv. 44, 25), gr. 16.20 | |
d. | HΓHMΩ | Λ | ΣΩ | *Aberdeen (Newnham Davis Coll., SNG 200), gr. 16.85 (Plate 41) |
ANTIOX – KAP HEAD OF ELEPHANT
Drachms
402. | |||||
(NIK) | a. | NIKΩ | B | London, gr. 3.82; Hart Coll., gr. 3.99↑; Athens (Delos Hd. A, 8; Sv. 44, 5), letter uncertain, gr. 4.05 | |
b. | ABP | Γ | ANS-ETN, gr. 3.90↑; Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 3.95↑; Berlin (Sv. 44, 8), gr. 4.10; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 24; Sv. 44, 7), letter uncertain, gr. 3.95; Berlin, letter uncertain, gr. 3.48 | ||
c. | EIP | Δ | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.20↑ | ||
d. | ΣKY | E | *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.10↑; London, gr. 3.88; Athens (Sv. 44, 12), gr. 3.87; Paris, letter uncertain | ||
e. | EYM | Ẹ | Athens (Delos Hd. B, 26; Sv. 44, 17), gr. 3.57; Copenhagen (SNG 214), letter uncertain, gr. 3.99↑ |
ANTI – KA NO SYMBOL
Hemidrachms
403. | |||||
a. | ΣK | *Athens (Delos Hd. B, 31; Sv. 44, 14), gr. 1.80; Leningrad (Sv. 44, 15), gr. 1.24; Baltatzi Coll. (Sv. 44, 11), gr. 2.00; Berlin, gr. 1.95 | |||
b. | EY | London (BMC 325), gr. 1.88; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 27; Sv. 44, 13), gr. 2.00; Philipsen Coll. (Sv. 44, 18), gr. 2.04; Berlin, gr. 2.00 | |||
54 tetradrachms : 6 obverse, 36 reverse dies 15 drachms: 1 obverse, 5 reverse dies 8 hemidrachms: 1 obverse, 2 reverse
dies Magistrates: ANTIΛOX, NIKΩN, ABPΩN, EIPHNA, ΣKYMNOΣ, EYMAXOΣ, ΠPΩTOΓE, ΣAPAΠI, EYNOM, MENAN, AΓAӨA, HΓHMΩ, APIΣTO Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, H(?), Ө, I, K, Λ Controls: ME, ΣΦ, ΣΩ |
Two second magistrates served with ANTIOXOΣ during 163/2 b.c.: NIKOΓ for alpha and beta, KAPAIXOΣ for the remainder of the year. Again we have what seems to be a light coinage with no more than two tetradrachm obverses in simultaneous operation during any one month. No reverses are known with H —although there very likely was coinage in that month—or a date later than Λ.
Both Skymnos and Eumachos were in office during E and their order is established by Obverse 397. Die breaks in front of Athena's nose appear only on coins with the reverses of Eumachos.1 Month I may also have been shared but the amphora letter on the one die of Eunom... is not certain. The single reverse inscribed APIΣTO has been placed at the end of entry No. 400 since the amphora letter is illegible. Sundwall reads the date as Λ ? but this is not possible for the obverse die in its association with APIΣTO shows no trace of a die flaw above the protomes which is visible on some coins with ΣAPAΠI and on all later ones. In all probability APIΣTO served in H.
In the monogram placed immediately after the name of NIKΩN we have still another instance of specific identification. This is presumably a combination of K and H and may be either a patronymic or a demotic.
As long ago as 1838 the first magistrate of this striking was identified as Antiochos Epiphanes and the issue dated to 176 b.c. at which time Antiochos was living in Athens before his accession to the Syrian throne. This theory of Rathgeber 1 was adopted by Beulé who felt that the symbol was decisive confirmation of an association which might otherwise be considered dubious inasmuch as the name Antiochos was common enough in Attic prosopography. From the time of Rathgeber and Beulé the attribution of the elephant emission to Antiochos IV in 176 b.c. has been one of the few fixed points in the New Style chronology and has undoubtedly influenced the dating of the series as a whole. Beulé himself would have had difficulty in reconciling this late date with a beginning of the coinage in 323 b.c. had he attempted to place the issues in order but later numismatists who had abandoned Beulé's thesis that the series began with the death of Alexander were able to work out a plausible arrangement. The three-magistrate striking of Antiochos must have been preceded by the twenty-eight issues with monograms and abbreviated names and probably by some three-magistrate issues as well, which would push the beginnings of the coinage back into the late third century. During that period 229 b.c. was an eminently suitable date on historical grounds for a reorganization of the Athenian mint.
When Alfred Bellinger proposed a lowering of this date to c. 180 b.c. he recognized that Antiochos IV was thereby eliminated but, being reluctant to abandon the Seleucid connection entirely, he suggested another Antiochos as a candidate for the mint magistracy. The man who later was to rule as Antiochos VII was in exile at the time, that is c. 148 b.c., and Bellinger thought that the elephant issue might indicate a hitherto unsuspected connection between this prince and the city of Athens.
If, however, the New Style coinage begins c. 196 b.c. one must jettison both Antiochos IV and Antiochos VII. The date of the present issue is 163/2 b.c. which, to be sure, brings it within the short reign of Antiochos V but I doubt that anyone would seriously maintain that the child king of Syria served as mint magistrate of Athens. One could argue, of course, that fixing any striking to a single year is a hazardous procedure and that the coinage might well have started slightly earlier, say in 197 b.c., which would just barely bring the elephant issue within the lifetime of Antiochos IV. One could further argue that the mint magistracy was an honor bestowed in absentia on either Antiochos IV or V and did not imply a personal connection with the mint. Undoubtedly this was true in the later issue with the name of Mithradates but one must then explain the omission of the regnal title. Mithradates is BAΣIΛE MIӨPAΔATHΣ; why should Antiochos be merely ANTIOXOΣ ? The form would be permissible in the case of a prince, lese majesty in the case of a king.
It seems to me that we must break away entirely from the attractive but perhaps somewhat romantic theory of Rathgeber and consider whether one really need go beyond the citizen rolls of Athens for the mint magistrate Antiochos. A compilation of the officials whose names appear on the coinage (see pages 547–584) shows a frequent recurrence of names, rare ones among them, which strongly indicates that the same man served various terms with the mint, often holding the third magistracy first and later the first or second post. All three names of the annual magistrates of the elephant striking are to be found on earlier issues. A NIKOΓ is third magistrate in 167/6 (MENEΔ – EΠIΓENO) and second magistrate in 165/4 (ΠOΛYXAPM – NIKOΓ) as well as in 163/2 b.c. The name is not uncommon but the sequence of posts within a period of a few years is suggestive. Evidence is firmer in the case of KAPAIXOΣ whose name is rare; almost certainly the third magistrate of 165/4 (ΠOΛYXAPM – NIKOΓ) is the second magistrate of 163/2 and quite likely the first magistrate of KAPAIX – EPΓOKΛE about ten years later. An ANTIOXOΣ is third magistrate in 166/5 (TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO) and I believe that the same man is the first official of the issue under discussion.
Who can say why Antiochos of Athens chose a Seleucid elephant for his coinage ? It may have been nothing more than a sportive reference to his name, just as a commoner in this country, for example, whose name happened to be Romanoff might conceivably select the double-headed eagle of the tsars as his personal cachet.1 The choice could have been motivated by loftier considerations. This was the first issue of Athenian coinage after the death of Epiphanes. In adopting a Seleucid device for his coins Antiochos may have been paying tribute to the great friend and benefactor of Athens.
ӨEOΦPA – ΣΩTAΣ WINGED FULMEN 162/1 b.c.
(Plate 41)
Teiradrachms
401. | |||||
a. | HΓHMΩ | ? | ME | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 162; Sv. 48, 4), gr. 16.45↑ | |
b. | HPAKΩN | A | ΣΦ | *Yale Univ., gr. 16.67↑ | |
404. | |||||
HPAKΩN | A | ΣΦ | *Paris, gr. 16.58↑; London, gr. 15.07↑ | ||
405. | |||||
a. | HPAKΩN | A | ΣΩ | Athens | |
b. | HPAKΩN | A | ΣΩ | Budapest, gr. 16.85↑ | |
c. | HPAKΩN | Ạ | ME | Paris, gr. 15.68↑ | |
d. | ΦIΛHM | B | ΣΦ | 8Berlin, gr. 16.47 | |
e. | ΦIΛHM | B | ΣΦ | Copenhagen (SNG 236; Sv. 48, 2), gr. 16.92↑ | |
406. | |||||
a. | HΓHMΩ | Ạ | ΣΩ | *Empedocles Coll. | |
b. | HPAKΩN | A | ΣΩ | Stamires Coll. = Jameson 1195 (Sv. 48, 1) = Sotheby (Delbeke) 156, gr. 16.92↑ | |
c. | HPAKΩN | A | ΣΩ | L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.70 | |
d. | HPAKΩN | A | ME | ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.90↑ | |
e. | HPAKΩN | Ạ | ΣΦA | Vatican | |
f. | ΦIΛHM | B | ΣΦ | Paris, gr. 16.85↑; Berry Coll., gr. 16.77↑ | |
g. | ΦIΛHM | B | ΣΩ | ANS-ETN = Ratto (Rogers) 368, gr. 16.85↑; Lockett Coll. (SNG 1925) = Ratto, Apr. 1927, 1385, gr. 16.75↑ | |
h. | ΦIΛHM | B | ΣΩ | Berlin | |
i. | ΦIΛHM | Ḅ | ΣΩ | Doyle Coll., gr. 16.73↑ | |
j. | EYKΛHΣ | Γ | ΣΩ | The Hague, gr. 16.75 | |
407. | |||||
a. | EYKΛHΣ | Γ | ΣΩ | Berlin (Sv. 48, 8). gr. 16.19 | |
b. | EYKΛHΣ | ΣΦ | *London, gr. 16.28↑ | ||
c. | ΠEIΣΩN | ? | ΣΦ | London (BMC 427), gr. 16.19↑ | |
d. | ΣΩKPA | E | ΣΩ | Marseilles (Sv. 48, 5), gr. 16.90 | |
408. | |||||
a. | ΣΩKPA | E | ME | Cambridge (SNG 3211), gr. 16.65↑ | |
b. | ΠTOΛYKΛH | ? | ΣΦ | Leningrad (Sv. 48, 6), gr. 15.661 | |
c. | AΠOΛΛΩ | H | ΣΩ | *Romanos Coll. (Sv. 48, 7, commerce), gr. 16.64 | |
d. | AΠOΛΛΩ | H | ΣΦ | ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.72↑ | |
e. | ΛAIN | Ө | ΣΩ | Vatican (Sv. 48, 8), gr. 16.80; Berlin, gr. 16.00 | |
409. | |||||
a. | APIΣT | I(?) | ΣΦ | Romanos Coll. (Sv. 48, 9), gr. 16.38 | |
b. | AMΦIK | K | ME | ANS = Naville (Bement) 1126, gr. 16.85↑ | |
c. | AMΦIK | K | ME | Glasgow (Hunt. 111), gr. 16.45 ↖ | |
d. | AMΦIK | Ḳ | ME | ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.20↑ | |
e. | NIKOK | M | ME | *Paris (de Luynes 2098; Sv. 48, 11), gr. 16.90↑ | |
f. | NIKOK | M | ΣΩ | *Stephens Coll. | |
g. | ΦAΛAI | N | ΣΦ | Metaxas Coll. (Sv. 48, 12), gr. 16.97; Vienna, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.56 | |
h. | ΦAΛAI | ? | ME | Berlin, gr. 16.62 | |
410. | |||||
a. | AMΦIK | K | ΣΦ | *Lyons; Berlin (Sv. 48, 10), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.66 | |
b. | NIKOK | Λ | ΣΩ | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.97 ↖ | |
c. | ΦAΛAI | N | ΣΩ | *Empedocles Coll. = Mavrokordatou Coll. (JIAN, 1912, 1326), gr. 16.75 |
ӨEOΦP–ΣΩT
Drachms
411. | |||||
a. | HPA | A | London, gr. 4.10; Berlin (Sv. 48, 14), gr. 3.95 | ||
(ӨEOΦA) | b. | ΦIΛ | B | *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.27↑; Gotha, letter uncertain, gr. 3.86; Athens (Sv. 48, 15), letter uncertain, gr. 4.11 | |
c. | ΠOΛ | I | London, gr. 4.02; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 116; Sv. 48, 16), gr. 3.95 | ||
d. | ΠOΛ | I | ANS-ETN, gr. 4.00↑ | ||
e. | AΠO | ? | Knobloch Coll., gr. 3.92 | ||
f. | ΛA | London, gr. 8.51; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 117; Sv. 48, 17), letter uncertain, gr. 4.05; Glasgow (Hunt.112), letter uncertain, gr. 3.89 |
g. | API | ? | Athens (Sv. 48, 18), gr. 4.13 | ||
(ӨEOΦ) | h. | AM | Ḳ | Vienna (Sv. 48, 19), gr. 3.72 | |
i. | NI | ? | Berlin, gr. 4.11 |
ӨE–ΣΩ
Hemidrachm
412. | |||||
AP | *Athens (Sv. 48, 20), gr. 1.51↑ | ||||
44 tetradrachms : 8 obverse, 84 reverse dies 15 drachms: 1 obverse, 9 reverse dies 1 hemidrachm Magistrates: HΓHMΩ, HPAKΩN, ΦIΛHM, EYKΛHΣ, ΠEIΣΩN, ΣΩKPA, ΠOΛYKΛH, AΠOΛΛΩ, ΛAIN, APIΣT, AMΦIK, NIKOK, ΦAΛAI Months: A, B, Γ, Δ(?), E, Z, H, Ө, I(?), K, Λ, M, N Controls: ME, ΣΦ(A), ΣΩ |
The transfer of Obverse 401 from the issue of ANTIOXOΣ – KAPAIXOΣ to that of ӨEOΦPA – ΣΩTAΣ establishes the contiguity of the two strikings. It is noteworthy that the same third magistrate, HΓHMΩ, served for the last month of 163/2 and at the very beginning of 162/1 b.c. His service during the latter year cannot be fixed by the amphora letters, which are indistinct on both the Athens and Empedocles coins, but die flaws connected with Obverse 406 determine the sequence of magistrates. An imperfection in the cleft of the chin is faint on No. 406a, small but clear on Nos. 406b–e and pronounced on Nos. 406f–j; a break below the chin is invisible on No. 406a, noticeable on all specimens struck from the reverse dies of HPAKΩN, ΦIΛHM and EYKΛHΣ.
HPAKΩN, as given by Svoronos, is the correct form of the name. Beulé, Sundwall and Kambanis record HPAKΛΩN, but the Λ is definitely omitted as in the case of HPAKΩ, third magistrate under HPA – APIΣTOΦ.
Although the amphora letter of No. 407c is uncertain, ΠEIΣΩN is known to have held office during delta on the evidence of a Halmyros Hoard coin listed by Kambanis. No. 410b is our only proof that NIKOK served during Λ as well as M. Except for this overlapping and the division of responsibility during A, the correlation of third magistrates and months is regular. Two reverse dies indubitably inscribed N indicate an intercalary year.
ΔIOΓE – ΠOΣEI DIONYSOS 161/0 b.c.
(Plate 42)
Tetradrachms
413. | |||||
EΣTI[AI]OΣ | A | ΣΦ | *Petsalis Coll. = Baltatzi Coll. (Sv. 46, 2) = Mavrokordatou Coll. (JIAN, 1912, 1316), gr. 16.74↑ | ||
414. | |||||
a. | EΣTIAIOΣ | A | ME | *Milan (Sv.46, 1), gr. 16.68; Vienna, gr. 16.20 | |
b. | ΔHMH | B | ME | Berlin, gr. 16.58; Berlin, gr. 16.72; Athens, gr. 16.90 | |
415. | |||||
a. | EΣTIAIOΣ | A | ΣΦ | Moscow | |
b. | ΔHMH | B | ΣΦ | *Copenhagen (SNG 223), gr. 16.87↑ | |
c. | ΔHMH | B | ΔI | London (BMC 372), gr. 16.56 ↖ | |
d. | ΔHMH | B | ΔI | *Paris, gr. 16.25↑ | |
e. | ΔHMH | B | ME | Paris, gr. 16.39↑ | |
f. | ΔIO | Γ | ME | Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 3204), gr. 16.86↑; Glasgow (Hunt.108), gr. 16.61↑ | |
g. | ΔIO | Γ | ME | Berlin, gr. 15.92 | |
h. | ΔIO | ME | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.65 ↖ | ||
416. | |||||
a. | ΔHMH | B | ΔI | Berlin, gr. 16.38 | |
b. | ΔHMH | B | ΔI | *Paris (de Luynes 2095; Sv. 46, 8), gr. 16.85↑ | |
c. | ΔHMH | B | ΔI | *Romanos Coll. | |
d. | ΔHMH | B | ΣΦ | Karlsruhe; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 67 ; Sv. 46, 4), gr. 16.75 | |
e. | ΔHMH | B | ΣΦ | Athens, gr. 16.90↑ | |
f. | ΔIO | Γ | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 68; Sv. 46, 5), gr. 16.70↑ | |
g. | ΔIO | Ị | London (BMC 373), gr. 16.49↑ | ||
h. | ΦIΛIΩ | Ẹ | ME | Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.52↑ | |
i. | ΦIΛIΩ | E | ΔI | Athens, gr. 16.22↑ | |
416X. | |||||
HΓEMA | Ẹ | ΣΦ | *Berlin, gr. 16.82 | ||
417. | |||||
a. | HΓEMA | E | ΔI | Berlin (Sv. 46, 6), gr. 16.20 | |
b. | HΓEMA | E | ME | *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.37↑ | |
c. | HΓEMA | ? | ME | Commerce 1958; Berlin, gr. 15.81 | |
d. | ΔΩPOӨE | I | ΣΦ | Copenhagen (SNG 224), gr. 16.74↑ | |
e. | ΔΩPOӨE | Ị | ME | Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 927, gr. 17.50 (sic) | |
f. | ΔΩPOӨE | ? | ? | Paris, gr. 16.42↑ | |
g. | ӨEOΔOT | H | ΔI | Romanos Coll.; Zygman Coll., gr. 16.81↑; Athens, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.45↑ | |
h. | ӨEOΔOT | ? | ME | Budapest, gr. 16.67↑ | |
i. | EPMOKPA | Ө | ME | Stathatou Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Berlin (Sv. 46, 9), gr. 16.77; Johns Hopkins Univ., gr. 16.66 | |
418. | |||||
a. | ΔΩPOӨE | I | ΔI | *Berlin (Sv. 46, 7), gr. 16.19 | |
b. | ӨEOΔOT | Ḥ | ΣΦ | Berlin (Sv. 46, 8), gr. 16.44 | |
c. | EPMOKPA | ΔI | *The Hague, gr. 16.50 |
ΠTOΣEIΣ THYRSOS
Drachms
419. | |||||
(Filleted thyrsos) | a. | EΣTI | A | London, gr. 4.02; Petsalis Coll., gr. 3.78 | |
b. | ΔH | ? | *Vienna, gr. 3.65; Athens (Delos Hd. A, 11; Sv. 46, 10), gr. 3.92↑; Munich | ||
c. | ΔI | ? | Athens (Delos Hd. B, 46; S v. 46, 11), gr. 3.45↑1 | ||
d. | KA | ? | Athens (Delos Hd. B, 47; Sv. 46, 12), gr. 3.95↑; Basel, gr. 3.47↑; Vienna, gr. 3.35; London, gr. 3.97; Glasgow (Hunt.105), gr. 8.88; Petsalis Coll., gr.3.56↖; Berlin, gr.4.18 |
ΔIOΓ–ΠO NO SYMBOL
Hemidrachms
420. | |||||
KA | *Cambridge (Grose 5908; Sv. 46, 13), gr. 1.87↑; Berlin (Sv. 46, 14), gr. 1.91; London (BMC 374), gr. 1.85 |
43 tetradrachms : 7 obverse, 32 reverse dies 13 drachms: 1 obverse, 4 reverse dies 3 hemidrachms: 1 obverse, 1 reverse
die Magistrates: EΣTIAIOΣ, ΔHMH, ΔIO, ΦIΛIΩ, HΓEMA, ΔΩPOӨE, ӨEOΔOT, EPMOKPA, KA(ΛΛIΦΩN) Months: A, B, Γ, E, Z, H, Ө Controls: ΔI, ME, ΣΦ |
The standing figure used as a symbol by ΔIOΓE–ΠOΣEI is described by Beulé as Dionysos, by Sundwall and Kambanis as Demeter and by Head in the Historia Numorum as either Dionysos with thyrsos or Demeter with sceptre. On the tetradrachms the long staff held in the raised left hand has a pronounced bulbous termination indicative of the thyrsos; on the drachms, which have only the staff as a symbol, the representation is certainly that of a thyrsos. Some reverses (cf. Nos. 413 and 414a) clearly show a small kantharos in the outstretched right hand. The rather elaborate corolla might be either ivy or grain but the other attributes are sufficient to identify the figure as Dionysos.
ΠOΣEI is found on a number of reverses. On others only ΠOΣE is used and on still others the final I is confused with the wreath or off flan so that the original form of the inscription cannot be determined.
This again is a light coinage judged by surviving dies and specimens. It seems to have been concentrated in the early months of the year with no striking in Δ and nothing after Ө. Two magistrates, ΦIΛIΩ and HΓEMA, served in month E. There is no evidence for their order save that the one obverse known to have been used by ΦIΛIΩ is otherwise associated with months B and Γ while one of HΓEMA continues in operation during Z, H and Ө.
In the present catalogue the magistrate KA is recorded only on the fractional coinage. Beulé, however, lists a Turin tetradrachm with KAΛΛIΦΩN.1 Although this is not included among the entries of Svoronos and Kambanis, there is no reason to reject the precise reading given by Beulé. The amphora letter on the Turin coin is described as "M écrasé" ; until this somewhat dubious reading can be verified it seems advisable to regard the exact month of Kalliphon's tenure as uncertain.
AXAIOΣ – HΛI CORNUCOPIAE WITH GRAIN 160/59 b.c.
(Plate 48)
Tetradrachms
421. | |||||
a. | EYΔHMOΣ | Γ | ΔI | Berlin, gr. 16.53 | |
b. | EYΔHMOΣ | ? | ṂẸ | Athens (Delos Hd. B, 38), gr. 15.70↑ | |
c. | IΠΠONIKOΣ | Δ | ME | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 55; Sv. 45, 23), gr. 16.60 | |
d. | KΛEAPX | E | ME | *Paris, gr. 16.75↑ | |
e. | KΛEAPX | E | ME | Marseilles (Sv. 45, 24), gr. 16.80 | |
f. | EYΔH | Ị | ME | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 16.03↑; The Hague, control letters uncertain, gr. 16.70 | |
g. | EYΔH | ? | ME | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 60), gr. 16.45↑ | |
h. | HPAKΛEI | ṂẸ | Leipzig | ||
422. | |||||
a. | EYΔHMOΣ | Γ | ΣΦ | London, gr. 15.68↑; Berlin, gr. 16.71 | |
b. | NIKANΩP | Ө(?) | ME | Berlin, gr. 15.77 | |
c. | EPMOKPA | Ө | ME | *ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.47↑; Berlin (Sv. 45, 28), gr. 16.73; Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 16.56↑ | |
d. | EPMOKPA | Ө | ΣΦ | ANS-ETN = Ratto (Rogers) 357, gr. 16.77↑ | |
e. | EPMOKPA | Ө | ΔI | Copenhagen (SNG 221), gr. 16.77↑ | |
423. | |||||
a. | EYΔHMOΣ | Γ | ΣΦ | *Romanos Coll. (Sv. 45, 22), gr. 16.98; London, gr. 16.54↖ | |
b. | EYΔHMOΣ | ? | ΔI | Athens, gr. 16.05↑ | |
c. | NIKANΩN | ΣΦ | Berlin, gr. 16.12 | ||
d. | IϬϬΠONIKOΣ | ? | ΣΦ | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.73↖ | |
e. | EYΔH | I | ΔI | Copenhagen (SNG 220; Sv. 45, 26), gr. 16.88↑; ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.22↑; Romanos Coll.; Athens, gr. 16.20↑ | |
f. | EPMOKPA | Ө | ΔI | Stack's (Berlin) 1098 = Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 919 = Sv. 45, 27, gr. 16.65 | |
g. | HPAKΛEI | Ө | ΔI | Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 920, gr. 16.80 | |
h. | HPAKΛEI | Ө | ΔI | Cambridge (Grose 5904), gr. 16.25↑ | |
i. | HPAKΛEI | Ө | ? | Vienna, gr. 16.63 | |
j. | HPAKΛEI | ΣΦ | Berlin, gr. 16.05 | ||
424. | |||||
a. | IΠΠONIKOΣ | Δ | ΔI | L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.40 | |
b. | KΛEAPX | E | ? | *Sicelianos Coll. | |
c. | KΛEAPX | I | ME | Berlin (Sv. 45, 25), gr. 16.22; Glasgow (Hunt.100), gr. 16.60↑ | |
d. | KΛEAPX | ? | ΔI | Berlin, gr. 16.19 | |
418. | |||||
EPMOKPA | ? | ΔI | *Paris, gr. 16.20↑ | ||
425. | |||||
a. | HPAKΛEI | Ө | ME | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.68↑; Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.56↑; Berlin, gr. 16.42 | |
b. | ΠYӨOKΛHΣ | ? | ME | Berlin, gr. 16.55 | |
c. | AΠOΛΛOΔΩ | K | ΔI | Platt, Coll. A (Fx.Pr.) 313 = Florange-Ciani (Barrachin) 218, gr. 16.70 | |
d. | AΠOΛΛOΔΩ | K | ? | Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 922, gr. 16.70 | |
e. | AΠOΛΛOΔ | ? | ΣΦ | Berlin, gr. 16.66 | |
f. | AΠOΛΛOΔΩ | ? | ? | Athens | |
g. | MHTPOΔΩ | Λ | ME | * Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 58; Sv. 45, 31), gr. 16.75↑ | |
h. | MHTPOΔΩ | ? | ? | Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.45↑ | |
i. | ΣΩΣIBIOΣ | M | ME | Kambanis Coll. | |
j | ΣΩΣIBIOΣ | M | ME | *Berlin, gr. 16.69; Mass. Hist. Soc., gr. 15.87 | |
k. | ΣΩΣIBIOΣ | M | ME | ANS-ETN, gr. 16.32↑ | |
l. | ΣΩΣIBIOΣ | ? | ME | Evelpidis Coll., gr. 16.13 | |
426. | |||||
a. | ΠYӨOKΛHΣ | I | ME | Feuardent (Collignon) 257 | |
b. | ΠYӨOKΛHΣ | I | ΔI | London (BMC 350), gr. 16.70↖ | |
c. | ΠYӨOKΛHΣ | I | ΣΦ | Paris (de Luynes 2091), gr. 16.82 ↖; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 39), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 14.45 (crystallized)↑ | |
d. | ΠYӨOKΛHΣ | Ị | ? | Florange-Ciani, Oct. 1923, 22 | |
e. | AΠOΛΛOΔΩ | K | ME | Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 921, gr. 16.70 | |
f. | AΠOΛΛOΔ | K | ME | *Paris, gr. 16.50 ↖; ANS, gr. 16.76 ↖; ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.07 ↖ | |
g. | AΠOΛΛOΔΩ | K | ΣΦ | Paris (de Luynes 2092), gr. 16.80↖; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 57), gr. 16.70↑; Paris, gr. 16.87 ↖ | |
h. | AΠOΛΛOΔ | K | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 56; Sv. 45, 30), gr. 16.70 | |
i. | MHTPOΔΩ | Λ | ΣΦ | Paris (de Luynes 2093), gr. 17.83 (sic)↑ | |
j. | MHTPOΔΩ | Λ | ΔI | ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.27↑; London (BMC 351), gr. 16.37↑ | |
k. | MHTPOΔΩ | ? | ΔI | Berlin, gr. 16.01 | |
l. | ΣΩΣIBIOΣ | M | ΣΦ | Paris (Sv. 45, 32), gr. 16.88↑; Ottaway Coll., gr. 16.67 ↖ | |
m. | ΣΩΣIBIOΣ | M | ΣΦ | Halmyros Hd. | |
427. | |||||
a. | ΠYӨOKΛHΣ | I | ΣΦ | Berlin (Sv. 45, 29), gr. 16.88 | |
b. | ΠYӨOKΛHΣ | Ị | ? | *Chiha Coll. | |
c. | AΠOΛΛOΔΩ | K | ΔI | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 16.12 ↖ | |
d. | AΠOΛΛOΔ | K | ? | Schlessinger (Hermitage 1) 186 = Hess 208, 449, gr. 16.80 | |
e. | MHTPOΔΩ | Π | ME | Giesecke Coll., gr. 16.71 | |
f. | MHTPOΔΩ | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 59), gr. 16.55 ↖ | ||
g. | ΣΩΣIBIOΣ | ? | ΔI | ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.09 ↖ |
AXAI – HΛI CORNUCOPIAE
Drachms
411. | ||||
(AX–HΛ) | a. | EY | Γ | Berlin, gr. 4.09; Athens (Sv. 45, 33), gr. 4.10 |
b. | IΠΠO | Copenhagen (SNG 222), gr. 3.99↑; Gotha, gr. 3.91; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 37; Sv. 45, 34), gr. 3.85; Berlin, gr. 3.81 | ||
(AXA) | c. | EPM | Ө | *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.21↑; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 170; Sv. 45, 35), gr. 4.10 |
AX–HΛI
Hemidrachms
428. | |||||
NIK | *Athens, gr. 1.85↑; Herakleion | ||||
79 tetradrachms: 8 obverse, 56 reverse dies 8 drachms: 1 obverse, 3 reverse dies 2 hemidrachms: 1 obverse, 1 reverse
die Magistrates: EYΔHMOΣ, NIKANΩN, IΠΠONIKOΣ, KΛEAPX, EYΔH, NIKANΩP, EPMOKPA, HPAKΛEI, ΠYӨOKΛHΣ, AΠOΛΛOΔΩ, MHTPOΔΩ, ΣΩΣIBIOΣ Months: Γ, Δ, E, Z, Ө, I, K, Λ, M Controls: ΔI, ME, ΣΦ |
Beulé records NIKANΩP as the magistrate on a Berlin coin; the reading is corrected by Sundwall to NIKANΩN and the latter form is repeated by Kambanis who lists two Berlin specimens with the name of Nikanon. Both names are found on the tetradrachms of the Berlin Cabinet. Since each is inscribed on a single reverse die, the possibility exists that the unusual NIKANΩN is a diecutter's error for NIKANΩP. However, the magistrates are seemingly associated with different months; neither amphora letter is clear but Berlin reads Γ as likely with NIKANΩN and Ө as the most probable date for NIKANΩP.
Two dies carry over from earlier issues into the emission of AXAIOΣ – HΛI. Both links present certain problems. Obverse 418 was used for tetradrachms of months Z, H and Ө under ΔIOΓE–ΠOΣEI. The same die was employed for sinkings of month Ө under AXAIOΣ – HΛI. On Plate 42 coins of the two years are in juxtaposition and one can see on the AXAIOΣ – HΛI specimen a die break at the top extending from the helmet crest through the border of dots which does not appear on any of the ΔIOΓE –ΠOΣEI pieces. It is fortunate that we have this indication of the order for the amphora letters provide no decisive evidence. The longevity of Obverse 418 is somewhat startling but the span of months is not so extensive as it seems at first glance. Theta is the last month during which coinage is recorded for ΔIOΓE–ΓTOΣEI and the ensuing emission of AXAIOΣ – HΛI is sparsely represented in the early months of the year. No specimens are known to have been struck in A, B and H. This means that the life of Obverse 418, if one assumes continuous use for all months of minting operation, extended over seven or eight months. Certainly this is a long time for a single die but such durability is not unique. During the magistracy of HPA – APIΣTOΦ, for example, Obverse 335 is known to have been employed for at least seven months (E through Λ). And there is, of course, the possibility, which is strengthened by the fact that our record shows coinage for only the one month under AXAIOΣ – HΛI, that the die was not in continuous use. It may have been put aside as still serviceable at the end of the one year and then overlooked during the early months of the next. It is curious that the same third magistrate, EPMOKPA, is associated with this die in the final month of 161/0 and again with its re-appearance in 160/59 b.c. One wonders if some responsibility on the part of the third magistrate for custody of the dies may be indicated.
The second link, illustrated on Plate 43, is in the fractional coinage. Obverse 411, the one die used for drachms of ӨEOΦPA –ΣΩTAΣ, is still in service two years later under AXAIOΣ – HΛI. For the intervening drachms of ΔIOΓE –ΓTOΣEI we have a different die, No. 419. It seems likely, however, that our evidence is incomplete and that Obverse 411 was employed over all three years, in association with Obverse 419 during 161/0 and alone for the earlier and later issues. The fractional coinage of the three years is scanty: 36 coins, 2 obverse and 16 reverse dies in all. Fifteen reverses are recorded in combination with a single tetradrachm obverse (No. 379 of ΠOΛYXAPM – NIKOΓ); it would not be surprising to find one obverse coupled with an even greater number of reverses in the relatively light drachm coinage.
ΛYΣAN –ΓΛAYKOΣ CICADA 159/8 b.c.
(Plates 30–31)
Tetradrachms
429. | |||||
a | IEPΩ | A | ME | *Marseilles (Sv. 48, 21), gr. 16.80 | |
b | IEPΩ | A | ME | Wilkinson Coll. = Lockett Coll. (SNG 1928) =, Ratto (Rogers) 369, gr. 16.63↑ | |
c. | IEPΩ | A | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 14.50↑ | |
d. | IEPΩ | ? | ME | Berlin, gr. 16.59 | |
e. | NIKΩ | B | ΣΦ | Paris (de Luynes 2100), gr. 16.85↑; Lockett Coll. (SNG 1929) = Ratto (Rogers) 370, gr. 16.34↑ | |
f. | NIKΩN | Ḅ | ME | Oxford, gr. 16.57↑ | |
430. | |||||
a. | IEPΩ | ? | ΣΦ | *Tübingen, gr. 16.58 | |
b. | AӨHNOΔΩ | Γ | ? | Hess (Otto) 448, gr. 16.79 | |
c. | AӨHNOΔΩ | ? | ΣΦ | Athens, gr. 16.95↑ | |
d. | KΛEOΦAN | Δ | ΣΩ | Athens, gr. 16.45↑; London, control letters uncertain, gr. 16.02↑1 | |
431. | |||||
a. | IEPΩ | A | ΣΦ | Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 8212), gr. 16.83↑ | |
b. | NIKΩN | B | ME | *Berlin, gr. 16.83; Paris, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.85↑ | |
c. | NIKΩN | B | ΣΦ | London (BMC 438), gr. 16.52↑ | |
d. | KΛEOΦAN | Δ | ME | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.46↖ | |
e. | KΛEOΦAN | ? | ΣΦ | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.39↖ | |
f. | KΛEOΦAN | ? | ? | Herakleion (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.58↖ | |
g. | MENEΔ | E | ΣΦ | ANS-ETN, gr. 16.56↑; Berlin, gr. 16.42 | |
h. | MENEΔ | E | ΣΦ | L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 15.70 | |
i. | MENEΔ | E | ME | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 168), gr. 16.78↑ | |
j. | MENEΔ | ? | ? | Herakleion (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.51↖ | |
432. | |||||
a. | NIKΩN | B | ME | Mass. Hist. Soc., gr. 14.502 | |
a. | AӨHNOΔΩ | Γ | ME | *Romanos Coll.; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 167), gr. 16.60↑ | |
c. | AӨHNOΔΩ | Γ | ΣΩ | Berlin (Sv. 48, 22), gr. 16.76 | |
d. | KΛEOΦAN | Δ | ΣΦ | Paris (de Luynes 2101), gr. 16.80↑; Vienna, gr. 16.55; Berlin, gr. 16.89 |
e. | KΛEOΦAN | Δ | ME | London (BMC 439; Sv. 48, 23), gr. 16.75↑; Athens, amphora letter uncertain! | |
f. | MENEΔ | E | ME | Dewing Coll., gr. 16.46; Gotha, gr. 16.60; Berlin, gr. 16.51 | |
g. | MENEΔ | E | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 171), gr. 16.60↑ | |
h. | MENEΔ | E | ṂẸ | Copenhagen (SNG 287), gr. 16.73↑ | |
i. | MENEΔ | Ẹ | ME | Berlin, gr. 16.40 | |
433. | |||||
a. | MENEΔ | E | ΣΩ | *London (BMC 440), gr. 16.50↖ | |
b. | MENEΔ | E | ΣΦ | Berlin (Sv. 48, 24), gr. 16.13 | |
c. | MENEΔ | E | ΣΩ | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 169), gr. 16.50↑; Berlin, gr. 16.71 | |
d. | ΔAMΩN | H | ΣΩ | Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 3213; Sv. 48, 25), gr. 16.87↑ | |
e. | ΦIΛOKPA | Ө | ΣΩ | Berlin, gr. 16.52 | |
434. | |||||
a. | MENEΔ | E | ME | Athens, gr. 16.45↑ | |
b. | ΔAMΩN | Ḥ | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 176), gr. 16.73↑ | |
c | ΦIΛOKPA Ө | Ө | ΣΦ | *A. Morgan Coll., gr. 16.81↖ | |
d. | ΦIΛOKPA | Ө | ΣΩ | Glasgow (Hunt.114), gr. 16.52↑ | |
e. | ΦIΛOKPA | ? | ME | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 172; Sv. 48, 26), grgr. 16.75↑ | |
f. | NIKOΔΩ | K | ΣΦ | Berlin, gr. 16.76 | |
g. | NIKOΔΩ | K | ΣΦ | Tübingen, gr. 16.18 | |
435. | |||||
a. | ΔAMΩN | Ḥ | ME | Athens, gr. 16.10↑ | |
b. | ΦIΛOKPA | Ө | ΣΦ | Vienna, gr. 16.64; London, amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.51↑ | |
c. | ΦIΛOKPA | Ө | ΣΦ | Andreopoulos Coll. | |
d. | ΦIΛOKPA | Ө | ME | Vienna, gr. 16.64 | |
e | AӨHNOBI | I | ME | *Paris (Sv. 48, 27), gr. 16.85↖; Athens (Delos Hd. ΠH), control letters uncertain, gr. 16.10↑ | |
f. | AӨHNOBI | I | ME | Vienna, gr. 16.47; Berry Coll., gr. 16.69↑ ; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 175), gr. 16.60↑ | |
g. | NIKOΔΩ | K | ME | Copenhagen (SNG 238), gr. 16.88↑ | |
h. | NIKOΔΩ | K | ME | Vatican | |
436. | |||||
a. | ΦIΛOKPA | Ө | ME | Berlin, gr. 16.68; Athens (Delos Hd. ΠH), gr. 15.80↑ | |
b. | AӨHNOBI | I | ΣΦ | *Romanos Coll. (Sv. 48, 28, commerce), gr. 17.03 | |
c. | NIKOΔΩ | K | ΣΦ | ANS-ETN, gr.16.64↑; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 177), gr. 16.40↑ | |
d. | NIKOΔΩ | K | ΣΦ | Sicelianos Coll. | |
437. | |||||
a. | NIKOΔΩ | K | ME | Athens | |
b. | NIKOΔΩ | K | ME | *Athens (Sv. 48, 29), gr. 16.47↑ | |
c. | NIKANΩP | Λ | ΣΦ | Paris, gr. 16.79↑ | |
d. | NIKANΩP | Λ | ΣΦ | Vienna, gr. 16.67 | |
e. | NIKANΩP | Λ | ΣΦ | Naples (Mus. Naz., Fiorelli 7146), gr. 16.37↑ | |
f. | NIKANΩP | ΣΦ | Berlin, gr. 16.34 | ||
438. | |||||
a. | NIKA NIKANΩP (sic) | Λ | ΣΩ | *Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 173; Sv. 48, 30), gr. 16.75↑ The Hague, gr. 16.75; Paris, amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.72↑ | |
b. | NIKANΩP | Λ | ΣΩ | Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 941, gr. 16.50 | |
c. | NIKANΩP | Λ | ΣΩ | London (BMC 442), gr. 16.38↑ | |
d. | NIKANΩP | ME | Paris, gr. 16.33↑ | ||
e. | NIKANΩP | Λ | ? | Kambanis Coll.; Stuttgart, amphora letter uncertain | |
f. | NIKANΩP | Λ | ? | Zurich | |
439. | |||||
a. | NIKANΩP | Λ | ΣΦ | Berlin, gr. 16.30 | |
b. | NIKANΩP | Λ | ME | *Paris (de Luynes 2103), gr. 16.92↑ ANS, gr. 16.67↑; Tübingen, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.05 | |
c. | NIKANΩP | ? | ME | Berlin, gr. 15.74 |
ΛY–ΓΛA
Drachms
440. | ||||
a. | ΦIΛO | Ө | * Vienna, gr. 3.90; Berlin (Sv. 48, 31), gr. 3.84; London (BMC 441), gr. 4.10; Paris, letter uncertain; Munich, letter uncertain, gr. 3.85 | |
b. | ΦIΛO | Ө | ANS, gr. 8.46↑; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 123), gr. 3.80↑; Cancio Coll., gr. 3.91↑; Copenhagen (SNG 239), letter uncertain, gr. 3.87↑ | |
440X. | ||||
ΦIΛO | Ө | *London, gr. 3.99 | ||
91 tetradrachms : 11 obverse, 65 reverse dies 10 drachms: 2 obverse, 2 reverse dies Magistrates: IEPΩ, NIKΩN, AӨHNOΔΩ, KΛEOΦAN, MENEΔ, ΔAMΩN, ΦIΛOKPA, AӨHNOBI, NIKOΔΩ, NIKANΩP Months:A, B, Γ Δ, E, H, Ө, I, K, Λ Controls:ME, ΣΦ, ΣΩ |
There is little that is noteworthy about this striking. The coinage is evenly distributed over the year with an orderly sequence of third magistrates and month letters. No money was apparently issued after lambda and none is recorded for zeta in the present catalogue. For the latter month Beulé, followed by Sundwall, does list two coins with AӨHN OBI and Z (one entry is queried), but in Kambanis' notebooks all specimens with the name of that magistrate have I on the amphora.
EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣANΔPOΣ EAGLE ON FULMEN 158/7 b.c.
(Plates 45–46)
Tetradrachms
441. | |||||
a. | KAΛIKPA | A | ME | *Kambanis Coll.; Ratto (Rogers) 360, gr. 16.45 | |
b. | KAΛIKPA | A | ME | Berlin, gr. 16.79 | |
c. | KAΛIKPA | A | ΔI | Berlin, gr. 16.52; Kambanis Coll., control letters uncertain | |
d. | KAΛIKPA | A | ΔI | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.69↑ | |
e. | KAΛIKPA | Ạ | ΔI | Paris, gr. 16.17 ↖ | |
f. | KAΛIKPA | Ạ | ΔI | Vienna, gr. 16.61; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.53↑ | |
g. | KAΛIKPA | ? | ME | Hannover, gr. 16.24 | |
h. | KAΛIKPA | ? | ? | Cambridge (Grose 5905), gr. 16.75↑ | |
i. | MOΣXI | B | ΣI | Athens, gr. 16.60↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr.16.69↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.60↑; Commerce 1955 | |
442. | |||||
a. | KAΛIKPA | A | ME | *London (BMC 394), gr. 16.81↑; ANS-ETN, gr. 16.42↑ | |
b. | KAΛIKPA | A | ME | Leningrad (Sv. 47, 1), gr. 16.73; Giesecke Coll., gr. 16.66; Copenhagen (SNG 226), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.31↑ | |
c. | KAΛIKPA | A | ΣΦ | *ANS-Gautier, gr. 16.48↑; Berlin, gr. 16.41 | |
d. | KAΛIKPA | A | ΣΦ | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.62↑; The Hague, amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 15.75 | |
e. | KAΛIKPA | ? | ME | Athens, gr. 16.50↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.53↑ | |
f. | MOΣXI | B | ME | Paris (de Luynes 2107), gr. 16.70↖ | |
g. | MOΣXI | B | ME | Vienna, gr. 16.60 | |
h. | MOΣXI | B | ΣΦ | Copenhagen (SNG 227), gr. 16.50↑ | |
443. | |||||
a. | KAΛΛIKPA | A | ΣΦ | *Romanos Coll. (Sv. 47, 2, commerce), gr. 16.79; Ratto (Rogers) 361, gr. 16.63; Istanbul, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.50↑ | |
b. | KAΛΛIKPA | A | ME | Naville (Bement) 1123, gr. 16.65 | |
c. | KAΛΛIKPA | ? | ME | London, gr. 16.22↖ | |
d. | KAΛΛIKPA | ? | ΔI | Tübingen, gr. 16.80 | |
e. | KAΛΛIKPA | ? | ΣΦ | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.54↑ | |
f. | MOΣXI | B | ΣΦ | Mrs. E. T. Newell Coll.; Berlin, gr. 16.68 | |
g. | MOΣXI | B | ΣΦ | *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.68↑ | |
h. | MOΣXI | B | ΣΦ | Mrs. E. T. Newell Coll. = Ratto (Rogers) 362 = Sv. 47, 3, commerce, gr. 16.70; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.58↑ | |
i. | MOΣXI | B | ME | Paris, gr. 16.50 ↖ | |
j. | MOΣXI | B | HPA | Kambanis Coll.; Paris, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.62↑ | |
k. | MOΣXI | B | HPA | Piraeus Hd., gr. 16.56 | |
l. | MOΣXI | B | HPA | Naples (Mus. Naz., Fiorelli 7149), gr. 16.23↖ | |
m. | EYMH | Γ | ΣΦ | Vatican; Gotha, amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.60 | |
n. | EYMH | Γ | ΣΦ | Athens, gr. 16.67↖ | |
o. | EYMH | Γ | ΣΦ | Krichcldorf, Oct. 1955, 849, gr. 16.72 | |
p. | EYMH | Γ | ṂẸ | Arethuse, Suppl. comm. 1, 334 | |
444. | |||||
a. | MOΣXI | B | HPA | Athens, gr. 16.49↑ | |
b. | MOΣXI | B | ΔI | *Karlsruhe | |
c. | MOΣXI | B | lΔ(sic) | Berlin (Sv. 47, 4), gr. 16.43; Romanos Coll. | |
d. | MOΣXI | B | Δl | Christomanou Coll.; Berlin, gr. 16.34 | |
445. | |||||
a. | MOΣXI | B | ΣΦ | *Cambridge (Leake Coll. SNG 3208), gr. 16.73↑ | |
b. | MOΣXI | B | HPA | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.74↑; Istanbul, amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.66↖ | |
c. | MOΣXI | B | ME | Tübingen, gr. 16.50; London (BMC 395), gr. 15.55↑ Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.62↑ | |
d. | MOΣXI | ? | ME | Paris, gr. 16.40↖ | |
e. | MOΣXI | ? | HPA | L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.30 | |
f. | EYMH | Γ | ΣΦ | Copenhagen (SNG 229; Sv. 47, 7), gr. 16.65↑; Istanbul, gr. 16.50↑; Glasgow (Hunt.108), gr. 16.71↑; Tübingen, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.30 | |
g. | EYMH | Γ | ΣΦ | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.57↑ | |
h. | EYMH | Γ | ΣΦ | ANS, gr. 16.80↑ | |
i. | EYMH | Γ | Vienna, gr. 16.58 | ||
j. | EYMH | ME | Copenhagen (SNG 228), gr. 15.90↑ | ||
k. | EYMH | ? | HPA | Vienna, gr. 16.47 | |
l. | EYMH | ? | ΣΦ | Commerce 1955 | |
m. | ΔEINOK | ΣΦ | Berne, gr. 16.54; Athens, gr. 16.45↑ ; Lee (de Zogheb) 269, gr. 17.50 (sic) | ||
446. | |||||
a. | EYMH | Γ | ME | *Empedocles Coll.; London {BMC 396), gr. 16.58↖ | |
b. | EYMH | Γ | ME | Romanos Coll. (Sv. 47, 5, commerce), gr. 16.93; Dewing Coll., gr. 15.92 ↖; Berlin, gr. 16.46 | |
c. | EYMH | Δ | ME | Paris, gr. 16.75↖; Platt, Apr. 1983, 119; Istanbul, amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.60↑ | |
d. | EYMH | Δ | ΠP | Paris, gr. 16.54↖; Lyons; Turin (Mus. Civ.) ; Moscow | |
e. | EYMH | Γ | ΣΦ | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.72↑ | |
f. | EYMH | ? | ME | Munich, gr. 16.21 | |
g. | EYMH | ? | ΣΦ | Paris, gr. 16.28↑ | |
h. | ΔEIHOK | Δ | ΣΦ | Tübingen, gr. 16.60; Berlin, gr. 16.40 | |
i. | ΔEINOK | Δ | ME |
Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.59↑ Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.38↖; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.60↖; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.44↑; Vienna, gr. 16.39; Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.73↖ |
|
447. | |||||
a. | EYMH | Γ | ΔI | *Marseilles (Sv. 47, 6), gr. 16.90; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.61↖1 | |
b. | EYMH | Γ | ΔI | Münz. u. Med. List 154, 36 = Kricheldorf, Oct. 1955, 350 = Frey, Sept. 1954, 553, gr. 16.69; Budapest, gr. 16.33↑ ; Moscow | |
c. | EYMH | Γ | HPA | Vienna, gr. 16.38; The Hague, amphora and control letters uncertain | |
d. | EYMH | HPA | Berlin, gr. 16.25 | ||
e. | EYMH | ΣΦ | Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 3209), gr. 16.45↑ | ||
f. | EYMH | ΣΦ | Istanbul, gr. 16.54↖; Romanos Coll.; Andreopoulos Coll.; Berlin, gr. 16.57 | ||
448. | |||||
a. | ΔEINOK | Δ | ΠΩ | *Cambridge (Lewis Coll., Corpus Christi College), gr. 16.26↖; Istanbul, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.53↖ | |
b. | ΔEINOK | ME | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.29↑ ; Berlin, gr. 15.45 | ||
449. | |||||
a. | EYMH | Γ | ΔI | *Evelpidis Coll., gr. 16.70; Vienna, amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 15.91; ANS-Gautier, amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.20↑ | |
b. | ΔEINOK | Δ | ΔI | *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.46↑ ; Cambridge (General Coll., SNG 3207), gr. 16.65↑ ; Copenhagen (SNG 230), gr. 16.82↑; Paris, gr. 16.45↑; Wilkinson Coll. | |
c. | ΔEINOK | Δ | ΣΦ | London (Sv. 47, 8), gr.16.69↑; Romanos Coll. | |
d. | ΔEINOK | Δ | ME | Vienna, gr. 16.17; Romanos Coll.; Athens Collector ; Münster Landesmuseum, gr. 16.06 | |
e. | ΔEINOK | Δ | ME | Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 924, gr. 16.90 | |
f. | ΔEINOK | ? | HPA | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.40↑ ; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 113), control letters uncertain, gr. 15.70↑ | |
g. | ΔEINOK | Δ | ΔI | Zara Coll., gr. 16.15↖. With HΛIOΔΩ/ΔEINOK, E/Δ, ΣΦA/ΔI: Paris, gr. 16.58↑; Commerce 1955 |
h. | HΛIOΔΩ | E | ΣΦ | Paris, gr. 16.80↑; Santamaria, Mar. 1928, 194 | |
i. | HΛIOΔΩ | E | ΣΦ | Athens, gr. 16.80↖ | |
j. | HΛIOΔΩ | E | ΔIO | Lyons; Brussels, gr. 16.50; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.66↑ | |
k. | HΛIOΔΩ | Ẹ | I | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.56↑ | |
l. | HΛIOΔΩ | E | ΠP | The Hague, gr. 16.45 | |
m. | HΛIOΔΩ | E | ΣΦA | Berlin, gr. 16.49 | |
n. | MHTPO | Ị | ΔI | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.62↑; Berlin, gr. 16.15; Vienna, gr. 16.401 | |
o. | MHTPO | ? | ΔI | London (BMC 400), gr. 16.47↑ | |
p. | MHTPO | I | ? | Berlin, gr. 16.51 | |
450. | |||||
a. | HΛIOΔΩ | E | ΔIO | *Paris, gr. 16.76↑ | |
b. | HΛIOΔΩ | E | HP | London (Sv. 47, 10), gr. 16.82↑; Athens, gr. 16.60↑ | |
c. | HΛIOΔΩ | E | HPA/ME | Vienna, gr. 16.83; London (BMC 897), gr. 16.50↑; ANS = Naville (Bement) 1124, gr. 16.42↑; Berlin, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 15.90 | |
d. | HΛIOΔΩ | E | ME | Paris (Sv. 47, 9), gr. 16.71↑; Berlin, gr. 16.49; Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.56↑; Istanbul, control letters uncertain, gr. 16.61 | |
e. | HΛIOΔΩ | E | ME | Paris (de Luynes 2082), gr. 16.60 | |
f. | HΛIOΔΩ | Ẹ | ΠP | Ratto (Rogers) 364, gr. 15.70; Münzhandl. Basel 4, 710 = Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 934, gr. 16.70 | |
g. | HΛIOΔΩ | E | ? | Ball VI, 277, gr. 16.60 | |
h. | MHTPO | I | ME | Paris (Sv. 47, 11), gr. 16.68↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.56↑; Berlin, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.45 | |
451. | |||||
a. | MHTPO | I | ΣΦ | Berlin (Sv. 47, 13), gr. 16.48 ; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.42↑ | |
b. | MHTPOΔI | H | ΠPΩ | Vienna, gr. 16.54 | |
c. | MHTPOΔI | ? | ΣΦ | *Oxford, gr. 16.57; Vienna, gr. 16.552 |
452. | |||||
a. | MHTPO | ? | ? | Zara Coll. = Naville (Pozzi) 1607 = Sv. 47, 14, commerce, gr. 16.75↑ | |
b. | MHTPOΔI | H | ΠPΩ | *Commerce 1958; Vienna, gr. 16.15; Berlin (Sv. 47, 12), control letters uncertain, gr. 16.88 | |
c. | ANTIΓONO | Ө | ΠPΩ | Gotha (Sv. 47, 15), gr. 16.60 | |
453. | |||||
a. | MHTPO | I | ME | *ANS-ETN = Ratto (Rogers) 365, gr. 16.64↑; Tübingen, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.00 | |
b. | ANTIΓON | Ө | ME | Vienna, gr. 16.47; Copenhagen (SNG 231), gr. 16.17↑ | |
c. | ANTIΓONO | ? | ME | London (BMC 898), gr. 16.17↑ | |
d. | ANTIΓONO | ? | ΠPΩ | Athens.gr. 16.60↖ | |
e. | BOYΛAP | I | ME | Berlin, gr. 16.46; Vienna, gr. 16.53 | |
f. | ΠYӨONI | K | ME | Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.58↖ | |
g. | ΛEONTOMR | ? | ME | Glasgow (Hunt.109), gr. 16.19↖;Tübingen, gr. 16.14; Lee (de Zogheb) gr. 16.60; Commerce 1957, gr. 16.63↖ | |
h. | ΠAMΛI | M | Me | Istanbul, gr. 16.86↑; Oxford, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.45↖; Paris, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.22↖ ; Athens, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.25↑ | |
454. | |||||
a. | MHTPO | Ị | ΔI | *Oxford, gr. 16.59↖ | |
b. | MHTPOΔI | ? | ? | Munich, gr. 16.05 | |
c. | ANTIΓONO | Ө | ΔI | Zygman Coll., gr. 15.55↖; Berry Coll., control letters uncertain, gr. 16.45↖; Romanos Coll., control letters uncertain | |
d. | ANTIΓONO | Ө | ΔI | Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.68↑; Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 8210), gr. 16.05↑ | |
e. | BOYΛAP | I | ΔI | Athens, gr. 16.50↖; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.82↖ | |
f. | ΠYӨONI | K | ΔI | ANS-ETN = Ratto (Rogers) 366, gr. 15.88↖ | |
g. | ΠYӨONI | K | ΔL | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.57↑; Berlin, gr. 16.32 | |
h. | ΛEONTOME | Λ | ΔI | *ANS-ETN = Ratto (Rogers) 867, gr. 16.50↖; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.62↖ ; Giesecke Coll., gr. 16.68; Berlin, gr. 17.06 | |
i | ΠAMΩI | ? | ΔI | Vienna, gr. 16.60; Berlin, gr. 16.52 | |
455. | |||||
ANTIΓONO | Ө | ΠP | * Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.84↑ | ||
456. | |||||
a. | ANTIΓONO | ? | ΣΦ | Berlin, gr. 16.28 | |
b. | BOYΛAP | I | ΣΦ | *Paris (de Luynes 2094), gr. 16.90↑ ; Munich, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.20; Paris, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.18↑ ; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.59↑ | |
c. | ΠYӨONI | K | ΣΦ | Athens, gr. 16.70↑ | |
d. | ΠYӨONI | K | ΣΦ | Commerce (Sv. 47, 17), gr. 16.93; Berlin, gr. 16.56 | |
e. | ΠYӨONI | ? | ΣΦ | London, gr. 16.52↑ | |
f. | ΛEONTOME | Λ | ΣΦ | Athens (Sv. 47, 18), gr. 16.30↑ | |
g. | ΛEONTOME | Λ | ΣΦ | *Commerce 1956 | |
457. | |||||
a. | BOYΛAP | I | ΠPΩ | Copenhagen (SNG 232; Sv. 47, 16), gr. 16.63↑; Paris, amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.28↖; Karlsruhe, amphora and control letters uncertain | |
b. | ΠYӨONI | K | ΠPΩ | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.65↑; Berlin, gr. 16.35 | |
c. | ΛEONTOME | Λ | ΠPΩ | *Copenhagen (SNG 233), gr.16.61↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr.16.77↑; Berlin, gr. 16.59 | |
d. | ΠAMΦI | M | ΠPΩ | Copenhagen (SNG 234; Sv. 47, 20), gr. 16.78↑; Ratto, Apr. 1927, 1390, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.56; London (BMC 401), control letters uncertain, gr. 16.51↑ | |
e. | ΠAMΦI | M | ΠPΩ | Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.78↖ | |
458. | |||||
a. | ΠAMΦI | M | ΣΦ | *Romanos Coll. (Sv. 47, 19, commerce), gr. 17.05 | |
b. | ΠAMΦI | M | ΣΦ | Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.77↑; Vatican, amphora letter uncertain; Ciani, Fx.Pr., 118, amphora letter uncertain |
EΠI – ΣΩΣ
Drachms
459. | |||||
a. | KAΛ | Ạ | Athens (Sv. 47, 21), gr. 3.70 | ||
b. | HΛI | Ẹ | *ANS-ETN, gr. 3.92↑ Copenhagen (SNG 235), letter uncertain, gr. 3.47↑; letter uncertain, gr. 3.47↑; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 77; Sv. 47, 22), letter uncertain, gr. 3.35↑; Berlin (Sv. 47, 23), letter uncertain, gr. 3.46 | ||
460. | |||||
a. | ANTI | Ө | *London (BMC 399), gr. 4.08 | ||
b. | ΠYӨO | ? | *Athens (Delos Hd. B, 78; Sv. 47, 24), gr. 3.35↑ | ||
244 tetradrachms: 18 obverse, 112 reverse dies 7 drachms: 2 obverse, 4 reverse dies Magistrates: KAΛΛIKPA, MOΣXI, EYMH, ΔEINOK, HΛIOΔΩ, MHTPO, MHTPOΔI, ANTIΓONO, BOYΛAP, ΠYӨONI, ΛEONTOME, ΠAMΦI Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, H, Ө, I, K, A, M Controls: ΔI(O), HP(A), ME, ΠP(Ω), ΣΦ(A) |
This issue of Epigenes and Sosandros is the most extensive of the Middle Period thus far on the dual evidence of surviving specimens and known dies. With so much material available there seems good reason to believe that the diagrammatic outline in the Statistical Survey section (p. 668) presents an accurate picture of mint activity during the year 158/7 b.c. The heavy concentration of coinage came in the first four months of the year, during which period obverse dies (Nos. 441 to 446) were coupled with an astonishing number of reverses, as many as sixteen in the case of No. 443, and were in use for only a few months. Toward the end of the year the output was lighter. Two obverses (Nos. 453–4) lasted for seven months and three reverses is the largest number recorded for a single month.
Twelve names appear in what seems to be an exact correlation of third magistrates and months. Of interest is the form MHTPOΔ1 associated with H. The ΔI, most likely an abbreviated demotic, serves to distinguish this Metro-(doros) from an immediate predecessor of the same name.
As one would expect with so large an issue there are a number of instances of misreadings in the earlier records. ΣΩΣAPX, listed as a third magistrate by Beulé and Sundwall, does not exist. As the former suggested, this is an erroneous version of BOYΛAP. Kambanis reads H with ANTIΓONO on a coin in his possession; the piece is not available but on all specimens of Antigonos that I have seen the letter when clear is invariably Ө. Three examples of ΠE as a control combination are given by Sundwall and Kambanis. The first, a coin in the Photiadès Collection, cannot be verified or corrected. The second, an Athens coin (our No. 453h), is inscribed ME while the third in The Hague Cabinet (our No. 4491) is definitely marked ΠP. ΠΩ, listed for one reverse in the present catalogue, is surely a diesinker's error for ΠPΩ and not a separate control combination. Finally there is the series of strange dates and control letters given by Beulé under ΠAMΦI with reference to Combe's publication of the Hunter Collection.1 This is a rather inexplicable error inasmuch as the entries listed by Combe pertain to the much later issues of ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ.
ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ TRIPOD 157/6 b.c.
(Plates 47–48)
Tetradrachms
461. | |||||
ӨEOΔOTOΣ | A | Ω | *Kambanis Coll.; London (BMC 493), gr. 16.70↑; Tübingen, control letters uncertain, gr. 16.71 | ||
462. | |||||
ӨEOΔOTOΣ | A | ∃M | *Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.68 ↖; Paris, gr. 16.67↑ Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.65 ↖ | ||
463. | |||||
ӨEOΔOTOΣ | *Bauer Coll., gr. 16.88↑ | ||||
464. | |||||
a. | ӨEOΔOTOΣ | A | ΣΦ | Kambanis Coll.; Naville (Woodward) 760, gr. 16.78; Naville XIII, 758, gr. 16.74; Istanbul, gr. 16.77↑ | |
b. | ӨEOΔOTOΣ | A | ΣΦ | Cahn 75, 825 = Helbing (Hermann) 2970, gr. 16.82 | |
c. | ӨEOΔOTOΣ | A | ΣΦ | Istanbul, gr. 16.79↑; Andreopoulos Coll. | |
d. | ӨEOΔOTOΣ | A | ΣΩ | ANS, gr. 16.97↑ | |
e. | ӨEOΔOTOΣ | Ạ | ME | Istanbul, gr. 16.68↑ | |
f. | ΠATPΩ | B | ΣΦ | *Commerce 1958; Berlin, gr. 16.41 | |
g. | ΠATPΩ | B | ΣΦ | ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr.16.86↑; Paris, gr. 16.70↑ | |
h. | ΠATPΩ | B | ΣΦ | Berry Coll., gr.16.61↑ Budapest, gr. 15.17 (Pl. ?)↑ | |
i. | ΠATPΩ | B | ΣΦ | Paris (de Luynes 2108), gr. 16.70 ↖ | |
j. | ΠATPΩ | B | ME | Copenhagen (SNG 251), gr. 16.49↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.74 ↖ |
k. | ΠATPΩ | B | ΣΦ | Empedocles Coll. | |
l. | ΠATPΩ | Stuttgart | |||
m. | ΔHMH | Γ | ΣΦ | Athens, gr. 16.60↑; Naville (Woodward) 759, gr. 16.87; Berlin, gr. 16.25 | |
n. | ΔHMH | ΣΦ | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.63↑ | ||
o. | ΔHMH | ΣΦ | Istanbul, gr. 16.62↑ | ||
465. | |||||
a. | ӨEOΔOTOΣ | A | ΣΦ | * Vienna, gr. 16.70; Athens (Sv. 50, 18), gr. 16.75↑; L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 15.95; Karlsruhe, amphora and control letters uncertain. | |
b. | ӨEOΔOTOΣ | A | ΣΦ | Empedocles Coll. | |
c. | ӨEOΔOTOΣ | A | ΣΦ | Paris, gr. 16.45 ↖; Copenhagen (SNG 250), amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.68↑ | |
d. | ӨEOΔOTOΣ | A | ME | Athens, gr. 16.40↑ | |
e. | ΠATPΩ | B | ΣΦ | Christomanou Coll. | |
f. | ΠATPΩ | B | ΣΦ | Vienna, gr. 16.87 | |
g. | ΠATPΩ | B | ΣΦ | Oxford, gr. 16.76 ↖; Stockholm, gr. 16.64 | |
h. | ΠATPΩ | B | ΣΦ | Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 950, gr. 16.20 | |
i. | ΠATPΩ | B | ΣΦ | London (BMC 490), gr. 16.25 (pierced) ↖; Glasgow (Hunt.117), gr. 16.71 ↖; Cahn 71, 343 = Ratto (Rogers) 371, control letters uncertain, gr. 16.85 | |
j. | ΠATPΩ | B | ΣΦ | Paris, gr. 16.61↑ | |
k. | ΠATPΩ | Ḅ | ΣΦ | Princeton Univ., gr. 16.36 | |
l. | ΔHMH | Γ | ΣΦ | Vienna, gr. 16.43; ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.75↑; Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 952 = Sv. 50, 20, gr. 16.70 | |
m. | ΔHMH | ΣΦ | Berlin, gr. 16.65 | ||
n. | ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | Δ | ΣΦ | ANS-ETN = Ratto (Rogers) 376, gr. 16.63↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.70 ↖; Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.80 ↖; Stuttgart, control letters uncertain, gr. 16.58 | |
o. | ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | ΣΦ | Vienna, gr. 16.53 | ||
p. | AΠOΛΛOΔΩ | E | ΣΦ | Zygman Coll., gr. 16.71 ↖ | |
q. | ΛYKI | Ị | ΣΦ | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.73↑ | |
466. | |||||
a. | ӨEOΔOTOΣ | A | ME | *London, gr. 16.76 ↖; Berlin, gr. 16.84 | |
b. | ΠATPΩ | B | ΣΦ | Berlin, gr. 16.60 | |
c. | ΠATPΩ | B | ME | Berlin, gr. 16.60; Bauer Coll. = Ratto (Rogers) 373, gr. 16.59 ↖; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.65 ↖; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), control letters uncertain, gr. 16.64 ↖ | |
d. | ΠATPΩ | B | ME | Cambridge (Lewis Coll., Corpus Christi College), gr. 16.72 ↖; Ratto (Rogers) 372, control letters uncertain, gr. 16.80 | |
e. | ΠATPΩ | B | ME | Cambridge (Grose 5918), gr. 16.67↑; Athens (Sv. 50, 19), gr. 16.80; Empedocles Coll. | |
f. | ΠATPΩ | B | ME | London, gr. 16.65↖; Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.66↖ | |
g. | ΠATPΩ | B | ΣΦ | Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.70 ↖ | |
h. | ΔHMH | Γ | ME | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.52↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.54 ↖ | |
i. | ΔHMH | Γ | ME | Berlin, gr. 16.88 | |
j. | ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | Δ | ME | Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.94 ↖; Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.76 ↖; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.77 ↖ | |
k. | AΠOΛΛOΔΩ | E | ME | ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.85↑; London, gr. 16.63↑; Berlin, gr. 16.41 | |
467. | |||||
a. | ΠATPΩ | B | ΣΦ | Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 951, gr. 16.70 | |
b. | ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | Δ | ΣΦ | *Commerce 1955, gr. 16.36↑ | |
468. | |||||
a. | ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | Δ | ΣΦ | Ratto (Rogers) 375, gr. 16.90 | |
b. | ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | Δ | ΣΦ | Lockett Coll. (SNG 1935) = Ratto (Rogers) 374, gr. 16.65↑ | |
c. | ΔΩPO | K | ΣΦ | *London (BMC 492), gr. 16.77↑ | |
469. | |||||
a. | ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | Δ | ΣΦ | *Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 206; Sv. 50, 21), gr. 16.75↑; Copenhagen (SNG 252), gr. 16.72↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.46 ↖; Oxford, gr. 16.75; Berlin, gr. 16.78 | |
b. | AΠOΛΛOΔΩ | E | ΣΦ | London, gr. 16.70↑ | |
c. | AΠOΛΛOΔΩ | E | ΣΦ | Vienna, gr. 16.53; Athens, gr. 16.60↑; Athens, gr. 16.75↑; Oxford, gr. 16.25↖; Univ. of Colo. (Wallace 114), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.45; Petsalis Coll. = Sv. 50, 22, commerce, gr. 16.67 ↖ | |
d. | AΠOΛΛOΔΩ | E | ΣΦ | Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.72 ↖ | |
e. | AΠOΛΛOΔΩ | ΣΦ/ME | Paris, gr. 16.20 ↖ | ||
f. | ΛYKI | I | ΣΦ | ANS, gr. 16.48 ↖ Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.62 ↖; Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.79 ↖; Ratto (Rogers) 377, gr. 16.65; Commerce 1953 | |
g. | TIMΩ | H | ΣΦ | London, gr. 16.49↖; Athens, gr. 16.60↑; London, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.45 ↖ | |
h. | TIMΩ | ΣΦ | Berlin, gr. 16.46 | ||
i. | APIΣ | Ө | ΣΦ | Romanos Coll. | |
j. | APIΣ | ΣΦ | Gotha, gr. 16.48; Berlin, gr. 16.40 | ||
k. | EYΔI | I | ΣΦ | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.75↖; Istanbul, gr. 16.72 ↖; Istanbul, gr. 16.62 ↖; Berlin, gr. 16.40; Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.81 ↖; Ratto (Rogers) 378, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.65 | |
470. | |||||
a. | AΠOΛΛOΔΩ | E | ME | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.71↖; Paris, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.04↑ | |
b. | ΛYKI | I | ME | Copenhagen (SNG 253), gr. 15.55 (damaged)↑; Berlin (Sv. 50, 23), gr. 16.55; Karlsruhe; Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 953, gr. 16.70; Mavrokordatou Coll. (JIAN 1912, 1340), gr. 16.60 | |
c. | ΛYKI | I | ΣΦ | Glasgow (Hunt.118), gr. 16.65↖; von Reuterswärd Coll., gr. 16.65↑ | |
d. | TIMΩ | H | ME | *Copenhagen (SNG 254), gr. 16.45↑; Vienna, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.47 | |
e. | TIMΩN | ME | Sophia, gr. 16.60; Mass. Hist. Soc., gr. 15.45 | ||
f. | APIΣ | Ө | ME | Brussels (Sv. 50, 25), gr. 16.64; London, gr. 16.66 ↖ | |
(TIMOΣTPATHΣ)2 | g. | APIΣ | Ө | ΣΦ | Berlin Collector |
h. | APIΣ | ME | Florange-Ciani, Oct. 1923, 27 = Mavrokordatou Coll. (JIAN 1912, 1341), gr. 16.53 | ||
i. | EYΔI | I | ME | Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.82↖; Berlin (Sv. 50, 26), gr. 16.78; Istanbul, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.65↑ | |
j. | ΔΩPO | K | ME | Athens (Sv. 50, 27), gr. 16.70↖; Berlin, gr. 16.74 | |
k. | ΔΩPO | K | ME | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.81 ↖ | |
l. | ΔΩPO | K | ΣΦ | Athens, gr. 16.77↑; Ratto (Rogers) 380, gr. 16.45 | |
471. | |||||
a. | ΛYKI | I | ΣΩ | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.74↑; Vienna, control letters uncertain, gr. 16.54; Istanbul, amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.77↑ | |
b. | TIMΩ | H | ΣΩ | ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.78↖; Paris, gr. 16.58↖; Berlin (Sv. 50, 24), gr. 16.71; London, gr. 16.82↖; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.80↖; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.73↖; Zygman Coll., gr. 16.67 ↖ Andreopoulos Coll. | |
c. | TIMΩ | Ḥ | ΣΩ | Andreopoulos Coll. | |
d. | APIΣ | Ө | ΣΩ | *Paris, gr. 16.63↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), control letters uncertain, gr. 16.74↑ | |
e. | APIΣ | Ө | ΣΦ | Copenhagen (SNG 255), gr. 17.03↑ | |
f. | EYΔI | I | ME | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.74↑ | |
g. | EYΔI | I | ΣΩ | Athens, gr.16.65↑; Tübingen, amphora letter uncertain | |
h. | ΔΩPO | K | ΣΩ | Kambanis Coll..; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.76↖; Istanbul, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.61 ↖ | |
i. | ΔΩPO | K | ΣΩ | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.63↖; Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.70↖; Paris, gr. 16.52↖; Copenhagen (SNG 256), gr. 15.95 (pierced)↑; Ratto (Rogers) 379, gr. 16.85; H. Schulman, Apr. 1951, 3029 | |
472. | |||||
a. | EYΔI | I | ΣΦ | ANS-ETN, gr. 16.70↑; Istanbul, gr. 16.79↑; London (BMC 491), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.07 ↖ | |
b. | ΔΩPO | K | ΣΦ | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.76↖; Tübingen, gr. 16.70; Empedocles Coll..; Berlin, gr. 15.96 | |
c. | ΔΩPO | K | ΣΦ | Gotha, gr. 14.98 (Pl.); Moscow, amphora letter uncertain |
Drachms
473. | |||||
a. | ΠA | Ḅ | ME | Berlin, gr. 3.85; ANS-ETN, control letters uncertain, gr. 3.73↑ | |
b. | ΔH | Γ | ΣΦ | Berlin, gr. 3.83; Ratto, Apr. 1927, 1392, all letters uncertain, gr. 3.50 | |
c. | ΛY | I | ? | Berlin, gr. 4.02; Athens (Delos Hd. KϚ, 30), gr. 3.90↑; Copenhagen (SNG 257), letter uncertain, gr. 3.96↑ | |
d. | API | Ө | *Berry Coll., gr. 4.16↑; Berlin, gr. 3.93 | ||
e. | EY | ? | ΣΩ(?)1 | *Athens (Delos Hd. B, 145; Sv. 50, 28), gr. 3.60↑ |
ΠOΛE – AΛKE NO SYMBOL
Hemidrachms
474. | |||||
a. | Π[ | Athens (Delos Hd. B, 144; Sv. 49, 36), gr. 1.57 | |||
b. | ΔIO | *Athens (Sv. 50, 29), gr. 1.82↑ 182 tetradrachms: 12 obverse, 73 reverse dies 10 drachms: 1 obverse, 5 reverse dies 2 hemidrachms: 1 obverse, 2 reverse dies Magistrates: ӨEOΔOTOΣ, ΠATPΩ, ΔHMH, ΔIONYΣOΔΩ, AΠOΛΛOΔΩ, ΛTKI, TIMΩN, APIΣ, AYΔI, ΔΩPO Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, H, Ө, I, K Controls: ME, ΣΦ, ΣΩ |
Although somewhat lighter than the issue immediately preceding, this emission of Polemon and Alketes can still be considered an extensive coinage. Only the first ten months of the year are represented, with the greatest amount of mint activity in A and B. There is precise correspondence of months and third magistrates. As was the case under Epigenes and Sosandros, one finds an amazing number of reverse dies coupled with a single obverse, the seventeen listed under No. 465 being a record thus far.
The amphora and control letters in the present catalogue are identical with those listed by Kambanis except for one instance of ΠE which he had noted. The coin in question, from the Mavrokordatou Collection, is among the entries of our No. 470b and shares a reverse die with tetradrachms which Kambanis himself records as having ME below the amphora. A number of the ΣO readings cited by Sundwall and Beulé can be corrected to ΣΩ ; it is almost certain that the pieces which are no longer available for checking had the same ΣΩ form.
Sundwall, following Macdonald (NC 1899, p. 306), gives N as the amphora letter on a Paris coin. The piece is catalogued here under No. 471b. On the Paris tetradrachm the date is somewhat blurred but other specimens from the same reverse die have an unmistakable H.
One obverse, No. 468, has been included in the catalogue with certain reservations. The other obverses of this issue can be divided into two distinct stylistic groups: one engraver represented by Nos. 461–463 and a second by Nos. 464–467 with 469–472. It is difficult to believe that No. 468 is from the hand of either diecutter; in fact the barbaric quality of its workmanship seems quite alien to this period. Only three tetradrachms from this obverse are known and there is an error involving the two Rogers coins. As illustrated in the Ratto Catalogue the obverses of Nos. 374 and 375 are not only from the same die but surely the same coin, before and after the cast was trimmed at the bottom. Furthermore, the gap in dates between delta and kappa on the three reverses is strange. On the other hand, however, Obverse 468 is linked by the transfer of reverses to Obverses 467 and 469, and although its style is unlike that of any other tetradrachm die it is comparable with that of the one drachm die, No. 473. Until new evidence is forthcoming, I think that No. 468, despite its peculiarities, must be considered an official die.
MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI DIOSCURI 156/5 b.c.
(Plates 48–49)
Tetradrachms
475. | |||||
a. | APIΣTO | A | ΣΩ | *Paris (de Luynes 2106), gr. 16.80↑; Berlin, gr. 16.82; Paris, gr. 16.85↑; Giesecke Coll., gr. 16.88; Toronto (Ontario Hd.), amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.67↑ | |
b. | APIΣTO | Ạ | ΣΩ | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.59↑ | |
476. | |||||
APIΣTO | A | ΣΦ | *Oxford, gr. 16.73↑; London (BMC 459), gr. 16.50↑; Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.65↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.51↑ | ||
477. | |||||
a. | APIΣTO | ? | ΣΦ | Naples (Mus. Naz., Fiorelli 7144), gr. 16.33↑ | |
b. | APIΣTO | A | ME | Munich, gr. 16.42; Berlin, gr. 16.47; Copenhagen (SNG 265), gr. 15.56↑; Oxford, gr. 16.42; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.53↖; Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.76 ↖; Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.64 ↖; Commerce (Sv. 55, 16, Feuardent), gr. 16.80. Amphora letter clear only on Munich coin | |
c. | APIΣTO | A | ME | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.70 ↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.54 ↖; Herakleion (Cretan Hd. II), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.43 ↖ | |
d. | APIΣTO | ? | ME | Vienna, gr. 16.54; Istanbul, gr. 16.57↑ | |
e. | APIΣTO | ? | ME | Berlin, gr. 16.66 | |
478. | |||||
a. | AΣKΛH | B | ME | *Paris, gr. 16.78↑; Gotha, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.31 | |
b. | AΣKΛH | B | ME | London, gr. 16.64↑ | |
c. | AΣKΛH | Ḅ | ME | Giesecke Coll., gr. 16.71; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.68↑ | |
d. | AΣKΛH | ? | ME | Vatican; Berlin, gr. 16.58 | |
e. | ΔIOKΛHΣ | Γ | ME | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.55↔; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.67↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.66↑ | |
f. | ΔIOKΛHΣ | Γ | ME | Copenhagen (SNG 267), gr. 16.36↑; Paris, gr. 16.69↑ Bauer Coll. = Ratto (Rogers) 402, gr. 16.77↑ | |
g. | ΔIOKΛHΣ | ? | ΣΩ | Tübingen, gr. 16.30 | |
479. | |||||
a. | APIΣTO | ? | ΣΦ | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.52↑; Berlin, gr. 16.63 | |
b. | AΣKΛH | Ḅ | ΣΦ | *Copenhagen (SNG 266), gr. 16.26↑ | |
c. | AΣKΛH | Ḅ | ΣΦ | Athens = Sv. 55, 17, commerce, gr. 16.58↑ | |
d. | AΣKΛH | ? | ΣΦ | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.64↑ | |
e. | ΔIOKΛHΣ | Γ | ΣΦ | Berlin, gr. 16.09; London (BMC 468), gr. 16.54↑; Athens (Sv. 55, 18), gr. 16.55↑. Amphora letter clear only on Berlin coin | |
f. | ΔIOKΛΣ | ? | ΣΦ | Vatican | |
g. | BOYKATTHΣ | Δ | ΣΦ | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.73 ↖; Oxford, gr. 16.68 ↖ | |
480. | |||||
a. | APIΣTO | A | Σ[ | Athens, gr. 16.10 ↖ | |
b. | AΣKΛH | B | ΣΩ | *Paris, gr. 16.74↑; Istanbul, gr. 16.57↑; Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.60↑ | |
c. | AΣKΛH | Ḅ | ΣΩ | Lockett Coll. (SNG 1932) = Ratto (Rogers) 401, gr. 16.60↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.67 ↖; Berlin, gr. 16.55 | |
d. | AΣKΛH | ? | ΣΩ | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.79 ↖; Istanbul, gr. 16.67↑ | |
e. | ΔIOKΛHΣ | Γ | Σ[ | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.69 ↖ | |
f. | ΔIOKΛHΣ | ? | ΣΩ | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.64↑ | |
g. | BOYKATTHΣ | Δ | ME | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.57 ↖ | |
h. | BOYKATTHΣ | Δ | ΣΩ | Sophia, gr. 16.06; Romanos Coll. | |
i. | BOYKATTHΣ | Δ | ME | Wulff Coll., gr. 16.72; London, gr. 15.10↑ | |
j. | BOYKATTHΣ | Δ | ΣΦ | *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.88↑; Ratto (Rogers) 408, gr. 16.70 | |
k. | BOYKATTHΣ | Δ | ΣΩ | Berlin, gr. 15.05 | |
481. | |||||
a. | BOYKATTHΣ | Δ | ΣΩ | *Dewing Coll., gr. 16.62↑; Commerce 1955 | |
b. | BOYKATTHΣ | Δ | ΣΦ | Berlin, gr. 16.81 | |
482. | |||||
a. | BOYKATTHΣ | Δ | ΣΦ | *Karlsruhe;Athens = Sv. 55, 19, commerce, gr. 16.05↑ | |
b. | BOYKATTHΣ | ME | London (BMC 460), gr. 16.54↑ | ||
483. | |||||
a. | ΣΩKPATHΣ | E | ME | Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.72↑; Istanbul, gr. 16.40↑ | |
b. | ΣΩKPATHΣ | E | ME | Istanbul, gr. 16.67↑1 | |
c. | ΠAPA | ΣΩ | Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.68 ↖ | ||
d. | ΠAPA | ME | Commerce 1955, gr. 16.51↑; London (BMC 462), gr.16.07↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.54↑; Evelpidis Coll., gr. 16.00. Amphora letter clear only on first coin | ||
e. | ΠAPA | ME | Copenhagen (SNG 271), gr. 16.72↑; Romanos Coll. | ||
f. | ΠAPA | ME | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.20 ↖ | ||
g. | EYAN | H | ME | *Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.65↑; Berlin, gr. 16.53; Berne, gr. 16.68; ANS-ETN, gr. 16.38↑; Gotha, gr. 16.15; Commerce 1955; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.56↑ | |
i. | EYAN | H | ME/ΣΦ | Ratto, Apr. 1927, 1389, gr. 16.59 | |
484. | |||||
a. | ΣΩKPATHΣ | E | ME | London (BMC 461), gr. 16.07↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.60↑; Berlin, gr. 16.71 | |
b. | ΣΩKPATHΣ | E | ΣΦ | Ratto (Rogers) 404, gr. 16.70; Berlin, gr. 16.24 | |
c. | ΣΩKPATHΣ | E | ΣΩ | Naville (Woodward) 755, gr. 16.70; Tübingen, gr. 16.52; Copenhagen (SNG 268), gr. 16.42↑ |
d. | ΠAPA | Z | ΣΩ | *Tübingen, gr. 16.63; Berlin, gr. 16.24; Athens (Sv. 55, 21), gr. 16.50↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.70↑; Cahn 68, 1347, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.74 | |
e. | ΠAPA | ΣΩ | Turin (Mus. Ant., Fabretti 3064), gr. 16.70 | ||
f. | ΠAPA | ΣΩ | Zygman Coll., gr. 16.77 ↖; Brunswick, gr. 16.40 ↖ | ||
g. | ΠAPA | ? | ΣΩ | The Hague, gr. 16.40 | |
h. | EYAN | H | ΣΩ | Copenhagen (SNG 269), gr. 16.74↑ | |
i. | EYAN | H | ΣΩ | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.65↑; Moscow; London, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.09↑ | |
j. | EYAN | H | ΣΩ | Berlin, gr. 16.48; Istanbul, gr. 16.65↑ | |
k. | ΔHMO | Ө | ΣΩ | Cambridge (Lewis Coll., Corpus Christi College), gr. 16.78↑ | |
l. | ΔHMO | Ө | ΣΩ | Copenhagen (SNG 270), gr. 16.56↑ | |
m. | ΔHMO | ΣΩ | Commerce 1955 | ||
485. | |||||
a. | ΣΩKPATHΣ | E | ΣΩ | Berlin (Sv. 55, 20), gr. 16.54; Budapest, gr. 16.82↑ Bauer Coll. = Ratto (Rogers) 405, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.76↑ | |
b. | ΣΩKPATHΣ | Ẹ | ΣΩ | Oxford, gr. 16.27↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.63↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.77↑ | |
c. | ΠAPA | ? | ΣΩ | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.48↑ | |
d. | EYAN | H | ΣΩ | Athens, gr. 16.55↑; Löbbecke Coll., amphora letter uncertain; Vienna, amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.27 | |
e. | ΔHMO | Ө | ΣΩ | *Romanos Coll.; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.66 ↖ | |
486. | |||||
a. | ΔHMO | Ө | ΣΩ | *Paris, gr. 16.60↑; Berlin, gr. 16.56; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.58↑ | |
b. | ΔHMO | Ө | ΣΩ | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.59↑; Mrs. E. T. Newell Coll., gr. 16.30; Ratto (Rogers) 406, gr. 16.75; Oxford, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.15 | |
c. | ΓOPΓIΠ | I | ΣΩ/(?)ME | Glasgow (Hunt. 116), gr. 16.31 ↖; Athens, gr. 16.52 ↖; Romanos Coll., amphora letter uncertain; Berlin, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.43 | |
d. | ΓOPΓIΠ | ? | ΣΩ | Paris, gr. 16.58 ↖ | |
487. | |||||
a. | ΔHMO | Ө | ME | *Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.64 ↖; London (BMC 463; Sv. 55, 23), gr. 16.23 ↖; Glendining, Apr. 1955, 409A, gr. l6.75; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. l6.62 ↖ | |
b. | ΔHMO | Ө | ME | *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.72 ↖ | |
c. | ΔHMO | Ө | ΣΩ | Andreopoulos Coll. | |
d. | ΔHMO | Ө | ΣΩ | Athens, gr. 16.30 ↖ | |
e. | ΔHMO | Ө | ME | Berlin, gr. 16.58 | |
f. | ΔHMO | ? | ΣΩ | Athens, gr. 16.65↑ | |
g. | ΔHMO | ? | ? | Istanbul, gr. 16.65↑ | |
h. | ΓOPΓIΠ | I | ME | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.56↑; Copenhagen (SNG 272), gr. 16.28 (pierced)↑; Oxford, gr. 16.28↑; London, gr. 16.70↑; Budapest, gr. 16.30↑; Budapest, gr. 15.65↑. Amphora letter clear only on first coin | |
i. | ΓOPΓIΠ | Ị | ME | Berlin, gr. 16.54 | |
j. | ΓOPΓIΠ | ? | ΣΩ | London (BMC 464), gr. 16.08 (defaced)↑ | |
k. | APEΣTOΣ | K | ME | ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.82 ↖; Istanbul, gr. 16.47↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.55↑ | |
l. | APEΣTOΣ | K | ME | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.63↑ | |
488. | |||||
a. | ΓOPΓIΠ | I | ΣΩ | *Vienna, gr. 16.20; Berlin, gr. 15.08 | |
b. | ΓOPΓIΠ | I | ΣΩ | Lockett Coll. (SNG 1933) = Ratto (Rogers) 407, gr. 16.75↑ | |
c. | ΓOPΓIΠ | ? | ΣΩ | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.53↑ | |
d. | APEΣTOΣ | K | ΣΩ | Naples (Mus. Naz., Fiorelli 7143), gr. 16.34 ↖; Paris, gr. 16.66↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.75↑ | |
e. | APEΣTOΣ | K | ΣΩ | Giesecke Coll., gr. 16.72; Athens ↖ | |
f. | APEΣTOΣ | K | ΣΩ | London (BMC 466), gr. 16.39↑; Andreopoulos Coll.; Berlin, gr. 16.53 | |
g. | APEΣTOΣ | K | ΣΩ | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.61 ↖; Berlin, gr. 16.66 | |
489. | |||||
a. | APEΣTOΣ | K | ME | *London (BMC 465; Sv. 55, 25), gr. 16.88↑ | |
b. | APEΣTOΣ | K | ME | Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.76 ↖; Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.48 ↖; Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.83 ↖; Mass. Hist. Soc., gr. 16.05; Berlin, gr. 16.14 | |
c. | APEΣTOΣ | K | ME | Vienna, gr. 16.55; Romanos Coll. | |
d. | APEΣTOΣ | ? | ME | Tübingen, gr. 16.35 | |
490. | |||||
a. | APEΓTOΣ | K | ΣΦ | *Vienna, gr. 15.85; Giesecke Coll., gr. 16.58 | |
b. | APEΣTOΣ | K | ΣΦ | Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.64 ↖; Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.57 ↖; Berlin, gr. 16.89 | |
c. | APEΣTOΣ | K | ΣΩ | Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.64 ↖ | |
d. | APEΣTOΣ | ? | Σ[ | Yale Univ., gr. 15.57 (pierced) ↖ |
MIKI – EYPYKΛE
Drachms
491. | |||||
a. | ΣΩKPA | E | *Vienna, gr. 3.96; Athens (Sv. 55, 26), gr. 4.17↑ | ||
b. | EYAN | H | Naville (Pozzi) 1608, gr. 4.17; Berlin (Sv. 55, 27), letter uncertain, gr. 3.95 | ||
492. | |||||
(EYPY) | a. | ΓOP | I | *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.17 ↖; Athens (DelosHd.B, 133; Sv. 55,28), gr. 4.12 ↖ ; ANS-ETN, gr. 4.05 ↖ | |
(EYPY) | b. | APE | ? | Athens (Delos Hd. B, 134; Sv. 55, 29), gr. 3.70; Athens, gr. 3.75↑; Copenhagen (SNG 273), gr. 3.89↑ |
MIKI – EYPYK NO SYMBOL
Hemidrachms
493. | |||||
a. | EY | *Athens↑; Athens (Delos Hd. KϚ, 29), gr.l.62↑; Berlin, gr. 1.89 | |||
b. | AP | London (BMC 469; Sv. 55, 30), gr. 1.89 | |||
196 tetradrachms: 16 obverse, 86 reverse dies 10 drachms: 2 obverse, 4 reverse dies 4 hemidrachms : 1 obverse, 2 reverse
dies Magistrates: APIΣTO, AΣKΛH, ΔIOKΛHΣ, BOYKATTHΣ, ΣΩKPATHΣ, ΠAPA, EYAN, ΔHMO, ΓOPΓIΠ, APEΣTOΣ Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, H, Ө, I, K1 Controls: ME, ΣΦ, ΣΩ2 |
The coinage of MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI is closely comparable with that of ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ. In both years three silver denominations were issued, the tetradrachms in quantity sufficient to have left a large number of surviving dies and specimens. Striking in 157/6 and 156/5 alike was confined to the first ten months of the year and the responsibility was evenly distributed among ten third magistrates. Control combinations—ME, ΣΦ and ΣΩ—are identical.
Eurykleides is usually abbreviated EYPYKΛEI but frequently the termination of the name is off flan or involved in the outline of the wreath. On a few dies (Nos. 475a, 477d and 478e among them) the form EYPYKΛE is definite.
AΦPOΔIΣI – AΠOΛH≡I NIKE 155/4 b.c.
(PLATE 50)
Tetradrachms
494. | |||||
MHTPO | A | ΣΦ | *Athens (Sv. 51, 17), gr. 15.92↑ | ||
495. | |||||
MHTPO | A | ME | *Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.55↑ | ||
496. | |||||
MHTPO | A | ME | *London (BMC 342), gr. 16.91↑ | ||
496 X. | |||||
ΔHMOΣӨ | Ḅ | ΣΦ | *Berlin, gr. 16.34 | ||
497. | |||||
a. | ΔHMOΣӨ | ? | ΔI | Romanos Coll. (Sv. 51, 18), gr. 16.60 | |
b. | MEIΔΩN | ? | *Paris, gr. 16.38 ↖ | ||
c. | KAΛΛI | Δ | ΔI | Berlin, gr. 16.47 | |
d. | KAΛΛI | ΔI | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 38), gr. 16.70↑ | ||
498. | |||||
a. | MEIΔΩN | Γ | ME | Evelpidis Coll., gr. 16.80 | |
b. | KAΛΛIA | Δ | ΣΦ | London (BMC 343; Sv. 51, 20), gr. 16.48 ↖ | |
c. | APIΣTAP | ME | *Empedocles Coll.. | ||
d. | ΣIMI | Ө | ME | Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.63 ↖; Berlin, gr. 15.47 (worn) | |
499. | |||||
a. | MEIΔΩN | Γ | ΣΦ | *Athens, gr. 17.00↑; Berlin, gr. 15.68 | |
b. | MEIΔΩN | Γ | ΣΦ | Berlin (Sv. 51, 19), gr. 16.67 | |
c. | KAΛΛIA | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 40), gr. 16.68 ↖ | ||
d. | HPAKΛE | ? | ME | ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.58↑ | |
e. | ΣIMI | θ | ΣΦ | Berlin, gr. 16.76; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 44; Sv. 51, 23), gr. 16.55↑; Sotheby (O'Hagan) 432, gr. 16.39. Amphora letter certain only on Berlin coin | |
500. | |||||
a. | KAΛΛI | Δ | ME | Berlin, gr. 16.31 | |
b. | ΔEINO | I | ME | *Berlin, gr. 16.731 | |
c. | EYMAPEI | K | ME | Paris, gr. 16.39↑ | |
d. | EYMAPEI | K | ME | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 42), gr. 15.95↑ | |
e. | HΓEMA | Λ | ME | Athens (Halmyros Hd.); Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 43), gr. 15.70↑; Romanos Coll. (Sv. 51, 26), gr. 16.53 | |
f. | HΓEMA | ? | ME | Berlin, gr. 16.09 | |
g. | BAKXI | Ṃ | ME | Copenhagen (SNG 139), gr. 13.822 | |
501. | |||||
a. | APIΣTAP | ΔI | *Paris, gr. 16.84 ↖; Berlin (Sv. 51, 22), control letters uncertain, gr. 16.78 | ||
b. | HPAKΛEI | H | ΔI | Berlin, gr. 16.24; Paris, gr. 16.48 ↖ | |
c. | HPAKΛE | Ḥ | ΔI | Parma (Sv. 51, 21) | |
d. | ΔEINO | ? | ? | Vienna, gr. 16.57 | |
e. | EYMAPEI | K | ΔI | Leningrad (Sv. 51, 25), gr. 16.70 | |
f. | HΓEMA | Λ | ΔI | Berlin, gr. 16.55 | |
502. | |||||
a. | EYMAPEI | K | ΔI | Halmyros Hd. | |
b. | HΓEMA | Λ | ΣΦ | Paris (de Luynes 2086), gr. 16.80↑ | |
c. | BAKXI | M | ΣΦ | *Gotha; ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.05↑ | |
503. | |||||
a. | BAKXI | M | ME | *Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 41 ; Sv. 51, 27), gr. 16.72↑ | |
b. | BAKXI | M | ME | *Berlin, gr. 16.76 (PLATE 51) |
AΦPO – AΠOΛH
Drachms
504. | |||||
(AΠO) | Γ | — | ? | *Athens, gr. 3.90↑; Berlin, gr. 3.97 |
505. | |||||
(AΠO) | a. | — | ? | ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.18↑; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 34), gr. 8.40↑ | |
b. | — | ? | *Dewing Coll., gr. 3.97↑; ANS-ETN, gr. 3.52↑; ANS-ETN, gr. 4.22↑; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 32; Sv. 51, 28), gr. 3.90↑; Cahn 75, 326 = Ratto (Rogers) 447, gr. 4.04 | ||
AΦPOΔI–AΠOΛH≡ | c. | — | ? | ANS-ETN, gr. 3.42 (corroded)↑ | |
506. | |||||
(AΠO) | a. | — | ? | Berlin, gr. 3.74 | |
b. | —1 | ? | *Athens (Delos Hd. Λ–2, 8), gr. 3.79↑ |
AΦPO–AΠO No SYMBOL
Hemidrachms
507. | |||||
(AΦP) | a. | — | *Athens (Sv. 5s1, 29) = Hirsch 2075, gr. 1.85↑ | ||
b. | ΣI | Hirsch (Weber) 1715 = Sv. 51, 80. gr. 2.07 | |||
44 tetradrachms: 11 obverse, 34 reverse dies 12 drachms: 3 obverse, 4 reverse dies 2 hemidrachms: 1 obverse, 2 reverse
dies Magistrates: MHTPO, ΔHMOΣӨ, MEIΔΩN, KAΛΛIA, APIΣTAP, HPAKΛEI, ΣIMI, ΔEINO, EYMAPEI, HΓEMA, BAKXI Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, Z, H, Ө, I, K, Λ, M Controls: ΔI, ME, ΣΦ2 |
After the heavy emissions of the three years preceding, the mint seems to have substantially reduced its output under AΦPOΔIΣI – AΠOΛH≡I. Some coinage is struck in each month except epsilon and there is an orderly association of months and third magistrates.
The month of Demosthenes' magistracy is not absolutely certain. Beulé reads B on the amphora for two coins with the name of ΔHMOΣӨ: one in his collection and one in Berlin. Kambanis records the Berlin piece as having an uncertain date but enters B for the Romanos specimen which is our No. 497a. The Berlin coin seems to me to have B but I can read no certain letter on the Romanos tetradrachm.
A proportionately large number of drachms has survived from this issue. Strangely enough there was apparently no attempt to inscribe their reverses with the abbreviated names of third magistrates. The only possible exception is No. 505c on which there may once have been with Λ on the amphora, but the condition of the coin makes any reading highly uncertain. In contrast to the drachms, one hemidrachm reverse is inscribed ΣI.
EYPYKΛEI – APIAPA THREE GRACES 154/3 b.c.
(Plates 51–52)
Tetradrachms
503. | |||||
a. | AΛE≡AN | A | ME | *Cambridge (Lewis Coll., Corpus Christi College), gr. 16.59↑ | |
b. | ΣΩKPA | ? | ΔI | Athens, gr. 15.60↑ | |
c. | ΣΩKPA | ? | ME | Berlin, gr. 15.80 | |
508. | |||||
AΛE≡AN | A | ΔI | *Uncertain1; Modena (Sv. 58, 13) | ||
509. | |||||
a. | ΣΩKPA | B | ME | *Empedocles Coll.. | |
b. | ΔIONY | Γ | ME | The Hague, gr. 16.20 | |
c. | ΔIONY | Γ | ? | *Empedocles Coll.. | |
d. | IΠΠO | Δ | ME | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 15.75↑ | |
e. | IΠΠO | Δ | ME | Berlin, gr. 16.25 | |
510. | |||||
a. | ΣΩKPA | B | ΣΩ | *Vienna, gr. 16.55; Berry Coll. (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.63↑; Berlin (Sv. 53, 14), gr. 16.33. With ΔIONY/ΣΩKPA and Γ/B: Kambanis Coll.. | |
b. | ΣΩKPA | B | ΣΩ | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.). gr. 16.90↑; Lockett Coll. (SNG 1921) = Ratto (Rogers) 891, gr. 16.55↑. With ΔIONY/ΣΩKPA and Γ/B: *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.64↑ | |
c. | ΔIONY/ ΣΩKPA | Γ/B | ΣΩ | Athens (Sv. 53, 15), gr. 16.20↑ | |
d. | IΠΠO | ? | ΣΩ | Andreopoulos Coll. |
e. | ΔIOKΛ/ IΠΠO | Ẹ | ΣΩ | Tübingen, gr. 16.26 | |
511. | |||||
ΔIONY | ? | I | *Arethuse, Suppl. comm. 1, 334 bis | ||
512. | |||||
a. | ΔIONY/ ΣΩKPA | Γ/? | ΔI | London (BMC 409), gr. 16.32↑ | |
b. | IΠΠONI | Δ | ΔI | Berlin (Sv. 53, 16), gr. 16.56 | |
c. | ΔIOKΛ/IΠΠOṆỊ | E/Δ | ΔI | *Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 122; Sv. 53, 17), gr. 16.60↑ | |
d. | ΔIOKΛ | E | ΔI | Copenhagen (SNG 140), gr. 16.41 ↑ | |
e. | ΣATY | Z | ΔI | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 16.18↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.57↑ | |
513. | |||||
a. | ΣATY | Z | ΔI | Berlin (Sv. 53, 18), gr. 16.55 | |
b. | ΣATY | Z | ΔI | *ANS, gr. 16.27↑ | |
514. | |||||
ΣATY | z | ΣΩ | *Athens, gr. 16.60↑ | ||
515. | |||||
a. | ΣATY/ΔIOḲ | z | ME | *Empedocles Coll..; London (BMC 412), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 17.17↑ | |
b. | HPAKΛEI | Ө/H | ME | ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.67↑ | |
c. | HPAKΛEI | Ө | ME | Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 3219), gr. 16.65↑; Berlin (Sv. 53, 20), gr. 16.83; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 126), gr. 16.60↑ | |
d. | HPAKΛEI | I | ME | Empedocles Coll.. | |
e. | HPAKΛEI | ? | ME | *Paris, gr. 16.16 (pierced)↑. With ΦANOKPI/HPAKΛEI and I on amphora: *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.71↑; Berlin, gr. 16.74; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.73↑; Istanbul, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.53↑ | |
516. | |||||
HPAKΛEI | H | ΔI | *Met. Mus. Art (Ward 505), gr. 16.53 | ||
517. | |||||
a. | HPAKΛEI | Ө | ΣΩ | Bauer Coll. = Naville (Pozzi) 1604 = Sotheby (Carfrae) 165, gr. 16.58↑ | |
b. | HPAKΛEI | Ө/H | ΣΩ | Moscow; Athens, gr. 16.45↑; London (BMC 410), gr. 16.78↑; Grabow XIV, 402 = Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 933, gr. 16.80. With ΩANOKPI/HPAKΛEI and I/θ/H: Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 15.95↑; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 130), gr. 16.80↑ | |
c. | HPAKΛEI | I/Ө | ΣΩ | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 127; Sv. 53, 19), gr. 16.45↑; Athens, gr. 15.95 ↖; Berlin, gr. 16.60 | |
d. | ΦANOKPI | I | ΔI | *Copenhagen (SNG 141), gr. 16.72↑ | |
e. | ≡ENOKPA | Λ | ΣΩ | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.57↑ | |
f. | ≡ENOKPA | Λ | ΣΩ | Stack's (South) 614 | |
518. | |||||
a. | HPAKΛEI | Ө(?)/H | ? | Brunswick, gr. 15.90↑ | |
b. | ΦANOKPI/HPAKΛEI | I | ΔI | *Paris (de Luynes 2085; Sv. 53, 21), gr. 16.90; Empedocles Coll.. | |
c. | ≡ENOKPA | K | ΔI | Berlin (Sv. 53, 22), gr. 16.78; Gotha, amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.24 | |
d. | ≡ENOKPA | Λ/(?)K | ΔI | ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.87↑; Yale Univ., gr. 16.89↑ | |
e. | APXIΠ | M | ΔI | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 129; Sv. 53, 23), gr. 16.65 | |
f. | KAΛΛI | M | ΔI | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 16.00↑; Toronto (Ontario Hd.), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 15.52↑. With N/M: Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 124), gr. 16.55↑ | |
519. | |||||
a. | ≡ENOKPA | Λ | ME | *Naville (Pozzi) 1603, gr. 16.70 | |
b. | ≡ENOKPA | Λ | ME | Athens | |
520. | |||||
a. | ≡ENOKPA | ΣΩ | Athens (Halmyros Hd.). With APXIΠ/≡ENO-KPA and M/ *Dresse de Lébioles Coll., gr. 16.62 ↖; Athens.gr. 16.15↑ | ||
b. | KAΛΛI | M | ΣΩ | Berlin | |
521. | |||||
a. | APXIΠ/ ≡ENOKPA | M/ | ΣΩ | Romanos Coll. | |
b. | APXIΠ | M | ΔI | De Nanteuil 926 = Florange-Ciani, Oct. 1923, 24, gr. 16.68↑ | |
c. | APXIΠ | Ṃ | ME | *Brussels (Sv. 53, 24), gr. 16.62 ↖ | |
522. | |||||
KAΛΛI | N | ME | *Empedocles Coll..; ANS-ETN, gr. 16.55↑; Copenhagen (SNG 142), gr. 16.65↑; London, gr. 16.65↑; Berlin, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.72; Oxford, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.45; Münz. u. Med. List 154, 37, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.72↑ |
Drachms
506. | |||||
ΣΩ | B | *London, gr. 4.06; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 93), gr. 3.67↑ | |||
523. | |||||
a. | ΣΩ | B | Athens (Delos Hd. B, 92; Sv. 58, 25), gr. 3.65↗; *ANS, letter uncertain, gr. 4.16↑; Berlin, letter uncertain, gr. 3.92 | ||
b. | ΣATY | Ẓ | Berlin (Sv. 58, 27), gr. 3.08; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 91; Sv. 53, 26), letter uncertain, gr. 3.90 ↖; Athens (Delos Hd. Λ–1, 10), letter uncertain, gr. 3.83↑ |
EYP – AP NO SYMBOL
Hemidrachm
507. | |||||
— | *Athens (Delos Hd. B, 94; Sv. 53, 28), gr. 1.36↑ 83 tetradrachms: 16 obverse, 46 reverse dies 8 drachms: 2 obverse, 2 reverse dies 1 hemidrachm Magistrates: AΛE≡AN, ΣΩKPA, ΔIONY, IΠΠONI, ΔIOKΛ, ΣATY, HPAKΛEI, ΦANOKPI, ≡ENOKPA, APXIΠ, KAΛΛI Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, H, Ө, I, K, Λ, M, N Controls: ΔI, ME, ΣΩ |
Obverse dies of all three denominations (Nos. 503, 506 and 507 as illustrated on Plates 51–52) are transferred from the striking of AΦPOΔIΣI — AΠOΛH≡I to that of EYPYKΛEI —APIAPA, providing one of the most satisfactory instances of die-joined issues in the New Style series.1
With the coinage of Eurykleides and Ariarathes there is for the first time extensive recutting of amphora dates and the names of third magistrates. Numerous as the cited occurrences are, it is quite likely that there are omissions in the present catalogue inasmuch as it is often difficult to detect a skillful re-engraving of names, especially on a poorly-preserved reverse. Nos. 503b and 509c, for example, look as though they had been altered but it is impossible to be certain.
The recutting of names has led to the recording of non-existent magistrates. APXIΠ KI(Ω), given by Sundwall, is merely APXIΠ/≡ENOKPA; ANΔP, listed by Beulé after Sestini and repeated by Sundwall, is almost certainly an error. Without seeing the coin one cannot trace the misreading but an alteration of HPAKΛEI to ΦANOKPI (such as on our No. 515e), if carelessly done, might well produce something resembling ANΔP. In any event the name must be regarded with distinct suspicion.1
Under EYPYKΛEI — APIAPA the precise correspondence of third magistrates and months, which had characterized the three preceding issues, breaks down. The tenure of HPAKΛEI extends over H, Ө and a part of I, the last month shared with ΦANOKPI; ≡ENOKPA is responsible for K and Λ; APX1Π and KAΛΛI both serve during M while the latter continues to function during N. The appearance of the thirteenth month on the coinage establishes 154/3 b.c. as an intercalary year.
KAPAIX – EPΓOKΛE PROW 153/2 b.c.
(Plates 53–54)
Tetradrachms
524. | |||||
a. | TIMO | A | ME | Athens, gr. 16.75↑; Berlin (Sv. 54, 17), gr. 16.76; Giesecke Coll., gr. 16.80 | |
b. | TIMO | Ạ | ṂẸ | *Copenhagen (SNG 260), gr. 16.02↑ |
525. | |||||
a. | TIMO | A | ΣΦ | *Stack's (South) 617 ex Kambanis; Berlin, gr. 16.69. With prow recut: *Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.74↗ | |
b. | TIMO | ? | ? | Stuttgart | |
526. | |||||
a. | TIMO | A | Σω | *Munich, gr. 16.65; Berlin | |
b. | TIMO | A | ΣΩ | Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.83↑ | |
c. | TIMO | A | Φ | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.80↑; Tübingen, amphora and control letters uncertain | |
527. | |||||
a. | ӨEMI | B | ME | Athens (Sv. 54, 18), gr. 16.45↑ | |
b. | MENA | Γ | ME | *Munich, gr. 16.85; Univ. Cal. at Berkeley; Berlin, gr. 16.61 | |
c. | MENA | Γ | ? | Mrs. E. T. Newell Coll., gr. 16.60 | |
528. | |||||
a. | ΘEMI | B | ME | Berry Coll., gr. 16.97↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.67↑; The Hague, amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.50; Istanbul, amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.62↑ | |
b. | ӨEMI | Ḅ | ΣΩ | Berlin, gr. 16.61 | |
c. | ӨEMI | ? | Glasgow (Hunt. 113), gr. 16.52↑ | ||
d. | MENA | Γ | ME | *Kambanis Coll.. | |
e. | MENA | Γ | ΣΩ | Paris, gr. 16.57↑; Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.91 ↖ | |
f. | MENA | Γ | ΣΩ | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.81↑ | |
529. | |||||
a. | ӨEMI | B | ME | London, gr. 16.58↑ | |
b. | ӨEMI | B | ME | Paris, gr. 16.63↑; Am. Univ. Beirut; Berlin, gr. 16.64 | |
c. | ӨEMI | B | ΣΦ | Tübingen, | |
d. | MENA | Γ | ΣΦ | *Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.67↑; Vienna, gr. 16.31; Empedocles Coll.. = Baltatzi Coll. (Sv. 54, 19) = Mavrokordatou Coll. (JIAN 1912, 1327), gr. 16.65 | |
e. | EYΔH | Δ | ΣΦ | Ratto (Rogers) 394, gr. 16.55 | |
530. | |||||
a. | EYΔH | Δ | ME | Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.68 ↖. With ΣΦ/ME: Paris, gr. 16.72↑ | |
b. | EYΔH | Δ | ME/ΣΩ | *Paris, gr.16.44↑; Athens (Sv. 54, 20), gr. 16.40↑ | |
c. | KΛE | E | ME | *Vatican (Sv. 54, 21), gr. 16.65; Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.79↑ | |
d. | KΛE | E | ME | Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr.16.21↑; Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.72↑; Commerce 1951, gr. 16.69 | |
531. | |||||
a. | EYΔH | Δ | ΣΩ | *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.75↑; Romanos Coll. | |
b. | EYΔH | ΣΦ | Berlin, gr. 16.61 | ||
c. | EYΔH | ? | Σ | Vienna, gr. 15.61 | |
d. | KΛE | E | ΣΩ | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.53↑; Romanos Coll., amphora letter uncertain | |
e. | KΛE | E | ΣΦ | Berlin, gr. 16.58; Berlin, gr. 16.72 | |
f. | AΠOΛ | ΣΩ | Athens, gr. 16.58↑; Vienna, amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 15.91 (pierced) | ||
g. | AΠOΛ | ? | ? | Stuttgart | |
532. | |||||
KΛE | E | ΣΦ | *Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.78↑ | ||
533. | |||||
a. | AΠOΛ | ME | *Paris, gr. 16.68↑; Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 3220), gr. 16.12↑; Karlsruhe; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.67↑ | ||
b. | XAI | H | ME | Berlin, gr. 16.64 | |
c. | XAI | Ө | ME | Tübingen,; Karlsruhe | |
d. | XAI | ? | ME | Gotha, gr. 16.52 | |
534. | |||||
a. | AΠOΛ | ME | *Romanos Coll. = Sv. 54, 22, commerce; Vienna, gr. 16.64; Münz. u. Med. List 154, 38, amphora letter uncertain | ||
b. | XAI | H | ΣΩ | The Hague, gr. 16.60; Athens, gr. 16.50↑ | |
c. | XAI | H | ΣΦ | *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.50↑; London (BMC 429), gr. 16.41f; Brussels, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.61 | |
d. | XAI | H | ΣΦ | ANS = Sv. 54, 23, commerce, gr. 16.60↑ | |
e. | XAI | Ө | ΣΦ | Vienna, gr. 16.65. With ΔIOΦ/XAI and Ị/Ө: Berlin, gr. 16.77 | |
f. | ΔIOΦ | I | ME | Vienna, gr. 16.74 | |
g. | ΔIOΦ | I | ? | Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.62 ↖ | |
535. | |||||
a. | XAI | ? | ? | Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.46↑ | |
b. | XAI | Ө | ΣΩ | Paris, gr. 16.45↑ | |
c. | XAI | ? | ΣΩ | Platt (Luneau) 515 | |
d. | ΔIOΦ | I | ΣΩ/ΣΦ | Athens, gr. 16.50↑ | |
e. | ΔIOΦ | I | ΣΩ | Commerce 1956 | |
f. | ΔIOΦ | I | ΣΩ | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.77↑. With ΦEIΔI/ΔIOΦ and K/I: Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.62↑ | |
g. | ΦEIΔI | K | ΣΩ | *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.78↑ | |
h. | ΔIONY | Λ | ΣΩ | Commerce (Sv. 54, 27) = Bourgey, Mar. 1912, 180, gr. 17.00; Berlin, gr. 16.64 | |
i. | ΔIONY | Λ | ΣΩ | Paris, gr. 16.63↑ | |
j. | ΔIONY | ΣΩ | Vienna, gr. 16.55; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.59↑; Romanos Coll.; Berlin, gr. 16.70 | ||
k. | ΔIOME | M | ΣΩ | *Athens, gr. 16.35↑ | |
l. | ΔIOME | M | ΣΩ | Copenhagen (SNG 261), gr. 16.75↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.69↑; Istanbul, gr. 16.77↑; Romanos Coll. | |
m. | ΔIOME | M | ΣΩ | Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.44↑ | |
536. | |||||
a. | XAI | Ө | ME | *Commerce; Berlin (Sv. 54, 24), gr. 16.96 | |
b. | XAI | Ө | ME | London (BMC 430), gr. 16.71↑; ANS, gr. 16.85↑ | |
c. | ΔIOΦ | I | ME | Paris (de Luynes 2099), gr. 16.80↑ | |
d. | ΔIOΦ | I | ME | Wilkinson Coll. = Lockett Coll. (SNG 1927) = Ratto (Rogers) 395, gr. 16.75Φ; Istanbul, gr. 16.70↑ | |
e. | ΔIOΦ | I | ME | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.76↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.67↑; Feuardent, June 1913, 222 | |
f. | ΔIOΦ | ? | ΣΩ | Andreopoulos Coll.; L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 15.45 | |
g. | ΦEIΔI | K | ME | Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.77↑; Giesecke Coll., gr. 16.62 | |
537. | |||||
ΔIOΦ | I | ΔI | *London, gr. 16.58↑; Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 939, gr. 16.70 | ||
538. | |||||
a. | ΔIOΦ | I | ΔI | *Munich, gr. 16.53 | |
b. | ΔIOΦ | I | ΣΦ | ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.65↑; Hess 208, 451 = Sv. 54, 25, commerce = Bourgey (Chabenat) 122, gr. 17.00; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), control letters uncertain, gr. 16.54↑ | |
c. | ΔIOΦ | I | ΣΦ | Commerce Beirut 1951 | |
d. | ΔIOΦ | ? | ΣΦ | Commerce 1956; Budapest, gr. 16.43↑ | |
e. | ΦEIΔI/ ΔIOΦ | K/I | ΣΩ | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.59↑; Brussels, gr. 16.60 ↖ | |
f. | ΦEIΔI | K | ΣΦ | *Giesecke Coll., gr. 16.70; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.71↑; London, control letters uncertain, gr. 16.53↑; Commerce 1955, amphora letter uncertain | |
g. | ΦEIΔI | K | ΣΦ | Tübingen, gr. 16.58; Berlin, gr. 16.74 | |
539. | |||||
ΦEIΔI | K | ME | *Athens; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.65↑; Berlin, gr. 16.42 | ||
540. | |||||
a. | ΦEIΔI | K | ΣΩ | Paris, gr. 16.54↑; Roš Coll., gr. 16.70↑ | |
b. | ΦEIΔI | Ḳ | ME | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.82↑ | |
c. | ΔIONY | Λ | ME | Vienna, gr. 16.51 | |
d. | ΔIONY | Λ | ME | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.69↑; Aberdeen, gr. 15.66 (very worn)↑; Commerce 1955, gr. 16.61; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.73↑. With ΔIOME/ΔIONY and M/Λ: *Bauer Coll. = Ratto (Rogers) 396, gr. 16.82↑; Athens, gr. 16.60↑; ANS-ETN = Sv. 54, 28, commerce, gr. 16.80↑; Glendining, Mar. 1957, 164, gr. 16.85; Naville (Pozzi) 1605, gr. 16.78; Giesecke Coll., amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.63 | |
e. | ΔIOME | M | ΣΩ | Empedocles Coll.. | |
f. | ΔIOME | ? | ME | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.46↑; Berlin, gr. 16.75 | |
541. | |||||
a. | ΔIONY | Λ | ΣΦ | Athens, gr. 16.70↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.57↑ | |
b. | ΔIONY | Λ | ΣΦ | Istanbul, gr.16.52↑. With ΔIOME/ΔIONY and M/Λ : Platt, Apr. 1920, 30; Berlin, gr. 16.46 | |
c. | ΔIOME | M | ΣΦ | *Vienna, gr. 16.63; Ratto (Rogers) 397, gr. 16.60 | |
d. | ΔIOME | M | ME | Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 3221), gr. 16.18↑ |
Drachms
542. | |||||
a. | TIMO | A | *Athens (Delos Hd. B, 118; Sv. 54, 16), gr. 3.90↑. With MENA/TIMO and Γ/A?: Paris; Berlin | ||
b. | KΛE | E | ANS-ETN, gr. 3.92↑ | ||
159 tetradrachms: 18 obverse, 71 reverse dies 4 drachms: 1 obverse, 2 reverse dies Magistrates: TIMO, ӨEMI, MENA, EYΔH, KΛE, AΠOΛ, XAI, ΔIOΦ, ΦEIΔI, ΔIONY, ΔIOME Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, H, Θ, I, K, Λ, M Controls: ΔI, ME, ΣΦ, ΣΩ |
After two years of somewhat lighter coinage the output of the mint is increased under Karaichos and Ergokles. Production is especially heavy during the last five months of the year with frequent recutting of dates and names and considerable shifting of reverse dies.
The symbol for this issue—a prow—is at the beginning rendered in peculiar fashion (cf. Nos. 524b, 525a and 542a). On one reverse, No. 525a in its first stage, the device is quite unrecognizable and the prow on this particular die was subsequently remodelled. Thereafter the symbol is more skillfully engraved with clearly defined poop and projecting ram.
Variations from the present catalogue are given in earlier records. Kambanis reports KΛEOMEN on two Berlin tetradrachms and this same form is entered by Sundwall and Beulé for some reverses. I have seen no examples of the longer version of the name; the Berlin reading is simply KΛE although there are traces of what may be an underlying name below these letters. XAI, the only magistrate whose term runs over a single month, is coupled with I as well as H and Ө by Sundwall. Of the two coins he cites, the Beulé specimen cannot be checked; the other (our No. 534b from Athens) has a date which both Kambanis and I read as H. Beulé's ΠE as a control is not to be found on any Berlin coin and probably represents a poorly cut ME.
On No. 526a the cursive omega, used in a few monograms of the earliest issues, reappears as part of the control combination.
AΦPOΔIΣI – ΔIOΓE DOUBLE CORNUCOPIAE WITH FILLET 152/1 b.c.
(Plates 55–56)
Tetradrachms
543. | |||||
a. | EΠINI | A | ΔI | Romanos Coll.; ANS-ETN, gr. 15.67 (chipped)↑ | |
b. | EΠINI | A | ΔI | *Berry Coll., gr. 16.62 ↖; Glasgow (Hunt. 98), gr. 16.61 ↖. With EYMA/EΠINI and ?/A: Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 16.23 ↖ | |
c. | EYMA | B | ΔI | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 45; Sv. 51, 2), gr. 16.50 ↖ | |
d. | EYMA | Γ/B | ΔI | Berlin, gr. 16.87 | |
e. | ӨPAΣY | r | ΔI | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.71↑; Paris (Sv. 51, 8), gr. 16.87↑ | |
f. | ΦIΛO≡ | Δ | ΔI | Munich, gr. 16.00 | |
g. | ΦIΛO≡ | Δ | ΔI | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 47; Sv. 51, 4), gr. 16.40; Berlin, gr. 16.82 | |
h. | EΛI≡ | E | ΣΦ | Paris (de Luynes 2089), gr. 16.85 ↖ | |
i. | EΛI≡ | E | Ị | Athens, gr. 16.80↑ | |
j. | EΛI≡ | E | ME | Berlin, gr. 16.48 | |
544. | |||||
a. | EΠINI | A | ΣΦ | Paris (de Luynes 2097; Sv. 51, 1), gr. 16.80↑ | |
b. | EΠINI | Ạ | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 53), gr. 16.45↑. With EYMA/EΠINI and B/A: *Brussels, gr. 16.59; Glasgow (Hunt. 99), gr. 16.69↑ | |
c. | EΠINI | ? | ΣΦ | Berlin, gr. 16.29 | |
d. | EYMA | B | ΣΦ | London (BMC 344), gr. 16.38 | |
e. | EYMA | Γ/B | ΔI | *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.63 | |
f. | EYMA | ? | Evelpidis Coll., gr. 16.41; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.65↑ | ||
g. | ΦIΛO≡ | Δ | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 15.20 (corroded)↑ | |
h. | ΦIΛO≡ | Δ | ME | *Berlin; Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.64↑ | |
i. | EΛI≡ | E | ME | *London, gr. 16.71↑ | |
j. | EΛI≡ | E | ME | Cambridge (Lewis Coll., Corpus Christi College), gr. 16.46↑; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 54), gr. 16.60↑ | |
k. | EΛI≡ | E | ME | Athens (Delos Hd. KϚ, 23; Sv. 51, 6), gr. 15.70↑ | |
l. | EΛI≡ | Ẹ | ME | Vienna, gr. 15.84 (piece out) | |
m. | AӨH | Z | ME | Berry Coll., gr. 16.67↑ | |
n. | ΣΩΠY | ? | ME | The Hague, gr. 16.50 | |
545. | |||||
a. | EYMA/ | B/A | ME/(?)ΔI | Ratto (Rogers) 381, gr. 16.80 | |
b. | ©PAΣY | Γ | ME | *London, gr. 16.69↑ | |
546. | |||||
a. | ӨPAΣY/ EYMA | B1 | ΣΦ | *London (BMC 345), gr. 16.44↑; ANS (Abruzzi Hd.), gr. 15.91↑ |
b. | ΦIΛO≡ | ΣΦ | Naples (Mus. Naz., Fiorelli 7142), gr. 16.50 ↖ | ||
c. | ΦIΛO≡ | Δ | ΣΦ | Berlin, gr. 16.88 | |
d. | EΛE | Δ | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 46; Sv. 51, 5), gr. 16.33↑; Johns Hopkins Univ., gr. 16.69 | |
e. | EΛE | E | ΣΦ | Berlin, gr. 15.83 | |
f. | EΛE | E | ? | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.79↑ | |
g. | AӨH | Z | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 48; Sv. 51, 7), gr. 16.65↑ Berlin, gr. 16.57 | |
h. | AθH | H | ΣΦ | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.85↑; Oxford, gr. 16.41↑; Leningrad (Sv. 51, 8), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.58 | |
i. | ZΩΠY | H | ΣΦ | ANS-ETN, gr. 16.77↑; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 49; Sv. 51, 9), gr. 16.60↑ | |
547. | |||||
a. | AӨH | H | Ị/(?)ME | *Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.58↑ | |
b. | AӨH | ? | ΔI | Budapest, gr. 16.52↑; Budapest, gr. 15.98↑ | |
c. | ΦAINOΣ | M | ΔI | *Kambanis Coll.. (Halmyros Hd.); Athens (Halmyros Hd.); Athens, gr. 16.85↑ | |
548. | |||||
a. | ZΩΠY | H | Ị | ANS, gr. 16.35↑ | |
b. | ΣΩKPA | I | ΔI | *Vienna, gr. 16.61; Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), control letters uncertain, gr. 15.85↑ | |
c. | ΣΩKPA | I | ΔI | Paris (de Luynes 2090), gr. 17.05↑; Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.24↑ | |
d. | ΔIO | K | ΔI | L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.60; Paris (de Luynes 2088), gr. 16.65; Yale Univ., gr. 16.83↑ | |
e. | ΔIO | K | ΔI | *Petsalis Coll. | |
f. | ΣATY | Λ | ΔI | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 50), gr. 16.90↑ | |
g. | ΣATY | Λ | ΔI | Halmyros Hd. | |
549. | |||||
a. | ΣΩKPA | Ө | ΣΦ | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.89↑; Ratto (Rogers) 382, gr. 16.70 | |
b. | ΣΩKPA | I | ΣΦ | London (BMC 346), gr. 16.47 ↖ | |
c. | ΔIO | K | ΣΦ | Budapest, gr. 16.60↑ | |
550. | |||||
a. | ΩΠY | Ө | ME | Berlin (Sv. 51, 10), gr. 16.77 | |
b. | ΣΩKPA1 | Ө/H | ME | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 16.00↑ |
c. | ΣΩKPA | I | ME | *Romanos Coll. (Sv. 51, 11), gr. 16.77; ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr.16.75↑; Berlin, gr. 16.15 | |
d. | ΔIO | K | ME | *Paris, gr. 16.36↑; Andreopoulos Coll. | |
e. | ΣATY | Λ | ME | Christomanou Coll. | |
f. | ΣATY | Λ | ME | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 15.70↑ | |
g. | ΣATY | ME | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.67 ↖; Athens, gr. 16.75 ↖ | ||
h. | ΦAINOΣ | M | ME | Athens, gr. 16.30↑ | |
551. | |||||
a. | ΣATY | Λ | ΣΦ | *Winterthur = Ratto (Rogers) 383, gr. 16.49 ↖; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 51; Sv. 51, 12), gr. 16.80↑ | |
b. | ΣATY | Λ | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 16.12↑ | |
c. | ΣATY | Λ | ΣΦ | Berlin, gr. 16.73 | |
d. | ΣATY | ΣΦ | Giesecke Coll., gr. 16.60 | ||
e. | ΦAINOΣ | M | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 16.88↑ | |
f. | ΦAINNOΣ | M | ΣΦ | Empedocles Coll.. | |
552. | |||||
a. | ΦAINOΣ | M | ΔI | *London (BMC 347), gr. 16.69↑ | |
b. | ΦAINNOΣ | M | ΔI | *Copenhagen (SNG 143), gr. 16.88↑ (PLATE 57) | |
c. | ΦAINNOΣ | M | ΔI | Athens↑ | |
553. | |||||
a. | ΦAINOΣ | M | ME | *London (BMC 348), gr. 16.67↑ | |
b. | ΦAINNOΣ | M | ME | Paris, gr. 16.50↑; Athens, gr. 16.65↑ | |
c. | ΦAINNOΣ | M | ṂẸ | *Oxford, gr. 16.67 (PLATE 57) | |
554. | |||||
a. | ΦAINNOΣ | M | ΣΦ | *Berlin, gr. 16.67 | |
b. | ΦAINNOΣ1 | M | ΣΦ/ME | *Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 52; Sv. 51, 13), gr. 16.90↑ | |
c. | ΦAINNOΣ | M | ΣΦ | Athens, gr. 16.92↑ |
AΦPOΔI–ΔIOΓE
Drachms
555. | |||||
a. | EY | ? | ? | Athens (Delos Hd. B, 35; Sv. 51, 14), gr. 3.45 ↖ | |
b. | AӨH | ? | ṂẸ | Paris; London, control letters off flan, gr. 3.82 |
AΦPO–ΔIΣI) | c. | ? | Ị | ? | Berlin (Sv. 51, 15), gr. 3.92 |
(AΦPΔIΣ) | d. | —1 | K | ME | *Athens (Delos Hd. B, 36; Sv. 51,16), gr. 3.90↑; ANS-ETN, gr. 4.22↑ |
101 tetradrachms: 12 obverse, 64 reverse dies 6 drachms : 1 obverse, 4 reverse dies Magistrates: EΠINI, EYMA, ӨPAΣY, ΦIΛO≡, EΛI≡, AӨH, ZΩΠY, ΣΩKPA, ΔIO, ΣATY, ΦAINNOΣ Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, H, Ө, I, K, Λ, M Controls: ΔI, ME, ΣΦ |
This is one of the most erratic issues thus far with respect to the overlapping of the tenure of the third magistrates. Only at the very beginning of the year and then from K through M is there exact correlation of magistrates and months. EYMA is associated with B alone by Kambanis but on our No. 544e there is clearly a Γ cut over the B and one must assume that EYMA as well as ӨPAΣY served during the third month.
The bulk of the coinage seems to have come at the end of 152/1 b.c. with six obverse dies used by ΦAINNOΣ. On the reverses both ΦAINOΣ and ΦAINNOΣ appear; the recutting of No. 554b indicates that the latter is the correct form.
Beulé records a drachm in Vienna with IA as third magistrate. The name does not occur on the tetradrachms and the provenance of this particular coin is puzzling inasmuch as it is not now in the Vienna Cabinet. Kambanis has no record of IA as a magistrate and it is likely that the inscription given by Beulé represents a misreading.
No. 544 may include two obverse dies, the division coming between 544f and g. There is a difference in the appearance of the mouth but all details of hair and helmet correspond exactly and it seems almost incredible that an engraver could have produced such identity in separate dies. I think that actually only one obverse is involved, the heavier profile of the later strikings being due either to a filling in of the die or to a slight recutting.
ΔIONYΣI – ΔIONYΣI HELIOS IN QUADRIGA 151/0 b.c.
(Plates 57–59)
Tetradrachms
552. | |||||
ANTIΦA | A | ΔI | *Lockett Coll. (SNG 1918) = Ratto (Rogers) 384 = Sotheby (Benson) 534, gr. 16.78↑; Athens (Halmyros Hd.) |
553. | |||||
a. | ANTIΦA | A | ME | *Paris, gr. 16.68↑ | |
b. | ANTIΦA | A | ΔI | London (BMC 379), gr. 16.28 | |
554. | |||||
a. | ANTIΦA | A | ΣΩ | *London (BMC 378), gr. 16.68↑ (PLATE 56) | |
b. | ANTIΦA | A | ΣΩ | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.89↑ | |
c. | ANTIΦA | A | ΣΩ | Berlin (Sv. 52, 1), gr. 16.84. With ΣΦ/ΣΩ: Commerce 1952 | |
d. | ANTIΦA | ? | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 70), gr. 16.70↑ | |
e. | APIΣ | B | ΣΩ | London (BMC 381), gr. 16.54↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.62↑ | |
f. | APIΣ | B | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 16.40↑ | |
556. | |||||
a. | ANTIΦA | A | ME | *Copenhagen (SNG 144), gr. 16.53↑ | |
b. | APIΣ | B | ME | Athens, gr. 16.17↑ | |
c. | APIΣ | B | ΣΩ | Vatican | |
557. | |||||
a. | ANTIΦA | A | ΣΩ | *Berlin, gr. 16.64; Athens, gr. 16.50↑; Berlin, gr. 15.24 | |
b. | ANTIΦA | A | ΔI | Athens, gr. 16.65↑; ANS, gr. 16.82↑ | |
c. | ANTIΦA | ? | Ị | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.55↑ | |
d. | ANTIΦA | ? | ME | Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 3216), gr. 16.76↑ | |
e. | APIΣ | B | ΔI | London (BMC 380), gr. 16.57 ↖; Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.56 ↖; Paris, gr. 16.47↑ | |
f. | APIΣ | B | ΔI | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 78), gr. 16.65↑; Empedocles Coll..; Evelpidis Coll. | |
g. | APIΣ | B | ΔI | Giesecke Coll., gr. 16.75 | |
h. | APIΣ | B | ME | Romanos Coll. | |
i. | APIΣ | B | ΣΩ | ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.70↑; Zygman Coll., gr. 16.84↑ | |
558. | |||||
a. | APIΣ | B | ME | *Berlin, gr. 16.68 | |
b. | APIΣ | B | ΣΩ | ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.50↑ | |
c. | APIΣ | ? | ΔI | Oxford, gr. 16.24↑ | |
d. | — | B(?) | ME | *Paris (Sv. 52, 13). gr. 16.81 ↖; Athens, gr. 16.40 ↖ | |
559. | |||||
a. | APIΣ | B | ΣΩ | *Yale Univ., gr. 16.67↑; Paris, gr. 16.75↑; Kambanis Coll..; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 71), gr. 16.45↑ | |
b. | APIΣ | B | ΣΩ | Hamburger (von Kaufmann) 249, gr. 16.64; Schulman, Mar. 1959, 1338, gr. 16.40 | |
c. | APIΣ | B | ME | Vienna, gr. 16.53 | |
d. | APIΣ | B | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 72; Sv. 52, 2), gr. 16.70↑ | |
e. | APIΣ | B | ΔI | Berlin, gr. 16.60 | |
f. | APIΣTAI | Γ | ΣΩ | Paris, gr. 16.74 ↖; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 77), gr. 15.35↑ | |
g. | APIΣTAI | Γ | ΣΩ | Berlin (Sv. 52, 3), gr. 16.75 | |
h. | ΔHMOΣ | Δ | ΣΩ | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 78), gr. 15.45↑; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 52), amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.48↑ | |
560. | |||||
a. | AP1Σ | B | ME | ANS-ETN, gr. 16.59↑ | |
b. | APIΣTAI | Γ | ME | *Empedocles Coll..; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 75), gr. 16.50 ↖; Moscow | |
c. | ΔHMOΣ | Δ | ΣΦ | Marseilles; Berlin, gr. 16.60 | |
561. | |||||
a. | APIΣ | B | ΣΩ | Berlin, gr. 16.71 | |
b. | APIΣTAI | Γ | ΣΩ | Copenhagen (SNG 145), gr. 16.57↑ | |
c. | APIΣTAI | Γ | ΣΦ | Vienna, gr. 15.95 (worn) | |
d. | APIΣTAI | Γ | ΣΦ/(?)ME | Locker Lampson 214 = Naville XII, 1446, gr. 16.41; Berlin, gr. 16.72 | |
e. | AP1ΓTA1 | ? | ΣΦ | Berlin, gr. 16.60 | |
f. | APIΣTAI | Γ | ΔI/ΣΦ | ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.53↑ | |
g. | ΔHMOΣ | Δ | ΣΦ | *Athens (Delos Hd. B, 51; Sv. 52, 4), gr. 16.45↑ | |
562. | |||||
APIΣTAI | Γ | ΔI | *Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 74), gr. 16.60↑ | ||
563. | |||||
a. | APIΣTAI | Γ | ΔI | *Paris, gr. 16.85↑ | |
b. | APIΣTAI | Γ | ΔI | Athens (Oreos Hd.); Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), control letters uncertain, gr. 16.05 ↖ | |
c. | APIΣTAI | Γ | ΔI | *Berlin, gr. 16.68 | |
d. | ΔHMOΣ | Δ | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 16.02↑ | |
564. | |||||
a. | KAΛΛIΣ | E | ΔI | *Paris, gr. 16.33↑ | |
b. | KAΛΛIΣ | E | ΔI | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr.15.80↑ Berlin, gr. 16.63 | |
c. | ZEY≡I | Z | ΔI | Athens (Delos Hd.Γ, 81; Sv.52, 6), gr. 16.65↑ | |
d. | ZEY≡I/(?)KAΛΛIΣ | Z/? | ΔI | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.66↑ | |
565. | |||||
a. | KAΛΛIΣ | E | ME | Athens (Sv. 52, 5), gr. 16.50↑ | |
b. | ZEY≡I | Z | ME | *Paris, gr. 16.75↑ | |
c. | ZEY≡I | Ẓ | ME | Tübingen, gr. 16.43 | |
566. | |||||
a. | KAΛΛIΣ | E | ΣΩ | *Lockett Coll. (SNG 1919) = Ratto (Rogers) 385, gr. 16.77↑; ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.62↑; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 80), gr. 16.55↑ | |
b. | ZEY≡I | Z | ΣΩ | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.95↑; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH). gr. 16.10↑; Commerce 1952 | |
c. | MHTPO | H | ΣΩ | *Tübingen, gr. 16.58 | |
d. | MHTPO | H | ΣΩ | Athens, gr. 16.59↑ | |
e. | MHTPO | H | ΣΩ | Athens, gr. 16.35↑ | |
f. | APIΣTΩ | Ө | ΣΩ | Istanbul, gr. 16.20↑ | |
567. | |||||
a. | KAΛΛIΣ | E | ΣΦ | Vienna, gr. 16.32 | |
b. | ZEY≡I | Z | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.47↑; Copenhagen (SNG 146), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.39↑ | |
c. | ZEY≡I | Z | ΣΦ | Berlin, gr. 16.17 | |
d. | MHTPO | H | ΣΦ | Paris, gr. 16.71↑ | |
e. | MHTPO | H | ΣΦ | London (BMC 382), gr. 16.57↑; Athens (Delos Hd.Γ, 84; Sv.52, 7), gr. 16.70↑; Berlin, gr. 16.66 | |
f. | MHTPO | H | ΣΦ | Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 3217), gr. 16.63↑; Mass. Hist. Soc., gr. 15.10 (very worn) | |
g. | MHTPO | H | ΣΦ/ΣΩ | L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.40; Cahn 60, 575, gr. 16.80 | |
h. | MHTPO | Ḥ | ΣΦ | Athens, gr. 15.90↑ | |
i. | APIΣTΩ | Ө | ΣΦ | *Paris, gr. 16.69 ↖ | |
j. | APIΣTΩ | Ө | ΔI | *Haughton Coll. = Ratto, Feb. 1928, 447, gr. 16.43↑ | |
568. | |||||
a. | MHTPO | H | ME | *Berry Coll., gr. 16.22↑; Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 14.50 (corroded)↑ | |
b. | MHTPO | H | ME | The Hague, gr. 16.55 | |
c. | APIΣTΩ | ? | ME | Copenhagen (SNG 147), gr. 16.35↑ | |
569. | |||||
a. | MHTPO | Ḥ | ΔI | Berlin, gr. 16.53 | |
b. | APIΣTΩ | Ө | ΣΦ | London (Sv. 52, 8), gr. 16.74↑ | |
c. | APIΣTΩ | Ө | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd.Γ, 86), gr. 16.17↑ | |
d. | TIMΩN | I | ΣΦ | *Empedocles Coll.. | |
e. | TIMΩ | Ị | ME | Berlin, gr. 16.54 | |
f. | AIΣXI | K | ΣΦ | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.85 ↖; Berlin, gr. 16.75 | |
g. | AIΣXI | K | ΣΦ | Ratto (Rogers) 386, gr. 16.35 | |
h. | MNHΣAP1 | Λ/K | ΣΦ | Athens, gr. 16.40↑ | |
570. | |||||
a. | APIΣTΩ | Ө | ΣΩ | Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.65↑ | |
b. | TIMΩ | I | ΣΩ | ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.48↑ | |
c. | TIMΩ | ? | ΣΩ | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 89), gr. 16.55↑ | |
d. | AIΣXI | K | ΣΩ | Athens | |
e. | MNHΣAP | Λ/K | ΣΩ/ΣΦ | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.54 ↖ | |
f. | MNHΣAP | Λ/(?)K | ΣΩ/? | *Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 90; Sv. 52, 11), gr. 16.75↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 17.02↑ | |
g. | MNHΣAP | ? | ΔI(?) | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 14.85 (corroded)↑ | |
h. | MNHΣAP | Λ | ? | Berlin, gr. 16.36 | |
571. | |||||
a. | APIΣTΩ | Ө | ΔI | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 87), gr. 16.55↑ | |
b. | APIΣTΩ | ΔI | Berlin, gr. 16.63 | ||
c. | MHTPO | H | ΔI | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 83), gr. 16.80↑; Berlin, gr. 16.39 | |
d. | TIMΩ | I | ΔI | Athens (Delos Hd.Γ, 88; Sv. 52, 9), gr. 16.95↑ | |
e. | TIMΩ | I | ME | *Tübingen, gr. 16.16 (pierced) | |
f. | AIΣXI | K | ΔI | Athens (Delos Hd. B, 54; Sv. 52, 10), gr. 16.30↑; Romanos Coll. | |
g. | AIΣXI | K | ΔI/ME | ANS-ETN, gr. 16.63↑ | |
h. | MNHΣAP | Λ | ΔI/ΣΩ | *Paris (de Luynes 2096), gr. 16.70↑; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 91), gr. 16.60↑ |
i. | MNHΣAP | Λ | ΔI/Σ[ | Copenhagen (SNG 148), gr. 16.93↑; Paris, gr. 16.80↑ | |
j. | MNHΣAP | Λ | ΔI | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 92), gr. 16.80↑ | |
k. | MNHΣAP | Λ | ΔI | London (BMC 383), gr. 16.37↑ | |
l. | MNHΣAP | ME | Athens, gr. 15.55 (very worn)↑ | ||
m. | AΣKΛA | M | ΔI | Giesecke Coll., gr. 16.60; Empedocles Coll..; Munich, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.11 (worn) | |
572. | |||||
a. | TIMΩ | I | ME | *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.46↑ | |
b. | TIMΩN | I | ME | *Empedocles Coll.. | |
573. | |||||
a. | AIΣXI | K | ME | Athens, gr. 16.80↑ | |
b. | MNHΣAP | Λ | ME | *ANS = Stack's (South) 619, gr. 16.57 ↖; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.50 ↖; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 93), gr. 16.55↑; Kambanis Coll.. (Halmyros Hd.) | |
574. | |||||
a. | MNHΣAP | Λ | ΔI | *Empedocles Coll..; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.82↑ | |
b. | AΣKΛA | Ṃ | ΔI | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.65↑; Berlin, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.53 | |
575. | |||||
a. | MNHΣAP | Λ | ΣΦ | *Paris, gr. 16.74↑; Vatican; Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.58↑ | |
b. | AΣKΛA | M | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr.16.23↑; Grabow, July 1930, 369, gr. 16.63 | |
c. | AΣKΛA | M | ΣΦ | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.53↑; Athens, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.25↑ | |
576. | |||||
a. | MNHΣAP | Λ | ΣΩ | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.72↑; Serrure, Dec. 1903, 219; Brooklyn Mus. | |
b. | AΣKΛA | M | ΣΩ | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 95), gr. 16.40↑ | |
c. | AΣKΛA | M | ΣΩ/ΔI | Berlin, gr. 16.60 | |
577. | |||||
a. | MNHΣAP | Λ | ME | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.67 ↖; Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 15.94 ↖ | |
b. | MNHΣAP | Λ | ME | *Paris, gr. 16.33 ↖ | |
c. | MNHΣAP | ME | *Andreopoulos Coll. (PLATE 60) | ||
d. | AΣKΛA | M | ME | Ratto (Rogers) 387, gr. 15.80 | |
e. | AΣKΛA | Ṃ | ME | *Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 96; Sv. 52, 12), gr. 16.20↑ | |
f. | AΣKΛA | ? | ΔI | ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.04↑ |
Drachms 1
578. | |||||
a. | ANTỊ | A | ? | *Athens (Delos Hd. B, 48; Sv. 52, 14), gr. 3.75↑ | |
(ΔIONY–ΔIONY) | b. | APIΣ | Γ | ME | Athens (Delos Hd. B, 50; Sv. 52, 15), gr. 3.97↑ |
579. | |||||
a. | APIṬ | ? | *London, gr. 3.87 | ||
(ΔIONYΣ–ΔIONYΣ) | b. | ? | ? | ? | Berlin, gr. 3.29 (broken) |
175 tetradrachms : 25 obverse, 104 reverse dies 4 drachms: 2 obverse, 4 reverse dies Magistrates: ANTIΦA, APIΣ, APIΣTAI, ΔHMOΣ, KAΛΛIΣ, ZEY≡I, MHTPO, APIΣTΩ, TIMΩN, AIΣXI, MNHΣAP, AΣKΛA Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, H, Ө, I, K, Λ, M Controls: ΔI, ME, ΣΦ, ΣΩ |
Three obverse dies, Nos. 552, 553 and 554, establish the relationship of this issue with the preceding one of AΦPOΔIΣI – ΔIOΓE. One link between the two strikings, No. 554, was published by Kambanis (Arethuse, Oct. 1928, Plates XXII, 12 and XXIII, 5; our PLATE 56); the other two are illustrated at the top of PLATE 57.
In contrast to the coinage of AΦPOΔIΣI – ΔIOΓE, the emission of ΔIONYΣI — ΔIONYΣI is carefully regulated. Each of the twelve third magistrates serves for a single month and the output of tetradrachms throughout the year is not only heavy but fairly evenly distributed.
No. 558d is noteworthy for the omission of the name of a third magistrate. The same phenomenon on the earlier issue of ΔΩPOθE – ΔIOΦ occurs on all reverses of the first month and suggests that there was no third magistrate connected with the coinage during alpha. Here only one reverse is uninscribed and the obverse with which it is associated is apparently not in use at the very beginning of the year.
AMMΩNIOΣ–KAΛΛIAΣ TWO TORCHES 150/49 b.c.
(Plates 60–61)
Tetradrachms
577. | |||||
(AMMΩNI) | a. | ΔIO | A | ΣΦA | *Vienna (Sv. 57, 2), gr. 16.65; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 10; Sv. 57, 1), gr. 16.65↑ |
(AMMΩNI) | b. | ΔIO | A | ΔI | *Empedocles Coll.. |
580. | |||||
(AMMΩNI) | ΔIO | A | ΣΦẠ | *Athens (Halmyros Hd.) | |
581. | |||||
a. | ΔIONYΣI | A | ΠE | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.57↑ | |
b. | ΔIONYΣI | A | ΠE | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 11), gr. 16.42↑. With ΛYΣAN/ΔIONYΣI and B/A: *Christomanou Coll. | |
c. | ΛYΣAN | B | ΠE | Giesecke Coll., gr. 16.71; Commerce 1955 | |
d. | ΛYΣAN | Ḅ | ΠE | *Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 14), gr. 16.65↑; ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.19↑ | |
e. | HPAKΛE | Γ | ΠE | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.62↑ | |
582. | |||||
a. | ΔIONYΣI | A | ME | *ANS-ETN = Naville (Pozzi) 1599, gr. 16.75↑; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.96↑; Karlsruhe, amphora letter uncertain | |
b. | ΔIONYΣI | A | ME | Kambanis Coll.. (Halmyros Hd.). With ΛYΣAN/ΔIONYΣI and B/A: *Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 13; Sv. 57, 4), gr. 16.65↑;ANS, gr. 16.38↑ | |
c. | ΛYΣAN | B | ME | Mrs. E. T. Newell Coll., gr. 16.78; Athens. amphora and control letters uncertain | |
d. | HPAKΛE | Γ | ME | Halmyros Hd.; Berlin, gr. 15.65 | |
e. | HPAKΛE | Γ | ME/ΠE | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 15; Sv. 57, 5). gr. 16.64↑ | |
f. | HPAKΛE | Δ/Γ | ME | Berlin, gr. 16.72; London (BMC 314), gr. 16.67↑ | |
583. | |||||
a. | ΔIONYΣI | A | ΣΦ | *Meletopoulos Coll.; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH) gr. 15.18↑; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), amphora and control letters uncertain, broken↑ | |
b. | ΔIONYΣI | ? | ΣΦ | London (BMC 312), gr. 15.94 (pierced)↑; Kambanis Coll.. (Halmyros Hd.) | |
c. | ΛYΣAN/ ΔIONYΣI | B/A | ΠE | *Commerce 1953 | |
d. | ΛYΣAN | B | ΣΦ | Empedocles Coll..; Vienna, gr. 16.72 | |
e. | ΛYΣAN | B | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.16↑; London (BMC 313), gr. 16.59↑; Vienna, gr. 16.55 | |
f. | HPAKιE | Γ | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 16), gr. 16.55↑ | |
g. | HPAKιE | Δ/Γ | ΣΦ/ΠE or ME | Romanos Coll. (Sv. 57, 6), gr. 16.61. With EYBOYΛOΣ/ HPAKΛE: ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.21↑ | |
584. | |||||
a. | ΔIONYΣI | A | ΔI | *Oxford, gr. 16.57; Berlin, gr. 16.26; Berlin, gr. 16.22. With ΛYΣAN/ΔIONYΣI1: Berry Coll., gr. 16.62↑; Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.59↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.56↑; Gookop Coll. (Sv. 57, 3) | |
b. | ΛYΣAN/ΔIONYΣI | B/A | ΠE | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.74↑ | |
c. | ΛYΣAN/ΔIONYΣI | B/A | ΔI | ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.90↑ | |
d. | ΛYΣAN | B | ΔI | Berlin, gr. 16.48. With HPAKΛE/ΛYΣAN and Γ/B: ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.48↑; Rhode Is. School Design = Florange (Allotte de la Fuÿe) 408, gr. 16.48 | |
e. | HPAKΛE/ΛYΣAN | Δ/Γ/E or Δ/B | ΣΦ | Ratto (Rogers) 411, gr. 16.75 | |
f. | HPAKΛE | Δ | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 16.08↑ | |
g. | HPAKΛE | Δ | ΣO | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 15.60↑; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 18), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.60↑ | |
h. | EYBOYΛOΣ | Δ | ΣO | Vienna, gr. 16.61 | |
i | EYBOYΛOΣ | E | ΣO | ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.55↑ | |
j | EYBOYΛOΣ | E | ΣO | Berlin, gr. 16.34 | |
585. | |||||
a. | EYBOYΛOΣ | E | ΠE | *Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 19; Sv. 57, 7), gr. 16.62↑ | |
b. | EYBOYΛOΣ | E | ΠE | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 15.54↑. With AΠOΛΛΩ/EYBOYΛOΣ and Z/E: Athens (Delos Hd. B, 15; Sv. 57, 9), gr. 16.56 |
c. | ATTOΛΛΩN | Z | ΠE | Athens (Halmyros Hd.); Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.80↑; London, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.48↑; Copenhagen (SNG 153), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.52↑. With ӨEMIΣTO/AΠOΛΛΩN: Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.08↑; Berlin, gr. 16.51 | |
d. | ӨEMIΣΓO | Z | ΠE | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.44↑; Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.56↑ | |
e. | EYBIOΣ | Z | ΠE | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 34; Sv. 57, 10), gr. 16.52↑; Vienna, gr. 16.671; Berlin, gr. 16.59 | |
f. | EYBIOΣ | Z | ΠE | London, gr. 16.35↑ | |
g. | AΛKIΠΠOΣ | H | ΣO | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.76↑. With OΛYMΠIO/AΛKIΠΠOΣ and Ө/H and ΠE/ΣO: *Oxford, gr. 16.48↑ | |
586. | |||||
a. | EYBOYΛOΣ | E | ME | ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.51↑ | |
b. | AΠOΛΛΩ | Z | ΣΦ | *Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 23), gr. 16.85↑ | |
c. | ӨEMIΣTO/? | Z/Ẹ | ΣΦ | Athens (Halmyros Hd.) | |
d. | ӨEMIΣTO | Z | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 22), gr. 16.75↑ | |
e. | ӨEMIΣTO | Z | ΣΦ | Naville (Woodward) 747, gr. 16.67 | |
f. | EYBIOΣ/ӨEMIΣTO | Z | ΣΦ/ΠE | Athens (Delos Hd. A, 1), gr. 16.50↑ | |
g. | AΛKIΠΠOΣ | H | ΣΦ | London (BMC 316; Sv. 57,12), gr. 16.54↑; Commerce 1956 | |
h. | AΛKIΠΠOΣ | Ө | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 26; Sv. 57, 13), gr. 16.85↑; Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 15.97↑ | |
i. | BYTTAKOΣ | Ị | ΣΦ | Berlin, gr. 16.55 | |
587. | |||||
AΠOΛΛΩ/EYBOYΛOΣ | Z/E | ME | *Athens (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.70↑ | ||
588. | |||||
a. | ӨEMIΣTO | Z | ME | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.90↑; Vienna, gr. 16.68; Athens (Sv. 57, 8), gr. 16.72 | |
b. | ӨEMIΣTO | Z | ME | Athens (DelosHd. Γ, 20), gr. 16.72↑; Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 16.04↑; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.10↑; Athens (Halmyros Hd.); Berlin, gr. 16.74 |
c. | ӨEMIΣTO | Z | ME/Ọ | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 21), gr. 16.55↑ | |
d. | EYBIOΣ | H/Z | ME/ΠE | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 33; Sv. 57, 11), gr. 16.70↑ | |
e. | AΛKIΠΠOΣ/OΛYMPIOΣ | ME | Ratto (Rogers) 412, gr. 16.65 | ||
589. | |||||
a. | AΠOΛΛΩN | Z | ΣO | Berlin, gr. 16.68 | |
b. | ӨEMIΣTO | Z | ΣO | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 15.74↑; London (BMC 315), amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.17↑ | |
c. | ӨEMIΣTO | Z | ΣO | Athens, gr. 16.58↑; Benson Coll., gr. 16.51. With EYBIOΣ/ӨEM1ΣTO: Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 35), gr. 16.75↑ | |
d. | AΛKIΠΠOΣ | Ө/H | ΣO | *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.46↑; Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.68↑ | |
590. | |||||
a. | AΛKIΠΠOΣ | Ө | ME | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 24), gr. 16.70↑ | |
b. | OΛYMΠIOΣ | Ө | ME | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH; Sv. 57, 14), gr. 15.97; Athens (Carystus Hd. II, BCH, 1958, PI. XLIX, 1), gr. 16.90. With AΛIπΠOΣ/OΛYMΠIOΣ: Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 16.15↑; Naville (Bement) 1117, gr. 16.81 | |
c. | BYTTAKOΣ | I | ME | *Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 29), gr. 16.70↑; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 81; Sv. 57, 18), gr. 16.55↑; Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 15.66↑ | |
d. | BYTTAKOΣ | I | ME | The Hague, gr. 16.60 | |
e. | BYTTAKOΣ | I | ME/Σ[ | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.80 ↖; Paris, gr.16.13↑ | |
f. | EYΠOΛE | ME | Paris, gr. 16.17 ↖; Copenhagen (SNG 152), gr. 16.24↑ | ||
591. | |||||
a. | BYTTAKOΣ | I | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd. KϚ, 16), gr. 15.10 (corroded) ↑ | |
b. | BYTTAKOΣ | ΣΦ | *Paris (Sv. 57, 17), gr. 16.70↑; Berlin, gr. 15.95 | ||
c. | EYΠOΛE | Λ | ΣΦ | Athens, gr. 16.40↑ | |
d. | EYΠOΛE | ΣΦ | Berlin, gr. 16.53 | ||
592. | |||||
a. | BYTTAKOΣ | I | ΣO | *Oxford, gr. 16.77; ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.53↑ | |
b. | BYTTAKOΣ | Ị | ΣO | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 15.36↑ | |
c. | EYΠOΛE | Λ | ΣO | Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 16.65↑ | |
d. | EΠIΦANHΣ | M | ΣỌ | Berlin, gr. 16.25 | |
593. | |||||
a. | BYTTAKOΣ | I | ΠE | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 27; Sv. 57, 15), gr. 16.45↑; Commerce 1955; Andreopoulos Coll. With K/I: Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 80; Sv. 57, 16), gr. 16.05↑. With EYΠOΛE/ BYTTAKOΣ and Λ/K/I: London↑ | |
b. | EYΠOΛE | Λ | ΠE | *Athens (Delos Hd. Γ. 32; Sv. 57, 19), gr. 16.50↑ | |
c. | EΠIΦANHΣ | M | ΠE | Florange-Ciani, Oct. 1923, 19 = Baltatzi Coll. (Sv. 57, 20) = Mavrokordatou Coll. (JIAN, 1912, 1304), gr. 16.36 |
Drachms
594. | |||||
ӨEMIΣTO | *Athens (Delos Hd. B, 16; Sv. 57, 21), gr. 3.87↑; L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 4.03 | ||||
595. | |||||
a. | BYTT/(?)AΛKIΠ | ? | Paris | ||
b. | EYΠ | ? | *Athens (Sv. 57, 22), gr. 4.02↑ | ||
c. | — | ? | Cambridge (Grose 5907; Sv. 57, 23), gr. 3.82↑ | ||
136 tetradrachms : 15 obverse, 64 reverse dies 5 drachms: 2 obverse, 4 reverse dies Magistrates: ΔIONYΣI, ΛYΣAN, HPAKΛE, EYBOYΛOΣ, AΠOΛΛΩN, ӨEMIΣTO, EYBIOΣ, AΛKIΠΠOΣ, OΛYMΠIOΣ, BYTTAKOΣ, EYΠOΛE, EΠIΦANHΣ Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, H, Ө, I, K, Λ, M Controls: ΔI, ME, ΠE, ΣO, ΣΦ(A) |
Obverse 577 links this issue with that of ΔIONYΣI – ΔIONYΣI (PLATE 60). The latter striking is thus firmly fixed in position between the emissions of AΦPOΔIΣI – ΔIOΓE and AMMΩNIOΣ – KAΛΛIAΣ.
In contrast to the orderly arrangement of third magistrates and months under ΔIONYΣI – ΔIONYΣI, the present issue reverts to the irregular practices that characterized the coinage of AΦPOΔIΣI – ΔIOΓE. Only four magistrates, two at the beginning and two at the end of the year, have sole responsibility for a single month. Two men are associated with delta, three with zeta, two with eta and two again with theta. Recuttings connected with the reverse dies of Anthesterion indicate that the third magistrates, in some instances at least, may have held the post at the same time rather than consecutively. No. 585g in its recut stage has OΛYMΠIO over AΛKIΠΠOΣ; on Nos. 588e and 590b the order is clearly AΛKIΠΓTOΣ over OΛYMΠIOΣ.
Beulé, followed by Sundwall, reads ΣPOMA on a Vienna tetradrachm. The name does not occur in Kambanis' record and the Vienna Cabinet has no coin with this inscription. Recutting probably accounts for the misreading.
In the present catalogue only two dies with EΠIΦANHΣ are represented. Kambanis has six such entries but three are from unillustrated sources and another, from the Halmyros Hoard, cannot be checked. There is no way of knowing how many different reverse dies were thus inscribed but it seems likely that there is duplication in Kambanis' listing and that the current record of a diminishing coinage at the end of the year is substantially correct.
Two new control combinations (ΠE and ΣO) appear for the first time on tetradrachms of the three-magistrate series. ΣO apparently replaces ΔI in the month delta; ΠE is found throughout the year.
Three reverse dies (Nos. 577a-b and 580) have several distinctive features. The names of both first and third magistrate are abbreviated, AMMΩNI and ΔIO, while the symbol is so crudely rendered as to be almost meaningless. These are certainly the earliest reverses of the issue (two are coupled with the transferred Obverse 577); later dies are more carefully executed.
ӨEMIΣTO–ӨEOΠOMΠOΣ TROPHY ON PROW 149/8 b.c
(Plates 62–63)
Tetradrachms
596. | |||||
(ӨEOΠOM) | ΦIΛΩNI | A | ΔI | *Berlin (Sv. 54, 1), gr. 16.52 | |
597. | |||||
(ӨEOΠOM) | a. | ΦIΛΩNI | A | ME | *London, gr. 16.97 ↖; ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.74 ↖; Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 16.81 ↖; Stockholm, gr. 16.62 |
b. | ΦIΛΩ | B | ME | Giesecke Coll., gr. 16.68; London, gr. 16.63 ↖ | |
c. | AΠOΛΛOΩA | B | ME | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.75↑; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 157), gr. 16.50 ↖ | |
d. | AΠOΛΛOΩA | B | ME | L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.60 | |
e. | MENOI | Γ | ME | Empedocles Coll..; Athens, gr. 16.51↑; Berlin, gr. 16.69 | |
f. | ӨEOΔΩP | E | ME | Vienna, gr. 16.62; Berlin, gr. 16.27 | |
598. | |||||
(ӨEOΠOM) | a. | ΦIΛΩNI | Ạ | ΔI | Ratto (Rogers) 392, gr. 16.75 |
(ӨEOΠOM) | b. | ΦIΛΩNI | ? | Ị | Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.75↑ |
c. | AΠOΛΛOΦA | B | ΔI | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.44↑; ANS, gr. 16.82↑; Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 15.95↑; Athens, gr. 16.42↑ | |
d. | AΠOΛΛOΦA | B | ΔI | *Berlin, gr. 16.43 | |
e. | MENOI | Γ | ΔI | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 149), gr. 16.65↑; Paris, gr. 16.52↑; Athens | |
f. | MENOI | Γ | ΔI/ΣΦ | Bauer Coll., gr. 16.69↑ | |
g. | ӨEOΓEN | Z | ΔI | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.81↑ | |
599. | |||||
a. | ΠOΣ, ΦIΛΩ/ΦIΛΩNI | B/A | ΣΦ | *Gotha (Sv. 54, 2), gr. 16.55 | |
b. | AΠOΛΛOΦA | B | ΣΦ | Brussels, gr. 16.55 ↖; Glasgow (Hunt. 110), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.74↑ | |
600. | |||||
a. | AΠOΛΛOΦA | B | ΣΦ | *Paris (Sv. 54, 8), gr. 16.85 ↖ | |
b. | MENOI/AΠOΛΛOΦA | ? | ΣΦ | Berlin, gr. 16.38 | |
c. | MENOI | ΣΦ/ME | Berlin, gr. 16.56 | ||
d. | MENOI | Δ | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 150; Sv. 54, 5), gr. 16.80. With E/Δ: London = Egger XL (Prowe) 961, gr. 16.84↑; Mrs. E. T. Newell Coll., gr. 16.74; Berlin, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.75 | |
e. | ӨEOΔΩP | Ẹ | ΣΦ | Berlin, gr. 16.62 | |
f. | ӨEOΓEN | ΣΦ | ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.03↑ | ||
g. | ΛYΣA | Ө | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ. 152; Sv. 54, 8), gr. 16.85 ↖ | |
h. | ΔHMHTP(recut?) | ΣΦ/? | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 158), gr. 16.62↑ | ||
601. | |||||
a. | AΠOΛΛOΦA | B | ΣΩ | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.15 (corroded) ↑ | |
b. | AΠOΛΛOΩA | Ḅ | ΣΩ | Berlin, gr. 16.09 | |
c. | MENOI | Γ | ΣΩ | *Münz. u. Med. XIII. 1132, gr. 16.39↑ | |
d. | MENOI | Γ | ΣΩ | L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.15; Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 15.72↑ | |
e. | MENOI | Γ | ΣΩ | London, gr. 16.69↑; Marseilles (Sv. 54, 4), gr. 16.60 | |
f. | ӨEOΔΩP | E | ΔI | ANS, gr. 16.72↑ | |
g. | ӨEOΔΩP | Z | ΠE | Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.82↑; Romanos Coll. | |
h. | ӨEOΓEN | Z | ΠE | Frankfurt am Main | |
i. | ӨEOΓEN | Z | ΠE | Athens, gr. 15.65↑; Athens | |
j. | ӨEOΓEN | Z | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd. B, 108), gr. 15.60↑ | |
k. | ΛYΣANI | ? | Ẹ | Vienna, gr. 16.31 | |
i. | ΛYΣANI (recut ?) | ? | ΔI/(?)ΠE | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 15.80↑ | |
602. | |||||
a. | ӨEOΔΩP | Z | ME | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.81↑; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 151; Sv. 54, 6), gr. 16.60↑ | |
b. | ӨEOΓEN | ? | ME | Tübingen, gr. 15.82 | |
c. | ΛYΣA | H | ME | London, gr. 16.03↑ | |
d. | ΛYΣANI | H | ME | *Paris, gr. 16.75↑ | |
e. | ΔHMHTPI (recut ?) | ? | ΠE/? | Ratto (Rogers) 393, gr. 16.70 | |
603. | |||||
a. | ӨEOΓEN | Ẓ | ΔI | London (BMC 418), gr. 16.58↑ | |
b. | ΛYΣA/ӨEOΓEN | H/Z | ΔI/ΠE | Berlin (Sv. 54, 7), gr. 16.77 | |
c. | ΛYΣANI (recut?) | Ө/(?)H | ΔI/(?)ΠE | Glendining (Cunningham) 165 | |
d. | ΔHMHTPI/(?)ΛYΣANI | Ө/H | ΔI/E | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.52↑ | |
e. | APIΣΓO | Ị | ΔI | Oxford, gr. 16.50 | |
f. | APIΣTO | Ị | ΔI | Halmyros Hd. | |
g. | APIΣTO | K | ΔI | *Amsterdam (Boissevain 50), gr. 16.73 | |
h. | APIΣTO | K | ΔI | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 14.90 (corroded)↑; Berlin, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 15.86 | |
i | APIΣTO | K | ΔI/(?)ΣΦ | London (BMC 420), gr. 16.42↑; Empedocles Coll.. | |
j. | APIΣTO | ΔI | Athens, gr. 15.40 (corroded)↑ | ||
604. | |||||
a. | APIΣTO | I | ΠE | *Paris (de Luynes 2087). gr. 16.75↑ | |
b. | APIΣTO | I | ΠE | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 158; Sv. 54. 9). gr. 16.70↑ | |
c. | APIΣTO | Ị | ME | Commerce 1952 | |
d. | APIΣTO | K | ΣΦ | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.). gr. 16.79↑; Kambanis Coll..; Romanos Coll., amphora letter uncertain | |
e. | APIΣTO | K | ΣΦ | London, gr. 16.65↑ | |
605. | |||||
a. | APIΣTO | I | ΠE | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.). gr. 16.70↑ | |
b. | APIΣTO | K | ΠE | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 16.05↑ | |
(No trophy) | c. | APIΣTO | Λ | ΣΦ | *ANS, gr. 16.56↑ |
d. | APIΣTO | ΠE | Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 938, gr. 16.50 | ||
e. | APIΣTO | Λ | ΠE | Berlin (Sv. 54. 11), gr. 16.42; Paris, amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.64↑. With ΔIONYΣI/APIΣTO and M/Λ: Petsalis, gr. 16.26↑ | |
f. | APIΣTO | ΠE | Berlin, gr. 16.54 | ||
g. | ΔIONYΣI/APIΣTO | M/ | ΠE | Kambanis Coll.. | |
606. | |||||
a. | APIΣTO | I | ME | London (BMC 419), gr. 16.62↑; Romanos Coll., amphora letter uncertain | |
b. | APIΣTO | I | ME | Athens (Delos Hd. B, 109), gr. 15.97↑; Berry Coll., gr. 16.68 ↗ | |
c. | APIΣΓO | K | ME | *Commerce 1952, gr. 16.63; Istanbul, gr. 16.64↑ | |
d. | APIΣTO | K | ME | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 154; Sv. 54, 10), gr. 16.10 ↖; Athens (Salamis Hd.), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.57↑ | |
e. | APIΓΓO | Λ | ME | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.). gr. 16.62↑; Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 16.25↑. With ΔIONYΣI/APIΣTO and M/Λ: *Copenhagen (SNG 149). gr. 16.58↑ | |
f. | ΔIONYΣI/APIΣTO | M/Λ | ṂE/? | Athens (Delos Hd. B, 110; Sv. 54. 12), gr. 16.65↑ | |
607. | |||||
a. | APIΣTO | Λ | ΣΦ | *Empedocles Coll..; Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.33↑ | |
b. | APIΓΓO | Λ | ΣΦ | Dewing Coll., gr. 16.38 ↖ | |
608. | |||||
a. | ΔIONYΣI/ APIΣΓO | M/Λ | ΔI | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 15.95↑ | |
b. | ΔIONYΣI/ APIΣΓO | ? | ? | *Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 156), gr. 16.70↑ | |
609. | |||||
ΔIONYΣI | M | ΣΦ | *Giesecke Coll., gr. 16.55; Berlin, gr. 16.48 |
Drachms
610. | |||||
a. | [A]ΠOΛ | ? | Gotha (Sv. 54, 13), gr. 3.98; Copenhagen (SNG 150; Sv. 54, 15), gr. 3.82↑ | ||
b. | ӨE | Ẹ | Athens (Delos Hd. KϚ, 27)1, gr. 3.60↑; *Athens (Delos Hd. A, 19; Sv. 54, 14), letter uncertain, gr. 4.05↑ | ||
110 tetradrachms : 14 obverse, 67 reverse dies 4 drachms: 1 obverse, 2 reverse dies Magistrates: ΦIΛΩNI, ΦIΛΩ, AΠOΛΛOΦA, MENOI, ӨEOΔΩP, ӨEOΓEN, ΛYΣANI, ΔHMHTPI, APIΣTO, ΔIONYΣI Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, H, Ө, I, K, A, M Controls: ΔI, ME, ΠE, ΣΦ, ΣΩ |
Variant control marks are recorded for this issue. The AN or AM reading for the Photiadès coin (No. 688 of Froehner's catalogue) is queried by Kambanis in his notes and seems highly suspect. Another combination, ΣO, is given by Kambanis for three entries in his listing of the Themistokles-Theopompos coinage. On the two tetradrachms which can be checked, our Nos. 601b and e, the letters are ΣΩ. In all probability the other coin bore the same marking but the occurrence of ΣO cannot be categorically rejected inasmuch as it is used as a control combination at this period.
No. 605c is noteworthy for the omission of the trophy which customarily stands on the prow. This exceptional representation, confined as it is to a single die and one cut late in the year, would seem to be nothing more than an engraver's error.
As in the issue immediately preceding, there is on the earliest reverses a difference in the rendering of the name of an annual magistrate. AMMΩNIOΣ is AMMΩNI for a short time; ӨEOΠOMΠOΣ is ӨEOΠOM. When ΦIΛΩ of month B is cut over ΦIΛΩNI of A, ΠOΣ is also added to the die for the usual ӨEOΠOMΠOΣ form.
The diagrammatic outline of this issue (p. 677) indicates with particular clarity the erratic and puzzling allocation of responsibility among the third magistrates which is so frequently encountered at this period. APIΣTO serves for three full months (I, K and Λ) using at least five obverse and twenty-seven reverse dies. In contrast, four magistrates share the duties of the three prior months (Z through Ө) with five obverses and sixteen reverses in operation. This pronounced imbalance in the tenure and output of the individual magistrates seems to me a highly significant feature of the coinage; its implications are discussed at some length in the section on Magistrates.
ΣΩKPATHΣ–ΔIONYΣOΔΩ APOLLO DELIOS 148/7 b.c.
(Plates 64–65)
Tetradrachms
611. | |||||
AΠOΛΛOΩA | A | ΣΦ | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.86↑; Kambanis Coll.. (Halmyros Hd.) | ||
612. | |||||
AΠOΛΛOΩA | A | Σ | *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.26↑ | ||
613. | |||||
a. | AΠOΛΛOΦA | A | ΣΩ | Vienna, gr. 16.16; Leningrad (Sv. 56, 2). gr. 16.60 | |
b. | AΠOΛΛOΦA | A | ΣΩ | *Berlin, gr. 16.75 | |
c. | ZΩIΛOΣ | B | ΣΩ | *Oxford, gr. 16.72↑; Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 16.46↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.). gr. 16.59↑; Berlin, gr. 16.35 | |
d. | ZΩIΛOΣ | B | ΣΩ | Athens, gr. 15.90↑ | |
614. | |||||
a. | AΠOΛΛOΦA | A | ME | *Andreopoulos Coll. | |
b. | AΠOΛΛOΦA | A | ME | Bauer Coll. = Ratto (Rogers) 408, gr. 16.72↑ | |
c. | AΠOΛΛOΦA | ? | Halmyros Hd. | ||
d. | ZΩIΛOΣ | B | ME | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.89↑; Berlin. gr. 16.77; Egger XL (Prowe) 965, gr. 16.84 | |
615. | |||||
a. | AΠOΛΛOΦA | A | ΣΦ | *London (BMC 496; Sv. 56, 1), gr. 16.71↑.1 With ZΩIΛOΣ/AΠOΛΛOΦA and B to r. of A: Zygman Coll., gr. 16.67↑ |
b. | ZΩIΛOΣ | B | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr.16.25↑; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH; Sv.56, 4), gr.16.16↑; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.05↑; London (BMC 497), gr.16.56↑; Romanos Coll. | |
c. | APIΣTOΣ | Δ | ΣΦ | Paris, gr. 16.52↑; Berlin, gr. 16.74 | |
d. | APIΣTOΣ | Δ | ΣΩ | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 210), gr. 16.90↑ | |
e. | AӨHNI | E | ΣΦ | London, gr. 16.71↑ | |
616. | |||||
a. | ZΩIΛOΣ | B | ΣO | *Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 207; Sv. 56, 8), gr. 16.75↑; Romanos Coll. | |
b. | ZΩIΛOΣ | B | ΣO | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr.16.76↑; Paris, gr.16.57↑; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr.16.28↑; Vienna, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.76; Gillespie Coll., amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.87 | |
c. | ZΩIΛOΣ | B | ΣO | *Empedocles Coll..; Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.84↑; Berlin, gr. 16.41 | |
d. | MOYΣAI | ΣO | ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.21↑ | ||
e. | APIΣTOΣ | Δ | ΣO | *ANS-ETN = Ratto (Rogers) 409, gr. 16.75↑; Copenhagen (SNG 274), gr. 16.47↑; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr.15.84↑; Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 16.00↑ | |
617. | |||||
a. | ZΩIΛOΣ | B | ME | *Paris, gr. 16.72↑ | |
b. | APIΣTOΣ | Δ | ME | Athens (Sv. 56, 6), gr. 16.65; Brussels, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.67 | |
c. | AӨHNI | E | ΣΦ | Berlin, gr. 16.72 | |
d. | AӨHNI | E | ME | Berlin, gr. 16.65 | |
e. | AΠOΛΛΩ | Ẓ | ME | Athens (Sv. 56, 9), gr. 15.82 ↖; Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 15.70 ↖ | |
618. | |||||
a. | MOYΣAI | Γ | Σ | *Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 208; Sv. 56, 5), gr. 16.70↑ | |
b. | APTEM | K | ME | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.83↑ | |
619. | |||||
a. | APIΣTOΣ | Δ | ΣΩ | *Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 211), gr. 16.85↑ | |
b. | AӨHNI | E | ΣΩ | Athens (Delos Hd.B, 150; Sv.56, 7), gr. 16.17↑ | |
c. | AΠOΛΛΩNI/ AӨHNI | /E | ΣΩ | Mrs. E. T. Newell Coll.; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 212; Sv. 56, 8), gr. 16.55↑; Christomanou Coll., control letters uncertain | |
d. | AΣKΛAΠΩN | Ө | ? | The Hague, gr. 16.60 | |
e. | AXAIOΣ | I | ΣΩ | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 216). gr. 16.67↑ | |
f. | APTEMΩN | K | ΣO | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.60↑ | |
620. | |||||
a. | AӨHNI | E | ΣΦ | Paris, gr. 16.49↑; Munich, gr. 16.62; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.34↑ | |
b. | ΠPΩTO | H | ΣΦ | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.68↑ | |
c. | ΠPΩTOM | ? | Paris, gr. 16.22↑ | ||
621. | |||||
a. | AΠOΛΛΩNI/(?)AӨHNI | Z/(?)E | ΣΦ | London (BMC 498), gr. 16.70↑ | |
b. | AΠOΛΛΩNI | Ẓ | ΣO | Berlin, gr. 16.55 | |
c. | AΣKΛAΠΩN | Ө | ΣO | *Vienna, gr. 16.61; Paris, gr. 16.60↑; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 215), control letters uncertain, gr. 15.45↑; Athens, control letters uncertain, gr. 16.70↑ | |
d. | AXAIOΣ | I | ΣO | Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 16.58↑; Berlin. gr. 16.52; Andreopoulos Coll., amphora and control letters uncertain | |
e. | AXAIOΣ | I | Σ[ | *Empedocles Coll..; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 218), amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.70↑ | |
f. | APTEM | K | Σ[ | Leningrad (Sv. 56, 15), gr. 16.68 | |
g. | APTEMΩN | K | ΣO | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 221), gr. 17.05↑ | |
h. | AӨHNO (sic) | Λ | ΣO | Athens (Sv. 56, 19), gr. 16.40↑; Istanbul, gr. 16.69↑ | |
i. | AӨHNAI | Λ | ΣO | L. Meletopoulos Coll.,gr. 16.55; Commerce 1952, amphora and control letters uncertain | |
j. | EPMO | M | ΣO | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.35↑ | |
k. | EPMOK | M | ΣO | Gotha; Berlin, gr. 16.51 | |
622. | |||||
a. | ΠPΩTO | H | ΣΦ | * Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 214; Sv. 56, 10), gr. 16.70↑; Berry Coll. (Halmyros Hd.), gr 16.86↑ | |
b. | AΣKΛAΠΩN | Ө | ΣΦ | Commerce; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 154), gr. 14.93 (corroded)↑; Copenhagen (SNG 275). amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.37↑ | |
c. | AΣKΛAΠOΣ (sic) | Ө | ΣΦ | Berlin (Sv. 56, 12), gr. 16.74; Athens (Delos Hd. KϚ, 33), gr. 16.48 ↖; Athens (Halmyros Hd.) | |
d. | AXAIOΣ | I | Σ[ | ANS-ETN, gr. 16.45↑ | |
e. | AXAIOΣ | Ị | ΣΦ | Copenhagen (SNG 276), gr. 16.05↑ | |
f. | APTEMΩN | K | ΣO | Copenhagen (SNG 277), gr. 16.23↑; Petsalis Coll. (Piraeus Hd.), gr. 16.60↑ | |
g. | AӨHN/APTE | Λ/K | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 220), gr. 16.75↑; Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH; Sv. 56, 11), gr. 16.30↑1; Berlin, gr. 16.73 | |
h. | EPMO | M | ΣΦ | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.74↑ | |
623. | |||||
a. | AXAIOΣ | I | ΣΩ | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 217; Sv. 56, 13), gr. 16.60↑ | |
b. | APTEMΩN | K | ΣΩ | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 222; Sv. 56, 17). gr. 16.88↑ | |
c. | AӨHN/ (?)APTEM | Λ/(?)K | ΣΩ | Athens, gr. 15.90↑ | |
d. | AӨHNAI | Λ | ΣΩ | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 223; Sv. 56, 18), gr. 16.70↑; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 224), gr. 16.72↑; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 225), gr. 16.60↑; Berlin, gr. 16.49 | |
e. | EPMO | M | ΣΦ | Athens, gr. 16.45↑ | |
f. | EPMOKPA | M | ΣΩ | *Cambridge (Lewis Coll., Corpus Christi College; Sv. 56, 20); Athens (Delos Hd. B, 156), gr. 16.80↑ | |
624. | |||||
APTEM | K | ME | *Dresse de Lébioles Coll., gr. 16.17↑; Berlin, gr. 16.25 | ||
625. | |||||
a. | APTEM | K | ME | *Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 219; Sv. 56, 14), gr. 16.80↑; Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 15.85↑; Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.72↑; Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.40↑ | |
b. | AӨHNAI | Λ | ME | Bauer Coll. = Ratto (Rogers) 410, gr. 16.75↑ |
c. | AӨHNAI | Λ | ME | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 226), gr. 16.50↑ | |
d. | EPMO | M | ME | Berry Coll., gr. 16.12↑ | |
e. | EPMO | ? | ME | Berlin (Sv. 56, 16), gr. 16.44 |
ΣΩKPA–ΔIONY
Drachms
626. | |||||
(ΣΩKPATH–ΔIONYΣO) | a. | ZΩI/AΠO | B/A | ME | *Athens (Sv. 56, 21), gr. 4.05↑ |
(ΔIONYΣ) | b. | ? | K(?) | ? | Athens (Delos Hd.B, 157; Sv.56, 25), gr. 3.98↑ |
627. | |||||
a. | AӨH | E | ME | *Athens (Delos Hd. B, 152), gr. 3.95↑; Athens (Delos Hd.B, 151; Sv.56. 22), gr.4.00↑; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 153), gr. 3.62↑ | |
b. | APTE | K | Athens (Delos Hd. B, 155; Sv. 56, 23), gr. 3.95↑ | ||
628. | |||||
a. | AӨH | E | ME | Berlin, gr. 3.94 | |
b. | EPM | M | ΣO | *Copenhagen (SNG 278; S v. 56, 24), gr. 3.94↑ | |
121 tetradrachms : 15 obverse, 62 reverse dies 8 drachms: 3 obverse, 5 reverse dies Magistrates: AΠOΛΛOΦA, ZΩIΛOΣ, MOYΣAI, API–ΣTOΣ, AӨHNI, ΩKPATHΣ – ΔIONY ΠPΩTOM, AΣKΛAΠΩN, AXAIOΣ, APTEMΩN, AӨHNAI, EPMOKPA Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, H, Ө, I, K, Λ, M Controls : ME, ΣO, ΣΦ, ΣΩ |
After two years of erratic association of third magistrates and months, the issue of ΣΩKPATHΣ – ΔIONYΣOΔΩ is, I believe, absolutely regular. The catalogue above shows an exact correlation between the twelve officials whose names appear in third place and the twelve months during which coinage was struck. If this outline is correct, it casts doubt upon a number of earlier readings and it might be well to examine the discrepancies in some detail.
In his Hesperia article on the New Style, Bellinger selects the issue of Sokrates and Dionysodoros as an example of a far-reaching breakdown in the systematic relationship of magistrates and months, and the instances which he cites from the publications of Beulé, Svoronos, Kambanis and Macdonald amply support his contention. They are as follows:
Γ with ZΩIΛOΣ. This coin, a Halmyros Hoard piece, is recorded by Kambanis as having Γ/B on the amphora, which would, of course, imply an extension of Zoilos' tenure into a second month. The tetradrachm cannot be definitely associated with any entry in the present catalogue but I believe it is another example of No. 615a on which Zoilos is cut over Apollophanes and B over A. On a poorly-preserved coin the amphora recutting might well suggest Γ/B, and there is reason to suppose that the piece in question was not in good condition. In the BCH for 1934 (p. 105) Kambanis reads the lettering below the amphora as ΔI; in his notebook he again lists ΔI for this coin but comments that it is probably a misreading.
E with ZΩIΛOΣ. This tetradrachm, a Prokesch coin in Berlin cited by Macdonald, is almost certainly one of the four entries under our No. 613c. A photograph of the Berlin coin shows a somewhat obscure amphora letter but on the Oxford coin illustrated on PLATE 64 the date is clearly B.
Δ with AӨHN. The Athens tetradrachm, published by Svoronos, is our No. 623c. AӨHN has been recut, probably over APTEM, and Λ over another letter, probably K. It is the recutting which gives the impression of a Δ instead of the Λ which is indubitably there.
H with AӨHNI. Beulé cites this from the Paris Cabinet. I have examined all the Paris coins and the only piece with AӨHNI is No. 620a. Five specimens from this reverse die are on record. In the earlier stage of the die (No. 615e), as represented by the London coin, the E is absolutely certain; in the later stage of the die the letter has filled in and the Paris specimen moreover is in poor condition but there is no indication on it of an H cut over the E.
Γ with AXAIOΣ. A Berlin coin published by Beulé with ΣO below the amphora. The piece is our No. 621d with I not Γ on the vase.
K with EPMO. Again this is a Berlin coin, illustrated by Svoronos on his Plate 56, no. 16. His placement makes it clear that he read the letter as K but it seems to me that it might well be a poorly-cut M. The date in any case is not definite enough to justify an association of EPMO with the month K.
In this general connection, three other examples of misreading might be mentioned briefly. Kambanis enters EPMH as a third magistrate of this issue on the evidence of an Athens coin (Svoronos' Plate 56, 11); the piece is our No. 622g with AӨHN cut over APTE. AΠ and MH are recorded as controls in Kambanis' notebook, each as a single entry. The former is accompanied by the notation that it is probably an error in reading; the latter refers to one of the coins under No. 614d struck from a reverse die with ME below the amphora.
The foregoing will serve to illustrate the difficulty of compiling an accurate record of the New Style series of Athens. It is not an orderly coinage in its surface aspects. Few of the issues of the three-magistrate period show an exact correlation of magistrates and months. The tenure of a single official may extend over two or even three adjacent months and if the full extent of his service is not realized the amphora letter on a poorly-preserved coin may be read erroneously in terms of the month with which the particular magistrate is generally associated. On the other hand, as witness the present issue, it sometimes happens that a magistrate is credited with months for which he had no responsibility, as direct outgrowth of the deplorable practice of recutting to which the mint resorted with increasing frequency during this period. When the overcutting of names is skillfully done, it leaves only faint and easily overlooked traces of the underlying letters. If the same die carries a distinctly-legible recutting of the amphora dates, the result is a mistaken association of the later magistrate with two months instead of one. There is also the danger inherent in recutting that the confused lettering produced by hasty and careless workmanship may give rise to non-existent officials such as the EPMH of Kambanis' record. It is only with a large body of material, providing a number of coins from the same die which sometimes reveal successive stages in the recutting process, that one can hope for even reasonable accuracy in compiling the data on the coinage.
MHTPOΔΩPOΣ – MIΛTIAΔHΣ BUNCH OF GRAPES 147/6 b.c.
(Plates 66–67)
Tetradrachms
629. | |||||
a. | ANTIΦANHΣ | A | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.85↑; Athens (Delos Hd.Γ. 183), gr.16.30↑ | |
b. | ANTIΦANHΣ | A | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 15.20 (worn) ↑; Kambanis Coll.. (Halmyros Hd.); Athens (Delos Hd.Γ, 182; Sv.55, 1), gr. 16.62 | |
c. | ANTIΦANHΣ | B1 | ΣΦ | *Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH; Sv.55, 2), gr. 16.30↑; Berry Coll., gr. 16.71↑ | |
630. | |||||
a. | ANTIΦANHΣ | A | ΣO | *Berlin, gr. 16.54; Giesecke Coll., gr. 16.62 | |
b. | ANTIΦANHΣ | A | ΣO | Athens, gr. 16.50↑ |
c. | EPMOΓENHΣ/ANTIΦANHΣ | B/A | ΠE/ΣỌ | Athens (Delos Hd.Γ, 185), gr.16.80↑ | |
d. | EPMOΓENHΣ/ANTIΦANHΣ | B/A | ΣO | Berlin, gr. 16.54 | |
631. | |||||
a. | ANTIΦANHΣ | A | ME | London, gr. 16.69↑ | |
b. | ANTIΦANHΣ | A | ME | The Hague, gr. 16.55; Ratto (Rogers) 398, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.25; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.64↑ | |
c. | EPMOΓENHΣ/ANTIΦΣ | B/A | ΠE/ΣỌ | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.05↑ | |
d. | EPMOΓENHΣ | B | ME | *Giesecke Coll., gr. 16.68 | |
(ΔHMOΣӨE/MIΛTIAΔHΣ) | e. | ΠYPPOΣ | ┐ | ME | *Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 16.70↑ |
632. | |||||
a. | ANTIΦANHΣ | A | ΣΦ | *Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 3222), gr. 16.53↑; Empedocles Coll..; Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 943, gr. 16.70 | |
(ΔHMOΣӨE/MIΛTIAΔHΣ) | b. | ΠYPPOΣ | ┐ | ΣΦ | Berlin, gr. 16.10 |
633. | |||||
a. | ANTIΦANHΣ | A | ΠE | *Zygman Coll., gr. 16.50↑ | |
b. | ANTIΦANHΣ | Ạ | ΠE | Commerce Beirut 1953 | |
c. | EPMOΓENHΣ/ANTIΦANHΣ | B/A | ΠE/ΣỌ | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.56↑; Berlin (Sv.55, 3), gr. 16.61; Romanos Coll.; Halmyros Hd. | |
d. | EPMOΓENHΣ | B | ΠE | Empedocles Coll.. | |
e. | EPMOΓENHΣ | ? | ΣỌ | Kambanis Coll.. | |
MHTPOΔΩPOΣ – ΔHMOΣӨEN | |||||
f. | ΠYPPOΣ | Γ | ΠE | Athens (Delos Hd.Γ, 188), gr.16.57↑; Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.58 ↗; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.95↑ | |
g. | KAΛΛIΦ | Δ | ΠE | Athens (Delos Hd.Γ, 190; Sv.55, 5), gr. 16.60↑ | |
h. | KAΛΛIΦ | ? | ΠE | Kambanis Coll.. (Halmyros Hd.) | |
i. | APXIAΣ | E | ΠE | Paris, gr. 16.45↑ | |
634. | |||||
(ΔHMOΣӨE/MIΛTIAΔHΣ) | a. | ΠYPPOΣ | ┐ | ΣΦ | *Berlin, gr. 16.58 |
b. | ΠYPPOΣ | Γ | ΣΦ | Vienna, gr. 15.77 (worn); Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 186), gr. 16.05 ↖ | |
c. | ΠYPPOΣ | ΣΦ | Athens, gr. 16.33↑ | ||
d. | KAΛΛIΦ | E | ΣΦ | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.64↑ | |
635. | |||||
(ΔHMOΣӨE/MIΛTIAΔHΣ) | a. | ΠYPPOΣ | ┐ | ME | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.64↑ |
b. | KAΛΛIΦ | ME | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.),gr. 16.70↑; Lockett Coll. (SNG 1981) = Ratto (Rogers) 400, gr. 16.55↑ | ||
c. | KAΛΛIΦ | E | ME | Athens (Delos Hd.B, 180), gr. 15.75↑ | |
d. | APXIAΣ | Ẹ | ME | Berlin, gr. 16.64 | |
e. | APIΣTOΔH | ME | Athens (Delos Hd.Γ, 192), grgr. 16.70↑ | ||
636. | |||||
ΠYPPOΣ | Γ | ΣO | *Athens (Delos Hd.Γ, 187; Sv. 55, 4), gr. 16.75↑ | ||
637. | |||||
a. | KAΛΛIΦ | Δ | ΣO | *Berlin, gr. 16.41 | |
b. | KAΛΛIΦ | ? | ΣO | London (BMC 457), gr. 16.62↑ | |
c. | APXIAΣ | E | ΣO | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.),grgr. 16.71↑; Munich; Athens (Delos Hd.Γ, 189; Sv. 55, 6), gr. 16.75; Berlin, gr. 16.76; Paris, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 15.63 (worn and pierced)↑ | |
d. | APIΣTOΔH | Z | ΣO | Athens, gr. 16.25↑; Berlin, gr. 16.54; Oxford, control letters uncertain, gr. 16.76; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), control letters uncertain, broken↑ | |
e. | EYKΛHΣ | H | ΣO | Andreopoulos Coll.; Copenhagen (SNG 263), control letters uncertain, gr. 16.58↑ | |
f. | KAΛΛIΣ | H | ΣO | ANS-ETN (HalmyrosHd.),gr. 16.67↑; ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.65↑ | |
g. | KAΛΛIΣ | H | ΣO | Copenhagen (SNG 264; Sv. 55, 9), gr. 16.60↑ | |
638. | |||||
a. | APXIAΣ | E | ΠE | *Andreopoulos Coll. | |
b. | APIΣΓOΔH | ME | Berlin, gr. 15.36 | ||
c. | APIΣΓOΔH | Z | ΠE | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.92 (worn)↑; Berlin, gr. 16.54 | |
d. | KAΛΛIΣ | H | ΠE | Frankfurt am Main; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 195), gr. 16.75↑ | |
639. | |||||
a. | APXIAΣ | E | ΣΦ | Istanbul, gr. 16.62↑ | |
b. | APIΣΓOΔH | Z | ΣΦ | *ANS-ETN = Ratto (Rogers) 399, gr. 16.73↑; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 193), gr. 16.70↑; Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.78 ↖ | |
c. | EYKΛHΣ | H | ΣΦ | Vienna, gr. 16.49; L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.48; Athens, broken↑; Commerce 1952 | |
d. | EYKΛHΣ | H | ΠE | Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.72↑ | |
e. | KAΛΛIΣ | Ө | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd.Γ, 196; Sv.55, 10), gr. 16.75↑ | |
640. | |||||
a. | APIΣTOΔH | Z | ME | *Athens (Delos Hd.Γ, 191; Sv.55, 7), gr. 16.90↑ | |
b. | EYKΛHΣ | H | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd.Γ, 194; Sv.55, 8), gr. 16.60↑ | |
c. | KAΛΛIΣ | Ө | ME | Oxford, gr. 16.85 | |
d. | EYKPA | I | ME | Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 16.62↑ | |
e. | EYKPA | I | ME | Berlin, gr. 16.51 | |
f. | ӨEOΦI | K | ME | Athens (Delos Hd.Γ, 199; Sv.55, 12), gr. 16.45↑; Romanos Coll.; Vienna, gr. 16.63 | |
g. | ΦIΛOΠ | K | ME | Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.82 ↖ | |
h. | ΦIΛOΠO | Λ | ME | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.35 ↖ | |
641. | |||||
a. | EYKPA | I | ΣΦ | * Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr.16.58↑; Athens, gr. 16.10↑ | |
b. | EYKPA | I | ΣΦ | ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.36↑ | |
642. | |||||
a. | EYKPA | I | ΣO | Zygman Coll., gr. 16.87↑ | |
b. | EYKPA | I | ΣO | London, gr. 16.71↑; Berlin, amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.71 | |
c. | ӨEOΦI | K | ΣO | *Kambanis Coll.. (Halmyros Hd.); Yale Univ. = Hamburger 98, 695, gr. 16.73↑ | |
d. | ӨEOΦI | K | ΠE | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 16.35↑ | |
e. | ΦIΛO | Λ | ΣO | Petsalis, gr. 16.29↑;Athens (Delos Hd. AΛ), amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.28↑ | |
f. | ΦIΛO | Λ | ΣO | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.67↑ | |
g. | ΦIΛOΠO | Λ | ME | *Oxford, gr. 16.58 | |
643. | |||||
a. | EYKPA | I | ΠE | *Gotha, gr. 16.62;Athens (Delos Hd Γ, 197; Sv. 55, 11), gr. 16.80↑;Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 15.78↑ | |
b. | EYKPA | I | ΠE | Athens (Delos Hd Γ, 198), gr. 16.60↑ | |
c. | ӨEOΦI | K | ΣΦ | Berlin, gr. 16.46 | |
d. | ΦIΛO | Λ | ΠE | *Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 200; Sv. 55, 13), gr. 16.70↑;Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 15.85; Athens↑ | |
e. | ΣMIKY | Ṃ | ΠE | Berlin | |
644. | |||||
a. | ΣMIKYθ | Ṃ | ME | *London, gr. 16.83↑ | |
b. | ΣMIKYӨ | M | ME | Athens (Delos Hd Γ, 201; Sv. 55, 14), gr. 16.82↑ |
MHTPOΔΩ–MIΛTIAΔ
Drachms
645. | |||||
ANTIΦAN | ? | ? | *Copenhagen (SNG 262), gr. 3.63↑ | ||
MHTPOΔΩP–ΔHMOΣ | |||||
646. | |||||
KAΛ | H | ME | *London, gr. 4.19 | ||
647. | |||||
KAΛ | H | ME | *Athens (Delos Hd. B, 132; Sv.55, 15), gr. 4.05↑;Athens, gr. 3.82↑; Naville XVI, 1225, control letters uncertain, gr. 3.87; London (Hierapytna Hd.), amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 3.10 (corroded) | ||
115 tetradrachms : 16 obverse, 65 reverse dies 6 drachms: 3 obverse, 2 reverse dies Magistrates: ΛNTIΦANHΣ, EPMOΓENHΣ, ΠYPPOΣ, KAΛΛIΦ, APXIAΣ, APIΣTOΔH, EYKΛHΣ, KAΛ–ΛIΣ, EYKPA, ӨEOΦI, ΦIΛOTTO, ΣMIKYӨ Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, H, Ө, I, K, Λ, M Controls: ME, ΠE, ΣO, ΣΦ |
Irregularity is again apparent in this issue. Not only does one find the same lack of correspondence between third magistrates and months which has characterized so many of the preceding strikings but there is a change in second magistrates at the beginning of month Γ. MIΛTIAΔHΣ is replaced by ΔHMOΣ–ӨEN (shortened to ΔHMOΣӨE on a number of dies).
There are relatively few dubious readings in connection with the coinage of Metrodoros and his colleagues. Beulé's AΠ and ΣΩ controls can be corrected from the coins. Kambanis reads Γ with KAΛΛIΦ for our No. 633h; I am inclined to think it is E/Δ but the preservation of the piece is too poor for any degree of certainty.
ΔIOTIMOΣ – MAΓAΣ NO SYMBOL 146/5 b.c.
(Plates 68–69)
Tetradrachms
648. | |||||
NIKOΔHMOΣ | A | ME | *Commerce (Sv. 52, 18), gr. 16.70 | ||
649. | |||||
NIKOΔHMOΣ | A | ME | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), grgr. 16.73↑;Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 15.58↑; Copenhagen (SNG 258), gr. 15.70↑ | ||
650. | |||||
NIKOΔHMOΣ | A | ΣO | *Oxford, gr. 16.47; Paris, gr. 16.60↑; Commerce 1952 | ||
651. | |||||
a. | NIKOΔHMOΣ NIKOΔHMOΣ | A | ΠE/ΣΦ | *Berry Coll., gr. 16.70 ↖ | |
b. | NIKOΔHMOΣ NIKOΔHMOΣ | A | E | Athens, gr. 16.10 ↖ | |
652. | |||||
NIKOΔHMOΣ | A | ΣΦ | *Romanos Coll. | ||
653. | |||||
(ΔIO-TIMOOΣ) | a. | NIKOΔHMOΣ | A | ΣΦ | *Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 107), gr. 16.70↑; Berlin |
b. | NIKOΔHMOΣ | Ạ | ΣΦ | Kambanis Coll.. (Halmyros Hd.) | |
c. | NIKOΔHMOΣ | A | Σ | ANS (Anatolia Hd.). gr. 15.87↑ | |
654. | |||||
XAPINAYTHΣ/NIKOΔHMOΣ | B/A | ΣΦ/E | *Giesecke Coll., gr. 16.74; Commerce 1955 | ||
655. | |||||
a. | XAPINAYTHΣ | B | ΣO | Tübingen, | |
b. | EXEΣӨENHΣ | Δ | ΣO/? | *Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.50; London (BMC 884), gr. 16.26↑ | |
c. | EXEΣӨENHΣ | Δ | ΠE | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.20↑; Zara Coll., control letters uncertain, gr. 16.73↑ | |
d. | ΔIONYΣIOΣKE | ? | ΣO | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 109), gr. 16.80↑; ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 15.90↑ | |
656. | |||||
a. | XAPINAYTHΣ | Γ | ΣΦ | *Athens (Sv. 52, 20), gr. 16.80 | |
b. | XAPINAYTHΣ | ΣΦ | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.55↑ | ||
c. | XAPINAYTHΣ | Δ/B | ΣO | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.77↑ | |
657. | |||||
a. | XAP1NAYTHΣ | Γ/Ḅ | ΠE | *Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 98), gr. 16.40↑; Baltatzi Coll. (Sv.52, 19) = Mavrokordatou Coll. (JIAN, 1912, 1318), gr. 16.45 | |
b. | XAPINAYTHΣ | Λ | ΠE | Berlin, gr. 16.10 | |
c. | EXEΣӨENHΣ | Δ | ΠE | Berlin, gr. 16.41 | |
d. | EXEΣӨENHΣ | E/Δ | ΠE/ME | Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 15.68↑; Berlin (Sv. 52, 22), gr. 16.37; ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 15.78↑ | |
658. | |||||
a. | XAPINAYTHΣ | Γ | ΠE | ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.46↑;Athens Pelos Hd. ΛH), gr. 15.78↑ | |
b. | XAPINAYTHΣ | ME/? | *Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 99), gr. 16.69↑ | ||
c. | XAPINAYTHΣ | Δ/Γ/Ḅ | ME/ΠE | Halmyros Hd.; Berlin, gr. 16.42 | |
d. | EXEΣӨENHΣ | Δ | ME | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.). gr. 16.57↑ | |
e. | EXEΣӨENHΣ | Δ | ME | Athens, gr. 16.65↑ | |
f. | EXEΣӨENHΣ | Δ | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 100; Sv. 52, 21), gr. 16.72↑ | |
g. | EXEΣӨENHΣ | E/Δ | ΣΦ | Andreopoulos Coll. | |
h. | ΔIONYΣIOΣKE/ EXEΣθENHΣ | ? | ME | Tübingen, gr. 16.77;Athens, gr. 16.70↑ | |
i. | ΔIONYΣIOΣKE | ? | ME | Berlin, gr. 16.75 | |
j. | NIKΩN/ ΔIONYΣIOΣKE | Z/E | ΠE | L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.55 | |
k. | NIKΩN/ ΔIONYΣIOΣKE | Z | ME | Paris, gr. 16.38↑;Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 101; Sv. 52, 23), gr. 16.85↑ | |
l. | NIKΩN/? | Z | ME | Athens (Halmyros Hd.) | |
m. | KAΛΛIAΔHΣ/ AΠOΛΛΩNIΔHΣ | Ө/H | ME | *Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 97), gr. 16.70↑ | |
n. | KAΛΛIAΔHΣ | ME | Berlin, gr. 16.50 | ||
o. | ΛAMIOΣ | Ө | ME | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.78↑ | |
659. | |||||
XAPINAYTHΣ | /Γ | ΣO/ΣΦ | *London, gr. 16.09 (pierced)↑ | ||
660. | |||||
a. | NIKΩN/ ΔIONYΣIOΣKE | E | ΠE | Vienna, gr. 15.70 (pierced). With Z/E: Oxford, gr. 16.31 | |
b. | AΠOΛΛΩNIΔHΣ | Ḥ | ΣO | *ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.45↑ | |
c. | KAΛΛIAΔHΣ/ AΠOΛΛΩNIΔHΣ | Ө/H | ΠE/ME | *Empedocles Coll.. | |
d. | KAΛΛIAΔHΣ | Ө | ΠE | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 102; Sv. 52, 25), gr. 16.50↑ | |
e. | KAΛΛIAΔHΣ | Ө | ΣΦ | Berlin, gr. 16.80 | |
f. | ΛAMIOΣ/ (?)KAΛΛIAΔHΣ | Ө | ΠE | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 103), gr. 16.65↑ | |
661. | |||||
a. | ΔIONYΣIOΣKE | Z | ΣΦ | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.77↑; ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.44↑;Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 108; Sv.52, 26), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.40↑ | |
b. | AΠOΛΛΩNIΔHΣ | H | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.67↑; London (BMC 385), gr. 16.63↑; Tübingen, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.34; Evelpidis Coll., amphora letter uncertain, gr. 15.69 (worn) | |
c. | ΛAMIOΣ | I | ΣΦ | Berlin (Sv. 52, 27), gr. 16.81 | |
d. | ΛAMIOΣ | Ị | ΣΦ | Berlin, gr. 16.43 | |
e. | ӨOINOΣ | K | ΣΦ | Ratto (Rogers) 388, gr. 16.70;Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 104), gr. 16.62↑ | |
f. | ӨOINOΣ | K | ΣΦ | Kricheldorf IV, 201, gr. 16.39 | |
g. | HPAKΛEOΔ | Λ | ΠE | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.85↑ | |
662. | |||||
a. | AΠOΛΛΩNIΔHΣ | H | ΣO | *Zygman Coll., gr. 16.64↑ | |
b. | AΠOΛΛΩNIΔHΣ (poss. recut) | H | ΣO | *Sicelianos Coll. | |
c. | AΠOΛΛΩNIΔHΣ | H | ΣO | Berlin (Sv. 52, 24), gr. 15.85 | |
d. | ΛAMIOΣ | I | ΣO/ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr.16.02↑; Paris, gr. 16.52↑. With ӨOINOΣ/ΛAMIOΣ and K/I:Athens (Delos Hd. KϚ, 24), gr. 15.87↑ | |
e. | ΛAMIOΣ | ? | ? | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr.15.20(worn)↑ | |
f. | ӨOINOΣ | K | ΣO | Kambanis Coll.., gr. 16.20 | |
g. | HPAKΛEOΔ | Λ | ΣO | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.50↑ | |
663. | |||||
a. | ӨOINOΣ/ΛAMIOΣ | K/I | ΠE | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 105; Sv. 52, 28), gr. 16.35↑ | |
b. | ӨOINOΣ | K | ΠE | *Evelpidis Coll., gr. 16.20 | |
c. | ӨOINOΣ | K | Kambanis Coll.. (Halmyros Hd.) | ||
d. | HPAKΛEOΔ | Λ | ΠE | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 106), gr. 16.45↑; London, gr. 16.68↑; Berlin, gr. 16.62 | |
e. | HPAKΛEOΔ | Λ | ΣΦ | Berlin (Sv. 52, 29), gr. 16.44 | |
664. | |||||
a. | ӨOINOΣ | K | ME | London (BMC 886), gr. 16.64↑ | |
b. | ӨOINOΣ | K | ME | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 15.65↑ | |
c. | ӨOINOΣ | K | ME | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 15.28↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.64↑ | |
d. | HPAKΛEOΔ | Λ | ME | *Berry Coll., gr. 16.50↑;Athens, gr. 16.24↑ | |
e. | HPAKΛEOΔ | Λ | ME | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.56↑ | |
f. | HPAKΛEOΔ | Λ | ME | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.57↑; Moscow |
Drachms
665. | |||||
a. | NIKOΔHMOΣ | A | — | *Athens (Delos Hd. B, 59; Sv. 52, 80), gr. 3.85↑ | |
b. | XAPINAYTH (prob. recut) | Ḅ | — | London = Weber 3515, gr. 4.10 | |
666. | |||||
a. | ΔIONYΣIOΣKE | ? | — | *Petsalis Coll., gr. 8.80 ↖; London, gr. 3.27 | |
b. | ӨOINOΣ | K | — | *Vienna, gr. 3.96;Athens (Delos Hd.A, 13; Sv. 52, 32), gr. 4.00↑;Athens, gr. 3.88↑; Petsalis Coll., gr. 8.97↑; Copenhagen (SNG 259), gr. 3.84↑; Berlin, gr. 3.91 |
Hemidrachms
667. | |||||
(ΔIO–MA) | a. | XAPI | *Athens (Delos Hd. B, 57; Sv. 52, 31), gr. 2.05↑;Athens (Delos Hd. KϚ, 25), gr. 1.50↑ | ||
b. | XAPI | Athens (Delos Hd. B, 56; Sv. 52, 33), gr. 1.92↑; Berlin, gr. 2.02 | |||
668. | |||||
ΔIONY/XAPI | Sotheby (Delbeke) 159, gr. 1.98. With ӨOI/ΔIONY/XAPI: *Athens, gr. 1.43↑ | ||||
98 tetradrachms: 17 obverse, 58 reverse dies 10 drachms: 2 obverse, 4 reverse dies 6 hemidrachms: 2 obverse, 2 reverse dies Magistrates: NIKOΔHMOΣ, XAPINAYTHΣ, EXEΣӨENHΣ, ΔIONYΣIOΣKE, NIKΩN, AΠOΛΛΩNIΔHΣ, KAΛΛIAΔHΣ, ΛAMIOΣ, ӨOINOΣ, HPAKΛEOΔ Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, H, Ө, I, K, Λ Controls: ME, ΠE, ΣO, ΣΦ |
The coinage of Diotimos and Magas has two distinctive features. It is the first issue in the three-magistrate series without a symbol in the field and the first striking since that of Eurykleides and Ariarathes, eight years earlier, with the hemidrachm denomination.
Ten third magistrates are found on dies dated from A through Γ. Their tenures of office as outlined in the Statistical Survey section show the irregularity which is common in this period. In fact there may be even more variation than appears in the diagram. Dionysioske would seem to have served for E as well as Z as indicated by No. 658j with NIKΩN/ΔIONYΣIOΣKE and Z/E. No. 660a may connect NIKΩN with E; there is no trace of a Z over the E on the Vienna coin but I rather think this may merely be an omission on the part of the engraver which was corrected before the Oxford tetradrachm was struck. Beulé's association of EXEΣӨENHΣ with Z can be disproved in the case of the British Museum coin (our No. 655b and BMC 384 where the accurate reading of Δ is given).
Controls for this issue are identical with those of the year preceding. Beulé's isolated ΣΩ is not recorded by Kambanis and is probably an error for ΣO.
ΔIONYΣIOΣKE in its entirety can scarcely be regarded as a magistrate's name. The KE added to Dionysios reminds one of the NE after NIKOΓ and the ΔI after MHTPO on the earlier strikings of MENEΔ – EΠIΓENO and EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣANΔPOΣ and suggests that we have here another instance of careful identification. Beulé thinks the letters may represent a patronymic, an artist's signature or a fourth magistrate; Sundwall believes they are the beginning of a demotic. It seems to me that the demotic connection is the most plausible.
EYMAPEIΔHΣ – AΛKIΔAM TRIPTOLEMOS 145/4 b.c.
(Plates 70–71)
Tetradrachms
669. | |||||
ӨOI | A | ΣO | *Berlin, gr. 16.68 | ||
670. | |||||
a. | ӨOI | A | ΣΩ | *London, gr. 16.31↑ | |
b. | ӨOI | A | ΣΩ | Athens (Oreos Hd.); Commerce 1957 (Abruzzi Hd.) | |
671. | |||||
(AΛKIΔA | a. | ӨOI | A | ΣΩ | Athens, gr. 16.50↑ |
b. | ӨOI | A | ΣΩ | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), badly corroded↑ | |
c. | ӨOI | A | ΣΦ | Moscow;Athens, gr. 16.70↑;Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), control letters uncertain, gr. 16.10↑ | |
d. | ΔIO | B | ? | *Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH). gr. 16.35↑; Berlin. gr. 15.96 | |
e. | ΔIO | B | ? | Athens (Halmyros Hd.) | |
672. | |||||
a. | ӨOI | A | ME | *Oxford, gr. 16.65; Cambridge (SNG 3218). gr. 16.30↑; Glasgow (Hunt. 130), gr. 16.56↑; Berry Coll., gr. 16.70↑; Stack's (South) 616; Budapest, gr. 16.63↑ | |
b. | ӨOI | A | ME | Romanos Coll. (Sv. 53, 1), gr. 16.58; Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.72↑ | |
c. | ΔION | B | ME | Athens↑; Berlin, gr. 16.18 | |
673. | |||||
a. | ӨOI | Ạ | ? | Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 15.90↑; Commerce 1955 | |
b. | ӨOI | ? | ? | Halmyros Hd.; Winterthur Cast | |
c. | ΔION | B | ΣỌ | *Sophia, gr. 16.69 |
EYMAPEIΔHΣ–KΛEOMEN
(KΛEOMEN/AΛKIΔAM) | d. | APIΣ | Γ | ΣO | *Empedocles Coll.. = Baltatzi Coll. (Sv.53,3) = Mavrokordatou Coll. (JIAN, 1912, 1322), gr. 16.90 |
e. | ΔHMO | Δ | ΣO | Vienna, gr. 16.46; Copenhagen (SNG 155), gr. 16.13 (pierced) ↑ | |
f. | ΔHM | Δ | ΣỌ | Halmyros Hd. | |
g. | ΔHM | E | ΣO | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.78 ↖ | |
h. | MHTP | H | ΣO | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH);Athens, gr. 16.55↑ | |
i. | TIMOK | Ө | ΣO | Parma (Sv. 53, 8) |
EYMAPEIΔHΣ–AΛKIΔAM
674. | |||||
a. | ΔION | B | ME | *Berry Coll. (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.82↑; Stockholm, gr. 16.49; London, gr. 16.50↑;Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 114; Sv. 53, 2), gr. 16.35;Athens, gr. 16.63↑;Athens, gr. 16.65↑1 | |
b. | ỊỌṆ | B | ? | Athens, fragment | |
675. | |||||
(AΛKIΔA) | a. | ΔION | B | ΣΩ | *Kambanis Coll.. (Halmyros Hd.) |
b. | ΔION | B | ΣΩ | Berlin, gr. 16.87 |
EYMAPEIΔHΣ – KΛEOMEN
676. | |||||
APIΣ | Γ | ? | *Ratto, Oct. 1934, 167, gr. 16.68 | ||
677. | |||||
a. | APIΣ | Γ | Σ | Oxford, gr. 16.10↑ | |
b. | APIΣ | Γ | ΣΦ/ΣΩ | Empedocles Coll..; Halmyros Hd.; ANS-ETN, gr. 16.58↑; ANS, gr. 16.42↑ |
c. | ΔHMO | Δ | ? | Cambridge (Grose 5911), gr. 16.57; Berlin, gr. 16.41 | |
d. | ΔHṂ | E | Σ | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH) | |
e. | AΣK | Σ | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.65↑; Karlsruhe, control letters uncertain, gr. 16.54 | ||
f. | AΣK | Z | Σ | *Brussels, gr. 16.18 | |
g. | MHTP | H | ΣΩ | *Romanos Coll. | |
h | MHTP | H | ΣΩ | Paris (de Luynes 2115), gr. 16.80↑; Gotha, gr. 16.24; Berlin. gr. 16.66 | |
678. | |||||
a. | APIΣ | Γ | ME | *Romanos Coll. | |
b. | ΔHMO/APIΣ | Δ/Γ | ME | Hamburger 98, 693 (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.84; Berlin. gr. 16.77 | |
c. | ΔHMO | Δ | ME | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr.15.61↑;Athens, gr. 15.98; Berlin (Sv. 58, 4), gr. 16.75 | |
d. | ΔHMO | Δ | ME | Kambanis Coll.. (Halmyros Hd.); Commerce | |
e. | AΣK | Z | ME | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH) | |
f. | AΣK | Z | ME | London (BMC 405; Sv. 53, 6), gr. 16.45↑;Athens | |
g. | MHTP | H | ME | Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.59↑; *Paris, gr. 16.89↑; London (Sv. 53, 7), gr. 16.80% With TIMOK/MHTP and Ө/H: *ANS-ETN, gr. 15.78↑ | |
h. | TIMOK/ | Ө/H | ME/ΣΩ | *Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 117), gr. 16.85↑ | |
679. | |||||
(KΛEOME) | a. | ΔH | Δ | ΣΦ | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.73↑ |
(KΛEOME) | b. | ΔH | ? | ? | Halmyros Hd. |
c. | ΔHM | Δ | ΣΦ | Ratto (Rogers) 389, gr. 16.55; Wilkinson Coll., control letters uncertain, gr. 16.46 | |
d. | ΔH | E | ΣΦ | Paris (Sv. 53, 5), gr. 16.55↑. With AΣK/ΔH and Ẓ/E:Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), control letters uncertain, gr. 15.12 (corroded)↑ | |
e. | MHT | H | ΣΦ | Dewing Coll., gr. 16.76↑ | |
f. | TIMOK/MHTP | Ө/H | ΣΦ | Copenhagen (SNG 156), gr. 16.68↑ | |
g. | EΩ | K | ΣΦ | Paris, gr. 16.70↑ | |
h. | ΠYPP/ΛEΩN | /K | ΣΦ | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.74;Athens, gr. 16.80↑; Berlin, gr. 16.76 | |
i. | ΠYP | M/ | ? | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 15.72↑ | |
j. | ? | ? | ? | London, gr. 16.24↑ | |
680. | |||||
a. | TIMOK/MHTP | Ө/H | ME | Meletopoulos Coll. | |
b. | ΛEΩN | I | ME | *Vienna, gr. 16.67; ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.15 (broken)↑; Bauer Coll. = Ratto (Rogers) 390, gr. 16.74↑; Berlin, gr. 16.70 | |
c. | ΛEΩN | I | ME | Berlin (Sv. 53, 9), gr. 16.30 | |
d. | ΛEΩN | I | ME/(?)ΣΦ | Piraeus Hd., gr. 16.56. With ΠYPPI/ΛEΩN and Λ/I: London, gr. 16.42↑ | |
e. | ΠYPPI/(?)ΛEΩN | Λ/K | ME | London, gr. 16.50↑;Athens (Halmyros Hd.) | |
f. | ΠYPPI | M | ME | ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr.16.54↑; Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.30 | |
681. | |||||
a. | ΛEΩN | I | ΣO | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.05↑; Berlin, gr. 16.45 | |
b. | ΛEΩN | I | ΣỌ | *Athens, gr. 16.60↑ | |
682. | |||||
a. | ΛEΩN (recut) | Ḳ | ΣΩ | *Paris, gr. 16.06↑ | |
b. | ΠYPPI | ? | ΣO | Vienna, gr. 16.42 | |
683. | |||||
ΠYPPI | K | ΣO | *Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.57 | ||
684. | |||||
ΠYPPI | Λ | ΣO | *Halmyros Hd.;Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 116; Sv. 53, 10), gr. 16.60↑ | ||
b. | ΠYP | M | ΣO | *Berlin (Sv. 53, 11), gr. 16.72 |
EYMAP – AΛKI
Drachm
685. | |||||
ӨOI | A | ΣΩ | *Athens (Delos Hd. B, 80; Sv. 53, 12), gr. 4.07↑ | ||
111 tetradrachms: 16 obverse, 60 reverse dies 1 drachm Magistrates: ӨOI, ΔION, APIΣ, ΔHMO, AΣK, MHTP, TIMOK, ΛEΩN, ΠYPPI Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, H, Ө, I, K, Λ, M Controls: ME, ΣO, ΣΦ, ΣΩ |
For this issue there are numerous divergent readings in the earlier publications, some able to be corrected but others impossible to check. The name of the third magistrate is often inscribed in very small letters which makes decipherment difficult, and recutting is an added complication. Beulé gives ΔION with KΛEOMEN from his collection and Kambanis has the same combination with Γ on the amphora, after a Delos Hoard coin which I think is No. 115 of the Γ Hoard. The piece was not accessible when I was in Athens but Svoronos records the name as APIΣ. Sundwall lists APIΣ with K after Beulé; the latter, however, says the letter is not clear. In Sundwall also there is a ΛEΩN – Λ combination after a Paris coin cited by Beulé. This is No. 679g with K on the amphora as read by both Kambanis and myself.
Two third magistrates of whom I can find no record appear in the listings. The MENE of Beulé from the Fox Collection would seem to be the last line of KΛEOMEN, the true third magistrate's name being perhaps illegible or minutely inscribed and hence easily overlooked. Kambanis in his notebook records ΠPOTIM with Ө. Three of the examples he cites (our Nos. 678g in the recut form, 673i and 679f) can be checked and the correct reading is TIMOK, usually over MHTP. Beulé incidentally gives the magistrate on the same Parma coin (No. 673i) as ΛEΩN.
To the best of my belief only the nine third magistrates of the present catalogue are to be associated with Eumareides and his colleagues. Individual terms of office are generally irregular but the coinage as a whole is fairly evenly distributed throughout the year.
One tetradrachm is included in the catalogue with some reservation. No. 676 differs considerably in style from the other dies of this issue and this period, but without examining the coin itself I am unable to form a definite judgment on its authenticity.
XAPINAYTHΣ – APIΣTEAΣ DEMETER (?) WITH TORCHES 144/3 b.c.
(Plates 72–73)
Tetradrachms
686. | |||||
a. | NIKA | A | ME | *Berlin, gr. 16.81 | |
b. | NIKA | A | ME | *Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 235), gr. 16.80↑. With ΔIONYΣOΔΩ/NIKA and B/A: *Paris, gr. 16.72↑ | |
687. | |||||
a. | NIKA | A | ΣΦ/ΣΩ | *Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 288), gr. 16.75↑ | |
b. | NIKA | A | ΣΦ | Romanos Coll.; Dewing Coll., control letters uncertain, gr. 16.20↑ | |
c. | NIKA | A | ΣO | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.40↑ | |
d. | ΔIONYΣOΔΩ/NIKA | B/A | ΣΦ/ME | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 238), gr. 16.68↑ | |
e. | ΔIONYΣOΔΩ/ | B/A | ΣΦ | Copenhagen (SNG 157), gr. 16.78↑ | |
f. | IAΣΩN/EYΔHMOΣ | Δ/Γ | ΣΦ | Berlin, gr. 16.67 | |
688. | |||||
a. | NIKA | A | ΣΩ | *Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 234; Sv. 61, 15), gr. 16.65↑; ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.52↑; Glendining, Oct. 1957, 102, gr. 16.49 | |
b. | NIKA | A | ΣΩ | The Hague; Hirsch (Weber) 1711, gr. 16.69 | |
c. | NIKA | A | Σ[ | *Sophia, gr. 16.65 | |
d. | NIKA | A | ? | Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 16.68↑ | |
e | ΔIONYOΣΔΩ(sic) | B | ΣΩ | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.67↑; Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.65↑; Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.71↑; Halmyros Hd.; Herakleion (Cretan Hd. II), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.65↑ | |
f. | EYΔHMOΣ | Γ | ΣΩ | ANS (Abruzzi Hd.), gr. 16.23↑. With IAΣΩN/EYΔHMOΣ and Δ/Γ:Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 240; Sv. 61, 18), gr. 16.70↑; Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.73↑;Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.05↑;Athens, gr. 16.60↑. With HPA-KΛEI/IAΣΩN/EYΔHMOΣ and Ẹ/Δ/Γ: ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.59↑ | |
g. | IAΣΩN | Δ | ΔIO | ANS-ETN, gr. 16.37↑ | |
h. | HPAKΛEI/IAΣΩN/EYΔHMOΣ | E/Δ/Γ | ΔIO/ΣΦ | *Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.77↑ | |
i. | EΠITI/? | /? | ΣΩ | Athens (Halmyros Hd.); Commerce 1955; Paris, amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.02↑; Berlin, gr. 16.56 | |
j. | EΠITI | ? | ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.38↑ | ||
689. | |||||
a. | NIKA | A | ΣO | London (BMC 515), gr. 16.86↑;Athens (Halmyros Hd.); Berlin, gr. 16.63 | |
b. | ΔIONYΣOΔΩ/NIKA | B/A | ΣO/ΣΩ | Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.61↑ | |
c. | ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | B | ΣO/ΣΦ | Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 16.58↑; Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.76↑ | |
d. | EYΔHMOΣ | Γ | ΣO | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 17.07↑;Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.92↑ | |
e. | EYΔHMOΣ | Γ | ΣO | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 239; Sv. 61, 17), gr. 16.72↑;Athens (Halmyros Hd.) | |
f. | EYΔHMOΣ | Γ | ΣΦ | Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.68↑ | |
g. | IAΣΩN/EYΔHMOΣ | Δ/Γ | Σ | ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.02↑; Berlin, gr. 16.71 | |
h. | HPAKΛEI/IAΣΩN/EYΔHMOΣ | E/Δ/Γ | ΣΩ | *Paris, gr. 16.79↑; Vienna, gr. 16.53; Athens, gr. 16.00↑ | |
i. | HPAKΛEI/IAΣΩN | E/Δ | ΣO | Athens (Delos Hd. B, 168; Sv. 61, 19), gr. 16.57↑ | |
j. | EΠITI1 | /E | ? | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.65↑ | |
k. | EΠITI | Σ[ | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.75↑ | ||
690. | |||||
a. | ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | B | ME | *Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 236; Sv. 61, 16), gr. 16.75 | |
b. | ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | B | ME | *Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 237), gr. 16.90↑; Giesecke Coll., amphora and control letters uncertain; Berlin, amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.43 | |
c. | EYΔHMOΣ | Γ | ME | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.71↑ | |
d. | IAΣΩN/EYΔHMOΣ | Δ/Γ | ṂẸ | Romanos Coll. | |
e. | HPAKΛE | E | ME | Vienna, gr. 16.71 | |
f. | HPAK | E | ME | Berlin, gr. 16.78 | |
g. | EΠITI | ME | ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.80↑;Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 241), gr. 16.57↑;Athens | ||
691. | |||||
a. | EΠITI | ΣΦ | Athens, gr. 15.90↑ | ||
b. | EΠITI | ΣΦ | *Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 242; Sv. 61, 21), gr. 16.75↑;Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.30↑; Copenhagen (SNG 158), amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.62↑. With AΠOΛΛOΔΩ/EΠITI:Athens, gr. 16.80↑; Berlin, gr. 16.70 |
c. | ΛYKI/AΠOΛΛO/EΠITI | Ḥ//Ẹ | ΔIO | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.20↑ | |
d. | ΛYKIΣ | H | ΔI | Berlin, gr. 16.61 | |
e. | EΠIΓO (recut?) | I/ | ΔIO | London (BMC 514), gr. 16.52↑ | |
f. | EΠIΓO | I | Σ | *Giamalakis Coll., gr. 16.45 | |
g. | EΠ | I | ΣΦ | ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.59↑; Romanos Coll. | |
h. | ӨEO≡E | Λ | ΣΦ | Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 3226; Sv. 61, 25), gr. 16.63↑. With KHΦIΣO/ӨEO≡E and M/Λ and ΣO/ΣΦ: *Paris, gr. 16.40↑ | |
i. | KHΦIΣ/ӨEO≡E | M/(?)Λ | ΔI | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 249), gr. 16.25↑;Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 248), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.75↑ | |
692. | |||||
a. | AΠOΛΛO/EΠITI | /Ẹ | ΔIO | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.75↑ | |
b. | AΠOΛΛOΔΩ/EΠITI | /E | ΔIO | *Empedocles Coll. = Weber 3522 (Sv. 61, 20), gr. 16.91. With ΣΦA/ΔIO: Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.62↑ | |
c. | AΠOΛ | Z | ΣΩ | Bauer Coll. = Ratto (Rogers) 424, gr. 16.60↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.81↑ | |
d. | ΔIONYΣ/ΛYKIΣ | Ө/H | ΔI | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 246; Sv. 61, 23), gr. 16.60↑ | |
e. | ΔIONYΣ/ΛYKIΣ | Ө/H | ? | Dewing Coll., gr. 16.34↑; Berlin, gr. 16.43 | |
f. | ΔIONY | Ө | ΣΩ | Athens, gr. 16.40↑; Glasgow (Hunt. 138), gr. 16.76↑; London, gr. 16.72↑;Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.40↑. Control letters uncertain on last three. | |
g. | EΠ | I | ΔI | Ratto (Rogers) 425, gr. 16.65 | |
h. | EΠ | I | ΣΩ | Zara Coll. = Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 957 = Sv. 61, 24, gr. 16.62↑;Athens (Delos Hd. B, 169), control letters uncertain, gr. 16.35↑ Booth Coll., control letters uncertain, gr. 16.90. With ӨEO≡/EΠ and Λ/I: *Paris, gr. 16.72↑;Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr. 15.80↑ | |
i. | ӨEO≡ | Λ | ΣΩ | ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.53↑ | |
j. | KHΦI | ? | ΣΩ | Athens, gr. 16.15↑ | |
693. | |||||
a. | AΠOΛΛOΔΩ/ EΠITI | ΣỌ | *Paris, gr. 16.60↑; Commerce | ||
b. | ΛYKIΣKO/ AΓΓOΛΛOΔΩ | H/ | ME | Berlin, gr. 16.60 | |
694. | |||||
a. | AΠOΛΛOΔΩ/ EΠITI | ΣO | *Commerce 1953, gr. 16.62; Commerce 1955 | ||
b. | ΛYKIΣ | H | ΣO | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 245), gr. 16.20↑; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 244; Sv. 61, 22), control letters uncertain, gr. 16.85↑ | |
c. | ΔIONY/AΠOΛ1 | Ө/Ḥ/Z | ΣΩ | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 247), gr. 16.77↑ | |
d. | ΔIONY | Ө | ΣO | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.58↑; Athens, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.05↑; Berlin, gr. 15.39 | |
e. | EΠ | I | ΣO | *Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.68↑; Paris, gr. 16.65↑; London, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 15.80↑; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 243), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.60↑ | |
f. | ӨEO≡/EΠI | Λ/I | ΣO | Ratto (Rogers) 426, gr. 16.65; *ANS-ETN, amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.60↑ | |
g. | ӨEO≡E | Λ | ΔI | Berlin, gr. 16.29 | |
h. | KHΦIΣOΔ/ ӨEO≡E | Ṃ/Λ | Σ[ | *Commerce; Berlin, gr. 16.32 | |
695. | |||||
a. | EΠ | I | ME | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.84↑; Toronto (Ontario Hd.), control letters uncertain, gr. 16.65↑. With ӨEO≡/EΠ and Λ/I : Herakleion (Cretan Hd. I) | |
b. | EΠI | I | ME | Platt (Luneau) 517; London (BMC 513), control letters uncertain, gr. 16.52↑. With ӨEO≡/EΠI and Λ/I: *Oxford, gr. 16.83 |
c. | ӨEO≡ | Λ | ME | Athens (Delos Hd. B, 167), broken↑ | |
d. | KHΦIΣ | Ṃ | ME | Berlin (Sv. 61, 26), gr. 16.76 |
XAPINAYTH – APIΣTEAΣ
Drachm
696. | |||||
— | ? | ΣΩ | *Athens, gr. 3.69 (Pl.)↑ | ||
129 tetradrachms: 10 obverse, 56 reverse dies 1 drachm Magistrates: NIKA,ΔIONYΣOΔΩ, EYΔHMOΣ, IAΣΩN, HPAKΛEI, EΠITI, AΠOΛΛOΔΩ, ΛYKIΣKO,ΔIONYΣ, EΠIΓO, ӨEO≡E,KHΦIΣOΔ Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, H, Ө, I, Λ, M Controls: ΔI(O), ME, ΣO, ΣΦ(A), ΣΩ |
Recutting of names and dates makes this a difficult issue to catalogue. As many as three third magistrates and months appear on a single die and the deletion of earlier inscriptions is often carelessly done so that the resulting jumble of letters is confusing. This has led to the recording of a great many erroneous readings. Most of those given by Beulé are corrected by Sundwall but the latter has a number of misreadings which should perhaps be cited:
ΔIONYΣΠ.Λ with H/Ө (from Svoronos, JIAN, 1906, p. 267). In the JIAN publication, however, the order of months is correctly given as Ө/H and ΔIONY is listed as over Π.Λ. The tetradrachm in question is our No. 694c which has ΔIONY/AΠOΛ.
ӨEO≡E with K/Λ is not confirmed by the Svoronos reference (JIAN, 1906, p. 260—our No. 695c) which lists the date as Λ.
ӨEO≡E with N from Beulé. The latter, however, reads the month as a poorly-formed Λ on tetradrachms in his own and the Paris collections. Our No. 692h is the Paris coin. ӨEO≡E is cut over EΠ and Λ over I. In changing the date a diagonal stroke has been added to the original I which results in the form N. What seems at first glance to be another vertical to the right is, I believe, merely a surface flaw.
ANΔPIΣKOΣ as a third magistrate can be corrected from the evidence of the Berlin coin cited by Beulé and Sundwall. The specimen is our No. 693b which has ΛYKIΣKO/AΠOΛΛOΔΩ, a combination which looks not unlike ANΔPIΣKOΣ.
Kambanis' listing of magistrates and months corresponds with the present catalogue except that the amphora letter on No. 695d is given as N. In the Trésor index the same date is recorded after the reading of Svoronos or Pick. The letter is certainly not clear but from the illustration it looks to me far more like an M than an N; I should hesitate to classify 144/3 b.c. as an intercalary year on the evidence of this one piece.
The symbol on the coinage of Charinautes and Aristeas has been described by some as Artemis and by others as Demeter.1 Considered in isolation, the standing female figure with long robe and two torches might be either goddess. There is, however, the circumstance that on the next two issues the symbol is definitely Artemis and it seems a little doubtful that the same goddess would have been selected for three successive strikings. Furthermore there is a relationship between this symbol and that on the issue of ANΔPEAΣ – XAPI-NAYTHΣ, eight years later, which may provide a clue to the identity of the figure. The second striking uses as its device a representation of two divinities: one enthroned with full drapery and a sceptre, the other standing with long robes and two torches. Recurrence of the name XAPINAYTHΣ and the similarity of the standing figures on the two emissions suggest that the man who served as first magistrate in 144/3 b.c. is holding office again in 136/5 and that the symbol which he chose for the earlier striking is repeated as a part of the later device. The combination of seated and standing figures is usually described as Dionysos and Demeter; it might, I think, equally well be Demeter and Kore but there is no decisive evidence one way or the other. In any case whether the seated deity be Dionysos or Demeter, the associated figure is more likely to be Demeter or Kore than Artemis.
ΦANOKΛHΣ–AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ ARTEMIS WITH TORCH 143/2 b.c.
(Plates 74–75)
Tetradrachms
697. | |||||
TIMOKPATH | A | ΣΩ | *ANS, gr.16.85↑; Zygman Coll., gr. 16.00↑ | ||
698. | |||||
a. | TIMOKPATHΣ | A | ΣO | *Berlin, gr. 15.91 | |
b. | TIMOKPATHΣ | A | ΣO | Kambanis Coll.. (Halmyros Hd.); *Empedocles Coll..; Moscow | |
c. | TIMOKPATHΣ | A | ΣỌ | Berlin, gr. 16.57 |
699. | |||||
a. | TIMOKPATH | A | ΣΦ | *Athens (Delos Hd. B, 161), gr. 15.80↑ | |
b. | TIMOKPATH | ? | ? | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.84↑ | |
700. | |||||
a. | TIMOKPATH | A | ΣΩ | *Copenhagen (SNG 159; Sv. 61, 1), gr. 16.39↑; Kambanis Coll.. (Halmyros Hd.). With APIΣTOΔHMOΣ/T1MO-KPATH and B/A: *ANS-ETN = Ratto (Rogers) 420, gr. 16.76↑; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), amphora and control letters uncertain, gr.16.38↑. With ΣΩΣTPA–TOΣ/APIΣTOΔHMOΣ/TIMOKPATH and Γ/B/A: *Paris (de Luynes 2112), gr. 16.20↑ | |
b. | BAKXIOΣ | Σ | Athens, gr. 16.50↑ | ||
c. | AΛE | H | ΣΩ | Athens (Sv. 61, 7), gr. 16.50↑ | |
701. | |||||
a. | TIMOKPATHΣ | A | ME | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.54↑; Empedocles Coll..; Commerce 1955 (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.47↑; Berlin, gr. 16.45 | |
b. | APIΣTOΔHMOΣ/TIMOKPATHΣ | B/A | ME | Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 956 = Sv. 61, 2, Romanos, gr. 16.70 | |
c. | APIΣTOΔHMOΣ | B | ME | *London, gr. 16.61↑; Athens, gr. 15.85↑. With ΣΩΣTPATOΣ/APIΣTOΔHMOΣ and Γ/B: *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.73↑; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.90↑; Berlin (Sv. 61, 3), gr. 16.62 | |
d. | BAKXIOΣ | Δ | ME | Copenhagen (SNG 160), gr.16.16↑; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 280; S v. 61, 4), gr. 16.70↑; London, gr. 16.25↑; Athens, amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.60↑ | |
e. | BAKXIOΣ | Δ | ME | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.38↑; Athens, badly crystallized↑ | |
f. | AΛE≡AN | Z | ME | ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.62↑ | |
702. | |||||
a. | TIMOKPATH | A | ΣΦ | *Oxford, gr. 16.66; Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), broken↑. With APIΣTOΔHMOΣ/TIMOKPATH and B/A: Berlin, gr. 15.58 | |
b. | TIMOKPATH | ? | ? | Vienna, gr. 16.35 | |
c. | ΣΩΣTPATOΣ/APIΣTOΔHMOΣ | Γ/B | Σ | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.08↑ | |
d. | BAKXIOΣ | Δ | ΣΦ | Glasgow (Hunt. 135), gr. 16.39↑ | |
e. | ӨEOΔΩ | H | Σ | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.25↑ | |
f. | ӨEO | H | ΣΦ | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.81 | |
g. | ӨEOΔΩPOΣ/AΛE≡AN | H/Z | ΣΦ/ΣO | Romanos Coll. | |
h. | EIPHNAI/ӨEOΔΩPOΣ/AΛE≡AN | Ө/H/Z | ΣΦ/ME | Copenhagen (SNG 161), gr. 16.39↑ | |
i. | EIPH/ӨEO | Ө/H | Σ[ | Leipzig | |
j. | EIPH | θ | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 281; Sv. 61, 8), gr. 16.85↑ | |
k. | ΦIΛINOΣ | I | ΣΦ | Commerce 1953; Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 15.25↑ | |
703. | |||||
a. | BAKXIOΣ | Δ | ΣO | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.82↑; Athens (Halmyros Hd.); Commerce 1957 (Abruzzi Hd.); Berlin, gr. 16.70 | |
b. | AΛE≡AN | Z | ΣO | Berlin (Sv. 61, 5), gr. 16.24. With ӨEO–ΔΩPOΣ/AΛE≡AN and H/Z: *ANS-ETN = Ratto (Rogers) 422, gr. 16.81↑; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 282; Sv. 61, 6), gr. 16.82↑ | |
704. | |||||
AΛE≡AN | Z | ME | *London (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.28↑; Athens | ||
705. | |||||
a. | ӨEOΔΩ | H | ΣΩ | *Berlin, gr. 16.83; Athens, gr. 15.85↑; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.65↑; Cahn (Hahn) 118, gr. 16.28; Athens, control letters uncertain; Commerce 1951, control letters uncertain, gr. 16.75 | |
b. | ӨEO | H | ΣΩ | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.44↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.64↑; Athens, control letters uncertain. With EIPH/ ӨEO and Ө/H : *Sicelianos Coll.; Paris. gr. 16.77↑; ANA Conv. Cat., Aug. 1954, 2325 | |
c. | ΦIΛINOΣ | I | ΣΩ | *Vienna, gr. 16.43; Berry Coll., gr. 16.65↑1 | |
d. | ΦIΛỊ | I | ΣΩ | Athens, gr. 15.30↑ | |
e. | ΣTPA(prob. recut) | Λ/K | ΣΩ | London (BMC 508; Sv. 61, 10), gr. 16.71↑; Vienna, control letters uncertain, gr. 16.35 | |
f. | ΣTPA | Λ | ΣΦ | London (BMC 509), gr. 16.45↑; ANS (Abruzzi Hd.), gr. 16.22↑ | |
g | ΣΓPATIOΣ | Λ | ΣỌ | Commerce 1932; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), control letters uncertain, gr. 16.88↑ | |
h | ΣAT | Λ | ΣΩ | ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.67↑; Athens, gr. 16.27↑; Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.63. With ΦIΛOӨ/ΣAT and M/Λ: Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.45↑ | |
i | ΦIΛOӨEOΣ/ΣTPATIOΣ | M/Λ | ΣΩ/? | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr.16.75↑; Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 17.00↑ | |
706. | |||||
a. | IEPΩN | θ | ME | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.05↑. With ΦIΛINOΣ/IEPΩN and I/Ө: *Athens, (Delos Hd. B, 163; Sv. 61, 9), gr.16.48↑; Glasgow (Hunt. 186), gr. 16.48↑; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.82↑; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.62↑ | |
b. | AΣKΛAΠΩN | K | ME | Commerce 1952, gr. 16.77 | |
c. | ΣTPATIOΣ | Λ | ME | Berlin, gr. 16.79; Halmyros Hd.; Commerce 1952, gr. 16.25. With ΦIΛO–ӨEOΣ/ΣTPATIOΣ and M/Λ: Berlin, gr. 16.63 | |
707. | |||||
a. | ΦIΛINOΣ | I | ? | ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.11↑ | |
b. | AΣKΛAΠΩN/(?)ΦIΛINOΣ | K/I | ΣO | Vienna, gr. 16.46; Glasgow (Hunt. 137), gr.16.42↑; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.23↑; Ratto (Rogers) 421, gr. 15.80 | |
c. | ΣTPATIOΣ | Λ | ΣΩ/? | Kambanis Coll..; Parma (Sv. 61, 11) | |
d. | ΣTPATIOΣ | Λ | ΣO | *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.76↑; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.20↑; Paris, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.22↑. With ΦI–ΛOӨEOΣ/ΣTPATIOΣ and M/Λ: * Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr.16.07↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.61↑; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 15.48↑ | |
e. | ΣΓPA | M/Λ | ΣΦ | Berlin (Sv. 61, 13), gr. 16.72 | |
f. | ΦIΛOӨEOΣ | M | ΣO | Marseilles; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 165; Sv. 61,12), gr. 16.45 | |
708. | |||||
a. | ΣΓPA | Λ | ΣΦ | *Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.48↑; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.65↑; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 164), gr. 15.98↑; KambanisColl. (Halmyros Hd.); Stack's (South) 612. With M/Λ: Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr.15.74↑; Athens, gr.16.22↑ | |
b. | ΦIΛOӨ/(?)ΣTPA | M/Λ | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.75↑; Berlin, control letters uncertain, gr. 15.82 (pierced) | |
709. | |||||
ΦIΛOθEOΣ/ΣTPATIOΣ | M/(?)Λ | ME/ΣO | *ANS-ETN = Ratto (Rogers) 423 = ΣTPATIOΣ Naville XIII, 759, gr. 16.60↑; Budapest, gr. 16.50↑ |
ΦANOKΛHΣ – AΠOΛΛΩNI
Drachm
685. | |||||
IEP/(?)ӨEO | ? | – | *Athens (Delos Hd. B, 162; Sv. 61, 14), gr. 3.85↑ | ||
120 tetradrachms : 13 obverse, 41 reverse dies 1 drachm Magistrates: TIMOKPATHΣ, APIΣTOΔHMOΣ, ΣΩΣTPATOΣ, BAKXIOΣ, AΛE≡AN, ӨEOΔΩPOΣ. EIPHNAI, IEPΩN. ΦI–ΛINOΣ, AΣKΛAΠΩN, ΣAT, ΣTPATIOΣ, ΦIΛOӨEOΣ Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, Z, H, Ө, I, K, Λ, M Controls: ME, ΣO, ΣΦ, ΣΩ |
A drachm die, No. 685, links the coinage of Phanokles and Apollonios with that of Eumareides and Kleomenes. For reasons that are outlined in the commentary following this section of the coinage, I do not believe that the two issues are contiguous. Rather this seems to be a case parallel to that of No. 411, also a drachm die, which was apparently in service over a period of three years. In this instance, however, there may have been no fractional coinage under Charinautes and Aristeas whose term of office immediately precedes that of Phanokles and Apollonios since the only drachm on record is a plated specimen which may or may not have been an official issue.
Of the thirteen third magistrates known for the year 148/2 B.c., IEPΩN and ΣAT are each represented by a single tetradrachm reverse. The former is not in Sundwal's record but Kambanis lists his name. Ostensibly his tenure followed that of EIPHNAI since the name of the next magistrate, ΦIΛINOΣ, is found cut over IEPΩN but not over EIPHNAI. ΣAT on the other hand seems to have served briefly in association with ΣTPATIOΣ during lambda. The latter's term extends into M but ΦIΛOӨEOΣ, his successor, is inscribed over Λ reverses of both ΣAT and ΣTPATIOΣ.
I have found no evidence for coinage during month E. Beulé gives this date with BAKXIOΣ from a coin in his collection and Sundwall and Kambanis repeat the entry but all BAKXIOΣ pieces that I have seen have delta on the amphora.
EYBOYΛIΔHΣ – AΓAӨOKΛH ARTEMIS WITH FAWN 142/1 b.c.
(Plates 76–77)
Tetradrachms
710. | |||||
ΦIΛO | A | ΣΦ | *London (BMC 404; Sv. 59, 17), gr. 16.36↑; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.08↑ | ||
711. | |||||
ΦIΛOӨ | A | ΣΩ | *Giesecke Coll. (Sv. 59, 16), gr. 16.76 | ||
712. | |||||
ӨEOΔΩ/ΦIΛOӨ | A | ΣΩ | *Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.52↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.70↗; Berlin, gr. 16.02 | ||
713. | |||||
a. | ӨEOΔΩ/ΦIΛOӨ | Ạ | ΣΩ | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.78↑; Ratto (Rogers) 416, amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.65; Berlin, gr. 16.47 | |
b. | ӨEOΔΩ | A | ΣΩ | *London (BMC 403), gr. 15.91↑; The Hague, gr. 16.05; Karlsruhe, gr. 16.54 |
ZΩIΛOΣ – EYANΔPOΣ BEE
c. | ΛYΣIΠ | Γ | ΣΩ | L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.40; Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.)• With MENNΩN/ΛYΣIΠ and Δ/Γ: ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.25↑ | |
d. | MENNΩN | Δ | ΣΩ | Leningrad (Sv. 60, 18), gr. 16.38; Lockett Coll. (SNG 1922) = Ratto (Rogers) 418, gr. 16.63↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.51↑ |
EYBOYΛIΔHΣ – AΓAӨOKΛH ARTEMIS
709. | |||||
a. | ӨEOΔΩ | A | ME | *Paris (de Luynes 2102), gr. 16.57↑ (PLATE 75). With ΛYΣIΠ/θEOΔΩ and B/A: Leningrad (Sv. 59, 20), gr. 16.70 | |
b. | ΛYΣITT/ӨEOΔΩ/ΦIΛOӨ | B/A | ME(?)/ΣΩ | *L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.50 |
ZΩIΛOΣ – EYANΔPOΣ BEE
c. | ΛYΣIMEN | Γ | ME | Athens (Sv. 60, 17), gr. 16.60↑ | |
d. | ΔEINIAΣ | Δ | ME | ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.54↑ |
EYBOYΛIΔHΣ – AΓAӨOKΛH ARTEMIS
714. | |||||
a. | ΦIΛOӨ | A | ΣO | *ANS-ETN = Sotheby, Dec. 1924, 127, gr. 16.60↑; Copenhagen (SNG 162), gr. 16.78↑; Kricheldorf V, 80 = Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 982, gr. 16.70. With ӨEOΔ/ΦIΛOӨ: *Romanos Coll. (Sv. 59, 18), gr. 16.82; Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө)↑. With ΛYΣI/ӨEOΔ/ΦIΛOӨ and B/A: *Paris (Sv. 59, 19), gr. 16.83↑ | |
b. | ӨEOΔ | A | ΣO | Berry Coll., gr. 16.64↑ | |
c. | ΛYΣI/ӨEOΔ | B/A | ΣO/ME | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.67↑; Copenhagen (SNG 168), gr. 16.59↑; Athens (Sv. 59, 21), gr. 17.00 |
ZΩIΛOΣ – EYANΔPOΣ BEE
d. | ΛYΣIΠ | Γ | ΣO | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.53↑; Paris. gr. 16.21↑ | |
e. | MENNO (sic) | Δ | ΣO | *Berlin, gr. 15.90; Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.78↑ | |
f. | ΔEINIAΣ | Δ | ΣO | ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.60↑; Kambanis Coll.. (BCH, 1982, Pl. I, 2) | |
g. | ΔEINIAΣ | E | ΣO | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 131; Sv. 60, 19), gr. 16.80; Athens (Halmyros Hd.); Athens | |
h. | AΣKΛHΠI/? | Z/E | ΣO | Berlin, gr. 16.58 | |
i. | ΠOΛYKPA/AΣKΛHΠI | H/Z | ΣO | *ANS-ETN, gr.16.42↑; Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr.16.10↑. With ZΩIΛOΣ/TTOΛYKPA/ AΣKΛHΠI and Ө/H/Z: *Copenhagen (SNG 164), gr. 16.39↑; Berlin (Sv. 60, 23), gr. 16.58; London, gr. 16.71↑; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH). gr. 16.15↑ | |
j. | ZΩIΛOΣ | Ө | ΣO | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.60↑. With ӨEO≡EN/ZΩIΛOΣ and I/Ө: Athens (Delos Hd. B, 96), gr. 16.90↑ | |
715. | |||||
a. | ΛYΣIΠ | Γ | ΣΩ | *Berlin, gr. 16.52 | |
b. | ΛYΣIΠ(?) | Γ | ? | Athens (Delos Hd. AH) ↖ | |
c. | ANTIΣӨE | Z | ΣΦ | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.82↑ | |
d. | AΣKΛHI (sic) | ΣΦ | *Petsalis Coll. | ||
e. | AΣKΛHΠ | H | ΣΦ | Leningrad (Sv. 60, 22), gr. 16.14. With ΠO–ΛYKPA/AΣKΛHΠ: Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 132; Sv. 60, 21), gr. 16.60↑. With ZΩIΛOΣ/ΠO–ΛYKPA/AΣKΛHΠ and Ө/H: Ratto (Rogers) 419, gr. 16.30 | |
716. | |||||
a. | ANTIΣӨE | Z/E | ME | *ANS, gr. 16.67↑ | |
b. | AΣKΛHΠI | Z | ME | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH; Sv. 60, 20), gr. 15.80↑. With ΠOΛYKPA/AΣKΛHΠI and H/Z: Berlin, gr. 16.29; Berlin.gr. 16.21 | |
c. | ZΩIΛOΣ | Ө | ME | ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.77↑; Athens, gr. 16.17↑; Berry Coll., gr. 16.79↑; Weber 3518, gr. 16.20; Berlin, gr. 16.33 | |
d. | ӨEO≡EN/ZΩIΛOΣ | Ө | ME | Petsalis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.65↑; Athens, gr. 15.60↑; Berlin, gr. 15.73 | |
717. | |||||
a. | ANTIΣӨE | Z | ΣΩ | *Berlin, gr. 16.75 | |
b. | ӨEO≡EN/? | I/ | Σ | Berlin, gr. 16.78 | |
c. | ΣΩKPA | Λ | ΣΩ | ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.48↑ | |
d. | ΛAMIOΣ | Σ[ | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.65↑. With KPI-TΩN/ΛAMIOΣ and M/Λ: Halmyros Hd.1 | ||
e. | KPI | M | Σ[ | ANS-ETN, gr. 16.44↑ | |
718. | |||||
a. | ӨEO≡EN/ ZΩIΛOΣ | ? | ΣΦ | Copenhagen (SNG 165), gr. 16.30↑ | |
b. | ΣΩKPA | K | ΣΦ | *Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 133; Sv. 60, 26), gr. 16.70↑; L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 15.95; Berlin, gr. 16.09 | |
719. | |||||
a. | ӨEO≡EN | I | ME | *Romanos Coll. (Sv.60, 24), gr. 16.77; Vatican | |
b. | ΣΩKPAT | I | ME | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.60↑ | |
c. | KPITΩN/ (?)ΣΩKPAT | M/? | ME | Empedocles Coll..; Athens, gr. 16.80↑; Giesecke Coll., amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.56 | |
720. | |||||
a. | ΣΩKPAT | I | ME | *Berlin (Sv. 60, 25), gr. 15.89 | |
b. | ΣΩKPAT | I | ME | London (BMC 413), gr. 15.84↑ | |
721. | |||||
a. | ΣΩKPAT | ? | ΣO | Athens↑ | |
b. | KPITΩN/ ΣΩKPAT | M/? | ΣO | Vienna, gr. 16.50. With ΣΦ/ΣO: *Empedocles Coll..; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.90↑; Copenhagen (SNG 166; Sv. 60, 27), gr. 16.34↑; Berlin, gr. 16.33 |
EYBOYΛIΔHΣ – AΓA ARTEMIS
Drachms
722. | |||||
(EYBOY–ΓIΔH) | a. | ӨEO | A | ΣO | *Athens (Delos Hd. B, 79; Sv. 59, 22), gr. 3.17↑ |
b. | ΛYΣ | B | Ọ | Athens (Sv. 59, 24), gr. 3.90↑; London (Sv. 59, 23), gr. 4.11 |
ZΩIΛOΣ – EYANΔP BEE
(EYAN) | c. | ΛY | Γ | ? | *Athens (Delos Hd. B, 95; Sv. 60, 28), gr. 4.07↑ |
d. | ANTI | ? | ? | Athens (Delos Ш.Λ–2, 9), gr. 3.76↑ | |
(EYANΔ) | e. | ӨE | ME | *ANS, gr. 3.98↑ (PLATE 79); Athens (Delos Hd. B, 97), amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 3.75↑; Athens (Sv. 60, 29), amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 3.70↑ | |
94 tetradrachms : 13 obverse, 40 reverse dies 8 drachms: 1 obverse, 5 reverse dies Magistrates: ΦIΛOӨ, ӨEOΔΩ, ΛYΣIΠ, ΛYΣIMEN, MENNΩN, ΔEINIAΣ, ANTIΣӨE, AΣKΛHΠI, ΠOΛY-KPA, ZΩIΛOΣ,ӨEO≡EN, ΣΩKPAT, ΛAMIOΣ, KPITΩN Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, H, Ө, I, k, Λ, M Controls: ME, ΣO, ΣΦ, ΣΩ |
In the BCH for 1932 (pp. 39–46) Kambanis establishes the replacement of first and second magistrates during the course of this emission. EYBOYΛIΔHΣ and AΓAӨOKΛH function for two months (A and B) and are then succeeded by ZΩIΛOΣ and EYANΔPOΣ who serve out the remainder of the year. Coincident with the shift of officials is a change in symbols: a bee with a spear of grain in its mouth supersedes the archaic Artemis with fawn of the earlier magistrates. At least three obverse dies (Nos. 710–712) are used by Euboulides and Agathokles alone; four others (Nos. 718, 709, 714 and 722) are transferred from one pair of magistrates to the other.
This striking is firmly linked to the one immediately preceding by Obverse 709 which is in operation briefly at the end of 143/2 under ΦANOKΛHΣ – AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ and then persists through the first four months of 142/1 b.c. under both EYBOYΛIΔHΣ – AΓAӨOKΛH and ZΩIΛOΣ – EYANΔPOΣ. The connection between the two issues is illustrated on PLATE 75.
Fourteen third magistrates share the minting responsibility and the diagrammatic survey of their terms of office provides one of the most complex patterns in the series thus far. Only three months of the year (B, K and M) are associated with a single name. Five officials —ΛYΣIΠ, ΔEINIAΣ, ANTIΣӨE,1 AΣKΛHΠI and ӨEO≡EN —serve for a part of two adjoining months; ΣΩKPAT is in office for three. The sequence within each month is established by recut tings in every case but that of ΛAMIOΣ. Λ reverses of both ΣΩKPAT and ΛAMIOΣ are re-inscribed by KPITΩN in M, and there is no way of knowing whether ΛAMIOΣ succeeded ΣΩKPAT or served with him for a brief period at the end of lambda.
ΛYΣIMEN and ΛAMIOΣ are known from a single reverse each. The first name is listed by Sundwall and Kambanis, the second is new to the record but there can be no doubt of the reading on the Istanbul coin. Beulé and Sundwall give magistrates, amphora letters and control combinations which do not appear in the present catalogue. Kambanis in his notebook lists TIMOKPA (H) as a magistrate and ΠE and AΠ as controls. However, in the BCH publication, which can scarcely antedate the notebook record since Kambanis speaks of having examined the coins in various museum collections, most of the dubious readings of Beulé are corrected1 and Kambanis' own exceptional notebook entries are missing. The summary of magistrates, dates and control combinations as it appears in the Bulletin (p. 42) corresponds with the catalogue above.2
ΔAMΩN–ΣΩΣIKPATHΣ QUIVER AND BOW 141/0b.c.
(Plates 78–79)
Tetradrachms
719. | |||||
(Horizontal quiver alone) | a. | KPI | A | ṂE | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 16.24↑; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH; Sv. 59, 1), gr. 15.80↑ |
b. | KPITΩN | A | ME | *Paris (Sv. 59, 2), gr. 16.89↑; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.45↑; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.02↑; Athens, gr. 15.80; Stuttgart, gr. 16.57 | |
c. | KPITΩN | B | ME | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.63↑; Paris, broken↑ | |
d. | KPITΩN | Γ | ME | Vienna, gr. 16.60 | |
723. | |||||
(Horizontal quiver alone) | a. | KPI | A | E | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.63↑ |
b. | KPITΩN | B | AΠ | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 62; Sv. 59, 8), gr. 16.65; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH)↑. With Γ/B: Berlin, gr. 16.66; Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.70↗ | |
721. | |||||
(Horizontal quiver alone) | a. | KPI | ? | ΣO | Athens, gr. 15.88↑ |
(Diagnal quver alone) | b. | KPI | ? | ? | *Kambanis Coll.. (Halmyros Hd.) |
c. | KPI | Ạ | ΣΩ | ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.14 ↗; London (BMC 359), gr. 15.14 (Pl. ?)↑ | |
d. | KPITΩN | A | ME | ANS-ETN, gr. 15.69↑ | |
e. | KPITΩN | B | ΣO | *London, gr. 15.81↑ (PLATE 77); Tübingen, gr. 16.68; Kambanis Coll.. | |
f. | KPITΩN | B | ΣO | Athens (Delos Hd.Γ, 63), gr. 16.701 | |
g. | NIKONO | Γ | ΠE | *Kambanis Coll.. (Halmyros Hd.) | |
h. | NIKONO | Δ | ΣO | Istanbul, gr.16.83↑; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.45↑; Ratto (Rogers) 414, gr. 16.60. With ӨEOΔΩP/NIKONO and E/Δ: Athens (Sv. 59, 8), gr. 16.55↑ | |
i. | IAΣΩN | E | ΣO | ANS-ETN, gr. 16.60↑. With ӨEOΔΩP/ IAΣΩN: Berlin, gr. 16.55 | |
j | APIΣTΩN/ӨEOΔΩP | Z/? | ΣO/ΓTE | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.78↑; London (BMC 356), gr. 15.96↑ | |
K | KΛEIΔAMO | I | ΠE | Berlin, gr. 16.54 | |
724. | |||||
(Horizontal quiver alone) | a. | KPI | A | ΠE | *Vienna, gr. 16.54; Athens, gr. 16.70↑; Athens (Halmyros Hd.); Berlin, gr. 16.18 |
b. | KPI | A | ΠE | Athens (Halmyros Hd.); Tübingen, gr. 16.18 | |
c. | KPITΩN | B | ΠE | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.65↑; Athens↑; Giesecke Coll., gr. 16.51; Halmyros Hd., control letters uncertain | |
(ΣΩΣIKPITHΣ) | d. | KPITΩN | B | ΠE | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.35↑ |
e. | KPITΩN | Γ/B | ΠE | Romanos Coll. (Sv. 59, 4), gr. 16.60 | |
725. | |||||
a. | KPITΩN | Γ (poss./B/A) | ME | Glasgow (Hunt. 101), gr. 16.34↑ |
b. | NIKONO/KPITΩN | Δ/? | ME | Halmyros Hd.; Berlin, gr. 15.59 | |
c. | NIKONO | Δ | ME | *Chiha Coll.; Andreopoulos Coll. | |
726. | |||||
a. | NIKONO/KPITΩN1 | Δ/Γ/B | ΠE | *Kambanis Coll.. (Halmyros Hd.); Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.55↑ | |
b. | NIKONO | Δ/Γ | ΠE | Berlin, gr. 16.84. With ӨEOΔΩP/NIKONO and E/Δ/Γ: *Uncertain2. With APIΓΓΩN/ӨEOΔΩP/NIKONO and Z/E/Δ/Γ: *Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr.15.45↑. With EΠIΓEN/APIΣTΩN/ӨEOΔΩP/NI-KONO and H/Z/E/Δ/Γ: *Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 66; Sv. 59, 9), gr. 16.30↑ | |
c. | ӨEOΔΩP | Z/? | ΠE | Berlin, gr. 16.34 | |
d. | APIΣTΩN/ ӨEOΔΩP/ NIKONO | H/Ẓ/E/Δ | ? | Berlin, gr. 16.66 | |
e. | EΠIΓEN | Ө | ΠE | Budapest, gr. 16.51↑ | |
f. | KΛEIΔAMO/ EΠIΓEN | I/Ө | ΠE/ME | London (BMC 357), gr. 16.34↑ | |
g. | KΛEIΔAMO | I | ΠE | ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.12↑; ANS (Anatolia Hd.), crystallized↑ | |
727. | |||||
a. | NIKONO/KPITΩN | Δ/Γ(?)/B | AΠ/ΣO | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 64; Sv. 59, 5), gr. 16.70↑; *Univ. Pa. Mus.; Vienna, gr. 16.52; Berlin, gr. 16.28. Amphora and control letters clear only on first | |
b. | NIKONO/ KPITΩN | Δ/? | AΠ/? | Cambridge (SNG 3225), gr. 16.25↑; Naville (Woodward) 752, gr. 16.72; Commerce 1932 (Halmyros Hd.) | |
c. | ӨEOΔΩP/ NIKONO | E/Δ | AΠ/ME | *ANS-ETN, gr.16.76↑; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.20↑; Commerce 1932 (Halmyros Hd.); Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 65; Sv. 59, 6), control letters uncertain, gr. 16.60↑ | |
d. | IAΣΩN | E | AΠ | *Paris (Sv. 59, 7), gr. 16.43↑ |
e. | ӨEOΔΩP | Z | AΠ | London (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.67↑. With APIΓΓΩN/ӨEOΔΩP: Commerce 1952 | |
f. | EΠIΓEN | Ө | AΠ | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH; Sv. 59, 10), gr. 16.40↑; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.20↑; L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.55 | |
g. | KΛEIΔAMO | I | AΠ | Commerce 1955↑. With K/I: Athens, gr. 16.50↑; Berlin, gr. 16.63 | |
728. | |||||
a. | IAΣΩN | E | ME | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.08↑; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.98↑. With ӨEOΔΩP/IAΣΩN: *Kambanis (Halmyros Hd.); London (BMC 855), gr.16.76↑; Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.75↑; Evelpidis Coll. (Oreos Hd.), gr. 16.67 | |
b. | ӨEOΔΩP | Z | ME | Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.55↑ | |
c. | EΠIΓEN | H | ṂỊ | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.20↑. With KΛEIΔAMO/EΠIΓEN and I/Ө(?)/H and ME: Vienna, gr. 16.52; Athens, gr. 15.75↑; London, gr. 16.42↑; Sophia, gr. 16.20;Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr.15.90↑; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.15↑ | |
d. | EΠIΓEN | Ө | AΠ | Paris, gr. 15.78 (Pl.)↑ | |
e. | EΠIΓEN | Ө | ME | The Hague, gr. 16.05; Athens↑ | |
f. | KΛEIΔAMO | I | ME | Berlin (Sv. 59, 11), gr. 16.81 | |
729. | |||||
a. | AΠOΛΛΩNI | Λ | ME | *Winterthur, gr. 16.46↗; Paris, gr. 16.40↑; Berlin (Sv. 59, 12), gr. 16.18 | |
b. | AΠOΛΛΩNI | M | ṂE | *Berlin (Sv.59, 13), gr. 16.18 (PLATE 80) | |
c. | TIMΩN | M | ME | Kambanis Coll.. (Halmyros Hd.); Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.54↑; Athens (Sv. 59.14), gr. 15.50↑; Berlin | |
d. | TIMΩN | M | ΣO | Paris, gr. 16.22↑ | |
730. | |||||
a. | AΠOΛΛΩNI | M | AΠ | *Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 15.80↑ (PLATE 80); Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), control letters uncertain, gr. 16.18↑ | |
b. | TIMΩN | M | AΠ | *Berry Coll., gr. 16.67 ↖; Berlin, gr. 16.78; Bauer Coll. (Gans Mail Bid 16, 309) = Ratto (Rogers) 415, gr. 16.76↑ | |
731. | |||||
a. | AΠOΛΛΩNI | M | ΠE | Glasgow (Hunt. 102), gr. 16.15↑ | |
(ΣΩΣI–KPITHΣ) | b. | TIMΩN | M | ΠE | *L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.70; London, gr. 16.44↗ |
c. | TIMΩN | M | ΠE | Athens, gr. 15.90↑ | |
732. | |||||
a. | TIMΩN | M | ΣO | *Copenhagen (SNG 167), gr. 16.52↑; Del Marte Coll. (Oreos Hd.), gr. 16.68↑ | |
b. | TIMΩN | ? | ΣO | Empedocles Coll.. |
Drachms
722. | |||||
NIK/KPI (?) | ? | — | *Petsalis Coll., gr. 3.80 | ||
733. | |||||
a. | NIK | — | Copenhagen (SNG 168), gr. 3.77↑ | ||
b. | KΛEI | Λ1 | — | *Athens (Delos Hd. B, 42; Sv. 59, 15), gr. 4.14 ↖; Paris; Athens, gr. 3.90 ↖ | |
734. | |||||
KΛEIΔ2 | ? | — | *London (BMC 358), gr. 3.60 | ||
122 tetradrachms: 12 obverse, 44 reverse dies 6 drachms : 3 obverse, 4 reverse dies Magistrates: KPITΩN, NIKONO, IAΣΩN, ӨEOΔΩP, APIΣTΩN, ETTIΓEN, KΛEI–ΔAMO, AΠOΛΛΩNI, TIMΩN Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, H, Ө, I, K, Λ, M Controls: AΠ, ME, ΠE, ΣO, ΣΩ |
Three obverse dies of the ZΩIΛOΣ – EYANΔPOΣ issue continue in use under ΔAMΩN – ΣΩΣIKPATHΣ: Nos. 719 (see PLATE 78 and BCH, 1932, Pl. I, 3 and 4), 721 (PLATE 77) and 722 (PLATE 79). Of these, Nos. 719 and 722 are discarded fairly early in the year but No. 721 survives at least into month Z.
Responsibility for the coinage of 141/0 b.c. is distributed among nine third magistrates whose tenures reflect the pattern of irregularity which seems to be normal for this period. On two occasions a single official controls the output of two full months and part of a third; in other cases a single month is associated with two third magistrates.1 Recutting of names and amphora letters reaches its apogee in this issue with four magistrates and five months inscribed on the same die. Illustration of the various stages of this reverse is to be found on PLATE 78. No. 721g has NIKONO and Γ with no evidence of an underlying name or date. On No. 726b (1) ӨEOΔΩP is over NIKONO and E is over Δ and Γ (the Δ/Γ with NIKONO appears on a Berlin piece not on the plate, the first entry under No. 726b). No. 726b (2) carries the alteration of the die a step further: APIΣTΩN over the two earlier magistrates and Z over E, Δ and Γ; finally in No. 726b (3) we have EΠIΓEN/APIΣTΩN/ӨEOΔΩP/NIKONO and H/Z/E/Δ/Γ. Fortunately, recutting to this extent is exceptional.
A certain variation in the rendering of the symbol is noteworthy. Some early reverses with KPI instead of KPITΩN and A on the amphora have only a quiver in the right field, either on its side or in a diagonal position. Later reverses invariably show the sheath upright with the outline of a bow behind it.
EYMHΛOΣ–KAΛΛIΦΩN TYCHE 140/39 b.c.
(Plates 80–81)
Tetradrachms
729. | |||||
a. | AΛE≡ | A | ME | *Kambanis Coll.. | |
b. | AΛE≡ | Γ | ME | Yale Univ., gr. 16.53↑ | |
730. | |||||
AΛE≡ | A | AΠ | *Berry Coll., gr. 16.60↑; Berlin, gr. 16.24; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 81; Sv. 60, 1), gr. 16.10↑; Vatican | ||
731. | |||||
a. | AΛE≡ | A | ΣO | *Halmyros Hd.; *Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.10↑ (PLATE 79). With B/A: Athens (Delos Hd. KϚ, 38), gr. 15.45↑ | |
b. | AΛE≡ | B | ΣO | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.65↑; Berlin, gr. 16.78 |
c. | AιE | Γ/B | ΣO | Athens, gr. 16.35↑ | |
d. | AΛE≡ | Γ | ΣΦ | Commerce 1955↑ | |
e. | AΛE≡ | Γ | AΠ | Berlin, gr. 15.51 (corroded) | |
732. | |||||
a. | AΛE≡ | B/A | ΣO | *Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 118; Sv. 60, 2), gr. 16.65↑; Berlin, gr. 16.62 | |
b. | AΛE≡ | ? | ΣO | *Romanos Coll. (PLATE 79) | |
735. | |||||
a. | AΛE≡ | B | AΠ | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.54↑; Athens, gr. 16.35↑ | |
b. | AΛE≡ | Γ | AΠ | Athens (Sv. 60, 3), gr. 16.50↑ | |
736. | |||||
a. | AΛE≡ | B | ΣO | *ANS, gr. 16.46↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.52↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.51↑ | |
b. | AΛE≡ | Γ/B | ΣO | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.76↑; Vienna, gr. 16.30 | |
c. | ΔIOKΛ/AΛE≡ | Δ/Γ | ΣO | Paris, gr. 16.49↑; Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 15.40↑ | |
d. | ΔIOKΛ | E | ΣO | L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.60 | |
e. | HPA | E | ΣO | Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 16.50↑; Berlin, gr. 16.35. With Z/E: ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.55↑ | |
737. | |||||
ΔIOKΛ | Δ | AΠ | *Berlin, gr. 16.44 | ||
738. | |||||
a. | ΔIOKΛ | Δ | AΠ | *Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.96↑; Athens (Sv. 60, 4), gr. 16.45↑; Athens | |
b. | ΔIOKΛ | E | AΠ | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.80↑; Berlin, gr. 16.27 | |
c. | HPA/ΔIOKΛ | Z/E | AΠ/ΣΦ | ANS (Abruzzi Hd.), gr. 15.85↑ | |
d. | HPA | Z/E | AΠ | *Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.88↑; Tübingen,; Gotha, gr. 15.27 (worn) | |
739. | |||||
a. | ΔIOKΛ | E/Δ | ME/AΠ | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.52↑; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 120; Sv. 60, 5), gr. 16.75 | |
b. | ΔIOKΛ | E | ME | *Vienna, gr. 15.98; Tübingen, gr. 16.49 | |
c. | ΔIOKΛ | E | ME | Berlin, gr. 16.41 | |
d. | HPA | E | ME | Seyrig Coll., gr. 16.43↑ | |
e. | HPA | H | ME | Paris, gr. 16.35↑; Athens (Halmyros Hd.); Washington Univ. | |
f. | HPA | H | ME | Athens (Sv.60, 7), gr. 16.60; Berlin, gr. 16.58 | |
740. | |||||
a. | ΔIOKΛ | E | Σ | Athens (Delos Hd. B, 84), gr. 15.90↑ | |
b. | ΔIOKΛ | E | ΣO or Ω | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 119), gr. 16.75↑ | |
c. | HPA | Z | ΣO | *Dresse de Lébioles Coll. = Helbing, Nov. 1928, 3983, gr. 16.51↑; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH; Sv. 60, 6), gr. 15.65↑; Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.45↑ | |
d. | HPA | H | ΣO or Ω | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.45↑; Paris, gr. 15.60↑; Athens↑ | |
e. | HPA | Ө | ΣO | Zurich; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.35↑; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 87), gr. 15.60↑; Romanos Coll.; Copenhagen (SNG 169), gr. 16.41↑ | |
f. | HPA | K | ΣO | Romanos Coll. | |
g. | HPA | K | Σ | Athens (Halmyros Hd.); Athens (Delos Hd. B, 88; Sv.60, 10), gr. 15.05 (worn). With ι/K: ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.61↑ | |
741. | |||||
a. | HPA | H | ME | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 121), gr. 16.65↑. With Ө/H: *Athens (Delos Hd. B, 86; Sv. 60, 8), gr. 16.85↑; Moscow | |
b. | HPA | K/Ө1 | ME/AΠ | London (BMC 408), gr. 16.38↑ | |
c. | HPA | K | ME | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.65↑; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.45↑ | |
d. | HPA | M/Λ | ME | ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.39↑; L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.40; Athens, gr. 15.70↑ | |
e. | HPA | M | ME | Leningrad (Sv. 60, 12), gr. 16.60; Kambanis Coll.. (Arethuse, 1928, Pl. XXII, 8) | |
742. | |||||
a. | HPA | Ө | AΠ | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.58↑; Athens (Halmyros Hd.); Berlin, gr. 16.51 | |
b. | HPA | I | AΠ | *Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH; Sv.60, 9), gr. 16.15↑; Kambanis Coll.. (Halmyros Hd.); Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 15.82↑ |
743. | |||||
a. | HPA | Ө | ΣO | *Aberdeen, gr. 16.21↑; Berlin, gr. 16.62 | |
b. | HPA | I | ΣO | Glasgow (Hunt. 181). Pl.↑ | |
c. | HPA | K | ΣO/(?)ME | Halmyros Hd. | |
744. | |||||
a. | HPA | Λ/K | ΣO or Ω | *Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH; Sv.60, 11), gr.15.88↑ | |
b. | HPA | ΣO or Ω | Athens, gr. 16.60↑ | ||
745. | |||||
a. | HPA | Λ/K | AΠ | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.74↑ (PLATE 82) | |
b. | HPA | Λ | ΣO or Ω | Kambanis Coll.. (Halmyros Hd.) | |
c. | HPA | M | ME | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH) | |
d. | HPA | M | AΠ | *Berry Coll. = Hamburger 98, 694, gr. 16.72↑; Kambanis Coll.. (BCH, 1932, Pl. I, 7); Lockett Coll. (SNG 1920) = Ratto (Rogers) 417, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.60↑ | |
746. | |||||
a. | HPA | M | ΣO | Kambanis Coll.. (Halmyros Hd.); ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.52↑; London (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.48↑ | |
b. | HPA | M | ΣO | *Berlin, gr. 16.63 |
Drachms
747. | |||||
a. | AΛE | A | — | *Athens (Delos Hd. B, 82; Sv. 60, 13), gr. 3.80↑; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 83), gr. 3.65↑ | |
b. | HPA | K | — | ANS, gr. 3.65↑; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 89; Sv. 60, 15), gr. 3.75; Athens (Sv. 60, 14), gr. 4.00↑ |
EYMH-KAΛΛI NO SYMBOL
Hemidrachms
748. | |||||
Ḥ | — | — | *Athens (Delos Hd. B, 90; Sv. 60, 16), gr. 1.97; Athens | ||
102 tetradrachms : 16 obverse, 48 reverse dies 5 drachms: 1 obverse, 2 reverse dies 2 hemidrachms : 1 obverse, 1 reverse
die Magistrates: AΛE≡, ΔIOKΛ, HPA Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, H, Ө, I, K, Λ, M Controls: AΠ, ME, ΣO, ΣΦ, ΣΩ(?) |
No less than four tetradrachm obverses join this issue with that of ΔAMΩN – ΣΩΣIKPATHΣ : Nos. 729 (PLATE 80 and BCH, 1932, Pl. I, 5 and 6), 730 (PLATE 80 and Arethuse, 1928, Pl. XXII, 9–11), 731 (PLATE 79) and 732 (PLATE 79). All are short-lived. No. 729 is in use for five months, longer than any of the others; No. 730 is known for only M of 141/0 and A of 140/39 b.c.
The coinage of Eumelos and Kalliphon is noteworthy in two respects. Its denominations include the hemidrachm, which seems not to have been struck during the five years between this emission and the earlier one of Diotimos and Magas, and it is under the control of only three third magistrates, the smallest number known for any issue thus far. AΛE≡ serves for alpha, beta and gamma; ΔIOKΛ for delta and a part of epsilon; HPA for the remainder of the year. The MA recorded by Beulé after Sestini is probably a misreading of HPA.1
HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ(I) WINGED TYCHE WITH AMPHORA 139/8 b.c.
(PLATE 82)
Tetradrachms
745. | |||||
a. | ΔIO | A | AΠ | *Commerce 1953 (Halmyros Hd.) | |
b. | AΣKΛH | B | AΠ | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH; Sv. 64, 4), gr. 16.00↑; Berlin, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.53; Kambanis Coll.. (BCH, 1936, Pl. VII, 3) | |
c. | ΔIONYΣO | Γ | AΠ | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH; BCH, 1986, Pl. VII, 4), gr. 16.02↑ | |
749. | |||||
a. | ΔIOK | A | ME | *Berlin, gr. 16.59 | |
b. | AΣKΛH | Γ/(?)B | ME | London (BMC 414), gr. 16.39↑; Paris,gr. 16.60↑ | |
c. | ΔIONYΣO | Γ | ME | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 144; Sv. 64, 5), gr. 16.65; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), control letters uncertain, gr. 16.53↑ | |
750. | |||||
a. | AΣKΛH | B | ΣO | Beulé Coll.,2 gr. 15.68. With ΔIONYΣO/AΣKΛH and Γ/B: *Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.45↑; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.78↑ |
b. | ΔIONYΣO | Γ | ΣO | ANS-ETN, gr. 16.68↑; Vienna, gr. 16.13; Berlin | |
c. | ΔIONYΣO | Γ | ΣO | Athens | |
751. | |||||
a. | ΔIONYΣO/ AΣKΛH | Γ/Ḅ | ΣO | Athens | |
b. | ΔIONYΣO | Γ | ΣO | *Dewing Coll. = Platt, May 1921, 82, gr. 15.80↑; Paris, gr. 16.45↑; Meletopoulos Coll.; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.20↑; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 145), gr. 16.50↑ | |
c. | ΔIONYΣO | Γ | ΣO | ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.90↑. With APIΣTΩN/ΔIONYΣO and Δ/Γ: Beulé Coll., gr. 16.21 | |
d. | APIΣTΩN | E | ΣỌ | Vienna (Sv. 64, 8), gr. 16.45 | |
752. | |||||
a. | ΔIONYΣO | Γ | ΣO | *Commerce; Kambanis Coll.. | |
b. | APIΣTΩN | Δ | ΣO | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH; BCH, 1936. Pl. VII, 8), gr. 15.83↑; London, gr. 16.50↑ | |
753. | |||||
a. | APIΣTΩN | Δ | ΣO | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.20↑ | |
b. | APIΣTΩN | Δ | AΠ | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.63↑ | |
c. | APIΣTΩN | Z | AΠ | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.61↑; *Copenhagen (SNG 172), gr. 16.58↑1 | |
d. | APIΣTΩN(?) | ? | ? | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH) ↑ | |
e. | ΠEIӨOΛA | H | AΠ | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH; Sv. 64, 18), broken↑ | |
f. | ΔIOΓE | ? | AΠ | Istanbul, gr. 16.72↑ | |
g. | ΔHMOΣӨ/ΔIOΓE/EYBOYΛOΣ | K/I/Ө | AΠ | ANS, gr. 16.66↑; Copenhagen (SNG 174; Sv. 64, 18), gr. 16.45↑. With Λ/K/I/θ: Kambanis Coll.. (BCH, 1986, Pl. VIII, 6); Athens↑ | |
754. | |||||
a. | APIΣTΩN | E | ME | ANS-ETN, gr. 16.14↑; Beulé Coll. | |
b. | MOΣXIΩN | Z | ME | *Berlin, gr. 16.48; Kambanis Coll.. (Halmyros Hd.) |
755. | |||||
a. | MOΣXIΩN | Z | AΠ | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.69↑. With ΣỌ/AΠ: Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 147), gr.16.65↑; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 146; Sv. 64, 10), gr. 16.45↑ | |
b. | MOΣXIΩN | Z | ΣO | Moscow | |
c. | MOΣXIΩN(?) | Z | ΣỌ | Athens, gr. 15.14↑ | |
d. | ΠEIӨOΛA | H | ME | Cahn 24 (Fx.Pr.) 539, gr. 16.80 | |
e. | ΔIOΓE | Ị | ΣO | Cambridge (Grose 5913; Sv. 64, 22), gr. 16.76↑ | |
756. | |||||
a. | ΠEIӨOΛA | H | ME | Empedocles Coll..; Commerce 1956. With EYBOYΛOΣ/ΠEIӨOΛA and θ/H: *Athens (Sv. 64, 15), gr. 15.00↑ | |
b. | EYBOYΛOΣ | Ө | ME | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr.15.35↑. With ΔH-MOΣӨ/ΔIOΓE/EYBOYΛOΣ: Athens, amphora letter uncertain, ↑ | |
c. | ΔIOΓE | I | ME | Kambanis Coll.. (Halmyros Hd.; BCH, 1936, Pl. VIII, 3); Commerce 1956; Paris, gr. 16.06↑ | |
d. | ΔHMOΣӨ | ι | ME | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 148; Sv. 64, 19), gr. 16.67↑ | |
757. | |||||
a. | EYBOYΛOΣ/ APIΣTΩN1 | Ө/Z | ΣỌ/AΠ | ANS-ETN, gr. 16.11↑ | |
b. | ΔIOΓE | I | ΣO | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.83↑; Commerce 1956 | |
c. | ΔHMOΣӨ | M | ΣO | ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.36↑ | |
d. | ΔHMOΣӨ | M | ΣO | Athens (Halmyros Hd.); Paris, gr. 16.58↑; Copenhagen (SNG 175), gr. 16.67↑; Kambanis Coll.. All reverses poorly preserved: M visible only on Athens coin, ΣO on Copenhagen and Kambanis pieces. |
Drachms
747. | |||||
ΔIOK | A | — | *Athens (Sv. 64, 25), gr. 3.85↑; Romanos Coll. | ||
758. | |||||
ỊỌΓ | K | — | *London, gr. 3.97 |
HPAK – EY
Hemidrachms
748. | |||||
ΠEI | — | — | *Athens (Delos Hd. B, 107; Sv. 64, 29), gr. 2.05; Berlin (Sv. 64, 28), gr. 2.04 | ||
69 tetradrachms : 10 obverse, 34 reverse dies 3 drachms: 2 obverse, 2 reverse dies 2 hemidrachms: 1 obverse, 1 reverse
die Magistrates: ΔIOK, AΣKΛH, ΔIONYΣO, API–ΣTΩN,1 MOΣXIΩN, ΠEIӨOΛA, EYBOY–ΛOΣ, ΔIOΓE, ΔHMOΣӨ Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, H, Ө, I, K, Λ M Controls: AΠ, ME, ΣO2 |
In the Bulletin de correspondance hellénique for 1986 (pp. 101–115), Kambanis proves that the coinage of Herakleides and Eukles must be spread over two years. The evidence he presents for two distinct sequences of third magistrates is extensive and entirely convincing. Additional material in the present catalogue closes the one gap in Kambanis' series of interlocking dies for the first issue of Herakleides–Eukles: Obverses 753–4 join the reverses of APIΣTΩN with those of his successors in the third magistracy. As the record now stands, nine third magistrates control the coinage of 139/8 b.c. with all twelve months of the year represented.3
The tetradrachm link between Eumelos-Kalliphon and the first issue of Herakleides-Eukles is published by Kambanis in two BCH articles (1932, Pl. I, 7 and 8; 1936, Pl. VII, 1 and 2—see also PLATE 82). In addition, the two emissions are joined by the transfer of one drachm die (No. 747, PLATE 81) and one hemidrachm die (No. 748, PLATE 81).
In the right field of the Herakleides-Eukles reverses there is an elaborate and somewhat puzzling symbol. A draped female figure with wings stands before an amphora on a low base. Her left hand holds a cornucopiae while her right is extended over the mouth of the amphora. This symbol has been variously described : Nike sacrificing with a patera, winged Tyche dropping a vote into an amphora, Nike crowning an amphora, and Nike holding a cornucopiae and dropping a voting pebble into a vase on a base.
Uncertainty regarding the object in the right hand is inevitable in view of the small scale of the drawing and there is, furthermore, a lack of consistency in the representation. In some cases the woman seems to be holding ears of grain, as Nos. 751b and 753c (PLATE 82) and, even more clearly, No. 783b (PLATE 86). On other dies she has a rounded object which I think must be a patera (Nos. 756a and 757b of PLATE 82).
No. 745a provides the clue to the identification of the symbol. This first reverse of the issue is unique in showing a figure without wings, comparable in every respect to the Tyche symbol of Eumelos and Kalliphon, except that here the goddess stands before a crudely rendered amphora. It seems evident that Herakleides-Eukles borrowed the Tyche of their predecessors' coinage, giving her, however, a specific application. She is the goddess of fortune associated with victory in the games and as such she has the wings of Nike. By some engravers she is conceived as pouring a libation into the prize vase; by others as merely holding the grain ears which, like the patera and the cornucopiae, are an attribute of Tyche.
ӨEOΔOTOΣ–KΛEOΦANHΣ NO SYMBOL 138/7 b.c.
(Plates 83–84)
Tetradrachms
759. | |||||
a. | ΔHMOΣ | A | ΣO | *Berry Coll., gr. 16.57↑; Paris, gr. 16.70↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.). gr. 16.67↑ | |
b. | ΔHMOΣ | A | ΣO | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.65↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.68↑ | |
760. | |||||
a. | ΔHMOΣ | A | ME | Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Berlin (Sv. 65, 1), gr. 16.68 | |
b. | ΔHMOΣ | A | ME | *Copenhagen (SNG 279), gr. 16.78↑. With B/A: ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd), gr. 16.66↑; Commerce 1956 | |
c. | ΔHMOΣ | B | ME | Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.72↑; Berlin, gr. 16.60 | |
761. | |||||
a. | ΔHMOΣ | A | AΠ | ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.61↑; Naples (Mus. Naz., Fiorelli 7147), gr. 16.64↑; Munich, control letters uncertain, gr. 16.16 | |
b. | ΔHMOΣ | A | AΠ | *Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 16.47↑. With B/A: Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), gr. 15.65↑ | |
c. | ΔHMOΣ | B | AΠ | Romanos Coll. (Sv. 65, 2), gr. 16.73; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.30↑. With ΣΩTAΣ/ΔHMOΣ: London, gr. 16.28↑; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.55↑; Berlin, gr. 16.66 | |
d. | ΣΩTAΣ | B | AΠ | London (BMC 421), gr. 16.10↑; Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.80↑ | |
e. | ΣΩTAΣ | B | AΠ | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.78↑ | |
762. | |||||
a. | ΔHMOΣ | A | ΣΩ | *Lockett Coll. (SNG 1924), gr. 16.65↑; Berlin, gr. 16.38; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.60↑; ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.71↑; Giesecke Coll., gr. 16.72. With ΣΩTAΣ/ΔHMOΣ and B/A: Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH)↑ | |
b. | ΔHMOΣ | B | Athens (Delos Hd. KϚ, 40), gr. 15.02↑ | ||
c. | ΣΩTAΣ/ΔHMOΣ | B/(?)A | ΣΩ | Vienna, gr. 15.80 | |
d. | ΣΩTAΣ | Γ | Σ | ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.71↑ | |
763. | |||||
a. | ΔHMOΣ | B | ΣO | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.24↑; Berlin, gr. 15.87 | |
b. | ΔHMOΣ | B | ΣO | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.95↑ | |
c. | ΔHMOΣ | B | ΣO | Commerce 1952. With ΣΩTAΣ/ΔHMOΣ: *Sicelianos Coll. | |
(θEO–ΔΩTOΣ;) | d. | ΣΩTAΣ/ΔHMOΣ | B | Σ[ | Piraeus Hd. |
e. | ΣΩTAΣ | B | ΣO | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.25↑; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 112), gr. 15.90↑; Berlin, gr. 16.52 | |
764. | |||||
a. | ΣΩTAΣ/ΔHMOΣ | B | ME | Tübingen; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.65↑; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.25↑ | |
b. | ΣΩTAΣ | B | ME | *Berlin, gr. 16.47 | |
c. | ΣΩTAΣ | Γ | ME | Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.48↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.58↑ | |
d. | ΣΩTAΣ | Γ | ME | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.73↑; ANS (Abruzzi Hd.), gr. 16.43↑ | |
e. | ΣΩTAΣ | Γ | ME | Berlin, gr. 16.62 | |
765. | |||||
(θEO–ΔΩTOΣ) | a. | ΣΩTAΣ/ΔHMOΣ | B | ΣO | Naville (Woodward) 753, gr. 16.86 |
b. | ΣΩTAΣ | Γ | ΣO | *Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.00↑ | |
c. | ΣΩTAΣ | Γ | ΣO/ME | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.65↑ | |
d. | ΣΩTAΣ | Δ/Γ | ΣO | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 15.42↑; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 111; Sv. 65, 4), gr. 15.80↑; Leipzig; Athens; Commerce 1955, gr. 16.18↑ | |
e. | ΔΩPOӨE | Δ | Ọ | Romanos Coll. | |
f. | ΔΩPOӨE | Δ | AΠ | Berlin, gr. 16.71 | |
g. | ΠΛATΩN | Δ | ΣO | Berlin, gr. 15.19 | |
h. | ΠΛATΩN | Δ | ΣỌ | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 159), gr. 16.40↑ | |
i. | EΠIMAXOΣ | E | ΣO | Berlin (Sv. 65, 5), gr. 16.54; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.83↑ | |
766. | |||||
a. | ΣΩTAΣ | Γ/B | AΠ | Athens (Sv. 65, 3), gr. 16.40↑; Athens (Halmyros Hd.); Berlin, gr. 16.13 | |
b. | ΣΩTAΣ | Γ | AΠ | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.85↑; Halmyros Hd. | |
c. | ΣΩTAΣ | Γ | AΠ | Paris, gr. 16.72↑ | |
d. | ΣΩTAΣ | Δ | AΠ | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.55↑ | |
e. | ΔΩPOӨE | Δ | AΠ | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.76↑; London (BMC 422), gr. 15.44↑; Athens (Halmyros Hd.) | |
f. | ΠΛATΩN | Δ | ? | Commerce 19521 | |
767. | |||||
a. | ΣΩTAΣ | Γ | ΣΩ | *Halmyros Hd. | |
b. | ΣΩTAΣ | Γ | ΣΩ | *Berlin, gr. 16.57; Kambanis Coll. | |
c. | ΣΩTAΣ | Γ | Σ | *Halmyros Hd. | |
d. | ΔΩPOӨE | Δ | ΣΩ | Commerce 1953, gr. 16.65; Berlin, control letters uncertain, gr. 16.48 | |
e. | ΠΛATΩN | Δ | ΣΩ | Istanbul, gr. 16.57↑ | |
f. | ΠΛATΩN | Δ | AΠ | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.59↑ | |
768. | |||||
a. | ΣΩTAΣ | Δ | ME | *Bauer Coll. = Ratto (Rogers) 435, gr. 16.79↑; Athens.gr. 16.60↑ | |
b. | ΔΩPOӨE | Δ | ME | Athens, gr. 16.72↑ | |
c. | ΠΛATΩN | Δ | ME | Baker Coll. | |
d. | EΠIMAXOΣ | E | ME | Athens, gr. 16.25↑ | |
e. | EΠIMAXOΣ | E | ME | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.25↑ | |
769. | |||||
a. | EΠIMAXOΣ | E | AΠ | *Paris, gr. 15.93↑ | |
b. | EΠIMAXOΣ | E | AΠ | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.66 ↗ | |
770. | |||||
a. | EΠIMAXOΣ | E | ME | *Paris, gr. 16.32↑; Glasgow (Hunt. 132), gr. 16.63↑; Berlin, gr. 15.56 | |
b. | ΛYΣIΠΠ | Z | ME | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.52↑; Athens, gr. 16.50↑; Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 15.30↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.). gr. 16.56↑; Berlin, gr. 16.65 | |
c. | ΠOΠΛI | Ө | ME | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.15↑ | |
771. | |||||
a. | EΠIMAXOΣ | E | ΣO | *London, gr. 16.65↑; L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.40 | |
b. | ΛYΣIΠΠ | E | ΣO | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.37↑ | |
c. | ΛYΣIΠΠ | Z | ΣO | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH, 161), gr. 16.68↑ |
d. | ΠOΠΛI | Ө | ΣO | Athens↑; Berlin, (Sv. 65. 9), gr. 16.71; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.67↑; prob. Athens (Carystus Hd. II; BCH, 1958, Pl. XLIX, 8), gr. 15.95 | |
e. | ΠOΠΛI | Ө | ΣO | Athens, gr. 16.65↑. With I/Ө: Dewing Coll., gr. 16.48↗ | |
f. | ΠOΠΛI | I | ΣO | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr.16.87↑; Athens, gr. 16.75↑; Berlin, gr. 15.88 | |
g. | ΔIONY | M | ΣO | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.40↑; Athens (Sv. 65, 18), gr. 16.50↑ | |
772. | |||||
a. | ΛYΣIΠΠ | Z | AΠ | Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 160; Sv. 65, 6), gr. 16.70↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.62↑ | |
b. | MOYΣAΓ | Z | AΠ | *Copenhagen (SNG 280; Sv. 65, 7), gr. 16.65↑; L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.45 | |
773. | |||||
a. | ΛYΣIΠΠ/(?)EΠIMAXOΣ | Z/(?)E | ΣΩ | *ANS-ETN = Ratto (Rogers) 436, gr. 16.57↑. With ΠOΠΛI/ΛYΣITTΠ/(?)EΠI–MAXOΣ and Ө/Z/(?)E: Berlin, gr. 16.71 | |
b. | ΛYΣIΠΠ | Z | ΣΩ | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.45↑; Commerce | |
c. | MOYΣAΓ | Z | ΣΩ | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.20↑. With ΠOΠΛI/MOYΣAΓ and Ө/H/Z: Copenhagen (SNG 281), gr. 16.49↑; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr.15.60↑; London (BMC 428), gr. 16.52↑ | |
d. | ΠOΠΛI | Ө | ΣΩ | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.72↑ | |
e. | ΔIONY (prob, recut) | K | ΣΩ | Berlin (Sv. 65, 11), gr. 16.64 | |
f. | ΔIONY | M | ΣΩ | ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.41↑; Oxford, gr. 16.22; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.64↑; Istanbul, gr. 16.43↑ | |
774. | |||||
a. | ΠOΠΛI/MOYΣAΓ | H/Z | AΠ | London (BMC 424; Sv. 65, 8), gr. 16.51↑; Athens (Halmyros Hd.); Berlin, gr. 16.58 | |
b. | ΠOΠΛI | Ө | AΠ | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.50↑ | |
c. | ΠOΠΛI | Ө | AΠ | ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.49↑ | |
d. | ΔIONY/MOYΣAΓ1 | Λ/Z | AΠ/? | *London (BMC 425), gr. 16.62↑ | |
775. | |||||
a. | ΠOΠΛI | H | ME | *Gotha, gr. 16.58; Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.55↑ | |
b. | ΠOΠΛI | I | AΠ | Romanos Coll. (Sv. 65, 10), gr. 16.64 | |
c. | ΔIONY | K | ME | Athens (DelosHd.ΛH), gr. 15.50↑. With Λ/K: Berlin (Sv. 65, 12), gr. 16.45 | |
d. | ΔIONY/MOYΣAΓ | Λ/Z | AΠ/? | Tübingen, gr. 16.61 |
Drachms
758. | |||||
a. | ΔHṂỌ | ? | ? | Copenhagen (SNG 282; Sv. 65, 14), gr. 3.68↑; probably Berlin (Sv. 65, 17), gr. 3.95 | |
b. | Π]ΛA | Δ | ? | *Athens (Delos Hd. B, 113; Sv. 65, 16), gr. 4.27 | |
c. | EΠIM | Ẹ | ? | Copenhagen (SNG 283), gr. 3.67↑; Berlin (Sv. 65, 18), gr. 3.48 | |
d. | EΠIM | Z | — | *London, gr. 3.86 | |
776. | |||||
a. | ΠO | I | — | *Paris (Sv. 65, 15), gr. 4.10; Rosenberg 72, 431, gr. 4.15 | |
b. | ? | ? | ? | Vienna, gr. 3.86 | |
147 tetradrachms : 17 obverse, 71 reverse dies 9 drachms: 2 obverse, 6 reverse dies Magistrates: ΔHMOΣ, ΣΩTAΣ, ΔΩPOӨE, ΠΛATΩN, EΠIMAXOΣ, ΛYΣIΠΠ, MOYΣAΓ, ΠOΠΛI, ΔIONY2 Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, H, Ө, I, K, Λ, M Controls: AΠ, ME, ΣO, ΣΩ3 |
This issue has been variously placed in relation to the sequence of closely linked emissions, twelve in number, which begins with the coinage of XAPI-NAYTHΣ – APIΣTEAΣ and ends with that of ΔΩΣIӨEOΣ – XAPIAΣ. Svoronos includes it in his fourth group, comprising the last six issues of the sequence just mentioned, but the alphabetical arrangement within his group provides no indication as to just where Svoronos would have located this one striking. Kambanis on the other hand associates it with the beginning of the sequence. In his notebooks and in his summaries of the Zarova and Halmyros Hoards (BCH, 1934, p. 132; 1935, pp. 106 and 117) he lists the issue of Theodotos and Kleophanes either directly before that of Charinautes-Aristeas or with the issue of Karaich-Ergokle intervening. In his Hesperia study (Suppl. VIII, 1949, p. 10) Bellinger appends the emission at the very end of the sequence, after the coinage of Dositheos-Charias, but suggests the possibility of its coming between the issues of Hikesios-Asklepiades and Timostratos-Poses.
The more one studies the tetradrachm dies of Theodotos-Kleophanes the more apparent it becomes that their closest stylistic affinity is with the middle issues of the sequence. However, the emissions that form this sequence are die linked with two exceptions: there is no connection between the two issues of Herakleides-Eukles and there is none between Hikesios-Asklepiades and Timostratos-Poses. On the basis of style alone the former location had seemed to me preferable; subsequently the discovery of a drachm die transferred from the first year of Herakleides-Eukles to the coinage of Theodotos-Kleophanes (No. 758, PLATE 84) confirmed the soundness of the stylistic criterion.
Nine third magistrates are associated with what is a fairly extensive coinage, heavily concentrated at the beginning of 138/7 b.c. Forty-two of the seventy-one surviving reverses belong to the first four months of the year and of these thirty-one are inscribed with the names of Demos and Sotas. For the most part the succession of third magistrates, when two or more are associated with the same month, can be determined by their relationship with months preceding or following. This is not true of Dorotheos and Plato whose reverses are confined to delta but Obverse 766 in its later stage shows a die break above the top of the helmet which is more pronounced in 766f with Plato than it is in 766e with Dorotheos. Lysipp has been placed before Mousag on the evidence of recutting provided by Nos. 773a and 774a.
The association of Epimachos with month zeta is known only from a single drachm reverse. Kambanis records one coin from the Halmyros Hoard with Epimachos and delta and another piece from the same find with Diony and iota, neither coin being now available for checking. The latter combination is entirely possible although I have seen no example of it; the former seems to me less likely if only because there are already three third magistrates associated with delta.
HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ (II) WINGED TYCHE WITH AMPHORA 137/6 b.c.
(Plates 85–87)
Tetradrachms
777. | |||||
a. | TIMAP | A | ME | *Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.45; Vienna, gr. 15.58;Athens↑ | |
b. | TIMAP | A | ΣO | *Berry Coll., gr. 16.56↗; Beulé Coll., gr. 16.43 | |
778. | |||||
a. | TIMAP | A | AΠ | *London (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.77↑;Athens (Delos Hd. B, 104; Sv. 64,1), gr. 16.60↑. With ΔIONYΣOΓ/TIMAP and B/A: *Oxford, gr. 16.22 | |
b. | ΔIONYΣOΓ | B | AΠ | London, gr. 16.34↑; Herakleion (Cretan Hd. I);Athens (Carystus Hd. II; BCH, 1958, PL XLIX, 2), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.82 | |
c. | ΔIONYΣOΓ | Γ | AΠ | Kambanis Coll.; Beulé Coll., gr. 16.03 | |
779. | |||||
a. | TIMAP | A | ΣΩ | *L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.50 | |
b. | TIMAP | A | AΠ | *Berlin, gr. 16.57 | |
c. | ΔIONYΣOΓ | B | ΣΩ | *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.74↑; Berlin, gr. 16.12; Berlin, gr. 15.58 | |
d. | ΔIONYΣOΓ | B | ΣΩ | Copenhagen (SNG 170), gr. 15.92 (pierced)↑;Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), broken↑ | |
e. | ΔIONYΣOΓ | B | ΣΩ | Yale Univ., gr. 16.65↑ | |
f. | XAPMIΔ | Γ | ΣO | Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.49↑. With Δ/Γ: ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.47↑ | |
780. | |||||
a. | TIMAP | B/A | ME | Glymenopoulos Coll. (Sv. 64, 2), gr. 16.65. With ΔIONYΣOΓ/TIMAP:Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 15.88 (worn)↑ | |
b. | ΔIONYΣOΓ | B | ME | *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.12↑; Vienna, gr. 16.69 | |
c. | ΔIONYΣOΓ | B | ME | *Athens, gr. 16.40↑ | |
d. | ΔIONYΣOΓ | B | ME/Σ[ | *Berlin, gr. 16.47; Karlsruhe; Istanbul, gr. 16.22↑;Athens↑;Athens; Beulé Coll., gr. 16.70; Ratto (Rogers) 481, gr. 16.55 | |
781. | |||||
a. | ΔIONYΣOΓ | B | ΣO | *Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 139; Sv. 64, 3), gr. 16.60↑;Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 138), gr. 16.50↑;Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 142), gr. 16.80↑;Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 137), gr. 16.00;Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 15.97↑; Commerce 1959, gr. 16.65↑ | |
b. | ΔIONYΣOΓ | B | ΣO | Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 935, gr. 16.60 | |
c. | ΔIONYΣOΓ | B | ΣO | Halmyros Hd. | |
d. | ΔIONYΣOΓ | B | ME | Athens (Halmyros Hd.) | |
782. | |||||
a. | ΔIONYΣOΓ | Γ | AΠ | *Toronto; Paris, gr. 16.48↑; Lockett Coll. (SNG 1923) = Ratto (Rogers) 430, gr. 16.52↑; Empedocles Coll.; Rethymnon | |
b. | XAPMIΔ | Γ | AΠ | Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Berlin, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 15.86 | |
c. | XAPMIΔ | Δ | AΠ | *ANS, gr. 16.57↑ | |
d. | XAPMIΔ | Δ | AΠ | Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), gr. 16.22↑;Athens↑ | |
e. | XAPMIΔ | Ẹ | AΠ | London (BMC 415), gr. 16.58↑ | |
783. | |||||
a. | XAPMIΔ/ΔIONYΣOΓ | Γ/B | ME | ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.10↑ | |
b. | XAPMIΔ | Δ | ME | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.29↑ | |
784. | |||||
a. | XAPMIΔ | Γ | AΠ | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.90↑;Athens↑ | |
b. | XAPMIΔ | Δ | ΣO | Copenhagen (SNG 171), gr. 16.27↑ | |
c. | XAPMIΔ | E | ΣO | *Paris, gr. 16.35↑ | |
785. | |||||
a. | XAPMIΔ | Δ | ME | Athens (Halmyros Hd.); *Athens (Delos Hd. ιH), control letters uncertain, broken↑ | |
b. | XAPMIΔ | E | ME | Berlin;Athens (Sv. 64, 9), gr. 16.30↑ | |
786. | |||||
a. | XAPMIΔ | Δ | ΣΩ | *Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 16.53↑; Beulé Coll., gr. 15.93; Berlin, gr. 16.67; Florange-Ciani, Oct. 1923, 25 = Baltatzi Coll. (Sv. 64, 7) = Mavrokordatou Coll. (JIAN, 1912, 1324), gr. 16.58;Athens;Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.78↑;Athens, amphora and control letters uncertain. With E/Δ: Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.58↑ | |
b. | XAPMIΔ | E | ΣΩ | ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 15.76↑ | |
c. | ΣΩΣIKP | Z | ΣO | ANS-ETN = Ratto (Rogers) 432, gr. 16.40↑ | |
d. | ΣΩΣIKP | Z | ΣO | Beulé Coll., gr. 16.50 | |
e. | ΣΩΣIKP | Z | ΣO | ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.05↑ | |
787. | |||||
a. | XAPMIΔ | E | ME | Athens↑; Commerce 1956 | |
b. | ΣΩΣIKP | Z | ME | *London (BMC 416), gr. 16.62↑; Berlin, gr. 16.28 | |
c. | ΣΩΣIKP | H | ME | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.49↑ | |
788. | |||||
a. | ΣΩΣIKP/(?)XAPMIΔ | S/E | AΠ/ΣỌ | Oxford (Sv. 64, 11,Athens), gr. 16.51;Athens, gr. 16.40↑; Beulé Coll., gr. 16.01 | |
b. | ΣΩΣIKP | Z | AΠ | *Berlin, gr. 16.59 | |
c. | ΣΩΣIKP | H | AΠ | Paris, gr. 16.57↑;Athens (Delos Hd. B, 105), gr. 15.30↑; Turin (Mus. Ant., Fabretti 3063), gr. 16.59 | |
d. | ΣΩΣIKP | H | AΠ | Berlin, gr. 16.59; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.60↑ | |
789. | |||||
a. | ΣΩΣIKP | Z | Σ | *Berlin, gr. 15.99 | |
b. | ΣΩΣIKP | H | ΣΩ | *Empedocles Coll.; Herakleion (Cretan Hd. I); ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.07↑ | |
c. | ΣΩΣIKP | Ө | ΣΩ (recut ?) | *Toronto | |
d. | BAKXI | I | ΣΩ | Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Ratto (Rogers) 433, gr. 16.35 | |
e. | BAKXI | K | ΣΩ | Athens (Halmyros Hd.);Athens (Sv. 64, 17), gr. 16.17↑ | |
790. | |||||
a. | ΣΩΣIKP | Ẓ | ? | Commerce 1957 (Abruzzi Hd.) | |
b. | ΣΩΣIKP | H | ΣOΛ | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.);Athens (Delos Hd. KϚ, 39), gr. 14.55 (very worn)↑;Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH)↑; Commerce 1951, gr. 16.75 | |
c. | ΣΩΣIKP | H | ΣOΛ | Copenhagen (SNG 173), gr. 15.65 | |
791. | |||||
a. | ΣΩΣIKP | H | ME | *Munich (Sv. 64, 12, Copenhagen), gr. 16.37; Berlin, gr. 16.47 | |
b. | ΣΩΣIKP | H | ME | *Romanos Coll.; Istanbul, gr. 16.51↑ | |
c. | ΣΩΣIKP | Ө | ME | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH; Sv. 64, 14), gr. 16.17↑ | |
792. | |||||
a. | ΣΩΣIKP | H | ΣOΛ | *Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.55↑ | |
b. | ΣΩΣIKP | I | ΣOΛ | Tübingen | |
793. | |||||
a. | ΣΩΣIKP | H | ΣOΛ | Evelpidis Coll., gr. 15.90 | |
b. | BAKXI | I | AΠ | *Vienna (Sv. 64, 16), gr. 16.52; Beulé Coll. | |
c. | BAKXI | Λ | AΠ | Istanbul, gr. 16.56↑ | |
d. | BAKXI | Λ | ΣΩ | Evelpidis Coll., gr. 16.24;Athens, gr. 16.30↑ | |
794. | |||||
a. | BAKXI | K | ME | Beulé Coll. | |
b. | BAKXI | Λ/K | ME | Forbat Coll., gr. 18.651 | |
c. | ΔIOK | N | ME | *London (Sv. 64, 24), gr. 16.38↑; ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.62↑ | |
795. | |||||
a. | BAKXI | K | ME | *Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.25↑ | |
b. | BAKXI | K | ΣOΛ | Athens, gr. 16.60↑. With Λ/K:Athens, gr. 16.42|; Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 936 = Sv. 64, 20, gr. 16.70 | |
c. | ΔIOK | M | ΣOΛ | *Berlin (Sv. 64, 23), gr. 16.77 (PLATE 88); Copenhagen (SNG 176), gr. 16.32↑;Athens, gr. 16.17↑; Kambanis Coll. | |
d. | ΔIOK | Ṇ | ΣOΛ | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.20↑ | |
796. | |||||
a. | ΔIOK | Λ(?)2 | ΣΩ | *London, gr. 16.39↑; Beulé Coll. (Sv. 64, 21, Leningrad), gr. 16.65 | |
b. | ΔIOK | ? | ΣOΛ/ (?)ME | Oxford, gr. 15.91; Vatican | |
797. | |||||
a. | BAKXI | Λ | ΣΩ | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.50↑; Paris, gr. 15.45↑;Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.54↑; Beulé Coll.; Commerce 1959, gr. 16.57↑;Romanos Coll., control letters uncertain. With ΔIOK/BAKXI and M/Λ: *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.77↑ |
b. | ΔIOK | N | ΣΩ | *Commerce 1953 (Plate 88) | |
798. | |||||
ΔIOK/BAKXI M/Λ | ? | *Giesecke Coll. |
Drachms
799. | |||||
ΔI | B | ? | *Athens (Delos Hd. B, 106; Sv. 64, 27), gr.4.25↑ | ||
800. | |||||
a. | ΔI | B | ? | *Berlin (Sv. 64, 26), gr. 4.26 | |
b. | Ị | — | L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 4.07 | ||
c. | Σ]Ω | Z | ? | *Athens, gr. 3.57↑ (PLATE 89);Athens, gr. 3.48↑ | |
d. | ? | K | ? | ANS-ETN, gr. 3.75↑;Athens, broken | |
145 tetradrachms: 22 obverse, 62 reverse dies 7 drachms: 2 obverse, 4 reverse dies Magistrates: TIMAP1, ΔIONYΣOΓ, XAPMIΔ. ΣΩΣIKP, BAKXI, ΔIOK Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, H, Ө, I, K, Λ, M, N Controls: AΠ, ME, ΣO(Λ), ΣΩ |
For their second issue of coinage Herakleides and Eukles repeat the symbol of their first emission. This is the only instance in the New Style series of a pair of annual magistrates serving a second term without varying the device on the coins. The symbol in question with its general agonistic connotation could, of course, be associated with any of the great Athenian festivals and hence would be as appropriate for one year as for another. Still it seems strange that there is no attempt to distinguish between the two issues, even to the extent of adopting a different symbol for the new emission.
The coinage of the second Herakleides-Eukles striking is far more abundant than that of the first: more than twice as many obverse dies and surviving specimens are known for 137/6 b.c. as for 139/8. On the other hand fewer third magistrates control the later coinage, six as against nine.
At least three reverses of the present issue have N on the amphora. On the evidence of the coinage, 137/6 b.c. is an intercalary year.
ANΔPEAΣ – XAPINAYTHΣ DIONYSOS AND DEMETER (?)
136/5 b.c.
(Plates 88–89)
Tetradrachms
795. | |||||
a. | KPIT | A | ΣO | *London (BMC 319), gr. 16.56↑; Tübingen, gr. 15.99 | |
b. | KPIT | B/Ạ | ΣO | Athens, gr. 15.56↑ | |
797. | |||||
a. | KPIT | A | ΠE | *Athens, gr. 15.20↑ | |
b. | KPIT | A | ΠE | Berlin; Romanos Coll.; ANS-ETN = Ratto (Rogers) 427, gr. 16.45↑. With B/A: Athens (Delos Hd. KϚ, 35), gr. 14.92↑; Tübingen, gr. 16.24; Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); * Vienna, amphora letter somewhat uncertain but probably B/A, gr. 16.83 | |
798. | |||||
KPIT | A | AΠ | *Copenhagen (SNG 177; Sv. 62, 1), gr. 16.62↑; *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.) PLATE 87 | ||
801. | |||||
a. | KPIT | B/A | ME/ΠE | *Halmyros Hd.; Paris, gr. 16.80↑; Berlin (Sv. 62, 2), gr. 16.78; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.71↑ | |
b. | AMYNOMA | Γ | ME | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.75↑ | |
802. | |||||
a. | KPIT | B/A | AΠ | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.) | |
b. | KPIT | B/A | AΠ | *Commerce 1953 | |
c. | AMYNOMA | Γ | AΠ | Berlin, gr. 16.14 | |
d. | AMYNOMA | AΠ | *Cambridge (Grose 5909), gr. 16.58 | ||
e. | AMYNOM | E | ΠE | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.64↑; ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.40↑;Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.70↑ | |
f. | AMYNOM | E | AΠ | Berlin, gr. 16.12 | |
g. | AMYNOM | Z | AΠ | Athens, gr. 15.95↑ | |
h. | ΔHMHTP | H | AΠ | Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.74↑. With Λ/H: ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.36↑;Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.58↑;Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), gr. 15.95↑ | |
i. | ΔHMHTP | Λ | AΠ | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.19↑ | |
803. | |||||
a. | AMYNOMA | Γ | ΣO | *ANS (Anatolia Hd.). gr. 16.14↑; Berry Coll., gr. 16.70↑; Berlin (Sv. 62, 3), gr. 16.35; Naville (BM dupl.) 2012, gr. 16.85 | |
b. | AMYNOM | Δ | ΣO | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Vienna, gr. 16.46; Berlin (Sv. 62, 4), gr. 16.49; Mass. Hist. Soc, gr. 16.32;Athens (Delos Hd. IΓ, 23), gr. 14.74↑; Fecht Coll. (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.60↑ | |
c. | AMYNOM | ? | Athens, gr. 14.20↑ | ||
d. | AMYNOMA | E | ΣO | Berlin (Sv. 62, 5), gr. 16.64 | |
804. | |||||
a. | AMYNOMẠ | Γ | ME | Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 15.42↗ | |
b. | AMYNOM | Δ | ME | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.59↑ | |
c. | AMYNOM | Z | ME | ANS-ETN, gr. 15.69↑; Mavrokordatou Coll. (JIAN, 1912, 1305), gr. 16.28; Berlin, gr. 16.34 | |
d. | AMYNOM | Z | ME | Berlin, gr. 16.95 | |
e. | AMYNOM | Ẓ | ṂẸ | Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.55↑ | |
805. | |||||
a. | AMYNOMA | Δ | ΠE | Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.51↑ | |
b. | AMYNOM | Z | ΠE | *Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.64↑; Berlin (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 15.72 | |
c. | AMYNOM | Ẓ | ΠE | London (BMC 320), gr. 16.07↑ | |
d. | ΔHMHTP | K | ΠE | *London (BMC 321), gr. 16.39↑; L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.35 | |
e. | ΔHMHTP | K | ΠE | Berlin (Sv. 62, 8), gr. 16.64 | |
806. | |||||
AMYNOM | Z | ΣO | *Athens (Sv. 62, 6), gr. 16.45 | ||
807. | |||||
ΔHMHTP | H | ΣO | *Cambridge (Lewis Coll., Corpus Christi College)↑ Paris, gr. 16.68↑; Berlin (Sv. 62, 7). gr. 16.38 | ||
808. | |||||
a. | ΔHMHTP | H | ME | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Copenhagen (SNG 178), gr. 17.04↑; Berlin, gr. 16.371 | |
b. | ΔHMHTP | Λ | ME | Athens (Sv. 62, 9), gr. 16.30↑ | |
c. | ΔHMHTP | Λ | ΣO | Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 16.37↑ | |
d. | ΔHMHTP | M | ME | Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.68↑ |
809. | |||||
a. | ΔHMHTP | Λ | ΠE/ME | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.) | |
b. | ΔHMHTP | M | ΠE | Berlin (Sv. 62, 10), gr. 16.24 | |
Drachms | |||||
800. | |||||
KPI | A | ? | *Romanos Coll. (Sv. 62, 11), gr. 3.66 | ||
810. | |||||
a. | KPI | A | Ẹ | Copenhagen (SNG 179), gr. 3.71↑ | |
b. | KPI | B | — | *Athens (Delos Hd. IΓ, 24), gr. 3.74↑;Athens (Sv. 62, 12), gr. 3.87↑ | |
c. | KPI | ? | ? | Vienna, gr. 4.18 | |
d. | AMY | Ẓ | ? | *Athens (Delos Hd. B, 22; Sv. 62, 18), gr. 3.55↑ | |
811. | |||||
a. | Δ]H | I | ? | *Athens (Delos Hd. A, 6; Sv. 62, 14), gr. 4.10↑ Vienna = Egger XL (Prowe) 970, gr. 3.86; *Munich, letter uncertain, gr. 4.09 (PLATE 90); ANS-ETN, letter uncertain, gr. 3.67↑; Berlin, gr. 3.95 | |
c. | Ḥ | ? | ? | Munich, gr. 3.59 | |
d. | ? | I | ΣO | Berlin, gr. 3.65; Berlin, gr. 3.84 | |
70 tetradrachms : 12 obverse, 36 reverse dies 14 drachms: 3 obverse, 8 reverse dies Magistrates: KPIT, AMYNOMA, ΔHMHTP Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, H, I, Λ, M Controls: AΠ, ME, ΠE, ΣO1 |
Four obverse dies are transferred from the second issue of Herakleides-Eukles to that of Andreas-Charinautes: Nos. 795 (PLATE 88; also BCH, 1932, Pl. II, 1–2 and BCH, 1936, Pl. IX, 6–8), 797 (PLATE 88), 798 (PLATE 87) and 800 (PLATE 89). The two strikings are thus firmly linked by one drachm and three tetradrachm dies.
The coinage of 186/5 b.c. is concentrated in the first six months of the year. No reverses with Ө are recorded and I is represented only by three (or possibly four) drachm dies.
With the second emission of Herakleides-Eukles one notes a reduction in the number of third magistrates, and the trend is carried still further in the issue of Andreas-Charinautes. Just three names appear on the dies: KPIT for A and B, AMYNOMA for Γ through Z and ΔHMHTP for the remainder of the year.
Precise identification of the symbol used on the coins seems impossible. It may be a seated Dionysos associated with a standing Demeter or a seated Demeter and standing Kore. As indicated above (p. 252) there is a connection with the earlier coinage of Charinautes-Aristeas but the significance of the standing female figure portrayed on both issues remains elusive.
IKEΣIOΣ – AΣKΛHΠIAΔHΣ WREATH 135/4 b.c.
(Plate 90)
Tetradrachms
812. | |||||
a. | XPYΣ | A | ? | *Berry Coll. (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.52↑;Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 15.97↑ | |
b. | XPYΣ | A | ? | Istanbul, gr. 16.48↑. With TEIΣ/XPYΣ, amphora letter uncertain, AΠ below: Berlin, gr. 16.61 | |
c. | TEIΣ | B | ΠE | Berlin, gr. 16.54 | |
813. | |||||
XPYΣ | A | ME | ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.75↑. With TEIΣ/XPYΣ and B/A: *Empedocles Coll.; The Hague (Sv. 68, 15), gr. 16.65;Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.65↑; Hamburger (Berlin dupl.) 291, gr. 16.72 | ||
809. | |||||
a. | XPYΣ | A | ΠE | *Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), gr. 16.15↑; Berlin, gr. 15.87 | |
b. | XPYΣ | A | ? | *Berlin, gr. 15.82 (PLATE 89) | |
c. | TEIΣ | Γ/B | ΠE | Athens (Sv. 63, 16), gr. 16.13↑;Athens (Halmyros Hd.); Berlin, gr. 15.33 | |
d. | TEIΣ | E | ΠE | ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.48↑; Berlin (Sv. 63, 17), gr. 16.55; London, gr. 16.44↑; Petsalis Coll., gr. 15.88↑ | |
814. | |||||
a. | XPYΣ | A | ΣO | Athens (Sv. 63, 14), gr. 16.28↑ | |
b. | XPYΣ | A | ΣO | Berry Coll. (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.53↑; Giesecke Coll., gr. 16.60 | |
c. | TEIΣ | B | ΣO | *Munich, gr. 16.54; ANS-ETN, gr. 15.42↑; Karlsruhe; Berlin, gr. 16.71; Berlin, gr. 16.31 | |
d. | TEIΣ | ΣO | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.15↑ | ||
e. | TEIΣ | Δ | ΣO | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.67↑ | |
f. | TEIΣ | E | ΣO | Berne, gr. 16.52; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr.16.74↑ | |
g. | ӨEO | Z | ΣỌ | Athens (Delos Hd. Λ–2, 10), gr. 16.14↑ | |
815. | |||||
TEIΣ | Ẹ | ME | *London, gr. 16.35↑ | ||
816. | |||||
ӨEO | Z | ME | *Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 15.75↑;Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), gr. 15.30↑;Athens (Sv. 63, 18), gr. 15.75;Athens (Delos Hd. KϚ, 41), gr. 15.20↑; Istanbul, gr. 16.61↑ | ||
817. | |||||
a. | ӨEO | Z | ME | *Copenhagen (SNG 180), gr. 16.71↑; Glasgow (Hunt. 133), gr. 16.35↖ | |
b. | ӨEO | H | ME | Romanos Coll. (Sv. 63, 19), gr. 16.53;Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), gr. 14.12 (worn and burnt) | |
c. | ӨEO | K | ΠE | Berlin (Sv. 63, 21), gr. 16.68;Athens = Sv. 63, 20, Feuardent, gr. 16.37↑ | |
d. | ӨEO | M | ME | ANS, gr. 16.24↑; Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Tübingen (Sv. 63, 22), gr. 16.49;Athens (Halmyros Hd.); Commerce 1952 (Halmyros Hd.) | |
818. | |||||
a. | ӨEOΦ | Z | ΠE | *Berlin, gr. 16.39; Zygman Coll., gr. 16.55↑ | |
b. | ӨEO | H | ΠE | Athens, gr. 16.15↑ | |
c. | ӨEO | K | ΠE | ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.58↑; Karlsruhe | |
d. | ӨEO | K | AΠ | Vienna, gr. 16.12 | |
e. | ӨEO | M | ΠE | ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.17 | |
819. | |||||
a. | ӨEO | H | AΠ | *Athens, gr. 15.75↑; Berlin, gr. 16.44 | |
b. | ӨEO | K | AΠ | London, gr. 16.52↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.75↑ | |
820. | |||||
a. | ӨEO | Ө/H | ΣO | *Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.20↑;Athens (Halmyros Hd.) | |
b. | ӨEO | I | ΣO | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.75↑ | |
c. | ӨEO | M | ΣO | Romanos Coll.; Lockett Coll. (SNG 1926), amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.65↑ | |
821. | |||||
? | ? | A | *Paris, gr. 15.80↑1 | ||
Drachms | |||||
811. | |||||
TEI | B | — | *Athens (Delos Hd.A, 21; Sv. 63, 28), gr. 4.00↑; Berlin, gr. 3.94 | ||
822. | |||||
ṬẸỊ | Δ | — | *Athens (Delos Hd.A, 22; Sv. 63. 24), gr. 4.12↑;Athens, gr. 3.34↑; Petsalis Coll., gr. 3.71↑; Munich; prob. Berlin, gr. 3.05 (very worn) | ||
67 tetradrachms: 11 obverse, 28 reverse dies 7 drachms: 2 obverse, 2 reverse dies Magistrates: XPYΣ, TEIΣ, ӨEOΦ2 Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, H, Ө, I, K, M Controls: AΠ, ME, ΠE, ΣO3 |
Obverses 809 and 811 link the coinage of Hikesios-Asklepiades with that of Andreas-Charinautes. The tetradrachm connection is illustrated on PLATE 89 (and by Kambanis, Arethuse, 1928, Pl. XXIII, 9–10 and BCH, 1982, Pl. II, 3–4); the hitherto unpublished identity of drachm dies can be seen on PLATE 90.
The two emissions are closely comparable in several respects. Both are moderate strikings, employing identical control combinations and a limited number of third magistrates, three in each case. Coinage is known for only eleven months of the two years: in 186/5 b.c. there is no output during Ө, in 135/4 none during Λ.
TIMOΣTPATOΣ – ΠOΣHΣ DIONYSOS WITH MASK 134/3 b.c.
(Plates 91–92)
Tetradrachms
823. | |||||
a. | ΔION | B | ME | *ANS-ETN (HalmyrosHd.), gr. l6.65↑;Athens, gr. 15.54↑ |
b. | EPMA | Γ | ME | Vienna, gr. 16.44; Berlin (Sv. 65, 20), gr. 16.51; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.58↑ | |
824. | |||||
a. | ΔION | B | ΣO | *Paris, gr. 16.28↑;Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.68↑;Athens (Delos Hd. ΛH), control letters uncertain, gr. 15.60↑ | |
b. | ΔION | B | ΣO | London (BMC 505), gr. 16.43↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.60↑ | |
c. | EPMA | Γ | ΣO | Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.60↑; Istanbul, gr. 16.66↑ | |
d. | ΛAX/(?)MHT | E/Δ | ΣO | Athens, gr. 16.75↑; Berlin, gr. 16.69; Rethymnon; Hamburger (Berlindupl.) 292, gr. 16.53; Romanos Coll., amphora and control letters uncertain | |
825. | |||||
a. | ΔION | B | ΣO | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.) | |
b. | ΔION | B | ΠE | *Berry Coll., gr. 16.71↑;Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 16.15↑ | |
c. | ΔION | B | ΠE | Tübingen (Sv. 65, 19), gr. 16.38; Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 955, gr. 16.70 | |
d. | ΔION | B | ? | London (BMC 504), gr. 16.43↑ | |
e. | EPMA | Γ | ΠE | *Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr.15.85↑; Istanbul, gr. 16.68↑ | |
f. | MHT | Δ | ΠE | L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.55; Berlin (Sv. 65, 21), gr. 15.72. With ΛAX/MHT, Z/E/Δ: *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr.16.33↑; London (BMC 506), gr. 16.51↑ | |
826. | |||||
a. | ΔION | B | AΠ | Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.82↑; Commerce 1955, gr. 16.61↑ | |
b. | EPMA | Γ | AΠ | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.76↑ | |
c. | EPMA | Γ | AΠ | Berlin, gr. 16.68; Berlin, gr. 16.24 | |
d. | ΛAX/MHT | E/Δ | ? | Commerce 1956 | |
826X. | |||||
ΛAXH/MHT | E/Δ | ME | *Berlin, gr. 16.33 | ||
827. | |||||
a. | ΛAXH/MHT | E/Δ | AΠ | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.64↑; Istanbul, gr.16.53↑; Berlin, gr. 16.56 | |
b. | ΛAXHΣ | E | AΠ | Athens | |
c. | ΛAXH/MHT | Z/E/Δ | ME | *Andreopoulos Coll. | |
828. | |||||
a. | ΛAX/MHT | E/ | ME | Paris, gr. 15.12↑; Berlin (Sv. 65, 22), gr. 16.84 | |
b. | ΛAXH/MHT | Z/E/Δ | ME | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Berlin, gr. 15.21;Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.90↑. With ΛEY/ΛAXH/MHT and H/Z/E/Δ: *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr.16.67↑; Berlin, gr. 16.29;Athens (Delos Hd. KϚ, 43), gr. 15.46↑1 | |
c. | ΛEY | H | ME | Commerce 1959 (Halmyros Hd.) | |
d. | ΔAM | Ө | ME | Leningrad (Sv. 65, 25), gr. 16.25 | |
829. | |||||
a. | ΛAX/MHT | Z/E/Δ | ΠE | Berlin (Sv. 65, 23), gr. 16.51 | |
b. | ΛEY≡/ΛAX | ? | ? | Athens↑ | |
c. | ΛEY | H | ΠE | Leningrad (Sv. 65, 24), gr. 16.55; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.92↑; Berlin, gr. 16.32 | |
d. | ΔAM | Θ | ΠE | *Copenhagen (SNG 181), gr. 16.49↑;Athens, gr. 16.35↑ | |
e. | ΔΩPO | I | ΠE | Athens, gr. 15.90↑ | |
f. | ΔΩPO | I | ΠE | Athens, gr. 15.65↑ | |
(TIMOΣΣPATHΣ)2 | g. | APIΣ | K | ΠE | Lockett Coll. (SNG 1938), gr. 15.79↑ |
h. | APIΣ | Λ | ΠE | Commerce 1955. With AΠOΛ/APIΣ and M/Λ:Athens, gr. 15.90↑ | |
i. | AΠOΛ | M | ΠE | *Cancio Coll., gr. 16.17↑;Athens (Halmyros Hd.); Leningrad (Sv. 65, 28), gr. 16.18 | |
830. | |||||
a. | Λ]EY≡/ΛAX | H/E | ΠE | *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.30↑ |
b. | ΔΩPO/ΔAM | I/Ө | ΣO/ΠE | Ratto (Rogers) 437, gr. 16.30 | |
c. | APIΣ/ΔΩPO | K/I | ΣO | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); London (BMC 507), gr. 16.52↑; Berlin, gr. 16.02 | |
d. | APIΣ | Λ | ΣO | Athens (Sv. 65, 26), gr. 15.95↑ | |
e. | AΠOΛ | M | ? | Athens (Halmyros Hd.) | |
831. | |||||
(TIMOΣTPATHΣ) | APIΣ | K | AΠ | *Giesecke Coll., gr. 16.55 | |
832. | |||||
a. | APIΣ | K | ME | Commerce 1932 (Halmyros Hd.) | |
b. | AΠOΛ/APIΣ | M/Λ/Ḳ | ME | *Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.60↑;Athens (Sv. 65, 27), gr. 16.15;Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.50↑ | |
833. | |||||
AΠOΛ/APIΣ | M/ΛK | ME; | *Kambanis Coll. (BCH, 1932, Pl. II, 5) | ||
834. | |||||
AΠOΛ/APIΣ/ΔΩPO | N/K/l | ΣO | *Empedocles Coll. | ||
835. | |||||
AΠOΛ | N | AΠ | *Paris, gr. 16.42↑; Berlin (Sv. 65, 29), gr. 16.58 |
Drachms
836. | |||||
ΛEY/ΛAX(?) | H/Ẓ | ? | *Athens (Delos Hd. A, 33), gr. 3.95↑;Athens, gr. 3.85;Athens (Sv. 65, 31), gr.3.45; Copenhagen (SNG 182), gr. 3.98↑ | ||
837. | |||||
(ΠO) | API | Λ | — | *Athens (Delos Hd. KϚ, 42), gr. 3.58↑ | |
838. | |||||
A]Ọ | Ṃ | ? | *Berlin (Sv. 65, 30), gr. 3.90; Berlin, gr. 3.89 |
TIMO – ΠO
Hemidrachm
839. | |||||
AP | — | — | *Athens (Delos Hd. IΓ, 32), gr. 1.65↑ | ||
82 tetradrachms: 14 obverse, 33 reverse dies 7 drachms: 3 obverse, 3 reverse dies 1 hemidrachm | |||||
Magistrates: ΔION, EPMA, MHT, ΛAXHΣ, ΛEY≡, ΔAM, ΔΩPO, AΠOΠ Months: B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, H, Ө, I, K, Λ, M, N Controls: AΠ, ME, ΓE, ΣO |
Under Timostratos–Poses the hemidrachm denomination, missing for several years, makes its reappearance and there is a substantial increase in the number of third magistrates. Nine men regulate the monthly strikings with, in six instances, a strict correlation of name and month. No coinage is known for alpha but two reverses with nu indicate the intercalary character of the year.
Earlier publications list officials not included in the present catalogue. Beulé reads NAY as the third magistrate on a coin in his collection and on one in the British Museum. The latter is our No. 825f with ΛAX/MHT. Sundwall queries the NAY on the Beulé specimen and says the inscription looks like KNY; almost certainly it is another case of ΛAX/MHT. The British Museum piece (our No. 830c) which Beulé describes as having AIΣ (the BMC reading is EK ?) is practically illegible but another specimen from the same reverse die makes it clear that the magisterial legend is APIΣ/ΔΩPO. Engravers of this issue were exceedingly inept in their recutting of names; often it is only a comparison of several coins from the same reverse die, and from the die in various stages, that enables one to decipher the successive inscriptions.
AMΦIKPATHΣ – EΠIΣPATOΣ EARS OF GRAIN 133/2 B. C. (Plates 93–94)
Tetradrachms
833. | |||||
a. | KΛEOMA | A | ME | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.);Athens (Delos Hd.≡Ө), gr. 15.45↑. With API–ΣTOK/KΛEOMA and B/A: Halmyros Hd.; Istanbul.gr. 15.78↑ | |
b. | APIΣTOK | Γ | ME | Athens (Sv. 62, 17), gr. 15.30↑ | |
834. | |||||
KΛEOMA | A | ? | *Oxford, gr. 15.68↑ | ||
835. | |||||
a. | KΛEOMA | A | AΠ | Berlin (Sv. 62, 15), gr. 16.41; *Athens, control letters uncertain, gr. 16.55↑ | |
b. | APIΣTOK/KιEOMA1 | ? | ? | *Romanos Coll. (PLATE 92) | |
840. | |||||
KιEOMA | A | ? | *Berlin, gr. 15.62; Berlin, gr. 16.03 | ||
841. | |||||
a. | APIΣTOK | B | ΣO | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.00↑ | |
b. | HPOΔO/APIΣΓOK | Δ | ΣO | *Athens (Sv. 62, 18), gr. 16.55↑;Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.76↑ | |
c. | EYΔI | Z | ΣO | Athens (Halmyros Hd.) | |
842. | |||||
a. | APIΣTOK | Γ | ΠE | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.) | |
b. | HPOΔO/APIΓΓOK | Δ | E | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.85↑ | |
c. | EYΔI | Ẹ | ? | ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.15↑ | |
d. | EYΔI | Ẹ | ΠE | ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.27↑; ANS (Abruzzi Hd.), gr. 16.00↑;The Hague | |
e. | EYΔI | Z | ΣO | *Tübingen, gr. 16.14 | |
f. | EYΔI | H/Ẓ | ? | Athens (Sv. 62, 20), gr. 16.45↑ | |
g. | EYΔI | H | E | Berlin, gr. 15.74 | |
h. | EYΔI | Ө/H | ΣO/E | *Paris (Sv. 62, 21), gr. 16.75↑; London (BMC 318), amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.28↑ | |
i. | EYΔI | Ө | ΠE | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.23 ↗ | |
j. | EYΔI | K | ME | Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.67↑ | |
k. | EYΔI | ι | ΠE | Berlin (Sv. 62, 24), gr. 15.64 | |
843. | |||||
a. | APIΣTOK | Δ | ]E | *Empedocles Coll. | |
b. | APIΣTOK | Δ | ? | Berlin, gr. 16.28 | |
c. | HPOΔO | Δ | ME | Athens (Halmyros Hd.) | |
d. | EYΔI | E | ME | Athens (Delos Hd.ΞӨ), gr. 14.42↑; Vienna, gr. 16.60; Commerce (Sv. 62, 19, Hirsch) |
844. | |||||
a. | HPOΔO | Δ | AΠ/? | * Vienna, gr. 16.40 | |
b. | EYΔI | H | AΠ | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.58↑ | |
845. | |||||
a. | EYΔI | H/Ẓ | ME | *Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.55 ↗;Athens↑ | |
b. | EYΔI | K/I | ME | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.60↑ | |
846. | |||||
a. | EYΔI | H1 | AΠ | *Brussels (Sv. 62, 23), gr. 16.01 | |
b. | EYΔI | Ө | AΠ | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.58↑;Athens, gr. 15.58↑; London, amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.25↑ | |
c. | EYΔI | I | ME | *Copenhagen (SNG 188; Sv. 62, 22), gr. 16.44↑; ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.70↑ | |
d. | EYΔI | K | AΠ | Athens, gr. 16.35↑ | |
e. | APIΣT | ? | Paris, gr. 15.82↑; Giesecke Coll., gr. 16.43 | ||
847. | |||||
EYΔI | Λ | ? | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.) | ||
848. | |||||
a. | EYΔI | Λ | ΠE | Athens (Halmyros Hd.) | |
b. | APIΣT | Λ | ΠE | *Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.45↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.84↑ | |
c. | APIΣT | M | ΠE | ANS-ETN = Ratto (Rogers) 428, gr. 16.15 | |
d. | APIΣΓ | M | ΠE | Paris; L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 15.90 | |
e. | APIΣT | M | AΠ | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.23↑ | |
f. | APIΣΓ | M | ΣO | ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 15.75↑; Berlin, gr. 15.77 | |
849. | |||||
a. | APIΣT | Λ | ΣO | Athens (Halmyros Hd.); Tübingen, gr. 16.11; Glymenopoulos Coll. (Sv. 62, 16), gr. 16.05; Evelpidis Coll. (Oreos Hd.), gr. 16.41 | |
(EΠI–ΣTPATHΣ | b. | [AP]I[Σ]T | M | ΣO | *Kambanis Coll. |
850. | |||||
a. | APIΣT/EYΔI | Λ/K/I | ME | Berlin, gr. 16.36 | |
b. | APIΣT | Λ | ME | *Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.30↑ | |
c. | APIΣΓ | M | ME | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.) PLATE 95; Berlin (Sv. 62, 25), gr. 16.52 | |
851. | |||||
a. | APIΣT | M/ | AΠ | *Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.62↑; Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.) | |
b. | APIṬ | M | AΠ | Berlin (BCH, 1932, Pl. II, 7), gr. 16.32 |
AMΩIKPA – EΠIΣT
Drachms
837. | |||||
KΛE | A | — | *Athens (Delos Hd. A, 5; Sv. 62, 27), gr. 3.95↑ | ||
852. | |||||
KΛE | A | — | *Copenhagen (SNG 184), gr. 3.69↑ | ||
853. | |||||
API | Γ | ? | *Athens (Delos Hd. B, 18; Sv. 62, 26), gr. 3.70↑; Gotha, gr. 3.82 | ||
71 tetradrachms : 15 obverse, 40 reverse dies 4 drachms : 3 obverse, 2 reverse dies Magistrates: KΛEOMA, APIΣTOK, HPOΔO, EYΔI, APIΣT Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, H, Ө, 1, K, Λ. M Controls: AΓT, ME, ΠE, ΣO |
Three tetradrachm dies and one drachm die prove the issues of Timostratos–Poses and Amphikrates–Epistratos to be contiguous. The transferred obverses are Nos. 833 (PLATE 93 and BCH, 1932, Pl. II, 5–6), 834 (PLATE 93), 835 (PLATE 92 and Arethuse, 1928, Pl. XXIII, 7–8) and 837 (PLATE 94).
The names of third magistrates for this issue are carelessly inscribed, individual letters are sometimes excessively small (cf. No. 851a with the Σ and T of APIΣT barely visible to the left and just above the base of the amphora), and there is a certain amount of recutting to add to the difficulties of decipherment. It is in no way surprising that various strange readings have crept into the published record.
Beulé's listing of magistrates does not correspond in a single respect with that of the present catalogue. Sundwall amends to some extent but retains many of Beulé's names and amphora markings. Svoronos' plate is misleading in one instance: the second coin in his sequence has the magistrate APIΣT with a date which Svoronos sees as A but which is in reality Λ as is proved by other coins from this die and by the fact that the same obverse is used with an M reverse (No. 849b). Even Kambanis, in his notebook, has a number of variant readings, again taken over for the most part from Beulé.
Making a lengthy and detailed correction of the earlier records seems to me not worth the space and effort it would involve. Coins that can be checked have been re–examined and the readings of the present catalogue confirmed, often on the basis of additional specimens from the same die with clearer or more complete lettering. It is my belief that the five third magistrates listed above are the only ones who served during the year 133/2 b.c.
Brief mention should, however, be made of two entries, one in Kambanis and the other in Sundwall. In publishing the link between this issue and that of Timostratos–Poses (BCH, 1932, p. 57) Kambanis supplies the form KΛEONI for the magistrate of month alpha. I can see no basis for the nu but one die (No. 833a on PLATE 93) does give the impression of a final iota in the name. This would seem to be merely the result of careless workmanship since Nos. 835a and 840 show a clear and unmistakable terminal alpha.1 Sundwall reports N/M from an Athenian tetradrachm cited by Svoronos; the coin is apparently No. 851a with M/. There is no evidence from the reverse dies of this issue for an intercalary year.
ΔΩΣIӨEOΣ – XAPIAΣ TYCHE 132/1 b.c. (Plates 95–97)
Tetradrachms
847. | |||||
a. | ΔION | A | ΠE | *Berlin, gr. 16.40; Hamburger 98, 692 (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.45 | |
b. | ΔION | A | ΠE | Commerce 1953 | |
c. | ΔION | B | ? | Lockett Coll. (SNG 1940), gr. 16.65↑; Berlin, gr. 16.00 | |
850. | |||||
Γ | ΔION | A | ME | *Athens (Halmyros Hd.) |
851. | |||||
a. | ΔION | A | AΠ | *Athens (Halmyros Hd.); Berlin (Sv. 68, 1), gr. 16.57 | |
b. | ΔION | A | AΠ | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.59↑ (PLATE 94) | |
854. | |||||
ΔION | A | ME | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.62↑ | ||
855. | |||||
a. | ΔION | A | ΣO | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.32↑; Commerce 1955 | |
b. | ΔION | B | ΣO | * Vienna, gr. 16.47 | |
c. | ΔION | B | ΣO | Berlin, gr. 16.63 | |
d. | NIK/ΔION | B | ΣO | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.50 ↗ | |
856. | |||||
a. | ΔION | B | E | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.13↑ | |
b. | ΔION | B | ΠE | Berlin, gr. 15.66 | |
857. | |||||
a. | ΔION | B | ME | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.) | |
b. | ΔION | B | ME | Vatican; Commerce 1955 | |
c. | ΔION | B | ME | *Munich (Sv. 68, 2), gr. 16.68. With NIK/ΔION: Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.75↑ | |
d. | NIK/ΔION | B | ME | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.02↑;Athens; Frankfurt am Main | |
e. | NIK/ΔION | B | AΠ/ṂE | Athens (Delos Hd. B, 74), gr. 15.85↑ | |
f. | NIK/ΔION | B | ΣO | Athens (Delos Hd. A, 16), gr. 16.35↑ | |
g. | NIK/ΔION | B | ΠE | Vienna, gr. 16.03;Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), gr. 16.27↑; Berlin, gr. 16.51 | |
h. | NIK | Γ | ME | Athens, gr. 16.30↑;Athens, gr. 16.55↑ | |
i. | NIK | Γ | AΠ | Berlin, gr. 15.90 | |
858. | |||||
a. | ΔION | B | ΠE | Athens↑ | |
b. | NIK | Γ | ΠE | *Athens, gr. 16.60↑ | |
c. | NIK | Γ | ΠE | ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.43↑ Vienna, gr. 16.50 | |
d. | NIK | Γ | ΠE | Berlin, gr. 16.35 | |
e. | ? | ? | Ạ | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.67↑ | |
859. | |||||
a. | NIK/ΔION | B | ṂE | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.). With AΠ/ME: Romanos Coll. (Sv. 68, 3), gr. 16.45 | |
b. | NIK/ΔION | B | ΣO | Berry Coll. (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.50↑ | |
c. | NIK/(?)ΔION | B | ? | ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.55↑ | |
859X. | |||||
NIK | Γ | ΣO | *Berlin, gr. 15.60 | ||
860. | |||||
a. | NIK | Γ | ΣO | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.) | |
b. | ? | ? | ? | ANS (Abruzzi Hd.), gr. 16.25↑ | |
861. | |||||
a. | NIK | Γ | AΠ | *Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.59↑;Athens (Delos Hd. ≡≡)↑ | |
b. | NIK | Γ | ΠE | Athens (Delos Hd. IΔ)↑ | |
c. | NIK | Γ | ΠE | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.85↑ | |
d. | ΔIO | Δ | AΠ | Athens (Delos Hd. B, 76), gr. 15.50↑ | |
862. | |||||
ΔION/NIK | Δ/Γ | ME | *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.63↑;Athens (Sv. 68, 4), gr. 15.80↑ | ||
863. | |||||
a. | ΔIO | Δ | AΠ | Tübingen, gr. 16.69;Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.65;Athens | |
b. | ΔIO | Z/E/ | ? | *Romanos Coll. | |
c. | ΣOΛ | H | AΠ | *Empedocles Coll. | |
d. | ΣOΛ | H | ΠE | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.66↑;Athens, gr. 16.20↑ | |
e. | ΣOΛ | Ө | Ạ | Andreopoulos Coll. | |
864. | |||||
ỊỌ | E | ΠE | *Athens (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.32↑;Athens (Halmyros Hd.) | ||
865. | |||||
ỊỌ | E | ME | *Paris (de Luynes 2114), gr. 16.40; Paris, gr. 16.45↑; Commerce 1954 | ||
866. | |||||
a. | ỊỌ | E | ΣO | *Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.05↑; Berlin, gr. 16.45 | |
b. | ỊỌ | E | ? | Herakleion (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.56↑ | |
867. | |||||
a. | ỊỌ | Ẹ | ΣO | Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), gr. 16.20↑ | |
b. | ỊỌ | E | ME | London, gr. 16.22↑;Athens = Sv. 63, 5, Feuardent, gr. 15.95↑ | |
c. | ΔION | ζ/(?)E | ? | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.67↑ | |
d. | ΔIO | Z | ME | *Andreopoulos Coll.; ANS-ETN = Ratto (Rogers) 429, gr. 16.12↑; Giesecke Coll. (Sv. 68, 6), gr. 16.70 | |
e. | ΣOΛ | H | ME | Berlin (Sv. 63, 7), gr. 15.98; Knobloch Coll., gr. 15.92 | |
f. | ΣOΛ | Ө/H | ΠE/? | ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.27↑ | |
868. | |||||
ΣOΛ | H | ΣO | *Commerce 1955, gr. 15.65; ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.69↑ | ||
868X. | |||||
Σ]OΛ | Ө | ṂE | *Berlin, gr. 16.44 | ||
869. | |||||
a. | ΣOΛ | Ө | ΣO | Athens (Sv. 63, 8), gr. 16.55↑ | |
b. | XAIP/? | K/I/Ө | ΣO | *Berlin, gr. 16.61 | |
c. | XAIP | K | ΣO | ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 15.80↑; ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.25↑ | |
870. | |||||
a. | I | ΠE | *Athens (Halmyros Hd.); Berlin (Sv. 63, 9), gr. 16.58 | ||
b. | ? | I | ΠE | *Harvard Univ., gr. 16.76; Glasgow (Hunt. 129), Pl.↑. With ẠỊ/? and K/I: Gotha, gr. 16.28 | |
870X. | |||||
a. | I | AΠ | *Berlin, gr. 15.45 | ||
871. | |||||
a. | I | ME | Copenhagen (SNG 186), gr. 16.41↑ | ||
b. | ? | Λ | ? | *Paris, gr. 15.76↑ | |
c. | XAIP | M | ME | Leningrad (Sv. 63, 12), gr. 16.39 | |
872. | |||||
XAIP/ | K/I | AΠ | *Copenhagen (SNG 185; Sv. 63, 11), gr. 16.39↑, Evelpidis Coll. (Oreos Hd.), gr. 16.54; ANS (Anatolia Hd.), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.37↑ | ||
873. | |||||
a. | XAIP/ | K/I | AΠ | Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.) | |
b. | ΣỌΛ | M | AΠ | *ANS (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.67↑ | |
874. | |||||
XAỊ | Λ | AΠ | Lee (de Zogheb) 272, gr. 16.49 | ||
b. | ẠỊ | Λ | AΠ | *London (BMC 393). gr. 16.43↑ | |
ΣΩ 1 | Λ | AΠ | Berlin, gr. 14.99 | ||
875. | |||||
ΣỌ | Λ | ME | *ANS (Abruzzi Hd.), gr. 15.60 ↗ | ||
876. | |||||
a. | XAIP | Λ | ΣO | Berlin, gr. 16.25 | |
b. | ΣΛ | Λ | ΣO | *Milan (Sv. 63, 10), gr. 16.50 | |
c. | Σ | M | ΣO | *ANS-ETN = Arethuse, Suppl. comm. I, 333 = Platt (Luneau) 516, gr. 16.45↑ | |
d. | ΣOΛ | M | ΣO | ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.23↑ | |
e. | ΣỌ | M | ΣO | Berlin, gr. 16.11 |
ΔΩΣIӨE – XAP
Drachms
877. | |||||
ΔIO | Ḅ | — | *Copenhagen (SNG 187), gr. 3.68↑ | ||
878. | |||||
ΔIO | B | — | *Athens (Delos Hd. A, 17; Sv. 63, 13), gr. 4.00↑;Athens (Delos Hd. B, 75). gr. 3.32↑;Athens (Delos Hd. B, 171), gr. 3.30↑;Athens, broken; Gotha, gr. 3.55; Petsalis Coll., gr. 3.71 | ||
109 tetradrachms: 29 obverse, 63 reverse dies 7 drachms: 2 obverse, 1 reverse die Magistrates: ΔION, NIK, ΣOΛ, ΓΛ(?), XAIP Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, H. θ. 1, K, Λ, M2 Controls: AΠ, ME, ΠE, ΣO |
Again we find three tetradrachm dies linking successive issues. Amphikrates–Epistratos and Dositheos–Charias share Obverses 847, 850 and 851 as illustrated on Plates 94–95 and, in the case of No. 851, also in the BCH for 1932 (Pl. II, 7–8).
Beulé regards this striking as one of the last of the New Style series and remarks that its decadence makes it impossible to regret that the Athenians stopped coining silver: "Le style de ces tétradrachmes est affreux et les lettres sont gravées d'une façon si grossière que je n'ai pu le plus souvent les distinguer." The issue does not belong at the end of the series and in fact its dies are less debased than Beulé implies but he is quite justified in his complaint that the names of the third magistrates are often practically illegible. In this respect the emission is the worst of the entire sequence.
As is the case with the coinage of Amphikrates and Epistratos, the careless technique and poor quality of the overcutting have led to a number of peculiar readings which need not be commented upon in detail. Beulé's record includes MHKI, API, ΣAM and ΣΩΣI. Some of these names are retained by Sundwall and Kambanis; some are amended or queried. Whenever possible the coins have been carefully checked and I doubt that any one of the four readings is correct.1
On the other hand I have some reservations about my own readings in two instances. Tetradrachms of the month E are inscribed with what seems to be ΔIO. This is the name that one would expect since the same man is in office during Δ and Z, and Kambanis gives the ΔIO reading as certain. The lettering is not clear on any die but it may be that the illegibility derives from recutting. NIK is quite possibly under ΔIO with Δ and Γ under the E of the amphora. The magistrate whose name appears on a few reverses of month I is here recorded as ΓΛ. On Nos. 870a and 871a, the gamma and lambda seem reasonably clear. There are, to be sure, traces of a horizontal line across from the bottom of the gamma and of another letter to the right of the lambda (a small lambda ?), but these can be explained as remains of an earlier inscription. It is probable that ΣOΛ of months H and Ө was in office for a part of I and that during that month his dies were altered by the engraving of ΓΛ over the ΣOΛ.
A noteworthy feature of the coinage of Dositheos–Charias is the irregularity in tenure of the third magistrates. During this Middle Period an individual magistrate, more often than not, serves over a period of several months but the months are without exception consecutive. With the present issue, we have two magistrates returning to office after an interval. ΔION controls the coinage of months A and B, is then replaced by NIK who carries on for a part of B and for Γ, after which ΔION comes back for Δ, E and Z. Similarly ΣOΛ of H and Ө yields to ΓΛ and XAIP for I and K but resumes his office for Λ and M. During the last two months, however, he seems to have collaborated with XAIP since both names appear on dies of Λ and M. There is, of course, the possibility that different men are involved but it would seem to be stretching coincidence to assume a dual identity of names within the course of a single year.
With the coinage of Dositheos and Charias we come to the end of the long, closely-linked sequence which begins with the issue of Phanokles and Apollonios and extends down through an intervening ten strikings. This seems to be a suitable place for the division between Middle and Late Periods. In a sense the demarcation is arbitrary since there is no abrupt break between the three-magistrate issues which have just been discussed and those which immediately follow. Many of the latter, however, have close associations, numismatically and historically, with the late two-magistrate emissions and it will be useful to relate the group as a whole within the general framework of the final period of the coinage.
1 |
Beulé records ΣΩ on Paris and Copenhagen specimens and these
readings are repeated by Sundwall who also cites ME from Svoronos' publication of Delos
Hoard Γ. I have seen all of the Paris coins and can find no evidence for ΣΩ among them. The Copenhagen tetradrachm is our No. 336a (SNG 216 where the combination is given as
ΣΩ?) which shares dies with an Athens coin on which the ΓΛ is clear; the Delos piece (No. 331b) is from the same die as the Basel specimen
with HP illustrated on PLATE 33.
|
1 |
The markings below the amphora (read in the Sylloge publication as ΣΩ) would seem to be surface flaws since there is no
trace of an inscription on other coins from the same reverse die.
|
1 |
Numbers in parentheses refer to the catalogue entries of these drachms in "The Grain-Ear Drachms of Athens," ANSCent, pp. 659–662.
|
1 |
In the Sylloge this coin is said to be from the same dies as Svoronos 50, 13 (No. 372d below). While this is certainly
true of the reverse, the obverse is, I believe, struck from Die 371. In the Centennial publication I had associated it (as
Ie) with Obverse
369 but a better-preserved Berlin specimen from the same pair of dies shows that the earlier classification was
incorrect.
|
1 |
A piece in the Paris Cabinet (gr. 14.35) is an exact replica of the Copenhagen coin.
|
1 |
Kambanis' cast of this coin is marked "Oxford" but the piece is not in the collection
there. Two replicas of it are in Glasgow (Hunt. 119) and Cambridge (Grose 5915, gr.
14.32). Since no weight is recorded for this specimen of uncertain provenance, one cannot tell whether it is the genuine prototype
of the
Hunterian and Fitzwilliam coins or merely another copy.
|
1 |
The Athens hemidrachm which Svoronos includes with this issue (Plate 49, 36) belongs with
the coinage of Polemon and Alketes.
|
1 |
The amphora letter is read as E in the Sylloge. This is possible but I think not entirely certain.
|
1 |
This coin is illustrated by Svoronos (Plate 52, 17) with the issue of ΔIONYΣI – ΔIONYΣI.
|
1 |
This is a copper replica; an identical piece is in the Tübingen Collection. The two coins were apparently cast from
a genuine specimen.
|
1 |
The Δ with EYMAXOΣ recorded by Sundwall for a Photiadès tetradrachm is an instance of erroneous transcription. The catalogue
describes the
piece as having a Δ as a graffito on the obverse.
|
1 |
G. Rathgeber, Annali dell' Inst. di Corrisp., arch., 1838, pp. 32–36.
|
1 |
It is interesting to note that von Prokesch-Osten in 1852 (Inedita, p. 263) had reached more
or less the same conclusion with respect to the name and symbol of this issue. He comments as follows: "Ich erlaube mir zu
diesen Münzen nur
die Bemerkung beizufügen, dass mir der Name Antiochus, Mithradates, Ariarathus u.s.w., die sich auf einigen finden, durchaus
keinen
Anhaltspunct zu chronologischen Bestimmungen zu geben scheinen. Nichts ist natürlicher, als dass diese Namen auch von Magistraten
getragen
wurden und dass diese selbst die Symbole der Könige annahmen, deren Namen sie trugen."
Von Prokesch-Osten weakens his case by associating Mithradates whose title is given on the coinage with Antiochos and Ariarathes who are not thus precisely identified, but otherwise his point is, it seems to me, valid. |
1 |
The obverse of this specimen is in a miserable state of preservation but I believe it is Die 408.
|
1 |
In the catalogue of the Delos Hoard this coin is described as having I ( ?) under the amphora and the illustration
on Svoronos' Plate 46 seems to confirm the reading. Whether the marking is part of a control combination or merely a die break
is
uncertain.
|
1 |
This coin is not among the holdings of either the Civic or the Archaeological Museum in Turin. It may be in the collection
of the Royal Library which is for the moment inaccessible or it may, of course, have been in a
private collection to which Beulé had access.
|
1 |
A plated coin in Amsterdam (Boissevain 56) weighing 14.25
grams and described as per haps a barbaric imitation is an exact duplicate of the British Museum piece, apparently an an cient
forgery.
|
1 |
A plated tetradrachm in London (12.48 gr.) is from the same dies.
|
1 |
There is a plated coin in Gotha (15.70 gr.) from the same dies.
|
1 |
C. Combe, Nummorum Veterum Populorum et Urbium, p. 52, nos. 49–54.
|
1 |
In publishing this drachm Svoronos gives ΣΦ ? below the amphora. There is clearly an inscription there but from an
examination of the coin I am inclined to think it is ΣΩ rather than ΣΦ.
|
1 |
A plated specimen in Athens (14.25 gr.) is from the same pair of dies.
|
1 |
Sundwall lists Λ but that month is not given in Kambanis' record and I have found no evidence for it.
|
1 |
The reverse of this coin is illustrated by Svoronos (Plate 51, 24) but the obverse there coupled with it belongs to
the issue of AΦPOΔIΣI – ΔIOΓE. Our No. 500b reproduces the cast obtained from Berlin by Kambanis who had noted the
error on Svoronos' plate.
|
1 |
Svoronos (JIAN 1911, p. 77, 8) reads [Σ?] E but I could see no trace of a third magistrate's
name on the coin.
|
1 | |
1 |
Kambanis indicates in his summary of the Zarova Hoard (BCH 1935, p. 117) the link between the
tetradrachms of the two emissions but he does not illustrate the common die. In his manuscript he cites the correspondence
of the Berlin and Corpus Christi College obverses (our Nos. 503b and 503a). This sequence
invalidates the earlier association of AΦPOΔIΣI – AΠOΛH≡I and AΦPOΔIΣI – ΔIOΓE (Arethuse 1928, p. 134) which was based
on an error in Svoronos' plates (see note 1 on p. 194 with regard to Svoronos Pl. 51,
24).
|
1 |
Kambanis' listing of magistrates, months and control combinations for this issue is identical with the present
catalogue save for a citation of ΦANOKPI with Ө. The coin is our No. 517b (Delos Hd. Γ, 130) on which Kambanis did
not see the superimposed I. It might be mentioned that although Kambanis gives a few instances of altered amphora letters
in his notebook, he
does not, strangely enough, record a single example of the recutting of magistrates' names.
|
1 |
The reverse die shows no trace of a Γ superimposed on the B of the amphora. Seemingly this is a diecutter's omission.
|
1 |
ΣΩKPA is probably cut over ZΩΓTY but an underlying name is not certain.
|
1 |
This reverse die, carried over from Obverses 550 and 553, has been recut for use with Obverse 554. ΣΦ is superimposed on ME
and a small N
added on the wing of the owl corrects the spelling of the third magistrate's name.
|
1 |
Svoronos reads the vertical stroke to the left of the amphora as a letter but the ANS coin shows that it is only a
part of the wreath. There was no third magistrate associated with this die.
|
1 |
There is no trace of AIΣXI under MNHΣAP; the recutting which is implied by the Λ/K would seem to have been very skillfully
done.
|
1 |
The weight of a third drachm illustrated by Svoronos (Plate 52, 16), 2.72 grams, suggests plating. In any case it is
impossible to determine the dies from the illustration.
|
1 |
There is no trace of B over A on the amphora. Either the engraver neglected to recut the date OΓΛYΣAN served during alpha as well as beta. An error seems to me the likelier explanation.
|
1 |
The Vienna coin may have H over Z on the amphora.
|
1 |
Svoronos publishes the amphora letter as A or Λ; I think it is almost certainly E.
|
1 |
A lead piece in Munich is an exact copy of this British Museum coin.
|
1 |
Svoronos read APTE and Λ/K on the Delos Hoard Γ coin. His placement of the other piece on
the Trésor plate indicates that he thought the amphora letter was H. Both tetradrachms, however, are from the same
reverse die and on the well-preserved Delos Γ coin the cutting of AӨHN over APTE is unmistakable.
|
1 |
Kambanis read this as B/A; I cannot feel sure that there is a letter below the B.
|
1 |
The Stockholm coin served as the prototype for the following cast copies: The Hague (gr.
14.20), Copenhagen (SNG 154, gr. 14.45) and Tübingen, (gr. 15.57). A tetradrachm in the Cleveland Museum of Art, also cast, is an exact replica of
the British Museum
piece.
|
1 | |
1 |
It seems likely that ΛYKIΣ was also on the die, below ΔIONY and over AΠOΛ, but no trace of the lettering remains.
|
1 |
Still another identification is suggested by T. Panofka who makes a connection between the name of the first
magistrate and his chosen device (Annali dell' Inst. di Corrisp. arch., 1840, pp. 201–203). Pointing out that
Charinautes signifies "favorable to navigators", Panofka links the torch-bearing goddess with Selene whose nocturnal illumination
served to guide sailors. This interpretation is certainly possible but it seems somewhat
fanciful. One has the feeling that if a definite association such as this had been intended the standing figure would have
been clearly
identified as the moon goddess by means of a distinctive attribute.
|
1 |
A cast coin in Munich (gr. 15.00) has the same combination of dies.
|
1 |
ΛAMIOΣ seems to be the original inscription; I can see no trace of an underlying name. It is, however, possible that ΣΩKPAT
is between ΛAMIOΣ
and KPITΩN on the recut reverse of the Halmyros Hoard. It is not always easy to decipher the sequence of magistrates on the
late dies of this
year. The first name of No. 719c may be ΛAMIOΣ instead of ΣΩKPAT, but I am quite certain that No. 721b has KPITΩN/ΣΩKPAT.
|
1 |
There is no reverse recorded for ANTIΣӨE with E alone on the amphora but No. 716a has Z/E. Since the name shows no evidence
of recutting, this
die indicates a two months' tenure for ANTIΣӨE.
|
1 |
Kambanis' interpretation of Beulé's KΛEOMEN as a misreading of ⊙EO≡EN is substantiated by Seyrig's record of the Hermitage
coins. One tetradrachm has – EO/-EN with an un certain amphora letter
and the ΣΦ control that Beulé gives. Apparently the latter was restoring a plausible if erroneous name on the basis of a poorly-preserved
inscription. The amphora letter which Beulé lists as B and Kambanis thinks might be H is more likely I/Ө.
|
1 |
Svoronos reads the control combination as ΣΦ in his publication of the Delos Hoard. The
second letter seems to me more likely a poorly-cut O.
|
1 |
The ΣΩΣIKPITHΣ of the early stage of the die has been changed to ΣΩΣIKPATHΣ with the recutting of the amphora letter and the
name of the third
magistrate.
|
1 |
It is hard to be sure of the exact amphora reading. The Λ is definite on the Athens coin
illustrated but it looks as though there were something under it. This does not seem to be the K that one would expect but
rather an M—perhaps
that letter was cut in error and a correction made before the die was used. On the Paris piece the Λ has a distinct
cross bar but this is merely part of a flaw which extends horizontally across the body of the amphora.
|
1 |
MIKO with H, read by von Prokesch-Osten on one of his coins (Inedita, p. 262) and changed to
MIKIO and Δ (?) by Beulé, is most likely NIKONO/KPITΩN with Δ as our No.727a.
A single drachm reverse provides the only evidence in the present catalogue for the association of KΛEIΔAMO with month lambda. Kambanis in his notebook lists a tetradrachm in the Berlin Collection with KΛEIΔAMO, Λ and AΠO but the piece is No. 727g with, I think, only K/I. The O of the control is a berry on the wreath. |
1 |
Almost certainly an I was first cut over the Ө and then the two diagonals added to form a K for the coinage of the third month.
It is likely
that other K reverses were originally inscribed with an iota and later altered. Such recutting is well-nigh impossible
to detect if the engraving is done with skill.
|
1 |
The only other discrepancy between the present catalogue and the earlier publications of Boulé and Sundwall is the MH control
combination
listed by the former from a Berlin specimen and by the latter after Bunbury. The Berlin coin has ME and the Bunbury piece
almost certainly had the same lettering. ΣΩ is given
by Beulé, Sundwall and Kambanis. I have seen no tetra drachm on which the omega is absolutely clear but it may well
have been used on a few reverses of this issue.
|
1 |
The Copenhagen coin is recorded as having an E on the amphora. A cast of it shows a
marking which looks to me like a Z or possibly Z/E. There is a plated coin in the British Museum (gr. 14.38) from the same
combination of dies
but the amphora lettering is illegible.
|
1 |
There is probably another name and amphora letter between APIΣTΩN – Z and EYBOY– ΛOΣ – Ө but the intermediate cutting is not
visible.
|
1 |
The APIΣTAI of Beulé and Sundwall must, as Kambanis points out, be an erroneous reading of APIΣTΩN.
|
1 |
The lower field of this reverse is blundered: the amphora misshapen and the control letters missing.
|
1 |
The reverse die used for Nos. 774d and 775d is confusing. ΔIONY is clearly cut over an other name, possibly over two. An underlying
Y, which
can belong only to MOYΣAΓ, is visible and there are faint traces of M, A and Γ. One would expect ΠOΠΛI to have been inscribed
between MOYΣAΓ
and ΔIONY but there is no definite indication of this and no evidence of amphora letters between zeta and lambda.
|
1 |
This is a cast piece from a genuine prototype.
|
1 |
Kambanis records the name as TIMA but on all dies one can see a P to the left of the amphora base. Sundwall gives the correct
form, TIMAP.
|
1 |
A tetradrachm in the Petsalis Collection from the same pair of dies would seem from its weight (13.96 gr.) to be a cast replica
of a genuine
coin.
|
1 |
Beulé, Sundwall and Kambanis cite a few examples of the control combination ΣΩ. I have seen no reverse on which omega
appears and am inchned to doubt that ΣΩ was employed for this issue.
|
1 |
As a result of faulty striking the amphora and the third magistrate's name have not been impressed on this reverse.
|
1 |
At the time ΛEY and H were added to the die other letters of the inscription were strengthened.
|
1 |
The engraver has apparently failed to recut the second line of the name on this blundered die. What results is APIΣ.. MA.
|
1 |
Kambanis follows Svoronos in reading K but a cast of the coin shows two parallel vertical lines on the amphora and the Istanbul
specimen from the same reverse die (No. 844b) definitely has an H.
|
1 |
Among the other names listed by Kambanis on page 58 of the BCH article one finds the variant forms HPOΔΩ and EYΔH. Both
are errors, perhaps of transcription, as is clear from the reproductions on Plates 93–94 (see No. 844a for HPOΔO and
No. 845a for EYΔI).
|
1 |
The form is uncertain on most of the later dies. On No. 874c it is definitely ΣΩ and on No. 876d just as clearly
ΣOΛ; the other readings are doubtful. Possibly we have two different magistrates but this seems to me rather unlikely.
Our No. 874c, the Berlin coin, would seem from its weight to be a cast piece. |
1 |
The ease with which different readings can be derived from the same coin is exemplified by Beulé's API (I) entries. A tetradrachm
in the Berlin Cabinet has API according to Beulé and ΣAM (?) according to Kambanis while von
Prokesch reads EΛI on a similar piece in his collection and Beulé notes that another specimen of the same month seems to have
ΓP.
Kambanis further records ΓΛ for an I striking at Athens which is actually from the same
reverse die as the Berlin tetradrachm with his ΣAM (?) reading.
|
2 |
The Statistical Survey section (pages 658–708) presents a diagrammatic summary of minting operations under HPA – APIΣΓOΦ and
their successors
in the three-magistrate period. This is designed to show the third magistrates of each issue, the months during which they
were associated
with the mint and the extent and distribution of coinage and control combinations over the year.
For this entire section of the coinage we have a great deal of hoard material and the relative infrequency with which new obverse and reverse dies come to light suggests that the record is fairly complete or at least that there is a degree of uniformity in its incompleteness which permits a tentative evaluation of the evidence for the issues, individually and comparatively. It must be stressed, however, that such evaluation is only tentative. |
2 |
Sundwall lists a Berlin coin with N on the amphora, our No. 389i. The letter is poorly cut but it is almost
certainly M.
|
2 |
The weight suggests a cast or plated coin.
|
2 |
The Oxford coin has what seems to be a faint I on the amphora. It
is possible that the die was originally inscribed MHTPO with I and that the ΔI was added later with
H cut over the I, but one cannot be certain.
|
2 |
ΣO is included with the other three controls by Beulé and Sundwall. Kambanis enters it in his notebook but queries its accuracy
on the ground
that it is easily confused with ΣΩ. On a number of coins in this and other issues the lower part of the omicron or omega is off flan. Often a second specimen from the same die establishes the correct reading. Even when this is not the
case there is a difference in the rendering of the two letters which makes it possible to distinguish between them on fragmentary
evidence:
the upper curve of the omicron is invariably small and well rounded while that of the omega is
large and spread.
|
2 |
This is apparently a copy of a genuine tetradrachm.
|
2 |
Beulé, whose reading is repeated by Sundwall, gives ATT for a Turin coin. The combination, which is a rather unlikely one
for this period, is otherwise unknown.
|
2 |
The only exception is ΛYΣIMEM, Kambanis' entry, instead of ΛYΣIMEN. The inscription does seem to have a terminal M
but it is probably a carelessly engraved N confused with the end of the owl's wing that gives this impression. The ΛYΣIΠΠ,
ANTIΣӨEN and ΣΩIΛOΣ
of the listing on page 42 are almost certainly errors in transcription similar to ӨEOΔA and ΔENNIAΣ of page 45.
|
2 |
Kambanis' cast is labelled Tübingen, but the coin is not in the collection there. There is
no certainty that this reverse was coupled with Obverse 726 but it seems likely in view of the three other stages of the reverse
associated
with that die.
|
2 |
The BMC reading is KΛEIΔ. I wonder if it is not TIM over another name, probably KΛEIΔ.
|
2 |
This and a few other casts in the lot assembled by Kambanis are labelled Beulé. There is no indication as to where Kambanis
got them; in his
notebook he speaks of Beulé's collection is having gone to the Hermitage.
|
2 |
ΣΩ is given by Kambanis for a few coins of this issue but his entries with ΣΩ share in some cases a reverse die with pieces
which he lists as
having ΣO. Among the tetradrachms of No. 751b, for example, ΣΩ is recorded for the Meletopoulos coin and ΣO for the
two Athens pieces. It is often difficult to distinguish between the two combinations but I
do not believe that any reverse of the first Herakleides–Eukles emission was marked with ΣΩ.
|
2 |
Sundwall's MOYΣAI is a misreading of MOYΣAΓ. His ΠOYΠΛI with reference to a British Museum coin is ΠOΠΛI/MOYΣAΓ (No. 774a).
|
2 |
The amphora letter may be Λ over I or K or, equally well, a blundered M or N. This is an extremely crude reverse, strongly
reminiscent of No.
745a in the first Herakleides-Eukles issue. Nos. 745a, 796a and b were surely cut by the same engraver and the uncertainty
regarding the
amphora letter of the two last reverses raises the possibility that Obverse 796 belongs with the earlier coinage of Herakleides
and Eukles.
However, Svoronos and Kambanis both read the date on No. 796a as Λ and I should consider it almost certainly not A.
|
2 |
Kambanis in his notebook gives ΔH (with M and ΣO) for a Halmyros Hoard coin. I have no record of the piece but it seems unlikely
that the
magistrate's name has been correctly read. The forms TEIΣI and ӨEOΔΩ which Kambanis gives (BCH, 1932, p. 56) are not
substantiated by any reverses that I have seen and No. 818a shows a clear ӨEOΦ as the beginning of the magistrate's name.
|
2 |
On the reverse of this coin and of others as well the name of the second magistrate appears as ΠOZHΣ. This would seem, however,
to be careless
workmanship rather than outright misspelling.
|
2 |
Sundwall cites an isolated example of the amphora letter N. The date, not recorded in Kambanis or elsewhere, is likely an
erroneous
reading.
|
3 |
ΠE and ΣO appear in Sundwall. Kambanis' notebook queries both readings and it seems to me likely that the combinations are
in reality ME and
ΣΦ.
|
3 |
The tabulation of names and months in Kambanis'
BCH article (p. 114) requires a few minor corrections :
AΣKΛH – A: The die which Kambanis cites is our No. 745b. I can see no trace of an underlying A on the Athens tetradrachm which is the only one of the three coins with a clear amphora letter. Kambanis' own specimen shows up poorly in reproduction and the Berlin piece has an illegible month marking. AΣKΛH may have served for part of alpha but this cannot be proved from the present catalogue entries. ΔIONYΣOΓ – Γ: On the reverses of the second emission of Herakleides and Eukles the name is definitely ΔIONYΣOΓ. On the dies of the first issue it is simply ΔIONYΣO; no coin that I have seen has the terminal gamma. APIΣTΩN – Γ: I think this must be a mistake in transcription. The combination is not given in Kambanis' notebook and there is no reference to a specific coin with APIΣTΩN and Γ in the BCH publication. Ariston does, however, serve for part of Z as well as for Δ and E on the evidence of a Zarova Hoard tetradrachm from Istanbul (No. 753c). MOΣXI: The name on all reverses is MOΣXIΩN. Kambanis' earlier publication (BCH, 1932, p. 54) gives the correct reading. |
3 |
Beulé gives ΣΦ and ΠE. The former reading is corrected by Sundwall; the latter is almost certainly a mistake for ME.
|
3 |
The MH listed by Beulé for a tetradrachm in his collection is surely ME.
|
This section of the coinage comprises thirty-seven issues, extending from 168/7 through 132/1 b.c. Unlike the series of the Early Period, the present sequence is supported by a substantial number of die links. Twenty-five of the thirty-seven issues are brought into relationship by means of thirty-nine transferred obverse dies, leaving only twelve issues for which there is no proof of contiguity. Moreover, the stylistic evidence for this period is stronger than it is for the period preceding in that there are only a restricted number of obverse styles, each showing a high degree of coherence within a single issue and a clearly discernible evolutionary pattern over a series of issues. Some help in chronological arrangement is to be derived from hoards, control combinations, die positions and symbol placement.
The Middle Period coinage divides roughly into three groups. Of these, the earliest is composed of the following twelve issues with tetradrachm and drachm die links indicated by brackets:
t(1) MIKI – ӨEOΦPA
1. HPA – APIΣTOΦ
2. MENEΔ – EΠIΓENO
t(1) 3. TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO
d(l) 4. ΠOΛYXAPM – NIKOΓ
5. ΔΩPOӨE – ΔIOΦ
6. ANTIOXOΣ – NIKOΓ and KAPAIXOΣ
t(1) 7. ӨEOΦPA – ΣΩTAΣ
d(1) t(1) 8. ΔIOΓE – ΠOΣEI
9. AXAIOΣ – HΛI
10. ΛYΣAN – ΓΛAYKOΣ
11. EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣANΔPOΣ
12. ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ
Hera–Aristoph is firmly established as the initial striking of the three-magistrate period by the die link connecting it with the issue of Miki–Theophra of the two-magistrate series. Its obverses are absolutely consistent in style with those of Miki–Theophra and also with those of Mened–Epigeno. Note on Plates 32–35 the striking similarity in the shape of the heads, the profiles, the small neat visors and helmet ornaments, the gently curved crest terminals.
The issue which has been placed next, that of Timarchou–Nikago, continues the obverse style of Hera–Aristoph and Mened–Epigeno. This is especially true of its first dies; later in the year a somewhat different representation of Athena begins to emerge. A long, rather narrow head set on a thin neck (Nos. 366–367) presents a distinct contrast to the broad head and thick neck of earlier obverses such as No. 362. The same dolichocephalic type appears on the coinage of Polycharm–Nikog (as, for example, No. 376) and succeeding issues.
In the Salonika Hoard, already cited in the commentary on the Early Period, the 300 component tetradrachms belong exclusively to two two-magistrate issues (Glau–Eche and Miki–Theophra) and to four three–magistrate issues (Hera–Aristoph, Mened–Epigeno, Timarchou–Nikago and Polycharm–Nikog). In view of the small number of emissions represented in so large a hoard, it is difficult to believe that they are separated in time. Of the four three–magistrate issues, that of Hera–Aristoph is joined by die identity to the two-magistrate series while those of Timarchou–Nikago and Polycharm–Nikog are contiguous on the evidence of transferred dies. This means that the unrelated striking of Mened–Epigeno should come either between Hera–Aristoph and Timarchou–Nikago or after Polycharm–Nikog. The strong stylistic affinity between its obverses and those of Hera–Aristoph makes it certain that the earlier placement is correct.
The location of Dorothe–Dioph is primarily determined by stylistic considerations. Its obverses find their closest parallels in the emissions of Polycharm–Nikog and Antiochos–Nikog (cf. Nos. 376 and 384; Nos. 388–9 and 396–7). In all three issues there is a tendency toward larger volutes in the helmet ornament and a straightening of the crest terminals so that they hang away from the neck in an almost vertical line. There is, furthermore, a distinctive feature of the ornament which should be noted. Isolated earlier dies (Nos. 350 of Mened–Epigeno and 367 of Timarchou–Nikago) render this decorative design with a sharp twist at its central point and a sweeping prolongation to the right. The same treatment appears on a number of the obverses of Polycharm–Nikog (Nos. 376, 378 and 380) and is characteristic of most of the dies of Dorothe–Dioph and Antiochos–Nikog.
In addition to the stylistic criteria, there are other factors which strengthen the case for the contiguity of Dorothe–Dioph and Antiochos–Nikog. For this Middle Period as a whole, there are five instances of die–joined issues with the same third magistrate serving at the end of one year and the beginning of the next (p. 592). The third magistrate of month M in the emission of Dorothe–Dioph is ANTIΛOX, a rather uncommon name in Attic prosopography. The third magistrate of month A in the emission of Antiochos–Nikog is ANTIΛOX. It would seem almost certain that this is the same man and that his connection with the two issues is another indication that they belong together. Finally there are two minor considerations that couple the strikings under present discussion. Ten of the twelve issues of this first group have the symbol in the left field; Dorothe–Dioph and Antiochos–Nikog have it in the right field. The only three–magistrate emissions of the Kessab Hoard (p. 475) are those of Dorothe–Dioph and Antiochos, with one and five coins respectively. Too few specimens of any issue are included for valid comparisons on the basis of relative wear. The tetradrachms of Antiochos are the finest in the deposit and the one piece of Dorothe–Dioph is almost equally well preserved but its condition is not markedly superior to that of a coin of Miki–Theophra. However, we do again have a combining of the two issues, this time in a hoard which has no later emissions.
Theophra–Sotas shares an obverse die with Antiochos–Karaichos. Transferred dies link the subsequent issues of Dioge–Posei and Achaios–Heli with each other and with the Theophra–Sotas striking. There can, I believe, be no question of the sequence of these issues.
At the end of Group I in the Middle Period we have three emissions which reveal no die connections. Their relative order, nevertheless, seems to me fairly certain. In the sequence thus far discussed, the obverses form a remarkably consistent stylistic pattern. After the transition noted for the issue of Timarchou–Nikago from a brachycephalic to a dolichocephalic head, the latter is the standard representation. Only minor and gradual variations are discernible in the die-linked issues from Antiochos–Nikog through Achaios–Heli. The emission of Lysan–Glaukos begins in the same stylistic tradition. Its earlier obverses are very close to those of Achaios–Heli (cf. Nos. 429–432 with the dies of Plate 43—Nos. 422 and 431 are almost identical); later dies show a hardening of the features which becomes more pronounced in the obverses of Epigene–Sosandros and leads finally to the disagreeable pinched faces of Polemon–Alketes. In the two last strikings there is an attempt to introduce a new obverse style. This proves abortive in the case of Epigene–Sosandros; Nos. 450–1 have no real counterparts elsewhere in the coinage. Nos. 461–3 of Polemon–Alketes, however, are prototypes of a style which is characteristic of the emissions of Group II. This issue then, with some of its obverses reflecting the final stages of the old tradition and others pointing toward a new stylistic pattern, must surely be the last of Group I.
The Naxos Hoard (p. 477) is the only deposit which bears directly on this section of the coinage. Of the first ten strikings of the three-magistrate period, all but three (Timarchou–Nikago, Antiochos–Nikog and Achaios–Heli) are contained in the hoard. According to Mme. Varoucha's arrangement by relative wear, which closely parallels the chronological sequence outlined above, the latest issues are those of Lysan–Glaukos and Dioge–Posei. Since some earlier strikings are missing, no emphasis can be laid upon the absence of the issues of Epigene–Sosandros and Polemon–Alketes, but it is at least worth mentioning that they do not appear in the Naxos find whereas the issue of Lysan–Glaukos, which definitely seems to precede them on the evidence of style, is represented.
The division between Groups I and II is basically one of obverse style. There is a distinct break between the technique of the early issues and the stylistic trends which distinguish the emissions of the second group. There is also a separation along epigraphical lines. Throughout the first twelve issues of the Middle Period the letter zeta is invariably rendered as I. Thereafter it is consistently Z or except in the case of dies of Karaich–Ergokle on which the diagonal stroke is set in from the ends of the horizontals to form the strange hybridization encountered on some issues of the Early Period (p. 121). Finally, it may be noted that the transition between Groups I and II is marked by a shift in the position of the symbol. Save for the issues of Dorothe–Dioph and Antiochos–Nikog, all strikings of Group I have the device in the left field; all subsequent issues show it to the right of the owl.
Up to this point the chronological arrangement has not differed greatly from that outlined by Kambanis in his notebook.1 With the second group of issues belonging to the Middle Period, there are substantial variations from Kambanis' order which will need to be discussed in some detail. The issues of this section are the following:
1. MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI
t (1) 2. AΦPOΔIΣI – AΠOΛH≡I
d(1) h(1) 3. EYPYKΛEI – APIAPA
4. KAPAIX – EPΓOKΛE
t(3) 5. AΦPOΔIΣI – ΔIOΓE
t(1) 6. ΔIONYΣI – ΔIONYΣI
7. AMMΩNIOΣ – KAΛΛIAΣ
8. ӨEMIΣTO – ӨEOΠOMΠOΣ
9. ΣΩKPATHΣ –ΔIONYΣOΔΩ
10. MHTPOΔΩPOΣ – MIΛTIAΔHΣ and ΔHMOΣӨEN
11. ΔIOTIMOΣ – MAΓAΣ
12. EYMAPEIΔHΣ – AΛKIΔAM and KΛEOMEN
d(1) 13. XAPINAYTHΣ – APIΣTEAΣ
14. ΦANOKΛHΣ – AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ
In the preceding pages, mention was made of the appearance in the issue of Polemon–Alketes of a new obverse style, exemplified by three dies (Nos. 461–3 for comparison with the other obverses of PLATE 47). This we shall call Style A. It is characterized by fluttering crest terminals, sprawling helmet ornament with large volutes, loose hair in heavy untidy masses and a profile of quite distinctive cast. Clearly we have in the three dies of Polemon–Alketes the hand of a new diecutter.
The issue which is closest in style to that of Polemon–Alketes is the emission of Mikion–Euryklei, all of its obverses being in the tradition of Style A. Note the similarity of individual dies: Nos.462 and 482, Nos.463 and 487–9.
Style A continues with practically no modification in Obverses 494 and 496X of the Aphrodisi–Apolexi issue but other dies show a development in the arrangement of the hair which will prevail henceforth. The unkempt tresses of the first stage of Style A give place to three heavy locks falling straight, as in Nos. 499 and 502. With this issue we also encounter the first examples of Style B, as illustrated by Obverses 495–6, 497–8 and 503. Heads are larger, profiles rather weak, crest ends generally less fluttering, hair in two rows, and helmet ornament more complicated with an occasional tendency toward a simple sweeping curve from which the volutes all branch to the right (cf. No. 503).
On stylistic grounds there seems to be ample justification for inserting the issue of Mikion–Euryklei between the strikings of Polemon–Alketes and Aphrodisi–Apolexi. Confirmation of the placement comes from the Attic Hoard. This deposit (PLATES 162–171) contains ten issues of the early Middle Period: Hera–Aristoph, Mened–Epigeno, Timarchou–Nikago, Polycharm–Nikog, Dorothe–Dioph, Antiochos–Karaichos, Theophra–Sotas, Achaios– Heli, Mikion–Euryklei and Aphrodisi–Apolexi. Of these the drachms of Mikion–Euryklei and Aphrodisi–Apolexi are in mint condition and clearly the latest of the hoard. The association of Mikion–Euryklei with so many of the early issues of the Middle Period and its definite link with Aphrodisi–Apolexi on evidence of wear support the stylistic argument for its relative position in the sequence under discussion.1
The striking of Euryklei–Ariara is firmly bound to that of Aphrodisi–Apolexi by transferred dies of all three denominations. Its obverses show a continuation of Styles A and B, together with yet a third style which is best illustrated by No. 516. Style C shows a delicately modelled profile, simple crest terminals close to the line of the neck, hair neatly arranged and a small restrained helmet ornament.
With the emission of Karaich–Ergokle we have another issue which Kambanis places late in the sequence, immediately before the striking of Charinautes–Aristeas. The reason for his arrangement is not apparent and it seems to me that the prow issue belongs much earlier, finding its closest stylistic parallels in this section of the coinage. Its obverses are exclusively of Style B and individual dies closely resemble examples of the preceding strikings: cf. No. 535 of Karaich–Ergokle with No. 503 of Aphrodisi–Apolexi and Euryklei–Ariara; No. 524 of Karaich with No. 497 of Aphrodisi. The fact that Style B in its present development is associated only with these three issues (subsequently it dies out to reappear only after a considerable interval and then in a different form) seems to me to indicate that the coinage of Karaich–Ergokle must be contemporary with the issues of Aphrodisi–Apolexi and Euryklei– Ariara. Possibly it belongs at the beginning of this sequence but I feel that its obverses represent a later rather than an introductory stage of Style B and that its present position is preferable.
Styles A and C return to the coinage with the issues of Aphrodisi–Dioge and Dionysi–Dionysi. There is relatively little change in the first but the third style, which is used exclusively for the subsequent emission of Ammonios–Kallias, shows a discernible evolution over the course of the three issues, a trend toward an older and somewhat coarser Athena head (cf., for example, Nos. 551, 557 and 589). The strikings are die–linked as indicated in the listing of issues.
The tetradrachm die transferred from the issue of Dionysi–Dionysi to that of Ammonios–Kallias refutes two links which Kambanis implies in his manuscript and in his summaries of the Zarova and Halmyros Hoards. These involve the issues of Themisto–Theopompos, Ammonios–Kallias and Eumareides–Alkidam, which are bracketed in that order in the BCH articles of 1934 (p. 132) and 1935 (pp. 106 and 117). Nowhere is there any published reference to evidence for these associations but among Kambanis' papers there is a sheet on which are pasted photographs of four coins together with notes indicating an identity of obverse dies. According to this data Kambanis thought Obverse 608 of Themisto–Theopompos the same as Obverse 584 of Ammonios–Kallias and Obverse 592 of the latter issue identical with Obverse 675 of Eumareides–Alkidam. In both instances the dies are indeed close but they are not identical as will be evident from the plates of the present publication, and it is quite likely that Kambanis, before he presented the evidence for the two links in print, would have realized that his associations were erroneous.
In general the heads of Style C as represented in the coinage of Themisto–Theopompos are more delicate than those of Ammonios–Kallias, suggesting an earlier date. Since die links unite the emission of Ammonios–Kallias and its two predecessors, the only alternative position for Themisto–Theopompos would be before Aphrodisi–Dioge. Careful examination of the evolution of Style C does not seem to support such an arrangement. That particular style appears first with Obverse 516 of Euryklei–Ariara and its distinctive characteristics carry over into the markedly similar Obverses 543, 544 and 550–551 of Aphrodisi–Dioge. Although the heads of Themisto–Theopompos are equally compact and well modelled, there is a noticeable difference, particularly in facial expression, between them and the heads of Euryklei–Ariara and Aphrodisi–Dioge; they definitely do not fit between those two issues. On the other hand they are highly comparable in individual instances with heads of Dionysi–Dionysi and Ammonios–Kallias. Compare, for example, No. 606 with No. 571, No. 596 with No. 582, Nos. 608–9 with Nos. 581 and 583.
The issues of Sokrates–Dionysodo and Metrodoros–Miltiades certainly belong together. Both have obverses of Styles A and C and particular dies are very close, as No. 612 for comparison with Nos. 639 and 641, Nos. 611 and 616 for comparison with Nos. 630 and 633. The two strikings have been placed in this order because the Sokrates heads of Style A are generally smaller and more like those of earlier issues whereas those of Metrodoros are rather larger and more akin to the representations of Eumareides–Alkidam. Individual dies substantiate this sequence: No. 624 of Sokrates being similar to No. 608 of Themisto while No.637 of Metrodoros is very like No.664 of Diotimos–Magas.
Four issues which must be considered together complete Group II of this Middle Period. With Diotimos–Magas there is a reappearance of Style B. Note especially Nos. 652, 655 and 657 which are in the direct tradition of the Style B obverses of Euryklei–Ariara and Karaich–Ergokle. Side by side with these dies one finds a variant of Style B, characterized by a hard profile line and by a peculiar rendering of the helmet ornament. Nos. 649, 650–1 and 654 represent this variant type and on No. 649 (as contrasted with No. 652) one can see clearly the way in which the ornament is now separated into two parallel, almost vertical lines terminating in heavy branching volutes (). Other dies of Diotimos–Magas belong to Style C.
Only one die of Eumareides–Alkidam (No. 682) shows a similar treatment of the helmet ornament but in the issue following, that of Charinautes–Aristeas, practically all obverses are further developments of the variant Style B type. Among them one notes a particularly striking form of the helmet ornament with a widely forked division of the volutes at the top (No. 690), a rendering which is repeated with even greater exaggeration on a die of Phanokles–Apollonios (No. 705).
The issue of Phanokles–Apollonios is fixed as the last of the four under present discussion by a die link with the emission of Euboulides–Agathokle at the beginning of Group III. Immediately preceding comes the coinage of Charinautes–Aristeas as indicated by the close similarity of variant Style B obverses in the two issues and the tendency in both toward experimentation with elaborate versions of the helmet ornament.1
On the evidence of variant Style B, Diotimos–Magas should come just before Charinautes–Aristeas since it includes more examples of that style than does Eumareides–Alkidam, but there are considerations against such an arrangement. The reappearance of Style B in its original form occurs in the coinage of Diotimos which has three obverses highly comparable with those of the earlier issues of Euryklei–Ariara and Karaich–Ergokle. The obverses of Style C of Diotimos are in the direct tradition of Sokrates–Dionysodo and Metrodoros–Miltiades (No. 661 with No. 633, No. 664 with No. 637) while those of Eumareides are much closer to the style of Phanokles–Apollonios (compare Nos. 674–5 and 678 with Nos. 698 and 701–4). Finally and conclusively, there is a drachm link between the issues of Eumareides–Alkidam and Phanokles– Apollonios which establishes their proximity.
This fractional die would seem to span three years. Bringing Eumareides–Alkidam and Phanokles–Apollonios into direct sequence would involve a displacement of the issue of Charinautes–Aristeas which has extremely close stylistic connections with that of Phanokles–Apollonios. Moreover, we already have proof from the linked issues of Theophra–Sotas, Dioge–Posei and Achaios–Heli that a drachm die could be used over more than two years.2The die link between Eumareides–Alkidam and Phanokles–Apollonios does not prove contiguity but it does indicate strongly that the former issue comes after rather than before Diotimos–Magas. While a drachm die could, and did, carry over three years, it is difficult to credit a survival through four emissions.
In the absence of die links for seven of the fourteen issues of this present group, no one would maintain that its order is absolutely fixed but I do believe that the arrangement is fairly certain and that any adjustments necessitated by future discoveries will be minor ones.
The last eleven issues of the Middle Period provide a firm sequence, each emission linked to at least one other and six of the eleven anchored at both ends.1 The strikings are as follows:
t(1) ΦANOKΛHΣ – AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ
t(2) d(1) 1. EYBOYΛIΔHΣ – AΓAӨOKΛH and ZΩIΛOΣ – EYANΔPOΣ
t (4) 2. ΔAMΩN – ΣΩΣIKPATHΣ
t (1) 3. EYMHΛOΣ – KAΛΛIΦΩN
d(l) h(1) 4. HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ (I)
d(l) 5. ӨEOΔOTOΣ – KΛEOΦANHΣ
t (3) 6. HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ (II)
d(l) 7. ANΔPEAΣ –XAPINAYTHΣ
t(1) d(1) 8. IKEΣIOΣ – AΣKΛHΠIAΔHΣ
t(3) d(1) 9. TIMOΣTPATOΣ – EΠOΣHΣ
t(3) 10. AMΦIKPATHΣ – EΠIΣTPATOΣ
ll. ΔΩΣIӨEOΣ – XAPIAΣ
There is little that need detain us in this section of the coinage since the chronological arrangement is fully established by the die links. It might be pointed out, however, that the stylistic evolution of these contiguous issues follows a pattern identical with that observed in the earlier issues and thus affords confirmation of the validity of style as a criterion for arrangement when die links are lacking. It was, in fact, style alone that originally determined the placement of the Theodotos–Kleophanes emission; subsequently the discovery of a transferred drachm die proved its insertion between the two Herakleides–Eukles strikings to be correct.
Variant Style B survives in one die of Euboulides–Agathokle (No. 714); Style A in a number of obverses of that same year. With Damon–Sosikrates there is a single die which should perhaps be considered in the tradition of Style B. Otherwise all obverses are a development of Style C of the earlier issues. For the most part the rendering is not unpleasing through the coinage of Theodotos–Kleophanes. With the second year of Herakleides–Eukles it begins to deteriorate and becomes progressively worse with succeeding issues. By the emission of Dositheos–Charias the heavy, rather coarse heads surrounded by exaggerated dots have lost every vestige of charm.
Two hoards are to be associated with the terminal years of the Middle Period. There is not much information to be derived from the Salamis Hoard (pp. 518f.) even if its composition is complete. It includes four tetradrachms of this third group, the latest a piece of Timostratos–Poses. All are worn, almost as much so as the very early strikings, and this fact combined with the scanty representation of all issues makes it impossible to derive any help as to chronological arrangement from the state of preservation of individual specimens. The second deposit is Delos Hoard Γ, which Svoronos publishes in the JIAN for 1906 (pp. 260–267). In this large hoard all issues of the Middle Period are represented, save for the coinages of Polycharm–Nikog, Mikion–Euryklei and Karaich–Ergokle,1 down through the second year of Herakleides– Eukles. The tetradrachms in the best state of preservation are those of Herakleides–Eukles and Theodotos–Kleophanes, all are fine and some are in mint condition. This strongly substantiates the position of Theodotos–Kleophanes if further evidence were needed.
There is a striking difference between the earliest and latest reverses of the Middle Period. On the dies of Hera–Aristoph a well–proportioned owl with small head and eyes and with carefully delineated V–shaped feathers sits on a modest amphora, the whole surrounded by a wreath with long slender leaves and small berries. In the coinage of Dositheos–Charias a scrawny bird with large head and protruding eyes and with feathers indicated by heavy blobs is rendered on a disproportionately large and elongated vase within a sketchily outlined wreath of shapeless leaves and heavy berries. This degeneration of the basic type is a gradual process. Its evolution is in complete accord with the overall chronology and serves to confirm the more precise evidence of obverse style in placing individual issues within broad groups. It does not help in establishing an absolute chronology.
In this respect the inscriptions are of somewhat greater assistance. Starting again with Hera–Aristoph we find letters that are small, rather thin and neatly cut, adequately spaced and in good relative proportion. A similarity of execution characterizes the ensuing six strikings. With the coinage of Dioge–Posei through that of Polemon–Alketes the letters become thicker and heavier, occasionally out-sized, and there is a tendency to run them together with a consequent loss in legibility. From Mikion–Euryklei through Aphrodisi– Dioge, there is a further deterioration in the direction of careless cutting, crowding together of letters, poor alignment and poor relative proportions. Note how the reverses of Mikion–Euryklei, Aphrodisi–Apolexi and Karaich–Ergokle exemplify this technique. With Dionysi–Dionysi one sees a distinct improvement in the size and execution of individual letters. This continues to be true of the dies of Ammonios–Kallias, Themisto–Theopompos, Sokrates– Dionysodo and Metrodoros–Miltiades (cf. Nos. 582a, 606e, 620b and 629c). The crowding of the flans in these issues is due not to careless workmanship but to the growing trend toward less abbreviation in magistrates' names.
Some of the reverses of Diotimos–Magas are neat and well cut; others show a thickening and running together of the letters which leads into the style of the next issues. The dies of Eumareides–Alkidam, Charinautes–Aristeas, Phanokles–Apollonios and Euboulides–Agathokle are highly comparable. On the whole the letters are still restrained and legible, if at times excessively crowded, but there are individual dies which are very poorly cut (note Nos. 669, 677e, 688a and 699a). From Damon–Sosikrates on an increasing carelessness prevails, culminating in the appallingly clumsy reverses of Timostratos–Poses, Amphikrates–Epistratos and Dositheos–Charias.
These varying inscriptional trends help in the association of individual issues but they cannot do much more than this. For example, the marked similarity of reverse dies in the strikings of Ammonios–Kallias, Themisto–Theopompos, Sokrates–Dionysodo and Metrodoros–Miltiades, as noted above, indicates a contemporaneity of the four issues. The differences in reverse technique, however, are too slight to be of any use in determining whether Sokrates–Dionysodo, for instance, belongs before or after Metrodoros–Miltiades.
During the Middle Period of the coinage the inscriptions as they pertain to the annual magistrates tend to become increasingly elaborate. There is, however, no distinct break between issues with abbreviated names and those in which the names are inscribed in full. From the beginning through the striking of Sokrates–Dionysodo the practice is to abbreviate at least one name, more commonly both, but there are exceptions: Antiochos and Karaichos, Polemon and Alketes, Ammonios and Kallias. From Metrodoros–Miltiades on, the two names are written in full except for Demosthen, who replaced Miltiades as the colleague of Metrodoros, both second magistrates of the Eumareides striking, and Agathokle of 142/1 b.c. With regard to third magistrates the situation is the reverse. The longer, less abbreviated versions occur in the early and middle stages of the period; the shortest names are to be found in the last three issues, due no doubt to the clumsy lettering which left little room on the flans for anything but the names of the annual officials.
Die positions are predominantly regular (↑↑) but there are deviations in almost every issue. From Hera–Aristoph through Mikion–Euryklei all emissions, except those of Theophra–Sotas and Dioge–Posei, show a high proportion of dies with a slight orientation to the left ↑ ↖. Beginning with Aphrodisi–Apolexi and continuing through Eumareides–Alkidam, there are still some dies in all issues with the same relationship but far fewer than in the preceding group. Four strikings (Euryklei–Ariara, Karaich–Ergokle, Themisto–Theopompos and Metrodoros–Miltiades) have a single die each with deviation to the right ↑ ↗. The emissions of Charinautes–Aristeas, Phanokles–Apollonios, Eumelos–Kalliphon, Herakleides–Eukles (I) and Timostratos–Poses are consistently ↑↑; all others of the late sequence show an occasional ↑ ↗ orientation while four dies belonging to Zoilos–Euandros and Damon– Sosikrates repeat the ↑ ↖ relationship of the earlier issues. These divergencies are, of course, minor and the evidence for them is incomplete but the pattern that emerges is interesting in that it divides the coinage into three groups in line with the chronological arrangement: an initial period of extensive variation ↑ ↖, a second period with considerably less variation in the same direction, followed by a third period with occasional ↑ ↗ orientation.
Control combinations in the Middle Period are more consistent and more restricted than was the case with the issues of the Early Period (see page 614 for the listing). The first three strikings are exceptional. Their controls include combinations, such as AN and MH, which survive from the preceding coinage and which do not appear elsewhere in the Middle Period; combinations, such as AΠ and ΠE, which occur only on later issues of this period; and a single combination—ΓΛ—which is confined to the reverses of Hera–Aristoph and Mened–Epigeno. The recurrence on these three issues of rare and distinctive combinations underlines their separation from the other issues of the Middle Period and their chronological unity.
The emissions from Polycharm–Nikog through Dionysi–Dionysi are remarkably uniform in their use of exactly four control combinations: ΔI, ME, ΣΦ, ΣΩ. All issues but three are limited to three combinations—always ME, almost always ΣΦ, and either ΔI or ΣΩ for the third. Euryklei–Ariara has ΔI, ME, ΣΩ; Karaich–Ergokle and Dionysi–Dionysi employ all four combinations; Epigene–Sosandros is exceptional in using five and substituting HP and ΠP for ΣΩ.
Four control combinations is standard practice from Ammonios–Kallias through the end of the Middle Period, the only deviations being five issues with five controls and one with three. Seven different combinations are to be found: AΠ, ΔI, ME, ΠE, ΣO, ΣΦ, ΣΩ. Of these, ME is invariable, as it has been from the issue of Mened–Epigeno, and ΣO is missing from only one striking. ΣΦ drops out with Eumelos–Kalliphon and AΠ comes in a year earlier to persist from Damon–Sosikrates through Dositheos–Charias. ΔI is abandoned with the emission of Charinautes–Aristeas.
Another noteworthy feature of the Middle Period of the coinage is the extent to which recutting is practiced. The earliest issues resemble those of the preceding period in having an occasional re–engraving of a date or a control combination. Only in two or three instances is there an alteration of the name of the third magistrate. Systematic recutting of names begins in the issue of Euryklei–Ariara but for a time it is not employed on an extensive scale. Later it becomes almost routine procedure for keeping reverse dies in operation. Generally only two names are involved, one cut over the other. Then with the coinage of Charinautes–Aristeas and subsequent issues one finds numerous examples of three names and three amphora letters. The reverse belonging to Damon–Sosikrates with four names and five dates is fortunately unique.
1 |
The chief divergence is in the order indicated for Antiochos–Nikog, Theophra–Sotas, Dioge–Posei and Achaios–Heli;
there is also a transposition of Epigene–Sosandros and Polemon–Alketes. From the data left by Kambanis one gets the
impression that the sequence of issues in his notebook, which is almost identical with the arrangement of his cast trays,
represents the
latest stage of Kambanis' thinking regarding chronology. Somewhat different arrangements appear in the summaries of
the Zarova and Halmyros Hoards (BCH, 1934, p. 132 and BCH, 1935, pp. 106 and 117) but there Kambanis has specified that he is not attempting a final
order.
|
1 |
Kambanis places it much later, after the issue of Metrodoros–Demosthen with which he evidently thought it should be
connected. His association of the two strikings stems, I believe, from a pair of casts in his tray, labelled Romanos. The
obverse is our Die
640, used for tetradrachms of Metrodoros–Demosthen; the reverse belongs to Mikion–Euryklei. This would, of course, establish
a die link
between the two issues. However, an examination of the Romanos Collection revealed that two separate coins are involved. The
obverse cast
belongs to our No. 640f. the reverse to No. 480h with a totally different obverse.
|
1 |
Bellinger, Kambanis and Svoronos are in
agreement on the association of these issues. Kambanis even brackets them in two BCH listings
(1934, p. 132 and 1935, p. 106) but he gives no proof of the implied identity of dies.
|
1 |
All these connections with the exception of the link between Phanokles–Apollonios and Euboulides–Agathokle and the one between
Herakleides–Eukles (I) and Theodotos–Kleophanes are published by Kambanis in
Arethuse
and in various BCH articles. In several instances, however, his listings show erroneous couplings.
Andreas–Charinautes, Hikesios–Asklepiades and Timostratos–Poses are bracketed in that order in
Arethuse
(p. 12) but on page 14 of the same publication the sequence is given as Andreas–Charinautes, Timostratos–Poses and Amphikrates–
Epistratos. Later in the BCH for 1934 (p. 132) and 1935 (pp. 106 and 117) Kambanis lists
Timostratos–Poses, Hikesios–Asklepiades, Andreas–Charinautes. As Bellinger (
Hesperia
, Suppl. VIII, p. 19) points out, these are mistakes, for the
Arethuse
and BCH (1932) plates show clearly the die identities between Andreas–Charinautes and Hikesios–Asklepiades and
between Timostratos– Poses and Amphikrates–Epistratos. Of the connection between Hikesios–Asklepiades and Timostratos–Poses,
Kambanis writes that it is certain but that he has been unable to find the proof of it.
|
1 |
The absence of coins from the two large strikings of Mikion–Euryklei and Karaich– Ergokle is surprising. Possibly it can
be interpreted as
another indication of propinquity to the issues of Epigene–Sosandros and Polemon–Alketes, two other extensive emissions which
are represented
in the hoard by only one coin each.
|
2 |
Actually in the present instance it is possible that there was no drachm coinage for the intervening issue of Charinautes–Aristeas
since our
one example is a plated specimen which may or may not have been an official issue.
|
Tetradrachms
879. | |||||
AΠ | A | ΠE | *Athens, gr. 16.40↑ | ||
880. | |||||
ΦI | A | ΠE | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.) | ||
881. | |||||
ΦI | A | ΣO | *Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.47↑; Berlin (Sv. 58, 22), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.34 | ||
882. | |||||
ΦI | A | AΠ | *London (Sv. 58, 1), gr. 16.21↑ | ||
883. | |||||
a. | AΠ | A | AΠ | *Paris, gr. 16.26↑; ANS–ETN, amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.46↑ | |
b. | O 1 | B | AΠ | *Halmyros Hd. | |
c. | AΠ | Ḅ | AΠ | ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 15.68↑ | |
d. | AΠ | Γ | AΠ | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.60↑; Berlin (Sv. 58, 5), gr. 16.31; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.57↑ | |
884. | |||||
a. | AΠ | A | ? | ANS–ETN, gr. 16.34↑ | |
b. | — | 1 | ΠA | Berlin, gr. 16.18; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.50↑; *Commerce 1953, amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 15.61 | |
c. | — | ? | AΠ | Halmyros Hd. | |
d. | — | ? | AΠ | Leningrad, gr. 15.99↑ | |
885. | |||||
a. | AΠ | A | ΣO | *Berlin (Sv. 58, 2), gr. 16.58; Berlin, gr. 16.33; Leningrad, gr. 16.80↑ | |
b. | — | H | ΣO | Copenhagen (SNG 191), gr. 15.16↑ | |
c. | AΠ | I | ΣO | ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.36↑ |
886. | |||||
ΦI | B | ME | *Berlin, gr. 16.15 | ||
887. | |||||
ΦI | B | ΠE | *Berlin, gr. 16.29; Athens (Delos Hd. IΓ),broken↑; Gotha, amphora letter uncertain | ||
888. | |||||
AΠ | B | ΠE | *Athens, gr. 16.07↑ | ||
889. | |||||
a. | ΦI | B | ME | *Andreopoulos Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Berlin, gr. 16.58; Leningrad, gr. 15.96↑ | |
b. | ΦI | ? | ? | Leningrad, broken↑ | |
890. | |||||
ΦI | B | AΠ | *Athens (Sv. 58, 3), gr. 15.80; Petsalis Coll. With Γ/B: ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.04↑ | ||
891. | |||||
a. | Ạ | B | ΠE | *London, gr. 16.60↑; Berlin, gr. 16.33 | |
b. | AΠ | B | ΣO | Commerce 1955 | |
c. | AΠ | Γ | ΣO | Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Ratto, Apr. 1927, 1380, gr. 16.11 | |
892. | |||||
a. | AΠ | B | ΣO | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.85↑ | |
b. | AΠ | Γ | ΣO | Romanos Coll. (Sv. 58, 4), gr. 16.35 | |
c. | AΠ | Δ | ΣO | *London (BMC 362; Sv. 58, 7), gr.16.34↑; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.55↑ | |
893. | |||||
a. | ΦI | B | ΣO/? | Ball VI, 280, gr. 15.50; Berlin | |
b. | ΦI | E | ΣO | *Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.53↑ | |
894. | |||||
a. | AΠ | B | MH | Meletopoulos Coll. | |
b. | ? | B | MH | *Bauer Coll. (Gans Mail Bid 16, 310), gr. 16.55↑; ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.71↑; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.59↑ | |
c. | — | K | MH | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.47↑ | |
d. | — | K | MH | *London (BMC 364), gr. 16.04↑; Leningrad↑; Berlin, gr. 15.66 | |
895. | |||||
AΠ | Γ | MH | *Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.52↑; Berlin, gr. 15.96 | ||
896. | |||||
AΠ | Γ | AΠ | *ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.27↑; Athens, magistrate and amphora letter uncertain, gr 16.65↑ | ||
897. | |||||
a. | A | Γ | AΠ | *Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.70↑ | |
b. | AΠ | AΠ | Leningrad, gr. 15.97↑ | ||
c. | AΠ | E | AΠ | Athens (Sv. 58, 10), gr. 16.40↑; Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.42 (corroded)↑; Berlin, gr. 16.43 | |
d. | [A]Π | Ẹ | AΠ | Athens (Delos Hd. κζ, 36), gr. 15.45↑ | |
898. | |||||
a. | ? | Γ | ? | *Halmyros Hd. | |
b. | AΠ | Δ | ΠE | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.45↑ | |
c. | ? | Δ | ΠE | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.42↑ | |
d. | AΠ | E | ΠE | Tübingen, gr. 16.26; Oxford, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 15.94 | |
899. | |||||
a. | — | Γ/(?)B | MH | Athens, gr. 16.25↑ | |
b. | Ạ | Δ | MH | *Paris (Sv. 58,6), gr. 16.55↑; Leningrad, gr. 15.69↑ | |
c. | — | E | MH | Commerce 1955 (Halmyros Hd.) | |
d. | AΠ | I/Ө/H | MH/AΠ | ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.74↑; Washington Univ. | |
900. | |||||
a. | AΠ | Δ | ΣO | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.) | |
b. | AΠ | Ẹ/Δ | ΣO/MH | *Halmyros Hd.; Hamburger 98, 691, gr. 16.63 | |
c. | — | E | MH | *London (BMC 363), gr. 15.48↑ | |
d. | Ạ | ? | ΣO | Athens, gr. 16.30↑ | |
901. | |||||
— | E | MH | *Athens (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.66↑ | ||
902. | |||||
— | E | ṂḤ | *Kambanis Coll. | ||
903. | |||||
a. | OΛY | E | AΠ | ANS, gr. 16.44↑; Athens (Delos Hd.≡Ө),broken | |
b. | OΛY | Ẹ | AΠ | *Berlin, gr. 16.17 | |
904. | |||||
a. | AΠ | E | ΠE | Munich, gr. 16.57; Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Lockett Coll. (SNG 1915), gr. 16.67↑; Berlin, gr. 16.22 | |
b. | — | Ẹ | MH | Commerce 1955 | |
c. | AΠ | Z/E | ΠE | ANS–ETN, gr. 16.47↑ | |
d. | AΠ | Z | AΠ | Berlin, gr. 15.45 | |
e. | AΠ | ? | ΠE | *Berne, gr. 16.26 | |
905. | |||||
a. | ΦI | E | ΠE | Berlin (Sv. 58, 11), gr. 16.41; Athens (Delos Hd. IΓ), control letters uncertain↑ | |
b. | ΦI | E | ΠE | Lockett Coll. (SNG 1916) = Naville (Pozzi) 1602, gr. 16.46↑. With OΛY/ΦI: Athens, gr. 16.00↑ | |
c. | OΛY | E | ΠE(?) | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.42↑ | |
d. | OΛY | H | ΠE | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.) | |
e. | — | H | ΠE/AΠ | *London (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.61↑; ANS (Anatolia Hd.), amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 15.78↑ | |
f. | — | H | ΠE | Glasgow (Hunt. 128), gr. 16.58↑; Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.68↑; Leningrad, gr. 15.91↑ | |
906. | |||||
a. | ΦI | E | MH | *Vienna, gr. 16.41 | |
b. | ΦI | E | MH | Leningrad (Sv. 58, 8). With OΛY/ΦI: *Naples (Mus. Naz., Fiorelli 7145), gr. 16.20↑ | |
c. | OΛY | E | MH | London (Sv. 58, 20), gr. 16.46↑; Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.) | |
d. | — | H | MH | Athens (Sv. 58, 16), gr. 15.82↑ | |
e. | — | H | MH | ANS–ETN, gr. 16.04↑; Commerce (Sv. 58, 15, Feuardent), gr. 16.30 | |
907. | |||||
a. | ΦI | E | ΣO | *Paris, gr. 16.41↑ | |
b. | OΛY/ΦI | E | ΣO | Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Commerce 1952 | |
c. | OΛY | E | ΣO | *Copenhagen (SNG 192; Sv. 58, 9), gr. 16.15↑ | |
d. | OΛY | E(?) | ΣO | L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 15.90 | |
e. | — | H | ΣO | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Leningrad, gr. 16.60↑ | |
f. | — | p | ΠE | Lyons | |
908. | |||||
a. | ΦI | E | MH | *Athens (Halmyros Hd.) | |
b. | ΦI | I | ME | Athens (Delos Hd. ΛӨ), broken↑ | |
909. | |||||
a. | AΠ | Ẹ | ΠE | Uncertain1 | |
b. | AΠ | Z | ΠE | *Paris, gr. 16.22↑; Berlin (Sv. 58, 18), gr. 16.17; Leningrad, gr. 15.98↑ | |
c. | ? | Z | ΠE | Halmyros Hd. | |
d. | AΠ | H | ΠE | Athens (Halmyros Hd.) | |
910. | |||||
a. | AΠ | ? | ΠE | *Bauer Coll. | |
b. | AΠ | Z | AΠ | *Cancio Coll. | |
c. | ? | Z | AΠ/MH | London, gr. 15.76 (pierced)↑ | |
911. | |||||
AΠ | Ẓ | AΠ | *London (BMC 365), gr. 16.34↑ | ||
912. | |||||
a. | AN2 | Z/E | MH | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); ANS–ETN, gr. 15.47↑ | |
b. | AΠ | Z | MH | *Vienna, gr. 16.18 | |
c. | AΠ | Z | MH | Berlin, gr. 16.42 | |
d. | AΠ | Z | ΠE(?) | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.15↑3 | |
913. | |||||
— | Z | AΠ | Istanbul, gr. 16.47↑; *ANS (Halmyros Hd), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.59↑ | ||
914. | |||||
AΠ(?) | Z | ΣO | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.) | ||
915. | |||||
AΠ | Z | ΣO | *Frankfurt am Main; Paris, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 15.75↑ | ||
916. | |||||
a. | AΠ | Z | ΣO | *ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.57↑; Commerce 1955 | |
b. | AΠ | ? | ΣO | Herakleion (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.62↑ | |
917. | |||||
a. | AΠ | Z | MH | *Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 3224), gr. 16.34↑; Lockett Coll. (SNG 1917) = Sv. 58, 12, commerce, gr. 16.54↑; Budapest, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.25↑ |
b. | Ạ | Z | MH | Athens (Carystus Hd. II; BCH, 1958, Pl.XLIX, 4), gr. 16.65 | |
c. | AΠ | H | MH | Commerce 1932 | |
918. | a. | AΠ | Z | ΣO | *Copenhagen (SNG 188; Sv. 58, 14), gr. 16.56↑; Glasgow (Hunt. 127), gr. 16.63↑ |
b. | ? | Z | ΣO | Ratto (Rogers) 413, gr. 16.00 | |
c. | AΠ | H | ΣO | Berlin (Sv. 58, 17), gr. 16.27; Commerce 1955 | |
919. | |||||
a. | AΠ | Z | AΠ | ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 15.54↑; Leningrad, gr. 16.38↑ | |
b. | ? | H | AΠ | Athens (Delos Hd. B, 43), gr. 15.05 (corroded)↑ | |
c. | AΠ | Ө/H | AΠ | *ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.68↑; Leningrad | |
920. | |||||
a. | — | Ḥ | MH | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.42↑ | |
b. | — | I | MH | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.) | |
921. | |||||
a. | AΠ | H | ΠE | Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Athens (Halmyros Hd.) | |
b. | AΠ | Ө | ΠE | Commerce 1932 | |
c. | Ạ | Ө | ΠE | Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.) | |
d. | AΠ | ΠE | London = Weber 3523, gr. 16.34↑ | ||
e. | AΠ | I | ΠE | *Copenhagen (SNG 189), gr. 16.64↑ | |
f. | ΦI | I | ΠE | Commerce (Sv. 58, 18, Feuardent), gr. 16.32 | |
g. | AΠ | K | Ẹ | ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.87↑ | |
h. | AΠ | Λ | ΠE | *Athens (Oreos Hd.) | |
i. | AΠ | Λ | ΠE | Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 15.03 (corroded)↑ | |
j. | AΠ | Λ | ΠE | Berlin, gr. 15.92; Athens (Delos Hd. IΛ)↑ | |
922. | |||||
a. | ΦI | I | ΣỌ | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.) | |
b. | ΦI | I | ΣO | Copenhagen (SNG 190), gr. 16.27↑1; Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.) | |
c. | Ạ | M/(?)Λ | ΣO | ANS (Abruzzi Hd.), gr. 15.90↑ | |
d. | AΠ | M/? | ΣO | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.76↑ |
923. | |||||
a. | ΦI | I | MH | *Petsalis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.75; Berlin, gr. 15.29 | |
b. | ΦI | K | MH | ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.10↑ | |
924. | |||||
a. | AΠ | I | AΠ | Berlin, gr. 15.91 | |
b. | AΠ | K | AΠ | Athens (Sv. 58, 19), gr. 16.00↑; ANS (Anatolia Hd.), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.56↑ | |
c. | AΠ | M | AΠ | Milan (Sv. 58, 21), gr. 16.50 | |
d. | AΠ | M | ΠE | *Empedocles Coll. | |
925. | |||||
a. | AΠ | Λ/K | MH | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Kress 90, 236, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.40 | |
b. | AΠ | Λ | MH | Berry Coll., gr. 16.76↑ | |
c. | AΠ | M | MH | ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.78↑ | |
d. | AΠ | M | MH | Oxford, gr. 16.18; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.64↑; Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.) |
Drachms
926. | ||||
— | Ḅ | — | *Berlin (Sv. 58, 23), gr. 3.97 | |
927. | ||||
— | E | — | *Athens, gr. 3.12↑ | |
928. | ||||
— | ? | — | *Copenhagen (SNG 193), gr. 3.69↑ | |
195 tetradrachms: 47 obverse, 123 reverse dies 3 drachms: 3 obverse, 3 reverse dies | ||||
Magistrates: AΠ, OΛY, ΦI | ||||
Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, H, Ө, I, K, Λ, M | ||||
Controls: AΠ, ME, MH, ΠE, ΣO |
In 1858 Beulé, publishing forty–seven specimens of the Demetrios–Agathippos issue, made this comment: ''Deux noms, trois au plus, ... se partagent les divers chiffres d'émission, et avec un assez grand désordre auquel je ne saurais remédier." The past century has increased both the total of known coins and the confusion of the record.1
What emerges in the diagrammatical survey of this issue is an unparalleled change in the system governing the tenure of third magistrates. The abbreviated names of three individuals appear on reverse dies but the principle of rotation has been completely abandoned. AΠ is in office throughout the year. ΦI works with him in A, B, Γ, E, I and K; OΛY serves with AΠ and ΦI in B and E and with AΠ in H. Seventeen reverses (of months Γ, E, Z, H, I and K) are anonymous in that there are no letters indicating a third magistrate.
This is all most extraordinary. Not only is there the basic problem of two or three third magistrates holding office simultaneously during at least seven months of the year but, and this is perhaps even more puzzling, there seems to be no real correlation between the size of the coinage in a given month and the number of third magistrates controlling it. In B and E the relationship of output and magistrates is reasonable. There are ten obverse dies in operation during the second month of the year and these are shared by AΠ, ΦI and OΛ; the fourteen obverses of E (the heaviest month of striking) are associated with AΠ, ΦI, OΛY and anonymous reverses. In Z, however, AΠ functions alone, yet in this month there are twelve obverse dies in operation: eleven used with reverses inscribed AΠ and one with a single anonymous reverse. Then toward the end of the year when the coinage is lighter one finds the nine obverses of I and the four of K combined with AΠ, ΦI and anonymous reverses.
Kambanis expresses in print (BCH, 1932, p. 52) and in unpublished notes his conviction that the coinage of Demetrios–Agathippos extended over more than one year and he seems, judging by his arrangement of the material, to have been considered a division according to the four categories of reverses: those with AΠ, those with ΦI, those with OΛY and those without third magistrate. One cannot tell whether or not he was thinking in terms of four annual issues.
It was apparently the amount of silver struck under Demetrios and Agathippos and the erratic pattern of third magistrate control which led Kambanis to believe that the coinage must be spread over several years. He had not attempted to arrange it by obverse and reverse dies. When one does that, it becomes clear that the four reverse categories are contemporary. There are at least three reverse dies (Nos. 905b, 906b and 907b) on which OΛY is cut over ΦI. The other reverses associated with these same obverse dies are divided between ΦI, OΛY and anonymous. ΦI and AΠ share Obverses 921 and 922; AΠ and OΛ Obverse 888. Uninscribed reverses are scattered throughout the year, sharing obverses with AΠ, with ΦI and with OΛY, sometimes with both ΦI and OΛY. Furthermore in this association of the reverses of different magistrates with a single obverse it is noteworthy that the reverses are generally from the middle months of the calendar. There is no instance of, for example, the same obverse used with an AΠ reverse of M and a ΦI reverse of A, which would indicate a carry-over of the die from one year to another and hence separate annual issues. Unless one adopts the unlikely hypothesis that an identical pattern of third magistrate control characterized successive strikings of Demetrios–Agathippos, one must assign their coinage to a single year.
Although the abandonment of the principle of rotation of third magistrates reaches its culmination in the present issue, there have been a few earlier indications of a trend in that direction. In 143/2 b.c. under Phanokles and Apollonis two third magistrates, ΣAT and ΣTPATIOΣ seem to have served together in month lambda and in the year following ΣΩKPAT and ΛAMIOΣ were apparently in office at the same time. With the coinage of Dositheos and Charias, immediately preceding that of Demetrios–Agathippos, we have evidence of a more violent departure from the system of orderly rotation of third magistrates. ΔION starts the year, appearing on reverses of A and B. NIK either succeeds him in B or serves with him for that month and alone for Γ. Then ΔION returns for Δ, E and Z. ΣOΛ takes over in H and Ө, yielding to ΓΛ in I. XAIP appears on reverses of K, Λ and M but ΣOΛ returns to office and is also inscribed on reverses of Λ and M. So for at least the last two months of the year there would seem to have been two third magistrates in charge. This is not yet the all–out chaos of Demetrios–Agathippos but it definitely foreshadows it.
The year 131/0 witnessed a truly tremendous output of coinage. Forty– seven obverse dies are known, the largest number for any issue in the series. This is, however, a period of extensive emissions. The issue of Niketes–Dionysios in 130/29 required thirty–three obverse dies, that of Aristion–Philon in the next year used thirty, and five years later the issue of Xenokles–Harmoxenos with dolphin and trident symbol employed forty–two. High as the number of obverse and reverse dies is in the present record, it is almost certain that many more reverses at least were originally cut for Demetrios and Agathippos. There are numerous examples of an obverse–reverse combination represented by a single coin, many obverses are recorded with a single reverse, and there are three instances of extensive gaps in the sequence of amphora letters. Obverses 884, 885 and 894 seem to have lasted for nine months each. This is surprising durability for an obverse die in a large emission1 and it is all the more puzzling in that we have no amphora letter between A and I associated with Obverse 884, none between A and H with Obverse 885 and none between B and K with Obverse 894. Either the three dies were put aside for some reason and brought back into use after a considerable interval2 or there are a great many reverse dies missing from the record for these three obverses alone.
1 |
The small O is clear to the left of the amphora base and the Λ almost certain.
|
1 |
In Kambanis' record this coin is erroneously assigned to the Newell Collection.
|
1 |
The amphora letter is given in the Sylloge as H but there is no horizontal stroke and the second vertical is merely
a banding line on the neck of the amphora.
|
1 |
The present catalogue corresponds fairly closely with earlier listings of magistrates, months and control combinations. The
ΠA cited by
Sundwall as a magistrate on one coin and a control combination on another would seem to be merely a
transposition of letters in the cutting of the two dies. Beulé records three examples of ΣΩ as a control combination and Sundwall
repeats Beulé's citations. One piece cannot be checked; the other two are Paris specimens
(our Nos.907a and 915). No. 907a is definitely inscribed ΣO, and although the Paris example of No. 915 is not
clearly legible in the exergue, it is from the same reverse die as a Frankfurt coin
on which the ΣO is unmistakable. ΦΛI as a magistrate's name, recorded by Beulé for a Berlin coin, is a recutting:
OΛY/ΦI. The KΛEAΣ entry of Svoronos (JIAN, 1906, p. 269) is less easily explicible. I have examined the coins in the
Athens cabinet and there is no tetradrachm of the Demetrios–Agathippos issue which
has KΛEAΣ as a third magistrate. The record would certainly seem to be an error but I cannot imagine how it originated.
In the BCH for 1934 (p. 106) Kambanis gives a number of readings from the coins of the Halmyros Hoard which are not to be found in the present catalogue: ΦI with Z; OΛY with Δ/Γ; OΛY with Z; — with Ө; — with M; — with N. The last is a crucial entry since, if correct, it would establish 131/0 as an intercalary year. Fortunately we have a check on this record in the notebook which contains Kambanis' detailed listing of all coins known to him. This notebook compilation is of later date than the published article. Both ΦI with Z and OΛY with Δ/Γ from the Halmyros Hoard appear in the notebook (the latter with "à vérifier" after it) but both have been crossed through indicating that Kambanis on rechecking had found the readings erroneous or dubious. In the notebook there is no record of — with M or — with N and we can, I believe, feel confident that re–examination had established the incorrectness of those readings. OΛY with Z and — with Ө are in the notebook as well as in the article and probably represent two reverse dies which I do not have. |
2 |
This would seem to be a diecutter's mistake in substituting N for Π.
|
3 |
Graffiti, Ч and Γ, are visible to either side of the letter combination.
|
Tetradrachms
929. | |||||
ΔHMO | A | ΣO | *Evelpidis Coll. | ||
930. | |||||
ΔHMO | A | ΣO | *ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.75↗ | ||
931. | |||||
a. | ΔHMO | A | ΣO | *Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.80↑ | |
b. | ΔHMO | A | ΠE | *Munich, gr. 16.12 |
932. | |||||
a. | ΔHMO | A | MH | Vienna, gr. 16.29; Berry Coll. (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.72↑; Romanos Coll. (Sv. 66, 1), gr. 16.731 | |
b. | ΔHMO | B/A | MH | *Empedocles Coll. (Zarova Hd.) = Sv. 66,2, Asteriades | |
c. | ΔHMO | B | MH | Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.) | |
933. | |||||
a. | ΔHMO | A | ΠE | *Berlin (Sv. 66, 17), gr. 16.49; Athens (Halmyros Hd.), amphora and control letters uncertain | |
b. | ΔHMO | B/A | ΠE | ANS (Abruzzi Hd.), gr. 16.10↑ | |
c. | ΔHMO | B | ΣO | Schulman, Mar. 1924, 66 = Sotheby (O'Hagan) 431, gr. 16.70 | |
d. | ΔHMO | Γ/Ḅ | ΠE/? | ANS, gr. 16.67↑; Zygman Coll., amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.28↑ | |
e. | ΔHMO | Γ | ΠE | Leningrad (Sv. 66, 5), gr. 16.70; Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.55↑; Berlin, gr. 16.39 | |
f. | ΔPOMO | Γ | AΠ | Vienna, gr. 16.65; Empedocles Coll. | |
934. | |||||
a. | ΔHMO | A | AΠ | *ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.76↑; ANS– ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.82↑ | |
b. | ΔHMO | B/A | AΠ | Athens (Delos Hd. A, 25), gr. 16.10↑; ANS (Abruzzi Hd.), gr. 15.85↑ | |
c. | ΔPOMO | Γ | AΠ | ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.74↑ | |
d. | ΔPOMO | ? | AΠ | Berlin, gr. 16.29 | |
935. | |||||
a. | ΔHMO | A | ΣO | London, gr. 16.67↑ | |
b. | ΔHMO | Γ | ΣO | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.87↑; Athens, gr. 16.48↑; Lund Univ., gr. 15.42↑; Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.). Amphora letter certain only on Istanbul piece | |
c. | ΔPOMO | Γ | ΣO | *Paris, gr. 16.60↑; Athens, gr. 16.20↑; Giesecke Coll. (Sv. 66, 8), gr. 16.75 | |
d. | ΔPOMO | Γ | ΣO | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.45↑; Frankfurter Münzhandl. 87, 188, gr. 16.40; ANS (Cretan Hd. II), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.75↑ | |
e. | MENE | Γ | ? | London (Sv. 66, 4), gr. 16.42↑ |
936. | |||||
a. | ΔHMO | B/A | ΣO | *Athens (Delos Hd. A, 26), gr. 15.98↑ | |
b. | ΔHMO | B | MH | London (BMC 480), gr. 16.70↑; ANS (Abruzzi Hd.), gr. 16.17↑ | |
c. | ΔPOMO | Γ | MH | Lockett Coll. (SNG 1934) = Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 946, gr. 16.80↑ | |
937. | |||||
a. | MENE | Γ | MH | London, gr. 16.68↑. With KΛEI/MENE and E/Γ: Athens (Halmyros Hd.)1 | |
b. | ΓΛAY | Δ | MH | *Oxford, gr. 16.12↑; Athens, gr. 16.80↑; Athens, gr. 16.45↑ | |
c. | ΓΛAY | Δ | MH | Commerce 1953, gr. 16.53 | |
d. | KΛEI/ΓΛAY | Ẹ/Δ | MH/? | Berlin, gr. 16.52 | |
e. | KΛEI | E | MH | Athens (Halmyros Hd.) | |
938. | |||||
a. | ΓΛAY | Δ | AΠ | *ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.59↑; Commerce 1955; Berlin, gr. 15.97 | |
b. | ΓΛAY | Δ | AΠ | Athens (Sv. 66, 7), gr. 16.30↑ | |
939. | |||||
a. | ΓΛAY | Δ | ΠE | *Halmyros Hd., gr. 16.45 | |
b. | ΓΛAY | Δ | ΠE | Brussels, gr. 16.56 | |
c. | ΓΛAY | Δ | ΠE | Hamburger 98, 696, gr. 16.58 | |
d. | KΛEI/ΓΛAY | E/Δ | ΠE | Athens (Sv. 66, 6), gr. 16.55↑; Copenhagen (SNG 194), gr. 16.07↑ | |
940. | |||||
a. | ΓΛAY | Δ | ΣO | *Yale Univ., gr. 16.57↑ | |
b. | KΛI2 | E/Δ | ΣO | ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.92↑; London (BMC 481), gr. 16.02↑ | |
c. | KΛI | E | ΣO | Athens (Delos Hd. IΓ), gr. 15.70↑ | |
d. | KΛEI | E | ΣO | Baltatzi Coll. (Sv. 66, 9) = Mavrokordatou Coll. (JIAN, 1912, 1335), gr. 16.07; Commerce 1955 | |
e. | ? | ? | ? | Evelpidis Coll. | |
941. | |||||
a. | KΛEI | E | AΠ | Athens, gr. 16.30↑ |
b. | KΛEI | E | AΠ | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.66↑; Istanbul, amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.56↑; Andreopoulos Coll., amphora and control letters uncertain | |
c. | KΛEI | E | ? | *ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.55↑ | |
d. | ӨPA | AΠ | Berlin, gr. 16.42 | ||
e. | ӨPA | AΠ | Berlin, gr. 16.10 | ||
942. | |||||
a. | KΛEI | E | ΠE | *Brussels (de Hirsch 1292), gr. 16.58↑ | |
b. | KΛEI | ? | ? | Tübingen (Sv. 66, 8), gr. 16.40 | |
c. | ӨPA | Z | ΠE | Athens (Carystus Hd. II; BCH, 1958, Pl. XLIX, 5), gr. 16.77. With H/Z: Istanbul, gr. 16.36↑ | |
943. | |||||
a. | ӨPA | ΣO | *Copenhagen (SNG 195), gr. 16.05↑ | ||
b. | ӨPA | Z | ΣO | Athens (Sv. 66, 10), gr. 16.45↑ | |
944. | |||||
a. | ӨPA | ? | *Vienna, gr. 16.64 | ||
b. | ӨPA | Ẓ | ? | Berlin, gr. 16.41 | |
c. | ӨPA | H | Ạ | Athens (Sv. 66, 11), gr. 16.45 | |
d. | ≡EN | H | AΠ | Hess, Mar. 1935, 359 = Cahn 75, 327, gr. 16.63; Athens (Halmyros Hd.), control letters uncertain | |
945. | |||||
a. | ӨPA | MH/(?)AΠ | ANS–ETN, gr. 15.62↑ | ||
b. | ≡E/ӨPA | H/Ẓ | MH | *Weber 3524, gr. 16.59 | |
946. | |||||
ӨPA | Ḥ | ΣO | *ANS, gr. 16.38↑ | ||
947. | |||||
ӨPA | H | AΠ | *Tübingen, gr. 16.40 | ||
948. | |||||
a. | ӨPA | H | MH | Berlin, gr. 15.90; Ratto (Rogers) 438, gr. 16.70 | |
b. | ӨPA | H | MH | Berlin, gr. 16.26 | |
c. | ≡E | H | MH | *Cambridge (Grose 5912; Sv. 66, 12), gr. 16.57↑; Athens, gr. 16.40↑; Münster Univ., gr. 16.80 | |
d. | ≡E | H | MH | Munich, gr. 16.421; Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 944, gr. 16.50; Feuardent (Burel) 183 | |
949. | |||||
a. | ӨPA | H | MH | ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.35↑ | |
b. | ≡ENO | ? | MH | Berlin, gr. 15.85 | |
c. | EMBI | Ө | MH | *Empedocles Coll.; Athens, gr. 16.02↑ | |
950. | |||||
a. | ӨPA | H/Z(?) | ? | Münster Landesmus., gr. 15.76 | |
b. | ≡EN | H | ΠE | *Commerce 1955, gr. 16.87↑; Berlin, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.17 | |
c. | ≡ENO | ? | AΠ | Berlin, gr. 16.69 | |
d. | EMBI | Ṃ | AΠ | Bauer Coll. = Naville (Woodward) 758, gr. 16.57↑; ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr.15.74↑ | |
e. | EMBI | Ṃ | AΠ | Romanos Coll. (Sv. 66, 14), gr. 15.80 | |
951. | |||||
a. | ≡EN/(?)ӨPA | H | ΠE | Athens, gr. 16.00↑ | |
b. | ≡EN | H | ΠE | *Munich, gr. 15.80 (Pl.); Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 945, gr. 16.40 | |
c. | ≡EN | H | ΠE | Romanos Coll.; ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), control letters uncertain, gr. 16.69↑ | |
952. | |||||
a. | ≡ENO | H | ΠE | *Berlin, gr. 15.85 | |
b. | EMBI | Ө | ΠE | Glymenopoulos Coll. (Sv. 66, 13), gr. 16.60 | |
c. | EMBI | ? | ΠE | Berlin, gr. 15.32 (worn) | |
953. | |||||
a. | EMBI (recut) | Ө/H | AΠ/? | *Copenhagen (SNG 196), gr. 15.93↑ | |
b. | EMBI (?) | Ө | AΠ/ΠE | Paris, gr. 16.13↑ | |
c. | EMBI | Λ | AΠ | Berlin (Sv. 66, 16), gr. 15.52 | |
d. | EMBI | M | AΠ | The Hague, gr. 15.57; Dewing Coll., gr. 16.77↑; Berlin Cast Coll. | |
e. | EMBI | ? | AΠ | London (BMC 482), gr. 16.38 | |
954. | |||||
EMBI | Ө | ΣO | *Paris, gr. 16.10↑ | ||
955. | |||||
a. | EMBI | Ө | ΠE | *Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.30↑; Athens, gr. 16.05↑ | |
b. | EMBI | K | ΠE | Berlin (Sv. 66, 15), gr. 16.00; Halmyros Hd. |
956. | |||||
a. | EMBI | Ө | ΣO | ANS–ETN, gr. 16.40↑; Vatican | |
b. | EMBI | Ḳ | ΣO | Athens (Delos Hd. IΓ)↑; Berlin, gr. 15.50) | |
c. | EMBI | M | ΣO | *Athens (Halmyros Hd.) | |
957. | |||||
a. | EMBI | M | ΣO | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.) | |
b. | EMBI | M | MH | Berlin (Sv. 66, 18), gr. 16.38 | |
958. | |||||
a. | EMBI | M | MH | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.) | |
b. | EMBI | ? | ? | ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.27↑ | |
959. | |||||
a. | EMBI | M | ΣO | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Petsalis Coll. | |
b. | EMBI | Ṃ | ΣO | Commerce (Sv. 66, 19, Feuardent), gr. 15.84 | |
960. | |||||
a. | EMBI | M | MH/Ẹ | *London (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.71↑; Empedocles Coll. = Sv. 66, 20–21 (same coin), Asteriades Coll., control letters uncertain | |
b. | EMBI | M | ΠE | Athens, gr. 16.30↑ | |
c. | EMBI | M | ΠE | Kambanis Coll. (BCH, 1934, Pl. I, 5) | |
d. | EMBI | M | ? | *Berlin, gr. 16.28 (Plate 106) | |
961. | |||||
a. | EMBI | M | MH | *Athens (Delos Hd.ΛH), gr. 16.24↑ | |
b. | EMBI | M | MH | Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Glasgow (Hunt. 184), gr. 16.57↑ |
Drachm
After two years of chaos under Dositheos–Charias and Demetrios–Agathippos, the system with regard to third magistrates resumes the normal pattern of earlier issues under Niketes and Dionysios. Individual names are less drastically abbreviated and more carefully inscribed. The contrast between long and short terms of office remains puzzling, but there is at least no definite indication of overlapping or broken tenures. Throughout the year the eight third magistrates seem to have served in orderly succession.
Earlier publications provide readings not found in the present catalogue. The magistrate KI recorded for a British Museum coin (our No. 940b) is in reality KΛI, an erroneous rendering of KΛEI. This name is associated with Δ on the evidence of another tetradrachm but in all probability the amphora letter represents a recutting (as our No. 939d) with an indistinct E superimposed on the Δ. ≡EN is listed with Ө and AΠ for a Copenhagen piece and with Ө and ME for a Paris specimen. The former is No. 953a with EMBI and Ө/H; the latter is almost certainly No. 953b with an illegible third name and AΠ/ΠE, a recutting which at first glance gives the impression of ME. Svoronos publishes ӨPA with E (JIAN, 1900, p. 170) but there is no coin with this combination in the Athens Collection. ΣΩ is cited for tetradrachms in the Lambros Collection and in Berlin; ΣΦ is given for a Berlin piece. The Lambros coins cannot be checked but on the only Berlin tetradrachm which definitely has a Σ in the control the combination is ΣO.
Bellinger speaks of the appearance of N as an amphora letter in this issue. I have been unable to find any published record of such a coin or coins but an ancient imitation of Niketes–Dionysios with N on the amphora (Plate158) was in the Halmyros Hoard and this piece was copied by modern counterfeiters before the remnants of the find were confiscated by the Athens authorities. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no example of the intercalary letter on a tetradrachm from the Athenian mint.
APIΣTIΩN – ΦIΛΩN PEGASUS 129/8 b.c. (Plates 106–108)
Tetradrachms
959. | |||||
ΔPOMO | A | ΣO | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.50↑; Berry Coll. (Halmyros Hd.), control letters uncertain, gr. 16.74↑ | ||
960. | |||||
a. | ΔPOMO | A | ΠE | Berlin (BCH, 1934, Pl. I, 6), gr. 15.64 | |
b. | ΔPOMO | Ḅ | ΠE | ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.03↑ | |
c. | ΔPOMO | Γ | ΠE | *London, gr. 15.93↑ | |
961. | |||||
a. | ΔPOMO | A | MH | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Lockett Coll. (SNG 1913), gr. 16.36↑; Berlin, gr. 15.97 | |
b. | ΔPOMO | B | MH | *ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.56↑ (Plate 105); London (BMC 330; Sv.68, 2), gr. 16.38↑ | |
c. | ӨEO | Δ | ? | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.52↑; Cahn 60, 576, gr. 16.30 | |
d. | ӨEO | E | MH | ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.56↑ | |
e. | ӨEO | E | MH | Tübingen, gr. 16.38; London (BMC 332), gr. 16.45↑; Athens (Sv. 68, 4), gr. 16.20↑; Copenhagen (SNG 198), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.42↑ | |
963. | |||||
a. | ΔPOMO | A | ΣO | *Copenhagen (SNG 197; Sv. 68, 1), gr. 16.61↑ | |
b. | ΔPOMO | Γ | ΣO | Ratto, Oct. 1934, 168 = Cahn 75, 329, gr. 16.50 | |
c. | ӨEO | E/ | ΣO | Bourgey, Dec. 1932, 177 | |
964. | |||||
a. | ΔPOMO | A | AΠ | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Knobloch Coll., amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.65 | |
b. | ΔPOMO | Γ | AΠ | Athens (Sv. 68, 3), gr. 16.05↑ | |
c. | ӨEO | E | AΠ | Zara Coll., gr. 16.41↑ | |
d. | ӨEO | E | AΠ | ANS–ETN, gr. 15.95↑; Vienna, gr. 16.30 | |
e. | ӨEO | E | AΠ | London (BMC 331), gr. 15.76↑ | |
965. | |||||
ӨEO | Δ | ΠẸ | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Naville (Woodward) 748, amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.11 | ||
966. | |||||
ӨEO | E | MH | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.) | ||
967. | |||||
a. | ӨEO | E | AΠ | Berlin, gr. 16.04 | |
b. | ӨEO | E | AΠ | Berlin, gr. 16.21 | |
c. | ӨEO | Z | AΠ | *ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.51↑; Glasgow (Hunt. 124), control letters uncertain, gr. 16.61↑ | |
d. | ӨEO | Z | AΠ | ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.15↑ | |
968. | |||||
a. | ӨEO | Z/E | ΣO/MH | *Romanos Coll. (Sv. 68, 5), gr. 16.48 | |
b. | ӨEO | Z | ΣO | Gotha, gr. 16.17; Athens (Halmyros Hd.), control letters uncertain | |
c. | ӨEO | Z | ΣO | Athens (Halmyros Hd.) | |
969. | |||||
a. | ӨEO | Z | ΠE | Bauer Coll. = Ratto (Rogers) 444 = Naville (Bement) 1119, gr. 16.30↑ | |
b. | ӨEO | Z | ? | *Athens, gr. 15.90↑ | |
970. | |||||
a. | ӨEO | Z | MH | *ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.48↑; L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.05; ANS, gr. 16.65↑ | |
b. | HΓIAΣ | H | MH | *Athens (Delos Hd.Λ–2, 7), gr. 15.53↑; Berlin (Obv. of Sv. 68, 8; Rev. of 68, 6)1 | |
c. | HΓEAΣ | Ө/Ḥ | MH | ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.44↑; Athens gr. 14.70 (corroded)↑; Athens (Carystus Hd. II; BCH, 1958, Pl. XLIX, 6), gr. 16.36; Berlin, gr. 15.49 (worn) | |
971.2 | |||||
HΓEAΣ | Ḥ | ΠE | *Vienna, gr. 16.32 | ||
972. | |||||
a. | HΓEAΣ | H | AΠ | ANS–ETN, gr. 16.47↑ | |
b. | HΓIAΣ | H | AΠ | Berlin, gr. 15.50; * Andreopoulos Coll., control letters uncertain | |
973. | |||||
a. | HΓIAΣ | H | AΠ/? | *London, gr. 16.58↑ | |
b. | HΓEAΣ | H | ΣO | Athens (Sv. 68, 12), gr. 16.30↑ | |
c. | HΓIAΣ | H | ΣO | Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.73↑ | |
974. | |||||
HΓEAΣ | Ө/H | ΠE | *Moscow = Egger XLI, 482, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.49; Romanos Coll. | ||
975. | |||||
a. | HΓEAΣ | Ө/H | ΠE | ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.55↑ | |
b. | HΓEAΣ | Ө | AΠ | *Petsalis Coll.; Paris, gr. 14.78↑3 | |
c. | HΓEAΣ | K | AΠ | Berlin, gr. 16.33 |
976. | |||||
a. | HΓEAΣ | Ө/H | ΠE | *Munich (Sv. 68, 7), gr. 15.42 | |
b. | HΓI | I/θ | ΠE | ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.50↑; Athens (Delos Hd. IΓ; Sv. 68, 9), gr. 16.98↑ With K/I/θ: Piraeus Hd., gr. 16.36 | |
c. | HΓEAΣ | I | ΠE | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.46↑; Commerce (Halmyros Hd.) | |
d. | HΓEAΣ | I | ΠE/AΠ | *L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.15 | |
e. | HΓEAΣ | K/I | ΠE | ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 15.63↑ | |
f. | HΓIAΣ | K | ΠE | Commerce 1955, gr. 16.35↑ | |
g. | HΓEAΣ | K | ΠE | ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 15.97↑ | |
977. | |||||
a. | HΓEAΣ | θ | AΠ | Commerce 1955. With K/I/θ: Dewing Coll., gr. 16.44↑; Berlin, gr. 15.99 | |
b. | HΓEAΣ | I | AΠ | *ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.42↑ | |
c. | HΓEAΣ | K/I | AΠ | *Winterthur, gr. 16.34↑ | |
978. | |||||
a. | HΓEAΣ | I/θ | ΣO | *Athens, gr. 15.80↑ | |
b. | HΓEAΣ | K | ΣO | Berlin, gr. 15.57 | |
979. | |||||
a. | HΓEAΣ | I | MH | London (BMC 333), gr. 15.45↑ | |
b. | HΓEAΣ | I | MH | London, gr. 15.85↑ | |
c. | HΓEAΣ | I | MH | ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 15.72↑ | |
d. | HΓEAΣ | I | MH | Berlin (Obv. of Sv. 68, 6; Rev. of 68, 8)1 | |
e. | HΓEAΣ | K | MH | *Athens (Halmyros Hd.); ANS–ETN, gr. 16.12↑2 | |
f. | HΓEAΣ | K | MH | Berlin (Sv. 68, 10), gr. 16.08 | |
980. | |||||
a. | HΓEAΣ | I | MH | *Vienna, gr. 16.32 | |
b. | HΓEAΣ | ! | MH | ANS–ETN, gr. 16.07↑ | |
981. | |||||
a. | HΓIAΣ | K | ΠE | London, gr. 15.18↑ | |
b. | HΓEAΣ | Λ/K/I | ΠE | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); The Hague; Athens (Delos Hd. IΓ)↑ | |
c. | HΓEAΣ | Λ/K | ΠE | ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.42↑ | |
d. | HΓEAΣ | M | ΠE | Athens, gr. 15.41↑ | |
e. | HΓIAΣ | ? | Ẹ | Halmyros Hd. |
982. | |||||
a. | HΓIAΣ | K | Ạ | *Glasgow (Hunt. 125), gr. 16.63↑ | |
b. | HΓEAΣ | K | Ạ | Berlin, gr. 16.48 | |
983. | |||||
HΓIAΣ | K | ΣO | *ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.51↑; ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.52↑ | ||
984. | |||||
a. | HΓIAΣ | K | ΣO | *Athens (Sv. 68, 11), gr. 16.40↑; London (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.74↑ | |
b. | HΓEAΣ | K | ΣO | Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.) | |
c. | HΓIAΣ | Λ/K | ΣO | *Leningrad | |
985. | |||||
a. | HΓIAΣ | K | MH | Berlin, gr. 15.66; Florange–Ciani, Oct. 1923, 20 = Mavrokordatou Coll. ( JIAN , 1912, 1308), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 15.97 | |
b. | HΓI[ | M | ? | *ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.46↑ | |
986. | |||||
HΓEAΣ | M/Λ | ΠE | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Petsalis Coll., gr. 15.05↑ | ||
987. | |||||
a. | HΓIAΣ | M | MH | *Coin Galleries Mail Bid, Mar. 1956, 1582 | |
b. | HΓI[ | M | MH | Athens (Halmyros Hd.); Berlin, gr. 16.11 | |
988. | |||||
a. | HΓIAΣ | M | ΣO | *Berlin, gr. 15.92; Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 923, gr. 16.20 | |
b. | HΓIAΣ | M | ΣO | Paris, gr. 16.50↑; Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.) | |
989. | |||||
HΓIAΣ | M | AΠ | *Munich, gr. 16.63 |
118 tetradrachms: 30 obverse, 70 reverse dies
Magistrates: ΔPOMO, ӨEO, HΓIAΣ (or HΓEAΣ)
Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, H, Ө, I, K, Λ, M
Controls: AΠ, MH, ΠE, ΣO
The transfer of three obverse dies (Nos. 959–961) links the present issue with that of Niketes–Dionysios. This triple connection had previously been discovered and published by Kambanis in the Bulletin de correspondance hellénique for 1934 (Pl. I, 3–8).
Both strikings use the same four control combinations. There are fewer third magistrates for Aristion–Philon than for Niketes–Dionysios, three as contrasted with eight. Actually HΓIAΣ and HΓEAΣ may be separate officials but the fact that the two forms, which are identical in sound and almost identical in spelling, alternate on reverses of the second half of the year suggests divergent renderings by diecutters to whom the magistrate's name had been transmitted orally. One cannot know which is the correct version but HΓIAΣ is a far more common name in Attic prosopography than HΓEAΣ.
1 |
There are, however, other instances of extreme longevity in individual dies. Obverse 899 of this same issue lasts for seven
or eight
months, from Γ (or possibly B) through I. An obverse of an earlier issue, No. 802, is in use from B through Λ which would
mean ten months
if we could be sure that coinage continued without interruption throughout the year. The present record shows no reverses
for Ө and only a
drachm emission for I so it is possible that tetradrachm coinage was suspended during those two months.
|
1 |
The letter to the right of the A on the amphora of the Romanos piece is the result of doublestriking.
|
1 |
Although no clear traces remain of an intermediate cutting, it is very likely that ΓΛAY and Δ were also inscribed on this
die.
|
1 |
A cast replica of the Munich coin is in Berne (11.33 gr.).
|
1 |
An erroneous coupling on Svoronos' plate of the obverse and reverse dies of the two Berlin coins (Nos. 970b and
979d) is established by the record of the Berlin material.
|
1 |
See note in connection with No. 970b.
|
2 |
This may well have been the case. There is no significant difference in condition between the earliest and latest stages of
all three
obverse dies such as one would expect for a long period of striking.
|
2 |
KΛI instead of KΛEI is certain on Nos. 940b and c. Probably the letters on No. 940b are over ΓΛAY.
|
2 |
This seems to be a different obverse die; the doublestriking makes it difficult to be sure.
|
2 |
A Berlin coin from the same pair of dies (14.53 gr.) is probably plated or cast.
|
3 |
The weight of this well–preserved tetradrachm indicates a plated or cast coin.
|
Tetradrachms
990. | |||||
a. | — | A | AΠ | *Berlin (Sv. 67, 1), gr. 16.66; Berlin, gr. 16.41 | |
b. | AΠOΛ | A | AΠ | *Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.40 | |
c. | AΠOΛ | A | ΠE | *ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.47↑ | |
991. | |||||
a. | AΠOΛ | A | ΠE/AΠ | *Athens, gr. 16.25↑; Berlin, gr. 16.23 | |
b. | AΠOΛ | A | ΠE | Romanos Coll.; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.63↑ | |
c. | AΠOΛ | A | ΠE | *London, gr. 16.00↖ | |
992. | |||||
AΠOΛ | A | ΣO | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.) | ||
993. | |||||
a. | AΠOΛ | A | ΣO | *Berlin, gr. 16.32 | |
b. | AΠOΛ | A | ΣO | *Commerce 1953; ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd). gr. 16.56↑ | |
c. | AΠOΛ | ? | ΣO | Berlin, gr. 16.10 | |
994. | |||||
a. | AΠOΛ | A | ΣO | *London, gr. 15.72↑; Paris, gr. 15.13↑; Naples (Mus. Naz., Fiorelli 7141), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.30↑ | |
b. | AΠOΛ | ? | ΣO | Istanbul, gr. 15.80↑ | |
995. | |||||
a. | AΠOΛ | A | MH | *Athens (Halmyros Hd.) | |
b. | AΠOΛ | A | MH | *Berlin, gr. 16.27; Athens (Delos Hd. A, 9: Sv. 67, 3), gr. 16.05 | |
c. | AΠOΛ | A | MH | Istanbul, gr. 16.52↑ |
996. | |||||
a. | AΠOΛ | A | MH | ANS–ETN, gr. 16.40↑. With B/A and ΔH/MH: *Athens (Sv. 67, 2), gr. 16.74↑; Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Berlin, gr. 16.31 | |
b. | AΠOΛ | B/A | ΔH | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Berlin, gr. 16.69 | |
c. | AΠOΛ | B | ΔH | *ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.52↑ | |
d. | AΠOΛ | Γ | ΔH | ANS–ETN, gr. 16.29↑; Athens, gr. 15.83↑; Leningrad (Sv. 67, 5), gr. 16.40; Halmyros Hd. | |
e. | AΠOΛ | Δ | ΔH | Athens (Halmyros Hd.) | |
997. | |||||
a. | AΠOΛ | B | AΠ | Athens (Delos Hd. IΔ), gr. 14.57 (corroded)↑ | |
b. | AΠOΛ | B | AΠ/ΠE | Florange-Ciani, Oct. 1923, 21 = Baltatzi Coll. (Sv. 67, 4) = Mavrokordatou Coll. ( JIAN , 1912, 1309), gr. 15.90 | |
c. | AΠOΛ | ? | AΠ | *Zara Coll. | |
d. | AΠOΛ | ? | AΠ | Berlin, gr. 16.26 | |
998. | |||||
AΠOΛ | B | ΠE | *ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.44↑; ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.04↑ | ||
999. | |||||
a. | AΠOΛ | B | ΠE | *Munich, gr. 16.01; Athens (Carystus Hd. II; BCH, 1958, Pl. XLIX, 7), gr. 16.70 | |
b. | AΠOΛ | Δ | ΣO | Cahn 75, 328, gr. 16.45; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.59↑ | |
c. | AΠOΛ | ΣO | Istanbul, gr. 16.69↑ | ||
1000. | |||||
a. | AΠOΛ | Γ | ΔH | *Paris, gr. 16.68↑ | |
b. | AΠOΛ | Δ | ΔH | Paris (Sv. 67, 6), gr. 16.52↑; Berlin, gr. 16.62 | |
c. | AΠOΛ | E | ΔH | *ANS (Abruzzi Hd.), gr. 16.06↑; ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.24↑; L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.25 | |
d. | AΠOΛ | Z | ΔH | Athens, gr. 15.25↑; Athens (Halmyros Hd.), amphora and control letters uncertain | |
e. | ΦIΛI | Z | ΔH | Berlin, gr. 15.76 | |
f. | ΦIΛI | Z | ΣO | London (BMC 338), gr. 16.36↑ | |
g. | ΦIΛI(?) | Z | ? | Paris, gr. 16.56↑ | |
1001. | |||||
a. | AΠOΛ | Γ | MH/Ọ | Athens, gr. 16.15↑ | |
b. | AΠOΛ | ΠE | *London, gr. 16.45↑ |
1002. | |||||
a. | AΠOΛ | E | AΠ | *Berry Coll., gr. 15.75↑ | |
b. | AΠOΛ | Z | AΠ | Athens (Sv. 67, 7), gr. 16.47↑; Istanbul, gr. 16.20↑ | |
c. | AΠOΛ | Ẓ | AΠ | Ratto (Rogers) 439, gr. 15.50 | |
1003. | |||||
a. | AΠOΛ | Z | ΣO | Berlin, gr. 15.68 | |
b. | ΦIΛI | Z | ΣO | *Paris, gr. 15.79↑ | |
1004. | |||||
a. | AΠOΛ | Z | ΠE | Berlin, gr. 16.41 | |
b. | ΦIΛI | Z | ΠE | *Yale Univ., gr. 16.43↑ | |
1005. | |||||
a. | ΦIΛI | Z | ΠE | *ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.30↑ | |
b. | ΦIΛI | Z | ? | Berlin, gr. 15.64 | |
1006. | |||||
a. | ΦIΛI | Z | ΣO | *ANS–ETN = Ratto (Rogers) 440, gr. 15.80↑; Leningrad (Sv. 67, 9), gr. 16.30 | |
b. | ΦIΛI | ? | ΣO | Berlin, gr. 15.74 | |
1007. | |||||
a. | ΦIΛI | Z | AΠ | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.46↑ | |
b. | ΦIΛI | H | AΠ | *ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.28↑ | |
c. | ΦIΛI | H | Ạ | London (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.48↑ | |
1008. | |||||
a. | ΦIΛI | Z | ΣO | *Vienna, gr. 16.28; Berlin (Sv. 67, 8), gr. 16.31 | |
b. | ΦIΛI | H | ΣO/? | Copenhagen (SNG 199), gr. 16.20↑ | |
c. | ΔHME | Ө | ΣO | Athens (Sv. 67, 12), gr. 16.35↑ | |
1009. | |||||
a. | ΦIΛI | Z | ΔH | Berlin, gr. 16.10 | |
b. | ΦIΛI | H | ΔH | *Athens (Sv. 67, 10), gr. 16.55↑; Copenhagen (SNG 200), gr. 15.98↑ | |
c. | ΔHME | Ө | ΔH | ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.72↑; Paris, gr. 15.60↑; Athens, gr. 16.15↑; Hamburger (von Kaufmann) 246, gr. 16.90; Bourgey, Dec. 1928, 83; Romanos Coll. | |
d. | ΔHME | Ө | ΔH | *Berlin (Sv. 67, 11), gr. 16.46; Athens (Halmyros Hd.); Ratto (Rogers) 441, gr. 16.30 |
1010. | |||||
a. | NIKO/(?)ΦIΛI | H | ΣO | London (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.70↑; Berlin, gr. 16.34 | |
b. | NIKO/ΔHME | I/(?)Ө | ΣO | *Athens (Delos Hd.Λ–2, 6), gr. 15.53↑; Florange–Ciani (de la Fuÿe) 411, gr. 16.03 | |
c. | APMO≡E | Λ | ΣO | London (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.57↑; Commerce 1932 (Halmyros Hd.) | |
1011. | |||||
a. | ΔHME | Ө | AΠ | *Berry Coll., gr. 16.82↑; Bauer Coll. = Naville (Woodward) 750, gr. 16.53↑; Berlin, gr. 15.94 | |
b. | ΔHMH (sic) | I | AΠ(?) | ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.71↑; London (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.61↑ | |
c. | APMO≡E | K | AΠ | Copenhagen (SNG 201; Sv. 67, 14), gr. 16.45↑; ANS (Anatolia Hd.), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.02↑ | |
1012. | |||||
a. | ΔHME | I | ΠE | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.51↑; Berlin, gr. 15.29 | |
b. | NIKO/ΔHME | I | ΠE/? | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Vienna, gr. 16.32; Berlin (Sv. 67, 13), gr. 16.24 | |
c. | APMO≡E | M | ΠE | Cahn 84, 306, gr. 16.74 | |
1013. | |||||
NIKO/ΔHME | I | ? | *ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.11↑ | ||
1014. | |||||
a. | APMO≡E | M | AΠ | *ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.50↑ | |
b. | APMO≡E | M | AΠ | Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.51↑ |
Drachms
1015. | |||||
a. | — | ? | ? | *Berlin (Sv. 67, 15), gr. 3.67 | |
b. | — | ? | ? | Munich, gr. 3.68 | |
112 tetradrachms: 25 obverse, 61 reverse dies 2 drachms: 1 obverse, 2 reverse dies Magistrates: AΠOΛ, ΦIΛI, NIKO, ΔHME, APMO≡E Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, H, Ө, I, K, Λ, M Controls: AΠ, ΔH, MH, ΠE, ΣO |
Kambanis' listing of third magistrates, dates and control combinations is identical with that of the present catalogue except that he has no record of K and Λ on the amphorae. A few divergent readings appear in Beulé and Sundwall. The ΠPA cited by the former as a third magistrate with reference to an Athens University coin is puzzling since it is not easy to suggest an explanation of the misreading. On the other hand the Λ coupled with AΠOΛ is almost certainly a poorly-preserved A. NIKOΣ is given by both Beulé and Sundwall as the form of the magistrate's name but this would seem to involve dies on which NIKO has been cut over ΔHME. On our No. 1013, for example, the E of the underlying ΔHME is clearly visible to the right of the O of NIKO and could be taken for a terminal Σ.
The rotation of magistrates is orderly save for the broken tenure of NIKO who served in H and again in I. The magistracy of ΔHME (Ө and I) seems to have intervened between the two terms of NIKO or possibly the two men held office simultaneously in month iota. There are several reverses with NIKO/ΔHME and I alone on the amphora; there is one die (No. 1010b) with NIKO/ΔHME and I apparently over Ө but one cannot tell whether it was NIKO and I cut over ΔHME and Ө or whether the I was superimposed on the Ө during ΔHME's magistracy and NIKO added to the die at a later period.
Tetradrachms
1014. | ||||
a. | A | AΠ | *Berlin (Sv. 76, 16), gr. 16.37 | |
b. | ? | AΠ | ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.02↑ | |
c. | ? | ? | Athens (Delos Hd. IΔ), gr. 13.75 (very corroded)↑ | |
1016. | ||||
a. | B | AΠ | *Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.70↑; Istanbul, gr. 16.41↑; ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.51↑; Paris (Sv. 76, 17), gr. 16.50↑ | |
b. | Γ | AΠ | Glasgow (Hunt. 166), gr. 16.21↑; *Petsalis Coll., control letters uncertain, gr. 16.00 | |
c. | ? | ? | ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.52↑ | |
1017. | ||||
a. | B | ΠE | *Paris, gr. 16.12↑ | |
b. | Γ | ΠE | *London, gr. 16.45↑; Athens (Sv. 76, 18), gr. 16.70↑ | |
c. | Z | ΠE | Glasgow (Hunt. 167; Sv. 76, 21), gr. 16.69↑; London (BMC 483), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.30↑ | |
d. | Z | ΠE | Athens, gr. 16.14↑ | |
e. | ? | ? | *Amsterdam (Boissevain 54), gr. 16.60 | |
1013. | ||||
a. | Γ | Ḥ | Athens (Delos Hd. IΓ)↑ | |
b. | ? | ΔH | *Leningrad, gr. 16.26↑; Herakleion (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.68↑ | |
1018. | ||||
a. | Γ | ΣO | *Athens, gr. 16.20↑ | |
b. | Γ | ΣO | Athens, gr. 15.55↑; Leningrad, gr. 16.26↑; ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 15.67↑ | |
1019. | ||||
Γ | ΠE | *Athens (Halmyros Hd.); ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.63↑; Berlin, gr. 16.29 | ||
1020. | ||||
a. | Γ | ΔH | *Berry Coll. (Piraeus Hd.), gr. 16.32↑; Amsterdam (Boissevain 53), gr. 16.81; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.94↑ | |
b. | Γ | ΔH | Athens (Delos Hd. IΓ)↑ | |
c. | Δ | ΔH | ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.30↑; Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 3230; Sv. 76, 19), gr. 15.87↑ | |
1021. | ||||
a. | Γ | AΠ | Athens, gr. 16.75↑ | |
b. | E/Δ | ? | *Munich, gr. 16.21 | |
1022. | ||||
a. | Ẹ | Ọ | *Athens (Sv. 76, 20), gr. 16.40↑ | |
b. | I | ΣO | Istanbul, gr. 16.51↑ | |
1023. | ||||
a. | Z | ΔH | Romanos Coll. | |
b. | I | ΔH | *ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 15.99↑ | |
1024. | ||||
Ө | ΣO | *Athens, gr. 17.10↑ | ||
1025. | ||||
Ө | ΣO | *Milan (Sv. 76, 22), gr. 16.74 | ||
1026. | ||||
a. | Ө | ΣO | *Copenhagen (SNG 209), gr. 16.16↑ | |
b. | K | ΣO | *ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.25↑ | |
c. | Λ | ΣO | Berlin (Sv. 76, 24), gr. 16.05; ANS (Anatolia Hd.), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.25↑ | |
d. | ? | ? | Athens (Delos Hd. IΓ)↑ | |
1027. | ||||
a. | I | AN | Athens (Sv. 76, 23), gr. 16.80↑; Tübingen, amphora letter uncertain | |
b. | Λ | ΠE | *London, gr. 15.93↑; ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 15.66↑ | |
c. | ? | ΠE | ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.41↑ | |
d. | ? | ? | ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.00↑ | |
1028. | ||||
a. | Λ | ΣO | *ANS–ETN, gr. 16.86↑ | |
b. | Λ | ΣO | Paris, gr. 15.90↑ | |
1029. | ||||
a. | M | AN | *ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.42↑ | |
b. | Ṃ | AN | ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.05↑ | |
1030. | ||||
Ṃ | ΔH | *ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.15↑ | ||
1031. | ||||
? | ΠE/H | *Commerce, gr. 16.15 | ||
1031X. | ||||
? | ΣO | *Berlin, gr. 16.29 | ||
59 tetradrachms: 19 obverse, 38 reverse dies Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, Ө, I, K, Λ, M Controls: AN, AΠ, ΔH, ΠE, ΣO1> |
Two obverse dies (Nos. 1013 and 1014) were transferred from the issue of APOΠOΣ – MNAΣAΓO to that of ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ with serpent symbol. Since the latter striking is controlled by only two magistrates, it marks the first interruption in the series of three-;magistrate issues. What happens, however, is an interruption and not a break; succeeding emissions revert to the practice of placing three names on the coinage.
This seems to have been a small striking in contrast to the large issues of the five years preceding. Only in Γ is there any extensive output of coinage. No reverses with H are known although this may be simply a gap in our evidence rather than an indication of a cessation of minting during that month. In this connection it is noteworthy that two recent hoards (Cretan II and Anatolia) provide our only record of dies with K and M on the amphorae.
1 |
Beulé lists ΔI and ΣΩ. Neither of these control combinations is among Kambanis' entries
and it is highly probable that they are misreadings of ΔH and ΣO.
|
Tetradrachms
HERMES
1032. | |||||
— | A | *Paris (Sv. 69, 9), gr. 16.55↑ | |||
1033. | |||||
— | A | ΔH | *ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.52↑ | ||
1034. | |||||
— | Ḅ | ΣO | *Sophia, gr. 16.31 | ||
1035. | |||||
— | Γ/B/A | AͶ/ΔH | *ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.72↑ | ||
1036. | |||||
— | ? | ? | *Athens (Sv. 69, 10), gr. 16.22 | ||
1037. (Symbol erased) | |||||
— | ? | ΠE | *Vienna (Sv. 69, 19), gr. 15.98 | ||
1038. | |||||
a. | AΠ | Γ | ΣO | *Istanbul, gr. 15.84↑ | |
b. | AΠ | Γ | ΣO | L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.20 | |
1039. | |||||
AΠ | Γ | EP | *Berlin Cast Coll. | ||
1040. | |||||
AΠ | Δ/Γ | Ẹ | *Dresden (Sv. 69, 11) | ||
1041. (Symbol erased) | |||||
a. | AΠ | Δ/Γ | AN/Ẹ | *Athens, gr. 15.10↑ | |
b. | AΠ | E | AN | *ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.52↑ | |
c. | AΠ | ? | AN | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.51↑ | |
1042. (Symbol erased) | |||||
AΠ | E/Δ | ? | *ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.81↑ | ||
1043. (Symbol erased) | |||||
a. | AΠ | E/(?)Δ | EP | *Empedocles Coll. | |
b. | AΠ | E/(?)Δ | Ẹ | Berlin (Sv. 69, 12), gr. 16.29 | |
c. | AΠ | E(?) | EP | *Romanos Coll. | |
d. | AΠ | Z | EP | Berlin (Sv. 69, 13), gr. 16.29 |
NO SYMBOL
1044. | |||||
NIKHTHΣ | I | ΣΦ | *Athens (Halmyros Hd.) | ||
1045. | |||||
a. | NIKHTHΣ | I | ΣΦ | *ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.74↑; Leningrad (Sv. 69, 14), gr. 15.58; London (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 17.08↑; Athens, gr. 16.00↑; Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.56↑; ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.75↑ | |
b. | KAΛΛIӨEOΣ | Λ/K | ΣT | London, gr. 16.62↑ | |
c. | KAΛΛIӨEOΣ | Λ/(?)KM | ΣΦ | *Paris, gr. 16.60↑; Berlin (Sv. 69, 16), gr. 16.55 | |
d. | KAΛΛIӨEOΣ | Λ | ΣΦ | Commerce (Abruzzi Hd.) | |
e. | KAΛΛIӨEOΣ | ? | ΣΦ | *Halmyros Hd. | |
1046. | |||||
a. | NIKHTHΣ | I | ΣT | *Halmyros Hd. | |
b. | KAΛΛIӨEOΣ | K/?1 | ΣT | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.) | |
1047. | |||||
a. | KAΛΛIӨEOΣ | K | ΔI | *ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.71↑; London (Sv. 69, 15), gr. 16.62↑; Berry Coll., gr. 16.59↑ | |
b. | KAΛΛIӨEOΣ | Λ | ΔI | ANA Conv. Cat., Aug. 1951, 501 A | |
c. | ANΔPEAΣ | M | ΔI | *Paris, gr. 16.80↑; Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 947 = Sv. 69, 17 (obv.) and 69, 18 (rev.)2, gr. 16.70 | |
1048. | |||||
a. | KAΛΛIӨEOΣ | Λ/K/? | ΣT | *ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.83↑; Paris, gr. 16.32↑; Ratto (Rogers) 445, gr. 15.30 (very worn) | |
b. | ANΔPEAΣ | M | ΣT | London (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.76↑ | |
c. | ANΔPEAΣ | M | ΔI | Berlin |
Drachm
1049. | ||||
KAΛΛIӨEOΣ | ? | ΣΦ | *Copenhagen (SNG 205; Sv. 69, 20), gr. 3.35↑ |
43 tetradrachms: 17 obverse, 27 reverse dies 1 drachm
Magistrates: AΠ, NIKHTHΣ, KAΛΛIӨEOΣ, ANΔPEAΣ
Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, I, K, Λ, M
Controls: AN, ΔH, ΔI, EP, ΠE, ΣO, ΣT, ΣΦ
The present emission is curious in several respects. For the first months of the year (A into Γ) the reverse dies carry only the names of the two annual magistrates. During Γ the letters AΠ, indicating a third magistrate, appear on the dies and the same abbreviated form occurs on reverses of Δ, E and Z. There seems to have been no coinage in H and Ө. From I through M the name of the third magistrate is inscribed in full: NIKHTHΣ (I), KAΛΛIӨEOΣ (K and Λ) and ANΔPEAE (M).1
The treatment of the symbol is as unorthodox as that of the third magistrate. On reverses of months A through Z there is in the right field a standing figure of Hermes holding a caduceus.2 After the break in the coinage during H and Ө the symbol is omitted; dies of I through M have only the names of the three magistrates. The suppression of the symbol is comprehensible in conjunction with the expansion of the name of the third magistrate which occurred at the same time. For some reason it was decided in the latter months of the year to render the name in full instead of in abbreviation and the need for more space for the inscription might well have led to the omission of the symbol. It is not, however, easy to understand why the symbol was deleted from at least four dies or coins of the early months of the coinage. On Nos. 1037, 1041a, 1042 and 1043a the figure of Hermes has been erased.1 This seems a senseless mutilation on the part of either the mint or an individual. Were the symbol a controversial one, such as the Roma of a somewhat later issue, it might be supposed that political considerations prompted its removal but Hermes could scarcely be regarded as an object of controversy. Or, assuming that all deletions occurred at the mint, if these erasures were found on dies immediately preceding those without symbol, one might suggest that they represented a transitional stage in the shift from symbol to no symbol but the deletions appear on reverses of Δ and E and are not consistent for those two months. One other reverse of Δ has the symbol, two of E have it and the one known reverse of Z carries the Hermes device. It seems to me that there is no really plausible explanation of this strange phenomenon.
1 |
One would expect K/I but there is no trace of an underlying NIKHTHΣ and the amphora lettering looks like K/Λ. Possibly the
Λ was cut in
error and then corrected.
|
1 |
Beulé has some divergent readings. The Dresden coin which
he cites as having AΠ with A is our No. 1040 on which the amphora letter is indubitably Δ. ANΔPEAΣ with Λ and ΣΦ is conceivably
a
typographical error, the name printed one line too high in the listing. One of the two tetradrachms mentioned is a Paris coin
but there is no specimen in the cabinet there with ANΔPEAΣ and Λ. The magistrate APIAPAӨHΣ from a von Prokesch piece (Inedita, p. 263) is an erroneous reading. The coin is now in Berlin (our No. 1048c) and although the reverse is poorly preserved
and the lettering barely legible the name is definitely
ANΔPEAΣ.
|
2 |
This error involves more than a transposition of reverses; the difference in size and shape makes it impossible to associate
the reverse of
Svoronos 69, 17 and the obverse of 69, 18. Actually the obverse of No. 18 belongs to another issue, that of
NIKHTHΣ – ΔIONYΣIOΣ (our No. 957 and cf. Svoronos 66, 18).
|
2 |
Beuté's description of the figure as Stephanephoros with a wreath is not confirmed by the coins. On all reverses
the standing figure is clearly holding a caduceus and must be identified as Hermes.
|
Tetradrachms
1050. | |||||
KΛEIΔA | A | ΔH | *Paris, gr. 16.63↑; ANS–ETN, gr. 16.72↑; ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.08↑; Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Romanos Coll.; Yale Univ. (Halmyros Hd.) = Hamburger 98, 689, gr. 16.55↑ | ||
1051. | |||||
a. | KΛEIΔA | A | ΔI | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.) | |
b. | KΛEIΔA | A | ΔI | *Leningrad; Athens (Carystus Hd. II; BCH, 1958, Pl. XLIX, 8) | |
1052. | |||||
a. | KΛEIΔA | A | ΣT | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); London (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.74↑; ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 17.51 (sic)↑. With XAPIAΣ/KΛEIΔA and B/A: Berlin, gr. 16.71 |
b. | KΛHΣΔA1 | ? | ΣT | Copenhagen (SNG 206), gr. 16.50↑; Herakleion (Cretan Hd. I); Vienna, gr. 14.312 | |
c. | ΠΛEIΣTIAΣ/?3 | Γ/Ḅ/A | ΣT | Paris, gr. 15.60↑ | |
1053. | a. | KΛEIΔA | A | AΠ/ΔI | *Lockett Coll. (SNG 1914) = Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 926 = Sv. 68, 13, gr. 16.78↑ |
b. | KΛEIΔA | A | ΠEP | *Athens, gr. 16.35↑ | |
c. | XAPIAΣ | B | ΠEP | Commerce 1951, gr. 16.65. With ΠΛEIΣTIAΣ/XAPIAΣ and Γ/B: Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Berlin, gr. 14.802; Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 925 = Sv. 68, 15, gr. 16.55 | |
d. | ΠΛEIΣTIAΣ/XAPIAΣ | Γ/B | ? | Berlin, gr. 15.45 | |
1054. | |||||
XAPIAΣ | B | AΠ | *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.) | ||
1055. | |||||
a. | XAPIAΣ | B | ΔH | *Berlin (Sv. 68, 14), gr. 16.30 | |
b. | ΠΛEIΣTIAΣ | Γ | ΔH | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.56; ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.71↑; Glasgow (Hunt. 126), gr. 16.61↑; Moscow = Helbing 70, 632, gr. 16.90 | |
c. | ΠΛEIΣTIAΣ | Γ | AΠ | Athens (Sv. 68, 16), gr. 16.45↑ | |
d. | AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ | E | ΔH | Leningrad (Sv. 68, 18), gr. 16.64; Commerce 1955 | |
e. | ΣΩΣIKPA | E | ΔH | *ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.66↑; Athens, gr. 17.42↗ | |
f. | ΣΩΣIKPA | Z | ΔH | London (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 17.04↑; Hess, Mar. 1935, 357, gr. 16.80 | |
1056. | |||||
a. | AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ | E | ΠE | Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Berry Coll. (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.66↑; Hamburger 98, 690, gr. 16.64 |
b. | ΣΩΣIKPA | E | ΠEP | *ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.79↑; Berlin, gr. 16.37 | |
1057. | a. | AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ | E | AΠ | Brussels (de Hirsch 1293), gr. 16.35↑ |
b. | ΣΩΣIKPA | E | BI | London (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.54↑; Athens (Halmyros Hd.) | |
c. | ΣΩΣIKPA | E | BI | Leningrad (Sv. 68, 17), gr. 16.85 | |
d. | ΣΩΣIKPA | H | AΠO | *The Hague (Sv. 69, 20), gr. 16.55; ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.89↑ | |
1058. | |||||
ΣΩΣIKPA | E | AΠ | *Petsalis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.40↑; Athens, gr. 16.00↑ | ||
1059. | |||||
a. | ΣΩΣIKPA | E | AΠ | *Copenhagen (SNG 207), gr. 15.60↑; London, gr. 15.76↑; Berlin, gr. 15.21 | |
b. | ΣΩΣIKPA | Ẹ | ? | Berlin, gr. 15.93 | |
1060. | |||||
a. | ΣΩΣIKPA | Z | ΔH | Gotha (Sv. 68, 19), gr. 11.971 | |
b. | ΣΩΣIKPA | H | AΠO | London (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.71↑; Commerce 1932 (Halmyros Hd.) | |
c. | ΔIOΓE | Ө | ΔH | *ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.75↑ | |
d. | EYΠEI/ΔIOΓE | I/Ө | ΔH | *Berlin (Sv. 68, 24), gr. 16.77; Athens (Delos Hd. A, 10; Sv. 68, 21), gr. 16.54. With ΛYΣIMAX/EYΠEI/ΔIOΓE: ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.93↑ | |
e. | ΛYΣIM/EYΠEI | ? | ΔH | Berlin, gr. 16.63 | |
1061. | |||||
a. | ΔIOΓE/ΣΩΣIKPA | Ө/H | AΠO | Berlin (Sv. 68, 22), gr. 16.07 | |
b. | ΛYΣIMAX/EYΠEI/ΔIOΓE | I/Ө | BIΛ/ΔH | Paris, gr. 16.85↑ | |
c. | ΛYΣIMAX | Λ | BIΛ | ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 15.33↑ | |
d. | ΛYΣIMAX | N | BIΛ | Athens (Halmyros Hd.); Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), amphora letter uncertain, broken↑ | |
e. | ΛYΣIMAX | ? | ? | *Bauer Coll. |
1062. | |||||
ΔIOΓE | ΔH | *Berlin (Sv. 68, 23), gr. 16.37 | |||
1063. | |||||
a. | ΔIOΓE | Ө | q∃Π | *ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.44↑; Empedocles Coll. | |
b. | ΛYΣIM/KΛEIΔA1 | K | ΠEP | *Stack's (South) 613 from Piraeus Hd.; ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.58↑; London (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.74↑; London (BMC 360; Sv. 68, 26), gr. 16.21; Cahn 75, 330, gr. 16.75. Amphora letter uncertain on last two | |
c. | ΛYΣIMAX | Λ/I or K | ΠEP | Athens (Halmyros Hd.); ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.41↑ | |
d. | ΛYΣIMAX | N | ΠEP | Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.) | |
1064. | |||||
a. | ΛYΣIM/EYΠEI | K/! | ΔH | Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.) | |
b. | ΛYΣIMAX | Λ | AΠ | *ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.71↑ | |
c. | ΛYΣIMAX | N | AΠ | *Kambanis Coll.; Berry Coll., gr. 16.59↑ | |
1065. | |||||
ΛYΣIMAX | N | ΔH | *ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.71↑; Florange–Ciani, Oct. 1923, 23 | ||
1066. | |||||
ΛYΣIMAX | N | ΠEP | *London (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.43↑; Glymenopoulos Coll. (Sv. 68, 27), gr. 16.20; Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.22; Kambanis Coll. (BCH, 1934, Pl. I, 1) | ||
89 tetradrachms: 17 obverse, 36 reverse dies Magistrates: KΛEIΔA, XAPIAΣ, ΠΛEIΣTIAΣ, AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ, ΣΩΣIKPA, ΔIOΓE, EYΠEI, ΛYΣIMAX Months: A, B, Γ, E, Z, H, Ө, I, K, Λ, N Controls: AΠ(O), BI(Λ), ΔH, ΔI, ΠE(P), ΣT |
This is a normal three-magistrate issue. Tenures of the third magistrates show the customary variation in length but the rotation is one of orderly succession. Coinage is known for all months except Δ and M and a number of dies with N on the amphora establish the year as intercalary.
Names of the third magistrates are inscribed in full or with a minimum of abbreviation. Earlier publications give a longer or shorter version for some of the names but these are minor variations and the plates will confirm the present readings. The only strange form is the AΠOΛΛΩNI ΣIM of the British Museum Catalogue and the tetradrachm in question is an imitation, not a product of the Athenian mint (Plate 158).
Kambanis in the BCH for 1934 (p. 120) and in his notebook combines ΠΛEIΣTI with B, EYΠEI with Ө and ΛYΣIMAX with M. In the first two instances (our Nos. 1053c and 1060d) the amphora letter as well as the magistrate's name has been recut and the overlying Γ and I have not been detected; the example of ΛYΣIMAX with M from the Petsalis Collection is from the same reverse die as several other coins which Kambanis records as having N on the amphora. The Δ with ΛYΣIMA of Beulé is, at least in the case of the Paris piece, a misreading of I/Ө. Control combinations in Beulé and Kambanis correspond with those in the present catalogue except that Kambanis records BIΔ. The correct form is BIΛ as Beulé recognized.
1 |
Since there is no second specimen of any one of these four numbers, it is difficult to say definitely whether the deletion
was made on the
die or on the coin. However, the same die was used for No. 1040 (with symbol) and 1041a (with symbol erased). On the latter
piece there is
a raised surface below the AΠ which suggests mutilation of the die rather than the coin.
Incidentally the Vienna piece which Beulé describes as having the graffito of a bird in the right field is our No. 1037; the markings left by the erasure of the symbol do bear some resemblance to the outlines of a bird. |
1 |
The ending of the second magistrate's name has been repeated in error.
|
1 |
Svoronos gives the weight as 16.69 but the record from Gotha shows 11.97 gr. The
specimen is a cast reproduction of a genuine coin.
|
1 |
I am almost certain that ΛYΣIM is cut over KΛEIΔA; the underlying name is quite legible on the ANS coin. Probably an old die
was found to
be still serviceable and brought back into operation. The erasure of the A on the amphora has been done very successfully;
no trace of it
remains under the K.
|
2 |
From the weight this would seem to be a cast or plated piece.
|
3 |
Although there is no clear evidence of recutting in connection with the magistrate's name, the alteration of the amphora letter
makes it
highly probable that the die was once inscribed with the names of Pleistias' two predecessors.
|
Tetradrachms
1066. | ||||
a. | A | ΠEP | Kambanis Coll. (BCH, 1934, Pl. I, 2) | |
b. | Ạ | ΠEP | Athens, gr. 16.37↑ | |
c. | Γ/B/A | ΠEP | *Vienna, gr. 16.22; Commerce 1932 (Halmyros Hd.) | |
1067. | ||||
A | AΠ | *Leningrad, gr. 16.14↑ | ||
1068. | ||||
A | AΠ | *Istanbul, gr. 16.92↑ | ||
1069. | ||||
A | AΠ | *Winterthur, gr. 15.98↑ | ||
1070. | ||||
A | AΠ | *Berlin (Sv. 77, 1), gr. 16.20 | ||
1071. | ||||
a. | A | ΠEP | *ANS–ETN = Ratto (Rogers) 454, gr. 14.81↑; Paris, gr. 16.05↑; Leningrad, gr. 16.00↑ | |
b. | B | ΠEP | Dewing Coll. = Hess (Vogel) 278, gr. 15.28↑ | |
1064. | ||||
B | AΠ | Leningrad, gr. 15.78↑. With Γ/B: *Cahn 75, 331, gr. 16.63; Berlin, gr. 16.24 | ||
1072. | ||||
a. | B/A | AP | London (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.48↑. With Γ/B/A: Commerce 1953 | |
b. | Γ/Ḅ | AP | *Oxford, gr. 16.58 | |
c. | ? | A | Halmyros Hd. | |
1073. | ||||
a. | B | ΠEP | *Dewing Coll., gr. 16.31↑ | |
b. | ? | ? | London, gr. 15.35 (pierced)↑ | |
1074. | ||||
a. | B | ? | *Munich (Sv. 77, 2), gr. 15.80 (Pl.) | |
b. | Γ | Ạ | Athens (Sv. 77, 3), gr. 16.35↑ | |
c. | ? | Π | Leningrad, gr. 16.20↑ | |
1075. | ||||
a. | Γ | Ẹ | *Athens, gr. 16.40↑ | |
b. | E | ΠP | Glasgow (Hunt. 168), gr. 16.93↑; Istanbul, control letters uncertain, gr. 16.67↑; Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 14.30↑ | |
c. | E | ΠP | ANS (Abruzzi Hd.), gr. 16.04↑ | |
1076. | ||||
a. | Γ | Ạ | Leningrad, gr. 15.77↑ | |
b. | Δ | ? | L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.30 | |
c. | E/Δ | AP/ΠEP | Leningrad, gr. 16.37↑ | |
d. | E | AP | *Munich, gr. 16.60 | |
1077. | ||||
a. | Δ/Γ | ΠEP | Leningrad, gr. 15.63↑; *Amer. Univ. Beirut; ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 15.38↑. Amphora letter uncertain on last two | |
b. | Δ | ΠEP | *Munich (Sv. 77, 4), gr. 16.62; Berlin, gr. 16.82 | |
c. | E | ΠEP | Leningrad, gr. 16.12↑; Commerce (Sv. 77, 5, Feuardent), gr. 16.48; ANS–ETN, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.45↑ | |
1078. | ||||
a. | Δ | ΠEP | *Berry Coll. (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.91↑; Oxford, amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 15.61↑ | |
b. | Δ | ΠEP | Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.83↑; London (BMC 488), amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.73↑ | |
c. | E | AP | Leningrad, gr. 15.59↑ | |
d. | ? | ΠEP | *Andreopoulos Coll. | |
e. | ? | ΠEP | Hess, Mar. 1935, 358, gr. 16.80 | |
1079. | ||||
a. | E/Γ1 | AP(?) | *Dewing Coll., gr. 16.55↑ | |
b. | Z | AP | Berlin (Sv. 77, 6), gr. 16.20 | |
1080. | ||||
E | AΠ | *Leningrad, gr. 15.70↑ | ||
1081. | ||||
a. | E | AΠ | *Athens, gr. 16.10↑ | |
b. | E | AΠ | Ratto (Rogers) 453, gr. 16.70; Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 15.90↑ | |
1082. | ||||
a. | E | AΠ | *London (BMC 484), gr. 16.12↑ | |
b. | Ө | Ạ | Leningrad, gr. 15.74↑; Feuardent (Duruflé) 416, amphora and control letters uncertain | |
1083. | ||||
a. | Z | ΔI | *Romanos Coll. | |
b. | Z | ? | Leningrad, gr. 16.61↑ | |
1084. | ||||
Z | Ạ | *Riechmann XXX, 579, gr. 16.32 | ||
1085. | ||||
Z | ΠEP | *Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), gr. 14.95↑ | ||
1086. | ||||
a. | Z | AΠ | *Athens, gr. 15.70↑ | |
b. | Ө | AΠ | Glasgow (Hunt. 169), gr. 16.30↖ | |
1087. | ||||
a. | H | Ạ | Athens (Halmyros Hd.) | |
b. | Ө/Z | AP/Ạ | *ANS–ETN, gr. 16.90↑ |
c. | Ө | AP | Halmyros Hd. | |
d. | I | AP | *ANS–ETN (Halmyros Hd.),gr. 16.73↑; Athens (Sv. 77, 9), gr. 16.60↑; London (BMC 486), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 15.79↑ | |
e. | ? | ? | Tübingen, gr. 15.78 | |
1088. | ||||
a. | H | Ạ | L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.25; *London (BMC 485), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.21↑ | |
b. | Ө | ΠP | Athens, gr. 16.63↑ | |
1089. | ||||
Ө | ΔI | *Leningrad, gr. 16.52↑; Athens (Delos Hd. IΓ, 31), gr. 15.82↑ | ||
1090. | ||||
a. | Ө | ΠEP | *Glasgow (Hunt. 170), gr. 16.52↑; Berlin, gr. 15.51 | |
b. | Ө | ΠEP | Leningrad (Sv. 77, 7), gr. 16.47; L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 15.80 | |
c. | Ө | AP | Berlin, gr. 16.46 | |
d. | ? | ΠP | ANS (Abruzzi Hd.), gr. 16.18↑ | |
e. | ? | ΠEP | Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), gr. 14.20↑; ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 15.42↑ | |
1091. | ||||
a. | Ө | ΠEP | London (BMC 487; Sv. 77, 8), gr. 16.86↑ | |
b. | K | ΠEP | *Sophia, gr. 16.36; Basel, gr. 16.51↑; Leningrad, gr. 15.74↑ | |
c. | ? | ΠEP | Athens (Carystus Hd. II; BCH, 1958, PI. XLIX, 9), gr. 16.70 | |
1092. | ||||
a. | K | AΠ | *Athens (Sv. 77, 10), gr. 16.27↑ | |
b. | K | AΠ | Zygman Coll., gr. 16.50↑ | |
c. | K | AΠ | Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 948, gr. 17.50 | |
1093. | ||||
a. | K | ? | *ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.04↑ | |
b. | ? | AP | L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.75 | |
1094. | ||||
a. | K | ΠP | Leningrad, gr. 16.19↑ | |
b. | K | ΔI | Leningrad, gr. 15.60↑; Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 15.07↑ | |
c. | ? | ΔI | *ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.09↑ | |
d. | ? | ΔI | Vatican | |
1095. | ||||
a. | Λ | ΠEP | *Glasgow (Hunt. 171), gr. 16.55↑ | |
b. | Λ | ΠEP | Berlin (Sv. 77, 11), gr. 16.39 | |
1096. | ||||
a. | Λ | ΠP | *Berlin, gr. 16.40 | |
b. | Λ | ΠE | Leningrad, gr. 16.06↑ | |
1097. | ||||
a. | Λ | ΠP | Riechmann XXX, 580, gr. 16.41; Athens (Delos Hd. A, 28), amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. l5.80↑ | |
b. | Λ | ΔI | Leningrad, gr. 15.67↑; *Athens (Delos Hd. A, 27), amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.05↑ | |
1098. | ||||
a. | Λ | ΔI | Paris, gr. 16.86↑ | |
b. | ? | ΠP | *Glasgow (Hunt. 172), gr. 16.80↑ | |
1098X. | ||||
Λ | A | *Berlin, gr. 16.11 | ||
1099. | ||||
Λ | A | *Berlin, gr. 16.51; Lund Univ., amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.37 ↗ | ||
1100. | ||||
M/ | ẠP | *Paris (de Luynes 2117), gr. 16.10↑ | ||
1101. | ||||
M | ΠP | Athens, gr. 16.05↑; *Petsalis Coll., amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.38↑ | ||
1102. | ||||
M | AΠ | *Piraeus Hd.; Berlin, gr. 16.65 | ||
1103. | ||||
M | ΠEP | Leningrad (Sv. 77, 12), gr. 16.08; *Petsalis Coll., amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.09↑ | ||
1104. | ||||
? | AΠ | *Edinburgh | ||
1105. | ||||
? | Ạ | Copenhagen (SNG 208), gr. 15.07↑; *The Hague, control letters uncertain, gr. 16.40 |
Drachms
1106. | |||
? | — | *Boston MFA (Brett 1104), gr. 4.11 | |
1107. | |||
? | — | *Vienna, gr. 3.76; Athens (Sv. 77, 14), gr. 4.13 | |
1108. | |||
? | — | *Athens (Delos Hd. A, 29), gr. 4.10↑; ANS–ETN, gr. 3.37↑; Berlin, gr. 3.96 | |
1109. | |||
? | — | *Athens (Delos Hd. Λ–1; Sv. 77, 13), gr. 4.09↑ | |
121 tetradrachms: 42 obverse, 80 reverse dies 7 drachms: 4 obverse, 3 reverse dies Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, H, Ө, I, K, Λ, M Controls: AΠ, AP, ΔI, ΠEP, ΠP |
Two obverse dies are carried over from the preceding issue of Demeas–Hermokles: Nos. 1064 and 1066 (Plates 117 and 118; BCH, 1934, PL I, 1–2). The two magistrates of the present striking are undoubtedly the same men who served three years earlier, using then a coiled serpent symbol. On both coinages the names of Xenokles and Harmoxenos stand alone; there is no record of third magistrates on the dies.
This is the second largest single issue of the New Style series on the evidence of the forty–two obverse dies in use during the year. Striking occurred in all twelve months with the heaviest output in E and Ө and the lightest in H and I.
Controls AΠ, ΔI, ΠEP were employed on issues immediately preceding that of Xenokles–Harmoxenos while AP and ΠP are new for this section of the coinage.1
1 |
It is probably E/Δ/Γ but there is no trace of the intermediate letter. No. 1087b would seem to be another instance of complete
deletion of
the middle letter.
|
Tetradrachms
1110. | ||||
a. | A | AΠ | Athens (Carystus Hd. II; BCH, 1958, PI. XLIX, 10), gr. 15.55; *Vienna, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.13 | |
b. | A(?) | ΣTE | ANS (Abruzzi Hd.), gr. 15.95↑ | |
c. | ? | ΣTẸ | *ANS–ETN, gr. 15.01↑ |
1111. | ||||
B | ? | *Paris, gr. 15.82 (pierced)↑; Kricheldorf VII, 63 = Cahn 65, 160 = Cahn 60, 577, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.30 | ||
1112. | ||||
a. | B | ΔA | *Berlin (Sv. 76, 2), gr. 16.12; Berry Coll. (Piraeus Hd.), gr. 16.82↑ | |
b. | B | ΔA | *Petsalis Coll. (Piraeus Hd.), gr. 16.33 | |
c. | Γ | ΔA | *L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.48; Athens, gr. 16.28↑; L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.30 | |
1113. | ||||
a. | B | AΠ | *Brussels (de Hirsch 1294; Sv. 76, 3), gr. 16.73↑ | |
b. | Γ | ΔA | *Petsalis Coll.1 | |
c. | Δ | ΔA/? | *ANS–ETN, gr. 16.27↑ | |
1114. | ||||
a. | Γ/Ḅ | P | *Chiha Coll. | |
b. | Γ | ΔI | ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.63↑ | |
c. | Δ | ΔI | *Empedocles Coll. | |
d. | Δ | AP | ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.25↑ | |
e. | E | AP | Berlin (Sv. 76, 7), gr. 15.50 | |
f. | ? | ? | Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), gr. 15.38↑ | |
1115. | ||||
a. | Γ | Athens (Sv. 76, 4), gr. 16.62 | ||
b. | Δ | ΠP | *Petsalis Coll. | |
c. | Δ | ΣTE | Berlin (Sv. 76, 5), gr. 15.98; Leningrad, gr. 15.50↑ | |
1116. | ||||
Δ/(?)Γ | Ị | *Hirsch (Rhousopoulos) 2066, gr. 15.68 | ||
1117. | ||||
a. | E | ΠP | *London (Sv. 76, 8), gr. 16.13↑ | |
b. | E | ΠP | Leningrad, gr. 16.44↑ | |
c. | E | ΔI | London = Naville (Bement) 1127, gr. 16.12↑; Ratto (Rogers) 452, gr. 16.20 | |
d. | E | ΔI | Berlin, gr. 15.70 | |
e. | E | ΣΓE(?) | Yale Univ. = Hamburger 98, 697, gr. 16.92↑ | |
1118. | ||||
a. | E | ΔA | *Romanos Coll. (Sv. 76, 6), gr. 16.52 | |
b. | ? | ? | *Florange–Ciani, Oct. 1928, 26 = Baltatzi Coll. (Sv. 76, 26) = Mavrokordatou Coll. (JIAN, 1912,1337), gr. 16.12 |
1119. | ||||
a. | E | ΣTE/ΠP | *Dresden (Sv. 76, 9) | |
b. | Z/E | ΣTẸ | Berlin (Sv. 76, 11), gr. 15.67 | |
1120. | ||||
Z/E | ΔA(?) | *Leningrad = Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 949, gr. l6.58↑1 | ||
1121. | ||||
(APMO≡E–KΛHΣ)2 | Z | ΔI | *Romanos Coll. = Sv. 76, 10, commerce, gr. 16.82 | |
1122. | ||||
z | ΔI/Ạ | *ANS–ETN, gr. 15.41↑ | ||
1123. | ||||
H/Ẓ | ΣTE/Ạ | *Berlin (Sv. 76, 12), gr. 15.94 |
Drachms
1124. | ||||
a. | B | — | *Athens (Delos Hd. Λ–1, 11; Sv. 76, 13), gr. 4.05↑3 | |
b. | Δ | — | Athens (Delos Hd. Λ–1, 12; Sv. 76, 15), gr. 3.95↑ | |
c. | E | — | *ANS, gr. 4.05f; Berlin (Sv. 76, 14), gr. 4.30; Lee (de Zogheb) 281, gr. 3.88 | |
40 tetradrachms: 14 obverse, 80 reverse dies 5 drachms: 1 obverse, 3 reverse dies Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, H Controls: AΠ, AP, ΔA, ΔI, ΠP, ΣTE |
Again we find Xenokles and Harmoxenos serving as annual mint magistrates, this time using for their symbol a representation of Roma seated. Although there is no transfer of obverse dies to establish the contiguity of the two Xenokles–Harmoxenos issues, it seems almost certain, for reasons given in the commentary on the Late Period, that this striking with Roma comes immediately after that with dolphin and trident symbol. As was the case with the preceding emissions of these two officials, there is no indication that third magistrates were connected with the coinage.
The output in 128/2 b.c. was apparently moderate. Only fourteen obverse dies are known and the month dates on the amphorae are limited to A, B, Γ, Δ, E,
Z and H. All control combinations are carried over from the issues of 125/4 and 124/3 except for ΔA which is new.1
Two abnormalities connected with the present striking are noteworthy. On Reverses 1117b and 1118b the representation of Roma is partially effaced. It is impossible to tell from photographs whether this is due to deliberate mutilation or to imperfect striking but in the case of No. 1118b I am inclined to think we have an erasure from die or coin such as we encountered in the issue of Nikogenes – Kallimachos.
Among the coins commonly included in this emission are four (three tetra– drachms and a drachm) which differ markedly in fabric and obverse style from the other specimens of Xenokles–Harmoxenos (Roma). Furthermore, the seated figure in the right field which elsewhere is represented as facing is on these four coins shown side view. These pieces are, I believe, to be regarded as non–Athenian and they are discussed and illustrated in the section on imitations (pages 461–463 and Plate 159).
1 |
In the BCH for 1934 (p. 121) Kambanis lists EP and ΣO as controls for this emission. The first, however, is not
included in the later tabulation of his notebook and the second has a notation that it requires verification.
|
1 |
A Berlin coin of light weight (14.94 gr.) is from the same pair of dies.
|
1 |
The coin was returned to the Hermitage and is currently in the collection there.
|
2 |
The ending of the first magistrate's name has been repeated in error.
|
3 |
Weights entered for Nos. 1124a and b are those of the hoard publication (JIAN, 1911, p. 76, 11–12); in Les monnaies d'Athènes different weights are given for the same coins.
|
Tetradrachms
1122. | |||||
ΣΩΣTPA | A | EP | *Berlin (Sv. 69, 1), gr. 16.49 | ||
1123. | ΣΩΣTPA | A | ΔH | *Giesecke Coll. (Sv. 69, 2), gr. 16.85 | |
1125. | ΣΩΣTPA | A | ΠP | *Berlin, gr. 16.64 | |
1126. | ΠΛEIΣTIAΣ | B | ΔA | *Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), gr. 15.66↑ | |
1127. | |||||
a. | ΠΛEIΣTIAΣ | B | ΔH | *Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.15 | |
b. | ΠΛEIΣTIAΣ | B | ΔH | Paris, gr. 16.05↑; Berlin (Sv. 69, 3), gr. 16.53 | |
c. | ΔIONYΣI | Γ | ΔH | *Copenhagen (SNG 202), gr. 16.31f | |
d. | ΔIONYΣI | Γ | ΔH | Romanos Coll. (Sv. 69, 4), gr. 16.70 |
1128. | |||||
a. | ΔIONYΣI | Γ | ΠP | *London, gr. 15.78↑; Herakleion (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.57↑; Berlin, gr. 15.72 | |
b. | ΔIONYΣI | Γ | ΔIO | *ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.83↑; London (BMC484), gr. 16.00↑; Berlin, gr. 16.32; ANS–ETN, amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.48↑ | |
c. | ΦIΛΩTAΔH | Δ | ΠP | Athens (Sv. 69, 5), gr. 16.60 | |
d. | ΦIΛΩTAΔH | Δ | ΠP | ANS (Abruzzi Hd.), gr. 15.63↑ | |
e. | ΦIΛΩTAΔH | Δ | ΠP | ANS (Abruzzi Hd.), gr. 15.94↑ | |
f. | ? | Δ | AP | *Evelpidis Coll. | |
1129. | |||||
a. | ΦIΛΩTAΔH/ΔIONYΣI | Δ/Γ | ΔH | *Athens, gr. 15.90↑; Berlin, gr. 16.24 | |
b. | ΦIΛΩTAΔH | Δ | ΔH | Berlin (Sv. 69, 6), gr. 16.20 |
Drachms
1130. | |||||
a. | ΠΛEIΣTI | Ḅ | — | *Athens (Sv. 69, 7), gr. 4.00↑ | |
b. | ΦIΛΩTAΔH | ? | — | Romanos Coll. (Sv. 69, 8), gr. 4.27 |
23 tetradrachms: 7 obverse, 16 reverse dies 2 drachms: 1 obverse, 2 reverse dies Magistrates: ΣΩΣTPA, ΠΛEIΣTIAΣ, ΔIONYΣI, ΦIΛΩTAΔH Months: A, B, Γ, Δ Controls: AP, ΔA, ΔH, ΔIO, EP, ΠP
The present issue shares Obverses 1122 and 1123 with the emission of Xenokles–Harmoxenos (Roma) as illustrated on Plates 123 and 124. Other factors serve to relate the two strikings. Both show a moderate output of coinage as indicated by surviving dies and both are of limited duration. Four of the six control combinations of Kointos and Kleas are found on tetradrachms of Xenokles and Harmoxenos.1 Furthermore, the symbols on the two issues are closely connected. The Roma of 123/2 b.c. re–appears in identical representation on the coinage of 122/1 but the later striking has also a standing Nike crowning the seated goddess.
With the issue of Kointos–Kleas there is again a reversion to the three–magistrate pattern which had been abandoned during the two years preceding.
Four third magistrates are recorded and it is noteworthy that an exact correlation between officials and months is established for the first time since the emission of Sokrates and Dionysodo in 148/7 b.c.
1 |
ΠE and ΣΦ are given by Beulé and ΣO is listed by Kambanis. Of the two coins with the first combination, Beulé says that one
(our No. 1119a
from Dresden) has ΣT≡ or ΣTE below the amphora. Since neither combination is known to
him he concludes that ΠE was intended. It is likely that the other piece recorded as having ΠE is in reality marked ΣT or
ΣTE, and possibly
the same is true of the one said to have ΣΦ. The ΣO of Kambanis refers to a Paris coin (No. IIII) on which I can
see no clear lettering below the amphora.
|
1 |
AP, ΔA, ΔI, ΠP. Beulé reads AΠ on a coin in his collection but I have seen no instance of this marking.
|
Tetradrachms
1131. | |||||
a. | ΔIOΓE | A | ΔIO | *Athens, gr. 16.60 | |
b. | ΔIOΓE | A | ΔH | Berlin (Sv. 67, 16), gr. 16.64; Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 912, gr. 16.50 | |
c. | ΔIOΓE | B | ? | *Empedocles Coll. | |
1132. | |||||
a. | ΔIOΓE | A | ΔIO | Commerce (Sv. 67,17, Feuardent), gr. 16.58 | |
b. | ΔIOΓE | A | ΔA | *ANS–ETN, gr. 16.50↑; Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 918, gr. 17.50; Stack's (South) 610 | |
c. | APIΣTONOYΣ | Γ | ΔA | * Ratto (Rogers) 442, gr. 15.70; Berlin, gr. 15.69; ANS, gr.16.50↑; ANS (Abruzzi Hd.), gr. l6.11 ↑; ANS–ETN, amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.30↑ | |
1133. | |||||
a. | ΔIOΓE | B | ΔA | Berlin (Sv. 67, 18), gr. 15.66 | |
b. | ΔIOΓE | ? | Ạ | *Piraeus Hd.; Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.56↑ | |
c. | ΔIOΓE | ? | ? | Paris, gr. 16.68↑ | |
d. | APIΣTONOYΣ | Γ | EΠI | *Empedocles Coll. = Baltatzi Coll. (Sv.67, 20) = Mavrokordatou Coll. (JIAN, 1912. 1307), gr. 16.48; Vienna, gr. 16.02; London, gr. 16.24↑; Cambridge (Grose 5910), gr. 15.75; Paris, gr. 16.52↑; Dresden; Copenhagen (SNG 203), gr.16.67↑; Oxford, amphora letter uncertain, gr.15.55↑; Berlin, gr. 16.72; Berlin, gr. 16.09 | |
e. | APIΣTONOYΣ | ? | EΠ | Berlin, gr. 16.59 | |
1134. | |||||
a. | APIΣTO | Γ | AP | Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 914, gr. 16.10; Berlin, gr. 16.32 | |
b. | APIΣTONOYΣ | Γ | AP | *Vienna, gr. 16.21; Paris (Sv. 67, 19), gr. 16.54↑ | |
1135. | |||||
a. | ΔIONYΣIOΣ/APIΣTONOYΣ | Δ/Γ | ΔA | *Naville (Pozzi) 1600, gr. 16.75 | |
b. | ΔEINIAΣ | Δ | ΔA | Berlin, gr. 15.88 | |
1136. | |||||
a. | ΔIONYΣIOΣ/APIΣTONOYΣ/ΔIOΓE | Δ/Γ/? | AΠO | Berlin (Sv. 67, 21), gr. 16.69 | |
b. | ΔIONYΣIOΣ/APIΣΓONOYΣ | Δ/Γ | ΔA | *Glasgow (Hunt. 123), gr. 16.67↑ | |
1137. | |||||
a. | ΔIONYΣIOΣ/APIΣTONOYΣ/ΔIOΓE | Δ/Γ/A | ΔH/ΔIO | Tübingen, gr. 16.38 | |
b. | ΔEINIAΣ/APIΣTONOYΣ/ΔIOΓE | Δ/Γ/A | ΔH/ΔA | *Berlin, gr. 15.09; London, gr. 15.99↑ | |
c. | ΔEINIAΣ | Δ | AΠO | *ANS-ETN = Ratto (Rogers) 443, gr. 16.01↑; Gotha, amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.61 | |
1138. | |||||
a. | ΔEINIAΣ | Δ | EΠI/AỌ | *ANS (Abruzzi Hd.), gr. 16.44↑ | |
b. | ΔEINIAΣ | H | ΔA | *Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), gr. 15.67↑; Athens (Sv. 67, 23), gr. 16.50↑1 | |
c. | ΔEINIAΣ | H | EΠ | Berlin, gr. 15.81 | |
d. | ΔEINIAΣ | ? | ΔA | Uncertain2 | |
1139. | |||||
a. | ΔEINIAΣ | H | ΔH | *Harvard Univ., gr. 16.42; Berlin, gr. 15.86; Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 915, gr. 15.50; Berry Coll. (Piraeus Hd.), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.83↑ | |
b. | ΔEINIAΣ | H | AP | Berlin (Sv. 67, 22), gr. 15.60; *Paris, control letters uncertain, gr. 15.68↑; Hamburger (Berlin dupl.) 293, gr. 16.35 |
c. | ΔEINIAΣ | H | ΔA | Commerce 1957 (Abruzzi Hd.) | |
d. | ΣIMΩṆ | I | EΠỊ | London (BMC 326; Sv. 67, 24), gr. 16.67↑ | |
1140. | |||||
a. | HPAKΛE/? | K | ΔA | Ball 39 (Fx.Pr.) 403 = Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 917, gr. 16.80 | |
b. | HPAKΛE/? | K | AP | *ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.51↑ | |
c. | APΓEIOΣ | Λ | ΔA | London (BMC 327; Sv. 67, 25), gr. 16.41↑; Lockett Coll. (SNG 1910) = Naville (Bement) 1118, gr. 16.35 ↑; Egger XLVI (Prowe) 488, gr. 16.56; L. Meletopoulos Coll., amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.15; Berlin, gr. 16.96 | |
d. | APΓEIOΣ | Λ | AΠO/? | *Romanos Coll.; ANS (Abruzzi Hd.), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.52↑ | |
e. | XAPEI | M | ΔA | *ANS = Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 918, gr. 16.49↑; ANS (Abruzzi Hd.), gr. 16.22↑; Toronto (Ontario Hd.), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.04↑; London (BMC 328), control letters uncertain, gr. 16.06↑; London, amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.98↑ | |
1141. | |||||
a. | APΓEIOΣ | ΔH | *Berlin, gr. 15.84; ANS (Abruzzi Hd.), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 15.53↑ | ||
b. | XAPEI | ? | ΔA | *Berlin, gr. 16.30 | |
1142. | |||||
a. | APΓEI | Λ | Ạ | Lockett Coll. (SNG 1911), gr. 16.41↑; Egger XLVI (Prowe) 490 = Sotheby (Cumberland Clark) 192, control letters uncertain, gr. 16.76 | |
b. | APΓEIOΣ | Λ | EΠI | *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.15↑ | |
c. | APΓEIOΣ | Λ | EΠI | Ball 89 (Fx.Pr.) 402 = Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 916, gr. 16.60 | |
d. | XAPEI | M | AΠO | *Commerce 1953; Copenhagen (SNG 204). gr. 16.39↑; Berlin (Sv. 67, 26), gr. 16.50; Berlin, gr. 16.35; Athens, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.50↑ | |
e. | XAPEIΣIOΣ | M | EΠI | *Empedocles Coll. = Florange–Ciani (Allotte de la Fuÿe) 410, gr. 16.35; Paris, gr. 15.20↑; Berlin, gr. 16.35; London, gr. 16.31↑ |
Drachms
1130. | ΣIMΩN | ? | — | *Athens (Sv. 67, 27), gr. 4.17↑; Athens, gr. 4.08↑; *Vienna, gr. 8.95 (Plate 124); Romanos Coll.; Athens, gr. 3.97↑; London, gr. 3.66 |
85 tetradrachms: 12 obverse, 32 reverse dies 6 drachms: 1 obverse, 1 reverse die Magistrates: ΔIOΓE, APIΣTONOYΣ, ΔIONYΣIOΣ, ΔEINIAΣ, ΣIMΩN, HPAKΛE, APΓEIOΣ, XAPEIΣIOΣ Months: A, B, Γ, Δ, H, I, K, Λ, M Controls: AΠO, AP, ΔA, ΔH, ΔIO, EΠI |
Contiguity of the issues of KOINTOΣ – KΛEAΣ and AΠEΛΛIKΩN – ΓOPΓIAΣ is indicated by the transfer of a drachm obverse (No. 1130) as illustrated on Plate 124. The present striking is the last of the three-magistrate emissions and apparently one of the last sizable issues put out by the Athenian mint. From now on the names of only two magistrates appear on the coinage and annual output shows an irregular decline, terminating in the token emissions of the early first century b.c.
Eight third magistrates serve for nine months of the year in what seems to be an orderly succession, with the possible exception of ΔIONYΣIOΣ and ΔEINIAΣ in delta. Both names are found cut over APIΣTONOYΣ of gamma but re-engraving is practiced extensively under Apellikon and Gorgias and it may be that No. 1137b with ΔEINIAΣ/APIΣTONOYΣ/ΔIOΓE also has ΔIONYΣIOΣ on the die. 1
There are a few readings in earlier publications or records which differ from the listing above. AN is given by Beulé and ΣΩ by Kambanis; ΣIMΩN with H and with Λ appears in Sundwall. The two last cannot be checked but the other two entries seem to refer alike to No. 1140c (the Berlin coin) with a somewhat obscure ΔA. The complicated recutting of reverse dies during the present emission often makes it difficult to determine the exact lettering and it seems probable that some if not all of the variant readings are due to the confusion caused by re-engraving. The ΔIOΣIO of Beulé's Hunterian coin is definitely ΔIONYΣIOΣ, cut over APIΣTONOYΣ (No. 1136b on Plate 125). Similarly the E with ΔEINIAΣ which Beulé records for a Berlin tetradrachm and the E/Δ which
Kambanis gives for the same coin and for another example in London refer to our No. 1137b. I am quite certain that the month letters are Δ/Γ/A.
1 |
There is a plated coin at Oxford (13.98 gr.) from the same pair of dies; another at Berlin (14.84 gr.) is
apparently either plated or a cast.
|
1 |
It is likely that the record of recut amphora letters is similarly incomplete. Although there is no trace of B on Reverses
1137a and b, one
assumes that the two dies were in fact altered during the second month of the year.
|
2 |
This tetradrachm is recorded in the ANS photo file from a sales catalogue illustration but there is an error in the attribution
which I
cannot resolve.
|
Tetradrachms
1143. | ||||
A | ΔA | *London, gr. 15.93↑ | ||
1144. | ||||
a. | B | EΠI | *London (BMC 458; Sv. 71, 5), gr. 16.23↑ | |
b. | /A | ẸỊ/ΔA | Athens (Sv. 71, 6), gr. 16.25; Leningrad = Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 958, gr. l6.01↑1 | |
1145. | ||||
a. | /A | ẸỊ | *Glasgow (Hunt. 154; Sv. 71, 7), gr. 16.44↑ | |
b. | ? | ? | ANS, gr. 15.87↑ |
Drachms
1146. | |||
? | — | *Leningrad = Hirsch (Imhoof) 2376, gr. 4.09↑; Athens, gr. 4.10↑; ANS-ETN, gr. 3.55↑; Berlin (Sv. 71, 10), gr. 4.07; Athens (Sv. 71, 11), gr. 4.002 | |
6 tetradrachms: 3 obverse, 4 reverse dies 5 drachms: 1 obverse, 1 reverse die Months: A, B, Z Controls: ΔA, EΠI |
This is a limited coinage. Only a few specimens and dies are known and emission was apparently restricted to months A, B, and Z. Kambanis in his notebook lists Δ and E as amphora letters, the first for our No. 1145a and the second for No. 1144b. In both cases I am quite sure that the reading is /A and Macdonald in publishing the Glasgow piece gives as the date. It is possible that B was inscribed over A before was added but if so there is no clear trace of the intermediate letter on either die.
1 |
The coin was returned to the Hermitage and is still in the collection there. In the Schlessinger catalogue there
is the notation "Echtheit fraglich" but I can see nothing wrong with the piece. Its weight is good and it shares dies with
an Athens tetradrachm of indubitable authenticity. Furthermore, according to the dealer's
records, Regling was interested in acquiring it, which would argue for its genuineness.
|
2 |
This is almost certainly the same drachm as Svoronos No. 12 (Engel).
|
Tetradrachms
1147. | ||||
A | EP | *Empedocles Coll. = Naville (Pozzi) 1610, gr. 16.59 | ||
1148. | ||||
Γ | EP | *London (BMC 474), gr. 16.93↑ | ||
1149. | ||||
Γ | ΣTE | *Berlin (Sv. 75, 2), gr. 16.46 | ||
1150. | ||||
Γ | ΣTE | *Winterthur, gr. 16.85 ↗ | ||
1151. | ||||
a. | Γ | EP | Glasgow (Hunt. 155; Sv. 75, 1), gr. 16.63↑ | |
b. | Δ | EP | *Oxford, gr. 16.75 | |
1152. | ||||
a. | Δ/Γ(?) | EP | The Hague (Sv. 75, 8) | |
b. | EP | *London (BMC 475; Sv. 75, 4), gr. 16.75↑; Commerce 1956 | ||
1153. | ||||
Ө | EP | *ANS, gr. 15.71↑ | ||
1154.1 | ||||
a. | Ө(?) | EP | Copenhagen (SNG 289), gr. 16.86↑ | |
b. | ? | EP | *ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 15.83↑ | |
c. | ? | EP | *Paris, gr. 17.13↑ | |
d. | ? | ? | Leningrad (Sv. 75, 8), gr. 16.88 | |
1155. | ||||
a. | K | EP | Glasgow (Hunt. 156; Sv. 75, 5), gr. 16.45↑ | |
b. | Λ | EP | Istanbul, gr. 16.69↑ | |
c. | M | EP | *Berlin, gr. 15.88; Athens = Sv. 75, 10 (Hirsch), gr. 16.50; ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.40↑ | |
d. | ? | EP | Romanos Coll. | |
1156. | ||||
M | EP | *Dresden; Cambridge (Grose 5919; Sv. 75, 9) = Hirsch (Weber) 1701 (Sv. 75, 6), gr. 16.70↑; ANS-ETN = Egger XL (Prowe) 964, gr. 16.16↑; Naville (Pozzi) 1611, gr. 16.81; Naville (Pozzi) 1612 (Sv. 75, 7), gr. 16.48 |
Drachm
1157. | ||||
? | — | *Vienna, gr. 3.78 |
25 tetradrachms: 10 obverse, 18 reverse dies 1 drachm Months: A, Γ, Δ, Z, Ө, K, Λ, M1 Controls: EP, ΣTE
1 |
The obverse die as coupled with reverses c and d has been recut.
|
Tetradrachms
1158. | ||||
A | ΔIỌ | *Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), gr. 15.38↑ | ||
1159. | ||||
E | ΔI | *Berlin (Sv. 73, 3), gr. 16.51; Romanos Coll. (Sv. 73, 4), gr. 16.87 | ||
1160. | ||||
a. | Ө | ΔIỌ | *ANS, gr. 16.22↑; Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), gr. 16.40↑ | |
b. | K | IΣI | *Munich (Sv. 73, 5), gr. 16.26; London (BMC 431), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.70↑ | |
c. | ? | ? | Athens, gr. 15.85↑ | |
1161. | ||||
a. | K | IΣI | *Oxford, gr. 15.79↑ | |
b. | Ḳ | ỊỊ | *The Hague, gr. 16.05 | |
c. | N | IΣI | *Gotha, gr. 15.82 (pierced) | |
d. | ? | IΣI | Berlin, gr. 16.77 | |
1162. | ||||
a. | K | IΣI | *London (BMC 432), gr. 16.50↖2 | |
b. | N(?) | ? | *London, gr. 16.63↑ | |
1163. | ||||
a. | K | ΔI | Glasgow (Hunt. 145; Sv. 73, 6), gr. 17.17↑ | |
b. | N | Ị | *Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), gr. 16.55↑ | |
c. | N | ΔI | *Athens (Delos Hd. A, 23; Sv. 73, 8), gr. 16.80; Naples (Santangelo Coll., Fiorelli 10787), control letters uncertain, gr. 16.36↑ |
1164. | |||
Ṇ | IΣI | *London (BMC 433), gr. 15.35↑; Glasgow (Hunt. 146; Sv. 73, 7), gr. 16.74↑ |
20 tetradrachms: 7 obverse, 15 reverse dies Months: A, E, Ө, K, N Controls: ΔI(O), IΣI
Like the two preceding issues, this is a small emission. Coinage is known for only five scattered months with a heavy concentration in the last two, K and N. M is recorded as the amphora date on tetradrachms in London and Glasgow (our No. 1164) but the letter of the Hunterian piece is almost certainly N and that of the British Museum coin from the same reverse die more likely N than M.1 I doubt that there was any output of silver during mu. The presence of nu on three to five reverses attests the intercalary nature of the year.
Controls are limited to ΔI and IΣI, the latter new to the coinage. The EY and ΣΩ of Beulé for two London specimens (Nos. 1160b and 1162a) are both misreadings for IΣI; in the British Museum Catalogue the lettering is correctly given.
1 |
Beulé gives E for coins at The Hague and Copenhagen; the marking on the first piece seems to me more likely Δ/Γ while the second tetradrachm
has Ө (?) according to the Sylloge publication.
|
2 |
The weights of BMC 432 and 433 are transposed in Head's publication.
|
Tetradrachms
1165. | ||||
a. | B | EP | *Glasgow (Hunt. 149; Sv. 74, 9), gr. 16.74↑ | |
b. | Ө | EP | * Vienna, gr. 17.07; London (Sv. 74, 21), amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 17.09↑ | |
1166. | ||||
a. | Γ/B | Ạ | Glasgow (Hunt. 150; Sv. 74, 10), gr. 16.79↑. With /Γ/B: Berlin (Sv. 74, 11), gr. 16.262 | |
b. | ? | ? | *Berlin (Sv. 74, 20), gr. 16.84 | |
1167. | ||||
a. | K | IΣI | *Copenhagen (SNG 288; Sv. 74, 13), gr. 16.61↑ | |
b. | ? | ? | *ANS-ETN (1934/5 Hd.), gr. 17.43↑ | |
c. | ? | ? | Frankfurt am Main | |
d. | ? | ? | Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), gr. 16.30↑ |
1168. | ||||
? | IΣI | *Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), gr. 15.22↑ | ||
1169. | ||||
a. | K | ΔI | Glasgow (Hunt. 151; Sv. 74, 12), gr. 17.59↑ | |
b. | Λ | ΔI | *Glasgow (Hunt. 152; Sv. 74, 14), gr. 16.89↑ | |
1170. | ||||
a. | Λ | AΠ | *Paris (Sv. 74, 19). gr. 16.79↑ | |
b. | M/ | AΠ | *Berlin, gr. 17.30; Budapest, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.51 (pierced)↑ | |
c. | ? | AΠ | *Romanos Coll. | |
1171. | ||||
a. | Λ | EP | *London (Sv. 74, 16), gr. 16.45↑ | |
b. | Λ | EP | Herakleion (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.76↑; London (BMC455; Sv. 74, 15), gr. 16.97↑ | |
c. | M | EP | Cambridge (Grose 5917; Sv. 74, 17), gr. 16.12↑ | |
1172. | ||||
M/Λ | ΔI | *Amsterdam (Boissevain 52), gr. 17.17; Herakleion (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.86↑; Glasgow (Hunt. 153; Sv. 74, 18), gr. 16.60↑ |
24 tetradrachms; 8 obverse, 17 reverse dies Months: B, Γ, Ө, K, Λ, M Controls: AΠ, ΔI, EP, IΣI
Again we have a limited coinage issued during only six months of the year. Beulé gives A, Δ, E and H as amphora letters but two of the dates, A and E on coins in the British and Hunterian Museums, are incorrect and the other two are probably also misreadings. Controls ΔI and IΣI carry over from the preceding issue and are supplemented by ATT and EP. The ΣΩ of Beulé is not otherwise attested and must be regarded as suspect.
1 |
On some dies N may be cut over K but it is impossible to be sure.
|
2 |
The amphora lettering on the Berlin piece differs from that on the Glasgow coin. It
looks as though another date, most likely Λ, had been cut over the Γ/B of the earlier stage of the die. There may be intervening
letters.
|
Tetradrachms
1173. | ||||
a. | A | ΔIỌ | *Glasgow (Hunt. 141; Sv. 70, 15), gr. 16.76↑ | |
b. | E | ΔI | London (BMC 339; Sv. 70, 18), gr. 16.78↑ | |
1174. | ||||
Δ | EP | *Naples (Mus. Naz., Fiorelli 7140; Sv. 70, 16), gr. 16.60)↑ | ||
1175. | ||||
a. | Δ | EP | *Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), gr. 16.05↑ | |
b. | ? | ? | *London, gr. 16.74↑ | |
1176. | ||||
E/Δ(?) | IΣI | *Berlin, gr. 16.66; ANS-ETN = Ratto (Rogers) 449, gr. 16.07↑; Commerce (Sv. 70, 17, Hirsch), gr. 16.27 | ||
1177. | ||||
a. | EP | *Athens, gr. 15.53↑; ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.47↑; Leningrad, gr. 17.08↑ | ||
b. | I | EP | *London (BMC 340), gr. 16.98↑ | |
c. | ? | ? | Berlin, gr. 16.17 | |
1178. | ||||
Ө | IΣI | *ANS = Baltatzi Coll. (Sv. 70, 19) = Mavrokordatou Coll. (JIAN, 1912, 1310), gr. 17.08↑ | ||
1169. | ||||
a. | Ө | ΔI | * Vienna, gr. 15.95; Romanos Coll. | |
b. | Ө | ΔI | *Berlin, gr. 16.47;Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), gr. 16.83↑ | |
c. | I | ΔI | *Copenhagen (SNG 286), gr. 16.55↑ | |
19 tetradrachms: 7 obverse, 13 reverse dies Months: A, Δ, E, Z, Ө, I Controls: ΔI(O), EP, IΣI |
Obverse 1169 is transferred from Mentor–Moschion to Architimos–Demetri (as illustrated on Plate 131). Since the die is used in the last months of both emissions, the amphora letters are useless in establishing the order of the two issues but there is a small vertical die break, close to the outer edge of the neckguard, which is visible on Nos. 1169a, b and c (on c there seems to be additional deterioration in this area) of Architimos and absent from Nos. 1169a and b of Mentor. Furthermore, the die as used with reverses of Architimos seems to have been recut slightly in the region of the upper bowl of the helmet. These technical indications confirm the evidence of style. The emission of Mentor–Moschion belongs to a long sequence of stylistically homogeneous issues. That of Architimos–Demetri introduces a totally different and highly distinctive style; it would, therefore, seem to be the later striking.
There is no evidence for the use of Obverse 1169 during the early months of 117/6 B.c. The die may have been brought back into service only during the concluding months of emission to finish out the year's coinage. Even if its span of active life did cover the full nine months of recorded output, this durability would not be remarkable for what seems to have been in both years a light coinage.
Control combinations are the same as those for Mentor–Moschion except that I have no record of AΠ. Kambanis in his notebook does give that reading, taken from a sales catalogue, but he queries it. The ΔH, EY and ΣO of Beulé are in all probability misreadings of ΔI, EP and IΣI.
Tetradrachms
1179. | ||||
A | E | *Glasgow (Hunt. 147), gr. 17.28↑. With B/A and IΣI/E: Romanos Coll. | ||
1180. | ||||
a. | A | EP | London (BMC 443; Sv. 73, 18), gr. 16.76↑; *Berlin, control letters uncertain, gr. 16.88; Leningrad (Sv. 73, 24), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.08 | |
b. | B | EP | *Paris, gr. 16.02↑ | |
1181. | ||||
a. | B/A | IΣI/EP | Athens (Sv. 73, 19), gr. 16.20 | |
b. | B | ΔI | *Berlin (Sv. 73, 20), gr. 16.93 | |
c. | E | ΔI | London (Sv. 73, 21), gr. 16.83↑; *Amsterdam (Boissevain 51), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.90 | |
1182. | ||||
Λ/K | EP | *Berlin, gr. 16.81 | ||
1183. | ||||
a. | Λ/K | ΔI | Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө)↑ | |
b. | Λ | ΔI | Glasgow (Hunt. 148; Sv. 73, 23), gr. 16.69↑ | |
c. | Ṃ | ΔI | *Paris (Sv. 73, 22), gr. 16.28↑ | |
1184. | ||||
? | ? | *Berry Coll., gr. 16.54↑ |
Drachms
1185. | |||
? | ? | *Athens (Delos Hd. IΓ, 30), gr. 3.28↑ | |
1186. | |||
? | ? | *Athens, gr. 3.30↑ |
15 tetradrachms: 6 obverse, 10 reverse dies 2 drachms: 2 obverse, 1 reverse die Months: A, B, E, K, Λ, Ṃ1 Controls: ΔI, EP, IΣI
Tetradrachms
1187. | ||||
A | ΔI | *Glasgow (Hunt. 139; Sv. 70, 6), gr. 16.97↑ | ||
1188. | ||||
a. | A | IΣI | •London (BMC 317; Sv. 70, 5), gr. 17.61↑ | |
b. | A | AΠ | *Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), gr. 14.62↑ | |
1189. | ||||
a. | Γ/A | AΠ | *Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), gr. 16.25↑; Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), gr. 15.02↑ | |
b. | ? | AΠ | * Vienna, gr. 16.42 | |
1190. | ||||
a. | Δ | ΣΩ/(?) IΣI | *Glasgow (Hunt. 140; Sv. 70, 7), gr. 16.22↑ | |
b. | ? | ? | Romanos Coll. | |
1191. | ||||
a. | Δ | IΣI | *Paris (Sv. 70, 8), gr. 16.88↑ | |
b. | ? | ? | ANS-ETN, gr. 15.37↑ | |
1192. | ||||
a. | H/E | ΣΩ/? | *Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), gr. 15.90↑ | |
b. | ? | EP | Leningrad, gr. 13.82↑2 | |
1192X. | ? | ? | *Berlin, gr. 16.85 | |
1193. | ||||
? | ? | *Athens (Delos Hd. A, 2; Sv. 70, 9), gr. 16.40 | ||
1194. | ||||
? | ? | *Copenhagen (SNG 284), gr. 15.75↑ |
1195. | |||
? | ? | *Athens (Delos Hd. A, 3), gr. 16.88↑ | |
16 tetradrachms: 10 obverse, 13 reverse dies Months: A, Γ, Δ, E, H Controls: AΠ, ΔI, EP, IΣI, ΣΩ |
1 |
The amphora letter on No. 1183c is read by Beulé as H and by Kambanis as K. It is certainly far from clear but I think the
marking is
probably M, perhaps cut over Λ or even Λ/K.
|
2 |
From a photographic reproduction the Leningrad coin seems to have been trimmed which
could account for its light weight. It may be a cast reproduction of a genuine piece.
|
Tetradrachms
Drachm
1204. | ||||
? | — | *Copenhagen (SNG 211; Sv. 72, 23), gr. 3.81↑ | ||
10 tetradrachms: 8 obverse, 9 reverse dies 1 drachm Months: A, K Controls: AΠ, EΠ, EP, IΣI1 |
Nos. 1196a and b show several peculiarities: the style of the obverse head is somewhat strange, the owl of 1196a is unusually small, the name of the first magistrate is abbreviated (EYMHΛ on 1196a and EYMHΛO on 1196b), neither reverse has control letters and No. 1196b omits the E of the ethnic. It is possible that the two coins are imitations rather than regular issues of the Athenian mint but I am inclined to consider them the work of an inexperienced diecutter.
1 |
The EP reading, found only on a tetradrachm in Turin, is fairly certain. Both letters are partially involved with the wreath
but the first
is almost surely E and the upper part of the second has a loop which must be part of a P.
|
Tetradrachms
1205. | ||||
A | ΔI | *Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), gr. 15.68↑ | ||
1206. | ||||
A | EP | *London (BMC 476; Sv. 75, 14), gr. 17.20↑; Moscow = Schlessinger (Hermitage I) 187 = Hess 208, 453, gr. 16.40 | ||
1207. | ||||
Ạ | ΣΩ | *Copenhagen (SNG 210), gr. 17.11↑ | ||
1208. | ||||
a. | A | ? | *Paris, gr. 16.71 ↑ | |
b. | E/Ạ | IΣI/Σ | Glasgow (Hunt. 158; Sv. 75, 17), gr. 16.97↑ | |
c. | Z | IΣI/ΣΩ | Glasgow (Hunt. 160), gr. 16.45↑ | |
1209. | ||||
a. | A | AΠ | *Oxford, gr. 16.54. With E/A1: *Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 3228; Sv. 75, 16), gr. 16.99↑ | |
b. | Z | EP | *Romanos Coll. | |
1210. | ||||
B | AΠ | *Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), gr. 16.45↑; Athens↑ | ||
1211. | ||||
B | ΣΩ | *Glasgow (Hunt. 157; Sv. 75, 15), gr. 16.77↑ | ||
1212. | ||||
a. | E | ΣΩ | London (BMC 477), gr. 17.10↑; Leningrad, gr. 17.63↑ | |
b. | Z | ΣΩ | *London (BMC 478; Sv. 75, 19), gr. 16.72↑ | |
c. | Ө | ΣΩ | Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), gr. 15.60↑; Commerce 1953 |
1213. | ||||
a. | EP | *Glasgow (Hunt. 159), gr. 17.18↑ | ||
b. | Z | EP | *Marseille (Sv. 75, 18), gr. 16.90 | |
1214. | ||||
a. | EP | *Empedocles Coll. | ||
b. | H | AΠ | *ANS, gr. 16.12↗ | |
c. | Ө | ? | *Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.06↗ | |
1215. | ||||
? | ? | *Vienna, gr. 16.39 | ||
1216. | ||||
K | ? | *Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), gr. 15.82↑ | ||
1217. | ||||
a. | K | EP/? | *Glasgow (Hunt. 162), gr. 16.48↗ | |
b. | ? | IΣ | Tübingen | |
1218. | ||||
a. | K | A | *Uncertain (probably commerce) | |
b. | K | AΠ | Glasgow (Hunt. 161; Sv. 75, 20), gr. 16.69↑ | |
c. | Λ | ΔI | Glasgow (Hunt. 163), gr. 16.45↑ | |
1219. | ||||
a. | Λ | AΠ | Athens (Delos Hd. A, 24), gr. 16.05↑; * Berlin, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.99 | |
b. | N | AΠ | Glasgow (Hunt. 164; Sv. 75, 23), gr. 16.77↑ | |
1220. | ||||
a. | Λ | IΣ | Athens = Sv. 75, 21, Hirsch, gr. 15.72; *Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 15.65↑ | |
b. | N | IΣ | *Berlin (Sv. 75, 22), gr. 16.37 | |
1221. | ||||
a. | N | EP | *Glasgow (Hunt. 165), gr. 17.02↑ | |
b. | N | EP | London (BMC 479), gr. l6.l5↑ | |
c. | N | EP | Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), gr. 16.85↑ | |
39 tetradrachms: 17 obverse, 81 reverse dies Months: A, B, E, Z, H, Ө, K, Λ, N Controls: AΠ, ΔI, EP, IΣ(I), ΣΩ |
The issues of Eumelos–Theoxenides and Nestor–Mnaseas were thought by Kambanis to be linked by a transferred obverse die and this connection between the two strikings was published in the BCH for 1938 (pp. 74f. and Pl. XVIII, 3–4). There can, I believe, be little doubt of the contiguity of the emissions but unfortunately the proof presented by Kambanis is invalid in that the same obverse die is combined with still a third reverse, one of Demeas–Hermokles. The three coins belong among the imitations of the New Style coinage and are discussed in that section of the present corpus (pp. 460f.).
In number of obverse dies and surviving specimens the coinage of Nestor – Mnaseas is the most extensive striking since that of Apellikon–Gorgias and the last large issue of the New Style series. Nine months of the year are recorded on the amphorae and at least five reverses have the intercalary N.1
1 |
In the Sylloge publication the amphora letter is described as E/Δ but I can see no indication of anything but the
underlying A and the superimposed E.
|
Tetradrachms
1222. | ||||
a. | A | ? | *Milan | |
b. | ? | ? | *Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), gr. 15.85↑ | |
1223. | ||||
B/A | ΔI | *Athens (Delos Hd. A, 31; Sv. 77, 19), gr. 16.90 | ||
1224. | ||||
a. | B(?) | ΔI | Naples (Mus. Naz., Fiorelli 7148; Sv. 77, 20), gr. 16.58↑ | |
b. | E | ΔI | London (BMC 499; Sv. 77, 21), gr. 17.01↑ | |
c. | Z | ΔI | *Berlin (Sv. 77, 22), gr. 16.95 | |
d. | H | Ị | Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө)↑; Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), control letters uncertain, gr. 16.62↑ | |
1225. | ||||
a. | H or I | Σ | *Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), gr. 16.30↑ | |
b. | ? | ? | *Glasgow (Hunt. 173), gr. 16.72↑; Leningrad, gr. 16.81↑2 | |
1226. | ||||
a. | ? | ΣΩ | *Cambridge (Grose 5920; Sv. 77, 18), gr. 16.87↑; ANS-ETN, gr. 15.73↑ | |
b. | ? | Σ | Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), gr. 15.20↑ | |
c. | ? | ? | Copenhagen (SNG 285), gr. 17.01↑ |
d. | ? | ? | Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), gr. 15.55↑; Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө)↑; Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө)↑ | |
e. | ? | ? | Athens (Delos Hd. ≡Ө), gr. 15.40↑ | |
1226X. | ||||
? | ΔI | *Berlin, gr. 16.05 (pierced) | ||
20 tetradrachms: 6 obverse, 15 reverse dies Months: A, B, E, Z, H, I(?) Controls: ΔI, ΣΩ1 |
1 |
M is recorded by both Beulé and Kambanis but in all cases the letter is either Λ or N. I do not believe that there was any
output of
coinage during mu.
Similarly the ΣΦ of Beulé and the Hunterian and British Museum publications proves upon inspection of the coins to be either
ΣΩ or
IΣI/ΣΩ.
|
2 |
Tetradrachms
1227. | ||||
a. | ΔI | Commerce 1955, gr. 16.97↑; Leningrad (Sv. 73, 15), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.20 | ||
b. | ? | ΔI | *London (BMC 437; Sv. 73, 14), gr. 16.84↑ | |
3 tetradrachms: 1 obverse, 2 reverse dies Months: Controls: ΔI |
Tetradrachms
1228. | ||||
H | ΔI | *Hirsch (Rhousopoulos) 2068 = Sv. 77, 16, gr. 16.562 | ||
1229. | ||||
H3 | ΔI | *Berlin Cast Coll. (Köhler, Sitzungsber. d. Berl. Akad., 1896, Pl. XI, 10), gr. 17.05 | ||
2 tetradrachms: 2 obverse, 1 reverse die Months: H Controls: ΔI |
The two specimens of this issue are published briefly by Svoronos (Riv. Num., 1908, p. 315)1 who identifies the standing figure in the right field as Herakles μύστης with reference to similar representations on a hydria and on a cinerary urn where the scenes depicted are connected with the Eleusinian Mysteries (JIAN, 1901, Pls. IE and IZ). The Herakles of the coinage, lion's skin cloak draped over his arm, carries a bakchos and holds in the other hand a young pig suspended in air by a rear leg.
1 |
Kambanis in his notebook records Cω for our No. 1224b but the ΔI reading of the British Museum Catalogue is correct.
AΠO is given by Kambanis for both examples of No. 1226a; both seem to me to have ΣΩ. The ME of Beulé is highly unlikely.
|
2 |
Found on Crete in 1896 according to the Hirsch Catalogue. No. 1229, published by Köhler in 1896, is also said to
have come from Crete. The probability is that they are from a hoard, possibly Cretan Hoard I with its extensive representation
of late
issues.
|
3 |
There may be a clumsy Ө cut over the H on this coin or the marking may be only a flaw or a die-break.
|
Tetradrachm
1230. | ||||
? | ? | *Herakleion (Cretan Hd. I; Sv. 72, 26), gr. 15.90 | ||
1 tetradrachm Months: ? Controls: ? |
Tetradrachms
1231. | ||||
a. | A | ΣΩ | *Berry Coll., gr. 15.58↑; Glasgow (Hunt. 142; Sv. 72, 10), amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.50↑ | |
b. | M | ΣΩ | *ANS, gr. 15.58↑ | |
c. | M | ΣΩ | *Athens (Sv. 72, 9), gr. 16.65↑; London (BMC 387; Sv. 72, 8), gr. 16.20↑2 | |
5 tetradrachms: 1 obverse, 3 reverse dies Months: A, M Controls: ΣΩ |
1 |
There is some uncertainty as to the whereabouts of the first piece. In the Rivista article Svoronos says it is in
Athens as a 1906 accession of the Numismatic Museum (JIAN,
1906, p. 327, no. 62) but in the later Monnaies d'Athènes the coin is listed as being in the possession of Dr. Hirsch. It was not among the tetradrachms I saw in Athens in
1955 but a small number of coins which had been on exhibit before the war could not be examined and the Pantakles—Demetrios
piece may be
with this lot.
Svoronos gives the weight of the Hirsch specimen as 16.27 gr. (16.26 in the Rivista citation) while the Rhousopoulos Catalogue has 16.56. |
2 |
Doublestriking accounts for the misreading of the amphora letter as H on the British Museum piece.
|
Tetradrachms
1232. | ||||
E | ΣΩ | *Oxford (Sv. 71, 13), gr. 16.25 | ||
1233. | ||||
a. | (?) | ΣΩ | *Herakleion (Cretan Hd. I; Sv. 71, 14), gr. 15.70. With H/(?): Paris, gr. 16.84↑ | |
b. | ? | ? | *Berlin, gr. 15.58 | |
c. | ? | ΣΩ | Berlin, gr. 15.27 | |
5 tetradrachms: 2 obverse, 4 reverse dies Months: E, Z(?), H2 Controls: ΣΩ |
A tetradrachm of this issue was restruck by Aesillas, quaestor of Macedonia between 93 and 88 B.c. This crucially important overstriking, now in the Berlin Cabinet, was published by Regling (JIAN, 1908, pp. 241f.) and is illustrated on Plate 138 (also Svoronos, Plate 71, 15). Regling observes that the date of the Athenian issue must be shortly before the end of Aesillas' term of office since the bulk of coinage in circulation at any given time consists of the output of the last decade. There are, however, a great many imponderables involved in the distribution and life-span of coinage; it seems to me that the time differential between the emission of the tetradrachm of Demeas–Kallikratides and its re-emission as a Macedonian coin of Aesillas is in no way excessive.3
Tetradrachms
1234. | ||||
a. | ΣΩ | *ANS-ETN = Ratto (Rogers) 448, gr. 16.45↑; Gotha (Sv. 70, 3), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.30 |
1235. | ||||
b. | ? | Σ | Paris (Sv. 70, 2), gr. 16.87↑ | |
? | ? | *Athens (Sv. 70, 1) = Hirsch (Rhousopoulos) 2034, gr. 16.65 | ||
4 tetradrachms: 2 obverse, 2 reverse dies Months: Z, 1 Controls: ΣΩ |
1 |
Dow ("The Egyptian Cults in Athens," pp. 266f.) queries the identification of the
figure as Isis but I think the distinctive headdress, clearly visible on No. 1233a, makes the association certain.
|
2 |
Beulé gives Ө for the date on a tetradrachm in the von Prokesch Collection. The coin cannot be checked but it should be noted
in support of
Beulé's reading that the Paris piece which has H over an earlier date may also have a
superimposed Ө.
|
3 |
The New Style tetradrachm overstamped by Aesillas was struck from the same reverse die as No. 1233c. The obverse of this Berlin
coin is very poorly preserved but the die seems to be No. 1233.
|
Tetradrachm
1236. | ||||
A | ΣΩ | *London (Sv. 72, 5), gr. 16.23↑2 | ||
1 tetradrachm Months: A Controls: ΣΩ |
Tetradrachms
1237. | ||||
a. | B | ΣΩ | London (BMC 402; Sv. 72, 12), gr. 16.69↑; Leningrad, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.58↑ | |
b. | Ẹ | ΣΩ | *Romanos Coll. (Sv. 72, 15), gr. 16.55 | |
1238. | ||||
a. | Ẹ | ΣΩ | Venice (Sv. 72, 13) | |
b. | ? | ΣΩ | Paris (Sv. 72, 14), gr. 16.47↑; Herakleion (Cretan Hd. I) | |
c. | ? | *Berlin, gr. 15.61 | ||
1239. | ||||
a. | Λ/K | ΣΩ | *Empedocles Coll. | |
b. | ? | ΣΩ | Romanos Coll. |
1240. | ||||
a. | Λ/Ḳ | ? | *ANS, gr. 16.90↑ | |
b. | ? | ? | Leningrad, gr. 15.75↑ | |
11 tetradrachms: 4 obverse, 8 reverse dies Months: B, Ẹ, K, Λ Controls: ΣΩ |
1 |
Beulé records E as the amphora letter on the Gotha coin; the date seems to me quite
illegible.
|
2 |
There are four exact replicas of the British Museum coin: Berlin (Sv. 72, 6, gr. 15.93), Smyrna (Sv. 72, 7, gr. 14.50), Herakleion and ANS (gr. 15.35). The ANS coin
is a cast and it is evident that the other three pieces are also casts of the London tetradrachm. According to
the present record there is only one genuine example of the coinage of Dionysios–Mnasagoras.
|
Tetradrachms
1241. | ||||
a. | A | Σω | *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.56↑ | |
b. | Ạ | Σω | Herakleion (Cretan Hd. I; Sv. 74, 6), gr. 15.50 | |
c. | Σω | London (BMC 453; Sv. 74, 2), gr. 16.82↑ | ||
1242. | ||||
? | *Berlin (Sv. 74, 3), gr. 16.25; Paris, gr. 16.52↑ | |||
1243. | ||||
a. | ? | Commerce (Sv. 74, 5, Hirsch), gr. 16.50 | ||
b. | Ө/Δ | Σω | *Athens (Sv. 74, 1), gr. 16.40↑; Leningrad (Sv. 74, 7), amphora letter uncertain | |
1244. | ||||
? | Σω | *London (BMC 454; Sv. 74, 4), gr. 16.57↑ | ||
9 tetradrachms: 4 obverse, 6 reverse dies Months: A, Γ, Δ, Ө1 Controls: Σω |
Obverses 1243 and 1244 are, I believe, from different dies. They are very similar nevertheless and one may be a recutting of the other.
With this issue the cursive omega which will recur in the later strikings of Menneas–Herodes, Diokles–Leonides and Diokles–Diodoros makes an appearance in the control combination Σω. 2
1 |
In the BMC the amphora letter of No. 1244 is given as M but I think this is far from certain.
|
2 |
The ΣO and ΣΦ given in earlier publications are misreadings of this unfamiliar form.
|
Tetradrachm
1245. | ||||
ΔA | *Athens (Sv. 74, 8; JIAN, 1906, p. 299), gr. 15.32 | |||
1 tetradrachm Months: Z Controls: ΔA |
Tetradrachm
1246. | ||||
? | ? | *Noe Coll. = Petsalis Coll. (BCH, 1938, Pl. XVIII, 1), gr. 16.25↑ |
Drachms
1247. | ||||
a. | ? | ? | *Berlin (Sv. 72, 1), gr. 4.14 | |
b. | ? | ΠP(?) | Commerce (Sv. 72, 2)1 | |
1 tetradrachm 2 drachms: 1 obverse, 2 reverse dies Months: ? Controls: ΠP(?) |
Kambanis in the BCH article says that there are traces of A or Λ on the amphora of the tetradrachm. One drachm (our No. 1247a) has uncertain lettering on and below the amphora according to Sundwall (ZfN, 1908, p. 273); the other as published by Svoronos (JIAN, 1904, p. 62) is described as having A? on the amphora and ΠP below. From the illustration in Les monnaies d' Athènes, the control combination looks more like AΠ, but one cannot be sure of the reading.
It is noteworthy that there is a variation in letter forms within this one issue. On the drachms the sigmas are square as they are in the striking of Demochares–Pammenes which follows. On the tetradrachm all four letters have been recut with a four-barred sigma superimposed on the square variety.
1 |
The gold δανάκη of Svoronos' Plate 72, 3 was, I think, made with a drachm having reverse die 1247b.
|
Drachm
1248. | ||||
? | ? | * Berlin (Sv. 71, 16; ZfN, 1908, pp. 273f.), gr. 4.09 | ||
1 drachm Months: ? Controls: ? |
This is the one New Style issue for which only fractional silver is known. As noted before, square sigmas terminate the magistrates' names.
Tetradrachms
1249. | ||||
a. | Δ/Γ | ΠEP(?) | *Berlin (Sv. 71, 20), gr. 16.73 | |
b. | Δ/Γ | ΠEP(?) | *Münz. u. Med. XIII, 1133 = Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 928, gr. 15.79↑; Giesecke Coll. (Sv. 71, 19), gr. 16.54 |
Drachms
1250. | ||||
a. | ? | HP | *Gotha (Sv. 71, 22), gr. 3.20 | |
b. | ? | Ḥ | Athens (Sv. 71, 21), gr. 4.08 | |
3 tetradrachms: 1 obverse, 2 reverse dies 2 drachms: 1 obverse, 2 reverse dies Months: Γ, Δ Controls: HP, ΠEP(?) |
Considerable variation in amphora and control letters is recorded. Beulé has M as the date on the Gotha drachm but the amphora letter seems to me absolutely illegible. Sundwall lists Δ and ME for a Rhousopoulos tetradrachm (from the Hirsch Catalogue but not illustrated) and Λ for a Berlin piece. Kambanis gives Δ/Γ with HP for our No. 1249b and M with HP for No. 1249a. I can only say that both reverse dies seem to me to be inscribed Δ/Γ on the amphora. As for the control combinations, the lettering on the tetradrachms is indistinct but it looks more like ΠEP (or ΠP) than HP. However, both drachms are apparently marked HP and it is possible that the minute letters under the amphora on the tetradrachms are intended as the same combination.
Variation in letter forms is again found in this issue. The cursive omega replaces the normal uncial version in the name of the second magistrate. Also on both drachm reverses a lunate sigma is used as the terminal of Diokles and perhaps of Leonides as well—the final letter of the second name is not clear on either die.
Tetradrachms
1251. | ||||
a. | Λ | HPA | *Berlin (Sv. 78, 1), gr. 16.80; London (BMC 510; Sv. 78, 2), gr. 16.93↑; The Hague (Sv. 78, 3) | |
b. | ? | HPA | ANS-ETN, gr. 16.43↑ | |
c. | ? | HPA | Copenhagen (SNG 290), gr. 16.80↑; Romanos Coll. (Sv. 78, 4), gr. 16.70 |
Drachm
1252. | ||||
? | HPẠ | *Berlin (Sv. 78, 5), gr. 4.07 | ||
6 tetradrachms: 1 obverse, 3 reverse dies 1 drachm Months: Λ Controls: HPA |
Tetradrachms
1253. | ||||
Λ | HPA | *London (BMC 428; Sv. 73, 1), gr. 16.39↑ | ||
1254. | ||||
? | ? | *Berlin (Sv. 73, 2), gr. 15.91 (very worn) | ||
2 tetradrachms: 2 obverse, 2 reverse dies Months: Λ Controls: HPA |
Tetradrachms
1255. | ||||
a. | A | ΦI/ΔI | *Berlin (Sv. 70, 21), gr. 16.51; Brussels (de Hirsch 1296), gr. 17.29↑; Berlin Cast (private coll.)1 | |
b. | Z/? | ΦI | Commerce (Sv. 70, 23, Hirsch), gr. 16.35 | |
c. | ? | ? | Herakleion (Cretan Hd. I) | |
1256. | ||||
Ị | ΦI | *Paris (Sv. 70, 24), gr. 16.25↑; London (BMC 341), gr. 16.72↑; Lockett Coll. (SNG 1939) = Ratto (Rogers) 450, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 17.00↑ | ||
1257. | ||||
a. | Λ/Ị | ΔI | *Herakleion (Cretan Hd. I); Leningrad (Sv. 70, 22),2 gr. 17.01; Vatican, amphora letter uncertain | |
b. | ? | ? | ANS-ETN, gr. 15.84↑ | |
c. | ? | ? | Romanos Coll. | |
1258. | ||||
? | ΦI | *Tübingen, gr. 16.92 | ||
14 tetradrachms: 4 obverse, 7 reverse dies Months: A, Z, Ị, Λ Controls: ΔI, ΦI |
Tetradrachms
1259. | ||||
(ΔEYTE) | B | ΣΩ | *Paris (Sv. 71, 25), gr. 16.70↑ | |
1260. | ||||
a. | Z | Σ | *Romanos Coll. | |
b. | ΣΩ | Leningrad (Sv. 71, 27), gr. 16.88 | ||
1261. | ||||
? | ΣΩ | *London (BMC 375; Sv. 71, 26), gr. 16.89↑ |
1 |
The Berlin cast has two heavy vertical strokes cut over the initial control letter as though in obliteration.
|
2 |
In Svoronos' illustration the amphora letter looks like Δ but Seyrig saw Λ on the coin and a cast of it confirms his reading.
On both the
Leningrad and Herakleion specimens there is a vertical
line to the right of the Λ which may indicate that the date was originally I.
|
Drachms
1262. | ||||
? | ΣΩ | *Copenhagen (SNG 287; Sv. 71, 29), gr. 4.01↑; Berlin (Sv. 71, 28), gr. 3.87 | ||
4 tetradrachms: 3 obverse, 4 reverse dies 2 drachms: 1 obverse, 1 reverse die Months: B, Z Controls: ΣΩ |
Tetradrachms
Tetradrachms
1264. | ||||
a. | B | ΔI | *Oxford, gr. 16.82↑ | |
b. | Δ/? | HPA/ΔI | *London (BMC 417; Sv. 72, 24), gr. 16.61↑ | |
2 tetradrachms: 1 obverse, 2 reverse dies Months: B, Δ Controls: ΔI, HPA |
1 |
HPAKΛΩN is the reading of Beulé and Kambanis. Sundwall and Head give HPAKΛEΩN. The area
where the E would be if it were part of the name is off flan on the Oxford coin and corroded on the London piece.
I could see no indication of an E on the latter and Mr. Jenkins confirms this from his examination of the
coin.
|
ΦIΛOKPATHΣ – KAΛΛIΦΩN NIKE 92/1 b.c. (Plate 141)
Tetradrachms
1265. | ||||
a. | Z/E | ΣΩ | *ANS, gr. 16.33↑; London (BMC 511; Sv. 78, 6), gr. 16.65↑ | |
b. | ? | ΣΩ | Wilkinson Coll. = Lockett Coll. (SNG 1941) = Naville (Bement) 1129, gr. l6.55↑1 | |
1266. | ||||
a. | ? | ΣΩ | *Copenhagen (SNG 291; Sv. 78, 7), gr. 16.42↑; Herakleion (Cretan Hd. I; Sv. 78, 8), gr. 16.20; Paris, gr. 16.43↑. Control letters uncertain on last two | |
b. | ? | ΣΩ | *The Hague (Sv. 78, 9) | |
1267. | ||||
? | ? | *Romanos Coll. | ||
8 tetradrachms: 3 obverse, 5 reverse dies Months: E, Z Controls: ΣΩ |
Tetradrachm
1268. | ||||
? | ? | *Munich (Sv. 77, 17), gr. 16.89 | ||
1 tetradrachm Months: ? Controls: ? |
Tetradrachms
1269. | ||||
K/? | HPA | *Leningrad (Sv. 71, 32), gr. 17.60 | ||
1270. | ||||
a. | K/? | HPA | *London (BMC 376; Sv. 71, 31), gr. 16.94↑ | |
b. | ? | HPA | *Paris (Sv. 71, 30), gr. 16.87↑ |
3 tetradrachms: 2 obverse, 2 reverse dies
Months: K1
Controls: HPA
Note the use of the cursive omega in the name of Diodoros.
1 |
A coin in Leningrad (14.92 gr.) from the same pair of dies would seem to be a
cast.
|
Tetradrachms
1271. | ||||
? | HP | *Paris (Sv. 71, 24), gr. 16.87↑; London (BMC 377; Sv. 71, 23), gr. 16.56↑ | ||
2 tetradrachms: 1 obverse, 1 reverse die Months: ? Controls: HP |
Tetradrachms
1272. | ||||
a. | ? | HP | *London (BMC 329; Sv. 70, 13), gr. 16.59↑ | |
b. | ? | HP | *Paris (Sv. 70, 14), gr. 16.78↑ | |
2 tetradrachms 1 obverse, 2 reverse dies Months: ? Controls: HP2 |
1 |
Kambanis enters the three coins of the present catalogue with the notation that the dates of all are uncertain.
Beulé gives Δ for a coin in his collection and the BMC describes its piece as having Ө (?). Our No. 1269, which is
probably the Beulé tetradrachm, has K on the amphora according to Seyrig's record of the coins he examined in the
Hermitage and this reading seems to me to be confirmed by the illustration on Plate
142. The letter, however, looks as though it might have been recut, possibly over Ө.
|
2 |
Beulé gives ME for the Paris coin but the combination is really HP as Kambanis also
recognized.
|
Like earlier sections of the New Style coinage, the late sequence divides into several parts: first, a fairly homogeneous series of fifteen issues, ending with the coinage of Mentor–Moschion, and then a succession of issues falling into a number of diverse stylistic groupings which begins with Architimos–Demetri in 117/6 b.c. and terminates with the Sullan siege ofAthens.
The tightly–linked chain of issues put out in the last decade of the Middle Period concludes with the emission of Dositheos–Charias in 132/1 b.c. This, then, is the starting point for the issues of the Late Period. At the other end the die link between the strikings of Mentor–Moschion and Architimos–Demetri establishes the former as the final emission of the fifteen issues under present discussion. Additional die links provide a basic framework for the arrangement of the coinage between 131/0 and 117/6 b.c.:
t (3) AMΦIKPATHΣ – EΠIΣTPATOΣ
ΔΩΣIӨEOΣ – XAPIAΣ
1. ΔHMHTPIOΣ – AΓAӨIΠΠOΣ
t (3) 2. NIKHTHΣ – ΔIONYΣIOΣ
3. APIΣTIΩN – ΦIΛΩN
t (2) 4. APOΠOΣ – MNAΣAΓO
5. ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ (serpent)
6. NIKOΓENHΣ – KAΛΛIMAXOΣ
t (2) 7. ΔHMEAΣ – EPMOKΛHΣ
8. ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ (dolphin)
t (2) 9. ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ (Roma)
d (1) 10. KOINTOΣ – KΛEAΣ
11. AΠEΛΛIKΩN – ΓOPΓIAΣ
12. BAΣIΛE MIӨPAΔATHΣ–APIΣTIΩN
13. MNAΣEAΣ – NEΣTΩP
14. KΛEOΦANHΣ – EΠIӨETHΣ
t (1) 15. MENTΩP – MOΣXIΩN
APXITIMOΣ – ΔHMHTPI
Since five issues are not related to any other striking by transferred dies and since, of the ten which are, only the issue of Kointos–Kleas is firmly joined at both beginning and end, one must rely upon style, supplemented by hoard and other evidence, for the determination of the exact chronological sequence. A folding plate (Plate B), similar to that prepared for the issues of the Early Period, is to be found at the end of the volume of plates and this will, I think, be useful in enabling the reader to evaluate the stylistic arguments presented below.1 On this accordion plate all obverses are included but in reduction and arranged to illustrate the carry-over and development of particular stylistic patterns.
The obverse dies of Dositheos–Charias are characterized by heaviness and careless execution. Heads are generally large and individual representations show excessively thick eyelids, lips and nostrils (Nos. 1 and 24) and exaggeratedly sharp profiles (Nos. 3–4). In later issues the Athena head is often ugly and sometimes grotesque but it rarely achieves a comparable heaviness of features. Decorative details of the helmet reflect hasty and incompetent workmanship: protomes are small and ill–defined, the ornament consists of a thick central stem diagonally slanted with tight volutes that are sometimes little more than strokes or blobs (Nos. 16, 23, 25), the rear legs of the Pegasus are often rendered by a single heavy line (Nos. 6, 11, 23, 28). In contrast, the arrangement of the hair is usually neat with a two–tier design of three tiny locks above and three larger and looser locks below. A noteworthy aspect of many dies is the circle of very heavy dots surrounding the head (Nos. 1, 3–4, 12–14, 18–19, 24). This style which is represented in practically all obverses of Dositheos–Charias will be for convenience referred to hereafter as Style A.
The issue of Demetrios–Agathippos seems to me to come immediately after that of Dositheos–Charias as the first emission of the Late Period. Eight of its obverses (Nos. 30–37) are examples of Style A in all its distinctive treatment of protomes, ornament, Pegasus and hair. The thickness of the eyelids persists but otherwise the features are normally less gross. On a few dies, such as Nos. 33–34, one finds the only recurrence prior to 117/6 of the heavy circle of dots noted in connection with the heads of Dositheos–Charias. The other obverses of Demetrios–Agathippos (Nos. 38–76) represent an entirely different stylistic tradition which we may designate as Style B. In general the tendency is toward larger protomes, a delineation with thinner strokes of both rear legs of the winged horse and a small ornament of more delicate outline with clearly indicated volutes. The ear–flap which had been prominent and clearly outlined on most of the dies of Style A becomes either a solid disc, as on Nos. 38–44, or is rather sketchily rendered, as on Nos. 48–51, 56–57, 69–70. The hair breaks away from the two–tier arrangement and is massed in long loose locks (cf. Nos. 56 and 75 for extreme versions of this treatment). In profile representation, Style B divides into two categories: B-1 represented by Nos. 38–47 with a set and somewhat grim cast to the features and B-2 (Nos. 54–76) with the firmness intensified in a hardness of lips and jaw that gives the faces a highly disagreeable expression. Nos. 48–53 seem to me transitional between the two varieties of Style B. Only in the issue of Niketes–Dionysios is there a continuation of the two sub–divisions of Style B which are associated with the majority of the dies of Demetrios–Agathippos.
In the coinage of Niketes and Dionysios the emphasis shifts as Style A—in all its characteristic aspects of hair, ornament, ear–flap and Pegasus—becomes dominant again (Nos. 77–102). There is, however, a greater refinement of the profile, at least in Nos. 80 through 93. Nos. 77–79 seem to me to relate most closely to Nos. 30–33 of the preceding emission, Nos. 80–102 to Nos. 36–37. Some of the Niketes obverses are also comparable with those of Dositheos–Charias (No. 94 with No. 21, for example). Nevertheless it is Style B and not Style A which establishes the connection of the Demetrios–Agathippos and Niketes–Dionysios emissions. Style B-1, represented by Nos. 38–47 of the former issue, survives in No. 103 of Niketes (and No. 104 may be considered a debasement of the same tradition) and then disappears from the coinage. Note the high degree of similarity in Nos. 47 and 103. Similarly Style B-2, predominant in the obverses of Demetrios–Agathippos, survives in two Niketes dies, Nos. 105–106 for comparison especially with Nos. 70–76. This style in its truly distinctive form then disappears from the coinage but a modification of it (Style B-3) develops in Nos. 107–109 of Niketes and carries over into the coinage of Aristion–Philon.
As has already been noted, the strikings of Niketes–Dionysios and Aristion–Philon are contiguous on the evidence of three transferred dies. Even without this proof, one would surely associate the two issues on the basis of style. Nos. 110–127 represent the continuation of Style A; Nos. 128–139 that of Style B-3 which emerged first in the Niketes emission in Nos. 107–109. With regard to these B-3 obverses of Aristion–Philon, two trends are apparent: an increasingly neat arrangement of the hair and an exaggeration of the nose.
As Bellinger points out ( Hesperia , Suppl. VIII, p. 23), the issue of Aropos–Mnasago is twice bracketed with that of Aristion–Philon by Kambanis (BCH, 1935, pp. 106, 118). In the absence of any established die connection it must be assumed that the association is on the basis of style and this criterion does indeed fully support Kambanis' arrangment. Nos. 152–164 are in the B-3 tradition of Nos. 128–139 of Aristion. Note the prominent nose which dominates the profile and the neat arrangement of the hair. On a number of dies the latter has a two-tier rendering reminiscent of Style A except that the upper tier tends to be heavier than the lower (Nos. 155 and 160 for contrast with Nos. 142 and 143). Individual B-3 obverses of the two issues are closely comparable: Nos. 133 and 158, 139 and 161. Style A persists in the Aropos striking in Nos. 140–144. The first may be associated with Nos. 110–112, No. 141 with Nos. 113–114, Nos. 142–143 with Nos. 115–117 and No. 144 with No. 118. Finally, in the remaining obverses of Aropos (Nos. 145–151) we have what seems to be a fused style with elements of A and B. The thin neat ornament with its vertical position, the rendering of the Pegasus, ear-flap and hair are similar to B-3 dies; the profile and facial expression are closer to the A dies. Most of the dies of later issues develop out of this intermediate style, which we may designate as Style C.
Two tetradrachm dies prove the contiguity of the coinages of Aropos and Xenokles with serpent symbol. For the rest, Obverses 165–166 are survivals of Style A while Nos. 178–183 seem to be in the tradition of Style B-3 with less exaggeration of the features. Style C is represented by Nos. 167–171.
With Nos. 184–186 of Nikogenes–Kallimachos Style A disappears from the coinage. Nos. 187–190 are abnormal obverses which do not fit clearly into any of the established stylistic patterns although the two last resemble some of the Style C dies of Xenokles. Four other obverses of Nikogenes (Nos. 197–200) seem to derive, particularly in facial expression, from No. 183 of Xenokles. Nos. 191–196 represent the continuation of Style C, the first three comparable to Nos. 172–174 and Nos. 194–195 close to No. 177. Actually at this point the earlier distinction between Style B-3 and Style C becomes blurred. Nos. 191 to 200 are very much alike and their basic relationship is to Style C.
In the issue of Demeas–Hermokles, Nos. 212–217 seem to me to relate closely to Nos. 197–200 of Nikogenes (compare No. 199 with No. 212, Nos. 198 and 200 with No. 215). Remaining dies are similar in treatment. Style C is now crystallizing in the form which will characterize the next eight strikings: heads generally larger, heavier and more mature in appearance; helmet details small and neatly executed; hair arranged in two rows of rather heavy locks.
Two dies establish the contiguity of the emissions of Demeas–Hermokles and Xenokles–Harmoxenos with dolphin and trident symbol. The numerous obverses of the latter issue show slight stylistic variations but all belong to Style C.
In the fixing of the sequence thus far, the evidence of die links has, of course, been basic. Issues only partially or not at all related to other strikings have been brought into chronological arrangement with the help of various clearly-defined stylistic trends: Style A which characterizes all obverses of the last issue of the Middle Period and continues through six issues of the Late Period, Styles B-1 and B-2 which appear only in the coinages of Demetrios–Agathippos and Niketes–Dionysios, Style B-3 which develops in the latter issue and persists through that of Xenokles with serpent, Style C coming in with Aropos and gradually fusing with Style B-3 in the issues of Nikogenes, Demeas and Xenokles with dolphin symbol.
The next seven issues show no comparable pattern of appearing and disappearing styles. All obverses are of Style C with only slight variations in the rendering to suggest the order of emission. Taking the group as a whole, the issues of Xenokles with Roma symbol, Kointos and Apellikon form a die-linked sequence and the striking of Mentor–Moschion is fixed by a transferred die as the last striking of the present group. It remains to see how the three linked and the three unlinked issues relate to the coinage of Xenokles with dolphin at one end and to that of Mentor–Moschion at the other.
Heretofore, when the same pair of magistrates has served twice in the annual minting office there has been an interval of one year between their first and second terms.1 In the case of Xenokles–Harmoxenos their initial tenure as magistrates was in 127/6; three years later they served again. Precedent would indicate a gap between the Xenokles issue with dolphin symbol and that with Roma, but in this instance I believe that precedent was abandoned and that the Roma coinage, carrying with it that of Kointos and of Apellikon, comes immediately after the Xenokles issue with dolphin. Individual dies show so little variation in details of the helmet and the arrangement of the hair that for purposes of comparison the facial contours and expression are the most significant aspects. In these respects there is a certain unity of concept which runs through Nos. 218–230, 260–262 and 281–283; through Nos. 231–248, 263–269, 274–276 and 284–291; and perhaps even more clearly through Nos. 249–259, 270–273, 277–280 and 292. For the relationship between the two Xenokles strikings, compare Nos. 223 and 260, 236 and 264, 242 and 267, 248 and 269, 258–259 and 272–273.
The next three issues seem to me to fit with definite stylistic parallelism between Apellikon–Gorgias and Mentor–Moschion. No. 293 bears some resemblance to Nos. 281–282 but is far closer to No. 283; No. 294 relates to Nos. 296–297, the correspondence between Nos. 294 and 296 being striking. Although No. 295 is partially off flan, it suggests No. 276 in facial expression. In the distinctive downward turn of the lower line of the visor it is to be associated with No. 285 and in the heavy diagonal strokes of the protomes with Nos. 276, 284–287 and a number of later dies. Nos. 302–303, of which Nos. 304–305 are variants, may be compared with Nos. 277–280 and to a lesser degree with Nos. 288–291. Of the remaining Mnaseas dies, Nos. 298–299 seem to derive from Nos. 284–285 and Nos. 300–301 from Nos. 286–287. The heavy features of these last obverses characterize Nos. 311–312 of Kleophanes and Nos. 318–319 of Mentor. Finally Nos. 306 and 313 are almost identical while Nos. 309–310 and Nos. 316–317 are also highly comparable and at the same time suggestive of No. 297. It is noteworthy that Style C in all its distinctive aspects vanishes from the coinage with the issue of Mentor and Moschion. In fact one die of that issue, No. 320, already foreshadows a new style in the arrangement of the hair which is released from its two tight rows and falls in loose locks as on the dies which follow.
In view of the clear stylistic break between the first fifteen issues of the Late Period and the remaining issues of the coinage, it would seem logical to interrupt the discussion of obverse styles at this point and see what other evidence there is for the chronological arrangement of the coinage between 131/0 and 117/6 B.c.
As has proved to be true for other sections of the New Style series, the reverses indicate certain general stylistic trends but they are far less helpful than the obverses in suggesting a definite position for any one issue. The only exception for this period concerns the Demetrios–Agathippos striking. Plates 95 to 97 illustrate the reverse style which characterizes the last issues of the Middle Period: large owls with oversize heads and eyes, their plumage rendered in thick uneven strokes, sitting on excessively elongate amphorae and surrounded by lettering which is large and coarse. The impression given by these cluttered reverses is one of clumsy heaviness. Only on some dies of Demetrios–Agathippos does one find a comparable technique (cf. Nos. 883a and 887 among others). Other dies of Demetrios, such as Nos. 917a and 923a, present a sharp contrast. The owls are much smaller and less heavy in appearance, amphorae are also smaller though still elongate, and the lettering is more neatly and hence more legibly inscribed. This is the reverse style of the issues of Niketes–Dionysios through Xenokles–Harmoxenos with serpent symbol. In the Nikogenes–Kallimachos striking the amphora begins to get larger while the letters on dies of the end of the year become smaller and more congested. There is little change apparent in the emissions of Demeas–Hermokles and Xenokles–Harmoxenos with dolphin, but in the issue of the latter magistrates with Roma symbol a larger owl becomes increasingly common, one, however, of noticeably better style than the large birds of Dositheos–Charias and Demetrios–Agathippos. Plumage is carefully cut and there is less exaggeration of head and eyes. No real change is discernible in amphora and inscription. The six issues which follow Xenokles with Roma show substantially the same kind of reverses. In connection with this matter of reverse style note how close the dies of Mithradates–Aristion are to those of Kointos–Kleas and Apellikon– Gorgias: the same neat owls with tidy plumage on large amphorae and around the type the names of the magistrates inscribed in small, precisely-cut letters.
Control combinations seem to me to give definite support to the arrangement of the first fifteen issues of the Late Period. The pattern that they present is as follows:
Issues of | |||||||||||||||||
136–132 | ME | ΣO | ΠE | AΠ | |||||||||||||
Demetrios | ME | ΣO | ΠE | AΠ | MH | ||||||||||||
Niketes | ΣO | ΠE | AΠ | MH | |||||||||||||
Aristion | ΣO | ΠE | AΠ | MH | |||||||||||||
Aropos | ΣO | ΠE | AΠ | MH | ΔH | ||||||||||||
Xenok. (serp.) | ΣO | ΠE | AΠ | ΔH | AN | ||||||||||||
Nikogenes | ΣO | ΠE | ΔH | AN | ΔI | EP | ΣT | ΣΦ | |||||||||
Demeas | ΠE | AΠ | ΔH | ΔI | ΣT | BI | |||||||||||
Xenok. (dolph.) | ΠE | AΠ | ΔI | AP | ΠP | ||||||||||||
Xenok. (Roma) | AΠ | ΔI | ΣT | AP | ΠP | ΔA | |||||||||||
Kointos | ΔH | ΔI | EP | AP | ΠP | ΔA | |||||||||||
Apellikon | AΠ | ΔH | ΔI | AP | ΔA | EΠI | |||||||||||
Mithradates | ΔA | EΠI | |||||||||||||||
Mnaseas | EP | ΣT | |||||||||||||||
Kleophanes | ΔI | IΣI | |||||||||||||||
Mentor | AΠ | ΔI | EP | IΣI | |||||||||||||
Architimos | ΔI | EP | IΣI |
During the Middle Period, as we have seen, a relatively small number of control combinations are in use during any one year and the issues are noteworthy for the extent to which the same control combinations recur in successive years. For the five year period before the beginning of the Late Period all dies carry one of the following combinations: AΠ, ME, ΠE, ΣO. On the first of the Late Period issues, that of Demetrios–Agathippos, the same four controls appear and MH is also used. With this issue ME disappears from the coinage. AΠ, ΠE, ΣO and MH run through the next three issues, then MH vanishes from the coinage. ΠE and ΣO continue for four and two years respectively while AΠ, the only other control carried over from the Middle Period, recurs erratically for awhile longer. With Nikogenes–Kallimachos a number of new controls come in and the picture from here on is less consistent. Note, however, that AN (an unusual combination which is otherwise known only from a few issues of the Early Period) connects the emission of Xenokles with serpent and that of Nikogenes. Note also that the die-linked issues of Xenokles with Roma, Kointos and Apellikon are marked with three controls rare for this period: AP. ΠP and ΔA. The first two tie in with the Xenokles and dolphin issue immediately preceding while the last ties in with the Mithradates striking. EΠI likewise connects the Apellikon and Mithradates emissions. Both ΔA and EΠI are extremely rare; the former occurs elsewhere only on the Menneas–Herodes issue of 102/1 B.c. while the latter in an abbreviated EΠ form occurs only on the Eumelos–Theoxenides coinage of 114/3 B.c. At no time do the two controls appear together except on the issues of Apellikon and Mithradates. ΔI, EP and IΣI (another rare control peculiar to this period) are found on the last two issues of our present group and they carry over to the issues immediately following.
Hoards provide additional evidence for the sequence, at least through the issue of Xenokles–Harmoxenos with Roma. The relevant section of the chart on pages 534f. is concerned with the listing from Dositheos–Charias through Xenokles with Roma. Delos Hoard KϚ includes the coinage of Dositheos which we know to be the last issue of the Middle Period and a single issue of the Late Period, that of Demetrios–Agathippos. The next hoards, Delos B and Delos ΛH, have the coinage of Dositheos, of Demetrios and of Niketes–Dionysios. At this point both deposits stop and the composition of these three hoards certainly indicates that the order of Dositheos, Demetrios and Niketes is correct. Aristion–Philon is linked with Niketes and Aropos–Mnasago with Xenokles–Harmoxenos of the serpent symbol. All three of these issues appear in the Zarova Hoard together with the coinage of Dositheos, Demetrios and Niketes; thus their place in the sequence would seem assured. The Halmyros Hoard carries the order three steps further, including as it does all the issues which have appeared in earlier hoards plus the strikings of Nikogenes–Kallimachos, Demeas–Hermokles and Xenokles–Harmoxenos with dolphin and trident. Finally in Carystus Hoard II the representation runs, with two gaps, from Dositheos through Xenokles with Roma and the two Xenokles issues found in the deposit provide not only the most numerous but also the best-preserved coins.
The chronological arrangement of the Late Period issues thus far would seem to rest upon a secure foundation combining the evidence of die-links, hoards, control combinations and style. This arrangement includes one highly controversial issue which cannot be passed over without further comment. Clearly it will be necessary to dwell at greater length on the reasons for redating the coinage of Mithradates–Aristion, heretofore assigned by all authorities to the year immediately before the fall of Athens in 86 B.c. Since, however, this drastic revision in chronology derives not only from comparison with the coinage of c. 121 B.c. but also from comparison with the coinage just before Sulla, let us for the moment leave this "hot" issue and go on to the order of the remaining emissions of the Late Period.
No attempt has hitherto been made to establish a precise sequence for the thirty issues which bring to an end the New Style coinage. Svoronos' listing is strictly alphabetical and gives no indication of any conclusions he may have reached on relationships within the group. Kambanis divides the issues into two sections, one struck before the conquest of Athens and the other after it, but both sequences are alphabetically ordered. In Bellinger's study, Kambanis' division is followed and the issues after Sulla are alphabetical but the earlier emissions are grouped, with the arrangement determined by the number of control combinations appearing on the reverse dies.
It must be admitted at the start that the problem of exact chronology is complex and to a degree insoluble. The issues are for the most part small and the restricted number of obverse and reverse dies provides no broad basis for stylistic comparisons such as we have had in earlier issues. Furthermore, within this section of the coinage there is a change in the over-all stylistic pattern, particularly as it relates to the obverses. Instead of a series of overlapping styles whose relationship with each other helps considerably in determining the order of emission, we have a number of disparate styles, each more or less confined to a limited number of issues. In only a few instances is there clear indication of a connection between these diverse styles. Even after the groups of issues have been arranged in their probable chronological order, there remains the problem of sequence within each group. A certain group of say six issues may show on all dies a homogeneity of obverse style so striking that one feels certain the six issues are contemporary but there is often no clue as to the exact order of the emissions. I doubt that it will ever be possible to establish such order in all cases. Under the circumstances it would perhaps have been better to make the dates of the issues between 111/0 and 88/7 B.c. more tentative than they appear in the catalogue. Since, however, the margin of error involves only a few years at most and since all instances of uncertainty will be noted in the commentary that follows, I decided to continue giving each issue a definite date as an indication of what seems to me the most likely sequence of striking.
Formidable as the difficulties are, it must not be assumed that for the period after 117 B.c. we are adrift upon a completely uncharted sea. There is evidence other than style which at certain fixed points helps greatly in the arrangement. First, we have the die link between the coinage of Mentor–Moschion and that of Architimos–Demetri, establishing the position of a group of issues which share the highly individual obverse style of the Architimos dies and giving us a point of departure in exploring the relationship of our various stylistic groups. Luckily we have the overstrike mentioned in connection with the coinage of Demeas–Kallikratides which makes it certain that not only this one striking but five other issues of almost identical style must come before Sulla. Four emissions inscribed Diokles, Diokles for the second time, Diokles for the third time and Diokles of Melite must be arranged so that the three strikings of the same Diokles are in the order specifically indicated by the coins. The coinage of Diokles of Melite may, of course, have been interpolated into the sequence of the other Diokles but it is more likely that it came after the first Diokles had finished his three terms, for otherwise there would have been an element of ambiguity as to which Diokles was serving as mint magistrate for the second and for the third time. Additional help is given by hoards, by the recurrence of control combinations, by the appearance on a few issues of abnormal letter forms and by the political situation in Athens during the early years of the first century before Christ.
With this lengthy preamble out of the way, let us consider the coinage itself. Section X of Plate B brings together the obverses of four fairly sizable issues whose obverse dies for the most part share a distinctive style peculiar to these four emissions. One die of the first issue, No. 327, is carried over from the coinage of Mentor–Moschion; the other six of the same year illustrate an entirely different technique. The Athena heads are much larger than those of preceding emissions and the ornament on the helmet has become greatly exaggerated. Three long twisting stems start from the edge of the neck-guard to cover the whole of the helmet bowl with their elaborate curves and prominent volutes. Nothing like this occurs elsewhere on the late issues. Nos. 329–330 of Lysandros–Oinophilos are close to Nos. 322–324 of Architimos–Demetri. Nos. 331–332 carry a suggestion of Nos. 325–326 and No. 328 of No. 321. The last die of Lysandros, No. 333, is markedly better in style than any other of these four issues. The heads of Amphias–Oinophilos and Eumelos–Theoxenides are rather smaller than those of the two preceding issues and there is one small variation in the rendering of the sprawling ornament. On almost all dies (most clearly observable on Nos. 336–337, 346 and 348) the stem starts from a point above the outer edge of the neck-guard. No. 341 of Amphias is very like Nos. 331 and 332 of Lysandros and No. 334 resembles No. 328 while Nos. 342–343 are almost identical with No. 349 of Eumelos and No. 338 is markedly similar to No. 346. Two other dies of Eumelos (Nos. 350–351) are in the tradition of the dies of Mentor–Moschion and earlier emissions (note the small ornament of No. 351 and the profile representation of both dies). This style will carry over into succeeding issues.
Another obverse peculiarity which links the issues of 117/6–114/3 and the Nestor–Mnaseas striking of 113/2 is the heavy circle of dots on some dies (notably Nos. 321, 324, 329–330, 339, 347 and 357). These five emissions are the only ones of the Late Period, except for the issue of Demetrios–Agathippos in 131/0, in which one encounters this prominent encirclement of the Athena head.
The control combinations which appear on these four issues bring them into close relationship with earlier and later strikings:
Kleophanes (119/8) | ΔI | IΣI | ||||
Mentor (118/7) | AΠ | ΔI | EP | IΣI | ||
Architimos (117/6) | ΔI | EP | IΣI | |||
Lysandros (116/5) | ΔI | EP | IΣI | |||
Amphias (115/4) | AΠ | ΔI | EP | IΣI | ΣΩ | |
Eumelos (114/3) | AΠ | EΠ | EP | IΣI | ||
Nestor (113/2) | AΠ | ΔI | EP | IΣI | ΣΩ |
The combination IΣI appears only on the seven issues above; before 119/8 it is unknown and after 113/2 it disappears. EP which has been found on three scattered earlier emissions (those of 126/5, 122/1 and 120/19) is used consistently for all but one of the issues above and then disappears.
On the evidence of obverse style and of recurring distinctive control combinations the four issues under present discussion are clearly contemporary. Their internal sequence is fixed with a high degree of certainty by the die link at the beginning, by the appearance of a different style on two dies of Eumelos which brings that issue into relationship with later strikings and finally by the close stylistic connection between individual dies which seems to establish the relative position of the Lysandros and Amphias emissions.
Unfortunately the die link between the coinages of Eumelos–Theoxenides and Nestor–Mnaseas published by Kambanis cannot be used as proof of contiguity since it involves imitative issues (see pp. 460f.). Nevertheless I am sure that the two strikings do in fact belong together. The strongest indication of this is to be found in the fact that the letter combinations of Nestor–Mnaseas parallel those of the group of issues immediately preceding. It is particularly significant that the two distinctive controls—EP and IΣI—make their final appearance in the Nestor emission.
Nos. 357–368 of Nestor are reminiscent of Nos. 345–349 and earlier examples of the same stylistic group—notably in the size of the heads, the general cast of the features and the occasional use of a border of heavy dots—but there are noticeable differences in the rendering of the type. Protomes and ear-flaps are larger, the body of the Pegasus instead of resting on the earpiece is brought back from the flap and joined to the rear legs in a sharply angular line (cf. Nos. 358, 363–364 among other dies), a long loose curl is prominent on the cheek of the goddess, finally the ornament is a pattern of thin and predominantly vertical strokes. This distinctive style is reflected in four dies of Sotades–Themistokles (Nos. 370–373). All details are treated in identical fashion and even individual profiles are similar, Nos. 365 and 372 for example.
For the rest, Nos. 354–356 of Nestor seem to represent a variant style with many of the aspects of Nos. 357–368 and some slight suggestion, particularly in No. 354, of Nos. 350–351. Nos. 352–353 mark a refinement of this style. In the succeeding issue of Sotades–Themistokles, No. 369 is to be related to Nos. 354–356 while No. 374, despite its oversize head, is in the Style C tradition of Nos. 350–351 and earlier dies.
The high degree of stylistic unity found in Nos. 357–368 and Nos. 370–373 indicates the contemporaneity of the strikings of Nestor and Sotades. Further evidence that they are contiguous is provided by a Delos Hoard (≡Ө on p. 513 of the Hoards section). This deposit includes a scattered representation of issues from 152/1 through 121/0 and then examples of the coinages of Kleophanes, Mentor, Architimos, Lysandros, Amphias, Nestor and Sotades. It is noteworthy that all issues between 119/8 and 112/1 appear, with the single exception of the Eumelos striking, and that the best-preserved and most numerous coins are those of Nestor (6) and Sotades (9).
Thus far we have been dealing with issues of fair size. Enough dies have been known to make stylistic comparisons of some value and significant evidence from control combinations and hoards has supported the stylistic argument. It seems to me that through 112/1 we have a soundly based sequence of emissions. From this point on there is greater uncertainty. The two small issues of Leukios–Antikrates and Pantakles–Demetrios have been placed in 111/0 and 110/09 B.c. The small, well-proportioned heads of Nos. 375–377 are similar in expression and in details of hair and helmet ornament. No. 375 moreover is very close to No. 353 of Nestor–Mnaseas, the two profiles being almost identical, and it is difficult to believe that they can be separated by any considerable amount of time.
The next six issues have obverse dies which are homogeneous in style to such a degree that I think they must be considered as a group. Variations in technique suggest the internal arrangement. Nos. 378 and 379 are extremely close in all respects and surely belong together. On both dies the heavy eye is rendered without a pupil, giving the face a lifeless expression. The same treatment of the eye appears on No. 380 while on Nos. 381–384 and 388 there is clear indication of the pupil. Nos. 378–382 are rather heavier in facial contours than Nos. 383–384 and 388. The last die is established at the end of the sequence by the fact that a totally different style makes its first appearance in the same year. The obverses of these six issues, particularly the earliest dies, are unmistakably associated with Nos. 350–351 of Eumelos–Theoxenides. Note the very high degree of correspondence between Nos. 350 and 378. The ultimate inspiration for this entire group is the standard Style C coinage of the years before 117/6. Heads and ornaments are larger in scale but the treatment of the hair and the helmet details are comparable.
In arranging the issues between Sotades–Themistokles and Epigenes–Xenon, the striking resemblances between Nos. 353 and 375 on the one hand and between Nos. 350 and 378 on the other must be taken into account as suggestive of a degree of contemporaneity. In the present order there is a one year gap between the first pair of dies and a four year interval between the second pair. An alternate placement of the Theophrastos–Themisto coinage immediately after Sotades–Themistokles would bring Nos. 350 and 378 closer by two years but it would separate Nos. 353 and 375 by at least eight years instead of two. Hence the sequence of emissions as it now stands seems the more likely.
Letter combinations found on the issues between 112/1 and 105/4 are helpful but their evidence is not conclusive. On the Sotades dies we find ΔI and ΣΩ. The former combination occurs on the coinages of Leukios and Pantakles. Then the ΔI control seems to have been abandoned temporarily and the second combination of Sotades, ΣΩ, used for the issues of Diophantos, Demeas, Alketes and Dionysios as well as for the two strikings which follow.1 Both ΔI and ΣΩ recur at a later period: ΔI on the issues of 96/5, 94/8 and 93/2 and ΣΩ on those of 95/4 and 92/1 but all of these emissions are of a peculiar and distinctive style which cannot be related to the coinage under present discussion.
For the issue of 104/3 B.c., that of Epigenes–Xenon, we have a single obverse (No. 388) stylistically related to the dies of the preceding five years. The other obverses of Epigenes are atrocious, quite the most hideous heads to come from the Athenian mint in the whole of the New Style period. Apparently this diecutter was speedily retired for only four dies executed in his miserable technique are known (Nos. 385–387, 392). Fortunately they span two issues and provide a connection between the coinage of Epigenes–Xenon and that of Menedemos–Timokrates. The continued use of the ΣΩ control for both issues also helps to bring them into relationship with the earlier issues of 109/8–105/4 so that this part of the sequence of the Late Period seems to be fixed with a fair degree of certainty.
With the next four issues we have extremely small emissions. One tetradrachm of Menneas–Herodes is known, one tetradrachm and two drachms of Dionysios–Demostratos, a single drachm of Demochares–Pammenes, three tetradrachms and two drachms of Diokles–Leonides. Their position in the sequence rests upon obverse style and a recurrence of abnormal letter forms.
Nos. 389–391 of Menedemos–Timokrates are quite different in style from the obverse dies of the six issues preceding but they derive from two earlier stylistic patterns represented by Nos. 357–368 and 370–373 and by Nos. 352–353 and 375–377. Facial expressions are not notably similar but details of technique
are highly comparable: the rather sketchy helmet ornaments, heavy protomes, angular Pegasi, stringy hair below the neck-guard and the loose lock over the cheek. Either this is the diecutter of 113/2–112/1 in a later stage of his development or an engraver faithfully copying the earlier coinage. The three tetradrachm dies of Menneas, Dionysios and Diokles are close to those of Menedemos in the treatment of hair and helmet details; even in facial contours and expression there is a distinct resemblance between Nos. 390–391 and 393 and to a lesser degree between Nos. 389 and 394–395. The three drachms (Nos. 1247a of Dionysios, 1248 of Demochares and 1250a of Diokles reproduced on Plates 139–140) are also stylistically close.
Letter forms support the present sequence. The control combination on the coinage of Menedenos–Timokrates is Σω and this represents the first appearance of the cursive omega in the Late Period. The name of the second magistrate of 102/1 is similarly written with a cursive omega as is the name of the second magistrate of 99/8 B.c. On the drachms of 101/0 and 100/99 we find a square sigma while the drachms of 99/8 have a lunate form, both being variants of the normal four-barred sigma used for all other issues of the Late Period. These aberrant letter forms taken in conjunction with the stylistic similarities of the five issues between 103/2 and 99/8 seem to me to indicate the hand of a single engraver and to provide good reason for considering the coinages contemporary.
In the seven issues which follow we have again a group of emissions whose distinctive style sets them apart from the other strikings of the Late Period. Nos. 396–410 surely derive from the earlier Nos. 378–384 and 388 and not from the dies of the intervening five years. Note on Nos. 396–410 the reappearance of the characteristic details of the earlier group of obverses: very small ear-flaps and protomes, open visors, a curvilinear rather than an angular rendering of the winged horse and a rounded rather than angular inner line of the neck-guard, a tight straight lock of hair over the cheek and a tendency to return to the two-tier arrangement of the tresses on the neck. There are, however, two unusual features which distinguish Nos. 396–410 from Nos. 378–384 and 388. On almost all dies of the later group a tripartite earring (↑) replaces the simple single drop and the outer section of the helmet ornament is rendered in a series of wavy lines which fold into each other (). Both of these stylistic peculiarities are most clearly visible on No. 407 but they are common to practically all obverse dies of the group and provide strong evidence for the association of the issues.
The internal sequence of the seven emissions is far from certain and the order of the present catalogue as it relates to this section of the coinage must be regarded as tentative. It seems to me that No. 396 and also No. 398, insofar as one can discern the details of that battered obverse, are perhaps closer in the proportions of the head and in facial expression to Nos. 378–384 and 388 than are any of the other dies of the tripartite earring group. Nos. 397, 401 and 405 are very similar in style while the heavier heads of Nos. 400, 403–404, 406–407 seem to belong together. No. 408 of the Philokrates–Kalliphon emission is the only obverse die of this group which has no trace of the interfolding arrangement of the helmet ornament and in this respect it seems to provide a connection with the single obverse die of Tryphon–Polycharmos, which shows a tripartite earring but a more natural rendering of the ornament.
The issue of Tryphon–Polycharmos is brought into relationship with the strikings of 98/7–92/1 B.c. primarily by the distinctive treatment of the earring but also by a similarity in the rendering of the Pegasus and protomes. The arrangement of the ornament, however, is entirely different and in this regard it is close to the earlier Nos. 378–384 and 388. It may be indeed that it belongs at the beginning rather than the end of the tripartite earring sequence but I am inclined to feel that it fits better in its present position as a link between that group of dies and those of the last three emissions. While the earring, Pegasus and protomes tie it to the 98/7–92/1 sequence, the loose lock of hair on the cheek, the larger ear-flap and particularly the profile connect it with Nos. 412–415. Nos. 411, 413 and 415 seem to me very similar in their regular features and stern expressions.
Whoever cut the obverse die for the Tryphon–Polycharmos issue, the engraver of the four dies which terminate the coinage was surely the same man who produced the earlier Nos. 389–391 and 393–395. Facial expressions are different and the helmet ornament of the later dies is somewhat more elaborate but otherwise the characteristic aspects of the earlier obverses recur on Nos. 412 to 415: heavy protomes and ear-flaps, angular Pegasi, stringy locks of hair. Most significant of all, the cursive form of omega is used in writing Diodoros, the only magistrate of these last three issues with that letter in his name.
The appearance of the cursive omega on the coinage of 103/2–99/8 and its reappearance in the 90/89–88/7 period would seem to imply the chronological proximity of these two stylistically related groups of dies. This is proved impossible by the three Diokles issues mentioned earlier. In the present listing, the first Diokles striking comes in 99/8, the third in 90/89. Both have the cursive omega. The second Diokles emission, however, must come between the two others on the direct evidence of the inscription on the coins and this second striking is an integral component of the tripartite earring group, hence that entire series of issues must be placed between the first and the third Diokles strikings.
Control combinations and hoards which have proved useful in supporting the sequence at earlier stages are less helpful in respect to the coinage between 102/1 and 88/7 B.c. Two deposits—Cretan Hoard I and the Hierapytna Hoard (discussed on pages 515–517 of the Hoards section)—contain issues of this period but the incompleteness of our data, the small number of coins involved and the corroded condition of individual pieces make it difficult to draw any clear conclusions as to the sequence of issues. The dominant control combination for the last fifteen years of the coinage is HP or HPA. It is introduced in 99/8 with the coinage of Diokles–Leonides and is used for the next two years. An interval of three years follows, filled by ΔI, ΦI and ΣΩ, before HPA reappears, this time in association with ΔI. Another intervening year with ΣΩ and then HPA and HP for the last three emissions. The pattern is definitely erratic but a more consistent scheme of control combinations for the 102/1–88/7 period could be achieved only at the expense of the weightier considerations involved in the present arrangement of issues.
In summary, what we seem to have in the latest stage of the New Style series are two distinct stylistic traditions, quite probably the output of only two engravers although this cannot be established with certainty. The one derives basically from Style C of the period before 117/6 and is represented by Nos. 350–351, 374, 378–384, 388, 396–410. Characteristic features common to most dies are small protomes set above a visor composed of two parallel lines, an inconspicuous earguard surmounted by a Pegasus of curving contours, a rounding-off of the inner edge of the neck-guard, an almond-shaped eye of sleepy expression, a tight curl over the cheek and a neat arrangement of the hair below the helmet. Significant variations in the treatment of ornament and earring occur within this group of dies. The second tradition is composed initially of two somewhat diverse patterns, represented on the one hand by Nos. 357–368, 370–373 and on the other by the smaller and better-executed heads of Nos. 352, 353, 375–377. In Nos. 389–391, 393–395, 412–415 the two patterns seem to fuse. Practically all dies of the second tradition have very heavy protomes set, after 112/1, on a single visor line, a large squared earguard on which a design of dots is often visible, a sharply angular termination of the inner edge of the neck-guard, a Pegasus set well back on the helmet bowl and with rear legs at right angles to the body, a triangular eye with clearly defined pupil, a somewhat amorphous ornament of thin strokes, a large loose curl over the cheek and a similarly loose arrangement of the hair on the neck.
It is noteworthy that reverses as well as obverses divide along roughly the same lines, at least from 111/0 B.c. on. The reverses which accompany obverses of the first tradition, from Theophrastos–Themisto through Epigenes–Xenon and later from Philokrates–Herodes through Tryphon–Polycharmos, have heavy bold inscriptions and on most dies the legs of the owl are rendered by rows of thick dots. By contrast the other reverses, those of the second obverse style, have much smaller and thinner letters and the legs of the owl are more naturally outlined. These two reverse styles are markedly different but there is not enough development within either one to indicate an exact chronological sequence.
It looks as though two engravers were employed by the mint in irregular rotation to produce obverse and reverse dies for the limited issues of the last decades of the Late Period. Variations within the two general stylistic patterns suggest an interval of time between groups of dies turned out by one or the other engraver and the three Diokles issues provide specific evidence for an alternation of styles. While there is uncertainty with regard to the sequence within particular groups, the order of the groups themselves seems to be fairly certain.
Substantiation for the chronology after 104/3 B.c. comes from the political situation at Athens during that period. Between 106/5 and 102/11 an oligarchic revolution at Athens placed the pro-Roman party in control of the city and the dominance of this faction lasted until the spring of 88 when Athenion, the envoy of Mithradates, came to power. A number of the mint magistrates of Athens were men known to have been leaders in this pro-Roman movement: Medeios of Piraeus, Diodoros of Halai, Epigenes and Xenon of Melite and Kalliphon. Others can be associated with archons who served either during the period of oligarchic control or in the years after Sulla–Herakleides, Menedemos, Pammenes—and it is almost certain that these officials were sympathetic to the Roman cause. Finally, it is likely that in most if not all cases the colleagues of pro-Roman magistrates were of the same political persuasion. At a time when feeling ran high between the oligarchic and democratic factions one would suppose that a man's friends and close associates were largely drawn from the circle of those who shared his political views. Diokles of Melite was related by marriage to Medeios of Piraeus and was surely pro-Roman. The other Diokles who served three times as mint magistrate, once with Medeios and once with Diodoros of Halai, both Roman sympathizers, would in all probability have belonged to the same faction. This may also be true of the Philokrates who was Kalliphon's colleague and of the Herodes who served with Philokrates. The family of Kallimachos and Epikrates of Leukonoe was prominent in civic affairs during the period of oligarchic control and hence may be presumed to have been pro-Roman.
It is of considerable interest to note not only that the mint magistracies of these men fall without exception in the period between 104/3 and 88/7 B.c. but that the minting office for those sixteen years is virtually monopolized by them. There is no evidence for the political affiliations of the officials of 101/0 and 91/0 and those of 94/3 are definitely pro-Mithradatic; otherwise the coinage is controlled exclusively by magistrates whose Roman leanings are attested or whose sympathies may plausibly be assumed to lie with Rome. In 91/0, 90/89 and 89/8, Medeios of Piraeus held the archonship for three successive terms. The four mint magistrates of the two later years were indubitably pro-Roman and it is further noteworthy that in 89/8 Medeios held both the archonship and the second minting office. Prior to 104/3 there had been individual magistrates with strong attachments to either Rome or Pontus but the instances are limited.1 There is nothing like the all-out representation of pro-Romans which one finds after 104/3 and this seems to me a weighty argument for the validity of the general chronological arrangement which places the issues associated with these men in the period of oligarchic control.
The present chronology of the late emissions of the New Style series is at sharp variance with established tradition in three significant respects: in the erratic sequence of three-magistrate and two-magistrate strikings between 128/7 and 120/19 B.c., in the termination of the coinage in 88/7 B.c., and in the dating of the Mithradates–Aristion issue.
Concerning the first, there can be no controversy. Die links prove that the three two-magistrate emissions of Xenokles and Harmoxenos were preceded and followed by three-magistrate issues. On the precise evidence of transferred dies, the serpent striking comes after the coinage of Aropos and Mnasagoras, the dolphin and trident striking after Demeas and Kallimachos and the Roma striking before that of Kointos and Kleas. There is no way in which the three issues of Xenokles–Harmoxenos can be brought together as successive emissions at the beginning of the two-magistrate period. We must accept the fact that they were interpolated at irregular intervals within the three-magistrate sequence before the pattern of two-magistrate strikings was firmly established in 120/19 B.c.
In 1888 Barclay V. Head, publishing the British Museum Catalogue of Attic coins, brought the New Style series proper to an end in 87 B.c. This date was challenged on various grounds. Kirchner2 identified a number of mint magis- trates with men prominent in the middle of the first century B.c., while Sundwall1 and others pointed to the use of late letter forms—the cursive omega and the square sigma—as evidence for the assignment of certain issues to the time of Augustus and the years shortly before his reign. Some modification of this late dating was proposed by Kambanis (BCH, 1938, pp. 60–84) who thought nineteen issues were struck after the conquest of Athens by Sulla and that the coinage terminated about the middle of the first century. To support his view he emphasized the poor style of these late emissions, their sparsity which would be a natural reflection of a time of economic difficulty, and their absence from the Delos hoards. Bellinger accepted Kambanis' classification of the post-Sullan issues but suggested the possibility that they extended well over the nineteen years in question.
Let us see how strong these arguments are. The prosopographical evidence provided by the New Style issues is indubitably of great importance for their chronological arrangement but it is also an extremely dangerous tool when used without reference to other factors. Some of the gravest errors in dating individual strikings, such as the wide separation of issues subsequently proved to be die-joined, have resulted from the employment of recurrent names as a fundamental criterion for an association of emissions. It stands to reason that two men named Diogenes are not necessarily the same Diogenes. If independent evidence exists for connecting the issues thus inscribed, then it probably is the same man; otherwise one Diogenes may be the father or grandfather of the other or an entirely different individual.
Many of the mint magistrates of the late emissions can be associated with officials of the mid and late first century. To take only a few of Kirchner's examples, the Medeios and Diokles of the coinage may be the sons of the Medeios of the oligarchic movement and his brother-in-law, Diokles of Melite; Diodoros and Kalliphon may be the mid century archons. They may equally well be the prominent pro-Romans of the pre-Sullan period: the Medeios of the revolution and his brother-in-law, the Diodoros of Halai who served in various civic posts and the Kalliphon who pleaded with Sulla for his fellow-citizens. Is it not in fact highly likely that these men who played such a dominant role in the fortunes of Athens at the end of the second and the beginning of the first century were the holders of the mint magistracies? In one instance only is there clear justification for the identification of a mint magistrate with an Athenian whose floruit definitely postdated Sulla. This concerns the Diokles who used Asklepios and Hygieia symbols on his issues and who would seem to be identical with the priest of Asklepios and Hygieia of 51/0 B.c. 1 However, we know that priesthoods often ran in families, being held by members of different generations; it is highly probable that the father or grandfather of the Diokles of 51/0 served in the same priestly office.
The argument from letter forms proves upon inspection to be no more conclusive than the prosopographical one. It is perfectly true that both the cursive omega and the square sigma are late in inscriptions. Kirchner in publishing a stone of 145/6 A.D. (Imagines, 2nd ed., p. 32, 136) speaks of the C form, which up to now has only occasionally appeared, as becoming more common. An inscription of 36/7 A.D. (p. 30, 123) has both uncial and cursive omegas. Kirchner regards it as the work of two hands, commenting that the round letter occasionally appears earlier as in an inscription from the first year of the principate of Augustus. But this is the evidence of the inscriptions. On the coinage the cursive omega is used in a monogram of the very first issue of the entire New Style series and again in both monograms of the year 191/0. It makes a brief appearance in the control combinations of KAPAIX – EPΓOKΛE, an issue dated to 153/2 B.c. There is nothing surprising about its presence on the coinage of 103/2–99/8 and 90/89. As for the square sigma, it does not occur on the coinage before 101/0 and then its use is confined to the drachm reverses of two contiguous issues. On the striking which follows, the drachms show a lunate sigma and it may well be that in these fractional coins we have merely the attempt of a particular engraver to fit long legends into a restricted area by the use of simpler letter forms. That this was not approved mint practice is indicated by the fact that on one tetradrachm die connected with the drachm strikings (No. 1246) four-barred sigmas have been cut over square ones. While the testimony of the sigma is ambiguous, that of the omega provides clear warning of the danger of trying to date the coinage by reference to the appearance of distinctive letter forms on the inscriptions.
With regard to the arguments based on the style and sparsity of individual issues, they are somewhat weakened by an element of inconsistency. Some of the strikings which Kambanis places after Sulla are undeniably of extremely poor style but not one of them has dies as debased as those of Epigenes–Xenon and Menedemos–Timokrates (Nos. 385–387 and 392 on Plate B), two emissions which are assigned to the period before 86 B.c. Obverses of Theophrastos–Themisto and Alketes–Euagion are very close in style and in no sense technically inferior to the dies of Demeas–Kallikratides and Diophantos–Aischines (Nos. 378–383 on Plate B); there seems no reason to put the first two after and the last two before the siege of Athens. On the other hand the heads of the final four issues of the present catalogue (Nos. 411–415) are well designed and carefully modelled; from a stylistic point of view they belong before and not after Sulla. Similarly, one finds no clear-cut division between the two chronological groups with respect to the size of emissions. Prior to 111/0 B.c. all strikings are sizable. For succeeding emissions, separated in accordance with Kambanis' dating, the number of known obverse dies for tetradrachms is as follows: (pre-Sullan) three issues with 4, one with 2 and two with 1; (post-Sullan) two with 3, four with 2 and eleven with 1.
Finally we have the hoard material from Delos and Crete. Kambanis' basic point with regard to the Delos coins is that the large deposits found there must date from the period before the capture and looting of the island by the forces of Mithradates since the impoverished condition of the settlement after 88 B.c. would make it impossible to suppose that substantial amounts of money were available for hoarding. The Hierapytna Hoard is the only Cretan deposit that Kambanis discusses and although he treats its evidence with caution, he seems to feel that the late issues contained in it also antedate Sulla since all are included in his list of emissions before 86 B.c.
The actual situation is rather more complicated than the foregoing would indicate. Concerning Delos, the period of its great prosperity and commercial importance undoubtedly came to an end with the destructive attack of Archelaus but the island was not an uninhabited wasteland after that date. Ferguson1 cites the interest that Sulla took in Delos and the help he provided toward its restoration. In 84 B.c. the colony was given back to Athens and it was not until 46 B.c. when the trade of the eastern Mediterranean was diverted to the new Roman settlement at Corinth that Delos was literally abandoned. Prior to that date the island was populated, it had a local government and presumably it required currency. As Kambanis says, one would certainly expect to find the large Delos hoards composed exclusively of Athenian coinage struck before 88 B.c.; at the same time one might also expect to find in the small hoards, of which a number have been published (pp. 519–521 of the section on Hoards), and among the stray finds some representation of post-Sullan money if silver was still being struck at Athens during that period. But the record of the Delos material as a whole—large hoards, small hoards and chance finds—is absolutely consistent and somewhat puzzling. While there is a limited amount of Mithradatic and Sullan silver, there is nothing from the regular Athenian mint after 112/1 B.c. The only two-magistrate issues, apart from those of Xenokles and Harmoxenos (which are an integral part of the three-magistrate series), recorded as unearthed on Delos are the strikings of Kleophanes–Epithetes, Mentor–Moschion, Architimos–Demetri, Lysandros–Oinophilos, Amphias–Oinophilos, Nestor–Mnaseas and Sotades–Themistokles. These issues belong immediately after the three–magistrate sequence and cover the years 119/8 through 112/1. Whatever this means, it clearly can have nothing to do with Archelaus and the devastation of the island. The argument that the Athenian coinage went on after Sulla gains nothing from the evidence of the Delos coins.
Even less conclusive is the evidence of the Hierapytna Hoard. In the first place it is a late deposit containing a large number of Roman denarii of mid first century date and buried according to Raven between 44 and 42 B.c. 1 It seems to have included fifty to fifty-five New Style coins, many of them unidentified as to issue, of which at least twelve belong to the late two-magistrate period with five issues later in date than those found on Delos. There is no precise evaluation of the condition of the coins: Raven was told that none of the two-magistrate pieces was at all badly worn and Kambanis describes the ones he saw as well-preserved and some very fresh. In view of the composition of the hoard and its burial date, the Athenian issues could have been struck at any time—before or after Sulla —and it is in fact a little difficult to see why Kambanis thought they should be included in his pre-Sullan listing. It would seem more logical to consider the five issues not found on Delos as post-Sullan, but the hoard itself proves nothing one way or the other.
Fortunately there is another Cretan hoard which is far more informative and helpful. This was apparently not known to Kambanis but it is briefly reported by Svoronos.2 The coins, now in the Herakleion Museum, are reproduced on Plate 202. Together with four worn pieces of the three–magistrate period, it contains eight issues of the two-magistrate series: Eumelos–Theoxenides, Theophrastos–Themisto, Demeas–Kallikratides, Epigenes–Xenon, Menedemos–Timokrates, Architimos–Pammenes, Apellikon–Aristoteles and Philokrates–Kalliphon. Corrosion has affected the surfaces of most coins and only one issue is represented by more than an isolated specimen so that state of preservation is no safe guide to the exact sequence of emissions but it seems to me quite certain that the last seven coins on Plate 202 had seen little circulation before the interment of this small hoard and that they are therefore to be considered roughly contemporary strikings. Now this is of crucial importance in that one of the coins is a tetradrachm of Demeas–Kallikratides. It is a piece of rare good fortune that we have in the Berlin Cabinet an example of a coin of this issue overstruck by the Macedonian quaestor Aesillas, providing us with an incontrovertibly fixed point in the late New Style series. The coinage of Demeas–Kallikratides must come before 92–88 B.c., some years before to allow the coin in question to have reached Macedonia and circulated there prior to being called in and restamped by Aesillas. The strong presumption is that the other issues of this Cretan hoard also date before 92–88 and that in it we have our only certain hoard record of the late pre-Sullan coinage.
The significance of this deposit goes beyond the limited number of issues it contains. As indicated in the preceding pages, the latest of the New Style emissions fall into a number of stylistically tight groups. While these groups may be spaced in time, it is difficult to believe that their component issues can be separated one from another by any broad interval, hence certain issues of the Cretan hoard will inevitably bring with them into the pre-Sullan sequence other strikings of highly comparable style. Let us see with reference to Plate B how this works out in regard to the issues after 112/1 B.c.
In the coinage between 109/8 and 103/2 we have the first of these distinctive stylistic groupings, the first six emissions having dies which are markedly similar and the last an additional lot of three dies which must be related to a single obverse of Menedemos–Timokrates. Four of the seven issues are found in the Cretan hoard; the three other strikings (Diophantos–Aischines, Alketes–Euagion and Dionysios–Mnasagoras) are so much a part of the group that they must, I believe, be considered contemporary. The coinage between 98/7 and 92/1 gives us a second grouping with unusual stylistic features, such as the treatment of ornament and earring. Of its constituents, three emissions are in the Cretan hoard; the other four issues would again seem to be of the same period.
The evidence for the remaining ten issues is less decisive except in one instance. The coinage of Pantakles–Demetrios may have been represented in our Cretan hoard but there is no proof.1 In the coinage of Diokles–Leonides and To Tri Diokles–Medeios we have earlier and later emissions related to Diokles To Deu–Medios, an issue closely connected with the other strikings of the second stylistic group. Diokles–Leonides must then be pre-Sullan and it seems likely that the third issue of this Diokles and the emission of Diokles of Melite are also of the same general period since there would be little point in the careful identification of the two magistrates if any considerable span of time had elapsed between the first two and the last two strikings. For Leukios–Antikrates. Menneas–Herodes, Dionysios–Demostratos, Demochares–Pammenes, Tryphon–Polycharmos and Apolexis–Lysandros there is no association with the issues of the Cretan hoard except on grounds of style and this is perhaps a somewhat weaker argument here than in the case of the two large stylistic groups discussed above. It follows then that of the twenty-four issues which come after 112/1 and which are assuredly the last strikings of the New Style series, we have fifteen which are almost certainly pre-Sullan, three others which may with some degree of probability be assigned to the same period and six for which there is no evidence if the stylistic relationship is rejected as inconclusive.
This brings us to the point of over-all chronology. Assuming that every year between 196/5 and 88/7 B.c. saw some output of coinage, there is an exact correlation between the number of regular issues of the Athenian mint and the time available for their production.1 To place any of these issues after Sulla, one must posit a break in the coinage prior to 88/7 and for this there is absolutely no evidence. There are on the other hand weighty arguments, both numismatic and historical, for associating the end of the autonomous silver of Athens with the capture of the city by Sulla and assuming that its basic monetary needs after that date were met by the Roman denarii and the Athenian Imperial bronze.2
The termination of the New Style silver shortly before Sulla's siege of Athens is of considerable importance for the chronology of the Mithradates–Aristion issue. Placing this striking in 87/6 B.c. means that as the last of the New Style emissions it should logically tie in with the coinage of the early years of the first century. Its complete failure to do so raises a strong presumption that the traditional dating is in error.
In earlier pages of this commentary on the Late Period some stress has been laid on the very close relationship between the dies of the Mithradatic coinage and those of issues belonging to the final years of the 130–120 period. This stylistic evidence is summarized on Plate 127. There the three tetradrachm obverses of Mithradates are associated with the dies of other strikings which provide the closest parallels in the rendering of the Athena head. Compare Obverse 1143 with 1128 (A) of Kointos–Kleas, Obverse 1144 with 1156 (B) of Mnaseas–Nestor and Obverse 1145 with 1135 (C) of Apellikon–Gorgias. A single drachm obverse of Mithradates has survived and this is strikingly similar in style to one of Xenokles–Harmoxenos with dolphin and trident symbol (D = No. 1107). Again a single obverse of the Mithradatic gold is known,1 highly comparable with a tetradrachm die of Kointos (E representing a reduction of No. 1127) and with drachm obverses of Xenokles–Harmoxenos with Roma symbol (F = No. 1124) and of Kointos and Apellikon (G = No. 1130 common to both issues). Not only are the individual dies close in profile representation but all show the same distinctive treatment of details such as the small and neatly-executed helmet ornament and the arrangement of the hair in two rows of heavy locks in front of a single prominent curl. This particular obverse style in its fully developed state is characteristic of the coinages of Demeas–Hermokles through Mentor–Moschion, 125/4–118/7 B.c. After that date, as will be seen from Plate B, there is not one die which provides a clear parallel with those of the earlier period. No. 351 is perhaps closest, at least in the treatment of the ornament, and Nos. 350, 374 and 378–379 are surely derivative, but all these obverses give the impression of being the work of a new engraver copying the technique of the man who produced the earlier dies. The obverses of Mithradates–Aristion on the other hand are an integral part of the 125/4–118/7 stylistic sequence. Seeing them alone, without reference to the issue, one would unhesitatingly assign them to that period.
They bear no resemblance to the dies that terminate the coinage. This is so obvious from the illustrations on Plate B as to require no comment on the differences in execution and in basic concept. It may, however, be noted that the evidence of the reverses is consonant with that of the obverses. The owl of the Mithradates issue is a rather large plump bird with relatively small head and eyes and carefully delineated plumage. Below the owl is a long thin amphora with a tapering neck rendered by a series of converging lines. Letters of the inscription are of moderate size, well cut and well spaced. Note the similarity in all respects to the reverses of Apellikon–Gorgias and other contemporary issues. Note also the different rendering of the type on Plates 134 following. The owl is normally scrawnier with head and eyes disproportionately large and plumage sketchily rendered. On most dies an amphora with straight unmarked neck replaces the earlier vase with its tapering lines. Lettering is alternately over-heavy and over-thin.
Stylistically the obverses and reverses of the Mithradatic issue belong with the coinage of 125/4–118/7 B.c. On the evidence of hoards and of die transfers, this represents a body of material which cannot be removed en masse from its present position in the chronological sequence. Following it come issues which either must antedate Sulla, on the evidence of the large Delos hoards and of the Aesillas overstriking, or are almost certainly prior to 86 b.c., on the evidence of Cretan Hoard I. With these issues the Mithradates striking has nothing in common. In order to retain the 87/6 dating for its emission, one has no choice but to assume that the engraver of 125/4–118/7 was recalled by the mint after an absence of thirty or more years and that for the duration of this single issue he succeeded in producing obverses and reverses almost identical with those he had turned out over a quarter of a century earlier. This seems to me a counsel of desperation.
On stylistic grounds alone the case is strong but there is more evidence than this. As has already been noted, the known reverses of Mithradates–Aristion are marked with two extremely rare control marks: ΔA and EΠI. Each makes an isolated appearance in later issues, EΠ in 114/3 and ΔA in 102/1, but the only strikings in which they are used together are those of Apellikon and Mithradates while ΔA is also represented on the coinages of Kointos and of Xenokles with Roma symbol.
The hoard evidence is somewhat ambiguous. The only deposit which contains the New Style silver of Mithradates is the Dipylon find.1 This covers a long period of time and is apparently a savings hoard so that proportionate representation and relative condition cannot be regarded as wholly reliable criteria for the dating of individual issues. Almost all emissions between 131/0 and 121/0 are included; there is no New Style silver of later date. Kambanis classifies the majority of these coins as very well preserved. With the other New Style pieces were four coins of Mithradates–Aristion, also described by Kambanis as in very good condition. The record of relative wear suggests that the Mithradates–Aristion specimens are roughly contemporary with the coins of 131/0–121/0 and the fact that this issue and that of Apellikon are the most extensively represented of these late strikings suggests that they are the final emissions of the hoard but in view of the character of the accumulation the evidence is by no means decisive. A complicating factor is the presence in the same deposit of four tetradrachms of Mithradates Eupator which means that there is a gap of some thirty-two years between the last of the New Style strikings and the Pontic pieces. However, the Dipylon Hoard is not unique in this respect. The Piraeus Hoard shows absolutely the same composition: New Style issues to 121/0 and then two Pontic tetradrachms of c. 88 B.c. The Abruzzi Hoard ends as far as the New Style goes in 121/0 but it also contains coins of the Sullan period. In the Anatolia and Cretan II Hoards the New Style material stops in 120/19 and 117/6 respectively but in the second deposit certainly and in the first possibly there is post-Sullan coinage. Delos A with its New Style strikings runs to 112/1 and then there is nothing except for two Sullan pieces. Only in Cretan Hoard I and the Hierapytna Hoard is there a representation of New Style issues postdating 112/1 B.c. The picture is at least consistent in its inconsistency. Whatever interpretation is to be placed on this strange gap in practically all hoards, it is clear that one cannot argue from the composition of a single deposit that the Pontic and Athenian coins of Mithradates belong together and that the latter must therefore date c. 87/6.
Then we have the contribution of the bronze coinage. In the section on Hoards1 discussion of a limited number of bronze finds is included, primarily because of their significance for the dating of the Mithradates coinage; the basic points may be summarized here. Although any final arrangement of the bronze must await the collection and careful study of a great deal of material, some indication of a general chronological framework is provided by eight hoards, published and unpublished deposits. It seems clear from the high degree of uniformity of their contents that the early issues of New Style bronze are those with the types of Zeus head/Athena Promachos and Athena head in Corinthian helmet/Zeus holding or hurling a thunderbolt, while the later issues are stamped with an Athena Parthenos head/Owl on amphora or else with miscellaneous types such as Gorgon's head/Athena advancing, Athena Parthenos head/Sphinx and so forth. Six of the hoards contain only examples of the earlier types; two only examples of the later. In these deposits there is no overlapping of the two general categories of bronze.
Again on the evidence of the aforementioned hoards, the issues with pilei, bakchos and thyrsos symbols are among the latest of the fulminating Zeus strikings. A specimen of each is reproduced at the bottom of Plate 127.1 Attempting to associate any one with a specific silver issue is in some measure hazardous but it seems to me likely that the pilei symbol is an abbreviated reference to the standing Dioscuri symbol of the tetradrachms of Mikion–Euryklei struck in 156/5 B.c. Of the two hoards containing late bronze, only one has been reported in detail. In it are examples of the sphinx issue which is probably to be associated with the tetradrachms of Diophantos–Aischines in 108/7, of the cicada issue paralleling the drachm emission of Demochares–Pammenes in 100/99 and of the Athena with owl reverse which I suggest may be connected with the Athena symbol on the money of Diokles Meli–Medeios assigned to 89/8 B.c. A single coin of each of these bronze emissions appears on Plate 127. It must be stressed that the above connections between silver and bronze are tentative but we do know that the first three coins at the bottom of the plate are early and the last three late. With the bronze coinage of Mithradates we are on safer ground in that the attribution rests upon the distinctive Pontic symbol of star and crescents and upon a marked stylistic similarity in the Athena heads found on the gold, silver and bronze. The issue has never, to the best of my knowledge, been found in a hoard context so that its position in the bronze sequence depends upon other factors—types, technique and metallic composition. Its types are identical with those of the earlier strikings, completely different from those of the later. Its heads are somewhat heavier and presumably later than the renderings on the early bronze but their workmanship is far superior to that of the late emissions.
If the evidence of types and technique points to an association of the Mithradatic bronze with the earlier rather than the later issues of the Athenian mint, the evidence of metallic composition is even more decisive. A listing of all available analyses of New Style bronze coins, some already published and some new, is given on pages 639f. Of the early strikings we have analyses for one specimen of the Zeus holding fulmen coinage and for two of the fulminating Zeus with pilei symbol. Of the later emissions we have the results of tests on four examples of the sphinx coins, one of the cicada, one of Athena with owl, three of Mithradates, and finally two of the issue with Gorgon's head obverse and Athena reverse. Other analyses have been made but the issues above are those which can with greatest safety be assigned to particular strikings of silver on the grounds of the recurrence of distinctive symbols. The results of the analyses as given below are in terms of an average when more than one coin was tested and the listing is in what seems to me to have been the order of emission.
Cu | Sn | Pb | Ratio Pb to Sn | |
Zeus holding fulmen | 88.74 | 11.10 | .22 | 0.019 |
Zeus with pilei | 88.86 | 9.36 | 1.03 | 0.11 |
Gorgon-head | 75.13 | 8.25 | 15.31 | 1.86 |
Mithradates | 78.42 | 7.96 | 12.33 | 1.55 |
Sphinx | 74.99 | 6.59 | 17.49 | 2.65 |
Cicada | 75.73 | 6.02 | 17.72 | 2.94 |
Athena and owl | 73.60 | 6.89 | 18.68 | 2.71 |
Clearly an exact chronological sequence cannot be established on the basis of these chemical analyses. Too few coins have been tested and even if we had more data it would be too much to expect an entirely consistent variation in the composition of the alloy used for the bronze coinage. However, it is to be noted that in cases where tests were run on up to four coins of a single issue, the resulting figures were close enough to justify the assumption that the statistics above give a reasonably accurate picture of the composition of individual strikings. Furthermore, it is evident that the proportions of tin and lead, particularly the latter, provide a clue to the general chronological order in that the earlier coinage has practically no lead while the later is heavily adulterated. The numismatic and chemical evidence as it concerns the chronology of the issues under present discussion is in almost complete accord. The Mithradatic issue fits into the sequence well after the two early strikings but well before the bronze of the 108–89 period. In composition it is most closely related to the issue with Gorgon's head obverse and Athena reverse, an emission to be associated with the silver of Niketes–Dionysios bearing the same Gorgon's head as a symbol and assigned to the year 130/29 B.c.
Finally the basic character of the Mithradatic coinage is of some significance. As we know it, the emission of gold and silver was extremely limited. All specimens of the gold come from the same pair of dies;1 three obverse and four reverse dies are recorded for the tetradrachms,2 a single pair of dies for the drachms. Striking apparently took place in only three months of the year: A, B and Z. Along with this light output of gold and silver goes a very heavy bronze emission.1 Now if this is a war coinage representing Mithradates' contribution to the Athenian struggle against Sulla, then it is singularly inadequate and strangely unbalanced. In the emergency of 87/6 B.c. one would expect Aristion and his followers to have concerned themselves primarily with issuing gold and silver for military needs and not with providing small change for the local citizenry. The financial demands of the resistance to Sulla could not have been met in any significant degree by this token output of gold and silver. It seems far more likely that we have in the Mithradates–Aristion coinage a specific record of a Pontic gift made at an earlier period and converted by an Athens at peace into a small commemorative striking of gold and silver and a large emission of bronze for local use.2
Is it possible to determine the date of the gift and of the coinage? As we have already seen, the style of the Mithradatic coins and the recurrence of distinctive control marks, together with the less precise evidence of the Dipylon Hoard, suggest that the period in question is between 124/3 and 120/19 B.c. Within those five years there was a crisis in Pontus. 1 About 121/0 B.c. Mithradates V was assassinated and his queen Laodice, who may have been implicated in her husband's death, came to power as regent for two minor sons, Mithradates Eupator and Mithradates Chrestos. For some years Laodice was the actual ruler of the country, Eupator having fled the court and gone into hiding. Since the boy was eleven years old at the time of his father's death and shortly afterwards an exile from his future kingdom, it is clear that he can have had no connection with a subsidy to Athens.2 Laodice might have conceived the idea of a gift as a means of winning Athenian favor at a period when her position must have been somewhat precarious, but one doubts that under the circumstances a contribution would have been made in the name of her absent son.
Probability then points strongly to a gift from Mithradates V in the years immediately preceding his assassination. Relationships between Athens and Pontus had long been friendly and subsidies had helped to cement these ties.3 Sometime before 171 B.c. Pharnaces had contributed annual sums of money to the Athenian treasury. Ferguson says that his son and grandson were also phil-Athenians, noting, however, that in the case of Mithradates V this is supposition since there happens to be no extant evidence. We do know that Mithradates V had donated generously to the enlargement or endowment of the Delian gymnasium and it seems highly likely that he was kindly disposed toward Athens as well. There is certainly nothing improbable in the theory that he followed his father's example and provided a subsidy for the city. In fact he may have assisted Athens on more than one occasion. For an issue of coinage dating from 129/8 B.c. the symbol selected by the first magistrate Aristion is the distinctive Pontic device of a drinking Pegasus. Almost certainly this Aristion is the man whose name is coupled with that of Mithradates on the later issue of gold and silver and the appearance of his name and a Pontic symbol on a striking of slightly earlier date is suggestive. Furthermore, the issue immediately preceding that of Aristion with Pegasus has a symbol which although less peculiarly Pontic still may be associated with that dynasty. namely the head of the Gorgon slain by Perseus the legendary ancestor of the Pontic kings. At just about this time there is a change in the metallic composition of the New Style silver which suggests a supplementary supply of bullion imported from abroad.1 Is it not possible that in her need for more metal Athens turned to the friendly kingdom to the north and that it was through the good offices of Mithradates V that the silver was made available. One may even suppose that Aristion was in some way instrumental in securing the king's cooperation. The earlier New Style issues would commemorate in their choice of symbols the assistance given by Mithradates V, the last issue with both the royal name and symbol would commemorate an outright gift.2
In the catalogue the coinage of Mithradates–Aristion has been dated about 121 B.c. and considered as a supplementary emission rather than a unit in the series of New Style strikings. It seems to me unlikely that in this very limited issue we have the record of a whole year of mint activity. Certainly the only presumably annual strikings of similarly restricted size date from a much later period. Rather it seems probable that the Mithradatic pieces were produced concomitantly with the coins of a regular New Style issue, some in the first two months of the year and an additional supply in the sixth month marking perhaps the receipt of a second installment of the subsidy. The coinage of Kointos–Kleas in 122/1 is the smallest issue in the entire three–magistrate sequence and somewhat puzzling in this regard since it follows a number of large issues and immediately precedes the fairly substantial striking of Apellikon–Gorgias. Its curtailed size may be due to the circumstance that in the same year the mint was also employed in putting out the gold, silver and bronze of the Mithradates–Aristion coinage. In every respect 122/1 would be an eminently appropriate date for the latter striking but the precise time of its appearance can probably never be established with certainty. However that may be, the exact year in which the coinage was struck is of minor significance in comparison with the importance of this numismatic testimony to a hitherto unknown connection between Mithradates V and Athens.
1 |
The conventions of the earlier accordion plate are again observed. Numbering does not correspond with the catalogue entries
but a concordance
is provided at the end of the volume of plates. In the stylistic discussion of the commentary, numbers which refer to the
obverses of Plate B are in italics.
|
1 |
AMMΩ – ΔIO in 182/1 and 180/79; HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ in 139/8 and 137/6.
|
1 |
On the single known coin of Theophrastos–Themisto the control combination is off flan.
|
1 |
In "The Oligarchic Revolution at Athens of the Year 103/2 B.c."
(Klio, 1904, pp. 1–17) Ferguson gives a precise date for this movement but in the later Hellenistic Athens
(p. 427, note 4) he assigns it more broadly to the period between 106/5 and 102/1.
The names of a number of known Roman sympathizers are to be found in Ferguson's two works. Dates of the archons mentioned in the discussion are those of Meritt (The Athenian Year, p. 238). |
1 |
As examples' of the former, one may cite Xenokles of 127/6, 124/3 and 123/2 on the evidence of the Roma symbol used for the
last striking,
also Kointos of 122/1 and Leukios of 111/0 on the basis of their Roman names and, in the case of Kointos, of the Roma symbol
employed.
Aristion of 129/8 and Apellikon of 121/0 on the other hand were partisans of Pontus.
|
1 |
Untersuchungen über die attischen Münzen des neueren Stiles (Öfversigt af Finska Vetenskaps-Societetens Förhandlingar,
L, 1907–1908, No.1) pp. 22 f.; "Über eine neue attische Serie Διoνúσιoς – Δημóστρατoς," ZfN, 1908, pp. 273 f.
|
1 |
This identification was made at an early date by Ulrich Köhler in "Numismatische Beiträge," ZfN, 1885, pp. 106–110.
|
1 |
Hellenistic Athens, pp. 452–454.
|
1 |
E. J. P. Raven, "The Hierapytna Hoard of Greek and Roman Coins," NC, 1938, pp. 133–158.
|
1 |
See p. 380, note 2.
|
1 |
There would be 109 years in all and the same number of issues if one accepts the premise (pp. 423 f.) that the Mithradates–Aristion
coinage was a supplementary emission put out side by side with the silver of another issue and if one also
accepts the identification (pp. 464–467) of the Kointos–Charmostra pieces as imitations rather than products of the Athenian
mint.
This correlation of years and issues may seem too tight in view of the possibility of new issues turning up in hoards. There is, however, an element of flexibility at the end of the sequence in that the minting activity of an entire year may not have been limited to a single small emission. We have a number of instances of coinage apparently issued in only one month and it is not impossible that at a later date in the same year another pair of magistrates put out a second small striking. This does not at the moment seem to me likely but if new issues do appear the possibility will have to be considered as an alternative to the assignment of silver coinage to the years after Sulla. |
1 | |
1 |
See pp. 507–509 of the section on Hoards for the record and discussion of this deposit.
|
1 |
Pages 525–531.
|
1 |
All bronzes at the bottom of Plate 127 are in the ANS Collection except for the fulminating Zeus pieces with thyrsos
and bakchos symbols which belong to Mme. Evelpidis.
|
1 |
Seven pieces have been traced: the four illustrated by Svoronos (Pl. 71, 1–4) supplemented by Jameson 2496, Naville (XVI)
1226, and a specimen of uncertain provenance appearing on Plate CIII of
Rostovtzeff (Social and Econ. Hist., II).
|
1 |
These coins were found in quantity in the excavations of the Athenian Agora, a reliable indication of the original size of
the issue.
|
1 |
The basic study of Pontic history in the late second and early first centuries is still Reinach's
Mithridate Eupator
published in 1890. More recent discussion of the period is to be found in Ferguson's Hellenistic Athens
, Rostovtzeff's Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World and Magie's Roman Rule in
Asia Minor. All make full citation of the ancient sources, notably Appian,
Strabo, Plutarch, Justin and Memnon.
|
1 |
See pp. 634–637.
|
2 |
"Zur Datirung der athenischen Silbermünzen der beiden letzten vorchristlichen Jahrhunderte," in ZfN, 1898, pp.
74–105.
|
2 |
All available information on the deposit is summarized on pages 515 f. of the Hoards section. It is there designated as Cretan
Hoard I.
|
2 |
In the 1931–1949 excavations of the Athenian Agora twelve Roman denarii of pre-Augustan date were found, ranging from c. 80
B.c. to the time of Antony (M. Thompson, The Athenian Agora, Volume II:
Coins, p. 9). This is a far more impressive representation than the numbers indicate when one considers the striking dearth of silver
from the Agora. The vast output of the Athenian mint for the hundred odd years of the New Style period is reflected in exactly
one tetradrachm
and two drachms; the Imperial coinage from Augustus to Vespasian is represented by six denarii. Against this background, the
twelve denarii of
pre-Imperial date would seem to indicate an extensive circulation of these coins in Athens
and it is surely significant that their earliest appearance dates from the period just after Sulla.
Josephine Harwood in a preliminary study of the Athenian bronze currency which followed that of the New Style (J. P. Shear, "Athenian Imperial Coinage," Hesperia , 1936, pp. 285–332) assigns its earliest issues to the reign of Augustus. This date is tied in with a terminal date of c. 30 B.c. for the New Style since, as Mrs. Harwood points out, the two varieties of Athenian bronze are frequently found together in deposits and strata of the Agora and it is unlikely that any long period of time intervened between the end of one sequence and the beginning of the other. Hence if the New Style stopped with Sulla, it seems probable that the "Imperial" coins began to be struck shortly thereafter. |
2 |
To be sure only a few tetradrachms have survived so that the argument for a small issue from the number of known dies is not
conclusive, but
the apparent restriction of the coinage to three months of the year and the cutting of Z over A (or
perhaps Z over B over A) on two of the four reverses points to a limited
output.
|
2 |
It has always been supposed, by analogy with other periods of Athenian history, that the appearance of gold coins indicated
a financial crisis
at Athens such as would undoubtedly have been brought on by the siege of 87/6. However,
there are noteworthy differences between the Mithradatic gold and that of 407/6 and 295/4. Both earlier issues were fairly
large strikings.
The four surviving staters of the 407/6 emission were struck from two obverse and three reverse dies and we have epigraphical
evidence for the
existence of an additional two anvil dies and nineteen punch dies. It is difficult to make die comparisons from Svoronos'
illustrations of seventeen staters of the Lachares issue but I believe that at least six obverse and eleven reverse dies
are represented on his Plate 21. In both 407/6 and 295/4 fractional gold was coined: five smaller denominations in the first
year and two in
the second. These early issues then, in their size and their admixture of unit and fractional currency, are typical emergency
or war issues.
The Mithradates–Aristion striking is markedly different. Only staters are known and all existing specimens come from
a single pair of dies.
The fact that on two occasions Athens resorted to a gold coinage as an emergency measure does not prove that her third issue of gold was also struck in a time of crisis. In view of its small size and restricted character we are justified in doubting that it was intended to make any serious contribution to the fiscal needs of the city. It seems far more probable that it merely commemorated a gift or subsidy from Pontus, perhaps in the form of gold bullion, which was used in part for the issuance of a limited number of gold coins. As the earlier gold had carried devices indicating the source of the metal, namely the gold treasures of the Acropolis, so this issue testified to its origin, bearing as it did the name and symbol of the Pontic king who had provided the raw material for the coinage. The gold coinage of Athens is discussed by Köhler ("Über die attische Goldprägung," ZfN, 1898, pp. 5–16). Newell later treats the Lachares emission (The Coinages of Demetrius Poliorcetes, pp. 133–134) and a recent article by Robinson ("Some Problems in the Later Fifth Century Coinage of Athens," ANSMN IX, 1960, pp. 1–15) deals at some length with the issue of 407/6. |
2 |
The romantic story of Eupator's flight and his life in the mountains is possibly exaggerated or fictitious but it may be assumed,
as Magie
points out (p. 1092), that the boy had no part in ruling the kingdom during the first years after his father's death.
|
2 |
The fact that the symbols on the coins of Aristion–Philon and Mithradates–Aristion are found on the issues of Mithradates
VI would seem to be evidence for an association of the Athenian coinage with that king rather than with
Mithradates V. However, the star and crescent device is a dynastic and not a personal badge. It appears on
tetradrachms of Mithradates III, Pharnaces and Mithradates IV
and signifies the claim of the whole Mithradatic house to Persian origin. Its connotation is a Pontic king, not Mithradates
VI in particular. The Gorgon's head and drinking Pegasus in their connection with Pontus have reference to the legend
that Perseus was the ancestor of the Persians and hence of their Pontic descendants. Perseus holding the Gorgon's head is
the reverse type on
the silver of Mithradates IV; the drinking Pegasus occurs on the coinage of Eupator's son
Ariarathes IX. Neither is exclusively the device of Mithradates VI.
One of the puzzling circumstances in the numismatic history of Pontus is the fact that there is no record of money struck during the long reign of Mithradates V whom Rostovtzeff describes as "certainly the wealthiest and the most powerful king in Asia Minor in the last decades of the second century B.c." Since there is no coinage we do not know what aspects of the Perseus–Persian tradition he would have chosen to emphasize had he issued money. It is not impossible that he would have used the same drinking Pegasus type of his son and grandson but this is mere conjecture. What is certain is that the device of star and crescent was symbolic of the Pontic king and not of an individual ruler, as appropriate for Mithradates V as for Mithradates VI or for any other member of the Mithradatic house. It is more than likely that the Perseus legend in all its manifestations had the same kind of dynastic connotation in the popular mind. In connection with the star and crescent symbol, there is also this to be noted. The symbol on the Athenian coinage is not identical with that on the Pontic: the latter has a single crescent under the star while the former encloses the star between crescents above and below. This is to be sure a small deviation but a rather strange one if the New Style issue was put out in 87/6 B.c. At that period the tetradrachms of Mithradates VI were presumably familiar to everyone in the city. Emissions of 90–88 B.c. are found in Athenian hoards and it seems almost certain that these coins, probably in large supply, had been brought from Asia by Archelaus and Aristion. If the engraver of the Mithradates–Aristion dies was working in 87/6, why did he not make an accurate copy of the device of Mithradates VI? If on the other hand he was working c. 121 B.c. with no model available, his misconception of the exact rendering of the Pontic symbol is understandable. |
3 |
(Plates 143–149)
I. Obv. Athena head type.
Rev. Owl on amphora type. No ethnic. in field to left and right. A on the amphora.
Tetradrachms
1273.
a. *Munich, gr. 16.16; Hirsch XIX, 400, gr. 16.80; Winterthur Cast (Osman), gr. 16.70
b. ()Leningrad, gr. 16.24↑
c. Ratto (Rogers) 455, gr. 16.35
d. *Basel, amphora letter obscure, gr. 16.34↑
e. *Zurich
1274. *Gans Mail Bid 15, 62
1275. *Florange-Ciani (Allotte de la Fuÿe) 403, gr. 16.60
1276. *Glendining, Apr. 1955, 411B = Hamburger (Berlin dupl.) 294, gr. 15.67
1277.
a. *Princeton Univ., gr. 16.561
b. Romanos Coll. (Sv. 78, 11), gr. 16.22
1278.
a. *Naples (Mus. Naz., Fiorelli 7188), gr. 16.45↑
b. Commerce 1957 (Abruzzi Hd.)
1279. *Glasgow (Hunt. 175), gr. 16.50↑
1280.
a. *Budapest, gr. 16.80↑; Oxford, gr. 16.79↑
b. Cambridge (Grose 5922), gr. 16.82↑
1281. *The Hague
1282. *London (BMC 519), gr. 16.76
1283. *ANS-ETN = Sotheby (Benson) 535, gr. 16.65↑
1284. *Leningrad, gr. 16.27 ↖
1285.
a. *Frankfurt am Main
b. *Bauer Coll. = Locker Lampson 215, gr. 16.72↑
1286.
a. *ANS = Weber 3525, gr. 16.33↑
b. Winterthur Cast, gr. 16.39
1287. *Berlin (Sv. 78, 12), gr. 16.18; Feuardent, Dec. 1921, 106
1288. *Basel, gr. 16.51↑
1289. *Paris (de Luynes 2118), gr. 16.85
1290. *Brussels (de Hirsch 1295; JIAN, 1915, p. 61, fig. 3), gr. 16.79↑
1291. *Commerce 1954, gr. 16.30
1292.
a. *Paris, gr. 16.05↑; Andreopoulos Coll.
b. *London, gr. 16.25
c. London
d. Berlin, gr. 16.18↑
1293.
a. *Bartlett Coll. (Abruzzi Hd.); Frankfurter Münzhandl. 99, 50, gr. 16.55; Hirmer Coll., gr. 16.78
b. Amsterdam (Boissevain 55), amphora letter obscure, gr. 16.92
c. *Dewing Coll., gr. 16.68↖
d. *Coin Galleries Mail Bid, Mar. 1956, 1581 = Naville (Woodward) 761, gr. 15.94
1294.
a. *Commerce 1954, gr. 16.51; Naples (Santangelo Coll., Fiorelli 10782), gr. 16.47↑
b. de Nanteuil 927, gr. 16.30↑; Naville (Woodward) 762, gr. 16.64
c. Ciani (de Grandprey) 139, gr. 16.30
1295.
a. *Naples (Santangelo Coll., Fiorelli 10784), gr. 16.72↑
b. Feuardent, June 1913, 221
1296. *Commerce 1953
1297. *Gotha, gr. 16.86
1298. *Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.14↑
1299. *Vienna, gr. 16.56
1300. *Naples (Santangelo Coll., Fiorelli 10785), gr. 16.19↑
1301.
a. *ANS-ETN, gr. 14.25↑1
b. *Turin (Mus. Civ.)
1302. *Hirsch (Rhousopoulos) 2076, gr. 16.41
1303.
a. *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.25↑
b. Naples (Santangelo Coll., Fiorelli 10783), gr. 16.19↑; Leningrad, gr. 16.51↑; Berlin, gr. 16.39↑
1304.
a. *London (BMC 521), gr. 16.15
b. Winterthur Cast (Imhoof), gr. 16.56
1305. *Hamburger (von Kaufmann) 251, gr. 16.45
1306.
a. *Berlin, gr. 16.73↑
b. *Evelpidis Coll., gr. 16.52
1307. *ANS, gr. 16.75↑2
1308. *Gotha, gr. 16.17; Naples (Santangelo Coll., Fiorelli 10781; Sv. 78, 13), gr. 16.61↑
1309. *Berry Coll., gr. 16.74↗
1310. *Lockett Coll. (SNG 1943) = Naville (Pozzi) 1613, gr. 16.05↑
1311. *London (BMC 520; Sv. 78, 14), gr. 16.58
1312. *Leningrad, amphora letter obscure, gr. 16.01↑
74 tetradrachms: 40 obverse, 60 reverse dies
II. Similar to Issue I but without the amphora letter.
Tetradrachms
1313. *Leningrad, gr. 15.81 (pierced)↑
1314.
a. Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 8281; JIAN, 1915, p. 61, fig. 4), gr. 16.04 ↗
b. London (BMC 516), gr. 16.71
1315.
a. *Hamburger 98, 699, gr. 16.34
b. *Copenhagen (SNG 292), gr. 15.75
1316. *Lockett Coll. (SNG 1942), gr. 16.17↑
1317.
a. *Commerce 1957 (Abruzzi Hd.)
1318.
a. *ANS, gr. 16.57↑ Kricheldorf IV, 202 (Abruzzi Hd.), gr. 16.50
b. *Commerce 1954, gr. 16.43; ANS, gr. 16.72↑; Hamburger 98, 698, gr. 16.55
1319. *Stockholm, gr. 16.45↑
1320. *Bauer Coll., gr. 16.58↑
1321.
a. *London (BMC 518; Sv. 78, 16), gr. 16.54; Naville XVII, 477, gr. 16.61
b. Paris, gr. 16.31↑
c. *Yale Univ., gr. 16.87↑
d. Morgenthau 405, 800
1322.
a. *The Hague
b. Florange-Ciani, Feb. 1923, 48
1323.
a. *Glasgow (Hunt. 174), gr. 16.80↑
b. *Glendining, Oct. 1957, 104, gr. 16.14↑
c. London (BMC 517; Sv. 78, 15), gr. 16.60
1324. *Mrs. E. T. Newell Coll.
1325. *ANS (Abruzzi Hd.), gr. 16.09↑
1326.
a. *Cancio Coll., gr. 16.37↑
b. ANS, gr. 15.65↑
c. ANS (Abruzzi Hd.), gr. 15.92↑
d. ANS (Abruzzi Hd.), gr. 16.27↑
e. *ANS (Abruzzi Hd.), gr. 15.43↑
f. *Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 3232), gr. 16.24 (pierced)↑
1327.
a. *Ball VI, 281, gr. 16.60
b. Ratto, Apr. 1927, 1393, gr. 16.15
1328.
a. *Vienna, gr. 16.56
b. Ratto 4 (Fx. Pr.) 1086, gr. 16.14
1329. *ANS (Abruzzi Hd.), gr. 16.73↑
Drachms
1330. *Cahn 24 (Fx. Pr.) 543 = Egger XL (Prowe) 976, gr. 4.06
1331. *Paris; London, gr. 3.66 ↗
1332.
a. *Commerce 1953 prob. = Ball VI, 282 = Ball 39 (Fx.Pr.) 404, gr. 4.10
b. *Athens
1333. *Vienna, gr. 3.89
1334.
a. *Berlin, gr. 3.95↑
b. JIAN, 1915, p. 61, fig. 51
1335. *Berry Coll., gr. 4.01↑
1336.
a. *ANS, gr. 3.82↑
b. Naples (Mus. Naz., Fiorelli 7139), gr. 3.65↑
1337. *Athens (Sv. 78, 18), gr. 4.02
1338. *ANS, gr. 3.30↑
1339.
a. *London (BMC 522; Sv. 78, 17), gr. 3.95
b. Gotha, gr. 3.50
c. Copenhagen (SNG 293), gr. 3.94↑
1340. *Tübingen 38 tetradrachms: 17 obverse, 32 reverse dies 17 drachms: 11 obverse, 14 reverse dies
III. Similar to Issue II but with trophies of Sulla in place of the monograms in field left and right.
Tetradrachms
1341. *Athens (Sv. 78, 22), gr. 14.91
1342. *Berlin (Sv. 78, 20; JIAN, 1915, p. 67, fig. 7), gr. 17.24
1343. *Paris (Sv. 78, 21), gr. 16.82↑
1344. *London (Sv. 78, 23; JIAN, 1915, p. 67, fig. 8), gr. 17.07↑
1345. *Empedocles Coll. = Weber 3526 (Sv. 78, 24), gr. 16.71
5 tetradrachms: 5 obverse, 5 reverse dies
The three issues of the preceding pages might fittingly be described as pseudo-Athenian. Basically their types are those of the New Style sequence but the style of the obverse heads is quite unlike anything produced by the Athenian mint and the reverses bear neither the ethnic nor the diversified marks of identification normally found on the late Athenian silver. On the first two issues the monograms and occupy the field left and right, supplemented on some coins by the letter A on the amphora; on the third issue two trophies replace the monograms. Clearly these are not official Athenian issues. At the same time they are too large to be classified as unofficial in the sense of being merely another of the imitative currencies emanating from some outlying mint or clandestine workshop. Since they are found in hoards in conjunction with late issues of the New Style series, the two coinages would seem to have been not only roughly contemporary but also equally acceptable within a common circulation area. If the issues under present discussion cannot be regarded as the work of the autonomous civic mint, they do at least appear to have some connection withAthens and the New Style silver.
Beulé regarded the strikings with monograms and trophies as units of the New Style series, assigning them to the opening years of the sequence and explaining the absence of ethnic as a result of the mint's having called in a celebrated artist rather than a professional engraver to produce the initial dies for the new coinage. In the association of the issues and their attribution toAthens, Head (BMC, Attica, lv–lvi) agreed with Beulé but proposed a much later date, the years just after Sulla's capture of the city, for their emission. Actually the Sullan connection with the trophies coinage, based upon the correspondence of devices on Sulla's gold and on the "New Style" silver, had been earlier established by von Sallet (ZfN, 1885, pp. 381–384. See Plate 1491).
Von Sallet's identification was generally accepted but the chronological link between the issues with trophies and with monograms, as outlined by Beulé and Head, was questioned. Head himself had second thoughts about the mint and date of the coins; in the second edition of the Historia Numorum he suggested that they were struck by the Athenian cleruchs on Delos about the middle of the second century. In an article on the money of the slave revolt (JIAN, 1915 but published 1922, pp. 60–70), Svoronos put forth an ingenious theory explaining the coinage as the product of the rebellious slaves who c. 104–102 B.c. seized Sunium and the mines of Laurium (Poseidonius, quoted by Athenaeus, VI, 272, e–f). The two monograms Svoronos deciphered as ΛAYPIA M[E]TAΛΛA. Finally the trophies emission, too, was separated from the Athenian mint and in measure re-dated. Daux (RN, 1935, pp. 1–9), followed by Raven (NC, 1938, pp. 155–158), identified the coins with the Peloponnesian money which Plutarch (Lucullus II.2) ascribed to Sulla's mint master and which would presumably have been issued before and not after the fall of Athens.
Of these theories, the one associating the trophies coinage with Sulla is entirely convincing. Leaving for the moment the question as to whether the coins were struck in Athens after Chaeronea and Orchomenus, as von Sallet believed, or in the Peloponnese in 87 B.c., as Raven maintained, one can safely assume that this was a Sullan issue and therefore to be dated shortly before or after the siege of Athens. With respect to the monograms issue we are on less firm ground. The arguments for assigning it to a non-Athenian mint, either on Delos or in the Sunium-Laurium area, would be stronger if there were any evidence for a functioning workshop at either place during the second century. Head's cleruchy hypothesis is based on Svoronos' attribution of certain bronze issues to Delos and other cleruchies, but the coins in question were almost certainly struck at Athens itself.1 There is no valid reason for supposing that an island mint supplied even small change for the cleruchy's use; it is impossible to believe that Delos issued the truly tremendous coinage. Nor is Sunium a more likely place of origin. The supposition that a mint was located there in the sanctuary of the hero Stephanephoros has been discredited and it is generally thought that the coinage of Athens was produced not in some outlying district but in the city proper.2 If then one assigns the coins to the revolting slaves, one must at the same time assume a makeshift workshop set up for the issuance of this coinage. Again the extensive size of the striking makes this a highly unlikely premise. Even less persuasive is the interpretation of the monograms as "mines of Laurium''. If this rather peculiar message is indeed the one which the coinage is attempting to convey, its formulation would seem to be incredibly clumsy; the monograms certainly appear to read PAM (or MAP) – TAM (or MAT). I do not believe that there is any valid ground for assigning the coins to either Delos or Sunium or in fact any valid ground for separating them in time or place from the trophies tetradrachms with which they are ostensibly related.
At first glance the two emissions can scarcely be said to be close in style but the stylistic argument must be applied with caution to this coinage. In the present catalogue the pieces have been divided into two groups: the first composed exclusively of tetradrachms bearing the letter A on the amphora and the second of tetradrachms and drachms without the date on the vase. The division is not primarily one of month date, however, but one of style. Even the most cursory inspection of Plates 143–146 as compared with Plates 147–148 shows the marked difference in the rendering of the Athena head; the two groups of obverses have absolutely nothing in common. Yet the reverse types are identical and it would be difficult to maintain that Issues I and II were struck at different mints or widely separated in time. The Athena heads of the trophies striking bear no resemblance to those of Issue I of the monograms series. They are on the other hand closer to the obverses of Issue II than the obverses of Issues I and II are to each other. Note in particular the arrangement of the hair and the treatment of the helmet ornament. Moreover, within the trophies striking there is evident a diversity of obverse rendering similar to that of the coinage. No. 1345 is notably heavier and clumsier than Nos. 1342–1344 and far removed from the delicate head of No. 1341. Even the reverses differ: the owls of Nos. 1341–1343 are immeasurably superior to the grotesque birds of Nos. 1344–1345. Since sharp stylistic variations are found within as well as between issues, they would surely seem to indicate merely different engravers and not different mints and it follows that the absence of clear stylistic rapprochement cannot be used as an argument for separating these strikings.
A Sullan connection is well-nigh certain in the case of the trophies issue; it can be postulated with a high degree of probability in the case of the monograms issue. There is, first of all, the evidence of the Abruzzi Hoard.1 This is a most significant deposit in several respects. To the best of my knowledge, it is the only hoard found in Italy in which New Style coins are included. Associated with thirty examples of this coinage is a miscellany of non-Athenian material: single tetradrachms of Cappadocia and Bithynia of second century date, two Byzantium Lysimachi of the late second or early first, four tetradrachms of Mithradates VI of the year 90/89, nine tetradrachms of the issue, and some two hundred Roman denarii described as being "of the time of Sulla." Concerning the denarii there is no precise record of moneyers or condition. Of the other foreign coins, the Byzantium, Mithradates and tetradrachms are in excellent to FDC state, suggesting relative contemporaneity.
The composition of the hoard and its Italian provenance seem to me explicable only in terms of Sulla's Greek campaigns. Presumably this was money taken home by one of Sulla's veterans. All of the coins may have been acquired legitimately in which case Sulla paid his troops not only in coins specifically provided for that purpose but also in whatever other currency the fortunes of war put at his disposal. The soldier may have augmented his pay with the proceeds of looting. In either case the very substantial representation of tetradrachms in the Abruzzi accumulation indicates that this coinage was in abundant supply about the time of Sulla's occupation of Athens. Since the issue, except for two drachms found in Delos Hoard A, is otherwise unreported in a hoard context, the probability is that the coins constituted a military rather than a civilian emission and that they were struck by Sulla to meet the demands of his payroll.1
Additional indication of a Sullan connection may be deduced from the monograms which appear on the coinage. E. S. G. Robinson, in publishing two coins of the Lockett Collection (SNG 1942–1943), notes that TAMIOY is a possible interpretation of the form in the right field. More recently in conversation he has suggested that the first monogram is to be read as MAPKOY, the Marcus in question being the brother of Lucullus.2 This is a most persuasive theory and one which, it seems to me, fits admirably all the circumstances, historical and numismatic.
We know that Sulla needed a great deal of money for his war against Mithradates. Plutarch (
Sulla
XII.3–4) speaks of his requisitioning for that purpose the sacred treasures of Epidaurus, Olympia and Delphi and in a later
passage (XII.9) decrying the Roman general's
lavish expenditures upon his men, he writes: "that he might corrupt and win over those whom others commanded, so that in
making
traitors of the rest, and profligates of his own soldiers, he had need of much money and especially for this siege." From
the same author (Lucullus
II.2) we have also a record of the man responsible for replenishing Sulla's war chest: δι' ἐκϵἱνoυ γὰρ ἐκóπη
γò πλϵĩστoν ἐν Πϵλoπoννἡσῳ πϵρἰ τòν Mιθριδατικòν πόλϵμoν, καἰ Λoυκoύλλϵιoν ἀπ' ἐκείνoυ πρoσηγoρϵύεθη, καἰ διετέλεσεν ἐπὶ πλεῖστoν,
ὑπò τῶν
στρατιωτικῶν χρειῶν ἐν τῷ πoλέμῳ λαμβἁνoν ἀμoιβἠν ταχεῖαν.
This last text is related by Daux to a Delphic inscription of the late first century B.c. which tells of the freeing of three slaves, by sale to the god for the sum of 105 πλἁτη Λευκóλλεια. Maintaining that the price involved must have been reckoned in either aurei or tetradrachms, scarcely in denarii or drachms, and that the adjective platy is certainly to be understood as the colloquial designation of a large coin, Daux identifies the spread-flan tetradrachms with two trophies as the coinage struck under Sulla's orders by Lucullus in the Peloponnese and notes that the fact that this money was still in common use some sixty years after the Mithradatic War confirms Plutarch's account of its prolonged circulation.
Now this is surely sound with respect to the interpretation of the "Lucullan" money of Plutarch as Greek tetradrachms. It is far less certain that the coins of the Delphic inscription are specifically the tetradrachms with two trophies. The fundamental question, of course, is whether this striking was anywhere near large enough to have supplied Sulla's military needs and to have continued to serve as a standard medium of exchange for a long period after the war ended. Only five examples are known. Since there is no duplication of obverse or reverse dies, the original issue was undoubtedly much more extensive than our record of surviving specimens indicates but even with all allowance made for this discrepancy it would not seem to have been a really large emission such as one would expect under the circumstances.
There are other problems as well. The passage in Plutarch is generally taken to mean that Lucius Lucullus struck the coins in question in the Peloponnese during the Mithradatic War. As Raven quite rightly says, this would then date the coinage to 87 B.c. 1 since it was as early as the winter of 87/6 that Sulla dispatched Lucullus to the East to try to raise a fleet and there is no record of his having returned to Greece until after the defeat of Mithradates. But what was Lucullus doing striking money in the Peloponnese in 87 B.c.? Putting together what information we have on Sulla's route to Athens,1 we find him landing on the coast of Epirus in the spring of 87, making his way down through central Greece to Boeotia and ultimately to Attica where he encountered the first real resistance of the campaign. Failing to take Athens and Piraeus, he established headquarters at Eleusis and Megara and laid siege to the city and harbor. The only mention of Lucullus prior to that time places him in Boeotia dissuading Bruttius Sura from engaging Archelaus' forces before Sulla's arrival. There seems to have been no campaigning in the Peloponnese. Why then set up a war mint in a region remote from the main theatre of conflict and apparently ungarrisoned by Roman troops?
Actually it is by no means certain that Plutarch meant the coins were struck in the Peloponnese. In the Loeb edition of Lucullus ἐν Πελoπoννἡσῳ is related to τò πλϵĩστoν rather than to ἐκóπη and the translation of the pertinent sentence reads: "Most of the money used in Peloponnesus during the Mithradatic war was coined by him, and was called Lucullean after him." This, it seems to me, is what Plutarch intended to convey: most of the money circulating in the Peloponnese at the time of the Mithradatic war was struck by Lucullus. He might better have said circulating in Greece, for we can be sure, on the evidence of the Delphic inscription, that the coins were widely distributed, but the essential fact is that the passage does not necessarily imply that the site of the mint was in the Peloponnese.
Plutarch's account says nothing about the time of minting. A large war issue may, of course, have been put out in 87 B.c. but if one considers the general situation apart from the connection of Lucullus with the coinage, it seems more likely that it occurred after rather than before the fall of Athens. Sulla apparently left Italy with his war coffers practically empty. Appian (Mith. V.30) records that he disembarked in Greece and "straightway called for money, reinforcements and provisions from Aetolia and Thessaly." Presumably the supplies were forthcoming as city after city, including Thebes, sent its deputation to proclaim allegiance to the Roman cause. The great sanctuaries of Greece were ordered to forward their treasures to Sulla for "safekeeping" and coinage as well as votive offerings in precious metal must have been among these treasures. Whether such voluntary and involuntary contributions were sufficient to meet Sulla's needs between the spring of 87 and the spring of 86 can only be a matter of conjecture. It seems to me that they probably were, that Sulla was under no serious financial pressure during the first year of his campaign. Not only was there ready money in generous supply for his soldiers but by way of a bonus there was the promise of rich plunder once Athens and Piraeus were taken.
After the first of March in 86 B.c. the situation was different. Sulla was master of the city and its port; he had undoubtedly augmented his war chest from the spoils of the sacked metropolis. But the war was far from ended. Ahead of him lay the destruction of Mithradates' forces and the defeat of the king himself. There was no choice but to move north into Boeotia and seek an engagement with the enemy but in so doing Sulla was returning to a region upon which he had already levied tribute in his march south the year before. Requisitioning would bring some yield but scarcely enough for a protracted campaign. At this stage it would have been foolhardy for Sulla to have advanced against Mithradates' generals without first having made provision for his financial needs. In a completely subdued Athens he had at his disposal a mint capable of producing a bulk coinage. The raw materials were at hand in the sacred offerings from the shrines of Greece supplemented by the proceeds of local confiscation. Surely it was in Athens in 86 B.c. that the "Lucullan" coinage was struck. With this coinage Lucius Lucullus could have had no connection since he had left Greece months before.
Plutarch tells us ( Lucullus I.6) that Lucius had a younger brother Marcus to whom he was devoted, citing in evidence the following story: "Although, namely, he was older than his brother, he was unwilling to hold office alone, but waited until his brother was of the proper age, and thus gained the favour of the people to such an extent that, although in absence from the city, he was elected aedile along with his brother."1 This same Marcus Lucullus was one of Sulla's commanders during the Mithradatic campaign (Sulla XXVII.7), presumably he was with Sulla when Athens was captured. From Plutarch again (Lucullus XXXVII.1) we know that he served as quaestor under Sulla. The time and place of his service is not recorded2 but in all probability it was in Athens in the years after the fall of the city, for to whom is it more likely that Sulla would have entrusted the responsibility for a large issue of coinage than to the brother of his absent mint manager. As Robinson suggests, this is the man whose name and office appear on the emission. The coinage was indeed struck by Lucullus, but by Marcus and not by Lucius.
It seems to me quite certain that the "Lucullan" currency of Plutarch and the Delphic inscription was this issue with its tremendous output of tetradrachms, smaller quantity of drachms and token representation of bronze.1 In its size, far surpassing even the heaviest of the New Style strikings, it qualifies as a war coinage to a degree true of no other issue of Greek silver of the period. The date and place of its emission seem to me equally certain. Only a large, well-equipped mint could have produced this vast amount of money; that the mint was Athens is clearly suggested by the coinage itself. In imitating the familiar Athenian tetradrachms, Sulla undoubtedly had in mind the advantages of a currency which would be recognized and readily accepted in the area of his coming campaign. There may also have been an element of vindictiveness involved which would not have been out of character. This was essentially Athenian money but the ethnic of the once proud city was suppressed and the names of her monetary magistrates replaced by the name and title of a Roman official. The workmanship is inexpert. If the engravers had had previous experience in die-cutting, it had not been acquired in the pre-Sullan mint of Athens. The dies are far removed in style from anything in the New Style series and there is furthermore, in the retention of the amphora letter on some reverses, a misunderstanding of the purpose of the marking. It is highly unlikely that all coins with A on the vase were issued in a single month. The date seems rather to have been copied in the beginning from a New Style prototype and later abandoned as an unnecessary adjunct.
That the striking began as soon as feasible after the fall of Athens seems probable. How long it lasted is problematical. The division between Issues I and II is not necessarily an annual one; the two emissions may represent a continuous operation of less than or more than a single year. All we can assume is that sometime between 86 and 84 B.c. Marcus Lucullus, on Sulla's authority, struck the coins. Subsequently the trophies issue was put out, perhaps by Marcus, perhaps by someone else. It would seem to have coincided with Sulla's visit to Athens in 84/3 on his way back to Rome after the capitulation of Mithradates. On that occasion the islands of Lemnos, Imbros, Skyros and Delos were restored to Athens and the city, in return for this generous gesture, instituted a new festival, the Sylleia, in honor of Sulla.1 At the same time a small striking of coins took place, serving the twofold purpose of providing some money for the trip back to Italy and of paying flattering tribute to the conqueror whose great victories at Chaeronea and Orchomenus were recalled on the coinage. After this emission the mint of Athens struck no more silver.
1 |
The coin is apparently restruck but the undertype is illegible.
|
1 |
A cast reproduction of a genuine coin.
|
1 |
Although the tetradrachm is poorly preserved, making die comparisons difficult, it is almost certainly struck from the same
obverse die as No.
1317a.
|
1 |
No provenance is given for the coin illustrated by Svoronos and I have been unable to trace it. Its obverse die
seems to be No. 1334 and it shares a reverse die with Nos. 1332b and 1333.
|
1 |
The gold piece (C) reproduced for comparison with the tetradrachms is a British Museum coin.
|
1 |
For the reattribution of some issues to Athens see M. Thompson,
"Some Athenian 'Cleruchy' Money," Hesperia, 1941, pp. 199–236. Of the bronzes assigned by Svoronos to a Delos mint, nearly
one thousand examples had been found prior to 1948 in the excavations of
the Athenian Agora. That small coins struck for local use would have travelled in such quantity from the island to
Athens seems to me quite incredible; these bronzes, all of them inscribed AӨE, must
have been struck in Athens.
|
1 |
Pp. 504–506.
|
1 |
The Santangelo Collection of the Naples Museum may bear witness to another hoard amassed under circumstances similar
to those of the Abruzzi deposit. Among the Santangelo Greek coins are eight tetradrachms
of the New Style period: three of the regular series and five of the issue. Since it is highly likely that most
of the coins of the Collection were secured in Italy, the large number of pieces is suggestive.
|
1 |
This early date would, of course, rule out an interpretation of the trophies as referring to Sulla's victories at
Chaeronea and Orchomenus which occurred a year or more later. Raven, realizing this, suggests that the trophies may have been
no more than Sulla's personal device,
unrelated to any particular victory, or that they may commemorate triumphs earlier than those of the Greek campaign.
|
1 |
Appian (Mith. V.30) gives some details and Mommsen's summary in The History
of Rome (Book IV, Chap. VIII) is a succinct account of the various stages of the war between Mithradates and
Sulla. Plutarch
(Sulla
XI.4–5) makes reference to Bruttius Sura and Lucullus.
|
1 |
Broughton (The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, II, p. 83) puts their aedileship in 79 B.c.
Lucius' election in absentia would have occurred while he was on his way back from Asia where he remained for some years after the submission of Mithradates to Sulla.
|
1 |
One hundred and twelve tetradrachms and seventeen drachms of the issue are listed in the catalogue. For this
striking, however, the number of surviving pieces is no real reflection of original output. Far more significant are the totals
of known dies:
57 obverse and 92 reverse for the tetradrachms and II obverse and 14 reverse for the drachms. In the vast majority of cases
each
obverse-reverse combination is represented by a single coin and, in further indication of the incompleteness of the present
data, almost every
new coin which has turned up since the catalogue was first formulated has provided new dies. There can be no question but
that this was an
extremely large emission.
A few bronzes with the two monograms are known (A and B on Plate 149 are British Museum coins, the former BMC 534 and also Svoronos 78, 19 but erroneously described as AR in the Trésor). These pieces can obviously have had no connection with Sulla's war effort. Rather they point to a need for local small change and thus provide another link between Athens and the monograms coinage. The sack of the city must have created a serious shortage of money which would have had to be remedied if Athens were to resume any kind of normal economic life. It was to Sulla's interest to keep the city alive if only as a functioning base for his attack on Mithradates' armies and it was surely with this in view that he authorized a small issue of bronze for the use of the community at the time the silver was struck. |
1 |
John Day, An Economic History of Athens under
Roman Domination, p. 128. For a discussion of the Sylleia and the possibility of a later date for their inauguration, see A. E. Raubitschek,
"Sylleia" in Studies in Roman Economic and Social History, pp. 49–57.
|
2 |
This coin served as the prototype for a lead piece in the ANS collection.
|
2 |
L. Robert (Études de numismatique grecque, pp. 105–135) establishes beyond question that the
expressions δραχμαι στϵϕανηϕóρoι and στϵϕανηóρoιν δραχμαι used in inscriptions are merely descriptive of the coinage and have
no reference to
a shrine of Stephanephoros in Athens, Sunium or anywhere else.
For the probable location of the Athenian mint, see H. A. Thompson, Hesperia, 1954, pp. 45–48
and 1955, p. 59.
|
2 |
All letters of the two words, in either the nominative or genitive form, are to be found in the monograms.
|
2 |
Plutarch simply speaks of the prosecution of Marcus Lucullus c.
66 B.c. for his acts as quaestor under Sulla. (Incidentally he was acquitted.) Broughton
(op.cit., p. 65) gives a tentative date of 83 B.c. for the quaestorship but there seems no reason why it could not
have been held a few years earlier.
Although of no relevance for the period in question, it is interesting to note a piece of evidence cited by Broughton (p. 646) which establishes a connection between Marcus Lucullus and Athens at a later date. This is a columnar monument from the Agora (published in Hesp., 1954, pp. 253 f.) honoring M. Terentius Varro Lucullus as proconsul, presumably during his service in Macedonia in 72–71 B.c. |
*ANS (from Athens), gr. 15.72 (Pl.)↑; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 1; Sv. 33, 21), gr. 17.70 (Pl.)↑
No. 1346 derives from the Athenian issue of 193/2 B.c. with and either no symbol or cornucopiae in the field (Plate 2). The reverse and details of the obverse, such as hair, helmet crest and ornament, are skilfully copied from the prototype but the form of the visor and the coarse features of the goddess are in sharp contrast to the normal style of this early New Style coinage.1
*The Hague (Sv. 113, 17)
1348. Rev. Same type
*Gotha, gr. 14.23
The trophy issue of 188/7 B.c. (Plates 5–6) served as the model for Nos. 1347 and 1348. As in the case of the preceding imitation, the reverses are indistinguishable from official dies. The obverse of No. 1347 is distinctly barbaric; that of No. 1348 bears some resemblance to obverse dies of later issues, such as No. 298 of ΓΛAY – EXE.
*Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.01
No. 1349 is copied from the New Style issue of 185/4 (Plate 9). The obverse is a somewhat clumsy imitation of an official die (cf. Nos. 71–72). On the reverse, the type and first monogram are carefully and accurately executed but the second monogram is blundered and the cicada symbol has been omitted. Crossed lines on the amphora may have been intended as a letter.
1350. Rev. ΠO and cicada
*Berry Coll. (from Anatolia), gr. 16.99↑
This is a most interesting coin in its combination of Old and New Style prototypes. The obverse is clearly taken from a tetradrachm of the late third century. Comparison with the Old Style coinage characterized by symbols on the reverse (as illustrated by Svoronos on Plate 23, nos. 20–24) points up the close resemblance between original and copy: note the exaggerated ornament sprawling loosely toward the front of the helmet, the double lines of the visor terminating in a tightly coiled volute, the pointed olive leaves above the visor, the stiff short locks of hair, even the profile and expression of the goddess.
The reverse is a hybrid. Its symbol, a cicada placed above the initial letter of the ethnic, suggests the issue of 185/4 B.c. 1 while the ΠO is perhaps to be associated with the later coinage of ΠOΛY – TI.
An Anatolian provenance is certain but there is no reliable information as to the exact find-spot of the coin. It would seem to have been struck at a mint with experienced diecutters available for the style and workmanship are excellent.
*ANS-ETN (from Alexandria), gr. 14.81 ↑
The tetradrachm above, No. 1351, imitates the with serpents emission of 184/3 B.c. (Plate 10). There is no amphora letter visible and the second monogram is blundered as but otherwise the copying is exact.
In style the coin is obviously barbaric. Newell purchased it in Alexandria and labelled it "Arabian Imitation". His judgment as to its provenance is probably correct but it is difficult to associate the piece with any known series of Arabian imitations of Athenian coins. The base silver tetradrachms with Old Style types, tentatively assigned to Northern Arabia (BMC, Arabia etc., pp. lxxxvf. and Pl. XI, 24–26) are so degenerate that one can scarcely believe the New Style imitation under present discussion emanated from the same region. Southern Arabia produced imitations of both Old and New Style coins but the extensive Sabaean and Himyarite issues modelled on Athenian currency are characterized from the beginning by Sabaean letters and signs, of which there is no trace on our imitation. Furthermore, as John Walker has shown in two recent articles,2 the occurrence of the name of the ruler Šahar Halāl in Lihyānite script on coins of both Old and New Style type proves a direct transition from one class of imitations to the other. Our imitation cannot have been a precursor of the Himyarite "New Style" coins. If its origin is Arabian, it must come from some other section of the peninsula; certainly there is a distinct possibility that its provenance lies elsewhere.
1352. Rev. ΔAEI – HΛ and trident
*Bucharest, gr. 16.37
Copied from the New Style issue of 179/8 B.c. (Plate 15) but with ΔAEI – HΛ instead of AΔEI – HΛIO and without the control combination normal for the period.
1353. Rev. ΣEPΣANYPEΔE in left field. Trident and Nike in right field. K on amphora; ΣΩ below
*ANS (from Athens), gr. 13.79↑
This coin is an invention. The inscription in the left field is meaningless, symbols of two non-contiguous Athenian issues (AΔEI – HΛIO of 179/8 and KTHΣI – EYMA of 171/0 B.c.)1 are combined, the obverse bears no stylistic resemblance to the official dies of either emission.
1354. Rev. KḤΣI – EYMA and Nike. PΦ below
*Gotha, gr. 16.36
No. 1354 is a fairly careful copy of the New Style coinage of 171/0 (Plates 28 and 29). The first magistrate's name is, I believe, blundered but the coin is too worn for certainty. Below the amphora, the customary ΠPO control combination is rendered as ΠPΦ.
1355. Rev. ΓΛAY – EXE and bust of Helios. KI in lower 1.
*Romanos Coll. (Sv. 113, 18)
The imitation derives from the issue of 170/69 (Plates 30–31). Magistrates' names and symbol are accurately transcribed but the over-size KI in the lower left field is a misunderstanding of the KT control combination. The obverse is stylistically alien to the normal Athenian type of the period.
1356. Rev. ΓΛAY – EKE and bust of Helios. ΣI in lower 1.
*Basel (Sv. 113, 19), gr. 16.51↙
Another, and less successful, copy of the Athenian coinage of 170/69. Double-striking obscures the reverse to some extent but the blundered EKE and the clumsily executed symbol are clear. ΣI in the lower left field is probably derived from the control combination ΣΦ. The obverse is non-Athenian in style and technique.
1357. Rev. MIKI – ӨE and caps of the Dioscuri
*London, gr. 13.77
1358. Rev. MIKI – ӨE and bust of Helios
*Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 205; Sv. 43, 7), gr. 15.87
No. 1358 from a Delos hoard of 1905 was published by Svoronos as a regular issue of the Athenian mint and the same coin was later cited by Bellinger (Hesp., Suppl. VIII, p. 15) as proof of the sequence of the emissions of ΓΛAY – EXE with Helios bust and MIKI – ӨEOΦPA with Nike and quadriga (Plates 30 to 32). The style of both obverse and reverse is, however, quite different from that of the official dies of the two Athenian strikings and this suggests that the abnormal combination of names and symbol is to be interpreted not as an accidental carrying-over of a symbol from one year to the next at the mint of Athens but as another instance of hybridization at a non-Athenian workshop.
The case for a "barbaric" origin for No. 1358 is greatly strengthened by a coin in the British Museum, No. 1357. This piece has the same magistrates as No. 1358, MIKI – ӨE, with the caps of the Dioscuri symbol belonging to the New Style issue of 186/5 B.c. That both coins were struck outside Athens is certain. It is possible that they are from the same workshop but on the whole this seems unlikely in view of the great stylistic difference in the obverse heads.
1359. Rev. ΔIOΓE – ΠOΣ – ΔΩI and Dionysos
*London, gr. 14.54↑
A clumsy copy of the issue of 161/0 B.c. (Plate 42). The ΔΩI is evidently an erroneous rendering of ΔΩP (OӨE), a third magistrate for the Athenian emission.
1360. Rev. AΛKI 1.; EΠIΓ⊏ΓEH – ⊏ΩỴΛNΛPOΣ r. Eagle on fulmen. ΔI below
*Oxford, gr. 16.10 (Pl.) ↖
1361. Rev. KAIIKPA 1.; EΠ≡INI – ΣΩ = ΛΛOΣ r. Eagle on fulmen. I below
*Paris, gr. 15.85↖; Glasgow (Hunt. 176), gr. 15.45 ↖
1362. Rev. MOΣXI 1.; EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣANΔPOΣ r. Eagle on fulmen. MH below
*Vienna, gr. 11.33
1363. Rev. IKIΩN – EY.ΛKΛ – ENNI and Dioscuri. ? below
*Budapest, gr. 13.97 ↖
Nos. 1360–1363 are very similar in obverse style and seem to me the products of a single workshop. Coinage of EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣANΔPOΣ in 158/7 B.c. (Plates 45–46) served as the prototype for the first three coins, that of MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI in 156/5 (Plates 48–49) for the last. On the whole the obverses have been more successfully imitated than the reverses. The heads of Athena are coarse and heavy but they do bear a superficial likeness to the originals. No. 1362 is an accurate replica of an official reverse except that MH as a control combination is not known for this section of the coinage. On the reverses of Nos. 1360–1 and 1363 there is considerable blundering in the inscriptions.
1364. Rev. THNEHΣΛIEY 1.; KAIΛ r. Prow
*Athens (from a Russian collection — Riv. Num., XXI, 1908, p. 317;
Sv. 113, 20), gr. 15.72 (Pl.)
Svoronos in the Rivista article classifies the coin as a barbaric imitation and suggests a Danubian origin. Certainly the debased style and senseless jumble of letters point to a workshop on the periphery of the Greek world. The prototype seems to be a tetradrachm of KAPAIX – EPΓOKΛE (Plates 53–54) but it is only the prow symbol that enables one to make the connection. With some effort of the imagination KAIΛ can be derived from PAIX, which appears in the right field on the Athenian coins; the inscription to the left is sheer fantasy.1
1365. Rev.. O ΔEMOΣ and Perseus (?)
a. *ANS-ETN (from Istanbul), gr. 16.40↑ Paris (Carystus Hd. I; Sv. 78, 27), gr. 16.20↑
b. *Munich (Carystus Hd. I; Sv. 78, 26; JIAN, 1915, p. 69, fig. 9) = Hirsch XXXII, 494 = Hirsch (Weber) 1719, gr. 16.10; Istanbul (from Samsun), gr. 16.59↑
c. *London (from Kambanis), gr. 16.00↑ Berlin (Carystus Hd. I; Sv. 78, 25), gr. 16.24
The most recent treatment of the coinage exemplified by No. 1365 is that of J. H. Jongkees (Mnemosyne, XIII, 1947, pp. 145–160). There the author carefully reviews earlier publications and summarizes the various theories regarding this abnormal issue. What emerges from the discussion of the past seventy-five years is an almost universal agreement on a late date for the coins and a fairly even division of opinion as to an Athenian or non-Athenian origin. Proponents of the mint of Athens would attribute the issue to the state immediately after the slave revolt of c. 104 B.c., to the democratic faction after the overthrow of the oligarchy in 88 B.c., or to the civic authorities responsible for the resumption of coinage in the years immediately following Sulla's capture of the city. Those favoring a provenance outside Athens would ascribe the issue to the cleruchs on Delos or to the Athenian émigrés of pro-Roman persuasion who fled the city before the siege and placed themselves under Sulla's protection. Kambanis indicates his feeling that the coins are not civic strikings but advances no hypothesis as to their date or the circumstances of emission.
Jongkees believes that the coins are non-Athenian. Pointing to the barbarous style, the absence of month and control letters on the reverses, and the very low weight of the four specimens known to him,1 he argues that the series must be separated from the regular tetradrachms of Athens and that the abnormality of the reverse type indicates that the coins were put out during a period of disturbances. The nature of the disturbances is suggested by the inscription: "the fact that the coins are emphatically stated to have been issued by the people of Athens, points to a situation where the people were opposed to a dominant power which could be regarded as not representing the Athenian people.” This situation Jongkees believes to be the tyranny of Aristion in 87/6 B.c. and he follows Wilamowitz in attributing the coins to fugitives from Athens who had taken refuge in Sulla's camp. The Harmodios symbol2 would be an eminently suitable selection under the circumstances.
Before indulging in further speculation as to the raison d'être of this atypical issue, let us review briefly the facts as they pertain to the coinage itself. We have now on record six specimens: three coming from the Carystus Hoard of 1883, one discovered at Laurium,3 one put on the market in Istanbul 4 and one unearthed at or near Samsun. The evidence of provenance is contradictory but it is to be noted that the ANS and Istanbul specimens invalidate Svoronos' statement that these coins are invariably found in Laurium and southern Euboea.
The Carystus hoard which produced three of the six tetradrachms is a late deposit (see pp. 502f.). All O ΔEMOΣ pieces are in excellent condition.1 This and their substantial representation in the find indicate that they are among the latest of the hoard issues.
One obverse and three reverse dies were used for the six known coins, a circumstance suggestive of a small emission. Several unusual features in connection with these dies are immediately apparent. The obverse with its heavy "barbaric" style is markedly different from anything produced by Athenian engravers but it probably represents a clumsy copy of a mid-second century coin of Athens (cf. PLATES 40–45 with special references to the hair, the attenuated ornament and even the general impression of the profile). There is, however, one stylistic idiosyncrasy which is not derivative, namely the termination of the visor line in an elaborate volute. This peculiar treatment is found on the last of the Old Style tetradrachms of Athens (Svoronos, Pl. 23, 20–24); it is never found on dies of the New Style period. Outside Athens in the first century B.c. it is characteristic of some but not all of the Athenian imitations struck on Crete (e.g. Gortyna as BMC, Crete, Pl. XI, 6) and of the coinage of certain Euxine mints under Mithradates VI (Amisus, Amastris and Comana among others; cf. BMC, Pontus, Pls. III, 3 and V, 5).
On the reverse dies the type is a carefully delineated owl of pleasing proportions perched on a small bulbous amphora. Nothing could be less like the representation on late Athenian tetradrachms where the owl is a scrawny ungainly bird with over-sized head and staring eyes on an unnaturally elongated vase. It was the excellent workmanship of the reverses of the O ΔEMOΣ coins which led Head to date them in the first half of the second century B.c. and his judgment is quite correct. They find their closest parallels among the Athenian owls of 165–160 B.c. Only in the omission of month and control letters do the O ΔEMOΣ reverses differ from the official dies of the period.
One other item of factual information is available. An analysis of the ANS tetradrachm (p. 637) shows a composition of practically pure silver. Of all the New Style coins tested only one specimen has a gold content comparably low and none has so little copper; all tetradrachms of the late second and early first centuries have a substantially higher proportion of both metals.
What we have then from the evidence of the coins themselves is a small issue of late date but of early derivation with an ambiguous record of provenance. The silver is non-Athenian, insofar as a single analysis can establish this point, and the style of both obverse and reverse dies as well as the absence of magistrates' names and of month and control letters are irreconcilable with the regular Athenian coinage of the late period. Svoronos' theory of inexperienced workmen brought into the mint after the slave revolt would perhaps explain some of these anomalies but not all and it seems to me that the weight of present evidence is strongly in favor of an origin outside Athens.
At the same time it is true, as Svoronos and Jongkees insist, that the inscription gives the issue an official character which must be taken into consideration1 and Wilamowitz's hypothesis of Athenian fugitives purporting to be the real representatives of the people does plausibly explain the puzzling amalgam of Athenian and non-Athenian elements in the coinage. Need we assume, however, that the refugees were partisans of Rome? Is it not possible, and perhaps even more likely, that they were members of the pro-Mithradatic faction who sought safety with friends and relatives in Amisus when Athens was threatened by the investing armies of Sulla (Ferguson, Hellenistic Athens, p. 448 citing Plutarch, Lucullus, XIX). As Ferguson points out, Plutarch's explanation of the flight as an attempt to escape the tyranny of the Pontic agent Aristion is illogical in that the fugitives migrated to the capital of Pontus. Rather they must be supposed to have feared the hardships and possibly the outcome of the siege. Once the city had fallen they might justifiably have considered themselves the real representatives of the Athenian people, and certainly Athens, sacked and at the mercy of Sulla, was more truly a captive state than she ever was under the dictatorship of Aristion. It is entirely conceivable that Mithradates permitted or even fostered a limited emission of Athenian type coins at a Euxine mint under his control. One need not read into this any sentiment or sympathy for the exiles. Basically it would have been a shrewd political gesture on the king's part, a refusal to acknowledge the status quo in Athens and an affirmation of his confidence that his armies would eventually defeat Sulla and restore the city to his friends and followers.
There is nothing in the circumstances of the O ΔEMOΣ coinage which specifically implies a pro-Roman background. There are several factors which suggest a Mithradatic connection. First, the barbaric style of the obverse would seem more likely the work of an engraver in a distant part of the Hellenistic world rather than of a Roman diecutter and one distinctive characteristic of the obverse head, namely the peculiar rendering of the visor volute, has a counterpart in Pontic tradition. The diversity of find-spots, too, can be explained on the assumption that the issue was struck in the Euxine region. Samsun where one coin was discovered is the ancient Amisus, a royal residence of the Pontic kings and the city to which the pro-Mithradatic Athenians fled; the coin which came on the Istanbul market is in all likelihood also of Anatolian provenance. The presence of the other four coins in Euboea and Attica is not unnatural if one recalls the events of 86–85 B.c. After the fall of Athens Sulla's armies moved into Boeotia and for a year or more this district was the scene of bitter fighting between the Roman and Mithradatic forces. On one occasion ten thousand Pontic soldiers were obliged to flee to Chalcis and it was at Chalcis that Dorylaus anchored with reinforcements for Archelaus (Plutarch, Sulla, XIX–XX). The O ΔEMOΣ coins of Carystus and Laurium could have been put into circulation by or captured from Mithradates' men.1
Finally there is the symbol on the coins, variously interpreted as Harmodios, Theseus or the personified Demos. In the absence of distinctive attributes any definitive identification is impossible but it seems to me that a fourth candidate, Perseus, is worth considering. Granting the basic premise of a Pontic origin for the coinage, it is apparent that no more suitable symbol could have been selected than a representation of the hero so closely associated both with Athens and with the Pontic kings who claimed him as an ancestor. Even the legend lent itself to the political context of 86 B.c. so that one might see in the armed warrior Mithradates, the modern Perseus, prepared to slay the monster Sulla on behalf of Athena and the Athenian people.
Admittedly there are difficulties in this conjectural identification: the absence of the Gorgon's head, the very different representation of Perseus on Pontic bronzes of Mithradatic date, the arming of the hero with a sword rather than a harpa which was Perseus' customary weapon in post-Archaic times. One can only point out that limitations of space might account for the elimination of details by an inexperienced artisan and that the sword may merely reflect the earlier version of the Perseus story.2 Certainly the association cannot be pressed. The figure on the coins is no more obviously Perseus than it is ob- viously Harmodios or Theseus or the personified Demos. All that can be said is that it is a warrior and implicitly a champion of the people against tyranny. Any of the suggested identifications would be consonant with this symbolism.
1366. Rev. MIKI – ӨEOΦPA Nike and quadriga. A below
*Herakleion (Cretan Hd. II)
In an issue characterized by a highly homogeneous style as regards both obverse and reverse dies (Plate 32), this coin is an anomaly. The obverse head, except for the facial expression, is a reasonably close approximation of an official die; the reverse with its squatty owl and clumsy crowding of letters and symbol is less successful. Awkwardness of technique might be written off as the result of inexperience on the part of a new diecutter were it not for the further consideration that this coin constitutes our only record of either obverse or reverse die. Normally the dies of the MIKI – ӨEOΦPA striking are known from a substantial number of specimens. I believe that No. 1366 should be regarded as an imitation, probably of Cretan origin in view of its presence in a Cretan hoard.
1367. Rev. HPA – API – ΦIΛΩ Club, lion's skin and bow in case. E on amphora
*Berlin, gr. 15.37
This coin is classified as an imitation for much the same reason as No. 1366 above. The expression of the goddess is perceptibly different from the normal and consistent rendering on Athenian coins, the somewhat disagreeable look due in part to the strange downward stroke of the eyelid. The treatment of the reverse type is indistinguishable from that of official dies but the second magistrate's name is given as API instead of APIΣTOΦ. In weight the piece is abnormally light, particularly in view of its fair state of preservation.1
1368.
a. Rev. TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO – ANTIOXOΣ Anchor and star. ME below *London, gr. 14.25 (Pl.); Berlin, gr. 14.37
b. Rev. ΔΩPOӨE – ΔIOΦ – NIKOΔΩ Forepart of lion. ME below *Berlin, gr. 13.40
c. Rev. ANTIOXOΣ – NIKOΓ – ANTIΛOX Elephant. A on amphora; ME below *Berlin, gr. 16.12
d. Rev. ANTIOXOΣ – NIKOΓ – NIKΩN Elephant. Ḅ on amphora; ΣΩ below *London, gr. 14.35
There can be no doubt that the five coins of No. 1368 are ancient forgeries. One is definitely plated and the very low weights of three others suggest a copper core. The obverse is probably taken from an official die of the TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO issue while the four reverses are accurate copies of dies from three different issues. This coupling of a single obverse with a number of reverses derived from diverse and often non-contiguous issues is a recurring phenomenon among imitations of the New Style coinage.
1369.
a. Rev. ΠOΛYXAPM – NIKOΓ – ӨEMIΣTOKΛH Winged caduceus *Glasgow (Hunt. 120)
b. Rev. ANTIOXOΣ – KAPAIXOΣ – EYMAXOΣ Elephant. E on amphora; ME below *Cambridge (Grose 5903), gr. 15.80 (Pl.)↑
Another instance of the reverses of non-contiguous issues coupled with a single obverse. Both coins are plated.
1370. Rev. ΔΩPOӨE – ΔIOI – ΔIOKΛE Forepart of lion
*ANS, gr. 14.48 (Pl.)↖
1371. Rev. ΔΩPOӨE – ΔIO – NIKOΔΩ Forepart of lion. H on amphora
*Paris, gr. 15.55 (Pl.)
There is a certain similarity of technique about these plated coins which suggests that the dies were cut by the same workman. Neither is a notably successful copy of the prototype.
1372. Rev. ӨEOΦPA – ΣΩTA – ΦIΛHM Fulmen. B on amphora; ΣΩ below
*London (BMC 426), gr. 15.72 (Pl. ?)↑
1373. Rev. ΔIOΓE – ΠOΣE – HΓEMA Dionysos. ΣΦ below
*Glasgow (Hunt. 104) Pl.
1374. Rev. ΔXΛIOΣ – HΛI – KΛEΛPA Cornucopiae with grain. E on amphora; ME below
*London (BMC 349), gr. 16.17↑
The strangeness of the obverse style and the blundered inscription (ΔXΛIOΣ for AXAIOΣ and KΛEΛPA for KΛEAPX) indicate an imitation.
1375.
a. Rev. ΛYΣAN – ΓΛAYKOΣ – NIKANΩP Cicada. Λ on amphora; ME below *Florange-Ciani (Gallet) 22 = Feuardent (Collignon) 255, gr. 14.60
b. Rev. EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣANΔPOΣ – EYMH Eagle on fulmen. ΣΦ below *Athens, gr. 14.42 (Pl.)
Both obverse and reverse dies are highly unsuccessful copies of the Athenian coinage of 159/8 and 158/7 B.c. The Athens Museum coin is definitely plated and the weight of the other specimen implies a copper core. No. 1375 is almost certainly by the diecutter who produced the earlier No. 1371. Note the close resemblance of the obverse heads and the peculiar exaggerated sweep of the tail feathers on all three reverses.
1376. Rev. ΛYΣAN – ΓΛAYKOΣ – AӨHNOBI; Cicada. I on amphora; ΣO below
*Vinchon, May 1959, 507 = Feuardent, May 1914, 229 = Hirsch (Rhousopoulos) 2056, gr. 15.26; Sophia, gr. 14.90; Münster Univ., gr. 13.60
This coin is a close imitation of official dies but ΣO as a control combination is not found on Athenian issues of the period. Surely all three pieces are plated.
1377. Rev. EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣANΔPOΣ – EYMH Eagle on fulmen. Γ on amphora; ME below
*Ratto (Rogers) 363, gr. 14.60
Another specimen which is almost certainly plated. The reverse is a better copy than the obverse of an official tetradrachm.
1378. Rev. EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣANΔPOΣ – KAΛΛ/KPA Eagle on fulmen. A on amphora; AI below
*Berlin, gr. 15.15
The fierce expression of the goddess is reminiscent of No. 1372 and the two imitations may be from the same hand. On the reverse of No. 1378 the owl is clumsily rendered and the Al below the amphora is a mistake for ΔI. Probably a plated coin.
1379. Rev. EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣANΔPOΣ – ANTIΓONO Eagle on fulmen. ΠP below
*Berlin, gr. 16.26
The dies may be official but the pronounced heaviness of the profile and the thick ridges of the neck, as compared with the other dies of this issue, seem to me indicative of an imitation.1 More examples of the Epigenes–Sosandros coinage have survived than of any other single striking and almost all obverse dies are extremely well represented. It is true that there is one instance of a pair of dies known from only one coin (No. 455) but this is quite abnormal and the tetradrachm in question fits unmistakably into the stylistic pattern of the emission.
1380.
a. Rev. AXAIOΣ – HΛI – IΠΠONIKOΣ Cornucopiae with grain. Δ on amphora *Munich, gr. 15.21
b. Rev. ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ – EYΔI Tripod. I on amphora; ΣΦ below *Paris, gr. 14.36 ↗; Vienna, gr. 13.71; ANS, gr. 13.10 (Pl.) ↗
c. Rev. MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛE – APEΣTOΣ Dioscuri. K on amphora; ΣΦ below *London (BMC 467), gr. 13.54 (Pl.)
d. Rev. MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛE – APEΣTOΣ Dioscuri Athens, gr. 16.10 (Pl.)
e. Rev. AΦPOΔIΣI – AΠOΛH≡I – MHTPO Nike. A on amphora; ΣΦ below *Vienna, gr. 13.24 (Pl.)
f. Rev. AΦPOΔIΣI – AΠOΛH≡I – MHTPO Nike. ? on amphora; ΣΦ below *Berlin, gr. 14.85 (Pl.)
g. Rev. KAPAIX – EPΓOKΛE – EYΔH Prow. Δ on amphora; ΣΦ below *Petsalis Coll., gr. 13.55 (Pl.) ↗
A single obverse is combined with seven reverses representing five different issues. Six of the nine coins show evidence of plating and the other three are correspondingly light in weight. All reverses are accurately copied. The obverse derives from a die of ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ (cf. No. 463), MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI (cf. Nos. 484, 487) or AΦPOΔIΣI – AΠOΛH≡I (cf. No. 494). Its prototype is definitely not to be found in the issues of AXAIOΣ – HΛl and KAPAIX – EPΓOKΛE. This suggests that the sequence of reverses bears no relation to the chronological sequence of emissions and a measure of confirmation is provided by a die break (straight up from the terminals of the helmet crest) which seems least noticeable on 1380e and most pronounced on the ANS specimen of 1380b and on 1380c. Furthermore the reverse of 1380c is found coupled with a different obverse (No. 1381) and this, taken in conjunction with the evidence of the die break, indicates that it was the last reverse cut for Obverse 1380.
1381. Rev. MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛE – APEΣTOΣ Dioscuri. ? on amphora; ΣΦ below
*de Laval Coll., gr. 14.58 (Pl.)
As mentioned above, a common reverse die links this striking with No. 1380.
1382.
a. Rev. EΠ.ΓEN. – ΣΩΣA.ΔPO. – MOΣXI Eagle on fulmen. ME below *Petsalis Coll., gr. 13.59 (Pl.)↑
b. Rev. EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣAΔPOΣ – ANTΓON Eagle on fulmen. H on amphora; ME below*Paris, gr. 12.48 (Pl.)
c. Rev. EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣAΔPOΣ – ANTIΓONO Eagle on fulmen. on amphora; ME below *Christomanou Coll.
d. Rev. ΠOΛMΩN – AΛKTHΣ – APIΣ Tripod. ME below *Commerce 1954, gr. 13.45 (Pl.); The Hague
e. Rev. MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛE – ΣΩKPATHΣ Dioscuri. E on amphora; ΣΦ below *Johns Hopkins Univ., gr. 14.73; Berlin, gr. 15.87
f. Rev. KAPAIX – EPΓOKΛE – AΠOΛE Prow. A on amphora; Σ below *ANS = Sotheby, Dec. 1924, 126, gr. 13.89 (Pl.)↑
g. Rev. KAPAIX – EPΓOKΛE – EYΔH Prow. on amphora; ΣΦ below *Paris, gr. 14.65 (Pl); London, amphora and control letters uncertain, fragment (Pl.)
Seven reverse dies, representing four different issues, are coupled with a single obverse. Of the ten coins known, six are definitely plated and one other with a recorded weight is so light as to be suspect.
The reverses of No. 1382 show a high degree of carelessness in copying. Letters are frequently omitted, either because they were not seen by the copyist (often on genuine dies letters are superimposed on the owl or the wreath and might easily pass unnoticed by a careless workman) or because they did not fit comfortably into the available space. AΠOΛE is not known for the issue of KAPAIX – EPΓOKΛE; AΠOΛ occurs but with Z not A on the amphora. As in the case of No. 1380, the sequence of reverse dies is not in accord with the chronological order of emissions. On the London specimen of 1382g and on 1382a there is a well-defined die break above the tail of Pegasus which is not found on the other coins. These then are the two latest reverses.
In style the obverse head is so close to No. 1380 as to suggest that one die was copied from the other.
1383. Rev. EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣAΔPOΣ – ΠAMΦI Eagle on fulmen. Ṃ on amphora; ΣΦ below
*Berlin, gr. 15.33
The light weight, the blundering of the reverse inscription and the obverse style all point to an imitation.1 In the Epigenes – Sosandros issue there is no die remotely comparable with the obverse of No. 1383. The latter seems to belong with this group of copies derived for the most part from dies of later issues.
1384.
a. Rev. EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣANΔPOΣ – MOΣXI Eagle on fulmen. B on amphora; ṂḤ below*Sophia, gr. 16.00
b. Rev. ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ – ΠATPΩ Tripod. B on amphora; ΣΩ below *Paris, gr. 16.25↑
c. Rev. ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ – ΠATPΩ Tripod. Ḅ on amphora; ΣΦ below *Athens, gr. 16.15
d. Rev. MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛE – ΣΩKPATHΣ Dioscuri. ΣΦ below Athens, gr. 16.85 (Pl.)
Four reverses of three separate issues are combined with a single obverse. One coin is surely plated. The obverse is probably derived from a die of Mikion–Euryklei (cf. No. 478). MH is not known as a control combination for the striking of Epigenes–Sosandros but the Sophia coin is worn and the reading is doubtful. A transferred reverse links Nos. 1384 and 1385.
1385.
a. Rev. ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ – Π..... Tripod. ΣΦ below *Vienna, gr. 13.46
b. Rev. ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ – ΠATPΩ Tripod. B on amphora; ΣΦ below ANS, gr. 13.65 (Pl.)↑ London (BMC 489), gr. 14.57 (PI.)↑ *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.70 (Pl.)↑
c. Rev. ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ – ΠATPΩ Tripod. B on amphora; ΣΦ below Tübingen, gr. 14.35; Winterthur, gr. 12.34 (Pl.) ↗; Gotha, gr. 14.88 (Pl.); Gotha (Pl.)
Both obverse and reverse dies of this group of plated coins are fairly accurate copies of official dies of the Polemon–Alketes issue. A die break extending up from the end of the tail of Pegasus, found on the second ANS specimen of No. 1385b and on all examples of No. 1385c, establishes the order of the reverse dies within this striking and also indicates that the reverse shared with the preceding entry was transferred from Obverse 1384 to Obverse 1385.
1386. Rev. ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ – ΠΛTP Tripod. B on amphora; ΣΦ below
*Berlin, gr. 15.56
Weight, style and blundered legend place this coin in the imitation category. The obverse is somewhat similar to early dies of MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI (cf. Nos. 475–478).
1387. Rev. MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛE – ΓOPΓIΠ Dioscuri. ? on amphora; ΣΦ below
*L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 15.90
The obverse is likely copied from a tetradrachm of Polemon–Alketes which suggests that at least one reverse of that issue was cut for Obverse 1387. Since the Mikion reverse of the present record is also coupled with what seems to be the early stage of Obverse 1388, it would follow that it was the last reverse die employed with Obverse 1387.
1388.
a. Rev. EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣAΔPOΣ – EYMH Eagle on fulmen. on amphora; ME below *London (BMC 396), gr. 16.40↑
b. Rev. MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛE – ΓOPΓIΠ Dioscuri. I on amphora; ΣΦ below *Berlin (Sv. 55, 24), gr. 15.82
In style the obverse die is almost identical with Obverse 1380 and very similar to Obverse 1382. On 1388a the die break up from the outer crest terminal seems more pronounced than on 1388b, thus the Mikion reverse likely preceded that of Epigenes.
1389. Rev. ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ – ӨEOΔTOΣ Tripod. A on amphora; EM below
*London, gr. 14.97 (Pl.)↑
No. 462 of Polemon–Alketes was, I believe, the prototype for the dies of No. 1389. Note the similarity of the two obverses as to ornament, hair, crest ends and Pegasus. On the reverse, the retrograde ∃M of No. 462 has been misunderstood and corrected to EM.
1390.
a. Rev. ΠOΛMΩN – AΛKTHΣ – APIΣ Tripod. ME below *Bucharest, gr. 11.90 (Pl.)
b. Rev. KAPAIX – EPΓOKΛE – ΦEIΔI Prow. K on amphora; ME below *Athens, gr. 14.15 (Pl.)
Again we have an obverse die very close in style to others of this group (Nos. 1380, 1382 and 1388). If the stroke directly in front of the Pegasus is a die break, 1390b represents the later stage of the obverse die. The Karaich reverse is also recorded in combination with Obverse 1391.
1391. Rev. KAPAIX – EPΓOKΛE – ΦEIΔI Prow. K on amphora; ME below
*Zygman Coll. = Sv. 54, 26, Feuardent, gr. 16.25 (Pl.)↑
This obverse is probably derived from a coin of Karaich–Ergokle (cf. No. 536 for a similarity in the rendering of the head). The reverse is carried over from No. 1390b.
1392.
a. Rev. ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ – APIΣ Tripod. Ө on amphora; ΣΦ below *Petsalis Coll., gr. 13.43 (Pl.) ↗
b. Rev. MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI – EYAN Dioscuri. H on amphora; ΣΦ below *Lee (de Zogheb) 264 = Glymenopoulos Coll. (Sv. 55, 22), gr. 16.90
c. Rev. AΦPOΔIΣI – ΔIOΓE – ZΩΠY Cornucopiae. Ө on amphora; ME below *Mavrokordatou Coll. (JIAN, 1912, 1311), gr. 16.00
d. Rev. ΔIONYΣI – ΔIONYΣI – APIΣ Helios in quadriga. B on amphora; ΣΦ below *London, gr. 16.39 ↗
1393.
a. Rev. ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ – APIΣ Tripod. on amphora; ΣΩ below *Empedocles Coll. = Weber 3521, gr. 15.03
b. Rev. MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI – EYAN Dioscuri. H on amphora; ΣΦ below *Glasgow (Hunt. 115) Pl.
c. Rev. MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI – ΓOPΓIΠ Dioscuri. I on amphora; ME below *Petsalis Coll., gr. 15.65 (Pl.)
d. Rev. AΦPOΔIΣI – ΔIOΓE – ZΩΠY Cornucopiae. ? on amphora; ME below *Paris, gr. 14.36 (Pl.)
Transfer of two reverse dies establishes a link between Nos. 1392 and 1393. There is no clue to the order of reverses for No. 1392 but for No. 1393 a die break between the crest and protomes of the helmet, visible on a and c but not on b and d, indicates that the transferred reverses were used first with Obverse 1392 and later with Obverse 1393 in its early stage. Four of the eight coins of these two entries are plated; it is likely that the other pieces also have a copper core. The obverse of No. 1392 seems to derive from the issue of Dionysi–Dionysi (cf. Nos. 556 and 559) while that of No. 1393 is very similar to dies of Mikion–Euryklei. Compare it with No. 488, for example, as regards hair, overlapping crest ends and facial expression.
1394. Rev. MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI – EYAN Dioscuri. ? on amphora; ΣΦ below
*Berlin, gr. 14.64 (Pl.)
1395. Rev. MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛI – ΓOPΓIΠ Dioscuri. I on amphora; ΣΦ below
*Berry Coll., gr. 16.28 (Pl.)↑
The close similarity between Obverses 1393 and 1395 points to a common prototype (cf. No. 488 of Mikion–Euryklei) unless, of course, the copyist used his own work as the model for a second obverse die.
1396. Rev. MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛE – ΣΩKPATΣ Dioscuri. E on amphora; ΣΦ below
*Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 3223), gr. 15.75 (Pl.)↑
Clearly this is another obverse from the same hand as Nos. 1380, 1382, 1388 and 1390. Note the blundered form of the third magistrate's name.
1397. Rev. MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛE – ΔIOKΛHΣ Dioscuri. on amphora; ME below
*von Reuterswärd Coll., gr. 16.33↑
This obverse is markedly different from any in the Mikion–Euryklei issue and seems to me to belong among the imitations.
1398. Rev. MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛẸ – APEΣTOΣ Dioscuri. ? on amphora; ΣΦ below
*de Laval Coll., gr. 15.67 (Pl.)↑
1399. Rev. KAPAIX – EPΓỌKΛE – AΠOΛ Prow. ? on amphora; below
*Munich, gr. 16.05 (Pl.)
There is perhaps a certain similarity between Obverses 1398 and 1399 although the battered condition of the latter makes it impossible to compare details. Neither die can be said to be an accurate or even a close copy of an official obverse.
1400. Rev. KAPAIX – EPΓOKΛHΣ – XAI Prow. Ө on amphora; ΣΩ below *Romanos Coll.
1401. Rev. KAPAIX – EPΓOKΛE – ΔIOΦ Prow. I on amphora; ME below *Paris, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 14.23 (PL); Berlin, gr. 14.76 (Pl.)1
The obverse of No. 1400 is close in style to Nos. 1380 and 1390. That of No. 1401 is generally similar in treatment. On the first reverse the second magistrate's name appears as EPΓOKΛHΣ instead of EPΓOKΛE.
1402. Rev. KAPAIX – EPΓOKΛE – ӨEMI Prow. ? on amphora; ME below *ANS, gr. 14.58 (Pl.)↑; Empedocles Coll.
In the heaviness of the profile, this obverse seems to me closer to dies of Aphrodisi–Apolexi and Euryklei–Ariara (such as Nos. 496, 511–12) than to those of Karaich–Ergokle.
1403. Rev. KAPAIX – EPΓOKΛE – XAI Prow. on amphora; ΣΩ below *Raymond, Oct. 1945, 3
It is difficult to find a prototype for this coin. Not only is the head totally unlike any representation in the Karaich–Ergokle series but it also seems to have no real parallel in any other issue. Extreme attenuation of the helmet ornament and the excessively thick ridges of the neck point to an imitation produced by an inept diecutter.
1404. Rev. AMMΩᴎIOΣ – KAΛΛIAΣ – ΛYΣAN Torches. B on amphora; ΣΦ below *Istanbul (from Samsun), gr. 16.98 ↗
The obverse die is a fairly close copy of a tetradrachm of Ammonios–Kallias (cf., for example, No. 582 on Plate 60) except for the rendering of the hair. With the reverse the copyist was less successful. The little owl with its sharply defined plumage and the thin, heavily-dotted letters are markedly different in technique from the work of the official diecutters.
1405. Rev. ΣOKPATH≡ – ΛIONIΣOΔΩ – ΩIΛO Apollo. E on amphora; ṂḤ below *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.45↑; Berlin, gr. 16.88
This imitation seems to derive from No. 617a. Note that the Y of Dionysodo looks like an I on the Athenian die and the control letters which are somewhat carelessly cut might be taken for MH, a combination not recorded for this period. The blundering of the inscription, the E on the amphora (probably a worn B on the original coin was thought to be an E) and the abnormal composition of the silver (p. 637) all indicate an imitation struck outside Athens.
1406.
a. Rev. MHTPOΔΩPOΣ – ΔHMOΣӨE – APIΣTOΔH Grapes. Z on amphora; ≡O below *London (BMC 456), gr. 15.95 (Pl. ?)↑
b. Rev. ZΩIΛOΣ – EYANΔPOΣ – ΛYΣIΠΠ Bee. Γ on amphora; ME below *Vienna, gr. 16.33
The obverse is probably copied from a die of the Zoilos–Euandros issue. Both reverses are accurate reproductions except for the minor deviations of ≡O for ΣO and ΛYΣIΠΠ for ΛYΣIΠ. Since the Metrodoros and Zoilos coinages cannot be contiguous, Nos. 1406a and b represent another example of spurious die linkage such as has been noted with earlier imitations.
1407. Rev. ΔAMΩN – ΣΩΣIKPATHΣ – KPITΩN Quiver. B on amphora; AΠ below *Berry Coll., gr. 16.44↑
I believe that this is an imitation. The copying is unusually accurate but the obverse is sufficiently different from official dies of Damon–Sosikrates as to raise doubt that it was cut at the Athens mint. For this period of the coinage an obverse-reverse combination represented by a single coin is somewhat suspicious and the composition of the silver used for No. 1407 (see p. 637) is abnormal.
1408. Rev. ΔAMN – ΣΩΣKPATHΣ – KPITΩN Quiver. B on amphora; AΠ below *Athens (Halmyros Hd.)
When the final lot of coins from the Halmyros Hoard was confiscated by the Athens authorities, a number of crude modern counterfeits were found mingled with the genuine tetradrachms. This is one of the forgeries (p. 494 in the Hoards section). The prototype cannot be traced but it, like No. 1418 below, was undoubtedly an ancient imitation of the Athenian coinage as is evident from a comparison of obverse and reverse with normal dies of the Damon–Sosikrates issue (Plates 78–79). Note in particular the large volute which terminates the visor line and the peculiar form of the first magistrate's name.
1409. Rev. AIΛΛIΩN to left; ΛO to right. Tyche. Ạ on amphora (Dr.) *Berry Coll., gr. 4.07↑
It is difficult to make out the reading in the left field, apparently a clumsy attempt to copy KAΛΛIΦΩN. At the upper right the line of the wreath seems to cross directly above the ΛO which would indicate an omission of A Ө E. This is the only instance of a failure to include the Athenian ethnic on imitations of the New Style coinage.
1410. Rev. EYMHΛOΣ – KAΛΛIΦΩN – AΛE≡ Tyche. ? on amphora; ME below *London (BMC 407), gr. 15.91 ↗
The coin may be plated. In any event, the obverse with its weak profile and abnormal rendering of the helmet ornament cannot be reconciled with the official dies of Eumelos–Kalliphon (Plates 80–81).
1411.
a. Rev. EYMHΛOΣ – KAΛΛIΦΩN – HPA Tyche. Ө on amphora; ΣΩ below *Athens, gr. 16.22
b. Rev. EYMHΛOΣ – KAΛΛIΦΩN – HPA Tyche. Ө on amphora; ΣΩ below Commerce 1951, gr. 17.10
c. Rev. EYMHΛOΣ – KAΛΛIΦΩN – HPA Tyche. Ө on amphora; ? below Rollin & Feuardent, May 1908, 296
d. Rev. ӨEOΔOTOΣ – KΛ. OΦANΠΣ – ΣΩTΛΣ No symbol. B on amphora; ME below *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.70↑
1412. Rev. ӨEOΔOTOΣ – KΛ. OΦANΠΣ – ΣΩTΛΣ No symbol. B on amphora; ? below *Ratto (Rogers) 434 = Naville (Bement) 1125 = Hirsch (Rhousopoulos) 2052, gr. 16.39
1413. Rev. ӨEOΔOTOΣ – KΛEOΦANHΣ – ΣΩTAΣ No symbol. B on amphora; ME below *ANS, gr. 16.98 ↗
1414. Rev. ӨEOΔOTOΣ – KΛEOΦANHΣ – ΣΩTAΣ No symbol. B on amphora; ME below *Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 937, gr. 16.40
These seven coins surely belong together. The four obverse dies are so similar in style as to suggest that one was copied from another. It is hard to believe, however, that a tetradrachm of either Eumelos–Kalliphon or Theodotos–Kleophanes served as the original model. No. 1414 is the only obverse which bears any resemblance to an official die of either striking and it shares with Nos. 1411–13 the strange rendering of the hair by zigzag lines which occurs at Athens only in the issue of Polemon–Alketes. The reverses fall into two patterns, again excepting No. 1414: on Nos. 1411a-c a thin little owl with legs far apart and on Nos. 1411d and 1413 a plumper bird with similar stance. Neither type is akin to the owls of Plates 80–81, 83–84.
The apparent die linking of non-contiguous issues, the incongruities of style and the somewhat abnormal composition of the silver of Nos. 1411d and 1413 (p. 637) are indicative of an unofficial issue.
1415. Rev. HPA...ΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ – AP Tyche and amphora. M on amphora; ME below *Athens
1416. Rev. HPAK...ΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ – ..E... Tyche and amphora. B on amphora; NE below *Evelpidis Coll., gr. 16.10 (Pl.)
1417. Rev. HPAKΛE.ΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ – AΣKΛH Tyche and amphora. Γ on amphora; ME below *Athens (Sv. 64, 6), gr. 16.10↑
No. 1415 is the copper core of a plated coin and No. 1416 is also a plated specimen. All three imitations of the Herakleides–Eukles coinage are of poor style and clumsy technique but otherwise they have little in common. No one of them bears even a superficial resemblance to the obverse dies of the Athens mint (cf. Plates 82, 85–87). Note, however, that the treatment of the hair on No. 1415 and to some extent on No. 1416 is comparable with that of Nos. 1411 to 1414.
NE is an error for ME. The name of the third magistrate on No. 1415 is incomplete; on No. 1416 it is little more than a random arrangement of dots.
1418. Rev. NIKPTHΣ – ΔIONYΣIOΣ – ΓA Gorgon's head. N on amphora; AΠ below *Berry Coll. (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.72↑
This coin from the Halmyros Hoard served as the model for a group of modern counterfeits (see page 494 of the Hoards section). It is definitely an ancient imitation of the New Style coinage. The obverse is probably copied from a tetradrachm of Niketes–Dionysios but the copyist has not reproduced the prototype with any real skill. On the reverse the first magistrate's name is blundered and ΓA replaces ΓΛAY as third magistrate. The latter is associated with Δ on the official coinage while the imitation has N on the amphora, a date otherwise unrecorded on the dies of Niketes and Dionysios. In composition the silver used for No. 1418 is distinctly non-Athenian (see pp. 637f.).
1419.
a. Rev. ΔHMEAΣ – EPMOKΛNΣ – AΠOΛΛΩNI ΣIM Headdress of Isis. K on the amphora; ΔH below *London (BMC 361; Sv. 68, 25), gr. 15.65↑
b. Rev. EYMHΛOΣ – ӨEO≡ENIΔHE Ares (?). A on the amphora; ΔI below *Cambridge (Grose 5914), gr. 16.64↑
c. Rev. NEΣΓΩP – MNAΣEAΣ Stag. K on amphora; ΣΩ below *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.45↑
In 1938 Kambanis published Nos. 1419b and c in proof of the contiguity of the issues of Eumelos–Theoxenides and Nestor–Mnaseas (BCH, 1938, pp.74f., Pl. XVIII, 3–4). Unfortunately—since I believe the two strikings are indeed contiguous—the existence of No. 1419a destroys the validity of Kambanis' die link.
What we have in fact is another example of too many reverses sharing a single obverse and in consequence the three coins must be classified as ancient imitations of the Athenian series. The obverse bears no resemblance to dies of Demeas–Hermokles or Nestor–Mnaseas (Plates 116–117, 135–136) but is a good copy of a die of Eumelos–Theoxenides (compare it with Nos. 1197–1198, 1201–1202 on Plate 134). This then is apparently its first stage, followed by No. 1419a and finally by 1419c. For the last striking the die has been recut in the area of the helmet crest and the hair.
The reverse type of No. 1419b also successfully reproduces a die of Eumelos–Theoxenides, being perhaps most similar to No. 1196a. E instead of Σ terminates the second magistrate's name and ΔI is otherwise unknown for this issue but it does occur as a control combination on emissions immediately preceding and may have appeared on Eumelos–Theoxenides dies of which no record survives. In cutting the reverse of Demeas–Hermokles, the engraver shows a high degree of carelessness. His tightly bound wreath, for example, is quite different from that of the official dies and the inscription seems to reflect a peculiar combining of two names: AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ of month E and ΛYΣIMAX of months I through N. The K on the amphora would be correct for Lysimachos but wrong for Apollonios.1 Except for the unduly small owl, the third reverse (No. 1419c) is an accurate copy of a die of Nestor–Mnaseas.
The ANS coin has been analyzed (p. 637). Its metallic composition is entirely consistent with that of official tetradrachms of the period.
1420. Rev. ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ Seated figure. A on amphora; AP below *ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 15.96↑; Kricheldorf V, 79, gr. 16.57
1421. Rev. ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ Seated figure. A on amphora; AΠO below *Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 3229; Sv. 76, 1), gr. 15.79↑
1422. Rev.(Dr.) ≡ENOKΛṆΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ Seated figure *Athens = Sv. 76, 27, Hirsch, gr. 3.60↑1
Previous publications have included Nos. 1421 and 1422 with the regular emissions of the Athenian mint.2 On Plate 76 of Les monnaies d' Athènes, Svoronos illustrates both specimens but the tetradrachm is classified with the seated Roma coinage of Xenokles and Harmoxenos while the drachm is segregated at the bottom of the plate as a separate issue of the two magistrates. In two earlier articles (JIAN, 1906, p. 827 and Riv. Num., 1908, p. 315) the symbol on the drachm is described first as unpublished and later as a seated goddess on a throne; it is clear that Svoronos considered the unit and the fraction as belonging to different strikings of the New Style coinage. Kambanis (BCH, 1938, p. 78) makes the same distinction when he speaks of the unique drachm with a seated woman on a throne as the sole surviving example of a fourth emission of Xenokles and Harmoxenos. This division seems to me unjustifiable. The three coins illustrated on Plate 159 have a marked similarity of obverse style and, to my eye at least, the symbol on all three reverses is the same: a seated figure seen from the side with a spear or sceptre in the raised right hand and a sword-like object held diagonally or straight out from the body in the lowered left hand. Even the way in which the hair is drawn back in a bun is identical on Nos. 1421 and 1422. It is the line of the spear and the upraised arm, less clearly defined on the drachm than on the tetradrachms due to the limitations of space, that suggests a throne and probably explains Svoronos' differentiation of symbols.
All three coins are, I believe, imitations. The obverse style, notably in the sprawling ornament on the helmet, the single line of the visor and the straight, thin locks of hair, has nothing in common with the highly consistent rendering of the Athena head on dies of Xenokles–Harmoxenos (Plates 122–123) and of adjoining issues. On the reverse of the official dies the symbol is a seated figure of Roma, facing front, with a sword transversely across her lap and a spear or sceptre supported by her raised right hand. On either side of the goddess is a shield resting on its rim. In turning the symbol sideways, the copyist may
simply have considered a profile representation easier to handle than a facing one; on the other hand he may have misunderstood the symbolism. To an outsider the seated figure might well have had an Aetolian rather than a Roman connotation. There is certainly a striking resemblance between the type of the Aetolian League tetradrachms (see A, the reverse of an ANS coin, on Plate 159) and the little symbol on the imitations: the profile representation to the right, the cushion-like shields on which the figure sits, the upraised hand with its spear and the projecting sword with prominent rounded hilt. Even the graceless dumpiness of the seated symbol carries some suggestion of the sturdy Aetolia. Although the Aetolian League coins were struck at an earlier date, there is no reason to suppose that they had disappeared from circulation by the end of the second century. Consciously or unconsciously the engraver of the imitations may have been influenced by a familiar type when he set to work to reproduce the coinage of Xenokles and Harmoxenos.
Analysis of No. 1420 (p. 637) shows a metallic composition which varies to some extent from that of other coins of the period but the difference is not great enough to be of real significance. On the drachm there seems to be a slight blundering of the inscription (Λ for A in the ethnic: N for H in the first magistrate's name) but one cannot be sure of the reading.
1423. Rev. BAΣỊΛE MIӨPAΔATNΣ – APIΣTIΩN Star and crescents. B on the amphora; EΠI below *Ratto (Rogers) 451, broken
1424. Rev. ..ΣIΛEYΣ MIӨPAΔA.. HΣ – ..I..ΩN Star and crescents (Dr.) *Istanbul, gr. 3.17↓
The coarse style of the obverse heads on both tetradrachm and drachm (as compared with the dies of Plate 127) indicates that the coins are imitations. A slight blundering of the legend occurs on No. 1423. Greater deviation is found on No. 1424 with BAΣIΛEYΣ in place of BAΣIΛE and a fragmentary rendering of Aristion divided between left and right fields. In the case of the drachm, the light weight and abnormal die axis are further evidence of a non-Athenian origin.
1425. Rev. MNAΣEAΣ – NEΣTOP Kerchnos *Berlin, gr. 15.01
1426. Rev. Same type *Berlin, gr. 14.19
No. 1426 is the copper core of a plated tetradrachm; No. 1425 to judge by its weight is also a plated piece. Both obverses are clumsily executed and bear little resemblance to official dies of the Mnaseas–Nestor issue. The two re- verses show a similarity in the rendering of owl and lettering which may indicate the work of a single man.
1427. Rev. KOINTOΣ – XAPMOΣT Grain-ears. Δ on amphora; AΠ below *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.19↑; Berlin (Sv. 73, 10), gr. 16.68; Berlin (Sitzungsber. d. Berl. Akad., 1896, Pl. XI, 11; Sv. 73, 9), gr. 16.281
1428.
a. Rev. KOINTOΣ – XAPMOΣTPA Grain-ears. ? on amphora; Ạ below *Mykonos
b. Rev. Same but control combination illegible Berlin, gr. 15.52
Nos. 1427–1428 will undoubtedly seem the most controversial of the imitation entries, involving as they do the subtraction of an entire issue from the mint of Athens. So radical a proposal is not to be advanced lightly and it will be necessary to examine in some detail the considerations behind it.
Five coins and one lead forgery or test piece are known, comprising two obverse and four reverse dies, which would indicate a small emission. The ANS specimen was purchased from an American dealer while the three Berlin tetradrachms came from private collections with no indication of original provenance. No. 1428a was, according to Kambanis, found on Rheneia, the island near Delos. This last is then the only coin with an attested find-spot. No hoard evidence is available to provide a clue as to the date of the coinage or the area in which it circulated. The symbol, two grain-ears, is so common as to be of no help in fixing the place of minting. One of the magistrates is clearly of Roman origin, the second name is unknown at Athens but the same is true of other mint magistrates. Analysis of the ANS tetradrachm (p. 637) gives a composition low in copper for the latest New Style period but comparable in both copper and gold to single coins of 178/7, 124/3 and 120/19 B.c.
The factual information outlined above provides no firm evidence for a non-Athenian origin; the disturbing aspect of the coins lies rather in their style. Before any comparisons can be made on such grounds, one must determine where the issue belongs if it is a component part of the New Style series. In this respect there has been universal agreement among numismatists that it is one of the late two-magistrate emissions. The only other place where it could come is in the period just before 169 B.c. with the issues bearing the abbreviated names of two magistrates. But the small, neatly-executed flans, the size of the issue, and the rendering of the Athena head make it well-nigh inconceivable that the Kointos–Charmostra coins are related to the early two-magistrate series. They do, on the other hand, seem at first glance to fit well into the late period. After 112/1 B.c. the issues of the Athenian mint are often little more than token strikings, the flans are rather small and the obverse dies show a considerable degree of variation in style. If the Kointos tetradrachms are Athenian they must surely form a part of this late coinage.
It is only when one compares them carefully with the final Athenian issues that one begins to sense that they are not really at home there either. This is perhaps more obvious with respect to the reverses than to the obverses.
Anyone handling a considerable number of coins of a single series inevitably acquires a feeling for stylistic differences as they relate to chronology and this is particularly true in a sequence such as that of the New Style where there is a clearly discernible pattern of development in the rendering of the types. The obverses to be sure illustrate the variant interpretations of different diecutters but these individual styles, as they appear and disappear and as they relate one to the other, form a definite chronological sequence. With the reverses there is even greater consistency in the rendering of the type, at least in the period between 169 and 86 B.c. The owls and amphorae of Mikion–Theophra are vastly different from those of Menedemos–Timokrates, for example, but the evolutionary process is gradual, orderly and without deviation as one can see from the plates. The bird becomes increasingly oversize and ill-proportioned with exaggerated head and eyes; the vase becomes increasingly prominent and elongate. Every reverse of the late Athenian series reflects the latest stage in the development of the owl-on-amphora type, many of the results being so grotesque as to be veritable caricatures. When the two reverses of Kointos and Charmostra are compared with those of Plates 131–142, the difference in conception is immediately apparent. The Kointos reverses are stylistically of a much earlier period; if one were dating them by type alone, one would unhesitatingly assign them to the years between 169 and 159 B.c. On Plates 32–44 one finds dies with the same kind of owl on the same kind of amphora: Nos. 824a, 367b, 376b, 896c and 413 among others.
It is less easy to define the basic difference between the Kointos–Charmostra obverses and those of the late issues of Plates 131–142. At this period, specifically from 117 B.c. on, the Athenian engravers produced dies which fall into a number of stylistically disparate groupings and it would seem as though another diverse issue could be inserted into the sequence without difficulty. There is, however, a quality about the obverses of Nos. 1427–1428 which is not found in any of the late dies of Athens and which can perhaps best be described as neatness. The general impression is not entirely pleasing, due chiefly to the staring eyes and set profile, but the execution shows a delicacy in treatment of details which is utterly at variance with the late Athenian technique. At Athens the Athena heads are, with few exceptions, large and frequently repulsive in their coarseness; the protomes and visor lines are heavy; the helmet ornaments are loose and sprawling; the crest terminals are rendered with thick lines. Note, in contrast, the small well-proportioned heads of the Kointos dies, the compact neatness of the protomes and visor, the tidy and symmetrical disposition of the ornament and the thin crest terminals. Again one is reminded of a much earlier stage of the Athenian coinage.
In view of the cited anomalies of both obverse and reverse style, one can keep the Kointos coinage at Athens only by positing a diecutter working at the Athenian mint for a single year in the late second or early first century who broke sharply with current tradition and turned out a limited number of obverse and reverse dies strikingly dissimilar to the work of his contemporaries but highly analogous to the work of Athenian engravers of the second quarter of the second century.
The alternative is an imitative coinage and this seems to me by far the more plausible explanation. I should venture to go even further and identify the Kointos obverses as derivations of the tetradrachms of Timarchos and Nikagoras whose monetary magistracy fell in 166/5 B.c. With some slight allowance for the inevitable variation between model and copy, Obverses 1427–1428 are very close to Obverses 361, 362, 363 and 868 (Plates 36–37): the proportions and size of the heads, the loose tresses of hair falling softly back, the thinness of the crest terminals and the angle at which they meet, the compactness of protomes and visor, the pattern of the helmet ornament (less elaborately rendered on the imitations but identical in general arrangement), the short parallel locks of hair in front of the ear. Even the profile of No. 1427 is notably similar to Nos. 363 and 368. In only one respect do the dies differ sharply and that is in the substitution on Nos. 1427–1428 of a volute termination of the visor for the squared ear flap of the Athenian obverses. As has been mentioned before in connection with No. 1365, this volute design is not found on the coinage of the New Style series but is a characteristic of certain Pontic and Cretan renderings of the Athena Parthenos head. Its presence on Nos. 1427–1428 makes it all the more probable that they represent the output of a foreign mint.
Almost all of the imitations recorded on Plates 150–159 are relatively faithful copies in types, inscriptions and symbols of the New Style coins which served as their models. Deviations do occur, most notably in the association of magistrates and symbols, but even in such instances one can still determine the Athenian issue or issues from which the imitation was derived. There are only four exceptions: Nos. 1353 and 1364 where the inscriptions are senseless and apparently the result of a misunderstanding of the meaning of the lettering on the prototypes, No. 1365 with its unusual O ΔEMOΣ legend, and finally the coinage under present discussion. In the last case the departure from common practice is extensive. Obverse and reverse types are copied with fidelity from an Athenian coin or coins of 166 B.c. or thereabouts and the Athenian ethnic is retained, but there the imitating stops. Magistrates' names cannot be related to any Athenian issue of the period and one assumes that the Kointos and Charmostra of the imitations are local officials although they may, of course, be merely the product of the engraver's imagination. The diecutter knew the coinage he was copying and added to his dies the standard elements of symbol, month letter and control combination but again the selection was original and not derivative.1
This improvising seems remarkable because it is unusual but actually one wonders why it was so unusual. Most of the copies recorded in the catalogue are ancient forgeries, plated coins designed to pass as genuine tetradrachms. Many of them may have been struck and put into circulation in Athens itself and it was obviously desirable that these be as similar as possible to the official output of the Athenian mint. In the case of the foreign imitations there would have been no real necessity for faithful copying. They were designed, one supposes, to circulate in more distant regions, familiar with the traditional types of Athens but certainly not in a position to judge the validity of subsidiary details. A coin which resembled an Athenian tetradrachm in general appearance and carried the ethnic of Athens would pass as legal tender no matter what names, symbols or letters were inscribed on it. It is, of course, easier to copy than to create and this undoubtedly accounts for the fact that the foreign imitations are by and large slavish replicas of their prototypes.
In the coinage of Kointos–Charmostra we seem to have an exceptional instance of originality and it would be interesting to know where the dies were cut. The excellence of the technique suggests a mint within the Greek world proper or at least one thoroughly conversant with its traditions but beyond that I can hazard no guess. Earlier publications of the issue associate Kointos with Metellus. If the coinage is imitative, it was probably struck sometime in the mid-second century B.c. and the connection would, chronologically speaking, be possible. There is, however, no reason to postulate a prominent Roman as the Kointos of the coins. Surely many men of Roman origin, active in civic affairs at this period throughout the Greek-speaking world, bore the same name. Until we have some clue as to where the tetradrachms originated, it is pointless to speculate on the Magistrates responsible for their emission.
(Plate 159)
1429. Rev. N– *Christodoulos obverse and reverse dies (JIAN, 1927, Pl. J, 316)
1430. Rev. Not reproduced *Christodoulos obverse die (JIAN, Pl. J, 317)
1431. Rev. MIKI – ӨEPA (Hemidr.) *Christodoulos reverse die (JIAN, Pl. J, 318)
1432. Rev. EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣANΔPOΣ – ΔEINOK Eagle on fulmen. Δ on amphora; ΠPΩ below *Egger XL (Prowe) 958, gr. 16.76↑
1433. Rev. KNΩΣIΩN Labyrinth *London, gr. 15.16
The production in modern times of dies for New Style counterfeits is happily uncommon. A few examples are on record, notably Nos. 1429–1431 representing the work of the well-known Christodoulos. It seems to me that No. 1432 is also a tetradrachm of comparatively recent date.
No. 1433, once in the Seager Collection and now in the British Museum among its forgeries, is from the hand of an able and ingenious counterfeiter. Basically the coin is a perfectly genuine Athenian tetradrachm of the issue struck from Obverse 1306 (Plate 146). Its reverse has been painstakingly altered, first by the elimination of the monograms and then by the cutting away of the field in the area of the ethnic and symbol to produce the Cnossus inscription and device. Resulting unevenness of the surface is visible in photographic reproduction (Henri Seyrig noted it immediately) and unmistakable when one sees the coin itself. In view of the amount of labor involved, particularly in the cutting out of the labyrinth, the forger's patience, misspent as it was, deserves a measure of recognition. Since the transformation of a common Athenian tetradrachm into a rare Cnossus piece would have been profitless in antiquity, No. 1433 must be considered a modern forgery.1
The broad classification "Imitations" in the present catalogue covers three general categories of coins: those of distinctly barbaric or non-Athenian style
(Nos. 1346–1365), those bearing a more or less close resemblance to the official output of the Athens mint (Nos. 1366–1428), and modern forgeries (Nos. 1429 to 1433). Actually, of course, the subject of imitations is far more complex than this summary division would indicate and the problems involved are often irresolvable.
In the field of ancient imitations there are honest and dishonest copies. A mint at some distance from Athens may put out coins modelled on the Athenian issues because such a coinage will be commercially acceptable to a degree not true of other money. Frequently the impetus for this imitative coinage is the stopping or curtailment of the supply of genuine Athenian coins moving into that area.1 If the imitations are of good silver and full weight, no real fraud has been perpetrated; the coins are essentially what they purport to be even though the indication of origin which they sometimes give is misleading. On the other hand, coins copying the Athenian tetradrachms and fractions may be put out by a mint or more commonly, one imagines, by an individual with intent to deceive and to realize a profit from that deception. Such coins are normally plated, but since it is not always possible to detect this plating from surface appearance or weight, these spurious pieces often enough passed unchallenged in both ancient and modern times.
The division of ancient imitations as presented here is not one of honest and dishonest copies. Only analysis of all specimens would enable one to make this fundamental distinction. It is rather one of geography. By and large, the coins of Plates 150–151 would seem to have originated in workshops outside Athens and the Greek mainland. The meaningless or badly blundered inscriptions on some dies, the strange combining of symbols and the barbaric style which distinguish many of the specimens cannot easily be reconciled with Greek workmanship.2 Nos. 1346, 1360 and 1364 are plated; Nos. 1348, 1351, 1353, 1357, 1359, 1362–1363 are of suspiciously low weight and No. 1361 is so similar in style to No. 1360 as to be also suspect. These coins are probably the output of private forgers. Concerning the others, with the exception of No. 1365 of which one example has been analyzed and is not plated, there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other. Some at least may well represent "official" issues from small provincial ateliers.
Evidence for specific provenance is limited. No. 1350 was acquired in Anatolia, No. 1352 is in the Bucharest Museum, No. 1363 in the Budapest Museum, No. 1364 came from a Russian collection, No. 1365 has Pontic associations. No. 1351 was acquired in Alexandria and was thought by Newell to be of Arabian origin. One example of No. 1346 and No. 1358 were found in Delos Hoard Γ, suggesting a place of minting closer than the Euxine or the Middle East. Crete, a known source of Athenian imitations at a later date, may have put these pieces into circulation. It is noteworthy that only Athenian issues of early date served as the prototypes for these barbaric imitations. Nos. 1346 to 1358 reproduce strikings of 193/2–169/8 B.c.; Nos. 1359–1364 the slightly later emissions of 161/0, 158/7, 156/5 and 153/2. Hoards and chance finds in Syria and Lebanon provide clear indication that the New Style coins ceased to move in quantity into that area during the 60s of the second century.1 It seems likely that some of our imitations represent licit and illicit attempts to compensate in that region for a curtailed supply of Athenian money.
The coins of Plates 152–159 are of a different character. Of the 119 specimens catalogued, 89 are either definitely or very probably plated.2 All entries between Nos. 1367 and 1403 (with the sole exception of No. 1374) belong in this category. Their workmanship is generally good, many of the dies are very close indeed to the genuine ones of particular issues, and the conventions of the official coinage are for the most part carefully observed. Only weights and certain stylistic deviations indicate counterfeiting. Since the dies are in no instance those used by the Athenian mint, the coins are the output of private forgers. That most of them operated in the vicinity of Athens itself is a likely supposition in view of their excellent craftsmanship and their accurate understanding of the formula of the New Style coinage.
The astonishing aspect of this body of material is its size. At certain periods the counterfeiting is on a scale comparable to that of a small mint. Four reverse dies are associated with Obverses 1368, 1384, 1392–1393; seven each with Obverses 1380 and 1382. As one obverse die wore out, another was cut and usable reverses were carried over from the old obverse to the new. Note the transfer of two reverses from Obverse 1392 to Obverse 1393 and the further shift of one of them to Obverse 1394. These reverses in their connection with a single obverse die provide conclusive proof that this counterfeiting is the result of private and not civic enterprise. No attempt is made to reproduce consistently the dies of a particular New Style emission. Three different issues are linked with Obverses 1368, 1384 and 1393, four with Obverses 1382 and 1392 and as many as five with Obverse 1380.
It is impossible to tell how many forgers produced this impressive amount of material or exactly when they worked. The two obverses and six reverses of Nos. 1368–1369 are similar enough in technique to have been the work of a single engraver; the three obverses and four reverses of Nos. 1370–1371 and 1375 are, I believe, almost certainly from the same hand. These counterfeiters took the coinages of 166/5–158/7 for models and presumably operated toward the end of the 50s of the second century. At a slightly later date another counterfeiter, working alone or with assistance, opened what might be described as a clandestine mint. Obverses 1380, 1382, 1388, 1390, 1396 and 1400 are so close in style that they can scarcely be anything but the output of the same engraver. Nos. 1381, 1387 and 1391 are connected with them by die linking and Nos. 1397 and 1401 are of somewhat related style. Obverses 1384, 1392–1393 are comparable in their general technique, in the issues imitated, and particularly in the combining of a number of diverse reverses; with these last are to be connected Nos. 1385 and 1394 on the evidence of die links and No. 1395 on that of style. In all probability the seventeen obverses and forty-two reverses of the entries under discussion came from a single workshop, imitating coins of the 160/59–151/0 period and hence functioning in the early 40s of the century.
Nothing like this outburst of spurious tetradrachms is recorded for a later period. The few plated pieces known (Nos. 1406 probably, 1410 possibly, 1415 and 1416 definitely, 1424 possibly and 1425–1426 definitely) seem to represent isolated examples of individual counterfeiters working on a small scale. Some pieces were probably produced in the Athens area; others—Nos. 1415–1416 and 1424—are more likely the handiwork of foreigners.
Of the remaining coins in this second category of imitations, Nos. 1405 (one example), 1407, 1411d, 1413, 1418, 1419c, 1420 and 1427 (one example) have been analyzed and are not plated. Presumably other coins closely associated with these specimens are similarly unadulterated. That most of them were civic strikings seems likely but there is scant evidence as to the location of the ateliers. No. 1404 was found at or near Samsun and may well have been issued in that region. Its obverse bears some similarity to that of No. 1412, a coin which is obviously connected with Nos. 1411 and 1413–1414, and it is possible that all these specimens originated in the Black Sea area. No. 1420 was in the Anatolia Hoard (pp. 509–511 of the section on Hoards), suggesting that its place of emission was also Asia Minor. Another hoard, that of Halmyros in southern Thessaly (pp. 491–500), contained Nos. 1408, 1418 and one example of No. 1405. In this case a nearby origin is somewhat unlikely; the coins probably reached the district through commercial channels. They may have been struck anywhere, in Asia Minor again or possibly on Crete. Stylistically Nos. 1408 and 1409 are so similar as to point to a common production center. No. 1419 is one of the most puzzling of the imitative entries. Its combining of three diverse reverses is reminiscent of the plated issues put out by private counterfeiters at an earlier date, but the one coin analyzed is of silver throughout. Either this is the output of a civic workshop showing greater imagination than usual or of a private forger content with a vastly smaller margin of profit. In any case there is no clue as to the location of the enterprise.
In addition to the limited number of modern counterfeits reproduced on Plate 159, there are numerous examples of coins produced not by striking but by casting. These recent forgeries have been noted throughout the catalogue in connection with the genuine tetradrachms from which they are derived.1
1 |
In his article on the money of the slave revolt Svoronos publishes a coin from the Saroglou Collection which he describes
as having the monograms and a labyrinth symbol in the
lower right field. The piece is illustrated (JIAN, 1915, p. 61, fig. 6) but the poor reproduction of a
badly-preserved coin reveals only the monograms and some additional markings resembling the outlines of a square. I have been
unable to
trace the specimen itself; if it does indeed have a labyrinth symbol, it seems likely that we have in it another example of
alteration
similar to that of No. 1433. In fact it is possible that the Saroglou coin represents a trial piece by the same
forger.
|
1 |
E. S. G. Robinson (ANSMN IX, 1960, p. 8) connects the beginning of the direct imitation of
Old Style tetradrachms in the Levant with the greatly reduced output of new money in Athens after the Syracuse disaster. At a later date, after the New Style
tetradrachms had ceased to be struck, imitative coinages sprang up in Arabia and on Crete. Unlike the earlier
imitations, the Himyarite and Cretan coins, while making use of the Athenian type or types, do not purport to have been issued
by Athens.
|
1 |
See p. 544.
|
1 |
Such cast pieces are usually regarded as the work of modern counterfeiters but note the possibility raised by Milne ("The
Coinage of Aradus
in the Hellenistic Period," pp. 20f.) that the ancients also knew how to plate silver on base-metal casts from silver types.
|
2 |
The element of acceptance is also pertinent. One might argue that a particularly inept forger in Athens could have turned out work as bad as some of the coins which are reproduced, but could these
tetradrachms have been put into circulation in a community familiar with the genuine coinage?
|
2 |
The copper cores are visible in the case of many of these pieces. Others are suspect because of very low weight or because
of their
association with plated coins. A tetradrachm of adequate weight and no surface indication of plating if struck from a die
used for plated
specimens almost certainly has the same composition. Even if the dies are not identical, the style of an uncertain piece may
be so close to
that of a plated tetradrachm as to indicate the same engraver.
|
1 |
There is a Leningrad coin which may also be an imitation of the issue. Its obverse is so poorly preserved that I cannot decide whether it belongs with the Athenian coinage or is a
copy.
|
1 |
The emission of ΛYΣAN – ΓΛAYKOΣ (159/8 B.c.) also uses the cicada symbol but the insect of the imitation is more
closely comparable with that of the monograms issue. Furthermore, it would seem reasonable to suppose that the inspiration
for the abnormal
combination of name and symbol derived from issues fairly close in time.
|
1 |
Possibly the Nike is borrowed from the monogram coinage of 189/8 B.c.
|
1 |
A plated piece in the Kestner Museum at Hannover (10.87 gr) seems to belong to the same category of imitations as
No. 1364. The coin is practically illegible but the head looks extremely barbaric and there is a meaningless inscription in
the left field
which may read TIHΣIHN.
|
1 |
The danger of this kind of argument from a limited amount of material is illustrated by the fact that the two new specimens
in the present
catalogue are not of extraordinarily low weight: 16.40 for the ANS piece and 16.59 for the one at Istanbul.
|
1 |
As Jongkees says, the reverses are all in an excellent state of preservation as is the Paris obverse. The worn appearance
of the other two obverses would seem to be due rather to the condition of the die than to
prolonged circulation of the coins.
|
1 |
Unless, of course, the legend is merely the invention of a distant atelier and thus without political significance in an Athenian
context.
|
1 |
After this study had gone to press the writer was advised of a new hoard with two O ΔEMOΣ coins said to have been found at
Chesmé, a mainland
site opposite Chios. The pieces are now in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts and it is
through the courtesy of Dr. Cornelius C. Vermeule that I am able to make brief mention of
them here.
In addition to the O ΔEMOΣ specimens the deposit contains fourteen New Style tetradrachms ranging from 170/69 to 124/3 B.c., a Nicomedes tetradrachm of 132 B.c., four cistophori of Pergamum dating from 94–55 B.c., one posthumous Lysimachus of the late second or early first century from the mint of Byzantium, one Mithradates tetradrachm of 89/8, and fourteen Chios drachms. Best preserved of the large coins are some of the cistophori, the Byzantine Lysimachus, the Mithradates tetradrachm of 89/8 and the two O ΔEMOΣ pieces. The Euxine issues—and perhaps the cistophori as well since Mithradates had established headquarters at Pergamum in 88 B.c.—were surely brought into the Chios region by the Mithradatic armies during the campaigning for Asia. It seems highly likely that the O ΔEMOΣ coins of Chesmé, like those of Carystus, are also to be connected with the presence of Pontic soldiers in the area. |
1 |
Georges Le Rider, after having studied the coins in the Berlin Collection, writes that
Nos. 1367, 1379 and 1383 are clearly of low grade silver. He feels that all three pieces may be plated although there is no
visible indication
of this.
|
1 |
See note on page 449 for the poor quality of the silver.
|
1 |
See note on page 449 for the poor quality of the silver.
|
1 |
Another plated coin in Berlin (12.25 gr·) is from the same reverse die. Its obverse is completely obliterated.
|
1 |
The ΣIM is explained by Sundwall as a patronymic, Apollonios son of Simon (Untersuch. XLIX, p. 62), but it is to be noted that no official die carries this reading. Perhaps the copying was done
from two models, without any regard for the resulting inaccuracy. On several reverses of Demeas–Hermokles the form of the
third magistrate's
name is given as ΛYΣIM and the arrangement of the last three letters (e.g. No. 1063b) parallels that of the
imitation.
|
1 | |
1 |
There is a lead piece in the ANS Collection, an ancient forgery or test piece, from the same obverse die and an unrecorded
reverse. It seems
to have XAPOMΣT and possibly Δ and AΠ.
|
1 |
This is, of course, not true of the date which may have appeared on the model. The control combination AΠ is known for a slightly
earlier and
for a later period. A single ear of grain was used as the symbol on a monogram issue of 187/6 B.C. and two ears bound together
was the device
of the Amphikrates–Epistratos coinage of 133/2. Neither Athenian symbol resembles that of the Kointos tetradrachms.
|
2 |
"A Mysterious South Arabian Coin–Legend," NC, 1948, pp. 39–42; "The Liḥyānite In scription on
South Arabian Coins," Rivista degli Studi Orientali, XXXIV, 1959, pp. 77–81.
|
2 |
Köhler's original identification of the naked figure with sword and scabbard as Harmodios
(ZfN, 1885, p. 106) has been generally accepted although often with reservations. Svoronos, however, describes the youth as Theseus
(JIAN, 1915, p. 70), arguing that a representation of only
one of the Tyrannicides would be unlikely, and Pick suggests a personification of the Demos (Les monnaies d'Athènes, p.
VIII, s.v.
Harmodius et Aristogiton).
Jongkees believes that the figure is a copy of the Harmodios of Antenor, of which no
replicas exist, a derivation which would explain the differences in stance and attributes between the symbol on the coinage
and the well-known
statue by Kritios.
|
2 |
Cf. the pre-Classical representations in Daremberg-Saglio (s.v.
Perseus) which prominently feature both sword and scabbard.
|
2 |
No. 1420, a recently discovered coin from the Anatolia Hoard of 1955, is linked to Nos. 1421 and 1422 by style and
by the unusual rendering of the symbol
|
3 |
As reported by Svoronos in the JIAN article cited above (p. 69). The London specimen purchased from Kambanis is probably the Laurium coin.
|
4 |
An Anatolian provenance for this piece cannot be taken for granted but it seems more likely than not.
|
In this section I have tried to bring together whatever information is available on the large number of hoards containing New Style silver of Athens. There are at least forty-eight such deposits, varying greatly in size, importance and documentation. Of these, twenty-four are presented in some detail in the pages that follow. The others are cited but their contribution to a study of the coinage is slight, due in some cases to the paucity of Athenian material and in others to the inadequacy of the existing record. Hoard coins which could be identified and included in the present corpus are designated by their catalogue numbers, either in connection with the listing of issues or on the plates if the deposit is illustrated.
References throughout to Noe and to Roussel pertain to A Bibliography of Greek Coin Hoards (2nd ed.), NNM 78 and to Délos colonie athénienne, p. 48, n. 4. Publications dealing with individual hoards are recorded under the heading of each deposit.
M. Thompson, "The Beginning of the Athenian New Style Coinage," ANSMN V, 1952, pp. 25–33
In this, the earliest of hoards containing New Style silver, tetradrachms of Athens are associated with tetradrachms and octobols of Chalcis and Eretria. At least twenty-five coins were in the original find:
2 | 1, 2 | 196/5 |
2 | 5a | 195/4 |
5 –ΦANI | 9a, 10b and c | 194/3 |
1 | 12b | 193/2 |
Chalcis
4 tetradrachms
1 octobol
Eretria
6 tetradrachms
4 octobols
The hoard is discussed and illustrated as fully as possible in the article in Museum Notes. One can, I believe, safely assume from the evidence presented there that the four Athenian issues are the first of the New Style coinage, that they are to be dated between 196/5 and 193/2 B.c., and that the coins were laid away c. 192/1 B.c.
(Plate 160)
Not in Noe. Published by F. Thureau-Dangin and M. Dunand, Til-Barsib, pp. 81 f. Cited by M. Rostovtzeff in Anatolian Studies Presented to William Hepburn Buckler, p. 298 and by A. R. Bellinger, AJA, 1938, pp. 318f.
A pot hoard of seventy tetradrachms was found two meters below the level of the surface of the tell. The excavation report summarizes its contents as follows:
28 Antiochus VII 4 Demetrius II (2nd reign)
18 Antiochus VIII 8 Antiochus IX
10 Athens New Style (Head's 229–187 period)
2 doubtful
Five New Style tetradrachms in the National Syrian Museum at Damascus, labelled "Tell Ahmar", are from this hoard. Although the other five New Style pieces cannot be located, the general dating given in Til-Barsib makes it clear that they also belong to the early series with monograms or abbreviated names.
The five Damascus specimens, reproduced on Plate 160, are:
1 Monograms and trophy | 188/7 |
1 Monograms and cicada | 185/4 |
2 ΔHMH – IEPΩ | 174/3 |
1 Monograms and eagle | 173/2 |
All show considerable wear but the material is too scanty for any valid evaluation of relative condition.
The chief interest of this deposit for our purpose is its similarity to another Syrian hoard, that of Kessab. Both finds contain New Style coins of comparatively early date in association with late Seleucid issues. In the present hoard the gap between the last New Style coin of which we have record and the earliest Seleucid is thirty-five years while the hoard as a whole must have been buried early in the first century B.c., about eighty years after the latest New Style striking. The Tell Ahmar and Kessab deposits, in conjunction with other evidence (see page 544), indicate strongly that well before the middle of the second century B.c. Athenian tetradrachms had ceased to move eastward in quantity.
Unpublished
This large hoard of some 300 tetradrachms was uncovered in 1929 or thereabouts and rapidly dispersed. Eighty-one of the coins in the present catalogue are identifiably from this find: sixty in the British Museum and the remainder in the American Numismatic Society and private collections.
Only six New Style issues are represented in the hoard:
ΓΛAY – EXE | 290b; 291c,e; 292d; 294a; 296a,f; 302a,d; 303c | 170/69 |
MIKI – ӨEOΦPA | 315b; 316b; 317a,c,d; 318b; 319a; 320a,e,f; 321a,b; 322a; 323c,d | 169/8 |
HPA – APIΣTOΦ | 330b; 331f; 332a,d; 333g; 335g,i; 337b,c; 338a; 339d,e,i | 168/7 |
MENEΔ – EΠIΓENO | 348b,g,k,l; 349c; 350a,b,d,e,f; 351a,c,g; 353a,e,f,g,i,j,m; 354a,c, e,f; 355a,b,d | 167/6 |
TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO | 361b,d(2); 362e,f; 363b,f; 364a(2), c; 367b; 368e,g | 166/5 |
ΠOΛYXAPM – NIKOΓ | 376c; 378e; 379d | 165/4 |
In view of the large number of coins and the small number of issues, it seems evident that the emissions are roughly contemporary. Relative wear strongly confirms this assumption. The coins recorded above are all well preserved, those of the first three strikings somewhat more worn than those of the last, many of which are FDC.
Unpublished | (Plate 161) |
About 1952 a large hoard was discovered at Kessab, south of Seleucia Pieria. Dispersal was rapid and in consequence the record of contents is incomplete. Henri Seyrig, who most kindly made his information available to me, saw the following pieces:
12 tetradrachms of Seleucia Pieria
216 tetradrachms of the late Seleucid kings, ranging from Demetrius I through Antiochus IX, the latest dated specimen an emission of 113/2 B.c.
40 tetradrachms of Athens
Only nine of the New Style coins, most of them in the Seyrig Collection, could be entered in the present catalogue and reproduced on Plate 161, but Seyrig's detailed listing of the other thirty-one pieces makes it possible to reconstitute this section of the hoard.
The New Style tetradrachms include a single coin of 193/2 followed by an almost unbroken sequence of issues from 188/7 through 163/2, and even the few gaps in that twenty-five year period may be more apparent than real. In 1952 and 1953 a considerable number of New Style coins came on the market in the hands of several Beirut dealers. For the most part the issues were the same as those known to have been in the Kessab Hoard and in a number of cases the amphora and control letters of the dealers' coins were identical with those provided by Seyrig's listing. In addition to the duplicated issues the Beirut tetradrachms included examples of the AMMΩ – ΔIO (kerchnos) striking of 182/1, of HPA – APIΣTOΦ of 168/7 and of ΠOΛYXAPM – NIKOΓ of 165/4, the two last coins in the same splendid state of preservation as the ΔΩPOӨE – ΔIOΦ and ANTIOXOΣ specimens from the Kessab Hoard. It seems to me highly probable that some at least of the Beirut coins came originally from Kessab but there is no way of establishing the connection.
No emission later than that of Antiochos can possibly be associated with the hoard; the last New Style pieces are the fine to FDC tetradrachms of 163/2 which surely had not been long from the mint before they were withdrawn from circulation. The Kessab Hoard, like the find at Tell Ahmar, is noteworthy for its combination of comparatively early Athenian coins and late Seleucid issues. In both deposits it may be that the Athenian pieces represent a separate hoard merged at a later date with Seleucid material. On the other hand, it may be that the Kessab Hoard is a continuing accumulation with the Seleucid tetradrachms of Demetrius picking up exactly where the New Style issues stop, but in that case it is difficult to understand the absence of the coinage of the earlier Seleucid kings who made extensive use of the nearby mint of Antioch1 and whose silver would presumably have been more common in the Kessab region than that of Athens.
G. P. Oikonomos, Praktika de l'Académie d'Athènes, III, 1928, pp. 25–33 L. Robert, Études de numismatique grecque, 1951, pp. 161 f.
According to Oikonomos the hoard contained seventy silver and two bronze coins: thirty-one New Style pieces, eighteen drachms of Naxos, twenty-one trihemiobols of Rhodes and two bronzes, probably of Andros. It is said by Kambanis to have been found in 1926. A more detailed publication was planned by Oikonomos and is now being carried to completion by Mme. Irene Varoucha, who has most generously given me a brief listing of the component New Style issues arranged in order of condition from most to least worn.
The arrangement by wear as determined by Mme. Varoucha corresponds fairly well with the chronological sequence outlined in the present catalogue. Oikonomos' belief that the hoard was buried in the middle of the second century is supported by the New Style material, the latest issue being that of Lysan–Glaukos in 159/8 B.c.
1 |
E. T. Newell, The Seleucid Mint of Antioch, Pls. II–IV.
|
(Plates 162–171)
M. Thompson, "The Grain–Ear Drachms of Athens," ANSCent., pp. 651–671
Early in 1955 a large hoard of 178 drachms and nine tetradrachms, said to have been discovered in Attica, came on the market and was acquired by the American Numismatic Society. With the exception of a few duplicates, all coins are in New York.
The anomalous drachms with grain-ear symbol, which form the bulk of the hoard, and some regular strikings of contemporary date are discussed and partially illustrated in the publication cited above. On Plates 162–171 the find is reproduced in its entirety. Its component issues are as follows:
1 dr. | No monograms, no symbol | 192/1 |
1 tetr. | AΔEI – HΛIO | 179/8 |
100 dr. | Grain-ear symbol | c. 180–170 |
2 tetr. | Monograms and thyrsos | 176/5 |
1 dr. | Monograms and thyrsos | |
2 tetr. | ΔIOΦA – ΔIOΔO | 175/4 |
1 tetr. | ΔHMH – IEPΩ | 174/3 |
25 dr. | ΔHMH – IEPΩ | |
2 tetr. | Monograms and aplustre | 172/1 |
1 tetr. | KTHΣI – EYMA | 171/0 |
11 dr. | ΓΛAY – EXE | 170/69 |
5 dr. | MIKI – ӨEOΦPA | 169/8 |
8 dr. | HPA – APIΣTOΦ | 168/7 |
9 dr. | MENEΔ – EΠIΓENO | 167/6 |
6 dr. | TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO | 166/5 |
1 dr. | ΠOΛYXAPM – NIKOΓ | 165/4 |
5 dr. | ΔΩPOӨE – ΔIOΦ | 164/3 |
2 dr. | ANTIOXOΣ – KAPAIXOΣ | 163/2 |
1 dr. | ӨEOΦPA – ΣΩTAΣ | 162/1 |
1 dr. | AXAIOΣ – HΛI | 160/59 |
1 dr. | MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI | 156/5 |
1 dr. | AΦPOΔIΣI – AΠOΛH≡I | 155/4 |
One hundred and forty-six coins, about three-fourths of the hoard, belong to the decade between 180 and 170 B.c. Drachms of the next eight years are present in relatively small quantity and after that there are only isolated examples of the fractional silver of 160/59, 156/5 and 155/4. Since the really large issues of drachms at Athens are those with grain-ear symbol and the fractions of ΔHMH – IEPΩ and ΓΛAY – EXE, it is not surprising that 136 of the 178 small coins in the hoard should be from those emissions. What is extraordinary is that the few tetradrachms of the deposit also belong exclusively to the same ten-year period. All show signs of wear and it is evident that they had circulated for some time before being put away. If, as seems likely, this is a currency hoard, one must assume that even as late as 155 B.c. the tetradrachms of 180–170 were common in the Attic market, more common apparently than those of the succeeding fifteen years.
All coins of the 192/1–171/0 strikings show considerable wear, the one early drachm being very worn and the others in worn to fair condition. Issues of ΓΛAY–EXE and MIKI – ӨEOΦPA are better; those of HPA – APIΣTOΦ through AΦPOΔIΣI – AΠOΛH≡I are good to extremely fine. The drachms of ӨEOΦPA – ΣΩTAΣ, AXAIOΣ–HΛI, MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI and AΦPOΔIΣI – AΠOΛH≡I seem to me definitely the latest of the hoard coins but in each case we have only a single example. One can at least say that these four fractions are quite comparable in condition and this is of significance for the chronological arrangement, especially as regards the emission of MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI. No one of these pieces can have been in circulation for any considerable time and the burial date of the hoard, if it is a currency deposit, should be close to 155/4 B.c.
J. N. Svoronos, JIAN, 1906, pp. 260–267
The 249 tetradrachms of this deposit are fully described in Svoronos' article on the three Delos hoards of 1905. Most of the coins are included in the present catalogue with reference to the numbers of Svoronos' listing. Component issues in chronological sequence are as follows:
This large hoard includes the emissions of a fifty-year period between 187/6 and 137/6 B.c. From 172/1 to 152/1 there are only three gaps in the sequence: the minor issue of ΠOΛYXAPM – NIKOΓ in 165/4 and the two large issues of MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI and KAPAIX – EPΓOKΛE in 156/5 and 153/2. Two other extensive coinages of contemporary date, those of EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣANΔPOΣ and ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ, are very scantily represented.
All strikings from 152/1 on are in the hoard. The tetradrachms of Theodotos–Kleophanes and Herakleides–Eukles are the best preserved of any in the deposit and further indication that the series ends with the second issue of Herakleides is provided by the four coins of month B from the same pair of dies. In all probability the hoard was buried c. 137 B.c.
J. N. Svoronos, JIAN, 1907, pp. 192f.
The thirty-nine New Style coins in this hoard, of which twenty-five can be identified in the present catalogue, are fully published by Svoronos. The listing below simply arranges the issues in chronological order:
2 dr. | Grain-ear symbol | 180–170 | |
1 dr. | ΔHMH – IEPΩ | 174/3 | |
3 dr. | ΓΛAY – EXE | 307a | 170/69 |
1 hemidr. | ΓΛAY – EXE | 312a | |
1 tetr. | MIKI – ӨEOΦPA | 324b | 169/8 |
1 hemidr. | MIKI – ӨEOΦPA | 328b | |
2 tetr. | HPA – APIΣTOΦ | 333c; 336a | 168/7 |
3 dr. | HPA – APIΣTOΦ | ||
1 hemidr. | MENEΔ – EΠIΓENO | 167/6 | |
1 tetr. | TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO | 362e | 166/5 |
1 tetr. | ΠOΛYXAPM – NIKOΓ | 379j | 165/4 |
1 dr. | ΔΩPOӨE – ΔIOΦ | 164/3 | |
1 hemidr. | ΔΩPOӨE – ΔIOΦ | ||
1 tetr. | ANTIOXOΣ – KAPAIXOΣ | 397g | 163/2 |
1 dr. | ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ | 473c | 157/6 |
1 hemidr. | ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ | ||
1 hemidr. | MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI | 493a | 156/5 |
1 tetr. | AΦPOΔIΣI – ΔIOΓE | 544k | 152/1 |
2 tetr. | AMMΩNIOΣ–KAΛΛIAΣ | 591a | 150/49 |
1 dr. | ӨEMIΣTO – ӨEOΠOMΠOΣ | 610b | 149/8 |
1 tetr. | ΣΩKPATHΣ – ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | 622c | 148/7 |
1 tetr. | ΔIOTIMOΣ – MAΓAΣ | 662d | 146/5 |
1 hemidr. | ΔIOTIMOΣ – MAΓAΣ | 667a | |
1 tetr. | EYMHΛOΣ – KAΛΛIΦΩN | 731a | 140/39 |
1 tetr. | ӨEOΔOTOΣ – KΛEOΦANHΣ | 762b | 138/7 |
1 tetr. | HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 790b | 137/6 |
1 tetr. | ANΔPEAΣ – XAPINAYTHΣ | 797b | 136/5 |
1 tetr. | IKEΣIOΣ – AΣKΛHΠIAΔHΣ | 816 | 135/4 |
1 tetr. | TIMOΣTPATOΣ – ΠOΣHΣ | 828b | 134/3 |
1 dr. | TIMOΣTPATOΣ – ΠOΣHΣ | 837 | |
1 tetr. | ΔΩΣIӨEOΣ – XAPIAΣ | 132/1 | |
1 tetr. | ΔHMHTPIOΣ – AΓAӨIΠΠOΣ | 897d | 131/0 |
Delos Hoard Kς also contained a cistophorus of Pergamum which Svoronos describes as in good condition. Sydney P. Noe, who is now engaged in a study of the cistophoric coinage, tells me that this piece is roughly contemporary with the latest of the New Style coins.
The individual hoard pieces are badly corroded as is evident from the weights in Svoronos' publication and furthermore the slight representation of coinage for all issues makes it impossible to base any firm conclusions on relative wear. All specimens have circulated; the one tetradrachm of Demetrios–Agathippos seems to be the least worn.
J. N. Svoronos, JIAN, 1906, pp. 255–260
Fifty-two tetradrachms, ninety-eight drachms and twenty-three hemidrachms were found in this excavation hoard of 1905. Full details are given in Svoronos' publication.
1 dr. | AӨE only | 17 | 192/1 |
1 tetr. | Monograms and grain-ear | 51c | 187/6 |
1 tetr. | Monograms and pilei | 56d | 186/5 |
6 dr. | Grain-ear symbol1 | 148a; 149f | 180–170 |
1 tetr. | ΔΩ – ΛYΣIA | 159d | 177/6 |
2 dr. | ΔHMH – IEPΩ2 | 223 | 174/3 |
4 tetr. | KTHΣI – EYMA | 278g; 279c; 286b | 171/0 |
1 dr. | ΓΛAY – EXE | 170/69 | |
1 hemidr. | ΓΛAY – EXE | 313 | |
3 dr. | MIKI – ӨEOΦPA | 169/8 | |
6 hemidr. | MIKI – ӨEOΦPA | 328a | |
1 tetr. | HPA – APIΣTOΦ | 339a | 168/7 |
3 dr. | HPA – APIΣTOΦ | 345d | |
2 hemidr. | HPA – APIΣTOΦ | 346b | |
5 dr. | MENEΔ – EΠIΓENO | 357c,e | 167/6 |
1 hemidr. | MENEΔ – EΠIΓENO | 359f | |
1 tetr. | TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO | 166/5 | |
4 dr. | TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO | 371b; 372a,b | |
2 hemidr. | TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO | 375a,c | |
1 tetr. | ΠOΛYXAPM – NIKOΓ | 368 | 165/4 |
2 dr. | ΠOΛYXAPM – NIKOΓ | 373b | |
1 hemidr. | ΠOΛYXAPM – NIKOΓ | 382b | |
1 tetr. | ΔΩPOӨE – ΔIOΦ | 390a | 164/3 |
13 dr. | ΔΩPOӨE – ΔIOΦ | 391a; 394e | |
4 dr. | ANTIOXOΣ – KAPAIXOΣ | 402b,e | 163/2 |
4 hemidr. | ANTIOXOΣ – KAPAIXOΣ | 403a,b | |
4 dr. | ӨEOΦPA – ΣΩTAΣ | 411c,f | 162/1 |
3 dr. | ΔIOΓE – ΠOΣEI | 419c,d | 161/0 |
2 tetr. | AXAIOΣ–HΛI | 421b; 426c | 160/59 |
2 dr. | AXAIOΣ – HΛI | 411b,c | |
1 dr. | ΛYΣAN – ΓΛAYKOΣ | 440b | 159/8 |
2 dr. | EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣANΔPOΣ | 459b; 460b | 158/7 |
1 dr. | ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ | 473e | 157/6 |
1 hemidr. | ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ | 474a | |
2 dr. | MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI | 492a,b | 156/5 |
3 dr. | AΦPOΔIΣI – AΠOΛH≡I | 505a,b | 155/4 |
3 dr. | EYPYKΛEI – APIAPA | 506; 523a,b | 154/3 |
1 hemidr. | EYPYKΛEI – APIAPA | 507 | |
1 dr. | KAPAIX – EPΓOKΛE | 542a | 158/2 |
2 dr. | AΦPOΔIΣI – ΔIOΓE | 555a,d | 152/1 |
6 tetr. | ΔIONYΣI – ΔIONYΣI | 559h; 561g; 571f | 151/0 |
2 dr. | ΔIONYΣI – ΔIONYΣI | 578a,b | |
1 tetr. | AMMΩNIOΣ–KAΛΛIAΣ | 585b | 150/49 |
2 dr. | AMMΩNIOΣ – KAΛΛIAΣ | 594 | |
3 tetr. | ӨEMIΣTO – ӨEOΠOMΠOΣ | 601j; 606b,f | 149/8 |
3 tetr. | ΣΩKPATHΣ – ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | 619b; 622b; 623f | 148/7 |
5 dr. | ΣΩKPATHΣ – ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | 626b; 627a(3),b | |
2 tetr. | MHTPOΔΩPOΣ – ΔHMOΣӨEN | 635c | 147/6 |
1 dr. | MHTPOΔΩPOΣ – ΔHMOΣӨEN | 647 | |
1 tetr. | ΔIOTIMOΣ – MAΓAΣ | 146/5 | |
1 dr. | ΔIOTIMOΣ – MAΓAΣ | 665a | |
2 hemidr. | ΔIOTIMOΣ – MAΓAΣ | 667a,b | |
1 dr. | EYMAPEIΔHΣ – AΛKIΔAM | 685 | 145/4 |
3 tetr. | XAPINAYTHΣ – APIΣTEAΣ | 689i; 692h; 695c | 144/3 |
5 tetr. | ΦANOKΛHΣ – AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ | 699a; 706a; 707f; 708a | 143/2 |
1 dr. | ΦANOKΛHΣ – AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ | 685 | |
1 dr. | EYBOYΛIΔHΣ – AΓAӨOKΛH | 722a | 142/1 |
1 tetr. | ZΩIΛOΣ – EYANΔPOΣ | 714j | 142/1 |
2 dr. | ZΩIΛOΣ – EYANΔPOΣ | 722c,e | |
1 dr. | ΔAMΩN – ΣΩΣIKPATHΣ | 733b | 141/0 |
6 tetr. | EYMHΛOΣ – KAΛΛIΦΩN | 730; 740a,e,g; 741a | 140/39 |
3 dr. | EYMHΛOΣ – KAΛΛIΦΩN | 747a(2),b | |
1 hemidr. | EYMHΛOΣ – KAΛΛIΦΩN | 748 | |
1 hemidr. | HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 748 | 139/8 |
2 tetr. | ӨEOΔOTOΣ – KΛEOΦANHΣ | 763e; 765d | 138/7 |
1 dr. | ӨEOΔOTOΣ – KΛEOΦANHΣ | 758b | |
2 tetr. | HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 778a; 788c | 137/6 |
1 dr. | HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 799 | |
5 dr. | ANΔPEAΣ – XAPINAYTHΣ | 810d | 136/5 |
1 dr. | AMΦIKPATHΣ – EΠIΣTPATOΣ | 853 | 133/2 |
2 tetr. | ΔΩΣIӨEOΣ – XAPIAΣ | 857e; 861d | 132/1 |
2 dr. | ΔΩΣIӨEOΣ – XAPIAΣ | 878(2) | |
1 tetr. | ΔHMHTPIOΣ – AΓAӨIΠΠOΣ | 919b | 131/0 |
1 tetr. | NIKHTHΣ–ΔIONYΣIOΣ | 130/29 |
A few early issues are represented, followed by an unbroken sequence of emissions from KTHΣI–EYMA through ANΔPEAΣ – XAPINAYTHΣ, 171/0–136/5. Then there is a gap of two years before the hoard picks up again with the coinage of AMΦIKPATHΣ – EΠIΣTPATOΣ and continues through that of NIKHTHΣ – ΔIONYΣIOΣ.
This is predominantly a small change deposit and probably a savings accumulation. Many of the earlier three-magistrate pieces are in a fine state of preservation and cannot have circulated for long before being put aside.
1 |
Ten drachms with grain-ear symbol are listed in Svoronos' publication. Six seem to belong to the strikings of
180–170 B.c. and four to the magistracy of TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO.
|
2 |
One is identified only tentatively as a coin of ΔHMH – IEPΩ.
|
(Plates 172–175)
An unpublished hoard of tetradrachms. Roussel describes it summarily as containing some 250 coins representing thirty of the three-magistrate issues. The find is now in the Athens Cabinet and the recapitulation which follows is based on the information given by the tickets in the trays there.1
1 ΓΛAY – EXE | 298a | 170/69 |
1 MIKI – ӨEOΦPA | 322c | 169/8 |
1 TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO | 362g | 166/5 |
3 AXAIOΣ–HΛI | 421f; 422c; 427c | 160/59 |
3 ΛYΣAN – ΓΛAYKOΣ | 429c; 435e; 436a | 159/8 |
4 EYPYKΛEI – APIAPA | 509d; 512e; 517b; 518f | 154/3 |
5 AΦPOΔIΣI – ΔIOΓE | 544g; 550b,f; 551b,e | 152/1 |
12 ΔIONYΣI – ΔIONYΣI | 554f; 563b,d; 564b; 566b(2); 567b; 568a; 570g; 574a; 575b; 577a | 151/0 |
17 AMMΩNIOΣ – KAΛΛIAΣ | 582a; 583a(2),e; 584f,g; 585b,c,d; 586h; 588b(2); 589b; 590b(2),c; 592b | 150/49 |
8 ӨEMIΣTO – ӨEOΠOMΠOΣ | 598c; 601a,d,l; 603h; 605b; 606e; 608a | 149/8 |
10 ΣΩKPATHΣ – ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | 613c; 615b(3); 616b,e(2); 617e; 622g; 625a | 148/7 |
12 MHTPOΔΩPOΣ – MIΛTIAΔHΣ ΔHMOΣӨEN | 629a,b,c; 631c; 633f; 637d; 638c; 641a; 642d,e; 648a,d | 147/6 |
10 ΔIOTIMOΣ – MAΓAΣ | 649; 655c; 658a; 661b,g; 662d,e,g; 664b,c | 146/5 |
9 EYMAPEIΔHΣ – AΛKIΔAM KΛEOMEN | 671b,c,d; 673h; 677d; 678c,e; 679i; 681a | 145/4 |
11 XAPINAYTHΣ – APIΣTEAΣ | 687c; 688f; 689d,k; 691b,c; 692f,h; 694d,e; 695a | 144/3 |
20 ΦANOKΛHΣ – AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ | 700a; 701c,e; 702a,c,e,k; 705a,i; 706a(3); 707b,d(3); 708a(3),b | 143/2 |
10 EYBOYΛIΔHΣ – AΓAӨOKΛH and ZΩIΛOΣ – EYANΔPOΣ | 710; 712; 714i(2),j; 715b,c; 716b; 719b; 721b | 142/1 |
19 ΔAMΩN – ΣΩΣIKPATHΣ | 719a(2),b(2); 723b; 721h,j; 726b; 727c, f(2); 728a(2),c(3); 729c; 730a(2) | 141/0 |
14 EYMHΛOΣ – KAΛΛIΦΩN | 731a,b; 736c; 738a,b,d; 740c,d,e; 741c; 742b(2); 744a; 745c | 140/39 |
11 HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 745b,c; 750a(2); 751b; 752b; 753a,b,d,e; 756b | 139/8 |
23 ӨEOΔOTOΣ – KΛEOΦANHΣ1 | 759b; 761b,c,e; 762a; 763b,e; 764a(2); 765b; 766d; 768e; 770b(2),c; 771b,g; 773b,c(2); 775c | 138/7 |
13 HPAKΛEIΔHΣ–EYKΛHΣ | 779d; 780a; 781a; 784a; 785a; 786a; 787c; 790b; 791c; 792a; 795a,d; 797a | 137/6 |
6 IKEΣIOΣ – AΣKΛHΠIAΔHΣ | 812a; 813; 814d; 816(2); 820a | 135/4 |
4 TIMOΣTPATOΣ–ΠOΣHΣ | 824a; 825e; 828b; 832b | 134/8 |
4 AMΦIKPATHΣ – EΠIΣTPATOΣ | 841a,b; 842b; 850b | 133/2 |
4 ΔΩΣIӨEOΣ – XAPIAΣ | 855a; 857d; 863a; 866a | 132/1 |
12 ΔHMHTPIOΣ – AΓAӨIΠΠOΣ | 883d; 884b; 892a,c; 894c; 897a,c; 898b,c; 912d; 920a; 921i | 131/0 |
1 NIKHTHΣ–ΔIONYΣIOΣ | 961a | 130/29 |
This is one of the largest of the Delos hoards. Representation of the earlier three-magistrate series is somewhat surprising in that the large issues of Epigene–Sosandros, Polemon–Alketes, Mikion–Euryklei and Karaich–Ergokle are missing. From the striking of Aphrodisi–Dioge (152/1) through that of Niketes–Dionysios all emissions are present with the exception of Andreas–Charinautes (136/5). There is, however, a decline in the number of coins per issue after the second year of Herakleides–Eukles and the absence of coinage from the Andreas–Charinautes striking would not seem to be particularly significant. What is more puzzling is the single coin of Niketes–Dionysios which terminates the hoard. Twelve coins of Demetrios–Agathippos appear in the deposit and then only one of the issue immediately following. One would assume that the hoard was buried early in 130/29 before many tetradrachms of Niketes had reached Delos were it not that the amphora letter on the coin in question is M.
It is tempting to connect the interment of both Delos B and ΛH with the serious insurrection of slaves that occurred on Delos at about this time. The date of the servile revolt cannot be determined with precision.1 In a recent work, Siegfried Lauffer assigns it to 133 B.c. Ferguson believes that it probably started in the early summer of 130 B.c. but adds a note of caution to the effect that "the trouble in Delos must be dated by local evidence alone." The numismatic evidence suggests that it took place a year later than Ferguson supposes and that it was the reason for the simultaneous burial of the two large Delos hoards whose issues stop abruptly with H and M coins of Niketes–Dionysios.
The AH Hoard suffered considerable damage, probably from fire as well as from the action of the soil, and it is difficult to estimate the relative wear of its issues. Most of the coins from the last eight strikings are reproduced on Plates 172–175. From the illustrations it is apparent that the coins of Demetrios and the single specimen of Niketes are the least worn and the latest tetradrachms of what seems to have been a currency hoard.
1 |
The present record is short two coins and two issues of Roussel's count, assuming that he was giving definite and
not approximate figures and that he tallied the pieces of Euboulides–Agathokles and Zoilos–Euandros separately
and did not divide the two years of Herakleides–Eukles. There is no way of tracing the error, if there is one, but I do not
believe that it
is of any real importance.
|
1 |
Two badly corroded coins whose obverse dies cannot be identified are included in the summary but not in the catalogue.
|
1 |
It was roughly contemporary with the insurrections which broke out in Sicily, Italy, Attica and Asia Minor in the period between
136 and 130 B.c. The uprising on Delos is dealt with most fully by Ferguson (Klio, 1907, p. 238 and Hellenistic Athens
, pp. 379f.). That at Laurium is treated extensively by Lauffer (Die Bergwerkssklaven von Laureion. II: Gesellschaftliche Verhältnisse, Aufstände, pp. 995–1000). Two other recent studies of slavery in the ancient world,
Westermann's The Slave Systems of Greek and Roman Antiquity and Vogt's Struktur der antiken
Sklavenkriege, add nothing new to the chronological outlines of Ferguson and Lauffer.
|
J. Scholz, Monatsblatt, No. 232, Nov. 1902, pp. 357–359
J.N. Svoronos, JIAN, 1908, pp. 236–240
M. L. Kambanis, BCH, 1934, pp. 131–135; BCH, 1935, pp. 108–120
In 1898 a large hoard of tetradrachms, said to have contained over a thousand pieces, was uncovered at Zarova in Macedonia. A small section of the find, some one hundred coins which came into the hands of Egger Bros. in Vienna, was summarized by Scholz in the Monatsblatt of 1902. Another section, consisting of 228 coins in the possession of M. Asteriades, secretary at the Greek Consulate in Salonika, was recorded by Svoronos in the JIAN of 1908. Subsequently Kambanis combined, in his two BCH publications, the data for the Vienna and Asteriades lots and also information given him by Regling on 218 additional hoard pieces which had gone to Istanbul.1 Nothing is known of the disposition of the remainder of the deposit. If it did originally include over a thousand tetradrachms, nearly half of its contents has disappeared without record.
The issues represented in the Zarova Hoard as we know it are arranged below in chronological sequence. Plus signs in the last column indicate that one or more examples of that particular striking were included in the Vienna lot concerning which Scholz gave no details other than a listing of emissions.2
Asteriades | Istanbul | Total | ||||
TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO | 166/5 | 2 | 364c | 2 | ||
ΠOΛYXAPM – NIKOΓ | 165/4 | + | ||||
ΔIOΓE – ΠOΣEI | 161/0 | 1 | 416h | 1 | ||
AXAIOΣ – HΛI | 160/59 | 1 | 423d | 1+ | ||
ΛYΣAN – ΓΛAYKOΣ | 159/8 | 4 | 1 | 431e | 5+ | |
EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣANΔPOΣ | 158/7 | 50 | 446i,j; 450d; 453f; 454d; 455; 457e; 458b | 28 | 441d,f,i(2); 442d,e; 443e,h; 445b,c,g; 446e,j(2); 447a; 448b; 449f,j,k,n; 450h; 451a; 454e,g,h; 456b; 457b,c | 78+ |
ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ | 157/6 | 33 | 462; 469d | 22 | 462; 464j,n; 465n,q; 466c(2),h(2),j; 469a, f,k; 470a,k; 471a, b(2),d,f, h,i | 55+ |
MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI | 156/5 | 33 | 483c | 31 | 475b; 476; 477b,c(2); 478c,e(2); 479a,d; 480c,d,f,g; 483d,g(2); 484a,d,i; 485b(2),c,e; 486a; 487a,k,l; 488c,d,g | 64+ |
AΦPOΔIΣI – AΠOΛH≡I | 155/4 | 1 | 498d | 1 | ||
EYPYKΛEI – APIAPA | 154/3 | 1 | 2 | 512e; 515e | 3 | |
KAPAIX – EPΓOKΛE | 153/2 | 19 | 530d(2); 532; 535m | 18 | 526c; 528a,f; 531d; 533a; 535f(2),j,l; 536e(2); 538b,e,f; 539; 540d,f; 541a | 37+ |
AΦPOΔIΣI – ΔIOΓE | 152/1 | 4 | 544h; 548c | 2 | 544f; 547a | 6+ |
ΔIONYΣI – ΔIONYΣI | 151/0 | 1 | 8 | 554e; 557c; 564d; 570e,f; 573b; 574b; 575c | 9+ | |
AMMΩNIOΣ – KAΛΛIAΣ | 150/49 | 3 | 589d | 2 | 581a; 584a | 5 |
ӨEMIΣTO – ӨEOΠOMΠOΣ | 149/8 | 4 | 598b; 601g | 4+ | ||
ΣΩKPATHΣ – ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | 148/7 | 4 | 4 | 613c; 614d; 619f; 620a | 8 | |
MHTPOΔΩPOΣ – MIΛTIAΔHΣ and ΔHMOΣӨEN | 147/6 | 1 | 3 | 631b; 634d; 642f | 4+ | |
ΔIOTIMOΣ – MAΓAΣ | 146/5 | 3 | 656b; 664c,f | 3+ | ||
EYMAPEIΔHΣ – AΛKIΔAM and KΛEOMEN | 145/4 | 2 | 678g | 1 | 673g | 3 |
XAPINAYTHΣ – APIΣΓEAΣ | 144/3 | 3 | 5 | 688h; 689j; 692a,b,c | 8+ | |
ΦANOKΛHΣ – AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ | 143/2 | 2 | 7 | 699b; 701a; 705b(2), g,h; 707d | 9+ | |
EYBOYΛIΔHΣ – AΓAӨOKΛH and ZΩIΛOΣ – EYANΔPOΣ | 142/1 | 3 | 714e | 3 | 712; 713d; 717d | 6+ |
ΔAMΩN – ΣΩΣIKPATHΣ | 141/0 | 8 | 728a,b | 1 | 719c | 9+ |
EYMHΛOΣ – KAΛΛIΦΩN | 140/39 | 1 | 2 | 736a(2) | 3+ | |
HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ1 | 139/8 137/6 | 3 | 3 | 749c; 753c; 788d | 6+ | |
ӨEOΔOTOΣ – KΛEOΦANHΣ | 138/7 | 7 | 760c; 764c | 15 | 759a,b; 761c; 762a; 764c,d; 765c,i; 767f; 769b; 770b; 771d; 772a; 773d,f | 22 |
ANΔPEAΣ – XAPINAYTHΣ | 136/5 | 7 | 802e,h; 804e; 805a; 808d | 1 | 801a | 8+ |
IKEΣIOΣ – AΣKΛHΠIAΔHΣ | 135/4 | 1 | 4 | 814e,f; 819b; 820b | 5 | |
TIMOΣTPATOΣ – ΠOΣHΣ | 134/3 | 6 | 824a,c; 826a | 3 | 823b; 824b; 829c | 9+ |
AMΦIKPATHΣ – EΠIΣTPATOΣ | 133/2 | 4 | 842j; 848b; 851a | 4 | 844b; 845a,b; 848b | 8+ |
ΔΩΣIӨEOΣ – XAPIAΣ | 132/1 | 4 | 5 | 855d; 857c; 861a,c; 863d | 9+ | |
ΔHMHTPIOΣ – AΓAӨIΠΠOΣ | 131/0 | 9 | 893b; 895; 905f | 6 | 881; 883d; 894b; 905c; 922d; 925d | 15+ |
NIKHTHΣ – ΔIONYΣIOΣ | 130/29 | 4 | 932b | 3 | 931a; 935b; 941b | 7+ |
APIΣTIΩN – ΦIΛΩN | 129/8 | 3 | 973c | 3 | ||
APOΠOΣ – MNAΣAΓO | 128/7 | 3 | 991b; 999b; 1014b | 3+ | ||
≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ (serpent) | 127/6 | 2 | 1016a; 1020a | 2 | ||
KOINTOΣ – KΛEAΣ (?) | 122/1 | +(?) |
The issue of Kointos–Kleas, reported only by Scholz, must be regarded with a certain amount of suspicion. There is no way of disproving its presence in the hoard but there are valid reasons for questioning it. From the striking of Dioge–Posei through that of Xenokles–Harmoxenos (serpent) every annual issue, every year from 161/0 through 127/6, is represented in the hoard. Then, if we accept Kointos–Kleas, there is a gap of four emissions, all extensive and one (Xenokles–Harmoxenos with dolphin and trident) among the largest of all strikings on record, before we come to the minor issue of Kointos–Kleas. The absence of any tetradrachms from those intervening years is strange indeed. Furthermore, in Scholz's summary, which unfortunately is by BMC serial numbers rather than by magistrates' names, there is one obvious error: Series 50 is listed twice, once after 49 and once after 59. In the latter case it is undoubtedly a mistake for 60, the issue of Dositheos–Charias. It seems to me distinctly possible that Series 66, that of Kointos–Kleas, involves another error but one which cannot be so easily corrected. The issue just preceding, Series 65 in the BMC, is that of Hikesios–Asklepiades found in both the Athens and Istanbul lots but missing from the Vienna section of the hoard. One wonders if the 66 of Scholz's listing should not have been 65.
The Zarova deposit gives indication of being a currency hoard. Its size suggests that it represents not the accumulated savings of an individual but rather the funds of an official or an organization, which would tend to be a cross-section of money in use at the time.1 Moreover, the comparative condition of the hoard coins in Athens and Istanbul points to their having been withdrawn from current circulation.
In 1955 I had the opportunity of examining both lots, here treated as a unit since their component issues show the same pattern
of relative
wear. Considerable differences in preservation were immediately apparent as outlined in the four broad categories below:
Most worn: Timarchou – Nikago, Dioge – Posei, Achaios – Heli, Lysan – Glaukos, Epigene – Sosandros, Polemon –
Alketes, Mikion – Euryklei, Aphrodisi – Apolexi, Euryklei – Ariara, Karaich – Ergokle, Dionysi – Dionysi, Themisto – Theopompos
Less worn: Aphrodisi – Dioge,2 Ammonios – Kallias, Sokrates – Dionysodo,
Metrodoros – Miltiades, Diotimos – Magas, Eumareides – Alkidam
Stitt less worn: Charinautes – Aristeas, Phanokles – Apollonios, Euboulides – Agathokle and Zoilos – Euandros, Damon
– Sosikrates, Eumelos – Kalliphon, Herakleides – Eukles, Theodotos – Kleophanes, Andreas – Charinautes, Hikesios – Asklepiades,
Timostrates
– Poses, Amphikrates – Epistratos
Best preserved: Dositheos – Charias, Demetrios – Agathippos, Niketes – Dionysios, Aristion – Philon, Aropos –
Mnasago, Xenokles – Harmoxenos
Regling's memorandum on the Istanbul coins (see BCH, 1935, pp. 109–115) includes an evaluation of wear for every tetradrachm in his listing.1 For the most part his observations correspond closely with the divisions above; where divergencies exist they are generally the result of the additional material from Athens. In summary of the section of the coinage which is of greatest concern, it is to be noted that Regling considered the best-preserved pieces to be those of Andreas–Charinautes, Amphikrates–Epistratos, Demetrios–Agathippos (almost all I but only one example of the first issue was in the Istanbul lot), Timostratos–Poses (I and TBC), Niketes–Dionysios, Aropos–Mnasago, and Xenokles–Harmoxenos (all TBC).
Kambanis in his general discussion of the Zarova Hoard remarks on the absence of the issues of Nikogenes–Kallimachos, Demeas–Hermokles and Apellikon–Gorgias, all strikings which, according to his sharp division between three-magistrate and two-magistrate issues, would necessarily come ahead of the Xenokles–Harmoxenos coinage represented in the find. The only explanation he offers is that those emissions, coming shortly before the burial date of the hoard, had not had time to reach districts distant from Athens.
Actually no explanation is necessary. The Zarova Hoard is a completely consistent body of material which confirms in most gratifying fashion the new chronological arrangement established by die links and stylistic criteria. The issues of Nikogenes–Kallimachos, Demeas–Hermokles, Apellikon–Gorgias and, I believe, Kointos–Kleas as well are not included in the deposit because they are later than its interment. The strikings which are found in it comprise all issues without exception from 161/0 to 127/6. In that last year the sequence is abruptly broken with coins of months B and Γ, suggesting that the treasure was put away in the same year or very soon thereafter.
1 |
Two hundred and thirty-eight coins which can definitely be associated with the Zarova Hoard are included in the
present corpus and listed below by catalogue numbers. Of the forty-five entries connected with the Asteriades lot, No. 932b
is in the Empedocles Collection, recorded in Kambanis' notebook as having come from the Zarova find; the other Asteriades
coins are in the Athens Cabinet.
According to Kambanis, Regling saw 218 tetradrachms in Istanbul. Actually the listing in the BCH for 1935 totals 217 pieces but this is apparently due to the omission of one example of the Eumelos–Kalliphon striking, of which there are two specimens labelled "Zarova" in the Istanbul trays. My record, made in Istanbul in 1955, totals 193 coins. The additional twenty-five items in Regling's list can be identified with tetradrachms in the Istanbul Cabinet but the tickets with those coins give no indication of a Zarova provenance. The discrepancy is of no great importance since it involves only additional examples of issues already recorded for the hoard (six more for Epigene–Sosandros, seven more for Polemon–Alketes, six more for Mikion–Euryklei, one more for Euryklei–Ariara, four more for Karaich–Ergokle and one more for Theodotos–Kleophanes) but it should be noted that the analysis of the Istanbul section of the hoard is based on the 1955 record. With reference to discrepancies it might also be mentioned in passing that the statistics given for the Asteriades coins in the BCH for 1934 are in several instances incorrect. However, the summary in the BCH article of the following year is in accord with Svoronos' JIAN publication. |
1 |
It is impossible to divide the Asteriades coins between the first and second emissions of Herakleides–Eukles. Of
the three Istanbul pieces, two belong to the first year and one to the second.
|
1 |
It is true that one would expect a preponderance of coinage from late issues in a currency hoard but it must be remembered
that we are
concerned here not with the Athens area but with an outlying district. The appearance
of so many tetradrachms of 158–152 B.c. may simply reflect large-scale movement of Athenian coins to the north
during those years and their continued use over a long period. Later strikings may have travelled to Macedonia in smaller quantity.
|
2 |
He did remark that the coins from the issues of Polemon–Alketes and Karaich–Ergokle were very numerous.
|
2 |
The two Athens coins are comparable to the other pieces in this second category; of the
two at Istanbul, one is in better and one in poorer condition.
|
M. L. Kambanis, BCH, 1934, pp. 101–128; BCH, 1935, pp. 101–107, 118–120
The Halmyros Hoard is one of the largest, if not the largest, of all known finds of New Style tetradrachms. It has been extremely difficult to reconstitute it due to the variety of names under which it has made its way into public and private collections, the number of dealers who marketed its contents, and the span of years over which its dispersion took place.
Kambanis in the BCH for 1934 gives the reported circumstances of its discovery. In 1929, according to the accounts he had heard, two shepherds noticed in the flood-eroded bank of a stream two vases at some distance from each other. One, of bronze, contained gold jewelry and bars; the other, of terra-cotta, held 969 Athenian New Style tetradrachms. It was not until February of 1931 that Kambanis learned of the hoard and endeavored to establish its exact find-spot. This he finally concluded to have been Halmyros, a village not far from the ancient Larissa Cremaste.1
The 969 tetradrachms of the hoard are divided by Kambanis into three lots: 1) 239 pieces sold to jewelers at Lamia, chiefly worn specimens of which many were melted down and some passed unnoticed into commercial channels 2) 640 pieces sold to two dealers 3) 90 pieces sold at Chalcis. By good fortune Kambanis was able to examine and record 730 of the hoard coins, presumably those of Lots 2 and 3, and his detailed report on them is given in the BCH for 1934. Subsequently an additional lot of the Halmyros tetradrachms was confiscated at Lamia and these coins, under the designation "Lamia Hoard," were deposited in the Athens Museum where Kambanis had an opportunity of studying them. In the BCH for 1935 he describes the Athens section of the find and also outlines the composition of the hoard as he was able to determine it from the 828 coins he had seen.2
Kambanis' information on the hoard can be supplemented to some extent. In 1931 a group of 357 tetradrachms was offered to the British Museum by a Greek dealer. This was said to be about half of a hoard found near Levadia, "in the same place as and possibly in conjunction with the find of Hellenistic jewelry." The coins brought to London were examined by Dr. E. S. G. Robinson who took detailed notes on the individual pieces and on relative condition of the issues. Twenty tetradrachms were purchased for the British Museum. This section of the Halmyros Hoard, the 337 coins seen but not purchased by Robinson plus the equivalent amount in the hands of an associate of the Greek dealer, would seem to be Kambanis' Lot 2. It is fairly certain that most, if not all, of the coins that returned from London in 1931 were subsequently seen and catalogued by Kambanis; a number of unusual varieties appear in both his and Robinson's listings.
The acquisitions of Edward T. Newell from the same hoard present a far more complex picture. In the ANS trays there are 189 tetradrachms which can with reasonable assurance be associated with the Halmyros find. A small number, twenty-one coins, are definitely labelled "Halmyros" on Newell's tickets but these represent late accessions, all dating from 1937 and 1938 at which time the circumstances of the hoard were well known. The other tetradrachms were obtained between the years 1929 and 1933 and their tickets carry a variety of identifications:
January 1929 | 34 coins | from an American dealer | "Euboea Hoard" |
August 1930 | 17 coins | from the same dealer | "Euboea Hoard" |
July 1931, January and April 1932 | 87 coins | from the same dealer | "Hoard of 1930" |
June 1932 | 4 coins | from the same dealer | "Chalcis Find" |
October 1933 | 6 coins | from the same dealer | "Hoard" |
March 1933 | 20 coins | from a Greek dealer but not the one of the British Museum negotiations | "Chalcis–Euboea Hoard" |
There can, I believe, be no doubt but that the Hoard of 1930, the Chalcis Find and the Chalcis–Euboea Hoard are all in reality Halmyros. Individual specimens of Newell's accessions from the Hoard of 1930 and the Chalcis Find are represented among Kambanis' casts and those casts are labelled either Levadia or Halmyros. Furthermore, a number of Newell's coins show a distinctive blue-green encrustation. This is present on tetradrachms associated by their tickets with the Halmyros Hoard, the Hoard of 1930 and the Chalcis–Euboea Hoard. As for the other three lots—the six Hoard coins of October 1933 and the fifty-one pieces of Euboea Hoard 1929 and 1930—there is no way of firmly establishing their Halmyros origin. They fit into the hoard series in condition and in surface appearance; they come from the same dealer who supplied Newell with most of his Halmyros acquisitions; their reported provenance is similar to that of other pieces which are definitely Halmyros. It is difficult to believe that a substantial number of hoard coins in commerce at the time the Halmyros Hoard was being dispersed and said to have come from the same general region as that find could belong to a separate deposit, hence I am inclined to ascribe without qualification all 189 of the ANS coins to the Halmyros Hoard.
Of these coins, Kambanis had seen and catalogued some, if not all, of the Hoard of 1930 and Chalcis Find lots. He had probably seen most of the twenty-six coins secured by Newell in 1933. He could not have recorded the earlier lots of 1929 and 1930 which were on the market before he knew about the hoard.
The Athens section of the Halmyros Hoard, as I saw it in 1955, consists of sixty-seven genuine tetradrachms and thirty-four forgeries.1 These latter are crude modern reproductions of ancient coins in the hoard, and, as Kambanis points out, they were clearly intended to supplement the stock of authentic tetradrachms held by an unscrupulous vendor. In the BCH for 1935, Kambanis gives a list of the issues which had been copied; it is now possible in most cases to connect these forgeries with the original coins. The counterfeits are distributed as follows:
2 of ΣΩKPATHΣ – ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | (from No. 622a in the Berry Collection) |
4 of EYMAPEIΔHΣ – AΛKIΔAM | (from No. 674a in the Berry Collection) |
4 of ΔAMΩN – ΣΩΣIKPATHΣ | (from an imitation of the Athenian series, present whereabouts unknown. One of the modern counterfeits, No. 1408, is reproduced on Plate 157) |
4 of ΔΩΣIӨEOΣ – XAPIAΣ | (from No. 859b in the Berry Collection) |
4 of NIKHTHΣ – ΔIONYΣIOΣ | (from No. 932a in the Berry Collection) |
5 of NIKHTHΣ – ΔIONYΣIOΣ | (from No. 1418, an imitation of the Athenian series in the Berry Collection) |
5 of ΔHMEAΣ – EPMOKΛHΣ | (from No. 1056a in the Berry Collection) |
1 of ΔHMEAΣ – EPMOKΛHΣ | (from No. 1058 in the Petsalis Collection) |
1 of ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ with dolphin | (obverse and reverse dies of No. 1064 but whereabouts of exact prototype unknown) |
4 of ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ with dolphin | (from No. 1078a in the Berry Collection) |
It is interesting to note that the forger included two imitations of the Athenian series among the coins he selected for reproduction. The Niketes–Dionysios piece in the Berry Collection is in FDC condition and must be contemporary with the latest of the regular issues represented in the hoard. The Damon–Sosikrates imitation has disappeared but it would seem, to judge from the modern counterfeits of it, to have been more worn and therefore an earlier striking from a non-Athenian mint.
The present catalogue contains 443 entries which can definitely be attributed to the Halmyros Hoard, over half of the total of 828 coins which Kambanis reported having seen. The discrepancy is probably not as great as it appears for many of the missing coins are undoubtedly in the catalogue as specimens of unrecorded provenance in private collections. On page 106 of the BCH for 1935 Kambanis summarizes the coins he had examined. To his totals can be added the twenty pieces purchased by the British Museum in 1931, fifty-two Newell coins which Kambanis had almost certainly not seen,1 and the three imitations at the end of the listing below. The distribution of these 903 tetradrachms by issues is as follows:2
K | N-BM | Total | |||
1. ΓΛAY – EXE | 170/69 | 1 | – | 1 | |
2. HPA – APIΣTOΦ | 168/7 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 339g(N) |
3. MENEΔ – EΠIΓENO | 167/6 | 1 | – | 1 | |
4. TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO | 166/5 | – | 1 | 1 | 364e(N) |
5. ΠOΛYXAPM – NIKOΓ | 165/4 | 3 | – | 3 | |
6. ΔΩPOӨE – ΔIOΦ | 164/3 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 384b(N); 385b(N) |
7. ANTIOXOΣ – NIKOΓ KAPAIXOΣ | 163/2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 396a(N); 399b |
8. ӨEOΦPA – ΣΩTAΣ | 162/1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 406d(N); 408d(N) |
9. ΔIOΓE – ΠOΣEI | 161/0 | 1 | – | 1 | 417i |
10. AXAIOΣ–HΛI | 160/59 | 6 | 1 | 7 | 425a(N); 426m |
11. ΛYΣAN – ΓΛAYKOΣ | 159/8 | 6 | – | 6 | |
12. ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ | 157/6 | – | 5 | 5 | 464g(N); 4651(N); 466k(N); 471b(N); 472b(N) |
13. MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI | 156/5 | – | 4 | 4 | 478e(N); 486b(N); 487h(N), k(N) |
14. AΦPOΔIΣI – AΠOΛH≡I | 155/4 | 4 | – | 4 | 499d(N); 500e(A); 502a |
15. EYPYKΛEI – APIAPA | 154/3 | 14 | 5 | 19 | 510a,b(N2); 515b(N),e(N); 518d(N); 520a(A) |
16. KAPAIX – EPΓOKΛE | 153/2 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 538b(N) |
17. AΦPOΔIΣI – ΔIOΓE | 152/1 | 18 | 4 | 22 | 543e(N); 546f(N),h(N); 547c (2-A1); 548g; 549a(N); 550c(N) |
K | N-BM | Total | |||
18. ΔIONYΣI – ΔIONYΣI | 151/0 | 28 | 5 | 33 | 552(A); 554b(N); 557i(N); 566a(N); 569f(N); 570b(N); 573b; 576a(N) |
19. AMMΩNIOΣ – KAΛΛIAΣ | 150/49 | 30 | 1 | 31 | 580(A); 582b,d; 583b; 584b(N),c(N),d(N),i(N); 585c (A),g(N); 586c(A); 587(A); 588a(N),b(A); 592a(N) |
20. ӨEMIΣTO – ӨEOΠOMΠOΣ | 149/8 | 9 | 7 | 16 | 597a(N),c(N); 598c(N),g(N); 602a(N); 603d(N),f; 604d(N); 605a(N); 606e(N) |
21. ΣΩKPATHΣ – ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | 148/7 | 30 | 3 | 33 | 611(2-N1); 614c; 616b(N); 618b(N); 620b(N); 621j(N); 622a,c(A) |
22. MHTPOΔΩPOΣ – MIΛTIAΔHΣ ΔHMOΣӨEN | 147/6 | 21 | 3 | 24 | 629b; 633c(2-Nl),h; 635a(N), b(N); 637c(N),f(N); 642c |
23. ΔIOTIMOΣ – MAΓAΣ | 146/5 | 10 | 2 | 12 | 649(N); 653b; 656c(N); 658c, d(N),1(A); 661a(N); 663c |
24. EYMAPEIΔHΣ – AΛKIΔAM KΛEOMEN | 145/4 | 23 | – | 23 | 671e(A); 673b,f; 674a; 675a; 677b,e(N); 678b,d; 679a(N), b; 680e(A),f(N); 684a |
25. XAPINAYTHΣ – APIΣTEAΣ | 144/3 | 21 | – | 21 | 688e(2-N1),i(A); 689a(A), d(N),e(A); 690g(N) |
26. ΦANOKΛHΣ – AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ | 143/2 | 22 | 2 | 24 | 698b; 700a; 701a,c(N),f(N); 708a(Nl-A1); 704(L); 705h (N); 706c; 708a |
27. EYBOYΛIΔHΣ–AΓAӨOKΛH ZΩIΛOΣ – EYANΔPOΣ | 142/1 | 21 | – | 21 | 713a(N),c; 709d(N); 714c(N), d(N),g(A); 716c(N),d; 717c (N),d |
28. ΔAMΩN – ΣΩΣIKPATHΣ | 141/0 | 22 | 2 | 24 | 723a(N); 721b,g; 724a(A), b(A),c(2-N1); 725b; 726a, g(N); 727b,c,e(L); 728a; 729c |
29. EYMHΛOΣ – KAΛΛIΦΩN | 140/39 | 23 | 2 | 25 | 731a; 735a(N); 736e(N); 739a(N),e(A); 740g(A1–N1); 741c(N); 742a(A1-N1),b; 743c; 745a(N),b; 746(3-N1,L1) |
30. HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 139/8 137/6 | 34 | 3 | 37 | 745a; 751c(N); 754b; 755a(N); 756c; 757b(N),c(N),d(A); 778a (L); 781c,d(A); 782b; 783b (N); 785a(A); 789d,e(A); 790b; 794c(N); 797a(N2) |
31. ӨEOΔOTOΣ – KΛEOΦANHΣ | 138/7 | 38 | – | 38 | 760a,b(N); 761a(N); 762a(N), d(N); 765d(N); 766a(A),b (2-N1),e(A1–N1); 767a,c; 771f (N); 774a(A),c(N) |
32. ANΔPEAΣ – XAPINAYTHΣ | 136/5 | 18 | – | 18 | 797b; 798; 801a,b(N); 802a, e(N); 803b(2); 804b(N); 805b; 808a; 809a |
33. IKEΣIOΣ – AΣKΛHΠIAΔHΣ | 135/4 | 15 | – | 15 | 812a; 813(N); 809c(A),d(N); 814b; 817d(3-A1); 818c(N), e(N); 820a(A) |
34. TIMOΣTPATOΣ – ΠOΣHΣ | 134/3 | 18 | – | 18 | 823a(N); 825a,f(N); 826b(N); 827a(N); 828b(2-N1),c; 829i (A); 830c,e(A); 832a |
35. AMΦIKPATHΣ – EΠIΣTPATOΣ | 133/2 | 22 | – | 22 | 833a(2); 841c(A); 842a,d(N); 843c(A); 846b(N),c(N); 847; 848a(A); 849a(A); 850c; 851a |
36. ΔΩΣIӨEOΣ – XAPIAΣ | 132/1 | 44 | – | 44 | 847a; 850(A); 851a(A),b(N); 854(N); 856a(N); 857a; 858c (N); 859a,b; 860a; 862(N); 864(A2); 867f(N); 868(N); 870a(A); 873a,b(N) |
37. ΔHMHTPIOΣ – AΓAӨIΠΠOΣ | 131/0 | 63 | 1 | 64 | 880; 883b; 884c; 889a; 891c; 894b(N); 896(N); 898a; 899c, d(N); 900a,b; 901(A); 904a; 905d,e(L); 906c; 907b,e; 908a(A); 909c,d(A); 912a; 913(N); 914; 916a(N); 919c (N); 920b; 921a(2-A1),c,g(N); 922a,b; 923a; 925a,c(N),d |
38. NIKHTHΣ-ΔIONYΣIOΣ | 130/29 | 48 | 1 | 49 | 932a,c; 933a(A); 934a(N), c(N); 935b; 937a(A),e(A); 988a(N); 939a; 940b(N); 941c (N); 944d(A); 951c(N); 955b; 956c(A); 957a; 958a; 959a; 960a(L); 961b |
39. APIΣTIΩN – ΦIΛΩN | 129/8 | 60 | 1 | 61 | 959(3-N1); 961a,b(N),d(N); 964a; 965; 966; 967c(N); 968b (A),c(A); 970a(N),c(N); 975a (N); 976b(N),c,e(N); 977b(N); 979e(A); 981b,c(N),e; 983 (N2); 984a(L),b; 985b(N); 986; 987b(A); 988b |
40. APOΠOΣ – MNAΣAΓO | 128/7 | 55 | 4 | 59 | 990c(N); 992; 993b(N); 995a (A); 996a,b,c(N),d,e(A); 998 (N); 1000d(A); 1005a(N); 1007b(N),c(L); 1009c(N),d(A); 1010a(L),c(2-L1); 1011b (L1-N1); 1012b; 1014a(N) |
41. ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ (serpent) | 127/6 | 1 | – | 1 | 1019(A) |
42. NIKOΓENHΣ – KAΛΛIMAXOΣ | 126/5 | 21 | 2 | 23 | 1033(N); 1035(N); 1041b(N); 1042(N); 1044(A); 1045a(N2-L1),e; 1046a,b; 1047a(N); 1048a(N),b(L) |
43. ΔHMEAΣ – EPMOKΛHΣ | 125/4 | 47 | 6 | 53 | 1050(2); 1051a; 1052a(3-L1, N1); 1053c; 1054; 1055b(N), e(N),f(L); 1056a(2),b(N); 1057b(L1-A1),d(N); 1058; 1060b(2-L1),c(N),d(N); 1061d (A); 1063a(N),b(L1-N1),c(A), d; 1064a,b(N); 1065(N); 1066(L) |
44. ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ (dolphin) | 124/3 | 18 | 1 | 19 | 1066c; 1072a(L),c; 1078a; 1087a(A),c,d(N) |
Imitations | 3 | 1405; 1408; 1418 |
An arrangement of the issues according to relative condition is published by Kambanis on pages 113–114 of the BCH for 1934. His four categories, ranging from most to least worn, may be summarized as follows:
Lot A: Issues 1 through 11 of the listing above1
Lot B: Issues 14 through 24
Lot C: Issues 25 through 36
Lot D: Issues 37 through 44 with the last striking, that of Xenokles – Harmoxenos with dolphin, said to be the best preserved
Kambanis' sequence by wear is in complete accord with the chronological sequence of emissions as determined in the present study assuming that the order of issues within his categories is not intended to reflect comparative condition. Such an assumption seems valid in that the arrangement of his summary is clearly a carry-over from the preceding record of individual coins and that record, as Kambanis notes, follows the order of Svoronos' plates.
My record of the coins in theAthens Museum and in the ANS Collection corresponds almost exactly with Kambanis' evaluation. Both lots of material may be divided into three broad classifications:
Most wear: Issues 1 through 25
Less wear: Issues 26 through 35
Best preserved: Issues 36 through 39 (comparable in condition) followed by Issues 40 through 44 (also comparable in condition)
With regard to theAthens pieces, I had starred the Xenokles–Harmoxenos emission (No. 44) as definitely the best preserved but had noted that there was no great difference in wear within this last grouping.
Robinson's analysis of the coins he had seen is more elaborate in its divisions and some liberties have been taken in merging his classifications of the earlier strikings to bring them in line with the other records:
Group 1 (worn, worn to good): Issues 1 through 24 (except for Issues 14 and 20 which are rated better but on the evidence of one and of two coins)
Group 2 (good, good to fine, fine, fine to very fine): Issues 25 through 35 (except for six coins of Zoilos – Euandros which are rated very fine) and Issue 37
Group 3 (very fine): Issues 36 (in part), 38 and 39
Group 4 (fine to FDC): Issues 36 (in part) and 40
Group 5 (very fine to FDC): Issues 42 and 44
Group 6 (FDC) : Issue 43
The three independent evaluations give substantially the same picture: the latest coins are undoubtedly those of Nikogenes–Kallimachos, Demeas–Hermokles and Xenokles–Harmoxenos with dolphin. These are the same strikings which the evidence of die links and style places at the end of the series of issues represented in the Halmyros Hoard.
As Kambanis points out, the Zarova and Halmyros finds are highly comparable in contents and in date; their correspondence, however, is not as absolute as he indicates. Both deposits include an unbroken sequence of issues from the early years of the three-magistrate period but the Zarova series stops in 127/6 with the striking of Xenokles–Harmoxenos using the serpent symbol. The Halmyros Hoard contains the three issues which immediately follow the serpent emission, hence its burial date would be about 124/3 B.c. Kointos–Kleas and Apellikon–Gorgias, upon whose absence Kambanis comments, are missing from the Halmyros Hoard for the same reason that they are not found in the Zarova Hoard: their emission is subsequent to the interment of the hoard.1
1 |
Classified as usé, II, I/II, I and TBC for très bien conservé.
|
1 |
At first Kambanis associated the find with Levadia. Many of his casts are labelled "Levadia Hoard" but this is
often corrected to Halmyros on the casts themselves or in his notebook.
|
1 |
My record of the Athens coins does not correspond exactly with Kambanis' listing (BCH. 1935, PP. 102–105). Among the genuine pieces, I saw one coin of
Sokrates–Dionysodo (K2), two of Timostratos–Poses (K3) and five of Dositheos–Charias (K4). These discrepancies account for
the difference
in our totals.
Kambanis itemizes thirty-two forgeries in his summary but mentions thirty-four in his text. The latter figure is correct. Five counterfeits of the Xenokles–Harmoxenos issue with dolphin are in the Athens trays. |
1 |
These are the fifty-one pieces of the two Euboea Hoard lots of 1929 and 1930 plus a tetradrachm of
Polemon–Alketes from the Hoard acquired in October of 1933. Kambanis does not include this issue in his
summary.
|
1 |
Not all issues were represented in this earlier group of 730 tetradrachms examined by Kambanis. He has no record
of Issues 4, 12, 13 and 41; furthermore, he omits from his recapitulation the two coins of
Theophra–Sotas which he had seen. Allowance must be made for similar gaps in the material examined by Robinson
and by the author.
|
2 |
It is impossible to reconcile completely Kambanis' figures as given in the two BCH
publications. In his earlier article the recapitulation by issues on pages 113–114 is often at variance with the record on
pages 103–113.
To take only a few examples, the two coins of Theophra–Sotas described in his listing are not included in the summary; only
ten coins of
Zoilos–Euandros appear in the recapitulation while fifteen are described. In the second article the recapitulation on page
106 includes the
730 tetradrachms published in 1934, the 78 Athens coins and 20 other pieces known to
Kambanis by rubbings. The totals by issue differ widely in the summaries of 1934 and 1935; of the two, the
later and more comprehensive record, which tallies fairly well with the detailed listing of coins, would seem to be the more
accurate.
|
2 |
Coins in the ANS Collection, almost all purchased by Edward T. Newell, are
indicated (N); those in the British Museum (L); and those in Athens (A). The remaining
tetradrachms are distributed over various private collections, their association with the Halmyros Hoard
established by Kambanis' casts and records.
The sequence of entries corresponds with the arrangement of the catalogue; occasional aberrations in the numerical order reflect the transfer of obverse dies from one issue to another. |
1. Varoucha, BCH, 1958, pp. 651 f. and Pl. XLIX
Forty-one tetradrachms, the major part of a hoard discovered at Carystus, were acquired by theAthens Museum in 1957. The coins are listed by Mme. Varoucha and partially classified by wear. Ten pieces are illustrated.
1 TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO | 166/5 | worn | |
2 AMMΩNIOΣ – KAΛΛIAΣ | 150/49 | worn, good | 590b |
2 ΣΩKPATHΣ – ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | 148/7 | worn, good | |
2 ӨEOΔOTOΣ – KΛEOΦANHΣ | 138/7 | worn, good | (prob. 771d) |
2 HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 137/6 | worn, — | 778b |
1 IKEΣIOΣ – AΣKΛHΠIAΔHΣ | 135/4 | good | |
1 ΔΩΣIӨEOΣ – XAPIAΣ | 132/1 | good | |
2 ΔHMHTPIOΣ – AΓAӨIΠΠOΣ | 131/0 | very good, — | 917b |
3 NIKHTHΣ – ΔIONYΣIOΣ | 130/29 | — | 942c |
3 APIΣTIΩN – ΦIΛΩN | 129/8 | — | 970c |
3 APOΠOΣ–MNAΣAΓO | 128/7 | good (2), very good | 999a |
1 ΔHMEAΣ – EPMOKΛHΣ | 125/4 | very good | 1051b |
10 ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ (dolphin) | 124/3 | all good or very good | 1091c |
7 ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ (Roma) | 123/2 | all very good or FDC | 1110a |
1 illegible, possible Xenokles – Harmoxenos |
Mme. Varoucha thinks that another ten coins, five in a private collection and the rest dispersed, may belong to the same hoard. The issues represented are: Eumelos–Kalliphon, Theodotos–Kleophanes, Andreas–Charinautes, Niketes–Dionysios, Demeas–Hermokles and Xenokles–Harmoxenos with dolphin. All specimens seen by Mme. Varoucha are described as in good or very good condition.
This deposit is of great importance. Nearly half of the coins in it are of the two Xenokles strikings, one with dolphin symbol and the other with seated Roma. Evidence of proportionate representation and of relative wear establishes these as the latest emissions in the hoard and condition further indicates that the Roma striking follows that of the dolphin.
Interesting parallels with the large hoard from Halmyros are to be found. The late issues (Dositheos–Charias through Aropos–Mnasago and Demeas–Hermokles) which are heavily represented in the Halmyros Hoard are also present in the Carystus one; the strikings of Xenokles with serpent and Nikogenes–Kallimachos which are less abundant at Halmyros are lacking at Carystus. The composition of the two hoards is highly comparable down to 124/3, the date of the Xenokles with dolphin emission. In the Carystus Hoard one additional issue, that of Xenokles with Roma, appears in quantity and its presence strongly substantiates the chronological sequence which places the two strikings in contiguous years.
1 |
The only real lacuna in the Halmyros deposit involves the coinage of Epigene–Sosandros, a large issue heavily
represented in the Zarova find. It may be, of course, that some of the worn tetradrachms melted down in Lamia
belonged to this issue.
It is more difficult to understand the scanty representation of the coinage of Xenokles–Harmoxenos with serpent. Only one coin of this emission can be associated with the hoard although the striking comes well before the burial date and the issue is not an unduly light one. |
(Plates 176–179)
This unpublished hoard is in the Royal Ontario Museum at Toronto. No record exists of the date and circumstances of accession and nothing is known of the provenance of the coins. All forty-eight tetradrachms of the find are reproduced on the plates with the numbers of the catalogue entries. The composition of the hoard is as follows:
1 Monograms and cicada | 185/4 |
1 AXAIOΣ – HΛI | 160/59 |
6 ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ | 157/6 |
9 MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI | 156/5 |
1 EYPYKΛEI – APIAPA | 154/3 |
7 KAPAIX – EPΓOKΛE | 153/2 |
2 ΔIONYΣI – ΔIONYΣI | 151/0 |
2 AMMΩNIOΣ–KAΛΛIAΣ | 150/49 |
2 ΣΩKPATHΣ – ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | 148/7 |
2 MHTPOΔΩPOΣ – ΔMHOΣӨEN | 147/6 |
1 ΔIOTIMOΣ – MAΓAΣ | 146/5 |
6 XAPINAYTHΣ – APIΣΓEAΣ | 144/3 |
1 ΦANOKΛHΣ – AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ | 143/2 |
2 ΔAMΩN–ΣΩΣIKPATHΣ | 141/0 |
2 HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 137/6 |
2 ANΔPEAΣ – XAPINAYTHΣ | 136/5 |
1 AΠEΛΛIKΩN – ΓOPΓIAΣ | 121/0 |
It is highly unlikely that the forty-eight coins in Toronto constitute a complete hoard. Certainly one finds it hard to believe that in either a savings or a currency deposit there would be the fourteen-year gap between Andreas–Charinautes at the end of a long and fairly close chronological sequence and Apellikon–Gorgias. The single tetradrachm of Apellikon may, of course, be an intrusion but one must then explain the degree of wear shown by the coins of Herakleides–Eukles and Andreas–Charinautes which would close the deposit.
The Ontario lot seems rather to be a section of a larger hoard. In the absence of information as to its provenance and the date of its acquisition, speculation is perhaps useless. Carystus Hoard I, which was dispersed at the end of the last century, covers a similar period of time from monogram emissions through Apellikon–Gorgias but many of the issues at Toronto are not mentioned in the fragmentary accounts of the Carystus find. All that one can do for the time being is to place the material on record in the hope that additional information may some day be available.
A. N. Meletopoulos, Parnassos, 1883, pp. 774–776 U. Köhler, ZfN, 1885, pp. 103–106
From the two publications it is possible to reconstitute the hoard in general terms: some seventy New Style tetradrachms with monograms and names of magistrates, twenty to thirty Carystus drachms with magistrates' names, two or three Athenian drachms, three tetradrachms with AӨE O ΔEMOΣ. Of individual New Style issues the following are known to have been in the find, but there is no record of the number of coins of any one striking:
Monograms and pilei | 186/5 |
AΔEI – HΛIO | 179/8 |
XAPI – HPA | 178/7 |
Monograms and eagle | 173/2 |
Monograms and aplustre | 172/1 |
KTHΣI – EYMA | 171/0 |
AΦPOΔIΣI – ΔIOΓE | 152/1 |
ӨEMIΣTO – ӨEOΠOMΠOΣ | 149/8 |
ΔIOTIMOΣ – MAΓAΣ | 146/5 |
ΦANOKΛHΣ – AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ | 143/2 |
ZΩIΛOΣ – EYANΔPOΣ | 142/1 |
EYMHΛOΣ – KAΛΛIΦΩN | 140/39 |
HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 139/8 or 137/6 |
ӨEOΔOTOΣ – KΛEOΦANHΣ | 138/7 |
IKEΣIOΣ – AΣKΛHΠIAΔHΣ | 135/4 |
ΔHMHTPIOΣ – AΓAӨIΠΠOΣ | 131/0 |
NIKHTHΣ – ΔIONYΣIOΣ | 130/29 |
APIΣTIΩN – ΦIΛΩN | 129/8 |
≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ (serpent) | 127/6 |
≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ (dolphin) | 124/8 |
≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ (Roma) | 123/2 |
AΠEΛΛIKΩN – ΓOPΓIAΣ | 121/0 |
Köhler states specifically that the issues of Kointos–Kleas and Mithradates–Aristion are not included and remarks that all coins of the three series of Xenokles–Harmoxenos are in good condition. Since the hoard was dispersed long ago, there is little prospect of obtaining any more information on it and the fragmentary nature of the present record makes it almost valueless as evidence. The most interesting feature of the deposit is the appearance in it of three examples of the rare O ΔEMOΣ emission.
(Plate 180)
W. Schwabacher, "A Find from the Piraeus," NC, 1939, pp. 162–166
Schwabacher's account gives a listing of the coins, arranged in order of wear, but illustrates none of the Athenian pieces and only one of the Mithradatic tetradrachms. Through the courtesy of G. K. Jenkins I have been able to reproduce the contents of the hoard from the casts on deposit at the British Museum.1 Component issues are:
1 EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣANΔPOΣ | 158/7 |
1 ΣΩKPATHΣ – ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | 148/7 |
1 EYMAPEIΔHΣ – KΛEOMEN | 145/4 |
1 ΘEOΔOTOΣ – KΛEOΦANHΣ | 138/7 |
1 APIΣTIΩN – ΦIΛΩN | 129/8 |
1 ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ (serpent) | 127/6 |
1 ΔHMEAΣ – EPMOKΛHΣ | 125/4 |
1 ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ (dolphin) | 124/3 |
2 ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ (Roma) | 123/2 |
2 AΠEΛΛIKΩN – ΓOPΓIAΣ | 121/0 |
In addition to the New Style coins there are two tetradrachms of Mithradates Eupator, both with the era date A but with different month dates: A and Δ.1
A considerable period of time separates the earliest and latest coins of the hoard and there is a corresponding variation in their condition. The first four issues are well worn; those from Aristion–Philon on are better preserved. Coins of the Xenokles–Harmoxenos emissions with dolphin and Roma and those of Apellikon–Gorgias show the least wear of the Athenian sequence,2 and the inclusion of two specimens each of the Xenokles (Roma) and Apellikon strikings is additional indication that they are the latest of the tetradrachms ofAthens. The two Mithradatic pieces are, as Schwabacher points out, in mint condition, distinctly better preserved than any of the Athenian coins.
1 |
In Schwabacher's publication a coin of ΔHMH – IEPΩ is reported to have been included in the hoard. The casts of the British
Museum provide
no record of this tetradrachm.
|
(Plates 181–184)
An unpublished deposit discovered in the Abruzzi in 1954 or somewhat earlier. Its original composition, like that of so many other hoards, cannot be accurately ascertained due to rapid dispersal through several dealers. One report stated that two finds had been made in this region during 1954 but this seems most unlikely in view of significant duplication in the records of the two lots of coins. Rather one imagines that the deposit was divided and that a substantial part of it reached different commercial channels. The balance was confiscated by the authorities. Twenty-eight Athenian tetradrachms were secured by the American Numismatic Society from a dealer who said that he had also had from the same hoard about two hundred Roman Republican denarii of the time of Sulla. These Roman coins cannot be traced or more precisely identified. A second section of the hoard came into the hands of another dealer who most kindly made available rubbings of his material. There is no definite information concerning the expropriated pieces.
All of the ANS coins and most of those in the hands of the second dealer are reproduced on Plates 181–184.1 The hoard contains the following:
Athens:
Others:
1 Ariarathes V of Cappadocia (B in exergue) | 163–130 | A on Plate 184 |
1 Nicomedes III of Bithynia (dated ΓqP) | 105/4 | B |
2 Byzantium issues with Lysimachus types | late 2nd–early 1st | C–D |
4 Mithradates VI of Pontus (all dated HΣ and month Ө) | 90/89 | E |
200 ± Roman Republican denarii | "time of Sulla" |
There is considerable variation in condition among the hoard coins. Of the Athenian issues, those from Aphrodisi–Dioge through Demetrios–Agathippos show the greatest wear. The strikings of Niketes–Dionysios and Aropos–Mnasago are fair to good, those of Nikogenes–Kallimachos and Xenokles–Harmoxenos are fine, those of Kointos–Kleas and Apellikon–Gorgias are very fine to FDC. Comparable with these last in their excellent state of preservation are the tetradrachms with and the non-Athenian issues of Mithradates and Byzantium.
Of all the hoards containing New Style silver, the Abruzzi find is perhaps the most significant. It is, I believe, the first deposit of New Style coins to be uncovered in Italy and the presence in it of so many of the tetradrachms without ethnic associated with dated issues from outsideAthens enables us to draw from it several important conclusions. The quantity and condition of the coins without ethnic clearly indicate that they are among the latest pieces in the hoard. Their association with Republican denarii, of which some at least may be assumed to date c. 86 B.c., and their extensive representation in a hoard found in Italy are most reasonably explained in connection with Sulla's Mithradatic campaign. It would seem to me that we have in the Abruzzi Hoard the wealth brought back by a veteran of the Greek war who settled down in the Abruzzi and prudently conserved the emolument or spoils of his military service.
The composition of the hoard is revealing. Tetradrachms of Mithradates, dated 90/89 B.c., and the other contemporary or earlier money of neighboring regions with which the Pontic king had close connections must surely bear witness to financial aid from Mithradates toAthens. It seems highly likely that Aristion and Archelaus when they were sent to Greece in 88 B.c. took with them substantial help for the threatened city and that it was coinage such as this, and not the scanty New Style gold and silver hitherto attributed to 86 B.c., which represented Mithradates' contribution toAthens' struggle against Rome.
One can only surmise the circumstances of the accumulation of the hoard. The tetradrachms without ethnic are, I believe, Sullan issues struck atAthens for military needs. Denarii of Roman origin were probably imported for the same purpose. Furthermore, the capitulation and sack ofAthens must have brought into Roman hands large quantities of New Style coinage as well as other money circulating in the city. Our soldier may have been paid in part in such currency or he may have helped himself to what he could find in the stricken community. The excellent state of preservation of the New Style silver of 122/1 and 121/0 suggests that the regular Athenian issues formed a small hoard which the soldier had come upon and pocketed.
1 |
The gold and silver of Mithradates VI falls into three general categories (Waddington, Recueil, pp. 12–19): issues
without dates, issues with years of the Bithynian–Pontic era and issues with years A–Δ of another era. Some of these last
bear a monogram
which is identical with that of Pergamum on the cistophoric coinage and it has been thought that the coins were struck at
that mint between
88 and 85 B.c. while Mithradates used the city as his headquarters.
It is noteworthy that both the Piraeus and Dipylon Hoards contain tetradrachms of this last type, all of the first year (A) and all with month dates. Schwabacher in the Chronicle article cited above divides the A – Δ era coinage into two emissions (year A with month dates and years A – Δ without month dates) and suggests that the former may have been put out atAthens and the latter at Pergamum. It is distinctly possible, however, that the presence or absence of month dates is not an indication of separate mints but simply reflects an initial adoption of the Pontic system of dating by months and a subsequent abandonment of the practice by one and the same workshop. That any of the coins were struck atAthens seems to me doubtful. When Mithradates dispatched Archelaus and Aristion to Greece in the autumn of 88 B.c. it is highly likely that he provided them with funds to strengthen the pro-Mithradatic faction inAthens and to build up the resources of the city against the inevitable clash with Rome. Some of this money, including the tetradrachms of the Piraeus and Dipylon Hoards, may well have come from the mint of Pergamum. |
1 |
A coin of Demetrios–Agathippos and one of Niketes–Dionysios were listed by the dealer but for some reason not included among
the rubbings.
Three other tetradrachms of Mithradates, in the hands of the same dealer, were described as being from the same obverse die
as the specimen
on Plate 184 and also of the same date (year HΣ and month Ө).
|
2 |
The present evaluation of wear does not tally with that given by Schwabacher but it is, I think, borne out by the illustrations
on Plate 180.
|
S. A. Kumanudes, Athenaion, 1874, p. 691
R. Weil, Arch. Zeit., 1876, pp. 163–166
A. von Sallet, ZfN, 1877, pp. 227f.
R. Weil, AM, 1881, pp. 324–337
According to the references cited, this hoard was discovered in 1875. Full details of its contents are given by Weil in his earlier article and there is also in the files of the American Numismatic Society a detailed memorandum on the component issues prepared by Kambanis in 1936. The two records do not tally exactly and a further complication is introduced by von Sallet's brief report in the Zeitschrift where he says that Weil's listing includes all the specimens in the Athens Museum but that there were other coins in the hoard as he (von Sallet) knows for certain.
The summary which follows is based on Weil's compilation with notation of divergent information in Kambanis' report:
1 tetr. AMMΩ – ΔIO (cornucopiae) | 180/79 | (K. has 2 tetr.) |
1 tetr. Monograms and eagle | 173/2 | |
4 tetr. Monograms and aplustre | 172/1 | (K. has 1 tetr. with monograms and aplustre, 3 tetr. with monograms and trophy, 1 tetr. and 2 dr. with monograms and thyrsos)1 |
1 tetr. KTHΣI – EYMA | 171/0 | |
1 dr. ΓΛAY – EXE | 170/69 | |
1 tetr. MIKI – ӨEOΦPA | 169/8 | |
1 dr. MIKI – ӨEOΦPA | ||
1 dr. HPA – APIΣTOΦ | 168/7 | |
2 dr. MENEΔ – EΠIΓENO | 167/6 | |
1 tetr. TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO | 166/5 | |
1 dr. TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO | ||
1 dr. ΔΩPOӨE – ΔIOΦ | 164/3 | |
1 tetr. AXAIOΣ – HΛI | 160/59 | |
1 dr. AΦPOΔIΣI – AΠOΛH≡I | 155/4 | |
4 tetr. EYPYKΛEI – APIAPA | 154/3 | |
1 tetr. ΔIONYΣI – ΔIONYΣI | 151/0 | |
1 dr. ΣΩKPATHΣ – ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | 148/7 | (K. has 1 tetr.) |
1 tetr. XAPINAYTHΣ – APIΣTEAΣ | 144/3 |
1 tetr. ΦANOKΛHΣ – AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ | 143/2 | |
1 dr. ΔAMΩN – ΣΩΣIKPATHΣ | 141/0 | |
1 dr. EYMHΛOΣ – KAΛΛIΦΩN | 140/39 | |
1 tetr. HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 139/8 or 137/6 | |
1 dr. HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | ||
1 tetr. TIMOΣTPATOΣ – ΠOΣHΣ | 134/3 | |
1 tetr. ΔΩΣIӨEOΣ – XAPIAΣ | 132/1 | |
1 tetr. ΔHMHTPIOΣ – AΓAӨIΠΠOΣ | 131/0 | (K. record—Weil has none) |
1 tetr. NIKHTHΣ – ΔIONYΣIOΣ | 130/29 | |
3 tetr. APIΣTIΩN – ΦIΛΩN | 129/8 | |
2 tetr. APOΠOΣ – MNAΣAΓO | 128/7 | |
1 tetr. ΔHMEAΣ – EPMOKΛHΣ | 125/4 | |
2 tetr. ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ (dolphin) | 124/3 | |
1 dr. KOINTOΣ – KΛEAΣ | 122/1 | |
2 tetr. AΠEΛΛIKΩN – ΓOPΓIAΣ | 121/0 | (K. has 1 tetr.) |
4 dr. AΠEΛΛIKΩN – ΓOPΓIAΣ | (K. has 3 dr.) | |
1 tetr. BAΣIΛE MIӨPAΔATHΣ – APIΣTIΩN | c. 121 | |
3 dr. BAΣIΛE MIӨPAΔATHΣ – APIΣTIΩN | ||
2 dr. Illegible | (K. not) |
In addition to the thirty-two tetradrachms and twenty-two drachms of the New Style series, as recorded by Weil, the hoard contained four tetradrachms of Mithradates Eupator: all with A for the year and B, Γ and Δ for the months.
Weil notes that the coins of Ammo–Dio and Glau–Eche are very worn and that the latest pieces, "durch ihre theilweise fast stempelfrische Erhaltung," belong to the issues of Euryklei–Ariara, Aristion–Philon, Apellikon–Gorgias and Mithradates–Aristion. Kambanis' memorandum on the hoard gives his estimates of relative wear in four categories: very good, good, mediocre and very mediocre. Ammo–Dio, Ktesi–Euma and Damon–Sosikrates are described as very mediocre; all the rest as good except for the following which are classified as very good: Demetrios–Agathippos, Niketes–Dionysios, Aristion–Philon (2 of 3), Aropos–Mnasago (1 of 2), Demeas–Hermokles, Kointos–Kleas, Apellikon–Gorgias and Mithradates–Aristion.
Having Kambanis' record of condition throws some light on what has long been a puzzling feature in Weil's publication, namely his inclusion of the relatively early emission of Euryklei–Ariara among the best-preserved issues. If one accepts Kambanis' evaluations, according to which coins as early as Miki–Theophra and as late as Xenokles–Harmoxenos are alike in good condition, it becomes clear that the Dipylon treasure is a savings hoard accu- mulated over a long period of time and not a currency hoard representing pieces withdrawn at one time from circulation. In a deposit of this kind "stempelfrisch" is not necessarily indicative of a late dating.
Similarly the interval between the latest New Style coinage, struck about 120 B.c. and the Mithradatic tetradrachms, associated with the crisis of 87/6 B.c. (see pp. 504, 506), need not be over-emphasized. The owner of the treasure may have been unable for personal reasons to put aside silver after 120. Perhaps his additions after that date consisted of earlier tetradrachms still in circulation.1 From the evidence of surviving specimens and number of obverse and reverse dies, it seems clear that the coinage of Apellikon–Gorgias was one of the last really large issues of New Style silver. The extensive emissions of the preceding decade must have formed the bulk of the city's coinage for a considerable time, perhaps even down to the time of Sulla. What new money was issued may well have been earmarked for export. Only in the period immediately preceding Sulla's arrival was there a substantial supplement to the civic currency in the form of the Mithradatic tetradrachms, of which a few found their way into the Dipylon Hoard shortly before it was interred during the siege of Athens.
1 |
It seems most unlikely that there were two drachms of the thyrsos issue in the hoard. Although it has not been possible to
identify
individual catalogue entries as Dipylon pieces, the coins are in the Athens Museum and
there is no thyrsos drachm in the trays. The only example I know of this fractional emission is the coin of the Attic Hoard.
|
Sixty-seven New Style tetradrachms found in Anatolia in 1955 or early 1956 were acquired by the American Numismatic Society. There is some reason to believe that the coins were unearthed in the neighborhood of Kayseri (anc. Caesarea) in central Turkey. Five or more pieces had been sold before the hoard was offered in the United States and of these no record exists. The composition of the lot in New York City is as follows:
1 AXAIOΣ – HΛI | 160/59 |
1 AΦPOΔIΣI – AΠOΛH≡I | 155/4 |
3 ΔIONYΣI – ΔIONYΣI | 151/0 |
3 AMMΩNIOΣ – KAΛΛIAΣ | 150/49 |
1 ӨEMIΣTO – ӨEOΠOMΠOΣ | 149/8 |
2 MHTPOΔΩPOΣ – ΔHMOΣӨEN | 147/6 |
3 ΔIOTIMOΣ – MAΓAΣ | 146/5 |
5 XAPINAYTHΣ – APIΣTEAΣ | 144/3 |
1 ZΩIΛOΣ – EYANΔPOΣ | 142/1 |
1 ΔAMΩN – ΣΩΣIKPATHΣ1 | 141/0 |
5 HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ2 | 137/6 |
2 ANΔPEAΣ – XAPINAYTHΣ | 136/5 |
4 ΔΩΣIӨEOΣ – XAPIAΣ | 132/1 |
6 ΔHMHTPIOΣ – AΓAӨIΠΠOΣ | 131/0 |
2 NIKHTHΣ – ΔIONYΣIOΣ | 130/29 |
3 APIΣTIΩN – ΦIΛΩN | 129/8 |
2 APOΠOΣ – MNAΣAΓO | 128/7 |
11 ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ (serpent) | 127/6 |
3 ΔHMEAΣ – EPMOKΛHΣ | 125/4 |
2 ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ (dolphin) | 124/3 |
2 ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ (Roma) | 123/2 |
1 KOINTOΣ – KΛEAΣ | 122/1 |
1 AΠEΛΛIKΩN – ΓOPΓIAΣ | 121/0 |
1 MNAΣEAΣ – NEΣTΩP | 120/19 |
1 Imitation ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ (Roma) | PL. 159, 1420 |
After the Athenian coins had been purchased, the dealer informed us that his contact abroad had forwarded twenty Cappadocian drachms said to have been found with the New Style tetradrachms. These coins were bought by the Society and are illustrated on Plate 190. They include:
7 Ariarathes IV (A–G)3 | 220–163 B.c. |
1 Ariarathes V (H) | 163–130 |
3 Ariarathes VII (I–K) | 111–99 |
8 Ariarathes IX (L–S) | 99–87 |
1 Ariobarzanes I (T) | 95–62 |
It is far from certain that the two lots belong together. Early reports on the find of tetradrachms made no mention of other material. Furthermore, the variation in wear of the Athenian coins suggests a currency deposit while that of the drachms would seem explicable only if they were put aside at different times. For example, the condition of the one fraction of Ariobarzanes is more worn than that of Ariarathes V, struck almost a century earlier. One would expect, too, to find in a currency hoard rather less representation for Ariarathes IV and at least some coins of Ariarathes VI. It is possible that two separate hoards were brought together in ancient or modern times. The matter is of little importance for our study of the New Style material, which can be treated as a unit.
Of the Athenian coins, the early strikings through Herakleides–Eukles show considerable wear while succeeding issues are better preserved. The chronological arrangement of the coinage of this period seems amply confirmed by the evidence of relative condition: the three coins struck under Kointos–Kleas, Apellikon–Gorgias and Mnaseas–Nestor are the finest of the group and those of Demeas–Hermokles and the three Xenokles–Harmoxenos strikings only a little more worn.
All emissions between 132/1 and 120/19 are represented except for Niko-genes–Kallimachos and the light coinage of Mithradates–Aristion. The heavy proportion of Xenokles with serpent symbol, not an unduly large issue, must be the result of special circumstances. Accumulation of the Athenian coins seems to have come to an end soon after 119 B.c.
1 |
It is to be noted that there are late coins (1 of Aristion–Philon, 1 of Aropos–Mnasago, 2 of Xenokles–Harmoxenos) which Kambanis
describes as good rather than very good. There are a number of late issues which Weil omits
from his "fast stempelfrisch" category and his comment on those he does include indicates that not every coin of each issue
is in almost
mint condition. Tetradrachms struck between 130 and 120 B.c. could have been added to the Dipylon Hoard after
some years of circulation.
|
1 |
No. 726g of the catalogue but not reproduced on the plate due to its badly corroded condition.
|
2 |
Four of the coins are illustrated, the fifth is very poorly preserved. Its dies are illegible and it may, therefore, belong
to either Year
I or Year II.
|
3 |
These drachms of Ariarathes IV include none of the issues recently reattributed to Ariarathes
V by B. Simonetta ("Sull' attribuzione delle dramme di Ariarathes IV e di Ariarathes V," Riv. Num., 1958, pp. 11–20).
|
In 1942 during the German occupation of Crete a pot containing nearly one hundred tetradrachms was uncovered near Chersonesus. Twenty-three coins were deposited in the Herakleion Museum; the remainder passed into trade and of these the American Numismatic Society secured seventy pieces. Roughly two-thirds of the find consists of New Style tetradrachms, sixty-three in all:
1 Monograms and herm | 183/2 |
1 AMMΩ – ΔIO (cornucopiae) | 180/79 |
1 Monograms and thyrsos | 176/5 |
2 ΔIOΦA – ΔIOΔO | 175/4 |
2 ΔHMH – IEPΩ | 174/3 |
1 Monograms and aplustre | 172/1 |
2 KTHΣI – EYMA | 171/0 |
1 ΓΛAY – EXE | 170/69 |
2 MIKI – ӨEOΦPA | 169/8 |
1 HPA – APIΣTOΦ | 168/7 |
1 MENEΔ – EΠIΓENO | 167/6 |
1 ӨEOΦPA – ΣΩTAΣ | 162/1 |
4 AXAIOΣ – HΛI | 160/59 |
2 ΛYΣAN – ΓΛAYKOΣ | 159/8 |
1 MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI | 156/5 |
1 ΣΩKPATHΣ – ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | 148/7 |
3 ΔIOTIMOΣ – MAΓAΣ | 146/5 |
1 EYMAPEIΔHΣ – KΛEOMEN | 145/4 |
2 XAPINAYTHΣ – APIΣTEAΣ | 144/3 |
1 ΦANOKΛHΣ – AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ | 143/2 |
1 ZΩIΛOΣ – EYANΔPOΣ | 142/1 |
1 ΔAMΩN – ΣΩΣIKPATHΣ | 141/0 |
1 EYMHΛOΣ – KAΛΛIΦΩN | 140/39 |
1 ӨEOΔOTOΣ – KΛEOΦANHΣ | 138/7 |
1 HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 137/6 |
1 ANΔPEAΣ – XAPINAYTHΣ | 136/5 |
2 AMΦIKPATHΣ – EΠIΣTPATOΣ | 133/2 |
2 ΔΩΣIӨEOΣ – XAPIAΣ | 132/1 |
2 ΔHMHTPIOΣ – AΓAӨIΠΠOΣ | 131/0 |
4 NIKHTHΣ – ΔIONYΣIOΣ | 130/29 |
1 APIΣTIΩN – ΦIΛΩN | 129/8 |
2 APOΠOΣ – MNAΣAΓO | 128/7 |
5 ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ (serpent) | 127/6 |
2 ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ (dolphin) | 124/3 |
1 KOINTOΣ – KΛEAΣ | 122/1 |
1 MNAΣEAΣ – NEΣTΩP | 120/19 |
2 MENTΩP – MOΣXIΩN | 118/7 |
1 APXITIMOΣ – ΔHMHTPI | 117/6 |
1 imitation of MIKI – ӨEOΦPA |
Issues of Cretan and other mints make up the balance of the hoard. Among the coins are three dated pieces: two of Nicomedes IV, years 92/1 (A on Plate 196) and 90/89, and one of Mithradates Eupator, year 76/5 B.c.
The Chersonesus Hoard will be published by Georges Le Rider, who has most generously made his information on various sections of the find available to me, and in view of his forthcoming work only the New Style material will be discussed here. These sixty-three coins of Athens cover about as many years of minting activity, from 183/2 to 117/6 B.c., and the condition of most bears witness to a long period of circulation. All issues through Andreas–Charinautes are distinctly worn. From Amphikrates–Epistratos on, the tetradrachms are definitely better preserved and the degree of wear seems to correlate closely with the chronological sequence of emission, at least for strikings represented by several coins. Le Rider describes the coin of Kointos–Kleas and one of Mentor–Moschion as the freshest of the Herakleion lot but says that even these are not very fine. From the plates one can see that their condition is inferior to that of the single Architimos–Demetri piece which is clearly the best-preserved New Style coin in the hoard as a whole.
The three dated coins, of which the two ANS specimens are illustrated on Plate 196, are extremely fine, particularly the Mithradates striking. However, the difference in condition between these non-Athenian issues and the latest of the New Style coins is not great enough to justify the assumption that all were withdrawn from circulation at the same time. By 75 B.c. the Architimos piece would have been in use for forty-two years and the relatively good Xenokles–Harmoxenos coins for fifty or more. Such longevity cannot be reconciled with their state of preservation. One must, I think, assume that the New Style tetradrachms were put aside at an earlier date.
There is another factor which suggests that special circumstances were involved in the composition of this Cretan hoard. While it is true that the Athenian coinage is beginning to decline in quantity by 117/6, there are five issues of some size immediately following that of Architimos–Demetri, of which three appear in Cretan Hoard I and in the Hierapytna Hoard. The absence of all five issues from the Chersonesus Hoard raises the possibility that there was an uneven distribution of Athenian money throughout Crete during the last decades of the New Style period.
According to the tickets in the Athens trays, the fifty-two tetradrachms listed below comprise a hoard found on Delos during the excavations of 1911–1912.
1 AΦPOΔIΣI – ΔIOΓE | 152/1 | 548b |
1 EYMAPEIΔHΣ – KΛEOMEN | 145/4 | 679d |
1 EYBOYΛIΔHΣ – AΓAӨOKΛH | 142/1 | 714a |
1 ӨEOΔOTOΣ – KΛEOΦANHΣ | 138/7 | 761b |
2 HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 137/6 | 782d; second obverse die illegible |
1 ANΔPEAΣ – XAPINAYTHΣ | 136/5 | 802h |
2 IKEΣIOΣ – AΣKΛHΠIAΔHΣ | 135/4 | 809a; 817b |
2 AMΦIKPATHΣ – EΠIΣTPATOΣ | 133/2 | 833a; 843d |
3 ΔΩΣIӨEOΣ – XAPIAΣ | 132/1 | 857g; 861a; 867a |
2 ΔHMHTPIOΣ – AΓAӨIΠΠOΣ | 131/0 | 903a; 908b |
1 ΔHMEAΣ – EPMOKΛHΣ | 125/4 | 1061d |
5 ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ (dolphin) | 124/3 | 1075b; 1081b; 1085; 1090e; 1094b |
1 ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ (Roma) | 123/2 | 1114f |
1 KOINTOΣ – KΛEAΣ | 122/1 | 1126 |
1 AΠEΛΛIKΩN – ΓOPΓIAΣ | 121/0 | 1138b |
3 KΛEOΦANHΣ – EΠIӨETHΣ | 119/8 | 1158; 1160a; 1163b |
2 MENTΩP – MOΣXIΩN | 118/7 | 1167d; 1168 |
2 APXITIMOΣ – ΔHMHTPI | 117/6 | 1175a; 1169b |
1 ΛYΣANΔPOΣ – OINOΦIΛOΣ | 116/5 | 1183a |
4 AMΦIAΣ – OINOΦIΛOΣ | 115/4 | 1188b; 1189a(2); 1192a |
6 NEΣTΩP – MNAΣEAΣ | 113/2 | 1205; 1210; 1212c; 1216; 1220a; 1221c |
9 ΣΩTAΔHΣ – ӨEMIΣTOKΛHΣ | 112/1 | 1222b; 1224d(2); 1225a; 1226b,d(3),e |
As can readily be seen from the plates, the issues through Demetrios–Agathippos show the greatest wear. Coins of Xenokles, Kointos, Apellikon, Kleophanes and Mentor are in good condition; those of Architimos, Amphias, Nestor and Sotades are the best-preserved tetradrachms in the hoard. Over one-third of the find consists of the emissions of Amphias–Oinophilos, Nestor–Mnaseas and Sotades–Themistokles (with a number of coins from the same pair of dies) and this, taken in conjunction with their excellent state of preservation, indicates that they are the latest of the hoard issues. Clearly they had not circulated for many years before the deposit was interred.
1 |
The date of discovery is 1911–1912 and not 1910 as given in Noe.
|
J. N. Svoronos, JIAN, 1906, pp. 254f.
According to Svoronos' publication the hoard consists of thirteen tetradrachms and twenty-two drachms from the following issues:
This would seem to be a currency hoard. Nearly half of the fractions and all but one of the tetradrachms belong to the period 136–111 B.c., with the two Sullan drachms representing later additions.
The over-all chronological sequence is confirmed by evidence of relative wear. Early strikings through the drachms of Diotimos are very worn (note the tetradrachm of Ammonios illustrated on Plate 200). Succeeding issues through Niketes also show a fair degree of wear. The coins of Aropos, Demeas, Xenokles and Kleophanes are in good condition. Those of Amphias and Nestor are very fine while the one tetradrachm of Sotades is FDC.
J. N. Svoronos, Riv. Num., 1908, p. 316
Svoronos' brief statement on the hoard, upon which the information in Noe's Bibliography is based, is corrected by E. J. P. Raven in a letter of 1938. He had taken notes on the New Style coins in the Herakleion Museum and according to his record the hoard consists of only thirteen coins. In giving the total of twenty tetradrachms, Svoronos had apparently combined this hoard group with seven other New Style pieces, possibly a second hoard according to Raven.
The Cretan deposit under discussion contains the following:1
1 XAPINAYTHΣ – APIΣTEAΣ | 144/3 | 695a |
2 HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 137/6 | 778b; 789b |
1 ΔHMEAΣ – EPMOKΛHΣ | 125/4 | 1052b |
1 EYMHΛOΣ – ӨEO≡ENIΔHΣ | 114/3 | 1203 |
1 ӨEOΦPAΣTOΣ – ӨEMIΣTO | 109/8 | 1230 |
1 ΔHMEAΣ – KAΛΛIKPATIΔHΣ | 107/6 | 1233a |
1 EΠIΓENHΣ – ≡ENΩN | 104/3 | 1238b |
1 MENEΔHMOΣ – TIMOKPATHΣ | 103/2 | 1241b |
2 APXITIMOΣ – ΠAMMENHΣ | 96/5 | 1255c; 1257a |
1 AΠEΛΛIKΩN – APIΣTOTEΛHΣ | 94/3 | 1263b |
1 ΦIΛOKPATHΣ – KAΛΛIΦΩN | 92/1 | 1266a |
Corrosion has impaired the surfaces of all coins, making it difficult to determine relative wear with any degree of precision. The first three issues listed above are distinctly worn; the last eight strikings are much fresher. There is, however, not a great deal of difference in preservation among these later coins, certainly not enough to indicate an exact chronological sequence.
The hoard is of importance in providing the only specimen of the issue of Theophrastos–Themisto and also highly significant in its association of late issues, helping to establish the terminal date for the New Style coinage (see pages 413–415). It is worth noting that only in this hoard and in another Cretan deposit, that of Hierapytna, do Athenian strikings of the first century make their appearance.
1 |
It is possible that one or both examples of the Pantakles–Demetrios issue of 110/09 (Nos. 1228–1229) also formed part of this
hoard (see n.
2 on page 380).
|
E. J. P. Raven, "The Hierapytna Hoard of Greek and Roman Coins," NC, 1938, pp. 133–158 M.L. Kambanis, BCH, 1938, pp. 75f.
This hoard, part of which appeared on the market early in 1934, contained between fifty and fifty-five New Style coins. Raven lists twenty-seven tetradrachms and one drachm belonging to seventeen or more issues; Kambanis adds four issues to those given by Raven but does not specify the number of coins.
3 Monograms issues (illegible) | |||
1 KTHΣI – EYMA | 171/0 | ||
2 ӨEMIΣTO – ӨEOΠOMΠOΣ | 149/8 | ||
Dr. | 1 MHTPOΔΩPOΣ – ΔHMOΣӨEN | 147/6 | 647 |
2 HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 139/8 or 137/6 | ||
3 ӨEOΔOTOΣ – KΛEOΦANHΣ | 138/7 | ||
4 IKEΣIOΣ – AΣKΛHΠIAΔHΣ | 135/4 | ||
1 APIΣTIΩN – ΦIΛΩN | 129/8 | ||
2 ΔHMEAΣ – EPMOKΛHΣ | 125/4 | ||
≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ (issue not specified) | 127/6 or later | ||
MNAΣEAΣ – NEΣTΩP | 120/19 | ||
1 KΛEOΦANHΣ – EΠIӨETHΣ | 119/8 | ||
1 MENTΩP – MOΣXIΩN | 118/7 | ||
ΛYΣANΔPOΣ – OINOΦIΛOΣ | 116/5 | ||
1 EYMHΛOΣ – ӨEO≡ENIΔHΣ | 114/3 | ||
1 NEΣTΩP – MNAΣEAΣ | 113/2 | ||
2 ΔIOΦANTOΣ – AIΣXINHΣ | 108/7 | ||
1 EΠIΓENHΣ – ≡ENΩN | 104/3 | ||
1 MENEΔHMOΣ – TIMOKPATHΣ | 103/2 | ||
APXITIMOΣ – ΠAMMENHΣ | 96/5 | ||
1 AΠEΛΛIKΩN – APIΣTOTEΛHΣ | 94/3 |
There is no way of knowing how many other issues were included in the find or even how many coins of any one of the recorded emissions. Raven says that most of the remaining specimens of Athens are reported to have belonged to the late two-magistrate series but that no details are available.
A few of the earlier pieces are classified as to condition in Raven's article: the Monograms issues and the coins of Themisto–Theopompos as worn; those of Metrodoros–Demosthen, Herakleides–Eukles, Hikesios–Asklepiades and Aristion–Philon as fair to worn; those of Demeas–Hermokles as good to fair. Of the two-magistrate issues he says, "we are told that none of this series were at all badly worn,"1 and this is confirmed by Kambanis who describes the ones he saw as well preserved, some very fresh.
Mixed with the New Style coinage was: autonomous silver of six Cretan cities, including a few of the strikings modelled on Athenian types; a large number of cistophori, of which two at least date from the middle of the first century; and some two hundred Roman Republican denarii ranging from the mid second century to the mid first. Raven believes that the hoard was interred between 44 and 42 B.c.
OREOS HOARD. Discovered prior to 1950 and quickly dispersed. Said to have included several hundred tetradrachms of which only eighteen can be traced: fourteen in the Athens Museum (as published in the BCH, 1950, p. 292 and 1955, p. 210) and four in private collections. Not all of these are in the present catalogue. The issues on record are:
1 EYPYKΛEI – APIAPA | 154/3 | |
1 ΔIONYΣI – ΔIONYΣI | 151/0 | 563b |
3 AMMΩNIOΣ – KAΛΛIAΣ | 150/49 | |
1 MHTPOΔΩPOΣ – MIΛTIAΔHΣ | 147/6 | |
1 EYMAPEIΔHΣ – AΛKIΔAM | 145/4 | 670b |
1 ΦANOKΛHΣ – AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ | 143/2 | |
3 ΔAMΩN – ΣΩΣIKPATHΣ | 141/0 | 728a; 732a |
1 HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 139/8 or 137/6 | |
1 AMΦIKPATHΣ – EΠIΣTPATOΣ | 133/2 | 849a |
2 ΔΩΣIӨEOΣ – XAPIAΣ | 132/1 | 872 |
2 ΔHMHTPIOΣ – AΓAӨIΠΠOΣ | 131/0 | 921h |
1 NIKHTHΣ – ΔIONYΣIOΣ | 130/29 |
For what this exceedingly scanty evidence is worth, the hoard seems to parallel the two Delos finds, B and ΛH, in ending with the issue of Niketes–Dionysios.
SALAMIS HOARD (Noe 890). Discovered in 1936 on the island of Salamis, the find includes at least twenty-nine tetradrachms and seven drachms:
1 AΔEI – HΛIO | 179/8 | 122a | |
2 XAPI – HPA | 178/7 | 134a; 135a | |
Dr. | 4 Grain-ear symbol | 180–170 | 140e; 142c; 149g; 152a |
1 Monograms and thyrsos | 176/5 | 177d | |
1 ΔIOΦA–ΔIOΔO | 175/4 | 184c | |
2 Monograms and eagle | 173/2 | 231f; 238a | |
1 Monograms and aplustre | 172/1 | 265 | |
2 KTHΣI – EYMA | 171/0 | 277j; 282 | |
1 ΓΛAY – EXE | 170/69 | 301 | |
1 MENEΔ – EΠIΓENO | 167/6 | 349b | |
Dr. | 1 MENEΔ – EΠIΓENO | 358a | |
1 TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO | 166/5 | 363h | |
Dr. | 1 ΔΩPOӨE – ΔIOΦ | 164/3 | 392a |
2 ANTIOXOΣ – KAPAIXOΣ | 163/2 | 398; 400f | |
Dr. | 1 ANTIOXOΣ – KAPAIXOΣ | 402b | |
1 AΦPOΔIΣI – ΔIOΓE | 152/1 | 543b | |
1 AMMΩNIOΣ – KAΛΛIAΣ | 150/49 | 592c | |
2 ӨEMIΣTO – ӨEOΠOMΠOΣ | 149/8 | 597a; 606d | |
1 ΣΩKPATHΣ – ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | 148/7 | 621d | |
2 MHTPOΔΩPOΣ – ΔHMOΣӨEN | 147/6 | 631e; 640d | |
1 EYMAPEIΔHΣ – AΛKIΔAM | 145/4 | 673a | |
2 XAPINAYTHΣ – APIΣTEAΣ | 144/3 | 688d; 689c | |
1 EYMHΛOΣ – KAΛΛIΦΩN | 140/39 | 736e | |
1 HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 137/6 | 786a | |
1 ANΔPEAΣ – XAPINAYTHΣ | 136/5 | 808c | |
1 TIMOΣTPATOΣ – ΠOΣHΣ | 134/3 | 825b |
The hoard is in the Athens Museum and will be published by Mme. Irene Varoucha.
Delos HOARDS
In addition to the six Delos hoards discussed individually there are a number of others listed by Noe and Roussel, some published by Svoronos and some unpublished, which should be cited briefly for the record. Their evidence is of slight value. In many cases the data on contents are incomplete and even indications of earliest and latest issues are somewhat unreliable.1 Other hoards contain so few coins that their association means little or nothing. Furthermore, as can clearly be seen from the weights given in Svoronos' various publications, the Delos coins are usually in such poor condition that it is difficult or impossible to draw any conclusions from relative wear.
These miscellaneous hoards, roughly in order of burial, are as follows:
Noe 319. Eighteen tetradrachms and two drachms found in 1931. A note from Kambanis says that the earliest issue is that with monograms and serpents and the latest that of EYPYKΛEI – APIAPA.
Noe 309; JIAN, 1907, p. 193. Two drachms and twelve bronzes found in 1906. The silver issues are those of HPA – APIΣTOΦ and AMΦIKPATHΣ – EΠIΣTPATOΣ, associated with bronzes of the types attributed by Svoronos to a Delian mint.
Noe 303; Roussel 1. Forty-three tetradrachms found in 1881. Component issues range from the early strikings with monograms to APIΣTIΩN – ΦIΛΩN and ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ.
Noe 304; Roussel 2. Some thirty tetradrachms in three separate hoards found in 1894. The latest coins are those of ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ.
Noe 315(2); Roussel 5. Described in the Athens trays and in the present catalogue as Hoard IΓ. Ninety–two tetradrachms found in 1910. Only the issues after ΔΩΣIӨEOΣ – XAPIAΣ have been recorded:
3 ΔHMHTPIOΣ – AΓAӨIΠΠOΣ | 131/0 | 887; 905a; 921j |
2 NIKHTHΣ – ΔIONYΣIOΣ | 130/29 | 940c; 956b |
2 APIΣTIΩN – ΦIΛΩN | 129/8 | 976b; 981b |
1 APOΠOΣ – MNAΣAΓO | 128/7 | Dies illegible |
4 ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ(serpent) | 127/6 | 1013a; 1020b; 1026b; one illegible |
2 ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ (dolphin) | 124/3 | Both illegible |
The hoard runs through 124/3 B.c. but issues of the two years immediately preceding are not represented. It is impossible to judge the relative condition of the coins due to the effect of the fire which destroyed the building in which they were buried.
Noe not; JIAN, 1911, p. 76. Described in the catalogue as Hoard Λ–1. Thirteen drachms found in 1907, published and evaluated as to condition by Svoronos.
9 Grain-ear symbol | fair to good | ||
1 EYPYKΛEI – APIAPA | 154/3 | fair | 523b |
1 ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ (dolphin) | 124/3 | good | 1109 |
1 ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ (Roma) | 123/2 | excellent | 1124a,b |
Noe 312; JIAN, 1911, p. 57. Described in the Athens trays and in the present catalogue as Hoard IΔ. Thirteen tetradrachms found in 1908.
1 ӨEMIΣTO – ӨEOΠOMΠOΣ | 149/8 | |
1 MHTPOΔΩPOΣ – ΔHMOΣӨEN | 147/6 | |
1 ANΔPEAΣ – XAPINAYTHΣ | 136/5 | |
1 ΔΩΣIӨEOΣ – XAPIAΣ | 132/1 | 861b |
1 APOΠOΣ – MNAΣAΓO | 128/7 | 997a |
1 ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ (serpent) | 127/6 | 1014c |
7 Mithradates VI of Pontus (dated 93/2 B.c.). Three in good condition and the others badly corroded. Svoronos thinks all are from the same dies. |
This is another hoard with coins in a very poor state of preservation as is indicated by the extremely low weights recorded by Svoronos.
Noe 311; JIAN, 1911, p. 77. Described in the catalogue as Hoard Λ–2. Twelve coins found in 1907.
Svoronos says the tetradrachm with A is in good condition.
Noe 313; JIAN, 1913, p. 40. Described in the Athens trays as Hoard IΓ; distinguished in the present catalogue from the other IΓ hoard by the numbers of Svoronos' publication. Eleven coins found in 1909, with Svoronos' evaluation of condition.
1 dr. | EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣANΔPOΣ | 158/7 | fair | |
1 hemidr. | MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI | 156/5 | fair | |
1 dr. | HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 139/8 or 137/6 | fair | |
1 tetr. | ANΔPEAΣ – XAPINAYTHΣ | 136/5 | good | 803b |
1 dr. | ANΔPEAΣ – XAPINAYTHΣ | good | 810b | |
1 hemidr. | TIMOΣTPATOΣ – ΠOΣHΣ | 134/3 | fair | 839 |
1 tetr.1 | ΔΩΣIӨEOΣ – XAPIAΣ | 132/1 | fair | |
1 tetr.1 | ΔHMEAΣ – EPMOKΛHΣ | 125/4 | fair | |
1 tetr. | ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ (dolphin) | 124/3 | good | 1089 |
1 dr. | ΛYΣANΔPOΣ – OINOΦIΛOΣ | 116/5 | fair | 1185 |
1 dr. | 86/5 | fair |
Again the weights, especially of the tetradrachms, are indicative of poor condition.
Noe 305. Stray finds of a two-year period, not a hoard.
There are a number of other deposits on record containing New Style silver. For the most part they are of minor significance due to the lack of precise information or to the small proportion of Athenian coins.2
AECATARINI (Noe 18). This was undoubtedly an important hoard containing, as it did, some six hundred New Style tetradrachms. Kambanis reports that he had seen eighty-seven pieces of which the latest were emissions of ΔHMEAΣ – EPMOKΛHΣ. This implies an absence of late two-magistrate coins but provides no useful data on the find as a whole.
SERRES (Noe 960) and MARSIAN (Noe 709). The first had sixty New Style tetradrachms, the second 106 silver coins of Athens and Thasos. Both hoards were dispersed and no record of their contents is available.
CRETE (Noe 282). Two groups of coins are combined in this entry. The first consists of the thirteen tetradrachms discussed on pp. 515f. as Cretan Hoard I. In the Herakleion Museum there is a second lot of Athenian coins—seven tetradrachms, two hemidrachms and two bronzes—with consecutive catalogue numbers. Raven, who provided information on the Herakleion coins, thought that the second group might be a hoard although he noted that the museum listing gives no proof of this and no clear indication that the hemidrachms and bronzes should be associated with the tetradrachms. In the case of the bronzes, one pre-New Style and one Imperial, a connection is rather unlikely; the fractional silver may belong with the tetradrachms if the coins do come from a hoard.
SIMITLII (Noe not). An unpublished hoard of uncertain composition and date. Gerassimov reports that the Sophia Museum acquired five New Style tetradrachms of the issues of ӨEOΦPA – ΣΩTAΣ, EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣANΔPOΣ, EYMAPEIΔHΣ – KΛEOMEN and NIKHTHΣ – ΔIONYΣIOΣ.
BELIZA (Noe not). Also an unpublished hoard of indefinite composition and date from which the Sophia Museum acquired the following:
GREECE ? (Noe 462). Kambanis reports that this hoard was seen by him in March of 1921 and shortly thereafter dispersed. His summary of its contents is as follows:
14 | tetr. ranging from ΛYΣAN – ΓΛAYKOΣ (159/8) to ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ (127/6 or later) |
20 | tetr. with |
50 ± | Roman denarii – Fibia, Calpurnia, Fituria |
The moneyers listed by Kambanis would seem to be L. Calpurnius Piso (90/89), C. Vibius Pansa (89/8) and L. Titurius Sabinus (88). If these identifications are correct, there is a close chronological connection between the denarii and the Sullan coinage of Athenian type, and the find is similar in composition to the Abruzzi Hoard.
There are six hoards which contain a single New Style coin associated with the money of other mints:
ZAHLE. Henri Seyrig reports this Lebanese find of 1957. It contains Ptolemaic and Seleucid coins, autonomous issues of various Asia Minor cities and a New Style tetradrachm with monograms and cicada symbol (66b of 185/4 B.c.). The latest dated piece is a Demetrius II striking of 142 B.c.
BABYLON (Noe 116). A large hoard of mid-second century burial date with one New Style tetradrachm of 189/8 B.c.: monograms with Nike symbol. Catalogue No. 31X.
TEHERAN (Noe 1081). Another large find with many Seleucid and Parthian pieces and one New Style tetradrachm of 179/8 B.c.: AΔEI – HΛIO. The deposit was put away in the early years of the first century.
BENKOVSKI (Noe 145). A tetradrachm of MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI (156/5) interred with silver of Maroneia and Thasos.
MARMARA (Noe 655). A tetradrachm of ANΔPEAΣ – XAPINAYTHΣ (136/5) with posthumous Lysimachi and Bithynian regnal issues of which the latest dated piece is of 116 B.c.
1934/5 (Noe not). Newell records a small tetradrachm hoard of uncertain provenance in the hands of a dealer in the United States:
7 Mithradates VI |
4 Nicomedes III and IV |
1 Lysimachus |
1 Athens New Style of MENTΩP – MOΣXIΩN (118/7 B.c.) Catalogue No. 1167b. |
The latest dated coins are three Mithradatic tetradrachms of 75/4 B.c.
Finally there are two groups of coins which may represent hoard material. The collection of the Hunterian Museum has a surprisingly high proportion of late two-magistrate issues. Of its 110 New Style coins, twenty-eight tetradrachms, roughly one-fourth of the total, date c. 121 B.c. and later—a representation of late strikings which is unparalleled in any other large collection. The issues are as follows:
1 BAΣIΛE MIӨPAΔATHΣ – APIΣTIΩN | c. 121 B.c. |
2 MNAΣEAΣ – NEΣTΩP | 120/19 |
2 KΛEOΦANHΣ – EΠIӨETHΣ | 119/8 |
5 MENTΩP – MOΣXIΩN | 118/7 |
1 APXITIMOΣ – ΔHMHTPI | 117/6 |
2 ΛYΣANΔPOΣ – OINOΦIΛOΣ | 116/5 |
2 AMΦIAΣ – OINOΦIΛOΣ | 115/4 |
2 EYMHΛOΣ – ӨEO≡ENIΔHΣ | 114/3 |
9 NEΣTΩP – MNAΣEAΣ | 113/2 |
1 ΣΩTAΔHΣ – ӨEMIΣTOKΛHΣ | 112/1 |
1 ΔIOΦANTOΣ – AIΣXINHΣ | 108/7 |
Excepting the single Diophantos–Aischines piece, the coins form a tight chronological sequence. Of the consecutive emissions, the first four show greater wear than the last six, the tetradrachms of Architimos through Sotades being extremely well preserved. It seems to me likely that most, if not all, of these twenty-seven specimens are from a hoard, comparable in composition to Delos ≡Ө and Delos A, but there is unfortunately no way of establishing the association of the Glasgow coins.
The second group was deposited in the Istanbul Museum prior to 1955 and consists of eighteen tetradrachms found at or near Samsun:
1 ΠOΛYXAPM – NIKOΓ | 165/4 |
1 EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣANΔPOΣ | 158/7 |
1 AMMΩNIOΣ – KAΛΛIAΣ | 150/49 |
1 ΣΩKPATHΣ – ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | 148/7 |
1 MHTPOΔΩPOΣ – ΔHMOΣӨEN | 147/6 |
1 ΔAMΩN – ΣΩΣIKPATHΣ | 141/0 |
2 HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 137/6 |
2 IKEΣIOΣ – AΣKΛHΠIAΔHΣ | 135/4 |
1 ΔHMHTPIOΣ – AΓAӨIΠΠOΣ | 131/0 |
2 APOΠOΣ – MNAΣAΓO | 128/7 |
1 ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ (serpent) | 127/6 |
2 ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ (dolphin) | 124/3 |
1 MNAΣEAΣ – NEΣTΩP | 120/19 |
1 O ΔEMOΣ |
According to the record this is not a hoard, but New Style coins are not commonly found in Anatolia and the fact that the pieces came as a lot to the museum from a single provenance suggests an association. The composition of the group, apart from the O ΔEMOΣ striking, is very similar to that of the Anatolia Hoard.
1 |
Raven speaks of seven of the late issues as being in a private collection in Athens. Of these, the coins of Kleophanes–Epithetes and Eumelos–Theoxenides are the best preserved.
This evaluation is at variance with the order of emission but only single coins were available for comparison.
|
1 |
This is particularly true of the late issues since the die connections of the present catalogue have invalidated the old theory
of a sharp
break between the three-magistrate and two-magistrate strikings. A hoard said to end with the coins of Xenokles and Harmoxenos
may in
reality include three-magistrate issues of later date.
|
1 |
Listed as a drachm by Svoronos but the weight indicates a tetradrachm.
|
2 |
I am indebted to Prof. Th. Gerassimov for recent information on a number of the Balkan hoards. Most of these
finds are also mentioned in E. Condurachi's article on "Les monnaies attiques dans les Balkans." There the Pleven and Nevrokopsko
deposits are included among the
hoards of the New Style period but the former consists entirely of obols and hence must be of earlier date and the owls of
the latter are
said by Gerassimov to be Old Style issues. For the Dragomir Hoard, which does have New Style material, the record
is so scanty that it has been omitted from the present compilation.
|
Consideration of the bronze coinage of the New Style series has been deliberately omitted from this volume. Before its arrangement and attribution can be undertaken a very great deal of material will have to be assembled. Possibly a die study will be required; at the least there will be need for a careful analysis of obverse styles. Even cursory inspection of Svoronos' plates reveals marked variation in the Athena heads appearing on the coinage, and it is evident that this stylistic criterion must be used in any attempt to bring the bronze issues into chronological relationship with each other and with individual silver issues.
Reliance solely on types and symbols for an association of silver and bronze is impossible. In the first place we have no assurance that the system governing the emission of bronze was identical with, or even similar to, that set up for the silver. The mint magistrates whose names and symbols appear on the tetradrachms, drachms and hemidrachms may have had no connection with the bronze. In fact, the absence of names and monograms, such as are commonly found on bronze coins of other mints, suggests that this was the case.1 If there was no single authority concerned with the issuance of both silver and bronze, then there is no need to posit an exact correlation of symbols. It is highly likely that ordinarily there was a duplication of devices for contemporary issues in the two metals if for no other reason than convenience in identifying the bronze striking as the output of a particular year, but such relationship need not have been obligatory. The appearance of some bronze types and symbols which cannot be associated easily, if at all, with silver emissions and the retention on the fractional bronze of identical types over a considerable period of time1 point to a flexibility in the relation of silver and bronze.
Furthermore, the bronze, to an even greater degree than the fractional silver, would seem to have made use of abbreviated representations. Its symbols are in large measure simple objects: grain-ear, bakchos, thyrsos, caduceus and so forth. If these are to be connected with silver symbols, they must in many cases be interpreted as references to and not as replicas of the devices on the tetradrachms.2 This adds to the difficulty of precise identification. For example, a bronze with pilei symbol may be linked with either the early or the late silver which bears the same marking or it may be connected with the issue of Mikion–Eurykleides on which the standing Dioscuri appear. Similarly, the thyrsos of the bronze may relate to a silver issue with thyrsos symbol or to any one of the numerous strikings on which one finds a seated or standing Dionysos.
There are a large number of hoards, most of them unpublished, which will be of decisive importance for the arrangement of the New Style bronze. Eight of these3 are considered here because their evidence bears directly on the chronology of the New Style silver and particularly of the controversial Mithradates issue. They may for convenience be designated as follows:
These hoards divide into two groups according to their contents. Group I consists of the first six entries above for a total
of over 800
coins. In composition these deposits are notably consistent. All New Style units are of two basic types:
Athena head in Corinthian helmet/Zeus hurling fulmen with
various symbols (Svoronos, Pl. 81, 17–44 and 49–52; BMC 543)1
Zeus head/Athena Promachos (Sv.
Pl. 22, 53–58)
In all six finds there is a sizable representation of the fractional bronze with Athena head in Attic helmet and two owls on a thunderbolt (Sv. Pl. 24, 60–68). Included in several hoards is a limited amount of pre-New Style material and a greater quantity of the fractional coinage illustrated by Svoronos on Plate 107 and assigned by him to Delos but almost certainly of Athenian origin and of the New Style period.2
Hoards 7–8 (Group II) are entirely different in composition. They contain only 84 coins in all and their evidence is thus much less impressive than that of Hoards 1–6 but the two deposits are homogeneous to a marked degree:
Hd. 7 | Hd. 8 | |
Athena head in Attic helmet/Owl on amphora and various symbols (Sv. 79, 8–21, 25–28, 38–42)3 | 8 | 26 |
Athena head in Attic helmet/Miscellaneous types | ||
a. Zeus and fulmen (Sv. 80, 25–28) | 2 | 4 |
b. Tripod (Sv. 80, 1–7) | 4 | 4 |
c. Artemis and torches (Sv. 25,14)4 | 3 | |
d. Sphinx (Sv. 80, 18–21) | 3 | |
e. Apollo (Sv. 80, 8–14) | 2 | |
f. Nike (Sv. 80, 15–17) | 1 | |
g. Athena advancing with owl (Sv. 80, 29–32) | 13 | |
h. Owl on prow (Sv. 80, 37–43) | 6 | |
Gorgon's head/Athena advancing (Sv. 25, 22–28) | 2 | 1 |
Zeus head/Dionysos head (Sv. 25, 36–42) | 2 | 2 |
Dolphin and trident/Kerchnos (Sv. 107, 1–8) | 1 |
Five noteworthy considerations emerge from the combined evidence of Groups I and II: 1) the issues with the reverse type of Zeus holding the fulmen in lowered right hand (Sv. 81, 1–16) are absent from all hoards 2) the issue with Zeus hurling the fulmen and star and crescents symbol is absent from all hoards 3) the unit obverses of Hoards 1–6 invariably depict Athena in a Corinthian helmet while those of Hoards 7–8 always show the goddess in an Attic helmet; there is no overlapping of the two helmet types 4) the reverse type of Zeus hurling the fulmen (combined with a Corinthian helmet obverse) is found only in Hoards 1–6 while that with owl on amphora appears only in Hoard 7–8; again there is no overlapping 5) other obverse and reverse types are present in both lots of material but in no instance does the same issue occur in Hoards 1–6 and in Hoards 7–8.
It is clear that in Groups I and II we have material belonging to two distinct chronological periods, presumably separated by an interval sufficient to account for the clear-cut division in types. Let us see if these periods can be even roughly defined.
Hoards 1–6 are undoubtedly earlier than Hoards 7–8. This is obvious not only from the better style and better alloy1 of the coinage but also from the inclusion of a small representation of pre-New Style material in several deposits of Group I. The issues represented in Hoards 1–6 are not, however, the earliest of the New Style sequence. They must be preceded by the emissions showing Zeus standing with a fulmen in his lowered right hand,2 strikings which apparently are not present in the hoards of Group I because they are of earlier date. The transition from the one Zeus type to the other may be connected with the change in the silver from the two-magistrate to the three-magistrate series. It may well have come earlier; I do not believe it can be placed any later.
If the Zeus hurling fulmen type can with reasonable certainty be assumed to postdate 169/8 B.c. at the latest it can also, with reference to the hoards, be assumed to have been discontinued as a standard reverse type before 130 B.c. Perhaps its terminus can be fixed even more closely. Among the coins of Hoards 1–6, the issues in the best state of preservation are those with pilei, thyrsos and bakchos symbols. Of these, the pilei striking seems to be somewhat earlier than the other two but not removed from them by any wide margin of time. Its device is the most distinctive of the three and the only one which can with some degree of probability be associated with the silver coinage. A monograms issue of 186/5 carries the pilei symbol as does the Demetrios–Agathippos striking of 131/0. The first is surely too early and the second seemingly too late since it falls within the chronological span of Hoards 7–8 (see below) and was presumably the inspiration for the owl on amphora bronze with pilei symbol. There is, however, another emission—that of Mikion and Eurykleides in 156/5— which has a representation of the standing Dioscuri and it seems to me that it is with this silver emission that the bronze with Zeus and pilei must be connected. Allowing a somewhat later date for the thyrsos and bakchos issues, the latest of the Zeus hurling fulmen types would appear to belong to the forties of the second century.
Among the issues represented in Hoards 7–8 are a number with types or symbols so unusual as to warrant almost certain identification with particular silver strikings.1 The dolphin and trident type, found on a single fraction of Attic Hoard II, is identical with the symbol on the second silver issue of Xenokles–Harmoxenos (124/8); the sphinx reverse surely goes with the coinage of Diophantos–Aischines (108/7); the Gorgon's head obverse with that of Niketes–Dionysios (130/29). An elaborate rendering of a poppy-head between ears of grain is used as a symbol on a bronze issue and on the tetradrachms and drachms of Lysandros–Oinophilos (116/5).2 These representations occur only once on the silver and only once on the bronze and the case for their association is further strengthened in two instances by the close similarity of the Athena heads on the silver and bronze of the sphinx and poppy-head emissions. The logical assumption is that the other bronze issues of Hoards 7–8 are also of this general epoch and that we have in these deposits a cross-section of Athenian bronze currency struck during the Late Period of the New Style series. The two hoards were probably interred during Sulla's siege of Athens in 86 B.c., a terminus ante quem for their issues. With regard to a terminus post quem for either the hoard coins or the late bronze as a whole, any conclusion would be premature. My feeling is that the owl on amphora and related types probably did not come into use before the early thirties but a precise date can only be established in the light of more hoard material and a comprehensive study of the coinage. What is clear from the hoard evidence available is the well-defined and highly-significant chronological division between the types of Hoards 1–6 and those of Hoards 7–8.
In proof of the rule, we have the exception. There is one issue with Athena head in Corinthian helmet and fulminating Zeus which cannot be associated with the other emissions of that series. Its distinctive symbol, a star between crescents, links it with the gold and silver of Mithradates–Aristion and the connection is underlined by a marked resemblance in profile between the Athena heads of the bronze and those of the staters, tetradrachms and drachms. Apart from the inherent improbability of a mid second century date for this coinage, the fact that not one specimen turned up among the more than 800 coins of Hoards 1–6 proves conclusively that it was not contemporary with the other fulminating Zeus strikings.
Obviously it is later, but how much later? Fitting it into the gap between the issues of Hoards 1–6 and 7–8 would explain its absence from all hoards and also its types, but I doubt that the solution would commend itself to anyone. Placing it in 87/6 B.c., which is where it has hitherto been put, might explain its exclusion from all hoards in the somewhat unlikely event that it had not gained wide circulation before Hoards 7–8 were secreted but so late a date raises questions which are extremely difficult to answer.
Not only are its types those of the early coinage but its style is good. The Athena heads are rather heavier than those of the other Corinthian helmet issues but infinitely superior to the Attic helmeted goddesses of the late second and early first centuries. The reverses, too, are carefully executed, far better in workmanship than the average of the owl on amphora and related representations.1 In alloy the star and crescent bronzes are closely related to the bronzes of 130/29, markedly different from those of a later period (page 640 for analyses). If the Mithradates bronze belongs in 87/6 B.c., it is part of an emergency issue put out in a time of critical danger. Is it probable that the mint would, under the circumstances, have concerned itself with an improvement in the quality and workmanship of the bronze coinage, taking pains to produce good dies and to raise the standard of its alloy, and reverting for this isolated striking to types which had been abandoned perhaps half a century earlier.
Reasons for assigning the Mithradatic issue to c. 121 B.c. are given in the commentary on the Late Period of the coinage (pp. 416–424). Such a date accords with the style and composition of the bronze; a return to earlier types for a special issue is less puzzling when the interval between is closer to twenty years than to fifty. Finally, although the absence of these coins from Hoards 7–8 is strange, it is not inexplicable. Other issues of the Late Period, large issues on the evidence of the finds made in the excavation of the Athenian Agora, are missing from one or both deposits. The fact is that we have in these two small hoards only a sampling and not a complete record of the bronze struck atAthens after c. 130 B.c. Is it not more likely that specimens of an issue put out in 121 or thereabouts should be absent than that not a single coin of a large contemporary striking should have found its way into the hands of the two frightened citizens who buried their small accumulations in the days before Athens fell to Sulla's troops.
Anthedon | Tell Ahmar | Salonika | Kessab | Naxos | Attic | Delos Γ | Delos KS | Delos B | |||||||||||||||||
Delos ΛH | Zarova | Halmyros | Carystus II | Ontario | Carystus I | Piraeus | Abruzzi | Dipylon | Anatolia | Cretan II | Delos ≡Θ | Delos A | Cretan I | Hierapytna | |||||||||||
ΔIOTIMOΣ – MAΓAΣ | 146/5 | 13 | 2 | 4 | 10 | 3+ | 12 | 1 | + | 3 | 3 | 2 | |||||||||||||
EYMAPEIΔHΣ – AΛKIΔAM KΛEOMEN | 145/4 | 4 | 1 | 9 | 3 | 23 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||
XAPINAYTHΣ – APIΣTEAΣ | 144/3 | 17 | 3 | 11 | 8+ | 21 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 1 | |||||||||||||
ΦANOKΛHΣ – AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ | 143/2 | 3 | 6 | 20 | 9+ | 24 | 1 | + | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
EYBOYΛIΔHΣ – AΓAΘOKΛH ZΩIΛOΣ – EYANΔPOΣ | 142/1 | 3 | 4 | 10 | 6+ | 21 | + | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||
ΔAMΩN – ΣΩΣIKPATHΣ | 141/0 | 5 | 1 | 19 | 9+ | 24 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||
EYMHΛOΣ – KAΛΛIΦΩN | 140/39 | 4 | 1 | 10 | 14 | 3+ | 25 | + | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 139/8 | 5 | 1 | 11 | 2+ | 9 | |||||||||||||||||||
ΘEOΔOTOΣ – KΛEOΦANHΣ | 138/7 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 23 | 22 | 38 | 2 | + | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |||||||||||
HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 137/6 | 7 | 1 | 3 | 13 | 4+ | 28 | 2 | 2 | + | 1 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||||||||
ANΔPEAΣ – XAPI NAYTHΣ | 186/5 | 1 | 5 | 8+ | 18 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||||||||||||||
IKEΣIOΣ – AΣKΛHΠIAΔHΣ | 185/4 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 15 | 1 | + | 2 | 2 | 4 | |||||||||||||||
TIMOΣTPATOΣ – ΠOΣHΣ | 184/8 | 2 | 4 | 9+ | 18 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||
AMΦIKPATHΣ – EΠIΣTPATOΣ | 133/2 | 1 | 4 | 8+ | 22 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||
ΔΩΣIΘEOΣ – XAPIAΣ | 182/1 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 9+ | 44 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 8 | 2 | ||||||||||||
ΔHMHTPIOΣ – AΓAΘIΠΠOΣ | 131/0 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 15+ | 64 | 2 | + | 2 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||||
NIKHTHΣ – ΔIONYΣIOΣ | 130/29 | 1 | 1 | 7+ | 49 | 3 | + | 4 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 2 | |||||||||||||
APIΣTIΩN – ΦIΛΩN | 129/8 | 3 | 61 | 3 | + | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||
APOΠOΣ – MNAΣAΓO | 128/7 | 3+ | 59 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ1 (serpent) | 127/6 | 2 | 1 | + | 1 | 11 | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||
NIKOΓENHΣ – KAΛΛIMAXOΣ | 126/5 | 23 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
ΔHMEAΣ – EPMOKΛHΣ | 125/4 | 53 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||||||||||||||
≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ (dolphin) | 124/3 | 19 | 10 | + | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 3 | + | |||||||||||||
≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ (Roma) | 123/2 | 7 | + | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||
KOINTOΣ – KΛEAΣ | 122/1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
AΠEΛΛIKΩN – ΓOPΓIAΣ | 121/0 | 1 | 1 | ± | 2 | 6 | 6 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
MIΘPAΔATHΣ – APIΣTIΩN | c. 121 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
MNAΣEAΣ – NEΣTΩP | 120/19 | 1 | 1 | + | |||||||||||||||||||||
KΛEOΦANHΣ – EΠIΘETHΣ | 119/8 | 3 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
MENTΩP – MOΣXIΩN | 118/7 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
Anthedon | Tell Ahmar | Salonika | Kessab | Naxos | Attic | Delos Γ | Delos KS | Delos B | |||||||||||||||||
Delos ΛH | Zarova | Halmyros | Carystus II | Ontario | Carystus I | Piraeus | Abruzzi | Dipylon | Anatolia | Cretan II | Delos ≡Ө | Delos A | Cretan I | Hierapytna | |||||||||||
APXITIMOΣ – ΔHMHTPI | 117/6 | 1 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
ΛYΣANΔPOΣ – OINOΦIΛOΣ | 116/5 | 1 | + | ||||||||||||||||||||||
AMΦIAΣ – OINOΦIΛOΣ | 115/4 | 4 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
EYMHΛOΣ – ӨEO≡EN IΔHΣ | 114/3 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
NEΣTΩP – MNAΣEAΣ | 113/2 | 6 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
ΣΩTAΔHΣ – ӨEMIΣTOKΛHΣ | 112/1 | 9 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
ΛEYKIOΣ – ANTIKPATHΣ | 111/0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
ΠANTAKΛHΣ – ΔHMHTPIOΣ | 110/09 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
ӨEOΦPAΣTOΣ – ӨEMIΣTO | 109/8 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ΔIOΦANTOΣ – AIΣXINHΣ | 108/7 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ΔHMEAΣ – KAΛΛIKPATIΔHΣ | 107/6 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
AΛKETHΣ – EYAΓIΩN | 106/5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
ΔIONYΣIOΣ – MNAΣAΓOPAΣ | 105/4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
EΠIΓENHΣ–≡ENΩN | 104/3 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
MENEΔHMOΣ – TIMOKPATHΣ | 108/2 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
MENNEAΣ – HPΩΔHΣ | 102/1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
ΔIONYΣIOΣ – ΔHMOΣTPATOΣ | 101/0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
ΔHMOXAPHΣ – ΠAMMENHΣ | 100/99 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
ΔIOKΛHΣ – ΛEΩNIΔHΣ | 99/8 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
ΦIΛOKPATHΣ – HPΩΔHΣ | 98/7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
KAΛΛIMAXOΣ – EΠIKPATHΣ | 97/6 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
APXITIMOΣ – ΠAMMENHΣ | 96/5 | 2 | + | ||||||||||||||||||||||
ΔIOKΛHΣ TO ΔEY – MHΔEIOΣ | 95/4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
AΠEΛΛIKΩN – APIΣTOTEΛHΣ | 94/3 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
HPAKΛΩN – HPAKΛEIΔHΣ | 93/2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
ΦIΛOKPATHΣ – KAΛΛIΦΩN | 92/1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
TPYΦΩN – ΠOΛYXAPMOΣ | 91/0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
TO TPI ΔIOKΛHΣ – ΔIOΔΩPOΣ | 90/89 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
ΔIOKΛHΣ MEΛI – MHΔEIOΣ | 89/8 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
AΠOΛH≡IΣ – ΛYΣANΔPOΣ | 88/7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mithradates VI tetradrachms | 90–88 | 2 | 4 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Sullan issues at Athens | 86–85 | 9 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Other late material | + | +(?) | + | + |
This large body of hoard material considered in its entirety is of importance not only for the chronology of the New Style coinage but also for its contribution to our knowledge of commercial and political relationships between Athens and other sections of the Hellenistic world. The evidence is to some extent fragmentary and unbalanced. Systematic excavations on Delos have provided us with what would seem to be a fairly complete record of Athenian and other coinages circulating on that island. Similarly, the substantial number of coins from hoards of Northern and Central Greece gives one a measure of confidence in the comparative accuracy of the data from those areas. On the other hand, the material from Crete and the other islands, from Anatolia, Syria and Italy is scanty. New deposits from those regions may well alter the present picture. However, it is worth noting that extensive excavation has been carried on in Italy and in the Levant. The fact that more New Style coinage has not been found is in itself significant.
Our primary concern is with the bearing of the hoards, individually and as a group, on the over-all chronology of the New Style silver. The commentaries on the Early, Middle and Late Periods include analyses of the hoard evidence as it relates to particular sections of the coinage and there is no need to repeat in extenso those evaluations, but it may be useful in connection with the hoard tabulation of the preceding pages to recall briefly the more important finds and the essential contribution of each to the general chronological picture.
Of the early hoards, the Anthedon deposit with its limited number of early issues establishes a beginning date for the New Style series as a whole. The large Salonika Hoard, restricted to six issues of coins in excellent state of preservation, helps to fix the sequence of the strikings between 170 and 165 B.c. In the Kessab Hoard all tetradrachm emissions between 181/0 and 163/2 B.c. are represented except for four strikings whose position is attested by die links and by the evidence of the Salonika Hoard. The two finds then substantiate the assignment of certain issues to the 181–163 period although they do not, of course, prove the absolute chronology. From the Attic Hoard we have data for the dating of the anomalous drachms with grain-ear symbol and also clear indication from condition that the issue of Mikion–Euryklei is close to that of Aphrodisi–Apolexi, welcome corroboration of the stylistic criteria for the placement of the former emission which is not die linked.
Only one major hoard—Delos Γ —ends in the Middle Period. Its unbroken sequence of issues from 152/1 through the FDC coins of Theodotos–Kleophanes and Herakleides–Eukles (138/7 and 137/6) is in accord with the numerous die links and supplementary stylistic criteria upon which the arrangement rests.
The Late Period provides a group of hoards whose evidence is of vital importance for the chronology. Between 143/2 and 132/1 B.c. we have twelve issues whose relative position is so firmly established by die links as to be unquestionable. For the period between 131/0 and 120/19 there are some die links but not the chain of the period just preceding. Here the evidence of style is powerfully supported by that of the hoards. Delos Kς ends in 131/0; Delos B, AH and possibly the Oreos Hoard end in 130/29; Zarova in 127/6; Halmyros in 124/3; Carystus II in 123/2; Carystus I in 121/0. The New Style material of the Piraeus, Abruzzi and Dipylon finds also stops in 121/0; that of the Anatolia Hoard one year later. Inclusions and omissions in these hoards and the relative wear of their component issues combine with the die links and the stylistic criteria to establish for the period between 131/0 and 120/19 a sequence as soundly based as that of 143/2–132/1. Less assistance is given by the few hoards of later date but Cretan II, Delos ≡Ө and Delos A do offer support for the order of emissions between 120 and 111 B.c. Cretan I provides evidence for the assignment of the last of the New Style issues to the period before Sulla.
There are several striking aspects of these deposits. The first is most vividly illustrated by the two large hoards of Macedonia and Thessaly. Zarova and Halmyros are almost identical in size, both come from an outlying district to the north of Athens, and both, in view of the variation in wear that their contents show, may with probability be regarded as currency hoards. In general composition the two finds are highly comparable. The Zarova Hoard includes every New Style issue between 161/0 and 127/6; Halmyros every issue between 168/7 and 124/3 except for the Epigene–Sosandros striking of 158/7. However, when one examines the number of coins for the individual issues in the two deposits one is struck by a rather remarkable disparity. It must, of course, be remembered that surviving specimens identifiably from Halmyros are twice as numerous as those from Zarova but the three lots of Zarova coins correspond closely enough in distribution by issues and in proportionate representation of coins to warrant the assumption that the original composition of the find would not violently contradict the picture we now have.
Over one-half of the surviving specimens from Zarova—that means at least one-quarter of the contents of the original hoard—belong to the four relatively early issues of Epigene–Sosandros (158/7), Polemon–Alketes (157/6), Mikion–Euryklei (156/5) and Karaich–Ergokle (153/2). All other issues are represented but in substantially smaller quantity. The number of coins for the last ten strikings in the Zarova Hoard totals less than the number for Epigene–Sosandros alone. This same issue is absent from the Halmyros Hoard and the other three major Zarova emissions are represented by four or five tetradrachms apiece. The bulk of the coinage from Halmyros is concentrated in its final issues, which is, of course, what one would expect. However, there is one anomaly even here. The count by years runs as follows: 132/1(44), 131/0(64), 130/29(49), 129/8(61), 128/7(59), 127/6(1), 126/5(23), 125/4(53) and 124/3(19). Although the Xenokles–Harmoxenos striking of 127/6 is light in comparison with other emissions of the same period it is not sufficiently minor to account for its almost complete absence from the Halmyros Hoard.
These two deposits seem to point up what is an entirely reasonable premise but one that is perhaps sometimes forgotten, namely that coinage did not flow in and out of any given region in a steady stream but rather in irregular waves as dictated by the exigencies of commerce, politics, military operations and other circumstances and that the hoards inevitably reflect this erratic monetary pattern. Evidently a tremendous amount of Athenian money was shipped into Macedonia during the fifties of the second century, enough so that it was still the chief currency in circulation twenty-five years later.1 The issues which went in such quantity into the Zarova region travelled to the Halmyros district in substantially lesser supply, whereas the later issues came in more abundantly than they did into the more northern area. Even so there were yearly fluctuations, as witness the single example of the late emission of Xenokles–Harmoxenos in what is otherwise a consistent body of hoard material.2
Another noteworthy feature of the hoard evidence concerns five late deposits: Piraeus, Abruzzi, Dipylon, Cretan II and Delos A. Three of these come from the Athens area, for the Abruzzi Hoard must be considered, in part at least, as an Athenian accumulation; two come from the islands. All have a considerable amount of regular New Style coinage mixed with other material.
Taking the three Athenian hoards first, the small Piraeus find contains middle and late New Style coinage, two-thirds of it from the decade between 130 and 120 B.c. The latest issue is that of Apellikon–Gorgias in 121/0. Two Mithradatic tetradrachms of 88 B.c. are also in the hoard. The larger Dipylon deposit is almost identical in composition although its range of New Style strikings is wider, including early as well as middle and late emissions. Nearly half of these are from the years between 130 and 120 with the latest issues those of Mithradates–Aristion and Apellikon–Gorgias. Four Mithradatic tetradrachms of 88 B.c. appear in this find. Finally, the Abruzzi Hoard, at least that section of it which can be classified as an Athenian collection, has middle and late New Style material, two-thirds of it from 130–120 B.c. with the latest striking that of Apellikon–Gorgias. Four Pontic tetradrachms of 90/89, four other tetradrachms from the same general region and nine tetradrachms of Sulla's issues are in the hoard.
These three hoards are basically homogeneous. In each case the deposit ends with New Style coins of 121/0 B.c. in good or excellent state of preservation. Combined with them are Mithradatic and Sullan emissions of 90–85 B.c. in splendid condition. There is in some instances a variation in wear between the latest New Style tetradrachms and the Mithradatic and other specimens which suggests that the former had seen rather more circulation but the difference is not great.
The evidence of the two island hoards is similar. In Delos A the New Style material runs down to 112/1 B.c. with about one-third distributed fairly evenly, considering the small size of the hoard, over the years between 130 and 111. The latest strikings are in excellent to FDC condition. With these coins were found two drachms of the Sullan coinage of c. 86 B.c. The composition of Cretan Hoard II is more complex. Its New Style currency represents only two-thirds of the total contents and of this only one-third can be dated between 130 and 116 B.c. Additional material in this find consists of Cretan and other coinages, the latest dated piece being a Mithradates tetradrachm of 76/5.
In all five deposits a considerable number of years, ranging from twenty-five in the case of Delos A to forty in the case of Cretan II, intervenes between the latest of the New Style issues and the latest coinage in the hoard as a whole. In view of the condition of the last of the New Style coins, it is impossible to suppose that they were circulating up to the time the hoards were buried. One must assume in each case that accumulation of the Athenian pieces stopped some years before interment of the deposit. It should be noted in this connection that the answer does not lie in bringing these late Athenian coins down into the period immediately preceding Sulla and attributing issues not found in the hoards to the post-Sullan era. Even if one were willing to abandon all indications of an earlier date for the issues in question, the solution provided would still be only a partial one. Cretan Hoard II and the small 1934/5 Hoard recorded by Newell (p. 523) contain Mithradatic issues of 76/5 and 75/4 B.c. Both show exactly the same composition with respect to the Athenian issues as do the hoards buried c. 86 B.c.—the latest New Style coin in one instance dates from 117/6 and in the other from 118/7, and they are alike in excellent state of preservation.1
The circumstances surrounding the assembly and burial of the various hoards undoubtedly differed but there is, I believe, one factor which serves to explain the basic composition of all of them. This is the growing shortage of Athenian coinage after 121/0 B.c. For the size of the individual issues the number of known obverse dies is perhaps our safest guide since the number of surviving specimens is dependent in large measure on the extent of the hoard material. Between 132/1 and 121/0, the obverse dies (for tetradrachms) recorded per year are: 29, 47, 33, 30, 25, 19, 17, 17, 42, 14, 7,1 12; between 120/19 and 112/1: 10, 7, 8, 7, 6, 10, 8, 17, 6; between 111/0 and 88/7: 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 4, 4, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 4, 3, 1, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 1. Clearly there was a decline in the amount of money issued after 121/0 and little more than a token coinage after 112/1. What new currency was put out during those years may well have been reserved for export; the average Athenian citizen may have been compelled to make do with the old but extremely abundant money of the preceding decade.2 Even in the matter of export there were curtailments. The Anatolia Hoard and the Samsun accumulation (p. 524) suggest that new coinage did not travel in that direction after 120/19. Delos continued to receive shipments down to 112/1. After that date only sections of Crete, as witness the contents of Cretan Hoard I and the Hierapytna Hoard, seem to have been supplied.
This new money cannot have moved in quantity even to Crete for the simple reason that it did not exist in quantity. Evidently it was not available to the owner of Cretan Hoard II. What Athenian tetradrachms of earlier periods he could get his hands on he collected; after the supply dwindled he could put aside only Cretan issues and the foreign coinage circulating on the island.
The New Style composition of Delos Hoard A is in complete accord with the general body of excavation material from that site. Apparently very little, if any, of the coinage struck in Athens after 112/1 went to Delos, for nothing later than that date has been unearthed either in a hoard context or in chance finds. In Delos Hoards A and ≡Ө we have two highly comparable deposits, both terminating with New Style coins of 112/1 in excellent or FDC condition. Hoard ≡Ө may have been buried almost immediately since it contains no later material; Hoard A cannot have been finally interred until after 86/5 B.c. It seems likely, however, that its New Style coins were withdrawn from circulation shortly after 112/1. Whether the Sullan drachms were added at a later date by the original owner or by someone who had come into possession of the hoard during the intervening years can never be known for certain.
With respect to the three Athenian finds, the circumstances attendant upon the formation of the Abruzzi Hoard are highly uncertain. Its New Style issues may simply represent an accumulation put aside in the years after 120 B.c. which was found and absorbed by a Roman soldier during the sack of Athens. Such an explanation clearly will not suffice for the Piraeus and Dipylon deposits which must have been buried by Athenian owners shortly before the conquest of the city. In both cases, the only answer seems to be that there was little or no new money available in the Athens area after 121/0 B.c. 1 It was not until 88 B.c. that there was a marked improvement in the situation, thanks no doubt to extensive financial help from Mithradates, and it was then that the tetradrachms of the Pontic king were added to both hoards.
Before leaving this section on Hoards, it will be of interest to note the geographical distribution of the deposits here recorded. The tabulation below summarizes for six regions the number of hoards found, the amount of identifiable New Style coinage included and the chronological span of the pertinent hoard material.
Central Greece : | 10 hoards2 | 1359 coins | All periods of New Style to 121/0 B.c. Mithradatic tetradrachms of 90–88 B.c. coins of 86–85. |
Delos : | 17 hoards | 1015 coins | All periods of New Style to 112/1. Mithradatic tetradrachms of 98/2. of 86–85. |
Crete : | 4 hoards1 | 134 coins | All periods of New Style to 92/1. Pre-and post-Sullan material from other mints. |
Macedonia , Balkans : | 6 hoards | 746 coins | New Style from 170/69 to 117/6. One of 86–85. |
Anatolia : | 2 hoards2 | 83 coins | New Style from 165/4 to 120/19. |
Syria and East : | 5 hoards | 53 coins | New Style to 163/2. |
This evidence, fragmentary as it is for certain areas, does give definite indication of the direction in which Athenian currency moved during the second and early first centuries. In the Early Period it circulated freely in Central Greece, as one would expect, and travelled out to Crete, Delos, Syria and as far east as Babylon and Teheran. The picture as it concerns Syria and the East is particularly striking. Almost without exception the New Style coins from that area antedate 162/1 B.c.; virtually nothing of a later period is known.3 The decline of Athenian association with the Levant coincides with the growing importance of Delos as a trading center and undoubtedly reflects a reorientation of Athenian commercial interests in favor of her cleruchy.4
As the flow of Athenian money toward the East tapered off, it found a new outlet to the north. The earliest New Style coins from hoards in Northern Greece, the Balkans and Anatolia date from 170/69 B.c. Apparently Athens took immediate advantage of the opportunity presented by the Roman defeat of Macedon and the ensuing suppression of the great mines in that region. That she was able to retain her position even after the northern workings had been reopened is indicated by the contents of the Zarova Hoard. From 168 to 120, owls were common in the north as they were in Central Greece, on Delos and on Crete.
By 120 B.c. the stream had begun to dry at its source. No coinage after that date has been found in Central Greece or in Anatolia, nothing later than 117/6 in Macedonia and the Balkans, nothing after 112/1 on Delos. Only Crete continued to be supplied until the very end of the New Style period.
Italy and Sicily provide no hoard evidence of connections between Athens and the West.1 Seemingly Athenian coinage during the New Style years did not move in that direction at all. Nor did it travel toward Egypt.
Regnal issues of Pontus and Bithynia of pre-Sullan date are mixed with Athenian material in Central Greece, on Delos and on Crete, testifying to the activity of Mithradates and his generals in those regions before the outbreak of war with Rome. Sullan issues of 86–85 appear in Athens in the Abruzzi Hoard and in isolated finds on Delos and in Bulgaria.
1 |
Newell interprets the lack of correspondence between the control marks on the gold
and silver and those on the bronze of Demetrius Poliorcetes (Dem. Pol., p. 120) as
indication either of different magistrates supervising the two coinages or of a farming out of the bronze to private individuals.
Furthermore, with respect to Athens, if the emission of the silver involved a form of monetary liturgy (pp. 584–599) it seems unlikely that its magistrates would have had any responsibility for the bronze. |
1 |
Variation in wear on the fractional issues with two owls on the reverse and differences in style of the obverse heads alike
point to their
emission over a long period of time. This was noted by Bellinger in connection with
Attic Hoard I (NNM 42, p. 4) and his observation is confirmed by the Keratea and Plaka Hoards.
|
1 |
Not all hoards include all issues but there is sufficient overlapping to indicate that all the issues enumerated do fall within
the period
covered by Hoards 1–6.
|
1 |
See pp. 639 f. for chemical analyses.
|
1 |
Judging by the recurrence of distinctive symbols, there seems to have been a closer correlation between silver and bronze
in the later
period than in the earlier.
|
1 |
On Plate 127 an example of the Mithradatic bronze is reproduced in association with
other bronzes of early and late issues.
|
1 |
Coins of the Herakleides–Eukles and Xenokles–Harmoxenos issues which cannot be definitely assigned to a particular striking
have been listed under years 137/6
and 124/3 since those were the heaviest emissions of the magistrates in question.
|
1 |
It is of interest that the Bulgarian hoard of Beliza, judging by the accessions of the Sophia Museum, also had a
high proportion of Epigene and Polemon coins.
|
1 |
Extensive chronological gaps within hoards are by no means uncommon. In Susa Hoard 3, recently published by Georges Le Rider
("Monnaies à légende grecque et monnaies des rois d'Élymaïde," pp. 29–34), there is an interval of
at least fifty years between the last and the next to last issues. However, the earlier coins are well worn and it seems evident
that they
continued to be the standard medium of exchange in the Susa region long after the date of their emission. Dura
Hoard 5 (E. T. Newell, NNM 58 and A. R.
Bellinger,
Dura – Europos, pp. 169f.) consists of several lots of material, widely-spaced
in time, with a lacuna of over sixty years between the last and next to last issues. Here the state of preservation of the
second century
denarii rules out the possibility of long circulation and one must assume that the hoard represents successive accumulations.
A similar
explanation probably holds for our Tell Ahmar and Kessab Hoards with their admixture of
early New Style and late Seleucid strikings.
All of these deposits, it will be noted, involve compilations of foreign currency, not the output of a local mint. They are thus more easily explicable than Susa Hoard 4 (Le Rider, loc. cit., pp. 34–37) in which there is an interval of many years between well-preserved early and late issues of Phraates IV struck at Susa itself. The New Style hoards under present discussion are comparable with Dura 5 and Susa 4 in the combination of early and late issues in excellent state of preservation; two of them, the Piraeus and Dipylon finds, bear a further resemblance to Susa 4 in that it is issues of the local mint which are so strangely missing from each hoard. |
1 |
The three obverse dies of the Mithradates–Aristion striking may belong in the same year
(see pp. 423 f.).
|
1 |
If the O ΔEMOΣ material of Carystus I is to be associated with the Mithradatic War (pp.
444–449), that hoard parallels in composition the three Athenian deposits and testifies to a dearth in Southern
Euboea as well as in Attica of the New Style issues struck after 121/0 B.c.
|
1 |
Including the seven coins in the Herakleion Museum which Raven thought might be a
hoard.
|
1 |
Again assuming that the Abruzzi Hoard is an "import".
|
2 |
A number of the fractional silver strikings show the same abbreviation of devices as the bronzes. The standing Dionysos on
the tetradrachms
of Dioge – Posei is represented on the drachms by a thyrsos; the elephant of the large silver of Antiochos–Nikog and Karaichos
becomes on the fractions an elephant's head. Some of the hemidrachms, such as those of Dorothe–Dioph, omit the
symbol.
|
2 |
See note 1 on page 432.
|
2 | |
2 |
These connections have also been made by A. R. Bellinger (NNM 42, pp. 12 f.) and by J. P.
Shear (Hesp., 1933, Plate VII).
|
2 |
The extensive representation of the Xenokles with serpent issue in the Anatolia Hoard
suggests the direction in which that emission moved.
|
2 |
It is in fact possible that some of this old money was put into circulation at a later period than its date of emission would
indicate. The
very large issues struck between 132/1 and 123/2, which seem to have been far in excess of the city's normal financial requirements,
may
represent an attempt to build up a silver reserve in the form of coinage rather than bullion (see p. 714).
|
2 |
Including the Abruzzi Hoard as basically an Athenian accumulation.
|
2 |
Including the Samsun group. Even if this is not a hoard, its issues are representative of the coinage circulating
in that area.
|
3 |
Selected because of their availability. Any final study of the New Style bronze will require access to the bronze hoards of
the Athens Museum of which there are a great many (I. Varoucha in
The Swedish Excavations at Asea in Arcadia
, p. 167, note 2).
|
3 |
These are the varieties in Attic Hoard II; no breakdown of symbols is given in the report on the North Slope Hoard.
|
3 |
This is true not only of the few hoards on record but also of the material in general: coins in trade and the contents of
public and
private collections in Syria and Lebanon.
|
4 |
This hoard, in the possession of the American Numismatic Society, and the Plaka find in private possession, will
be published in a future issue of Museum Notes at which time more detailed analysis of Hoards 1–4 will be
undertaken.
|
4 |
See
Hesperia
, 1941, pp. 199–236 for reassignment of the "cleruchy" issues of Svoronos' Plate 25 to the mint of Athens.
|
4 |
Rostovtzeff (
Anatolian Studies, p. 298) cites the inclusion of Athenian owls in Syrian and
Eastern hoards as proof of close commercial relations between Delos and Syria in the late second and early first centuries B.c. While the
hoards that he mentions (Til-Barsib and Teheran) were buried within that period, the
latest identifiable New Style coin in the two deposits dates from 173/2 B.c. Numismatic data provide no evidence
for commercial ties between Athens and Syria, either direct or through Delos, after the sixties of the second century.
|
The 110 issues of the New Style are inscribed with 634 names. Of these, 629 are listed in the pages that follow. For the early years of the coinage the magistrates are designated by monograms and there is, of course, a strong element of uncertainty involved in their decipherment. When the initial letters at least of the monogram seem clear it has been included; in five cases1 not even that much can be determined and those magistrates are of necessity omitted from the record.
The 634 names on the coinage do not by any means indicate 634 different men. There is certainly a great deal of repetition of minting service, much more in all probability than can ever be established. In the listing below cases of what seem to me definite or highly probable identity are marked by solid bracketing, cases of possible identity by broken bracketing. To some the extent of linking will seem rash and to others over-cautious. I can only offer it as my judgment based on the criteria of rarity of names, proximity of terms of office and recurrent patterns of family relationship.
Discussion of individual magistrates makes frequent reference to the two comprehensive studies of Athenian mint magistrates: J. Kirchner’s Prosopographia Attica (1901–1903), which is based primarily on Beulé’s record of the coinage but includes citations of other early sources, and J. Sundwall’s articles in the Finska Vetenskaps-Societetens Förhandlingar (XLIX, 1906–1907, No. 9; L, 1907–1908, No. 1). 2 Sundwall’s work, postdating Kirchner’s by a few years, corrects some of the earlier readings on the basis of personal examination of the coins in the Berlin Cabinet. A number of the entries in both Kirchner and Sundwall are erroneous, due chiefly to the confusion of lettering consequent on the recutting of names on reverse dies; some of the entries in the present compilation represent new material, magistrates unknown to either epigraphist.
Many of the monograms and abbreviated names of the early coinage are dealt with in the commentaries following the individual issues. In such cases the reader is referred back to the pertinent pages of the catalogue for the explanation of the monogram and in some instances for the identification of the magistrate. Only exceptionally is there cross-reference to earlier discussion of the officials of the three-magistrate and late two-magistrate periods since in almost all cases relevant information regarding them is presented here for the first time.
The listing which follows gives the name of the official, his position (first, second or third magistrate), the issue with which he is associated identified by the names of the annual moneyers, the date of that issue, and finally the number of the Prosopographia Attica entry in the case of names appearing in Kirchner. Archon dates are those of Meritt in The Athenian Year (pp. 231–238) and for the later period between 62/1 and 53/2 B.c. those of Dow (Hesp., Suppl. VIII, 1949, pp. 116–125). 1
ABPΩN | (3) | ANTIOXOΣ – KAPAIXOΣ | 163/2 | PA 6 |
Our mint magistrate is surely the Habron son of Kallias of Bate who was prytany treasurer in 162/1 B.c. (IG II2 2864) and hieropoios in 156/5 (IG II2 1937). In connection with the earlier inscription Kirchner notes that the stemma of the family (PA 11) must be changed and that this Habron seems to be the brother of Kallias III. This, however, is impossible since he is designated as Habron son of Kallias while Kallias III is the son of Habron. The two men must be cousins rather than brothers. Ophelas, third mint magistrate of 167/6, would also be a cousin of Habron.
AΓAӨA | (3) | ANTIOXOΣ – KAPAIXOΣ | 163/2 | |
AΓAӨIΠΠOΣ | (2) | ΔHMHTPIOΣ – AΓAӨIΠΠOΣ | 131/0 | PA 38 |
AΓAӨOKΛH | (2) | EYBOYΛIΔHΣ – AΓAӨOKΛH | 142/1 | PA 75 |
The annual magistrates of 142/1 are members of a family from Trikorynthos. Kirchner (PA 75 and 5338) regards them as brothers. Euboulides son of Agathokles is known from a listing of sacerdotal officials (IG II2 1939, dated 130–120 B.c.) and also as hieropoios of the Romaia in 127/6 (Insc, Délos 2596).
AΔEI | (1) | AΔEI – HΛIO | 179/8 | PA 193 |
AΔEI may, as Kirchner points out, stand for either Adeimantos or Adeistos. The former name, however, is more common in Attic records and furthermore there seems to be a strong probability that the first magistrate of 179/8 is Adeimantos of Ikaria, priest of the eponymos in a decree of 173/2 B.c. (Hesp., 1957, p. 40). Stamires in discussing the inscription suggests that the priest is the same Adeimantos who as genarch contributed for himself and his sons Mnesagoras and Adeimantos c. 183/2–176/5. The association of the mint magistrate with the priest and genarch of Ikaria is the more likely in that several mint magistrates of the late second century come from this same Ikarian family (see under ΔIONYΣIOΣ and MNAΣAΓOPAΣ).
35*
AӨ | (2) | 196/5 | ||
AӨH | (3) | AΦPOΔIΣI – ΔIOΓE | 152/1 | |
AӨHNAI | (3) | ΣΩKPATHΣ – ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | 148/7 | |
AӨHNI | (3) | ΣΩKPATHΣ – ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | 148/7 | |
AӨHNOBI | (3) | ΛYΣAN – ΓΛAYKOΣ | 159/8 | PA 245 |
This is undoubtedly Athenobios of Eupyridai. Sundwall publishes stemmata of the family, first in his Untersuchungen (p. 27) and later in the Nachträge (p. 7), which are markedly different. The revision is based upon a Delphic inscription relating to the Pythais of Dionysios in 128/7 B.c. (FD III 2, 12). This inscription and its interpretation are of particular importance for our study since it contains the following names: Dionysios and Niketes sons of Athenobios, Timostratos son of Ariston and Ariarathes son of Attalos. Identification of the category of these Pythaists is conjectural in that the heading of the stone is not completely preserved. Originally Colin (Culte d’Apollon 47) considered them Pythaists κληρωτóι; the later Fouilles de Delphes publication restores π [υ]θαισ[ταì παìδες] citing the circumstance that the names of two Pythaists (other than those mentioned above) are found in a listing of ephebes of the Pythais of Demetrios a few years later. The grounds for assuming that the Pythaists of 128/7 are boys seem sound enough but there is this to be considered. A Dionysios and a Niketes served together as mint magistrates in 132/1 and 130/29 and an Athenobios was mint magistrate in 159/8. The association of these three names, two of them uncommon, with the mint and the dates of their activity strongly suggest that we are dealing with two generations of the Eupyridai family. A Timostratos and a Poses were annual mint magistrates in 134/3; again the two names point to the Phaleron family of which Timostratos son of Ariston was a member. Concerning Ariarathes the evidence is less clear but the name is rare at Athens and a connection between the second mint magistrate of 154/3 and the Pythaist of 128/7 is likely.
Timostratos and Ariarathes will be discussed under their respective entries. Our immediate concern is with the Eupyridai family in which the names Athenobios. Dionysios and Niketes occur. If all the Pythaists of FD III 2, 12 are boys, then the Dionysios and Niketes of the Pythais of 128/7 cannot be the mint magistrates of 132 and 130 nor can their father Athenobios, who in Sundwall’s revised stemma is identified with a boy victor in the Theseia of 154/3, be the mint magistrate of 159/8. Clearly Sundwall’s later stemma will have to be amended to include these three new members of the family. On the other hand if, as was originally assumed, the Pythaists of this particular listing are not exclusively boys but are of all ages, there is no problem. Along the lines of Sundwall’s earlier stemma, the three mint magistrates are the Pythaists and their father, while the Athenobios who was a boy in 154/3 is the cousin of Dionysios and Niketes.
AӨHNOΔΩ | (3) | ΛYΣAN – ΓΛAYKOΣ | 159/8 | PA 261 |
AIANTI | (3) | ΠOΛYXAPM – NIKOΓ | 165/4 | |
AIΣXINHΣ | (3) | ΔΩPOӨE – ΔIOΦ | 164/3 | PA 336 |
AIΣXI | (3) | ΔIONYΣI – ΔIONYΣI | 151/0 | PA 335 |
AIΣXINHΣ | (2) | ΔIOΦANTOΣ – AIΣXINHΣ | 108/7 | PA 336 |
AΛE≡ | (3) | EYMHΛOΣ – KAΛΛIΦΩN | 140/39 | |
AΛE≡A | (3) | MENEΔ EΠIΓENO | 167/6 | |
AΛE≡AN | (3) | EYPYKΛEI – APIAPA | 154/3 | PA 485 |
AΛE≡AN | (3) | ΦANOKΛHΣ – AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ | 143/2 | PA 488 |
Of the four entries immediately above, the first may be expanded in various ways. The other forms are almost certainly abbreviations of Alexander and it is quite possible that the same man served in 167, 154, and 143 B.c. Sundwall’s identification of all four magistrates with the archon of 174/3 seems somewhat tenuous in that the name is not uncommon.
AΛKETHΣ | (2) | ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ | 157/6 | PA 581 |
AΛKETHΣ | (1) | AΛKETHΣ – EYAΓIΩN | 106/5 | PA 585 |
The annual magistrates of 106/5 and the second official of 157/6 are members of a Kothokidai family (stemma under IG II2 4032). Kirchner identifies Alketes I, Euagion III and Alketes III as the magistrates of the coinage. On the evidence of the inscriptions cited, it seems to me that the floruit dates of the various generations are too high by a decade and that the annual magistrates of 106/5 are the brothers Euagion II and Alketes II, grandsons and not great-grandsons of Alketes I, mint magistrate of 157/6 B.c.
AΛKIΔAM | (2) | EYMAPEIΔHΣ – AΛKIΔAM | 145/4 | PA 606 |
Alkidamos and Eumareides are brothers, sons of Euphanes of Euonymon, according to Kirchner. The two names appear in a listing of knights of 128/71 (FD III 2, 27), while the former is also commended in another Delphic inscription of the same year and the latter is named as an ephebe in an inscription dated by Kirchner to the beginning of the second century (IG II2 2980). Sundwall (p. 53) redates this last inscription on the evidence of a listing of 138/7, thought to be of ephebes (FD III 2, 23), which includes Eumareides son of Euphanes.
I believe that the mint magistrates of the mid second century are the knights of 128/7. In the two listings of ephebes we seem to have a record of two boys named Eumareides, of whom the older may be our mint magistrate if the stone is somewhat later than Kirchner suggests. The younger Eumareides may be his cousin.
If the magistrate Alkidamos is indeed the knight of 128/7, it follows that his replacement as second magistrate early in 145/4 was due not to death but to some other circumstance.
AΛKIΠΠOΣ | (3) | AMMΩNIOΣ – KAΛΛIAΣ | 150/49 | PA 634 |
AMMΩ | (1) | AMMΩ – ΔIO | 182/1 | PA 718 |
AMMΩ | (1) | AMMΩ – ΔIO | 180/79 | PA 718 |
AMMΩNIOΣ | (1) | AMMΩNIOΣ – KAΛΛIAΣ | 150/49 | PA 719 |
The first magistrates of 182/1 and 180/79 are surely the same Ammonios and it is likely that the first magistrate of 150/49 is a relative, possibly a son. A relationship between the annual magistrates of the two earlier issues is almost certain in view of the occurrence of the names Ammonios and Dionysios in a well-known family of Anaphlystos (for stemma see Roussel, Délos, p. 104).
AMYNOMA | (3) | ANΔPEAΣ – XAPINAYTHΣ | 136/5 | PA 738 |
AMΦIAΣ | (1) | AMΦIAΣ – OINOΦIΛOΣ | 115/4 | PA 754 |
These magistrates of 115/4 B.c. are father and son, Amphias I and Oinophilos I of Aphidna (PA 11364 for stemma) and not the brothers Amphias II and Oinophilos II, as Kirchner supposes. Actually the only reason for assuming a second Amphias seems to have been that the coinage on which the name appears was formerly dated to the middle of the first century B.c. See also Wilhelm (Beiträge, p. 85) for a somewhat different stemma of this family and its relationship to that of Eukles of Trinemeia who was associated with the mint in the middle of the second century.
AMΦIKPATI | (3) | TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO | 166/5 | PA 770 |
AMΦIK | (3 | ӨEOΦPA – ΣΩTAΣ | 162/1 | PA 770 |
AMΦIKPATHΣ | (1) | AMΦIKPATHΣ – EΠIΣTPATOΣ | 133/2 | PA 774 |
Amphikrates and Epistratos of 133/2 B.c. are identified by Kirchner as the brothers of the deme Perithoidai whose floruit was c. 100 B.c. (PA 774 and 4951). I should suggest rather that the coinage on which these uncommon names recur gives us a record of two earlier generations. The mint officials of 133/2 would be either brothers or cousins, the second magistrate the father of Amphikrates and Epistratos of 100 B.c. A still earlier generation would be represented on the coins of 168/7, 166/5 and 162/1 (see under EΠIΣTPATOΣ as well as above).
AN | (3) | XAPI – HPA | 178/7 | |
ANΔPEAΣ | (1) | ANΔPEAΣ – XAPINAYTHΣ | 136/5 | PA 832 |
ANΔPEAΣ | (3) | NIKOΓENHΣ – KAΛΛIMAXOΣ | 126/5 | PA 832 |
The name is rare and Kirchner’s association of the magistrates Andreas with the archon of c. 144 B.c. seems plausible. Whether this man is, as Sundwall believes, the Andreas son of Andreas of Piraeus who was herald of the Boule and epimeletes of Delos at the beginning of the first century (PA 838) is problematical.
ANTIΓONO | (3) | EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣANΔPOΣ | 158/7 | PA 1007 |
ANTIKPATHΣ | (2) | ΛEYKIOΣ – ANTIKPATHΣ | 111/0 | PA 1077 |
There seems to me a strong probability that this is the Antikrates of Epikephisia who was priest of Apollo on Delos in the archonship of Medeios and polemarch a few years later (PA 1082).
ANTIΛOX | (3) | ΔΩPOӨE – ΔIOΦ | 164/3 | PA 1095 |
ANTIΛOX | (3) | ANTIOXOΣ – NIKOΓ | 163/2 | PA 1094 |
The name of Antilochos appears on the coinage during the last month of 164/3 and the first month of 163/2. Similar instances of identical names at the end and at the beginning of contiguous issues are too frequent for one to suppose that the correspondence of names is coincidental. There can, I believe, be no question but that the tenure of the third magistrate ran over on occasion from one year to the next.
ANTIOXOΣ | (3) | TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO | 166/5 | PA 1155 |
ANTIOXOΣ | (1) | ANTIOXOΣ – NIKOΓ and KAPAIXOΣ | 163/2 | PA 1160 |
This Antiochos is not a Seleucid prince but an Athenian citizen serving as third magistrate in 166/5 and as first magistrate a few years later. Reasons for rejecting the traditional Seleucid identification are given on pp. 158–160.
ANTIΣӨE | (3) | ZΩIΛOΣ – EYANΔPOΣ | 142/1 | PA 1187 |
ANTIΦA | (3) | ΔIONYΣI – ΔIONYΣI | 151/0 | PA 1217 |
ANTIΦANHΣ | (3) | MHTPOΔΩPOΣ – MIΛTIAΔHΣ | 147/6 | PA 1217 |
AΠ | (3) | ΔHMHTPIOΣ – AΓAӨIΠΠOΣ | 131/0 | |
AΠ | (3) | NIKOΓENHΣ – KAΛΛIMAXOΣ | 126/5 |
Possibly the same man (Ap..) served as third magistrate for these two issues which are close in time.
AΠEΛΛIKΩN | (1) | AΠEΛΛIKΩN – TOPΓIAΣ | 121/0 | PA 1343 |
AΠEΛΛIKΩN | (1) | AΠEΛΛIKΩN – APIΣTOTEΛHΣ | 94/3 | PA 1343 |
The griffin symbol appearing on the coinage of 121/0 B.c. definitely identifies the magistrate Apellikon with the bibliophile and Peripatetic philosopher from Teos who was adopted into the family of Apolexis and Aristoteles of Oion (PA 1361 for stemma). The Aristoteles serving with Apellikon in 94/3 is quite certainly his brother by adoption. Concerning further details of Apellikon’s life we know little except that he was in exile for a time but back in Athens by 88 B.c. In the spring of that year he was placed in charge of Athenian forces sent out in an unsuccessful attempt to gain control of Delos. His death apparently occurred about 84 B.c.
AΠOΛ | (3) | KAPAIX – EPΓOKΛE | 153/2 | |
AΠOΛ | (3) | TIMOΣTPATOΣ – ΠOΣHΣ | 134/3 | |
AΠOΛ | (3) | APOΠOΣ – MNAΣAΓO | 128/7 | |
AΠOΛH≡I | (2) | AΦPOΔIΣI – AΠOΛH≡I | 155/4 | PA 1354 |
AΠOΛH≡IE | (1) | AΠOΛH≡IΣ – ΛYΣANΔPOΣ | 88/7 | PA 1363 |
The magistrates of 88/7 are brothers of a family from Piraeus (stemma under PA 1363). In view of the comparative rarity of the name it is likely that the earlier Apolexis is their grandfather, the Apolexis son of Lysander who was agonothetes c. 140 B.c. (IG II2 961).
AΠOΛΛOΔΩ | (3) | AXAIOΣ – HΛI | 160/59 | PA 1386 |
AΠOΛΛOΔΩ | (3) | ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ | 157/6 | PA 1386 |
AΠOΛΛOΔΩ | (3) | XAPINAYTHΣ – APIΣTEAΣ | 144/3 | PA 1387 |
Kirchner considers the magistrates of 160/59 and 157/6 to be the same man and there is no reason, chronologically speaking, why all three should not be identical.
AΠOΛΛOΦA | (3) | ӨEMIΣTO – ӨEOΠOMΠOΣ | 149/8 | PA 1464 |
AΠOΛΛOΦA | (3) | ΣΩKPATHΣ – ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | 148/7 | PA 1464 |
AΠOΛΛΩ | (3) | ӨEOΦPA – ΣΩTAΣ | 162/1 | |
AΠOΛΛΩN | (3) | AMMΩNIOΣ – KAΛΛIAΣ | 150/49 | |
AΠOΛΛΩNI | (3) | ΣΩKPATHΣ – ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | 148/7 | |
AΠOΛΛΩNI | (3) | ΔAMΩN – ΣΩΣIKPATHΣ | 141/0 | |
AΠOΛΛΩNIΔ | (3) | ΠOΛYXAPM – NIKOΓ | 165/4 | PA 1485 |
AΠOΛΛΩNIΔHΣ | (3) | ΔIOTIMOΣ – MAΓAΣ | 146/5 | PA 1486 |
AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ | (2) | ΦANOKΛHΣ – AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ | 143/2 | PA 1507 |
AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ | (3) | ΔHMEAΣ – EPMOKΛHΣ | 125/4 |
Almost certainly there are more connections among the eight entries above than the one tentative link between the magistrates of 148/7 and 141/0. The primary difficulty is that in four of the eight cases the abbreviated form of the name may stand for either Apollonides or Apollonios.
AP | (1) | 195/4 | ||
AP | (1) | 183/2 | ||
APΓEIOΣ | (3) | AΠEΛΛIKΩN – ΓOPΓIAΣ | 121/0 | PA 1581 |
APEΣTOΣ | (3) | MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI | 156/5 | PA 1604 |
Kirchner’s identification of our magistrate with the Arestos of Marathon who was a hieropoios in the Ptolemaia of 152/1 seems certain in view of the rarity of the name.
API | (2) | 190/89 | ||
APIAPA | (2) | EYPYKΛEI – APIAPA | 154/3 | PA 1608 |
Sundwall, Kirchner and others have identified the second mint magistrate of this issue as the Cappadocian prince, later Ariarathes V, who spent some time in Athens and received Athenian citizenship prior to his accession in 162 B.c. The date of the coinage makes this association impossible. In 154/3 Ariarathes was king of Cappadocia and it is in the highest degree unlikely that the name of a reigning monarch would have appeared in second place on the coins and without any indication of the royal title. As for Ariarathes’ son and successor, Ariarathes VI, he was still a boy when his father died in 130 B.c., hence any connection with the coinage is out of the question. Whoever our Ariarathes may have been, he was not one of the Cappadocian kings of that name.
In Attic records there is an Ariarathes son of Attalos who was a Pythaist in 128/7 (FD III 2, 12) and an epimeletes at the end of the second century or the beginning of the first (Insc. Délos 1827–1829). From a somewhat later period there is an Ariarathes son of Polemaios of Sypalettos, councillor and treasurer of Kekropis in 95/4 (Hesp., 1948, p. 26). Our mint magistrate may belong to one or the other of these families; it seems to me that he may well be identical with the Pythaist and epimeletes. The date of Ariarathes’ epimeleia was originally put c. 132 B.c. (BCH, 1905, pp. 226f.) but later brought down to the end of the century, presumably in line with the re-interpretation of the inscription of 128/7 as a listing of boy Pythaists (see under AӨHNOBI for a discussion of this stone). If the Ariarathes of 128/7 was an Athenian of mature years, an earlier date for his epimeleia is likely and an association with the mint in 154/3 entirely possible.
APIΣ | (3) | ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ | 157/6 | |
APIΣ | (3) | ΔIONYΣI – ΔIONYΣI | 151/0 | |
APIΣ | (3) | EYMAPEIΔHΣ – KΛEOMEN | 145/4 | |
APIΣ | (3) | TIMOΣTPATOΣ – ΠOΣHΣ | 134/3 | |
APIΣT | (3) | ӨEOΦPA – ΣΩTAΣ | 162/1 | |
APIΣT | (3) | AMΦIKPATHΣ – EΠIΣTPATOΣ | 133/2 | PA 1673 |
APIΣTAI | (3) | ΔIONYΣI – ΔIONYΣI | 151/0 |
The name is expanded by Sundwall as Aristaichmos and the magistrate identified as the archon of 159/8 B.c. Sundwall’s stemma (p. 38) of a family from Phyle in which the name occurs further relates Aristaichmos, mint magistrate of 151/0, and Philotades, mint magistrate of 122/1, as grandfather and grandson. The connection in view of the rarity of both names seems plausible.
APIΣTAP | (3) | AΦPOΔIΣI – AΠOΛH≡I | 155/4 | PA 1654 |
APIΣTE | (3) | MENEΔ – EΠIΓENO | 167/6 | |
APIΣTEAΣ | (2) | XAPINAYTHΣ – APIΣTEAΣ | 144/3 | PA 1672 |
APIΣTIΩN | (1) | APIΣTIΩN – ΦIΛΩN | 129/8 | PA 1737 |
APIΣTIΩN | (2) | BAΣIΛE MIӨPAΔATHΣ – APIΣTIΩN | c. 121 | PA 1737 |
Identification of the Aristion of the coinage with the Athenian dictator and zealous partisan of Mithradates VI and the attribution of the two issues on which his name appears to the years 88/7 and 87/6 have long been regarded by numismatists and historians alike as beyond controversy.1 Certainly the case is convincing. The Pegasus symbol of Aristion’s earlier coinage corresponds so closely to the standard type on tetradrachms struck by Mithradates VI as to make its Pontic significance unmistakable. The appearance on the later issue of the name King Mithradates combined with that of Aristion and the use of the star and crescent device of the Pontic house as a symbol provide proof positive that the mint magistrate Aristion was intimately associated with the Mithradatic dynasty. A connection with the Aristion who was Mithradates’ agent and dictator of Athens between 88 and 86 B.c. is obvious and logical.
If, however, the New Style coins with the name of Aristion were, as I believe, issued during the lifetime of Mithradates V (see pp. 416–424), the shift in chronology necessarily entails a re-appraisal of the identification of the mint magistrate. Is the Aristion of the coinage of the second century the same Aristion who was tyrant of Athens in 88 B.c.? Chronologically it is not impossible assuming that Aristion was in his twenties in 129/8 and in his sixties when he became dictator. Concerning his career after he appeared in Athens as the representative of Mithradates VI we are well informed from a variety of sources; concerning his earlier life we know practically nothing except for the testimony of Appian (Mithr. 28) that he was an Athenian citizen and had studied Epicurean philosophy. His close association with Pontus may have been a life-long affair, an allegiance first to Mithradates V and later to Mithradates VI. Or in the coinage we may have evidence of a family affiliation with the Pontic house. The mint magistrate Aristion may have been the father of the dictator of 88 B.c. A third possibility, of course, is that there is no connection between mint magistrate and tyrant. The name is not uncommon and there are several prominent Aristions of the late second century, anyone of whom might have served in the minting office. On the whole it seems unlikely that two unrelated men of the same name would have close ties with successive kings of Pontus but our knowledge of the history of the period in question is scanty and the possibility cannot be summarily rejected.
APIΣTO | (3) | ANTIOXOΣ – KAPAIXOΣ | 163/2 | |
APIΣTO | (3) | MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI | 156/5 | |
APIΣTO | (3) | ӨEMIΣTO – ӨEOΠOMΠOΣ | 149/8 | |
APIΣTOΔH | (3) | MHTPOΔΩPOΣ – ΔHMOΣӨEN | 147/6 | PA 1801 |
APIΣTOΔHMOΣ | (3) | ΦANOKΛHΣ – AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ | 143/2 | PA 1801 |
APIΣTOK | (3) | HPA – APIΣTOΦ | 168/7 | |
APIΣTOK | (3) | AMΦIKPATHΣ – EΠIΣTPATOΣ | 133/2 | |
APIΣTONOYΣ | (3) | AΠEΛΛIKΩN – ΓOPΓIAΣ | 121/0 | PA 2037 |
APIΣTOΣ | (3) | ΣΩKPATHΣ – ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | 148/7 | PA 2049 |
APIΣTOTEΛHΣ | (2) | AΠEΛΛIKΩN – APIΣTOTEΛHΣ | 94/3 | PA 2067 |
The magistrates of 94/3 are brothers by adoption (see under AΠEΛΛIKΩN).
APIΣTOΦ | (2) | HPA – APIΣTOΦ | 168/7 | |
APIΣTΩ | (3) | ΔIONYΣI – ΔIONYΣI | 151/0 | |
APIΣTΩN | (3) | ΔAMΩN – ΣΩΣIKPATHΣ | 141/0 | PA 2141 |
APIΣTΩN | (3) | HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 139/8 | PA 2141 |
APMO≡E | (3) | APOΠOΣ – MNAΣAΓO | 128/7 | |
APMO≡ENOΣ | (2) | ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ | 127/6 | PA 2237 |
APMO≡ENOΣ | (2) | ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ | 124/3 | PA 2237 |
APMO≡ENOΣ | (2) | ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ | 123/2 | PA 2237 |
Our mint magistrate is conceivably related to Harmoxenos son of Harmoxenos of Kekropis who was a victor in the games of the Theseia of 157/6 B.c. The rarity of the name makes it practically certain that a single individual served as third magistrate in 128/7 and as second magistrate in 127/6, 124/3 and 123/2.
APOΠOΣ | (1) | APOΠOΣ – MNAΣAΓO | 128/7 | PA 2243 |
Sundwall and others have associated the magistrate Aropos with Aropos son of Leon (PA 2244) who was epimeletes of Delos and agonothetes during the first decade of the first century B.c. The connection is especially persuasive in that the symbol on the coinage of Aropos and Mnasagoras is a winged Agon. However, the mint magistrate Aropos used the Agon representation on his coins some thirty-five years before Aropos son of Leon served as agonothetes and unless one assumes that the latter also held a much earlier agonothesia, for which there is no evidence, it is impossible to establish a firm identification between our Aropos and the epimeletes and agonothetes of the early first century. The symbol does no more than suggest that the first magistrate of 128/7 had recently served or was then serving as agonothetes, an office which practically every prominent Athenian would have held at some time during his public career.
It seems to me that the Aropos of the coinage may well be the Aropos son of Aphrodisios of Azenia in a list of noblemen of the last quarter of the second century (IG II2 2452 and stemma under PA 2246) and that his father is possibly the first mint magistrate of the issues of 155/4 and 152/1 B.c.
APTEMΩN | (3) | ΣΩKPATHΣ – ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | 148/7 | |
APXE | (3) | HPA – APIΣTOΦ | 168/7 | |
APXEΣ | (3) | TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO | 166/5 | PA 2410 |
APXIAΣ | (3) | MHTPOΔΩPOΣ – ΔHMOΣӨEN | 147/6 | PA 2450 |
APXIΠ | (3) | EYPYKΛEI – APIAPA | 154/3 | PA 2547 |
APXITIMOΣ | (1) | APXITIMOΣ – ΔHMHTPI | 117/6 | PA 2567 |
APXITIMOΣ | (1) | APXITIMOΣ – ΠAMMENHΣ | 96/5 | PA 2567 |
The first mint magistrate of 117/6 and 96/5 is identified by Kirchner with the archon of the late first century. This is quite impossible but the name is very rare and the Architimos of the coinage is likely the archon’s grandfather An Architimos son of Architimos of Sphettos was thesmothetes in 56/5 (IG II2 1717). Kirchner suggests that he is the archon’s father; he is also, in all probability, the mint magistrate’s son.
AΣKΛA | (3) | ΔIONYΣI – ΔIONYΣI | 151/0 | PA 2582 |
AΣKΛAΠΩN | (3) | ΣΩKPATHΣ – ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | 148/7 | PA 2582 |
AΣK | (3) | EYMAPEIΔHΣ – KΛEOMEN | 145/4 | |
AΣKΛAΠΩN | (3) | ΦANOKΛHΣ – AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ | 143/2 | PA 2583 |
Two Delphic inscriptions are of significance for the identification of this magistrate. Concerning the first, a listing of ephebes in the Pythais of Argeios (FD III 2, 26), there is no element of uncertainty. The stone carries the name of EPMOKPATHΣ A[ΣKΛ]A[Π]IΩNOΣ, an ephebe in 98/7. The second inscription has to do with the Pythais of Agathokles in 106/5 and gives a listing of Pythaists of uncertain category (FD III 2, 15). This stone is broken at two crucial spots so that of the name which concerns us only ]MOKPATHΣ AΣKΛA[ remains. However, another fragment thought to join at this point has NOΣ and the Fouilles de Delphes restoration, by analogy with the inscription of 98/7, is [EP]MOKPATHΣ AΣKΛA[ΠIΩ]NOΣ. Kirchner had earlier (PA 13756) restored the name in the inscription of 106/5 as TIMOKPATHΣ AΣKΛA[ΠΩNOΣ] and identified the mint magistrates Timokrates and Asklapon as this Pythaist and his brother.
Without question the argument for EPMOKPATHΣ AΣKΛAΠIΩNOΣ on the fragmentary stone is a strong one but the numismatic evidence suggests that in actuality Kirchner was right and that we have indeed two individuals: Hermokrates son of Asklapion and Timokrates son of Asklapon. On the coinage the name Asklapon in full or in abbreviation1 appears four times between 151/0 and 143/2; a Timokrates is associated with Asklapon in 145/4 and 143/2, and the name recurs at the end of the century. This pattern of mint activity, so similar to that found in other Athenian families, in conjunction with the epigraphical data, seems to me strongly indicative of blood relationship. It is unlikely that Kirchner’s Pythaist of 106/5 is the magistrate of the mid second century but he may well be the mint official of 103/2.
AΣKΛH | (3) | MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI | 156/5 | |
AΣKΛH | (3) | HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛΣ | 139/8 | |
AΣKΛHΠI | (3) | ZΩIΛOΣ – EYANΔPOΣ | 142/1 | |
AΣKΛHΠIAΔHΣ(?) | (1) | 188/7 |
For the monogram see pp. 46f.
AΣKΛHΠIAΔHΣ | (2) | IKEΣIOΣ – AΣKΛHΠIAΔHΣ | 135/4 | PA 2586 |
The magistrates of 135/4 are identified by a Delphic inscription referring to Asklepiades son of Hikesios, hieromnemon c. 125? (IG II2 1134 and for the date Daux, Chronologie, p. 59, L 68) and also a tragic poet (PA add. 2589b). Kirchner makes the mint magistrates his sons but Sundwall more accurately considers our Asklepiades as the hieromnemon himself and Hikesios as either his father or son. The former is more likely in view of the date of the coinage and the sequence of names.
AΦPOΔIΣI | (1) | AΦPOΔIΣI – AΠOΛH≡I | 155/4 | PA 2778 |
AΦPOΔIΣI | (1) | AΦPOΔIΣI – ΔIOΓE | 152/1 | PA 2778 |
Possibly Aphrodisios I of Azenia (see under APOΠOΣ and stemma under PA 2246).
AXAIOΣ | (1) | AXAIOΣ – HΛI | 160/59 | PA 2790 |
AXAIOΣ | (3) | ΣΩKPATHΣ – ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | 148/7 | PA 2790 |
The name is uncommon which makes it likely that the same man served in 160/59 and again in 148/7. It is probable that he is the archon of 166/5 B.c.
BAKXI | (3) | AΦPOΔIΣI – AΠOΛH≡I | 155/4 | PA 2822 |
BAKXIOΣ | (3) | ΦANOKΛHΣ – AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ | 143/2 | PA 2823 |
BAKXI | (3) | HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 137/6 | PA 2823 |
BAΣIΛEI | (3) | HPA – APIΣTOΦ | 168/7 | PA 2841 |
The rarity of the name supports Kirchner’s identification of the mint magistrate as the Basileides of Piraeus who was councillor of Hippothontis c. 160 B.c. (Hesp., 1940, pp. 123f.) and hieropoios of the Ptolemaia in 152/1 (IG II2 1938).
BOYKATTHΣ | (3) | MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI | 156/5 | PA 2905 |
To the best of my knowledge the only other occurrence of this name in Attic records concerns a Boukattes of Leontis, a knight in an inscription of 128/7 (Sundwall, Nachträge, p. 42). Our mint magistrate may be the same man.
BOYΛAP | (3) | EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣANΔPOΣ | 158/7 | PA 2909 |
This is another uncommon name. The mint magistrate is likely the Boularchos of Eiresidai who was a Panathenaic victor c. 166/5 B.c. (IG II2 2316 and PA 2910). Boularchos’ deme is established by another inscription (IG II2 5995/6).
BYTTAKOΣ | (3) | AMMΩNIOΣ – KAΛΛIAΣ | 150/49 | PA 2933 |
As Kirchner points out, the mint magistrate is the Byttakos of Lamptrai who was an envoy in a decree of 144/3 (Insc. Délos 1507). In all probability the Pyrrhos who served as third magistrate in 147/6 was his brother (stemma given by Roussel, Délos, p. 102).
ΓΛAY | (1) | ΓΛAY – EXE | 170/69 | |
ΓΛAYKOΣ | (2) | ΛYΣAN – ΓΛAYKOΣ | 159/8 | PA 3006 |
Kirchner considers the magistrates of 159/8 to be brothers, members of a well-known family of Piraeus, whose floruit is put c. 169 B.c. (stemma under PA 10100). It seems probable that the first magistrate of 170/69 is the same Glaukos. This family was still providing mint magistrates at the beginning of the next century (see under MHΔEIOΣ and ΔIOKΛHΣ MEΛI, his brother-in-law).
ΓΛ(?) | (3) | ΔΩΣIӨEOΣ – XAPIAΣ | 132/1 | |
ΓΛAY | (3) | NIKHTHΣ – ΔIONYΣIOΣ | 130/29 | |
ΓOPΓIAΣ | (2) | AΠEΛΛIKΩN – ΓOPΓIAΣ | 121/0 | PA 3066 |
ΓOPΓIΠ | (3) | MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI | 156/5 | PA 3079 |
ΓOPΓOINO(?) | (1) | 187/6 |
For the monogram see p. 48.
ΔAM | (3) | TIMOΣTPATOΣ – ΠOΣHΣ | 134/3 | |
ΔAMΩN | (3) | ΛYΣAN – ΓΛAYKOΣ | 159/8 | PA 3135 |
ΔAMΩN | (1) | ΔAMΩN – ΣΩΣIKPATHΣ | 141/0 | PA 3135 |
ΔEINIAΣ | (3) | ZΩIΛOΣ – EYANΔPOΣ | 142/1 | |
ΔEINIAΣ | (3) | AΠEΛΛIKΩN – ΓOPΓIAΣ | 121/0 | PA 3155 |
ΔEINOK | (3) | EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣANΔPOΣ | 158/7 | PA 3182 |
ΔEINO | (3) | AΦPOΔIΣI – AΠOΛH≡I | 155/4 | PA 3182 |
ΔHME | (3) | APOΠOΣ – MNAΣAΓO | 128/7 | PA 3308 |
ΔHMEAΣ | (1) | ΔHMEAΣ – EPMOKΛHΣ | 125/4 | PA 3309 |
ΔHMEAΣ | (1) | ΔHMEAΣ – KAΛΛIKPATIΔHΣ | 107/6 | PA 3309 |
The use of the Isis headdress symbol on the coinage of 125/4 and of the standing Isis on that of 107/6 clearly indicates that the same man was first magistrate for the two issues. It seems to me almost certain that he also served as third magistrate in 128/7. A connection with the cult of Isis is suggested by the devices chosen. 1
ΔHMH | (1) | ΔHMH – IEPΩ | 174/3 | PA 3340 |
For a possible connection between these magistrates see p. 88.
ΔHMHTPIOΣ | (1) | 173/2 |
For the monogram see p. 91.
ΔHMH | (3) | HPA – APIΣTOΦ | 168/7 | |
ΔHMH | (3) | ΔIOΓE – ΠOΣEI | 161/0 | PA 3343 |
ΔHMH | (3) | ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ | 157/6 | PA 3341 |
ΔHMH OYΛI | (3) | ΔΩPOӨE – ΔIOΦ | 164/3 | PA 3377 |
ΔHMHTPI | (3) | ӨEMΣTO – ӨEOΠOMΠOΣ | 149/8 | PA 3341 |
ΔHMHTPI | (3) | ANΔPEAΣ – XAPINAYTHΣ | 136/5 | PA 3343 |
ΔHMHTPIOΣ | (1) | ΔHMHTPIOΣ – AΓAӨIΠΠOΣ | 131/0 | PA 3344 |
ΔHMHTPI | (2) | APXITIMOΣ – ΔHMHTPI | 117/6 | PA 3352 |
ΔHMHTPIOΣ | (2) | ΠANTAKΛHΣ – ΔHMHTPIOΣ | 110/09 | PA 3342 |
All eleven entries above are undoubtedly various forms of the name Demetrios but unfortunately this is one of the most common of Attic names. Bracketing must be regarded in most cases as tenuous and precise identification is practically impossible. In only one instance do we have a clue: in ΔHMH OYΛI who is thought by Kirchner and Sundwall to be the Demetrios son of Ouliades of Alopeke who was kosmetes in 117/6 B.c. This is clearly impossible but the magistrate of 164/3 is probably his grandfather, the Demetrios of Alopeke who was councillor of Antiochis in 169/8 (Prytaneis, pp. 129ff., no. 71). Certainly the unusual addition of the patronymic must have been intended to distinguish this man from another Demetrios active in mint affairs at about the same time. Some or all of the magistracies of 174/3, 173/2 and 168/7 (and possibly those of 161/0 and 157/6) were in all probability held by this other Demetrios.
It is only the proximity of their terms of office that underlies the tentative bracketing of the third magistrate of 136/5 and the first magistrate of 131/0. Finally, it seems likely that the Demetrios of 117/6 is identical with the Demetrios of 110/09 since an individual frequently served repeatedly in the mint magistracy during the Late Period of the coinage.
ΔHMO | (3) | MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI | 156/5 | |
ΔHMO | (3) | EYMAPEIΔHΣ – KΛEOMEN | 145/4 | |
ΔHMO | (3) | NIKHTHΣ – ΔIONYΣIOΣ | 130/29 | |
ΔHMOΣ | (3) | ΔIONYΣI – ΔIONYΣI | 151/0 | |
ΔHMOΣ | (3) | ӨEOΔOTOΣ – KΛEOΦANHΣ | 138/7 | |
ΔHMOΣӨE | (3) | ΠOΛYXAPM – NIKOΓ | 165/4 | PA 3579 |
ΔHMOΣӨ | (3) | AΦPOΔIΣI – AΠOΛH≡I | 155/4 | PA 3579 |
ΔHMOΣӨEN | (2) | MHTPOΔΩPOΣ – ΔHMOΣӨEN | 147/6 | PA 3579 |
ΔHMOΣӨ | (3) | HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 139/8 | PA 3580 |
Undoubtedly there are fewer than nine individuals represented in the nine entries above but ΔHMO and ΔHMOΣ are not necessarily abbreviations of Demosthenes and it is difficult to discern any clear pattern of association.
ΔHMOΣTPATOΣ | (2) | ΔIONYΣIOΣ – ΔHMOΣTPATOΣ | 101/0 | |
ΔHMOXAPHΣ | (1) | ΔHMOXAPHΣ – ӨAMMENHΣ | 100/99 |
This magistrate is probably the archon of 108/7 B.c. (PA 3707) and very likely the son of Dositheos, first mint magistrate of 132/1 (see under ΔΩΣIӨEOΣ).
ΔIO | (2) | AMMΩ – ΔIO | 182/1 | |
ΔIO | (2) | AMMΩ – ΔIO | 180/79 |
Almost certainly the same pair of magistrates served in 182/1 and 180/79. For a family connection see under AMMΩ.
ΔIO | (3) | ΔIOΓE – ΠOΣEI | 161/0 | |
ΔIO | (3) | AΦPOΔIΣI – ΔIOΓE | 152/1 | |
ΔIOΓE | (1) | ΔIOΓE – ΠOΣEI | 161/0 | |
ΔIOΓE | (2) | AΦPOΔIΣI – ΔIOΓE | 152/1 | |
ΔIOΓE | (3) | HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 139/8 | |
ΔIOΓE | (3) | ΔHMEAΣ – EPMOKΛHΣ | 125/4 | |
ΔIOΓE | (3) | AΠEΛΛIKΩN – ΓOPΓIAΣ | 121/0 |
It seems significant that in 161/0 and again in 152/1 the names ΔIO and ΔIOΓE appear on the coinage. This may, of course, be mere coincidence but it is equally possible that the same two men are serving as mint magistrates in those two years.
That the Dioge of 125/4 is identical with the third magistrate of 121/0 is likely in view of the frequency with which mint magistracies are repeated during the Late Period of the coinage.
A possible clue to the identification of the earliest Dioge is provided by the issue of 161/0 with the names ΔIOΓE – ΠOΣEI. In a fourth century family from Alopeke one finds the names Diogenes and Poseidonios. The coinage may well be evidence of a latter generation in this same family.
ΔIOΔO | (2) | ΔIOΦA – ΔIOΔO | 175/4 | PA 3887 |
ΔIOΔO | (3) | MENEΔ – EΠIΓENO | 167/6 | PA 3888 |
ΔIOΔOTOΣ(?) | (2) | 183/2 |
For the monogram see p. 56. If the interpretation is correct, it seems to me possible that this Diodotos is identical with the magistrates of 175/4 and 167/6.
ΔIOΔΩPOΣ | (2) | TO TPI ΔIOKΛHΣ – ΔIOΔΩPOΣ | 90/89 | PA 3923 |
Kirchner identifies our magistrate with the archon of 53/2 B.c. I should suggest rather that he is Diodoros son of Theophilos of Halai (PA 3935), a prominent Athenian of Roman sympathies who was active in civic affairs in the years before Sulla.
ΔIOK | (3) | HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 139/8 | |
ΔIOK | (3) | HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 137/6 | |
ΔIOKΛ(?) | (1) | 189/8 | ||
ΔIOKΛ(?) | (2) | 176/5 |
For the two monograms above see pp. 44 and 78.
ΔIOKΛ | (3) | EYPYKΛEI – APIAPA | 154/3 | |
ΔIOKΛ | (3) | EYMHΛOΣ – KAΛΛIΦΩN | 140/39 | |
ΔIOKΛE | (3) | ΔΩPOӨE – ΔIOΦ | 164/3 | PA 3974 |
The abbreviation ΔIOKΛE clearly stands for Diokleides. The other entries above may represent the same name or they may be short for Diokles. It is possible, perhaps even probable, that the ΔIOKΛ of 140/39 is identical with the ΔIOK of 139/8 and 137/6.
ΔIOKΛHΣ | (3) | MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI | 156/5 | PA 3994 |
ΔIOKΛHΣ | (1) | ΔIOKΛHΣ – ΛEΩNIΔHΣ | 99/8 | PA 4033 |
ΔIOKΛHΣ | (1) | ΔIOKΛHΣ TO ΔEYTE – MHΔEIOΣ | 95/4 | PA 4033 |
ΔIOKΛHΣ | (1) | TO TPI ΔIOKΛHΣ – ΔIOΔΩPOΣ | 90/89 | PA 4033 |
In this single instance the coinage gives precise testimony to the fact that the same Diokles held the first mint magistracy for three terms. The man in question selected representations of Asklepios, Hygieia and Dionysos for his three issues and this ostensibly points to Diokles son of Diokles of Kephisia who held the priesthood of Asklepios and Hygieia in 51/0 B.c. One must assume, however, that an earlier member of this Kephisia family, probably the Diokles I of PA 4031, held the same priesthood and that he was the Diokles of the coinage. Another interesting numismatic indication of a priesthood held by different generations is provided by the coins of EYPYKΛEI – APIAPA (see p. 604 of the section on Symbols).
ΔIOKΛHΣ MEΛI | (1) | ΔIOKΛHΣ MEΛI – MHΔEIOΣ | 89/8 | PA 4040 |
After the three terms of Diokles of Kephisia it was obviously necessary to indicate in some distinctive fashion the magistracy of a different Diokles and this was done by means of the abbreviated demotic following his name. The first mint magistrate of 89/8 B.c. is not, as Kirchner suggests, Diokles II of Melite but his father Diokles I, brother-in-law of Medeios of Piraeus with whom he shared the mint magistracy (PA 4039 and stemma under PA 10100).
ΔIOME | (3) | KAPAIX – EPΓOKΛE | 153/2 | |
ΔION | (3) | EYMAPEIΔHΣ – AΛKIΔAM | 145/4 | |
ΔION | (3) | TIMOΣTPATOΣ – ΠOΣHΣ | 134/3 | |
ΔION | (3) | ΔΩΣIӨEOΣ – XAPIAΣ | 132/1 | |
ΔIONY | (2) | 173/2 |
For the monogram see p. 91.
ΔIONY | (3) | ΔΩPOӨE – ΔIOΦ | 164/3 | |
ΔIONY | (3) | EYPYKΛEI – APIAPA | 154/3 | |
ΔIONY | (3) | KAPAIX – EPΓOKΛE | 153/2 | |
ΔIONY | (3) | ӨEOΔOTOΣ – KΛEOΦANHΣ | 138/7 | |
ΔIONYΣ | (3) | XAPINAYTHΣ – APIΣTEAΣ | 144/3 | |
ΔIONYΣIOY | (3) | ΠOΛYXAPM – NIKOΓ | 165/4 | PA 4105 |
ΔIONYΣI | (1) | ΔIONYΣI – ΔIONYΣI | 151/0 | |
ΔIONYΣI | (2) | ΔIONYΣI – ΔIONYΣI | 151/0 | |
ΔIONYΣI | (3) | AMMΩNIOΣ – KAΛΛIAΣ | 150/49 | |
ΔIONYΣI | (3) | ӨEMIΣTO – ӨEOΠOMΠOΣ | 149/8 | PA 4105 |
ΔIONYΣIOΣ KE | (3) | ΔIOTIMOΣ – MAΓAΣ | 146/5 | PA 4186 |
ΔIONYΣIOΣ | (2) | NIKHTHΣ – ΔIONYΣIOΣ | 130/29 | PA 4109 |
ΔIONYΣI | (3) | KOINTOΣ – KΛEAΣ | 122/1 | PA 4117 |
ΔIONYΣIOΣ | (3) | AΠEΛΛIKΩN – ΓOPΓIAΣ | 121/0 | |
ΔIONYΣIOΣ | (1) | ΔIONYΣIOΣ – MNAΣAΓOPAΣ | 105/4 | PA 4109 |
ΔIONYΣIOΣ | (1) | ΔIONYΣIOΣ – ΔHMOΣTPATOΣ | 101/0 |
It is well-nigh impossible to bring any real order out of this Dionysiac chaos. ΔIONYΣI may be short for ΔIONYΣIΦIΛOΣ but is far more likely ΔIONYΣIOΣ and has been here so considered. ΔION, ΔIONY and ΔIONYΣ may stand for several rare names in addition to the three common ones which indubitably appear on the coinage: ΔIONYΣIOΣ, ΔIONYΣOΓ(ENHΣ) and ΔIONYΣOΔΩ(POΣ). The confusion is increased by the circumstance that in 151/0 B.c. the first and second magistrates are alike ΔIONYΣI without any attempt at differentiation. This probably indicates father and son but it is not beyond possibility that the same man held both magistracies (see pp. 593–599). It would help if we could consider the variation in abbreviations as a guide but this is definitely not applicable in the case of other magistrates and there is no reason to posit any such logical procedure here. Under the circumstances the attempt of Dionysios Ke to identify himself is highly understandable but although he may have succeeded with respect to his contemporaries, the Ke is not of much help to us. The letters probably stand for a demotic—Kephale?—but an abbreviated patronymic is possible.
Bracketing is on the basis of chronological proximity and must be regarded in most cases as highly tentative. It does seem to me likely that the ΔION of 134/3 and 132/1 is the same man as the ΔIONYΣIOΣ of 130/29. In 132/1 both NIK and ΔION appear as third magistrates while the annual magistrates two years later are Niketes and Dionysios. In the case of other magistrates of the same period (e.g. Harmoxenos and Demeas) one finds a similar situation involving third magistracies shortly before service in the first or second office. (For the probable relationship of Niketes and Dionysios see above under AӨHNOBI and below under NIKHTHΣ.)
Dionysios and Mnasagoras of 105/4 are related (see under MNAΣAΓOPAΣ) and it is almost certain that the same Dionysios served with Demostratos four years later.
ΔIONYΣO | (3) | HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 139/8 | |
ΔIONYΣOΓ | (3) | HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 137/6 | PA 4271 |
In all likelihood the same man despite the omission of the gamma in 139/8.
ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | (3) | ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ | 157/6 | PA 4280 |
ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | (2) | ΣΩKPATHΣ – ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | 148/7 | PA 4280 |
ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | (3) | XAPINAYTHΣ – APIΣTEAΣ | 144/3 | PA 4281 |
Kirchner associates the first and second ΔIONYΣOΔΩ; all three may well be the same man.
ΔIOTIMOΣ | (1) | ΔIOTIMOΣ – MAΓAΣ | 146/5 | PA 4374 |
ΔIOΦ | (2) | ΔΩPӨE – ΔIOΦ | 164/3 |
This may be the ΔIOΦA of 175/4 (below).
ΔIOΦ | (3) | KAPAIX – EPΓOKΛE | 153/2 | |
ΔIOΦA | (1) | ΔIOΦA – ΔIOΔO | 175/4 | |
ΔIOΦANTOΣ | (1) | ΔIOΦANTOΣ – AIΣXINHΣ | 108/7 | PA 4423 |
ΔPOMO | (3) | NIKHTHΣ – ΔIONYΣIOΣ | 130/29 | |
ΔPOMO | (3) | APIΣTIΩN – ΦIΛΩN | 129/8 | |
ΔΩPO | (3) | ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ | 157/6 | PA 4593 |
ΔΩPO | (3) | TIMOΣTPATOΣ – ΠOΣHΣ | 134/3 | |
ΔΩPOӨ | (3) | TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO | 166/5 | PA 4593 |
ΔΩPOӨE | (3) | ΠOΛYXAPM – NIKOΓ | 165/4 | |
ΔΩPOӨE | (1) | ΔΩPOӨE – ΔIOΦ | 164/3 | PA 4594 |
ΔΩPOӨE | (3) | ΔIOΓE – ΠOΣEI | 161/0 | PA 4593 |
In 161/0 a Dorotheos son of Charmides won a contest for boys in the Theseia games (PA 4595). The Dorotheos and Charmides who served as first and third magistrates for the coinage of 164/3 are members of this family and in all probability the third official of 166/5, 165/4 and 161/0 is the same Dorotheos. This man would be the brother of Charmides and the uncle of the child of 161/0. The latter is the Dorotheos of 138/7, immediately following.
ΔΩPOӨE | (3) | ӨEOΔOTOΣ – KΛEOΦANHΣ | 138/7 | PA 4594 |
ΔΩΣIӨEOΣ | (1) | ΔΩΣIӨEOΣ – XAPIAΣ | 132/1 | PA 4632 |
Dositheos and Charias are thought by Kirchner to be brothers of the deme Cholleidai. Raubitschek in the American Journal of Archaeology for 1945 (pp. 434f.) changes the deme of the family to Aithalidai and makes certain additions to Roussel’s stemma (BCH, 1908, p. 367, no. 577). The mint magistrate Charias is probably the pompostolos of a mid second century inscription (Insc. Délos 2609). His colleague Dositheos is undoubtedly a relative and very likely the father of Demochares, agoranomos in a dedication dated about the beginning of the first century (Insc. Délos 2381). 1 This Demochares may be identified with the first mint magistrate of 100/99 B.c.
EӨE | (1) | 193/2 |
For the monogram see p. 37.
EIKAΔIOΣ | (1) | 185/4 |
For the monogram see p. 52. The name is extremely rare and it seems certain that our magistrate is the Eikadios of Trinemeia who was a donor in 183/2 B.c. (PA 4642).
EIPHNA | (3) | ANTIOXOΣ – KAPAIXOΣ | 163/2 | PA 4643 |
EIPHNAI | (3) | ΦANOKΛHΣ – AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ | 143/2 |
The earlier Eirenaios is identified by Kirchner with a man from Piraeus who was a donor in 183/2 (PA 4645).
EΛI≡ | (3) | AΦPOΔIEI – ΔIOΓE | 152/1 | PA 4665 |
EMBI | (3) | NIKHTHΣ – ΔIONYΣIOΣ | 130/29 |
As the name is very rare, our Embios is surely the father of the Embios son of Embios of Prospalta known from an inscription of the late second century (IG II2 1944).
EΠIΓENO | (2) | MENEΔ – EΠIΓENO | 167/6 | PA 4785 |
EΠIΓENH | (1) | EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣANΔPOΣ | 158/7 | PA 4785 |
EΠIΓEN | (3) | ΔAMΩN – ΣΩΣIKPATHΣ | 141/0 | |
EΠIΓENHΣ | (1) | EΠIΓENHΣ – ≡ENΩN | 104/3 | PA 4812 |
Kirchner considers the annual magistrates of 104/3 to be brothers from Melite (PA 4812 for stemma) whose floruit is put c. 100 B.c. A tentative revised stemma is published by Roussel (Délos, p. 105) but his association of the mint magistrates with the ephebes of the early first century is impossible. Our Epigenes is the epimeletes of an inscription dated prior to 126/5 (Insc. Délos 1643), his choice of an Apollo symbol for his coinage apparently a reference to his connection with Delos. Xenon is probably a brother.
EΠIΓO | (3) | MENEΔ – EΠIΓENO | 167/6 | PA 4824 |
EΠIΓO | (3) | XAPINAYTHΣ – APIΣTEAΣ | 144/3 | PA 4825 |
EΠIӨETHΣ | (2) | KΛEOΦANHΣ – EΠIӨETHΣ | 119/8 | PA 4836 |
The second magistrate of 119/8 is surely the Epithetes son of Aphroditos of Aithalidai known from a listing of noblemen of the last quarter of the second century (IG II2 2452 and PA 4837).
EΠIKPATHΣ | (2) | KAΛΛIMAXOΣ – EΠIKPATHΣ | 97/6 | PA 4903 |
Our mint magistrates are members of a family from Leukonoe: the former is basileus in 100/99 (IG II2 2336) and the latter hoplite general at about the same time.
EΠIMAXOΣ | (3) | ӨEOΔOTOΣ – KΛEOΦANHΣ | 138/7 | PA 4930 |
EΠINI | (3) | AΦPOΔIΣI – ΔIOΓE | 152/1 | PA 4939 |
EΠIΣTPA | (3) | HPA – APIΣTOΦ | 168/7 | PA 4948 |
EΠIΣTPATOΣ | (2) | AMΦIKPATHΣ – EΠIΣTPATOΣ | 133/2 | PA 4951 |
For the two entries above see under AMΦIKPATHΣ.
EΠITI | (3) | XAPINAYTHΣ – APIΣTEAΣ | 144/3 |
A potter EΠITIMOΣ is recorded by Beazley (Attic Black-figure Vase-painters, p. 119). The name is, I believe, otherwise unknown from Attic records.
EΠIΦANHΣ | (3) | AMMΩNIOΣ – KAΛΛIAΣ | 150/49 | PA 4968 |
This magistrate is almost certainly, as Sundwall suggests (pp. 9f.), a member of the Epiphanes – Hippakos family of Lamptrai He is to be identified with the Epiphanes II of Sundwall’s stemma, father of the Epiphanes known from an inscription of 109/8 B.c. (IG II2 1014).
EPΓOKΛE | (2) | KAPAIX – EPΓOKΛE | 153/2 |
Since the name is uncommon, the mint magistrate may well be the archon of 132/1 B.c. (PA 5053).
EPMA | (3) | TIMOΣTPATOΣ – ΠOΣHΣ | 134/3 | |
EPMOΓENHΣ | (3) | MHTPOΔΩPOΣ – MIΛTIAΔHΣ | 147/6 | PA 5122 |
Sundwall suggests an identification with the archon of 183/2 but this seems unlikely in view of the date of the coinage.
EPMOKΛHΣ | (2) | ΔHMEAΣ – EPMOKΛHΣ | 125/4 |
In this issue of coinage one of the third magistrates is KΛEIΔA and the association of this name with that of Hermokles in 125/4 establishes a connection with the family of the tribe Antiochis in which the names occur. The second and third magistrates are probably brothers (see under KΛEIΔAMO).
EPMOKPA | (3) | ΔIOΓE – ΠOΣEI | 161/0 | PA 5151 |
EPMOKPA | (3) | AXAIOΣ – HΛI | 160/59 | PA 5151 |
EPMOKPA | (3) | ΣΩKPATHΣ – ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | 148/7 | |
EΣTIAIOΣ | (3) | ΔIOΓE – ΠOΣEI | 161/0 | PA 5196 |
This magistrate is to be identified as the Hestiaios son of Sophanes of Themakos who was hieropoios of the Ptolemaia in 152/1 (PA 5199). His father Sophanes, who contributed on behalf of his son in 183/2, to likely the mint magistrate of 167/6 (see under ΣΩΦA). These associations appear certain in that both names are uncommon.
EYAΓIΩN | (2) | AΛKETHΣ – EYAΓIΩN | 106/5 | PA 5234 |
Euagion and Alketes of 106/5 are brothers (see under AΛKETHΣ).
EYAN | (3) | MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI | 156/5 | |
EYANΔPOΣ | (2) | ZΩIΛOΣ – EYANΔPOΣ | 142/1 | PA 5269 |
EYBIOΣ | (3) | AMMΩNIOΣ – KAΛΛIAΣ | 150/49 | PA 5285 |
EYBOYΛIΔHΣ | (1) | EYBOYΛIΔHΣ – AΓAӨOKΛH | 142/1 | PA 5338 |
The magistrates of the first months of 142/1 are related (see under AΓAӨOKΛH).
EYBOYΛOΣ | (3) | AMMΩNIOΣ – KAΛΛIAΣ | 150/49 | PA 5345 |
EYBOYΛOΣ | (3) | HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛΣ | 139/8 | |
EYΔH | (3) | AXAIOΣ – HΛI | 160/59 | |
EYΔH | (3) | KAPAIX – EPΓOKΛE | 153/2 | |
EYΔHMOΣ | (2) | AXAIOΣ – HΛI | 160/59 | PA 5389 |
EYΔHMOΣ | (3) | XAPINAYTHΣ – APIΣTEAΣ | 144/3 | PA 5390 |
It seems likely that the EYΔH and the EYΔHMOΣ of 160/59 refer to two individuals even it the name is the same.
EYΔI | (3) | ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ | 157/6 | |
EYΔI | (3) | AMΦIKPATHΣ – EΠIΣTPATOΣ | 133/2 | |
EYΔΩPO | (1) | 191/0 |
For the monogram see p. 41. The magistrate is very probably Eudoros of Kydathenaion (PA 5452).
EYKΛHΣ | (3) | ӨEOΦPA – ΣΩTAΣ | 162/1 | PA 5707 |
EYKΛHΣ | (3) | MHTPOΔΩPOΣ – ΔHMOΣӨEN | 147/6 | PA 5707 |
EYKΛHΣ | (2) | HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 139/8 | PA 5708 |
EYKΛHΣ | (2) | HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 137/6 | PA 5708 |
Eukles served two terms as annual magistrate, both times with Herakleides. The same two names in full or in abbreviation appear on earlier issues of coinage, twice in the case of Eukles and four times in that of Herakleides. There is, of course, no proof that the same two men were involved in these various magistracies but it is noteworthy that the period of time covered in each instance is approximately a quarter of a century, which would be a reasonable span of civic activity. Furthermore, it might be supposed that men so closely identified with the mint as to hold the annual office twice within three years would have had an earlier connection with mint affairs.
The Eukles of 139/8 and 137/6 is tentatively identified by Raubitschek (R–E, p. 2257, s.v. Oinophilos) as the Eukles of Trinemeia who was the father-in-law of Amphias of Aphidna, mint magistrate in 115/4 B.c. (Wilhelm, Beiträge, p. 85 for stemma). This association seems to me valid.
EYKPA | (3) | MHTPOΔΩPOΣ – ΔHMOΣӨEN | 147/6 | PA 5746 |
EYMA | (2) | KTHΣI – EYMA | 171/0 | |
EYMAPEI | (3) | AΦPOΔIΣI – AΠOΛH≡I | 155/4 | PA 5808 |
EYMA | (3) | AΦPOΔIΣI – ΔIOΓE | 152/1 | PA 5808 |
EYMAPEIΔHΣ | (1) | EYMAPEIΔHΣ – AΛKIΔAM and KΛEOMEN | 145/4 | PA 5809 |
Eumareides and Alkidamos of 145/4 are members of a family of Euonymon (see under AΛKIΔAM for a discussion of the epigraphical evidence). The former is probably the third magistrate of 155/4 and 152/1.
EYMAXOΣ | (3) | ANTIOXOΣ – KAPAIXOΣ | 168/2 | PA 5814 |
Possibly as Sundwall suggests, the EYMA of 171/0 is the same man.
EYMH | (3) | EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣANΔPOΣ | 158/7 | PA 5833 |
EYMHΛOΣ | (1) | EYMHΛOΣ – KAΛΛIΦΩN | 140/39 | PA 5833 |
EYMHΛOΣ | (1) | EYMHΛOΣ – ӨEO≡ENIΔHΣ | 114/3 | PA 5834 |
EYNOM | (3) | ANTIOXOΣ – KAPAIXOΣ | 163/2 | PA 5862 |
EYΠEI | (3) | ΔHMEAΣ – EPMOKΛHΣ | 125/4 | PA 5917 |
EYΠOΛE | (3) | AMMΩNIOΣ – KAΛΛIAΣ | 150/49 | PA 5921 |
Identified by Sundwall as the archon of 185/4 B.c. but this seems somewhat unlikely.
EYPYK | (3) | MENEΔ – EΠIΓENO | 167/6 | |
EYPYKΛEI | (2) | MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI | 156/5 | PA 5965 |
EYPYKΛEI | (1) | EYPYKΛEI – APIAPA | 154/3 | PA 5967 |
The magistrates of 156/5 are the brothers Mikion IV and Eurykleides III of Kirchner’s stemma (PA 5966) whose floruit is put c. 164 B.c. Both men served additional terms in the mint office—Mikion as first magistrate in 169/8 and Eurykleides as third magistrate in 167/6 and as first magistrate in 154/3. See also p. 106.
EXE | (2) | ΓΛAY – EXE | 170/69 | PA 6168 |
EXE | (3) | HPA – APIΣTOΦ | 168/7 |
This is almost certainly Echedemos of Kydathenaion, prominent in civic affairs during the early part of the second century (see p. 102).
EXEΣӨENHΣ | (3) | ΔIOTIMOΣ – MAΓAΣ | 146/5 | PA 6177 |
ZEY≡I | (3) | ΔIONYΣI – ΔIONYΣI | 151/0 | |
ZΩIΛOΣ | (3) | ΣΩKPATHΣ – ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | 148/7 | PA 6234 |
ZΩIΛOΣ | (1) | ZΩIΛOΣ – EYANΔPOΣ | 142/1 | PA 6233 |
ZΩIΛOΣ | (3) | ZΩIΛOΣ – EYANΔPOΣ | 142/1 | PA 6234 |
The third magistrate of 148/7 and the first official of 142/1 are in all probability the same man, possibly the Zoilos of Zoilos of Sphettos (PA 6247) on whose behalfa donation was made in 183/2. The third magistrate of 142/1 is likely his son.
ZΩΠY | (3) | AΦPOΔIΣI – ΔIOΓE | 152/1 |
Identified by Sundwall with the archon of 186/5 but the name is not uncommon and there are other possibilities.
HΓEAΣ (see under HΓIAΣ)
HΓEMA | (3) | ΔIOΓE – ΠOΣEI | 161/0 | PA 6281 |
HΓEMA | (3) | AΦPOΔIΣI – AΠOΛH≡I | 155/4 | PA 6281 |
Kirchner thinks this man may be Hegemachos son of Satyros of Leukonoe, a donor in 183/2 B.c. The rarity of the name supports an association but our magistrate may belong to the next generation. In 154/3 and 152/1 the name ΣATY appears on the coinage and it seems very possible that we have in the two magistrates of the decade between 160 and 150 sons of the donor of 183/2. The family is discussed by Raubischek (Hesp., 1942, pp. 308f.).
HΓHMΩ | (3) | ANTIOXOΣ – KAPAIXOΣ | 163/2 | PA 6284 |
HΓHMΩ | (3) | ӨEOΦPA – ΣΩTAΣ | 162/1 |
Undoubtedly this is the same man in a magistracy which carried over from the last month of 163/2 to the first month of 162/1.
HΓIAΣ (HΓEAΣ) | (3) | APIΣTIΩN – ΦIΛΩN | 129/8 | PA 6862 |
The two forms of the name occur interchangeably during the year. I believe the variation is merely a diecutter’s mistake rather than indication of two magistrates.
HΛIO | (2) | AΔEI – HΛIO | 179/8 | PA 6404 |
HΛI | (2) | AXAIOΣ – HΛI | 160/59 | PA 6405 |
HΛIOΔΩ | (3) | EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣANΔPOΣ | 158/7 | PA 6405 |
All three entries above may, as Sundwall suggests, indicate the same man but Heliodoros is a rather common name.
HPA | (2) | XAPI – HPA | 178/7 | |
HPA | (1) | HPA – APIΣTOΦ | 168/7 |
It seems likely that the third magistrate of 178/7 was later first magistrate of the HPA – APIΣTOΦ coinage, but there are a number of common names with the HPA beginning.
HPA | (3) | EYMΛOΣ – KAΛΛIΦΩN | 140/39 | |
HPAKΛE | (3) | AMMΩNIOΣ – KAΛΛIAΣ | 150/49 | PA 6445 |
HPAKΛE | (3) | AΠEΛΛIKΩN – ΓOPΓIAΣ | 121/0 | PA 6451 |
HPAKΛEI | (3) | AXAIOΣ – HΛI | 160/59 | PA 6445 |
HPAKΛEI | (3) | AΦPOΔIΣI – AΠOΛH≡I | 155/4 | PA 6445 |
HPAKΛEI | (3) | EYPYKΛEI – APIAPA | 154/3 | PA 6445 |
HPAKΛEI | (3) | XAPINAYTHΣ – APIΣTEAΣ | 144/3 | PA 6446 |
HPAKΛEIΔHΣ | (1) | HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 139/8 | PA 6446 |
HPAKΛEIΔHΣ | (1) | HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 137/6 | PA 6446 |
As was pointed out under EYKΛHΣ, it seems likely that the annual magistrates of 139/8 and 137/6 had earlier association with the mint and I believe that all six entries above may well be the same Herakleides. In the case of Herakleides and Eukles their participation in mint affairs would have extended over a quarter of a century.
The symbol chosen by Herakleides for the two issues of coinage is a Tyche dropping a ballot in an amphora, a device with agonistic implications, but there is no one of present record for whom such a symbol would have been particularly appropriate.
HPAKΛEIΔHΣ | (2) | HPAKΛΩN – HPAKΛEIΔHΣ | 93/2 | PA 6446 |
The magistrate serving with Heraklon in 93/2 B.c. is very likely the archon of 104/3.
HPAKΛEOΔ | (3) | ΔIOTIMOΣ – MAΓAΣ | 146/5 | PA 6506 |
HPAKΛΩN | (1) | HPAKΛΩN – HPAKΛEIΔHΣ | 93/2 | PA 65091 |
HPAKΩ | (3) | HPA – APIΣTOΦ | 168/7 | PA 6509 |
HPAKΩN | (3) | ӨEOΦPA – ΣΩTAΣ | 162/1 | PA 6509 |
HPOΔO | (3) | AMΦIKPATHΣ – EΠIΣTPATOΣ | 133/2 | PA 65242 |
HPΩΔHΣ | (2) | MENINEAΣ – HPΩΔHΣ | 102/1 | |
HPΩΔHΣ | (2) | ΦIΛOKPATHΣ – HPΩΔHΣ | 98/7 | PA 6538 |
An association with the archon of 60/59 B.c. is suggested by Kirchner and Sundwall. It seems more likely that the mint magistrate is the Herodes of Sphettos (PA 6544) whose son Dionosios was an ephebe c. 80/79 B.c. (IG II2 1039). The family was prominent in the late second century.
ӨEMIΣTOKΛH | (3) | ΠOΛYXAPM – NIKOΓ | 165/4 | PA 6651 |
ӨEMI | (3) | KAPAIX – EPΓOKΛE | 153/2 | |
ӨEMIΣΓO | (3) | AMMΩNIOΣ – KAΛΛIAΣ | 150/49 | PA 6651 |
ӨEMIΣΓO | (1) | ӨEMIΣTO – ӨEOΠOMΠOΣ | 149/8 | PA 6651 |
As Kirchner says, the symbol—a trophy on a galley—chosen by the first magistrate of 149/8 points to a descendant of the famous Themistokles. The three earlier third magistrates of the same name may well be the same man.
ӨEMIΠOKΛHΣ | (2) | ΣΩTAΔHΣ – ӨEMIΣTOKΛHΣ | 112/1 | PA 6652 |
ӨEMIΣTO | (2) | ӨEOΦPAΣTOΣ – ӨEMIΣTO | 109/8 |
The magistrates of 109/8 are father and son: Theophrastos I and Themistokles I of Hagnous (PA 6654 and IG II2 3510 for stemma). It seems almost certain that the same Themistokles served with Sotades three years earlier.
ӨEO | (3) | APIΣTΩN – ΦIΛΩN | 129/8 | |
ӨEOΓEN | (3) | ӨEMIΣTO – ӨEOΠOMΠOΣ | 149/8 | |
ӨEOΔOT | (3) | ΔIOΓE – ΠOΣEI | 161/0 | PA 68343 |
ӨEOΔOTOΣ | (3) | ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ | 157/6 | PA 6779 |
ӨEOΔOTOΣ | (1) | ӨEOΔOTOΣ – KΛEOΦANHΣ | 138/7 | PA 6780 |
ӨEOΔΩP | (3) | ӨEMIΣTO – ӨEOΠOMΠOΣ | 149/8 | PA 6834 |
ӨEOΔΩPOΣ | (3) | ΦANOKΛHΣ – AΠOΛΛNIOΣ | 143/2 | PA 6835 |
ӨEOΔΩ | (3) | EYBOYΛIΔHΣ – AΓAӨOKΛH | 142/1 | PA 6834 |
ӨEOΔΩP | (3) | ΔAMΩN – ΣΩΣIKPATHΣ | 141/0 | PA 6834 |
ӨEO≡E | (3) | XAPINAYTHΣ – APIΣTEAΣ | 144/3 | |
ӨEO≡EN | (3) | ZΩIΛOΣ – EYANΔPOΣ | 142/1 | |
ӨEO≡ENIΔHΣ | (2) | EYMHΛOΣ – ӨEO≡ENIΔHΣ | 114/3 | PA 6979 |
ӨEOΠOMΠOΣ | (2) | ӨEMIΣTO – ӨEOΠOMΠOΣ | 149/8 | PA 7020 |
ӨEOΦ | (3) | IKEΣIOΣ – AΣKΛHΠIAΔHΣ | 135/4 | |
ӨEOΦI | (3) | MHTPOΔΩPOΣ – ΔHMOΣӨEN | 147/6 | PA 7110 |
ӨEOΦPA | (2) | MIKI – ӨEOΦPA | 169/8 | |
ӨEOΦP | (3) | MENEΔ – EΠIΓENO | l67/6 | PA 7167 |
ӨEOΦPA | (1) | ӨEOΦPA – ΣΩTAΣ | 162/1 | PA 7167 |
ӨEOΦPAΣTOΣ | (1) | ӨEOΦPAΣTOΣ – ӨEMIΣTO | 109/8 |
Theoprastos and Themistokles of 109/8 are father and son (see under ӨEMIΣTO). It seems probable that the mint magistracies of 169/8, 167/6 and 162/1 were held by a single man, and possible that he was a member of the same family from Hagnous as the later Theophrastos.
ӨOINOΣ | (3) | ΔIOTIMOΣ – MAΓAΣ | 146/5 | PA 7245 |
ӨOI | (3) | EYMAPEIΔHΣ – AΛKIΔAM | 145/4 | PA 7245 |
Since the name is uncommon at Athens it appears certain that the same Thoinos held fit third mint magistracy in contiguous year. perhaps he is, as Kirchner suggests, to be associated with the orator of Epikles’ archonship in 131/0 B.c.
ӨPA | (3) | NIKHTHΣ – ΔIONYΣIOΣ | 130/29 | |
ӨPAΣY | (3) | AΦPOΔIΣI – ΔIOΓE | 152/1 | |
ӨYMOX(?) | (2) | 190/89 |
For the monogram see p. 48.
IAΣΩN | (3) | XAPINAYTHΣ – APIΣTEAΣ | 144/3 | PA 7425 |
IAΣΩN | (3) | ΔAMΩN – ΣΩΣIKPATHΣ | 141/0 | PA 7425 |
Almost certainly the same man and possibly the orator of the archonship of Hagnotheos in 140/39 B.c. (PA 7426).
IEPΩ | (2) | ΔHMH – IEPΩ | 174/3 |
See p. 88 for a possible connection between the two magistrates.
IEPΩ | (3) | ΛYΣAN – ΓΛAYKOΣ | 159/8 | |
IEPΩN | (3) | ΦANOKΛHΣ – AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ | 143/2 |
There seems to me a strong possibility that the Hieron of 143/2 belongs to a family from Paiania (PA 7543 for the stemma from fourth century records). The third magistrate immediately succeeding him is Philinos, also a family name, and the combination suggests that the two men are descendants of the earlier Hieron and Philions.
IKEΣIOΣ | (1) | IKEΣIOΣ – AΣKΛHΠIAΔHΣ | 135/4 | PA 7573 and add. 2589b |
These magistrates are in all probability father and son (see under AΣKΛHΠIAΔHΣ).
IΠΠONIKOΣ | (3) | AXAIOΣ – HΛI | 160/59 | PA 7655 |
IΠΠONI | (3) | EYPYKΛEI – APIAPA | 154/3 | PA 7655 |
The name is not common and this, together with the fact that another third magistrate in 154/3 is named KAΛΛI, points to a connection with the well-known Hipponikos – Kallias family of earlier records (PA 7833 for stemma).
IΠΠΩN(?) | (1) | 196/5 | ||
IΠΠΩ(?) | (2) | 191/0 |
For the two monograms above see pp. 33 and 41.
KAΛΛIAΔHΣ | (3) | ΔIOTIMOΣ – MAΓAΣ | 146/5 | PA 7779 |
KAΛΛIA | (3) | AΦPOΔIΣI – AΠOΛH≡I | 155/4 | PA 7820 |
KAΛΛI | (3) | EYPYKΛEI – APIAPA | 154/3 | PA 7820 |
KAΛΛIAΣ | (2) | AMMΩNIOΣ – KAΛΛIAΣ | 150/49 | PA 7820 |
Admittedly KAΛΛI and KAΛΛIA may be expanded into names other than KAΛΛIAΣ. However, it seems highly probable that the Kallias of 150/49 held the earlier magistracies of 155/4 and 154/3. I suggest that he is the brother of Hipponikos above, whose connection with the mint falls within the same decade.
KAΛΛIӨEOΣ | (3) | NIKOΓENHΣ – KAΛΛIMAXOΣ | 126/5 | PA 7909 |
The name is uncommon and the magistrate may, as Sundwall says, be the Kallitheos son of Lysiades of Berenikidai known from inscriptions of this period (Sundwall, p. 54).
KAΛΛIKPA | (3) | EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣANΔPOΣ | 158/7 | PA 7943 |
KAΛΛIKPATIΔHΣ | (2) | ΔHMEAΣ – KAΛΛIKPATIΔHΣ | 107/6 | PA 7989 |
Kirchner associates this man with Kallikratides son of Syndromos of Steiria, an ephebe in the archonship of Aristarchos (107/6 B.c.) but this is impossible in view of the date of the coinage. He is in all probability the Kallikratides son of Kallikrates of Steiria (name restored) of a decree of 109/8 (IG II2 1014).
KAΛΛIMAXOΣ | (2) | NIKOΓENHΣ – KAΛΛIMAXOΣ | 126/5 | PA 8000 |
KAΛΛIMAXOΣ | (1) | KAΛΛIMAXOΣ – EΠIKPATHΣ | 97/6 | PA 8021 |
The second magistrate of 126/5 and the two officials of 97/6 are members of a family from Leukonoe (see under EΠIKPATHΣ). The earlier Kallimachos may be the father of Epikrates.
KAΛΛIΣ | (3) | ΔIONYΣI – ΔIONYΣI | 151/0 | |
KAΛΛIΣ | (3) | MHTPOΔΩPOΣ – ΔHMOΣӨEN | 147/6 |
Sundwall (pp. 43f.) thinks the abbreviation stands for Kallistratos and connects the mint magistrates with the archon of that name (156/5 B.c.). I agree that the same man is almost certainly involved in the two magistracies but the ending of his name and his identification seem alike conjectural.
KA(ΛΛIΦΩN) | (3) | ΔIOΓE – ΠOΣEI | 161/0 | PA 8229 |
KAΛΛIΦ | (3) | MHTPOΔΩPOΣ – ΔHMOΣӨEN | 147/6 | PA 8229 |
KAΛΛIΦΩN | (2) | EYMHΛOΣ – KAΛΛIΦΩN | 140/39 | PA 8229 |
Both Kirchner and Sundwall believe that the same man held the three magistracies above. It is further possible that there is a relationship with the kalliphon below.
KAΛΛIΦΩN | (2) | ΦIΛOKPATHΣ – KAΛΛIΦΩN | 92/1 | PA 8231 |
An association with the archon of 58/7 B.c. is suggested by Kirchner and Sundwall. However that may be, I think thee mint magistrate is without doubt the Kalliphon who interceded with sulla on behalf of his fellow-Athenians after the capture of the city (Plut. Sulla 14 and PA 8230).
KAPAIXOY | (3) | ΠOΛYXAPM – NIKOΓ | 165/4 | PA 8252 |
KAPAIXOΣ | (2) | ANTIOXOΣ – KAPAIXOΣ | 163/2 | PA 8252 |
KAPAIX | (1) | KAPAIX – EPΓOKΛE | 153/2 | PA 8252 |
The rarity of the name is strong indication of the identity of the three magistrates. The mint official may, as Kirchner suggests, be the donor of 183/2, Karaichos of Halai, although a son is perhaps more likely.
KHΦIΣOΔ | (3) | XAPINAYTHΣ – APIΣTEAΣ | 144/3 | |
KΛE | (3) | KAPAIX – EPΓOKΛE | 153/2 | |
KΛEAPX | (3) | AXAIOΣ – HΛI | 160/59 | PA 8477 |
KΛEAΣ | (2) | KOINTOΣ – KΛEAΣ | 122/1 |
The name is otherwise unknown from Attic records.
KΛEIΔAMO | (3) | ΔAMΩN – ΣΩΣIKPATHΣ | 141/0 | PA 8489 |
KΛEI | (3) | NIKHTHΣ – ΔIONYΣIOΣ | 130/29 | |
KΛEIΔA | (3) | ΔHMEAΣ – EPMOKΛHΣ | 125/4 | PA 8490 |
On the basis of an Attic inscription naming Hermokles son of Kleidamos as an epheba in the archonship of Hipparchos (119/8 B.c.) Kirchner considers the KΛEIΔA and EPMOKΛHΣ of 125/4 as brother and the earlier KΛEIΔAMO of 141/0 as their father. Sundwall (p. 36) would make the third magistrate of 130/29 and 125/4 the son of kleidamos of 141/0 and the father of Hermokles of 125/4. It seems to me more likely that a. single Kleidamos is involved in the three magistracies above and that the Hermokles of 125/4 is his brother and hence an uncle of the ephebe of 119/8.
KΛEOMA | (3) | AMΦIKPATHΣ – EΠIΣTPATOΣ | 133/2 | |
KΛEOMEN | (2) | EYMAPEIΔHΣ – KΛEOMEN | 145/4 | PA 8592 |
KΛEOΦAN | (3) | ΛYΣAN – ΓΛAYKOΣ | 159/8 | PA 8629 |
KΛEOΦANHΣ | (2) | ӨEOΔOTOΣ – KΛEOΦANHΣ | 138/7 | PA 8630 |
KΛEOΦANHΣ | (1) | KΛEOΦANHΣ – EΠIӨETHΣ | 119/8 | PA 8630 |
Kirchner regards the magistrates of 138/7 and 119/8 as the same man while Sundwall links the magistrates of 159/8 and 138/7. It is not impossible that a single Kleophanes held the three offices.
KΛEΩN | (3) | TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO | 166/5 | |
KOINTOΣ | (1) | KOINTOΣ – KΛEAΣ | 122/1 | PA 8688 |
The mint magistrate of 122/1 is tentatively identified by Kirchner as the archon of 56/5 B.c. but this is clearly impossible.
KPITΩN | (3) | ZΩIΛOΣ – EYANΔPOΣ | 142/1 | PA 8818 |
KPITΩN | (3) | ΔAMΩN – ΣΩΣIKPATHΣ | 141/0 | PA 8818 |
KPIT | (3) | ANΔPEAΣ – XAPINAYTHΣ | 136/5 |
In the Kriton of 142/1 and 141/0 we have another example of a third magistracy running over from the last month of one year into the first months of the next. It is entirely possible that the same man served a third term five years later but there are, of course, other terminations for KPIT.
KTHΣI | (1) | KTHΣI – EYMA | 171/0 | |
ΛAIN | (3) | ӨEOΦPA – ΣΩTAΣ | 162/1 |
The lettering is ΛAIN and not ΛAM as Sundwall records it. Since the name is very rare, out magistrate may be identified with the Laines of Dekeleia known from inscriptions of 186/5 (IG II2 2323 and 2325) and from the donors’ list of 183/2 (IG II2 2332).
ΛAMIOΣ | (3) | ΔIOTIMOΣ – MAΓAΣ | 146/5 | PA 8984 |
ΛAMIOΣ | (3) | ZΩIKOΣ – EYANΔPOΣ | 142/1 | |
ΛAXHΣ | (3) | TIMOΣTPATOΣ – ΠOΣHΣ | 134/3 | |
ΛEONTOME | (3) | EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣANNΔPOΣ | 158/7 | PA 9039 |
This man is undoubtedly the Leontomenes who was councillor of Hippothontis in 178/7 (Prytaneis, pp. 120ff., no. 64).
ΛEY | (3) | TIMOΣTPATOΣ – ΠOΣHΣ | 134/3 | |
ΛEYKIOΣ | (1) | ΛEYKIOΣ – ANTIKPATHΣ | 111/0 | PA 9053 |
Kirchner identifies the first magistrate of 111/0 with the archon of 59/8 but this association is unlikely in view of the date of the coinage.
ΛEΩN | (3) | EYMAPEIΔHΣ – KΛEOMEN | 145/4 | PA 9102 |
ΛEΩNIΔHΣ | (2) | ΔIOKΛHΣ – ΛEΩNIΔHΣ | 99/8 | PA 9128 |
Out magistrate is probably a member of the family from Melite prominent in the second and first centuries B.c., perhaps the Leonides II of Kirchner’s stemma (PA 217).
ΛY | (1) | 176/5 |
For the monogram see p. 78.
ΛYKI | (3) | ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ | 157/6 | |
ΛYKIΣKO | (3) | XAPINAYTHΣ – APIΣTEAΣ | 144/3 | |
ΛYΣAN | (3) | MENEΔ – EΠIΓENO | 167/6 | |
ΛYΣAN | (1) | ΛYΣAN – ΓΛAYKOΣ | 159/8 | PA 9290 |
The magistrates of 159/8 are brothers of the family of Medeios of Piraeus (stemma under PA 10100). It seems likely that the third magistrate of 167/6 is identical with the first official of 159/8.
ΛYΣAN | (3) | AMMΩNIOΣ – KAΛΛIAΣ | 150/49 | |
ΛYΣANΔPOΣ | (1) | ΛYΣANΔPOΣ – OIYOΦIΛOΣ | 116/5 | PA 9293 |
ΛYΣANΔPOΣ | (2) | AΠOΛH≡IΣ – ΛYΣAYΔPOΣ | 88/7 | PA 9294 |
The relationship here is, I believe, that of father and sons. Following Kirchner’s stemma of this family from Piraeus (PA 1363), the first mint magistrate of 116/5 would be Lysander I while the annual magistrates of 88/7 would be his sons Apolexis and Lysander II, the former an ephebe in 117/6 (IG II2 1009). Kirchner considers the Lysander who served with Oinophilos to be the son of Apolexis but this is not possible.
ΛYΣANI | (3) | ӨEMIΣTO – ӨEOΠOMΠOΣ | 149/8 | PA 9301 |
Conceivably this is the same man as the ΛYΣAN of 150/49 B.c.
Sundwall (Nachträge, p. 123) cites a Magas of Marathon in an inscription of uncertain date.
MEIΔΩN | (3) | AΦPOΔIΣI – AΠOΛH≡I | 155/4 | PA 9735 |
MENA | (3) | KAPAIX – EPΓOKΛE | 153/2 | PA 9860 |
MENAN | (3) | TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO | l66/5 | PA 9860 |
MENAN | (3) | ANTIOXOΣ – KAPAIXOΣ | 163/2 | PA 9860 |
MENANΔPOΣ | (3) | TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO | 166/5 | PA 9860 |
It seems likely that the same man served as third magistrate in 166/5 and again in 163/2. The variation in forms—MENAN and MENANΔPOΣ—found on the coinage of Timarchos and Nikagoras suggests a distinction between two individuals of the same name.
MENE | (3) | NIKHTHΣ – ΔIONYΣIOΣ | 130/29 | |
MENEΔ | (3) | HPA – APIΣTOΦ | 168/7 | |
MENEΔ | (1) | MENEΔ – EΠIΓENO | 167/6 | PA 9889 |
MENEΔ | (3) | ΛYΣAN – ΓΛAYKOΣ | 159/8 |
Almost certainly the third magistrate of 168/7 is identical with the first official of the following year and the same man may have served again in 159/8.
MENEΔHMOΣ | (1) | MENEΔHMOΣ – TIMOKPATHΣ | 103/2 | PA 9891 |
In all probability the archon of 92/1 B.c.
MENNEAΣ | (1) | MENNEAΣ – HPΩΔHΣ | 102/1 | |
MENNΩN | (3) | ZΩIΛOΣ – EYANΔPOΣ | 142/1 |
The double N of the name may be a misspelling on the diecutter’s part.
MENOI | (3) | ӨEMIΣTO – ӨEOΠOMΠOΣ | 149/8 | PA 10057 |
MENTΩP | (1) | MENTΩP – MOΣXIΩN | 118/7 | PA 10060 |
Mentor is a very rare name. It is highly likely that, as Kirchner suggests, the mint magistrate of 118/7 is the father of the Diodora mentioned in an ergastinai inscription of 99/8 B.c. (IG II2 1034).
MHΔEIOΣ | (2) | ΔIOKΛHΣ TO ΔEYTE – MHΔEIOΣ | 95/4 | PA 10099 |
MHΔEIOΣ | (2) | ΔIOKΛHΣ MEΛI – MHΔEIOΣ | 89/8 | PA 10099 |
The second pair of magistrates are brothers-in-law, Diokles of Melite and Medeios II of Piraeus (PA 10100 for stemma) whose floruit is put c. 103 B.c. Undoubtedly it is the same Medeios but another Diokles in the magistracy of 95/4.
MHT | (2) | or | 195/4 | |
MHTPO | (2) | 187/6 |
For the two monograms above see pp. 35 and 48.
MHT | (3) | TIMOΣTPATOΣ – ΠOΣHΣ | 184/3 | |
MHTP | (3) | EYMAPEIΔHΣ – KΛEOMEN | 145/4 | |
MHTPO | (3) | EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣANΔPOΣ | 158/7 | PA 10138 |
MHTPO | (3) | AΦPOΔIΣI – AΠOΛH≡I | 155/4 | PA 10138 |
MHTPO | (3) | ΔIONYΣI – ΔIONYΣI | 151/0 | |
MHTPO ΔI | (3) | EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣANΔPOΣ | 158/7 | PA 10138 |
MHTPOΔΩ | (3) | AXAIOΣ – HΛI | 160/59 | PA 10138 |
MHTPOΔΩPOΣ | (1) | MHTPOΔΩPOΣ – MIΛTIAΔHΣ and ΔHMOΣӨEN | 147/6 | PA 10188 |
Only two of the ten entries above indubitably stand for Metrodoros but it is likely that some at least of the other abbreviations indicate the same name and that there is greater repetition of magistracies than the limited amount of bracketing suggests. In one instance, however, two individuals of the same name seem to have served in a single year: MHTPO in zeta of 158/7 and MHTPO ΔI in the next month. The letters after the second name probably are to be understood as a reference to his deme, Diomeia.
MIӨPAΔATHΣ | (1) | BAΣIΛE MIӨPAΔATHΣ – APIΣTIΩN | c. 121 |
The royal title identifies the first magistrate of this issue as a king of Pontus. For reasons which are given at length in the commentary on the Late Period (pp. 416–424), it seems to me almost certain that the king is Mithradates V and not Mithradates VI.
MIKI | (1) | MIKI – ӨEOΦPA | 169/8 | PA 10186 |
MIKIΩN | (1) | MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI | 156/5 | PA 10187 |
Mikion and Eurykleides of 156/5 are brothers of the famous Kephisia family—the Mikion IV and Eurykleides III of Kirchner’s stemma (PA 5966) whose floruit is put about 164 B.c. Kirchner identifies the magistrate of 169/8 as their father, Mikion III, but this association is not tenable. One man, Mikion IV, held both magistracies. See also p. 106.
MIΛTIAΔHΣ | (2) | MHTPOΔΩPOΣ – MIΛTIAΔHΣ | 147/6 | PA 10208 |
Our magistrate may be the Miltiades son of Zoilos of Marathon (PA 10215), cited as a public benefactor in a mid second century decree and agonothetes of the Theseia and of the Panathenaia at about the same time. Admittedly the association is based primarily on the assumption that Miltiades’ career of public service would 1ogically have included a mint magistracy.
MNAΣAΓO | (2) | APOΠOΣ – MNAΣAΓO | 128/7 | PA 10227 |
MNAΣAΓOPAΣ | (2) | ΔIONYΣIOΣ – MNAΣAΓOPAΣ | 105/4 | PA 10227 |
Sundwall (pp. 63f.) identifies the mint magistrate Mnasagoras as the Ikarian nobleman of the last quarter of the second century (IG II2 2452) and the father of Adeimantos and Dionysios, Pythaists in 98/7 B.c. (FD III 2, 17). The connection seems certain in view of the rarity of the name. Mnasagoras of 128/7 may have served a second term with his son Dionysios in 105/4 but it is perhaps more likely that a third son of whom we have no record was associated with his brother in the later magistracy. The father of the Mnasagoras of 128/7 and the grandfather of the Dionysios 105/4 is first mint magistrate for the coinage of 179/8 (see under AΔEI).
MNAΣEAΣ | (1) | MNAΣEAΣ – NEΣTΩP | 120/19 | PA 10228 |
IMNAΣEAΣ | (2) | NEΣTΩP – MNAΣEAΣ | 113./2 | PA 10228 |
In all probability the same pair of magistrates served in 120/19 and again in 113/2. Kirchner suggests that only one issue is involved and that there was an exchange of office during the course of the year but this theory is invalidated by the evidence of the coins.
The magistrates of 184/3 are brothers. See page 54 for the monograms and discussion.
MOYΣAΓ | (3) | ӨEOΔOTOΣ – KΛEOΦANHΣ | 138/7 |
The name is otherwise unknown from Attic records.
MOYΣAI | (3) | ΣΩKPATHΣ – ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | 148/7 | |
NAYKPAT | (1) | – or | 190/89 |
For the monogram see p. 43.
NEΣTΩP | (2) | MNAΣEAΣ – NEΣΓΩP | 120/19 | PA 10657 |
NEΣTΩP | (1) | NEΣTΩP – MNAΣEAΣ | 113/2 | PA 10657 |
see under MNAΣEAΣ.
NIK | (1) | 192/1 |
For the monogram see p. 39.
NIKA | (3) | XAPINAYTHΣ – APIΣTEAΣ | 144/3 | |
NIKAΓO | (2) | TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO | 166/5 | PA 10672 |
Stemmata for the Nikagoras – Alexander – Polykleitos family of Phlya are given by sundwall (p. 50 and Nachträge, p. 10) and by Kirchner (PA 11978). The former associates our mint magistrate with his Nikagoras I whose floruit is put c. 148 B.c. It seems to me equally possible that the father of this man was also named Nikagoras and that he is the mint official of 166/5.
NIKANΩN | (3) | AXAIOΣ – HΛI | 160/59 |
The name is otherwise unknown from Attic records.
NIKANΩP | (3) | AXAIOΣ – HΛI | 160/59 | PA 10696 |
NIKANΩP | (3) | ΛYΣAN – ΓΛAYKOΣ | 159/8 | PA 10696 |
NIKH | (2) | 193/2 |
For the monogram see p. 37.
NIK | (3) | ΔΩΣIӨEOΣ – XAPIAΣ | 132/1 | |
NIKHTHΣ | (1) | NIKHTHΣ – KAΛΛIMAXOΣ | 130/29 | PA 10754 |
NIKHTHΣ | (3) | NIKOΓENHΣ – KAΛΛIMAXOΣ | 126/5 | PA 10754 |
Kirchner thinks our Niketes may be connected with the family from Pergase in which the name is common (PA 10759 for stemma). On the other hand Sundwall Identifies the two magistrates of 130/29 as sons of Athenobios of Eupyridai and it seems to me that this association is the more likely in view of the frequency with which brothers served together as mint officials. In all probability the ΔION of 134/3, the NIK and ΔION of 132/1 and the NIKHTHΣ of 126/5 are also the from Eupyridai. Their father Athenobios was third mint magistrate in 159/8. (See, however, under AӨHNOBI for discussion of a controversial inscription.)
NIKOΓ | (3) | MENEΔ – EΠIΓENO | 167/6 | PA 10850 |
NIKOΓ | (2) | ΠOΛYXAPM – NIKOΓ | 165/4 | PA 10850 |
NIKOΓ | (2) | ANTIOXOΣ – NIKOΓ | 163/2 | PA 10850 |
NIKOΓ | (3) | MENEΔ – EΠIΓENO | 167/6 | |
NIKO | (3) | APOΠOΣ – MNAΣAΓO | 128/7 | |
NIKOΓENHΣ | (1) | NIKOΓENHΣ – KAΛΛIMAXOΣ | 126/5 | PA 10849 |
Four of the six magistracies above are associated by Kirchner with the Nikon – Nikogenes family of Philaidai (PA 10850 for stemma). Actually I believe that the connection of this family with the minting office was even more extensive than Kirchner suggests and should include NIKOΓ NE of 167/6, NIKO of 128/7 and NIKΩN of 159/8 and 146/5.
Following Kirchner’s stemma, the third magistrate of 167/6 is Nikogenes I, agonothetes of the Theseia in 161/0, hipparch in 157/6 and a donor for himself and his two sons (Lyandros and Nikogenes) at about the same time. It would be this son Nikogenes II, designated on the coinage as Nikogenes the younger, who immediately succeeded his father as third magistrate in 167/6. The second magistrate of 165/4 and 163/2 would be again the elder Nikogenes. At a later date a grandson Nikogenes III, victor in a contest for boys in the Theseia of 161/0, served the mint in 128/7 and 126/5. Considering the extraordinarily close connection of this family with mint affairs, it seems highly likely that the third magistrate of 159/8 and 146/5 (NIKΩN below) was Nikon III, oldest son of Nikogenes I and father of Nikogenes III.
NIKOΔHMOΣ | (3) | ΔIOTIMOΣ – MAΓAΣ | 146/5 | PA 10857 |
NIKOΔΩ | (3) | ΔΩPOӨE – ΔIOΦ | 164/3 | PA 10880 |
NIKOΔΩ | (3) | ΛYΣAN – ΓΛAYKOΣ | 159/8 | PA 10879 |
Almost certainly the same man and quite possibly the Nikodoros son of Nikesias of Leontis (PA 10881) who was a victor in the Theseia and the Panathenaia around 160 B.c.
NIKOK | (3) | ӨEOΦPA – ΣΩTAΣ | 162/1 | |
NIKONO | (3) | ΔAMΩN – ΣΩΣIKPATHΣ | 141/0 | PA 10979 |
NIKΩN | (3) | ΛYΣAN – ΓΛAYKOΣ | 159/8 | PA 11096 |
NIKΩN | (3) | ΔIOTIMOΣ – MAΓAΣ | 146/5 | PA 11096 |
Very probably Nikon III son of Nikogenes I of Philaidai (PA 11121). This family was apparently extremely active in mint affairs (see under NIKOΓENHΣ).
NIKΩN | (3) | ANTIOXOΣ – NIKOΓ | 163/2 | PA 11123 |
The third magistrate of 163/2 is identified by Kirchner as a brother of Nikogenes I of Philaidai, second magistrate in the same year. This I rather doubt. On the coins one finds a monogram after Nikon’s name and this would seem to have been intended as a means of differentiating this Nikon from the Philaidai family which was so closely connected with the mint at this period. Sundwall suggests that the KH is either a patronymic or a demotic. The latter explanation is perhaps the more likely. There is a family from Kephisia in which the name Nikon occurs but the record dates back to the fourth century.
≡E | (2) | 192/1 | ||
≡ENO | (3) | NIKHTHΣ – ΔIONYΣIOΣ | 130/29 | |
≡ENOKΛHΣ | (1) | ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ | 127/6 | PA 11216 |
≡ENOKΛHΣ | (1) | ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ | 124/3 | PA 11216 |
≡ENOKΛHΣ | (1) | ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ | 123/2 | PA 11216 |
Kirchner tentatively identifies the Xenokles of the coinage with Xenokles son of Sophokles of Acharnai, a nobleman and dadouchos of the latter part of the second century. The association seems 1ikely, in which case there is a relationship between the present magistrate and the annual officials of 109/8. Xenokles’ daughter was the wife of Theophrastos’ son, Themistokles (stemma under IG II2 3510).
≡ENOKPA | (3) | EYPYKΛEI – APIAPA | 154/3 | PA 11238 |
≡ENΩN | (2) | EΠIΓENHΣ – ≡ENΩN | 104/3 | PA 11883 |
The magistrates of 104/3 are related, probably brothers (see under EΠIΓENHΣ).
OINOΦIΛOΣ | (2) | ΛYΣANΔPOΣ – OINOΦIΛOΣ | 116/5 | PA 11363 |
OINOΦIΛOΣ | (2) | AMΦIAΣ – OINOΦIΛOΣ | 115/4 | PA 11363 |
The Oinophilos who served as mint magistrate in 116/5 and 115/4 is the basileus of a listing of archons c. 90 B.c. His colleague in 115/4 is his father (see under AMΦIAΣ).
OΛY | (3) | ΔHMHTPIOΣ – AΓAӨIΠΠOΣ | 131/0 | |
OΛYMΠIOΣ | (3) | AMMΩNIOΣ – KAΛΛIAΣ | 150/49 | |
OΦEΛOY | (3) | MENEΔ – EΠIΓENO | 167/6 |
Almost certainly the Ophelas son of Habron of Bate who was hipparch in 157/6 and a donor at about the same time (PA 11501). He would be a cousin of the third mint magistrate of 163/2 (see under ABPΩN).
ΠAMMENHΣ | (2) | ΔHMOXAPHΣ – ΠAMMENHΣ | 100/99 | |
ΠAMMENHΣ | (2) | APXITIMOΣ – ΠAMMENHΣ | 96/5 | PA 11520 |
Dow (Hesp. Suppl. VIII, 1949, pp. 123f.) discuses the archon Pammenes and suggests that he may be the man who served as mint magistrate with Architimos. This is possible only if the archon is someone other than the Pammenes son of Zeno of Marathon who was a boy Pythaist in 106/5 and again in 97/6. As Dow points out, if Pammenes of Marathon is the archon he would have been at most twenty-nine years old in 83/2, the date of his archonship. Under no circumstances could he have been the mint magistrate of 100/99 and 96/5.
ΠAMΦI | (3) | EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣANΔPOΣ | 158/7 | PA 11528 |
ΠANTAKΛHΣ | (1) | ΠNTAKΛHΣ – ΔHMHTPIOΣ | 110/09 | PA 11596 |
Citing an earlier study by Köhler, Kirchner connects the first magistrate of 110/09 with the deme Plotheia. The name Pantakles son of Pantainetos of Plotheia is recorded on a fourth century gravestone (IG II2 7239). On the coinage of our Pantakles the symbol seems to be a standing figure of Herakles whose cult is known to have flourished in Plotheia. These indications of demotic affiliation may well be valid but any precise identification of the magistrate in question is impossible.
ΠAP | (1) | 195/4 | ||
ΠAPA | (3) | MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI | 156/5 | |
ΠATPΩ | (3) | ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ | 157/6 | PA 11702 |
Probably the brother of Polemon, first mint magistrate of the same year (see below under ΠOΛEMΩN for the family).
ΠEIӨOΛA | (3) | HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 139/8 | |
ΠEIΣΩN | (3) | ӨEOΦPA – ΣΩTAΣ | 162/1 | |
ΠΛATΩN | (3) | ӨEOΔOΓOΣ – KΛEOΦANHΣ | 138/7 | PA 11847 |
ΠΛEIΣTIAΣ | (3) | ΔHMEAΣ – EPMOKΛHΣ | 125/4 | PA 11865 |
ΠΛEIΣTIAΣ | (3) | KOINTOΣ – KΛEAΣ | 122/1 | PA 11865 |
ΠOΛEMΩN | (1) | ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ | 157/6 | PA 11890 |
Kirchner identifies the first mint magistrate of 157/6 and a third magistrate of the same striking as the brothers Polemon and Patron of Perithoidai whose floruit he puts c. 166 B.c. (PA 11702 for stemma).
ΠOΛY (?) | (1) | 186/5 |
For the monogram see p. 50.
ΠOΛY | (1) | ΠOΛY – TI | 181/0 |
The magistrates are brothers, Polykles and Timarchides of Thorikos (see p. 61).
ΠOΛYKΛH | (3) | ӨEOΦPA – ΣΩTAΣ | 162/1 |
This third magistrate is probably the sculptor Polykles III of Kirchner’s stemma (PA 11992), son and nephew of the mint magistrates of 181/0 immediately above.
ΠOΛYKΛA | (3) | ZΩIΛOΣ – EYANΔPOΣ | 142/1 | PA 12010 |
ΠOΛYM | (3) | HPA – APIΣTOΦ | 168/7 | |
ΠOΛYX | (3) | HPA – APIΣTOΦ | 168/7 | |
ΠOΛYXAPM | (1) | ΠOΛYXAPM – NIKOΓ | 165/4 | PA 12109 |
The first magistrate of 165/4 is identified by Kirchner with a donor of about this period, Polycharmos of Phaleron. Almost certainly the third magistrate of 168/7 is the same man.
ΠOΛYXAPMOΣ | (2) | TPYΦΩN – ΠOΛYXAPMOΣ | 91/0 | |
ΠOΠΛI | (3) | ӨEOΔOTOΣ – KΛEOΦANHΣ | 138/7 | |
ΠOΣEI | (2) | ΔIOΓE – ΠOΣEI | 161/0 |
Poseidonios and Diogenes are names which occur in a fourth century family from Alopeke (PA 12138 and 3813). The annual magistrates of 161/0 may be second century members of the same family.
ΠOΣHΣ | (2) | TIMOΣTPATOΣ – ΠOΣHΣ | 134/3 | PA 12149 |
Timostratos and Poses, annual magistrates of 134/3, are without question members of a well-known Phaleron family (PA 13824). The date of their magistracy necessitates certain changes in Kirchner’s stemma as follows:
The uncertainty with regard to Timostratos II and Timosratos III concerns the Pythaist listing of 128/7, fully discussed under AӨHNOBI.
ΠPOTIM | (3) | ΠOΛYXAPM – NIKOΓ | 165/4 | PA 12280 |
ΠPΩTOΓE | (3) | ANTIOXOΣ – KAPAIXOΣ | 163/2 | PA 12306 |
ΠPΩTOM | (3) | ΣΩKPATΣ – ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | 148/7 | |
ΠYӨOKΛHΣ | (3) | AXAIOΣ – HΛI | 160/59 | PA 12439 |
ΠYӨONI | (3) | EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣANΔPOΣ | 158/7 | PA 12459 |
ΠYPPI | (3) | EYMAPEIΔHΣ – KΛEOMEN | 145/4 | |
ΠYPPOΣ | (3) | MHTPOΔΩPOΣ – ΔHMOΣӨEN | 147/6 | PA 12509 |
Pyrrhos of 147/6 and Byttakos of 150/49 (see under BYTTAOΣ) are brothers of a prominent Lamptrai family (Roussel, Délos, p. 102 for stemma) and not father and son as Sundwall suggests.
ΣAPAΠI | (3) | ANTIOXOΣ – KAPAIXOΣ | 163/2 | PA 12557 |
ΣAT | (3) | ΦANOKΛHΣ – AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ | 143/2 | |
ΣATY | (3) | EYPYKΛEI – APIAPA | 154/3 | |
ΣATY | (3) | AΦPOΔIΣI – ΔIOΓE | 152/1 |
Satyros and Hegemachos, whose names appear on the coinage of the mid second century, are members of a family from Leukonoe (see under HΓEMA).
ΣIMI | (3) | AΦPOΔIΣI – AΠOΛH≡I | 155/4 | PA 12667 |
ΣIMΩN | (3) | AΠEΛΛIKΩN – ΓOPΓIAΣ | 121/0 | PA 12693 |
ΣKYMNOΣ | (3) | ANTIOXOΣ – KAPAIXOΣ | 163/2 | PA 12738 |
ΣMIKYӨ | (3) | MHTPOΔΩOΣ – ΔHMOΣӨEN | 147/6 | |
ΣOΛ | (3) | ΔΩΣIӨEOΣ – XAPIAΣ | 132/1 | |
ΣTPATIOΣ | (3) | ΦANOKΛHΣ – AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ | 143/2 | PA 12914 |
The name is relatively uncommon as is that of Philotheos who follows Stratios as third magistrate in 143/2. Both names occur in a third century Lamptrai family to which the officials of 143/2 may belong.
ΣΩKPA | (3) | ӨEOΦPA – ΣΩTAΣ | 162/1 | |
ΣΩKPATHΣ | (3) | MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI | 156/5 | PA 13090 |
ΣΩKPΛ | (3) | EYPYKΛEI – APIAPA | 154/3 | PA 13089 |
ΣΩKPA | (3) | AΦPOΔΣI – ΔIOΓE | 152/1 | PA 13090 |
ΣΩKPATHΣ | (1) | ΣΩKPATHΣ – ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | 148/7 | PA 13089 |
ΣΩKPAT | (3) | ZΩIΛOΣ – EYANΔPOΣ | 142/1 | PA 13090 |
The Delian Apollo which appears as a symbol on the coins of 148/7 tempts one to connect the first magistrate of that year with the family of Sokrates son of Sokrates of Kephisia (PA 13113). This man is known as a priest of Apollo and also as an agoranomos from inscriptions dated to the first century B.c. (Insc, Délos 1936 and 1835).
Kirchner on the basis of earlier chronologies for the coinage links the magistrates of 154/3 and 148/7 and those of 156/5, 152/1 and 142/1. Actually it is entirely conceivable that all six magistracies, covering as they do a period of only twenty years, were held by a single man or possibly by a father and son. 1 It is interesting to note certain associations which repeat themselves. Thus the Sokrates of 156/5 served with Mikion and Eurykleides and the Sokrates of 154/3 with the same Eurykleides. Sokrates of 162/1 was third magistrate under Theophrastos and Sotas and the same Theophrastos was almost certainly co-magistrate with Mikion in 169/8 B.c.
ΣΩΣANΔPOΣ | (2) | EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣANΔOΣ | 158/7 | PA 13160 |
ΣΩΣIBIOΣ | (3) | AXAIOΣ – HΛI | 160/59 | PA 13184 |
ΣΩΣIΓE | (3) | TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO | 166/5 | PA 13199 |
ΣΩΣIKPATHΣ | (2) | ΔAMΩN – ΣΩΣIKPATHΣ | 141/0 | PA 13245 |
ΣΩΣIKP | (3) | HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 137/6 | PA 13246 |
ΣΩΣIKPA | (3) | ΔHMEΛΣ – EPMOKΛHΣ | 125/4 | PA 13247 |
ΣΩΣTPA | (3) | KOINTOΣ – KΛEAΣ | 122/1 | |
ΣΩΣTPATOΣ | (3) | ΦANOKΛHΣ – AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ | 143/2 | PA 13333 |
ΣΩTAΔHΣ | (1) | ΣΩTAΔHΣ – ӨEMIΣTOKΛHΣ | 112/1 | PA 13376 |
ΣΩTAΣ | (2) | ӨEOӨPA – ΣΩTAΣ | 162/1 | PA 13382 |
ΣΩTAΣ | (3) | ӨEOΔOTOΣ – KΛEOΦANHΣ | 138/7 | PA 13383 |
ΣΩΦA | (3) | MENEΔ – EΠIΓENO | 167/6 |
In all probability the Sophanes son of Dionysios of Themakos who was a donor in 183/2 (see under EΣTIAIOΣ).
TEIΣ | (3) | IKEΣIOΣ – AΣKΛHΠTIAΔHΣ | 135/4 | |
TIMAP | (3) | HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 137/6 | |
TIMAPXIΔ | (2) | ΠOΛY – TI | 181/0 |
The magistrates of 181/0 are brothers, Polykles and Timarchides of Thorikos (see p. 61).
TIMAPXOY | (1) | TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO | 166/5 | PA 13628 |
TIMO | (3) | KAPAIX – EPΓOKΛE | 153/2 | PA 13754 |
TIMOK | (3) | EYMAPEIΔHZ – KΛEOMEN | 145/4 | |
TIMOKPATHΣ | (3) | ΦANOKΛHΣ – AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ | 143/2 | PA 13756 |
TIMOKPATHΣ | (2) | MENEΔHMOΣ – TIMOKPATHΣ | 103/2 | PA 13755 |
See under AΣKΛATΠΩN for the probable relationship of the three Timokrates entries.
TIMOΣTPATOΣ | (1) | TIMOΣTPATOΣ – ΠOΣHΣ | 134/3 | PA 13825 |
Timostratos and Poses of 134/3 are brothers of a Phaleron family (see under ΠOΣHΣ).
For the monogram see pp. 44 and 52. Whether or not the interpretation is correct, the magistracies of 189/8 and 185/4 were certainly held by the same man.
ΦAINNOΣ | (3) | AΦPOΔIΣI – ΔIOΓE | 152/1 |
The name is otherwise unknown from Attic records.
ΦAΛAI | (3) | ӨEOΦPA – ΣΩTAΣ | 162/1 | |
ΦANIA | (2) | or ΦANI | 194/3 | |
ΦANIA | (1,2) | and | 184/3 | PA 14021 |
Phanias and Moschos of Kydathenaion, the annual magistrates of 184/3, are brothers (see page 54 for the monograms and discussion). It is highly probable that the same Phanias served the mint ten years earlier.
ΦANOKΛE | (3) | TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO | 166/5 | PA 14043 |
ΦANOKAE | (3) | ΠOΛYXAPM – NIKOΓ | 165/4 |
This is another instance of a magistracy running over from the last month of one year to the first month of the next. The rarity of the name makes it certain that only one man is involved.
ΦANOKΛHΣ | (1) | ΦANOKΛHΣ – AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ | 143/2 | PΛ 14046 |
ΦANOKPI | (3) | EYPYKΛEI – APIAPA | 154/3 | PA 14061 |
ΦEIΔI | (3) | KAPAIX – EPΓOKΛE | 153/2 | |
ΦI | (3) | ΔHMHTPIOΣ – AΓAӨIΠΠOΣ | 131/0 | |
ΦIΛAN | (3) | HPA – APIΣTOΦ | 168/7 | |
ΦIΛHM | (3) | ӨEOΦPA – ΣΩTAΣ | 162/1 | |
ΦIΛI | (3) | APOΠOΣ – MNAΣAΓO | 128/7 |
In view of the closeness of the two issues this magistrate and the Φ1 of 131/0 may well be the same man.
ΦIΛINOΣ | (3) | ΦANOKΛHΣ – AΠOΛΩNIOΣ | 143/2 | PA 14309 |
The third magistrate immediately preceding Philinos in 143/2 is Hieron. It seems very likely that the men are members of a Paiania family in which the two names occur (see under IEPΩN).
ΦIΛIΩ | (3) | ΔIOΓE – ΠO – ΣEI | 161/0 | |
ΦIΛOΔO | (3) | ΠOAYXAPM – NIKOΓ | 165/4 |
The name is otherwise represented in Attic records only by the Philodoxos of a stone of Roman date (IG II2 8308).
ΦIΛOӨ | (3) | MENEΔ – EΠIΓENO | 167/6 | |
ΦIΛOӨEOΣ | (3) | ΦANOKAHΣ – ΛΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ | 143/2 | |
ΩIΛOӨ | (3) | EYBOYΛIΔHΣ – AΓAӨOKΛH | 142/1 |
Philotheos of mu in 143/2 and Philoth of alpha in 142/1 are surely the same man. It seems to me probable that he and Stratios, another mint magistrate of 143/2, belong to a Lamptrai family in which the two names occur (see under ΣTPATIOΣ).
ΦIΛOKPA | (3) | ΛYΣAN – ΓΛAYKOΣ | 159/8 | PA 14581 |
ΦIΛOKPATHΣ | (1) | ΦIΛOKPATHΣ – HPΩHZ | 98/7 | PA 14583 |
ΦIΛOKPATHΣ | (1) | ΦIΛOKPATHΣ – KAΛΛIΦΩN | 92/1 | PA 14583 |
ΦIΛO≡ | (3) | AΦPOΔIΣI – ΔIOΓE | 152/1 | |
ΦIΛOΠO | (3) | MHTPOΔΩPOΣ – ΔHMOΣӨEN | 147/6 | |
ΦIΛΩ | (3) | HPA – APIΣTOΦ | 168/7 | |
ΦIΛΩ | (3) | ӨEMIΣTO – ӨEOΠOMΠOΣ | 149/8 | |
ΦIΛΩN | (2) | APIΣTIΩN – ΦIΛΩN | 129/8 | PA 14812 |
ΦIΛΩNI | (3) | ӨEMIΣTO – ӨEOΠOMΠOΣ | 149/8 | PA 14886 |
On the coinage of 149/8 the third magistrate ΦIΛΩNI is succeeded by ΦlΛΩ. The difference in abbreviations suggests a distinction between Philonides and Philon.
ΦIΛΩTAΔH | (3) | KOINTOΣ – KΛEAΣ | 122/1 |
Possibly the Pythaist from Phyle – Philotades II of Sundwall’s stemma (p. 38)—or conceivably his uncle. Sundwall associates Aristaichmos of 151/0 and Philotades as grandfather and grandson (see under APIΣTAI).
XAI (?) | (1) | – ΦANI | 194/3 |
For the monogram see p. 36.
XAI | (3) | KAPAIX – EPΓOKΛE | 153/2 | |
XAIP | (3) | ΔΩZIӨEOΣ – XAPIAΣ | 132/1 | |
XAPEIΣIOΣ | (3) | AΠEΛΛIKΩN – ΓOPΓIAΣ | 121/0 | PA 15487 |
XAPI | (1) | XAPI – HPA | 178/7 | |
XAPIΠΠO (?) | (1) | 172/1 |
For the monogram see pp. 93f.
XAPIAΣ | (2) | ΔΩΣIӨEOΣ – XAPIAΣ | 132/1 | PA 15366 |
XAPIAΣ | (3) | ΔHMEAZ – EPMOKΛHΣ | 125/4 |
Charias and Dositheos are related, (see under ΔΩΣIӨEOΣ). Almost certainly the same Charias is the third magistrate of 125/4.
XAPINAYTHΣ | (3) | ΔIOTIMOΣ – MAΓΛΣ | 146/5 | PA 15431 |
XAPINAYTHΣ | (1) | XAPINAYTHΣ – APIΣTEAΣ | 144/3 | PA 15431 |
XAPINAYTHΣ | (2) | ANΔPEAΣ – XAPINYTHΣ | 136/5 | PA 15431 |
The rarity of the name suggests a single man serving three times within the decade between 146 and 186 B.c. Furthermore the symbols on the issues of 144/3 and 136/5 provide confirmation of the identity of the magistrates of those years. For the earlier striking Charinautes as first magistrate chose a standing figure holding long torches which is probably to be interpreted as Demeter. An almost identical standing figure appears on the coins of 136/5 but this time in association with a seated god or goddess. The coinage of 186/5 would seem to represent an exceptional instance of annual magistrates combining devices.
XAPMI | (3) | ΛΩPOӨE – ΔIOΦ | 164/3 | PA 15509 |
It seems very probably that this magistrate is the father of the Dorotheos son of Charmides (PA 4595) who was victor in a contest for boys in the Theseia of 161/0. The first magistrate of 164/3 is Dorotheos and the combination of the two names suggests a family connection (see under ΔΩPOӨE).
XAPMIΔ | (3) | HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 137/6 | PA 15509 |
XPYΣ | (3) | IKEΣIOΣ – AΣKΛHΠIAΔHΣ | 135/4 |
Numerous and diverse theories have been advanced regarding the men whose names appear on the New Style coinage of Athens. The annual magistrates, those whose names are found in first and second place on all dies of a year’s emission, have been identified as ex-archons, fiscal officers corresponding to the Roman Triumviri Monetales, generals, treasurers of the military funds. Traditionally the rotation of the third magistrates has been associated with the month dates on the coins as indication of a connection with the prytanies.
These theories are summarized by Sundwall who published at the beginning of the present century the first comprehensive study of the Athenian mint magistrates. In two articles in the Finska Vetenskaps-Societetens Förhandlingar 1 he correlated in tabular format the data provided by Beulé, Svoronos, the Berlin Cabinet and other sources with respect to the names and months on the silver of the New Style. Testing existing hypotheses against his compilation of numismatic evidence and finding most of them untenable, he came to the conclusion that the annual magistracies involved an epimeleia of a liturgical nature, at least in the second century. As Sundwall pointed out, the possibility of such a liturgy, performed by one or both annual magistrates, had already been suggested by Beulé, Köhler and Hill; Kirchner’s subsequent discovery that the first and second magistrates were often related greatly strengthened the case for a liturgical epimeleia.
As for the third magistrates, Sundwall, like others, found the irregularity of their respective terms of office irreconcilable with any orderly system of rotation such as would be implicit in an appointment from the prytanizing tribes. Moreover, he discovered what seemed to be instances of men from the same phyle serving in the course of a single year, which, if true, would definitely rule out any connection with the prytanies. Again Sundwall concluded that an epimeleia was the only reasonable answer, that the third magistrates were drawn from a control commission set up by the Areopagus and charged with direct fiscal responsibility. The norm would have been a college of twelve, each member subject to call for a month’s service. Fluctuation in the amount of coinage issued would explain the variation from year to year in the number of third magistrates and also to some extent the irregularities of their tenure although it seemed possible to Sundwall, as it had earlier to Macdonald, that the latter were chiefly due to a double dating system: the months on the amphorae being lunar while the magistrates operated on a solar calendar.
Since Sundwall’s publication there has been little added to the discussion of the magistrates. Kambanis1 considered the third magistrate to be the official who supervised the workshops and was directly responsible for the weight and good alloy of the coinage. His term was normally a month but there were times when the mandate was extended for administrative reasons beyond the month for which he had originally been appointed. One magistrate may have been unable to finish out his term and his successor was then in office for more than a month to compensate or alternatively there may have been so much coinage in a particular month that two third magistrates were needed. It was Kambanis’ opinion that the third magistrate existed from the beginning of the series but that his name only appeared on the silver when the correlation between months and terms of office became so irregular that the date alone was no longer sufficient to fix the responsibility.
More recently Pink, citing parallel features of the New Style money and the denarius coinage, has argued for a direct connection between the Athenian and Roman systems of fiscal control. 2 His commentary on the appointment of the mint officials at Athens is merely a summary of Sundwall’s thesis, but his theory that the Athenian monetary formula served as the model for the Roman requires careful examination since it implies a basic similarity between the Athenian magistrates and the Triumviri Monetales. According to Pink, a trifold parallelism links the two coinages:
1) Administration is vested in three annual moneyers who change yearly, one being the leading moneyer.
2) Signatures of the moneyers appear first in monogram, later in abbreviation, and finally in full.
3) Coins are not issued every year.
The argument for Athenian influence rests, of course, on the assumption that the New Style currency antedated the denarius, and this is by no means certain. 3 For our purposes, however, the essential problem is not relative chronology but whether the two coinages are indeed so analogous as to imply similar or identical patterns of monetary administration. I cannot agree with Pink that the correspondence is close. With respect to his third parallel, there is no evidence for a break in the sequence of strikings at Athens; even if this were the case it would scarcely provide a strong parallel since irregularity of emission was characteristic of many Greek coinages. Nor can it be said that the New Style issues resemble the denarius strikings in being controlled by three annual moneyers. Athens consistently employs two annual magistrates. Although a third name appears on the coins at certain periods, the tenure of this official is less than a full year, often only a matter of weeks or a month. The number of men associated with a single year’s coinage ranges widely from two to eighteen but no emission has more than two annual moneyers. Finally in the matter of signatures, it is true that the general progression at both mints is from monograms to abbreviated names to names in full, but this is after all a perfectly natural and logical evolutionary process which need not imply direct copying. Other Greek coinages of roughly contemporary date—such as those of Ambracia, the Epirote Republic, Sicyon and the Thessalian League—show the same admixture of signature forms. When the issues in question are ultimately arranged in chronological sequence, it is more than likely that some at least will reveal the same pattern of development that we find at Athens and at Rome.
Of Pink’s three parallels, then, only the second has even a surface validity. If Rome borrowed from Athens or Athens from Rome, there is little in the coinage itself to indicate copying and nothing to suggest that the systems of fiscal control which produced the two currencies were in any way similar. The administration at Rome during the New Style period, is in the hands of three men whose terms of service are of equal length and who rarely if ever hold office twice. Each magistrate puts out his own distinctive coinage marked with his name alone; only occasionally are the signatures of two or three moneyers found together on the same coin. The Triumviri Monetales not only stamp their names and symbols on the denarii but often select the types as well, with reference to family achievements. At Athens the number of moneyers and their terms of office vary, and recurrent service is commonplace. A single issue is spread over the year, each unit dated by the month of emission and each carrying the names of all magistrates functioning at that particular time. The magistrates place their names on the coinage and choose the symbols but they have no control over the types which are uniform and civic in character. These fundamental differences surely point to totally disparate concepts of the minting office, its organization and its administration.
Before any attempt is made to interpret the Athenian magistrates in the light of the more extensive numismatic material now available, it will be well to recapitulate the data which the coinage provides. In what follows reference will be made to the Statistical Survey of the distribution of coinage throughout the issues of the three-magistrate period (pp. 658–708) and of the year by year record of surviving specimens and dies (pp. 650–654) as well as to the prosopographical information presented above. The existing numismatic material is clearly incomplete but one may, I believe, safely assume that it represents in relative terms a comparatively accurate reflection of the original output of the Athenian mint. There is, however, inherent in both numismatic and prosopographical data the possibility of factual and interpretative error which should be borne in mind. Without further preamble, let us turn to the coinage itself.
The mint magistrates were members of the prominent, influential and wealthy families of Athens. Of this there can be little doubt; the number of men from well-known families who served in the minting office provides irrefutable testimony. There is nothing surprising about this. It would indeed be strange if it were otherwise since the mint magistracies must surely have been comparable with other posts of civic service whose holders were drawn from the upper ranks of the Athenian community. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that age seems to have been of no importance with respect to this office. Twenty-seven years separate the two terms of Apellikon of Teos. If Kambanis’ date for his birth, 142 B.c., is correct, he would have been only twenty-one when he held the office of first magistrate in 121/0, forty-eight when he served for a second time. If the Aristion of the coinage is the dictator of 88/7, he must have been a very young man when he acted as first magistrate in 129/8. On the other hand Nikogenes III of Philaidai would seem to have been in his forties as third magistrate in 128/7 and Polykles and Timarchides of 181/0 would have been even older if Kirchner’s date for their floruit is accurate.
Seemingly the difference in the three categories of magistrates was in no way related to civic status or maturity of years. In 184/3 the two monograms of the coinage are interchanged during the course of the year. In 120/19 Mnaseas and Nestor serve as first and second magistrates; seven years later the annual officials are Nestor and Mnaseas in that order. These instances imply an equality of first and second magistrates. Even more significant is the situation as regards the third magistrates. Frequently a man moved from the third post to the second and finally to the first, suggesting that the third magistracy went to younger and inexperienced men while the greater dignity of the second or first magistracy was reserved for older men of civic prominence. This logical progression, however, is by no means the rule. Take, for example, NIK (3) of 132/1, NIKHTHΣ (S) of 130/29 and NIKHTHΣ (3) of 126/5; ΔΩPOӨ (3) of 166/5 and 165/4, ΔΩPOӨE (1) of 164/8 and ΔΩPOӨE (3) of 161/0; EXE (2) of 170/69 and EXE (3) of 168/7; XAPINAYTHΣ (3) of 146/5, XAPINAYTHΣ (1) of 144/3 and XAPINAYTHΣ (2) of 136/5. It is stretching coincidence too far to assume that in all instances these are different men of the same name. One must, I believe, conclude that holding a third magistracy did not imply any inferiority with respect to age, status or experience. It was not invariably a preliminary to service in the second or first post but was at times held after annual service had been rendered. This would seem to invalidate Kambanis’ hypothesis of a distinction between the annual magistrates whose position was honorary and the monthly magistrates who performed regular duties in the workshops of the mint. There is no evidence from the coinage to support any distinction in the three categories of magistracies other than that of length of tenure.
There is no demonstrable relationship between any Athenian civic office and the mint magistracy. The names on the coinage can be associated with men who served as archon but this is true in comparatively few instances. Meritt’s listing of archons between 210/09 and 87/6 (The Athenian Year, pp. 235–238) gives the names of 108 men. A connection between archon and mint magistrate might be postulated in thirty cases but this would be an absolute maximum arrived at by including such common names as Demetrios and Dionysios, by considering very short and ambiguous abbreviations on the coinage (such as APIΣ and MHT) as identical with names like Aristophantos and Metrophanes in the inscriptions and by allowing up to thirty years as an interval between archonship and mint magistracy. There are not more than seven cases at most of mint magistrates who can surely or with high degree of probability be identified as ex-archons. Of these, as many served in the third post on the coinage as in first or second office. Certainly the available evidence does not warrant the assumption that there was a fixed relationship between archonship and mint magistracy. For other civic offices our records are extremely fragmentary. Sundwall, in testing the strategos theory of Reinach, found no significant degree of correspondence between the names of mint magistrates and those of known generals but it is true that his tabulation is largely restricted to the twenty years preceding Sulla’s capture of Athens. The compilation of the present publication shows clearly that the mint magistrates who can be identified with reasonable certainty prove to be known for a variety of other civic undertakings. They are the men who served the state and the gods as archon, strategos, epimeletes, agonothetes, envoy or priest, often in several capacities.
They are poets, sculptors, orators, victors in the festival contests, donors to public projects. In short they are typical public-spirited Athenians. Their service as mint magistrates may be regarded not as a corollary of any other official post, past or present, but rather as an independent manifestation of their commitment to civic service.
The one common denominator which does with a surprisingly high degree of frequency emerge from a study of the mint magistrates is that of consanguinity. For the 110 issues of coinage there are twenty-one practically certain and three possible instances of family relationship between first and second magistrates. Since our record of family ties is certainly incomplete, this means that at a minimum roughly one in five of the annual magistracies was a family affair. The usual connection is that of two blood brothers but there are cases of fathers and sons, of cousins, and of brothers by marriage or adoption. Nor does family relationship stop with the first and second magistrates. There are examples of two brothers serving as third magistrates during the same year and also of one brother in a third magistracy and another in the first or second post, again for a single issue of coinage. A record of mint service often runs through two generations. In at least two instances, the Adeimantos–Mnasagoras–Dionysios family of Ikaria and the Nikon–Nikogenes family of Philaidai, we find three generations represented. 1
Normally the first and second magistrates served for a single calendar year. There are, however, exceptions to this general rule. During 184/3, as has been pointed out, the monograms on the coinage are transposed so that the name of each magistrate is given first place on roughly half of the known reverse dies of that year. There is a replacement of the first magistrate in 195/4 and a replacement of the second magistrate in 190/89, 163/2, 147/6 and again in 145/4. In 142/1 a complete shift occurs, both first and second magistrates are replaced: Euboulides and Agathokles by Zoilos and Euandros. For the two monogram issues which precede the addition of month dates to the coinage, we have no way of telling when the transfer took place. In all other cases, including that of Euboulides–Agathokles and Zoilos–Euandros, the substitution was made at or very close to the beginning of the third month of the year. If this is sheer coincidence, it is certainly an extraordinary instance of it. Finally, there is clear evidence that the annual mint magistracy, unlike the archonship, was not limited to a single term. Although in point of fact the majority of first and second officials did serve only once, instances of the same man holding either the first or second post twice or first one and then the other post are common.
On three occasions the same pair of officials served twice: Ammo – Dio in 182/1 and 180/79, Herakleides – Eukles in 139/8 and 137/6 and Mnaseas – Nestor in 120/19 and 113/2. Three men served three times: Diokles of Kephisia as first magistrate in 99/8, 95/4 and 90/89 and Xenokles – Harmoxenos together in 127/6, 124/3 and 123/2. The second and third terms of Xenokles – Harmoxenos and the two terms of Oinophilos, second magistrate in 116/5 and 115/4 are contiguous; 1 otherwise there is always an interval of at least a year between a man’s terms in office. On the whole it seems likely that the annual magistracy was regarded as at most a two-term post and that service was not requested in consecutive years. Only very exceptionally in 123/2, 115/4 and 90/89 was there deviation from the normal practice and it is noteworthy that these deviations are limited to the late years of the coinage.
As for the third magistrates, there is no apparent norm with respect to the number of men per year, their length of tenure or the frequency with which they held office. The summary on pages 650–654 gives the number of third magistrates known for each issue of coinage and also what evidence we have, in the form of surviving coins and recorded dies, for the size of the individual strikings. The only pattern which emerges is a tendency toward curtailment of the number of magistrates. Between 168/7 and 142/1 ten to fourteen men normally function as third officials; between 141/0 and 121/0 there are three to nine each year. Contrary to general belief, no correlation exists between the number of third magistrates and the abundance or paucity of coinage. The issues of 142/1 and 140/39, for example, are highly comparable in surviving coins and in known obverse and reverse dies. The first issue had fourteen third magistrates, the second three. Again on the evidence of dies, the coinage of Demetrios–Agathippos in 131/0 was the heaviest single emission of the New Style series and it was put out with the help of three third magistrates while nine years later the coinage of Kointos–Kleas, one of the smallest issues on record, required four third magistrates. Under Euboulides–Agathokles and Zoilos–Euandros there are fourteen third magistrates; under Antiochos–Nikog and Karaichos, Theophra–Sotas and Phanokles – Apollonios there are thirteen. These are the highest numbers recorded and it may be significant that in two instances the large number of third magistrates coincides with a replacement of one or both annual officials during the course of the year.
The tenure of the individual magistrates follows a similarly erratic pattern. Of the forty-five issues with three magistrates there are exactly nine which present a "normal" relationship of magistrates and months, each third magistrate serving for a single calendar month. These "normal" years are scattered throughout the coinage. They do not represent a standard established with the first three-magistrate issue in 168/7 and abandoned nine years later. Neither do they coincide with years of abundant or scant coinage. The listing below makes these two points quite clear:
166/5 | TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO | 66 coins | 9 obv. dies (tefr.) | 42 rev. dies (tetr.) |
159/8 | ΛYΣAN – ΓΛAYKOΣ | 91 | 11 | 65 |
158/7 | EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣANΔPOΣ | 244 | 18 | 112 |
157/6 | ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ | 182 | 12 | 73 |
156/5 | MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI | 196 | 16 | 86 |
155/4 | AΦPOΔIΣI – AΠOΛH≡I | 44 | 11 | 34 |
151/0 | ΔIONYΣI – ΔIONYΣI | 175 | 25 | 104 |
148/7 | ΣΩKPATHΣ – ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | 121 | 15 | 62 |
122/1 | KOINTOΣ – KΛEAΣ | 28 | 7 | 16 |
For the remaining issues, the pattern ranges from minor irregularities, such as the division of a month between two magistrates or the continuation of a single magistrate’s tenure over two or three months, to what seems complete chaos. In 140/39 one finds three third magistrates serving as follows:
AΛE≡: A, B, Γ
ΔIOK: Δ, E
HPA: E, Z, H, Ө, I, K, Λ, M
By 132/1 it is far worse:
ΔION: A, B, Δ, E, Z
NIK: B, Γ
ΣOΛ: H, Ө, Λ, M
ΓΛ: I
XAIP: K, Λ, M
The broken tenures of ΔION and ΣOΛ and the concurrent service of ΣOΛ and XAIP at the end of the year are alike inexplicable in terms of a normal rotation of magistrates.
For the next issue, that of Demetrios and Agathippos, we have one third magistrate in office throughout the year and two others associated with him for varying periods of time. Many of the reverse dies bear no third magistrate’s name.
AΠ: A, B, Γ, Δ, E, Z, H, Ө, I, K, Λ, M
ΦI: A, B, Γ E I, K
OΛY: B E H
—: Γ E, Z, H I, K
These three issues of great irregularity come well within, not at the end, of the three-magistrate period; the striking of Demetrios–Agathippos is a very heavy one but the emissions of 140/39 and 132/1 are no more extensive than others which present a far more orderly pattern of rotating magistrates.
It is difficult to draw any firm conclusions as to the number of times a third magistracy was held by the same man for when a name recurs after a lapse of some years one cannot feel certain in many cases that it is the same man. There seems, however, to have been no restriction on the repetition of third magistracies and we may have, in Herakleides and Sokrates, instances of officials serving as many as four and five terms. Service in consecutive years was apparently a fairly common practice, which in itself is not particularly noteworthy. What is remarkable is the fact that on occasion the term of service ran continuously from the end of one year into the beginning of the next. This happens in 166/5–165/4 with ΦANOKΛE, in 165/3–163/2 with ANTIΛOX, in 163/2–162/1 with HΓHMΩ, in 143/2–142/1 with ΦIΛOӨEOΣ, in 142/1–141/0 with KPITΩN and possibly in 139/8–138/7 if ΔHMOΣӨ and ΔHMOΣ are the same man. With the exception of the coinage of 164/3–163/2 all the issues are die-joined so that there can be no doubt as to their contiguity. In the case of ΦANOΛE the carry-over into the second year is limited to a drachm die of alpha and in the case of ANTIΛOX, HΓHMΩ and ΦIΛOӨEOΣ to a few tetradrachm dies of alpha but KPITΩN’s coinage continues through alpha, beta and gamma and ΔHMOΣ’ through alpha and beta. A coincidence of names or a diecutter’s error might serve to explain one or two examples of apparent carry-over but not five or six. Of all the irregularities connected with the tenure of the third magistrates this continuous service from one year into the next is perhaps the strangest.
The coinage as a whole falls into three general categories with respect to magistrates: from 196/5 through 169/8 there are two annual magistrates, from 168/7 through 121/0 two annual magistrates and a varying number of third magistrates, from 120/19 through 87/6 again two annual magistrates. These divisions are not rigid. Two early issues1 carry the monograms of third magistrates, or so it seems, on a limited number of reverse dies. During the three – magistrate period there are times when no name of a third official is inscribed on the coinage. This occurs in 164/3 for a few dies at the beginning of the year and for one die of Dionysi – Dionysi (151/0). In 131/0 under Demetrios and Agathippos, as the tabulation above shows, there are six months for which dies with and without a third magistrate’s name are known. Reverses into gamma of the coinage of Nikogenes and Kallimachos in 126/5 have no third name while the dies of the remainder of the year are carefully inscribed, often with the names in full. Moreover, there are three issues falling within the three-magistrate period which carry on all reverses only the names of the two annual officials and it is of interest that all three were put out by the same pair of magistrates: Xenokles and Harmoxenos in 127/6, 124/3 and 123/2. A degree of correlation exists between the size of the coinage at different periods and the presence of two names or three on the reverse dies. The late issues with two names are very small for the most part, often only token strikings, and it would seem evident that two officials sufficed for their production. However, it is equally clear that this explanation does not hold good for all two-magistrate issues. Many of the early emissions are also relatively small but those of 188/7, 175/4, 174/3, 171/0 and 170/69 are heavy issues, as large or larger than some of the three-magistrate strikings. The first and third issues of Xenokles–Harmoxenos are not unduly heavy but their second emission is one of the most extensive of the entire coinage.
From the data provided by the coinage one thing at least seems entirely certain and that is that there was no systematic procedure involved in the selection and rotation of the mint magistrates. The lack of significant correspondence between the names of the minting officials and the holders of other civic posts and the recurrent instances of consanguinity among the mint magistrates make it impossible to suppose that they were regularly appointed from any specific body of Athenian citizens whether the membership of the Areopagus, the priesthoods or the military. Again the family connections and the frequent instances of repeated service over a short period of time cast grave doubt upon an interpretation of the annual magistrates as members of a duly constituted fiscal college in the sense of the Roman Triumviri Monetales or of Sundwall’s control commission of the Areopagus. As for the third magistrates, the association of brothers in a single year and the instances of service continuing from one year to the next rule out any connection with the prytanizing tribes, while the notable variation in number of terms and length of tenure is hardly reconcilable with any orderly system of appointment from the ranks of a fiscal commission established by the state.
It remains then to consider the suggestion, advanced tentatively by Brulé, Köhler, Hill and Sundwall, that the annual mint magistracies involved a liturgy in some form or other. This seems to me the only explanation which in every respect provides an answer to the anomalous pattern of the coinage. I should, however, go further than any of my predecessors and postulate a group liturgy embracing all three categories of magistrates.
Any definition of the operation of such a monetary liturgy, of which no historical or epigraphical record exists, is of necessity highly hypothetical. From the coinage one gets the impression that it would have been a very flexible arrangement and at the same time one calculated with precision in 38 terms of service rendered and recognition received. Clearly it could not have covered all expenses of the coinage, such a burden would have been beyond the capacity of any individual or small group. Like other liturgies of which we have record, it must have entailed defraying only a proportion of the costs. 1 Possibly certain expenses, such as the cutting of dies, the labor of the mint workmen, the smelting and refining of the ore were a charge against the liturgy; possibly, and this seems to me more likely, the holders of the liturgy were expected to provide a specified amount of money toward the over-all expenses of the minting operation, a contribution which may have been fixed or which may have varied from year to year in relation to the amount of coinage scheduled.
The active role of the state may well have been limited to selecting a man willing to undertake the responsibility for the liturgy of a given year. His primary task would have been that of raising the requisite funds and in this he would have had freedom to associate with himself in the liturgical service as many or as few men as necessary. 2 Let us suppose that during the middle years of the coinage an annual liturgy cost one talent or 1500 tetradrachms. The first magistrate, presumably the man tapped by the state and responsible for raising the money, would surely be expected to contribute the largest single sum, perhaps 500 tetradrachms. A lesser amount, 400 tetradrachms, might be the share of the second magistrate, leaving 600 tetradrachms to be made up by a group of third magistrates whose number would depend upon how much each was willing to provide toward the required total. In return for their gifts the men associated in the liturgy would receive the honor of having their names inscribed on the coinage, the amount of recognition in each case being in direct proportion to the amount of money given. All dies of the year would carry the names of the two substantial donors, in first or second place, while each contributor of a lesser sum would be entitled to his name in third place on a certain number of coins. A man giving fifty tetradrachms, for example, might be credited with twenty bars of bullion to be stamped with dies bearing his name; a man giving one hundred tetradrachms would be entitled to twice as much.
It remains to see how a liturgy along these lines works out in terms of the coinage and how successfully it explains the anomalies we have noted. During the Early Period the monograms or names of only the two annual magistrates appear on the coins and it would seem that in the beginning either the cost of the liturgy was less or the state was fortunate in finding men willing and able to contribute generously in this public service. Perhaps the novelty of the liturgy, which rewarded its holders with the unusual and signal honor of commemoration on the coinage, had something to do with it. In two instances, however, the brief appearance of the third monogram would indicate recognition of a supplementary contribution and it may be significant that in one case this coincides with a replacement of the first magistrate inasmuch as such replacements are probably to be explained on economic grounds (see below). Another irregularity of the early coinage, the shift in position of the monograms on the issue of 184/3, suggests that the annual magistrates had contributed equal sums toward the liturgy and were, therefore, entitled to first place on an equal number of tetradrachms. Finally it seems likely that the elaboration of monograms and the gradual replacement of monograms by abbreviated names are evidence of a growing desire or demand on the part of the donors for more precise and unequivocal recognition of their services.
In 168/7 a far more elaborate system of magistrates is introduced. The names of three to fourteen third magistrates are added to the dies of each issue and their terms of office are highly irregular. This change, it should be emphasized, does not coincide with an increase in coinage. The trophy striking of early date (188/7) employs more obverse dies than any of the first ten issues of the three-magistrate period while the emissions of 171/0 and 170/69 use two to three times as many as the issues of the same early three-magistrate group. Either the burden of the annual liturgy was proving too onerous for two men and it was becoming increasingly difficult to find prospects or the state, realizing a good thing when it saw one, decided to raise the cost of the annual service with the understanding that additional men could be brought into the liturgy and their names, too, would be given a place on the coinage. During the Early Period the first magistrate had at times, and probably more often than our present information indicates, associated a brother with himself in the annual office. In the three-magistrate period family magistracies become increasingly common. One finds fathers and sons, brothers or cousins serving together in first and second posts, brothers holding third offices in the same year, sometimes a brother in the first or second magistracy and another brother in the third. Apparently the man primarily responsible for the liturgy turned first, as would be natural, to his own kin and then to friends and acquaintances1 for help in raising the necessary funds.
The number of times that a man served in the mint office would depend on his willingness to make repeated contributions, the post in which he served would depend on the amount he was willing or able to give. Thus we have magistrates appearing only once and others returning again and again to the minting posts. It is to be noted that prior to 123/2 there is no evidence for a man serving in either the first or second magistracy more than twice and no certain evidence for his holding those annual posts in contiguous years. In 123/2 and twice thereafter we have exceptional instances of men serving annually for a third time and serving in consecutive years. These deviations from general practice were probably due to a shortage of candidates for during this same period the number of annual magistrates serving two terms is higher than at any other time.
The theory of a group of men expending varying sums of money in the performance of a common liturgy would explain all irregularities in third magistracies for the middle years of the coinage. If we try to imagine the system in its ideal form, the man responsible for the liturgy would have first secured a colleague to serve with him throughout the year. He would then presumably have obtained from the treasury officials information on how much bullion was earmarked for the year’s coinage and possibly the period of time over which it was to be issued. Normally this would have been twelve or thirteen months but there are years in which coining seems to have started late or ended early and it may be that the state at times deliberately scheduled production for less than a full year. Clearly from the point of view of minting operations, particularly the cutting of dies, it was desirable to have the output evenly distributed with a single third magistrate associated with a single month during which a fixed number of tetradrachms would be stamped from dies bearing his name. If the first magistrate could get twelve or thirteen men, depending on the nature of the year, to contribute equal sums of money and if all went smoothly at the mint, the result would be an absolute correlation of months and magistrates’ names. This ideal was apparently achieved nine times in the course of the forty-five years of the three-magistrate series. Difficulties in maintaining an even schedule of production and the impossibility of always eliciting equal gifts from the group of third magistrates would account for the erratic pattern of the remaining issues. Let us suppose that one man’s donation entitled him to his name on the tetradrachms from twenty bars of bullion. Under normal conditions these would all have been struck during epsilon but unforeseen delays developed and a few bars had to be carried over into zeta. Another man, contributing the worth of sixty bars, was entitled to his name on an equivalent number of tetradrachms regardless of how many months it took for their production. On five and possibly six occasions the amount of bullion to the credit of the last third magistrate was not fully used by the end of the year and it was necessary to continue stamping his name on coins of the next year until the worth of his contribution was expended. On other occasions it proved impossible to secure from the third magistrates their full share of the levy, hence silver appeared without any third name.
The abnormalities connected with the first and second magistracies are also explicable in terms of a liturgy. During the 109 years of the New Style series seven men holding first or second office are replaced before the end of the year, two of them simultaneously in 142/1 B.c. Concerning the first two cases which involve monogram issues of early date we can say little since we have no way of knowing when the substitutions occurred. The names of the five others consistently disappear from the coinage at the end of the second or early in the third month of the year. Now it is manifestly absurd to suppose that five men, including both annual officials of one issue, chose exactly the same time of year to die or commit some disgraceful action which would disqualify them from holding public office. Most if not all of these replacements must simply mean that the magistrate in question originally undertook less than a full year’s service. It is noteworthy that the brief appearance of a third monogram on one of the early issues coincides with the replacement of an annual official and that three of the later changes take place in years for which an unusually large number of third magistrates is known. Surely all of this reflects a difficulty in finding men to perform the liturgies of those years. By way of contrast we have a pair of magistrates not only willing to undertake the liturgy three times but wealthy enough to defray its full cost on each occasion. The three sizable issues of Xenokles and Harmoxenos within the three-magistrate period carry no third names and this would seem to indicate that the annual magistrates were bearing the entire expense. Against this background, their service for a third time and in contiguous years is understandable if one supposes that the state, unable to fill the liturgy of 123/2, had no choice but to appeal again to men obviously able to bear the burden of further service.
After 120 B.c. all issues have the names of only the two annual magistrates. At this late period there is clearly a connection with the size of the coinage.
Less and less money was being put out. Since this would involve a consequent reduction in the amount of recognition a man’s service received, it seems likely that the state was forced to reduce the cost of the liturgy to the point where two men could underwrite it without difficulty.
Basically the problem of the mint magistrates is bound up with the interpretation of their role in relationship to the coinage. The common belief, at least with respect to the third officials, has been that they were held accountable for the quality of the money, that their names on the dies served to fix the responsibility for any fraudulent practices uncovered in connection with the silver issued during their terms of office. Alfred Bellinger has gone into this question at some length in a publication of the tetradrachms of Ilium1 and he argues persuasively that this concept of the function of the magistrates is faulty. Obviously there were ways in which the coinage could be falsified to the profit of a dishonest individual or group of men: adulteration of the silver during the various stages of the refining process, substitution of copper cores for pure silver in the manufacture of flans, production of illegally light blanks and diversion of silver in the form of bullion or coined money before delivery was made to the treasury. No one of these methods, however, could have been employed without grave risk of detection. The only one in which the mint magistrate himself could have indulged with any hope of success would have been the last, the misappropriation of bullion or coins; the other types of fraud would have involved the connivance or cooperation of workmen and in consequence almost certain discovery. But, as Bellinger points out, the moneyer’s name on the coinage could in no way protect the state against his stealing bullion or coins or convict him of the theft once it had taken place. The obvious safeguard against this form of fraud would have been a careful and periodic balancing of the books to make sure that the tetradrachms received by the treasury tallied with the amount of bullion issued for their production.
If on the other hand the responsibility of the mint magistrate is conceived primarily as an accountability for the fraudulent practices of others, it follows that his function was that of an inspector. To fulfil his duty he would have had to supervise all stages of the minting operation from the refining of the ore to the stamping of the silver. It is doubtful that this could have been done by a single man or even by three if one supposes that the two annual magistrates and their third colleague were similarly employed. Even if it were possible, can one imagine the leading citizens of Athens—men like Mikion and Eurykleides, Medeios of Piraeus and Diokles of Kephisia—performing this kind of service?
If the names of the magistrates were not placed on the coinage as a control measure, one must then assume that they were placed there as a form of recognition.
To merit this distinction a man must surely have made some outstanding contribution and it is difficult to see what else this could have been except a contribution toward the expenses of the coinage on which his name appeared.
Such a monetary liturgy would be in complete accord with what we know of Athenian fiscal policy. From early times individuals had been expected to undertake public service at their own expense and these ordinary and extraordinary liturgies provided an important source of indirect revenue for the treasury. A state which relied on private citizens for the equipping of its triremes would certainly have found nothing strange in the idea of calling upon individuals to underwrite in part the cost of its coinage.
In its essential character the monetary liturgy conforms to the general practice of other liturgies for which we have literary and epigraphical evidence. It involved contributing toward the expense of an important and necessary civic program, it was performed by a group of prominent and wealthy citizens, it was normally limited with respect to its annual holders to terms of service in non-consecutive years, its rewards were honorary. 1 The form which the honor took in this instance may serve to explain the otherwise puzzling circumstance that ancient sources make no mention of a liturgy in relation to the coinage. The service of a man who performed a trierarchy, for example, was commemorated in an inscription set up in a public place so that his fellow-citizens might know of his benefaction. The service of a man who performed a monetary liturgy was commemorated at home and abroad on the coins themselves. There would have been no need of any further recognition.
Whether a monetary liturgy was peculiar to Athens or whether it was common practice throughout the Greek world is not germane to the present inquiry. 2 One would expect so eminently practical and profitable a procedure to have spread rapidly once its potentialities were appreciated, and the prevalence of magistrates’ names on Hellenistic coinages may bear witness to its popularity. If Athens did not originate the idea, she can at least be credited with perfecting it, for no other coinage gives evidence of so elaborate a system of monetary magistracies.
1 | |
1 |
This section on Magistrates has been read by Professor Benjamin D. Meritt and by Mr. George Stamires, and the writer is immeasurably
grateful
for the help which they have given in checking, amending and supplementing the prosopographical data.
|
1 |
Of the name appearing just above that of Alkidamos only E [.....]ΔHΣ remains but this is surely to be restored as E [YMAPEI]ΔHΣ.
|
1 |
It is to be noted, however, that the two most recent studies of the New Style coinage as a whole, those of Kambanis and Bellinger,
modify the
traditional chronology by separating the two issues of Aristion. Both leave the Mithradates–Aristion striking in 87/6 but
Kambanis (BCH, 1938, p. 78) assigns that of Aristion–Philon to 114/3 and Bellinger (Hesp. Suppl. VIII, 1949, p.
10) puts it one year later.
|
1 |
On the coinage of 145/4 the form of the name is AΣK which, of course, is not necessarily an abbreviation of AΣKΛAΠΩN. Two
years later the dies
are inscribed with the full names of AΣKΛAΠΩN and TIMOKPATHΣ. This certain association of the two names with the coinage of
143/2 strongly
suggests that the AΣK and TIMOK of the coinage of 145/4 refer to the same men.
|
1 |
Dow (Harv. Theol. Review, 1937, p. 207) mentions the Isis symbols on the New Style coinage as indicative of the
prominence of the magistrates in the cult of the Egyptian gods.
|
1 |
Raubitschek restores the name of the father of Demochares as either Δ[ΩΣIӨE]OY or Δ[IOΔΩP]OY; the coinage suggests that the
first reading is
the correct one.
|
1 |
This entry and the two below it are listed by Kirchner under HPAKΛEΩN with the notation that Beulé records HPAKΛΩN. There
is no doubt about
the readings here giver except in the case of the first magistrate of 93/2. The form there may be HPAKΛEΩN but is more likely
HPAKΛΩN (see
page 389).
|
1 |
In all cases the name is almost certainly Sokrates although it appears in full on only two issues.
|
1 |
XLIX, 1906–1907, No. 9; L, 1907–1908, No. 1. References to earlier publications on the magistrates are given there and will
not be
repeated.
|
1 |
Arethuse
, 1928, pp. 123–127; BCH, 1938, pp. 68–70.
|
1 |
It is interesting to note that these families are related by marriage. Apollonia, daughter of the Nikogenes who was a mint
magistrate in
167/6, 165/4 and 163/2, was the wife of Adeimantos, son of the Adeimantos who served as mint magistrate in 179/8 B.c. (IG II2 7646).
|
1 |
If the first officials of 174/3 and 173/2 are the same Demetrios, this would represent another instance of contiguous terms
on the part of an
annual magistrate.
|
1 |
Those of 195/4 and 178/7 B.c.
|
1 |
As the trierarchy involved the equipping and managing of a ship but not providing the ship itself. The ordinary and extraordinary
liturgies at
Athens with citation of ancient sources are fully discussed in Boeckh, The Public Economy of Athens, and in Gilbert, The Constitutional
Antiquities of Sparta and Athens.
|
1 |
This is, of course, something which is difficult to establish but note EYMA and EYMAPEI in the two years for which Aphrodisios
was first
magistrate, ΔIONYΣO and ΔIONYΣOΓ as well as ΔIOK and ΔIOK during both terms of Herakleides and Eukles, ΣΩKPA and ΣΩKPATHΣ
under Mikion–Euryklei and Euryklei–Ariara. Almost certainly the same Sokrates
was third magistrate a few years earlier under Theophra – Sotas, the former associated with Mikion in the magistracy of 169/8.
|
1 |
"The First Civic Tetradrachms of Ilium," ANSMN VIII, 1958, pp. 15–18.
|
1 |
A basic difference between it and the liturgies of an earlier period would seem to have consisted in the contributing of cash
rather than
service and the degree to which the contribution was voluntary. In this respect the monetary liturgy suggests the voluntary
gift in cash or
kind (ἐπίδoσις) solicited by the state for special purposes. On occasion maximum and minimum amounts to be accepted were specified
(Gilbert,
op. cit., pp. 363f.).
|
2 |
Unless otherwise indicated, references throughout to Sundwall are to be understood in terms of these articles: Untersuchungen über die attischen Münzen des neueren Stiles.
|
2 |
The spelling is HPOΔO and not HPOΔΩ as Kirchner gives it.
|
2 |
The Triumviri Monetales and the Structure of the Coinage of the Roman Republic, pp. 51 f.
|
2 |
At an earlier date a liturgy could be shared. After the Sicilian War it was decreed that two men could perform the choregia
together (Boeckh,
op. cit., II, p. 205 with reference to Schol Aristoph. Ran. 406). A syntrierarchy was fairly common practice if enough wealthy
men could not
be found to bear it singly and with the establishment of the symmories a number of members, often five or six, combined for
the equipping of a
ship. Those not rich enough for the complete trierarchy had to help others in performing the liturgy in proportion to each
individual’s wealth
(Boeckh, pp. 328–345; Gilbert, op. cit., pp. 373f.).
|
2 |
The suggestion of a liturgy has been made in connection with certain issues of Kolophon, Eretria and Ilium. Cf. J. G. Milne,
Kolophon and Its Coinage: A Study (NNM 96, pp. 26–29); W. Wallace, "Some Eretrian Mint Magistrates" (The Phoenix, 1950, pp. 21–26); A. R. Bellinger, "The First Civic Tetradrachms of Ilium" (ANSMN
VIII, 1958, pp. 23f.). See also T. Gerassimov "Alexandrine Tetradrachms of Cabyle in Thrace," ANSCent., p. 276.
|
3 |
The name is erroneously recorded as ӨEOΔΩ and included by Kirchner with the Theodoros entries below.
|
3 |
Pink uses the traditional date of 229 B.c. for the former and 210 B.c. as a terminus a quo for the latter. With a beginning date of 196/5 B.c. for the New Style silver,
the proposition that Athens influenced Rome can be maintained only on the premise that the denarius was introduced at a later period. Into this controversial
question the
writer has no intention of entering, but Rudi Thomsen’s admirable summary of scholarly research over the past 160 years (Early Roman Coinage, I, pp. 210–248) makes it abundantly clear that no unanimity of opinion has as yet been achieved.
|
The symbols placed on the New Style coins and the years in which they appear are as follows: 1
These devices have been explained and associated in a variety of ways. In a very early publication Cavedoni1 dealt with some of them and came to the conclusion that they were selected by the first magistrates of the coinage in allusion chiefly to their own names. Shortly thereafter, Rathgeber2 interpreted the symbols as nothing more than the personal seals of the individual mint officials. Beulé in his compilation of Athenian coins3 gave the subject its first detailed treatment. Poking fun at Cavedoni’s associations—which are often enough highly amusing4—and regarding Rathgeber’s theory as unsound, Beulé found the key to the symbols in the religious and political events of the time. Furthermore, he presented at length his belief that the connection of the devices was almost invariably with the second magistrate. Subsequently Grotefend and Köhler1 opposed this view, the latter arguing not only that the symbols indubitably were linked with the first officials but that they were freely-chosen devices. Early in the present century Macdonald (Coin Types, pp. 54–60) summarized the situation in a judicious presentation of the evidence, concluding that there could be no reasonable doubt but that the first official chose the symbol and that the selection was motivated by a variety of considerations. This, however, did not end the discussion. In 1926 Lederer2 expressed the opinion that the symbol, in the beginning at least, was probably an independent control, unrelated to either magistrate. A few years later Kambanis in the initial publication of his studies of the New Style coinage ( Arethuse, 1928, p. 125) spoke of the symbol "which, in a majority of cases, seems to belong with the name of the second magistrate," but it is clear from his notes that he later changed his mind. In the BCH for 1932 (pp. 46, 53) he belittled the significance of the devices, regarding them as primarily accessory controls added to the money because they would be clearer and more intelligible than names to people who could not read. Finally, the writer in a discussion of the bronze coinage with Eleusinian types suggested that most of the symbols might be connected with the civic festivals. 3
As Macdonald said in 1905, there can be no doubt but that the first monetary official selected the device which appeared on the coinage. In cases where a relationship between symbol and magistrate can be firmly established, the connection is with the first name. 4 The fact, upon which Beulé laid so much stress, that the symbol does not normally carry over when the same man serves as first magistrate for two or more terms means nothing unless one argues that the device was the personal seal of the individual, an argument which Beulé himself rejected. There is, however, one instance of a recurrent symbol associated with a particular magistrate which has not been noted before and which is highly significant. On the coinage of 144/3 for which Charinautes served as first magistrate the device is a standing figure (Demeter or Kore) in long robes and holding two torches. A few years later in 136/5 the same Charinautes, and this seems practically certain in view of the rarity of the name, served as second magistrate. For this issue the symbol consists of a seated divinity, probably Dionysos, and beside him a standing figure in long robes with two torches, almost identical with the representation on the earlier striking. The conclusion is inescapable that this standing goddess was the device chosen by Charinautes for the coinage of 144/3 when he was first mint official and repeated on the coinage of 136/5 when he was second magistrate, this time in combination with the Dionysos symbol of the first magistrate Andreas. This is the only issue for which an association of the symbol with both magistrates can be posited1 but the standing goddess of 144/3 and 136/5 does not invalidate the basic premise that it was the first official’s prerogative to select the device for the coinage. If he chose to permit his colleague to share the representation, that was his decision.
Symbols which can be interpreted with some degree of certainty fall into several general categories:
Canting Badges
There seem to be a few instances of devices which consist primarily of a play on the name of the magistrate. The first, occurring early in the series with the issue of 190/89, involves an initial monogram which can most plausibly be resolved as NAYKPAT[HΣ] and an accompanying rudder symbolic of dominion of the sea. On the issue of 168/7 the club, lion’s skin and bow of Herakles surely derive from the name of the first magistrate: HPA. Similarly the elephant on the coins of 163/2 was in all likelihood chosen by ANTIOXOΣ as a Seleucid badge appropriate for his Seleucid name. The two palm branches of NIK .... in 192/1 may refer to specific victories or simply to his name.
Allusions to Antecedents
These divide into several classes. First are references to the magistrate’s personal achievements or career. The Nike in quadriga which Mikion of 169/8 placed on his coins recalls a victory or victories in the Panathenaic games. At least one such triumph is recorded and others are highly likely. The Tyche and amphora symbolizing agonistic victory used twice on the coinage of Herakleides (139/8 and 187/6) would also seem to imply achievement in the contests. The winged Agon of Aropos (128/7) may have the same significance or it may refer to service as agonothetes. In 148/7 and in 104/3 an Apollo symbol appears and it is noteworthy that in the case of both first magistrates, Sokrates and Epigenes, a prior connection with Delos is probable. Diokles of Kephisia chose as his devices in 99/8 and 95/4 representations of Asklepios and Hygieia. The priesthood of Asklepios and Hygieia was held by a Diokles of Kephisia in the mid-first century B.c.; the Diokles of earlier date is surely his father or grandfather serving in the same priesthood. Another priestly allusion is provided by the coinage of Eurykleides (154/3). This man’s great-grandfather, Eurykleides I (of Kirchner’s stemma, PA 5966) may have been a priest of the sanctuary of Demos and the Graces, his grandfather (Mikion III) is known to have served in that capacity. Almost certainly the coinage with its symbol of the Three Graces bears witness to an association of our Eurykleides (III) with the same priestly office.1 In a rather special category is the device chosen by Diokles of Melite. His wife Philippe was a priestess of Athena and the Athena Parthenos of Diokles’ coinage is clearly a graceful tribute to her.
Other allusions to antecedents concern the family or place of origin of the magistrate. It is possible that the trophy on a galley selected by Themistokles in 149/8 was more than a reference to his name, that the mint official of the second century was actually a descendant of the famous Themistokles. In 156/5 a representation of the Dioscuri, associated with Mikion and Eurykleides, points to the relationship of the magistrates and perhaps as well to their pride in belonging to an illustrious family. The griffin of Apellikon (121/0) derives from the Teian birthplace of the philosopher and bibliophile. A Macedonian origin or family connection is suggested by the Macedonian helmet used by Demetrios of 174/3 and possibly by the eagle of the succeeding issue if a single Demetrios is involved in the two magistracies. The unusual device of a sphinx is found on the coins of Diophantos and Aischines in 108/7 and this is conceivably indicative of a connection between the two men and the island of Chios.2 In two cases the symbol on the coinage seems to have a demotic significance.
A distinctive rendering of a youthful Dionysos in short chiton on the issue of 105/4 was likely inspired by the Ikarian origin of the magistrate Dionysios since it was there that the god was traditionally supposed to have made his first appearance in Attica and his cult was celebrated with great splendor in that deme.1 Similarly the figure of Herakles on the coins of Pantakles in 110/09 is thought to be related to the cult of Herakles in Plotheia which was presumably Pantakles’ deme.
Allusions to Festivals
Evidence for a connection between a symbol and one or another of the major Athenian festivals2 is comparatively slight. Any of the numerous representations of Dionysos may pertain to the Dionysia but in only one instance is there definite indication of this, namely in the Dionysos holding a mask which appears in 134/3 under Timostratos. The combining of Eleusinian symbols—kerchnos and bakchos—on the issue of 195/4 seems to me very likely linked with the celebration of the Eleusinia in that year. Some at least of the other Eleusinian devices (Demeter, Triptolemos and ears of grain) may be associated with the Eleusinia of 187/6, 145/4, 133/2, 115/4, 111/0, 103/2 and 97/6. With the Ptolemaia there is only one connection but that a highly gratifying one. Initial arrangement of the coinage along strictly numismatic lines brought the issue of Aphrodisi–Dioge with its distinctive symbol of a double cornucopiae with fillet to the year 152/1 B.c. This symbol is unquestionably of Egyptian derivation, the cornucopiae markedly different from any found on other New Style issues but practically identical with the reverse type of the Ptolemaic gold and silver. 3 Later reference to Ferguson’s discussion of the Ptolemaia in Athens revealed the significance of the coin device. During the archonship of
Lysiades, which Ferguson places in 152/1, the Ptolemaia were celebrated with special brilliance, over sixty-one hieropoioi having had charge of the games.1 It was undoubtedly this gala event which inspired the Egyptian symbolism on Aphrodisios’ coinage, providing us with a most satisfactory coalescing of numismatic and epigraphical evidence with respect to the date of both archon and mint magistrate.
Allusions to Politics
Most of these are found in the period between 180 and 120 B.c. and it is interesting to have this early numismatic record of links between Athens and the two foreign powers whose conflict would ultimately destroy the Athenian state. The Roma of Xenokles in 123/2 and the Roma crowned by Nike of Kointos in the following year are probably to be interpreted merely as indicative of Roman origin or sympathies on the part of the individual magistrates. In the case of the Pontic symbols, the situation is more complex. The star and crescents of c. 121 combined with the name of Mithradates is the state’s official recognition of a Pontic subsidy. The Pegasus of 129/8 and the Gorgon’s head of 130/29, if the latter is of Pontic inspiration, may have a similar connotation, testifying to assistance from Mithradates V in respect to supplementary sources of bullion (pp. 422f.) or they may simply reflect the Pontic partisanship of Aristion and Niketes. In all likelihood the only other example of a symbol which seems to have been politically motivated, that of the Seleucid anchor and star in 166/5, also pays tribute to the benefactions of a foreign ruler, in this case Antiochos IV.
It must be emphasized that relatively few of the symbols discussed are explicable solely in terms of the categories in which they have been grouped. In the present state of our knowledge we have no way of knowing for the most part whether an agonistic device reflects a man’s personal triumph or his service as agonothetes, whether an Eleusinian symbol is merely the record of a contemporary festival or indication of a personal connection with the Eleusinian cult and its ceremonies, whether it was family pride or a coincidence of names that inspired Themistokles’ trophy on galley. One may assume that often enough a combination of factors dictated the choice of the individual magistrate. Thus his own name plus his Ikarian origin plus perhaps a personal devotion to the god may have produced the Dionysos of Ikarian type found on the coins of Dionysios. Finally, there is always the possibility that a man of little or no imagination chose the first device that came to mind, that the symbol has no real significance in its association with his name, for there are issues without device and these imply that the officials in question either had no desire to personalize their coinage or were unable to think up suitable emblems.
A majority of the symbols found on the coinage cannot be explained at all with reference to particular events or individuals. With additional prosopographical data we may in time be able to relate some of them. In two instances the coins supply a clue at least. On the silver of 182/1, 180/79 and 150/49 the devices are Eleusinian: kerchnos, cornucopiae and torches. For all three issues the first magistrate is Ammonios, presumably two related men, which suggests a strong tie between this family and the Eleusinian sanctuary. Similarly the Demeas who served in 125/4 and again in 107/6 would seem to have had some close connection with the cult of Isis since his devices are first the Isis headdress and later the standing goddess.
Fragmentary though the evidence is, it does clearly indicate, as Macdonald pointed out, that a variety of considerations governed the selection of emblems. There was no system involved, no regulation imposed by the state or tradition controlling the choice. The individual magistrate was at liberty to place on the coinage whatever device suited him and the selection tells us something of the men themselves: their pride in athletic prowess, in family, in civic service performed. Few indeed seem to have glimpsed broader horizons.
For the most part the symbols which can be associated with particular Athenians add little to what we already knew about the individuals in question, but in several cases they do provide important data. Among those holding the priesthood of Demos and the Graces we can now include Eurykleides of 154/8; among the priests of Asklepios and Hygieia, the Diokles of Kephisia who was active in the early years of the first century. The symbol placed by Aphrodisios on the coinage of 152/1 is welcome confirmation of the date of the archon Lysiades and the chronological outline of the New Style sequence.
1 |
Some repetition occurs in the listing. If the symbol consists of two distinct elements (such as Demeter and Artemis) there
is a double entry.
If on the other hand the symbol in its component parts presents a basic unity (as in the case of the star and crescents, anchor
and star)
there is only one entry. No attempt has been made to differentiate the renderings of the various gods and goddesses.
For the sequence of symbols the reader is referred to the chronological outline of issues on pages 27–29. |
1 |
Osservazioni sopra le antiche monete di Atene, Modena 1836.
|
1 |
C. L. Grotefend, Chronologische Anordnung der athenischen Silbermünzen, Hannover 1872; U. Köhler, "Numismatishe
Beiträge" (ZfN, 1885).
|
1 |
A dual device is extremely rare on the New Style silver. The only other true instance of it occurs at a later period with
the Demeter and
Artemis of Leukios–Antikrates in III/0 B.c. This may be a second case of annual magistrates combining their choice
of divinities. The Dioscuri of Mikion–Eurykleides was probably selected because the brothers wanted an emblem which would
stand for both of
them, and similarly the Harmodios and Aristogeiton of 118/7 may express some bond, some mutual devotion to the cause of freedom,
on the part
of Mentor and Moschion.
|
1 |
For the connection of this family with the sanctuary and the general Agora area in which it was located, cf. G. R. Edwards,
Hesperia, 1957, p. 343.
|
1 |
Cf. M. Thompson, Hesperia, 1941, pp. 223f. with reference to representations of the Ikarian Dionysos. The date there
suggested for the coinage of Dionysios–Mnasagoras is erroneous but the relationship between magistrate and symbol still seems
valid.
|
1 |
Klio, 1908, p. 341 dealing with IG II2 1938. Dinsmoor (op. cit., pp. 261 f.) rejects Ferguson’s
dating of Lysiades, ascribing his archonship to 159/8 B.c. Meritt in his archon list of 1957 (Hesperia, p. 95) assigns Lysiades to 148/7 but in a more recent study (The Athenian Year, pp. 187f.) he
accepts the coin evidence for a return to Ferguson’s date.
|
2 |
Neunundneunzig silberne Münzen der Athenaier, Weissensee 1858.
|
2 |
"Ein unbekanntes athenisches Tetradrachmon," ZfN, 1926, p. 59, note 1 with reference to the transposition of the
monograms in 184/3.
|
2 |
The emblem is, of course, peculiarly Chian and there is the further circumstance that a man named Aischines served as mint
magistrate of Chios
after 84 B.c. (BMC, Ionia, p. 337, 85). This may well mean nothing; it may on the other hand
point to Chian antecedents for the two Athenian magistrates and the return of at least one to his homeland shortly before
or after the sack of
Athens.
|
2 |
These were the Dionysia, held annually but more elaborately every third year; the Great Panathenaia, falling in the third
year of the Olympic
cycle; the biennial and quadrennial celebrations of the Eleusinia in the second and fourth Olympic years; and the Ptolemaia
in the initial
year of the Olympic sequence.
Ferguson (Klio, 1908, p. 340 and HA, p. 291) puts the lesser Eleusinia in the second year and the greater in the fourth; Dinsmoor (Archons of Athens, pp. 210–212) argues that the order should be transposed. With respect to the Ptolemaia there is also a difference of opinion, Dinsmoor (p. 262) placing the festival in the second rather than the first Olympic year, but in this case the coinage seems to substantiate Ferguson’s dating. |
3 |
Les monnaies d’Athènes, Paris 1858.
|
3 |
Hesperia, 1942, pp. 215f. This theory, like others regarding various aspects of the New Style silver which the writer
advanced rashly before the material had been organized and studied, is proved invalid by the coinage.
|
3 |
Compare PLATES 55–56 with the illustrations throughout Svoronos' Tὰ Noµίσµατα τoῦ Kράτoυς τῶν Πτoλεμαίων.
|
4 |
For example, the magistrate Nestor (113/2) chose the stag as his emblem because the Homeric Nestor was renowned for length
of years and the
stag was proverbially a symbol of longevity.
|
4 |
This was Macdonald’s basic argument and many of the examples discussed in the pages that follow were cited in his earlier
exposition.
|
These are the months of the Athenian civil or festival calendar1 dating the coinage by the twelve or thirteen divisions of the ordinary or intercalary year. With minor deviation, as noted below, they occur on all tetradrachms from 185/4 through 88/7 B.c. 2 The coins of the present catalogue provide the record of monthly emission which appears on the next few pages.
For the Early Period the evidence is without question incomplete and no firm conclusions can be drawn as to the distribution of coinage over any given year. The future will undoubtedly provide new reverse dies to fill in at least some of the gaps in the month record. It may be assumed that, if we had the complete picture, the pattern of the early emissions would correspond to that of the issues of the Middle Period, with production normally scheduled for all months of the year but interrupted on occasion. Amphora letters appear in the twelfth year following the introduction of the New Style series and continue to be employed throughout the remaining years of the coinage with the exception of a short interval between 182/1 and 177/6 when the practice was abandoned, resumed briefly and again abandoned. This period coincides with the first use of control combinations and presumably indicate an initial uncertainty as to whether both dates and controls were needed.
With respect to the Middle Period we can feel reasonably sure of the comparative accuracy of the data, thanks to the large hoards containing numerous examples of the issues of this three-magistrate section. 3 Of the thirty-seven
HPA – APIΣTOΦ | (168/7) | A | B | Γ | Δ | E | Z | H | Ө | I | K | Λ | M | |
MENEΔ – EΠIΓENO | (167/6) | A | B | Γ | Δ | E | Z | H | Ө | I | K | Λ | N | |
TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO | (166/5) | A | B | Γ | Δ | E | Z | H | Θ | I | κ | Λ | ||
ΠOΛYXAPM – NIKOΓ | (165/4) | Ạ | B | Γ | Δ | E | Z | κ | Λ | M(?) | ||||
ΔΩPOӨE – ΔIOΦ | (164/3) | A | B | Γ | Δ | Ẹ | Z | H | Ө | κ | Λ | M | ||
ANTIOXOΣ – NIKOΓ KAPAIXOΣ |
(163/2) | A | B | Γ | Δ | E | Z | Ө | I | κ | Λ | |||
ӨEOΦPA – ΣΩTAΣ | (162/1) | A | B | Γ | Δ(?) | E | Z | H | Ө | I(?) | κ | Λ | M | N |
ΔIOΓE – ΠOΣEI | (161/0) | A | B | Γ | E | Z | H | Ө | ||||||
AXAIOΣ – HΛI | (160/59) | Γ | Δ | E | Z | Ө | I | κ | Λ | M | ||||
ΛYΣAN – ΓΛAYKOΣ | (159/8) | A | B | Γ | Δ | E | H | Ө | I | κ | Λ | |||
EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣANΔPOΣ | (158/7) | A | B | Γ | Δ | E | Z | H | Ө | I | κ | Λ | M | |
ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ | (157/6) | A | B | Γ | Δ | E | Z | H | Ө | I | κ | |||
MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI | (156/5) | A | B | Γ | Δ | E | Z | H | Ө | I | κ |
AΦPOΔIΣI – AΠOΛH≡I | (155/4) | A | Ḅ | Γ | Δ | Z | H | Ө | I | K | Λ | M | ||
EYPYKΛEI – APIAPA | (154/3) | A | B | Γ | Δ | E | Z | H | Ө | I | K | Λ | M | N |
KAPAIX – EPΓOKΛE | (153/2) | A | B | Γ | Δ | E | Z | H | Ө | I | K | Λ | M | |
AΦPOΔIΣI – ΔIOΓE | (152/1) | A | B | Γ | Δ | E | Z | H | Ө | I | K | Λ | M | |
ΔIONYΣI – ΔIONYΣI | (151/0) | A | B | Γ | Δ | E | Z | H | Ө | I | K | Λ | M | |
AMMΩNIOΣ – KAΛΛIAΣ | (150/49) | A | B | Γ | Δ | E | Z | H | Ө | I | K | Λ | M | |
ӨEMIΣTO – ӨEOΠOMΠOΣ | (149/8) | A | B | Γ | Δ | E | Z | H | Ө | I | K | Λ | M | |
ΣΩKPATHΣ – ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | (148/7) | A | B | Γ | Δ | E | Z | H | Ө | I | K | Λ | M | |
MHTPOΔΩPOΣ – MIΛTIAΔHΣ ΔHMOΣӨEN | (147/6) | A | B | Γ | Δ | E | Z | H | Ө | I | K | Λ | M | |
ΔIOTIMOΣ – MAΓAΣ | (146/5) | A | B | Γ | Δ | E | Z | H | Ө | I | K | Λ | ||
EYMAPEIΔHΣ – AΛKIΔAM KΛEOMEN | (145/4) | A | B | Γ | Δ | E | Z | H | Ө | I | K | Λ | M | |
XAPINAYTHΣ – APIΣTEAΣ | (144/3) | A | B | Γ | Δ | E | Z | H | Ө | I | Λ | M | ||
ΦANOKΛHΣ – AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ | (143/2) | A | B | Γ | Δ | Z | H | Ө | I | K | Λ | M | ||
EYBOYΛIΔHΣ – AΓAӨOKΛH ZΩIΛOΣ – EYANΔPOΣ |
(142/1) | A | B | Γ | Δ | E | Z | H | Ө | I | K | Λ | M | |
ΔAMΩN – ΣΩΣIKPATHΣ | (141/0) | A | B | Γ | Δ | E | Z | H | Ө | I | K | Λ | M | |
EYMHΛOΣ – KAΛΛIΦΩN | (140/39) | A | B | Γ | Δ | E | Z | H | Ө | I | K | Λ | M | |
HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | (139/8) | A | B | Γ | Δ | E | Z | H | Ө | I | K | Λ | M | |
ӨEOΔOTOΣ – KΛEOΦANHΣ | (138/7) | A | B | Γ | Δ | E | Z | H | Ө | I | K | Λ | M | |
HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | (137/6) | A | B | Γ | Δ | E | Z | H | Ө | I | K | Λ | M | N |
ANΔPEAΣ – XAPINAYTHΣ | (136/5) | A | B | Γ | Δ | E | Z | H | I | K | Λ | M | ||
IKEΣIOΣ – AΣKΛHΠIAΔHΣ | (135/4) | A | B | Γ | Δ | E | Z | H | Ө | I | K | M | ||
TIMOΣTPATOΣ – ΠOΣHΣ | (134/3) | B | Γ | Δ | E | Z | H | Ө | I | K | Λ | M | N | |
AMΦIKPATHΣ – EΠIΣTPATOΣ | (133/2) | A | B | Γ | Δ | E | Z | H | Ө | I | K | Λ | M | |
ΔΩΣIӨEOΣ – XAPIAΣ | (132/1) | A | B | Γ | Δ | E | Z | H | Ө | I | K | Λ | M |
ΔHMHTPIOΣ – AΓAӨIΠΠOΣ | (131/0) | A | B | Γ | Δ | E | Z | H | Ө | I | K | Λ | M | |
NIKHTHΣ – ΔIONYΣIOΣ | (130/29) | A | B | Γ | Δ | E | Z | H | Ө | K | Λ | M | ||
APIΣTIΩN – ΦIΛΩN | (129/8) | A | B | Γ | Δ | E | Z | H | Ө | I | K | Λ | M | |
APOΠOΣ – MNAΣAΓO | (128/7) | A | B | Γ | Δ | E | Z | H | Ө | I | K | Λ | M | |
≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ | (127/6) | A | B | Γ | Δ | E | Z | Ө | I | K | Λ | M | ||
NIKOΓENHΣ – KAΛΛIMAXOΣ | (126/5) | A | B | Γ | Δ | E | Z | I | K | Λ | M | |||
ΔHMEAΣ – EPMOKΛHΣ | (125/4) | A | B | Γ | E | Z | H | Ө | I | K | Λ | N | ||
≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ | (124/3) | A | B | Γ | Δ | E | Z | H | Ө | I | K | Λ | M | |
≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ | (123/2) | A | B | Γ | Δ | E | Z | H | ||||||
KOINTOΣ – KΛEAΣ | (122/1) | A | B | Γ | Δ | |||||||||
AΠEΛΛIKΩN – ΓOPΓIAΣ | (121/0) | A | B | Γ | Δ | H | I | K | Λ | M | ||||
MIӨPAΔATHΣ – APIΣTIΩN | (c. 121) | A | B | Z | ||||||||||
MNAΣEAΣ – NEΣTΩP | (120/19) | A | Γ | Δ | Z | Ө | K | Λ | M | |||||
KΛEOΦANHΣ – EΠIӨETHΣ | (119/8) | A | E | Ө | K | N | ||||||||
MENTΩP – MOΣXIΩN | (118/7) | B | Γ | Ө | K | Λ | M | |||||||
APXITIMOΣ – ΔHMHTPI | (117/6) | A | Δ | E | Z | Ө | I | |||||||
ΛYΣANΔPOΣ – OINOΦIΛOΣ | (116/5) | A | B | E | K | Λ | Ṃ | |||||||
AMΦIAΣ – OINOΦIΛOΣ | (115/4) | A | Γ | Δ | E | H | ||||||||
EYMHΛOΣ – ӨEO≡ENIΔHΣ | (114/3) | A | K | |||||||||||
NEΣTΩP – MNAΣEAΣ | (113/2) | A | B | E | Z | H | Ө | K | Λ | N | ||||
ΣΩTAΔHΣ – ӨEMIΣTOKΛHΣ | (112/1) | A | B | E | Z | H | I(?) | |||||||
ΛEYKIOΣ – ANTIKPATHΣ | (111/0) | |||||||||||||
ΠANTAKΛHΣ – ΔHMHTPIOΣ | (110/09) | H | ||||||||||||
ΔIOΦANTOΣ – AIΣXINHΣ | (108/7)1 | A | M | |||||||||||
ΔHMEAΣ – KAΛΛIKPATIΔHΣ | (107/6) | E | Z(?) | H | ||||||||||
AΛKETHΣ – EYAΓIΩN | (106/5) | Z | ||||||||||||
ΔIONYΣIOΣ – MNAΣAΓOPAΣ | (105/4) | A | ||||||||||||
EΠIΓENHΣ – ≡ENΩN | (104/3) | B | Ẹ | K | Λ | |||||||||
MENEΔHMOΣ – TIMOKPATHΣ | (103/2) | A | Γ | Δ | Ө | |||||||||
MENNEAΣ – HPΩΔHΣ | (102/1) | Z | ||||||||||||
ΔIOKΛHΣ – ΛEΩNIΔHΣ | (99/8) | Γ | Δ | |||||||||||
ΦIΛOKPATHΣ – HPΩΔHΣ | (98/7) | Λ | ||||||||||||
KAΛΛIMAXOΣ – EΠIKPATHΣ | (97/6) | Λ | ||||||||||||
APXITIMOΣ – ΠAMMENHΣ | (96/5) | A | Z | ! | Λ | |||||||||
ΔIOKΛHΣ TO ΔEY – MHΔEIOΣ | (95/4) | B | Z | |||||||||||
AΠEΛΛIKΩN – APIΣTOTEΛHΣ | (94/3) | A | B | Δ(?) | K | |||||||||
HPAKΛΩN – HPAKΛEIΔHΣ | (93/2) | B | Δ | |||||||||||
ΦIΛOKPATHΣ – KAΛΛIΦΩN | (92/1) | E | Z | |||||||||||
TO TPI ΔIOKΛHΣ – ΔIOΔΩPOΣ | (90/89) | K |
In its first decade the Late Period resembles the Middle except for the strange breaking off of coinage early in 123/2 and again in 122/1. From 120/19 to 112/1 there is increasing evidence of sporadic production. Nine months of mint activity is the highest recorded, five to six represents the average. For 114/3 we have coins from alpha and kappa alone. After 112/1 there is only a token coinage in comparison with earlier years, 2 and in this period the continued use of month dates would seem to be little more than a concession to tradition. For a number of issues, striking seemingly was limited to a single month. Curiously enough this does not always, or even often, coincide with the beginning of the year. In 98/7 and again in 97/6, lambda was the month during which coins were issued, in 90/89 it was kappa. One can only suppose that the irregularity of emission during the final years of the New Style series reflects a hand-to-mouth existence on the part of the mint as regards bullion supply. When silver was available it was struck but there was never enough to spread over an entire year in an orderly production schedule.
It should be noted that in one respect the gaps in the coinage record are actually more extensive than the outline above indicates. Only eleven of the issues between 185/4 and 88/7 have dies with a nu date, attesting an intercalary year, while the most recent epigraphical publication on the subject lists twelve additional intercalary years in this same period for which there is evidence from the inscriptions. 3
Although the contribution of the New Style series to the problem of the intercalary years is limited, it is nonetheless highly important. Issues with nu lettering appear in 184/3, 171/0, 170/69, 167/6, 162/1, 154/3, 137/6, 134/3, 125/4, 119/8 and 113/2. Of the accuracy of the nine dates I am quite confident. The two last depend upon the interpretation of the Mithradates – Aristion issue as a special emission put out in a year during which other coinage was struck. This seems to me very likely but if it is not true then the intercalary issues following the Mithradates striking would be of later date.
The numismatic evidence for intercalary years was discussed at length with Benjamin D. Meritt and it has subsequently been published by him as a part of his recent study The Athenian Year (pp. 180–191). The writer has nothing to add to his careful presentation of the combined numismatic and epigraphical Material but it might be pointed out here that there is no conflict of evidence and that in one instance the numismatic record throws light upon what had hitherto been a puzzling sequence of ordinary and intercalary years. Finally, with respect to the controversial question of consecutive intercalary years, it will be noted that the coinage establishes one such sequence in 171/0 and 170/69 and still another derives from the numismatic evidence for 134/3 and the epigraphical data for 135/4.1
1 |
I know of no disagreement with this interpretation. The elaborate arguments of Macdonald (NC, 1899, pp. 288–321)
followed by Sundwall (Untersuchungen, 1st part, pp. 72–92) for a double dating system according to which a lunar
calendar regulated the dates on the amphorae while a solar calendar, coinciding with the prytany year, governed the rotation
of the third
magistrates are of no relevance since it has been established that the terms of the third magistrates can have borne no relationship
to any
Athenian calendar, real or hypothetical.
|
1 |
Gaps in the listing here and subsequently indicate that no amphora letter can with certainty be associated with the missing
issue or
issues.
|
1 |
For the issue of Theophra-Sotas months Δ and I are uncertain.
|
2 |
Month dates are not found on the hemidrachms and they are sometimes omitted from the drachms. In the case of both fractional
issues,
emission was sporadic. Not every year saw an output of drachms and hemidrachms and even during periods of production there
was never, so
far as we know, a continuous striking of fractions throughout the year.
|
2 |
That the scanty record provided by the late coinage is not merely due to insufficient material is clearly indicated by the
large proportion
of coins from the same die or dies within individual issues. After 112/1 very little money was struck at Athens.
|
3 |
That the breaks in the month sequence for this period are not accidental is strongly indicated by the emissions of Polemon–Alketes
in 157/6
and Mikion–Euryklei in 156/5. These represent two issues from which an unusually large number of coins have survived (182
and 196
tetradrachms respectively). In both cases reverse dies for Λ and M are missing. It is highly unlikely that chance would have
produced this
hiatus in the extensive record of these two strikings.
|
3 |
B. D. Meritt, The Athenian Year, pp. 236–238. The years other than those on the coinage are: 181/0, 177/6, 175/4,
173/2, 160/59, 157/6, 135/4, 127/6, 116/5, 108/7, 105/4 and 102/1.
|
The term "control combination" has been used to designate the letters, two to four in number, which appear below the amphora or in the left field2 from 182/1 until the end of the New Style coinage. Twenty-nine such combinations are known:
AN | ΔH | ZΩ | ME, MEN, MENE | ΣT, ΣTE |
AΠ, AΠO | ΔI, ΔIO | HP, HPA | MH | ΣΦ, ΣΦA, ΣΦAI |
AP | EM, EMΦ3 | ӨY | MO | ΣΩ |
BI, BIΛ | EΠ, EΠI | IΣ, IΣI | ΠE, ΠEP | TI, TIΓ |
ΓΛ | EP | KE | ΠP, ΠPO, ΠPΩ4 | ΦI |
ΔA | EY | KT, KTH | ΣO, ΣOΛ |
Early Period 1
Middle Period
HPA – APIΣTOΦ | (168/7) | AN | ΓΛ | HP | |||||||||||
MENEΔ – EΠIΓENO | (167/6) | AΠ | ΓΛ | ΔI | HP | ME | ΣΦ | ΣΩ | |||||||
TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO | (166/5) | (AΠ)2 | ME | (MH) | (ΠE) | ΣΦ | |||||||||
ΠOΛYXAPM – NIKOΓ | (165/4) | ΔI | ME | ΣΦ |
ΔΩPOӨE – ΔIOΦ | (164/3) | ΔI | ME | ΣΦ | |||||
ANTIOXOΣ – NIKOΓ KAPAIXOΣ |
(163/2) | ME | ΣΦ | ΣΩ | |||||
ӨEOΦPA – ΣΩTAΣ | (162/1) | ME | ΣΦ | ΣΩ | |||||
ΔIOΓE – ΠOΣEI | (161/0) | ΔI | ME | ΣΦ | |||||
AXAIOΣ – HΛI | (160/59) | ΔI | ME | ΣΦ | |||||
ΛYΣAN – ΓΛAYKOΣ | (159/8) | ME | ΣΦ | ΣΩ | |||||
EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣANΔPOΣ | (158/7) | ΔI | HP | ME | ΠP | ΣΦ | |||
ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ | (157/6) | ME | ΣΦ | ΣΩ | |||||
MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI | (156/5) | ME | ΣΦ | ΣΩ | |||||
AΦPOΔIΣI – AΠOΛH≡I | (155/4) | ΔI | ME | ΣΦ | |||||
EYPYKΛEI – APIAPA | (154/3) | ΔI | ME | ΣΩ | |||||
KAPAIX – EPΓOKΛE | (153/2) | ΔI | ME | ΣΦ | ΣΩ | ||||
AΦPOΔIΣI – ΔIOΓE | (152/1) | ΔI | ME | ΣΦ | |||||
ΔIONYΣI – ΔIONYΣI | (151/0) | ΔI | ME | ΣΦ | ΣΩ | ||||
AMMΩNIOΣ – KAΛΛIAΣ | (150/49) | ΔI | ME | ΠE | ΣO | ΣΦ | |||
ӨEMIΣΓO – ӨEOΠOMΠOΣ | (149/8) | ΔI | ME | ΠE | ΣΦ | ΣΩ | |||
ΣΩKPATHΣ – ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | (148/7) | ME | ΣO | ΣΦ | ΣΩ | ||||
MHTPOΔΩPOΣ – MIΛTIAΔHΣ ΔHMOΣӨEN | (147/6) | ME | ΠE | ΣO | ΣΦ | ||||
ΔIOTIMOΣ – MAΓAΣ | (146/5) | ME | ΠE | ΣO | ΣΦ | ||||
EYMAPEIΔHΣ – AΛKIΔAM KΛEOMEN | (145/4) | ME | ΣO | ΣΦ | ΣΩ | ||||
XAPINAYTHΣ – APIΣTEAΣ | (144/3) | ΔI | ME | ΣO | ΣΦ | ΣΩ | |||
ΦANOKΛHΣ – AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ | (143/2) | ME | ΣO | ΣΦ | ΣΩ | ||||
EYBOYΛIΔHΣ – AΓAӨOKΛH ZΩIΛOΣ – EYANΔPOΣ |
(142/1) | ME | ΣO | ΣΦ | ΣΩ | ||||
ΔAMΩN – ΣΩΣIKPATHΣ | (141/0) | AΠ | ME | ΠE | ΣO | ΣΩ | |||
EYMHΛOΣ – KAΛΛIΦΩN | (140/39) | AΠ | ME | ΣO | ΣΦ | ΣΩ(?) | |||
HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | (139/8) | AΠ | ME | ΣO | |||||
ӨEOΔOTOΣ – KΛEOΦANHΣ | (138/7) | AΠ | ME | ΣO | ΣΩ | ||||
HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | (137/6) | AΠ | ME | ΣO | ΣΩ | ||||
ANΔPEAΣ – XAPINAYTHΣ | (136/5) | AΠ | ME | ΠE | ΣO | ||||
IKEΣIOΣ – AΣKΛHΠIAΔHΣ | (135/4) | AΠ | ME | ΠE | ΣO | ||||
TIMOΣTPATOΣ – ΠOΣHΣ | (134/3) | AΠ | ME | ΠE | ΣO | ||||
AMΦIKPATHΣ – EΠIΣTPATOΣ | (133/2) | AΠ | ME | ΠE | ΣO | ||||
ΔΩΣIӨEOΣ – XAPIAΣ | (132/1) | AΠ | ME | ΠE | ΣO |
Late Period
ΔHMHTPIOΣ – AΓAӨIΠΠOΣ | (131/0) | AΠ | ME | MH | ΠE | ΣO | |||||||||||
NIKHTHΣ – ΔIONYΣIOΣ | (130/29) | AΠ | MH | ΠE | ΣO | ||||||||||||
APIΣTIΩN – ΦIΛΩN | (129/8) | AΠ | MH | ΠE | ΣO | ||||||||||||
APOΠOΣ – MNAΣAΓO | (128/7) | AΠ | ΔH | MH | ΠE | ΣO | |||||||||||
≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ | (127/6) | AN | AΠ | ΔH | ΠE | ΣO | |||||||||||
NIKOΓENHΣ – KAΛΛIMAXOΣ | (126/5) | AN | ΔH | ΔI | EP | ΠE | ΣO | ΣT | ΣΦ | ||||||||
ΔHMEAΣ–EPMOKΛHΣ | (125/4) | AΠ | BI | ΔH | ΔI | ΠE | ΣT | ||||||||||
≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ | (124/3) | AΠ | AP | ΔI | ΠE | ΠP | |||||||||||
≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ | (123/2) | AΠ | AP | ΔA | ΔI | ΠP | ΣT | ||||||||||
KOINTOΣ – KΛEAΣ | (122/1) | AP | ΔA | ΔH | ΔI | EP | ΠP | ||||||||||
AΠEΛΛIKΩN – ΓOPΓIAΣ | (121/0) | AΠ | AP | ΔA | ΔH | ΔI | EΠ | ||||||||||
MIӨPAΔATHΣ – APIΣTIΩN | (c. 121) | ΔA | EΠ | ||||||||||||||
MNAΣEAΣ – NEΣTΩP | (120/19) | EP | ΣT | ||||||||||||||
KΛEOΦANHΣ – EΠIӨETHΣ | (119/8) | ΔI | IΣ | ||||||||||||||
MENTΩP – MOΣXIΩN | (118/7) | AΠ | ΔI | EP | IΣ | ||||||||||||
APXITIMOΣ – ΔHMHTPI | (117/6) | ΔI | EP | IΣ | |||||||||||||
ΛYΣANΔPOΣ – OINOΦIΛOΣ | (116/5) | ΔI | EP | IΣ | |||||||||||||
AMΦIAΣ–OINOΦIΛOΣ | (115/4) | AΠ | ΔI | EP | IΣ | ΣΩ | |||||||||||
EYMHΛOΣ – ӨEO≡ENIΔHΣ | (114/3) | AΠ | EΠ | EP | IΣ | ||||||||||||
NEΣTΩP – MNAΣEAΣ | (113/2) | AΠ | ΔI | EP | IΣ | ΣΩ | |||||||||||
ΣΩTAΔHΣ – ӨEMIΣTOKΛHΣ | (112/1) | ΔI | ΣΩ | ||||||||||||||
ΛEYKIOΣ – ANTIKPATHΣ | (111/0) | ΔI | |||||||||||||||
ΠANTAKΛHΣ – ΔHMHTPIOΣ | (110/09) | ΔI | |||||||||||||||
ΔIOΦANTOΣ–AIΣXINHΣ | (108/7)1 | ΣΩ | |||||||||||||||
ΔHMEAΣ – KAΛΛIKPATIΔHΣ | (107/6) | ΣΩ | |||||||||||||||
AΛKETHΣ – EYAΓIΩN | (106/5) | ΣΩ | |||||||||||||||
ΔIONYΣIOΣ – MNAΣAΓOPAΣ | (105/4) | ΣΩ | |||||||||||||||
EΠIΓENHΣ – ≡ENΩN | (104/3) | ΣΩ | |||||||||||||||
MENEΔHMOΣ – TIMOKPATHΣ | (103/2) | ΣΩ | |||||||||||||||
MENNEAΣ–HPΩΔHΣ | (102/1) | ΔA | |||||||||||||||
ΔIONYΣIOΣ – ΔHMOΣTPATOΣ | (101/0) | ΠP(?) | |||||||||||||||
ΔIOKΛHΣ – ΛEΩNIΔHΣ | (99/8) | HP | ΠE(?) | ||||||||||||||
ΦIΛOKPATHΣ – HPΩΔHΣ | (98/7) | HP | |||||||||||||||
KAΛΛIMAXOΣ – EΠIKPATHΣ | (97/6) | HP | |||||||||||||||
APXITIMOΣ – ΠAMMENHΣ | (96/5) | ΔI | ΦI | ||||||||||||||
ΔIOKΛHΣ TO ΔEY – MHΔEIOΣ | (95/4) | ΣΩ | |||||||||||||||
AΠEΛΛIKΩN – APIΣTOTEΛHΣ | (94/3) | ΔI | |||||||||||||||
HPAKΛΩN – HPAKΛEIΔHΣ | (93/2) | ΔI | HP | ||||||||||||||
ΦIΛOKPATHΣ – KAΛΛIΦΩN | (92/1) | ΣΩ | |||||||||||||||
TO TPI ΔIOKΛHΣ – ΔIOΔΩPOΣ | (90/89) | HP | |||||||||||||||
ΔIOKΛHΣ MEΛI – MHΔEIOΣ | (89/8) | HP | |||||||||||||||
AΠOΛH≡IΣ – ΛYΣANΔPOΣ | (88/7) | HP |
Several points of interest emerge from the tables above. The span of individual control combinations is in many instances impressive: ME from 181/0 to 131/0 and uninterruptedly from 167/6 to 131/0; ΣΦ from 181/0 to 126/5 and continuously with only two breaks between 167/6 and 140/89; ΣΩ irregularly from 176/5 to 92/l. Other controls like KE, ӨY, MO occur in only a single issue; a number are limited to two strikings. For the Middle Period of the coinage the range of control combinations and their use within an issue are alike restricted. Between 165/4 and 132/1 no emission has more than five separate combinations, most have four and some three. Apart from two different controls employed by Epigene–Sosandros in 158/7, only AΠ, ΔI, ME, ΠE, ΣO, ΣΦ and ΣΩ make their appearance. The Early and Late Periods present a far more diversified picture in the variety of control letters and in the number used by individual issues. There are at least twelve in 174/3, only four the next year, yet the two issues are not disparate in size. The two largest strikings of the series (131/0 and 124/3) employ five, a very small emission a few years later uses six.
Against the background of extreme longevity in the case of some controls, it is clear that the letters are not the abbreviated names of individuals. They must be the initial letters of words pertaining to something of a permanent character. Earlier studies have explained them in terms of either mint workshops or the mines supplying the bullion for the coinage and some years ago the writer analyzed these theories in relation to the numismatic material then available. What follows is in essence a summary of that earlier article. 1
First, it is quite certain that the control combinations do not indicate ateliers of the Athenian mint. The tables showing the distribution of coinage (pp. 658–708) prove this. In a large number of cases an obverse die is associated for all or most of its life with one particular control combination. Sixteen of the seventeen reverses connected over a period of six months with Obverse 465 of Polemon–Alketes are stamped ΣΩ, and there are many other examples of similar consistency involving fewer reverses. On the other hand an obverse die within a single month may be, and often is, linked with three different control combinations and in 158/7 Obverse 450 is associated with four. Customarily all or most of the controls of a given year are in simultaneous use month by month but there are months scattered through the coinage during which all or a majority of the reverses bear a single control combination. This is undoubtedly the result in part of insufficient material but disproportion is manifest too often for this to be the whole story. Recutting of control combinations is common practice through the middle section of the coinage. The overcut control does not then disappear; it is found on reverses of the same or succeeding months within that year.
On the workshop theory most of these abnormalities would have to be interpreted as instances of dies transferred from one atelier to another. But surely this is very strange. Why shift some obverse dies back and forth between three and four workshops within a single month and leave others in the same atelier for six months? Why transfer reverses from one shop to a second, with all the labor and expense of recutting the control combinations, when the first shop in each case continues to operate? Why concentrate the coinage for certain months in one or two workshops and leave others standing idle?
To these instances of erratic procedure involving individual dies can be added two general considerations which make the theory of workshops wholly untenable. There is, as has been pointed out, no correlation between the size of the coinage in any given year and the number of control combinations employed nor is there at certain periods any sensible relationship between the controls of one year and those of the next. No mint would operate twelve ateliers in one year and shut down eight of them in the year following, the amount of money to be put out being roughly the same. If five ateliers were sufficient to produce the tremendous emissions of 131/0 and 124/3, would six be required for the inconsiderable coinage of 122/1? The die-linked issues of Miki–Theophra and Hera–Aristoph present a peculiar picture in terms of workshops. The former would have five in use and the latter three, but the three of the second year are entirely different; five ateliers would have gone out of business at the end of 169/8 and been replaced at the beginning of 168/7 by three new ones—only temporarily in three instances for in 167/6 three of the 169/8 controls again appear. The pattern of the combinations between 131/0 and 121/0 reveals a picture of almost complete chaos under the workshop premise.
If the letter combinations cannot be workshops, is there any valid reason for supposing that they are connected with the mines supplying the silver for the Athenian mint ? This theory was advanced by Sundwall and by Svoronos1 and it still seems to me, as it did in 1952, that the answer lies in this general direction although I am now less inclined to think that the abbreviations stand specifically for the names of mines. New material has brought no additions to the eleven instances of correspondence between control combinations and mine names, as cited in Museum Notes V. As between twenty-nine controls and some forty mines the association is not strong but it must be remembered that the leases which name the mines1 are of fourth and early third century date—we have no information as to how many, if any, of the earlier workings were still active under the same names in the second century. Similarly inconclusive is the picture as it relates to control combinations and the spectrometric analysis of individual coins (see pp. 622ff.). The two control combinations for which we have the greatest amount of evidence show the following relationship:
ME: | (Cu) | (Au) | ΣΩ: | (Cu) | (Au) |
178/7 | 1.02 | 0.32 | 157/6 | 0.72 | 0.19 |
176/5 | 2.8 | 0.152 | 156/5 | 0.008 | 0.086 |
171/0 | 4.3 | 0.054 | 156/5 | 0.034 | 0.13 |
164/3 | 0.092 | 0.12 | 148/7 | 0.067 | 0.11 |
159/8 | 0.675 | 0.32 | 145/4 | 0.161 | 0.18 |
158/7 | 0.157 | 0.098 | 138/7 | 0.036 | 0.0005 – |
156/5 | 0.24 | 0.68 | 108/7 | 2.7 | 0.44 |
156/5 | 0.032 | 0.13 | 107/6 | 5.9 | 0.40 |
154/3 | 0.74 | 0.18 | 103/2 | 5.2 | 0.39 |
152/1 | 0.047 | 0.94 | |||
147/6 | 0.391 | 0.19 | |||
147/6 | 0.15 | 0.056 | |||
145/4 | 0.36 | 0.061 | |||
144/3 | 0.102 | 0.14 |
It is difficult to discern any pattern here which would support an association of a particular control combination with the output of a particular mine, but it may be that work at different depths, the tapping of different veins or pockets, would explain the amount of variation in proportions of copper and gold.
Although a specific connection between control combinations and the names and output of individual silver mines must in the present state of our knowledge be considered at best unproved and probably non-existent, this does not mean that the significance of the controls is not in some way concerned with the bullion. These markings, consistently applied to the coinage and carefully recut on numerous occasions, imply a control measure of considerable importance and it is hard to see what this could be except a check on the purity of the bullion. The case for an association of the letters and the raw material of the coinage derives its greatest strength from two factors. There is, first, a clear correlation between diversity of control combinations and diversity of metallic composition. In the Early Period, the ore seems to be coming from a number of relatively unproductive workings, resulting in a highly unstable pattern of silver composition; at the same time a great many control combinations make their appearance, some for only a single year and others for much longer intervals. During the Middle Period analysis indicates a supply of bullion from a smaller number of comparatively rich workings, producing silver of homogeneous quality; the control combinations of this section of the coinage are few and all are employed for very considerable stretches of time. Concerning the Late Period the evidence is, I believe, complicated by the importation of silver from abroad (pp. 635f.) but the decrease in coinage which sets in about 123 B.c. surely points to a decline in silver supply from all sources. What ore was still being extracted from Laurium must have been obtained with difficulty from again scattered and small workings; in this period new control combinations appear and old ones long abandoned reappear.
It will be apparent that an interpretation of the control combinations in terms of bullion supply provides a reasonable explanation of the peculiarities noted in connection with their use. If the controls guaranteed the purity of the metal, each ingot delivered to the mint must have been stamped with letters indicating a particular lot of metal and the same lettering would in turn be reproduced on the reverse die used to strike coins from that ingot. The consistent association of an obverse die with a single control combination and the linking of another with several controls would simply mean that, as one would expect, silver from the various sources of a given year was not always supplied in uniform proportion or used up at the same rate. If the supply of ingots with a particular stamp was temporarily exhausted before the reverse die bearing the same stamp wore out, production did not stop until a new supply came in; the reverse in question was recut to indicate that it was now being used with a different lot of silver. The shifting pattern of ephemeral and long-lived controls and the complete or partial substitution of one set of controls for another within a few years would be alike explicable in relation to changing sources of bullion.
The question is, of course, how the system functioned and here I can only hazard a guess. One assumes that the ore as it came from the mine was subject to a rough smelting in the field, perhaps in small installations servicing a group of neighboring workings, and that it was subsequently shipped to a central point where more elaborate refining was undertaken. The ingots would have been stored in the Laurium region preliminary to mass shipment to Athens and later in some Athenian center for delivery to the mint in scheduled lots.1
Either in Laurium or in Athens the control combinations would have been applied to the ingots but the original identification of the batch of metal must have been made before that if the guarantee of purity was to be worth anything for it is evident that adulteration could have occurred in the early stages of the refining process. It seems to me probable that the lot of metal was somehow tagged as to source from the time it left the field establishments and that the designation given it was in relation to those installations. As to how this was done or what principle governed the choice of letters, I have no idea.
Although a guarantee of purity was probably the primary purpose of the control combinations, it is likely that they were also useful as a practical accounting device. A balancing of the treasury’s books at stated intervals would have been imperative as a check on the honesty of the mint workmen and officials. Such an auditing of the accounts could have been performed quickly and accurately in terms of so many ingots from a certain source supplied the mint against so many tetradrachms by weight with the same stamp returned to the treasury.1
1 |
When I first discovered what seemed to be a certain case of contiguous intercalary years, otherwise unattested for the second
century, and
feared that I might become involved in the intricacies of the Athenian calendar, I discussed some of the problems with Prof.
W. Kendrick
Pritchett during a visit to Athens in 1955, and I am most grateful for the information
and bibliographical material which he helpfully supplied.
|
1 |
All forms of a particular control are given in the listing on p. 613 and in the catalogue the specific reading for each reverse
is recorded
but in the tables usually only the first two letters are indicated. Variations (as ME or MEN or MENE) seem of no real significance.
|
1 |
Chronological gaps in the list indicate an uncertainty as to the combination on coins of the missing issues.
|
1 |
"Workshops or Mines," ANSMN V, 1952, pp. 35–48. Additional data and further study alter in some cases the details
cited in connection with the illustrative material of 1952 but the basic import of the earlier evidence is unaffected.
|
1 |
Untersuchungen, 2nd part, p. 18, note 2; JIAN 1917, p. 119.
|
1 |
M. Crosby, "The Leases of the Laureion Mines," Hesperia, 1950, pp. 189–312, supplemented
by "More Fragments of Mining Leases from the Athenian Agora," Hesperia, 1957. pp. 1–23.
|
1 |
These storage centers in Laurium and Athens may be
tentatively identified. In an article on a series of tower-like structures located in the Sunium region, John H. Young ("Studies
in South Attica," Hesp., 1956, pp. 122–146) describes one building,
the Red Tower, as situated in the very center of the mining district and equipped with an unusually intricate system of bolts
and bars. He
suggests that it may have been used as a combined workshop and storage place, related to the weighing and stamping of bullion
and the
stocking of ingots or coins. The actual production of the New Style silver undoubtedly took place in Athens but this tower in Laurium may very well be the center where ingots
were accumulated prior to shipment to Athens. It is even possible that the final
processing of the ore was carried out in or near this establishment. Sherds of fourth to second century date were found around
the Red
Tower which would bring its period of use into the New Style years.
Among the structures excavated in the Agora is one designated as the Hellenistic Building, erected in the latter part of the third century and destroyed by Sulla in 86 B.c. In a study of "Panathenaics of Hellenistic and Roman Times" (Hesp., 1957, pp. 333–336) G. R. Edwards suggests that the building may have served as headquarters of the military treasurer, one of whose responsibilities was the control of silver bullion (IG II2 1443). This large structure, close to the Hephaisteion, would have been conveniently located in relation to the mint which in all probability was also situated in the Agora area (H. A. Thompson, Hesp., 1954, pp. 45–48 and 1955, p. 59) and it seems very likely that it was the place where the ingots for the coinage were stored. |
2 |
On some dies of the first issue employing both dates and control combinations, that of ΠOΛY–TI in 181/0, the
controls appear on the amphora. A few tetradrachm reverses omit the controls but this is exceptional. They are invariably
missing from the
hemidrachms and frequently from the drachms as well.
|
2 |
Controls in parentheses for this issue are those found on the grain-ear drachms; others are those of the regular coinage.
|
3 |
EΦ and MΦ which occur in 175/4 are almost certainly errors for EMΦ; EN and ENΦ probably also represent a misunderstanding
of the same
combination.
|
4 |
ΠPΩ which appears only once is likely a mistake for ΠPO which is common.
|
Early in 1959 eighty-six New Style tetradrachms were analyzed by the neutron activation method to determine the amounts of gold and copper present.1 This process involves the irradiation of the coins with neutrons in an atomic pile and examination of the ensuing radioactivity by means of a gamma-ray spectrometer. The presence or absence of a particular element is revealed by the presence or absence of the gamma-rays characteristic of that element and the amount of the element present is ascertained by measuring the intensity of its gamma-rays. Since the method is entirely non-destructive and is furthermore capable of accurate measurement of minute concentrations of trace elements, it is admirably suited for the analyzing of ancient coinage. 2
Of the specimens tested, the vast majority was supplied by the Heberden Coin Room of the Ashmolean Museum through the courtesy of Dr. Colin M. Kraay. In addition to the Oxford coins a relatively small group of tetadrachms from the collections of the American Numismatic Society, of E. S. G. Robinson and of Burton Y. Berry was examined. Irradiation was done at Harwell and the coins were subsequently examined by Miss Vera M. Emeleus of the Oxford Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art. To all those who cooperated in making material available and in conducting the scientific tests the writer is deeply grateful.
The purpose of the tests was fourfold:
1) to see if variations in gold and copper content had any chronological significance. Earlier chemical analysis of a limited number of New Style bronze coins (see pp. 638–642) had revealed a striking correlation between metallic composition and the date of the specimens tested and it was thought that some similar pattern might emerge with respect to the composition of the silver coins.
2) to determine whether or not the readings of fourteen coins considered "suspect" because of their abnormal style were notably different from other readings.
3) to explore the possibility of a relationship between metallic composition and a series of control combinations which appear on the reverses of the coins. It seems highly likely that the latter are associated in some way with the source of the bullion, hence it was thought that coins marked with a particular control combination might show a distinctive pattern of gold and copper content. 3
4) to provide data from a late period of Athenian coinage for comparison with the analyses of sixth and fifth century coins from the same mint already published by Kraay (Archaeometry 1, 1958, pp. 1–5; 2, 1959, pp. 1–16).
Omitting the "suspect" pieces, the tetradrachms of certain Athenian origin number seventy-two. Sixteen of these belong to the Early Period, thirty-nine to the Middle Period and seventeen to the Late Period.1 The listing below gives the record of individual analyses; Figures 1–4 which follow summarize the readings according to the three periods of the coinage. 2
Early Period
Copper % 3 | Gold % | |||
1. | 193/2 | 0.37 | 0.19 | |
2. | 189/8 | 0.97 | 0.33 | |
3. | 186/5 | 3.2 | 0.053 | |
4. | 185/4 | 5.3 | 0.11 | |
5. | 183/2 | 0.035 (± 15%) | 0.052 | |
6. | ΠOΛY – TI | 181/0 | 2.87 | 0.0076 (± 15%) |
7. | XAPI – HPA | 178/7 | 1.02 | 0.32 |
8. | 176/5 | 2.3 | 0.107 | |
9. | 3.9 | 0.23 | ||
10. | 2.8 | 0.152 | ||
11. | 172/1 | 2.9 | 0.11 | |
12. | KTHΣI – EYMA | 171/0 | 1.9 | 0.083 |
13. | KTHΣI – EYMA | 4.3 | 0.054 | |
14. | ΓΛAY – EXE | 170/69 | 0.13 | 0.040 |
15. | ΓΛAY – EXE | 0.045 (± 20%) | 0.066 | |
16. | ΓΛAY – EXE | 0.063 (± 20%) | 0.040 |
Middle Period
17. | MENEΔ – EΠIΓENO | 167/6 | 0.022 (± 50%) | 0.087 |
18. | ΠOΛYXAPM – NIKOΓ | 165/4 | 0.119 (± 15%) | 0.122 |
19. | ΔΩPOӨE – ΔIOΦ | 164/3 | 0.092 (± 15%) | 0.12 |
20. | ΛYΣAN – ΓΛAYKOΣ | 159/8 | 0.675 | 0.32 |
21. | EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣANΔPOΣ | 158/7 | 0.068 | 0.14 |
22. | EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣANΔPOΣ | 0.202 | 0.19 | |
23. | EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣANΔPOΣ | 0.157 | 0.098 | |
24. | ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ | 157/6 | 0.72 | 0.19 |
Copper % | Gold % | |||
25. | ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ | 0.035 (± 30%) | 0.10 | |
26. | ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ | 0.041 (± 25%) | 0.094 | |
27. | MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI | 156/5 | 0.047 (± 15%) | 0.052 |
28. | MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI | 0.24 | 0.68 | |
29. | MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI | 0.28 | 0.36 | |
30. | MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI | 0.008 (± 40%) | 0.086 | |
31. | MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI | 0.034 (± 30%) | 0.13 | |
32. | MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI | 0.032 (± 30%) | 0.13 | |
33. | EYPYKΛEI – APIAPA | 154/3 | 0.74 | 0.18 |
34. | AΦPOΔIΣI – ΔIOΓE | 152/1 | 0.086 (± 20%) | 0.10 |
35. | AΦPOΔIΣI – ΔIOΓE | 0.047 (± 20%) | 0.94 | |
36. | ΔIONYΣI – ΔIONYΣI | 151/0 | 0.034 (± 25%) | 0.16 |
37. | AMMΩNIOΣ – KAΛΛIAΣ | 150/49 | 0.13 | 0.12 |
38. | AMMΩNIOΣ – KAΛΛIAΣ | 0.14 | 0.16 | |
39. | AMMΩNIOΣ – KAΛΛIAΣ | 0.089 (± 15%) | 0.023 | |
40. | ӨEMIΣTO – ӨEOΠOMΠOΣ | 149/8 | 0.071 (± 20%) | 0.11 |
41. | ΣΩKPATHΣ – ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | 148/7 | 0.067 (± 20%) | 0.11 |
42. | MHTPOΔΩPOΣ – ΔHMOΣӨEN | 147/6 | 0.22 | 0.073 |
43. | MHTPOΔΩPOΣ – ΔHMOΣӨEN | 0.391 | 0.19 | |
44. | MHTPOΔΩPOΣ – ΔHMOΣӨEN | 0.15 | 0.056 | |
45. | ΔIOTIMOΣ – MAΓAΣ | 146/5 | 0.095 (± 15%) | 0.12 |
46. | ΔIOTIMOΣ – MAΓAΣ | 0.063 (± 20%) | 0.13 | |
47. | EYMAPEIΔHE – AΛKIΔAM | 145/4 | 0.36 | 0.061 |
48. | EYMAPEIΔHΣ – KΛEOMEN | 0.161 | 0.18 | |
49. | XAPINAYTHΣ – APIΣTEAΣ | 144/3 | 0.102 (± 15%) | 0.14 |
50. | ΦANOKΛHΣ – AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ | 143/2 | 0.041 (± 25%) | 0.43 |
51. | ӨEOΔOTOΣ – KΛEOΦANHΣ | 138/7 | 0.036 (±25%) | 0.0005 (less) |
52. | HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 137/6 | 0.023 (± 30%) | 0.01 (± 15%) |
53. | HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 0.84 | 0.23 | |
54. | HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 0.29 | 0.16 | |
55. | AMΦIKPATHΣ – EΠIΣTPATOΣ | 133/2 | 0.98 | 0.20 |
Late Period
56. | ΔHMHTPIOΣ – AΓAӨIΠΠOΣ | 131/0 | 11.5 | 0.34 |
57. | ΔHMHTPIOΣ – AΓAӨIΠΠOΣ | 4.2 | 0.18 | |
58. | NIKHTHΣ – ΔIONYΣIOΣ | 130/29 | 5.5 | 0.31 |
59. | ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ | 124/3 | 2.5 | 0.29 |
60. | ≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ | 1.8 | 0.37 | |
61. | AΠEΛΛIKΩN – ΓOPΓIAΣ | 121/0 | 2.4 | 0.57 |
62. | MIӨPAΔATHΣ – APIΣTIΩN | c. 121 | 2.6 | 0.41 |
63. | MNAΣEAΣ – NEΣTΩP | 120/19 | 2.7 | 0.37 |
Copper % | Gold % | |||
64. | MNAΣEAΣ – NEΣTΩP | 1.79 | 0.46 | |
65. | KΛEOΦANHΣ – EΠIӨETHΣ | 119/8 | 4.9 | 0.48 |
66. | NEΣΓΩP – MNAΣEAΣ | 113/2 | 4.9 | 0.37 |
67. | ΔIOΦANTOΣ – AIΣXINHΣ | 108/7 | 2.7 | 0.44 |
68. | ΔHMEAΣ – KAΛΛIKPATIΔHΣ | 107/6 | 5.9 | 0.40 |
69. | MENEΔHMOΣ – TIMOKPATHΣ | 103/2 | 5.2 | 0.39 |
70. | AΠEΛΛIKΩN – APIΣTOTEΛHΣ | 94/3 | 4.6 | 0.47 |
71. | AΠEΛΛIKΩN – APIΣTOTEΛHΣ | 11.3 | 0.42 | |
72. | HPAKΛΩN – HPAKΛEIΔHΣ | 93/2 | 3.2 | 0.37 |
Although we have no precise literary testimony on the subject, such as exists for an earlier period, it seems almost certain that the bulk at least of the New Style coinage was struck from the output of the Laurium mines.1 These mines, located to the north of Cape Sunium and about forty kilometers south of Athens, held in antiquity rich deposits of silver ore. From Miss Margaret Crosby's publication of mining leases (Hesperia, 1950, pp. 189–312 and 1957, pp. 1–23) we have a record of nearly forty mines in operation in the fourth century. Professor John H. Young, who has most generously shared his comprehensive knowledge of the Laurium district, tells me that the distance between the northernmost and southernmost of the mines was fifteen kilometers, as shown on his sketch map of the area. Ancient workings have been found on the surface and ancient galleries about 200 meters below ground. We do not know how many of these mines were in operation at the same time or how many continued to be worked in the second century but the information available does provide an indication of the extent of activity in the Laurium region.
Concerning the composition of Laurium silver we have evidence from both ancient and modern times. In the two Archaeometry articles cited above Kraay gives the results of neutron activation analyses of sixteen "Wappenmünzen" of sixth century date and thirty-nine "owls" of the fifth century. The latter were undoubtedly coined from Laurium ore and their composition shows uniformly low percentages of gold and copper, the average gold percentage for the first twenty-three specimens tested being 0.026 and the average copper percentage 0.14. On the other hand the "Wappenmünzen" are far more diverse in composition with higher percentages of both trace elements: 0.12 average for gold and 0.84 for copper. Although Laurium seems the most likely source of "Wappenmünzen" silver, it must be admitted that there is no certainty on this point. Kraay suggest that "the more variable composition of the earlier issues might be due either to the exploitation of the less homogeneous surface deposits at Laurium or to the presence of silver from some other source." For purposes of comparison five samples of Laurium silver were obtained through the good offices of M. Nikos Kyriazopoulos who is connected with the Compagnie Française des Mines du Laurion now working in the area. These: were analyzed by the neutron activation method at Brookhaven National Laboratory through the cooperation of Dr. Edward V. Sayre. 1
Copper % 2
Gold %
(From a gallery in the Plaka region 85–95 m. above sea level, at a depth of 100–120 m. below the surface)
1. | 0.012 | 0.0021 |
2. | 0.009 | 0.0035 |
3. | 0.015 (less) | 0.0050 |
4. | 0.024 | 0.0062 |
(From a gallery in the Plaka region 120–140 m. above sea level, at a depth of 70–120 m. below the surface)
5. | 0.14 (less) | 0.10 |
The first four samples show concentrations of gold and copper markedly lower than the averages for the fifth century "owls" while the fifth has considerably less copper but about the same amount of gold as the "Wappenmünzen" average. Since it is likely that these variations reflect in some measure the difference between ancient and modern mining techniques, the contemporary percentages are less significant for the readings themselves than for the proof that they afford of disparity in the composition of Laurium silver. All samples from the first gallery indicate an ore of extreme purity while the specimen from a different gallery in the same region has substantially higher quantities of both copper and gold, suggesting that silver from widely-separated mines might reveal even greater diversity.
Data on the mines and analyses were then submitted to a mining engineer in order to obtain technical advice on the extent of variation in metallic composition that would be considered normal in ore coming from a field as sizable and diversified as that of Laurium. Mr. Sanford R. Knapp and several of his associates in the mining firm of Taylor–Knapp Company most kindly prepared a helpful memorandum giving their judgment on specific points at issue. In essence, assuming a generally high grade silver ore, a wide variation in copper and gold is to be expected from "pocket to pocket, between different veins or seams in the same mine, from the surface to a 200-meter depth, and certainly from different mines in a fifteen kilometer area." An additional factor to be considered in relation to the copper content is variability in temperature control during the smelting and refining process. Certain pockets of ore might well have contained as much or more copper as the amount found in some coins and if the smelting pot were heated above the melting point of copper, which is 1088° C. as against 960.5° C. for silver, some portion of the copper would mix and probably alloy with the silver.
With this background material in mind, let us turn to the analyses themselves. It is immediately apparent from the tabulation and graphs that there is no consistent change, downward or upward, in gold or copper percentages. What do emerge are three distinct patterns of gold and copper traces strikingly paralleling the three chronological divisions of the coinage.1 For the Early Period there is a great diversity of metallic composition, gold ranging from 0.0076 to 0.83 and copper from 0.035 to 5.3, with a notable lack of concentration points. It is interesting that this diversity of composition is in keeping with the character of the early coinage. The issues are uneven in size, some very small and others extensive; the quality of the workmanship varies from excellent to mediocre or worse; the bullion supply seems to have been drawn from a large number of relatively unproductive sources on the evidence of the control combinations. It may be assumed that the range of copper and gold shown in the analyses of the early coins is due, in part at least, to this circumstances that ore was being obtained from small workings scattered over a wide area rather than from a few rich lodes. Furthermore, the variation in copper content probably also reflects a carelessness in temperature control during the refining process, which would be in accord with other indications of a generally unstable situation with regard to minting activity during the period in question. It is perhaps significant that the earliest coins of Athens, the "Wappenmünzen" of the sixth century, show a lack of uniformity in composition very similar to that of the coins of the early New Style series and it is likely that the determining factors in both cases were roughly the same.1
By contrast the Middle Period shows a marked degree of consistency in metallic composition, with gold concentrating at 0.09–0.25 and copper at 0.05–0.4. The coinage of this period is also far more homogeneous than that of the Early Period. Its style is good to fair, its dies are in general carefully cut and its production is relatively stable from year to year with bullion apparently supplied from the yield of a few highly productive sources. Careful supervision of the refining process and a uniform overall supply of metal from a limited number of homogeneous deposits would seem to be the explanation of the consistent pattern of gold and copper content in the Middle Period. Again one finds a parallel situation prevailing in early Athens. The "owls" of the fifth century, minted from rich, deep veins of Laurium silver, show substantially less gold and somewhat less copper than the New Style coins of the Middle Period but they do resemble the latter in their uniformity of composition. 2
For the Late Period the relationship between metallic composition and other aspects of the coinage breaks down. Percentages are uniformly high, concentrated between 0.25–0.5 gold and 1.5–5.5 copper, but there is no corresponding stability in mint operations. Style is uneven and generally poor, emissions range from very large to very small, sources of silver for much of the period are apparently both diversified and scanty. The high copper content in all coins may well be the result of deliberate "adulteration" for the purpose of strengthening the alloy or stretching the silver. Certainly carelessness in temperature control, the explanation which best fits the fluctuating percentages of the Early Period, is less likely to be the reason for the consistently high readings of the Late Period.1 Increased gold content, however, is another matter since this is something which could not have been altered in the refining process. The puzzling aspect of the picture as it relates to the gold is not the individual readings—isolated examples of even higher percentages are found in the Middle Period—but the fact that all readings are high. There is no wide range of percentages such as one finds in both Early and Middle Periods. 2 This distinctive pattern of gold content suggests at least that the answer lies outside Laurium, in the importation of silver from abroad.
Even before any analyses had been made, the decline of coinage after 120 B.c., and especially the token strikings characteristic of the period between 111 and 88, had implied a growing scarcity of silver during the last thirty-two years of the New Style period. From the new evidence of metallic composition it would appear that at an even earlier date the Laurium mines were being worked out and that supplementary sources were being tapped throughout the Late Period. In this connection several factors may be of significance. With the last issue of the Middle period, that of Dositheos and Charias in 132/1, there is a marked increase in the amount of coinage. The first issue of the Late Period, that of Demetrios and Agathippos, is the largest single emission of the entire New Style series. Forty-seven obverse dies are employed in 131/0, three times as many as the average for the 142–132 decade. The next two issues are also heavy and that of 124/3 with forty-two obverse dies is the second largest striking of the coinage. This unusually extensive production at the beginning of the Late Period, in sharp contrast to the lighter emissions of the Middle Period, implies a great increase in bullion supply, which is more likely to have come from abroad than from the long-worked Laurium deposits. A contributing cause in the decline of Laurium is probably to be found in the slave revolt of about this time.1 We know little of the circumstances or extent of the insurrection but it must at the very least have disrupted production. It may well have had more lasting effects in the destruction or crippling of mining properties. 2 In any event the evidence of the coins suggests that c. 132 B.c. Athens, for the first time in her history, was confronted with the problem of finding a supplementary supply of silver adequate for her monetary needs.
The source of this silver can be only a matter of conjecture but a Pontic origin is a possibility, one might even say a strong possibility. 3 The coinage itself, in the Aristion–Philon issue of 129/8 with its drinking Pegasus symbol and the Mithradates–Aristion issue of c. 121 with its regnal inscription and symbol, bears witness to the fact that the close friendly ties which had long existed betweenAthens and Pontus were still firm in the twenties of the second century. It would surely have been natural forAthens in her financial emergency to have turned to Mithradates V for help in securing foreign silver, and it seems likely that the Pegasus of 129/8 and possibly the Gorgon's head of 130/29 make grateful acknowledgement of this assistance. Is it only coincidence that a reduction in the Athenian coinage is roughly contemporary with Mithradates’ death and that a further decline comes at about the time his son Mithradates VI was beginning his military campaigns and presumably initiating a coinage to finance them.1
As mentioned earlier, fourteen "suspect" coins were examined, with the following results:
Of these, five (Nos. 1–4 and 11) proved to be plated. Six others showed a metallic composition so different from that of regular Athenian coins of the period as to confirm decisively the stylistic argument for their rejection as products of the Athenian mint. Nos. 5–8 and 14 are plotted on the graphs of the Middle and Late Periods and it will be seen how far they lie outside the concentration points of the other coins. A sixth piece (No. 9) could not be plotted since the phenomenally high gold reading of 2.73 made it in some way impossible to determine its copper content. The three remaining coins of the "suspect" group (Nos. 10, 12–13) have readings not unlike those of genuine Athenian coins of the Late Period. They are still "suspect" on the basis of style but the case for separating them from the output of the Athenian mint is not strengthened by the evidence of metallic composition.
In addition to the eighty-six coins already discussed, six tetradrachms falling outside the New Style coinage proper were analyzed.
Copper % | Gold % | ||
1. | 0.90 | 0.53 | |
2. | 4.0 | 0.41 | |
3. | 1.2 | 0.47 | |
4. | Hierapytna (Palm tree type of BMC, p. 48, 2) | 0.88 | 0.42 |
5. | Cydonia with Athenian types | 4.1 | 0.34 |
6. | Gortyna with Athenian types | 1.4 | 0.43 |
Nothing conclusive emerged from these analyses, which is not surprising. The first three tetradrachms are examples of the coinage put out by Sulla after his capture ofAthens and almost certainly struck at the Athenian mint. The silver, however, may be assumed to have come from a variety of sources including coins in current circulation and temple treasure fromAthens, Delphi and Delos.
Analysis of the few Cretan pieces was undertaken to see whether their composition was in any respect distinctive since it is probable that some of the earlier imitations of the New Style are of Cretan origin. Nothing can be proved one way or the other. Crete must have imported her silver; she may well have obtained some at least from Laurium. Her cities may have melted down old coins of foreign issue for these scanty Cretan strikings.
1 |
For what seems to have been a somewhat similar accounting system at Corinth, see Ravel. Les "Poulains" de Corinthe,
II, pp. 46–57. E. J. Seltman (JIAN, 1913, pp. 1–10) cites a stamped bar of silver found in
the Tarentum Hoard as evidence of a control system based on a correlation of the markings on ingots and coins.
|
1 |
A preliminary report on these analyses and their implications has appeared in Archaeometry 3, 1960, pp. 10–15.
|
1 |
In the Archaeometry article of 1960 one of the imitations (No. 12) was inadvertently included with the regular
Athenian coins of the Late Period, hence there is a slight discrepancy between the two reports in both text and graphs.
|
1 |
Cary in "sources of silver for the Greek World" (Mélanges Gustave Glotz I, pp. 133–142) says that the Laurium mines were inactive for another half century after the end of Macedonian control of
Athens in 229 B.c. but that by 150 the fields were again in operation. No
evidence supporting these dates is given.
The coinage certainly lends no confirmation to the theory of a source of silver outside Laurium for the issues of 196–150 B.c. Mining engineers consider the differences in composition between Athenian coins of the fifth century and those of the early second as fully explicable in terms of ore coming from different deposits in a common field. Furthermore, John Young in his years of work in the Laurium area has seen remains of extensive second century workings and although these cannot be closely dated, he has indicated in conversation that he believes a number must fall within the first half of the period. Of particular significance is the evidence provided by four amphora handles found in the vicinity of ancient smelteries. Two are dated by Virginia Grace to 188–167 B.c. and the other two to 166–146. The fact that nothing except smelteries was ever at these sites points to metallurgical activities in the area between 188 and 146 B.c. |
1 |
When a temporary suspension of activity at the Oxford Laboratory made it impossible to have the samples of modern ore tested
there as a
supplement to the coin tests run earlier Dr. Marie Farnsworth, who has been of great assistance in technical
matters, suggested that I get in touch with Dr. Sayre at Brookhaven. For his ready and helpful response I am
indeed deeply grateful.
|
1 |
The dividing line between Middle and Late Periods is seemingly identical with respect both to the character of the coinage
and its metallic
composition, but there is an element of uncertainty involving the striking of 132/1, for which we have no analyses. In some
respects,
notably the size of the issue, it relates to the early Late Period emissions rather than to those of the Middle Period. The
division is
less exact between Early and Middle Periods in that the three analyses of 170/69, in copper percentages at least, are related
to the Middle
rather than the Early Period. Actually it is also true that the coins, except that they still carry the names of only two
magistrates, have
the basic characteristics of Middle Period issues.
|
1 |
The distribution patterns of the two coinages are highly comparable and their average gold percentages are identical: 0.12.
For copper, the
early New Style shows an average of 2.01 as against 0.84 in the case of the "Wappenmünzen" but this seems to me of no real
significance in
view of the fact that copper content may depend largely on the competence and carefulness of the workmen refining the ore.
|
1 |
Ardaillon (Les Mines du Laurion dans l'Antiquité, pp. 113f.) cites a few analyses of Athenian coins and comments on
the higher percentages of copper found in the late issues. Rejecting the theory that this was added deliberately, he suggests
that after
centuries of exploitation the purer veins in the mines may have been worked out leaving only ore of inferior quality available
or that a
general decadence in the mining industry resulted in less careful metallurgical processing.
It seem to me, however, that the element of deliberation is implicit in the high copper readings of all coins of the Late Period. Adulteration is perhaps not the best word to describe the procedure for copper was probably added outright to the silver only exceptionally, as in the case of Nos. 56 and 71 with their extremely high readings of over eleven per cent. A consistent heating of the smelting pots above the melting point of copper would have produced a bullion of high copper content and ultimately a coinage which, by comparison with that of the Middle Period, was to all intents and purposes "adulterated". |
1 |
Lauffer (Die Bergwerkssklaven von Laureion, pp. 999 f.) dates the beginning of the Laurium
rising to 134 B.c. and its suppression to 133. This would bring it some years earlier than the Delos insurrection, which Lauffer assigns to
133 and Ferguson to 130 but which on the evidence of two Delos hoards (p. 486) is conceivably as late as 129 B.c. The Attic and Delian revolts are usually
considered simultaneous outbreaks but, as Lauffer indicates, there are insufficient grounds for this assumption. Diodorus
mentions both in
the same sentence but he also associates with them other uprisings in various places, all of which can scarcely have been
contemporary.
|
1 |
Mithradates’ initial military undertaking was the Crimean expedition of c. 110 B.c.
(Reinach, Mithridate Eupator, p. 67); from that time on he was engaged in one military enterprise after another. His
coinage with era dates begins in 96/5 B.c. but it was almost certainly preceded by the issues without dates
(Waddington, Recueil I.1, p. 14, 11–12) which may be assumed to have a connection with his earlier campaigns.
|
2 |
For technical details of the process, cf. V. M. Emeleus, "The Technique of Neutron Activation Analysis as applied
to trace element determination in pottery and coins," Archaeometry 1, 1958, pp. 6–15.
|
2 |
Two coins of the Middle Period, No. 30 with 0.008 copper and No. 51 with less than 0.0005 gold, have of necessity been omitted
from the
pertinent graphs.
|
2 |
Dr. Sayre reports that the copper concentrations of the first four pieces were so low that the gamma ray peaks
due to copper following neutron activation were just discernible and the results were, therefore, only approximate. Accordingly
the
specimens were dissolved and the copper determination redone by a sensitive colorimetric procedure which gave the results
shown here, these
being of the same order of magnitude as the concentration estimates from neutron activation. In the case of Nos.3 and 5 the
specimens were
so small that the total amount of copper was below the limits of quantitative determination but the neutron activation results
would
indicate that the concentrations do not lie far below these limits.
|
2 |
Average gold percentage for the New Style of the Middle Period is 0.17, for the fifth century 0.026; average copper for the
New Style is
0.20, for the fifth century 0.14.
|
2 |
Mr. Knapp and his associates felt that the relatively uniform gold percentages might be the result of increased overall production
of
silver from a greater variety of sources which would tend to blend the gold content of the different ores closer to an average.
This theory
would serve well enough for the first decade of the Late Period with its very heavy issues of coinage calling for large supplies
of silver
but it would not explain the same high gold readings in later emissions of very small size.
|
2 |
In an article on Attic mines of the fourth century (Ann. Br. Sch.Athens
, 1953, p. 247), R. J. Hopper points out that silver-mining as a means of putting capital to profitable use
was in competition with other types of investment such as agriculture, other industry and mercantile loans. When the margin
of profit from
mining operations was low in relation to the cost and risk of developing the properties, one may be certain that potential
investors would
be reluctant to engage in this form of speculative enterprise. If, as seems likely, the Laurium deposits were
already showing signs of exhaustion before the slave revolt, any damage resulting from the uprising would have had serious
consequences
since the repair or replacement of the installations would require a substantial outlay of capital without any prospect of
adequate
compensation from the profits of the re-opened mines.
|
3 |
A tabulation of the relationship between metallic composition and two control combinations is to be found on page 620.
|
3 |
Percentages of copper and gold should be accurate to ± 10% of the values quoted except where a different degree of accuracy
is given.
|
3 |
In very early times the mountains of Pontus, notably the Paryadres, were a rich source of metal, including iron, copper and
silver. Strabo
(XII. 3. 19) describes the silver mines as no longer productive in his day but Forbes (Metallurgy in Antiquity, pp.
190f.) enumerates seven important deposits of Pontic silver and makes special reference to the mines mentioned by Strabo.
saying that the
latter's information must have been wrong since "the mines still contain enormous amounts of galena." With regard to the richness
of the
Pontic deposits Forbes comments that Pompey took 6000 talents from them and that even today they are by no means exhausted.
|
A number of Athenian bronze coins have been chemically analyzed. The evidence of metallic composition which they provide, taken in conjunction with the evidence of the bronze hoards discussed in an earlier section of this study, is of considerable significance for the chronology of the New Style coinage and particularly for the dating of the Mithradates issue.
Most of the analyses below were originally published by Earle R. Caley in The Composition of Ancient Greek Bronze Coins (pp. 24–59). This material, supplemented by the results of tests on three other coins, was later tabulated by the writer in connection with a discussion of the "cleruchy" issues ofAthens (Hesp., 1941, pp. 229f.). Eight additional analyses are in the present tabulation.1
The pre-New Style and Imperial specimens included for purposes of comparison are identified only by reference to Les monnaies d'Athènes and their order is that of Svoronos’ plates. Brief type descriptions are associated with the New Style pieces and their arrangement is roughly chronological.
Each result represents an average of two closely agreeing determinations. In the case of analyses of more than one coin of the same type, the tabulation gives an average for the three elements and for the ratio of lead to tin.2
Cu | Sn | Pb | Ratio (Pb to Sn) | |
Pre-New Style | ||||
5 Pl. 22, 35–45 | 89.49 | 8.69 | 1.71 | .19 |
2 Pl 22, 64–70 | 83.73 | 9.72 | 6.04 | .62 |
4 Pl. 22, 72–79 | 85.75 | 11.10 | 2.79 | .25 |
1 Pl. 22, 80–84 | 82.33 | 8.41 | 9.22 | 1.09 |
2 Pl. 22, 85–88 | 81.98 | 12.62 | 4.77 | .37 |
2 Pl. 24, 10–16 | 86.88 | 8.79 | 3.91 | .44 |
1 Pl. 24, 42–50 | 87.49 | 10.67 | 1.29 | .12 |
2 Pl. 24, 51–57 | 87.39 | 10.53 | 1.71 | .16 |
New Style | ||||
1 Athena hd. Corinthian helmet/Zeus lowered arm, prow symbol. Pl. 81, 9–16 | 88.74 | 11.10 | .22 | .02 |
1 Athena hd. Cor. helmet/Zeus hurling fulmen, eagle and cornucopiae. BMC 543 | 86.38 | 10.56 | 2.73 | .26 |
2 Zeus hd./Athena Promachos. Pl. 22, 53–58 | 89.59 | 9.90 | .28 | .03 |
Cu | Sn | Pb | |
Svor. Pl. 81, 33–39 | 88.69 | 8.12 | 1.85 |
Pl. 25, 22–28 | 72.01 | 9.20 | 16.79 |
Pl. 81, 45–48 | 76.80 | 9.04 | 13.71 |
Pl. 81, 45–48 | 80.26 | 7.28 | 10.04 |
Pl. 80, 18–21 | 77.86 | 6.12 | 15.02 |
Pl. 80, 18–21 | 78.12 | 6.09 | 15.38 |
Pl. 80. 18–21 | 72.75 | 7.32 | 19.18 |
Pl. 79, 38–42 | 75.73 | 6.02 | 17.72 |
Cu | Sn | Pb | Ratio (Pb to Sn) | |
New Style | ||||
2 Athena hd. Cor. helmet/Zeus hurling fulmen, pilei symbol. Pl. 81, 33–39 | 88.86 | 9.36 | 1.03 | .11 |
1 Athena hd. Attic helmet/Owl on amphora, no symbol. Pl. 79, 1–7 | 84.96 | 9.89 | 5.15 | .52 |
1 Athena hd. Attic helmet/Tripod. Pl. 80, 1–7 | 81.25 | 8.54 | 9.93 | 1.16 |
2 Gorgon's hd./Athena advancing. Pl. 25, 22–28 | 75.13 | 8.25 | 15.31 | 1.86 |
3 Athena hd. Cor. helmet/Zeus hurling fulmen, star and crescents. Pl. 81, 45–48 | 78.42 | 7.96 | 12.33 | 1.55 |
4 Athena hd. Attic helmet/Sphinx. Pl. 80, 18–21 | 74.99 | 6.59 | 17.49 | 2.65 |
1 Dionysos hd./Athena advancing. Pl. 25, 29–32 | 73.16 | 7.54 | 18.82 | 2.49 |
1 Athena hd. Attic helmet/Owl on amphora, cicada. Pl. 79, 38–42 | 75.73 | 6.02 | 17.72 | 2.94 |
1 Athena hd. Attic helmet/Athena advancing, owl at feet. Pl. 80, 29–32 | 73.60 | 6.89 | 18.68 | 2.71 |
1 Zeus hd./Dionysos hd. Pl. 25, 36–42 | 70.25 | 6.29 | 22.73 | 3.61 |
Imperial | ||||
1 Pl. 84, 24 | 68.05 | 4.45 | 26.82 | 6.03 |
1 PI. 86, 35 | 63.23 | 3.89 | 32.51 | 8.36 |
1 PI. 86, 39 | 66.05 | 4.10 | 29.32 | 7.15 |
1 PI. 88, 52 | 66.25 | 6.84 | 26.51 | 3.87 |
1 PI. 91, 10 | 66.19 | 3.75 | 29.18 | 7.78 |
1 PI. 94, 21 | 70.55 | 5.93 | 23.03 | 3.88 |
1 PI. 99, 6 | 81.44 | 7.72 | 10.35 | 1.34 |
1 PI. 99, 39 | 77.66 | 8.06 | 13.78 | 1.71 |
1 PI. 99, 41 | 73.01 | 7.70 | 18.60 | 2.41 |
All New Style pieces in the listing above are bronze units. Several fractions of the same period have been analyzed but these results have been omitted since emission of the smaller denominations almost certainly took place over a longer span of time than a single year and the evidence of metallic composition as it relates to chronology is hence of less value than in the case of the annual strikings. The sequence of New Style issues is based on the data provided by eight bronze hoards published on pages 525–531. It seems certain that the Zeus with lowered arm preceded the Zeus hurling fulmen type. The order of the next three issues is suggested by the relative wear of coins in the first Attic Hoard recorded by Bellinger (NNM 42, pp. 1–9). That these four strikings came before all or most of the nine emissions which conclude the New Style listing is established by the composition of the eight bronze hoards mentioned. Some of the last nine issues can be associated with particular silver strikings and given a definite place in the chronological sequence: the Gorgon’s head/Athena advancing bronze is linked with the Niketes–Dionysios silver of 130/29; the Athena head/Sphinx with Diophantos–Aischines of 108/7; the Athena head/Owl and cicada with Demochares–Pammenes of 100/99 and possibly the Athena head/Athena advancing with Diokles Meli–Medeios of 89/8. Other issues owe their placement chiefly to the relationship between their metallic composition and that of the dated issues.
The significant factors in these analyses are the amount of lead present and the proportion of lead to tin. Caley (op. cit., pp. 136–149) suggests that the high percentage of tin in early bronzes may have been due to inexperience on the part of mint officials undertaking production of a new currency, a tendency to use the same kind of alloy that had proved successful for other purposes, such as statues, without realizing that its hardness and brittleness made it unsuitable for coinage. Gradually correction was made in the interests of malleability. However, since the advantages of leading cease when the proportion exceeds a certain limit, about 5% or a little more, after which the alloy becomes too soft and weak, it is apparent that the over-leading which characterizes much of the New Style coinage was the result of other considerations. These probably involved the higher cost of tin and its increasing scarcity after the destruction of Carthage and the consequent disappearance of the Carthaginian trade in tin. Certainly forAthens it would have been far cheaper and easier to use the lead of Laurium than to import tin from abroad.
From the tabulation it seems quite clear that lead percentages and the lead-tin ratios correlate closely with the dates of the coinage. In the third century bronze the proportion of lead is consistently below 10% and generally below 5%, the ratio less than 1% in all cases but one. The earliest New Style strikings show a similar pattern with very little lead, even less on the whole than is found in the pre-New Style coins.1 Later New Style pieces have considerably more lead and it is noteworthy that for issues which can be dated with precision there is a direct relationship between the amount of lead and the lateness of the emission. With the Imperial coinage, excessive proportions of lead make their appearance in all specimens except the last three entries.
41
These would seem on the basis of style to belong early in the Imperial sequence, which would explain their comparatively low lead percentages, the first issues of a new series being better in composition than the last of the series immediately preceding.
It cannot, of course, be supposed that analysis alone will provide a tight chronological sequence. As will be noted, the individual results from several coins of the same issue show variations in lead percentages and in lead-tin ratios. Even greater variation might reasonably be expected from bronzes of different years no matter how closely associated in time. Furthermore an absolutely consistent progression cannot be assumed. The alloy of one year will not inevitably be poorer than that of the year or years previous; it may for one reason or another be slightly better. Still the overall pattern is unmistakable: a substantial difference in lead percentages and lead-tin ratios may safely be taken as indication of a chronological disparity while a notable correspondence implies relative proximity of emission. The last five issues of the New Style section of the tabulation presumably belong to the final years of the coinage, roughly between 110 and 87 B.c.; the Mithradates bronze should be closer in time to the Gorgon's head striking of 130/29; the entries just preceding are seemingly even earlier.
1 |
These were made in 1956 by Brother Roman Leonard Wicinski, S.M., then a graduate student at Ohio State University. The writer
is most
appreciative of his help and of the cooperation of Professor Caley in arranging to have the work done.
|
1 |
Caley notes (p. 43) that there is frequently a "tendency of the earliest coins of an entirely new series to contain a greater
proportion of
tin and a smaller proportion of lead than the coins at the end of an immediately preceding long series."
|
2 |
Individual results are listed in the two earlier publications cited. For the eight coins analyzed in 1956 the individual results
are as
follows:
|
In determining average weights for the listing below and in drawing up the six frequency tables which follow, coins of less than 16 grams and mutilated or badly corroded pieces have been omitted. The weights that have been used are, I fear, not invariably above suspicion1 so that the results of the tabulations must be interpreted with a degree of caution.
Year | Number of tetradrachms | Average weight | Individual weights of 17 gr. or more |
196/5 | 3 | 17.16 | 17.00, 17.19, 17.30 |
195/4 | 10 | 16.82 | 17.05(2), 17.06, 17.07 |
194/3 | 8 | 16.93 | 17.04, 17.20, 17.28 |
193/2 | 10 | 16.94 | 17.05, 17.08, 17.09 |
192/1 | 1 | 16.75 |
Year | Number of tetradrachms | Average weight | Individual weights of 17 gr. or more |
191/0 | 12 | 16.88 | 17.00, 17.05, 17.07 |
190/89 | 17 | 16.68 | 17.05, 17.06 |
189/8 | 14 | 16.71 | 17.01 |
188/7 | 20 | 16.57 | |
187/6 | 21 | 16.60 | |
186/5 | 20 | 16.58 | |
185/4 | 21 | 16.44 | |
184/3 | 34 | 16.56 | |
183/2 | 19 | 16.75 | 17.05, 17.10 |
182/1 | 15 | 16.52 | |
181/0 | 37 | 16.59 | 17.24 |
180/79 | 31 | 16.57 | |
179/8 | 20 | 16.52 | |
178/7 | 24 | 16.54 | |
177/6 | 25 | 16.65 | 17.00, 17.17 |
176/5 | 24 | 16.56 | 17.00 |
175/4 | 30 | 16.46 | |
174/3 | 43 | 16.55 | |
173/2 | 33 | 16.46 | |
172/1 | 44 | 16.53 | 17.00 |
171/0 | 63 | 16.65 | |
170/69 | 61 | 16.55 | |
169/8 | 51 | 16.31 | 17.00, 17.01 |
168/7 | 60 | 16.56 | 17.01 |
167/6 | 81 | 16.60 | 17.08 |
166/5 | 53 | 16.59 | 17.01 |
165/4 | 39 | 16.64 | |
164/3 | 42 | 16.70 | 17.00 |
163/2 | 49 | 16.57 | |
162/1 | 35 | 16.63 | |
161/0 | 35 | 16.61 | 17.50 |
160/59 | 64 | 16.55 | |
159/8 | 76 | 16.59 | |
158/7 | 199 | 16.54 | 17.05, 17.06, 17.50 |
157/6 | 149 | 16.64 | |
156/5 | 171 | 16.55 | |
155/4 | 33 | 16.58 | 17.00 |
154/3 | 59 | 16.56 | 17.17 |
153/2 | 126 | 16.64 | 17.00(2) |
152/1 | 82 | 16.59 | 17.05 |
151/0 | 135 | 16.43 | 17.02 |
150/49 | 102 | 16.54 | |
149/8 | 84 | 16.57 | |
148/7 | 94 | 16.57 | 17.05 |
147/6 | 86 | 16.52 | |
146/5 | 67 | 16.52 | |
145/4 | 73 | 16.55 | |
144/3 | 103 | 16.59 | 17.07 |
143/2 | 78 | 16.51 | 17.00 |
142/1 | 70 | 16.52 | 17.00 |
141/0 | 77 | 16.49 | |
140/39 | 59 | 16.50 | |
139/8 | 37 | 16.48 | |
138/7 | 99 | 16.55 | |
137/6 | 84 | 16.45 | |
136/5 | 48 | 16.45 | 17.04 |
135/4 | 44 | 16.47 | |
134/3 | 52 | 16.48 | |
133/2 | 37 | 16.37 | |
132/1 | 67 | 16.44 | |
131/0 | 94 | 16.42 | |
130/29 | 101 | 16.47 | |
129/8 | 66 | 16.40 | |
128/7 | 75 | 16.41 | |
127/6 | 45 | 16.41 | 17.10 |
126/5 | 27 | 16.56 | 17.08 |
125/4 | 55 | 16.61 | 17.04, 17.42, 17.51 |
124/3 | 76 | 16.42 | 17.50 |
123/2 | 21 | 16.39 | |
122/1 | 16 | 16.43 | |
121/0 | 60 | 16.47 | 17.50 |
c. 121 | 4 | 16.23 | |
120/19 | 18 | 16.64 | 17.13 |
119/8 | 15 | 16.57 | 17.17 |
118/7 | 20 | 16.83 | 17.07, 17.09, 17.17, 17.30, 17.43, 17.59 |
117/6 | 16 | 16.60 | 17.08(2) |
116/5 | 13 | 16.63 | 17.28 |
115/4 | 9 | 16.61 | 17.61 |
114/3 | 8 | 16.76 | |
113/2 | 28 | 16.68 | 17.02, 17.10. 17.11, 17.18, 17.20, 17.63 |
112/1 | 10 | 16.77 | 17.01(2) |
111/0 | 3 | 16.67 | |
110/09 | 2 | 16.80 | 17.05 |
108/7 | 3 | 16.45 | |
107/6 | 2 | 16.54 | |
106/5 | 4 | 16.57 | |
105/4 | 1 | 16.23 | |
104/3 | 5 | 16.64 | |
103/2 | 6 | 16.56 | |
101/0 | 1 | 16.25 | |
99/8 | 2 | 16.63 | |
98/7 | 5 | 16.72 | |
97/6 | 1 | 16.39 | |
96/5 | 8 | 16.76 | 17.00, 17.01, 17.29 |
95/4 | 3 | 16.82 | |
94/3 | 4 | 16.97 | 17.05, 17.19 |
93/2 | 2 | 16.71 | |
92/1 | 6 | 16.43 | |
91/0 | 1 | 16.89 | |
90/89 | 3 | 17.10 | 17.60 |
89/8 | 2 | 16.71 | |
88/7 | 2 | 16.68 |
By the evidence of the weights one fact is clearly established. The coinage of early and late date is struck to a higher standard than that of the middle years. Both the weight averages and the greater number of individual pieces weighing 17 or more grams indicate this and the frequency tables confirm it. The combined weights of the first ten issues find their frequency summit at about 16.75 and approximately the same level emerges from the weights of the last thirty strikings. With a one per cent addition as wear allowance,1 it would seem that these sections of the coinage were struck to about 16.90 to 16.95 grams.
Weight averages are generally lower for the remainder of the series and there are fewer examples of coins reaching or exceeding 17 grams. Frequency tables for the periods around 170, 157 and 148 B.c. show a parallel concentration of weights in the neighborhood of 16.60, indicating that the norm for these issues was about 16.75–16.80. At one period, however, there is a further decline. For the years around 132–130 the frequency level is closer to 16.50, suggesting a norm of 16.65–16.70.
Any more precise calculation than this would be of dubious value in view of the uncertainty as to the accuracy of much of the data. One can feel reasonably certain of only the overall pattern: tetradrachms of good weight in the initial years of the series, somewhat lighter coins during most of the middle years, a further reduction c. 132–130 coinciding with the period when the Laurium mines were seemingly showing signs of exhaustion, and finally after 120/19 a return to the higher standard of the first issues.1
Wide variation in weight of well-preserved tetradrachms of all periods suggests that the mint did not attempt to strike individual coins in absolute or even close conformity to the prevailing standard. Rather one assumes that the treasury supplied a certain weight of silver from which it expected a certain number of tetradrachms to be struck and that weight correspondence of individual pieces was largely dependent on the skill of the workman detailed to prepare the flans. A yield of 1550 tetradrachms per talent for the early and late years, 1560 for the middle years and 1570 for the period of greatest decline would be in rough accord with the readings of the frequency tables.
That the mint's basic concern was with the number of coins from a given weight of metal rather than with the weight of each piece is further suggested by the results of adding the weights of two large lots of coins. Five hundred tetradrachms representing all specimens of the listing above for the years 164/3 through 158/7 gave a grand total of 8289.07 grams; five hundred tetradrachms of the years 157/6, 156/5, 154/3 and 153/2 (with the omission of five coins) gave a total of 8302.54 grams. Despite individual variations of as much as a gram or more in both groups of coins, the total for the first lot of tetradrachms was lighter than that of the slightly later lot by less than the weight of a single tetradrachm: 13.47 grams.
1 |
Many are derived from sales catalogues and it is often true that different weights for the same coin are given in the different
listings.
Usually the variation is not great but there is one instance of an early reading of 17.40 and a later record of 15.79 grams.
Some of the weights in excess of 17 grams are for coins in trade but others relate to museum pieces, a number of which have been checked and found accurate. Individual tetradrachms weighing over 17.50 grams do exist. |
1 |
G. F. Hill, "The Frequency-Table," NC, 1924, p. 82.
|
1 |
It is conceivable that this higher standard toward the end of the second century is in some way related to the decree on weights
and
measures (IG II2 1013) which prescribes a general tightening up of the standards and fixes the
value of the commercial mina in terms of the coinage. But if the rather confusing equations outlined in the decree do imply
any improvement
in the standard of the coinage, I confess that I am unable to comprehend the connection. Ferguson (Klio, 1904, pp.
8–9) assigns the inscription to 103/2 B.c. but Roussel (DCA, p. 120, n. 3) believes that
its date is entirely uncertain. If it belongs to the last years of the century, it is unlikely that any adjustment of the
weight standard
of the coinage is involved for there is no evidence of a change in the standard at that time.
|
Die axes are adjusted vertically in the vast majority of cases but in all except five issues of the Early Period and in all but five of the Middle Period there are examples of minor deviation. Seven strikings between 131/0 and 112/1 also show some irregularity. With the exception of one grain-ear drachm which is related ↑→, the inclination is always very slightly to the left or right of the vertical position. Through 184/3 the tilt is usually right, between 183/2 and 174/3 about equally divided left and right, from 173/2 through 141/0 almost invariably left and after that date almost invariably right as in the initial phase of the coinage. The period of greatest deviation occurs between 174/3 and 150/49; before and after those years there are only a few examples per issue of aberrant position.
The inclination may be the result of carelessness or, more likely, of an adjustment made by means of a line through the front or nape of the neck rather than through the center.1 It would seem to have no significance except as a record of the varying techniques or work habits of individual mint employees.
195/4 ↗ | 171/0 ↗↖ | 150/49 ↖ |
192/1 ↗ | 170/69 ↗↖ | 149/8↗↖ |
190/80 ↗ | 169/8 ↖ | 148/7 ↖ |
189/8 ↗ | 168/7 ↖ | 147/6 ↗↖ |
188/7 ↗ | 167/6 ↖ | 146/5 ↖ |
187/6 ↗↖ | 166/5 ↗↖ | 145/4 ↖ |
186/5 ↗ | 165/4 ↖ | 142/1 ↗↖ |
185/4 ↗ | 164/3 ↖ | 141/0 ↗↖ |
184/3 ↗ | 163/2 ↖ | 138/7 ↗ |
183/2 ↗↖ | 162/1 ↖ | 137/6 ↗ |
182/1 ↗ | 161/0 ↖ | 136/5 ↗ |
181/0 ↗↖ | 160/59 ↖ | 135/4 ↗ |
180/79 ↖ | 159/8 ↖ | 133/2 ↗ |
179/8 ↖ | 158/7 ↖ | 132/1 ↗ |
180–170 (drs.) ↗→ | 157/6 ↖ | 130/29 ↗ |
177/6 ↗ | 156/5 ↖ | 128/7 ↖ |
176/5 ↗↖ | 155/4 ↖ | 125/4 ↗ |
175/4 ↗ | 154/3 ↗↖ | 124/3↗↖ |
174/3 ↗↖ | 153/2 ↗↖ | 120/19 ↗ |
173/2 ↖ | 152/1 ↖ | 119/8 ↖ |
172/1 ↖ | 151/0 ↖ | 113/2 ↗ |
Of the millions of silver coins issued by the Athenian mint during the New Style period, just under 7,000 surviving specimens are recorded in the present compilation: 6193 tetradrachms, 701 drachms and 94 hemidrachms. It will be of interest to note their distribution over the 109 years of production between 196/5 and 88/7 B.c.
No. of Third Magistrates | Tetradrachm totals | Drachm totals | Hemidrachm totals | ||||||||
No. of Coins | Obv. Dies | Rev. Dies | No. of Coins | Obv. Dies | Rev. Dies | No. of Coins | Obv. Dies | Rev. Dies | |||
Early Period | |||||||||||
196/5 | – | 4 | 3 | 4 | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
or | 195/4 | – | 11 | 4 | 9 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
–ΦANI | 194/3 | – | 11 | 3 | 10 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
193/2 | – | 11 | 4 | 10 | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
192/1 | – | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
191/0 | – | 12 | 7 | 12 | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
or | 190/89 | – | 25 | 6 | 22 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
189/8 | – | 16 | 7 | 14 | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
188/7 | – | 33 | 13 | 29 | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | – | – | |
187/6 | – | 26 | 6 | 22 | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
186/5 | – | 31 | 9 | 24 | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
185/4 | – | 33 | 10 | 26 | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
184/3 | – | 47 | 12 | 35 | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
183/2 | – | 28 | 7 | 21 | 2 | 1 | 2 | – | – | – | |
AMMΩ – ΔIO | 182/1 | – | 26 | 8 | 21 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
ΠOΛY – TI | 181/0 | – | 44 | 10 | 35 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
AMMΩ – ΔIO | 180/79 | – | 40 | 12 | 34 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
AΔEI – HΛIO | 179/8 | – | 29 | 8 | 23 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
XAPI – HPA | 178/7 | – | 31 | 9 | 20 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Grain-ear drs. | 180–170 | – | – | – | – | 148 | 21 | 66 | – | – | – |
– ΛYΣIA | 177/6 | – | 43 | 12 | 34 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
176/5 | – | 36 | 14 | 34 | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | – | – | |
ΔIOΦA – ΔIOΔO | 175/4 | – | 49 | 18 | 40 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
ΔHMH – IEPΩ | 174/3 | – | 62 | 19 | 46 | 35 | 7 | 10 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
173/2 | – | 52 | 17 | 44 | 4 | 2 | 2 | – | – | – | |
172/1 | – | 55 | 19 | 45 | – | – | – | – | – | – | |
KTHΣI – EYMA | 171/0 | – | 102 | 21 | 77 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
ΓΛAY – EXE | 170/69 | – | 77 | 20 | 64 | 33 | 5 | 13 | 7 | 3 | 3 |
MIKI – ӨEOΦPA | 169/8 | – | 68 | 10 | 46 | 19 | 3 | 7 | 17 | 2 | 4 |
1003 | (289) | 802 | 247 | 43 | 106 | 28 | 8 | 11 | |||
2881 | |||||||||||
Middle Period | |||||||||||
HPA – APIΣTOΦ | 168/7 | 12 | 84 | 12 | 56 | 42 | 5 | 21 | 8 | 1 | 6 |
MENEΔ – EΠIΓENO | 167/6 | 12 | 101 | 9 | 63 | 40 | 3 | 15 | 11 | 1 | 6 |
TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO | 166/5 | 11 | 66 | 9 | 42 | 46 | 5 | 19 | 6 | 2 | 4 |
ΠOΛYXAPM – NIKOΓ | 165/4 | 10 | 49 | 6 | 35 | 11 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 1 | 2 |
ΔΩPOӨE – ΔIOΦ | 164/3 | 7 | 53 | 8 | 43 | 36 | 4 | 10 | 3 | 1 | 3 |
ANTIOXOΣ – NIKOΓ KAPAIXOΣ | 163/2 | 18 | 54 | 6 | 36 | 15 | 1 | 5 | 8 | 1 | 2 |
ӨEOΦPA – ΣΩTAΣ | 162/1 | 13 | 44 | 8 | 34 | 15 | 1 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
ΔIOΓE – ΠOΣEI | 161/0 | 9 | 43 | 7 | 32 | 13 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
AXAIOΣ – HΛI | 160/59 | 12 | 79 | 8 | 56 | 8 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
ΛYΣAN – ΓΛAYKOΣ | 159/8 | 10 | 91 | 11 | 65 | 10 | 2 | 2 | – | – | – |
EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣANΔPOΣ | 158/7 | 12 | 244 | 18 | 112 | 7 | 2 | 4 | – | – | – |
ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ | 157/6 | 10 | 182 | 12 | 73 | 10 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI | 156/5 | 10 | 196 | 16 | 86 | 10 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 2 |
AΦPOΔIΣI – AΠOΛH≡I | 155/4 | 11 | 44 | 11 | 34 | 12 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
EYPYKΛEI – APIAPA | 154/3 | 11 | 83 | 16 | 46 | 8 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
KAPAIX – EPΓOKΛE | 153/2 | 11 | 159 | 18 | 71 | 4 | 1 | 2 | – | – | – |
AΦPOΔIΣI – ΔIOΓE | 152/1 | 11 | 101 | 12 | 64 | 6 | 1 | 4 | – | – | – |
ΔIONYΣI – ΔIONYΣI | 151/0 | 12 | 175 | 25 | 104 | 4 | 2 | 4 | – | – | – |
AMMΩNIOΣ – KAΛΛIAΣ | 150/49 | 12 | 136 | 15 | 64 | 5 | 2 | 4 | – | – | – |
ӨEMIΣTO – ӨEOΠOMΠOΣ | 149/8 | 10 | 110 | 14 | 67 | 4 | 1 | 2 | – | – | – |
No. of Third Magistrates | Tetradrachm totals | Drachm totals | Hemidrachm totals | ||||||||
No. of Coins | Obv. Dies | Rev. Dies | No. of Coins | Obv. Dies | Rev. Dies | No. of Coins | Obv. Dies | Rev. Dies | |||
Middle Period (cont.) | |||||||||||
ΣΩKPATHΣ – ΔIONYΣOΔΩ | 148/7 | 12 | 121 | 15 | 62 | 8 | 3 | 5 | – | – | – |
MHTPOΔΩPOΣ – MIΛTIAΔHΣ ΔHMOΣӨEN | 147/6 | 12 | 115 | 16 | 65 | 6 | 3 | 2 | – | – | – |
ΔIOTIMOΣ – MAΓAΣ | 146/5 | 10 | 98 | 17 | 58 | 10 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 2 |
EYMAPEIΔHΣ – AΛKIΔAM KΛEOMEN | 145/4 | 9 | 111 | 16 | 60 | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | – | – |
XAPINAYTHΣ – APIΣTEAΣ | 144/3 | 12 | 129 | 10 | 56 | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | – | – |
ΦANOKΛHΣ – AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ | 143/2 | 13 | 120 | 13 | 41 | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | – | – |
EYBOYΛIΔHΣ – AΓAӨOKΛHZΩIΛOΣ – EYANΔPOΣ | 142/1 | 14 | 94 | 13 | 40 | 8 | 1 | 5 | – | – | – |
ΔAMΩN – ΣΩΣIKPATHΣ | 141/0 | 9 | 122 | 12 | 44 | 6 | 3 | 4 | – | – | – |
EYMHΛOΣ – KAΛΛIΦΩN | 140/39 | 3 | 102 | 16 | 48 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 139/8 | 9 | 69 | 10 | 34 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
ӨEOΔOTOΣ – KΛEOΦANHΣ | 138/7 | 9 | 147 | 17 | 71 | 9 | 2 | 6 | – | – | – |
HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ | 137/6 | 6 | 145 | 22 | 62 | 7 | 2 | 4 | – | – | – |
ANΔPEAΣ – XAPINAYTHΣ | 136/5 | 3 | 70 | 12 | 36 | 14 | 3 | 3 | – | – | – |
IKEΣIOΣ – AΣKΛHΠIAΔHΣ | 135/4 | 3 | 67 | 11 | 28 | 7 | 2 | 2 | – | – | – |
TIMOΣTPATOΣ – ΠOΣHΣ | 134/3 | 9 | 82 | 14 | 33 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
AMΦIKPATHΣ – EΠIΣTPATOΣ | 133/2 | 5 | 71 | 15 | 40 | 4 | 3 | 2 | – | – | – |
ΔΩΣIӨEOΣ – XAPIAΣ | 132/1 | 5 | 109 | 29 | 63 | 7 | 2 | 1 | – | – | – |
3866 | (499) | 2024 | 410 | (77) | 182 | 66 | (19) | 38 | |||
4731 | 67 | 17 |
No. of Third Magistrates | Tetradrachm totals | Drachm totals | Hemidrachm totals | ||||||||
No. of Coins | Obv. Dies | Rev. Dies | No. of Coins | Obv. Dies | Rev. Dies | No. of Coins | Obv. Dies | Rev. Dies | |||
Late Period | |||||||||||
ΔHMHTPIOΣ – AӨIΠΠOΣ | 131/0 | 3 | 195 | 47 | 123 | 3 | 3 | 3 | – | – | – |
NIKHTHΣ – ΔIONYΣIOΣ | 130/29 | 8 | 148 | 33 | 94 | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | – | – |
APIΣTIΩN – ΦIΛΩN | 129/8 | 3 | 118 | 30 | 70 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
APOΠOΣ – MNAΣAΓO | 128/7 | 5 | 112 | 25 | 61 | 2 | 1 | 2 | – | – | – |
≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ | 127/6 | – | 59 | 19 | 38 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
NIKOΓENHΣ – KAΛΛIMAXOΣ | 126/5 | 4 | 43 | 17 | 27 | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | – | – |
ΔHMEAΣ – EPMOKΛHΣ | 125/4 | 8 | 89 | 17 | 36 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ | 124/3 | – | 121 | 42 | 80 | 7 | 4 | 3 | – | – | – |
≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ | 128/2 | – | 40 | 14 | 30 | 5 | 1 | 3 | – | – | – |
KOINTOΣ – KΛEAΣ | 122/1 | 4 | 23 | 7 | 16 | 2 | 1 | 2 | – | – | – |
AΠEΛΛIKΩN – ΓOPΓIAΣ | 121/0 | 8 | 85 | 12 | 32 | 6 | 1 | 1 | – | – | – |
MIӨPAΔATHΣ – APIΣTIΩN | c. 121 | – | 6 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 1 | – | – | – |
MNAΣEAΣ – NEΣTΩP | 120/19 | – | 25 | 10 | 18 | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | – | – |
KΛEOΦANHΣ – EΠIӨETHΣ | 119/8 | – | 20 | 7 | 15 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
MENTΩP – MOΣXIΩN | 118/7 | – | 24 | 8 | 17 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
APXITIMOΣ – ΔHMHTPI | 117/6 | – | 19 | 7 | 13 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
ΛYΣANΔPOΣ – OINOΦIΛOΣ | 116/5 | – | 15 | 6 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 1 | – | – | – |
AMΦIAΣ – OINOΦIΛOΣ | 115/4 | – | 16 | 10 | 13 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
EYMHΛOΣ – ӨEO≡ENIΔHΣ | 114/8 | – | 10 | 8 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | – | – |
NEΣTΩP – MNAΣEAΣ | 118/2 | – | 39 | 17 | 31 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
ΣΩTAΔHΣ – ӨEMIΣTOKΛHΣ | 112/1 | – | 20 | 6 | 15 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
ΛEYKIOΣ – ANTIKPATHΣ | 111/0 | – | 3 | 1 | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
ΠANTAKΛHΣ – ΔHMHTPIOΣ | 110/09 | – | 2 | 2 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
ӨEOΦPAΣTOΣ – ӨEMIΣTO | 109/8 | – | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
ΔIOΦANTOΣ – AIΣXINHΣ | 108/7 | – | 5 | 1 | 3 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
ΔHMEAΣ – KAΛΛIKPATIΔHΣ | 107/6 | – | 5 | 2 | 4 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
AΛKETHΣ – EYAΓIΩN | 106/5 | – | 4 | 2 | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
ΔIONYΣIOΣ – MNAΣAΓOPAΣ | 105/4 | – | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
EΠIΓENHΣ – ≡ENΩN | 104/8 | – | 11 | 4 | 8 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
MENEΔHMOΣ – TIMOKPATHΣ | 103/2 | – | 9 | 4 | 6 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
MENNEAΣ – HPΩΔHΣ | 102/1 | – | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
ΔIONYΣIOΣ – ΔHMOΣTPATOΣ | 101/0 | – | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | – | – | – |
ΔHMOXAPHΣ – ΠAMMENHΣ | 100/99 | – | – | – | – | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | – | – |
ΔIOKΛHΣ – ΛEΩNIΔHΣ | 99/8 | – | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | – | – | – |
ΦIΛOKPATHΣ – HPΩΔHΣ | 98/7 | – | 6 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | – | – |
KAΛΛIMAXOΣ – EΠIKPATHΣ | 97/6 | – | 2 | 2 | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
APXITIMOΣ – ΠAMMENHΣ | 96/5 | – | 14 | 4 | 7 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
ΔIOKΛHΣ TO ΔEY – MHΔEIOΣ | 95/4 | – | 4 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | – | – | – |
AΠEΛΛIKΩN – APIΣTOTEΛHΣ | 94/3 | – | 7 | 1 | 5 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
HPAKΛΩN – HPAKΛEIΔHΣ | 93/2 | – | 2 | 1 | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
ΦIΛOKPATHΣ – KAΛΛIΦΩN | 92/1 | – | 8 | 3 | 5 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
TPYΦΩN – ΠOΛYXAPMOΣ | 91/0 | – | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
TO TPI ΔIOKΛHΣ – ΔIOΔΩPOΣ | 90/89 | – | 3 | 2 | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
ΔIOKΛHΣ MEΛI – MHΔEIOΣ | 89/8 | – | 2 | 1 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
AΠOΛH≡IΣ – ΛYΣANΔPOΣ | 88/7 | – | 2 | 1 | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
1324 | (386) | 818 | 44 | (23) | 27 | – | – | – | |||
3761 | 22 | ||||||||||
Early Period | 1003 | 288 | 802 | 247 | 43 | 106 | 28 | 8 | 11 | ||
Middle Period | 3866 | 473 | 2024 | 410 | 67 | 182 | 66 | 17 | 38 | ||
Late Period | 1324 | 376 | 818 | 44 | 22 | 27 | – | – | – | ||
6193 | (1137) | 3644 | 701 | 132 | 315 | 94 | 25 | 49 | |||
11362 |
For one section of the coinage, namely that struck between 168/7 and 121/0, it may be assumed that the large number of surviving specimens and dies provides a reasonably accurate reflection of the month by month operations of the mint. The production schedule of each year, the obverse and reverse dies in use and their longevity, the rotating third magistrates, the distribution of the control combinations, and the extent to which recutting and transferal of dies was practiced are all a matter of record. The pattern as it emerges, both in detail and in broad outline, is of considerable interest and since this is the only Greek coinage for which we have data on so comprehensive a scale, it has seemed worthwhile to present the picture in full. This has been done on the pages that follow by means of a series of diagrammatical outlines embodying the information available for each issue.
The arrangement is by months and third magistrates. Under the name of each official are recorded the obverse dies, numbered to correspond with the catalogue entries, in operation during the tenure of that particular magistrate. Long vertical lines down from the names indicate tetradrachm dies, shorter lines drachm and hemidrachm obverses. Below the number of the obverse die is a listing of the control combinations found on reverses employed with that obverse during the month in question. Every control combination then represents a reverse die but the order of entry is in most cases arbitrary.1 Transfer of a reverse from one obverse to another or from one magistrate to another is denoted by broken lines. When the shift is within a single month under a single magistrate, there will be no recutting involved unless it be of one control combination over another. In such instances the sequence of controls is recorded by an arrow indicating the direction in which the die has moved. When a reverse is transferred from month to month or from magistrate to magistrate, recutting of the amphora letter or magistrate's name or both has taken place.
The conventions described may be more easily understood in relation to a definite issue. In 167/6, for example, coinage under the annual magistrates MENEΔ and EΠIΓENO is struck in every month of an intercalary year except M, the space between Λ and N signifying the interruption. A single third magistrate is associated with each month’s coinage except in Z which is shared by ΣΩΦA and EΠIΓO either in rotation or concurrently.1 Two to three tetradrachm obverses are in operation every month, with the exception of E and I for which we have evidence of only one, 2 with from one to six reverses associated with a single obverse. The life of these obverses ranges from one month (No. 352) to five (Nos. 353–354). 3 In 167/6 drachms and hemidrachms are also struck: Nos. 356–358 representing the former and No. 359 the latter. Six instances of transfer of reverse dies are recorded but only one involves recutting. A reverse stamped with the HP control combination is used by NIKOΓ in month H; it continues in use under his son and successor, NIKOΓ NE, in month Ө with NE added to NIKOΓ in the field and Ө cut over H on the amphora.
For the diagrams as a whole, certain shortcuts have been taken in the interests of clarity and space conservation. Only the first two letters of a control combination are given although up to four letters may be inscribed on the dies. Control combinations which are entered in the catalogue as in some degree uncertain are here given without qualification, the question mark, standing alone, being reserved for wholly illegible readings. Only obverse die numbers are recorded in connection with the fractions. This is usually all the information that we have since control letters rarely appear on the smaller coins. To have added them when they do occur and to have marked out the comparatively few instances of transferred reverses would, it seems to me, have confused the charts without commensurate gain since the fractions represent a minor part of the silver emission during the New Style period.
There are other omissions which are of greater importance but unfortunately unavoidable. If a tetradrachm reverse has an illegible amphora letter and the third magistrate associated with it is known to have served for more than a single month, one cannot tell with which month the die belongs and it must be omitted from the diagram. In the case of a recut name, there is no way of connecting the earlier form of the reverse with a particular obverse die unless we have examples of the reverse in both stages. Omissions in these two categories are fairly numerous and, of course, affect the completeness of the record. With respect to the fractions, dies on which the date is uncertain and the third magistrate's name ambiguous1 have of necessity been omitted. In a very few instances, however, a hemidrachm striking which could be linked with either of two magistrates has been assigned to the one under whom drachms were struck since hemidrachms normally appear in months during which the larger fractions were issued.
The information in the diagrams is then fragmentary to an even greater degree than in the catalogue. Some of the gaps can be filled in with relative certainty, others are beyond repair in the present state of our evidence. What we have in essence is a skeleton, from which the anatomy of the coinage if not its fully rounded form can be deduced. Nevertheless even this is remarkably helpful.
42
HPA – APIΣTOӨ (168/7)
MENEΔ – EΠIΓENO (167/6)
TIMAPXOY – NIKAΓO (166/5)
ΠOΛYXAPM – NIKOΓ (165/4)
ΔΩPOӨE – ΔIOΦ (164/3)
ANTIOXOΣ – NIKOΓ and KAPAIXOΣ (163/2)
ӨEOΦPA – ΣΩTAΣ
ΔIOΓE – ΠOΣEI (161/0)
AXAIOΣ – HΛI (160/59)
ΛYΣAN – ΓΛAYKOΣ (159/8)
EΠIΓENH – ΣΩΣANΔPOΣ (158/7)
ΠOΛEMΩN – AΛKETHΣ (157/6)
MIKIΩN – EYPYKΛEI (156/5)
AӨPOΔIΣI – AΠOΛH≡I (155/4)
EYPYKΛEI – APIAPA (154/3)
KAPAIX – EPΓOKΛE (153/2)
AΦPOΔIΣI – ΔIOΓE (152/1)
ΔIONYΣI – ΔIONYΣI (151/0)
AMMΩNIOΣ – KAΛΛIAΣ (150/49)
ӨEMIΣTO – ӨEOΠOMΠEΣ (149/8)
ΣΩKPATHΣ – ΔIONYΣOΔΩ (148/7)
MHTPOΔΩPOΣ – MIΛTIAΔHΣ and ΔHMOΣӨEN (147/6)
ΔIOTIMOΣ – MAΓAΣ (146/5)
EYMAPEIΔHΣ – AΛKIΔAM and KΛEOMEN (145/4)
XAPINAYTHΣ – APIΣTEAΣ (144/3)
ΦANOKΛHΣ – AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ (143/2)
EYBOYΛIΔHΣ – AΓAӨOKΛH ZΩIΛOΣ – EYANΔPOΣ (142/1)
ΔAMΩN – ΣΩΣIKPATHΣ (141/0)
EYMHΛOΣ – KAΛΛIΦΩN (140/39)
HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΛHΣ (139/8)
ӨEOΔOTOΣ – KΛEOΦANHΣ (138/7)
ӨEOΔOTOΣ – KΛEOΦANHΣ (138/7)
HPAKΛEIΔHΣ – EYKΔHΣ (137/6)
ANΔPEAΣ – XAPINAYTHΣ (136/5)
IKEΣIOΣ – AΣKΛHΠIAΔHE (135/4)
TIMOΣTPATOΣ – ΠOΣHΣ (134/3)
AMΦIKPATHΣ – EΠIΣTPATOΣ (133/2)
ΔΩΣIӨEOΣ – XAPIAΣ (132/1)
ΔHMHTPIOΣ – AΓAӨIΠΠOΣ (131/0)
ΔHMHTPIOΣ – AΓAӨIΠΠOΣ (131/0)
NIKHTHΣ – ΔIONYΣIOΣ (130/29)
NIKHTHΣ – ΔIONYΣIOΣ (130/29)
APIΣTIΩN – ΦIΛΩN (129/8)
APOΠOΣ – MNAΣAΓO (128/7)
≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ (Serpent) (127/6)
NIKOΓENHΣ – KAΛΛIMAXOΣ (126/5)
ΔHMEAΣ – EPMOKΛHΣ (125/4)
≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ (Dolphin) (124/3)
≡ENOKΛHΣ – APMO≡ENOΣ (Roma) (123/2)
KOINTOΣ – KΛEAΣ (122/1)
AΠEΛΛIKΩN – ΓOPΓIAΣ (121/0)
How much New Style silver did Athens issue and how was it distributed over the production period? Even a tentative answer to these questions must be based upon the coinage itself. There is no literary or epigraphical record of the amount of money which the Athenian mint put into circulation during any part of the second or early first centuries. All that we have are some seven thousand surviving coins, a substantial mass of material but clearly only a small proportion of the tetradrachms, drachms and hemidrachms which once sustained the commercial and political life of the city.
Figures on surviving specimens in themselves mean very little for there is no such thing as a general survival rate which can be applied indiscriminately to the various issues of Greek coinage. In a most interesting study devoted to the Amphictionic coinage of Delphi,1 E. J. P. Raven uses the fragmentary accounts of the amount of old silver re-issued as Amphictionic staters, drachms and triobols to arrive at an overall survival rate ranging (in round numbers) between 1 in 12,000 and 1 in 20,000. A breakdown by denominations gives a rate between 1 in 7000 and 1 in 12,000 for staters, between 1 in 73,000 and 1 in 120,000 for drachms and between 1 in 146,000 and 1 in 240,000 for triobols. More recently E. S. G. Robinson has published an article on the later fifth century coinage ofAthens 2 in which he discusses the money struck in 407/6 from the golden Nikai. Our information on this coinage is of particular significance in that it includes not only the source of the bullion but also the number of punch and anvil dies employed in striking the staters. Assuming that the gold obtained from seven Nikai, weighing two talents each, was supplemented by a lesser amount secured from other gold objects, Robinson calculates that a total of gold roughly equivalent to 100,000 drachms by weight was available. This was used to put out coins in six denominations: staters, drachms, triobols, diobols, obols and hemiobols. Twenty-six of these coins have survived, including four staters, and their aggregate weight is twenty-five drachms, giving a survival rate for the gold of about one part in 4000.
Robinson makes no estimate as to how many coins of each denomination were struck but this we must attempt to do with respect to the staters if we are to profit from the fortunate chance which has left us a record of the anvil and punch dies used for their emission. In Raven’s calculations it was supposed that an equal number of each of the three Amphictionic denominations was struck and a division of the Athenian gold along these fines would result in 25,000 coins of each denomination from the 100,000 drachms of gold. This, however, is almost certainly too high a figure for the staters. As Raven quite rightly points out, fractions would surely survive in smaller quantity than units; in the case of the Amphictionic issues the list of specimens known in 1950 includes twenty staters, two drachms and one triobol. The fractions ofAthens have survived in considerably higher proportion. Of the twenty-six recorded pieces, twenty-two are denominations below the stater. Only the hemiobol has failed to come down to us; all other fractions are well represented. On Plate 15 of Les monnaies d'Athènes, Svoronos reproduces three drachms, three triobols, two diobols and three obols; Robinson’s total is just double that of Svoronos. If minute pieces, smaller than the triobols of Delphi, have survived in such quantity, it is evident that they must once have far outnumbered the staters. Hence it would seem to me that, as a maximum figure, one might reckon forty per cent of the original gold—40,000 drachms by weight—as the allotment for the production of staters. This would result in 20,000 staters for a survival rate of 1 to 5000. Four anvil and twenty-two punch dies were used for their striking. Assuming that the anvil dies were equally durable and that the last was worn out when minting stopped, we get a total of 5000 coins per obverse. For the first time we have at least an approximate figure for the amount of coinage produced by a single obverse die.
There are, of course, various factors which must be considered in relating these calculations to the New Style issues. Were the dies for the later silver made of iron, as was the case with the dies for the gold, or of bronze ? Would a die for a special currency be discarded when it first began to show signs of wear and thus have a shorter life than one used for a standard issue of silver ? Were the gold dies perhaps used in rotation rather than seriatim with the possibility that no one was completely worn out at the time the coinage stopped? Such questions cannot be answered with certainty. All that we can do is to take them into account in weighing the probabilities. My feeling is that a reasonable estimate for the amount of New Style silver struck from an obverse giving full service would be in the neighborhood of 6000 coins.1
Before applying this estimate to the individual issues, we shall need some indication of the comparative completeness of our data with regard to the obverse dies. Unless we know most or all of the dies originally in operation any calculation may be more misleading than helpful. Here we enter the shadowy realm of statistics where I have no competence and would not venture to express an opinion. I can, however, due to the kindness of Mr. Raven, give the results of a study undertaken by Dr. Francis Marriott, a statistician of his acquaintance, who made computations on the basis of the average number of coins known from an obverse die.1 It seems that if six to eight coins have survived from a single die, very few dies are likely to be missing. When the figure drops to three or two, the chances are in favor of a larger proportion being unknown. My own experience with two large lots of new material suggests that this is a reliable index to the accuracy of the record for new obverses practically never turn up in issues with six or more coins per die.
With relation to these findings, it is clear that our information on the Early Period is very fragmentary. Only one regular issue, that of Miki–Theophra in 169/8, and one special striking, that of the grain-ear drachms of 180–170, have a proportion of more than six coins to a die. All other emissions give an average of three to five. Obviously it would be useless to try to estimate the extent of the early coinage except in the most general terms since only two of its issues provide a safe basis for precise calculation. With the Middle Period we are on far firmer ground. Of the thirty-seven issues, only five show a ratio of less than six coins per obverse die. The overall average is eight and seven strikings have ten or better: 167/6 with eleven, 160/59 with ten, 158/7 with thirteen to fourteen, 157/6 with fifteen, 156/5 with twelve, 144/3 with thirteen and 141/0 with ten. Certainly few, if any, obverse dies are missing from these seven emissions. With the Late Period the proportion drops sharply. Between 131/0 and 112/1 the average is again three to four, with the single exception of the coinage of Apellikon–Gorgias in 121/0 which shows a ratio of seven to one. After 112/1 there is no real basis for calculation. If only one or two coins have survived from an issue, the fact that a single obverse die is known means nothing. However, in a few instances the proportions suggest that our information is relatively complete. For 108/7 five tetradrachms have survived, all from the same obverse die, for 98/7 six from a single obverse and for 94/8 seven. Had a number of obverse dies been in use during those years, it seems highly unlikely that chance would have given us so many coins from a single example. The scanty record of surviving specimens in the last stages of the Late Period is probably a valid indication of the size of the original output.
During the Middle Period, between 168/7 and 132/1 B.c., 473 obverse dies produced a coinage from which 3866 tetradrachms have survived. Assuming that the record is comparatively complete and that missing dies would be balanced out by known dies providing less than their full quota of 6000 coins, we get an output of nearly 3,000,000 tetradrachms, the equivalent of roughly 2000 talents of silver. The overall survival rate for this section of the coinage is 1: 734. With regard to the fractions, a wider margin of error exists in that the proportion of coins to dies is generally lower than in the case of the tetradrachms. A minimum output of 402,000 drachms from 67 talents of silver and 102,000 hemidrachms from just under 9 talents may be estimated, with respective survival rates of 1: 980 and 1: 1545.
For the seven years with the highest proportion of coins to dies the figures per issue are much higher:
167/6 | 54,000 tetradrachms struck | 101 survivals | 1:534 |
160/59 | 48,000 | 79 | 1:608 |
158/7 | 108,000 | 244 | 1:442 |
157/6 | 72,000 | 182 | 1:395 |
156/5 | 96,000 | 196 | 1:489 |
144/3 | 60,000 | 129 | 1:465 |
141/0 | 72,000 | 122 | 1:590 |
All these issues fall within the period of the large hoards which explains their extremely high survival rates1 and the same is true of the grain-ear drachm series of the Early Period. Before the Attic Hoard was found only 48 examples were known as contrasted with 148 now on record. With 21 known dies giving an approximate output of 126,000 coins, the present survival rate is 1 : 867 while that of the pre-hoard period was 1 : 2625.
In the Late Period only the issue of Apellikon–Gorgias with a ratio of seven coins to one obverse die can be considered representative. Twelve obverse dies give an original output of 72,000 tetradrachms, of which 85 have survived. This striking is not included in quantity in the hoards and its survival rate is accordingly lower than those of the Middle Period issues: 1 to 847.
Although it is impossible to calculate with any degree of accuracy the amount of coinage issued in the Early and Late Periods, we can derive some idea of its extent in relation to that of the Middle Period and the results are startling. During the Middle Period the number of obverse dies per issue ranges from 6 to 25, excluding the final striking of 132/1 which clearly belongs in output with the issues immediately following and which, moreover, provides insufficient data in its proportion of coins to dies. The overall average of obverse dies is 13 per year. This is the period for which our information may be assumed to be relatively complete. But from 191/0 through 170/69, years for which our information is fragmentary, there is almost the same range of number of obverse dies per issue—6 to 21—and almost the same average—12 in this case. Only two strikings of the Middle Period have more dies per year than the four Early Period issues of 174/3, 172/1, 171/0 and 170/69. There can be no doubt but that this was originally a far more abundant coinage than that of the Middle Period. In thinking it smaller, we have been misled by the greater number of surviving specimens from Middle Period issues and by the change from two magistrates to three, implying a larger coinage requiring greater regulation. This is certainly not the case. It seems likely that the trophy issue of 188/7 with 13 obverse dies and 33 surviving coins was a more substantial emission than that of Epigenes–Sosandros, one of the largest Middle Period strikings, with its 18 dies and 244 surviving coins.
The situation in the Late Period is less surprising except in degree. A great many coins of the initial issues have survived, thanks to the large hoards, and from this we could have surmised an extensive coinage. Its full size, however, cannot be apprehended from surviving specimens alone. Between 132/1 and 124/3 the number of obverse dies per issue is as follows: 29, 47, 33, 30, 25, 19, 17, 17, 42. Again it must be remembered that this is a period when our information is incomplete as contrasted with the Middle Period, yet even on the data available the single issues of 131/0 and 124/3 used three to four times as many dies as the Middle Period average. This is the peak of the entire New Style coinage. After that there is a decline which cannot be accurately measured but which probably brings output down to the levels of the Middle Period. From 111/0 on there is a further drop. Exactly 41 obverse dies for tetradrachms are known for the last quarter century of the coinage. Since it is unlikely that we have a record of all dies, the number might be raised to 50 for an output of some 300,000 coins or even doubled for what is surely too high an output, 492,000 tetradrachms. But 50 dies must have been used in 131/0 alone, well over 82 in 131/0 and 124/3 combined.
This evidence for an extensive coinage in the Early Period, only a moderate output in the Middle Period, a tremendous emission between 132/1 and 124/3 and a gradual decline to a mere token coinage in the decades before Sulla is one of the most interesting results of the New Style study. It was not the years during whichAthens held Delos and the other cleruchies that witnessed her great outpouring of silver currency; it was in the periods before and after she controlled the islands that production reached its highest levels. The historical significance of this is by no means clear to me but the fact is established by the coinage.1
Particular aspects of the diagrammatical outlines have been discussed in earlier parts of this publication. The uneven distribution of the tenures of the third magistrates begins with the first issue of the Middle Period: ΠOAYM associated with delta and epsilon and APXE with epsilon and zeta. Still a third official ΦIΛΩ, is linked with epsilon, making three magistrates for that one month. Two years later in 166/5 the sequence is perfectly regular. This has all been presented in connection with the section on Magistrates and needs no repetition here. The transfer of reverse dies and the recutting of control combinations has also been treated but something might be added with reference to transfers with no recutting involved. To a great extent this merely reflects the wearing out of an obverse and the shifting of its still usable reverse to an obverse which continues in operation. Yet this can scarcely be the full explanation. In the first month of 168/7 a reverse moves from Obverse 330 to Obverse 331 (or vice versa) but neither anvil die is worn out, for both appear with reverses of beta and gamma. Evidently one anvil has stopped work for some reason—a shortage of flans or bullion or perhaps personnel troubles—and its reverse die has been given to a second anvil, still functioning but in need of a new reverse. The picture is far more complicated at other periods. Under Epigenes Sosandros and Polemon–Alketes in 158/7 and 157/6 there is an unusually high incidence of mobile reverses. One might suppose that this offered support for the theory that the assignment of dies to an anvil was on a day to day basis, but the evidence as a whole is against such an interpretation. If there was no systematic procedure regarding the association of obverse and reverse dies, examples of multiple connections would surely be more numerous than they are. For the most part the two dies seem to have been used in constant conjunction, irregularity is the exception and not the rule.
Instances of seemingly pointless shifting about of reverse dies may be explicable in terms of an uneven supply of bullion marked with the particular control combinations of the year in question. In the second month of 157/6, for example, three reverses are moved about among Obverses 464, 465 and 466. No one of the anvil dies is discarded, all continue to function the next month. No. 464 is normally allotted bullion with the control combination ΣΦ, No. 465 bars with ΣΩ, and No. 466 bars with ME1. At the beginning of beta, however, the only bullion on hand is marked ΣΩ. Most of this is allocated to No. 465 with smaller amounts to the other anvils in order to keep them in operation. Somewhat later a supply of ΣΦ metal comes in and is assigned to No. 464 with a lesser quantity to No. 466, still deprived of its normal ME quota.
The ΣΩ reverses which the two anvils have been using, together with what bullion remains to them, are turned over to No. 465 for future use. Nos. 464 and 466 begin to strike with the ΣΦ silver. At a still later date the ME bullion finally arrives and is allotted to No. 466 with a little given to No. 464 which is running out of ΣΦ bars. It is only when a new supply of ΣΦ bullion comes in that No. 464 is able to turn over its ME reverse to No. 466 and resume operations along normal lines. During gamma a more even distribution of bullion is effected. All reverses of No. 464 have the ΣΦ control, all of No. 465 the ΣΩ lettering and all of No. 466 the ME combination.
During the initial stages of the Middle Period the recutting of names and amphora letters occurs in isolated instances. The case of NIKOΓ and NIKOΓNE with Ө over H, from the coinage of 167/6, has already been mentioned. In 158/7 there is a reverse with HΛIOΔΩ cut over ΔEINOK, E over Δ, and ΣΦ over ΔI. A few years later re-engraving becomes more or less standard procedure with a number of examples recorded for most issues through the remainder of the three-magistrate period. A maximum degree of alteration is associated with a reverse of 141/0 which has been inscribed with four names and five month letters. Although the results of all this recutting leave much to be desired from the point of view of legibility and general appearance, the practice must have represented a considerable saving in the cost of engraving and for our purposes it has an added advantage. Only in this period of extensive recutting can we feel certain that reverse dies remained in service until they were worn out. In the earlier years of the coinage it probably often happened that a serviceable die was discarded with a change in magistrates and months.
As to the longevity of obverse and reverse dies and the number of reverses coupled with a single obverse, the diagrams provide maximum figures: nine months for Obverse 714 in 142/1, five months for a reverse in the next year, seventeen reverses associated with Obverse 465 in 157/6 B.c. These records, however, are meaningless except in relation to the picture as a whole and particularly the production schedule of the individual issues.
One of the most important contributions of the diagrammatic outline is the light it throws on the internal organization of the mint. During the Middle Period and the earlier years of the Late Period, two to five anvils were in simultaneous operation. Between 168/7 and 159/8, two to three was the norm; the strikings of 158/7, 157/6 and 156/5 employed four; those of 155/4–152/1 seemingly only three. Most of the remaining issues of the Middle Period put four into operation while a few emissions of the Late Period used five or more.1
Undoubtedly there were times when an anvil was closed down within the course of the year or an additional one set to work but the general pattern is so consistent as to suggest that normally a fixed number of anvils went into production at the beginning of the year and that the same number continued to function throughout the months of coinage. This may not be immediately apparent from the charts but it becomes evident when one studies individual issues.
The striking of Antiochos – Nikog and Karaichos in 163/2 is a good example of a two-anvil emission. Chances are very good that we have most of the material, certainly with respect to obverse dies, since the ratio of surviving coins to dies is nine to one. In the diagram the distribution of tetradrachm obverses is as follows:
A | E | I | ||||
396 | 397 | 397 | 400 | 399 | ||
B | Z | K | ||||
396 | 397 | 398 | 399 | 400 | 399 | 401 |
Γ | H | Λ | ||||
396 | 397 | 400 | 401 | |||
Δ | Ө | |||||
396 | 397 | 400 | 399 |
Some changes in the diagram can be made with reasonable certainty. Obverse 399 appears in zeta and in theta and can surely be restored for eta; there would be no point in temporarily retiring a good obverse and cutting a new die (No. 400) to take its place. In kappa there seem to be three obverses in operation but it is unlikely that they functioned concurrently. Obverse 399 was by then in its fifth month of service, almost certainly it wore out during the course of the month and was replaced by Obverse 401. Two months seem to have employed a single obverse. With regard to lambda, it is entirely possible that in this final month of coinage the remaining supply of bullion was used up with one die. In the case of epsilon it seems probable that our record is faulty. The orderly pattern of two obverses in months preceding and succeeding implies that another obverse was coupled with No. 397—either No. 396 for a fifth month or No. 398, otherwise known only for zeta. An amended diagram then would give the following distribution:
A | E | I | |||
396 | 397 | (398) | 397 | 400 | 399 |
B | Z | K | |||
396 | 397 | 398 | 399 | 400 | 399 |
401 | |||||
Γ | H | Λ | |||
396 | 397 | 400 | (399) | 401 | |
Δ | Ө | ||||
396 | 397 | 400 | 399 |
This was a small coinage for which two tetradrachm anvils sufficed. Six obverse dies are recorded but full service cannot be assumed for all six. No. 401 carries over into the next year and No. 398 seems to have been a poor die which yielded less than its quota of coins. Probably the equivalent of five full dies produced the large silver of 163/2: 30,000 tetradrachms from 20 talents of bullion. In addition drachms and hemidrachms were struck. An obverse die apiece gives 12,000 fractions from another talent and a half of silver.
It should be possible to estimate very approximately what the production rate was during 163/2. Each anvil would have turned out 15,000 tetradrachms. Coinage was spread over eleven months but the last month is apparently a period of scanty output with only one anvil working and hence a calculation on the basis of ten and a half months might be more accurate. This would give 1428 coins per month per anvil or 357 per week. Assuming that the week averaged six days due to time out for festivals and other celebrations and that the mint employees worked ten hours a day, we arrive at a basic output of about one tetradrachm every ten minutes. If the 12,000 fractions were produced on the same anvils the rate would go up to about a coin every seven minutes. Even this second figure seems rather low but we have no information on the division of labor at the mint in the late Hellenistic period. If the preparing of flans was done by the same men who struck the money, the complete process from ingot to coin might well have taken seven to ten minutes as an overall average. Certainly the work in all its phases was onerous and could scarcely have been maintained for long stretches at high speed. Under pressure, as we shall see, the mint did better but in general it may be assumed that there was no attempt to achieve anything like our mass production tempos.1
A representative three-anvil issue is that of Lysan and Glaukos in 159/8. Parenthetical addition of obverses which must have been in operation during certain months even though we have no precise evidence results in an amended diagram along these lines:
A | Δ | Ө | ||||||
429 | 430 | 431 | 432 | 430 | 431 | 434 | 433 | 435 |
436 | ||||||||
B | E | I | ||||||
429 | (430) | 431 | 432 | 433 | 431 | (434) | 436 | 435 |
432 | 434 | |||||||
Γ | H | K | ||||||
432 | 430 | (431) | 434 | 433 | 435 | 434 | 436 | 435 |
437 | ||||||||
Λ | ||||||||
439 | 438 | 437 |
Die transfers substantiate the replacement of 432 by 434 in epsilon and of 435 by 437 in kappa. There is no similar evidence for the coupling of 429 and 432 in beta and of 433 and 436 in theta but I feel certain that the dies did operate seriatim and that we have again a perfectly ordered distribution of the year’s coinage over a set number of anvils, in this case three. Eleven obverse dies are recorded for 159/8. All except the last two are in use for several months so that presumably the equivalent of ten full dies produced the coinage, giving a total output of 60,000 tetradrachms. With an additional 12,000 drachms the amount of silver consumed would have been 42 talents. Three anvils producing for ten months give a rate of one tetradrachm every seven minutes or one coin every six—a better record than that of 163/2.
Of the four-anvil issues, that of Polemon–Alketes in 157/6 may be assumed to provide the most complete data since it shows the very high proportion of fifteen surviving coins per obverse die. Amending the original diagram gives this picture:
A | Δ | H | |||||||||
461 | 462 | 463 | 464 | 465 | 466 | 467 | 469 | 471 | 470 | (468) | 469 |
465 | 466 | 468 | |||||||||
B | E | Ө | |||||||||
465 | 466 | 467 | 464 | 465 | 466 | (468) | 469 | 471 | 470 | (468) | 469 |
470 | |||||||||||
Γ | Z | I | |||||||||
465 | 466 | (467) | 464 | 465 | 470 | (468) | 469 | 471 | 470 | (468) | 469 |
471 | 472 | ||||||||||
K | |||||||||||
471 | 470 | 468 | 472 |
Reverse transfers support the replacement of 467 by 468 in delta and that of 469 by 472 in iota. There can be little doubt but that 465 was worn out by zeta and succeeded by 471 and similarly that 466 was ready to be retired in epsilon and replaced by 470. Three dies of the first month (461–463) have a single reverse apiece, suggesting that they had been taken over from the coinage of the preceding year and functioned for only a short time at the beginning of 157/6. The ΣΩ control found on reverses of 461 and 465 and the ME lettering on those of 462 and 466 have determined the coupling of obverses.
If three of the twelve dies of 157/6 were already well worn when put into operation and 472, in use briefly at the end of the year, is another example of a die of limited service, we are perhaps justified in regarding these four dies as the equivalent of one full one and calculating on the basis of nine dies. This gives a coinage of 54,000 tetradrachms to which should be added 6000 drachms and 6000 hemidrachms. The rate would be a tetradrachm every ten to eleven minutes or a coin about every eight.
Calculations with respect to any five-anvil issue involve more than the usual number of pitfalls. The coinage of Niketes–Dionysios in 130/29 has the highest ratio of surviving coins and dies but even this is only four to five specimens per die. What we seem to have is the following arrangement:
A | E | K | ||||||||||||
929 | 930 | 931 | 932 | 933 | 939 | 940 | 941 | 937 | 942 | 955 | (950) | 956 | (952) | (953) |
934 | 935 | |||||||||||||
B | Z | Λ | ||||||||||||
934 | (935) | 936 | 932 | 933 | 944 | 945 | 941 | 948 | 942 | [955] | (950) | (956) | (952) | 953 |
Γ | H | M | ||||||||||||
934 | 935 | 936 | 937 | 933 | 944 | 945 | 946 | 947 | 942 | 958 | 950 | 956 | 952 | 953 |
949 | 950 | 951 | 952 | 948 | 959 | 957 | 960 | 961 | ||||||
Δ | Ө | |||||||||||||
939 | 940 | [936] | 937 | 938 | 949 | (950) | 954 | 952 | 953 | |||||
955 | 956 |
The pattern of five anvils seems definite for B, Γ, E, Z, and K. It is also highly likely for A since successive transfers of a single reverse suggest that 929 and 930 gave very short service due perhaps to their having been carried over from the coinage of 131/0. For Δ and Λ we have a record of less than five anvils but it may, I think, be supposed that this is a result of incomplete data and that in both months a fifth die was in operation, although there is no assurance that the bracketed restoration is in either case correct. By M, Nos. 950, 952, 953 and 956 had been in use for a considerable time and it is not unreasonable to surmise the replacement of all four in the final month of the year. The situation in H and Ө is more confused. Many dies are in service for only a brief period and at least ten are associated with the former month. It seems to me doubtful that five additional anvils were brought into operation for this one month and then all closed down two months later. Rather I should assume a short term of intensive production during H and part of Ө with dies wearing out rapidly and being replaced with greater frequency but with striking still confined to the original five anvils.
To some extent dies missing from the record may be offset by dies giving less than full service, of which there seem to be a number. Only the most tentative kind of estimate is possible. With 30 dies, as a probable minimum, output would be 180,000 tetradrachms; with 40, as a probable maximum, it would be 240,000. Between 120 and 160 talents of silver would have been needed. Even though coinage was spread over eleven months and five anvils were in operation, the mint's resources must have been strained to put out this vast amount of money. The production rate rises to a tetradrachm every three to four minutes and one imagines that periods of peak activity required additional personnel.
The life span of a representative obverse die is, as one would expect, in inverse relationship to the production rate of the issue. When the mint operates at low speed, as in 163/2 and 157/6, a die giving full service lasts on the average for four to five months; when production is at a higher tempo, as in 159/8, it survives for three to four months. Under Niketes–Dionysios in 130/29, seven obverses of the middle months of the year are associated with a single month. Most others last about two full months but two (Nos. 950 and 952) survive for three full months and a part of two additional months. For this year our evidence is probably too fragmentary for any definite conclusion except that longevity is in general substantially reduced.
A fair number of reverse dies are inscribed with two or three amphora letters and in one case five are recorded. Even with a low production rate for the issue in question and under the assumption that the die was engraved at the end of the first month and retired at the beginning of the fifth, its durability is remarkable and must have been quite exceptional. Certainly the average reverse die is expended in the course of a single month.
A final point of interest concerns the numerical relationship of obverse and reverse dies. If all dies of the gold of 407/6 were used to capacity, each anvil die employed 5.5 punches. The ratio for the New Style silver is definitely higher than this and probably considerably higher. For the seven issues giving us presumably our most complete record, the number of reverses associated with a single obverse averages out at 7, 7, 6.2, 6, 5.4, 5.6, and 3.6. However, in no one of these issues are all obverses used to capacity nor can we assume, even for these years, that we have full information on reverse dies and obverse-reverse combinations. Our best years, judging by the proportion of surviving coins and obverse dies, are 158/7 and 157/6. One-half of the obverses of the first striking are coupled with eight or more reverses; two have sixteen each. One-half of the obverses of 157/6 are used with nine or more reverses; one is combined with seventeen. Since adjustments must be made with respect to these maximum figures in that reverses were transferred and some undoubtedly discarded prematurely due to a change in magistrates and months, it may be safer to consider a group of obverses rather than isolated examples. Under Polemon–Alketes, Obverses 464, 465 and 466 are associated respectively with fifteen, seventeen and eleven reverses. In four instances, the same reverse is connected with two obverses so that only thirty-nine separate reverses are employed by the three anvil dies. Since this is the period when recutting of reverses is not common practice, a certain number of dies will have been retired at an early stage. At most, this could have happened with eleven reverses but it is highly unlikely that in all eleven cases the dies were cut at the very end of a month. Subtracting six from the total would seem to be a generous deduction. We have then thirty-three reverses associated with three obverses or an average of eleven apiece. No allowance is made for gaps in our information; if more reverses were originally employed by these three obverses the ratio would, of course, be even higher. Without doubt there were many obverses with shorter life spans using fewer reverses, but it may, I think, be assumed that an average die giving full service under normal conditions would have employed between eight and twelve reverses. This is a somewhat disheartening conclusion since it indicates more clearly than anything else how low a proportion of material has survived even in a substantial body of coinage such as this.
1 |
W. P. Wallace cites a great many instances of similar adjustment in the Euboean League coinage (NNM 134).
|
1 |
The combined yearly totals give 289 but this figure must be reduced by one to allow for the carry-over of an obverse from
the issue of
177/6 to that of 176/5.
|
1 |
The totals in parentheses must be reduced to allow for the carry-over of thirty-eight obverse dies: twenty-six for tetradrachms,
ten for
drachms and two for hemidrachms.
|
1 |
The totals in parentheses must be reduced to allow for the carry-over of ten obverse dies for tetradrachms and one for drachms.
|
1 |
The sequence of reverse dies within a given month can be determined only in relation to an obverse which develops flaws. Occasionally
the
transfer of a reverse from one month to the next establishes that die as the last or first of a series.
|
1 |
In the case of two or more magistrates linked with a single month, the sequence of the diagram is usually based on the evidence
of recut
names, progressive deterioration of an obverse die or association of an official with another month. Since ΣΩΦA of 167/6 had
been connected
with epsilon, coins with his name probably belong at the beginning of zeta. It is possible,
of course, that those with EΠIΓO's name are contemporary rather than subsequent.
|
1 |
For example, ΠOΛ on a hemidrachm of HPA – APIΣTOΦ (No. 346) may be an abbreviation for ΠOΛYX of alpha or ΠOΛYM of
delta and epsilon. Since dates are not inscribed on the hemidrachms a definite association
cannot be made.
|
1 |
NC, 1950, pp. 1–22.
|
1 |
At first impression one would suppose that dies used for the gold, which is a softer metal than silver, would produce more
coins but there
are other considerations. Surely the mint would have taken greater pains with the special gold issue and retired the dies
when they first
began to show signs of wear whereas the dies for the silver were kept in operation until they really broke down. There is
a further
possibility which must be taken into account. The dies for the silver were used until they wore out, being carried over from
one year to
the next if necessary; the dies for the gold were used only until minting stopped, until the supply of bullion ran out. The
practice of the
mint in the Hellenistic period was to put between two to five obverses into simultaneous operation; if a similar procedure
was followed
with the earlier gold, then some or even all of its dies may have been only partially worn when coining stopped and they were
retired from
service. There are, of course, a great many imponderables but I believe that the figure of 6000 coins per die provides at
least a working
basis for calculating relative productivity if not absolute output.
|
1 |
Dr. Marriott’s calculation, as he stresses, is based on the assumptions that each die originally struck roughly
the same number of coins and that the coins found constitute a random selection from those originally struck.
|
1 |
Actually the figures would be still higher if one took into account dies giving less than full service. As will be evident
from later
discussion, there are in each issue a number of dies providing less than the maximum quota of coins, hence the output figures
given here
are somewhat high and the survival rates somewhat low.
|
1 |
A possible explanation for the large issues between 175 and 170 may lie in a vast building program in the Agora involving
the remodelling
of the square by the construction of a group of Stoas. Of these, the earliest unit is the Middle Stoa and the latest the Stoa
of Attalos,
which is to be dated to the very middle of the second century. In a preliminary report on the Middle Stoa (Hesp.,
1952, pp. 86–90) Homer A. Thompson tentatively assigns it to the late 60’s and suggests that Ariarathes V may
have been responsible for its erection, but he tells me there is now reason to believe that the Stoa was a civic enterprise
rather than the
gift of a foreign ruler and that work on it may have started in the 70's. Construction of this large and elaborate building
would have
required a considerable sum of money and it may well be that the extensive coinage of the late 70's was put out to meet this
need.
The tremendous emissions of 132–123 B.c. present a greater problem. They cannot be explained in terms of a building program inAthens, nor can they be justified in the fight of military or unusual commercial activity. Yet if the annual issues between 169 and 132 are indicative, as they must be, of the routine financial requirements of the demos, one must assume that special circumstances dictated the vast increase of coinage in the period immediately following. There are two factors which singly or in combination may provide a partial answer. The first concerns an inflationary trend in price levels throughout the Mediterranean world. In a recent article (Finanzarchiv 1955, pp. 498–511) F. M. Heichelheim records a rise in grain prices in 138 B.c. or slightly earlier to 500 per cent of the low of 140 B.c., a second sharp rise c. 127 to nearly 1200 per cent of the 140 level, followed by a recession c. 121/0 B.c. The extensive issues of 132–123 B.c. may be related to these inflationary prices although it will be noted that the chronological correlation is not exact and it is further noteworthy that an earlier period of catastrophic prices, prior to 160 B.c., finds no reflection in the coinage. A second factor is the decline or exhaustion of the Laurium mines on whichAthens had long depended for a constant and seemingly unlimited supply of bullion. This was undoubtedly a severe blow which may have had profound psychological repercussions. To be sure, an adequate supply of foreign silver was secured but there was no certainty that this would continue to be available, no certainty that access to it would always be possible. The city may have felt it wise to lay in a sizable surplus while circumstances were favorable so that these reserves could be used if necessary as a cushion against any future interruption of supplies. A stockpiling of coins rather than bullion seems somewhat surprising but minted silver would, of course, be more readily usable than ingots. In connection with this second hypothesis it might be noted that it not only would serve to explain the strange imbalance of minting activity during the Late Period but would also make more comprehensible the composition of a group of late hoards (pp. 540–543) under the assumption that some of the coins originally minted between 132 and 123 B.c. were actually put into circulation at a later date. |
1 |
It is interesting to note the extent to which an obverse die is associated with a particular control combination. Assuming
that these
controls served as a checking device for tallying the amount of bullion issued against the number of tetradrachms produced,
it may be
supposed that bookkeeping operations would be simplified if each lot of bullion could be routed through one or two anvils
rather than
distributed at random.
|
1 |
It is impossible to tell what was happening in 131/0 and 124/3, the two years of greatest production. This is probably due
to the fact that
only a small proportion of the original number of reverses has come down to us.
|
1 |
There is no thought of offering these calculations as anything more than the roughest approximations. Their value lies not
in the definite
figures for any issue but in their interrelationship as a gauge of productivity at different periods.
|
2 |
Again an adjustment must be made for the transfer of a tetradrachm obverse from the last issue of the Early Period to the
first of the
Middle Period. The number of obverse dies in use throughout the coinage includes 1136 for tetradrachms, 132 for drachms and
25 for
hemidrachms—a grand total of 1293. The running inventory numbers of the catalogue bring the figure to 1272. This discrepancy
of 21 is due
to the designation by X numbers of 19 tetradrachm obverses and 2 drachm obverses, added after the catalogue had been completed.
|
2 |
With regard to iota it is evident that there is a gap in the record. Obverse 354 is used in theta and again in kappa and was almost certainly also employed in iota. Lacunas
such as this will be discussed in more detan in connection with the interpretation of the diagrams.
|
2 |
ANSMN IX, 1960, pp. 1–15.
|
3 |
As indicated in the note immediately preceding, No. 354 was surely used in iota as well as in theta, kappa, lambda and nu.
|
Our primary concern in the preceding pages has been with the individual tesserae, some large and some small, which combine to form a fragmentary mosaic of the silver currency of Athens in the New Style period. Since the attrition of the past twenty centuries has left us a scant 7000 coins from what must once have been millions of tetradrachms and hundreds of thousands of fractions, restoration has been neither easy nor uniformly conclusive. In some areas the pattern is unmistakable, the pieces fit together in smooth joins to reproduce the original design; in other sections the reconstruction is fairly extensive, its rough outlines often clearly defined by the overall composition but the precise arrangement of component units deriving from probability rather than certainty. All of the tesserae have been described and their combination in various parts of the mosaic discussed in some detail. It remains to take a look at the picture as a whole.
One hundred and ten separate issues were put out by the Athenian mint during the New Style period. With the probable exception of the Mithradates–Aristion coinage, which seems to be a special emission rather than the exclusive output of a year’s minting, these represent annual strikings. The size of the individual emissions, their consistent distribution over most months of the calendar year, their interlocking stylistic trends and the frequent transfer of obverse dies are all indicative of uninterrupted production, at least through 112/1 B.c. After that date there may have been isolated years in which no money was struck and others in which two very small issues were combined but this is merely a remote possibility. There is nothing in the data now available which suggests any break in the sequence of New Style issues.
Inception of the series in 196/5 B.c. rests upon the solid evidence of the Anthedon Hoard. Its termination in the summer of 87 B.c. with the arrival of Sulla derives from the numerical correlation of issues and years, from the composition of Cretan Hoard I in relation to the Aesillas overstriking of pre-Sullan date, and from the identification of many mint magistrates of the latest emissions with men who played a dominant role in Athenian affairs during the years immediately preceding the sack of the city. The exact sequence of issues between 171/0 and 123/2 is in large measure fixed by the incontrovertible evidence of die transfers and dovetailing hoards; very little re-arrangement would be possible within this period. For the order of emission before 171/0 and after 123/2 the criterion is largely stylistic, supported in a few instances by die transfers and by hoard composition. Although less weighty than the evidence of die links, the stylistic argument has considerable validity with respect to much of the New Style coinage since its initial indication of contiguity has frequently been corroborated by the subsequent discovery of a die transfer. At certain points the specific chronology is substantiated by epigraphical and historical data. The distinctive Egyptian device of the coinage of 152/1 is surely to be connected with the elaborate celebration of the Ptolemaia in the archonship of Lysiades, dated by Ferguson and Meritt to 152/1; the change in the character of the coinage c. 132 B.c. and the abrupt termination of two Delos hoards with tetradrachms of 130/29 coincide with the general period of the slave revolts and suggest a connection with the insurrections at Laurium and Delos.
Between 86 and 84 B.c. a very large coinage was produced at the Athenian mint to supply Sulla’s war needs. That this was regulated by Sulla’s quaestor, Marcus Lucullus, and inscribed with his name and office is practically certain. These are the issues, identical in character with the regular New Style strikings except that the Athenian ethnic is omitted. They were followed by a small emission of similar format but with the two trophies of Sulla replacing the monograms, which is undoubtedly to be associated with the return of the Roman general toAthens, after the capitulation of Mithradates, and the introduction of the Sylleia in his honor. After that, the mint ofAthens struck no more silver; its output consisted solely of the bronze of the "Imperial" series.
Six hundred and thirty-four names—in monogram, in abbreviation or in full—are found on the coinage. In general the progression is from two monograms to two abbreviated names to three names in full or with some abbreviation and finally to two names in full or with slight abbreviation, but there are two periods of deviation. Monograms and abbreviated names are used interchangeably between 177/6 and 171/0; two-magistrate issues are interpolated in the three-magistrate sequence between 128/7 and 122/1. The men whose names appear on the coinage are not magistrates in the usual sense of the word. Numerous irregularities and abnormalities characterizing their respective tenures are irreconcilable with any systematic rotation of duly constituted officials and seemingly explicable only in terms of a monetary liturgy whereby an individual’s contribution toward the expense of the minting operation was rewarded by the inscription of his name on a certain number of coins. These donors are wealthy and prominent Athenians, many of them known to us for service in other capacities. In only one instance is a foreign dignitary associated with the coinage. Ariarathes and Antiochos are ordinary citizens ofAthens, not princes of Cappadocia and Syria, but Mithradates is, as the title and symbol of his emission indicate, a king of Pontus. It is, however, Mithradates V and not Mithradates VI who is thus honored for his gifts to the state.
Unquestionably it was the prerogative of the first magistrate to choose the symbol placed on the coins of any given years. One official at least seems to have shared this privilege with his annual colleague, the dual representation of 136/5 embodying the emblems of the two men. The selection was apparently unrestricted and the devices for the most part have purely personal import, chiefly with reference to the antecedents of the individual magistrates. A few may be interpreted in terms of contemporary religious or political events. In two cases the symbols provide new information on the careers of particular Athenians: Eurykleides, mint magistrate of 154/3, almost certainly held the priesthood of Demos and the Graces, and Diokles of Kephisia, mint magistrate of 99/8, 95/4 and 90/89, that of Asklepios and Hygieia.
Amphora letters provide evidence for eleven intercalary years. Twice in the course of the second century consecutive intercalary years are attested: 171/0 and 170/69 by the coins and 135/4 and 134/3 by the inscriptions and coins. The precise significance of the control combinations remains uncertain, but we can safely rule out any connection with workshops of the mint. Rather the clearly-defined relationship of metallic composition, the character of the coinage at various periods, and the number and distribution of the control combinations strongly suggests that the last are in some way indicative of the sources of bullion and intended as a check on the quality of the silver. The same combination of evidence points to unsettled conditions during the Early Period with silver coming from numerous but relatively unproductive deposits and processed in the field and in the mint itself by workmen of varying capability. In the Middle Period the situation is far more stable with a steady flow of silver from a few rich yields and a superior standard of technical achievement. Late in the 30’s the Laurium mines seem to have reached a low level of production, their output perhaps further impaired as a result of the servile insurrection. The tremendous increase in coinage between 132/1 and 124/3 and the marked change in the metallic composition of the silver surely reflect a supplementary supply of bullion from foreign sources, and it is possible that Mithradates V was instrumental in making this new ore available.
For the production of the coinage the mint kept two to five anvils in simultaneous operation, the number employed in any one year dependent upon the size of the individual emission. A fairly consistent level of activity seems to have been maintained throughout the period of striking. A year of light coinage required six to ten obverse dies, one of average output about twice that number, while a few extremely heavy strikings used between forty and fifty. As many as eight to twelve reverses were normally coupled with a single obverse. The life span of individual dies varied greatly, in inverse relationship to the production tempo of the coinage. Nine months for an obverse and five months for a reverse are the recorded maximums but these figures are exceptional. The average reverse lasted for less than a month and the average obverse associated with an issue of median size survived for three to four months. During periods of intensive production longevity was considerably reduced. Recutting of amphora letters and third magistrates' names was practiced extensively, especially during the Middle Period. One reverse is inscribed with four names and five dates; dies with three names and three or four month letters are by no means uncommon.
The output of the mint for the whole of the New Style period may be very roughly estimated at between eight and twelve million coins of all denominations. Large silver was struck every year except in 100/99, a single drachm being our only record of that issue. Drachms were produced in eight years of the Early Period, in all years of the Middle Period and in seventeen years of the Late Period. In addition a large striking of drachms with grain-ear symbol was put out between 180 and 170 B.c. Hemidrachms were issued only four times during the Early Period and seventeen times during the Middle Period. Judging by the number of surviving obverse dies, peak production of drachms came between 180 and 164 B.c. and of hemidrachms between 170 and 162 B.c.
On the basis of the ratio of surviving coins per die, we are warranted in assuming that we have a complete or practically complete record of the obverse dies in use between 169/8 and 134/3 and fairly comprehensive data on those employed after 112/1 B.c. For the remainder of the coinage our information is clearly fragmentary. We cannot estimate with any accuracy the amount of money that was issued but we can gauge its extent in relation to the emissions of the Middle Period by comparing the number of known obverse dies. From the available evidence, output seems to show the following variations: very light to light between 196/5 and 192/1, heavy to very heavy between 191/0 and 170/69, light between 169/8 and 160/59, moderate to fairly heavy between 159/8 and 133/2, exceedingly heavy between 132/1 and 124/3, moderate to fairly heavy between 123/2 and 112/1, very light to light between 111/0 and 88/7. Contrary to expectation, the three-magistrate period in general proves to be a time of only moderate mint activity; the really extensive coinage is put out before 169/8 and after 133/2 B.c.
That the New Style owls traveled widely is evident from their inclusion in hoards found as far north as Bulgaria and as far east as Teheran. The shifting pattern of their movement provides an interesting commentary on Athenian trade relations at various periods: between 196 and 162 to the Levant and further east, then abruptly cut off in that direction and channeled north into the Balkans and Anatolia to take advantage of the closing of the Macedonian mines and at the same time moved in greater quantity to Delos and Crete. After the initial years of the Late Period the coinage is in short supply everywhere. No issue later than that of 117/6 has been found in a hoard context from the Balkans, Anatolia, northern or central Greece; nothing after 112/1 has been unearthed on Delos. Apparently only parts of Crete continued to receive silver until the very end of the New Style period. There is no indication that the New Style coins circulated in Italy, Sicily or Egypt.
As would be inevitable with any large coinage such as this, imitations were plentiful in ancient times. The drying up of the flow of genuine pieces inspired copies of early issues in the East and at a somewhat later period replicas emanated from the northern fringes of the Greek world. Other imitations were produced closer to home on a surprisingly vast scale. One of the most interesting of the imitative issues is that inscribed AӨE O ΔEMOΣ which is likely connected with the colony of Athenian exiles taking refuge in Pontus at the time of Sulla’s siege. The KOINTOΣ – XAPMOΣTPA striking, usually regarded as a part of the regular New Style series, seems also to have been of foreign origin.
Our tesserae then, scanty as they are, have made a not inconsiderable contribution in several fields. For the numismatist their chief value will lie in the chronology of the series and its component issues and in the light thrown on the operating routine and productive capacity of the mint; for the epigraphist in the prosopographical data and in the dating of the intercalary emissions; for the historian in the fluctuating pattern of output and distribution abroad, in the indication of a relatively precise date for the working out of the Laurium mines, in the evidence for a monetary liturgy and in the record of a hitherto unsuspected bond between Mithradates V and Athens. On all these matters the coinage has something to say, unequivocally or tentatively, and in so doing it brings into clearer focus that century late in Athenian history which opened in the bright promise of Flamininus’ proclamation of freedom and closed in the shadows of political dissension and approaching catastrophe.
(Boldface numbers refer in each case to the catalogue and associated commentary. Further discussion of individual issues is to be found in the general commentaries on the Early, Middle and Late Periods.)
with term of Hermes (183/2): 40, 55f, 58; analysis, 624; in hoards, 476, 511
with trophy (188/7): 40, 45–47, 54; in hoards, 474, 476, 507(?); imitations, 440
with grain-ear (187/6): 47f; in hoards, 476, 479, 482, 522(?)
with eagle (173/2): 72f 88–91, 93; in hoards, 474, 476, 502, 507, 518
with Nike (189/8): 43f, 54; analysis, 624; in hoards, 523
– with cicada (185/4): 50–52, 55f, 58; analysis, 624; in hoards, 474, 501, 523; imitations, 440, 441(?)
with cornucopiae or without symbol (193/2): 36–38; analysis, 624; in hoards, 473, 476; imitation, 440; analysis of imitation, 637
without symbol (196/5): 7, 32f, 34, 36; in hoards, 473; modern forgery, 468
with thyrsos (176/5): 72, 76–78; analyses, 624; in hoards, 476, 478, 507(?), 511, 518
or with rudder (190/89): 7n, 41–43
with two palms (192/1): 7, 38–40, 43, 87; in hoards (fractions), 478, 482
or with kerchnos and bakchos (195/4): 7, 33–35, 36; in hoards, 473
ΔΩ – ΛYΣIA with forepart of horse (177/6): 72f, 73–75, 77; in hoards, 476f, 479, 482, 522(?)
with caps of Dioscuri (186/5): 49f; analysis, 624; in hoards, 476, 482, 502
with serpents (184/3): 52–55, 56, 58; in hoards, 476, 519; imitation, 441
or ΦANI without symbol (194/3): 35f, 54; in hoards, 473
with aplustre (172/1): 72f, 91–94; analysis, 624; in hoards, 476, 478f, 502, 507, 511, 518
(Boldface numbers refer to the catalogue pages of the issues with which the symbols are associated.)
(An alphabetical listing of mint magistrates is given on pages 547–584. Names of Athenians mentioned in connection with these magistrates are included in the General Index.)
(Boldface numbers refer to the section on Hoards where the individual deposits are discussed at length. An asterisk preceding an entry indicates that there is no New Style material in the hoard.)
IG I2 | 324 | 48 |
IG II2 | 791 | 47 |
847 | 37 | |
910 | 88 | |
919 | 37 | |
IG II2 | 961 | 552 |
1009 | 573 | |
1013 | 646n | |
1014 | 564, 570 | |
1034 | 574 | |
IG II2 | 1039 | 568 |
1134 | 557 | |
1335 | 142 | |
1706 | 43 | |
1717 | 555 | |
1937 | 547 | |
1938 | 557 | |
1939 | 547 | |
1944 | 563 | |
1963 | 88 | |
2314 | 106, 142 | |
2316 | 557 | |
2323 | 572 | |
2325 | 572 | |
2331 | 102 | |
2332 | 35, 41, 44, 47, 52, 102, 572 | |
2334 | 88 | |
2336 | 564 | |
2452 | 555, 564, 575 | |
2864 | 547 | |
2980 | 549 | |
3510 | 568, 577 | |
3864 | 75 | |
4032 | 549 | |
5995/6 | 557 | |
6579 | 33 | |
6599 | 54 | |
7239 | 578 | |
7646 | 589n | |
8308 | 582 | |
FD III | 2, 12 | 548, 553 |
15 | 556 | |
17 | 575 | |
23 | 549 | |
26 | 556 | |
27 | 549 | |
Insc. Délos | 1507 | 557 |
1643 | 563 | |
1827–29 | 553 | |
1835 | 580 | |
1936 | 580 | |
2381 | 563 | |
2596 | 547 | |
2609 | 563 | |
Hesp. | 1933, p. 412, no. 35 | 44 |
1933, pp. 418–46 (IG II2 1706) | 48 | |
1934, p. 31, no. 21 | 54 | |
1940, p. 122, no. 25 (Prytaneis, no. 82) | 557 | |
1942, p. 287, no. 56 (IG II2 791) | 47 | |
1947, p. 164, no. 64 | 47 | |
1948, p. 25, no. 12 | 553 | |
1957, p. 33, no. 6 | 547 | |
Pryaneis, | no. 36 (IG II2 848) | 54 |
no. 64 | 572 | |
no. 71 (IG II2 910) | 559 | |
no. 84 | 54 | |
RN, | 1935, p. 1 | 435f, 438 |