New Style Silver Coinage of Athens

Thompson, Margaret E., 1911-1992
Numismatic Studies
American Numismatic Society
New York
Worldcat Works




Table of Contents




figure NO SYMBOL 196/5 B.C.

(Plate 1)


1. Nike (?) driving biga r. on neckguard of helmet. No border of dots.

figure *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 figure. 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 figure and not figure. 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.

End Notes

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.

figure or figureKERCHNOS and BAKCHOS 195/4 B.C.

(Plate 1)


4. No border of dots.

(figure) a. *London = Sotheby, Dec. 1924, 130, gr. 16.20 ↗

(figure) b. *Athens (ANSMN V, P1. IX, A; Sv. 33, 7), gr. 17.05

5. Border of dots from here on.

(figure) a. *ANS-ETN (Anthedon Hd., ANSMN V, P1. IX, 10), gr. 17.05↑

(figure) b. Commerce 1953 (ANSMN V, P1. IX, B) = Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 901, gr. 16.90; Stockholm, gr. 17.07 ↗


(figure) a. *London (BMC 286; ANSMN V, P1. IX, C; Sv. 33, 9), gr. 17.06↑ dblst.

(figure) b. Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 900 = Sv. 33, 10, gr. 16.55

(figure) c. ANS = Baltatzi Coll. (Sv. 33, 11) = Mavrokordatou Coll. (JIAN, 1912, 1294), gr. 16.37↑; Damascus Collector


(figure) a. *Seyrig Coll., gr. 16.93↑

(figure) 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 figure, are known from only two examples. 1 Following is an unique tetradrachm in the American Numismatic Society which has figure in place of figure. The obverse of this coin is also used with a normal figure 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 figure 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 figure and figure. 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 figure was replaced by figure and a single reverse with a third monogram would seem to indicate that for a time two men were associated with figure 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 figure 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.

figure ΦANι NO SYMBOL 194/3 B.C.

(Plate 2)



figure instead of ΦANI; bakchos beneath amphora.

* London (BMC 303; ANSMN V, Pl. X, E; Sv. 33, 22), gr. 16.75↑


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


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 figure 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 figure 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 figure I should suggest a name beginning XAI.

End Notes

1 Op. cit., p. 58.
1 Kambanis did not know the Sotheby piece, now in the British Museum, but he published the Athens coin in the BCH for 1938 (page 83). There the monogram is misread as figure which is not surprising in view of the condition of the tetradrachm. A cast of it reveals that, like the London specimen, it is definitely inscribed figure. The Athens reverse is later than the London one; the obverse die coupled with it shows distinct flaws on the neck and nose which are not present on No. 4a.
1 For the celebration of the Greater Eleusinia in the second year of an Olympiad, hence in 195/4 B.C., see W. B. Dinsmoor, The Archons of Athens, pp. 209–212.
2 Bellinger suggests that there may have been from the beginning a third mint magistrate who in this instance received recognition on the coinage. In this connection it should be noted that the appearance of figure on some reverses of XAPI – HPA is clearly a parallel phenomenon.
2 From the Zeitschrift article it is impossible to be certain of the identity of the obverse die but a photograph secured from Berlin confirms the present classification.

figure NO SYMBOL or CORNUCOPIAE 193/2 B.C.

(Plate 2)




(figure) a. *Glasgow (Hunt. 68; Sv. 33, 20), gr. 16.94 ↑

(figure) b. Berlin (ZfN, 1926, Pl. VII, 2; Sv. 33, 19), gr. 16.72; Berlin, gr. 16.88

(figure) c. Vienna, gr. 15.46 (worn)

12. Biga and driver on neckguard of helmet.

a. *Seyrig Coll. (Kessab Hd.), gr. 16.86↑

(figure) 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↑


c. ANS, gr. 16.93↑

d. *Berlin (von Prokesch-Osten Coll., ZfN, 1926, Pl. VII, 5; Sv. 33, 17), gr. 16.85


*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, figure and figure, in place of the figure 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 figure, Nos. 11a and 12b have figure, and of the other reverses only 13d gives a clear figure. Nos. 13a, b, c and 14 seem to have figure 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 figure 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 figure 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 figure. 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.

End Notes

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.

figure TWO PALMS 192/1 B.C.

(Plate 2)



* ANS-ETN (Hesp., Suppl. VIII, 1949, Pl. 3, 4), gr. 16.75↑




a. *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.10 ↗

b. Berlin (Sv. 33, 2), gr. 3.66

c. Stuttgart (Sv. 33, 1)


* Athens (Delos Hd. B, 13; Sv. 33, 3), gr. 3.75 ↗



* 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.

End Notes

1 For a possible historical implication see page 113.

figure CLUB 191/0 B.C.

(Plate 3)


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)


* The Hague (Sv. 33,14), gr. 16.80


a. *Cambridge (Grose 5897; Sv. 33, 15), gr. 16.99↑

b. *Roš Coll., gr. 17.00↑


* Winterthur = Hamburger, June 1930, 756, gr. 16.94↑


a. *Naples (Santangelo Coll., Fiorelli 10788), gr. 16.78↑

b. Paris, gr. 16.82↑


*Paris (de Luynes 2077; Sv. 33, 12), gr. 17.05


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.

figure 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.

figure RUDDER 190/89 B.C.

(Plate 4)



a. figure instead of figure on this one reverse.

*London, gr. 16.26 ↗

(figure) b. *ANS, gr. 16.91↗


a. *Paris, Petit Palais

(figure) b. London (BMC 287), gr. 16.67↑

(figure) c. Berlin (Sv. 34, 3), gr. 16.91

(figure) d. Athens (Sv. 34, 1), gr. 17.05


a. *ANS-Gautier, gr. 16.43↑

(figure) b. *Paris, gr. 16.77↑

(figure) c. Paris (de Luynes 2078), gr. 16.55↑

(figure) d. Helbing 83, 328 = Cahn 71, 338 = Ratto (Rogers) 340

(figure) e. Leningrad, gr. 16.14 (pierced)↑


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↗


*Berlin, gr. 16.32↑


(figure ) a. *Paris (Sv. 34, 5), gr. 15.50↑

(figure) 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 figure as the second magistrate and its position preceding a reverse with figure 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 figure 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. figure 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.

figure who holds the second magistracy for most of the year is probably API... but beyond that it is pointless to speculate. His predecessor figure 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.

figure NIKE 189/8 B.C.

(Plate 5)



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

(figure) e. Paris (Sv. 35, 8), gr. 16.42 ↗; Mrs. E. T. Newell Coll., gr. 16.90 ↗


* Berlin (Babylon Hd., ZfN, 1928, p. 114, 59), gr. 15.92


* London, gr. 13.40 (broken)↑


* Wilkinson Coll. = Lockett Coll. (SNG 1905), gr. 16.68↑


a. *Commerce 1956, gr. 16.88↑

(figure) b. Cambridge (Grose 5900; Sv. 35, 11), gr. 16.90↑; Tübingen, gr. 16.45


a. *London (BMC 298), gr. 16.65↑

b. Sophia (Sv. 35, 9), gr. 16.77


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 (figure 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).

figure TROPHY 188/7 B.C.

(Plates 5–6)



  • *Evelpidis Coll. = Meletopoulos Coll. (Sv. 35, 1), gr. 16.62; Commerce Beirut 1953
  • Empedocles Coll.
  • *Damascus (Tell Ahmar Hd.)


*Empedocles Coll.


  • *Berlin gr. 16.88↑1
  • London (BMC 282), gr. 16.93↑


*Vienna, gr. 16.74; Moscow


  • *Romanos Coll.
  • Romanos Coll.
  • Copenhagen (SNG 111), gr. 16.49↑
  • Budapest = Kress 96, 199, gr. 16.40↑


*ANS-ETN, gr. 16.20↑


  • *Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.67 ↗
  • The Hague (Sv. 35, 4), gr. 15.70


  • *Paris (Sv. 35, 2, Feuardent), gr. 16.55 ↗
  • London (BMC 283), gr. 16.60↑
  • Athens, gr. 16.74
  • Leningrad, gr. 16.23↑


*Berlin, gr. 16.20↑


*Berlin, gr. 16.76↑; Leningrad, gr. 15.17 (corroded)↑


  • *Berlin, gr. 16.83↑; London (BMC 281; Sv. 35, 3), gr. 16.88↑1
  • *Commerce Beirut 1953


  • *ANS, gr. 16.26↑
  • ANS, gr. 16.42↑
  • London (BMC 284), gr. 16.06↑
  • Bartlett Coll.


(figure) a.*ANS-ETN, gr. 16.94↑

(figure) b. L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 15.97

(figure)c. Brooklyn Mus.



*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

End Notes

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.

figure GRAIN-EAR 187/6 B.C.

(Plate 7)



  • figure Lockett Coll. (SNG 1904) = Naville (Pozzi) 1594 (Sv. 34. 9, commerce), gr. 16.79↑; Athens, gr. 16.35↑
  • *Vienna, gr. 16.57
  • *London (BMC 290; Sv. 34. 8). gr. 16.78↑; Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 903, gr. 16.90
  • Berlin, gr. 16.38↑
  • Stockholm, gr. 16.92↑
  • Damascus Collector
  • Leningrad, gr. 16.42 ↖


  • *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.97↑
  • Tüblingen, gr. 16.18; Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 2; Sv. 34, 7), gr. 16.70
  • Athens (Delos Hd. B, 1; Sv. 34, 6). gr. 16.40
  • figure Berlin, gr. 16.10↑
  • Berlin, gr. 16.64↑


  • *Griffen Coll.; Empedocles Coll. = Mavrokordatou Coll. (JIAN, 1912, 1296), gr. 16.12
  • *Natl. Mus. Lebanon
  • Berry Coll, gr. 16.99↑
  • Bucharest, gr. 16.68


*Benson Coll, gr. 16.76↑


* Cambridge (Grose 5898), gr. 16.88↑


  • *Empedocles Coll.
  • *Paris, gr. 16.73↑
  • Petsalis Coll, gr. 15.76 ↗
  • Herakleiom (Sv. 34, 10), gr. 16.80

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 figure 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 figure, 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).

End Notes

1 Svoronos (JIAN 1907, p. 212) reads the monograms on the drachm as MATX and PEY. figure would seem a clumsy way of rendering the first letters, and the suggested order of the last three surely cannot be right.

figure CAPS OF THE DIOSCURI 186/5 B.C.

(Plate 8)



  • *Munich (Sv. 37, 1), gr. 16.92
  • The Hague, gr. 16.80
  • ANS-ETN, gr. 16.18 ↗
  • Athens (Delos Hd. B, 11; Sv. 37, 4), gr. 16.60


*Berlin (Sv. 37, 2), gr. 16.77; Commerce 1955


  • Frankfurt am Main, gr. 15.64↑
  • *Empedocles Coll.
  • Univ. of Pa. = Sotheby (White-King) 174, gr. 16.46
  • Commerce Beirut 1953
  • Berlin, gr. 16.45


  • *Copenhagen (SNG 115; Sv. 37, 3), gr. 16.74↑
  • London (BMC 296), gr. 16.35↑
  • figure Romanos Coll. (Sv. 37, 5), gr. 16.65


  • *von Post Coll, gr. 16.90↑
  • Oxford, gr. 15.86 (pierced)↑
  • Johns Hopkins Univ., gr. 16.84; Istanbul, gr. 16.72↑


  • *Giesecke Coll. = Hess, Mar. 1918, 480 = Merzbacher, Nov. 1909, 2984, gr. 16.61; Stack’s (Sobernheim) 385 = Stack’s (South) 609 (restruck, probably on an Alexander), gr. 16.68 ↗
  • Kambanis Coll. = Ciani, Oct. 1920, 59; Berlin, gr. 15.80 (pierced)
  • ANS-ETN, gr. 16.53 ↗
  • Leningrad, gr. 16.09 ↗


  • *Empedocles Coll.
  • ANS-ETN, gr. 15.63↑; Rhode Is. School of Design = Naville (BM dupl.) 2011, gr. 16.05


*ANS = Hirsch (Lambros) 462 = Warren (Regling 855), gr. 16.61↑


  • *Berry Coll., gr. 16.92↑
  • Dewing Coll, gr. 16.49↑; Athens, gr. 15.95↑

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.

figure CICADA 185/4 B.C.

(Plate 9)



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


figure 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↑
figure g. ? on amphora Amsterdam (Boissevain 47), gr. 15.88


E on amphora *Bucharest, gr. 16.30


a. on amphora Münz. u. Med. List 150, 10; *Berlin (Sv. 37, 8), letter uncertain, gr. 16.99
figure b. I on amphora Glasgow (Hunt. 75; Sv. 37, 12), gr. 16.26↑
c. ? on amphora Berlin, gr. 15.99


I on amphora Kambanis Coll.; *Oxford (Sv. 37, 10), letter uncertain, gr. 16.20↑


a. K on amphora *Munich (Sv. 37, 13), gr. 16.34; Empedocles Coll, letter uncertain
b. ? on amphora ANS-ETN, gr. 16.62↑


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↑


figure a. 1 on amphora Glasgow (Hunt. 74; Sv.37, 15), gr. 16.47 ↗; Paris, letter uncertain, gr. 16.04↑
b. ? on amphora *Paris, gr. 16.15↑


? on amphora *Berry Coll., gr. 16.20 ↗


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).

figure is identical with the second monogram of the Nike striking four years earlier. Probably the same man — Hypsimos? —is serving again as mint magistrate.

End Notes

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.

figure SERPENTS 184/8 B.C.

(Plate 10)



a. A on amphora *Sotheby (Montagu) 389 = Photiadès 595. gr. 16.78
b. A on amphora London, gr. 15.78↑; Berlin, gr. 16.98


A on amphora *Copenhagen (SNG 112; Sv. 35, 12), gr. 16.82↑


B on amphora *Giesecke Coll. (Sv. 35, 13) = Hirsch (Rhousopoulos) 2032, gr. 16.92


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


a. Γ on amphora *Am. Univ. Beirut, gr. 16.25↑
b. ? on amphora Athens


figure a. Z on amphora *ANS, gr.16.50↑; Hirsch (Sv. 35, 20), letter uncertain, gr. 16.90
figure b. ? on amphora Leningrad, gr. 15.36 (corroded)↑


a. H on amphora *Brussels (Sv. 35,15), gr. 16.66; L. Meletopoulos Coll. = Mavrokordatou Coll. (JIAN, 1912, 1302), gr.15.75; Berry Coll, letter uncertain, gr. 16.20↑
b. H on amphora Empedocles Coll. = Weber 3513 (Sv. 35, 16), gr. 16.54
c. on amphora ANS-ETN, gr. 16.46↑; Romanos Coll.
d. on amphora Münster Landesmuseum, gr. 16.36
e. on amphora Berlin, gr. 16.57
f. ? on amphora Athens, gr. 16.90; Ball VI, 273, gr. 15.90
g. ? on amphora Natl Mus. Lebanon figure
h. I on amphora Breslau (Sv. 35, 21); Leningrad, gr. 16.44↑


I on amphora *Commerce 1955, gr. 16.60↑; The Hague, letter uncertain, gr. 16.40


I on amphora *ANS-ETN, gr.16.40↑; Cambridge (Grose 5899), letter uncertain, gr. 16.00↑


a. 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


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


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 figure monogram of this striking with the figure (ΦANI) of the third issue of coinage. figure 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.

End Notes

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.

figure TERM OF HERMES 183/2 B.C.

(Plate 11)



(figure) a. Γ on amphora *Leningrad, gr. 16.85 (pierced)↑; Paris, letter uncertain, gr. 16.88 (pierced)↗
(figure) b. ? on amphora Empedocles Coll.
(figure) c. ? on amphora *Commerce Beirut 1953, gr. 16.67↑
d. ? on amphora Ferguson Coll.


(figure) a. ? on amphora *Berry Coll., gr. 17.10↑
b. figure on amphora Empedocles Coll.


a. ? on amphora *London (BMC 285), gr. 16.67 ↖
b. figure on amphora *Commerce Beirut 1952
c. ? on amphora Feuardent (Engel-Gros) 52
d. ? on amphora Berlin, gr. 15.99↑


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


a. E on amphora *Berlin (Sv. 36, 2), gr. 16.60
b. figure on amphora Paris, gr. 16.17↑


a. figure on amphora *Leningrad, gr. 16.76↑
b. figure on amphora Petsalis Coll.; Berlin, gr. 16.70↑
c. figure on amphora Glasgow (Hunt. 65; Sv. 36, 1), gr. 16.80↑
d. H on amphora Athens (Sv. 86, 4), gr. 17.05


a. on amphora *Paris (Sv. 36, 5), gr. 16.91 ↗
b. ! on amphora *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.94↑
(figure) c. ? on amphora Athens, gr. 16.79↑



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.

End Notes

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)



a. No lettering visible *Copenhagen (SNG 125; Sv. 39, 10), gr. 16.37↑
b. No lettering visible Leningrad, gr. 15.44 (corroded)↑


No lettering visible *Romanos Coll.; Berlin


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


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


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


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


Ạ on amphora * Paris, gr. 16.18↑


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.

ΠO˄Y - TIfigure PALM BEHIND OWL 181/0 B.C.

(Plate 13)


101 X.

ḄẠ below amphora *Totten Coll.


a. BA below amphora Athens, gr. 16.50↑
b. BM below amphora Paris (de Luynes 2076), gr. 16.60↑
c. M 1. field; B below amphora *London, gr. 16.54 ↗; Glasgow (Hunt. 80; Sv. 88, 19), gr. 17.24↑
d. Probably same London (BMC 306), gr. 16.82↑
e. M 1. field; Γ below amphora Commerce Beirut 1953
f. ? 1. field; Γ below amphora Commerce Beirut 1953
g. A 1. field; figure below amphora Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.81↑
h. E 1. field; figure below amphora Turin (Mus. Ant., Fabretti 3056), gr. 16.71


AP Δ below amphora *Berlin, gr. 16.65


a. Z 1. field; ME on amphora *Tübingen (Sv. 38, 12), gr. 16.63
b. Z 1. field; EP on amphora Berlin (Sv. 88, 11), gr. 16.65; Athens, letters on amphora uncertain, gr. 15.54↑
c. figure 1. field; ? on amphora Herakleion (Sv. 38, 13), gr. 16.90 ↖
d. ? 1. field.; ? on amphora Amer. Univ. Beirut, gr. 15.95↑


Z1 1. field; ? on amphora *Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 6), gr. 16.50↑; Damascus Collector


a. Z 1. field; EP on amphora London = Ratto (Rogers) 344, gr. 16.73↑; London, gr. 16.33↑
b. H 1. field; Afigure 2 on amphora *London (BMC 305; Sv. 38, 14) gr. 16.78↑
c. H 1. field; Efigure 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; Efigure 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


a. ⊖ 1. field; ΦϽ1 on amphora *London (BMC 304), gr. 16.66↑
(ΠO-TIfigure b. ⊖ 1. field; figure 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. figure 3 1. field; ? on amphora *ANS (restruck, under type uncertain), gr. 16.39↑


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


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↑


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 - TIfigure 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 TIfigure 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.

End Notes

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 Svoronos reads figure but it seems to be a zeta.
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)



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


IΩ below (MH *ANS, gr. 16.40↑ erased 1. field)


ΠP 1. field *Paris, gr. 16.47↑


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


a. E 1. field Petsalis Coll. (countermarked) 2, gr. 16.56 ↖; Damascus Collector
b. E 1. field Copenhagen (SNG 126), gr. 16.68↑
c. 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↑


a. MH below *Berlin, gr. 16.24
b. MH 1. field Leningrad, gr. 16.45↑
c. 1. field Leningrad, gr. 16.21↑


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↑


a. EY 1. field *Paris, gr. 16.48↑; Vatican
b. figureΩ 1. field London = Glendining, July 15, 1929, 374, gr. 16.54↑
c. figureΩ 1. field ANS = de Nanteuil 925 = Naville (Pozzi) 1598, gr 16.63↑
d. ΠPO below ANS-Gautier, gr. 16.55↑
e. ΠPO 1. field Athens, gr. 16.75↑


a. MH 1. field Empedocles Coll.
b. EY 1. field *Berlin, gr. 16.55; ANS-ETN, gr. 16.79↑
c. 1. field Gotha, gr. 16.60
d. 1. field Berlin, gr. 16.63


a. EY 1. field *Berry Coll., gr. 16.98↑
b. 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↑


a. EY 1. field Vatican
b. ? *Ferguson Coll.


a. EY below *Bucharest, gr. 16.56
b. 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 figureΩ 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.

End Notes

1 The monogram in its common form, figure, does not seem to include an alpha. However, on the earliest reverses, those associated with Obverse 102, the rendering is somewhat different: figure. Here it is possible to supply the A from figure
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))



a. EY 1. field *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 16. 81↑; Berlin, gr. 16.21
b. MH 1. field *Paris, gr. 16.52↑
c. Πfigure 1. field London (BMC 309), gr. 16.62↑


a. ΠPO below *Athens Salamis Hd.), gr.16.32↑
b. figure 1 1. field London (BMC 310), gr. 16.93↑; Athens, gr. 15.20 (crys- tallized)↑


a. EY 1. field *Leningrad (Sv. 39, 5), gr. 16.65
b. ΠPO 1. field Kricheldorf III, 1186, gr. 16.71


a. MH below *Kambanis Coll.
b. MH below Romanos Coll. (Sv. 39, 4), gr. 15.80
c. figureΩ below London, gr. 15.96 ↖
d. figure 1. field Berlin, gr. 16.02


a. MH below *Milan; Berlin, gr. 16.64
b. figureΩ below ANS-ETN, gr. 16.52↑
c. figure figure below Athens, gr. 15.55 (crystallized)↑
d. EY below *Commerce Beirut 1955
e. ẸỴ below Turin (Mus. Ant., Fabretti 8057), gr. 16.21


a. EY below *Glasgow (Hunt. 84; Sv. 39, 2), gr. 16.78 ↖
b. ? below Athens, gr. 16.80↑


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. below Athens (Sv. 39, 1), )gr. 15.55


? 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 figure 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

End Notes

1 Read as ΣΩ but in reality figureΩ.


(Plate 16) Tetradrachms






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


a. ΠPO 1.field *Ratto (Rogers) 851, gr. 16.35
b. MH below *Cambridge (Grose 5921; Sv. 43, 6), gr. 16.39↑


a. KTH below Damascus
b. figure 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↑


a. ΠP 1. field Athens, gr. 15.45↑
b. KT 1. field *London, gr. 16.69↑


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)↑


a. EY 1. field *Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 16.85↑
b. EY below Gotha, gr. 16.62


a. EY 1. field *Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 16.15↑
b. MẸ below London (BMC 512), gr. 16.65↑


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↑


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 figure 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)




  • *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.16↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.27↑
  • ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.23↑
  • ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.25↑
  • ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.19↑



  • *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.18↑
  • ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.17↑
  • ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.07↑



  • *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.12↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.13↑
  • ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.11↑; Commerce (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.12↑
  • ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 3.86↑
  • ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.19↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.23↑
  • Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 3.96↑
  • ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.15↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.13↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.19↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.17↑; Berlin (Sv. 34, 11), gr. 4.20
  • ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.19↑
  • Berlin, gr. 3.69
  • Berlin, gr. 4.03



  • *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.28↑; Vienna, gr. 3.95
  • Baltatzi Coll. (Sv. 34, 12), gr. 3.75
  • ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.14↑
  • ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.13↑; Commerce (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.20↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.03↑
  • ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.21↑; L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 3.35 (corroded)
  • ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.13↑



  • *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.24↑
  • Romanos Coll. (Sv. 34, 13), gr. 3.44
  • ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.06↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.17↑; Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 4.13↑; Naville (BM dupl.) 2010, gr. 4.13, probably = Ratto, May 1912, 760, gr. 4.13
  • Benson Coll. = Helbing (Hermann) 2965, gr. 3.78↑; The Hague; Gotha, gr. 3.42 (pierced)


(6) *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.15→


(7) *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.21↑; L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 4.03

46 drachms: 7 obverse, 21 reverse dies


(8) Σ 1. field *Cambridge (Grose 5901; Sv. 34, 25), gr. 4.28↑



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↑



a. No letter *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 3.81↑
b. No letter Commerce (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.30↑
c. figure 1. field ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.21↑; Commerce (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.31↑; Noe Coll., gr. 3.61↑; Copenhagen (SNG 121), gr. 3.87 (pierced)↑; Glymenopoulos Coll. (Sv. 34, 17), gr. 4.10; ANS, gr. 4.00↑
d. Σ 1. field ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.04↗



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↑



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


(13 ) ∆ 1. field *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.18↑



a. No letter *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.14↑
b. No letter ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.20↑
c. Z 1. field ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.23↑
d. figure 1. field ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.02↗
e. Γ 1. field ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.33↑
f. Σ 1. field ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.34↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.35↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 3.92↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.17↑; Commerce (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.08↑; London = Ratto (Rogers) 346, gr. 3.44
g. ≡ 1. field ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.18↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.14↑



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↑



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↑



H 1. field *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.19↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 3.68↑; ANS (Atttic Hd.), gr. 4.13↑



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



A 1. field *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.08↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.09↑



a. figure 1. field *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.04↑; ANS, gr. 3.40↑
b. figure 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


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, figure, ΔIOΦA – ΔIOΔO, ΔHMH – IEPΩ, figure, 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 figure – ∧YΣIA and figure 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 figure - ∧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.

End Notes

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 This letter is more likely figure placed sideways than N.
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)



a. EP below *Chiha Coll.; The Hague (Sv. 38, 1), gr. 16.90; Leningrad, control letters uncertain, gr. 16.77↑
b. 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


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. figure (?) EP2 below Athens (Delos Hd. B, 12), broken


Γ EP 1. field *Glasgow (Hunt. 81; Sv. 38, 3), gr. 16.97↑


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 ↗


a. E Tl below *de Laval Coll. = Ratto, Feb. 1928, 446, gr. 16.73
b. E AP below Damascus


E(?) AN below *Kambanis Coll.


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


EP below *ANS-ETN, gr. 14.363↑1


a. ⊖(?) AP below *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.76↗
b. ? AP below Sophia (Sv. 38, 10)
c. ? EP 1.field Commerce Beirut 1953


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


? AN 1. field *Meletopoulos Coll. (Sv. 38, 7)


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 - TIfigure 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 figure 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).

End Notes

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.

figure FILLETED THYRSOS 176/5 B.C.

(Plates 19–20)



A TIΓ1 1. field *Paris (Sv. 37, 16), gr. 16.47↑


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


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


a. I AN below Oxford, gr. 16.36↑
b. ? EP below *Feuardent (Burel) 181


figure EY below *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 16.88↑


H AN below *Berlin, gr. 16.36↑


a. K EP below *L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.02
b. K ME below Oxford, gr. 16.70↑


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↑


a. K KE below ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.05 ↖
(figure) b. ? ME below *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.23↑
c. ? AN below Berlin, gr. 16.42↑
d. ? EY below Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 16.55↑


a. M ΣΩ below *Berry Coll, gr. 16.65↑
b. M ME 1. field Leningrad (Sv. 37, 20), gr. 15.60


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↑


(figure) ? ME below *Damascus


(figure) ? EP below *Damascus Collector


(figure) a. ? TIΓ below *London (BMC 288), gr. 16.30↑
(figure) b. ? EP below Hirsch (Weber) 1673 = Sv.37, 18, gr.16.67
c. ? ẸỴ below Damascus Collector
d. ? ? Oxford, piece missing↑



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 figure-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. figure is probably ∆IOKΛH[Σ], in which case the omission of the top horizontal on three reverses is a major error.

End Notes

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.

∆IOΦA - ∆IO∆O APOLLO 175/4 B.C.

(Plates 20–21)



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↑


a. A EY below Geneva, gr. 16.47
b. B below *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 16.82↑
c. Γ E below Commerce Beirut 1952
d. below Glasgow (Hunt. 89), gr. 16.45 ↗
e. ? ΠPO below Berlin, gr. 16.36
f. ? ? Commerce Beirut 1953


a. ? below ANS-ETN, gr. 16.76↑; Berlin, gr. 16.20
b. ? E below Leningrad (Sv.41, 23, rev. only), gr. 13.682
c. ? 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↑


a. figure EY below Berlin (Sv. 41, 19), gr. 16.81; *Gotha, letters uncertain, gr. 15.85
b. ? ? Commerce Beirut 1953


a. figure EM below Berlin, gr. 16.01
b. E below Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 929 = Sv.41, 20, gr. 16.85
c. ? ME below *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 16.88↑


a. I below *Berlin, gr. 16.69
b. figure 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


H EY below *Commerce Beirut 1953


a. l 1. field *Bucharest, gr. 16.03
b. ? EY below Damascus


K EY below *ANS, gr. 16.81↑


K below *Berlin Coll. of Casts


a. ME below Romanos Coll.
b. ? ME 1. field *Berlin (Sv. 41, 15), gr. 16.39


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 ↗


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. ?)↑


? below *Romanos Coll. (Sv. 41, 16), gr. 16.65


a. ? EM below *Commerce Beirut 1952
b. ? below Cahn 68, 1344, gr. 15.56


? EM below *ANS, gr. 16.27↑


a. ? M below *Berlin, gr. 16.63
b. ? below Berlin, gr. 16.11
c. ? ? L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 14.85 (badly worn and corroded)


? 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.

End Notes

1 The peculiar marking on the amphora looks like a B on its side over an A - figure.
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)



(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 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↑


a. A HP 1. field *Leningrad (Sv. 41, 2) = Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 907, gr. 16.68↑1
b. A 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 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↑


A A below *London (BMC 367), gr. 16.29↑


(No star) a. B ΣΦ 1. field *Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 905 = Sv. 41, 5, gr. 16.70
(No star) b. ? ? Leningrad, broken↑


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↑


(No star) HP 1. field *Damascus Collector


(No star) a. 1 field Athens, gr.16.75↑; *Vatican (Sv.41, 9), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.55
(No star) b. ? 1. field London (BMC 371), gr. 14.38 (PI.)↑


a. B ⊖Ỵ 1. field Milan (Sv. 41, 6), gr. 16.84
b. Γ EM 1. field *Commerce 1959, gr. 16.81↑
c. Δ/figure EY 1. field Seyrig Coll.
d. Δ/figure EM 1. field London (BMC 368; rev. of Sv.41, 8), gr. 16.94↑
(No star) e. Δ ME below Dewing Coll, gr.16.59↗; Leningrad, control letters uncertain, gr. 15.58 ↗
f. Δ ΠP 1. field ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 16.69↑


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 ↗


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


(No star) a. Δ MH 1. field *Commerce 1953, gr. 16.46
b. E(?) Δl 1. field ANS-ETN, gr. 16.60↑


figure AN 1. field *London (BMC 369), gr. 15.74↖; Damascus (Tell Ahmar Hd.)


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.)


M/∧(?) EN 1. field *Vienna, gr. 16.35


(No star) ? NE 1. field *London (BMC 370), gr. 16.49↑


? ΠP 1. field *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.73↗; Bucharest, gr. 16.45


? EM 1. field *Turin (Mus. Ant., Fabretti 3061), gr. 16.14


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



(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


(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. on amphora *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.18↑; Petsalis Coll., letter uncertain, gr. 4.18


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. 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


(No star) B on amphora *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr.4.27↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 3.41↑; Commerce (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.24↑


(No star) on amphora *Athens (Delos Hd. B, 44; Sv. 41, 13), gr. 4.02↑; Berlin (Sv. 41, 14), gr. 4.20


(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↑


(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

End Notes

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.




*Athens, gr. 1.45↑


  • *Vienna (Sv. 33, 6), gr. 1.82
  • Saroglou Coll. (Sv. 33, 5), gr. 1.70

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 figure. 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 figure. 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.

End Notes

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.

figure EAGLE 173/2 B.C.

(Plates 24–25)



figure 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↑
figure d. ? EY below Berlin, gr. 16.00


a. A ΣΦ(?) below *Milan, gr. 16.28
b. A ΠP below *Platt (Luneau) 514


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


a. Δ EY below *Roberts Coll., gr. 16.48 ↖
b. Δ ΠP 1. field Ratto (Rogers) 342, gr. 16.60
c. figure ΣΦ below Zygman Coll, gr. 14.42 (Pl.)↑ Berlin, gr. 15.17 (damaged)
d. E EY below *Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.36
e. figure ΠP below Commerce Beirut 1953; Berlin, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.18
f. ? AN 1. field Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 16.48↑


ẠṆ below *Leningrad, gr. 15.95 ↖


a. figure EY below *Glasgow (Hunt 71), gr. 16.71↑
b. ? AN below Berlin, gr. 16.55


a. E below *Glasgow (Hunt. 70), gr. 15.71 ↖
b. figure AN below Leningrad, gr. 15.60 ↖
c. ?1 AN below Cambridge (Leake Coll, SNG 3197), gr. 16.48 ↖


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


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


Λ(?) AN below *Romanos Coll. (Sv. 36, 9), gr. 16.60


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


? EY below *Hirsch (Rhousopoulos) 2038 = Sv. 36, 11, St. Petersburg (but see p. 89, note 2), gr. 16.36


a. ? AN below *Sophia, gr. 16.74
b. ? ΣΦ below Glasgow (Hunt. 69; Sv. 36, 8), gr. 16.54↑


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↑


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↑


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


? ? *Chiha Coll.



No lettering visible *Stephens Coll, gr. 4.22↑; Athens (Sv. 36, 13, commerce Athens), gr.4.05↑; Berlin, gr.3.70


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, figure, 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 figure 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 figure, 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.

End Notes

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.

figure APLUOTRE 172/1 b.c.


(Plates 26–27)


(figure) A ΣΦ below *Glasgow (Hunt. 76; Sv. 36, 14), gr. 16.79↑


(figure) 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


(figure) a. B ΠP below *Kambanis Coll.
(As above) b. EY below Athens, gr. 16.02↑
(As above) c. AN1 below Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 4), gr. 16.54↑


(figure) Γ(?) ΣΦ below *Berlin (Sv. 86, 15), gr. 16.96


(figure) a. Γ AN below Jameson 2081 = Naville (Pozzi) 1595, gr. 16.84
(As above) b. ? ΠP below *Paris, gr. 16.52↑
(figure) c. Δ(?) AN 1. field *Marseilles


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


a. AN below *Berlin, gr. 16.77
figure b. ? ΠP below Athens, gr. 16.25↑
(As above) c. E AN below *London (BMC 301; Sv. 36, 17), gr. 16.82↑


figure ? ? *Oxford, gr. 16.63↑; Herakleion (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.19 ↖


figure a. H AN below Athens (Sv. 36, 18, erroneously listed as London), gr. 16.00↑; ANS (Attic Hd.), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.83↑
b. ? EY below Wallace Coll., gr. 16.31↑
c. ? ΠP 1. field *Budapest, gr. 16.59↑


a. ? ΠP 1. field *Budapest, gr. 16.32↑
b. ? AN 1. field Glasgow (Hunt. 77), gr. 16.71↑
figure c. ? AN 1. field *ANS, gr. 16.67 ↖


a. K ΣΦ below ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 16.76↑
b. K EY below Leningrad, gr. 16.85↑
c. 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↑


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


M AN below *Leningrad, gr. 16.18↑


(figure - figure) 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


(figure a. ? EY below *The Hague, gr. 16.70; Leningrad, gr. 16.80↑
(As above) b. ? ΣΦ below Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 904, gr. 16.70


(figure) ? EY 1. field *Damascus Collector; Athens, gr. 15.90↑


(figure) 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


a. ? ΣΦ below *Berlin
(figure) b. ? AN below *Gotha, gr. 16.67


figure ? 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. figure found only on No. 251c, is the most elaborate form of the first name. In figure the figure is probably assumed to take the place of the A, while figure and figure are simply shorter versions of the basic monogram. Kitchner (ZfN, 1898, p. 275) reads figure 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, figure or figure, 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.

End Notes

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)



B EY below *ANS, gr. 16.75↑


a. B EY below ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 15.70↑
b. ? EY 1. field *Athens, gr. 14.92 (crystallized)↑


a. figure EY below Commerce Beirut 1952
b. 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


a. Δ ΠP below Glasgow (Hunt. 90; Sv. 42, 2), gr. 16:28↖
b. E MENE below *Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 3200; Sv. 42, 4), gr. 16.45↑; Noe Coll., gr. 15.77↑
c. EMΦ below Berlin (Sv. 41, 4, obv.; Sv. 42, 5, rev.), gr. 16.51
d. EY 1. field Naples (Mus. Naz., Fiorelli 7150; Sv. 42, 6), gr. 16.49↑
e. Z ME below Commerce 1955
f. figure EMΦ below Berlin (Sv. 42, 5, obv.), gr. 16.65
g. figure ME below Leningrad. gr. 16.78↑
h. H ME below ANS, gr. 16.27↑; L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 15.30
i. ? EY below Jana
j. ? EMΦ below *Gotha, gr. 16.30
H EN l. field *ANS, gr. 16.55 ↖
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 ↖
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. 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
? EMΦ l. field London, gr. 16.55↑
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↑
K ΠP l. field * Uncertain (Sv. 42, 9, erroneously ascribed to Paris)
a. K(?) EMΦ l. field *Romanos Coll.
b. ? EY(?) below Athens (Delos Hd. Γ, 163), gr. 16.85↑
c. ? ? Bucharest, gr. 16.20
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. figure 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. 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 ↑
a. Λ ME below *Cambridge (Grose 5902; Sv. 42, 1), gr. 16.43 ↑