When the collection bequeathed to The American Numismatic Society by Mr. Edward T. Newell was received, it was well known that the mintages of Alexander the Great had received the preponderance of his attention. It is doubtful, however, that anyone had a realization of the thoroughness with which he had pursued the objective he had set himself. The representation of the coins of Alexander the Great in his cabinet excels any elsewhere, for it comprises not only thousands of Alexander's coins but casts of unique pieces of all of the great national cabinets and most of the private collections of importance. Even more impressive than the mass of the data was the order in which it had been kept. The purpose of this orderliness is made clear in the general introduction which precedes. This introduction is one of at least two drafts made by Mr. Newell. It is possible to date the earlier one as having been made sometime after the publication of his "Sidon and Ake"—that is, 1915. This one may be dated about 1923 since it mentions having published the study of the coinage of Tyre (1923). Although this introduction was written not long after 1923, it requires but little thought to understand why the work upon this self-imposed task had never been started. In 1927, the volume on the coins of Demetrius Poliorcetes appeared. This was not a step aside, for the issues of Demetrius are invaluable for dating the Alexander types which they supersede. Many of the monographs which followed and which were produced with such ease and fluency have further direct or indirect bearing on the Alexander problems toward which he was consistently working. The volume on the Eastern Seleucid Mints which appeared in 1938, to be followed in 1941 by the Western Seleucid Mints had the same sort of relationship to the Alexander coinage as did that of Demetrius Poliorcetes, and were a further preparation for the plan outlined in the introduction. This became more and more evident from his notes although they are in a sort of "shorthand" of his own. Study has made it possible to follow them with some degree of precision.
The choice of Sicyon as the first city to receive attention was dictated by several considerations—one, that the mint output was not very large; two, that its coinage was well represented in Mr. Newell's Collection and, three, that his notes offered few complications notwithstanding the fact that they had not been revised since 1936, at which time the Armenak Hoard coins were acquired by him—a hoard which contained coins of Sicyon which he did not add to his notes. Sicyon's coinage began during Alexander's lifetime, extended beyond the year at which most of Mr. Newell's publications stop (280) and may have continued to 251 B. C. when Sicyon joined the Achaean League. Of the mints treated by him, only Sinope extends beyond 280, although Seleucid issues for Alexandreia Troas and Pergamum provide minor exceptions. Since no one would have had the courage to undertake the entire problem broached in Mr. Newell's introduction, the choice of Sicyon offered the most logical beginning.
Fortunately for us, there had been occasion to touch upon the coinage of Sicyon in Mr. Newell's published works. The monograph devoted to the Demanhur Hoard indicates that publication of the Sicyonian Alexanders was intended;1 that on the Olympia Hoard 2 illustrates new symbols possibly not Sicyonian, while valuable data are to be found in the volume on the coinage of Demetrius Poliorcetes,3 especially for dating. Notwithstanding all these aids, there are times when it is clear that a decision has been postponed until further facts were obtained. In discussing the pieces in the Olympia Hoard, Mr. Newell noted that this hoard showed "in how incomplete a manner the Peloponnesian Alexander series has come down to us."
Discussion which would retard publication has been avoided, but references to such discussion by others, when known, are given in the notes which follow the catalogue. These notes are the work of the compiler and are not to be understood as statements of Mr. Newell.
Acknowledgment is gratefully made to the many institutions which have generously furnished casts of their Sicyonian Alexanders as well as to the individuals mentioned in the catalogue.
Alexander Hoards —II. Demanhur (Num. Notes & Monogr. No. 19). p. 76. Hereafter cited as Demanhur.
The Coinages of Demetrius Poliorcetes (London, 1927). Hereafter cited as Demetrius .
Brevity is the aim in the descriptions which follow; unnecessary repetitions are eliminated. Since each variety is illustrated, the catalogue will be consulted chiefly for the locations and weights of the specimens recorded. Because the dies were not fixed, die-positions have not been given.
A number has been given to each of the varieties and this number is printed at the beginning of the description of that variety. Thereunder are listed the die-combinations known and each combination is given a number following the decimal point. For example, the first tetradrachm (No. 3) has eight die-combinations— the last of these is therefore numbered 3.8. In the next column, the anvil and punch dies are given numbers preceded by A and P. For this first tetradrachmissue there are four anvil and seven punch dies. Two of the anvil dies carry over to the tetradrachm No. 4. On the plates, such die-combinations are indicated at the bottom of the page. Where the anvil die is connected with more than one reverse die, this is shown by placing a line above the numbers involved thus repeating what is shown in the second column of the catalogue. When the combination is one of reverse dies, the connecting line is placed below the numbers involved .
The next column of the catalogue gives the name of the collection from which the piece has come. Here we have used the abbreviations which served in the monograph Kolophon and Its Coinage (Num. Notes & Monogr. No. 96) by Prof. J. G. Milne. Generally these consist of the initial letter of the city in which the respective cabinet is located. Pieces in the Society's own cabinet are cited as ANS. Those owned by Mr. Newell, ANS–ETN, with addition of GDAM to indicate the former ownership of the Grand Duke Alexander Michailovitch. Pieces from the collection of Sir Ronald Storrs, acquired in large part by the American Numismatic Society in 1947, are abbreviated ANS-Storrs. The chief abbreviations other than these are as follows:
330/25 to c. 318 B.C.
1. DISTATER. Athena head to r. wearing crested Corinthian helmet with coiled serpent decoration.
AΛEΞANΔPOY on r. Nike standing, facing 1., holding stylis in 1., and wreath in outstretched r. In 1. field, youthful figure with outstretched r. arm, facing 1.
|1.1||Al–Pl||a. ANS.||gr. 17.20|
|b. B. (Prokesch-Östen, Num. Zeit, Vol. 3, 1871, p. 55, No. 1.)|
2. STATER Similar to No. 1.
Similar to No. 1.
|2.1||A2–P2||a. ANS-ETN.||gr. 8.60|
|b. L.||gr. 8.59|
|c. B. (Prokesch-Östen, Inedita, 1859, No. 18; Num.. Zeit., Vol. 3, 1871, p. 55, No. 2.)|
3. TETRADRACHM. Head of Heracles to r. wearing lion's skin. Circle of dots.
AΛEΞANAPOY on r. Zeus enthroned to 1., resting 1. hand on sceptre and holding eagle in outstretched r. In 1. field, youthful figure similar to that on Nos. 1 and 2.
|3.2||A4–P4 ANS-ETN (Demanhur Hoard).||gr. 17.55|
|3.4||P6||ANS-ETN (Demanhur Hoard).||gr. 17.30|
|8.8||P7||ANS-ETN (Demanhur Hoard).||gr. 17.15|
|8.6||P8||Dattari Coll., Cairo (Demanhur Hoard ?).||gr. 17.11|
|3.7||A5–P8||a. ANS-ETN (Demanhur Hoard).||gr. 17.15|
|b. Naville I, 1921 (Pozzi), 901, ex Egger XL, May 1912, 634.||gr. 17.24|
|3.8||A6–P9||a. ANS-ETN (Demanhur Hoard).||gr. 17.14|
|b. ANS-Storrs (probably Demanhur Hoard).||gr. 17.23|
4. TETRADRACHM. Similar to No. 3.
Youthful figure as on No. 3, but with addition of rudder beneath throne.
|4.2||A6–P11||C. Fitzwilliam Museum (Syll., IV, 3, 2137).||gr. 17.17|
5. STATER. (Müller No6. 640)) Similiar to No. 2.
Youthful figure as on No. 2, but with rudder beneath r. wing of Nike.
|5.1||A7–P12||a. L.||gr. 8.58|
|b. ANS-ETN.||gr. 8.55|
6. DISTATER. (Müller No. 4.) Similar to No. 1.
Similar to No. 1, but with vertical ful-men in 1. field and A beneath wing.
|6.1||A8–P13||a. ANS-ETN, ex Naville XIII, 494.|
|ex Ratto, June 1929, 247.||gr. 17.20|
|b. Glasgow, Hunter, Vol. I, p. 296, No. 4.||gr. 17.17|
|c. Hirsch XXI, 1210.||gr. 17.14|
7. DISTATER. (Müller No. 5.) Similar to No. 1.
|7.1||A8–Pl4||C. Leake (Syll., IV, 3, 2093).||gr. 17.13|
|7.2||P15||A. Saroglos, ex Egger XXXIX, Jan. 1912, 254; ex Egger XLV, Nov. 1913, 485.||gr. 17.20|
|7.3||P16||Commerce—Platt Fixed Price Cat., Coll. A, 159.|
|7.4||A9–17||A. ex(?) Naville XIV, 198 and Ratto, Apr. 1927, 566.||gr. 17.21|
|7.6||A11–P 19||ANS-EXN.||gr. 17.20|
|7.8||P21||Naville XIII, 1928, 495.||gr. 17.19|
|7.10||P23||Hirsch XVI, 375.||gr. 17.17|
|7.11||P24||Hirsch XXIX (Lambros), 242.||gr. 17.12|
|7.12||P25||Arthur J. Fecht Coll., ex Sotheby, June 1911 (Sandeman), 101.||gr. 17.23|
|7.13||P20||Egger XLI, Nov. 1912, 377.||gr. 17.18|
|7.14||P26||a. Hirsch XXIX (Lambros), 243.||gr. 17.17|
|b. Copenhagen, Sylloge (Macedon), 623.||gr. 17.19|
|7.16||P28||Naville VI (Bement), 705.||gr. 17.18|
|7.17||P29||C. Fitzwilliam Museum (Syll., IV, 3, 2092 = Naville V, 1923, 1385).||gr. 17.20|
8. STATER. Similar to No. 2.
Similar to No. 7.
9. DISTATER. (Müller No. 639). similar to No. 1.
Similar to No. 7, but in 1. held, youth-ful figure with both arms raised, and beneath wing of Nike.
|9.1||A15–P31||a. A. Saroglos.|
|c. Egger XXXIX, Jan. 1912, 257.||gr. 17.20|
10. DISTATER. Similar to No. 9.
Youthful figure as on No. 9, but with olive leaf in r. field.
|10.1||Al5–P33||Coll. Prof. Dr. M. Ros, Zurich, cf. Rev.Suisse, XXX, 1943, p. 21||gr. 17.43|
11. STATER. (Müller No. 639b). Similar to No. 9.
Youthful figure as on No. 9.
|11.1||Al6–P34||a. ANS-ETN, ex Sandeman Sale, Sotheby, June 1911, 113.||gr. 8.60|
|b. L., ex Bunbury Sale, Sotheby, June 1896, 727; ex O'Hagan Sale, Sotheby, May 1908, 308.||gr. 8.57|
12. STATER. (MüllerNo. 638). Similar to No. 2.
Similar to No. 11, but without monogram.
13. TETRADRACHM. Heracles head with slight differences from foregoing issues.
Similar to No. 3, but youthful figure has small die-break beneath out-stretched arms.
|13.1||A18–P36||a. ANS-Storrs.||gr. 17.23|
|b. ANS-ETN. (Pl. III)||gr. 17.14|
|c. ANS-ETN.||gr. 17.01|
|13.2||A19–P36||a. Cairo. Dattari.|
|b. ANS-ETN.||gr. 17.01|
14. TETRADRACHM. (Müller No. 637). Similar to No. 13.
Similar to No. 13.
|14.1||A20–P37||a. Cat. H. Weber, No. 2096.||gr. 17.17|
|b. O. Davidson.||gr. 16.90|
|14.2||A21–P38||L. (Possibly = A 19)||gr. 16.73|
|14.3||A22–P39||ANS-ETN, ex Egger XL, May 1912, 635.||gr. 17.18|
|14.4||P40||ANS-ETN (small segment removed).||gr. 16.57|
|14.5||P41||Formerly Sir R. Storrs Collection.|
|14.4||P40||ANS-ETN (Haynes' Babylon Hoard.||gr. 16.57|
|14.5||P41||Formerly Sir R. Storrs Collection.|
|14.6||P42||a.ANS-ETN (Haynes' Babylon Hoard).||gr. 16.51|
|c. A. (Epidauuss Hoard, Eph. Arch., 1903.) Pl. VII, 2.||gr. 16.75|
|14.7||A23–P42||a. ANS-ET IN (Demanhur Hoard).||gr. 17.14|
15. TETRADRACHM. (Mülller No. 567). Die of No. 14.7.
In 1. field, a barley ear. Differences in form of throne.
|15.1||A23–P43||a. ANS-ETN.||gr. 17.23|
|b. ANS-ETN.||gr. 17.22|
|c. ANS-ETN.||gr. 16.90|
16. TETRADRACHM. Die of Nos. 14.7 and 15.
In I. field, a goat s head to 1. Eagle is facing.
|16.1||A23–P44||a. ANS-ETN.||gr. 17.16|
|b. B. (Prokesch-Östen, Num. Zeit. Vol. 1, 1869, p. 37, No. 71.)|
|d. ANS-ETN.||gr. 17.07|
17. TETRADRACHM. (Müller No. 409). Head of young Heracles to r. wearing lion's skin. Circle of dots.
BAΣIΛEΩΣ in exergue and AΛEΞANΔPOY on r. Zeus enthroned to 1., resting 1. hand on sceptre and holding eagle in outstretched r. In 1. field, star. Beneath throne, . Back of throne visible. Cf. also Pl. XIII, A.
|17.3||A26–P47||Mrs. Edward T. Newel.||gr. 16.57|
18. TETRADRACHM. Similar to No. 17.
|18.2||P51||a. ANIS-ETN.||gr. 17.08|
|b. ANS-Storrs.||gr. 17.08|
19. TETRADRACHM. Similar to No. 17.
In 1. field, wreath enclosing dove. Between struts of throne, Δ and cornucopiae. The feet of Zeus rest on tiny footstool.
20. TETRADRACHM. Similar to No. 17.
In 1. field, wreath. Beneath throne, Δ.
21. TETRADRACHM. Similar to No. 17.
Similar to No. 20, but without BAΣΛEΩΣ in exergue.
22. TETRADRACHM. (Müller No. 1348). Similar to No. 17.
In 1. field, Nike r., extending laurel wreath. Above struts of throne .
|b. Cop. Syll. (Maced)., 734.||gr. 17.12|
|b. V.||gr. 16.3S|
|22.7||P61||a. A. Saroglos.|
23. TETRADRACHM. Similar to No. 17.
Nike as on No. 22. Beneath throne NO.
|b. ANS-ETN.||gr. 16.66|
|c. Spink, 1921-2.|
|23.2||A41–P64||a. A. Saroglos.|
|b. ANS-ETN.||gr. 16.78|
|c. F. Mus. Arch.|
|23.3||P65||a. ANS-ETN, ex GDAM.||gr. 17.16|
|b. A. (Epidaurus Hoard.)||gr. 16.68|
24. TETRADRACHM. (Müller No. 864). Similar to No. 17.
In 1. field, chimaera r. Beneath throne, NO.
|24.1||A42–P67||a. ANS-ETN.||gr. 16.86|
|b. ANS.||gr. 17.10|
|24.2||P68||a. A. Saroglos.|
|b. M.||gr. 16.37|
|c. Sofia.||gr. 16.75|
|24.3||A41–P67||B.Y. Berry Coll.|
|24.4||P68||a. ANS-ETN.||gr. 17.01|
|b. P. De Luynes, INo. 1646.||gr. 16.91|
|b. ANS-ETN (Armenak Hoard).||gr. 17.07|
|24.6||P70||ANS-ETN, ex GDAM.||gr. 16.81|
25. TETRADRACHM. (Müller No. 865). Similar to No. 17.
|25.3||P75||a. ANS-ETN.||gr. 16.99|
|25.4||P76||Cop. Syll. (Maced.), 730.||gr. 17.16|
|25.6||P78||a. ANS-ETN.||gr. 16.93|
|25.7||P79||ANS-ETN. (Possibly = P74.)||gr. 17.07|
26. TETRADRACHM. (Müller No. 875). Similar to No. 17.
In 1. field, Elpis 1. Beneath throne, NO.
|26.1||A44–P80||C. McClean, 3442.||gr. 16.97|
|26.2||A45–P81||Egger XL, May 1912, 650.||gr. 16.78|
|26.3||P80||A. (Sparta Hoard.)||gr. 16.25|
|b. Boston. Warren 655.||gr. 16.14|
|26.6||A48–P84||Mrs. Kdward T. Newell.|
|26.9||A50–P87||ANS-ETN, ex GDAM.||gr. 17.12|
|b. ANS. (Chisel-marked.)||gr. 16.98|
|26.12||A53–P89||ANS-ETN ( = Bunbury Sale, Sotheby, June 1896, 765 = O'Hagan Sale, Sotheby, May 1908, 313).||gr. 17.14|
|26.13||A54–P90||ANS-ETN (Armenak Hoard).||gr. 17.05|
27. TETRADRACHM. Similar to No. 17.
|27.1||A47–P91||L. Num. Chron., 1900, Pl. XIII, 6 = Sotheby 1900 (Late CoII.), 208.||gr. 17.00|
|27.2||A55–P92||ANS-ETN = Bunbury Sale, Sotheby, June 1896, 766 (2). (Cf. Num. Chroti., 1883, p. 7).||gr. 17.12|
28. TETRADRACHM. Similar to No. 17.
In 1. field, aphlaston; beneath throne, NO.
|28.2||A57–P94||a. V. Hollschek.||gr. 16.69|
|28.4||P96||ANS-ETN (Armenak Hoard).||gr. 17.11|
29. TETRADRACHM. Similar to No. 17.
As on No. 28. Beneath throne, ΔO.
|29.1||A57–P97||ANS-ETN (Armenak Hoard).||gr. 17.12|
|29.2||P98||a. A. Saroglos 222.|
|29.5||A59–P101||ANS-ETN (Armenak Hoard).||gr. 17.13|
30. TETRADRACHM. (Müller Nos. 889 and 890). Similar to No. 17.
As on No. 28. Beneath throne, ΔE. Except on Nos. 30.1, 30.2, 30.8 and 30.9, there are small Nikes on back of throne. BA∑IΔEΩ∑ in exergue, except on P111–112.
|30.1||A57–P104||B. (No Nikes.)|
|30.2||P105||Cop. Syll. (Maced. 732). (No Nikes.)||gr. 16.81|
|30.3||A61–P106||a. AND-ETN (Armenak Hoard).||gr. 17.10|
|30.6||P109||ANS-ETN (Serbian Hoard).||gr. 16.93|
|30.8||A63–P111||ANS-ETN (Armenak Hoard). (No Nikes.)||gr. 17.17|
|30.9||P112||M. (No Nikes.)||gr. 16.88|
31. TETRADRACHM. (Müller No. 888). Similar to No. 17.
|b. Leningrad, Hermitage.|
32. TETRADRACHM. (Müller No. 892). Similar to No. 17.
In 1. field, amphora. Beneath throne, ΔE.
|32.1||A61–P116||a. Leningrad, Hermitage.|
|b. V.||gr. 16.73|
|32.2||P117||a. ANS-ETN.||gr. 17.12|
|b. Sofia.||gr. 15.80|
33. TETRADRACHM. Similar to No. 17.
In 1. field, horse's head 1.
34. TETRADRACHM. (Müller No. 891). Similar to No. 17.
Horse's head as on No. 33. Beneath throne, ΔE.
|34.2||P120||ANS-ETN, ex GDAM.||gr. 17.05|
|34.5||P122||a. Leningrad, Hermitage.|
|b. L.||gr. 16.98|
|34.6||P120||A. (Epidaurus Hoard, Eph. Arch., 1903, Pl. VII, 6.)||gr. 16.63|
35. TETRADRACHM. (Müller No. 877). Similar to No. 17.
In 1. field, cornucopiae. Beneath throne NO.
|35.1||A65-Pl24||Formerly Sir R. Storrs Coll.|
|35.5||P128||B. (No Nikes on throne.)||gr. 17.04|
|35.6||A69–P129||a. Leningrad, Hermitage.|
|b. ALS-ETN (Armenak Hoard).||gr. 17.20|
|35.9||A71–Pl32||Yakountchikov Coll.||gr. 17.10|
|35.11||P133||A. Saroglos Coll.|
|35.13||A72-135||a. C. McClean Coll., Pl. 127, 11||gr. 17.07|
|35.14||A73–P136||A. (Kpidaurus Hoard.)||gr. 16.99|
|35.15||A74–P137||V. Hollschek Coll.||gr. 16.62|
|35.16||P138||ANS-ETN, ex GDAM.||gr. 17.02|
36. TETRADRACHM. (Müller No. 876). Similar to No. 17.
In 1. held, Demeter (?) with cornucopiae in 1. and patera in r. Beneath throne, EXE or EX.
|b. F. Mus. Arch.|
|c. Cop. Syll. (Maced.), 731.||gr. 16.54|
37. TETRADRACHM. (Müller No. 883). Similar to No. 17.
In 1. field, Athena with shield and spear, facing. Beneath throne, OΛ in wreath.
|37.2||P146||a. M.||gr. 16.75|
|b. L.||gr. 17.04|
38. TETRADRACHM. Similar to No. 17.
Athena as on No. 37. Beneath throne, OΛY.
39. TETRADRACHM. Similar to No. 17.
40. TETRADRACHM. (Müller No. 878). Similar to No. 17.
In 1. field, Athena advances 1. with raised spear. Beneath throne, EY.
|40.2||P151||a. A. (Epidaurus Hoard, Eph. Arch., 1903, Pl. VII, 7.)||gr. 16.83|
|b. L.||gr. 16.02|
|c. M.||gr. 17.70|
|b. M.||gr. 16.78|
|c. Cop. Syll. (Maced.), 735.||gr. 16.78|
|40.4||A80–P152||Commerce. (Svoronos, Tά Noµίσµατα . . . Πτoλεµαίων, Pl. I, 20.)|
|40.6||A82–P154||ANS-ETN (Olympia Hoard, 69).||gr. 16.82|
41. TETRADRACHM. Similar to No. 17.
Athena as on No. 40. No letters beneath throne.
|b. ANS-ETN (Olympia Hoard, 68).||gr. 16.76|
42. TETRADRACHM Similar to No. 17.
Athena as on No. 40. Beneath throne, F.
|42.1||A84–P157||ANS-ETN (Olympia Hoard, 72).||gr. 16.76|
43. TETRADRACHM. (Müller No. 874). Similar to No. 17.
In 1. field, youth r. with arms raised, holding fillet. Beneath throne, NO. No Nikes on back of throne.
|43.1||A85–P158||a. ANS-ETN.||gr. 17.11|
|b. A. Saroglos Coll.|
|43.2||A86–P159||C. Leake (Kings, p. 5, 15). Perhaps an electrotype.||gr. 16.60|
44. TETRADRACHM. Similar to No. 17.
45. TETRADRACHM. Similar to No. 17.
|45.1||A88–P161||a. ANS-ETN.||gr. 17.06|
|45.2||P162||a. B. (Beneath throne, .)|
46. TETRADRACHM. (Müller No. 868). Identical with No. 45, but die worn.
Similar to No. 45. No bird beneath throne.
|46.1||A88–P164||a. ANS-ETN.||gr. 16.60|
|b. L.||gr. 16.80|
|c. L.||gr. 16.65|
47. TETRADRACHM. (Müller No. 871). Die of No. 45; much worn.
|47.2||P166||a. L.||gr. 16.72|
48. TETRADRACHM. Die of Nos. 45–47.
Similar to No. 46 but with a crescent in 1. field behind youth.
|48.1||A88–P167||D. M. Robinson Coll.||gr. 15.82|
49. TETRADRACHM. (Müller No. 866). Similar to No. 17.
|49.1||A89–P168||L. (Coins of the Ancients, Pl. 31.)||gr. 17.04|
|49.2||P168||A. Saroglos Coll. Die P168 with addition of Σ to 1. of youth.|
50. TETRADRACHM. (Müller No. 867). Die of No. 49, but worn.
|50.1||A89–P169||Formerly Sir R. Storrs Coll.|
51. TETRADRACHM. Head of Her-acles of broad style, differing from preceding
|51.1||A90–P171||a. Cop. Syll. (Maced.), 733.||gr. 16.68|
|b. ANS.||gr. 16.95|
52. TETRADRACHM. Die of No. 51.
53. TETRADRACHM. Similar to No. 51.
|53.2||A92 P174||ANS-Storrs.||gr. 16.73|
|53.3||A90–P175||Commerce (bird erased?).|
54. TETRADRACHM. Similar to No. 51.
|54.1||A93–P176||a. ANS-ETN, ex Waldeck Coll.||gr. 16.93|
55. TETRADRACHM. (Müller No. 869). Similar to No. 51.
|b. ANS-ETN.||gr. 16.76|
56. TETRADRACHM. (Müller No. 873). Similar to No. 17.
57. TETRADRACHM. Die of No. 56.
58. TETRADRACHM. (Müller No. 885). Similar to No. 17.
|b. C. McClean Coll., Pl. 130, 1.||gr. 16.80|
|c. L. (Coins of the Ancients, Pl. 31.)||gr. 16.85|
|d. ANS-ETN.||gr. 16.73|
|e. Jameson Coll., 989.||gr. 16.63|
|f. Egger XL, May 1912, 651 = Hess Sale, March 1906, 297.||gr. 17.23|
|g. Naville I, 1921 (Pozzi), 930.||gr. 16.85|
|h. Riechmann XXX, Dec. 1924, 453.||gr. 16.49|
59. TETRADRACHM. (Müller No. 881). Similar to No. 17.
In 1. field, Athena to 1., with shield and spear on which tiny owl is perched. Beneath throne, ΔE. Throne similar to P184.
|b. ANS-ETN.||gr. 16.95|
|c. C. McClean Coll., Pl. 127, 12.||gr. 17.03|
|d. L.||gr. 16.48|
|59.2||P186||a. ANS-ETN, = Sotheby July, 1909 (Hazlitt), 57.||gr. 17.12|
|b. ANS, ex Hirsch XXVI, 1910, 156.||gr. 17.00|
|c. Sotheby Sale, May 1900, 207.|
|d. Basel IV, Oct. 1935, 633.||gr. 16.92|
|e. P. De Luynes Coll., 1651.||gr. 17.00|
60. TETRADRACHM. (Müller No. 882). Similar to No. 17.
Athena as on No. 59 but figure smaller in scale. Beneath throne, E.
|b. C. McClean Coll., Pl. 128.1.||gr. 16.92|
|c. L.||gr. 17.07|
|60.2||P188||a. ANS-ETN.||gr. 17.13|
|b. C. Leake Suppl. (Syll., IV, 3, 2139).||gr. 17.05|
|c. C. Leake Addenda (Syll., IV, 3, 2138).||gr. 17.12|
|c. L.||gr. 16.87|
|60.4||P190||A. Saroglos Coll.|
|60.5||A97–P191||a. ANS-ETN.||gr. 16.92|
61. TETRADRACHM. Similar to No. 17.
Athena as on No. 60. Beneath throne. OΛ.
|61.1||A99–P193||a. Rome. Vatican Coll.|
|b. B.Y. Berry Coll.|
62. TETRADRACHM. Similar to No. 17.
Athena similar to No. 60 but with round shield covering upper part of body. Beneath throne, AE.
|62.1||A100–P194||ANS-ETN, ex GDAM (cf. Hirsch XXXIV, 1914, 295).||gr. 16.80|
63. TETRADRACHM. (Müller No. 893). Stylized head of Heracles in high relief.
In 1. field, mounted Dioscuroi to 1. Beneath throne, AΛE. Nikes disproportionately large, the one to 1. exceeding its companion.
|b. ANS-ETN.||gr. 16.81|
|d. 33 specimens in Patras Hoard (Num. Chron. 1853, p. 33).|
64. TETRADRACHM. Similar to No. 17.
In 1. field, trident pointing upward. Beneath throne, ΔA. Difference in throne.
65. TETRADRACHM. Similar to No. 17.
66. TETRADRACHM. Similar to No. 17.
Same die as No. 65 with Λ to r. of trident.
|66.1||A104–P198||Brussels (de Hirsch).||gr. 16.90|
67. TETRADRACHM. (Müller No. 896). Similar to No. 17.
In 1. field, fulmen. Beneath throne ΦI. Differences in scale of figure of Zeus.
|67.2||P200||O. Davidson Coll.|
|67.3||P201||a. ANS-ETN.||gr. 16.78|
68. TETRADRACHM. (Müller No. 895). Similar to No. 17.
|68.1||A105–P204||a. L.||gr. 16.98|
69. TETRADRACHM. Notably different die.
70. TETRADRACHM. (Müller 894). Similar to No. 17.
|70.1||A106–P204||a. ANS-ETN.||gr. 16.95|
Symbols: Youth, Rudder, Fulmen, Barley-ear, Goat's head.
The lower limit for the dating of this group is fixed by the occurrence of nearly all of its silver components in the Demanhur Hoard., the date for the burial of which is 318 B. C.1 In 1921, in his discussion of the Kyparissia Hoard,2 Mr. Newell stated that "about 330 B. C.—and certainly by 325 B. C.—a large issue of staters and tetradrachms bearing Alexander types was instituted at Sicyon." No specimens of these tetradrachms occur in the Kyparissia Hoard buried in 327 B. C. The interval covered by the group is therefore from between 330 and 325 B. C. to before 318 B. C.
The only gold assigned to the Sicyon mint by Mr. Newell, if we except the coinage of Demetrius Poliorcetes,3 belongs to this period. The preponderance of distaters is not without significance; other, and probably contemporary, issues of this rather exceptional denomination are found at Amphipolis.
The youthful figure which occupies the space usually given to the magistrate's monogram or the initial letters of the name of the city issuing the coinage, has been accepted since Müller's day as indicating Sicyon.
Müller's assignment is supported in an extended note published by Ernest Babelon in the Revue Numismatique for 1904 (p. 117). The figure is there associated with the youth holding a fillet (Nos. 43.1–57.1, Pl. XIV–XV) although the fact that more than half a century separates the appearance of these symbols is not realized. M. Babelon believes that the attitude of the youth with a fillet signifies a scene of divination through observation of the flight of birds. Mr. Newell noted what he believed a connection between Nos. 13.1 and 51–54 because of the presence of the bird which is to be seen on the later issue, but the fleur-de-coin specimen which was acquired by The American Numismaicc Society with the Sir Ronald Storrs Collection shows clearly that on 13.1 this is not a bird but a die-break.
The tiny figure in the gold and silver of the first issue is very boyish, almost cherubic, while the youth holding the fillet is nearer the age of an ephebe. There is considerable variation in the position taken by the figure—note 3.1 as compared with 3.2, 4.2 and especially with 12.1 and 14.2.
Mr. Newell's arrangement is easy to follow. The gold coins provide the key. The initial issue with the suppliant alone, precedes the issue with the suppliant and rudder. The magistrates' initials A and accompanied by a fulmen as symbol (Pl. II) appear on a large group of di-staters with a single stater issue and no accompanying issue of silver, a most interesting phenomenon whose interpretation invites speculation. Cannot the mint of Sicyon have been supplying some of the "sinews of the Lamian War?
Beginning with No. 9.1, there is reversion to the symbol of the original issue (this time with a slight change of attitude) but now with , the magistrate of the intervening issue. The symbol on the silver parallels that on the gold coinage with amazing closeness. The die-mulings make the sequence indicated practically inescapable. No magistrate's initials appear on the silver. One would hardly venture assigning Nos. 15.1 and 16.1 to Sicyon were it not for the muling of the obverse die with 14.7. The facing eagle on the reverse of No. 16.1 is very unusual, but so is the goat's head symbol. The barley-ear occurs as a symbol at other mints—Amphipolis, Alexandria, and Miletus, for example.
In Mr. Newell's manuscript notes there is a marked gap between this first series and the one which follows. We are told that Ptolemy "freed" Sicyon of its Macedonian garrison in 308 B. C. (Polybius xx, 11–118th Olympiad). After the death of Antipater in 319, Polyperchon and his son Alexander were in control in the Peloponnesus, and it was the widow of Alexander, Cratesipolus, who surrendered Sicyon to Ptolemy (308). Neither Polyperchon nor his son has a coinage attributed to him. There seems no good reason why Sicyon may not have been striking autonomous coins in this interval previous to its control by Ptolemy. Duting the period of Ptolemy's occupation, coins are believed to have been struck by him at Corinth;1 another Ptolemy mint at near-by Sicyon would have been superfluous.
Demanhur, p. 153.
Alexander Hoards — Introduction and Kyparissia Hoard (Num. Notes & Monogr. No. 3), p. 14.
Demetrius, p. 144.
We have noted that there was probably no coinage at Sicyon during the occupancy of Ptolemy I, 308–303 B. C. In his tentative identification of a brief coinage at Sicyon by Demetrius after he had regained possession in 290 B. C, Mr. Newell implies that Alexander-type tetradrachms were struck there by him between 303 and 301 B. C.2 This procedure would have been in keeping with the practice of both Antigonus and Demetrius, and we may accordingly look for support for the identification of the initial issues of the group (those having the star and wreath for symbols) as having appeared between 303 and 301 B. C.
The occurrence of BAΣIΛEΩΣ in the exergue of all the issues with the star for symbol and for all but two of those with the wreath symbol shows that they must have been struck after the use of this title by the successors of Alexander had become general. There may be significance in its abandonment. Cannot this have been an indication and a consequence of the reverses incident to Ipsus? Both Polybius and Plutarch tell of the removal and renaming of the city by Demetrius after its "freeing" from Ptolemy. The star symbol occurs on the issues of Demetrius struck at Ephesus at this time1 and the wreath is another symbol in which it would not be unreasonable to see a reference to benefits received by Sicyon from Demetrius in connection with its transfer to a more easily defensible situation. Further, the number of dies with the kingly reference would cover a period which would approximate the duration of the control of Demetrius. Additional support comes from an inscription found in the Athenian Agora in 1935 published by E. Schweigert in Hesperia in 1939 (p. 35), from which Dr. Ferguson has deduced2 that the alliance treaty between Athens and Sicyon which it records must be dated "late in 301." The mention in the decree of the Athenians of τòγ δῆµoγ Σικωγίωγ prohibits an earlier date. Since there must have been a gap following the ousting of the Macedonian garrison, it would seem to have come during the use of the wreath as symbol, with Nos. 19 and 21 to be explained as due to the exigencies of the situation.
The first of these coins is remarkable for the dove within the wreath in the left field — a peculiarly and distinctively Sicyonian symbol. It is coupled with a second symbol—cornucopiae—beneath the seat of the throne, where this second symbol is accompanied by the tiny letter Δ. This letter recurs on five other dies bearing this symbol, three of which bear BAΣIΛEΩΣ in the exergue. In none of these pieces with the wreath does the delta enclose omicron as in the preceding coins with the star as symbol.
The figure of Nike bearing a wreath used as a symbol is intriguing and suggestive of similar uses elsewher, e. g., Tarsus. A relationship to the seated Zeus may be intended, whereas, in contrast, the figures of Elpis (Pl. VII) and the boy of Plate I face away from him. With the exception of a single coin, the style is excellent.
There are nine obverse and ten reverse dies. It is unusual that reverse die P58 is muled with three obverse dies. Two of the obverse dies carry over to the chimaera issue.
The coins of the group bearing this symbol are connected with the Nike group by the continued use of the obverse dies Nos. 41 and 42 as well as by the carrying over of the magistracy of NO. One obverse die is used with no less than twelve reverses.
There may be significance in that the chimaera, the city's badge, is shown facing toward Zeus, just as did the Nike figure. Such a use of the civic emblem is common at a later date with the spread-flan tetradrachms of Müllers Class VI. Its employment as early as this is exceptional.
The use of the chimaera symbol lasted for the life of less than three obverse dies—two of these dies were used with the preceding Nike symbol. This seems to imply that the symbols changed annually and that die No. A41, starting in one year had been used well into the succeeding year. It might explain the civic and local rather than personal or magisterial nature of the symbols of Sicyon.
Demetrius , p. 64 ff.
Hesperia , Vol. XVII (1948), p. 126, note 39.
The figure of Elpis, the symbol for this group, is one of the daintiest to be found anywhere, and the die-cutter of No. 26.9 must have been a gifted artist, for not only is the seated Zeus beautifully modelled but this excellence extends to the obverse die as well—an excellence which does not mark the obverses of the entire group. The enlargement (Plate XVIII) shows how strongly a sculptural prototype is suggested. The proportion of obverse to reverse dies is greater than in the preceding group—probably an indication that additional mulings are to be expected as further hoards come to light. The use of die No. A47 (No. 26.5) with the Heracles die (No. 27.1) is noteworthy.
Up to the presen, there are but two specimens of the type with the resting Heracles for symbol, and these are from two pairs of dies, although one obverse die is also muled with a reverse having Elpis as its symbol (No. 26.5). But the contrast in the style of these two obverses is startling, although Wroth in describing the British Museum specimen at the time of its acquisition1 says that No. 27.1 is 'almost identical' with No. 27.2. He further states that "the Herakles symbol, as Bunbury has already noted2 closely resembles the well-known Farnese Hercules in the Naples Museum. This statue is a product of the Neo-Attic school and is signed by Glykon, the Athenian, a sculptor who probably flourished towards the end of the first century B. C. The motive of the statue has been usually traced to a Resting Heracles by Lysippus, but for the general treatment, and especially for the exaggeration of the muscular forms, Glykon, and not Lysippus, must be held responsible." Pausanias mentions having seen a bronze Heracles by Lysippus at Sicyon.
This is the first use of the initial three letters of the magistrate's name if we except the monogram of Nos. 18.1 and 18.2.
Cf. Ravel, O. "Corinthian Hoard from Chiliomodi," in Trans, of the International Numismatic Congress (London, 1938), p. 104.
Demetrius, p. 146.
Symbols: Aphlaston, Amphora, Horse's head, Cornucopiae.
For a very informative and helpful explanation of the significance of the aphlaston used as a symbol or as part of the type, see Agnes Baldwin Brett, "The
Aphlaston, Symbol of Naval Victory or Supremacy on Greek and Roman Coins" in Trans, of the International Numismatic Congress (London, 1938), pp. 23 ff. It is not uncommon as a symbol elsewhere on the Alexander coinage, nor is it easy to distinguish the Sicyonian form from others. One of these is attributed by Mr. Newell to an uncertain mint of Northern Greece. Its significance as indicating a naval victory makes its association with Sicyon hard to understand unless it has some reference to the return of the victorious Demetrius Poliorcetes. This is a possibility since we have several of these tetradrachms occurring in the Armenak Hoard dated by Mr. Newell as having been buried c. 280. The regal coins of Demetrius believed to have been struck by him at Sicyon are dated by Mr. Newell c. 290 B. C. (Demetrius, p. 145). The initial absence and subsequent replacement of BAΣIΛEΩΣ in the exergue would fit in with such a supposition, since this usage would reasonably follow the regaining of the control of the Sicyonians by Demetrius.
The workmanship stops short of being fine. Note the apparently beardesss Zeus of No. 30.5. There are interesting variations in the form of the aphlaston. Anvil die A57 is muled with eight reverses by three magistrates (NO, ΔE, and ΔO) and A61 connects the aphlaston with the amphora group (No. 32).
Num. Chron, 1900, p. 278.
Num. Chron, 1883, pp. 7 f. No. 27.2 is the Bunbury specimen.
But two reverse dies with the amphora for symbol are recorded. In Mr. Newell's arrangement, owing to an overlapping of his serial numbers, they follow the horse-head group but because of the sharing of their single obverse die with an obverse die of the aphlaston series (Nos. 30.3, 30.7) they have been shifted to their present position.1 Other occurrences of the amphora as a symbol on Alexander types are found at Chios, Myrina, Temnos, Sardes, Pella and at more than one uncertain mint. The magistrate ΔE has his initials on three successive groups. The workmanship on the dies is of continued excellence.
Mulings make this series seem more extensive than it really is, for of the four obverse dies three carry over into the cornucopiae issues following. There is but a single magistrate, ΔE, although his initials do not occur on No. 33.1. Six reverse dies are combined with the four anvil dies. BAΣIΛEΩΣ occurs in the exergue throughout. The horse-head symbol also occurs at Magnesia.
Although three obverse dies carry over from the preceding series, the magistrate NO is the only one found with the cornucopiae group. This name has occurred previously—with symbols Nike, chimaera, Elpis and aphlaston, although not as sole magistrate except in the Elpis group. The number of the dies and the use of A74, with its disfiguring break, point to a stepped-up coinage and possibly to more than a single year's duration for the use of the cornucopiae as symbol. There is a steady deterioration noticeable in the obverse dies, but this is not apparent for the reverses. BAΣIΛEΩΣ is in its customary exergual position.
There is, however, in this series the beginning of a convention which is distinctive—the treatment of the throne, if the seat of Zeus can be so called. On Pls. I and III, this seat takes the form of a stool or square bench. Although the head of Zeus is usually in profile or almost so, the upper portion of his body is shown facing, to accommodate the holding of his sceptre, while his legs are turned so that they are on the side rather than the front of the seat.
A notable change had taken place at Sicyon by the time the coins on Plate IV had been struck—i. e., about 303. The lower portion of the throne had by that time become more substantial and a back had been provided, increasing the die-cutter's difficulties. Frequently the part played by the back in the composition is minimized, either by making it of slighter thickness than the legs or by the merest indication of the top of the left upright beyond the right shoulder of Zeus. Sometimes the back is omitted altogether (Nos. 17.3 and 22.7). A cross-piece which connects the two uprights is likewise given summary treatment in many dies, while a similar cross-piece near the top, which is structurally necessary, is sometimes visible behind the shoulder of the god. A problem in perspective results. The designer, as we have seen, solved this by presenting the upper part of the figure as supported by the back, although the head and legs are shown in profile. The treatment of these details as well as those of the eagle and sceptre in the other mints using the types of Alexander provide more variety than is generally realized.
That variety, however, finds a new expression in the tiny figures of Nike which appear on the tips of the uprights of the throne-back. Later, they become very prominent and it is by working back from the later occurrences that one discovers they were introduced during the life of this group. A number of these little figures will be found among the enlargements of Plate XVIII, but a powerful glass will reward the examination of their occurrences from this point onward. Compare the use of similar tiny Nikes on the stylis held by Nike on the gold staters of Sidon 1
Judging from the wear on the obvesse die, this issue with the amphora may have preceded the aphlaston issue also.
Symbols: Demeter, Athena, Youth with fillet, Dioscuroi, Trident, Fulmen.
There are two obverse and four reverse dies, A71 having been used with four reverses in the preceding group and A73 with one. The magistrate EXE does not occur elsewhere in the series. The figure holds a cornucopiae and patera. No. 35.14 was in the Epidaurus Hoard, dated by Mr. Newell as having been buried after 285. This gives an approximate dating for these two groups.
Athena I (Nos. 37–39; Pl. XII).
The symbol-figure which accompanies the name OΛY (or OΛ) is clearly intended to represent Athena on Nos. 38.1 and 39.1. On Nos. 37.1 and 37.2, this figure is facing, but there is slight room for doubt that here, too, Athena is intended. The enlargement (cf. Plate XVIII) makes the details clearer. Attention might be directed to the part played by the spear in all three variations, even in No. 39.1 where a tiny Nike is held in the outstretched hand of the goddess. Is it not probable that the wreath encircling the magistrate's initials on Nos. 37.1–3 may indicate that he was a victor in some agonistic contest? Encircled monograms are found beneath the throne in other mints, and wreathed initials or monograms occur in the field, but wreathing a name beneath the throne may have had some additional significance. The absence of any muling with the preceding group may indicate an interval without coinage. No. 39.1 does not have the Nike finials. In each instance, the symbol-figure is shown standing on what may be considered a pedestal or statue-basis.
The figure of Athena on coins of this group is shown facing to 1. with crested helmet and threatening spear. On two pieces there is indication of a ground-line. The magistrate is EY, but his initials do not occur on Nos. 41.1 and 41.2. On No. 42.1, we have a digamma replacing EY. For the sharing of the obverse die of No. 40.6 with two radically different reverses shown on Pl. XIII, consult the discussion of the Olympia Hoard (p. 35) from which all these pieces were obtained.
This group, with a youth holding a fillet for its symbol is not only one of the largest but one of the most puzzling in the coinage of Sicyon. Its identification with Sicyon is certain because of a bronze coin with this youthful figure in the same attitude (cf. enlargement on Plate XVIII). The reverse of this bronze coin has a wreath enclosing the first two letters of the city's name.
This group may be examined from three approaches: (1) the magistrates, (2) the symbol, (3) the form of the Zeus throne.
The magistrates are eight in number: NO, E, , , , , and . The first of these, NO, we have met previously and over an extended period. His name is found on the series with Nike for its symbol, on the chimaera group, and on those with Elpis, the aphlaston and the cornucopiae.
In two of these (Elpis, cornucopiae), his are the only initials found so far. For the others, he shares responsibilities with one (Nike, chimaera) or with three others (aphlaston). The significance of this is not clear. What historical data concerning Sicyon we have, records constant factional strife and NO's name on widely separated issues is possibly to be explained as a consequence of such party politics. The absence of connection between symbol and magistrate calls for note. NO has two pairs of dies. No mulings have been found. E, the second of the magistrates listed, has these letters joined, with a peculiar stroke preceding the theta. There is a considerable increase in the scale of the figure of Zeus. As with the dies of NO, BAΣIΛEΩΣ is found in the exergue of the first reverse. For the other two, and for the rest of this series and for those which follow, this title no longer occurs. E uses three pairs of dies. Any attempt to see in this a break with Antigonus Gonatas must also answer the query "Why, then, did the use of Macedonian types continue?" Possibly one of the tyrants mentioned by Plutarch may have been responsible for omitting BAΣIΛEΩΣ.
The monogram for HEPA . . . takes three forms, , and . We cannot be sure that it is the same as the HP and seen on the chimaera and aphlaston issues but it probably parallels the recurrence of the NO initials if this is the correct deduction. HEPA. . . employs more dies than any other of these six magistrates, at least four obverses, but no less than fourteen reverses. On three reverse dies, we find the large Σ to be discussed in connection with the next magistrate, . Die A88 is given hard usage; seven reverses are coupled with it, and A89 is used with three or four dies (No. 49.2 seems to be the same or a recutting of the reverse of 49.1, with Σ added).
No. 49.1 bears the monogram beneath the throne. No. 49.2 which has the same obverse, may be identical as to reverse also. It is encrusted so that it is difficult to be certain. But even though otherwise the same, a large Σ has been added in front of the youthful figure in the 1. field. This, as we have seen, is found on Nos. 50.1 and 50.2 but not elsewhere on the coinage. It can hardly be interpreted as other than the initial of Sicyon. It seems independent of the symbol-figure.
The symbol, a youth holding a long fillet, has been mentioned in connection with the initial issue, and the conclusion was that their only connection rests in the fact that both were struck at Sicyon. The varied positions leave no doubt that the intent is to represent a figure in action, but there is no agreement as to the significance of this action. On five or six of the reverses, a bird (dove?) appears flying above the figure and like the large initial Σ, this connotes Sicyon. On three others, a wreath occupies the same position. A bird also appears beneath the throne on Nos. 45.1–3. The fillet seems to be an enlarged lustration fillet and clearly shows a terminal tassel.
Such a lengthy fillet would have to be especially prepared, and such a preparation would suggest that its use was ritualistic. Since the dove was the civic badge used extensively on the Sicyon coinage, it is tempting to see a connection of the youth and his fillet with the bird above, but, as we have seen, a bird also occurs beneath the throne on three reverses, obviously with no relation to the youth. The wreath might indicate that the youth officiating in this suggested ceremonial had been a victor in the games, and chosen for that reason. The enigma must be left unsolved.
The Nike finials to the throne of Zeus are sometimes present, sometimes lacking. Another detail deserves attention. There are 21 ±1 varieties recorded for this symbol; six of these are represented in the Newell Collection and two others in the collection of Sir Ronald Storrs. Many of these are of a superior state of preservation. One of the finest of Mr. Newell's specimens was once in the Prince Waldeck Collection (No. 54.1). It shows clearly a detail which, because its occurrence here can be fixed as before 251 B. C., may have usefulness in dating its introduction elsewhere. The enlargement (Plate XVIII) shows that the legs of the throne are carved with tiny sphinxes. On this specimen they face outward; on Nos. 55.1 and 55.2, the sphinx on the r. leg faces to 1. When a coin is worn, as is No. 52.1, it is almost impossible to be sure which way it does face. As will be seen, this "convention," for such it seems to become at other mints, lasted for but five dies at Sicyon.
The Athena on this group differs from those which have preceded (Pls. XII–XIII). Here, she is trailing her spear, and on it a tiny owl is perched. Helmet and shield are clear. The figure is three-quarters facing (See Plate XVIII). Three magistrates officiate, ΔE, E and OA. The last-named we have met previously (No. 37) and there also associated with an Athena for symbol. There is, however, the difference in scale to which allusion has been made and Mr. Newell's placement is supported by the huge eagle and the position of the spear. ΔE is represented by two reverses and a single obverse which is taken over by and used with four more reverses. On No. 60.1, the symbol is small and dainty and the die-workmanship is excellent, but for No. 60.6, all details including both symbol and Nikes are increased in scale and the die-cutting is decidedly inferior.
A variant Athena, with helmet and trailing spear, but with shield shown in the full round rather than in perspective as heretofore is connected with AE as magistrate in a single pair of dies of only fair quality.
This beautiful tetradrachm with the mounted Dioscuroi for symbol and AAE as magistrate is represented by a single pair of dies. The absence of the exergual BAΣIAEΩΣ and the size of the Nikes confirm its placement here. Thirty-three specimens are reported to have been found in the Patras Hoard (cf. later discussion of hoards) — the ones traced number only three!
Two reverses and a single obverse die represent the tenure of the magistracy for coining by . The symbol, an ornate trident, occurs later—with ΔA and E. On these reverse dies, the throne supports large, almost obtrusive Nikes. The Nike at the left is slightly the larger—the companion is crowded between the head of Zeus and the tip of the sceptre.
Mr. Newell's placement of this type in the series is ambiguous. The treatment of the jaw of the lion-skin on the obverse (cf. with No. 59.1), and of details such as the foot-stool and the Nike figures of the reverse have necessitated its being located before the Athena Group.
The vertical trident with tips upward, seems separated in time from Nos. 58.1–2. ΔA has not served as magistrate previously—here, he has one obverse and two reverse dies. E occurs in the preceding group as well as with the youth holding a fillet. He owns to two obverse dies. Compare also the tetradrachm C on Pl. XIII, where there is very great disparity between the workmanship of obverse and reverse. This variety, like the Olympian Hoard pieces shown on the same plate, comes from a Peloponnesian Hoard of which only a small section was available for study. The style of the obverse die is utterly different from anything in the entire coinage of Sicyon. The reverse, too, is strange — note the treatment of the hair of Zeus and the misunderstood cutting of the throne-back. The weight is 16.56.
The fulmen group, apparently the last of the issues with Alexander types for Sicyon, has for magistrates ΦI and AP. On No. 69.2, the letter appears to the left of the fulmen, having been added to the die used with No. 69.1. The second magistrate, AP takes over two obverse dies which had been used by his predecessor, but with them he employs but a single reverse. This reverse is doubly remarkable. The die-break which connects the brow of Zeus with the wing of Nike is barely visible on No. 68.1; whereas on No. 70.1 it extends from the left rim of the die to the initial stroke of the A of AAEΞANΔPOY. The exergue provides further peculiarities. The earlier state shows the letter below the cross-stroke of an alpha or possibly a lambda. On No. 70.1, we find what looks like AA, with the cross-stroke of the second A fainter than the first, so faint as to suggest that it may have been cut mistakenly and rectified by the cutting of the first letter's cross-stroke.
The only drachm for the entire coinage is reproduced on Pl. XIII from a cast. It is in the collection of the Athens Museum. The symbol is a fulmen, closely similar to that of the tetradrachm on Pl. XVII. The monogram or letter beneath the throne is apparently encrusted, in consequence it is difficult to state whether or not it consists of more than the letter Γ which does seem clear. A Nike to the left of the head of Zeus is discernible. Drachms with Alexander's types at this period are exceedingly rare for Greece proper.
There are four hoards which are of importance in dating the Sicyon Alexanders.
I. The Demanhur Hoard has already been mentioned as fixing the date of Group
I. This Egyptian hoard was discovered in 1905. It received careful study by Mr. Newell who revised a first publication (1912) in a more detailed consideration in 19231 Here, it is shown that this great treasure must have been deposited in the earth in 318 B. C. Consequently, the coins in our Group I, since the latest of them were all represented in this hoard, must be dated before 318 B. C.
II. The Armenak Hoard, 1927 (Noe 67). This hoard, summarized in a note supplied by Mr. Newell in the second edition of the Bibliography of Greek Coin Hoards 2 is mentioned in Eastern Seleucid Mints, 3 p. 23, with added data. Mr. Newel's date of burial, c. 280 B. C., must have received careful checking for this entry, and the large number of Lysimachus tetradrachms which it contained, none of which were posthumous issues, is a basis for this dating. This hoard contained Sicyon tetradrachms with the symbols Elpis, aphlaston and cornucopiae (Nos. 26.13, 29.5, 35.6). Since these must come before c. 280 B. C., the aphlaston type and the cornucopiae may have some implication of Demetrios Poliorcetes' repossession of Sicyon in 290. Mr. Newell assigns gold and silver issues in the name of Demetrius to the Sicyon mint for this year.
The aphlaston with its usual connotation of a naval victory has an allusion that is obvious.
III. The Olympia Hoard provides more complications than helpfulness for this study. Found in 1922 and published by Mr. Newell in 1929, it contained along with coins of Elis, Athens, Aegina, Boeotia, Lysimachus and the Ptolemies I and II, sixteen tetradrachms of Alexander and five drachms. Among these were Nos. 40.6, 41.2 and 42.1 (Nos. 69, 68 and 72 of Mr. Newell's list of coins in this hoard). Of these three, 42.1 (72) was unpublished, and Mr. Newell comments on the lateness of the digamma beneath the throne. He also pointed out that two other tetradrachms—one (No. 70; our A on Pl. XIII), with a bee for its symbol and ΠY beneath the throne, and another (No. 71; our B on Pl. XIII), with a charioteer in a biga and beneath, and with Ξ beneath the throne, have obverse dies identical with our No. 40.6, and these he suggested may belong to another mint—possibly, Argos. Of these three coins, A alone has BAΣIΛEΩΣ in the exergue, and although No. 40.6 has the victories on the throne, neither of the other two does. The tickets for these coins bear no indication that Mr. Newell had reached a more definite conclusion as to their assignment after publishing this hoard. No. 73 in this same list adds further confusion. Its symbol would align it with our No. 17.1, but comparison shows that it does not belong there, for this star is seven-pointed while that of 17.1 has eight rays. Furthermore, this tetradrachm has the Nikes on the throne, and their introduction had not taken place when 17.1 was struck. Mr. Newell did not include this with his Sicyon pieces. If his conclusion be accepted, we must also concede that tetradrachms with the Nike finials are not necessarily all Sicyonian. Mr. Newell's date, 235–225 B. C., confirms the evidence of the Patras Hoard as to the lateness of these Sicyonian issues.
IV. The Patras Hoard. This important hoard is described in 1852 in a letter from Mr. C. T. Newton published in the Numismatic Chronicle in 1854. It may have been on its evidence that Müller correctly assigned many of the Alexander-type tetradrachms to Sicyon since his publication was printed in 1855. If his attribution was independent, this hoard provided valuable confirmation. Mr. Newton's careful description enables a fairly close identification, and a list of the varieties follows:
|Youth with fillet||46.1 or 45||10|
|Trident (points upward)||65.1||2|
The foregoing are described as very well preserved. Among the pieces less well preserved, one with a "club" for symbol and ΦI beneath throne might be a mistaken description for Nos. 67.1–5, although a piece listed as without ΦI makes one hesitate. Two pieces of Philip Aridaeus are probably from Babylon. A single piece with aphlaston and monogram is probably from the Amphipoiss mint. Other pieces may have been for Miletus,1 Pella (?) and Amphipois.2
A tetradrachm of Seleucus, struck at Ecbatana, is dated by Mr. Newell c. 280.
In accordance with the accepted interpretation of hoards, we should expect to find the most numerous of the varieties also the latest of the issues. Hence, the Athena group would be preceded by the issue with the Dioscuroi and that, in turn, by the youth with the fillet. And, broadly speaking, this is the way that Mr. Newell arranged them, for the fulmen and trident groups are probably shorter issues whose representation would therefore be less numerous.
If the number of tetradrachms with the Dioscuroi symbols (No. 63) is correctly recorded,—i. e., 33 (one suspects dittography)—we have an interesting illustration of the disappearance of ancient coins, for Mr. Newell succeeded in locating only three specimens of this variety.
Numismatic Notes and Monographs No. 19.
Numismatic Notes and Monographs No. 78.
Numismatic Studies No. 1.
Newton's I, Num. Chron., 1854, p. 34.
Newtons VI, ibid., p. 35.
Plate XVIII has been arranged to emphasize the difference between the subsidiary symbols which appear on the Alexandrine tetradrachms of Sicyon and those of other mints striking in this period. These symbols have a closer similarity to those which appear contemporaneously on the staters of Corinth than to the symbols on other mintings of Alexanders.
The similarity of the figure of Heracles (No. 27) to the Farnese Hercules has already been noted. The form of many of the other symbols supports the suggestion that they too may have been derived from statues at Sicyon. To enable the reader to judge more effectively, these enlargements have been brought together. There has been no attempt to assocatte these figures with known statues—this is clearly outside the limits set for this work. Discussions of the references to temples and shrines at Sicyon by Pausanias, and controversies regarding the work at Lysippus and of the school of sculptors located in this city, would make a sizable list. Nor has any effort been made to link any of these symbols with the tyrants whose names are given by Plutarch1 in his biography of Aratus.
The general nature of these symbols is civic rather than personal, a condition which might be expected during control of Sicyon by tyrants whose fealty to Macedon during the rule of Antigonus Gonatas must have flowed and ebbed with his military successes and setbacks. Adherence to his cause may have been induced from time to time by concession, but the balance between the absentee-overlordshp of Antigonus and the tolerance of the citizens must have made the lot of any of these tyrants far from happy.
Assigning a date to the final issue of Alexander types at Sicyon presents difficulties. From Plutarchss "Life of Aratus" we learn the names of four individuals prominent in the affairs of Sicyon previous to its joining the Achaean League. Two of these, Timokeides and Kleinias (the father of Aratus) were chosen chief magistrates under a democratic government after the murder of Kleon, their tyrant predecessor. During the year 264,2 the democracy was overthrown by Abantidas who continued as tyrant until a short time before the entrance of Sicyon into the League (c. 251). It is commonly believed that Antigonus Gonatas maintained his control of Sicyon and of other Greek cities in the Peloponnesus either through garrisons of Macedonian soldiers or by subsidizing tyrants who relied on mercenaries. Professor Tarn, however, cites the tolerance by Antigonus of this brief democratic control between c. 274 and 264 as an indication "that he sought no conquests in the Peloponnesus, and was not establishing tyrants for amusement."3
But even if Antigonus did acquessce in the Sicyonian democracy, it is difficult to believe that there would have been a coinage of Macedonian types during its brief period of control, while for the tyrants it is much easier to think that acceptance of subsidies from Antigonus may have involved the continuance of the customary Alexander types as an oblique acknowledgment of the connection. Reasonable though such a gesture may seem, we must admit that the coinage of Alexandrine tetradrachms may have stopped with the establishment of the democracy, and possibly even before. The coins on the plates from No. 43 onward are fairly homogeneous and seem uninterrupted. Such details as the dropping of the Nikes from the finials of the throne-back (Cf. Pls. XIV and XV) and their subsequent replacement can hardly be given significance in this connection. The symbol youth with fillet is a distinctively local symbol and might be considered appropriate for the period of the democracy were it not that the main type is Macedonian.
Mr. Newell seems to have been convinced that the coinage of Alexander types at Sicyon continued until the union with the Achaean League. 1 If this was his considered opinion, a re-interpretation of the subsidiary symbols for this coinage would seem to be involved. We have noted that these symbols are little short of subsidiary types. Not only do we have the youth with fillet as a type for contemporary bronze coins of the city, but the dove, which is also unmistakably Sicyonian, occurs in a wreath (No. 19), as well as in conjunction with the youth with fillet (Nos. 51–54, Pl. XV). The aphlaston appears on the coinage as a symbol at a time which makes its connection with Demetrius Poliorcetes a probable rather than merely a possible one. Many of these symbols have little of a personal nature—the figures of Athena, Demeter, Heracles, Elpis and Nike could hardly be personal badges. The magisterial responsibility for the coinage is indicated by monograms or initial letters. Possibly the Heracles-Zeus type was no longer considered Macedonian and the original Pan-Hellencc significance may have been accepted by Sicyon and other Peloponnesian cities to an extent greater than we have realized. How shall we explain the adoption of Alexander types by the Aetolian League both for their gold staters and for the obverse of the silver issue commemorating their victory over the Celts? Unless some other explanation can be found, we must conclude that the coinage of Alexander types at Sicyon may have stopped before 251. This would not affect the order in the arrangement here submitted; it would compress the coinage into a shorter interval of time.
Plutarch, Loeb ed., Vol. 11, p. 5.
Olympia , p. 20.
The date given by W. W. Tarn, Antigonos Gonatas (Oxford, 1913) p. 361.
Antigonos Gonatas, p. 278.
A No. 6
AE No. 62
AΛ No. 70
AΛE No. 63
Δ Nos. 19, 20, 21
ΔA No. 64
ΔE Nos. 30, 32, 34, 59
ΔO No. 29
EY No. 40
EX, EXE No. 36
F No. 42
HP No. 31
Λ No. 66
NO Nos. 23, 24, 26, 28, 35, 43
OΛ Nos. 37, 61
OΛY Nos. 38, 39
∑ Nos. 49.2, 50
ΦI Nos. 67, 69