THE ALEXANDER COINAGE OF Sicyon ARRANGED FROM NOTES OF EDWARD T. NEWELL WITH COMMENTS AND ADDITIONS

COPYRIGHT, 1950

THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY

NEW YORK

PRESS OF INTELLIGENCER PRINTING CO.

LANCASTER, PA.

It was Mr. Newell's definite intention to publish a complete survey of the coinage of Alexander the Great. For years his research and studies were moving in that direction, and most of his published studies contributed toward the final picture. His way was ever to get all material together first; this he had largely done. With his notebooks, casts, data, and published works, there remains the possibility of carrying out his plan. So one can say today that his work, begun so long ago, required only his leisure to put it together. The American Numismatic Society has begun the task of putting together his material. The hope is to carry right on through the survey according to the outline given by Mr. Newell.

In making a start, however, it seemed best to begin with a clear and easily defined issue such as Sicyon. But this will in no way disturb the actual order of his plan. This city comes in what he planned as his second volume. Naturally one approaches this work with diffidence—a work which would have been so wonderfully carried out by Mr. Newell—but, with all this material available it would indeed be failing in duty to delay longer in carrying out his plans.

The American Numismatic Society expresses its appreciation of Mrs. E. T. Newell's generosity in loaning casts and notebooks as well as for her helpful suggestions and advice. The task of putting together the data collected by Mr. Newell and of interpreting it has been performed by Mr. Sydney P. Noe. We are grateful for the eminently successful way in which he has accomplished this work.

The scope of the task Mr. Newell set for himself and the means by which he proposed to attain it are best set forth in the words of a draft prepared by himself for its introduction.

The term "Allexander Coinage" is both grammatically incorrect and partially inexact for the work of which the present volume is the first. The term has, however, after mature deliberation, been finally adopted because of its succinctness and because the great bulk of the coinage here treated does bear the name and types first introduced by the great Macedonian. To grasp the true meaning of the coinage, especially in its later phases, there have been added associate coinages in all metals which were issued from time to time, though they may not bear types in any way connected with those of Alexander. For it so happened that frequently after the latter's death, his successors struck the bulk of their coinage with his types but added to it, for various reasons, principally commercial, an additional coinage in gold, silver or copper bearing their own names and types. Or again, they would strike the bulk of their coinage in numeraries bearing their own types but added to this a smaller issue, say of gold staters, bearing the old Alexander types. As all of these coins would be part of a single issue and would usually be signed by the same magistrates, it has been felt by the writer to be wrong to separate them merely in order to keep within the strict meaning of the chosen title. Furthermore, these various categories of types, in almost every instance, together formed a single coinage and it would completely destroy all coherence and appreciation of the extent, scope and purpose of these coinages to make a separation based upon whether they bore Alexander's types or not. Therefore, for instance, we should discuss the posthumous Philip coinage along with that of Alexander, because these two coinages were obviously contemporaneous, were struck in the same mints and signed by the same magistrates. Though possibly issued for different purposes they were none-the-less part and parcel of one and the same coinage, and should therefore be treated together in any work which makes some attempt, however slight, at completeness.

No apology is necessary for attempting once more to describe, elucidate and attribute the enormous coinage which bears the name and types of Alexander of Macedon. Although this was done with great thoroughness by Ludwig Müller in 1855, so much new information and so many new varieties have come to light since then, that this would be reason enough to attempt the great task again. Especially is this the case as Müller, following the universally accepted theories of his times, believed that the majority of the symbols appearing on these coins should be explained as the parasema of the issuing cities. That this theory was correct in numerous instances time has only proved the more. But time, the repeated observations of various students, the appearance and study of many coin hoards has also proved beyond the peradventure of a doubt that the great bulk of monograms and symbols occurring throughout the Alexander coinage could have little or nothing to do with the mints which actually issued it. This fact necessarily brings to nought Müller's laborious dispersion of the Alexander coins to innumerable mints according to the locality to which a particular symbol would seem to point. Therefore, we can accept a monogram or symbol as being that of the issuing city only after due and carefully weighed consideration of the length of time it was used, the region whence our coins bearing this particular symbol usually come, the style and fabric of the coins themselves, and the inherent probabilities of each separate case. Only in this way can we reach a definite and acceptable conclusion. Where a symbol or monogram is obviously not that of a city, the writer has accepted the opposite conclusion that it is probably the signet of the responsible magistrate; whether this again is strictly true in every case is hardly susceptible of really definite proof. This is inherently probable, but the symbols might conceivably be at times neither more nor less than arbitrarily adopted signs by which various issues could be distinguished by those in authority. On the Alexander coinage we seldom find the elaborate system employed by Athens which, with its symbols and accompanying two or three magistrates names, makes it possible to show that these symbols belong to the principal one of these magistrates and therefore disappear from the coinage with his withdrawal from office. In the following pages, when the writer uses the term magistrate's symbol it should be considered as having been used in a general way (unless there is a distinct statement to the contrary) for the symbol which cannot be the parasemon (and therefore a mint-mark in the full term of the word) of the issuing city.

Obviously the only scientific method to pursue which had any hope of tangible results was a work based upon a careful study and comparison of dies. An initial essay in this field was made by the writer in 1912 in his Reattribution, where he was able to show that a study of dies proved the fallacy of Müller's system for the bulk of the Alexander coinage. Later, similar though more advanced studies were made of the Alexandrine issues of Sidon, Ake, Tyre, Myriandos, Sinope and Cyprus. The reception accorded these initial attempts at even a partial solution of the "Alexander question," has encouraged the writer to gird himself for the Herculean task of sorting, studying and attributing the Alexander coinage as a whole. The writer is aware of the many shortcomings which such a work will inevitably present. He has undertaken the colossal task both because a beginning must some time be made, and because he hopes that by his labors at least a little order will have been brought out of chaos. It will then be easier for future students not only to recognize mistakes but to rectify them and to attempt a more complete solution of the many problems presented.

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.

New York City
January 4, 1950.
Sydney P. Noe

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:

• A. Athens
• B. Berlin
• C. Cambridge
• Cop. Copenhagen
• F. Florence
• L. London
• M. Munich
• O. Oxford
• P. Paris;
• V. Vienna

GROUP IV.

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.

36.1	A73–P141	ANS-ETN.	gr. 17.04
36.2	P142	a. B.
		b. F. Mus. Arch.
		c. Cop. Syll. (Maced.), 731.	gr. 16.54
36.3	P143	ANS-ETN.	gr. 16.93
36.4	A71–P144	M.	gr. 17.01

37. TETRADRACHM. (Müller No. 883). Similar to No. 17.

In 1. field, Athena with shield and spear, facing. Beneath throne, OΛ in wreath.

37.1	A76–Pl45	Boston.
37.2	P146	a. M.	gr. 16.75
		b. L.	gr. 17.04
37.3	A77–P147	V.	gr. 17.29

38. TETRADRACHM. Similar to No. 17.

Athena as on No. 37. Beneath throne, OΛY.

38.1	A78–P148	a. B.
		b. Petsalis

39. TETRADRACHM. Similar to No. 17.

Athena as on No. 38, but holds Nike flying 1. in r. Beneath throne, OΛY.

39.1

A78–P149

ANS-ETN.

gr. 17.02

40. TETRADRACHM. (Müller No. 878). Similar to No. 17.

In 1. field, Athena advances 1. with raised spear. Beneath throne, EY.

40.1	A79–P150	ANS-ETN.	gr. 16.87
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
40.3	P152	a. L.
		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.)
40.5	A81–P 153	B.
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.

41.1	A83–P155	Leningrad, Hermitage.
41.2	P156	a. B.
		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.

Similar to No. 43, but in 1. field, youth faces 1. Beneath throne, .

44.1

A87–P160

B.

45. TETRADRACHM. Similar to No. 17.

Youth as on No. 44. Beneath throne, bird r. above . Nikes on back of throne. No inscription in exergue.

45.1	A88–P161	a. ANS-ETN.	gr. 17.06
		b. B.
45.2	P162	a. B. (Beneath throne, .)
		b. A.
45.3	P163	A.

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
		d. B.

47. TETRADRACHM. (Müller No. 871). Die of No. 45; much worn.

Similar to No. 46. Beneath throne, .

47.1	A88–P165	ANS-ETN.	gr. 16.16
47.2	P166	a. L.	gr. 16.72
		b. B.

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.

Similar to No. 46. Beneath throne, .

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.

Similar to 49.2, but beneath throne, .

50.1	A89–P169	Formerly Sir R. Storrs Coll.
50.2	P170	ANS-ETN.	gr. 17.01

51. TETRADRACHM. Head of Her-acles of broad style, differing from preceding

In 1. field, youth with fillet; bird flying to 1. above head of youth. Beneath throne, .

51.1	A90–P171	a. Cop. Syll. (Maced.), 733.	gr. 16.68
b. ANS.	gr. 16.95

52. TETRADRACHM. Die of No. 51.

Youth and bird as on No. 51. Beneath throne, .

52.1

A90–P172

ANS.

gr. 17.10

53. TETRADRACHM. Similar to No. 51.

Youth and bird as on No. 51. Beneath throne, E or .

53.1	A91–P173	ANS.	gr. 16.91
53.2	A92 P174	ANS-Storrs.	gr. 16.73
53.3	A90–P175	Commerce (bird erased?).

54. TETRADRACHM. Similar to No. 51.

Youth similar to No. 51, but bird is smaller. Beneath throne, .

54.1	A93–P176	a. ANS-ETN, ex Waldeck Coll.	gr. 16.93
		b. L.
		c. B.

55. TETRADRACHM. (Müller No. 869). Similar to No. 51.

In 1. field, youth with fillet to 1.; wreath above head of youth. Beneath throne, .

55.1	A93–P177	A.
55.2	P178	a. B.
		b. ANS-ETN.	gr. 16.76
55.3	P179	P.

56. TETRADRACHM. (Müller No. 873). Similar to No. 17.

In 1. field youth with fillet 1. Beneath throne, .

56.1	A94–P180	B.
56.2	P181	ANS.	gr. 15.92

57. TETRADRACHM. Die of No. 56.

In 1. field, youth with doubled fillet 1. Beneath throne, . Similar to foregoing but larger in scale. Legs of throne as in Nos. 55 and 56.

57.1

A94–P182

B.

58. TETRADRACHM. (Müller No. 885). Similar to No. 17.

Similar. In 1. field, trident 1. Beneath throne, . The Nikes are larger than in previous occurrences. Pearl-border on P183.

58.1	A95–P183	a. A.
		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
58.2	P184	B.

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.

59.1	A96–P185	a. A.
		b. ANS-ETN.	gr. 16.95
		c. C. McClean Coll., Pl. 127, 12.	gr. 17.03
		d. L.	gr. 16.48
		e. B.
		f. B.
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.

60.1	A96–P187	a. A.
		b. C. McClean Coll., Pl. 128.1.	gr. 16.92
		c. L.	gr. 17.07
		d. B.
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
		d. B.
60.3	P189	a. A.
		b. A.
		c. L.	gr. 16.87
60.4	P190	A. Saroglos Coll.
60.5	A97–P191	a. ANS-ETN.	gr. 16.92
		b. B.
60.6	A98–P192	B.

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.

63.1	A101–P195	a. A.
		b. ANS-ETN.	gr. 16.81
		c. B.
		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.

64.1	A102–P196	L.	gr. 17.17
64.2	P197	ANS-ETN.	gr. 16.53

65. TETRADRACHM. Similar to No. 17.

Trident as on No. 64. Beneath throne, E.

65.1

A103–P198

B.

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.

67.1	A105–P199	L.	gr. 16.83
67.2	P200	O. Davidson Coll.
67.3	P201	a. ANS-ETN.	gr. 16.78
		b. A.
		c. B.
67.4	P202	ANS.	gr. 16.92
67.5	P203	B.

68. TETRADRACHM. (Müller No. 895). Similar to No. 17.

Fulmen as on No. 67. Beneath throne . In exergue

68.1	A105–P204	a. L.	gr. 16.98
		b. B.

69. TETRADRACHM. Notably different die.

Similar to No. 67 but Nikes well-defined, and with traces of a possible monogram in exergue. added to reverse of 69.2.

69.1	A106–P205	B.
69.2	P205	Turin.	gr. 16.85

70. TETRADRACHM. (Müller 894). Similar to No. 17.

Same die as No. 68 with exergual letters changed to .

70.1	A106–P204	a. ANS-ETN.	gr. 16.95
		b. A.
		c. B.

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:

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.

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.

• Amphora with ΔE, No. 32
• Aphlaston with ΔE, No. 30; with ΔO, No. 29; with HP or , No. 31; with NO, No. 28
• Athena 1. with ΔE, No. 59; with E, No. 60; with OΛ, No. 61; with round shield, with AE, No. 62
• Athena, facing, with OΛ in wreath, No. 37; with OΛY, No. 38
• Athena Nikephoros, with OΛY, No. 39
• Athena Promachos, brandishing spear, No. 41; with EY, No. 40; with F, No. 42
• Barley ear, No. 15
• Bird with youth and , No. 51; with E or , No. 53; with , Nos. 45, 54; with , No. 52
• Chimaera r., with , No. 25; with NO, No. 24
• Cornucopaee with NO, No. 35; with wreath enclosing dove and Δ, No. 19
• Crescent with youth and , No. 48
• Demeter(?) 1., with EXE or EX, No. 36
• Dioscuroi 1., mounted, with AΛE, No. 63
• Dove in wreath with Δ and cornucopiae, No. 19
• Elpis 1. with NO. No. 26
• Fulmen, vertical, with A, No. 6; with , Nos. 7, 8; with and , No. 70; with and No. 68; with Φ1, Nos. 67, 69.1; with Φ1 and , No. 69.2.
• Goat's head 1., No. 16
• Heracles r. with , No. 27
• Horse's head 1., No. 33; with ΔE, No. 34
• Nike in r. hand of Athena with OΛY, No. 39
• Nike r. extending laurel wreath with , No. 22; with NO, No. 23
• Olive leaf with youth, suppliant, and . No. 10
• Rudder with youth, suppliant, Nos. 4, 5
• Star, eight-pointed, with , No. 17; with and , No. 18
• Trident 1. with , No. 58
• Trident, upwards, with ΛA, No. 64; with Λ and E, No. 66; with E, No. 65
• Wreath with Δ, Nos. 20, 21; with youth and , No. 55
• Wreath enclosing dove, with Δ and cornucopiae, No. 19
• Wreath enclosing OΛ with Athena, facing, No. 37
• Youth 1. with , No. 57; with , No. 56; with , No. 44; with , No. 46; with , No. 49.1; with , No. 47; with ∑ and (?), No. 49.2; with ∑ and , No. 50; with crescent and , No. 48; with wreath and , No. 55; with bird and , No. 51 ; with bird and , Nos. 45, 54; with bird and , No. 45.2; with bird and , No. 52; with bird and E or , No. 53.
• Youth r. with NO, No. 43
• Youth 1., suppliant, Nos. 1–3, 12–14
• Youth 1., suppliant, with rudder, Nos. 4, 5; with , Nos. 9, 11; with and olive leaf, No. 10

A No. 6

AE No. 62

AΛ No. 70

AΛE No. 63

No. 68

Nos. 68, 70

No. 27

No. 52

No. 18

Δ Nos. 19, 20, 21

ΔA No. 64

ΔE Nos. 30, 32, 34, 59

No. 57

Nos. 18, 22

Nos. 17, 18

ΔO No. 29

EY No. 40

EX, EXE No. 36

F No. 42

HP No. 31

Nos. 25, 31

Nos. 45, 46, 48, 50, 54, 55

No. 47

No. 45.2

No. 69.2

Nos. 44, 53

E Nos. 53, 60, 65, 66

No. 51

Λ No. 66

Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

No. 56

NO Nos. 23, 24, 26, 28, 35, 43

OΛ Nos. 37, 61

OΛY Nos. 38, 39

No. 58

∑ Nos. 49.2, 50

No. 49

ΦI Nos. 67, 69