Studies in the Macedonian Coinage of Alexander the Great

Author
Troxell, Hyla A.
Series
Numismatic Studies
Publisher
American Numismatic Society
Place
New York
Date
Source
Donum
Source
Worldcat
Source
Worldcat Works
Source
HathiTrust
Source
HathiTrust

License

CC BY-NC

Acknowledgement

Open access edition funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities/Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Humanities Open Book Program.

Export

Table of Contents

FRONT

BODY

PART I AMPHIPOLIS SILVER OF Alexander III and Philip II, ca. 332 – ca. 310 B.C.

For Alexander's chief Macedonian silver mint I use here when necessary the traditional name of Amphipolis. This name is used with great reluctance, for I have no confidence that this city, rather than Pella or perhaps Aegae or Philippi, was the source of this enormous silver output. With no specific evidence supporting the claim of any other city, however, it seems preferable at least for the moment to retain the usual attribution to Amphipolis–but with no assurance that the coinage was in truth struck there. A second Macedonian silver mint, usually referred to as Pella, is treated here only rarely and peripherally. This study concerns itself only with the chief mint.

1. ALEXANDER TETRADRACHMS

ISSUES AND GROUPS

The Alexander tetradrachms' pattern, established long ago by Edward T. Newell,1 is of a number of successive groups, each of which includes from three to twelve different issues, i.e., coins with differing reverse markings. Within each group there is heavy obverse linkage among issues. Not every die is known in multiple issues, but with almost no exceptions every issue is obverse linked with at least one, and usually more than one, other issue in its group.2

Table 1 lists the groups and their constituent issues. Groups A through K are listed by Newell's letters as he published them in the Demanhur hoard.3 The next group, not present in that deposit, I have termed L. Groups after L are not included in this study.

The groups are listed in Newell's order, with the single exception that the minute group K is placed before J. Justification for this minor shift, as well as for its continued attribution to our mint, is given below.4 Within each group the issues are listed in the order given in Alexander, Martin Price's recently published monumental compendium of Alexander issues,5 although within each group any order is meaningless, as die linkage patterns show that the issues within each group must all have been struck more or less simultaneously.

Table 1 is organized by inscriptions and groups with the number of coins studied given for each group. The first column in the table gives Newell's group letters, joined by issue numbers (repeating for each group) assigned by the present author. Hesitant as I have been to introduce a new set of numbers into this subject, I have been convinced to do so by the unsatisfactory choices available for describing these issues, which so often form major components of hoards and provide the basis for dating those hoards. Müller issue numbers are incomplete and their order virtually meaningless. Alexander's issue numbers and Demanhur hoard coin numbers give only a rough indication of where in this vast Macedonian coinage the individual issues fall. A system which indicates the group (more important than the issue in any case) in addition to the specific issue should be far more descriptive than one which identifies only the issue and does not always accurately place that issue. Thus B8, E2, and G3, for example, provide more readily useful information than Demanhur's 247, 716, and 1,168, or Alexander's 32, 78, and 110.

The table's second column describes each issue's marking or markings (the primary marking preceding any secondary one, regardless of their positions on the coins). A bold P indicates that issues of Philip II's types are known with the same markings. These Philips are probably posthumous in the case of those similar to the Alexanders of group A. Those parallel to the later issues, from group I on, are decidedly so.6

The third column gives the plate numbers of examples of each issue. The fourth and fifth give the issue numbers in Alexander 7 and the initial Demanhur hoard coin numbers. Issues illustrated in Alexander are marked with an asterisk, and those with whose descriptions I differ are placed where I believe they belong but in parentheses. Finally, as an indication of their relative abundance or rarity, the numbers of examples studied from each issue are given. The numbers of obverse dies located and the estimated totals used, better indications of the original size of the groups, are given in Table 2.

The tetradrachms' types are

Obv.: Beardless head of Heracles r., wearing lion's skin headdress.

Rev.: AΛEΞANΔΡΟΥ (or BAΣIΛEΩΣ AΛEΞANΔΡΟΥ in groups G, H, I, K, and J). Zeus seated l., holding scepter and eagle.

Table 1 Alexander Tetradrachm: Groups and Issues
Issue Markings Plate Alexander Issue Initial Demanhur Coin No. Examples Found
AΛEΞANΔΡΟΥ
Group A, 250 coins
A1 P Prow 1 1, 4* 1 82
2
A2 P Stern 3 5* 56 56
A3 P Double heads 4 6* 91 65
A4 Fulmen 5 8*, 9* 132 31
6
A5 P? Rudder 7 10*, 11* 151 16
Group B, 212 coins
B1 Cantharus 9 12* 254 20
B2 Amphora 10 13* 162 48
B3 Wreath 11 14* 229 16
B4 Stylis 12 20* 240 6
B5 Attic helmet 13 21*, 22* 243 11
14
B6 Ivy leaf 15 23* 266 55
B7 Grapes 16 29* 198 48
17
B8 Caduceus (also in E)a 18 32* 247 8
Group C, 87 coins
C1 Filleted caduceus 19 36* 332 10
C2 Quiver 20 38* 302 24
C3 Grain ear 21 39, 39A 317 10
23
C4 Trident head 23 43* 327 3
C5 Pegasus forepart 24 44* 340 27
C6 Bow 25 48* 361 13
Group D, 216 coins
D1 Eagle head 26 51* 373 32
D2 Macedonian shield 27 57* 395 38
28
D3 Club 29 58* 422 9
D4 Horse head 30 59* 490 27
D5 Star 31 61* 501 16
D6 Filleted caduceus M 32 65 426 1
D7 Caduceus image 33 66* 472 12
D8 Caduceus image 34 67* 481 10
35
D9 Club image 36 70* 427 29
D10 Club image 37 71* 455 20
Issue Markings Plate Alexander Issue Initial Demanhur coin No. Examples Found
D11 Dolphin 38 73* 509 15
D12 Aplustre 39 75* 514 7
Group E, 605 coins
E1 Roseb 40 76* 520 3
E2 Herm 41 78* 716 124
E3 Cock 42 79* 792 174
E4 image 43 83* 536 75
E5 image 44 84* 529 12
E6 Pentagram 45 87* 521 13
E7 Crescent 46 89* 579 54
E8 Bucranium 47 93* 656 92
48
E9 Caduceus (also in B)c 49 99* 614 58
Group F, 224 coins
F1 Scallop shell 50 102* 2
F2 Star in circle 51 103* 895 20
F3 Cornucopia 52 104* 909 76
53
F4 Athena Promachus 54 105* 967 85
F5 Bow and quiver 55 106* 1014 41
56
AΛEΞANΔΡΟΥ BAΣIΛEΩΣ or BAΣIΛEΩΣ AΛEΞANΔΡΟΥ
Group G, 287 coins
G1 Cornucopia 57 108* 1043 111
G2 Athena Promachus 58 109* 1100 107
G3 Bow and quiver 59 110* 1168 69
BAΣIΛEΩΣ AΛEΞANΔΡΟ Υ
Group H, 455 coins
H1 Antlerd 60 111* 1210 84
H2 Phrygian cap 61 112* 1344 181
H3 Macedonian helmet 62 113* 1251 142
H4 Trident head 63 114* 1456 3
H5 Tripod 64 115* 1458 45
Group I, 177 coins
11 P? image, image etce 65 (118*), 1471 40
(119*)
Issue Markings Plate Alexander Issue Initial Demanhur coin No. Examples Found
66
12 image 67 120* 1488 63
68
13 image 69 121* .1512 74
70
Group K,f 18 coins
K1 Λ 71 1
K2 P Λ, image (or image 72 421*, 425, 426 1582 10
73
74
75
K3 P Λ image 76 422 2
K4 ΛT 77 423 1
K5 Λ image 78 424 1
K6 P Λ image 79 424A 1
K7 image 80 427 2
Group J, 147 coins
J1 Grain ear 81 116* 1538 3
J2 Crescent 82 117A 3
J3 Laurel branch 83 117 1563 2
J4 P image grain ear 84 122* 1541 46
85
J5 P image crescent 86 123* 1551 34
87
J6 image laurel branch 88 124*89 1564 59
89
AΛEΞANΔΡΟΥ
Group L, 271 coins
LI P image forked branch 90 (126*), 140 8
L2 image filleted club 91 (127*), 128 5
L3 P image aplustre 92 129*, (135) 91
93
94
L4 image grain ear 95 96 130* 14
97
L5 P image crescent 98 131* 12
L6 P image wreath 99 132* 52
L7 P image dolphin 100 133* 69
L8 P image profile shield 101 136*, (137) 12
L9 image fulmen 102 138 2
L10 P image axe 103 139 6

Succeeding groups, all inscribed AΛEΞANΔΡΟΥ and struck before ca. 295 B.C.,8 were not subjected to a die study. They include: P Λ or image over bucranium, and varying additional marking; P image over race torch, and varying additional marking; P Λ over race torch, and varying additional marking or markings; P fulmen over I, and varying additional marking; and star, obelisk, and X (varying positions), or star over obelisk, and varying additional marking or markings.

As has been noted, within each group it is clear that all issues must have been struck more or less simultaneously, and the die linkage is so complex that it is impossible to place the issues in any linear chronological order. Three typical clusters of coins are diagrammed in Figures 1–3. They come from group H, but similar clusters and die linkage are found in almost every group (e.g., note in Table 1 the obverse die used for six issues in group D). The clusters presented below are simplified. Another antler obverse, for instance, sharing a reverse die with the first coin listed but not linked by its obverse to any other symbol, is omitted. Brackets to the left and horizontal lines indicate obverse die identities, and brackets to the right, reverse die identies. All coins are illustrated on Plates 56.

Figures 1-3

Alexander Tetradrachms: Obverse Die Links within Group H

H1 H2 H3 H4 H5
Anter Phrygian Cap Macedonian Helmet Trident Tripod
image

Figures 1

image

Figures 2

image

Figures 3

A further confirmation of the contemporaneity of issues within groups is provided by the obverse links between groups described in Chapter 3. Issues struck in linear sequence would tend to have one issue in a given group linked to one issue in another. Instead, especially among groups after A and B, the obverse dies forming links between groups were often employed for a great number of issues.

End Notes
a
The caduceus in B has the shape in image; E9, image.
b
This small issue E1 is catalogued where Newell placed it in Demanhur. It is not clear whether he eventually knew the die link shown above (40 and 44), but in Reattrib. (p. 10, issue XXVII), he commented on the one specimen he knew from the issue that the coin's "obverse resembles the obverses of previous coins [of group D], while the reverse is almost identical in style and workmanship with the following [group E]." Once again, Newell's remarkable sense of style is clear, as there is now known a second obverse die in the issue, which was used also in group D: see Chapter 3, link 17. E1 might thus belong to either D or E, but is here left in its traditional place. In either case, groups D and E are joined by one known obverse die.
c
See issue B8 with note a, above.
d
"Antler," the accepted name for this symbol, is unsatisfactory. It often looks more like a ragged branch.
e
See p. 27, commentary on Alexander issues 118–19.
f
For discussion of the disputed placement and even attribution of group K, see pp. 49–50.
1
Reattrib., pp. 5–23, and Demanhur , pp. 26–32, 65–66, finalizing the classification presented in Reattrib.
2
The exceptions are very small issues in groups K and L (K3, K5, K6, L2, L9), whose markings make their group placements certain.
3
See above, n. 1.
4
See pp.49–50.
5
Alexander, pp. 89–103, with the addition of some issues from p. 132.
6
See Chapters 4–6 for these late posthumous Philip reissues.
7
Alexander, pp. 89–103 and 132.
8
For these issues, see "Tetradrachms Amphipolis." Ehrhardt here also notes the posthumous Philip II issues which were struck in parallel with the Alexanders through those with fulmen over I. These Philip issues form Amphipolis group IV in Philippe . The final group, with star, obelisk, and X, may not belong to our mint. Price in Alexander (pp. 139–40) tentatively prefers an older attribution to Uranopolis, but an Amphipolis origin is most recently strongly defended by Thompson in "Cavalla," pp. 40–44.

THE SIZE OF THE GROUPS

Newell's coin numbers, as they are found on the ANS's coin boxes, cast cards, and photo file cards, are provisional working numbers only, and they encompass many numbers for which there seem to be no examples. When I finally consulted Newell's notebook (described in the introduction), no examples for the missing numbers appeared there either. Clearly he sometimes left runs of numbers unused available to be assigned to subsequently acquired specimens, and consequently his die numbers cannot be taken as cumulative and do not show the total numbers of obverse dies in the various groups. For example, in group I, his die numbers run from 660 through 723, for a total of 64 numbers. Three pairs of those numbers, however, were given to identical dies, for a loss of 3. Similarly, there are 13 numbers with no examples known (not in the trays and not mentioned in his notebooks), and I have found 8 additional dies. Instead of Newell's apparent total of 64 dies for group I, there seem to be only 56. Similar situations obtain in each group.

Table 2 shows the numbers of coins studied in the various groups and the numbers of obverse dies identified in each group. "Coins" include ANS coins (approximately half of all located), casts, illustrations in the ANS's photo file, or examples pictured in readily available publications. The number of obverse dies given for each group is reduced by 0.5 for each die shared with another group. The final column, the number of estimated dies, is the number arrived at by the useful equations published by G. F. Carter.9

Group E (605 coins, 193 dies known and 241 estimated) is clearly the largest group, but, if as seems probable, F and G should be combined into one group, then that resulting group would be a close rival (511 coins, 162.5 dies known and 203 estimated). Group L was also very large.

Table 2 Alexander Tetradrachm Group Size
Group Coins Obverse Dies Coin/Die Ratios Estimated Obv. Dies
A 250 72.5 3.45 88
B 212 43.5 4.64 49
C 87 16 5.50 18
D 216 62.5 3.46 76
E 605 193 3.13 241
F 224 71 3.15 89
G 287 91.5 3.14 114
H 455 97 4.69 109
I 177 56 3.14 70
K 18 7 2.57 10
J 147 30 4.90 33
Totals A-K/J 2,678 740 3.62 885
L 271 139 1.95 232
Totals 2,949 879 3.34 1,075
End Notes
9
"A Simplified Method for Calculating the Original Number of Dies from Die Link Statistics," ANSMN 28 (1983), (1983), pp. 195-206, at p. 202. The total estimated dies are calculated from the total numbers of coins and dies, not by the addition of the estimated dies in the various groups.

CONCORDANCE TO AND COMMENTARY ON ALEXANDER ISSUES

Alexander Issue Troxell Issue
1, 4 A1 The prow on 1 faces r., on 4 1. The difference is significant, as the right-facing prow seems to appear on the very earliest coins of the issue. See pp. 87–89.
5 A2
6 A3
8, 9 A4 The fulmen is slanted on 8; on 9 it is vertical, large, and crude. Alexander's illustrated example of 9 perhaps shows a recut symbol. Other vertical fulmens are smaller and more neatly executed.
10, 11 A5 The rudder has tiller up on 10, down on 11.
12 B1
13 B2
14 B3
20 B4
21, 22 B5 The Attic helmet faces r. on 21, 1. on 22.
23 B6
29 B7
32 B8
36 C1
38 C2
39, 39A C3 The grain ear is vertical on 39, slanted on 39A.
43 C4
44 C5
48 C6
51 D1
57 D2
58 D3
59 D4
61 D5
65 D6
66 D7
67 D8
70 D9
71 D10
73 D11
75 D12
76 E1
78 E2
79 E3
83 E4
84 E5
87 E6
89 E7
93 E8
99 E9
102 F1
103 F2
104 F3
105 F4
106 F5
108 G1
109 G2
110 G3
110A The issue is described with AΛEΞANΔΡΟΥ BAΣIΛEΩΣ, and with dolphin 1. in 1. field; the reference is to Reattrib., issue 40 (pl. 9, 8). The symbol however seems to be merely a degenerated cornucopia of group G (as indeed Newell suggested, p. 33, n. 39), cut over the Athena Promachus of that group. Issue 110A is a phantom.
111 H1
112 H2
113 H3
114 H4
115 H5
116 J1 Issues 116-17A are wrongly placed here, between groups H and I. They are merely part of group J. Alexander even, exceptionally (p. 86), notes obverse links between 117A (J2) and 124 (J6), and between 117 (J3) and 124.
117 J3
117A J2
118, 119 I1 Alexander lists and illustrates two variations, image and image(actually image as is clear from a cast at the ANS), of the usual monograms. See 85–66.
120 I2
121 I3
122 J4
123 J5
124 J6
125 The issue is described with AΛEΞANΔΡΟΥ, and with wreath in 1. field and image below throne. The reference is to Reattrib.'s issue LII-a, which there (p. 16) cites only Müller 548. Müller 548, however, has only the wreath, no image, and issue 125 is apparently a phantom.
126 The coin is described as with image and "oak(?)-branch," but a dot is visible on the illustrated example, joined to the bottom of the right vertical stroke of the image. The illustrated example of 126 seems but one of many poorly executed examples of group L, and belongs instead in issue 140, below. Issue is a phantom.
127 The coin is described with image and filleted club, but a dot is clearly visible just to the left of and below the right vertical stroke of the image. The coin belongs in issue 128, so issue 127 is a Phantom.
128 L2
129 L3
130 L4
131 L5
132 L6
133 L7
134 The issue is described with AΛEΞANΔΡΟΥ, and with dolphin r. in l. field, and it is placed with the issues of group L (with image). The reference is to "Tetradrachms Amphipolis," issue 16, which cites as a parallel a Philip II issue (Müller 211), which might seem to suggest that the Alexander issue does belong at Amphipolis. The Philip issue is, however, decades earlier. See Philippe , Pella II.B, 410 ff. The present author strongly doubts that Alexander 134 was struck at Amphipolis.
135 [L3] The wing described on the sole coin cited (here 93) would seem simply to be an aplustre, a symbol whose shape varies considerably. See 92–94.
136 L8
137 [L8] The cowrie shell described on 137 is almost certainly merely a degenerated profile shield as on 136.
138 L9
139 L10
140 L1 The issue, described with laurel branch and image, cites Müller 561, whose symbol is pictured like the single straight upright laurel branch of issues J3 and J6. Two references are cited, the Aleppo 1893 hoard ( IGCH 1516), and "Tetradrachms Amphipolis." Newell's transcript of the Aleppo hoard coins, however, shows a forked branch as on issue L1. Citations in "Tetradrachms Amphipolis" reveal only coins as J6 ( Demanhur 1564 and Newell's list of the Kuft hoard) and L1 (Aleppo 1893 hoard, and Walcher de Mollhein 1061). As no coins with image and straight laurel branch can be located, then, one can probably safely discount Müller's description and consider that Alexander issue 140 is equivalent to L1. Issue 126, described as with "oak(?)-branch" (perhaps a better description than "forked branch") also belongs in issue 140.
421, 425, 426 K2 The three issues seem but three variations in the secondary marking. Alexander has separated 421–27 ( Demanhur group K) from groups A–J and L and placed them at a different mint as the direct predecessors of the groups with image or image and bucranium or torch, etc. See Alexander, pp. 86–87. This separation seems incorrect in the light of the four die links now known between posthumous Philip II issues as group J and others as group K. See below, Chapter 6, links 14–17. Further, at least one obverse die link is known between group L and the Λ-bucranium Alexanders. See Chapter 3, link 22.
422 K3
423 K4
424 K5
424A K6
427 K7
428 The issue is described withAΛEΞANΔΡΟΥ, and with A below the throne as the only marking. The reference given is "Tetradrachms Amphipolis," issue 5, which no doubt is derived in turn from a coin of this description at the ANS which was placed in its trays together with group K coins. Neither the coin's sole marking nor its style suggests any association with group K. I strongly doubt that the issue belongs at our mint.

2. ALEXANDER COINS SMALLER THAN THE TETRADRACHM

ISSUES AND GROUPS

These smaller coins have received but one very brief study, by Newell in 1912.1 Table 3 presents the Alexander silver issues smaller than the tetradrachm: didrachms, drachms, triobols, diobols, and obols. All denominations have the obverse type of the tetradrachms, a beardless head of Heracles r., wearing lion's skin headdress. The various reverse types are noted after each denomination's heading in the table, and shown again in schematic form in Table 6, pp. 34–35. All coins are inscribed simply AΛEΞANΔΡΟΥ.

The first column in Table 3 gives the Newell tetradrachm group to which each issue belongs, and the specific tetradrachm issue number assigned in Chapter 1, if there is an exact correspondence. Some small coins' markings do not parallel any on the tetradrachms, but obverse links among the small coins securely place most of these non-parallel issues in group E, and the rest can be assigned with near certainty on other grounds.

The second column gives the coins' markings, and the third the plate reference for representative coins of the different issues. Virtually all known obverse dies are illustrated, the exceptions being the late issues with image or arrow markings. Issue numbers in Alexander form the fourth column, and asterisks indicate the issues illustrated there. Where I differ on the reading of markings, the Alexander issue number is placed where I believe it belongs, but in parentheses. The fifth column gives the number of examples found in each issue. Brackets to left and right of the plate references indicate, as usual, obverse and reverse die links. All known die links between issues are shown. Issues of which I have seen no examples are shown in brackets, and are not counted among the examples located. The drachms, the commonest denomination, are divided between standing eagle reverse and seated Zeus reverse.

Table 4 summarizes the numbers of examples found of each denomination in each group. Table 5 shows the number of obverse dies located (shared dies reduce the number by 0.5), again for each denomination in each group. It is remarkable how close to 2:1 the coin to die ratio is for each denomination and for each group except group A.

Table 3 Alexander Coins Smaller than the Tetradrachm: Groups and Issues
Corresponding Tetradrachm Issue Markings Plate Alexander Issue Examples Found
Didrachms
Rev.: Zeus seated 1.
Group B, 1 coin
B6 Ivy leaf 131 24* 1
Group C 14 coins
C1 Filleted caduceus 132 37 2
C2 Quiver 133 (107) 4
C3 Grain ear 134 40 3
Corresponding Tetradrachm Issue Markings Plate Alexander Issue Examples Found
C5 Pegasus forepart 135 45* 4
136
C6 Bow 137 49 1
Group D, 8 coins
D4 Horse head 138 1
D5 Star 139 62 1
D7/8 Caduceus image (image ? image? 140 68 5
141
D9 Club image 142 72 1
Group E, 8 coins
E2 Herm 143 78A 1
E3 Cock 144 80 3
E8 Bucranium 145 94 2
146
E9 Caduceus 147 2
Drachms
A. Rev. : Eagle, head sometimes reverted, standing l. or r. on fulmen
Group A, 5 coins
A1 Prow 148 2 4
A3 Double heads 149 7 1
Group B, 1 coin
B6 Ivy leaf 150 2014 1
Group C, 1 coin
C3 Grain ear 151 40A 1
Group D, 9 coins
D1 Eagle head 152 52* 2
D4 Horse head 153 60* 5
D- Filleted caduceus image 154 69 1
D11 Dolphin 155 74 1
Group E, 36 coins
E1 Rose 156 77 2
E5 image: eagle on club 157 85 4
E6 Pentagram 158 87A 3
E8 Bucranium: vertical; 159 95* 1
horizontal; 160 96* 4
eagle on thyrsus? or torch? 161 1
E9 Caduceus 162 (33*), 101 5
163
E- No marking: eagle on caduceus; 164 144 1
E- eagle on club; 165 145* 9
166
E- eagle on thyrsus; 167 148 4
E- eagle on torch 168 151 2
B. Rev. : Zeus seated 1.
Group E, 6 coins
E3 Cock 169 81 2
E7 Crescent 170 1
Corresponding Tetradrachm Issue Markings Plate Alexander Issue Examples Found
E8 Bucranium 171 94 A 1
E9 Caduceus *- 172 100 2
173
Group E or F, 13 coins
E?F? image 174 141 10
E?F? Laurel branch 175 3
176
Group F, 18 coins
F- Arrow 177 50* 18
178
179
Triobols
Rev.: Eagle standing 1. or r. on fulmen
Group B, 2 coins
B3 Wreath 180 15* 1
B6 Ivy leaf 181 1
Group C, 2 coins
C3 Grain ear 182 41* 2
Group D, 1 coin
D5 Star 183 63 1
Group E, 24 coins
E2 Herm 184 1
E3 Cock head 185 82 2
186
E4 image 187 86 2
[E6] Pentagrama 88 [1]
E7 Crescent 188 (53), 90 3
190
E9 Caduceus 191 34* 5
192
E- No marking: eagle on club 193 146, (149) 7
E- No marking L 195 150, 154 7
196
Diobols
Rev.: Two eagles standing facing each other, on fulmen or exergue line
Group A, 1 coin
A1 Prow 197 3 1
Group B, 7 coins
B6 Ivy leaf: in center; to right 198 25, (16)* 6
199 25 A 1
Corresponding Tetradrachm Issue Markings Plate Alexander Issue Examples Found
Group C, 2 coins b
C3 Grain ear 200 42 1
C5 Pegasus forepart 201 46 1
Group D, 7 coins
D1 Eagle head 202 54* 3
D4 Horse head 203 3
D5 Star 204 64 1
Group E, 13 coins
E8 Bucranium 205 98* 1
E- No marking: eagles on club; 206 147 3
E- eagles on torch 207 152 1
E- No marking 208 155* 8
Obols
Rev.: Fulmen
Group A, 1 coin
[A1] Prowc 3A [1]
Group B, 4 coins
B3 Wreath 209 17 1
B6 Ivy leaf 210 26* 3
211
Group C, 1 coin
C5 Pegasus forepart 212 47 1
Group D, 3 coins
D1 Eagle head 213 55 3
Group E, 9 coins
E- No marking 214 157* 9
Table 4 Alexander Coins Smaller than the Tetradrachm: Examples Located
Group A B C D E E or F F Total
Didrachms 1 14 8 8 31
Drachms, eagle 5 1 1 9 36 52
Triobols 2 2 1 24 29
Diobols 1 7 3 7 13 31
Obols 4 1 3 9 17
Drachms, Zeus 6 13 18 37
Totals 6 15 21 28 96 13 18 197
Table 5 Alexander Coins Smaller than the Tetradrachm: Obverse Dies Located*
Group A B C D E E or F F Total
Didrachms 1 4 4 5 14
Drachms, eagle 3 1 1 7 9.5 21.5
Triobols 2 2 1 9 14
Diobols 1 0.5 3 2.5 6 13
Obols 2.5 1 0.5 9 13
Drachms, Zeus 2.5 7 7 16.5
Totals 4 7 11 15 41 7 7 92

Table 6 summarizes the issues known of the small coins. The obverse type of all denominations is the same as the tetradrachms'. The reverse types are indicated in the table by the following abbreviations:

Z = Zeus seated, as on the tetradrachms

EH = Eagle standing r., usually on fulmen

ERH = Eagle standing r., head reverted, usually on fulmen

EL = Eagle standing 1., usually on fulmen

2E = Two eagles standing facing, on fulmen or exergue line

F = Fulmen

Issues in Alexander of which no specimens have been seen by me are shown in brackets.

Table 6 Alexander Coins Smaller than the Tetradrachm: Reverse Types
Issue Marking Didr. Drachms Triob Diob. Obols
A1 Prow ERH 2E [F]
A3 Double heads ERH
B3 Wreath EL F
B6 Ivy leaf Z ER ER 2E F
C1 Filleted caduceus Z
C2 Quiver Z
C3 Grain ear Z EL EL 2E
C5 Pegasus forepart Z 2E F
C6 Bow Z 2E
Dl Eagle head ER 2E F
D4 Horre head Z ER 2E
D5 Star Z EL 2E
D7/8 Caduceus image (image image) Z
D- Filleted caduceus image ER
D9 Club image Z
D11 Dolphin ER
Issue Marking Didr. Drachms Triob Diob. Obols
E1 Rose ER
E2 Herm Z ER
E3 Cock or cock head Z ER
E4 image EL
E5 image eagle on club ERH
E6 Pentagram ERH [ER]
E7 Crescent ER
E8 Bucranium: Z ER, ERH 2E
E8 eagle on thyrsus? or torch? ERH
E9 Caduceus Z ER, ERH ER
E- No marking: eagle on caduceus; ERH
E- eagle[s] on club; ERH ER 2E
E- eagle on thyrsus; ERH
E- eagle[s] on torch ERH 2E
E- No marking ER 2E F
E- No marking EL
E3 Cock Z
E7 Crescent Z
E8 Bucranium Z
E9 Caduceus Z
E?F? image Z
E?F? Laurel branch Z
F- Arrow Z
End Notes
a
Alexander's sole reference is to Reattrib., p. 14, XXXIV. This cites "Imhoof-Blumer," which presumably is Monn. gr., p. 119, 25, a coin of 2.10 g with pentagram symbol. This coin is from an unidentified private collection and cannot be traced.
b
While this study was in page proof, Charles Hersh acquired a diobol with bow symbol corresponding to tetradrachm issue C6. The litte coin is from new dies. It is not illustrated, but it is included in Tables 4–6.
c
It has unfortunately not been possible to obtain a cast or photo of this coin, seen by Price in a private collection, but there seems no reason to doubt the issue.
1
Reattrib pp. 12–14 and 23.

DISCUSSION

It should hardly be necessary to state once again that these small coins, most with eagle as reverse type, are not subdivisions of the rare Alexander tetradrachms with eagle reverse.2 Those tetradrachms were struck to the old standard employed by Philip II, whereas the small coins are all of full Attic weight and most of their markings are clearly those of the Attic-weight tetradrachms of Chapter 1. The type of standing eagle with reverted head was simply an old Macedonian type continued by Alexander. It was used by Archelaus I, Amyntas III, and Perdiccas III,3 and the latter two, Alexander's grandfather and uncle, coupled with it the Heracles head obverse used by Alexander.

Unaware of the numerous obverse links now known between the many small coins without reverse symbols and those with symbols of group E, Alexander unfortunately has catalogued these no-symbol issues together with the eagle-reverse tetradrachms (while of course listing the symbol-bearing small coins together with the tetradrachms bearing their markings).4 All the small coins with eagle reverses can now, however, be associated with specific groups of the Attic weight tetradrachms. Together with the didrachms, which bear the tetradrachms' seated Zeus as reverse type, they are all simply subdivisions of the tetradrachms. It seems unnecessary to consider them a separate series struck "for local circulation" only.5

In groups A through D, the small coins' markings are exactly those of the tetradrachms, except for one drachm with filleted caduceus and image which probably should be assigned to group D (the filleted caduceus occurs in both C and D, but only in D are monograms found). The drachms of groups A through D all have the standing eagle reverse type.

As just noted, the numerous obverse links within group E, diagrammed in both Table 3 and Table 6, allow the firm placement within that group of a number of anomalous issues of drachms, triobols, and diobols whose attribution has heretofore been uncertain. These coins have no regular issue markings and often show the eagle standing not on the standard fulmen, but on caduceus, club, thyrsus, or torch.

By any standard–number of issues, number of examples located, or number of obverse dies found–group E had the largest output of small coins. This is not surprising, as E was also the largest group of tetradrachms. In this group, too, the drachms with the usual imperial Alexander drachm reverse of seated Zeus first appear, with issue markings identical to those of some eagle-reverse coins in the group, and actually obverse linked to one other eagle-reverse issue.

A drachm issue with the simple marking image has heretofore usually, and understandably, been associated with the Alexander tetradrachms of group L, which bear the same primary marking.6 The presence now of several examples of the issue in the Near East 1993 hoard,7 however, buried perhaps ca. 322 (several years earlier than the great Demanhur hoard interred before the striking of the image tetradrachms of group L), shows that these drachms must be considerably earlier than tetradrachm group L, and the absence of the title requires a group prior to groups G–K/J.

Also in the Near East 1993 hoard were two drachms with laurel branch symbol, an issue previously unknown save for one example published in 1988 by Kamen Dimitrov. This was one of three Alexander drachms forming a small hoard discovered in 1976 at Calim, in Bulgaria.8 Dr. Dimitrov has kindly sent me not only a direct photo of a cast of the coin (175), but also a translation of his relevant Bulgarian text: ... Calim, ca. 35 km. W. from Nicopolis ad Nestum. Three Alexander drachms are kept in the Historical Museum of Blagoevgrad. ... According to the control marking . . . [the coin in question] corresponds to the issue of Demanhur 1563, [J1, with laurel branch but with the image omitted], Amphipolis 320–319. At the same time the coin is struck from the same obverse die used for a specimen of an issue not represented in the Demanhur hoard. ... [Sardes and Miletus, p. 87, 3 = 174].

The Sardes and Miletus issue cited, die linked with the Calim laurel branch coin, is the image issue. The laurel branch issue's presence in the Near East 1993 hoard now shows that it too antedates 322/1 at the latest, and the absence of the title again indicates a group prior to groups G-K/J. No exact correspondences with any tetradrachms' markings exist for these two interesting issues, but the reverse variation and experimentation introduced in group E may in part explain their lack of correspondence. The obverses of these image and laurel branch drachms are extremely similar to many tetradrachms of groups E and F (e.g., 40–56). Their reverse exergue lines, too, with one dotted exception, are formed by a simple line, an innovation which is known rarely among the group E tetradrachms, but which is common among those of group F.9 One of these groups then must be that to which these image and laurel branch issues belong.

Another Zeus-reverse drachm issue with arrow symbol has long been known. The arrow, which again does not occur on the tetradrachms, could be considered as associated with group C's bow or with F's bow and quiver.10 But, as other Zeus-reverse drachms first appear in group E, these arrow-symbol drachms cannot be so early as group C. Again, the lack of the title rules out groups G-K/J. The obverse style of many arrow drachms, like that of the image and laurel branch drachms just discussed, is very similar to tetradrachms of both groups E and F–but in the case of these arrow drachms, one iconographical detail allows a firm placement in group F. Just as on the group F tetradrachms, their exergue lines, instead of the normal dotted ones, are sometimes found as simple straight lines (177) or omitted altogether (179). And on at least one arrow drachm (178) the footstool is indicated by the slanting "short straight line (not to be confounded with an exergual line)" which is found only on the tetradrachms of group F.11 The arrow drachms can only belong to group F.

No small Alexander coins are known after group F. As will be seen below in Chapter 4, the revived tetradrachms of Philip II, many of whose markings parallel those of Alexander tetradrachms, start possibly as early as group I, and certainly by groups K and J, continuing through L and several subsequent groups. Philip II fractions accompany these Philip tetradrachms through those parallel with Alexander groups K and J–and then, as I shall argue in Chapter 5, probably are discontinued before the Philip group parallel to Alexander's group L.

Finally, following group L and the tetradrachms with bucranium and Λ, Thompson has deduced from the existence of a plated ancient Alexander imitation drachm with Λ and torch that there may have been genuine Alexander drachms with those markings also.12 If so, however, none have yet been discovered.

Thus the small coins were as follows.

Groups A-D: Alexanders, several denominations, drachms with eagle reverse

Group E: Alexanders, several denominations, drachms with both eagle and Zeus reverses

Group F: Alexanders, drachms, Zeus reverse

Groups G-H: –

Groups K-J and perhaps I: Philips. See Chapter 5.

End Notes
2
Alexander issues 142–43. Long assumed Bactrian or Indian in origin, these rare tetradrachms were firmly placed in Macedonia by E. Pegan, "Die frühesten Tetradrachmen Alexanders des Grossen mit dem Adler ...," JNG 18 (1968), pp. 99–111. See Philippe , p. 394, and p. 18 above, n. 11.
3
E.g., BMC, pp. 165, 171–72, 176; SNGCop 505, 513–15, 522; SNGANS 94–96, 113.
4
Alexander 144–52, 154–55, 157. See Tables 3 and 6 and comments on 144–57, pp. 39–40. The association of the eagle-reverse bronzes of issues 158–62 with the eagle-reverse small silver coins is also quite uncertain.
5
Alexander , pp. 24, 88, and 103–4.
6
Sardes and Miletus , p. 88; Alexander 141.
7
Chapter 8, hoard 7.
8
Chapter 8, hoard 11.
9
See pp. 91–92, and 53.
10
Alexander 50 (placed after coins of group C), but see Sardes and Miletus , p. 88, where the placement is with group F.

CONCORDANCE TO AND COMMENTARY ON ALEXANDER ISSUES

Alexander Issue Denom. Corresponding Tetradrachm Issue
2 dr. A1
3 2-ob. A1
3A ob. [A1] This is the coin seen by Price in a private collection.
7 dr. A3
15 3-ob. B3
16 2-ob. (B6) Described as with wreath between two eagles on reverse, the only coin cited actually has an ivy leaf (it is a die duplicate of several other specimens so marked, and the leaf is clear on Alexander 's illustration of 16). The coin belongs to group B's issue 25. No diobols with wreath are known to me.
17 ob. B3
24 2–dr. B6
25, 25 A 2–ob. B6 The one coin known to me of issue 25A (199, with ivy leaf to right) is from the obverse of all five known examples of issue 25, with ivy leaf between two eagles (e.g., 198). Coin 199 is from the same die pair as Alexander's illustrated example of issue 54 and McClean 3509 (the symbol erroneously described as a bucranium), both with the eagle head of group D. The symbol of these last two coins has been cut over the ivy leaf of issue 25A. See also issue 54. Note the analogous recutting in the obols of groups B and D (issues 26 and 55).
26 ob. B6 The ivy leaf on the single reverse die of all three known specimens has been recut to an eagle head on the two known specimens of group D's issue 55.
30 ob. [B7] Newell in Reattrib. mentions this issue, but I have found no examples. Possibly an ivy leaf was seen as grapes. Compare issue 26.
33 dr. E9 Although listed in Alexander after the issues of group B, the shape of the issue's caduceus argues for a placement with issue 101 in group E.13 Issue 34, also with caduceus, is obverse linked with other E issues.
34 3–ob. E9 Also listed after the group B issues, the issue belongs to group E. Of the four known examples, only three are in sufficiently good condition to allow die identification, and all three share their single obverse die with coins of group E's issues 82 and 149.
37 2–dr. C1 The issue is perfectly valid. Note only that Lanz 48, 22 May 1989, 193, from the dies of the coin illustrated here (132), is erroneously described as bee on rose, and thus as a unique didrachm of Pella.
40 2–dr. C3
40A dr. C3
41 3–ob. C3
42 2–ob. C3
45 2–dr. C5
46 2–ob. C5
47 ob. C5
49 2–dr. C6
50 dr. F– See pp. 36–37 for the placement in group F.
52 dr. D1
53 3-ob. (E7) The issue is described with eagle head to right, but the sole known coin, at the ANS (188), seems on close examination to bear a crescent, with horns pointed downward–which is also the orientation of the same symbol in the exergue of a coin of issue 90 (189). Issue 53's flan and die sizes also accord far better with group E than with D, so that the coin probably belongs in issue 90. Issue 53 seems, at least from present knowledge, to be a phantom.
54 2–ob. D1 The issue exists. See issues 25 and 25A for discussion of its recut symbol. SNGBerry 197, however, noted as an example, has not an eagle head but a horse head. Coin 203 clearly shows the horse's bridle. See issue 26 for discussion of the recut symbol.
55 ob. D1
60 2–dr. D4
62 2–dr. D5
63 3–ob. D5
64 2–ob. D5
68 2–dr. D7/8 Price calls the monogram image but its small size and condition on the known coins make it impossible to be certain whether it is image or image, or perhaps simply image
69 dr. D- The caduceus is filleted.
72 2–dr. D9
74 dr. D11
77 dr. E1
78A 2–dr. E2
80 2–dr. E3
81 dr. E3
82 3–ob. E3
85 dr. E5
86 3–ob. E4
87A dr. E6
88 3–ob. [E6] See p. 21, note a.
90 3–ob. E7 See also issue 53.
94 2–dr. E8 The sale catalogue reference cited in Alexander has a caduceus, not a bucranium.
94A dr. E8 The two citations refer to the same coin, and the Giessener (Gorny) coin number should be 221.
95, 96 dr. E8 The symbol is vertical on 95 and horizontal on 96.
97 3–ob. Two examples are listed. The Hague (now Leiden) coin must be an erroneous citation. J. P. A. van der Vijn has sent photographs of the cabinet's only Alexander triobol, and it is from the dies of the other examples of 146. The bucranium on the Hersh coin cited seems to be merely the final Υ of the inscription and the coin thus is part of issue 150. Issue 97 seems to be a phantom.
98 2–ob. E8
100 dr. E9
101 dr. E9 Issues 33 and 101 both seem to belong to group E.
107 2–dr. C2 The symbol is not the upright bow and quiver of group F (where the issue is placed) and G, but the simple quiver depicted in the slanting position of group C, where 107 shares its single obverse die with issue 45 (with group C's Pegasus forepart symbol).
141 dr. E?F? See p. 36 for the placement in group E or F.
144 dr. E–
145 dr. E–
146 3–ob. E– The object on which the eagle stands is not perfectly clear, but does appear to be a club on the three examples known, which are all from the same die pair. See also issue 149.
147 2–ob. E–
148 dr. E– The issue exists, but the eagle on the Weber coin cited (now at the ANS) seems to be standing on a club, not a thyrsus, and the coin thus belongs in issue 145.
149 3-ob. E– The eagle is described as standing on a "thyrsus( ?)" and the sole example cited is now in the ANS collection. In fact it is the coin cited under issue 146, with eagle on club. It is from the dies of the Hague (now Leiden) coin also cited under 146, and those of another example of 146 in the Hersh collection. No triobols with eagle on thyrsus have been found, and issue 149 appears to be a phantom.
150 3–ob. E– Some examples at least of issues 150, 154, 155, and 157 may be coins whose markings are off flan and which therefore belong elsewhere. The eagle stands to right on 150, to left on 154.
151 dr. E–
152 2–ob. E–
153 dr. Whether one accepts Thompson's attribution of this issue with image to Miletus (Miletus 28-31), or Price's to "Macedonia ('Amphipolis')" it does not belong at our mint.
154 3–ob. E– See comment at 150.
155 2–ob. E– See comment at 150.
156 ob. The reverse type of the sole coin cited is an eagle standing left, head reverted, on an uncertain object. Dr. Price kindly confirmed that the coin's poor condition made recognition of a symbol, if any; or reading of any inscription impossible. All other known obols in this Macedonian coinage have a fulmen as reverse type, and nowhere here in any denomination is there known an eagle with reverted head standing left. Small coins of Amyntas III, however, bear precisely the types of issues 156, similarly oriented (e.g., SNGANS 94–96), and thus the coin cited as the only example of issue 156 is probably of that earlier king.
157 ob. E– See comment at 150.
End Notes
11
Reattrib., p. 17. See p. 92.
12
"Cavalla," p. 40 (discussion of hoard coin 17).
13
See p. 21, note a.

3. ALEXANDER GROUPS: RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY

Obverse links provide by far the most important evidence for the order of the Alexander groups. These links, together with group A's use of symbols found in Philip II's coinage (immediately prior or perhaps for a time contemporary), the presence of the title BAΣIΛEΩΣ on five of the groups, and certain repetitions of reverse markings put all the groups into a firm order, with the one exception of the minute group K (whose placement will be discussed below). Some small confirmation of this order is provided by other types of evidence–hoards, stylistic considerations, and the small denominations of Chapter 2.

OBVERSE LINKS

The 22 die links which have been discovered between the various Alexander groups are detailed on the following pages and summarized in Figure 4. Tetradrachms provide all but five: links 6 (drachms), 7 (diobols), 8 (obols), and 15-16 (didrachms). All coins known from these obverse dies shared by more than one group are described as a possible aid to future researchers. For the same reason, Newell's provisional tetradrachm obverse die numbers are also given, as the ANS's casts and photo file cards are marked with these numbers.

Further intra-group connections of the tetradrachms listed via reverse links are mentioned in the discussion following each die link in order to demonstrate further the complexity of the die linkage between issues within the groups and to show that the issues directly involved in the links between groups are often clearly contemporary with other issues in their groups. The reverses of the coins listed are described by Newell group letter, my issue number, and symbol, e.g., "A2, stern," while "same die" indicates that the reverse die is that of the immediately preceding coin.

The evidence is extremely incomplete or there would doubtless be more instances of links such as link 3, where a die was used for group B, then for A, and then for B again.

Group A with Group B

Link 1, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 25

image

Stage 1

A2, stern (215) ANS; ANS

Stage 2

B7, grapes (216) Toronto

Stage 3

B7, grapes (217) cast marked "Demanhur"; Naville 6, 28 .Jan. 1924, 721, same die

Stage 4

B7, grapes (218) Ball 6, 9 Feb. 1932, 167, same die

Breaks in the lion's mane commence on the two coins in stage 1, and become ever larger in succeeding stages.

Link 2, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 28

image

Stage 1

B7, grapes (219) formerly ANS = Reattrib., pl. 7, 12; ANS, same die; Oxford = SNGAshm 2538; Morgenthau 342, 26 Nov. 1934, 189, same die

A2, stern (220) ANS, stern cut over 219's grapes; ANS = Reattrib., pl. 7, 11, same recut die; Saroglos

Stage 2

A2, stern (221) ANS

The reverse die of 219 and 220 is the same but, when used for 220, group A's stern symbol had been cut over B's grapes. As noted above, Newell illustrated coins with stern and grapes in Reattrib. to show their obverse identity, but did not recognize the reverse identity and recutting at the time (his evidently subsequent ticket in an ANS coin's box, however, does describe the recutting).

In stage 2 slight deterioration has appeared around Heracles' mouth.

Link 3, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 47

image

Stage 1

B2, amphora (222) ANS

Stage 2

A3, double heads (223) ANS; Beirut, same die; ANS cast from Tripolitsa 1921 Hoard, IGCH 84, same die

B2, amphora (224) Berlin, die of 222

Stage 3

A3, double heads (225) ANS; ANS

B2, amphora (226) ANS

In stage 1 there are no breaks in the dotted border at the top of the die, no break between Heracles' brow and the border, and no break in the field at the top of his nose. In stage 2 slight breaks have appeared in all three areas. In stage 3 the breaks in the border and at the brow are more pronounced, and the field behind the lion's mane is starting to deteriorate. Clearly at least some of A's double-head coins and B's amphora coins were struck simultaneously. The last coin listed, with amphora, is linked by a net of reverse and obverse dies to all seven of the other symbols of group B. All but one of these die links are found among coins in the ANS collection.

Link 4, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 40

image

Stage 1

A3, double heads (227) ANS = Reattrib., pl. 1, 8; cast marked "in trade, Cairo," same die; ANS; Knobloch FPL 33, Apr. 1968, 530, same die

Stage 2

B2, amphora (228) London = Alexander 13a; ANS, same die; ANS = Reattrib., pl. 1, 9; ANS

Only in stage 2 are there die breaks at the corner of Heracles' mouth and on his neck below the lion's jaw. The first ANS coin in stage 2 is linked by its reverse die to another in the ANS collection, which is from the obverse die of a third there, from the B6 ivy leaf issue.

Link 5, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 52

image

Stage 1

B1, cantharus (229) ANS

Stage 2

A4, fulmen (230) ANS; Egger 10, 2 May 1912, 592. same die, not illustrated but a cast is at the ANS

B1, cantharus (231) Saroglos, die of 229; Coin Galleries FPL 5.3 (1961), C19 = Coin Galleries, FPL 4.3 (1963), C18, same die

In stage 2 only, breaks have occurred at the corner of Heracles' mouth, and in the lion's ear. The cantharus coins are linked by a net of reverse and obverse dies to five of the seven remaining symbols of group B (all but B7, grapes, and B4, stylis).

Group B with Group D

Link 6, drachms

image

B6, ivy leaf (232) Hersh = Giessener 58, 9 Apr. 1992, 234

D1, eagle head (233) Hersh; London = Alexander 52 = Weber 2083

See also links 7 and 8.

Link 7, diobols

image

Stage 1

B6, ivy leaf in center (234) Paris = Traité IV, 2, 900, pl. 311, 7 = Reattrib., pl. 7, 8; London = Alexander 16, same die; Athens, same die; Aberdeen = SNGDavis D 141, same die; Hersh, same die

B6, ivy leaf to right (235) St. Petersburg

Stage 2

D1, eagle head (236) Hersh, cut over 235's ivy leaf; London = Alexander 54, same recut die; Cambridge, Eng. = McClean 3509, same recut die, symbol called bucranium

The reverse die of the coins of group D is that of the St. Petersburg example of group B, but with the ivy leaf recut to eagle head. See also links 6 and 8.

Link 8, obols

image

Stage 1

B6, ivy leaf (237) London = Alexander 26

Stage 2

D1, eagle head (238) Hersh, cut over 237's ivy leaf; Hersh, same recut die

The reverse die of all coins is the same, the ivy leaf having been recut to eagle head on the coins in group D. See also links 6 and 7. Also from this reverse die, in its first stage with ivy leaf, but from a different obverse die, are another ANS coin and a third coin in the Hersh collection (210).

Group C with Group D

Link 9, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 102

image

C2, quiver (239) ANS = Reattrib., pl. 3, 9; H. Schulman, 7 July 1970, 213, same die; ANS; Egger 40, 2 May 1912, 632, same die, not illustrated, but a cast is at the ANS

D1, eagle head (240) ANS; Weber 2082, same die; Reattrib., pl. 3, 10

A cast at the ANS (from link 10's obverse 117 and 240's reverse) associates obverses 110 and 117.

Link 10, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 117

image

C2, quiver (241) ANS

D1, eagle head (242) ANS; Thomas L. Elder, Remarkable Collection of Greek Tetradrachms... (New York City, n.d.), 71, same die; ANS; ANS; Malloy, 28 Feb. 1972, 322, same die; Berlin

The die is associated with that of link 9.

Link 11, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 116 = 121

image

Stage 1

C2, quiver (243) Athens

Stage 2

C6, bow (244) Egger 40, 2 May 1912, part of non-illustrated lot 631, but a cast is at the ANS; ANS, same die; Gillette, same die D1, eagle head (245) ANS

In stage 2, a die break appears in the central row of the lion's locks, and the field just below the locks is breaking down. Newell obverses 116 = 121 and 105 (link 12) are both found in a group C cluster of ANS coins linked by a network of obverse and reverse identities. The cluster includes all the remaining three symbols of group C.

Link 12, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 105

image

Stage 1

C3, grain ear (246) ANS

Stage 2

C2, quiver (247) ANS; Berlin

C3, grain ear (248) ANS

C4, trident head (249) ANS

D5, star (250) Cambridge, Mass. = Dewing 1122

In stage 1, there is a small die break just to the left of and below Heracles' ear. In stage 2 this break has enlarged, and new breaks have appeared at Heracles' nose and at the angle of his chin and neck (this last break has been cut away on 249). The die is associated with that of link 11.

Link 13, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 107

image

Stage 1

C1, filleted caduceus (251) ANS; cast marked "Pozzi," same die

D1, eagle head (252) Cambridge, Mass. = Dewing 1117; ANS; cast marked "Mrs. Brett," same die

Stage 2

D1, eagle head (253) ANS, die of 252; Saroglos, same die; ANS

In stage 2, a die break beginning in the field at Heracles' brow has greatly enlarged. The first ANS coin (251) shares a reverse die with another ANS coin whose obverse was used also for coins of C4 (trident head) and C6 (bow).

Link 14, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 109

image

Stage 1

C5, Pegasus forepart (254) ANS

Stage 2

D2, Macedonian shield (255) ANS

Die breaks are present at Heracles' nose in both stages of the die, but only in stage 2 is there also a break in the hair at his brow and deterioration in the upper left field.

The reverse die of 255 is shared with another ANS coin whose obverse was used for five other issues of group D, namely, D1 (eagle head), D3 (club), D6 (filleted caduceus M), D8 (caduceus image), and D10 (club image) (see 26–27, 29, 32, 34 and 37) and with a third ANS coin whose obverse was used also for D4 (horse head).

Link 15, didrachms

image

Stage 1

C1, filleted caduceus (256) Hersh = Glendining, 7 Mar. 1957, 21; Lanz 48, 22 May 1989, 193, same die, but the symbol called bee on rose and the coin an unpublished didrachm of Pella

Stage 2

D5, star (257) ANS

D7, caduceus image (258) ANS; St. Petersburg, same die

Below the lower left lock of the lion's hair a small break appears only on the coins of group D.

Link 16, didrachms

image

C5, Pegasus forepart (259) Hersh = Giessener 58, 9 Apr. 1992, 229; London = Alexander 45 = Reattrib., pl. 7, 1, same die

C6, bow (260) ANS = Reattrib., pl. 15, 2

D4, horse head (261) Hersh = Giessener 60, 5 Oct. 1992, 114

D7, caduceus image or possibly D8, caduceus image or caduceus image (262) Berlin

The last coin, 262, is extremely worn, but the obverse does seem to be that of the other coins.

Group D with Group E

Link 17, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 159

image

D5, star (263) cast marked "Case"; ANS; ANS, same die

D11, dolphin (264) ANS

E1, rose (265) Copenhagen = SNGCop 672

Either the die or the flan was defective when 265 was struck, as the type is missing in a large arc around the upper edge of the coin's obverse. The small E1, with rose, is known from but three coins and two obverse dies. One die, here, is shared with group D coins; the other, with another issue of group E (40, 44). The rose issue could thus belong with either group D or group E, but is here left where Newell placed it.1 In either case, an obverse link between D and E results.

Group E with Group F

Link 18, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 361

image

Stage 1

E3, cock (266) ANS; Parke-Bernet, 16 Oct. 1968, 23, same die; Grabow 14, 27 July 1939, 244, same die; ANS

Stage 2

E3, cock (267) ANS; Münz. u. Med. FPL 333, Apr. 1972, 11

F3, cornucopia (268) ANS

In stage 2, a dot just to the left of and below the lion's ear has enlarged, and another break has appeared to the left of and below the first one, between the second and third locks from the top in the outer row of the lion's mane. The reverse die of 268 is shared with another ANS coin whose obverse was used also for a coin of F5 (bow and quiver).

Group F with Group G

Link 19, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 427 = 490

image

F4, Athena Promachus (269) ANS = Reattrib., pl. 9, 3

G2, Athena Promachus (270) ANS = Reattrib., pl. 9, 4; Petsalis, same die

Group I with Group J

Link 20, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 681

image

Stage 1

I1, image (271) ANS

I2, image (272) ANS

Stage 2

J5, image crescent (273) ANS

In stage 2, the obverse has suffered general deterioration, and looks "softer," with breaks at Heracles' nose and to the right of his ear, and in the lion's locks.

Link 21, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 702

image

I3, image (274) Stockholm; Berlin, same die

J1, grain ear (275) ANS

The last coin, 275, is in extremely poor condition, but its reverse seems to be as described, without the image

Group L with Λ-Bucranium Group

Link 22, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 896

image

L7, image dolphin (276) Athens from Lamia 1901–2 hoard ( IGCH 93 )

Λ over bucranium in left field, E under throne (277) Saroglos; unidentified photo (278), same die

Although groups after L have not been examined in detail for this study, link 22 has come to my attention. Mando Oeconomides has verified that the Lamia hoard obverse and reverse casts are indeed of a single coin.

In Figure 4, solid brackets show tetradrachm links, and dashed brackets show links between smaller denominations. Brackets to the left indicate the 22 obverse links found between the Alexander groups, and those to the right show reverse links resulting from recutting of the reverse dies. Tetradrachms furnish 17 of the links and the remaining five are found among smaller denominations (which exist only in groups A through F). Arrows on the brackets show the order, when ascertainable, in which the dies were used. Numbers on the brackets are those of the links already described. Dotted brackets to the right indicate multiple identical reverse markings (groups F and G, J and L). As shown, groups G through K/J include the title BAΣIΛEΩΣ in their inscriptions.

image

Figure 4

End Notes
1
See p. 22, note b.

OTHER EVIDENCE

Given the framework of obverse die links just detailed, other evidence does little more than confirm the order they provide. Still other observations are all perfectly consistent with the order in Figure 4 and will be discussed below in Chapter 9, in connection with the mint's absolute chronology'.

Hoards

As Newell long ago wrote, the Kyparissia 1892/93 hoard, with its coins of groups A through D only, showed these four groups to be the earliest struck. Karditsa 1925 included coins of C through I, seven contiguous groups. Five hoards ending with group J are known. Of these, Akçakale 1958 contained every group except A and the small K, and Demanhur 1905 and Andritsaena ca. 1923 included every group, even K.2

Style

Newell dealt with details of style and iconography, and the progression from group to group, at some length in Reattrib. His analyses cannot be improved by the present author, but such aspects as are relevant to absolute chronology, whether or not treated by him, will be discussed below in Chapter 9.

Small Denominations

Not surprisingly, the present study of the small Alexander denominations only corroborates the group order already established, although it does provide the only actual die links known between groups A and B and the rest of the coinage. The eagle-reverse coins of various denominations are found only in A through E, and only in E do the Zeus-reverse drachms come in, which then are the only small coin struck in the following group F. No small coins of Alexander's types are known after group F.

End Notes
2
See Chapters 8 and 9 for fuller discussion of these hoards.

DISCUSSION

Newell stated in Demanhur , without giving specific examples or illustrations beyond those few presented in Reattribution, that the tetradrachm groups were all bound in sequence by a series of obverse dies linking one group to the next: "... group 'A' will possess certain dies that were used in its production and then were continued in use, in a slightly more worn condition, for group 'B.' Group 'B,' in turn, will be found to possess certain obverse dies that had already been used for 'A,' and others that were later used for 'C,' and so forth."3 This account of the groups' linkage is somewhat of a simplification. Newell knew most of the links presented above. He apparently did not know the B-D or D-E links, and he evidently did not realize until after Reattribution's publication that at least some of group B was contemporary with group A.4 Further, no B-C links such as he suggests have been located.

At least since the publication of Reattribution, group A has been recognized as the first, because three of its symbols (prow, stern, and double heads) are the same as those found at the end of the lifetime or early posthumous coinage of Alexander's father, Philip II.5 And, although its shape is different in the two coinages, Le Rider has suggested that the rudder, which occurs rarely in Philip's issues, is a possible fourth symbol relating group A to Philip's coinage.6

Group B, repeatedly linked to A, should be next. But the first modification of Newell's order is that here some overlap between groups must be accepted, because of the links where an obverse die was used first for a coin or coins of group B before being used for group A (links 2, 3, and 5 above), and because of the unique recutting of a symbol of group B to one of group A (see link 2).

Groups C and D, linked by no fewer than eight obverse dies, are clearly contiguous. Group D would at first seem to have followed C, because, of the five shared obverse dies whose priority of use can be determined, all five were first used for group C. A complication is, however, introduced by links 6-8, where drachm, diobol, and obol obverses were used both for B and for D, the two smaller denominations having had their reverse symbols recut from one of group B to one of group D.

Because of the large number of obverse links between A and B and between C and D (a pattern which does not recur), and because of the newly recognized B and D links, it now seems probable that A and B were struck concurrently at two adjoining locations, followed by C and D at the same two respective locations (workshops? adjoining rooms? adjacent anvils?). If group C had chronologically separated B and D, all three groups emanating from the same workshop, it is hard to see why new dies should have been cut for C, while B's dies were preserved unused until returned to service, recut where necessary, for coins of group D. But certainty is not to be had, and no great violence can be done by leaving Groups A through D in their traditional order.

Following group D, successive obverse links, the introduction and abandonment of the title BAΣIΛEΩΣ, and similarities in reverse markings make the groups' order inescapable except for the position of the minute group K.

I have placed K in the tables before J, although a strict linear order is probably misleading. More interesting than the placement of K, however, is the question of its very attribution to our mint. Newell in Reattribution published only one issue of the group (K3, its largest) and assigned it to an uncertain mint of Macedonia, Thrace, or Asia Minor. By the time of Demanhur's publication, however, he had placed it, although without comment, at Amphipolis.7

Price has now argued against this attribution, considering group K (the Λ group) as the immediate predecessor of the Λ- or image-bucranium and Λ- or image-torch series–which he considered struck at Amphipolis. He posited that groups A–I, J, and L belong together, but without successors, at another mint, presumably Pella.8 I would not necessarily disagree with his suggestion that the mint for the huge output of groups A through L and their successors may have changed at some point. His suggestion of an introduction at Pella with a subsequent move to Amphipolis could possibly be true. But this study attemps to deal with numismatic evidence only, and that evidence seems at the very least to contradict the division at the particular point that Price suggests. Precisely because his monumental work will inevitably and deservedly become the standard reference for Alexander's coinage, I should like to respond here in some detail to Price's arguments.

First, he assumes that the title of BAΣIΛEΩΣ, once dropped (as it was in group L) would stay dropped, that there would be no brief recurrence. This is surely correct.

Second, he states that group J (the image-group) follows directly on the symbol-only issues of groups A-I. This also seems correct, although not for the reasons he gives.9

Third, he says that group L (the image-group) should follow directly on J for two reasons. One is that image is an elaboration of image: this is of course quite possible but not necessarily so. The second reason is the shared symbols between J and L, which is quite convincing.10

And, as group L first drops the title BAΣIΛEΩΣ,11 Price concludes that there would appear to be no room in the sequence for group K (the Λ-group), which bears the title. It then, he says, will have been the direct predecessor, but at another mint, of the Λ-bucranium and Λ-torch groups. His reasoning is tight and would be persuasive, but the separation of group K from our mint seems almost certainly impossible in the light of the four die links now known between the posthumous Philips analogous to group K and those analogous to group J. Moreover, any suggestion that dies might have been transferred from J at our mint to K as the initial group at another mint is ruled out by the observation that in the Philip link where priority of use can be determined, the die was used for coins of group K before being employed for coins of group J.12

Yet it remains quite true, as Price has pointed out, that K does not logically fit in the sequence either before or after J. The resolution is again provided by the study of the contemporary Philip groups, some analogous to J and K, some not, but all so tightly and intricately obverse linked that the only explanation seems to be that all were more or less contemporary.13 The tiny Alexander group K, if also struck concurrently with J, which would seem likely, then presents no problem. Price's sequence A through I to J to L is preserved, yet K being contemporary with J means that our mint need not be divided into two, at least at the spot Price proposes.

And finally, link 22 above, between group L (with image) and the Λ-bucranium group, seems to rule out Price's sequence at his proposed second mint of group K (with Λ), Λ-bucranium, Λ-torch.

Newell in Demanhur placed group K after J, presumably because of the single die link which his tickets show that he knew between I and J. More recently, both Le Rider and Thompson have preferred to place K before J,14 but the disagreement is meaningless if K was contemporary with J. But because some order is inevitable in a serial listing, I have opted, despite the two I-J links, for K before J because of the more numerous shared dies among the analogous Philip II reissues. Another consideration is that after group I two markings rather than one identify the various issues and a primary marking for each group is accompanied by a varying secondary marking. Only in K is there inconsistency in the placement of the two markings, with the primary one either in the left field or below the throne and the secondary one in the other spot.15 In J and L, however, the placement is unvarying. Unfortunately then, the unavoidable strict linear order presented in the tables does not, in the case of group K, accurately represent reality.

The last group in this study, L, despite its superficial similarity to group J (image instead of image, and the two groups' shared secondary markings), is a totally different outpouring from group J. No obverse links connect the two groups, and only one possible but quite doubtful link joins the analogous Philip groups 8 and 9.16 Several hoards contain coins of all or most groups down to and including J, but not L. Group L drops the title BAΣIΛEΩΣ present on the five preceding groups. And, while abundant small-denomination coins (of Philip's types) accompany groups K and J, none are known that are analogous to group L.17 image may resemble image–indeed may well be an elaboration of image–but the two groups of coins are completely different.

End Notes
3
Demanhur , pp. 65–6.
4
See discussion following, and comments on link 2, above.
5
Reattrib., p. 21; Philippe , Amphipolis group IIB.
6
Philippe, pp. 389–90.
7
Reattrib., p. 40, issue 62; Demanhur 1582.
8
Alexander, pp. 86-87, expanding on arguments previously given in his "On Attributing Alexanders–Some Cautionary Tales," in Greek Numismatics and Archaeology. Essays in Honor of Margaret Thompson , ed. O. Mørkholm and N. M. Waggoner (Wetteren, 1979), pp. 241–50, at 247–49.
9
He adduces obverse links between a coin with image and laurel branch, and coins with crescent alone and with laurel branch alone. These latter two, however, are merely examples of a few rare, perhaps early or perhaps only poorly executed coins of group J. They are not part of a group of their own, nor are they connected to any earlier issues. See Chapter 1, issues J1 (grain ear alone, 3 coins and 2 reverses known), J2 (crescent alone, 3 coins and 2 reverses known), and J3 (laurel branch alone, 2 coins and 1 reverse known). Nevertheless, a firm tie between group J and earlier groups is provided by the two obverse dies now known to be shared by I and J. See links 20 and 21 above.
10
Price adduces four shared symbols: filleted caduceus, grain (or corn) ear, crescent, and laurel branch. Of these, only two (grain ear and crescent) seem to be shared. See the commentary at the end of Chapter 1 on Price's issues 127 (image and filleted caduceus" and 140 ("image and laurel branch"). Nevertheless, among the Philip issues analogous to groups J and L there are four or possibly five common symbols. See p. 53, Table 7, groups 8 and 9. Therefore, again, group J does seem closely connected to L.
11
Citing his issues 126 and 127, Price states that a few coins of group J also drop the title. The examples given seem, however, merely bungled examples of group L, with image. See the commentary on 126 and 127 at the end of Chapter 1.
12
See Chapter 6, links 14–17 especially 14 and 17. Further, contrary to Price's assertion, Newell's trays, provisional die numbers, and notebook for both the Alexander and Philip series make it clear that his order was group J, K, L, Λ or imagebucranium, imagetorch, Λ-torch. The use of the letter Λ is not limited in any case to group K and the Λ-bucranium and Λ-torch groups: it is found in Philip groups 5 and 6, contemporary with 8 (with image), and also in Philip group 9 (with image).
13
See Chapter 6.
14
Philippe, p. 397, n. 5; Sardes and Miletus , p. 88, n. 90.
15
Cf. 72–75.
16
See Chapter 6, link 18.
17
See Chapter 5.

4. POST-323 Philip II TETRADRAGHM REISSUES

No even reasonably satisfactory study of the Alexander coinage of Amphipolis can omit a study also of the late reissues of Philip II tetradrachms and smaller coins which parallel many of the posthumous Alexander issues. These tetradrachms' obverses depict a handsome head of Zeus, and their reverses bear the simple legend ΦIΛIΠΠΟΥ and a nude mounted horseman. A summary of the Philip tetradrachms whose markings correspond to those of the Alexanders of groups K, J, and L, and perhaps I, follows. These late Philip II reissues continue beyond those shown here, which end with those contemporary with Alexander group L.1

ISSUES AND GROUPS

Table 7 summarizes the post-323 Philip issues through those analogous to Alexander group L. These late issues form Le Rider's Philippe Amphipolis silver group III.2 Le Rider gives only a brief overview of this group, not the thorough die study accorded Philip's earlier Amphipolis silver. Essentially he presents a list of issues to which a few corrections now seem justified. These are given at the end of this chapter.

The numbers assigned the Philip tetradrachm groups here are not Le Rider's (who gives none), but the present author's. Numbers were chosen rather than letters in order to differentiate the Philip groups from the Alexander groups. The order of the Philip groups here is for the most part that adopted by Le Rider, who remarks that his order is in many cases arbitrary.3 The only changes made here are that group 7, listed as two separate contiguous sections in Philippe , is presented as a single group and placed after rather than before group 6 because 5 and 6's secondary markings are largely identical. Also, the fractions of groups 2 through 6 (group 1 has none) normally bear both issue markings of their analogous tetradrachms, while 7's fractions, like those of group 8, bear only the secondary issue markings.4

The conclusion reached below in Chapter 6 will be that most if not all of these Philip groups were issued more or less simultaneously. The numbering of the groups has been adopted for convenience of reference, as we do not seem to be dealing here with a linear sequence of groups (see Figure 5 for the complicated die linkage among groups 2–8).5

Unlike the Alexander groups', the Philip groups' issue markings clearly show the internal coherence of each group. Many internal die links are known, some published in the summary in Philippe , and more in SNGANS. At least one example of each tetradrachm issue is illustrated here, on Plates 12–14, and a few internal die links are also shown which do not appear elsewhere.

Table 7 gives the issue markings found in each group, the plate locations of representative examples, Philippe plate references, initial SNGANS numbers, and the number of examples located for each issue. Regardless of their positions on the coins, the primary marking is given first, followed by the secondary one. When an issue has the same marking or markings as an Alexander issue, the Alexander issue's group letter and issue number are given in bold type, before the Philip issue's markings: e.g., K2before the first issue in group 7 indicates that this Philip issue has precisely the markings of Alexander group K, issue 3. Markings given in parentheses are known only in the Philip fractions and are included merely to fill out the issue list, as examples of such tetradrachms may well surface some day.

Table 7 Post–323 Philip II Tetradrachm: Groups and Issues
Markings Plate Philippe Plate Initial SNGANS Number Example Found
Group 1, 1 coin
I1 ? image 279 43, 1 1
Group 2, 9 coins
image bee 280 43, 9 571 3
image amphora 281 44, 1 1
image or image ivy leaf 282 43, 10 572 3
283
image globule 284 44, 2 2
(image or image star)
Group 3, 16 coins
image amphora (club ?) 285 576 1
image ivy leaf 286 44, 11 577 7
image globule 287 44, 9 1
image star 288 44, 5, 6 579 3
image grapes 289 44, 8 580 3
image image 290 44, 10 1
(image club)
Group 4, 7 coins
image star 291 44, 20 589 2
image grapes 292 44, 21 2
image image [sic] 293 44, 19 590 1
image club 294 44, 22 2
Group 5, 13 coins
(Causia A)
Causia E 295 44, 29 592 3
Causia Λa
Causia M 296 44, 30 2
Causia T 297 44, 31 593 2
Causia, globule, A 298 44, 32 594 4
Causia, glouble, E 299 44, 33 1
(Causia, globule, M)
Causia, globule, T 300 1
Group 6, 45 coins
Wreath A 301 45, 24 600 7
Wreath E 302 45, 25 603 6
Wreath Λ 303 45, 22 606 6
Wreath M 304 45, 26 607 7
Wreath T 305 45, 27 610 14
Wreath image 306 45, 23 615 3
Wreath image 307 45, 28 2
Markings Plate Philippe Plate Initial SNGANS Number Example Found
Group 7, 72 coins
K2 Λ image or image 308 45, 5, 6 630 25
309
K3 Λ image 310 45, 15, 16 643 16
K6 Λ image 311 45, 11–13 638 24
312
Λ image 313 45, 14 636 7
Group 8, 93 coins
J4 image grain eri 314 46, 3 667 27
J5 image crescent 315 46, 4 674 25
image forked branch 316 46, 5 683 6
image aplustre 317 46, 8 4
image profile shield 318 46, 6 688 6
Trident head 319 46, 1 691 2
image trident head 320 46, 2 5
image Macedonian shield 321 46, 7 692 4
Group 9, 235 coins
L1 image forked branch 322 46, 11 6
L3 image aplustre 323 46, 17, 118 738 86
324
325
L4 image grain eri 326 46, 12 736 8
L5 image crescent 327 46, 10 737 15
L6 image wreath 328 46, 14 747 17
329
wreath 330 46, 15 2
L7 image dolphin 331 46, 9, 19 749 95
332
L8?b image profile shield 333 46, 13 4
L10 image axe 334 46, 16 1
image Λ 335 1c

Group 1 may well be a phantom. One single tetradrachm is known, and the fractions which Le Rider places with it in Philippe solely on the basis of style would seem instead to belong with others with the same issue markings, which clearly belong in other groups.6 The tetradrachm's monogram image may well be a variant of group 2's image or image, and perhaps the coin should be included in that group. Group 1's monogram image also is identical to one variant in Alexander issue I1, and, as other Philip reissues repeat some markings of Alexander groups K, J, and L, it remains possible that the Philips commenced as early as Alexander group I.7

The composition of groups 2 through 7 is self-evident and the primary markings clearly show which coins and issues belong in each group. Groups 8 and 9, however, present problems. These are the coins with the primary marking image or image. The groups with these markings, both Philips and Alexanders, were for the most part poorly and often carelessly made, apparently in some haste. The two series in each king's strikings used many of the same secondary symbols, but are subject to being confused because of the similarity of the primary markings image and image, which differ only by a single dot. The correct attribution of an Alexander, even with a poorly or imperfectly executed letter or monogram, is simple because group J, with image, included the title BAΣIΛEΩΣ in the inscription, while group L, with image, did not. Among the Philip coins, however, the attribution depends solely upon whether the marking is image or image and, given the often poor workmanship involved, it can be virtually impossible to decide whether the presence or absence of the critical dot is intentional or accidental. Further, there exist numbers of barbaric imitations of the Philips, especially in these problematic groups 8 and 9 and in following groups also. Obvious imitations have been excluded from this study, but some may well not have been recognized. Some group 8 and 9 coins are possibly wrongly attributed in Table 7, but the overall picture should be approximately correct.

More important is the possible, but highly uncertain, die link between Philip groups 8 and 9 which results from taking a few coins at face value, that is, trusting that their markings are intentional and not the result of carelessness or accident. For discussion of the coins involved in these links, see Chapter 6, link 18, and p. 53, note b.

End Notes
a
A coin with causia and Λ is reported in Philippe , p. 122 and p. 308, 281. The coin is not counted among the examples listed, as I have not seen it.
b
Although the issue markings are those of Alexander's L8, the Philip issue may well be a phantom. Four coins are known, from two die pairs. One die pair is illustrated here (333), but the reverse's general aspect is a bit odd (note in particular the unique orientation of the shield). This may be an ancient imitation, a common occurrence in group 9. Indeed, Newell marked an ANS cast from these dies as "Barbarian."
The other reverse die (Hunter, p. 291, 61, and the Paris coin, here 449) has a very fine, faint dot below the image, very likely not made by the same tool which engraved the image, and in the Hunter catalogue itself the marking is described as a simple image. If the dot on this second reverse is a mere accident, the die would belong to group 8–which is made more likely by the fact that this reverse's accompanying obverse is found also in group 8's image-crescent issue, forming the only possible die link between groups 8 and 9, see Chapter 6, link 18. It is worth noting that the Paris cast at the ANS had been placed by Newell with his casts of group 8, not 9.
c
Besides the coin illustrated, three other examples of the issue are cited in Philippe , p. 308, 717–19. Not seen by me, these three coins are not included in the count of examples located.
1
See "Tetradrachms Amphipolis" for a summary of later Alexander and Philip issues.
2
Philippe , p. 120–24.
3
Philippe , p. 120.
4
See Chapter 5.
5
See p. 69.
6
See pp. 63–64, comments on Philippe, pl. 43, 2–8.

THE SIZE OF THE GROUPS

The size of each group, as judged from the estimated number of obverse dies employed, seems to bear little relation to the number of issues in the group. Contrary to what one might at first assume from Philippe's treatment of these strikings, essentially a listing of issues, the sizes of the groups varied widely, from 3 to 56 estimated dies used for a given group. Table 8 shows the numbers of coins and of obverse dies located, the coin to die ratios, and, as in the similar table of Alexander tetradrachms above, Table 2,8 the estimated number of obverse dies employed for each group. All conventions are those of Table 2.

Table 8 Post–323 Philip Tetradrachm Group Sizes
Group Coins Obverse Dies Coin Die Ratios Estimated Obv. Dies
1 10 2.5 4.00 3
2
3 16 7.3 2.19 11
4 7 2.5 2.80 3
5 13 2.5 5.20 3
6 45 15.5 2.90 20
7 72 26.5 2.72 35
8 93 29.2 3.18 36
Totals 1–8 256 86 2.98 110
9 235 50 4.70 56
Totals 491 136 3.61 163
End Notes
7
See p. 70.
8
See p. 26.

COMMENTARY ON Philippe ISSUES

These comments concern three tetradrachms listed in Philippe , p. 124, and illustrated there on pl. 46. They are coins of groups 8 and 9, with the primary markings image or image.

Plate 46, 8, "aplustre and image." The issue may exist, but this particular coin does have a faint dot within the image, and belongs to group 9's very large image-aplustre issue. I am most grateful to Martin Price for a direct photograph of the coin (324) and an enlargement of the reverse. It is from the dies of Münz. u. Med. 13, 17 June 1954, 1096, and from the reverse of 325, both of which clearly show the image. The obverse of 324 is not known elsewhere and 325's is known only in group 9: Myers, 11 May 1972, 18, image aplustre; 329, image wreath; and a cast at the ANS, image dolphin.

Plate 46, 9, "dolphin and image." The ANS has a cast of this coin, which does seem to have a dot present, joined to the inner edge of the right perpendicular element of the image. As the coin in question would be the only known example of the supposed image-dolphin issue, it almost certainly is merely a poorly executed specimen of the extremely large image-dolphin issue of group 9, where its poor, flat relief would be typical.

Plate 46, 12, "laurel branch and image." The coin would be the only known example of this supposed issue (note, however, the fractions with a horizontal, quite different branch).9 It seems more likely that the symbol of pl. 46, 12, is a poorly engraved grain ear, an issue not listed in Philippe , but of which several examples are known, e.g. 326. Ineptly engraved grain ears are common also on Alexanders with image, e.g. 95–97.

End Notes
9
See pp. 58 and 62.

5. POST-323 Philip II GOINS SMALLER THAN THE TETRADRAGHM

FIFTHS

By far the chief subdivision of the post-323 Philip reissues is a small coin with the head of Apollo wearing taenia on obverse1 and ΦIΛIΠΠΟΥ with a nude horseman on reverse. The denomination of these little pieces is unclear. As Le Rider points out, they are certainly too heavy to be considered tetrobols on the standard of the tetradrachm of the period (ca. 14.29–14.39 g), which would require a coin of, at most, 2.38–2.40 g. Nor are they heavy enough to be truly fifths of a tetradrachm (ca. 2.86–2.88), such as the fifths with the same types were in the lifetime coinage of Philip. Le Rider suggests that these fractions could pass at their period as tetrobols on the Attic standard, but on the whole prefers to regard them as fifths of the tetradrachm.2 Their correct denomination, however, being unclear, and Le Rider's persuasive "fifths of the tetradrachm" rather unwieldy, these coins will simply be called "fifths."

There are known also a few extremely rare "tenths" and several examples of what must be drachms on the Attic weight standard which belong with these abundant post-323 Philip fifths. These other denominations will be discussed briefly later in this chapter.3 A few corrections to Le Rider's small-coin listings are also given at the end of the chapter.

Table 9 presents the issues found of the fifths. The first column gives the issue's markings (primary marking before the secondary one, regardless of their position on the coins) and the second the plate location of a representative example or examples. Plate numbers in Philippe form the third column, and the fourth gives the issues' initial coin numbers in SNGANS. The last column gives the number of examples found of each issue. Brackets to the left of the plate references indicate obverse die links, those to the right, reverse links.

Some small issues cannot be definitely assigned to a particular group, namely those with the single markings of globule or amphora (group 2 or 3), and star (group 2, 3, or 4). The last issue listed, with simple straight laurel branch, can only probably be placed in group 8.4

Table 9 Philip II Fifths: Groups and Issues
Markings Plate Philippe Plate SNGANS Number Examples Found
Group 2, 9 coins
image 336 44, 4 2
image bee 337 44, 3 4
image globule 338 1
image or image, star 339 574 2
Group 3, 22 coins
image ivy leaf 340 44, 14 581 4
341
image globule 342 44, 17 3
Star 343 44, 28 1
image Star 344 44, 13 583 3
Grapes 345 44, 18 1
image grapes 346 44, 15 2
image clup 347 44, 16 584 6
image uncertain marking 348 44, 12 586 2
Group 2 or 3, 5 coins
Globule 349 43, 8 2
Amphora 350 43, 6, 7 588 3
Group 4, 9 coins
image star 351 44, 25 591 1
image grapes 352 44, 26 1
image image 353 44, 23, 24 7
Group 2, 3, or 4, 6 coins
Star 354 43, 3–5; 6
44, 27
Group 5, 13 coins
Causia A 355 44, 34 596 1
Causia E 356 44, 35 2
Causia Λ 357 45, 1, 2 597 4
Causia M 358 45, 3 1
Causia, globule, M 359a 598 1
Causia, globule, T 360b 45, 4 599 4
Group 6, 43 coins
Wreath A 361 45, 30 616 16
Wreath E 362 45, 31, 32 621 5
Wreath Λ 363 45, 29 622 7
Wreath M 364 45, 33 625 7
Wreath T 365 45, 34 628 8
Group 7, 50 coins
image, image or image 366 45, 7–9 650 20
367
368
Markings Plate Philippe SNGANS Examples
Markings Plate Number Found
image 369 45, 21 663 10
image 370 45, 17–18 661 13
Λ image 371 45, 20 658 5
372 45, 19 660 2
Group 8, 115 coins
Grain ear 373 43,2; 696 29
45, 10;
46, 22–23
374
375
376
377
Crescent 378 46, 24–28 706 17
Forked branch 379 46, 26–27 711 29
380
Aplustre 381 46, 31 721 7
Profile shield 382 46, 29, 32 731 9
Trident head 383 46, 20–21 723 13c
Macedonian shield 384 46, 30 726 11
Group 8?, 9 coins
Laurel branch 385 46, 28 9

The final marking listed, the straight laurel branch, is not found on any known tetradrachms. The symbol finds its nearest parallel in the rather sketchily executed straight laurel branch found occasionally among the Alexander tetradrachms of group J, analogous to Philip group 8.5 Supporting this tentative association with group 8 is the fact that the only tenths issues known (see below) have the grain ear of group 8 and this horizontal laurel branch. The remaining problematic issues are listed in Table 11.

Table 10 gives the total number of examples found and studied for the various groups of tetradrachms and fifths. Because the fifths' dies are so small and often so similar, and because the coins are often in such poor condition, no attempt to count their obverse dies has been made. Hence the comparison with the tetradrachms is made not by actual or estimated obverse dies used, but simply by the numbers of coins located.

In groups 2 through 6, virtually all of the securely placeable fifths bear the dual markings of their corresponding tetradrachms. However, the single markings of group 7 are (except for the one coin with a rather crude Λ) only the secondary markings of their group, whose primary marking is Λ; but there can be no doubt as to the placement of this group's fifths.

After group 7 the situation is more difficult, because subsequent fifths also bear only a secondary marking, and many of these markings were used both in group 8 (with image), and in group 9 (with image). Table 11 compares the incidence of the symbols found on these problematic fifths with the incidence of the same secondary markings on the tetradrachms of groups 8 and 9.

Table 10 Philip II Tetradrachms and Fifths: Examples Located
Group Tetradrachms Fifths
2 9 9
3 16 22
2 or 3 5
4 7 9
2, 3, or 4 6
5 13 13
6 45 43
7 72 50
8 93 115
9 235
Table 11 Occurrence of Symbols on Philip II Fifths and on Tetradrachms of Groups 8 and 9
Group 8, image Group 9, image
Tetradrachms Fifths Tetradrachms
Grain ear Grain ear Grain ear
Crescent Crescent Crescent
Forked branch Forked branch Forked branch
Aplustre Aplustre Aplustre
Profile shield Profile shield ?Profile shield
Trident head Trident head
Macedonian shield Macedonian shield
Wreath
* Dolphin
Axe
Λ
Laurel branch

As can be seen, seven of the fifths' eight6 known markings occur in group 8, and all of group 8's seven secondary markings are found on the fifths. The only markings of group 9 which occur on the small coins are the four (or five, if the profile shield really is found with image)7 which are found also on the group 8 tetradrachms. The remaining four in group 9, peculiar to that group, are not known on the fifths.

Clearly the trident head and Macedonian shield fifths, whose symbols are found only in group 8, must belong to that group. The first five issues listed, those with grain ear, crescent, forked branch, aplustre, and profile shield, might, however, belong to either group, although the other fifths' correspondences with group 8 together with their non-correspondences with group 9 strongly suggest that all the small coins belong with group 8. Several other observations, none convincing in itself, also lend weight to this supposition.

First, there are the numbers of tetradrachms and fifths located in the various issues from group 2 on, listed in Table 12. The forms of the monograms given are those which occur most commonly.

Table 12
Group Marking Tetradrachms Fifths
2 image 2
image bee 3 4
image amphora 1
image globule 2 1
image ivy leaf 3
image star 2
3 image amphora? club? 1
image ivy leaf 7 4
image globule 1 3
image star 3 4
image grapes 3 3
image image 1
image club 6
image uncertain marking 2
4 image image 1 7
image star 2 1
image grapes 2 1
image club 2
5 Causia A 1
Causia E 3 2
Causia Λ 4
Causia M 2 1
Causia T 2
Causia, globule, A 4
Causia, globule, E 1
Causia, globule, M 1
Causia, globule, T 1 4
6 Wreath A 7 16
Wreath E 6 5
Wreath Λ 6 7
Wreath M 7 7
Wreath T 11 8
Wreath image 3
Wreath image 2
7 Λ; image or image 25 20
Λ image 16 10
Λ image 24 13
Λ image 7 5
Λ 2
8 image trident head, and trident head 7 13
image Macedonian shield 4 11

By and large, the sizes of the tetradrachm issues and the fifths' issues correlate ever so approximately, at least as measured by the numbers of examples located. Although there are exceptions, the tendency is for larger tetradrachm issues to be accompanied by larger fractional issues, and smaller by smaller. A comparison of the five fractional issues in question with the group 8 and group 9 tetradrachm issues bearing their symbols follows in Table 13.

Table 13 Certain Philip II Tetradrachms and Fifths: Examples Located
Group 8
Tetradrachms
Fifths Group 9
Tetradrachms
Grain ear 27 29 8
Crescent 25 17 15
Forked branch 20 29 6
Aplustre 4 7 86
Profile shield 6 9 ?4

The number of crescent fifths, 17, is compatible with either group 8's 25 or group 9's 15 tetradrachms, and the 9 profile shield fifths might also belong to either group (if indeed group 9's profile shield issue even exists),8 but the number of fractions with the other three symbols is far out of line with the numbers of tetradrachms known in group 9, while according well with those of group 8. By itself this analysis of the sizes of the issues is far from definitive, but may help to strengthen the other evidence suggesting that these problematic fractional reissues of Philip II belong to group 8.

Finally there are the obverse links detailed in the following chapter. Nine links between groups are known among the fifths. Five of these (links 2, 4, 6, 7, and 10) do not involve groups 8 or 9, but all parallel obverse links found among the tetradrachms. A sixth link among the small coins (link 15) involves a coin with trident head symbol—which must be of group 8, not 9, as the trident head does not occur in group 9. This link too parallels an obverse link among the tetradrachms. The remaining three obverse links among the fifths (links 9, 16, and 17) involve small coins with symbols common to both group 8 and group 9—forked branch, grain ear, and crescent. Because all the six other known links among the fifths parallel known tetradrachm links, it seems only reasonable to assume that these three links do also, and thus at a minimum that the specific coins in question here—and very likely their whole issues as well—belong not to group 9 but to group 8.

The Philip tetradrachms of group 9 are succeeded by other Philip issues whose markings repeat those of many Alexanders subsequent to group L, but no Philip fractions of any size are known with these later emissions. The small denominations with Philip's types would seem to have ceased with those of group 8.

End Notes
a
The globule (to left, below the end of the horse's tail) and the M (below the causia) are both faint, but definitely present.
b
The globule (to left, below the end of the horse's tail) is again faint but definitely present.
c
Not included are Philippe , Pella silver 541–43 (group III, pl. 22). The obverse of 541 is, as Le Rider states, very close to 540's; 542 (an ANS coin, now SNGANS 453) seems to have a crescent, not noted in Philippe , to the left of the trident head; and 543 has a unique vertical ornamented trident head. None of the coins shares an obverse die with any other known fifths.
1
I follow Ulla Westermark in considering the obverse head to be Apollo. See her "Remarks on the Regal Macedonian Coinage ca. 413–359 B.C.," in Kraay-Mørkholm Essays. Numismatic Studies in Memory of C. M. Kraay and O. Mørkholm , ed. G. Le Rider, G. K. Jenkins, N. Waggoner, and U. Westermark (Louvainla-Neuve, 1989), pp. 301–15. See p. 303 for the argument for Apollo, based in part on the occasional presence of a laurel wreath instead of the taenia (cf. 339).
*
See p. 64, commentary on Philippe, pl. 46, 32.
2
Philippe, pp. 359–62. On p. 359 Le Rider suggests that the earlier Philip fractions with the same types as these were instituted in order to facilitate the exchange of Philip tetradrachms with Attic weight gold staters. How much more necessary would some aid to exchange have been at this later period, when Attic-weight tetradrachms of Alexander were being issued simultaneously with Philip tetradrachms. One Philip tetradrachm and one so-called fifth of a tetradrachm do not weigh quite as much as an Attic tetradrachm, but one must take into account the usual tendency for small coins to weigh less than their theoretical weight and the fact that such exchanges would be for the most part local. Price came to this same conclusion in Alexander , p. 38. In favor of such a function for the small coins is the observation later in this chapter that the fifths were issued in roughly proportional numbers (if one can judge by surviving coins) with their corresponding tetradrachms.
Price has also convincingly shown that the small coins, fifths of the Philip tetradrachms, were in reality drachms, and the traditional Macedonian large coins, more properly termed staters than tetradrachms, were traditionally divided into five, not four parts, i.e., drachms ( Alexander , pp. 38–39). But the term fifths will be used in this text to avoid confusion with Alexander's Attic-weight drachms.
3
See pp. 61–63.
4
See p. 58.
5
Cf. 83, 89.
6
See p. 58 for the eighth symbol, the horizontal laurel branch, and its probable association with the Alexanders analogous to group 8.
7
See p. 53, note b, and p. 58, note c.

TENTHS

These few small coins have weights between 1.23 and 1.30g, roughly half the weight of the fifths. Their obverses are as those of the fifths, and their reverses bear the forepart of a horse to right. They are known in two issues only, with grain ear and straight laurel branch, as on the fractions of group 8 described above.

Table 14 Philip II Tenths
Markings Plate Phillippe Plate SNGANS Number Examples
Grain ear 386 46, 33, 34 735A 5
Laurel branch 387 46, 35, 36 3
End Notes
8
See note 7, above.

ATTIC-WEIGHT DRACHMS

Six such coins are known to me, from four obverse and three reverse dies. Their obverses show a head of Heracles as on the standard Alexander coins, and their reverses depict a nude rider holding palm branch, his horse walking right with one foreleg raised as on Philip's contemporary tetradrachms. The combination of types should not be throught of as a hybrid, however, for Philip's lifetime didrachms and drachms coupled just such a Heracles head with slightly different horseman reverses identical to tetradrachms of their time.9 These Attic-weight drachms do not appear in Philippe or SNGANS.

Table 15 Philip II Attic-Weight Drachms
Markings Plate Examples
image grain ear 388 1
Grain ear 389 2
Crescent (horns down: image 390 3
391
392

The image on the first coin, known since 1891 although first published in 1973, places that issue in group 8, together with the die linked simple grain ear issue.10 Neither the grain ear alone nor the crescent alone is known on any Philip tetradrachms of either group 8 or group 9, but both are known on the Alexander tetradrachms of group J, analogous to Philip group 8.11

The crescent issue is Müller's 273 "tetrobol" (equivalent to octobol in present-day terminology), published in 1855.12 The first crescent coin illustrated here (390), acquired in 1841 by the British Museum, presumably also gave rise to Historia Numorum's citation of such an issue on the Attic standard.13

The unusual orientation of the crescent, with horns down, also points to a placement in group 8. Such an orientation is unreported on any Philip tetradrachms in either group 8 or group 9, or on the Alexanders of group L, contemporary with Philip group 9. This orientation is, however, found on a number of the Alexander tetradrachms in group J, contemporary with Philip group 8.14

The weights and axes of the six known specimens are 4.03 ← image grain ear; 4.11 ↑ and 4.18 ↑, grain ear; and 4.07 ↓, 4.06 ↓ (holed), and 4.13 ↓, crescent. Clearly drachms on the Attic standard, they are a considerable anomaly, the only silver with Philip's type struck to this standard at any time.15

Private communications have revealed considerable doubt as to the coins' genuineness. First and most important, of course, is their weight, but the treatment of Heracles' hair at the brow, the dotted circle on the reverse of the grain ear coins with the dots placed over a faint linear circle, and the incuse aspect and small size of that reverse die have all raised suspicions. None of these latter objections seem valid, however, as Heracles' hair is similar to that on many Alexander tetradrachms of group J,16 the dots cut over a circular guideline are common at this time,17 the incuse effect is seen on both Philip tetradrachms and fifths,18 and the small size of the die may simply reflect the small size of the common fifths.

The present author—rather brashly, for she has not seen any of these drachms—is therefore inclined to accept them as genuine.19 Most telling are the markings of the simple grain ear and the simple crescent with its horns pointing downward. A modern forger would presumably have modeled such coins on Philip's tetradrachms, but these markings do not occur alone on those tetradrachms. It seems most improbable that any forger would realize, first, that both of these markings were found alone only on a very few rare Alexander tetradrachms, and, second, that those Alexander tetradrachms were contemporary with the Philips with the marking image (where the image-grain ear issue obviously belongs), and thus that the simple grain ear and crescent with horns pointing down would be reasonable markings for his little creations.

Far more likely is the assumption that during the striking of Philip group 8 and the contemporary Alexander group J Amphipolis was called upon to produce a few Attic drachms and, as all other small denominations at the time bore Philip's types, appropriate Philip types were used for these drachms also.

End Notes
9
E.g., Philippe , Amphipolis 109–10, 142–44, 174–76. These coins showed the mounted king on reverse. They were lighter than the drachms under discussion, being one-quarter of the weight of the tetradrachms of Philip which were lighter than the Attic tetradrachm.
10
The first coin is in Cambridge, SNGLewis 500. Its obverse also was used for a coin with grain ear symbol alone (not illustrated).
11
See p. 23, J1 and J2 (81 and 82).
12
Müller, p. 337, 10, and table 26 (Philip II), 273. I thank Martin Price for pointing out this citation. I thank also Dr. H.-D. Schultz for the coin's weight of 4.06 (Müller gives 4.07), and for the information that it was "erworben 1852 vom Consul Spiegelthal in Smyrna." It is not clear whether the coin was purchased "from Consul Spiegelthal, [who was consul] in Smyrna" or whether it was purchased "by Consul Spiegelthal in Smyrna." If the latter, however, this may be an extremely rare instance of a silver coin of Philip II circulating in Asia Minor—perhaps because of its Attic weight.
13
HN, p. 223. The denomination is again called an octobol, but the 66 grain theoretical weight given equates to 4.28, the weight of the Attic drachm.

COMMENTARY ON Philippe ISSUES

Plate 43, 2–8. Le Rider has placed these fifths of fine style, with grain ear, amphora, star, and globule symbols, after his lone tetradrachm of group 1 with the single marking image. He likens the small coins' obverses to those of certain, most probably roughly contemporary, gold staters of Amphipolis,20 which seems persuasive but which does not necessarily suggest an association with any particular tetradrachm group.

As already discussed, group 1 may well be a phantom. In any case, none of the four symbols on the fractions in question occur on this tetradrachm, but all occur in other tetradrachm groups. One fifth with star is die linked into group 3 (343 and 340), and the coin seems merely to lack group 3's primary marking of image. Other coins with star, amphora, and globule probably also simply lack their primary markings.

The grain ear is a heavily used symbol in group 8, and there seems little reason to separate out the few coins with the finest obverses. Philippe' s pl. 43, 2 (373), is in fact reverse linked to a coin with a quite unexceptional obverse (374). Placement on stylistic grounds is at best weak placement, and it seems preferable to place the particular coins illustrated on Philippe's pl. 43, 2–8, together with others bearing the same markings.

Plate 44, 12. The coin, SNGANS 587, with only image visible, may well have a symbol off flan.

Plate 44, 27–28. These coins, with star only, are in Philippe placed with group 4. Here 28 (343) has been moved to group 3, as it shares an obverse with another group 3 coin (340). Other star-only coins, including 27, may belong to any of groups 2, 3, or 4.

Plate 46, 32. The "dolphin" symbol on the coin, SNGANS 735, is shown by a comparison with the better preserved SNGANS 734 (382), from the same dies, to be not a dolphin but a profile shield. No small coins with dolphin symbol are known.

End Notes
14
E.g., 87.
15
I agree with Price that a single known Philip tetradrachm of 16.72 g with a poor and most peculiar obverse style must be an ancient imitation ( Alexander , p. 29, n. 1, and K. Dimitrov and V. Penchev, Seuthopolis 2: The Ancient and Medieval Coins [Sofia, 1984], p. 52, 6, and pl. 1, 5). It is true that the coin has as symbol a crescent (horns right), but the coin's style seems simply impossible for a genuine issue.
16
E.g., 84, 86, and 88.
17
E.g., 87, 88, and 378.
18
E.g., 368, 371, 380, and 383.
19
Price also apparently accepted them as genuine, although considering them octobols on the local standard. See Alexander , p. 24, n. 2.
20
Philippe , p. 120, n. 1.

6. Philip II GROUPS: RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY

The 17 (or possibly 18) obverse links which have been found between the various post-323 Philip groups are detailed below, followed by a summary in Figure 5 and then by discussion. Tetradrachms provide eight, or possibly nine, of the links (links 1, 3, 5, 8, 11–14, and also 18 if this last is a valid link), and the fifths the remaining nine (links 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 15–17).

As in Chapter 3, all coins known from the obverse dies involved are catalogued. Newell's provisional tetradrachm obverse die numbers are also given as a possible help to future researchers, because the ANS's coin tickets, casts, and photo file cards bear these numbers.

OBVERSE LINKS

Group 2 with Group 3

Link 1, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 110

image

Stage 1

2, image globule (393) Munich; Oxford = SNGAshm 2482 = Philippe , pl. 44, 2, same die

Stage 2

2, image ivy leaf (394) SNGANS 573

3, image star (395) Naples = Philippe, pl. 44, 5

In stage 2 there are small retouchings, most obviously in the hair below the wreath, e.g., an added line above the tip of the lock farthest to the left.

Link 2, fifths

image

2, image globule (396) Turin

3, image globule (397) Cambridge, Eng. = McClean 3359

The form of the group 2 monogram is odd, yet the coin must be of this group.

Group 3 with Group 5

Link 3, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 56C

image

3, image grapes (398) Peus 279, 14 Mar. 1972, 16 = Frankfurter 116, 27 Jan. 1969, 417 = Philippe , pl. 44, 8

5, causia M (399) London; Copenhagen = SNGCop 557 = Philippe , pl. 44, 30

Link 4, fifths

image

3, image ivy leaf (400) Berlin = Philippe , pl. 44, 14

5, causia Λ (401) Athens = Philippe , pl. 45, 1

Group 3 with Group 5 and Group 6

Link 5, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 56

image

Stage 1

3, image star (402) SNGANS 579; Athens = Philippe pl. 44, 9

5, causia, globule, T (403) cast marked "Volo"

6, wreath T (404) SNGANS 613

Stage 2

5, causia E (405) Auctiones 5, 2 Dec. 1975, 65

Stage 3

5, causia E (406) SNGANS 592 = Naville 12, 18 Oct. 1926, 1150

5, causia T (407) SNGANS 593; Glasgow = Hunter p. 291, 60 = Philippe, pl. 44, 31

As Le Rider notes, retouching of stage 1 is evident in stage 3, with extra lines added at the back of the crown and below the beard. Coin 405 seems to show an intermediate stage, with a die break in the field behind the crown which may have occasioned the retouching in stage 3.

Group 3 with Group 6

Link 6, fifths

image

3, image club (408) Wertheim

6, wreath M (409) SNGANS 625; (410) SNGANS 626 = SNGBerry 125

Link 7, fifths Stage 1

image

3, image star (411) SNGANS 583 = Philippe, pl. 52, 5; Paris = Philippe, pl. 44, 13; private coll.

Stage 2

6, wreath M (412) SNGANS 627 = Philippe, pl. 52, 12

Retouching is evident on the obverse of 412, probably occasioned by a rusted die. The effect of the rusting can be seen in the lower portions of the relief.

Group 4 with Group 8

Link, 8, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 100

image

Stage 1

8, image crescent (413) SNGANS 682; St. Petersburg, same die; Dresden; cast marked "Commerce 1929," same die

Stage 2

8, image Macedonian shield (414) SNGANS 692

Stage 3

4, image star (415) St. Petersburg

8, image grain ear (416) J. Hirsch 33, 17 Nov. 1913, 643, not illustrated but a cast is at the ANS; Hollschek

In stage 2, a minute die break has appeared in the center of the locks below the wreath. In stage 3, other small die breaks have formed directly below Zeus's earlobe, and in his hair above the wreath.

Link 9, fifths

image

4, image image (417) Paris = Philippe, pl. 44, 24

8, forked branch (418) London = Philippe, pl. 46, 27

The link is not noted by Le Rider.

Group 5 with Group 6

Link 10, fifths

image

Stage 1

5, causia A (419) SNGANS 596 = Philippe, pl. 44, 34

5, causia E (420) London = Weber 2061 = Philippe, pl. 44, 35

Stage 2

6, wreath A (421) Budapest, Delhaes = Philippe, pl. 45, 29

As Le Rider notes, the die identity is not absolutely certain. If the same obverse was used here for both groups (which seems likely to the present author), it was recut rather heavily after its use in group 5.

Group 5 with Group 6 and Group 8

Link 11, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 80

image

5, causia E (422) Philippe, pl. 44, 29 (in commerce)

5, causia ?Λ (423) Leiden

6, wreath A (424) SNGANS 600; London

8, image grain ear (425) SNGANS 667 = SNGBerry 119

8, image forked branch (426) SNGANS 683; Cambridge, Mass. = Dewing 1113, same die; Athens, same die

8, image profile shield (427) SNGANS 688; Münz. u. Med. FPL 320, Feb. 1971, 8, same die; Platt, 27 Mar. 1922, 339

Link 12, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 50

image

Stage 1

5, causia, globule, A (428) SNGANS 595

6, wreath Λ (429) Berlin

Stage 2

6, wreath Λ (430) Frankfurter 123, 8 Mar. 1976, 67, same die

8, image grain ear (431) Yakountchikoff; Naville 1, 4 Apr. 1921, 854, same die

8, image aplustre (432) Florence

Stage 3

6, wreath image (433) London = Philippe , pl. 45, 23; SNGANS 615, same die; Gotha, same die

Stage 4

6, wreath M (434) SNGANS 608

6, wreath T (435) St. Petersburg

In stage 2 there is some recutting of the hair at the crown, in stage 3 a small die break has developed directly in front of the eye, and in stage 4 there is a new die break in the hair just above the ear.

Group 6 with Group 8

Link 13, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 41 = 111

image

6, wreath Λ (436) Paris; M. Ratto, 16 May 1935, 217, same die

8, image grain ear (437) SNGANS 668

8, image forked branch (438) SNGANS 684; Oman, same die; Coin Galleries, 19 Nov. 1973, 180, same die

Group 7 with Group 8

Link 14, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 115

image

Stage 1

7, Λ image (439) Zygman

Stage 2

8, image grain ear (440) London; Paris = Philippe, pl. 46, 3, same die; Coin Galleries, 20 Nov. 1975, 2028, same die

In stage 2 a clear die break has formed in the hair just above the lowest pair of leaves.

Coin 439 is the only Philip II tetradrachm cast from the Zygman collection at the ANS, so the cast pair must certainly be a true one.

Link 15 (fifths)

image

7, image (441) SNGANS 658; London = Philippe , pl. 45, 20, same die

8, trident head (442) Berlin = Philippe , pl. 46, 21

Link 16, fifths

image

7, image (443) Vienna = Philippe , pl. 45, 8

8, grain ear (444) Hersh = Philippe , pl. 45, 10

Le Rider catalogues 444 not with other similarly marked examples (pl. 43, 2, and pl. 46, 22–23) but because of the obverse link together with this group 7 coin.

Link 17, fifths

image

7, image (445) Berlin = Philippe , pl. 45, 21

8, crescent (446) Turin, the crescent cut over 445's image; (447) Wertheim

Coins 445 and 446 are from the same die pair, but on 446 the crescent has been cut over the monogram of 445.

?Group 8 with Group 9?

The following link is highly questionable because of the similarity of the image and image markings and the careless execution of many coins in these groups. Further, the very existence of the image-profile shield issue is doubtful, and thus the validity of the link is doubly uncertain.1

?Link 18, tetradrachms, Newell obverse 121

image

8, image crescent (448) SNGANS 677; London

9, image profile shield (449) Paris; Glasgow = Hunter, p. 291, 61 = Philippe , pl. 46, 13, same die

In Figure 5, solid brackets indicate die links between tetradrachms in different groups and dashed brackets show die links between fifths. The brackets to the left show obverse links (1–18), and the dashed bracket to the right shows reverse link 17 including recutting between fifths in groups 7 and 8. The dotted brackets to the right show not die links, but multiple similarities in the secondary reverse markings of the groups.

image

Figure 5

Die Links between Philip II Groups

Tetradrachms: links 1, 3, 5, 8, 11–14, 18?

Fifths: links 2, 4, 6–7, 9–10, 15–17

End Notes
1
See p. 53, Table 7, note b.

DISCUSSION

Hoards provide minimal help in proposing a relative order for the Philip groups here. Several Alexander hoards' contents end with Alexanders parallel to groups 7 and 8.2 These will be discussed in Chapters 8 and 9. Two hoards of Philips include coins of all or most groups through group 9.3 None help with any arrangement of groups 1–6, nor with their relationship to groups 7 and 8. Here we are totally dependent on the evidence of the coins, and this is not clear.

The Philip groups 1–8 are presented here in a linear order, because on a two–dimensional sheet of paper there is no alternative. The evidence strongly suggests, however, that many if not all of these groups were struck more or less simultaneously–or at least that groups 1 (or 2) through 7 were struck concurrently with group 8.

Groups 4, 5, 6, and 7 all share obverse dies with group 8. Groups 2 and 3, 3 and 4, and 5 and 6 form pairs of groups closely connected by shared secondary markings. Links 5 and 10 show that groups 5 and 6 must have overlapped at least to some extent, and link 12 shows that 5 and 6 must also have overlapped group 8. Link 8 shows that group 8 must have at least in part preceded group 4, and yet 4 is closely bound to 2 and 3–and it does not seem reasonable to place the small groups 1–3 after 6. And then there is group 7, tied by no fewer than four die links to group 8. And, if the monograms image, image and image of groups 1 and 2 are variations of Alexander group I's image or image then group 7's monogram image seems even more probably a variation of Alexander group I's unusual monogram image suggesting that group 7 came rather early in the series. It does not seem possible, then, to place groups 1–8 in any sort of linear order and the relatively small groups 1–7 must have been struck more or less at the same time as the larger group 8.

Le Rider stated that his order for these groups in Philippe was somewhat arbitrary. The order here, largely his, is not intended to be understood as a strict chronological sequence, but merely as a convenient way of presenting the contemporary groups 1 through 8. Given the unexpectedly small size of some of the groups, as measured by the obverse dies employed,4 this is not surprising.

Group 9, however, is different. Aside from the highly questionable link 18 with group 8, it shares no dies with any other group. Further, hoard evidence and other observations on the analogous Alexander groups show that, despite its superficial reverse resemblance to group 8, it must be considered a completely separate emission.5

End Notes
2
See Chapter 8, hoards 10, 13–14, 18, 20, and 28.
3
See Chapter 8, hoards 34–35.
4
See p. 54, Table 8.
5
See p. 50.

7. ALEXANDER AND Philip GROUPS: SUMMARY AND RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY

Table 16 summarizes and correlates the chronology of the silver coinage of Amphipolis–both Alexander's and Philip II's types, and all denominations. The table is based solely upon internal evidence, that of the coins themselves. Its two chief subdivisions, Attic weight and Macedonian weight, parallel the coins' types with but one exception, the rare Attic-weight drachms corresponding to Alexander group J. These anomalous Attic-weight drachms bear Philip's reverse type and name.

The incidence of the various small denominations with their reverse types is indicated in Table 16 by the following abbreviations:

Z = Zeus seated, as on the tetradrachms

E = eagle standing 1. or r., head sometimes reverted

2E = two eagles facing each other

F = fulmen

P = Philip's type of mounted horseman (or horse forepart on tenths)

Alexander tetradrachm groups G, H, I, K, and J include the title BAΣIΛEΩΣ in their inscriptions. This study ends with Alexander group L and the contemporary Philip group 9, but the arrows at the bottom of the table indicate that Alexander and Philip tetradrachms continued to be struck at Amphipolis.

Table 16 Summary of Relative Chronology of Alexander and Philip II Tetradrachms and of Accompanying Smaller Coins
Attic Weight Obv. Heracles head Macedonian Weight Obv. Zeus head (tetradrachms) or Apollo head (smaller denominations)
Alexander Tetradr. Philip Tetradr.
Group 2–dr. 1–dr. 3–ob. 2–ob. obols Group Fifths Tenths
A E 2E F ?a
B Z E E 2E F
C Z E E 2E F
D Z E E 2E F
E X E,Z E 2E F?
F Z
G
H
I
K/J P 1-8b P P
L 9

Table 17 gives in its second and fourth columns the estimated number of obverse dies employed in the Alexander and Philip tetradrachm groups, as discussed in Chapters 1 and 4. The figures in the final column for groups A through I are the numbers of estimated dies used for those Alexander groups. Group A's total may be higher, as it is unclear whether Philip's coins with the same markings were issued before or together with group A's Alexanders. Further, groups A and B must have overlapped at least in part, and C and D may well have also.

The Attic-weight fractions of all denominations, being so few, have not been taken into account. But the Philip fifths corresponding to Philip groups 2–8 were, so far as is shown by surviving specimens, at least approximately equal in number to their corresponding tetradrachms, and the small coins' weights were nearly equal to the difference between the weights of the two kings' tetradrachms. Therefore, a simple addition of the estimated dies used for Alexander groups K and J and Philip groups 1–8 seems the most reasonable number to use in the final column.

In Philip group 9, however, there appear to have been no small coins struck. Therefore a conversion factor has been applied to the number of Philip dies estimated here: 14.40/17.20, the approximate theoretical weights of the Macedonian and Attic tetradrachms. The resulting number 47 (56 Philip dies x 14.40/17.20) was then added to the 232 Attic tetradrachm dies to give the final column's 279.

The numbers in the final column, then, the results of several approximations, are the best estimates the present author can make of the relative numbers of dies used, and thus the amount of silver produced, at Amphipolis during the period under study.

Table17 Relative Amounts of Silver Struck as Measured by Estimated Dies, Attic Weight or Equivalent
Alexander Group Dies Philip Group Dies Total Dies
A 88 ? 88 +
B 49 49
C 18 18
D 76 76
E 241 241
F 89 89
G 114 114
H 109 109
I 70 70
K/J 43 1–8 110 153
Totals A-K/J, 1–8 885 110 995
L 232 9 47 279
Totals 1,075 157 1,232

End Notes

a
Philippe's Amphipolis group IIB may have at least partially overlapped Alexander group A.
b
The Philip II reissues may possibly have commenced during Alexander group I, as discussed above, pp. 54 and 70.

8. THE SILVER HOARDS

Listed in this chapter, following an alphabetical index, are the 46 hoards containing Amphipolis Alexanders (or their analogous post-323 Philip II reissues, or both) which were buried by ca. 300 B.C. and whose detailed contents are available to me. Noted are the total numbers of coins of Alexander and Philip III, the numbers of Amphipolis coins, and the latest Amphipolis group present. The Alexanders are tetradrachms unless described otherwise.

The hoards are presented in approximate chronological order, in many cases based on their Amphipolis contents. Where this is not the case, the latest reasonably datable coins are identified. It is of course impossible to date each hoard accurately to a given year, and the order is not to be taken too seriously as hoards several numbers apart may be contemporary, or hoards may well be listed after others whose burials they actually preceded. A hoard summary appears on p. 83.

ALPHABETICAL INDEX

Hoard Number
Abu Hommos 1919 24
Agios Ioannis 1949 37
Akçakale 1958 18
Aksaray 1968 41
Aleppo 1893 40
Andritsaena 1923 20
Asia Minor, S. 1960 42
Asia Minor 1964 8
Asia Minor 1964 See 22
Asia Minor 1965 23
Asia Minor 1966 32
Asia Minor 1968 22
Asia Minor 1968 See 22
Babylon 1973 5
Byblus 1931 31
Calim 1976 11
Central Greece 1911 13
Cilicia 1964 12
Commerce 1993 4
Demanhur 1905 10
Drama 1935 28
Egypt 1893 16
Egypt 1894 25
Karaman 1969 43
Karditsa 1925 15
Katò Paphos 1965 38
Khirbet-el-Kerak 1936 14
Kuft 1874–75 26
Kyparissia 1892–93 1
Lamia (Hagioi Theodoroi) 1901–2 45
Lebanon 1985 6
Megara 1917 36
Mageira 1950 2
Mavriki 1962 44
Messene 1922 29
Near East 1993 7
Nemea 1938 3
Paeonia 1968 34
Paphos District 1945 46
Phacous 1956 39
Phoenicia 1968 9
Sfire 1932 17
Ràžinci 1961 35
Sinan Pascha 1919 19
Tel Tsippor 1960 30
Thessaly 1971 33
Tripolitsa 1921 21
Unknown Provenance ca. 1990 27

INDIVIDUAL HOARDS

1. Kyparissia, Messenia, 1892–93 (IGCH 76),1 35 coins, 20 Alexanders.

15 Amphipolis: 10 A, 2 B, C, 2 D. Newell dated the hoard's burial to shortly after 327 on the basis of the five other Alexanders present from Tarsus and Ake, no later than 328 on his dating. His burial date must be approximately correct.

2. Mageira, Elis, 1950 ( IGCH 74),2 48 coins, 1 Alexander.

None from Amphipolis. The hoard contained mostly civic issues, but also 4 coins of Philip II. The hoard's only Alexander was from Tarsus (Tarsos, series I, 333–328 B.C.). All authorities date the hoard to ca. 330–325, and Le Rider in Philippe notes that 325 is more likely, as the Tarsus coin is quite worn.

3. Nemea, Argolis, 1938 ( IGCH 79),3 3 coins, 1 Alexander.

1 Amphipolis: D. This little hoard (one lifetime Philip II, one Boeotian stater, and one group D tetradrachm) is dated to ca. 330–325 in Alexander , but by Thompson to ca. 325–320 in IGCH. Le Rider notes in Philippe that the Amphipolis tetradrachm is heavily worn so the later range seems more likely. In any case, the group D coin dates the hoard, which is of no chronological value.

4. Commerce 1993, 72 Alexanders.

25 Amphipolis: 3 A, 2 B, 3 C, 2 D, 15 E. See Appendix 1 for a complete listing and discussion.

5. Babylon 1973,4 a large hoard including "many" Alexanders.

12 Amphipolis: A, B, 4 D, 5 E, G. This fascinating hoard contained not only Alexanders (chiefly of Babylon, with Aradus providing the second most important component), but also numerous Athenian tetradrachms and imitations, lion staters, and Porus decadrachms and other issues with elephant types, at least one of which was new.

The specific Amphipolis information given here derives from the casts and photos which Nancy Waggoner assembled at the ANS. Most of the coins were Babylonian Alexanders, of which approximately half bear the title BAΣIΛEΩΣ. Waggoner's material does not include the latest Babylonian issue in the hoard, but Martin Price believed that she had information stating that this issue was present, and he included it in his description of the hoard in Alexander. The issue in question is of tetradrachms as Alexander 3692, with M and and BAΣIΛEΩΣ AΛE ΞAΛEΞANΔΡΟΥ, which Waggoner considered Babylon's first posthumous issue, ca. 323–322 B.C.5 The hoard material at the ANS does include, however, a record of a contemporary lion stater with M and ΛY.

Also among Waggoner's material are two Tarsus coins with Nike and two monograms ( Alexander 3039), Tarsos issue 47, placed by Newell in the second of four groups in his series III, a series which he dated to ca. 324–319.

At least 39 Aradus coins with caduceus ( Alexander 3332) were also present. This was the last Aradus issue in Demanhur, and it is the last tetradrachm issue listed by Price in Alexander's ca. 328-ca. 320 Aradus section. Some of these Aradus coins may well be later than 322, but their dates are not firmly enough established to justify dating the Babylon hoard's burial after 322 or perhaps 321.6

6. Lebanon ca. 1985, 26 Alexanders.

5 Amphipolis: A, C, 2 E, G. Martin Price provided the details of this hoard, which also contained Alexanders of Lampsacus, Side, Amathus, Salamis, Tarsus, Aradus, Myriandrus, and Babylon. Most are probably from the years just before 323. The latest coins are one of Babylon with the title BAΣIΛEΩΣ ( Alexander 3684), which Waggoner dated to ca. 324/3–323/2,7 and three of Aradus from the large issue with caduceus ( Alexander 3332), which may possibly be a bit later. See comments on this issue in hoard 5, above.

7. Near East 1993,8 1,412 Alexander drachms.

Amphipolis: 3 E, 8 E or F (6 image, 2 laurel branch), 6 F (arrow). The hoard's composition is extremely similar to Asia Minor 1964. Its Asia Minor components ended where those of Asia Minor 1964 did, except that the latest series of Lampsacus and Abydus present there were lacking here, as was any Colophon material. The present hoard contained also a drachm of Aradus with caduceus (Alexander 3333). Its burial thus seems to antedate that of Asia Minor 1964 by a very short time, perhaps less than one year.

The hoard is of no value to the absolute chronology of the Amphipolis groups, but its burial date of ca. 322 rather surprisingly shows that the image drachms, contrary to all previous assumption, cannot be associated with the post–318 tetradrachms of group L with that monogram as primary marking.

8. Asia Minor 1964 ( IGCH 1437),9 88 Alexander drachms.

1 Amphipolis: F (arrow). Price notes that although the hoard contained no Philip III coins, one Alexander drachm from Magnesia was from an issue also struck in Philip Ill's name. Thompson dated the hoard's burial to ca. 321/320. The burial date is thus too late to be of chronological value.

9. Phoenicia 1968 ( IGCH 1513),10 9 Alexanders and 6 Philip III.

4 Amphipolis: 2 G, H, I. The hoard's 8 Babylonian coins include 5 of the Philip III issue with M and ΛΥ (Alexander P181), which Waggoner considered Babylon's second posthumous issue, ca. 322–321 B.C.11

10. Demanhur, Egypt, 1905 ( IGCH 1664),12 8,000+ Alexander and Philip III.

2,005 Amphipolis. To the 1,582 Amphipolis coins listed in Demanhur can be added 423 specimens which Newell recorded after that hoard publication, giving a total of 2,005.

Group A B C D E F G H I K J Total
Demanhur 161 140 71 147 375 148 167 261 67 1 44 1,582
Newell's Notes 52 41 32 46 81 42 54 56 14 5 423
Total 213 181 103 193 456 190 221 317 81 1 49 2,005

This enormous hoard gives us the one securely fixed point in the dating of all lifetime and early posthumous Alexander issues by its inclusion of the dated coins of Ake and Sidon through 319/318 B.C. Of the 8,000+ coins present, some 5,951 can be identified by issue–4,826 in Newell's Demanhur , and an additional 1,125 in Newell's notes at the ANS. The total additions to each mint as recorded by Newell have been published by Orestes Zervos.13 The proportions of these additions, as well as of the Amphipolis breakdown above, are close to those of the original publication in Demanhur and confirm the general composition at the hoard as reported there.

11. Calim, Bulgaria, 1976,14 3 Alexander drachms.

1 Amphipolis: E or F (laurel branch). The coins were a drachm of Magnesia of ca. 322, one of Sardes as Alexander 2639 (Sardes, series XV, 319/8 B.C.), and one of Amphipolis with Zeus reverse, no title, and a laurel branch from Alexander group E or F.15 The Sardes coin dates this hoard's burial.

12. Cilicia 1964 ( IGCH 1421),16 22 coins, 4 Alexanders.

2 Amphipolis: D, F. The bulk of the hoard was Athenian tetradrachms and imitations. The two non-Macedonian Alexanders were Damascus probably as Alexander 3211, whose date is not precisely known, and Tarsus as Alexander 3053, the last Tarsus issue catalogued in Demanhur. The hoard thus is not helpful for chronology.

13. Central Greece 1911 ( IGCH 81),17 37 + coins, 28 Alexanders.

15 Amphipolis: A, 2 D, 2 E, 4 H, 3 I, 3 J. The latest non-Macedonian coins, both noted in the list at the ANS as worn, were Citium with BAΣIΛEΩΣ and  (exact issue not ascertainable), dated to ca. 325–320, and the Aradus caduceus issue of perhaps 322–319 (see comments on this issue in hoard 5, above).

Although Thompson in IGCH and Le Rider in Philippe date the hoard's burial to ca. 315, Price in Alexander places it in his group of hoards buried ca. 323–320: "The Macedonian issues in Central Greece go down to the Γ group [group J] of c. 323 BC..., emphasizing that its deposit cannot have been long before that of the Demanhur hoard." Perhaps Price was influenced by the absence of group K, considered in Demanhur as the latest Amphipolis group. But as K now seems quite contemporary with J, Central Greece's Amphipolis issues go down as far as Demanhur's, and its burial was probably at least as late as that great deposit's, i.e., ca. 318 or 317. In any case, the hoard does not date our group J; it is dated by it. Note that the hoard contained 3 coins of group J, not 1 as reported in Philippe.

14. Khirbet-el-Kerak, Galilee, 1936 ( IGCH 1510),18 118 + coins, 40 Alexanders and 13 Philip III.

7Amphipolis: B, 2 G, 2 H, I, J. The latest datable coin is a Sidonian tetradrachm of year 13 (321/20 B.C.), but the coin of group J dates the hoard which is thus of no chronological help. A "considerable number" of coins were said, however, to have been dispersed before the remaining 118 were studied.

15. Karditsa, Thessaly, 1925 ( IGCH 82),19 37 + coins, 30 Alexanders.

15Amphipolis: C, D, 3 E, F, 3 G, 5 H, I. The latest coins are Tarsus as Alexander 3039 (Tarsos 47), dated to ca. 323-317 in Alexander , and 3 Pella of ca. 325-315 ( Alexander 214, 218, 220). The hoard is not useful for our chronology.

16. Egypt 1893 ( IGCH 1665), 44 Alexanders.

18Amphipolis: 3 A, 2 D, 7 E, 4 F, G, H (the count differs slightly from that in IGCH). IGCH notes (properly, as appears from the original account) "a single hoard?" With four exceptions (intrusions?) the hoard contains only issues found in Demanhur, and is thus, even if a true hoard, of no value chronologically.

17. Sfire, Cyrrhestica, 1932 ( IGCH 1511), 84 Alexanders.

1 Amphipolis: E. The hoard contains many of its mints' latest Demanhur issues, and thus was dated by Seyrig in IGCH to soon after 318. It is again of no chronological value.

18. Akçakale, Mesopotamia, 1958,20 163 Alexanders and 27 Philip III.

26 Amphipolis: B, C, D, 9 E, 2 F, 4 G, 4 H, 2 I, 2 J. The hoard contained 5 coins of Ake and Sidon of 319/8 B.C., the last year present in Demanhur, but also one of Ake of year 30, or 318/7 B.C.–a year later than Demanhur's latest coins. As Le Rider and Olçay remark, no other hoard coins can be dated later than Philip III's reign, so the hoard's burial can be taken as 317 or perhaps early in 316, a year later than Demanhur.

19. Sinan Pascha, near Afyon-Karahissar, Phrygia, 1919 ( IGCH 1395),image 682+ drachms of Alexander and Philip III, the great majority from Asia Minor mints.

3 Amphipolis: E or F (), 2 F (arrow). Thompson in Sardes and Miletus dated the hoard's burial to "about the time of the assassination of Philip III" (fall 317 B.C.) because the Sardes material contained two series (one large, one small) not present in Demanhur. Additionally, Sinan Pascha contained a image drachm, which she believed contemporary with the image tetradrachms of group L, "the immediate successors of coins with image alone," which were not present in Demanhur. As the image drachms were present in the Near East 1993 drachm hoard buried ca. 322, they are now seen to antedate group L by some years, and are no longer a reason for Thompson's burial date. Nevertheless, as Price notes, Sinan Pascha contained the full record of drachms struck in the name of Philip III and its burial can hardly be earlier than the end of 317.

image

20. Andritsaena, Elis, 1923 ( IGCH 83),22 145+ coins (lot A, 110; lot B, 35), 102 Alexanders and Philip III (lot A, 74; lot B, 28).

33 Amphipolis:

Group A B C D E F G H I K J Total
Lot A 2 1 3 2 1 1 3 5 4 22
Lot B 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 11
Total 2 1 4 5 2 1 6 6 1 5 33

There are two components of the hoard. Lot A is the 110 coins in Newell's original publication (Andritsaena), which included 73 Alexanders of which 22 were from Amphipolis. Newell dated the hoard's burial to ca. 315 B.C. because the latest coin known was one of Babylon, which he considered struck ca. 316 B.C. This coin was of the issue of Alexander 3746, there dated to ca. 311-305 B.C. However, this issue was struck over a period of several years, and the dies of the Andritsaena coin are Waggoner's 280a, which she assigns to ca. 316 B.C.–just the time Newell thought.

A second group of 41 (not 40, as in IGCH) coins forms IGCH's lot B. Newell learned of this group from the Greek collector Empedocles only after Andritsaena's publication.23 Of its Alexanders, 11 are identifiable issues of Amphipolis as shown above.

Several complications arise from this lot. As Thompson noted in IGCH, it included a post–323 coin of Philip II's types with markings of Λ, E, and bucranium (the group which follows Philip group 9 [analogous to Alexander group L]): "If this was part of the original hoard, it may require lowering Newell's burial date of 315 B.C. by a few years."

But there are further complexities. Fortunately still preserved at the ANS is the scrap of paper on which Newell recorded, rather sketchily, the coins of lot B. From this he added the lot to the previous lot A in one of the bound notebooks in which he kept careful and precise records of many hoards. Six of the tetradrachms of lot B were not transferred from the scrap of paper to the notebook. They included four coins of Philip II: two of Philippe's Pella group II, one of Amphipolis group II ("Jannated [sic] Vase", i.e., double heads)24 and one of Amphipolis group IV (that mentioned above, with A-bucranium); and two coins of Alexander III, one with AΛEΞANΔΡΟΥ, Λ in left field and image below the throne, and one with BAΣIΛEΩΣ AΛEΞANΔΡΟΥ and a star of seven rays below the throne.

The first of the two Alexanders must be the twelfth Amphipolis coin mentioned in IGCH, but its identification is a problem. No issue is known with precisely these markings. Could a mention of a bucranium or torch have been omitted from the original sketchy list?25 The second Alexander, however, with the star's seven points carefully noted, can only be an uncertain Peloponnesian issue of ca. 270-260 B.C.26

The two omitted Alexanders and the late Philip II possibly were not transferred to Newell's notebook because he considered them intrusions–but then why would he have omitted the three unexceptional earlier Philips, completely similar to others recorded from both lots A and B? I can only believe that the admirably precise and careful Newell did not put them in his final record of the hoard because he had good reason. Perhaps he, or his colleague Sidney Noe who frequently traveled to Greece, saw the coins and noted differences; or, perhaps more likely, a subsequent communication, not preserved, was received from Empedocles. This writer concludes that the latest coin in lots A and B of the Andritsaena Hoard was indeed lot A's Babylon tetradrachm of ca. 316-315/4, and that Newell's original burial date of ca. 315 is probably correct.

21. Tripolitsa, Arcadia, 1921 (IGCH 84),27 23 coins, 14 Alexanders.

4 Amphipolis: 2 A, E, I. Newell 28 considered Tripolitsa probably part of the Andritsaena Hoard, and he is tentatively followed in this by Le Rider and definitely by Price. Tripolitsa's inclusion would make no difference, however, as its composition is very similar to Andritsaena's and no coins are later than that hoard's.

22. Asia Minor 1968 ( IGCH 1440),29 90+ Alexanders.

32 Amphipolis: 3 A, 2 B, 9 D, 12 E, 5 F, G. Martin Price again provided the details of this hoard. I have been unable to discover the specific issues present in the Asia Minor 1964 ( IGCH 1438) and Asia Minor 1968 ( IGCH 1439) hoards. Note, however, that Price apparently considers 1439 and 1440 as one hoard.30

IGCH 1440 included a Babylon tetradrachm as Alexander 3692, with M and ΛΥ and BAΣIΛEΩΣ AΛEΞANΔΡΟΥ, dated by Waggoner to ca. 323-322 B.C.31 and 7 coins of the Aradus issue with caduceus, which may even be a bit later.32 But the latest coin present was a Babylon coin as Alexander 3704, which Waggoner dated to ca. 316-310.33 Even if this latest Babylon coin is an intrusion, the hoard is of no value for chronology.

23. Asia Minor 1965 ( IGCH 1443),34 29 Alexander and Philip III.

5 Amphipolis: D, 2 E, 2 L. The hoard's latest coins were Ake of year 33 (315/4) and two of Sardes whose dates are disputed. The latter two are as Alexander 2645A = Sardes series XVI, 363-67, and similar to Alexander 2671 ff. = Sardes series XX, 393. Thompson dates these two coins to ca. 310-302, but Price prefers ca. 319-315.

24. Abu Hommos, Egypt, 1919 ( IGCH 1667),35 1,000+ coins, 750 Alexander and Philip III.

61 + Amphipolis: 3 A, 3 B, C, D, 18 E, 2 F, 7 G, 11 H, 5 I, 6 J, 4 L. The IGCH notes only 30

ANS coins of Amphipolis. These (and the totals given there for coins of other mints) are coins listed in Newell's hoard notebook as at Spink's in London in July 1922. They (at least the 30 of Amphipolis) were purchased by Newell, but were only a portion of his acquisitions from the hoard. The 61 coins listed above are all in the ANS trays and identified as from this hoard.

In the ANS's Abu Hommos hoard folder are notations of other hoard coins seen in Egypt. Some of these are perhaps among other coins acquired by Newell, but none of Amphipolis are later than those above. Abu Hommos's latest coins are 20 of Ake of year 36 (311/10 B.C.). The hoard's burial can thus be fairly securely dated to ca. 310.

25. Egypt 1894 ( IGCH 1669), 79+ coins, 65 Alexander and Philip III (but only 36 Alexanders are decipherable).

11Amphipolis: 2 B, F, 2 H, 3 I, 3 L. The latest coins are Attic-weight Alexander head/Athena Promachus tetradrachms of Ptolemy I and a Babylon coin as Alexander 3764, dated by Waggoner to ca. 311/10 - 309/8.36

26. Kuft, Egypt, 1874-75 ( IGCH 1670), 190+ Alexander and Philip III.

53 Amphipolis. Working from Newell's original meticulous notes on Kuft's contents, Orestes Zervos has made significant corrections to Nash's 1974 list of the hoard coins.37 The two accounts, broken down for Amphipolis into its constituent groups, are summarized below.

Group A B C D E F G H I K J L A-torch Total
Nash 4 7 2 4 19 5 6 7 3 5 8 1 71
Zervos 5 3 1 1 10 5 6 9 1 4 8 53

Nash and Zervos dispute the contents of the hoard. Omitted from the Amphipolis coins above are 2 group J coins (one of which may be group L) without provenance (or countermarks) as noted by Nash,38 and added are the 7 coins given as additions to Newell's list by Zervos.39 IGCH follows Nash, but the present writer is convinced by Zervos's arguments, which accord fully with deductions from the material at the ANS and from coins and their provenances listed in Alexander . Newell's account of the coins is "as stated to me by Dr. Strachan Davidson, who had secured the larger portion of the following in Egypt." This statement in Newell's notes (italics mine) was not cited in Zervos's article.

The distinguishing feature of Kuft is its multiplicity of punchmarks and countermarks, often several on one coin, and many unknown elsewhere. Newell's list includes only such coins. Nash, however, would include many non-countermarked coins in modern collections on the basis of their patina or merely because they are from the same issues as known Kuft coins, but this seems unwarranted. It is clear that Newell believed, not just on his own, but on the basis of what Dr. Davidson had told him, that all the hoard coins were punchmarked or countermarked, or both.

In general, for the hoard's dating and its considerable significance for the Ptolemaic coinage, the exact composition of the hoard makes little if any difference. But for our purposes here, it is significant that the A-torch coin listed by Nash is not in Newell's list. It is the British Museum coin 457 in Alexander —but it bears no punchmarks or countermarks. It therefore would seem correct to consider it, along with the other non-mutilated coins listed by Nash, as not part of Kuft.

As stated above, Alexander follows Nash in its assignation of the British Museum holdings to the Kuft hoard.40 Among these British Museum "Kuft" coins, I count 48 identified as coming from the Davidson 1881 donation. Ten of these, including the Λ-torch coin, bear no countermarks or punches, leaving 38. This is a fair approximation of the 35 "Davidson '81" coins listed in Newell's manuscript AS belonging to the British Museum.

The hoard's latest non-Egyptian coins are of Sidon, to 312/11, and Ake, to 311/10. The Egyptian component seems a few years later, but for group L the date of 311/10 is the significant one. Worth noting is Nash's redating of the hoard's discovery from IGCH's 1875–80 to "in or just before 1875" (presumably from the British Museum coin 3036a, a Kuft coin donated in 1875). I follow her in dating the hoard to 1874–75.

27. Unknown provenance ca. 1990, 77 coins, 69 Alexanders.

28 Amphipolis: A, 2 B, 4 C, 3 D, 14 E, F, G, H, Λ-torch (with M and star). Martin Price has sent a list of varieties and photos of 39 Alexanders (including those from Amphipolis). The latest coins present seem to be Ecbatana as Alexander 3889 (ESM 434), ca. 310–308, and the Amphipolis Λ-torch coin. Are they intrusions ? Nothing else seems later than ca. 320–318, the latest perhaps being Tarsus with Nike and monograms, cf. Alexander 3038–53. As no other hoard evidence places the Λ-torch group before ca. 310, an interment ca. 310-308 seems probable.

28. Drama?, Macedonia, 1935 ( IGCH 414),41 20 coins (3 gold), 1 Philip II and 16 Alexanders (13 tetradrachms, 3 drachms).

11 Amphipolis: A (vrey worn), 8 I, J ("F.D.C."), and 1 Philip fifth of a tetradrachm with crescent (Philip group 8, contemporary with Alexander group J). The latest silver present included drachms of Sardes and Miletus of ca. 325–323, earlier than group J on either the Newell or Troxell chronology. The latest coin of all, however, was an Alexander stater with no markings, for which the most likely attributions are western Asia Minor 323–280 B.C. ( Alexander 2696), Salamis 323–315 ( Alexander 3148), Memphis 332–323 ( Alexander 3961), Cyrene 305–300 ( Alexander 3983), and "East" 325–320 ( Alexander 3991–91A). This stater was the basis for Newell's IGCH burial date of 310–305.

29. Messene, Messenia, 1922 ( IGCH 95),42 31 Alexander and Philip III.

1 Amphipolis: I. The latest coin present was Ake of 310/9 B.C.

30. Tel Tsippor, Judaea, 1960 ( IGCH 1514),43 63 coins, 59 Alexander and Philip III.

6 Amphipolis: E, F, 2 H, 2 I. The hoard's latest coin is of Ecbatana as Alexander 3889 (ESM 434), struck ca. 310–308 B.C.

31. Byblus, Phoenicia, 1931 ( IGCH 1515),44 141 coins, 137 Alexander and Philip III.

8 Amphipolis: A, 2 D, 2E, F, 2 L. The hoard contained coins of Ake and of Sidon to 310/309, and of Ecbatana as Alexander 3889 (ESM 434), struck ca. 310–308.

32. Asia Minor 1966 ( IGCH 1436),45 52 coins, 51 Alexanders.

8–9 Amphipolis: 1 or 2 B, 3 E, G, 2 H, L. Mørkholm's burial date in IGCH is ca. 323, but he seems not to have taken account of one coin listed with "Äher(?)" to left and image below the Throne, which can only be L4. This coin dates the hoard, which is therefore, once again of no chonological help.

My count of the Amphipolis coins differs slightly from IGCH's. Omitted are 3 coins described with bucranium symbol, which need not necessarily be from this mint, but their inclusion OR omission is not significant.

33. Thessaly 1971 OR 1972,46 90+ coins, 13 Philip II, 20 Alexander and Philip III.

7 Amphipolis: all L. Martin Price again kindly sent A list of the varieties in this hoard. All of the Alexander issues not of Amphipolis and all those of Philip III were present in Demanhur. The latest coins of Philip II's types are contemporary with Alexander groups K, J, and L. These Philips date the hoard, which is therefore of no chronological value.

The post–323 Philip IIs present were: 1? group 3, 1 group 6, 3 group 7, 1 group 9, and 1 (2?) of Philippe's contemporary Pella group III.

34. Paeonia 1968 ( IGCH 410),47ca. 2,000 coins, gold of Philip II, Alexander, and Philip III, 139 tetradrachms of Philip II.

93 Amphipolis: 19 Philippe groups I and II, 20 groups 2–8 (contemporary with Alexander groups K and J), 54 group 9 (contemporary with Alexander group L). The bulk of this enormoss hoard of nearly 2,000 coins was silver of Patraos of Paeonia. It also contaieid gold of Philip II, Alexander, and Philip III, but no silver of the latter two kings. The latest coins are the 54 group 9 Philips and one Alexander Babylon stater as Alexander 3750, dated by Waggoner to ca. 316/5.48The hoard's burial date must be 315 or later and, as Le Rider notes, probably before 310 because of the absence of coins of Patraos's successor Audoleon, who was on the throne by that date.

35. Râ?inci, Bulgaria, 1961 ( IGCH 411),492,657+ coins, 1,446 Philip II tetradrachms.

996 Amphipolis : 40 Philippe groups I and II; 47 groups 2–8 (analogous to Alexander groups K and J); 392 either group 8 or 9 (analogous to K and J or to L); 517 group 9 (analogous to Alexander group L). The hoard can be dated only by the latest Philips, and is thus of no chronological value.

36. Megara 1917 ( IGCH 94), 50789+ coins, known are 208 Philip II, 174 Alexander.

65 Amphipolis: 64 Philip II, 1 Alexander: D. The 64 Amphipolis Philip II tetradrachms were: 15 early; 43 groups 2–8 (analogous to Alexander groups K and J); 2 group 9 (analogous to group L); and 4 Λ-bucranium. The latest coins known are the Λ-bucianium Philips, which date the hoard.

37. Aghios Ioannis, Cyprus, 1949 ( IGCH 1470),5158+ coins, 54 Alexanders, 4+ Philip III.

6 Amphipolis: C, D, F, G, J, L. The latest coins are Sidon of 307/6 B.C. and Carrhae as Alexander 3818 (WSM 9), dated to ca. 310–302 in WSM, but to ca. 305–300 in Alexander . The hoard must have been buried at least some years after the introduction of group L.

38. Kâto Paphos, Cyprus, 1965 ( IGCH 1471),52 13 coins, 7 Alexander and Philip III tetradrachms, 6 Alexander drachms.

1 Amphipolis: A. Thompson dates the latest Lampsacus drachm present to ca. 305/4, which requires a slight lowering of the IGCH's burial date of ca. 305. In any case, burial was decades after the striking of group A.

36. Phacous, Egypt, 1956 ( IGCH 1678a),53514 coins, 456 Alexander and Philip III.

69 Amphipolis: 4 A, 4 B, 9 D, 23E, 3 F, 5 G, 6 H, 2 I, 5 J, 6 L, 2 Λ-torch. The latest coins were Sidon of 306/5 (which is the latest dated issue struck at Sidon) and Sardes of 305 or shortly after.

40. Aleppo, Cyrrhestica, 1893 ( IGCH 1516),543,000+ coins, 949 Alexanders and Philip III. 156 Amphipolis: 10 A, 7 B, 3 C, 11 D, 34 E, 11 F, 7 G, 19 H, 8 I, 5 J, 33 L, 4 Λ-bucranium, 2 image-torch, 2 Λ-torch. The latest known coins are Sidon of 308/7, Ake of 306/5, and Sardes, Miletus, and Lampsacus drachms of ca. 305–300.

41. Aksaray, Cappadocia, 1968 ( IGCH 1400),5519 coins, 18 Alexander and Philip III.

3 Amphipolis: H, I, Λ-torch. Thompson considered the one Seleucid coin in the hoard to be intrusive, and suggested a burial date of ca. 300, earlier than the ca. 281 propoeed in the original publication.

42. Asia Minor, southern, ca. 1960 ( IGCH 1422),56ca. 160 coins, ca. 150 Alexanders and a "few" Philip III, 9 known.

1 Amphipolis: H. The latest reasonably firmly dated coin is Abydus as Alexander 1549,

310/309 B.C, but also present was Aradus as Alexander 3349, there assigned to ca. 311–300. IGCH's ca. 300 burial date may be a bit late, but the hoard is in any case far too late to help in dating group H.

43. Karaman, Lycaonia, 1969 ( IGCH 1398),5749 Alexander and Philip III.

2 Amphipolis: D, I. IGCH notes a coin of Sicyon dated to ca. 303–301, but Thompson on the basis of a Miletus coin would lower burial to ca. 295–290. In any case the hoard is too late to be useful.

44. Mavriki, Arcadia, ca. 1962 ( IGCH 122), 30+ coins, 3 Alexanders.

1 Amphipolis: Λ-torch (in superb condition). The later of the other two Alexanders present is one of Pella as Alexander 249 (Müller 754) of perhaps 315–310 B.C. The present author accepts Price's burial date in IGCH, ca. 300, but without knowing what else led to so late a date as 300.

45. Lamia District (Hagioi Theodorei), Thessaly, 1901–2 ( IGCH 93),58112 coins, 32 Alexander and Philip III tetradrachms, 3 Alexander drachms.

16 Amphipolis : D, E, H, I, 11 L, Λ-torch. The hoard contaieed an Ake coin of 312/11. Price in IGCH dates the hoard's burial to ca. 310–300, and in Alexander to "c. 310 or a little later." Le Rider in Philippe agrees with Price but notes that as the latest coin seemed to be the Λ-torch tetradrachm the hoard was dated by that coin. Thompson, however, dated two Lampsacus drachms to 301/300 or later, requiring a burial date of ca. 300.

46. Paphos District 1945 ( IGCH 1469),5939+ coins, 38 Alexander, 1 Philip III.

7 Amphipolis: D, 2 E, F, 3 L. The hoard is dated by Mørkholm in IGCH to ca. 310, but Thompson dates a Miletus tetradrachm in the hoard to ca. 300–294.

End Notes
1
Philippe , p. 295, 8; Alexander, pp. 50–51.
2
Philippe , p. 296, 9; Alexander , p. 51.
3
Philippe , p. 297, 11; Alexander , p. 51.
4
Alexander , pp. 51, 451.
5
"Babylon Mint," pp. 134–35 and 148. Whether or not this issue and the similarly marked one in Philip III's name ( Alexander P181) were struck at Babylon (see p. 85 below), Waggoner believed that the die linkage pattern suggests that the Alexander coins preceded rather than paralleled those with Philip's name.
6
See p. 85.
7
"Babylon," pp. 273 and 276.
8
Ca. 400 photos and some casts at the ANS. The hoard has been published by Charles A. Hersh and the present author. See "Near East."
9
Sardes and Miletus, pp. 81-85; Alexander , pp.51, 320.
10
List of coins and some casts at the ANS.
11
"Babylon Mint," pp. 134-35 and 148. See also pp. 74 and 85.
12
Alexander , pp. 52, 406-7, and passim.
13
Orestes Zervos, "Additions to the Demanhur Hoard of Alexander Tetradrachms," NC 1980, pp. 185-88.
14
"Nicopolis," pp. 48, 50, and 55.
15
175. See pp. 32 and 36.
16
List of coins at the ANS.
17
List of coins at the ANS; Philippe , p. 298, 13; Alexander, p. 51.
18
Alexander, p. 51.
19
List of coins at the ANS; Philippe , pp. 312-14, 18; Alexander, p. 51.
20
G. Le Rider and N. Olçay, "Un trésor de tétradrachmes d'Alexandre trouvé à Akçakale en 1958," RN 1988, pp. 42-54. The hoard is mentioned passim in Alexander, but only as a reference for certain issues; there is no general discussion.
21
Alexander, pp. 52 (burial ca. 320-ca. 317), 248 (burial ca. 315); Sardes and Miletus, pp. 41, 86-89; Lampsacus and Abydus , p. 77.
22
Andritsaena; Philippe , pp. 309-10, 16; Alexander, p. 55; "Babylon Mint," pp. 183-84.
23
IGCH states that Empedocles acquired most of lot B. On Newell's record of the lot (see text below), however, he quoted Empedocles as saying that he had disposed of a number of the coins. Many of Empedocles's coins are today in the Athens collection, but Dr. Oeconomides kindly informs me that none can be identified as from the Andritsaena Hoard. The unique Alexander with Λ and image (79) can be identified as from Andritsaena only because of a very old and poor cast at the ANS so marked. The cast illustrated was sent by Dr. Oeconomides.
24
Le Rider ( Philippe , p. 310) describes this coin as with amphora, but the original wording surely indicates the double heads. In either case, the coin is an unexceptional one of Philippe's Amphipolis group II.
25
E.g., Alexander 430, 445.
26
See Alexander 776 (not illus.) and "Peloponnesian Alexanders," p. 67, 7; p. 69, II.4; and p. 80.
27
Philippe, pp. 311-12, 17; Alexander, p. 55.
28
Andritsaena, pp. 32-36.
29
Alexander, p. 51.
30
Alexander, p. 51.
31
See hoard 5, above, and p. 85.
32
See p. 85.
33
"Babylon Mint," p. 149. Not having seen this coin, I cannot place it more precisely than to ca. 316-310.
34
List of coins at the ANS; Sardes and Miletus, p. 93.
35
Alexander, p. 55.
36
"Babylon Mint," p. 149.
37
Daphne Nash, "The Kuft Hoard of Alexander III Tetradrachms," NC 1974, pp. 14-30; Orestes Zervos, "Newell's Manuscript of the Kuft Hoard," ANSMN 25 (1980), pp. 17-29; Alexander, p. 56.
38
Nash (above, n. 37), p. 18, n. 6.
39
Zervos (above, n. 37), p. 24.
40
Alexander lists Kuft coins on p. 56. To these add 103b (Amphipolis) and 3412 (Byblus), so identified only in the catalogue.
41
List of coins at the ANS.
42
List of coins and some casts at the ANS.
43
Alexander, pp. 56, 490.
44
Alexander, pp. 56, 490.
45
List of coins at the ANS.
46
CH 1, 40; Philippe, p. 318 (mention only, no details); Alexander , p. 52. In Alexander the hoard is erroneously described as ending with the image issues of group J and considered a parallel to Demanhur—the issues references given are, however, to the correct image issues.
47
Philippe, pp. 298–304, 14; Alexander , p. 50; Sardes and Miletus, pp. 73–74. See also Chapter 12, hoard 10, where the Alexander gold component is discussed.
48
Sotheby, 16 Apr. 1969, 274. The coin is from Waggoner's obverse 258, the first she lists in her issues VIII, to ca. 317/6, he datefor this stater should be ca. 316/5. Price assigns Alexander 3750 VII is assigned grouping, but his catalogue was completed before he had full access to Waggoner's work.
49
Philippe , pp. 304–9, 15.
50
List of 79 copins at the ANS. Philippe , pp. 314–16, 20; Alexander, p. 55.
51
List of coins at the ANS (79 known).
52
List of coins at the ANS; Sardes and Miletus, p. 95; Lampsacus and Abydus , p. 73.
53
Alexander, p. 56 Sardes and Miletus, p. 91.
54
List of 922 coins at the Ans; Alexander , p. 56; Sardes and Miletus, p. 92; Lampsacus and Abydus . P. 73.
55
Sardes and Miletus, p. 90.
56
List of the nine known coins at the ANS.
57
Sards and Miletus, p. 94.
58
Philippe , pp. 316–17, 21; Alexander , p. 55; Lampsacus and Abydus, p. 74.
59
List of coins at the ANS; Sards and Miletus, p. 94.

HOARD SUMMARY

No. Hoard IGCH Number Alexander, Philip III* Amphipolis Latest Group
1 Kyparissia 1892–93 76 20 15 D
2 Mageira 1950 74 1
3 Nemea 1938 79 1 1 D
4 Commerce 1993 –– 73 25 E
5 Babylon 1973 "Many" 12 G
6 Lebanon 1985 26 5 G
7 Near East 1993: drs. – 1412 17 F
8 Asia Minor 1964: drs. 1437 89 1 F
9 Phoenicia 1968 1513 15 4 I
10 Demanhur 1905 1664 5,951 2,005 J
11 Calim 1976: drs. 3 1 E?F?
12 Cilicia 1964 1421 4 2 F
13 Central Greece 1911 81 28 15 J
14 Khirbet-el-Kerak 1936 1510 53 7 J
15 Karditsa 1925 82 30 15 I
16 Egypt 1893 1665 44 18 H
17 Sfire 1932 1511 84 1 E
18 Akçakale 1958 – 190 26 J
19 Sinan Pascha 1919: drs. 1395 682 3 L?
20 Andri tsaena 1923 83 102 33 J
21 Tripolitsa 1921 84 14 4 I
Asia Minor 1964: see 22 1438 70 28 ?
Asia Minor 1968: see 22 1439 80 18 ?
22 Asia Minor 1968 1440 90 32 G
23 Asia Minor 1965 1443 29 5 L
24 Abu Hommos 1919 1667 750 61 L
25 Egypt 1894 1669 45 11 L
26 Kuft 1874-75 1670 190 53 L
27 Unknown Provenance ca. 1990 69 28 Λ-torch?
28 Drama 1935 414 16 11 J
29 Messene 1922 95 31 1 I
30 Tel Tsippor 1960 1514 59 6 I
31 Byblus 1931 1515 137 8 L
32 Asia Minor 1966 1436 51 8–9 L
33 Thessaly 1971 or 1972 20 7 L
34 Paeonia 1968 410 [139] [93] [ = L]
35 Râ?inci 1961 411 [1446] [996] [ = L]
36 Megara 1917 94 174 1, [64] [Λ-bucr.]
37 Aghios Ioannis 1949 1470 58 6 L
38 Kato Paphos 1965 1471 13 1 A
39 Phacous 1956 1678a 456 69 Λ-torch
40 Aleppo 1893 1516 949 156 Λ-torch
41 Aksaray 1968 1400 18 3 Λ-torch
42 Asia Minor, S., 1960 1422 9 1 H
43 Karaman 1969 1398 49 2 I
44 Mavriki 1962 122 3 1 Λ-torch
45 Lamia District (Hagioi Theodoroi) 1901–2 93 35 16 Λ-torch
46 Paphos District 1945 1469 39 7 L
End Notes
*
Bracketed groups and numbers are Philip II reissues. Only silver coins are included.

DISCUSSION

In general, the chronological help given by the hoards is disappointing. Only the first two hoards were clearly buried during Alexander's lifetime, and they are of limited value. The third hoard may also have been interred before 323, but it again is of no help. Nevertheless, a few hoards provide clues, if not totally satisfactory evidenee, about the dates of the various coin groups in the decade after Alexander's death. This evidence will be discussed in the following chapter.

The burial dates of many of the hoards listed above depend on non-Macedonian issues whose exact times of striking are not precisely known. Indeed, it is remarkable how very littte firm evidence there is for the dates of any of Alexander's lifetime and early posthumous silver. The annual dates on Sidon's coins, together with the contents of the massive Demanhur Hoard, give the one fixed point. Sidon's hoard coins of year 15, almost assuredly the Macedonian year of October 319 to October 318 B.C., provide a secure point of reference for most of the Alexander mints operating at that time.

Ake's coins, too, in Demanhur must have been struck in 319/8, but was this mint really Ake or was it Tyre? At this mint's year 1 antedated the coming of Alexander by some 14 years, did its year start in a different month than that of Sidon—perhaps the Babylonian year commencing in June? Price has made a convincing argument that historical considerations mean that year 1 at Ake could not have been 347/6, as Newell believed, but rather 346/5. But it has also been persuasively argued by Lemaire that the mint of these coins was not Ake but Tyre, in which case there is no difficutty in accepting a start in 347/6.60At either of these cities the year would probably have started in June. Thus in the Demanhur hoard Sidon's latest coins (year 15) would have ended in October 318. If the second mint was Ake, coins of year 29 would have ended in June 317, eight months later. If the second mint was Tyre, coins of year 29 would have ended in June 318, four months earlier than Sidon's. In neither case do their dates correspond exactly to those of Sidoni but the difference is only a matter of months.

More serious is the dating of the important series ascribed to Babylon, which provides the latest componett in so many hoards. Waggoner's unpublished thesis closety follows Newell's Babylon dating in Demanhur , and a published article by her treats in detail the large group of issues which end with those with the first use of the title BA∑IΛEΩ∑.61 Here again her dating is extremely close to Newell's, and she assigns these issues to six years, 329/8 to 323/2, with the title introduced in 324/3–323/2. She has done a careful die study of an unusually large number of coins, with the obveree dies used divisible by reverse linkage into six consecutive groups each joined to the next by only a few common obverses. There is no doubt that her arrangement of dies and their groups is correct, but the conclusion that six groups of dies are to be equaeed with six calendar years is highly questionable. Obvesee dies are retired when no longer usable. They are not arbitrarily discarded just because a new calendar year starts.

A large number of symbols was used for this series, and they are used throughout, at first without and then with the titles and all are closety obverse linked in each group. Price wrote that the series "has every aspect of a large-scale production over a relatively short period of time." Waggoner counted 77 obverse dies in the Babylon series for her hypothesis of six years of striking. This is a respectable number of DIES , and it approximates the average number in the Amphipolis groups: 879 known dies ÷ 12 groups = 73. Price, however, woudd date this entire Babylon series to ca. 325–323 B.C.,62when returning soldiers from the east received their pay. I agree with Price's analysis.

Price also suggests that the Babylon issues with M and ΛY bearing either Alexander's OR Philip III's name, which Newell and Waggoner both place after the Babylon series just described, may not even belong to the same mint. There are no die links, and there are great dissimilarities of style. Price's suggestions as to specific mints are intriguing but not especially relevant here. The important thing is that separating these M-ΛY coins from the series in question could well bring that series, culminating in coins with the title, down a year or two. Thus there rcmains considerable uncertainty about the attribution and precise dating of the issues usually assigned to Babylon, but at the moment there seems no alternative to following, with some caution, Waggoner's attributions and dating as modified by Price.

Then there is the extremely large issue of Aradus with the city monogram image and caduceus ( Alexander 3332), the last Aradus issue in Demanhur, and the last in Price's series of issues which he assigns to ca. 328–320 B.C. One should not aigue from such small samples, but in the absence of other indications it is at least interesting to note that no such coins were present in the Commerce 1993 hoard, buried ca. 323, but that a drachm with these markings was included in the ca. 322 Near East 1993 hoard. The huge issue, however, could well have continued for several years after 323/322. Price also notes an obverse link with an issue in the name of Philip III which is normally assigned to Marathus. Questions of attribution and more precise dating thus arise, which one hopes some future thorough study of the Aradus mint will resolve. For now, it is impossible to be confident of the dates of this issue, which again could be crucial in estimating the burial date of several of the hoards.

End Notes
60
A. Lemaire, "Le monnayage de Tyr et celui dit d'Akko dans la deuxième moitié du IVesiècle av. J.-C.," RN 1976. pp. 11–24; Alexander , pp. 405–7, with other bibliography. Georges Le Rider tells me that Lemaire has further evidence supporting Tyre. One hopes to see this published soon.
61
Alexander 3594–3687; "Babylon Mint" and "Babylon."
62
Alexander , p. 454–57, dates at p.457.

9. ALEXANDERS AND PHILIPS: ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY

This chapter 1 evaluates the evidence for the dating of groups A-D and the start of Alexander's Macedonian silver coinage; the dating of groups E-F, G, H-I, K-J, and L; and the start of the Philip II silver reissues. Hoards described in the preceding chapter that are useful chronologically are discussed below, together with the coins' own internal evidence.

The traditional chronology for Alexander groups A through K and J is that of the Demanhur hoard publication, where E. T. Newell first identified and lettered the groups, assigning each to either one or two years of production. 2 Newell's dates range from the year of Alexander's accession, 336 B.C., to 318 B.C., the date of the latest coins (of Sidon and Ake) present in the Demanhur Hoard. In Demanhur , Newell wrote:

The dates here assigned the various groups of the Amphipolis coinage are, perhaps, to a certain extent approximate. But even so, they cannot be in error by much more than a year either way. The commencement of the coinage is determined by the accession of Alexander, its termination—so far as our hoard is concerned—by the latest date found on the accompanying issues of Sidon and Ake. Betwenn these limits the material has been divided in such a way that, up to the two or three years immediately preceding the actual burial, ... the average annual production ... is reasonably distributed. Naturally some years would witness a greater production than others, and full account has been taken of this possibility. ... 3

Just what did Newell mean by "some years would witness a greater production than others, and full account has been taken of this possibility" ? One would give a good deal to know his thinking here, but he has left no clue. In any case, the production was not at all evenly distributed, either on Newell's dating or the slightly lower chronology proposed in this chapter. 4

GROUPS A-D AND THE START OF THE COINAGE

In November 333 Alexander fought and won the second of the three decisive battles in his conquest of the Persian Empire. At Issus in southern Cilicia he routed the Great King, captured a major treasure, the king's war chest, and effectively took control of the Persian Empire. Shortly before the battle, in the late fall of 333, he had acquired nearby Tarsus, a major administrative center of the empire.

At Tarsus, before Alexander's arrival, Persian satraps had struck coinage in their names depicting several variations of a seated figure of Baal or, specifically, the Baal of Tarsus, Baaltars. The two commonest varieties are shown here on Plate 18, A–B. These have long been recognized as the immediate predecessors of the seated Zeus shown on the earliest Alexanders struck at Tarsus (Plate 18, C). The gods' postures are identical, stiff and archaizing, not the normal classical style of the late fourth century. Their hair is rolled at the back (this can be seen on Baal only on Plate 18, A, where his head is shown in profile). Their scepters are shown with dotted shafts and with a floral ornament at the top, the "flowering scepter." A row of dots immediately under the throne seat probably indicates some sort of decoration on the seat. The lowest protuberances on the throne legs show the so-called "bell-covers," which seem to be circles of parallel hanging leaves over these two lowest and largest bell-shaped protuberances. Finally, both gods' feet rest on footstools, which are depicted in an identical rather sketchy fashion as a single slanting line supported only at the right by a support resembling an inverted horseshoe, or the letter O. That Alexander's Zeus at Tarsus derived from the Baal of Tarsus was recognized by scholars before Newell and by Newell himself, and seems universally accepted today. 5

The crucial question is whether the Macedonian Zeus derived in turn from the Tarsiote Zeus. In the early groups at Amphipolis, the general aspect of Zeus with his stiff posture is close to that of the Tarsiote deities, but on the typical coins of, e.g., Plate 1, from 2 onward, Zeus has long, not rolled, hair; his scepter terminates in a ball, not a floral ornament; there are no dots immediately below the throne seat; there are no bell-covers on the lower protuberances of the throne legs; and there is a dotted exergue line, but no footstool.

Orestes Zervos has, however, recently revived an old thesis that the Macedonian Zeus did indeed derive from the Tarsiote Zeus. He has discussed a number of elements at Macedon which he believes slow the influence and hence the priority of the Tarsiote Alexanders. These are five : the frontal extended hand of Zeus, his twisted torso, his stiffly parallel legs, the stylized row of drapery at his waist, and the throne with its bell-covers. None of these, except the probable presence of bell-covers on a few very early Macedonian coins, seem particularly convincing to the present author, and none at all convinced Martin Price, that leading authority on the Alexander coinage. 6

But the Alexander collection at the American Numismatic Society, largely that of E. T. Newell, is extraordinary. Here there are indeed a number of Tarsiote iconographical details present on what seem to be among the very earliest coins struck at Amphipolis. These details appear, although no more than one or two on a given die, on coins often struck at the same time (i.e., from the same obverse die) and, after their first brief and often awkwardly executed occurrences, they drop out, not to return until much later in the coinage.

Plate 18, D, is a silver stater of Perdiccas III, brother and predecessor of Philip II, and Plate 18, E, is a didrachm of Philip II. Note in particular the double row of locks at Heracles' brow, so unlike the single row of thick, snail-like curls of virtually all early Alexanders from this mint. Such a double row of locks is found on only three dies in this Alexander coinage, all in group A, and one might well conclude that these Alexander dies were early ones. The two coins 450–51 are from one of these obverses. These two coins are also highly unusual in that their reverses are two of only five known where the prow symbol faces right rather than left. On Philip's immediately prior (or contemporary ?) coins the prow always faced right, the natural and graceful orientation because the reverse type of the horse and rider faced right, e.g., Plate 18, F. On Alexander's coins, however, the orientation is awkward, with the prow rather disconcertingly about to sail right into Zeus. Again, one might well conclude that these reverses with prow right were early ones. Thus, both obverse and reverse indications are that the two coins 450–51 were indeed among the very first struck at Amphipolis —and both reverses show Zeus holding a flowering scepter. Further, the second coin appears to have bell-covers on the throne legs. The coin is worn, so that the divisions between the hanging leaves are lost, but the scalloped lower edges of the extra-large bottom protuberances do show an attempt at depicting bell-covers.

The remaining three reverses with the prow symbol facing right all occur with a second obverse die (452–54). This obverse die again is one of those which have a double row of curls at Heracles' brow. On 452–53 there appear to be bell-covers, and on 453 also a probable floral ornament atop the scepter (largely off flan). On 454 there occurs another Tarsiote feature not discussed by Zervos in his publication, but one which he suggested I look for, the row of dots immediately below the throne seat. This is a detail which one must admit is not striking, but it occurs on, at most, three or four dies, all in group A.

Also from the obverse die of 452–54 is a coin of another group A issue, A4, with fulmen (455). Its reverse shows Zeus's feet resting on a clear footstool on the Tarsiote model, a slanting line supported at one end only.

The four coins 456–59 have the prow symbol facing in its usual direction, left. Coins 456 and 457 are from different obverse dies, but from the same reverse with a footstool (clearer on 456 than 457). Three, 457–59, are from the same obverse die, and 458 has the row of dots immediately under the throne seat, while 459 has a flowering scepter.

Four more coins, 460–63, have a similar prow symbol. The first two are from the same reverse, with flowering scepter (clearer on 460 than 461), while 461–63 are from the same obverse die. There is a footstool on 462, while 463 has bell-covers on the throne legs.

The double heads (A3), appear on 464, with flowering scepter, dots below the throne seat, and a footstool which is awkwardly executed, being cut directly over the exergue line.

A further feature which suggests that these coins with eastern details are contemporary with each other is the incidence in group A of the letter-form image instead of image Of the some 145–50 reverses known to me in A, only 11 have image These are concentrated in the early reverses, five of which are illustrated here (450, 451, 456, 459, and 465, the last also with flowering scepter). Although the form image is standard on the Tarsiote coinage, it cannot be claimed as a uniquely eastern feature at Amphipolis, and is mentioned merely as one more bit of evidence that these Amphipolis coins with eastern features were struck at the same time.

There are a few possible other examples of bell-covers in group A, and a handful of other flowering scepters, many poorly executed as in the foregoing examples, but none of either in any of groups B through E. Nor are dots under the throne seat or bell-covers found in these groups. Two dies with footstools are known in group B, which as discussed earlier may have at least in part overlapped group A. Perhaps significantly one of these occurs on a coin of B7 with grapes (16), one of whose reverse dies was recut to become a reverse of group A. 7 The other is on a coin of B5, with Attic helmet. 8 It is a fair assumption that these two reverse dies also were cut rather early in the coinage.

In groups C and D there seem to be no instances whatever of any of the Tarsiote iconographical details just discussed. Newell did mention a footstool on a coin of C's Pegasus forepart issue (C5), but a thorough search has not succeeded in locating such a coin. 9 Nor do there seem to be any Tarsiote details present in the huge group E, save for one die with footstool, 10 and this is easily understood as a precursor of the frequent Tarsiote or eastern details which reappear from group F onward. A possible explanation for this later recurrence will be found below. 11

Thus the Tarsiote details occur early at Amphipolis. They appear, even if only one or two on a given die, on coins struck at the same time because linked by common obverse dies. They are often poorly executed, as if imperfectly understood. Finally, very shortly after their early appearances they drop out. Even though many of them—e.g., the flowering scepter and the footstool—are well known to Greek art on the mainland before Alexander's time, the fact that these early, concurrent, awkwardly executed, fleeting details are precisely those of the Tarsiote coins can hardly be coincidence. There seems no possible way to explain these iconographic details on these few early Amphipolis coins other than by their makers having already seen the Tarsiote tetradrachms (or perhaps other eastern ones, for the contemporary or slightly later coinages of many mints in the east strongly resembled the Tarsiote strikings). The conclusion must be that the Amphipolis silver coinage was initiated only after that of Tarsus, and that therefore Alexander's Macedonian coinage can have started at the earliest only extremely late in 333 B.C., or more probably in 332.

Such a starting date is in many ways more satisfactory from a historical point of view than is 336 B.C., immediately upon Alexander's accession. Regardless of what numismatists may think today, one may question whether reform of the coinage really was one of the first things Alexander thought to do when suddenly propelled to the throne. Rather, a coinage whose types would be understandable throughout a newly secured empire—and, perhaps more important, whose standard would be universally acceptable there—would seem to have been needed only after the decisive battle of Issus in November 333. Further, it was shortly after Issus that Alexander issued his famous manifesto to Darius, who had written offering friendship and alliance.Alexander replied that he had defeated in battle first the king's generals and now the Great King himself, and that he was now by God's help master of Darius's country and of everything Darius possessed: they were not equals and in future any communication from Darius should be addressed to him as lord of all Asia. 12 For those who try to understand Alexander's coinage on the shaky and uncertain basis of "what Alexander would have done," here is an occasion which surely must be as psychologically satisfactory as his accession for the introduction of the young king's own coinage.

But the usual question here, given this later starting date, is what Alexander did for money from the time of his invasion of Asia in mid–334 and the initiation of his silver coinage ca. 332. The continuance of his father's coinage in both gold and silver could well have been sufficient so long as he was at home. But, although Philip's gold on the Attic standard was acceptable everywhere, his silver on the parochial Macedonian standard was not and its almost total absence from Asia Minor hoards is striking. One must assume that some combination of prepayment to the troops before departure, promise of pay on return, Philip's gold taken along with the invading army, and, of course, requisitioning and looting during the campaign sufficed until Alexander's own silver coinage was instituted. That even before Issus Alexander was sending cash to Macedonia rather than receiving it from home is shown by Curtius's statements that Alexander sent money back to Antipater at least twice in early 333. 13 It thus does not seem at all clear that Alexander needed his own silver coinage before 332.

But if Macedonian Alexanders appeared only after Issus, is it necessary to conclude that they did so promptly, perhaps early in 332 ? The first question is how long into his reign Alexander continued striking his father's silver. Le Rider suggested bringing Philip's silver down to ca. 328, by analogy with Philip's gold, to which he gave a terminus ante quem of ca. 329/8 because of the Corinth hoard, then believed buried ca. 328. 14 But the hoard's burial date no longer seems secure, 15 and in any case each king's coinage in one precious metal bears little obvious relation to his coinage in the other metal.

Second, we do not know the temporal relationship of the two kings' groups of strikings employing the same markings of prow, stern, and double heads. 16 The usual assumption is that the Philips preceded the Alexanders, but there is no reason the two could not have been at least for a time struck in parallel. In particular, the Philips with the added symbol of the bee 17 might have come from a subsidiary workshop once the main workship using prow, stern, and double heads had switched from Philips to Alexanders.

The hoard evidence is a bit contradictory and does not help date the start of the coinage. There are but two useful lifetime hoards from the Greek mainland, Kyparissia and Mageira (the little Nemea hoard is dated by its group D coin). Kyparissia, containing groups A through D, was dated by Newell to ca. 327. Even if the hoard was buried promptly by 327, there is still ample time before that date for four groups if the coinage started in 332, or even perhaps a bit later, the more especially if, as now seems probable, groups A and B and perhaps also C and D overlapped somewhat. 18 Weak, because negative, evidence for a starting date somewhat later than 332 is the Mageira hoard of ca. 325 which contained no Macedonian Alexanders at all, only a single worn Alexander from Tarsus.

When would cash have been required in Macedonia and Greece We know from the sources that Alexander made numerous recruiting efforts on the mainland, starting even before 332. The only known domestic occasion which would have required coin was Antipater's suppression of the Spartan rebellion under Agis in 331. But the wide acceptability of Philip's money in Greece and the north means that Alexander's own money was not necessarily required even then. Nevertheless, late 333–332, when the coinage started in Asia, is perhaps as good a guess as any for the introduction in Macedonia of Alexander's Attic tetradrachms—but it is still only a guess.

End Notes
1
A preliminary version of the chapter has appeared as 'Earliest Silver."
2
Demanhur , pp. 26–32.
3
Demanhur , p. 68.
4
See p. 96, Figure 6.
5
See, e.g., Myriandros, p. 15.
6
"Earliest Coins." Zervos has been supported by F. de Callata? in "La date des prémiers tétradrachmes de poids attique émis par Alexandre le Grand," RBN 1982, pp. 5–25. Price argued for retaining the traditional starting date of 336 B.C. in "Reform" and in Alexander, pp. 27–30.
7
See Chapter 3, link 2.
8
Cambridge = SNGFitz 2112. I thank T. V. Buttrey for verifying that the coin does indeed have a footstool.
9
Newell in Reattrib., p. 16, notes a footstool on type XV (C5), Pegasus forepart. I have not been able to locate such an example among the ANS coins, Newell's casts, the ANS photofile, and published collections, nor any mention of such a coin in Newell's notebooks on the Amphipolis mint or in his numerous hoard records. Can it be that XV was an error for XI, the grapes issue of group B, where a Newell coin with footstool is indeed known?
10
E.g., Grabow 14, 27 July 1939, 220. The ANS has a coin from the same dies. The issue is E8, with bucranium.
11
See p. 92.
12
Arr., Anab. 2.14; Curtius 4.1.7–14; Diod. 17.39.1–2.
13
Curtius 3.1.1, 3.1.20.
14
Philippe , pp. 390–91, 430–31.
15
See pp. 115–16 and 123–25.
16
Philip: Philippe , Amphipolis 263–427. Alexander: A1–A3. See pp. 21–48.

GROUPS E-F

Group E shares an obverse die with group D, 19 but from E on the pattern of striking changes. Groups A and B, and perhaps C and D also, seem to have been struck at least in part concurrently with many shared obverse dies between each pair. From E on (except for J and the very small K) each group appears to have been the only one in production during its period of striking. 20 It could be that there was a hiatus between the striking of D and E, despite the obverse die they share, but there is no firm evidence.

There is also no hoard evidence beyond the somewhat uncertain terminus post quem of the Kyparissia Hoard's burial for the start of group E, or for the time occupied by its striking and that of group F, but there are a number of clues supplied by the internal evidence of the coins themselves. These are the sizes of the groups, the smaller denominations, and various iconographic observations.

The Sizes of the Groups

Group E is the largest by far of any of the Alexander tetradrachm groups, employing some 241 estimated obverse dies. 21 The considerably later group L, with 232, came close, but the next largest of the lifetime and early posthumous groups, G, used 114. But if F and G (with essentially the same markings) should be considered as a single group, then F/G, immediately after E, would have employed a total of 203 obverses. 22

Newell dated group E to ca. 328 and 327 B.C. Why should there have been such a tremendous outpouring in those years, when apparently affairs in Macedonia and Greece were quiet, and Alexander was as far from home as he would ever be ? What need could there have been then ?

Positing a revised starting date for the coinage of 332 instead of mid–336, and spreading the estimated dies out evenly (which is not in any case good practice), one arrives at a date for group E from the end of 329 to the end of 325. 23 This span of several years seems most unlikely, as E stylistically is an extremely homogeneous group, with every indication of having been struck in a concentrated manner over a fairly short period.

I would propose here a second major shift in Newell's chronology, assigning group E to approximately the years 325 and 324. This is the period to which Margaret Thompson has dated the opening of some of Alexander's Asiatic mints and the sudden large expansion of activity in others. The reason for this heightened activity in Asia Minor was the need to pay discharged troops, mercenaries, and others, who were sent home in large numbers starting in 325, and who would have been fully paid only upon arrival at home. 24 The same situation would have obtained on the mainland, and the large group E is reasonably explained as struck in expectation of and during the return of the earliest troops. The relatively large succeeding groups F, G, and H would then reflect the same continuing need.

The Small Denominations

From A through E, denominations smaller than the tetradrachm were struck—didrachms, drachms, triobols, diobols, and obols. 25 The drachms are of particular interest, as their initial reverses with the old Macedonian type of standing eagle change during the coinage to the standard reverse of seated Zeus as on the tetradrachms.

It is in group E that this change appears. Obverse linked to one of its eagle reverse drachm issues are drachms with the imperial seated Zeus, the type used everywhere else in the empire. 26 The largest and almost exclusive producers of drachms were the Asia Minor mints, whose vastly enhanced production in 325–323, as Thompson demonstrated, went for the payment of troops discharged then. A likely explanation for the new type's introduction in Macedonia would be the carrying home of some of these Asiatic drachms by returning Macedonian veterans, and this would have been more likely to occur from 325 on than in 328 or 327.

An influx of Asiatic drachms would also explain why, after a very few more drachms (all also with Zeus reverses) were struck in group F, all production of small silver denominations ceased for some years. No small coins at all are known in groups G, H, and I. Small coins with Philip II's types were struck during K and J, probably for the special purpose of facilitating exchange between Alexander tetradrachms and the newly reissued Philip tetradrachms on the old Macedonian standard. Following these small Philips, no small coins are known at Amphipolis. 27

Iconography

Long ago, Newell noted two changes in the reverses of groups E and F, changes which he quite rightly concluded served to connect these two groups, but to which he apparently attached no other significance. 28 First is the exergual line. In groups A through D, as he observed, the line was almost invariably present and dotted (1-39). The same depiction continued in group E, but with a few rare exceptions. On a handful of coins with bucranium and pentagram the exergue was set off simply by a straight line (e.g., 48). 29 Further, the bucranium symbol is one of the three found with the new Zeus-reverse drachms to which the pentagram issue is obverse linked. These two issues thus apparently came at least in part rather late in group E. Then, in group F, the exergue line is either dotted (52), or plain (53), or omitted altogether (e.g. 50, 55).

Second is the footstool. As discussed earlier, on four reverses of group A and two of group B, Zeus's feet rest on a footstool which is depicted exactly as on the initial Alexander strikings from Tarsus. I have found no footstools at all in groups C or D, 30 and only one in the large group E, in the same seemingly rather late bucranium issue (48). But in group F footstools are common, either on the Tarsiote model of groups A and B with a slanting line supported only at the right by a sort of inverted horseshoe (54), or portrayed, as Newell again noted, by "a short straight line (not to be confounded with an exergual line)" (51, 56). 31

And there are other occasional innovations in group F of which Newell undoubtedly was aware but did not discuss because not relevant to the association of group F with group E. These are bell-covers on the throne legs (51), the folds of Zeus's robe between his legs paired in groups of two as on Tarsiote coins (55, cf. Plate 18, A-C), and even Zeus's hair sometimes shown rolled at the back as on Tarsiote and many other eastern Alexanders (51, 55, cf. Plate 18, B-C). The bell-covers are known earlier at this mint only in group A and the paired folds and rolled hair have not previously occurred in any Amphipolis group. All the innovations discussed tend to occur together, not all on any one die, but often two or three, or more, on a given die. Again, may this be a result of another influx of eastern coins? Although recruiting of troops back in Macedonia is known to have occurred often enough during Alexander's absence in the east, and although Alexanders from the east struck from 332 to ca. 323 are found in Macedonia and Greece proper, perhaps the most likely time for a major influx which would have affected the iconography at the mint would be in the years following ca. 325, when so many soldiers returned home. If this imported eastern money was responsible for the eastern details present on group F, it is another argument for the dating of groups E and F to approximately 325–323 B.C.

Only after the above commentary on groups E-F was completed did the Commerce 1993 tetradrachm hoard appear (hoard 4 in the preceding chapter, full publication in Appendix 1 below). There seems no need to date this hoard later than ca. 323 or 322. On Newell's chronology groups F and G and half of the large group H would all have been struck by 323 (and all of H by 322). The hoard's latest Amphipolis coins, however, were of group E, many die linked. Although we cannot be confident that we know the complete hoard, the absence of F, G, and H in this deposit supports a lower chronology than Newell's.

End Notes
17
Philippe , Amphipolis 430–494.
18
See p. 48.
19
Chapter 3, link 17.
20
See p. 47, Figure 4.
21
See p. 26, Table 2.
22
Indeed, in his Amphipolis notebook with the preliminary catalogue of coins known to him, Newell called group F "group F, section 1," and group G "group F, section 2."
23
See p. 26, Table 2, and p. 96, Figure 6. The total time span, 332 through 318, is 15 years, and the dies per year 59(885 ÷ 15). A/B would require 2.32 years, and C/D 1.58, for a total of 3.90 nearing the end of 329, and E would require a further 4.08 years.
24
M. Thompson, "Paying the Mercenaries," in Festschrift fur / Studies in Honor of Leo Mildenberg, ed. A. Houghton et al. (Wetteren, 1984), pp. 241–47.
25
See Chapter 2.
26
See pp. 31–32, Table 3, drachms, and p. 35, Table 6.
27
For the small Philips, see Chapter 5; for possible drachms with Λ and torch, p. 37.
28
Reattrib., pp. 16–17.
29
Newell noted also that the scallop shell issue had a simple exergual line. At the time of Reattrib. he considered this issue (one coin known at the time) as part of the earlier of the two groups. In the later Demanhur he had included it in F, no doubt because of the obverse link to that group. See 50 and 55.

GROUP G AND THE INTRODUCTION OF THE TITLE

For the start of group G, which introduced the title BA∑IΛEΩ∑ at Amphipolis, there is hoard evidence. In three hoards (Babylon 1973, Lebanon 1985, and Asia Minor 1968) 32 the Amphipolis Alexanders end with group G, so their burial dates provide a terminus ante quem for G. The latest coins in Babylon 1973 and Asia Minor 1968 (IGCH 1440), issues of the mint of Babylon, were assigned by Waggoner to 322 B.C.. These two hoards, then, present no problem for dating the beginning of group G to late 323 or even early 322.

Lebanon 1985, however, requires more examination. It, like Babylon 1973 and Asia Minor 1968, contained Aradus coins with caduceus which may well have been struck as late as or later than 322, but this large issue has never been subjected to a thorough study. The hoard's latest fairly firmly dated issue, one of Babylon, is the first of that mint to bear the title BA∑IΛEΩ∑ just as group G was the first at Amphipolis with the title. Newell's chronology for Amphipolis, described earlier, put the introduction of the title there to the year 325. But he himself said that his dates could be off by a year or two, and it seems that his attempt to assign the various groups to particular years (and each to either precisely one or two years) was based on the premise that the coinage was produced fairly evenly over the years. One must wonder if this dating, with Newell's well-deserved prestige behind it, has not come to be the basis for our belief in when the title was introduced at all, or at least many, mints.

Newell in Demanhur dated the introduction of the title at Babylon to 324–323. 33 Unfortunately we again have no insight into his thinking, but could it have been influenced by his dating for Amphipolis? He dated the title's introduction at Tarsus partly on the basis of his belief that it came in at Amphipolis and at Babylon "about a year or so previous to the death of Alexander, or between 325 and 324 B.C." 34 Waggoner has followed his Babylon dating extremely closely, but dates these earliest coins with the title to 324/3–323/2, 35 i.e., approximately to 323. It requires no great adjustment to accept that AΛE≡AN∆POY changed to BA∑IΛEΩ∑ A9BE≡AN∆POY at Babylon and Tarsus no earlier than late 323, after Alexander's death, and thus that group G also had a terminus post quem late in that year.

End Notes
30
See p. 88.
31
Reattrib p. 17.
32
Chapter 8, hoards 5, 6, and 22.

GROUPS H-I

Groups H and I, as discussed in Chapter 3, fall between group G and groups K/J, and require no special discussion.

GROUPS K-J

Newell assigned group K to 318, placing it after group J, which he had assigned to the years 320 and 319. But I have attempted to show above that K and J were struck concurrently, and in any case there would have seemed no need to devote a full year to the minute group K. J was not a very large group either, although it must be remembered that large reissues of Philip II's types were contemporary with K/J.

There is reason to suspect that K/J started only very shortly before Demanhur's burial and may even have continued for some time afterwards. There is a relative under-representation in Demanhur of the last groups, the contemporary K and J, and of the immediately preceding group I. Some 885 obverse dies are estimated to have been used in the production of groups A through K/J. Groups K/J used an estimated 43 obverses, hence their estimated percentage of total production to that point was 43÷885, or 4.9%. The following table shows the hoards which contained ten or more identifiable coins of groups A through K/J, and their percentages of groups I and K/J.

The proportions of group I vary widely, both more and less than its percentage (70÷885 = 7.9%) of the total production. But only two of the ten hoards (Aleppo and Demanhur) contained less than the estimated percentage of groups K/J, and only Demanhur contained considerably less—almost exactly half its proportional amount. Newell was well aware of the low representation of I and K/J, "because of the apparently general law observable in coin hoards that, for perfectly natural reasons, the issues contemporary with the burial are usually comparatively scantily represented. ... Also, certain material at the writer's disposal would tend to show that groups J and K, and probably also I, were originally much larger than our find would seem to indicate." 36 One might counter that, on the contrary, the latest group a Table 18 Percentages of I and K/J in Groups A through K/J in Hoards Containing 10 or More Macedonian Coins of Groups A through K/J

Coins Coins Percentage Percentage
Hoard Total A-K/J I K/J I K/J
Hoards ending with K/J
10 Demanhur 1905 2,005 81 50 4.0 2.5
13 Central Greece 1911 15 3 3 20.0 20.0
18 Akçakale 1958 26 2 2 7.7 7.7
20 Andritsaena 1923 33 6 6 18.1 18.1
28 Drama 1935 10 8 1 80.0 10.0
Hoards ending with L
24 Abu Hommos 1919 57 5 6 8.8 10.5
26 Kuft 1874–1875 45 1 4 2.2 8.9
Later hoards
39 Phacous 1956 61 2 5 3.3 8.2
40 Aleppo 1893 115 8 5 7.0 4.3
Meydancikkale 1980* 95 10 11 10.5 11.6
hoard contains is often present in very great numbers. 37 But an obvious alternative explanation to Newell's for the relatively small numbers of groups K/J in Demanhur is that those groups were still in the process of production when the hoard was interred. If so, they would have continued for some period of time after Demanhur's burial ca. 318 or 317 B.C.

End Notes
*
The Meydancikkale, Cilicia, 1980 hoard was published by A. Davesne and G. Le Rider, Le Trétsor de Meydancikkale (Paris, 1989). Found in excavations, this enormous hoard contained 5,215 coins. There were 2,554 Alexander and Philip III, with 419 from Amphipolis: 3 Group A, 2 B, 1 C, 3 D, 27 E, 9 F, 10 G, 19 H, 10 I, 2 K, 9 J, 47 L, 8 Λ-bucranium, 7 Λ-torch, 214 Λ-torch, and 48 later. The hoard, buried ca. 240–235, is far too late to be of any chronological value to us, but is listed in Table 18 because its size provides a good example of the proportion of group K/J coins to others.
33
Coins 4446 ff.
34
Tarsos , p. 34.
35
"Babylon Mint," p. 122, and "Babylon," p. 276.
36
Demanhur , pp. 68–69.

GROUP L AND THE DROPPING OF THE TITLE

Group L, the earliest not included in Demanhur, is generally assumed to have been struck between 318 and 316/315, i.e., between the date of Demanhur's deposit and Cassander's firm assumption of power in Macedonia. 38 The hoard evidence for the start of group L, although hardly conclusive, seems however to suggest a starting date for group L somewhat later than 318.

First, the groups after L are the very small ones with primary markings of Λ-bucranium, image-bucranium, and image-torch, and the enormous one with Λ-torch. There is no hoard evidence for the absolute date of the introduction of the Λ-bucranium, image-bucranium, or image-torch groups, 39 but the earliest possible appearance of the Λ-torch group is in the Unknown Provenance ca. 1990 hoard, buried perhaps ca. 308 B.C., although the interpretation of this hoard is problematical. The Λ-torch group was certainly in circulation a few years later, however, for five hoards of ca. 305–300 include such coins. 40 These groups after L are mentioned because if Λ-torch began to be used in ca. 308-305, there is ample time before that for group L and the Λ-bucranium and Λ-torch groups even if group L started several years after 318.

Second, two hoards buried shortly after Demanhur also contain our mint's coins only through groups K/J, with no examples of the very large group L, suggesting that L was not yet in circulation. They are Akçakale 1958, which was buried ca. 317–316, and Andritsaena 1923, whose burial date, despite the doubts expressed in IGCH, seems to have been ca. 316-315. 41 These two hoards contained, respectively, 26 and 33 coins of groups A through K/J, so that the absence of the large group L supports a proposed starting date for group L a few years after 318.

Until recently there seemed to be one contradictory bit of hoard evidence for the beginning of group L, the Sinan Pascha 1919 Hoard of Alexander and Philip III drachms, whose burial date of 317-316 seems quite firm. The hoard contained one drachm with image as its sole marking, an issue which had usually been considered as belonging with group L, where the image is the constant primary marking. The issue's appearance in the new Near East 1993 drachm hoard, 42 however, buried a few years earlier, ca. 322 or 321, together with iconographical evidence, places the image drachms in group E or group F. Thus Sinan Pascha no longer can be understood to show that group L was introduced prior to its burial ca. 317-316.

All the hoard evidence, then, seems to suggest, even if it does not prove, that group L was introduced only a few years after the burial of the great Demanhur Hoard, perhaps in ca. 316 or 315.

End Notes
37
E.g., Paeonia and Râ?inci (Chapter 8, hoards 34 and 35).
38
E.g., Philippe , p. 304.
39
The latest coins in the Megara hoard (Chapter 8, hoard 36) were the Philip II reissues with Λ-Bucranium, contemporary with the similarly marked Alexanders, but unfortunately the hoard can only be dated by these Λ-Bucranium Philips.
40
Phacous, Aleppo, Aksaray, Mavriki, and Lamia (Hagioi Theodoroi) in Chapter 8, hoards 39–41 and 44–45.

PHILIP II REISSUES

As discussed in Chapters 4-7, reissued tetradrachms and smaller coins with Philip II's types and name (Philip groups 1-8) were struck parallel with Alexander groups K and J, and some may possibly have been struck in parallel with the earlier Alexander group I. The tetradrachms (Philip group 9) then continued parallel to Alexander group L. Succeeding Philip groups paralleled succeeding Alexander groups, until perhaps 294-290 B.C. when Demetrius Poliorcetes assumed power in Macedonia. Because these Philip reissues lasted so long, much later than Philip III's death, it is most unlikely that their issue had anything to do with that unfortunate monarch. Had any coinage at Amphipolis been intended to support him, it surely would have been struck in his own name—but no such coinage is known.

By Newell's chronology, Alexander group I was struck ca. 322-321 B.C., by my chronology, perhaps 320-319. Groups K and J on Newell's chronology would have been issued ca. 320-318, by mine, perhaps 318-317. My best estimate of when these Philip reissues started is, then, ca. 320 or 319 B.C. Newell suggested that they were reissued because of the popularity of Philip's coinage in the Balkans to the north, where the hoards show that they circulated widely. Georges Le Rider has recently put forth another explanation: the fiscal advantage of a double coinage to the ruling parties in Macedonia. 43

SUMMARY

The chronology proposed here for Amphipolis's Alexanders, then, is:

Groups A-D ca. 332 - ca. 326
Groups E-F ca. 325 - ca. 323/322
Groups G-K/J ca. 322 - ca. 317?
Group L ca. 316 - ?

Figure 6 shows in schematic form, on the left, Newell's dating, and the estimated total number of dies found for each group. On the right is the chronology proposed here, with the estimated totals for groups A-D, E-F, G-K/J, and L. Also shown are the total estimated number of Philip dies employed at various times, given in terms of Attic-weight equivalents of the amount of silver struck. 44

Figure 6 Comparison of Newell and Troxell Dating

image

The Troxell dates are extremely approximate and rough, e.g., groups A-D may not have occupied the full span of 332 to 326, and the output of G-K/J was probably heavier at the outset than at the end of these groups' striking. Nevertheless, the output at various periods seems to make far more sense historically than does the rate of striking under Newell's chronology.

The heaviest striking, as mentioned above, would have come not in 328 and 327 when Alexander was at his greatest distance ever from home and when there was no apparent need for a great deal of coinage there, but from 325 onward when back payment for many years of service was due to returning troops.

This lowered chronology also produces one rather satisfactory result. The reason for the introduction of the title BA∑IΛEΩ∑ has never been adequately explained. Newell in Tarsos , only after he had already decided upon 324 as its date of introduction there, ventured the suggestion that it was due to Alexander's conquest of India and the finalization of his conquest of all the Great King's domains. 45 But if there has ever been any attempt to explain why the title was dropped ca. 318-315, at least at Amphipolis, I have missed it.

An obvious explanation is that the inscription BA∑IΛEΩ∑ A9BE≡AN∆POY was intended to refer not to the great Alexander but to his young son Alexander IV. After Alexander's death his generals arrived at an uneasy truce leaving the succession to his mentally defective brother Arrhidaeus, renamed Philip III, and to Alexander's unborn child by Roxane, should the child turn out to be a male. It did, and he became Alexander IV. These two unfortunate individuals became the wards of one after the other of the powerful successors, but nominally they were the joint Kings of Macedonia, referred to in the sources as of βασ ιλεĩς. Philip III's coinage, struck at a number of mints but, remarkably, never at Amphipolis, often uses the title BA∑IΛEΩ∑, and so the title would be perfectly appropriate should the reference be to Alexander IV. Antipater, an old companion of Philip II, had been left as regent in Macedonia by Alexander III, and, although Alexander may have been disaffected with him shortly before he (Alexander) died, still Antipater would have had every reason to emphasize the continuance of the royal house.

Indeed, one eminent numismatist has explained why the title at Amphipolis must refer to the young boy because Alexander would never have used the title on the mainland:

It is evident that throughout his lifetime Alexander contented himself with the modest legend A9BE≡AN∆POY. On the coins especially intended for use in the West it would have been far from politic for Alexander to display a title so abhorrent to the Greek mind. By force of arms and circumstances his undoubtedly was the hegemony over Hellas and the Greeks, but he understood their character too well to advertise the fact boldly on what he intended should be a national coinage....After his death, however.... the legends BA∑IΛEΩ∑ (Ф ıΛππОγ and BA∑IΛEΩ∑ A9BE≡AN∆POY were intended to indicate that these kings were the rightful successors....

This strong statement was made by Newell himself in Reattribution 46 when the coinage's dates were believed to be later than he subsequently demonstrated. It is a pleasure, although perhaps a rather perverse one, to quote that great numismatist in support of my own thesis.

As for the explanation of why the title was subsequently dropped at Amphipolis, it seems understandable in the light of events in 317-316. Olympias, in brief control of Macedonia in the fall of 317, assassinated Philip III and his young wife Eurydice and put to death many of Cassander's supporters. Cassander, returning from the Peloponnese, besieged her and her forces in Pydna, finally defeating her in 316 and arranging her death. He then, according to Diodorus Siculus, married into the royal family, espousing Thessalonice, Philip II's daughter and Alexander's half-sister, and founded Cassandreia, named after himself. Cassander also, according to Diodorus Siculus,

... had determined to do away with Alexander's son ... so that there might be no successor to the kingdom; but for the present, since he wished to observe what the common people would say about the slaying of Olympias ... he placed Roxane and the child in custody, transferring them to the citadel of Amphipolis, in command of which he placed Glaucias, one of his most trusted henchmen. Also he took away the pages who, according to custom, were being brought up as companions of the boy, and he ordered that he should no longer have royal treatment but only such as was proper for any ordinary person of private station. After this, already conducting himself as a king in administering the affairs of the realm, he buried Eurydice and Philip. ... 47

This may be the explanation for the removal of the title: Cassander wished it no longer to be understood as legitimizing the young Alexander IV, for he was now allied by marriage to the great Alexander and the royal house, and felt secure to pursue his own ambitions.

A modern view, most recently argued by Hammond and Walbank, holds that Diodorus's source Hieronymus was repeating propaganda favorable to Cassander's enemy Antigonus, 48 and that Cassander was not acting in an inimical fashion towards Alexander IV. One must agree, certainly, that Cassander, who had been appointed administrator by Philip III and Eurydice, acted appropriately in burying them: after all, who else was there to do so ? At the same time, though, they also discredit Diodorus's statement about the removal of the pages: "In fact the Royal Pages, being recruited at the age of fourteen, were too old to be associated with Alexander IV, who was only six or seven." But Diodorus's actual words are that Cassander (άπέσπασε δ έκί тоύς πα ĩδαζ σᴜᴠτρ φεσθαı. This could as easily simply refer to some suitable agemates as schoolmates or companions such as the heir to the throne would surely be provided with, rather than the "Royal Pages," well-born teenage attendants on the reigning king. Confinement to the citadel is explained as simply safeguarding the young boy's person, but such insulation from affairs would not be the normal thing for an heir truly expected to inherit the throne.

Hammond and Walbank also discredit Diodorus's statement that Cassander had already made up his mind to do away with the young Alexander and his mother, saying "that happened six years later!" It strains belief, however, to think that Cassander intended to stand aside quietly and relinquish power when his young charge should come of age. Certainly Cassander later did indeed do away with both the boy and his mother.

In any case, whatever his behavior towards the young Alexander IV, Cassander was now firmly in control of Macedonia and would have had every reason to discontinue a practice which could be seen as promoting the interests of his ward. This, I believe, is the explanation for the dropping of the title ca. 316 B.C.: the coinage was no longer to be understood as that of the young Alexander IV, but as continuing that of the great Alexander, whose successor Cassander planned—and was—to be.

In 1991 I rashly suggested that the title on Alexander's coins, no matter where struck, might have appeared only after his death, 49 but hoard evidence seems to show that the title was adopted at a number of mints to the east probably shortly before 323, and almost certainly before it appeared at Amphipolis. 50 In addition, the title was not discontinued at every mint at the same time: at Babylon, for instance, it apparently persisted until the end of its Alexander coinage, ca. 305 B.C. And, of course, many mints never used the title at all. The arguments above, therefore, refer only to the mint identified as Amphipolis.

End Notes
41
Chapter 8, hoards 18 and 20.
42
Chapter 8, hoard 7; see also p. 36.
43
Demanhur, p. 21. See now G. Le Rider, "Les deux monnaies macédoniennes des années 323-294/90," BCH 117 (1993), pp. 491-500, esp. pp. 497–500.
44
The dies are estimated as on p. 25, n. 9.
45
Tarsos , p. 34.
46
Reattrib., p. 31.
47
Diod. 19.52.
48
N. G. L. Hammond and F. W. Walbank, A History of Macedonia (Oxford, 1968), voi. 3, p. 145, n. 1.
49
"Earliest Silver," pp. 60–61.
50
50 E.g., most recently, the 1993 tetradrachm hoard buried ca. 323 or 322 (Chapter 8, hoard 4), which contained coins with BA∑IΛEΩ∑ A9BE≡AN∆POY from Citium, Myriandrus, and Aradus, but whose Amphipolis component ended with E, the penultimate group before the title was added there.

PART II ALEXANDER'S LIFETIME GOLD

This study describes in detail only an early subgroup of the common Alexander staters with symbols of cantharus, trident head, or fulmen. At the American Numismatic Society, gold with these markings has been traditionally assigned to Amphipolis, while elsewhere it has sometimes been given to Pella. No decisive evidence exists for either attribution, and even whether all the gold so marked emanated from a single mint seems quite uncertain. All gold coins with cantharus, trident, or fulmen as well as those with Boeotian (?) shield are therefore here assigned, as in Philippe , merely to Macedonia.

10. THE LIFETIME STATERS

Some years ago, Georges Le Rider and the present author began a die study of Alexander III's Macedonian gold coinage—distaters, staters, and quarter staters. 1 A summary of part of this coinage is given below, the part with the common Macedonian symbols of cantharus, trident
Table 19 Gold Coins and Obverse Dies Located

Coins Obverse Dies Obverse Links between Symbols Coins Obv. Die Obv. Links/Obv. Die
Distatersa 141 22 3 6.41 0.14
Cantharus 61 10.5
Trident 43 9
Fulmen 37 2.5
Staters Published Below 109 30 14 3.63 0.47
Cantharus 38 14.2
Trident 54 13.2
Fulmen 17 2.7
Other Statersb 238 78 5 3.05 0.06
Cantharus 28 8.5
Trident 62 21.5
Fulmen 109 38
Shield 39 10
Quarter Statersc 88 16 5 5.50 0.31
Cantharus 23 4.5
Fulmen 62 9.5
Shield 3 2
head (vertical only), fulmen, and Boeotian (?) shield. For brevity's sake, the trident head symbol on the gold coins will in this and succeeding chapters be called simply trident; and the shield simply shield. The results, while perhaps interesting statistically, have not as yet led to any conclusions about either chronology or attribution to specific mints, with the exception of what turned out to be a distinct group of staters with the first three symbols (cantharus, trident, and fulmen), the group that is published here.

This distinct group consists of two series. Series 1 has only two reverse symbols, cantharus or trident. It appears to be the immediate predecessor of series 2, which is a large, heavily die linked series starting with cantharus and trident and adding the fulmen later. Nothing at all approaching this group's coherence is found anywhere else among the more numerous other staters bearing these symbols, and both the details of its iconography and its hoard appearances set it off from the mass of those other such staters. 2

Table 19 gives the numbers of coins and obverse dies found for the various denominations and symbols and the obverse links discovered between different reverse symbols. 3 As might be expected, the survival rate is better for the rarer denominations (distaters, 6.41 coins per obverse die, and quarter staters, 5.50 per obverse, as against 3.63 and 3.05, or 3.21 overall, for the staters). What is striking in Table 19, however, is the difference in the number of die links between symbols that the two stater groups contain. The staters published here have 14 such links for 30 obverse dies, a ratio of 0.47; the remaining staters have but 5 such links for 78 obverse dies, a ratio of only 0.06. Other differences between the two stater groups are also evident and will be discussed following the catalogue.

An unexpected result of this study has been that many of the staters Newell in 1918 assigned to Tarsus in his series I, ca. 333-227 B.C., 4 must be included in the staters here published. Their reattribution to Macedonia seems inescapable.

CATALOGUE

The material in the catalogue is arranged by reverse die symbols numbered consecutively. Brackets to the left indicate obverse die links, brackets to the right indicate reverse links. Horizontal lines to the left lead to other symbols found with the obverse dies. Figure 7, following the catalogue, shows the coins' complex die linkage in schematic form, and Plates 20-23 repeat this arrangement. Bold Troxell numbers indicate dies that were reported by Newell as part of Tarsos . A concordance of Newell's Tarsos die letters and the present author's die numbers appears in Table 20, p. 108 below.

The staters' obverses show a head of Athena right, wearing a Corinthian helmet surmounted by a serpent. The reverses show Nike standing, holding wreath and stylis, and are inscribed AΛE≡AN∆POY. Obverse dies have the prefix 0 and reverses are identified as C, cantharus; T, trident; and F, fulmen. Hoards cited are discussed in Chapter 12.

Series 1 (Plate 20)

Cantharus
Trident —— 04–Cl 1. ANS = Tarsos 14 (dies E-ε; pl. III, 15) (466)
2. Hess 208, 14 Dec. 1931, 259
Trident —— 05–C2 1. London = Alexander 3004 = Tarsos 14 (dies D-δ pl. III, 16) (467; Plate 25, N14) 06–C2 1. ANS (468)
2. Commerce 1994 hoard 3 (Plate 31, 3)
Trident
O1-T1 1. Alexandria = Tarsos 15 (dies G-ζ pl. III, 18)
2. Veliko Tarnovo = Samovodéné hoard 58 ( Philippe , pl. 89, 13, obv. only) (469)
02-T2 1. Paris = Tarsos 15 (dies F–F;pl III, 17)
2. ANS = R. Ratto, 4 Apr. 1927, 567 = R. Ratto, FPL Dec. 1922, 1947
3. Kovacs 9, 21 Nov. 1988, 3 = Münz. u. Med. 10, 22 June 1951, 240 (470; Plate 25, N15)
02-T3 1. Athens = Corinth hoard 47 (471)
2. CNG 26, 11 June 1993, 66 = Malko Topolovo hoard 34a
02-T4 1. Commerce 1994 hoard 1 (472; Plate 31, 1)
03-T5 1. Athens = Corinth hoard 48
2. Coin Galleries, 9 Mar. 1956, 1296 = Malko Topolovo hoard 34
3. Potidaea hoard 5
4. Commerce 1994 hoard 2 (473; Plate 31, 2)
Cantharus —— 04-T6 1. ANS = Ball 4, 23 Mar. 1931, 1625 (474)
2. Balkans hoard 27
Cantharus —— 05-T7 1. Mid-American, 24 May 1985, 1015 = Balkans hoard 26
2. Veliko Tarnovo = Samovodéné hoard 59 ( Philippe , pl. 89, 13, rev. only) (475)
05-T8 1. Glendining, 9 June 1982, 114 (476)

Series 2 (Plates 20–23)

The coins struck from obverses 07 through 022 (Plates 20–22) form one large completely die linked group. Those from obverses 023 through 030 (Plate 23) clearly on stylistic grounds belong with those from 07–022, but no actual die links are as yet known.

Cantharus
07-C3 1. Veliko Tarnovo = Samovodéné hoard 57 ( Philippe , pl. 89, 12, rev. only) (477). The stylis's cross-bar is in front of Nike's wing, as on T10, T12, and T18–T19.
08–C3 1. ANS = SNGBerry 169 (478)
08–C4 1. St. Petersburg = Tarsos 12 (dies B-α coin cited but not illus.) (479). This cast at the ANS, marked "Hermitage 198," is clearly the example listed by Newell as "Petrograd (no. 198)," but described by him as from his dies B-β. The rev. die, however, is Newell's α.
2. Berlin (Plate 25, N12, second example)
Trident —— 010–C4 1. ANS = Tarsos 12 (dies A-α; pl. III, 14; p. 23, fig. 10; p. 24, fig. 12) (Plate 25, N12, first example)
2. Athens = Corinth hoard 46
3. Cast: "Spink, Nov. 1920. Saida hd. ?" = Schweizerische Kreditanstalt FPL 25, Spring 1978, 20 = Cahn 68, 26 Nov. 1930, 1222 (480)
4. Veliko Tărnovo = Samovodéné hoard 55
5. Veliko Tărnovo = Samovodéné hoard 56 (Plate 25, P)
Trident —— 011–C4 1. Rauch 4, 26 June 1970, 2
2. Commerce 1994 hoard 5 (481; Plate 31, 5)
Trident —— 012–C5 1. Berlin (482)
012–C6 1. Sofia = Varna hoard 33 (483)
Trident & Fulmen —— 014–C7 1. Istanbul (484)
2. Coin Galleries, 19 Nov. 1971, 464
014–C8 1. Athens = Corinth hoard 42 (485)
Fulmen —— 016–C9 1.Malko Topolovo hoard 30
2. Glendining, 29 Apr. 1954, 2 (486)
017–C9 1. Verroia = K. Romiopoulou, "Eυρ ήματα από τCυς 'ΔίδυμCυς' MaxεδCѵɩϰύς Tà<Cυς της BέϱCɩaς," A' Ʃυѵàѵτηση γɩα Eλληѵɩστɩϰή Kεϱαμειϰή (Joannina, 1989), p. 35, 3 (inv. 13a), and pl. 15, obv. only (487)
Trident & Fulmen —— 018–C10 1. London = Alexander 168b = Glendining, 14 July 1950, 97 (not illus.) (488)
019–C10 1. London = Alexander 168d
2. Commerce 1994 hoard 8 (489; Plate 31, 8)
020–C10 1.Ruse = Ruse hoard 3 (490)
Trident —— 026–C11 1.London = Alexander 168c (491)
027–C12 1. New Netherlands 63, 18 Apr. 1972, 68 (492)
028–C13 1.Stack's, 10 Dec. 1987, 3112 (493)
029–C14 1. Veliko Tarnovo = Samovodéné hoard 53 ( Philippe , pl. 89, 12, obv. only) (494)
2. In commerce 1976, provenance unknown
030–C15 1. G. Hirsch 17, 12 June 1958, 17 (495)
2. Shore FPL 16, n.d., 20
030–C16 1. Jasna Poljana hoard 13
2. Peus 270, 10 June 1969, 55 (496)
030–C17 1.Commerce 1994 hoard 7 (497; Plate 31, 7)
Trident
09–T9 1. ANS = Tarsos 13 (dies C-γ coin cited but not illus.) (498; Plate 25, N13)
2. Münz. u. Med. 64, 30 Jan. 1984, 88 = Münz. u. Med. 8, 8 Dec. 1949, 809
3. Platt, FPL "Coll. H. H.," n.d., but ca. 1910–15, 17 09–T10 1. St. Petersburg = Anadol hoard 8 = Tarsos 13 (obv. die C; coin cited but not illus.) (499). The cast at the ANS, marked "Hermitage 214," must be the coin listed by Newell from "Petrograd" from dies C-γ, but the rev. die is not γ. The stylis's cross-bar is in front of Nike's wing, as on C3, T12, and T18–T19. After the striking of coins from 09 and T9, two ringlets were added to the right of Athena's neck on 09.
2. Lanz 28, 7 May 1984, 195
3. NFA, 10 June 1993, 40
09–T11 1. Bucharest = Gîldau hoard 4 (500)
Cantharus —— 010–T11 1. Berk 56, 17 Jan. 1989, 12 (501)
Cantharus —— 011–T12 2. Birkler and Waddell 2, 11 Dec. 1980, 128 (502). The stylis's cross-bar is in front of Nike's wing, as on C3, T10, and T18–T19.
Cantharus —— 012–T12 1. Milan
2. Malko Topolovo hoard 31
3. Veliko Tarnovo = Samovodéné hoard 54 (503)
012–T13 1. ANS (504)
2. Potidaea hoard 10, 11, or 12 (not illus.)
3. Giessener 32, 12 Nov. 1985, 54
013–T13 1. Ball 6, 9 Feb. 1932, 152 = Ball 4, 23 Mar. 1931, 1626 (505)
013–T14 1. Peus 298, 23 Oct. 1979, 51 (506)
Cantharus & Fulmen —— 014–T13 1. Balkans hoard 25 (507)
014–T15 1. Athens = Corinth hoard 43 (508)
Fulmen —— 015–T15 1. Athens = Corinth hoard 45 (509). This obv. has previously been described as the same as 018, following, but differs from it in a number of ways: the nearer crest's hairs radiating from its holder, the placement of the serpent's head and tail, and the hair revealed by the indentation between helmet visor and flap.
Cantharus & Fulmen —— 018–T15 1. Athens = Corinth hoard 44 (510)
2. Canessa, 22 May 1922, 391
Fulmen —— 021–T16 1. ANS (511)
2. Glendining, 24 Nov. 1950, 1543
3. Commerce 1994 hoard 9 (Plate 31, 9)
Fulmen —— 022–T17 1. Sotheby, 16 Apr. 1969, 269 = Paeonia hoard
2. Frankfurter 99, 2 Oct. 1958, 39
3. Münz. u. Med. FPL 281, Oct. 1967, 7
4. Münz. u. Med. FPL 317, Oct. 1970, 2
5. Potidaea hoard 5
6. Commerce 1994 hoard 10 (512; Plate 31, 10)
023–T18 1. Lanz 16, 24 Apr. 1979, 72 (513). The stylis's cross-bar is in front of Nike's wing, as on C3, T10, T12, and T19.
023–T19 1. Plovdiv (514). The stylis's cross-bar is in front of Nike's wing, as n C3, T10, T12, and T18.
024–T20 1. Commerce 1994 hoard 4 (515; Plate 31, 4)
025–T21 1. Auctiones 10, 12 June 1979, 118 (516)
Cantharus 026–T22 1. Sternberg 11, 20 Nov. 1981, 74 (517)
026–T23 1. Peus 328, 2 May 1990, 111 (518)
Fulmen
Cantharus & Trident 014–F1 1. Mende hoard 73 (519; Plate 29, 73)
Trident 015–F1 1. Berk 52, 22 Feb. 1988, 11 (520)
Cantharus 016–F2 1. Gotha (521)
2. Commerce 1994 hoard 6 (Plate 31, 6)
Cantharus & Trident 018–F2 1. Oslo (522)
018–F3 1. ANS = SNGBerry 136 (523)
2. Lanz 48, 22 May 1989, 176
3. Commerce 1993 hoard 20 (Plate 30, 20)
018–F4 1. Alexandria (524)
018–F5 Glendining, 29 Apr. 1954, 3 (525)
018–F6 1.Glendining, 20 July 1976, 2 (526)
018–F7 1.Sofia = Varna hoard 32
2. Malko Topolovo hoard 29 (527). There is a die break on Nike's right wing.
Trident 021–F7 1. Peus 277, 25 Oct. 1971, 80
2. London = Alexander 164A = Larnaca hoard 62 (528)
Trident 022–F7 1. Hamburg = W. Hornbostel, et al, Kunst der Antike. Schatze aus Nord-deutschen Privatbesitz (Mainz/Rhein, 1977) 536 = Münz. u. Med. FPL 258, Oct. 1965, 9 (529) The die break noted under 018–F7 has enlarged.
022–F8 1.Kricheldorf 15, 15 June 1965, 6 (530)

Figure 7

Die Linkage in Series 1 and Series 2

image

Figure 7 summarizes the catalogue, and Plates 20–23 are arranged in the same manner. Brackets to the left and horizontal lines indicate obverse links, and brackets to the right, reverse links. Bold type identifies dies in Tarsos . Superscripts identify die combinations present in the five earliest hoards of Table 23, those buried very shortly after 323 B.C. (see Chapter 12): C = Corinth, S = Samovodéné, B = Balkans, M = Mende, and R = Ruse. Some internal shuffling of dies in the great die linked section of series 2, from 07 through 022, is surely possible, but the overall arrangement seems justified.

End Notes
2
Compare the coins of series 1 and 2 to other staters with their symbols, e.g., Plate 25, E-H, Plate 31, 11–26, and Alexander 164a–b, 168a, 172a–d.
3
The number of obverse dies reported for each symbol is the total number of dies used with that symbol, less one half for each die shared with one other symbol, and less two thirds for each die shared with two other symbols. This should give a reasonable approximation of the relative sizes of the issues. In counting die links, a single obverse die connecting three symbols is counted as two links.
4
Tarsos, pp. 22–26. Newell's attribution to Tarsos has been rightly questioned by F. de Callata?, "Numismatique d' Alexandre III le Grand. Deux questions," Mémoire présenté en vue de l'obtention du grade de licencié en Archéologie et Histoire de l'Art (Antiquité) (Université Catholique de Louvain, 1983), pp. 125–28.

THE COINS AND THEIR ATTRIBUTION

The bulk of series 2, the coins struck from obverses 07–022 (Plates 20–22), consists of one tightly die linked group which includes the three common Macedonian symbols of cantharus, trident, and fulmen.5 Eight other obverse dies, 023–030 (Plate 23), although not yet actually die linked to this main section of series 2, seem on stylistic grounds firmly bound to it. Die 023, so similar to 09, is coupled with reverses (T18–T19) with the stylis's cross-bar shown awkwardly in front of Nike's wing, a feature known to me on no other Macedonian staters except those from the reverses C3, T10 and T12, which occur early in series 2's die linked group.

And obverses 023–030, like 07–022, exhibit most or all of the iconographic details which, taken together, distinguish series 2 from all the numerous other Macedonian staters bearing the same symbols: small heads with finely drawn profiles; elongated helmet crests of which the nearer extends almost horizontally below several of Athena's thin parallel ringlets; two complete ringlets to the immediate right of the helmet flap; two or more tightly curled ringlets (as opposed to the loose locks in this position on the bulk of Macedonian staters) to the right of her neck; and often, unrealistically and rather disconcertingly, ringlet tips depicted also under the goddess's neck truncation. Series 1 and 2 reverses also show a fairly broad cross-piece on the stylis. Many other staters with the same symbols have much narrower cross-pieces, some so short as to give the stylis the appearance of a trident.6

At the outset of series 2 a certain amount of variation and experimentation is evident. Die 07, although the hair is in ringlets, has the thin, lank helmet crests of 01–05 in series 1, while 08 has a coiffure of rather loosely twisted ringlets which are arranged not in parallel but in a gracefully irregular fashion. Die 09 was used with T9 without the ringlet tips to the right of Athena's neck, but the tips were added by the time T10 and T11 were employed, and 010 has a unique curve in the nearer helmet crest. And as just mentioned, C3, T10, and T12 (as well as T18–T19) have a peculiar feature found nowhere else on the hundreds of Macedonian gold staters studied, the stylis's cross-bar in front of rather than above Nike's wing.

The cantharus of C3, and to a lesser degree that of C7, have no apparent bases depicted and they terminate below in a point. The handles of these canthari are almost semicircular and their top attachments reach outward, not upward, from the cup's brim. The canthari on subsequent dies of series 2 have distinct bases and elongated handles which reach vertically upward from the cup. This more elegant shape is found on all the other such Macedonian gold studied, i.e., on all cantharus distaters, quarter staters, and staters other than those published here.7

Although series 1 is not die linked to series 2, and although its coiffures differ from those of that series, it seems on close inspection firmly associated. Its two obverse-linked symbols, cantharus and trident, are those which, again obverse linked, are the first symbols employed in series 2. Athena's profiles in scale and in their general fine and delicate aspect are almost identical in both series. The homogeneity of series l's previously known coiffures on 01–05 is now broken by the newly emerged reverse-linked 06, with its loose flowing locks replacing the earlier dies' short curly hair, and with its helmet crest extending horizontally below Athena's ringlets, anticipating the crests' arrangement from series 2's 08 onward. Die 08, which strangely was not illustrated by Newell, also repeats the loose locks of 06. The thin, lank helmet crests of 01–05 appear also on the new 07, at the outset of series 2. And Cl and C2, the only cantharus reverses known in series 1, have the unusual cantharus of series 2's C3, with no base, and with semicircular handles.8 Finally, of course, there is the feature which was key in Newell's association of coins of the two series in Tarsos , the unusual down-turned ends of the stylis's cross-bar, seen most clearly on series l's T4 and T5, and series 2's C4. The two series, too, contain most of the known cantharus staters as measured by obverse dies employed (see Table 19, p. 100) but only a minute fraction of all the abundant known fulmen staters.

Enough similarities thus exist between series 1 and the early coins of series 2 to warrant considering them the output of a single mint—as did Newell. The variations in details of iconography in series 1 and early series 2 can be explained simply enough by experimentation at the outset of the new coinage—compare the initial obverses of Philip II's gold, with their long hair and one head facing left.9

Newell in 1918, early in his career, attributed most of series 1 and some of the early coins of series 2, with cantharus and trident symbols, to Tarsus, although he placed series 2's coins (Tarsos issues 12–13) earlier than those of series 1 (Tarsos issues 14–15). Table 20 relates Newell's Tarsos issues 12–15 and their dies to the arrangement proposed here.

Plate 25 shows representative examples of Tarsos 12–15. Dies marked with an asterisk in the following table are those illustrated there.

Table 20 Concordance of Newell's Tarsos Dies and Troxell Dies
Newell Die Newell Issue Newell Pl. III Troxell Die
Newell's First Group, Included in Troxell Series 2 Newell's First Group, Included in Troxell Series 2 Newell's First Group, Included in Troxell Series 2 Newell's First Group, Included in Troxell Series 2
Obv. A* 12 14 010
Obv. B* 12 08
Obv. C* 13 09
Rev. α* 12 14 C4
Rev. β 12 = α (C4)
Rev. γ* 13 T9 and T10
Newell's Second Group, Included in Troxell Series 1 Newell's Second Group, Included in Troxell Series 1 Newell's Second Group, Included in Troxell Series 1 Newell's Second Group, Included in Troxell Series 1
Obv. D* 14 16 05
Obv. E 14 15 04
Obv. F* 15 17 02
Obv. G 15 18 01
Rev. δ* 14 16 C2
Rev. ε 14 15 C1
Rev. ϝ* 15 17 T2
Rev. ς 15 18 T1

Newell did not realize that the coins of his first group (part of series 2 here) were firmly linked to coins of more nearly "standard" ringlet style, nor, more important, to coins with fulmen symbol. Had he known of these links it is inconceivable that he would have given his first group, now bound to all of the present series 2 with its three quintessential Macedonian symbols, to any place other than Macedonia. Series 2 certainly was produced in Macedonia.

In the absence of actual die links, however, Newell's attribution of his second group (here part of series 1) to Tarsus cannot be decisively disproved. One might think that the early icon- ographic details of series 2 which repeat those of series 1 were due to one mint's (Macedonia's) copying of another's (Tarsus's) coins. But the new 06, firmly die linked into series 1 yet anticipating the ringlets and long helmet crests of series 2, argues against this interpretation. An origin in Macedonia for both series seems almost certain.

The frequent presence of series 1 staters along with those of series 2 in hoards from the Greek mainland is not necessarily an argument for a Macedonian origin, for all those hoards also contained staters from elsewhere.10 Series l's attribution here to Macedonia rests solely on an analysis of the coins themselves, with the many similarities between series 1 and series 2—the coiffures and helmet crests of 06 and 07 and the shapes of the canthari of C1–C3.11 In addition, series 2 at its outset uses only the two symbols of series 1, cantharus and trident, adding the third common Macedonian symbol of the fulmen only later.

Most of Newell's dies in question from Tarsos are reproduced here on Plate 25, the coins identified by Newell's issue numbers N12–N19, and with his die letters and my die numbers both also given. N18–N19, known from but one shared obverse die, have the prominent vertically placed plow to left that is the unvarying primary symbol on the large output of analogous silver (N20–N40) at Tarsus, which Newell dated after 327 B.C. N18–N19 are surely from Tarsus.

But then Newell took N16–N17 as the link between N18–N19 and the issues now reattributed to Macedonia (N12–N15). N16–N17's obverses do indeed have the tightly curled hair of N14–N15, but there all resemblance ceases. In the arrangement of the helmet crests, the absence of locks to the right of Athena's neck, and their large scale and general coarseness, N16–N17's obverses are most unlike those of both N14–N15 and N18–N19. Similarly with the reverses. N16 and N17 do have cantharus and trident symbols, but those symbols are placed differently from those of N12–N15 and from the primary symbol of N18–N19, and N16–N17's cantharus has a different shape, and the trident a different orientation, from those of N12–N15. Finally, the elaborate stylis of N16–N17, topped with small Nikes, makes these issues a most unlikely bridge between N14–N15 and N18–N19. Where or when N16–N17 were struck I should not like to hazard a guess, but even after the removal of N12–N15 from Tarsus they seem improbable on stylistic grounds as predecessors of N18–N19, the earliest certain Tarsiote gold.

There remains, however, the possibility or even probability that N18–N19 were modeled on N14–N15. Despite the appearance of the griffin on N18–N19's helmet and those issues' thick helmet crests, there is an overall similarity between the two pairs. It would be only natural if Tarsus, for its small first gold issue ca. 327 B.C., took as a model a stater from the main Macedonian mint, i.e., from this series 1 which includes N14–N15. The gold of Tarsus then would not have commenced until after the main Macedonian mint had started to strike Alexander's gold.12

If it be granted, then, that all of series 1 and 2 were struck in Macedonia, a specific association may be suggested. The word "association" is used deliberately, for this study would prefer to avoid definite mint attributions. But in Philip II's gold coinage, only two groups employ all three symbols of cantharus, trident, and fulmen, and these two groups' symbols are obverse linked as tightly as are those of these Alexander coins. The two Philip groups are Le Rider's Philippe , Pella group II.1, which he dates to ca. 340/336–ca. 328 B.C.,13 and most of his Pella group IIIA, struck ca. 323–ca. 315 B.C.14 Table 21 compares the three groups (obverse links refer only to links between different symbols).15

Table 21 Comparison of Series 1 and 2 with Philippe Pella Groups
Coins Obv. Dies Coins/Obv. Obv. Die Links Obv. Links/Obv. Die
Pella II.l 513 124 4.14 54 0.43
Series 1 and 2 109 30 3.21 14 0.47
Pella IIIA 187 47 3.98 25 0.53

The three groups' survival rates are very close, and so the frequency of die linkage between symbols in each case is comparable. Both common symbols and similar die linkage associate our staters with Pella's Philips. Further, the earliest canthari of series 1 and 2 are very similar to those of Philippe's Pella 11.1.16

These Alexander staters are a relatively small group compared to the two great outpourings of Philip staters comprising Le Rider's Pella 11.1 and III A. But the three groups' use of the same three symbols and above all their extensive obverse linkage between symbols clearly associate them.

If Philippe's Pella groups truly belong to that city, then seemingly so do these earliest Alexander staters. This attribution to Pella is opposed to the usual view, at least that of the ANS, that they, along with all the other Macedonian staters bearing their symbols, were produced at Amphipolis.17 But whether these "other" staters came from the same mint as the early ones of series 1 and 2 is quite unclear.18 In the absence of any good evidence, I follow Le Rider's practice in Philippe of ascribing all of them merely to "Macedonia."

End Notes
5
The die chart of Figure 7 shows the die linkage of both series 1 and 2 in compact form. Plates 20–23 follow its arrangement.
6
E.g., Plate 25, F-H.
7
See enlargements, Plate 25, C (C3), D (C4), and E (one of the "other" cantharus staters not in series 1 or 2).
8
See enlargements, Plate 25, A–B.
9
Philippe , Pella gold obverse dies D1–D4, pp. 129–30, and pl. 53.
10
See p. 121, Table 23.
11
See pp. 107–8.
12
See Chapter 13 for a discussion of the meager evidence as to when the main Macedonian mint may first have struck Alexander's gold.
13
Philippe , pp. 135–63, pl. 55–64. Note that the small II.2 is not necessarily considered later than II. 1. See Philippe , p. 417. Pella group II contains the last Philips struck there before the hiatus which ended only with the reissuance of Philip's types after Alexander's death.
14
Philippe , pp. 171–82, 398–516, pl. 65–69. See commentary below (p. 117) on the Samovodéné hoard for the retention of the ca. 323 starting date for Philippe's Amphipolis and Pella groups IIIA.
15
See Philippe , pp. 415–16, for the number of II. 1 dies and links. Only the IIIA staters with cantharus, trident, and fulmen symbols are included here (there are other less important symbols also). Again, a single obverse used with three symbols is counted as two obverse links.

COMMENTARY ON ALEXANDER ISSUES

With cantharus, trident, and fulmen staters struck at different times and places in Macedonia, one cannot consider all coins with, e.g., a cantharus symbol as a single emission. Price's massive compilation was, of necessity, selective and no concordance of his issue numbers with the stater groups here published or with others similarly marked is possible. Comments on his illustrated examples may however be useful.

Issue Marking Comments
164 fulmen, vertical Neither of the illustrated examples is in our series 2, but they are among the "other staters" of pp. 100, 107, and 122, and Plate 31, 11–26.
164 A fulmen, slanted The illustrated example of 164A (dies 021–F7) is part of series 2 but, as shown by the obverse-linked examples in series 2, the distinction between 164 and 164A merely on the basis of the symbol's orientation seems unwarranted.
168 cantharus 168a does not belong to series 1 or 2, but it is one of the "other staters" discussed on pp. 100 and 107. Coins 168b (dies 018–C10), 168c (dies 026–C11), and 168d (dies 019–C10) are part of series 2.
172 trident, vertical None of the illustrated examples is part of series 1 or 2. Coin 172a is one of a subgroup showing three helmet crests. See p. 100, note b. 172b–d belong with the "other staters" discussed on p. 100.
175 trident, horizontal Coins with this symbol so placed are quite separate from those with vertical trident heads. Again, note the three helmet crests on both illustrated examples.
176 shield The issue is not in series 1 or series 2, but is discussed on pp. 100 and 127.
3004 cantharus Price retains Newell's attribution to Tarsus for this coin, distinguished from issue 168 (itself not a homogeneous output) only by its obverse style. The example illustrated is however here reattributed to Macedonia (series 1, dies 05–C2).
3005 cantharus, below wing The attribution to Tarsus seems correct.
3006 trident, vertical This coin's attribution is puzzling. It is from the Larnaca hoard, buried ca. 300 B.C. Its obverse style is surely not that of any Macedonian coins with this symbol, nor does the obverse seem to fit with coins Newell attributed to Tarsus. In Alexander , p. 48, discussing the similarities between the Corinth, Samovodéné and Balkans hoards, Price identifies the trident staters of series 2 in Corinth and Samovodéné (not in Balkans) as this issue 3006, saying that its presence "in all three...hoards may suggest that despite its very different obverse style, this variety ought to be placed in Macedonia." But the sole example of 3006 shown is obviously from an entirely different output than the coins in these hoards.
3008 trident, horizontal (below wing) As with 3005, the probable attribution is to Tarsus.
End Notes
16
Compare Plate 25, A–C (C1-C3) with the canthari of Philippe 's pls. 57–60.
17
E.g., SNGBerry 136 ff.; Sardes and Miletus, p. 70; and p. 116 below.
18
See p. 127.

End Notes

a
The tabulation is only of the main group of distaters, group A in the following chapter.
b
The tabulation does not include a number of anomalous coins: 20 trident coins (10 obverses) of exceedingly poor style, which have one obverse link to a coin with torch symbol, and another obverse shared by both trident- image and ? coins; a small number of anomalous and rather crude fulmen staters; and, as stated in the text, no coins with horizontal trident heads. Also not included are still other staters with the usual symbols whose obverses show the lower tip of a third crest on Athena's helmet (e.g., Plate 25, H). These seem to form a separate group which leads into other staters with two markings (a symbol and a monogram) on each.
c
The quarter staters probably fall into two groups, those with fulmen and cantharus and others with fulmen and shield, but there seems no way to divide the fulmen coins listed. See pp. 126–27, where a group of obverse linked fulmen and shield staters (with which the obverse linked fulmen and shield fractions must belong) is distinguished from staters, early or late, with the common cantharus, trident, and fulmen symbols.
1
Professor Le Rider is due all credit for initiating this gold study and for gathering and studying a vast amount of material from cabinets both public and private, much previously unpublished. This material has been augmented by the considerable resources of the American Numismatic Society, including its coins and its extensive cast collection (largely assembled by E. T. Newell), its library, and its photo file. The present author has restudied all the assembled examples and any errors or misinterpretations are hers alone.

11. THREE GROUPS OF DISTATERS

Very little has been written on the subject of Alexander's distaters. With two of the earliest known hoards containing his Macedonian distaters published here for the first time, this seems an appropriate place to make a few observations about these handsome coins. The present author distinguishes three groups, A, B, and C, so indicated in Chapter 12 in the commentaries on the five relevant hoards (Mende, Saida, Commerce 1993, Paeonia, and Varna) and in the hoard chart, Table 23. These groups bear no relation to the similarly designated silver groups of Chapters 1–3 above.

Group A (531–36)

The first group, A, comprises most of the Macedonian distaters with the usual symbols of cantharus, trident, and fulmen, summarized above in Table 19.1 Little need be said about these. They are by far the most common such coins (I have located 22 obverse dies), stylistically quite homogeneous, and exhibiting but three known obverse links between symbols—two cantharus-trident, and one cantharus-fulmen. Two links and other representative examples are shown on Plate 24.

Group B (537–39)

The second group, B, is the fulmen–image distaters, Sicyon 6–7, for which I have located six obverse dies. They and the rest of Sicyon's group I (other distaters, rare staters, and silver tetradrachms) were reattributed by me in 1971 to an uncertain mint in Macedonia, and more

Table 22 Comparison of Sicyon 1–5, 6–8, and 9–16
Issue Markings Distater Obv. Dies Stater Obv. Dies Tetradrachm Obv. Dies Second Symbol?
1–5 Youthful figure (athlete? boxer?) 1 2 4 yes
6–8 Fulmen image a 6b 2c
9–16 Similar youthful figure image 1 1d 6 yes
recently have been given by Martin Price to "Aegae(?)."2 Since my 1971 work, two northern Greek provenances, the Mende and Paeonia hoards,3 have been identified. A Macedonian origin now looks even more probable, at least for the coins with fulmen and image, which may be strikings of a mint other than that which produced the remainder of Sicyon's group I. This group I is broken down in Table 22 into its three component sub-groups of issues, which between them include distaters, staters, and tetradrachms.

No die links connect any of these three sub-groups to another. The fulmen-image coins (Sicyon 6–8) differ from the other two groups in their relative abundance, in their lack of a second symbol, and, most important, just as with other Macedonian gold, in not being accompanied by any silver with the same markings. The only common element is the marking image, shared with the third group. This hardly seems sufficient: this marking, or its possible variant image, is found on Amphipolis's Alexander tetradrachms of group K, and on their contemporary Philip II reissues of tetradrachms and smaller coins.4 And perhaps more significantly, it is also found on staters with the other two typical Macedonian symbols, cantharus and trident.5

The rare fulmen–image staters' divergent styles are revealing. Whether they truly accompany the similarly marked distaters is a question, as the obverse styles of the two denominations are quite different. If the two denominations are not associated, the resulting lack of staters further differentiates the fulmen-image distaters from the other Sicyon gold. If they are associated, however, the staters' connections with simple fulmen staters are significant. The obverse shown in Sicyon (Plate 25, J) is very similar indeed to one known with simple fulmen reverses (Plate 25, I; see also Plate 31, 21, 22). And the newly emerged second fulmen-image obverse (Plate 25, L) 6 is actually known used with a fulmen reverse (Plate 25, K).

It remains possible that the gold with the youthful figures and its accompanying silver was also struck somewhere in Macedonia. But the new shared stater obverse just mentioned strengthens the suggestion that the fulmen-image gold coins, lacking matching silver issues, were struck in Macedonia and may also indicate that they formed part of the output of the chief Macedonian gold mint.

Group C (540–48)

But even the three simple markings of cantharus, trident, and fulmen, unaccompanied by any secondary marking, seem to have been revived on distaters, again obverse linked, at some period after the issuance of groups A and B. There exists a third separate, small sub-group of distaters, with obverses of different style with two crests rather than three shown on Athena's helmet, and with the Nike on the reverse often quite obviously walking. Only 17 coins are known, from three obverses.

In the catalogue below, dies are prefaced by "D" for distater. Thus, e.g., DO1 = distater obverse 1, DC2 = distater cantharus reverse 2, DTI = distater trident reverse 1, etc. Brackets to the left indicate obverse die links, brackets to the right, reverse links, and horizontal lines to the left lead to other symbols found with the obverse dies.

CATALOGUE

Trident & Fulmen D01–DC1 1. Commerce 1993 hoard 19. Nike walking (540; Plate 30, 19)
Fulmen DO2–DC1 1. Berlin (541)
D03–DC2 1. ANS = SNGBerry 135. Nike walking
2. Paris (542)
3. In commerce, 1976
Trident
Cantharus & Fulmen DO1–DT1 1. NFA 1, 20 Mar. 1975, 82 = Parke-Bernet, 9 Dec. 1969, 140 = Paeonia 1968 hoard. Nike walking (543)
2. Parke-Bernet, 9 Dec. 1969, 141 = Paeonia 1968 hoard
Fulmen
Cantharus & Trident DO1–DF1 1. Paris (544)
D01–DF2 1. Münz. u. Med. FPL 227, Nov. 1962, 434 = Santamaria, 12 Oct. 1949, 16 = Egger, 7 Jan. 1908, 420 (545)
D01–DF3 1. Berk 82, 13 July 1994, 10 (possibly from the Commerce 1993 hoard) (546). See 540 and 547 from the same obverse and from that hoard
D01–DF4 1. Commerce 1993 hoard 18 (547; Plate 30, 18)
2. Boston = MFA 659
3. Florence
4. Paris = De Luynes 1604
5. Schlessinger 13, 4 Feb. 1935, 649
6. Naville-Ars Classica 17, 3 Oct. 1934, 359
Cantharus D02–DF4 1. Boston = MFA 658 (548)

The die links are summarized in the following figure. Reverses in italics are those whose Nikes are shown walking.

Figure 8

Die Linkage among Group C Distaters

image

This small concentrated output is obviously distinct from group A. The hoards also distinguish group C from the more common distaters of group A, as will be seen in following chapters.

End Notes

a
The three examples of Sicyon issue 6 are from an obverse known in issue 7, and the A given as the second marking on issue 6's sole reverse die seems on close inspection to be merely image, as on issues 7–8.
b
Sicyon records six obverse dies. A11, however, seems a retouched version of A8, while the coin illustrated from die-pair 7.8, supposedly from 7.7's A12, is from another, uncounted, obverse. The total thus remains at six.
c
The second die-pair of this issue (Plate 25, L) surfaced in the Commerce 1994 hoard (Chapter 12, hoard 8, lot A), CNG 32, 7 Dec. 1994, 1110. The main Macedonian component of the hoard is catalogued in Appendix 4.
d
Sicyon's A16 is the same as A17.
1
See p. 100.
2
"Peloponnesian Alexanders," pp. 42–44; Alexander 185–200.
3
Chapter 12, hoards 4 and 7.
4
See pp. 23, 53, and 58.
5
Cantharus image: SNGCop 624; trident image: Philippe , p. 271, 19, pl. 91.
6
See p. 112, note c, above. The obverse link is noted also in the author's "Staters, Serendipity, and Soli," in Xαϱαϰτήϱ. Aφιέϱwμα ατη Máντw Oιϰoνoμίδoν, ed. E. Kypraiou, D. Zafiropoulou et al. (Athens, 1996), pp. 283–86.

12. THE GOLD HOARDS

The following hoards are those known to me which contained gold coins of Alexander from Macedonia; which were buried by the time of Philip III's death in 317 B.C. or perhaps a very few years later; and of which I have seen casts or photographs of the actual coins—for a mere listing of, e.g., a trident-symbol stater does not allow it to be identified as a part of series 1, or of series 2, or of the larger group of staters with this symbol not included in these series.

The coins listed for each hoard under "series 1," "series 2," and "other" refer only to the Macedonian gold staters of Alexander present. Macedonian distaters of three distinct groups (A, B, and C) are also listed (for discussion of these groups see the preceding chapter). Publications given in IGCH are generally cited only when their contents are discussed. Table 23 at the end of the chapter summarizes the hoards which are discussed in chapter 13.

ALPHABETICAL INDEX
Hoard Number
Asia Minor 1950 13
Balkans 1967 3
Commerce 1993 7
Commerce 1994 8
Corinth 1930 1
Gîldău 1960 11
Jasna Poljana 1969 9
Mende 1983 4
Paeonia 1968 10
Ruse ca. 1952 5
Saida 1829, 1852, 1863 6
Samovodéné 1954 2
Varna 1949 12

INDIVIDUAL HOARDS

1. Corinth, Corinthia, 1930 ( IGCH 77)1

Series 1: 2 staters, from 02–T3 (471), 03–T5

Series 2: 5 staters, from 010–C4, 014–C8 (485), 014–T15 (508), 015–T15 (509), 018–T15 (510)

Other: none

The Corinth hoard, found during excavations, is the only hoard listed here whose full contents are known with certainty. It is also possibly the earliest buried, and thus its interment date, unfortunately uncertain, should be of high importance for the terminal date of the striking of series 1 and series 2.

With the realization that Alexander's Attic-weight tetradrachms were introduced in Macedonia at the earliest only ca. 332 B.C., and with the present reattribution of the early "Tarsus" gold to Macedonia,2 Thompson's reasons for dating the Corinth deposit to ca. 327-325 B.C. must be reexamined. Her arguments, perfectly valid at the time, were that Philip II's coins were all in excellent condition, and that none of the Alexanders (her coins 42–51) could be dated to after 329/8. Some issues which seemed to be early are now more doubtful and a review of the current evidence for the hoard's burial is indicated, with remarks by Thompson in quotation marks.

42–45: four "Amphipolis" staters, series 2's 014, 015, and 018, "from dies which Newell placed early in the sequence from that mint [Amphipolis]." As Newell's chronology for Amphipolis's silver started in 336,3 presumably he and Thompson considered that the gold too commenced then, but the current evidence indicates that the silver seems to have been introduced no earlier than ca. 332 B.C. Further, the dies, to 018, no longer seem particularly early in their sequence.

46–48: three "Tarsus" staters, 46 from series 2's 010, 47–48 from series 1's 02 and 03. The Tarsos date of 333–329 B.C. is eliminated by the present reattribution to Macedonia.

49: a Salamis stater with harpa symbol. Thompson notes this issue as fourth in a series of five issues which Newell had dated to the rather wide range 332–320 B.C.,4 "which might seem to indicate a date toward the end of Alexander's lifetime or possibly after his death." But Thompson next adduced Newell's comparison in Tarsos of two coins coincidentally from the very dies of Corinth 46 and 49,5 where he described the Cypriot piece as a contemporary imitation of the "Tarsiote" (now Macedonian) one. This led her to consider the Salamis piece as struck in the early 320s. It has recently become clear that the Salamis issue as 49, with harpa, is not the fourth issue in its series, but among the first if not the very first of a few extremely small issues.6 If it can only be dated by comparison to 46, however, it is of no independent value in dating the hoard.

50: a "Sidon" stater with caduceus symbol, which Newell considered struck ca. late 333–ca. 330 B.C.7 Price has recently voiced important doubts about the attribution of Newell's undated Sidon 1–7, both on the basis of the coins' internal evidence and on Newell's later thought that perhaps they emanated from Damascus.8 If so, they may well be contem-porary with the dated Sidon gold which will have commenced only in the early 320s.

51: an uncertain stater, with grain ear symbol, "of the same general period as nos. 42–50." This coin is clearly of no help.

We are then left without any coins which can be assigned to a date before the early 320s. Thompson also observed that the absence of the gold of "Sicyon," thought to have commenced 330–325,9 tended to confirm her early dating of the hoard. Price has noted, however, that a recent reattribution of the early "Sicyon" staters and distaters to some mint outside of the Peloponnesus, perhaps in Macedonia, makes their absence in the Corinth hoard less dramatic and thus less of a confirmation of a burial date so early as first thought.10 More important, "Sicyon" distaters are known from only three of the hoards listed here, all buried ca. 323 or later, and the "Sicyon" staters, known from but four obverse dies, appear only in the very large hoards 6 and 8 below. Those staters' absence from the Corinth hoard means nothing.

2. Samovodéné, Bulgaria, 1954 ( IGCH 395)11

Series 1: 2 staters, from 01–T1 (469), 05–T7 (475)

Series 2: 5 staters, from 07–C3 (477), 010–C4 (2 coins) (Plate 25, P), 012–T12 (503), 029–C14 (494)

Other: one "other" stater with fulmen symbol (Plate 25, M). See p. 127.

Samovodéné's two Philip II staters of Philippe's Pella group III (Plate 25, Q and R) were not recognized as from this group until 1987. The IGCH earlier had dated the hoard's burial to ca. 325–320 B.C., and Le Rider, citing the close resemblance of the coins known to him to those of the Corinth hoard, suggested a burial ca. 327–325 B.C. Dimitrov, subsequently able to obtain a record of all the hoard coins, including these Philips issued after Alexander's death, has now shown that the hoard must have been buried after 323.12

One might consider that Philippe group III of both Pella and Amphipolis should perhaps now be dated to after 320. It is argued above in Chapter 9 that the reissues of Philip II's silver after Alexander's death started together with Alexander groups K/J, or perhaps I, perhaps only in 321 or 320 B.C. If the gold reissues were introduced at the same time, then they also might have started only ca. 321–320 B.C. The reissues of Philip II gold staters from Asia Minor, however, are dated to ca. 323 and later13 and, as the gold and silver strikings of both Philip II and Alexander seem to be quite separate phenomena,14 it seems more reasonable to assume that the Philip II gold reissues from Macedonia (i.e., Philippe's groups III) commenced around that date. Thus Samovodéné may be dated to ca. 323 B.C. or shortly afterward.

3. Balkans 196715

Series 1: 2 staters, from 04–T6, 05–T7

Series 2: 1 stater, from 014–T13 (507)

Other: none

Le Rider terms this hoard "Commerce 1967," although noting it as "découvert probablement dans la région des Balkans." I have adopted Dimitrov's "Balkans" as more descriptive. The latest coin in the hoard is a stater of Salamis, with rudder symbol, issue 11 in Newell's "Cypriote Alexanders." Newell dated the Salaminian coins with this symbol in both gold and silver to after 320 B.C. on two grounds: that the first use of the rudder on silver was on coins inscribed with the name of Philip III, and that Philip III's name seems to have been used at neighboring mints not immediately upon Alexander's death but only from ca. 320 B.C. Also, Cyprus came under Ptolemaic control in 320, and the rudder seemed an appropriate symbol for a long series of issues struck while the Egyptians maintained a naval base there.

In his commentary, however, Newell wondered if the rudder staters might possibly have started before 320, "as their style is at first a close development of the latest of the previous staters."16 On this basis, Le Rider dated the Balkans hoard to 323 or a bit later, and Dimitrov agreed.17 Newell's study of Salamis, however, must be revised and amplified. Several obverse linked stater issues are now known to follow his issues 1–5, and they employ at least two different obverse styles.18 Issue 11, with rudder, may well at its outset imitate the early issues 1–5, but it does not seem to follow directly on them. One may conclude only that the Balkans hoard was buried probably no earlier than 323 B.C., and very likely as late as late as 320, or even possibly a bit later.

4. Mende, Macedonia, 198319

Series 2: 1 stater, from 014–F1 (519; Plate 29, 73)

Other: 10 distaters, 4 "A," 6 "B" (Plate 29, 63–72) The group B coins are from 3 obverse dies and an unknown number of reverse dies.

Georges Le Rider provided a photographic record of this hoard. Appendix 2 and p. 121, Table 23, constitute Mende's fullest publication. The latest coins are Alexander and Philip II staters of Miletus (series I, ca. 325–323, the Philips most probably from late 323),20 so that the Mende hoard also was interred ca. 323 or a few years later.

5. Ruse, Bulgaria, ca. 195221

Series 2: 1 stater, from 020–C10 (490)

Other: none

This small hoard, of four coins only, was surely correctly dated by Dimitrov to ca. 323–320 B.C. Its latest coin was a Miletus Alexander stater: cf. Miletus 127–29, series II, ca. 323/2 B.C.

6. Saida (anc. Sidon), Phoenicia, 1829, 1852, 1863 ( IGCH 1508)22

No identifiable coins of series 1 or 2, except, possibly, one from series 2's 010–C4 (480).

Other identifiable: 2 staters, 1 shield, 1 trident–image. Also listed by Waddington were distaters of group B, and others with cantharus, trident, and fulmen symbols which could be from either group A or C or from both.

The seven to nine thousand coins of this remarkable hoard, most of Philip II and Alexander

III, were soon dispersed, but a sizable fraction was seen and listed by W. H. Waddington in RN 1865. Staters with cantharus, trident, and fulmen were noted, but in the absence of illustrations it is impossible to know whether they belong to series 1 and 2, or to later issues.

The only two Macedonian staters of Alexander identifiable today are those noted above under "Other," both no doubt singled out because of their relative rarity. The issue with shield is discussed below, together with the anomalous fulmen stater of the Samovodéné hoard.23 Westermark dated the stater with trident and image to ca. 331 using an invalid comparison with Macedonian tetradrachms with trident symbol. Its date and mint are uncertain, however.

Waddington stated clearly that no coins of Philip III were included in the hoard (but note that only two of the five final hoards of Table 23, buried after Philip III's death, contained his coins). Further, Saida included a Salamis stater with rudder symbol, a marking used also by Philip III (Alexander tetradrachm issue P129). The IGCH dated Saida's burial to ca. 324/3 and Le Rider agreed. Thompson, considering only the Alexander material, opted for "soon after Alexander's death but perhaps closer to 320 than to 323." She probably was taking account of the fact that, while Philip III acceded late in 323, most of his datable coins seem to postdate 320, and no doubt also considered that the issue with trident and image was posthumous. Westermark agreed with Thompson.

7. Commerce 1993

Series 2: 1 stater, from 018–F3 (Plate 30, 20)

Other: 3 distaters, 1 "A" (Plate 30, 17), 2 " C" (540, 547; Plate 30,18 and 19). The two "C" coins are from the same obverse, which is that of the two "C" distaters in hoard 10 below; 2 staters, 1 fulmen (Plate 30, 21), 1 shield (Plate 30, 22).

The hoard is catalogued in full in Appendix 3. Aside from occasional sale catalogue appearances of individual coins, this is its only publication. Its burial would seem to have occurred within a few years of 321 B.C., the date of its latest at least fairly firmly datable coin.

8. Commerce 1994

Series 1: 3 staters, from 02–T4 (472), 03–T5 (473), 06–C2

Series 2: 7 staters, from 011–C4 (481), 016–F2, 019–C10 (489), 021–T16, 022–T17 (512), 024–T20 (515), 030–C17 (497)

Other: 21 staters, 13 fulmen, 3 cantharus, 5 shield

Lot A of 134 coins was reliably stated to be the remainder of a larger hoard. Lot B of 85 (or 94) coins and lot C of 20 were possibly but not definitely from the same hoard. See Appendix 4, where all the lots are discussed briefly (more complete descriptions are on file at the ANS), and the Macedonian portion of A is catalogued in full.

9. Jasna Poljana, Bulgaria, 1969 ( IGCH 777)24

Series 2: 1 stater, from 030–C16

Other: 4 staters, 2 trident, 2 fulmen

The latest coin present was from the dies of Abydus 169b, series XI, ca. 318/7 B.C. All scholars agree on a burial date in the neighborhood of 317–315 B.C.

10. Paeonia 1968 ( IGCH 410)25

Series 2: 1 stater, from 022–T17

Other: 7 staters, 2 trident, 4 fulmen, 1 trident-Δ

3 distaters, 1 "B," 2 "C." The two "C" coins are die duplicates and from the obverse of the "C" distaters in hoard 7 above.

Only a portion of the hoard's thousands of gold and silver coins of Paeonian and Macedonian rulers is known. According to Le Rider and Thompson, the hoard is dated to shortly after 316/5 by the known silver, the latest being from Philip II's group 9 with image, and by a Babylon stater as Alexander 3750, struck ca. 316–315/4.26

11. Gîldǎu, Rumania, 1960 ( IGCH 774)

Series 2: 1 stater, from 09–T11 (500)

Other: 4 staters, 1 cantharus, 2 trident, 1 fulmen

The IGCH dated Gîldău's burial to ca. 320 B.C. and Thompson, in Sardes and Miletus, to after 316 because of a Colophon stater that she believed was struck after Philip III's death.27

12. Varna, Bulgaria, 1949 ( IGCH 796)28

Series 2: 2 staters, from 012–C6 (483), 018–F7 Other: 1 distater, "A"

Only 34 of the thousands of coins in this deposit are known. Relying on those 34, Le Rider based his burial date of after 316/5–311/0 on a Babylon stater which N. M. Waggoner in "Babylon Mint" dated to that interval. The specific dies of this coin, which might allow a closer dating, are not known to me, but in any case Varna's burial will fall after ca. 316.

13. Asia Minor 1950 ( IGCH 1442)29

No coins of series 1 or 2 Other: 2 staters, fulmen

The IGCH dates the hoard's burial to ca. 310 B.C. because of the presence of a Babylon stater of the same period as that in the previous hoard. Thompson suggested the piece may be intrusive and offered a burial date of ca. 322/1 if so. As so many of the gold hoards listed here contain but one or two coins later than the bulk of their contents, however, there seems no real need to accept intrusion.

Coins catalogued in Chapter 10 come from four additional hoards, all buried in the third century and thus useless for the chronology of these early staters. These hoards are Larnaca 1870 ( IGCH 1472), buried ca. 300 B.C.; Malko Topolovo 1940 (IGCH 853), buried ca. 285–280;30 a new hoard of Philip II, Alexander III, and Lysimachus, buried after 281 B.C., found in Potidaea in 1984;31 and Anadol 1895 ( IGCH 866), buried ca. 228–220.

Table 23 Gold Hoards Buried by a ca.315 B.C Containing Identifiable Staters with Cantharus, Trident, or Fulmen
Hoard 1 Corinth 1930 Corinth IGCH 77 2 Samovodéné 1954 IGCH 395 3 Balkans 1967 IGCH – 4 MendeMende 1983 IGCH 5 Ruse 1952 IGCH 6 Saida 1829–1863 IGCH 1508 7 Commerce 1993 IGCH 8 Commerce 1994 IGCH 9 Jas. Pol. 1969 IGCH 777 10 Paeonia 1968 IGCH 410 11 Glldau 1960 IGCH 774 12 Varna 1949 IGCH 796 13 Asia Minor 1950 IGCH 1442
Total Goins* 51 67 29 80 4 7000+; 41 known 42 Lot A 134 Lot B 94 Lot C 20 24 70 (A/) 10 34 (known) 24
Philip II 41 51 24 62 2 6 + 16 9 20 10 25 30+
Alexander 10 16 5 18 2 17 + 26 132 80 14 37 10 4+ 24
Philip III 2 5 8 "some"
Other 18 + Much image
Philip II
Philippe I 4 2 2
Philipp II 41 49 24 56 2 4 2 1 1 5 7 30
Philippe IIIA 2, 323 on 12, 323 on 6 4 3 7
Philippe IIIB 1 1 2
Other Mints 1 Miletus, late 323 on; 1 unc. ? 1 Lamps., 321; 1 Magn. 322 1 WAM 3 Lamps., 323/2–322/1; 11 WAM 1 Abyd. 317; 1 WAM 7 WAM
Alexander
Series 1 2 2 2 ? 3 0–4
Series 2 5 5 1 1 1 1? 1 7 0–4 1 1 1 2
Other Mac. staters 1 fulmen (see commentary) 1 shield; 1 trident-image; others? 2 fulmen; 1 shield 15 fulmen; 5 shield; 3 canth.; 1 "Pella" 2–3 trident; 1–4 fulmen; 1 shield 2 trident; 2 fulmen 4 fulmen; 2 trident; 1 trident-Δ 2 trident; 1 cantharus; 1 fulmen 2 fulmen
distaters 4 A, 6 B present 1 A, 2 C 1 B, 2 C 1 A
Miletus 2, 325–323 1, 323/2 2, 325–323 2, 323/2 13, to 320/19 25, to 320/19 2 1 4
Salamis 1 1 1,323 on 2, 323 on 3 12 6 3 2 5
"Sidon" 1 7 1 3 1 1 5 3 4
Sidon 2 4 1 9, to 322/1 1 1
Other 1 unc. 4 WAM; 1 Cyp; 1 Unc. 5 WAM; 2 SAM; 1 S&P; 1 A&E; 3 Unc. 37 WAM; 2 SAM; 9 Cyp; 3 S&P; 7 A&E; 1 Unc. 25 WAM; 4 SAM; 4 S&P; 3 A&E; 4 Unc. 2 Abyd., to 317; 6 WAM 1&AE 1 Bab, 316–315/4; 7 WAM; 1 SAM; 1 Cyp; 2 S&P; 5 Unc. 1 Colophon, 316 1 WAM 1 Babylon, 316–311 1 Babylon, 316–311; 5 WAM; 1 SAM; 1 Cyp; 1 A&E
Philip III 1 Sardes, 319/8; 1 Bab., 322–321 4 Bab., 322–321; 1 Sardes, 322/1 5 WAM; 1 A&E; 2 Unc. "Some"
Other 18 various civic & regnal image of Paeonian kings and Philip II to group 9, after ca. 316

End Notes

1
G. R. Edwards and M. Thompson, "A Hoard of Gold Coins of Philip and Alexander from Corinth," AJA 74 (1970), pp. 343–50, esp. Thompson, "The Coins," pp. 347–50 (all coins illus.); Philippe , pp. 257–59, and 429–30, pl. 87–88 (all coins illus.); Alexander , p. 47; M. J. Price, "The Coinage of Philip II," NC 1979, p. 234, and "Reform," p. 188, n. 20; "Balkan Peninsula," with an illuminating comparative table of the Corinth, Samovodéné, and Balkans hoards; T. R. Martin, Sovereignty and Coinage in Classical Greece (Princeton, 1985), App. 4, pp. 271–92.
*
In each hoard except the first bold type indicates the latest firmly datable coin or coins. There are many omissions of "ca.," which may be assumed for most dates. The following abbreviations are used: A&E, Africa and the East; Abyd., Abydus; Bab., Babylon; Cyp., Cyprus; Lamps., Lampsacus; Mac, Macedonia; Magn., Magnesia; SAM, Southern Asia Minor; S&P, Syria and Phoenicia; "Sidon," Sidon 1–7 ( Alexander 345–66), whose attribution is somewhat uncertain, see p. 116 above; Unc, uncertain; WAM, Western Asia Minor.
2
See pp. 86–90, 101, and 108–9.
3
Demanhur , pp. 26 and 68. No later publication shows any change in his thinking here.
4
"Cypriote Alexanders." pp. 306–7, 1–5.
5
Tarsos, p. 24, fig. 12.
6
SNGBerry 171, at the ANS (Newell's Salamis issue 4, with harpa symbol), is from the obverse die of Newell's Salamis issues 1–3. The ANS has one or more coins or casts from each of these issues and from a new fifth issue as well, all from the same obverse die. The Berry coin alone lacks several small obverse die breaks present on all other examples, and its harpa issue is thus probably the first—if indeed issues 1–4 were even struck in sequence. The activity at this mint is also more complex than appears from "Cypriote Alexanders." See Sardes and Miletus, p. 70, n. 64; and pp. 118 and 125 below.
7
Sidon and Ake, pp. 7–8 ( Sidon 2).
8
Alexander , p. 436. Sidon 1–7, close stylistically in other respects to the certain Sidonian gold, have a griffin replacing the usual serpent on Athena's helmet.
9
Sicyon, p. 25.
10
"The Coinage of Philip II," review of Philippe , NC 1979. p. 234. The suggested reattribution was that of the present author, in "Peloponnesian Alexanders," p. 44. Price now specifically suggests Aegeae ( Alexander 185–200). See also Chapter 11, group B.
11
Philippe , pp. 259–61, 3, and 430, pls. 88–89 (20 coins listed and illus.); Alexander , p. 47; "Balkan Peninsula." Note that the illustration of the exceptional fulmen stater 52 is actually a duplicate of 57. Here Plate 25, M, has the correct photo of 52. Dimitrov in "Balkan Peninsula" points out that the casts furnished to Le Rider and illustrated by him as Philip's Pella 172 and 368, and Amphipolis 55b, and Alexander's 12, 13, and 18 were in each case not pairs from the same coin. Dimitrov shows further that the hoard's discovery date was 1954, not 1957, and plans to publish it and related hoards in fuller format in his forthcoming Philip and Alexander Coin Hoards in Hellenistic Thrace (Gold and Silver).
12
Philippe , p. 261; "Balkan Peninsula," p. 105.
13
M. Thompson, "Posthumous Philip II Staters of Asia Minor," in Studia Paulo Nasier Oblata I. Numismatica Antiqua, ed. S. Scheers (Louvain, 1982), pp. 57–61, at p. 60 and n. 8, "These Asia Minor Philips were issued for only a few years ... and there is no compelling reason to date any of the coins earlier than 323 B.C. An earlier date for the initial emission of Philips at several Asia Minor mints is given in the publication of the Bab Hoard. ... I am now inclined to think that the dates should be brought down slightly." This statement was based on the evidence of the 1964 Asia Minor drachm hoard, IGCH 1437, subsequently published by her in Sardes and Miletus, pp. 81–85. Now the far larger and thus more conclusive Near East 1993 drachm hoard (Chapter 8, hoard 7) provides confirmation that the earliest series which included Philip II staters at any Asia Minor mint were little if any earlier than those including coins of Philip III, hence struck no earlier than very late in 323, more probably in 322.
14
See pp. 122–23.
15
Philippe , pp. 262–64, 5, and 430, pls. 89–90 (all coins illus.); Coin Hoards 2, 50; Alexander , p. 47; "Balkan Peninsula."
16
"Cypriote Alexanders." pp. 313–14.
17
Philippe , p. 264; "Balkan Peninsula," p. 106.
18
See Sardes and Miletus, p. 70, n. 64. Die studies in preparation for a projected ANS sylloge volume of Alexander's gold have revealed that the eagle staters specifically rejected as Salaminian by Newell "Cypriote Alexanders." p. 307, n. 19), and still other issues, are obverse linked to his early gold stater issues at Salamis. For their subsequent styles, see Sardes and Miletus, pl. 32, 14–18. See also n. 6 above and p. 125, n. 16.
19
Alexander , p. 48, partial listing only. See Appendix 2.
20
See p. 117, n. 13.
21
"Balkan Peninsula," pp. 105, 112, and 114 (all four coins illus.); burial date, p. 105.
22
Philippe , p. 262, 4; Alexander , pp. 48–49; W. H. Waddington, "Trouvailles de Saïda et Marmora," RN 1865, pp. 1–28, esp. pp. 6–8; U. Westermark, "Notes on the Saida Hoard ( IGCH 1508)," Nordisk Numismatisk Arskrift 1979–80, pp. 22–35 (the 42–43 known coins listed and all but 2 illus.); Sardes and Miletus, pp. 71–72.
23
See p. 127.
24
Philippe , pp. 266–67, 8, Sardes and Miletus, pp. 74–75, pl. 33 (all 24 coins illus.); "Balkan Peninsula," p. 105; Lampsacus and Abydus , p. 68.
25
The primary sources are the two sale catalogues listed and summarized in IGCH, whence the data in Table 23. Other references are Philippe , pp. 298–304, 14 (discusses Alexanders and other coins included, but lists specifically only the known Philips, gold and silver); Alexander , p. 50; Sardes and Miletus, pp. 73–74 (lists 7 Sardes and Miletus staters of Alexander and Philip III).
26
See also Chapter 8, hoard 34.
27
Sardes and Miletus, pp. 72–73; Price also places the issue (Alexander 1785) midway in his ca. 319–310 group. Two earlier publications of the hoard are listed in IGCH. Note that in B. Mitrea, SCN 4 (1968), pp. 327–29, the reverse illustration of hoard coin 4 (from dies 09–T11) is a duplicate illustration of the reverse of hoard coin 3 (not in the stater group here published). The correct reverse of hoard coin 4 is shown only in B. Mitrea, Omagiu lui P. Constantinescu–Iaşi (Bucharest, 1965), pp. 73–79, at p. 76.
28
Philippe, pp. 268–69, 10, lists the 34 known coins. The identification of the two Alexander staters as part of series 2 is made possible by photos obtained by Georges Le Rider.
29
Sardes and Miletus, pp. 70–71, pl. 32 (all 24 coins illus.).
30
Now published in Kamen Dimitrov, "A Hoard of Gold Staters from Topolovo ( IGCH 853)," Bulletin of the Museums in South Bulgaria 15 (1989), pp. 189–207 (partially illus., in Bulgarian with English abstract and summary).
31
Alexander, p. 58, now published by G. Le Rider, "Trésors de statères d'or trouvés á Potidée en 1984 et à Skioné en 1985," RN 1991, pp. 89–96, at pp. 89–94.

13. GOLD DISCUSSION AND CHRONOLOGY

THE LIFETIME STATERS

So far, the die linkage and hoard evidence for the gold staters is fairly satisfactory. A portion (series 1 and 2, catalogued in Chapter 10) of the many staters known with the quintessential Macedonian symbols of cantharus, trident, and fulmen has been separated out. This distinct group differs from the other staters with these symbols in its iconography and in its unique tightly die linked structure so different from that of other similarly marked such coins, which are almost never die linked with each other. It differs also in containing with virtually no exceptions1 the only coins with these symbols to appear in hoards buried around the time of Alexander's death—i.e., hoards 1–6 or 1–7 in the previous chapter, ca. 323 or perhaps one or two years later.

That series 1 and 2 must have been struck during Alexander's lifetime comes as no surprise. What is surprising is that, at least according to the hoard evidence, virtually no other staters with cantharus, trident, and fulmen symbols seem to have been lifetime strikings. These other staters' appearances in the slightly later hoards suggest that many of them at least were very early posthumous issues.

But just when during Alexander's life were the staters of series 1 and 2 minted? In examining the meager and suggestive but far from conclusive evidence, I shall confine myself to the gold coins of Alexander and Philip II, for the silver output of the two kings seems to be a quite separate phenomenon.

Modern numismatists tend to think in terms of the following pairs of emissions: Philip II's silver and gold, and Alexander's silver and gold. But, quite unusually in ancient numismatics, in the case of each of these monarchs' Macedonian outputs, the gold and silver struck by each do not bear similar markings. Philip's gold cannot be related by its issue markings to his silver, nor can Alexander's gold to his silver. Indeed, the gold's markings under both kings, chiefly these three symbols of cantharus, trident, and fulmen, were repeated again and again, at different times and places,2 while the two kings' silver strikings followed a more typical pattern with different markings, or groups of markings, succeeding each other in fairly orderly fashion.

The relevant pairs to consider are not Philip's gold and silver, and Alexander's gold and silver, but Philip's silver and Alexander's silver, and Philip's gold and Alexander's gold. Common markings join each of these pairs: Alexander's tetradrachm group A repeats the symbols found on certain silver issues of Philip,3 and Alexander's gold repeats those of Philip's gold.4

The silver of the two kings was of course struck to different standards. Silver of both monarchs seems to have circulated together in Macedonia and in Greece proper. But Philip's silver, on its parochial local standard, was not struck and is not found overseas, while to the north of Macedonia it is found in much greater numbers than Alexander's Attic-weight coins.5 The silver of Philip and Alexander must be considered together, but the two series of strikings were not everywhere interchangeable.

The two kings' gold, on the other hand, struck to the same standard, assuredly was.6 Today we ask of a given coin, where was it struck and by whom? The ancients would ask, what is this coin worth to me in the marketplace? The names and images on the coins must have been irrelevant to their users—Philip II's and Alexander's gold were clearly interchangeable. This is why Philip's gold can be found everywhere together with Alexander's. Indeed, in the second century B.C. all Macedonian staters, no matter by whom issued, were known by the general term nummi aurei philippei (or στατήρες χρυσοῐ φιλίππειοι) and the same term may well have been in use also in the early hellenistic period, although recent apparent proof of this no longer seems valid.7

Several types of evidence, none conclusive, provide the only help in dating the Alexander staters of series 1 and 2. they are A) the Corinth hoard, B) the known dates of other Alexander gold strikings, C) what is known of the Philip II gold, and D. The Wear on certain hoard coins.

End Notes
1
The fulmen staters in hoards 2 and 7, see the preceding chapter. That in hoard 2 was in all probability struck at a secondary Macedonian mint, and hoard 7 was buried ca. 321 at the very earliest.
2
Philips in Philippe : cantharus staters, Pella groups, II, III, Amphipolis III; trident, Pella II, III, Amphipolis II, III; fulmen, Pella II, III, Amphipolis II. For Alexander, see Chapter 12.
3
See p. 48.
4
See pp. 109–10.
5
E.g., the Paeonia hoard, with its gold of both kings, but silver only of Philip and of Paeonian kings (Chapter 12, hoard 10, and Table 23).
6
See Table 23, in particular the Saida hoard.

A. The Corinth Hoard

This hoard until recently seemed to provide a firm terminus ante quem for the staters of series 1 and 2. It is the only hoard known containing Alexander's gold which could have been buried during his lifetime, and its first proposed burial date of ca. 327 or perhaps a year or two later appeared to indicate that these staters were all struck by ca. 328, in the early years of Alexander's reign. But the reasons for dating its interment so early now seem to be not so convincing,8 and there are new reasons for questioning a lifetime burial.

Thomas Martin has very reasonably argued that the circumstances of Corinth's burial—together with a gold necklace, and in the basement of a stoa perhaps occupied by Macedonian troops—point not to a circulation but to a savings deposit, and thus that the hoard is useless in any case for the chronology of its contents.9 If he is right, of course, there is no point at all in discussing the Corinth hoard. But whether or not he is correct here, his cautions about savings deposits are especially relevant to all gold hoards—often coins in that precious metal received relatively little circulation and wear and gold deposits in general often contain coins in excellent condition struck over considerable periods of time.

More important, perhaps, the more recently discovered hoards 2–5 in the previous chapter (Samovodéné, Balkans, Mende, and Ruse) now provide illuminating comparisons to Corinth. At first, only a portion of Samovodéné was known, which did not include its two post-323 staters with Philip II's types. Understandably, Samovodéné was, because of its remarkable resemblance to Corinth, believed to have been buried at approximately the same time (i.e., in the early or mid–320s). Dimitrov's full listing of Salovodéné's contents now shows that it must be brought down to after 323 B.C., because of the two late Philips. A glance at Table 23 will show that Samovodéné's inclusion of only two late coins is analogous to the compositions of Balkans, Ruse, and Mende, all interred ca. 323 or a bit later. Only two of Samovod6ne's 67 coins can be dated later than ca. 330 B.C. (or perhaps ca. 327);10 only one of Balkans' 29 and one of Ruse's four to later than that date; and only one to three of Mende's 80 to later than 327, but in each of these four hoards those one to three late coins were struck after 323. One may well suspect that only chance may have kept Corinth too from including one or two post–323 coins, and that it also might be considered as interred only after 323.

"La date des premiers statères d'or de Philippe," in Xαϱαχτήϱ (above, p. 113, n. 6), p. 268. As these 85 "large staters" are shown by inscription X.A to be equivalent to 170 regular σταήϱοι φιλιππείοι, and as Philip issued no distaters, it had seemed that Alexander distaters must have been involved, and called "large Philips." But the alternate restoration suggested by Le Rider, with which he reports Hatzopoulos concurs, destroys the seeming proof that these particular Alexanders were actually called "Philips." Nevertheless, such a name remains possible, and perhaps even probable, in the light of known second-century practice.

Le Rider also notes the heavy die linkage among the Philips in Corinth, especially among the coins from Amphipolis, which suggested that their striking preceded the hoard's burial by a rather short time.11 Similar heavy die linkage is found also, however, in other hoards. There are 19 die links, obverse and reverse, among the 41 Macedonian Philips in Corinth, but also 19 among the 51 similar coins of Samovodéné. Even the considerably later Varna deposit (hoard 11) has 11 among 30 such coins.12

The only significant difference between Corinth and other hoards with large numbers of Philip II coins seems to be the varying proportions in each from different portions of Le Rider's groups II at Pella and Amphipolis (both cities' groups I are early and very small, and their groups III of course fall after Alexander's death). Le Rider divides his Pella group II into II.1 and II.2. II.1, with 124 obverse dies employed for coins bearing cantharus, trident, and fulmen symbols, is the largest stater group in his entire study. II.2, which shares one obverse die with II.1, employed but 18 obverse dies for its four other symbols.13 Le Rider considers II.2 a subsidiary group of Pella issues whose chronology in relation to II.1 is uncertain.

Amphipolis's group II is not formally subdivided by Le Rider, but he notes that the last two of its ten issues were, unlike the first eight, struck in parallel rather than sequentially.14 For the sake of discussion, these first eight issues, which employed 48 obverse dies, are here called "II.A," and the last two, which used 30 obverses, "II.B."

Table 24 compares the contents of the five hoards which contained significant numbers of group II Philips.

Table 24 Philippe Group II Gold Coins in Selected Hoards
Obv. Corinth Samovodéné Balkans Mende Varna
Dies Coins Coins Coins Coins Coins
Pella II.1 124 5 24 10 19 16
Pella II.2 18 8 5 1 16
Amphipolis "II.A" 48 7 19 11 15 11
Amphipolis "II.B" 30 21 3 2 6 3

In Corinth the numbers of coins from Pella II.2 and Amphipolis II.B are higher than the numbers from the larger Pella II. 1 and Amphipolis II. 1. This situation is the reverse of that in each of the other four hoards, where the number of coins in each sub-group bears some vague if varying relation to the original number of dies used for each sub-group. Further, 17 of the 19 die links in the Corinth hoard are from Amphipolis's II.B, which followed II.A. Although this may be simply a consequence of the high relative representation of this subgroup (21 coins from a group employing only 30 obverse dies), still the concentration here sets Corinth apart from Samovodéné, Balkans, and Mende. Why? It may simply be that the reason is purely geographical as Corinth is the only mainland Greek hoard location, while the other hoards were all from the north.

As an aside, one may also wonder if perhaps Philippe's Pella II.2, or perhaps Amphipolis II.B, each joined by only one obverse to its preceding group of issues, could have actually been struck at Corinth, where Antipater and His successors maintained a garrioon. A mint at Corinth itself would nicely explain Pella II.2's or Amphipolis II.B's High representation in the Corinth hoard, whenever it was buried. But this is mere conjecture. We are unfortunately left with no real confidence that its burial Had to be earlier than ca. 323 B.C., and thus that it can be taken as proof that stater series 1 and 2 must necessarily antedate Alexander's death by a number of years. However, the tentative conclusion reached later in this chapter is that the early 320s are indeed the most probable time for their emission.

End Notes
7
M. B. Hatzopoulos, Actes de vente d'Amphipolis, Meletemata 14 (Athens, 1991), inscriptions VII, X.A, X.B and XI, and commentary on pp. 84–85. Georges Le Rider has pointed out that Hatzopoulos's restoration 85 ατατήρων [χρυσϖν φιλιππεί] ων μεγάλων in X.B could equally well be restored with [χρυσϖν άλεξανδρεί],
8
See pp. 115–16.
9
See p. 115, n. 1.
10
See p. 116 for comments on the undated "Sidon" staters.
11
Philippe , p. 430.
12
A single die used with two coins is counted as one link; with three coins, as two; and with four, as three. The photographs of the Mende hoard coins (see Appendix 2) are often not clear enough to allow positive die identification, and so the number of die links in that hoard cannot be given.
13
I omit the last two small issues listed in Philippe from II.2 (p. 170, 393–97) from but three unconnected obverse dies, as Le Rider seems to doubt strongly that they truly belong to II.2 (p. 417). They occur in no known hoards.
14
Philippe , pp. 425–26.

B. Other Alexander Gold

Few Alexander mints struck gold before 323 BC. Sidon's issues 1–7 were given by Newell to the years immediately before 330, but the Sidonian attribution and early dating are both quite questionable.15 The earliest dated Sidonian gold is of year 7, 327/6 B.C., although this was probably preceded by the small undated issues Sidon 11–14 and 19. No gold is known, however, corresponding to the silver dated years 1 and 2, 333/2 and 332/1 B.C., so that it is a fair assumption that Sidon's gold started only after its silver, perhaps 330–328. The situation is similar at Ake where no gold corresponds to the earliest silver, again of 333/2 and 332/1. These two cities, of course, furnish the only dated series struck during Alexander's lifetime.

At Tarsus, the first two of the three groups of staters which Newell assigned to his series I, ca. 333–327, are composed of his issues Tarsos 12–15—in the present study reattributed to Macedonia. Hence no Tarsiote gold can be reasonably assigned to earlier than ca. 330. At Salamis, Newell himself was firm that the earliest strikings imitated our series 2.16 If so, the Salamis coins cannot be placed earlier than our staters and do not help in dating them, and one would suspect that other Cypriot mints initiated their gold at the same time as Salamis. Thompson dates the opening of the mint at Sardes to ca. 330, the earliest of any Asia Minor mint. But so early a date depended in part on assigning three years to the issuance of Sardes series IV–VI and perhaps III and, as she notes, "the time span may have been even shorter."17 All in all, there seems no need to believe that any Alexander gold struck overseas antedated ca. 330 B.C.

C. Philip II's Gold

Le Rider in Philippe tentatively assigned a terminus ante quem of 328 B.C. to Philippe's group II because the Corinth hoard was at the time of his writing believed buried ca. 327. 18 This burial date is now quite uncertain, as discussed in the previous chapter, and it may well be 323 or later.

The dates of Philip's Pella staters, struck either late in his lifetime or early in that of Alexander, and those of the Alexander series 1 and 2 are obviously related.19 But even aside from absolute dates the question is, how are the staters of the two kings related? With the same symbols, used in similarly die linked fashion, and with exactly the same standard so that in the marketplace they were equivalent, did one necessarily replace the other? Or could they not have been struck simultaneously, or alternately? Note that both series continued, or resumed, after Alexander's death. And, again, note that in early hellenistic Macedonia, as in later centuries, Alexander's staters may have been known as στατῆρεζ χρυσοῖ φιλίππειοι.20

It is thus not at all clear that the introduction of gold with Alexander's types and name must have produced even a temporary cessation of the coins with Philip's types and name. Certainly in the first four hoards of Table 23, buried probably shortly after 323, Philip's gold was overwhelmingly predominant over Alexander's Macedonian strikings, with a total of 174 staters of Philippe groups I and II compared to only 19 Macedonian Alexander staters. The heavy die linkage in Alexander's series 1 and 2 suggests that this coinage must have been produced over a quite short period of time. It seems entirely possible, even probable, that staters of Philip's types continued to be struck at least sporadically until the end of Alexander's reign.

End Notes
15
See p. 116.
16
Tarsos , p. 24. Despite Thompson's comments (p. 118, above, n. 18) I believe that Newell's Salamis 1–5 were indeed the earliest emissions of the mint and expect to publish the evidence in a planned festschrift honoring Georges Le Rider.
17
Sardes and Miletus, p. 10.
18
Philippe , p. 429–430.
19
See pp. 109–10.
20
See p. 123.

D. The Wear on Certain Hoard Coins

Among the eight earliest gold hoards of Table 23, those most probably burled by shortly after 323, three (Corinth, Balkans, and Ruse) show no helpful disparity in wear between the coins of series 1 and 2 and the hoard' latest coins, and the contents of Saida are not known in detail. But the wear in the four other hoards may be instructive.21

Six of Samovodéné's seven series 1 and 2 coins are illustrated here (series 1: 469, 475 ; series 2: 477, 494, 503, and Plate 25, P). All show a good amount of wear, particularly when compared to the two post–323 Philip II staters which date the hoard (Samovodéné 28 and 29, Plate 25, Q–R), both in superb condition.

By far the most worn coin in the Mende hoard is its 73, from series 2 (519 ; Plate 29, 73), particularly when compared to the hoard's latest coins, a post–323 Philip II stater (Plate 29, 61) and contemporary Alexanders (Plate 29, 74–75), all in excellent condition.

Commerce 1993 seems to have been interred a few years later than Samovodéné and Mende, perhaps 320 B.C., so its evidence is not as strong as that of those two deposits. But its coin 20 (Plate 30, 20), from series 2, was considered in only EF condition by the dealer offering it, while the bulk of the hoard coins were termed MS (mint state) or near-MS. Comparison of coin 20 with the other two Macedonian Alexander staters in the hoard (Plate 30, 21–22) shows it is far more worn. Coin 20 was also offered at the lowest price of any of the hoard coins, save only the rather wretched coin 42, struck from flawed dies.

In Commerce 1994, buried perhaps as late as 318, and thus also of lesser importance, the only two of the 26 staters with fulmen, cantharus, or trident symbols considered to be a grade lower than VF or Good VF/VF+ were one each of series 1 and series 2.22

Wear cannot be quantified, of course, but a reasonable deduction is that series 1 and 2 were not struck during the great outpouring of silver coin which occurred throughout Alexander's empire from 325 on, but that they antedated Alexander's death by quite a few years. As already noted, their tight die linkage suggests a fairly short period of emission.

The only conclusion the present writer can draw about the dates of series 1 and 2 is thus unfortunately the rather imprecise one that they were minted at some time or times between ca. 336 and ca. 323 B.C., and perhaps nearer to 332 than to 323. Alexander's gold and silver strikings, like those of this father, bore no obvious relationship to each other, as has been emphasized several times in this study. Even if Alexander's silver started no earlier than ca. 332, there seems no decisive reason why his earliest gold cannot even have preceded his initial silver. But perhaps the most likely date for the introduction of series 1 and 2 falls after 332, when the silver coinage commenced. By 327, at any rate, overseas gold was certainly being struck.

End Notes
21
Hoards 2, 4, 7, and 8 in Chapter 12.
22
See p. 143.

OTHER CANTHARUS, TRIDENT, AND FULMEN STATERS

Not yet fully discussed is another striking feature of Table 23. Leaving aside Saida, whose Macedonian component is effectively unknown, in the first five hoards of Table 23 there are 19 Macedonian staters of series 1 and 2,23 and only one single Macedonian stater of the more numerous others bearing the same symbols: the slightly worn fulmen stater in Samovodéné.24 This coin is exceptional in that it belongs to a small group of fulmen staters of unusually homogeneous style, two of whose obverses are used also for coins with the unusual shield symbol.25 Dimitrov has plausibly suggested that this Samovodéné fulmen stater was struck at a mint other than that which produced the series 1 and 2 staters in Samovodéné.26 These obverse-linked fulmen and shield staters, with their accompanying similarly obverse-linked fractions,27 may then be from a second Macedonian mint. They may have commenced shortly before 323, but must have been struck for the most part in following years. The shield staters certainly appear in abundance in the Commerce 1994 hoard (Plate 31, 27–31).

More significant, however, than this Samovodéné fulmen stater is the remarkable fact just mentioned that, except for this stater, of the nineteen staters of series 1 and 2 and the distaters of the Mende hoard, not one single Alexander gold coin with the common symbols of cantharus, trident, or fulmen appears in any of the first five hoards of Table 23, those buried by 323 B.C. or a very few years later. Staters with these markings not included in series 1 and 2 are far more numerous than those in these two series;28 had they been struck much before 323 they would surely have appeared in these early hoards.

They first occur, and in quantity, accompanied by relatively few examples of series 1 and 2, in hoards 7–13, those buried perhaps 320–315. One must conclude that these "other" Alexander staters with cantharus, trident, and fulmen symbols, absent from the earliest hoards, were in large part posthumous strikings.

Another interesting observation is the very few obverse links between symbols among these other, later, gold staters. There are also, as the present author's examination has shown, very few reverse links between obverse dies as well as many minor variations in, particular, obverse style.29 These "other" coins' absence in the early hoards of Table 23 together with their presence in six of the seven latest hoards there suggests a rather short period of striking. The variety of obverse styles in Commerce 1994 (see Plate 31) suggests that their output may have been largely completed by that hoard's burial date of perhaps 318, or very shortly after. They thus would have spanned the aproximate time, ca. 324–319, when the present author believes the heaviest silver production of Amphipolis occurred. Unlike the silver, however, the lack of die links and the varying styles suggest that the large output of these "other" staters may have been produced in a number of workshops, even perhaps in different mints.

End Notes
23
This section concerns itself only with the coins of these symbols included in Table 19 on p. 100. It excludes those mentioned on p. 100, note b.
24
"Balkan Peninsula," Samovodéné 52; here Plate 25, M. Note that 52's illustration in "Balkan Peninsula" is an error, a duplicate of that of hoard coin 57.
25
E.g., Plate 25, N and O. Note also that a stater of this shield issue was present in the Saida hoard.
26
"Balkan Peninsula," p. 104.
27
See p. 100, Table 19.
28
See Table 19.
29
Table 19 shows the paucity of obverse links between symbols. Plate 25, E–H, and Plate 31,11–26 show the varying obverse styles. See also pp. 110–11 for the classification of the coins illustrated in Alexander .

DISTATERS

In Chapter 11 three groups of Macedonian distaters were distinguished: A, the bulk of the coins with the usual cantharus, trident, and fulmen symbols (22 known obverse dies and little linkage between symbols); B, coins with marking of fulmen and image, previously attributed to Sicyon (6 known obverse dies); and C, with the markings of A (3 known dies and tight linkage).

The Mende hoard appears to show, at a minimum, that groups A and B had been struck by 323 or very shortly after. The heavy linkage among only the group B coins there suggests that they were produced later than group A, and very shortly before the hoard's burial.

Group C, however, with the same markings as group A, is first known to appear (again with die linkage) in Commerce 1993, buried after 321 at the very earliest, and Gîldau, interred after 316. It almost surely is the latest of the three groups.

Whether any or all of these distater groups emanated from the mint of the early stater series 1 and 2 is unclear, but the proportional use of the three symbols by group A, the largest and probably the earliest, is extremely similar to that of series 1 and 2, at least as measured by the numbers of obverse dies used with each symbol.30 On the other hand, A's obverses resemble those of certain "other" fulmen and shield staters more than they do those of series 1 and 2.31

SUMMARY

Some staters formerly attributed to Tarsus (Tarsos 12–5) were struck in Macedonia, perhaps at Pella. They are part of a tightly die linked sub-group of staters with cantharus, trident, and fulmen symbols. The hoards show that this sub-group was struck during Alexander's lifetime, perhaps in the years following 332 B.C. The more numerous staters with the same symbols, and those with shield symbol, were probably largely early posthumous. Their many stylistic differences and lack of die links raise the possibility that they were struck at a number of mints. The small amount of hoard evidence available seems to show that the bulk of the distaters with the common symbols of cantharus, trident, and fulmen was also struck during Alexander's lifetime, although a small emission with the same markings was produced after his death.

Distaters and staters with fulmen and image (Sicyon 6–8) need not be associated with other Sicyon issues. They appear from the hoards to have been lifetime issues, probably of some mint in Macedonia, but their exact place of issue, like that or those of the staters with cantharus, trident, and fulmen markings, remains unclear.

The present study has produced some limited results, but, failing important new evidence, the mint attributions and exact chronology of most of Alexander's Macedonian gold remain unclear. One thing abundantly clear, however, is that it is unwarranted to consider Alexander's gold staters or distaters with cantharus, trident, or fulmen symbols as an "issue": a variety, yes, but not an "issue" if by such we mean a discrete output produced at one given time and place.

End Notes
30
See p. 100, Table 19.
31
Compare 531–36 with Plate 25, M–O.

BACK

APPENDICES

The convenient abbreviations devised by Price for Alexander are used with the addition of one more needed for coins of Philip II. They indicate the placement of the reverse markings.

LF to left

LW to left, below wing, on gold

RW to right, below wing, on gold

RF to right

TH below throne, on silver

EX in exergue

BL below horses' bellies, on Philip II gold

APPENDIX 1 COMMERCE 1993 HOARD, TETRADRACHMS

In the spring of 1993 two lots of early Alexander tetradrachms appeared on the United States market. The obvious similarities and numerous die links between the two lots (A, 50 coins, and B, 23 and a probable intrusion) prove their common origin.

At first there seemed a possibility that the tetradrachms derived from the same deposit as the Near East 1993 hoard of Alexander drachms, also very early strikings, which surfaced at about the same time.1 One very knowledgeable and reliable dealer, however, saw all the coins in their original condition before they left Europe and reported that the surface appearance of the tetradrachms was quite different from that of the drachms. Therefore the two denominations probably derive from two separate deposits. Their burial dates, however, are so similar that their evidence for the Amphipolis mint is the same.

No information as to the hoard's provenance could be obtained. Its contents are extremely varied, and its large Amphipolis component is no different from that found in most Alexander hoards wherever buried. Even the many coins of Lampsacus, given that port's importance as a place of embarkation for returning soldiery at the time of the hoard's burial (ca. 323–322 B.C.), is not decisive. "Commerce 1993" seems the only possible description. In the catalogue, A or B indicates the lot to which each coin belonged.

Celator references are to non-numbered illustrations on the back cover of The Celator, July 1993. Group letters and issue numbers given for the Amphipolis coins are to the present work. Brackets to left or right indicate obverse or reverse die identities. All coins (except 62, from the dies of 61) are illustrated on Plates 26–28, where they are identified by hoard coin numbers. A more detailed catalogue, with most weights and die axes, is on file at the ANS.

Amphipolis
1 B LF prow r. Alexander 1. A1
2 A LF prow 1. Alexander 4. A1.
3 A LF fulmen. Alexander 8. A4.
4 B LF ivy leaf. Berk 80, 18 Jan. 1994, 54 = Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 63. Alexander 23. B6.
5 B LF caduceus. Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 64. Alexander 32. B8.
6 B LF quiver. Celator. Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 65. Alexander 38. C2.
7 A LF Pegasus forepart. Alexander 44. C5.
8 A LF bow. Alexander 48. C6.
9 A LF Macedonian shield. Alexander 57. D2.
10 A LF caduceus overimage . Alexander 66. D7.
11 A LF herm. Alexander 78. E2.
12 A LF cock. Alexander 79. E3.
13 A As 12.
14 B As 12. Berk 82, 13 July 1994, 205 = Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 66.
15 B As 12. Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 67.
16 B As 12.
17 A LF crescent. Alexander 89. E7.
18 A LF bucranium. Alexander 93. E8.
19 A As 18.
20 A As 18.
21 A As 18.
22 B As 18.
23 A As 18.
24 A As 18.
25 B As 18. Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 68.
Uncertain Greece or Macedonia2
26 A LF youthful figure (athlete? boxer?). Alexander 187. Sicyon A3 = A5: new rev.
27 A As 26. Sicyon 3.5 (A4–P7).
Lampsacus
28 A LF caduceus. Alexander 1342. Lampsacus I.1: new rev.
29 A LF caduceus; TH image. Alexander 1345. Lampsacus I.2a.
30 B LF Demeter standing, holding two torches. Alexander 1351. Lampsacus V: new dies.
31 A As 30. Lampsacus V.22: same rev.
32 A As 30. Lampsacus V.22: new rev.
33 A As 30. Lampsacus V.23: same rev.
34 A As 30. Lampsacus V.23: new rev.
35 B As 30. Lampsacus V.25: new rev.
36 A As 30. Lampsacus V.25: rev. of Lampsacus 24, a die to which was later added the monogram of 37–46 below, becoming the rev. of Lampsacus 25b.
37 B LF Demeter as on 30; TH image. Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 69. Alexander 1355. Lampsacus V.27.
38 A As 37.
39 A As 37. Lampsacus V.28: new rev.
40 A As 37.
41 B As 37. Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 70. Lampsacus V.28: new rev.
42 A As 37.
43 B As 37. Celator. Lampsacus V.28: new rev.
44 A As 37. Lampsacus V.28: new rev.
45 A As 37. Lampsacus V.29: new rev.
46 A As 37. Lampsacus V.32: new rev.
Miletus
47 B LF image. Celator. Miletus I, but the issue is not in Alexander or Miletus.
48 A LF fulmen; TH image Alexander 2086. Miletus 1.24: new rev.
49 A LF grain ear. Alexander 2099. Miletus 111.136a.
Tarsus
50 A LF П; TH A. The right vertical stroke of the П is faint, but definitely present. The issue, with the П to l., is not in Alexander or Tarsos, although it must be from series I. The ANS possesses a coin from the same dies, but with the П incompletely erased.
51 A TH B. Alexander 3000. Tarsos series I, issue 4.
52 A TH plow; TH ʘ; to inner r., globule, Alexander 3019. Tarsos series II, issue 29.
"Amathus" (Soli)3
53 B LF prow r. Celator. Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 71. Alexander 3094; obv. die of 3091.
Citium
54 A LF image; RF BAΣIΛEΩΣ; EX AΛEΞANΔPO [sic]. Alexander 3107. "Cypriote Alexanders" series I, group A, issue 4.
Paphos
55 A LF dove. Alexander 3116.
Salamis
56 A LF bow. Alexander 3139. "Cypriote Alexanders" series I, issue 7.
57 B As 56. Celator. Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 72.
Damascus
58 A LF ram forepart; TH globule and ΔA. Alexander 3203.
59 B LF ram forepart; TH ΔA and four globules. Celator. Berk 80, 18 Jan. 1994, 55 = Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 73. Alexander 3209.
60 B As 59. Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 74.
Myriandrus (Issus?) 4
61 A LF image TH image; EX and RF BAΣIΛEΩΣ AΛEΞANΔPOY. Alexander 3222. Myriandros series III, issue 21, obv. IX. This obverse is not known in issue 21 in Myriandros, but occurs in issues 20 (the same markings and inscription except that the inscription is simply AΛEΞANΔPO) and 22 (see 63 below, without the title).
62 A As 61.
63 A LF image; TH image Alexander 3223. Myriandros series III, issue 22.
Ake ? Tyre ?5
64 A TH M. Alexander 3240. Ake series I, issue 3, obv. IV.
65 A As 64.
66 A TH O. Alexander 3244. Ake series II, issue 6, obv. V.
67 A As 66, but obv. IX.
68 B LF image. Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 75. Alexander 3248. Ake series III, issue 10, dies X-e.
Aradus
69 B LF Σ; TH image; EX BAΣΛEΩΣ. Alexander 3316.
Byblos
70 A LF image. Alexander 3426, where Price notes that the attribution to Byblos is "very doubtful."
Babylon
71 A LF image; TH M. Alexander 3581. "Babylon Mint" issue I.
72 B LF kylix; TH image over M. Celator. Berk 78, 8 Sept. 1993, 76. Alexander 3654. "Babylon Mint" issue II.
Memphis
73 B LF Rose; TH and RF ΔIO. Alexander 3971. "Ptolemy," series A, issue II.

Also purchased by the dealer who owned lot B was an extremely well-preserved tetradrachm of Ake of year 32, Alexander 3283 (Celator; Berk 79, 2 Nov. 1993, 103). Struck 316/5 B.C. (Sidon and Ake) or 315/4 ( Alexander ), six or seven years later than any of the 73 certain hoard coins, it was judged an intrusion.

The latest coins of most mints present in the hoard have been thought to date from 323 B.C. or a few years earlier both by the original studies of their mints (where such exist) and by Martin Price in Alexander. In general, only mints whose latest coins might be a bit later are discussed below. Discussion of Amphipolis is placed last.

Uncertain Greece or Macedonia. Noe in Sicyon assigned a large group of issues to 330/325–ca. 318, but 26–27 are from the first tetradrachm issue there. Alexander places them first in a group given to 336–323.

Lampsacus. Thompson in Lampsacus and Abydus dated series V to 325/4–324/3. Twenty-three obverses were known to her. This hoard's 17 series V coins are from one new die, whose style clearly places it at the head of the series (coin 30), and from seven of Thompson's first 13 dies. Her final ten dies in series V are not represented in this hoard. If series V is correctly dated, these hoard coins, all from the earlier half of its dies, may be considered to have been struck in 325–324.

Miletus. Thompson in Sardes and Miletus dated series III to 323/2 B.C. and Alexander places it similarly. A date after 323 is required only by the somewhat uncertain assumption that staters of Philip II's types were associated with series I at this mint,6 but in any case hoard evidence places series III approximately to this time.

"Amathus," Citium, Paphos, Salamis. Any of these imprecisely dated coins may have been struck shortly after 323, where Alexander seems to place them all, but no really satisfactory evidence exists.

Byblos. This coin, too (the only one in the hoard showing Zeus with crossed legs) could date from after 323, but the issue is not precisely dated.

Aradus. Coin 69's issue is placed, although early, in Alexander's ca. 328–320 group. It preceded the Aradus issue with caduceus ( Alexander 3332), whose accompanying drachm issue (3333) was present in the Near East 1993 Hoard interred ca. 322,7 and it thus should be dated no later than ca. 323.

Amphipolis. The great bulk of Commerce 1993 thus was struck by 323: only a very few coins may be a year or so later. Its large Amphipolis component ending with the many die linked coins of group E accords far better with the present author's downdating of group E to ca. 324–323 B.C. than with Newell's date of 328–327 for that group.

End Notes

1
Chapter 8, hoard 7.
2
Sicyon: Demanhur , pp. 34–35, 75–80; Macedonia: "Peloponnesian Alexanders," p. 44; Aegae (?): Alexander , pp. 109–10.
3
The present author's "Staters, Serendipity and Soli" in χαϱαϰιτήϱ (above, p. 113, n. 6) shows that the proper mint of the prow-symbol coins is the Cypriot Soli. "Alexanders from Soli on Cyprus," to appear in a forthcoming festschrift honoring Martin Price, contains her discussion of the prow-symbol coins in all three metals.
4
J. D. Bing has recently argued strongly for Issus rather than Myriandrus in "Reattribution of the 'Myriandrus' Alexanders: The Case for Issus," AJN, Second Series, 1 (1989), pp. 1–32.
5
See p. 84.
6
See Alexander, p. 276. I share Price's reservations.
7
"Near East" coin 1399.

APPENDIX 2 MENDE 1983 HOARD, GOLD

Georges Le Rider has obtained photographs of this hoard of 80 gold coins, 62 staters of Philip II and 18 coins of Alexander III (10 distaters and 8 staters). No weights or die axis positions were secured. Professor Le Rider has generously provided the photographs and allowed me to publish this account of the hoard, whose evidence as to the date of Alexander's earliest gold is important even if not conclusive.1

The coins are listed below. The quality of the photographs (some roughly life-size, some at various magnifications) of the Philip coins is often insufficient to allow exact die identification, either in comparisons with other hoard coins or with the die numbers given in Philippe . Professor Le Rider and I are in accord, however, that no Macedonian Philips are later than Philippe's groups II.

The photographs of the Alexander coins are somewhat clearer, but unfortunately all are also enlarged. As noted, some of the distater reverses lack photos, but the coins' mints and issues are not in doubt.

Illustrations on Plate 29 are thus in many cases only approximations of the coins' true sizes. Because of the generally low clarity of the photographs only a selection is shown. A few of the more significant coins are also illustrated at 2x magnification. All photographs are on file at the ANS.

All the coins are staters except 63–72 (distaters). See Chapter 11 for discussion of their groups A–B. The groups and dies given for the Philip II coins are those in Philippe . Asterisks indicate varieties illustrated on Plate 29.

PHILIP II

Pella
Group IC
1–3 BL grapes. 2 and 3 are die duplicates.
4 BL grasshopper.
Group II.1
5–9 BL fulmen.
10–15* BL cantharus. The obv. die of 10 (probably D44) is known in Philippe only with fulmen symbol. 13 is from the obv. of 8, retouched.
16–24* BL trident. 21–23 are from the same obv., 23 and 24 from the same rev.
Group II.2
25 BL prow.
26* BL prow (?). The rev. is probably Philippe's R268. It and R269 are the only two prow revs, known in Philippe .
27* Obv. die of 25. Rev. die of 26, with symbol recut to Nike. The rev. again seems to be R268, known in Philippe only with prow, but here recut.
28 As 27. R269'. Philippe's R269 has a prow symbol. On R269' the symbol has been recut to Nike.
29–34 BL Nike. 30–32 are from the same obv., 33–34 from the same rev.
35 BL lion's skin.
36–40* BL profile shield. 37–40 are from the same obv., 37–39 from the same rev., and 36 and 40 from another rev.
Amphipolis
Group II
41–42 BL grain kernel.
43–44 BL club.
45 BL caduceus.
46–49* BL ivy leaf.
50–54* BL crescent. 51–52 are from the same obv.
55* BL grain ear.
56–60 BL trident.
Miletus
61* BL image. Cf.. Miletus 22–23 (different dies), from series I, dated to 325–323 B.C.
Uncertain
62 BL uncertain or no marking.

ALEXANDER III

Macedonia
Distater Group A
63* LF fulmen. Alexander 163.
64* Probably as 63. Only the obv. photo was included, but the die is known to have been used for 12 fulmen coins and 1 cantharus coin, strongly suggesting that 64 also bore a fulmen.
65* LF cantharus. Alexander 167.
66* LF trident. Alexander 171.
Distater Group B
67* LF fulmen; LW image Alexander 191. Sicyon A8–P14.
68* As 67. Obv. of 67. Sicyon A8; no rev. photo.
69* As 67. Obv. of 67. Sicyon A11 (= A8, retouched?); no rev. photo.
70* As 67. Sicyon A10; no rev. photo.
71* As 67. Sicyon A13–P26.
72* As 67. Obv. of 71. Sicyon A13; new rev.
Stater
73* LF fulmen. Alexander 164 or 164A. This study's series 2, 014–F1.
Miletus
74* LF image. Alexander 2078. Miletus series I, 13–14.
75* Obv. below, fulmen (off flan); LW image. Alexander 2079. Miletus series I, 18.
"Sidon"2
76–77 Obv. on helmet, griffin; RW club. Alexander 3460. Sidon 4. 76–77 are from the same obv
78 Obv. as 76. RW grain kernel. Alexander 3464. Sidon 6.
Sidon
79 Obv. as 76. RW filleted palm branch. Alexander 3470. Sidon 11.
80* Obv. as 76. LW ΣI; RW filleted palm branch. Alexander 3472. Sidon 13.

The Mende hoard's latest coins are the Miletus staters of Philip II (61) and Alexander (74–75). All are in Miletus series I, dated by Thompson to ca. 325–323 B.C. Thompson considered the Philip II issue as struck "in the beginning of the reign of Philip III," i.e., at the earliest in late 323 B.C, so that coin 61 furnishes the hoard's burial date of 323 or a few years later.3

The hoard has two especially interesting features. One is Macedon's series 2 Alexander stater (73), whose extremely worn condition—it is by far the most worn coin in the hoard—provides valuable evidence for the start of Alexander's gold. One may question the evidence of a single coin, but it is still highly suggestive of a date fairly early in Alexander's reign.

The second remarkable feature is the presence of the ten distaters from an uncertain Macedonian mint or mints, four of group A (63–66), and six of group B (67–72) with markings of fulmen and image. Mende is the earliest known hoard in which Alexander's distaters occur, and there can be little doubt that at least those of group A were lifetime emissions. The close die linkage among those of group B seems to show that they were somewhat later emissions than those of group A.

End Notes

1
See p. 126.
2
See p. 116 above for questioning the attribution to Sidon.
3
Sardes and Miletus, pp. 33 and 66, in connection with a Philip II issue at Sardes. The association of the Philip II coins with Miletus, however, and thus also the dating of series I, is subject to some question. As Price notes ( Alexander , p. 276) the Philips' monogram is not quite that of the Milesian Alexanders, and at least one of the Philips' dies is shared with coins of Magnesia of slightly later date. I share Price's reservations, but in any case hoard evidence places Miletus series I to approximately 323 B.C.

APPENDIX 3 COMMERCE 1993 HOARD, GOLD

Photographs, weights, and professional assessments of most coins' states of preservation were provided by Harlan Berk, to whom I am greatly indebted for enabling this hoard to be put on record. No information about the hoard's origin was available, however, so it is termed merely "Commerce 1993."

All the coins are staters except 17–19 (distaters). See Chapter 11 for the division of Macedonian distaters into three groups. As their mints remain uncertain, they are attributed simply to Macedonia.

Philip II groups, die combinations, and dies are those of Philippe. Celator references are to non-numbered illustrations on the back covers of The Celator, May or June 1993. The coins are illustrated on Plate 30, where they are identified by hoard coin numbers. A more detailed catalogue, with weights and assessments of wear, is on file at the ANS.

PHILIP II

Pella
Group II.1
1 BL fulmen. 67, D31–R54.
Group IIIA
2 As 1. Berk 80, 18 Jan. 1994, 4 = Berk 77, 16 June 1993, 4 = Celator, June 1993. 413, D185–R305.
3 As 1. 436, D197–R324.
4 BL cantharus. Berk 79, 2 Nov. 1993, 7 = Berk 77, 16 June 1993, 5 = Celator, June 1993. 455?, D187 ?–R337.
5 As 4. Berk 77, 16 June 1993, 6 = Celator, May 1993. D192'–R342.
6 As 4. 477, D216–R349.
7 BL trident. 491, D185–R358.
8 As 7. 498?, D187 ?–R359.
9 BL bucranium. D185–R384.
10 As 9. Celator, May 1993. 522, D224–R382.
11 BL fly r. Celator, May 1993. 540?, D187?–R390.
12 As 11. 535, D226–R390.
Amphipolis
Group II
13 BL trident. D64?–R104?
Group IIIA
14 As 13. Celator, May 1993. 222, D98–R176.
Lampsacus
15 BL facing head and image. Lampsacus VI: new dies.
Magnesia
16 BL spearhead and bee. Dies of Thompson, "Posthumous Philip II Staters of Asia Minor," Studia Paulo Naster Oblata, ed. S. Scheers (Louvain, 1982), p. 58, 2. The obv. die had previously been used for an issue ascribed to Miletus. See Sardes and Miletus, p. 50 (but see doubts about this attribution, p. 136 above, n. 3). The rev. markings are those of the new Alexander stater 26 below.

ALEXANDER III

Macedonia
Distater Group A
17 LF fulmen. Alexander 163.
Distater Group C
18 As 17.
19 LF cantharus. Berk 77, 16 June 1993, 7 = Celator, June 1993. Alexander 167. See p. 114, D01–DF3, for another distater from the obverse of 18–19, which may also be from this hoard.
Staters
20 Rev. as 17. Alexander 164; obv. of Alexander 168b (with cantharus). Series 2, 018–F3.
21 Rev. as 17. Alexander 164.
22 LF Boeotian (?) shield. Berk 80, 18 Jan. 1994, 5 = Berk 77, 16 June 1993, 8. Alexander 176.

See also coin 40, probably a Macedonian imitation.

Uncertain Greece or Macedonia ?
23 LF Corinthian helmet 1. Alexander 794.
Lampsacus
24 LF addorsed horse foreparts and image. Celator, May 1993. Alexander 1358. Lampsacus V.105: new rev.
25 As 24. Berk 77, 16 June 1993, 9. Dies of Alexander 1358c. Lampsacus V: new dies.
Magnesia
26 Obv. below, ram's head r.; LF bee and spearhead. Berk 79, 2 Nov. 1993, 9 = Celator, May 1993. Apparently unpublished, but from the obverse die of Alexander 1924 (with griffin to 1.) and 1928 (with ram's head and image to 1.). The rev. markings are those of the posthumous Philip II stater 16 above.
Miletus
27 RW bipennis; RF grain ear. Alexander 2095. Miletus III.127a.
28 LW grain ear; RW bipennis. Berk 77, 16 June 1993, 10 = Celator, June 1993. Alexander 2096. Miletus III.129: new rev.
Sardes
29 LF serpent. Alexander 2532. Sardes III.8.
30 As 29.
Side
31 LF BAΣIΛEΩΣ; LW imageI over BΣ. Alexander 2956.
Tarsus
32 LF caduceus and BAΣIΛEΩΣ; LW image over Σ (partially off flan). Dies of Alexander 3043c. Tarsos series III, third group, 50, dies N-o.
Salamis
33 LF harpa. Dies of Alexander 3136. "Cypriote Alexanders" series I, issue 4.
34 As 34. Alexander 3136.
35 LW eagle 1. Alexander 3125; obv. of 3129a (with eagle r.). This and coins of similar style (e.g., Sardes and Miletus, pl. 32, 14–18) were rejected as Cypriot by Newell in "Cypriote Alexanders," but later placed by him at Salamis. See Sardes and Miletus , p. 70, n. 64. The evidence at the ANS does not indicate to the present writer, however, that the coins similar to 35 were the earliest emissions of Salaminian gold.
Aradus
36 Obv. to 1., Σ; LF BAΣIΛEΩΣ; LW image. Berk 77, 16 June 1993, 11 = Celator, May and June 1993. Alexander 3315.
"Sidon"1
37 Obv. on helmet, griffin; RW fulmen. Alexander 3461. Sidon series I, group A, but the issue is not known there. The issue is known in Alexander and 37's reverse die is that of Balkans hoard 29 (Chapter 12, hoard 3; see Philippe , pl. 90, 29).
Sidon
38 Obv. as 37. RW filleted branch. Alexander 3470. Sidon series II, issue 11.
Memphis
39 Rev. no markings. Berk 77, 16 June 1993, 12 = Celator, May and June 1993. Alexander 3961 (same obv.). The obverse appears to be that of an ANS coin with reverse markings of ram head with Isis crown and image ( Alexander 3963), whose corresponding tetradrachm issue is dated to 324 B.C. in "Ptolemy," p. 14.
Uncertain
40 LF fulmen. The obverse style differs so drastically from other Macedonian fulmen staters that this coin must be an imitation.
Uncertain East
41 Obv. on helmet, griffin; LF BAΣIΛEΩΣ; LW Δ1. Apparently unpublished, but from the obv. of Alexander 3994 ("Uncertain East," with BAΣIΛEΩΣ, and LW image).
42 Obv. as 41. LF fulmen over image, and BAΣIΛEΩΣ . Apparently unpublished.

Perhaps the latest dated coin in the hoard is 15 of Lampsacus, whose markings are known with Philip III's name and whose issue is dated by Thompson to 323/2–322/1 B.C. The drachm issue corresponding to 15 was not in the large Near East 1993 hoard buried ca. 322 and thus 15 probably was struck ca. 321. Nos. 16 and 26 of Magnesia, whose markings are also known with Philip III's name, again can be no earlier than the very end of 323 or more probably 322; nos. 27–28 of Miletus were also dated to 323/2 by Thompson. The number of post–323 Philip II coins (Philippe groups III) in the hoard is also large. It is hard to suggest a burial date for the hoard earlier than ca. 320.

For present purposes, the importance of the hoard lies in its inclusion of the distaters of group C, but even more in the two staters 20 and 21, both with the same fulmen symbol. Coin 20, from our early series 2, is somewhat worn and was described in only EF condition. Coin 21, one of the "other" staters struck later than groups 1 and 2, is far better preserved and was described as in near mint state.

Further, Mr. Berk also supplied his asking prices for the coins. One comparison is highly relevant here. The price asked for stater 20, from series 2, was the third lowest of all the hoard coins' prices, higher only than those asked for 1 ("F/VF"), from Philip's early Pella group II.1, and 42, from deteriorated or damaged dies. The stater 21, however, with the same fulmen marking as 20, had a very high asking price. Again, although we are discussing only two coins, their conditions support the conclusions reached in Chapter 13: series 1 and 2, lifetime issues, were struck considerably earlier than most of the staters with the common symbols of cantharus, trident, and fulmen, and those later staters were in large part early posthumous.

End Notes
1
See p. 116 above for questioning the attribution to Sidon.

APPENDIX 4 COMMERCE 1994 HOARD, GOLD

Lot A. On December 7, 1994, 132 staters of Alexander III and 2 of Philip III were sold at auction by Classical Numismatic Group, Inc., in its Auction 32. Kerry K. Wetterstrom of CNG kindly allowed me to examine the coins prior to their dispersal, and he and Peter L. Lampinen assisted me materially in photographing and grading the 30+ Macedonian coins and a few others. The coins were clearly understood to be the last section of a larger hoard which had passed through the hands of Giessener Münzhandlung of Münich.

Lot B. In May of 1994 at Giessener Münzhandlung, Charles Hersh recorded a lot of 80 staters of Alexander III and 5 of Philip III. Of these, Giessener Münzhandlung sold in its Auction 69, November 18, 1994, 24 of Alexander III and 3 of Philip III, accompanied by 9 of Philip II. Because of the probable association of lot C with lot A and thus with lot B, I am assuming that these 9 coins of Philip II were also part of the original group. Their presence or absence, however, does not affect the dating of the chief and largest group, lot A.

Lot C. In March of 1994 Classical Numismatic Group issued a flyer offering for sale 20 "exceptional" staters of Philip II. These coins had also passed through Giessener Münzhandlung, and the staff at CNG, although they could not be certain, suspected that the coins might have come from the same deposit as lot A.

The association of the three lots is not assured, but they are extremely compatible, and may well have originated from the same hoard. See the summaries on Table 23, at the end of Chapter 12. Almost certainly there were other coins present, but there is now no way of tracing them.

A further question is whether the Commerce 1993 hoard of staters, with the same approximate burial date, also originated from the same deposit. It is notable that an Alexander stater of uncertain attribution in Commerce 1993 was from the dies of a coin in lot A, and that another uncertain coin in Commerce 1993 may have been from the obverse of a second coin in lot A.1 Commerce 1993 surfaced in the spring of that year, however, nearly a year before any of Commerce 1994, and no other specific circumstances or provenance connects the 1993 hoard with that of 1994. They are therefore separately described here, but the import of each hoard remains the same, whether or not they truly are one hoard or two.

Commerce 1993 is described in full in Appendix 3, as it has no other publication. Commerce 1994's lot A appeared in the sale catalogue noted above, but illustration was incomplete, and inevitably some attributions were erroneous. Lot B was only partially published, and lot C was fully described and illustrated, although only in a flyer. Summaries of all three lots' contents appear in Table 23. Full descriptions of each lot, too lengthy to include in this work, together with direct photos of lot C kindly supplied by Classical Numismatic Group, are at the ANS.

As can be seen from Table 23, lot A's latest coins were 2 of Sidon dated 322/1, 1 Philip III of Babylon dated by Waggoner to 322–321, 2 of Miletus of 320/19, and 1 Philip III of Sardes of 319/8. Lot B contained 1 Philip III of Sardes of 322/1, 4 of the Philip III Babylonian issue of 322–321, and no fewer than 18 of the same Miletus issue of 320/19. The latest coins (Philip II) in lot C were of Lampsacus of 323/2–322/1. The closing dates of all three lots are thus highly compatible. Taking the Sardes coin of 319/8 as perhaps issued in 319, we may postulate a burial date for the hoard as a whole (if indeed it is a whole, of course) of perhaps 318 or 317 B.C.

The hoard contained two Pella coins (one in lot B, one in C) of Philip II of group IIIB, which followed IIIA. They may provide an indication of the end of the Macedonian groups IIIA. But the significant aspect of the hoard for present purposes is the 31 coins present from our Macedonian Alexander mint (or mints) in lot A. A catalogue follows of the Macedonian coins in CNG's 7 Dec. 1994 sale. Those of series 1 and 2 are listed in order of obverse dies, with 4 and 7 from the non-linked portion of series 2 inserted in appropriate spots into the linked obverses.

Macedonia
Series 1
1 LF trident. 02–T4. Alexander 172. Sale lot 1108.
2 As 1. 03–T5. 1116b.2
3 LF cantharus. 06–C2. Alexander 168. 1154b.
Series 2
4 As 1. 024–T20. 1157b.
5 As 3. 011–C4. 1107.
6 LF fulmen. 016–F2. Alexander 164. 1154a.
7 As 3. 030–C17. 1125b.
8 As 3. 019–C10. 1125a.
9 As 1. 021–T16. 1121a.
10 As 1. 022–T17. 1156b.
Other
11 As 3. 1135b. The coin is from the second cantharus obv. known to me which shows three full helmet crests as on distaters, the rearmost looping to the right directly under the helmet bowl with its tip appearing between the tips of the nearer and central crests.
12 As 3. 1136b.
13 As 3. 1155b.
14 As 6. 1156a.
15 As 6. 1123a.
16 As 6. 1114a.
17 As 6. 1106.
18 As 6. 1115a.
19 As 6. 1135a.
20 As 6. 1155a.
21 As 6. 1122a.
22 As 6. 1136a.
23 As 6. 1113a.
24 As 6. 1117a.
25 As 6. 1157a.
26 As 6. 1111a.
27 LF shield. Alexander 176. 1115b. The obverse die is known also with reverses bearing a fulmen symbol.
28 As 27. 1123b.
29 As 27. 1109.
30 As 27. 1112b.
31 As 27. 1111b.

Mr. Lampinen of CNG was kind enough to grade these Macedonian coins with the usual three symbols strictly on the basis of wear and without taking into account any of the other criteria which enter into the usual dealer grading.

VF + or Good Very Fine Very Fine Fine
Series 1 and 2, 1–10 4 4 2
"Other," 11–26 10 6

These numbers are hardly dramatic, but it must be remembered that the lot represents the remnants of a far larger hoard, and that that hoard was buried no earlier than 318. The results are completely compatible, however, with the suggestion that series 1 and 2 preceded the "other" staters.

End Notes

1
Commerce 1993 (Appendix 3) 41–42; lot A, 128–29 (full description on file at the American Numismatic Society).
2
The sale catalogue grouped many coins in 5–coin lots, illustrating only one side of each coin. A lowercase a or b indicates the first or second coin described in such lots, not necessarily the order in which the illustrations appeared.

KEY TO PLATES

Unless otherwise noted, all coins are in the collection of the American Numismatic Society. They are identified as ANS only when a previous publication or a hoard provenance is known. SNGANS numbers identify the ANS's coins of Philip II's types (and one of Perdiccas III, Plate 18, D). SNGBerry numbers are given for all ANS coins included in that publication.

Most non-ANS coins are known through casts in the ANS cabinet or from its photograph file and library. Hoards are discussed in Chapters 8 (silver) and 12 (gold). Alexander references for London coins are not merely to issues but identify the specific British Museum coins there catalogued.

Plates 1–5, 1–103, Alexander Tetradrachms. See pp. 21–23, Table 1.

1 ANS = "Earliest Silver," pl. 13, 13
10 ANS, ex Demanhur 1905 hoard
14 ANS = SNGBerry 196
25 ANS, ex Demanhur 1905 hoard
32 Location unknown. Demanhur , pl. 11,3
34 ANS, ex Demanhur 1905 hoard
50 Artemis FPL 4, June-July 1970, 2 = Artemis FPL 2, 1968, 3
55 Cast at ANS marked "R & F," presumably at one time in the inventory of Rollin and Feuardent, Paris
71 Vienna
72 Paris
73 Petsalis
75 London = Alexander 421
77 Location unknown; photo at ANS
79 Athens, ex Empedocles and ex Andritsaena ca. 1923 hoard
81 London = Alexander 116
84 ANS = SNGBerry 201
85 Petsalis
92 Münz. u. Med. FPL 333, Apr. 1972, 12
93 Hersh
98 Berlin

Plates 5–6, 104–30, Alexander Tetradrachms Showing Intra-Group Linkage. See pp. 24–25, Figures 1–3.

122 London = Alexander 111e
124 Dattari
127 Cast at ANS marked "Rollin & Feuardent"
129 St. Petersburg

Plate 7, 131–47, Alexander Didrachms. See pp. 30–31, Table 3.

131 London = Alexander 24
132 Hersh = Glendining, 7 Mar. 1957, 21
133 Saroglos
135 Copenhagen = SNGCop 667
136 Hersh = Giessener 58, 9 Apr. 1992, 229
137 ANS = Reattrib., pl. 15, 2
138 Hersh = Giessener 60, 5 Oct. 1992, 114
141 Berlin = Reattrib., pl. 15, 4
142 Berlin = Reattrib., pl. 15, 3
143 Münz. u. Med. FPL 178, Apr. 1958, 8 = Kricheldorf 3, 25 Feb. 1957, 1174 = Coin Galleries, 11 July 1955, 342 = Münz. u. Med. 13, 17 June 1954, 1106
144 Berlin
146 Hersh = Giessener 58, 9 Apr. 1992, 232
147 NFA 25, 29 Nov. 1990, 80

Plates 7–8, 148–79, Alexander Drachms. See pp. 31–32, Table 3.

148 Cambridge, Eng. = McClean 3507
150 Hersh = Giessener 58, 9 Apr. 1992, 234
151 Athens
152 Hersh
153 Hersh
154 ANS = Reattrib., pl. 7, 3 (erroneously called hemidrachm)
157 Hersh = Malter 49, 15 Nov. 1992, 250 = Glendining, 7 Mar. 1957, 20
158 Hersh
159 London = Alexander 95 = Reattrib., pl. 7, = J. Hirsch 13, 15 May 1905, 1126
160 Hersh = Sotheby, 27 Oct. 1993, 412 = Numismatica Ars Classica 5, 25 Feb. 1992, 105 = Leu-Münz. u. Med., 3 Dec. 1965, 236 = Münz. u. Med. 8, 8 Dec. 1949, 807
161 ANS = Sotheby, 1 Dec. 1924, 55
162 London = Alexander 33
163 Hersh
164 Glendining, 20 Nov. 1975, 879
165 Münz. u. Med. 13, 17 June 1954, 1098
166 Bank Leu 15, 4 May 1976, 198
167 Hersh = Numismatica Ars Classica B, 25 Feb. 1992, 1274
168 Tradart, 8 Nov. 1992, 71 = Münz. u. Med. 54, 26 Oct. 1978, 184 = Naville 1, 4 Apr. 1921, 862
169 Hersh = Near East 1993 hoard 1
170 Hersh = Near East 1993 hoard 2
171 Hersh = Giessener 44, 3 Apr. 1989, 221
173 Hersh = Near East 1993 hoard 3
174 ANS = Sinan Pascha 1919 hoard 3
175 Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria = Calim 1976 hoard 1
176 Hersh = Near East 1993 hoard 4
178 Near East 1993 hoard 14
179 Hersh

Plate 8, 180–96, Alexander Triobols. See p. 32, Table 3.

180 London = Alexander 15
181 Hersh
182 London = Alexander 41 = Reattrib., pl. 7, 7
183 Hersh
184 Hersh
185 Münz. u. Med. 13, 17 June 1954, 1099
189 Athens
190 Hersh
192 Giessener 58, 9 Apr. 1992, 233
193 ANS = Giessener 62, 20 Apr. 1993, 126
194 Leiden
195 ANS = Hess 207, 1 Dec. 1931, 360
196 Hersh

Plate 8,197–208, Alexander Diobols. See pp. 32–33, Table 3.

197 Vienna
198 Paris = Traité IV.2, 900, pl. 311, 7 = Reattrib., pl. 7, 8
199 St. Petersburg
201 AMNG III.2, pl. 31, 21 (rev. only)
202 Hersh
203 Athens
204 Paris = Traité IV.2, 901, pl. 311, 8
205 London = Alexander 98
206 Egger 40, 2 May 1912, 749
207 ANS = Weber 2086
208 Weber 2087

Plate 8, 209–14, Alexander Obols. See p. 33, Table 3.

209 Paris = Traité IV.2, 903, pl. 311, 9
210 Hersh
211 London = Alexander 26
212 Berlin = AMNG III.2, pl. 31, 22
213 Hersh
214 London = Alexander 157

Plates 9–11, 215–78, Links between Alexander Groups. See Chapter 3 for individual coin descriptions.

Plates 12–14, 279–33 5, Philip II Tetradrachms. See pp. 52–53, Table 7.

279 Paris = Philippe , p. 120, pl. 43, 1
280 SNGANS 571
281 Paris = Philippe , p. 121, pl. 44, 1
282 SNGANS 572
283 SNGANS 573
284 Munich
285 SNGANS 576
286 SNGANS 577
287 Parke-Bernet, 9 Dec. 1969, 41b = Philippe , p. 302, 66, pl. 44, 9; ex Paeonia 1968 hoard
288 SNGANS 579
289 SNGANS 580
290 Sofia = Philippe , p. 121, pl. 44, 10
291 St. Petersburg
292 Commerce = Philippe , p. 122, pl. 44, 21
293 SNGANS 590 = Philippe , p. 315, 34, pl. 44, 19; ex Megara 1917 hoard
294 Philippe , p. 122, pl. 44, 22 = Münz. u. Med. FPL 343, Mar. 1973, 11
295 SNGANS 592
296 London
297 SNGANS 593
298 Munich
299 Munich = Philippe , p. 122, pl. 44, 33
300 Volo
301 Cast at ANS, ex ANS
302 London = Philippe , p. 123, pl. 45, 25
303 SNGANS 606
304 SNGANS 607
305 SNGANS 610
306 SNGANS 615
307 London = Philippe , p. 123, pl. 45, 28
308 SNGANS 630 = SNGBerry 118
309 Cast at ANS marked "Rous"
310 SNGANS 643
311 Stockholm
312 SNGANS 639
313 London
314 Brussels = de Hirsch 1041
315 SNGANS 674
316 SNGANS 687
317 Oxford = SNGAshm 2477
318 SNGANS 688
319 SNGANS 691 = Philippe , p. 123, pl. 46, 1
320 London
321 SNGANS 693
322 London
323 SNGANS 740
324 London = Philippe , p. 124, pl. 46, 8
325 London
326 Blaser-Frey 19, 7 Sept. 1968, 1077
327 Vienna
328 SNGANS 748
329 Münz. u. Med. FPL 309, Feb. 1970, 6
330 Berlin
331 SNGANS 756 = SNGBerry 120
332 Glendining, 3 May 1967, 11
333 Coin Galleries FPL 2.1 (1978), C28
334 Leiden
335 Philippe , p. 303, 83 = Sotheby, 16 Apr. 1969, 60; ex Paeonia 1968 hoard

Plates 14–15,336–85, Philip II Fifths of the Tetradrachm. See pp. 57–58, Table 9.

336 Berlin = Philippe , p. 121, pl. 44, 4
337 Munich = Philippe , p. 121, pl. 44, 3
338 Turin
339 SNGANS 574
340 SNGANS 581
341 Berlin
342 London = Philippe , p. 121, pl. 44, 17
343 Berlin = Philippe , p. 122, pl. 44, 28
344 SNGANS 583
345 Paris = Philippe , p. 121, pl. 44, 18
346 Philippe , p. 121, pl. 44, 15 = Kunst u. Münzen FPL 7, 1969, 56
347 Wertheim
348 SNGANS 587
349 London = Philippe , p. 120, pl. 43, 8 = Weber 2060
350 SNGANS 588
351 SNGANS 591
352 Joannina = Philippe , p. 122, pl. 44, 26
353 Cambridge, Eng. = SNGFitz 2073
354 Wertheim
355 SNGANS 596 = Philippe , p. 122, pl. 44, 34
356 London = Philippe , p. 122, pl. 44, 35 = Weber 2061
357 SNGANS 597
358 London = Philippe , p. 122, pl. 45, 3
359 SNGANS 598
360 SNGANS 599
361 SNGANS 618
362 Weber 2062
363 London
364 London
365 Berlin
366 SNGANS 652
367 G. Hirsch 32, 22 Oct. 1962, 2343
368 SNGANS 654
369 Berlin
370 Berlin
371 SNGANS 658
372 SNGANS 660 = SNGBerry 127
373 SNGANS 696 = Philippe , pp. 120 and 318, 2, pl. 43, 2, and pl. 52, 2; ex Arta ca. 1929 hoard
374 SNGANS 697
375 SNGANS 698
376 SNGANS 701
377 SNGANS 704
378 Berlin
379 SNGANS 714
380 SNGANS 719
381 Naville 1, 4 Apr. 1921, 860
382 SNGANS 734
383 SNGANS 724
384 SNGANS 726
385 Empedocles

Plate 15, 386–87, Philip II Tenths. See p. 62, Table 14.

386 London = Philippe , p. 124, pl. 46, 33
387 London = Philippe , p. 124, pl. 46, 35

Plate 15, 388–92, Philip II Attic-Weight Drachms. See p. 62, Table 15.

388 Cambridge, Eng. = SNGLewis 500
389 Lanz 36, 21 Apr. 1986, 217
390 London
391 Berlin = Müller, p. 337, 10, and pl. XXVI, 273
392 Private collection

Plates 16–17, 393–449, Die Links between Philip II Groups. See Chapter 6 for individual coin descriptions.

Plates 18–19, A– F and 450–6 5, Start of Alexander's Macedonian Silver Coinage. See pp. 86–88.

A ANS = " Earliest Silver," pl. 11, 5, stater of Mazaeus, struck at Tarsus
B ANS = " Earliest Silver," pl. 11, 6, stater of Mazaeus, struck at Tarsus
G ANS = " Earliest Silver," pl. 11, 7, Alexander tetradrachm, from first issue struck at Tarsus: Tarsos 2
D SNGANS 112 = SNGBerry 79 = "Earliest Silver," pl. 12, 8, stater of Perdiccas III
E SNGANS 396 = "Earliest Silver," pl. 12, 10 = Philippe , Pella 314c, lifetime didrachm of Philip
F SNGANS 538 = "Earliest Silver," pl. 12, 9 = Philippe , Amphipolis 386b, lifetime or early posthumous tetradrachm of Philip II
450 ANS = "Earliest Silver," pl. 12, 11 = "Earliest Coins," pl. 44, 1 = Reattrib., pl. 1, 1
451 ANS = "Earliest Silver," pl. 12, 12
452 ANS = "Earliest Silver," pl. 13, 13
453 ANS = "Earliest Silver," pl. 13, 14 = "Earliest Coins," pl. 44, 4 (enlargement of throne only)
454 G. Hirsch 21, 25 June 1959, 21
455 ANS = "Earliest Silver," pl. 13, 15
456 ANS = "Earliest Silver," pl. 14, 20
459 ANS = "Earliest Silver," pl. 14, 18
460 ANS = "Earliest Silver," pl. 14, 17
462 "Earliest Silver," pl. 14, 19 = Santamaria, 25 Oct. 1951, A429
463 ANS = "Earliest Coins," pl. 44, 3 and 5 (enlargement of throne)
464 ANS = "Earliest Silver," pl. 13, 16
465 Paris

Plates 20–23, 466–530, Alexander Lifetime Staters. See Chapter 10 for individual coin descriptions.

Plate 24, 531–48, Alexander Distaters. See Chapter 11 for descriptions of 540–48.

533 ANS = SNGBerry 140
534 Canessa 3, 28 June 1923, 41
535 Naville 16, 3 July 1933, 1022 = Naville 10, 15 June 1925, 435
537 Cambridge, Eng. = SNGFitz 2093 = Sicyon 7.1 (A8–P14)
538 Athens = ? Naville 14, 2 July 1929, 198 = Ratto, 4 Apr. 1927, 566 = Sicyon 7.4 (A9–P17)
539 Cambridge, Eng. = SNGFitz 2092 = Naville 5, 18 June 1923, 1385 = Sicyon 7.17 (A13–P29)

Plate 25, N12–N19 B and A–R, Gold Comparative Material. See Chapters 10–13.

Tarsos stater issues and obverse dies.

N12 ANS. Tarsos 12, A–α = O10–C4.
N12 Berlin. Tarsos 12, B–α = O8–C4
N13 ANS. Tarsos 13, C–γ = O9–T9
N14 London = Alexander 3004. Tarsos 14, D–δ = O5–C2
N15 Kovacs 9, 21 Nov. 1988, 3 = Münz. u. Med. 10, 22 June 1951, 240. Tarsos 15, F–ϝ = O2–T2
N16 ANS. Tarsos 16, H–η
N17 Berlin. Tarsos 17, J–θ
N18 London = Alexander 3009. Tarsos 18, K–ι
N19 Berlin. Tarsos 19, K–ϰ

Enlargements of cantharus symbols

A ANS, O4–C1
B ANS, O6–C2
C ANS, O8–C3
D ANS, O10–C4

Late lifetime or early posthumous staters

E ANS = Tarsos, p. 23, fig. 10
F Leiden = Tarsos, p. 23, fig. 11
G Paris
H Stockholm

Staters with fulmen, or fulmen and image, markings

I Commerce 1994 hoard 21 (Appendix 4)
J ANS = Sicyon 8.1
K Cast of coin of unknown provenance
L CNG 32, 7 Dec. 1994, 1110, ex Commerce 1994 hoard lot A (Appendix 4)

Late lifetime or early posthumous staters, perhaps from a second Macedonian mint

M Samovodéné hoard 52, a fulmen stater not in series 1 or 2
N Oxford = SNGAshm 2520, a fulmen stater not in series 1 or 2
O Brussels = de Hirsch 1049, a shield stater

Samovodéné hoard coins

P Samovodéné 56, O10–C4
Q Samovodéné 28, Philip II, Philippe , Pella III A
R Samovodéné 29, Philip II, Philippe , Pella III A

Plates 26–28, Commerce 1993 Hoard, Tetradrachms. See Appendix 1.

With the exception of 1, 47, and 50 in the Hersh collection, all the coins are in commerce, their locations unknown.

Plate 29, Mende 1983 Hoard. See Appendix 2.

All the coins are in commerce, their locations unknown.

Plate 30, Commerce 1993 Hoard, Gold. See Appendix 3.

All the coins are in commerce, their locations unknown.

Plate 31, Commerce 1994 Hoard, Gold. See Appendix 4.

All the coins are in commerce, their locations unknown.


INDICES

1. ALEXANDER'S AMPHIPOLIS SILVER MARKINGS

Tetradrachms (Chapter 1) are shown by group letter and issue number. Smaller coins (Chapter 2) with the same markings are indicated by denomination only, the rare Zeus-reverse drachms being shown by "Zeus-dr." Where the smaller coins have no exactly corresponding tetradrachm issue, their group letters are given in parentheses. BAΣ indicates the presence of the title BAΣIΛEΩΣ on the tetradrachms, while "etc." is used for series not treated in detail in this study which have varying subsidiary markings. Brackets enclose issues whose reliably reported examples I have been unable to locate.

No marking (E) dr, 3ob, 2ob, ob
Amphora B2
Antler BAΣ H1
Aplustre D12
Aplustre image L3
Arrow (F) Zeus-dr
Athena Promachus F4
Athena Promachus BAΣ G2
Attic helmet See helmet, Attic
Axe image L10
Bow C6, 2dr, 2ob
Bow and quiver F5
Bow and quiver BAΣ G3
Branch, forked image L1
Branch, laurel (E or F) Zeus-dr
Branch, laurel BAΣ J3
Branch, laurel image BAΣ J6
Bucranium E8, 2dr, dr, 2ob, Zeus-dr
Bucranium Λ, etc. See pp. 24 and 94–95
Bucranium image, etc. See pp. 24 and 94–95
Caduceus B8
Caduceus E9, 2dr, dr, 3ob, Zeus-dr
Caduceus image D7, 2dr?
Caduceus image D8, 2dr?
Caduceus, filleted Cl, 2dr
Caduceus, filleted M D6
Caduceus, filleted image (D) dr
Cantharus B1
Cap, Phrygian BAΣ H2
Club D3
Clubimage D9, 2dr
Club image D10
Club, filleted image L2
Cock E3, 2dr, 3ob, Zeus-dr
Cornucopia F3
Cornucopia BAΣ G1
Crescent E7, 3ob, Zeus-dr
Crescent BAΣ J2
Crescent image BAΣ J5
Crescent image L5
Dolphin D11, dr
Dolphin image L7
Double heads See heads, double
Eagle head D1, dr, 2ob, ob
Filleted caduceus, et al. See caduceus, filleted
Filleted club image See club, filleted
Forked branch image See branch, forked
Fulmen A4
Fulmen image L9
Fulmen I, etc. See p. 24
Grain ear C3, 2dr, dr, 3ob, 2ob
Grain ear BAΣ J1
Grain ear image BAΣ J4
Grain ear image L4
Grapes B7
Heads, double A3, dr
Helmet, Attic B5
Helmet, Macedonian BAΣ H3
Herm E2, 2dr, 3ob
Horse head D4, 2dr, dr, 2ob
Ivy leaf B6, 2dr, dr, 3ob, 2ob, ob
Laurel branch See branch, laurel
Macedonian helmet See helmet, Macedonian
Macedonian shield See shield, Macedonian
Obelisk, star, X etc. See p. 24
Pegasus forepart C5, 2dr, 2ob, ob
Pentagram E6, dr, [3ob]
Phrygian cap BAΣ See cap, Phrygian
Profile shield image See shield, profile
Prow A1, dr, 2ob, [ob]
Quiver C2, 2dr
Rose E1, dr
Rudder A5
Scallop shell F1
Shield, Macedonian D2
Shield, profile image L8
Star D5, 2dr, 3ob, 2ob
Star, obelisk, X etc. See p. 24
Star in circle F2
Stern A2
Stylis B4
Torch Λ, etc. See pp. 24 and 94–95
Torch image, etc. See pp. 24 and 94–95
Trident head C4
Trident head BAΣ H4
Tripod BAΣ H5
Wreath B3, 3ob, ob
Wreath image L6
I fulmen, etc. See p. 24
Λ BAΣ K1
Λ bucranium, etc. See pp. 24 and 94–95
Λ torch, etc. See pp. 24 and 94–95
ΛT BAΣ K4
Λ image BAZ K5
Λ image BAZ K6
Λ image (or image) BAΣ K2
Λ image BAΣ K3
M caduceus, filleted D6
image branch, laurel BAΣ J6
image crescent BAΣ J5
image grain ear BAΣ J4
T Λ BAΣ K4
X obelisk, star, etc. See p. 24
image BAΣ 12
image Λ BAΣ K5
image Λ BAΣ K6
image bucranium, etc. See pp. 24 and 94–95
image torch, etc. See pp. 24 and 94–95
image, image, or variants BAΣ I1
image filleted caduceus (D) dr
image (E or F) Zeus-dr
image aplustre L3
image axe L10
image branch, forked L1
image club, filleted L2
image crescent L5
image dolphin L7
image fulmen L9
image grain ear L4
image shield, profile L8
image wreath L6
image BAΣ K7
image (or image A BAΣ K2
image BAΣ 13
image E5, dr
image E4, 3ob
image Λ BAΣ K3
image caduceus D7
image club D9
image caduceus D8
image club D10

2. Philip II'S POST–323 AMPHIPOLIS SILVER MARKINGS

The number of the group where each marking or set of markings is found is given, followed by the known denominations: T = tetradrachms, f = fifths, t = tenths, and d = Attic-weight drachms. The tetradrachms are found in Chapter 4, the smaller coins in Chapter 5. For series not treated in detail in this study, "etc." indicates that varying subsidiary markings are also employed. Brackets enclose issues whose reliably reported examples I have been unable to locate.

Amphora 2? 3? f
Aplustre image 9 T
Axe image 9 T
Bee image (or image) 2 T, f
Branch, forked 8 f
Branch, forked image 8 T
Branch, forked image 9 T
Branch, laurel 8? f, t
Bucranium Λ, etc. See pp. 24 and 94–95
Bucranium image, etc. See pp. 24 and 94–95
Causia A 5 f
Causia E 5 T, f
Causia Λ 5 [T], f
Causia M 5 T, f
Causia T 5 T
Causia, globule A 5 T
Causia, globule E 5 T
Causia, globule M 5 f
Causia, globule T 5 T, f
Club image 3 f
Club image 4 T
Crescent 8 f, d
Crescent image 8 T
Crescent image 9 T
Dolphin image 9 T
Forked branch See branch, forked
Fulmen I, etc. See p. 24
Globule 2? 3? f See also causia, globule
Globule image 3 T, f
Globule image 2 T
Globule image 2 f
Grain ear 8 f, t, d
Grain ear image 8 T, d
Grain ear image 9 T
Grapes 3 f
Grapes image 3 T, f
Grapes image 4 T, f
Ivy leaf image 3 T, f
Ivy leaf image (or image) 2 T
Laurel branch See branch, laurel
Shield, Macedonian 8 f
Shield, Macedonian image 8 T
Shield, profile 8 f
Shield, profile image 8 T
Shield, profile image 9 T?
Star 2? 3, 4? f
Star image 3 T, f
Star image 4 T, f
Star image (or image) 2 f
Torch Λ, etc. See pp. 24 and 94–95
Torch image, etc. See pp. 24 and 94–95
Trident head 8 T, f
Trident head image 8 T
Uncertain marking image 3 f
Wreath 9 T
Wreath A 6 T, f
Wreath E 6 T, f
Wreath Λ 6 T, f
Wreath M 6 T, f
Wreath T 6 T, f
Wreath image 6 T
Wreath image 9 T
Wreath image 6 T
A causia 5 f
A causia, globule 5 T
A wreath 6 T, f
E causia 5 T, f
E causia, globule 5 T
E wreath 6 T, f
I fulmen, etc. See p. 24
Λ 7 f
Λ bucranium, etc. See pp. 24 and 94–95
Λ causia 5 [T], f
Λ torch, etc. See pp. 24 and 94–95
Λ wreath 6 T, f
Λimage 7 T
Λ image 7 T
Λ image (or image), 7 T
Λ image 9 T
Λ image 7 T
M causia 5 T, f
M causia, globule 5 f
M wreath 6 T, f
image aplustre 8 T
image crescent 8 T
image forked branch 8 T
image grain ear 8 T, d
image shield, profile 8 T
image trident head 8 T
T causia 5 T
T causia, globule 5 T, f
T wreath 6 T, f
imagewreath 6 T
image amphora 3 T?
image club 3 T?, f
image globule 3 T, f
image grapes 3 T, f
image ivy leaf 3 T, f
image star 3 T, f
image uncertain marking 3 f
image image 3 T
image club 4 T
image grapes 4 T, f
image star 4 T, f
image image (or image) 4 T, f
image 7 f
image Λ 7 T
image 7 f
image Λ 7 T
image bucranium, etc. See pp. 24 and 94–95
image torch, etc. See pp. 24 and 94–95
image, image, or image 7 f
image (or image) Λ 7 T
image aplustre 9 T
image axe 9 T
image crescent 9 T
image dolphin 9 T
image forked branch 9 T
image grain ear 9 T
image shield, profile 9 T?
image wreath 9 T
image Λ 9 T
image 1 T
image amphora 2 T
image globule 2 T
image (or image) bee 2 T, f
image (or image) ivy leaf 2 T
image (or image) star 2 f
image 2 f
image globule 2 f
image 7 f
image wreath 6 T
image Λ 7 T
image image 3 T
image (or image) image 4 T, f

3. GENERAL

Only subjects not covered in the detailed Table of Contents are included here.

1. Macedonian Coins

Alexander III, gold: cantharus, trident, and fulmen-symbol staters other than the earliest, 100–101, 107, 110, 121–22, 127; fulmen-symbol staters other than the earliest: see cantharus...staters and also shield-symbol staters; quarter staters, 100; reattribution to Macedonia of Tarsos issues 12–15, 101–9; iconography, 107–8, 113; shield-symbol staters linked with some early fulmen-symbol staters, but from a secondary mint, 127; staters termed (στατῆρεσ χρυσõι φιλίππειοι or nummi aurei philippei at least by late Hellenistic and Roman times, 123

Alexander III, silver: drachms' reverse change from eagle to Zeus, 31–35, 71, 91; smaller coins not divisions of eagle-reverse tetradrachms or staters of Macedonian weight, 35; earliest coins' reverses modeled on Alexanders from Tarsus, 86–89; earliest coins' obverses modeled on coins of Perdiccas III and Philip II, 87; iconographic variations in groups E and F, 35–36, 91–92; BAΣIΛEΩΣ introduction, discontinuance, and reference to Alexander IV, 92–98 Alexander III, bronze: eagle-reverse bronzes probably not related to eagle-reverse silver coins, 35 Alexander IV: BAΣIΛEΩΣ as reference to, 96–98

Amphipolis: traditional but not certain mint of Alexander silver, 19; at the ANS considered the chief gold mint, 99, 110 Pella: perhaps Alexander's chief Macedonian gold mint, 99 and 109–10

Perdiccas III: silver stater obverses as models for earliest Macedonian Alexander silver, 87

Philip II, gold: interchangeable everywhere with Alexander gold, 89, 122–23; terminus ante quem of lifetime gold, 89–90, 125–26; Philippe's gold Pella groups compared to earliest Alexander staters, 109–10; possibility of a small output at Corinth, 124–25

Philip II, silver: lifetime didrachm obverses as models for earliest Macedonian Alexander silver, 87; terminus ante quem of lifetime issues, 89–90; found in mainland and northern Greece but not elsewhere, 89, 122

2. Alexander III Coins of Non-Macedonian Mints

Mere hoard occurrences are not indexed; they are included only when they occasion discussion or further references.

Ake: possible reattribution to Tyre, 84

Amathus: reattribution to Cypriot Soli, 113, 131

Aradus: chronology, 74, 85, 92

Babylon: chronology, 74–75, 81, 84–85; chronology and introduction of BAΣIΛEΩΣ, 92–93; problems of attribution, 84–85

Damascus: possible mint of Sidon 1–7, 116

Miletus: chronology of Miletus Series I, 136

Salamis: order and chronology of stater issues, 116–18, 125, 139

Sardes: gold may have commenced later than Sardes and Miletus's 330 B.C., 125

Sicyon: separation of Sicyon 6–8 from remaining Sicyon gold, and probable Macedonian origin, 112–13, 116, 128

Sidon: Sidon 1–7 perhaps struck at Damascus, 116

Soli (Cypriot): reattribution of "Amathus" coins, 113, 131

Tarsus: silver reverses as models for earliest Macedonian Alexander silver, 86–89; introduction of BAΣIΛEΩΣ, 93; Tarsos stater issues 12–15 reattributed to Macedonia, 101–109; earliest gold 330 B.C. or later, 125

Tyre: possible reattribution to of Ake coins, 84


PLATES

Plate 1

ALEXANDER TETRADRACHMS

image

Plate 2

ALEXANDER TETRADRACHMS

image

Plate 3

ALEXANDER TETRADRACHMS

image

Plate 4

ALEXANDER TETRADRACHMS

image

Plate 5

ALEXANDER TETRADRACHMS

image

Plate 6

ALEXANDER TETRADRACHMS

image

Plate 7

ALEXANDER : SMALL COINS

image

Plate 8

ALEXANDER : SMALL COINS

image

Plate 9

ALEXANDER: OBVERSE LINKS BETWEEN GROUPS

image

Plate 10

ALEXANDER: OBVERSE LINKS BETWEEN GROUPS

image

Plate 11

ALEXANDER: OBVERSE LINKS BETWEEN GROUPS

image

Plate 12

PHILIP II TETRADRACHMS

image

Plate 13

PHILIP II TETRADRACHMS

image

Plate 14

PHILIP II: TETRADRACHMS AND SMALL COINS

image

Plate 15

PHILIP II : SMALL COINS

image

Plate 16

ALEXANDER: OBVERSE LINKS BETWEEN GROUPS

image

Plate 17

ALEXANDER: OBVERSE LINKS BETWEEN GROUPS

image

Plate 18

THE START OF THE MACEDONIAN ALEXANDERS

image

Plate 19

THE START OF THE MACEDONIAN ALEXANDERS

image

Plate 20

ALEXANDER STATERS: SERIES 1 (466-76) AND (477-79)

image

Plate 21

ALEXANDER STATERS: SERIES 2

image

Plate 22

ALEXANDER STATERS: SERIES 2

image

Plate 23

ALEXANDER STATERS: PROBABLY SERIES 2

image

Plate 24

ALEXANDER DISTATERS

image

Plate 25

ALEXANDER GOLD : COMPARATIVE MATERIAL

image

Plate 26

COMMERCE 1993 HOARD (APPENDIX 1)

image

Plate 27

COMMERCE 1993 HOARD (APPENDIX 1)

image

Plate 28

COMMERCE 1993 HOARD (APPENDIX 1)

image

Plate 29

MENDE 1983 HOARD (APPENDIX 2)

image

Plate 30

COMMERCE 1993 HOARD (APPENDIX 3)

image

Plate 31

COMMERCE 1994 HOARD 1–31 (APPENDIX 4)

image