This investigation was made in connection with a study of the history of the Achaean League. In the year 1930–31 Miss Crosby weighed, identified and catalogued the coins and wrote a short description of the hoard. The bulk of the commentary and the two appendices are the work of Miss Grace in 1935–36. The coins are now distributed, but the greater part of them are in the collections of Yale University and Mr. E. T. Newell.
Alfred R. Bellinger
This hoard, consisting chiefly of Achaean League triobols, is reported to have been bought in Athens in the summer of 1929. There is good reason to believe that the hoard is complete, and that it was discovered somewhere in Arcadia. With it was found a bronze figurine 4.5 centimeters high, apparently representing Hermes. Nothing further is known of the place or manner of finding of the coins.
The presence in the hoard of 12 Achaean League coins of Elis makes 191 the terminus post quem 1 for the burial of the hoard, and the same coins provide evidence for a more precise dating. In Clerk’s Catalogue of Coins of the Achaean League there are listed 67 Elean coins, among which are to be found counterparts of all 12 of the coins in our hoard. Clerk made no attempt to arrange the coins in a chronological series. Löbbecke (“Ein Fund achäischer Bundesmünzen,” Zeitschr. für Numism., vol. 26, 1908, pp. 275 ff.) lists the League coins of Elis in a roughly chronological order based on their relative states of wear, but his analysis could not be sufficiently detailed for our purpose. The absence of information about the administrative system in Elis makes any narrow interpretation of the monograms and letters on the coins a matter of uncertainty at best. There are, however, at least two broad categories into which the types fall: those with simple letters rather than monograms in the field on the reverse, and no symbol (except the type with the eagle above the monogram, Clerk No. 1, our hoard No. 21); and those with monograms in the field and the thunderbolt below. All of the Elean coins in our hoard except one (No. 15) fall into the first of these categories. Clerk’s collection includes all of the known types and therefore probably represents nearly all that were issued in the course of the forty-five years during which Elis was a coining member of the Achaean League; Löbbecke’s hoard, whose burial he dates ca. 146, includes only four of the types belonging to our first category; therefore it is reasonable to assume that some of the less complicated types of this category were out of use by 146, and that they represent the earliest issues of league coinage in Elis. 2
By means of an analysis of the Elean coins in Clerk’s catalogue and their arrangement in a chronological series of issues it was found possible to make the argument for the early date of our Elean coins stronger and more specific (see Appendix I). The issues are determined by reference to the same one or more officials on coins of otherwise similar type. 3 There are several doubtful cases, but allowing for these, 46 is discovered to be the maximum number of issues, and 41 the minimum; 43 is the number that seemed most probable. With allowance made for chance omissions our conclusion is that Elis coined annual issues between the years 191 and 146. 4 The Elean coins in our hoard represent seven of these issues. If the chronological order given in the appendix is correct, we must assume that two more issues had been minted when the hoard was buried. We have, therefore, as the extreme dates for the burial of the hoard the years 185–2 (assuming that Elis either may or may not have coined in 191).
Confirmation of the lower date (182) is found in the fact that the hoard contains no coins of Lacedaemon. Sparta was brought into the League in 192 B. C. (Livy 35.37), but was an unwilling and troublesome member (even voting secession in 189) until 182, when she was formally re-united to the League (Polyb. 25.2; cf. Freeman, op. cit., pp. 500–504). We should expect, therefore, that Sparta might not be in a condition to strike coins under her own standard, nor inclined to take advantage of the privilege of striking with the league monogram during this first chaotic decade.
The historical evidence for Messene points to a political condition similar to that of Sparta during her first ten years as a member of the League. She joined the League without enthusiasm in 191 (Livy 36.31). There continued to be an active anti-Achaean party which finally brought about a revolution in 183 (Plut. Phil. 18). Messene was re-admitted into the League in 182 (Polyb. 25.3; cf. Freeman, op. cit., pp. 505–507). There are in our hoard 9 coins of types listed by Clerk under Messene: Nos. 107–113, 115, 116, 92, 93, = Cl. No. 312, 294, 299. Nos. 111 and 112 in our hoard represent a type included in Löbbecke’s hoard (op. cit., p. 295, No. 94), and assigned by him to Megalopolis. On this authority, on the grounds of style and recurrence of letters, 107–110 and 113 have here been also assigned to Megalopolis. Nos. 115 and 116 remain. The absence of the symbol on the reverse of these coins seems to be the only reason for Clerk’s assigning the type to Messene. The badly worn appearance of the coins in our hoard is decidedly against their having been struck in Messene, if the terminus post quem for the burial of the hoard suggested above is correct. There is, in fact, no reason why this should not be an early Megalopolitan type, and there is positive evidence that it cannot be a Messenian coin. 5
The absence of Achaean League coins of Lacedaemon and Messene supplements the hypothesis derived from the Elean coins, and confirms on historical grounds the year 182 as the terminus ante quem for the burial of the hoard. 6 This point being established, we may proceed to discuss the problem coins of the hoard: the Arcadian coins, and the Achaean League coins with the trident as symbol.
The Arcadian coins in our hoard, several of which show very little wear, present an historical problem for whose solution there is very little evidence. According to Tarn (Class. Rev. 1925, pp. 104 ff.) there is no inscriptional reference to the Arcadian League that can be dated with any certainty after 235. At the end of the article he goes as far as to say: “Finally, the Arcadian League will have to be considered in arranging Delphic archons. For instance, archons in whose year ’Aρϰάς occurs cannot be put after 235.” Gardner (B.M.C. Pelop. Intr. p. lxi) dates our series of Arcadian coins 280–234, and assigns them to Megalopolis, although he is puzzled by the continued issue of Arcadian League coins in that city while it “fell under the dominion of one tyrant after another.” The evidence of our hoard, however, brings the date of this series down considerably. Foucart (Gardner, loc. cit.) publishes an inscription referring to a ϰoινòν τῶν ’Aρϰάδων, which he dates 222; but there has been a conflict of opinion about the date, and clearly Tarn does not consider it to be later than 235. The literary evidence gives no clue for the existence of an Arcadian League after 235. Polybius, our most nearly contemporary literary source for the history of the Peloponnese during the period in question (ca. 235–ca. 182), never speaks of a ϰoινòν τῶν ’Aρϰάδων 7 nor does he speak of the Arcadians as taking part as a national unit in political or military affairs. In fact the only Arcadian collective action during this period mentioned by Polybius is their unanimous rejection of the envoys from Cynaetha (4.20 f.). In apparent contradiction to the conclusions of modern historians and to the silence of ancient sources, we find in a hoard buried ca. 185–2 coins whose condition in some cases indicates that they were recently struck, bearing on the obverse the monogram APK and the seated Pan. There are two ways of dealing with this problem: it could be assumed that there was a revival of the league so brief, and so circumscribed geographically and politically that ancient historians thought it unworthy of mention; or that the monogram APK, and occasional references to “the Arcadians” in inscriptions dated after 235, indicate not that there was a formal federal Arcadian πoλιτεíα such as is ascribed to the fourth century ϰoινóν, but that the Arcadians continued to have among themselves a sense of racial kinship and superiority, and that whichever city was in the strongest position in relation to the political forces around it held the torch as self-constituted representative and preserver of the Arcadian tradition; and that this city, in manifestation of national consciousness, issued coins with the traditional monogram and type. This latter hypothesis seems to require less strain on the historical context. The inscriptional references to “Arcadians” after 235 that have been dated are IG V2 p. xxv and IG V2, 432. The first is dated 205 (P.-W. s. Megalopolis ) and was found in Magnesia on the Maeander. It is dedicated to the local Artemis and subscribed by 18 cities, which are introduced as “other Arcadians” (the chief dedicator being Megalopolis). The inclusion in the list of subscribers of Pellene, Ceryneia, and Tritaea, Achaean cities, defies satisfactory explanation. Our (hesitant) conclusion is that this phenomenon denies the first hypothesis stated above: for in this case “Arcadians” can certainly refer to no formal ϰoινóν. The second inscription, found in Megalopolis, is a decree for the burial of Philopoemen and therefore dated ca. 183 (P.-W. loc. cit.). The inscription is badly mutilated, but there is unmistakable reference to “the Arcadians,” whose pride and joy Philopoemen presumably was.
To say that the independent issue of Arcadian coinage after 235 was a manifestation of “national consciousness” is, of course, to be extremely vague. The view held here, however, is that, considering our lack of information, a greater precision would be of doubtful historical value. In whatever way the coins are explained, it is necessary to make positive statements ex silentio; and to assume that there was a revival or continuation of a formal federal ϰoινóν complete with πoλιτεíα would involve an even greater strain on the silentium of the ancient sources.
Owing to its historical implications the problem of the Arcadian League has been dealt with here in more detail than its connection with our hoard requires. The dating of the hoard cannot be altered to explain the presence in it of recently minted Arcadian coins. The problem, that is, is not numismatic, but purely historical. Numismatically speaking, however, there is still the question of assigning a mint. The coins themselves are of no assistance here, so that we shall have to return to the historical context. The conditions of our second hypothesis require a city of some importance, and one in a position to take such independent action as this coinage implies. Mantinea seems to be out of the question, since we have here what looks like a continuous series, and Mantinea was, for a time at least after 222, in no position to issue Arcadian coins. 8 Plutarch (Aratus 45) records that her population was deported and her name changed to Antigoneia, for which latter event we have abundant numismatic evidence in our hoard. Orchomenos was garrisoned by the Macedonians in 223, and was still in their hands in 199 (Livy 32.5; cf. Freeman, p. 478). The presence of Orchomenos among the subscribers of a Delphic inscription dated 192–172 (cf. below, p. 15) suggests that the city regained her independence soon after 199, probably in 196, on the occasion of the decree of Flamininus (Polyb. 18.46.5). It is conceivable that our Arcadian coins were issued at Orchomenos between 196–182; or that Orchomenos issued them under the patronage of Macedon before that date. It seems likely, however, that Macedonian protection would be necessary for such independent action by a city with a record of allegiance to Sparta and Aetolia when they were bitter enemies of the League. On the other hand, if we date the Arcadian coins before 196, it will be hard to explain the fresh condition of some of them when the hoard was buried.
Another important Arcadian city is Tegea. In the summer before the battle of Sellasia, Antigonos besieged and captured this city, and on his way home from Sellasia he stopped at Tegea long enough to restore to it its πάτριoς πoλιτεíα (Polyb. 2.7). It is not specifically stated that Tegea was joined to the Achaean League at this time, and it is not a necessary or even probable inference from Polybius that πάτριoς πoλιτεíα meant that. 9 As we have before suggested, the meaning of πoλιτεíα might repay investigation. A similar phrase is used by Polybius in connection with Antigonos’ treatment of Sparta at the same time, 10 and it may mean simply that the more conservative, pro-Macedonian party was re-instated in both cities. We have no information with regard to the Tegean πoλιτεíα. That it did not mean a restoration of the fourth century Arcadian ϰoινóν is clear from the scraps of information concerning the history of that city after 222 collected in Paully-Wissowa under Tegea. Tegea, whether or not she was an Achaean League member from 222 on, 11 was in Spartan hands before 207 and in Achaean hands after that date (Polyb. 11.2), was a rallying place for Achaean League troops under Philopoemen in 200 (Polyb. 16.36), and the meeting place for the Achaean League Council in 192 (Livy 38.34). There is no way of knowing for how long a period before 207 Tegea was under Spartan control, but the historical evidence as far as it goes does not give Tegea the position of continuous leadership and influence in Arcadia and in the Achaean League which the conditions of our preferred hypothesis require.
Megalopolis is the remaining candidate. She had been an important city since her founding, and her voluntary union to the Achaean League in ca. 235 did not lower her prestige or power to any great degree thereafter. The very fact that the anti-Lacedaemonian policy of Lydiades was in effective opposition to that of Aratus (Lydiades held the League generalship three times) shows that from the start Megalopolis was an Achaean League member with a policy of her own. Later on, when Philopoemen, Diophanes and Lycortas were influential in, and often in control of League policies, Megalopolis was actually the most important city in the League. The immediate objection to Megalopolis as the mint for the Arcadian coins in our hoard will be that, like Mantinea, she was at the same time issuing coins with the Achaean League monogram. 12 From a practical point of view it seems unlikely that Megalopolis would issue both coinages simultaneously. But here again information is lacking, and there might have been special circumstances to account for such a double minting; either that, or the coinages were not simultaneoulsy issued: for we cannot be precise in dating either series. Certainly some of the Arcadian coins in our hoard were minted not long before 185 (the worn condition of Löbbecke’s coins, loc. cit. Nos. 146–149 suggests that they were minted a considerable time before 146), but inadequate evidence makes it impossible to be certain where they were minted or what was their political significance. 13
Nos. 73–95, Achaean League coins with varying monograms, but all with a trident below, are assigned by Gardner to Troezen (B.M.C., p. 9, Nos. 97–8), by Clerk to Mantinea before 222. Clerk’s dating must be corrected by the evidence of this hoard, in which the fresh condition of the coins precludes an assumption of thirty-five to forty years of use. The number of coins in our hoard seems not to fit the probable size and importance of a mint at Troezen, and certain epigraphical and numismatic indications point to a Mantinean mint.
The literary evidence with regard to the history of Mantinea after 222 seems at first sight to make this attribution impossible. After the destruction of Mantinea, according to Plutarch and Pausanias, the name of the city was changed to Antigoneia. As archaeological evidence of the change of name we have also in this hoard a series of Achaean League coins of Antigoneia. This evidence, of course, speaks only for the time at which the AN coins were minted, and taken by itself does not deny the possibility that the name was eventually changed back to Mantinea. On this point, however, we have definite statements from both Plutarch and Pausanias, and references made by both writers to a contemporary state of affairs lend credence to their stories. Plutarch ( Aratus 45) says that on the resettlement of the city by the Achaeans (after its capture in 222) Aratus ατς ὀϰιστς αρθॉì ϰαì στρατηγòì ν έϕηψíσατὀ µηϰέτι ϰαλॉīν Mαντí νॉιαλλ’ ‘ Aντιγóνॉιαν, δ ϰαì µηϰρι ναλॉīται. Pausanias (8.8.11–12) tells the same story, but says that the Mantineans changed the name of their city in honor of Antigonos, since he was an ardent supporter of the Achaeans; then, when Hadrian became emperor àϕॉλν Mαντινॉσι τò νoµα ϰ Mαντινॉδσι τò ϰ Mαϰॉδὀνíας παντòν άπέδωϰϵν αθις Mαντiνιαν ϰααλεiσθαι σϕισι τήν πóλιν. Polybius (2. 58. 12) describes the fate of the inhabitants of Mantinea, but says nothing about its repopulation and change of name. His omission is not surprising, as in this passage he is defending the behavior of the Achaeans and Macedonians against the bitter and theatrical attacks of Phylarchus. Unless we are able to question the veracity of the story told by Plutarch and Pausanias, we shall be forced to assign the trident coins to some other city than Mantinea; and perhaps Troezen, since coins with the trident symbol have already been assigned to it, would be as good a guess as any.
There are, however, two considerations that make the attribution of the trident coins away from Mantinea unnecessary, and perhaps even inadvisable. In the first place the coins in our hoard have on the reverse in some cases (Nos. 86–94) the letter M (or the monogram ) above the League monogram. Although it is quite possible that the reference is to an official, the combination of letter and trident points to Mantinea, should the historical situation make the attribution at all reasonable: for both trident and monogram appear on earlier coins of Mantinea (B.M.C., p. 184.6, p. 186.20). Another piece of evidence that has been ignored, or has received scant mention by modern authorities, 14 occurs in an inscription found at Delphi and dated 192–172 (B. C. H. 1883, p. 190, Hassoullier). This inscription is a list of θϵωρoδòϰoι for the most part from Arcadian cities, among which is mentioned Mantinea (IG V2, p. xxxvii). We are faced here with what appears to be an irreconcilable contradiction of the accounts given by Plutarch and Pausanias, as well as of other epigraphical evidence. Since the inscription cannot be altered, and since Hassoullier’s dating of it has so far been undisputed, we must either abandon the problem as insoluble, or reconsider, and perhaps modify, the historical tradition reported by Plutarch and Pausanias.
When Mantinea was taken by Antigonos, according to Plutarch (loc. cit.) it was turned over to Aratus and the Achaeans. 15 They killed or enslaved all the inhabitants and resettled the city with their own citizens and Aratus as oίϰιστής. For a time at least, then, after 222 Mantinea was not an Arcadian but an Achaean city, with allegiance of some sort to Antigonos of Macedon, as its name implies. 16 In 205, the date of the Magnesian inscription referred to above in connection with Megalopolis, Mantinea was evidently still considered an Achaean city, since neither of her names is mentioned έν τoς λλoις ‘Aρϰάσι. 17 After the year 205 we have no information regarding the political affiliations of Antigoneia. The later inscriptions containing that name are impossible to date precisely. It is within reason, however, to suppose that this city was no exception to the good Greek rule of στάσις. As Arcadia settled down under the (unofficial) leadership of Megalopolis, after the days of Cleomenes and Aratus were over, it is conceivable that Mantinean exiles (that there were such is proved by Philopoemen’s tutor, Polyb. 10.22.1) were called in by some political faction with some such slogan as “Arcadia for the Arcadians.” The Delphic inscription and the trident coins may be official expressions of this temporarily victorious faction. In order to satisfy the date of our hoard, advantage must be taken of the limits allowed by Hassoullier for the year of the inscription. We may date our hypothetical factional upheaval ca. 190–185. It must be further supposed that this victory of the “Arcadian” party was of brief duration and limited in its influence to the city itself: for neither Plutarch, nor Pausanias, nor Polybius took notice of it, and there are inscriptions containing the name Antigoneia and the names of Roman officials, which must be dated after the middle of the century.
The trident coins in themselves provide little cronological information about the use of the names Antigoneia and Mantinea. Both the trident and the AN coins in our hoard show evidence of some use. The former, of which we have a smaller number, are in a more uniform state of wear, and the reasonable conclusion is that they should be given a later date, since a simultaneous issue seems improbable. It would be difficult to make this inference from a comparison of the conditions of the freshest coins in each group, since that difference is very slight. We can, however, settle on a terminus post quem. for both series with some assurance. Of the AN series we have all the known types, and of the trident series we have two, three of the types listed by Clerk being absent. 18 For the trident coins, therefore, we must either assume another stasis in Mantinea after 185–2, or the accidental absence of some issues from our hoard. The inclusion in our hoard of all the known AN types suggests that the city did not issue coins under the name Antigoneia after 185–2, and the condition of our coins points to ca. 190 as the terminus post quem. Hassoullier’s upper limit for the date of the Delphic inscription tends to push this terminus back of 192. The numismatic situation, then, is this: after 222 the city minted coins under the name of Antigoneia until ca. 195; at some time between that date and ca. 190 minted coins with the trident symbol, and in some cases the letter M or monogram , presumably referring to the ancestral name Mantinea. The historical implications of the attribution cannot be satisfactorily unravelled, since the evidence is too meagre. The reconstruction presented here is hypothetical, and put forward in no sense as proof, but as an attempt to resolve what otherwise appears to be a contradiction. The attribution itself, based on the combined occurrence of monogram and symbol, is by no means proved, and further discoveries may cancel its present appearance of probability. It can, however, be confidently asserted from the condition of the coins in our hoard that the types of trident coins included in it must be dated after 222.
The problems presented by the Arcadian and trident coins are difficult, and the solutions offered here are by no means satisfactory. It has seemed best, however, to adhere firmly to the dating of the burial of the hoard as our one soundly established fact, and to erect on this substructure hypotheses as plausible as the evidence for the history of this period permits. Slight as our reconstruction is, it is not to our present knowledge built on false premises; it is an attempt to explain historically the information which the discovery of our hoard unquestionably supplies: that “Arcadian League” coins continued to be minted in the second century, and that the Achaean League coins with the trident, of the type included in this hoard, cannot be assigned to Mantinea before 222. Historically speaking, we have seen that the spirit, at least, of Arcadian unity did not die with the fourth or even the third century; and that ή έρατϵινὴ Mαντίνϵια may have risen more than once from the ashes over which Plutarch so tenderly mourned.
The authorities have agreed in dating the Achaean League coinage in general “after 280 B. C.,” but the attribution of the trident coins to Mantinea before her capture by Antigonus was the only evidence that required a date earlier than 222. 19 With this obstacle removed by the evidence of our hoard the question may be raised as to whether the League members issued federal coinage to any great extent before that date. Although, with the exception of Elis, the frequency of issues for the coins with monograms cannot be determined, the number of distinguishable types is in no case so great as to make it necessary to assume that the issues began before 222. The coins without monograms or symbols (other than that of the League) should probably be assigned to a period before the League was of a size sufficient to necessitate distinguishing the mints; how far back they go it is impossible to say, since there is no way of distinguishing the issues. The victorious conclusion of the Cleomenic War in ca. 222, following the rapid expansion of the League in the 30’s and 20’s, and the introduction of law and order with the tactful but firm cooperation of Antigonos was very likely the occasion for the institution of federal mints in the important member cities.
The only apparently unpublished coin in the hoard, not counting slight variations in monograms of familiar Achaean League coins, is No. 212. In 235 B. C. Aratus freed Cleonae from Argos, and for a short period thereafter she had an autonomous coinage (B.M.C., Introd., pp. lii–liii). Presumably this coin belongs to that period. There is a re- semblance to the bronze coin published in B.M.C. p. 154, 8, Plate XXIX, 5.
The other coins in this hoard need no comment. In the catalogue which follows, asterisks indicate the coins illustrated on the plates.
The year in which Elis joined the league. Freeman, History of Federal Government, p. 496. (Cf. Livy 35.31.3, 36.35.7.) A burial date in the early part of the 2d century is also indicated by 2 Boeotian coins, Nos. 208–9, which are assigned to the period 196–194 (B.M.C. Central Greece, p. 42, 99). They are moderately worn.
Löbbecke’s report on the relative conditions of his Elean coins lends support to this argument. See Appendix I, n. 3.
In this analysis it is assumed that the letters (in most cases) and monograms on the coins refer to minting officials, and, where reference is made to more than one person, to the eponymous archon, or to some other official beside the one in charge of minting.
It is assumed that Greek officials were generally elected for terms of not less than one year, and that the Greek states did not coin silver after 146.
We have now given to Megalopolis types with the syrinx and thunderbolt as symbols, and one type with no symbol. This raises the question as to whether Messene struck any silver League coins at all. There is nothing left to distinguish the rest of the coins assigned by Clerk to Messene, except the letter M and the monogram , which could equally well refer to Megalopolis. It may be that, as Messene was too incoherent to coin before 182, so after that date she was too unimportant a state to strike federal silver. When she was readmitted to the League in 182, three of her towns were detached and given individual membership (Abia, Thouria, Pharae: Polyb. 25.1). We know that she struck federal copper (Clerk p. 81, Nos. 108–111), but so did several cities in the League which were apparently too unimportant to strike silver. Gardner in B.M.C. p. 7, No. 75 assigns a coin with the monogram and a tripod below to Messene. The coin is not listed by Clerk. As the letter M and monogram have been associated here with Megalopolis, Gardner’s coin should perhaps be assigned to another city, possibly Methydrium.
The absence from this hoard of League coins from any of the Achaean cities except Aegira and Ceryneia is curious and emp hasizes the danger of basing arguments on the absence of coins of any particular mint. Yet geographical conditions might explain the absence of coins of Achaea more easily than the absence of those of Lacedaemon.
He does mention the Arcadian ethnos—the term he uses for the Achaean League—in 2.38.3, where, although he uses the present tense in speaking of this body, he can be referring to no contemporary political organization, since he says that the Arcadians adopted the onoma and politeia of the Achaeans. Owing to Polybius’ generally remarked vagueness of terminology, it might be of historical interest to make a thorough investigation of the meaning of the words ethnos, koinon, and politeia in epigraphical and literary documents of this period.
Neither Mantinea nor Antigonea is listed among the “Arcadian” cities in the first inscription cited above (dated 205) cf. Note 17 below.
Polyb. 2.70.1: The word used here is politeuma.
There is no Achaean League coinage of Tegea in our hoard, and the condition of those listed by Löbbecke implies a date in the latter part of the period 222–146.
In this respect Tegea would be a more satisfactory candidate (see above, note 11). In view of what we know of her history, however, the absence of League coinage of Tegea should probably be explained as evidence of vacillating political connections. Another factor which may disqualify both Orchomenos and Tegea is the Pan type on the reverse of the Arcadian coins, since this type seems to belong to Megalopolis; cf. note 13, below.
Gardner, loc. cit. assigns the earlier series of Arcadian coins with the seated Pan without the eagle on the obverse to Megalopolis, partly because there is no other Megalopolitan coinage for this period; and the series with MEГ and the same type on the obverse, with or without the eagle, to Megalopolis after 234, when, he says, the city was allowed to coin independently of the League. If our interpretation of the position of Megalopolis in the League is correct, however there could not have been any question of interference in her local affairs by the League. In the same connection it may be remarked that the Pan type in this particular pose, and with these particular attributes was at least at one time the official Megalopolitan type, and perhaps should not be assigned to another city without more definitive evidence. The type may have been taken from a cult pose, cf. The Choregic Monument of Lysicrates, dated 235/4 (Papers of the Am. Sch. of Class. Studies at Athens , Vol. VI, 1897, Pls. XXII–XXIII).
Beloch, Gr. Gesch. LVI, p. 714, says the name Antigoneia was used for official purposes after 222 “wenn er auch den alten Namen aus dem Gebrauch des täglichen Lebens nicht verdrängen konnte.”Tarn, C. A. H. VII, p. 762, mentions the change without further comment on the name. Fougères, B. C. H. XX, 1896, p. 121, n. 1, says: “Le nom d’Antigoneia apparait officiellement sur les inscriptions . . . et sur les monnaies.” Bölte, Paull.-Wiss. s. Mantinea , p. 1330, says: “der alte Name M(antinea) wurde nicht nur bei den Schriftstellern weiterverwendet . . . sondern erscheint auch auf der delphischen Thearodokenliste von 175.”
Curtius’ correction of argeion in the text to A chaion seems necessary and is accepted by most modern authorities. See Bolte, loc. cit. Fougères seems to straddle both readings when he says that Mantinea was repopulated by Achaean emigrants and annexed to the territory of Argos (op. cit., p. 135).
It was perhaps on the occasion of Mantinea’s refounding and renaming that the inscription was set up honoring Antigonos as Soter kai euergetes (I. G. 299) Fougères (loc. cit.) thinks that this inscription provides an explanation of the reason given by Pausanias for the change of name: that the city was renamed Antigoneia in honour of their Macedonian ally by its new Achaean citizens. The phrase from the inscription quoted here suggests an explanation of the Eϒ and ΣΩ below the league monogram on the majority of the league coins of Antigoneia.
Since the name of the dedicating city is not mentioned in this inscription, it is just possible that it was Mantinea. But the reference to the teichismos (see Ditten berger, Syll. 2.258 with note) fits with known historical evidence for Megalopolis, and omission of the leading Arcadian city from the list at the end would be much more surprising than the omission of Mantinea-Antigoneia.
Clerk, No. 290, reads his Monogram 42 to the left, but this monogram is an E minus the middle stroke in his plate, and probably should not be distinguished from the E ϒ type (Nos. 190a, 190). I have considered Clerk Nos. 186, 187, with I Δ P behind on the obverse, a separate type, although these letters are not visible in his plate, and are not cited by Gardner or Löbbecke, and may be abstractions from Zeus’ back hair. The third type absent from our hoard is that with Δ E I on the reverse, Clerk No. 189.
Polyb. 2.37.10 need not, as Gardner seems to imply (B.M.C., Introd., p. xxiv), be taken as corroborative evidence that the League members used a common federal coinage from the start. In fact, according to Polybius’ very words his statement can strictly be applied only to the first century. The Arcadian coins in this hoard appear to deny application of this passage to the first quarter of the second century.
Before 222 B. C. Without mint mark
|1. Head of Zeus, r., laur.||Monogram within laurel wreath, tied at the top.|
B.M.C., p. 1, no. 1; Clerk, p. 1, no. 1 grs. 2.39
After 222 B. C.
|*2, 3. Head of Zeus, r., laur.: border of dots.||Monogram, wreath tied at the bottom; ГΛ to l. Aϒ to r.; above, fore-part of goat, r.|
|Clerk, p. 2, no. 19.||grs. 2.93; 2.07|
|4. Head of Zeus, r., laur.||Same; I to l.; Ω to r.; harpa, r., below.|
Clerk, p. 9, no. 148; cf. B.M.C., p. 8, no. 89. grs. 2.46
|*5, 6. Head of Zeus, l., laur.||Monogram, wreath tied at top; harpa, r., above; below.|
Clerk, p. 9, no. 149; cf. B.M.C., p. 8, no. 88. grs. 2.46; 2.30
|7. Same.||Same; to r.; wolf ‘s head r. below.|
|8, 9. Head of Zeus, r., laur.||Same; to r.; trident l. below.|
|10. Same.||Same; to r.; trident l. below.|
B.M.C. p. 3, no. 26, Pl. I, 7; Clerk, p. 4, no. 51. grs. 2.39
|*11. Same.||Same; wreath tied at bottom; to l.; tor.; trident below.|
Clerk, p. 4, no. 47. grs. 2.33
|*12. Same.||Same; to l.; below.|
Clerk, p. 8, no. 117. grs. 2.33
|*13. Same.||Same; wreath tied at top; to l., below.|
Neither B.M.C. nor Clerk gives this monogram, but see Clerk, p. 8, no. 117. grs. 2.46
Elis (after 191)
|14. Same.||Same; wreath tied at bottom; A to l., N to r.;FA below.|
B.M.C. p. 5, no. 55; Clerk, p. 18, no. 291. grs. 2.39
|*15. Same; border of dots.||Same; above, F to l, A to r., A over thunder-bolt below.|
Clerk, p. 15, no. 232. grs. 2.20
|*16–19. Same; border of dots.||Same; Λϒ above, F to l., A to r.|
B.M.C. p. 5, no. 53; Clerk, p. 17, no. 280. grs. 2.46; 2.39; 2.36
|*20. Same.||Same; F to l., A to r.;CΩ CIΔI below|
Clerk, p. 18, no. 286 (not CωOCIΔI as Clerk reads). grs. 2.39
|*21. Same.||Same; Eagle r., above; to l., to r.;FA below.|
Clerk, p. 15, no. 229. grs. 2.33
|*22. Same.||Same; FA to l.; CI to r.CΩN below.|
Clerk, p. 18, no. 289, gives the same, save CωΔI below, though his plate shows CΩ. grs. 2.41
|23. Same.||Same; F to l., A to r.ΦI below.|
Clerk, p. 17, no. 283. grs. 2.39
|24, 25. Same; border of dots.||Same; Λϒ above; F to l., A to r.: ΣΩ below.|
B.M.C., p. 5, no. 51; Clerk, p. 17, no. 281. grs. 2.39; 2.33
|*26. Same; border of dots.||Same; ϒ above; Λ to l., A to r.; E below.|
Clerk, p. 11, no. 171. grs. 2.45
|*27. Same; border of dots.||Same; tripod above, between to l., and to r.; IΣ to l., to r.|
B.M.C., p. 7, no. 75; Pl. L, 19, assigned to Messene
(?) Clerk. p. 11, no. 173. grs. 2.52
|*28–43. Same.||Same; A to l., N to r.Eϒ below.|
B.M.C., p. 9, nos. 100–101; Pl. II, 4; Clerk, p. 12, no. 192. grs. 2.52 (2); 2.46; 2.43; 2.39 (6); 2.36 (4); 2.33 (2)
|*44–48. Same.||Same; E to l., ϒ to r.AN below.|
B.M.C., p. 9, nos. 102, 103; Pl. II, 5; Clerk, p. 12, no. 193. grs. 2.55; 2.42; 2.39; 2.29; 2.23
|49–60. Same.||Same; A to l., N to r.;CΩ below.|
B.M.C., p. 9, nos. 107, 108; Clerk, p. 12, no. 197. grs. 2.49; 2.42 (2); 2.39 (5); 2.36; 2.33 (2); 2.26
|*61–64. Same.||Same; A to l., N to r., below.|
B.M.C., p. 9, nos. 104. 105. grs. 2.42 (2): 2.39 (2):
|65–68. Same.||Same; A to l., N to r., below.|
The monogram below very clearly has not the loop at the top. Neither B.M.C. nor Clerk give this, cf. B.M.C., p. 9, nos. 104–105; Clerk, p. 12, no. 195. grs. 2.48; 2.46; 2.42; 2.41
|*69. Same.||Same; N to l., A to r.,CΩ below.|
Clerk, p. 12, no. 198. grs. 2.46
|*70–71. Same.||Same; A to l., N to r.CΩ Π (?)below.|
Clerk, p. 13, no. 200. grs. 2.42; 2.16
|*72. Same.||Same; A to l., N to r.CΩ Π below.|
Clerk, p. 13, no. 201. grs. 2.36
|*73–85. Same.||Same; wreath tied at the bottom; Δ to l., I to r.; trident r. below.|
Clerk, p. 12, no. 185, calls this Mantinea, as does Weil, Zeit für Num. IX, 260 ff. B.M.C., p. 8, 9, nos. 96–97, calls it Troezen (?). grs. 2.40; 2.39 (5); 2.36; 2.33 (3); 2.30 (2); 2.26
|*86–92. Same.||Same; above; Δ to l., I to r.; trident r. below.|
B.M.C., p. 9, no. 98. grs. 2.46; 2.42; 2.39 (2); 2.36; 2.33 (2)
|93, 94. Same.||Same; M above; Δ to l., I to r.; trident r. below.|
Clerk, p. 12, no. 186, assigned to Mantinea. grs. 2.39; 2.39
|95. Head of Zeus, l., laur.||Same; Δ to l., trident, r., below.|
Copper; had evidently been plated. grs. 2.03
|96. Same.||Same; B above; E to l., Λ to r.; M over syrinx below.|
B.M.C., p. 10, no. 114; Clerk, p. 13, no. 206. grs. 2.26
|*97–103. Same; below BI.||Same; I above; K to l., l to r.; syrinx below.|
Clerk, p. 13, no. 212, gives this reverse, but does not give the BI on the obverse. grs. 2.46; 2.42; 2.39 (2); 2.36 (2); 2.26
|*104–106. Head of Zeus, l. laur.||Same; N to l. Ф to r.; M below.|
|107–110. Same.||Same; I to l., E to r.; KO below.|
Clerk, p. 19, no. 312. grs. 2.23; 2.33; 2.46; 2.39
|*111–112. Head of Zeus, r., laur.||Same; Ξ B above; K to l., A to r.; M over thunderbolt below.|
Cf. B.M.C., p. 7, no. 76, where below, and Clerk, p. 18, no. 294, where Λ to r.and below. Löbbecke, Zeit fūr Num. XXVI, p. 295, no. 94, assigns this to Megalopolis. grs. 2.42; 2.36
|*113. Same.||Same; Ξ B above; to l., A (or Λ) to r.; over thunderbolt below.|
|114. Same.||Same; thunderbolt above; K to l., Δ to r.; M below.|
|*115, 116. Same.||Same; Δ to r., M below.|
Clerk, p. 18, no. 299, reads A instead of Δ but his plate shows a clear Δ. grs. 2.42; 2.10
|*117, 118. Same.||Same; Lyre above; Δ to l., I to r., ΔO below.|
B.M.C., p. 2, no. 5; Clerk, p. 8, no. 118. grs. 2.33; 2.26
|119–121. Same.||Same; Lyre above; Δ to l., I to r., Φ below.|
B.M.C., p. 2, no. 6; Pl. I, 3; Clerk, p. 8, no. 119. grs. 2.59; 2.39; 2.33
|122–125. Same; border of dots.||Same; Lyre above; H to l., PO to r.|
B.M.C., p. 2, no. 9; Clerk, p. 8, no. 121. grs. 2.43; 2.39; 2.33; 2.23
|126–129. Same; border of dots?||Same; lyre above; H to l., P to r.; A below.|
Clerk, p. 8, no. 122. grs. 2.36; 2.20; 2.07; 1. 74
|130, 131. Same.||Same; lyre above; ΘO to l., KΛ to r.|
B.M.C., p. 2, no. 10; Clerk, p. 8, no. 124. grs. 2.44; 2.39
|132. Same.||Same; lyre above; ME to l., ΓΩ to r.|
B.M.C., p. 2, no. 11; Clerk, p. 8, no. 125. grs. 2.46
|133, 134. Same.||Same; lyre above; ΔΩ to l., PO to r.|
B.M.C., p. 2, no. 7; Clerk, p. 8, no. 126. grs. 2.46; 2.42
|*135–137. Same; border of dots.||Same; lyre above; M to l., Δ to r.; T below.|
Clerk, p. 8, no. 127. grs. 2.42; 2.33; 2.29
|*138. Same.||Same; Π to l., A to r.; M below.|
Clerk, p. 9, no. 135; B.M.C., p. 10, no. 117, assigns it to Megalopolis. grs. 2.35
|139–143. Same.||Same; wreath tied at the top; E to l., ϒ to r., ΣI below.|
B.M.C., p. 8, no. 45; Pl. I, 18; Clerk, p. 7, no. 108. grs. 2.36 (2); 2.30 (3)
|*144. Same.||Same; wreath tied at the top; ΣI above; Eϒ below.|
Cf. Clerk, p. 7, no. 110. grs. 2.46
|*145. Same.||Same; F to l., IIC (obscure) to r.; trident to r. below.|
Troezen? Clerk, p. 20, no. 331, calls it uncertain. grs. 2.46
|*146–148. Same; border of dots.||Same; Λϒ above; A to l., P to r.; dolphin r. below.|
Clerk, p. 20, no. 329, the Λϒ above is very clear and cannot be the Δϒ of Dyme. (Cf. Weil, Zeit. für. Num. IX, p. 243.) grs. 2.52; 2.46; 2.42
|149. Same.||Same; N to l., A to r.; above and below illegible, cf. no. 69.|
|150–152. Same.||Same; symbols illegible.|
grs. 2.33; 2.29; 2.13
|153.||Testudo graeca or small land turtle, structure ofof wwhose shell is shown. In Incuse of five compartments;: in lower left-hand compartment. shell is shown.|
B.M.C., Attica, etc., p. 138, nos. 167–170, Pl. XXIV, 13, dated circa B. C. 480–431. Milbank, Coinage of Aegina , p. 44, c, Pl. II, 16, dated 404–375. See Newell, Andritsaena Hoard, p. 37, and Olympia Hoard, p. 17, for suggestions that this Aeginetan coinage continued under Macedonian patronage.
|*154. Head of Atalanta, r., wearing causia.||Boar, r., at bay; AIT-ΩΛΩN above; below; in exergue, ΔI spear r.|
B.M.C., Thessaly, etc., p. 196, no. 26. grs. 2.46
|*155. Same; Σ to l.||Same; below; in ex. spear r.|
|156. Same.||Same; K below; in ex. spear r. (?)|
|157. Same.||Same; Φ below; in ex. spear r. grs. 2.23|
|*158. Same.||Same; below; in ex. spear (?) grs. 2.33|
|*159. Same.||Same; Σ below; in ex. spear, l. grs. 2.20|
|*160. Same.||Same; A Δ below; in ex. spear r. grs. 2.33|
Note: None save 154 is identical with any in B.M.C.
(Struck at Megalopolis or Mantinea?) Before 235
|161. Head of Zeus, l., laur.||Pan, horned, naked, seated l. on rock; r. raised, in l. lagobolon; to l., to r.|
This monogram not in B.M.C.; cf. B.M.C. p. 174.
|*162–166. Same.||Same; eagle on knee to l.|
B.M.C., p. 176, no. 76, Pl XXXII, 20. grs. 2.46; 2.42; 2.39; 2.33 (2)
|167–174. Same.||Same; A to l., Δ to r.|
B.M.C.,p. 176, no. 78. grs. 2.42; 2.39 (3); 2.36 (2); 2.33; 2.26
|175. Same.||Same; to l., Δ to r.|
B.M.C., p. 176, no. 81. grs. 2.42
|*176–178. Same.||Same; to l., Δ to r.|
B.M.C., p. 176, no. 83. grs. 2.62; 2.46; 2.29
|*179–196. Same||Same; to l., Λ to r., Δ above.|
Cf. B.M.C., p. 176, no. 84, reading A to l., Λ with Δ above in field to r. grs. 2.49; 2.42 (3); 2.39 (6); 2.36 (2); 2.33 (5); 2.29
|197. SAME.||SAME; SYMBOLS ILLEGIBLE.GRS. 2.36|
|198. Forepart of wolf, l.||A in shallow incuse square; A in upper l., P in upper r.; crescent below.|
B.M.C., p. 141, no. 60.
|*199. Same, r.||Same; N in upper l., I in upper r.|
B.M.C., p. 141, no. 65. grs. 2.39
|200. Same, l.||Same; N in upper l., I in upper r.; club below.|
|201. Same, 1.||Same; N in upper 1., I in upper r.; crescent below.|
B.M.C., p. 141, no. 67. grs. 2.33
|202–204. Boeotian shield.||Kantharos in incuse square, club above; Θ to 1., EB to r.|
B.M.C., Central Greece, p. 75, no. 64, Pl. XIII, 10. grs. 2.35; 2.23; 2.13
|205–207. Boeotian shield.||Kantharos in very shallow incuse square; thunderbolt above; BO to 1., IΩ to r.|
Cf. B.M.C., Central Greece, p. 36, no. 45, and p. 37, nos. 50–54, Pl. V, 16. grs. 2.48; 2.46; 2.36
|*208. Head of Poseidon, r., laur., border of dots.||BOIΩTΩN on l.; Nike standing 1. clad in long chiton with diplois, holding wreath and resting on trident; to 1.|
B.M.C., Central Greece, p. 42, no. 99. grs. 4.66
|209. Same.||BOI]ΩTΩN on r.; same type; to 1.|
B.M.C., Central Greece, p. 42, nos. 103, 104. grs. 4.72
|210. Female head to r.||Flying eagle with serpent, r.; × to r. of eagle.|
B.M.C., Central Greece, p. 110, no. 44. grs. 3.17
|211. Same.||Flying eagle with serpent, r.; symbols illegible.|
cf. B.M.C., Central Greece, p. 110 ff. grs. 3.17
(After 235, cf. B.M.C., Introduction lii and liii)
|*212. Head of Zeus (?) r., laur.||Club within wreath of parsley.|
Appears to be unpublished. cf. B.M.C., p. 154, no. 8, (Bronze), Pl. XXIX, 5. grs. 2.33
|213. (Bronze) head of Zeus, 1.||Horse, galloping r.|
cf. H. Weber Coll., no. 4058, p. 149. grs. 3.62
|214. Head of Persephone, r.||Ajax Oeleus with shield, advancing r.; OΓONTIΩN on 1.; crest of helmet between legs; lion on shield.|
B.M.C., Central Greece, p. 3, no. 24, Pl. I, 8. grs. 2.33
|215. Same, 1.||Same; spear on ground; griffin in shield.|
B.M.C., Central Greece, p. 3, no. 26, or p. 4, no. 30.
|216–218. Same, r.||Same; symbols illegible.|
cf. B.M.C., Central Greece, p. 3. grs. 2.33; 2.26; 2.13
|219. Bull’s head, facing.||Head of Apollo, r.; symbols uncertain.|
B.M.C., Central Greece, p. 21. grs. 2.39
|*220. 220.Head of Helios, three-quarters facing r.||Rose, with bud on branch, to r., bunch of grapes to 1.|
cf. B.M.C., Caria, etc., p. 234, nos. 43–48. grs. 6.22
|221. Dove alighting 1., Σ in lower left, E in upper r.||Dove flying 1. in olive wreath.|
B.M.C., p. 38, nos. 26–29, Pl. VII, 18. grs. 5.50
|*222–224. Chimera 1.; ΣI below (not clear).||Dove flying 1.; ∴ to r.|
B.M.C., p. 46, no. 122. grs. 2.78; 2.65; 2.52
|225. Same.||Same; • to r.|
B.M.C., p. 46, no. 124. grs. 2.46
|226–228. Same; ΣE below.||Same; NO to r.|
B.M.C., p. 42, no. 72. grs. 2.65; 2.49; 2.46
|229. Same.||Same; O to r.|
cf. B.M.C., p. 42, nos. 72, 73. grs. 2.33
|230. Same.||Same; symbols illegible.|
cf. B.M.C., p. 46. grs. 2.52
|231. Same; ΣI below.||Dove flying 1., symbols illegible.|
Plated. Cf. B.M.C., p. 46. grs. 2.52
The list given below presents an analysis of the Elean coins in Clerk’s catalogue. No firm conviction with regard to the chronological sequence of the issues is here maintained, other than the division into two broad categories described in the text. The fact, however, that those categories represent a division between the simpler and the more complex types suggests an evolutionary hypothesis that may be more fully developed in application to the separate issues by the following subdivisions of the second main category, that of the types with the symbol below the League monogram:
That the coins bearing the name of the eponymous archon were issued in the Olympic years would be a neat explanation, but unfortunately, owing to the presence of fulmens in all fourteen issues, there are only ten Olympic years available. Still, it is perhaps unreasonable to assume that Elis held no strictly local celebrations to account for the extra four issues. This interpretation of the type with full names would remove the difficulty presented by Löbbecke’s hoard, which includes only four issues of this type, although he dates the burial of the hoard at 146. If the full name type should come at the end of the series, his hoard ought to include more of these issues.
It has occasionally seemed necessary to correct Clerk’s readings where they were plainly contradicted by the evidence of his own plates. Instances where the corrections affect the grouping into issues are:
Clerk 57: CΩCIAC for CΩCIΛC, where there must have been a misprint; cf. B.M.C., p. 4, 46.
Clerk 58 (B. 20): CΩCIΔI for CωCIΔI.
Clerk 60: CΩC [IAC] for CΩCIAN the plate shows the coin to be worn and not sufficient evidence for Clerk’s otherwise anomalous reading.
Clerk 61: [CΩN] below, CI to right for Clerk’s CωΔI CI; the CI is all that is discernible from Clerk’s Pl. XI 57, but the coin is badly worn.
Clerk 10: A above for IA, which appears on the plate (IX 10), but cf. Cl. 9 (IX 9), where appears on the plate, although he reads A. The I on Cl. 10 may be also for through error in striking. At any rate, an A is required, as in Cl. 11 (Pl. X 12), to complete the otherwise universal FA for Elis.
Clerk 18 and 18a: above for (18) and (18a). Clerk gives no plate for 18a, citing merely the B.M.C. For No. 18 in Pl. X 18 the horns on top of the monogram look more like a laurel wreath, and B.M.C., p. 6, 65, cited by Clerk, reads . The coins have otherwise identical markings.
Clerk 23: 〇 or ⊙ for Pl. X 22 shows the coin to be badly battered, and , although Clerk reads it again for No. 16 (Pl. X 16), is in neither case certain. If 〇 or ⊙ is the correct reading, it may be an officina mark, and so the coin may go with Nos. 9, 10, 11, 22 (which has 〇 above) into the issue bearing the monogram .
Clerk 24: for Pl. X 23: the monogram seems to bet he same as that on No. 26 (Pl. X 25), where Clerk reads , but the plate shows On the obverse the head, although more worn in No. 26, is the same type. Otherwise the coins have identical markings and could be of the same issue.
Clerk 65: (no plate) Clerk refers to Cousinéry, Les monnaies d’argent de la ligue achéenne, perusal of which discovers on p. 40 a list of five Elean coins, of which No. 4 is described: “avec FA, K, et un petit monogramme, et le foudre à l’exergue.” Clerk lists No. 65 as having no symbol, and reads the monogram . If Clerk’s reading of the monogram is to be accepted, it is tempting, although hardly fair, to assume that Cousinéry forgot to mention AΠOΛΛΩNIOΣ on the obverse, and that this coin belongs to the same issue as Cl. 37 (issue 31). The correction with regard to the symbol is important, as it prevents inclusion of an issue without the thunderbolt in the category that is otherwise represented in all issues by our hoard.
The following is a list of the issues of Elean coins arranged in a chronological order that is discussed at the end. The numbers by which the coins are cited are Clerk’s (Elean series); B = our hoard; L. = Löbbecke (Zeitschr. für Numism., vol. 26, 1908, pp. 287 ff.).
These three coins have F A to l. and r. of the League monogram, and above respectively. In putting them all into one issue it has been assumed that the letters above are officina marks. If that is a correct assumption, the coins are left with no magistrate initials to distinguish the issue. The objection to taking these letters as references to magistrates is that a simple letter seems insufficient designation of an official. In the cases where single letters have appeared together with monograms signifying magistrates (Nos. 4, 5, 7 in issue 9) it has been assumed that the letters are officina marks. It is possible, however, that there minor magistrates are referred to, and in Nos. 2, 8, 12 also the letters may refer to officials.
For Nos. 4, 5, 7 cf. note on issue 7. In No. 6 IΣ above the symbol completes the name of the official; cf. No. 61 (issue 2).
× in Nos. 9–11, 〇 (or ⊙) in 22 are read here as officina marks. Cf. note on issue 7. For Nos. 22, 23, 9, 10 see the list of corrections above.
K can be read as an officina mark. See the list of corrections above on No. 23.
See the list of corrections above on No. 23.
On the monogram above see the list of corrections.
On the monogram above see the list of corrections on No. 24.
On the monogram above see the list of corrections under No. 27.
Nos. 40 and 41 may belong to the same issue, if it is possible to assume an error in Clerk’s reading of No. 41, of which there is no photograph. The two monograms and are similar enough to suggest misreading.
If No. 51, which has been here included in issue 4, is a separate issue, and if Nos. 2, 8, 12 (issue 7 above) represent three separate issues, the total number of issues must be raised to 46. If, on the other hand, No. 65 (issue 11 above) is to be included in issue 31 (see list of corrections under No. 65), and issues 36 and 37 are to be taken as one issue, we have 41 as the total number of issues. 21 We have, then, at the most forty-six years represented by Clerk’s list, which is comprehensive so far as we know. Assuming that there may have been issues coined in both 191 and 146, the period during which it was historically possible for Elis to strike Achaean League coins has not been overstepped. It is quite possible, however, that a few issues are still missing, and it is therefore perhaps best to accept tentatively 43 as the total number of issues, since this number seems to be the most reasonable on grounds already indicated.
It will be observed that the Elean coins in our hoard fall into seven issues (1–6, 9). If these issues represent seven consecutive years, and if we are right in our general chronological arrangement of the series, a terminus post quem may be set at 185 or 184, depending on whether or not Elis coined in 191. In the above list issues 7 and 8 were put before issue 9, because they had no monograms, but only simple letters to indicate officials. Because of the presence of the symbol on the coins in these two issues, if they are to precede issue 9, they should be put immediately before it. The presence of relatively few issues in our hoard, however, makes its date early in the series probable, and a hoard buried after so few issues had been coined might be expected to include all of them, certainly those most recently coined. Therefore it would perhaps be best to upset our chronology to the extent of putting issues 7 and 8 after issue 9. 22 But if the suggested chronological sequence is maintained, and the absence from our hoard of issues 7 and 8 is attributed to chance, the burial date is moved down to l83/l82. Altogether the evidence points to the years 185–2 as the extremes for the date of the burial of our hoard.
A possible interpretation of the name on the obverse was suggested by a chapter in Cousinéry’s Ess. sur les Monn. d’arg. de la ligue Achéenne, Paris, 1825, pp. 64 ff., where he discusses the meaning of the monograms on the coins. Without necessarily adopting his theory that in the cases where there are two monograms one is a patronymic, an interpretation of the full names as references to eponymous archons is attractive, although it would require a revision of the chronology suggested above. The fourteen coins recorded by Clerk as having names on the obverse would have to be redistributed here according to whether they bore on the reverse one monogram plus simple letters, or two monograms.
L. 66 has not been cited in any of the issues. Löbbecke himself refers to Cl. Nos. 259–261 (Nos. 31–33 in the Elean series; our issues 21–23). In his description he says: “Monogramm oben undeutlich,” and we may safely assume that the type belongs to one of the issues 21–23.
The evidence of Löbbecke’s hoard is in favor of putting our issues 7 and 8 after issue 10. His Nos. 38–44 and 46 are described as “erhalten mittel,” Nos. 45 and 47–66 as “erhalten gut”; our issues 7 and 8 include his Nos. 45 and 55. The evidence of relative condition must not of course be used too sharply, and the dates mentioned above for our hoard should stand, with a slight bias toward the year 185. For the whole series Löbbecke’s descriptions bear out the conclusions reached in this appendix by a different method. In his text (op. cit. p. 277 f) he selects as the freshest of the series his Nos. 61–66. Nos. 61–65 belong to the group which we have on other grounds put last in the series; No. 66 comes into the preceding group, but may well belong to the end of it.
The Achean League coins of Antigoneia fall into four types, each with a distinct style and marking. The evidence of our hoard provides a further, chronological distinction, and suggests that the coins were issued in the following order:
The coins in types 1 and 2 seem to have received the most use. Type 1 is not included in Löbbecke’s hoard, which suggests that it was issued first in the series, perhaps not long after 222, and type 2, of which he has only three coins, soon thereafter. Type 3, of which Löbbecke has only one representative, is in our hoard slightly less worn than types 1 and 2. Our coins of the fourth type, of which there are by far the largest number in both hoards (28 out of 45 coins in our hoards; 18 out of 22 in Löbbecke’s), are in good condition with one or two exceptions, where apparently the striking is at fault.
Taken all together the AN coins show signs of some use, and may be assigned to a period of prob- ably not more than thirty years after the renaming of the city, allowing for from five to ten years of use for the latest coins before 185. The fact that Löbbecke describes them all without discrimination as “erhalten mittel” is at first puzzling, in view of the evidence of our hoard. If, however, the presence in our hoard of all the known types, and their condition as a whole means that they were not issued after ca. 190, it is conceivable that by 146, after 45 years of continual use, this distinction between the types was obliterated.
For the trident coins, which in our hoard show at least as little wear as the AN series, Löbbecke (who assigns them to Mantinea) reports the same condition as for the Antigoneia coins, with one exception: No. 82. This coin has E ϒ to left and right of the League monogram, and is described as “erhalten schlecht.” The type is not represented in our hoard, but is listed by Clerk three times (op. cit., Nos. 190, 190a, 191), and by Gardner once (op. cit., p. 9.99). The fact that Löbbecke puts this coin in his category of coins in the worst state of preservation suggests that it was issued much earlier than the rest, unless this is a case of poor striking. Evidence from an isolated case cannot be pressed too hard, but it is at least worthy of notice in this connection that none of the coins of Elis is described by Löbbecke as “erhalten schlecht.” A possible inference is that coins so described by him can be dated well before 191. If L. 82 was issued considerably earlier than the other trident coins, its date should not be far from that of our first Antigoneia type, which has the same letters to left and right of the League monogram. We cannot be sure of precisely when Mantinea was given her new official name; it may be that this did not happen immediately after the city was recolonized by Aratus. L. 82, then, may have been issued shortly after the end of the Cleomenic War, when “order” had been established in the Peloponnese, and when Mantinea was an Achaean city by right of conquest, but not yet officially grateful to the Macedonians.