The coins of this hoard, 255 in number, appeared on the New York City market in the summer of 1950. No information as to where they had been found could be obtained. It was hinted, without any supporting evidence, that they came by way of Smyrna. The presence of a single Croesus half-stater points to a source in Asia Minor. Most of the coins had been cleaned so that it was not observable whether the original surface accretions were uniform. They were offered in two lots. The first consisted of twenty coins, including the half-stater of Croesus; these had been selected for their superior condition. The remainder, 235 in number, and all sigloi, were offered at a price lower than that for the first lot—a price so low that it was apparent that there was slight hope of finding a buyer, and one so low that the original finder must have received very little for them. It was averred that these 255 coins comprised the entire hoard. In my judgment there can be little doubt that both lots came from a single hoard.
The data to be derived from published hoards containing sigloi is disappointing.1 A large find is known to have been made in Calymna in 1823, but aside from the statement that there were several thousand sigloi along with satrapal issues for Asia Minor, we get very little information.2 Of a hoard found near Sardis in 1863 we are told that forty-four staters and eleven half-staters of Croesus were examined along with 145 sigloi,3 an interesting parallel to the present hoard. Dr. Regling noted a hoard from Smyrna in the Constantinople Collection, 149 in number, many countermarked and hammered flat along with four in halves—the condition doesn't promise much should this "bullion" hoard some day become available for study.4 Mr. Newell's Cilician Hoard,4a contained 49 sigloi, most which were so hacked and counter-marked as to make die-identification difficult. In 1916, a small hoard of 55 pieces which came from Smyrna was described by Dr. J. Grafton Milne5 and some important facts for the later groups emerged. A segment of a hoard published by E. S. G. Robinson6 contained two sigloi which are described as having the same reverse die as a daric. A recent contribution from the pen of the same writer describes seven sigloi from a Mesopotamian hoard which has long been in the possession of the British Museum.7 A discussion of the bearing of these on the dating of our hoard will follow the cataloguing of its contents.
In the brief descriptions which follow, no attempt is made to differentiate the obverse dies because wear or the exigencies of striking make certainty as to any die identity between two specimens difficult. The sequential order is established independently, primarily from the numerical representations of the punch dies. In Group I the pieces from the same punch die are obvious on Plate I and are further indicated in the catalogue by the numbering.8 Among the pieces coming late in the hoard, Nos. 165-184 are from the same pair of dies, but only four of these (and one enlargement) are shown on the plates. Pieces having obverse or reverse enlarged are marked with an asterisk. Many of the coins selected for enlargement have been chosen in order to show their countermarks. A few of the countermarks which occur on the edges are enlarged on Plate XV. For the other countermarks, reference is made, where possible, to identical or similar ones in the table contained in Mr. Newell's "A Cilician Find" (Numismatic Chronicle, 1914, p. 5) or to the British Museum Catalogue for Arabia, Mesopotamia and Persia, p. cxxxvii, abbreviated to H. (= Hill No.).
|1.||Lydia, Croesus. Foreparts of lion and bull, facing. Rev. Two incuse squares, the one at the left the smaller.||5.31|
|Bearded figure, running or kneeling to right, crowned with kidaris and clad in kandys, with quiver at his back, spear in right hand and bow in left. The arrangement is by reverse-punches in lots, indicated by the numbering, of from one to three, with those considered the simplest in form being given precedence.|
|2.||Simplest form of incuse reverse; cf. E. Babelon, Les Perses Achéménides, Pl. I, 3–4.||5.56|
|3*–5.||Identical reverses; flaw at left edge, two flecks to right of center. Obverses from three dies.||5.47, 5.60, 5.55|
|6.||Reverse less simple. On edge, countermark, Plate XV,, I; cf. BMC, Arabia, cxxxvii, No. 81.||5.43|
|* Hereinafter abbreviated to H. 81 (i.e., Hill No. —).|
|7–9.*||Identical reverses. Note irregular flan of No. 9.||5.48, 5.52, 5.63|
|10–11.*||Punch shows fish-shaped element to left of center.||4.67, 5.58|
|12*–13.||Punch shows snake-like element at left edge.||5.55, 5.56|
|14–15.||Note relative sizes of flans.||5.45, 5.43|
|16–17.||Surface of punch roughened; impress deeper.||5.53, 5.45|
|18–19.||Top of punch wider than bottom. On obverse, surface of field shows plowing with tiny chiselmarks made in the die.||5.53, 5.55|
|20*–21.||Spear tip outlined (see enlargement). No. 21 has small countermark (repeated) in left field.||5.62, 5.55|
|22*–23.*||Note alterations to reverse punch.||5.58, 5.33|
|24.||Punch unusually sharp; may be a recut stage for that of Nos. 12–13. It is identical with Cilician Hoard No. 114 not illustrated by Newell, but in his collection.||5.62|
|25.*||Note bevel toward rim in left field of obverse. Countermarks on obverse and reverse.||5.61|
|26.*||Quiver and handle of spear well defined; head dispro-proportionately large.||5.45|
|27.||Obverse countermark applied three times (cf. No. 6 and H. 8 and 81). Two additional on edge: a. Plate XV,, 2 and b. similar to H. 95.||5.53|
|28.||Bevel in left field of obverse.||5.66|
|Eleven coins with same punch die (A) distinguished by a fish-shaped element to left of center. The left edge of the punch breaks down and unites with this element as the die becomes worn.|
|29.||Countermark, Plate XV, 13, on edge as on Nos. 5 and 206.||5.57|
|31.||Countermark on obverse. H. 19. Plate XV, 8.||5.55|
|32–37.||5.58, 5.53, 5.52, 5.45, 5.51, 5.58|
|38.||Two incomplete countermarks on edge. a. Plate XV , 13?|
|On reverse, cf. H. 150. On obverse, gouge (not countermark).||5.57|
|39.||Countermark on edge like H. 6, Plate XV,, 3, and Newell No. 36; a second incomplete.||5.43|
|Twenty-six coins with punch-die B, marked by an element resembling a barley-corn to the right and slightly above the center. Above, and near the top, a slightly larger globule.|
|40.*||Coin notably thicker at lower left.||5.57|
|41.||Flan unusual in shape.||5.60|
|42.||Imperfectly applied countermark at lower left on obverse, possibly H.||95. 5.47|
|43.*||Eagle's head countermark on obverse, Plate XV,, 4 (like that on No. 62).||5.58|
|44.||Irregular flan with distinctive edge.||5.45|
|45.||Countermark on obverse, triskeles; obverse badly pitted; punch weakly impressed.||5.46|
|46.||Countermark superimposed on royal figure, cf. H. 205.||5.62|
|48.||Triskeles countermark on obverse as on No. 45.||5.55|
|50.||Weak edge; countermark resembling H. 6 or H. 7 and No. 39 preceding.||5.67|
|51.||Countermark in right field of obverse; cf. Newell 20 and H. 148.||5.55|
|52–54.||5.57, 5.57, 5.55|
|55.||Indeterminate countermark(?) in left field of obverse. On reverse, wheel-shaped countermark (cf. H. 38) applied inside punch-impress.||5.58|
|58.*||Note that flattened bubble in right field has received impress of obverse die. Further bubbles show on edge.||5.52|
|59.||Flan slightly cupped because of punch impact. Note reverse flattening at extreme right.||5.52|
|62.||Eagle's head countermark, Plate XV, 4, on obverse like that on No. 43. On edge, countermark slightly resembling a fleur-de-lys.||5.57|
|63.||Ram's or calf's head to right, Plate XV,, 7, counter-marked on obverse. Illustration inverted on plate.||5.43|
|64.||Countermark on obverse remotely like H. 108.||5.53|
|Eighteen coins from punch die C. A crescent-shaped element at the lower left has its slightly thickened upper tip joined to the left edge of the punch; an irregularly lentoid shape at the center is in some specimens joined to the upper edge by a thin line. This punch occurs in Cilician Hoard but the coin on which it occurs is marked by Mr. Newell as "Not described."|
|66.||Incomplete countermark superimposed on regal figure on obverse. On reverse, a second stamp resembles a crude mask ( Plate XV,, 8) and two gouges may have been countermarks. Cf. Newell 26.||5.57|
|68.||Obverse field at lower left weak because reverse punch is off center, as well as because of ↑ ↖ relation of the dies.||5.58|
|69.||Large flan with both sides nearly complete.||5.58|
|70.||Ring-shaped countermark on obverse at lower right; on reverse, boar's(?) head ( Plate XV,, 9) to left.||5.47|
|71.||Triskeles countermark as on Nos. 45 and 48.||5.46|
|72.||Cross-like countermark in left field below top of spear; also occurs on No. 405 of Hoard II.||5.56|
|75.||Left edge shows resemblance to lamination.||5.57|
|76.||Note irregular edge.||5.45|
|77.||Two countermarks on obverse, animal head ( Plate XV,, 10) like that on reverse of No. 70 (boar?) and quatrefoil.||5.62|
|78.||Punch die off center, and left portion of obverse thicker.||5.43|
|79.||Reverse shows lamination at left.||5.46|
|80.*||Four cavities show on obverse; edge bubbled.||5.55|
|83.||Countermark on reverse, interlaced or repeated crescents. The edge is exceptionally rough and thick; the punch is weakly impressed. Edge countermark, Plate XV,, 11.||5.58|
|Thirteen coins from punch D. A short triangle-shaped element is pendant from the top edge. The left edge shows a breakdown at its midpoint. The large element at the extreme right undergoes modifications, a blunting of the origina 1(?) shape shown in No. 86 rather than recutting. Possibly an earlier state of Punch E.|
|84.||Note that line of spear is not straight.||5.60.|
|85.||Bubble shows at top on obverse.||5.58|
|86.||Note on reverse, excrescence at right.||5.57|
|87.*||Figure in unusually high relief (recut?); note curve to spear. Enlargement on Plate XI..||5.60|
|88.||Flan unusually small.||5.53|
|89.*||Thickness of flan is cause of smallness of obverse dieimpress.||5.65|
|90–92.||5.54, 5.55, 5.55|
|93–94.||Possibly same obverse die.||5.58, 5.62|
|Forty-two coins from punch die E. Long element shaped like an arm, extends from the upper right to the middle of the lower edge. A tiny fissure shows at the lower left corner. Sometimes another fissure shows parallel to the right edge.|
|97.||On obverse, a gouge (not countermark) behind head.||5.57|
|98–101.||5.50, 5.51, 5.48, 5.55|
|102.||Gouge, not countermark, on torso of figure.||5.53|
|103.*||Note very thick bow-string.||5.57|
|104.||Countermark like that on No. 21.||5.53|
|105–108.||5.62, 5.60, 5.60, 5.57|
|109.*||Note edge and shape of flan.||5.60|
|110.||On obverse, note bevel in right field.||5.62|
|111.||Reverse shows rough edge at top and gouge in right field.||5.58|
|The obverses of Nos. 112-138 are alike and convincingly from the same die. Such differences as are observable could be explained as due to ineffectual striking, re-cutting or circulation wear. Die-flaws which are visible on some coins are off-flan on others. If more than one die is represented, the copying has been very accurate.|
|112–119.||5.45, 5.52, 5.51, 5.60, 5.60, 5.40, 5.62, 5.60|
|120–125.||These pieces show a peculiar doubling of the upper part of the bow, best seen in No. 121. There is also visible a roughened surface at the lower left, apparently caused by the course of a tiny chisel in an effort to modify the relief of the figure.||543, 5.62, 5.57, 5.52, 5.53, 5.67|
|126–132.||5.58, 5.57, 555, 5.53, 5.53, 5.56, 5.40|
|133–138.||5.57, 5.61, 562, 5.58, 5.50, 5.58|
|This punch has two nearly equivalent fish-shaped elements, the one to the left joined at the top to the left edge; the other, slightly higher on the flan and to the right of its center. Above them, and slightly to the left of the medial line from top to bottom, a small globule in low relief.|
|139.*||Note irregularity of flan.||5.55|
|140.||Triskeles countermark; differs from Nos. 45,48 and 71.||5.59|
|143.*||Turtle-shaped countermark on obverse (cf. H. 100). On edge, countermark similar to H. 94.||5.53|
|144–145.||Note edges.||5.40, 5.52|
|146.*||On obverse, one or more indeterminate countermarks in right field; on reverse, countermark shaped like letter pi. The crack in the flan extends through to the obverse.||5.62|
|147.||Note that form of obverse is due to flan not having been flattened sufficiently.||5.55|
|148–151.||5.34, 5.45, 5.55, 5.51|
|152–153.||Note distinctive edges showing on the reverse.||5.54, 5.48|
|154.||Edge shows fold in metal; flan thicker to right of obverse. Crescent countermark on obverse.||5.47|
|155.||Quatrefoil and second countermark like that on Nos. 70 and 77. Note nearly perfect impress of punch die made possible by shape of the flan.||5.54|
|156.||Two countermarks on obverse: (1) X (cf. 72 and B 405); (2) X within square.||5.54|
|157.||Four countermarks: on obverse, (1) X (cf. 156); (2) indistinguishable (cf. H. 68); on edge, (3) similar to Nos. 64, 108 and 143; on reverse (4) tetraskeles (cf. No. 25).||5.51|
|159.*||Well centered and well struck.||5.49|
|160.||Die-positions ↑↗; as a result, bow not struck up.||5.57|
|162.*||Countermark on reverse shaped like a spread lambda.||5.53|
|163.*||Rough edge shows bubble.||5.62|
|164.||Die-positions ↑↗; countermark ( Plate XV,, 13) as on Nos. 64, 108, 143 and 157.||5.58|
|This die shows the enlarged elements of the first state (especially the globule and the one to the right) and a tiny letter A added just below the mid-point. Nos. 165-184 are from the same pair of dies.|
|165.*||Note surface in lower left field in enlargement.||5.51|
|166–170.||First three pieces illustrated.||5.49, 5.49, 5.58, 5.53|
|171.*||Reverse enlarged on Plate X. Die-positions.|
|172–177.||5.59, 5.51, 5.51, 5.52, 5.53, 5.60|
|178–184.||5.54, 5.54, 5.62, 5.55, 5.54, 5.54, 5.49|
|185–191.||5.53, 5.54, 5.46, 5.52, 5.59, 5.53, 5.51|
|192.*||Note stringy bubble at top.||5.52|
|193–194.*||Reverse of No. 194 enlarged.||5.59, 5.56|
|195.||Spear-point and bow unusually clear.||5.56|
|196–197.*||Reverse of No. 197 enlarged.||5.55, 5.55|
|198–201.||5.52, 5.56, 5.52, 5.52|
|202.||The bow is complete; note curved line of string.||5.55|
|203.*||Note doubled line of bow-string in enlargement.||5.53|
|204.||Die-position t ↑↖.||5.56|
|205.||Gouge in lower left field of obverse.||5.47|
|206.||Countermark ( Plate XV,, 13) as on Nos. 5, 29, 164 (on edge).||5.60|
|207–212.||Figure slightly reduced in scale.||549, 5.60, 5.49, 5.52, 5.49, 5.57|
|213.||Triskeles (cf. 140) countermarked in left field of obverse; on reverse second countermark shaped like an eye ( Plate XV, 14); on edge, indecipherable stamp.||5.53|
|214–217.||5.54, 5.53, 5.60, 5.50|
|218.||Stringy bubble at lower right of obverse.||5.47|
|219.||Countermark like that on No. 51; gouge on exergual line.||5.44|
|221.*||Note discontinuous line of spear.||5.50|
|223.*||Obverse countermark like one on No. 143 but smaller in scale; the edge-countermark ( Plate XV , 15).||5.52|
|225.||Quatrefoil countermarked in right field of obverse.||5.47|
|226–229.||548, 5.44, 5.56, 5.55|
|230.||Die-break at top of obverse; bubbles on edge.||5.54|
|234–237.||5.47, 548, 5.65, 5.52|
|238.||On reverse lambda-shaped countermark in triangular punch.||5.54|
|239–245.||5.52, 5.49, 5.56, 5.58, 5.55, 5.55, 5.50|
|246–251.||5.57, 5.50, 5.49, 5.53, 5.53, 5.58|
|252.||Bow complete; line of spear straight.||5.52|
|254.*||Note die-flaws in field and line of spear.||5.53|
Excepting for Group I, in which have been placed those lots of coins from identical punch-dies which number three or less, the coins have been segregated into groups each from a single punch-die. Thus, the coins in Group II were all struck with Punch A, Group III with Punch B, and so on. Primarily, the order of the groups is determined by the number of coins within each. Using the accepted principles of hoard interpretation, the more numerous groups are considered the latest, the progressively less numerous the earlier. In the case of Punch F, there are two states of the die, with 26 specimens from the first state (Group VII) and 91 from the other (Group VIII). Those from the modified die must, of course, be the later, and since Group VIII is the largest section of the hoard, it is in consequence to be considered the latest as well. By the same token, Group V with thirteen coins from one punch-die has been placed to precede Group VI with forty-two coins from another reverse die.
The arrangement of the groups, however, has not been based solely on the number of pieces from the same reverse punch. An additional criterion, style, had to be called into play. On the confronting Plate IX and X are the coins of Group VIII with the second state of F as their reverse punch. Twelve obverses (out of 39) on Plate X have a distinctively "neat" or finished style. Those on Plate IX (representing 51 pieces) show a style that is far from "neat" and which is not uniform. Because of their greater crudity, the pieces on Plate IX ordinarily might be considered earlier and even much earlier, were it not for the fact that they bear the impress of the same punch die. The following table shows the proportion between the neat and crude style representations in the earlier groups.
|Rev. Punch||Neat obverse||Crude obverse|
These proportions and the comparison on the basis of style involves a question of workmanship and provides support for a conclusion that the neat style indicates one (or more) innovators among the die-cutters at the producing mint. The comparison of obverse dies is so unsatisfactory and inconclusive that I have been unable to satisfy myself that the same obverse die occurs in more than one group.
The enlargements, in addition to offering evidence concerned with technique, support the comparisons of style. Previous efforts at classification have attempted to find portrait characteristics in the royal features which might permit assignment to individual rulers. The enlarged obverses show that this is what one would like to discover rather than what one sees. Throughout the coinage until we reach the latest issues in our hoard (in what we have called the neat style), the figure is presented with a head much larger in scale than the body to which it is affixed. In the earlier pieces, the features have a simplified form. The nose is represented by a straight line with a pellet to the left to indicate the nostril. The eye is almond-shaped or globular. Usually, the globular shape has come about as the result of wear. Even in the latest of our groups, the eye has not yet reached the profile form in which it is given on so many Greek coins by 400 B.C. (cf. enlargements of Nos. 221 and 231). The lips in the earliest issues in the hoard are represented by short double lines which give them undue prominence. The voluminous beard is effective in concealing any connection between the head and the torso.
Was the intent the depiction of the royal figure as running rather than kneeling? A kneeling ruler would hardly have needed both bow and spear, but neither is royalty to be thought of as running or even hurrying. But even if running be accepted as the intention, the success of the presentation is scarcely convincing because the exergual line is frequently off-flan, and the absence of any relation to a ground-line provides a touch of caricature owing to the undue length of the trailing right leg.
Between the earliest and latest issues in the hoard there is an intermediate style which can be best observed in the enlargements of Nos. 87, 103 and 109. Here the royal features have fullness of cheek combined with a button nose and a globular eye which bring them into strong contrast with pre- ceding issues. These pieces must have been contemporaneous, for they share identical punch dies. If they are to be considered as a transition in style rather than the marks of individuality of one of the die-cutters, their number seems to indicate use for more than a brief period.
A glance at Plate X will show the vast improvement in the style previously referred to as the "neat" style. The features of the figure are now naturalistic, with notable improvement in the treatment of the eye. The head, though still disproportionately large has a better relationship to the rest of the body. There seems to be a slight reduction in the scale of the whole and this occasionally permits the bow to appear on the flan. The disturbing line of the spear seems intentionally minimized. It is in the head, however, that most of the improvement is to be recognized.
The latest issues in the hoard, 91 in number, are from the second state of punch-die F. But although the obverses in what we have termed the neat style preponderate, the proportion of sigloi showing the cruder style, similar to what we find in the earlier groups, is impressive. The dies in the neat style are closely alike, so much so, in fact, as to lead one to think they might have come from the same die and that the slight differences were due to die alterations or repairs combined with defective strikings or wear. Certain coins within this last group are unquestionably from the same pair of dies (Nos. 165–184).
The reverse die F in its two states, is the most remarkable phenomenon of Hoard I. For, after having its details altered by re-cutting, there was added what appears to be the Greek letter A (possibly lambda). This letter, if letter it be, is raised on the coins and consequently must have been engraved on the top-most boss of the deepened die—compare the enlargement on Plate X. No similar occurrence of a Greek letter on the Persian coinage is known to me, and I have no explanation to offer.
Do the die-positions indicate the use of hinged dies? They do show that the same part of the punch is uniformly opposite (i.e., behind) the head of the figure. This might have been accomplished by having a mark or notch on each of the dies, so that these marks could be brought into alignment or near-alignment before striking. Ordinarily, this would result in the die-position ⇈. We find, however, an occasional deviation either to right or left for a relatively slight angle, and this is the cause of some of the imperfect or incomplete obverse impressions. In my judgment this deviation is not intentional.
With the favorable conditions found in this hoard, we may seek the reason for the variations in size and the irregularities in shape of flan of the sigloi. There is no indication of the employment of the method of preparing blanks used in Sicily, so convincingly elucidated by Sir George Hill.10 In proportion to their size, the sigloi are thick, and this affords a considerable edge-surface which is not reached by either of the dies in striking. These edges occasionally show small bubble-like excrescences (Nos. 58, 83, 245), and frequently have folds (Nos. 27, 66, 221), ridges (Nos. 12, 44, 230) or lumpiness (Nos. 59, 76, 139, 146, 153, 158).11 Surface-holes such as may be seen on the enlargement of No. 80 (there are five of them on this piece) are not frequent, but they sometimes occur on the edges. Such conditions must have been the result of the forming process.
Having the effect before us, can the cause be deduced? What are the observable factors?
The implications of the countermarks on the sigloi in this hoard are very interesting. In the first place, their paucity is significant. The large numbers of coins from the same die-combinations may be interpreted as indicating that their place of burial cannot have been far from the mint in which they were struck. The absence of these bankers' or moneychangers' marks has a double significance: (1) The coins would have been recognized as acceptable without the guarantee of the countermark, that is, what circulation they did see must have been inside an area in which there was little questioning of the purity of the metal of which they were composed or of any other condition that was the cause of having them countermarked. That the coins had seen circulation will be apparent from a glance at the plates, but their weights do not vary widely and the countermarks would therefore not have been applied for certifying that they were of standard weight. (2) Of the 254 sigloi in this hoard, only 40 are countermarked. Some of these forty bear more than one countermark, and occasionally the same countermark occurs on more than one of them. The number of times the countermark is found on the edge, fourteen, is surprising. So, too, is the circumstance that the occurrence on the edge is almost invariably in conjunction with a countermark on either the obverse or reverse. In only two instances (Nos. 46 and 66) is the mark placed on the body of the kneeling figure. Such a placement upon the royal figure was considered sacrilegious.13 On the obverse, the mark is most frequently placed in the left field where it will not interfere with the figure. On the reverse it occurs on either side of the punch, and also within the punch itself. (3) If the accepted interpretation of the cause for these countermarks as bankers' signets is the correct one, they must have either a local or personal significance. There seems no good reason why they may not also have been a small-scale "international" banker's signets. But even then they would have had a limited recognition and acceptance, and whatever the signet guaranteed would have been given recognition within a well-defined area. In another hoard a siglos has been found which bore not less than seven of these marks.13a The largest number on a single coin in this hoard is four (No. 157). A table of such marks has been published by Mr. Hill in BMC, Arabia (p. cxxxvii) but this makes no claim to completeness. Many of the pieces in our hoard bear marks occurring in that table. There are also marks not hitherto recorded, and because photographic enlargements are more accurate than line drawings, they are reproduced in that manner. Among those with animal types, Nos. 43 and 62 represent an eagle's head to left ( Plate XV, 4). No. 63 has the head of a calf or ram to right (inverted on Plate XV, 7). No. 77 is less clearly impressed. I take it to be a boar's head ( Plate XV, 10); it is not unlike the animal head on the early issues of Phaselis. Some of the signets enlarged on Plate XV are distorted by the shadows (e. g., Nos. 11, 16, 21 and 31), whether due to impressions which are too deep or the opposite.
There are also several countermarks which use some form of the triskeles or tetraskeles (Nos. 25, 27, 45, 48, 71, 140, 213). It is natural to associate these with Lycia and to recall the heavy proportions of animate forms among the countermarks which are found on the coins of Selge and Aspendus. Imperfections in the applications of these countermarks make it difficult to establish that two independent occurrences are from the same signet-die. I do find, however, four of those which occur in this hoard among those represented in Mr. Newell's "Cilician Hoard" (N97 with 238; N114 with 156; N100 with 51 and possibly 50; N115 with 66). These are similar in form rather than being identical signets. An edge countermark on No. 223 is unusually distinctive and seems not to have been previously published ( Plate XV,, 15).
Believing that a chemical analysis of one of the coins of this hoard would prove significant, we turned to one of our members who had been most generous with his help on earlier occasions, Prof. Earle R. Caley of Ohio State University, whose response is printed in full:
|13a||Num. Chron., 4th ser., XVI (1916), p. 2, no. 5.|
|10||The practice there started from the globule which was obtained by casting. "The blank was cast in a spherical mould made of two hemispherical halves. The metal flowed into the joint between the two halves making a sort of equatorial ridge around the blank." The globule was then flattened and afterwards placed between the two dies. Cf Nurn Chron., 5th ser., II (1922), p. 6.|
|11||Only rarely is there a splitting of the flan (cf. No. 146) such as is common in larger pieces and which is usually explained as having been caused by striking while the flan was still heated because of annealing Nos. 58, 139, and 146 show flans with sections which seem almost separated from the body of the coin.|
|12||Klio, XIV (1915), p. 98.|
|13||Cf. Edward T. Newell, "A Cilician Find," Num. Chron., 4th ser. XIV (1914), p. 28.|
"Dear Mr. Noe:
We have completed our analysis of the specimen of a Persian siglos that you sent in May. The results are as follows:
I have been able to locate only four previous analyses of sigloi. Lenormant14 gives results of determinations of the silver content of two specimens and Bibra15 gives chemical analyses of two others. The two specimens listed by Lenormant contained 93.0% and 94.0%, and these results were probably obtained by fire assay. The analyses made by Bibra gave the following results:
"It will be seen that the silver content of the specimen you sent is noticeably higher than that of the four previously examined. Just what this means in terms of chronology or place of mintage I am unable to say, as we lack the necessary data on coins of this type. I believe, however, that it may be significant. A higher degree of fineness is usually associated with an earlier date of issue in a given series, and this may be true here. The presence of lead and the low gold content of this specimen indicates that the silver was obtained from lead-silver ore, probably galena, and not from electrum.
"Thanking you for the opportunity of analyzing this specimen, I am
(Signed) Earle R. Caley
(July 16, 1951)
|14||Lenormant, F., Lamonnaiedansl' antiquité (Paris, 1878-1879), Vol. 1, p. 190.|
|15||E. von Bibra, Über alte Eisen- und Silber-Funde (Nürnberg and Leipzig, 1873), p. 41.|
|4a||Ibid., No. 252. Referred to as Newell's Cilician Hoard.|
|1||Cf. E. S. G. Robinson, "A Silversmith's Hoard from Mesopotamia," in Iraq, XII (1950), pp. 49ff. Referred to as Robinson's Mesopotamian Hoard.|
|2||Sydney P. Noe, A Bibliography of Greek Coin Hoards (Second Edition) (NNM No. 78), No. 189.|
|3||Ibid., No. 923.|
|4||Ibid., No. 993.|
|5||Ibid., No. 493.|
|6||Ibid., No. 84.|
|7||Iraq, XII (1950), p. 47.|
|8||Beginning with Group II, there is but a single punch die for each group. These dies are lettered A to F.|
Before the previously described hoard was ready for publication, a second much larger find came into my hands in 1952. It was received in several separate parcels, and its finding place was stated to have been Tchal, a small town about forty miles east of Smyrna. The coins were of fairly uniform surface and appearance. A few were partly covered with a hard brown incrustation which refused to yield to ordinary cleaning methods.
The total received comprised 652 coins: 212 half-staters of Croesus, 53 sigloi with the half-figure of the king, 127 with the royal figure carrying bow and spear and 260 drawing the bow alone. The only observable connection with the previously described hoard was in the relatively small proportion of countermarks and in the repetition of some of them. The second largest group of the sigloi, strangely enough, was, with one exception, entirely free from countermarks; the condition of the coins suggests that this group was later than the others. Also notable was the circumstance that the Croeseids were countermarked more often than the sigloi, a few of which latter bore test marks made with a tiny chisel as well. As with the first hoard, it was possible to group the sigloi according to their reverse punches. It was also possible to group the Croeseids in the same manner, and there were some interesting results when this was done. The conclusions regarding the manner of preparing the flans of the sigloi before striking, as deduced from the pieces in the first hoard, were found to hold with this larger number, and it seemed that practically the same conditions also extended to preparation of the blanks for the Croeseids.
The recording of this hoard presented problems. The large number of coins (652) in Hoard II as well as the condition of some of them precluded the possibility of reproducing every piece for publication. However, it was important to make a record of the entire hoard. The coins were arranged carefully in a progressive order determined by the size of lots having the same reverses and then photographed in that order. This permanent record is on file at the American Numismatic Society. Since the time available for studying the coins was definitely limited, this course had to be taken without cleaning the coins first. I am happy to acknowledge the great helpfulness of Mr. Ireton Benson, who volunteered to weigh most of the coins of the hoard. His help to me in checking questions of die-identities makes my obligation to him a very heavy one.
It was possible for the Society to acquire the most significant specimens. These are illustrated on Plate XII to XIV. Of the Croesus half-staters 18 were selected; of the group with the half-figure, 12; of the group with the royal figure carrying both bow and spear, herein considered the latest of the groups, 12 pieces were chosen (Hoard I, acquired as a whole, contained 254 coins of this type): of the largest group of sigloi, herein considered the earliest, with the royal figure carrying bow alone, 26 out of 260 were selected. Many selections were dictated by the unusual edge countermarks, with the result that some pieces are worn and some encrusted.
In the catalogue which follows, minute variations have not been indicated. Wherever possible, the pieces have been combined into groups with the descriptions preceding. As with Hoard I, countermark identities are numbered according to Hill's table in BMC, Arabia, p. cxxxvii, and this reference is abbreviated to H. (Hill). For countermark forms, most of which are new and many of which are edge countermarks, reference is made to Plate XV,.
Pieces of which no other occurrences of either of the reverse punch dies have been identified in this hoard.
Lydia, Croesus. Foreparts of lion and bull, facing.
Rev. Two incuse squares, the one at the left the smaller.
|19.||Three edge countermarks:|
|a. Plate XV,, 16; b. XV, 17; c. XV, 38?||5.21|
|20.||Edge countermark, Griffon head, Plate XV, 18||5.40|
|21.||Countermark on obverse lion, also occurs on reverse of No. 144 (illustrated).||5.28|
|22.||Three countermarks: a. H. 4? on obverse; b. H. 43; c. reversed Z on reverse.||5.37|
|23.||Two countermarks: a. H. 2? on obverse; H. 43 on edge.||5.30|
|24.||Two countermarks: a. H. 53 (twice on reverse), occurs also on 252; b. Crescent on obverse, H. 50?||5.38|
|Varieties of which there are two specimens from the same pair of punch dies.|
|29–30.||No. 30 bears countermark H. 156 on obverse||5.34–5.24|
|31–32.||No. 32 bears countermark XV, 31 on edge||5.31–5.26|
|38.||Two edge countermarks: a. Human foot, XV, 19; b. Bull or goat's head r., XV, 20||5.46|
|43–44.||No. 44 with reverse countermark H. 90?||5.32–5.30|
|Varieties which have differing obverses but the same reverse punch dies.|
|49–50. to 65–66.||5.30–5.38|
|Varieties occurring in three specimens of which one or more of the reverse punch dies are identical. (Certainty of identity of obverses often impossible)|
|67–69.||Obverses all different; Reverses small punch 2/1||5.35, 5.32, 5.39|
|70–72.||Obverses all different; Reverses identical||5.36, 5.41, 5.37|
|73–75.||Obverses all different; Reverses identical||5.35, 5.29, 5.36|
|76–78.||Obverses all different; Reverses, small punch 2/1||5–39, 5.34, 5.43|
|79–81.||Obverses all different; Reverses, large punch 2/1||5.32, 5.36, 5.27|
|82–84.||Obverses all different; Reverses identical 5.37, 5.30?, 5.22 No. 84 bears countermark H. 43|
|85–87.||Reverses identical; No. 85 bears countermark H. 195? No. 86, Plate XV,, 33; No. 87, bears three countermarks on edge: a. H. 42; b. Griffon head (twice); c. Plate XV,, 23.||5.22, 5.18, 5.24|
|Varieties occurring in four specimens on one or more of which one to three of the small punches of the reverse combine with identical large punches.|
|88–91.||On No. 90, two countermarks; a. H. 43; b. H. 2? On No. 91 countermark H. 83?||5.32, 5.37, 5.33, 5.35|
|92–95.||5.29, 5.36, 5.35, 5.32|
|Varieties with five specimens having identities in either or both of the punch dies.|
|96–100.||Large punch 4/1; small punch 3/2||wt. 5.22–5.36|
|101–105.||Reverse punches the same for all five pieces||5.25–5.39|
|106–109.||Reverse punches the same for all four pieces||5.32–5.37|
|110.||Punches as on 106–9; edge countermark as on 157||5.32|
|111–115.||Both reverse punches the same for all five pieces||5.32–5.37|
|116–120.||Small punch 3/2; five obverses the same?||5.25–5.46|
|121–125.||Both reverse punches the same for all five pieces||5.30–5.38|
|126–130.||Both reverse punches the same for all five pieces||5.30–5.39|
|Varieties with seven specimens having identities in either or both of the punch dies.|
|131–137.||Both punches the same for all seven pieces; No. 136 bears countermark H. 43 plus test chisel cut; No. 137, obverse countermark (see Plate XI.I); b. Similar to H. 59.||5.32–5.36|
|138–144.||Small punch 6/1; No. 144 has on obverse repeated countermark H. 208 (see Plate XI.I), b. reverse mark as on No. 21 and c. indeterminate countermark||5.33–5.41|
|145–151.||Large punch same for all seven pieces; small punch a. same for 145, 147 and 151; punch b. same for 148, 149, 150; small punch c. 146. No. 151 has an edge countermark a recumbent goat, Plate XV,, 25.||5.27–5.38|
|Varieties with eight specimens having both of the punch dies identical.|
|152–159.||No. 157 has edge countermarks a. Plate XV,, 26; b. H. 42 as on Nos. 87 and 573?; c. Plate XV,, 27, also on No. 110; d. cf. H. 54 (repeated); e. H. 43. No. 158 has edge countermark Plate XV,, 31; No. 159 has edge countermark Plate XV,, 31 as on Nos. 158 and 197.||5.26–5.40|
|Varieties with nine specimens having both punches identical.|
|160–168.||No. 167 bears countermark H. 90?; No. 168 an indefinite mark, possibly Plate XV,, 28||5.23–5.38|
|169–177.||No. 176 bears obverse countermark similar to Plate XV, 33; No. 177 has countermarks a. Plate XV,, 31 on edge; b. Plate XV, 29 on edge; c. on reverse H.54?||5.32–5.39|
|Varieties with eleven specimens each having both punches identical.|
|178–188.||Nos. 183–188 have same obverse die; No. 187 bears countermark Plate XV,, 30.||5.29–5.38|
|189–199.||No. 197 has edge countermark Plate XV, 31; No. 198 has obverse mark triskeles; No. 199 has on obverse countermark bull's-head left on lion's snout and b. Plate XV,, 32 (H. 133 reversed) on edge.||5.27–5.40|
|Variety with thirteen specimens each having both punches identical.|
|200–212.||No. 211 bears obverse countermark of two pellets; compare Nos. 144 and 394; No. 212 has edge mark Plate XV,, 31.|
|Bearded figure kneeling to right, wearing crown and kandys (robe), drawing bow and with quiver at his back; an exergual line is frequently off-flan. Reverse: Oblong punch-impress.|
|213.||Singleton with small-scale figure and simplified reverse.||5.32|
|214–215.||Same obverse and reverse dies||5–34, 5–26|
|216–219.||Four pieces from same reverse die||5.31–5.40|
|220–225.||Six pieces from same reverse die||5.33–5.43|
|226–232.||Seven pieces from same reverse die||5.30–5.40|
|233–243.||Eleven pieces from same reverse die; No. 242 bears three countermarks, a. Plate XV,, 36; b. Plate XV,, 35; c. Plate XV,, 34. No. 243 has mark as Plate XV,, 35||5.31–5.38|
|244–254.||Eleven pieces having same reverse; No. 254 has countermark as on Plate XV,, 37||5.19–5.39|
|255–266.||Twelve pieces with same reverse; No. 264 has mark H. 54; No. 265 has crossed chisel marks on edge; No. 266 bears countermark Plate XV,, 39.||5.20–5.37|
|267–285.||Nineteen pieces from same reverse die.||5.22–5.40|
|286–306.||Twenty-one pieces from same reverse die; No. 306 bears two countermarks, a. H. 42 (also on 393) cf. Plate XI.V, b. cf. H. 100||532–5.43|
|307–333.||Twenty-seven pieces from same reverse die.||530–5.42|
|334–364.||Thirty-one pieces from same reverse die.||5.31–5.43|
|365–396.||Thirty-two pieces from same obverse die; No. 392 bears indeterminate countermark, possibly H. 104; No. 393 has H. 42 (cf. 306); No. 394 bears on obverse mark having two pellets in diamond—cf. No. 211; No. 395, three countermarks, a. Plate XV,, 39 (repeated), b. on obverse cf. illustr. Plate XI.V (also on No. 511); c. Plate XV,, 38; No. 396, Plate XV,, 31||5.12–5.40|
|397–433.||Thirty-seven pieces from same reverse die.||5.29–5.42|
|434–472.||Thirty-nine pieces from same reverse die. Nos. 434–438 show top of crown in exergue. No. 438 bears crescent countermark on obverse. No. 439 bears countermark H. 54 on reverse (also on 264). Nos. 440–450 from same obverse and reverse as 434–438. Nos. 451–458 from single obverse and from same reverse as Nos. 434–438. Nos. 459–472 with incrustation or wear which make obverse die comparisons uncertain.||5–26-5.45|
|Bearded half-figure facing right and wearing crown; in left hand bow with its string parallel to the vertical axis of the die, and in right two arrows with points to right.|
|473–474.||Same obverse and reverse; No. 474 countermarked as Plate XV,, 31.||5.34–5.35|
|475–476.||Same obverse and reverse.||5.35–5.37|
|477–479.||Obverses indecipherable; reverses identical.||5.09–5.38|
|480–491.||Reverses identical; No. 489 bears square countermark with large pellet at center surrounded by four small pellets, and b. H. 100, cf. No. 306; No. 490, H. 53— also on No. 24; No. 491, a. Similar to Plate XV, 33 and b. as on Nos. 21 and 144.||5.30–5.40|
|492–503.||Same reverses but obverses differ in scale.||5.30–5.40|
|504–525.||Reverses identical but obverses with differences in scale. No. 524 has countermark on obverse figure; No. 525 has countermark on obverse figure, a cylix?||5.31–5.41|
|Bearded figure to right, wearing crown and kandys (robe) in 'running-kneeling' attitude; in left hand bow— in right, spear (held diagonally across body) with knobbed handle, and with tip (frequently off-flan) in lower right field. Reverse: Oblong punch-impress.|
|526.||Obverse small scale; Reverse punch simple in form.||5.34|
|527.||Obverse small in scale; Reverse simple.||5.29|
|528.||Type slightly larger in scale; Reverse less simple singletons.||5.31|
|529–536.||Broader in scale and style; Reverse developed. No. 531 bears countermark (the only one for this group)—cf. illus. Plate XIII and No. 157, also H. 54.||5.28–5.37|
|537–539.||Same obverse and reverse.||5.32–5.38|
|540–575.||Thirty-six pieces from same reverse; Obverse die A, five specimens with three possible additions; Obverse die B, three pieces with two possible additions. No. 257, 4.72; No. 549, 5.09; others||5.24–5.41|
|576–652.||Seventy-seven pieces from same reverse Five singletons||5.40–5.44|
|Three lots of three each from same obverse dies respectively||5.32–5.45|
|Two lots of seven each from same obverse dies respectively||5.32–5.40|
|Forty-eight worn or encrusted coins with identification of obverse die uncertain||5.23–5.43|
One is faced with great difficulty in making comparison of the obverse dies of the Croeseids. In addition to the customary inequality as to condition, whether as a result of wear on the coin or wear on the die, incrustation and discoloration are frequently present. Often with sub-groups from the same reverse punches there will be disturbing variations in the relief on the obverse, which seem to be due to a difference in the force of the hammer-blow received from the respective reverse punches. It is very unusual for both the lion and the bull to be shown on the flan completely. Thus the details upon which one must depend are at the center of the flan and if one of the punches is impressed more deeply in the metal than the other, there will be a resulting weakness of either lion or bull for which it is next to impossible to compensate in making die comparisons. Because of this, and because in addition the obverse design does not lend itself to sharp differentiation, it is frequently impossible to be sure that two of the obverses of these half-staters are unquestionably from the same die, even though their reverses are obviously identical. Of three sub-groups each of which contained five coins there are two which seem to have all five obverses from the same die—the third shows a division which appears to be 2/1/1/1. In consequence, there is little reliance to be placed on the comparison of obverses aside from wear and that criterion, along with that of the size of the sub-groups having the same reverse punches, has been used to determine the arrangement.
Fortunately for our purposes the variations for the reverses are much less confusing. Alterations or mendings of the punches, if such took place, have not been recognizable as such. There are occasions in which the same large punch is associated with differing small punches and a lesser number in which the smaller punch is connected with two differing large punches, but both conditions are relatively rare.
Of the sub-groups having two specimens from the same pair of punch dies, some have identical obverses and some have obverses which seem to be different. It follows, I believe, that there must have been variations in the lives of the two reverse punches, and that replacement of either could and did take place. The evidence of this hoard, however, seems to indicate that the same pair were used in juxtaposition more often than they were changed. This would imply that, in general, both were discarded at the same time. Notwithstanding these complications, the number of specimens on which the pair of reverse punches is not duplicated in the hoard is surprisingly small, and, to judge from the wear on the obverse, they do not give indication of being the earliest in the hoard.
No attempt to arrange the Croeseids sequentially was made aside from observing evidence of wear and from specimens having identical reverses as outlined previously.
The presence of several sizable lots in which both obverse and reverse were duplicated encouraged an effort to explain the manner in which the two reverse punches of the Croeseids were applied. It has previously been noted that the smaller of the two reverse punches was, without exception, applied to the left on the reverse, which made it come opposite or beneath the obverse bull, while the larger punch was given to the lion (BMC Lydia, p. 5). The only exceptions to this observation are those very rare instances where both of the square punches are nearly identical in size. The square punches were, without exception, in the same relative position. When the significance of die positions was first explained by Sir George MacDonald in his delightfully clear article in Corolla Numismatica, he observed that in his opinion the use of fixed dies originated in south-west Asia Minor. Support for this observation is now abundantly provided.
The next observable condition showed that the two elements of the reverses were separate punches and not a single unit with two parts, for in a small but not negligible number of instances one or the other of the two is found associated with more than one variety of the other punch. Although one punch is smaller than the other, some means of clamping or otherwise keeping them together must have been used, for the coins show a partition whose uniformity of width (or its deformation) recurs, from which it may be deduced that their relationship was constant.
Our knowledge of ancient coining methods is drawn chiefly from dies for coins which date centuries after the ones we are considering. But with fixed dies and punches which may be interchanged, we may conclude that the obverse die was set in a large anvil or cut directly in an anvil which would be large enough and heavy enough to withstand the blows incidental to striking. If the reverse punches were applied separately they may be visualised as having been inserted in arms which would have a definite and a fixed relation to the anvil die. Each would further have to maintain the same position with respect to the other punch, else we should have variations rather than repeated recurrences of identical relationships on the coins.
The alternative involves the conception that instead of a separate arm for each punch there was a single arm into which both punches were fitted or slotted. In support of this latter view, some reverses show the punches so grown to- gether that they seem to have been fused (Nos. 199, 211). Whatever methods may have been used, one is forced to the conviction that a single hammer blow was used on the coins.
This, the largest numerical group of Hoard II consisted of 260 sigloi with the royal figure holding a bow. Of the fifteen punch-dies represented in this group, one is represented by thirty-nine specimens, while others show thirty-seven, thirty-two, thirty-one, twenty-seven, twenty-one and nineteen with the same reverse. This suggests a minting method differing from that normally ascribed to the Greek centers. There are five pieces of this type which suggest what this method may have been. These five pieces are struck high on the flan leaving an exergual space that is unusually extensive, and in this exergual reserve we are able to see the top of a crown such as the royal figure wears in all of the sigloi.
A similar phenomenon is known in other mints which Sir George F. Hill touched upon in his excellent discussion of ancient methods of coinage, where its occurrence is illustrated in several examples, all, however, drawn from coins of a later period. Quoting Hill: 'One can only conclude that in each of these cases one die was carelessly hubbed into the anvil, so close to the other that it was impossible to strike a coin on the latter without getting an impression of part of the former. This is an additional proof that hubbing was practiced, since we can hardly suppose that such a mistake would have been made in the course of the much slower operation of direct cutting."15a Without giving consideration to the conclusion thus expressed regarding hubbing on later coins, I believe that the rejected explanation is the one that applies here. Although the repeated portion of the design is limited to the crown, the form of this crown differs from that worn by the royal figure on this same die where there are four points, whereas the exergual one has five. It seems more probable that the anvil die was large enough to permit the cutting of at least two obverse-type dies, and there may even have been occasions on which more than two were cut. Such multiple cuttings would partly explain the large numbers from the same pair of dies found in these two hoards.
In Nos. 434–472, where these five pieces under discussion occur, there are no less than eleven pieces from this same pair of dies, while a second group contains eight specimens from another obverse, both lots sharing the same punch die. These numbers may be even greater, for among the thirty-nine pieces with this same punch die some were encrusted or so worn that it was impossible to be sure that they did not belong to either of these two obverse dies. Unfortunately, I have not been able to discover a die which embodies the form of the crown seen in the exergue of the five coins.
There is a decided contrast in the scale of the royal figure in coins in this group, which is much greater than for Type III. Compare the illustration of Nos. 242 and 308 with those of Nos. 350 and 402. Nor is this true of the figure alone, it is even more conspicuous when the heads are compared. In No. 242 the head is perhaps slightly too large for the body, but on No. 350, it is grossly disproportionate, nearly, or quite equalling, the length of the forearm. In No. 319, the arrow is plainly visible above the royal arm, and the lower half of the bow-string shows beautifully, a condition observable in other specimens. The upper half of the bow-string is, however, wisely left to the imagination. Avoiding this dilemma is, perhaps, the reason why the upper tip of the bow is unusually placed so close to the crown. The figure seems intentionally static rather than moving, which is as it should be for an archer.
|15a||Num. Chron., 6th ser., VII (1947), pp. 173–174.|
There are three criteria which may be applied in trying to determine an order or sequence within this group: (a) wear on the obverse; (b) changes or differences in the type; (c) the size of the sub-groups having the same punches. None of these is satisfactorily determinative.
Taking (c) first, we must place Nos. 504–525 as the latest pieces. These coins must certainly be contemporaneous, that is, they must have been struck within the life of the reverse punch. Let us next consider (b). Within this sub-group (504–525) we observe that No. 524 bears a type which is slender and appreciably smaller in scale than the others. This small-scale figure is also to be found in the two subgroups which are next in size to this one (cf. No. 493), each of which sub-groups contains twelve examples as compared with twenty-two here, a clear indication that the small-scale figure had been favored for an interval which was covered (or partly covered) by the life of three reverse punches. The incidence of the small–scale figure in what we consider the latest sub-group (Nos. 504–525) is only once among its twenty-two specimens. Hence the constriction in scale may have stopped shortly after the use of this, the latest, punch began. Since there is no similar small-scale figure in the smaller sub-groups, here considered the earliest, we cannot deduce a progression from small to broad type of figure. With there being but six punch-dies in the half-figure type (II), it would seem that use of the small-scale figure was brief and transitional.
The seventy-seven coins (Nos. 572–652) from the same reverse punch in this group have strong claim to being considered the latest issues in the hoard. They are the freshest in the find and the absence of money-changers' countermarks, with but a single exception, may imply less circulation as well as great confidence in their genuineness. Dr. Milne's hoard15b contains issues with types later than Type III, but none of Types II and III. Robinson's Mesopotamian Hoard likewise included Type III pieces, but none of Types I and II, and that hoard is dated by him from other coins it contained "about the middle of the first quarter of the fourth century"15c, i.e., 390–385. Hoard No. I, aside from the single Croeseid which M. Seyrig considers to be an intrusion,15d supports the implications of the two other hoards.
There is great variety among the countermarks which occur in this hoard. They are most numerous on the Croesus half-staters of Plate XII, with thirty-five (out of 212) bearing these tiny signets, in contrast to the six out of a total of 53 pieces in the sigloi group with the half-figures and the eighteen out of 260 coins in the sigloi with bow. In Type III a single countermark (out of 127 specimens) is found on the obverse of No. 531, where it is very inconspicuously superimposed on the handle of the spear. Of the sixty counter-marked pieces in this hoard (two are questionable) forty-one bear a single countermark, eleven have two (on two coins, one of their respective countermarks is impressed twice), seven have three impressions (again, one is repeated) and a single piece (No. 157) has five differing signets, one of which is repeated. There are ten or more signets which occur on two specimens, and three which are found on three. One mark, the bull's head with the foot showing beneath, although sometimes recognizable only with difficulty because of wear, appears on six coins.
Comparing the signets with those found in other hoards, we find that those in our second hoard are notably smaller in scale than the signets on the sigloi of either Robinson's "Mesopotamian Hoard" or Newell's "Cilician Find." Likewise, there is a difference in the position of their impress on the coin. In our hoard, a greater proportion has been applied to the edges, rather than to the obverse or reverse. It seems to me that these combined conditions, point to a considerable interval between the burial of our Hoard II and these other two.
Sometimes countermarks were applied to coins which gave cause for suspicion of their genuineness. No. 38 of Hoard II shows a hole on the obverse. Some of the others have edges with cracks or pittings which suggest plating, but no plated coins have been detected. It is customarily accepted when more than a single signet is present that each guarantees the acceptance of the piece at the shop of the signet's owner. Under such an interpretation, the coin with five countermarks (No. 157 of Hoard II) would have seen circulation in a number of cities, or, to use the extreme alternative, in a single large city.
In Hoard I, which I believe to be later than Hoard II, the signets are larger in scale. The animal types of Hoard I ( Plate XV, 4, 7 and 9) show more development than those in Hoard II ( Plate XV, 20, 24, 25 and 31), and this is true of the other forms. The countermarks are applied to either obverse or reverse more frequently than to the edges on the later lot (i.e., Hoard I). This tendency is confirmed by pieces in Mr. Newell's "Cilician Find." I believe it is safe to conclude that application to the edge is to be interpreted as the earlier practice. The edge signets are consistently small and simple and few of them are to be found occurring on either the obverse or reverse as well as on the edge.
It is noteworthy that in the earlier Hoard II, the group showing the royal figure holding both spear and bow bears but a single countermark, whereas in the other hoard, which consists of this type unmixed with any other, there are numerous signets.
The scanty occurrence of similar signets in both hoards seems a probable indication that they do not overlap either in point of time or geographically: I note a small triskeles, a doubled crescent ( Plate XV,, 12)—the forms are similar but the scale differs: and possibly H 100.
|15b||Num. Chron., 5th ser., XVI (1916), pp. 1–12.|
|15c||Iraq, VII (1950), p. 47.|
|15d||R. Curiel and D. Schlumberger, Tresors monétaires d'Afghanistan (Paris, 1953), p. 57.|
As has been noted, the first hoard described in this monograph, 256 coins, was received in New York during the summer of 1950 with the usual statement that it comprised the entire hoard. The second lot, 652 pieces, was examined later as a representative part rather than the entire hoard, and was said to have been found in 1945.
The lot examined by Prof. Seyrig (490 pieces)16 was said to have been found in the region of Smyrna "before January 1946"—how long before being uncertain. The lot examined by Mr. Robinson (1946?) consisted of 228 sigloi and more than 7 Croeseids. There is the information that the 228 coins formed about three-quarters of the total, which would therefore be 304 sigloi—the number of Croeseids is undetermined.17 The tabulation which follows shows the make-up of these respective segments, and to this should be added the data from a small hoard found in the excavations of Old Smyrna in 1951, and not yet published.
The hoard published by Dr. Milne in the Numismatic Chronicle for 1916 contained but two of the sigloi types, the one with the bow and spear and that with the dagger. This dictates a conclusion that the dagger type is the latest of the four. The table shows that the proportionate representation of each of these three sigloi types is about the same for each of the three lots listed, and Prof. Seyrig's conclusions that his lot and that seen by Mr. Robinson formed part of a single hoard must now be amplified by the third lot (our Hoard No. II), which on the basis of composition, and countermarks, belongs with the other two. Casts of a small number of sigloi sent to me by Prof. Seyrig bear reverse punches which are represented in our Hoard II. Further, photographs of seven of the Croeseids acquired by the British Museum also bear reverse punches found in our Hoard II, and I have no doubt that bankers' countermarks which were common to all three lots would have been found had either of the other two lots been recorded in detail.
|Type of Sigloi||ANS H'd I||ANS H'd II||R.'s lot NC 1947||Seyrig's O.Smyrna Lot|
|Spear & Bow||255||127||100||83|
Mr. Robinson's dating is formed with the benefit of the knowledge of the Old Smyrna Hoard which has not yet been published. This hoard contained contemporary silver of Phocaea.18
A frequency table for the pieces which passed through my hands is appended. My lack of competance as a metrologist is such that I hesitate to offer more than brief observations.
|HOARD II||HOARD I|
|Croeseid||Bowman||Half fig.||Bow & Spear||Bowman & Sp.|
Hoard I (255 pieces) contained a single Croeseid, which
Prof. Seyrig writes was an intrusion. It came to us in 1950,
Hoard II (652 pieces) contained 212 half-staters of Croesus, and sigloi: Royal figure with bow alone 260
with half-figure 53
with bow and spear 127
In accepting the conclusion that Hoard II is the earlier, there is the possibility of an overlapping for the issues of the type with both bow and spear. I have been unable to find any evidence of such an overlapping. I believe that there is stronger probability of a gap between the two hoards, basing this opinion on the nature of the reverse punches which are in contrast to the earlier and simpler reverses although the progression from a simple to a less simple form for this coinage is assumed rather than proven. With our present information, I see no way of gauging the extent of this suggested interval.
The frequency table does show, however, an increase in the weights for the later hoard (I) and implies a raised or changed standard. A norm close to 5.35 grams for the earlier hoard contrasts with that for the later one (I) of approximately 5.55. Regling's average weight was 5.38 and his estimate of the norm 5.60 grams.19 This change took place during the suggested interval. No effort to parallel the silver with the gold has been made. Neither Hill20 nor Babelon21 list any darics with the bowman or with the half-figure. Can it be that no gold with these types was struck, or are we forced to a highly improbable deduction that all such were melted after the introduction of the type with bow and spear? Recoinage seems the less likely of the two alternatives in the light of the evidence at present available.
If there is an interval between the two hoards, as I believe,, the second and larger hoard must precede the first by the extent of that interval—an extent which we at present have no means of determining. The larger hoard contains issues of Croesus, whose coinage must have stopped with his downfall in 546. This hoard contains pieces in circulation in Asia Minor down to the date of the burial of the hoard. If we may reason from the relatively equal wear on the Croeseids and the earliest sigloi (Group B) there would seem to have been little or no considerable break after the death of Croesus before coining the sigloi was started. They might even have begun before 546. Such a conclusion would increase the number of years during which the hoard was being formed.
The smaller and later hoard (I) would seem to have been formed over a much shorter period of saving. The same punch-die which is represented by ninety-one specimens is also found in Mr. Newell's "Cilician Hoard" and in Robinson's "Mesopotamian Hoard." It is also to be found in Babelon's Traité, PL LXXXVII, 7, and in BMC Arabia, 198, PL XXVII, 26.
The low regard in which sigloi have been held by collectors, with their resulting slight commercial value, is doubtless the reason for their having been given little attention when they have occurred in hoards. Not until we have the record of a hoard containing sigloi along with issues of other mints which may be definitively dated can we determine when such a change took place.
The two hoards here recorded presented a unique opportunity, Previous attempts to classify Persian sigloi had not taken into account the reverse punches and their use for this purpose in this monograph is an innovation. Hill and Babelon considered the order of the types quite the reverse of what Hoard II shows. Robinson in discussing the lot described by him in 1947 (cf. p. 41) believed the order to be: II (Half-figure), I (Archer), III (With spear and Bow), although he conceded that the half-figure group (II) might come after the archer group (I). In a letter he accepts the order assigned herein. It is hoped that the data regarding countermarks will awaken fruitful interest and that the evidence of a raised weight-standard will prove significant for metrologists. Finally, we have another demonstration that coins are their own best witnesses.
|16||R. Curiel and D. Schlumberger, Trésors monétaires d'Afghanistan (Paris, 1953), pp. 55–57. This note by Prof. Seyrig supplies the information that the single Croeseid in our Hoard No. I was an interpolation. There is the additional conclusion that Hoard No. I is not part of the lot examined by him (490 pieces).|
|17||Num. Chron., 6th ser., VII (1947), pp. 173–174.|
|18||JHS, LXXII (1952), p. 106.|
|19||Klio, XIV (1915), p. 98.|
|20||BMC Arabia, etc.|
|21||Traité des monnaies grecques et romaines.|
|HOARD I||HOARD II||hoard II|
|4.||43, 62||18.||20||31.||32, 158, 159,177,|
|5.||45||19.||38||197, 212, 396.|
|7.||63||21.||137||33.||86, 176, 491|
|13.||5, 29, 38, 164, 206||26.||157||38.||395|