The Euboian League was founded at the time of the revolt from Athens, in 411 b.c., of Eretria, Chalkis, and Karystos. 1 It was at first under Peloponnesian influence, and was doubtless intended to secure the protection of its cities against Athens; Eretria was the mint, and probably in some sense the capital, of the new League. These facts are mentioned by no ancient author, but may be deduced with practical certainty from the coins, and have been agreed upon for many years. In 1883 Imhoof-Blumer published the Paris Aiginetic didrachm, then unique, and in a single sentence set forth its date and its significance: "Le style de ce didrachm indique la fin du Ve siècle, c'est-a-dire l'époque précise ou les Eubéens venaient de s'affranchir du joug des Athéniens (411), en se ralliant au parti des Peloponnésiens" 2 —a significance underlined by the Aiginetic, as opposed to the Euboio-Attic, weight of the coin. 3 The British numismatists were at first doubtful, but the appearance of further coins confirmed, within the decade, the correctness of his opinion. 4 Thus for the last sixty years there has been agreement among numismatists about the date and circumstances of the foundation of the Euboian League. But the coins have been very little studied, and the major historians of Greece have neglected them completely. 5
The coins themselves, which have mostly been found in Euboia, and carry the inscription ΕΥΒ as well as the probably canting type of a heifer, 6 are clearly coins of a Euboian League. Their date is certainly late in the fifth century, a fact established not only by their style, but also by their occurrence along with Boiotian coins of this period in similar condition in the Euboio-Boiotian hoard of 1951. 7 The Aiginetic weight of the earliest issues—a weight never met with otherwise in the island—shows that the league which issued them was more closely linked, at first, to the states of the Peloponnese than to Athens. 8 The coins thus make it necessary to suppose that the league was formed either in 411/10, when the Spartans enabled three of the four Euboian cities to rebel from Athens, or very soon thereafter. Earlier there was no opportunity for such a combination, while by 394 Eretria and doubtless Chalkis and Karystos, too, were again on friendly terms with Athens, 9 and it is hard to see why a Euboian League should thereafter have coined on the Aiginetic standard. Between 411/10 and 400–395 room must be found for two issues of didrachms which were not immediately consecutive but were separated by a period of a few years. 10 The first issue must accordingly belong either to the last few months of 411 or at the latest to some date in 410; since the revolt had been plotted as early as the fall and winter of 412/11 (Thuc. VIII 4 and 60), secret arrangements may well have been made for the formal establishment of the League and for the issue of its coins immediately upon the declaration by Chalkis and Eretria of their independence from Athens. This, after a postponement of some months, occurred after the Battle of Eretria, about September 411. That the mint, and so perhaps the meeting place, of the League was Eretria is less firmly established, but is clearly suggested by the League's adoption of Eretria's heifer (see note 6) as its reverse type, and by the quasi-identity of the types of the League with those of the autonomous bronze of Eretria when that city again issued coins in the late third and early second century b.c. It is also indicated by the fact that while the other three cities of the island all issue their own silver in the second half of the fourth century and later, contemporaneously with the issues of the League, there is no Eretrian silver until the second century—Eretria seems to have maintained the league as a fiction after the other cities had more or less abandoned it: at least Eretria's lack of coins in the late fourth and earlier third centuries is certainly not due to poverty or weakness, for the inscriptions and other antiquities found on the site show that the city flourished at this period and was, indeed, the most important of the Euboian towns. 11
One of the first things that the Euboians did after their revolt from Athens was to narrow the Euripos until there was room for only one ship to sail through, and to build a bridge across connecting Chalkis with Boiotia, for, says Diodoros, they were afraid that the Athenians might use their control of the sea to blockade the island. 12 The motive assigned for the building of the bridge was doubtless also the reason for the formation of the Euboian League; and the construction of the bridge, which was undertaken, as Diodoros emphasizes, by all of the Euboians together, was probably the first act of the new federation. The Athenian reaction was immediate but ineffective—Theramenes was sent out with thirty ships, and so with some 6000 men, but found himself outnumbered, and retired. There was another Athenian general, Eukleides, at Eretria during the winter 410/09, and although it is impossible to determine the exact circumstances, it is clear that Athens conducted some restricted military operation here. 13 The activities of this year and a half—the fortification of the Euripos and the fighting at Eretria—were doubtless the occasion of the first issue of the Euboian League—the didrachms with a lying cow and ΕΥΒ on the obverse, and a nymph's head on the reverse. It is probable that at this early stage in its existence only Eretria and Chalkis belonged to the League; between them they controlled most of Euboia, and they doubtless hoped that the other cities would join them, but Histiaia could not do so as yet, and, as we shall see, Karystos probably would not.
When Lysander destroyed the Athenian fleet at Aigospotamoi in April of 405/4, there were two Euboians, and only two, among his subordinate generals—Aristokles of Karystos, and Autonomos of Eretria; their statues were set up along with the twenty-eight others in Lysander's great dedication at Delphoi. 14 It is interesting and probably significant that there is no Chalkidian (or Histiaian) among these generals. The probable explanation is that the Eretrian Autonomos commanded the whole squadron of the Euboian League, and that Karystos, although it sent ships to Lysander, did not belong to the League. This, if so, is not surprising; there was no road over the mountains to connect Karystos with the other cities, and by sea Athens was as close as Eretria and Chalkis; it must have seemed very unsafe to the Karystians to take any steps of their own volition which Athens might hold against them in the future. They could plausibly maintain that Lysander had left them no choice about declaring their independence and about fighting at Aigospotamoi, but joining an anti-Athenian Euboian League would be less easily excused if Athens should ever again be in a position to resent it. Ever since the Persian wars Karystos had been forced by its exposed situation to pursue a cautious policy. There was also no Histiaian among Lysander's generals, but the Histiaians had only recently returned to their homes, and the city was probably still weak and disorganized. Thus the fact that there was no Histiaian general in Lysander's fleet probably means that there were no Histiaian ships, not that Histiaia belonged to the Euboian League and so, like Chalkis, did not have a general of its own. This city, like Karystos, had no good land connection with central Euboia (there is still none to-day): its closest neighbors were the states of the Maliac and Pagasaian Gulfs. Moreover its citizens (who were originally Ellopians or Perrhaibians, that is Aiolians, not Ionians) had for a generation been living in Thessaly, whence they had come before the time of Homer, and can have felt little Euboian patriotism. Aside from these general considerations, there is one piece of definite evidence: soon after 404 Histiaia made an alliance with Eretria, 15 which would surely have been unnecessary if the city had just become a member of the Euboian League. We may accordingly conclude that the only members of the League in the first decade of its existence were Eretria and Chalkis; they undoubtedly hoped that Histiaia and Karystos would sooner or later be persuaded to join them.
Autonomos of Eretria was probably, then, in command of the squadron sent by the League to assist Lysander, and the existence of the League will explain the lack of a commander from Chalkis. Autonomos would naturally pay his men in the League's currency. We have here an obvious occasion for the second issue of didrachms on the Aiginetic standard, this time with the head on the obverse—an occasion which exactly fits the numismatic requirements; it is a few years later than the occasion of the first issue in 411/10, and this difference in date is demanded by the slightly better condition of the coins of the second issue in the Euboio-Boiotian hoard of 1951; 16 it is also a rather more important occasion, probably involving the payment of more men for a longer period, and this fits well with the somewhat more numerous dies and considerably larger number of preserved specimens of the second issue. There need be little hesitation in dating the two issues of didrachms in 411/10 and 405/4 respectively.
Thuc. VIII 95, and Diodoros XVIII 47. See also IG XII, 9, 187A (= M. N. Tod, Greek Historical Inscriptions I2, Oxford 1946, no. 82) for the assistance rendered Eretria by Hegelochos of Taras, who is undoubtedly the commander of the Tarentine ships mentioned by Thucydides in VIII 91; this decree suggests that the Tarentines did not just happen to be in Agesandridas' fleet, but had had direct discussions with Eretria, which again emphasizes the long preparation of the revolt, and makes late in 411 rather than some time in 410 the probable date of the earliest League coins (see p. 3 below). Histiaia, in the north, was not involved in the revolt, for the city was still, as it had been for a generation, entirely occupied by Athenians; the original inhabitants and their descendants did not return, probably, until 404. The name of this state was 'Hestiaia' in the fifth century and seems to have been 'Histiaia' thereafter, although the old spelling occurs occasionally as late as the second century; the chief city was originally also 'Hestiaia,' but after the Athenians drove out the inhabitants and sent a colony of their own to the district in 446, it appears always to have been 'Oreos.' See Fr. Geyer, Topographie und Geschichte der Insel Euboia (Berlin 1903) pp. 82–3, and Louis Robert, Études de numismatique grècque (Paris 1951) p. 179, note 2. In modern works both state and city are usually referred to as 'Histiaia,' and that practice will be followed here.
Monnaies grecques (Leipzig 1883) p. 224. Imhoof had already mentioned the coin in passing: in 1881 he had attributed it to Eretria, and said that it was struck in 411 under Peloponnesian influence, on the Aiginetic standard ("Die Euböische Silberwährung," Monatsbericht der kön. Preuβ. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin , Berlin 1881, p. 657); this passage reappeared the next year in the French translation, with additions, of this article ("Le système monétaire Euboïque," Annuaire de la Société Française de Numismatique, Paris 1882, p. 3).
One may be tempted also to see anti-Athenian feeling in the fact that the head appears on the reverse of this didrachm, as is the case in Corinthian and various other Peloponnesian issues, rather than on the obverse, as was the rule from the beginning at Athens—no earlier Euboian coins have a head as type at all. On this point see H. A. Cahn's article "Zur frühattischen Münzprägung" in Museum Helveticum 1946, especially pages 160–1. But the greater practicality of the Athenian system soon persuaded the Euboians to abandon the Corinthian scheme—for whatever reason adopted—and the second and larger issue was struck with the head on the obverse.
Head, in the British Museum Catalogue of the coins of Central Greece (London 1884) and in the first edition of Historia Numorum (London 1887), accepted Gardner's suggestion that the unique stater might be Cretan. Imhoof, however, in his Griechische Münzen (Munich 1890) published a good photograph of the didrachm and defended his attribution: "Von dem unter dem Einflusse der Peloponnesier gemachten Versuche der Euböer, die Aiginäische Währung auf der Insel einzuführen, gibt bis jetzt einzig das eben besprochene Didrachmon Zeugnis" etc. (p. 535). At the same time he published, from his own collection, the first Euboian League tetradrachm (of Attic weight) to be identified, dating it about 400 b.c.; the fractions had long been known. Then in the Numismatic Chronicle for 1892 a second Aiginetic didrachm was published by Hermann Weber, who also called attention to a second tetradrachm, in the Photiades collection (Hoffman sale, May 19, 1890), and accepted Imhoof's attribution, as did Head in HN 2 (1911).
By no means all of the issues are listed in the British Museum Catalogue of Central Greece or in Babelon's Traité des monnaies grècques et romaines, II. 3 and III. 3 (Paris 1914 and 1916), the latter being the most complete publication so far of the coinage of the League, while HN 2 devotes less than one page to the subject and actually omits to mention the drachms of lighter weight which make up the great bulk of the coinage. The curious reader will look in vain for references to the foundation of the Euboian League or to its coinage in Grote, Beloch, Busolt, Holm (who does, however, include a bare reference to our coins in his long note on the coinage of the Athenian empire), the Cambridge Ancient History, Glotz, De Sanctis, etc. Even Swoboda, who devotes most of his Griechische Staatsaltertümer (Tübingen 1913) to the Greek leagues, can spare only a paragraph for the Euboian, which, he says, "bereits zu Anfang des zweiten Jahrhunderts existierte." There is a brief and inaccurate account of the coinage of the League in M.O.B. Caspari's "Survey of Greek Federal Coinage" (JHS 37, 1917, pp. 168–183). Caspari naturally accepted Head's dates; he also assumed that all four cities belonged to the League, and struck their own coins concurrently with its issues. He had difficulty in summarizing the orthodox view, for none existed.
That the animal is a young cow, a heifer, and not a bull, is clear enough on the tetradrachms, and so the didrachms and the drachms presumably also represent a cow—on the drachms it has been customary to describe the type as a "bull's head." The sixth and fifth century coins of Eretria have a heifer as their obverse type, and the animal was doubtless adopted for the coins of the League partly as a canting type, partly because she was originally Eretrian.
See hoard 3, p. 49.
It is a closely parallel case that Thasos, breaking away from Athens in this same year, changed the standard on which her coins were struck from the Attic to the Chian—see Head, HN 2 p. 264, and A. B. West in "Fifth and Fourth Century Gold Coins from the Thracian Coast" (Numismatic Notes and Monographs 40, New York 1929) pp. 15–17 and 46–47.
See p. 73.
Imhoof-Blumer was the first to call Eretria the mint of the Euboian League: "C'est à l'atelier d'Érétrie qu'il faut attribuer les monnaies frappées au nom des Eubéens"—Monnaies grecques (Leipzig 1883) p. 223. For the prosperity of Eretria and the view that it was generally a more important place than Chalkis, see my "Demes of Eretria," Hesperia 16 (1947) p. 115, note 1.
Diodoros XIII 47.
See IG I2, 304A = Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum 3 (Leipzig 1915) no. 109 = Tod, Greek Historical Inscriptions I2 (Oxford 1946) no. 83. This inscription carries the accounts of the Treasurers of Athena for 410/09; line 17 records an ἀνομολόγημα payment (i.e., a sum both collected and spent by the general—see B. D. Meritt, H. T. Wade-Gery and M. F. McGregor, The Athenian Tribute Lists III, Cambridge, Mass. 1950, p. 365) of 3740 drs., 1 ¼ obs., in the sixth prytany, that is, early in 409, to the "στρατεγι ἐΧς ᾽Ερετρίας ⋮Εὐκλείδει." Geyer (in RE Supp. IV p. 439) is surely mistaken in treating this entry as evidence that the city of Eretria was again under Athenian control in 410/09, but it may well be that an Athenian force held out there for some time, for Thucydides' account shows that the Athenians retained a foothold in the city when it rebelled (VIII 95: "τὸ τείΧισμα τὸ ἐν τῇ ᾽Ερετρίᾳ" seems to mean either the citadel or perhaps a fortified building at the harbor where the Athenians had apparently kept a small squadron of ships (VIII 95.3)—cf. the situation at Torone (IV 113); in ATL III p. 295, note 100, the τείΧισμα is called "a fortified stockade in the plain," partly because of the theory that an Athenian kleruchy had been sent to Eretria in 446; it is true that ἡ ᾽Ερέτρια is regularly used in Eretrian inscriptions for the whole Eretrian territory, but here ἐν τῇ ᾽Ερετρίᾳ seems more likely to mean "in the city of Eretria." Eukleides may have been the commander of an Athenian garrison at Eretria which had now returned (this would explain the preposition ἐΧς —translated "at" in ATL III p. 365—and also, perhaps, the fact that Eukleides had collected this odd sum himself instead of receiving a payment direct from the Hellenotamiai); he may have been the general sent out to rescue the garrison; he may even, as Dittenberger and Tod suggest, have been a general sent to recover the rebellious cities of Euboia, but in this case he must have received other sums in addition to the ἀνομολόγημα recorded here, and the coins prove that he did not succeed.
Plu. Lysander 18, and Paus. X 9. 10 (where the full list is given). The base of Autonomos' statue has been found, inscribed όνομος / Σαμίου / ᾽Ερετριεύς (see Syll. 3 115 and the references collected ad loc.). He perhaps owed his name to the enthusiasm of the Euboian revolt of 446; if so he was now forty-two years of age.
IG XII, 9, 188: the terms of the alliance are lost, and what is left of the text merely provides for its ratification, its renewal each Olympiad, for penalties if it is broken, and for its publication both at Histiaia and at Eretria. The occasion of the alliance may well have been an invitation from Eretria to join the Euboian League; Histiaia perhaps replied that she did not wish to join the League but was quite willing to make a separate treaty with Eretria. The date given by Ziebarth ad loc. (it was Wilamowitz' suggestion) is between 410 and 390; but as Histiaia was probably still in Athenian hands until 404, the inscription will be later than that, and there is no good reason for fixing on any particular date as the terminus ante quem. If we had reason to suppose that Histiaia was a member of the Euboian League in the last years of the fifth century, it might be possible to date the inscription after 395, when the League seems to have become a dead letter (see below). But it is more likely, both on general considerations and because of this inscription, that Histiaia was not a member, and that the alliance should be dated soon after 404. It may be mentioned here that the first word of the text—[-ποι] αι is wrongly read by Ziebarth, and is not corrected in IG XII, Supp. Examination of the squeeze in the collection of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton convinced me that Eustratiades' original reading of Κ is more likely than Σ—Χ is also a possibility, but the single diagonal stroke which is all that is left of the letter seems too high and steep to be the lower hasta of sigma. And apart from this doubtful reading, the inscription shows consistent rhotacism, so that sigma here between two vowels would be surprising.
See p. 49. These coins are also stylistically more advanced than those of the first issue.
We know little of the history of most minor Greek states except where their relations with Athens bring them momentarily to the attention of Athenian writers; what the Athenians either chose to ignore or considered unimportant is recoverable only by inference or through the bright pin points of light provided by inscriptions and, sometimes, by coins. Such is the fate of the Euboian League in the fourth century; it is referred to specifically only once—when Kallias of Chalkis resurrected or re-invigorated it in 341/0—and we are otherwise dependent for proof that it existed on the fortunately unambiguous evidence of the coins. The knowledge, however, that it did exist makes a number of events more intelligible, and makes it possible to see a certain unity in the otherwise disconnected scraps of information which we possess about Euboian affairs.
Agesilaos collected at Geraistos the fleet which he took to Asia in 396. What repercussions this may have had in an already disaffected Euboia we do not know, but the fact that late in 395/4 ἡ Εὔβοια ἅπασα 17 fought beside the Boiotians, Athenians, Corinthians, and Argives at the Battle of Corinth shows that the island was no longer under Spartan control, and to the same summer, early in 394/3, belongs the formal alliance between Eretria and Athens which has survived to the present day as IG II2, 16 (= Dittenberger, Syll. 3 123, and Tod, Gr. Hist. Insc. II, 103). Curiously enough it was not until just after the formation of the Second Athenian League some sixteen years later in 378/7 that Chalkis made a similar alliance with Athens (IG II2, 44 = Syll. 3 148). Karystos joined the Athenian League along with Eretria and Chalkis in 378/7. 18 Histiaia made an alliance with Eretria some time soon after 404, as has been mentioned, but seems thereafter to have suffered from a succession of tyrants and Spartan harmosts; it did not join the Athenian League until 376/5. Dion and Athenai Diades, small places in the north of the island now temporarily independent of Histiaia, had joined a year earlier.
Thus in the first twenty-five years of the century we have evidence only during the Corinthian war, and in 378/7, for the pursuit of a common foreign policy by the cities of Euboia. Even during the Corinthian War there is no reference to the League in the treaty between Eretria and Athens, 19 and it seems that Chalkis did not make a similar treaty at the same time. We can only conclude either that the League was so loose that it did not coordinate the foreign policies of its two (?) members, which seems unlikely, or else that it ceased to be effective about the time of the alliance between Eretria and Athens in 394. This is the probable explanation, for Athens undoubtedly preferred to ignore a league which had been formed to oppose her and which could only complicate in an undesirable manner her relations with Euboia. 20 Moreover, after 387 a Euboian League might have seemed incompatible, to some extent, with the principles of the Peace of Antalcidas. 21 But, as the coins and certain other considerations indicate, the League was not formally dissolved; Eretria and Chalkis no longer needed each other's support against Athens, Histiaia and Karystos had failed to be attracted by the federal idea, and Athens was opposed to it; there was accordingly probably no more talk of the Euboian League after 395, but it existed 'on paper'; it lay dormant until its members should find some advantage in reviving it.
There are two small issues of tetradrachms of the full Euboio-Attic weight, with accompanying fractions, which both style and the evidence of hoards place about the beginning of the century, 22 and which may accordingly be dated about 400 and 395 respectively. The change from the Aiginetic to the Euboio-Attic standard must obviously come between the League's cooperation with Lysander in 404 and its participation in the Corinthian War against Sparta (a change of policy sealed by the alliance between Eretria and Athens) in 394. For the next half century there is little sign of common action by the cities of Euboia, and there appears to be a corresponding gap in the coinage of the League. No further staters were issued, and when the drachms reappear they are much later in style and lighter in weight, although the types are unchanged: the coinage shows a wide gap in an obviously continuing series.
Karystos seems to have been steadily faithful to the Athenian alliance until after the Battle of Chaironeia (and indeed until after the Lamian War), but the participation of Eretria, Chalkis and Histiaia in the Second Athenian Confederacy was destined to be spasmodic. Thebes was close and rapidly growing in strength; it is not surprising that soon after Leuktra in 371 Eretria and Chalkis deserted Athens for this new ally. Thebes may have had some difficulty in securing consistent support in these cities—at least there apparently were tyrants in both of them in the sixties, Mnesarchos at Chalkis 23 and Themison at Eretria, 24 who were perhaps installed and maintained by the Boiotians. But according to Xenophon, Εὐβοεῖς ἀπὸ πασῶν τῶν πόλεων fought on the Boiotian side at Mantineia, where they were roughly handled by the Athenians on the wing opposed to them.
After the Battle of Mantineia Theban influence in Euboia naturally declined, and the island became a temptation to Athens. Στάσις broke out in the Euboian cities between the pro-Theban and pro-Athenian parties, resulting in a number of indecisive skirmishes, 25 and when Thebes made a definite attempt to recover her position the Athenians promptly sent out a military and naval expedition which drove the Boiotians out in about a month. This brief war is placed in 358/7 by Diodoros, and probably belongs in the early summer of 357; 26 it was possibly the occasion of a small issue of coins by the Euboian League (see pp. 85–87).
As a result the Euboian cities again joined the Athenian League. The alliances of Eretria, Chalkis, and Histiaia with Athens had obviously lapsed during the decade of Theban supremacy, 27 and, for whatever reason, Athens now also renewed her alliance with Karystos. None of the actual documents has survived, although IG II2, 124 28 is the lower part of the stone which once carried the alliance with Karystos, and IG II2, 125 (Tod, GHI II, no. 154) is a strong guarantee to Eretria, made specifically for her but generalized to apply to any member of the League, against attack by Athens or by any of her allies. The guarantee was perhaps the price demanded by Eretria for her re-entry into the Athenian League. 29 Another document, how- ever, of about the same date as these—IG II2, 149—is both more interesting for our present purpose and more difficult to interpret. It is an Athenian decree making two men,—ηριτος and 'Ηρακλειόδωρος 30 proxenoi and euergetai of Athens, apparently for their services in helping to negotiate an alliance with "the Euboians." The inscription begins with the broken end of a sentence: ἡ σνμμαχία τῶι δήμωι / [τῶι ᾽Αθηναίων καὶ τ]οῖς Εὐβοιεῦσιν, and later there is a reference to [-τοὺς πρέσβεις ? το]ὺς ἐκ τῶν συμμάχων. This is the closest we come to discovering any common action by the Euboians during the decade, and unfortunately neither the date nor the interpretation of the inscription is certain.
For a few years now while Athens was engaged in the 'Social War,' while Philip consolidated his power in Macedonia and invaded Thessaly, and while the rest of Greece took sides in the first campaigns of the Sacred War, we lose sight of Euboian affairs; it may be that although surrounded by fighting, the island enjoyed a few years of comparative calm. But in 351 Philip sent letters to the Euboian cities warning them not to rely for safety upon their alliances with Athens (Dem. Phil. 1.37): his agents and his gold followed close upon his letters, and, although we know no details, it is clear that pro-Macedonian parties sprang up in all the cities except, perhaps, Karystos.
Karystos at this time still stood a little apart from the other cities; its position made it less open to Theban influence, and more open to Athenian. The coinages of Karystos and Chalkis are greatly in need of further study, and their issues have not been dated with any accuracy. It is fairly clear, however, that Karystos' fourth century coins begin earlier than those of Chalkis (which, like the Euboian League coins, have been dated too early) and were probably being struck about the middle of the century. At Eretria no coins were issued; perhaps the Eretrians still clung to the theory that the League existed, and that one of its prerogatives was coinage. Histiaia had never had a mint. Its history during these years is obscure, but at least we know that its first coins were not struck until about 340. 31
Philip had prepared the ground, and could stir up trouble in Euboia whenever it suited his convenience to do so; the moment came in 349/8. The obscure course of events during this year should, I think, be reconstructed as follows. 32 Philip was attacking Olynthos and was anxious to prevent Athens from moving. He accordingly employed an Eretrian named Kleitarchos, subsequently tyrant of the city, to engineer a revolution against Ploutarchos, the tyrant of the moment, who seems to have been playing a lone hand, depending for his support on mercenaries. Ploutarchos found himself faced with a pro-Macedonian revolution at home and an aggressive and seemingly pro-Macedonian neighbor, Kallias, at Chalkis; as Philip intended, he appealed to Athens for help. In spite of Demosthenes' insistence that Athens should conserve her resources for the major conflict, a small expedition of cavalry and ἐπίλεκτοι was sent out under Phokion to support Ploutarchos. He had apparently already been driven from Eretria, but met Phokion at Tamynai where the two of them were faced by considerable forces ἐξ ἁπάσης Εὐβοίας ... καὶ παρὰ Φιλίππου 33 under Kallias and Kleitarchos. Ploutarchos deserted to Kallias and Phokion was hard pressed; he summoned reinforcements from Athens and meanwhile won a respite by a successful limited action which gave him prisoners to bargain with. When the reinforcements arrived he entered Eretria, drove out both Kleitarchos and Ploutarchos, restored the democracy, and established a fort at Zaretra at the narrowest point of the island in the southern part of Eretria's territory. He then returned, leaving Molossos in command (of a garrison at Eretria?). Ploutarchos apparently rallied his followers, went back to Eretria, captured Molossos, and came to terms with one Hegesilaos, who seems to have been sent out on the news of Molossos' misadventure. Although Ploutarchos now treacherously handed over some Athenian prisoners to his mercenaries who held them to ransom, Athens swallowed her pride and paid the price, for she was by this time too heavily involved in the north to send more expeditions to Euboia. The Euboians, anxious to consolidate their gains, sent ambassadors to Athens and managed to arrange a peace on terms of the status quo.
If this reconstruction of the events is correct, it is clear that the role played by Ploutarchos requires explanation. He first asks for Athenian support against Kallias and Kleitarchos, and then deserts to their camp; the Athenians throw him out of Eretria but he returns, captures the Athenian commander and treacherously allows Athenians to be held to ransom. In short he begins as anti-Macedonian but becomes reconciled to Kallias (and to Kleitarchos?—or did Kallias agree to support him against Philip's agent?) and is then strongly anti-Athenian. To Demosthenes and Aischines everyone is either pro-Athenian or pro-Macedonian, but if we had Euboian sources we should doubtless see things differently. The probability is that both Ploutarchos and Kallias were first of all Euboians, and that Kallias— who a few years later reconstituted or reinvigorated the Euboian League and was at the moment in command of forces ἐξ ἁπάσης τῆς Εὐβοίας—won Ploutarchos over by urging that Euboians should stick together against outside interference whether from the north or from the south. When Aischines mentions the ambassadors who came to Athens to make peace after this war, he calls them οἱ πρέσβεις οἱ τῶν Εὐβοέων and says that they brought a message from Philip; this may mean only "both the Eretrians and the Chalkidians, one or both of whom brought a message from Philip," but it is more likely to mean that a joint embassy conducted the negotiations. 34 This, if the above outline is correct, is what we should expect.
There was, obviously, no effective League while Chalkis and Eretria were both under tyrants and at loggerheads with each other. But it seems that Theban, Athenian, and Macedonian intervention in the island had produced its natural reaction: the Euboians wished to be left alone and were now more ready to cooperate with each other than they had been for many years.
Kallias may have believed, as Kahrstedt suggests, in "Euboia for the Euboians;" or he may only have intended to secure for himself a kind of hegemony in the island. In any case his policy had so far led him to accept help from Philip, and to fight against the Athenians. But Ploutarchos at Eretria soon fell, and Kleitarchos, aided by Macedonian troops, became tyrant of the city in Philip's interest. We know nothing of the circumstances; the date of Kleitarchos' seizure of power was 343. A few months later and in much the same way Philistides became tyrant of Histiaia. 35 Kallias retained his position at Chalkis as leader or tyrant—it is not quite clear which 36 —but his policy appears to have changed (Aischines refers to him as πλείους τραπόμενος τροπὰς τοῦ Εὐρίπου), for the rapidly growing danger from Macedon now inclined him to look for Athenian support. Karystos was still free and still allied to Athens.
In 341/0 Kallias, with Demosthenes' assistance, persuaded the Athenians to send an expedition to help him in driving out the Macedonian-supported tyrants at Histiaia and at Eretria; the expedition was successful (Phokion was again commander of the Athenian forces at Eretria), and democracy was restored in both cities. 37 The Athenians doubtless expected that the Euboian cities would now return to the Athenian League, of which they were perhaps still formally members, but Kallias had other ideas. His immediate purpose accomplished, he was now anxious not to put Euboia too firmly in the Athenian camp. He revived the Euboian League, and persuaded the Athenians to accept the withdrawal of the Euboian cities from their Confederacy while retaining them as allies. Of the treaties of alliance, one—the treaty between Athens and her allies on one side and Eretria alone on the other—has survived in part; enough is left to show that Athens was still dealing with the cities of Euboia individually in spite of Kallias' resurrection of the League. 38
It is unfortunate that we should be dependent on a single highly colored passage in Aischines for our information about the reconstitution of the Euboian League. 39 However, it is clear that the cities of Euboia now withdrew—if withdrawal was necessary—from the Athenian Confederacy, that the Euboian League was now re-constituted (not founded for the first time), that the delegates were to assemble at Chalkis, and that contributions were to be made to a common treasury; we need not, however, believe either that Eretria and Histiaia had each been paying five talents annually to the Athenian Confederacy, or that these rather large sums were now to be paid in to a Euboian treasury. 40 Indeed it is rather surprising to find the League assembly convened at Chalkis; did its coins continue to be struck at Eretria? The only reasons to believe that they were ever issued there are, as has been said, the lack of Eretrian coins in the late fourth and third centuries when the other three Euboian cities had their own issues, and the close approximation, in the late third and early second centuries, of the Eretrian and League types; these facts are not quite conclusive, but if the League mint was at Eretria they are intelligible, otherwise they are difficult to explain. Perhaps the συνέδριον now began to meet at Chalkis, while the mint continued to be at Eretria. 41
Aischines' complaints about Athens' loss of revenue show that Histiaia belonged to the Euboian League as reconstituted in 340, although, as we have seen, it is improbable that she had belonged to it earlier. But Karystos, which seems not to have suffered at all from Macedonian interference, still did not join, as is shown by the silence of Aischines (see note 39) and as is also indicated by the fact that, fifteen years later, Karystos appears on the Athenian side in the Lamian War while the other cities of Euboia, along with the Boiotians, remained firmly on the Macedonian side; as late as 306 Karystos still appears as the ally of Athens in her brief war against Kassandros. 42 The fact, however, that Karystos seems to have issued a considerable number of coins in the latter part of the century can hardly be taken as evidence of the pursuit of an independent policy, 43 for Chalkis was also striking in her own name. And although no Karystians appear among the hieromnemones from Euboia between 343 and 327, this is probably because they were not considered to be Ionians (see below), rather than because they were not members of the Euboian League.
At the Battle of Chaironeia, in 338, the Euboians undoubtedly fought with the other allies against the Macedonians, although no ancient author actually mentions the fact, and they equally certainly took part in the Congress of Corinth in the following year. We do not know what repercussions Philip's victory had in Euboia, but as the League continued to issue coins and is found flourishing at the end of the century, it is clear that it was not disbanded; 44 the diplomatic Kallias will have known how to ride the storm and to remind Philip that he had once fought on the Macedonian side against the Athenians. It is quite possible that Philip did not even establish a garrison at Chalkis to guard the Euripos, and that the Euboian League now acted, as it did later in the Lamian War and for the better part of the next century and a half, as the more or less willing instrument of Macedonian policy.
It is to the two years between the revival of the League and the Battle of Chaironeia that I should attribute the earliest of the large Euboian issues of lighter 'Macedonian' weight. The calculation based on the loss of weight in the Eretria hoard of 1937 indicates that the drachms without symbol and those with the grapes symbol belong roughly to this period. The question is discussed in Chapter 2; here it need only be said that the Euboian issues have certainly been dated too early in the past, 45 and that they must fall on either side of 300, rather than of 350, b.c. From the historical point of view it is fairly clear, as we have seen, that issues of coin by the Euboian League would be rather surprising at almost any time between 395 and 340, but that some issue is almost demanded by the course of events between 340 and 338. We need have little hesitation, then, in placing the first large issues of lighter weight exactly at the period of the resurrection of the League and the Battle of Chaironeia. 46
It is rather surprising to observe that Chalkis appears to have been striking its own coins during the first decade of the reconstituted League. This is suggested, at least, by the appearance of a δραΧμὴ Χαλκιδική in the Eleusinian accounts of 329/8 (IG II2, 1672, line 300), although that coin may have come from an issue struck earlier than 341/0. The coinage needs further investigation, but if Chalkis was striking its own coins at the time, and if Eretria's right to strike for the League had been recognized from the beginning and exercised fairly recently (in 357?—see page 87), Kallias may have been content to acquiesce in the status quo and to conciliate Eretrian opinion, which was probably somewhat hostile to him, by allowing the League's mint to remain at Eretria.
The reign of Alexander the Great was probably another peaceful period in the history of Euboia. We know only that two of his most trusted followers were honored at Eretria. 47 Antipater, of course, probably saw to the establishment of pro-Macedonian oligarchies in all of the cities, and kept a garrison at Chalkis.
From a study of the remnants of the Amphiktyonic lists discovered by the French at Delphoi, it is possible to throw a little further light on Euboian affairs in the later fourth century, and some too, perhaps, on the activity of the League. In our histories of Greece the Amphiktyonic League appears briefly and obscurely at the time of Solon, disappears for more than two centuries, 48 and is then suddenly responsible—with the assistance of Philip of Macedon and the Athenian Aischines—for the two disastrous 'Sacred' Wars which put an end to Greek freedom. The twenty-four hieromnemones who composed the council of the League had apparently met twice annually throughout the long interval without exercising any great influence on the course of history, but our information about them is confined, for the fourth century, to inscriptions listing the names, and sometimes also the 'ethnics,' of those who attended the spring or fall meetings between 343 and 327. The roster of hieromnemones which can be compiled from these inscriptions is unfortunately very incomplete. The Euboians, who had one of the two Ionian seats while the Athenians had the other, are listed below in the first column; 49 in the second I have suggested, from 338 on, from which city those about whom we have no information probably came:
|city not known||343/2|
|from Dion? 50||342/1|
|a Euboian (from Chalkis)||340/9|
|a Chalkidian 51||339/8|
|a Euboian (from?)||336/5||(Chalkis?)|
|an Eretrian or a Histiaian||331/0||Eretria?|
Too few 'ethnics' are preserved for certainty to be possible about the principle of selection. The above table shows, however, that the information at present available is consistent with the annual representation in turn, from the Battle of Chaironeia to 327, of all three of the Ionian cities of Euboia. Karystos was probably omitted because its inhabitants were considered to be Dryopians; it is probably also true that it did not belong to the Euboian League. 52 It seems strange that the cities should have held their seats in the spring and the following fall (the same year in our calendar) instead of in the fall and the following spring (the same year in most or all Greek calendars) so that the two half-yearly sessions at which each city was represented fell in different official years. Like the Euboians, the Boiotian representatives change in the middle of the year; the Athenians, however, sit by the Athenian (or Delphic) year. Many of the other hiero-mnemones seem to sit for longer than annual periods.
If after the battle of Chaironeia the three Euboian cities took turns year about, as suggested above, in holding the Euboian seat, we find at least five (and so probably at least six) Chalkidians in a row from 340 to 338 inclusive. This anomaly begins exactly at the time when Kallias of Chalkis was reinstituting the Euboian League, and comes to an end just after the Battle of Chaironeia. Perhaps Kallias secured the seat for Chalkis just as he arranged that the Euboian council should meet in Chalkis (the Eretrians seem similarly to have kept the seat to themselves between 277 and 273—see below); when Philip was in a position to settle Euboian disputes he may have seen that justice was done and the seat shared evenly. Or it may be that Kallias, without any outside pressure, turned over to the council of the Euboian League the right to select the Euboian hieromnemones, and that it (first considering the matter at its second meeting in 339?) decided to rotate the holding of the seat and to begin the rotation in 338 with a Chalkidian, even though Chalkidians had held it, on some other principle (or on none at all), for the last two years. 53 Whatever the explanation, it is not really surprising to find Chalkidians in a preferred position just at the period of Kallias' greatest power, and it is interesting to see that the Euboian cities belonging to the League apparently did, after 338, rotate the seat among themselves.
It has been mentioned that the Euboian cities, except Karystos, fought on the Macedonian side in the Lamian War; they were in the army defeated by Leosthenes at Plataia in 323 (Diod. XVIII 11); somewhat later the Macedonians invaded Attica from Euboia (Plu. Phokion 25), and, probably in retaliation, the Athenians made a destructive attack upon Styra (Strabo 447). There was thus a good deal of fighting in which the Euboian League was undoubtedly involved, and I should imagine that the 'kantharos' drachms belong to this period.
Kassandros and Antigonos' generals fought each other at Histiaia in 313, and then, as Kassandros had to return to Macedon, another of Antigonos' generals, Polemaios, appears to have gained control of the whole island and held it until 309, but the Euboians probably took sides in the struggle only when they were compelled to do so. The relief with which Eretria, at least, escaped from its Macedonian garrison in 308 may still be read in IG XII, 9, 192. As Holleaux has shown in a brilliant paper, 54 Eretria and Chalkis now joined the Boiotian League for four years, appointing "polemarchs" to administer the state, and adopting other Boiotian forms. Chalkis even accepted a Boiotian garrison, and Eretria contributed to the rebuilding of Thebes. 55
In 304 Demetrios Poliorketes arrived in Euboia in the double glory of his victory at Salamis and his defeat at Rhodes, and "freed" the island from its liberators the Boiotians. How the Euboians felt about this new liberation we are not informed. It seems, however, to have resulted in a second revival of the Euboian League under Demetrios' patronage, a revival which probably began at once although the inscription which is our evidence for it belongs to the early years of the next century. Demetrios immediately began to prepare for war with Kassandros, and in 302 he ordered his forces, both military and naval, to assemble at Chalkis; there were Eretrians among the sailors in his fleet. 56 The Euboian League had obviously to cooperate in Demetrios' preparations, and I should assign to this year one of its largest issues, the drachms with the 'lyre' symbol, which, from their comparative wear in the 1937 hoard (see p. 64) must come between the 'kantharos' and the 'satyr's head' drachms, and should be rather closer in date to the latter. Geyer (in RE Supp. IV col. 441) raised the question whether the Euboian League survived through the period of the Diodochenkämpfe, and decided that it probably did not. It is true that the League can have had little scope between, for instance, 313 and 304, but the continuous series of coins (which Geyer, of course, assumed should be dated before 338) is fairly good evidence that it was not disbanded. If we are right in putting the 'kantharos' drachms about 320 and the 'lyres' about 302, the League, however inactive, will have existed in some sense between those two dates, and if these positive dates should prove to be inexact and the issues are shifted a few years in either direction, one of them will then fall inside the period. We arrive at the conclusion that the League had some kind of existence from its refoundation in 340 until the end of the century. Eretria, Chalkis, and Histiaia belonged to it, but Karystos almost certainly did not.
Diodoros XIV 82. The same phrase recurs in Xenophon Hell. IV 2. 17, where it is recorded that in the army opposed to the Spartans at the Battle of Corinth there were no fewer than three thousand troops ἐξ Εὐβοίας ἁπάσης.
Πρῶται δὲ καὶ προθυμότατα συνεμάχησαν αἱ κατὰ τὴν Εὔβοιαν οἰκοῦσαι χωρὶς ῾Εστιαίας (Diod. XV 30). For the exact date see Silvio Accame, La lega ateniese del secolo IV A.C. (Roma 1941) pp. 70–74. The decree of Aristotle on which the names of the Euboian cities all appear is IG II2, 43 = Syll. 3 147 and Tod, GHI II, 123. The Chalkidians, the Eretrians, the Arethousioi, the Karystians and the Ikioi were all inscribed by the same hand, as Accame says, and he suggests that the reason is that they happened all to be admitted at the same meeting of the Assembly. If so, this identity of date is possibly an indication that the three Euboian cities were pursuing a common policy as a result of agreement among themselves, and this might have been secured through the League. But the evidence is slim, and it is unlikely (see below) that Karystos belonged to the Euboian League.
This point must not be pressed; there is also no reference to the League in the treaty of alliance between Eretria and Athens of 341/0, the year in which Kallias of Chalkis revived the Euboian League—but it is possible that the alliance antedated by a few months the reconstitution of the League. See p. 17.
There is an interesting parallel between Athens' unwillingness to recognize the Euboian League in the early fourth century and Sparta's unwillingness to recognize the Arkadian League in the early fifth—if I am right that an Arkadian League existed at that time. See "Kleomenes, Marathon, the Helots, and Arkadia" in JHS 74 (1954) pp. 32–35. In both cases the member states did not, for a considerable period, strike coins in their own names (l.c., p. 34, note 23).
As the Boiotian League certainly was: the decree of Aristotle in 378/7, for instance, firmly admits the Thebans, not the Boiotians, to the new Athenian League. There is an excellent analysis of Thebes' position at this period in Accame's Lega, pp. 17–26.
The wear of the seven specimens of these tetradrachms which occurred in Hoard 1 is similar to that of the three stylistically earlier didrachms; hoard groups 7 and 11 point in the same direction. The tetradrachms should accordingly be dated later, but not much later, than the didrachms, which were struck in 411 and 405. We have just seen that there are historical considerations which suggest that they should come before 394; on purely stylistic grounds both Head and Babelon attributed them to the early fourth century.
Aischines 3. 85 refers to the Athenians as πολλὰ καὶ μεγάλ᾽ ἠδικουμένοι ὑπὸ Μνησάρχου τοῦ Χαλκιδέως, the father of Kallias and Taurosthenes whom Demosthenes later proposed for Athenian citizenship. As Aischines goes on in the same sentence to mention Themison (see note 24), the date of Mnesarchos' injustices is probably before 366, and it seems likely that the terminus post quem is 371, both because Athenian influence was obviously strong in the seventies and because Mnesarchos' tyranny (?) should not be too much earlier than that (?) of his son Kallias. These are reasonable considerations, but the truth is that we do not actually know either the date of Mnesarchos' activities or that he was a tyrant at Chalkis.
Diodoros XV 76 (under the year 366/5) says that Themison, tyrant of Eretria, seized Oropos from the Athenians, and that when they attempted to recover the place the Thebans came to his assistance, accepted the town ἐν παρακαταθήκῃ and kept it. This leaves one in some doubt about Themison's relation to the Thebans. Aischines (2.164 and 3.85) and Demosthenes (18.99) both refer to the event, but throw no further light upon it.
Diodoros XVI 7.2.
IG II2, 124 (= Syll. 3 190, and Tod, GHI II, 153) is a document definitely dated in 357/6, the lost first part of which clearly contained an alliance between Athens and Karystos resulting from this war; the inscription also mentions the negotiation of probably similar alliances with Eretria, Chalkis, and Histiaia. It is natural that this diplomatic activity should occupy the later part of the summer in which the war was fought, and so fall in the next archon year. Kahrstedt (Forschungen zur Geschichte des ausgehenden fünften und des vierten Jahrhunderts, Berlin 1910, p. 69) assumed that the inscription shows Diodoros' date, 358/7, to be a year too early. Dittenberger in his notes ad loc. also held that Diodoros was mistaken, but based his view on the fact that Diokles, one of the generals who swear to the alliance in 357/6, also as general made the truce which closed the actual fighting against Thebes (Demosthenes 21.174). Diokles, otherwise known only because he was a trierarch on several occasions, is not likely, he thinks, to have been a general for two years in succession; therefore the war must fall in the year of the alliance with Karystos—357/6. Dittenberger has usually been followed in this, most recently by Tod (l.c.), but the argument is very weak indeed. Many generals were reelected, and Diokles may have been one of them; the fact that we do not happen to know (otherwise) that he was re-elected is a poor reason, by itself, for correcting Diodoros. Indeed, as we know that the campaign lasted for a month and that peace negotiations always take time, it would be rather surprising if both the campaign and the resulting treaties all belonged to the second half of the summer. Diodoros' date should be accepted.
Koehler's view, adopted by Dittenberger (Syll. 3 190, note 4), that these treaties were somehow still operative is surely wrong,—at Mantineia, for instance, the Euboians and the Athenians not only fought on opposite sides, but fought against each other. Thebes and many of her allies had left the Athenian Confederacy (Accame, Lega p. 178), although none of the names was erased on the great stele which carried the decree of Aristotle.
Tod's comments on this inscription (in GHI II, p. 158–161) require two minor corrections. In the first place he assumes that the taxiarchs, generals, and boule mentioned in lines 6 and 7 are Athenians; they must however be Karystians, as is shown by the natural run of the words, by the omission of taxiarchs from the list at the end of the inscription of the Athenians who swore the oath, and by the analogy of IG II2, 230b (which Tod mentions) where the Eretrians who swore to the treaty of 341/0 with Athens were the generals, a hipparch (Karystos would hardly have had cavalry), the taxiarchs, and the boule (see the revised text of this inscription in Hesperia 16 (1947) p. 145—where Μαθ in line 6 is a misprint for Μινθ). And Tod follows Kahrstedt and Dittenberger in calling Diodoros wrong about the date (see note 26).
Against whom was it intended? Clearly not against Thebes, not now an ally of Athens, or against Macedon, which was neither an ally nor as yet obviously dangerous; and not against the present governments of Chalkis or Karystos, her nearest neighbours, for similar alliances were being made with them—indeed the Karystians seem in the last few mutilated lines to be praised for helping Eretria, and the occasion of this help must be the kind of occasion for which the guarantee is being made. The attack envisaged is an attack by some city allied with Athens, and Eretria must have considered the danger serious or such a guarantee as this would not have been demanded. Perhaps Mnesarchos, tyrant (?) of Chalkis in the sixties, had attacked Eretria and been held off by timely aid from Karystos; κατὰ Μνήσαρχον would fit the lacuna in line 22 of IG II2, 125, and although he was no longer tyrant at Chalkis—the Athenians had given their constitutions back to the Euboian cities ὀρθῶς καὶ δικαίως (Aischines 3.85)—the danger still existed, for his son Kallias later succeeded to the father's position. If so the Eretrians may have wished for security against similar attacks in the future.
See A. M. Woodward in JHS 28 (1908) pp. 303–307, and Tod, GHI II, p. 161: the only known Euboian whose name ends in -ηριτος is an ᾽Αμφήριτος who was buried at Histiaia; the name Ηρακλειόδωρος is known, in Euboia, only at Eretria, but Aristotle refers to a prominent Histiaian of uncertain date called ῾Ηρακλεόδωρος.
It is possible, perhaps even probable, that the considerable sums (amounting to about 11 talents) which Karystos borrowed in the sixties, for some unknown reason, from a number of individual Thebans and Histiaians (IG XII, 9, 7) were re-minted by the city, for otherwise the money would clearly have been in inconveniently miscellaneous coin; if this is correct we have here a rough date for one (perhaps the first) of Karystos' fourth century issues which will have amounted to at least 65,000 drachms—the only denomination struck by Karystos in the fourth century. For the first issue of Histiaia, see E. T. Newell, The Octobols of Histiaea, NNM 2 (New York 1921). Chalkis' fourth century issues can only be dated accurately by a careful study of the pertinent hoards, which has not yet been undertaken. Meanwhile it may be pointed out that none of the series seems to have been struck at a higher weight than about 3.75 grammes, while the first four of the lighter weight issues of the Euboian League—those with no symbol, and those with the grapes, kantharos, and lyre—all weigh more than this, only the satyr's head and dolphin groups being so light in weight, and these probably date, as will be seen, early in the third century. There is no certainty, however, that there was any relation between the weights of coin issues at Chalkis and at Eretria; indeed we know that one group, at least, of the Chalkis drachms must have been struck about, or not long after, the middle of the century (see p. 21).
See 'Note on the Campaign of 349/8,' p. 42.
Aischines 3.87: Φιλίππου was emended to Φαλαίκου by Schulz in Jahrb. Philol. 1886, p. 314, because of the Φωκικοὺς ξένους mentioned a few lines farther on, and the emendation was approved by Beloch. As we know, however, that Ploutarchos had appealed to Athens for help against Macedonian aggression (Plu. Phokion 12) and that Kleitarchos became tyrant of Eretria a few years later with aid from Philip, it is natural that Philip should have sent aid against Ploutarchos in this campaign, and there is no reason to emend the text.
Aisch. 2.12: οἱ πρέσβεις οἱ τῶν Εὐβοέων ἐπειδὴ περὶ τῆς πρὸς αὑτοὺς εἰρήνηςτῷ δήμῳ διελέΧθησαν, εἰπον ὅτι καὶ Φίλιππος αὺτοὺς κελεύσειεν ὑμῖν ἀπαγγεῖλαι, ὅτι βούλεται ... etc. The reference is securely dated to 348; the terms of the peace, if indeed a peace resulted (Grote doubted it, and Chalkis, at least, seems not to have rejoined the League—see note 40), are unknown.
See Kahrstedt's excellent discussion of the chronology of these events in Forschungen zur Geschichte des ausgehenden fünften und des vierten Jahrhunderts, pp. 72–78. Beloch's objections to Kahrstedt's chronology have been answered by R. Wüst in Philipp II von Makedonien und Griechenland, p. 112, n. 3.
Aischines is definite enough — αὑτῷ τυραννίδα περιποιούμενος, etc.—but his terminology is not evidence.
Schol. Aisch. 3.103. With what enthusiasm the Eretrians recovered their liberty after an almost continuous succession of tyrants for the last quarter of a century (we know the names of Themison c. 366, Menestratos c. 352, Ploutarchos c. 350–346, Hipparchos 345–4 (?), Automedon 345–4 (?), and Kleitarchos 343–340) may be read in the "Artemiria Decree"—IG XII, 9, 189—which reformed the great festival of the Eretrian state, and laid down regulations for its observance εἰς τὸν ἀεὶ Χρόνον, ἐλευθέρων ὄντων ᾽Ερετριέων καὶ εὐ πρηττόντων καὶ αὐτοκρατόρων.
IG II2, 230 a+b (for part b see note 28). See the full and clear account of these events in Accame, Lega pp. 212–221, "La lega ellenica di Demostene." It is fairly clear that Kallias produced the idea of the Hellenic League (which later opposed Philip at Chaironeia), and that Athens and her allies and the Euboian cities were its first members. Demosthenes accepted and adopted the new principle, and he and Kallias visited the Peloponnese together in 341/0 collecting allies and making the idea a reality. Accame does perhaps rather less than justice to Kallias in his account of these proceedings. And I am not convinced that it was the Euboian League, as opposed to the Euboian cities, which entered the Hellenic League. The theory that this latter was a "league of leagues," which Accame accepts from P. Trèves' article in Rev. des Etudes Anc. 37 (1935) pp. 66f., goes rather beyond the evidence, as Cloché's account in La politique étrangère d'Athènes (Paris 1934) pp. 280–284, where the 'Hellenic League' is not recognized as a league at all, makes rather too little of it.
Aisch. 3.85–101; the most informative sentence reads as follows: εἰς γὰρ τοῦτο προήχθη Καλλίας μὲν ὁ Χαλκιδεὺς ὕβρεως καὶ πλεονεξίας, Δημοσθένης δὲ ὃν ἐπαινεῖ Κτησιφῶν δωροδοκίας, ὥστε τὰς ἐξ ᾽ωρεοῦ συντάξεις καὶ τὰς ἐξ ᾽Ερετρίας, τὰ δέκα τάλαντα, ζώντων φρονούντων βλεπόντων ἔλαθον ὑμῶν ὑφελόμενοι, καὶ τοὺς ἐκ τῶν πόλεων συνέδρους παρ᾽ ὑμῶν μὲν ἀνέστησαν, πάλιν δὲ εἰς Χαλκίδα καὶ τὸ καλούμενον Εὐβοϊκὸν συνέδριον συνήγαγον. The fullest discussion of the passage is by Kahrstedt, Forschungen pp. 72–78. Kahrstedt is, of course, mistaken in thinking that the Euboian League was now founded for the first time. Quite apart from the evidence of the coins, πάλιν in the sentence just quoted is clear enough, while τὸ καλούμενον Εὐβοϊκὸν συνέδριον probably indicates that the "so-called" Euboian League had continued to exist in a shadowy manner from the time of its last activity early in the century. This is far more likely than, for instance, the explanation in R. B. Richardson's edition of the oration—"τὸ καλούμενον: with a slur at the insignificance of the Euboean council compared with the Athenian." The point is, surely, the inactivity of an old league rather than the insignificance of a new one.
These figures, known only from Aischines, are suspiciously similar and suspiciously high; what is more, it seems very improbable that the Euboian cities paid συντάξεις to the Athenian Confederacy after the fiasco of 349/8 and during the rule of pro-Macedonian tyrants. They seem more likely to be assessment figures of some kind than amounts ever actually paid; but they are taken seriously by Accame, Lega p. 137. Karystos is not mentioned because she did not join the Euboian League, but why does Aischines not mention the loss to Athens of συντάξεις from Chalkis? This can hardly be an oversight, and must mean that Chalkis had ceased to contribute considerably earlier than the others. Perhaps she had formally withdrawn from the Athenian League in 349/8, when Kallias was, in fact, at war with Athens, while the memberships of Eretria and Histiaia had merely been allowed to lapse.
Aischines 3.100: (Δημοσθένης) γράφει ἑλέσθαι πρέσβεις εἰς ᾽Ερέτριαν οἵτινες δεήσονται τῶν ᾽Ερετριέων πάνυ γὰρ ἔδει δεηθῆναι, μήκετι διδόναι τὴν σύνταξιν ὑμῖν, τὰ πέντε τάλαντα, ἀλλὰ Καλλίᾳ, καὶ πάλιν ἑτέρους εἰς ᾽ωρεὸν [πρὸς τοὺς ᾽ωρείτας πρέσβεις], οἵτινες δεήσονται τὸν αὐτὸν ᾽Αθηναίοις φίλον καὶ ἔΧθρον νομίζειν. What does πάνυ γὰρ ἔδει δεηθῆναι mean? This is a highly tendentious and rhetorical passage, yet some real Eretrian reluctance must underlie these words. I imagine that, through the energy and influence of Kallias, the center of gravity of the Euboian League—the word 'capital' would be anachronistic—had now shifted from Eretria to Chalkis, invitis Eretriensibus. Aischines, of course, uses their reluctance as a stick to beat Demosthenes with.
IG II2, 467 = Syll.3 327.
Regling, discussing those issues of the League and of the Euboian cities which he dates about the middle of the fourth century, held that the difference between Karystos' types and those of the other cities showed that at times Karystos, at least, did not belong to the League: "Atque nummis illis Chalcidis et Histiaeae magna similitudo in parte antica est cum foederis nummis, cum Carystii prorsus diversi sint. Quae cum ita sint, concludemus Carystum certis annis a foedere alienam neque ceteras urbes semper foedere coniunctas fuisse, quod rebus annis 357 sq. gestis comprobatur." (IG XII, 9, p. 172, Appendix De Euboeae Nummis). The exact dates of the fourth century coins of Chalkis and Karystos require further investigation, but both these cities and Histiaia certainly did strike some coins in the later fourth century. Regling's conclusion is, as we have seen, probably correct, but his implication that Chalkis and Histiaia used a nymph's head as their obverse type (this is the only similarity between their coins and those of the League) because they were members of the League seems doubtful. The "similitudo" probably seemed greater to Regling than it really is, because he doubtless accepted the usual mid-fourth century date for the Histiaian drachms, the reverse type of which is a standing cow; this dating, as I hope to show elsewhere, is too early.
Arnold Schaeffer, in Demosthenes und seine Zeit (Leipzig 1887) vol. 3, p. 38, assumed that the League was disbanded soon after Chaironeia and that Kallias fled—"Es kann kein Zweifel sein, daß damit (i.e., when the Euboians came to terms with Philip after Chaironeia) der euboeische Bundesrat aufgelöst und das Regiment in den Städten der Insel an die makedonisch gesinnten übertragen wurde: ihre Gegner mußten die Heimat fliehen und fanden Aufnahme zu Athen"—here a footnote refers to the citizenship bestowed by the Athenians at an uncertain date on Kallias of Chalkis and his brother. But the coins show that the League continued; and Kallias was not clearly and simply an opponent of Philip: he could easily represent his policy as essentially anti-Athenian. The citizenship need not mean residence at Athens.
Mme. Varoucha was the first scholar to recognize this; see Epitymbion Tsounta (Athens 1941) p. 672, where she publishes a preliminary description and discussion of the Eretria hoard of 1937, and shows that the League coins with the dolphin symbol must belong to the third century. The old dates were 387, or 378, or 369, to 338; this terminus was queried by Regling (l.c. in note 43), but with many scholars it has been a kind of article of faith that the Macedonians did not allow independent coinage in the states which they dominated. For a full discussion of the dates of the Euboian issues, see Chapter 2.
There is a small issue of lighter drachms in high relief which is probably earlier than 340; it must, however, have been an extremely small issue—only a dozen specimens are known and they are all from two obverse dies—so that one should not look for an important military occasion to explain it. See Chapter 3, pages 85–87.
For Alexander's two followers see IG XII, 9, 197. For the probably posthumous Alexander coins struck at Chalkis, see E. T. Newell, The Coinages of Demetrius Poliorcetes (London 1927) p. 139, note 4; two other specimens can now be added to the two mentioned by Newell. It is an interesting but isolated scrap of information that sometime before 325/4 b.c. Athens somehow secured eleven catapults from Eretria—IG II2, 1629, lines 985–6.
It certainly continued to exist and to play a role in Greek affairs—see IG I2, 26, most recently discussed by B. D. Meritt in AJP 75 (1954) pp. 369–373.
The table was compiled from the list on pp. 324–5 of Fouilles de Delphes III5 (Paris 1932) and from the inscriptions on which that list is based.
The restoration here is difficult, and unexplained in the text. (FD III5 pp. 60–62.)
According to Bourguet (FD III5 p. 171) the Euboian representative on the board of treasurers this year, Thessalos son of Dorippos, was an Eretrian; it may well be so, but the restoration of the 'ethnic' simply on the ground that names ending in -hippos are common at Eretria seems precarious. If right it shows that not all of the Amphiktyonic positions were held by Chalkidians at this period.
For the Dryopians in southern Euboia see Her. VIII 46, Thuc. VII 57, and Diod. IV 37. The Eretrian demes of Styra and Zarex (the positions of which are accurately known) seem to have marked the northern limit of the Dryopian area—see Hesperia 16 (1947) pp. 129, 137, and 138. It is true that aside from the curious names which occur in the south of the island—the chief source for these is the 'Styrian tablets,' IG XII, 9, 56—there is little sign that any distinction was made or felt between Ionians and Dryopians in Euboia from the time, at least, of the Persian wars, but the Dryopian origin of Karystos was certainly never forgotten (cf. Paus. IV 34,11). Geyer, in "Euboia (Geschichte)" RE Supp. IV col. 440, suggests that the lack of hieromnemones from Karystos shows that the city did not belong to the Euboian League.
We do not know how any of the hieromnemones were selected (except that Philip's representatives were obviously appointed by Philip). It is, however, reasonable to suppose that after the re-establishment of the Euboian League in 340, the Euboian hieromnemones were chosen by the League; indeed it is difficult to imagine any other arrangement while the League was active. The two Thessalian hieromnemones were magistrates of the Thessalian League (not merely representatives of their individual cities)—they swore, along with the other officers of the League, to the treaty of 361/0 between Thessaly and Athens (IG II2, 116 = Tod, GHI II, 147); it is accordingly probable that they were appointed in some way by the League itself. This is Thessaly, not Euboia, but the parallel may hold. For Euboia itself, much later, we have a possibly pertinent piece of evidence in an interesting though much mutilated inscription the text of which may be found in FD III1, pp. 397–8; the best discussion of it is in Georges Daux's Delphes au IIe et au Ier siècle (Paris 1936) pp. 341–3. This inscription concerns a dispute between Eretria and Karystos on the one side and Chalkis on the other which was arbitrated by the city of Hypata in the archonship of Babylos at Delphoi—the date is thus between 120 and 108 b.c. (see Daux, l.c., p. 156, note 3). The subject of the dispute is not specifically mentioned in the preserved part of the text, but, because the inscription comes from Delphoi, both Bourguet and Daux suppose the point at issue to be the Euboian Amphiktyonic seat (in this they follow Pomptow, Klio 15 (1918) p. 15 and 17 (1921) p. 197; the theory is accepted without question by Ziebarth in IG XII, Supp. 1939, p. 207). Daux holds that Eretria and Karystos maintained, unsuccessfully, that "l'élection du hieromnemon appartient à l'ensemble des Eubéens" rather than to Chalkis, and it is clear that "all the Euboians" were somehow involved, for the phrase appears in the text. My only reserve about this interpretation is that Karystos was originally Dryopian, not Ionian, and had never, as far as we know, sent a hieromnemon to Delphoi; that, of course, may be the reason why their claim was rejected, but if so, why are the Eretrians associated with them? For our present purpose we can put no weight on this inscription; the date is too late and the interpretation too uncertain.
'Note sur un décret d'Érétrie,' REG (1897) pp. 157–189, republished in Etudes d'épigraphie et d'histoire grecques, by Maurice Holleaux (Paris 1938) pp. 41–73.
IG VII, 2419 = Syll. 3 337, lines 21–2. Holleaux is also responsible for the accurate dating and interpretation of this inscription (REG, 1895, pp. 7–48, and Etudes pp. 1–40).
For the Eretrians: IG XII, 9, 210 = Syll. 3 348; this is one of a group of decrees in honor of Macedonians passed at Eretria between 302 and 288 b.c.—the others are IG XII, 9, 218 (lettering very similar to 210), 199, 198, 200, and possibly also 221 and 222 (which are dated too late in IG) and IG XII, Supp. 552.
The Beseiger left Greece as suddenly as he had arrived, recalled by his father to fight, and to lose, at Ipsos in 301. There seems to be general agreement on somewhat sketchy evidence that Euboia, along with the rest of central Greece, followed Athens' lead in deserting Demetrios. We do not really know what happened in the island between 301 and 294; it is possible that tyrants in Kassandros' interest alternated at Chalkis and Eretria with democratic government in the name of Demetrios. 57 In any case, from 294 until his final departure in 287 Demetrios, now King of Macedon, controlled the greater part of Greece including the island of Euboia, and Chalkis was one of the chief centers of his power, along with his new capital of Demetrias and the almost impregnable fort of Corinth.
The only extant piece of documentary evidence about the Euboian League, before Roman times, belongs to the latter part of Demetrios' rule in Euboia, probably to the years 291–288. It is a long inscription —there are 75 lines with up to 100 letters in each—which, although the preamble is lost, is obviously a decree of the Euboian League laying down regulations for the artists who assisted in the celebrations of the two Euboian festivals, the Dionysia and the Demetrieia, and regulations also for their treatment by the four cities, Karystos, Eretria, Chalkis, and Oreos (Histiaia). 58 The most interesting passages, from our present point of view, are the references to previous legislation: κατὰ τὸν Εὐβοϊκὸν νόμο[ν] (l. 20), κατὰ τοὺς νόμους (l. 33), κάθαπερ καὶ τοῖς Διονυσίοις [γέ]γραπται (l. 41), κατὰ τὴν διαγρα[φήν] (l. 57), τοὺς κειμένου[ς] τοῖς Εὐβοιεῦσι περὶ τούτων νόμους (ll. 68–9), κατὰ τὰ δόξαντα [[τα]] τοῖς Εὐβοιεῦσιν (l. 72). From these references in their context it is clear, as Ziebarth points out (in IG XII, Supp., ad loc.), that there already existed at the time of the inscription laws of the Euboian League about the celebration of festivals, the duties of choregoi, the awarding of contracts, and about the imposition of some kind of duties or taxes. Offenders are to be fined by the authorities of the city in which the offence is committed, and they are to be [ἐντὸς] τῆς Εὐβοίας ἀγώγιμοι. It is provided that intercalary months shall be inserted at the same times in all the cities of Euboia, and that the local authorities may insert up to three intercalary days if necessary (to enable the festivals to be held on the proper dates in the different cities); 59 thus the League has some kind of recognized right to legislate on calendaric matters for the whole island. Payment to the artists is to be made in the coinage of Demetrios, 60 and his overriding authority is recognized (see note 58).
It is thus clear that the Euboian League flourished in the opening years of the third century under the patronage of Demetrios Poliorketes, that it possessed wide powers to regulate the affairs of the island, and that Karystos belonged to it—probably for the first time.
Demetrios was in Macedonia for most of the period from 294 to 287, while his son and successor, Antigonos Gonatas, now a young man in his later twenties, acted as his father's representative in Greece, and probably spent much of his time in Euboia at Eretria, where Menedemos was his teacher and friend. 61 Thus when, in 289, Demetrios chose Chalkis along with Pella, Athens, and Corinth, as one of the four dockyards where his last great fleet was built, the local popularity of his son may provide a pleasanter explanation than servile flattery for the numerous honors to Macedonians which were voted at Eretria about this time (see note 56). Demetrios' mint at Chalkis doubtless provided the bulk of the coin required for his preparations in Euboia, but it is possible that the satyr's head issue of the Euboian League was due to the same martial activity.
In 280 there was a wide-spread insurrection in Greece proper against Macedonian rule, and it is clear that Euboia too, either then or soon afterwards, declared her independence. 62 Our chief evidence is the Delphic lists of hieromnemones, the Euboian part of which may be summarized as follows (once more where we have no information I have entered suggestions in brackets in the right hand column, chiefly to show that the arrangement proposed is consistent with the preserved names):
|Sosibios (or Theokritos?) 63||278/7||(an Eretrian?)|
|Theokritos, an Eretrian||277/6||an Eretrian|
|—||275/4||(Menedemos, an Eretrian?)|
|Menedemos, an Eretrian||274/3||an Eretrian|
|—||274/3||(Aischylos, an Eretrian?)|
|Aischylos, an Eretrian||273/2||an Eretrian|
|Eperastos, a Euboian (an Eretrian) 64||273/2||a Euboian|
|Eperastos, a Euboian||272/1||a Euboian|
|—||272/1||(Amphikrates, a Euboian?)|
|Amphikrates of Chalkis, a Euboian||271/0||a Euboian|
|—||268/7||No Euboian in full list|
|Hektos, a Euboian (a Histiaian?) 65||268/7||a Euboian (Histiaian?)|
|Kleomedon, a Histiaian||267/6||a Histiaian|
|Kleomedon, a Histiaian||266/5||a Histiaian|
|—||266/5||(Kallicharis, a Histiaian?)|
|Kallicharis, a Histiaian||265/4||a Histiaian|
|(Anti?)phon, a Histiaian||265/4||a Histiaian|
|—||264/3||(Anti?)phon, a Histiaian|
|—||262/1||no Euboian (or Athenian) in full list|
|—||260/9||(Kleomedon, a Histiaian?)|
|Kleomedon, a Histiaian||259/8||a Histiaian|
|—||259/8||(Androsthenes? a Histiaian?)|
|(Androsthene)s, (a Histiaian)||258/7||(a Histiaian?)|
|—||257/6||(Phyton, a Histiaian?)|
|Phyton, a Histiaian (archon, 266/5?)||256/5||a Histiaian|
|—||256/5||(Antiphon, a Histiaian?)|
|Antiphon, a Histiaian||255/4||a Histiaian|
|No Histiaian (or any Euboian) in full list, and no others hereafter; beginning in 242, the Euboian seat was given to Chios||254/3|
Examining this list we see that from 278/7 to 274/3 the Euboian representatives seem all to have been Eretrians, designated as such; in 274 and 273 respectively occur the names of the philosopher Menedemos, Antigonos Gonatas' friend, and of Aischylos, his political opponent. 66 As Flacelière remarks, Pyrrhos' victory over Gonatas in 274 has clearly had repercussions at Eretria where, as we know, Menedemos was exiled about this time for his Macedonian sympathies. The representatives of the next two years are designated as Euboians, not Eretrians (Eperastos in 272 is, however, known to be an Eretrian, Amphikrates in 271 is a Chalkidian). We have no information about 270 or 269 67 , no Euboian representative appears to have been sent in 268, and Hektos, designated as a Euboian, appears in 267. Then for the next twelve years all of the Euboian representatives are designated as Histiaians. In short, the Euboian hieromnemones were listed:
How are these changes in nomenclature and representation to be explained? We have already suggested that the Euboian League, when active, probably appointed the Euboian hieromnemones or at least indicated from which city they were to be chosen (see note 53). Now the Euboian League was active, as we have seen, under Demetrios Poliorketes, but it may well be that with the establishment of a garrison at Chalkis it had again become a dead letter: the realistic Antigonos was less likely than his romantic father to encourage an organization which might cause trouble for him, and which, from his point of view, served no useful purpose except to arrange for the celebration of pro-Macedonian festivals. That Chalkis was issuing its own coins early in the third century perhaps points in the same direction. 68 Accordingly when Eretria broke away from Antigonos, as the lists of hieromnemones show that it did, in or about 279/8, the council of the Euboian League had probably ceased to meet, and the Eretrians, now free, sent representatives in their own name to Delphoi. This seems a suitable occasion for an issue of coin by Eretria, and if the satyr's head drachms were not struck in 289, as suggested above, they probably belong to 279/8, for the evidence of hoards suggests that they should be dated ± 285 b.c. (see page 65 below). It is true that these coins are struck in the name of the League, but that is not really surprising; it need mean only that Eretria is continuing the policy of issuing no coins in its own name while the League exists at all. The League at the time may have been little more than an Eretrian theory, but there was hope that it could soon be revived. We do not know what form Eretria's break with Macedonia took, but it was probably something short of formal rebellion and open war. At least Menedemos seems to have tried to keep his city on fairly good terms with his former pupil, for, as proboulos of Eretria, he moved a decree congratulating Antigonos on his victory over the Gauls at Lysimacheia in 277. 69 Chalkis was occupied by a Macedonian garrison and probably did not gain its independence until some time after Pyrrhos' victory over Antigonos in 274. Then Eretria, where Menedemos had just been exiled and the anti-Macedonian Aischylos was now the leading citizen, and Chalkis, which hoped to stay free of Macedonian occupation, naturally re-established the Euboian League for their mutual protection: it is a small but perhaps sufficient piece of evidence that the designation 'Eretrian' in the lists of hieromnemones disappears in favour of 'Euboian' in 272. This does not tell us whether or not Histiaia and Karystos, which had belonged to the League at the beginning of the century, now rejoined it, but as they had less to gain from Euboian unity and more to fear from the Macedonian fleet, one may assume that they did not.
This second revival of the League lasted for only a short time. Either the intrigues of Egypt, where Arsinoe's son was a pretender to the Macedonian throne, or perhaps merely the simple logic of the situation—Chalkis was a necessary link between Demetrias and Corinth 70 —made Antigonos decide, as his strength increased, to re-establish his garrison at Chalkis, and this time to occupy Eretria as well. His recovery of Euboia belongs to the year 270. 71 Either then, or possibly on the outbreak of the Chremonidean War in 267/6 (if "Hektos" was really a "Euboian" representative, chosen by the League—see note 65), the Euboian League suffered another eclipse, and no more hieromnemones from Eretria or Chalkis appear in the lists. Antigonos, at war with Athens and with Egypt and concerned for his communications in the Euboian strait, could no longer afford to allow any independence to these two cities; or perhaps the Amphiktyonic council, completely dominated by the Aitolians, would not seat representatives from cities now so patently under Macedonian control. In either case the seat fell naturally to the Histiaians, for Karystos, as we have seen, was not an Ionian city.
To this period undoubtedly, to one of the four years between 271 and 267, belongs the last silver issue of the Euboian League, the drachms with the dolphin symbol, struck on the last occasion when the Euboian cities defended themselves against Macedon. The rough date for them obtained by considering the comparative wear shown by the different groups in the Eretria hoard of 1937 (see page 65) was c. 265 b.c.; they are later in style, and in all the known hoards better in condition, than any of the other issues of the League. They are also struck from a smaller number of dies, which perhaps suggests that Antigonos met comparatively little opposition when he undertook the reconquest of the island.
Histiaians were now, for a dozen years, the only holders of the Euboian seat, and Histiaia must, accordingly, have been fairly independent of Macedon at this period. It was clearly now a place of some importance, for in a single year, 266/5, it appointed no fewer than thirty-one proxenoi from widely separated places. 72 It is sur- prising how little is known about this capital of northern Euboia; its port was excellent, its position commanding, its territory considerable, and its issues of coin—in the second century at least—show immense commercial or military importance, or both; one may hope that future excavation will uncover useful inscriptions. Meanwhile it is not even known whether Histiaia formed part of the small Euboio-Corinthian kingdom of Alexander, son of Krateros, when he rebelled from Antigonos in 253/2. 73 This is Tarn's date, and seems to be a terminus ante quem; if Alexander's rebellion could be put a year earlier it might explain why Histiaia sent a hieromnemon to Delphi in 255/4, but none in 254/3. And there was none thereafter.
King Alexander of Euboia and Corinth reigned only for four or five years. 74 He died in 249 or 248, and Antigonos recovered possession of both Corinth and Euboia. In the second half of the century the firm- ness of Macedonian control over the island is the probable reason for the lack of inscriptions of the period at Eretria (the only one of the four cities where enough inscriptions are known to give weight to such an argumentum ex silentio), and for our general ignorance of Euboian affairs. During the third century three of the Euboian cities were issuing bronze in their own names. Eretria, still apparently clinging to the theory that the League existed, put out a number of bronze issues in the name of the Euboians; that the mint of these coins was really Eretria is shown not only by the lack of any issues in the third century carrying the name of the Eretrians, but also by the fact that early in the next century, when Eretria did issue her own coins as well as the League's, the types of the two series are identical, while those of the other cities continue to be different. Apart from these bronze issues we know practically nothing of Euboian history in Gonatas' last ten years or in the reigns of Demetrios II (239–229) and Antigonos Doson (229–221), until at last the island was involved in the long struggle between Philip V and Rome. 75
It is recorded on the authority of Antigonos of Karystos (ap. Diog. Laert. II, 140) that Menedemos the philosopher acted as ambassador for the Eretrians to Ptolemy and Lysimachos, and Beloch (Gr. Gesch. III2, p. 301), referring these embassies to the years following Ipsos, supposed that Eretria had deserted Demetrios, and if Eretria, surely also Chalkis. Diogenes Laertius also preserves (II 143) a fragment of Herakleides Lembos to the effect that Menedemos πρόβουλον γενόμενον τῶν ᾽Ερετριέων πολλάκις ἐλευθερῶσαι τὴν πόλιν ἀπὸ τῶν τυράννων ἐπαγόμενον Δημήτριον. As Beloch says, this cannot refer to 304 when Demetrios separated the Euboian cities from the Boiotian League; it must accordingly refer to the years between Ipsos and Demetrios' return in 294. Perhaps the tyrants, like Lachares at Athens, seized power on behalf of Kassandros, and Menedemos obtained help against them from some of Demetrios' representatives in Greece or in the islands. But it is worth while to point out that on this theory Menedemos in visiting Ptolemy and Lysimachos is acting against Demetrios' interests, while in expelling these otherwise unrecorded tyrants he is acting on his behalf. It is better to admit that we do not know.
IG XII, 9, 207 = Syll. 3 348. If Newell is right about the dates of Demetrios' coins, and right that the coins referred to here were minted at Chalkis (see note 60) we obtain a terminus post quem for the inscription of 291 b.c. And the reference to Demetrios in line 48 — ἐὰμ μὴ ὁ βασιλε[ὺς ἄ]λλο περ[ὶ α]ὐτῶν ἐπιστείληι—perhaps suggests that he had not yet left Greece, so that the inscription should date before 287.
This kind of interference with the calendar was probably not unusual—see W. K. Pritchett and O. Neugebauer, The Calendars of Athens (Cambridge, Mass. 1947) pp. 21–2.
Demetrios had a mint at Chalkis, as E. T. Newell has shown in The Coinages of Demetrius Poliorcetes (London 1927) pp. 137–143 (it is corroborative evidence that Demetrios' coins are occasionally found in the island). Newell dates Demetrios' issues at this mint between 292/1 and 283/2. Ziebarth has suggested with some reason (in IG XII, Supp., ad 199) that Kleochares, son of Pytheas, a Macedonian from Amphipolis, who was honored by the Eretrians in IG XII, 9, 199 (and by the Athenians in IG II2, 559) may have been Demetrios' representative with authority over Euboia.
See W. W. Tarn, Antigonos Gonatas (Oxford 1913) pp. 20–26.
This event is dated too late by Tarn (l.c. p. 268–9); the Delphic lists of hieromnemones have been considerably revised since he wrote. Geyer's list in IG XII, 9, p. 173 is also out of date. The best publication of them is now R. Flacelière's Les Aitoliens à Delphes (Paris 1937) App. I "Recueil des listes Amphictioniques de Delphes à l'époque de la domination Aitolienne;" see also, for the Euboians, his discussion on pp. 188 and 193.
Of this name Flacelière says (p. 386) "Les seules lettres qui sur la pierre paraissent certaines sont les deux derniers: OY," but in his text he reads σ[ι][ι]ου (?) as if the σ were certain. Pomptow originally read Sosibiou, but later proposed to read Theokritou. It may be noticed that the entries for 273/2, 273/2, and 272/1 (and, rather less clearly, those for 268/7 to 265/4) strongly suggest that the Euboians in the third century as in the fourth (see page 24) sat in the spring and the following fall instead of, as one might have expected, in the fall and the following spring; this is a strong reason for preferring the reading Theokritou if it is not definitely incompatible with the traces on the stone.
See Flacelière, l.c., p. 193, note 1.
Flacelière gives the reading as [Ε]ὐβοιέων ῾Εκτο Μ[- but says that Pomptow's reading of the name as ῾Εκτο [δου is also possible: the photograph of a squeeze published in FD III1 p. 285, fig. 41, favors Flacelière, and also shows that there is no doubt about the reading [Ε]ὐβοιέων. It is rather strange, as we shall see, to find a "Euboian" listed in this year; is it perhaps possible that the man should have been called a Histiaian, but the designation "Euboian" was retained by mistake because it had been used in recent lists? There are two similar irregular uses of "Euboian" in the fourth century (see table on p. 22). Beloch considered the man an Eretrian, but Flacelière thinks this improbable (l.c., p. 193, note 2).
Aischylos' Theban (and so doubtless anti-Macedonian) connections are shown by the fact that he and his son (?) are to be identified with the ΑἴσΧυλος ᾽Αντανδρίδου and ᾽Ιθαιγένης ΑἰσΧύλου who were polemarchs in the first year, 308/7, of Eretria's brief membership in the Boiotian League—see IG XII, 9, 192. His opposition to Menedemos also shows that he was opposed to Menedemos' friends, the Macedonians; it is extraordinary that Holleaux should call him "membre ardent de la faction devouée à Antigone" (l.c. in note 49, pp. 160 and 188)—this is presumably simply a misunderstanding of Diog. Laert. II, 141. We probably meet Aischylos again as the archon of that name who heads one of the late fourth century ephebic lists—IG XII, Supp. 555—which are to be dated 304–300 b.c. (see Hesperia 16, 1947, p. 116), and he is certainly the "orator," for his father's name is given, who moved an Eretrian decree of unknown import very early in the third century—IG XII, Supp. 550.
Flacelière's fragmentary list no. 49 contains the entry ῾Ιστιαιέων Προκ-[λέους] and he inclines to put it in 270/69 rather than in 264/3 or 263/2. If this is right, a Histiaian, so designated, appears in this group of "Euboians," which seems somewhat anomalous as the groups are otherwise consistent. Either of the later dates would retain our distinction between the three groups.
The Chalkis drachms are usually supposed to come to an end in 336 (Head, HN 2 p. 358), or by the end of the century ("the accepted dating to the last half of the fourth century is probably correct"—E. T. Newell, Olympia Hoard, NNM 39, New York 1929, p. 17). They require much more work than they have yet received; I think, however, that some of the issues belong early in the third century.
Diog. Laert. II 142; see also Tarn, Antigonos Gonatas p. 166, n. 104.
This is well emphasized by Tarn, l.c. p. 289.
Tarn, l.c. p. 286. This is probably the ᾅλωσις of Eretria referred to in Diog. Laert. II 127.
IG XII, 9, 1187 = Syll. 3 492 (where, by a slip, the reference is given as 1188). The archon, Phyton, by whom the list is dated was probably the hieromnemon Phyton of 256/5 (see p. 31). In his interesting paper on "La circulation des monnaies d'Histiée" in Études de Numismatique grecque (Paris 1951) pp. 179 to 216, Professor Louis Robert quotes and discusses this inscription. Robert considers that one should not be surprised at the number of proxenoi in this one year in view of the huge issues and wide circulation of Histiaia's later tetrobols, and he assembles an impressive list of hoards containing these coins and of references to their discovery in many places. Now we do not know the chronological limits of Histiaia's later issues; Robert in a long note (p. 185, n. 3) reviews the differing and rather vague opinions of previous scholars without expressing one of his own, and rightly emphasizes the need for further study of the series. But it is certain that the great bulk of the coins which he adduces are almost a century later in date than the inscription on which he is commenting. Histiaia's connections may have been as extensive in the early third century as in the early second, but it is fairly clear that at the earlier date her coinage (if any—I hope soon to discuss this question further) was not remotely comparable in quantity, and the close connection with Macedonia which Robert quite properly posits for the early second century and which was perhaps—or even probably—in some way responsible for the extraordinary size of her issues, did not exist in the early third, as is shown by Histiaia's Amphiktyonic seat (which Robert does not mention). In short it is better not to assume any close connection between the conditions (whatever they were) which produced the thirty-one proxenoi of 266/5 and those which produced the numerous tetrobols of the first half of the second century. This is only one more instance of the danger of drawing historical conclusions from an inadequately known body of coins.
See Tarn, Antigonos Gonatas p. 355, especially note 35.
For the date of his death see Tarn, l.c., p. 370, note 5; for his rule at Eretria see IG XII, 9, 212 (which gives him his royal title). The Karystos didrachms with a king's head as their obverse type, which Six (NC, 1894, p. 299) wished to attribute to Alexander, are probably later in date, not late enough, however, to make possible Gardner's identification (NC, 1878, p. 98) with Anti-ochos the Great, as Mme. Varoucha shows in Epitymbion Tsounta p. 674.
In the winter of 209/8 Attalos, King of Pergamon, and Publius Sulpicius Galba, proconsul of Rome, met in the island of Aigina, which Attalos had bought from the Aitolians for thirty talents, to discuss a plan of campaign which should further Attalos' ambition to establish an Aegean thalassocracy, and reduce what the Romans conceived to be their danger from Philip. The negotiators, their purposes, and the meeting place, so secured, all seem extraordinary to the student of Greek history; indeed they show that the history of Greece has ended. But the states of Greece, now caught up in movements which they had no chance of controlling, nevertheless struggled as far as they could to preserve their liberties, their forms of government, and their accustomed ways of life. The cities of Euboia were more helpless than most, for they lay directly on the lines of all military traffic in this new age, whether north and south or east and west.
The united fleets of Rome and Pergamon amounted only to sixty ships, but Philip could not oppose them at sea. He accordingly strengthened the places most obviously threatened, including Euboia, and awaited the outcome at Demetrias. The allies accomplished nothing of importance anywhere; in Euboia, in 208, they captured Oreos (Histiaia), and attacked Chalkis unsuccessfully; then Attalos returned to Asia, and Sulpicius retired to Aigina, while Philip won back Euboia and scored other successes. The war was ended by the Peace of Phoinike in 205, and the Romans withdrew from Greece. The Euboians had undoubtedly been whole-hearted in their support of Macedon—or in their desire for Macedonian support—but the League issued no silver, seems to have taken no military action, and had, indeed, in all probability become a dead letter again. At least in 206 b. c. Eretria and Chalkis received separate ambassadors from Magnesia on the Maiandros inviting them to recognize and take part in the games held there in honor of Artemis Leukophryne; at the same time that these cities were approached individually, ambassadors were also sent to the κοινά of the Boiotians and the Phokians. 76 That the κοινόν of the Euboians is ignored suggests that it was again in abeyance.
It is interesting to see that Histiaia is evidently considered by both sides to be a place of importance. Its issues of later tetrobols which are usually dated from 196 to 146 b.c. had probably already begun by this time, 77 and the close connection with Macedonia, which was remarked on by Borrell more than a hundred years ago (although he drew the wrong conclusion from it) 78 , and which has recently been emphasized by Robert (see note 72), is the probable explanation. It is unfortunate that we do not know the form it took, or the exact reason for it.
The remarkable agreement for the division of Egypt's foreign possessions which was made in 203/2 by Antiochos the Great of Syria and Philip V of Macedon was dictated by their separate interests rather than by mutual good-will, yet the Romans saw in it a possible threat to their own security. And when Philip immediately entered upon a campaign of indiscriminate annexation of Egyptian possessions and free cities alike, Attalos and Rhodes, among others, had better reasons for concern. Thus in spite of their previous behavior in Greece the Romans were able to begin the Second Macedonian War with the Aitolians and the Athenians as their allies and with the rest of Greece more or less benevolently neutral.
One of the first events of the war was the capture of Chalkis in a surprise raid by the Roman fleet from Athens; the Romans massacred the inhabitants and burned the city but could not hold it (Livy XXXI 23). In the following year, 199, the Roman fleet captured Histiaia and handed it over to Attalos; somehow Philip recovered the town. In 198 it was the turn of Eretria and Karystos; the Eretrians defended themselves bitterly, but were surprised during negotiations—the Romans found little to loot except works of art, the number of which astonished them—and the Karystians, after the fall of Eretria, saved their lives by surrender. It is even possible that Philip recovered these cities too, 79 but Kynoskephalai in 197 put an end to the war. It is unlikely that there was any cooperation among the Euboians such as might have been arranged by the League had it been active; the Euboian cities, impoverished and faced only with a choice of masters, fought side by side with their Macedonian garrisons against the Roman assaults, but could not or would not make any combined effort.
Flamininus theatrically announced the restoration of freedom to Greece at the Isthmian games of 196, and then, partly through vanity and partly, perhaps, through philhellenism, persuaded the senate to abandon the idea of permanent garrisons at Demetrias, Chalkis, and Corinth, and not to hand Histiaia and Eretria over to Eumenes of Pergamon; thus he contrived to retain for Rome some small reputation for honesty, and for himself a large measure of the adulation by which he set such store. The freedom was, of course, illusory, but it had important numismatic results. Eretria and Chalkis, like Athens, 80 struck magnificent new series of coins, headed by the tetradrachm which neither of them had struck since the sixth century and which seems to have become a kind of badge of autonomy. Histiaia merely continued her tetrobols, being now perhaps too Macedonian in feeling to experience the empty elation which was sweeping over Greece. Karystos even issued gold, for the first and only time in her history. The Euboian League, now probably believed in by no one but the Eretrians, issued bronze with types exactly similar to those of the new Eretrian silver.
The promise to withdraw the Roman garrisons was at last made good in 194, when Flamininus himself went first to Chalkis and then to Demetrias, to remove the troops personally and to receive appropriate ovations. Garrisons at Oreos and Eretria were removed at the same time, and the Euboian League was once more reconstituted. 81
We know a good deal about the form taken by the Euboian League in the early second century. 82 It was a sympoliteia—that is, the Euboian enjoyed concomitantly two citizenships, one as a citizen of his own city-state, and the other as a citizen of Euboia, of the League. Both the four individual cities and the League itself possessed the right to grant to foreigners honors such as euergesia and proxenia and their attendant privileges: thus the proxenos of Eretria was granted the right to own land, etc., in Eretria, the proxenos of the koinon was granted similar privileges in Euboia generally—and all four cities must have agreed to recognize such rights when the recipient chose to exercise them. There was an eponymous hegemon at the head of the League, there was a boule (the synedroi) and an ekklesia, and there was a tamias. Finally, the League held gymnastic games called the Romaia. In view of the fact that both of the known decrees of the League in the early second century were found at Chalkis, it is perhaps probable that the council and assembly of the League met at Chalkis rather than at Eretria; Chalkis was obviously the geographical center of the island and the most important city from the military point of view; it is natural that Flamininus should have chosen it for the meeting place in spite of Eretria's pretensions. 83 But as in the fourth century, Eretria continued to be the mint for the League's coins, if we may judge from the extraordinary similarity of the Eretrian and League types (see chapter 4).
That the good will of Euboia toward the Romans was rather superficial is shown by the ease with which Antiochos took over the island during his ill-fated campaign in Greece in 192/1. He spent the winter at Chalkis, where he married a Chalkidian girl whom he chose to call "Euboia," the daughter of one Kleoptolemos, a distinguished citizen of the town. 84 On his precipitate departure the Euboians naturally feared Roman reprisals and fawned on Flamininus when he forgave them, feeding his ridiculous vanity with appropriate honors. 85 All true independence had disappeared, and although we know that the League lasted on into imperial times, there is no need here to follow the fortunes of the island in detail, for there are no coins of the League later in date than the early part of the second century; they were then struck in bronze only, and probably antedate the period when Perseus renewed, for the last time, Macedonia's long struggle with Rome.
If we look back over what we have been able to recover of the history of the Euboian League, it is clear first of all that it was never completely and formally disbanded at any time after its foundation in 411/10; this is established not only by the continuity of type in the issues of the League itself, but also by the pointed refusal of Eretria to strike coins in its own name at periods when the other cities did so and when Eretria itself was prosperous and influential. It is clear also, however, that there were times when the League existed in theory only; and that Karystos and Histiaia by no means always belonged to it. We may distinguish the following periods of activity:
|411/10 to 395 –||only Eretria and Chalkis belonged.|
|357? –||a small issue of coin testifies to some slight activity before the reconstitution by Kallias.|
|340 to 280 –||Chalkis, Eretria, and Histiaia belonged from 340 to c. 302; then, under Demetrios Poliorketes, all four cities belonged from (roughly) 300 to 280.|
|273 to 270 or 267 –||probably only Eretria and Chalkis belonged.|
|248? to 194 –||the League issued bronze, but perhaps only Eretria recognized its existence.|
|194 to imperial times –||the League, under Roman patronage, included all the cities of the island, with, doubtless, many periods of quiescence and none of real activity. It issued coins only for a few years from 194 to about 180, and again, briefly, towards the middle of the century.|
This is to state as fact what is never fully known and is often hypothetical. The history of the Euboian League can, however, be traced in its broad outlines, and the issues of the League can be dated with some approach to accuracy.
The inscription IG XII, Supp. 644 which was published with a full commentary by Kougeas in Hellenika VII (1934) describes in considerable detail the arrangements of a Macedonian king, almost certainly Philip V, for maintaining stocks of provisions, etc., at Chalkis and other unspecified fortified places in Euboia.
The close connection between Histiaia and Macedonia during the wars between Philip and Rome (see note 71), and the lack of any Histiaian issue larger than the tetrobol, make it unreasonable to treat 196 as a date of special numismatic importance at Histiaia, although the other three Euboian cities undoubtedly began new series at that time. I hope to discuss these later tetrobols of Histiaia in detail in another place; meanwhile I can only express the opinion that they probably began earlier than 196.
"Restitution to Histiaeotis in Thessaly of several coins classed to Histiaea in Euboea," NC 2 (1839–40) pp. 232–7.
For the dating of the first issue of Athens' "New Style" coins to 196 see Margaret Thompson, "The Beginning of the Athenian New Style Coinage," A.N.S. Museum Notes V (1952) pp. 25–33 (where Plate VIII shows specimens of the issues of Chalkis and Eretria). On the basis of their occurrence in the Anthedon Hoard, Miss Thompson convincingly establishes the synchronism of the new issues at Chalkis and Eretria with the beginning of the Athenian "New Style" coins, and proposes 196 as the date for the first appearance of the new series both in Euboia and at Athens. This date seems entirely reasonable and is further supported by the evidence of the Eretrian-Euboian bronze issues—see below, p. 126.
Livy XXXIV 51, speaking of Flamininus: "ipse Chalcidem profectus deductis non a Chalcide solum sed etiam ab Oreo atque Eretria praesidiis, conventum ibi Euboicarum civitatium habuit, admonitosque in quo statu rerum accepisset eos et in quo relinqueret dimisit." That this meeting reconstituted the Euboian League is not stated in so many words but is highly probable. Flamininus and the ten commissioners clearly favored the establishment of small leagues in Greece (especially in Thessaly) as a guarantee against the future aggrandizement of either Aitolia or Macedon. And both coins and inscriptions (see below) indicate a revival of the League about this time, although they do not provide an exact date. So too B. Niese, Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen Staaten seit der Schlacht bei Chaeronea (Gotha 1893–1903) II, p. 653 and G. De Sanctis, Storia dei Romani IV. I. (Turin 1923) p. 103, note 203.
The evidence comes chiefly from two inscriptions found at Chalkis (one of them was built into the Venetian castle) and published in IG XII, 9, 898 and 899. It has been considered briefly by Ziebarth (IG XII, 9, p. 153) and by Swoboda (Lehrbuch der gr. Staatsalterthümer, Tübingen 1913, pp. 442–3).
This is perhaps also suggested by the fact that the only two Euboian hieromnemones whose names are known in the second century—Apollophanes, son of Dionysios, in 178, and Antileon, son of Poliagros, in 134? (see Georges Daux, Delphes au IIe et au Ier siècle, Paris 1936, pp. 651–2)—both come from Chalkis; but the fact may be purely accidental.
Her head does not, however, appear on the new tetradrachms of Chalkis as proposed by Gardner (NC 1878, p. 99) although Babelon accepted the suggestion (see also Forrer, "Euboea, Queen of Syria" in Spink's Numismatic Circular, Feb. 1938, p. 43), for these coins should be dated in 196 (see note 80 and p. 126). Newell, although he dated the coins c. 190, considered the identification with "Euboea" improbable; his view, expressed to me nearly twenty years ago in conversation, was that the head probably represents Demeter.
Flamininus was perhaps honored at Eretria by the placing of his statue in the temple of Artemis at Amarynthos (IG XII, 9, 233 has been restored in this sense by Hiller; if his supplements are correct, Ziebarth is justified in calling the inscription a "decretum vel lex satis memorabilis," but the fragment is small, and the restoration must be considered far from certain). At Chalkis he was worshipped as 'Saviour,' and had his own priest who continued to be elected for several centuries, while the gymnasium and the Delphinion were dedicated 'to Titus and to Herakles' (Plu. Flamininus 16).
We may well agree with Grote that "nothing can be more obscure and difficult to disentangle than the sequence of Euboean transactions" in this year. The problems have been discussed in detail by Kahrstedt, Forschungen etc. (1910) pp. 54–62, and more recently by H. W. Parke in JHS 49 (1929) pp. 246–252, non sine fructu, as Zie-barth says, and the interested reader will find the testimonia conveniently collected in IG XII, 9, p. 151–2. Parke shows (with Grote and against Beloch) that the Athenians sent two expeditions to Euboia in 349/8, first a small one composed of ἐπίλεκτοι and some ἱππεῖς, and then another one to rescue them. He does not, I think, succeed in showing that on this second occasion the Athenians went out πανδημεῖ. The passages he quotes from Demosthenes show merely that the cavalry were sent. And Parke himself supposes that when they arrived the hoplites were not needed and only cavalry were used.
But there are other and more serious difficulties in Parke's account. His view (and indeed everyone seems to assume it—Grote states it explicitly 86 ) that Phokion went first to Eretria and later marched across Mt. Kotylaion to Tamynai is unlikely. Once they were in Eretria why should not Phokion and Ploutarchos have waited there for the attack from Chalkis? Phokion more probably landed in the plain of the modern town of Aliveri 87 and marched inland to Tamynai, intending to enter the plain of Eretria from the east by crossing Mt. Kotylaion, perhaps because he found that the narrow coast road—or rather path—between the two plains, which is five miles long and very rough, had been fortified against him. (I have been along this road several times and have observed at the eastern end of the pass the remains of what may well be the foundations of a fort of the classical period or earlier.) 88 Aischines gives this sequence of events quite clearly in 3.86: ἐπειδὴ διέβητε εἰς Εὔβοιαν Πλουτάρχῳ βοηθήσοντες, τοὺς μὲν πρώτους χρόνους ἀλλ᾽ οὖν προσεποιοῦνθ᾽ ὑμῖν εἶναι φίλοι (that is, the Chalkidians), ἐπειδὴ δὲ τάχιστα εἰς Ταμύνας παρήλθομεν, καὶ τὸ Κοτύλαιον ὀνομαζόμενον ὄρος ὑπερεβάλλομεν, ἐνταῦθα Καλλίας ... This sentence probably means that Kallias tried to persuade Phokion when he landed that he, Kallias, was more friendly to Athens than Ploutarchos was, but Phokion refused to be persuaded, advanced on Tamynai, and joined forces with Ploutarchos, intending to cross Kotylaion and reinstate his ally at Eretria. Kallias, who was in command of considerable forces 'from the whole of Euboia' (including some troops provided by Philip and some Phokian mercenaries secured by his brother Taurosthenes), and who had probably already been negotiating separately with Ploutarchos without obvious result, attacked Phokion. Ploutarchos, who in the sequel deserted to the enemy, must have joined Phokion at Tamynai because Eretria itself was now in the hands of Kleitarchos, whose revolution had been successful (Schol. Dem. 5.5); had Ploutarchos still been in control of the city with its excellent fortifications, this battle would not have been fought well to the east at Tamynai.
There is a fragment of Theopompos preserved by Steph. Byz. s.v. Δύστος (Jacoby, Frag. Gr. Hist. II B, F149) which certainly refers to this war, and which supports, I think, this reconstruction of the events: ἀποστήσας δὲ τοὺς ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ περιοικίδι τῶν ᾽Ερετριέων, ἐστράτευσεν ἐπὶ τὴν πόλιν Δύστον. There is no indication of the subject of the sentence, and no one, as far as I know, has suggested who it might be or how such an expedition could fit into the events of this campaign. But if the subject is Kallias, all becomes clear; after driving Ploutarchos out of Eretria (if this had not been done by Kleitarchos before he arrived on the scene), Kallias secured the support of the inhabitants of the Eretrian plain, and then, crossing or marching around Kotylaion, pursued Ploutarchos as far as Dystos—a strong fortification which rises on a conical hill above a surrounding marsh. On the report of Phokion's landing Kallias would naturally fall back on Tamynai, which was roughly ten miles north-west of Dystos, to avoid being cut off from Eretria and Chalkis; he then probably began to negotiate separately with both Ploutarchos and Phokion. Ploutarchos, wavering, joined forces with Phokion, but deserted to the enemy when it came to fighting. This interpretation explains the site of the battle, which is a serious difficulty in other reconstructions.
Again, Parke supposes that when the Athenian relief expedition went out (he says 'πανδημεῖ'), the cavalry landed at Argyra, the infantry near Styra. This would be very remarkable, for, although the site of Argyra is quite uncertain, the place is still known to have been in Chalkidian territory, and so well to the west of Eretria 89 while Styra, whence the Athenians returned, is the nearest port to Zaretra, and the most southerly town in the '᾽Ερετρική.' I should assume that the relief expedition, like the first one, landed in the plain of Aliveri, joined Phokion at or near Tamynai, assisted him in settling affairs at Eretria, and then moved south to fortify Zaretra, returning to Athens from Styra. What a small detachment of Athenian cavalry was doing at Argyra is not at all clear, but since Phokion summoned them ἐπὶ τήν διαδοχήν, and since Argyra, wherever it was, was not on the way from Athens either to Tamynai or to Eretria, they were not the relief expedition.
Finally, Parke suggests that Hegesilaos preceeded Molossos as commander in Euboia; but Molossos is stated to have succeeded Phokion (Plu. Phokion 14), and it seems more likely that Hegesilaos was sent out when Molossos was captured, perhaps to save as many as possible of Molossos' men. Ploutarchos' treachery (at which Hegesilaos winked?) apparently consisted in first coming to terms with the Athenians, represented by Hegesilaos, and then handing over some Athenian prisoners to his mercenaries to be held to ransom—for 50 talents, which at two minai apiece would represent 1500 men, but the rate was probably higher.
George Grote, A History of Greece (London 1905: ten vol. ed.) chapter 38, p. 331.
This is where the Persians landed in 490—see Hesperia , 16 (1947) pp. 130–3, where there is a detailed map of the ᾽Ερετρική.
Mt. Kotylaion meets the sea, occasionally in cliffs, but mostly in steep rocky slopes which are extremely rough; the modern road follows the shore, and for three or four miles is blasted out of the side of the hill much like the road along the Skironian cliffs. It is fairly clear that there was no ancient road for carts here, although there must obviously have been some kind of path connecting the plains of Eretria and Aliveri. At the eastern end of this pass where the road, following the foothills of Kotylaion, turns a little inland away from the sea (at the spot marked × on the map of Euboia in this book), are traces of what was perhaps a kind of fort or watch tower.
The remains consist of a rectangular corner of ancient wall, visible for some seven and a half metres along the road, and for some five metres at right angles, which has been employed as a foundation by the builders of the modern dry-stone field wall; the result is an otherwise unnecessary jog in the modern wall:
The few visible blocks are large—the largest, at the corner, is almost 2 metres long and 70 to 80 cms. high—smoothed and level on the horizontal surfaces, with 'vertical' joins which are never exactly vertical (the accurate diagonal join between the last two visible blocks in the upper course of the short arm can be clearly seen in Plate III). The thickness of the wall can be seen at one point—120 to 130 cms., made up of two blocks. Only two courses are at present visible on the side, and only one in front; the work is similar to parts of the Eretrian acropolis wall. The ancient foundations run under the field in both directions, but a very small excavation would determine their character. Nearby in the field is a large threshold block with cuttings for door-posts; I also saw a great many sherds (none, to me, distinctive) scattered through the earth of the field. As far as I can discover, these remains have not been observed before, or at least not described in print.
See Fr. Geyer, Topographie u. Geschichte der Insel Euboia , pp. 44–5, and Ziebarth in IG XII, 9, p. 168.
The dates given by Head and Babelon are, as we have seen, accurate for the earliest issues of the Euboian League, the Aiginetic didrachms, and they are reasonably accurate, too, for the tetra-drachms and drachms of Attic weight. Head, however, on stylistic and historical grounds, dated the drachms of lighter weight between 369 and 336, while Babelon supposed that they ran down as late as 313 only, although he did envisage the possibility that some might belong to the third century. Head's dates were those generally accepted, for it seemed a priori probable that the Macedonians, like the Athenians before them, would have restricted the right of autonomous coinage in the states which were closely under their control—Newell, in 1921, wrote: "... 338 b.c., at which date the island of Euboea finally fell into Philip's power and all local coinage ceased." 1 That in point of fact the Euboian coinage runs down into the third century was first maintained by Mme. Varoucha in 1941 on the basis of her preliminary study of the Eretria hoard of 1937, 2 and of the information she collected about the Koskina hoard (see no. 2 below), for she put the drachms with a dolphin as symbol (not known to Head or Babelon) in the time of Demetrios Poliorketes. In this she was followed by Professor D. M. Robinson, who also attempted for the first time to arrange the various drachm issues in their chronological order. 3 With the kind permission of Mme. Varoucha I have been able to make a detailed study of the large Eretria hoard of 1937, and this, with the supporting evidence of a number of smaller hoards, makes it possible, I think, to establish the chronology of these issues on a firm basis. It is best to begin the discussion with a list of the hoards known to me which contained coins of the Euboian League. They vary greatly in importance, and some of the groups listed here may even not be hoards, but it seems desirable to have all of the possible evidence collected in one place.
In addition to these, which are in the Numismatic Museum in Athens, the following coins, probably from the hoard, were noticed in trade in Athens during June 1937 (letter from an Athenian correspondent on file at the American Numismatic Society in New York):
The following coins, mentioned by Mme. Varoucha loc. cit. (note 2 above), were not secured by the National Numismatic Museum; they doubtless overlap the group mentioned by the correspondent of the A.N.S.:
Burial date—c. 235? (or c. 220?)
Preliminary notice published by Mme. Varoucha in Epitymbion Christou Tsounta (Athens 1941) pp. 670–672.
Certainty about the burial date of this hoard must wait on the appearance of Mme. Varoucha's full publication. Meanwhile I have tentatively adopted a date some 15 years earlier than that suggested by her in the article just mentioned because of the very slightly worn condition of the last issues of Ptolemy II (who died in 247) and of the tetradrachms of Antigonos Gonatas 4 (who died in 239) contained in it, and because I am not sure that the late Boiotian drachms (facing Demeter/standing Poseidon) need be put as late as 220; a date about 235 seems also to fit the Euboian League issues better. This is much the most important hoard, so far discovered, for the arrangement of the issues of the Euboian League. For discussion, see below.
2. The Koskina (Euboia) hoard of 1923–4. Several hundred? AR.
This hoard was dispersed soon after its discovery, but what information about it is available has been collected by Mme. Varoucha, loc. cit., pp. 672–674. She shows that it was not buried until early in the second century, and that it also makes a third century date necessary for some at least of the Euboian League drachms.
3. The Euboio-Boiotian hoard discovered in the spring of 1951.
The find included the following:
Burial date—about 400 b.c.
I learned from what I believe to be a reliable source that this hoard contained no tetradrachms of the Euboian League. The same source informed me that the total number of coins in the hoard was about 350. It is interesting that the League didrachms with the head on the reverse are slightly more worn than those with the head on the obverse.
4. The Karystos hoard of about 1945. 378 (+?) .
Burial date—about 230 b.c.
For the publication see note 3; for discussion of the tetradrachm and the forgery see notes 9 and 13 on pages 76 and 81. These coins required severe cleaning, so that their present weights are not an accurate indication of the extent to which they were worn when buried. It is clear, however, from Professor Robinson's plates that the drachms without symbol and the one with the grapes symbol (his nos. 65–70 and 71) are more worn than those with the kantharos, lyre, and satyr's head symbols (nos. 46–64), and fairly clear that those with the dolphin (nos. 72–74) are the least worn. 5
236 drachms of the Euboian League
|1 – Attic weight||Wallace EL 271|
|3 – high relief||Wallace EL 272–4|
|15 – no symbol||Wallace EL 275–289|
|22 – grapes||Wallace EL 290–311|
|75 – kantharos||Wallace EL 312–386|
|65 – lyre||Wallace EL 387–451|
|33 – satyr's head||Wallace EL 452–484|
|22 – dolphin||Wallace EL 485–506|
23 coins of Karystos
|11 didrachms with ΚΑ-ΡΥΣ.||Wallace KA 69–79|
|1 didrachm with ΚΑΡΥΣΤΙΩΝ||Wallace KA 80|
|1 didrachm with||Wallace KA 81|
|2 didrachms with||Wallace KA 82–3|
|4 drachms with ΚΑΡΥ||Wallace KA 84–7|
|2 drachms with ΚΑΡΥΣ||Wallace KA 88–9|
|1 drachm with ΚΑΡΥΣΤΙΩΝ||Wallace KA 90|
|1 drachm with||Wallace KA 91|
These 286 coins are believed to have belonged to the same hoard as section A above, and their composition makes this not at all unlikely; the degree of wear of the various groups of League drachms seems closely similar in both sections; the coins of both sections were covered with a very thick purplish-brown incrustation; in both cases severe cleaning was necessary, which reduced the weight of individual pieces by as much as one-fifth. Whether or not they belong together, the date of burial must have been about the same, for the least worn non-Euboian coin in section B—the tetradrachm of Antiochos I which dates about 275 b.c.—shows signs of a fair amount of circulation (it is more worn, for instance, than the dolphin drachms). The order in which they are listed follows the apparent degree of wear of the individual issues of the Euboian League; once again it is easy to see that the first four groups are more worn than the kantharos, lyre, and satyr's head groups, and although the distinction between these is not altogether obvious it is clear that the dolphin drachms are less worn than any of the others. The non-Euboian coins fall between 325 and 275 b.c., thus confirming in general the dates suggested below for the Euboian issues. Unfortunately the cleaning required makes the weights much less significant than those of the Eretria hoard of 1937. The most welcome feature of the hoard is the appearance in it of three of the rare drachms in high relief for the date of which there had been very little evidence. It will also be invaluable for the arrangement of the issues of Karystos.
5. Hoard in private possession in Athens in 1952. 66+ .
All in the lot shown to me were Euboian League drachms:
Two of these coins did not come from the hoard, but which two was uncertain. No information was available about date or place of finding. I was able to weigh and examine these coins (which had apparently been cleaned, but were in good condition) and to observe that those without symbol seemed somewhat more worn than those with the grapes symbol; both of these were more worn than those with the kantharos, lyre, or satyr's head, the distinction between which was not clear; and those with the dolphin were the least worn. The coins are all entered in the catalogue.
6. Hoard found near Eretria in 1935. About 260 . Dispersed.
The coins were all drachms. The following 19 are in private possession in Athens; I was able to photograph, weigh and examine them. They are entered in the catalogue.
Of these coins the one with the grapes was the most worn, the one with the dolphin, least. Those with the satyr's head seemed somewhat more worn than those with the kantharos and those with the lyre, but had actually lost less weight—see Table on page 64.
7. Karystos hoard of about 1930 (?). Size unknown. Dispersed.
The following five coins were said to be from this hoard, and all show the same reddish brown oxidation:
I was also shown other coins from the hoard of which I made no record and have little recollection; my impression is that they were Karystos drachms and didrachms. The two Euboian League coins were much worn, having circulated for roughly two hundred years (the Karystos king or tyrant probably belongs in the late third century). It is interesting to find these League staters still current in Euboia in the late third and early second centuries—13 of them occurred in the Eretria hoard of 1937 (no. 1 above), and one in the Karystos hoard of about 1945 (no. 4 above). The regular circulation of badly worn coins, and of foreign coins, is attested by innumerable hoards and surely shows that coins were normally exchanged by weight, not by face value as is so frequently assumed. It is pertinent, too, that "clipped" coins are rarely or never met with: I have never seen a Euboian coin which appeared to have been clipped.
8. Hoard group. Place and date of finding unknown. Number unknown.
The following 11 coins, showing a characteristic reddish deposit, were plausibly stated to have been found together:
Here the three without symbol (and the Histiaian tetrobol) are obviously more worn than the others among which the one with the lyre seems least worn.
9. Hoard group. Place and date of finding unknown. Number unknown.
The following 9 coins were secured at the same time through the same dealer and the comparative wear of the coins with the various symbols is consistent with that shown by similar coins in other hoards; the character of the oxidation is generally similar, but there was no statement about whether or not they were found together:
The Attic weight drachm and those without symbol were much worn, the kantharos and lyre drachms considerably worn, one of the dolphins was little worn and one considerably (this last coin, because of its wear, and the Attic drachm, because of its wear and appearance, should perhaps be dissociated from the others). No conclusions whatever could be based on this group of coins if it stood alone, but the fact that its wear is similar to that of the known hoards perhaps allows it to increase slightly the total weight of the evidence.
10. Hoard group. Place and date of finding unknown. Number unknown.
The following 15 coins were secured at the same time through the same dealer. They are all in the same miserable condition, oxidized and crystallized (six of them are broken), and the comparative wear of the different issues also indicates—although it was not stated by the dealer—that they come from the same hoard. All are Euboian League drachms:
The drachms in high relief, without symbol, and with the grapes are clearly the most worn; there is little to choose between those with the kantharos, the lyre, and the satyr's head; and the dolphin drachm seems slightly less worn than these last. The group of coins, in spite of their poor condition, is interesting because one of the drachms in high relief occurs in it, and supports the conclusion to which various other indications also point (see especially hoard 4), that the "high relief" group comes early in the series of Euboian League drachms of lighter weight (see page 87).
11. Hoard (?) found in Greece about 1949. 85+ (?) .
The following coins were stated by the dealer through whom the drachms were secured to have been found together. The descriptions of condition for the staters are based on a photograph of one side only; for the drachms, on the coins themselves:
In spite of the express statement that all of these coins were found together, it is quite clear that the 20 Boiotian "magistrate" didrachms of the mid-fourth century, some of which are in extremely fine condition, cannot have come from the same hoard as the Euboian League drachms, for these, as we have seen, must run down into the third century, while the Elis didrachm appears to belong to the late third century. I suspect that two hoards, one largely composed of staters and one largely of drachms, have been mixed together. In any case it is reasonably clear from their similar appearance and consistent wear that the Euboian League and Chalkis drachms did form part of a hoard. Of the Euboian League drachms much the most worn are those without symbol, then come the grapes, there is little to choose between the coins with the kantharos, lyre and satyr's head, and the single dolphin drachm seems less worn than the others.
The hoard is interesting, too, for the light which it throws on the comparative dates of the different issues of Chalkis drachms (although these are unfortunately few in number); I hope perhaps to discuss these at some future date.
The comparative condition of the Boiotian staters with magistrates' names may be of interest for the arrangement of this series, and has been carefully described from the reduced but clear photograph of the reverses only which was all that was available to me; within the different categories the arrangement is alphabetical. It may be noticed that the four coins with the name ΑΡΚΑ vary considerably in the amount of wear which they show. Such differences within one small group are frequent in hoards, and mean that arguments from condition should be based either on a large number of coins from one hoard or on the comparative condition in a number of different hoards.
The following coins were secured at the same time through the same dealer, and are probably, to judge from their similar appearance and consistent wear, part of the same hoard, although no statement to that effect was made by the dealer (whom I was not able to question):
In this group of coins the now familiar pattern of wear is very clear–the drachms without symbol are the most worn, next come those with the grapes, the condition of those with the kantharos lyre and satyr's head is hard to distinguish by eye, and the three with the dolphin are clearly the least worn. The group of Chalkis drachms would be more interesting if they were not mostly—17 of them—the unattractive issue with the ΖΗ monogram, usually described as "late and barbarous" (so, for instance, in the British Museum Catalogue; but it is clear, both from this hoard and from the last one described, to mention only two, that they are not so late as, for instance, the drachms with the caduceus symbol).
13. Small hoard found in Euboia about 1950. 38+ .
The dealer through whom the following coins were secured said that they were stated to have come from Euboia, and that they had probably been found in 1950. They were in poor condition and were covered with a heavy deposit which left no doubt at all that they had been found together. In the course of cleaning the whole surface layer flaked off leaving the coins very light and in some cases scratched, but otherwise restoring the surface to something approximating its condition at the time of burial; it was thus possible to identify the dies, and to estimate the degree of wear with some accuracy although no dependence for this purpose can be placed upon the present weights. In the hoard listed as number 4 above the condition of the coins is somewhat similar, although both sections of that hoard were cleaned more expertly:
Among the Euboian League drachms, those without symbol seem the most worn, the grapes show the next greatest wear, it is hard to decide between the drachms with the kantharos, lyre, and satyr's head symbols, and those with the dolphin show little wear. The other coins all seem to show a medium degree of wear—it is difficult to compare accurately the wear of coins of very different types.
This small group of coins was secured through a dealer who could or would give no information about them. They were similar in appearance to the last group, heavily oxidized so that the type was frequently unrecognizable; I have no doubt that they were all found together. In cleaning, a thick layer flaked off from the surface of every coin, so that their weights are now light and irregular, but the surface is sufficiently sharp and clear for the dies and the degree of wear to be easily determined.
Among the Euboian League drachms there seemed little difference between those with the kantharos, lyre and satyr's head symbols, but those with the dolphin were distinctly less worn.
15. Hoard group. Date and place of finding unknown. 90+ AR.
The 69 coins listed below were stated by the dealer in Athens, in whose possession they were in 1954, to have been secured by him at the same time from the same man; 18 others in his possession (16 Euboian League drachms and 2 Alexander-type drachms), not described below, were in the same group which, when he secured it, contained more than 90 coins. The dealer did not say that they were a hoard, but he supposed, in view of their similar types and condition, that they had probably been found together. With the exception of one of the three drachms with the grapes symbol which seems rather too well preserved, the wear of the coins in each of the different symbol groups seems very similar, and it is obvious that we have to do with a hoard group with few, if any, intrusions. The coins without symbol are obviously the most worn, and those with the dolphin symbol are the least. Between them it is difficult to distinguish by eye between the wear of the grapes, kantharos, lyre and satyr's head groups; good photographs were available, but no weights or die positions.
The fifteen hoards listed above, of which only number 1 can claim to be approximately complete, obviously contain some coin groups on which no sober scholar would care to base any conclusions at all, while number 1, the Eretria hoard of 1937, is as valuable in arranging the issues of the League as any hoard could well be—unless, indeed, a similar one several times as large should become available for study. All fifteen have, however, been listed together to show that the Eretria hoard of 1937 by no means stands alone in fixing the order of the League issues, and in determining that they continued into the third century—that, in short, there is nothing in any way unusual or peculiar about it.
It is interesting to notice that in most of the hoard groups the kantharos and lyre coins are the most numerous, while the grapes and dolphin coins are fewest. This is the same relation as that between the total numbers known of each type, and so probably corresponds to the size of the original issues—in short no single large find of one type has upset the ratio. If one were to judge the size of the issues purely by the number of dies used for each (see the Synopsis on page 118), one would assume—probably erroneously—that the issue with the satyr's head was as large as that with the kantharos.
In all of the hoards the drachms without symbol are the most worn (neglecting for the moment the small group in high relief), and those with the dolphin are the least worn, of the lighter issues of the League. Of the other symbol groups it is fairly clear that the drachms with the grapes come early, but it is usually difficult to distinguish the comparative wear of the drachms with the kantharos, lyre, and satyr's head.
In estimating the degree of wear shown by different coins, it is helpful if the coins to be compared are of identical types; it is also helpful if they are not too numerous, for it is difficult to determine with the eye the average wear of a group of coins. One may compare the wear of two coins struck from the same dies with great accuracy; one may still be very accurate if they are of the same type, from different dies; but if the coins to be compared are either different in type, or numerous, only large differences in wear can be recognized with certainty. A complicating factor which has never, as far as I know, been taken into account, is the composition of the metal of the coin—some silver alloys are softer and wear faster than others. Thus the drachms of Chalkis, which on the whole have a composition much like that of Sterling silver, undoubtedly wore less rapidly in circulation than those of the Euboian League which contain only about 1% of copper on the average. 8 Another complicating factor is the difference of different students' opinions about the degree of wear of the same coins; I have called attention to one case of such disagreement above. 9
Wear, however, not only blurs the surface, it reduces the weight of the coin. It is thus possible to tell which of two coins of identical types is the more worn simply by weighing them—providing that neither coin has lost (or gained) weight in other ways, such as oxidation, incrustation, breaking, cleaning, etc. The weight will, of course, be an accurate indication of the degree of wear only if the series to which the coins belong was accurately struck so that it is a fair presumption that the two weighed approximately the same amount when they came from the mint. And if two coins of different types, or even of different issues of the same type, are to be compared, it is essential that the normal or standard weight to which each of the two series were struck should be known, 10 and that these standard weights should not be too widely separated: obviously the comparative wear of an Aiginetic didrachm and of a Corinthian drachm found in the same hoard cannot be determined by seeing which coin has lost more weight, for the didrachm has a larger surface, and it is unlikely that coins of these two denominations passed equally often from hand to hand. Finally, it is difficult to be sure that there is an accurate correspondence between the amount a coin has lost in circulation and the length of time between its minting and its burial—indeed coins of the same group found in the same hoard often show differing degrees of wear—as has already been remarked.
But if all of these considerations are kept in mind, if only coins which, apart from wear, are clearly in fairly good condition are used in the calculation, if the original weights of the series to which they belong are accurately known and not too dissimilar, and if the average weight of a considerable number of coins of the same series is used rather than the weights of individual specimens, then it should be possible to determine how much weight, on the average, the coins of the different series in a hoard have lost. The larger the hoard, the more dependable will be the result. Indeed the method, under favorable circumstances, should be able not only to tell us the order in which different series were struck, but also to give us a numerical relationship between the periods of circulation—at the time the hoard was buried—of the different series involved.
Fortunately the Eretria hoard of 1937 contained 275 drachms of the Euboian League, most of them in very good condition aside from wear. The following table shows the average loss of weight of the various groups of Euboian League drachms in it, and also in several of the other hoards listed above; the figures were secured by subtracting the average weight of the drachms of each group in the hoard from the standard or normal weight of each group as determined from the frequency tables (see the chapter on the "Silver Issues" and the "Synopsis" on page 118). Coins which appeared to have gained or lost weight by oxidation, breakage, etc., have been omitted from the calculation, and, accordingly, the number of coins on which the averages are based is indicated in each case.
|Hoard||No symbol||Grapes||Kantharos||Lyre||Satyr's head||Dolphin|
|No. 1 11||.165 gms||.169||.14||.11||.08||.047|
|No. 4B 12||.73||.78||.65||.65||.66||.51|
|(26 coins)||(8)||(1) 13||(6)||(3)||(5)||(3)|
|No. 13 14||.53||.64||.52||.46||.42||.37|
It is readily seen from this table that only the Eretria hoard of 1937 is large enough, and composed of coins in good enough condition, to provide statistical results in which one can have any real confi- dence; indeed even here the numbers in the grapes and dolphin groups are a good deal smaller than one could wish. The other hoards (except no. 4, the coins of which were heavily oxidized) obviously do not contain enough coins in the various groups to justify making the average weights the basis of any further calculation, but it is worth while to notice that they, too, do in general indicate a similar relationship between the different issues. The argument which follows is based entirely on Hoard 1.
In Hoard 1 the kantharos drachms have lost three times as much weight as those with the dolphin, and should accordingly, at the time when the hoard was buried, have circulated about three times as long. Applying this type of argument to each of the groups, and taking the period of circulation of the dolphin drachms as the unit, we observe that
If we now assume a thirty year period of circulation for the dolphin drachms (the figure is admittedly rather arbitrary—the drachms show definite but not extensive traces of wear), and a date about 235 b.c. for the burial of the hoard (see above), the dates of the various groups may be determined as follows:
|Group||Approximate date||Date adopted in Ch. 1|
|no symbol||3½ × 30 + 235 = 340||c. 340 b.c.|
|grapes||3½ × 30 + 235 = 340||c. 340–338|
|kantharos||3 × 30 + 235 = 325||323–320|
|lyre||2⅓ × 30 + 235 = 305||302|
|satyr's head||1⅔ × 30 + 235 = 285||c. 289 or 279|
|dolphin||1 × 30 + 235 = 265||270–267|
The assumption of a shorter period of circulation for the dolphin drachms or of a later date for the burial of the hoard would, of course, bring down the dates of all of the groups, including the earliest issues. Such a result would be rather surprising, for 340 when the Euboian League was reconstituted and undoubtedly took part in the last struggle against Philip is the latest "reasonable" date for the beginning of the lighter weight Euboian League drachms—it is already some thirty years later than the latest date which has been adopted hitherto on stylistic grounds. On the other hand, to assume a longer period of circulation for these dolphin drachms (an earlier date for the burial of the hoard is hardly possible) would make the rather slight wear of this issue, which is comparable with that of the coins of Ptolemy II in the hoard, difficult to understand. Thus although the figure "thirty" was adopted somewhat arbitrarily, there can be little doubt that it is roughly right if we are correct in setting the burial of the hoard about 235.
Whatever may be thought of the positive dates given by this argument—I should not be inclined to put any great weight on them if they were not also entirely reasonable from the historical point of view—there can be no doubt that the comparative dates are sound. It is also clear that we do not have to do with regularly spaced issues struck within a few years of each other, and so must not assume that the symbols appearing on the drachms stand for successive magistrates each in office for a definite period of, say, five or ten years. It seems more likely that coin was issued by the League only when specially needed—e.g., for military purposes—and that such occasions were, at the period in question, neither numerous nor close together.
It should be added, more or less as a footnote, that the loss of weight of the League didrachms, which can be dated with considerable accuracy, and of the tetradrachms, which must surely belong in the first decade of the fourth century (see page 10), can unfortunately not be used to check these results. They are too few in number, and so different from the drachms in shape and value that the loss of weight in circulation may have occurred at a different, and even at a very different, rate. The three didrachms have in point of fact lost about of their weight, 15 and as they circulated for about 175 years (from 410–405 to about 235 b.c.) we might calculate that they lost about of their weight each quarter century. At this rate the kantharos drachms, for instance, which have lost just more than of their weight, should have circulated for from 80 to 85 years, whereas the period arrived at above for them is actually 85 to 90 years. This happens to be a strikingly close result, but it is clear that such calculations should only be made if they can be based on a considerable number of coins of the same denomination. This one, based on different denominations and on only three didrachms, was made here only exempli gratia, since as far as I know this method has never been employed, and it seems worth while to suggest its possibilities. There may well be other large hoards which contain enough coins of some accurately datable series to make it possible to establish, within a single hoard, a rate of loss of weight. Such a figure, cautiously employed within a single large hoard of varied contents, might yield extremely interesting results. For the present we may claim to have established the comparative dates of the issues of the Euboian League with practical certainty, and to have approximated the positive dates fairly closely. Exactly how close the approximation is one can hardly tell until further evidence accumulates, but as can be seen from Chapter 1 reasonable occasions for the issue of coin did exist at or near all of the dates indicated.
E. T. Newell, The Octobols of Histiaea, NNM 2 (New York 1921) p. 10. Newell, however, to some extent changed his mind on this point, as is clear from his later remark about the drachms of Chalkis, that "the accepted dating of these pieces in the last half of the fourth century is probably correct."— Alexander Hoards , Olympia, NNM 39 (New York 1929) p. 17.
Owing to the kindness of Mme. Varoucha of the National Numismatic Museum in Athens, who has already discussed this hoard briefly in Epitymbion Tsounta (Athens 1941) pp. 670–672, and who intends shortly to publish it in detail, I was enabled to study the hoard in Athens in 1952 and am permitted to make use of the information here. I take this opportunity of expressing my gratitude for her assistance and her generosity, shown in many ways during my stay in Greece.
See D. M. Robinson, A Hoard of Silver Coins from Carystus , NNM 124 (New York 1952). Professor Robinson kindly made photographs of the coins of this hoard available to me prior to the publication of his monograph, and allowed me to read his manuscript, but I was unable to persuade him that the wear of the different issues in his hoard was consistent, and a valuable aid in establishing the chronology. He preferred to depend entirely on stylistic and historical considerations in arriving at the following dates for the various issues:
As this order is clearly contradicted by the condition of the coins of the various groups in all the hoards known to me (including this section A of hoard 4 where it is obvious, for instance, from Professor Robinson's own plates, that the drachms without symbol are much more worn than those with the kantharos), and as I find his stylistic arguments unconvincing and difficult to summarize, I shall not discuss them here in detail, but refer the reader who wishes to consider them to the publication mentioned above.
Obv. Macedonian shield, head of Pan on boss
These eight tetradrachms show only very slight traces of wear. That they certainly begin in the reign of Antigonos Gonatas has been shown by Miss Hanna Cox in "A Third Century Hoard of Tetradrachms from Gordion," a Museum Monograph of the University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, published in 1953. In this Gordion hoard no. 53 of the above types is much more worn than nos. 54 and 55 which are "head of Poseidon / Apollo on prow" issues of Doson, and it seems to carry the monogram which appears on four of the eight coins of the Eretria hoard. If these eight coins belong to Gonatas and so were struck before 239 b.c. (probably in the decade 250–240: see Miss Cox's remarks) the burial of the hoard should not be brought much below 235.
Professor Robinson's indications of condition (loc. cit. p. 11 and pp. 35–38 must be used with care, for they seem to confuse wear with condition in the collector's sense; thus he describes no. 63, which is rather badly oxidized, as "worn" (the second worst of his six categories) although the vertical line on the cow's nose—the highest part of the reverse—is sharp and clear. Of the 47 coins known to me from this reverse die no. 63 shows the least wear. His no. 62, which is much lighter (he gives its weight as 3.34 in his list on p. 37, but as 3.44 in his table on p. 11), is described as "somewhat worn" but can be seen from the plate to be more worn than 63: it is from the same dies as 63, although this is unfortunately not clear from the plate as the coins are in poor condition and the two reverses are lighted rather differently. There are also other discrepancies in his descriptions of condition—thus no. 60 is called "fine" on p. 11, but on p. 37 it is called "very good."
I am indebted to Miss Margaret Thompson of the American Numismatic Society for the identification and dating of these coins.
A photograph of this coin appears in ANS Museum Notes VI (1954) plate VIII, no. 4.
See "Impurities in Euboean Monetary Silver," Allin and Wallace, ANS Museum Notes VI (1954) pp. 35–67.
See note 5 above.
There is obviously room for difference of opinion and for error in the determination of the original normal or standard weight. I discuss the way in which I have determined it at the beginning of the next chapter, and feel that the probable error in the figures adopted is very small; it must, however, be admitted that the possible error is considerable.
Sixty of the drachms have been omitted, in about half of the cases because they were incrusted and had obviously gained weight as a result, in the rest because they had been cleaned electrolytically before weighing.
I have not included Professor Robinson's section of the hoard in these calculations; his coins were cleaned by a somewhat different process, and it is better not to compare weights by different investigators using different scales. After subtracting the broken coins there remain 213 Euboian League drachms, but these have been cleaned so drastically and have lost weight so erratically that little confidence can be felt in conclusions drawn from their present weights. Nevertheless it is clear that the no symbol and grapes coins have lost more weight, and that the dolphins have lost less, than the other three groups.
I have omitted no. 125 from the calculation; for some reason (but not, I think, through wear) it is much the lightest coin in the hoard, weighing only 51.5 (3.33).
These coins have been severely cleaned (see p. 59), and are included here only to show the difficulty of arguing from the weights of such coins. It is my impression, based chiefly on the weights in this hoard and in nos. 4 and 14, that well worn coins suffer less from oxidation—or whatever produces the patination and incrustation that results from burial—than coins which have seen little circulation. I understand that, similarly, new table silver tarnishes more rapidly than silver which has been used for a life-time.
They weigh 11.56, 11.50, and 11.30; these coins were apparently struck at about 12.25 gms: see p. 74.
The various silver issues of the League are listed below with approximate dates, descriptions, diagrams to show the number and interconnection of the dies, and frequency tables of their weights. The chronology has been dealt with in the two previous chapters.
The League dies known to me are numbered continuously in the order in which they appear in this chapter, the obverse dies in Roman and the reverse in Arabic numerals. The dies and die combinations listed in the die diagrams are probably in a good many cases complete, for almost all of them are attested by a number of examples, as may be seen by reference to the catalogue, and as is indicated in the diagrams themselves; further discoveries will probably not add greatly to our information on this subject. The order in which the dies appear in each group is not, however, usually chronological—it often seems that all the dies of a group were in use at the same time; where sequence is discoverable the fact is indicated in the discussions of the various groups.
The frequency tables require a word of explanation. There was obviously no point in making the intervals of these tables smaller than the smallest difference which the scales used by the Euboian mint were capable of detecting, for smaller differences in weight than that, although they of course exist, have no significance. The scales employed in different ancient mints, and in the same mint at different dates, undoubtedly differed in accuracy, and it is clear too, as we shall see, that in some series the flans were weighed more carefully than in others. I believe also that the evidence shows that the weights employed for weighing different series often differed from each other; this is suggested by the small but consistent differences in the apparent theoretical or standard weights of the various series of League drachms. If our frequency tables are to indicate how accurately different series were struck, and to exactly what weights, their intervals ought ideally to be such as would enable us to recognize the smallest differences which the ancient workman could himself detect. How small was this? There is surely little difference between an ordinary modern balance employing separate weights (i.e. not a chain weight), and sitting in the open air (not enclosed in a glass case), and the best ancient balances. And there is no good reason to suppose that modern technicians are more careful than the best of their ancient counterparts. It seems reasonable, then, to be guided by what can be achieved by a good modern balance constructed without the refinements which were probably unknown to the ancient Greeks. My own scale is of such a kind, and with it I find that it is possible to weigh with certainty to .02 grammes and with some confidence to .01 gms., but quite impossible to be certain that one's reading is correct to .005 gms. That the Euboian mints could achieve, and sometimes did achieve, a similar degree of accuracy is suggested to me by the results of weighing carefully several thousand Euboian coins. Some of the Euboian series were struck, I believe, to within .01 grammes of the weight intended, though some are much less accurate, and the best of them does not, I think (but here the evidence is scanty), succeed in weighing to within .005 grammes of the theoretical weight. The reader who cares to do so may check the correctness of this opinion by studying the weights recorded in the catalogue; perhaps the best example of a really accurately weighed series is provided by the drachms with a satyr's head as symbol, where 23 specimens weigh about 3.70 and 34 weigh about 3.65—none is heavier. If we examine the weights more closely it appears that of the 168 satyr's head drachms the weights of which are known 8 weigh 3.70 and 8 weigh 3.69; only obviously incrusted coins weigh more, and as far as I can tell, there are no examples of specimens in brilliant condition weighing less—in short the wear appears to be absolutely consistent with the theory that every coin when it came from the mint weighed 3.70, or rather, well over 3.69 and definitely less than 3.71. It would seem then that a case could be made out for constructing frequency tables with intervals of only .01 gms., and if very large numbers of coins were available, I believe that this would be worth doing. I emphasize this, for there is a strong tendency among numismatists to feel that ancient coins were not struck very accurately, and that exact weight is comparatively insignificant (a case is quoted in note 27 below). In point of fact it is impossible to generalize—in Euboia, at least, some series were struck accurately, and some series were not; this was also true of Alexander's mints. 1 However, statistics are worse than useless unless they are based on an adequate—and this usually means a very large—number of examples. For Euboia we have no series which contains a large number of coins in mint condition; it is accordingly necessary to be satisfied with a larger interval, an interval which will allow at least five to ten coins to appear in each of the top lines of the table, for smaller numbers have obviously no statistical significance. In short it may be laid down as a principle that the smaller the number of coins the larger the interval in the frequency table must be if one is to base any conclusions upon the differences which it records. For the Euboian series in general it was clear that the numbers available did not justify intervals as small as a hundredth of a gramme; I have accordingly adopted the usual twentieths, and have drawn the tables up in grains as well as grammes, both because grains are easier to remember, and because in some cases the slightly larger interval (1 grain = .064 grammes) seemed to produce a more satisfactory table.
In arriving at figures for the standard or theoretical weights of the different series, I have used no mechanical rule, but have been influenced by the apparent accuracy with which a series seems to be struck. Where all of the heaviest coins of a series are practically identical in weight and "EF" or "FDC" in condition, I have assumed that the standard was identical with or just barely higher than the weight of the heaviest coins. But where there are a few exceptionally heavy coins in a series, as is the case with the lyre drachms, I have assumed that these were accidentally struck too heavy, and that the standard weight is slightly lower than that of the two or three heaviest coins. 2
This method results in identical standard weights for the no symbol and grapes groups (59 grains or 3.82 grammes) and also for the kantharos and lyre groups (61 grains or 3.95 grammes). As these paired groups are chronologically contiguous, it is probable that one set of weights was employed for one pair and another one for the other. The slight but consistent difference in weight between the heaviest satyr's head drachms and the heaviest dolphin drachms suggests that different sets of weights were used in preparing the flans for these two groups. See the 'Comparison of Frequency Tables' and the 'Synopsis of the League Issues' at the end of the chapter.
Group 1 – 411/10 b.c.
Obv. Cow lying l., head turned back to lick its shoulder, tail passes under the near haunch and tuft appears above back.
Rev. Female head (Euboia?) r., hair rolled with two (Rev. 1) or three (Rev. 2) loops along face, wearing crescent (Rev. 1) or round (Rev. 2) earring. ΕVΒ (Rev. 1) or ΕΥΒ (Rev. 2) in front of face.
Group 2 – about 405 b.c.
Obv. Female head (Euboia?) r., hair rolled with three loops along face, wearing round (Obv. IV) or crescent (Obv. V) earring, and, in Obv. V only, a linear necklace.
Rev. Cow lying r., tail against side; above, vine branch carrying a large bunch of grapes and one (Rev. 3 and 5) or two (Rev. 4 and 7) leaves, or a circular tendril and one leaf (Rev. 6). ΕΥΒ (Rev. 3, 5, and 6) or (Rev. 4 and 7) below cow.
|Group 1||Group 2|
|(27 coins)||(41 coins)|
The first issue of the Euboian League, struck probably in 411 b.c., 4 was undoubtedly Group 1 described above. The style of the Aiginetic didrachms is obviously earlier than that of any of the other issues, and their Aiginetic weight finds a convincing explanation in the Peloponnesian auspices under which the revolt of Euboia and the foundation of the Euboian League took place. 5 That Group 1 is a few years earlier than Group 2 is clear both from the fact that the coins belonging to it seem slightly more worn than those belonging to Group 2 in the 1951 hoard, 6 and from the earlier technique of Group 1 where the head appears on the reverse. 7
The die positions of both groups are completely irregular. The order of the dies in Group 1 is certain, for the slight injury con- necting the stray lock of hair on the temple with the earring in the first reverse die grows progressively worse as the die is used with the three obverses, and a slight injury by the muzzle of the cow in Obv. III is absent when the die is used with Rev. 1, but shows on most of the coins struck from Rev. 2. Rev. 2 seems also later in the style of the hair, and employs the Υ form of upsilon instead of the earlier V form. We thus have proof that only two dies were in use at once for the striking of the coins of this group, and the order in which the three obverses and the two reverses were employed is obvious.
In Group 2 it is apparent that all of the dies (except Rev. 7) must have been in use almost contemporaneously. As, however, Obv. IV shows an injury below the earring when used with Revs. 5 and 6 which does not appear when it is used with Revs. 3 and 4, it seems probable that four dies were employed to begin with—IV, V, 3 and 4; then when 3 and 4 broke, 5 and 6 were put into service; finally IV broke, and so only V was used with 7. The date of Group 2 is discussed on p. 7.
That the first issue, Group 1, was smaller than the second issue, Group 2, is suggested by the smaller number of preserved specimens, by the slightly smaller number of dies employed, and perhaps also by the fact that only one pair of dies was used at once—this seems to indicate a more leisurely, less hurried, production.
The weights of these coins make it probable, as may be seen from the frequency table, that the series was struck very accurately at between 188 and 189 grains (12.18 to 12.24 gms.). The coins in brilliant condition—and thanks to the 1951 hoard there are several of them—all fall between these two figures; those which weigh less all show signs of wear or cleaning or both, and none weighs more. Thus although I have been able to list only 69 specimens, the standard may be stated with confidence as 188 + grains (± 12.22 gms.); it may in future be possible to narrow these limits—I should not be surprised if all coins in mint condition which turn up in this series are found to fall between 188.6 (12.22) and 188.9 (12.24), but too few specimens are known as yet to justify dogmatism. We can at least say definitely that the didrachms were struck at within one half of one percent of their intended weight.
Groups 1 and 2 have been combined in the frequency table because it is clear that both groups were intended to be struck to the same weight; the two heaviest recorded specimens (both in brilliant condition and not at all incrusted or corroded) both weigh 188.7 (12.23) and come one from each group; Group 1 contains 15 coins weighing 185.0 (11.99) or over, Group 2 contains 13.
See page 5.
See page 3.
See page 50.
See note 3 in Chapter 1.
Group 1 – about 400 b.c.
Obv. Female head (Euboia ?) r., no earring or necklace, hair rolled.
Rev. Cow standing r. on exergue line, head turned three-quarters r.; above, ΕΥΒ.
Group 2 – about 395 b.c.
Rev. Similar except the letters: ΕΥ above, ΒΟΙ r. of cow.
|Group 1 (21 coins)||Group 2 (20 coins)|
The dates of these tetradrachms are discussed above, on page 10. The earlier didrachms were apparently unaccompanied by fractions, but drachms were struck with each of the two tetradrachm issues, and there were also hemidrachms, and perhaps smaller denominations as well (see below).
In Group 1 the condition of the reverse die is apparently the same with both obverses—and the order in which these two obverses are listed is accordingly arbitrary. In Group 2 the top and middle hastae of the epsilon on the reverse appear to have been too short originally and to have been lengthened on the die after the British Museum and Copenhagen specimens had been struck from obverse I (the middle hasta being somewhat over-corrected). It is accordingly clear in this case which obverse was used first. And as there are obvious injuries to the reverse die in the brilliant Locker Lampson specimen, which do not appear on any of the others, the obverse of this specimen must be the latest; thus the order of all three obverses in Group 2 is clear. It is interesting to notice that the tetradrachms required five obverse but only two reverse dies. The explanation is undoubtedly the high relief of the obverses as opposed to the much more normal reverses; as nearly as I can measure the height of the relief it is, at its greatest, about four millimetres. The die positions of the tetradrachms, as of the didrachms, are irregular, but show a certain tendency to be ↓ or ↑, or to approximate those positions.
The frequency table for these coins is very unsatisfactory, for there are too few specimens, and too many of those few are badly worn. As it happens, the nine heaviest tetradrachms listed in the catalogue all belong to Group 2. All of the specimens of Group 1 are, however, worn, and I have hesitantly included all of the tetradrachms in the same table, as the wear of the various specimens seems consistent with the theory that both groups were struck to the same weight. 9 Only two of the tetradrachms known to me show practically no wear, and of them only one, the Locker Lampson specimen, can be described as being in practically mint condition. It weighs 264.5 grains (17.14 gms.); the other, Jameson 1177, weighs 263.4 (17.07). It thus seems reasonable to suppose that the standard, normal, or theoretical weight of the coins when they left the mint was very close indeed to 265.0 (17.17). This is probably exactly what the 'Attic standard' was supposed to be. We have too little accurate information based on careful weighing of large numbers of coins, but it may be recalled that of the 75 uncirculated tetradrachms of the Amphipolis mint in the Demanhur hoard, 61 weighed between 17.15 and 17.18, while only 6 weighed less and 8 more; Amphipolis was the largest and most accurate of Alexander's mints. 10
Some of the flans are rather irregular in shape, and there are occasional striking similarities between the flan shapes of different coins from the same pair of dies—compare, for instance, the Newell and British Museum specimens of VII-8 (Plate V, 15, 15). The explanation is probably that the flans were prepared by cutting slices off a bar of silver which had not been accurately rounded. 11 Some coins from the same pair of dies show similar shapes among the didrachms, too, and among some of the drachms, although the case instanced above is the clearest. I have little doubt that all of the Euboian League flans were produced in this manner, but the evidence falls short of formal proof.
See below, page 76.
One of these tetradrachms—the last coin listed under VI-8 in the catalogue—occurred in the Karystos hoard recently published by Professor D. M. Robinson: A Hoard of Silver Coins from Carystus, NNM 124 (New York 1952). It is there listed as no. 1, and is discussed on pages 12–15. Robinson recognizes that the coin shares dies with three of the undoubtedly "Attic" tetradrachms, but nevertheless produces the remarkable theory that it is an Aiginetic didrachm and "provides the connecting link between the staters (i.e. didrachms) and the tetradrachms, proving that the type was changed before the standard." This, if true, would be extraordinary. But the coin now, after "three separate efforts" at cleaning it electrolytically, weighs 13.85; this is at least 1.60 grammes heavier than the heaviest known Euboian Aiginetic didrachm, and it is clear from the photograph published by Robinson that the coin is not seriously incrusted. The other coins in the hoard which are closest in date to this one (but even so fifty years later) are the six drachms without symbol (nos. 60–71: see below, page 88), which have an average weight of just under 3.30. This series was very accurately struck at 3.82 (see page 90), and so it is clear that the six drachms have, on the average, lost .52 gms. or about of their original weight—the lightest of them has lost .65, or almost ⅙. If the tetradrachm originally weighed 17.17 (see above), it has lost almost ⅕ of its original weight; if the original weight was about 16.80 (and the heaviest known specimen weighs 16.60), then it has lost exactly the same fraction of its weight as this lightest drachm. (It should be mentioned that Robinson says that the coin weighed exactly the same after the three attempts to clean it electrolytically as it did before. I have never known a coin not to lose weight in an electrolytic bath, and this coin presumably had the same type of incrustation as the others in the hoard all of which lost a great deal of weight—I can only suggest that something must have gone wrong with his records.)
See E. T. Newell, Reattribution of Certain Tetradrachms of Alexander the Great (New York 1912) p. 40, and compare the same author's The Demanhur Hoard, NNM 19 (1923) p. 67, where the identification of the mint as 'Pella' is changed to 'Amphipolis.' It is interesting to notice that some of Alexander's mints struck coins very irregular in weight—Ake was one of the least careful, and its tetradrachms vary from 16.75 to 17.27 gms. We are in great need of dependable and extensive metrological statistics based on large series from which many specimens in mint condition have survived.
It is clear that this method was used to produce the tetrobol (?) flans which were found some years ago at Chalkis—see S. P. Noe, Bib. of Gk. Coin Hoards,2 no. 231 (some of these flans are now in the Newell Collection at the American Numismatic Society), and the Catalogue of the Jameson Collection III, nos. 2067 and 2072 (which is now in my possession). They are obviously sections broken off a bar which had in each case been partly cut through by a number of chisel cuts around the circumference.
Group 1 – about 400 b.c.
Obv. Female head (Euboia?) r., no earring or necklace, hair rolled.
Rev. Cow's head and neck turned three-quarters r.; l. ear not shown on Revs. 10, 11, 12 and 14; above, Ε–Υ (Rev. 10), or ΕΥ (Revs. 11 and 12), or Ε–ΥΒ (Rev. 14), or ΕΥ–Β (Revs. 13, 15, 16 and 17).
Group 2 – about 395 b.c.
Rev. Similar; ΕΥΒ between horns, ΟΙ r.
|Group 1 (29 coins)||Group 2 (5 coins)|
These drachms are of full Euboio-Attic weight, like the tetradrachms, and like the tetradrachms they are divided into two groups, the second of which has the letters ΕΥΒ–ΟΙ running across the top and down the right side of the reverse. In both groups the nymph's ear has a firm round lobe, made with the drill, which is surely not intended for an earring—the ear is treated similarly in both groups of the tetradrachms. The style is much earlier than that of the more numerous drachms of lighter weight, on all of which the nymph wears earrings. These 'Attic' drachms are thus obviously to be connected in date with the tetradrachms—as, indeed, they always have been. Furthermore it seems probable that Group 1 of the drachms accompanied Group 1 of the tetradrachms, and that the second groups similarly go together: as Babelon remarked, 12 the ΕΥΒ–ΟΙ drachms seem later in style than the others (this is at least true of the reverse die).
It may seem that there is something rather arbitrary about the way the groups have been divided here, with only one reverse die assigned to the second of them. In Group 1, however, even where no actual die links are known—it is to be hoped that future finds will increase the number—other considerations establish a close connection. Thus in the first six reverses the horns and eyes are too large for the rest of the head, the nose is too narrow, and the muzzle too small. The incompetent engraver of Rev. 16 at least corrected this last fault, and in Rev. 17 we have a quite successful representation of the animal. Revs. 15, 16, and 17 are connected by an identical arrangement of the inscription—ΕΥ between the horns and Β to the right of the muzzle. In Reverse 10 the inscription is clumsily divided, and the cow's head is unconvincing. Revs. 10, 11, and 12 are similar in character and show a steady improvement in the representation of the animal, although none of them shows the left ear: it was omitted either through inadvertence or on the theory that the head is so much in profile that it could not be seen. These three are the only reverses in which the inscription contains only two letters. If we are right in putting them first, and together, they carry with them the five obverses with which they are used, and Rev. 13 as well, which is used with Obv. XV and which introduces the ΕΥ–Β form of the inscription, and the first rather tentative indication of a left ear. These two innovations are continued in Revs. 15, 16, and 17. Curiously enough Rev. 14 looks like a reversion to an earlier type; its place in the series is, however, guaranteed by its use, along with Rev. 15, with Obv. XVI. This is a good example of the dangers of stylistic argument—if these two reverses were not die-linked, and were judged solely by their style, they would undoubtedly be put many years apart. There is thus no point at which it seems possible to divide the first eight reverses and their accompanying obverses. In Group 2 the obverses are not notably different from several of those in Group 1; the reverse, however, is different from the others, both in the length and arrangement of the inscription and in the character of the cow's head which seems to look more squarely out from the coin. The fact that the tetradrachms are divided into two groups makes it natural to look for a similar division among the accompanying drachms, and to associate one group of drachms with each group of tetradrachms, but it is possible—although improbable—that all of the drachms go with one of the two groups of tetradrachms, and none of them with the other. The question can only be settled by the discovery of more specimens and more hoards, and by the establishing of further die links.
The die positions are irregular but, like those of the tetradrachms, show a tendency to be ↓ or ↑ or to approximate those positions.
It is interesting to notice that an ancient forgery of one of these coins occurred in hoard 4 (see page 50). 13 The coin was probably copied from a specimen struck by dies XVI-15. The reverse has been turned the wrong way, perhaps as a result of copying a coin directly onto a die, forgetting that when the die was used the type would face in the opposite direction. 14 The letters are also retrograde, and only ΕΥ appears—the Β is omitted, but in several of the known specimens struck from Rev. 15 the Β is so faint as to be hardly visible, and the forger apparently failed to notice it on the coin he was using as a model (the model was not one of the earlier dies with ΕΥ, for none of those shows the left ear). The work on the obverse is also poor and careless—the eyelids and lips are too thick, and the hair is not copied accurately. That the coin is a copy of one of the Attic weight drachms, and not of one of the later series of lighter weight, is shown by the rendering of the nymph's hair, by the lack of earring, and by the fact that the cow's head is not filleted. The silver is rather different from that used for the genuine coins; it is perhaps significant that the gold line showed prominently in its spectrum, and very little in those of the other five early drachms tested. 15 As the Greeks could not remove gold from silver, this might mean that the metal came from a different source from that employed for the genuine coins.
This issue of drachms was also accompanied by fractions, for there are hemidrachms, a diobol, and obols of Attic weight with the inscription ΕΥ–Β arranged as on the early drachms of Revs. 13, 15, 16, and 17. The hair of Obv. XXII of the hemidrachms is reminiscent of the drachm obverses XI, XII, XIII, XV, XVI, and XVII, while the hemidrachm Obv. XXIV is similar to the drachm Obv. XVIII. The nymphs on the hemidrachm obverses, like those on the early drachms and staters, wear neither earrings nor necklace.
Of the hemidrachms I have been able to list only five specimens, but small coins appear less frequently than larger ones in dealers' catalogues and in museum collections, so that there may well be many others in private possession. The five are struck from four obverse and three reverse dies (see below and Plate XII); the hemidrachms from XXII-19 are like the early drachms from XVI-15, and those from XXIV-20 are like the early drachms from XVIII-16. The heaviest specimen weighs 33.5 grs. (2.17 gms.). The die positions are irregular.
Two of the obols recorded in the catalogue probably accompanied the issue of the Attic weight drachms and hemidrachms: no. 13 in Imhoof-Blumer's collection of casts, now at Winterthur, and no. 480 in the Copenhagen Sylloge Numorum Graecorum.
The description of these fractions is as follows:
Obv. Female head (Euboia?) r., hair rolled, no earring or necklace.
Rev. Cow's head and neck turned three-quarters r., no fillets, left ear shown. ΕΥ–Β
Obv. Female head (Euboia?) r., hair rolled, no earring or necklace.
Rev. Cow's head and neck turned three-quarters r., no fillets, left ear shown. ΕΥ–Β
Obv. Female head (Euboia?) r., hair rolled, no earring or necklace.
Rev. Cow's head and neck turned three-quarters r., no fillets, left ear shown. ΕΥ–Β (Winterthur cast—see Plate 12) or ΕΥ (Copenhagen SNG 480—see Plate 12).
The dies of the five hemidrachms are related as follows:
The two obols are struck from four different dies (XXVI and XXVII, 22 and 23).
Since this manuscript was completed I have come upon a unique and interesting drachm of Attic weight (Wallace EL 512). It is struck from Obv. XV and from a new reverse with ΕΥΒ between the horns, but without ΟΙ to the right, which we may call 13a. This reverse seems most similar in style and arrangement to Rev. 18 of Group 2, but the obverse belongs to Group 1. The coin should accordingly, perhaps, be considered to connect the two groups, and to make it doubtful that they were separately issued, as suggested above, with the two groups of tetradrachms. The weight is 62.2 grs. (4.03 gms.), and the die position is ↗; see Plate VI, 25.
It is unfortunate that so few specimens of this group of Attic weight drachms are available for study, and that of these few only one comes from a recorded hoard. No other Euboian League issue has so many dies for so few known specimens, and it is clear that we do not yet have enough coins to justify definite conclusions about the character and affinity of the group.
See E. Babelon, Traité, III. 3 p. 196 ad no. 176.
See Plate VI, d. The coin is no. 45 in Section A which was published recently by Professor D. M. Robinson (see note 9 above); Robinson discusses it on page 42. He considers it genuine: "There is no possibility that this is a forgery: it is too unlike the others to have passed current as an ancient forgery; it is not a modern one for it was covered with the same heavy purplish incrustation as the other coins ..." But a queer-looking forgery would have no more trouble in passing than an equally queer-looking genuine coin unless a large number of them was issued. This coin was used, for it is worn, and there were probably not many like it, for no other has survived. Robinson also considers that this coin was struck on the lighter "Macedonian" standard. It is certainly light now, weighing 53.6 grains (3.47 gms.), and may have been so originally, but many of the weights of these drastically cleaned coins are surprisingly low, indeed most of them are lower than this—in note 9 we have discussed the tetradrachm which now weighs only 13.85); whatever the original weight of this drachm it was clearly copied from a specimen of the early series of "Attic" weight.
The only other instance of the cow's head turned left is the hemidrachm in Copenhagen (SNG 478); see Plate XIII, 136.
See "Impurities in Euboean Monetary Silver," ANS Museum Notes VI (1954) pp. 35–67. The coin in question appears as no. 91—it certainly belongs to Professor Robinson's hoard, but was in my possession at the time when Professor Allin and I undertook our spectrographic investigation. This was directed chiefly to the determination of the copper content, and further work is needed if firm conclusions are to be reached about the gold content of any of these coins.
Date – about 357 b.c.?
Obv. Female head (Euboia?) l. (Obv. XXVIII) or r. (Obv. XXIX); single drop earring, hair rolled.
Rev. Cow's head and neck turned three-quarters r., filleted (fillet on l. follows cow's cheek instead of hanging straight); between horns, ΕΥ.
This is a small group of rare coins—I have been able to list only twelve of them. Fortunately three of the twelve occurred in Section B of Hoard 4 (see page 51) where they seem somewhat more worn than the drachms without symbol and than those with the grapes. One also appeared in the hoard group listed as no. 10 above on page 55, and its wear there also suggests that it should be similar in date to the drachms without symbol and those with the grapes, but as these three issues are each represented by single coins in a group which does not certainly come from a hoard, little reliance can be placed on their condition as an indication of date. The relief is high, higher than that of the drachms of full Attic weight, and the cutting of the dies is careful, but to my eye somewhat uncertain, as if the engraver were feeling his way, inventing a new type rather than copying an old one. Perhaps the best indications of this are the fact that the left-hand (or dexter) fillet slants along the cow's cheek in all of the reverse dies instead of hanging straight down as it should (and does in all the other issues), and the excessive shortness of the right-hand fillet in Rev. 25: the engraver here seems to have left himself too little room to the right of the cow's muzzle, and had to shorten the fillet if he was to show its tassel. The nymph's head faces left on the earlier obverse and right on the later one. The chin is slightly raised, giving a tilt to the head which produces an impression of vagueness and softness and contrasts strongly with the severely straight-forward gaze of the nymphs on the didrachms, tetradrachms and drachms of Attic weight. The earring on both obverses is a single conical drop (all the other earrings represented on the League drachms have triple drops), and the head which faces to the right wears a necklace—this is the only necklace among all the obverse dies of the Euboian League drachms except for Obv. XXXII of the drachms without symbol. 17 The coins are of the lighter 'Macedonian' weight, and—if the beautiful British Museum specimen, which shows only the slightest signs of wear, may be taken as a dependable indication of the standard—are distinctly the lightest of the drachm issues of the League. A spectroscopic examination of four of these coins showed that three of the four contained considerably more copper than appears in any of the other League drachm issues except the early series of Attic weight. 18 Altogether it seems clear that the group must be dated between the drachms of Attic weight and the drachms without symbol, between, that is to say, 395 and 340 b.c. Their weight suggests that these coins should come later than the period of close political connection between Athens and Euboia prior to Leuktra in 371, and probably also that they should be later than the Battle of Mantineia in 362. They were probably issued some time between 360 and 340, and earlier rather than later within that twenty years, for differences in the composition of the metal, in the fabric, and in the style separate them from the drachms without symbol of about 340. Perhaps the most probable date is 357 when the Euboians, with Athenian help, drove the Boiotians out of the island (see p. 11)—the shortness of the campaign may help to explain the smallness of the issue; but the suggestion is little more than a guess.
The die positions are more regular than those of the drachms of Attic weight, but less regular than those of any of the other groups: in three cases the axis is vertical, in five it is tipped varying amounts to the left, in two it is tipped to the right, and in one case it is completely irregular. These are among the earliest coins in Greece proper to show an incipient vertical adjustment of the die positions. 19
A frequency table of weights is given, chiefly for the sake of uniformity with the other series, but with so few coins it has, of course, no real significance; the best indication of the standard to which the group was struck is the weight of the British Museum specimen (BM Cat. of Central Greece , pl. xvii, 5) which is in "FDC/EF" condition.
See Plate VIII, no. 52.
See page 53 of the paper cited in note 15 above.
See E. T. Newell, The Coinages of Demetrius Poliorcetes (London 1927) pages 140–142, where this question receives some preliminary discussion which uncertainty about exact dates and inadequacy of material render necessarily tentative. It is unfortunate that the date of the particular League issue we are discussing is so uncertain, but the next issue, the drachms without symbol, which were struck either in or very close to 340 b.c., are definitely adjusted. Thus the vertical adjustment of dies was adopted in Euboia about the middle of the fourth century. It was Newell's impression that vertical adjustment does not appear elsewhere in Greece proper until the third century.
Date – about 340 b.c.
Obv. Female head (Euboia?) l., wearing triple drop earring (and, on Obv. XXXII only, a necklace), hair rolled.
Rev. Cow's head and neck turned three-quarters r., filleted; between horns, ΕΥ.
This group and the next should be attributed, as we have seen (page 20), to the years between the refoundation of the League in 340 and the Battle of Chaironeia in 338. It was perhaps the largest of all the issues of the League, for it required twelve reverse dies as against seven for the kantharos drachms and six for the lyre drachms. That fewer specimens have survived is probably due to the fact that the two largest hoards—nos. 1 and 4 in our list—which together contained about half of the drachms of the League which survive to-day, were both buried late in the third century, when this issue had already circulated for a hundred years.
The order in which the dies of the group are listed is based upon two considerations. First, the injury by the cow's cheek in Rev. 32 seems worse with Obv. XXXII than with Obv. XXXI. Secondly, the slight injuries by the letters in Rev. 35 seem slightly worse with Obv. XXXV than with the others. But the differences between the injuries are so slight, and so few coins show them clearly, that one can have little confidence in the result of the comparison; as further specimens become known, it may be necessary to invert the diagram. All of the dies are connected, XXXIII and XXXIV in a rather surprising manner. It is remarkable that our knowledge of three of the six obverse dies should depend, at present, on a single specimen of each.
The die positions are usually adjusted vertically, and the line is usually taken through the front of the neck or between that and what we should consider the vertical position—all of the heads are tipped slightly forward, that is, to the left. The only exceptions to this rule are the coins of XXXV-39 which are all tipped even farther in this direction. Descriptions of die positions commonly ignore the fact that the line through a die representing a head was sometimes taken, not through the top of the head and the center of the neck (as would seem natural to us), but through either the front of the neck and the crown, or through the nape of the neck and the forehead. This was doubtless because the sharp angles, front and back, where the neck is cut off, provide more convenient and accurate points of reference than the center of the neck. Such positions should not be considered irregular, and I have accordingly designated them as ↑f (when the line is taken through the front of the neck) and ↑n (when it is taken through the nape). ↑c indicates that the axis is vertical in our sense—through the center of the neck. As "↑" is often used to indicate positions which only approximate ↑c, 20 I have distinguished coins described in catalogues, etc., as "↑" from those which I know from personal observation to be ↑c. The dies seem only occasionally to have been hinged or otherwise mechanically connected, for only with XXXV-37 and XXXV-39 are all the known specimens from a pair of dies identical in die position. The positions of the whole group may be summarized as follows:
A frequency table such as that given above, with intervals as large as 1 grain and .05 grammes does not indicate how accurately this group was struck: the three heaviest of the coins weigh 58.8 (3.81), and all are "EF to FDC;" the next four heaviest weigh 58.65 (3.80), and all are "EF." There are no coins of the group known to me which should be described as "EF" which weigh less than 58.0 (3.76) except perhaps de Nanteuil 905 (Feuardent sale of May 26, 1914, no. 226). This coin appears from the photograph to be "EF" but weighs only 56.8 (3.68); perhaps it has been cleaned electrolytically.
Since all of the heaviest coins happen to fall between 58.0 and 58.8, the frequency table would give a much more exact impression of the situation if the line marked "58," instead of including all coins with weights between 57.5 and 58.4, were to include all between 58.0 and 58.9, and so on. The table would then appear as follows:
One tends to consider chiefly, or only, the top line of the graph; but if a series is accurately struck and the intervals of the table are as large as the customary .05 (and even more so when they are 1 grain—.064 grammes), it makes a great deal of difference to the impression given by the table whether the theoretical weight is near the top or near the bottom of the interval within which it falls.
There is a coin of this typei n the Newell Collection (Plate VIII, e) which I consider a forgery. It weighs 53.4 (3.46), which is rather light, as the coin is in good condition. Its die position is ↑n, which is unparalleled—in no other specimen is the die position to the right of the vertical. Neither die is used for any other known specimen, and the style, especially of the reverse, is most unusual; indeed the large dots of the fillets and the fact that the left-hand line slants away from the cow's cheek instead of falling vertically or slanting in towards it, suggest that the engraver may not have understood what he was representing. Finally the silver seems to me to be rather peculiar in appearance. The question could, of course, easily be settled by spectroscopic examination.
Thus all of the 29 die positions of the Euboian League drachms recorded in D. M. Robinson's recent paper (see note 9 above) are listed as "↑"; only a small minority of them can actually be ↑c, but all of them are properly regarded as adjusted vertically—which must be what is meant by the arrows.
Date – 340–338 b.c.
Obv. Female head (Euboia?) l., triple drop earring, hair rolled, iris and pupil indicated.
Rev. Cow's head and neck turned three-quarters r., filleted; in r. field, a bunch of grapes; between horns, ΕΥ.
Nothing is known of the significance of the symbols which distinguish the different issues of League drachms. They may, or may not, have been magistrates' badges. The fact that only one of the five groups of hemidrachms has a symbol—a bunch of grapes, as it happens (see page 109)—perhaps suggests that the symbols are not magistrates' badges, for these 'grapes' hemidrachms appear to be among the earliest, and the symbols, once adopted to distinguish magistrates, would probably have continued to be used. But the analogy between hemidrachms and drachms need not hold. It is perhaps more significant that the two earliest groups of drachms have no symbols while all of the later ones do have them; this suggests that, magistrates' badges or not, the symbols were adopted to distinguish the different issues rather than as pure decoration. But it is hardly worth while to guess at the considerations which led to the adoption of particular symbols. 21
This group is probably closely similar in date to the drachms without symbol which have just been described.
The order adopted here for the dies is purely arbitrary, for they show no injuries the development of which can be traced. The issue was clearly small, and the coins were probably all struck within a short period of time. In the discussion of the drachms without symbol above it was noticed that three of the six obverses are known from single specimens only. It is also rather surprising in the present group that of the 80 coins from two obverses 72 should have been struck from one and only 8 from the other. Disparity of this kind in the use of the obverse dies—and to some extent in that of the reverses, too—may be seen in almost all of the drachm groups. Indeed the drachms with the dolphin symbol are the only exception. The explanation is obscure.
The die positions are as follows:
Once again there are no examples of the tilting of one die to the right, rather than to the left, of the vertical; and again specimens from the same pair of dies vary slightly, showing that the dies were not hinged or otherwise mechanically connected. Nevertheless coins from the same pair of dies tend to have the same die position: of the 10 coins from XXXVI-40 about which information is available, 9 are ↑f.
It is hard to tell with so few coins, but in comparing the apparent wear with the weights one gets the impression that this group was rather less accurately struck than the last one. The heaviest coins weigh: 59.4 (EF), 59.0 (EF), 58.8 (VF), 58.6 (EF or VF), 58.6 (VF/EF), 58.5 (EF), 58.2 (FDC/EF), 57.9 (EF), 57.9 (VF).
Professor D. M. Robinson discusses the individual symbols at some length in the paper referred to in note 9 above, but I find his explanations fanciful.
Date – about 323–320 b.c.
Obv. Female head (Euboia?) l., triple drop earring, hair rolled, pupil faintly indicated in Obv. XXXVIII only.
Rev. Cow's head and neck turned three-quarters r., filleted; in r. field, a kantharos; between horns, ΕΥ.
For the probable date of this group see pages 25 and 65. Dr. Roger Edwards of the Pennsylvania Museum informs me that the kantharos is of the high stemmed type which, at Athens, he would assign to the beginning of the third century. If we knew rather more than we do about local Eretrian, and Euboian, pottery, this consideration might lead us to assign the kantharos drachms to the period of Demetrios Poliorketes rather than to the Lamian War. Until more information is available, however, about the local pottery—or better, probably, about local metal-work—it seems safer to follow the indications provided by the loss of weight among these coins in the Eretria hoard of 1937; it is at least satisfactory that the type of kantharos suggests a definitely later date than that which has hitherto been assigned to the League drachms as a group.
It is a curious fact that well over a third of the coins are struck from one obverse and three accompanying reverse dies which are not muled in with the rest; it is extraordinary, too, that so few coins should have been struck by the third of these reverses. Perhaps there were two periods in the striking of these kantharos drachms; when the desired number of coins had been produced, the four dies which had been employed were destroyed, the third reverse soon after it had been put into service. Then a sudden need arose for many more coins, so that four new obverse and four new reverse dies were prepared and all used simultaneously. Some such explanation, at least, seems to be required by the two groups into which their connections divide these dies. There is no other reason for the order in which the dies are listed in the die diagram, for such small injuries as do occur do not enable one to determine the relative order of XXXIX, XL, XLI, and XLII, or of 50, 51, 52, and 53 22 —naturally enough, for these were clearly all in use at the same time. And there is no injury to XXXVIII by which the order of 47, 48, and 49 might be determined. More coins are known from XXXVIII—118 specimens—than from any other Euboian League die (although Rev. 57 of the lyre drachms, with 112 specimens, runs it a close second). And more are known from XXXVIII-47—65 specimens—than from any other pair of League dies; it is interesting that only 5 coins from this pair show the position ↑f which is otherwise so common in the issue (12 are ↑c, while the great majority—37 coins—lie between these positions, and are described here as ↑c–f). We may find here a possible confirmation of the sequence suggested above for the dies: as time went on more and more coins were struck in the less obvious but, for the workman, more convenient position, ↑f.
The die positions of the whole issue are as follows:
Once again it is to be noticed that, as with the previous groups of lighter weight, there is no known specimen which tilts to the right—i.e., towards the position which we designate as ↑n.
The frequency table shows that this group was struck to a distinctly heavier standard than that of the no symbol and grapes drachms. The heaviest drachms without symbol all weigh, as we have seen, just under 59 grains (3.82 gms.), and only a single specimen of the grapes issue is recorded to weigh more than this: 59.4 grs. or 3.85 gms. (I have not been able to check the weight). The no symbol and grapes groups together, as listed in the catalogue, contain 236 coins, a figure not too dissimilar to the 300 of the kantharos group. In the kantharos group, however, 14 coins weigh from 60.0 to 60.9 grains (3.89 to 3.94 gms.), one (Wallace EL 73), which is distinctly worn and would be described only as "VF," weighs 61.9 (4.01), and the least worn specimen known to me (Wallace EL 456—"EF/FDC") weighs only 60.2 (3.90). In short in the kantharos group the standard is higher, and the coins are less accurately struck.
But the small injury at the back of the neck on Obverse XLI seems more developed when the die is used with Reverse 53 than when it is used with 50; this would seem to justify the assumption that 53 was in use after 50 had broken.
Date – about 302 b.c.
Obv. Female head (Euboia?) r., triple drop earring, hair rolled, pupil not indicated.
Rev. Cow's head and neck turned three-quarters r., filleted; in r. field, a lyre; between horns, ΕΥ.
The direction of the nymph's head is interesting. On the first issues of the League, in the late fifth and early fourth centuries, the head had always faced to the right, and in the "high relief" group some dies face one way and some the other. But with these exceptions all of the drachm groups except the lyre drachms have heads which face to the left.
The dies fall into two groups; the first four obverses and the first four reverses are all used more or less evenly each with the other, and the great majority of the coins is struck from them. Solitary specimens of Obverses XLIV, XLV, and XLVI used with Reverse 58 make the connection between the two groups; otherwise Reverses 58 and 59 are used only with Obverses XLVII, XLVIII, XLIX, and L—it is surprising both that there should be four obverses for two reverses in this group and that so few specimens should be recorded from so many dies. Unfortunately the condition of Rev. 58 does not enable one to tell which group is the earlier, so that it is possible that the die diagram should be inverted. In any case XLVII to L are distinctly different in style from XLIII to XLVI; the hair above the roll is brushed along the head in XLVII to L, but straight down from the crown in XLIII to XLVI, and there is no curl or ribbon at the nape of the neck in XLVII to L. There is another rather remarkable difference between the groups—a very high percentage of those struck from the later dies (as numbered here) are double-struck, some so slightly that it is not easily noticed except with a glass, but many very badly double-struck (e.g., no. 113 on Plate X). It almost looks as if, for some reason, less competent workmen used the later (?) dies, and struck far fewer coins with them, much less well.
The die positions are as follows:
In short the vast majority are truly vertical, with the line taken through the center of the neck. In this they differ from all of the earlier groups, and also from the succeeding group, the drachms with a satyr's head as symbol, which tend to tilt forward like the earlier ones. It has been mentioned that there are no examples in the earlier groups of dies set in such a way that when the reverse is vertical the head on the obverse tips backward; here, where it faces in the opposite direction, the head usually is ↑c, but a tip back is more common than a tip forward. Whatever the mechanism by which the dies were adjusted may have been, an error or inaccuracy seems to have been easier in a counter-clockwise direction. As in the previous groups, coins from the same pair of dies tend to have the same die positions, or very similar ones; thus of the fourteen coins from XLIII-55, seven are ↑c, five are ↑c–f, and two are "↑": an unusually high proportion of ↑c–f.
It is interesting that there are no ↑c–f positions with obverses XLIV and XLV (138 coins), and only two ↑c–n—and no ↑n—with obverses XLVI to L inclusive (72 coins); this can hardly be chance, but the explanation is obscure.
The frequency table is strikingly similar to that for the kantharos drachms: two stray specimens weigh 62 grains, a dozen weigh 61, there are many weighing 60, and the greatest number by far weigh 59. In short the issue was struck rather irregularly, to a weight distinctly higher than that employed for the drachms without symbol and for those with the grapes, but identical with that used for the kantharos drachms. In compiling the table, of course, all coins were omitted which had been broken or which showed obvious incrustation or hard surface deposit—these were mostly from the Eretria hoard of 1937 and, as it happens, were more numerous in this group than in the others; light coins, on the other hand, were included however obviously they had lost weight by cleaning.
Date – about 289 or 279 b.c.
Obv. Female head (Euboia?) l., triple drop earring, hair rolled, pupil not indicated.
Rev. Cow's head and neck turned three-quarters r., filleted; in r. field, a satyr's head.
These drachms were probably issued either in 289 or 279 b.c. (see pages 33 and 65 above).
The coins of this group show a tendency to thin widespread flans, so that the largest specimens reach a greatest diameter of 19 or 20 mm. Many, however, show a greatest diameter of about 17 mm, which is the average in the other drachm groups, and specimens are occasionally met with in which it is no greater than 15 mm.
The die linkages are rather curious, as the die diagram shows. From the first three obverses there are listed in the catalogue 51, 30, and 107 coins respectively; Obverse LIV is known to me from one specimen only, and Obverse LV from two, and these three coins form a quite separate group, while the other 188 are linked together. It is further remarkable that the connections of Obverse LII with Reverses 60, 63, and 64 should each be represented, at present, by a single specimen. I have no explanation to suggest for these anomalies.
Several of the dies show injuries the development of which can be traced. Obv. LIII, for instance, in many specimens shows a diagonal crack along the back of the neck which seems least marked with Revs. 60, and 61, and most developed with Revs. 62, 63, and 64. The curious die-break on the nape of the neck of Obv. LII, which looks almost like part of the hair, seems to begin with Rev. 62. And an adhesion to the die above the horns in Rev. 60 shows with LI and LII, but not with LIII. In short the injuries to the dies seem to establish the order in which they were used, and yet the first three obverses were all used with each of the first three reverses, so that one would naturally assume that all were employed contemporaneously. Perhaps the explanation is that there was a sudden demand for a fairly large issue, but few die-cutters were available. Accordingly the dies were put into service just as fast as they could be made; minting began—on this theory—with one obverse and one reverse die, and each of the others as it was finished was put into service at once along with those that were already in use. Thus although all the dies were used together as long as they lasted, those which had been made first saw service earlier and so became worn and finally broke and were discarded sooner than those which were finished later. But why Obverses LIV and LV and Reverse 65 should have been used by themselves and for so few coins, it is hard to see.
The die positions are adjusted vertically in most of the coins, the line being taken through the center (41 times) or front (39 times) of the neck or in a position intermediate between these two (39 times). With one pair of dies, LIII-63, the tilt is consistently somewhat more to the left than a line through the front of the neck would make it. 23 With twelve coins (nine of them from one pair of dies) the tilt is backwards. In general there is a strong tendency for coins from the same pair of dies to have very similar die positions, but only in the single case of the die combination LIII-61 are all the coins from a pair of dies oriented identically: ↑c. The explanation of this is, to me, obscure. The positions may be summarized as follows:
The group is struck with extraordinary accuracy to a normal or standard weight distinctly lighter than that of any of the other issues (except, perhaps, the drachms in high relief—see page 85). The weights of the heaviest specimens are as follows:
There are 27 coins from this pair of dies listed in the catalogue; 22 are ↖, 3 are ↑f, and 2 are not known. This regular occurrence of an irregular position would seem to indicate that the dies were hinged or that the punch worked through a bracket in which it could not turn. The three coins in which the position is slightly different are probably inaccurately recorded—all three were in the Eretria hoard of 1937. As I recorded these positions myself this is perhaps an appropriate place to remark that it is difficult to be accurate about die positions, and they are frequently wrongly given. The best method appears to be to hold the coin with the side most easily estimated towards one (in the Euboian drachms this side is the reverse); then with a pen a small drop of ink may be placed, without turning the coin, on the top and bottom of the side which is turned away. This method seems to give more accurate results than merely turning the coin between finger and thumb, and the ink spots, of course, wipe off easily. An accurate record of the phenomena may lead to a better understanding of the technique of striking, which is as yet rather obscure.
Date – about 270–267 b.c.
Obv. Female head (Euboia?) l., triple drop earring, hair rolled.
Rev. Cow's head and neck turned three-quarters r., filleted; in r. field, a dolphin; between horns, ΕΥ.
The smallest, probably, and the last, certainly, of the silver issues of the Euboian League are the drachms with the dolphin symbol, struck probably about 270–267 b.c.—see page 34. They were recognized by Mme. Varoucha as the latest of the Euboian issues in the Eretria hoard of 1937, and by her properly dated by their style and preservation to the early third century. 24 The issue was small, for it was struck from only two obverse and two reverse dies, and specimens may be considered rare, for only two have, as far as I know, appeared in dealers' catalogues.
Both weights and die positions are extremely accurate. The heaviest specimen known to me weighs 58.1 grains (3.767 gms.); 25 the next three heaviest weigh 58.0 (3.76); the next six weigh 57.9 (3.75); all of these are slightly worn except the Pozzi specimen, but it may have lost a little weight by cleaning. This is the only group of Euboian League drachms in which the dies are really accurately adjusted. The die positions are:
All of the known coins struck from Obv. LVI show an injury across the nose of the nymph which gives her an unpleasant expression. Rev. 66 is also unsatisfactory, for the dolphin and the cow's left ear are placed too high, and the work is generally careless. It is thus perhaps no accident that twice as many coins have been preserved from each of the other two dies.
No. 126 in the Gans Mail Bid Sale 14, March 1954, is described as weighing 3.81 gms. (58.8 grs.), but owing to the kindness of Mr. Gans and its present owner I have been able to check the weight, which is actually 3.767 (58.1).
The fractions which accompanied the tetradrachms and drachms of Attic weight have been discussed above, pages 83–84. As it is not clear with which of the later drachms the other fractions were issued, they are all collected here. It is to be hoped that the evidence of future hoards will eventually make it possible to arrange and date them more accurately.
Obv. Female head (Euboia?) r., hair rolled, single drop earring.
Rev. Cow's head and neck turned three-quarters r., no fillets; to r., a bunch of grapes; between horns, ΕΥ.
Obv. Female head (Euboia?) l., hair rolled, single drop earring.
Rev. Cow's head and neck turned three-quarters l. or r., filleted (fillets follow cow's cheek instead of hanging straight); between horns, ΕΥ.
Obv. Female head (Euboia?) l., hair rolled, single (Obvs. LXII and LXIII) or triple (Obv. LXIV) drop earring.
Rev. Cow's head and neck turned three-quarters r., filleted; between horns, ΕΥ.
Obv. Female head (Euboia?) l., hair rolled, single drop earring; letters (ΕΡΕΤΡΙΕΩΝ??) in front of face.
Rev. Cow's head and neck turned three-quarters r., filleted; between horns, ΕΥ.
Obv. Female head (Euboia?) r., hair rolled, single drop earring and necklace; behind neck, Ε.
Rev. Cow's head and neck turned three-quarters r., filleted; between horns, ΕΥ.
Obv. Female head (Euboia?) r. (when Ε behind—Obvs. LXIX and LXX) or l. (Obvs. LXXI and LXXII), hair rolled, single drop earring and necklace.
Rev. Vine branch with two tendrils, three leaves, and two bunches of grapes; Ε–Υ–Β.
Obv. Female head (Euboia?) r., earring and necklace uncertain.
Rev. Cow's head and shoulder r., head turned three-quarters r., and l. ear shown, filleted; above, Ε–Υ.
Obv. Female head (Euboia?) r. or l., single drop earring and necklace.
Rev. Cow's head and neck turned three-quarters r., no fillets; between horns, ΕΥ.
Obv. Female head (Euboia?) r., hair rolled, single drop earring, necklace uncertain.
Rev. Cow's hoof (split not shown); ΕΥ above (or to r., if hoof is considered to be upright).
Obv. Female head (Euboia?) r., hair rolled, single drop earring and necklace.
Rev. Cow's split hoof; Ε–Υ.
1. Obv. Female head (Euboia?) r., hair rolled, no earring or necklace.
Rev. Cow's head and neck turned three-quarters r., no fillets; between horns, ΕΥ.
Weight 22.4 grains (1.45 gms.).
This coin, the only recorded specimen of which is Copenhagen Sylloge Numorum Graecorum 481, is a puzzle. Breitenstein ingeniously calls it an "Aeginetic trihemiobol (?)," for which the theoretical weight would be about 23.9 (1.55). But no other Aiginetic fractions are known; it is strange, if they really existed, that the sole survivor should be a trihemiobol. And the relief is somewhat flat for a fraction that was struck to accompany the didrachms. But if it is not an Aiginetic trihemiobol, it would seem that it must be either an Attic or "Macedonian" triobol, in which case it is very light, or an Attic or "Macedonian" diobol, in which case it is very heavy. It is best (as Breitenstein's query suggests) to reserve judgment until other similar coins have been reported.
2. Obv. Female head (Euboia?) r., hair rolled, apparently no earring or necklace.
Rev. Cow's head and neck turned three-quarters r., no fillets; to r., T (no ΕΥ).
Weight not recorded. Only one specimen known—from a cast in Imhoof-Blumer's cast collection now at Winterthur.
This coin is very similar in size and somewhat similar in style to number 1 above (Copenhagen SNG 481). In spite of the omission of ΕΥ one can hardly doubt that it is a coin of the Euboian League, and, if so, considering its size and the Τ in the right field, it is probably a trihemiobol. It is unfortunate that its weight is not recorded and that no other coin like it is known.
In considering the hemidrachms it should first be noticed that the die positions of Groups 1, 2, and 3 are irregular, while Group 4 is mostly ↑c, and Group 5 is clearly ↑n. Group 1 is the only group in which the cow is not filleted, and Group 5 the only one in which the nymph wears a necklace. Finally, Groups 1 and 2 are fairly clearly earlier in style than the others, and Group 5 is fairly clearly the latest in style. Altogether there can be comparatively little doubt that their chronological sequence is the order in which they are numbered here.
There was no point in presenting die diagrams for so few coins, but, as with the drachms, the dies are indicated in the catalogue.
It is not easy to connect the hemidrachm groups with the separate drachm issues. One might feel that the groups with the grapes symbol should go together; the style, however, of these hemidrachms seems very different from that of the drachms with the grapes symbol, and different too from that of Group 2 of the hemidrachms, which seems later. The coins of Group 2 are struck in rather high relief, and also share with the drachms in high relief the characteristic that the fillet follows the cow's cheek instead of hanging straight. But if Group 2 were supposed to accompany these drachms and Group 1 the drachms with the grapes symbol, this would not only change the order which seems probable on stylistic grounds, it would mean that two of the earliest and smallest of the lighter weight drachm groups were accompanied by fractions, while several of the larger groups had none.
Group 4 of the hemidrachms seems to have letters on the obverse as well as the usual ΕΥ on the reverse; Group 5 certainly has both an Ε on the obverse and ΕΥ on the reverse. It is hardly possible to read the letters on the obverse of Group 4 from the published photographs, and there is little or no trace of them on the only specimen (Wallace EL 510) which I have been able to examine. It appears from the photograph of the McClean specimen that the letters might be ΕΡΕ] [Ν, but the name is really too long for the available space, and would be very surprising in conjunction with the ΕΥ of the reverse, even though Eretria was probably the mint of the League coins. Nor does a magistrate's name seem very likely on this one solitary issue. The Ε on the obverse of Group 5 (and on Obverses LXIX and LXX of the diobols) can hardly be the initial letter of ΕΒΟΙΕΩΝ when ΕΥ appears on the reverse; it could, perhaps, be the initial of ΕΡΕΤΡΙΕΩΝ if, per improbabile, that name appears on Group 4. The explanation must await the discovery of more legible specimens with the letters in front of the face. Of course it is quite possible that the Ε of Group 5 has no relation to the letters (if any!) of Group 4.
The denomination of the diobols is indicated by their weight and by their reverse type. 26 And it is clear both from their style and from the Ε on the obverse that they accompany the fifth group of hemidrachms. It is interesting to notice that Obverse LXXI of the diobols (head l., no Ε and no necklace) is doubly die-linked with Obverses LXIX and LXX where the head is larger, faces right, wears a necklace, and has Ε behind the neck. These obverses would, I think, have been separated widely by anyone who attempted to arrange the coins on the basis of style alone; cases like this show the value of attention to die connections. The dies of the nine diobols listed in the catalogue are related as follows:
The obols and hemiobols call for little comment. Except for the two obols which clearly accompanied the drachms of Attic weight, it is not clear with which of the drachms or other fractions they are contemporary. The nymph's head faces either left or right, in both groups. Attention may be called to the amusing and appropriate selction of a cow's hoof as the reverse type for the hemiobols: it is a very successful application of the principle which at Corinth, for instance, suggested the use of a half-Pegasos on the hemidrachm and a horse's head on the hemiobol.
"Les deux grappes indiquent bien qu'il s'agit d'une pièce de deux oboles"—Imhoof-Blumer in Monnaies grecques, page 224.
It is clear from the frequency tables and the synopsis that the various lighter weight drachm issues were not in fact struck to one single normal or standard weight, and yet that several of them were struck with great accuracy—to within, at most, half a grain or three hundredths of a gramme. These facts are of some importance, for students of Greek coins have too often arrived at their standard weights in a somewhat a priori manner, and have been very ready to believe that all Greek series were rather inaccurately struck. 27 It seems worth while to emphasize that some issues were accurately struck although some were not, and that coins might be carefully weighed with weights which were themselves too light or too heavy. When it has once been established, from an adequate number of examples, that a particular series was accurately struck to such and such a standard or theoretical weight, this information may be useful in a number of ways. One way which has not yet been exploited is set forth at some length above (pages 62–67).
The die positions of the various series of Euboian League drachms show a tentative adjustment early in the fourth century, and a rough but definite adjustment admitting hardly any exceptions in 340 to 338 b.c. It is interesting that there are absolutely no examples of the head (which faces left) being tipped back, to the right—this fact helps to identify the forgery described on p. 91. When we come to the lyre group about the end of the fourth century, the fact that the head here faces in the opposite direction, to the right, is perhaps responsible for the general adoption of the ↑c position—exceptions still tip left as a rule (the position is in this case ↑n, of course, not ↑f). With the satyr's head issue early in the third century, the head again faces left and the dies are again mostly ↑c, ↑c–f, and ↑f, as they had been from 340 to 320, but this time there are more exceptions than there were earlier. It is not until we reach the last group, those with the dolphin, issued about 270–267 b.c., that almost all of the coins show the same position, and that that position is ↑c, not ↑f. In all series coins from the same pair of dies tend to have the same or similar die positions, and in a few cases all coins from a pair of dies have exactly the same die relation. It is to be hoped that such observations as these may some timelead to a clearer understanding of the technique involved in striking ancient coins. Meanwhile the die positions in one case seem to give a clue to the order of the dies (see p. 97). It is also useful that the usual die position is something with which forgers are seldom acquainted.
Finally, as has long been realized, die links may provide useful information. This is especially true in series such as those under consideration here, where enough coins are known to make it probable that comparatively few die links have escaped attention. Even here it is obvious that future discoveries will make some additions to our knowledge. The number of known specimens is always indicated in the die diagram so that the reader may see how nearly complete (or incomplete) our information appears to be. In some cases, such as that of the rather rare dolphin drachms, where the 90 known specimens are struck from only four dies, it seems unlikely that more dies will turn up; it is also probable that we know all the dies and die combinations of the didrachms and tetradrachms. In most of the drachm groups there is a surprising and interesting disparity in the amount of use which different dies received, and the dies, surprisingly enough, frequently fall into two groups, one much used, the other very little. The explanation may be, as has been suggested above, either a frequent under-estimate of the number of dies required for an issue of the size intended, or additional demands for coin after the striking of an issue had been completed, and the dies destroyed. It is interesting that no obverse die was used for two different series; this fact supports the theory (based on comparative wear) that the issues were spasmodic, separated from each other by considerable periods of time. Die links sometimes connect in indisputable fashion coins so different in style that without this evidence it would not have been realized that they belonged in the same group; we have seen evidence of this among the hemidrachms. Finally, since it is probable that we know almost all of the dies used for striking the League staters and later drachms, the number of dies is a more dependable indication of the original size of an issue than the number of surviving specimens. Thus while the drachms without symbol are only about twice as numerous in the catalogue as the drachms with the dolphin, they were struck from at least 18 dies as opposed to only 4 for the dolphin group; it is fair to conclude that they were originally at least three or four times as numerous. And as has been mentioned, in this particular case we can check the conclusion, for we happen to know why more in proportion of the dolphin drachms have survived—they had been much more recently minted at the time when the two large hoards were buried which between them contained almost half of the known coins of the Euboian League.
"In view of the certainty of the weights for the denominations listed in the chart, [a priori certainty, that is—the actual specimens are highly irregular] it has not been felt necessary to construct frequency tables. Indeed the meticulous consideration of the weights in any series is supererogatory, since ancient methods of minting and the whole ancient conception of the purpose of coinage differ so greatly from those of the present."—from page 26 of Macedonian Regal Coinage to 413 b.c. by Doris Raymond, NNM 126 (New York 1953). This is a recent and unusually explicit example, but the opinion might almost be called orthodox; many excellent numismatists hold it, at least tacitly. Thus Professor Louis Robert does not trouble to give weights or die positions in publishing two Histiaian tetrobols for the first time in his Etudes de numismatique grecque (Paris 1951) page 186 and plate vi 10 and 11. The weights of the Histiaian tetrobols have been supposed to be extremely irregular, but in fact some of the numerous groups comprising the series are struck accurately, and the die positions in some groups are fixed while in some they are irregular: progress in arranging these coins will depend on the observation of such facts.
There are comparatively few forgeries of Euboian League coins on the market, and of those few the only really "dangerous" ones which have come to my attention are imitations of the Aiginetic didrachms. Of these I saw a number of specimens in Athens in 1952, produced no doubt by the enthusiasm which resulted from the discovery of the 1951 Euboio-Boiotian hoard (no. 3 on page 49). I was able to make rather hasty casts of two which had been struck from the same pair of dies—see Plate V, a. These dies were extremely close copies of III and 2 in Group 1, so close that they can only be distinguished by careful examination under a glass: the differences are clearest in the eye of the obverse (the forger has represented the pupil) and in the tail of the reverse. The silver was not very different in appearance from that of the genuine coins. As the dealer who showed them to me had no doubt that the coins were "bad," he presumably knew something of their source.
A very ingenious invention is the forged tetradrachm shown to Mme. Varoucha at the National Numismatic Museum in Athens by a German collector during the war—see Plate V c. 28 The reverse type is unique in a highly plausible manner—the inscription has been completed by the addition of ΕΩΝ below the exergue; and although there is a faint indication that the forger intended the animal for a bull, and the letters are somewhat smaller than they are on the genuine coins, the die is still very convincing. The same cannot be said for the obverse die in which the hair is poorly done with excessively thin lines and masses which are too sharply defined, while the features are somewhat coarse. I have seen three other tetradrachm forgeries from a different reverse die but apparently from this same obverse reworked—see Plate V, b. 29 Here again the reverse inscription is arranged in a unique but reasonable manner, imitated from certain of the "Attic" drachms—ΕΥ–Β above, the Β being between the horns—but the animal is poorly proportioned and this time obviously a bull; the fabric and the appearance of the silver were both such as to deceive no one. The weights—16.95 and 16.75—are an intelligent compromise: the standard on which these coins were struck was probably in the neighborhood of 265 grains or 17.17 grammes (see page 77), but the heaviest known specimens of Group 1 of the tetradrachms, which these forgeries imitate, weigh 16.60 and less (unless the coin which the forger copied was heavier and has not appeared on the market). Thus these forgeries which are ostensibly in extremely fine condition were made to weigh definitely more than the coin from which they were copied, but not as much as the Attic standard seems to demand. We clearly have to do with a well-informed but technically incompetent forger.
The ancient forgery of one of the early drachms of 'Attic' weight is discussed on page 81, and the interesting forgery in the Newell collection on page 91. See Plate VIII, e. Otherwise the only drachm forgery which has come to my attention is Christodoulos 257 (in Svoronos, Mille coins faussés de Christodoule, Paris 188), a specimen of which is illustrated on his plate I. The hair is done with excessively fine lines, and is imitated from obv. XXXV of the drachms without symbol; the cow on the reverse is not unlike that on the Newell coin—especially the heavy line about the eye.
I owe the cast which is photographed here to the kindness of Mme. Varoucha.
I owe the opportunity to make the casts which are reproduced here to the kindness of Professor D. M. Robinson of Mississippi University.
|Approx date.||Standard weight||No. of dies||Die Position||% of Copper 30||Number listed|
|1. Head on rev.||411 b.c.||188.8||(12.23)||3||2||irregular||.35||27|
|2. Head on obv.||405 b.c.||188.8||(12.23)||2||5||irregular||.35||42|
|1. With ΕΥΒ||400 b.c.||265.0||(17.17)?||2||1||irregular||?||21|
|2. With ΕΥ ΒΟΙ||395 b.c.||265.0||(17.17)||3||1||irregular||?||20|
|Attic weight drs.||35|
|1. With Ε Υ or ΕΥΒ||400 b.c.||65.2||(4.22) ?||8||8||irregular||6.5||30|
|2. With ΕΥ ΒΟΙ||395 b.c.||65.2||(4.22) ?||3||1||irregular||?||5|
|Lighter weight drs.||1126|
|1. High relief||357 b.c. ?||56.8||(3.68) ?||2||4||↖,↗||3.25||12|
|2. No symbol||340 b.c.||59.0||(3.82)||6||12||↑f, ↑c-f, ↑c||.42||153|
|3. Grapes||338 b.c.||59.0||(3.82)||2||7||↑f, ↑c-f, ↑c||.62||83|
|4. Kantharos||321 b.c.||61.0||(3.95)||5||7||↑f, ↑c-f, ↑c||.9||300|
|5. Lyre||302 b.c.||61.0||(3.95)||8||6||mostly ↑c||1.3||292|
|6. Satyr's head||289 b.c. ?||57.2||(3.71)||5||7||↑f, ↑c-f, ↑c||.39||196|
|7. Dolphin||267 b.c.||58.2||(3.77)||2||2||↑c||1.8||90|
|Early hemidrachms||400-395 ?||irregular||4||3||irregular||?||5|
|Early diobols||400-395 ?||?||1||1||?||?||1|
|Early obols||400-395 ?||?||2||2||irregular||?||2|
|1. With grapes||?||?||2||2||irregular||?||3|
|2. High relief||?||?||2||2||irregular||?||4|
|3. Ε Υ on rev. only||?||29.5||(1.91)||3||3||irregular||?||7|
|4. Letters on obv. ?||?||29.5||(1.91)||1||2||↑?||?||9|
|5. Ε behind neck||?||28.6||(1.85)||3||1||↑n||?||15|
For details see E. J. Allin and W. P. Wallace, "Impurities in Euboean Monetary Silver," ANS Museum Notes VI, 1954, pp. 35–67.
See p. 77 and note 10 below.
See note 10 in the last chapter.
The hoards known to me which contained bronze coins of the Euboian League are the following:
1. The Iseion Hoard. Noe, Bib. of Gk. Coin Hoards 2, no. 401. Found in 1914.
Published by N. Pappadakis, in Archaiologikon Deltion I (1915) pp. 115–190.
352 AE, 1 AR. Probably buried in 194 b.c.
Unfortunately Pappadakis says nothing about the comparative condition of the specimens belonging to the different issues; he gives the sizes (16–20 mm. for all issues except the triobol), but no weights. His date for the coins follows Head (HN 2 p. 363), and is too late, as Newell showed (see below). The identification of the 20 League bronzes with a lying cow but no star or magistrate's name is uncertain —I have seen no coins which exactly answer the description, and am inclined to think (until the coins can be examined) that these twenty are perhaps a mixture of the large third century bronzes and the medium bronzes of the Demarchos-Satyros type, all in such poor condition that the stars and magistrate's names did not show. They may, however, belong to an issue which is otherwise unknown: Pappadakis does not illustrate a specimen. The single specimen with ΙΤΑΙ is also otherwise unknown, and it is hard to believe that the letters have been correctly read.
2. Newell's Hoard. Noe2 400. Found before 1909.
Published by E. T. Newell in Five Greek Bronze Hoards, NNM 68, (New York 1935) pp. 1–23.
184 AE. Buried c. 175 b.c.
Newell's discussion of the hoard is the only serious work that has been done on these coins to date; by careful examination of the comparative wear he has arranged the issues in their right order; he has realized that, for these coins, weight is more important than metal size, and in a brilliant note (no. 12 on p. 14) he has distinguished and connected two different bronze issues of Chalkis; finally, by comparing his hoard with Pappadakis' he has corrected the usual dates assigned to the various Euboian bronze issues, and fixed the approximate dates of both hoards. It is easy, now that the broad outlines have been laid down, and more material is available for study, to make corrections in detail (see the discussion below).
3. Wallace AE 2. Found before c. 1940.
22 AE. Buried c. 175 b.c.
There is no formal evidence that these coins came from one hoard, but they were secured at the same time from the same dealer and all of them show the same kind of green patination; I have no doubt that they were found together. The die positions are all obviously irregular, and have accordingly not been indicated. The comparative wear of the different issues of the League suggests the order in which they are listed here, and supports Newell's arrangement.
These coins were also secured together and it was stated that they had been found together; the patination in general supports this claim, although it is less convincingly homogeneous than in the last hoard. The die positions of the Euboian coins are irregular. The comparative wear of the various Euboian League and Chalkis issues suggests the order in which they are listed, and, as it is consistent with the evidence of the other hoards, supports the view that this group of coins was found together. If so, however, the Amphipolis coin, the Athenian Dionysos/kantharos coin, and the Amasia coin are intrusions, for they are definitely more worn than the two Eretria coins which can hardly be put at the end of the second century.
5. Wallace AE 1. Found before c. 1920 in Euboia.
240 AE Buried c. 170–165 b.c.
These coins were stated to have been found together in Euboia "many years ago;" I could get no information about the date except that it must have been before about 1920, perhaps long before that date. There seemed little guarantee that the group had not been contaminated before 1920 (I was told that it had been kept together since then) except the generally similar—but not convincingly identical—patination. However, when I came to work on the coins I discovered that the relative wear of the various issues in this group is thoroughly consistent with that in the hoards listed above; I accordingly accept them as a hoard or part of a hoard. The die positions of the Euboian coins are irregular. The issues of each separate group are listed in what appeared to be the order of wear, but the differences are often slight, and the order cannot be depended upon in detail.
See Josephine P. Shear, "The Coins of Athens," Hesperia II (1933) p. 246–7, Group E, Type 6.
There had been no special study of Euboian bronze before Newell, in 1935, published his hoard (listed here as no. 2). He established the fact that some of the issues both of Chalkis and of the Euboian League must belong to the third century, and determined the comparative dates both of his hoard and of Pappadakis' and of the various issues in them. Our investigation must begin from his conclusions.
Newell's just observation that the style and appearance of the lying cow or bull on the Aristonikos coin in his hoard was very similar to that of the cow on the silver octobols of Eretria led him to the conclusion that the two must be identical in date, and as he believed that the silver issues were struck soon after 190, or at least as late as 192/1, he dated the Aristonikos coin "after 191," describing its condition (the best in his hoard) as "very good to fine." Under these circumstances it is rather surprising that the burial date he arrived at for the hoard was "late in 192 b.c. or ... in the early summer of 191 b.c." This is clearly too early on his own principles; that it is so becomes even clearer when he lists at least ten different issues of the Euboian League "veiled head / butting bull" coins which he dates "after 194"—there is obviously not room for these between 194 and 191, and all of them are considerably more worn than his Aristonikos coin (not to mention the Chalkis coins—see below). As the 194 date for the "veiled head" coins is probably right (see below), it is safe to conclude that Newell's date for the burial of his hoard is a good deal too early, and that the least worn coin in it, the Aristonikos specimen, cannot be contemporary with the first silver issues of Eretria, if these are as early as 190 (they should, in fact, be dated from 196—see below).
Newell was necessarily concerned almost entirely with the coins which actually occurred in his hoard, and there was, as we have remarked, no good publication or large collection of Euboian bronze to which he could refer for additional specimens of the coins with which he was dealing. Thus it happened that the poor condition of his no. 104 (Plate XIV, no. 13), with the magistrate's name Demarchos, prevented him from noticing that the two bunches of grapes on the reverse are somewhat different in appearance from the two bunches on the reverses of nos. 92–103—all of them also in very poor condition—with which he connects it (although he carefully records that it was less worn than the others). In point of fact his 92–103 have a small vine leaf to the left of the bunches of grapes, and small tendrils to the right of each bunch, while the Demarchos coins, like those of Satyros, have no tendrils, but one leaf to the right of each bunch (see Plate XIV, no. 14). The bunches are also shorter and more compact in these later issues. They are, as a glance at Plate XIV will show, absolutely identical in style and form with the two bunches of grapes on the reverses of the Eretrian silver tetrobols (Plate XIV, no. 15); indeed the lying cow or bull of the Demarchos group is just as similar to the one on the octobols as is the animal on the Aristonikos coin. The Demarchos group should be connected in date with the silver issues, and with the Mantidoros bronze issue, of Eretria—full magistrate's names are thus introduced at the same moment on the League bronze and on the first Eretrian bronze and silver to appear for more than two hundred years. This moment would most naturally be soon after Flamininus' proclamation of freedom for Greece in 196, and this is the date arrived at independently on the evidence of the Anthedon hoard by Margaret Thompson. 2 The types of the bronze were changed again in 194 when the Euboian League was reconstituted by Flamininus, and the veiled head type for bronze was introduced (contemporaneously on this view) by the League, Eretria, and Karystos, 3 and thus the smallness of the Demarchos-Satyros and Mantidoros groups is explained by the shortness of the period during which they were struck. The only change which this introduces into Newell's arrangement of the League bronze is to make his no. 104 (the League Demarchos coin) contemporary with his 105 (the Eretrian Mantidoros coin) instead of putting it a few years earlier, and to date both issues to the period 196–194 instead of putting them at the end of the third century. The change is slight—indeed Newell himself envisaged the possibility that the Mantidoros coins should be placed early in the second century rather than late in the third (l.c., p. 16). The assumption that Eretria continued her League issues alongside of her new autonomous coins is simpler than the alternation proposed by Newell ("Euboians" in the third century, "Eretrians" in the early second, "Euboians" again after 194, and "Eretrians" again after 190). As for the new Eretrian silver, both the Anthedon hoard and the analogy of the Demarchos group make it desirable to suppose that it began in 196—and Flamininus' proclamation is surely a more natural occasion for it than the Battle of Magnesia, which as far as Euboia was concerned meant only the permanence of Roman domination and the end of any hope of real freedom.
Both in hoard 4 and in hoard 5 above, the Chalkis bronzes with symbols were distinctly less worn than the Euboian League group with the veiled head. It is clear from Newell's plates that this was also true of his hoard, although curiously enough he describes the condition of the League coins carefully, but omits to mention that of the Chalkis bronzes. As the three hoards all point to the same con- clusion, we can hardly be wrong in putting the Chalkis coins with symbols later than the Euboian League veiled head group (and those with ΧΑΛ above the eagle seem to be later than those with ΧΑΛ below it). On the assumption that there was not more than one issue a year (it is, of course, an assumption for which there is little or no evidence) the veiled head coins, if they began in 194, perhaps lasted until about 180, for there are twelve or thirteen symbols known; if the Chalkis coins begin about that date and last for about a dozen years—there are eleven symbols known—we arrive at the date of Pydna, in 168. This is, perhaps, purely accidental, and certainly there are many unknowns in the argument. But the resulting arrangement seems reasonable; it was on this line of reasoning that the very tentative dates were arrived at which are suggested above for the burials of these bronze hoards. The table at the end of this chapter shows the proposed relation of the Euboian League bronze to the pertinent autonomous issues of Eretria and Chalkis.
The bronze issues of the Euboian League may be summarized as follows:
In the fourth century, the League struck bronze with types similar to those of the silver drachms, in small and very small denominations, of which too few examples are available to form the basis of dependable generalization. They appear, however, to weigh respectively from 2 to 2.5 grammes (in size, from 12 to 15 mm.) Plate XIV, 3, and from 1 to 1.5 grammes (in size, from 9 to 10 mm.) Plate XIV; 1, 2, 4 & 5. They have not occurred in any hoards known to me.
In the third century the League struck bronze in three denominations, which may be distinguished as 'Large,' 'Medium,' and 'Small,' with similar types, as follows:
1. Large. Weight: from 6 to 8 gms. Size: from 20 to 22 mm. Plate XIV; 6, 7 & 8
Obv. Cow lying l., star above, magistrate's initials or monogram below, in a circle of dots.
Rev. Vine branch with depending from it two bunches of grapes, one leaf (to l.) and two tendrils (to r. of each bunch). ΕΥ-ΒΟ-ΕΩΝ or ΕΥ-ΒΟ or ΕΥΒ or ΕΥΒΟ. Star above. 4
2. Medium. Weight: from 3.5 to 5.5 gms. Size: from 16 to 20 mm. Plate XIV; 9 & 10
Obv. Cow standing l., star above, magistrate's initials or monogram below, in a circle of dots.
Rev. As above, but no leaf, and three tendrils. Sometimes with initials of obv. on either side of star.
3. Small. Weight: from 2 to 3 gms. Size: from 12 to 15 mm. Plate XIV; 11
Obv. As above.
Rev. Vine branch with depending from it one bunch of grapes and two tendrils. Ε-Υ. Star above.
Only five specimens are known to me.
As the same letters occur on different denominations, there were probably at least eight issues—ΑΙ, ΑΛΕ, ΕΥ, , , , ΣΤ, ΤΙ—although all three denominations need not have been struck each time. Their condition in Newell's hoard suggests that they belong in the second half of the third century.
Between 196 and 194 the League issued bronze in two denominations, as follows:
Medium. Weight 3.5 to 5.5? Size 15 to 20 mm. Plate XIV; 12, 13, 14.
Obv. Cow lying l. (Demarchos) or r. (Satyros), star above, name below, in a circle of dots.
Rev. Vine branch with depending from it two bunches of grapes and a leaf to the r. of each; above the branch, a star (Demarchos) or ΕΥΒΟΕΩΝ (Satyros). The Demarchos issue has ΕΥΒΟ-ΕΩΝ around the bunches of grapes.
Small. Weight 2 to 3 grammes? Size 12 to 15 mm. Plate XIV; 16 and 17.
Obv. Cow standing r., star above.
Rev. Vine branch with two bunches of grapes as above. ΕΥΒΟΕΩΝ?
I know only two specimens of this issue, both in poor condition. Pappadakis describes a third issue of the medium denomination, which occurred in a single example in his hoard (his no. 39), with ΙΤΑΙΕ as the magistrate's name. It seems probable that his specimen was almost illegible (could he have misread ΑΛΕ as ΙΤ Α Ι?), and a definite opinion must wait on the appearance of further examples; there might, however, be room for three annual issues (although it is only an assumption that the issues were annual) between 196 and 194. These coins are rare; aside from the 18 in Pappadakis' hoard, which was probably buried just after they were issued, a bare half dozen have been recorded. This rarity is natural if they were struck for only two or three years.
Beginning, probably, in 194, the Euboian League—and Eretria and Karystos, too—issued bronze coins with a veiled head on the obverse and a butting cow (or bull?) on the reverse. Both types are new in Euboia. Is the head perhaps Isis? We know that the Iseion at Eretria (in which Pappadakis' hoard was found) was begun in the third century, and was flourishing in the early second; there is evidence for the worship of the Egyptian divinities at Chalkis as well as at Eretria. The popularity of a new deity might help to explain the introduction of the type in two (or in three?) cities at the same time. But this contemporaneous introduction of the same types in the three southern cities was probably arranged by the League—perhaps as a compromise between the Eretrian feeling that only the League should strike coins, and the hitherto independent practice of the other Euboian cities. Demeter, who was frequently identified with Isis, is another possible attribution (see note 84 in Chapter 1).
Whatever the reasons for the choice of types employed for the 'medium' bronze, the coins were struck in considerable numbers and over a period of at least twelve to fifteen years, if one may judge from the fact that twelve or thirteen different symbols are found. At the same time, apparently, the 'small' denomination was struck, also in considerable numbers, but with fewer symbols. The following list contains all the types which have come to my attention, but may well be incomplete, especially for the issues of the 'small' denomination, which have not been found in any hoards known to me—and neither museums nor dealers are particularly interested in them.
Medium. Weight 3.5 to 5.5 gms. (see graph below). Size 15 to 20 mm. Plate XV, 1–9.
Obv. Veiled head r.
Rev. Cow (or bull) butting r. ΕΥΒΟΙ (above) ΕΩΝ (below). Various symbols, above – between ΕΥ and ΒΟΙ, to r. or l., or below – between Ε and ΩΝ, or r. of ΕΩΝ. Symbols (in apparent order of wear in hoards):
Small. Weight under 3 gms. Size 11 to 14 mm. Plate XV, 10–16.
Obv. Cow standing r.
Rev. One bunch of grapes, sometimes with a much smaller one on a branch to l.: sometimes with leaf to r. ΕΥ-ΒΟ, ΕΥΒ-Ο or ΕΥΒΟ l. or r. Symbols (above cow): 5
There are three further bronze issues, one of them 'small,' and two, apparently, very small, which are presumably later than any of the Eretrian or Chalkis bronzes in the hoards listed above as these contained no specimens. All three of them are rare:
Small. Weight under 3 gms. (and probably more than 2). Size 11 to 16 mm. Plate XV, 17–18.
Obv. Veiled head facing, turned slightly to the r.
Rev. Prow r.; above and below, ΕΥΒΟΙ-ΕΩΝ. Sometimes star and cornucopia on prow.
Very small. Weight? (probably under 2 gms.). Size? (probably 10 to 15 mm.)
Obv. Cow's head facing (like the Phokian)
Rev. Ship's rudder (or single prow?) r. ΕΥΒΟΙ-ΕΩΝ. Plate XV, 19 & 20. Only three specimens have been recorded (two in the British Museum and one in the McClean Coll.)
Obv. Head of Hermes r., wearing petasos
Rev. Ear and stalk of wheat r.; above and below, ΕΥΒΟΙ-ΕΩΝ. Plate XV, 21.
These coins (I know only four) seem to be slightly smaller than the cow's head and rudder issue.
If we are right that the League bronze with the veiled head is all of it earlier than the Chalkis bronze of the same denomination with symbols, and that these last three issues are later than any of the Chalkis bronzes, it follows that these last three issues were struck towards the middle of the second century. Eretria and Chalkis will then have abandoned their coinage somewhat earlier than the League. They struck again under the Roman empire, but there are no further coins of the Euboian League.
It is well known that the Greeks did not strike their bronze coins nearly as accurately as their silver. As these coins were undoubtedly token money, the fact is not surprising—the metal had comparatively little intrinsic value—but it does not follow that the weight should be disregarded, and attention paid only to the size. The size may be less variable than the weight within a given group, but as the sizes of different groups are less different from each other than their basic weights, the weight is often, in Euboia at least, a better guide to the denomination than the size. I have accordingly followed Newell in recording the weights of the coins in the hoards here published for the first time. The only Euboian League bronze group in which enough coins are known to make an attempt at statistical treatment worth while is the one the types of which are the veiled head and butting cow. In the following table I have included all the coins not obviously broken or heavily oxidized in hoards 2, 3, and 5 in which the variations of weight appear to be of the same order. As the ten coins of hoard 4 were on the whole lighter in weight than the others, they have been omitted from the table (their weights are given above). It will be seen that the weights fall almost entirely between 3.5 and 5.5 gms. with no apparent preference for any one point in that range. Perhaps the blanks were cut 'by eye,' and then tested—as I have tested some of the Chalkis issues—by ascertaining merely that each blank fell within the allowable limits. This is a much faster process than accurate weighing, and would doubtless give as good results as the mints in question were concerned to achieve.
This table gives the weights of 157 coins from hoards 2, 4, and 5, omitting heavily oxidized specimens.
|Large 6.0–8.0 gms.||Medium 3.5–5.5 gms.||Small under 3 gms.||Medium 3.5–5.5 gms.||Small under 3 gms.||Medium 3.5–5.5 gms.||Small under 3 gms.|
|Cow lying l.
|Cow standing l.,
|Cow standing l.,
|Head r.; eagle r. no symbols
Facing head eagle l.
|Facing head eagle r. symbols|
|Cow lying l. 2 bunches Demarchos
Cow lying r. 2 bunches Satyros
|Cow standing r. 2 bunches names ?||(Magistrate silver)||Facing head eagle r.||Similar eagle r.|
|Cow lying r. Mantidoros||Cow standing r. ΜΑΝ|
|194 Pappadakis hoard||194|
|Veiled head butting cow star caduceus star leaf (Κ) trident wreath trident below trident r. below wheat ear below below wheat grain palm branch||Cow standing r. 1 bunch no symbol club wreath sword ? cornucopia||Veiled head butting cow||(new silver with veiled head ?)|
|c. 180||c. 180|
Newell's hoard Wallace 2
Wallace 1 & 3
|Veiled head Cow lying l. Aristonikos
|Head r.; eagle r.
ΧαΛ below trident star dolphin palm branch grapes
ΧαΛ above thunderbolt wing wheat stalk amphora club caduceus
|c. 168||c. 168|
See Margaret Thompson, "The Beginning of the Athenian New Style Coinage," ANS Museum Notes V (1952) pp. 30–31.
Mr. Ireton Benson of New York has called my attention to a specimen in which the letters Α–ΡΙ appear on either side of the star. See Plate XIV, no. 8.
An additional obverse symbol, a thymiaterion, and a number of reverse symbols are listed by Head (Central Greece p. 97) and Babelon (Traité II. 3, 200–202), but I have not seen specimens on which they are clearly visible.
The coins are listed according to weight under the various die combinations; for the relations of these see the die diagrams in the chapter on the silver issues. Each die combination is given a serial number. Obverse dies are indicated by Roman numerals, reverse by Arabic. The weight is first given in grains, then, in brackets, in grammes. The positions are indicated as follows:
For other positions the arrows have been used in the usual manner. The few abbreviations in the names of museums, dealers, etc., should be intelligible—a list of the museums will be found in the preface.
Number of coins listed here – 69
Group 1. Head on rev. 411/10 b.c.
|1.||I-1:||188.5 (12.21)↑||Spink's Num. Circ. Aug. 1951, 47025. From Hoard 3, found in 1951.|
|*185.6 (12.03)↗||Wallace EL 269. From 1951 hoard.|
|185.2 (12.00)||Feuardent, June 1913, 205. (Hirsch xiii, 1905, 1840).|
|184.0 (11.92)→||British Museum, 1906.|
|175.1 (11.35)↑||Wallace EL 1. Found in southern Euboia about 1936.|
|2.||II-1:||185.0 (11.99)→||in trade, Athens, 1952. From 1951 hoard.|
|183.2 (11.87)||Jameson 1176, pl. lx, 1176.|
|*182.0 (11.79)↘||Spink's NC 1951, 48262. From 1951 hoard.|
|no weight||in trade, Athens, 1953.|
|3.||III-1:||188.7 (12.23)||in trade, Athens, 1952. From 1951 hoard.|
|187.5 (12.15)↘||in trade, Athens, 1952. From 1951 hoard.|
|186.7 (12.09)←||in trade, Athens, 1952. From 1951 hoard.|
|186.3 (12.07)↘||Lockett Coll. 1777. (Naville xiv, 1929, 250; Naville i (Pozzi) 1921, 1495).|
|*185.0 (11.99)↓||Spink, Oct. 1951. From 1951 hoard.|
|184.3 (11.94)←||Paris, Cab. des Méd. Babelon II.3, 168 and III.3, cxcvii, 17. Published in Abh. Bav. Ak. xviii (1890) 535; pl. I, 19.|
|167.5 (10.85)||Hirsch xxv, 1909, 910.|
|4.||III-2:||188.6 (12.22)↑||in trade, New York, 1951. From 1951 hoard.|
|188.4 (12.21)→||McClean 5703. Pl. 205,5.|
|188.0 (12.18)↙||British Museum, 1952, From 1951 hoard. Phot. in B. M. Quarterly (June 1953) pl. xv. 5.|
|*188.0 (12.18)↓||Spink's NC, Jan. 1952, 42 (?). From 1951 hoard.|
|186.9 (12.17)↗||in trade, New York, 1951. From 1951 hoard.|
|185.8 (12.04)→||Wallace EL 270. From 1951 hoard.|
|184.3 (11.94)↖||Munich. (Hirsch xxi, 1908, 1586).|
|183.3 (11.88)↑||Paris, Cab. des Méd. Babelon II.3, 169 and III.3, pl. cxcvii, 18: "11.92." (Hirsch xviii, 1907, 2365).|
|178.4 (11.56)↖||in the Eretria hoard of 1937.|
|no weight||in trade, Athens, 1951.|
|no weight||in a private coll. in U.S.A.|
Group 2. Head on obv. About 405/4 b.c.
|5.||IV-3:||188.7 (12.23)↘||in trade, Athens, 1952. From 1951 hoard.|
|186.3 (12.07)←||in trade, Athens, 1952. From 1951 hoard.|
|178.1 (11.54)↙||Wallace EL 2. Said to have been found at Karystos about 1935.|
|176.3 (11.42)↖||in trade, New York, 1952. (Hirsch xviii, 1907, 2366).|
|*176.0 (11.40)↘||British Museum, 1906.|
|167.1 (10.83)→||in trade, Athens, 1952.|
|6.||IV-4:||*184.7 (11.97)↗||Comte Chandon de Briailles, 1300.|
|176.7 (11.45)↙||Newell Coll., ANS. Secured in 1923.|
|173.5 (11.24)←||Wallace EL 259. Secured in 1952.|
|7.||IV-5:||188.4 (12.21)↑||in trade, Athens, 1952. From 1951 hoard.|
|187.8 (12.17)↗||in trade, London, 1952. From 1951 hoard.|
|*185.0 (11.99)↘||Spink's NC, Oct. 1951, 48264. From 1951 hoard.|
|182.5 (11.82)↙||in trade, London, 1952. From 1951 hoard.|
|181.5 (11.76)→?||Kricheldorf, Stuttgart, Oct. 15, 1955, 339.|
|178.5 (11.57)→||Wallace EL 89. Secured in 1948.|
|176.1 (11.41)||Naville xii, 1926, 1395. (Hess, 1918, 453; Hirsch xxv, 1909, 911).|
|176.0 (11.39)↑||Copenhagen SNG 475. (Hirsch xiii, 1905, 1841, where weight is given as 11.40).|
|no weight||in private possession in Athens (phot. seen).|
|8.||IV-6:||*187.0 (12.18)↘||Spink's NC, Oct. 1951, 48263. From 1951 hoard.|
|177.5 (11.50)↘||in the Eretria hoard of 1937.|
|174.4 (11.30)↙||in the Eretria hoard of 1937.|
|9.||V-3:||177.5 (11.50)←||Paris, Cab. des Méd. Babelon II.3, 170 and III.3, pl. cxcvii, 19 – "11.45." (Hirsch xxi, 1908, 1587, from Weber Coll.)|
|no weight||in a private coll. in U.S.A.|
|10.||V-4:||*185.7 (12.03)↖||Wallace EL 177. Secured in 1950.|
|185.2 (12.00)↙||Ward Coll. 492, Met. Mus., New York.|
|185.2 (12.00)↑||in trade, New York, 1951. From 1951 hoard.|
|185.0 (11.99)↘||in trade, London, 1951. From 1951 hoard.|
|183.5 (11.89)↙||British Museum, 1952. From 1951 hoard. Phot. of rev. only in B. M. Quarterly (June 1953) pl. xv. 7.|
|182.6 (11.83)||Weber Coll. 3389. (W. T. Ready Sale, 1892; see NC 1892, p. 191 and pl. xv, 12).|
|182.0 (11.79)||Naville iv, 1922, 548.|
|177.2 (11.48)↙||in trade, Athens, 1952.|
|174.4 (11.30)↙||found at Chalkis; shown to Num. Mus. Athens.|
|11.||V-5:||186.7 (12.10)←||British Museum, 1952. From 1951 hoard.|
|*185.0 (11.99)↘||Spink's NC, Oct. 1951, 48265. From 1951 hoard.|
|12.||V-6:||188.3 (12.20)↗||in trade, Athens, 1952. From 1951 hoard. EF/FDC.|
|183.2 (11.87)→||Jameson 2077; Sup. I, pl. cxi. (Naville i [Pozzi], 1921, 1496).|
|*180.4 (11.69)↗||Comte Chandon de Briailles, 216.|
|179.2 (11.61)↗||Wallace EL 93. (Cahn 60, 1928, 547; Hirsch xiii, 1905, 1842).|
|13.||V-7:||182.4 (11.82)↙||Schulman, May 1938, 134.|
|*177.9 (11.53)↙||Wallace EL 3. From Nusbaum Coll., Zurich.|
|IV-?:||173.6 (11.25)↗||in trade, Athens, 1952.|
|?-?:||177.5 (11.50)||Glendining, 1931, 1063. No photograph.|
Number of coins listed here – 41
Group 1. With ΕΥΒ. about 400 b.c.
|14.||VI-8:||256.2 (16.60)||in trade, Athens, 1950. From hoard 11.|
|256.2 (16.60)↓||in the Eretria hoard of 1937.|
|*254.8 (16.51)||Naville xvi, 1933, 1180.|
|253.9 (16.45)→||in the Eretria hoard of 1937.|
|253.9 (16.45)→||in the Eretria hoard of 1937.|
|253.5 (16.43)↘||in trade, Athens, 1952.|
|253.4 (16.42)↙||Münzen u. Medaillen, Basel, Auction 8, 1949, 820.|
|*252.4 (16.36)→||Newell Coll., ANS. Secured in 1928.|
|250.3 (16.22)↑||in the Eretria hoard of 1937.|
|249.7 (16.18)↙||in trade, Athens, 1952.|
|249.4 (16.16)↖||Wallace EL 4. Said to have been found at Karystos about 1935.|
|248.5 (16.10)↙||in trade, Athens, 1952.|
|213.7 (13.85)↓||Karystos hoard of c. 1950, no. 1: NNM 124, p. 12—cleaned electrolytically.|
|15.||VII-8:||255.4 (16.55)↗||in the Eretria hoard of 1937.|
|254.6 (16.50)↑||in the Eretria hoard of 1937.|
|253.5 (16.43)→||Wallace EL 507. Secured in 1954.|
|*251.9 (16.32)→||Newell Coll., ANS. Secured in 1928.|
|250.6 (16.24)↘||in trade, Athens, 1952.|
|248.5 (16.10)↘||formerly in Berlin. Phots. in Abh. Bav. Ak. xviii, pl. 1, and Babelon III.3, pl. cxcvii, 20.|
|*246.3 (15.96)←||British Museum, 1901. NC 1902, p. 321.|
|no weight||in private possession in Athens, 1950.|
Group 2. With ΕΥ-ΒΟΙ. about 395 b.c.
|16.||VIII-9:||263.4 (17.07)↗||Jameson 1177.|
|262.4 (17.00)↓||Paris, Cab. des Méd. Babelon II.3, 172 and III.3, pl. cxcvii, 22. (Hirsch xviii, 1907, 2367).|
|*261.6 (16.95)↓||Newell Coll., ANS. (Feuardent, June 9, 1913; Hirsch xxix, 1910, 421: "17.00").|
|261.3 (16.93)||Hirsch xxvi, 1910, 502.|
|260.7 (16.89)||Naville xvi, 1933, 1179.|